|
OUTSKIRTS ENTERPRISES/DAVID & JOETTA GODDEN
FOR PROPERTY AT:
4791 ARNOLD ROAD DULUTH MN 55803
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (AMENDMENT AND ADDITION)
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES
MAY 28, 2009
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Larry Birnbaum. Present for the meeting were commission members Steve Kossett, Herb Dallum, chairman Birnbaum and Bob Whitmyer; supervisors Jeff Bachke, John Werner and Greg Andrews; Building Official and Zoning Administrator Marty Paavola; clerk Patti Alander and deputy clerk Cammy Hansen; applicant David Godden; residents Elizabeth McGraw and Patricia Skillings. Commission members Biron Wipson and Kathy Meyer were absent.
Public notice for the hearing was posted on May 8, 2009 and published in the Duluth News Tribune on May 14, 2009 and May 21, 2009 (see notice attached.)
Chairman Birnbaum went through the rules for conducting the public hearing (copy of agenda including rules is attached) and read the purpose of the hearing into the record: The first purpose of this hearing is a request to amend Condition #1 which states: the first generation unit can be no older than seven years. The proposed new language for Condition #1 is: Manufactured units coming into the park can be no older than seven years. Upon transfer of units to a new owner, the units must pass current building code inspections/standards.
ZONING ADMINSTRATOR’S REPORT: The following report was read into the record by Marty Paavola:
Administrator Report
May 28, 2009
This is a public hearing to consider two requests with the first request being an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit which was approved on May 19, 2004, and amended on August 3, 2005, for a 19 unit modular/mobile home park. The property is owned by David and Joetta Godden of 5086 Berglund Road and the modular/mobile home park is located on property at 4791 Arnold Road, with the primary access road being Brian and Arnold Road Duluth MN 55803.
The requested amendment would modify Condition #1 of the Conditional Use Permit. The use was originally granted subsequent to a public hearing on May 18, 2004 and included a condition that units installed on the property be no older than seven years and that if there was a change in ownership of a unit, the unit shall be no older than 12 years. On August 3, 2005, an amendment was requested and granted to the conditional Use Permit which provided that units installed at Outskirts Mobile Home Park be no older than seven years of age, and that all homes regardless of age shall be maintained in an orderly and safe condition. The restriction on units being no older than 12 years if there is a change in ownership was deleted.
Request #1, Amendment to existing Conditional Use Permit
The new request for Condition #1 which has been submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Godden reads, “Manufactured units coming into the park can be no older than (7) years. Upon transfer of units to a new owner, units must pass current building code inspections.”
The Town has requested legal counsel regarding Condition #1 and I direct the planning commission to pages 1 and 2 of the Required Findings which states, “The commission should make a determination on whether the proposed amendment is a reasonable condition to protect the public interest.”
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF CONDITION CHANGE: Dave Godden, 5086 Berglund Road: Dave stated that he believes that if the mobile home is in good condition and meets building code inspections and standards that it should not matter what its age.
Elizabeth McGraw, 3923 Brian Road: Asked for clarification of the condition. Larry explained that if the unit was sold it would have to pass an inspection. Dave explained that previously the CUP would not allow any unit over 12 years of age regardless of condition. Bob stated that his recollection was that the original CUP application had the 12 year age limit; it was not something the commission came up with.
Patricia Skillings, 3906 Brian Road: Agrees that 12 years is not long enough.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION OF CONDITION CHANGE: None.
Commission members were asked if there were any questions or comments. Herb agrees with the applicant. Steve also agrees that referencing the building standard is a better measure of compliance than age alone. Marty would make inspections upon transfer of the unit. Motion to approve the change in Condition #1 made by Herb, seconded by Bob. All commission members vote in favor; motion carries.
The second item on the agenda is a request to add an additional Conditional Use Permit on the property: To allow recreational vehicle parking in vacant mobile home lots until the lots are occupied with a manufactured home.
ZONING OFFICIAL REPORT: Marty Paavola read the following report into the record:
Request #2, New Conditional Use Permit
The second request by Mr. and Mrs. Godden is for a new Conditional Use Permit which states, “to allow RV parking in vacant mobile home lots until lots are occupied by a manufactured home.”
The Town has requested legal counsel regarding the request for a new conditional use permit application to allow RV parking within the Outskirts Mobile Home Park. I would request that the planning commission review item III, page 2, 3, 4, and 5 regarding residential planned unit development, owners association, and recreational facilities. The planning commission needs to come to a conclusion regarding item IV which the applicant must meet all five required findings under Ordinance #22.
I now leave it up to the planning commission to review the application by Mr. and Mrs. Godden to amend condition #1 of the current conditional use permit and to review the new Conditional Use Permit application.
APPLICANT: Dave Godden, 5086 Berglund Road: Dave stated that he would like to be able to utilize the currently vacant mobile home lots for RV parking until the housing market improves and the lots are able to be permanently rented. Mainly he is hoping to rent to construction workers who are working in the area in order to minimize moving in and out. There are 12 lots that are proposed to be used for RVs. All renters would have to abide by the park rules. People that don’t follow the rules will be asked to leave. Herb asked if he is planning weekend stays or longer stays. Dave answered that he hopes for longer stays, but wants to keep his options open in order to be able to rent as many lots as possible. He hopes that he can get people who will stay for the entire season. There is ample room for parking for each unit as well.
Chairman Birnbaum asked the clerk if the town has received any phone calls or letters regarding the application. Clerk Alander read the following email received from residents Jim and Vicki Klein:
To whom it may concern:
We live right next door to Outskirts Village and strongly oppose the changes in the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
When this project was originally approved, we were assured by Joetta Godden that this would be a ‘first class’ operation. By allowing older units there is a great possibility of the area going downhill.
We also strongly oppose the park allowing RV parking. In our opinion this just opens the area up to parties and noise that we were assured wouldn’t be allowed.
Daily, weekly, or monthly parking should not be permitted. This does not promote the continuity of a community and the pride that comes with knowing your neighbors and “living” in a neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Jim and Vicki Klein
4803 Arnold Road
TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF NEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Dave Godden, 5086 Berglund Road: Dave doesn’t believe this would distract from the value of anyone’s property. He is not asking to make this a permanent arrangement, strict noise regulations will be enforced (10:00 p.m. quiet time), he has already evicted one tenant previously for noise violations. The Kleins have opposed this project right from the beginning. There have never been any disturbances or excess noise that he knows of. Herb asked to see the park rules that the tenants are asked to follow. Patti asked if the RV rules would be the same as the mobile home park tenants. Dave stated that yes, the rules would be the same. Cammy made copies of the rules to distribute to the commission.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION TO THE NEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Patricia Skillings, 3906 Brian Road: She purchased her mobile home and leased space in the Outskirts Village because it was to be a community for senior citizens. If it now becomes a recreational park she fears the value of her home will go down and the likelihood of the park attracting other seniors to live there will be diminished – even if it is a short term plan. People that come to look at the place will see RVs and will not think of it as a senior citizen community, regardless of what may happen six months down the road. She sympathizes with Dave, but would hope to figure out some ways to encourage people to come and look at Outskirts Village and see what nice people live there before having to resort to putting RVs in the park.
Elizabeth McGraw, 3923 Brian Road: Mrs. McGraw is also a resident of Outskirts Village. She is opposed to this because she lives alone and is sometimes out late at night. She has dealt with contractors in the past that have been pretty “rough,” and she has not had a pleasant opinion of all of them (not that all contractors are the same.) She is totally against this.
Chairman Birnbaum asked if there was any additional testimony in opposition. Hearing none, he asked in any of the commission members have any questions or comments. He then asked if anyone in the audience had any questions. There were no additional questions.
The commission members were given copies of the Outskirts Village Park rules and regulations and took some time to look them over.
Chairman Birnbaum called for a motion to close the public testimony portion of the hearing. Motion made by Bob and seconded by Steve. All vote in favor, motion carried.
Findings of Fact:
1. The use conforms to the land use or comprehensive plan of the Town, if any. Larry stated that this is a Limited Industrial Use (LIU) zone. Bob stated the it appears it does comply with Land Use in LIU, but not the comprehensive plan as it is a residential area. Larry mentioned that the comprehensive plan is addressed in fact number 2. Steve agrees that it conforms to land use, but not the comp plan. Larry states that it is kind of a gray area. Bob states yes, he agrees that the use conforms to the land use. Herb agrees, Larry agrees and Steve agrees.
2. The use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. Bob wonders why counsel seems to imply that the neighborhood is limited to this piece of property and doesn’t include the surrounding area. He asked Patti if she knew why he would view it that way. She stated that she believes that is how the original plan was proposed and this is in keeping with the fact that this property is a residential planned unit development. Herb states that there is no mention of RVs being allowed in a residential planned unit development. Steve also believes that the main difference here is between a residential PUD and a commercial PUD. The commercial PUD does include RV parking. Bob states that it is his opinion that this proposal is not compatible with the existing neighborhood as it is a residential PUD. Larry says that RV parking would be a transient use of the property and a residential PUD does not allow for transient use, therefore he believes the proposal is not compatible. Herb agrees that it is a residential and not commercial area, but since Dave is asking for a temporary change he is wondering if the commission is able to place a time limit on this proposal and help out the applicant? However our plan says no. He is not able to make a decision based on the fact. He would like to help the applicant. He will abstain from vote on findings of fact. Larry says that the problem with a temporary CUP is that it would open a “can of worms” because you would have to do it for everyone. Bob asks the question that, in essence, aren’t all CUPs temporary? That is, temporary until the property is sold? Patti answered that a change of ownership requires that the CUP be re-applied for by the new owner. Steve says that the commercial use and residential use PUDs are conflicting. He would like to be able to help David out, but does not believe that the proposed use in compatible with the existing neighborhood thus voting no on this findings of fact. Larry confirms what Steve says no, Bob says no, Larry also says no. Larry states that if any one item on the Findings of Fact cannot be answered with a “yes” by the majority of the commission members , then the CUP cannot be granted. In light of that, Larry calls for a motion to approve or deny the CUP. Bob makes a motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit request due to the result of the vote on the 2nd finding of fact: the property is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. Steve seconds the motion. Larry , Bob and Steve vote in favor of motion. Herb abstains from vote. Motion carries. The Conditional Use Permit application “to allow RV parking in vacant mobile home lots until lots are occupied by a manufacture home” is denied.
A motion to adjourn the hearing is made by Bob and seconded by Herb. Meeting is adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________ _______________________________________
Camille S. Hansen, deputy clerk Larry Birnbaum, chairman
__________________ __________________
Date Date
|
