Lakewood Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
Lakewood Town Hall
The purpose of the public hearing was for the Commission to gather public input to proposed changes to the Town of Lakewood Zoning Ordinance, and, hearing such input, to vote for or against the changes.
Call to order: Commission Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Bob Wolfe, called the public hearing to order at 7:03 PM.
Present: Chair Wolfe, Inese Holte, Dick Bodine, Angie Dickison Palmer, Robin Downs, Kerry Leider, Chris Roningen, and Recorder David Gerhart. Present in the audience were Town Board members Tim Musick and Phil Halverson and Town Clerk Gene Bromenshenkel. Other citizens were present (see attached register).
Pledge of Allegiance: The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America was recited by all present.
The following proposed changes were considered (see official document containing the changes):
Article IX, 6.02. Public Hearings.
6.02 A. The proposed changes concern appeals from a P&Z Commission decision regarding a conditional use permit application and specifically give the Town Board of Supervisors authority to approve or deny the permit if an appeal is filed. There was no public comment. Motion by Bodine to accept the changes, second by Palmer. All were in favor except Roningen, who abstained, explaining that the appeals process should be addressed first. Motion carried.
Article VIII, 4. Appeals from Decisions
The proposed changes concern who may appeal a Commission decision and the time frame for appeals. Rod Hammerstrom spoke in opposition to the 7-day time frame. Wolfe explained that a 30-day time frame for appeals makes it difficult for the Town to meet the 60-day rule for decisions. Jerome Norick questioned whether 7 days would be enough time for a person appealing a decision to gather the necessary information. Others pointed out that a 7-day period would benefit construction contractors.
Roningen said that he believes that the appeals process is open to too many people and should be limited to applicants, residents, and landowners. Wolfe said that the Town Board has requested that the appeals process be open to more people, for example, neighbors who may be affected by the decision. Greg Follmer and Tim Huchthausen objected to a broadening of the population of people who could appeal. Musick said that the idea is not to create more appeals but rather to catch mistakes that have been made by the Commission or the Board of Adjustment. Roningen said that the idea is to have a final option before the issue moves to District Court. Follmer said that there should be a fee so that appeals are not frivolous. Wolfe said that an appeal form exists to be sure that appeals have serious merit. Shapiro and Leider suggested that appeals be limited to the applicant, whereas Palmer favored broader appeal rights. Downs felt that neighbors should have appeal rights and favored the 7-day period.
Motion by Roningen to keep current language, rejecting the changes, but to revisit the issue later. Seconded by Bodine. The motion carried 4-2 with Palmer and Holte voting against.
Article VIII, 6.03. Appeals from Board of Adjustment Decisions
These changes describe the appeal process as it relates to decisions by the Board of Adjustment. Bromenshenkel said that appeals need to address how the decision relates to the Comprehensive Plan and spoke in favor of the 7-day time limit. Leider noted that the change to 7 business days in "A" should be in bold type. Motion by Palmer to accept the changes to 6.03A and 6.03B. Second by Downs. Motion carried unanimously (6-0).
Article VIII, 7. Amendments.
Sections 7.01 describes general procedures for amendments and 7.02 describes procedures for zoning ordinance text amendments. Bill Wilson emphasized the need for public hearings. Jeff Bruckelmyer felt that the changes give more power to the Town Board. Leider noted that the Town Board already has these powers and that the new process will be more efficient and save money. Downs noted that the Town Board now has 5 members and should be more representative of the township. Roningen said that the Town Board would be given too much of a role and could circumvent the hearing process. Holte and Bodine expressed support for public hearings. Musick emphasized the cost to the Town of holding public hearings. Motion by Leider to accept the changes in 7.01 and 7.02. Second by Palmer. Vote was tied (3-3) with Roningen, Bodine, and Holte voting against. The tie was broken by Chairman Wolfe, who voted for the motion, and the motion carried.
Section 7.03 describes procedures for amending the Zoning Map for the Township. Motion by Leider to delete the changes in 7.03 B. Second by Roningen. The question of how to verify a sample of signatures was discussed. Halverson said that the person submitting the petition must certify the signatures on the verification form adopted by the township. He also pointed out that the Commission is revisiting changes that it has already adopted, and that the purpose of the public hearing is to take comments from the public. Motion carried (4-2) with Holte and Downs voting against.
Motion by Leider to add a sentence at the end of the paragraph in 7.03 B as follows: "The petition shall be submitted on an official petition form provided by the Township." Second by Palmer. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Leider to approve the changes to Section 7.03 A-G as amended. Second by Downs. Motion carried (5-1) with Roningen voting against.
Article V, 4. Zone Districts and Purposes and Article II, Definitions, Section 3.
These changes would ban retail sales in the LIU-10 zone. Wolfe said that the Zoning Administrator is in favor of the changes. Greg Follmer spoke at length against the changes and described them as a taking of property rights. He said that, in fact, the changes would favor heavy industrial use and that retail sales would actually enhance the rural character of the area. Tim Huchthausen also spoke against the changes and questioned the Town's assertion that St. Louis County does not permit retail sales in the LIU-10. He stressed the family-oriented nature of his business and said that the LIU-10 areas compose a small fraction of land in Lakewood and do not pose a threat for the development of extensive retail complexes.
Wolfe read a letter from Larry Stauber, attorney for Jeff Levine (see attached). Stauber then made a brief presentation explaining why the Commission should reject the changes. He noted that Levine's property has a 60-year history of retail sales from their property and that the changes would make many of the Levine's current and former uses nonconforming. Even though some uses might be grandfathered in, other uses that have lapsed would not be allowed in the future. He also pointed out differences between the Levine's property and the Highway 61 properties. He stated that the Levines did not receive appropriate notice of the proposed changes and that they strongly object to further restrictions on their property that was originally zoned M-1 (manufacturing). Stauber concluded by noting that the Town could save a lot of money by going to County zoning and saving attorney's fees. Jeff Bruckelmyer also spoke against the changes and said that it is unfair to people who bought LIU-10 properties to have restrictions placed on the use of their land after the purchase.
Holte expressed concern that if the LIU zone includes retail that there would be no way to distinguish the Commercial and LIU zones. If that were the case, how could we keep sexually oriented businesses out of the LIU since they are allowed in the Commercial zone. Eventually, all commercial uses could be allowed in LIU. She also stressed the problem of setting precedents with unknown future ramifications.
Musick said that there is no mention of retail sales in the LIU zone in the St. Louis County zoning ordinance and that the Town must be at least as restrictive as the county. Therefore, we have no choice but to ban retail sales in the LIU. Wolfe also mentioned the problem of being in compliance with the County ordinance.
Jack Shapiro spoke, saying that he is concerned that his gas station will become a nonconforming use and that he would not be able to add a bakeshop.
Motion by Leider to reject all changes regarding the LIU-10 zone and retail sales in Articles II and V and to retain the current language in the ordinance. Second by Roningen.
Discussion: Roningen said that the County does not prohibit retail sales in LIU and gave examples of conditional uses in the Land Use Table for the LIU zone that are clearly retail in nature. Bodine said that a log home business for the LIU zone had previously been supported by Commission members. Downs said that the Commission should have control over what goes in the LIU and that the problem was how to prevent overdevelopment and undesirable development. Roningen said that the C's (conditions) in the Land Use Table are the controls we have on uses in the LIU. We may actually wind up with the worst uses because people with the most money to press lawsuits will be the ones to establish their businesses in the LIU. Leider pointed out that things not mentioned in the Land Use Table are not allowed. Leider stated that the difference between the LIU and Commercial zones lies in the P's and C's in the table. The permitted and conditional uses for the zones are not the same.
The motion carried 4-2 with Holte and Downs against.
Wolfe stated that the results of the hearing would be forwarded to the Town Board. He stated that he would entertain a motion to recess the public hearing until the next Commission meeting on July 31, at which time the report to the Town Board would be finalized.
Motion by Bodine to recess this Public Hearing until July 31 at 7:00 PM. Second by Palmer. Motion adopted unanimously. The hearing was recessed at approximately 10:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
David Gerhart