08/08/1979 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Page 2 Planning and Zoning Commission August 8, 1979 , Property line construction was recommended in view of the fact that it was commercial property and would enable full use of the property. There were several objections to this recommendation: It was not a congested area, drainage or water run off from the garage would be on other property, and the owner would be trespassing in order to paint the garage. The ordinance was consulted for commercial property setbacks; these were 30' on the rear lot line and 10' on the side lot line. Mr. Skoglund sketched the layout of his property and explained his reasons for the garage location. There was some difficulty due to the angle of the lot lines to the street and to the house and garage. The 30' rear setback could notibe.met because .of•tbe.location of the house. The 10' si.de setback could be main- tained by shortening the garage; the proposed dimensions were 30 X 40 X 10 high. Mr. Gourley noted that Mr. Mobley hadnot addressed the question asked of him in hisletter, which was how the garage could be fit in and; still maintain the ordinance requirements. Mr. Gourley felt that as Mr. Skoglund's property was adjacent to residential property onthe rear lot line, that a residential setback of 5' would be acceptable there, but that. the side setback of 10' should be met. Mr. Skoglund felt he could shortenn. the building by 5' (35 X 30) in order;to meet that requirement. Mr. Johnson moved to recommend that.Mr. Skoglund be granted a variance for a 5' rear setback and that the sidesetback.be maintained at 10'. Mr. Doocey seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion declared passed. This will .be on the Council agenda for -August 13. Mr. Reinert asked that the Clerk be told he did not receive his packet this month. Next on the agenda was the Comprehensive Land Use planning session with Mr. Gotwald, engineer, and Mr. Short, planner, present. The planner and engineer were asked for their comments on the list from the July 11 meeting of the assets and liabilities of Lino Lakes as a community, and this was opened to general discussion. Mr. Short felt that under the asset column, "open rural feeling" should be included with #5, and that "parks and re- creation" should be added to #16. Mr. Gotwald felt that another point could be added, that development has been taking place rather slowly and the majority of developments have been large suburban lots of one acre or or more. Because of that type of development, the need for more intensive services'would be less. He added that the large Tots and varying to- pography add to the rural atmosphere. It was pointed out that the lot size could become a problem at a future time when services are extended, as the assessments on acre lot would be high. Under Iiabililities, Mr. Short felt that #2 and #3, high water table and restricted soils, were essentially the same. On #9, the wording should be changed to "lack of proffessional services." He suggested some additional liabilities, which would be (14) the amount of goverment controlled non- taxable land, which relates to high taxes, another possible addition. This land would also not be available for development (the County Park, St. Paul Water Department, the State Training Center). Mr. Gotwald added freeways and unusable marginal land. Mr. Short indicated that the present Comprehensive Plan talks about objectives, goals and policies and that type of thing was based on lists like these. Mr. Gotwald felt that people associated Lino Lakes with the Circle Pines school district, which was not considered high