12/12/2007 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2007 Page 2 submitted for review. Therefore, staff explained that the variance application will be placed on the December meeting agenda. Staff explained that the applicant's garage was built with a permit and was inspected. However it was since discovered that setback requirements were not properly met. The applicant brought a variance request for the setback before the P &Z Board a few years past, the P &Z recommended denial and the applicant chose to withdraw the application. Staff explained that the applicant then removed what he believed to be the encroachment. Ms. Bachmeier stated that Mr. Muehlstedt's existing garage, driveway and fence do not meet setback requirements. Mr. Grochala explained that there have been a number of issues with this site. He stated that the matters in question recently went before the city council and have been turned over to the City Attorney for review. Mr. Grochala added that both property owners need to be heard by the board. Ms. Bachmeier noted that the structural engineer who gave his opinion to Pete Kluegel (city building official), regarding the addition to the attached garage, did so without visiting the property. She stated this addition does not meet code. Mr. Tralle stated that he understands the property owners' frustration, but the issue will be discussed at next month's meeting. He asked for their patience with this issue. Mr. Tralle requested that staff speak with the city's attorney and move things along. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:44 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6 - 0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING for an Amendment to the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, Subd. 3.B. related to the subdivision of unsewered lots Michael Grochala, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. He noted that the city council reviewed the language and requested that it be brought to the P &Z Board for a recommendation. Mr. Grochala explained that limiting the lot size is typically an underwriting issue to aid in the sale of property. The reason appears to be that in the case of a foreclosure, the lender would have an easier time selling a smaller property rather than a larger one. He explained that although a property owner would be required to combine the split parcels prior to a sale, a foreclosure would allow the removed parcel to be sold alone. Board Members were concerned that the city's intent is to control growth and not be left with small lots, and this could potentially be a huge exception. They noted that foreclosures are common and it seems that the city would be opening itself up to opportunities for smaller parcels. They were concerned about the number of potential DRAFT MINUTES • •