Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/1986 P&Z Minutest • • PLANNING ? ZONING BOARD February 12, 1986 Chairman Doocy called to order the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board at 7:04 P.M., Wednesday, February 12, 1986. All members - McLean, Cody, Klaus and Prokop - were in attendance. Two vacancies still exist on the Board. Also present were Building Official, Pete Kluegel and Secretary, Shar Foster. The newly- appointed liaison to the Council, Mr. Bisel, was ill and did not attend. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES January 8, 1986 - Mrs. Klaus moved to approve the minutes of the 1/8/86 meeting as presented. Mr. Cody seconded the motion. Motion carried. January 15, 1986 - Mr. McLean moved to approve these minutes for the organizational meeting of the comprehensive plan review task force on 1/15/86 as presented. Mr. Prokop seconded the motion. Motion carried. OPEN MIKE - (Tom Zangala - Frontage Problem) Mr. Locher, legal counsel for Mr. Zangala and Ms. Singleton, appeared before the Board explaining a problem situation which exists on Mr. Zangala's/Ms. Singleton's property. A parcel of property lying behind the VFW building was purchased by Zangala /Singleton and they would like to apply for a building permit for a single family home on the property. The ordinance requires that a parcel of property have frontage on an approved roadway before construction. The roadway on which the property fronts is the future Lois Lane. Currently Lois Lane is completed only a short distance and stops before the property in question. Mr. Zangala mentioned that he was directed earlier by the City Council to present a petition signed by all the property owners along Lois Lane which would (potentially) benefit from completion of the street. He said that in contacting the two other property owners involved, he learned that both would be interested in putting through the street, but neither was interested in paying any assessments since their properties are vacant. Mr. Zangala /Ms. Singleton were told that they should work with the Building Official and the City Administrator in trying to put together an arrangement including a letter of credit in order that the street can be completed, at least far enough to provide frontage for their property. BUILDING OFFICIAL'S REPORT Mr. Kluegel reported that the Mayor h4s- appointed Mr. Bisel as the Planning $ Zoning Board liaison. 1110 Roland Ford Update - Mr. Kluegel reported that the City is in receipt of an escrow of $4,000 from Mr. Ford., If Mr. Ford does not clean up his property to the satisfaction of the Building Official by 4/15/86, • • • PLANNING F ZONING BOARD February 12, 1986 Page Two as ordered by the judge, the City will use the $4,000 escrow to pay the local contractor to do the work. Council discussed this issue at their 2 /10/86 meeting and instructed the Building Official to report the status at the 4/14/86 Council meeting, at which time the Council will take further action. 4th Quarter Report - Per Mr. Doocy's request) Mr. Kluegel reported on the construction status within the City. 38 building permits were issued during the fourth quarter, 1985 making a total of 268 permits issued during the year (up from 228 during 1984). The total valuation of permits was 9.6 million dollars. 1986 is anti- cipated to exceed 1985 due to favorable interest rates. Mr. Kluegel also reported that the primary', interest for growth is in one -acre lots with on -site septic throughout the City; a lot of interest in the area around Reshanau Lake; and commercial develop- ment, particularly near 35W and Lake Drive. City Planner - Mr. Kluegel also reported, as recorded within the minutes of the 1/27/86 Council meeting, that the Council directed the City Administrator to advertise for a new City Planner. The Board discussed this issue at length at the end of this evening's meeting (undernew business). STREET STANDARDS Mr. Doocy referred to the 1/13/86 Council minutes wherein the Council discussed a recommendation which had earlier been made to the P F Z Board which would call for urban versus rural streets in some platted areas. Mr. McLean thought the Council must be referring to a situation wherein streets of 28' were requested rather than the usual 32'. The concensus of the Board was that all the Board could deal with is the ordinance currently in place. KLOSNER - GOERTZ - SITE & BUILDING PLAN Mr. Klosner appeared before the Board representing his application for a site and building plan review for a mini storage and truck storage building in Lino Industrial Park. The following facts were presented by Mr. Klosner: 1) Property in LI zone; 2) No office space is planned, therefore no septic system is planned; 3) No fence, no signs, no exterior storage and no parking are planned; 4) Four surface mount security lights are planned; 5)Paved driveway is planned. The City Planner and the City Engineer both reviewed the site and building plan and commented on the same. The City Planner suggested turning the building 900 for security purposes. The applicant ex- plained that its placement is based on the hope of adding another like building in the future which would make the project economically feasible for the applicant and also the fact that the placement would allow the Lino Lakes Correctional Facility guard tower full view of the building at all times, which he felt would be excellent security. • • PLANNING $ ZONING BOARD February 12, 1986 Page Three The City Engineer's review memo noted that a permit for surface drainage would be required from Rice Creek Watershed District. Further discussion concluded that Rice Creek Watershed District no longer requires a permit for surface drainage for this size lot. The Building Official concurred. The applicant did explain that a silt stop fence is planned per the submitted erosion and soil plan. Also the applicant agreed to add more trees along Lilac St. MOTION: Mr. McLean moved to recommend to Council approval of the site and building plan of Rockey Goertz /Tim Klosner, dated 1/17/86 as presented with the following stipulations: 1) No exterior storage be allowed, 2) Blacktopping be installed as indicated in the applica- tion before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, 3)An additional two trees (preferably evergreens) be planted along Lilac Street. Motion seconded by Mr. Cody and carried unanimously. Mr. Klosner was told that the City Council will take final action at their February 24, 1986 meeting. ULMER CONSTRUCTION - REZONE AND REPLAT Mr. Dennis Ulmer represented his application for a rezone and replat of Ulmer's Rice Lake 4th Addition. Mr. Kluegel explained that a plat for this area has been approved in the past, however with the addition of sewer and water to the area since that approval, Mr. Ulmer is requesting a plat of 107 lots of approximately one acre per lot. Mr. Kluegel explained that the 2/10/86 Council accepted the low bid from C. W. Houle for installation of the sewer for Rice Lake Estates. This bid calls for a lift station with the capacity to handle Mr. Ulmer's proposed plat. Sewered lots would require a rezone as well. A concern was voiced by Mr. Prokop as to whether or not Sunrise Park can handle another 107 families. It was made clear that ;Sunrise Park abuts, the proposed plat. Mr. Ulmer also said that the requirement for park dedication was satisfied with approval of the previous plat. Mr. Kluegel stated that per the City Engineer, Second Street (which is part of the plat) will be brought to City standards. He also men- tioned that the City Administrator voiced a concern with regard to Green Acre Drive, Gladstone and part of Second Street being "half - streets" per the proposed plat. Mr. Ulmer stated that it is not his intention to have "half streets ", however the properties along the streets in question belong to otherproperty owners. Mr. Ulmer was instructed to work with the City Administrator and the other land- owners involved in order to acquire the necessary easements to make full streets. • Mr. Johnson reported that he felt the plat was consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan with regard to density. MOTION: Mr. Prokop moved to recommend to Council approval of the application of Ulmer Construction, 1633 Highway 10 N.E., Spring • • • PLANNING F ZONING BOARD February 12, 1986 Page Four Lake Park, MN, dated 1/21/86 calling for a rezone from ER to R1 based on the fact that the rezone would be consistent with the comprehensive plan subject to the the recently approved sewer and water project for the area. Mrs. Klaus seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Board then considered the proposed replat. The City Engineer commented in his 2/6/86 memo on this subject that the Anoka County Soils Survey indicates soils in this area do exhibit some limita- tions due to high water table and poor drainage characteristics which may restrict basements. Mr. Kluegel stated that soil borings would be required in order to avoid any problems. MOTION: Mr. Cody moved to recommend to Council approval of the prelim- inary replat of Ulmer Construction dated 1/21/86 for a forty acre parcel legally described as set forth in the application. The basis for such approval would be that it complies with Section 1001.08 of the Subdivision Design Standards and specifically that in making this motion, the Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the best use of the land being subdivided, the size and arrangements of the proposed lots, open space requirements, necessary fire protection, the fact that the subdivision conforms to the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance by reason of the fact that we have, prior to this, approved a rezone from ER to R1. Mr. Cody also accepted as an amendment to his motion that Mr. Ulmer further investigate with the City Administrator and the City Attorney the easements necessary to provide full streets as discussed earlier in this meeting. Mr. McLean seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. DENNIS ERICKSON dba JUSTIN HOMEBUILDERS - REZONE Mr. Arnie Ficocello represented Justin Homebuilders. He stated that Justin Homebuilders would like to develop a 37 acre parcel into 99 lots with sewer and water per his application, and he stressed the point that timing was of the essence. Mr. Johnson's memo of 2/3/86 on this subject pointed out that this proposal would require an amendment to the comprehensive plan, a change to the urban service district lines, a rezone, several lot size variances and preliminary and final plat approval. Mr. Ficocello stated that Justin Homebuilders has purchased the property and the plan would call for homes in the price range of $60,000 - $80,000, and that the Metropolitan Council needs to hear that the City of Lino Lakes is in favor of seeing this concept become a reality before they would consider taking the first step, which would be changing the urban service district line. Mr. Johnson recommended that the P F Z Board table this issued until the issue of zoning /density is researched as the first item of business for the comprehensive plan task force, at which time the P & Z Board • • PLANNING F ZONING BOARD February 12, 1986 Page Five could make a decision based upon the planned future growth of the entire City, rather than just this request, particularly in view of the fact the the urban service district lines would require alter- ation. Mr. Johnson outlined the procedure which Justin Homebuilders would have to follow to see this plan become reality. It would require every possible step a developer could request of the City, there- fore, each step should be carefully handled rather than rushed. Mr. McLean and Mr. Prokop felt that this type of request is indicative of the types of requests the P $ Z will be dealing with in the future because of the "push" from the south of the City. Mr. Cody said that if the P F Z Board wanted to handle this type of issue in a piecemeal fashion, rather than as part of the comprehensive plan review which will begin this month, he felt the extra time and effort of the task force would be negated. Mr. Johnson reminded the Board that per state statute, an action must be taken within 60 days of the application date unless the developer agrees to a postponement. Should a postponement not be acceptable to the applicant, Mr. Johnson recommended denial of the zone change request due to non - conformance with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Johnson also added that the City Attorney should review t he time limit issue to clarify just how the state statute relates to this particular request. Mr. McLean asked if the applicant's motives 'interms of the timing issue were economic, particularly in view of the present favorable interest rates. The applicant answered yes. Mr. McLean reminded the applicant that the task force is looking at the future growth of the entire City and was not involved in the economic motives of the developer. Mr. Ficocello asked for some sign from the Board as to whether they are leaning toward this concept or not. He said he needed an idea of the opinion of the Board to make a decision upon agreeing or not agreeing to a postponement of the 60 day time limit. He asked Mr. Cody for his opinion. Mr. Cody stated that this additionlif approved would be a few blocks from his home and he personally was not excited to see $60,000 to $80,000 homes in the area, and preferred homes similar to his, in the range of $125,000 and up. Mr. Ficocello voiced his opinion in response saying that $125,000+ homes may be possible as lakeshore homes, however not marketable in an area which is presently a cornfield. MOTION: Mrs. Klaus moved to table the application of Dennis Erickson, dba Justin Homes Builders, dated 1/6/86 until the task force has had an opportunity to research the growth needs of the City, particularly zoning /density. This motion is made keeping in mind the fact that the task force will begin this task in one week and should have a knowledgeable answer within a reasonable period of time. This issue • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD February 12, 1986 Page Six should be able to be considered at the task force meeting on the third week of May, therefore the request is tabled until that date. Mr. McLean seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Ficocello asked if he could bring this issue before the Council. He was told that he could do so should he choose to, however the Council would be aware that the P $ Z Board has tabled the issue and has no recommendation for approval or denial at this time. TEMPORARY ADVERTISING SIGN - ROGER KOLSTAD Mr. Kluegel reported the. "temporary advertising device" (mini - log home) which Mr. Kolstad proposed at the 1/8/86 meeting has been constructed. Mr. Kolstad was told at that meeting to handle this situation as a sign permit. Mr. Kluegel reported that Mr. Kolstad has not applied for a sign permit, but constructed the "device" with- out approval. Mr. Kluegel felt that this "device ", according to the City ordinance requires a conditional use permit and thus an applica- tion for same was before the Board. MOTION: Mr. Prokop moved that this was an improper application and that it is also submitted after the fact, and thus should be rejected. A sign application does not accompany the application, making the application incomplete as well. Mr. McLean seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The secretary asked, for the record, how the existing "device" should be handled and the Chairman said that the Building Official should handle it as a sign permit and that the P E1 Z Board should not have to be involved further. LOT PROVISIONS Mr. Johnson referred to a 2/6/86 memo regarding lot provisions, recommending an addition to the lot provisions (Section 4, Subd. 5) section of the City ordinance. The Board had not received this memo, but had an earlier (1/6/86) memo on the same subject. Dis- cussion followed as to which zones should or should not allow more than one principal structure per lot. Because the Board did not have in hand the memo of 2/6/86, Mr. Johnson was asked to redraft a recommendation as to which zones could allow more than one principal structure and which could not, based on this evening's discussion. Mr. Johnson will redraft the recommendation and bring it before the next regular meeting of the P $ Z Board. OLD BUSINESS None. • • • PLANNING $ ZONING BOARD February 12, 1986 Page Seven NEW BUSINESS New City Planner - The general concensus of the Board was a feeling of puzzlement and shock at reading in the recent Council minutes in which a motion was carried to advertise for a new City Planner. Upon beginning this discussion, Mr. Johnson excused himself from the meet- ing. Mr. Prokop stated that he felt this action was inappropriate, particu- larly in view of the task force which has just gotten off the ground, which will heavily depend on Mr. Johnson's expertise and the fact that he is now familiar with the City and the ordinances. Changing planners at this time would be a detriment to the task force he felt. Also, he was puzzled by the fact that the P & Z Board was not approached, when evidently the Council felt there was a problem with the present planner. Mr. Cody felt that Mr. Johnson's credibility is severely impaired by this action and that the working relationship which has been established between the P & Z Board and Mr. Johnson may also suffer. He felt that this action, without considering the opinion of the P & Z Board showed a lack of respect to the P & Z Board, on the part of the City Council. Mr. McLean said that he had not been asked his opinion on this matter, and that upon learning of the action taken, he contacted the City Administrator to ask what rationale backed the action, and the City Administrator told him that he did not know the rationale or reasons behind the issue and concurred that this action comes at a particularly poor time. Mr. McLean felt that Mr. Johnson is very factual in pre- senting his research on issues and also does a good job of not becoming involved in the "emotional" side of the issues. Mrs. Klaus stated that she felt personally that Mr. Johnson has done a good job and she would recommend continuing his services as City Planner - that she feels very comfortable with his presentation of issues. She and Mr. Cody asked for some reasons from the Council. Mr. McLean felt that the comprehensive plan review has already been restricted by the budget and that further restrictions would result should a new planner have to be "trained in ". MOTION: Mr. Prokop moved that the Chairman of the P E Z Board contact the Mayor requesting reasons for this action and pass on the opinion of the P $ Z Board that the timing of this action is poor because of the task force plans (which are restricted by budget), and ask what changes have occurred that the P &Z Board is unaware of. Each member's opinion (as outlined above) should be passed on to the Mayor and Council. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Klaus. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kluegel, when asked if he was aware of any reasons, said that he was not aware of the reasons. • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD February 12, 1986 Page Eight The question was raised how Mr. Bisel became the P & Z /Council liaison - did anyone know whether he wanted the task or not. Mr. Kluegel stated that Mr. Bisel had expressed a desire to work with P & Z, and Mayor Benson appointed him therefore as liaison to the P $ Z Board. The meeting adjourned at 10:00. Aye.