Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/1976 P&Z MinutesDecember 1, 1976 The special meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Gourley, Members present; Hill, Kelling, Karth, Nadeau, Shearen, Reinert. Mr. Locher, Mr. Short and Mr. Starr were also present. There was discussion on the problem of a new building being constructed at the Uniter Tire site. Mr. Gourley had checked this building and felt it is much too close to the street. The requirements as set forth in Ordinance #56 was discussed and the general consensu of the Board was to have Mr. Rasmussen sub- mit an application for a variance. There was concern of setting a precedence but the Board thought this could be avoided. Mr Hill moved to ask Mr. Rasmussen to submit an application for a variance for a building with less than the required set back from the street. This applica- tion not intended to set precedence. Seconded by Mr. Kelling. Motion carried unanimously. There was discussion on how to avoid this in the future. Mr. Kelling moved to recommend to the Council that the Building Inspector be instructed not to issued any permits contrary to City Ordinances without clearing them through the Planning and Zoning Board. and the City Council, i.e., United Tire, per Ordinance 56, Sec. 5.03. Seconded by Mr. Shearen. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Gourley turned the meeting over to Mr. Short. Mr. Short reported that he had met with Mr. Gotwald and Mr. Locher on two occassions in order to put this package together. Mr. Short presented the Board with new computations on the unit per acre. He had also prepared a map to reflect this. This map closely relateds to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Starr said the Planning and Zoning Board is to be commended on the progress that has been made. He felt they had developed a plan that the Metropolitan Staff could live with. He felt that another look at the Amelia Lake area and the Otter Lake area and pollibly include them in the agricultural area with one acre minimum lot size. There was mcuh discussion on the minimum lot size requirements of five acres in the rural residential. Mr. Nadeau felt it is impossible to draw lines hard and fast. He felt there is some lands in the rural residential with a five acre requirement that could very easily be included in the one acre requirement area. Mr. Kelling asked if it could be proven that on site systems could be handled on a smaller lot, is there anything that would prevent the City from issuing a building permit? Mr. Lee Starr felt this would be allowed provided the documentation is there. Mr. Starr emphazied this plan is just a guide line. Mr. Starr said the concern of the Metropolitan Council is that the City does not permit development that would demand the installation of sewers ahead of the time schedule. Also, put more demands on the City for services. There was much discussion on the use of the one acre minimum lot size in the area designated for ten acre minimum lot sizes. Mr. Kelling felt this could be adopted as a general guide line only, not as an iron -clad law. Mr. Starr said the Metropolitan Council would like this adopted as a 'zoning' policy. The general consensus of the Planning and Zoning Board was the word 'zoning' is out of line. This will be worked out at a later meeting. - Page Two - December 1, 1976 Mr. Locher discussed the changes he had made in Ordinance #66. He had reworded the Ordinance to avoid the necessity of publishing the soils map. However, Mr. Locher felt that a hearing must be held before this ordinance is adopted. Under 66.4, Subd. C, Mr. Reinert questioned the requirement of a professional engineer to perform the perk tests. He thought the possibility of a soils expert or someone expert in the knowledge of soils would be more capable of performing this test.. Mr. Starr suggested a list of local people who could be recommended to the home builder. There was discussion on the need to develop a form for these permits. This is required under 66.6 and 6.5 of Ordinance #66, the proposed ordinance. The new regulations being developed by the PCA was discussed. Since these are just in the draft stage, it was decided to support Ordinance #53 now on the books until the new regulations are adopted. The set back in the business area as set forth in Ordinance #56 was discussed. These figures need to be clarified. Also, the cul-de-sac requirements. The Board had discussed this at a previous meeting and asked that the 75' require- meht be at the building setback, in a residential. In the rural service area the frontage must be 150' at the building setback line and the building must be 30' from the right-of-way line. Mr. Gourley reported on the investigation he had done on the requirement of building permits for farm buildings. According to the State Law, there is no requirement for building permits for farm building. However, the City can require a land use permit. There was discussion on this matter with no decision being reached. Mr. Kelling moved to continue issuing building permits or land use permits and ask the Attorney to come up with a solution to this problem, with the fees to be set by Council Resolution. Seconded by Mr. Reinert. Motion carried unanimously. Under Ordinance 56, Subd. 3.02, change '5' acres to'10' acres. This refers to acreage required for qualifying as a farm. Mr. Nadeau moved to have the Attorney chebk and confirm this with the State, and make recommendations as to the acreage needed for farm definition. Seconded by Mr. Hill. Motion carried unanimously. The soils map was discussed. Someone asked where this would be kept and Mr. Short said in the City offices. All building permit applications will have to be checked against this map. The Clerk was asked if she could read this map and said, with a little practice, Yes. Mr. Short will mount these six small map to form the City. Mr. Short reminded this Board that an extension of time to complete this work will be needed. Mr. Starr was questioned as to when this letter should be written. Mr. Starr felt the extension should be requested before December 31, 1976. He felt that very good progress had been made and felt there would be no problem in obtaining an extension. He said what has been done will fullfill the requirement for an interium CSP and will allow hook ups to the interceptor. He suggested three to four months for completing this work. Mr. Starr said the letter should be written to Mr. Boland stating what has - Page Three - December 1, 1976 been done on general terms in reference to the Resolution that was passed by the Council. Also, stating what has to be done and what is yet unresolved.. The granting of this extension will give this Board and the Council time to prepare the items required and will allow time for Metropolitan Council review before adoption by the City. Mr. Kelling moved to request a four months extension, beginning Jan. 1, 1977 with a letter from the ,City Council so stating. Seconded by Mr. Hill. Motion carried unanimously. There was no suggested date for the next meeting. This will be decided later and all members will be notified. Mr. Karth moved to adjourn at 11:00 P.M. Seconded by Mr. Kelling. Aye.