Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/1991 P&Z MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD JULY 10, 1991 Chairperson Fred Chase called the regular meeting of the design review board to order at 7:02 p.m., at the Lino Lakes City Hall. Members present were: Al Robinson, John Bergeson, Fred Chase, Robert King and Monica Slatten. Also present was City Planner, John Miller; Bernard Herman, and the acting Planning Secretary, Joyce Lund. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: The June 12, 1991 minutes had not been made available to the design review board and will be considered at the next meeting. OPEN MIKE: No one appeared before open mike. CONSIDERATION OF MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE FOR CRAIG COOKSEY, APPLICATION 91 -27. John Miller addressed the board. The applicant wishes to subdivide a one acre residential lot, that is located between Second Avenue and Rice Lake Drive, into three parcels. Mr. Cooksey will retain a half acre parcel where his residence is located, the other lots would cover an area of 11,250 square feet, more than the presently required 10,800 square foot minimum. There were no questions from the board. MOTION: Robert King moved to recommend to the city council approval of a minor subdivision /variance for Craig Cooksey as described in DRB Application #91 -27. Al Robinson seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. MOTION: Robert King moved to recommend to the city council approval of a variance for Craig Cooksey as described in DRB Application #91 -25. This is to include the six (6) findings of fact. Al Robinson asked if the DRB needs to list the six (6) findings of fact each time they refer to them, or does the DRB assume all know what they are. John Miller offered to list them on more complex matters. The motion was approved unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FOR THE MINNESOTA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY DRB APPLICATION 91 -26. Page 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JULY 10, 1991 Bernard Herman, the architect for the Minnesota Correctional Facility, brought site plans and explained the new buildings under construction. The outside of the buildings will have pitched roofs, brick exterior that matches the existing buildings with metal punched window openings. There are two wings on two levels housing 150 inmates. The center core is on the 1/2 level, with one level up and the other down. There is a common day room, kitchen and consultation rooms in one of the wings. Building Q, the other wing is the industry building containing the carpentry shop which is a major aspect of their program. One difference in the site plan and the actual building was that they have eliminated the loading dock. This portion of the building will be concrete block, with a rock face to match the existing building. In building "B" is the print shop, located in the rear, with administrative offices to support the industries. Material and design of this building are identical to the existing building. The food building, with the administration offices will have renovation to enclose an open courtyard to provide a visiting room, and an expansion of the dining room, this also will match the existing building. There is one common entrance which will branch off to the two cottages. In regard to landscaping - the trees are being "scooped out" and will be replanted in the outdoor area by the dayroom. Al Robinson asked if the courtyard area was where the mother duck came each year. Bernard Herman said the duck has been relocated, she is an important aspect of the facility having returned to nest for the last several years. MOTION: John Bergeson moved to recommend to the city council approval of the site and building plan review for the Minnesota Correctional Facility as described in DRB Application #91 -26. Robert King seconded the motion. There were no further comments. Motion carried unanimously. John Miller thanked Bernard Herman for coming this evening. CONSIDERATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR LAKESHORE SETBACKS FOR LAKE AMELIA ESTATES DRB APPLICATION #91 -28 John Miller reviewed the plat for Lake Amelia in regard to the pond. The DNR will not insist on the 100 foot from lakeshore requirement. The City has adopted several ordinances controlling the use of land within the city's corporate limits. Included among these is the city's Shoreland Management Ordinance. Based on a draft prepared Page 2 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JULY 10, 1991 and distributed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the ordinance classifies the different lakes within the city by the types of activity they can support. Bases on the physical condition of the lake the SMO provides for appropriate land use adjacent to the water. That body of water is classified by the ordinance as a "natural environment" lake. Section III (2) (A) of that ordinance establishes the setback for multiple family hosing as 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark of any natural environment lake. In this case it would pertain to lots 6 -19. John Miller could not give the exact distance between the shoreline and the structure. The lots are 50 x 70 and there is no way of knowing at this point, where on the parcel the structure will be located. The buyer may ask for exterior configurations, so this is an open -ended ordinance. John Bergeson asked just what is the closest they could build to the lake. John Miller said about 50 feet, to the south of the pond. The remaining area is a common area and all of the owners will be responsible through the association for maintenance. Fred Chase asked how it got to be a pond, did it evolve after the gravel pit. The DNR worked to recognize it as a part of Lake Amelia, yet if it was a storm water pond, we would allow homes to build closer that 100 feet. John Miller said yes. John Bergeson asked, at the council meeting parties said land does not exist when you can paddle a canoe across it. John Miller said there is high -water and low -water and maybe you could walk across it. Monica Slatten asked, what DRB Application # is this. There were different numbers, in different places in reference to this matter. It was decided this was DRB Application #91 -28. Al Robinson stated, if it (referring to the pond) is man created it does not need a variance. And, if we look at it this way are we opening up trouble for the future. John Miller said if that is your determination, that it is a pond and not a lake there is no need for a variance. He could not speak to how the DNR would react. MOTION: By Al Robinson, we do not need a variance. It is not part of the lake. It is a gravel pit. Monica Slatten seconded the motion. AYE, Carried. Page 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD JULY 10, 1991 OLD BUSINESS: John Miller had none. Chairperson, Fred Chase, said the update of the zoning ordinance is on its way. Typing must be completed before the board can consider the revision. NEW BUSINESS: There was no New Business. ADJOURNMENT: Robert King moved to adjourn at 7:32 p.m. Monica Slatten seconded the motion. Motion, Carried. Page 4