Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/12/2005 P&Z Minutes CITY OF L I NO LAKE S PLANNING & Z O NING BOARD MINUT E S DATE : January 12, 2005 TIME STARTED : 6:35 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:43 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden (arrive d at 7:01 p.m.), Laden, Pogalz, Rafferty, R oot, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABS E NT : None. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff S m yser; Jam es Studenski; and Paul Be ngtson I. CAL L TO ORDE R AND ROL L CAL L Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Boar d m eeting to order at 6:35 p.m ., January 12, 2005. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINU TES: DECEMBER 8, 2004 Mr. Tralle m a de the fol l owing correction: Page 8, Mr. Laden seconded the m o tion to adjourn. Mr. Tralle m a de a MOTION approve the December 8, 2004 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Mr. Root abstained). IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open m i ke open at 6:38 p.m . There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Pogalz m a de a MOTION to close Open Mi ke at 6:39 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0. APPR OVE D MINUTE S Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Jan u ary 12 , 20 05 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES V. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditi onal Use Permit and Site Plan Review for construction of a church, Kingdom Hall of Jehovah Witnesses, 69XX Lake Drive Staff stated applicant had requested appr oval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a church (Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witness) on a 4.07 acre lot located on the east side of Lake Drive. The Comprehensive Plan gui des the site for low-density, un-sewered residential use and it is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential). A site plan review will be completed administratively. He noted this item was first heard by th e Planning & Zoning Board on November 10, 2004 and was continued to the December 8, 2004 meeting. The applicant did not get revised plans submitted or hold a neighborhood meeting, so it was subsequently continued to the January 12, 2005 meeting. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on December 21, 2004. He presented staff’s analysis and reco mmended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must obtain a permit from Rice Week Watershed District prior to City Council approval. 2. Issues discussed in the C ity Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. The project must obtain a permit from A noka County for any work in the Lake Drive right-of-way. 4. The applicant must submit revised build ing elevations depi cting additional windows prior to this item being heard at a City Council meeting. 5. The use of outdoor lighting for parking lots shall be turned off one (1) hour after closing, except for appr oved security lighting. 6. All illuminated on-premise signs shall be turned off between 12:00 a.m. and sunrise. 7. The lighting plan must be revised to indica te the security and sign lighting, and to meet the foot candle limitations of the z oning ordinance prior to this item being heard by the City Council. 8. Any trash storage will be required to be done within the proposed building, accessory shed, or some other City approved storage area. 9. Revise the landscape plan to depict a row of evergreen hedges on the east side of the parking lot prior to this item being heard by the City Council. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Jan u ary 12 , 20 05 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES 10. Parking lot lighting standards and fixtures shall be painted forest green to blend with the natural surroundings. 11. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be designed and approved by the Centennial Fire Di strict prior to this item be ing heard by the City Council. 12. The church shall connect to the munici pal sanitary sewer system within 24 months of the public service becoming available. 13. The City has the right to periodically review this Conditional use Permit for compliance with these conditions and fo r the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. 14. Right turn lane provided as recomme nded by Anoka County and a left by-pass provided as recommended by Anoka County. Mr. Laden stated it appeared th at Anoka County had a concern w ith the site corners. He asked what those concerns were and had th ey been addressed. Mr. Bengtson replied Anoka County had indicated th e right-of-way was adequate, however, the site corners for the proposed driveway location was a concern with the existing trees located where they were and those trees would need to be removed with no landscaping being placed within the site corners. He stated Anoka County also suggested moving the structure farther back from the site corners. Mr. Laden asked how the building was an obstr uction to the site corners when it was 50 feet back. Mr. Studenski rep lied he did not believe the building would be an obstruction. Mr. Tralle asked if the tree removal should be a part of the conditions. Mr. Bengtson replied that was up to the Board, but Anoka Co unty would not approve this if the trees were not removed, so making this a condition would not be necessary. Mr. Hyden arrived at 7:01 p.m. Mr. Smyser stated staff would clarify A noka County’s concerns prior to the Council meeting. Mr. Root asked at what point would it be required they come back to the City to get approval for regular trash servic e. Mr. Bengtson replied it would be up to applicant to come back to the City if they needed a dumps ter, but they would be required to meet the requirements for trash storage, which included screening. Mr. Root asked how the conditional use was in terpreted for this property. Mr. Bengston responded this application was specifically for a Church or House of Worship. Mr. Smyser stated this Conditional Use Permit would be for a House of Worship and if it would be changed to some other use, it w ould need Council approval. He stated a Conditional Use Permit ran with the la nd, not the owner or business. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Jan u ary 12 , 20 05 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty invited those for or agai nst this proposal to make comment. There were no comments made from the public. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Root asked why were there no elevations shown or windows shown as noted by staff. David Knutson, 38 West Golden Lake Road, Ci rcle Pines, replied the engineer had not shown up yet, but he believed the elevations were on shown on the plan. He stated he did have an updated plan showing the windows, which he had forgotten to give to the Board. He showed the Board members a drawi ng indicating where the windows would be located. Mr. Root asked if there had been a neighborhood meeting as requested by the Board. Mr. Knutson replied 15 neighbors had been invited to a ne ighborhood meeting held on December 21, 2004. He indicated two residents showed up from the same household and those resident’s concerns were discussed. He stated that resident’s main concern was lighting and screening and they were wo rking with them on this issue. Mr. Laden asked if the fence was a continual fence, or was it broken up by landscaping. Mr. Knutson replied he believed the fence was broken up with trees and shrubs. Mr. Laden stated he liked that idea, but did this come out of the neighbo rhood meeting. Mr. Knutson replied it had not. Mr. Tralle asked if there was a kitchen pr oposed in the building. Mr. Knutson replied there would be a sink and a refr igerator, but they did not inte nd to add a stove or other cooking facilities at this time, except possibly a microwave. Mr. Tralle asked if there would be natura l prairie grass around the pond. Mr. Knutson replied they would be using a seed mix. Mr. Tralle recommended they upgrade their seed mix to six or above in order to reduce the weeds and have a mo re pleasing appearance. Chair Rafferty asked where the security light ing would be located. Mr. Knutson replied motion lights would be placed at the se rvice door and at the front entrance. Chair Rafferty asked if they were intending on construction a shed and if so, what would it be used for. Mr. Knutson replied it would be extra storage for chairs and a lawnmower. He stated they believed it would be a wise c hoice to build a shed at this time, as long as they could get the same building materials as they were using on the main building. Chair Rafferty stated he did not like all of the free standi ng structures being proposed on new structures and he would prefer to have the structur es connected. Mr. Knutson replied it was his understanding that it was agai nst Fire Code to have a structure attached that stored gasoline. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Jan u ary 12 , 20 05 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden stated as long as a fire wall was in place, the structures could be connected. Chair Rafferty asked if they intended to have manicured lots. Mr. Knutson replied they intended to mow the lawn, except in the easement. Chair Rafferty asked if the entire congregat ion was moving to this new church. Mr. Knutson replied that was what they were expecting. He point ed out that one of the two meetings held during the week was a small bible study group of approximately 15 people. The other meeting was a full service. Mr. Tralle stated he concurred with the Fire District that it was important to have a sprinkler system. Mr. Knutson replied there was no way to get around not having a sprinkler system and they would sprinkle th e building, but they had not drawn up those plans yet. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 7:29 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend a Conditional Use Permit for construction of a church, Kingdom Hall of Jehova’s Witnesses, 69XX Lake Drive, subject to the fourteen (14) conditions as noted in staff’s Ja nuary 12, 2005 report and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Chair Rafferty stated he saw a clear distinct difference in lo cation between th e church in Hugo and this proposed church and he was not comfortable with the location and the parking in such close proxim ity to residential homes. Motion Tied 3-3 (Pogalz, Haden, Rafferty). B. VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR EXISTING GARAGE, KENNETH MUEHLSTEDT, 2221 REILING ROAD Staff stated applicant was reque sting a variance to a llow a 1.2 foot side yard setback for a detached accessory structure (garage) where 5.0 feet is required. He noted according to City records, a building perm it was issued for a 26-foot by 30-foot (780 square foot) detached accessory structur e (garage) for the subject property on April 21, 1987. At some point, the property owner built a 10-foot by 30-foot (300 square foot) addition to the rear of the garage without obtaining th e proper building permits from the City. He stated the City received, as part of a building permit application for the adjacent property to the west, a certif icate of survey from Kurth Surveying, that depicting the addition as being within the five foot se tback area as required in the R-X (Rural Executive) zoning district. He indicated on April 23, 2004, the City’s Buildi ng Department contac ted the resident at 2221 Reiling Road in regards to the Certificat e of Survey submitted for the construction of a single family dwelling at 2215 Reiling Roa d. This survey depicted a portion of the Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Jan u ary 12 , 20 05 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES existing detached accessory structure (garage) setback 1.2 feet from the side property line. The resident was informed that the stru cture would either need to be made to meet the 5.0 feet setback, and if it were to remain in any way, the resident would need to obtain a building permit. He stated the City’s Building Department again contacted the resident at 2221 Reiling Road on September 17, 2004 to reiterate the optio ns for the detached accessory structure (garage). He noted on November 24, 2004, the Community Development Department received an application for this Variance request to allo w a 1.2 foot side setback for a detached accessory structure (garage) where 5.0 is the minimum required by the zoning ordinance. Staff presented their analysis and recommende d denial of the variance based on the five findings of fact outlined in staff’s Janu ary 12, 2005 report. Staff also recommended within 30 days of the City Council’s final act ion, the property owner is required to apply for a building permit for any portion of the un-pe rmitted structure that is to remain. This permit application will need to include a su rvey of the subject property along with any documentation required by the Building Department . Staff stated any portion of the un- permitted structure that is to remain must co mply with all building code requirements and within 90 days of the City Council’s final action, the un-permitted structure must be brought into conformance with the setback requirements. Mr. Tralle asked if the original structure, without the addition, was in compliance with the five foot setback. Mr. Bengtson replie d the original structure was approved by the City and a Building Permit had been issued. Applicant was not in attendance. Julianne Markiewicz, attorney for Sally Bachmeier, adjacent property owner. Stated the original structure was actually 8 inches within the five foot setback, so it did violate the setback. She noted her client concurred with staff’s comm ents. She pointed out there had been a cement slab over the property line and Mr. Muehlstedt cut the cement slab so it was now flush with the property line. She re quested that cement slab be removed. She stated her client was forced to build a fen ce on the property line for privacy. She stated the discussion in staff’s memo accurately states all of the factors necessary for a variance and they concurred with those findings and they would ask that the variance be denied. She asked if they could add a condition that an inspection be done and another condition removing the cement slab. Mr. Pogalz asked if this was something that s hould be handled by the C ourt, or is this due process. Chair Rafferty responded they had to handle the variance issue. Mr. Tralle asked who took the photographs in their packet. Mr. Bengtson replied the photographs had been submitted by the applicant. Ms. Markiewicz presented photographs to the Board taken by Ms. Bachmeier. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Jan u ary 12 , 20 05 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty asked Ms. Bachmeier how sh e got along with Mr. Muehlstedt. Ms. Bachmeier, 2215 Reiling Road, replied it was not a pleasant experience and she would like to sell. Mr. Tralle asked if there were any other en croachments. Ms. Markiewicz replied there was another issue with the sept ic system that was presently in the Anoka County Courts. Mr. Laden asked if there was a setback requi rement for a cement slab. Mr. Studenski replied to his knowledge, there was nothing sp ecifically, but he would check with the building official. He stated typically the ne wer City lots, could not have anything placed within the drainage easement, but these were old lots and they di d not have drainage easements. Chair Rafferty asked that the eight inch encroa chment into the setback be verified and if there was something that should be done about it, that proper measures were taken. Mr. Laden asked which department in the City would handle a violation of the storage of personal property. Mr. Bengts on responded that was handled as a joint effort between the Police Department and the Community Deve lopment Department. He indicated the Building Department could also be involved. Mr. Laden stated regardless of whatever recommendation the Board has and the homeowner takes, he asked if an as-built su rvey would be provided by applicant after the work was completed. Mr. Bengtson replied th e Board could add that as a condition if they wanted. Mr. Root asked if they should add as a condi tion that the slab be removed. Mr. Smyser replied they could add a condi tion that staff do further inve stigation regarding the slab and the 8 inch encroachment issues. Chair Rafferty asked if there was an identifi cation of how many structures could be on this particular lot in this zoning. Mr. Bengston replied there were guidelines and this did meet the size limitations, even if they were al lowed to keep the additi on. He stated this was the only storage structure, so th ey would be under the number allowed. Chair Rafferty stated he believe d there were additional structures. Ms. Bachmeier stated they also had a storage shed. Mr. Smyser stated the Building Code required a permit if it was a certain size, but if it was under that size a permit was not required. He stated he believed they were allowed two accessory structures and the issue wa s the setback, not the number of accessory buildings or size. Ms. Markiewicz asked with respect the cement sl ab issue, if the variance was denied and the structure complied with the building code requirements, there would be a cement slab sitting on the property line while the accessory structure would be away from it and on aesthetics alone, they would lik e to have the slab removed. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Jan u ary 12 , 20 05 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Lloyd Chalupsky, 2215 Reiling Road, asked if the overhang was a part of the five foot setback. Mr. Bengston replied the overhang was allowed into the five foot setback. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to recommend denial of the variance to allow a 1.2 foot side yard setback for a detached accessory st ructure (garage) where 5.0 feet is required requested by Kenneth Muehlstedt, 2221 Reili ng Road based on staff’s recommendations as outlined in staff’s January 12, 2005 report and adding a fifth reco mmendation that the concrete slab that falls within the five foot setback be i nvestigated by staff and removed if necessary and was supported by Mr. Haden. Mr. Laden added an amendment number six that an as-built survey be completed by the applicant. Mr. Haden asked if that had not been addressed in condition number 2. Mr. Bengtson replied a survey would be required, but not an as-built survey. He stated it was staff’s intent to not have applicant prepare two surveys. However, if the Board wants an as-built survey, this could be added. Mr. Laden replied he wanted an as-built survey prepared by applicant. Mr. Pogalz accepted Mr. Laden’s am endment. Mr. Hayden concurred. Motion carried 5-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Temporary Signage Update Mr. Smyser noted the Board had been discus sing the temporary signage issue for some time. The goal was to prepare amendments to the existing sign ordinance. At the November meeting, the P&Z agreed on speci fic requirements for portable signs and banners. These would be incorporated into an ordinance amendment. Mr. Laden asked if they needed to add someth ing that the City had the right to remove a sign that did not have a permit. Mr. Smyser replied the owner of the sign would be cited and required to take it down, or else they would be taken to Court. Mr. Bengtson stated the requirement to have banners be professionally lettered should also be added as a condition. Mr. Laden asked what would be considered professional lettering. Mr. Bengtson stated they could require that ther e be no handwritten signs. Mr. Smyser stated they could look into this more. Mr. Laden stated a design artist could make a sign look hand lettered as a design element. Mr. Laden stated he felt as long as they paid a permit f ee and it was a limited time, the applicant could do the sign however they wanted. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Jan u ary 12 , 20 05 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty stated he like d the idea of having a sign pr ofessionally lettered. Mr. Haden agreed that they should state th e signs are professionally lettered. The Board decided to add profession ally lettering to the banners. Mr. Smyser states stringers were allowed at the present time, but they could be eliminated completely also, which was his preference. He indicated a definition should also be added. Mr. Hyden asked why staff did not like stringe rs. Mr. Smyser replied he believed they were unsightly, but he could see a business having them up for a couple of weeks when they were having their grand opening, but he did not like the idea of them being up for a long period of time. Mr. Hyden noted an applicant could only apply for the stringers, or a banner and not both and that a stringer could only ta ke up 32 square feet. Mr. Smyser replied what existed right now was not relevant and they needed to decide how they wanted this for the future. He stated if they were going to require pe rmits for the stringers, banners and stringers both would not be allowed and there would be a time limit for stringers also. However, they could also prohibit them. Mr. Pogalz noted if stringers were treated the same way as banners, he did not believe anyone would come in and apply for a stringer permit if they were only allowed to have one or the other, so he agr eed they should be prohibited. Mr. Root stated there might be a situation where the pennant had words on them, but he agreed it should be treated as a banner. Mr. Laden stated he believed there were appr opriate uses for pennants and did not think they should be part of the banners. Mr. Tralle noted typically pennants are used in car lots and model homes. Mr. Hayden stated pennants could be atta ched to the building also. Chair Rafferty stated he was in favor of pr ohibiting stringers because of the aesthetic look. Mr. Hayden asked what the defini tion of a pennant was. Mr. Laden stated a used car lo t was an appropriate use of pennants as long as they were properly maintained. Mr. Haden stated he viewed pennants as being used for a new business opening. He acknowledged model homes used them to bri ng the attention to the new homes and car lots used them to draw attent ion to their lots. He noted pennants should be kept under the 32 square foot rule and be limited to a number of days, but he did not believe they should be ruled out entirely. He believed it was an either or situation and both banners and pennants should not be allowed. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Jan u ary 12 , 20 05 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Tralle stated it was a tradition on a used car lot to have pennants and the pennants on the car lot by his home were very well maintained. Mr. Laden asked if they could grandfather in a business. Mr. Smyser replied a business could not be grandfathered in if a permit had not been originally pulled. Mr. Laden stated they could define this as a banner. Mr. Smyser replied staff would need to investigate the 32 foot rule because it woul d be difficult to measure a stringer as well as difficult to enforce. Mr. Root stated he believed a stringer was a banner and should be handled as a banner. Mr. Pogalz stated he did not believe a nyone would pull a permit for a stringer. Mr. Tralle asked how staff defined a “quarter”. Chair Rafferty stated he believed quarters should be based on a calendar year. Mr. Smyser replied that wa s how staff was defining it. Mr. Smyser stated window signs were the most difficult to regulate and it was his recommendation that window signs not be regu lated as long as they were inside the building. Mr. Laden asked if there were any regulati ons on flashing or neon window signs. He stated he was okay with neon si gns, but not flashing signs. He asked if they wanted to deal with this. He expressed concern about homes facing a retail area with flashing window signs. Mr. Smyser replied the current ordinance di d not allow flashing signs, but staff would investigate this further. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .