Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/2003 P&Z MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONI NG BOARD MINUTES I.CALL TO ORDE R AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:38 p.m., October 8, 2003. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 10, 2003 Mr. Tralle made a MOTION approve the September 10, 2003 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carrie d 3-0-1 (Ms. Lane abstained). IV.OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared Open Mike open at 6:36 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:37 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0. V.ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, Gerald Schultz, Lakeview Estates, SE corner of Elm Street & Lakeview Drive, Preliminary Plat and Variances Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. DATE: October 8, 2003 TIME STARTED: 6:38 P.M. TIME ENDED: 7:52 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyden, Lane, Schaps, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT: Lyden and Rafferty. STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Smyser; Tanda Gretz Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2003 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated applicant had reque sted approval of the Lakeview Estates Plat. He noted this projected involved redevelopm ent of an existing residential lot in the Lexington Park Lakeview neighborhood. He stated the pr oposed plat would subdivide applicant’s existing lot to create two additional house lo ts. The existing homes would remain on the a lot of its own, with the result be ing three lots instead of one. Staff was recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. All three lots in the plat must conn ect to City water and sanitary sewer 2. The existing well shall be capped if requ ired by Minnesota Department of Health requirements. 3. To minimize conflicts with existing street intersections, the driveway on Lot 3 shall be as far west as possible. 4. If a shared driveway option is not utilized, a new driveway must be built for Lot 1 that meets the setback requirements. 5. Park dedication of $3,330.00 shall be paid. Chair Schaps invited the public to make comment. There was no one from the public who made comment. Chair Schaps asked if staff had received a ny objections from the neighbors regarding this proposed plat. Mr. Smyser replied he had not received any comments from the neighbors. Mr. Corson asked staff to look into the se tback issue prior to this going to Council. Mr. Tralle asked if the existi ng garage and shed would be removed and if the driveways would be shared. Mr. Smyser replied they had not resolved the driveway issue at this time, but applicants were agreeable to removing or moving the shed and garage. Mr. Tralle asked if the existi ng septic system would be removed. Mr. Smyser replied the existing septic system would be abandone d and they would be required to hook up to City water and sewer. He noted the well coul d still be used for irrigation purposes, but it not be allowed to be hooked up to the house. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approving Gerald Schultz, Lakeview Estates, SE corner of Elm Street & Lakevi ew Drive., Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s October 8, 2003 report and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approving Gerald Schultz, Lakeview Estates, SE corner of Elm Street and Lakeview Drive Variances subject to th e conditions as noted in staff’s October 8, 2003 report and was s upported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0. Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2003 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES B.Joseph Kivel, 6262 Otter Lake Road, Variances Staff stated applicant was requesting a varian ce for a detached garage on his property. She noted the property contained an existing older home, but no garage. The garage that used to belong to the home now existed on th e property to the north, which was split off from what is now known as the Kivel property back in 1979. Staff recommended denying the variance, as it would effectively increase public costs for future road improvement projects, as Anoka County had stated Otter Lake Road improvements would require a 60-foot right-o f-way and because it placed an accessory structure too close to the road right-of-wa y, as it offered absolutely no setback from a major collector roadway. Chair Schaps asked if other options had been explored with applicant. Ms. Gretz replied she had not explored other options, but she was confident applican t had explored other areas on his property. Mr. Tralle stated he had looked at the pr operty and there was no other place to put the garage, unless he moved it forward within five feet of the house. Ms. Gretz noted they could move the garage out of Anoka County’s right-of-way, but ther e was still a 40 feet difference with respect to the Ordinance. Ms. Gretz acknowledged there wa s a hardship with this request, but the home was so close to the road, there were not any opti ons for a garage, even though the Ordinance required a two-car garage. She noted there was a possibly of othe r options, but those options were expensive and pr oblematic in themselves. Mr. Corson asked if there were any possibili ty of City sewer and water being extended into this area in the near future, so the se ptic system would not be needed. Mr. Smyser replied he did not believe it would occur by 2010 and he be lieved this was a long-term growth area where utilities would not be extended for some time. Mr. Smyser pointed out that the applicant had created this problem because they split the lot and disconnected the garage from the lo t where the home was located. He indicated while Anoka County had not committed to widening the road in anytime in the near future, it would eventually be widened and th e garage would need to be removed at that time. He noted this was an expensive proposition. Mr. Joe Kivel, applicant, stated when he di d his septic system, this was the only place where the engineer would allow it to go. He i ndicated he did not spl it the lot; it was split over 20 years ago and he was not the owner of the property 20 years ago. He stated he believed he could get the garage within the 60-foot setback and he would be willing to obtain a survey to show that this was possible. Mr. Tralle asked if applicant would be willing to move the garage up and connect it to the house. Mr. Kivel replied he would be willing to do that if they could work it out with the County where the setback line was. He indicat ed he could move the garage back to meet the setback of 60 feet. Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2003 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Gretz replied the 60 feet was not a setback requirement, it was a right-of-way requirement. She noted if they moved the gara ge back and/or attached it to the home, it would solve the Anoka County issue, but it di d not solve the City issue. She indicated even moving that garage back, she believed when Anoka County took the extra ten feet, applicant would be right on the propert y line and would have no setback. Mr. Tralle stated if applicant attached the ga rage to the home, then he would not need a variance. Ms. Gretz replied that was correct, but it was still not possible for him to get a 40 foot setback from the road. Mr. Tralle suggested Mr. Kivel obtain a survey and come back to the Board. Mr. Hyden noted there was still the issue that this was a larg e variance and they had to be conscious about setting a precedence. Mr. Tralle stated he believed they needed to look at each individual property and that was the reason for variances. Mr. Kivel pointed out the ci rcumstance he had was very unique and this was the only place he could put the garage on the propert y. He stated he did not believe other residents would have this type of a unique circumstance. Mr. Hyden pointed out sometimes th ere was no solution to an issue. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Kivel would be willing to put in a 12-foot wide garage, to make a longer garage. Mr. Kivel replied that was a possibility, but that would not solve the 40-foot setback issue. Chair Schaps stated his concern was that Anoka County would in the future say the garage was in the way and the homeowner w ould come back to the City. Mr. Kivel stated this was a very unique situation and that was the reason he was asking for a variance. Ms. Lane suggested applicant talk to his ne ighbor to the north to see if they would be willing to sell a portion of his land, or swap land, in order for Mr. Kivel to build his garage. Mr. Smyser stated the issue was that they di d not have accurate in formation at this time regarding the setback. Chair Schaps asked if they should table this until next month to allow Mr. Kivel time to investigate if he could purchas e or swap land from the neighbor to the north and for staff to obtain further informa tion regarding the setback. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to table this item until next months meeting and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0. Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2003 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Temporary Signs/Banners Staff stated they were seeking direction fr om the P&Z Board on how to address the issue to banners and other types of temporary signs . He noted staff would then take those recommendations and prepare an ordinance for a future public meeting. Mr. Hyden stated he wanted signs only a ttached to the building for one month and not permanently affixed to the build ing or ground. Mr. Corson agreed. Mr. Tralle stated he did not want to s ee any banners or temporary signs allowed. Ms. Lane stated she wanted banners/tempor ary signs only attached to building, for one month with limitations (i.e. she did not want to see a different sign being placed on the same building every month year round). Chair Schaps stated he agreed with Mr. Hyden and Mr. Corson and somewhat with Ms. Lane. Mr. Tralle stated he objected to banners be ing attached to nice, brick buildings. He indicated he wanted a definite place on a building where signs and banners would be placed and the signs only be placed on a building for a maximum amount of time, such as one month. Mr. Hyden pointed out it was important for a new business to advertise they were open for business and it was not up to the City to say were those signs should be placed. Ms. Lane stated she personally did not have an issue with the “yellow stand alone signs” that were placed within the setback to adve rtise specials, or the scrolling reading board signs. Ms. Smyser asked if they should restrict th e size of the temporary signs and banners. Chair Schaps stated he would like to hear from the people/businesses owners who used and/or wanted these temporary signs/banners and suggested they continue this until next month. Mr. Corson stated they would need to invite the bar owners and gas station owners in particular. Mr. Tralle stated he also wanted the banks to be invited. He noted if The Village application came in for November, he woul d prefer this not be heard next month. B.Fabric Accessory Structures Staff stated a number of residents were constructing temporary fabric structures, primarily for the storage of vehicles. He in dicated staff was seeking direction from the Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2003 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Planning and Zoning Board as to adding language to the zoni ng ordinance to address this type of structure. He noted staff would th en take those recommendations and prepare an Ordinance for a future public meeting. Chair Schaps requested this be continued until Board members Rafferty and Lyden were present. VII.ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:52 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .