Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/09/2002 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, October 9, 2002 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers (Scheduled to be Televised on Ch. 16) AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 11, 2002 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. Raymond Chavez, 6207 Laurene Avenue, Minor Subdivision, Tanda Gretz B. Dennis Lipoff, 62XX Laurene Avenue, Site Plan Review, Tanda Gretz C. Jamie Brown, 442 Main Street, Variance, Tanda Gretz D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions, South of Main St. & North of Carl St. - Section 7, Preliminary Plat, Jeff Smyser, NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION — CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER MEETING VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. None VII. ADJOURN • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CAL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes P1 p.m., September 11, 2002. Chair Schaps requested a mom R silence families of September 11, 200 II. APPROVAL 0 The agenda III. APPROVAL gust 14, 2002 oard meeting to order at 6:37 brance of the victims and their Mr. Lyden made a M approve the minutes of the August 14, 2002, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning -` ` ' oning Board, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 3 -0 -1 (Corson abstained). IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:39 p.m. David McDonald, 790 Lois Lane, asked for clarification regarding plans he had for an addition that he wanted to put on. He presented a diagram of his proposed plans for the Board's review. He asked for the Board's suggestions and recommendations. Chair Schaps stated he has had conversations with Mr. McDonald and Mr. Smyser regarding the expansion of his business, and asked if Mr. McDonald changed the wall construction, would it still be considered a pole barn. Mr. Smyser replied before Mr. McDonald built onto this building, it was a pole barn and he told Mr. McDonald as long • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 2 as it did not fulfill the definition of a pole barn, there would be no problem. He stated as long as the building did not have metal skin and poles in the ground, the City would not view this as a pole barn. However, he would still be required to meet the other Code requirements. He indicated this expansion was a good idea, as long as it was not a pole barn construction. Mr. Lyden asked if the definition of a pole barn was the material that was used on the outside. Mr. Smyser replied that was one of the factors. Mr. Lyden pointed out the City should not have a problem with the metal roof, considering the City Hall had a metal roof. Chair Schaps asked if the building inspector could 1 pole barn. Mr. Smyser replied he had checked building inspector agreed that as long as ther building, it was not a pole barn. to determine if it was a ing inspector, and the s . d metal skin on the Mr. McDonald noted on the surveyor's map h s = d when he added the last addition on, it was noted that at some point the back of the building. Chair Schaps informed Mr. McDonald commercial site and building plan s intending on adding onto staff and submit a Mr. Lyden made a MOTION t , Y - Open X6:50 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0. V. ACTION ITE Severson, 82XX W. Rondeau Lake Rd., Minor Staff explained Ms. C d Mr. Severson are applying for a Minor Subdivision of approximately 32 acres o , zoned Rural, on the 82XX block of West Rondeau Lake Road. The applicant would like to create two lots: one lot of 21.69 acres and one lot of 10.43 acres. Staff presented its analysis by explaining the Certificate of Survey shows the proposed division of the 32 -acre parcel. Parcel A, 21.69 acres, contains 22 % upland. Parcel B, 10.43 acres, does not have upland delineated on the survey, but as aerial photos show the land to have been in agriculture (and now in pasture), meeting the 20% minimum upland requirement does not appear to be an issue. Staff explained the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is ten acres. Both of the two proposed lots will meet this requirement. Staff stated the minimum lot width for property in a Rural zone is 330 feet, and both lots meet this requirement. In addition, both lots will have full frontage on a road, as required • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 3 1.) under the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance, Section 1008.08, subdiv. 6, which states that "all lots shall abut for their full frontage on a publicly dedicated street." Staff noted all created lots are required to include drainage and utility easements. The applicant will need to dedicate drainage and utility easements to the City in accordance with Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance Section 1001.08, subdiv. 4. Such easements shall be five feet in width along side property lines, ten feet in width along front and rear property lines, and cover all ponding and wetland areas. In addition, street right -of -way dedication will be required according to the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance Section 1001.08, subdiv. 10. Staff stated it should be noted as a point of informat easement between the proposed parcels that sees a record ( "Parcel C ") that lies between the two This easement is not held by the City, but pre for Parcel C. ere is an existing 30 -foot way to an existing lot of eir southern boundary. Staff indicated Lino Lakes City Ordinance S located within a zoning district that carri minimum of 20% buildable /upland area requirement. Staff stated soils tests confirm th accommodating a septic syste In conclusion, sta Parcel A of 21. minimum lot staff woul ccess purposes .2.b states that parcels lot of 10 acres must have a oposed lots meet this e are oth the proposed parcels capable of enough or both primary and secondary sites. rop or Subdivision would result in two lots: B o acres. Both proposed lots would meet all lishe s der the Lino Lakes City Code. As a result, he Minor Subdivision with the following conditions: A park dedic the Minor Subdi 2.) The applicant shall e =' to the City drainage and utility easements measuring ten feet in width along the � ant and rear property lines, five feet in width along side property lines, and covering all ponding and wetland areas. Such dedication shall be in the form of a Quit Claim Deed, per the City attorney, to be submitted prior to the certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision. 3.) The applicant shall dedicate to the City a 33 -foot wide permanent public right -of -way adjacent to West Rondeau Lake Road. Such dedication shall be in the form of a Quit Claim Deed, per the City attorney, to be submitted prior to the certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision. to be paid prior to the certification and recording of Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Applicants did not make comments. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Laraine Cardarelli & Craig Severson, 82XX W. Rondeau Lake Rd., Minor Subdivision, subject to staff's recommendations and conditions as outlined in staff's report. • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 4 The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0. B. Michael & Laura Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck Trail, Variance Staff stated Michael and Laura Sullivan reside at 8065 Wood Duck Trail, a 2.89 acre lot that is zoned Rural. The Sullivans have applied for a Variance in order that they may locate a detached garage closer to the front lot line than the principle building. Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.1.c of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that "no detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal building or its attached garage. ff Staff noted the Sullivans home is sited 98 feet Trail is classed as a minor collector street, w od Duck Trail. Wood Duck qui ement of 40 feet. Staff indicated the property currently does not 12' X 16' shed located to the northwest of the Section 5, subdiv. 1.C.3, states "all dwellin Staff stated Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.1.c s closer to the front lot line than the prin garage on though there is a ino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, le garage." accessory structure shall be attached garage." Staff indicated Section 3, subdiv. .d all and up to two detached access ildings f Staff indicated to parallel with, or three reasons the house, distance. Sec- Thirdly, there is current shed locatio would be a typical locati ents, a ouse. , the sep septic tank well is to cate ,600 sq.ft. of accessory buildings, perty of this size and zone. detached garage would have to be This is problematic on this site for field located approximately 24 feet to the south of d southeast of the house approximately the same to the north of the house approximately 25 feet. e northwest of the house, directly in back of the se features act to preclude locating a garage in what to, or behind, the house. As a result, staff stated the applicant is asking to be allowed to site a garage in a location to the side of, but in front of, the house. Such a site would put the garage closer to the street than the house, and thus violate Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.1.c of the City Zoning Ordinance. Staff noted such a location, however, would meet the required 40 -foot setback requirement from Wood Duck Lane. In addition, such a location would allow for the construction of a double garage, which the site currently does not have, but is a building requirement for properties located in the Rural zone. Lastly, a 24' X 36' detached garage would be within the allowable size and number of accessory building allowed on a lot of this size and zone. Staff noted that at least one neighboring property contains a garage which is sited closer to the street (8025 Wood Duck Trail). • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 5 Staff stated the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that "in considering all requests for variance or appeal, and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Comment: the property as a whole may be put to reasonable use, but official controls preclude the construction of a garage (which is a requirement under the Zoning Ordinance) in the only workable location that is near the house. 2.) That the plight of the landowner is due to physical c'cumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner. Comment: The physical location of the septi siting a garage in a location which would sa Ordinance. Such a configuration of elements although this situation was — at least in part — ell • nd pond preclude Zoning ue to this property, revious) landowner. 3.) That the hardship is not due to economic for the property exists under the terms Comment: The demonstrated hard requirements of the Zoning Ordi but, rather, site driven. While property, such a hardship does the Zoning Ordina double garage. and when a reasonable use arage site that would satisfy the Suc = p` ip is not economically motivated hardshz allows for the reasonable use of the w the property to comply with the requirement of dwellings in a Rural zone should have a 4.) That granti that would b district. Comment: There is no driven. Other properties wi ` similar site constraints would also be valid candidates for a Variance such as this one. will not confer on the applicant any special privilege ce to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same rivilege involved but, rather, a need/hardship that is site- 5.) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that a double garage is a building requirement for property located in the Rural zone. Granting this Variance would allow the applicants to comply with this requirement. Staff noted this application for a Variance is driven by three site constraints: location of a septic system, well, and a pond. Each of these constraints prevent siting the proposed garage in a location next to, or behind, the house, in compliance with the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. As a result, staff feels there is a demonstrated need/hardship that is site -driven and quantifiable, and so justifiable. Staff would recommend approval of the proposed Variance with the following condition: • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 6 1.) The proposed garage be placed no closer than 62 feet from Wood Duck Trail. 2.) The 10 x 10 shed is to be removed. Mr. Lyden asked what was the number of accessory buildings. Ms. Gretz stated she believed it was two. Mr. Lyden stated when he drove out to the site, there were two sheds and asked if they were both owned by Mr. Sullivan. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck Trail, replied down once they got a dumpster for the cons b •n .� }�_ ®used arage. 10 shed that would be taken Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Sullivan agreed to a part of the conditions. Mr. Sullivan replied he Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to approve Trail, Variance subject to staff's reco report. 10x 113w o be removed as a that requirement. Ivan, 8065 Wood Duck conditions as outlined in staff's The motion was supported by Mr en. Motion carried 4 -0. C. Donald Linda bdivision & Variance Staff state Board. Afte additional info alternate configurati possible to achieve the m was prese i ation of msm t the August 14th meeting of the Planning & Zoning ues, members voted to table the application pending icant. Specifically, Mr. Lindahl was asked to present posed one -acre lot (Tract B), in hopes that it might be 330 feet of lot width/road frontage. Mr. Lindahl has presented two alternate configurations for consideration by members. Both proposals would meet the minimum lot width/road frontage requirement of 330 feet. However, as a result of meeting the width requirement, lot size then increases over the one -acre threshold. Since there are only 11 acres total to be used between the two proposed lots, such an increase in the size of proposed Tract B, then decreases the size of proposed Tract A under the 10 acres minimum requirement for property in a Rural zone. Staff indicated Don and Faith Lindahl own 11 acres of land, zoned Rural, at 855 Ash Street. The Lindahls have applied for a Minor Subdivision and Variance from the minimum lot width requirements in order to subdivided their property. Although the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is 10 acres, the Lindahls are seeking to create a 10 -acre and a one -acre parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the Lino Lakes City Code: • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 7 "Habitable single family homes constructed prior to July 13, 1992 may reduce their lot size to a minimum of one acre if the balance of the property results in a parcel of ten acres, or is serviced by public sewer, and it can be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the division will not result in ground water, soil or other contamination which may endanger the public health." Staff noted the Lindahls propose to live on the one -acre parcel containing the residence and outbuildings, and sell the remaining ten -acre parcel to their son. Staff stated tit should be noted that the existing 11 -acre parcel was created in 1997 as part of a minor subdivision of 58.76 acres. Minutes om the meetings of both the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Council note er subdivision of the 11- acre parcel, such as is now being proposed, was c that time. Minutes note that the applicant "had been advised that splittin ne cre. Elie homestead to provide an additional building site would probably n en ase." Staff presented its analysis by noting the Certi division of the 11 -acre parcel. Tract B, one outbuildings, of which .89 acres are upl the property, of which four acres are up shows the proposed indahl home and contains the balance of Staff indicated the minimum lot si ; oro 6 =" al zone is ten acres. The proposed newly created lot woul this - -s ' nt, with the balance of the property consisting of the one -acre par . llowed °,3 ection 3, subd.3.A.2.b.2. Staff noted the mi defined as "the building setb Subdivisio their full fro erty in a Rural zone is 330 feet. Lot width is e side lot line of a lot measured at the the front lot line." Additionally, the Lino Lakes .08, subdiv. 6, requires that "all lots shall abut for icated street." Staff stated Tract B as a result, the applican width, then, Tract B also do road. es not meet the minimum lot width requirement, and, g for a Variance. With less than the required 330' of lot not fulfill the requirement of having full frontage on a Staff noted Tract A is an irregularly shaped ( "C- shaped ") lot that does not meet the minimum lot width requirement in terms of contiguous road width and road frontage. Rather, the lot wraps around the one acre parcel, with 269 feet to the west of the one acre parcel and 188 feet to the east of the one acre parcel. Thus, although the proposed lot has 330' of width on a road, it is not contiguous width. Staff indicated Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd. 3.B.1.b requires parcels requiring a minimum of 10 acres or more to have a minimum of 20% upland area. Both parcels meet this requirement: the 10 -acre parcel has four acres of upland, although this upland exists as "islands" among wetland area, and the one acre parcel is almost entirely composed of upland. • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 8 Staff stated soils tests confirm that the proposed 10 -acre parcel is capable of accommodating a septic system. In addition, there is adequate room for both primary and secondary sites. The one -acre parcel already contains a septic system, with adequate room for a secondary site. Staff indicated the existing 11 -acre parcel contains a second driveway, not used by the Lindahls but existing on their property, that is the sole source of access for the neighboring property to the west, at 815 Ash Street. Without this driveway, the property at 815 would be landlocked, with no access out to Ash Street or any other road. The minor subdivision approved in 1997, which created the parcels at 815 and 855 Ash Street, required an easement agreement be drawn up for the driveway. This agreement was approved by the City attorney and recorded with An a County. In addition, as a further condition of approval, the driveway was approved b Chief Staff noted the driveway is currently used p the Lindahls have their own access drive. F would require shared use of this driveway, whi easement agreement states the easement is "fo Ash Street) and C (815 Ash Street)." Furthe unreasonably increase the burden of the can be amended only with the written c Staff stated the Lino Lakes Zonin variance or peal and in taking sub nts at 815 Ash Street, as acre parcel r may n ' #` e a legal issue: the e benefit of Tracts B (855 tates that "no party may sement." The agreement a "in considering all requests for ent ac ity shall make a finding of fact: 1.) That the property in qu conditions the of be put to a reasonable use if used under ntrols. been, % nd currently is, being put to reasonable use. g for a further intensification of use. 2.) That the p his property, ers is due to physical circumstances unique to the land owner. Comment: The lan ner is asking for a further subdivision of his land, which he was advised "would probably not be recommended" when he first purchased his property. 3.) That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: There is no hardship demonstrated or apparent; rather the proposed lots simply do not meet the minimum lot requirements for property in a Rural zone. 4.) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 9 • Comment: Granting a Variance without the demonstration of hardship or unique • circumstances would confer upon the applicant special privilege. 5.) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: The proposed action would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance, as Variances are to be granted only in cases where hardship /unique physical circumstances are present. Staff noted the proposed Minor Subdivision would result in two lots: Tract B would have a width of 155 feet, thus not meeting the minimum lot width requirement of 330' for property in a Rural zone, nor the requirement of full ,t-§ on a road; Tract A would have 330' of width and road frontage, but it would nog `.ntiguous width or frontage. Alternate configurations presented by the ap Amt � f inimum lot width/road frontage, but do not meet the minimum lot si +rmen` �' As a result, staff cannot recommend approval of the Minor Sub Staff noted as there are no hardship issues o property, staff cannot recommend approv. requirements. ces apparent on the the lot width Chair Schaps asked if they made erg bigg was that the only flaw. Ms. Gretz replied that was correct. Mr. Lyden stated the reason the development in th this property. because there inimum lot frontage was to have orderly lity was that this was the right way to develop o be development around this property de an a cemetery on the other side. Chair Schaps property. would likely be no development alongside of this Mr. Lyden stated in his the first option presented last month was the best option. Mr. Zych asked if there was a park dedication fee to be paid. Ms. Gretz replied the park dedication would be $1,685 and applicant was aware of this amount. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Don Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, stated he preferred to go back to his original plan with the one -acre. He stated that option worked the best for all of the buildings that was on the one -acre parcel. He indicated his second choice would be option 3. He stated he would want to record to reflect that the one parcel was not 10 acres so a future buyer would not have a problem obtaining a building permit. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Michael & Laura Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck Trail, with option number one as outlined in staff's report. • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 10 Mr. Lyden requested Mr. Lindahl obtain some written agreement with the neighbor regarding use of the driveway. Mr. Lindahl replied all of that land would be owned by Tract A, so it would be entirely owned by the new owner, and the new owner would be informed to work out the driveway easement with the neighbor and this requirement would be made at the time the land was transferred. He noted his neighbor was very agreeable to working with this situation. Ms. Gretz requested the following three conditions: 1. Park dedication fee to be paid 2. Standard drainage and utility easements 3. Right -of -Way as required by Anoka County. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -1 (Hyden). D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uh C L 's Century Farm 6th —10th Additions, South of Main St. & North of St. Chair Schaps reopened the public heari Staff stated the P & Z continued t ub`hc g " 's project at the August 14 meeting. There were a number o es to Staff noted major design issue access and roads, parkland, potential new air park lots, air park impa s <m�E� arl`s� development on surrounding lands. Staff indicate not allow t . pplicant staff to revie ed ne plans on Wednesday, September 4. This did analyze the new submittals. Staff stated roa connecting Carl St. issue, and it affects num ons are important design issues. The question of extensively at the August meeting. This is a major er aspects of the project and of this area of the City. Staff is asking the P & Z to consider the following information and then give staff direction on whether or not Carl St. should be connected. Based on that direction, staff will work with the applicant on the design of the plat. Staff stated the applicant hired a consultant to prepare a traffic study. The study was summarized at the August meeting. At that time, staff had not had the opportunity to review the traffic study. The City Engineer now has had the applicant's traffic study analyzed. That analysis is attached (TKDA memo from Steven Elmer, August 23). Note that several assumptions and conclusions in the study may not be universally accepted. Staff noted the majority of P & Z members voiced opposition to connecting Carl St. to the new development. At the same time, most P & Z members expressed support for new air park lots that would each accommodate a home and a hanger. • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 11 Staff indicated it would seem that the best way to incorporate new air park lots would be to design them to be part of the existing air park. If this is to occur, they should be connected to the existing air park lots along Carl St. If Carl St. does not connect, the new air park lots will be separated from the rest, which would seem to violate the concept of an air park "neighborhood ". Staff indicated therefore, if new air park lots are to be created with the Behm's plat, Carl St. should connect to the new plat. Staff stated existing air park lots on Carl St. are 373' deep, with widths ranging from 123' to 178' (1.1 acre to 1.5 acre). The hangers can be up to 3200 sf. The size of any new air park lots should accommodate the houses, hangers, • d taxiways. Staff noted one of the options presented by the road along the powerline easement to provid between 4th Ave. and Sunset Rd. At the Au likelihood of future opposition to this connecti neighborhood —the neighborhood that will be d Staff believes that the opposition that will oc road from being constructed. e �; pant is the future creation of a and a connection g, di" cf; eluded the sidents of w Behm's e plat under consideration. will " �� : 'y prevent the connecting Staff indicated there are physical desi easement is 90 feet wide. If a roa powerline easement will cover th houses will have to be setback driveways. The front yards wi not seem to be a v close as possibly` leas powerline e as well. The powerline ern edge of the easement, the t 90 ` ots fronting on the road. The 90 feet ut of the easement, with 90' gh voltage powerlines crossing them. This does d design. Even if the paved road is offset as feet of front yards will be under the Staff stated s developed, we h Lacking this, it is im road connecting the Be ch this hypothetical road is located is not being hows a road and plat layout that could be workable. ow the feasibility of developing the property with a elopment with 4th Ave. Staff noted the property on which this hypothetical road would be built is guided as a Stage 2 (post 2010) area. Because of this, it will not be allowed to develop for some time, if ever. In addition, the comprehensive plan clearly requires decreasing the amount of annual growth. There is no way to know when this property will be developed and the road will be built. Mr. Lyden stated his first point of concern was whether a road was 44 feet wide or 36 feet wide and noted that were would be a lot of pedestrians using the road. He stated he believed they would need to have a trail in this area also. Mr. Smyser replied they were proposing a 36 -foot wide road with a trail on the side, separated from the road. He pointed out if they were just doing it as a local road, they would need to go back and look at the design. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 12 John Johnson, Director of Engineering, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, 412 County Road D, Little Canada, asked they address the collector roads tonight only so they could move on with the design. He presented diagrams of the proposal for the Board's review and comment. Mr. Zych noted that emergency vehicle access was an issue that needed to be addressed. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Zych noted his concern was not just for emergency vehicles, but for public concern as well. Mr. Corson stated they would not be making any de Msions tonight, but would be giving direction. Chair Schaps asked what other options woul h . ., �` .: an east -west connection. Mr. Johnson replied there were no other opti Chair Schaps asked if he believed it was a goo neighborhoods. Mr. Johnson replied there neighborhood. He indicated there was n the south side because of a ditch. He s additional air park lots. He stated as f neighborhood to be connected, the to. e two air park and south air park e east and west lots on rs had asked they create ant for the air park e best ones to ask that question Bonnie Bigler, 346 Carl Street, what connected th connection. Mike Cires pointed out a was a good co supported his comm was, that was what he su air strip was the neighborhood and that was ad no problem having any other type of a e, agreed that the air strip was the community. He common interest formed a tight bond. He stated this d noted roads would not divide them. He stated he ere was a way to have Carl Street remain the way it Chair Schaps asked if it would drastically affect him, if it were extended. Mr. Cirese replied it would not affect him, but he could see his neighbor's point of view regarding traffic. Dave Ramsden, 302 Carl Street, stated he was against this proposal. He indicated he did not understand why emergency vehicle access came into play right now. He indicated he did not like the curving of the proposed road and expressed concern that the road would be too close to the ditch. Jim Obowa, representative of Lino Air Park, stated he had seen the plans and from the neighborhood's perspective, they would want the connector road to the north and not on Carl Street. • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 13 Chair Schaps asked if he understood the concerns about the emergency vehicle access. Mr. Obowa replied he did. Mr. Lyden stated he had not seen anything from the police department, fire department, etc. that there was a concern and requested seeing something in writing. Mr. Smyser replied they would follow -up and obtain a report. Mr. Zych noted that this was an opportunity to do this right and allow for sufficient emergency vehicle access. Chuck Kolstad, 296 Carl Street, expressed concern about the "jogging" of the proposed Carl Street. He noted an emergency vehicle would . t make this jog without considerably slowing down. He stated he did not w s in his front yard indicating the street curved to the right. He indicated an e cle could not make it any faster into the development by taking Carl be e off`® the oad. He stated he believed the City already had their mind made o Car w ®H ugh. He expressed concern about vehicles ending up in yard or '.ecause they could not make the turn. He stated most residents on ' = were opposed to this. He urged the Board to see his point of view as a ®omeo City. Tom Schmelzer, 398 Carl Street, suppo concern about dividing up the neighbo was unfortunate developments we concern for the safety of landing ft. on of Carl Street. He expressed ing Carl Street. He stated it main design. He expressed Glenn Martig, 376 Carl Street, Sunset should be was dangerous. pointed out an street were ith Mr. Kolstad that with two outlets going to ehicles and the proposed bends in Carl Street, they would be living on a cul -de -sac. He e new evelopment would know where the collector ad a cul -de -sac. Mr. Lyden made Planning & Zoning B ° g. tinue the Public Hearing to the October, 2002 The motion was supported :` Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Lyden requested public safety information regarding specifics. He requested the Air Park officers get together and come up with a list of what their concerns were. He stated they did not have the right to destroy a current neighborhood for the development of a new neighborhood. Chair Schaps agreed the Air Park needed to submit a letter and requested they address if the extension of the street in any fashion would affect their property, their neighborhood, etc. He invited anyone else in that neighborhood to also offer opinions in writing. He stated overall he had a concern about emergency vehicle access into the new development. He stated an alternative would be for Mr. Uhde to purchase the sod farm property, but there would still be challenges Mr. Uhde would need to work out. He noted • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2002 Page 14 sometimes the public safety of everyone became more important than one group of people. He believed Carl should be expanded. Mr. Corson stated he did not believe he had enough information on option B to know if he should agree with that one or not. He stated he agreed they needed a connection. Mr. Zych stated he wanted Carl Street to be connected. Mr. Hyden stated he believed they needed a connection. Linda Eckart, asked for clarification about the distance issue when they referred to safety. Chair Schaps stated future development would be wi the square she had described and stated they wanted a connection in the middle o s e to allow for emergency vehicle access. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS VII. Mr. Lyden asked under action item 5A there w be conveyed to the City and inquired as to h replied what the City was doing now was a property, the City required the deeds t by the County. ADJOURNMENT of easements that needed to complished. Mr. Smyser type onditions were placed on o the City before it got recorded Mr. Lyden made a MOTION t: the meeting at 8:16 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Moti Respectfully submitt Kathy Altman, Recordii TimeSaver Off Site Secretar • AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: October 9, 2002 TOPIC: Minor Subdivision for property located at 6207 Laurene Avenue Raymond & Beverly Chavez ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Mr. Raymond Chavez owns Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Arthur E. Thom Acres, which is located at the intersection of Laurene Avenue and White Pine Road. The property is approximately 2.5 acres in size and is zoned R -1 (Residential Single Family). Currently there is an existing home and two detached garages on the western part of the property, which is accessed via a driveway off Laurene Avenue. Mr. Chavez is applying for a Minor Subdivision of the property, which would result in two lots: Parcel A, containing the existing buildings, consisting of 2.18 acres, and Parcel B, consisting of .40 acres. Mr. Chavez then plans to sell Parcel B to Mr. Lipoff (see agenda item 5B). This report is based on the following attached exhibits: 1. General Location Map 2. Minor Subdivision Survey, for Raymond Chavez • • P & Z Meeting Chavez Minor Subdivision October 9, 2002 ANALYSIS Land Use & Zoning Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Low Density, Unsewered Residential R -1 (Residential Single Family) West Park " North Low Density, Unsewered Residential " East " °G South Low Density, Sewered Residential R -1X (Residential Single Family Executive) Although the property is guided Low Density, Unsewered Residential, there is City Sanitary sewer available on both Laurene Avenue and White Pine Road. The property is within the existing MUSA. Minimum Lot Requirements Size: the minimum lot size for sewered property in an R -1 zone is 10,800 square feet. Proposed Parcel B meets this requirement, being 17,370 sq.ft. in size. Parcel A, while 95,081 sq.ft. in size, is not sewered, and is thus a non - coforming lot. Width: the minimum lot width requirement for property in an R -1 zone is 80 feet for interior lots and 100 feet for corner lots. Both proposed lots will meet this requirement. Depth: the minimum lot depth requirement for property in an R -1 zone is 135 feet. Both parcels, having a depth of 174 feet, will meet this requirement Lot Combination: each of the proposed parcels will actually consist of two separate lots (Lot 1 & Lot 2), since Mr. Chavez owns both Lot 1 and Lot 2 and has not combined them into a single tax parcel with a single Property Identification Number (PIN). As a result, if approved, a lot combination form should be filed with Anoka County for both Parcel A and Parcel B. This will result in each parcel being identified as a single tax parcel with a single, unique PIN. Sanitary Sewer: Section 6, subdiv. 1.F states "no R -1 subdivision creating a lot less than ten acres shall be permitted in this district without public sanitary sewer and water." City sanitary sewer and water are available along both Laurene Avenue and White Pine Road. While any created lots would be serviced by such utilities, the existing home is not connected to either City sewer or water. It is the interpretation of the City that Section 6, • • P & Z Meeting Chavez Minor Subdivision October 9, 2002 subdiv. 1.F requires that all R -1 lots must be serviced by both services. As a result, the existing house would be required to connect to sewer and water as a condition of subdivision. To allow the parcel to be subdivided without connecting to City sewer and water would be to exacerbate, or increase, its non - conformity. Buildable Area Both lots meet the minimum buildable area requirement of 10,800 square feet. Easements There are no easements noted on the survey submitted by the applicant. The City will require the dedication of standard sized drainage and utility easements along all property boundaries. Additionally, as a point of information, there is a powerline that runs the length of the property along White Pine Road. This powerline is not identified with any easements, and is thus interpreted to exist within the road right -of -way. City Services /Septic Issues Parcel B will connect to City sanitary sewer and water, which is available via both Laurene Avenue and White Pine Road. Parcel A, however, is not currently connected to either City sanitary sewer or water. The City interprets Section 6, subdiv.1.F of the zoning ordinance to require all R -1 lots to be serviced with City sanitary sewer and water. As a result, the applicant would be required to connect to both services as a condition of subdivision. Access Issues The driveway for Parcel A (the existing home) is currently via Laurene Avenue, running across proposed Parcel B. As a result, if the minor subdivision is approved, the driveway for Parcel A will need to be relocated to access White Pine Road, rather than Laurene Avenue. CONCLUSION Staff would recommend approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Connect the existing home to City sanitary sewer and water, per Section 6, subdiv.1.F., prior to the recording of the Minor Subdivision with Anoka County. 2. Relocate the existing driveway for Parcel A to access White Pine Road, rather than Laurene Avenue. • • • P & Z Meeting Chavez Minor Subdivision October 9, 2002 3. Since both Parcel A and Parcel B will consist of two lots (Lot 1 & Lot 2), a lot combination form should be done for both properties so that each lot will then be identified by a single PIN and exist as a single tax parcel. 4. Dedication of standard drainage and utility easements to the City: measuring 10 feet in width along the front property lines and five feet in width along the side and rear property lines. 5. Payment of a park dedication fee of $1,665, to be paid prior to the certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision. OPTIONS 1.) Recommend approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision with conditions. 2.) Recommend denial of the proposed Minor Subdivision. 3.) Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #1 • 08. \ I F-I tn 8. EXHIBIT # 1 4,* Poe ijolAk 111203 111 WascallIteRNMENICAREMOIEVAlla MI 1111811111111 m AIMIT01111 A0110111 AIIIIIIIMINI 0111011101 401101111 3. Ill A Ole Eke /- I Mita . gilt IA ilti gr. 9: kre 0 `17.11114,1 a IIINAISIA '°00 41 Ea m,e ow mz:ul 2, 6 3 Mgr 4 >' 7 g la 18 MIMI 1E' dallethinulifienti 414 At, IIIMMIK11/9 f;m4EivbisElrinelMentlionligla V4it I =ma wip qw€114+ MI afttipzug ...17 WI` App 0*y .'o 1 > A 'tilaii ti Egypt ittik V diMEI a 0 2 3, sa :PD; Pit c'AL 30 D ' ANOKA COUNTY lI101IWAY RIG LAKE 21 20 19 18 17 16 9 14 • 6 041 5 2 I --- 6)1 a ir2 ty4 fitler513EICCE 7 60F 8 2 9 LAKE1 .L CIORMISEIG VPS Min f• iiU2080 A 1. 40 OITC NO. 25 R/W PLAT NO. 0 87 8 EMS LdIQ r 17 - — ASH ST. - - RATE L MFS OF FCITY OF Ur LACES COUNTY -STATE-DO-HIGHWAY-NO 32 - - Si49 P`'INC7 UvIEcN SURVEY FOR: RAYMOND CHA FEZ NOTES – N.G. VD. Vertical Datum – Topography Collected in Field by E.G. Rud & Sons on 09- 11 -02. -- Bearing's shown are on assumed datum. This survey was prepared without the benefit of titlework. Easements, appurtenances, and encumbrances may exist .in addition to those shown hereon. This survey is subject to revision upon receipt of a current title insurance commitment or attorney's -- — I.. l�a BENCHMARK: u as Iva – Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 31, Range 23, Anoka County: Elevation = 901`65 , GRAPHIC SCALE 50 D ]5 50 ,00. 2C.3 ( IN FEET 1 Inch = 60 ft. -, t- EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, ARTHUR E. THOM ACRES, Anoka County, Minnesota. C; V LEGEND: Denotes Denotes Denotes Denotes Denotes Denotes Denotes Denotes Iron Monument Set Iron Monument Found Fire Hydrant Power Pole Manhole Sewer Telephone Box Anoka County Monument Catch Basin The East 100 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, -- PROPOSED PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS: 1; I $o YY • Ids PARCEL At i NORTH That part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, ARTHUR E. THOM ACRES, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the East 100 feet thereof. Io PARCEL B: ▪ \ 181 v " 144 � ARTHUR El THOM ACRES, Denotes 2' Contour Interval Anoka County, Minnesota. Denotes Gate Valve [i Denotes Electrical Transformer Denotes Overhead Power Wire l_ I Denotes Bituminous Layer :::_:._j Denotes Gravel Drive Denotes Concrete Pad --" Denotes 12" Culvert X 92.34.'.;ti Denotes Existing Elevations F -- • U PARCEL AREAS: PARCEL Al 95,125 SQUARE FEET = 2.18 ACRES PARCEL B: 17,376 SQUARE FEET = 0.40 ACRES LINDA AVEV'E v VIl ♦ 54+'j1 90 30 . J4, "4 �pV 66 'l•'• 099f"- 699 Y3 31 099 -i� 45 • 500.!<• 54 b. 54,,,.45• op j8• 54p -05 95 Y1 ...;9„,. 7_1- 1te0 ^ ----1WW 0056 i9 i h 5. 0 .696a4 r 9y4.w .fie+ q6, 50 9744 099y5• j • `o "-t -' - - 100.0 -_ -- - col-r;90.9 _ ' - aale V5' 055" END 4' 111DG DITCH 5 94�' . " 44� .4 �4g4• .0054 .994 .0996 4,4,59 ,3ILAS.•847.31 .5018. .94,.60 .. ...�� �,:.: :.. v,2 051 ".... . � ............ 4• C9 .00 3Y 547331 a4,7' 90,.36 0003a »8r12.34" P }6 5p. 11 4795 v'" 00'10900p41 i . g44.39 c 907 3 95� '�"JodEa — - -�- ____ -}' -- _... $046 Via4 r 1 1 A 1 1 1 I, I.9' 1 1 F-4 I1 %l 1 1 1 • ♦ v 1 .♦ I ♦ A 1 / I � 1 1 K • % 1 , 944 5T /Y• • S,.c,le 1 "— 50' c•c " -t/ty that tr.: p/ n, survey or report vas prep red by me or under my s;I;:)&J*i r.31) and that / art) J dull Registered Lard Surveyor-under the laws 4%/- AII� = Dated this -- -day of , 2002. 1Jr Iv n NAA Project Manager: MMD Cob N o.: 02 • License No. III E..G.RUO 4 SONe LAND SURVEYORS 9180 LEXINGTON AVE. NO. OIRCL.0 PINE6, MINNESOTA TEL., '1ro0 -1 b -555 + Fast '16' • a # .LISIHXa N • • AGENDA ITEM 5B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: October 9, 2002 TOPIC: Site Plan Review for a Relocated Structure, To Be Located on the 62XX Block of Laurene Avenue ACTION REQUIRED: BACKGROUND Dennis Lipoff 3/5 vote Dennis Lipoff has applied for a Site Plan Review for the relocation of a single -story, 1,550 sq. ft. (62' X 25') house onto the proposed new lot of Mr. Chavez (agenda item 5A). The house is currently sited at 1475 Main Street in Centerville on land which has been purchased for development. The house currently exists with a tuck -under garage, but Mr. Lipoff plans to construct a new 23' X 33' attached garage, thus creating a rambler -style home. This review is based on the following attached exhibits: 1. General Location Map 2. Certificate of Survey, dated September 13, 2002 3. Proposed Floor Plan 4. Elevation 5. Elevation • • P & Z Meeting Lipoff Site Plan Review October 9, 2002 ANALYSIS Land Use & Zoning The following chart identifies the existing land use and zoning surrounding the proposed site: Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Low Density, Unsewered Residential R -1 (Residential Single Family) West Park " North Low Density, Unsewered Residential " East " " South Low Density, Sewered Residential R -1X (Residential Single Family Executive) Setbacks The following chart identifies the required setbacks for property located in an R -1 zone, as well as the proposed setbacks for the Lipoff house: R -1 Regulations Required Setbacks Proposed Setbacks From Street 40' (from a minor collector street) 40' Side Yard 10' principle building 5' accessory building Must meet minimums Rear Yard 30' principle building 5' accessory building Must meet minimums Lot Configuration The lot is a corner lot, which would allow for orienting the house to two possible streets. The Lino Lakes City Ordinance, however, defines lot frontage as "the narrowest lot boundary abutting a public street that meets minimum lot width requirements." Such a definition would thus designate the frontage along White Pine Road as the official, technical front lot line, rather than the frontage along Laurene Avenue. The applicant, however, proposes to orient the house and driveway toward Laurene Avenue. It should be noted that while such an orientation may change what is perceived as the "functioning, practical" frontages, such an orientation does not change, or supercede, what the frontages are defined as under City Ordinance. • • P & Z Meeting Lipoff Site Plan Review October 9, 2002 For example, the western lot line of the property would NOT be the rear yard lot line, but rather the side yard lot line. The following chart specifies the property boundary lines, as they are identified under the definitions within the Lino Lakes City Ordinance: Western Property Boundary Is Equal To: Side Yard Lot Line Northern Property Boundary Is Equal To: Rear Yard Lot Line Eastern Property Boundary Is Equal To: Side Yard Lot Line Southern Property Boundary Is Equal To: Front Yard Lot Line Access Access to the site will be via a driveway off Laurene Avenue, which is classed as a minor collector street under the Lino Lakes Transportation Plan. In addition, Section 3, subdiv. 5.C.8.f states that "no curb cut/driveway access shall be located less than 30 feet from the intersection of two or more street rights -of- way." Utilities City sanitary sewer and City water are available to the site, and the applicant will be servicing the site with both. Building The proposed 1,550 sq.ft. house is currently sited at 1475 Main Street (Co. Rd. 14) in Centerville, on property due to be developed. The house will be moved without the tuck - under garage. It is the intention of the applicant to relocate the structure, put a new roof on, build a new 23' X 33' attached double garage, and side both house and garage (to include an apron of brick or stone). Building official Pete Kluegel has inspected the house and found it to be structurally sound, estimating it to be approximately 40 years old. He notes that, in addition to the work the applicant plans to do, the house will need a new furnace in order to meet mechanical code, with the plumbing and heating to be upgraded. CONCLUSION As the proposed site plan appears to meet all requirements of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, staff would recommend approval of the Site Plan Review with the following conditions: 1. The necessary minor subdivision must be completed and recorded prior to moving the house onto the lot. 2. All necessary building permits must be pulled. • • • P & Z Meeting Lipoff Site Plan Review October 9, 2002 OPTIONS 1.) Recommend approval of the proposed Site Plan Review, with conditions. 2.) Recommend denial of the proposed Site Plan Review. 3.) Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #1. OR. EXHIBIT # / m 1 I■rimi Be em ri vorE■ ram. me 111111E0111111 1131IP 11 All NOV .. memo sme MIME morrow Eu tt om. a Mara Ammo eringai„,ILT , , WM vi4i, 4 A■rim : intliEffilifiltimilli innifrattil; "z ,NERIb 4AINSIEjem"1111111111 i ritus MIN SI° am! 57411411 amirimom wath 8 „ 3i21 DITC NO. 25 20 18 19 21 17 - - ASH ST. - R/W PLAT NO. 98. CORP9RATE L MrS OF CITY OF Lls10 LACES COUNTY -STATE -.AK)=.1_LIGIAWAY -NO 32 - CERTIFICATE OF SURA �OR: DENNIS LIPOFF GRAPHIC SCALE o .nw NORTH X 9234.56 �f02 ( IN FEET 1 inch = 50 LEGE\D: ft.. EXHIBIT # �- 90100 900'900 8 . rg00 38 .1.900.97 9 0 1 . 2 5 0 0 . 8 S89°09'07" E900: 100.0Q 9oA�9p0 7 0.65 1 1 ` \-- -159T7 4400:0103e, ---a- - . Sp g01 0 - InI yp1. pp. _ __ _ a9---- --` .MJJ�. :s' 90051 ,Sg9.2 -1;.-4113. : _— .__ 100.0 - — �I — — cis. ,c,-4 43 W ..0) ® o0.0 O + M gp084r 22.17Qi r •.•1.i6 ",g 90031„ T4 1 � � ! i_::: - Pro s 66 P = 9pp 72 ^ 2 ppC0A L ' `° "'° 90 Al° g2 - -i 1---.. ,- n�.1'. 133 P 8g8 'tea • v :.0 -15 W Q 0 jn Oa 2 o r 'l- 899 57 +V .'•400.3 O .."'PARCEL �® 5.;•90011 ` 1,p0•54 0 +x'36 p� 01' z W Denotes Iron Monument Set Denotes Fire Hydrant Denotes Power Pole Denotes Manhole Sewer Denotes 2' Contour Interval Denotes Gate Valve Denotes Overhead Power Wire Denotes Existing Elevations Denotes Proposed Elevations Denotes Direction of Drainage Denotes Wood Hub / Metal Spike at 11 foot offset 1.k0 w '43'�i W 923 co CL 53 �0.5 ^ ID o' 2 I o Q 01• ..`10094 10 900.88 ` i 5. ' I !_30.5C_\. -9°151 1 �I� ?ER`N839°130 1" W ; 2 M ,' 6 ph w -- r.:o M .-.41,., 900 9f:5 ' ., 00018 Q_ 29033 9o, , -- p1.4 A 12 90 90 9 3� 52. ., g0 #19Ap8 DIAGI0NAL: 116.67 X 25.33 = 119.39 12 COURSE LOOKOUT" (DROP 2 COURSES) PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: GARAGE FLOOR = 904.8 TOP OF BLOCK = 906.6 LOWEST FLOOR = 898.5 TOP OF FOOTING = 898.2 LOWEST OPENING = 901.7 it 90,.34 The East 100 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, ARTHUR E. THOM ACRES, Anoka County, Minnesota Scale 1"= 50' I • Denotes Iron Monument 1 Bearing Datum: Assumed Job •reby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. E. G. U ' = -ONS, INC. Dated this /3":"-day of see/cMbe.- 2002 to License No. w-r78 No. 02560BS JDrwg By NAA E. G. RUC 4 SONS, INC LAND SURvE'rORS 9ISO LEXINGTON AvE. NO. CIRCLE PINES, MINNESOTA 55014 -3625 7.1 '163- 1845-555b Pax 763- 186- bm9'1 L1 -2,B1 0 0 8'8 4'6 i, 2'4 9'10 1'2{, 254 22'2 EXHIBIT # 3 • • m m EXHIBIT It • • • Iii 1■ EXHIBIT # L • • • AGENDA ITEM 5C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: October 9, 2002 TOPIC: Variance from the prohibition of accessory buildings with metal corrugated siding or roofs, for property located at 442 Main Street (zoned Rural, between 1 -1/4 acres to 2 -1/2 acres in size) Jamie Brown ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Mr. Jamie Brown has applied for a Variance for property located at 442 Main Street, which is zoned Rural and is 2.1 acres in size. Mr.Brown is asking for a Variance from the Lino Lakes Ordinance requirement (Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.8.e.5) which states that "no metal corrugated siding or roof, except upon tool sheds less than 150 square feet in area" are allowed on accessory buildings. Mr. Brown constructed an approximately 36' X 24' (864 sq.ft.) metal accessory building without pulling a building permit. As a result, building official were not given the chance to review plans and inform Mr. Brown that the building was prohibited for property of his size and zone. Building official Peter Kluegel noticed the building while out on routine inspection, and notified me of the situation. Pete and I had an initial conversation with Mr. Brown when he stopped by City Hall to discuss the matter. That conversation was followed by several letters over a period of approximately 3 months, culminating in the matter being handed over to the City • • P & Z Meeting Brown Variance October 9, 2002 Attorney on July 29, 2002, for resolution. Mr. Brown then contacted City Attorney Bill Hawkins and myself, asking that prosecution of the violation be postponed until he was allowed to apply for a variance. This report is based on the following attached exhibits: 1. General Location Map. 2. Map of Site (blow up from '/2 sections). 3. Narrative From Applicant. 4 -9. Correspondence With Applicant. ANALYSIS Land Use & Zoning The following chart describes the land use and zoning for the subject site and surrounding area: Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural West Low Density, Sewered Residential Rural North GL Rural East Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural South LL Rural Accessory Building Requirements The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.8.e.5, prohibits the construction of any accessory building over 150 sq.ft. if it is sided or roofed with corrugated metal, on a lot of this size. The building constructed by Mr. Brown measures approximately 36' X 24', or 864 sq.ft. in area. Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.8.e.1 -2 also limits the total accessory square footage for the subject property to a total of 2,020 sq.ft. and the total number of accessory buildings to one attached garage and two detached accessory buildings. Mr. Brown currently has three accessory buildings: one attached 576 sq.ft. garage (24' X 24'); one detached 144 sq.ft. accessory building (12' X 12'); the 864 sq.ft. metal accessory building (36' X 24'). • The total accessory building square footage allowed for Mr. Brown's property is 2,020 square feet. The three existing accessory buildings total 1,584 square feet. • • • P & Z Meeting Brown Variance October 9, 2002 CONCLUSION The subject building is a metal building, sided and roofed with a corrugated metal, which is prohibited under City ordinance for a property of this size and zone. Further, the building was constructed without application of a building permit, thus never giving staff the chance for review and subsequent notification to the applicant that such a building was prohibited. OPTIONS 1.) Recommend approval of the proposed Variance. 2.) Recommend denial of the proposed Variance. 3.) Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #2. EXHIBIT # 1 i 11441 �� Di MIL 1 ft. , ,_ AIMMINIIV Eimrai;E*Ar-Tin■la M® P/ jl �. � II EllMisu lijr‘ Mgr M b 1 g 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 L s 2 idiot El 6 f a 5 ■(,.fit _ __ TilliF ._RiI 3 iE :�• Isi � • E SCH OLD 6 ���� �.��% 11---- - -��-- - - -� ' Of iVAX pb*NHMBEft-33-T-- grirmiwav Erearamirlf !a _.. �� s ; 3 ©� TWIL ' T 1 I P El �pO ®O ©'o�e����� /off. ?o ?Q �e��� pe BIStfilargE 7 5 ®���� ©�'C ..._. IMII III 1111011111 �rur a glil ©i �p aim Ow mien p .44 I=1fi" OA; ° LA i °■■ � I J ■ 3 R NWOOD N c:� 5 d� ©;,o ooh 6 • 9 10 IIA i 1 U© NORTH 2 L 1.0 5 3 A 4 K 12 36 5 E 7 6 7 7' 7 6 ST_ 0. L.6 0ILAKES , 8 a KEIT PLAC 5 7 ` 8 1 6.. L00R, 1 EXHIBIT # 2-. EXHIBIT # 3 • 72 /th 2' POLE__. 5wEb L f,01l-4, /i Dr,c,iL)ti OL-t $,H tD t t)H LWAs �a x. /a2' 7'1./ q/-f _E. LEAN To s an/ /t mPRa UE i l PPER t. P o 'E- i y , Jo r P O Nv A Peal - 31-b t; (,J KC- 5'ioFfgG - ,4'J DUT Doc) g v E- JUb 7"/ c !"r7,9 /V y P (:) r !FS on) 1Y) / 5 �6, E r -r N A r i_oo k m VCH L- o%sE, 6J YY? NE/- 2 c- A N '-r tq fPc) i� /9 LA) C, V L..1: 1-10P4' % D Se- ) 3LE.. 7e) /N 7 • xT 5 -rc, X L 4J 5 '1 0 U' / f,i'Jb Oa Am!' lia9 -4s August 27, 2002 Jamie Brown 442 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Application for a Variance Dear Mr. Brown: EXIT # Enclosed please find a Land Use Application form, which will be used to process the requested Variance. This application form should be returned to me by September 9, 2002, per our agreement by phone today. Please also: • Sign & date the Land Use Application form on the back • Submit a check, made out to the City of Lino Lakes, for $250 • Submit a general sketch of the site/buildings, if possible (if you want, you can also include a narrative explaining to Council members why you believe you should be granted the Variance) I have contacted City attorney Bill Hawkins and asked him to delay his prosecution of the Ordinance violation until you have had a chance to apply for this Variance. Please give me a call with any questions you may have. Respectfully, Tanda Gretz Associate Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651 -982 -2400 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 ° TDD: 651 -982 -2410 • • LAW OFFS OF William G. Etawkins and Associates WILLIAM G. HAWKINS BARRY A. SULLIVAN August 5, 2002 Mr. Jamie Brown 442 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Legal Assistants TAMMI J. UVEGES HOLLY G. PROVO EXHIBIT # ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE (763) 427 -8877 FAx (763) 421-4213 E -MAIL HAWKLAWi@aol.com Dear Mr. Brown: am writing as the Lino Lakes City Attorney concerning information I have received from the Lino Lakes Associate Planner that you have failed to comply with the City's request to remove or bring the accessory building on your property into compliance under City Ordinance. This letter is to advise you that, unless you bring your property into compliance with the City's ordinance within ten (10) days from the date of this letter, I will commence criminal prosecution against you. Upon conviction, you face a maximum penalty of a $ 1,000.00 fine or 90 days in jail, or both. Please contact the City Associate Planner, Tanda Gretz, if you feel you have complied with this ordinance. William G. Hawkins Lino Lakes City Attorney WGH /hgp cc: Tanda Gretz July 29, 2002 Bill Hawkins 2140 -4t Avenue N. Anoka, MN 55303 Re: Prosecution of Zoning Violation Dear Mr. Hawkins: EXHIBIT # (p I am forwarding to you a zoning violation offense which the City of Lino Lakes would like prosecuted. Please find enclosed all correspondence, as well as a copy of the pertinent excerpt from the City Zoning Ordinance. Briefly: Mr. Jamie Brown resides at 442 Main Street, an approximately 2.5 acre parcel located in the Rural zoning district. Mr. Brown constructed an approximately 24' X 24' metal accessory building, for which he did not pull a building permit. As a result, building officials were never given the opportunity to review the building and inform Mr. Brown that the building was in violation of Section 3, subd.4.D.8. which states "no metal corrugated siding or roof, except upon tool shed less than quare feet in area." Repeated letters have not brought resolution to this matter, and as a result we are forwarding it on to you for prosecution. Please let me know if you need anything else from me in order to proceed with this matter. Sincerely, 542Th Tanda Gretz Associate Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Phone: b51- 982 -2400 a Fax: 651 -982 -2499 o TDD: 651 - 982 -2410 July 19, 2002 Jamie Brown 442 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Non - Conforming Pole Barn Dear Mr. Brown: EXHIBIT # 7 The City received a Land Use application for a Variance for the non - conforming pole barn/shed which was constructed on your property. The application is incomplete, however, as the City received no application fee ($250). In addition, a narrative and sketch of some kind are also usually submitted (I believe this was explained in the application materials sent to you in April). As a result, staff are unable to proceed with processing the application until all required materials have been submitted. I would like to take this opportunity to again reiterate that it is certainly your option as a property owner to apply for a Variance. As a staff person dealing with land use issues, however, I must continue to advise you that such a request for this particular situation/reason cannot be supported by staff. Variances, under City Ordinance, are to be granted only in cases of hardship which are induced by, or uniquely tied to, the property itself. Asking for a Variance so that a non - conforming structure can continue to be utilized — particularly when building permits were not pulled for it construction — is not a demonstration of hardship that staff could in any way support under City Ordinance. Although I am sure it is not your solution of choice, it would be my advice to you to either bring the building into compliance or take it down. Respectfully, Tanda Gretz Associate Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Phone: 651 -982 -2400 o Fax: 651 -982 -2499 ° TDD: 651 - 982 -2410 June 4, 2002 Mr. Jamie Brown 442 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Non - conforming accessory structure (pole building) Dear Mr. Brown: EXHIBIT # 8 I have been informed by Pete Klugel, Building Official for the City of Lino Lakes, that the non - conforming accessory building we have previously spoke and corresponded about remains on the above referenced property. Please recall that the building was constructed without a building permit, and so City building officials were never given the opportunity to review the structure and advise that it does not meet City Ordinance. As a result, a non - conforming structure was erected and City staff are now put in the position of enforcing the City Ordinance after the fact. City and staff are obligated to enforce City Ordinance; issues that staff are not able to resolve are forwarded to the City Attorney. I would request that you take action on this issue in the next two weeks, and move to resolve this issue. Please recall from a previous letter that staff can see only three alternatives available in a situation such as this: 1.) Remove the structure. 2.) Bring the structure into compliance. 3.) Apply for a Variance to allow the structure to continue (application materials were sent to you previously, per your request). Please do contact either Pete Klugel at 651.982.2460, or myself at 651.982.2426, sometime in the next two weeks to let us know how you plan to resolve this issue. After this time, this issue will be forwarded to the City Attorney. Respectfully, Tanda Gretz Associate Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651 -982 -2400 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499 • TDD: 651 - 982 -2410 04.16.02 Mr. Jamie Brown 442 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Dear Mr. Brown EXHIBIT # I am just following up on our conversation regarding the non - conforming accessory building located on the property located at 442 Main Street. For a property of this size, City Ordinance does not allow for accessory structures constructed with metal corrugated siding or roofs (Sec.3, subd.4.D.8. Due to the fact that no building permit was pulled on the structure, City building officials had no opportunity to review plans for the proposed structure. As a result, a non- conforming structure was erected, and City staff are now put in the position of enforcing the City Ordinance after the fact. As we discussed previously, staff can see only three alternatives available in a situation such as this. 1.) Remove the structure. 2.) Bring the structure into compliance with City Ordinance (this would involve siding and roofing the structure with something other than metal/corrugated siding; a building permit should be pulled on such work). 3.) Applying for a Variance (fees are $250 and the application would be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Council). Please do contact either Pete Klugel at 651.982.2460, or myself at 651.982.2426, sometime in the next ten days to let us know what your intentions are. Respectfully, Tanda Gretz Associate Planner. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651 - 982 -2400 ® Fax: 651 -982 -2499 a TDD: 651 - 982 -2410 • AGENDA ITEM V. D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: October 9, 2002 TOPIC: CONTINUTED PUBLIC HEARING: Behm's Century Farms 6th & 7th Addns. BACKGROUND The P & Z continued the public hearing on this project at the September 11 meeting. Staff met with the project applicant's team, who are preparing updated plans. A complete set of plans will be submitted soon. There is no additional information available for now. Since the P & Z specifically continued the hearing to tonight's meeting, we need to open the hearing and continue it again to the November meeting. RECOMMENDATION Re -open public hearing. Continue public hearing to November meeting. •