Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/08/1996 P&Z Minutes• PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT ALSO PRESENT : May 8, 1996 : 6:30 p.m. : 9:10 p.m. : Dahl, Dunn, Gelbmann, Herr, Johnson, Robinson, Schaps : None : Planning Coordinator Wyland, Planning Consultant Kirmis, Economic Development Director Wessel I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., May 8, 1996. He welcomed new members, Caroline Dahl and Donald Dunn and congratulated Mr. Robinson on being reappointed another term. All members were present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the April 10, 1996 meeting as submitted and was supported by Herr. Motion carried 7 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: There were no changes. IV. OPEN MIKE: Chair Schaps declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:31 p.m. Mr. Ronald Rick, 7080 Sunset Avenue, stated that he has been a homeowner at this location for 10 years and would like to apply to build a tool shed on his property for storage purposes. The design is a 12' x 24' metal construction which the City does not allow. However, a wood building would be twice the cost of his proposal. The type of structure, which is classified as a pole barn, is not allowed on lots less than five acres. He needs the additional accessory building because there is no basement in the house and storage in the garage is crowded. Mr. Rick distributed pictures and design plans to Board Members showing the metal he had selected, which would be under warranty for 40 years. The structure would be built by a professional builder and would match the existing home which is vinyl. Colors would also match. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Schaps asked if the garage would be attached or detached. Mr. Rick answered that it would be detached. Planning Coordinator Wyland stated that the accessory building ordinance stipulates that pole barn structures are only allowed on parcels of five acres or larger. Because this lot is not five acres, the type of structure Mr. Rick has requested is not permitted. Secondly, any accessory structure would have to be of a wood frame and roof, as metal is prohibited. The metal siding is not a problem, but the metal roof and pole barn type of structure is not permitted. Ms. Wyland further stated that the project does not meet criteria for a variance because Mr. Rick's hardship is not related to the land parcel. Although the accessory structure ordinance is currently under review, no recommendation is being made to allow pole barns on smaller parcels than five acres. Mr. Schaps asked when the house was built. Mr. Rick stated that the house was built in the late 1940's with a later addition. The present garage was built in the early 1980's, and has a wood frame. Mr. Dunn asked the size of Mr. Rick's lot. Mr. Rick stated that it is approximately 8/10 of an acre. It is located on the corner of Fairmont and Sunset. Mr. Dunn asked if there are neighbors nearby that would be affected. Mr. Rick stated that his driveway fronts on Sunset. There are no neighbors close to the location of the buildings. The proposed structure would be in the middle of his property. Mr. Johnson asked if all metal buildings are defined as pole barns. Ms. Wyland stated that it is not the siding of the building that determines classification as a pole barn but the type of construction. The only zoning districts that allow pole barns are rural properties over 5 acres, commercial, industrial and semi - public by Conditional Use Permit only. Mr. Johnson asked if the size of the proposed building is in compliance with the code. Ms. Wyland responded that size is not the issue. The problem is the type of construction. Chair Schaps explained that to the extent that proposals do not comply with City ordinances, the Board has taken the position for the last several years not to grant 2 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 variances unless there is a good reason. Financial consideration is not always a sufficient reason. In this situation, he believes that with creative effort and continued work with staff Mr. Rick can resolve the issues and bring the proposal into compliance with City ordinances. As it stands, he would not be able to vote for it. Rick Gelbmann made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:45 p.m. and was supported by William Johnson. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. ACTION ITEMS: A. Hal Leibel, 7566 Peltier Lake Drive, Minor Subdivision Ms. Wyland reported that Mr. Hal Leibel is seeking to split a 2.36 acre parcel from a 125.4 acre parcel located at 7566 Peltier Lake Drive. Ordinance 93 -18 allows a habitable single family homes constructed prior to July 13, 1992 may reduce their lot size to a minimum of one (1) parcel if the balance of the property results in a parcel of ten (10) acres. There is an existing home on the property. Staff has recommended approval with a waiver of the park dedication request. Chair Schaps noted that it is the Board's practice to waive a park dedication, if there is an existing home on the split off portion of a landsplit. Mr. Johnson asked if a park dedication would be required if a house were built on the remainder of the property. Ms. Wyland stated that a park dedication can only be collected when the property is further subdivided. Mr. Dunn asked if, under the ordinance approved in 1993, the smaller piece of property would have to be a 10 -acre parcel in order to be further subdivided. Ms. Wyland explained that if the balance of the property is 10 acres or less, it cannot be further subdivided unless sewer and water services are available. If the smaller property were further subdivided after sewer and water services are available, it would not have to be as large as 10 acres. Mr. Leibel stated that he has no intention of subdividing the property further until sewer and water are available. The main reason for subdividing the property is because he owns one -half of the undivided portion. The home is his, and he would like to isolate it from the balance of the acreage. The ordinance requires a minimum of one acre, and this proposal is 2.3 acres. William Johnson made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision to split 2.36 acres from the remaining 124 acres and waive the park dedication requirement. Mr. Herr seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. Motion carried. B. Duff Dorschner, 307 Lilac, Minor Subdivision/Variance PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Ms. Wyland stated that this application is for a minor subdivision and variance. Mr. Dorschner's current driveway encroaches approximately 10 feet onto his neighbor's property. When the house and garage were built in 1982, the City did not require a survey and allowed the garage and driveway to be situated as they are today. The garage is 26 feet from the property line. The encroachment was discovered when a survey was done by Mr. Uhde for development on the adjacent property. Ms. Wyland stated that two options are presented: 1) to allow the sale of 10 feet to Mr. Dorschner to maintain his existing driveway, and therefore, allow Mr. Uhde's property a lot depth variance of 10 feet; 2) suggest Mr. Dorschner secure an easement from Mr. Uhde for use of the westerly 10 feet until the garage can be reoriented to Lilac Street. Staff is recommending the easement option. Mr. Dorschner stated that he did not know of any problem until a month ago, when Mr. Uhde had a survey done for development. He has lived in his house approximately four years. There are two driveways on the property. The driveway in question has been there since the house was built and is the only straight access to the back yard. He put up a cedar wood fence along the driveway last year, replacing an existing roadway. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Dorschner ever had a survey done when he put up the fence. Mr. Dorschner stated that he had a survey done last week, and it agrees with Mr. Uhde's survey. When he put the fence up last year, a survey was not required. The Building Inspector indicated that as long as he was replacing an existing fence, a permit was not required. His lot is 166 feet wide, and he, had no reason to believe there was a problem. Had he known of this problem at the time he bought the property, he would have had stipulations put in the purchase agreement. Chair Schaps asked if the property was inspected at the time of Mr. Dorschner's purchase. Mr. Dorschner stated that the property was inspected, but there was no survey. He and the mortgage company received a property sketch indicating the orientation of the house on the property. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Dorschner researched the file to see if a survey had ever been done. Mr. Dorschner stated that to the best of his knowledge a survey has never been done. There is nothing on file with the county. Mr. Robinson asked if there is an old fence north of Mr. Dorschner's property along the tree line. 4 • • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Dorschner stated that the fence is no longer there. In talking with other neighbors who have had surveys done, he was told that many of them found their property lines were off by two or three feet. Mr. Robinson noted that in the past farmers put fences where they thought the property lines were, and those estimated property lines were accepted for many years. He asked if the pins on the corners can be located. Mr. Dorschner stated that he could not find them on the west side. There appeared to be a stake in the northeast corner which is the only one he found. Mr. Herr asked if Mr. Dorschner measured his property when he found the pin. Mr. Dorschner stated that he never had a reason to look for the corner stakes because of the size of his property. Ms. Wyland noted that the present surveys did not locate any existing stakes. Chair Schaps asked how Mr. Dorschner knew where to place the fence. Mr. Dorschner stated that he estimated and thought he was well within his lot line. There is asphalt in front of the garage, but the rest of the driveway is gravel. He jogged the fence to keep kids from playing in the gravel. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Dorschner where -the entrance to the garage would be if it had to be reconstructed. Mr. Dorschner stated that if the garage were rebuilt, access would be on the south side. While that would be a solution, he stated that he cannot afford to have the work done. Also, several trees would have to be removed and new blacktop put down. He would not be able to get his boat to the back yard using the other driveway which is curved. Mr. Robinson asked if Mr. Dorschner carries title insurance. Mr. Dorschner answered that he does, but it has not helped because there is no survey. He was not told at his closing that a survey was needed by the title insurance company. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Dorschner has sought an opinion on the matter from an attorney. Mr. Dorschner answered that he has not seen an attorney. This is the first home he has purchased and was unfamiliar with the process. ■IP Chair Schaps asked if the corner house of Mr. Uhde's development would need further variances if the sale of 10 feet to Mr. Dorschner is approved. 5 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Uhde stated the sale of 10 feet will not have a negative effect on the development. He believes that the property line was miscalculated in a metes and bounds survey. Mr. Dunn asked if Mr. Uhde and Mr. Dorschner have reached agreement on a purchase price for the 10 feet. Mr. Uhde responded that a purchase agreement has been reached contingent upon the action of the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council. Mr. Herr stated that he is inclined to bring the matter to a permanent closure and allow the sale of 10 feet to Mr. Dorschner. The rationale for the variance for Mr. Uhde's property is fitting. He asked for staffs rationale in recommending the easement option. Ms. Wyland stated that historically variances are not usually favored. Mr. Herr stated that he believes the City bears some responsibility for the problem because a survey was not required at the time the property was platted. Also, an easement always leaves uncertainties for the future. Mr. Gelbmann agreed with Mr. Herr and stated he would like to see a permanent resolution. The size of the lot where a variance is being created is larger than the minimum standard which minimizes the impact of the variance. Mr. Dunn agreed that Mr. Dorschner has made a reasonable request. It is the duty of the City to rectify this error that has been handed down. He would support granting the minor subdivision contingent upon Mr. Uhde not challenging the City with this action. He recommended that members support Option No. 1 to take care of a difficult situation and one that would be otherwise very costly to rectify. Mr. Robinson stated that his only problem with approving the subdivision request is setting a precedent. Chair Schaps noted that the Board must make specific findings of fact to approve the subdivision and variance as follows: A. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. As it exists, the garage will be difficult to enter without the additional 10 feet provided with this subdivision. However, an easement would allow the same access. B. That the plight of the land owners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. Although the access problem was not created by the current property owner, Mr. Dorschner, the original building /owner created the problem by orienting the garage entrance to the west with only 26 feet to 6 • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 • access. No survey was conducted, although it is the obligation of every land purchaser to verify what is being purchased. • • C. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. This hardship could be considered economic as the problem would be eliminated with the reorientation of the garage to face Lilac. However, a reasonable use for the existing garage does not exist unless the subdivision is approved or an easement obtained. It would be an unreasonable amount of money to reconfigure the property for the garage and yard. D. 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. No special privilege would be afforded this applicant that would not be offered to another under similar circumstances. E. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. Property values should not be "unreasonably" diminished with the variance or easement arrangement. F. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to provide for single family residential use of the property. That shall be maintained in either case. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approvq the subdivision with the variance to allow Lot 1, Block 1, Behm's Century Farms, a lot depth of 125 feet in order to add 10 feet to the adjacent Dorschner property as a result of the findings of fact listed above. Dunn seconded the motion. Mr. Robinson amended the motion to include the 1,000 square foot parcel in the legal description of Mr. Dorschner's property. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dunn accepted the amendment. All voted aye. Motion carried. C. Jeff Kelley, 20th Avenue, Site Plan Review /Text Amendment to Allow Golf Driving Range Mr. Jeff Kelly has made application for a Site Plan Review which also requires an Interim Use Permit for the construction of a golf driving range and future mini golf facility on 20th Avenue in the Rural Business Reserve Zoning District. The property in question is 20 acres in size and located on the east side of 20th Avenue in the 7300 block. A parking area, club house (garage approximately 24x36), portable sanitation, fencing, tee boxes, and netting are proposed for the site. A future mini golf area is also outlined on the plan. Interim uses were added to the Zoning Ordinance to allow new uses as the need arose within a zoning district or until the code was amended to include the interim PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 use. Mr. Kelley is seeking approval for a proposed golf driving range this season as an interim use on the property indicated on 20th Avenue. Mr. Dunn stated that he would like to see detailed construction plans before approving this plan. Ms. Wyland stated that once the concept is approved, the final site plan does not come back to the Planning & Zoning Board. The proposed building does meet all code requirements. Mr. Robinson added that the City has expert staff to review all details so that final plans are in compliance with the City Code. The Board reviews the overall plan in terms of zoning. Chair Schaps stated that there are performance standards in the ordinances that must be applied and rigorously enforced. Anything approved by the Board must meet those standards, or the project cannot proceed. Mr. Kelley stated a survey and site plan have been done, which is as far as he can go without further approval. Chair Schaps asked if lighting is included in the plan. Mr. Kelley stated that there will be five light poles, all of which direct light toward the driving range which is to the east. There is nothing but agriculture from the range to the freeway one -half mile away. Chair Schaps asked how long Mr. Kelley has owned the property. Mr. Kelley stated that purchase of the property is contingent on approval of this plan. He is purchasing the property in two phases of 10 acres each. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Kelley discussed the plans with adjoining neighbors and whether they are in favor of the project. Mr. Kelley stated that there is a subdivision to the west. His property is 20 acres of a 60 acre parcel. The owner is aware of his plans. Otherwise he has not talked to anyone else. Mr. Robinson asked if Mr. Kelley's property would include the pole barn to the north. Mr. Kelley stated that the second 10 acres that he intends to purchase in two years includes the pole barn. Mr. Johnson questioned what would happen if this is not a permitted use in the future. 8 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Ms. Wyland stated that she believes when the new ordinance is adopted, golf courses will be a permitted use in Rural Business Reserve (RBR) zoning districts. If golf courses are not allowed in RBR districts, then a time frame would be set for the interim use. Mr. Kelley stated that it was explained to him that rezoning would come into effect when a certain percentage of area is developed to a certain degree. He is assuming that a temporary use permit would supersede any decision not to allow golf in RBR zoning districts. Mr. Gelbmann cautioned that terms and future possibilities should be clearly stated to protect all parties. He agreed that the changes in the zoning ordinances are likely to include golf courses as a permitted use in the RBR districts. Mr. Herr stated that he would like to see this project operate under an interim use permit with full detailed plans on file for each phase, so that the City has complete documentation. Mr. Schaps asked if Mr. Kelley plans to do anything with the land before the text amendment to the zoning ordinance in June. If golf becomes a permitted use, then an interim use permit at this time would not be necessary. Mr. Kelley stated that he would like to start immediately and had hoped to be on the agenda for the City Council meeting Monday, May 13, 1996. He would not want to wait until mid -June to begin because he would lose the peak season. Ms. Wyland suggested approving the site plan contingent upon the text amendment to the zoning code. This would allow him to seed and grade the property now. Mr. Robinson asked if there is a screen between the natural grass and the proposed tee boxes. Mr. Kelley answered, yes. Mr. Herr asked the type of lighting fixtures that will be used. He expressed concern about the glare to freeway drivers. Mr. Kelley stated that he is considering quartz lights at approximately 1000 to 1500 watts. The area is fully wooded between the golf range and the freeway. There is little visibility from the freeway. Mr. Robinson noted that the golf range is across the road from residential property in Centerville. He asked if Centerville residents should be notified of the public hearing. Ms. Wyland stated that staff will contact the City of Centerville to notify their property owners. 9 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Kelley asked what conditions will play a big role in determining whether or not golf is a permitted use. Chair Schaps responded that at the public hearing staff will draft provisional language adding a golf range or mini golf facility as a permitted use to the RBR zoning district. The amendment will be published throughout the City. Residents will have an opportunity to come forward and state any objections. Typically, there is little response. Mr. Dunn asked what protection there is for the City if the golf range is later abandoned. Ms. Wyland stated that a condition of the permit could include a provision that all equipment items relating to the golf range be removed by the property owner within a year of closing, or the City will do so and assess the property. Mr. Kelley asked what would happen if he resold the property. Mr. Gelbmann responded that if the property is sold and the golf range use continues, removal of the equipment would not be necessary. Mr. Johnson added that a time lapse would be allowed for resale of the property. If the business is ceased for a period of greater than a year, the equipment would have to be removed. Mr. Gelbmann made a MOTION to approve the site plan review with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits be obtained prior to any construction. A deposit equal to 1 percent of construction costs shall be posted to insure completion of site improvements. 2. The driveway and parking area be provided with a dustless surface approved by the City Engineer. 3. Lighting standards be of the type to provide minimum disruption to the adjoining property owners as determined by the City. 4. The sanitation facilities be located inside the club house /garage area. If this is not possible, screening be provided to adequately screen the facilities from the street right -of -way and adjoining properties. This screening shall be subject to the review of the City Forester and/or Community Service Officer. 5. A landscaping plan shall be provided and reviewed by the City Forester. 10 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 6. Signage shall conform to the City's Sign Ordinance and proper permits obtained prior to installation. 7. Netting serving the golf range shall be durable and secured to poles subject to approval of the City Engineer. A detail of the fencing /netting shall be provided for City review. 8. A public hearing shall be set to add golf course /driving range as an interim use to the R -BR Zoning District. 9. Other conditions as imposed by the City. 10. Handicapped parking shall be provided and an alternate site for future parking needs. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and amended it to include condition No. 11., that major facilities on the property shall be removed if the business is discontinued for one year, or the cost of removal shall be assessed to the property. Mr. Gelbmann accepted the amendment. The motion carried 6 -0 -1. Mr. Robinson abstained. Chair Schaps called a five- minute recess to the meeting at 8:25 p.m. He left the meeting at this time. Acting Chair Johnson reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Economic Development Director, Brian Wessel, arrived. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Bruce Hanson, Rezone GB Property to R1, PDO to Allow Residential Homes with Sea Plane Hangars, Aqua Lane Ms. Wyland stated that a portion of Aqua Lane has previously been considered by the Board for rezoning to General Business. The matter was tabled. Mr. Bruce Hanson, who owns the sea plane base, would like to purchase the property and rezone a portion of it to R1, single family residential to allow homes to be constructed with hangars for sea planes that would have a common access to the landing strip on the sea plane base. Ms. Wyland further stated that the City has a Resolution discouraging commercial properties from being rezoned to lesser uses. However, after considering many factors of Mr. Hanson's proposal and the location of this particular site, it may be a more appropriate land use for the area than General Business. A full staff review will be presented at the June 1996 meeting. • Mr. Johnson noted a substantial amount of wetland on Lot No. 6, which is landlocked. 11 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Hanson stated that Lot No. 6 would remain part of the sea plane base. Mr. Johnson asked what is planned for the upland area. Mr. Hanson answered that possibly a narrow expansion of the landing strip and possibly a hangar. Mr. Johnson asked what will be in Outlot A. Mr. Hanson stated that Outlot A is wetland. Mr. Robinson asked if Lot No. 5 is buildable. Mr. Hanson stated that he has talked to the City Engineer, and has been assured that he can build on that lot. Ms. Wyland stated that the property is now zoned General Business and is vacant and for sale. Rezoning would be necessary for the five lots, Outlot A and perhaps Lot No. 6. Lot No. 7 would remain General Business. Mr. Robinson asked if the proposed hangars will be large enough for the planes. Mr. Hanson stated that the size of the hangars is the maximum allowed, 60 feet x 40 feet. Mr. Wessel asked if a wetland delineation has been completed. Mr. Hanson stated that a delineation was done the previous day. He does not have the report back, but the map he has presented is fairly accurate. Mr. Wessel noted that the Council passed a resolution that no commercial or industrial property would be down -zoned without an exchange of the equivalent amount of land, or only under special conditions. He agreed that Mr. Hanson's proposal may be a more appropriate use for Aqua Lane because the site is split by wetland. He further noted that this will be an area of focus when the Comprehensive Plan is updated. The City has engaged a planner to begin the Comprehensive Plan update, which is mandated by the state to be completed by December 31, 1997. His concern about down- zoning the area from commercial business is that the City does not have a lot of land zoned for General Business. Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Hanson intends to have a road connection between the north end and south end of the property. Mr. Hanson stated that it is impossible to connect them because of the wetland. Mr. Johnson noted that it may be possible to enlarge Lot No. 6 to increase the General Business area to seven acres. 12 • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Hanson agreed that may be a possibility, but there is a line of trees he would like to protect. Mr. Dunn asked if any residential areas are affected by this proposal. Mr. Wessel responded that although residents are present in the area, the whole area is zoned General Business and intended to be all business development. The residents understand that they are in a non - conforming status. Mr. Dunn asked the size of the homes planned. Mr. Hanson stated that he does not plan to build homes. He plans to sell the lots to sea plane pilots who would like to live adjacent to his facility. He has had numerous requests for housing that would allow a hangar. Ms. Wyland stated that the concept is for a future application that would require rezoning and a minor subdivision preliminary plat Planned Unit Development that would allow five single family lots rezoned to R1, and allow sea plane hangars with some type of arrangement for the homeowners to use the sea plane base. It would be similar to Lino Air Park. Mr. Dunn asked if the increase in air traffic would be a problem and if there would be any traffic pattern conflict with Anoka County Airport. Mr. Hanson responded that the State of Minnesota air space is designated by the Federal Aviation Association (FAA). State officials have indicated no problem with this proposal. Mr. Gelbmann expressed concern about safety zones and the size of the runway. Ms. Wyland showed a sketch of the air safety zones provided in the City's ordinances. Mr. Hanson stated that the runway being used is 150 feet wide. Buildings within the area have to meet certain criteria in height and setback distances. Mr. Robinson stated that while the City would sustain a net loss of General Business land with this proposal, he questioned who would buy the land for General Business development. The land is undesirable for General Business development because it is on a 7 -ton road with no direct access from the freeway and no visibility. The City may be better off to rezone it to RI or R1X to allow the property to be utilized. Mr. Wessel agreed that the property is a dilemma as zoned General Business. During preliminary investigations of Mr. Hanson's proposal, it was discovered that Mr. Hanson's sea plane base is generally respected and is a unique resource in the community. It is the only sea plane base in the area and considered to be a quality operation. Mr. Hanson is 13 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 supposed to close on purchase of the property in May, but he could pursue an extension on the purchase agreement deadline. Mr. Johnson noted that five residential lots with sea plane hangars might attract some type of economic development to be near the sea plane base. Mr. Robinson noted that if the property is rezoned, there will be neighbors who will want to give their input. Notices must be sent to neighbors within 600 feet of the proposed rezoned property. At best, the process would take two months. He believes residents may be positively disposed to this classification proposal, as they were quite opposed to a convenience center. Mr. Wessel left at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Dunn asked the number of takeoffs and landings at the sea plane base. Mr. Hanson stated that there are approximately 100 landings per year on the landing strip. There are approximately 3,000 water landings per year. Approximately 40 aircraft are based on his site. The approach to land is made over Marshan Lake, and he has received no complaints. Mr. Dunn agreed that Mr. Hanson's proposal may serve a better purpose for this property than trying to sell it for General Business development, and he would support it with more detailed plans. Mr. Herr stated that he would support this concept and likes the idea of R1X lots to maximize the tax base. Mr. Gelbmann agreed and stated he would be open to supporting this concept with further information and expressed his remaining concern about air safety zones. Ms. Dahl asked if noise would become a greater problem. Mr. Hanson stated that he would hope for more sea planes to use the facility, but that is an unknown. He does not believe the noise factor will change. Mr. Robinson stated that if all the problems can be worked out, Mr. Hanson's proposal is a good usage of this property. He does not believe General Business developers will locate on Aqua Lane. If General Business zoning is dropped, he would like to see the General Business portion follow the wetland boundary, so that a full 7.5 acres remains zoned as General Business. • • It was the consensus of the Board to approve Mr. Hanson's proposal in concept, • contingent upon resolution of the problems discussed above and formal application. 14 • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 VII. ADJOURNMENT Al Robinson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. and was supported by Don Dunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 15