Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/09/1992 P&Z Minutes• Planning & Zoning Board December 9, 1992 • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES STARTED ENDED! ERS PRES ENT: MEMBERS ABSENT ALSO PRESENT December 9, 1992 6:30 P.M. 8:20 P. M. Gelbmann, Landers, Mesich, No•dine, Robinson, Schaps, Slatten . none . City Engineer Schneider, Planning Consultant Brixius, Planning Coordinator Wyland I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Al Robinson moved approval of the minutes of the November 14, 1992 meeting as submitted and was supported by John Landers. All voted aye. Motion carried. III. OPEN MIRE: No one was present to speak at Open Mike. IV. ACTION ITEMS: A. 92 -50 & 92 -51 CUP, Adams Outdoor Advertising, Public Hearing, I- 35E /Co. Rd. 14, and I -35W /Lake Drive Planning Consultant Brixius reviewed the staff report which explained that this is a request to construct two advertising signs - one located at the north /east corner of I -35E and Co. Rd. 14, and the other on the north side of I35W just east of the Lino Industrial Park. Mr. Brixius explained that although the signs can meet all the requirements of the Sign Ordinance for a GB Zoning District, a 1990 Land Use Study for the I -35W and I -35E Interchange Areas recommend against the placement of billboards within both study areas. Staff would recommend denial of the application based on the inconsistency of the request with the adopted Land Use Study and other comments contained in the staff report. Mr. John Bodger, representing Adams Outdoor Advertising, was present and stated that all requirements of the Sign 1 • Planning & Zoning Board December 9, 1992 • • Ordinance can be meet. He indicated that he has an agreement with the property owners to remove the signs within 90 days of development of either site. These particular applications have been submitted three times since 1988 - the previous two times the requests were denied because of studies being conducted and /or possible developments occurring in the vicinity. Adams would just like to put the signs up until development occurs. Mr. Tom Schutte, representing the owner of the 34 acre parcel north of the I -35E site was present to voice concern about the proposed request. He indicated that the piece of property the sign will be located on is approximately 1 3/4 acres in size and marginal in terms of development possibility (mostly wetland) - therefore, the potential is there that the sign will never be removed because the property will never be developed. He added that this sign location could affect development of his larger parcel to the north. Tom Mesich stated that if the I -35E property is not developable, we do not want to locate a sign on this site with no option for removal. After some discussion Kathleen Nordine made a motion denying Conditional Use Permit 92 -50 and 92 -51 based on the recommendation in the Land Use Study for the Interchange Areas /Comprehensive Plan and comments outlined in the staff report and also the question as to whether the I -35E site is, indeed, a buildable site. Monica Slatten seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried to deny requests as submitted. B. Shores of Marshan Lake, Relocation of Recreation Trail Mary Kay Wyland explained that the developer is asking the City to approve the relocation of the platted recreation trail. The staff and Park Board have reviewed the request and after much discussion developed three options outlined in the staff report. The Park Board and staff concurred on Option 1 which was to have the City pursue a Corps of Engineers permit for the relocated trail on the lake side - on the approximate "oxcart trail" location closer to the lake than presently platted, with the developer financing the costs and with the City working with Braurer and Associates on obtaining the permit. Option 2 as recommended by the Staff was to have the trail remain as platted (this was Option 3 of the Park Board) , and Option 3 as recommended by the Staff was to relocated the trail just off the street row on lots 8 -12 with connections to a lake side trail between Lots 12 & 13 and Lots 7 & 8 (this was Option 2 as III Planning & Zoning Board December 9, 1992 • • recommended by the Park Board). Mr. Roger Kolstad was present representing the developer and explained that the preliminary plat had shown the trail 15 -20' from the actual lake shore. He explained that between preliminary and final approval the 1991 Wetlands Law was enacted prohibiting any trails in a wetland area that adjoins a lake. In June of 1992 the Developer was told no permits would be needed for the trail, however, they did not get this information in written form. Consequently, after adoption of the 1991 Law a permit was required so the developer had no alternative at final plat time but to move the trail out of the wetland with the intention of returning at a later date and renegotiating the location. Chairman Schaps asked "so you intended to later re- negotiate the final plat when you originally submitted it ?" Mr. Kolstad replied "yes ". He further stated that the roadway could not be altered as the sewer and water were already installed. Chairman Schaps asked if this re- negotiation was done with the full knowledge of the City or just the developer? Mr. Kolstad stated that the developer had met on the site with Marty Asleson and someone from the Corps of Engineers and they knew how close the trail would be to the house pads. Mr. Kolstad explained that the lakeshore lots had been sold, but when the trail was relocated several buyers backed out of their sales. Chairman Schaps asked if these buyers were buying before the plat was approved. Mr. Kolstad explained that the normal practice is to sell prior to final plat - when the trail was moved, the buyers were notified. Now they would like to move the trail back at least 50' from the presently platted location. If this is not possible - then they would like to place a trail along the roadway between lots 14 and 8. Mr. Mesich asked if this would be proposed as a sidewalk and Mr. Kolstad stated it could be either concrete or asphalt. Mr. Robinson asked if they knew there would be problems when the plat was approved and Mr. Kolstad stated yes they did - however, they needed to get the plat recorded so they went ahead. Mr. Robinson indicated that the only problem he has with this proposal is that the Council was not advised of the problems at the time of final plat review - Mr. Kolstad admitted that if they had discussed the problem then - the plat would not have been approved. He further indicated that they have agreed with staff to try to get a permit allowing the trail to be moved to the ease - if that does not work then they would like to go along the street right of way. • Planning & Zoning Board December 9, 1992 • • Chairman Schaps asked if all buyers are aware of the problem. Mr. Kolstad said yes they were - in fact, some of them attended the last Park Board meeting. City Engineer Schneider explained that the house on Lot 11 is approximately 40' from the platted trail. He further indicated that the preferred option would be to move the trail back at least 50' from the home. However, staff does not have the time or the expertise to pursue the permit application from the Corps and is therefore recommending that Braurer and Associates take care of it. The staff's second option would be to have the trail remain as platted. Mr. Mesich added that he is concerned about a final plat being approved with some kind of contingency that was not talked about. It should have been discussed at the time. Chairman Schaps stated that this is after the fact - if we agree with moving the trail it is a given that we use Braurer and Assoc. Mr. Kolstad added that if the trail is left as platted, larger row of trees will have to be removed. Mr. Mesich then made a motion to accept Option 3 which is to allow the trail to remain as platted. This motion died for lack of a second. Kathleen Nordine then stated that the City should not work with developers who work in _ this manner, however, we need to look at what is best for the City and also for the future residents of this area. She made it clear to the developer that the City does not work this way. Ms. Nordine then made a motion recommending Option 1 as stated in the staff report using the expertise of Braurer and Associates to pursue the permit with a fall back to Option 3 - trail to remain as platted. Mr. Gelbman seconded the motion. Mr. Mesich stated he would like to see a $3,700 bond in place for the trail permit. This was added to the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. CONCEPT REVIEW - Laborer's Education & Training Center Mr. Fred Chase was present to discuss a proposed training facility on 20 acres of property just south of Co. Rd. 14 and west of 24th Avenue. The building will be a vocational type facility with the major activity occurring during the winter months. The site will contain a building housing classrooms, office space, and shop /laboratory space. Mr. Runyan, architect for the proposed development, indicated that utilities are not currently available to serve the site, however, they 4 • Planning & Zoning Board December 9, 1992 1 would be willing to agree to connect when they do become available. He also explained that there is an existing home on the site. This is the residence of the 83 year old property owner who would probably not be willing to relocate at this time. The developer would be agreeable to subdividing a portion of the site to allow the house to remain, or developing an agreement that the house would remain until the residence is no longer needed by the occupant. Chairman Schaps indicated that this seemed like an interesting project for the City and was supported in this opinion by Monika Slatten. City Engineer Schneider added that when utilities do become available to the area it would be beneficial to have a major property owner willing to participate in the extension of those utilities. Mr. Robinson asked what type of equipment would be used on the site. Mr. Chase explained that most equipment would be kept inside and would consists of backhoes, loaders, cranes - standard construction type equipment. Tom Mesich asked if the use fell within the requirements of the LI Zoning District. Mr. Brixius explained that the general activities outlined by the developer would be compatible with the existing zoning district. In summary Chairman Schaps expressed a favorable interest in the project. B. Amendment to Section 100.09 of the City Code Pertaining to Plat Staging Mr. Brixius reviewed some changes to this proposed ordinance amendment and after some discussion the P & Z recommended holding a public hearing at the next meeting to consider adoption of this amendment. Mr. Bob Adamson, local developer, was present and asked how this proposal may affect a plat he is currently working on. This particular plat has received preliminary approval with an special consideration giving 18 months for final platting. Mr. Brixius explained that this amendment would have no affect on his plat and was actually designed to address future, not existing, plats. C. Amendment to the City Code pertaining to the Definition and Regulation of Private Streets Mr. Brixius reviewed some changes to this proposed ordinance amendment and after some discussion the P & Z recommended holding a public hearing at the January • Planning & Zoning Board December 9, 1992 meeting to consider adoption of this amendment. D. Handicapped Parking Spaces Mr. Brixius distributed the latest State handicapped parking standard as requested by John Landers. Mr. Landers asked if there was some type of time frame for compliance and indicated that both the new fire barn on Lake Drive and the City Hall did not meet the current law. Mr. Brixius indicated that he would research the matter further. E. Expiration of Terms on P & Z Monika Slatten stated that her term expires the end of December and that she will not be seeking reappointment. She has enjoyed her time on the Board but due to time constraints can not reapply. Al Robinson indicated that his term also expires the end of December, however, he would be interested in reappointment. V. ADJOURNMENT • Upon the unanimous consent of the Board the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M. • 6