Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/09/1986 P&Z Minutes• PLANNING & ZONING BOARD April 9, 1986 Chairman Doocy called to order the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board at 7:04 P.M., Wednesday, April 9, 1986. All boardmembers were present (Prokop, Nelson, Klaus, McLean, Averbeck, Cody). Also present were City Planner, Zack Johnson; Council Liaison, Harold Bisel; Building Official, Pete Kluegel; and Secretary, Shar Foster. - CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES February 12, 1986 - Mr. Cody moved to approve the minutes of the 2/12/86 meeting as presented. Mrs. Klaus seconded the motion which carried unanimously. March 12, 1986 - Mrs. Averbeck moved to approve the minutes of the 3/12/86 meeting as presented. Mrs. Klaus seconded the motion. Motion carried with Mr. Cody and Mr. McLean abstaining. Comprehensive Plan Review Minutes - Consideration of these minutes should be taken care of by the Comp Plan Task Force. All P & Z members have been receiving copies of the minutes for their information whether or not they attend the meetings. - OPEN MIKE • Self Service Car Wash - Mr. Otte - Mr. Otte came before the Board asking the feasibility of constructing and operating a self- service car wash on a parcel of land on Lilac St., west of Lake Drive (zoned GB). His plans would call for blacktopping on all the area on which cars drive, also no exterior storage. Mr. Johnson felt that this particular use was not addressed within the ordinance; the most similar type of use would be a service station re- quiring a conditional use permit. Mr. Cody felt it unreasonable to require the applicant to go through a rezone simply because this type of use was not addressed in the ordinance and suggested the applicant pursue a text amendment to allow a car wash in the GB zone. Mr. Prokop suggested that the applicant work with the City Engineer to approve a suitable sewage plan and make this plan part of a complete package, with the assistance of the Building Official. Smaller Lot Sizes - Mr. & Mrs. Morehouse - Mr. & Mrs. Morehouse ex- plained that presently their property on 79th Street is zoned ER which requires five acres per lot and they were under the impression that other ER zones within Lino Lakes are being allowed to have one acre lots. They also want one acre lots for their property. Mr. McLean explained that all ER zones within Lino Lakes require five acres per lot minimum and that no area has been given any exception to that rule. He further explained that the Comprehensive Plan Task Force is currently considering making some changes, however, this will be a long process and will require public hearings, etc. before approval. He invited Mr. & Mrs. Morehouse to attend the next Comp Plan Task Force meeting on April 16. • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD April 9, 1986 Page Two - BUILDING OFFICIAL'S REPORT Metes & Bounds Conveyance, House Move -In - Emmet Solberg - Mr. Kluegel reported that the 3/24/86 Council approved this application. Voyageur Log Homes - Conditional Use Permit - Temporary Advertising Sign - Mr. Kluegel reported that the 3/24/86 Council denied this request and the "model log home" has been removed. Conditional Use Permit - Schubert Outdoor Advertising - Advertising Billboard - Mr. Kluegel reported this request was approved by the 3/24/86 Council. Site & Building Plan Review - Kenneth Tritten - Golf Driving Range - Mr. Kluegel reported that this application was approved by the 3/24/86 Council. Ulmers Preliminary Plat and Rezone - Mr, Kluegel reported that the first reading of Ordinance #86 -01 for Ulmer's rezone was approved, but the preliminary plat was tabled until April 14, 1986 Council meeting to allow Mr. Ulmer to contact lot owners to obtain necessary street right -of -way easements. `- SITE & BUILDING PLAN REVIEW & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE - ROCKEYGOERTZ -TIM KLOSNER Mr. Goertz appeared before the Board requesting a site and building plan be reviewed for a pole building on 432 Lilac St. to be used as a shop for his construction company trucks. The type of exterior storage will be backhoes, dump trucks, etc. used in his business. The plans are to erect a six foot fence topped with three strands of barbed wire. A permit from MnDOT for access onto TH 44 (Lilac Street will be required. Mr. Goertz explained that the shop he has been using is located a couple of lots away for which the City has on file a conditional use permit for exterior storage. Mr. Goertz said that on one occasion the Building Official asked him to clean up the exterior storage to comply with the conditional use permit, which he did within 48 hours. He therefore feels that he has a good record in not presenting an eyesore for the community. The present shop has been leased to another party. MOTION: Mr. Cody moved to recommend to Council approval of the conditional use permit for Rockey Goertz /Tim Klosner of 454 Lilac St., Lino Lakes, MN 55014, application Number 86 -13 dated 3/28/86, (becauseit complies with Section 5, Subd. 5(2)), with the following conditions: 1) The open storage needs to be fenced with six -foot . chainlink fence topped with three strands of barbed wire. Screening is necessary (slats through the chain link acceptable) the approxi- mate 50 feet along Lilac Street next to the proposed building, with the exception of the portion of that 50 feet which is the driveway. 2) Two additional trees be planted along Lilac Street, making a total of five trees between Lilac Street and the building. • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD April 9, 1986 Page Three Mr. McLean seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Cody moved to recommend to Council approval of the site and building plan for Rockey Goertz /Tim Klosner of 454 Lilac St., Lino Lakes, MN 55014, application number 86 -13 dated 3/28/86, (because it complies with Section 5, Subd. 4), with the following conditions: 1) Appropriate highway access be obtained, 2) The design plans of the building are approved by the Building Official, 3) The engineer approve the site and building plan. Motion seconded by Mr. McLean. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Goertz was informed that his request will be considered by the April 28 Council for final approval. - LOT SPLIT & VARIANCE - CHARLES GRAMITH Mr. Gramith appeared before the Board to request that he be allowed to create two lots with frontage out of three lots (one without front- age). This property is in the rural zone where ten acre lots are minimum. The two lots Mr. Gramith wishes to create will still be less than ten acres each. 411 Mr. Prokop felt that a precedent has been set in the past to approve a plan which creates a better situation or makes a nonconforming situation less nonconforming. Mr. Johnson said that he did not see a need for a variance in this situation and the lot split would be considered a minor subdivision. MOTION: Mr. McLean moved to change the application to read "minor subdivision" rather than "variance to lot size" and "lot split ". Mr. Cody seconded the motion provided the applicant agree. It was explained to the applicant that the only difference this motion would make is to call the application by its proper title, so as not to cause confusion. The applicant agreed to the change. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Mr. McLean moved to recommend to Council approval of the minor subdivision for Charles Gramith for Parcel #9010; Lot 1, Block 1; and Lot 2, Block 1; as noted on the application. The purpose of approval would be to consolidate substandard lots into two lots of less nonconformance. Reference can be made to Ordinance 09 -85, which amends the City Code with regard to minor subdivisions. Mrs. Klaus seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Gramith was informed that his application will receive final consideration by the City Council on April 28, 1986. • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD April 9, 1986 Page Four - REZONE & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - COMMERCIAL ASPHALT /GARY SAUER Mr. Sauer appeared before the Board requesting that the parcel of land located in the southwest corner of the intersection of County Rd. 14 and 35E be rezoned from General Business to General Industrial. He also asked that a conditional use permit be granted to allow the operation of an asphalt plant. Mr. Sauer explained that the location would be ideal for his purpose due to the freeway access. He further explained that this plant would be a portable plant, that the structures could be taken apart and removed within 48 hours. Mr. McLean stated that with this situ- ation, there would be no tax benefit to the community. Mr. Sauer felt the benefit to the community would be lower costs of asphalt to local people. A letter received from a Centerville resident asked that Centerville and Hugo be informed before approval of this plant since it may affect their air, water, traffic and waterfowl /wildlife. MOTION: Mrs. Klaus moved to recommend to Council denial of the request by Commercial Asphalt Co., P.O. Box G, 10633 89th Ave. No., Maple Grove, MN 55369, application number 86 -9 dated 3/17/86, for a IIIrezone from GB to GI for the following reasons: 1) No tax benefit would be experienced by the City, 2) The comprehensive plan designated this area as GB and not GI and the Board feels this zoning is appro- priate considering the types of business this zoning allows, 3) There is residential growth moving toward this area from the south and this type of business is not advantageous considering that growth, 4) There are proper zones wherein this business may be located within Lino Lakes. Mr. Prokop seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. - LAND RECLAMATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - WILLIAM BOOP Mr. Boop explained that he lives in the lot just across Rondeau Lake Drive from City Hall and that he is experiencing a swamp of stagnant water which collects in his back yard which makes his drainfield in- operable at times and has damaged the construction of his home in places and flooded his basement. In order to hopefully correct this problem and because this situation is in violation of the nuisance ordinance regarding standing stagnant water, Mr. Boop intends to work with the Building Official and use 1,000 cubic yards of clean fill to which he has access, to build up his back yard so the water will drain away. His plan is not to move the problem to a neighbor but create a drainage system to better his neighbors water problems as well. • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD April 9, 1986 Page Five MOTION: Mr. Cody moved to recommend to Council approval of a condi- tional use permit for land reclamation for William Boop, 8026 Rondeau Lake Drive West per his application number 86 -12 dated 3/27/86 with the following conditions: 1) The finished grading plan present no adverse situation to the neighboring lots (per the City Engineer), 2) The proper requirements are met through U.S. Army Corp of Engineer, DNR, and Rice Creek Watershed District. This approval would be granted due to the fact that Mr. Boop has demonstrated a hardship to the land as outlined in Section 4, Subd. 32 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. McLean seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Boop was informed that he would need to appear before the April 28 Council meeting for final approval. - LOT PROVISIONS - NUMBER OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES PER LOT - ZACK JOHNSON Per P & Z's request, Mr. Johnson, in his March 6, 1986 memo (attached) redefined principal uses per lot. The Board discussed the memo agree- ing that this proposed change encompasses the wishes of the Board with regard to principal uses per lot. MOTION: Mr. McLean moved to recommend to Council adoption of an ordinance change, Section 4, Subd. 5, Lot Provisions, Number of III Principal Structures per Lot, as presented in Mr. Johnson's 3/6/86 memo. Mr. Cody seconded the motion which carried unanimously. - BUILDING STANDARDS - ZACK JOHNSON Mr. Johnson reported that in researching the area building standards in commercial and industrial districts, he and his associate, Mr. Wuornos have found that the two extremes are Lino Lakes (allowing pole buildings) and Bloomington (requiring reinforced concrete or steel buildings). Mr. Johnson felt that in order to put together a proposal to change the building standards he would need direction from the P & Z Board as to what particulars the Board was looking for. The consensus of tRie Board was that the surrounding communities should be checked and put together a proposal considering the aesthetics of the building, the tax base /benefit to the City and the longevity of the building, but not be as restrictive as the extreme Bloomington standard. Mr. Johnson agreed to bring this proposal to the next meeting. The Board felt that the Economic Development Committee should have input into these standards before a change is recommended. ,- OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD April 9, 1986 Page Six - NEW BUSINESS Consultants - Mr. Johnson was commended on the reviews of this evening's agenda items. Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Wuornos did the research on some of the items and put together recommendations. The Board expressed a unanimous concern that they are not receiving the type of advise or direction from the City Engineer necessary to make decisions on applications. It was felt that memos reviewing P & Z items are most often a listing of facts rather than a summary or conclusion and advice to the Board from the engineering viewpoint. This problem has been ongoing and the Board felt that the Council has been made aware of the problem in the past. The Board herein recommends that the Council look into this matter to see why the P & Z Board is not receiving the engineering direction they feel they need. Comp Plan Task Force - Mr. Doocy reminded the Board that they should be ready at the next regular meeting (May 14) of the P & Z Board to take action on the Erickson Plat. This deadline was set at 2/12/86 P & Z Board meeting. He suggested that this issue be discussed at the April 16 task force meeting. The Board discussed how often the task force should meet. It was 410 agreed that in order to make some progress, the task force should be meeting twice a month for as long as they can. The primary subject of the April 16 meeting should be the zoning south of Birch Street. Comments from the Planner - Mr. Johnson reminded the Board that as a general rule when considering a rezone, the Board must consider all of the uses listed for that zoning rather than considering only the use of the applicant before them. This would alleviate the poten- tial problem of zoning for a particular use which is "here today - gone tomorrow" and then other undesirable uses move in. Mr. Johnson also suggested that a checklist be developed for each specific type of application which shows what information will be required for the P & Z to consider the application, and the timing/ procedure for each. The purpose of this checklist would be to help with lead time for an application and also provide a standard for the Building Official's use when accepting applications. The Board was fully in favor of this suggestion and gave the Planner the go ahead to put together such a checklist. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M by unanimous vote.