Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/1984 P&Z Minutes• Planning and Zoning Board October 10, 1984 The regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board was called to order by Chairman McLean at 7:34 P.M. on Wednesday, October 10, 1984. Other P & Z members- Ostlie, Prokop, Doocy, Cody and Klaus were present. Mr. Goldade was absent. Mr. Kulaszewicz, Mr. Kluegel and Mrs. Foster were also'present. The first agenda item was the issue of whether or not to vacate the LaMotte Park land as it was dedicated to the City to be used as park property. The Park Board had requested that the P & Z Board and the Park Board meet jointly with regard to this issue in order for both boards to cover all the bases in making a decision. Park Board members in attendance were: Chairman Ken Johnson, Scherer, Lindy and Flannery. Several residents in the area of the LaMotte Park were in attendanceas well as Shirley Drewlo and Lois Tuckner, heirs of Mr. LaMotte who originally dedicated the park property. Record of the discussion of the LaMotte Park issue follows. MINUTES - September 12, 1984 Mr. Prokop moved to approve the minutes of the September 12 Planning and Zoning meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Doocy. Carried. BUILDING OFFICIALS REPORT - PETER KLUEGEL Mr. Kluegel reported the following action by the Council with regard to issues of concern by the Planning & Zoning Board: Metes and Bounds Conveyance /Site and Building Plan Review - Bastien Products. September 24 Council approved subject to P & Z recommendations. - Draft Sign Ordinance approved by October 9 Council. - House of Praise - Amended Conditional Use Permit - approved by October 9 Council subject to P & Z approval of proposed parking lot. (P & Z Board discussed this item later under "New Buisiness ".) - Resolution 84 -25 concerning sewer extension - passed by October 9 Council with two contingencies spelled out within the Resolu- tion (neither of which have yet been satisfied per information Mr. McLean received from Mr. Schumacher). VACATION OF LAMOTTE PARK Ken Johnson updated all in attendance regarding the LaMotte Park. Some of the discussion that followed is outlined as follows: - Mrs. Drewlo and Mrs. Tuckner approached the Park Board nearly two years ago asking the City to vacate the LaMotte Park property (it would then return to them as heirs to Mr. Cecil LaMotte who originally dedicated the property), or exchange the property for another parcel for their convenience in platting additional devel- opment in the area, or accept a money consideration for the property. The Park Board turned the issue to the Council, the Council back to the Park Board, and now the Park Board requests the opinion and guidance of the Planning and Zoning Board. • • • Planning and Zoning Board October 10, 1984 Page -2- - The nearby residents have requested the City keep the property as a green space. Mr. Mike Mastro, Mr. Roger Haufmeister and Mr. Ward were the primary, spokesmen for the residents of the area. The residents have petitioned to keep the property as park with all in agreement except those involved in the LaMotte estate. Their reasons were: proposed plat would cause worse traffic problem in the area, population density would be too high, possibility of water drainage problem, LaMotte park centralized in the area (proposed exchange property would not be), the pro- posed exchange area (referred to as Outlot A on map) is submarginal land which would possibly not be suitable for park property, and several other reasons. - The Park Board remembered agreeing at one time to grade and seed the area, but this was never done because it was a low priority item and was always bypassed by higher priority requests. The residents said they occasionally use the land and would agree to mow it and maintain it if the City would grade and seed it. The Park Board would agree to consider the possibility of developing the area with a tot lot if the residents strongly encouraged such action. - Mrs. Drewlo and Mrs. Tuckner presented two sketches of proposed plats using the current LaMotte Park property for development and exchanging it for "Outlot A" on their maps. Both sketches presented a traffic flow problem. The Park and Planning and Zoning Boards felt that the residents showed enough interest in saving the LaMotte park to convince the Boards that this would be the best alternative -- the LaMotte park property should continue as park property as it was dedicated. They also felt that in keeping the current LaMotte park dedicated land as a green space, and not allowing Mrs. Drewlo and Mrs. Tuckner to plat a street running though this area, some of the potential traffic problem in the LaMotte proposed third addition would be avoided. The Planning and Zoning Board felt that the Park Board should make a formal recommendation to this affect to the Council. The P & Z Board then broke for a recess at which time the Park Board held a formal meeting on this issue. (See Park Board minutes of October 10 for a motion.) P & Z Board reconvened at 9:00 P.M. Planning and Zoning Board October 10, 1984 Page -3- • METES & BOUNDS CONVEYANCE - KEN ALBRECHT • • Mr. Albrecht appeared before the P & Z Board to request a metes and bounds conveyance to'add a piece of land belonging to Dennis Nelson to his land. Discussion followed with an outcome of the following motion. This additional land will be a buffer in rural zone. Mr. McLean moved to recommend to Council that they approve the metes and bounds conveyance of 165 feet by 2,650 feet from adjacent land of Dennis Nelson to Ken Albrecht. Since this is a ten -acre split and is allowed, there is no problem in this area, however, a variance is required because the frontage is less than the 330 feet required by ordinance. The new owner is also required to record his old property and new property as one parcel rather than two separate parcels. This will satisfy the ordinance. Motion seconded by Mr. Prokop. Motion carried. Mr. Albrecht was told that this item will appear on the October 22 Council agenda. REPLAT, REZONE - ULMER'S 4TH ADDITION Mr. Ulmer appeared before the P & Z Board to ask them to consider his replat of Ulmer's 4th addition and also to rezone the area due to the approval of Resolution 84 -25 by the Council with respect to the extension of sewer to the'area in question. He told the Board that his bank will not issue him a letter of credit for this project until his plat is approved. Mr. McLean informed Mr. Ulmer that Resolution 84 -25 has been approved subject to two contingencies which must be satisfied - those contin- gencies being letters of credit from the developers involved and mutually agreeable developers agreements between the City and the developers involved. Mr. McLean felt that the proper progression of events here would be 1) contingencies of Resolution 84 -25 must be •satisfied, 2) then the P & Z Board would consider a rezone for the area in question (which could easily be rezoned to R -1 with the definite extension of sewer into the area), and 3) then the P & Z Board could consider approval of the actual plat. Mr. Ulmer again mentioned that his bank needed the security of an approved plat before issuing the letter of credit. The P & Z Board realized the problem an& began to consider the proposed plat. The plat called for a predominantly single family home area. There were, however, a couple of areas in the perimeter of the plat which called for twin homes. There was some confusion as to the lot size for the twin homes; it was finally understood that each twinhome would be built in the center of a 90 foot frontage lot and after the twinhome was split down the middle, each owner would have a minimum of 45 foot frontage. • • • Planning and Zoning Board October 10, 1984 Page -4- The Board was not in favor of lots of only 45 foot frontage. They were also not in favor of the twinhomes (which they felt would have to be zoned R -2) being sprinkled around the plat rather than in one specific area. The Board felt that approving R -1 in some spots and R -2 in other spots would definitely be considered spot zoning which is not allowed. Mr. McLean noted that Mr. Ulmer's application was for a rezone to R -1 and a conditional use permit for twinhome lots. The Board felt that this was an improper application, because twinhomes within an R -1 area are not allowed even as a conditional use. Mr. Kluegel said he had helped Mr. Ulmer put together the application per recom- mendations by Mr. Bill Short in 1981 (when this issue first arose). Mr. McLean stated that those recommendations were useless due to the fact that the ordinance regarding this type of situation has since changed. Mr. Doocy asked Mr. Kulaszewicz if the Council had given the P & Z Board any direction as to how to proceed with Mr. Ulmer's request since they had been involved in the sewer issue as it related to Mr. Ulmer's proposed 4th addition. Mr. Kulaszewicz said that the Council had only discussed the developers agreements and had given fio direction. The Board felt that if Mr. Ulmer could present a good reason for his request including the twinhomes, they would consider it. Mr. Ulmer said his reason was that the inclusion of the twinhomes creates a higher density, thus lowering the sewer costs of the individual lots. The Board felt that this was not the type of reason they could accept. A good reason might be zoning a particular border as R -2 to be used as a buffer from adjacent areas. However, this is not the case. Mr. Ulmer became continually more frustrated with the Board, because of the fact that he felt that the Council was aware of his plans for over two years and now he has come across this stumbling block. He felt the Board was not cooperating and finally, angrily left the meeting. Mr. Kluegel said he was not aware of the twinhome concept that Mr. Ulmer had in mind. Mr. Prokop moved to table this item pending receipt of more complete information as to what is in the plat. Motion seconded by Mr. Cody. Mr. Prokop made editorial change to his motion to also include re- ceipt of a proper application. DOG KENNEL ORDINANCE The Board considered and changed the dog kennel ordinance line -by- line. The new proposed draft is attached. • • • Planning and Zoning Board October 10, 1984 Page -5- NEW BUSINESS. Per a request from Mr. Schumacher, the Board set a date of November 1 at 7:30 to interview planning consultants. They also set a date of October 24 at 7:30 to review the revised draft dog kennel ordinance and to work on the accessory buildings issue. The Board also discussed the Council's approval of the amended condi- tional use permit for House of Praise. Mr. Doocy moved to approve the application for House of Praise for amended conditional use permit as presented, including the proposed blacktopping of a ten space parking lot. Seconded by Mrs. Klaus. Carried. OLD BUSINESS When asked by Mr. Doocy for an update on the October 3 court hearing brought about by the City against Roland Ford, Mr. Kluegel informed the Board that Mr. Ford was given 60 days in which to clean up his property to the satisfaction of the City or be charged with 30 days in jail. Mr. Prokop moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 P.M. Seconded by Mrs. Klaus. Aye. • • 607. Kennels 607.01 Definitions Subdivision 1. Dog. For purposes of 607.01 through 607.06, "dog" shall include all dogs over the age of six months. Subd. 2. Kennel. The keeping of three or more dogs on the same premises, whether such dogs are owned by the same person or not, irrespective of the purpose thereof, shall constitute main- tenance of a dog kennel. Subd. 3. Commercial Kennels. All such kennels where the owner(s) boards, raises, breeds, sells or otherwise cares for a dog(s) for a consideration. Subd. 4. Private Kennels. When a resident owner of a kennel keeps or breeds four or less dogs for show, hunting, field trials or pleasure. 607.02 Licenses Subdivision 1. License Required. No person shall main- tain a kennel without having obtained a kennel license. Subd. 2. Dog License. Dogs kept in a licensed kennel shall be required to be individually licensed pursuant to this code. 607.03 Requirements Subdivision 1. Conditional Use Permit. No kennel license shall be issued unless a conditional use permit has been issued by the City Council of Lino Lakes after due hearing, for a kennel on the specified premises. Subd. 2. Health, Safety and Welfare. No kennel license shall be issued or renewed if the Council finds that maintenance of the kennel at the subject location would be injurious to the public health, safety or welfare. Subd. 3. Commercial Kennels. Commercial kennels shall only be allowed in heavy and light industrial districts. Subd. 4. R -1 through R -7 Districts. No private kennels allowed in the R -1, R -2, R -3, R -4, R -5, R -6, R -7 zoning districts. Subd. 5. Land Requirement. Five acres of land required for private kennels in the ER and rural district. Subd. 6 Notification. Notification of public hearing for conditional use permit to operate a kennel must be sent to all property owners within 1,000 feet of proposed kennel. Subd. 7. N»mber of Dogs. A private kennel shall be limited to a maximum of four dogs at all times. 607.04 Conditions • Subdivision 1. Sanitation. Every dog kennel shall be kept in a sanitary and healthful condition. Subd. 2. Inspection. Every dog kennel shall be open to complete inspection by any properly designated officer or employee of the City, at any reasonable time. Subd. 3. Running at Large. No dog kept in a kennel shall be allowed to run at large at any time, either on the streets, alleys or other public grounds or on private property of others within the City. Subd. 4 Noise. No person maintaining a kennel shall permit the dogs kept there to make noise from any cause whatsoever, suffi- cient to constitute a public nuisance. 607.05 Nuisance. Any kennel kept in violation of any provision of this code shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be abated as such. This shall be in addition to all other remedies provided for violation of this chapter. 607.06. Grandfather Clause. All kennels located within the City of Lino Lakes prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, may continue to exist as to size and present location, provided the kennel does not violate any provisions of the Lino Lakes City Code up to the date this Ordinance is passed and adopted. • •