Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/1984 P&Z MinutesDATE: January 5, 1984 TO: All Planning and Zoning Board Members FROM: Peter Kluegel, Building Official SUBJECT: Regular Planning and Zoning Board Meeting The regular Planning and Zoning Board meeting will be Wednesday, January 11, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. If you cannot attend please let me know so that I can determine if there will be a quorum. Thank you. a4epdn uor4eur.zoguI Z • • ssaursng ATO co co co A W I- to 0 In 9 O (D T SL 4 k. N In T co w • • PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD Planning & Zoning B oard January 11, 1984 The regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 7:35 P.M., Wednesday January 11,1984 by Chairman McLean. Mr. McLean thanked Mr. Prokop for his leadership and cooperation in the past year and looked forwarded to the coming year. He noted that all past Planning and Zoning Board members have been reappointed. Members present: Goldade, Ostlie, McLean, Doocy, Prokop, Cody. Mrs. Klaus arrived about five minutes later. Mr. Kluegel, Zoning Official and Mr. Bill Hawkins, City Attorney were also present. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN Mr. Goldade moved to table the appointment of a Vice Chairman until the full board was present. Mr. Doocy seconded the motion. Mrs. Klaus arrived. Mr. Goldade withdrew his motion. Mr. Doocy moved to nominate Mr. Wally Ostlie for Vice Chairman. Mr. Prokop seconded the motion. Mr. Ostlie moved to nominate Mr. Doocy for Vice Chairman. Mr. Doocy asked that his name he withdrawn. Mr. McLean asked for other nominations. Mr. Prokop moved that nominations be closed. On voting for both motions, all voted in favor except Mr. Ostlie obstained. Motion declared passed. MINUTES - DECEMBER 14, 1983 Mrs. Klaus moved to approved the minutes of December 14, 1983 as corrected 410ror spelling and grammatical errors. Mr. Prokop seconded the motion. Motion declared passed. BUILDING OFFICIAL'S REPORT Mr. Kluegel reported that Mr. Clovers House Move -In request was approved by the City Council on December 27, 1983. Mr. Kluegel presented sample resolutions and "finding of Fact" sheets that are to be completed for each variance, conditional use permit, etc. acted upon by the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Hawkins explained that these forms are required because state law re- quires "findings of fact" explanation be part of each denial or approval of variances, conditional uses, etc. One completed "finding of fact" sheet should be forwarded by Mr. Kluegel to the Council with the Planning and Zoning Board recommendations. Mr. Karth, from the audience noted that the new Zoning Ordinance requires the reasons for approving or denying a variance, conditional use permit, etc. must be given in writing. CITY ATTORNEY - BILL HAWKINS Mr. McLean asked Mr. Hawkins if he could come to the Board meetings about every 90 days or so. Mr. Hawkins felt this would be good and said he would be available by phone or to come to a meeting if anything in particular would come up and his assistance would be needed in between the 90 day periods. Mr. McLean said he did not understand the Uniform Cbndominium Act and its application to the Roy Stanley property on 77th Street. Mr. Hawkins said it prohibits discrimination against condominiums. If there is an existing • Planning and Zoning Board January 11, 1984 Page -2- multiple family dwelling under a single owner, the City cannot stop the owner from selling each unit as a separate condominium unit. Mr. Klaus asked about theOsheim variance request. Mr. Hawkins said this item will he continued until a future date when Mr. Osheim can prepare the material requested by the Planning and Zoning Board. Regarding the question the Board had about variance requests for Mr. Osheim, Mr. Hawkins felt two variance will be required. This will be explained in his forth coming letter. Regarding Mrs. Klaus' concern as to whether or not there was anything unique about the hardship, Mr. Hawkins said topographical considerations need not he the only consideration. If the variance does not violate the spirit and intent of the ordinance and there is an undo hardship by not granting the variance then it is permiss- able to approve such requests. This question will also be dealt with in his letter. In the case of Mr. Osheim, the Board can impose conditions on the variance approval. Mrs. Klaus asked Mr. Hawkins to supply the Board with the Supreme Court decision or ruling dealing with variances. The Board thanked Mr. Hawkins for coming tonight. CUL -DE -SAC AND "T" TURN AROUNDS - DON VOLK 1r. Volk was before the Board to explain his reasons for preferring "T" turn around. He started by saying his comments will be based almost solely upon the maintenance point of view of turn arounds. Regarding roadways that are not constructed full length (will be completed at a futre date), Mr. Volk said usually the City accepts partial maintenance on partially constructed streets and it is much easier and faster to main- tain a ''t" turn around. A full cul -de -sac does have to he completely main- tained and cleaned of snow. It is easier and faster to pull into a "T ". Mr. Volk explained what happened on Evergreen Trail. There is a cul -de- sac about half way down the street. This entire cul -de -sac must be maint- ained. This case occurred when a street was constructed and then at a later date it was decided to extend the street. Mr. Prokop asked for Mr. Volks definition of a partially constructed street. Mr. Volk referred to Carl Street which is constructed only half of its platted length. It is certain that at some future date the balance of the street will be constructed. He recommended the "T" turn around be constructed beyond the last lot to be built on. He felt a "T" will not cause any problems for fire trucks, buses or other emergency vehicles. He felt a cul -de -sac would he fine in an area where there was no possibility the road would at some time be continued. . In regard to Rice Lakes Estates plat, if a "T" turn around is constructed on the street that runs toward the Schmitz property, the ''T'' may have to be constructed on the last two lots making these lots unbuildable until the street is extended beyond the two lots. Planning and Zoning Board January 11, 1984 Page -3- Mr. McLean asked Mr. Volk for written statements regarding his recommend- ations for "T" turn arounds so the Board can refer to this in dealing with future plats. VARIANCE - LOT SPLIT - PARISEAU Mr. Kluegel read the letter from Mr. Short, City Planner, regarding Mr. Pariseau's request to redraw the lot lines on two parcels of property he owns on Centerville Road. The re- arrangement of lot lines will reduce the non - conformity of the two lots and will not create any new lots. Mr. Short recommended approval of the re- arrangement of lot lines. Mr. McLean said he had talked to Mr. Short and it was suggested that any motion to approve the variance include language saying that any future re- subdivision of tract "A" with the 90 foot frontage would have to contain at least ten acres. Mr. Prokop asked if Mr. Pariseau would have to follow the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the provision which requires the applicant to state in writing some thought about future development. Mr. Pariseau said he had no intentions or plans on any future resubdivision. Mr. Doocy asked if ther would be park land dedication. It was decided since there are already two lots of record and no new building sites would be •reated, no park dedication would be required. The Board referred to the ''findings of fact" sheet. After several monents of trying to complete this form, it was decided that the Council had not directed the Board to complete the form as of yet and in the interest of time the form would not he used tonight. Findings of fact will be included in the motion. Mr. Goldade moved to recommend approval for Mr. Pariseau's application for a variance to lot frontage with Tract B being 10 acres and Tract A not to be split further so as to leave the 90' x 1,152' long strip as part of a minimum of ten acres. The intent of including the 90' strip in a ten acre minimum future split would be to prevent any remainder lot from evolving out of any future action on this property. Reference Mr. Shorts letter of January 4, 1984 and recommendations within the letter. Motion seconded by Mr. Prokop. Motion declared passed. In discussing the "findings of fact" sheet form it was decided to complete the form as far as possible and send it on to the Council. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PARK BROADCASTING Mr. Kluegel presented a request by Park Broadcasting for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a transmission tower and related buildings on the prop- erty owned by Robert Lundgren on Holly Drive. 410/Mr. Kluegel pointed out the property on the map and noted it contained approximately 80 acres. Ile also stated that part of the property is in an area called Cedar Lake. Planning and Zoning Board January 11, 1984 Page -4- Mr. Dick Nolan, an attorney representing Park Broadcasting introduced several people in the audience associated with this proposal. Mr. Nolan noted that radio towers are governed by local regulations as well as two federal agencies, FAA and FCC. The FAA protects the airways and airports and the FCC regulates signal size and transmission. Mr. Nolan explained they have already applied to the FAA and FCC for con- struction of the tower. however local regulations and zoning is the prim- ary factor in determinig whether or not a tower can he built. Although the FAA and FCC regulate the tower, they do not over rule local zoning. This area is an ideal location for location of this tower. Mr. Shorts letter does support this idea. Mr. Nolan said Park Broadcasting is requesting authorization of a Con- ditional Use Permit, Site and Building Plan approval to construct a FM radio tower. This will include a tower which is approximately three (3) feet on each side, triangler shaped and is sectional and is approximately 1,057 feet total height. There will be a 15' x 15' square building for equipment. The tower will be surrounded by chain link -fence topped with barbed wire. The guy wires will also be fenced. The access road will he about 14 feet wide and approximately 700 feet long. The site will be unoccupied but will be visited about once a week for Ttaintenance purposes. The tower will be lite according to FAA regulations at approximately four levels. The lights will be tilted upward to reduce the lumination if from reaching the ground. The proposal is for white strobe lights, which will not be visible from the ground surface/ Mr. Short has recommended the tower be moved closer to Cedar Lake and Park Broadcasting is not opposed to this move. The site plan can be redrawn. Mrs. Klaus asked about "disruption". Mr. Nolan said that the tower will come apart in small sections if it fell. It would not fall in one piece. Mr. Nolan referred to Mr. Shorts letter. The letter said some items were missing from the proposal and Mr. Nolan said there would be no sewer fac- ilities and the only utility service would be electric. Regarding the home on the 80 acre site, Park Broadcasting has no plans for the site but would subdivide the home off in a ten acre parcel if the Board so wishes. The land under and surrounding the tower will probably continue to be cultivated. Mr. Fawler explained the tower lighting. He indicated that strobe light- ing is the only type of lighting under consideration at this time because strobe lighting is more effective, less agravating to the community and the FAA will probably require it. The lights are pointed up. The only visible effects occur when there is a heavy fog which reflects the light downward. Planning and Zoning Board January 11, 1984 Page -5- A map was shown indicating the existing towers in the metropolitan area and the five major airports. Mr. Goldade asked if the lighting would be similar to the tower near Diversified Products near the intersection of 694 and 35W. No one was familiar with this tower. Mr. Ostlie asked if there is a problem with multiple towers in a relatively small area. Mr. Fawler said thereis no problem with FMantenna. Mr. Ostlie asked if other towers were planned for the same area. The answer was "no ". Shoreview does impose limits of use on their Conditional Use Permits and this City could do the same. Mr. McLean asked when would this Board see proof that the FAA and FCC are being dealt with. Mr. Nolan said he would keep the Board informed. The Rice Creek Watershed District application is being prepared and there will be contact with the DNR and copies of correspondence will he forwarded to the City. It is preferred that the City consider the application independ- ent of what the FAA and FCC would do. Essentially the City requirements will be the maximum of what is allowed in any circumstance. The FAA and FCC will not seriously address the application unless they know the app- lication has City approval. It can be a long and laborious process. •lr. Doocy asked what the minimum land size requirement for the tower and support buildings would be? Mr. Fawler said 32.9 acres. The plan for the remaing 40+ acres is continued cultivation or if the City preferred subdivision into ten acre parcels. Mr. Prokop said he would like to see strobe lights in use. Mr. Nolan noted this tower is a segmented tower and designed to fall into itself in pieces if it fell. Mrs. Klaus asked who will oversee the actual construction of the tower. Mr. Nolan said the deign will have to be approved by the FCC and engineers will inspect the construction progress. Mr. Ostlie asked why would it be beneficial to locate a tower in Lino Lakes? Mr. Nolan said Lino Lakes is centrally located in relation to their market and the rural nature of the area and the distance from resid- ential areas makes the area more appealing. Plus it is easily accessable for maintenance. Mr. Nolan asked for further direction from the Board. Mr. McLean asked for copies of the Shoreview Conditional Use Permits on their towers from Mr. Short, asked for information as to what this means for a tax base for the City, what it means for future development near the tower, Rice Creek approval and a document from the DNR. Ilkt was noted that there is major residential development near the tower in Shoreview and other parts of the metropolitan area. Mr. Goldade asked what the life expectance of the tower is. Mr. Fawler Planning and Zoning Board January 11, 1984 Page -6- said they issue 60 year guarantees on the tower itself. Mr. Goldade said this then would impact beyond the year 2,000. Mr.Nolan asked if it is the preference of the Board to move the tower location farther to the east? It was the consensus of the Board it would be better to move it east as recommended by Mr. Short. Mr. McLean felt that the Board should view strobe lights and Mr. Doocy said. the City of Arden Hills has material on strobe lights. Mr. McLean asked Mr. Kluegel to get a copy of this material. He also asked Mr. Kluegel to address the question of inspection, who would do the inspection? Mr. McLean asked for all this material by the end of January. This then can be scheduled for the February agenda. Mr. Goldade asked that the Board look at a rezone to light industrial and see what this would do to the City tax structure. The Board would like the City Attorney to address this question. Mr. Doocy asked about a district for just towers. He would like to restrict towers to one spot not the entire city. Mr. McLean asked that all this information he in the Boards hands ten (10) days prior to the February meeting. lkr. McLean moved that the application for a Conditional Use Permit be laid over to the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting and that the information that has already been discussed as being needed and required for that meet- ing be provided to each member of the Board ten (10) days prior to that meeting. Mr. Cody seconded the motion. lotion declared passed. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Kluegel provided a revised ordinance for Dog Kennels which would re- quire that the owner would show proof each individual dog has rabies vac- cinations and obtain a license for each dog at no additional fee. Mr. Cody felt the City is granting a privilege and a license fee should be required as well as the Kennel License fee. It was the consensus that the revised ordinance should contain language requireing proof of rabies vaccinations and individual licenses for each dog. Mr. Prokop was concerned about granting Kennel Licenses in an ER area even though the lot was actually a R -1 type lot. Kennels are not presently allowed in the R -1 area. Mr. McLean asked Mr. Prokop to draft a change to the Kennel License code. This will be on the February agenda. Ir. McLean said he is meeting with a representative from Naegle Sign Company who will provide assistance in updating the sign ordinance. He has already given her a copy of the present sign ordinance. Planning and Zoning Board January 11, 1984 Page -7- Mrs. Klaus asked about 607.03, subdivision 1 of the City Code. This Board does not issue Kennel Licenses and this language appears incorrect. Mr. McLean asked Mr. Kluegel to correct this section of the code. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Goldade asked Mr. Kluegel to check the size of a rambler near Country Lane. He felt this house may be undersized. Mr. Prokop moved to adjourn at 10:45 P.M. Mrs. Klaus seconded the motion. Aye. • •