Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/1984 P&Z Minutes• • • Planning and Zoning Board October 24, 1984 The special meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 7:35 P.M on Wednesday, October 24, 1984 by Chair- man McLean. Members present: Prokop, Cody, Klaus, Goldade, Ostlie and Doocy. Mr. Kluegel and Mrs. Foster were also present. This special meeting was arranged to review the draft dog kennel ordinance which was revised at the last meeting of October 10, and also to consider revising the ordinance regarding accessory build- ings as has been requested by petition by several citizens of the community. Approximately twenty citizens were in attendance to pro- vide input regarding the requests for changes to the accessory build- ing ordinance. A sign language interpreter was provided by the City for the benefit of Jerome Zondlo in the audience. DOG KENNEL ORDINANCE The Board reviewed the draft which was put together at the October 10 meeting regarding the dog kennel ordinance. Mr. McLean explained that the intent of changing the dog kennel ordinance was to make the following stipulations 1) all kennels require conditional use permit, 2) commercial kennels allowed only in heavy and light industrial districts, 3) no private kennels allowed in any "R" districts, 4) five acres required for private kennels with three dogs or more in ER district, 5) notification sent to all property owners within 1,000 feet of proposed kennel. The Board made corrections to the draft and asked that the those changes be incorporated into the draft and presented to City Council with the following recommendation. Mr. Prokop moved to recommend to Council adoption of the proposed dog kennel ordinance number 607 as amended and revised. Motion seconded by Mr. Cody. Motion carried unanimously. A question arose from the audience as to whether or not it would be allowed for a citizen to keep six husky dogs, as is needed for a sled team. Mr. McLean answered that per the proposed ordinance, this would not be allowed. A copy of the complete, revised draft of the dog kennel ordinance number 607 in its final form is attached. ACCESSORY BUILDINGS ORDINANCE Chairman McLean explained that the Board would consider changing the ordinance regarding accessory buildings as has been suggested by the following two petitions: Petition 1: Signed by six parties requesting changing Subd. 7 (1)(C) which currently allows a maximum square footage for a rural storage building of 1,000 square feet on a 2 to 10 acre parcel - to allow a maximum square footage of 2,500. • • • planning and Zoning Board October 24, 1984 Page Two Petition 2: Signed by 28 parties requesting changing Subd. 7 (1) (C) which currently allows a detached rural storage building on a parcel over 24 acres - to allow a detached rural storage buildiig on a parcel over 1 acre. This peti- tion also requests deleting the phrase "if there is no attached garage" from Subd. 7 (14)(B). Mr. McLean noted that per a request by the P & Z Board, Mr. Kluegel has provided the Board with the ordinances with regard to accessory building used by Hugo, Shoreview, New Hope, Ham Lake, Coon Rapids and Blaine. Mr. McLean then opened the meeting to any in the audience who wished to be heard. Niel Banta, 7829 Nottingham Lane appeared before the Board saying that he had come before the Board in April or May requesting a variance for a detached garage on his I -acre parcel. The Board suggested that he petition_ for a change to the ordinance because they could not approve his request at that time with the current ordinance. Mr. Banta said that he would be allowed per ordinance to add 680 square feet to his attached garage, which would not look as nice as a de- tached garage, and would not serve his purpose as well, Mr. Kluegel concurred with this statement. Mr. Banta suggested the changes out- lined in Petition 2 above. Roger Kolstad appeared saying that he had sold one acre lots to many citizens in the community with the understanding that they could build detached garages on their lots. This was true at the time of the sale of the lots. Mr. Kolstad and many others have just recently been informed that the ordinance was changed since that time and now requires 24 acres. He felt this change took the community by sur- prise and caused a hardship for many one -acre lot owners. He sug7 gested the changes outlined in Petition 2 above. Larry Peterson, 1044 Evergreen Trail appeared saying that at the time he bought his one -acre lot he could build a detached garage and now that he can afford to do so, the ordinance prohibits it. He would like approximately 800 square feet and plans to match the architecture to his house. He suggests controls to assure the gar- age matches the house and does not feel a pole barn should be allowed on one acre. He supports Petition 2 above. Larry Swistowski, East 81st St, appeared saying that he has 17 acres and wants to build a 2,500 square foot pole barn and is only allowed 1,500 per ordinance. He supports Petition 1. Gerald Kuether, Carole and 77th St. appeared saying that he wants to build a 15' X 16' garage to match his house and feels that stor ing his many cars inside a garage is much better looking that having them parked outside on his property. He supports Petition 1, to include controls to assure garage architecturally matches house. • • • Planning and Zoning Board October 24, 1984 Page Three Jim Tuchscherer, 7860 Nottingham Lane appeared asking why the Board changed the ordinance in the first place, to which Mr. Prokop gave one reason being that detached garages could cause problems in the event that the area became sewered and the owner would then want to split his land into lots. Mr. Prokop explained that there was a Task Force of approximately 20 people and several public hearings before the ordinance was changed, so it was not a snap judgment. Mr. Tuchscherer was in favor of Petition 2. Larry Peterson made the point that the ordinance as it now stands would help protect the owner of a one -acre parcel who would at some time, because of sewer or other reason, want to split one acre, but the ordinance provides no option for the owner who wishes to keep his entire one acre and store his belongings inside. Roger Kolstad felt that a detached garage could be easily moved if it became a problem at the time of a lot split. Harvey Karth spoke from the audience as a member of the Task Force at the time of the ordinance change, saying that the changes to this ordinance have obviously not stood the test of time, and that he sees many valid requests both here at this meeting and several people not here. He suggested controls for appropriate architecture and felt the garage would be less an eyesore than yards with RVs, boats, trailers and the like. Larry Swistowski felt it was ridiculous for the City to plan around the possibility of future sewer and the overall feeling toward sewer seems to be negative even by the City representatives. Mr. Prokop asked if anyone in a one acre lot has a detached garage and wants another detached garage, to which audience answered 'no'. Mr. Prokop also asked whether or not the audience felt there should be limitations on keeping possessions outside when the garage is available for storage purposes. The only suggestion was that pos- sibly possessions which are not licensed (items other than vehicles) should be kept in the garage if one is available. Mr. Kluegel read the ordinance pertaining to exterior storage. Niel Banta suggested that the ordinance allow the detached garage to be a percentage of the backyard as is done in other communities. The Board decided that they would like to tour the City and get an idea of the types of situations they would be allowing should they make the requested changes. Mr. Banta volunteered to guide the tour since he felt he could show several examples. The Board, Mr. Kluegel and Mr. Banta will meet at 9:00 A.M. on Saturday, November 3, at City Hall to make the 'tour'. Any consideration of changes would then take place as the first agenda item at the regular P & Z meeting on November 14. Several in the audience felt that this item has been up in the air for long enough and felt the Board was procrastinating. It was ex- plained that the P & Z Board put a priority on this issue relative to other issues which they have recently dealt with and that the Board • • • planning & Zoning Board October 24, 1984 Page Four would have to make recommendations to the City Council, public hearings would have to take place and the process cannot be decided upon with- out following these steps. Point was made by the audience that this timetable would then not allow for any construction (should the ordinance be changed) to be completed in time to store possessions during the 84/85 winter season, and that the petitions were filed several months ago. Mr. Ostlie felt that a 1,000 square foot garage on one acre would be too large, and he voiced his opinion to the audience. Mr. McLean asked Mr. Kluegel to be prepared with any additional input he may have at the November 3 meeting /tour. Mr. Kluegel stated that he would also like to see possibly changing the square footage allowed for a tool shed (currently 120 square feet) to 200 square feet, because he has had several complaints about that. He also stated that he had had several citizenss in favor of the petition items discussed tonight. Mr. Klaus moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 P.M. Mr. Prokop asked to bring up an additional item in regard to the spec- ial meetings which have been scheduled for the P & Z Board. Some discussion following causing the following motion. Mr. Goldade moved to recommend to Council that the P & Z special meet. ings be considered in lieu of regular meetings in terms of attendance and quarterly compensation. Should there be four regular meetings scheduled during a quarter, attendance at four regular or special meetings be considered sufficient to receive compensation. Mr. Prokop seconded the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Ostlie seconded the move to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 9 :22 P.M. Aye. • 607. Kennels 607.01 Definitions Subdivision 1. Dog. For purposes of 607.01 through 607.05, "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 maintenance 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 over two, but not more than four dogs are kept or harbored as pets; when resident owner of kennel keeps or breeds dogs for show, hunting, field trials or pleasure. 607.02 Licenses Subdivision 1. License Required. No person shall maintain 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 the maintenance of 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. Land Requirement. Five acres of land required for private kennels in the ER and rural district. All kennels lo- cated 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. A permit is required for each existing kennel, as applicable under this Ordinance. Subd. 5. 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. 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. 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, sufficient 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. • •