Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/1983 P&Z MinutesFebruary 9, 1983 Planning and Zoning Board 411/regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board was called to order by Chairman Prokop, Wednesday, February 9, 1983 at 7:35 P.M. The Chairman noted that all members were present. Mr. Kluegel was also present. MINUTES - January 12, 1983 Mr. Doocy moved to approve the minutes of the January 12, 1983 meeting. Mr. Prokop quest- ioned page 2, :paragraph 5, 2nd second sentence. He felt this might be a misintrepretation. Mr. Doocy asked to withdraw his previous motion and moved to table the minutes of January 12, 1983 until this sentence is clarified. Mrs. Klaus seconded the motion. Motion de- clared passed. VARIANCE - Stafki Mr. Prokop explained this is an item the Planning and Zoning Board approved on January 12, 1983. The Council on January 24, 1983 suggested that this item be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Board for further co sideration. Mr. Stafki explained he had a conflict the night of the Council meeting and did not attend. Mrs. Sarner had told him she would call him if the Council had further questions. He had been told the Council had sent this request back to the Planning and Zoning Board and Mr. Hawkins, City Attorney, would be here at this meeting tonight. However, Mr. Hawkins is at the Centerville Council meeting tonight and has sent a letter instead. IIIProkop explained Mr. Hawkins letter indicates that according to the Comprehensive Use Plan a lot in an unsewered area should be one acre. Mr. McLean felt Mr. Hawkins point was in the area of setting precedence and he felt Mr. Hawkins was correct. Mr. Johnson said although he sympathized with Mr. Stafki he agreed with Mr. Hawkins. Mrs. Klaus stated that if the Planning and Zoning Board decided to rescind their prev- ious motion and recommend to deny the variance, Mr. Stafki could come back for a variance when sewer is brought into the area. Mr. Ostlie said this action would not prevent Mr. Stafki from reapplying once the moratorum is lifted. Mr. Prokop asked for a time schedule for when the moratorum could be lifted. He was told the next three quadrant meetings are February 10, 15 and 17th and there is another task force meeting set for February 22 to tie everything together. The Council could then set a public hearing at their first meeting in March. The public hearing requires pub- lication so this may be held in April. The Council could make a decision at this meet- ing. The Charter regulations will have to be applied so there may be a waiting period before the rezoning becomes effective. Mr. Stafki asked if he would be allowed to subdivde after the moratorum is lifted. Mrs. Klaus felt that because this area is designated Urban Residential and because there is no s r available the required lot size will still be one acre after the moratorum is lifted. February 12, 1983 Planning and Zoning Board Page -2- Doocy explained he felt this was an area in which the City would want to encourage lopment, it is already a residential area, an area we would want to fill in before other areas are encouraged to develope and for this reason he felt Mr. Stafki could split his lot now for development in a year or two when sewer could be in. Mr. Stafki asked if there was a guarantee that if he waited until after the moratorum is lifted he could reapply and get the variance. The Board said they could not guar- antee this. Mr. Ostlie asked if Mr. Stafki would have to reapply and would there be another filing fee if he would want to reapply after the moratorum is lifted. He was told if the act- ion was to table this variance, there would not be another fee. However, if the Council denies the application for a variance another fee would be required if he reified. Mr. McLean asked Mr. Kluegel if it would be proper to postphone action on this variance until such time the moratorum is lifted. Mr. Kluegel said that the new ordinance will require five acres with one acre buildable in an unsewered area. Mrs. Anderson said in her conversations with Mr. Hawkins he indicated that after the moratorum is lifted, in an unsewered area a one acre lot will still be required. There was a difference of opinion between the City Planner and City Attorney as to what the new ordinance will require for a buildable lot in an unsewered area. Mr. Short, City Planner feels that a five acre lot with one acre buildable will be required and Mr. Hawkins feels that one acre will be required. ill. McLean felt that one acre minimum was the intent of the task force. Johnson asked if it was wise to allow the lots in the Lakeview area to subdivide before sewers were installed. It was explained that only the corner lots had enough frontage to subdivide and there were only about three lots left. Mr. Prokop asked if what the Council is really saying to the Planning and Zoning Board regarding Mr. Stafki's variance request is to hold off until the moratorum is lifted and the final ordinance and zoning map has been adopted and then reconsider Mr. Stafki's request. Mrs. Anderson said she felt Mr. Hawkins would tell the Council that according to the Land Use Plan a one acre minimum is still required in this area because it is unsewered and deny the request. Mr, McLean felt the Planning and Zoning Board should get together with Mr. Hawkins and come to an understanding regarding this issue. Mr. Goldade asked if the Council is not going to consider any variance to the moratorum why does the staff accept any applications at all? Why doesn't the Council direct the staff not to accept any application for a variance? Mrs. Klaus felt the staff should not be asked to judge who can apply for a variance and who cannot apply. Mr. Goldade said this pertains to a variance to the moratorum only. Mr. Prokop felt the staff cann- ot make the judgement of who can or cannot apply for a variance but they can advise the applicant of what the chances are for approval. Mr. McLean moved to rescind the motion made by Mr. Doocy on January 12, 1983 concerning e Stafki variance by reason being that the motion that was made did not follow the intent the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Motion declared passed. February 9, 1983 Planning and Zoning Board Page -3- 4 Prokop listed the options in dealing with Mr. Stafki's variance request; motion to prove pending final adoption and lack of conflict with the zoning ordinance; refuse to consider the issue entirely because it would be creating a precedence. Mr. Johnson felt the Board should not give Mr. Stafki false hope because under the new ordinace Mr. Stafki will have to come back for a variance to the ordinance and he will have to show hardship of the land to get the variance. Mr. Stafki asked about the money he has paid for this variance request. Mrs. Anderson explained that normally whether the variance is approved or disapproved or denied the $50.00 fee is retained by the City for clerical fees and the $100.00 escrow is returned to the remitter. However, in this case the City Attorney will have some charges that will have to be deducted from the $100.00 escrow. Mr. Stafki said he wished he had known what he was up against before he applied for this variance. Mr. Kluegel said he felt he had explained to Mr. Stafki the options of appear- ing before the Planning and Zoning Board for a feasibility only at no cost and also sugg- ested waiting until the moratorum had been lifted before applying for the variance. Mr. Johnson moved to deny Mr. Stafki's application for a variance dated January 3, 1983 for property located at 6981 Sunrise Drive, tract B, west 2 of lot 20, block 5, Lexing- ton Park Lakeview, Anoka County. This denial for a variance to ordinance #85 is due to not (1 compliance with the Comprehensive Land UsePlan nor is it consistent with either letter or intent of the Community Development Plan. Mr. McLean seconded the motion. Motion declared passed. 410 Prokop told Mr. Stafki he has the right to go before the Council and present his case against the action of the Planning and Zoning Board. This will be before the Council on February 28, 1983. Mr. Prokop noted that there will be a public hearing before the final adoption of the zoning map and he should try to present his case at this hearing. OLD BUSINESS - Wayne Ellison Mr. Prokop said that Mr. Ellison has asked to appear tonight with information regarding his property. At the January 12, 1983 meeting, Mr. LeRoux and his attorney Mr. Bartholdi told the Planning and Zoning Board there were easements over Mr. Ellison's property. Mr. Ellison had called the Anoka County recorder and there is no record of easements being recorded on his property. At this point he is not sure whether there are easements over his property. Mr. Prokop said the reason he had Mr. Ellison appear tonight is because he is concerned about what happens to the land to the north and west of his property. The potential for a lot of traffic over the easements on his property concerns him. Mr. Prokop felt this is an issue that should be resolved and be put on record with the Planning and Zon- ing Board. Mrs. Anderson said she had also contacted the County Recorder and the County Surveyor. There are no public easements recorded on Mr. Ellison's property. However, the County Surveyor said there could be private easements recorded on Mr. Ellison's property. The County does not record private easements on plat maps or section maps. These easements ld be recorded on Mr. Ellison's deeds or abstracts. Mr. Prokop asked if these ease - nts were transferable. Mrs. Anderson did not know this but the fact remains that only