Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/1981 P&Z MinutesThe regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 8:05 P.M., April 15, 1981 by Member Larry Johnson. Mr. Bathke, •Chairman will be late and Mr. Bob Doocy, Vice - Chairman will be unable to attend this meeting. Members present; Swistoski, Klaus, Prokop. Flannery was also absent. On considering the minutes of March 18, 1981, Mr. Prokop moved that the minutes be approved. Seconded by Mr. Swistoski. Mrs. Klaus wanted to be sure that the unanimous denial of the Rolstad request was noted correctly in these minutes, Mr. Johnson on the Rehbien lot split, the motion should include the statement "that according to State Law and City Ordinances, that no hardship of the land was shown ". (add to the minutes) Mr. Prokop moved to accept the minutes with the changes. Seconded by Mrs. Klaus. Motion carried. Mr. Schumacher reported on the Council actions - on the Pudwill /Leiberman lot split where a temporary trailer permit had been granted - the P &Z had recommended the lot split - the Council has tabled this lot split action due to the owner not having obtained a building permit. Litagation has been started on this problem. Mr. Prokop - on the dog ordinance - had there been discussion of the problems Mr. Schumacher said it had been discussed and this inconsistency should be taken care of when the ordinances are codified. Is there a time frame and Mr. Schumacher said it should be started this summer - money has been allocate VARIANCE - MYRVOLD •This is for a long driveway - 600 feet - Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Schumacher to present the reasons for this driveway. Mr. Schumacher asked Mr. Kluegel why this is necessary and Mr. Kluegel said there is only one area that can be developed and this is the reason for the variance. Mr. Prokop asked if this site has been investigated as to how buildable it is - has there been pert test, etc.? Mr. Kluegel said all this has been done. Mrs. Klaus moved to recommend approval of this variance for the long drive- way with the stipulations that the owner maintain this driveway so that emergency vehicles can get in. Seconded by Mr. Prokop. Motion carried. SPECIAL USE PERMIT - ICE CREAM PARLOR Mr. Schumacher presented the concerns of Mr. Short on this operation - 1)bathrooms, 2) ingress, 3) egress 4) parking, 5) parking, 6) hours of operations 7) number of patrons 8) adjacent land uses. The developers of this establishment had mailed a letter addressed to the concerns to each member. Under the land use and zoning it is stated that the proposed used would comply with the adjacent properties and with the commercial zoning of the lands. Mr. Schumacher asked Mr. Kluegel to address the issues of sewer and water. Mr. Kluegel said he had talked with Mr. Jon Christianson of the Anoka County •Health Department and he had recommended that a new well be installed and the possible enlargement of the existing septic system. There was discussion on the comparable use of this system - would this use be more than a family of five? There was discussion of the proposed ingress and egress to the parking lot - there are two proposals. Planning and Zoning April 15, 1981 Page Two The concern that a divider of some manner be installed between the entrance • and exit of the proposed driveway in order to avoid confusion. The surfacing of the parking lot was discussed. Mr. Schumacher read from the Ordinance as to the requirements. There was discussion on the anticipated number of parking spaces needed and the anticipated number of persons who would be there air any one time. Mr. Johnson asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on this proposed business and there was none. Mr. Prokop wanted it on the record that the living quarters of this building will not be used for residential purposes. The developers said there is no plans for any residential use of this building. Mr. Prokop was concerned with the capacity of the septic system. Mr. Prokop moved to recommend to the Council this Special Use Permit be approved according to Plans submitted by petitioners,Choice #1, new well be installed, petitioners recognized the septic system may need to be enlarged, class #5 aggregate and the Parking may have to be revamped as the use may indicate. Seconded by Mrs. Klaus. Motion carried. Mr. Doocy arrived. VARIANCE - S & J CONSTRUCTION CO, Mr. John Doyle was present to represent this company. Mr, Schumacher report- •ed that Mr. Doyle has 9 lots that he is trying to develop on Captains Place. There is sewer and water in the street. The DNR, Corps of Engineer and the RCWB has concerns on the development of these lots. The City also has a concern with Lots 1/8 , Block 10 in that the City has installed the utilties for servicing these lots and there are assessments to be collected. These lots would need to be filled in order to be developed. This is what Mr. Doyle is in the process of doing at the present time and he needs a permit for this fill work. Mr. Doyle is asking for a variance to the required front setback in order to have to use less fill. This is because all above agencies want as little fill as possible in this area. Mr. Johnson asked how much of a setback variance is he asking for and Mr. Doyle said from the required 30' fot 10'. Mr. Prokop felt that since these lots are located on a cul -de -sac, this would have an affect of having the homes being constructed very near to each other. Mr. Doocy asked, if this variance to the setback is allowed, what sort of side yard setback is being considered? will there be room for a garage? Mr. Doyle said he was planning homes with tuck under garage which would leave the side yards free. The distance of the home from the curb was computed at 17'. There was dis- cussion on the fact that this leaves no space for snow disposal in the winter. There is also a problem of parking in the driveway - this would put a regular size car or van right at the curb. Mr. Prokop asked if there were some of the lots that could handle a setback of more than is being asked for and it was noted that lots 10 $ 11 could be built at the normal setback. Mr. Doyle suggested using two lots as one with a zero lot line, this would alleviate some of the congestion. Planning and Zoning April 15, 1981 Page Three 410 Mr. Doyle suggested using a zero lot line with the construction of cluster of homes on either side of the street and leave the two end lots open. Mr. Gary Bathke arrived. There was discussion on how the front setback figures were arrived at and if there was an estimate of the cost if this figure was altered. Mr. Doocy moved to approve the variance for STJ Construction to reduce the setback from 30' to 10' with the stipulation that lots 6,7,8,9 be seriously considered for zero lot line construction. Seconded by Mr. Prokop, and he added lots 4 &5, and 10 &11 be considered for zero lot lines. Mr. Doocy accepted the amendment. Mr. Prokop added that he approved this because of the land. Motion failed on a 3 to 2 vote. Mr. Johnson said he would be in favor of a 20% reduction in setback. Mr. Prokop moved to call for a second vote on this matter. This is not permissable under the Robert's Rules. Mr. Bathke asked if a lesser setback variance was approved, has anyone said this would not be granted a permit? Mr. Doyle said, No, but they had set the criteria and this setback would comply with those requirements. Mr. Prokop moved that SEIJ Const. request for a variance on setbacks on Lot •4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,26, block 5, Lakes #2 be granted for not more than 15' and not less than 10' and that Lots 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 be considered for development with zero lot lines in order to provide space around the homes. Mr. Prokop stated that his reason for doing this is that a clear case of hardship to the property has been demonstrated by Mr. Doyle. Seconded by Mr. Doocy. Motion carried on a 5 to 1 vote. Mr. Bathke assumed his seat as Chairman. ALCOCK - VARIANCE This is a variance for the division and sale of property in the Alcock Estate. This variance is necessary because of the moratorium on the transferring of property by metes and bounds. Mr. Doocy asked what the land would be used for after it is sold and it was generally felt it would be used for agricultural purposes. There would be a house constructed on one parcel. Mr. Schumacher remind the Board that the Ordinance does require Park dedication when lands are divided by metes and bounds. Mayor Gourley noted that the park dedication would not be required at this time since these lots are not buildable. When the land is developed, the park dedication would be required. 41, Mr. Johnson moved that the variance be recommended for approval and that no park dedication be required at this time. Seconded by Mr. Doocy. Motion carried. VARIANCE - HENDRICKSEN Planning and Zoning April 15, 1981 Page Four •This is for the splitting of lands into 21 acres of land. Mr. Hendricksen had started selling his land and had not completed the division before the Ordinance creating a moratorium had been passed. Some of the lots have been sold and some have homes existing at this time. The drawing was color coded as to the ones that have been sold, the ones that have been built on and the lots remaining. Mr. Hendricksen is aware of the need to pay money into the park fund. This land is located on the North West corner of 4th and Lilac and is in the ER area of the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Klause moved to recommend approval of the variance due to the fact that this had been started before the ordinance had been passed and this is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and money in leiu of land for Park purposes. Seconded by Mr. Prokop. Mr. Schumacher recommended this area be referred to the Park Board for their consideration in the area of whether there should be money or land. Mrs. :Klaus amended her motion to referr this to the Park Board for their consideration. Mr. Prokop accepted this amendment. Motion carried. SPECIAL USE PERMIT - PEHL Mr. Schumacher reported that Mr. Pehl had been unable to get his materials ready for this meeting and has been rescheduled for the May meeting. Mr. Doocy moved to table. Seconded by Mr. Prokop. Motion carried. VARIANCE - PELTIER There was no one present to discuss this request. Mr. Prokop moved to table. Seconded by Mr. Doocy. Motion carried. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS - SHOREVEIW $ NORTH OAKS Mr. Short had reviewed these plans and had found no conflict with Lino Lakes' Plan. Mr. Prokop moved to approve these plans. Seconded by Mr. Doocy. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS NONE NEW BUSINESS NONE Mrs. Klaus moved to ajourn at 10:45 P.M. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Aye. •