HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/1980 P&Z MinutesPlanning and Zoning Board
June 18, 1980
The regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning aan Zoning Board was called to
�
rder at 7:30 P.M. on June 18, 1980 by Chirman Reinert. Members present; Heath,
ocy, Prokop, Absent: Johnson, Schwankl, Bathke.
The minutes of the April 16, 1980 meeting was considered. Mr. Prokop moved to
approve. Seconded by Mr. Heath. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bathke arrived.
The minutes of the May 21, 1980 meeting was considered. On the special use
permit for Mr. Sulander should have read' pae3, with the expiration date of
July 1, 1981, with no renewal' Mr. Heath moved to approve the minutes with
the correction. Seconded by Mr„ Bathke. Motion carried unanimoulsy.
The first item was discussion on an item from Rudy Tschida. Mr. Reinert asked
Mr. Schumacher for comment. Mr. Schumacher said this is for information only.
Mr. Tschida located the property and the fact that he has a tool and die shop
and he wants to construct a building at that location. This land is located
just North of the Woodshed. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan suggestes that
this area be zoned for multi - family. It was noted that this operation would
require a zoning change.
i
Mr. Tschida said the building would contain 5,000/12,000 decorative block
building of approximately 14 feet in height for his shop. He would purchase
the necessary land area for this operation. He is presently located in Shore-
view. PN,
W' .. j,
Doocy noted that an Industrial`is now being developed on Lilac Street
would he consider locating in that area? Mr. Tschida said his people are sp,had
out and he is trying to stay centrally located. After some discussion, it was
learned this is the property owner by V.S. Petersen and is the part of the lot
nearest Highway 8 directly in front of the Earth home he has constructed on
Rice Lake.
Mr. Tschida indicated there, is no noise, no pollution, a maximum of 15 employees,
they work 10 hour days, 5 or 6 days per week. He would be purchasing 500 feet
bordering Highway #8 with a 300 foot depth.
Mr. Reinert suggested a tentative approval of this with Mr. Short being con-
sulted for his comments. The general consensus of the Board was that Mr.
Tschida should proceed in this manner.
The next item on the agenda was a request for a variance by Mr. Roger Kolstad.
This deals with the ordinance prohibiting large metal buildings in a residential
area. Mr. Kolstad is requesting the variance in connection with the construction
of hangers in Lino Air Park.
Mr. Bathke felt the ordinance had been directed at keeping the large metal type
pole building out of residentaial areas and was not directed at the Air Park.
Mr. Reinert asked, why the metal type building? and Mr. Kolstad said cost,
IIIintenance and duriability. There was discussion on the construction of these
ilding. Mr. Schumacher presented the requirements as set forth in the State
Building Code.
Mr. Reinert asked if the colors could be controlled? Mr. Kolstad said there is
Planning and Zoning
June 18, 1980
Page Two
hitectural committee that must approve any structure proposed for the Air
k. He aslo stated there are covenants on the deeds covering the construction
in this area.
Mr. Reinert wanted the restrictions put in written form. Mr. Heath felt this
was completely unnecessary since the Council must review all such building permit
Mr. Kolstad suggested this Board put a restriction on the maximum number of
square feet the building may contain, specify colored metal and let the Building
Inspector handle it from that point.
Mr. Reinert said it is necessary to establish a set of standard in order to
avoid returning to the Council for each building.
Mr. Bathke referred to the specifications set forth in the State Building Code -
suggested that the construction requirements be worked out from this set of
standards and presented to the Council. Mr. Bathke moved to recommend approval
of this variance with the following stipulations; the building in the Air Park
not to exceed 3200 square feet, be in Earth tone colored metal - conform to the
State Builing Code classification B3 - Mr. Kolstad and Mr. Schumacer to put this
into language for the Council. Seconded by Mr. Heath .
Mr. Prokop asked about the deed restrictions and Mr. Kolstad read the covenants
on the lots; 1 home -O03 car garage and 1 detached utility building - must be
approved by the architectural committed. This is part of every deed.
41, Bathke amended his motion to state; attached hangers must be of the same
ing as the house. Mr. Heath accepted the amendment. Motion carried unanimosl
Mr. Prokop asked about the term of development and Mr. Kolstad thought in 3 to
4 years it should be completed. The Air strip is in and this was an important
factor.
Mr. Forest Tagg's special use permit application was considered. Mr. Schumacher
explained this is an expansion to an existing special use permit. Mr. Tagg is
asking to add a 5000 square food' storage building - pole type.
Mr. Tagg explained that his business had grown to the point that he needs more
storage space. Mr. Tagg explained that approximately 95% of his work is done
out of the area.
Mr. Schumacher pointed out that by the issuance of the special use permit it is
basically a rezone to Light Industrail. There was some discussion as to what
has been planned for his location in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Reiner
suggested that this Board not try to project what will happen in the future.
Mr. Tagg explained he still has plans for the motel that had originally planned
for that location.
Mr. Bathke moved to grant the expansion of the special use permit to permit the
construction of a 120x50 feet warehouse and this area be considered for Light
01 ustrial zoning at a later date. Seconded by Mr. Prokop . Motion carried.
Mr. Mike Huberty appeared to present the Shenandoah II plat for consideration.
This is an old plat that has been approved buTthe time span for filing has
•lasped so it must go through the process again. Mr. Schumacher pointed out
Planning and Zoning
June 18, 1980
Page Three
t at the utilitiesVare not shown on this plat and must be included. Ain there
2.9 acres of land for the park requirements and this adjoins the park in
enandoah I. The general consensus of the Board was they could see not problems
other than the need to include the utilities.
Mr. Heath moved to recommend to the Council approval of this plat and a public
hearing be set with the stipulation that the utilities be added to the plat.
Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried unanimously.
A special use permit for Mrs. Sharon Hill was considered. Mrs. Hill lives on
Main street and is asking for a special use permit to sell soft crafts from her
home - silk flowers, yars, etc. She had obtained all signatures except one.
In answer to a question about a sign, she said possibly one with just the house
numbers. Mr. Heath moved to recommend to the Council approval of this special
use permit. Seconded by Mr. Prokop. Motion carried unanimously. The review on
this permit will be July 1, 1981.
Mr. Alvin Roetman had applied for a special use permit for the keeping a horse
and a pony on less than 5 acres of land. Mr. Schuma1cer pointed out there have
been several requests along these same lines', the Council has tabled consideration
of these requests until the Special Committee has had a change to study this.
Mr. Reinert suggested that any action on this request be delayed until the
Council has had a chance to establish the guide lines, Mr. Heath loved to table
this request. Seconded by Mr. Bathke. Motion carried unanimously.
411. Dirers asked to speak on this subject. She lives on 81st Street W and felt
t the acreage on that street is not large enough to contain large animals -
the horses are ridden on private property and she is opposed to the granting of
any such special use permits in that area.
Mr. George Drier asked about the ordinance that was just passed. Mayor Gourley
explained that animals may be kept on 10 acres - 5 acres or more by special use
permit only. Mr. Drier suggested some one might decide to raise hogs - Mayor
Gourley said that is prohibited. Mayor Gourley pointed out there are no pro-
visions in the ordinance for animals to be kept on parcels of less than 5 acres.
Mr. Perkins said he had o specific Complaint - just that he felt horses become
a resident of the neighborhood as they are very visable. He felt any special use
permit that is issued should be closely watched with the possibility of cancell-
ation of the permit.
Mrs. Linda Carlson said she had a deep concern over the hostility, harassment
and threats. There have been horses galloping throughThe yard leaving big holes.
She felt there is no place for the horses to be ridden since the lots are heavily
wooded and some quite low spots. And there is very little suitable lands for
pasture. She is opposed to having animals on that street.
The Clerk was instructed to be sure these comments were in these minutes and
the Committee appointed by Mayor Gourley gets a copy of the minutes.
special use permit request by Mr. Pithsert for permission to sell used cars from
home on Ash Street was considered. This type of business falls into
commercial zoning - Mr. Peislt has ag /Res zoning.
Mr. Peisert said he would hove no more that to 3 cars there ar any one time. He
has all signatures except, and presented a letter from Mr. Jester who had no
Planning and Zoning
June 18, 1980
Page Four,
objections to this operation.
Reinert asked if there would be any work done on the cars at that location
and Mr. Peisert said perhaps checking the brakes and maybe an oil change and
generally cleang of the cars. He was questioned on the size of his lot and Mr.
Peisert said he has approximately 3/4's of an acre with 100 foot frontage on
Ash Street.
Mr. Johnson didn't see any difference between this request and the one for a
welding shop in a residential area. He felt it was good to allow the persons
to start in this manner and when the growth is such, then to move into a
commercial area.
Mr. Prokop pointed out that the issuance of a special use permit is the
equivalent to a rezoning and is issued to the land not the person - can a time
limit be put on the special use permits? Ordinance No. 56 was consulted and
it would appear that a time limit can be imposed as a part of the issuance of a
special use permit.
Mr. Heath asked if Mr. Peisert was licensed by the State and Me Peisert said not
as yet. He had checked for the requirements for license and was told that a
State license will not be issued until he has cleared his operation with the
,State
he plans to operate within.
Mr. Prokop felt the area is residential with a large open space across the street
the possibility of development - this would be one spot in the middle with
a commercial use - he wondered if something could be done to protect the future
•elopment.
Mr. Peisert said he will be selling leased cars that have been reconditioned -
these are new models that have been leased for a couple of years then turned in.
Mr. Prokop moved to recommend to the Council that this Special Use Permit request
be denied. Seconded by Mr. Heath.
Mr. Peisert said his lot would have no different appearance than any other
residence in the area. Mr. Prokop said this Board only recommends - the Council
has the final action on this request. On taking the vote, there was a split
vote and Mr. Reinert asked for a show of hands. There were three ayes. Motion
carried. Mr. Peisert was told to appear before the Council on June 23, 1980.
Mr. Blackbird asked that the Special Use Permit application for the 1st State
Bank of Hugo be considered before the other requests. This permit is needed
since this is a commercial building in a non - sewered area.
Mr. Schumacher presented the plans and specification for this construction and
the recommendations from Mr. Short in connection with the installation of this
Bank facility.
The parking - the width of drive in teller lanes - the exit lands - the set backs
the additional 20' set back along old highway 8 and the waste disposal syste.
410 . Bllckbird pointed out that the radius on the driveway is being corrected -
e storm water drainage will be handled through the existing ditch system - this
flows to the South. There was discussion of the existing septic system on this
land - will this be filled in? Mr. Blackbird was not sure but whatever is in-
stalled will be under the supervision of the Building Inspector.
Mr. Heath moved to recommend approval of the construction with the points in Mr.
Planning and Zoning
June 18, 1980
Page Five
Short's letter being carried out. Seconded by Mr. Bathke. Mr. Prokop asked to
410 n the motion to include 'special consideration of the waste disposal system
storm water drainage' this was acceptable. Motion carried unanimously.
North Northeast Realty had applied for a variance for the transfer of lands of
less than 2' acres. This is part of the lot sold to James Refridgeration for
the construction of the Tom Thumb Store. North Northeast wishes to repurchase
a portion of that land for the expansion of their office facilities. There was
discussion on the extent of the ponding area and this was not known at this
time. Mr. Bathke moved to table consideration of this request until the ponding
area dimensions are known. Seconded by Mr. Heath. MOtion carried unanimously.
The feasibility plat for Lakes Add. #7 was considered. There was discussion on
need for rezoning with Mr. Reinert reporting on the Council's decision that the
Special Use Permit issued in 1970 was valid and this plat should proceed.
There was discussion of £.06 in Ordinance #56 and just how that affects this
plat. There was much confusion as to what the implications of this section
has on this proposed plat with Mr. Reinert asking for a legal interpretation from
Mr. Locher.
Ir. Balckbird said he felt the special use permit made it unnecessary for a re-
zoning. He plans to redraw the plat to eliminate Outlot J from this plat. He
will return with a preliminary plat at the next meeting this will give the
P &Z time to get a legal interpretation.
. Reinert said he was confused with the entire situtation. He understood
t Mr. Blackbird did not want any consideration of the feasibility - now he
w nts to present a preliminary and by -pass a feasibility plat - this is not
according to how this Board operates. Mr. Balckbird said his preliminary would
be his feasibility plat. Mr. Reinert said he needed to have all loose ends
put t@gether in order to know what they are dealing with.
Mr. Johnson asked just what had been accomplised this evening? Mr. Blackbird
said he had appeared to settle the matter of the need for a rezone - this is a
feasibility plat for Quads on Outlots H & G. He will eliminate the Quads on
Outlot J and that should remove any need for rezoning.
Mr. Schumacher felt the two areas the Planning and Zoning should consider at this
meeting was 1) is a rezone needed to continue or 2) does 6.06 allow then to
proceed with the preliminary plat?
Mr. Reinert said he did not understand 6.06; Mr. Johnson said he did not know
what 6.06 said.
Mr. Schumacher suggested that if they were uncomfortable with this section,
then they should request a legal opinion.
Mr. Reinert said this business of skipping the feasibility plat was not accord-
ing tone manner in 'which platting was done and he did not understand why Mr.
Blackbird was suggesting this.
0 rSChumacher explained that a feasibility plat is merely the developers ideas
developing a parcel of land. It is usually presented to the Planning and
Zoning for suggestions of perhaps better ways in which the land may be developed
and if this is the proper usage of the lands. This would be done before the
developer goes to the expense of having a preliminary plat prepared.
Planning and Zoning
June 18, 1980
Page Six
Mr. Bathke said he was completely confused - he wants a legal opinion on 6.06.
Reinert said he didn't know where he was on this plat - thought is was
necessary to go through a feasibility plat - now North NortheasT was to skip
this phase of the platting process.
Mr. Johnson asked why Outlot J was being withdrawn - Mr. Blackbird said to avoid
rezoning.
Mr. Reinert suggested that before any actions are taken, a legal opinion on
6.06 be obtained - if there is a cahnge in the interpretation, present a
feasibility plat based on that interpretation.
n
Mr. Bllckbird told the Board that a feasibility and preliminary are one and the
same.
Mr. Bathke moved to request a legal interpretation of 6.06 to be forwarded to
the Planning and Zoning before the next meeting so whatever presented at that
meeting may be dealt with. Seconded by Mr. Doocy. MOtion carried unanimously.
The special use request by Mr. Marcel LeRoux was considered. This deals with
the removal of top soil on lands located to the Souht and East of 64th Street
and Otter Lake Road.
Mr. Schumacher pointed out that Mr. LeRoux lieeded150' frontage on 64th street -
this has been provided; A Letter of Credit was needed - this has been supplied;
Mr. LeRoux has presented wiegh slips for the material that has been removed;
III LeRoux needs a master plan for the 20 acres noting the areas of removed
1, the existing grades and what is to be the finished grades.
Mr. LeR oux said he understood what needed to be done. Mr. Gotwald is to
establish these grades and he has been contacted but he hasn't been out as yet.
Mr. Scherer said he had contacted Mr. Gotwald several months ago and he was
contacted again on Monday. It was suggested that they could get another
Engineering firm to do this work.
Mr. Doocy moved to table this until all topog maps are in. Secnded by Mr. Heath.
Mr. Bathke asked would this operation be continued? He was informed that all
work had ceased - the building inspector had red tagged the operation. ( Mr.
Scherer asked to have this approved contingent upon Mr. Gotwald preparing the
topog maps) The motion carried unanimously.
There was a suggestion of perhaps a special meeting for the consideration of this
matter. Mr. Scherer said a drawing had been prepared, given to the Building
Inspector and it had been mislaid.
Under Old Business, there was some discussion on moving in a house from a lady
in the audience. The general consensus of the Board this would need to proceed
through the Building Inspector. Mr. Doocy will yo with Mr. Kluegel and Mayor
Gourley to inspect this home.
411 Prokop pointed out that in March of 1973 a special use permit had been
hdrawn in connection with Outlots C & I. There had been a special use permit
for multi - family dwellings for these outlots and that had been withdrawn and the
Outlots had been reverted to single family dwelling - Mr. Prokbp wondered where
these outlots were. It was generally felt that these outlots are not a part of
the lands being considered as Lakes Add. #7.
Planning and Zoning
June 18, 1980
Page Seven
(Clerk's Note: These Outlots were platted as a part of Lakes Add. #3)
410 Reinert asked if Outlot K had a special use permit and Mr. Schumacher said,
Yes.
Mr. Heath asked if the Planning and Zoning Board recommend a change in the
Ordinance to make a special use permit a special use permit rather than a zoning
change? He felt that is the assumption of persons requesting a special use
permit.
Mr. Schumacher pointed out the inequities of the special use permit in that a
request to sell 2 to 3 cars out of his home is denied and one for the construc-
tion of a $50,000.00 is granted.
Mr. Prokop asked if the special use permit publication of March 13, 1973 can be
found in the files and checked to see if the revocation of the special use
permit on Outlot C,G, & I. He wanted to know if a special hearing was really
held.
Under New Business, Mr. Bathke moved to recommend to the Council that Mr. Locher
prepare an Ordinance that says a special use is a special use and not a rezone.
This to be studied by the Planning and Zoning Board to decide if this is the
manner iij which they would like to continue. Seconded by Mr. Heath. Motion
carried unanimously.
Mr. Prokop moved to adjourn. Seconded by Mr. Doocy. Motion carried unanimously.
•
•