Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/1980 P&Z MinutesMay 21, 1980 Planning and Zoning Board The regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board was called to -der at 7:30 P.M. Members present; Reinert, Porkop, Doocy, Bathke, Heath. Johnson will be late, Mrs. Schwankl was absent. The minutes of April 16, 1980 was considered. Mrs. Schwankl arrived. Mr. Reinert could not locate.' his copy of the P &Z minutes. Mr. Schumacher was asked for a report of Council actions. He reported on the request of MarDon for rezoning to R2. No action was taken on this matter due to the absence of a letter of credit for that development. This matter will be handled at that time. Mr. Prokop questioned the statement concerning the mining permit - P &Z does not have to review this type of permit. Mr. Schumacher reported on the ordinance amendment dealing with the accessory buildings. Mr. Schumacher reported on the request of the Council in reference to Scheunemann's Corner. They had requested that this be shown in a manner that would allow the future splitting of those interior lots. This is being done. The Tim Rehbine request for a variance to the side yard set back was denied and Mr. Rehbine was requested to acquire additional land to meet this requirement. The special Use permit request of Mr. Michael Kenney was approved. Mr. Gehrman was asked for additional information. Skyline Autobody special use permit .s approved. The mobile home request by Mr. Illg was denied, Mr. Doocy questioned Ord. #73 - what is it? Mayor Gourley explained this is a combination of #26 and 26A - these two will be repealed and #73 written to replace them. This deals with the keeping of animals. The first item on the agenda was Mr. Lyndal Nelson. Mr. Schumacher explained that Mr. Nelson had applied for a variance to side yard setbacks due to the fact that his home was constructed too near the line. There was discussion on the fact that Mr. Nelson had applied previous and had been denied and does not feel that he should pay the fee the second time. Mr. Nelson said he did not feel that Mr. Mobley did his job. Mr. Nelson ex- plained the front stake was lined up with the wrong stake on the rear of the lot. Mr. Nelson indicated that he felt that this was the responsibility of the building inspector to make sure this house was placed in the proper place. Mr. Reinert and Mr. SChumacher informed Mr. Nelson that this is not the responsibility of the building inspector - he has neither the time not the staff to survey each lot to assure that the house is placed properly. This house is constructed to within 6 inches of the property line. Mr. Nelson has not had this surveyed so he is not sure of this measurement. This problem was not dicsovered until the house next door was being staked for excavation. The possibility of Mr. Nelsoipurchasing additional footage from his neighbor It s been discussed, but Mr. Nelson felt this was undue expense to him, and uld cause his neighbor's land to have less value. Mr. Reinert asked if this lot line is adjusted, what will this do to the set- back of the house next to him? Mr. Schumacher suggested an angle transfer to give Mr. Nelson additional frontage and the man next door additional footage in the rear. May 21, 1980 Planning and Zoning Board - Page Two - Mr. Reinert suggested that Mr. Kluegel inspect this prrpperty, talk to Mr. cher - work with Mr. Nelson, the adjoining property owner and the builder present this to the Planning and Zoning Board in a positive manner. Mr. okop so moved to table for this action. Seconded by Mr. Heath. Mr. Heath also said he did not think a variance would solve this problem. Mr. Doocy asked that Mr. Kluegel also make some measurements for determining the location of the existing structures. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bennett Hildestad was the next on the agenda. He was not present. This was moved to table by Mr.Doocy, seoconded by Mr. Heath. Motion carried. Mr. Kock's application for a varaince to transfer a 5' foot strip of land in order to maintain the side yard set back for an addition on their garage. This All papers are in order. Mr. Heath moved to recommend approval of this. Seconded by Mr. Doocy. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schultz had requested a variance for along driveway in order to construct him home due to the existence of a drainage easement on the front of the lot. Mr. Heath moved to recommend approval of this variance. Seconded by Mrs. Schwankl. Motion carried unanimously. The Richard Carlson lot split was considered next. This land is located on the corner of Hodgson Road and Linda Street. Mr. Carlson owns two lots and this split would leave one -half of each lot in a new parcel. Mr. Prokop moved to recommend approval of this request with the stipulation the existing build- ings meet all City requirements as to setbacks. This would split Lots 1 & 2 into two lots, one being the E4 of Lots 1 & 2, the other being the W4 of Lots •& 2. Seconded by Mr. Heath. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Robert Smeed appeared before the Board for a variance to have horses on a parcel of land of approximately 3 acres. Mr. Smeed presented a petition signed by persons on Ware Road and he also has a letter from his neighbors stating that he has accessto their property for keeping the horse. This would be a total of approximately 5.5 acres. Mr. Smeed presented signed leases. Mr. Schumacher pointed out that the fence that has been constructed is on the right -of -way and must be moved. Mr. Smeed has been informed of this by the building inspector. There was discussion on the possibility of these leases being withdrawn - what happens to this variance at that point of time. Mr. Heath moved to recommend approval of this variance with the condition that no more than two horses be kept on this property. Seconded by Mr. Johnson (arrived at 8:35 P.M.). Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Roy Stanley was present to present Sunset Oaks II. This land is proposed for industrial use and Mr. Stanley wants to develop as residential, Mr. Stanley felt that there is no way this parcel of land will be developed into industrial. He felt this should be developed as resendential. Mr. Schumacher read the letter from Mr. Short setting forth the reasons this land should remain as industrial in the Comprehensive Land Plan. The matter sewer bening in that area by 1990 and the availability of I35W was cited. so, The amount of buildable industrial land remaining in the City. Mr. Short recommended this area remain in the Industrial zoning as designated in Comprehensive Plan. May 21, 1980 Planning and Zoning - Page, Three- Stanley was asked if he had contacted the property owner whose lands had n suggested for an exchange in this matter. Mr. Stanley said he had contacted Mr. Hendricksen and he seemed to have no objections. Mr. Heath felt the lands designated as Light Inustrial should remain or be replaced with the like amount. Mr. Johnson moved to deny this request and leave at LI, Seconded by Mr. Doocy. Motion carried with Mrs. Schwankl voting, No. Mr. Prokop moved to recommend to the Council that the lands to the North and West of Lilac & 4th Avenue be considered as LI. Seconded by Mr. Doocy. Motion carried. The special use permit for Teresa Krysinski of 7830 Lake Drive for the operation of a used vehicle lot. Teresa Krysinski appeared before the Planning and Zoning Board and briefly explained the operation. The Planning and Zoning requested some drawings and information concerned with the adjoining property owners, streets, Comprehensive Plan conformance. The Planning and Zoning had tabled this matter until the information is available. Mr. Robert Turenne of 1282 W. 81st Street had applied for a variance to keep a horse on 2.53 acres. A letter signed by seven of the adjacent property owners that says they have no objections. The Planning and Zoning Board had recommended to the Council approval of this request. IIIspecial use permit request from Robert Sulander of 7384 Lake Drive for mporary storage - exterior. Five adjacent property owners had signed his petition - needs four more. The parcel of approximately 3 acres is zoned commercial/ residential. The Comprehensive Land Plan calls for Multi - family. The zoning ordinance calls for this type of operation be in a LI area. The Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval of this special use permit, This exterior storage included used construction materials. This permit t - ic- e r- sa —ann A7 ha.&ths . j, L :. SL -7 I, !gd ( ��ti L 0 -uE-c-rez.1 The special use permit of Mr. Henry Suchy of 6620 -20th Ave. for the keeping of 2 hogs, 150 fryer, 30 geese, 20 ducks, 75 laying hens, 6 head of cattle, 50/100 rabbits. There is three signatures of surrounding property owners. Mr. Locher had said that what ever had existed at the time of transfer could continue. There is only 265 front footage and a farm requires 300. Mr. Nadeau said he only had dogs, cats and horses at the time of the sale. If this is under a residential zone, Ord. #56 said that you cannot keep animals in a residential zone or if it is considered under anflagricultural zone, then the Ord. states there must be a 300' frontage. After a lenghly discussion, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of this special use permit. Mr. Nadeau had presented a new petition and there are conflicting signatures - some of the signatures appeared on both petitions. The application of James R. Schilling to rezone of Lot 24,25, 26, & 27 in Wollans' Estates from Crom Res to LI, this is in error - should read from Comm. to General Business. The first 300' of these lots are currently zoned ommercial'- this application is to rezone any portion of these lots beyond e 300'. The Comprehensive Plan shows this as commercial and the lots sizes are in conformance. The Planning and Zoning Board had recommended approval of this rezoning request. / May 22, 1980 Planning and Zoning Page Four The application of James Schilling of 21921 Harold Ave,. Forest Lake to rezone 00aots 1 through 6, Block 1 and Lots 1 & 2, Block 2 to LI. located in the Lino ustrial Park. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the letter from the ate in regards to Highway #49 and consulted the zoning ordinance to insure that the lots met all zoning requirements. After some discussion, the Planning and Zoning had recommended approval of the request. The special use permit application of Mr. Forest Tagg of 7504 Lake Drive for a building permit to construct a storage building at that location. He has two signature of adjoining property owners. Some questions were asked by P &Z members - Mr. Tagg had no back up information dealing with site plans and building specifications. The Planning and Zoning Board had tabled this request and Mr. Tagg present the information as outlined in Ord. 56, 5.03 and that Mr. Tagg present this information at the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting." Mr. Marcel LeRoux's application for a special use permit was considered. Mr. LeRoux had requested a special use permit for the removal of topsoil in the area of 64th Street and Otter Lake Road. He must obtain a letter of credit in the amount of $11,887.00 for the restoration of 64th Street. Mr. LeRoux must also present a plan showing existing grades, fininshed grades with a statement on the restoration of the lands. There was also some discuss- ion of the existing metal building in reference to a commercial use in a residential area. Mr. Schumacher asked that the Planning and Zoning tak some action of this request since Mr. LeRoux has beed delaying on the above requests and has been •ntinuin hsi operations. Mr. Heath moved to deny this special use request. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. There was some discussion on how to close this operation with the members deciding this was a Council decision. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Jerry Blackbird presented the Lakes Add. #6 plat of El Rehbein & Son for consideration. This is six lots that border Lantern Lane. There had been a question of a drainage easement along the rear of these lots bu that had been removed. The lots comply to all Ordinance requirements. Mr. Heath moved to recommend approval of this plat to the Council. Seconded by Mr. Bathke. Motion carried unanimously./ Mr. Jerry Blackbird presented a preliminary plat for Lakes Add. #7. This is for Outlots G & K for the construction of Quads. Due to a low area, Outlot J is not suitable for the construction of Townhouses, Mr. Larry Johnson asked what the proposed in the Comprehensivs Plan - Mr. Schumacher said Urban Res./ R1. The existing special use permit was discussed. It was felt that the provision for revoking this special use permit had not been done, and although, construct- ion had not begun within the time span of three years, the special use permit was still valid/ There was discussion on this point - the porposed zoning of R4 & R5. Mr. 111lackbird explained this is a preliminary - they are asking for direction. Mr. Reinert felt the density had been changed - Mr. Blackbird said, No it's 5.18 per acre. The selling price of the units was discussed - the designation on the land use map, and other points that are concerned with this plat. Planning and Zoning May 21. 1980 Page Five Mr. Reinert felt the validity of the Special Use Permit must be clairfied - hether this location is UR or ER according to the map - The concern of the nsity since there .is no change from the previous plans submitted - Mr. einert said his primary concern was the lack of facts. Mr. Prokop pointed out this area falls in the UR area - single family residen- tial. Mr. Schumacher felt that research indicated this special use permit is valid since the permits are issued to the land and not to a person. He read that portion of Ordinance #56 which deals with the issuance of special use permits. He also noted that a public hearing must be held to revoke a special use permit and this had not been done in this case. Mr. Reinert read Mr. Bill Short's statement dealing with long term plans. He felt that deviations from the Comprehensive Plan would make the plan useless and they might as well toss the whole thing out . Mr. Schumacher said he agreed with the exception of the existing special use permit. The previous actions of the Council was pointed out - the validity of the special use permti had been denited. Mr. Blackbird said their Attorney had determined this permit is valid. Mr. Johnson asked if this plat is different from the previous plan and Mr. Blackbird siadn not really. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the Attorney for North Nrtheas said the permit was valid - the home owners attorney said it was voud. IIIr. Prokop asked Mr. Blackbird is he is saying this land is already zoned and Mr. Blackbird said, Yes. Mr. Reinert asked who could be contacted to find the legal zoning on this land? - Perhaps the Attorney General Should a law suit be filed against the City? Mr. Schumahcer pointed out that since the Council had not taked action to cancell this permit - logically it is still valid. Mr. Prokop felt he would ask for a clairfication before any recommendations on the feasibility of the proposed plat. Mr. Prokop moved that Planning and Zoning recommend to the Council that the status of the 1970 special use permit be determined. Seconded by Mr. Heatth. In order to consider this palt, some action and this feasibility study be considered as soon as possible. Mr. Prokop asked for copies of the lsit of special use permits that are being considered by the City Council. This will be supplied. The Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Reinert asked if there should be a meeting set for rezoning to comply with the Comprehensive plan. Mr. Heathg thought within the next couple of weeks. !II r. Reinert asked if there was a time limit on this? can this be done first part of September? is that soon enough? Mayor Gourely felt they should wait until the comments from local communities have been received. Planning and Zoning May 21. 1980 Page Six 41/ . Schumahcer presented the request of Mr. Robert Gray for a variance for a ng driveway. This is on property that fronts on Ash Street and has a aterworks easement across the front. The home must be set back beyond this easement Mr. Heath moved to recommend approval of this variance with the stipukations that the driveway maintenance be the responsiblity of the land owner and that it msut be kept open for emergency vehicles at all times. Mr. Gray agreed to these requirements. Motion was seconded by Mr. Soocy. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn. SEconded by Mrs. Schwankl. Aye. • •