HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-9-82 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 9, 1982
Vice Chairman Prince called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Commissioners Present: Nazarian, Moe, Lundquist, Gifford, Lyall
Dreher (7:35) Also present: Building Inspector McNamara
1. MINUTES: July 26, 1982 - Corrections:
° Application received from Hammes Ron
M/S/P Gifford/Nazarian to approve the
as corrected. Motion carried 5-0-1.
Page 4, Item 4. E. -
Smith...
minutes of July 26, 1982
Lundquist abstained.
2. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT
CONVENIENCE GROCERIES AND THE SALE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
IN THE HIGHWAY BUSINESS ZONE:
Chairman Prince opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Prince reviewed the uses presently permitted in Highway Business,
and the definition of Automobile Service Use, a permitted use in HB.
The Commission expressed no concern about including Convenience
Groceries as a part of Automobile Service Uses, under HB, provided
it is associated with a gas station. The Commission felt this
was previously addressed under Ordinance 7930, amending the
Zoning Ordinance, November 3, 1981.
- - Nazarian- if it is associated with a gas station, gas'sales
should be at least 51% of the business and groceries 49% - this
was the stipulation for Kunz Oil. Ordinance should be limited
to these percentages.
- -Gifford - feel 51% may be too restrictive.
--Prince - agrees - sees no need to put a percentage on it.
The Commission took no official action on Convenience Groceries
feeling this was handled under Ordinance 7930.
- -Prince - suggested, if approved,'iracluding Recreational Vehicles
in Automobile Service Uses definition.
--Gifford - how far do you stretch recreational vehicles - is
"Recreational Vehicles" too broad,
Commission agreed that if hang gliders are considered recreational
vehicles it would be hard to identify specifically what else would-
be considered a recreational vehicle.
M/S/: Nazarian/Moe recommending amendment of Section 301.040, #11.
Automobile Service Uses, to include the sale of recreational
vehicles, including moLUrized_hane-gliders.
Discussion:
--Gifford - would be helpful to know what other Cities permit
in their business zones when making decisions on uses - are we
letting some things go too far - would like a basis for comparison.
- -Several Commissioners agreed with Gifford's suggestion; but felt
since±this action isdealing-with an already approved rezoning and
use that further delay was not justified.
- -Jim McNamara - problem is with the definition of recreational
vehicle.
Motion carried 5-2.
more information on
and a definition of
including motorized
vehicles.
Gifford and Dreher opposed. Gifford would like
what other communities permit in Highway Business
recreational vehicles. Dreher opposed specifically
hang gliders - should be left at recreational
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 9, 1982 -2-
The Commission requested the Administrator to obtain zoning
information from surrounding communities for comparison of
permitted uses in business zones.
3. RON SMITH - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT:
Mr. Smith would like to move a house from 9848 15th St. N to
his 10 acre parcel at the corner of Keats and loth Streets.
The Building Inspector reported that there is an existing barn
and foundation on the property. The foundation will have to
be pushed in and filled if not useable. He also has notified
Mr, Smith that the house, if moved, will have to comply with
all existing building codes and on -site sewage system codes.
--Ron Smith - want to use - as much of the existing foundation
as possible. Existing foundation is 18' x 24'; the house is
32' x 24'.
--Jim McNamara- has.act determined if the existing pne is adequate
to carry the moved in house - this will be dealth with at the
time of permit application for the structure. Mr. Smith is
aware that if the foundation is not satisfactory it cannot be used.
A perc test will have to be done before moving the house.
The Building inspector reviewed pictures of the house and building
site with the Commission.
--Ron Smith - there is an existing well- Mantylla Well is coming
out to test it. Has 60 days to move the structure after purchase
from the County. Would place the house in the same location as
the existing foundation even if a new foundation was required.
--Gifford - should set a time limit on locating the house on
a foundation and finishing the exterior.
--Smith - there is an existing septic system in the foundation- a
big tank or cistern. There is no floor drain.
--McNamara - this septic system would have to be removed & definitely
not used.
M/S/P Lyall/Dreher recommending approval of a house moving permit
for Ron Smith to move a house from 9848 15th Steet N. to
9999 loth Street N. with the following stipulations:
1, A perc test be 'completed and -approved before moving
the structure.
2. The house meet all building and septic system codes.
3. The old cistern (septic system) be removed;
4, The house to be moved and placed on a permanent foundation
within 60 days.
5. The structure upon completion will be compatible with
MI -Ter —development in the- area.
Motion carried 7-0. This will be placed on the August 17 Council
Agenda.
4. MARLIN RYGH - PUBLIC HEARING FOR CUP AND VARIANCE FOR ADVERTISING
SIGN IN GB DISTRICT:
Prince opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m,
Mr. Rhyg is requesting a CUP to construct an illuminated 300 sq.ft sign
within 500"7 of an existing sign along --Highway 12. A variance is
required for the sign size and distanoe requirement.. The sign would
be placed on a .29A parcel along Highway 12.
Rygh explained the sign construction and gave the background of
the property and buildings purchased by Mn/DOT. His was the first
house west of Vali-Hi. The house and garage have been purchased back
and will be moved. The .29 acre is the residue of a L. parcel
purchased by Mn/DOT for construction of I-94.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 9, 1982 -3-
(
RYGH CUP CONTINUED:
--Jim McNamara reviewed the distances between existing signs'
along Highway 12, Mr. Rhyg's sign is proposed between County 17
and the Vali - Hi sign, A variance is requested from the 3,000 ft.
distance requirement between signs and from the 200 sq. ft. max.
sign size.
--Moe - Council denied a similar request earlier this year -
strictly adhering to the 3,000 ft. distance requirement.
--Rygh - has received approval from Mn/DOT for this location -
meets their requirement of 500' between signs. The size of
the parcel creates a hardship - limiting it to any other use,
--McNamara - why didn't the State take the whole parcel - why
leave such a small unuseable portion.
--Rygh - State indicated they did not need it all/ Has settled
with the State. Felt they paid a fair price for what they took,
contesting would would have been very costly with little gain.
Felt the property was no worse in his hands than the States'
Purchased the property with the idea that someday would possibly
covert it to an office - with the highway purchase this use isn't
possibleiwith the residue. Asked Mn/DOT about a sign at the time
of purchase. They,gave no indication, at that time, whether a
sign would be permitted. Did apply later and approval was.given.
Proposing the sign for a 5-year period for himself.
--McNamara - some of existing signs are over 200 sq. ft.
--Dreher.- these are granfathered in; but once they are taken
down cannot be replaced,
--Rygh - sign must be 10' back from the highway r-o-w.
--Dreher - reason for denial would be based on the 3,000 ft.
distance requirement; reason for approval based on the hardship
of the lot size.
--McNamara - talked with the Administrator about'- the lot size -
do not know what it could be used for without sewer. Patti Homes
will be notified to remove what is left of their vld sign.
The Commiss?on further discussed the Rygh property in relation
to existing signs and the size of existing signs along the highway.
Prince polled the Commission for their opinions:
--Moe - problem with the distance variance when the -ordinance states
3,000 ft.
--Dreher - the ordiance requires 3,000 ft. See this as an undesirable
parcel to own; but possibly it could be sold to an adjacet property
owner or possibly Mr. Rygh could purchase additional land and develop
it into a useable parcel.
--Lyall - problem in that the ordinance requires 3,000 ft. Mr.
Rygh indicated he was paid a fair price. Does not see this as a
hardship case - see it as a businessman who wants to utilize his
property. This is inconsistent with our ordinance - City is greatly
concerned about having a multiplicity of signs. If we make an
exception here then will have to make exceptions with other requests.
Particularly concerned that there is no existing business connected
with the sign. If Mr. Rygh didn't own the property the sign would
go appropriately elsewhere - State should have taken it all or paid
adequate compensation to permit the parcel to set idle.
PLANNING COMMISSIN MEETING, AUGUST 9, 1982 -4-
RyGH CONTINUED:
--Nazarian - also concerned about the 3,000 ft, distance. Main
concern is the shape of the property and where the sign is going
to end up sitting in relation to the road right-of-way. Judging
from the sketch the parcel is 80' x 150' x 45',approximately, to
the temporary easement line.
--Rygh - temporary easement will revert back - would place the
sign in the middle of the parcel.
--Lundquist - not prepared to vote.
--Gifford - uncertain about what action to take. Sees it as a
hardship, yet, do not want to see the whole stretch of highway
in signs. Not sure if the 3,000 ft. between signs is good or bad.
--Rygh -,.have so many signs there now - what harm will one more
do. Driving 1 mile east one sees about 12 signs. Could have
fought the State; but felt personally could work with.%he City
easier than the State to find a practical good use for this
piece of land. Not sure if will still want the sign 7-10 years
from now. Cannot see any use for this parcel.
--Prince - shares Gifford'-s opinion. Feels there isn't•much.good
Use for 'tbis_land'except this; but a string of signs is ugly and
it is getting worse along Highway 12.
—Rygh - would not make this investment if did not feel this was
a good location and reasonable place for the sign. As far as size,
the Vali-hi sign is larger as are many of the existing signs.
The Commission was indecisive on making a recommendation based
on the circumstances surrounding the size and hardship of the
parcel and the existing signs in the area; but, felt the ordinance
is clear and should be enforced,
M/S/P Dreher/Moe recommending denial of a CUP and variances for
Marlin Rygh to construct an advertising sign for -the reason 1' t
the request is inconsistent with Section 505.26 of the City
Sign Ordinance, stating- that advertising signs Qa ll not be
located closer than three thousand feet to any other sign on
the same side of the street or .highway, Carried 6-0-1. Nazarian
abstained.
This will be placed on the August 17, Council Agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: 9:30 p.m.
L #
CITY OF
LAKE
AELMO
City of Lake Elmo
777-5510
• 3880 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
AGENDA
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
August 9, 1982
7:30 P.M. ---Meeting convenes
1. Minutes, July 26 meeting
7:45 P.M.---2. Public Hearing- Amendment to
Zoning Ordinance to permit
Convenience Groceries and the
sale of recreational vehicles
in the Highway Business Zone
8:00 P,M.---3. Ron Smith --House moving permit
NW corner-10th. Street and Keats Ave.
8:15 P.M.---4. Marlin Rygh--Public Hearing for
Conditional Use Permit and Variance
to put an Advertising Sign in a General
Business District. (at Vali-Hi Drive -In
and 1-94)
5. Other