Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-82 PZMLAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 11, 1982 Vice Chairman Prince convened the meeting at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: Commissioners Dreher, Lyall, Mazzara, Nazarian, Lundquist, Gifford and Moe (7:40). Also, Administrator Whittaker. 1. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 27, 1982: Corrections - Amend the order of Commissioner arrivals - (Beehearrived) (Lundquist arrived); (Pp aee arrived) (Dreher arrived); and (BaedquAsl-arrived)(Prince arrived). M/S/P Dreher/Nazarian to accept the minutes of September 27, 1982, as amended. Carried 7-0. ANNOUNCEMENTS: -- A catalog of planning book% thatvan be ordered from the. American Planning Associatioq.'is-available in the City Office. -- The revised handbook on local and regional planning,from the League of Minnesota Cities, is available in the City Office. 4. HEARING CONFIRMATIONS: A. Orchard/Sinclair Application for Simple Lot Subdivision - --Whittaker breifly explained the Orcliard%Sinciair request to subdivide a lot from the Elizabeth Orchard property, in Lanes Demontreville, Patrick Sinclair is the -prospective buyer of the new lot. --Patrick Sinclair - outlined the area owned by Mrs. Orchard. The lot being purchased (the proposed new 1otl is .83A. This .83A lot was purchased four years after Mrs. Orchard purchased her .house. This was a seperate piece of property before she bought it, The Orchard house is on 1.28 A. --Gifford - clarified the total land area -the area with the house and the proposed new lot - is about 2A. --Whittaker - present Ordinance requires the property owner.to retain the required 1 1/2 acre minimum. in this subdivision neither parcel would have the required 1 1/2A. - --Prince - questioned why this -is a simple lot subdivision. --Whittaker - because, platted lots are being subdivided. The lots on the south side of the property are not laid out the way the property owner wants them subdivided, Even though they were purchased this way, they were never approved. There is no record at the County, on a plat map, that states the .83A is an approved subdivision. Also, if this subdivision is approved, it acknowledges that Mrs. Orchard has a parcel of less than 1 1/2A and creates or maintains a second parcel of less than 1 1/2. They are adjacent to each othergnd have one owner --Sinclair - submitted copies of lot sizes of adjacent properties. The average lbt-is-.67 A. Mrs. Orchard hasthelargest-lot out of 10 lots - Butzer's, directly south of Orchard, has 1.18A, the second largest lot - the Sinclair lot (proposed lot) is third largest at .83. M/S/P Mazzara/Dreher to call a public hearing for the Orchard/ Sinclair Simple Lot Subdivision for October 25, at 7:45 P.M. Carried 8-0. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 11, 1982 -2- 2. PUBLIC HEARING - REAPPLICATION FOR CUP AND VARIANCE FOR ADVERTISING SIGN FOR MARLIN RYGH: Chairman Prince opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Marlin Rygh offered the fcillowing comments for his reapplication: --Referred the Commission to correspondence from Adhouse Communications relating to outdoor billboards; and, from Mn/DOT on the status of the billboards on T.H. 21. Based on the above referenced material, has determined that the size of the sign can be reduced to conform with the 200' maximum size;, and, the 3,000 ft. distance requirement is not as much of a problem since 20 of the 22 existing signs are coming down. The proposed sign is permitted by the State as the property is zoned commercial and within State requirements for a billboard. --Lundquist - the signs eligible to remain are outside of the right-of-way limts and advertise the businesses they are in front of. --Whittaker - Mn/DOT permits signs 500 ft. apart if they are on commercial property; but, City Ordinance prevails. Vali-Hi Drive In presently has a sign that will conform to Mn/DOT's standards and the City's. It may not.conform as to size and shape today, but it should within 5 years (5 years from when the Ordinance was passed). Basically, there will,most likely, be a sign there. Question is do you permit an advertising sign within 500' of the Vali-Hi business sign. The area from Suburban Bus (Regan) to Vali-Hi is zoned commercial. Key issue is that the proposed Rygh sign will be less than 3,000' from the next closest sign. Another question is when are the 20 signs going to be taken down. Mn/DOT letter implies sometime in late 1984. --Mr. Regan - St. Paul suburban Bus - asked where the Rygh sign will be in relation to the Vali-Hi sign. --Whittaker - based on the survey, about 500 ft., from the Vali-Hi sign. --Mr. Regan - as one of the larger tract owners in that area, St, Paul Suburban Bus would request this proposal not be granted -- the requested variance from the Ordinance, and enforce the present ordinance until the configuration of the service lane is finalized. The bus company is considering putting up a sign; but, until their negotiations_with Mri/DOT-are completed not sure where they will be located. Presently planning on staying in this location. Objection is based on the bus companies future plans. --Prince - still holds the same position from the last time this was before the Commission, that being that the request is in conflict with the Ordinance provision requiring 3,000 ft. between advertising signs. No new strong arguments to support the request. --Rygh - this property was bought for an office site - even though would not have an office there does not mean that exposure is not needed there. Has owned the land since before the Ordinance was adopted - feels has a just use for it. Comparing apples to oranges in saying that if there is a building, it would get two signs of different sizes; but, if comparing property without a building, saying that property cannot have a sign of any kind. Only want to use the property for the purpose it was bought for and intended to use it for. LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 11, 1982 -3- 2. PUBLIC HEARING - MARLIN RYGH CONTINUED: --Lyall - restated previous position- at the last consideration of this request, you agreed that bought the land for a purpose, sold it to the State, and got a fair price. --Rygh - disagreed that he got a fair price for all the property - as he has much of it left. (.29 acres are left) --Lyall - feels this was a deal made with the State, fair compensation was made, have a parcel left that would like to takeadvantage of; but, it isn't the business of the PZC to help an individual make money or lose money. We can only sustain our Ordinances. As a consequence, you establish a sign. without any business being located there, that is inconsistant with the Ordinance. Also, have no assurance once the sign would be established that it would continually have Realty World advertised. - Basing his position and decision on belief that no hardship has been established to support the variance. --Rygh - again, comparing apples to pears when comparing business signs and billboards together. Would permit many business'on small parcels to have business signs that could be from 50'to 150' apart, yet, deny a sign ,to.a parcel that is 150! wide just because there is no business there. Does not need another building, but needs the sign, and has the property to install it on. --Whittaker - the issue is that this advertising sign does not conform to the Ordinance. The Ordinance clearly states that advertising sign's (billboards) cannot be within 3,000 feet of another sign. This is to avoid a proliferation of signs along the highway. Business signs would not be 200 sq, ft. --Rygh - considers this a business sign. --Whittaker - The Commission has to act on the present Ordinance. Have to decide within that Ordinance Whether or not a variance is reasonable. Under the definition of the Ordinance, there is no way to construe this as a business sign. --Rygh - read the definitionofa-business - does not feel this definition eliminates his request. --Lundquist - read the definition of an advertising sign - this proposal is covered under-'-this-definition. --Whittaker - application was for an advertising sign and a variance to permit an advertising sign. There is a distinction between the two types of signs in the Ordinance and the Planning Commission has tried to explain why this difference is there. --Prince - it is evident to the Commission that the application is for an advertising sign and also includes a variance to allow a 206 sq. ft. sign and a variance for the distance between signs, --Rygh - requested a 200 sq. ft. design but the measurements from the designer are 206 sq. ft. - is this a point of contention. --Nazarian - this is a minor point of contention - the major concern is the distance between signs. Prince closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. M/S/ Lyall/Dreher to recommend denial of a CUP with variances for Marlin Rygh to construct an advertising sign on T.H. 12 for the reason that the request is inconsistent with Section 505.26 of the City Sign Ordinance, that states advertising signs shall not be located closer than 3,000 ft. from any other sign on the same side of the street or highway. Discussion: LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 11, 1982 -4- 2. PUBLIC HEARING - MARLIN RYGH Continued: --Gifford - asked for a clarification on permitted distances for business signs in relation to billboards. --Prince - affirmed the motion for denial and the reasons recommended by the PZC on August 9, 1982. --Rygh - asked if he is prohibited from constructing his advertising sign because of the Vali-Hi Sign. - --Prince - Yes, both the Vali-Hi and Lehman Mushroom Sign are within 3,000 feet of the proposed sign. --Whittaker - under the present Ordinance, no advertising sign will be permitted on the Rygh property. If Suburban Bus puts up a business sign on their property, it would be permitted within the guidelines of the Ordinance. --Rygh - is there any business permitted on this size lot. --Whittaker - No, and there wasn't when the parcel was sold to Mn/DOT. The Ordinance was in effect at the time the parcel was sold to Mn/DOT and an unbuildable parcel was created. Motion carried 7-1. Gifford opposed. Gifford - Rygh is in an awkward position - has the land, what can he do with it. --Whittaker - Rygh could have asked Mn/DOT to buy it - At the time the property was sold the Sign Ordinance was in effect, the minimum lot sizes were in effect, the Zoning Ordinance was clear - could have requested it be purchased as an un- buildable parcel. --Gifford - obviously he saved it for the intent he is asking for now. Feel it is an infringement. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - RLS FOR DON RALEIGH,_3074.LAVERNE CT. N. and LEO RALEIGH, 11256 N. 30TH STREET: Chairman Prince opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Don Raleigh presented the Registered Land Survey that identified the resubdivision of the two parcels owned by himself and his father into two tracts. The Don Raleigh parcel gains 45' and enlarges his parcel by 7626 sq. ft., makina the lot a total of 22,287 sq. ft. The Leo Raleigh lot will have 39,572 sq. ft. Re - subdivision will also give Don Raleigh additional area for drain - field. Presently, neither lot meets the minimum 1 1/2 lot size. --Whittaker - this action is platting two existing non -conforming lots, clearing up property descriptions, and providing Don Raleigh and alternate drainfield site. Just changing the boundaries between the two lots. --Gifford - if this offers more land and use of land area for septic in an area where there has been past problems, this would probably beneficial. - -Whittaker - Building Inspector viewed the Leo Raleigh parcel and determined that there is more than adequate area for two drainfield sites, based on soil maps and land area. - -Todd Williams, 3025 Lake Elmo Avenue - only concern was that Leo Raleigh have adequate septic area left. Soil in this area very spotty and without soil borings it is hard to tell whether Leo Raleigh's property would be hurt if his present drainfield malfunctioned. Prince closed the hearing at 8:35. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 11, 1982 -5- 3. PUBLIC HEARING - DON & LEO RALEIGH CONTINUED: M/S/ Nazarian/Moe to recommend approval of the RLS resubdividing two parcels of land owned by Don Raleigh,3074 Laverne Ct. N. and Leo Raleigh 11256 N. 30th St. --Gifford.- regarding Todd Williams concern about the possibility of the drainfield malfunctioning on Leo Raleigh's lot, is the Building Inspectors conclusion adequate to insure there are two drainfield sites. --Whittaker - Would have to do pare tests and soil borings to get get a conclusive answer. Fact is the two homes are there, not adding any sewer. Based_on the generalized soil.maps"and the amount.of'land_area, the Building -Inspector did not feel Leo 'Raleigh would;_have-any problem putting two systems on the site. The Commission based their recommendation on the fact that both Tract A and Tract B were existing non -conforming lots and improves Don Raleigh's parcel (Tract B), by providing an area for a second drainfield site. Motion carried 8-0. SIGN ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT: Whittaker asked the Commission's opinion regarding the 3,000 ft. distance between billboards, is this too much, He cited distance standards of surrounding communities. Lake Elmo has the most restrictive ordinance. --Dreher intent of the Ordinance was to clean up the highway. Does not feel 3,000 ft. is too much. Likes the idea of cleaning up the countryside. --Moe - not opposed to 3,000 ft. --Mazzara - clarified the difference between business and advertising (billboard) signs. --Gifford - based on previous discussion, determined that if there were a number of business along Highway 12 there would be no billboards. --Mazzara - when this ordinance was passed, the attitude was to clean up the highways - this is why this was put in. --Gifford - might be wise to look at how other communities are handling their sign ordinances. In effect, the ordinance is limiting someone's land use and economic gain for aesthetics. May have to address whether or not billboards will ever be allowed. - -Moe - not here to help an individual make or lose money. Here to consider the aesthetic effects of a billboard on the community. --Dreher - satisfiedwith the ordinance --Lundquist - would not know what to change it to. --Prince - agreed with Lundquist and feels the ordinance should stay as it is. - -Gifford - maybe should consider amending the ordinance to provide for billboards to be constructed closer than 3,000 ft. from other signs, as business signs can be placed closer. 4. CONFIRM HEARINGS: B. comp Plan Amendment to delete County Road 13 by-pass, add extension of 53rd St. N. from Foxfire to Keats Avenue - M/S/P Gifford/Dreher to set a public hearing to consider the Comp Plan Amendment to delete County Road 13 by-pass, and add the extension of 53rd St. N. from Foxfire to Keats Avenue for October 25, 1982, at 8:45 p.m. Carried 8-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 11, 1982 -6- 4. CONFIRM HEARINGS - CONTINUED: C. Enright Application for Rezoning and House Moving Permit - M/S/P Nazarian/Moe to set a public hearing to consider the application of Clarence Enright for a rezoning and house moving permit for October 25, 1982, at 8:15 p.m. Carried 8-0. Whittaker briefly reviewed the request and the property location. D. Landscape Standards,- No up -date. E. Emerson Rezoning- Whittaker'explalned Mr. Emersons request to rezone his parcel on 20th St. to Industrial Park in order to provide a structure to house his equipment and bring the property use more into compliance with an Industrial Pack Ordinance. Presently, this is a legal -non -conforming use. Whittaker, personally, felt the City would have a hard time defending rezoning -this to Commercial in. this location, when commercial requests have been denied along Highway 36- This should be called anon -conforming use, the extent of the business definelso that it doesn'.t.expand beyond what it is, and not permit expansion by rezoning. An alternative to rezoning would be to grant a variance to permit a building to house the equipment. Rezoning would permit a building for the equipment; but, would also permit the use to be expanded and/or intensified,on the property. This area was not planned for commercial or industrial and was not rezoned when the zoning ordinance was developed because this area was not considered desireable for commercial or industrial. Compatibility with surrounding area was discussed. The Comp Plan call for Rural Residential, general rural use. --Dreher - there will be an interchange at County 15 and I-94. and with the location of the airport, this area could see - - - intensified use in'the future,. Would rather see industrial development along 15 than housing. M/S/P Gifford/Mazzara to call a public hearing to consider a rezoning for Paul Emerson for October 25, 1982, at 9:00 p.m. Carried 8-0. The Building Inspector will secure a list of equipment housed on the property from Mr. Emerson 5. INTRODUCE PROPOSED CHANGES IN MANFACTURED HOME CODE: Councillor Mottaz will attend the November 8 meeting to present the proposed changes. 63 INTRODUCE PROPOSED CHANGES IN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE -MINOR SUBDIVISIONS: Postponed until November 8 meeting. ADJOURN: 9:30 p.m. CITY OF LAKE . ELMO City of duke Elmo 777-5510 3880 Laverne Avenue North ! Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 AGENDA LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION October 11, 1982 7:30 P.M. -- Meeting Convenes 1. Minutes - September 27 meeting 7:45 P.M. -- 2, Public Hearing - Reapplication for CUP and Variance for Advertising Sign for Marlin Rygh - near Vali-Hi Theater 8:00 P.M. -- 3. Public Hearing - Registered Land Survey for. Don Raleigh, 3074 Laverne Ct. N. and Leo Raleigh, 11256 N. 30th Street 8:15 P.M. -- 4. Confirm Hearings on: A. Orchard/Sinclair application for Simple lot Subdivision, Oct. 25 at 7:45 P.M. B. Comp Plan Amendment to delete Co. Road 13 By-pass, add extension of 53rd St. N from Foxfire to Keats Ave., Oct. 25 at 8:45 P.M. C. Enright application for rezoning and house moving permit, Oct. 25 at 8:15 P.M. D. Landscape Standards E. Emerson rezoning, Oct. 25 at 9:00 P.M. 5. Introduce proposed changes in Manfactured Home Code 6. Introduce proposed changes in Subdivision Ord. Minor Subdivisions NOTES: (1) Hearing on Willard Morton Sign Permit cancelled (2) Amendments to Code Books are not back from the printer yet. Please bring Code Books Oct. 25.