Approved minutes

Lakewood Planning and Zoning Commission

Recessed Public Hearing

9-17-2007

(Hearing recessed from 8-28-2007)

 

Call to Order:  Planning and Zoning Commission Chair Bob Wolfe called the Public Hearing for the Lipe Bros. Constr. Conditional use permit, recessed from August 28, 2007, to order at 6:20 p.m. on September 17, 2007 at the Lakewood Town Hall.

 

Present:  Commission members: Angie Dickison-Palmer, Inese Holte, Kerry Leider, Peter Miller, Robin Downs, Chris Roningen and Bob Wolfe.  Also present:  Clerk Gene Bromenshenkel, Town Attorney Tim Strom, Lipe Bros. Constr. Attorney Shawn Reed, and general public (register attached).

 

Chair Wolfe asked the Commission about approving the minutes of the Hearing sessions thus far.  There was no agreement to do so.  Attorney Strom advised the members that results of the Hearing will be completed in writing and that the Commission may want to consider the minutes at the conclusion of the Hearing.

 

Chair Wolfe asked the Commission about the decision at the last session regarding Great Lakes Stone; do they wish to pursue action on the determined non-compliance.  Motion by Holte that Great Lakes Stone be given a reasonable date to vacate the Lipe property.  There was no second to the motion, therefore the motion died.

 

Chair Wolfe asked if there was a motion to set a time for Great Lakes Stone to vacate and cease operations on the Lipe property.  No motion was put on the floor.

 

Leider:  Reiterated the intent of his motion of 8-28-2007 in that consideration might be given to allowing Great Lakes Stone to remain operating on the property.

Holte:  Feels the Commission cannot name a specific business in the permit as the permit goes with the property and not the owner.

Downs:  Feels the attorneys can help craft language if the Commission can decide on the intent for the conditional use permit.

Bob Wolfe:  Does the Commission wish to enact enforcement or deal with the two motions made, to amend the conditional use permit?

Attorney Strom advised the Commission of the Article and section of the Zoning Ordinance referring to options for the Commission.

Palmer:  Doesn’t feel that options for penalty should be be pursued further; all involved have paid a penalty thus far.

Wolfe:  Feels the Commission should consider the review of the history-whereby Lipe Bros. Construction operated without a permit for a period and did not operate within the conditions of the conditional use permit since it’s issuance.

Downs:  Can see things both ways, things appear clearer now but were not quite so clear at the time of the issuance of the CUP and the manner in which the Zoning Administrator responsibilities were carried out at the time.

Roningen:  Feels that doing things as implications has not worked well.  Feels we should re-do the conditions and complete the process.

Roningen:  Feels that the Zoning Administrator and Town Board did not have difficulty five years ago, therefore we should not penalize now but move forward to complete a revised conditional use permit.

Holte:  Where is the use (for construction business) allowed in the Ordinance?

Palmer:  Did not the fact that a salvage yard had been operating before Lipe’s, leave the Commission feeling that the new business was a benefit over past uses on the property.

Wolfe:  Feels the Commission is in a position of making a hard decision.

Miller:  Feels that in reviewing all of the important information presented, many people have made decisions and that we are beyond the time for fines as a penalty.  Feels we should re-word the conditions of the conditional use permit to make it more clear and then consider as to how to handle other businesses operating there (on the Lipe property).

Downs:  Feels we should clarify the language of the original conditional use permit.

Leider:  Questions the definition of contractor business---that these are open to interpretation.  Feels the Commission should set conditions for size and scope of business rather than to determining the exact number of businesses conducted on the property.  We should allow contractor type construction businesses.

Holte:  Where in the Ordinance is a construction business allowed in the MUNS-4 zone?

Leider:  Need to consider the site and history of use on the site---most people would prefer having storage trucks for example on the property, than a junk yard.

Attorney Strom:  Advises the Commission of Ordinance language revolving around uses and Commission determination of use if it is not explicitly stated in the use classification list.  He cited page 104 of the Ordinance---section 3.01---For any use basically similar and compatible to other uses permitted in a zone, but not specifically identified, a permit may be issued only after an application of a Conditional Use has been received, reviewed, and approved by the Commission.

Leider:  Responding to the motion in the minutes of the 8-28-07 hearing session; a determination was made that Great Lakes Stone uses does not meet the conditional use permit issued.

Holte:  Motion to amend the original conditional use permit.  Second by Leider.  Discussion on Motion:  Attorney Strom---Mr. Reed (Lipe Attorney) has requested to comment on uses.

Attorney Shawn Reed:  Comments as to why he feels that penalties should not be made:  1)  Questions as to whether or not the Commission has authority under the Ordinance to impose fines, 2) We are here for section 5---to revoke, place additional conditions or take no action on the conditional use permit, 3) Argues against revocation of the permit, 4) On amending the permit---feels there are some issues with the current permit.  He suggests that the wording “Lipe Brothers” be stricken from the permit, 5) Suggests that Commission could leave the rest of the conditions as they are.

Vote on Motion:  All present voted in favor of the Motion.  The Motion passed unanimously.

 

Holte:  Feels the Commission is unanimous in not wanting an industrial park there.  Feels a limitation should be placed on the foot print of the existing business.

Downs:  Is not interested in seeing this type of business in other area of the MUNS-4 zone---this is an exception.

Miller:  Difficult sub-issue---that of rental on the property.

Wolfe:  Is there interest on the part of the Commission to include a construction products use as an amended use in the MUNS-4?

Attorney Strom:  Again, reviewed the language of the section on determination of uses (as found on pg. 104 of current Ordinance).  This is a policy decision for the Commission.

Leider:  The Commissions felt at the review of the CUP in October of 2006, that Great Lakes Stone was not an allowed use and was to vacate operation on the property by June 30, 2007.

Holte:  Is it conceivable that a permit in another location could have several businesses operating on a site?

 

At this time, the specific conditions and findings of fact from the April, 2001 (Original CUP Hearing and Conclusions), were reviewed.

Attorney Strom:  Need to clarify the 2001 CUP regarding the junk yard.  Need to clarify as to whether or not the conditions could have determined the grandfathered use of the salvage yard as a conditional use.

 

There was discussion on clarifying the definition and use as a salvage yard on the Lipe property.

 

Chair Wolfe asked the Commission to consider a determination of limitation of the size and scope of the Lipe Construction business.

 

The Chair declared a brief recess of the Hearing at 8:13 p.m.  The Hearing was reconvened at 8:25 p.m.

 

Discussion at this time was pursued on language of amended conditions---these suggestions were offered:

1.         Single business consisting of a construction shop, office, storage and the existing salvage yard.

2.         Roningen:  suggests defining scope and size of No. 1 by foot print size.

3.         Miller:  suggests that rental to similar contractor businesses be allowed and that conditions be established for such.

4.         Leider:  suggests for condition No. 1---that use be allowed for shop, office, and storage of construction/contractor businesses and the existing salvage yard.

There was a question raised about the definition of a shop?  No decision reached.

Miller:  suggests decision be made about either including or excluding rental language.

Leider:  Addressing foot print---are we talking about the existing buildings only, and what about storage areas?

Palmer:  Suggests that screening be included for all storage areas.

Leider:  Addressing storage areas---need language to define storage yard, that which defines storage areas outside of buildings.

Miller:  Feels definition of storage yard is preferable which means routine storage.  A suggestion was made about including lot coverage to mean 25% of parcel area.

Leider:  Suggests that the question of sub-dividing property be specified.  Suggestion that the conditional use permit should apply to current lot of record and not to include possibility of sub-divided lots.

Chair Wolfe:  Do we need to provide a condition for screening?

Leider:  Does this mean screening along Jean Duluth Road?

Attorney Shawn Reed:  There is a performance standard on screening—section 12.06 under performance standards.  Need to define what is to be screened.

It was agreed by consensus to utilize section 12.06 of Article VI of the Zoning Ordinance as the basis for definitions for screening storage areas.  Timeline for Screening:  Agreed to a timetable of one year on screening of junk cars according to section 18.01.

Chair Wolfe asked if there are other concerns that were previously mentioned such as noise, hours of operation, etc.

Attorney Reed:  One of the problems of limiting hours of operation is enforcement; feels noise control is a better condition.

Chair Wolfe asked Attorney Strom to seek language for noise and weekend hours.

Leider:  Is there a concern about entry and exit from the W. Tischer Road driveway?  No action was taken.

Miller:  Can we pose a number on parked vehicles?

Attorney Reed:  To pick an arbitrary number of vehicles on property may not further the Town’s purpose.

Chair Wolfe:  Do we want to indicate that no retail sales be included in condition #one.  Attorney Strom indicated he will work that into the first condition.  There was reference to the court order for the salvage yard.  Strom will work that into the language.

Discussion about salvage yard:  to include as a part of the conditional use permit is desired.  It is a grandfathered use.  Strom will check further on the court order and potential language.

Screening of junk cars and salvage yard:  It was expressed that special screening is desired.  Strom will check on the Ordinance language.

Lighting:  Discussion focused on downward reflective lighting and designed not to spill onto adjacent properties. 

A concern was raised about excessive signage on the property.  This was referred to the Zoning Administrator.  The No. 7 condition should remain as a condition.  No. 8 should be left as a condition. 

Setbacks from storage areas---should the Commission retain this condition?  It was agreed that section 12.06 (a) addresses this.  It was agreed that condition #11 be retained; it refers to the St. Louis County Zoning Ordinance.

 

At this time Attorney Strom indicated he would take the information from tonight’s Hearing and put into a draft format, share it with Shawn Reed and bring it back to the Commission.

 

Motion by Holte to recess the Public Hearing to Tuesday, September 25, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.  Second by Palmer.  Motion Carried.

 

Respectfully Submitted;

 

 

Gene Bromenshenkel

Town of Lakewood Clerk