Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2003 P&Z MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES SPECIAL PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I.CALL TO ORDE R AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:37 p.m., January 22, 2003. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Smyser requested item B be star ted until item A could be completed. III.OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:38 p.m. Lee Whitmore, 7698 Sunset Avenue, stated three years ago Mr. Uhde built six new homes on the north side of him. He stated at that time, Mr. Uhde had flooded some of his property. He stated this past summer with the rain, his garden was once again flooded because of five new homes built on the east side . He stated he believed Mr. Uhde should put in some kind of a swale or drainage to prevent flooding on his property. He noted his property was lower than the ex isting properties. He stated he had spoken with Mr. Uhde a couple of years ago. Chair Schaps noted Mr. Uhde had another de velopment coming to the City in February and that Mr. Whitmore’s problem would be br ought up at that meeting. He requested Mr. Whitmore contact Mr. Uhde about this prob lem prior to the February P&Z meeting. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:43 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 3-0. DATE: January 22, 2003 TIME STARTED: 6:37 P.M. TIME ENDED: 9:12 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyden, Schaps and Zych. MEMBERS ABSENT: Lane, Lyden, Zych. STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Smyser; Michael Grochala; Tanda Gretz; James Studenski Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES V.ACTION ITEMS A.PUBLIC HEARING, Draft Zoning Ordinance Review Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m. Staff stated they had been working on th e Zoning Ordinance since May or June. He stated there was a Citizen Task Force formed to work with the staff and consultant to work on this Ordinance. He stated the S ubdivision Ordinance would be going to the City Council this Monday for first reading. He noted tonight was the start of the public hearing for the Zoning Ordinance and it would be continued to the regular February P&Z meeting. Staff reviewed the following in the proposed Zoning Ordinance: Page 1-3, paragraph E, the current Ordinance says if a use is not specifically listed, then it is prohibited. This was changed to say if there was a proposed use either specifically allowed or denied, the City Council will determine if the pr oposed use was comparable to something that was listed and if there were , they would go by that comparable use. If not, they would prepare a study to research the use. Page 2-5, changes were made to the conditional use permit standards. He stated the standards they have are very general and ambiguous. He stated what they had done in this draft was to replace them with clear standards. Page 2-8, paragraph 14, he stated they cl eared up the language on that paragraph by stating anything listed as a conditional use in the zoning district, if it was there already, it would be considered to have a CUP. At the bottom of the page, as item C, a revocation clause was added to the conditional use permits. Page 2-9, interim use permits was made the same as conditional use permits. Page 2-12, under variances, submittal requirements are clearer. Page 2-15, an appeal procedure was added. Page 2-16, paragraph F, this will be revised to add the extension to the 60 days under Minnesota Statutes 15.99. Page 2-19, paragraph 5, the extension i ssue must be added to the 60 days. Page 2-22, paragraph A, site and building plan review would now be reviewed and approved or denied administratively by th e community development department. It would not go through P&Z and City Council. If there were a disagreement, it would go into the public process. Very specific subm ittal requirements for the plans were added to pages 2-23 through 2-28. Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Page 2-29, a paragraph will be added stati ng that appeals were available through the process described in section 2. Mr. Corson asked if it was a relatively sm all application, was th ere any possibility of having a maximum fee in order not to discourage the homeowner from making an application. Mr. Smyser replied a small a pplication does now have a small fee. He stated the fee was $250.00 for a variance or a minor subdivisi on, and if that amount were not completely used, it would be refunded to the homeowner. Page 2-33, subdivision 6, with respect to Me tes and Bounds Conveyances was deleted. Page 2-36, added that the Community Deve lopment Director shall be the Zoning Administrator. Page 2-39, the main part of the PUD changed. Under the current ordinance a PUD is treated as a rezoning. What was being propos ed was that a PUD would be a conditional use within each zoning district, in most cases. He noted this would simplify the PUD. A mixed use PUD project will require a special rezoning. Page 2-43, paragraph C, deals with rural resi dential development without City sewer and water. He noted under this process lots woul d be allowed to be smaller than the standard for a rural area, as long as open space was preserved. Page 2-47, a clause would be a dded that in a rural cluster development they would allow the possibility of having a common septic system. However, it must be in agreement that if it was not maintained properly, the City can fix it and assess the property owners. Page 2-47, paragraph 2, urban residential PUD shall be applied only within the City’s R- 2, R-3 and 4-2 Zoning Districts. He noted this was discussed at length at the Task Force to deal with clustering single-family ho mes. A new R-EC zone is proposed for clustering. Page 2-50, the process for PUD would in gene ral follow the platting process. He noted the language would be changed some noting that the concept plan was voluntary. He noted the density of the PUD must comp ly with the land use category in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose was to preserve open space. Mr. Corson asked how the density was calculat ed. Mr. Smyser replied it was calculated by the delineated wetland being subtracte d. He noted this would need further clarification. Mr. Corson asked if they expected anything fr om the Land Trust, other than the perpetual easement. Mr. Smyser replied that typical ly when the Land Trust took on an easement, there was a legal document recorded that stated the Land Trust takes on the easement responsibility, and would be responsible to m onitor it on a regular basis. However, the landowner is responsible for what occurs on the land. He noted not all open space would be set up with the Land Trust. He stated some open land may be donated to the City. Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Page 3-1, the non-conforming issue was change d to 50 percent to match State law. Page 3-3, the General Parcel, lot a nd yard provisions was reorganized. Page 3-8, number 3, will be clarified further. Page 3-11, was reorganized. Design standa rds were added for two-family and town homes. Page 3-14, apartment standards were added. At the bottom of the page, colors of materials were added for industr ial buildings. He stated red brick would be added to the color options. Page 3-17, an obstructions clause was added. Page 3-18, accessory buildings and stru ctures, clarifications were made. Page 3-24, paragraph 8, number b, will be corrected to add R-1X District to this clause to accommodate an existing farm in the City. Page 3-90, farm operations will be left as is , even though it is shown as being deleted. Page 3-28, paragraph F, will be changed to 1200 square feet. Page 3-32, diagrams to illustrate out door lighting requirements will be added. Page 3-39, paragraph Q was clarified. Sp ecies of trees and shrubs was added. Landscaping requirements were clarified. Page 3-46, tree preservation requirements were added. Mr. Corson asked what would be considered to be a savable, significant tree. Mr. Smyser explained what a significant tree requirements were and st ated there was a list of definitions in the subdivision ordinance. Page 3-53 through 3-55, the fence requiremen ts are clarified and diagrams would be added. Page 3-63, paragraph 4, language would be adde d stating a single-fam ily residential lot shall not have more than one dr iveway access to a public street. Page 3-94, regulations for antennas that were adopted in 1997 would be codified in this Ordinance. Page 4-1, paragraph 3, central business will be deleted and CB land will be converted to general business. The shopping center distri ct will be deleted and this would be a conditional use in other districts. He not ed the neighborhood business district would not be deleted as indicated. Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Page 4-3, annexations cl ause was clarified. Sections 5 through 9 will be discusse d at the February 12 P&Z meeting. Chair Schaps invited audience members to speak. Ann Boeckman, 6492 Tomahawk Trail, stated sh e wanted assurance that the Ordinance would not allow a property owner to have junk in their yard. She was concerned about a particular property. She asked what the repe rcussions were for vi olating the ordinance. Chair Schaps replied daily fines could be imposed if there was a violation of the ordinance. Mr. Smyser stated this was an issue the Buil ding Inspector would deal with. He stated he would ask the Building Inspectors to look into this property. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to February 12, 2003. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3-0. Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 7:51 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. B.JAMES KEEFE, 6300 Rolling Hills Dr ive, Minor Subdivision & Variance Staff explained applicant was requesting minor subdivision approval of a two lot subdivision of a 27.47 acre parcel and combination of two remnant parcels with an existing 10 acre parcel. Approval of the mi nor subdivision will also require variances to (1) allow creation of lots th at do not meet the minimum lot area requirements, (2) allow the creation of lots that do not meet the minimum lot width requirement; (3) allow the creation of lots that do not abut for their fu ll frontage on a publicly dedicated street; and (4) to allow a private street. Staff stated in June, 2001, applicant contacted City staff requesting information regarding the potential subdivisi on of his property. Applicant wa s provided with the requirements of the R-X, Rural Executive District. In September, 2001, applicant met with the City Council to discuss the potential options for subdividing hi s property. He expressed at that time, in a letter dated September 19, 2001, that he would like to split off several 2.5 acre parcels from his property due to th e economic hardship he was currently experiencing. The Council expressed the ne ed for additional information before a decision could be made. City staff prepared a memo to the City Council, dated September 28, 2001, identifying issues with regard to the proposed subdivi sion and listed options to be explored, including the potential for a clustered development using the Planned Development Overlay District (PDO) requirements. Th e memo was distributed to applicant. Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated on December 10, 2002 the City r eceived an application from Mr. Keefe requesting minor subdivision approval. In a letter, dated December 18, 2002, Mr. Keefe was informed that his application was substan tially incomplete and listed information that was necessary to begin review of the request. Mr. Keefe submitted additional information on January 6, 2003. Staff stated on January 8, 2003, at the regul ar Planning and Zoning Board meeting, Mr. Keefe’s minor subdivision request was added to the Board’s agenda for discussion. The board requested that staff work with the appl icant to resolve issues and, if possible, place the item on the January 22, 2003 meeting agenda. Staff met with Mr. Keefe and his surveyor on January 16, 2003 to discuss issues relating to the proposal. Staff presented its analysis by explaini ng the City Code, Chapter 1001.8, Subdivision 6(1) states all lots shall abut for thei r full frontage on a public ly dedicated street. Chapter 302.03, Subdivision 1 (10) states that private streets shall not be permitted, nor shall public improvements be approved for any private street. Section 5, Subdivision 2.B.1 of the Lino La kes Zoning Ordinance establishes the minimum lot size of 10 acres for lots within the R-X, Rural Executive District. Section 5, Subdivision 2.B.2 of the Lino La kes Zoning Ordinance establishes the minimum lot width of 330 feet for lots wi thin the R-X, Rural Executive District. With respect to land use, staff noted the Ci ty’s comprehensive plan designates the west half of the property for Low Density, sewere d residential uses (Stage 2, 2010-2020). The eastern half of the site is designated for ru ral land uses. A conceptual greenway is also delineated over the eastern half of the site . Surrounding proposed land uses include Low Density Sewered Residential to the north a nd west, Low Density, Unsewered Residential to the south and Rural to the east. With respect to zoning, staff stated the prope rty is currently zone d R-X, Rural Executive. Adjacent zoning included R-X to the west, south and east, and R-1-PDO to the north (Clearwater Creek). Staff indicated with respect to the lot area, the proposed minor subdivision and lot combination would create three parcels from the existing two that are currently owned by the applicant. The proposed lot sizes are as follows: Parcel A:33.09 acres Parcel B:2.40 acres (2.14 acres of upland) Parcel C:1.99 acres (all upland) The proposed lot sizes of parcel B and C are inconsistent with the R-X Districts minimum lot size of 10 acres. Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES With respect to lot width, staff stated the proposed lot widths of both Parcel B and C is approximately 180 feet. The proposed lot widths are inconsistent w ith the R-X Districts minimum lot width of 330 feet. Staff stated with respect to utilities, th e City’s Comprehensive Plan designates the western half of the site as Low Density, Sewered Residential. The Plan further designates this area as a Stage 2, 2010-2020 growth area. Staff noted the sanitary sewer and water ma in were stubbed out within Flora Court (Clearwater Creek 3 rd Addition), northwest of the site, to service land to the north and west of the Keefe property. Through revi ew of existing topographic mapping it does appear possible to service the Keefe property from the west. Staff noted that the proposed Minor Subdivi sion, if approved, woul d not eliminate the possibility of servicing adjacent properties to the west or south. With respect to access, staff noted the propert y is currently serviced by a gravel private driveway, measuring approximately 10 feet in width. The driveway accesses the terminus of Rolling Hills Drive. One other existing residential lot utilizes the driveway, however, it appears that there are no easements currently in place. Staff stated the applicant has submitted proposa ls for both a private road easement and a public road easement. City Code requires that all lots front on a publicly dedicated street. Additionally, private roads ar e prohibited by City Code. Staff noted as with all subdivisions in th e City publically dedi cated right-of-way is required as well as the improvement of such to City standards. These standards typically include a paved bituminous surface with a mi nimum width of 32 feet. While the width requirement had fluctuated on a case by case basis pursuant to City Council approval, all roads, including private roads allowed with in Planned Development Overlay Districts have been required to include bituminous paving. Staff stated the applicant has acknowledged hi s preference to maintain the drive access as a private road. No proposed improvements to the road have been submitted. With respect to easements, staff noted publ ic drainage and utility easements are not provided on the survey. Easements will be requ ired measuring 5 feet in width on interior property lines and 10 feet in width on exterior property li nes. Drainage and Utility easements will also be required to in clude all existing wetlands on the site. Staff stated with respect to sewage treatm ent, soil borings prov ided by the applicant indicate the ability of the newly created Parcels B and C to accommodate two standard mound systems on each lot. Staff stated the applicant has provided a Ghost Plat identifying how Parcels B and C could be subdivided in the future with the extension of public utilities. The plat demonstrates the potential to divide parcel s B and C to create eight lots meeting the R- Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES 1X, Single Family Executive District lot requi rements by extending a cul-de-sac into the property from the west. Staff indicated approval of the proposed minor subdivision will require the City to approve four variances from City Code requi rements with regard to minimum lot size, minimum lot width, frontage on a publicly dedi cated road and finally allowance of a private street. Staff noted variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance may be granted in instances where their stri ct enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the indivi dual property under consideration. Staff stated in considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1.That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2.That the plight of the landowners is du e to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3.That the hardship is not due to ec onomic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Ordinance. 4.That granting the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5.That the proposed actions will be in ke eping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Staff stated following review of the applicant’s request, it is difficult for staff to justify granting of the necessary variances when the above-enumerated criteria are applied. Staff stated with regards to the lot size and lot width variances staff agrees that there may be physical circumstances due to existing wetlands on the site that would warrant a deviation from typical standards. Additio nally, the proposed subdivision would maintain the same rural density of four units per fo rty acres that is esta blished by the 10 acres minimum lot requirement. However, it is staff’s opinion that these issues are more adequately addressed through the Pl anned Development Overlay process. Staff indicated there appears to be no suitable reason to allow variances for public road frontage and the improvement of said road to City standards outside of the Planned Development Overlay process. Staff stated the intent of the PDO Distri ct is to permit greater flexibility and, consequently, more creative and imaginative design of the developm ent of residential, commercial or industrial areas than are ge nerally possible under conventional zoning Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES regulations. It is further in tended to promote more economical and efficient use of the land while providing a harmonious variety of housing choices, a height level of urban amenities, and preservation of natural scenic qualities of open space. Staff noted an important aspect on the PDO process is that it provides for public notification and comment on the proposed pl ans. While recognizing the applicant’s economic situation staff is extremely concerned with the expedited natu re of this request, the proposed blanket acceptance of variations from standard City requirements and the lack of opportunity of surround ing property owners to comment on or be aware of the proposal due to the na ture of the request. Staff stated they recommended denial of the proposed Minor Subdivision and related Variance. Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. Mr. Keefe thanked the Board and staff for thei r time. He stated he believed the PDO process would have the same end result. He st ated with respect to the road, he would like to keep the rural feel to the area. He stated he would be willing to have a rural roadway association formed for maintenance, plowing, et c. of the road. He noted he only intended on selling two lots. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Keefe about his deadli ne. He asked if it was etched in stone. Mr. Keefe replied it was a bank issue a nd the deadline was a firm deadline. Chair Schaps stated his personal prefer ence was to have a public notification. Mr. Hyden noted they needed to follo w a process and that concerned him. Chair Schaps stated everything has been in the open about this issue, but they were being asked to not do the public notification process and th at concerned him also. Mr. Corson expressed concern about setting pr ecedence, even though he agreed with the request. Chair Schaps asked if the developer would step into the process and assist with the bank issues. He noted if the developer was willi ng to do that, it would gi ve the P&Z Board the time to go through the process legally. Chair Schaps noted it appeared everyone was in favor of this proposal, but were concerned about the lega lities of the request. Mr. Rafferty indicated it was a s ituation where certain things had to get done. He stated he believed the directions that the staff pres ented were correct. He stated he was on Mr. Keefe’s side, but that support was need ed to get the application approved. Chair Schaps stated the only option he coul d see was that the developer gets involved. Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Corson asked if they could have a buildi ng added to Parcel A, which was previously split. Mr. Grochala explained technically someone could start building on Parcel A, but the lot would need public road frontage. Mr. Corson asked if a developer would be willing to purchase Parcel A and once Parcel B and C were approved, Parcel A would revert back to Mr. Keefe and the developer could then take possession of Parcels B and C. Chair Schaps asked if things were tabled tonight and the PDO process was initiated tomorrow, the soonest this could get a pproved would be the end of February. Chair Schaps stated they would not get by th e public notification pr ocess. However, he suggested Mr. Keefe look into the suggestion Mr. Corson ma de regarding selling Parcel A. He stated the P&Z Board wanted to appr ove this, but they could not forgo the public notification process. He suggested tabling this. Mr. Hyden stated he agreed with Chair Scha ps and they needed the public notification process, even though he would personally lik e to recommend approval of this tonight. He stated the best thing w ould be the PDO process. Mr. Corson agreed with Chair Schaps and Mr. Hyden. He stated he was concerned about setting a precedent. He noted a denial would probably not do Mr. Keefe any good. Mr. Hyden noted he did not believe a denial would help Mr. Keefe with the City Council, but what they were doing tonight might se nd a strong message to his developer. He noted if the City Council denied the varian ce, the process would end. He stated he wanted to give a positive signal to give Mr. K eefe something to work with and take to the people he was dealing with. Mr. Keefe asked if they were in favor of the split, if it was a PDO process. Chair Schaps replied they were definitely in favor of this and they wanted this to happen, but they had to follow the City Ordinances and City Charter. Mr. Keefe asked what was the City’s staff opinion. Mr. Groc hala replied they were much more comfortable with the PDO process. He stated the road would still be a struggle, but there would be flexibility there. He st ated there would still need to be some improvements to the private road, but they could work with applicant on this. Mr. Rafferty stated he wanted to send a posi tive reflection about this to the people Mr. Keefe was dealing with. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to table the Minor Subdivision and Variance to the February meeting, or to a time to be determined by staff. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 3-0. Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps stated they were all in favor of the subdivision as outlined by Mr. Keefe and in accordance with staff direction, th ey are in favor of a PDO with a public notification process. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.None. VII.ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .