Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/1994 P&Z Minutes• PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Al Robinson moved and was supported by John Landers to approve the minutes of the March 9, 1994 meeting as submitted. All voted aye. Motion carried. Ed Schones congratulated Jame Schaps on his reelection to chairman. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Al Robinson stated that he had an item to add under "Discussion ". III. OPEN MIKE: No one was present to speak under Open Mike: IV. ACTION ITEMS: A. 94 -8 -C, D. Kastner, 154 Pine St., CUP Kennel License Planning Coordinator Wyland reviewed this request which is to allow a Kennel License for four dogs at 154 Pine Street. She explained that the license request was the result of a complaint involving the attack of a passing dog. Since the complaint was initiated the subject dogs have been contained within a building waiting for the frost to leave the ground to the allow the installation of an invisible fence. Staff has recommended approval with the condition that should the invisible fence fail the applicant be required to install a suitable rigid fence. Chairman Schaps opened the Public Hearing. Al Robinson advised the Board that it was his grandchild's dog that was attacked while walking with the grandchild along Pine Street. He had no objections to the proposed request but questioned the effectiveness of an invisible fence. Jame Schaps stated that some of his friends have tried the invisible fence and it was not effective with older dogs. Mr. Kastner's representative, Joan Falkers, stated that they • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 had been advised that the fence would work on their dogs. She also indicated that they were willing to try it and if it is not effective, replace it. Tom Mesich stated that the effectiveness of an invisible fence depends on the psyche of the dog, its tolerance for pain, and its "want" to run. He felt it would be a bad precedent to say that an invisible fence is a fence. A cyclone fence would be more effective in this case. He added that the existing Dog Ordinance is vague and that extensive work has been done on revising the ordinance which has been presented to staff for further review and adoption. Ed Schones stated that dogs should be able to run on their own property. He also had reservations regarding this request due to the attack previously mentioned and was not familiar enough with the effectiveness of the invisible fence. Ms. Falkers neighbor was present and indicated that her children play with the Kastner dogs and have had no problems with them. She would support the proposed invisible fence. After some discussion Al Robinson made a motion recommending approval of the kennel license with the following conditions: 1. The Invisible Fence must be installed by June 1, 1994. 2. The Permit shall expire in 12 months and must then be reviewed and renewed, if so recommended, by the City. 3. After receipt of complaints concerning the effectiveness of the invisible fence the CSO Officer shall instruct the owners to install a rigid fence within 20 days and the dogs shall be immediately contained within a structure. Tom Mesich seconded the motion. On roll call: Ayes: Robinson, Gelbmann, Schaps, Nordine, Landers, Mesich Nays: Schones Motion carried B. 94 -9 -P & 94 -10 -Z, Subdivision and Rezoning from R to R -1X for Randy Rehbein Property, 1585 Birch Street, PUBLIC HEARING Planning Consultant Brixius reviewed this item which is a request to divide 2.96 acres into 4 single family lots and rezone the site from Rural to R -1X. Three of the proposed lots would front on the new Sherman Lake Road and become a part of the Pheasant Hills Preserve Development. The fourth lot contains an existing dwelling and fronts on Birch Street. Sewer and water services are available for the three lots on Sherman Lake Road, but not the property on Birch Street. Mr. Brixius reviewed the Judgement Criteria regarding the • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 Rezoning and the preliminary plat and recommended approval with the conditions outlined in the report dated April 7, 1994. Mr. Landers asked why the proposed mitigation on the wetlands was 1:1 when the new rules require 2:1 mitigation. Staff advised that the mitigation plan had been approved by the Watershed District prior to the new rules being in effect and added that criteria to determine replacement also involves types of wetland being filled and created. The wetland being filled, in this case, is a degraded wetland along the side of Sherman Lake Road. The wetland to be created will be of a higher quality than that replaced. Mr. Landers was also advised, in response to his question, that the property was located within the MUSA Boundary. Mr. Schones asked why the zoning was proposed to be R -1X rather than R -1 and if that would have an impact on the wetland replacement. After some discussion he was advised that Pheasant Hills Preserve is Zoned R -1X and that the zoning does not have any effect on the mitigation or wetland replacement plan as far as the Watershed District is concerned. Mr. Mesich expressed concern about the installation of silt fence during development and was advised that the property is being sold to Contractor Developer Properties who are developing the balance of Pheasant Hills and that they would be required to sign a Development Agreement and post financial guarantees to insure proper development including erosion control. There was some discussion regarding the location of the transportation trail. Ed Hasek, representing the Developer, indicated that they are working with the County to locate the trail within County right of way. The location of the trail in the right of way would be an acceptable alternative to the Park Board and is common practice along Birch Street. After further discussion Mr. Schones moved and was supported by Mr. Robinson to approve the Rezoning from R to R -1X and the Preliminary Plat as submitted with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report dated April 7, 1994. All voted aye. Motion carried. C. 94 -11 -P, Trappers Crossing, Holly Drive & 12 Avenue, Preliminary Plat, PUBLIC HEARING Planning Consultant Brixius reviewed this item which involves the platting of 72.4 acres into approximately 127 single family lots with a Planned Development Overlay to provide some flexibility in lot width, depth and /or square foot area. The overall density of the proposal is 1.72 units /acre. Mr. Brixius explained that there are several items which must be addressed regarding this proposed plat and it is recommended that the item be continued until the May 11, 1994 meeting to • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 allow the developer time to modify his proposal. Mr. Brixius briefly reviewed the history of this property and explained that in 1981 the Comprehensive Plan indicated the site as Rural and Expansion Residential. The 1987 Comprehensive Plan amended the MUSA Boundaries and indicated the property north of Holly and west of 12th Avenue as urban residential. Beginning in 1989 through 1990 the City was involved in a Comprehensive Plan amendment to enlarge the City's MUSA. The area south of Holly Street was then brought within the MUSA. Public hearings on this amendment were held by the Council in July of '89 and December of '90. The plan was reviewed by several advisory boards and the Council officially closed the public hearing in December of 1990. The Metro Council approved the plan in March of 1991 and the City worked to fulfill the conditions of the Metro Council's approval and formally adopted the Plan in June of 1992. In August of 1992 the City amended the Zoning Map, after public hearings, to reflect the new land use changes and Metro Council recommendations that certain zoning districts be eliminated. Finally, in February of 1994, the Council rezoned the subject property from R -1 Residential to R -1X. The City Attorney has reviewed the historical account of the property in regards to the comprehensive plan revisions and rezonings and has stated "that there has been no improper actions on the part of the City under State Statute and local ordinances and that the current zoning classification of R -1X is proper ". John Landers stated that there is a question pertaining to the rezoning of the property from Rural to R -1. He stated that he had looked through the minute books from March of '87 through '88 and found nothing relating to a change from Rural to R -1. Tom Mesich stated that he thinks the P & Z has enough direction indicating that the zoning was done properly. "I do not think it is our place to insinuate that this was not the case ". As far as the P & Z is concerned, we are working off the Official Zoning Map and should not let this other issue direct us. Chairman Schaps stated that he agreed with Mr. Mesich. Map rezoning is covered under State Statutes, we have asked the staff for direction and received it, and the City Attorney has advised that the zoning is legal. CITIZEN COMMENT: Sue Walseth, 1101 Holly Drive, stated that she has been a resident for nine years and her comments are coming from her heart. She feels that she is losing the use of her property and will no longer fit in with the neighborhood. When the property was changed from Rural to R -1 she did not receive a notice and when her land was added to the MUSA, although she objected, the designation was changed anyway. She was originally told this plat would consist of 90 large lots. • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 Additional comments included the following: - Would like 10 acre parcel zoning returned to the area. - Holly Drive extended to Centerville Road - An evergreen buffer installed between her parcel and the development on the north and east sides. - No variances for anything less than R -1X lots. - No road abutting her property on the north side. Mr. Al DeMotts of 6265 Holly Drive had the following questions in response to the request: - Where does the water run -off go. - What happens to the land on the west side of Holly. Who will pay the taxes or will it become tax - forfeit property - Where was the land surveyed from. - P & Z members in other communities tell me you should get business development before homes. We are way ahead in homes. - Will the run -off go into the wetlands. - Can the City send out a survey to find out what the people think of more development. - The groundwater will go under Holly Drive. - There was no add in the Circulating Pines for this request (Staff checked this item and proper notification was made 10 days prior to the meeting as required by the Zoning Ordinance). - Who will pay for the schools. -How big are the lots. Tom Mesich asked Mr. DeMotts if he was aware of the change from Rural to R -1. Mr. DeMotts stated that he had not received any notice. He was also unaware of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. John Dahl of Holly Court stated that he owns approximately 11 1/2 acres south of this proposed development and has lived there since 1990. He would like to see a buffer between his property and the development and asked if there was some such provision in the Ordinance. Planning Consultant Brixius explained that the lots proposed to abut his are very deep. He questioned the surface drainage and run -off. Mr. Weigert, the developers engineer, explained that according to City Code, they must demonstrate that the surface water run -off from the development will be no greater after development than it was prior to development. The actual flow off the site will not be increased. Mr. Mesich asked if he had checked with City Hall before purchasing the property. Mr. Dahl indicated that his wife had come up to City Hall and was told that the area was Zoned Rural. Mark Payette, 6266 Holly Drive, was present and stated that he had moved into the area in 1985 because it was Zoned Rural. • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 He indicated his frustration in not being able to determine when the property went from Rural to R -1. He further stated that he appreciated the work Mr. Landers had done in researching the minutes. Carolyn Dahl of Holly Court was present and state that when they built their home in '90/91 she went to the City and asked if there were any plans for the area. She was told the property was Zoned Rural and that there were no plans for development. In less than six months the property to the north changed from Rural to R -1 - she would like to see it remain Rural. She asked what is the procedure for getting into the MUSA. The City needs a balance of housing and some areas should remain rural. If this development goes in, an additional outlet is needed for Holly Drive - Holly Drive East. She added that she would like to see some proof that the property was properly rezoned from Rural to R -1. Chris Lydeen of Holly Drive provided a map of the proposed plat indicating several lots not conforming to the R -1X standard. He indicated concerns about open space and park dedication and stated that he would like to see more open area in the plat. He questioned the rezoning from Rural to R -1 and thanked John Landers for his efforts in researching the matter. He stated that he had checked on the rezoning with the Quad Press and found some poor copies of maps of the area. He questioned when the area south of Holly went to R -1. He stated that Holly Drive east "obviously" needs to be extended. He questioned where the sewer /water would come from and would 12th Avenue have to be dug up again. He stated that he has lived on Holly Drive since 1992. Charles McKenna, property owner on East Holly Drive, was present to voice his objection to the extension of Holly Drive. He has lived in the area since 1979 and there was no road there. The property owners along East Holly have 5, 10, and 20 acre parcels. After 15 years - now you want to put a road on the back of my property. He stated that there is no road easement on the back of his property and he does not want a road forced on him. He indicated that an alternative would be to rezone the area for 5 or 10 acre lots. Al Klemic of 1390 Karth Road stated that he has lived in the area since 1981. He is opposed to the opening of Holly Drive East. He stated that he does not want to see any tax money spent on this roadway. Carolyn Dahl read a letter from the City Attorney written in 1985 indicating that the City may have right of way for east Holly Drive even if the roadway has not been maintained. Ruth Sepanin of Holly Drive presented a petition requesting that Holly Drive be extended to the east and statements from 10 people indicating that they remember when you could get from Holly Drive east to Holly Drive west. • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 Paul Behr of Karth Road stated that his property line ends before the road begins. The pond is on his property - not the road. Furthermore, the road has not been used as a road since before 1981. It is in Cedar Lake. Jeanne Cummings, daughter of Mrs. Whitcomb, stated that they have farmed the property since 1971. Mrs. Whitcomb decided it was time to sell the property so they sought developers. They have lost over 14 acres to wetlands. The lots proposed will be over 3/4 of an acre which is larger than required in an R- 1X District. The land is valuable and people knew it was not going to stay rural forever. In response to a previous question by Mr. DeMotts, she indicated that they still own the property on the west side of Holly Drive and have no plans for it at this time. Al Strommen of 6177 Holly Drive indicated that he has lived there since 1979 and the rezoning was a shock to him. There was no notification that he was aware of. Additional comments were received. Kirk Corson, representing Hokanson Development, explained that the original parcel contained 120 acres but due to wetland constraints their purchase included only 85. He indicated that a lot of the wetland is Type I and II and will most likely end up being mowed and considered yard by property owners. MOTION: Al Robinson made a motion to continue the Public Hearing to the May 11, 1994 meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. Tom Mesich seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. In response to the extension of Holly Drive East, City Engineer Schneider stated that the City probably has the ROW for the roadway, but that is not the problem. The City Charter would prohibit us from just building the road. Adjoining property owners would have to agree to pay for the improvement. This could be a million dollar project. Wetland constraints are an additional problem. Al Robinson stated that in the '40's & 50's this roadway was barely passible. Mr. Schneider further explained that adjoining property owners will not be assessed for any sewer and water or road improvements to 12th Avenue and Holly Drive West as a result of this proposed development. In response to an earlier concern, both Mr. Mesich and Mr. Robinson indicated that they would like to see a buffer between the rural area and the R -1X area. The audience was advised that the developer will be presenting a revised plan, meeting with the Park Board on May 2nd, and PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 13, 1994 returning to the P & Z on May llth with revisions. VI. DISCUSSION: A. DRAINAGE: Al Robinson stated that there appears to be a problem in new developments with drainage easements. He suggested that before occupancy a final grade inspection is done. Darrell explained that we do require certificates of survey with new homes indicating drainage patterns. Staff has discussed installation of "green tops ", survey markers indicating final grade points and has adopted a policy of not issuing any fence permits on drainage easements with certain conditions present. B. EDAB - Al Robinson reported that things are beginning to happen in regard to Economic Development. Brian Wessel is working on several proposals. The 49/23 Project has been funded and will be initiated in July. VII. ADJOURNMENT: Upon the unanimous consent of the Board the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. •