Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/1990 P&Z Minutes• DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 14, 1990 Chairman Fred Chase called the regular meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 7:03 p.m., at the Lino Lakes City Hall. Members present were: Chairman Fred Chase, Board Members Al Robinson, Robert King, Monika Slatton. John Bergeson joined the meeting at 7:16 p.m. Also present were Mayor, Harold Bisel; City Planner, John Miller, City Engineer, Dan Boxrud, Building Official, Pete Kluegel; and Planning Secretary, Laura Elken. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Paragraph 1, paragraph 1, the word Chairman should be deleted. Page 1, paragraph 7, instead of "wishes to appoint" it should state "appointed ". Page 4, 4th paragraph from the bottom. The paragraph should read: "The board discussed accessory buildings for the older homes that have a detached garage ". Al Robinson moved to approve the January 10th minutes. Mr. King seconded the motion and the motion was approved. 0 MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR MR. HEIDER /JACK MENKVELD, APPLICATION #90 -01 AND CITY INITIATED VARIANCE, APPLICATION #90 -07. • Paul Heider owns a residence in Ulmer's Rice Lake Addition. The lot on which Heider's lot is located has a street adjacent on three sides with access to the lot possible from Rice Lake Drive, Ulmer Drive, and Second Avenue. At this time the applicant wishes to split his one -acre lot to create three city -sized lots. Heider would keep a half - acre facing Rice Lake Drive for his residence, splitting the rear into two lots - one measuring 75 x 150 and the second 85 x 150. Sewer is now available at the rear of the lot adjacent to Second Avenue. This is the first minor subdivision the city has had where the parcel has been a corner lot. At the October llth Planning and Zoning Board meeting the members of the old planning agency adopted a policy that would require side lot lines to parallel the street to which the existing residence faces. With a typical 150 x 300 lot this would result in two corner lots measuring 105 x 150 and an interior lot measuring 90 x 150. No variances would be required as the 105 foot corner lot requirement would be met. However the attached certificate of survey does not show this. John Miller spoke with TKDA (the engineering firm that designed the west central trunk sewer) they report that: Page 1 • • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 14, 1990 1. On June 23rd sewer and water stubs were placed for two lots on the west side of Heider's property. None were placed on the south side of the lot. 2. On August 4th curb and gutter was placed on the west side of Heider's lot. Two curb cuts were made. 3. Paving of Second Avenue - the street on the west side of Heider's property was completed on August 24th. 4. (Again) policy for these lot splits was determined at the Planning and Zoning Board on October llth. The zoning ordinance requires corner lots to be 105 feet wide. With the Heider application the corner lot is only 85 feet wide and a variance would be required before the title to the lot could be recorded. MOTION: Robert King moved to recommend to the city council a lot split for Paul Heider for Lot 1, Block 3 of Ulmer's Rice Lake Addition as shown in Application #90 -01. Al . Robinson seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. Variance MOTION: Al Robinson moved to recommend to the city council approval of a variance for Paul Heider permitting a corner lot on Parcel B on the certificate of survey with 85 feet of width as shown in Application #90 -07 due to the fact that it meets the six findings of fact and also due to the fact that utilities are already installed. Robert King seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR DENNIS A. SMITH, APPLICATION #90 -04, AND VARIANCE, 90 -05. The Design Review Board reviewed a concept plan for Mr. Smith previously. The proposed minor subdivision is identical to the sketch plan. There is also a proposed frontage variance from the 180 feet requirement to 160 feet. In Mr. Boxrud's review of this proposal he discovered that the subdivision code indicates that a minor subdivision is defined as "a subdivision involving the creating of four or fewer parcels, tracts, or lots, and not involving the creation of a new street or easement ". Strict interpretation of this definition may indicate that a minor subdivision would not be allowed in this instance. • Dan Boxrud spoke with Bill Hawkins, City Attorney, and he informed Dan that even though this is part of the definition, this language does not appear in the city's ordinance book. The intent of the applicant is to create only two lots and Page 2 • • • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 14, 1990 the board decided to consider this a minor subdivision. Mr. Boxrud recommended that the board take a look at the ordinance pertaining to minor subdivisions and this language should be removed. Mr. Boxrud discussed drainage on the parcel and stated that a percolation test was performed on the two lots indicating that a septic system can be installed. No grading is necessary on the lots. The only grading will be that in the street right -of -way. Street designing will be accomplished by SEH to improve the street from Deerpass Trail to the existing dead end of Reiling Road. This will result in a petition from the developers and possibly the neighbors. The improvement will include a 32 foot street with bituminous curbs consistent with the city code. Board Members Monika Slatten and Al Robinson showed concern regarding assessments to the property owners for the street improvements. Fred Chase explained that the DRB isn't in the business of handling assessments. This board is to look at items as to how they meet the ordinance, and assessments will be addressed at the next step. He stated that the board has to look at this in a purest sense - even though you may have in house feelings on this issue. Dennis Smith stated that there is a home on lot 30 and the parties that live on lots 30 and 9 have a positive feeling regarding the new road and his minor subdivision - depending on what the assessments will be. Mr. King asked about installing a drainfield. Pete Kluegel said that he has not seen the house plans yet, and one perc test has been completed. Two perc tests will be done and then the exact house and drainfield locations will be established. John Bergeson asked if it would be possible to straighten out the end of Reiling Road allowing it to meet the proposed White Tail Road creating enough frontage so that a variance would not be required. Dan Boxrud stated that it would be possible, but costly. Jim Catsar approached the board. He owns lots 30 and 31. His house is on lot 30 and he does not feel that his parcel is buildable. Mr. Catsar met with Dan Boxrud and Mr. Boxrud explained to him how he could build a home on his parcel with a basement. Catsar felt that additional lots could be created in this parcel. Mr. Boxrud stated that if they find the property unbuildable then Mr. Catsar would not be assessed for the new street. Page 3 • • RESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 14, 1990 The board discussed whether they should consider this application a minor subdivision or a plat. MOTION: John Bergeson moved to consider Application #90 -04 a Minor Subdivision for Dennis Smith. Robert King seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. MOTION: Mr. King moved to recommend to city council approval of a Minor Subdivision for Dennis Smith, Application #90 -04 with the following recommendations from the city engineer satisfied: 1. Easement documents will need to be prepared dedicating those easements shown on the Certificate of Survey. 2. Park dedication requirements must be satisfied. 3. A petition for public improvements must be received so that the city council can order a feasibility study. 4. If the feasibility study indicates that the improvements are feasible, and the city council orders the improvements, then a developer's agreement can be entered into with the developer which will guarantee that they will pay their share of the public improvements costs. 5. That perc tests be completed and submitted to the city. John Bergeson seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. Variance Request MOTION: John Bergeson moved to recommend to city council approval of a Variance for Dennis Smith, Application #90 -05 to accept front footage on both lots to be 160 feet instead of the required 180 feet. The board has found that this does meet the six finding of fact. Mr. King seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. This item will be reviewed at council level on February 26th. MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR STEPHEN AND LAURIE SCHWARTZBAUER, APPLICATION #90 -08. The Schwartzbauer's own a residence at 7048 Sunrise Drive on the city's west side. The applicants purchased a one -acre lot in the old Ulmer's Rice Lake 3rd Addition. The board reviewed the certificate of survey showing the land Page 4 • • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 14, 1990 divided into four R -1 lots. Each of the lots meets the "rule of two -of- three" as each as area and depth required in the city's zoning ordinance. Mr. Chase did not feel comfortable with the board going by the "rule of two -of- three" because it has not been formally passed as of yet. Mr. Chase recommend a variance be required. The application number given was #90 -10. MOTION: Mr. King moved to recommend to city council approval of a minor subdivision for Stephen and Laurie Schwartzbauer for property located at 7048 Sunrise Drive as shown in Application #90 -08. Al Robinson seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. MOTION: Al Robinson moved to recommend to city council approval of a variance for Stephen and Laurie Schwartzbauer for property located at 7048 Sunrise Drive allowing frontage to be 76 feet instead of 80 feet on Lot C. Mr. King seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. Harold Bisel asked if a variance is required because originally the required front footage was 75 five feet when these parcels were created and these lots would be grandfathered in. Pete Kluegel said that in 1988 the city council increased the lot width from 75 to 80 feet. John Miller explained that when sewer became available it gave the residents the option to subdivide their one - -acre parcels into sewer size lots. The P &Z board knew that if they wished to subdivide, they would not meet the 80 foot width in at least one of the lots. This is why the board created the two -of -three rule. This rule means that the applicant has to meet two -of -three requirements in width, depth or area in order to have it approved without requiring a variance. REVIEW OF THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. By State Law it is required that the Capital Improvement Plan be reviewed by the board's for its compliance with the comprehensive plan. Copies of the comprehensive plan were distributed to the board members. The City Engineer is working with the Metropolitan Council and they asked that the city complete a Capital Improvement Plan. The City of Lino Lakes has not had a CIP in the past. This is not in a complete form, and the board is asked to give their comments. Mr. Miller would like to be notified if any board members feel that something has been left out. John Miller asked the board members to think about how they would like to see their community grow, and how is that reflected in this CIP. Page 5 • • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 14, 1990 Monika Slatten stated that she was surprised at the amount of new trucks and police vehicles in the CIP. Mr. Miller explained that once this CIP is completed it will be easier for staff and council to know how much and what type of development will occur each year and where sewer and water will be installed. It will be easier for council to determine the need for additional vehicles. John Bergeson asked if the items that the board has worked on in the past year will be included in this CIP. John Miller stated that yes they are in there, and if they see anything left out please let him know. John Miller asked the board members if they can think of a way to prioritize the CIP. This item will be on the agenda in March. At that time the board can discuss prioritizing. Fred Chase asked that a cover sheet be given showing plats that have already been acted on. MOTION: Robert King moved to table discussion on the Capital Improvement Plan until the board meets in March. REVIEW OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. At the January 10th meeting of the Design Review Board, the members reviewed a proposal to amend accessory building sizes for certain residential zoning districts. The proposal was written up in ordinance form and the board reviewed it. John Miller stated that according to the building official, the majority of the complaints regarding accessory buildings were those residents with just under an acre. John Bergeson felt that the proposed ordinance should be changed in the portion that states: Not more than one detached accessory building. Mr. Bergeson stated that if one house had an attached garage they would be allowed an accessory building. The way this reads, if the resident had a detached garage he would not be allowed an accessory building. It was decided to change that paragraph to read: Not more than one garage, attached or detached, and not more than one additional detached accessory building. Page 6 • • • DESIGN REVIEW BOARD February 14, 1990 MOTION: John Bergeson moved that the board direct the city planner to incorporate the changes as outlined above and return the proposed ordinance for review by the design review board in March. Mr. King seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. Elwin Klimek approached the board. He met with the P &Z board some time ago requesting a variance to allow him to construct his pole barn. That request was denied. Council reviewed this application and at that time council referred the issue back to the P &Z for further consideration. Council asked that the board look at the accessory building ordinance, and if they feel that anything should be changed in the 2 1/2 to 10 acre parcel size then it should be considered. MOTION: Mr. King moved to inform the city council that the Design Review Board will not make any changes pertaining to the accessory building ordinance on parcels of land 2 1/2 acres and larger. Al Robinson seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. Al Robinson felt that there are areas in the city that larger accessory buildings in some of the larger parcels would not look bad. Some pole barns could be screened and landscaped from the rear yards and they would be unnoticed, and in some cases it would be an eye sore. Pete Kluegel stated that in 1983 the ordinance addressing accessory buildings was adopted. The P &Z discussed the ordinance, and the board decided to keep it as it is written. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business NEW BUSINESS John Miller told the board that the last two meetings have been pretty simple requests. The next meeting however, will have two controversial items on the agenda. One of them being the 35E rezoning and the other a Conditional Use Permit request from the United Power Association. The board members packets will be delivered sooner than usual allowing everyone more time to review these items. The board members discussed possibly getting items as they are completed instead of everything in one packet. Mr. Miller felt that the board members could receive the United Power's Association application within a week. Mr. King moved to adjourn the meeting.