Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/12/2017 P&Z Minutes APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Tralle called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. on July 12, 2017. II. APROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as presented. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Masonick made a MOTION to approve the June 12, 2017 Meeting Minutes with amendment. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6 - 0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Tralle declared Open Mike at 6:33 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:33 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Stoesz. Motion carried 6 - 0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. Public Hearing: All Seasons Rental/ SS Properties Addition Preliminary Plat, Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit DATE : July 12, 2017 TIME STARTED : 6:32 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:08 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Dale Stoesz, Lou Masonick, Perry Laden, Paul Tralle (Chair), Neil Evenson, Michael Root, Jeremy Stimpson MEMBERS ABSENT : None STAFF PRESENT : Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Diane Hankee, Mara Strand, Joe Widing Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2017 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Katie Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. The applicants, Scott and Shelly Carlson, own All Seasons Rental located at 7932 Lake Drive. They have purchased the vacant 1.3 commercial parcel to the south with the intent to construct a new 7,740 square foot commercial facility. The Land Use Application is for the following:  Preliminary Plat  Rezoning from R-X, Rural Executive to GB, General Business  Conditional Use Permit o Commercial Planned Unit Development o Small Engine Repair The proposed 7,740 s.f. facility is located on the south end of the site with a potential 6,700 s.f. future addition. The existing two buildings will be demolished. The current access off Lake Drive will be relocated to the north approximately 25 feet. It will be gated and used only for deliveries approximately 2-3 times per month. Two driveways will ingress/egress from Kelly Street. A 1,040 s.f. storage building will be located on the north end of the parcel. The existing concrete ready-mix operation will remain in the northeast corner of the site. The existing stormwater pond on the east side will be expanded and a new infiltration pond will be constructed on the west side along Lake Drive. Seven foot high security and screen fencing are proposed around the site. The parking lot will have curb and gutter and will be bituminous paved. A 15 foot trail easement exists along Lake Drive. This will remain in place but no trail improvements are required with this project. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, rezoning and conditional use permit. Staff addressed questions of the Board.  Mr. Root asked about the trail easement boundaries and where the trail easement runs to the parking lot.  Ms. Larsen stated that the easement does not conflict with the parking lot.  Mr. Root asked about the south side of the building and the signage and permits for the wall sign. In addition, he asked if a sign would be permitted and if there was a monument sign proposed.  Ms. Larsen stated that there has not been a sign plan permitted, but that the proposal would be allowed a wall sign on every façade aside from the side abutting the residential property. She also stated that they are allowed a monument sign as well.  Mr. Evenson asked about the fences and if the security fence is a chain link that one could see through. He then asked if you could see it at all.  Ms. Larsen said that if the privacy fence is put in on the edge of the property then landscaping needs to be on the outside of the fence and that for the security fence, Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2017 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES the landscape buffer is only required between a residential and commercial property.  Mr. Evenson stated that he was not sure that one could see a fence.  Ms. Larsen agreed and stated it is a difficult question and that Mr. Larsen had a good point.  Mr. Evenson stated that he thought that the fence on the east side of the lot would squeeze the home in. He also commented that the business has been a good neighbor.  Mr. Stimpson stated that he likes this type of development and that other business should look more like this. He also stated that the Lake Drive access can be difficult to get in and out of. He stated that his main comment is around the fencing and moving the privacy fence over to where the security fence is proposed. He asked about the irrigation and the stormwater pond and the fence placement with regards with irrigation.  Ms. Larsen stated that [the applicant] does not have to irrigate the pond area, but if the area is sodded there would need to be irrigation. She stated that staff would have to take a look at possibly adding an extra irrigation pipe for landscaping and gathering more information on past practices.  Chair Tralle asked if those who are building the house adjacent to the proposal are here tonight. They were not present at the meeting.  Mr. Masonick asked if there was a fence line between the old and new property that currently exists.  Mr. Carlson, the applicant, stated that there is one there today.  Mr. Stoesz asked what hours of operations were permitted in the area.  Ms. Larsen stated that there are no limits on hours of operation for commercial properties.  Mr. Laden asked how visible the accessory building is to both Lake Drive and Kelly Street.  Ms. Larsen stated that if the privacy fence was built that most of the building would be obscured by the privacy fence, but the top of the structure would still be visible.  Mr. Laden stated that he recommends that the materials or color be consistent with the primary building if it is visible. He also wanted to clarify the materials on the proposed elevations and the labeling on the elevations.  Ms. Larsen agreed that the elevations needed to be amended.  Mr. Laden asked about if the garbage area needed to be integral with the primary building.  Ms. Larsen stated that there needs to be more looked at, but agreed that the area should be moved.  Mr. Laden stated he was concerned with fence materials on Lake Drive.  Ms. Larsen stated that it was a security and chain link fence which would be permitted under code, but the slats would not be.  Mr. Laden asked if the City will be requiring landscaping on the street side of the fence on Lake Drive. Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2017 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES  Ms. Larsen stated that landscaping was not shown on the street side of the fence. She also stated that she was concerned with a security fence abutting Lake Drive.  Mr. Laden asked if there were any comments from the County about moving the access to Kelly Street.  Ms. Larsen stated that the County has yet to submit comments.  Mr. Laden stated he would be concerned as Kelly Street is a residential street.  Ms. Larsen Stated that Kelly has no outlet and would not likely be used by commercial customers.  Mr. Masonick asked if the property to the north is a church.  Ms. Larsen stated that it was a multi-tenant commercial building and not a church.  Chair Tralle asked if the rental trucks would be stored inside.  Mr. Carlson, the applicant, stated that they would not be stored inside. He also stated that concrete area would be outside and is what requires the security fence.  Chair Tralle stated that he is ok with a chain link fence on Lake Drive. He also stated that he has no issues with it being a steel sided building. He stated that if the applicant were to change to go where the security fence is presently he is concerned about the storm pond and the possibility of children next door and the safety with them. He asked how much of the property is going to be paved in the rear of the proposed building.  Ms. Larsen stated that she also has concerns and questions with what is going to be installed behind the building in regards with pavement and sod placement. The applicant came forward to speak. Scott Carlson, 7932 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN.  Chair Tralle asked about the fence.  Mr. Carlson stated that the barbed wire does not mean a lot to them in light of the comments, but they do want to have fencing on the Lake Drive side. He stated that he does like the idea of moving the fence on the other side of the drainage pond. He wants to look good in the community and is ok with other fencing materials. He stated that he just does not want open access into back yard of property.  Chair Tralle asked about the accessory building and if Mr. Carlson is ok with changing materials or colors.  Mr. Carlson stated that they are flexible with the color and materials of the accessory building as long as the size is maintained. He stated that there would be little visibility from either street, but would be open to other materials.  Chair Tralle stated that the proposed building is a great looking building.  Mr. Stimpson asked about the monument signage.  Mr. Carlson would like to use the current sign on the property that would be relocated. He also stated that for wall signage that there would be signs on the south and west elevations.  Mr. Laden asked about lighting in the parking lot. The architect for the project came forward to speak. Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2017 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Jerry Anderson, PO Box 310 Forest Lake, MN.  Mr. Anderson stated that there are only 2 parking lot light poles, one that is centered on the west side of the parking lot and one that is centered on the south edge of the site. The remainder is lit by box lights. All lights are downward facing on 22 foot poles.  Mr. Anderson stated that the berms on the west side would not be necessary and serve no purpose. He stated that they would be detrimental to the operation of the business. He stated that the pond in that area is more of a rain garden and will see little standing water. He also stated that he was ok with moving the fence across the pond. In addition the trash area is brick walled, an extension of the building and is a feature incorporated with the entire site. He also stated that he was happy to make the fence placement change from the outside of the pond to the inside as recommended by staff.  Ms. Larsen asked about the parking lot screening on Lake Drive and the proposed outdoor display area. She stated that staff did not write the report with an outdoor display area being used and would not be allowed as is. Chair Tralle declared the Public Hearing open at 7:33 p.m. Katherine Beemer, 925 Kelly St. Lino Lakes, MN.  Ms. Beemer asked where the rental trucks will be located on the property. She also stated that traffic makes it difficult to get off of Kelly Street on to Lake Drive.  Mr. Carlson stated that the trucks would be located in the rear of the lot and that they ask for Penske to limit the amount of trucks on the property. If there are extras they would be located in the rear of the building.  Mr. Laden asked if the trucks would be considered outdoor storage.  Ms. Larsen stated that they are accessory use and are allowed as 25% of floor area for outdoor display area.  Chair Tralle said that the truck storage is not that big of an issue and that the proposal would be an improvement over what is currently there. He thinks that Kelly Street is the appropriate street for ingress and egress for the business.  Mr. Laden asked about the number of parking stalls being proposed.  Ms. Larsen stated that the proposal currently exceeds the parking requirements and could use some of the spaces for the storage of the rental trucks.  Ms. Larsen stated that a stipulation that rental trucks be only kept in parking stalls facing Lake Drive rather than Kelly Street.  Mr. Stoesz asked if the ponding in front is needed on the site.  Ms. Hankee stated that they do need both ponds to meet the requirements for storm water management requirements.  Ms. Larsen stated that staff did not have any issues with the location of the ponds.  Mr. Anderson said that the ponding was already approved by the Rice Creek Watershed and could not be changed without re-approval from the Watershed. Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2017 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Stimpson. Motion carried 6 - 0.  Mr. Evenson asked if there were garage doors on the rear of the building.  Mr. Carlson stated that there are no garage doors on the rear, but if the garbage was on placed on the rear of the building that there would be conflicts with customer movements through the site.  Mr. Evenson stated that he has no problem with where it is on the drawing. Mr. Laden and Mr. Stoesz concurred.  Mr. Carlson stated that the business does not generate much trash and would not be visible from either Lake Drive or Kelly Street.  Mr. Masonick stated that if the fence was on the west of the pond the applicant would not have to insure the pond. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the preliminary plat, rezoning and conditional use permit. Motion was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 6 - 0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Kendra Lindahl, Landform Professional Services, presented the staff report. Results of June 22, 2017 Open House  Approximately 40 citizens attended the Open House. A summary report is attached. Results of Community Survey  The online survey was closed on June 23, 2017 and had 476 respondents. A report summarizing the results is attached. Potential Land Use Study Areas and Land Use Issues  Staff has identified a preliminary list of land use study areas. These are specific locations that should be reviewed as part of the Land Use Plan update.  Several landowners also have requested that the City consider specific changes to the status of their property. Possible changes might include the future land use designations or utility staging.  Attached is a table listing potential land use study areas, along with a map showing the areas by planning district. The table includes some data about each area (size, current planning status, utility staging) and a bullet list of issues or questions. For each study area, we have also provided a more detailed map with the 2030 Land Use Plan and an aerial photo with the GIS wetland layer. For Area Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2017 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES 1-A, some additional materials are provided (an excerpt of the 2007 Master Planning Study for Hodgson Road & CRJ.) Staff Addressed questions of the Board. Site 1A – Hodgson Road and County Road J  Mr. Stoez doesn’t think the master plan should be included in the comprehensive plan as it is too specific and limiting for the site.  Mr. Laden thinks that graphics and vision is good, but clarification that the plan is more of a concept should be included as well.  Chair Tralle agrees with Mr. Laden and doesn’t see any reason to alter what is already in place.  Mr. Laden stated that mixed use needs to have better defintion of what it is or what the city wants to see.  Chair Tralle stated that the 3 businesses on Hodgson Rd. want nothing to do with the vision in the master plan. Site 1B – Hodgeson Road and Birch Street  Mr. Laden stated that he would like to see it continue to be commerical. The site is highly visible and that residents are asking for more commercial and taking away spaces guided for commercial use would be a mistake.  Chair Tralle asked if it was owned by the town home development.  Mr. Stimpson stated that ownership has changed and is no longer owned by the developers of the town home development.  Mr. Laden stated that the developer wanted more commerical at one time, but was stopped in the past by the City.  Mr. Stimpson stated that his only concern would be the access being a right in, right out only on to Birch Street from the commerical property.  Mr. Grocahala stated that is currently zoned for neighborhood business. He stated that the original proposal was denied and rezoned to neighborhood business.  Mr Laden stated that the site could be opened up to full commercial with more auto heavy use.  Mr. Grochala stated that when the original project was denied the site was also zoned from Limited Business to Neighborhood Business which is more restrictive to auto use.  Mr. Root stated that access is a challenge and that it is zoned for business and that’s why its still open. He also stated that there is still plenty of land north of Birch Street for commercial use.  Chair Tralle asked what would give the most versitable zoning without making it a drive through.  Ms. Lindahl stated that they are talking use and the comprehensive plan and that it could be zoned 3 different ways that would apply for a commerical use.  Mr. Grochala stated that there is more interest in residential than commerical for the site. Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2017 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES  Mr. Stoez asked if it can be split in half by keeping north side commerical and making the south side residential.  Ms. Lindahl stated that nothing is stopping anyone from proposing a good use on the site. 1C – South of 67th Street from Ware Road to Holly Drive  Mr. Root asked about the preserve conservation area and if this area would be an extension of that. He asked if the idea is to move this area forward in staging.  Mr. Grochala stated that the area could be split into 2 districts with one half [east side] moving into a sooner sewer staging district. The area would only be roughly 60 units and guided for low density development.  Mr. Laden asked if it is directed by the Met Coucil.  Mr. Grochala stated that the Met Council has no system here and municipalities have taken the lead.  Mr. Masonick asked if 62nd Street has sewer capacity for houses on it.  Mr. Grochala stated that sewers 62nd Street does have sewer and water.  Mr. Stoez asked that why Red Maple Lane is marked the way it is on the land use map.  Mr. Grochala stated that it is currently zoned urban reserve and that going to be pushed out to 2040 for sewer service. He also stated that if there is enough interest the staging could be moved up in time. 2A – Sod Farms Area  Chair Tralle asked if it was one of the ecological development proposals.  Mr. Grochala stated it was going to be similar to the lakes development [in Blaine] and that the reason it was guided the way it was was on account of a future collector road. He also stated that this plan has begun to reemerge. He stated that densities will likely be averaged out over the entire area and asked if any member had any issues with the current design.  Mr. Laden asked why the checkerboard design of the proposed land use.  Mr. Grochala stated that they did not want to have 160 acres of mixed use as it has the highest allowed density.  Chair Tralle stated that a lot of the sites so far have had work done already and with no development why change what’s there. 2B – Lake Drive Corridor North of Main Street  Mr. Grochala explained the nature of the business mix along the corridor that do not currently fit zoning classifications and future land use guidance.  Mr. Stoez asked what Columbus has zoned along Lake Drive.  Mr. Grochala stated that Coumbus is zoned all commercial along Lake Drive.  Mr. Laden stated he thought that all of Lake Drive would end up commercial.  Mr. Grochala said that there is a lot of conflicting land uses along the corridor that makes it becoming all one or the other difficult.  Ms. Lindahl stated the biggest concern is to limit access onto Lake Drive and turning conflicts for vehicles. Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2017 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES 2C – Waldoch Farms Area  Chair tralle stated that they just added 100 space parking lot and that he doesn’t think that they would be putting up houses on the site soon.  Mr. Grochala stated that they have looked to add housing to rear side of the property. The farm is moving into a commercial operation and away from agriculture. They are looking to move the property up staging wise. Previously the staging was pushed back in the previous plan and might get pushed up in the forthcoming comprehensive plan.  Ms Lindahl stated that this area is another sewer phasing issue area more than a future change in land use issue. 2D – Decker Property 614 Pine Street  Ms. Lindahl stated that the study area was created at request of the land owner.  Catherine and Jason Decker 614 Pine Street, Lino Lakes MN.  Mr. Decker stated that he has talked with adjouning property owners to the east and that they are interested in possibly selling and developing their land in conjunction with him. He also stated that they are looking for sooner sewer and water hookups to accommodate development.  Mr. laden asked if Mr. Decker is talking about grouping multiple parcels together.  Mr. Decker stated that there is interest between three adjacent property owners about coming together to sell for development.  Chair Tralle stated that the city will look into a potential of development. 3A – North of Main Street West of 20th Avenue  Ms. Lindahl stated that the intention is to reaffirm guided land use from the previous comprehensive plan.  Mr. Grochala stated that the area is 2025 and 2030 development area, but with it being adjacent to the Mattamy development that possibly these parcels would be pushed up in the utility staging for drainage purposes. He also stated that this is an area with higher amenties and higher density.  Mr. Stoez asked if the proposal would be to change it to mixed use.  Mr Grochala stated that the idea is to look more at staging and reaffirming current land use guidance.  Chair Tralle asked if the Mattamy site is still being looked at.  Mr. Grochala said that Lennar is looking at the site and that he expects an application coming in the next week. 3B – Nadeau Properties (6651 & 6677 20th Avenue South)  Ms. Lindahl stated that this is another property that has been submitted at the owners request. She stated the request was to increase the guided density to medium from low density.  Mr. Laden asked what the property owner is requesting. Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2017 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES  Mr. Grochala stated that they are looking at Northpointe and they also owned Northpointe previously.  Mr. Laden asked what the density of Northpointe is currently.  Mr. Grochala stated that it will be medium density when all phases are completed, but currently the development would fall under a low density designation.  Ms. Larsen stated that the owners were also looking at utility staging.  Ms. Lindahl stated that it is important to sit down with landowner for areas such as this. 4A – Wilkonson Lake / Cedar Lake Area  Ms. Lindahl stated the main reason for the focus of this area was sewer capacity and staging questions.  Mr. Root stated that there was comments about Cedar Lake and asked if Cedar Lake is part of this area.  Mr. Grochala said that there is an opportunity to do restoration of Cedar Lake in the future and that it is currently more of a wetland than a lake. He continued that that it would be challanging to do a restoration. He also stated that there has been strong interest in development in the area and straightening the s-curves on Ash Street. North Oaks Development Company is interested in that as well and in developing their land in the area. This opens opportunities in moving stagin around. 5A – East of I-35E and North of Main Street  Mr. Grochala stated that the residential was added during the AUAR and that if it is changed then the staging does not matter as much. If it were all guided commerical and industrial then it can be moved to the first staging area.  Mr. Laden asked if changing it changes the AUAR.  Mr Grochala stated that it would not neccesariliy change the AUAR as it had 3 different scenarios and its possible to spread uses around within he AUAR.  Mr. Stoez asked if this area would help pay for the interchange at Main Street and I-35E  Mr. Grochala stated the area is out of the area for assessment. Additional Comments:  Mr. Stoez asked if Lake Drive by Trappers is being proposed for any changes.  Staff replied no.  Mr. Evenson asked how do you fix the land use by Orange St. with small lots and septic tanks.  Mr. Grochala said the plan is to get sanitary would be to possibly extend it from a site to the south on Main Street, but it is also possible to come from Lake Drive. He also stated it is a long term project.  Mr. Laden asked if there is any opportunity for a community septic system.  Mr Grochala stated that there is no real room for that in the area. Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2017 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES  Mr. Grochala asked are we a city of “make it happen” or “let it happen” in regards to the development. Does the city want to aquire and clear for development.  Mr. Root stated that the area by city hall has had little happen with extensive city invovlment.  Mr. Laden stated that the city has had a more passive role traditionally. The city should take more of a role in marketing land.  Mr. Stoez stated, about the 49 Club site, to go ahead to put sewer in and pre fund improvements and that development could pay back investment within 20 years.  Ms. Lindahl presented a proposed change of the start time for the Planning and Zoning Board from 6:30 to 6:00 to allow for time to discuss the comprehensive plan before other items.  Chair Tralle asked why not just start at 6pm with comp plan and move to other items after, without making offical time for the rest of the items.  Mr. Grochala staed that having a fixed starting time for applications and public hearing gives those participating in that a firm time.  Mr. Stoez asked if staff was going to meet with the Charter Commission.  Mr. Grochala replied that they are not. B. Project Update Ms. Larsen stated that council approved the previous plans that were approved by Planning and Zoning Board in the previous hearing. She stated that Eagle Liquors is progressing and the United Properties development had its final walkthrough. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:08 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Stimpson. Motion carried 6 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Joe Widing Community Development Intern