Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/2019 P&Z Packet CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, March 13, 2019 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers Please be courteous and turn off all electronic devices during the meeting. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 13, 2019 4. OPEN MIKE 5. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Regarding Multiple Principal Buildings on Commercial, Industrial Parcels or Public/Semi-Public Zoning Districts B. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Providing for Construction of Retaining Walls 42” in Height or Greater 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Project Update 7. ADJOURN Meeting guidelines on reverse side. City of Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board MEETING GUIDELINES Open Mike – The purpose of a Board Meeting is to accomplish the business of the city. When presenting at a meeting please remember to be respectful, and follow these guidelines: • Please address the meeting chair. • State your name and address for the record. • Please observe a 4-minute limit. • The topic must relate to city business. • Open Mike is for items not on the agenda. • A spokesperson must represent a group of five or more – groups will have 8 minutes. • The Presiding Officer may limit duplicative presentations. • Remember, the meeting is to discuss city business only. Public Hearing - Held as a separate item of business on the agenda. The public hearing segment is your opportunity to tell the Board how you feel about issues scheduled to be heard. Typically, a hearing follows these steps: • The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) will announce the proposal to be reviewed and ask for the staff report. The presiding Officer shall maintain strict order and etiquette at all meetings. • Staff will present their report on the proposal. • Board members will then ask City Staff questions about the proposal. • The Presiding Officer will then open up the public hearing for anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Comments should be limited to four (4) minutes unless further time is granted by the Presiding Officer. All comments should be directed to the Board as a body and not to any individual Board Member or City Staff Member unless permission is granted by the Presiding Officer. No person shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Board without the permission of the Presiding Officer. • After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his/her comments, the Presiding Officer shall close the public hearing. • The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. • The Board will then make a recommendation(s) and/or a decision. When you are called upon for your comments, please step to the microphone at the podium and state your name and address for the record. Occasionally, the Board may continue a hearing to another meeting before taking action. Meeting Etiquette The Planning & Zoning Board must preserve order and decorum while the meeting is in session. A resident shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the business of the Board, nor disturb any resident or Board Member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the Board. DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Vice Chair Root called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. on February 13, 2019. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as presented. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Laden made a MOTION to approve the January 9, 2019 Meeting Minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 4 - 0. Mr. Ruhland abstained. IV. OPEN MIKE Vice Chair Root declared Open Mike at 6:32 P.M. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Stimpson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:32 P.M. Motion was supported by Mr. Ruhland. Motion carried 5 - 0. DATE : February 13, 2019 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:28 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Jeremy Stimpson, Michael Ruhland, Perry Laden, Michael Root, Neil Evenson, MEMBERS ABSET : Sue Peacock, Paul Tralle STAFF PRESENT : Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Diane Hankee Mara Strand, Monika Mann Planning & Zoning Board Febrauary 13, 2019 Page 2 DRAFT MINUTES V. ACTION ITEMS A. Lyngblomsten Senior Living Community Katie Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Laden asked for clarification regarding the access points on Hodgson in relation to where they were on the master plan, where they are on the Master Plan and how that would affect develpoment on the eastside. Staff noted that the access points were 50 feet north of where the access points were projected to be in the Masterplan. Mr. Stimpson inquired if the road improvements would still occur if Lyngblomsten is unable to acquire the southern parcel. Staff confirmed the southbound right turn lane would be delayed until after the property acquisition. Level of service would not be affected if the lane was not added. Mr. Grochala explained the congestion on Hodgson and County Road J Mr. Stimpson asked about the northbound trail on Hodgson Road.. Ms. Larsen explained that the trail terminates at the property line but hoped there would be a trail extension in the future. Mr. Stimpson suggested the trail stopping at the cul-de-sac Mr. Stimpson asked if a berm would be appropriate at the end of the westbound commerical street. Ms. Larsen clarified that a berm is currently located there. Mr. Stimpson asked if the trees, from the 1:1 replacement ratio, can be placed towards the property lines of the Woodridge neighborhood. Vice Chair Root inquired about the quality of the trees being used for the 50 foot buffer. The Environmental Coordinator, Marty Asleson, had evaluated the trees. Staff noted that trees in good condition will remain in place. Vice Chair Root asked for clarification on the 21 foot wide cottage home garages. Staff explained the standard ordinance is 20 foot wide garage. Vice Chair Root inquired if the traffic study was solely based on the first phase of the development. The traffic study took the entire development into consideration. Vice Chair Root asked how the design standards deviate from the City’s zoning ordinance. Mr. Larsen explained the standards of the cottage homes are comparable to an R2 district, the senior complex is comparable to a R4 district, and both areas meet performance standards. Mr. Evenson asked what the City receives in return from the develpoment. Staff explained the City will receive a clubhouse, redevelopment of the 20 acre site, providing senior housing, senior programs, senior amenities, open space, landscape Planning & Zoning Board Febrauary 13, 2019 Page 3 DRAFT MINUTES exceeding standard requirements, 50 foot buffer maintained, and master plan implemented. Judd Fenlon, Grand Real Estate Advisors, 90 Dale Street South St. Paul MN, thanked the City staff for the detailed report. Lyngblomsten has been involved in the site for some time and looks forward to being a part of the community. Mr. Laden asked for more information about the clubhouse. Mr. Fenlon explained the programs are open the community. The communnity center is intended to be used by the community. Mr. Evenson asked why Lyngblomsten chose Lino Lakes. Mr. Fenlon explained the backstory of Lyngblomsten’s desire to expand and the need for this service in Lino Lakes. Mr. Ruhland asked for clarification on the detattached townhomes. Mr. Fenlon explained the townhomes would be owned by Lyngblomsten with a market rate of $2 per square foot. Vice Chair Root opened the public hearing at 7:51 P.M. Dan Kvinge, 201 Woodridge Lane, stated he was impressed with the project. He thanked the city for their thorough and complete description Kevin Sontag, 253 Woodridge Lane, stated that the easement on his property goes from 50 feet to 25 feet. Mr. Sontage requested the staff take high intensity lights into consideration when thinking about the buffer. Mike Witham, 211 Woodridge Lane, expressed appreciation for the developers taking the neighborhood comments into consideration. Mr. Witham shared concerns from a recent neighborhood meeting which included the main building being 4 stories high, the effects of the water table with runoff, headlights, and increased traffic from the project becoming a new norm. Vice Chair Root made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing. The motion was support by Mr. Stimpson. The motion carried 5 - 0. Vice Chair Root addressed questions and concerns Staff clarified the buffer decrease on Mr. Sontag’s property. There has been conversation about adding a fence in that area. Mr. Stimpson asked if the 50 foot barrier would be possible if the internal road shifted east. Mr. Grochala noted there could be flexibility on setbacks there. Mr. Stimpson added that we need to be mindful of right of ways and ensuring there are areas to put snow. Planning & Zoning Board Febrauary 13, 2019 Page 4 DRAFT MINUTES Vice Chair Root asked about the building height. Ms. Larsen noted that the building height is measured from the base of the building. Mr. Stimpson asked about soil borings Ms. Hankee noted soil borings were done at the site from a previous project and further soil borings would be done as the develpoment continued. Vice Chair Root asked about additional water runoff as a result of the increased imprevious surfaces. Ms. Hankee explained the Rice Creek Watershed District standards. Vice Chair Root addressed the concerns regarding traffic, trails and parks, and the process for future developments. Mr. Grochala noted that traffic generated from the site would be 1/3 of the trips anticipated based on the master plan study. The City has had multiple discussions with Anoka County and Ramsey County regarding road improvements from this project Mr. Laden asked if the developer was ok with the conditions listed. Mr. Fenlon noted that there were no issues. Mr. Stimpson appreciated the positive comments from the neighborhood. Mr. Stimpson appreciated the positive comments from the neighborhood, quality of Lyngblomsten, and the benefits they will bring to the community. Mr. Laden explained the Master Plan gave the board the ability to say yes or no to projects for this site. Mr. Laden encourages the Council and staff to look at other sites in the City that are in need of a Master Plan. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Rezoning, Planned Unit Development, and Prelimiary Plat for Lyngblomsten Senior Living Community. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Project updates Michael Grochala, Community Development Director, presented project updates. The City will be building a 1.5 million gallon water tower on the City’s recreational complex site and the City Council is doing master planning for the remainder of that area. City Council approved Main Street Shoppes 2nd Addition Final Plat and the developers revealed the tenant will be Dunkin’ Donuts. Planning & Zoning Board Febrauary 13, 2019 Page 5 DRAFT MINUTES A feasibility study is in process for well number 7. The City is looking to repurpose the oldest house in Lino lakes into a well house. Mr. Stimpson suggested incorporating Rice Lake Elementary school. Mr. Ruhland asked how long the anticipated build is for Lyngblomsten. Mr. Grochala stated 12 months. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Stimpson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 P.M. Motion was supported by Mr. Ruhland. Motion carried 5 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Monika Mann and Mara Strand 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala P & Z MEETING DATE: March 13, 2019 REQUEST: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Regarding Multiple Principal Buildings on Commercial, Industrial Parcels or Public/Semi-Public Zoning Districts. APPLICANT: City of Lino Lakes REVIEW DEADLINE: Not Applicable – City Initiated BACKGROUND Current City ordinance only allows for one principal building per lot. In commercial and industrial zoning districts the size of accessory buildings is limited to 400 square feet. Accordingly any expansion project which requires an additional building in excess of 400 square feet would require approval of a planned unit development. PUD’s may be done by rezoning in Industrial Districts and by either rezoning or Conditional Use Permit in Commercial Districts. For a single use site, approval for multiple buildings may be more appropriately handled through a Conditional Use Permit process. City staff is proposing an ordinance change for the board’s consideration to simplify the process for single use expansion projects. ANALYSIS City Code defines the follow terms: ACCESSORY BUILDING. A portion of the principal building or a detached structure on the same lot which is used for an accessory use. BUILDING, PRINCIPAL. A building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot on which it is located. City Code §1007.042 (4)(b) states “except in an approved planned unit development that specifically allows it, provided for in §1007.024 of this Ordinance, not more than (1) principal building shall be located on a lot”. 2 Section 1007.043 (4) (j) 1. states “Only one (1) accessory building shall be allowed not to exceed four hundred (400) square feet except when intended for storage of buses”. Prior to an ordinance amendment in 1997, only parcels in residential zoning districts where subject to the one building requirement. The PUD process is appropriate when considering approval of complicated sites with multiple buildings and potentially multiple owners, to ensure a harmonious development pattern. However, staff is of the opinion that multiple buildings on single use sites have fewer inherent issues. Provided that the base lot meets all applicable dimensional requirements, standard setbacks are met, and only one (1) use is proposed on the site, site plan approval through the Conditional Use Permit process could more simply address development concerns. Staff is suggesting the following amendment language: Section 1007.042 (4)(b) Principal Buildings. Is proposed to be amended as follows: Except in Commercial, Industrial and Public/Semi- Public zoning districts, where allowed by Conditional Use Permit, and in an approved planned unit development that specifically allows it, provided for in §1007.024 of this Ordinance, not more than one (1) principal building shall be located on a lot”. Section 1007.043 (4) Accessory Buildings and Structures is proposed to be amended as follows: (j) Commercial, and Industrial and Public-Semi-Public Zoning Districts: 1. Except in Commercial, Industrial and Public/Semi- Public zoning districts, where allowed by Conditional Use Permit, and in an approved planned unit development that specifically allows it, provided for in §1007.024 of this Ordinance not more than Only one (1) accessory building shall be allowed not to exceed four hundred (400) square feet except when intended for storage of buses Section 1007.112 GB, General Business District (8) Conditional Uses, is proposed to be amended as follows: (o) Two (2) or more buildings on same lot provided such buildings relate to a permitted or conditional use that is operated as a single business or enterprise. Section 1007.120 LI, Light Industrial District (9) Conditional Uses is proposed to be amended as follows: (g) Two (2) or more buildings on same lot provided such buildings relate to a permitted or conditional use that is operated as a single business or enterprise. Section 1007.121 GI, General Industrial District 3 (9) Conditional Uses is proposed to be amended as follows: (j) Two (2) or more buildings on same lot provided such buildings relate to a permitted or conditional use that is operated as a single business or enterprise. Section 1007.130 PSP, Public and Semi-Public District (8) Conditional Uses is proposed to be amended as follows: (c) Two (2) or more buildings on same lot provided such buildings relate to a permitted or conditional use that is operated as a single business or enterprise. REQUESTED BOARD DIRECTION Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment. ATTACHMENTS None. 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 5B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala P & Z MEETING DATE: March 13, 2019 REQUEST: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Providing for Construction of Retaining Walls Greater than 42” in Height APPLICANT: City of Lino Lakes REVIEW DEADLINE: Not Applicable – City Initiated BACKGROUND City Code §1007.043 (18) regulates the construction of Fences and Walls. This includes the construction of retaining walls. A Zoning Permit is required for construction within all platted areas of the city. §1007.043 (18) (d)(5) currently prohibits retaining walls over 42 inches in height. The state building code has provision for walls greater than 48 inches. This measurement includes any buried section of the wall (footing). Staff is proposing to allow the higher wall height subject to State Building Code provisions. A Zoning Permit will continue to be required for walls 48 inches in height or less. ANALYSIS The City regulates the placement and construction of retaining walls within all zoning districts. Walls are proposed for various purposes but are predominately related to landscaping improvements. Wall height can vary based on the elevation changes within a given property. The prohibition on wall heights over 42 inches can lead to additional costs to property owners in the form of addition wall construction. Staff does not see any public purpose for this provision. Wall construction over 42 inches can be reviewed and approved through the established building process. A zoning permit will continue to be required for walls 48 inches or less in height. This is intended to ensure retaining walls are located within property lines and do not obstruct drainage. The proposed amendment includes four changes to current ordinance: 2 1. Provides a definition for “Retaining Wall” to differentiate from the definition of “Fence” which also includes a wall. 2. Requires a zoning permit throughout the City consistent with current practice regardless of whether the property is platted. The purpose of the zoning permit is to ensure that locational requirements are being met. 3. Provides for review of easement encroachments by the City Engineer rather than Zoning Administrator. The ordinance does allow encroachments in certain instances. These items are generally reviewed by the City Engineer. 4. Requires a Building Permit for walls over 48” in height. In addition to these changes staff is developing a resident informational flyer that provides guidelines and City Policy related to fence/wall installations, including encroachments in City easements. Draft Ordinance Language Staff is proposing the adoption of the following ordinance language. § 1007.001 (2) Definitions is proposed to be amended to include: RETAINING WALL. A wall not laterally supported at the top that resists lateral soil load and other imposed loads. § 1007.043 (18) is proposed to be amended as follows: (a) Permit Required. It is unlawful for any person hereafter to construct or cause to be constructed or erected within the platted areas of the City, any fence or wall without first making an application for and securing a permit. 1007.043 (18)(c) 4. is proposed to read as follows: a. No fence or wall shall be located within a drainage or utility easement without written permission of the Zoning Administrator City Engineer and the filing of an encroachment agreement. § 1007.043 (18)(d) is proposed to be amended as follows: 5. Solid walls and Retaining walls (such as masonry construction) greater than forty-two eight (428) inches in height, including buried portions, shall be prohibited require a building permit. When utilized, tiered retaining walls shall be separated by a horizontal landing not less than three (3) feet in width. 3 REQUESTED BOARD DIRECTION Staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment. ATTACHMENTS None.