Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/09/2020 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 6:31 p.m. on September 9, 2020. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as presented. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Peacock made a MOTION to approve the August 12, 2020 Meeting Minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Reinert. Motion carried 6 - 0. Chair Tralle abstained. V. OPEN MIKE Chair Tralle declared Open Mike at 6:34 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:34 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6 - 0. Chair Tralle abstained. DATE : September 9, 2020 TIME STARTED : 6:31 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:03 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Paul Tralle (Chair), Neil Evenson, Michael Root Perry Laden, Sue Peacock, Jeff Reinert, Nathan Vojtech STAFF PRESENT : Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Diane Hankee, Janele Waterman, Jessica Eller Planning & Zoning Board September 9, 2020 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Burque Property PUD Concept Plan Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant has submitted a land use application for PUD Concept Plan review. The proposed development is a PUD residential community located south of NorthPointe and east of CSAH 54 (20th Avenue) and west of I-35E. It contains 4 parcels totaling approximately 63 gross acres. Staff requested feedback regarding the PUD Concept Plan for Burque Property. Board Comments Mr. Reinert reminded the applicant each type of zoning area has particular lot width requirements. He acknowledged the applicant’s concept to transfer the senior housing density, which would allow them to create several 40 ft. wide lots; however, he further explained that was not the original intent when NorthPointe was developed. Moreover, Mr. Reinert explained the applicant will run into problems with changing the timeline for the development of the acreage as specified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Laden agreed with staff’s recommendation to change the half cul de sac to a full cul de sac. He preferred the cul de sac to the south be altered to create a loop instead of a cul de sac. He echoed Mr. Reinert’s sentiment of not appreciating the applicant’s concept of removing density from the high density housing complex in order to create a larger quantity of smaller lots. He said, if the board is going to permit small lots, the applicant will need to provide a public benefit. Mr. Laden asked Ms. Larsen if the high density building has an age restriction of 55+ years of age. Ms. Larsen stated the high density housing complex has an age limit restriction of 55 + years of age. She clarified the age limit restriction was a part of the resolution approving the NorthPointe development. Mr. Laden remarked the City does not have enough property for young adults and therefore, to have such age restricted housing within the City is not beneficial. Ms. Peacock agreed with Mr. Laden’s comment regarding age restricted housing. She disapproved of the applicant’s concept plan to reduce the lot widths. Mr. Evenson commented he did not believe the small groups of lots to the south would be functional, especially if a full cul de sac was developed. Planning & Zoning Board September 9, 2020 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Root explained he did not disagree with having a higher density, but he did not approve of the applicant’s concept plan. Furthermore, he clarified, if the applicant wants a PUD and the development to be zoned for higher density, the applicant must provide a public benefit. He said, for any future development, Cypress Street ought to be connected to the development since the street was stubbed and planned accordingly. He suggested if the density is increased, the addition of a small neighborhood park should be considered as well. Furthermore, Mr. Root wondered if the density is increased, how would that impact the figures which were originally approved for the NorthPointe development and Met Council. Mr. Vojtech agreed with Mr. Root’s comments. He did not approve of the proposed concept. He commented on the half cul de sac explaining he did not understand how the half cul de sac could even function properly with the number of lots the applicant is proposing to develop. He asked Ms. Larsen if the applicant provided price points for the homes. Ms. Larsen stated that particular information was not provided. Chair Tralle questioned if the developer of the proposed project is the same developer who developed NorthPointe. Ms. Larsen explained it is not the same developer. The applicant would be purchasing Outlot A from BL Holdings. Chair Tralle said he did not understand how NorthPointe could sell off Outlot A because, in the original agreement, they agreed to develop the outlot. Ms. Larsen clarified, in order for NorthPointe to be able to sell Outlot A, amendments would need to be made to the Comprehensive Plan and NorthPointe plan. Therefore, if NorthPointe does not sell the outlot, they would be obligated to develop it as it was originally approved. Mr. Grochala, Community Development Director, noted if Outlot A is developed, it is required to be developed at a specific density irrespective of the developer. Moreover, there is a covenant on the property which restricts the housing to individuals 55 years of age or older. Applicant’s Comments Chair Tralle asked the applicant, Melvin Brown-Moore from Builders Lot Group, LLC., to respond to the board’s comments. Mr. Brown-Moore said he did not agree with all of the board member’s comments. He questioned if the connection from Birch Street to NorthPointe was considered during the development stage of NorthPointe since it runs through wetlands and a floodplain. Planning & Zoning Board September 9, 2020 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Larsen stated the City stubbed the roads in the best location possible. She specified, due to the location of the connection, wetland mitigation or floodplain mitigation would be required. Mr. Brown-Moore inquired, since they were not planning on connecting their development to Birch Street, why they would be required to develop the street. Diane Hankee, City Engineer, replied the developer would be required to develop the street for the benefit of the public. She further explained the City is required to provide roadways which link neighborhoods and this street has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a critical link. Ms. Larsen suggested there may be an additional opportunity for the developer to purchase some acreage from the owner at 6620 20th Ave and develop more housing units along the road between Cypress Street and NorthPointe. Mr. Brown-Moore asked Eric Luth, the Senior Project Manager at Sambatek, Inc., to address the half cul de sac and the connection between Cypress Street and NorthPointe. Mr. Luth explained his team performed a delineation in the field and determined at least two acres of land south of Cypress Street is wetland. He said since drainage will be cut off, two acres of impact would add approximately $300,000 to the project. He specified the increase in cost would then increase the price points of the homes in the development and would be in excess of the nearby comparables. He informed the board his team reviewed utilizing Cypress Street versus Chestnut Street and they determined all of the development on the south could be served through Chestnut Street. Mr. Reinert reminded the applicants their concept was reviewed, comments were made, and the details of the concept could be reviewed with City staff at a different time. Mr. Luth commented it was not their intention to be deceptive when shifting density between parcels. They recalled from a previous discussion with City staff, 88 units exceeded the requirement for the senior housing building and therefore, they believed they were resolving the issue by spreading out the density. Ms. Larsen said City staff held a few development meetings with the applicant, but she did not recall informing the applicant 88 units were excessive. She concluded, since the board did not express concern with the number of units, the original amount of units for the NorthPointe development would likely be accepted. Mr. Brown-Moore clarified he and his team were trying to solve a few problems which pre-exist the development and they wanted direction from the board so they could adjust their plan accordingly. He specified one of the issues they are trying to Planning & Zoning Board September 9, 2020 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES navigate is the wetland and floodplain at 6620 20th Ave which would be integrated into the development. He questioned how to address the wetland issue in order to connect Birch Street to the proposed development. He inferred, if they would not be able to develop the small lots off of 20th Ave, then they would not propose a connection to Cypress Street because they would not receive any benefit in doing so. Ms. Larsen explained the connection to Cypress Street is the public value component of the project and it would be required of the developer to establish the connection. Chair Tralle recommended the applicants review the board’s comments and return with a revised plan. He reminded them the board would like to see a design with larger lot widths and a proposed public value component in order to receive a PUD. Mr. Brown-Moore thanked the board for their comments and said he and his team would adjust their plan. B. 7831 Lake Drive Variance Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. The property owner of 7831 Lake Drive, Kathy Thayer, submitted a Land Use Application for a variance for roofing materials. She is requesting a metal roof with exposed fasteners be allowed. City ordinance allows for metal roofs with standing seam (i.e. hidden fasteners). Staff recommended denial of the variance to allow for a metal roof with exposed fasteners at 7831 Lake Drive. Board Comments Ms. Peacock stated if the applicant did not research what the City requirements are for a metal roof, then a variance should not be granted. She explained if a variance is allowed, then likely other residents in the City will think they can utilize metal roofing with exposed fasteners. She commented rules and regulations are put in place for a reason and the residents of the City should adhere to them. Mr. Laden remarked the fasteners are not easily noticeable and in fact, upon reviewing a different property with exposed fasteners, binoculars were needed in order to see the fasteners. He reminded the board, in that particular instance, the decision was made to allow the fasteners if they were color matched to the roof. He explained, in this circumstance, he was in favor of the variance and he suggested the ordinance, which does not permit exposed fasteners, ought to be reviewed. He stated the metal roofing material is a viable product and it has a longer life span than shingles. He concluded the City has many neighborhoods with restrictive covenants which would prohibit the use of this material, but in the remaining areas of the City without such restrictions, this material should be allowed. Planning & Zoning Board September 9, 2020 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Evenson agreed with Mr. Laden stating the exposed fasteners are color matched, not easily visible and overall, the product is of good quality. He specified there are a number of buildings on Lake Drive with exposed fastener roofing. He explained, since the big box stores are making this product more readily available to customers and likely requests for variances will continue, consideration should be given to changing the ordinance. Mr. Root commented he was not concerned with the aesthetics of exposed fasteners. His apprehension was regarding the fact none of the criteria for the variance had been met. He suggested approving the variance with the stipulation the ordinance be revised to allow for color-matched fasteners. Mr. Reinert said there is good argument for the product in regards to its durability. However, he explained the requirements for granting a variance have not been met in this instance and because of this, he would have to vote no to deny approval of the variance. He recommended postponing a decision on the variance and having a special session to discuss the ordinance. He clarified if the ordinance is changed, then the board can allow Ms. Thayer’s roofing material and a variance would not be needed. Mr. Vojtech stated the cost difference between exposed fasteners and non-exposed fasteners is minimal, close to 20 percent. He expressed concern with not being consistent by allowing a few individuals to install metal roofing while not permitting others. He suggested the board review the ordinance instead of granting the variance. Mr. Evenson was also concerned about being inconsistent if the variance is allowed for others, but not for the applicant. He concurred it would be best to proceed and change the ordinance, thereby eliminating the need of a variance. Chair Tralle appreciated Mr. Laden’s comment to consider changing the ordinance. He recommended changing the ordinance and stipulating the fasteners be color coordinated. He commented, considering the financial impact COVID-19 has had on many families, 20 percent can be costly. Moreover, he remarked he struggled to expect Ms. Thayer to not be able to utilize the roofing materials she spent $2,000 on. He concluded he would vote to recommend approval of the variance. Ms. Larsen explained she was hoping the board would vote on the variance so it could then be discussed at the City Council meeting on Monday night. Then, if the variance is approved by the City Council, Ms. Thayer would be able to replace her roof before winter arrives. Ms. Larsen proposed, after City Council’s decision has been made regarding the variance, the Planning and Zoning Board could then begin amending the ordinance. Planning & Zoning Board September 9, 2020 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Tralle agreed with Ms. Larsen. He took a vote to determine who would be in favor of changing the ordinance to expose fasteners. The vote was 6 to 1 in favor to recommend changing the ordinance. Applicant’s Comments Chair Tralle asked Ms. Thayer to share with the board why she obtained the roofing materials prior to purchasing the building permit. Ms. Thayer said she purchased the materials prior to purchasing the building permit because she did not want the permit to expire before she was able to install the roofing material. She explained the roofing materials were listed as residential material and therefore, she did not believe it was going to be an issue. She acknowledged she should have been more aware of the rules regarding exposed fasteners prior to purchasing the roofing material. However, she clarified the fasteners match the roofing as well as the trim on her house and garages. She hoped the board would recommend approval of the variance since she spent a lot of money on the roofing materials and on the application for a variance. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the variance to allow for a metal roof with exposed fasteners on the single family dwelling and two (2) detached garages at 7831 Lake Drive. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 4 - 3. The Board also directed staff to draft a zoning ordinance text amendment for their consideration. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Project Updates Staff provided verbal updates to the Board on current City projects. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:03 p.m. Motion was supported by Ms. Peacock. Motion carried 6 - 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Respectfully submitted, Janele Waterman, Administrative Assistant