Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/14/2021 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 6:30 p.m. on April 14, 2021. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to approve the March 10, 2021 meeting minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 6 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. V. OPEN MIKE Chair Tralle declared Open Mike at 6:31 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:31 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. DATE: April 14, 2021 TIME STARTED: 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED: 8:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Tralle (Chair), Neil Evenson, Michael Root, Perry Laden, Jeff Reinert, Nathan Vojtech, Isaac Wipperfurth STAFF PRESENT: Katie Larsen, Diane Hankee, Kelsey Gelhar Janele Waterman, Jessica Eller Planning & Zoning Board April 14, 2021 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES VI. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING: Butler Addition Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant, Scott Butler, submitted a land use application for rezoning and preliminary plat for Butler Addition. The applicant proposed to subdivide the existing parcel located at 7870 Meadow View Trail into two (2) single family lots for the purpose of constructing one (1) new single family home off of Lois Lane. The lot is 1.02 gross acres (44,400 sf). Staff recommended approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat for Butler Addition subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Board Comments Mr. Evenson asked Ms. Larsen to address the noncompliance of the garage. Ms. Larsen explained the detached garage is nonconforming because it is located between the house and the front lot line on Lois Lane. She clarified subdividing the property does not change the fact the garage is a nonconforming structure. Mr. Evenson questioned if the noncompliance of the garage would affect a future sale of the property. Ms. Larsen said it would not. Mr. Wipperfurth questioned, since the garage is nonconforming, would it be an issue if the applicant made changes to the garage. Ms. Larsen explained, due to the noncompliance of the garage, the applicant is allowed to maintain the garage as is, but cannot enlarge it. Mr. Reinert questioned if Mr. Butler wanted to hook up to City water or if the City was requiring him to do so. Ms. Larsen stated the City requires plats within the MUSA, who have utilities available, to connect to City water. She said the applicant would still be able to maintain use of the well. Ms. Larsen asked Diane Hankee, City Engineer, if she had anything to add. Ms. Hankee explained the City ordinance requires homeowners to connect to City sewer and water if the utilities are available. She added the water line has already Planning & Zoning Board April 14, 2021 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES been run to the house and it simply needs to be physically plumbed in. She reiterated the applicant would be permitted to retain the well for irrigation purposes. Mr. Reinert asked Ms. Larsen moving forward, if she could ask future applicants whether they want to connect to City water or if they want to retain the use of their well. He stated wells have become a rare amenity and are often times difficult to receive approval for. Because of this, he explained, he advocates for those who want to keep their wells because it is a utility they own. He continued, although this topic does not appear before the Planning & Zoning Board often, if many residents express a desire to retain their wells, he suggested a review of the ordinance may be necessary. Mr. Laden wondered why Lois Lane is considered the front yard if the address is Meadowview. Ms. Larsen explained the front lot line is the narrowest lot width that meets requirement. Since the parcel is rurally zoned, the lot width requirement is 330 ft. However, the existing parcel does not meet the 330 ft. requirement, and therefore, the front lot line is determined by the widest lot width which would make Lois Lane the front lot line. Mr. Laden questioned if the front lot line requirement would change once the lot is subdivided. Ms. Larsen specified once the lot is split, the lot width requirement for an R-1 parcel is 100 ft. wide. In this instance, Lois Lane would remain the front lot line. Applicant’s Comments Chair Tralle asked Mr. Butler if he found the recommendations acceptable. Mr. Butler said he understood and accepted the recommendations. He informed the Board the water line was run and it simply needs to be connected at the street and at the house. Chair Tralle reminded Mr. Butler he can retain the well, if he desires, for irrigation purposes. Chair Tralle declared the Public Hearing open at 6:48 p.m. There were no comments made by the public. Mr. Wipperfurth made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 6:48 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Vojtech. Motion carried 6 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Planning & Zoning Board April 14, 2021 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to recommend approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat for Butler Addition subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. B. Otter Crossing Final Plat Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant, Tyme Properties, LLC, submitted a land use application for the final plat of Otter Crossing. The plat creates a 1.46 acre parcel for the purpose of constructing a 7,800 sf commercial retail building. Staff recommended approval of the Otter Crossing final plat subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Board Comments Mr. Evenson asked Ms. Larsen if the building will face south towards Main Street. Ms. Larsen said yes. Mr. Reinert asked if the tenants of the building are known yet. Ms. Larsen deferred the question to the applicant stating she is not certain if that information is ready to be disclosed at this time. Paul Schreier, with Tyme Properties, LLC, stated they are in the process of finalizing negotiations with a coffee provider. Mr. Schreier commented, once construction begins, they anticipate more businesses will reach out regarding tenant space. Mr. Vojtech asked where the dumpster will be located. Ms. Larsen said it will be located in the northwest corner of the site. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Otter Crossing final plat subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 6 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. C. 23 Century Trail Variance for Second Driveway Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. Planning & Zoning Board April 14, 2021 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES The property owner of 23 Century Trail, Derek Sadowski, submitted a land use application for a second curb cut/driveway access variance. He requested a second driveway, 10 ft. wide, onto Pinto Lane be allowed. There is currently one (1) driveway access onto Century Trail. City ordinance allows for one (1) curb cut/driveway on a single family lot. Staff recommended denial of the variance to allow for a second curb cut/driveway access at 23 Century Trail. Board Comments Mr. Wipperfurth asked what material constitutes a driveway and if it is defined within the City ordinance. Ms. Larsen said it is defined within the City ordinance. In this instance, she explained, if Mr. Sadowski wants to park a vehicle, the ordinance says the driveway needs to be a paved hard surface. However, it is acceptable to park boats and trailers on the grass. Mr. Wipperfurth questioned if utilizing a class 5 type gravel could be a viable option for a driveway. Ms. Larsen explained since the applicant’s intent is to park a vehicle, the ordinance says the driveway needs to be a paved hard surface. Therefore, utilizing gravel for a driveway would not be permitted. Mr. Wipperfurth recalled from Ms. Larsen’s staff report, when the home was originally platted, there was tree preservation throughout the neighborhood. He asked if there are any restrictions in place to prevent individuals from removing the trees after moving into the home. Ms. Larsen clarified the tree preservation is for the developer while they are constructing the home and once the home is occupied, there are no parameters in place to restrict homeowners from removing trees. Mr. Reinert stated allowing a second paved driveway would improve the appearance of the applicant’s property and make it more acceptable to the surrounding neighbors rather than its current state. He said he would like to approve the variance because of the configuration of the lot, but the second driveway does not conform to the ordinance. He said the Board can discuss whether to change the ordinance to allow double fronted lots to have two driveways, but he expressed concern since there are many double fronted lots in the neighborhood and there would be a substantial increase in driveways onto various roadways. Planning & Zoning Board April 14, 2021 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Tralle surmised the applicant can drive a car onto the grass and park it in the garage, but not on a daily basis. He asked Ms. Larsen to verify if his summation was correct. Mr. Evenson asked if the issue is whether or not the driveway is paved. Ms. Larsen explained the issue is the number of times the applicant wants to drive a vehicle onto the grass. She said Chair Tralle’s conclusion is correct. If the applicant owned an antique car and parked it in the garage the majority of the year, the City would have no issue with him driving the car, on occasion, over the curb and onto the grass. She reiterated the only way the applicant would be able to park a vehicle in the garage on a frequent basis is to have a complete, hard surfaced driveway. Mr. Root agreed with Mr. Reinert stating although he would like to approve the variance, he could not since it does not comply with the ordinance. Nevertheless, he said he could support an ordinance change to allow a second driveway under limited conditions such as a second driveway into a cul-de-sac. He specified second driveways would not be permitted for those which connect to busy or minor collector roads. Mr. Laden stated he could support the variance. He said he did not agree with all of the findings of fact. He specified he did not think the driveway would change the character of the neighborhood nor did he think it would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. He said the applicant has an additional hardship since he cannot access the building from the front yard. He commented, the Board should allow the applicant to take advantage of the uniqueness of his lot. He supported Mr. Root’s recommendation to change the ordinance to allow for a second driveway under limited conditions. He asked Ms. Larsen if the applicant could pour asphalt or concrete up to the curb and not cut the curb. Ms. Larsen said no. Mr. Reinert asked if Ms. Larsen knew why the ordinance was changed in 2003 to not allow double fronted lots to have a second driveway. Ms. Larsen commented she did not know specifically why the ordinance was changed, but she assumed as more homes were constructed in the City, the ordinance was changed to regulate single family lots to one driveway. Mr. Reinert suggested, in 2003, the City may have noticed nearby cities regulating single family lots to one driveway and they decided to follow suit and change the ordinance. He agreed with the recommendation to change the ordinance to allow a second driveway under limited conditions so long as traffic is not restricted. Mr. Vojtech asked if the applicant would be able to connect his existing driveway to the back garage. Planning & Zoning Board April 14, 2021 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Larsen said no. It is not permitted for a secondary driveway to be constructed in front of the house. Applicant’s Comments Mr. Sadowski acknowledged he did not inform the City of his intent to construct a secondary driveway until after his permit was approved. He explained it was not his initial intent to pour the driveway, but he received the idea from his concrete contractor. As they were discussing pouring an apron on the front of the newly built garage, the contractor said since the amount of concrete is small and Mr. Sadowski would have to pay for a delivery charge, the contractor recommended pouring a driveway. Mr. Sadowski said once the idea was proposed to him, he contacted the City knowing approval would be needed. He said it would not be his intent to use the driveway on a daily basis, but he explained it would be used as a spot to keep his child’s car. He stated his main purpose in pouring a concrete driveway is to keep the area of his property clean and orderly. He also commented this second driveway and garage would allow him to have more off street parking since he does not like to park his child’s car on the road due to congestion and safety concerns as Century Trail is a fairly busy road. Board Discussion Chair Tralle stated while Mr. Sadowski did not do proper research to determine whether or not he could have a second driveway, the City did not do their due diligence either. He explained the City should have informed Mr. Sadowski, when he was applying for the building permit, he could not construct a secondary driveway. Chair Tralle said he would be in favor of discussing an ordinance change, but he warned the Board it will take a lot of work to amend the ordinance. Mr. Reinert commented, although the discussion to amend the ordinance may be difficult, he would like to have the conversation. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend denial of the variance to allow for a second curb cut/driveway access at 23 Century Trail. Motion failed due to the lack of a second. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the variance to allow for a second curb cut/driveway access at 23 Century Trail. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion failed 2 – 4. Chair Tralle abstained. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Project Updates Staff provided verbal updates to the Board on current City projects. Planning & Zoning Board April 14, 2021 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Respectfully submitted, Janele Waterman, Administrative Assistant