Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/2021 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 6:31 p.m. on May 12, 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 April 14, 2021 meeting minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. V. 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 6:34 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Wipperfurth. Motion carried 5 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Nadeau Acres 2nd Addition Final Plat DATE: May 12, 2021 TIME STARTED: 6:31 P.M. TIME ENDED: 7:54 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Tralle (Chair), Michael Root, Perry Laden, Jeff Reinert, Nathan Vojtech, Isaac Wipperfurth MEMBERS ABSENT: Neil Evenson STAFF PRESENT: Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Kelsey Gelhar, Janele Waterman, Jessica Eller Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2021 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant, BL Holdings, LLC, submitted a final plat land use application for Nadeau Acres 2nd Addition. The R-1, Single Family residential development has a total of 68 lots. The 2nd Addition final plat contains 33 lots. Staff recommended approval of the final plat for Nadeau Acres 2nd Addition subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Applicant’s Comments Chair Tralle asked Mr. Olson how the first addition is going. Mr. Olson said it is going well. He commented that sales have been really good through the winter and builders are looking forward to having lots available by the end of the summer. Chair Tralle asked Mr. Olson if he had any comments for the board. Mr. Olson said no. He noted that staff have worked very well with them and are pleased with how they handle things. Board Comments Mr. Laden asked how many phases there are in this development. Ms. Larsen stated that this is the final phase of a two phase development. Mr. Reinert asked if the internet and broadband infrastructure will go in with this development. Ms. Larsen commented that all of the private utilities will go in now. Ms. Larsen asked Mr. Olson who the internet and cable provider will be for this development. Mr. Olson stated that it is Comcast. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend approval of the final plat for Nadeau Acres 2nd Addition subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Motion was supported by Mr. Reinert. Motion carried 5 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Zoning Ordinance Update Discussion by Kendra Lindahl, Landform Ms. Kendra Lindahl, Landform, presented an overview of the zoning ordinance update process. The Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council will have Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2021 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES several opportunities to provide feedback on the ordinance updates at different points in the process. The work plan includes seven P&Z Board meetings and three Council work sessions leading up to Council adoption in April 2022. The discussion of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) standard is the first step in the Zoning Ordinance update. Board Comments Mr. Reinert agreed that PUD’s work well in Lino Lakes. He stated too much flexibility in PUD’s can result in developments that don’t resemble the vision for the City. He stated he is in favor of some minimum requirements that won’t turn an 80- foot lot into a 45-foot lot. Mr. Root stated that the way it is currently written it is essentially a negotiated zoning designation. He stated that he thinks this is to loose. He would like to implement a more direct connection between the underlying zone and what is allowed for negotiation in a PUD. He argued for having the underlying zone in addition to a PUD zoning overlay. This creates a better connection between the two. Mr. Root noted that he thought cluster zoning in rural areas is a good idea that can lead to more continuous open space. He suggested that there be some specific standards for that as well. Mr. Root also stated that it should become a requirement that the property owner/applicant hold a neighborhood meeting for informal comment and feedback. Mr. Reinert asked Mr. Root for a specific example of what a PUD overlay would look like. Mr. Root explained that he is most familiar with specific lot widths and areas. The overlay district would be more specific to each individual property. Mr. Reinert commented that previously it had been discussed that lot sizes be set at a certain size and disregard the shape of the lot in order to allow flexibility while maintaining integrity. Ms. Larsen stated that Marketplace is an example of an existing PDO. Mr. Laden commented that he agreed with Mr. Root that the overlay district is a good direction to explore. He also concurred that the City should require the property owner/ applicant to a hold neighborhood meeting before submitting a formal concept application. He asked staff if there are any examples where a PUD was done as a CUP. He stated that he wants to make sure that we are not eliminating something that has been useful. Additionally, he commented that he wants to make sure that the open space we are preserving is useable land and not unbuildable just so the developer can get smaller lots. Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2021 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Grochala stated that the City could require a yield plan based on the standard zoning of that particular area as well as the PUD plan. He stated that this would allow us to compare and contrast what the differences are. Ms. Larsen stated that she could not think of any specific examples of a PUD that was done as a CUP, potentially a commercial project. Mr. Laden asked Ms. Larsen to investigate whether any commercial projects have been done with a PUD/CUP combination. He reiterated that he did not want to eliminate something that might incentivize business. He commented that he was not in favor of minimum standards for a PUD. The City retains the option to deny a PUD therefore does not need to put any minimum requirements on them. Mr. Reinert commented that we can always allow a PUD to go beyond the parameters if it is a great development. Having minimum standards communicates to developers what the City wants. He stated we want standards that communicate to developers the integrity and culture of the City. Mr. Root argued that we do communicate to developers what kinds of developments the City wants through the existing zoning code and the PUD’s are deviations from that which we are willing to give to benefit the developer in return for something the City gets. He added that the City should use the underlying zoning standards as a baseline and negotiate from there. Mr. Wipperfurth commented that he is all for more flexibility regarding PUD’s. He agreed with Mr. Root that the underlying zoning standards should be the baseline standard. He also agreed that the neighborhood meeting is a good idea. Mr. Vojtech asked if the neighborhood meetings are required is there something we have to formally do with the feedback. Chair Tralle stated currently residents get a chance to voice their opinions. He agreed that it should be a requirement to hold a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Root clarified that the neighborhood meeting is just another mechanism to communicate what the developer is going to do ahead of the public hearing. This is a chance for the developer to listen to concerns and get input and an additional way to communicate their intent to residents. Mr. Vojtech asked how often the City utilizes the incentives for PUD’s. Chair Tralle stated these incentives are used quite frequently. Ms. Larsen clarified that they are most often used for lot size flexibility. Chair Tralle asked what is considered open space. Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2021 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Grochala stated that in most cases you get upland that the City wouldn’t otherwise preserve. The city is looking for that upland buffer that the City doesn’t want to pay for through park dedication but can get through lot flexibility and provide that compromise. Mr. Reinert commented that open space should be considered only buildable property. This will incentivize the developer to not want to shrink lots too much. This will also allow the residents of that development to use that open space. Mr. Laden concurred with Mr. Reinert stating that our goal is to preserve space that otherwise wouldn’t be preserved. Mr. Root stated that any open space should be upland and useable by people. He commented that we should not be using wetlands and unbuildable land in exchange for smaller lot sizes because they are not usable, the City would be giving the developer smaller lot sizes for nothing in return. Mr. Wipperfurth commented that there is a trade-off. If you are going to make the developer give up buildable area the lot prices increase. The community might be getting more open space but the landowners’ prices would be increased. Mr. Laden commented that he has seen some developments where developers put smaller lots in the backyard and call the remainder of the lot conservation land that the owner does not own and can’t develop. He commented that what ends up happening is the homeowner treats that conservation area as an extension of their yard. He asks whether there is a way to eliminate this practice from happening. Mr. Reinert commented that if developers are going to shrink a lot and create open space that open space must be the same type of land that they are developing. He stated that this creates a real incentive for developers not to shrink lots too far. Mr. Vojtech commented that he thought the use of incentives to get what the City wants is a fantastic idea. This is just one more tool to shape the City the way we want. Mr. Tralle stated that he is not in favor of adding any more incentives for developers. Mr. Reinert clarified stating that if the developer wants to shrink down the lots but to do so would need to leave buildable open space the developer is incentivized to not shrink the lots too much. The developer will not want to leave too much buildable open space undeveloped. Mr. Tralle asked how far from a project a resident is notified. Ms. Larsen stated that a rezoning is 600 feet. Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2021 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Grochala commented that it depends on where the project is located. In a more developed area, more people are notified. Often times the City will go a little further than what is required based on the context of the area. Mr. Vojtech commented that determining how the City utilizes resident feedback should be used to help decide how far the City should notify residents. The more people the City reaches the more feedback we will get. Chair Tralle commented these meetings are informational and should be treated as such. He stated that he did not think that we need to establish minimum standards on lot size because we have the existing zoning code. He stated the PUD’s have been working well when using the existing zone standards. He agreed that only buildable land should be considered open space. Mr. Reinert agreed with Chair Tralle that the open space should be buildable land. Ms. Lindahl commented that the board should consider wildlife corridors where upland open space can be next to wetland corridors or other water features. She stated that there is some value to maintaining wetlands and corridors that could be filled by the developer and just making sure that is not counted the same as upland. Mr. Root commented instead of the term “buildable” he preferred using the term useable. Mr. Laden asked if a developer can fill a wetland if it is in an area that is designated as a wetland corridor in our comprehensive plan. Mr. Grochala stated that they can still impact that area. You can’t require the dedication of property, but you can use the PUD to expand and get a bigger piece of that that wetland corridor than you would normally get through straight zoning. He stated there are ecological issues why you may want to preserve something. With our wetland management corridor with Rice Creek we get some buffers automatically but there are instances where you can benefit from some of that open space that might not all be upland. Ms. Larsen stated that Natures Refuge is an example where a PUD was used to bring the lots closer together thus preserving the wetlands. The PUD incentivized the developer to not impact the wetlands, which have value to the City. She agreed with Ms. Lindahl that there is value to allowing open space to be non-upland next to wetland corridors. Mr. Grochala commented that it’s a trade-off for useable upland but he doesn’t want to rule out that there may be some other ecological values out there that should be preserved. Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2021 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Reinert commented that he wants to make sure the language we use does not create a loophole for developers. Chair Tralle asked the board if there is a consensus regarding creating a minimum standard lot size. Mr. Wipperfurth stated that he thinks the City should continue to use the underlying zoning district standards. He commented that it seems like it has been working and sets a good guideline right from the start. Mr. Reinert commented that he was not in favor of creating a minimum standard lot size. Mr. Laden concurred with not having a minimum standard within the PUD. Chair Tralle stated that he is in favor of not changing the lot sizes as it allows the City more flexibility. Mr. Vojtech commented that he is in favor of having standards but we already have a minimum with the underlying zoning standards. Mr. Grochala asked the board if they have any opinions on rural cluster zoning. The City would like to pull it out of the PUD and make it a permitted option in the rural districts. Mr. Reinert asked Mr. Grochala to define cluster zoning. Mr. Grochala explained that the Rural PUD is a cluster ordinance that could simply be allowed subject to the clustering and open space standards that currently exist. Those standards allow 4 units per 40 acres (up to 8 per 40 with an MPCA approved shared septic) with a one-acre minimum lot size and requires that 50% of the land area be preserved. Mr. Reinert stated that he is in favor of allowing the Rural PUD to be a permitted option. Mr. Laden stated that if the goal is to get everyone on a community septic system he is in favor of this. Chair Tralle concurred. Mr. Root commented that he is in favor of this. He stated that the main benefits of cluster developments are the collocating of properties and to more efficiently develop and preserve open space. Planning & Zoning Board May 12, 2021 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Tralle stated that another benefit of cluster zoning is that the septic system is absolutely taken care of where individual septic systems don’t always get the care they need. B. Project Updates Staff provided verbal updates to the Board on current City projects. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Wipperfurth. Motion carried 5 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Respectfully submitted, Jessica Eller, Community Development Intern