Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/11/2021 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 August 11, 2021. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to approve the July 14, 2021 meeting minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Wipperfurth. Motion carried 4 – 0. Mr. Reinert, Mr. Laden, and 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. Laden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:31 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 6 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Zoning Ordinance Update Discussion – PUD, Planned Unit Development, Kendra Lindahl, Landform DATE: August 11, 2021 TIME STARTED: 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED: 7:49 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Tralle (Chair), Michael Root, Neil Evenson, Isaac Wipperfurth, Nathan Vojtech, Perry Laden, Jeff Reinert STAFF PRESENT: Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Janele Waterman, Jessica Eller Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2021 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Kendra Lindahl, Landform, presented a summary of changes to the Planned Unit Development section of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Lindahl requested the Planning & Zoning Board review changes as recommended by staff and provide feedback. Upon receiving feedback, the draft will be revised and reviewed again in December with the other ordinance updates. Board Comments In reference to section 1007.04(4), Mr. Root said the term ‘guidelines’ is not appropriate as the verbiage implies recommendation or suggestion. He interpreted the ordinance to be more restrictive. He suggested utilizing a phrase akin to ‘recognized standards’. In reference to section 1007.04(4)(a), Mr. Root stated the phrase ‘presumptively appropriate’ is not accurate. He said we need to be clear the items listed are recognized standards defined by the City. In reference to section 1007.04(6)(c)(3), Mr. Root explained since the phrase ‘open space’ can be used to reference natural areas or developed park areas, he recommended utilizing the term ‘useable’ exclusively when referring to park areas. He requested a definition of the term ‘useable’. Furthermore, he wanted clarification as to what parts of the open space can be used. In reference to section 1007.04(9)(b), Mr. Root commented there should be notification requirements regarding the neighborhood meeting, specifically who gets notified and by what means. He asked for clarification as to what a presented concept plan should look like at a neighborhood meeting. He recommended making a record of the meeting in order to ensure neighborhood concerns are addressed. He said at the neighborhood meetings, residents should be reminded they can attend and comment at any publicly held meeting during open mike or during the project’s public hearing. In reference to section 1007.04(9)(d)(5)(h), Mr. Root asked, in regards to the market feasibility study, who would deem it necessary. He recommended this section should be moved to section 1007.04(2)(h) with other public benefits as recognized by the City. In reference to section, 1007.04(9)(b), Chair Tralle stated he would like the Planning & Zoning Board members invited to the neighborhood meetings. In reference to section, 1007.04(1), Mr. Wipperfurth commented he prefers the wording of the original text because it accurately addresses each point for the purpose of the PUD. He also appreciated that the original text mentions the comprehensive plan as it is important to emphasize the comprehensive plan could be different from the existing zoning guidelines. In reference to section, 1007.04(9)(b), Mr. Wipperfurth liked the idea of conducting a neighborhood meeting, but he questioned if it would be too early in the process to have the meeting prior to the concept plan. He said it would be more beneficial to have the meeting after the concept plan review and before the preliminary plan review in order to give the developer more time to assemble his/her plan. In order to hasten the construction of a park, Mr. Wipperfurth recommended, as a requirement of the PUD, applicants submit a timeline of the park’s construction. He commented it is unacceptable for a park’s construction to take 1-2 years. In reference to section, 1007.04(9)(e)(5)(a), Mr. Wipperfurth asked Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2021 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES given the requirement that construction should begin within one year upon approval of a PUD Final Plan, what is the definition of construction. Mr. Laden expressed concern with moving the rural residential PUD to the ordinance section. He said by doing so, the City is giving up the opportunity to negotiate with developers regarding the implementation of open space, trails, parks, etc. In reference to section, 1007.04(9)(b), Mr. Vojtech suggested including a statement which specifies what we will do with the information gathered from the neighborhood meeting. In reference to section, 1007.04(2)(g), Mr. Vojtech asked for clarification as to what would be deemed desirable to the City and who would make that decision. In reference to section, 1007.04(2)(g), Mr. Reinert concurred with Mr. Vojtech’s comment asking what does desirable mean and who gets to define that. In reference to section, 1007.04(1), Mr. Reinert expressed his appreciation for the wording of the original text since it had more definition than the edited version. Mr. Reinert asked City staff to comment on how densities will function in relation to PUDs. Staff Comments Mr. Grochala said densities were established within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He explained when City staff review a PUD, they first determine how the parcel is guided according to the comprehensive plan. If the parcel is guided low density, 1.6 to 3 units per acre is allowed. Sometimes, a PUD may be submitted for multiple, adjacent parcels with various densities. In this instance, the City Planner would determine the number of units allowed per density multiplied by the number of acres and then divide that number by the total acreage which would result in the uniform density requirement. This would then give the developer flexibility to adjust buildings on the site. Mr. Grochala continued if a parcel guided low density is developed using conventional zoning, the developer has the following zoning district options R-1, R- 1X, or R-2. City staff would then guide that parcel based on its land characteristics. If it is heavily wooded or by a lake, characteristics such as these may dictate a change in one of the zoning districts and the developer would need to rezone the parcel and build accordingly. The lot size for an R-1 district is 10,800 sq. ft., but with a PUD, the City may be flexible regarding width or depth. This is why the term ‘guidelines’ was used within the PUD section of the zoning ordinance because the developer is using the zoning ordinance requirements as a guideline to shape the PUD. Ms. Lindahl commented there may be an alternative word for ‘guidelines’, however, ‘standards’ and ‘requirements’ would not work because as part of the PUD, developers are typically asking for flexibility from the district standards and requirements. Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2021 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Root suggested inserting language which states the City is open to negotiation. Mr. Reinert surmised, when a PUD is allowed, the R-1 district requirement of 10,800 sq. ft. remains, but the requirement of 80 ft. by 135 ft. is eliminated. He questioned if this is because the topography in the City is such that flexibility is necessary to be able to work with developers. Mr. Grochala stated the 10,800 sq. ft. requirement could be eliminated as well at the City’s discretion. A PUD is a negotiated zoning district. The developer is looking for tradeoffs and if the City likes what the developer proposes, the City can approve it. If a conditional use permit is submitted and it meets the requirements, it is typically approved. Therefore, removing the PUD by conditional use permit gives the City more control. The alternative option for a developer is to follow conventional zoning district requirements. Mr. Reinert clarified and gave an example of a development with 25 homes guided low density. The district requirement would be 10,800 sq. ft., but under a PUD, the City could allow one lot to be 9,000 sq. ft. and another lot 12,000 sq. ft. if it was in the City’s interest to save a tree. Mr. Grochala confirmed the City may allow the developer to condense the lot footprint in order to preserve something currently in existence. Ms. Larsen said typically lots abutting the wetlands are smaller and lots off of the road are enlarged. Ms. Lindahl informed the Board the ordinance will be reviewed, a draft will be made, and the definitions will be revised last. She asked Mike to lead the discussion concerning the concept plan and the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Grochala explained the purpose of the concept plan is to have the developer create a simple sketch of the development, present it to the Board and City staff, and receive feedback before any significant amount of funds are spent on surveying, engineering, etc. At the PUD concept stage, possible public provisions are identified and it is the developer’s responsibility to incorporate those items into the plan. Mr. Grochala then explained the neighborhood meeting should occur prior to the concept plan in order to give neighbors an opportunity to also inform the design. He agreed with the Board it is important to know what feedback is given to the developer at each meeting. Ms. Lindahl stressed the importance of ensuring the neighborhood meetings do not include City staff. Although, she said the City should be aware of the meetings and what is discussed. Ms. Lindahl suggested assembling a policy guideline for developers on how to conduct neighborhood meetings. She stated the meetings would not be required, but it would be strongly encouraged. Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2021 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden agreed with Chair Tralle’s comment to have the Planning & Zoning Board invited to the neighborhood meetings since they represent the citizens of Lino Lakes. Chair Tralle commented it is important for the Board to attend the meetings simply to observe the conversation between the developer and the neighborhood. Mr. Grochala said we can make sure the Board members are invited to the meetings. However, he cautioned the Board not to get drawn into the conversation. Mr. Wipperfurth appreciated Mr. Grochala’s explanation as to why the neighborhood meeting should occur at the concept stage and he agreed. He reiterated it would be more difficult for a developer to make changes to the development after plans are drawn and money is invested. Mr. Grochala then changed the conversation to address rural cluster developments. He said there are a few permanent rural areas in the City that will never receive City sewer and water specifically between Rondeau Lake Rd and 35W and a corner section in the southeast quad of the City. In these areas, the City is considering letting owners subdivide at a higher density to allow for cluster developments; however, 50% of the land would need to be preserved as permanent open or agricultural space. The lot sizes would be a minimum of two acres with a community drain field. Mr. Laden stated it would be helpful to see a map of the permanent rural areas throughout the City. Ms. Larsen commented there are few permanent rural areas that will never receive City sewer and water. Mr. Evenson asked if the zoning ordinance specifies permanent rural. Mr. Laden agreed and questioned if it is clear the ordinance is referencing permanent rural areas and not areas current zoned rural. Ms. Lindahl said it should have been more clear in the staff report, but the language in the draft is specific. She commented a map of the permanent rural areas will be included. Mr. Grochala explained City staff also discussed allowing cluster developments in the post 2040, urban reserve areas; however, the 50% open space requirement would be temporary. He said this idea is not currently proposed as it could create unintended consequences. Ms. Lindahl reiterated in the permanent rural areas, the cluster developments would maintain a 50% permanent open space. If proposed, in the urban reserve areas, open space would be protected until municipal sewer and water arrives. Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2021 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Tralle questioned if there is a cluster development in an urban reserve area and municipal sewer arrives, would those in the development have to hook up to City sewer. Mr. Grochala said the cluster development would be required to connect to City sewer. Chair Tralle asked who would be responsible for the sewer connection cost. Mr. Grochala explained the homeowners in the cluster development would be responsible for the connection cost, but the cost would be mitigated since they would also sell their open space for urban development. He reminded the Board this concept is not currently proposed, but it is an idea the City is considering. Mr. Grochala then addressed Mr. Laden’s concern with moving the rural residential PUD to the subdivision ordinance section. He explained the City would not be giving up the opportunity to negotiate with developers because 50% of the land is required to be preserved as permanent open space per the rural residential PUD. Chair Tralle expressed his support of the cluster developments. Ms. Lindahl informed the Board district standards will be discussed in the months ahead. Chair Tralle asked if conditional use permits will be addressed. Mr. Grochala said conditional use permits will be covered in each individual district. Mr. Reinert inquired if the surface water management plan in relation to residential impervious surface percentages will be discussed. Mr. Grochala replied the surface water management plan in relation to the individual residential districts will be addressed. Chair Tralle questioned if outdoor storage issues would be a topic of discussion. Ms. Larsen said outdoor storage could be addressed under the general provisions section. Chair Tralle explained he would like to talk about storage given the recent situation concerning Glamos Wire. It was his understanding Glamos Wire was renting out parking lot space to someone for the purpose of parking semis and the lot was built to do so. Ms. Larsen said the lot was not built for storage purposes. Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2021 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Grochala stated the lot was originally built for employee parking. Chair Tralle went onto say he did not understand why people in residential areas are allowed to park unhooked, utility trailers on City streets for months at a time, but Glamos Wire is prohibited from renting out lot space to park semi-trailers. Mr. Grochala explained the City allows outside storage per conditional use permit if it is screened and there is a primary business on the site. The ordinance does not allow outside storage without a principal building because it will generate the lowest tax value on that property and it has the potential to lower the property values of surrounding properties. Regarding residential areas, Mr. Grochala said recreational vehicles can be parked in driveways if they are parked in accordance with the street’s minimum setback. Also, recreational vehicles do not need to be screened. Mr. Grochala stated if a homeowner is unable to meet any of those requirements, the homeowner is still allowed, per an exemption in the City Code, to park recreational vehicles on the street. However, you cannot park in the street between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. beginning November 1st through April 1st. B. Project Updates Staff provided verbal updates to the Board on current City projects. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Wipperfurth made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:49 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Vojtech. Motion carried 6 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Respectfully submitted, Janele Waterman, Community Development Administrative Assistant