Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/2021 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 November 10, 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 October 13, 2021 meeting minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 – 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 6:32 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Take 5 Car Wash and Oil Change PUD Concept Plan Review Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. DATE: November 10, 2021 TIME STARTED: 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED: 8:45 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Tralle (Chair), Neil Evenson, Perry Laden, Isaac Wipperfurth, Nathan Vojtech, Jeff Reinert MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Root STAFF PRESENT: Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Diane Hankee, Janele Waterman, Jessica Eller Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 2021 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES The applicant, Boing US HOLD CO, Inc., submitted a land use application for a PUD Concept Plan for a proposed car wash and separate oil change facility at 601 Apollo Drive. The 1.32 acre site is legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Lino Lakes Market Place 2nd Addition. Per the Market Place Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Design Guidelines Ordinance No. 03-05 and site plan, this lot is to be developed as a bank. Staff asked for input from the Planning and Zoning Board regarding whether or not the City should amend the Market Place PDO ordinance to change the site use from a bank to a car wash and oil change facility. Board Comments Mr. Laden said he is not opposed to the use. He stated the car wash, in particular, needs architectural improvements. He suggested the applicant implement a retro architectural design since McDonalds has a retro style building across the street. Mr. Laden commented, in order to change the use, the concept plan needs to meet or exceed the existing development standards for the site. Mr. Vojtech questioned if there is enough space on the site for the car wash and the oil change facility. He was concerned about ice buildup near Apollo Dr. as wet cars will be immediately exiting the car wash onto the road in the winter. He commented it appears 9 cars could fit in the car wash service lane, but if the facility is busy, the remaining cars will be backed up onto the road near the Apollo Dr. and Lake Dr. intersection and he said this could be a safety issue. Mr. Vojtech stated he supports the idea of the car wash, but wondered if there is enough space on the site. Mr. Reinert liked the concept plan. He hoped the concept plan would be developed in Lino Lakes, but at a different location as a different use was envisioned for this site. He also expressed concern with ice build-up on the road near Apollo Dr. Chair Tralle stated, although the use of the site has been reserved for a bank, the land has remained vacant for 21 years. He said the Board has an opportunity to allow a car wash and oil change facility to come to town and make use of the empty lot. He said there is a need for a car wash and oil change facility in Lino Lakes and residents should not have to drive to nearby cities to receive such services. He commented Lino Lakes does not need another bank in town. Chair Tralle recommended the site be used for something other than a bank if the proposed concept plan does not proceed to City Council. Mr. Wipperfurth agreed. He commented since a bank currently owns the lot and they do not have plans to build on the site, it is not likely another bank would construct there either. He said the car wash and oil change concept is a good idea. Jerod Hanaman, 4290 Creekside Way, Minnetrista, MN 55331, with Driven Brands, said Take 5 is a competitor of Valvoline. He shared the car wash concept is relatively Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 2021 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES new, but they have begun constructing the facilities nationwide. He stated this site was specifically targeted because they thought there was a need for a car wash and oil change facility on this side of town. He said the architecture and site plan can be adjusted according to what the City would like to see. Mr. Hanaman shared his objective of the meeting is to know whether or not the proposed concept plan at this specific site will be considered by the Board. He commented Driven Brands is working with a franchisee who has a license for the oil change facility and they are trying to incorporate both concepts, however, the car wash is required in order for the project to move forward. Mr. Wipperfurth asked if it is typical to have the cars drive in the long driveway to access the vacuum bays or would it be constructed to allow cars to drive immediately into the vacuum bay area. Mr. Hanaman said the long driveway on the plan is simply demonstrating they would be compliant with stacking requirements for pay stations. He stated they typically want the exit to go into the vacuum bay area rather than onto the road. Mr. Vojtech asked if this will be a self-vacuum facility and an express car wash. Mr. Hanaman said yes. He stated there will be two employees for the car wash who will assist with memberships or maintenance and there will be a few employees on site for the oil change facility. Mr. Evenson asked what the hours of operation are. Mr. Hanaman explained general operating hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and on Sundays the facilities will close around 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend changing the use of the site from a bank to a car wash and/or oil change facility. Motion was supported by Mr. Wipperfurth. Motion carried 3 – 2. Chair Tralle abstained. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Zoning Ordinance Update – Zoning Districts & Performance Standards, Kevin Shay, Landform Mr. Kevin Shay, Landform, presented the staff report. He requested feedback from the Planning and Zoning Board regarding driveway width, impervious surface area, brewpub locations, garage area, side yard setbacks, and porch depth. Driveway Width Resident Comments Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 2021 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mike Settimi, 1393 Hunters Ridge, said he has been trying to get approval from the City for a 30 ft. driveway for over a year. He stated he has a lot of visitors and his three daughters moved back home. He commented since on street parking is limited due to the arrival of winter, having a wider driveway would allow him to be able to park more vehicles in the driveway. He shared he is also intending to buy a boat and store it in the third stall which will limit parking capacity as well. He explained his request for a 30 ft. wide driveway it not unprecedented in the City as he found over 80 driveways in the City with three stall garages and parallel driveway widths. He said there are approximately 8 houses within his neighborhood with driveways 30 ft. or greater in width. Moreover, he commented most of the new construction homes in Lino Lakes will have three stall garages and he said a 30 ft. wide driveway would match the width of the garage thereby eliminating the current 45 degree angle in front of the third stall. Mr. Settimi stated from 1998 to 2003, the City allowed 36 ft. wide driveways. He questioned why 36 ft. is no longer allowed. He commented the City’s Environmental Coordinator came to his home and said widening the driveway will not be an issue since the nearby boulevard tree will not need to be removed. He said, since the driveway would be widened towards the mailbox on street parking would not be impacted. Chair Tralle stated Mr. Settimi came to the Planning and Zoning Board previously for his driveway variance and it was denied. He asked Mr. Settimi if he met with City Council regarding his variance. Mr. Settimi said he did not meet with City Council. Chair Tralle asked why he did not continue onto City Council with his variance request. Mr. Settimi said he spoke to each individual board member. Each of the City Council members, except Michael Ruhland, came to his home and they told Mr. Settimi his driveway variance request was simple compared to other requests the City receives. Chair Tralle informed Mr. Settimi he needs to proceed with this variance request and address City Council. Mayor Rafferty, 1573 Merganser Ct, addressed the Board. He questioned how the City determined the 26 ft. driveway width limit. He surmised the decision was made based on one 16 ft. garage door plus an 8 ft. garage door with one foot in between. He encouraged the Board to consider the possibility of one 16 ft. garage door plus an 8 ft. garage door with 4 ft. in between which would amount to 28 ft. in width and allow the driveway to continue straight down from the third stall. He stated the discussion is important since the zoning ordinance is currently being reviewed. Board Comments Mr. Evenson said a 26 ft. wide driveway is adequate. Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 2021 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Reinert agreed. Mr. Wipperfurth shared his driveway is 26 ft. wide with a 45 degree angle in front of the third stall near the street. He stated he would prefer the driveway continue straight down from the third stall. He surmised residents with large lot widths may be frustrated to know they can only have a driveway 26 ft. in width. He said residents with narrow lots, who desire a wide driveway, run into the issue of the driveway infringing on the front yard space. He commented he likes the idea of increasing the driveway width to 28 ft. Mr. Vojtech said although his driveway is 20 ft. wide, there is dead grass on either side of the driveway due to parking. He stated he would be in favor of increasing the driveway width. Mr. Laden commented what occurs at your garage has very little to do with what occurs at the street. He continued, the spacing between garage doors and the size of the garage doors should not dictate driveway width. He encourage the Board to enforce whatever width is decided upon. He explained most of the variances the Board has addressed were the result of the homeowner’s mistake in not understanding how wide the driveway can be. He said the minimum lot width is 80 ft. and if 30 ft. of the width is driveway, 50 ft. remains for green space which is adequate. He recommended increasing driveway width to 28 ft. or 30 ft. except on lots smaller than 80 ft. wide. Chair Tralle agreed with Mr. Laden’s recommendation to increase the driveway width to 28 ft. or 30 ft. He understood Mr. Settimi’s frustration with needing more parking space since his children have moved back home. He commented, although Mr. Settimi could rent a garage for his boat, it does not fully address his parking issue. Mr. Grochala noted in a parking lot, three adjoining stalls equals 27 ft. in width. He stated one concern with widening the driveway is as the width is increased a third isle is created and if cars are parked in that third stall visibility is limited for pedestrians on the street. He said the City recognizes the 36 ft. driveway width, approved several years ago, was not appropriate. He explained the decision was partially driven by the increased size of garages. Another concern the City has with increasing driveway width is the City owns 12 ft. of right-of way for utility purposes and this would be infringed upon. He said the City spends approximately $3,000 on replacing driveway aprons when streets are reconstructed and residents bear that tax. He concurred with Mr. Laden’s comment that whatever width is decided upon needs to be enforced. He stated no matter what width is chosen, there will always be someone who does not think the driveway width is large enough. He recommended the Board determine width based on what would accommodate vehicles going into and coming out of driveways. He said City Council will make the final decision regarding width, but they will look to the Planning and Zoning Board for recommendation. Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 2021 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Reinert agreed with Mr. Grochala’s sentiments about ensuring the driveway width maximum is consistently enforced. Mr. Wipperfurth made a MOTION to recommend changing the driveway width maximum from 26 ft. to 28 ft. Motion was supported by Mr. Vojtech. Motion carried 3 – 2. Chair Tralle abstained. Impervious Surface Area Board Comments Mr. Reinert reiterated staff is recommending increasing impervious surface area to 65% across all residential districts. He tried to recall what the Board decided at last month’s meeting concerning impervious surface area. Chair Tralle reviewed the November 10th meeting minutes and reminded the Board recommendation was made to increase impervious surface to 65% for lots less than three-quarters of an acre and 50% for lots three-quarters of an acre or more. Mr. Grochala explained staff’s concern with that recommendation is how should City staff address individuals who are at .74 of an acre who want the remaining one tenth impervious surface they are permitted. He said 65% impervious surface area was previously allowed for single family until it was adjusted in 2011 during the comp plan update. He stated City staff would like to simplify the matter and allow 65% impervious surface area for all residential districts. Mr. Shay reminded the Board there is a stormwater limitation of 10,000 sq. ft. for impervious surface which will restrict lots irrespective of the Board’s recommendation to allow 65% for lots less than three-quarters of an acre and 50% for lots three-quarters of an acre or more. Mr. Laden asked how large would your lot need to be in order to reach the 10,000 sq. ft. limitation. Mr. Wipperfurth said you would reach the 10,000 sq. ft. limit if your lot was .35 acres. Mr. Grochala stated if a resident reached their 10,000 sq. ft. impervious surface limit, they would need to submit a stormwater management plan. The Board decided to increase impervious surface area to 65% across all residential districts with the understanding Shoreland District impervious surface regulations would still apply to those property within the shoreland district. Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 2021 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Brewpub Locations Board Comments Chair Tralle relayed Mr. Root’s recommendation onto the Board. Mr. Root recommended adding definitions for businesses that produce other alcoholic beverages including distillery, cidery, winery, meadery, and sake brewery. Chair Tralle agreed with Mr. Root’s recommendation. Mr. Wipperfurth asked staff what is the downside to allowing brewer taprooms in more districts. Mr. Grochala explained, according to state law, brewer taprooms are an accessory use to a brewery. Therefore, by allowing brewer taprooms, breweries would also be permitted in any district. He said breweries are typically industrial uses and they are not appropriate in a commercial area. Mr. Wipperfurth clarified Big Wood Brewery in downtown White Bear Lake would not be allowed in Lino Lakes unless it was located in a light industrial area. Mr. Shay explained, for example, since Surly does all of their bottling in house, they would need to be located in an industrial area. However, a brewpub like Granite City would not need to be located in an industrial area because their bottling is a small portion of their business and it is only available at their brewpub. Mr. Grochala said if the Board wanted to allow breweries by conditional use permit in a commercial district or in the general business district, you would likely establish a limitation for companies not producing more than a specified number of bottles. Mr. Shay clarified the limitation would be established based on state statute. Mr. Reinert asked if a small brewer can be located in a general business district and sell up to a specific quantity in retail. Mr. Shay said yes. Chair Tralle stated there is no reason a brewpub or a taproom should not be allowed in Lino Lakes. Mr. Reinert agreed. He appreciated Mr. Root’s suggestion to address various alcoholic beverages other than beer. He commented since they are increasing in popularity, we should adjust our zoning ordinance to address them and encourage such businesses to come to Lino Lakes. Chair Tralle recommended City staff return with a recommendation on how to address breweries, distilleries, etc. at next month’s meeting. Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 2021 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Reinert concurred. Mr. Laden agreed with Chair Tralle’s instruction that staff to look into other production beverages besides beer. He stated since a taproom, by definition, could be an industrial bottling/brewing company with a tasting room, he did not think it would be appropriate to allow such business in a commercial zone. He said brewpubs should be allowed anywhere bars are allowed. Mr. Shay clarified brewpubs are allowed in the same areas bars are, but brewer taprooms are not. Mr. Vojtech asked since breweries and brewpubs can serve food, can they also serve a variety of beer, liquor, and alcohol. Mr. Shay said liquor is limited. Garage Area Board Comments Chair Tralle asked Mr. Shay if he has ever been told by a resident that their garage is too large. Mr. Shay said no. Chair Tralle asked Mr. Shay if he has heard residents say their garages should be larger. Mr. Shay said yes. He reminded the Board they are specifically addressing garage area minimums, but he noted residents will always have the option to enlarge their garages. Mr. Reinert stated he would like to increase the garage area minimum to 22 ft. by 22 ft. Chair Tralle concurred. Discussion ensued between City staff and the Board regarding whether square footage should be measured from the exterior, midpoint, or interior of the wall. Chair Tralle liked the idea of measuring from the interior of the wall because it is clear how much useable space an individual has. Mr. Laden explained the problem with measuring from the interior of the wall is the dimensions are never on the plan and it requires the building inspector to scale up a Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 2021 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES drawing. He recommended measuring from the exterior of the wall and if it is a party wall, measuring from the midpoint. Mr. Reinert suggested the Board choose garage dimensions that accommodate measuring from the outside. He recommended garage dimensions of 23 ft. by 23 ft. or 22 ft. by 24 ft. as measured by the exterior of the wall for townhomes and single family homes. The interior square footage would be either 529 sq. ft. or 528 sq. ft. Mr. Laden gave the Board a handout with two garages depicted, one garage 20 ft. by 22 ft. and another garage 22 ft. by 24 ft. He explained both garages have the ability to store vehicles of various sizes and have extra space on the sides for storage. He said, as a minimum standard, we do not need to require residents to be able to accommodate suburbans, pickup trucks, and box vans, etc. Mr. Wipperfurth agreed. He stated, if we increase the minimum garage area, we are requiring residents to build a garage that could be larger than half of their house footprint. He continued, this could create another issue as the garage would take up a larger portion of façade. He recommended retaining the 440 sq. ft. minimum garage area or reducing it. Mr. Laden asked if the discussion concerning minimum garage area included townhomes and duplexes. Mr. Shay said townhomes, duplexes, and single family homes are a part of the conversation. Mr. Laden commented single family homes should not need to have a minimum square footage greater than 440 sq. ft. because they have basements and are allowed to have accessory buildings for storage. He stated an argument could be made for increasing the minimum garage area for townhomes and duplexes since most are slab on grade and accessory buildings are not allowed. He recommended implementing a minimum garage area measuring from the exterior wall without specifying dimensions. Mr. Evenson stated at a minimum, the garage should be able to store two vehicles. He asked if 440 sq. ft. would be able to accommodate two vehicles. Mr. Laden said with 440 sq. ft. could accommodate two vehicles and more. He clarified, the current ordinance for single family homes states a two car garage is required, but dimensions and square footage is not specified. He recalled the R-2 district did not specify dimensions or square footage either. Ms. Larsen said the 20 ft. minimum requirement for the R-2 district is listed in the performance standards section of the zoning ordinance. Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 2021 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to recommend a garage area minimum of 529 sq. ft. as measured by the outside wall. Motion was supported by Mr. Vojtech. Chair Tralle recommended amending the motion to include a garage area minimum of 530 sq. ft. as measured by the outside wall with a minimum width of 20 ft. Mr. Reinert and Mr. Vojtech accepted the amendment. Motion carried 3 – 2. Chair Tralle abstained. Side Yard Setbacks Board Comments Mr. Reinert recommended a 10 ft. side yard setback which would provide 20 ft. between each home. He also supported the idea of a legacy provision which would allow neighborhoods to maintain their existing 10 ft. or 5 ft. setbacks after the new side yard setbacks are established. Mr. Evenson commented he and his neighbor have adjoining garages and their setbacks work well. He endorsed keeping the existing 10 ft. or 5 ft. setbacks. Mr. Laden said he would like to change the side yard setbacks to 10 ft. or 7 ft. to make it consistent. He thought it would make more sense to change the setback to 7 ft. rather than 7.5 ft. Chair Tralle agreed with Mr. Reinert’s recommendation to increase the side yard setback to 10 ft. because he noted with the 7.5 ft. setback it is difficult to drive your car around to the back of your house without driving onto your neighbor’s property. Mr. Grochala stated 7.5 ft. side yard setbacks have been utilized in a few developments. He expressed concern with having several neighborhoods throughout the City with varying side yard setbacks. Mr. Laden supported the idea of creating a legacy provision, but he was unsure how the provision would logistically work. Mr. Grochala explained the City Attorney would assist the City with the wording of the legacy provision. He noted the provision would likely specify the side yard setbacks for new construction after a particular date would be 7.5 ft. Mr. Laden asked if the legacy provision would include accessory buildings. Ms. Larsen said side yard setbacks for accessory structures would remain at 5 ft. Mr. Laden recommended a 7 ft. side yard setback for accessory and primary buildings. Mr. Grochala asked if the 7.5 ft. side yard setback for accessory structures would apply to the neighborhoods with 10 ft. and 5 ft. setbacks. Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 2021 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden said it would not apply as those neighborhoods would be covered by the legacy provision. Mr. Grochala commented this will create problems and likely will not be well received by the public. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend changing the side yard setbacks for new primary and accessory buildings to 7.5 ft. while current side yard will remain unchanged. Motion was supported by Mr. Reinert. Motion carried 4 – 1. Chair Tralle abstained. Porch Depth Board Comments Mr. Wipperfurth commented he has two adirondack chairs and a small table on this 6 ft. porch and there is still plenty of space remaining. Mr. Laden asked if his porch has a railing. Mr. Wipperfurth said his porch does not have a railing. He recalled the Board previously recommended if the building code required a railing, an 8 ft. porch would be required. Mr. Wipperfurth supported the recommendation. Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to recommend an 8 ft. porch depth if a railing is required and a 6 ft. porch depth if a railing is not required. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Board Discussion Mr. Laden commented single family homes do not require a porch. Mr. Grochala explained porches are required on single family homes in R-2 districts. Since the City allowed the developer to create 62 ft. wide lots, the City specified the garage either had to be positioned sideways with a decorative front facing the street or a decorative garage door and a porch was required if the garage was faced the street. These specifications were purely aesthetic. Mr. Laden recommended disregarding the porch size. Ms. Larsen stated City staff wants to adjust the code so it is easier for everyone to understand and for staff to administer. 6 ft. porch depth was recommended by City staff because the previous three developments requested 6 ft. She cautioned the Board, if they proceed with the motion, they will be prohibiting residents who have a 6 ft. porch from installing a railing. Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 2021 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Evenson commented since variances were granted for 6 ft. porch depths, the Board should be consistent and adjust the ordinance accordingly. Mr. Laden said it is a silly to require houses to have porches. If the City is concerned about snub nose garages, he recommended implementing a rule which states the house or porch has to be set back 2 ft. back from the garage. He noted, from a design perspective, the porch requirement is highly restrictive. Mr. Wipperfurth asked if administering the 6 ft. and 8 ft. porch depths would be difficult for staff. Mr. Grochala said it is a concern for staff. After listening to the discussion, Mr. Wipperfurth recommended a 6 ft. porch depth. He noted he would like to simplify the ordinance and make it less complicated for staff. Mr. Reinert withdrew his MOTION to recommend an 8 ft. porch depth if a railing is required and a 6 ft. porch depth if a railing is not required. Mr. Wipperfurth made a MOTION to recommend a minimum porch depth of 6 ft. on lots with a width of 62 ft. in the R-2 district. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Board Discussion Mr. Laden said he would vote no on the motion because porches should not be required on houses. He commented there are other ways a builder could make the homes architecturally interesting. Mr. Reinert said he would vote no on the motion because he did not think simplifying the porch depth requirement to 6 ft. in the R-2 district was the best solution. Motion carried 3 – 2. Chair Tralle abstained. B. 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 8:45 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Vojtech. Motion carried 5 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Respectfully submitted, Janele Waterman, Community Development Administrative Assistant