Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/1990 P&Z MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 12, 1990 Chairperson Fred Chase called the regular meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 7:03 p.m. at the Lino Lakes City Hall. Members present were: Monika Slatten, Robert King, Fred Chase, John Bergeson, and Al Robinson. Also present were: Mayor, Harold Bisel; City Planner, John Miller; City Engineer, Dan Boxrud; and Planning Secretary, Laura Elken. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Mr. King moved to approve the minutes of August 8, 1990 as written. Al Robinson seconded the motion and the motion was approved. OPEN MIKE Doug Vigers approached the board. He lives at 6152 Oak Wood Drive in the southern part of Lino Lakes. He lives on a cul- de -sac and his lot is heavily wooded. Mr. Vigers wanted to put up an accessory building earlier this year but was advised to wait until August because he did not want to disturb the trees on his lot and create an oak wilt problem in his area. He is now ready to construct his accessory building and in discussing this with the city planner and building official the accessory building ordinance has been changed, and now he cannot build the size of accessory building that he had originally planned. Mr. Vigers said that his neighbors have the size building as he would like to build. He has his neighbors approval. John Miller said that he has visited with Mr. Vigers on two different occasions. Under the old ordinance his building would have been allowed. His lot measures 216 x 205 just over an acre. Mr. Miller informed Mr. Vigers that city staff is responsible for enforcing the city ordinances, but that he could apply for a variance. He told Vigers that by appearing before the DRB under open mike he could get a feel from the board as to if he should proceed with the variance application or not. Mr. Miller neither discouraged him or encouraged him to apply. Al Robinson asked him how large of an accessory building does he want to construct. Vigers did not have plans ready at this time. He said that his first concern was his neighbors. If his neighbors are comfortable with the accessory building. Mr. Chase informed Mr. Vigers to apply for a variance and be heard before the board in October. He was also asked to have Page 1 1 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 12, 1990 written plans as to how large of a building he would like to construct. An application and copies of the six findings of fact will be sent to Mr. Vigers. VARIANCE FOR ROBERT T. NELSON FOR AN ADDITION ON TO THE HOME ON EAST SHADOW LAKE DRIVE, APPLICATION #90 -50. The applicant, Robert T. Nelson, was one of the first residents in Lakes Addition. Nelson and his wife purchased Lot 15 of Block 4 of Lakes Addition No. 2. The property is located at 6733 E. Shadow Lake Drive and has access to Reshanau Lake. The lot has 108 feet of frontage on the street and approximately 87 feet of frontage on the lake. The Nelson's residence is located at the north side of the lot and has a side yard setback of 15 feet at the front of the house and 12.7 feet at the rear of the home. The garage is located on the south side of the house and has a setback from the south side yard of approximately 38 feet. The Nelson's wish to build a 7 x 24 addition to their home and the only direction possible is north into the 12.7 foot setback. Presently the city's zoning ordinance requires a five foot setback on the house side of the lot and 10 feet on the garage side. To construct their 7 foot wide addition the Nelsons require a variance to build within 5.7 feet of the side lot line. Mr. Miller stated that when the Nelsons' home was constructed, it was without consideration of future subdividing or additions. Mr. Miller added that by constructing the addition, it would not "look goofy ", and would appear to a passerby that normal setbacks had been followed. Mr. Bergeson added that he did look at the site and the home to the north of the Nelsons as quite a distance away. Mr. Bergeson didn't feel that the addition would be distracting to his neighbor. The board felt that this application did meet the six findings of facts. MOTION: Robert King moved to recommend to the city council to grant a variance request to Robert T. Nelson, Application #90 -50 for a small addition to his home. John Bergeson seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. REVIEW OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION, EARL OLSON, APPLICATION #90- 49. Page 2 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 12, 1990 Robert Arnold, a Realtor, was present to representing the owner. The applicant owns approximately 35 acres of land at 1210 Main Street, immediately southeast of Lino Lakes City Hall. Presently the land is divided into three parcels. There is a residence on the north western parcel, a piece of land that measures approximately 200 x 415 feet and covers an area of about two acres. There is a second small and separate lot of record in the southeastern corner that also measures approximately 200 x 415 feet. This parcel is land locked and there are no structures on the land. The remainder of the land is in a separate contiguous parcel that includes a wetland and a Minnesota Pipeline Company Easement. The applicant, Earl Olson, wishes to combine and subdivide the three existing parcels into four lots. Olson proposes to: 1. Eliminate the land locked two -acre lot in the south east corner. 2. Add approximately three acres to the non - conforming lot in northwest corner making it a "more - conforming" five acre parcel. 3. Create three saleable ten acre parcels with access to Main Street. The land is located in the city "Rural" zoning district. Minimum lot dimensions require 330 feet of frontage on a public road and a lot area of at least ten acres. The three new parcels each meet these requirements. The existing parcel (Parcel A) has a width of 207 feet and an area of two acres. The width of this lot is not increased by this action but its area is more than doubled to five acres. It becomes more conforming. This subdivision would have to be reviewed by the Anoka County Department of Transportation. The park dedication ordinance requires a $400.00 park fee for each new residential lot. Three new residences will be constructed so a total park payment of $1200 should be made. A recommendation for approval can go to the city council contingent upon receipt of the material verifying the parcels are buildable. The city council has indicated that it wants soil borings and perc tests for all non - sewered lots before they're approved. That information has not been received at this time. Page 3 1 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 12, 1990 Al Robinson pointed out that when issuing building permits the homes cannot be close to the pipe line in this area. Robinson stressed that the Realtor become aware of the setbacks from the pipe line. Dan Boxrud felt that a 50' setback is required from the pipe line, and that it may be safer to remain 50' back from the pipe line easement itself. MOTION: Al Robinson moved to recommend to the city council approval of a Minor Subdivision for Earl Olson for property described in DRB Application #90 -49 contingent upon the following: 1. Review by the Anoka County Highway Engineer and granting of driveway permits by the county. 2. Payment of a $1200 park fee. 3. Submittal of soil borings and perculation tests. Monika Slatten seconded the motion. John Bergeson amended the motion to read: 4. That the lots are indeed buildable and meet the proper setbacks from the pipe line. Monika Slatten seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. REZONING REOUEST FOR PHEASANT HILLS, APPLICATION #90 -51. Ed Vaughan has been working for several months to get a portion of his approximately 307 acres of land 1) located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area, 2) served by city water and sewer, and 3) subdivided for single family lots. At this point in time Vaughan has been successful in all three endeavors. One more issue is yet to be resolved. Vaughan must get his land rezoned from its present "Rural" zoning to the R -1X Single - Family Executive district. Within the Rural district no single - family development on small lots is permitted. The minimum lot size in the Rural district is ten acres. In addition the Rural district is intended for areas outside the MUSA boundary. MOTION: John Bergeson moved to recommend to the city council rezoning of the land commonly known as Pheasant Hills from "Rural" to "Single- Family Executive" as outlined in Application #90 -51. Mr. King seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. Page 4 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 12, 1990 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADAMS OUTDOOR SIGN COMPANY, APPLICATION #90 -52. John Bodger, owner of the property along 35E and Co. Rd. 14 addressed the board. He displayed pictures to the board members of what type of sign is considered for this area. John Miller addressed the board. He stated that Adams Outdoor Sign Company wishes to erect a billboard on the northeast quadrant of C.R. 14 and I -35E. The sign would be two sided and visible to both north and southbound traffic on the freeway. Dimensions of the sign include 45 feet of height and sign face measuring 14 x 45 feet. The area of each sign would be 672 square feet. The height of the sign would be the equivalent of a four story building. The sign also would be lighted. In late 1988 Adams Outdoor Sign applied for conditional use permits to erect two signs near the city's freeways. In early 1989 after review by the economic development committee and the planning and zoning board the city council denied both permit applications. The land proposed as the site for the billboard is within the city's "LI" Light Industrial zoning district. Section 5, Subd. 5 of the zoning ordinance makes provision for and outlines the procedure of the granting of conditional use permits. The ordinance states in part: The planning commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the council shall order the issuance of such permit only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: A. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. B. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the Comprehensive Plan of the city and this Ordinance. C. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and /or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. D. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and Page 5 1 1 1 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 12, 1990 services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. D. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. F. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. G. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. H. Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance. I. Will conform to specific standards of this ordinance applicable to the particular use. In addition, the ordinance requires the city make a finding of fact with either approval or denial. The current comprehensive plan shows the land planned for commercial uses. However the city has contracted with Short, Elliot, Hendrickson to complete a land use study and engineering feasibility study of the area. This is being done in response to petitions received from local land owners for the extension of utilities into the area. The plan will be completed in fall of 1990. Planned land uses will definitely be changed in that plan. John Miller also stated that Adams Outdoor Sign is making much of the fact that its proposed sign location is more than 1200 feet from the nearest billboard and more than 750 feet from the nearest residence. Attached to its application Adams submitted a court order overturning the City of Bloomington with denial of a conditional use permit for a billboard. In reviewing the court document though Mr. Miller found that the reasons Bloomington gave in the denial were as follows: 1. Farvue Sign had a bad "track record" outside of Bloomington. Page 6 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 12, 1990 2. Farvue would advertise only KSTP. 3. Farvue had an "aesthetically undesirable" airport sign outside of Bloomington. The Bloomington court order (actually a writ of mandamus) states "...The application by Farvue met all of the objective and subjective criteria contained in the city's ordinance..." The emphasis here should be on objective and subjective. Adams is stating something like "We're meeting all the distance requirements now you've got to give us a conditional use permit or else." The city denied applications from Adams before and John Miller feels the city should do so again. Miller thinks this is the wrong place for a billboard. With utility petitions from the landowners the city can initiate improvement projects in the area. The assessments will force quick development. The planning process in place for the area now will end this fall with a "developer's luncheon" in which the metro area developers will be invited to start construction. I doubt that a business located under a 4 story lighted sign would be desirable. If the city permits this sign erection it may well be doing so at the cost of other development. Mr. Chase asked if any other applications have been before the board since the denial in 1988. Miller answered no. John Bergeson stated that'an interchange study is now being completed for this area. The city is not sure yet the results of this study. He feels it would be wise to deny this application at this time. MOTION: John Bergeson moved to recommend to the city council denial of a conditional use permit for Adams Outdoor Sign Company to erect a billboard as outlined in Application #90- 52 based on the following findings. The billboard: 1. Will be detrimental to the general welfare of the neighborhood and the city. 2. Will not be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the comprehensive plan of the city. 3. Will be designed so as not to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity and will change the essential character of the area. 4. Will be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Page 7 1 1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 12, 1990 5. The area is being considered in a land use study and the interchange study has not been completed yet. Mr. King seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. John Bodger may take this application to the city council. A public hearing is required for a conditional use permit. If the applicant wishes to pursue this application the public hearing would be scheduled for the fourth Monday in October. REVISION OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING WETLANDS /DAN BOXRUD Dan Boxrud addressed the board. He stated that there has been a considerable amount of discussion recently regarding impacts of ponding and drainage areas on new subdivisions. The City of Lino Lakes has started to require developers to include ponding areas and other drainage facilities in easement areas on platted lots, as opposed to separate outlots. This is contrary to the city code book. In addition, Mr. Boxrud said that how individual lots are sized adjacent to ponding areas and wetland vegetation areas has become clouded as a result of the Army Corps of Engineers protecting certain wetland vegetation areas which may not ever have standing water. This can occur where the water table bounced up to within inches of the ground surface causing wetland vegetation to flourish on land not having standing water. Mr. Boxrud felt that Section 1001.08, Subdivision Design Standards, should be modified at Subdivision 6, Lots, paragraph (4). The board members received a photocopy of this portion of the code. Boxrud feels that the area should be changed so that the ponding areas and other drainageways are included in the lot. Mr. Boxrud discussed the reasons he feels that the drainageways and ponding areas should be included within the easements on the lots as opposed to separate outlots. He explained that with separate outlots under city ownership, the city becomes totally responsible /liable for the property. The city would rather be in a position of only being responsible for maintaining the drainage system, not maintaining the property to the satisfaction of the adjoining property owners nor being responsible for removing debris people may discard in the ponding areas. With the ponding area being within easements on a lot, the adjoining property can maintain their property as they see fit, within the limitations imposed by the Army Corps of Engineers, the DNR, the Rice Creek Watershed District and other city requirements. With a separate outlot owned by the Page 8 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING September 12, 1990 city or a Homeowner's Association, the individual property owner does not have that freedom. This paragraph of the city code should also be rewritten in order to make it more clear that the ponding area is not to be considered as part of the buildable area of the lot. Mr. Boxrud suggested that the definition which paragraph (4) refers back to should also be changed. The only definition in the subdivision code relating to water courses is called "Natural Water Way" and is listed as item (12) in the list of definitions. Mr. Boxrud recommends the definition for a natural water way be changed to read as follows: (12) Watercourses - As mentioned in this chapter shall mean any natural or man -made passageway on the surface of the earth so situated and having such a topographical nature that includes ponding areas, drainage channels, swales, waterways, creeks, rivers, lakes, streams, wetland areas, and other open surface water flow which is the result of storm water or ground water discharge. This term does not include man -made piping systems commonly referred to as storm sewers. Boxrud also recommends that paragraph (4) of Subdivision 6 be revised to read as follows: (4) Watercourses - Watercourses shall be protected by easement to the anticipated high water level as determined by the city. Lots shall be of sufficient dimensions and area to equal or exceed the minimum specified in the zoning chapter for the district in which these lots are located, as measured above the normal water level in the watercourse as determined by the city. Paragraph (4) as rewritten would require that the buildable area on a lot abutting a watercourse be equal to the minimum requirements of the zoning district, so that the lot would be comparable to a lot not abutting upon a water course. One minor exception would be that during a significant rainfall event, the water would creep into the lot a minor amount decreasing the available lot size during the storm. For example, a ponding area with a "bounce" of two feet during a storm may creep into the property 6 to 20 feet depending on how the lot is graded. A 3:1 slope, the steepest slope recommended, would result in only a 6 foot encroachment. A 10:1 slope at the side of the pond would result in a 20 foot encroachment. Likewise, the easement limit would be 12 to 20 feet toward the house from the normal water level. Page 9 1