Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/2002 P&Z MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD APPROVED MINUTES I.CALL TO ORDE R AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., March 13, 2002. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 13, 2002 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the February 13, 2002, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Boar d, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. IV.OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:34 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5-0. V.ACTION ITEMS A. Outlot F, Clearwater Creek 3 rd Addition, Minor Subdivision DATE: March 13, 2002 TIME STARTED: 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED: 7:03 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyden, Lane, Lyden, Schaps, and Zych MEMBERS ABSENT: Rafferty STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Smyser; Tanda Gretz Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2002 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Staff presented the application by Gor-Em Builders, LLC for a Minor Subdivision. Staff reviewed the background of the lot by explaining Outlot F, measuring 10 X 300 feet, was originally platted as a pedestrian trail easeme nt, connecting Clearwater Creek Drive to LaCasse Drive, but not providing conne ction to any other system of trails. The reason for the trail was to provide pedestrian access across the subd ivision, since a block of excessive length (1,700 feet) was created when a block in the 3 rd addition was added to an existing block in the 2 nd addition. Staff explained the trail had not yet been constructed in August 2000, when it came to the attention of the City Council Work Session Meeting of August 23, 2000, via Mr. Petronick, of 6601 LaCasse Drive. Mr. Petr onick expressed a number of reservations about the placement of a trail next to his home, plans for which he was unaware of when he purchased his property. It was reported th at “neighbors are also opposed to the trail.” After consideration, “council directed staff to proceed with vacati ng the trail easement,” according to the minutes for the September 6, 2000 City Council Work Session Staff presented its analysis by explaining th e City never actually owned or was dedicated Outlot F, according to the Final Plat dedication page for Clearwater Creek 3 rd Addition, which stated: “…and do hereby donate and dedica te to the public use forever the circle, courts, drives, lane, roads, park and easements for drainage and utility purposes…” Outlot F was unique from other Outlots within the subdivision in that it did not have drainage and utility easements over it. As a result, it was never part of the property dedicated to the City. Since the Outlot was never part of the property dedicated to the City, and the proposed trail was never cons tructed, the Outlot was still owned by Gor-Em Builders. Gor-Em had agreed previously to pay the City $1,000 should construction of the trail not be required. What was further needed, however, was a Minor Subdivision, dividing Outlot F in two along the boundary lines of lots 1 & 14, block 3, Clearwater Creek 3 rd Addition. The resulting two 150’ X 10’ pieces would then be attached to lots 1 & 14. Such action would: 1. Prevent the Outlot from becoming a useless piece of land, and thus going Tax Forfeit. 2. Resolve the trail issue. Staff had assumed that the above described two pieces should be atta ched to the two lots south of the Outlot, rather that be divided among all four of the neighboring lots (two to the north, and two to the south). This wa s because the Outlot and the two adjacent properties to the south lie within Addition #3, while the two lots to the north lie within Addition #2. Staff indicated even though it was originally Mr. Petronack who brought the situation to the attention of the council, it did not seem appropr iate to attach the resulting Outlot F land to his property, sin ce his property was located in Addition #2 and Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2002 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES the Outlot was located in Additi on #3. A conversation on March 4 th with Deb Petronack confirmed that such an arrangement meet s with the approval of the Petronacks. Staff stated Outlot F appeared physically indi stinguishable from the adjacent properties; it had been sodded and taken care of by the neighboring residents and visually blended into their lawns. Staff indicated the four property owners adjacen t to Outlot F had all been notified of this meeting, although it was not required that Public Notice be given in the matter of a Minor Subdivision. The two a ffected property owners (lots 1 & 14, block 3, Addition #3) had each agreed to accept the resulting 10 X 150-foot property, which would be deeded to them from Gor-Em bu ilders, pending approval of this Minor Subdivision. Staff recommended approving the minor s ubdivision with the conditions as listed. 1. Gor-Em Builders will pay the City $1,000, in lieu of having to construct the trail. 2. Gor-Em will deed over the two subject pieces to the adjace nt two property owners to the south for the nominal sum of $1.00. 3. Residents at 6599 LaCasse Drive a nd 6596 Clearwater Creek Drive must legally combine the resulting 10’ X 150’ piece w ith their existing property under a single Property Identification Number (PIN). Chair Schaps asked if the City had received a ny input from any of the residents either for or against this. Ms. Gretz replied there had been no comments received Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the request of Gor-Em Builders, LLC, Outlot F, Clearwater Creed 3 rd Addition Minor Subdivision, subj ect to the following conditions: 1. Gor-Em Builders will pay the City $1,000, in lieu of having to construct the trail. 2. Gor-Em will deed over the two subject pieces to the adjace nt two property owners to the south for the nominal sum of $1.00 3. Residents at 6599 LaCasse Drive a nd 6596 Clearwater Creek Drive must legally combine the resulting 10’ X 150’ piece w ith their existing property under a single Property Identification Number (PIN). The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Pheasant Hills 12 th , EAW Petition Staff explained the City had received a petition requesting th e preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Pheasant Hills 12 th Addition Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2002 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES project. The petitioners submitted their peti tion to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), which forwarded it to the C ity. This process complied with State requirements. The petition requested that the EQB act as the responsible govern mental unit for the EAW. In accordance with the rules, the EQB decided which governmental unit had the greatest responsibility for supervising or approvi ng the project as a whole. In this case, it was the City, and so the EQB fo rwarded the petition to staff. Staff indicated no final decisi on could be made on the projec t until: a) the City decided no EAW was needed, or; b) the City decided an EAW was needed, and afterward decided no environmental impact statement was needed. Staff stated the City needed to decide if an EAW should be prepared. If, because of the nature or location of the project, it may have the potential for significant environmental effects, an EAW should be prepared. If the City did not think there may be the potential for significant environmental eff ects, it should deny the petition. Staff indicated the decision on preparing an EAW must include written findings. Mr. Smyser indicated the trees cleared out of the island should not have happened and staff will send out a letter tomorrow stating th at no more activity could be done until the EAW was prepared. Mr. Corson stated he was listed on the petit ion. He asked what indicated Mr. Vaughan could not clear trees on the property. Mr. Sm yser replied there was not anything in city ordinances specifically that said that a prope rty owner could not cut trees, but because the owner had submitted a development proposal, this changed the context of what an owner could do. However, he indicated this was very vague and it was something that would need to be looked at in the future. At any rate, because of the EAW issue, no work on the project should be occurring. Mr. Lyden asked for an explanation of exem ptions under residential development. Mr. Smyser explained what the exemptions were. Mr. Lyden asked who paid for the EAW. Mr. Smyser replied the developer paid for it whether it was mandatory or discretionary. Mr. Lyden stated if the City wanted th e EAW done, the City should pay for it. He suggested the City buy the island for the public good. Mr. Smyser replied he would convey Mr. Lyden’s recommendation to the City Council. B. Development Review Task Force Update Mr. Smyser stated they have been holding monthly meetings on the third Thursday of every month. He indicated the Task Force was addressing the subdi vision ordinance that regulated the division of la nd. He stated the Task Force would soon be addressing elements of the zoning ordinance as well. Planning & Zoning Board March 13, 2002 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES C. 2001 Planning & Zoning Board Action Update Mr. Smyser indicated he had handed out to the Board chronologica l actions taken by the Board in 2001. The second list was the same items itemized by category. D. E-mailing of Minutes Mr. Smyser stated the Board would be r eceiving e-mails of a pproved P&Z Minutes as well as copies of the approved Minutes of the other Boards. VII.ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:03 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .