Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/13/2005 P&Z Minutes CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : July 13, 2005 TIME STARTED : 6:33 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:21 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Laden, Nelson, Pogalz, Rafferty (left at 8:41 p.m.), Root, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT : None. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff Smyser; Mi chael Grochala; James Studenski; Paul Bengtson I. CALL TO ORDE R AND ROLL CALL Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Boar d meeting to order at 6:33 p.m., July 13, 2005. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 8, 2005 Mr. Tralle made a MOTION approve the J une 8, 2005 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open mi ke open at 6:34 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to close Open Mi ke at 6:35 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6-0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING for a Rezone, Prelimin ary Plat and MUSA Allocation for Cavegn Subdivision, 7870 Country Lane Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 6:36 p.m. APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board July 13, 2005 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated applicants have requested approval of a single-fa mily residential development entitled Cavegn Estates. The subject property is located adjacent to the southeast corner of Lois Lane and Country Lane and is cu rrently developed with one single-family dwelling. The applicants are proposing to divi de the 1.38 acre lot into two buildable lots of 23,560 square feet and 36,564 square feet. The existing single-family dwelling will remain on the smaller lot, and the larger lot will be used for new construction. Staff reviewed their analysis and reco mmended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Both lots shall connect to city sanitary sewer and water, assessments for both lots will be recorded with the final plat. 2. Issues discussed in the C ity Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. Park dedication shall be paid in accordance with City policies. Chair Rafferty asked what the park dedica tion was. Mr. Smyser replied it was $2,075.00 per lot. Chair Rafferty asked if the origin al intent of the cul-de-sac bulb was to put in more lots. Mr. Smyser responded that a cul-de-sac was put in prior to the deve lopment to the west and before that occurred in the 1990’s, Lois Lane did not go through. Mr. Laden asked if the existing sheds would remain. Mr. Bengston replied they would remain. Mr. Laden asked if two accessory structure building were allowed on this type of a lot. Mr. Bengston responded they could add a conditi on to remove one of the sheds to bring this into compliance. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Tony Cavegn, 7870 Country Lane, stated the shed on parcel would stay on parcel A and the sheds on the other parcel B would stay with that lot. Chair Rafferty stated based on the ordinan ces, they were allowe d one home with an attached garage and one accessory building, so there might be some questions on the existing two sheds. He stated it appeared both shed on parcel B would not be able to stay. Mr. Nelson asked if there was any grandfather cl ause, since it was an existing structure. Chair Rafferty noted the rules cha nge once the lot was divided. Mr. Cavegn noted they would be bu ilding on the new parcel B. Chair Rafferty asked if he was aware of th e staff conditions and was willing to comply with them. Mr. Cavegn replied he was awar e of them and would comply with them. Planning & Zoning Board July 13, 2005 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Cavegn stated if one shed had to go, he would be willing to take it down. Mr. Bengston stated this would go to Council on July 25. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agai nst this proposal to make comment. There were no comments made. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 6:47 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to recommend approval for a rez one, preliminary plat and MUSA Allocation for Cavegn Subdivision, 7870 Country Lane, subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s July 13, 2005 report and adding the condition that the sheds comply with City Ordinances and was suppor ted by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6-0. B. PUBLIC HEARING to Amend Sign Ordi nance text to address temporary signage and additional wall signs Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 6:50 p.m. Staff stated signage is always an extremely difficult issue. As with any regulations, there will be those who will not ag ree with a signage requirement. The goal of signage regulations, like any government regulation, is to balance the privat e interest and the larger public interest. Signage advertises a business, which is good for the business. Successful business is good for the greater public. However, unre gulated signage can become an eyesore and a nuisance, which de tracts from the good of the community. The P & Z has been discussing temporary signa ge for several years. These discussions led to the proposed amendment in the attached draft ordi nance. When the P&Z is satisfied with the proposed amendments, th e Board’s recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council for consid eration. The City Council is the only body that can adopt or amend Ordinances. Staff reviewed their analysis and are reco mmending either approvi ng the sign ordinance amendment and forward it to th e City Council or continue th e public hearing and provide direction on revising the draft Ordinance. Mr. Nelson inquired about “sandwich board” sign s. Mr. Smyser replied he missed that type of signage and would add this to the Ordinance. Mr. Laden asked if sandwich boards under a certain size could be put up without a permit. Mr. Smyser replied he would need to look at that, but generally a sandwich board sign would need a permit. Mr. Hyden asked how far away the sandwich board could be from the business. Mr. Smyser responded that was a good point and he would add language for that. Planning & Zoning Board July 13, 2005 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty stated he liked the idea that the constructi on sites had a larger sign, but was concerned about more than one sign on a site. He asked if only one sign would be allowed. Mr. Smyser replied as being propos ed one sign would be allowed per street front. Mr. Laden asked if internal streets in a pr oject counted. Mr. Smyser noted that was a good point and he would look into that. Chair Rafferty asked if they should regulat e signage on construction trailers put on a construction site. Mr. Smyser replied they could add text that names and numbers of subcontractors with signs on their trailers w ould not be included into the Ordinance as signage. Mr. Laden stated he was con cerned that construction signs were appearing to be given preferential treatment. He asked how they coul d be more inclusive, instead of exclusive. Mr. Smyser responded they could use the same the same requirements as portable signs or other temporary signage. Mr. Nelson noted a construction sign by its nature is tempor ary. Mr. Hyden agreed that construction sites were different. Mr. Pogalz noted there were se veral different types of constr uction sites, where at some point a construction sign would go away a nd be replaced by a monument sign. Chair Rafferty stated he would like to see one construction sign per street also. Mr. Laden asked why construction signs did not need a permit. Mr. Smyser noted no Cities that he researched required a permit fo r a construction sign and he did not believe this has ever been an issue in the past. Mr. Laden asked if they discussed as a Board the timeline for the construction signs. He questioned whether construction signs in re sidential subdivisions should be allowed, especially until 75 percent of the lots were so ld. Mr. Smyser responded a lot of times the construction and real estate signs were together. Chair Rafferty stated he like d the Ordinance the way it was written and the amount of money being invested for a project site, the 30-day after the Certific ate of Occupancy was a fair deal. Mr. Laden stated he did not believe cons truction signs should not be allowed in residential subdivisions until 75 percent of the lots were sold. He stated sometimes it took years before 75 percent of a development was sold. Mr. Smyser asked at what point the constr uction company would be told they had to remove their signs. Mr. Laden replied he woul d put a time certain on sign removal, such as six months, 12 months, etc. Planning & Zoning Board July 13, 2005 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Nelson asked why would a second sign on a bu ilding need to be sm aller than the first sign. Chair Rafferty stated the defini tion as written made sense to him. Mr. Tralle stated he had no problem with the tw o signs being the same size. He stated he also wanted to have signage for only tenant s of that building and not a tenant of an adjacent building. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agai nst this proposal to make comment. Katie Allen, Allure Salon, Spirit Hills Mall, stat ed she rented a corner lot, but she was not on a street, so could she put a second sign on the corner. Mr. Pogalz replied she could not because Spirit Hills had a signage plan as a part of the project and these Ordinance changes would not void this signage plan. Ms. Allen asked how they could address this with the City. Mr. Bengston replied the owner of Spirit Hills Mall would need to co me in and work with staff to potentially change the signage plan. Ms. Allen asked if it was possible Spirit Hills Mall could apply for a permanent sign that was not on the Spirit Hills pr operty. Mr. Smyser replied that is not allowed under the City’s Ordinance and the City had made it cl ear that they did not want any additional billboards. Mr. Nelson asked if that would include a monu ment sign. Mr. Smyser stated the City had made it very clear that it did not want any off premises signs. Mr. Laden asked if Ware Road was part of the Spirit Hills development. Mr. Smyser replied he did not believe it was. Ms. Allen stated the problem they had was th at unless someone drove down Birch Street, people did not know what was in Spirit Hill s Mall. She noted they were unable to advertise on the back of their building either. She stated if the City was not going to allow billboards or signage, then they were stuck with what they had. Mr. Laden noted she had the option of going to the owner of their property and the owner would need to work with City staff on additional signage. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to th e August, 2005 Planning and Zoning meeting and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Village of Hardwood Creek Develo pment Update (1-35E Corridor) Staff introduced Greg Hayes of Hardwood Creek LLC. Greg Hayes, Village of Hardwood Creek LLC , gave a presentation to the Board on the Hardwood Creek project located adjacent to Interstate 35E north of Main Street. Planning & Zoning Board July 13, 2005 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz stated there needed to be so me thought to making the backsides of the building well landscaped and l ooking nice due to the location of the residential areas. Mr. Hayes responded they were aware of that concern and the back s of the buildings would not be left bare. Mr. Hayes stated they intended to come b ack on a regular basis and keep the Board informed. He indicated they wanted to br eak ground in Spring 2006. He stated it would be a five-year build out for the housing and 2-3 years for the commercial development. Mr. Tralle indicated he was impressed with the frontages of the housing developments so everything did not look the same. Mr. Laden stated his concern with big box reta ilers was the vast amount of parking that went with it. He asked if anyone has ever explored moving a certain percentage of the parking to the back of the building. Mr. Hayes replied th e national retailers wanted a certain percentage of parki ng in their front or the reta iler would not come into the development. He stated the way they dealt with that was to provide green space, plantings, etc. into the parking lo t to break the parking area up. Mr. Laden stated he liked what he has seen so far with them attempting to break up the parking. B. Potential Conservation Subdivision Staff stated they have been in discussion w ith a prospective developer for a site to the south of the D. Erickson 2 nd Addition neighborhood, southwest of Birch Park. This is a site with potential for a conservation deve lopment. The developer is discussing a restoration plan for the wetland/greenway corri dor through the site. It would be another piece in further establishing the greenway co rridor that includes part of the Foxborough (Fox Den Acres) project. Recall that this was the first conservation development under the new policy recommended by the Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenway and Trail System Plan. Staff is continuing to discuss the potential of the site. Staff has not received a formal development application. The Environmental Board discussed this si te in May and was interested in the possibilities for restorati on of natural systems. This information is being presented to the Board for informational purposes. Chair Rafferty left the meeti ng at 8:41 p.m. and turned the chair over to Mr. Tralle. C. Requiring Sidewalks in Subdivisions Staff stated that members of the P & Z ha ve suggested initiating a discussion about requiring sidewalks in new subdivisions. Si dewalks provide for pedestrian and bicycle use separated from cars in the street. Lino Lakes adopted a new park s and trail plan to Planning & Zoning Board July 13, 2005 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES facilitate pedestrian and bike usage for both transportation and recreational purposes. Sidewalks along neighborhood streets serve the same purpose and are more easily accessed. There are a number of issues the community woul d need to consider as part of a sidewalk requirement including: - Providing enough space in the right-of-wa y for sidewalks and boulevard trees; - Utilities and access to them for maintenance; - Engineering templates; - Should street pavement be narrower: No shoulder is needed for people and bikes; impervious surface; should parking be allowed if the streets are narrower? - Is right-of-way adequate for sidewalks? - Maintenance and reconstruction under the City Charter: Assessments; - Shoveling requirement for homeowners. None of these issues are insurmountable in other communities. However, the City Charter is an element unique to Lino Lakes. The purpose of tonight’s discussion is to initiate consideration of these issues. Mr. Root stated this was an important issue, but this was not intende d to address existing developments or neighborhoods. He indicated as the City grew, it made more sense to require sidewalks in new developments because of the additional traffi c, pedestrians, bike riders, etc. and it did not make sent to fo rce people to share space with vehicles. He stated there was a public safety aspect to this . He noted there were other issues, such as the transition between an existing development and a new development and the maintenance of the boulevard between the sidewa lk and the street. He noted they also needed to look at trails when sidewalks were not appropriate. He st ated the City Charter issue they needed to look at also. He i ndicated he supported side walks in the City and sidewalks would create a better neighbor hood, increases safety, and would enhance a neighborhood. Mr. Laden agreed with Mr. Root’s comments . He asked what the next step was and asked if they could come up with some kind of a timeline so this would keep progressing. Mr. Smyser stated he would like the Board to leave this in staff’s hands right now and they would come back to the Board periodical ly and give an update. He indicated he did not want to give a specific timeframe for co mpletion, but staff would continue to work on it. He noted this was a new idea for the comm unity and they needed to make sure all of the issues would be addressed. Mr. Nelson stated in general, he did not believe this was a safety issue and he saw this as an unnecessary expense and a detriment to the homeowners who were required to maintain the sidewalks. He believed the residential streets were wide enough to accommodate everything. Planning & Zoning Board July 13, 2005 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hyden stated he was open-minded to th is, but he saw a lot of work and hassle converting the City to sidewalks and he w ould not want a sidewalk running through his yard; he would like a wider street instead. He noted there would be a greater expense to the City also and he agreed with some of Mr. Nelson’s comments. Mr. Smyser noted sidewalks would only be intended for ne w developments and not the existing neighborhoods, and the issue they would need to deal with was the transitioning of the new developments up to the existing developments. Mr. Laden stated that public safety was one of the motivating factors for why they should put in sidewalks. Mr. Pogalz stated he saw both sides, but like Mr. Haden he was on the fence as to entirely agreeing with this. He indicated he unde rstood the public safety factor, but was concerned about the cost and maintenance factors. He stated he grew up in a neighborhood with sidewalks and generally th ey were unused. He believed sidewalks were good safety measures, but would they be unused. Chair Tralle asked if the Board wanted to pursue this, or did they want to table or drop it. Mr. Laden stated as long as people we re open minded, this should be pursued. Mr. Hyden stated he would be in support of this if it was for commercial developments only, but not residential areas. Mr. Nelson stated personally he would not be interested in purchasi ng a home that had a sidewalk in the front yard. Mr. Pogalz stated there was a concern both ways and he believed this might have merit. Chair Tralle stated he was interested in pursuing this for future developments. Mr. Hyden stated if the reason they were going to put in sidewalks was to keep kids off of the streets, he would not be interested in pursing this because kids would still play in the streets. He noted the City had paths and trail ways for pedestrians, bikers, and rollerblading. Mr. Smyser stated he would look into some of the ideas presented tonight and bring this back at the next meeting for fu rther discussion and direction. D. AUAR Update Staff updated the Board on the AUAR. E. Miscellaneous Mr. Hyden stated he attended a League of Mi nnesota Cities seminar and noted that he learned that when a Board member goes out to sites to look at the area, the League suggested they not talk to the applicant as this might look as favoritism and if the Board member wanted to talk to the applicant, they should do it at the Board meeting. He also Planning & Zoning Board July 13, 2005 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES stated he was given some ideas on writ ten public hearing rules and he believes implementing such rules would be a good idea. He indicated it was important that they did not discuss issues outside of the Board mee tings. He asked that these issues be kept in mind. Mr. Laden asked if Board members started an email and Board members started replying, he had been told that those emails would constitute a public meeting and noted they needed to keep that in mind when doing group emails. Mr. Root stated they were only an advisory boa rd, but he agreed with these suggestions. Chair Tralle stated it was difficult not to speak with the applicant when looking at the site when he was trying to determine the issue. Mr. Hyden stated while everyone had good intentions, it gave applicant the opportunity to sway a Board member’s vote. He noted the applicant needed to address all of the issues at the board meeting only. He indicated they were opening themselves up to the City ge tting sued if they spoke with the applicant when looking at the site. Mr. Root asked if they emailed something to staff and staff distribu ted it to the Board, would that constitute an open meeting. Mr. Sm yser stated staff had been advised that anything that went through th eir computers could technically be public information and he cautioned the Board to be careful in their email correspondence. He stated information was fine, but they needed to be cautious that the information was not conveyed in a certain way. He acknow ledged this was a fine line. Mr. Laden stated from the meeting he atte nded it was suggested that if everyone was emailed, that the email be printed out and brought to the meeting to be made a part of the public record. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to adjourn the m eeting at 9:21 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .