Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/2004 P&Z Minutes CITY OF L I NO LAKE S PLANNING & Z O NING BOARD MINUT E S APPR OVE D MINUTE S I. CAL L TO ORDE R AND ROL L CAL L Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board m eeting to order at 6:46 p.m ., June 9, 2004. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps noted they would be taking the ac tion item s in the following order: B, C , A. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 12, 2004 Mr. Tralle m a de a MOTION approve th e May 12, 2004 Minutes and w a s supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6-0-1 (Ms. Lane abstained). IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open m i ke open at 6:49 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:50 p.m ., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6-0. V. ACTION I TEMS A. PUBLI C HEARI NG, for Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development/Preliminary Plat for Marshan Townhomes 2 nd Addition, a 23-unit DATE : June 9, 2004 TIME STARTED : 6:46 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:14 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Lane, Pogalz , Rafferty, R oot, Schaps, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABS E NT : None. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff S m yser and James Studenski (arrived at 7:42 p.m.) Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ne 9 , 20 04 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES medium density residential development, NE corner of Lake Drive and Aqua Lane Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Staff stated applicant had submitted a request for a conditional use permit for a residential planned unit development (PUD), and developmen t stage plan (preliminary plat). The subject site is four acres of property at the northe ast corner of Lake Drive and Aqua Lane, adjacent to the existing Marshan Lake C ondominiums. A PUD is required for multi- family development in a shoreland area. Th e applicant withdrew a previous application, so this is considered a new application. No rezoning or comprehensive plan amendment is needed or requested. The s ite was rezoned to R-3 earlier this year, making it consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff reviewed their analysis and reco mmended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Additional right of way shall be dedicated to Anoka County to total 60 feet from centerline for Lake Drive (CSAH 23). 2. Right of access shall be dedicated to Anoka County along CSAH 23 on the final plat. 3. A new landscaping plan shall be submitted with the following changes three weeks prior to City Council cons ideration of the application: -change black ash to green ash or a native oak species -change Austrian pine to red or white spruce -change Colorado spruce to white spruce -change autumn applause to northern pin oak -three spruce at the Aqua Lane corner shall be moved eas t at least 20 feet 4. Exterior building materials must be submitted three weeks prior to City Council consideration of the application. 5. The project must obtain approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to City Council considerat ion of the application. 6. The City Engineer’s comments in the June 4, 2004 memo must be met to his satisfaction. 7. Park dedication be paid. 8. All existing buildings be removed. 9. Septic systems removed and wells capped. 10. Guest parking be installed. Mr. Pogalz asked if both the buildings located on the prope rty would be removed. Mr. Smsyer replied all structures on site would be removed. Mr. Pogalz asked if wells and septic systems would also be removed. Mr. Smyser replied they would be required to be removed and he would add this as a condition of approval. Mr. Pogalz stated there was no guest park ing shown and with the narrow road, he believed guest parking should be required. He recommended expanding the roads to 28 feet, or at a minimum gues t parking being added. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ne 9 , 20 04 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz stated he would like units 1-4 be a stub street. He suggested the fourth stub street north that was currently in the townho mes that were built would need to slightly skewed to the northeast as the stub street for unit 27. Mr. Smyser replied in an Urban PUD, there was a minimum 50 percent open space and they had just barely enough. He stated if they could not meet those requirement, they might end up losing a unit. Mr. Root agreed they needed guest parking. He requested staff check with the Fire Department and/or Police Department re garding emergency access with the narrow street. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Chair Schaps asked if applicant agreed to all of the condition s. Ron Fuchs, representative of Hokanson Development, stated they would like further discussion on the park dedication. He stated the Environmental Review Board had requested excess parking areas be removed. He noted there were f our parking spaces for each dwelling unit, two inside the garage and two outside the garage. Chair Schaps stated four parki ng spaces per unit was not enough. Mr. Fuchs stated they could evaluate the site where additional spaces could be provided. Chair Schaps stated guest parking was a necessity and he could not recommend approval if it was not provided. Mr. Tralle asked what was the color of the siding on the building. Mr. Fuchs replied it was a taupe color. He reviewed the remaining color scheme for the Board. Mr. Tralle asked if all 23 units would l ook the same. Mr. Fuchs replied they would. Mr. Tralle stated the same co lor units would not be acceptabl e. He recommended at least four different color variations. Mr. Fuchs re plied they would take that under advisement and confer with the developer. Mr. Pogalz stated if they went with the same color, it would make sense to go with yellow and green to match the existing area. Mr. Rafferty stated the plan had improved dramatically, but he wa s concerned about the consistency of the colors. He stated guest parking was a must and impervious surface was a problem and if necessary, they might need to eliminate a unit. He stated he was in favor of rotating 1 and 2. Mr. Root agreed the guest parking was essen tial. Mr. Fuchs replie d they will look into this with staff as well as review the colo r schemes, but requested a recommendation be forwarded to the City Council regarding this project. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ne 9 , 20 04 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps added condition number 11 to read use of a four-color scheme variation in the exterior. Mr. Pogalz noted applicant would not be able to build for a minimum of six months and asked if this would be tabled to their next meeting, how w ould this impact them. Mr. Fuchs replied it came down to time and mone y and by delaying it it ultimately delayed the decision. He offered to review all of th e conditions with staff and work with them. He indicated by working with staff it would save time. Chair Schaps noted he did not see they were going to lose much by continuing this for one month. Roger Hokanson, developer, stated they could not lose any more units and if they could not redesign it in anyway, he could not develop this. He stated they could not keep spending money on this. He stated he was hoping to get a lot more units when the land was purchased and now that the City had rest ricted development, they needed the units they were proposing. He stated changing the colors of the buildings were not an issue, but by adding more blacktop he did not think the development would work. He stated if guest parking was held against them, they could not meet the requirements. Mr. Smyser replied he understood it was the Board’s opinion that as long as they could add guest parking, they could play with the impervious surface numbers. He stated from a time standpoint, the probably of going to the City Council with a positive recommendation was the important issue. He noted by adding guest parking, did not necessarily mean losing a unit. However, he was comfortable with this being tabled for one month also. Mr. Rafferty stated he did not think it would cost Mr. Hokanson that much money to have this tabled for one month. He noted there was nothing lost or gained by flipping 13, 14 and 15 to the opposite side of the street a nd by shifting 20 and 21 down would impact this development either. Mr. Hokanson noted the outside units were th e most profitable and sold the best. Mr. Rafferty stated there were ways to work with this without eliminating a unit and stated they would have a much better situat ion at Council if this was continued for one month to work on the Board’s suggestions. He stated the refinements requested would assist Council in their decision. Mr. Hokanson stated if he agreed with Mr. Ra fferty’s suggestions and worked with staff, could this be approved tonight . Mr. Rafferty replied he be lieved Mr. Hokanson’s verbal word was good, but it was the Board’s prefer ence to see things in writing. Mr. Hokanson stated if they redrew it per the Board’s suggestion and worked with staff on it, why did they have to wait for the next meeting. Chair Schaps stated years ago, that would have been the procedur e, but now the Board wanted to see the revised plans. Mr. Tralle stated he was not willing to give the plan a “rubber stamp” and he wanted to see the plan again at next month’s meeting. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ne 9 , 20 04 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps noted the Board was willing to work on the open space requirement if guest parking was accommodated for and he suggested he accept the offer of tabling this to next month’s meeting to address the c oncerns brought up at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Hokanson stated he would agree to the tabl ing. He pointed out that the park fees had been previously paid. Chair Schaps stated th ey would need to work out park fees with staff. Mr. Pogalz noted four parking spots per home was true in theory, but people also needed their garage for storage, so more than likel y, there would not be four spots available for parking. He suggested they remove units 22 and 23 from the existing location, going over to units 1, 2, 3 and 4 and create a sepa rate stub street creating their own area and creating either 3-two ho me units or 2-three home units. He noted this might cost more in asphalt, but what they were saving on the l ong driveways and the utility cost would also be less. He noted new open space would be created at the southwest corner and additional green space would be created around units 5, 6, 7, and 8. Mr. Hokanson replied by following Mr. Pogalz suggestion, they would lose a lot of existing trees. Mr. Pogalz replied he believed they might lo se a couple of trees and asked them to look at this proposal. Jim Crawford, President of Mars han Lake Townhomes, stated he had reviewed and plan. He stated the townhomes that were along A qua Lane had the rear building facing the street. He stated this plan would not fit in to the existing area because their development had the front of their buildings facing Aqua La ne. He noted he did not know if this was a concern, but believed it would look out of place and it would disrupt the continuity of the area. He asked if the volume of the water coming off of this development would have an impact on their pond. He requested this be l ooked at. Mr. Studenski replied this was incorporated into the development and this would not be a problem. Mr. Crawford expressed concern about this development parking in their existing guest parking. He stated extra parking was cr itical in a townhome association. Mr. Root asked if he had the opportunity to review the landscaping plan. Mr. Crawford replied he had not seen the landscaping plan. Mr. Root pointed out that there would be la ndscaping along the back of this development facing the street and suggested he look at these plans. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend tabling this i ssue and continue the public hearing to the July 14, 2004 meeting and wa s supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 6- 0. B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, for a Rezoning (from R, Rural to R-1X, Single Family Executive) and Preliminary Plat, as well as MUSA Reserve Allocation, for Junes Addition, located at 599 – 62 nd Street Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ne 9 , 20 04 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps reopened the pub lic hearing at 6:55 p.m. Dick Thompson, planner for developer, stated applicant is proposing to create three lots from 6.18 acres located north of 62 nd Street and west of West Shadow Lake Drive in Lino Lakes. The property currentl y has a home and barn loca ted on proposed Lot 3. Mr. Junes’ property is zoned as Rural and he proposes the property be zoned Residential Exclusive (R-1X). Mr. Junes is requesting that sewer and water be supplied to the proposed Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Thompson noted the creation of these lots involves the disturbance of approximately 9,771 square feet of wetland. Mr. Junes has prop osed to fill the wetland and relocate the wetland to the rear portion of Lot 3, where the existing barn is located. The application has sent this permit request to the Rice Cr eek Watershed District (RCWD). The RCWD initially denied the request for permit based on Minnesota Rules 8420.0548. However, the applicant has since been directed by th e RCWD to apply for sequencing flexibility under WACA, which would allow him to relocate the wetland. Staff reviewed their analysis and the e ngineering recommendations as follows: 1. The Developer is to be aware that the City of Lino Lakes is currently reconstructing 62 nd Street. Prior to final approval of the Site Plans, the Grading Plan must show the changes that the st reet project will cause to each of the proposed three lots. 2. Prior to final City approval of the Site and Grading Plans, the Plans need to show that Lino Lakes City Engineering Standard s are being followed. That is, a detail Site and Grading Plan will need to be submitted before final approval is given. 3. Approval of the preliminary plat wi ll be contingent upon the review and consequent approval of the City Engineer . Drainage and utility easements along property lines will be required. Easement s over designated wetlands will also be required. 4. Copies to the City of the Rice Creek Wa tershed District permit approval process. 5. The homes to be constructed must follow City of Lino Lakes design flood elevations. For this loca tion, the design 100-year flood elevation to be used is 894.2. The emergency overflow elevation to be used is 895.3. Thus, City requirements are as follows: low floor/b asement elevation must be two (2) feet above the 100-year flood elevations, lo w floor/basement must be one (1) foot above the emergency overflow elevation and the low floor/basement elevation must be four (4) feet above the gr oundwater or normal ponding elevation. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning fr om Rural to Residential Executive (R-1X), MUSA capacity be allocated for this parcel, the project shall not be final platted until 2005 to comply with the City’s growth management policy, and the preliminary plat be approved subject to th e following conditions: Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ne 9 , 20 04 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES 1. Issuance of the sequencing permit by the RCWD, based on Application No. 03-090. 2. That relocating the wetl and will not adversely aff ect neighboring properties. 3. That location of propos ed driveways be shown. 4. That appropriate park fees are provided. 5. That the City Engineer’s r ecommendations be included in these recommendations. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Chair Schaps questioned if the Rice Creek Wa tershed would be approving this and asked if they were approving this t oo soon. He noted this was a big leap to assume this was going to be approved. Mr. Rafferty asked if this would not be pr esented until 2005. Mr. Smyser replied that was correct. Mr. Root stated there were a lot of conditions and he believed it put a lot of burdens on the staff to make sure the contingencies we re complied with and he believed this was something they should be dealing with. Mr. Pogalz asked if the original request wa s denied as presented. Mr. Thompson replied that was correct. Mr. Pogalz stated it was his understanding a pplicant was now proceeding with the Rice Creek Watershed District’s suggestions. Mr . Thompson replied he believed that was accurate. Mr. Pogalz asked if this was a good time fo r the applicant to get a stub now to the utilities. Mr. Thompson repl ied with the road repair taking place now, this was an appropriate time to obtain a stub. Mr. Pogalz stated he did not wa nt to miss the applicant’s to have the opportunity to put in a stub at this time and end up tearing up a newl y constructed road in the next couple of year. Tim Macki, applicant’s engineer and surveyor, stated they ne ver got denied from the Rice Creek Watershed District initially. He st ated they were in discussion with Carl Hammers, which pushed their plans back, a nd this was tabled by the District pending receipt by the various information they required. Chair Schaps asked where would they be a month from now with respect to Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Macki replied he anticipated they woul d have their permit. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ne 9 , 20 04 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Thompson clarified the Rice Creek Wa tershed District’s initial decision. Mr. Smyser noted it appeared they did get initial approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Chair Schaps noted it appeared that items 3A and B had now been satisfied. Marvin Emily, 590 62 nd Street, stated he was opposed to the filling in wetlands, but he was not opposed to his neighbors building on thei r property. He stated they needed to take care of the drainage problems before they take any more wetlands. Chair Schaps noted this had been approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District and this Board were not engineering e xperts and had to rely on the experts who are saying this would not create any additional drainage problems. Wayne Junes, applicant, presented some photogr aphs to the Board as to what would be removed. He stated he did not believe there would be a drainage issue. Mr. Tralle asked if he was sure there was going to be culverts there. Mr. Junes stated he believed the road development w ould need to put in culverts. Mr. Smyser replied he did not have the engine ering drawings before him, but the street standards was that you could not make water flow off your property to another property and these things were taken into account as the Engineer’s reviewed the project. Mr. Rafferty asked where the drainage ditch was located. Mr. Junes pointed out on the map where the ditch was going. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification on items 3A and 3B. Chair Schaps replied the Rice Creek Watershed District had issued a Cap Roc, which was a preliminary approval and there was no need to table this, bu t it would still remain a condition. Mr. Root asked if the remain ing conditions, except for A and B, were not too burdensome on staff that they get complete d prior to this going to Counc il. Mr. Smyser replied most of the conditions were standard conditions, which would not additional burden to staff’s time. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend rezoning from Rural to Residential Executive (R-1X) approval and was suppor ted by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend that MUSA capacity be allocated for this parcel and was supported by Mr. Ra fferty. Motion carried 6-0. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ne 9 , 20 04 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend the preliminary pl at be approved subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s June 9, 2004 report, including conditions added at tonight’s meeting and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Smyser stated this would to go the City Council on July 12, 2004. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, for a Rezoning (from R, Rural to R-1X, Single Family Executive) and Preliminary Plat, as well as MUSA Reserve Allocation, for West Shadow Ponds 2 nd Addition, located at 607 – 62 nd Street Chair Schaps reopened the pub lic hearing at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Thompson stated applicant had submitted an application to subdivide an existing lot into two lots. This will require a rezoning from Rural to R-1X, a preliminary plat, and the allocation of 0.74 acres of MUSA reserve. The site is guided for Low Density Sewered Residential land use and is with in the Stage 1 (pre -2010) growth area. Mr. Thompson indicated the proj ect involves filling some we tland to create build able area for one of the proposed lots. Filli ng a wetland needs approval of the wetland mitigation from the Rice Creek Watershed District. The applicant has revised his proposal to minimize wetland fill to 394 square feet, which qualifies as a de minimus wetland fill. Mr. Thompson noted the notification of a pub lic hearing was published and mailed to surrounding property owners. The Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing and continued it to the June 9, 2004 meeting. Reconstruction of 62 nd Street will occur this summer. Sanitary sewer and water will be extended west from the intersection with West Shadow Lake Drive to serve this property. Staff reviewed the engineer’s recommendations, which included: 1. The developer is to be aware that the C ity of Lino Lakes is cu rrently reconstructing 62 nd Street. Prior to final appr oval of the Site Plans, the Grading Plan must show the changes that the street project with cause to each of the proposed lots. 2. Prior to final City approval of the Site and Grading Plans, the Plans needed to show that Lino Lakes City Engineering Standards are being followed. That is, a detail Site and Grading Plan will need to be submitted for before final approval is given. 3. Approval of the preliminary plat will be contingent upon the review and consequent approval of the City Engineer. Drainage and utility easements along property lines will be required. Easements over designa ted wetlands will also be required. 4. The homes to be constructed must follow C ity of Lino Lakes design flood elevations. For this location, the design 100-year fl ood elevation to be used is 894.2. The emergency over flow elevation to be used is 895.3. Thus, City requirements are as follows: Low floor/basement elevation must be two (2) feet above the 100-year flood elevation, low floor/basement must be one (1) foot above the emergency overflow Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ne 9 , 20 04 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES elevation and the low floor/basement elev ation must be four (4) feet above the groundwater or normal ponding elevation. Staff reviewed their analysis and reco mmended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. That driveway access for Lot 2 is determined. 2. That RCWD approval for the de minimus wetland fill be approved. 3. The easement around the wetland must include additional buffer as proposed by the applicant. Wetland a nd buffer areas are to be identified with signs saying no fill, cutting, or dumping. Native seed mix from the City’s list is to be used in these areas. 4. The project shall not be final platte d until 2005 to comply with the City’s growth management policy. 5. The subject property be rez oned rural to residential. 6. That MUSA be allocated for this parcel. 7. The City’s engineer’s comments must be addressed to his satisfaction. 8. The park dedication be paid. Mr. Rafferty asked if the driveway would enter 62 nd . Mr. Thompson replied that was correct. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Matke, representative of applicant, st ated the wetland on the eas t side would preclude and access, so the access would be on 62 nd . He requested the driveways be put on the high side of the lot. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to recommend closing the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approval of the rezoning from Rural to R-1X and was supported by Mr. Poga lz. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approval of the MUSA reallocation and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend the preliminary plat subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s June 9, 2004 report and th e conditions added at tonight’s meeting and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6-0. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ne 9 , 20 04 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES D. ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR REMAINDER OF 2004 Staff stated due to the resigna tion of Chair Schaps, the Board needed to elect a new chair and vice-chair for th e remainder of 2004. Mr. Pogalz nominated Mr. Raffe rty to move from the Vice Chair position to the Chair position. Mr. Hyden nominated Mr. Tralle as Chair. Ms. Lane suggested the person who did not make Chair became the Vice Chair. Mr. Hyden stated the Chair was a lot of work and a lot of commitment. Mr. Rafferty stated the current Chair’s positi on would be difficult to fill. He thanked Chair Schaps for his service and acknowledge d this would require a lot of commitment and hoped he could fill the Chair position adequately. Mr. Tralle stated he agreed with Mr. Rafferty. He stated what he brought to the Board was extensive experience in running mee tings through his Church and union meetings. A closed ballot was conducted. Chair Schaps announced that Mr. Rafferty wa s elected as Chair and Mr. Tralle was elected as Vice Chair. Chair Schaps congratulated the new Chai r and Vice Chair and wished them luck. Mr. Smyser thanked Chair Schaps for all of his hard work and he was sorry to see him go. He stated he led the Board in a directi on that he believed it needed to be lead. Chair Schaps thanked the City for this oppor tunity. He noted the City was a truly beautiful community. He stated he had the honor to serve with a number of great people in the City including the Mayors, Councils, and staff. He stated the City has had great Boardmembers throughout the ye ars and thanked them for thei r service to the City. He indicated he was leaving the City at a time of great strength. He thanked the citizens for all of their input over the years. He wished everyone luck in the future. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. REMINDER OF SPECIAL MEETING TO DISCUSS SIGNAGE: JUNE 16, 2004. Mr. Smyser reminded the Commission of the June 16, 2004 meting to discuss signage. He stated no action would be taken at that meeting, it would only be a discussion to discuss signage. He indicated the 30 to 40 business owners had been notified of this meeting. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ne 9 , 20 04 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES VII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:14 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 6-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .