Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/14/2004 P&Z Minutes CITY OF L I NO LAKE S PLANNING & Z O NING BOARD MINUT E S DATE : July 14, 2004 TIME STARTED : 6:31 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:45 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Lane, P ogalz , Rafferty, R oot, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABS E NT : None. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff S m yser, Mi chael Grochala, P a ul Bengtson and James Studenski I. CAL L TO ORDE R AND ROL L CAL L Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Boar d m eeting to order at 6:31 p.m ., July 14, 2004. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 9, 2004 Mr. Tralle m a de a MOTION approve the J une 9, 2004 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open m i ke open at 6:33 p.m . There was no one present for Open Mike Chair Rafferty declared open m i ke closed at 6:34 p.m . APPR OVE D MINUTE S Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ly 14 , 200 4 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES V. ACTION ITEMS A. Introduce Paul Bengtson, Associate Planner Mr. Smyser introduced Paul Bengtson, the new Associate Planner. The Board welcomed Mr. Bengtson. B. Final Plat, Elm St. Estates (formerly known as Lakeview Estates), Gerald Schultz, SE corner of Elm St. and Lakeview Dr. Staff stated the City Council approved the preliminary plat for Lakeview Estates with Resolution 03-120 on September 8, 2003. Appa rently, there already is a Lakeview Estates in Anoka County, so the applicant ch anged the name to Elm Street Estates. Under the subdivision ordinance, the final plat needs P & Z review prior to City Council approval. Staff stated this project involves an existi ng residential lot with one existing house (7180 Lakeview Drive) at the corner of Elm Street and Lakeview Drive. The owner split the property into three lots, which created tw o new house lots fronting Elm Street. The installation of city water a nd sanitary sewer service on Elm St. made this subdivision possible. Staff noted the final plat conforms to th e approved preliminary plat. There is no development agreement because there were two public improvements for the plat. The City Attorney’s review of the title commitment is underway and will be fully resolved prior to City Council approval of the final plat . Conditions of approval will be met with building permit review of the new houses. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend appr oval of the final plat for Elm Street Estates and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, for Condi tional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development/Preliminary Plat for Marshan Townhomes 2 nd Addition, a 23-unit medium density residential development, NE corner of Lake Drive and Aqua Lane Chair Rafferty reopened the publ ic hearing at 6:37 p.m. Staff stated applicant has re quested a conditional use permit for a residential planned unit development (PUD), and development stage plan (preliminary plat). The subject site is four acres of property at the northeast corner of Lake Drive and Aqua Lane, adjacent to the existing Marshan Lake Condominiums. A PUD is require d for multi-family development in a shoreland area. The site was zoned to R-3 earlier this year, making it consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff presented its analysis and recomm ended approval subject to the following conditions: Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ly 14 , 200 4 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES 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-way access shall be dedicated to Anoka County along CSAH 23 on the final plat. 3. New plans showing the extended driveway s and guest parking stalls shall be submitted three weeks prior to City Counc il consideration of the application. Plans must show landscaping, grading, and any other alterations needed to accommodate the changes. 4. 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 Colorado spruce to white spruce -change Austrian pine to red or white pine -change autumn applause to northern pin oak -three spruce at the Aqua Lane corner shall be relocated and other landscaping adjusted to accommodate the guest parking stalls. 5. The new plans must include larger individua l unit lots to ensure that the eaves and any building projection meets the property line separation to meet fire protection requirements in the building code. 6. The City Engineer’s comments in the July 9, 2004 memo must be met to his satisfaction. 7. Park dedication shall be $28,770. 8. Existing buildings on the site shall be removed. 9. The existing well and onsite septic system shall be properly abandoned. 10. Brick veneer base shall be included on all four sides of the buildings. Mr. Hyden asked if the City favored Option A. Mr. Smyser replied Option A was the preferred option to go with. Mr. Root asked if the guest pa rking would be sufficient. Mr . Smyser replied he believed it would. Chair Rafferty inquired if the proposed location of the parking spaces was the best area to locate them. Mr. Smyser replied the proposed location was the best place for the parking spaces. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ly 14 , 200 4 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz asked if the trees would survive the demolition and/or grading process. Mr. Smyser replied some of them would survive, with others being somewhat marginal. He noted they would have to be careful. Mr. Pogalz expressed concern that they were planning around tr ees that might not survive. Mr. Smyser replied the City Fo rester and Environmental Board recommended saving those trees. Chair Rafferty invited the public to make comment. Jim Crawford, 614 Aqua Circle, President of Marshan Lake Condominium Association, stated they had three concerns including the guest parking on the west side of the property, and they might have problems with vi sitors or residents pa rking their vehicles in their guest parking spots, giving them a policing problem. He stated they would have no control with another associa tion parking in their parking sp ots. He expressed concern about vision at the stop sign at Lake Drive. He noted th e angle of Lake Drive would create vision problems. He expressed con cern about the stub street on the northern edge of the property. He asked if they could attach a condition so half of the stub street could be deeded to his association because they needed to use the stub street. He noted half of the street could be blocked off to thei r residents, if there was no agreement. Mr. Pogalz asked if option 3 might work better for site lines with respect to traffic. Mr. Crawford replied option 3 was acceptable if they could address guest parking. Ron Fuchs, representative of applicant, H okanson Family Partnership, 9174 Isanti Street N.E., Blaine, stated they would be receptiv e to redesigning the gue st parking spaces. However, he pointed out the existing Marsha n Association could also park in their spaces, giving them policing issues. With respect to trees, they would attempt to save all of the trees noted on the plans. He stated they would like to keep the two color schemes as originally proposed, but they would be receptive to adding a number of different color configurations. He stated the park had been designed to the City’s request. He indicated with this new proposal, they should receive some park dedi cation credit back, but they realized they still needed to pay some park dedication and th ey were working on this with staff. He summarized various methods of how they could determine the park dedication for the Board. Chair Rafferty said he would need to work with staff on the park dedication. Mr. Tralle stated in all of the scenarios of the options, only one showed additional parking – Option A. He noted the Board had ma de it clear that they wanted guest parking spaces and they were not shown on the other options. Mr. Fuchs replied that option A was what they were requesting and it complied with the Ordinance. Chair Rafferty stated he believed one of the other alternatives might be a better solution. Mr. Tralle stated the Board had asked for so mething and they had not come back with what was requested. He noted that not incl uding what they asked for in alternate 1, 2, and 3 was a problem. He asked where they we re going to put the additional parking with Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ly 14 , 200 4 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES those alternates. Mr. Fuchs pointed out wher e the additional parking could be placed in those alternatives. Ms. Lane stated it came down to how strongly they wanted to preserve the trees. She noted if they used alte rnative 3, they could not preserve the trees. Mr. Pogalz stated he agreed with Mr. Tralle. He indicated he was in favor of alternate 3, because it was the cleanest of the proposals fo r site lines and it inserted guest parking throughout the site instead of at one end. He stated he di d not believe the trees would survive the construction a nyway in alternate 3. Mr. Fuchs stated the proposal with the addi tional parking spaces substantially exceeded the Code. He requested they consider thei r preferred option A because it met all of the City requirements and it provided the separati on needed between the two associations. Mr. Hyden stated he concurred that altern ate 3 was the appropriate option to look at. Mr. Pogalz noted with option 3, he believed there would be less as phalt and therefore less cost for the development. Mr. Tralle inquired about the st ub street concern raised. Mr . Fuchs stated their proposal did not access the existing drive and at this time, they did not propose to access that stub street. He noted they had had no discussions with Marshan Lake Townhomes and how they desired to deal with this. He stated they were not proposing to block the access. Chair Rafferty asked if there was any advantag e to keeping the road, or would they be willing to deed it to the other as sociation. Mr. Fuchs stated he did not have an answer to that question tonight. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Pogalz asked what the approval was going to be for, option A or alternate 3. Chair Rafferty replied he understood this decision was up to the Board. Chair Rafferty asked if the developer was in agreement with the conditions as outlined by City staff. Mr. Fuchs replied they were aw are of all of the condi tions and agreed with conditions 1 through 6, they did not agree with 7, they agreed with 8 and 9, and condition 10 they had already addressed on the revised plan. Chair Rafferty asked staff how they should address condition number 7. Mr. Smyser replied the Board’s recommendation was appr opriate, but it would be up to the City Council to make the final decision. He stat ed it was not unusual, however, to have a disagreement on park dedication. Ms. Lane stated with alternate 3, they had not seen a drawing as to where the guest parking was going to be located and she want ed to see a plan prior to approving the development. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ly 14 , 200 4 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty asked Mr. Hokanson to come fo rward. He asked him if they could make alternate 3 work with the additional parking. Mr. Hokans on replied alternate 3 was not a good alternate. He stated when he was at th e meeting last time, he had not received good direction from the Board. He stated if th e Board wanted to change the development, alternate 1 was the best opti on. He stated with alternat e 1, they could get additional parking. He noted it was his misunderstand ing that they wanted parking shown in alternates 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Tralle stated a lot of time was put on a four-color scheme and he appreciated that they had brought in a four-color scheme pr oposal tonight. He noted, however, he was not happy that they had not addresse d the guest parking on the altern atives. He asked if they could table this to the next meeting. Mr. Hokanson stated he wanted a decision tonight because of the timing. Mr. Smyser replied the Board still had time if they want ed to continue this to the next meeting. Chair Rafferty stated if the Board chose an al ternate, it might not be the alternate they want. He noted they could move forward to Council with a negative or positive from the P&Z Board. He requested they look at altern ate 3 and add parking so they could actually see the plan and asked if they be willing to ag ree to continuing this to the next meeting. Mr. Hokanson replied they were not opposed to alternate 3 and they would add parking to that plan and agree to a tabling. The Board discussed various options as to how alternate 3 could be reworked that would address the Board’s concerns. Mr. Pogalz noted he did not care how much parking there was, as long as it was sufficient. He indicated they had not said the development needed 18 spaces and if less spaces fit well, they needed to look at that. With respect to the color scheme he wanted the colors to fit with the rest of the area. Mr. Tralle stated he would be in agreement if each road had a different color scheme, but he was opposed to the entire development havi ng one color scheme. Mr. Hyden agreed. Mr. Hokanson asked for a little more leeway with the color scheme. Chair Rafferty stated he would look at the color schemes provided to staff and would work with Mr. Hokanson on this issue. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to table this to the August, 2004 P&Z Board meeting and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Pogalz stated he or any other Board memb er would be willing to meet or talk with Mr. Hokanson prior to the next meeting if he had any questions about what the Board was directing. D. Variance to Side Yard Setback, 6396 Langer Lane, Bacchus Homes Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ly 14 , 200 4 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated on November 13, 2003 the City of Lino Lakes issued a single-family home – new construction building permit to Bacchus Homes, Inc. for 6396 Langer Lane (Lot 22, Block 2 of Clearwater Creek 5 th Addition). The survey submitted with the building permit application on November 5, 2003 indicated the required 5-foot side setback for the attached accessory structure (garage) as is required by the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. The permit was issued based on this proof of compliance with the zoning code requirements. Staff noted the City of Lino Lakes requires a ll new construction to submit an “As-Built” survey verifying that the structures are built to the approved specificati ons. In the case of the subject property, the “As-Built” survey indi cated that the attached accessory structure (garage) had actually been built to a 3.9-foot side setback rather than the 5-foot side setback as required by the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. The applicant is now requesting that a varian ce of 1.1 feet be granted from the ordinance requirement. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approving the variance. Mr. Hyden asked how this happened. Mr. Smys er replied the builder made an error. Mr. Studenski stated this had happened in the past and the building inspectors had stepped up their inspections to find these errors in time. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend appr oving the variance to side yard setback, 6396 Langer Lane, Bacchus Homes and was s upported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5- 0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Temporary Signage, Revi ew of Special Meeting Staff summarized the special P&Z meeting on June 16 to discuss temporary signage. He stated the P&Z Board needed to discuss what types of temporary signage they want to regulate, the definitions of temporary signs, banners, etc., the allowable location(s) for temporary signage, the allowable size (incl uding if a temporary sign should be included in the maximum amount of signage allowed), the allowable time limit for temporary signed (if any), and the enforcement. Mr. Root stated there was a couple of wa ys they could look at this, one was the temporary signs such as realtor signs, garage sales signs, etc. and th e temporary signs that were there for a longer period of time. He agre ed signs should not be attached to utility poles and they should be limited in height. He stated signs that we re on-site, should be limited to a total area limitation, including signs that are permanently affixed or truly temporary. He stated if a temporary sign was fixed to the building, it should be considered a permanent sign. He agreed they did not have sufficient staff to monitor violations, but believed this could be handled on a complaint basis. He noted this was going to be a tough issue to deal with to ba lance between the aesthe tics and the needs and Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ly 14 , 200 4 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES desires of the business community and others. He expressed disappoint ment that they did not have more businesses attend the meeting to hear more comments. Mr. Hyden requested getting another copy of th e summary sheet of other cities that had been prepared previously. He said it was tough to control what businesses wanted to do on their property and they had a right to adver tise. However, he believed signs should be fixed to the property and the number of tempor ary banners should be limited to a time. He stated signage in windows was a non-issu e because they were attached to the building. He stated he agreed with the 32 squa re foot signage. He stated advertising was a very important aspect for a successful business and it was important to let businesses advertise. He stated he believed they needed to address signs that were in the right-of- way, on telephone poles, stop signs, yield signs, and tattered old signs. He stated he did not want to limit garage sale signs, or make the resident get a permit, but he believed the size and height of the sign should be lim ited. He noted ultimately, they wanted commerce to be successful and the City should i nvite businesses into the City. He stated he did not want to see the restrictions ge t too tight because it was important not to discourage businesses from coming into the City. Ms. Lane stated she was not at the special meeting, but she was disappointed that only two businesses had attended. She stated they should have some representative task force to look at this though. Chair Rafferty stated he did not want this to be micromanaged and believed signs of a permanent basis were to be encouraged. He stat ed he would also like to receive a copy of the summary Mr. Smyser had previously prepared. Mr. Tralle stated he agreed partially with Mr. Hyden. He st ated just because a business owned a property, did not mean they can fill it up with banners. He stated there was an option to hire a part-time enforcement officer as the City of Ramsey was proposing to do. Chair Rafferty asked what was staff’s recomm endation. Mr. Smyser replied they would have something put together for the Board to discuss at their next meeting. Chair Rafferty suggested staff and the Board me mbers take pictures of what they liked and did not like with respect to signage on properties. B. 2004/2005 City Council Goals Staff stated in May, 2004 the City Council he ld a goal setting sessi on to determine the High Priority Goals for 2004-2005. The Council at their June 14, 2004 meeting adopted the seven goals. Each of the goals includes a specific Management Action Plan (MAPs) for pursing implementation. The MAPs identify specific performance, objectives, schedules, methodologies, and action plans. Th ey also identify operating and capital budget requirements. He noted it would be likely the P&Z Board will be heavily involved in several of th e key action steps identified for implementation. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ly 14 , 200 4 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Tralle asked if there were any plans for bike trails along Lake Drive. Mr. Grochala replied there were not plans for an immediate trail, but this was being looked at for the future. Chair Rafferty asked what does review the comp plan mean. He expressed concern as to where it was going. Mr. Grochala replied this has been a hot topic with Council for quite a few months. He stated it was the Board’s re sponsibility to review comp plan changes and it was a concern whether or not to invol ve the P&Z Board or have Council and staff work on any changes. However, this woul d limit the public’s involvement if they did that. He stated it was their intent to put a comprehensive list together and present this to the Board and City Counc il for their input. Chair Rafferty stated staff had done an excellent job in trying to help the City along with the comprehensive plan, which was approved an d now staff was asking to look at things that needed to be adjusted. He noted he fe lt there was confusion at the City Council level and the City Council needed to come to the conclusion that they should work with staff on any comprehensive plan changes or amendments. C. Proposed Schwan’s Relocation Staff stated Schwan’s had i ndicated they were interested in relocating their existing facility on Lake Drive and expanding into a new facility in the Marshan Lake Industrial Park. He noted Schwan’s is seeking guidan ce as to compliance with the city’s existing ordinance for delivery vehicle parking/exterior storage. Staff reviewed their code analysis and indi cated the issue of park ing trucks outdoors in commercial and industrial areas and the applicab ility of exterior storage requirements has been raised several times in the past. The 2003 Zoning Ordinance update did provide some additional clarification to the issue. However, the discussion and modifications made related primarily to semi-trucks and trai lers. He noted it wa s staff’s opinion that the proposed Schwan’s delivery trucks would not be considered exterior storage. However, any site development for the proposed use would need to comply with screening requirements. Schwan’s has indicat ed they are working on a site design that screens the parking area from I-35W. Staff stated the City’s Economic Devel opment Advisory Committee (EDAC) discussed the issue at its July 1, 2004 meeting and recommended support for the Schwan’s project in the Marshan Lake Industrial Park with proper screening. Staff indicated they would like comments from the Board on this issue. Chair Rafferty asked if they could put in some type of garage structure where it would be enclosed away from the elements. He stated he liked their concept, but would like to see some type of a garage structure to enhan ce the property. He expressed concern about freestanding garbage structures also. Mr. Pogalz agreed that landscap ing could be sufficient screen ing. He stated he did not see any reason they could not work forward w ith Schwans on this. He stated he did not Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Ju ly 14 , 200 4 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES want the company to leave the City. He stat ed the cost to add a garage might be too excessive. Mr. Root stated he agreed th e trucks could be screened a ppropriately with landscaping. He expressed concern about the City being too specific for this business though and they needed to look at this carefu lly. He suggested they change the language to make it more specific. Chair Rafferty suggested looking into the possibility of putting in a berm for screening also. He agreed a garage might not be economically feasible. Mr. Tralle stated this was an industrial park and this type of bu siness belonged in this area and not where they were presently locate d. He stated people w ould have to accept that they would see part of these businesse s. He believed Schwans would be a great addition to the industrial park and he wanted to keep them in the City. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to adjourn the m eeting at 9:45 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .