Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/15/2003 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT CITY OF LINO LAKES APPROVED MINUTES : January 15, 2003 . 6:39 P.M. : 10:24 P.M. : Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Rod Kukonen, Teresa O'Connell, and Mary Jo O'Dea : Patrice Toler Halen and Nikki Schneider : Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson, and Community Development Director Michael Grochala 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Kukonen called the meeting to order at 6:39 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved unanimously. 3. ACTION ITEMS A. Zoning Ordinance Review Grochala reviewed that the Task Force had completed updating the Zoning Ordinance with the help of Al Brixius of Northwest Associated Consultants. He thanked Chair Kukonen and Donlin, the representatives from the Environmental Board who worked on the Task Force. Mr. Brixius indicated that the amendments to the document had been underlined to assist in addressing changes. He indicated that the Ordinances had been reformatted which made it more user friendly, so although there was some redundancy, each section could stand on its own. It took a year to complete the process. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan was a starting point, and directed the ordinances for implementation. The Task Force reexamined the requirements and the Zoning District applications. Mr. Brixius stated that Section 1 indicated the mandate for the ordinance came from the Comprehensive Plan. Lino Lakes had an application format, and the regulations would be based on the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Definitions were added to the Ordinance addressing commercial use. O'Connell inquired concerning page 1-8 addressing the critical area and asked if it only included trees, or was vegetation meant. Grundhofer clarified the question, did it also include prairie. 1 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 O'Connell inquired if the area behind the school was included in the definition. Mr. Brixius answered that it did apply to vegetation including trees. Donlin identified a possible typographical error and asked if the word "strands" should be "stands" applying to trees in #10. Mr. Brixius agreed it was an error. Chair Kukonen asked for any additional comments for the section. Donlin inquired about the necessity of mentioning the section addressing adult use regulations. She noted that the critical area had not received as much discussion. Mr. Brixius responded that the adult use section was modeled after one that the courts upheld. The reason for defining the behavior was so that there would not be behaviors that were inappropriate. He noted that it could not be an outright prohibition. Chair Kukonen asked for the definition of buildable land on page 1-14. Mr. Brixius stated that Council did not see steep slopes as included in buildable land. Donlin questioned if hydric soils were included in the wetland definition. Mr. Brixius responded that there was a specific delineation for it. There were several criteria that defined a wetland. Asleson indicated that hydric soils were possible without being considered a wetland such as the example of ditching. Mr. Brixius stated that Section 2 discussed how the application would occur. There was a change in the Zoning application that included 10 -day notice then a public hearing, with a notice published in the newspaper. He indicated the Comprehensive Plan had policies that addressed the proposed action in Section E. Following the public hearing there would be 60 days, with a possible extension of 120 days, for the City to approve or deny. In Section H, Council actions would require a simple majority vote, except in the case of changing a zoning from residential to commercial or industrial. That would still require a 4/5 majority vote. Donlin inquired about the 4/5 majority requirement, if there were other options. Mr. Brixius explained that a State statute required it. Mr. Brixius directed the Board to the section on the Conditional Use Permit (2-4). He noted that once the review process had been completed, it could expire within a year if no construction had occurred. Donlin questioned the reason for the change that property owners would receive notice within a 350 -foot radius, rather than the 600 -foot radius on 2-4, #3. Mr. Brixius indicated that Conditional Use had various applications in zoning. 2 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 Donlin inquired about the reason for the deletion of the criteria (7)(p.2-5), because she thought that they were helpful. Mr. Brixius responded that most were addressed in the new requirements. They were revised to move to more quantifiable factors. Donlin asked if "H" was replaced. Grundhofer answered that it had become (#1)). • Donlin recommended that with the current standards under #7, Council should add the previous "f" and "h" sections. Mr. Brixius stated that under the new standards "b" addressed compatibility. Donlin responded that it needed clarification. Mr. Brixius directed the Board to Subdivision 4 on p.2-12. He indicated that there was a sunset clause in it that allowed for a use until it became obsolete, and discussed the provisions. An example of an interim use would be a driving range. The 60 day -rule was effective for variances. If a decision was made by staff, not needing Council approval, there could be an appeal through the Planning and Zoning Board (p.2-15). Mr. Brixius stated in Subdivision 5, the criteria were similar to the Conditional Use Permit, in order to reduce costs of administrative review. Donlin asked for clarification on "minor " Mr. Brixius indicated that it would have various definitions depending on the zoning district. Mr. Brixius stated the City wanted more documentation for Site and Building Plan Reviews, so the requirements were itemized in Subdivision 6. In addition, more site plans would receive an administrative review. Performance Standards (E)(p.2-31) assumed that not all could be accomplished in-house. Mr. Brixius indicated for Subdivision 8, the Certificate of Occupancy (p.2-37), was done at the time of occupancy, or they could escrow the requirements for when it became seasonable. O'Connell inquired about the need for a tree preservation provision in Subdivision 5, page 2-31, #8. Mr. Brixius responded that it was included in the Tree Plan. Donlin asked if people could be misled and believe they could attempt to prove that trees needed to be removed. Mr. Brixius answered that if there was a conflict in the ordinance, the more stringent would be upheld. He did not believe there would be a conflict very often because once the Tree Plan had been approved, there was a value of two trees for every one lost. 3 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 Mr. Brixius stated that for Subdivision 10 Planned Unit Development (PUD) at present, allowed for mixed use. He emphasized that the PUD Conditional Use would not be broad mix use. The purpose was to bring flexibility back for innovation. He addressed Public or Common Open Space (#3)(112-40), and indicated that for #4, typically homeowner associations were underfunded and, therefore, had difficulty properly maintaining the Common Open Space. In addition, there was no option for a land trust in this case. On the issue of private streets (#6 )(p.2-43), he indicated that in several examples, after a time, the City had been asked to maintain them. Mr. Brixius stated that the purpose of a rural PUD was for the preservation of neighborhoods and open space. It was defined as a cluster of at least four units together with common viewsheds. Section (e)(p.2-47) concerning management with homeowners association was a provision identifying their responsibilities, so that the maintenance would not be the City's responsibility. Chair Kukonen questioned whether the word "buildable" would be applicable in (a)(p.2-44), Open Space Area Regulations. Mr. Brixius stated that it would discourage clustering in an urban situation, but the rural could have only 20 % buildable. He suggested that the term "total land area" be used. He continued to highlight that the Urban Residential PUD requirements applied to R-2, R-3, and R-4. For (a,3)(p.2-48) the word "outlots" should be replaced with the word "lots," in his opinion. Concerning Commercial or Industrial PUD (E)(p.2-49), the CUP requirements would develop concept applications with public hearings at both the concept and development stage. There was also a provision for the applicant to do both at the same time, but that would be risky for the developer. Donlin expressed concern for language that would avoid litigation if the developer opted to do both together. Mr. Brixius answered that there was no specific language to protect the City. O'Dea indicated that sometimes the Board did not have a final review after initial recommendations. Mr. Brixius responded that there were two stages required, the concept and the development stages. He indicated that it gave staff the "teeth" to ensure that recommendations were addressed. Sketch plans could be mandated as well as other information such as building elevations, building style, and streetscape could be added. Chair Kukonen stated that it would be a more proactive means for the site reviews. Mr. Brixius indicated that the staff had the responsibility to meet all the deadlines and processes for the Boards and other agencies to review the plans. Grochala responded that there was a schedule for reviewing development proposals. • Chair Kukonen indicated that he wanted it to state the names of the Boards in the ordinance 4 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 Chair Kukonen inquired the reason for the R-1 omission in (D, 2)(p.2-4'7) under the Zoning Districts, is because there is increasing information on local plant communities. Mr. Brixius answered that a PUD would be mandatory for townhomes. • Chair Kukonen recommended that it state "may be allowed in R-1 and R -1X." Mr. Brixius responded to the above recommendation by indicating that buildable land was not counted against the lot area. Easements and buffers created outlots. Tree preservations would also apply. There was a concern for R-1 not to reduce the lot size so as a compromise, R -EC zoning district was developed by staff. The City had discretion to apply the zoning and along greenway corridors there could be an application for R -EC, but the lot densities would be consistent with R-1. Asleson stated that R -EC could be used in the areas defined by the polygons where rare communities were present. Mr. Brixius indicated that open space preservation could take place by creatively choosing the locations, and would accomplish the goals of preservation with the R -EC designation. Grochala responded that he wanted Mr. Quigley's in a PUD, but in the past there was difficulty in getting them passed. Asleson mentioned it had to make economic sense as well. Mr. Brixius stated that with maximum lots a developer could obtain the same number of lots with setbacks and lot size but preserve open space. The standard rule of lot area was unique to the City and he encourages its use for other cities. Donlin indicated she agreed with Chair Kukonen's point of view, because some developers wanted to be creative to preserve certain areas but rezoning was cumbersome. Grochala clarified that the PUD Rezoning and Conditional Use had the same process except for R-2. Mr. Brixius added it was the only contractual conditional zoning classification that would be created for that area alone. He mentioned an example of a City with all PUD in an area, and a resident had difficulty finding a location for a garage. Mr. Brixius reviewed that the buildable area for under 10 acres only required 2 acres of buildable land including a right-of-way for (C,2)(p.3-5). In (D)(p.3-6), it inhibits two principle buildings on a lot. For (3.)(p. 3-8) a PUD would be required for townhomes and apartments. Subdivision 4 (p.3-11) ensured that homes built would have quality and aesthetics for years to come. The height requirements in (C)(p.3-16) had provisions for solar availability. That could be 5 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 overridden with a CUP if a shadow study was performed to show shadow encroachment on adjoining properties. Grundhofer inquired about a church spire requiring a shadow study. Mr. Brixius responded that it did not apply. It was applicable for the building structures alone. Grundhofer mentioned that there was also an airport in the City. Mr. Brixius indicated that it was addressed in (3)(p. 3-17) where if there is an excess of 200 feet above ground level of the site, the applicant had to notify the commissioner of MnDOT in writing. He then asked if there were any 80 -foot spires. Grundhofer responded that there was one proposed. O'Connell mentioned that they should all be considered, possibly 60 feet as the maximum height above the top of the building roof. Chair Kukonen suggested that it could be overruled if there was willingness to use as an osprey pole. • O'Connell recommended that for (C-1) b, c, and g, the height should not exceed 60 feet above the roof of the building. Grundhofer expressed concern over the lighting for public hockey rinks and recreational fields (m,n)(p.3-17). The Board discussed the lighting of sports fields. Grochala stated that (8)(1.3-24,3-25) added provisions for a pole barn for R-1. The Board discussed the provisions application to other districts in addition to R- 1. Mr. Brixius referred to (p.3-32) where lighting was required to be directional, at 90 -degrees or less and would be no less than 1 foot candle at the property line when measured at 6 -inches above the ground. The Board discussed the meaning of 90 degrees or less, and Mr. Brixius clarified the definition. Mr. Brixius directed the Board to (2,d)(p.3-38), where the storage of semi trailers was added for clarification. Screening was defined in (Q,1)(p.3-39), while sodding was addressed for residential areas in (Q,3)(p.3-40). Grundhofer asked about the use of Colorado Spruce in the City. Asleson responded that Colorado Spruce was still a landscape option for individual homeowners. 6 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 Mr. Brixius indicated that tree preservation would now apply to custom graded lots as well (a)(3-46). Grundhofer questioned the meaning of the four inches of topsoil required application (4,d)(p.3-44). Asleson answered that it was for disturbed areas. Mr. Brixius suggested that it should probably read "applied to all disturbed areas." Another change occurred on (p.3-53) to clarify the requirements to ensure quality fences would be built. Chair Kukonen expressed concern for light pollution from headlights with 10% of the area open on fencing (p.3-54). Mr. Brixius explained that it was to ensure that movement was not obstructed, and that creative placement could avoid lights in windows. Mr. Brixius continued that Subdivision 5 addressed off street parking, and had been updated for green parking, and allowances for a peninsula. Donlin inquired about the need for 2 parking spaces/bed in a hospital parking lot. Mr. Brixius answered that one was for the patient and one for a nurse that was standard. Donlin questioned the need for 1 parking space/3 seats for a church. Grundhofer stated that green parking should be a requirement for churches. Mr. Brixius responded that it could be required on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Brixius directed the Board to Subdivision 10 (p.3-83). The purpose of this section was to ensure that accessory apartments were a part of the principle structure, because utilities had to be present. Subdivision 11 (p.3-85) addressed certification for drainage. Subdivision 13 (p.3-91) included the need for a buffer of 300 feet from the closest property line of various locations where children would be present. The minimum lot width of 330 feet was stated in (B,2)(p.5-1). The section on feedlots was removed because it no longer applied. Section (H)(p.5-8) addressed the fact that towers were limited in height, but not the height of the antennas. Grundhofer asked if the setbacks applied to patios. Mr. Brixius responded that they were not allowed in the front yard. Grundhofer expressed concern over the issue of 65% impervious. Mr. Brixius stated that he had never seen 65% impervious, and attempted to use a formula to come up with new numbers. • Grundhofer recommended that staff attempt to decrease the percentage of impervious on residential lots across the board (p.5-10). 7 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 Mr. Brixius stated that concerning Estate Conservation District or R -EC in (C,1.) (6-12), the 15,000 square feet allowed for a variety of lot sizes. Chair Kukonen added that according to his calculations, it would free up 20 % for open space if 30% of all individual lots were 15,000 square feet. Mr. Brixius mentioned that the yield could not have 100% at 15,000 square feet for executive lots if there were wetlands on them. Grochala indicated that it was possible that a developer could use only 15,000 square feet in the zoning district. With 80% requiring to be 10,800, could occur. The best scenario would be a bonus density if open space was preserved. Mr. Brixius noted that more infrastructure was required for additional lots. • Chair Kukonen recommended that for (3,C,1)(p.6-12) 'no fewer than' be scratched, and that 25-30% of the lots would be at 15,000 square feet. Mr. Brixius noted for (C,2)(p.6-12) "...no lot shall be less than 80 feet in width." Staff should address the 30% figure in both instances. Grundhofer suggested changing (D)(6-13) the number 65% impervious to a smaller number. Mr. Brixius answered by referring to Subdivision 4 and noting that the trend was to promote small lots with large houses. O'Connell inquired about the possibility of having conservation districts in unsewered areas. Mr. Brixius had concerns on unsewered areas with homeowner control because they were often underfunded. Mr. Brixius explained the provisions for lighting in motor fuel stations that would be under conditional use. O'Connell noted that the "neighborhood businesses" was crossed out in (A,3)(p.4- 1). Grochala responded that it was a typographical error, and that d and e were the only ones being eliminated. Mr. Brixius indicated that there was a conditional use for drive-thrus for banks and restaurants (7-16). He commented that the ordinance was most intense for the General Business section starting on (p.3-28). • Grundhofer recommended that the 75% impervious be changed to 70% and require 5% grass parking. O'Connell expressed concern on the setbacks for parking. Mr. Brixius explained that the setbacks would allow for variation, but would accomplish what the Board wants. 8 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 Grundhofer suggested that 70% impervious parking could be used with the balance utilized as pervious parking. Mr. Brixius stated that (G,1)(p.8-2) had been deleted because of an example where patrons of a retail store blocked traffic flow. Grundhofer admitted that she continued to have concerns over the amount of impervious. Grochala indicated that the number had dropped from 90% to 85%. Asleson stated that those areas ended up being merely infiltration basins. Grundhofer inquired about the reason for 25% open green space in (7,a)(8-27). Mr. Brixius responded that they did not like those, so there was the need for more requirements including a Conditional Use Permit Mr. Brixius directed the Board to (p.9-6), where the designation R -BR was unique to the City of Lino Lakes. It was for a rural area that would remain until it turned to light industrial, referring to the area along 77th Street. Another rezoning occurred on (p.9-15) where the PUD District would give the City total control, and was more discretionary than a Conditional Use Permit. Chair Kukonen thanked Mr. Brixius for his work and called for a motion. Grundhofer made a motion to approve and pass on the recommendations made by the Board. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. Growth Management Ordinance Review Grochala reviewed the timeline, noting the Council would vote on the ordinance on January 28, 2003. He asked the Board to call or E -Mail him with questions and comments. Grochala explained they had been trying to implement the 147 houses since 1997. The Comprehensive Plan used the number and ordinances were to implement the numbers. In late 2002, the Comprehensive Plan was accepted. He acknowledged that there were disappointments with the rate of growth and assured the Board that there would be a decrease in the growth rate in the future. Grochala cited that in 2002 there were only 88 lots approved and two subdivisions went through, Behm's and Stoneybrook. He admitted that during the next couple of years the numbers would be higher than 147. The spreadsheet addressed the phasing plan. He indicated there was a range of 20% that would allow for some flexibility but for a specific project, the numbers could be exceeded. Donlin stated that the Task Force was helpful, but she believed that the Growth Management Ordinance was all encompassing. She noted the population cap of 30,000 by 2020 and expressed concern that natural resources could not be protected with the rate of growth. 9 APPROVED MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 15, 2003 4. ADJOURN It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board would be on January 29, 2003. There being no further business, Donlin moved to adjourn at 10:24 p.m. O'Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 10 APPROVED MINUTES