Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/2003 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, October 8, 2003 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers (scheduled to be televised on Ch. 16) AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 10, 2003 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS • A. PUBLIC HEARING, Gerald Schultz, Lakeview Estates, SE corner of Elm St. & Lakeview Dr., Preliminary Plat and Variances, Jeff Smyser B. Joseph Kivel, 6262 Otter Lake Road, Variances, Tanda Gretz VI. DICUSSION ITEMS A. Temporary Signs/Banners, Jeff Smyser B. Fabric Accessory Structures, Jeff Smyser VII. ADJOURN 1 • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:37 p.m., September 10, 2003. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 13, 2003; amended June 11, 2003 minutes Mr. Tralle made a MOTION approve the August 13, 2003 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the amended June 11, 2003 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:38 p.m. Barbara Bor, 7707 20th Avenue North, HERON Group representative, expressed concern about a large church being planned on the property next to hers. She asked for a copy of the plan, when available. She expressed concern about drainage. She encouraged the Commissioners to have the staff meet with the HERON Group to discuss their concerns. She stated the HERON Group had met with staff to review the City zoning ordinances. She stated the Conditional Use Permit did not fit with the defined land purpose. She noted this was an agriculturally zoned property. She indicated this proposal was no different than an industrial building with 1000 employees. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board September 10, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Tralle thanked Ms. Bor for coming. He asked for a copy of all of the literature she had given to the other members because he was new on the Board. Mr. Smyser stated the City Council had decided an EAW was not necessary. He indicated staff was waiting for a new proposal from the church. He stated he believed the church was working on a drainage plan and storm water management plan with the Watershed District at this time. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:47 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 3 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, add Personal Services as permitted use in the GB District Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Staff stated the major revisions to the zoning ordinance included amending the uses allowed in each of the zoning districts. In the business districts, the uses now are more generalized than before. The previous lists were very specific, which created a problem for uses that were not listed but common activities in commercial areas. An oversight has arisen. Personal services are listed in the NB and LB districts, but not the GB. He noted staff discussed this with City Council at a work session and as a stop gap measure, Council was comfortable considering personal services as comparable to other service businesses. However, because it is a specifically listed use in other districts, it should be added to the GB district to remove ambiguity. Council agreed that the ordinance should be amended. Mr. Corson asked if a service was not specifically listed, what happened. Mr. Smyser replied if something was comparable to a use already listed, it would probably be allowed. He noted in the past, if the use was not listed, it was not permitted. Mr. Tralle asked if tattooing included piercing. Mr. Smyser replied that would probably be a comparable use. Mr. Tralle requested body piercing also be added. Chair Schaps invited the public to make comment. There were no public comments. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend closing the Public Hearing at 6:52 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend amending the Zoning Ordinance to Include Personal Services as Permitted Uses in the GB General Business Zoning District, and DRAFT MINUTES • • • 4 Planning & Zoning Board September 10, 2003 Page 3 • amend the definition to include body piercing, and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4 -0. • • VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Village Update Ms. Divine stated staff had been working since early 2003 with the Hartford Group, a development firm based in Eden Prairie, on a proposal for completion of the "Village" project. She indicated the Village project is unlike conventional suburban commercial and residential development. She noted this project calls for a mixed -use development comprised of residential, commercial, recreational and civic use. She stated the Hartford housing concept plan includes 113 market rate for -sale townhomes; 74 rental townhomes; 91 workforce rental townhomes; 48 condominiums built over commercial; 124 senior apartment/condominiums built over commercial. The commercial component of the master plan included commercial /retail /office space in the range of 250,000- 300,000 sq. ft. Mr. Corson asked if this development was a concern regarding the future 35W bridge reconstruction. Ms. Divine replied it was a concern and they would likely be doing some temporary improvements to Lake Drive. She noted a traffic study was underway as part of the EAW, and SEH is working with Anoka County and MnDOT regarding the Lake Drive and 35W issues. Mr. Corson asked if there would be trails accessing this location. Ms. Divine replied they planned within the project to make it very pedestrian friendly. She noted as they redid Lake Drive, they would be looking at a safe, efficient, and effective way to get pedestrians across. She stated they were looking at ways to connect the schools to Lake Drive also, and the project will connect to Regional Park Trails. B. Concept Plan, ProTerra, NW corner of Apollo Drive and Lilac Street Mr. Smyser stated Equinox Development is interested in developing property on the northwest corner of the intersection of Apollo Drive and Lilac Street. ProTerra Design had prepared a concept sketch for discussion purposes. He briefly summarized the project for the Board. Mr. Hyden asked if there was a shared driveway. Mr. Smyser replied that this development did not share a driveway with the dentist office. Jeff McDonell, ProTerra Design Associates, stated they were going to try to increase the green space as much as possible. He noted they would like to leave a more open green area in front of the proposed restaurant. He asked how the Board wanted to see this development. Chair Schaps asked what hotel or motel were they proposing. Mr. McDonell replied they were looking at a single -story hotel at this time, but they did not have any particular hotel in mind. He noted this hotel would probably be around 30 rooms. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board September 10, 2003 Page 4 Chair Schaps asked what type of restaurants were they looking at. Mr. McDonell replied they did not have any particular restaurant in mind, but they were looking for some type of a unique restaurant for this area. Mr. Tralle encouraged a nice, sit -down restaurant. Chair Schaps noted he had to leave the meeting and Mr. Hyden would continue the meeting. Chair Schaps left the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Tralle noted a nice restaurant was needed in this area. Mr. Tralle inquired about the traffic flows. He noted with one entrance and exit, the traffic pattern and flow would need to be really efficient. Mr. McDonell replied they were limited on their access and they were aware of this difficulty. Mr. Tralle stated he liked the layout they were proposing, but he wanted them to be aware of the traffic flow with this project. Mr. Corson stated he would like to see the accesses connected. Mr. McDonell replied they could work on this. Mr. Phillip Carlson, applicant, stated they envisioned a destination, high standard, restaurant. He noted they envisioned some sort of a European, romantic type of setting for the retail area. He stated the hotel would have banquet facilities, a swimming pool, etc. He stated they were considering refurbishing the silo on the property. He asked the Board to take a look at this property. He stated they wanted to preserve the oaks on the property, if possible. He stated they would address the traffic flow issue. He stated the pond would be a nice amenity if it could be worked out. He encouraged and welcomed any and all input. Mr. Corson stated it appeared they were on track with trying to preserve the trees. The Board encouraged a nice restaurant and hotel be developed on this site. C. Concept Plan, VFW Expansion, 7868 Lake Drive Mr. Smyser stated the Circle -Lex VFW Post 6583 is interested in constructing a new building. He indicated a concept sketch had been prepared, but nothing had been formally submitted for approval. He summarized the proposal for the Board. Mr. Corson inquired about water and sewer access. Mr. Smyser replied both were available through Lake Drive, but they were not connected to it. However, the new building would be connected and it would have a fire suppression sprinkling system. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 10, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Tralle asked if there would be some sort of a fence separating this property from the neighboring property. Mr. Dean Johnson, Commander VFW, replied the existing wood fence would need to be enhanced. Mr. Tralle inquired about the impervious surface on the property. Mr. Mike Thomas, VFW architects, stated they were down to 65 %, which was within the Ordinance. He noted they were working with the County as to where the access connection would be located. He stated the building would be a large hall for 300 people, a bar area, and a kitchen area. He indicated they were well above the minimum parking area and they wanted as much parking as possible. Vice Chair Hyden asked about putting a frontage road in. Mr. Thomas replied they were open to the idea, but they had not spoken with the adjacent property owner. D. Temporary Signs/Banners Mr. Smyser stated many businesses use banners and other types of temporary signs and the City has seen an increase in these signs in Lino Lakes. He indicated the goal at this meeting is for the P &Z to recommend some specific requirements. Mr. Corson noted if they went into this discussion when they did not have a quorum, was this a good use of their time and would they need to do this all over again for other Board input. Mr. Tralle and Vice Chair Hyden agreed. The Board decided to move this item to the next month's meeting. E. Fabric Accessory Structures This item was moved to next month's meeting due to lack of quorum on the Board. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:04 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 3 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT MINUTES • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. A Jeff Smyser October 8, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING: Haley Manor • Preliminary Plat • Variances for Lot Depth Lakeview Estates, SE Comer Elm St. & Lakeview Drive Gerald Schultz Mr. Gerald Schultz of 7180 Lakeview Drive has requested approval of the Lakeview Estates plat. This project involves redevelopment of an existing residential lot in the Lexington Park Lakeview neighborhood. This was made possible by the installation of public utilities in Elm St. and the amendment of the comprehensive plan (approved by the City in May 2003) that brought the property into the MUSA. The proposed plat would subdivide Mr. Schultz's existing lot to create two additional house lots. The existing homes would remain on a lot of its own. The result is three lots instead of one. To accommodate the development proposal, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Preliminary plat 2. Variance for lot depth: 124.7' instead of 135' Because this plat involves the redevelopment of an existing lot within an existing neighborhood, the standard approaches to reviewing the project don't apply in the same way as for a new plat in an undeveloped area. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning: The site is within a Stage 1 (pre -2010) growth area. It is in area that was added to the Low Density Sewered Residential area and MUSA by a comprehensive plan amendment that was approved earlier this year. Prior to the amendment, the Elm St. corridor had an irregular mix of MUSA, non -MUSA, sewered, and unsewered designations. The Schultz property was outside the MUSA and guided unsewered. It is now in the MUSA and guided Low Density Sewered Residential. This allows for three units per acre. Typically, when an undeveloped area is platted, the total land area except for the wetlands is used to calculate density. This would include all new street rights of way. The Lakeview Estates site is within an existing neighborhood and on the corner of two city streets. The Schultz Lakeview Estates page 2 property by itself is less than one acre (approximately 0.77 acre). However, if half the rights of way are included (the south side of Elm St. and the east side of Lakeview Drive), the area includes 1.12 acres. Other lots to the south will not be able to subdivide because they do not have the street frontage for additional lots. Therefore, the overall density of the neighborhood will not change significantly. Currently, there are 42 lots in the 40 acres between Elm St., Sunrise Drive, Fairmont Drive, and Sunset Road. This is 1.05 units /acre. Adding two lots will result in 1.10 units /acre. The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site residential Low Density Sewered Residential R -1 North residential Medium Density Sewered Resid. R -4 PDO South residential Low Density Sewered Residential R -1 East residential Low Density Sewered Residential R -1 West residential Low Density Sewered Residential R -1 Growth Management, MUSA Reserve and UnitslYear: No additional MUSA is necessary for this proposal. The May 2003 comprehensive plan amendment acquired additional MUSA for the Elm St. properties, which avoided the need to withdraw from the MUSA "bank" established in 2002. The two new units would fit within the policy of 147 per year and so could be final platted in 2003. The table below shows the status of the staging plans for new residential units. LOTS /UNITS Development Name and Phases Prelim Plat Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be final platted) year end 20021 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Stoneybrook 2nd Addn 103 51 52 Century Farm North 249 56 65 52 43 33 Ravens Hollow 56 56 Haley Manor 10 Crystal Cove 3 3 Bruggeman 152 22 47 51 32 minor subdivision lots 1 Lakeview Estates 2 new 2 total 51 146 168 103 75 33 remaining of 147 exceeds target of 147 by percent -21 21 14% 44 72 114 • Lakeview Estates page 3 Preliminary Plat Lots, Variances: As proposed, the lots will be 124+ feet in depth. The minimum lot depth in an R -1 zone is 135 feet. The lot widths exceed the 80 ft. minimum requirement, and the lot areas exceed the minimum of 10,800 sf. Because of the size of the existing property, it is impossible to meet the 135' depth if new lots are to be created. In considering a request for a variance, the following findings should be applicable: a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The existing home is on an individual septic system. The City has no record that the original system installed in the 1950s has ever been replaced. Sewer and water are available in Elm St. It is in the public interest to connect existing homes on old septic systems to city sewer whenever feasible. The site is in the MUSA, it is in a Stage 1 growth area, public sewer service is available, and the public sewer is a better option for public health and welfare. The costs of the utilities are very high for a property the size of the existing lot. Additional lots contribute to supporting the costs of the new utilities. It is unreasonable to mandate that the homeowner spend the money to install a new drainfield when public utilities are available. The property size is a physical circumstance that exists since the area was initially platted in 1949. The option of subdividing is available to other properties with road frontage. The site is zoned R -1 and the purpose statement for the R -1 zone states that the zone is "intended for development of single family detached homes on lots served with public sewer and water." Streets and Driveways: No additional roads are being proposed. The existing road system can accommodate the traffic generated by the two new homes. Two driveway issues are worth noting. First, the existing driveway and garage for Lot 1 will be removed. The new lot line will run through it. It is possible that a shared driveway would be a workable option. If a shared driveway is not utilized, a new driveway must be built for Lot 1 that meets the setback requirements. Lakeview Estates page 4 Second, the driveway for Lot 3 should be located as far west as possible to avoid conflict with Willow Pond Trail. Park Dedication: The subdivision ordinance includes park dedication requirements. Park dedication is $1665 per residential unit, less any land dedication. There is no land dedication needed. The park dedication will be $1665 x 2 new home lots = $3330. Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water are available as part of the reconstruction project in Elm St. Stubs have been installed in anticipation of the creation of the two new lots. Grading and Stormwater Management: The properties will drain to the newly constructed stormwater sewer facilities in Elm St.. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Approval of the project should include the following conditions: 1. All three lots in the plat must connect to City water and sanitary sewer. • 2. The existing well shall be capped if required by Minnesota Dept. of Health requirements. 3. To minimize conflicts with existing street intersections, the driveway on Lot 3 shall be as far west as possible. 4. If a shared driveway option is not utilized, a new driveway must be built for Lot 1 that meets the setback requirements. 5. Park dedication of $3330 shall be paid. OPTIONS. 1. Approve the preliminary plat, with the lot depth variances. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 This review is based on the following plans and information: Preliminary Plat and Grading Plan, July 31, 2003, received August 13 • • City Council May 27, 2003 Elm Street Comp Plan Amendment 11 -111LI --1111111111111111 L1,4:c2,10. - , 4, r cv, ;1.70-,41, • • City Council May 27, 2003 Elm Street Comp Plan Amendment • • City Council May 27, 2003 Elm Street Comp Plan Amendment Iii°'"• Pi!1 !H! U►t� City Council May 27, 2003 Elm Street Comp Plan Amendment 7 Land Use Change co .c c as 92 ai cod c cn c CO CO 02 03 6 g < < CI) co 2 3 5 MUSA Allocation E -a t C�) .o E <0 o 67. > cp tx E4.6 o -a o w f fl [TT 71« Affillemra Prepared May 9, 2003 • z 0 z2w0 -u U r m Of 1� '111111181 � © ©� IMaooddlHM 0® �, Q ® ® e 3 -wow c_© neeenomit WHIM iioo 7© AO Du s 4130 > 10�.� � _ HM 0 K - J ^ O U O © � Z.X U� b o-• U n k a � �� A00 N N •„ , �y o��av�Ra��p z 4 n N n:oD I© 3 EICCENEIDS Q 3N 1 M3IAN319 iy ON003S 1 M ` • 0 0 13 H3141V N. 13 MOOV3W v ©_ HVS- "41 1111111111111 MIR \ m W m c 0 m m n a n m - m co 0 0 z D__ 0 o ti 0 D - N n y n i0 — - — 0/013 — - - m m 0 0 3AIa0 m r- m N n W z 0 0 3 AI?IQ mim n — — — 13sNn • MI on NO sell PE ,•:•-f*` 7200 Ho Aptragg nEl Mr.,'"1!-TrACI.44 EVaillt. &titan hia: Eggs rarilin— mum MEE REF I time. rim pal a * 12111111 IMMO litiardltalitlt prinxiliam Ins ariv11112221ME 'Itiii MCI nis airibrOmn - ii,E6,--a 15E,1=2. MEMIZE OW -7-1Pannemanatun in IMRE ;;;;;PSZLIVEN Irj,. NUMMI roffillirin:likiemer- in- s In" Irmnrer , H ' will imam Ir" norirAiza ralINICIU111 InIgli um. CITVIr t raript,:: Irinuanliime. :MEN NM= MEN ra now ILMIEN =En E Mkt MEI mei WINER ME II BIM Mktv.111‘17' OMER Int= n smi v. ei , . LIMES EN= n gi 00, '441,\. ., KIM MIEN Fai r 4,14\44,40 11111.111 ICBM c .. n ri 414 KW KW V MEE MEE OMEN MEM al al RN MIA Ell mum NKr- 1111111111i FiriNt 7100 1 7000 1 6900 6800 t7. 0444/4 AIWA RICE LAKE 6700 • 6600 1.04K! v i !UJ ESTATES LIMINARY PLAT AND GRADING PLAN r 7 Owner: Gerald Schultz 7180 Lakeview Drive Lino Lakes MN, 55014 Home: 651 -780 -3342 SEWO EXISTING HOUSE TOP ■911.0 i i i s :▪ � CA. i i 1/1/ t 1 lni f/ iiIr.. . > 8 FT. BIT TRAIL -," SEWO EXISTING HOUSE TOP -911.2 ' — 11 1-- 1 m is., ; I && L- II L. -NI L- EXISTING 8' SANITARY SEWER (NV. 893±)1 t7f NG- 8' W SEWO EXISTING HOUSE TOP =911.2 > ,11 S. /1 INV. 893.27 L .: EXISTING STORM SEWER C.S.A.H. NO. 12 'REST • kr ea. XT51it1 eITuuINous <.:: 61? —1 z / o N 1/2' IP 0 r '111'AXLE 5EUMP 94.85 Tp ▪ BE REMO WELL g w°��w 49,9 • LL! . W J. b° 11,864 sq.'f#. 10 „,V° 2 ^ w 1 10,848 sq. ft: < vl Inc- o 0 pp�� O 22 "MAPLE - sow y I i 10" 1!' BLOCK � 7' PIN n 12" PINE' 37.00 AND,UT1UTY EASEMENT (— \t1�a5- - - -- -15 15" PINE 0 1/2' IP 51 Cy. E iri x ( 910.4 N. - �mww 3 10,849 sq. ft. o> 1 J5 95.50 wo^h au� a, INC. LAND 9180 LEXINGTON 4vE. NE CIRCLE PINES, MN 55014 Tta. ('163) 186-8036 MAX. (163)186 -600'1 EXISTING HOUSE 000.00 • / _ 269.50 N89°10'51 "E LEGEND OAA 1 U L Fw 87.00 + ° x 912.3 Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Overhead Wire 'c.1 Denotes Utility Pole Denotes Guy Pole Q Denotes sanitary manhole • Denotes Iron Monument Found A Denotes Traverse Station — X— X— X— Denotes Fence Denotes tree as labeled .• exsting contour �� ^J Denotes proposed contour also Denotes proposed elevation Denotes direction of drainage 1.1 30 ow?. b° c a. 0 0 s a2� PINCH IP 15 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 1, LEXINGTON PARK LAKE ViEW, Anoka County, Minnesota. '- GRAPHIC SCALE 30 80 VIEW FROM LAKEVIEW DR NOTES 1--J — N. G. V.D. Vertical Datum o' — Bearing's shown are on assum • datum. — Total Area = 33,562 sq.ft. (0.77 acres) — No title work furnished to the surveyor. Survey subject to revision upon receipt of title work — Existing zoning is R1 single family residential Building setbacks per R1 Front 30 feet (Collector Street 40 feet) Principle Bldg Side 10 feet (Acceossory Bldg 5 feet) Rear 30 feet ( Accesory Bldg 5 feet) — Minimum Lot size 10,800 sq.ft. buildable land — Minimum lot width 80 feet ( corner lots 100 feet) — Minimum lot depth 135 feet ( corner lots 145 feet) Existing and proposed utilities on Elm Street from plans by TKDA DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN 111US: 5 L IGJ BEING 5 FEET 1N W10T11 AND ADJOINING SIDE LOT LINES AND 10 FEET IN MOTH AND ADJOINING STREET LINES AND REAR LOT LINE5. UNLESS OTNERWISE SNOW, ON 11115 PLAT. 1 hereby certify that this survey. plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State . , lnnesota. 120 ud e: 7 -3 /' d-; Nig. No. 41578 ( iN FEET ) 1 inch = 30 ft. 032351S H:103pro11032351s103235pre.dwg, 07/30/2003 03:01:30 PM, PLOT BY BETH, • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: AGENDA ITEM 5B Tanda Gretz October 8, 2003 Variances for property located at 6262 Otter Lake Road, to allow: 1.) A detached garage closer to the front lot line than the required 40' street setback, and 2.) a detached garage closer to the road than the principle structure Joseph Kivel ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Mr. Joe Kivel owns property located at 6262 Otter Lake Road. The property contains an existing older home (which is set back from the property line approximately 35 feet), but no garage. The garage that used to belong to the home (and which is sited within the right -of -way for Otter Lake Road) now exists on the property to the north (6266 Otter Lake Road), which was split off from what is now the Kivel property in a minor subdivision that was done back in 1979. Mr. Kivel would now like to construct a detached garage on his property, and is asking for a variance from street setback requirements in order to do so. This report is based on the following exhibits: 1.) General Location Map 2.) Correspondence from Anoka County to Mr. Kivel, dated April 20, 2001 3.) Correspondence from Director of Public Safety, Rick DeGardner 4.) Mr. Kivel's Narrative 5.) Certificate of Survey Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2003 Kivel Variance ANALYSIS Land Use & Zoning The following chart describes the land use and zoning for the subject site, as well as surrounding properties. Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural Executive (R -X) West Low Density, Sewered Residential (across 35E) Rural Executive (across 35E) North Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural Executive (R -X) East Otter Lake Otter Lake South Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural Executive (R -X) Site Configuration There has been a new driveway poured on the site, as well as what could be used as a garage pad. The driveway exists in County right -of -way, with the slab area existing where the applicant's survey notes the proposed garage to be located. The key factor on this site is keep in mind what is actually road right -of -way area, and what is private property. Setbacks The proposed garage is to be sited less than a foot from the front property line of the applicant's property. The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance directs that there should be a 40- foot street setback for Otter Lake Road, which is classed as a Major Collector under the Lino Lakes Transportation Plan. Thus, there is a 40 -foot difference between what the applicant is proposing and what the zoning ordinance directs. The applicant is requesting a variance from the required street setback — (as well as a variance from the requirement that accessory structures not be sited closer to the street than the principle structure) — based on the following physical constraints /impediments: a holding tank, a drainfield, and topography which drops on the southern portion of the lot. All three of these constraints constitute legitimate hardships in terms of variance criteria, as they prohibit the applicant from complying with what the ordinance requires in terms of where a garage should be located. 2 • • Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2003 Kivel Variance Accessory Building Requirements The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 3, subd. 4.D.8.f) directs that the subject property is allowed up to 1,200 sq.ft. of accessory building footage. The number of accessory buildings is limited to either two detached accessory structures OR one detached and one attached structure. The proposed garage would meet these requirements. The Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 5, subd. 2.C.3) further states that all dwellings located in the R -X District shall have a double garage. Otter Lake Road Right -of -Way Otter Lake Road (CSAH No. 84) is a County Road, and classed as a major collector under the Lino Lakes Transportation Plan. The County reports it currently has 50 feet of right -of -way from centerline, but will require an additional 10 feet of right -of -way for future road improvements, for a total of 60 feet of right -of -way from centerline (NOTE: the Kivel survey shows 55.5 feet of existing of right -of -way; this survey is not an official Certificate of Survey, and bears no signature that it was prepared by a licensed land surveyor). The County's future needs are detailed in Exhibit #2. This ten -foot increase in right -of -way would extend into the area proposed for the garage. Thus, the variance would likely increase public costs for future road improvements, as the County would be in the position of not only buying the needed additional right -of -way, but also paying the costs associated with the loss and demolition of the garage. Additionally, the Lino Lakes Park & Trail plan shows a future trail to be located along Otter Lake Road. Public Safety Director Rick DeGardner states that any such future trail should be adequately accomodated within the 60 feet right -of -way that the County requires (Exhibit #3). Anoka County Right -of -Way Acquisitions staff person Mike Kelly, however, counsels that Anoka County — in light of budget cuts — is currently reviewing how it administers its right -of -way and urged Lino Lakes to consider its own right -of -way needs for paths /trails in situations such as the subject application, rather than fully relying on the County. Conclusion There is definitely hardship demonstrated in the form of the location of the holding tank and drain field, the locations of which are precluding a garage from being sited in areas which would satisfy zoning ordinance requirements. However, in spite of this demonstration of hardship, there are further right -of -way constraints acting on the property that preclude siting a garage in the location proposed. Most notably, the area to be used for the proposed garage is the very area that will be needed for road right -of -way. Thus, approval of the variance would result in increasing public costs for future road improvements: the County will not only have to pay for the • • Planning & Zoning Board October 8, 2003 Kivel Variance additional 10 feet of right -of -way, but will also pay the applicant for the loss of the garage, and the further costs of demolishing /moving the garage. The applicant's request to site a garage with NO setback distance from the existing road right -of -way — and actually within the needed future right -of -way area — thus does not seem workable. As a result, staff would recommend denial of the variance, as it: 1.) Will effectively increase public costs for future road improvement projects, as Anoka County has stated Otter Lake Road improvements will require 60 feet of right -of -way. 2.) It places accessory structures too close to the road right -of -way, as it offers absolutely no setback from a major collector roadway. OPTIONS 1.) Recommend denial of the proposed variance. 2.) Recommend approval of the proposed variance. 3.) Return to Staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #1 'ERVILLE LAKES - BIRCH- STREET EXHIBIT # / 1/ .4--y my m�s©AM IL ®=05 Ail iOri 23 Innt tie 21 %p °av °7„,Om C''. 0.0 la 0 OA d CI 0 7 L£IS I6A1 re 1920 RWATER • 21 • • 14 O� W OA" U • Wpb, • • '¢ r� o FR 3 OUTLOT A d# k Joe Kivel 1648 Concordia Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 Mr. Kivel, COUNTY OF EXHIBIT # Z Public Services Division HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ' 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD. N.W., ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 -4005 (763) 862 -4200 FAX (763) 862 -4201 April 20, 2001 We have reviewed your request for a residential access to the property at 6262 Otter Lake Road (CR 84) in the City of Lino Lakes and offer the following comments: ♦ It is our understanding that access to this property is presently being made via an access easement/agreement across the adjacent property directly to the north. Additionally, we understand that this ingress /egress access agreement will expire on July 31, 2001. Consequently, direct access to CR 84 (Otter Lake Road) from your property will be necessary at that time. ♦ A driveway onto CR 84 from the property at 6262 Otter Lake Road will be permitted provided it is located within thirty feet of the north property line. ♦ There is currently fifty feet of Right of Way east of centerline on CR 84 (Otter Lake Road). An additional 10 feet (for a total of 60 feet east of centerline) will be required for future reconstruction of CR 84 (Otter Lake Road). Therefore, city requirements for building set backs should be based on a future Right of Way width of sixty feet east of centerline. • An Anoka County Highway Department Residential Access Permit will be required and shall be obtained prior to any construction activity with Anoka County Right of Way. There is a $60.00 processing fee for residential access permits. • Anoka County Highway Department will determine any culvert requirements for a driveway at this location. If a culvert is required it must meet our specifications for length, diameter, and end treatments. Thank you for the opportunity to review this property for a residential driveway. If you have any questions regarding these comments or the permit process please feel free to contact me at (763) 862 -4216. Sincerely, i'v4 Roger Butler Traffic Engineering Coordinator xc: _ City:of Lino Lakes, Planning Department =• • Josie Scott, Permit Technician' '' ACHD Driveway File, CR 84 Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer Tanda Gretz *From: Rick Degardner Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 1:22 PM To: Tanda Gretz Subject: RE: Paths /Sidewalks for Otter Lake Road? EXHIBIT # 3 Any future trails along Otter Lake Road will occur within the County's right -of -way. Therefore, the County's position to acquire a total of 60 feet east of the centerline is adequate from a future trails standpoint. Rick Original Message From: Tanda Gretz Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 12:17 PM To: Rick Degardner Subject: Paths /Sidewalks for Otter Lake Road? Rick - am working with two residents along Otter Lake Road who are exploring variances for detached garages, to be located quite close to Otter Lake Road. My understanding from Anoka County is that the County currently has 50 feet of right of way (east of centerline), but they are looking to acquire 60 feet. My question for you: would the City be looking to get additional right of way on the east side of Otter Lake Road for the construction of a sidewalk or pathway at some point in the future? Thanks! -Tanda • • 1 EXHIBIT # CITY OF LINO LAKES PT EASE ACCEPT THIS LETTER AS EXPT TNATION FOR MY NEED FOR, VARIANCE TO BUILD A GARAGE LOCATED AT 6262 OTTER LAKE ROAD. THE HOUSE IS LOCATED ON THE THE N.W. CORNER OF THE LOT NEXT TO THE NIEGHBORS PROPERTY LINE LOCATED JUST NORTH OF THE HOUSE AND THE SEPTIC SYSTEM (MOUND SEPTIC SYSTEM) IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME ..ACCORDING TO THE SOIL TESTS AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS (CITY HAS THESE DOCUMENTS ON FILE),THIS IS THE ONLY SPOT THE MOUND SYSTEM COULD BE LOCATED. THESE TWO REASONS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE '1'0 BUILD A GARAGE ON THE SIDE OF OR TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPOSED GARAGE WOULD BE AT LEAST 45' FROM OTTER LAKE ROAD AND BUILT WITH ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS TO LINO LAKES CITY CODES. I CAN BL 1\LACI IED AT WORK 651-702-957`31-1-651-999-0421 IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. T r1:iNK -YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. IncEPI -! KIYEL 6262 OTTER LAKE ROAD LINO LAKES MN 55110 • o 0 i N 93, •o cb AD ti ss 02� HOLDING TANK Trn EXHIBIT # 5 MELCHERT WALKKY landscape architecture civil engineering land surveying 749 HIGHWAY 12 HUDSON. WISCONSIN 54018 Plac as (715) 386 -7736 Fax (715) 386 -7889 II= II= II= u =iI= ii= ii ='ii= u- u= II= =tl- =11-=11 _II- =11 =If =I1 =II _II =I! =I1 �OJ TRACT GRAPHIC SCALE 0 15 30 60 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 30 ft. S60'39' 00" E 37.00' OTTER LAKE JOE KIVEL PROPERTY 6262 OTTER LK LINO LAKES, MN PROPOSED SITE PLAN Scale 1'=30• Date 08 -29 -03 Project Number 22083 Drawn By EPIC Checked By MIT C3 A • • • AGENDA ITEM VI A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: October 8, 2003 TOPIC: Discussion: Banners and Temporary Signs BACKGROUND As discussed at the June meeting, many businesses use banners and other types of temporary signs and we have seen an increase in these signs of late in Lino Lakes. Staff is seeking direction from the P & Z on how to address the issue. The goal tonight is for the P & Z to recommend some specific requirements. Staff will take those recommendations and prepare an ordinance for a public hearing at the August meeting. (It will be an amendment of the sign ordinance.) The following matrix is presented to help with the discussion. Each row presents some options for an issue. Each "option" column is not intended to form a related set of requirements —we can mix up options from the different columns, or create new ones. ISSUE OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE 32 SQ. FT. MUST CONFORM TO, OR BE INCLUDED IN, EXISTING LIMITS FOR BUSINESS (OR INSTITUTIONAL) SIGNAGE NO LIMIT/RESTRICTI ON ALLOWABLE LOCATION ONLY ATTACHED TO BUILDING ONLY ATTACHED TO A "PERMANENT" STRUCTURE NO LIMIT/RESTRICTI ON ALLOWABLE TIME LIMIT NO LIMIT/RESTRICTI ON MUST MEET EXISTING LIMITS FOR PORTABLE SIGNS * 1 MONTH DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY SIGNAGE ANYTHING NOT "PERMANENTLY AFFIXED" TO THE BUILDING OR GROUND ANYTHING NOT QUALIFYING AS A WALL, GROUND, OR PYLON SIGN ALLOWABLE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE NO RESTRICTIONS • * The sign ordinance (Ord. 12 -97) includes the following: Portable Sign: A sign designed to be movable from one location to another. Portable signs shall be used a maximum of four (4) times a year for a total of fifteen (15) days per time. Portable signs shall be limited to special events or promotion. A sign permit fee may be established by the City Council that will reflect the cost of administration of this permit. The current fee for a temporary /portable sign is $25 for a 15 -day term. • • • • • Memorandum To: Jeff Smyser From: Mary Divine Date: 9/4/03 Re: EDAC discussion of banner ordinance cc: At its September 4, 2003 meeting, EDAC members reviewed the materials and matrix you developed regarding the temporary sign and banner issues. They did not make any specific recommendations, but the following is a summary of their comments: • Businesses should be allowed to hang banners on the face of their buildings, as long as it does not exceed the maximum allowable signage area under the sign ordinance. • Temporary sign/banner permits should not be required because it would be difficult to enforce. If temporary permits are required, it should be for at least a month. • Banners should only be attached to the building face. They should not be affixed to posts in the ground, or attached to light poles or other objects. • Temporary signs should not jeopardize public safety by blocking visibility at intersections. • '41 A • • • AGENDA ITEM VI. B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: October 8, 2003 TOPIC: Discussion: Temporary Fabric Structures BACKGROUND As discussed at the June meeting, a number of residents are constructing temporary fabric structures, primarily for storage of vehicles. This is a relatively new product that typically consists of aluminum poles with plastic fabric stretched over the poles. The P & Z indicated it wants to pursue adding language to the zoning ordinance to address this type of structure. The goal tonight is for the P & Z to recommend some specific requirements. Staff will take those recommendations and prepare an ordinance for a public hearing at the October meeting. (It will be an amendment of the zoning ordinance.) The following matrix is presented to help with the discussion. Each row presents some options for an issue. Each "option" column is not intended to form a related set of requirements —we can mix up options from the different columns, or create new ones. • • ISSUE OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 Allow them in what zones? All zones Rural zone only Properties of a particular size or zone only (similar to pole buildings) Class them as accessory structures or not? If yes, then all applicable existing regulations apply (setback, size, placement, etc.) If no, then must create a classification for them Specify them as temporary or permanent structures? Existing ordinance makes no distinction between permanent or temporary accessory structures Create a classification for "temporary structures" What setbacks to require? If classed as an accessory building, apply existing requirements If classed as a "temporary structures," create new requirements What yard placement to allow? If classed as an accessory building, existing zoning says it "cannot be closer to front lot line than principle structure or its attached garage" (p.3 -15) If classed as a temporary structure, create new requirements How many to allow? If classed as an accessory building, must conform to existing requirements If classed as a temporary structure, create new requirements What size to allow? If classed as an accessory building, must conform to existing requirements If classed as a temporary structure, create new requirements