Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/11/2000 P&Z Minutes• • Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES cha ity Planer Smyser, City En^�� ° °„ IPts eliCe conomic Deveiop nent.Assi t Divine' I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Acting Chair Lane called the Lino Lakes P 6:30 p.m., October 11, 2000. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — S Mr. Johnson made a MOTI meeting of the Lino Lake Corson. Motion carri ning Board meeting to order at p . the minutes of the September 13, 2000, g and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. r. Schilling abstaining. Mr. Rafferty arri • III. APPROVAL OF A NDA The agenda was approved. IV. OPEN MIKE Acting Chair Lane declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:33 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. Nancy Anderson, 352 Carl Street, Variance Staff advised this case involves a request for a Variance from the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, Subd. 4.D. Accessory Buildings and Structures, 1. General Provision. c. No detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line then the principal buildings or its attached garage. Ms. Anderson has an existing home w /attached garage at 352 Carl Street. The property is Zoned Rural and located within the Lino Air Park. There are 23 lots within the Air Park. Four (4) have hangers in front of the dwelling (one of these four is not constructed yet but a Variance was granted in May of 2000), one has an attached hanger, eight (8) have hangers on the side or behind the principal building, eight (8) have no hanger, and three (3) lots remain undeveloped. Staff reviewed the findings of fact the City must consid nce requests. Staff advised the proposed hanger will be located approxi om the front property line and 5.5' from the side property line. The exist 3� h� ' garage is approximately 190' from the front property line. The Ordina es 0' front and 5' side setback requirement. Staff has received a letter fro g property owners indicating no objection to the proposed hanger location taf �s also received comments from the Air Park Association indicating this prop. • att• is optimum for several reasons outlined in their letter. The main c' •E ti. y3s the 7/1- transition airspace required from the runway, which could n • i ., • if the structure were located behind the home as required by the Ord ' is reason staff believes there is a hardship and would recommend approv, • ariance request. For P & Z and Counci would allow acce the Rural Zoning Ordinance is update ation, staff is considering an Ordinance Amendment that res to be constructed in front of the principal structure in owever, this proposal will not be initiated until the Zoning ome time next year. Mr. Johnson asked for clarification regarding the proposed residence and what is west of the residence. Staff referred to a map noting the survey was done awhile back. There is an existing residence. Staff advised it is unclear as to what the lines west of the house area. Mrs. Anderson, applicant, stated the survey was done prior to building the house. The lines west of the house are measurements of lot lines. The lines were not intended to be a hanger. Mr. Johnson inquired where the aircraft will go after coming out of the hanger. Mrs. Anderson advised there will be a door and referred to its location on the map. She indicated she is unsure if the area will be grass. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Corson stated there are houses out there that do not meet the 7/1 requirement. He asked if this is going to continue to be an issue. Staff advised the City assumes that one of the covenants would include a review by the Air Park. Staff stated it is assumed that the Air Park reviewed this issue before the houses were built. Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification regarding the 7/1 requirement of the Air Park. Staff advised the 7/1 requirement is a FAA requirement that applies to certain slopes at different parts of the runway. Mr. Rafferty stated that on the Thomas Street side there are hangers that go up to the houses. He expressed concern regarding the City having ordinances in place and creating variances for the homes there. The City needs to address these issues up front. He stated it may be time to review the current ordinance. Staff advised the City will be reviewing the ordinance next y �: suggested the Board approve the variance with the added condition that the 7/1- `sitio .'r space be verified. Mr. Rafferty inquired about guidelines the City may s •1 =regarding hanger structures. Mrs. Anderson advised the hanger will be /��� ��ti ch the house. Mr. Schilling inquired about how ofte requirements. Staff advised there issue. FAA and State Law appl Board and inform Board me s updated regarding FAA e City ordinances that addresses this e to have a consultant come before the ng this issue. Mr. Schilling stated th re <: a two -story structure that is closer to the airstrip than the hanger. He stated 1 d be .eneficial for the Board to learn more about FAA regulations. Mr. Rafferty asked at the City would do if there is a conflict with the 7/1 requirement. Staff advised they wi verify the 7 /1- transition air space. If the hanger can go in between the house and runway, staff will not recommend approval. Mr. Rafferty stated the City has guidelines in place that it needs to follow. There are other hardships that at times need to be considered. He stated he wants to make sure the City is doing the right thing with adjusting variances. The City needs to look at hardships when the house is going in. The City can do a better job of addressing these issues ahead of time. Staff advised a lot of the houses were already built before the ordinance was revised. Acting Chair Lane stated she would like information regarding how long the 7/1 requirement has been in effect with the FAA. She stated that she assumes other houses were grandfathered in. Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 4 Staff advised it is a good idea to ask a Lino Air Park representative to come before the Board and address these issues. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the Variance Request contingent upon verification that the existing location of the hanger is outside the FAA 7/1 slope requirements for runways. The motion supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. This item will appear on the October 23, 2000, Council meeting agenda. B. Mueller -Beis Funeral Home, 7050 Lake Drive, Site Plan Review and Minor Subdivision Staff presented their analysis of the site plan review for the Mueller -Beis Funeral Home, 7050 Lake Drive. Staff advised the Environmental Board reviewed the project on September 27, 2000 and recommended approval of the proje f referred to a copy of their comments. One of the Board's concerns related to th el on Rice Lake. For P & Z and Council information, the proposed co t ' . n ets the setback requirement from the OHW according to the City's rdinance. The DNR has reviewed the plans and expressed no addition. c. ' s the proposed development. The RCWD tabled the site plan review at t eeting with authorization for administrative action (this is an approval itions). Staff advised the property in quest proposed to be split into two p size and Parcel B will be 3.1 Anoka County. The Zoning Ordinance Business Zoning exceed the Ordin e unplatted parcel of land that is , the Mueller -Beis site, will be 4.5 acres in — less right -of -way dedication required by es a minimum lot area of 20,000 -sq. ft. for the General a minimum frontage of 100'. Both proposed parcels ements. Parcel A is 500' in length and Parcel B is 446.5. Staff recommended approval of the Minor Subdivision with the dedication of 20 additional feet of right -of -way to Anoka County for the reconstruction of Lake Drive. A revised survey will be required prior to Council review indicating this land dedication, not easement dedication as indicated on the current site plan. Staff reviewed recommended conditions of approval of the minor subdivision and site plan review. Staff noted the applicant would like this item to appear on the October 23, 2000, regular Council agenda. Staff advised the City will not have time to review the revised plans. Therefore, the Council will review this item at the November 13, 2000, regular Council meeting. • • Acting Chair Lane stated Parcel A is the site for the funeral home. She asked what Parcel • B will be used for. Staff advised the use for that site is unknown at this time. Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 5 110 Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification regarding the location of the parcels. Staff referred to a map indicating each parcel. Mr. Rafferty asked how the development works with the current Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Staff advised the area is currently guided for commercial but is zoned general business. There are some places in the City that the current Comprehensive Plan does not match up with the zoning map. Those areas need to be reviewed and cleared up. Mr. Rafferty stated the plan is a good plan. He expressed concern regarding the City making errors in spot development. There are townhomes, the Air Park, and a lot of residential in this area. He stated he is uncomfortable with the location of the building. He noted the area north of Elm is all commercial. Mr. Johnson stated the site backs up to Outlot B that is part o <� a Plane. He asked what effect this development may have on the developmen �� "� ot. Staff advised the outlot contains drainage and utility easements. Mr. Johnson clarified that a portion of Outlot B is happen to the remainder if it is ever developed. down that area. The property cannot be de . He asked what will vis part of the runway goes • The City Engineer added he also beli cannot be developed. Mr. Johnson asked if the 7/1 st ue in this case. He noted the building is fairly tall. The City Engineer adv. 's commonly used for take off and landing. The land is not adjacent to this b Mr. Schilling aske one will be living in the building on the second floor. Mr. Craig Miller, repTsentative for Muller -Beis Funeral Home, came forward and stated in the course of this type of business, it is common to have an apprentice that lives on site. The apartment will be utilized for a person in training. Mr. Corson stated the primary concern is health and safety of the runway. He asked if the building will be on the side of the taxiway going uphill. Mr. Miller advised the owners are comfortable with the location. An extensive land search was done. He asked how much time is needed for the City to review a shared driveway agreement. The City Engineer advised conditions of approval include revisions of several plans. The report would have to be completed by next Wednesday to appear on the October 23, 2000 Council agenda. There is not enough time to review all the revisions. Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Miller stated the owners are trying to get ahead of the winter weather that may delay construction. Acting Chair Lane advised this item will not go before Council until the November 13, 2000, meeting. Mr. Zych asked for clarification regarding the approval of the RCWD and the conditions of approval. The City Engineer explained the process used by the RCWD when approving a request with authorization for administrative action. Staff advised this practice is commonly used by the RCWD. The City Planner requested the following phrase be added to condition #6: and to provide sanitary sewer service to Parcel B. Staff advised the phrase will make it clear that sewer service will be provided for that parcel also. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve minor subdivisi • d s plan review, based on the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits are obtained and in scrow deposit to insure completion of site improvements. 2. The revised landscaping plan shall nal screening along Lake Drive and is subject to review and appro 1 by y staff. This plan shall be submitted and obtain the approval of the ental Specialists prior to City Council review. 3. Park Dedication shall be he City's Subdivision Ordinance. 4. An additional 20 feet ay shall be dedicated to Anoka County by Deed, prior to issu y Building Permits. 5. A revised sury indicating the right -of -way dedication, shall be provided prior ncil review. 6. Engineers an all be revised as indicated in the Engineer's report dated October 5, to provide sanitary sewer service to Parcel B. 7. All lighting ° 11 be directed downward and produce no glare on the roadway. 8. Approval of t e site plan is not an implied approval of signage. An signs require a sign permit and must comply with the City's Sign Ordinance. 9. A shared driveway agreement shall be provided for the entrance drive. 10. Access permits shall be obtained from Anoka County Highway Department prior to construction on the site. A revised plan with a shared driveway will be submitted along with a shared driveway agreement. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -1 with Mr. Rafferty voting no. C. North American Composites Co., (Inter- Plastic) 300 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review & Minor Subdivision Staff advised the application includes a minor subdivision and a site and building plan review. North American Composites Company proposes to construct a new distribution • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 7 facility on the site. The company will also conduct repackaging of the product into different size containers on site as well as distribution. The product is polyester resins, fiberglass, and related products. Staff presented their analysis of the site and building plan review. Staff advised the Environmental Board reviewed the project on September 27, 2000. Recommendations included attention to infiltration in stormwater design, use of native species in the landscaping plan, assurance that lighting will be directed downward, and attention to soil compaction when possible. Infiltration will be designed in to the extent possible. Native seeds are included. Lighting will be directed downwards. The issues will be addressed with a revised landscaping plan to be reviewed by the Environmental Specialist. Staff recommended approval of the site plan based on conditions listed in the report and adding the following: 10. Park dedication per City policy. 11. Minor subdivision shall be as shown on sub including easements. d description Acting Chair Lane inquired about trash an taff referred to the landscaping plan indicating the trash container. Mr. Johnson referred to elevation. least interesting. The City of Li backs along the freeway. Th He asked if something mo most visual part of the building is the 1 t doing itself a service with the building ng backs give a negative impression of the City. we can be done. Staff advised that is on e issues the City is recognizing more and more. It is always difficult to requir ation when the City does not have standards in place and there are already b % here. In parts of the City, the City will be pushing for more aesthetically pleasm chitecture in the future. Currently the City is trying to address that issue with lands `' ping. Mr. Corson stated the previous application required more park dedication. He inquired about the process used for park dedication. Staff advised park dedication depends on a ratio in the ordinance. There are two different types of commercial dedication based on the ratio of employees to square footage. Mr. Corson advised the City of Woodbury uses a park dedication fee of $3,000 per acre. He asked if the City has looked at what other cities use for park dedication. Staff advised the City is looking at revisions of the current park dedication ordinance. Acting Chair Lane asked if the applicant is comfortable with the two additional conditions of approval. The applicant indicated he is comfortable with the additional conditions. Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 8 Mr. Schilling asked if the applicant is open to some aesthetic issues on the south side of the building. Mr. Ivan Levy, Vice - President of North American Composites, came forward and stated he is open to adding to the building to dress it up. He noted the facility does not sell to the public. Acting Chair Lane asked the applicant to work with staff on the aesthetics of the back building. She directed staff to relay the Board's concerns to the City Council. Mr. Levy stated company engineers have indicated the City of Lino Lakes is a good city to work with. He stated his company only has two competitors, one that is right across the street from this location. Mr. John Johnson, engineer for the project, requested the foll conditions #11: per RCWD requirements and the City En survey will be revised and resubmitted. clarification on ort. He noted the Mr. Johnson inquired about the use of hazardous m Mr. Levy commented on the products that noting one is flammable. Staff advised condition #8 covers fla �s �ials. Mr. Levy stated fire codes requi He stated his company goes much further to protect flammable materi Mr. Rafferty stated he south side of the buildi appreciated. r. Johnson's comments regarding aesthetics on the e stated that anything that can be done will be greatly Mr. Schilling made OTION to approve the site plan based on the following conditions: 1. Lighting fixtures shall be shielded and not direct light up or horizontally. The Lumark Nite -Watch fixture (F -4 on lighting plan) is not acceptable. A substitute shall be submitted for approval before City Council approval of the project. 2. Twenty -nine parking spaces shall be striped. 3. The decorative concrete block on the office portion of the building shall be identified for the building permit application to the satisfaction of the building official. 4. Another landscaping plan must be submitted and obtain the Environmental Specialist's approval before City Council approval. 5. The City Engineer's issues listed in the October 5, 2000 memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. The revisions to the utility and grading plans must be submitted and obtain the City Engineer's approval before City Council approval. • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 9 6. Final utility, grading, and drainage plans must obtain approval from the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. 7. All permits required by the Rice Creek Watershed District shall be obtained prior to any site grading. 8. Proper building permits must be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the construction costs must be put in escrow to insure completion of all site improvements. 9. Site plan approval does not imply approval of signage. Any signage shall conform to the sign ordinance and proper permits obtained. 10. Park dedication applies per City policy. 11. Minor subdivision shall be as shown on submitted sketch and description including easements per RCWD requirements and the City Engineer's report. The motion was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Zych excused himself from the meeting at 7:45 p.m. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Town Center Standards Staff advised the Town Center Committe Li akes citizens recommended special design standards for the Town Center ��* 19' The draft standards prepared by Calthorpe and Associates builds o ee's framework. The standards will put into effect the vision for a Tow as formulated several years ago. The City Council endorsed the drafts ugust 28, 2000. Final approval will include rezoning the land as well ng the zoning ordinance to create a new zoning district and adopt the d tandards for it. As the discussion s u t is clear that confusion still exists over the need for development stan �' �£ =e draft standards include more detail than the City is accustomed to seem w °z The City is accustomed to seeing standards for minimum setbacks and maximum buildi g heights: but maximum setbacks and minimum building heights is a switch. Though many cities have architectural standards regarding building materials, we are not accustomed to this in Lino Lakes. Additional architectural standards are even more disconcerting for some people here. A public hearing will be held for the zoning amendment action, but it has not been scheduled to date. Before the City does that, it is a good idea to revisit the Town Center vision. Mary Divine, the City's Economic Development Assistant, has prepared a presentation to demonstrate the need for the design standards. Ms. Divine presented a slide show relating to traditional neighborhood developments and • the need for design standards. Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 10 Mr. Corson inquired about the Wal -Mart project in the City of Blaine. Staff advised the project includes a Wal -Mart, Home Depot, and Cub. The status of the project is unknown. Mr. Corson asked if there are developers who are ready to go ahead with this when approval is received. Staff advised there are developers who are interested. The City has been seeking developers out. Most cities don't have zoning ordinances that provide for this type of development. Mr. Corson stated he had been to the Metropolitan Council and viewed a list of applicants. He stated the idea of this type of development is catching on. Staff advised there were 46 applicants this year. This type of development is the way cities want to go. Mr. Corson advised staff he will provide them with the publication he received from the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Rafferty inquired about the City's chances of receiv were 46 applicants and 28 made it to the second pha high in the first round. The second round will be v Council wants to show that this type of develo Metropolitan Council has $6.9 million doll Mr. Schilling inquired about updates submitted. Staff advised they hav that will allow more flexibility. Staff advised there f Lino Lakes scored ive. The Metropolitan k in the suburbs. The or funding. e since the original plan was through several concerns and revisions Mr. Rafferty stated staff h very hard on this project. He stated it was disappointing that staf at. chitectural elements. The City Planner • d wer element was eliminated from the requirements, not the need for a visual f significant loss. f advised they do not believe the tower element will be a The Economic Development Assistant advised Board Members will receive revisions to the design standards. The changes will be noted. Acting Chair Lane asked if the City is making the property owners happy with the revisions. Staff advised the property owners have not seen the revisions. The City has not yet seen a development proposal for the whole parcel of land. The property owners want to sell the whole parcel. The City's best effort to date is trying to obtain a proposal for the whole parcel. Mr. Rafferty stated the City has a gold mine here. If the City starts watering things down, the City will be like every other city. The City has guidelines and staff has worked hard. The challenge is to keep the guidelines rigid and sooner or later development will occur. The development won't be done well if the guidelines are not rigid. • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 11 • Staff advised the land value over time will be much greater if this development is successful. • Mr. Johnson stated housing densities have been an issue. The Council is divided regarding this issue. Higher density will bring a greater value to the property and more residents for customers of the businesses. The density number is a crucial one. He encouraged a high number of units per acre to increase the viability of the project. He stated there is also a concern regarding the mix of senior housing and townhomes. Mr. Rafferty stated he feels very comfortable that people who own something will protect it. He expressed concern regarding rental property. Mr. Johnson stated there is a pressing need for rental property in this area. There are a lot of people who work in Lino Lakes that can't afford to buy a home. Employers are concerned about that issue. Mr. Rafferty stated his business doesn't care where he 1. ��� ses care about good employees. Staff advised prospective employers are lookin can live it. The City has committed to cert the apartments would be market rate. Th types of buildings. B. Temporary Fabric Sto nity that their employees ing to a housing mix. Most of tandards will create unconventional Staff advised some Board ► may have seen a few temporary fabric structures around Lino Lakes. T . of a metal pole frame with fabric stretched over it. People are using these + res for inexpensive storage of vehicles or other items. City staff have receiv about these structures regarding placement and size. Most people just put the out contacting the City. In discussions with the Building Official, staff decid'`t would be a good idea to inform the P & Z about how staff is addressing these stru '' ures. These structures are not addressed in the building code. No building permit is required. Staff has some concern about snow loading, but snow likely will slide off the fabric. Citizens who put up such a structure do so at their own risk, however. The placement of the structure and its size are two other issues. Staff will consider these fabric structures as accessory structures. As such, they must: 1) meet setback requirements for the zoning district, and; 2) the maximum accessory building square footage for the lot size will apply. • The aesthetics of these structures may be questioned, but the City has no ordinance to address that. Acting Chair Lane stated a good wind storm will take this type of structure down. Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 12 Mr. Schilling stated that if the City looks at these structures as an exterior storage issue, the City has provisions for screening. Staff advised the City will monitor this issue and determine how flexible the City should be. Mr. Johnson asked if there have been any complaints regarding the structures. Staff advised the City has not received any complaints. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m., and was supported by Schilling. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kim Points, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • •