Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/2001 P&Z Minutes• • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT March 14, 2001 6:30 P.M. 7:54 P.M. Corson, Lane, Lyden, Schaps, and Zych Rafferty and Schilling City Engineer Powell; Economic Development Director Wessel; Cindy Sherman (NAC) I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., March 14, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 13, 2001 Ms. Lane requested the following corrections: Page 2, last paragraph, first sentence, to read "Staff presented its analysis... ". Page 3, first paragraph, third to the last sentence, to read "...that would identify which improvements were necessary... ". Page 4, second to the last paragraph, change Powell Drive to Apollo Drive. Page 5, 4th paragraph, correct spelling for Tom Bacca is Vacca. Page 5, 5th paragraph, to read "Mr. Moss stated he had a vested interest in this... ". Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the February 13, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0 -2 (Lyden and Zych). III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. Brian Wessel, Economic Development, stated he was available to give an overview as to why there was a delay on the Ryan Companies US, Inc. issue. • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:34 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Rick Boschee, 1205 Peregrine Circle, Variance from Setback Requirement. Staff presented the application by explaining the applicant had applied for a variance from a setback requirement for a lot in Peregrine Pass. Mr. Boschee was a builder who prepared a plan for a house on Lot 8. The plan does not fit within the setbacks, which was the reason for the variance application. This report was based on the certificate of survey by Metro Land Surveying & Engineering dated February 13, 2001. Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining Peregrine Pass was an unusual development. The developer worked very closely with staff to incorporate many "environmentally friendly" design elements. These resulted in some unique aspects to the development. In many ways, the project was an experiment utilizing several conservation subdivision elements. The site was zoned PDO Planned Development Overlay, and the unique design elements are part of the approved plat. Standards in the zoning ordinance apply if not specifically altered by the approved plat. For example, the conditions of approval for the plat state that the minimum house footprint size is that of the R -1X zone. However, no mention is made of altering building setbacks, so the setbacks in the ordinance apply. Setbacks are identical in both the R -1 and R -1X zones. Setbacks • Street Local Collector or arterial 30 40 • Front Yard 30 • Rear Principal 30 Accessory 5 • Side Principal 10 Accessory 5 Normally, the right of way was the same as the property line. In this case, there was a park trail strip along the side of Lot 8, on 12th Ave. The trail strip was owned by the City, so the property line was the edge of the trail corridor. The side yard setback was measured from that. This poses no conflict with the proposed house plan. • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 3 The standard 40 ft. building setback from a collector street also applied because 12th Avenue was a collector street. The setback from the road, which applies to all buildings, was measured from the edge of the right of way. The trail strip was 15 ft., and the proposed garage was shown 13.5 ft. from that, for a total setback from the road of 28.5 ft. This encroached into the required setback by 11.5 ft. (40 — 28.5 = 11.5). Lot 8 did include some unusual elements. The lot was rather narrow at its front line. As noted, the trail corridor exists along 12th Ave., which reduces the lot width from what it would be without the trail. There was a drainage and utility easement covering a large portion in the northeast corner of the lot. In addition, there was an extra 30 feet covered by a wetland conservation buffer easement, which further reduced the buildable area of the lot. Moving the house toward the back of the lot would leave very little backyard. Mr. Boschee's letter stated that the problem arose due to a larger setback on a corner lot. It would be more accurate to state that the street setback was greater than the side yard setback, which results in a de facto larger setback on a corner lot, though it was not listed as a "corner -lot setback." During the review of the plat in 1999, City staff and the developer discussed the building pads for the lots. The building pad location on Lot 8 of the approved preliminary plat and associated grading plan met the 40 ft. road setback. Nothing had changed between the time of plat approval and the house design. No additional requirements had been added, nor were there any hidden requirements. All easements were recorded with the property and show up on a survey. The house pad location was a standard element of plat approvals. The setback requirements had not changed in the past two years. Staff stated in considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners was due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship was not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested would 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. 5. That the proposed actions would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Though the builder should have known the requirements of the site and designed the house to fit within them, Lot 8 was a relatively difficult lot. • Its shape and the double street setbacks combined with the wetland and extra buffer easements create unusual circumstances. • It was not reticence to spend extra money to avoid the variance, but rather the desire to build a home of a high enough value to fit in with the neighborhood. • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 4 While this was an "economic consideration" of a sort, it was the desire for a higher expenditure rather than a lower one. • The other lots in the development do not have the same combination of constraints. Lot 1, which has several road setbacks, was wider and can accommodate a house within the setbacks. Lot 4 was narrow, but does not have the collector road setback or the extensive wetland easements. • Higher value homes are the reason for the R -1X district compared to the R -1, and the house proposed was in keeping with that goal. For these reasons, staff recommended approval of the variance request. Staff notes that the recommendation on this variance request was based on the unique attributes of Lot 8 and in no way implied support for variances on the other lots in the development. Staff recommended approval of the setback variance to allow the garage to be constructed 28.5 feet from the road right -of -way as indicated on the survey. Chair Schaps asked if there was going to be any other variance requested by Mr. Boschee. Mr. Powell stated there would be no more variance requests. Mr. Lyden asked for an explanation why it was not feasible to move the house back to gain the width they needed. Mr. Powell replied it was due to the triangular shape of the lot; it would move it into a 30' buffer easement in the back of the property if the home was moved back. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Applicant did not have any comments to make. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the setback variance to allow the garage to be constructed 28.5 feet from the road right -of -way as indicated on the survey, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Lyden stated he believed this was a reasonable request. B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Heritage Development, Saddle Club Site, Old Birch Street, Comprehensive Plan Amendment for MUSA, rezoning, Preliminary Plat. Staff presented the application by explaining Heritage Development had submitted an application for comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, and preliminary plat for a portion of an area included in their application for preliminary plat. The property commonly known as the Saddle Club was located south and east of Old Birch Street. The review was based on plans received by the City on February 12, 2001. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the following: • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 5 Land Use and Zoning: The northern 20 acres (approximately) was zoned R -1. The south 20 acres (approximately) was zoned rural. The application was to rezone the entire parcel to R -1. Additionally, the applicant included a comprehensive plan amendment to bring the entire property into the MUSA. The existing and proposed comprehensive plan designated the northern portion of the parcel for low- density residential development. While the entire parcel was proposed to be platted, the wetland portion of the property was 15.34 acres so the area to be added to the MUSA did not have a net impact on the amount of land to be serviced. Nonetheless, the MUSA line would have to be moved to include the southern portion of the site in the MUSA. The amount of upland in the southern portion was about eight acres, which would be the amount of MUSA reserved to be allocated to the site. Greenway: The draft Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for greenways. The intent of the greenway designation was to protect environmentally sensitive areas. This would be accomplished by overlaying a drainage and utility easement in the areas to be protected. Additionally, staff recommended that wetland markers be placed along the perimeter of the delineated wetlands to protect the space. Lot Sizes and Layout: The R -1 District minimum lot size was 10,800 square feet of upland. Lot 13, Block 1 did not meet this standard. All other lots met or exceeded this provision. The minimum lot width was 80 feet at the 30 -foot front yard setback. There were 11 lots that did not meet this provision. The minimum lot depth was 135 feet. All of the lots met or exceeded this provision. Grading: Fill was proposed on the site to create the house pad areas and roadways. Much of the site was proposed to remain undisturbed and would be encumbered by drainage and utility easement. The grading plan was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Existing Structures: All existing structures shall be removed from the site. Transportation: Access to the property was proposed from Old Birch Street. This required right -of -way acquisition from an adjacent parcel. A roadway connection is also proposed to Killdeer Drive. This also required right -of -way acquisition from an adjacent parcel. The adequacy of the access was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Acquisition of right -of -way was the responsibility of the applicant. A feasibility study was underway which would include road access and impacts to the Old Birch St. roadway. This study was scheduled to be received by the City Council on March 12. Utilities: A feasibility study has been completed which examines the best way to provide utility services to the property. This study was received by the City Council on March 12. • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 6 Parks and Trails: There was a trail corridor proposed between Lots 8 and 9, Block 2 and the right -of -way on the northeast corner of the site provides access to the trail corridor platted in the Oaks of Lino. The park dedication for this subdivision primarily would be cash in lieu of land. The amount to be paid would be based upon the rates in effect at the time of final plat. City staff was examining the potential for a trail through the southern portion of the site. This would depend on the wetlands, the cost of the trail, and the potential to provide linkages to and through other properties. The park dedication could possibly include this trail. Wetlands: There were 15.34 acres of wetland on the property. Some fill was proposed to accommodate roadway construction. The proposal was to mitigate the fill adjacent to other wetland areas. The wetland delineation and proposed fill were subject to the review and permitting of Rice Creek Watershed District, which oversees the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). It was the City staff's policy to require preliminary approval (tabled with approval for administration action or TWAFAA) from Rice Creek before the City staff recommended approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Tree Preservation: There were woods identified on the site. No specific inventory was provided and a preservation plan was not submitted. A plan for tree preservation shall be submitted. Staff recommended continuting the public hearing to allow time for additional information as outlined in the planning report. Mr. Corson asked when the additional property acquisition would take place. Mr. Powell replied it would be part of the preliminary plat approval process. Mr. Lyden asked if there had been any discussion of the R -1 versus the R -1 X. He stated the R -1X might be a better fit in the long run. Ms. Sherman stated she had not been a part of any of these types of discussions with the City. She stated that zone was surrounding the area, and it would make sense to continue that type of zoning. Chair Schaps asked if there had been any additional information after the staff report had been prepared and distributed. Mr. Powell stated staff had submitted the feasibility study to the City Council. He reviewed the sanitary sewer, watermain, and street elements of the study with the Board. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Applicant asked if there was any option of the Greenway to the south being available. Mr. Powell stated there had been discussions among staff regarding the trail corridor, but there had been no specific recommendations made to the developer at this time. • Applicant stated his engineers were reviewing the feasibility report. Chair Schaps asked if applicant was confident they were going to be able to acquire the necessary land they would need. Applicant responded he was confident they could. • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 7 Chair Schaps asked if they could address all of the concerns in the staff report. Applicant responded he was confident they could meet those requirements. Applicant stated the homes would be single - family homes. Mr. Lyden expressed concern that this would be a better development if it were R -1X. Applicant stated he did not know what R-1X was. Mr. Powell explained what the R -1X development consisted of. Mr. Lyden strongly encouraged applicant to look at an R -1X development. Marilyn Anderson, 8840 Birch Street, stated she was two lots north of the proposed subdivision. She stated her concern was for the placement of the sewer and water utilities. She did not have a concern regarding the subdivision. She stated the north/south stretch of Birch Street would not receive sewer and water and there were residents that wanted it. She stated they could not get enough signatures for a petition for the sewer and water utilities. She stated her concern was that this would forever leave them without sewer and water. She stated they would like to have service. She asked the Board take into consideration a route that would include them and that would give them access to those utilities, and a reduced assessment cost. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to allow time for additional information as outlined in the planning report, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive, CONTINUE TO 4/11/01. Staff stated at the February 13th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board continued the public hearing related to the proposal by Ryan Companies for a mixed commercial site located north of Lake Drive, adjacent to I -35W. Staff recommended that the hearing be continued until April 11, 2001. Mr. Wessel presented a status of the project since the last meeting. He stated the site plan was changing and therefore, so was the schedule. He stated the problem was that the market did not support the building of the large three pads. He stated the development team had presented the three pads to the market, but could not get any interest in it. Therefore, one option would be to downsize the project to eliminate the three large pads. The other option would be the replacement of the pads and go with a development that was similar as to what they were originally looking at. He stated they could not respond until they receive something official. He indicated they did not expect a proposal until just before the May 2001 Planning & Zoning meeting. He stated more likely they would be breaking ground in the fall rather than in the summer, if this project received approved. • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 8 Chair Schaps asked if there was any update regarding the road. Mr. Powell replied applicant still wanted two accesses to the site. They had prepared an impact study of that second access and how it would function and had submitted it to the County for initial review. He stated the plan would need to be reevaluated with the change of the site plan. Mr. Lyden asked looking at Plan A vs. Plan B economically, was there a more economic advantage to one plan over the other Plan. Mr. Wessel replied the plan with the three larger pads was a larger project and therefore, it would a more economically advantageous project for the City. Mr. Lyden asked if they could allow the Target to be built and wait for the remainder of the development for sometime in the future. Mr. Wessel replied this could be a possibility, but Ryan and Target were committed to having this as one development and completing the whole project. He stated Ryan and Target were not interested in purchasing the land and holding it for future development. John Obrestad, 7738 Carole Drive, stated he was concerned where the two roads were going to be and where it would put the traffic. Mr. Powell replied the access would be off of Lake Drive. There would be no access off of 77th Street with the recent concept plan submitted. Tim Graf, 7757 Carole Drive, asked if there would be streetlights going from the new Target onto Lake Drive. Mr. Powell replied in the Lake Drive corridor there would be lights added once it was developed as warranted. He stated they did not anticipate lights on 77th Street, but there would be gaps in the traffic to allow traffic on 77th Street to get out onto Lake Drive. Mr. Graf asked about a buffer around Target. Mr. Powell stated there would be some type of a buffer, possibly some type of landscaping. Mr. Wessel reminded there was no official plan submitted yet. Deb Graf, 7757 Carole Drive, stated they had three banks and convenience stores within a few blocks and she did not believe they needed more banks. She asked if this was staying with the old town village look. Mr. Wessel replied the question of another bank and convenience store was a decision ultimately to be made by the Council, but the market supported another bank and convenience store. He stated the developer was looking at the architectural aspects of the Target and the developer was aware they needed to give it a "village feel ". There had been an effort made to put together something with the appropriate architectural design. Mr. Lyden stated Ms. Grafs comment about the bank was well taken. He indicated even though the market may absorb the bank, it might not be an asset to the City. • Chair Schaps stated the architectural design they had seen did not look like the typical Target Store. Ms. Graf asked when they submit their final proposal, did Planning and Zoning have the final say. Chair Schaps replied the function of Planning and Zoning was to review the • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 9 plan and make a recommendation to the Council. The Council could either agree or disagree with P &Z's recommendations. The final decision would be up to the Council. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to April 11, 2001 to allow time for additional information to be submitted and reviewed, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Land Hold Group, 12th & Holly, Preliminary Plat, CONTINUED TO 4/11/01. Staff stated at the February 13th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board continued the public hearing related to the proposal by Land Holding Inc. for a single - family development located at 12th and Holly. No new information had been submitted and therefore, staff recommended that the hearing be continued until April 11, 2001. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to April 11, 2001, to allow time for additional information to be submitted, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. E. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Tree Preservation Ordinance, CONTINUED TO 4/11/01. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to April 11, 2001, to allow time for additional information to be submitted, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Mini Storage, Al Robinson, Tabled from February 13, 2001 Meeting Chair Schaps stated Mr. Robinson would not be in attendance at this meeting, but he was still interested in working with staff regarding the Mini Storage. This item was tabled until April 2001, or until Mr. Robinson was available to be present for the meeting. B. Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition Concept Plan Ms. Sherman explained Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition was the next phase of a larger development area. The "first addition" preliminary plat was approved in 1999 with a final plat approval in 2000. The 2nd Addn., approved in 2000, added two new lots. The 3rd Addn. re -plats the 2nd Addn. and added 25 acres to the development, as well as 10+ acres that were outlots in the first two approvals. Staff presented the project data indicating the following: Project Data: Site Total 34.67 acres • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 10 Wetlands undetermined, Upland Right -of -Way Number of Lots Gross Density Net Density (Upland Only) Land Use and Zoning: some possible pocket wetlands majority of site 6.66 acres 75 lots 2.16 units /ac similar to gross acreage The entire area was within the current MUSA. Lot Sizes and Layout: Minimum lot size for the R -1 zone is 10,800 sf with an 80 ft. width and 135 ft. depth. Corner lots must be 100 ft. wide. As this was a concept review, no extensive detailed review was conducted of the plan. Transportation: Conditions of approval for previous stages included the requirement that access to Main St. must be resolved before this area could be developed. With the construction of Bluebill Ponds and Arlo Lane, the access to Main St. would be the new Wood Duck Trail south of Main St. Marilyn Drive and 79th St. provide access to Lake Drive. Arlo Lane in this development would meet the Arlo Lane portion in Bluebill Ponds. This would require losing a piece of Highland Meadows Park. This loss of land must be replaced somehow. This was discussed below under parks and trails. Utilities: Utility service would need to be determined. Development of Adjacent Land: There was property on the southeast corner of this site that was owned by another party. If that landowner wished to develop the property, some access would be necessary. Staff would communicate to the developer that he should contact that landowner and discuss this issue. Comprehensive Plan (Existing) Comprehensive Plan (Draft) Zoning Site Single Family Residential Low Density /Residential PDO R -1 and R- 1 North Single Family Residential Low Density /Residential R -1 East Single Family Residential Low Density /Residential R -1 South Single Family Residential Low Density /Residential R -1 West Single Family Residential Low Density /Residential R -1 The entire area was within the current MUSA. Lot Sizes and Layout: Minimum lot size for the R -1 zone is 10,800 sf with an 80 ft. width and 135 ft. depth. Corner lots must be 100 ft. wide. As this was a concept review, no extensive detailed review was conducted of the plan. Transportation: Conditions of approval for previous stages included the requirement that access to Main St. must be resolved before this area could be developed. With the construction of Bluebill Ponds and Arlo Lane, the access to Main St. would be the new Wood Duck Trail south of Main St. Marilyn Drive and 79th St. provide access to Lake Drive. Arlo Lane in this development would meet the Arlo Lane portion in Bluebill Ponds. This would require losing a piece of Highland Meadows Park. This loss of land must be replaced somehow. This was discussed below under parks and trails. Utilities: Utility service would need to be determined. Development of Adjacent Land: There was property on the southeast corner of this site that was owned by another party. If that landowner wished to develop the property, some access would be necessary. Staff would communicate to the developer that he should contact that landowner and discuss this issue. • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 11 Parks and Trails: The Park Board discussed the plan on March 5. This must be replaced. They recommended that Outlot B and Lot 1 Block 4 be dedicated for park. The Judds, who live immediately to the east of Lot 1, had expressed interest in acquiring part of the parcel. In addition, the existing Highland Meadows Park would lose some land to the new Arlo Lane, which must be replaced. A trail connection must be provided to Main St. Typically, parkland was labeled on a final plat and dedicated to the City at the time of recording the plat. TSM Development preferred to label the park as outlot and deed it to the City. Staff agreed with this for the Highland Meadows West (first addition) plat. However, the parklands had not been deeded to the City. This must be done before further development occurs. Natural Features: There was a historic oak savannah on the west side of the property. There may be some small pocket wetlands on the site. There had not been a delineation prepared. Other Issues: There were several issues relating to the first two stages that would need to be addressed before the 3`d Addn. could proceed. These included the association document for the townhomes to the south; deeding several outlots to adjacent properties, and documentation relating to the trail through the utilities easement. In addition, the parkland had not yet been deeded to the City. These issues were being discussed with the developer. Joel Cooper, Developer, stated a wetland delineation had been done and an application submitted to Rice Creek Watershed with the stipulation that the wetland be verified once the snow was gone. He stated all of the lots conformed to R -1 zoning. He stated the oak trees along the west line would be preserved. There would be no grading done to that area. Chair Schaps asked what the price range of the home were. Mr. Cooper replied $180,000 up to $250,000. Mr. Cooper stated the existing homes would stay in place, but those homes would probably need to be remodeled. Chair Schaps stated his concern with respect to their not being enough acreage set aside for parkland. He asked if the Park Board had any concern about the parkland in the area. Ms. Sherman replied the Board recommended Outlot B and Lot 1, Block 4 be dedicated for park. Mr. Lyden shared Chair Schaps concerns regarding the parks. He stated in the past the parkland was always the left over piece instead of it being the most accessible piece and that was a major drawback they had seen. • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 12 Chair Schaps asked if they had had a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Cooper stated they had had a meeting and the neighborhood's main concern was regarding traffic issues. Mr. Powell indicated that owners of the Lichtscheidl and Judd properties have expressed concern regarding the effect on their properties. Mr. Corson asked if there would be access to the trails. Mr. Powell stated Park Board had reviewed the proposed plat, but they did not have the minutes. Mr. Zych left the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Mr. Lyden suggested the Park Board revisit these issues. Chair Schaps agreed. Mr. Powell stated they would convey these concerns to the Park Board. VII. ANNOUNCEMENT Chair Schaps stated Mr. Schilling had advised the City he was moving out of the City, and therefore he would need to resign his position on the Board. Chair Schaps wished Mr. Schilling the best and expressed appreciation for the years of service he performed for the City. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:54 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0 (Zych absent). Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.