Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/2001 P&Z Minutes• Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT : August 8, 2001 . 6:40 P.M. . 8:42 P.M. : Corson, Hyden, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty, Schaps, and Zych : None. : City Planner Smyser; Community Development Director Michael Grochala; Assistant City Engineer Wedel I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL • Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:40 p.m., August 8, 2001. IL APPROVAL OF MINUTES — July 11, 2001 Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the July 11, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGEND The agenda was approved as presented. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:42 p.m. There being no comment made, Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:42 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Jon Crenshaw, 7080 Sunset Avenue, Minor Subdivision, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a minor subdivision to split the eastern portion of the property at 7080 Sunset Road. He indicated the property was owned by the current resident, Jon Crenshaw and applicant's intent was to create a new single- Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 2 • family lot. A variance would be required because the new lot did not comply with the minimum lot depth of 135 feet. • Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining Lino Lakes had sewer and water two blocks to the east in Sunset Drive. Lots along Sunset Drive would connect. Utilities were not available to the rest of the neighborhood to the west of those lots. However, Blaine utilities were available to the lots on Sunset Road and several were connected to the Blaine utilities. The subject property was one of them. Utility service for the proposed new lot would need to connect to the Blaine system. The property was zoned R -1. The new lot would not meet the minimum lot depth requirement. A variance would be necessary. Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning ordinance that the City shall make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action. Staff pointed out that the existing use of the lot as a single - family residence was not threatened by the status quo. There were no unique physical circumstances. The sole purpose of the variance was to allow an additional lot to be created to provide economic gain. Granting an unjustified variance would be conferring a special privilege and would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff indicated whether it was advisable to allow for the creation of additional lots in this neighborhood by splitting the existing lots was a policy question that might merit consideration by the City. However, the application under consideration would create a lot that did not meet current requirements and there was no justification for the requested variance. Without the variance, the minor subdivision could not occur. Staff recommended denying the variance based on lack of justification and denying the minor subdivision because the lot did not meet the minimum lot depth. Mr. Lyden stated as he drove down Fairmont, it appeared there were many lots that were split, as this applicant wanted his lot to be split. He asked why some lots were split and some were not Mr. Smyser replied those lots were split many years ago and under the existing guidelines, those lots would not have been allowed to be split today. Mr. Lyden noted he understood the variance, but for practical purposes, he did not understand why the lot could not be split. Mr. Smyser replied making a profit on the lot was not a condition for a variance. Mr. Lyden stated it was a variance of less than 10 feet and while he understood the variance, he had a difficult decision about not splitting this lot. Mr. Corson asked if the lots were serviced by City sewer and water. Mr. Smyser replied they were not. Mr. Corson asked if applicant was requesting Parcel B be served by City sewer and water. Mr. Smyser replied it was being requested to have service by the City of Blaine, which would need the City of Blaine's approval as well. He expressed concern about opening up this type of a situation. However, it was technically feasible to have the sewer and water serviced by the City of Blaine. • Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Corson asked if the City of Blaine, under the Joint Powers Agreement, could take away the sewer and water services. Mr. Smyser replied it would be difficult for the City of Blaine to do that, but it was feasible. Mr. Corson inquired about the MUSA requirements and the possibility of a septic system. Mr. Smyser replied a septic system was not a good solution and he was not sure about the MUSA requirements. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Joel Voelker, 7273 Stagecoach Trail, stated the whole purpose of subdividing lot was for economic reasons, and if the home proposed was of modest means that met the criteria of the neighborhood and was not obtrusive, then a variance should be allowed. He stated he understood there were a lot of non - conforming lots in that area and he did not understand why the policy was not set a long time ago. He asked when the area would be served by MUSA. He stated as far as he could tell, this area would always be served by the City of Blaine. He asked about the history of the lots being split. Chair Schaps replied that many years ago, the standards for lots were not the same and this had been changed over the years. He stated the reason they had Ordinances was to enforce them. Mr. Voelker stated he understood the need for following the Ordinances, but when he originally • thought about splitting the lot, he did not realize the lot depth was short by less than 10 feet, and he did not realize it was short until the survey was prepared. He stated for him to put in a septic system on the property, would not be a sellable item as a builder. He stated he would have to find a way to finance the sewer and water. • Mr. Smyser stated this area was zoned R -1 and in R -1, new lots could not be created, unless serviced by sewer and water. Mr. Corson asked if this was also a requirement for MUSA. Mr. Smyser stated he was not sure about the MUSA requirements, but the City Ordinance did not allow this area to be built without sewer and water hook -up. Ms. Lane stated she did not have a problem with this variance, if utilities were available. Mr. Corson stated he did not have a problem with the variances, but did have a problem with the City of Blaine servicing the utilities. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the variance for 7080 Sunset Avenue Minor Subdivision contingent on the assurance there would be utility services available, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. MOTION FAILED. 3 -4 (Corson, Hyden, Schaps, and Zych). Mr. Corson made a MOTION for denying the variance based on the fact that they were not following the procedure in the MUSA requirements, and there would be no utility service by the City of Lino Lakes. Motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern that there was a similar situation addressed a couple of months ago and that request was granted and therefore, he was uncomfortable with denying this request. • • Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 4 The Planning and Zoning Commission could not reach a consensus on this issue and it was decided after discussion to bring this to the City Council for their decision. B. Gerald Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining this item involved two variances: a pool setback from a road and the height of a fence along a neighbor's front yard. At the July P & Z meeting, this item was tabled and directed back to staff to communicate the applicants to determine the potential to move the pool and have the City bear the cost. Staff presented a brief summary of the facts presented at the July P & Z meeting. Staff presented its analysis of the variance by explaining City staff and the applicants had been in communication about the costs of the suggested action. Applicant had sent a draft of proposed costs. The total cost estimate was $9,154.00. Due to this being a draft estimate, it was subject to change. Staff indicated the largest single line item was the pool itself. Applicant noted that disassembling the pool would void the lifetime warranty, so a completely new pool was necessary if it was to be moved. Staff stated they would need to confirm the cost estimates as well as determining if anything would be re -used without affecting applicant's warranty. In addition to the pool itself, there were other costs such as earthmoving and landscaping that would have to be considered and compared. Staff originally recommended to grant the variance for the pool, but not for the six -foot fence surrounding the pool. P &Z recommended moving the pool, giving the particular situation they had in this instance. Chair Schaps asked if the City Council had given any recommendation regarding the assistance with the funding for the moving of the pool. Ms, Smyser replied this had not yet been brought to the Council for their thoughts. Mr. Corson asked if the fence issue was primarily a visibility issue. Mr. Smyser replied it was an aesthetics issue, and it was the City's policy to not fence in front yards with six -foot fences. Mr. Corson asked if there was a safety issue. Mr. Smyser replied he did not know if this would be a safety issue or not There was a potential safety issue, but not a serious one Mr. Corson asked about safety regarding access into the pool. Mr. Smyser replied the City Ordinances did not require a six -foot fence around a pool. The Ordinance only required a four - foot fence around a pool. • Mr. Rafferty indicated he still did not like this situation. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board had asked for recommendations and he did not see the recommendations. He indicated there was no reason a pool should be in a front yard. He stated if the City made a mistake, the pool should be moved. He stated the fence was not the main issue. He noted the best solution Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 5 • was to send this forward to the City Council. He indicated he wanted the pool to be moved farther than just the minimum distance in order to be in compliance with the City Ordinances. • • Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Gerald Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, stated the pool was erected in a location that was approved by the City and they had followed all of the City's Ordinances as it had been told to them. Mr. Schaps asked if they had investigated the Ordinances regarding the location of the pool and fence. Mr. Ramsay replied they had not investigated this and they had assumed a six -foot fence was okay. Mr. Ramsay stated the estimates he had received were verbal estimates, but if necessary, he would get formal, written estimates. Chair Schaps asked who had informed him that his lifetime warranty would be voided if the pool was moved. Mr. Ramsay replied he believed the lifetime warranty would be voided, but he had not actually received verification from the dealer regarding this. However, as he understood it, the pool liner would have to be replaced. Mr. Ramsay replied the reason they wanted a six -foot fence was for additional safety around the pool. He stated most residents of the Quail Ridge development did not have a problem with a six -foot fence. He indicated he did not care where the pool was located as long as it did not cost him more money to move it, when this had originally been approved by the City in the first place. He indicated if he had been informed by the City of the Ordinance, they pool would not have been located where it was. Mr. Zych asked why they had originally located the pool where it presently was. Mr. Ramsay stated this was a relatively level area of the lot, and they had always intended on putting a six - foot fence around the pool. Mr. Zych asked if he had thought about his neighbor having to look out of his front window and seeing his pool. Mr. Ramsay stated there was a crab apple tree that blocked the neighbor's view. Mr. Zych asked if it was appropriate for his neighbors to have to look at a six -foot fence in their front yard. Mr. Ramsay stated the six -foot fence would be in his back yard and he had received all of the appropriate approval to put the pool at the location where it was from the City. He stated he believed he had been following all of the rules of the City by obtaining the appropriate permit and permission. He indicated it was not up to him to decide if the location of the pool was an appropriate location because the City would not let him put the pool where he had originally wanted to put it Mr. Lyden stated the City had made a mistake and the answer was to move the pool. The cost of moving the pool was a secondary issue with the main issue being to do the right thing, and the right thing was to move the pool. He stated he had a concern regarding the pool and its impact on the neighborhood. He indicated the most important thing about the neighborhood was the neighbors. He asked that applicant allow the City to rectify the issue. He apologized for all of the problems the City had caused. • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 6 Chair Schaps asked if any portion of the fence could be six foot. Mr. Smyser replied it could be six -foot up until the 30 foot set -back line, and then it had to drop down to 4 feet. Chair Schaps asked why a six -foot fence was so much better than a four -foot fence. Mr. Ramsay stated children could more easily climb a four -foot fence, and a six -foot fence would be more protection. Chair Schaps replied that the main issue was that the pool had to be well supervised, and it did not matter what type of fence was placed around it. Mr. Corson asked about placing a net over the pool to keep children out. Mr. Smyser replied that would be less obstructive. Mr. Ramsey replied they had not considered that option, but he did not have any objection to it. Ms. Lane stated she would like to see the pool moved to the opposite corner of the lot. Mr. Smyser replied the problem was the grading if it was moved to the other corner. He stated this would have to be something the City Engineer would have to look at. He indicated he could not make a recommendation to spend the City's money to move the pool and this would have to be a Council decision. Bob Ranallo, 6643 Ruffed Grouse Road, agreed that this was an unfortunate situation. He indicated the first concern was the placement of the pool. He presented pictures of where the pool presently sits with respect to his property. He asked if the pool was in an appropriate location for a pool. Chair Schaps asked if he understood that Mr. Ramsay had a right to have a pool in his backyard. Mr. Ranallo indicated he did have that understanding, and did not have an issue with a pool in the Ramsay's back yard, but he did not like the location of where the pool was Ken , 6654 Ruffed Grouse Road, stated his home was across the street and indicated the pool was literally in the Ranallo's front yard and while he realized Mr. Ramsay had the right to a pool in his backyard, it should be moved. If an error was made by the City, the error had to be corrected. The bottom line was that the pool was in the wrong spot. He asked if the City had any strict requirements for pools, as they had for decks. Mr. Smyser clarified building permit applications for decks did require drawings because that was part of the State Building Code, but there was no such requirement for pools, so the City did not require the same level of detail as would be required for decks, but this would not be a bad idea to consider. Mr. Rafferty stated this was a difficult situation and he did not believe there was enough information to even go forward to the City Council, and he requested that all of the information be verified in writing. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to deny the 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court request for variance, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6 -0. Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 7 • Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to deny the variance to put a six -foot fence in the rear yard within the set -back, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. • • Mr. Rafferty expressed concern that the recommendations were not clear and the costs had not been verified. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION that the pool be moved and the City pay the reasonable cost of moving the pool, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Ms. Lane stated she would not support this if the pool was only moved a short distance. Mr. Zych agreed and stated the pool should not be visible from the street and not be located in the neighbor's front yard. Chair Schaps asked that in the future, applicants be made aware of the City Ordinances, so errors are not made like this again. Mr. Ramsay asked what the permit fee was for, if the applicant had to investigate the Ordinances themselves. Chair Schaps stated the fee was simply an administrative fee. Mr. Corson stated the City might want to consider putting a pamphlet together to hand out with permits outlining the Ordinances. Mr. Lyden suggested a pool safety article be placed in a newsletter distributed to the citizens. The Motion made by Mr. Lyden and seconded by Mr. Corson above was withdrawn and the following recommendation was made: The pool be moved and the City pay the reasonable and verifiable cost of moving the pool, with the pool preferably be moved to the farthest corner of the lot. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. September Meeting Date Change Staff stated the date of the September Planning and Zoning Board Meeting had been changed from Wednesday, September 12 to Tuesday, September 11, 2001 due to various staff members attending annual conferences that week and their unavailability to attend a September 12, 2001 meeting. The meeting date change would be posted on the front door of City Hall, in the Quad Community Press, and on local government cable channel 16. B. Recommendation from Environmental Board for moratorium on new development Staff presented the Lino Lakes Environmental Board's recommendation to establish a moratorium (interim ordinance) on all residential development and possibly all development for a period of one year. This was in response to the recent approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the City Council. The Environmental Board adopted the recommendation to allow time for the development of official controls to implement the goals and policies of the plan. Staff indicated they were not recommending the adoption of such an Ordinance at this time. While an interim Ordinance was an effective tool granted to municipalities for the purpose of protecting the planning process, the implications of such an Ordinance would need to be fully Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 8 • identified. An all- encompassing prohibition of development as proposed, could generate many unintended consequences. • • Staff reviewed the steps that should be undertaken prior to consideration of an interim Ordinance. By addressing such steps, the City would be able to better ascertain the need for an interim ordinance and, if warranted, the appropriate scope it should have. Staff also presented the 2001 Environmental Board goals and stated the City Council would be reviewing the proposed goals with the Environmental Board at an upcoming joint meeting. They would also use the meeting as an opportunity to review the ordinance establishing the board, the expectations of the City Council and the Environmental Board and the relationship of the Environmental Board to other City boards. Mr. Lyden asked how many homes had been built this year. Mr. Grochala replied he was not sure, but they would check that out and have that information available at a future discussion. C. Packet Delivery Mr. Rafferty stated he had brought this issue up previously and had made a previous recommendation about the packets being delivered in a more timely fashion. He stated the current deadline of Friday did not give the P & Z Board members adequate time to review the information. He stated he believed part of his job of being a board member was having adequate time to review the packet thoroughly. He recommended having a minimum of 168 hours to review the packet of information, which would give the Board members one week to review everything and make informed decision. He stated he did not believe this was an impossible request. Mr. Grochala replied at this point he was not prepared to make a recommendation for a change. He stated the City staff was continually sending out packets for various meetings. He stated one of the things they were working on was that all of the information was complete in the packets. He stated by the time the packets got to the P & Z Board, most of the developments had already been through the other Boards and County and State Agencies, and what frequently happened was that all of that information did not get back to the City in a timely fashion. He indicated a large range of issues needed to be addressed for each packet. He stated this did not mean things could not be modified, but at the present time, he could not recommend any change. Mr. Zych asked what the time -frame was in the city that Mr. Grochala was previously at. Mr. Grochala stated it was pretty much the same time -frame as the City of Lino Lakes had Mr. Zych asked if the information could be e- mailed. Mr. Smyser stated the problem was that the drawings /diagrams could not be sent by e -mail. Mr. Rafferty stated the client in this case was the taxpayers and it was not acceptable that they could not get the packet done sooner. He stated he understood there was a lot of work to get the packets done, and a lot of paper pushing, but these were important issues and he needed to be adequately informed to make intelligent decisions. He stated he owed it to the citizens to be adequately informed. • Planning & Zoning Board August 8, 2001 Page 9 Mr. Grochala indicated he agreed these were important issues, and the City wanted to make sure the packets went out accurately with all of the available information in them and not be rushed to send out inaccurate packets. Mr. Rafferty stated he was not asking for a complete packet, but he was requesting some brief information about what was coming up for future meetings. Mr. Zych requested an abbreviated agenda be sent by e -mail that would give information on what was going through so the Board members could review the site, if necessary. Mr. Grochala stated if that was the issue, a brief summary of the agenda could be sent to the members. Chair Schaps suggested Mr. Rafferty and Mr. Grochala come up with a one -page agenda sheet that could adequately address Mr. Rafferty's concern and e-mail it to the Board members. Mr. Lyden stated he understood Mr. Rafferty's concerns and any advance notice they could receive would be very helpful. He stated he would like to see having a contact phone number of the applicant or other involved parties on those agenda items also. VII. ADJOURNMENT • • Mr. Zych made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.