Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2001 P&Z Minutes• Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2001 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES orson, Hyden, Lane, Lydell; 57 p.m.), Schaps and Zych:i Engineer Powell; City Planner Smyse I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Plan p.m., November 14, 2001. • II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF Ms. Lane made a MO the Lino Lake carried 5 -0. OCTOBER 10, 2001 Board meeting to order at 6:30 N to approve the minutes of the October 10, 2001, meeting of Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:32 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:32 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. William Morton, 7930 Lake Drive, Minor Subdivision Staff presented the application by William Morton for a Minor Subdivision. Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2001 Page 2 Staff reviewed that Mr. Willard Morton's firm, SSR & W Development, LLC, owned property in Lino Lakes. The SSR & W property includes 80+ acres in Section 9. The application is to split off 11 acres from an existing 40 -acres parcel, and combine the new 11 -acre piece with a one -acre strip that connects to Main St. SSR & W would then sell the new lot to allow for a new home site. Staff understood that Mr. Brad Racutt wanted to buy the property and build a new home. Staff explained the application raised numerous important issues regarding implementation of the long -range plan for the City, as represented in the 2001 comprehensive plan. Staff presented its analysis by explaining the comprehensive plan guided the site for low density sewered residential development. It was in a stage 2 area, so utilities would not be available until after year 2010. It was important to protect t ange plan by ensuring the ability to serve future development with approp s. This included road access and circulation as well as utilities. Staff stated there was a conceptual greenway indica Greenways were conceptual because creating them actually purchasing the land, the City must de submitted. The long -range plan for a road in the need to consider the potential for presery f the area. ity based: Short of e de elopment proposals uld, at the appropriate time, With respect to zoning, staff explai l • t ite w 9'`s zoned Rural, with a minimum lot size of 10 acres with a minimum of Staff stated the park dedic Staff explained the frontage on a publ' ' "' a+ ° cate e proposal met the lot size requirements. 5 for each lot created by a subdivision. i on ordinance required all lots to have their full treet (Sec. 1001.08 Subd. 6(1)). The intent was to prevent flag lots and p de for safe, efficient access and circulation within the City, including adeq lice':'`: d fire department access. In past discussio regarding this application, City staff had suggested a means to address this requirement. taff recommended creating a road easement along the eastern edge of the property, including the one -acre strip leading to Main Street. The applicant took a different approach by proposing a road easement along the southern portion of the property. Access to the property would be from Main Street. With respect to transportation, staff explained the City required that all new lots have the full frontage on a public road. City staff recommended creating a road easement along the eastern edge of the property, including the one -acre strip leading to Main Street. This would provide frontage on a public road right of way, though there would be no need to actually construct the road now. Recommendations for Planning District 3 from the 2001 Comprehensive Plan included investigating the possibility of an easterly connection to Main Street. The Transportation Plan recommended this connection in the vicinity of the eastern end of Oak Lane and West Rondeau Lake Rd. • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2001 Page 3 Staff stated an access management study was prepared for Main Street by Anoka County and participating cities including Lino Lakes. The study, completed in 1999, recommended a full access intersection at West Rondeau Lake Rd. Because W. Rondeau Lake Rd. already existed, this was a logical location. Staff indicated the Metropolitan Council also required the City to preserve right of way to accommodate future development. The road easement dedication recommended by staff along the east edge of the site best responded to this requirement. The proposal submitted by SSR & W was to dedicate additional right of way for Dupont Ave. along the southern edge of the property. This road would not be constructed. The prospective buyer of the new 11 -acre lot would use the one -acre strip for access to Main Street. However, staff stated there were several problems with • .osal. Currently, both Dupont Ave. and Duffee Drive are l righ ran along the southern edge of the site. Duffee Drive corner of the site. The proposed additional easeme Lane. There was no connection to Main Street. Currently, an electric power transmission line eas alignment: the location for the road eas very difficult to convert this location to In contrast, Oak Lane was a full freeway. The option recomme connection. Staff explained muc connection would • , etl 'mod impacts regardless of the alignment. t. wide). Dupont e southeastern along Dupont to Lois ollows the Dupont Ave. posed by the applicant. It would be y now except 200 feet just west of the ould use this to plan the future Main Street the area was wetland. Construction of the future road With respect t:T st." stated access to future development was an important issue. Another import ss was the current access situation for the adjacent landowner. The property at 1196 ` ain Street currently accessed Main Street via a driveway in the one- acre piece. The c rrent residents there, Steve Martichuski and Kathy Matzke, had explained to staff that it was their understanding that a public road was to be constructed there. They indicated to staff that the deed to their property referred to a road easement. For that reason, they oriented their garage to the east, with their driveway connecting to the long driveway that runs to Main Street. Staff indicated the fact that the one -acre piece was 60 feet wide indicated that, sometime in the past, someone planned the strip for a road. However, staff had no information indicating that the City had any rights or ownership in the property now. Staff explained if the City was to implement its long range plan, as represented in the 2001 comprehensive plan, it must recognize opportunities to put together the individual pieces. The 2001 comprehensive plan, the transportation plan, which was a key element, and the 1999 access management plan all point to providing for a future road connection. This would provide safe access and circulation for existing properties and for future Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2001 Page 4 development, if it occurs. The subdivision ordinance supports this by prohibiting the creation of flag lots. Staff indicated access to the new lot would be from Main Street. As long as this was the access intended by both the City and the applicant, it was reasonable to make the access a public right of way that accomplishes a number of public purposes. In addition, it provided continued access to the adjacent property. Staff stated approval of the application as submitted was to forego an opportunity for implementation of the City's long -range plan. Staff recommended that the minor subdivision be approved only if a road easement was dedicated to the City that included the one -acre piece and the eastern 66 feet of the larger 11 -acre portion. Staff stated the two conditions of approval would be a roa as. 1 be dedicated to the City that includes the one -acre piece and the east 6 eet e larger 11 -acre portion, and the park dedication was $1,665.00. Staff recommended approving the minor subd' 'on kith t conditions as listed. Mr. Corson inquired about the wetland b wetland. Mr. Smyser replied that was c where they were delineated. Howe , t requirement. Mr. Lyden asked if there the road. Mr. Smyser re Mr. Lyden asked right -of -way t at exist He asked if the lot would be crossing wetlands existed, but he was not sure nough there to meet the minimum y • homeowners that would face the other side of t cu ntly there would not be. ffy right of way like. Mr. Smyser replied it was a half aper. There was no road at this time. Mr. Lyden inqu € : °a • '` t the possibility of a 66' easement on the north, with a 33' easement on the +uthern portion, and connecting the road at some point in the future. Mr. Smyser repli,i that had not been looked at, but he did not believe there would be any problem with that proposal and this would be something that staff would need to look into. Mr. Lyden expressed concern regarding the burdens and benefits being shared and everything tying into the comprehensive plan. The 33' easement would require the other property owner to share the burden of the road by giving the other 'h of right of way. Mr. Rafferty arrived at 6:57 p.m. Brad Racutt, 998 Lois Lane, stated he had met with all of the neighbors and discussed this proposal. He indicated the neighbors would like to see a fence put up. He indicated they had met all of the requirements and had given access to the people who had the larger lots. He stated the proposed Oak Lane addition that was proposed tonight, he had not known about until this meeting. • Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2001 Page 5 Ms. Lane asked if he would prefer the 33 -foot easement, instead of the 66 -foot easement. Mr. Racutt replied he would like a private drive and the neighbors to the east (1196 Main St.) wanted their own driveway. Mr. Powell stated when he had spoken with that property owner, they were concerned about having to put a new driveway out to Main Street and the driveway they had been using over the years would be blocked off. Chair Schaps asked how would the neighbors get out of their property if they were landlocked. Mr. Smyser replied that was a concern the neighbors had that they would not be able to get out onto Main Street. Chair Schaps stated it appeared this needed further work. Mr � tated with the 66- foot dedication and 33 -foot dedication was acceptable. Mr. Corson stated it appeared the issue was a 33 -foot o6- .t e'ent. Mr. Smyser replied that was correct. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the r est ` Wil : d Morton, 7930 Lake Drive, Minor Subdivision, subject to the followm tions: 1. A road easement shall be dedicated • parcel and the eastern 33 feet o I • 2. Park dedication of $1,665. The motion was support Motion carried 6- VI. DISCUSSIO A. Lighting t Shirley Kaye's that includes the 66' x 597' northern 1 -acre portion. Staff explained since the re- opening of Shirley Kayes, the Police Department had noted that the parking lot was very dark. There was no exterior lighting proposed except fixtures on the building. Staff stated that during the review of the project, there was concern about bright lights on the lake. Since there were only the building fixtures, there was not a problem. Staff explained during construction, a contractor called to ask what kind of lights would be allowed in the parking lot. Since no lighting was proposed or reviewed, and there was concern about lights on the lake, staff said there was to be no lighting in the lot. Staff stated the question of safety arose from the dark parking lot. The Environmental Board discussed this and recommended that if lighting was added, the City ensured it shined down and doesn't bleed onto neighboring properties or the lake. Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2001 Page 6 Staff indicated they would like to discuss lighting with the owners of Shirley Kaye's without the need for a full site plan review and if the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council had no objection, they would proceed with this proposal. Mr. Corson asked if the owners had run wiring under the parking lot for future lighting. Mr. Smyser replied he did not know the answer to this. This would be something they would have to work with the owners on. Mr. Corson expressed concern that this would be an additional cost to the owner. Mr. Lyden stated he believed the owner would be cooperative with this proposal considering the liability they were exposed to. He requested any lighting not be directed toward the lake, but toward Lake Drive. Mr. Smyser replied std d need to look at the best way to deal with the lighting issue. Chair Schaps suggested some type of ornamental lighti`,.j_' to addressing the problem without requiring a new s' VII. ADJOURNMENT ad no objections Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjou ing at 7:14 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recordin TimeSaver Off Site S • • •