HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/2001 P&Z MinutesPlanning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Plan. Zom Board meeting to order at 6:38
p.m., December 12, 2001.
• II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Schaps indicated Ite een pulled at the request of the applicant.
III. APPROVAL OF 1, NOVEMBER 14, 2001
•
Mr. Corson made a
of the Lino L
carried 6 -0.
ON to approve the minutes of the November 14, 2001, meeting
d Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:39 p.m.
Rich Matzke, 482 Main Street, stated he had a concern regarding a drainage problem he
now had due to the housing project construction next to his home. He indicated the City
Engineer had been notified and had looked into the situation. He stated he was at this
meeting to inform the Board that he believed he would still have the same problem next
spring based on the fact that they were pumping water into the drainage ditch. He
believed the water table was up and stated usually at this time of year, the drainage ditch
was dry. He stated his carpet in his basement was ruined from the water. He believed the
City made a mistake and invited the Board to look at his property. He stated the City
Engineer did not believe the addition of the ponds affected his water table, while he
believed it did. He indicated he would be going to the next Council meeting and
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 2
informing the Council of this problem. He stated in the past he had had water problems,
but once the drainage ditch was put in, he had not had any further problems, until now.
Judy Barthels, Baldwin Lake Trailer Court, stated she was interested in obtaining more
information regarding her neighborhood and the City. She indicated she was a recent
"transplant" from North Dakota.
Al Robinson, stated Mr. Matzke's water problem was due to a dewatering project going
on up the road.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:52 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0.
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. Joseph A. Schwartz, 558 Pine Street, Minor Su
Staff presented the application by Joseph A. Schw. ns ubdivision.
Staff indicated the subject property was locate
Joseph A. Schwartz. The property was an unpla
connected to City water or sanitary sewe
lived on the neighboring property at 59
acres in size. It was the intention of
his son's property in order that
program. The result would be
t 55 ine'` eet and was owned by Mr.
cre Rural parcel which was not
chwart''s son, Joseph M. Schwartz,
t, which was similarly zoned and 10
to transfer five acres of his property to
qualify for the Green Acres agricultural
cels.
Staff presented its analy plal g the City's zoning ordinance required a
minimum lot size of es a Rural zone. The proposed Minor Subdivision would
result in a lot size o' E es fo he properties at 558 and 598 Pine Street. Staff
explained it should be d that unless and until the proposed five -acre parcel was
legally combi r,.,,h th - `'xisting 10 acres at 598 Pine Street, it would be non-
conforming, as e under the City's 10 -acre required minimum lot size for
property in a rur zone. As a result, approval should carry the condition that the
properties be leg . '` "y combined.
Staff indicated this application involved a minor change in parcel sizes, and appeared to
pose no concern for public health, safety, or welfare.
Staff would recommend approval of this Minor Subdivision with the following condition:
1. The five -acre piece must be legally combined with the property at 598 Pine Street, in
order to comply with the City's 10 -acre minimum lot size requirement.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the request of Joseph A. Schwartz, 558 Pine
Street, Minor Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. The five -acre piece must be legally combined with the property at 598 Pine Street,
in order to comply with the City's 10 -acre minimum lot size requirement.
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 3
• The motion was supported by Ms. Lane.
•
Motion carried 6 -0.
B. Clyde Rehbein, 580 Marshan Lane, Minor Subdivision
Pulled at the request of applicant.
C. Moratorium on Residential Development — PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:54 p.m.
Staff explained the comprehensive plan set the policy directs• g wlulee implementation
of the plan occurs through official controls such as the sus vi i ord °= ance and zoning
ordinance. The new comprehensive plan established a ��aic to s -� °scantly reduce the
rate of growth in the city. Staff was setting up a pro s �ry.ame kr� `ng the official
controls to implement the plan. This will take some •Mete. Staff explained
they were concerned about the interim. After ern _ wi the City Attorney, staff
believed it was best to adopt a moratorium to City. The proposed ordinance
would prohibit most types of residential vex,, ent activity in the City for one year.
Staff presented its analysis by explainin there e three main reasons for the
moratorium. First, the City Counc comprehensive plan but was still
undergoing review by the Metro „y Co as required by state statute. Until the
Met Council approved the plan an awkward position between the old,
sketchy plan and the new • a been using the new plan for guidance, but it was
not clear how firmly the • tand n it.
Second, while the ensi = plan establishes the policy of reducing growth to an
average of 147 •er ye. e current official controls do not provide the means to ensure
implementatio � •o �_ y. The City should be in the position where if it wants to
deny new devel . ” e : pplications, it should have clear and easily defensible reasons.
Third, staff antici Fated new plat, rezoning, and MUSA reserve applications in the very
near future. Revising the ordinances would be a major undertaking. They would have
the services of our planning consultant, but the project would require significant effort by
staff as well. The moratorium would allow staff to devote time to the ordinance project
rather than attempting to review new application using ordinances that may or may not
support the comprehensive plan.
Staff reviewed what types of applications would not be affected by the moratorium and
the process used for this moratorium.
Chair Schaps asked where in the process the Comprehensive Plan was with the
Metropolitan Council. Mr. Smyser replied he was not sure where they were with the
Plan, but they were reviewing it.
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 4
Chair Schaps asked if the Metropolitan Council did not approve the Comprehensive Plan,
but wanted modifications, would that affect this moratorium. Mr. Smyser replied that
was possible, but it would likely affect density issues, etc. and not necessarily the
Ordinances. He did not anticipate any changes made would affect the Ordinances.
Chair Schaps indicated he had a concern regarding the effect this would have on
commercial development within the City. He stated he would like this moratorium to be
as short as possible, so commercial development would not be adversely affected.
Mr. Smyser stated at the present time, there were 400 residential lots that were in
approved plats and those projects would not be affected by this moratorium. Therefore,
the residential growth would still continue, but any new plats would not be approved for
one year while the moratorium was in effect.
Chair Schaps asked if there had been a discussion to prevent
prolonged. Mr. Smyser replied the City did have the righ
Council nor staff want to see this extended.
ium being
ut neither the
Mr. Corson asked how many years had the Compreh; siv� ._ ''° aken to get completed.
Mr. Smyser replied it took approximately 3 1 /2 stat • the task force would not
deal with the Comprehensive Plan at all, onl the ision and zoning Ordinances.
This would have nothing to do with whe etropolitan Council liked or disliked
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Corson asked if the City ha
the City could not just state th
Metropolitan Council cou
told the City was out of
future, this would cr
nt of MUSA at the present time and why
MUSA. Mr. Smyser replied the
e MUSA at any time, and if developers were
t °`='n the City received more MUSA in the near
that the moratorium would avoid.
Mr. Zych asked if the s =u had time to work on both Ordinances and plats at the same
time Mr. Sm .hey '` at was the reason they wanted the moratorium at this time
He stated staff •o ve the time to work on both.
Mr. Rafferty asked" what the Comprehensive Plan called for regarding the population of
2010. Mr. Smyser replied he did not have that information on hand, but it was probably
somewhere around 20,000.
Mr. Rafferty asked if a moratorium was a message to developers as being negative, and
what did the City gain from a moratorium. Mr. Smyser replied people who wanted more
growth would see it as a bad thing and those who want less growth, would like the
moratorium, but also would want to stop the 400 lots already approved. He believed the
commercial industry would not be happy with this moratorium. However, the City was
making it clear that there were enough lots available to provide for at least the amount of
annual growth the City has experienced for at least the next year. He stated the
moratorium would put a dent in the growth, but would not stop it.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 5
Mr. Rafferty asked if this did not go into effect, would staff be overloaded with work.
Mr. Smyser replied this would definitely exacerbate the situation and staff would be
overloaded.
Peter Coyle, attorney from Larkin Hoffman law firm, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South,
Bloomington, indicated he represented Mr. Uhde, developer, and expressed his concern
regarding the moratorium and asked that the moratorium not be approved. He stated the
lots available for development, may not be ready to be sold or developed. He stated
based on the development patterns in the past few years, if new plat development was
stopped, there would be no new supply of lots in the City, and the direct consequence
would be that the supply of lots in the City would be severely diminished and people
buying lots in the City would be unable to afford the lot or the home on it. He stated this
would limit residents being able to buy into the City. He expressed concern about the 12-
month limit on the moratorium. He indicated he did not believ m s possible to
complete this in 12 months. He stated from his experience, such as this
would be extended out beyond the 12 months. He indicat ers would be
deprived of utilizing their investments if the moratoriu ty wa . • p � He stated the
moratorium would create spot zoning, which was ill # 4, esota Statutes. In
addition, the City had an investment in the Town it pro ` d the Town City project
was exempt from the moratorium and, therefo e e rato m would be discriminatory
and unfair. He stated the 147 -lot restriction b sed Comprehensive Plan was
illegal and suggested the City contact th� regarding this. He asked the Board to
g gg Y ice y g g
reject the moratorium.
Mr. Rafferty stated this was a w • he : >o have guidelines with respect to what the
citizens wanted. He indicated eve any developer was hurting in this area
He expressed concern reg " • he of the lots and homes being placed on them.
He indicated he did not . e g taff asking for too much, and they were doing their
job with respect to a + or oratorium. Mr. Coyle replied Mr. Uhde would be
"cut off at the kne ' s mo torium was approved, when Mr. Uhde was under the
assumption that develo - nt would continue.
Mr. Lyden aske a se law did Mr. Coyle base his premise on that a moratorium was
illegal. Mr. Coy stated that information would be provided when necessary.
Mr. Zych asked if there was a moratorium in 1989; how long did that one last; and was it
extended. Chair Schaps stated there was one 90 -day moratorium.
Mr. Zych asked if it was common for moratoriums to be extended. Mr. Smyser replied it
was not unusual for moratoriums to be extended, but that was not always the case.
Mr. Rafferty indicated he did not see any problem if the moratorium was extended as
long as this was what the citizens wanted and the end result was what was good for the
City and the citizens. He stated not all developers would like this, but he believed staff
had contacted the City Attorney regarding the decisions being made and were working
within the law.
Chair Schaps expressed his concern if the moratorium ended up being prolonged.
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 6
Al Robinson, 8299 Fourth Avenue, stated the Comprehensive Plan had taken three and
one -half years and felt that there was a very small percent of the City's population that
wanted growth limited. He expressed concern about the limit of 147 homes being built a
year. He stated they needed more people in the City to support the infrastructure it
currently had. He indicated the City would be sending a wrong message to developers
and commercial development if it went with a moratorium. He indicated Lino Lakes was
anti- business and that was why the taxes were so high. He stated a moratorium would
not make sense at this time.
Mr. Rafferty asked if it would make more sense to wait until the Metropolitan Council
had responded to the Comprehensive Plan and then address the moratorium at that time.
Mr. Robinson replied that would make more sense. This was not the right time for a
moratorium.
Mr. Zych stated he believed there was inadequate infrastruct . in the `' 'ty the way it
was.
Mr. Corson asked if they waited until they had a res
and then approved a moratorium, would the morator
development as well as plats already in proces
problems and there were no clear -cut answers to
ropolitan Council,
em to freeze residential
yse ' eplied that was one of the
Mr. Corson asked if the Metropolitan C
decisions on the MUSA. Mr. Smy
way to do it within the City and
Judy Barthels, indicated s
space would disappear i
adverse affect on the
d be asked to wait to make any
elieved the City needed figure out a
ppointed body to make those decisions.
paces. She expressed concern that the open
ing ". s allowed to develop and this would have an
t
Tom VonBisc e, Oak and developer of the Saddle Club project, stated he did not
have an object . a •ratorium. He stated he was working with many Cities that
had moratorium a as his experience that it was a very common practice to extend
moratoriums. H tated if the City wanted to control growth, they should contact the City
of Woodbury, wh were currently approving a growth plan. He indicated the City of
Woodbury was controlling their growth properly. He stated Woodbury was also anti-
growth. He indicated Lino Lakes would grow or not grow, but this would not control the
metropolitan growth. He asked why the Village project was exempt from the
moratorium, and what gave it a special position above other developers. He stated
developers did not like not knowing what was going on and wanted to know where the
City was going.
Connie Grundhofer, 235 Linda Avenue, asked if the Metropolitan Council had 60 days to
respond to the Comprehensive Plan and inquired if January was when the Metropolitan
Council would respond to it. Mr. Smyser replied the Metropolitan Council could extend
the deadline if they wanted.
Ms. Grundhofer asked if the Ordinances could be put in place, even not knowing what
the Metropolitan Council was going to do. Mr. Smyser replied the Metropolitan Council
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 7
had nothing to do with this and this was not the driving force with respect to staff's
request for a moratorium. He indicated the Ordinances could be worked on at this time.
Ms. Grundhofer stated she was in support of the moratorium.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. and was supported
by Mr. Lyden.
Motion carried 5 -0 (Ms. Lane absent for vote).
Chair Schaps asked if there would be consultant assistance with this.
there would be consultants working with staff on this.
Mr. Lyden stated one of the major parts of the Comprehensive
balanced growth. He indicated the dilemma faced was that t
2010 goal with respect to population growth. He express
not add up. He indicated he believed the Comprehensi
could not deliver what it said it would do.
Mr. Rafferty expressed concern if the Metropo
everything else would get sidetracked, and staff'
the Metropolitan Council's requested ch
should be working on. Mr. Smyser repl
right away.
Mr. Smyser replied
s controlled and
eady beyond the
the numbers did
ad plan because it
ncil quested changes and
ould be taken up with addressing
tead of working on the things they
s the reason they should get started
Mr. Corson asked why was th rty was exempt from the moratorium. Mr.
Smyser replied the City C•.d • it exempted, and the City Council had that
authority under State Star e in cated the city was pursuing several goals in the
Village that were for br.enefit.
Mr. Grochala tated th .mprehensive Plan had many policy actions that needed to be
incorporated i ' ng " "d other Ordinances, which the City's plans did not incorporate
right now Bec t ity had control of property in the Village, it could ensure the
goals were met t re. He stated there were a lot of issues right now other than growth
that needed to be :ddressed, and the moratorium would allow those issues to be handled.
He stated the moratorium would allow the City to write up what they wanted with respect
to development, as well as the other issues that needed to be dealt with. He stated it was
not staff's intention to ask for an extension of the moratorium past one year.
Mr. Rafferty expressed concern about not having the right person in place to control the
people involved in the task force. Mr. Smyser replied this could be a problem, and staff
would be on the people involved in the task force to stay on track and get through
everything.
Mr. Lyden asked if they had looked into the legality of spot zoning. Mr. Smyser replied
the City Attorney had reviewed the proposed Ordinance and had approved it.
Chair Schaps expressed concern regarding an extension of the moratorium once the
Metropolitan Council requested changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He requested the
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 8
City Council put a drop -dead date deadline on any moratorium and no extensions be
allowed.
Mr. Lyden stated his statement that the Comprehensive Plan was a bad plan, was not a
reflection upon anyone involved in the work on the Plan.
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend a moratorium on residential development
for one year with emphasis to the City Council that this should only be a one -year
moratorium.
The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden.
Motion carried 5 -1 (Mr. Hyden).
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meek :41 p.m., and was supported by
Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Altman, Recording
TimeSaver Off Site Secr t' nc.
•
•