Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/1999 P&Z Minutesf • Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 1999 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT September 8 199 6.38 P.M. . 8:06 P.M. Johnson, Corson, Dunn, Lane, Schilling and Carlson Schaps : Planning Coordinator, Nyland; City Planner, Smyser ; Public Services Director DeGardner I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Acting Chair Lane called the Lino Lakes Planning o oard meeting to order at 6:38 p.m., September 8, 1999. • II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August • Ms. Carlson made a MOTION to . . • : e nutes of the August 11, 1999 meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning & Zo : d = eting, as presented, and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carries III. APPROVAL OF AG Ms. Carlson mad of the Lino Lakes Motion carried, 6 -0. to approve the agenda of the September 8, 1999 meeting & Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. IV. OPEN MIKE No one was present for open mike. V. ACTION ITEMS A. Pierre and Norma Nadeau, 6644 20th Avenue, Minor Subdivision Ms. Wyland presented the staff report and explained that Pierre and Norma Nadeau, 6644 20th Avenue, are requesting a minor subdivision to create two parcels. Tract A would be 66.97 acres in size and Tract B would be 10 acres in size and contain the existing homestead. The property is zoned Rural and indicated as Rural in the existing Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 1999 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan. The "Draft" Comprehensive Plan guides this area for Low Density/Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential along 35E. Ms. Wyland advised that a trunk waterline exists on 20th Avenue. Ms. Wyland explained the Nadeaus would like to retain their existing homestead and sell the balance of the property for future development. She advised staff has reviewed the request and finds the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. She described the lot width requirements and requirement of Anoka County for the dedication of additional right -of -way along 20th Avenue (County Road 54). Ms. Wyland recommended the final survey document include this additional right -of -way and provide a ten -acre parcel exclusive of right -of -way. Ms. Wyland stated staff recommends approval subject to three conditions. Pierre Nadeau, petitioner, stated he believed Tract B would be sold within three years. With regard to the requirement for additional right -of -way, h that would be taken care of during the final plat. Acting Chair Lane explained that decision is with A Mr. Corson inquired whether Anoka County h Wyland stated that is correct and whenever provided with the information for their re County has made this recommendatio Mr. Johnson made a MOTION au ority in this regard. Ms. is a County Road, the County is recommendation. In this case, Anoka al right -of -way. e _ ` minor subdivision for Pierre and Norma Nadeau, 6644 20th Avenue, to;. ditions as follows: 1. A document is pre , s pplicant dedicating the required additional right -of- way to Anoka Cou the future reconstruction of 20th Avenue (Co. Rd. 54). 2. The Survey , • en a� icate a 10 -acre parcel for Tract B which is exclusive of any road right -of- 3. Park Dedication y?, `assumed collected on the existing homestead, Park Dedication on the remaining Tr t A shall be deferred until future development occurs. and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. Ms. Wyland stated this will go to the Council on Monday, September 27, 1999. B. Sue Walseth, 6408 Cassiopeia Court, Variance Ms. Wyland presented the staff report and explained that Sue Walseth, 6408 Cassiopeia Court, is constructing a new home on the northeast corner of Holly Drive and Cassiopeia Court. Ms. Walseth has an above ground pool and a large dog so she is requesting a variance to place a six foot high privacy fence in her rear yard and side lot line (Holly Drive) to approximately the front of the house. Ms. Wyland presented the language of • • • 1 • • Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 1999 Page 3 the Zoning Ordinance and explained the Ordinance prohibits the construction of a six foot fence from the setback line of the adjoining home on Holly Drive and also along Holly Drive to the front of the house. The Ordinance would allow a fence of no more than four feet in height. Ms. Wyland explained that in reviewing this variance request, staff reviewed the Anoka County site /distance guidelines which, if used in considering this request, would support the intent of the Ordinance requirement limiting the fence height to four feet. She stated staff also considered the variance requirements and have concluded that a variance to allow a six -foot privacy fence in this location would not meet the required Findings of Fact. Ms. Wyland noted the adjoining hobby farm and possible compromise to allow the construction of a six foot high fence on the rear property line to match the existing six foot fence on the east side of 1101 Holly Drive which was co red to screen the Trappers Crossing Development from 1101 Holly Drive. staff would not support a six -foot fence within the County site /distance Ms. Wyland presented pictures submitted by the ap er fences and clarified that in all cases, the fences depicted meet Cod- �� i en She advised that Chair Schaps was unable to attend tonight but di orandum indicating his support for staff's recommendation of denial base • ationale the request does not meet the five criteria necessary for a variance. . also indicated in his memorandum that granting a variance would con . `�4 :` seth a privilege which has been denied to other landowners similarly si a Upon inquiry, Ms. Wylan Mr. Schilling asked if fence. Ms. Wyl within that locatio e pool is above ground and does not require fencing. ommendation within the site triangle was a four -foot high t would be an option since it would not restrict visibility Ms. Carlson asked a'`.ut the location of the trail. Ms. Wyland stated it was within the right -of -way of Holly Drive and remains debatable as to which side it would be constructed. Acting Chair Lane stated she sees some privacy issues depending on the location of the trail. Sue Walseth, applicant, presented a site plan of her property and proposed fence location. She noted the distance of that location to the traffic is 70 feet and the fence location is not abutting the corner of the property. She stated that the intersection contains a stop sign and a clear view would be present with a six -foot high fence. Ms. Walseth stated the adjoining property is at an elevation of 914 feet with a large ditch. She stated her fence would be one foot lower than the hill and she would prefer the side fence, if she had to Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 1999 Page 4 make a choice. Ms. Walseth noted the traffic direction and that her windows face eastward which provides a view of traffic and vehicle lights. Thus, the request for a six - foot privacy fence in the front yard. Ms. Walseth stated there is only about 200 feet of straight roadway when coming from the cul -de -sac so the speed of vehicles would not be that great when approaching this intersection. She presented statistics she found on the Mn/DOT website regarding sight distances and sight triangles. She presented this information with colored graphs depicting sight triangles required for various vehicle speeds. Ms. Walseth stated the rear elevation results in a pool location near the front, by Holly Drive. She stated that with the vehicular and pedestrian traffic, a privacy fence is needed. Ms. Walseth commented on the anticipated increase in traffic based on surrounding development and stated there is a need for a buffer. She explained she purchased this corner lot due to the lower cost and had always planned to fe g Holly Drive. Ms. Walseth stated she was surprised when she learned of the f tion. She presented colored pictures of other fences in Lino Lakes (as prevt d by Ms. Wyland). Ms. Walseth stated the person buying the existing request. She stated there are only eight houses and responsible drivers so they would not s does not believe the proposed fence woul elevations of the property. s no objection to her eig orhood, all with families, this intersection. She stated she arge of an obstruction, given the Mr. Schilling asked if it would . . e enclose just the pool with a fence rather than the property. Ms. Wals •_- would prefer more privacy than that would afford. Mr. Schilling note. t +uld be an option. Mr. Schilling asked if the ordinance do be impeded. How inance makes reference to elevations. Ms. Wyland stated antings with reference to elevations and the area that cannot would not apply to this property. Ms. Wyland noted th setback requirement from the pool requiring it not be located within any required front or side yard setback. On this lot, the setback on Holly Drive is 40 feet. Ms. Walseth stated she was not supported in her efforts to have the site graded to eliminate the hill or to save the trees that existed. Ms. Carlson stated she believed the trail was the main issue for invasion of privacy and asked how far it would be from the property line. Ms. Walseth stated the trail had been approved at the park level and would be located in the right -of -way. Ms. Wyland stated the Building Inspector had agreed to an encroachment to allow the fence to be placed up to the property line so a future trail may be one to two feet from the fence, if so located. • • • It • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 1999 Page 5 Ms. Walseth stated there are a lot of pedestrians along Holly Drive, as well as bicyclers and joggers. She stated her garage is on the opposite side of the lot so her house is close to the roadway. Ms. Walseth stated there is no berm or natural plantings to provide a buffer or screening, even though she had requested it from the developer. Mr. Corson stated the applicant has good reasons for this request but the Board needs to be consistent with prior standing. He noted that last week someone wanted a variance he would have liked to support. However, if granted it would weaken the ordinance. Mr. Corson stated if the Planning & Zoning Board is supportive of this application, they should recommend the Council amend the ordinance to make it allowable. Ms. Walseth stated she is only trying to gain some privacy. Acting Chair Lane asked Ms. Walseth if a variance for a six -foot fence along the east side would help. Ms. Walseth stated she would prefer the fence a _ olly Drive to buffer the house from the traffic. Acting Chair Lane asked if a five -foot high fence w stated it would be better than a four -foot fence but be a special order height. She advised the esti over $6,000 and will look nice with landsc ble. Ms. Walseth expensive since it might the fencing (as proposed) is Mr. Dunn stated he has empathy for t � � a. • ;; d other similar requests but the decisions was clearly made by the o $ Planning & Zoning Board, supported by staff and the City Council, that " a -s • eliminated and no longer be allowed. He stated he finds this distressfu + ata. the decision made by the majority of the Planning & Zoning Board n cil on a recent application. Mr. Dunn stated that h d that each case is unique upon itself. However, the Council, on advi wyer, determined it would set a precedent and could not be approved. Mr. Du � ��. that until the staff and Council takes a different posture, there is not much that can done. He again stated he believed every lot is different and unique so he would a stain from the vote on this matter. Mr. Dunn stated he has difficulty accepting staffs conclusion that this request "does not meet the Findings of Fact." He stated he finds there to be a shortfall in the process for variance consideration and believed this should be remedied. Mr. Dunn stated he does not have adequate information to make this decision and believed there were other six -foot high fences in Lino Lakes. Ms. Carlson stated she does not agree with Mr. Dunn that no variances are allowed because in order to grant a variance, five Findings of Fact are considered. With this case, the five Findings of Fact are not met. However, there are concerns becoming more prominent in Lino Lakes with the expansion of the trail system. She stated the trails are wonderful for transportation of pedestrians but they do impact resident's privacy. Ms. Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 1999 Page 6 Carlson stated there had been cul -de -sac locations where trails were not extended due to concern with loss of property rights and privacy. Ms. Carlson stated that she can see the ordinance needs to be changed. She noted that while fencing for the pool is not an issue, fencing for the dog is an issue. Ms. Carlson stated she also believed that fencing along the trails is an issue so she would abstain from this decision. Mr. Schilling stated he supports a compromise to allow a six -foot high fence in the back yard and a four -foot fence in the side yard. Acting Chair Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of the variance request for Sue Walseth, 6408 Cassiopeia Court, to allow a six foot high fence where allowed and because of the trail and low lot elevation, to allow the balance of the privacy fence to be five feet in height where it should be four feet in height. A second to the motion was not offered. Thus, the mot Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend denia t nce request, Sue Walseth, 6408 Cassiopeia Court, based on the rationale t es t meet the five required Findings of Fact and to recommend that th ; .! a amended, and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Acting Chair Lane stated she conc unn that not allowing any variances is too stringent for property owners eved a hardship exists. Mr. Corson cautioned abo shing a precedent. Mr. Dunn stated he sti and if a variance is made, then he tains that every lot is unique since none are the same shape d appropriate and been granted, and an exact same request ort granting it again. Mr. Smyser stated th with the last variance being mentioned, staff stated unequivocally they did not support the variance. He clarified that in his conversation with Mr. Dunn he had indicated that if the Zoning Ordinance was to be changed it could be brought to Council but it would not happen in the immediate future since the Comprehensive Plan is not yet in place. He advised that staff has been told numerous times at Council work sessions to not piecemeal ordinance changes. He stated this is the direction from the City's elected officials so staff would not recommend a single change to a single chapter until the Comprehensive Plan issue is resolved. Mr. Dunn stated he did not use the word "opposed" and advised that Ms Wyland had previously indicated to him that staff felt no urgency to deal with this issue. He clarified he never said "opposed" and unless a lot of the ordinance is changed, the Comprehensive Plan has no impact on what is being discussed tonight. • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Smyser agreed. Motion failed 2 ayes (Corson and Johnson), 2 nays (Schilling and Lane), and 2 abstained (Carlson and Dunn). Mr. Smyser stated this application will move forward to the City Council without a recommendation. Ms. Wyland stated this will go to the Council on Monday, September 27, 1999. C. PUBLIC HEARING, Majestic Pines Community Church (no additional information, hearing to be continued) Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to continue the hearing and w Mr. Dunn stated he believed the Planning & Zoning Bo Friday to Wednesday to handle this delicate situatio injustice is done to the community to attempt to an that the letter from Mr. Hawkins be provided t Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Smyser advised the applicant neighborhood meeting in about will receive an invitation to t orted by Mr. Corson. e time than from personally feels an a day or two. He asked be copied for the Council. d indicated they have scheduled a e stated Planning & Zoning Board members D. PUBLIC HE Thumb (item temporarily withdrawn by applicant) Acting Chair Lane` . �� e public hearing at 7:35 p.m. VI. DISCUSSION ITE S A. Community Athletic Complex - Rick DeGardner Mr. Smyser presented a drawing depicting the location of the proposed athletic complex site. He explained the City has the opportunity to acquire 60 acres for a new athletic complex at the southeast corner of Birch Street and Centerville Road. Mr. Smyser noted the conceptual drawing which was prepared to identify the uses that could be accommodated (in draft concept form). Mr. Smyser recommended the Planning & Zoning Board support the concept of the athletic complex at the location indicated, contingent upon public discussion and more detailed analysis being conducted in the near future. Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 1999 Page 8 Mr. DeGardner presented a brief background report, starting with the creation of an ad hoc committee which determined several complex sites. He explained the study for a southern complex site was then initiated by the City Council in 1993. Mr. DeGardner noted the five sites that were identified and the preferred site which was located on Holly Drive and County Road J. He explained that staff was authorized to pursue property acquisition. However, that was not accomplished so staff looked at additional sites and based on staff's current review and findings of the ad hoc committee, the Montain property was selected. Mr. DeGardner noted the acreage on the northern boundary that would be retained by Mr. Montain for a future home location and five additional acres on the southern portion that could also be acquired. He presented the design constraints staff has addressed including a power line and wetlands. He advised this is a concept plan that identifies the uses that would fit into a site of this size. Prior to proceeding, additio t would be obtained from residents and the consultant. He advised that a traffic Id also be conducted to determine traffic impacts. Mr. DeGardner stated a benefit of this site is the li purchase price, good access from County road presented a resident survey indicating 62% an athletic complex. He noted the outst tight recreational facilities that curren the heavy use of neighborhood par Mr. DeGardner presented fi If a bonding referendum i development. ding development, ora e soil conditions. He yed support the development of ort of athletic associations and the o, an athletic complex would eliminate ed activities. s which could include a future bonding issue. essful, the property could then be offered for Mr. Corson state oncern is the traffic impact and poor condition of the roadway. He aske , • .. trooms would be accommodated. Mr. DeGardner stated portable satellites d be used until utilities are available. At that point, restroom facilities could be co sidered. He agreed with the impact of traffic with such an athletic complex. He stated if the direction of the City is not to have an athletic complex, staff would design neighborhood parks differently to accommodate additional usage. In response to Mr. Corson, Mr. DeGardner stated staff would have to address possible trail connections. Mr. Johnson noted a proposed church location to the south which would also be a traffic generator. He asked about Anoka County's long range plans for road improvements. Mr. DeGardner stated Anoka County has indicated they would be requesting additional right - of -way to make lane improvements. He noted these issues would be addressed in the traffic study. Mr. DeGardner stated he is unable to anticipate a time schedule for the development of an athletic complex but would not expect it to occur before 2003. • • • • r • Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 1999 Page 9 Mr. Johnson stated the City needs to be sensitive to what occurs within this corridor. Mr. DeGardner concurred and noted this location is a central location but does not impact a large established residential area. Ms. Carlson pointed out that this plan appears to produce less traffic than the uses proposed in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial and multiple housing. Mr. DeGardner concurred. Acting Chair Lane agreed that the church would generate traffic but only occasionally and mostly during Sunday mornings. Mr. DeGardner stated they do not often program City park activities on Sunday mornings. Mr. Johnson stated his understanding is that the proposed church would be multi -use. Mr. Dunn stated staff has asked the Board to indicate if the •po the concept of the athletic complex. He noted there have been multiple q �aton� but conceptually he believed this offered a wonderful opportunity for Li property prices would only continue to soar. He stated his 100% support i •u� is parcel and work towards the development of an athletic comple � e . to e challenge will be if residents are willing to pay for this comple c.may if the mill rate is reduced. g P Y P Mr. Dunn noted there are not many other at would be suitable for this type of use. Mr. Schilling stated he also sup mplex 100% and believed there was a need. He agreed that this is •pl: unity. Mr. Johnson stated his Acting Chair Lan d annot envision Lino Lakes without such a facility. She stated she is thrille perty became available and fully supports its purchase. Mr. Corson agreed th time has come for this type of facility. Ms. Carlson agreed and stated her appreciation to the property owner for being willing to sell the property for this use. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to declare the Board's hearty endorsement for the development of an athletic complex on the Montain property, and was supported by Ms. Carlson. Motion carried 6 -0. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 1999 Page 10 Respectfully Submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • •