Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/1996 P&Z Minutes• • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS:, PRESENT STAFF PRESENT : September 11, 1996 : 6:30 p.m. : 10:05 p.m. : Dahl, Dunn, Gelbmann, Herr, Johnson, Robinson, Schaps Planning Coordinator Wyland, City Engineer Ahrens, Economic Development Director Wessel, City Planning Consultant AI Brixius I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., September 11, 1996. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve the minutes as submitted for the August 14, 1996 Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting and was supported by Herr. Motion carried 6 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:34 p.m. for citizens to bring up any issue not listed on the agenda. Ms. Rosemary Williams, 4998 62nd Street, requested that the minutes reflect a list of issues regarding Mr. Richard Carlson's development of Millers South Glen. As the letter pertained to the first agenda item, Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to close the "Open Mike" portion of the meeting at 6:37 p.m. and was seconded by Mr. Johnson. The motion carried unanimously, 7 -0. 1 Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 V. ACTION ITEMS A. 96 -29 - Rezoning & Preliminary Plat, Richard Carlson, Millers South Glen Ms. Williams read the following letter addressed to Mayor John Landers, City Council Members, the Planning & Zoning Board of the City of Lino Lakes, Richard Carlson and Associates, and Homeowners: "We are concerned about the ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC PROBLEMS RICHARD CARLSON AND ASSOCIATES WILL BE CREATING IF the Planning and Zoning Board at the City of Lino Lakes allows Richard Carlson and Associates to rezone from Rural to R -1X single family and allows them to build 48 homes east of Ware Road, north on 62nd Street and South of Coyote Trail. 1) 48 HOMES GENERATES 10 TRIPS PER FAMILY PER DAY ON AN ADDITIONAL 480 CARS ON THE ROAD EACH DAY. 2) WEST SHADOW LAKE DRIVE HOMEOWNERS ARE PRESENTLY HAVING GREAT DIFFICULTY RETURNING TO THEIR HOMES AT NIGHT. a) BECAUSE OF THIS, IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT A ROAD WILL CONNECT WEST SHADOW LAKE DRIVE TO 62ND STREET SO TRAFFIC CAN GO SOUTH ON WARE ROAD TO COUNTY ROAD J TO HODGSON ROAD. b) WHEN WILL THIS CONNECTION OCCUR AND APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CARS WOULD BE ROUTED TO 62ND STREET? 3) 62ND STREET AND WARE ROAD ARE NARROW ROADS, AND THESE ROADS ARE EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS, PARTICULARLY IN WINTER. THEY ALSO NEED TO BE REPAVED. 4) 62ND STREET, WARE ROAD AND HODGSON ROAD ARE DEER CROSSING AREAS. 2 Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 5) HODGSON ROAD BETWEEN THE NORTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD J AND BIRCH STREET, THERE WERE 26 ACCIDENTS LAST YEAR (1995) - INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE LINO LAKES POLICE DEPARTMENT. a) THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ACCIDENTS ON 62ND STREET AND WARE ROAD. HOW MANY ACCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED ON THESE ROADS? OUR QUESTIONS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES ARE: 1) ARE YOU GOING TO ENDANGER PEOPLE'S SAFETY BY CREATING MORE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN THESE SAID AREAS AND ALLOW RICHARD CARLSON AND ASSOCIATES TO REZONE AND ALLOW THEM TO BUILD 48 HOMES, WHEN THE ROADS CANNOT PRESENTLY TAKE CARE OF THE EXISTING TRAFFIC? 2) IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES ALLOWS THE REZONING, WILL IT REQUIRE RICHARD CARLSON AND ASSOCIATES TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THEY ARE CREATING? WOULD THEY PAY FOR REPAVING AND POSSIBLY WIDENING OF THESE ROADS? 3) HAVE YOU DONE A TRAFFIC STUDY TO SEE WHAT IMPACT THESE 48 HOMES WOULD HAVE IN THIS AREA? 4) WHEN ARE TRAFFIC LIGHTS GOING TO BE INSTALLED AT BIRCH STREET AND HODGSON ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD J AND HODGSON ROAD? 5) ARE YOU GOING TO CONNECT 62ND STREET WITH HODGSON ROAD? 6) HOW MANY NEW HOMES ARE GOING TO BE BUILT WEST OF WARE ROAD, AND WILL THEY EXIT ON WARE ROAD OR HODGSON ROAD? 7) ARE YOU GOING TO RELOCATE THE DEER TO ANOTHER AREA TO AVOID SOME OF THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS? • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 8) THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO SPEED ON 62ND STREET AND WARE ROAD. WILL YOU LOWER THE POSTED SPEEDS ON THESE STREETS? 9) WILL YOU HAVE A POLICE PATROL ON THESE STREETS DURING RUSH HOUR? 10) PLEASE NOTE BIKERS AND WALKERS ALSO USE 62ND STREET AND WARE ROAD WHICH ADDS TO THE EXISTING PROBLEMS- - THEIR SAFETY SHOULD BE A CONCERN! OUR QUESTIONS TO RICHARD CARLSON AND ASSOCIATES ARE: 1) IF GRANTED REZONING IN SAID AREAS, ARE YOU GOING TO INFORM THE HOMEOWNERS BEFORE THEY BUY YOUR HOMES THAT THEY ARE BUYING A HOME IN A HIGH TRAFFIC AND HIGH ACCIDENT AREA WITH UNSAFE ROADS AND DEER CROSSING AREAS? 2) ARE YOU GOING TO INFORM THESE HOMEOWNERS THEIR PROPERTY VALUES COULD GO DOWN BECAUSE OF THE HIGH TRAFFIC AND HIGH ACCIDENT AND UNSAFE ROADS? 3) SINCE RICHARD CARLSON AND ASSOCIATES WOULD BENEFIT FROM THIS REZONING, AS WELL AS YOU ARE CREATING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC PROBLEMS, WILL RICHARD CARLSON AND ASSOCIATES: a) PAY FOR THE WIDENING AND REPAVING OF 62ND STREET AND WARE ROAD TO MAKE THESE ROADS SAFE FOR THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC YOU ARE CREATING? b) PAY FOR A ROAD CONNECTING 62ND STREET TO HODGSON ROAD? A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WILL BE APPRECIATED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH." Chair Schaps stated that some of the questions in the letter presume that a decision has been made. He assured residents that no decision has been made on the proposed development. The Planning & Zoning Board is a preliminary hearing Board. All final decisions are made by the City Council. 4 • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 Mr. Al Brixius, City Planning Consultant, stated that the City received an application to create a subdivision of 48 single family Tots, to be known as Miller South Glen. It is located at the northeast corner of Ware Road and 62nd Street. In order to accommodate this development, a number of things would have to occur: 1. Allocation of 27.9 acres of the City's interim MUSA reserve /Comprehensive Plan amendment; 2. Rezoning the property from R, Rural to R -1X, Single Family Executive; 3. Vacation of an existing road easement within the property; 4. Preliminary plat 5. Variance to allow a cul -de -sac in excess of 500 feet in Mr. Brixius stated that if the City decides that the rezoning is appropriate, an expansion of MUSA must take place to include the subject property. This would involve allocating 27.9 buildable acres from the150+ interim MUSA acres to the subject property, subject to the following conditions: 1) the Land Use Plan is amended to designate low density residential use of the site; and 2) the subject property is found to meet the applicable MUSA reserve criteria. The reserve criteria are listed in the staff report. Utilities are available through already subdivided areas. The Park Board believes this development is generally consistent with what is proposed for that area; it is also consistent with the sewer and water comp plans. One of the biggest concerns is whether 62nd Street can adequately serve additional development. If the finding is made that the roadways are not adequate, consideration of a subdivision at this time would be premature. Chair Schaps noted that the Comprehensive Plan Task Force is underway to determine and uses throughout the City, and it may be premature for this property to be developed before the Task Force has studied the area. Mr. Brixius noted that there has not been a formal moratorium placed on development, and the City is obligated to consider any application on its own merit. Mr. Wessel stated that at the City Council meeting Monday, September 10, 1996, No. 11 of the MUSA criteria was modified to state that roadways serving the proposed development should be determined to be adequate to handle additional traffic as determined by an independent traffic engineer. If the roads are determined to be inadequate, the development proposal should be denied unless there is a financial commitment to upgrade the roadways. In addition, the City Council stipulated that MUSA would be allocated in the following manner: 1) 50 acres in 1996; 2) 50 acres in 1997; and 50 acres in 1998. It is hoped that this requirement will provide an opportunity for a balance continuum of commercial and residential development. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 City Engineer Ahrens stated that both 62nd Street and Ware Road are designated Minnesota State Aid (MSA) collector streets which typically carry higher volumes of traffic. Both roadways are approximately 22 to 24 feet wide without concrete curb and gutter. Current state aid design standards would require a 30 -foot wide road with concrete curb and gutter. Based on existing road conditions and current volumes of traffic, the roads do not meet current design standards and are inadequate to handle existing traffic or projected traffic from this proposed future development. A consulting engineer conducted a traffic count on 62nd Street is 1994 or 1995 and counted 380 cars per day; Ware Road is 1,200 per day. With the assumption of 10 trips per day per single family residence, this project will generate approximately an additional 500 trips per day. Reconstruction costs for 62nd Street and Ware Road are estimated at $1.25 million. The City's state aid balance for 1998 is $1.25 million. Chair , Schaps asked when an independent traffic study would be done. Mr. Ahrens responded that no formal decision has been made. Johnson asked Mr. Ahrens to elaborate on the policy requiring the developer to provide a portion of funding toward the street improvements. Mr. Ahrens stated that arrangements are unclear. Only one other situation occurred in the City when a developer contributed funding for roads after a traffic study was completed. The Council has requested a traffic study on Ware Road and expressed a desire to upgrade it within the next two years. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 6:40 p.m. Mr. Ahrens stated that he would address the questions relating to West Shadow Lake Road. West Shadow Lake Drive stops at the south line of Reshanau Lake Estates 5th Addition. The Comprehensive Plan calls for it to be extended to Ash Street/County Rd J, but at this time there are no plans for that extension. Robinson noted that there is a lot of wetland south of 62nd Street. Mr. Ahrens agreed and stated that any extension of West Shadow Lake Drive would not be straight. Herr asked if West Shadow Lake Drive is a collector street. Mr. Ahrens responded that it is a state aid road and is 40 to 44 feet wide. It is planned to be a collector street. When it is eventually extended to County Road J, it will be a full access road. Chair Schaps stated that he does not believe this proposal is ready to be heard by the Board. Both access roads are inadequate. The options are to table action and continue the public hearing or deny the application. 6 • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 Mr. Brixius noted that if the application is tabled, there is a 60 -day time limit for the City to fully review the application. Mr. Carlson stated that he would agree for the matter to be tabled. Ms. Williams asked how a traffic study could be done if the road is torn up. Mr. Ahrens explained that the traffic study would be based on projected volumes from the new development and numbers from the earlier study. He will find out when the study was done and if the numbers are adequate or if they need to be adjusted relative to the growth of Lino Lakes. Nationally accepted traffic generation standards will be applied for the proposed development. The study will also present cost estimates to upgrade the road. Robinson asked if the traffic study would include Linda Avenue which is used as a shortcut to the highway. Mr. Ahrens stated that cut - through traffic would also be investigated. Mr. Brixius noted that even if a traffic study is done, if there is no schedule for the road improvements, this proposal may still be premature. The timing of the road improvements is a critical element. Robinson stated that the public hearing includes rezoning which could be approved with the stipulation that the road upgrade would have to be completed before any building. Dunn stated that the proposal requests too many concessions from the City, and there are too many unanswered questions. He would like to see a financial analysis to show that 48 new homes will be a sound financial credit for the City. There needs to be an understanding of what it means to reclassify property from rural to non -rural and whether it benefits the City. That is an unknown with this project. He further noted that the City is not pressed for vacant lots. Ms. Wyland stated that there are 304 vacant, undeveloped lots available for building in the City. Dunn stated that he does not see any urgency to rush into this plan, especially in view of the fact that the City Comprehensive Plan Task Force is reviewing remaining space in the City to determine the best land uses. If the City is saying that the Comprehensive Plan is vital, then this project should be put on hold. The project does not meet several of the MUSA criteria. The roads are inadequate, and until all the facts are on the table, a development of 48 new homes is premature. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 • Dunn further requested that the agenda of this meeting include a discussion on what information is necessary to have before the Board reviews a development package. He noted that Mr. Carlson has not contacted the Rice Creek Watershed. He does not believe that all of the information will be available in 30 days and the project should be postponed longer. Dahl stated that the school district also needs to be considered. School officials have stated that the Rice Lake Elementary School has inadequate capacity. She does not feel comfortable with this project because it will raise taxes for everyone. She asked if the traffic study could include information on the impact to area schools. This is not the only proposal that will come before the City and Rice Creek Elementary is already overcrowded or will be shortly. She does not want to see citizens have to pay for another school. Mr. Ahrens stated that the traffic study would not relate to the impact on the school district. Mr. Wessel stated that any impact to the school district will be part of the comprehensive planning process. Ms. Maureen Dreyfus stated that she lives on Linden Lane and has prepared a petition which she submitted. She stated that the Board needs to be aware that predevelopment work has been done which has created an eyesore for neighbors abutting the property. Neighbors are concerned about the subdivision because there is a mound of dirt with a huge hole that is retaining water. Residents do not want water in their back yards. If this project is tabled too long, there will be problems. Neighbors have met with City officials and Mr. Carlson who has promised to have answers regarding drainage. Dunn asked what the petition is requesting. Ms. Dreyfus stated that the petition is concerned with the predevelopment work that is being done and is beyond what the City approved to date. Residents are requesting that Mr. Carlson fulfill his commitment to address the drainage problem for Park Grove. There is concern that any additional building will add to the drainage problem. She does not have a clear understanding of the runoff plan. Ponds have been dug and residents are not happy with the way they were laid out and the direction they were supposed to flow. Dunn asked what authorization or permit was given for work to begin. He also asked if Rice Creek Watershed has been contacted. 8 • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 Mr. Ahrens stated that the developer approached the City to dig a pond approximately three weeks ago to enhance PineRidge Second Addition. The request was approved with the understanding that no work could be done on the new development. He noted that the mound of dirt has been seeded. Rice Creek Watershed has not been contacted because there is no change of land use. The pond was created at this time because the lots to the west in PineRidge Second Addition are being built. Mr. Carlson stated that the pond had to be built whether or not the proposed project is approved because it will be an enhancement to the lots to the west and is in accordance with standards for sedimentation ponds. He believes this area will be developed as residential because it is a logical expansion of the residential area to the north. Utilities are in place, and the roads will be upgraded. If the pond is not put in now, it cannot be done in the future. Drain tile will be installed along the back property lines to relieve drainage problems in Park Grove. Gelbmann asked if this is the only pond in the area. Mr. Carlson answered, yes. The dirt pile is where he envisions a future cul -de -sac. When he stripped the top soil, there was more dirt generated than he anticipated so it was placed where the future cul -de -sac would be. He realizes that the existing cul -de- sac is higher than it should be, and it is his intention to lower the grade. Gelbmann asked the height of the dirt mound from the original grade. Mr. Carlson stated that it is approximately 6 to 8 feet higher than grade. Robinson stated that this work presumes approval, and he cannot imagine the developer being this presumptuous prior to rezoning or platting. The Board has not seen this project before and is supposed to see it before any action is taken. Chair Schaps received the petition to be entered into the minutes. The petition reads as follows: "We the neighbors and concerned residents of PineRidge and Park Grove wish to present the following concerns, pertaining to the new development by Richard Carlson & Associates to be known as Millers South Glen, to the City of Lino Lakes via the Planning & Zoning Board. Our concerns are heightened by the City's acknowledgment that the predevelopment work done to date on the parcel of land to be known as Millers South Glen went beyond what the City had approved in theory. In so far as we now have the opportunity to raise Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 concerns, we the undersigned request that the City of Lino Lakes and the developer, Richard Carlson, give some consideration and commitments on the following matters: 1) We are requesting that Richard S. Carlson fulfill his commitment to resolve the drainage problems on the north side of the walking trail in Park Grove adjoining the new development. Specifically, we are requesting that a French drainage system be built in the swale from Lot 3 through Lot 7 of Block 5, and across the path to Lot 1 of Block 6, and then into the retention pond in Park Grove, Block 6. It is further requested that any and all construction damage be repaired and the lots be returned to their original condition following the building of this drainage system. 2) That the City establish an architectural review process to assure an independent review of the home plans submitted to and approved by Carlson & Associates in Millers South Glen, Park Grove and PineRidge. This review would insure conformance with the covenants and aesthetic preservation of the developments. 3) That the City commit to insuring that all drainage from the home now being built on the PineRidge Ill, Lot 1, be confined to the south side of the walking trail. That the City assume responsibility for and commit to resolve any and all future issues pertaining to any drainage problems resulting from this lot; including drainage onto the walking path and /or the properties located north of the walking path. 4) That the current plan for a retention pond adjoining the walking trail be changed. Specifically, we are requesting that this pond be elevated to above the water table and sodded to provide for a grassy /pasture swale with water flowing southward to the newly stagnant water and provide a more aesthetically pleasing view for the entire subdivision. Additionally, we believe that any future owner would prefer a grass swale as opposed to wet marshy land in their back yard, which will produce mosquitos and rodents. 5) We need a clear understanding of where the water runoff and retention plans for the east side of Millers South Glen (Block 3) and assurances built into the covenants that the water runoff /retention will not affect Park Grove's current water situation. 6) That the current gradation and elevation of Millers South Glen [specifically the cul -de -sac] be lowered to match the current street elevations of Park Grove / PineRidge. Furthermore, once approved any changes or deviations to these elevations be reviewed at a public hearing with proper notice given to adjoining residents. 10 • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 7) That Richard Carlson & Associates and /or the City of Lino Lakes provide a mature tree line break immediately adjoining the walking trail to the south to provide a break between the developments, Park Grove and Millers South Glen. 8) To insure that all covenants and development plans are adhered to and to provide relief should future issues arise; we are requesting Richard Carlson and Associates be required to provide the City with a site development bond in an amount deemed appropriate by the City of Lino Lakes. 9) We are requesting that the City give formal notification, in writing to our homes, of any further hearing pertaining to the matters addressed herein or pertaining to Millers South Glen." Ms. Dreyfus stated that residents do not necessarily wish to stop the project but wanted to raise these issues. Mr. Carlson stated that he was not being presumptuous in building the pond. He did not believe he would have the amount of excess dirt that is there. He had no intention of upsetting the community or causing problems in the neighborhood. In order to get the value of homes he would like to build, the pond had to be constructed. He stated that he will work hard to resolve the problem. He requested that the discussion cease to give him an opportunity to present the project in a professional manner. The questions presented are legitimate but cannot be answered at this meeting. Robinson stated that Mr. Carlson has been a quality developer in the City. This project is going to be tabled and while he is not asking him to fill in the pond, he would like to see something done with the dirt pile to satisfy the neighbors. Mr. Carlson stated that he will set up a meeting with the neighbors to resolve the issue, and he will also work on the drainage issue. Herr requested that the neighborhood meeting take place with the full cooperation and coordination of the City with representation from members of the Board. Mr. Paul Graff, Linden Lane, stated that residents have been waiting over two years for the grading issues to be resolved, and many homeowners do not know about this meeting. Mr. Craig Harvey stated that he would like to see a diligent effort made to contact homeowners during the process of construction. 11 Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 Ms. Dawn Kena, stated that she would like to know if the traffic study will include Fox Trace, and the back part of Pine Ridge along Coyote and if a pedestrian study can also be done with a traffic study. Mr. Ahrens stated that he will look into pedestrian traffic with the traffic engineer. Ms. Betty Carpenter, 6474 Ware Road, stated that the 1,200 cars cited earlier for Ware Road is only a.m. traffic. She worked on the traffic study with the Chief of Police, and traffic was counted only during certain hours of the day. Mr. Dave Rader, 6442 Ware Road, stated that there were approximately 2,300 cars per day on Ware Road last summer according to the Chief of Police. Mr. Bill Trudeau, 410 62nd Street, asked what the assessments will be if 62nd Street is upgraded before development, or if the cost would be included with the development. He further asked if it would be more beneficial for residents to have the road improved before the development or wait until assessments can be shared with the new homes. Mr. Ahrens stated it would be better to wait for the development. Mr. Michael Green stated that he lives on 62nd Street and asked if there is any intention to put a STOP light at Hodgson Road and County Road J. Mr. Ahrens stated that a County report indicated "traffic sign improvements for that intersection ". He will find out what that refers to. Ms. Dan Brunet, 496 Linden Lane, asked who authorized Mr. Carlson to go ahead and grade the pond. Mr. Ahrens stated that Mr. Carlson discussed it with him. He already had a permit for Pine Ridge. As Property owners can construct a pond on their own property as long as there is no drainage problem, that is how he considered the request. Rice Creek Watershed was consulted, and it was determined that there would be no impact on neighboring properties. While he reviews the grading plans, he does not generally inspect the work. Dunn asked if the current grading was approved by the City, as it appears that it is not being done correctly. He asked if it is the function of the City and City Engineer to insure compliance during the process of development. 12 • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 Mr. Ahrens stated that there has been an increase of inspections, particularly with back yard grading. He also checks the Rice Creek Watershed permit to be sure it is followed. Robinson stated that when people move into new projects, they change the grading of the back yard unknowingly when they bring in black dirt. Drainage is the number one issue with development, and perhaps a staff person is needed to oversee new developments. Mr. Al Robinson made a MOTION to close the public hearing temporarily and was supported by Dahl. Mr. Johnson stated that he believes it is clear that this property will ultimately be developed as a residential use. However, he would not want to rezone the area until the Board is ready to approve the plat. He would like to see any action on the plat deferred until a traffic study is completed and a program is in place to rebuild the roads so that the roads will be completed at the same time as the development is completed. Financing has to be resolved, and the impact to schools needs to be identified. Comprehensive revision is needed for this plan to work. A reasonable time to table this hearing would be one to three months, but he does not believe all of the issues will be worked out in that time. Therefore, his preference would be to deny the application. Mr. Dunn agreed with Johnson. Chair Schaps stated that there will be numerous more meetings to develop an updated overall Comprehensive Plan for the City. He noted that the City Council denied the application for a property on Lake Drive because of the Comprehensive Plan. This situation is similar. Mr. Brixius stated that one other option may be available, and that would be if the applicant would withdraw the application in light of having it denied. Mr. Carlson stated that he would withdraw the entire application, and further action by the Board became moot. Chair Schaps requested that Mr. Carlson find out all of the concerns of neighbors including those not notified. He cautioned residents to only offer constructive criticism recognizing that an individual has the right to develop his property within the law. He suggested Mr. Carlson clean up what has been started to make the process easier. The Comprehensive Plan Task Force should review this area before this project goes forward. Residents will be asked for input into that process. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 Mr. Wessel stated that this area of the City will probably be before the Task Force during the first half of 1997. B. 96 -30 Planned Development Overlay, Twin City Townhomes, Apollo Meadows Townhomes Chair Schaps opened the public hearing for Twin City Townhomes, Apollo Meadows Townhomes at 8:18 p.m. Mr. Brixius stated that Twin City Townhomes has submitted a plan for Apollo Meadows Townhomes to construct 6 buildings with 34 units on a 4.95 -acre parcel of land. It is zoned R -3 for multi - family homes. Access is designed off Lea Court because access to Apollo Drive is restricted by Anoka County. The developer would have preferred access off Apollo Drive away from single family residences. The parcel is a triangular shape abutting the interstate and Apollo Drive. It is a difficult piece of land to develop and due to its configuration, he believes it is reasonable to allow flexibility of certain code requirements through the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) with regard to right -of -way, cul -de -sac length, street width, setback from internal streets and parking within right -of -way areas. There is concern about the request for six variances and the increase of traffic on Lea Court. The site appears to be overutilized. The plan could be denied or tabled for one month to revise the plan and address the following issues: 1. a density range of 21 to 28 units; 2. a reduction of units could decrease the length of the cul -de -sac; 3. on- street parking eliminated; 4. a minimum of 20 -foot driveways; 5. identification of snow storage (not in required parking spaces) 6. submittal of building plans to evaluate structure height, building materials and unit size; 7. no elevated decks that encroach into the required setback; 8. submittal of a drainage and utility plan, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer; 9. a park dedication fee based on the density of the development; 10. PDO agreement between the applicant and City. Mr. Forest Harstad, Developer, stated that he would like the project tabled because he just received communication earlier in the day that access from Apollo Drive may be possible. Johnson asked the selling price of the homes. Mr. Harstad answered between $90,000 and $100,000. 14 • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 Mr. Johnson stated that the would like to see the housing be in the affordable range and agreed that the density is too large. Mr. Jeffrey Bartels, 299 Lea Court, affirmed the possibility of an access off Apollo Drive as indicated by a member of the County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Darrell Phillips stated that he has only limited access to Apollo Drive because of the County's access restriction on that roadway. Mr. Dunn urged Mr. Harstad to listen to the recommendation of reduced density. The development would be a nice transition between commercial and residential. He asked if the length of the cul -de -sac is an issue for emergency vehicles. Mr. Brixius stated that there is a concern with the cul -de -sac length and the turning radius. If access is granted off Apollo Drive, many of the major concerns would be addressed. Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to table the public hearing until the October 1996 Planning Board meeting and was supported by Herr. The motion was unanimously approved. Chair Schaps called a break at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:48 p.m. C. 96 -31 -Minor Subdivision, Terry Miller, 6958 Lake Drive Ms. Wyland stated that Mr. Terry Miller has submitted a request to subdivide his property at 6958 Lake Drive into two 100 -foot width lots. The lots are 600 feet deep. The area is zoned R -1 with neighboring lots of 100 feet in width. It is not known why this lot was platted at 200 feet. Utilities are not currently available and not planned for some time. According to the strict definition of the code, a 10 -acre lot size is required because City sewer and water are not available. A variance would be required for lot sizes of less than 10 acres. The hardship would be the economic preference of the property owner to have two building sites instead of one. The applicant has completed soil borings and there appears to be adequate space for a septic system on each site plus an alternate in accordance with City code. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision and variance with the condition that a $500 park dedication fee be required for each parcel prior to recording the subdivision with the County. Mr. Johnson asked if the 10 -acre requirement can be waived if on -site sewage systems can be accommodated. 15 Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 Mr. Brixius stated that the City cannot justify smaller lot sizes on the basis of whether or not accommodation can be made for a septic system. Mr. Robinson stated that generally the only case when a variance of less than 10 acres would be granted would be in R -1 zoning. If it is zoned rural, the minimum lot size is 10 acres. Mr. Johnson stated that it appears the applicant is relying on precedent set by the City in the past. Because of the size of the adjoining lots of 100 feet in width, it is an implied commitment that this 200 -foot width lot can be subdivided also. Chair Schaps agreed that the intent is there. There are 10 100 -foot lots and with this variance, there will be 12. Mr. Brixius stated that by granting this variance, a precedent will be established for treating similar parcels. The precedent has not yet been established to allow for further subdivision similar in character with surrounding parcels. If the variance is approved, he recommended that the reasons be as site specific as possible to avoid a widespread precedent. The added dimension is this is a shoreline lot. All of the adjoining lots are substandard in size. An unsewered riparian lot should be 80,000 square feet; a sewered riparian lot must be at least 20,000 square feet. The variance is from the 10- acre size and from 80,000 square feet in area. Mr. Terry Miller stated that the history of how these Tots were created is sketchy. He does not know why this one is 200 feet in width and the others are 100 feet. The present owners bought the property when it was originally platted in the 1950's. He does not believe the area will be replatted in the future unless the existing homes are torn down. He is working with them to subdivide it and sell it for single family home development. Mr. Dunn noted that FOR SALE signs had been posted and asked if the property is being sold as two 100 -foot lots or a 200 -foot parcel subject to approval of further subdivision. Mr. Miller stated that he has explained to anyone interested that the sale of the two 100 -foot lots is subject to approval by the Planning Board and City Council. Mr. Robinson noted that there are many 2- to 3 -acre lots in the City that could be further subdivided into 100 -foot frontages similar to this one. He requested that hookup to City sewer and water be required when service is provided. 16 • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 Mr. Brixius noted a correction to the survey. The lots are 300 feet deep from Lake Drive to the first monument and an additional 590 feet to the water's edge. The Tots are close to 800 feet deep. He would like to be sure that urban size lots are not being created. The buildable are appears to be plus 30,000 sq. ft. Ms. Dahl asked if the lot can be sold with the present 200 -foot width if the variance is denied. Mr. Miller stated that the owners would try to sell it as 200 feet but would prefer the two 100 -foot lots. Mr. Gelbmann stated that it is hard for him to justify taking an existing, conforming shoreland lot and make it into a nonconforming lot. Reducing the size of lots sets a precedent for non - sewered lots. The hardship to justify the variance is directly based on economics. These factors are not enough for this action to be appropriate. Mr. Johnson agreed that the proposal does not meet all of the conditions for a variance. He is also uncomfortable taking action just because of the way the adjoining lots are configured. Each variance needs to be treated as a unique situation. Mr. William Johnson made a MOTION to deny the variance on the grounds that it does not meet condition Nos. A. and C. for variance approval and was supported by Gelbmann. The motion carried 4 -3. Members voting against the motion were Chair Schaps, Robinson and Herr. Mr.Robinson stated that the applicant still has the opportunity to appeal this decision before the City Council. D. 96 -32 Variance, Kim and John Sullivan, 7132 Whippoorwill Ms. Wyland stated that John and Kim Sullivan are requesting an after - the -fact variance to allow an accessory building that was built to remain at 1.6 feet from the street side of their property. The variance requested is 28.4 feet. The Sullivans believe they received misinformation when they decided on the location of the present structure. Staff has suggested an alternate location to avoid setting a precedent of accessory buildings 1.6. feet from the property line. The Sullivans do not believe an alternate location is the best place for the structure due to the unique features of the lot: 1) it is a unique shape; 2) existing drainage easements; 3) it is a corner lot with a larger setback requirement. Staff would not recommend an accessory building 1.6 feet from the property line but would consider a variance with a larger setback. Mr. Herr asked the City's policy if misinformation is given. 17 Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 Mr. Dunn stated that he believes the ordinance should be enforced. The problem is that the structure exists and looks good. To move it will be an eyesore to neighbors and a hardship to the Sullivans. The structure is fastened to a cement foundation and does not obstruct traffic sight lines. Mr. Pete Kluegel stated that the survey was unclear as to where the right -of -way ended and the line of the Sullivan's property. Chair Schaps asked if there was a specific discussion by staff or direction about a precise location for the structure. Mr. Kluegel stated that staff tried to identify the location of the property line over the phone. He does not recall direction being given on a precise location. The Sullivans would state the opposite. He added that a permit is not required for accessory buildings. Ms. Wyland noted that an anonymous party called the City to report the location of the accessory structure. Chair Schaps stated that the building is clearly not where it should be located. It would be his suggestions to come to an arrangement to move the building with the City sharing in the cost rather than trying to find the culpable party who gave misinformation. Ms. Kim Sullivan stated that the features associated with this property make it difficult to put the structure in another location that would not be a problem for their neighbors. Chair Schaps stated that the overriding issue is that the building is located in the setback, and he believes the best action is to not grant a variance. Ms. Sullivan displayed a map of the property and pointed out the grade. The City requires a 120 -foot lot width on corner properties. This property has only 93 feet in the rear or side, which is less than any corner property in Lino Lakes. This fact pushes the setback into the yard. The shed is 17 feet from the curb. That is the reason a variance is requested. Neighbors have petitioned against moving the structure because it will look out of place in the neighborhood. In order to move it, they would have to remove a tree. Mr. Brixius stated that the odd - shaped lot configuration and smaller width is not a unique situation in Lino Lakes or any other city. The topography, however, is unique. The important consideration is if the building did not exist, would the City grant this 18 • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 • variance knowing that another location would comply with the code, even if it is Tess • • desirable? Ms. Sullivan stated that the 120 -foot width is required to make up for the 30 -foot setback. If the lot width is not 120 feet and there is no compensation for the setback, they are being penalized for having a corner lot. Mr. Johnson stated that the lot was purchased as it exists with all of its ramifications. He is dismayed to learn that storage sheds can be built without a building permit. If this one is allowed, others will want to do the same thing and will do it without permission. He expressed concern about the City being able to guard the setback area. Chair Schaps agreed and stated that everyone is faced with complying with the same regulations. He is not sure the lot is unique because the conditions of the lot were known at the time of purchase. Ms. Sullivan stated that they purchased a flat lot. The issue of grade is the drainage easement. The easement was not indicated on the survey and they had no idea there was a drainage pipe on the lot. There was a drainage pipe indicated on the lot behind them. She further stated that if misinformation is given by the City, then the City should be held accountable. Mr. John Sullivan stated that he is not trying to point fingers, but he talked with City officials at least five times. He threw those notes away believing that everything was okay for this structure. Chair Schaps stated that he understands the Sullivans believe they received misinformation and wants the City to recognize what happened. Ms. Sullivan stated that their lot is unique because there is not another property in Lino Lakes that has the same drainage easement situation and the setback problem. Mr. Herr stated that he would support negotiations for a shared expense on the part of the Sullivans and the City to move the shed and would consider a compromise setback of 15 feet. Ms. Sullivan stated that a reasonable place has to be found. She does not want it in the front yard. Chair Schaps suggested that option No. 3 be taken and the issue be returned to staff for further consideration. Next month the issue can be revisited to make sure arrangements are workable for both parties. 19 Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 1996 Ms. Sullivan requested that any further negotiations with the City be in writing. Mr. William Johnson made a MOTION to return the matter to staff for further negotiations to work out an agreement by which the shed is moved to a location to respect the setback and explore the possibility of the City sharing in the cost to move it. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Wessel noted that the cost issue can only be decided by the City Council. The motion was unanimously approved. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr. Dunn announced a District 1 Comprehensive Plan Task Force meeting the following evening at 6:00 p.m. Citizens are welcome to attend and voice their opinions. Mr. Dunn stated that the data package the Board receives on projects needs to be improved. He volunteered to work with staff and present results to the Board. He would like to see a base line of criteria met before projects are presented and for the Board to be able to make good judgments. He would like to make sure that Board actions do not impose additional tax levies on citizens of Lino Lakes. Chair Schaps agreed. Dunn will meet with Mr. Wessel and bring recommendations back to the Board. Mr. William Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. and was supported by Robinson. The motion carried unanimously. 20 • • •