Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/09/1996 P&Z Minutes• • • Planning & Zoning Board October 9, 1996 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE • October 9, 1996 TIME'S'TAR " D : 6:35 p.m3 TIME ENDED : 7:37 p.m. EMBERS E , SENT : Dahl, Dunn, Gelbmann, Herr, Johnson, Schaps IIEMB;ERS ABSENT : Robinson STAFF PRESENT Planning Coordinator Wyland, City Engineer Ahrens, Economic Development Director Wessel I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:35 p.m., October 9, 1996. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 Page 1: Mr. Herr stated that he did not second the motion to approve the August 14, 1996 minutes. He abstained. Page 17: Mr. Herr clarified that his question at the bottom of the page should read whether there is a City position should any misinformation be given from staff. Gelbmann made a MOTION to approve the minutes as corrected for the September 11, 1996 Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting and was supported by Dunn. Motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:38 p.m. 1 • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 9, 1996 Mr. Duff Dorschner stated that he lives adjacent to the Behm's Century Farms development. He sold an easement to the City for a buried utility cable on Lilac Street. Since the utilities have been installed, the sod in his yard has not yet been replaced. Every other property has been re- sodded except his and one other. He asked if the grading and sod work could be expedited, as he would like to have his property restored to the condition it was in before the utility work. City Engineer Ahrens stated that there is still some utility work to be done, and the contractor does not want to replace the sod until all of the work is completed. He agreed to check on the status of the project. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the "Open Mike" portion of the meeting at 6:41 p.m. and was seconded by Mr. Gelbmann. The motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. 96 -30 - Planned Development Overlay, Twin City Townhomes, Apollo Meadows Townhomes - Continuation of Public Hearing Ms. Wyland stated that at the last Planning & Zoning Board meeting, this application was continued in order to allow the applicant time to pursue additional access arrangements on Apollo Drive with Anoka County. The existing agreement with Anoka County allows four driveways and one roadway access on the north side of Apollo Drive, and four accesses on the south side. Staff has requested the County to allow five access driveways on the north side of Apollo Drive and eliminate the roadway access in order to facilitate the development of properties on Apollo Drive. The County Engineer has indicated his agreement with the request. The County Board will review the requested amendment at their meeting on October 22, 1996, and the matter will be on the City Council agenda October 28, 1996. Therefore, staff is recommending that this public hearing be continued to the November 13, 1996 Planning & Zoning Board meeting, when a revised site plan will be submitted. Mr. Johnson asked if the site plan will address the other concerns expressed by the Board. Mr. Patrick Simons, Representative of Twin City Town Homes, stated that with the approval of the amendment by the County and City Council, access issues will be addressed. Other concerns expressed by the Board will also be addressed with the revised site plan. • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 9, 1996 Mr. Dunn made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the November 13, 1996 Planning & Zoning Board meeting and support the staff recommendation to Amend Limited Access Agreement for Apollo Drive and was seconded by Ms. Dahl. The motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. B. 96 -32 - Variance, Kim and John Sullivan, 7132 Whippoorwill Ms. Wyland stated that the Sullivan's variance request was tabled at the last meeting to give staff time to work with the Sullivans on finding an alternate location for the accessory building on their property and discuss cost - sharing for the relocation with the City Council. The City Council discussed the issue at a recent work session, and the consensus is that a dangerous precedent would be set if the Council agreed to any cost - sharing. The Council advised the Sullivans to pursue a variance and submit a petition of support from affected property owners. A petition has been submitted with the signatures of all surrounding property owners except one. The neighbor who lives directly across from the structure has indicated that he has no objections but is unwilling to sign the petition. The Sullivans have requested that the accessory structure be allowed to remain in its present location which is 1.5 feet from the property line which would require a variance of 28.5 feet. Staff is recommending denial of the variance. Chair Schaps asked if any other potential solutions were discussed with the Sullivans. Ms. Wyland stated that the amount of the variance was not discussed in detail. Staff has discussed relocation of the structure between the property line and the 30 -foot setback, but agreement was not reached on an alternate location. The Council also discussed a review of the current ordinance, which staff has begun, for possible changes to require a site plan relating to accessory structures. Ms. Kim Sullivan stated that she is requesting a variance for the accessory structure to remain in its present location. She asked the Board to please keep in mind that she and her husband feel that they located the shed at the direction of City staff. The location of the structure and resulting variance request is a result of the limitations and hardships of the property. If the intent of the current ordinance is to not allow accessory structures within the 30 -foot setback because of future development and so the structure does not end up in someone else's front yard, she wants the Board to know that this neighborhood is fully developed and that ordinance provision does not apply in this case. If the shed is moved, a tree will be planted that will be larger than the shed so the sight line will not change. • • Planning & Zoning Board October 9, 1996 Ms. Sullivan further stated that one neighbor would not sign the petition because he felt that the issue is between the Sullivans and the City. He did state that he has no concern about the shed as long as they continue to add landscaping. Safety concerns have been discussed with neighbors, and they support leaving the shed in its present location. Mr. Dunn stated that with the submission of a petition by affected neighbors who endorse the current shed location, the variance should be granted. While he supports following ordinance provisions, this is an unusual case due to a number of circumstances, one of which could have been City involvement. The Sullivans have acted in good faith and not unilaterally. With even the slightest doubt of the City's participation in the misunderstanding, he would support the full variance. Mr. Johnson stated that there are two issues involved: 1) land use and 2) communication. The Board's responsibility is to deal with land use questions. He does not believe a storage shed should be so close to the street and would oppose granting the variance. If the variance is denied, the Sullivans can appeal to the Council. It is the Council's responsibility to handle both land use issues and communication issues. He will vote to deny the variance on the basis of land use. Mr. Gelbmann agreed with Mr. Johnson and added that he believes there are additional difficulties when the two issues are crossed. He would not favor granting this variance. Mr. Herr stated that he also supports Mr. Johnson's position and expressed concern about the neighbor most affected who did not sign the petition. Ms. Dahl stated that she agrees with Mr. Dunn. The reason she is changing her position is because of the confusion resulting from the Council's recommendation to the Sullivans that they pursue a variance and submit a petition. The Council is the policy maker, but staff is not recommending that policy. Ms. Wyland responded that the Council's concern is for adjoining property owners. Staff has to look at what the ordinance requires to grant a variance. To apply the ordinance criteria, staff would have to recommend denial. Staff cannot recommend location of an accessory structure 1.5 feet from the property line. 4 • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 9, 1996 Mr. Wessel stated that the Council is not recommending that the structure remain in its present location. The suggestion is for the Sullivans to review their options and possibly move it within the setback area which would still require a variance. The Sullivans have the prerogative to pursue the original variance. Ms. Dahl stated that because there could have been a miscommunication by both parties and since the structure is standing and there are no permits or precedent set for this type of circumstance, she would support grandfathering this structure in to remain where it is. Since the Council suggested the Sullivans pursue a variance, she would support the variance. Mr. Herr stated that he would like to see more flexibility. He would not support this variance but possibly would support a smaller variance of 15 feet. He agreed with the Sullivans on the constraints of the property but cannot support the variance as presented. Chair Schaps stated that it is clear there has been miscommunication between the two parties, and he does not believe the miscommunication is one - sided. Project builders depend on the City to tell them the right locations for buildings. This is a sensitive issue because the Board has just spent a year developing a clearer set of ordinances to enforce. He is not in favor of a 93% variance of the ordinance which he believes would be as bad a precedent as the Council trying to appease property owners with cost - sharing. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to deny the requested variance by the Sullivans and was seconded by Mr. Gelbmann. The motion carried, 4 -2. Mr. Dunn and Ms. Dahl opposed. C. PUBLIC HEARING - MUSA Expansion on Lilac Avenue and Marvy Street Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 7:08 p.m. Ms. Wyland stated that the City has received two requests from two property owners to amend the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) Agreement to allow City sewer and water services to their property as a result of septic system failure. A petition has been received from six property owners on Lilac Street requesting their properties be included in MUSA. One of the parcels with septic system failure is located on Lilac Street, which has sewer and water lines. The six properties are not currently located within MUSA and must be in order to be allowed utility line connection. The Metropolitan Council has recommended including the whole section rather than just the one property and has indicated that there would be a favorable response to the addition of approximately 16.2 Planning & Zoning Board October 9, 1996 • acres to MUSA on Lilac Street. In order to accomplish adding these properties to MUSA, staff must submit a minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council. The second request is from the property owner at 74 Marvy Street, who is also experiencing septic system failure. The home faces Marvy Street. Sewer and water lines would come from the rear of the property from Apollo Drive. The City is requesting that .9 acre be added to MUSA, so that this property owner can connect to City utilities. Chair Schaps asked the status of the other Tots on Marvy Street. Ms. Wyland stated that all of the lots are 600 feet deep and front on Marvy with the rear to Apollo Drive. The properties have not been subdivided, although a blanket subdivision was approved a couple of years ago. Mr. Ahrens added that potentially the other property owners would be in the same situation. However, some of the property owners have new septic systems and would not be in favor of connecting to City utilities at this time. Mr. Herr asked if the utility connection would preclude subdivision of the lots. Mr. Ahrens responded that subdivision would not be prohibited on the south half of the lots. Property owners have been informed that a utility easement would be necessary with any lot split. Mr. Herr asked if property owners would have to pay for a sewer line routed through the outlot along Marvy. Mr. Ahrens answered, yes, and the property owners would have to submit a petition for the project. Mr. Herr asked if, in the entire 600 -foot depth of the lot, there is no area that can support a septic system. Mr. Ahrens stated that the septic system is in the groundwater. There is a swale that bisects this particular property and the south half is not buildable. Ms. Marcy Cisewski, 60 Marvy Street, stated that this lot is in her neighborhood. She asked if the City is going to pay for the utility hook up of that particular lot to Apollo Drive. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 9, 1996 Mr. Ahrens stated that the issue must be studied in detail to determine if a utility project is warranted. A feasibility study would have to be prepared and financing discussed. Mr. Wessel added that the individual property owner would be responsible for the hookup to his /her property. Ms. Cisewski asked if a road is being considered. Mr. Ahrens stated that he does not see the necessity of a road. Mr. John Johnson, Consulting Engineer for Century Farms Development, stated that they support the MUSA amendment. The reason the utility line was put in is to solve this type of problem without a major impact to the City or neighborhood. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. and was seconded by Mr. Herr. The motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about potential health hazards as a result of disposal systems affecting well water. He noted that there are several on -site disposal systems and many back yard wells. One septic system is already in ground water. While setback requirements have been established in the past 10 to 15 years to address this problem, if there is free draining soils, there is potential for real problems. Mr. Dunn stated that he believes the proposed areas should be put into MUSA so water and sewer connections can be made. He expressed concern about a few land owners petitioning the City and residents within a certain number of feet have the opportunity to vote on the matter. On Marvy Street the plight of one homeowner is dictating policy. He asked if it is a variance to hook up from the rear of the lot and noted that there are several other lots on Marvy that could be in the same predicament in the future. Mr. Ahrens stated that if the City chooses to pursue a utility extension the entire block must be considered. The option presented addresses one homeowner's immediate need. If there are others, it should be a large scale project. • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 9, 1996 Mr. Wessel stated that the two options presented are: 1) to hook up from Apollo Drive, and 2) route the utility line through the outlot for Marvy. He noted that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan of the City is to follow the second option. Mr. Gelbmann asked if the properties on both sides of Marvy would potentially be served with option No. 2. Mr. Ahrens answered, yes. Mr. Dunn asked if the total of 17 acres to be added to MUSA would be subtracted from the 150 MUSA Reserve. Ms. Wyland stated that this decision is totally separate and is not related to the 150 MUSA Reserve. Mr. Herr asked if the Board would be acting prematurely in granting MUSA to one property through option No. 2. Mr. Wessel responded that the current circumstance is an emergency siltation. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the MUSA Amendment as outlined above and was seconded by Mr. Gelbmann. The motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Correspondence from Mayor Landers Mayor Landers read the following letter addressed to City Council Members, Planning and Zoning Board Members and Park Board Members: "Technological advances, i.e., microphones and live broadcasts, are ever present reminders of the need to maintain the highest level of professionalism, and professional courtesy when exercising our duties as public officials. I would urge you to remember that you represent the City of Lino Lakes, and that no matter the request, the residents are our customers. We can't guarantee that a citizen will always go away happy with a recommendation of decision, but we can let them know that we appreciate their input, respect their opinions and thank them for participating in the process. • • Planning & Zoning Board October 9, 1996 I thank you in advance for your cooperation with regard to this memo, as well as for all the hard work you have put in on your projects since I came to office in January." Mayor Landers stated that the main reason for this letter stems from the break time at the last Planning & Zoning Board meeting. The microphone and camera were on during the break, and language expressed by members should not have been on the air. Citizens who heard this language brought the matter to his attention. Board Members and Council Members cannot rely on cameras and microphones being turned off. The FCC regulates Cable television, and he would not want to jeopardize the City's use of it. Chair Schaps stated that he had not heard anything about this issue and expressed his public apology for any member of the Board. B. Editorial in Community Quad Chair Schaps noted a recent editorial in the Community Quad that expressed the dismay of one reporter about the lack of controversial issues to write about in the City of Lino Lakes with no more yelling at the Planning & Zoning Board meetings. Chair Schaps stated that he counts it as a sign of cooperation that the City is moving forward and becoming more efficient. Mr. Dunn moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:37 p.m. and was supported by Ms. Dahl. The motion carried unanimously, 6 -0.