Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/1995 P&Z MinutesPLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME TIME ................ ................. MEMB STARTED ENDED! ............................. ERS PRES ENT:!! MEMBERS ABSENT ALSO PRESENT March 8, 1995 6:34 P.M. P.M. ............................... ..... ............................... Gelbmann, Mesich, Schones, Herr. Schaps, Robinson Planning Coordinator Wyland, Planning Consultant Brixius and Consulting City Engineer Powell. Johnson, and I. II. • IV. V. • CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ed Schones made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the February 8, 1995 meeting as submitted and was supported by Tom Mesich. Johnson and Herr abstained, 3 ayes - 0 nays. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair Pro -tem Gelbmann noted a change to the agenda regarding item VI. B, will become an Action Item and will be noted at V. C. Ed Schones requested a Discussion Item be added regarding Work Session. Chair Pro -tem Gelbmann indicated this item would become VI. B. Ed Schones made a MOTION to approve the agenda as amended and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted aye. Motion carried. OPEN MIKE: Chair Pro -tem Gelbmann declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting opened at 6:39 p.m. Chair Pro -tem at this time asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Planning and Zoning Board regarding any issues not already on the agenda. Mr. Mesich read a letter from Ms. Sharon Lane regarding the February 27, 1995 meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council. Mr. Mesich indicated he concurred with her feeling that the right to develop property is a "right ", but a request for rezoning is not a "right ", but merely requests which, after due process, may be allowed or may be denied. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted aye. Motion carried. Open Mike portion was closed at 6:43 p.m. PLANNING ITEMS: A. 95 -4 -C, PUBLIC HEARING, Contractor Property Developers Inc., Pheasant Hills Preserve, Conditional Use Permit for Advertising Sian. • 1 • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 Planning Coordinator Wyland briefly reviewed this case which involves a request by Contractor Property Developers Inc, to install an advertising sign for the Pheasant Hills Preserve development on a piece of property located just north /west of the intersection of County Road J. and Centerville Road. The property is Zoned Rural and according to the City Sign Ordinance 9 -84 a Conditional Use Permit is required for any advertising sign. Planning Coordinator Wyland indicated staff would recommend approval of the advertising sign as submitted with the following conditions: 1. The sign construction is to withstand windload pressure of 30 P.S.F. 2. The sign is located at least five feet from any property line. 3. No illumination of the sign is allowed. 4. The installation of the sign shall not conflict with the proper function or interpretation of any traffic sign or signal. 5. The sign shall be maintained in good condition and the areas around them kept free from debris, bushes, high weeds, and from anything else which would be an eyesore or nuisance. The surface of the sign must be repainted at least once every two (2) years or whenever necessary as determined by the City Zoning Official to prevent the sign surface from becoming unkept in appearance. 6. The permit owner shall be responsible for all of the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, including the liability for expense of removal and maintenance incurred by the City. 7. A sign permit shall be obtained from the City Building Official. Mr. Schones inquired if there is a way to prevent smaller signs from being attached to this sign. Ms. Wyland indicated this would be an enforcement issue. Mr. Brixius also indicated if the Board desired, they could add restrictions in an additional condition. Chair Pro -tem inquired if restricting smaller signs, would just move those type of signs to stakes around the large sign. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to OPEN the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted aye. The motion carried. Ms. Amy Donlin, neighbor to the project, indicated her concern was that additional billboards would be put in. Ms. Wyland noted there is a provision in the ordinance 2 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 requiring additional signs to be at least 750 feet from each other. Ms. Donlin also inquired if the sign would become permanent. The applicant indicated the sign would only be needed until the sites are sold, and they anticipated that to occur within one year. Mr. Mesich inquired if there could be a two year maximum for the sign. Ms. Wyland indicated the application could be reviewed in two years. Mr. Schones inquired if the review should be in one year. Ms. Wyland did not feel that would be practical. Mr. Johnson inquired if there is any provisions regarding removal after a certain percentage of the sites had been sold. Mr. Brixius indicated that would be a good condition, due to the sign becoming unnecessary after a certain point in development. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to CLOSE the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. and was supported by Bill Johnson. All voted aye. The motion carried. Mr. Mesich asked if a restriction of two years or a certain percentage of development could be added to an approval. Mr. Brixius indicated a time limit would not be associated to the Conditional Use, but a percentage would better suit a Conditional Use since the sign would not be necessary after say 90% of the sites had been sold. Mr. Mesich indicated he would like to add condition number eight as such: 8. The Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed in two years with the availability of an extension, unless 90% of the sites have been sold at which time the Conditional Use Permit is void. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to approve application 95 -4 -C Contractor Property Developers Inc., Conditional Use Permit for Advertising Sign, Pheasant Hills Preserve with the stated eight conditions and was supported by Bill Johnson. All voted aye. Motion carried. B. PUBLIC HEARING, Shoreland Management Ordinance Mr. Brixius reviewed the revised Shoreland Ordinance and the flexibilities requested of the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Brixius indicated the Department of Natural Resources representative, Mr. Tom Hovey stated the flexibilities requested were reasonable. Mr. Brixius indicated Mr. 3 • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 Hovey made additional comments in a letter dated March 8, 1995. Chair Pro -tem Gelbmann inquired if the Department of Natural Resources will review all Planned Development Overlays. Mr. Brixius indicated only for those Planned Development Overlays where a building would house more than four units, and any variances, rezoning would be reviewed by the Departmental of Natural Resources. Mr. Schones inquired if the district wide density includes the park. Mr. Brixius indicated the park is included. Mr. Brixius indicated the changes requested by Mr. Hovey are easily met. Mr. Brixius indicated the revised ordinance will allow more local control and will be more restrictive. Mr. Mesich inquired if there is verbiage to assure density issues. Mr. Brixius indicated the City will add this. Mr. J.P. Hutchins, 8274 Stagecoach, indicated on page 15, the 35% open space. Mr. Brixius indicated he had brought this issue up to the DNR, the confusion is what constitutes open space. Mr. Brixius noted the area along a driveway would not contribute to open space, but a continuous area intended for recreational use would; therefore, the flexibility in the numbers. Mr. Brixius indicated this does not allow any flexibility in the amount of impervious surface, the maximum amount is still 65% of the lot. Mr. Hutchins indicated on page 32, on top of page, number two; it does not seem to apply to our situation, "... of any tier ". Mr. Brixius indicated he agreed, and this would be changed. Mr. Brixius noted that a definition of open space will be added to the Ordinance. Ms. Donlin indicated concern for comments of losing buildable areas around the lakes. She indicated she would like to see a 200 foot setback from any wetland, to provide a corridor system for the wildlife. Ms. Donlin inquired as to what was a deleted unnamed lake. Mr. Brixius indicated basically there was a list of lakes provided by the DNR and in our first draft we included some that were not required to be included. These lakes will still be protected under the 1991 wetland conservation rules, however. Ms. Donlin indicated concern for the 40 foot setback from highways for structures, suggested at least 50 foot. Mr. 4 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 S Brixius indicated the local requirement is 40 foot, if changed, the local ordinance should be changed. Ms. Donlin encouraged the Board to wait for comments from the 20/20 Vision program, she did not want to discredit the efforts of staff, but indicated residents might have ideas not mentioned previously. • Mr. Brixius indicated staff is fulfilling a mandate to establish this ordinance, if in the future there are comments from the city, there could be amendments. Mr. Alan DeMotts, indicated if a state statute is referred to, the statute should be included in the resolution for the resident to review. Mr. DeMotts referred to page 11, subd. C, referencing dock location. He indicated residents who live near the lake should be given an opportunity to build a dock. Mr. DeMotts did not agree with the fact a house would have to be built in order to have a dock. Mr. Schones indicated if an outlot is owned by a number of individuals, a dock could not be built unless a home is built. Mr. Brixius indicated this is correct. Mr. Mesich inquired if this is in the model ordinance. Mr. Brixius indicated no, this was drafted to be consistent with the access ordinances in the city currently. Chair Pro -tem inquired if there is a home association, could there be a common dock. Mr. Brixius indicated through a Planned Development Overlay, that could be established. Mr. Brixius indicated the previous ordinance was silent to this, so it would have been prohibited. Mr. Brixius indicated previous agreements would be grandfathered -in, but new developments would be required to follow the ordinance. Mr. DeMotts indicated a Planned Development Overlay and access should be required by every developer. Mr. Brixius indicated it may not be appropriate for every lake to have a common access, it would not be prudent for the city to require this. Mr. DeMotts referred to page 27, there is a typographical error the subdivision should read 1102 instead of 1002. Mr. DeMotts noted page 29, inquired if all Planned Development Overlays are required to connect to water and sewer. Mr. Brixius indicated this to be correct. Mr. DeMotts inquired if this would include a home already on 5 • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 the lake. Mr. Brixius indicated a Planned Development Overlay would be in reference to a multi - family unit development. Mr. DeMotts referring to page 30, inquired if no businesses were allowed. Mr. Brixius indicated that would be in regards to businesses in the designated open space, the city does not want business in a residential Planned Development Overlay. This would not preclude businesses along the lake. Mr. Mike Treus, 675 Shadow Court, inquired as to the appropriate use of the lakes, he wondered if this was experimenting with the lakes. He inquired as to the objective of the Shoreland Ordinance. Mr. Brixius indicated the objective of the ordinance is basically to protect the use, the water quality, storm water control and user enjoyment of lake surface. That is why setback requirements, performance standards of the storm drainage, and vegetation removal are stressed in the ordinance. Mr. Treus inquired why the city is wanting to deviate from the model ordinance. Mr. Brixius indicated the density surrounding the lakes is a factor, the application of flexibility is very limited. He noted the flexibility requested by Lino Lakes is not unique, other cities have requested even more aggressive flexibilities. The DNR realizes not every city is the same. Mr. Treus inquired if preserving the lakes is a goal, is development not risky. Mr. Brixius indicated the flexibility is requested because only 35% of the shoreland is developable. Mr. Brixius noted if there was not adequate protection the DNR would not have approved the flexibility. Mr. Treus indicated he preferred following the DNR model ordinance. Ms. Donlin indicated regarding quality of the lakes, is there a way to establish the size of motors allowed on the lakes. Mr. Brixius noted this issue would be addressed by a policing issue and would pertain to zoning. Bill Johnson made a MOTION to CLOSE the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Johnson noted a correction on page 30 under paragraph three, line three, it should state "Association ", not "Associate ". 6 • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 Mr. Mesich inquired as to the verbiage for the motion. Mr. Brixius indicated the motion should include the corrections of public testimony and subject to comments of Mr. Hovey's letter of March 8, 1995. Tom Mesich made a MOTION to adopt the Shoreland Management Ordinance as revised, subject to comments made by Mr. Tom Hovey in his March 8, 1995 letter; and was supported by Bill Johnson. Ed Schones indicated he was impressed by Mr. Hovey's letter and the good comments of the public. He indicated concern for the comments of the 20/20 Vision program, but was confident those concerns will be heard and can be added if necessary. Guy Herr indicated concern regarding future development, would DNR approval be required for any rezoning. Mr. Brixius indicated that would be correct, and also the need for public hearing, Comprehensive Plan amendment, Planning and Zoning approval, City Council approval then the approval of the DNR. Chair Pro -tem commended the staff at the good job they did regarding the drafting of the Shoreland Management Ordinance. Bill Johnson noted the rising concern for the wetlands in the last 20 years, he believes the citizens and the city will be sensitive to the preservation of the natural wetlands. All voted aye. Motion carried. C. Amendment to the Sign Ordinance Mr. Brixius reviewed a revised draft amendment to the Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance which would make an allowance for advertising signs only within the City's Rural Zoning Districts. Mr. Mesich inquired if church dinner signs would be allowed along the road. Mr. Brixius indicated it is not an allowed use. Ms. Wyland noted it is a matter of enforcement of the ordinance. Ed Schones made a MOTION to adopt the amendment to the Sign Ordinance and was supported by Guy Herr. 4 voted aye, 1 opposed; Tom Mesich was opposed. Motion carried. Mr. Brixius requested for the record the reason for Mr. Mesich's opposition. Mr. Mesich indicated he would like to see further definition as to what type of signs are allowed, it seemed to him that the city was prohibiting many signs. Mr. Brixius indicated it is in the best interest of the city to restrict signage. Mr. Mesich 7 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD March 8, 1995 indicated perhaps he would feel more comfortable with 410 additional verbiage. • • VI. DISCUSSION: A. Behm's Century Farms Phase I & II, Rezoning Planned Development Overlay, Preliminary Plat, MUSA exchange. Mr. Brixius briefly updated the Board on the concept plan provided by Behm's Century Farms. Mr. John Johnson indicated the information presented was for the Board's general information and inquired if there was any items of concern that could be addressed before the next meeting. Mr. Mesich inquired as to the sewer and water, does the city pay for this improvement up front and then collect later for the cost. Mr. Powell indicated the assessments generated by the first phase would pay for that improvement. Mr. Powell indicated timing might be an issue, where a bond might be necessary for a short term. Mr. Powell noted the developer would be responsible to pay for the improvements in the first phase. He indicated the funding for the improvements for the additional phases, should be reimbursed within one year. Mr. Mesich inquired as to the total amount of lots on the site. Mr. John Johnson indicated a total of approximately 160 plus 10 or 12 additional lots. Mr. Bill Johnson inquired as to the lots in the airpark. Mr. John Johnson indicated an agreement with the Airpark Association has been established. Mr. Uhde indicated it was important to note, the airpark requested the additional lots. Mr. Bill Johnson inquired as to the street connection at Thomas. Mr. John Johnson indicated there is a problem because of a large culvert, currently discussion are being held with the Watershed District. B. Discussion regarding Work Sessions Ed Schones requested that written notification and an agenda be provided prior to work sessions. He indicated 7:30 a.m. meetings sometimes precluded him from attending. Ms. Wyland indicated these items will be addressed when scheduling the next work session. VII. ADJOURNMENT: Tom Mesich made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. All voted aye. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. 8