Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/1993 P&Z MinutesBrix u s:: and, Plana ng • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES Schna ar., >:: "C ..::.............:.::....... ........................:...... Planning Consults Chard nator:. >:: > «:::: >:::::::: >> ................................. ............................... ................................ ............................... .................................. ............................... anddrs, Xesich,..:Nord ............................................. ............................... ................................................ ............................... chap , Sch0nes... ::(:6 45) I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chairman Schaps called the meeting to order asked for Roll Call. Chairman Schaps turned the meeting over to Vice - Chairman Robinson for a few comments. Mr. Robinson stated that in light of some of the things that have happened in the City over the last few months, Mr. Schaps and I feel that he needs a vote of confidence from this Board. Everyone is aware of the so called problem and there has been talk of his resignation. To my knowledge he has received no citations and there is no court proceedings at this time. He feels there is a need for a vote of confidence and I would entertain a motion to that effect. John Landers stated that he felt Mr. Schaps has done a good job in the past and is confident that he can continue. He would like to see him stay on as Chairman. Mr. Gelbmann seconded Mr. Landers comments. Tom Mesich stated that there had been some questionable judgement involved. However, he did not feel that what Mr. Schaps did makes him unworthy to be on this Board. I think his contributions are much greater than what has transpired. Mr. Robinson added that we all have impulses that we may or may not act on. However, I still feel we have the right to act as private citizens. If one of us got a speeding ticket, would that reflect on us as Board members. Mr. Mesich added that the Board should not condone the construction of the boat launch without proper permits nor the dismantling of the launch. However, we do wish to have Mr. Schaps remain as the current chairman. All voted aye. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Robinson moved approval of the minutes of the April 14, 1993 meeting and was supported by Mr. Gelbmann. All voted aye. Nordine and Mesich abstained. Motion carried. • PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 2 MAY 12, 1993 III. OPEN MIKE: No one was present for open mike. IV. ACTION ITEMS: 93 -1 -P, Country Lakes Estates, Preliminary Plat - Public Hearing Mr. Brixius reviewed the staff report and indicated that this is a request to plat 59 lots with a PDO, Planned Development Overlay to allow lot size flexibility on this 33 acre parcel. The applicant has requested and the City would recommend that lot area be calculated above the ordinary high water mark. Inconsistencies exist within the City Ordinances in regard to lot area definition and a determination is necessary in regard to this plat. Other items addressed by the Planner are outlined in his report dated May 5, 1993. In summary, approval of this item was recommended with the following conditions: 1. The City determine whether the recommended 10,800 square feet of buildable lot area must be contiguous. If the City determined that a contiguous buildable area of not less than 10,800 square feet must be provided, then Lots 5 -7, Block 1 of the proposed subdivision should be reconfigured to meet the said requirements. 2. A variance be granted to allow block lengths in excess of 1,500 feet in length. 3. PDO be granted to allow lot area flexibility. 4. Easements are established over lands within the 100 year floodplain. 5. Access permits to County Road 10 are obtained from the Anoka County Highway Department. 6. A utility plan is submitted subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 7. A grading plan is submitted subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. Drainage easements are established over the site's wetlands subject to review by the City Engineer. Mr. Brixius added that this is an essential infill project for the City and important for the extension of the trunk sewer line along South Shadow Lake Drive. • Mr. Schones asked what would happen if lots 4 -5 -6 were not allowed as platted. Mr. Brixius explained that overall it • PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 3 MAY 12, 1993 would result in the loss of one lot. Mr. Granger explained that Lot 6 has approximately 90 -100' of footage from the front property line to the wetland. There is a total area of 14,000 square feet. He further indicated that the land area north of the wetland is significant and would make a very useable space. It is possible that future property owners could construct a walkway or bridge to access the northern portion of their lot(s). It is also possible that only lot 6 would experience standing water all year. Kathy Nordine asked if a dock or bridge could be constructed in a wetland - staff replied affirmatively provided it does not obstruct the wetland. Mr. Brixius added that eliminating one of the lots and making them wider would not provide any additional rear yard - additional width but not depth. Rick Gelbmann suggested that the Board may want to consider requiring a certain percentage of the 10,800 square footage to be contiguous - such as 75 %. Mr. Brixius further explained that this is a unique situation and he does not know of other lots in the area that have had this problem. Kathy Nordine asked if there was a setback requirement from the wetland and was advised the there is none in this case, however, homes would be required to be constructed 3' above the ordinary high water mark. Mr. Mesich stated there is a reason we require the 10,800 square footage and to deviate from that requirement is asking for trouble. He suggested we may want to consider a trail between lots 4 & 5 with a bridge constructed by the developer. There was also concern expressed that property owners may not be able to afford the construction of a walkway to access the rear of their lots. Mr. Granger explained that these will be expensive lots and he was certain the property owners would have the means to provide landscaping and walkways as necessary. Chairman Schaps suggested an agreement for these lots which would prohibit fences and provide for a common walkway. Mr. Granger stated that this probably would not appeal to the property owners because you could potentially have people walking through your back yard to access their rear property. Mr. Robinson agreed that a common easement would take away from the value of the property and may affect future financing. Mr. Gelbmann stated that he had walked the site and it seemed reasonable to him. However, he did express concern about setting a precedent. Kathy Nordine felt there would be a need to look at each case individually - it may be acceptable in this case but not the next depending on the development characteristics of the site. In this case there appears to be adequate room available. Mr. Mesich asked if the state statutes required the land to be • PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 4 MAY 12, 1993 contiguous - Mr. Brixius replied only from the lake not from the wetland. Mr. Brixius also stated that it is possible some type of mitigation could be initiated to increase the area of these lots. Mr. Schones stated that he was uncomfortable with the possibility of three bridges across the wetland in this area. Mr. Brixius suggested approval with the condition that mitigation be considered on these lots and that their area be 10,800 contiguous, joint easements be considered, or lots combined to increase square footage. MOTION: Mr. Mesich moved approval of the preliminary plat with the conditions outlined in the staff report and the recommendation that all of the lots must be a minimum of 10,800 contiguous square feet in area. Ed Schones seconded the motion. On roll call: Ayes: Mesich, Schones, Nordine, Landers Nays: Gelbmann, Robinson Motion carried • B. 93 -3 -ACUP, Molin Concrete, 415 Lilac Street, Addition, Public Hearing • Mary Kay Wyland reviewed the staff report which indicated that this is a request to construct a 24 x 36 addition to the existing building on Lilac Street. Staff has recommended approval provided certain conditions are met including some extensive landscaping along Fourth Avenue. In 1984 approximately 80 seedlings were planted on a berm constructed to provide screening. These seedlings have not survived and the recommendation is that a row of 6' evergreens, staggered 10' on center be installed along the Fourth Avenue property line. Mr. Tom Molin was present and indicated that he had check on providing the screening recommended and trees half the size recommended would cost approximately $12,000. Molin operates on a budget and does not have the means to provide that type of landscaping at this time. Mr. Molin also indicated that there is some urgency in constructing the addition as some of their equipment has failed and they are renting replacement equipment until the addition can be construction. The staff recommendation is to install the landscaping prior to any construction. He agreed that some type of landscaping could be provided but disagreed with the size requested. Tom Mesich questioned requiring this screening as a part of the conditional use permit when it actually was a part of the 4th Avenue reconstruction. He was advised that the Zoning • PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 5 MAY 12, 1993 i • Ordinance requires landscaping where a commercial zoning district adjoins a residential area. Also, complaints were received from adjoining property owners when the Mastel Rezoning was considered. Mr. Robinson confirmed that the drought of 1986 -87 probably killed the trees originally planted. He added that seedlings require a lot of work and the 6' trees would be more likely to survive. Kathy Nordine suggested that a bond or Letter of Credit could be posted to insure completion of a landscaping plan. Mr. Schones asked what would be agreeable to Molin. Several suggestions were offered including phasing the landscaping, and /or providing a plan for city approval with financial guarantees. Mr. Robinson suggested that some type of mixture of evergreen trees, deciduous trees and bushes (such as lilac) be provided to provide an aesthetically pleasing view of the site from 4th Avenue. It was also suggested that some assurance be provided that the landscaping will be well cared for. MOTION: Kathy Nordine moved and was supported by Ed Schones to approve the conditional use permit with the condition that the applicant work with City Staff to develop a landscaping plan with phasing and financial guarantees, and the other conditions outlined in the staff report. All voted aye. Motion carried. C. 93 -4 -CUP, Correctional Facility, 7545 4th Ave, Pole Barn, Public Hearing Mary Kay Wyland reviewed the staff report and indicated that this request is to construct a 40 x 60 pole barn for storage purposes. The Zoning Code prohibits the construct of pole barn structures unless storage is limited to lumber, boats and building supplies and buses. The applicant should be required to construct a wood frame structure rather than a pole barn unless storage is limited to the items mentioned. Mr. Westoff was present representing the correctional facility and stated that he would be storing lumber, floor tiles, lawn mowers etc. in the building. The structure will be located 1,000 feet from any property line and will not be visible due to extensive screening. This particular building will cost approximately $12,000 and if a wood frame structure is required it could cost three to four times that. On a limited budget, this type of structure would not be feasible. Mr. Westoff added that the correctional facility has two other metal type structures on the property Kathy Nordine asked why the code was so specific yet limiting regarding what could be stored in a pole barn. Mr. Brixius stated that the wording would provide for lumber yards and boat sales. Darrell Schneider added that one of the purposes • PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 6 MAY 12, 1993 in prohibiting the construction of pole barns was the limited tax capacity received from such construction. In reference to this particular building, the correctional facility is tax exempt. Al Robinson asked if a precedent would be set by granting this particular permit. Rick Gelbmann suggested two buildings, one pole barn to house the lumber and an additional building for other storage. Al Brixius advised that establishing specific criteria for granting approval would reduce the risk of setting a precedent. He suggested the following criteria: a. Building will be set back 1,000 feet from any property line. b. Building is for a public use. c. Non - taxable entity. d. Building will be entirely screened from adjoining properties. e. Principal use of the structure complies with the ordinance. f. Building is part of a complex of similar buildings. After some discussion Al Robinson made a MOTION recommending approval for the reasons listed above with the condition that proper building permits be obtained and the color of the structure blend with the existing buildings on the site. D. 93 -6 -A, Bill Houle, 8301 24th Ave., Rezoning Public Hearing Mr. Brixius reviewed this request which is to rezone a 12 acre, 150 wide strip of land north of 80th Street and east of Interstate 35E from R -BR to L -I, Light Industrial. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow the erection of outdoor advertising signs along the Interstate. Staff has recommended denial of this request as outlined in the Planning Report because the proposed rezoning has been found to be inconsistent with the City's Land Use Plan and would essentially exist as a "spot zone ". Rezonings to allow for advertising signs is strictly prohibited by the State of Minnesota and lies contrary to the intent of the Highway Beautification Act. According to State Statute 750.708, "Action which is not a part of comprehensive zoning and is created primarily to permit outdoor advertising structures, is not recognized as zoning for outdoor advertising control purposes ". Mr. Houle was present and stated that he is aware that development of his property is premature. This particular request is for the purpose of augmenting his income with the advertising signs. He stated that if so desired by the P & Z the whole 240 acre site could be rezoned with 10 acres left • PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 7 MAY 12, 1993 out for his homestead. Mr. Houle added his site is currently farmed on a rental basis. Mr. Mesich indicated concern regarding the statement from the State of Minnesota indicating that such a request is contrary to State Statutes. Mr. Will Lauer, 80th Street, was present and stated that if this property is rezoned, any commercial use could be permitted. According to the R -BR Zoning Classification, development is to proceed from Co. Rd. 14 and then northerly. He was not in favor of this rezoning. Mr. Bill Lauer was also present and stated that three or four years ago, Mr. Houle promoted the R -BR Zoning classification - now he has it. He did not like the idea of rezoning to commercial. Mr. Steve Schwister also expressed concern about the domino effect should this property be rezoned. Would the 240 acres be next. He did not move into the area for it to become commercial at this time. Mr. Houle stated that he would be willing to give the Board a letter that he has no intention of developing at this time. The rezoning is only to allow four (4) advertising signs. Kathy Nordine stated that the Board should consider the overall picture. We will be opening up the property to a variety of uses, she also expressed concern about a domino effect. Chairman Schaps agreed and stated that if the only reason is to allow the advertising signs - that is against State Statutes. Ed Schones made a MOTION and was supported by John Landers to deny the rezoning as requested. All voted aye. Motion carried to deny rezoning. E. 93 -7 -P, Steve & Pat Leese, 74 Marvy Street, Blanket Subdivision for Lots North of Apollo Drive. Mary Kay Wyland reviewed the staff report which requested approval of a "Blanket Subdivision" for Lots 5 & 6, Block 11 and Lots 1 through 6, Block 12 to split off approximately the south 160 feet of their property into two building sites. These new sites would be served by utilities off Apollo Drive. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that the property owners sign a form indicating they will not petition against utilities when and if they are extended on Marvy Street. Mr. Leese was present and had a serious objection to the requirement that he not be allowed to petition against the extension of utilities on Marvy Street. He stated that he was not aware that this would be required and would like an • • PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 8 MAY 12, 1993 opportunity to speak with the other property owners to get their input on this item. Mr. Mesich stated that he did not agree with this requirement as it was merely circumventing the City Charter. Mary Kay explained that it has been policy to require this when we are adding to the non - conformancy of unsewered lots less than 10 acres in size. After some discussion John Landers MOVED and was supported by Kathy Nordine to table the request to allow the applicant time to discuss the matter with the adjoining property owners. All voted aye. Motion carried. F. 93 -8 -P, Steve & Deanna Haeq, 171 White Pine Road, Lot Split Mary Kay Wyland reviewed this request which is to split off a 90 x 170 (approximately) piece of property from a larger parcel. The site is serviced by sewer and water and further subdivision is unlikely due to extensive wetland. Staff would recommend approval with the following conditions: a. 33' of right of way be dedicated for White Pine Road if not already dedicated. b. a $500 park dedication fee be collected prior to recording the lot split. c. 10' drainage and utility easements be provided around the entire perimeter of the newly created lot. d. an easement be provided for the extension of utilities to serve the property. e. a Certificate of Survey be provided prior to recording of the simple lot split. John Landers made a MOTION recommending approval and was supported by Kathy Nordine. All voted aye. Motion carried. G. Adult Activities Ordinance - Continuation of Public Hearing At 8:55 P.M. Tom Mesich made a motion to continue the Public Hearing on the Adult Activities Ordinance to the June 9th Planning & Zoning Meeting. Al Robinson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. H. Public Hearing - PUD Ordinance Al Brixius advised the Planning & Zoning Board that the PUD, Planned Unit Development Zoning District, functions as a development procedure whereby a mixing of buildings and uses can occur which cannot otherwise be addressed by the base zoning district. The existing PDO Planned Development Overlay District provides that only the permitted and conditional uses identified in the base zoning are allowed. He reviewed the proposed ordinance and asked for comment. • • PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 9 MAY 12, 1993 Chairman Schaps stated that this was a very powerful tool. Rich Gelbmann indicated that it will be helpful in the development of wetland areas. Tom Mesich asked if zoning regulations are mandated by State Statutes and Mr. Brixius replied that they are. After some discussion Tom Mesich moved approval of the PUD Ordinance and was supported by John Landers. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Concept Review - Behm's Century Farms Mr. John Johnson and Mr. Gary Uhde were present to discuss this item. Mr. Johnson explained that the request involves approximately 95 acres of land north of Lilac and west of Fourth Avenue for a total of approximately 161 building sites. A rezoning to R -1 Residential is being proposed. The density is planned for 1.7 units /acre due to extensive wetland in the area. The R -1X zoning classification provides for density of 2.5 units /acre. Preliminary discussion with the watershed district has resulted in no major concerns. Some comments from the Planner included the following: a. Block 10 needs to be modified to adhere to maximum 1,500 foot block length requirement. b. Block 5 cul -de -sac should align with street locations on development plan. c. Thomas Street cul -de -sac should be modified to meet maximum 500 foot length requirement. d. Lot area be calculated above OHWM for all proposed lots. e. Rezoning application be pursued. f. MUSA trade be pursued. g. Review by Park Board, City Engineer, and others. h. Cost of extending utilities must be born by developer. Mr. Gelbmann stated that he found it encouraging that developers seemed to be trying to work within the constraints of the new wetland laws. He asked if the land uses in the area were compatible - Air Park /Residential development. Mr. Robinson asked if it was feasible to extend the sewer as proposed. Mr. Schneider stated that the developer and his engineer are working with John Powell, TKDA, to make a determination in this regard. If there are any less than 150 units it may not work. Kathy Nordine asked if the MUSA Trade was a real possibility and if the traded land would have to necessarily include wetland. Mr. Mesich asked if there is any information on the percentage of R -1 land that is already developed. Darrell indicated that we do have a data base to • PLANNING & ZONING MEETING 10 MAY 12, 1993 work on this information and that we are in the process of preparing a growth study. He further indicated that one of the City's biggest problems is servicing large lots with sewer and water. This proposed development is an opportunity to bring sewer and water closer to areas that may need it in the future. Mr. Mesich disagreed that sewer was necessary to serve all lots. Darrell explained that the City is seeing a lot of distressed on -site systems. In regard to the MUSA Exchange, Mr. Brixius reviewed some criteria he would like to propose the City use in reviewing a MUSA expansion /trade. The criteria would provide a uniform foundation for decision - making in these matters so as to avoid potential legal problems in the future. Mr. Mesich asked if we consider a land trade would property owners be notified. Mr. Brixius stated that most likely they would but this should be something we establish in our review criteria. Mr. Gelbmann questioned if some type of compensation would be necessary and what affect MUSA has on the tax base. Chairman Schaps asked if other communities have such criteria and was advised that some of the points outlined by Mr. Brixius came from other communities. After some discussion Chairman Schaps suggested this item be discussed at the next Planning & Zoning meeting and that copies be forward to the Council for their review. B. Budget Auto - John Landers asked if the PCA has been monitoring this site and was advised that they had been contacted. Mary Kay will call him with the results. C. Tom Mesich asked if the P & Z was aware that a Council member has been collecting $100 deposits from persons interested in the senior housing project. He had some other questions regarding the occupancy of the project - rental yrs. ownership. Mr. Uhde was present and stated that it is his understanding that some items had change but have now changed back to rental. Federal funding has been a hold up. VI. ADJOURNMENT - Upon the unanimous consent of the Board the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M.