HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/1993 P&Z Minutesplanning Consultant Brix us, Engineer ng
ansultant<John;Powell�;Planning Coordinator
Wyland
•
•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
DATE
SSE STARTED
.............................
..............................
E :ENDED
EMBERS>>PRESE.
HEMS
ALSO
ERS7,,ABSE ]
PRESENT
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chairman Schaps called the
meeting to order and asked for Roll Call.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Al Robinson recommended approval of the
minutes of the May 12, 1993 meeting and was supported by John
Landers. All voted aye. Motion carried.
III. OPEN MIRE: No one was present to speak under open mike.
IV. ACTION ITEMS:
93 -7 -P, Steve & Pat Leese, 74 Marvy Street, Subdivision
This item was tabled from the May 12, 1993 meeting of the P &
Z to allow the applicant an opportunity to speak with his
neighbors regarding the requirement that a Waiver be signed
indicating that the applicant(s) could not petition against
the extension of utilities to serve Marvy Street.
Staff has recommended approval of the subdivision splitting
off two 90' x 160' lots fronting on Apollo Drive with the
following conditions:
a. Property owners sign an agreement indicating they will
not petition against the extension of utilities when they
are available to Marvy Street.
b. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided on
the perimeter of the newly created lots.
c. Easements for driveway purposes shall be indicated on
the surveys for the newly created lots.
d. All assessments and fees shall be collected prior to
recording of the subdivision.
1
• Planning & Zoning Board
June 9, 1993
•
•
Mr. and Mrs. Leese were present and indicated that they had
not discussed the requirements with all their neighbors. Mr.
Leese explained that there are too many hard feelings because
of the construction of Apollo Drive and that he did not want
to stir anything up. He asked if there was a legal basis for
denying the request if they refused to sign the waiver form.
It was explained that although he would be waiving his rights
to petition against the extension of utilities, he would not
be waiving any of the normal rights in the 429 process. Mr.
Powell explained that there must be a demonstrated benefit to
the property that at least equals the amount of the
assessment. Mr. Leese also argued that the reason he is
requesting the subdivision is to provide a buffer zone between
his existing residence and the newly constructed Apollo Drive.
He indicated that they did not ask for this roadway to be
constructed but are now forced to live with it. He added that
staff has been very helpful in answering questions concerning
his request and the construction of Apollo Drive.
In response to questions from the Planning Board, Mary Kay
explained that a blanket subdivision was original recommended
as had been approved for Snow Owl Lane. This blanket approval
does not need to be considered at this time, it is merely
being suggested. Additional requests can be handled on an
individual basis. Mary Kay further explained that it has been
past practice (2nd Avenue, Snow Owl Lane) to require property
owners to sign this waiver when they are in fact creating a
more substandard lot without sewer and water by subdividing in
this manner.
Mr. Powell explained the driveway access points that have been
approved by the County. Mr. Mesich questioned the value of
these lots due to the fact that they would be on a County Road
with a shared access /driveway. Board members expressed
concern because the adjoining property owners were not
present. They did not want to approve a blanket subdivision
for the area without input from all affected property owners.
After some discussion Mr. Mesich made a motion recommending
approval of the Leese Subdivision Only with the conditions
outlined in the staff report and the additional condition that
the property owner will retain their right not to connect to
sewer and water until their system fails and they will not be
required to pay the assessment until they do connect. Kathy
Nordine seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
B. 93 -11 -8, Custom Manufacturing, 7582 Fourth Ave., Site Plan
2
111 June & Zoning Board
June 9, 1993
•
•
Mary Kay Wyland reviewed this request which is to allow an
11,988 sq. ft. addition to the existing building at 7582
Fourth Avenue. The addition will be similar to the existing
building, contain mostly warehousing space, and be constructed
of pre -cast concrete panels. Staff has recommended approval
with the following conditions:
a. Proper building permits be obtained prior to
construction.
b. Exterior of proposed addition match existing building.
c. A temporary holding tank be allowed if applicant
decides to connect to sewer and water when extended down
Fourth Avenue.
e. The parking area be stripped according to 1993 ADA
Rules and Regulations.
Mr. Lloyd McKinney, owner of Custom Manufacturing, was present
and concurred with the Staff Report. He did indicate,
however, that he would be moving his existing drain field
rather than installing a temporary holding tank.
Mr. Mesich made a motion recommending approval with the
conditions outlined- in the staff report. Mr. Robinson
seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
C. 93 -9 -P & Z, Behm's Century Farms, Lilac, Prel Plat /Rezone,
Public Hearing
Planning Consultant Brixius reviewed the staff report and
indicated that this is a request to plat approximately 162
lots on approximately 94.5 acres of land north of Lilac Street
and east of Sunset Road. The property is currently zoned
Rural and R -1 Residential. The property is located outside the
MUSA area and is rural in character. Adjacent residential
development is located on one and two acre lots. Wetlands
dominate the area and restrict urban development with regard
to buildable areas, street connections and utility extensions.
To accommodate this development the following will be
necessary:
a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
b. Rezoning
c. MUSA Amendment
d. Preliminary plat
e. Street vacations for Thomas Street & Laurie Avenue
f. Planned Development Overlay or a number of variances
from the subdivision design standards.
Mr. Brixius continued review of his report and indicated that
the staff is looking for clear direction from the Planning &
3
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 9, 1993
Zoning Board on the issues of land use and performance
standards. Several issues were outlined that need to be
addressed in regard to the plat, the rezoning request, and the
MUSA exchange. The conclusion indicated that a number of
issues which require policy decisions by the City must be
addressed. A determination must be made as to the
appropriateness of the necessary rezoning and Comprehensive
Plan Amendment, and a determination must be made as to the
acceptability of the proposed concept plan, particularly with
regards to the reduced useable lot areas, and deviations from
the Subdivision Ordinance design standards.
Upon completion of the Planners Report, Mr. John Johnson,
engineer for the development, presented comments from the
Developer. He explained that the proposed density, 1.73
units /acre, is far less than the typical R -1 residential lot.
The density on the farm would be 2.81 units /acre and on the
property to the west 1.35 units /acre. There are currently 23
platted lots in the area that could be developed, as is, with
approximately 6 acres of wetland alteration and the
construction of mound type septic systems. The proposed
wetland modification plan calls for approximately 2 - 2 1/2
acres to be modified with the creation of 2 - 6 acres of
wetland. The Key Issues as outlined by Mr. Johnson included
the following:
a. Comprehensive Plan Criteria
b. Rezoning - proposing that this is logical in fill,
original lots were intended to be further subdivided.
c. Other: 1. # of lots vrs cost
2. Impact on air park
3. County ROW question - according to the
County Engineer, there will be no impact on
the street system - meaning additional
improvements will not be necessary to Lilac or
Sunrise other than possible turn lanes on
Sunrise.
4. Park - 8 acres currently existing for
parks, this development will contribute
between $72,000 and $80,000 for park
improvements.
5. New construction will be equal to or exceed
value of existing homes in the area.
d. Question regarding OHW vrs. 100 year flood in
determining lot area. Mr. Johnson suggested considering
wetland types - RCWD is not certain where OHW is in this
area. Wetland map appears to be incorrect. Mr. Johnson
further explained that the wetland edge fringed from 899
to 894.5. Water in ditch is at 894 on the east and 896
4
• Planning & Zoning Board
June 9, 1993
•
•
to 897 on the west. No defined elevation for the OHW is
available. Mr. Brixius explained that the use of the
wetland boundary, in the staff report, to determine lot
area was very conservative.
Chairman Schaps indicated that some direction from the
watershed district may be necessary to assist in determining
which elevation to use. Mr. Johnson added that permits would
probably be issued on the 23 existing lots. Mr. Landers asked
how far away sewer was and advised that it will soon be
extended to approximately Lilac and Fourth Avenue.
Mr. Schaps then opened the meeting to the public for their
input:
Ms. Leslie Gonyer of 340 Thomas Street stated that she lives
on the 2 1/2 acre parcel just east of the Behm's Farm. A
proposed street will be stubbed into her property line. She
stated that this was an "ugly" plat. Objected to the density
and questioned the statement that traffic would not be
increased on Lilac. Mr. Johnson explained that according to
the County the present road can handle the additional traffic,
therefore, no improvements will be necessary.
Mr. Tom Christianson, Lilac Street, stated that he has 160' of
frontage. He disagrees with the size of the lots and feels
they are out of proportion with the rest of the area.
Mr. Bill Noel, 346 Carl Street, stated that this is a critical
mass - too dense. He lives on 1 1/3 acre just north of the
air park. Opposed to the development because of the density.
Mr. Joe Skochenski of 343 Thomas indicated opposition to the
size of the lots proposed. Concerned about value of homes in
the area because much of their value comes from the acreage.
Mr. Dick Shope, 7786 Sunset opposed the density.
Mr. Tom Wiglitner, relator for the Curley's who own the
property at the intersection of Lilac and Laurie had several
questions regarding development of the Curley property and
possible costs.
Mr. Jay Molitor, owner of 63 acres north of the north /west
portion of this development, indicated that he may not be
totally opposed to the development and may be interested in
developing too.
5
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 9, 1993
Mrs. Curley, 101 Lilac, opposed the density and asked if the
County would consider reducing the speed limit on Lilac
Street. She was advised that the speed at which traffic is
traveling on a given roadway determines the speed limit - not
the wishes of the residences on the roadway. She also
questioned the cost of extending utilities.
Mr. Gorden Johnson of 115 Lilac stated that he liked the
openness of the area and the rural character.
Mr. Lee Whitmore of 7698 Sunset opposed the development.
Mr. Jim Obowa, 399 Thomas, felt there would be conflict with
the air park and an increase in complaints due to air traffic.
Mr. Glen Martig, 376 Carl, indicated a desire to see the area
remain open - proposed development is too dense.
Ms. Mary Jane Narog, 7812 Sunset moved to the area because it
was rural - this development is ugly. She would like to see
it remain as is.
Dave Waldoch, 7598 Jeanie - opposed to the density, he
currently has 1 1/2 acres - this development changes the
character of the area.
Mrs. Noel, 346 Carl Street, stated that she would like to see
the area remain rural. Their expectation on purchasing the
property was that it would remain rural as indicated on the
City Plan.
James Conway, 351 Thomas, asked if there was a comprehensive
plan and where did it show shopping centers. Mr. Brixius
explained that we have a 1981 plan and an amendment from 1987
including an Interchange Study. We do have areas zoned for
commercial and shopping center(s).
Leslie Gonyea, 340 Thomas Street, commented that the proposed
development has no benefit for the surrounding property.
Marian Conway, Thomas Street, asked if there was anything the
neighboring residents could do to stop this development.
Chairman Schaps thanked the residents for their comments and
stated that the P & Z Board does values their concerns. He
indicated that their job is to do the best job possible for
the community.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 9, 1993
Al Robinson stated that he has been a resident of Lino Lakes
for 55 years. During that time there have been many changes,
development is inevitable. That is why the City has a
Comprehensive Plan - to guide development. The P & Z would
like to insure that this development is done sensibly and with
input from residents in the area. We try to satisfy as many
concerns as possible and hopefully meet on a middle ground.
Mr. Tom Schmelzer is building a home at the Air Park, 398 Carl
Street. He is concerned about pursuing aviation - more
development in the area may prohibit /restrict use of the Air
Park. Other air parks have closed down due to increased
development in the area.
In response to a question on market value, John Johnson
explained that the new lots and homes planned for the area
will meet or exceed the value of the existing homes. Mr. Uhde
stated that Behm's East (the actual farm area) will have homes
valued at $95 - $120,000. The homes to the west will be
valued from $110,000 - $160,000 +. Mr. Uhde added that the
City of Lino Lakes has a very pro- active Economic Development
Program which is seeking commercial development to help reduce
taxes. He also .stated that commercial developers have
indicated that more roof tops are needed within the City to
support a shopping center.
Kathy Nordine asked how the City's growth study was
progressing. Mary Kay explained that it is anticipated to be
available some time in the fall. Staff constraints have made
progress slow. Mr. Brixius added that some comprehensive plan
amendments may be necessary at that time also.
Mr. Schones stated that the density of the proposed
development seems to be the overriding concern of the
residents and that it may override any benefit that the City
would receive by allowing the development at this time. Kathy
Nordine added that if utilities are extended, the area would
be opened to further development. Consequently, the entire
character of the area would change. Tom Mesich indicated that
the major issue is changing the area from rural in character
to R -1. Mr. Mesich's commented that he is opposed to this
development and outlined his concerns in reference to the
criteria to consider in reviewing a zoning change as outlined
in the Planner's report:
1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the
specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be
consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. This
7
• Planning & Zoning Board
June 9, 1993
•
area is rural now and proposed to be so until the year 2010.
We have an ordinance that suggests we fill in existing
residential areas before expanding. We need to take that into
consideration in looking at this request.
2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and
future land uses of the area. The character of the area will
change with this proposed development. Mr. Mesich stated that
his area changed when sewer and water came in and he knows it
will happen here!
3. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and
future land uses of the area. Not an issue in this case.
4. The proposed use may be accommodated with existing public
services and will not overburden the City's service capacity.
Services will need to be extended and the cost figures are not
yet available - will it be feasible! Additional homes may put
a strain on the school district with additional students.
5. The fiscal impact of the proposed use provides benefit to
the community. Maybe the community, but not the immediate
neighborhood.
6. Traffic generated by the proposed use is within
capabilities of streets serving the property. Concern was
expressed by both residents and Board Members regarding
increased traffic on Lilac Street and the County's comments
that the roads are adequate to serve the proposed
construction.
John Landers stated that he agreed with Mr. Mesich and was
opposed to the proposed development at this time. Jame Schaps
stated that 2 1/2 acre lots were obviously planned for this
area in the past and he shares the concerns expressed
regarding the character of the neighborhood and questions the
County's comments concerning traffic. Mr. Mesich added that
even though we do not agree with a project, if it is zoned
properly we do not have a lot of say. However, in this case,
the zoning is not consistent with the request. Jame Schaps
added that we need to find a middle ground - and this may not
be the right time for it. Al Robinson agreed - maybe in the
future, but not right now. Mr. Gelbmann added that the
developer has done a very good job in trying to work around
the existing wetlands in the area. However, he feels that we
need to stick with the Comprehensive Plan in reviewing the
item. James Schaps agreed that the development was well
presented - much better than some, however, the problem seems
8
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 9, 1993
to be density. Mr. Robinson stated that the Council has
mandated that we avoid leap frog development - this appears
contrary to that direction. This is also one of the best
presentations he has seen in his years on the Planning Board.
His concerns include the density, apparent leap frog
development, and the comments from the neighbors.
Mr. Robinson made a motion directing the staff to prepare
"Findings of Fact" incorporating the reasons outline above,
for recommending denial of this request. These Findings of
Fact will be presented at the next Planning & Zoning Board
Meeting. Mr. Landers seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
D. Adult Activities Ordinance - public hearing
Mr. David Licht was present from Northwest Associated
Consultants (NAC) to review the Adult Activities Regulations
with the Planning and Zoning Board. At 9:50 P.M. the Public
Hearing was reopened and continued from the May 12 meeting of
the Planning & Zoning Board.
Mr. Licht advised the Board that adult uses can not be
excluded from the community but they can be controlled by
Ordinance. The controls include zoning, licensing and public
health. The new ordinance proposed will address zoning and
licensing. Mr. Licht indicated that there are two approaches
to dealing with adult uses within a community, one is to
concentrate the uses and the other is to spread them
throughout the community. The second option is the one
recommended by NAC.
The P & Z was advised that adult uses are split into two
categories, principal and accessory. Mr. Licth gave a few
examples for the Board's information. Mr. Mesich questioned
the financial review portion of the ordinance. Mr. Gelbmann
suggested that the most current audio /video /digital /computer
generated images /compact disc. material be added under adult
uses - principal on page 3 of the Ordinance. Mr. Mesich had
some questions regarding the Adult Use facility in the City of
Ramsey and what it included. Mr. Licht advised that it
included novelty items, a mini theater, and books. A public
heath issue regarding AIDS has also been traced to that
facility. In conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Licht
pointed out that the City of Lino Lakes has approximately 5.3%
of the community available as an "opportunity area" for such
uses based on the criteria outlined in the staff report.
9
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 9, 1993
Mr. Schones stated that he was very comfortable with the
ordinance provided and impressed with the work involved in its
preparation. Chairman Schaps indicated that, for the record,
there have been no comments from concerned citizens regarding
the ordinance. The Public Hearing was closed at 10:35 P.M.
Landers moved and was supported by Gelbmann to close the
hearing. All voted aye. Motion carried. Mr. Schones then
made a motion recommending that the Adult Use Regulations be
approved with the addition of verbiage relating to the most
current audio /video digitally recorded media and compact disc
under Adult Uses - Principal. Mr. Robinson seconded the
motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
MUSA EXCHANGE - Mr. Brixius explained that the Staff has
prepared some guidelines to be considered in processing a MUSA
Exchange so that future submittals can be reviewed on that
basis. Mr. Mesich asked if a public hearing would be part of
the process and Mr. Brixius explained that an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan would be required, therefore, a public
hearing would be part of that amendment. Mr. Gelbmann asked
how the City might measure something that is to be of benefit
to the City. After some discussion Al Robinson made a motion
and was supported by Rick Gelbmann to recommended that a
resolution be drafted for the City Council contains the MUSA
evaluation criteria outlined in Mr. Brixius report of June 3,
1993. All voted aye. Motion carried.
OTHER: John Landers reported that he had spoken with an
employee of the school district who indicated that 500 more
elementary school children will be added to the district next
year creating a crunch on space. He asked if the City is
contributing to the problem of over - crowding in the school
district by the poor communication between the District and
the City. Are they aware of new plats! Is this something the
City Council should look at? Maybe the City should take a
look at the rate and location of growth. Mr. Brixius
explained that the City is working on a Growth Study which
should address some of these issues. He added that NAC can
assist the City with this if necessary.
Mr. Mesich then made a motion advising the City Council that
the Planning & Zoning Board feels hampered by not having a
growth study to work with. In addition, the Board feels that
more resources should be put into this project and that the
School District's physical plan should be included. Mr.
Robinson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
10
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 9, 1993
VI. ADJOURNMENT: Upon the unanimous consent of the Board the
meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
11