Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/1992 P&Z Minutes• CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE August ;12; TIME STARTED t 6:30 p.m. TIME ENDED : 11 :10 p.m. MEMBERS- PRESENT. Gelbmann, Landers, Mesiah Robinson, Schapa,.Slatten MEMBERS ABSENT. t i..##-::- ALSO PRESENT Al Brixius, Planning Consultant Mary Kay Wyland; Staff Person 199 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 8, 1992 John Landers moved and was supported by Rick Gelbman to approve the minutes of the July 8, 1992 meeting as submitted. All voted aye. Motion carried. • III. OPEN MIKE: No one was present for Open Mike • IV. ACTION ITEMS: A. 92- 27 -PDO, Senior Cottages, Elm Street The Public Hearing concerning the Senior Cottages on Elm Street was continued from the July 8th Planning and Zoning Meeting. The request involves a rezoning to R4 residential with a Planned Development Overlay to allow the construction of approximately 90 senior housing units. Mr. Brixius advised the Board that a revised site plan has been submitted and reviewed the Staff report which recommended approval with several conditions. Mr. Roger Derek was present and briefly reviewed the request with the board. Al Robinson asked a question concerning driveway width and indicated that 22' seems to be rather narrow for access for garbage trucks. Mr. Brixius explained that permits would be required from the County for the access drives which would be required to meet County standards. A question was raised concerning parking for recreational vehicles. Mr. Derek explained that in their experience with similar housing developments the need for parking of any recreational vehicles was very limited. Their plan would be for these vehicles to be stored in the garage units provided. Kathy Nordine asked how much traffic would be generated by this use. Mr. Derek explained that it would not be much as most seniors do not drive at night or when the weather is bad and that a transportation service is proposed for the development. • Planning & Zoning Board 2 August 12, 1992 • • Mr. Mesich asked if Cottage Homesteads was a National Company and was advised that they are Minnesota based. They also have a few other developments in the state and they average 80 -90 units. He also expressed concern regarding no basements and what to do in case of severe weather. Mr. Derek stated that Minnesota is rather unique in that most construction has basements and added that none will be provided due to cost and the fact that seniors like to avoid stairs if at all possible. The questions was raised concerning putting a basement under the proposed community center but Mr. Derek stated it would be too costly as handicapped access would be necessary along with other design constraints. Landscaping along the north property line will be provided in the form of 6, 8, and 10 foot evergreens. The exterior is sided with aluminum and refuse and snow removal will be handled by the management. Tom Meisch asked if the Fire Chief had reviewed the plans for this development and was advised by Mr. Brixius that he had and his only concern was hydrant location. Kathy Nordine asked if this proposed construction is not carried out will the property remain R4 thus allowing any high density residential use. Mr. Brixius explained that the PDO designation provides for the development of the property as approved with a signed development agreement. If this developer does not construct the units, another developer would be required to meet the approved plan or resubmit the proposal. Mr. Meisch stated that although he believes this type of housing is needed in the City of Lino Lakes he has concerns regarding the width of Elm Street in relation to additional traffic and the lack of nearby shopping and sidewalks. Mr. Dereck stated that there will be a comprehensive sidewalk plan within the development and again, that transportation will be available for the seniors. Kathy Nordine asked if these units could be converted to market rate apartments and was advised by Mr. Brixius that if that were the case he would have a substantially different staff report on the project due to traffic concerns. Mr. Meisch asked if the Rezoning, PDO, and Site Plan Review are all tied together and was advised by Mr. Brixius that he would recommend such. MOTION: Mr. Meisch then made a motion to deny the request as submitted. Kathy Nordine seconded the motion. On roll call: AYES: Meisch, Nordine NAYS: Gelbmann, Landers, Robinson, Slatten Motion Failed. Mr. Gelbman then moved approval of the request with the conditions outlined in the Planning Report and the additional condition that the Developer return to the Planning & Zoning Board within the next two months with a detailed site plan. • • • Planning & Zoning Board 3 August 12, 1992 Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. On roll call: AYES: Gelbman, Landers, Robinson, Slatten NAYS: Meisch, Nordine Motion carried. B. 92 -36 -Z, 92 -37 -P, Apollo Meadows, Rezoning & Subdivision Mr. Brixius explained that this is Public Hearing to review a request to plat 42 single family lots and rezone a five acre parcel from R1 to R4, High Density Residential. The Planning Report recommends approval of the subdivision with the elimination of Item 3, as 100' of right of way dedication has been approved by the County, some variances outlined in the staff report concerning lot width at the building setback line and the adjustment that this setback line be maintained at 35' for this plat and realignment for Lot 42 to correct depth deficiency. It is recommended that the property be rezoned to R3, Medium Density, rather than the R4 proposed by the applicant. At this time there are no specific plans for the multiple parcel, however, three alternate site plans submitted more nearly conformed to the medium density classification than the higher density use, thus the recommendation to go with R3. Mr. Mesich asked what type of housing is proposed for this development and was advised that it would be low to moderate housing. He also asked why not rezone the property to a business use as business is needed in the area. Mr. Uhde, the developer, explained that in working with the extension of Apollo Drive and the neighboring residents that the proposal submitted seemed to be the most acceptable to all concerned including the City, County, and Neighborhood. Mr. Gelbman asked about Alternate G in the Staff Report as a consideration for the site plan. Mr. Uhde explained that it was not a good idea because lots back onto Apollo Drive. The plan proposed is the best alternative and the access points have been ok'd by the County. Mr. and Mrs. Huntington of 140 Marvy Street were present and asked if a park was proposed for the site and if the rezoning is approved could anything go in at that location. Mr. Brixius explained that the Park Plan does not call for park area in this location as there is a park a few blocks to the north. In regard to the rezoning, any proposed construction would require site plan review and approval by the Planning Board and the City Council. Mr. Meisch stated that he was not comfortable approving the rezoning without any plans for development. He stated that if it remains an R1 Outlot, Mr. Uhde can request the rezoning when he is ready to further subdivide or build on the site. Mr. Uhde stated that economics dictate the rezoning at this time. • • • Planning & Zoning Board 4 August 12, 1992 MOTION: Mr. Meiich made a motion to approve the preliminary plat striking Item #3 from the Staff Report and adding Items 11 and 12 pertaining to correcting the depth deficiency in Lot 42 and requiring a building setback of 35' on all lots in the plat. The Outlot is to remain zoned R1 so Denial was recommended on the rezoning request. Mr. Landers seconded the motion. On roll call: AYES: Landers, Mesich, Gelbman NAYS: Nordine, Robinson, Schaps, Slatten Motion failed Monika Slatten moved approval of the subdivision with the conditions outlined in Mr. Meisch's motion and the Rezoning of the Outlot to R3 Residential. Mr. Gelbman seconded the motion. On roll call: AYES: Gelbman, Nordine, Robinson, Slatten NAYS: Landers, Mesich Motion carried. C. 92 -28 -CUP, Northern Instrument, 6680 Hwy 49, Amended CUP A Public Hearing was held concerning an addition to the Northern Instrument facility at 6680 Hwy 49. Mr. Ehrmanntraut of Northern Instruments was present and explained that they wish to add a 76 x 60 wood frame storage building. The staff recommended approval of the request with the conditions listed in the staff report. It was suggested that the applicant check with the Rice Creek Watershed District to insure that no permits are required of them. MOTION: Monika Slatten made a motion recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Gelbman seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. D. 92 -33 -5, Buys Chiropractic, 7661 Lake Dr., Site Plan Review Mr. Buys was present and indicated that he will be remodeling the site into an office and paving an area to provide 9 parking spaces. The staff report recommended approval of the request and asked for screening & curb along the south border of the parking area. Mr. Buys explained that the area is screened by trees and he believes screening & curb may be needed on the north side. There was some discussion regarding handicapped parking which Mr. Buys agreed to provide and an increase in the width of the parking area to provide adequate maneuvering space. MOTION: Monika Slatten made a motion recommending Option 1, approval of the site plan with the conditions listed in the staff report, an addition to Item B providing for a 58' wide parking area, Item C providing screening & curb on the north side of the parking area, and Item D providing for a handicapped parking space and striping of the parking lot. Mr. Gelbman seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. • • • Planning & Zoning Board 5 August 12, 1992 E. 92 -35 -P, J. MacNeil, Sunset & North Rd., Subdivision Mr. MacNeil was present and indicated that he would like to split the property into three lots. Staff recommended approval with the conditions indicated in staff report and the additional condition that a 10' utility easement be provided on the rear and side property lines. MOTION: Mr. Robinson moved approval of the request with the conditions outlined in the staff report and the condition that a 10' utility easement be provided on side and rear property lines. Monika Slatten seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. F. 92- 38 -PDO, Reshanau Park Estates, Planned Development A Public Hearing was called to Order by Chairman Schaps at 8:36 P.M. concerning the Reshanau Park Estates Planned Development. Mr. Don Gorowsky was present to explain the request which is to allow a private boat launch and park area for the Reshanau Park Estates Homeowners Association on Outlots A and B of Reshanau Park Estates. He explained that there are 17 lots in the development that do not have lakeshore and 16 lots on the lake. Some of these lakeshore owners are not able to launch their boats from their own property due to the shoreline /landscaping. The park and launch would be a private area for Association members only. The access would be fenced and locked. The request is to actually improve the site which currently exists and is owned by the Association. Mr. Brixius reviewed the Planning Report and concluded with recommending that the City make a determination due to the number and degree of importance related to each outstanding issue and that this is a policy decision to be made by the City. Mr. Pete Brown of 6897 Black Duck Drive was present and stated that this matter had been discussed three years ago, withdrawn from the plans due to local opposition, and he did not understand why it had to be discussed again. The previous requested included the launch, special lighting, pillars at the entrance to the development, and all these items were removed - we should not be discussing it now. Chairman Schaps asked Mr. Gorowsky what his understanding was of what people were told who bought property in Reshanau Park Estates - was there anything contractual in the purchase? Mr. Gorowsky explained that it was an expectation, not in a contract, that there would be a boat access provided in Outlots A and B. • • • Planning & Zoning Board 6 August 12, 1992 Gary Uhde, the Developer of Reshanau Park Estates, was present and stated that yes, the street lights, entrance pillars, and cobblestone streets were removed from the plan but the park area was only a concept. The Homeowners Association owns the Outlots and have the right to use the area to launch their boats. What they are asking for is an improved access - otherwise they could leave it as it is and still use it. Chairman Schaps stated that having been present at the previous meetings regarding the plat it was his understanding that the boat launch /marina issue was dead. Mr. Uhde stated that it was not a part of the plat approval, but was not a dead issue in his opinion. Just something that was not fully developed yet as the properties were not all sold and the Homeowners Association not complete. Al Thiemich of 6725 East Shadow Lake Drive stated that over the past 20 years there has been some degradation of the lake although not great. Now we are talking about increased access and there is a belief that this launching area will invite more use and the problems will become the lakeshore owners problems. It will increase the public use of the lake and he is opposed to that. He also stated that he thought this issue had been settled three years ago. Mr. Don Dunn of 6085 Black Duck Drive read a letter stating that he too believed the marina had been removed and that the only boats allowed would have to be hand carried to the lake. He is opposed to more access to the lake and believes the lake can not afford more traffic. This could open the area on the south end of the lake and set a precedent. He believes the developer withdrew the matter from the final plat package and that these proceedings are therefore unethical on his part. He believes the problem is not with the new residents but with the developer and that the matter should be settled in the courts if the property owners were misled in believing there would be a boat access provided. Mr. Meisch asked if the Planning Board could have a little history of the matter. The Board was provided a copy of the Council minutes from July 24, 1989 at which the preliminary plat was approved. These minutes indicated that there were no plans for developing Outlots A & B and that a marina was no longer planned. Mr. Brixius explained that the Homeowners Association had begun improvements on the park and were advised that a DNR permit was necessary and granted. In applying for the DNR permit the City was notified and thus became aware of the proposed access. The City Administrator asked Mr. Brixius to review the matter and it was determined a private park is not a permitted use in this Zoning District. The Association was notified that they would need to request a Planned Development Overlay for the area. The site now • • • Planning & Zoning Board 7 August 12, 1992 includes a gate, a gravel access point to the lake, volleyball court and horseshoe area. Mr. Uhde explained that in the fall of 1991 they began having meetings with the Homeowners Association about the area. They talked with the previous City Planner about what they were doing and were told there was nothing needed except a permit from the DNR and /or the Corp. of Engineers. They received an ok from the Rice Creek Watershed District for work above the high water mark and the DNR was made aware of their plans. An application was made for a permit from the DNR. It was never their intent to put this in without approval but they had been advised by the City Planner at that time that no permit was necessary. Mr. Pat Smith of 6922 West Shadow Lake Drive stated that he felt the problem here may be in marketing. The City made a decision a number of years ago, but apparently, buyers were told there would be a launch. Mayor Reinert was present and stated that Mr. Uhde has been a good developer, however, his recall is that the boat launch was stricken from the plan. It is not a good idea on such a small lake. On the opposite side of the lake there is a piece of property that is owned by 14 different property owners - if this is allowed they could do the same thing. He stated that he did recall discussion of development of the park, but no launching space. He believes the issue here is the "improved" access, not the park improvements. He also believes the realtors "over- sold" the property. Mr. Greg Johnson of 6773 East Shadow Lake Drive expressed concern about the ecological impact. The fish population is very low and he has been working with the DNR to increase it. At this time 10% of the fish show propeller wounds due to the lakes shallowness. Mr. Dunn stated that he had met with the DNR and initiating work on this site was a violation because no permit approval was received. Rice Creek has no authority and the City has the final say. Mr. Mike Hayden, from the east side of the lake, stated that he was mislead when he purchased his home because he was told there would be a boat access. Brad Bainen, 6955 Black Duck Drive stated the problem is with the developer. There was a strong promise that there would be a boat launch that even the people on the lake side could use. B. Olson of 6673 East Shadow Lake Drive asked who would be responsible for policing this area once it is improved. • • Planning & Zoning Board 8 August 12, 1992 Mayor Reinert stated that we may need to form a citizen's group to discuss water rules /ground rules, water quality and management, and the like. Mr. Uhde agreed with Mayor Reinert that this would be a good idea concerning use of the lake. He added that the Association has made a commitment to control the access they propose and limit it to property owners. There may be 2 or 3 boats, maybe up to 6. The Association has been very willing to work with those concerned. He added that when the property was originally being constructed the DNR had asked if they could buy some property for a boat access but he had said no. Mr. Pat Smith stated that he has been a resident for over 12 years and during that time, if a neighbor needed to launch his boat and could not from his property, it has been worked out, this practice could certainly continue. Most boats go in the water in the spring and come out in the fall. A Mr. Greg Johnson stated that this proposal could set a precedent other development on the lake. In response to a question, a resident stated that there is approximately 311 acres of water and it is 5' -6' deep. Mr. Larry Brandonberger of 6940 West Shadow Lake Drives stated that the useable area of the lake is reduced as the season progresses. Mr. George Gotweld of 6710 East Shadow Lake Drive was concerned that increased us of the lake will prove hazardous. The shallowness of the lake presents problems now with shoreline erosion. There being no further discussion, Chairman Schaps closed the Public Hearing at 9:55. He stated that the problems seems to be not with the park improvements but with the improved boat access. The business of the access seems to have been finished but the controversy continues. Lots were sold with no contractual basis for a boat access. This would be a large step for the City to take. The residents in the area all want to get along and be good neighbors. The decision was previously made not to allow a boat access and the City should stick with their decision. Improvement of the park will be an asset to the residents even without the boat access. Country Lakes Park has a canoe access. At the time it was developed it was determined that it should be only a canoe access. Mr. Gelbman asked if there ever was a rough draft of a plan for Outlots A and B and Association Bylaws. • • • Planning & Zoning Board 9 August 12, 1992 MOTION: Mr. Landers made a motion to deny the entire request and was supported by Kathy Nordine. On roll call: AYES: Landers NAYS: Gelbman, Mesich, Nordine, Robinson, Slatten MOTION FAILED Mr. Gelbman made a motion recommending approval of the PDO with the exception of the boat access and launch with the following conditions: 1. A barrier be installed to prevent motorized boat access to the lake from the park property. 2. The current access be demolished and restored to its previous condition. On roll call: AYES: Gelbman, Mesich, Nordine, Robinson, Slatten NAYS: Landers Motion carried to approve park improvements but deny boat launch area; restoration of boat launch area and return to natural condition. G. 92 -39 -S, Quail Ridge, Birch St., Subdivision /PDO Mr. Brixius reviewed the Planning report which indicated that this request is to plat a 40 acre parcel into 41 R -1X lots. The Planned Development Overlay designation is being requested to maintain an overall density in accordance with the R1X District while requesting some flexibility on lot area and width. The Park Board has reviewed the request and recommend approval with the dedication of the park land indicated. This dedication would include much of the wetland. The report recommended approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Kirk Corson was present and indicated that the plat has been revised several times. This plan appears to be the best use of the property and provides for fewer lots then previously request. Monika Slatten indicated concern regarding the several variances needed, especially for Lots 3 & 4. Mr. Brixius explained that the property had been Zoned R1 and recently rezoned to R1X. With the previous zoning, these variances would not have been necessary. Mr. Glen Bowen of Black Duck Drive was present and expressed concern about addition street run -off eventually flowing into Reshanau Lake, surface water control and filtering of the run off. He suggested a full comprehensive plan and an environmental impact statement for this sensitive area. Mr. Corson explained that Rice Creek Watershed District had reviewed the request and approved the revised plan. He indicated that they have worked very hard with both the City and Rice Creek to come up with a development plan that would • • Planning & Zoning Board 10 August 12, 1992 have minimum impact. Mr. Bowen requested that the City check how this development will affect the property owners downstream and insure that they are adequately protected. He believes there should be better silt fences and better protection standards when the impact is over such a large area as this is. He also suggested dual holding ponds. Mr. Corson stated that a hydrologist reviewed the plan and recommended the dedication of an addition 1 1/2 acres of wetlands. They have had to jump through many hoops to get the plan that is being reviewed tonight. Mr. Brixius added that the property directly to the west is Zoned Ri with a greater density than that proposed. The park /wetland dedication enhances the project. Mr. Gelbman and Mr. Mesich had concerns regarding the shoreland and the park dedication that allowed these lots not to be considered riparian lakeshore. Chairman Schaps stated that there seems to be many defects in the plan submitted. MOTION: Mr. Gelbman made a motion to deny the request. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Mesich stated that his concerns would be lessened if the lots met the R1X zoning requirements. Mr. Robinson suggested the plat be resubmitted with lots that are correct in size for the zoning district. Mr. Corson explained that it was the Planners suggestion that this proposal be for a PDO which allows flexibility in lot width and depth. Mr. Robinson moved and was supported by Mr. Gelbman to table the request. On roll call, all voted aye. Motion carried. H. 92 -40 -S, Custom Mfg., 7582 4th Ave., Site Plan Review Mr. Lloyd McKinney was present to discuss this item and stated that they are requesting permission to add a 24 x 36 garage to the south side of their manufacturing building on 4th Avenue. Staff has recommended approval of the request with conditions listed in the staff report. MOTION: Mr. Mesich moved approval of the request with the conditions indicated in the staff report. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. VI. ADJOURNMENT: Upon the unanimous consent of the Board the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M.