Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/1981 P&Z Minutesn .; 1 Special Planning and Zoning Board January 7, .]A-80' • The special meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by V- Chairman Heath. Members present; Prokop, Doocy, Johnson, Bathke, Schwankl, Kiaus. Mr. Heath noted that this meeting was called for the purpose to, consider a special use permit application by El Rehbein & Son for Lakes Add. #7. Mr. Prokop asked to present two concerns of his before this hearing began 1) he questioned the installation of a street off Elmcrest going West - he wondered if the Planning and Zoning should be giving guidance for the con- struction of this new street; and 2) relative to development in Lino Lakes - when he built on an unimproved street, he was required to put in a black top street. Last week he / Ad inspected Shenandoah III and this area has a gravel roadway. Mr. Prokop wondered if there is special consideration given to large developers that different from individuals. Mr. Heath noted that there will be questions from the Board members on the presentation of the Planner and the Attorney, but not from the audience. The audience will be given an opportunity to ask questions after the developer's presentation. Mr. Schumacher presented a brief overview of what outlots are being considered under this application, the action taken, the dates the actions were taken and the status of the plat at this date. Mr. Locher presented the action of the Court and the direction given this • Board by the Judge with the time frame for action. Mr. Short presented his findings on this special use permits as it relates to existing ordinances and the proposed Comprehensive Plan. He had researched the impact of this project on Public facilities, public utilities, general welfare of the public and traffic. He found no impact on the first three items and then went through the various relavent chapters of the Comprehensive Plan for the fourth. Mr. Johnson asked if a Special Use Permit is better that a rezone? and Mr. Short said, Yes, in that on a Special Use Permit, conditions may be attached. On a rezone there is very little, if any control by the City. Mr. Johnson asked why a special use permit was being considered here and Mr. Short said this action was directed by the Court. Mr. Short presented some figures for projected population - quads would result in 269 persons; platted as single family lots there would be a total of 214 persons - the quads would represent a total of 55 more persons. Mr. Heath asked, if one of the conditions of the Special Use Permit could be a limit on the number of bedrooms and Mr. Short said that could be a consider- ation. Mr. Short pointed out the landscaping and screening requirements that could be imposed on a special use permit. Mr. Heath asked what effect this project would have on drainage in relationship IIIto the existing homes and Mr. Short said that the issuance of a special use permit would require that this project would not have any effect on the area drainage - A master drainage plan must be prepared and submitted to RCWB for approval. Planning and Zoning Page Two Mr. Doocy asked if they are to consider the people of the area or the entire City under 'general welfare' and Mr. Short said, the entire City. M. Heath asked about the effect on property values and Mr. Short said he did not feel qualified to answer that question. Mr. Schumacher said it would be necessary to hire professional appraisers and to get two or three opinions for a fair value. Clerk's Note:(Mr. Prokop asked some questions about soils, I think, but I could not understand him - he was too far away from the mike) Mr. Klaus asked about the soils that the existing homes are on and Mr. Short said he would have to check the soils map. Basically you find the same type of soils and problems in the entire lake area. Mr. Blackbird presented the request for a Special Use Permit noting that maps of the layout, drainage maps, design of the building are all posted for viewing. Mr. Heath asked if this project would have any effect on the drainage from the present homes - would this project act as a 'dam' for the drainage. An engineer from Suburban Engineering explained the drainage plan for the area and pointed out that there are three ponding areas designed for the area. He noted the direction of the drainage and that in some areas the drainage would be diverted to flow in another direction in order to pond. He also pointed out that the outlots have a higher elevation than the existing homes in that .area at the present time. The design and construction of the ponds is dictated by RCWB and must be constructed to conform to their rules and regulations. Mr. Heath asked if these ponding areas would be maintained? will there be grass? if so, will it be mowed and who will be responsible for this? Mr. Blackbird said there would be grass and the Association would be responsibl for the maintenance of the area. Mr. Prokop asked Mr. Blackbird about the word ' Association', he said he had never heard that in relationship to this project and he asked for specifics. (All members of the Planning and Zoning Board have a copy of the proposed agreement as presented by MR. Blackbird - Mrs. Anderson sent it from this office Mrs. Klaus said she had done some research on quads and had been told that quad developments are far better kept that most private homes. The City Planner in White Bear Lake spoke very highly of the quad developments in his area and of the people who live in them. He had told Mr. Klaus that approximately 50% are retired persons and 50% are single professional people or first home families just starting. She had also talked to the City Clerk in Shoreview and had been told that they have no problems with quad development. There was some discussion as to whether these units are to be sold or to be used as rental property. Mr. Blackbird said there will be construction only as the units are sold. Someone questioned the grading of the area and Mr. .Blackbird said the first three units will be constructed on the lots facing Black Duck Drive and the grading for the entirenwill be done at the same time. CAUL- (_Mr. Prokop asked, I think, something about garages - could not understand) Mr. Blackbird said the buildings would be approximately 24 feet high. Planning and Zoning Page Three IIIMr. Heath asked if this proposal had been submitted to RCWB and was told yes. It has received approval pending documents that the ponding areas are on dedicated public property and the final drainage plans. Mr. Johnson said he was concerned about the drainage - at the last hearing the indications were that there were objections to the plat from either the DNR or RCWB. He had called both agencies the next day and neither had any knowledge of the plat. The Engineer explained these agencies will not consider any project until it has preliminary approval from the City Council. This plat now has preliminary approval of the City, therefore, it had been submitted for review and comment. There has also been an EAW prepared and submitted. There was a lengthly discussion on water drainage with maps being used. Mr. Prokop questioned Mr. Short on his statement that the quads would cover approximately 9% of the land area - he had done a rough out on one of the lots and found the building covered around 25 %. Mr. Short said his computations were on the efntire area - not individual buildings or lots. Mr. Heath was concerned about the status of the Special Use Permit. this had 5eco reaffirmed in July - preliminary approval of the plat in July what is the status of the special use permit in realtionship to the Court ruling? Mr. Locher said this is the basis for the Court action - the land had been •platted under Ord. #6 and the special use permit was issued under that ordinance - then Ord. #56 was written and it was felt that the special use permit was governed by that ordinance. Mr. Prokop asked if this means that the original spe1aal use permit is void and Mr. Locher said the Judge did not pass on that. This action is a new request. Someone asked about the zoning on the outlots and Mr. Locher said under Ord. #6 this land is zoned residential and this still applies since there was no zoning map published in conjunction with Ord. #56. Therefore, the zoning under Ord. #6 applies to this property. Mr. Heath opened the meeting for questions from the audience. Mr. Hook, Attorney for the Homeowner's Association, said he would like to give some education to the Planning and Zoning Board. He said the special use permit is held in abeyance. He said that Judge Bakke, off the-record, said how he would rule on this request. He pointed out this is a brand new application and reverts back to what is the property today - he felt the developer's wasm to change from residential, single family to R -5. He said it is very questionable whether Mr. Locher's opinion that in 1980 there are only t /Czonings in the City of Lino Lakes - Res. and Comm. mimiammwomespolt. He dis- agreed and said that Ord. #56 sets forth all zoning districts. Itr. Hook listed the types of zoning districts and informed the P &Z what type action is needed to approve requests for these districts. Mr. Hook spoke at length on the issuance of a special use permit in azoning district and how the State Zoning Statute relates to this act. Mr. Hook assured the Council, that if a special use permit were approved at • Planning and Zoning Page Four. the Council meeting to he held on Jan. 12, 1981, he would file a law suit on Jan. 13, 1981. IIIHe suggested to the Planning and Zoning Board that = forward a recommendatio to the Council that the zoning ordinance be amended. The present form is unenforceable and unconstitutional. He felt this land should be rezoned. Mr. Johnson asked MR. Locher if this Board should be considering a special use permit? Mr. Locher said the special use permit was issued under Ord. #6 allowing this, then Ord. #56 was written - the question is whether the land has lost the special use permit by not conforming to 6.21, paragraph 2 in Ord. #56. because the project was not 50% completed within three years. Mr. Reinert asked Mr. Talle if he and Mr. Locher werei'orking together on this special use permit - he felt this was a proper question - that the public should be aware of any collusion. Mr. Talle replied that he had not spoken to Mr. Locher since the court hearing and Mr. Locherecaffirmet E this. Mr. Hook said he felt that both Attorneys had acted in a proper manner and did not feel there had been any improper acts from either man. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Locher if a special use permit rather than a rezone was the correct way to handle this and Mr. Locher said, Yes, this had been the Judges direction - to consider this application as it relates to Ord. #56, 6.21, paragraph 2. Mr. Locher felt this direction gave some premise to the Original special use permit. There was discussion on the Judge's instructions and what this entailed - Mr. Hook had one version and Mr. Talle presented another version. Mr. Benson restated the Home Owner's position and objections to the constructio of the quads. Mr. Klaus said she had been told that this multi- family use of the land had been planned at the time of the platting. Mr. Johnson gave her a history of the area, noting the things that had been promised at the time of the sales and had never materialized. Mr. Bathke asked Mr. Blackbird the selling price of the units and Mr. Blackbird said approximateld $55,000.00 per unit. Mr. Johnson moved to deny the application for a special use permit for Lakes Add. #7 based on the project is not in conformance with current zoning, nor in conformance with the proposed comprehensive plan which has been given preliminary approval by the Planning and Zoning Board and forwarded to the Metropolitan Council by the City Council for their review relative to single family homes in this area; 24 quads, 96 units on approximately 20 A. would average 2 or 3 bedrooms create a density of 14.6 per quad for a total of over 350 people. This density coupled with the use of only 225 feet of lake- shore would have a detrimental effect on the lake and on the entire natural enviornment of the area. The water table of the proposed site averages 0 to 2 feet, construction could only compound the drainage problems that already exist in the area. The water table at the propsed site would make construction without basements necessary, the building would tower over existing homes, IIIinvading the privacy of these residents and destroying the natural sight line for all home owners. Construction of this type would lower the property value of the area residents. Project of this type could only be a financial burden to the residents of Lino Lakes. Seconded by Mr. Heath. Planning and Zoning Page Five. Mr. Prokop noted that sometime in early 1980, the P &Z had agreed to make their decisions based on how the Comprehensive Plan related to the request. He pointed out several decisionsfor denial that had been handed down since then. Based on these actions, he was in favor of the motion. Mr. Bathke said he would like to seellspecial use permit dealt with by the Court. He did not feel a special use permit was correct and would therefore agree with the motion. He did not feel all information was in at this time and felt it should be dealt with as a rezoning. Mr. Doocy agreed with Mr. Johnson in that this Board is trying to conform to the Comprehensive Plan and felt there are other areas in the City that are capable of this type of construction. The enviou ent is another of his concerns. Mrs. Schwankl disagreed with the motion because there is a real need for this type of construction and that the developer had complied with all requests of this City. Mr. Heath also agreed with Mr. Johnson. The motion passed with five persons voting in favor of the motion, Mrs. Schwankl voting against the motion and Mrs. Klaus abstaining. This will be heard by the City Council on Monday, January 12, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. The meetingT:was adjourned. • A motion was made to request the City Council to verify the legality of the special use section of Ord. #56. This motion was passed. Motion was made by MR. Doocy. Motion was seconded by •