HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/30/2002 Council Minutes•
•
•
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 30, 2002
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
CITY OF LINO LAKES
MINUTES
: October 30, 2002
. 6:05 p.m.
. 9:06 p.m.
: Council Members Carlson, Dahl,
O'Donnell, Reinert and Mayor Bergeson
: None
Staff members present: Community Development Director,
Planner, Jeff Smyser
rochala and City l
City Planner Smyser advised several weeks ago staffdistributedto the Council the
September 4, 2002 draft of the new subdivision or ince. e draft includes changes
recommended by the P & Z at the public hearing: ded ext is underlined, deleted text is
shown as stFiletkr-e . The P & Z voted to reco rend adopting the ordinance as
amended.
Please remember that the subdivision ordinance regulates the subdivision of property. It
is not the zoning ordinance. Such thi orgize and allowable uses are addressed in
the zoning ordinance, not the subdivision ordinance.
The following list summarizes ii & draft ordr ance and points out important issues.
• Complete table of cois Ming p tions as well as page numbers for easy location
of specific requirement`
• An improved list of definitions that will dovetail with the definitions in the new
zoning ordinance.
• Clear statements throughout the ordinance regarding what is required and what is
prohibited when subdividing.
• Clear lists of submittal requirements that form the basis for checklists to hand out to
prospective applicants for sketch plans, preliminary plats and final plats.
• Premature subdivision standards (page 1002.2): minimum requirements to ensure
that the project does not conflict with City development policies and that basic
infrastructure is or will be made available for the new development.
1
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 30, 2002
• An "infill policy" was adopted by the City in 1992 and has been incorporated
into the premature subdivision section.
• MUSA allocation (page 1002.5):
• Note the statement regarding a phasing plan and the City's commitment to it.
• MUSA reserve criteria were adopted in 1996 and are incorporated into the
New ordinance.
• Sketch plan: an initial submittal of a plat to provide for informal discussion prior to a
preliminary plat submittal. This will not be mandatory because of deadlines and
schedule requirements. It will be advantageous for a developer to utilize this
opportunity for informal discussions with staff and the boards before spending the
significant amount of money on a preliminary plat submittal.
• Preliminary plat: among other requirements is a phasing plan
the schedule for different phases to be final platted.
tge 1004.8) depicting
• There remains the question of a requirement fd z-' pletion of a specified
percentage of one phase before the develo can submit the final plat for the next
phase. In theory, it sounds like a good id a to enure timely development of an
approved plat. The problem, what do we u to determine "completion"?
Number of lots sold? Permits issue 9 Certificates of occupation?
The P & Z discussed having loth Ulyandscaped before being considered
complete. However, that is often thresponsibility of the homeowner, and neither
the builder nor the developer con an.
Staff now believe that suchrequirement is not practical. We recommend
deleting the requient on pages 1004.11 (last sentence, paragraph 16) and
1005.5 (paragraph2 a., second sentence)
• Final plat (Sec. 1007)
Each phase will be final platted according to the phasing plan approved with
the preliminary plat.
An important change is that we will no longer allow grading or other site work
to begin until after final plat approval. Work cannot begin without an approved
development agreement. Currently, we approve development agreements after
preliminary plat approval, but prior to final plat. Development should not occur
outside the MUSA, and MUSA reserve will be allocated with the final plat.
Therefore, under the new ordinance, the City Council will approve the
development agreement along with the final plat, along with MUSA allocation.
• Minor Subdivisions (Sec. 1006)
2
•
•
•
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 30, 2002
• The major change is that minor subdivisions would go through an
administrative review only: they would be reviewed and approved/denied by
staff. They would not need to go through the P & Z and City Council. This will
save much time and expense for an applicant wanting a lot split that results in
only two or three lots.
The applicant can appeal a denial through the normal variance/appeal process. It
would then go to P & Z and the City Council.
• Design Standards (Sec. 1007)
• Establishes standards for all lots and blocks, such as minimum lot frontage
on a street (p. 1007.2, paragraph 5)
• Access management design: single family and two-family lots must not
access arterial or major collector (par. 6). Multifam4 nd commercial properties
may access major collector or arterial, but paragraph 7 preferences for access
methods.
• Open space in any conservation subdivisionse designated as one of
three categories with ownership/management es ish . (page 1007.4).
• Public utilities such as telephone, gas, etc.,use a joint trench (page
1007.10).
• Park dedication ordinance adopted last year is ineorporated into new ordinance as
Section 1008.
• Tree preservation requirements, in
Trees to be lost are to be docum
be replaced.
• Improvements, Section, 1010
servation plan, makes up Section 1009.
ees lost that were supposed to be saved must
• Develop st provideurvey showing grading was done according to
plan (page 1010.4,
• When site includes flood plain, developer must apply for FEMA map
update or pay City to AO so.
• The Financial Security Section, 1011, requires additional research. It's probable that
we can just refer to the City's public improvement financing policy. However, this
policy is somewhat unclear in some situations.
City Planner Smyser advised the whole purpose of this meeting is to review the
subdivision ordinance and answer questions.
Councilmember O'Donnell inquired about the process of the new ordinances. City
Planner Smyser stated the City has a Development Regulation Task Force that reviewed
the ordinances. Before the Task Force reviewed the ordinance staff consulted with Al
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 30, 2002
• Brixius numerous times. Once it was distributed, the Task Force reviewed a section
every month.
•
•
Councilmember O'Donnell stated Mr. Brixius approached this by taking the best pieces
out of several different cities ordinance and incorporating them into one.
City Planner Smyser advised the Task Force then made revisions of each section and a
public hearing was held at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The Planning and
Zoning Board did recommend approval with some changes.
City Planner Smyser continued stating the ordinance covers most of the important issues
for the City and tries to make it usable. It is also more organized and has a table of
contents. He reviewed the table of contents noting there is legal language along with
definitions. The minor subdivision has its own section. Thedefinitions will have to be
reviewed again so they coincide with the definitions in the zo ► ordinance. Staff and
the Task Force tried to make this document very clear as far a# wh can and can not be
done. He noted the pages are numbered by sections.
Councilmember Carlson referred to the section regarding `1 s., ng Authority and the term
"incorporated" areas. She asked if the Council is nit in charge of unincorporated areas.
City Planner Smyser stated he is unclear why the tem "incorporated" is in the document.
He indicated that term is probably verbage ° cher cities ordinance. He reviewed
the General Provisions section of the ord
Mayor Bergeson indicated he is coned about the enforceability and perceived uneven
application of an ordinance in relation tom: remature subdivision. City Planner Smyser
referred to the state law regardingtthis ssu °d noted the City has the right to make sure
all requirements are met before a o .; ision is development. Adequate services are
needed but the question what s a. +Llate. Staff is proposing to include in the
ordinance certain levels ofservice. He referred to the section of the ordinance regarding
the roads and access and level of service requirements.
Councilmember O'Donnell stated safety is an issue that also needs to be addressed.
Community Development Director Grochala stated the City may want to include the
County's roadway standards in this document.
Councilmember Carlson asked for additional information and definitions regarding the
specific levels of service.
Community Development Director Grochala stated the County's requirements state that
improvements must be within the County's five year plans. If the improvements are not
within their five year plan, the improvements have to be made before a development can
go in. The City may want to look at requirements similar to those.
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 30, 2002
• Mayor Bergeson asked if a statement be included that public safety issues will supersede
other road standards. Any statement regarding public safety would be beneficial.
•
•
City Planner Smyser stated staff still has an issue with the roads and is continuing to work
on that. He stated the Water Supply and Waste Disposal section are complete and the
MUSA use was passed in 1997. The MUSA section is workable as it is.
Mayor Bergeson asked if there is a hierarchy of ordinance. City Planner Smyser stated
staff has not put that together yet. There is some redundancy and the City will have to
decide if some of the verbage should be cut out.
City Planner Smyser referred to the Sketch Plan noting staff wanted to make that more of
a formal process. There are concerns about making statutory timelines of an application.
The City Attorney and staff determined a formal process would not work. A Sketch Plan
is not mandatory but is strongly suggested. The City does have alist of criteria for the
Sketch Plan that would apply to the preliminary plat. A profession typically prepares a
Sketch Plan.
Councilmember Carlson suggested the term concept plan may be a better term to use for
the Sketch Plan. She referred to the section rear
g d dtng and preparing an application
in regards to environmental issues. She asked what that means and if it can be made
more clear.
City Planner Smyser stated there are man
issues. Staff knows these thresholds
does determine if an EIS is necess
Council.
Councilmember Carlson stated t
clearer.
ry thresholds regarding environmental
if an EAW is necessary. The Council
no way takes the authority away from the
two ways to read that and she would like it to be
City Planner Smyser referre to the Preliminary Plan section noting it is mandatory.
Several things have been ad d to this section and they are noted.
Mayor Bergeson stated that over time the name of the Community Development
Department may change. He suggested that may need to be considered in the document.
City Planner Smyser stated the term Community Development Department should not
affect the document because that term is the official name of the department.
City Planner Smyser referred to the Yield Plan section noting language needs to be added
related to conservation development. He defined the term urban cluster indicating it is
possible to preserve some open space in areas that have sewer and water. A Yield Plan is
a sketch that shows how a development would look under regular zoning as compared to
a conservation development.
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 30, 2002
Councilmember O'Donnell asked if density bonus is included in the document. City
Planner Smyser stated density bonus is made possible in several zoning districts so it is
included within the ordinance.
Councilmember Reinert asked why a Yield Plan is necessary. City Planner Smyser
outlined a drawing that demonstrated the reason for a Yield Plan.
Community Development Director Grochala stated a Yield Plan is used to determine how
many lots should be in an area under regular zoning.
Councilmember O'Donnell stated the Task Force did have a lot of discussion about the
Yield Plan because it does change the complexity of the City. The trade off for smaller
lots is having an open space preserved area.
City Planner Smyser advised the Phasing Plan is very specifical ,raid out in the
document.
Mayor Bergeson asked if a phasing plan will be required-Aor a ten home development.
City Planner Smyser stated there should be a threshold th ` would require a phasing plan.
Community Development Director Grochala su sted a'statement be added that the
phasing plan is in accordance with the Growt Management Policy.
Councilmember Carlson asked why ghost p is are only required in rural areas. She
y i
stated ghost plats should also apply to z g districts. City Planner Smyser
advised the Ghost Plat paragraph sa at if property is going to subdivide in an area
that will include utilities at some t future, a ghost plat is required to ensure the
layout of the plat coincides wit l the ii re ' wines. He noted he believes a ghost plat
does apply to other districts but eck to make sure that it does.
Councilmember Carlson std s has a question regarding the lack of simple majority
for a plat approval. She as d if that could be a 2-1 vote or has to be the simple majority
of the full Council.
City Planner Smyser advised only a simple majority is necessary. The purpose of that is
to state that if a plat is not approved it is considered a denial.
City Planner Smyser referred to no. 16 regarding the question on how to deal with
phasing plans. The Council had indicated they wanted some sort of requirement
regarding the completion of one stage before work can be started on the next phase.
Councilmember Reinert stated their needs to be some incentive for developers so this
issue is not a problem.
•
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 30, 2002
Mayor Bergeson stated he does not see it as a problem because the City has limits on
growth.
City Planner Smyser stated staff is not convinced the language is necessary. Read the
staff recommendation for the language is the Council feels it is necessary. The language
indicates a percentage of the homes must be completed before the next phase is started.
This language only applies to development over 40 lots.
Councilmember Dahl read a statement regarding the builders/developers responsibilities.
She stated they should have a metal box to store equipment so it is not all over the lots.
Mayor Bergeson stated building inspectors are requiring that somehow.
Councilmember Dahl stated chicken wire does not contain anything. A new requirement
should be considered.
City Planner Smyser reviewed the Final Plat requirements n
development agreement. Staff needs to change the lan
development agreement. The City should set it up that
preliminary plat approval but can't start work on roads: un
This would require two development agreements.
done at the same time to eliminate drainage iss
ng t e City will require a
ng grading and the
ing can begin after
er final plat approval.
Community Development Director Grocha
from the area as opposed to bringing it in
grading smaller areas. Also, the City
conditional use permit.
.sop is that all grading should be
It isso more cost beneficial.
is also more effective to use dirt
s possible to create more disturbances when
grading in certain situations with a
Councilmember Reinert asked wiy thCit ill not allow work on the infrastructure to
be started. Community Developt.i irector Grochala stated the City has more control
this way in regards to phasingfans and MUSA allocation.
City Planner Smyser advised staff will rewrite that section to include the two separate
development agreements. Hreferred to the Minor Subdivision section advising staff is
proposing minor subdivisions be handled administratively. A minor subdivision request
would not go through the Planning and Zoning Board or City Council. That will save
time and money for everyone involved. The negative is that Council will not be aware of
what is happening.
Mayor Bergeson suggested there be some type of reporting system about minor
subdivision requests.
City Planner Smyser advised applicants would have the right to ask for a variance and go
through the City process if the minor subdivision does not meet necessary requirements.
•
•
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 30, 2002
Councilmember Reinert stated he would like to see a request if the application is denied
and the reason for that denial. The new process would save a lot of time.
Councilmember Carlson stated applications that are denied should go through the current
City process. The City should make it easy for applicants as opposed to being too
difficult. Everyone should know they have the right to go through the City process.
City Planner Smyser stated applicants will be aware of the fact they can appeal or go
through the current City process.
Mayor Bergeson stated applicants can be informed of their rights with a summary of the
process. Sometimes things are gray and staff should have the right to bring a request
through the City process if staff is not comfortable with the request.
City Planner Smyser stated the concern with that is residents fling that some have to
go through the City process and some do not. Staff will give an update on all
minor subdivision requests.
City Planner Smyser reviewed the Design Standards s
lots will not be allowed. He explained the definiti
the proper frontage.
ting the creation of flag
flag lot noting they do not allow
City Planner Smyser read the section regar s Management Issues and how
means of accessing will be determined. County determines all accesses on County
roads. He continued advised conservation su s vision developments are laid out and
certain types must be defined and have cert requirements.
Councilmember Carlson asked aiout rferes to greenways within the document. City
Planner Smyser advised greenwa have multiple definitions. Greenways are in the
document and fall into tal habitats section.
City Planner Smyser referred to the Streets and Alleys section noting the City does have
the flexibility to create alleys. A diagram to help clarify that section accompanies the
statement regarding easements. Staff believes this section will be rewritten in regards to
the rear lot lines. The Park Dedication Ordinance was changed last year so no changes
were made to that section.
Councilmember Dahl stated she thought the park dedication fees were going to be
increased. City Planner Smyser stated the City has no plans to change those fees.
Councilmember Reinert suggested a incremental increase be included in the park
dedication fee ordinance. City Planner Smyser advised the park dedication fees can be
changed easily because a dollar amount is not listed in the ordinance. The dollar amount
is only listed in the fee schedule.
SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION OCTOBER 30, 2002
Councilmember Reinert stated there should be an automatic increase due to inflation.
City Planner Smyser stated the City can look at that when the fee schedule is revised.
Councilmember Dahl read the purpose of the Blaine Park Dedication fee. She indicated
the cost of inflation does go up so the City should address that issue within the ordinance.
Councilmember Reinert stated the City will have to reevaluate the fee because the
Comprehensive Park Plan only goes so far into the future.
City Planner Smyser referred to the Tree Preservation Section and noted there was a lot of
debate regarding how much preservation should be required. It was determined that
developers must do a tree inventory in relation to how many trees will be disturbed with
the development plus 50 feet. Developers also have to show which trees will be lost. If a
tree is destroyed that was to be saved the developer has to r ce it two to one. There is
a list of trees that may or may not be used for replacements.
City Planner Smyser referred to a list of improvements th t a e done. The
developers agreements also include a list of what the developerhas to do. Staff did try to
address the flood plain issue. An application to FEMA,Milit submitted. He added
there is a Financial Securities section requiring developers to comply with the City's
financing policy.
City Planner Smyser stated there will be a sects -_ ed regarding violations, penalties,
etc. The next step is to bring the document the City Council for a first reading. Staff
will work on the changes that have to made rid bring it back to the Council for
discussion before action is taken.
There being no further businesses dismiss reg rding this issue, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
These minutes were considered,°c"rrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
December 9, 2002.
C 4, '
Ann Blair, City Clerk
Transcribed by:
Kim Points
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•
9
John Bergeson, Mayor