Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/2015 P&Z Minutes APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Vice Chair Hyden called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on October 14, 2015. II. APROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as presented. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 9, 2015 Mr. Masonick made a MOTION to approve the September 9, 2015 Meeting Minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 - 0. (Hyden abstained.) IV. OPEN MIKE Mr. Hyden declared Open Mike at 6:35 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Kassner made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:35 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 - 0. (Hyden abstained.) DATE : October 14, 2015 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 7:58 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Neil Evenson, Michael Hyden (Vice Chair), Matthew Kassner, Perry Laden, Lou Masonick, Michael Root MEMBERS ABSENT : Paul Tralle (Chair) STAFF PRESENT : Keith Dahl, Diane Hankee, Katie Larsen Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2015 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES V. ACTION ITEMS A. 6602 Pheasant Run-Variance for Garage Construction Keith Dahl, Community Development Intern, presented the staff report. Staff recommends approval of a 10 foot variance to reduce the required setback from 40 feet to 30 feet to allow for the construction of an attached double garage, subject to the following conditions: 1. The detached shed in the northeast corner of the lot, found in violation of city ordinances, shall be relocated onto the applicant’s property. 2. The accessory structure shall meet the requirements of §1007.043 General Building and Use Provisions. 3. The accessory structure shall meet all other city code and state building code requirements. 4. A building permit shall be submitted for by the applicant and approved by the City of Lino Lakes prior to construction. Mr. Masonick questioned whose property the other half of the shed is located on. City staff was unaware of whose property it is, but the shed needs to be moved onto the applicant’s property regardless of who owns it. Mr. Root asked if the garage construction would impact the trees. Mr. Dahl provided more information on the property features. Mr. Root will ask the applicant to address this later. Mr. Laden asked for more information on the nearby areas that have a 30 foot setback and the history of when setbacks were changed from 30 to 40 feet. Mr. Dahl responded that properties to the west of the applicant’s property were those that had a 30 foot setback (about a half mile to a mile away) and properties to the east of the property were those that met the 40 foot setback. City staff is unsure when the setback was changed, though Katie Larsen, City Planner, mentioned that even in the building plans from when the home was built in the 1980’s it was noted that there was a 40 foot setback. Mr. Masonick questioned if the requirement to have a garage existed when the house was built and when that requirement came into effect. Mr. Dahl replied that there was no requirement at that time to have a garage. Ms. Larsen indicated that the requirement could have been introduced around 1997. Mr. Evenson asked for clarification on the garage requirement and city staff presented further details on the requirement. Mr. Evenson speculated if the builder did not construct a garage on the property because they were unable to meet the setback requirement. Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2015 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden asked if city staff or the applicant explored building a garage within the setback but configured in different direction or area of the property. Mr. Dahl explained that they looked into other options but the applicant has a deck that would be in the way. Mr. Hyden asked for details on the maximum amount of accessory structures that can be constructed on a given lot and the requirement for the applicant’s property. Mr. Dahl stated that he did the calculations on this property and the applicant would still be well within the requirements once the garage is constructed. Mr. Hyden invited the applicant to the podium. Dylan Lindman, 6602 Pheasant Run, started out by discussing the setbacks at nearby properties. He noted that his new fence would hinder the public from noticing that his property does not meet the setback and he ensured that he is not going to trim the pine trees. Mr. Lindman summarized his reasoning for wanting the additional space in his garage. Mr. Laden asked Mr. Lindman if he is willing to accept the 30 foot setback, which he responded that he is not, as it would not be functional. Mr. Kassner questioned why the applicant chose a 24 foot garage since the national average is 20-22 feet. Mr. Lindman discussed the reasoning, which is mainly due to measurements of building supplies. Mr. Laden encouraged the applicant to explore side loading the garage, which would allow him to have his 24 foot garage. Mr. Root expressed his support for the variance. Mr. Kassner discussed his support for the 30 foot setback recommended by city staff. Mr. Lindman asked how his property could be impacted by expansion on Birch Street. Ms. Larsen answered that it would be considered a legal nonconforming structure. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend approval of a 10 foot variance, as recommended by City staff. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 - 0. (Hyden abstained.) B. PUD Concept Plan Review North Oaks Company, LLC Ms. Larsen presented the staff report. Staff recommends submission of a revised concept plan by the developer with consideration of the comments provided by staff report, Council and Advisory Boards. Prompted by Mr. Masonick, Ms. Larsen discussed the wetlands and floodplain in further detail. Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2015 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Evenson commented that it is difficult to imagine another 140 units in the development. Ms. Larsen indicated ways the developers could incorporate the additional units into the plan. Mr. Root observed that because the area is already busy, this is an area where you would want to put a high density development and he appreciated the comments about adding trails since so much traffic already exists in the area. Mr. Hyden has concerns about both intersections since there is so much traffic in the area. Diane Hankee, City Engineer, pointed out that there will be a traffic study done. Mr. Kassner seconded that he is concerned about adding the minimum amount of rooftops. Mr. Laden could not support this development without a commercial component. He wants to ensure that those who are residing in these rooftops would be able to patronize local businesses. Brought about by Mr. Masonick, Ms. Larsen and the board discussed city boundaries and commercial potential in the area. Gary Eagles, Vice President of Development with North Oaks Company, approached the podium to address concerns risen by the board. Mr. Eagles agrees with traffic concerns, which is why they do not want to add much more traffic and they chose their access points with this in mind. He discussed that developers did look at adding mixed use for commercial and he understands the board’s desire to set aside space for commercial use, however the studies they have done have not proved that it would be a viable corner for commercial businesses. They would be willing to set aside some space for mixed use if the board would like, but their marketing studies have found that the outlook would not be positive. Mr. Eagles addressed further concerns with traffic, specifically at Ash Street. He then addresses concerns about the density. In North Oaks they worked with VLAWMO and the DNR in the Wilkinson Lake area. Their idea of shoreland ordinance was to tier the lower density towards the lake and higher density away from the lake, which is opposite of what the City of Lino Lakes is looking for in this development. Mr. Eagles agreed that he doesn’t see how they can add 140 units on this site unless they add more apartments, though this would lead to more senior housing available than what would be needed. Mr. Hyden asked if Mr. Eagles could explain why their market studies showed that the area was not viable for commercial properties. Mr. Eagles explained that it is not an area for high population not only due to a small amount of rooftops, but also due to the large expanses of wetland to the north and to the west as well as difficulties in the east from an access standpoint. Mr. Eagles can share their market studies with the City if requested. Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2015 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Eagles ensured that they would have included commercial space in the development if they thought it would be viable. Mr. Laden commented on market studies saying that 5 years ago market studies would have indicated that none of this development should be built. Mr. Eagles explained that they have been doing market studies in the area for the last 15 years and it is evident from the amount of properties still waiting to be sold in the strip mall in White Bear Township and the nearby properties in Lino Lakes that the area is not a successful commercial district. Mr. Hyden pointed out that you can only exit off the freeway in one direction. Mr. Eagles noted that they discussed the ramp issue with MnDOT and explained the barriers that would restrict them from creating another off ramp. City staff specified that they are just looking for input at this time from the board. Mr. Evenson stated that he is not opposed to the absence of commercial property in this development given the amount of available properties in the vicinity for the last 15 years. He added that if it had been a booming area it would have been established by now. Mr. Kassner provided his input saying that he would like to see commercial property included in the development if they are unable to incorporate the 140 additional units. He also mentioned that since the last market study was done 5 years ago, he would like to see this revisited since the market has changed vastly in the last 5 years. Mr. Kassner is confident that retail properties such as Starbucks would do well next to the freeway to catch people on their way to work. No further action is required at this time. C. PUBLIC HEARING to consider Amendment to Chapter 1103: Floodplain Management Ms. Larsen introduced Katy Thompson of WSB & Associates, Inc. Ms. Thompson presented the staff report. Staff recommends approval of proposed Ordinance No. 10-15. Mr. Laden asked where we have floodways in the city. Ms. Thompson responded that the City of Lino Lakes currently does not have any floodways. It is required to adopt all three districts in case the city decides to pursue detailed studies in the future. Mr. Laden asked about Rice Creek and Ms. Thompson explained that Rice Creek is just a floodplain and if a developer decided to develop in that area they would need to be able to determine if it was in a floodway or floodplain and what they would be allowed to do on their property. Mr. Hyden wanted to clarify that you can’t build on the floodway, but you can build on the fringe. Ms. Thompson confirmed that this is correct and noted that the houses just need to be elevated. She discussed that everything in Lino Lakes is a general floodplain, which means it is the developer’s responsibility to determine whether or not they fall into the floodway or floodplain. Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2015 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Larsen noted that in the Saddle Club and NorthPointe projects the applicants had to go through this same process since there was a floodplain on those properties. She also stated that in the city there are not a lot of properties where structures are built on the flood fringe. Mr. Hyden asked how he would go about finding out if he is on a floodplain. Ms. Larsen responded that staff can easily look up that information through the GIS system. Mr. Masonick asked if you can put a temporary structure on a floodplain. Ms. Thompson replied that it is okay as long as the structure is highway ready and has current registration. Mr. Evenson asked for clarification from city staff on how the insurance process works for those who need flood insurance. Ms. Thompson explained the process and Ms. Hankee gave an estimate for the costs associated with the process. Mr. Laden asked city staff to explain what the GIS system is, since he hears that term being used a lot. Ms. Larsen described the ARC GIS system and noted that the public does not have access to the system. Ms. Larsen ensured that it is paid for by city staff, not the public. Ms. Thompson and Ms. Larsen explained that the floodplain information will be available to the public on the FEMA website. Mr. Hyden declared the Public Hearing open at 7:51 p.m. There was no one present for the Public Hearing. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 7:52 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Masonick. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance. Motion was supported by Mr. Kassner. Motion carried 5 - 0. (Hyden abstained.) VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Project Updates Ms. Larsen provided an update of current city projects. Ms. Hankee gave an update on the Shenandoah, West Oaks, NorthPointe and Saddle Club projects. Ms. Larsen announced that the November Planning & Zoning Board meeting has been moved to Wednesday, November 18th, as our offices are closed on Wednesday, November 11th in observance of Veterans Day. VII. ADJOURNMENT Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2015 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:58 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 - 0. (Hyden abstained.) Respectfully submitted, Nicole DeDeyn Community Development Administrative Assistant