Joint Meeting
With
City Council
On Residential Open Space Preservation – Agenda Item #1
CITY OF NOWTHEN
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, May 27, 2014 @ 6:00 P.M.
(Minutes are being taped for transcribing purposes only)
Present:Jeff Pilon*Barry WagnerHarold Jorgensen
Dale AmesJim Scheffler*Robert Mahutga
Walter Cleath
City Council:Bill SchulzMary RainvilleHarlan Meyer
Other City Council Members - *
Others:Elizabeth Stockman Shane Nelson,
The Planning Company LLC Project Engineer
Joint Meeting with City Council Beginning after City Council Special Meeting.
- Meeting Called to Order @ 6:32 PM.
- Ordinance Proposal for Review - on Residential Open Space Preservation District (Clustering Options)
Planner Stockman said this is the 1st Draft Ordinance 2014-06 that would create another Zoning District similar to our RRA but opportunities of going from 8 up to 12 units per 40 acres and would provide open space if requirements are met.
In Ms. Stockman’s handout she has incorporated a map showing what areas would or could be included. Dan Licht, AICP said to include this as part of Zoning District. It would be the decision of a property owner and is optional. This would allow the City to approve additional density in trade for providing open space.
Ms. Stockman said the property owner can requestthe rezoning, identifying certain areas or should it be allowed in all of the City? Should there be a focus or limited area to facilitate goals of trails around lakes? There would not be a known time in order to acquire this, as all developments are proposed as property owners get ready to sell their land.
Pilon wanted to comment that when he was going through the minutes, agenda and even the Draft Ordinance 2014-06 that the word “clustering” was used in each of these documents.
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg.May 27, 2014Page 2
Pilon said he wanted to make it very clear that we are not to refer to “clustering” anymore per our last minutes, and everyone in the City Council was in agreement that there was a negative connotation for whatever reason and so it was decided to say Residential Open Space Preservation (ROSP District)as the term now for us to use and that we are putting behind and trying to disassociate – clustering.
Pilon said he wanted to also clarify that clustering is not tied to this ordinance and that we learn to use the new designation.
Mahutga said he thought a little bit of the clustering name should be left because that’s part and involved with this process and should be somewhat kept in place because if you talk about one thing you end up talking about clustering. You call it one thing but it ends up being so many square feet house and stuff like….Pilon interrupted and said he thinks there is density, there’s some other things. Cluster in this community has such a negative connotation he thinks some people aren’t going to get past the old thought of clustering. Pilon said we’re not clustering with the idea that developers can come in and determine their own density. He thinks there is a lot of connotation with that. The other part of it is if we continue to say open space preservation and then put clustering,you’re always tieing the two together and so you’re not only trying to rename, but we’re trying to refocus. Mahutga said if you have 60 acres and you call it whatever you call it,what do you do with the rest of the land then? Does somebody pay tax on it or what happens to that money?
Ms. Stockman says it becomes public land under this scenario. Mahutga said you can’t do that in all these spots, we’ll starve to death. Who is paying for the taxes, are we just eating all that? What happens to the volume that is left if Open Space Performance Standards means 50% is dedicated to the city.
Wagner said he has same concerns because 6 to 12% are roads. So if you take a 40 acre in open space – then 55% of tax is lost to the city – and we do not get enough tax now for roads.
The developer is ending up with more lots. Meyer said they may or may not.
Scheffler said 50% can be open space is questionable.
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg.May 27, 2014Page 3
Meyer asked what is the land going to be used for? Ms. Stockman said open space for trails/linear park and also land to meet the park dedication requirements.
Usually this is a benefit for the developer when people buy a lot then there is a trail through close by to access the park/trail system.
Ms. Stockman said from previous discussion it was in her opinion that the P & Z and CC did not want to see HOA (Home Owners Associations) considered so that is why she had drafted this ordinance of dedicating the open space to the City. With the HOA’s the public can’t use and the land is for those in that development only.
Jorgensen mentioned that with the more open space we have the more you will be looking at a bunch of gopher hills or mounds.
Comment made that taxes are higher on land than on homes. Jorgensen said every house built doesn’t break even and the City loses money on them. They don’t pay their way.
There was much discussion and a summary follows:
- Nowthen is a bedroom community
- Number of houses per 40 acre parcels could be 10 to 12
- Ms. Stockman said 12 is about the max number of homes because of all the wetlands here
- This is 1st draft and nothing is set in stone
- Mahutga says he wants tax revenue not open space
- Ames says he wants to see the land preserved
- Many private acreages not being maintained now
- Ms. Stockman said rezoning to ROSP is optional and not mandatory
- Ames said there are not many people asking for it
- Mahutga said take a look at St. Francis, for instance. A lot of their propertiesare not taken care of
- Mahutga said he had talked to the previous Mayor of St. Francis and he said they started with one acre lots but had trouble with the septics and so their ordinance had to be altered.
- The model ordinance was looked at and a few revisions were made
- IUP’s or CUP’s would not be allowed in these districts because the residentswould not have 5 acres which is required in order to apply for them
- Although Churches or schools could be allowed – these can be in any district
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg.May 27, 2014Page 4
- There could still be permitted home occupations, however – if they meet the requirements
- Question of Mahutga if one acre would allow enough room for two septic sights which is required now?
- Engineer Nelson said that yes you can have one acre and have two septic areas
- Mahutga said he feels nervous with only one acre to locate two sites for septic and thinks it is better to have 2 ½ acres like Oak Grove has
- Ms. Stockman said the City should make the minimum lot size what is comfortable to them
- Minimum tract size would avoid allowance of dividing 5 or 10 acre parcels down further unless there is a benefit to the City’s overall goals for park or trail needs or associated connections/access points
- Around lake areas, parcels are whittled down to get many lots around these lakes
- Pilon said the idea is to get ahead of developers and wanting smaller lots to put more homes on larger parcels without preserving open space
- Pilon thinks area is worth preserving like the Morton Farm Preserves
- Pilon says the ROSP District could raise our tax revenue because of larger homes being built
- Concern that making of more parks also makes for more cost to maintain them
- Types of trails can be woodchips or paved. There is cost for both
- Another maintenance cost is when trees have fallen over these trails
- Engineer Nelson said he could set up a Service District which allows by State Law to finance maintenance of sewer systems
At 8:00 a motion was made by Scheffler to suspend this portion of the meeting
in order to go on to the P & Z Public Hearing portion of the Regular P & Z
Meeting, Cleath seconded the motion, all in favor; motion carried.
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg.May 27, 2014Page 5
Regular Planning & Zoning Meeting
(Immediately After Joint Meeting)
Chairman Ames continued the meeting at 9:05 PM.
- Pledge of Allegiance
- Approve/amend tonight’s meeting agenda – May 27, 2014
Scheffler made motion to approve tonight’s meeting agenda of May 27, 2014. Cleath seconded the motion, all in favor; motion carried.
Planner Stockman said one resident was present to ask a question of the Planning & Zoning tonight – if that should be added to agenda. Ames replied that that resident could speak at the Floor Items also.
- Approve/Amend the April 22, 2014 Planning & Zoning Meeting Minutes and Joint Meeting – Residential Open Space Preservation.
Ames made the motion to approve the April 22, 2014 P & Z Meeting Minutes and Joint Meeting. Jorgensen seconded the motion all in favor; motion carried.
- PUBLIC HEARING @ 8:05 PM – A request by Mr. Todd Johnson (property owner) and applicants Mr. and Mrs. Stan Selander for property owned on 20185 Twin Parkway NW (PID 19-33-25-24-0016) for a variance to allow construction of a new home. The variance is required to locate the home closer to the lake than the required setback (51.3 feet rather than 150 feet). The lot is not buildable without the variance and the City must honor the setback variance approved by Anoka County in 1998.
Planner Stockman said that this property is a non-conforming lot that is not buildable without a variance. This lot has been in existence a long time and the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty.
Planner Stockman said her comment is: this is a difficult item to consider and is a policy decision to be made by the City Council. The previously-approved site plan by Anoka County shows structures no closer to the lake than 58 feet, while the Selander’s plans propose a setback of 51.3 feet. The structure could be moved to the north and still meet the 20 foot setback requirements to the north and west property lines, however the Selanders have requested the present configuration to allow space for the curved driveway approach, access to the side yard for storage of a recreational vehicle and access to the well and septic tank(s) planned.
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg.May 27, 2014Page 6
The City Council is not required to consider design preferences when evaluating variance criteria. It may or may not find that the proposed location of the home 6.7 feet closer to the OHWL is reasonable and can be mitigated through the requirement of landscaping as discussed herein or other conditions as may be deemed appropriate.
There were no comments from the floor.
The house on the southwest side of this property has a setback of 68 to 70 feet from the lake. All the rest of the homes along the lake are farther back than that .
Todd Johnson (owner of this property) said that in 1998 when Anoka County and Burns Township had approved the 58 feet – that is because that is what he had requested for the type of home that he had planned on building but never did.
Comment made that the edge of the property is more than 3 feet above the lake and that the water would probably never come up that high.
Mahutga questioned if Mr. Selander could be 58 feet away instead as the original variance had allowed. Mr. Selander said yes he could. Planner Stockman said he could move slightly more to the north in order to be 58 feet.
Mrs. Stockman said that “Practical difficulties” means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter and include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. So this Commission needs to recommend to the City Council.
There is room on the NE side to put septic tanks and to put motorhome and driveway space there needs to be room to turn or curve to get into driveway.
Cleath inquired about the Anoka County variance. Ms. Stockman said that we had the Public Hearing Notices but could not find the signed documentation from the County regarding the granted variance.
Cleath asked if this is legal then to allow? Ms. Stockman said yes this variance is legal. Cleath asked if this property is already purchased? Ms. Stockman said no – but an agreement is signed and pending.
Ames questioned if the County would approve less then? Ms. Stockman said this is a different house plan, so that is why the different set back.
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg.May 27, 2014Page 7
Scheffler asked if the Council can approve without the previous approval then.
Ms. Stockman said it is just a matter of location to decide on.
Ms. Stockman stated that back in the 90’s this lot was revised. If you tink it is reasonable – 20 feet in depth for parking and driveway in from the west, he has an RV to park. He does have room to push back to 58 feet and it you decide on his setback being 51.3 feet instead it would make it about 6 feet closer to the lake.
Wagner asked if when looked at in 1998, was it done by platting? Ms. Stockman replied that no but it’s a legal lot of record according to Anoka County.
Engineer Nelson said it is an existing lot.
Ames again asked if any public comments? There were none.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: Recommendations made by the
Planning & Zoning Commission
Scheffler said because this is a legal lot of record we would have to allow them
to build on it, but have to be by a variance.
Scheffler said if a variance has already been allowed then the real question
here tonight is to vary from the 1998 set back. Question is setting a precedence at all?
Mahutga said he would be more comfortable and feels better with the County’s approval setback of 58 feet. He said when he was out there to the property and he thought the site marked off felt very close to the lake.
Ames agreed and said where the stakes by the bank were located it looked to be about 15 feet from the lake and questioned if they might need some type of retaining wall?
Pilon said the other had a deck sticking out more.
Ames said he thought a wash out might be possible.
Ms. Stockman said there are erosion control requirements and the City Council could attach conditions if they wish.
City of Nowthen
Planning & Zoning Mtg.May 27, 2014Page 8
Mr. Johnson, property owner, again said it wasn’t the County that gave 58 feet allowance, it was him wanting a walkout and not the County’s decision that made for the 58 feet set back.
Ames commented that the water is quite aways down from the bank.
Ames made the motion to recommend to the City Council to approvethe
request by Mr. Todd Johnson (Property owner) and applicants Mr. and
Mrs. Stan Selander for property owned on 20185 Twin Parkway NE (PID
19-33-25-24-0016) for a variance to allow construction of a new home at a
setback of 51.3 feet from the OHWL. Pilon seconded the motion, 4 in
favor (Wagner, Pilon, Ames and Jorgen; 3 Opposed (Mahutga, Scheffler &
Cleath) motion carried.
- Floor Items
Resident Alan Tague (6423 226th Ave NW)said he would like the Planning &Zoning’s advise and Ms. Stockman thought he could come tonight to discuss his question.
Mr. Tague said he has a corner lot and would like to build an accessory building of which this lot is questionable of where to place it.
Mr. Tague handed out a packet of information for review. He said the only area the planned structure would fit within existing code is at the extreme rear of the property. To build in this area he would need to remove trees and wildlife habitat, bring in considerable fill and possibly build a retaining wall. Excavating work alone is estimated to be over $6,000. And this location would also require creating a driveway almost the full length of the lot to reach the building.
The alternate placement and would require a variance isthe location between the house and septic mound north/south and the septic tanks and road east/west. He said this would utilize an area with almost ideal, flat topography, requiring a minimum of excavation. This would not disturb the existing trees or wildlife habitat and not interfere with the natural drainage of the lot. The driveway would be half as long coming off the existing driveway to the south or southeast side of the building.
But in order to do this would require a variance of about 40 feet to allow the building to be about 80 feet from the center of the road and still be at least 10 feet from the septic tanks and 20 feet from the septic moung.
Scheffler asked if he couldn’t do on the opposite side of his home. Mr. Tague said no because the land drops down on that side.