HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/14/2002 P&Z MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONI NG BOARD MINUTES
I.CALL TO ORDE R AND ROLL CALL
Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:37
p.m., August 14, 2002.
II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved.
III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – July 10, 2002
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2002, meeting of the
Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, a nd was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion
carried 5-0.
IV.OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:39 p.m.
Mr. Smyser stated there was a Comprehensiv e Plan as of today. The Council voted to
approve the Comprehensive Plan. He stated there were a couple of minor conditions.
One of them being a ghost platting ordinan ce within 9 months and the other being to
adopt something to protect hydric soils.
Ms. Lane asked if they had any problems with the zoning. Mr. Smyser replied that a few
weeks ago, staff sat down with the City Counc il and made a couple of minor changes to
the land use map.
DATE: August 14, 2002
TIME STARTED: 6:37 P.M.
TIME ENDED: 11:58 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Hyden, Lane , Lyden (Arrived at 6:40 p.m.),
Rafferty, Schaps and Zych.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Corson.
STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Smyser; Ta nda Gretz; Mike Grochala; James
Studenski; Bob Kirmis (NAC)
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 2
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:41 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Hyden. Motion carried 5-0.
V.ACTION ITEMS
A. Mary Zehowski, 900 Oak Lane, Minor Subdivision
Staff explained Mary Zehowski is applying for a Minor Subdivision of 30 acres, zoned
Rural, at 900 Oak Lane. Although the minimu m lot size for property in a Rural zone is
10 acres, Ms. Zehowski is seeking to create a 2.5-acre parcel a nd a 27.5-acre parcel, as
allowed under Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the Lino Lakes City Code:
“Habitable single family homes constructed prior to July 13, 1992 may
reduce their lot size to a minimum of one acre if the balance of the property
results in a parcel of ten acres, or is serviced by public sewer, and it can
be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the division will
not result in ground water, soil, or ot her contamination, which may endanger
the public health.”
Staff reviewed its analysis by explaining the Certificate of Survey shows the proposed
division of the 30-acre parcel. Parcel A, 2.5 acres, contains an existing house and garage,
of which 51.7% is upland; Parcel B, 27.5 acre s, contains the balance of the property, of
which 28.1 % is upland.
With respect to Minimum Lot Requirements, staff explained the minimum lot size for
property in a rural zone is ten acres. Th e proposed newly created lot would meet this
requirement, with the balance of the property consisting of the 2.5-acr e parcel, as allowed
under Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2.
Staff stated the minimum lot width for property in a Rural zone is 330’, and both lots will
meet this requirement. In addition, both lots will have full frontage on a road, as required
under the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinan ce, Section 1008.08, subdiv. 6, which states
that “all lots shall abut for their full frontage on a publically dedicated street.”
With respect to buildable area, staff stat ed Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd.
3.B.1.b requires parcels requiring a minimum of 10 acres or more to have a minimum of
20% upland area. Much of this property is wetland, and as a result, it was necessary for
the applicant to delineate wetland boundaries. Results of that delineation indicate that
both lots meet the minimum upland require ment, with Parcel A at 51.7% upland and
Parcel B at 28.1% upland.
With respect to septic issues, staff explained soils tests confirm that there are soils on
both the proposed parcels capable of accommodating a septic system, with enough room
for both primary and secondary sites.
With respect to property boundaries/encroach ment issues, staff noted the western
property boundary of the parcel is currently being confirmed, as it appears some of the
outbuildings belonging to the property are actually sited on the neighboring property.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 3
APPROVED MINUTES
City Attorney Bill Hawkins has advised that such issues should not interfere with the
processing of the application for a Minor Subdivision, and should be handled as a
separate issue.
In conclusion, staff stated the proposed Mi nor Subdivision would result in two lots:
Parcel A, although under 10 acres, confor ms to Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the Lino
Lakes Zoning Ordinance, and otherwise m eets all the minimum lot requirements for
property in a Rural zone; Parcel B meets a ll minimum lot requirements for property in a
Rural zone. As a result, staff would r ecommend approval of the Minor Subdivision with
the following conditions:
1.) A park dedication fee of $1,665, to be paid prior to the certifi cation and recording
of the Minor Subdivision.
2.) Deed granting easements to the City (lot line easements of 10’ front and rear & 5’
side; easements over all wetlands).
Ms. Lane asked if it would be prudent to a dd as a condition that the problem with the
property boundary location be settled before the minor subdivision is finalized. Ms.
Gretz replied the City Attorney had advised the two should not be linked.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Ms. Zehowski did not make any
comments.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve Mary Zehowski, 900 Oak Lane, Minor
Subdivision subject to staff’s recommendations and conditions as outlined in staff’s
report.
The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden.
Motion carried 5-0.
B.Corey & Shelly Bachman, 1487 Ash Street, Minor Subdivison & Variance
Staff presented the application by Warren Bachman who owns 29 acres at 1487 Ash
Street and is applying for a Minor Subdivision and a Vari ance from the minimum lot
width requirements in order to split 11 acres o ff, which he then plans to sell to his son
and daughter-in-law, Corey and Shelly Bachman.
Staff presented its analysis by explaining th e Certificate of Survey shows the proposed
subdivision of the 29-acre parcel. Parcel B, approximately 18 acres, contains Mr.
Bachman’s home, outbuildings and agricultural fields; parcel A, approximately 11 acres,
contains the balance of the property. The ap plicants report they plan to site a home
fronting Ash Street and keep the northern 10 acres in agriculture, thereby qualifying for
Green Acres status.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 4
APPROVED MINUTES
Staff stated the site is almost completely in agriculture at this time, excepting the area
immediately surrounding the existing house and outbuildings and the pond/drainage area
at the southeastern co rner of the property.
Staff noted that while the property is Rural, development is likely at some point in time
once utilities become available – post 2010, sinc e this is a Stage 2 Growth Area. As a
result, ensuring that lot dimension requirements are maintained now will help safeguard
the availability of utilities for that future development. For example, future utility
availability to the area north of the proposed home site may be put at risk, as there is
diminished area for road access. Further, as utility availability is often financially
feasible only when shared among a group of property owners, limiting future
development may limit future utility availability.
With respect to minimum lot requirements, st aff stated the minimum lot size for property
in a Rural zone is ten acres. Both parcels would meet this requirement.
Staff noted the minimum lot width for property in a Rural zone is 330 feet. Lot width is
defined in the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance as “the horizontal dist ance between the side
lot line of a lot measured at the building setback line and pa rallel to the front lot line.”
Additionally, the Subdivision Ordinance, Se ction 1001.08, subd. 6, requir es that “all lots
shall abut for their full frontage on a publically dedicated street.”
Staff indicated Parcel A, at 221.6 feet, does not meet the minimum lot width requirement,
and as a result the applicant is asking for a Variance. With less than the required 330’ of
lot width, then, Parcel A also does not fulfill the requirement of having full frontage on a
road.
With respect to buildable area, staff stat ed Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd.
3.B.1.b. requires Rural parcels of 10 acres or more to have at least 20% upland area.
Both parcels meet this requirement, as ther e are wetlands and/or drainage easements only
in the far southeast corner of the proposed 18- acre parcel.
With respect to septic issues, staff noted soils tests confirm that the proposed 11-acre
parcel is capable of accommodating a septic sy stem. In addition, there is adequate room
for both primary and secondary sites. The 18- acre parcel alrea dy contains a septic
system, with adequate room for a secondary site.
With respect to access issues, staff indicat ed the existing 29-acre parcel contains an
access drive onto Ash Street. A second access drive will be required for the proposed 11-
acre parcel. As Ash Street is a County ro ad, plans have been forwarded to the Anoka
County Highway Department for review and approval.
Staff reviewed the five findings for variance as follows.
1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions
allowed by the official controls.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 5
APPROVED MINUTES
Comment: The property has been, and currentl y is, being put to reasonable use for
agricultural purposes.
2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property
and not created by the landowner.
Comment: There is no unique physical circum stance existing on the property; there is
simply not enough width and road frontage to meet the mini mum lot requirements for a
property in the Rural zone, as established under City Ordinance.
3. That the hardship is not due to economic c onsiderations alone and when a reasonable use
for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
Comment: There is no hardship demonstrated or apparent; the lot simply does not meet
the minimum lot requirements for a property in the Rural zone.
4. That granting the Variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other la nds, structures, or buildings in
the same district.
Comment: Granting a Variance without the demonstration of hardship or unique
physical circumstances would confer special privilege upon the applicant.
It should be noted that ot her parcels along Ash Street which do not meet minimum lot
width requirements exist as lots of recor d, and did not require a Variance from the City
Zoning Ordinance for their creation.
5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Comment: The proposed action would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
Ordinance, as variances are to be granted on ly in cases where hardship/unique physical
circumstances are present.
In conclusion, staff noted the creation of the proposed 11-acre parcel will not satisfy the
330’ lot width requirements for property located in the Rural zone, and thus will also not
yield full frontage on a street , as required under the Lino Lakes Ordinance. For these
reasons, staff cannot recommend a pproval of the Minor Subdivision.
Staff stated as there are no hardship issues demonstrated or unique physical
circumstances apparent on the property, staff cannot recommend approval of the
Variance from the minimum lot width requirements.
Chair Schaps asked if the corner on parcel A was owned by someone else. Ms. Gretz
replied that was correct.
Mr. Lyden stated the reason th ey had the Ordinance and standards was so things were
done in an orderly, standard way. As far as lot width, he noted that the property is zoned
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 6
APPROVED MINUTES
rural. He asked what was the standard width of the lots along County Road J. Ms. Gretz
replied there were quite a few lots that were substandard in that area.
Mr. Lyden stated the reality was that the a pplicant wanted to do the same thing others
have done in that area with their substandard lots.
Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment.
Mr. Bachman stated one property in the area was granted a variance last year at 1573 Ash
Street and it was not noted. He stated every house in that area had only 100 feet of
frontage. He stated there was not a house in the area that had 330 feet frontage. He
stated he intended on staying on the property for a long time and once he built a house, he
would have no intention of moving.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Corey & Shelly Bachman, 1487 Ash Street,
Minor Subdivision & Variance.
The motion was supported by Ms. Lane.
Motion carried 4-1 (Hyden).
C.Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street , Minor Subdivision & Variance
Staff stated applicants Don and Faith Linda hl own 11 acres of land, zoned Rural, at 855
Ash Street. The Lindahls have applied for a Minor Subdivision and Variance from the
minimum lot width requirements in order to subdivided their property. Although the
minimum lot size for property in a Rural z one is 10 acres, the Lindahls are seeking to
create a 10-acre and a one-acr e parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the
Lino Lakes City Code:
“Habitable single family homes constructed prior to July 13, 1992 may
reduce their lot size to a minimum of one acre if the balance of the property
results in a parcel of ten acres, or is serviced by public sewer, and it can
be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the division will
not result in ground water, soil or ot her contamination which may endanger
the public health.”
Staff indicated the Lindahls propose to live on the one-acre parcel containing the
residence and outbuildings, and sell the remaining ten-acre parcel to their son.
Staff noted that the existing 11-acre par cel was created in 1997 as part of a minor
subdivision of 58.76 acres. Minutes from th e meetings of both the Planning & Zoning
Board and the City Council note that a furthe r subdivision of the 11-acre parcel, such as
is now being proposed, was discussed at that time. Minutes note that the applicant “had
been advised that splitting off one acre with the homestead to provide an additional
building site would probably not be recommended in this case.”
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 7
APPROVED MINUTES
Staff presented its analysis by explaining th e Certificate of Survey shows the proposed
division of the 11-acre parcel. Tract B, one acre, contains the Lindahl home and
outbuildings, of which .89 acres are upland; Tr act A, ten acres, contains the balance of
the property, of which four acres are upland.
With respect to lot size, staff stated the mi nimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is
ten acres. The proposed newly created lot w ould meet this requirement, with the balance
of the property consisting of the one-acre parcel, as allowed under Section 3,
subd.3.A.2.b.2.
With respect to lot width, staff noted the mi nimum lot width for property in a Rural zone
is 330 feet. Lot width is defined as “the horiz ontal distance between th e side lot line of a
lot measured at the building setback line and pa rallel to the front lot line.” Additionally,
the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance, Sec tion 1001.08, subdiv. 6, requires that “all lots
shall abut for their full frontage on a publically dedicated street.”
Staff stated Tract B, at 155 feet, does not meet the minimum lot width requirement, and
as a result, the applicant is asking for a Vari ance. With less than the required 330’ of lot
width, then, Tract B also does not fulfill the requirement of having full frontage on a
road.
Staff indicated Tract A is an irregularly shap ed (“C-shaped”) lot that does not meet the
minimum lot width requirement in terms of contiguous road width and road frontage.
Rather, the lot wraps around the one acre parcel, with 269 feet to the west of the one acre
parcel and 188 feet to the east of the one acre parcel. Thus, alt hough the proposed lot has
330’ of width on a road, it is not contiguous width.
With respect to buildable area, staff noted Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd.
3.B.1.b requires parcels requiring a minimum of 10 acres or more to have a minimum of
20% upland area. Both parcels meet this re quirement: the 10-acre parcel has four acres
of upland, although this upland exists as “i slands” among wetland area, and the one acre
parcel is almost entirely composed of upland.
With respect to septic issues, staff stated soils tests confirm that the proposed 10-acre
parcel is capable of accommodating a septic sy stem. In addition, there is adequate room
for both primary and secondary sites. The one-acre parcel already contains a septic
system, with adequate room for a secondary site.
With respect to access issues, staff noted the existing 11-acre parcel contains a driveway
that is the sole source of access for the prope rty to the west, at 815 Ash Street. The minor
subdivision approved in 1997, which create d the parcels at 815 and 855 Ash Street,
required an easement agreement be drawn up for the driveway. This agreement was
approved by the City attorney and recorded w ith Anoka County. In addition, as a further
condition of approval, the driveway was approved by the Fire Chief.
Staff indicated the driveway is currently used primarily by the residents at 815 Ash
Street, as the Lindahls have their own access drive. Further subdivision of the 11-acre
parcel would require shared use of this driveway, which may or may not pose a legal
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 8
APPROVED MINUTES
issue: the easement agreement states the easem ent is “for the exclusive benefit of Tracts
B (855 Ash Street) and C (815 Ash Street).” Fu rther, the agreement states that “no party
may unreasonably increase the burden of the driveway and utility easement.” The
agreement can be amended only with the written consent of both parties.
Staff reviewed the five findings for a variance by explaining the Lino Lakes Zoning
Ordinance states that “in considering all re quests for variance or appeal and in taking
subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact:
1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls.
Comment: The property has been, and currently is, being put to reasonable use. The
applicant is simply asking for a fu rther intensification of use.
2.) That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to
his property, not created by the landowner.
Comment: The landowner is asking for a furt her subdivision of his land, which he was
advised “would probably not be recommended” when he first purchased his property.
3.) That the hardship is not due to econom ic considerations alone and when a
reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
Comment: there is no hardship demonstrated or apparent; rather the proposed lots
simply do not meet the minimum lot requir ements for property in a Rural zone.
4.) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any
special privilege that would be deni ed by this ordinance to other lands,
structures, or buildings in the same district.
Comment: Granting a Variance without the demonstration of hardship or unique
circumstances would confer upon the applicant special privilege.
5) That the proposed actions will be in keep ing with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
Comment: The proposed action would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
Ordinance, as Variances are to be granted only in cases where hardship/unique physical
circumstances are present.
In conclusion staff noted the proposed Minor Subdivision would result in two lots: Tract
B would have a width of 155 feet, thus no t meeting the minimum lot width requirement
of 330’ for property in a Rural zone, nor the requirement of full frontage on a road; Tract
A would have 330’ of width and road front age, but it would not be contiguous width or
frontage. As a result, staff cannot reco mmend approval of the Minor Subdivision.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 9
APPROVED MINUTES
Staff indicated as there are no hardship issues or unique circumstances apparent on the
property, staff cannot recommend approva l of a Variance from the lot width
requirements.
Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment.
Mr. Lindahl, stated he had made massive improvements to the appearance of the
property. He stated when he purchased the pr operty, one of the pluses was that it could
be split into a one acre lot. He stated he could have bought more land at the time, but the
property offered was set at the minimum at the time. He stated his family would like use
of the property and one of his sons would like to have a home site there. He stated he
needed the easement to build on the site. He indicated the entire easement for driveway
access was on tract A, and so the owner of tract A would own the entire driveway
easement. He stated there w ould not be a problem with the transfer of ownership of the
driveway easement over tract A. He stated the one acre lot with the old farm house made
a nice one-acre site and had room for three or four septic systems, and that on tract A
there were many good home sites remaining. He thanks the Board for considering this
request.
Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification as to where the new house was (the neighboring
property at 815 Ash St.) Mr. Lindahl replie d the new home was off of this property and
was not a part of this.
Mr. Rafferty asked if it was wetlands to the east of his home. Mr. Lindahl replied on the
ten acres, there was approximately 4.5 acres of high ground.
Mr. Rafferty stated the applicant had close to the minimum width/frontage to begin with,
and now they were proposing to break that in half. He stated there was an easement
going through the middle of the property. If he were to change tract B to accommodate
the minimum frontage by instead of going north to south, to change that to east and west,
was there no way to work with the minimums in that case. Mr. Lindahl replied there was
a barn involved and this seemed to be the best way to split the property on the advise of
the soils inspector.
Mr. Lyden stated he had walked this property and it was the perfect place to build a house
and the issue was a nonexistent issue when you l ooked at this specifi c property in the way
it was laid out.
Mr. Rafferty stated if Lot B was rotated th at would meet the minimum square footage,
which would meet the Ordinances.
Mr. Lyden stated this was a natural thing they were propos ing. He stated the driveway
already existed as a natu ral road. He stated this was a b eautiful setting for a nice house.
Mr. Rafferty stated if tract B was one acre why couldn’t that be rotated. Chair Schaps
stated he was not sure if th ey rotated it, it would catch th e house and the driveway would
probably be in tract A.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 10
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Lyden asked the Board not to get hung up on the numbers. He stated this was an
opportunity for a unique piece to be used well.
Mr. Hyden stated he would vote the same way as he voted on the previous minor
subdivision. He stated his job, as he sees it, is to follow the Ordinances and this was not
even close to the Ordinance. At some point they had to start following the Ordinances, or
they had to change the Ordinances. He agreed this was a nice piece of property, but at
some point they had to follow the Ordinances. He stated if it was close, he would not
have an argument, but this was not close.
Mr. Lyden stated he respected Mr. Hyden’s opinion, but he did not see what could
possibly be the downside to putting a house he re, other than it did not follow the
Ordinances. He stated the Ordinances were there to be used as tools.
Mr. Zych asked what had changed from prev ious discussions abou t not splitting it to one
acre. Mr. Lindahl stated everything five years ago was very positive that this could be
done. He stated he was not sure what had ha ppened over the past five years with respect
to the Ordinances.
Mr. Rafferty asked if there was any document ation that identified that he could do what
he was proposing when the purchased the prope rty five years ago. Mr. Lindahl replied he
did not know in what year the 330-foot regulation was adopted.
Mr. Smyser replied the regulations we re in place prior to this lot split.
Chair Schaps asked if he was in a hurry to ge t this done at this time. Mr. Lindahl stated
he was going to hold off, but when he discovered there was a potential problem, he
believed he should get started on the process now.
Mr. Rafferty stated he unde rstood that a family member would be moving on that
property. He stated his only concern was to see if there was something else that would
work as long as there were no deadlines. Mr. Lindahl stated the best use of the
topography of the land was as it was being proposed.
Mr. Lyden asked if they wanted the home on C ounty Road J or did they want to have the
home sit back farther back on the property.
Mr. Rafferty stated he did not know how rotati ng the lot would be detrimental. He stated
he did not think rotating the lot would change the location of the home. He stated he
would be in favor of tabling this for further research. He stated he was comfortable with
what Mr. Lindahl was proposing.
Ms. Lane asked if Mr. Lindahl was involved in the proceedings in 1997 when the
previous owner split the property. Mr. Lindahl replied he was not aware of that and he
had not received any documentation at that time.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend appr oval of Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street,
Minor Subdivision & Variance.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 11
APPROVED MINUTES
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to table Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, Minor
Subdivision & Variance for one month for additional findings.
The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden.
Motion carried 5-0.
D.PUBLIC HEARING – JADT Development, Lino Lakes Commercial Center, SE
corner of Lake Drive and Apollo Drive In tersection, Preliminary Plat & Site Plan
Review/CUP accessory drive-thru
Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m.
Staff stated JADT Developm ent Group, LLC. has requested preliminary plat approval to
allow a four lot, commercial subdivision (JADT Addition) on property located east of
County Road 23 between Apollo Drive and I-35W.
Staff indicated the subject 7.0 acre developm ent overlays Outlot B of the Lino Lakes
Commercial Development (PDO) which was approved last year.
Staff noted in conjunction with the prelim inary plat request, th e applicant is also
requesting site and building plan approval to allow the construction of a 14,172 square
foot retail strip center upon proposed Lot 4 of the subdivision and a conditional use
permit to allow a drive-thru facility.
Staff stated the subject prop erty is zoned SC, Shopping Center with a PDO, Planned
Development Overlay (to allow various design flexibilities).
Staff presented its analysis by explaining the Access to three of th e four lots (Lots 1
through 3) will be provided via an existing private street located east the adjacent
McDonald’s site. While the Ordinance requ ires all lots be pr ovided access via a public
street access, flexibility to this requireme nt can be accommodated via the PDO. As part
of the City’s previous consideration of the McDonald’s proposal, a determination was
made that access to the subject property would be provided by the existing private street.
Staff noted a cross easement and operation and maintenance agreement will be required
as part of the Development Agreement.
Staff stated the SC District requires a minimum lot size of three acres. Through the PDO
however, flexibility to this requirement can be provided without need for a variance. As
shown on the preliminary plat, the proposed lots range in size from 1.7 to 2.3 acres. As
demonstrated via the submission of site plans, the configuration of the proposed lots are
conducive to future commercial development.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 12
APPROVED MINUTES
With respect to utilities, sta ff stated a utility plan has b een submitted for review by the
City Engineer. Water and Sanitary sewer servi ce were provided to service the site as part
of the Lake/Apollo Drive improvement proj ect. As a condition of preliminary plat
approval, the utility related modifications and comments as set forth in the City
Engineer’s memo should to be incorporated into the plans.
Staff indicated a grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review by the City
Engineer. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the grading and drainage related
modifications and comments as set forth in the City Engineer’s memo should to be
incorporated into the plans. The plan is also subject to review and approval from the
Rice Creek Watershed District.
Staff stated as shown on the preliminary plat , drainage and utility easements have been
proposed along all property lines and over wetland and ponding areas. The acceptability
of such easements should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City
Engineer.
As a condition of final plat approval, cross parking and access easements will need to be
recorded with the property. Such easements should be subject to review and approval by
the City Attorney.
Staff stated the tree preservation plan ha s been superimposed upon the preliminary
grading plan. According to the plan, 22 si gnificant trees exist upon the subject property.
Of those significant trees, 16 are to be saved. All trees to be saved are to be flagged and
protected by snow fence prior to construction.
As part of the previous platting of the prope rty, park dedication was not received. As a
result, the proposed subdivision will be subj ect to park dedicati on requirements. For
commercial development, a park dedication requirement of $2,175 pe r acre is required.
With the subdivision comprising 6.4 acres of upland area (exclusive of ponding), a park
dedication of $13,920 will be required prio r to the recording of the subdivision.
Staff indicated the Environmental Board re viewed the request at their July 31, 2002
meeting and recommended approval. Their co mments are attached to this report.
The CEPTED review was completed on June 21, 2002. The primary issues, as addressed
on the attached report, regard traffic flow through the development. The development
has been redesigned to address these issues.
The proposed development is subject to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD)
approval for both a Land Development Pe rmit and a Wetland Alteration Permit. The
RCWD has not taken fina l action on the request.
With respect to site and building plan review , the applicant is seeking site and building
plan approval to allow the c onstruction of a 14,172 square foot retail commercial center
upon proposed Lot 4. At such time when speci fic development projects exist for the
remaining lots in the subdivision (Lots 1-3), they will likewise be su bject to a site and
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 13
APPROVED MINUTES
building plan review process. At this point, the site plans provided for Lots 1-3 are
conceptual in nature and are intended to dem onstrate the developabili ty of the lots and a
comprehensive storm water management and circulation system.
Access to the proposed retail center is to be provided via two 30-foot wide curb cuts
along Apollo Drive.
While the westerly curb cut is in direct alignment with an existing curb cut to the north,
the easternmost curb cut is slightly offset fr om an existing curb cut to the north. As a
condition of site and building plan approval, the easterly cu rb cut should be shifted
approximately 15 feet to the west to create a direct alignment. Additionally, approval of
the easterly curb cut will require an access agreement with Kohl’s.
Staff stated the proposed circul ation is considered well con ceived and is integrated into
the overall circulation system proposed for the subdivision.
One minor concern that exists in regard to site circulation is the temporary dead-end
parking arrangement on the west side of the site. To address this concern, a temporary
turn-around should be provided at the western terminus of the parki ng area (either on site
or within Lot 3).
Staff indicated while the Planned Development Over lay designation can provide
flexibility from the strict terms of the Or dinance, the requirements of the underlying SC,
Shopping Center District are considered an appropriate guideline.
Staff noted within SC zoning di stricts, a 50-foot setback is required from arterial streets.
As shown on the preliminary site plan, a 30-foot principal build ing setback has been
proposed along I-35. At 2.3 acres in size, th e subject property also fails to meet the
minimum 3-acre lot requirement imposed in the SC District.
Staff stated the PDO section of the Ordinance does state how ever, that perimeter setbacks
can be established by applying the setback requirements of th e surrounding district or can
be related to the height of the buildings. While both the proposed setback and lot area
deviations can be accommodated via the PDO, City officials should determine their
acceptability.
As a condition of site and building plan a pproval, a determination should be made that
the proposed building is cons istent with the design gui delines of the Lino Lakes
Marketplace PDO. As shown on the submitte d building elevations, the proposed building
replicates many of the design features of the adjacent Target and Kohl’s buildings
including:
• Colonial Style gable roof forms
• Cornice details
• A defined base
• Accentuated building corners
• Finish colors
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 14
APPROVED MINUTES
The architectural appearance of the building, finish materials and color selections are
considered consistent with the Marketplace PDO design guidelines.
With respect to parking, the standards for cal culating the off-street parking requirements
for shopping centers are outlined in Section 3, Subdivision 5 of the C ity Code. For the
purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use 90% of the
gross building area.
Staff stated a total of 70 off-street parki ng stalls are required for the proposed shopping
center. The applicant’s plan calls for 72 stalls and exceeds the minimum off-street
parking supply requirement. To be noted however, is that on e additional handicap
parking stall (totaling three spaces) should be provided to satisfy applicable State
requirements.
At 18 feet in depth and 9 feet in width, all off-street parking stalls have been found to
meet the minimum dimensional requirements of Section 3, Subd. 5 of the Ordinance.
Likewise, the proposed 24-foot wide driv e aisles also meet minimum Ordinance
requirements.
With respect to landscaping, staff noted in ac cordance with the original PDO approval, a
tree replacement plan was required to be desi gned in cooperation with City Staff. A one
for one replacement was intended for this site . The tree inventory previously prepared by
the applicant identified 217 signi ficant trees (8 inches or greater) within the proposed
subdivision. Of these trees, 16 are intended to be preserved. This would require 201
trees to be provided as part of the development of the entire site.
Staff indicated as shown on the landscape pla n, a variety of trees are proposed on site.
Specifically, a mixture of Sc otch Pine, Colorado Blue Spruce and Cranberry Viburnum
have been proposed along the Inte rstate corridor while a row of Little Leaf Linden trees
have been proposed along Apollo Drive. Additionally, row of Dogwoods has been
proposed along the site’s wetland.
In review of the landscape plan, staff recommends the following:
1. The Little Leaf Linden tr ees along Apollo Drive be changed to a Red or White
Oak and spaced at 50 feet.
2. Overstory trees be incorporated into th e plaza fronting the building replacing the
proposed unidentified plantings.
3. The coniferous trees along I-35 be change d to Austrian Pine and White Spruce.
4. The proposed Purpleleaf Plum trees be changed to disease resistant ornamental
crab trees.
5. Plantings within the limits of the east ponding area be eliminated.
6. Tamerack Trees be provided around th e east ponding area (to tie into the
Marketplace development) and be located above the 100 year HWL.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 15
APPROVED MINUTES
Additionally, a master landscap ing plan, encompassing the entire subdivision, should be
submitted for City review and approval. Th e plan should demonstrate conformance with
the tree replacement requirements for the development.
With respect to trash enclosures, staff not ed, according to Section 3, Subd. 4.G of the
Ordinance, all refuse and recyclable materi als must be stored within the principal
building or within an accessory structure (within a side or rear yard) that is totally
screened from eye level view from nei ghboring uses and public rights of way.
As shown on the submitted site plan, trash en closures have been proposed on east and
west sides of the building.
While the proposed locations te chnically meet the requiremen ts of the Ordinance, some
concern exists in regard to the placement of the westerly structure. Of specific concern is
the visibility of the enclosure from Apollo Drive. To de-emphasize the enclosure, it is
suggested that it be shifted to the south and a ttached to the northwest side of the principal
building.
Staff indicated while the multi-tenant buildi ng sign requirements of the Marketplace PDO
design guidelines are specific to buildings north of Apollo Drive, it is believed the
requirements should likewise be applied to the subj ect building in orde r to maintain area
consistency. In this regard, wall signs for the subject building s hould be in accordance
with the following:
1. Building fronts should have a maximum av erage sign height of 30 inch and a
maximum width equal to 80 percent of th e lease width. Capitol letters should not
exceed 36 inches.
2. Building rears should have a maximum av erage sign height of 24 inches and a
maximum width equal to 60% of the l ease width. Capitol letters should not
exceed 30 inches.
3. In no case should the total sign area, per business, exceed 100 square feet for
building fronts and 75 square feet for building rears.
Staff indicated the applicant is proposing one freestanding sign in the southwest corner of
the development. Such sign location is c onsidered acceptable but should not exceed 25
feet in height, consistent with othe r signs in the Marketplace development.
As required by ordinance, a lighting plan identifying illumination levels on the subject
site has been provided. The proposed illumina tion levels and fixtur e details have been
found to be acceptable.
Details regarding fixture type have not b een submitted. As a condition of site and
building plan approval, specific fixture details should be submitted subject to review and
approval by staff. According to the Ordina nce, the source of lights should be hooded and
controlled so as not to illuminate adj acent properties or public rights-of-way.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 16
APPROVED MINUTES
Staff stated prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant will be required to
enter into a development agreement with th e City and post all the necessary securities
required by it.
Staff indicated the applicant is requesting a pproval of a conditional use permit to allow an
accessory drive-thru facility. The proposed driv e-thru lane is located on the east side of
the building and is configured to provi de ample stacking space and minimize site
disruptions. It is estimated that stacking sp ace exists for a minimum of eight vehicles.
In considering conditional use permit requests, the Ordinance states that the Planning and
Zoning Board shall recommend approval and th e City Council shall or der the issuance of
such permit only if it finds that such use at such location:
1.Will not be detrimental to or endange r the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City.
Comment: Drive-thru facilities currently ex ist within the City of Lino Lakes. The
proposed use in not anticipated to be detrimental or endanger the
public.
2.Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of
the comprehensive plan of th e City and this ordinance.
Comment: The Comprehensive Plan suggests commercial use of the site. Thus,
the proposed land use sati sfies the land use directives of the Plan.
3.Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the exis ting and/or intended character of the
general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area.
Comment: The building design is consiste nt with the design guidelines of the
Marketplace PDO and therefore will not change the character of the area.
4.Will be served adequately by essentia l public facilities and services, including
street, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems, and schools; or will be se rved adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or age ncies responsible for the establishment of
the proposed use.
Comment: As a condition of project appr oval, the building wi ll be adequately
served by essential public facilities and services.
5.Will not create excessive additional re quirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detr imental to the economic welfare of the
community.
Comment: This development is not expect ed to increase public costs, nor be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community .
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 17
APPROVED MINUTES
6.Will not involve uses, activities, processe s, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare
because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.
Comment: The proposed commercial use of th e property is not expected to create
any excessive externalities th at would be abnormal to the character of commercial
sites.
7.Will have vehicular approaches to the pr operty which are so designed as not to
create traffic congestion or an interf erence with traffi c on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
Comment: The site layout meets standa rds held within the City’s Zoning
Ordinance including turn lanes, access width, a nd access spacing/location.
8.Will not result in the dest ruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic
feature of major importance .
Comment: The applicant is currently work ing with the RCWD and City Engineer
to satisfy drainage related issues.
9.Will conform to specific standards of th is ordinance applicable to the particular
use.
Comment: The proposed use will as a c ondition of approval meet the applicable
requirements of the Ordinance.
Based on the findings contained in this report and subject to the conditions listed below,
staff recommends the following:
A.Approval of the JADT Addition prelim inary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The City finds the proposed lot sizes (less than the minimum SC District
requirement) to be acceptable.
2. The conditions of the City Engineer’s memo (dated 8 /9/02) related to grading,
drainage and utilities should be satisfied.
3. Cross parking and access easements be reco rded with the property at the time of
final plat. Prior to recording, such ea sements shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Attorney.
4. A park dedication of $13,920 shall be require d prior to the recording of the final
plat.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 18
APPROVED MINUTES
5. Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant enter into a
development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities
required by it. The agreement shall also contain and operation and maintenance
agreement that addresses pond maintenan ce and incorporates the use of Best
Management Practices.
B. Site and Building Plan approval to a llow the construction of a 14,172 square foot
retail center on property lo cated east of County Road 23 between Apollo Drive
and I-35W subject to the following conditions:
1. The City approves the JADT Addition final plat.
2. The City finds the proposed 30-foot prin cipal building setback from I-35W to be
acceptable.
3. The easterly curb cut be shifted approximat ely 15 feet to the west to align with an
existing curb cut to the north.
4. A temporary turn-around be provided at th e western terminus of the parking area
(either on-site or within Lot 3).
5. One additional handicap-parking stall (t otaling three spaces) be provided to
satisfy applicable State requirements.
6. To de-emphasize the westerly trash encl osure, it be shifted to the south and
attached to the northwest si de of the principal building.
7. Wall signs for the subject building be in accordance with the following
requirements of the Market place PDO:
a.Building fronts shall have a maximum average sign height of 30 inch and
a maximum width equal to 80 percent of the lease width. Capitol letters
shall not exceed 36 inches.
b.Building Rears shall have a maximu m average sign height of 24 inches
and a maximum width equal to 60% of the lease width. Capitol letters
shall not exceed 30 inches.
c.In no case shall the total sign area, pe r business, exceed 100 square feet for
building fronts and 75 square feet for building rears.
8. The proposed freestanding sign not exceed 25 feet in height.
9. Light fixture details be submitted subject to staff approval.
10. The source of lights shall be hooded and controlled so as not to illuminate
adjacent properties or public rights-of-way.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 19
APPROVED MINUTES
11. The conditions of the City Engineer’s memo (dated 8 /9 /02) related to grading,
drainage and utilities be satisfied.
12. The following modification be made to the landscape plan:
a.The Little Leaf Linden trees along A pollo Drive be changed to a Red or
White Oak and spaced at 50 feet.
b.Overstory trees be incorporated into the plaza fronting the building
replacing the proposed unidentified plantings.
c.The coniferous trees along I-35 be changed to Austrian Pine and White
Spruce.
d.The proposed Purpleleaf Plum trees be changed to disease resistant
ornamental crab trees.
e.Plantings within the limits of the east ponding area be eliminated.
f. Tamerack Trees be provided around th e east ponding area (to tie into the
Marketplace development) and be located above the 100 year HWL.
13. A revised master landscaping plan, enco mpassing the entire subdivision, should
be submitted for City review and appr oval. The plan should demonstrate
conformance with the tree replacemen t requirements for the development.
14. A Watershed District Permit be received prior to City building permit issuance.
15. Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant enter into a
development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities
required by it. The agreement shall also contain and operation and maintenance
agree
16.That applicant get an a ccess easement to the South from the Kohl’s property
regarding the eastern access off of Apollo.
17. Shrubs may be used in the pla za area instead of trees as proposed.
C.Conditional Use Permit approval to allow an accessory drive-thru facility subject
to the following conditions:
1. The City approves the JADT Addition final plat.
2. The City approves the submitted site and building plans.
Mr. Lyden asked if they would be able to see thr ough the circle at the top of the building.
Mr. Kirmis stated he was not sure, but they could add that as a condition.
Mr. Lyden asked what the drive through was pr oposed to be. Mr. Kirmis replied it was a
Caribou Coffee.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comments.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 20
APPROVED MINUTES
Tim Baylor, JADT, thanked staff for working on this and stated he had no problems with
the conditions and recommendations. He stat ed they were meeting with the Rice Creek
Watershed on August 28 and they intended to m eet their requirements so they could meet
the City’s requirements. With respect to the tr ash facilities, he reques ted they turn it and
landscape it so it was aesthetically pleasing from all sides. He stated they had a small
plaza proposed that requested they add addi tional landscaping to that area instead of
having trees. He stated it would be a proble m to have trees if they blocked tenants’
signage. He stated they were willing to add additional shrubs. He stated they had
discussions with several retailers, includi ng a liquor establishment, pizza establishment,
video establishment and a Caribou Coffee. He stated they were sti ll in discussion about
the west property. He stated they had been talking to Buffalo Wild Wings, but this was
still in the discussion mode.
Mr. Lyden stated as long as it was not anot her bank or a convenience store, he would
support this. He asked if the circle could be a circle to look through. Applicant stated he
would need to discuss this with the architect. It was their intent to make this compatible
with the Marketplace, but anything was possi ble and he would bring this up with the
architect.
Mr. Rafferty asked if the main concern with the trash enclosure design was for ease of
access for garbage removal. Applicant stated he believed they coul d recess it is bit from
the parking lot and still make it accessible, but the retailers would not want it to close to
the facility.
Mr. Rafferty asked what the enclosure was made of. Applicant replied he believed it was
brick.
Mr. Rafferty stated sometime free standing en closure look odd and the architects may be
able to make the enclosure look as if it was attached to the buildi ng, but he stated this
would not hold up the project. Applicant stated he would sp eak with his architect about
this.
Chair Schaps expressed concern about the entrance to the restau rant and it being
confusing for people going to the restaurant. Mr. Grochala stated there would be an
extension to the existing en trance to allow access to the proposed restaurant. He
indicated the current curb that was there w ould be removed and the road would continue
through.
Mr. Kirmis added one additional condition as B16, that they get an access easement to
the South from the Kohl’s property rega rding the eastern access off of Apollo.
Chair Schaps added condition B17 to re move the trees and put in shrubs.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m.
The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 21
APPROVED MINUTES
Motion carried 5-0.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of JADT Development, Lino Lakes
Commercial Center, SE corner of Lake Driv e & Apollo Drive intersections, Preliminary
Plat based on the recommendations and conditi ons as outlined in staff’s report on pages 9
and 10 number A1 through A5.
The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden.
Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of JADT Development, Lino Lakes
Commercial Center, SE corner of Lake Drive & Apollo Drive intersections, Site Plan
Review based on the recommendations and conditions as outlined in staff’s report on
Pages 10 and 11 B1 through B17.
The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden.
Motion carried 5-0.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of JADT Development, Lino Lakes
Commercial Center, SE corner of Lake Drive & Apollo Dr ive intersections, Conditional
Use Permit based on the recommendations and conditions as outlined in staff’s report on
Page 11 C1 and C2.
The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty.
Motion carried 5-0.
E.PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Behms Century Farm 6 th – 10 th Additions, South
of Main St. & North of Carl St reet – Section 7, Preliminary Plat
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m.
Staff stated Century Farm Development Inc. has requested rezoning and preliminary plat
approval for Behms Century Farms 6 th through 10 th Additions. The proposed subdivision
comprises 95 acres located north of Lilac Stre et and east of Sunset Road. The subject
property is currently zoned R, Rural and would need to be r ezoned to R-1, Single Family.
The proposed residential s ubdivision would consist of 156 single family homes
distributed in the following additions:
54 homes in the 6 th Addition
28 homes in the 7 th Addition
26 homes in the 8 th Addition
24 homes in the 9 th Addition
24 homes in the 10 th Addition
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 22
APPROVED MINUTES
Staff’s review of the application submi ssion materials find that the application is
incomplete. As such, this report represen ts only a preliminary review of the overall
subdivision and rezoning. A more detailed re view will be prepared for the September
Planning and Zoning meeting.
Staff presented its analysis by explaining to accommodate the proposed development, the
following approvals will be necessary:
1. Rezone from R, Rural to R-1, Single Family.
2. Review and approval of the preliminary plat.
3. If the airplane hangars are found to be an acceptable use, a PDO will be required
to accommodate the proposed airplane ha ngars and insure there will be proper
maintenance associated with these accessory buildings.
4. There is a need to vacate a portion of Carl Street that w ould not be utilized if the
subdivision is approved. Said vacation w ould be done as a condition of final plat
approval.
Staff noted in review of the rezoning appl ication, we find that the new land use plan
guides this area for low density residential. The R-1, Single Family Residential District
is consistent with this land use classifi cation. Additionally, MU SA would need to be
extended to this subdivision as final plats are reviewed and approved. In addition to
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the extension of the R-1 zoning would be
consistent with the zoning that is al ready in place on Behms Century Farms 1 st through
5 th Additions located to the sout h. The proposal appears to be the logical extension of the
low-density land use pattern. However, we have not had the opportunity to conduct a
thorough review of the applic ation to determine if the proposed plats meet the
requirements for the R-1 District.
In review of the preliminary plat, staff indicated the following issues need further
attention:
1. The proximity to the Lino Airpark raises issue as to whether the plat has been
fully designed in compliance with required airport safety zones to insure that
flight patterns will not di sturb the future residents of the single-family lots.
2. The proposed Behms Century Farms 6 th through 10 th Additions surround a
number of lot exceptions that contain unsewered residential properties. The
application has not provided any type of conceptual pl an that would illustrate
future subdivision or extension of utilities into these areas. In accordance with the
City’s Subdivision Ordinance, where a plat abuts undeveloped properties. A
concept plan can be required and extens ion of streets shoul d be considered in
conjunction with the plat design.
3. There is a need for a park in this area to accommodate the new subdivision and
residents that would live within the plat . A detailed park proposal should be
outlined for City staff and Planning a nd Zoning Board consideration. At this
point, City staff has not seen any proposal in that regard.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 23
APPROVED MINUTES
Staff noted in review of the preliminary pl at, we find that it appe ars that the streets
generally meet City requirements with regard to right-of-way and st reet width provisions.
The applicant has provide d a through street extension for Carl Street to Sunset Drive as a
minor collector, consistent with the Comp rehensive Transportation Plan. A number of
issues that had been raised previously wi th the concept plan related to the number of
proposed cul-de-sacs and the provision for lands cape islands within th e cul-de-sacs. The
City, in the past, has indicated an unwilli ngness to accept the landscape islands as they
tend to be an obstacle for snowplows and str eet maintenance. The City Public Works
Director should comment as to the acceptabi lity to the proposed landscape islands and
cul-de-sac design at this time.
Staff indicated as per previous discussions, in review of th e preliminary plat, there may
be opportunities for the extens ion of local streets to th e subdivision exception areas to
allow for future subdivision of undeveloped pr operties outside of th e plat. These options
for extension of local streets within the pl at should be explored rather than continuous
curb cuts or street entrances onto Sunset Road.
Staff stated in preliminary revi ew of the plat, the lots generally appear to meet all the
requirements of the R-1 District related to lo t width and area. The minimum lot width for
an interior lot in the R-1 District is 80 fe et, with a lot area of 10,800 square feet. The
design illustrates lots that meet or exceed the minimum standards. A number of lots do
appear to be irregular in sh ape and would have to demonstr ate that they can provide a
building pad that would not require future variances to accommodate a home. These lots
would include Lot 15 in Phase 2 and Lot 5, Block 1 of the 10 th Addition.
Staff stated Sunset Road is designated as a co llector street. Lots that abut Sunset Road
should have sufficient lot width or lot depth to provide a 20-foot wide landscape buffer to
protect the private enjoyment of these lots. A detailed landscape plan must be submitted
illustrating how the buffer yard will be prop erly landscaped to meet and satisfy City
requirements.
Staff stated Carl Street enters Sunset Road at the southwes t corner of the proposed plat.
There is a single family home that is an exception to this subdivi sion that has a driveway
located within five feet of the Carl Street right-of-way as proposed. There is issue as far
as the curb cut location with the street entrance at this in tersection. Attention should be
given to correcting this by re quiring relocation of the driveway or allowing for the curb
cut to enter Carl Street.
With respect to grading and drai nage, staff noted to date they have not received a grading
and drainage plan or wetland mitigation plan. These plans are critical to the overall site.
The site is generally charac terized as having a number of wetlands that will greatly
influence design. Additionally, there is a dr ainage ditch along the eastern portion of the
plat that results in some severe slopes. Without having the grading plan, staff is not
prepared to say that the subdivision de sign is acceptable in its current fashion.
Staff noted a number of outlots are being pr oposed as part of th e subdivision. These
outlots contain wetland areas a nd drainage swales. Determina tion as to future ownership
and use of the outlots must be defined as part of the preliminary plat and a determination
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 24
APPROVED MINUTES
is needed regarding if they should be dedi cated to the City as green space or held in
private ownership by the homeowners’ association.
Staff stated Carl Street right -of-way traverses the proposed pl at. A portion of Carl Street
will require vacation with the platting of the new Carl Street alignment. The vacation of
this right-of-way will have to be done thr ough a public hearing held by the City Council.
The Planning Commission will need to make a finding that the vacation of this right-of-
way is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that there is no current or future
anticipated public need to re turn the right-of-way. In re view of the proposed street
alignments, they feel that with the platting of the new Carl Street al ignment, the old right-
of-way is no longer necessary for either street or utility purposes and vacation would be
appropriate.
Staff noted the applicant has shown an area of the plat intended for the construction of
accessory buildings that would be used as hanger space for residents who wish to
purchase a lot and still have access to the airport. The hanger space is located on Lot 16,
Block 6 of the 2 nd Addition. The hangars are located in an area that is encumbered by
the William Brothers pipeline, a gas line easeme nt. In consideration of the land use, the
proposed hangar space may be a more appropr iate use in this location rather than
introducing single family homes in close proximity to a major gas pipeline.
Staff stated access to the hangars would be provided through the airpor t. If this were to
proceed ahead, we would ask that a de tail of the hangar construction, including
elevations, be provided to insure that the hangars would be designed in a manner that is
compatible and complementary to the surr ounding single-family homes. Additionally,
we would like to see an association establis hed for the hangars that would outline the
terms under which maintenance and ownership would be established. Access into the
hangar area should also be pr ovided via Carl Street for emergency vehicles, as well as
general user consideration.
In conclusion, staff has determined that the application is incomp lete. Initially, the
submittal was reviewed in July of 2002. At th at time, issues of concern, comments, and
an outline of the submittals needed to complete application were provided. To date, not
all the information has been received. The City staff recommends that the City open the
public hearing at the August Planning and Zoning meeting, take public comment, and
then continue the public hearing to the Se ptember meeting and direct the applicant to
provide the following information:
1. Grading and drainage plans for the entire preliminary plat.
2. Wetland mitigation plans.
3. A park dedication plan must be outlined a nd defined to be acceptable by City staff
and the Park and Rec Board.
4. A landscape plan that illustrates the intended landscaping for the buffer yard
abutting Sunset Road.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 25
APPROVED MINUTES
5. The plat should illustrate the flight sa fety zones necessary to allow Lino Airpark
to continue to operate in the future without negatively impacting the newly
created single family lots.
6. Public Works should provide comments as to the acceptability of landscape
islands within the pr oposed cul-de-sac areas.
7. The applicant should describe how the wetlands and outlots will be utilized or
owned pertinent to the establishment of greenway corridors and whether they will
become public open space or owne d privately through a homeowners’
association.
8. A concept plan be that illustrates the futu re subdivision of the exceptions (that are
being surrounded by the Behms Century Farm preliminary plat) including
potential street corridors a nd lot configurations that could be implemented without
negatively impacting Sunset Drive (colle ctor street) or th e subdivision that is
currently requested.
The applicant should provide a description of architectural standards that would be
imposed on the proposed hangar area as well as homeowners’ a ssociation rules that
would guarantee continued main tenance of this facility.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comments.
John Johnson, the applicant’s engineer, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, 412
County Road D, Little Canada. He requested feedback and direction from the Board
regarding alterations. He gave a brief summary of the proposal.
Ferrill Robinson, SRF Consultant Group, summ arized the proposal for the roads and
collector streets. He reviewed the traffic report prepared on behalf of the applicant and
the traffic impacts to the area from present to 2015. The report includes expected levels
of service for several locations. For year 2015 conditions, it was assumed that the east-
west minor collector roadway would be constructed north of Carl Street.
Mr. Lyden asked what percent of traffic went north v. south on the collector street. Mr.
Robinson summarized that information from the report. Mr. Lyden asked if they had
assumed there would be a cloverleaf at I35W and Main. Mr. Robinson replied they had
not assumed there was going to be a cloverleaf at I35W and Main.
Mr. Smyser stated this traffic report was inc onsistent with what was discussed previously.
He stated the developer does not want to connect to Carl Street, even though staff
recommends there is a connection. He stat ed there were a number of concerns among
residents regarding traffic if the road went through. He stated the design did allow the
road to be built, which would not impact th e existing homes as far as setback issues. He
stated the problem with putting this off into the future is that they would be creating a
new neighborhood that had only outlets onto Sunset and this was something to be
avoided. The other things is that if this ro ad did not get connected to Carl Street, staff
had no idea when/if the connection would be made. He stated if they created a
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 26
APPROVED MINUTES
development of over 100 lots with only access onto Sunset Road, staff did not believe
this was a good idea. He stated no viable a lternative has been presented to have this
connection. He explained the last discussi ons indicated the connection would be made,
but this traffic report ignored this connec tion and assumed traffic would only flow out
onto Sunset. He stated the Ca rl Street connection had to ha ppen. If this connection did
not go through, the City had some serious circ ulation problems that would arise in the
future.
Mr. Rafferty stated there were different locations in the City where there were temporary
cul-de-sacs. He asked if this was the same with Carl Street. He asked if it was intended
to go through. Mr. Smyser replied different pe ople remember different things regarding
this and he was not here at that time. He stated the record is foggy regarding this. He
stated there had been an original concern regarding the wetlands and the connection not
being able to go through because of this wetland. He stated what was originally
determined wetland originally was now not c onsidered wetland. He stated this was a
concern and it would need to be addressed as far as what was wetland and parkland. He
stated the answer to Mr. Rafferty’s question was murky as to what happened in the past.
He stated the assumption was that there wa s wetland to the west and it would not go
through, but the wetlands had been reanalyzed. He stated there was a resident in that area
that was upset with this being reanalyzed.
Mr. Robinson stated they were not recomme nding the connection to Carl; they were just
looking at the traffic impacts at what was curr ently existing. He stated the impacts would
not be any different if Carl went through.
Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Smyser was correct a nd the only place that they could build a
road from Carl to Sunset at the present time was along the existing Carl alignment. He
stated the residents along Carl were very unhappy with that conclusion and that was the
reason they were looking at an alternative connection. He agre ed this was a big issue and
it significantly impacted the plan. With respect to we tland, there was not any in-depth
ground water analysis done, and they had si nce done that analysis and what was
previously defined as wetland did not meet th e wetland criteria. He stated they would
confirm this with the Rice Creek Watershed Di strict also. He asked for feedback with
respect to this collector street. He stated they were not opposed to making a connection,
but the issue was where the connection should be. He indicated the other big issue was
the amount of parkland proposed. He stated th is was not an easy subdivision and it had a
lot of issues that needed to get resolved. He stated they had also had attempted to work
with the current residents in the area.
Mr. Lyden asked if it was possible to do opt ion 4, that might be the best option with
respect to the road.
Ray Kirchoff, 7742 Mustang Lane, stated there were a lot of residents upset on Mustang
Lane also. He stated the reason they paid the extra money for their lot was because they
were told there was wetland behind them that was going to stay. He stated he felt like he
had been taken advantage of, misinformed, a nd lied to. He expressed concern of the
environmental impact of this development and the loss of wetlands. He stated he felt
very threatened.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 27
APPROVED MINUTES
Sheila Peterson, 7748 Mustang Lane, stated th ey were told it was wetland and would
never be developed. She stated they were to ld no road would ever go through there. She
agreed with everything Mr. Kirchuck had sai d. She stated she was very upset by this
proposal. She expressed concern for the safety of the children in the area. She stated if
this was approved, there be more than one access. She expressed concern regarding the
traffic.
Jim Obula (?sp), representative of Lino Air Park Association, expressed concern
regarding the current residents in the area, turn ing Carl Street into a collector street, and
the impact of this development on the Air Pa rk. He expressed conc ern about pedestrians
crossing the runway. He expressed conc ern about noise impact to the proposed
development from the Air Park. He requested fencing and landscaping be made to
reduce pedestrian traffic and as a sound barrier . He expressed con cern about the airspace
around the Air Park. He stated they did not belie ve Carl Street needed to be a collector at
this time.
Linda Eckhardt, 215 Palomino Lane, “I am not an attorney, however, I have been advised
that to assure the continue d usage of our property for the purpose for which I have
purchased it, it would be best to go on record with my concerns. I also want to be clear
that my comments reflect my personal conc erns. I am not speaking on behalf of the
airpark. When I purchased my land and sought permits to build my house, I knew I was
purchasing land that would be connected to an airpark community. That was the sole
reason I decided to purchase this land. I ha d looked at many other lots but the deciding
factor was the fact that my home would be part of an airpark community which would
afford me the opportunity to build a hanger, k eep a plane in my backyard and to be able
to fly that plane from the runway in the backyard. It was a community for which the City
of Lino Lakes and the Minnesota Depart ment of Transportation had developed
ordinances and regulations to support its operation, safety and th e safety of others in the
area. The airpark had been in this locati on for many years prior to my purchasing this
land. Other homes built before and since have been given permits by the city to build
hangers. The city established regulations a bout sizes of the hange rs, the setbacks of our
house and our hangers and established other regulations which endorsed this property as
one which would be entitled to have and operate an airpark. My concern is that I be able
to keep the right and ability to use the pr operty for the purpose that it was purchased. I
would like to be assured that any new deve lopment that is approved in Lino Lakes does
not infringe on the agreements established by the City of Lino Lakes for safety and the
operation of aircraft on this airpark. I addi tionally, want to the assurance that those
existing regulations that effect the land and airspace safety zones for the operation of this
airpark, not be modified or changed wh ereas to make operations unsafe or non-
operational. Houses must not be allowed to be built which enter into the air safety zone
either by being too close to our runway or be ing so tall as to enter the transition zones.
Clearly, the City of Lino Lakes has supported the usage of the ai rpark and the airpark
community be establishing a history of regula tions and the issuance of permits. So as
you consider approving the development in que stion tonight, I ask you to assure that your
approval would in no way allow for any infri ngement on our rights and ability to utilize
the airpark for its intended purpose. Given that this assurance is made and the City
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 28
APPROVED MINUTES
enforces the Ordinances and regulations al ready in placed, I have no objection to the
development in question. Thank you for your consideration.”
Bill Noel, 346 Carl Street, requested the road not go through Carl Street. He stated when
he bought his lot he was informed that the road would not go through. He was assured
that the street was going to be dead-end. He expressed concern regarding additional
traffic and the impact this proposal would have on his property value. He stated he had
purchased his property in 1991.
Jeff Kolstad, 296 Carl Street, stated he had lived in his home since 1996. “I respectfully
request that you allow me to document my concerns over the proposed Comprehensive
Plan initiative to extend Carl Street to allow for neighborhood connections and
emergency vehicle access. My home is the last home on the Carl Street cul-de-sac on
Lino Air Park North. The plat shows my lo t as lot number 14. The historical background
is relevant to the case at hand. Let me f ill you in on the details. You may check the facts
with any of the City’s records: In 1996, lots 15 through 21 behind me were considered
wetlands by Ultieg Engineers and The Rice Cr eek Watershed District. The Developer
was not granted permission to develop the rema ining lots and thus, Carl St. was designed
as a fully finished curbed cul-de-sac with my lot as the last developable property.
However, current plans are in process for a new development off of Sunset which will
reach east to my property line. Lots 15 t hough 21 were originally platted to be accessed
by Carl Street only and that is why there is an easement for that access. Due to the fact
that those lots were consider ed wetland and undevelopable, the city planners, engineers
and developer ended Carl Str eet as a cul-de-sac. But ne ver bothered to negate the
easement. Obviously, a missed technicalit y. I would like to pose the most obvious
question: Why can the wetland now be developed when it could not a mere six-years
ago? My lot (14) also has wetlands delineated. As a re sult, my home was placed on the
lot nearest to the cul-de-sac as the final hom e in the plat with access from Carl Street.
Because of the wetlands on my lot, I was fo rced to place my home nearest the ditch, with
the hanger pad to the South. If Carl St reet were extended, it would cause me
considerable hardship for the following reason s: 1. The proximity of my home to the
proposed street is far too close for safety or comfort. I have small children and this poses
a very real hazard. If the stre et were to continue straight, it would run within 18 feet of
my home. 2. My property will be decreas ed drastically. It is common knowledge that
homes in cul-de-sacs are more desirable and have higher resale values. 3. There is not
enough room to allow for a curbed street of any size, let alone an easement for the ditch
and for my home. To consider making the ro ad smaller or moving it closer to my home
as a solution is not realistic. It would be intrusive to me a nd in violation of the intent of
the original development. The distance betw een the ditch bank and my home is 88 feet.
The original plat establishe d a 66-foot easement along the ditch as access to lots 15-21.
As mentioned earlier, these were never developed because they were delineated as
wetlands, and the plat was never adjusted to negate the proposed easement. Therefore,
Carl Street ended where the 1992 Federal and St ate Wetland Acts forced it to end. 4. In
1995 when the final plat was approved, Carl St reet was purposely curved 45 feet further
to the south in order to stay a safe distance from the ditch and allow for appropriate storm
water drainage. This design was required a nd approved at the time by the Rice Creek
Watershed District and by the City of Lino La kes. The developer met this requirement.
If the City currently changes its position to fit their proposed needs, it violates Federal,
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 29
APPROVED MINUTES
State, County, and Municipal la ws and Ordinances. The City officers are not above the
law. They are as bound as the developer and th e residents. 5. The City in its pursuit of
the Comprehensive Plan and considerations for future developments have not paused
enough to review the impact this planning is having on current residents. The City
planners must consider all parties impact ed by such planning: Government agency
requirements like the DNR, Rice Creek Wate rshed, Federal Wetlands Acts, input from
engineers, and most importantly the opinions and concerns of current residents. Carl
Street was engineered and developed in acco rdance with the laws, rules and ordinances at
the time – all of which are still relevant t oday. Extending Carl Street without the proper
regard for this history and recognition of the current status is irresponsible use of
municipal power. 6. The current development proposed by Mr. Gary Udhe (sic) has
several realistic alternatives to emergency ve hicle access. Mr. Uhde (sic) has expressed
his concern as well that extending Carl Street is not a viable opti on nor advantageous to
his project. Please refer to plat designs for his development. 7. It has been mentioned by
City Officials that the preference is to aff ect one person rather than a whole development.
I’d like to make the point that making Carl Street a through street impacts my neighbors
along its entire length by increasing traffi c in our neighborhood by giving an alternative
to people looking for shortcuts out to Sunset. Lilac Street and 242 are only ½ mile away.
If the City is looking for another access, why didn’t they put Thomas Street through
during development of the Behm Century Farm project? There would have been no
problems with wetlands, easements, ditc h clearances, nor resident property
infringements. 8. Eventually, as developers are doing in Blaine, th e sod fields to the
North of me will be developed. Access at that point to extent a road through to Sunset
would be extremely advantageous. Udhe’s (s ic) plat provides for connection to the sod
fields allowing for future access. I am a 30 year resident of Lino Lakes, infringing on my
property rights using the logi c that I am the only person inconvenienced is not valid.
Emergency vehicle access and neighborhood connections that are part of the
Comprehensive Plan can be done without vi olating current citizens rights and property.
Consider for example Mr. Udhe’s (sic) plat submissions, which show realistic emergency
access through current and future development. Thank you kindly for allowing me to set
the matter straight. Please keep me inform ed of working sessions and progress on the
decisions the City is contempl ating about this subject.
Mr. Kolstad presented to Mr. Smyser a pe tition signed by 15 resi dents on Carl Street
expressing their objection to th e extension of Carl Street.
Mr. Lyden stated it was his belief that Carl Street was not just a street, but it was a
neighborhood and an existing ne ighborhood should not be destr oyed for the benefit of a
new development.
Glenn Martig, 376 Carl Street, st ated he had lived there for 16 years. He stated he was
told the cul-de-sac was permanent. He stat ed the area where the power line was located
was the appropriate area for a street. He agr eed with Mr. Kolstad’s comments. He stated
they are an established neighborhood and requested the City not “mess” their
neighborhood up.
Carl Johnson, 314 Carl Street, st ated at the last Council wo rk session, he spoke against
the extension of Carl Street and the City st aff stated an extension needed to go through
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 30
APPROVED MINUTES
right away. He stated he did not understand why Carl Street needed to go through right
away. He stated there was not an immediate need to extend Carl Street. He stated the
further development of ai rpark lots was essential.
Richard Raby, 287 Palomino Lane, stated he was interested in buying one of the
proposed Air Park lots and he would give mu ch less consideration to buying if it involved
clustered hangars. He stated his preference would be toward havi ng individual hangars
that were not attached to other hangars. He st ated he would be interested in a lot that had
a size that was the size of the current lots. He stated he would not be interested in a small
lot. He stated he would prefer the hangar be located close to th e house and not in any
remote location. He stated his had this posi tion because what this Air Park offered was
something unique over other airports.
Ernest Olsen, 306 Carl Street, stated he purchased his home in 1998 and just recently
invested in a new hangar. He stated when he purchased the property, he had spoken with
the City, the neighbors and others and he wa s told the cul-de-sac was permanent and it
would not go through. He expressed concern a bout the impact of the road on his property
values.
Robinson Landscaping, 7902 Sunset, stated it was ha rd to develop that area when he had
spoken to two developers last year and the City shot them down. How was a road going
to go through the sod fields, when the City would not allow it?
Chair Schaps stated there were a lot of signifi cant issues that needed to be addressed. He
stated they needed to have a neighborhood m eeting prior to the September meeting and if
this neighborhood meeting was not held, this woul d be continued again. He stated if the
last meeting was in February, another mee ting had to be held. He stated the City
supported the Air Park and it was important th is development did not impact the Park.
Mr. Johnson stated they had met with the memb ers of the Air Park at least a half a dozen
times since the beginning of the year. He stated they had been in communication with
the residents and Mr. Uhde had personally s poke with many of them. He stated the big
issue was the connection of Carl Street. He asked the Board for an indication as to where
the collector road should be located and if th ere should be a collecto r road at this time.
He stated they would put the collector road wherever the City wanted it. They would
work with whatever proposed worked for ever yone. He stated with respect to the Air
Park lots, space became a limiting factor and those lots would go at a premium. He
stated they had preserved the airspace and those lots would have conditions placed on
them that would prohibit their height and location of the buildings. He stated the
collector road was one issue a nd the Air Park was another. He also requested they speak
to the park and trail system issues.
Chair Schaps requested the Board recei ve copies of all prior plats.
Mr. Lyden stated exhibit 5 would protect Ca rl Street. He stated hangars should be
individual hangars and the lots should be of the same size in the area. He stated the
zoning of R-1 should be R-1X or R-1XL. He stated density was an issue.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 31
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Rafferty stated his concer n was that the Air Park was a unique situation and he
strongly suggested they try to continue with those efforts and leave those lots as Air Park
lots. He expressed concern about the density of the project. He believed Carl Street
should not go through and should remain a cul-de-sac. The connector street should be in
a different location.
Mr. Hyden concurred with both Mr. Lyden a nd Mr. Rafferty. He stated it made sense to
him to put the road along the power line, but he would like to see more information on
this.
Ms. Lane also concurred with the other comm ents. With respect to trail and open space,
she would defer that decision to the Park Board. She did not feel this was her position to
comment on that.
Mr. Zych agreed with staff and what the Comp rehensive Plan represented. He stated they
did not own the land where the power lin es were. He expressed concern about
connections for emergency vehicles.
Chair Schaps stated he did not want to s ee the Air Parks right infringed. He stated a
connector road did need to go through and if the record was murky, the only record they
had was from the residents who lived there a nd if they were told it was permanent and
staff has nothing to show otherwise, then th e cul-de-sac should be pe rmanent. He stated
the connector road should not be Carl Street. He agreed it should be over by the power
lines. He asked why they were cramming in so many lots around the Air Park. He
requested further research regarding th e residents concerns on Mustang Lane.
Gary Uhde, Century Farms Development, st ated they would not infringe upon the Air
Park rights. With respect to the Air Park lo ts, they met with the Air Park representatives
numerous times and they had been working with them regarding their concerns. He
stated they were directed by staff and C ouncil to work with the neighborhood, which they
did. He indicated the reason for having so many Air Park lots was because they were
difficult to sell. He stated they attempted to shrink the lots down smaller to make them
more marketable. He stated if the lots rema ined as large as the previous lots, the price
would be astronomical for today’s buyer.
Mr. Smyser stated staff recogni zed the resident’s concerns along Carl Street. He stated
the point was that they had a plan as to how the City should be drawn out. He indicated
if Carl Street was not connected now, it was guaranteed there woul d not be a connection
in the future. He stated if the road went al ong the power line in the future, the City would
have to deal with 150 resident s at that time who opposed that connection. He stated the
area to the north was not for sale. They were only deferring the decision down the line
and the same problem would exist in the fu ture. He stated they were losing the
opportunity for a collector street and this was the only opportunity the City had to put in a
collector street now. He indicated Opti ons 4 and 5 were unrealistic, even though it
looked good on paper. He stated there was no way to know when/if that property was
going to develop. He indicated that wa s the problem staff was dealing with.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 32
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Lyden stated he was not in suppor t of destroying this neighborhood and the
developer would have to work out these issues.
Mr. Robinson stated the road could be put th rough if the City woul d allow a developer to
buy his land. Chair Schaps suggested he have a discussion with Mr. Uhde.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend con tinuation of the Public Hearing to the
September meeting to allow applicant time to obtain the information required as outlined
in staff’s report.
The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden.
Motion carried 5-0.
Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 9:54 p.m. and reconvened at 10:03 p.m.
F.PUBLIC HEARING, Subdivision Ordinance
Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 10:03 p.m.
Staff stated a task force appointed by the Ci ty Council has been working with staff and
the planning consultant on a ne w subdivision ordinance. The task force has completed a
draft ordinance. The next step in the proc ess is to hold a public hearing on the ordinance.
Staff indicated the subdivisi on ordinance regulates the subd ivision of land. It does not
deal with lot sizes, setbacks, building he ight, allowable uses, and the like. Such
requirements are regulated by the zoning or dinance. We are revising the zoning
ordinance and, when a draft is completed, we will bring it through the review process.
Staff stated the ordinance is a draft, and t hus a work in progress. As we review the
document, we will be making minor revisions to the text for clarification purposes.
Staff presented its analysis by explaining the purpose of the public he aring is to discuss
any aspect of the draft ordinance that is of interest to the public or the P & Z members.
Some general points of interest include:
Better list of definitions in Sec. 1001. Thes e have been coordinated with definitions in
the zoning ordinance. When the zoning ordinance is complete, some revisions may be
appropriate.
Clear lists of submittal requirements for preliminary plats, final plats, and minor
subdivisions.
Clear descriptions of what is specifically required and proh ibited in order to eliminate
ambiguity and confusion.
Staff highlighted the following:
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 33
APPROVED MINUTES
Premature Subdivision Standards and MUSA Allocation Criteria: These are included in
the General Provisions, Sec. 1002. A proposed pl at will be compared to these standards
to ensure there is adequate infr astructure to support the plat.
Note that several items refer to the City’s growth management policy. This policy, which
will set out specific methods to monitor growth and keep it at the desired level, will be
finalized by the City Council in the next few months.
Sketch Plan Review: An informal sketch pl an step has been added. It is not mandatory
but is strongly recommended. Making it manda tory would start the clock on the review
deadline. This would not fit into our review process. Th erefore, we will emphasize the
value of an informal sketch plan review process. We expect most developers will
participate.
Preliminary Plat: Requirements include a tree preservation plan and a phasing plan.
Tree Plan:The tree plan requirements do not mandate preserving a specified
percentage of trees. Rather, they require a complete inventory of all trees that will be
affected by the development. City staff and the developer will discuss the potential for
saving trees, and the plan will then clearly li st which trees will be lost and which will be
saved. If trees are lost that were designated to be saved, they must be replaced at a 2:1
ratio. We will add text on page 1004.3 to cl arify that the tree preservation plan, as
described in Section 1009, is mandatory.
Phasing Plan: The required phasing plan for each plat will specify a schedule for the
final platting of portions of the development. For example, the phasing of a 150-lot plat
might allow fifty lots to be final platted this year, fifty next year, a nd fifty the next. This
way, we can track exactly how many lots will be created in each of several years in the
future.
One point for P & Z discussion is on pa ge 1004.11, paragraph 16. As the developer
implements a project’s phasing plan, a final plat application for phase two will likely be
submitted as phase one is nearing completi on. The question is, should the City require
that a certain percentage of pha se one is built out before th e final plat for the next phase
can be submitted?
This requirement would ensure that the proj ect is proceeding acco rding to the schedule
rather than having a large number of lots platted but not selli ng. It is important that the
lots that are approved do get built on in order to meet the growth goals. On the other
hand, the demand for housing is so great that this probably will not be a problem, and
such a requirement may be more trouble th an it’s worth. If, developer A isn’t on
schedule, do we give his MUSA to another developer? How do we track these once we
have a schedule of approved lots es tablished for the next three years?
Two clarifications should be added to th e text. On page 1004.4, requirements for the
preliminary plat sheet shou ld include showing the delin eated wetland boundaries and the
ordinary high water level of any protected wa ters. This will be added as paragraph 16. on
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 34
APPROVED MINUTES
that page. On page 1004.5, paragraph 6. shou ld include the normal water level and high
water level of all stormwat er ponds, wetlands, lakes, etc.
Final Plat: Requirements include bringing final plats through the Planning & Zoning
Board as well as the City Council. Because of the importance of the phasing plans, staff
thought it a good idea to have the P & Z aware of how the growth management system is
working.
On page 1005.5, a reiteration of the percenta ge of completion issue occurs. We will
amend this to match the statement in the prel iminary plat section af ter P & Z discussion.
Minor Subdivisions: An important change from our current procedures is that the draft
ordinance states that minor s ubdivisions would be reviewed administratively, rather than
go through the P & Z and City Council. This change is intended to reduce the time and
expense—for the applicant and the City—for si mple lot splits. With clear requirements
for lot dimensions, wastewater treatment and water facilities, upland minimums, etc., it is
clear whether or not a proposed lot split meets C ity requirements. If the application
meets the requirements, it should be approved with little delay. Applicants always have
the opportunity to request a variance from th e requirements or appeal the staff decision.
A variance or appeal would then go through the P & Z and City Council.
Please note a correction to be made on page 1006.1. Paragraph 1 should end at
“...Sections 1004 and 1005 of this Ordinance.” Paragraph 2. should begin there, and say:
The exchange of abutting land between ow ners through the relocation of the boundary
line between two abutting, ex isting parcels of property.
Paragraph 3. merits discussion by the P & Z. The task force had a concern that
somebody would try to avoid platting propert y by using repeated minor subdivisions of
three lots or less. The question for P & Z discussion is whether or not this is likely
enough that the City should prohibit a resubdivi sion within five years. It might be an
undesirable prohibition if, for example, somebody splits 40 acres into two 20-acre
parcels, then wants to split one of them a couple years later in to two 10-acre parcels.
This scenario would be within lot size require ments, and would not in and of itself be a
problem. However, the five-y ear prohibition would prevent it.
Design Standards:There are a number of design requirements that are not listed in the
existing ordinance.
Land in electricity transmission or pipeline easements cannot be used to fulfill the
minimum buildable land requirement for a lot. (page 1007.2)
Clarification that every new lot must ha ve the minimum lot width fronting on a public
street. (page 19007.2, paragraphs 4. and 5.)
Access management requirements for access to collectors and arterials. (page 1007.2,
paragraphs 6. and 7.) Paragraph 6. should be amended to say “...major collector street...”.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 35
APPROVED MINUTES
Setbacks must be shown for each lot on the plat drawing. (1007.3, par. 8)
Minimum 10’ buffer around all wetlands, and buildable lot area cannot include this
buffer. (1007.3, par 9)
Conservation subdivision open space categories and ownership requirements are listed.
Conservation subdivision design is not mandato ry. If this option is chosen by the
developer, ownership and management of the open space must be addressed.
A joint trench requirement for utilities has b een added. This has been the City’s practice,
but it has not been formally adopted by ordinance. (1007.9 – 1007.10)
Park Dedication:The City adopted new pa rk dedication requirements last year.
These have been included in the new subdivi sion ordinance. No changes were made.
Improvements:Section 1010 lists elements of a new development that must be
installed, and mandates certain on es as the developer’s responsib ility. In the event a rural
clustering application comes in, this sect ion includes provisions for a communal septic
system (p. 1010.2). The new development agreement requirements include a final
grading survey to ensure that the grad ing plan was implemented by the developer.
Mr. Rafferty stated he was in agreement with the 80 percent completion to encourage the
developers to finish the development. He stated with these guid elines would force the
developers to complete the site. He stated the developers needed to be contained and
forced to uphold their promises they ma de to the City and the residents.
Chair Schaps agreed this woul d be good incentive for a developer
Mr. Lyden asked whose job would it be to keep track of all of this. Mr. Smyser replied
they did have software to do this, which was not available in the past.
Ms. Lane stated she understood the 80 percen t completion, but they may want to also
consider stating it by the number of unsol d lots and not only in a percentage.
Mr. Smyser added a condition to the prelimin ary plat requirements “16. Ordinary high
water level of protected waters and the de lineated wetland boundaries”. Paragraph 6 on
page 5, to add words, “including the normal water level and high water level of all ponds
and water courses”. He stated they were proposing the Final Plat comes to the Planning
and Zoning Board, as well as the Council. He stated no work would begin until Final
Plat approval. He stated another change is that minor subdivisions would be approved by
staff and if staff did not a pprove the minor subdivision, the applicant could appeal it and
it would come before the City Council. He asked how the Board felt about staff handling
minor subdivisions and should variances and ap peals go to P&Z and then Council, or just
go to Council.
The Board agreed to let staff handle the mi nor subdivisions the variances and appeals
should go to P&Z and then Council.
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 36
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Rafferty asked how easy would it be to change and modify the Ordinance in the
future if needed. Mr. Smyser replied it would be published, brought to P&Z and continue
through the process. He indicated this Ordi nance would follow the same procedures for
amending as any other Ordinance in the City.
Mr. Smyser asked if they should allow shar ed driveways in single-family townhomes.
The Board reached the consensus to not allow shared driveways.
Mr. Smyser asked if surveys for minor subdi visions should show driveways on the other
side of the street The Board reached the consensus this was not necessary.
Mr. Lyden expressed concern regarding th e Metropolitan Council’s request for number
11 on page 1004.9 regarding future urbanizati on for public sewer and water provision.
He stated this recommendation was very unfri endly to rural resident s. He stated the
landowner should be able to pl an out their land the way they want to. Mr. Smyser replied
landowners were not in the business of planning.
Mr. Smyser asked if they were comfortable with the Metropolitan Council’s request and
requested a vote.
Mr. Lyden replied he was absolutely not comfortable with the Metropolitan Council’s
recommendation.
Ms. Lane asked if they were require d to follow the Metropolitan Council’s
recommendation. Mr. Smyser replied they were.
Mr. Lyden expressed doubt that the Metropolitan Council could direct the City to add this
type of a recommendation.
Ms. Lane stated she would not have an is sue with the recommendation if it meant the
Ordinance would not be passed, but if Me tropolitan Council had no authority to direct
this, then she was opposed to it.
Metropolitan Council’s Recommendation passed 3-2 (Lyden, Lane).
Barbara Bor, 7707 20 th Avenue, stated she lived in a ru ral area and requested clarification
of septic systems. She stated she was a representative of over 200 residents of the
northeast corner of the City and they were very concerned with the preservation of
keeping the area rural. Mr. Smyser addressed her questions and concerns.
Mr. John Johnson, a consulting engineer, stated he strongly supported the sketch plan
concept. He liked the idea of the phasing pl an, but he stated he was concerned about the
wording with it. He asked what could contro l the start of the various phases. He agreed
to a degree with the easement requirements. He stated if the easement was in excess of
the width, they then needed to pick a numbe r. He strongly supported a certified grading
plan. He stated this had been problem for him in the past. He suggested if they wished to
deviate from the plan, the designer of the pl an should also approve the deviation. He
stated very few developers build the homes, they usually sell to a build er. He stated all of
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 37
APPROVED MINUTES
their lots were typically presold prior to ob taining financing. He asked if the lots were
sold, would that satisfy the percentage criteria.
Mr. Rafferty replied it was his understanding that the home would be completed before
the developer would be allowed to continue . Mr. Johnson stated it was a good idea, but
he asked there be some refinement of the requirements.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 11:25 p.m.
The motion was supported by Mr. Zych.
Motion carried 5-0.
Mr. Zych left the meeting at 11:25 p.m.
Mr. Lyden asked why growth zones were so important and why did they have them. He
stated the Comprehensive Plan had just b een approved and those ingredients were not
addressed in this Ordinance. Chair Scha ps pointed out that this Ordinance gave
guidelines.
Mr. Lyden indicated they were already at the 2010 Comprehensive Plan requirements.
He asked what was the City suppose to do when it had already met the 2010 goals. Mr.
Grochala stated that was were they were trying to get to and without the approval of
Ordinances to implement the Comprehensive Plan, the City had no guidelines. He stated
they could talk about this forever, but they were not moving forward.
Mr. Lyden stated he respected Mr. Grochala as an individual, but he took offense that he,
or the Board were at fault for this problem. He stated to insinuate that he held this up and
made a mess of this was derogatory.
Mr. Grochala stated he was not insinuati ng anyone was doing anything, but this was a
long drawn out process and ther e were assumptions made six years ago when it first
started and he could not change what did or did not take place in those six years, but they
were trying to get to a point to implement a pl an and this Ordinance was their intent to do
that.
Mr. Lyden asked what about th e fact that they were be yond their stated goals. Mr.
Grochala replied this documen t had nothing to do with that.
Chair Schaps stated no one was going to argu e that they were be yond their goals, but that
should not prevent Mr. Lyden from getting behi nd a set of Ordinances that would get him
exactly what he wanted, orderly a nd organized growth in the City.
Mr. Rafferty stated a good example of those i ssues that were being outlined in this
Ordinance was agenda items earlier tonight wh ere there were guide lines in place and they
voted to go against what the C ity had outlined as minimum requirements in certain areas.
He stated while this might be minor, his point was that their job was to try and do the best
they could to stick within the guidelines of what the City ha d outlined. He stated if they
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 38
APPROVED MINUTES
were going to go by the guidelines, then they n eeded to follow them. He stated he did not
believe anyone was trying to in sinuate it was anyone’s fault, but they are not going to be
able to do anything if they ar e not allowed to move forward. Mr. Lyden replied that there
were Ordinances and specifics th at needed to be met, and if that was the end of the case
and people did not meet specifics, then th at would be the end of the discussion.
However, there are variances in which someone can ask the Board fo r other consideration
and the Board needs to weight if it is good th ing or a bad thing and this is two different
things they are talking about.
Mr. Rafferty stated if the City wanted to go by guidelines, then they needed to stick with
them.
Chair Schaps stated they had to continue to update the Ordinances to keep up with the
changes in environmental concerns and cha nges in laws. He indicated Mr. Lyden’s
concerns had nothing to do with this Ordinance. He stat ed everyone knows the City was
beyond their goals, but nobody could predict the ma rket six years ago and they could not
close the City to people w ho wanted to live in it.
Ms. Lane pointed out that the Ordinance needed to be updated, even if they did not have
a Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Lyden expressed concern about the level of service “C” requirement for roads. Mr.
Grochala replied “C” was the typical level of service that moved traffic sufficiently.
Mr. Lyden asked if they could have something better.
Mr. Rafferty pointed out that many of the ro ads were County Roads and the City had no
control over them.
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend a pproval of the draft subdivision ordinance
of July 9 draft, which is accompanied by the July 10 memo.
The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden
Motion carried 3-1 (Lyden).
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Mr. Lyden asked for an update on the Isla nd project. Mr. Smyser replied Council
decided an environmental assessment workshee t must be prepared and they were still
working on that with the developers . It had not yet been completed.
Mr. Rafferty asked if they knew when it would be completed. Mr. Smyser replied the
applicant would be submitting additional inform ation to be reviewed by the City. Staff
did not know when the information would be submitted and approved.
VII.ADJOURNMENT
Planning & Zoning Board
August 14, 2002
Page 39
APPROVED MINUTES
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to adjourn th e meeting at 11:58 p.m., and was supported
by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .