Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/08/2003 P&Z MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I.CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:34 p.m., January 8, 2003. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps requested additions or deletions to this evening’s agenda. Mr. Smyser stated that Case VD was noticed in the newspaper but staff did not receive adequate information to review the project. However, it remained on the agenda in case someone attended and wanted to provide input. Chair Schaps requested that Item VD, ATS&R Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch Street, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, be considered as the first item under Action Items. Mr. Lyden requested the addition of Item VE, Jim Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, Keefe Minor Subdivision. The agenda was approved III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – December 11, 2002 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the December 11, 2002, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Rafferty abstained). IV.OPEN MIKE DATE: January 8, 2003 TIME STARTED: 6:34 P.M. TIME ENDED: 11:27 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyden, Lyden, Rafferty, and Schaps MEMBERS ABSENT: Lane and Zych STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Smyser; City Engineer Studenski (part); Staff Member Tanda Gretz; Community Development Director, Mike Grochala (part); and Bob Kirmis, NAC Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps declared Open Mike open at 6:36 p.m. No one else was present for Open Mike. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:37 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0. V.ACTION ITEMS D. PUBLIC HEARING, ATS&R, Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch Street, Site Plan Review & Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:38 p.m. and asked if anyone was present in the audience who wished to speak to this application. No one from the audience wished to speak to this application. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to February 12, 2003 to allow the applicant to prepare complete information and staff to prepare a complete report and recommendation, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Smyser explained that several important pieces of this project were not submitted so staff was not able to provide a review. Mr. Corson stated that someone had told him everything had been submitted on this project and asked if the delay had to do with the County’s review of the turn lanes. Mr. Smyser stated there is more information missing than turn lane information. Mr. Corson asked when the application will be heard by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Smyser stated that he is not intimately familiar with the Watershed District’s rules but it is his understanding that if the project does not disturb more than one acre or a wetland, then it is not a big deal. Mr. Corson asked if the Rice Creek Watershed District decides whether it is a project they should review. Mr. Smyser stated it is the District’s decision whether the project needs a permit and review. Mr. Corson stated that it appears there is more than one open issue. Mr. Smyser stated the architect told him that the Watershed District had indicated they did not need to review this project. However, that does not mean the City will not review the storm water issues to assure the on-site water is properly managed. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps asked how large is this project site. Mr. Smyser stated he is unsure. Mr. Smyser stated staff will contact the Rice Creek Watershed District to request a summary of their review. A. PUBLIC HEARING, Charlie Pfingsten, Charlie’s Tree Service, 908½ Maple Street, Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:45 p.m. Staff presented the application by Charles Pfingsten for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning for property located at 908-1/2 Maple Street. The property is zoned Rural and guided Low Density, Sewered Residential under the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently owned by Bill Flanagan, but Mr. Pfingsten would like to purchase the property as a site to park vehicles and equipment used in his tree care business – “Charlie’s Tree Service”. Staff explained that it was initially Mr. Pfingsten’s intention to ask for a Conditional Use Permit, or an amendment to such, based on past uses that took place on the property. However, after a review of past applications, past and present zoning maps, the Comprehensive Plan, and the present City Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Pfingsten and staff agreed that it was more appropriate to submit an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning, since: • The property is guided Low Density, Sewered Residential • The property is zoned Rural • The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not list any permitted or conditional uses for the Rural zone that would fit the use intended by Mr. Pfingsten (storage location for equipment used in a tree care business), thus it seemed pointless to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Staff explained that the background/history of the property is somewhat involved and irregular. First, although there does not seem to be any official designation of the address “908-1/2 Maple Street,” this address has come into use for the property because the property was owned and used in conjunction with the property to the north/rear, 908 Orange Street, on which Mr. Flanagan’s home and auto repair business was sited. Second, in 1983 Mr. Flanagan asked for, and was granted, a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 40’X60’ pole building on the site, to be used for “cold storage” (trucks, autos, parts, etc.) in conjunction with his auto repair business. The minutes and reports for this application state both that the “area is zoned for GB (General Business)” and that “auto and truck repair is listed as a conditional use in the Neighborhood Business District – therefore an expansion or intensification of that use will require a Conditional Use Permit or amendment to such.” Third, in 1991 Mr. Flanagan asked to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit in order to allow K&C Custom Auto Body to operate as a business out of the pole building at Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES 908-1/2 Maple Street. The report for this application states that “the land is a remnant of the City’s commercial strip that was eliminated several years ago. Present zoning is General Business…automobile and truck repair (is) a conditional use.” The amended Conditional Use Permit was granted, with 16 conditions attached. Staff explained that, importantly, both thes e past CUPs were approved for specific purposes, under a previous City ordinance, with previous zoning conditions, and do not imply – implicitly or explicitly – rights for any other CUP or uses, such as that proposed by the current applicant. Further, the uses previously approved have now become non- conforming uses under the City’s current Zoning Ordinance. Significantly, the City’s Zoning Ordinance is explicit regarding non-conforming uses (Section 3, subdiv. 2.A), stating as its intent that “all non-conforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity.” Staff presented the chart below which shows both how the subject property and surrounding properties are guided under the City’s Comprehensive Plan and how they are zoned. Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Low Density, Sewered Residential Rural West “Rural North “Rural & General Business East “Rural South “Rural Staff reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan is the tool which guides land use in the City, with the Zoning Ordinance the more specific tool that allows that stated land use to be implemented. As such, both are primary planning tools and must carry requisite weight and importance. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted as the City’s tool to achieve its goals, and we must defer to it for guidance. Since the site is guided Low Density, Sewered Residential and zoned Rural, the proposed use as a parking/storage spot for heavy equipment and commercial vehicles is clearly at odds with what the City has planned for the area. In addition, significantly, the site is abutting a residential area to the west, with the resulting situation of conflicting abutting uses. Staff stated that overall, the site has a history of uses that were either commercial in nature (auto body painting and repair) or supportive of commercial uses (storage for materials used in conjunction with an auto repair business). However, these uses took place in the past and do not over-ride the current guidance of the City’s Comprehensive Plan or zoning. Such past uses allowed the property to become what it is today: a site containing a large metal pole building, a 6-foot high privacy fence, and not much else. While such conditions would not seem to readily lend themselves to a Rural or Residential use, the Comprehensive Plan must be respected as a vision of what the City wants to become. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Staff noted that additionally, it is not appropriate to change the land use and zoning of one single, particular lot. Rather, in considering what uses should be allowed in such an area, it would be appropriate to view the broader area, consult with property owners, and determine if a larger area of commercial or industrial use is justified. In the present case, it is important to remember that once any zoning change takes place, that change would allow not only the use currently proposed, but any other permitted, conditional or accessory use that is listed in the City’s Zoning Ordinance for that zone, any of which may be even more intensive or conflicting to the abutting residential neighborhood. Staff explained that Mr. Pfingsten, as noted in his narrative, proposes to use the site as a storage location for the equipment used in his tree care business. Mr. Pfingsten proposes to store all equipment within the pole building on site, except for two pieces: a 16-foot Bobcat trailer and a mobile “field office” structure which Mr. Pfingsten uses to accommodate his research. These two items would be stored outside, screened by the six-foot high fence that surrounds the site, as well as some additional evergreens Mr. Pfingsten proposes to plant on the site. Staff stated that problematic is the fact that the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance does not address a use such as that proposed by Mr. Pfingsten. The General Business zone was cited in his request for rezoning because Mr. Pfingsten understood the property to be zoned that way when previous uses were accommodated. However, Mr. Pfingsten also proposes outdoor storage on the property, and the current Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance allows outdoor storage only in a General Busine ss or Industrial zone (Light or General), and then only as an accessory or interim use, with a Conditional Use Permit, and with a number of conditions attached. One such condition for an Industrial zone, significantly, is that the site “shall not abut property zoned for residential, rural, or business use.” As a result, zoning to Industrial is also problematic since the site abuts a residential area. However, staff explained that even if work ing around such obstacles as those cited above were possible, rezoning the site to Industrial would then open up the site to any of the permitted or conditional uses listed for such a zone, many of which are much too intensive for a site abutting a residential zone. Further, the City’s Comprehensive Plan, in item #13 on page 129, specifically directs that “there are a number of small isolated industrial sites along CSAH #23 that are out of character with the surrounding land uses. The City will pursue the relocation of these industries into a community industrial park and redevelopment of these existing industrial site.” Thus, the creation of such new industrial sites would clearly be counter to what the Comprehensive Plan indicates. Staff noted that overall, the situation that is presented is that of a site which is guided and zoned for residential use, similar to that west of the site, but with a past that includes uses more similar to those north and east of the site, being commercial in nature. The City’s Zoning Ordinance, Section 2, subdiv. 1, offers guidance for the administration of Rezonings and Amendments. Specifically, such actions are to be evaluated against the following factors: Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES 1.) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of, and has been found to be consistent with, the official City Comprehensive Plan. No: the City’s Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Low Density, Sewered Residential rather than the commercial or in dustrial that is proposed by the applicant . 2.) The proposed use is, or will be, compatible with present and future land uses of the area. No: the proposed commercial or industrial use of the property is likely to be at odds with the present abutting residential uses to the west. Additionally, the proposed commercial use does not conform to the proposed future land use of Low Density, Sewered Residential as outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 3.) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. No: there is nothing in the City’s Zoning Ordinance which specifically addresses the use of “vehicle parking for a tree trimming/servicing business.” As a result, it was difficult to find a zone in which such a use might be appropriate. While the General Business zone was chosen to cover such a use because the site was zoned that way in the past when it accommodated uses similar to that being proposed, the outdoor storage which is proposed on the site is not something that is allowed in the General Business zone. Rather, the Zoning Ordinance is written to allow outdoor storage only in the Industrial zone, and then only as an accessory or interim use with a conditional use permit and when meeting a number of requirements. Additionally, the permitted use of “contractor storage of equipment an d building materials if enclosed within a building,” as listed under permitted uses for the Light Industrial zone (#12, p. 8-3 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance), may provide the closest match of use to that proposed by the applicant. 4.) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City’s service capacity. Yes: the applicant has no known plans to install City services . 5.) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Yes: streets should be able to handle the proposed traffic, which is to be limited to several trucks, with equipment, leaving in the morning and returning in the evening . Staff explained that it must look to the City’s Comprehensive Plan for guidance in the proposed application. In doing so, it appears clear that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning is not in line with the City’s approved Comprehensive Plan, which guides the subject property Low Density, Sewered Residential. Additionally, such Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES a proposed rezoning is problematic in that it abuts an established residential zone, and may likely present a conflict of use. Lastly, the applicant’s proposed use, together with a need for outdoor storage, is at odds with what is likely to be suitable zoning for the site. Staff explained that while this application represents one prospective landowner’s desire to use the site in a particular way, such a proposed use is in conflict with the City’s stated goals for its future. Further, there is nothing in the application that would indicate that such a proposed enlargement of a commercial or industrial area would be advantageous for the community in the long term, and thus worth negating the City’s approved Comprehensive Plan. Staff noted the available options and recommended denial of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. Chair Schaps asked if the Comprehensive Plan identifies commercial on both sides of the street. Ms. Gretz presented a map, identified the commercial area, and advised that the surrounding property and up to Columbus Township is Low Density, Sewered Residential. Mr. Lyden stated the Comprehensive Plan indicates this should be Low Density Residential homes, but the reality is that there is a parking lot and building already there. He asked if the City expects someone to buy this property, tear down the pole building and parking lot, and build a house. Ms. Gretz stated she can only speak to what the Comprehensive Plan is guided for. Mr. Lyden stated in that case the City better get ready to buy the property, remove the building and parking lot, and get the property ready for a house. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Charles Pfingsten II, President of Charlie’s Tree Service and applicant, pointed out that when he received the agenda information, he discovered that the chart on Page 3 indicates the guided land use for the east side of the site is Low Density, Sewered Residential but the existing zoning is Rural. He stated this used to be a tire and battery shop from Orange to Maple. He asked how that could be zoned Rural since it has an existing business and suggested that may be an oversight. Chair Schaps asked what is across from the subject site, across from County Road 23. Mr. Pfingsten stated across County Road 23 is a remote control car sales and service business. Mr. Pfingsten stated he believes the map was taken from what is on file with the City but it seems odd that it is zoned Rural and businesses exist. He reviewed the map identified as Exhibit #3 and advised that the General Business area only covers a portion of the end of the block. He reviewed Exhibit #5 and noted it shows General Business across the entire block, which he believes to be the most accurate map included in the exhibits. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pfingsten stated when he first looked at this property, they were under the impression that it was zoned Commercial based on past usage and permits. He stated his real estate agent got involved and looked into it further. That is when questions came up about the exact zoning. He stated he contacted Mr. Sm yser and was told by Mr. Smyser that this would never happen but he decided he wanted to pursue it anyway. He stated his appreciation to Ms. Gretz for her assistance and the information she provided to him. Mr. Pfingsten stated that this property is actually a building and parking lot with a fence around it. On the residential side to the west it serves as a buffer zone between the residential and General Business which is a larger building. He stated his proposal is to make it more aesthetically pleasing to surrounding properties by removing some of the scrub trees and planting other conifers to better screen this property. The gate on the northern end will be eliminated and the privacy fence continued across that section. He stated he is looking for something in this price range which is difficult to find in Lino Lakes for a small company. He stated he wants to be able to park his trucks inside and have a base of operation. Mr. Hyden asked which direction the trucks will come from. Mr. Pfingsten stated they will have to come in from Maple. Mr. Hyden asked how many trucks will be on the site. Mr. Pfingsten stated there will be three trucks inside the building. His field office, a 32-foot 2000 Golfstream RV, is part of his company’s vehicle fleet and will be pa rked outside. A 16-foot bobcat trailer would also not fit inside so it will be parked outside. Mr. Hyden asked if he has talked with any of the residents. Mr. Pfingsten stated he talked about this to one resident who lives across the street, to the west, and he said he didn’t have a problem as long as he does not do what the body shop did which was to be operating at 2 a.m. He stated he did not talk to the other neighbors. Mr. Hyden asked if the trucks will be parked inside by dark. Mr. Pfingsten stated they would be parked before dark. He explained th at he started this company about five years ago and at the end of the work day the crews come back and park the trucks inside. He stated that in the evening he does estimating and deals with other customers which is done away from this property. Mr. Hyden asked if other materials, such as wood chips, will be stored on the site. Mr. Pfingsten stated they would not and he has no desire to store that type of material. He explained how wood chips are handled in his business. Mr. Corson asked if the auto repair shop has adequate access to Orange without crossing the subject site. Mr. Pfingsten stated it does have access and would not cross this property. Mr. Corson stated Exhibit #4 shows an easement that is part of Lot 22. Mr. Pfingsten stated that Lot 22 is one that Mr. Flanagan had already sold and contained a house. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps asked if only one resident responded after the notice of the public hearing went out. Mr. Pfingsten stated he spoke to th at resident before he contacted the City and made application. He stated the only othe r resident who contacted him was Planning Commissioner Lyden. Chair Schaps stated it appears that Mr. Pfingsten will use the property to store his vehicles inside, except for the 32-foot RV and a 16-foot bobcat trailer, the landscaping would be upgraded, screening added, the privacy fence extended, no exterior lights or manufacturing conducted. Mr. Pfingsten stated that is correct and he does not think the building currently has any exterior lights. Kevin Hedger, 862 Maple Street, stated he is the spokesperson for the majority of the residents on Maple Street and has a prepared presentation regarding the proposed rezoning. He stated their objective is to bring to the table the concerns of the local residents about the requested rezoning and inte nded use. He displayed a picture of the current pole building, which they found to be in fair condition. He stated the privacy fence is about five feet in height. Mr. Hedger stated some of the concerns related to valuation and impact to their residential properties, the type of business that could come into the building, environmental issues related to possible noise control issues, septic system issues, and potential impact to private wells. He stated past practice is what brought residents to the meeting tonight. He explained that the au to body shop created a difficult situation for residents of the block for many years due to parking problems, access for emergency vehicles, and operations occurring at 2-3 a.m. Mr. Hedger stated they would like more information about the following: traffic volume and frequency; parking guidelines; working hours and possible curfew since this is in a residential neighborhood; type, size, and quan tity of equipment; type of storage outside the building; and property maintenance. He displayed a picture of the adjoining property, noting the roof is rusting through, the fence is full of holes and not screened, and the sign is outdated. He stated this is an eyesore to the community and the residents do not want this to occur with this new business. Mr. Hedger asked staff to elaborate on the differences between Residential and Commercial property zoning, and related noise, air, and pollution control requirements. He stated they are also concerned about the septic system. Mr. Hedger asked if Commercial zoning or conditional use permitting fits this neighborhood. He stated that the majority of residents on Maple Street say that it does not fit. He thanked the Board for this opportunity to present their concerns and questions. Terry Johnson, 987 Maple Street, provided a histor y for this property. He stated that Mr. Flanagan was given a conditional use permit to run a muffler shop out of his garage in the 1980s. The back of the building was supposed to be for his wife’s embroidery work. Mr. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Flanagan then split the property to make money off the back half. Mr. Johnson noted that Mr. Pfingsten said that traffic would be limited to early morning and late at night. He stated there are children on the street who like to play in the morning and night and the street is not equipped for this type of equipment to turn onto the street. He stated this building is not large enough to store a motor home or other things. Mr. Johnson stated he has spent 27 years in this neighborhood and this building has not been anything but problems. He stated he does not want this to be approved. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Johnson what type of problems he experienced. Mr. Johnson stated it was a test driving area for cars and the problems included unsafe acceleration, swearing, speeding, pot smoking, etc. He stated that business has been moved for about six months. Jeff Joyer, realtor representing Bill Flanagan, stated it is true that there have been problems and he empathizes with the residents that the previous use caused some problems since it was leased out for an auto body shop. He stated he would like to confirm the fact that if Mr. Pfingsten cannot buy the property, their only alternative is to specifically advertise for another auto body shop since it is permitted for that use, been used for that purpose for about 20 years, and only recently through the remapping of the City become Low Density Residential for the long term. He stated if the Flanagans cannot find a buyer with a different use permitted by the City, the alternative is to revert back to the previous situation. He stated they are sensitive that this may not be the best thing for the community. Mr. Joyer agreed that this building would provide a buffer between the residential neighborhood and the other commercial building. He stated it may be better for the City to look at this entire area as a future node for redevelopment. He stated it was strip zoned on Lake Drive and then there was a concept to pull it into nodes which was the intent for the buildings that currently exist. Mr. Joyer stated the Flanagans felt there were a lot of lines drawn and that just by chance the intent may not have been to pull their property out of General Business zoning. He stated he believes a case can be made that in the future a larger piece along Lake Drive would be more easily redevelopable than just the smaller piece adjoining County Road 23. He stated he thinks there is an opportunity for a win/win situation since the concerns raised by the residents can be addressed by Mr. Pfingsten and his use which is a much lower impact. Chair Schaps asked if this is the first exchange between the residents and applicant. Mr. Joyer stated the residents called the City about the past tenant that just moved out but that was a long-term tenant (about 12 years) so Mr. Flanagan couldn’t do much with upkeep. Eilene Couture, 6973 Lakeview Drive, asked if employee cars will be parking in the street or the applicant will be idling diesel trucks. Mr. Pfingsten stated they would not. Mr. Hedger stated that when Mr. Pfingsten moves on in several years the zoning would stay in place so there is a concern about future uses. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pfingsten stated he runs a clean business and takes care of his business. He stated that in a high profile business such as his, perception is everything. He stated he has been in this industry for 21 years and since he started this business five years ago it has grown 15% overall per year. He stated that is because he maintains his equipment with high curbside appeal and uses a professional mechanic. He stated his desire is to get his equipment inside and out of the weather. With regard to traffic on the street and children in the area, Mr. Pfingsten stated that he has no reason to go down the street beyond the location of this shop. He stated there is a lot of traffic in this area but not nearly the amount as on the other side of the bridge where the new development is taking place. He stated he has the greatest respect for the residents. Chair Schaps asked if he will be parking cars on the street. Mr. Pfingsten stated he will not. Mr. Lyden stated the residents have been “burned” in the past and that is being heard loud and clear. He stated he would not consider a rezoning but may consider a conditional use permit if the right conditions are placed. He stated he would like to consider that option so the issues of screening, parking, and lighting can be addressed. He stated if the City is not willing to purchase the property, remove the buildings, and get it ready for a house, then someone else will buy the property and want to use the building for a business. He raised the question whether anyone who purchased the property would be able to park their RV and a trailer on the property. Chair Schaps stated Mr. Pfingsten impresses him as a decent guy and very honest and he also thinks the neighborhood has provided a thorough, thoughtful, and well laid out response to this proposal. He stated it is unfortunate that these two groups have not gotten together and do not know each other at all. He stated he would hate to see a much less intensive use, such as Mr. Pfingsten’s, not considered when another auto business could occur. He suggested that they take 30 days so they can meet together and see if there are ways within reason for Mr. Pfingsten to buy this property and use it in a way that is acceptable to the residents. He noted that they may not agree to everything but there should be a reasonable manner that it can be considered and eliminate the potential of another auto shop. Chair Schaps stated Mr . Pfingsten is talking about a few trucks, not a lot of activity, and only activity in the morning and evening. He asked if a 30 day delay is of interest to Mr. Pfingsten. Mr. Pfingsten stated it is and he is interested in scheduling such a meeting with the residents. Mr. Hedger asked if there is no way to enforce a conditional use permit or to provide input. He stated if there is not, they are not interested in anything like that. Chair Schaps explained that conditions can be placed on a conditional use permit and it can be enforced. He stated if the conditional use permit is violated it can be taken away. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hedger stated that Mr. Pfingsten seems to be a responsible person but it is not known what will happen after he is gone and there is a new owner. Chair Schaps stated he does not think the Commissioners are willing to consider a rezoning tonight but he believes this is a reasonable request for a conditional use permit and if the residents can meet with Mr. Pfingsten it would be a better option than taking a chance that an auto body shop starts again. Mr. Lyden asked if a new buyer can be stopped from parking these vehicles on the site. Mr. Smyser recalled there have been several issues with properties that have outdoor storage and trucks. He stated that it is an issue in rural zoning areas where some people have businesses operating and residents object. Mr. Smyser stated there are ordinances that allow indoor storage but the outdoor storage and activities on site are what are in question here. Mr. Smyser stated that the staff report raises the question of what type of business is appropriate to consider. The Comprehensive Plan says those uses should be moved off to an industrial area. If that is not going to be done, then the Comprehensive Plan language should be reviewed. He noted the City is in the process of revising the Zoning Ordinance, which addresses conditional use permits. Currently this is a nonconforming property in a Rural district and there is not hing that says you can park vehicles outdoors with a conditional use permit. He noted the City needs to consider the implications beyond this one property. Mr. Smyser stated if directed, staff can consider language to allow outdoor storage of vehicles in Rural zones. Mr. Smyser stated that in this case whether the cars can be parked outdoors depends on how large the vehicles are. He stated if the use was only storage inside the building, that would not be a problem. The question is what is stored outside and what activity occurs outside. Diane Schally, 892 Maple Street, asked what happens when there are road restrictions. Chair Schaps stated this business would be treated the same as other businesses. Ms. Schally stated the building does not have bathroom facilities and asked if one would have to be installed. She also noted there is not much space to park vehicles on this property and asked if his equipment will be repaired on this site. If so, she asked if fluids will be going into the ground. She stated she does not support this being approved. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Pfingsten how many employees he has. Mr. Pfingsten responded that he has one employee. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Pfingsten how he would be treated as a customer if the job takes one week. He asked if his yard would be cleaned up at the end of each day. Mr. Pfingsten stated it will vary depending on the type of job, customer, and location. He explained that if the job is out in Scandia Township and on a large residential lot, nine out of ten times that customer will say it is fine to leave the trees and equipment on site. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Rafferty asked if brush would be blowing off site while the project is in progress. Mr. Pfingsten stated it would not. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Pfingsten if he did a job in the 1500 block of Merganser Court, where he noticed that the job site was cleaned up at the end of each day. Mr. Pfingsten stated he did do that job which was a massive amount of work and involved some other subcontractors. He stated that job used all of his equipment and in a residential neighborhood like that one, their practice is to clean up the site at the end of each work day. Mr. Rafferty stated the business is only five year old, but has equipment and an RV that would be parked outside with a bobcat trailer. He asked if equipment would be repaired on this site and where new equipment will be parked. He also asked Mr. Pfingsten if his business is already exceeding the size of this pole barn. Mr. Rafferty stated that a Golfstream RV is a nice unit but he does not know what condition it is in. He asked about how the grass will be mowed around the items parked outdoors and how that appearance will be maintained. He stated he does not want this to become a “cancer” in the neighborhood that continues to grow. He asked where the broken vehicles will be stored and if not repaired how they will be disposed. Mr. Rafferty stated he saw a job done by Mr . Pfingsten in his neighborhood and was very impressed but he wants to be sure Mr. Pfingsten is aware of these concerns. He questioned how much the business can grow and remain on this site. Mr. Corson stated he assumes this will be discussed again next month. He stated he would like to receive a history of this site to assure whether or not a conditional use permit was approved and what those conditions were. He stated that a conditional use permit and site plan should be considered which would resolve some of the questions. Mr. Pfingsten stated Mr. Flanagan had addressed some of the concerns in the past by installing a fence and asphalt parking area. He stated that he will plant more beneficial trees and remove undesirable trees but there is not a lot more that can be done to create a buffer zone. Mr. Corson stated if this is to become a growing business, there may be a need for a septic system. Mr. Pfingsten stated there is a septic with a single bathroom that was permitted at some time. He stated he only has one employee and is out on the job site most of the time. Mr. Pfingsten stated he could make this into a multi-million dollar business but he has no desire for those kinds of headaches. He stated he has a profitable, manageable business and that is what he wants. Mr. Rafferty stated that his concern is with the growth in the number of vehicles. He stated he sees no beauty in a five-foot fence that says “keep out” and Mr. Pfingsten may have some suggestions as to how to plant the area to enhance the site including the neighborhood. Mr. Pfingsten stated he would be happy to inform the residents of the type of trees he would like to plant. Mr . Rafferty stated a diagrammed landscape plan would be helpful as well as pictures. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Corson stated if this application is tabled, he would like to consider a recommendation that it return as a conditional use permit and site plan review rather than a rezoning. Mr. Johnson asked how conditional use permits are enforced. Mr. Lyden stated they are reviewed annually but if there are concerns there is no reason why it cannot be reviewed more often than annually. That review is done by staff in conjunction with the City Council. Mr. Johnson asked if a conditional use permit has ever been revoked for violations. Chair Schaps stated it probably has occurred and residents can come to the Board with such a complaint about a violation. Mr. Johnson stated the residents have called the City Hall with complaints before and even though the staff agreed there was a viola tion, nothing changed. He stated that is all that is done. Mr. Smyser asked when Mr. Johnson called to complain about something. Mr. Johnson stated he has called numerous times in the past several years. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to February 12, 2003 and table consideration of the Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requested by Charlie Pfingsten, Charlie’s Tree Service, 908 ½ Maple Street, to encourage Mr. Pfingsten and the residents to meet to discuss the issues, and that this application return as a conditional use permit and site plan review. Chair Schaps mentioned to Mr. Pfingsten that there is no sentiment for outdoor storage, other than the one RV and one trailer, and no consideration as to any future expansions or additional equipment stored outdoor. He stated Mr. Pfingsten will also have to address the issues of noise and lights. Chair Schaps stated this is an opportunity for the residents to make an agreement all can live with, not to lay down unreasonable demands. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5-0. In consideration of audience members, Chair Schaps asked that Item 5C be considered next. He declared a recess at 7:58 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 8:07 p.m. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARI NG, Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 1 st – 7 th Additions (formerly Behm’s Century Farm 6 th – 10 th Additions) South of Main Street and North of Carl Street – Section 7, Rezone, MUSA Allocation, Preliminary Plat Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps declared the public hearing reopened at 8:09 p.m. Staff presented the application by Century Farm North Development Inc. for a 250 unit Low and Medium Density Residential devel opment (Century Farm North) located upon a 95.1 acres site north of Thomas Street and east of Sunset Road. To accommodate the development proposal, the following approvals are necessary: 1. MUSA Reserve Allocation (85.3 acres) 2. Rezoning from Rural to R-1, Single Fam ily Residential and R-3, Medium Density Residential 3. A PUD to allow airplane hangers, privat e streets, and multiple buildings on a single lot 4. Preliminary Plat Staff advised that the initial plan subm issions were received on November 22, 2002. Subsequently, the City staff has done a re view and prepared a planning report dated December 11, 2002. In this report, staff outlin ed 26 conditions that required additional attention prior to the City taking form al action on the requested development applications. The Planning and Zoning Board heard this application at their December 11, 2002 meeting. The applicant, upon discu ssing the items with the Planning and Zoning Board, has responded with both a lette r and revised plans to address certain conditions and provide an explanation as to why they do not want to meet other conditions that were listed in the planning report. Staff noted that revised plans were submitted on December 16, 2002. Bob Kirmis prepared a letter of response dated December 18, 2002, outlining City staff’s position on the various conditions and the applicant’s response to those conditions. Following review, staff was asked to prepare a brief memo that outlines its position on four of the main topics that require further attention prior to having Behm’s Century Farm north proceed. These conditions may significantly influence the overall design of the plat and must be resolved prior to the plat proceeding onto preliminary plat approval and ultimately final plat approval. Staff noted that as identified in the December 11, 2002 planning report, the following conditions were asked to be evaluated in greater detail. Condition 10: The street, located approximately 150 feet north of Carl Street and the Century Trail intersection, be shifted southward to create a full four-way intersection. Applicant’s Response: This change has not been ma de. It is the opinion of the applicant that the “T” intersection will minimize traffic flow to Carl Street. This is, as they described it, a traffic calming effort to reduce traffic flows to both Carl Street and Century Trail. Staff Response: Staff does not agree with the app licant’s assessment of the street design for the following reasons: Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 16 APPROVED MINUTES 1. The street jog introduces an additional c onflict point for local traffic entering and exiting Century Trail. Stop signs for Ca rl Street, both east and west, is the preferred option to interrupt traffic and allow for safer traffic movements between these two streets. 2. Residents within Century Farms North wishing to proceed to an easterly destination will not be discouraged from us ing Carl Street due to the street jog. Rather, it just introduces another unsafe turning movement within a distance of 150 feet between two local streets. 3. It is important to look at the proposed pr eliminary plat within the context of the larger area. Recognizing that Carl Street provides an access point to the east, and Century Trail will provide for connections into adjoining undeveloped properties. In this respect, a safer four-way intersecti on at Carl Street a nd Century Trail is a preferred traffic design in that it reduces the number of conflict points along Century Trail. The two-way stop will provide an interruption of traffic on Carl Street, providing safer access to these str eet corridors. In this respect, staff believes that the four-way intersection with two stop signs offers a more effective traffic calming element than the street jog currently proposed. Condition 13. Lot 4, Block 4 be converted from an Airpark lot to a traditional single family lot. Condition 14. Lot 9, Block 4, an Airpark lot, be eliminated, combined with the adjacent traditional single-family lots to the north to allow the creation of a buffer yard. Applicant’s Response: Based on informal comment s received from the Planning and Zoning Board supporting the existing lot confi guration, they have not made any changes to this and respond to these conditions. Staff’s Response: Staff is still concerned regard ing the compatibility of the traditional and airport lots in this area of the project, specifically to the following areas: 1. The introduction of the hangars and airpor t traffic on Lots 4 and 9, Block 4, will introduce incompatible land use relationship with Lots 5, 6, and 7 in the same block. It does not appear, based on the s ite plan, that there is adequate space between the traditional lots and the airpor t lots to properly screen or buffer the introduction of airplane hangars, taxiways , and airplane traffic onto this area. Staff believes that this relationship is not a compatible land use relationship and should not be encouraged. 2. Review of the preliminary plat indicates that Lot 9 and portions of Lots 6 and 7 contain a stand of oak trees that have been identified by the Environmental Board to be saved. This significant oak stand will be disturbed with the construction of the cul-de-sac to serve Lot 9 as well as the house placement, hangar placement, and any driveway construction. Consis tent with the Environmental Board recommendation, staff agrees that this significant oak stand should be saved as Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 17 APPROVED MINUTES part of the overall subdivision design by expanding the lot areas of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and providing a protected buffer yard between the Airpark and these traditional single family lots. 3. Based on testimony provided to the Pla nning and Zoning Board, the Lino Airpark supports these additional Airpark lots. However, in past testimony by the applicant to both staff and Planning a nd Zoning Board, it is questionable as to how marketable this number of Airpark lo ts will be. Under these circumstances, staff believes that it is more importa nt to create a homogeneous neighborhood design within the same block and avoid compatibility issues between the Airpark lots and the traditional single family lots, with the bonus of protecting the significant oak stand. Condition 23. Grading, drainage, and utility rela ted modifications and comments are set forth in the City Engineer’s memo and must be incorporated into the plan. Applicant’s Response: The engineering report has not to date been produced. The applicant has, however, indicated that engineering related conditions will be satisfied. Staff’s Response: In addition to the comments rela ted to grading, drainage, and utilities, the engineering report should provide comment on the acceptability of the private streets within the townhome component (street widths, snow storage, etc.). It should be noted that the private streets, as illustrated on the plan, range from 16 to 18 feet in width. This design from staff perspective is unacceptable in relationship to the number of units that are proposed to use these private streets and the traffic movement that is required within these areas. Staff explained that a standard fire lane width requires 20 feet to allow for emergency vehicle access, however, this is barely wide enough to allow for cars to pass each other. Staff is concerned that in its present design the private street widths are not adequate. Staff’s recommendation would be a minimum width of 24 feet w ith perhaps a 26-foot width being recommended to insure that th ere is adequate room to accommodate two- way traffic, emergency vehicles, and adequate width after snow storage. This condition is critical to the overall design of the tow nhome area in that it will affect building placement, required setbacks, street width, and block configurations. As such, it must be addressed immediately to insure that a complete PUD review can be conducted. Staff concluded by indicating it feels strongl y that the aforementioned four conditions should be fulfilled as per staff recommendation, rather than compromised in the overall site design. Other conditions that were addressed in the December 11, 2002 planning report can be addressed and will be worked out with the developer. However, staff believes that the Planning and Zoning Board should give a strong recommendation that outlines their position on the aforementioned conditions. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 18 APPROVED MINUTES Gary Uhde, Century Farm North Development, Inc., stated they would like to zero in on those four items and Mr. Johnson can provide additional details on them. He stated they hope that once those items are discussed, a recommendation is made to move ahead for discussion at several City Council work sessions. He stated they are running out of time and are concerned about the timing. He noted that Marie Cote, SRF Engineering, is also present to address the traffic study, if desired. John Johnson, Director of Engineering for Metro Land Surveying and Engineering and representing the applicant, stated the changes incorporated since the last meeting are to realign a roadway, minor shifting of townhome units to put more of the private open space within the middle of the project, and they have submitted a screening plan to address the compatibility issue with the hangers. He noted the proposed board-on-board fence with screening to screen the single-family homes from the hanger area. He stated they feel this is a solution that would solve the compatibility issue. He stated there was discussion about density so two prospectives have been provided on that issue. He displayed a large colored density prospective for the Board’s review. Mr. Johnson stated phasing is an important pa rt of the growth management program. He explained that proposed Phase I would have 60 lots but did not provide for connection to Carl Street or townhomes. Phase II went from 60 units to 80 units, provided all four townhome styles, and the connection to Carl Street. He stated there is a much higher level of interest than anticipated a month ago. He stated several townhomes would be eliminated and five more Airpark homes would be added. Mr. Johnson stated they continue to coordinate with the Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated they started working with them in 1987 and submitted a delineation plan in 1998 but not yet received their response. On the driveway access, Mr. Johnson noted that they purposely designed the alley to be an alley to discourage people from making it a street and park along it. He stated they made it more narrow so parking would not occur. Now the plan has a distance of 60 feet minimum which will create offsets and minimize the straight row appearance. Now they can possibly widen the driveway to 20 feet without effecting the plat as it is drawn. However, then the shorter driveways would be 20 feet in length instead of 22 feet as currently provided. He noted that would also lower the amount of impervious surface. Mr. Johnson stated if a wider driveway is required, they would not want to consider 24 feet since it may encourage people to park in that area. Chair Schaps asked if people won’t park there anyway. Mr. Johnson stated he did not think so if it was more narrow in width. With regard to the Century Trail and Carl Street intersection, Mr. Johnson stated the proposed design was important to those who live on Carl Street. He stated there is some opportunity for traffic calming and he thought the Board wanted it as is being proposed. Mr. Johnson stated that units will not be sold until next year and they anticipate 40 units in 2004 and 40 units in 2005. He stated the phasing plan will be important in how it will Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 19 APPROVED MINUTES sequence since the first addition will not be sold out until the end of 2005. He stated they would prefer to do 80 units instead of 60 units. Mr. Johnson stated they would like a recommendation from the Board tonight so they can move forward to discuss the project with the City Council at several workshops. He stated he believes they have boiled many issues down to a remaining few. Mr. Rafferty asked about snow removal. Mr. Johnson stated the homeowner association will handle snow removal and there are places where snow can be stored in piles at the end of the driveways or by the power lines where there are a number of open areas to provide for snow storage. Chair Schaps noted the Police Chief and Fire Chief are nervous about an 18-foot street. He noted that it may be called an “alley” but it will be used as a street and he is not in favor of it as proposed. Mr. Johnson asked the Board to indicate the width that is preferred. Chair Schaps stated there are some 22-foot wi de private streets in townhome areas. Mr. Smyser stated he thinks that is correct and that it had a wider easement. He noted these are rear-loaded townhome units. Chair Schaps stated he would support a width of 22 feet. Mr. Johnson stated that would reduce the space along the walkway side of the building but will not change the plan dramatically. Chair Schaps asked about the easternmost intersection that staff recommends be combined into the intersection. Mr. Johnson stated that was the four-way intersection where Carl Street connects with Century Trail. He stated they do not want to make this a four-way intersection. Chair Schaps stated it appears there are still some open issues that need to be addressed. He invited residents to make comment. David Hunter, 263 Palomino, stated he represents the Airpark Association. He stated the issues that need to be addressed are that they do not want Carl Street to go through and can live with an emergency access. He stated they definitely prefer the proposed intersection style as being presented (“T” intersection) which will provide more traffic calming than a four-way stop. Mr. Hunter stated Lot 9 was discussed before and there was a question about compatibility. He noted that Lots 5, 6, and 7 have a back yard that faces some outbuildings. He stated the Airpark Associ ation believes nothing provides a better buffer than a house with an outbuilding in between non-Airpark lots. He noted the line that represents a 25-foot height limitation and explained the need to maintain a 7:1 slope within the safety zone. Any trees taller than 25 feet within that primary surface will be removed to maintain a safety zone. He explained that Mr. Uhde expressed interest to Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 20 APPROVED MINUTES keep some oak trees in that tree stand north of Lot 9 which would provide an additional buffer between Lots 6, 7, and 8 and the Airpark area. With regard to incompatibility between Airpark and non-Airpark lots, Mr. Hunter stated Mr. Uhde is willing to convert Lots 1, 2, and 3 into Airpark lots. Chair Schaps asked if the pond presents some problems. Mr. Hunter stated that it does so they will allow the pond to be shifted towards the south (towards their property) to allow level land. He noted that the pond does not impact their safety zone. Nikki Schneider, 152 Palomino, stated she serves on the Lino Lakes Environmental Board. She noted that if Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9 are made into Airpark lots, then it makes 18 more Airpark lots going in behind a neighborhood, which is extremely concerning to her as a resident in the area due to noise and air pollution. She advised that the Environmental Board feels strongly that the oak savanna needs to remain intact and that resource needs to be kept in mind as Lino Lakes continues to develop. She noted that several lots are right in the oak savannah and if those trees are removed then the neighborhood that backs up to it will have a view into the Airpark. Mr. Kirmis stated the conversion of Lots 1, 2, and 3 would solve some of the problems. He asked if a solution is to convert Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and eliminate Lot 9 which would eliminate the compatibility issue. Mr. Hunter stated that Lots 5-8 would still have open access to the runway area and a house and building would help restrict access. He stated they are just trying to create a buffer, restrict access, and keep “friendlies” ne xt to the runway. Mr. Hunter stated there is a lot of dense scrub brush along the south side of the Airpark but people gain access over the pipeline and from the west. He stated that he has seen kids on bicycles try to cut across the runway and he has gone out and explained to them that this is private property and it is an active runway. Mr. Hyden noted the residents are not at home all of the time so there is nothing to stop them from crossing all of the runways. Mr. Hunter stated he doesn’t usually catch the same kids twice. Chair Schaps asked if the area is posted with signs. Mr. Hunter stated there are some signs. Chair Schaps stated the taxiway may be the problem and asked if there is a way to hook the pond around and keep the trees. Mr. Hunter indicated there is not. Kyle Kruger, 345 Carl Street, stated they just purchased their house and while working on the plans and septic were told that nothing was happening on this property for the next ten years. Chair Schaps stated public hearings have been held on this project for a while now. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 21 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Kruger stated that he started asking ques tions of the neighbors and learned about it as well as Century Farms. He stated the seller and realtor did not tell him about this and it would have been nice to have been told this information. Eric Schneider, 250 Palomino, stated he lives on the west end of the runway and while there has been discussion about adding the Airpark hangers to buffer the noise, that may be for 15 to 20 feet but what about when the pl ane is taking off. He stated they fly right over his house. He noted that the beginning proposal was for something much smaller and asked if this is a money issue. He stated he has lived there for three years. Chair Schaps noted that the Airpark has been there longer than three years so Mr. Schneider knew this was an active airport when he purchased his home. Mr. Schneider stated they did know that but he is concerned about additional noise pollution. He stated that a bike path was proposed around the airport when his area was developed along with a safety fence but nothing has happened. Mr. Rafferty asked if his lot is part of the Ai rpark. Mr. Schneider stated it is not and his house is where the safety zone starts. Chair Schaps stated he is having a hard time being sympathetic since the Airpark existed when they purchased the house three years ago and it should have been known that there would be additional houses in the open area. He noted the issue is about two additional houses and asked Mr. Schneider if the noise is so bad that he is thinking about moving. Mr. Schneider stated he is not thinking about moving. Bonnie Bigler, 346 Carl Street, stated she does not keep a log but thinks there is less than one airplane takeoff and landing most days and there are days that none take off. She stated the only noise pollution would be the annual Airpark picnic event. She stated she does not think an additional lot or two will make a big difference and the residents will be “Airpark friendlies” who know the issues involved with an airport. Scott Moore, 149 Palomino Lane, stated he did not notice a neighborhood park for this development. He stated he just received notice the other day so most of his questions are addressed towards City staff. He stated the noise they are dealing with now is from planes taking off since they glide in. He asked if the planes would taxi down to the other end of the runway before takeoff. Mr. Hunter stated planes take off in both directions, depending on the wind. Eilene Couture, 6973 Lakeview Drive and representing St. Joe’s Social Justice Committee, stated they discussed some of the issues with affordable housing and would like to request that the Board recommend that the project include lower income houses in the connected townhomes in the first phase. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 22 APPROVED MINUTES Mark Blanton, 93 Palomino Lane, stated he lives across from Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. He stated he came tonight to learn more about what is going on and some things have troubled him. Chair Schaps asked how long he has lived in this area. Mr. Blanton stated he has lived there two and a half years, is a “toy fanatic,” and appreciates the large number of recreational vehicles in this neighborhood. He stated the hanger on Lot 4 will destroy his view and the neighbor behind him complains all the time about planes flying too low. He stated there are a lot of young kids in the neighborhood and that is a concern as well. Chair Schaps asked if he had believed there was no runway there when he bought the property. Mr. Blanton stated he knew it was there and has no objection to what is there now, but objects to future expansion. Mr. Blanton asked if Sunset will be widened to accommodate the additional traffic. He stated he is concerned about the trees that will be removed and replaced by pole barns. He stated he would like more time to work through some of these issues. He stated he cannot believe that alleys are being suggested and is also concerned about police and fire protection with this number of additional homes. Steve McDonald, 336 Carl Street, asked if the stub can be relocated to where the highline wires are and ignore Carl Street all together. He stated he sees no advantage to putting Carl Street through and asked if he will have to pay for a street improvement. Chair Schaps stated he does not know but if a street project is approved then benefiting properties are assessed a portion of the cost. Mr. McDonald stated if the traffic is increased then the street will need to be improved. He stated he has lived on a cul-de-sac for 12 years and putting Carl Street through would ruin his life. He asked them to move the connection to the stub that is under the power line wires where there is an easement. Mike Blazek, owner of Lot 10 on Carl Street, stated this is the first meeting he has been able to attend and he agrees with what Mr. McDonald said about not putting through Carl Street. He stated he planned to build on his beautiful cul-de-sac lot and believes that extending Carl Street would ruin his lot. He agreed with the suggestion that the street be aligned under the power lines. Mr. Blazek stated there is already a jog in the street and when he purchased the lot the selling point was that it was on a cul-de-sac. He stated he is also a licensed pilot. Mr. Blazek stated he thinks extending Carl Street is an extremely bad idea. Dave Ramsden, 302 Carl Street, stated he does not want to see Carl Street extended. He stated if there is an easement under the power lines that should be considered instead of wrecking a nice quiet neighborhood. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 23 APPROVED MINUTES Glenn Martig, 376 Carl Street, stated he also has an issue with Carl Street going through. He stated that since Phase 1 and 2 are not going in for several years, the decision on Carl Street can be delayed and then it will be known what will happen with the sod field property. He stated he was told it would remain a cul-de-sac. Mr. Martig stated that Lots 4 and 9 do make a good buffer, he thinks they make good neighbors, and do not make a lot of noise. He stated that he thinks Lots 1, 2, and 3 are also a good idea since it will provide a buffer. Mr. Martig stated the more people who are Airpark and pilot-aware it will educate the neighborhood. He stated that trespassing across a private lot is less likely to happen if a private home is built on Lot 9. Mr. Martig stated if Carl Street has to go through, he would support the “T” intersection rather than a four-way stop. He stated he thinks that provides a calming effect and he does not think Carl Street has to go through. Jeff Kolstad, 296 Carl Street, reviewed the hi story of their development and explained that a permanent cul-de-sac was placed in 1996 due to parameters in place at that time by the Council and watershed restrictions. He stated that he had to place his house in such a way due to the wetland delineation and since he would be the most effected with Carl Street being jogged and extended, it would imp act his property evaluation. He stated the developer and residents said they would come up with other alternatives to Carl Street going through. In addition, the sod farmer has said he wants to sell and developers are lined up to develop it. He stated this is about future planning and not ramming through a road. He rebutted the fact about the traffi c flows not working since there is a traffic study. He stated the sod fields will be developed in the future depending on the City’s forecast for developing. He stated that a decision needs to be made and all Carl Street residents who have attended have stated th ey object to Carl Street going through. He noted that there has also been a petition submitted against the extension. Mr. Kolstad stated he is all for safety and emergency vehicle access but based on the history of the cul-de-sac and house placement, he does not think Carl Street needs to be connected at this time, especially when the phases will not be constructed for several years. He noted that the directive of the Mayor and Council was to come up with other alternatives which they have done. He stated he hopes the Board hears the Carl Street residents. Mike Zurbey (sp?), 215 Palomino, stated most of the Airpark residents fly for fun and there are only a few days a week where the weather is right for flying. He stated he thinks riding lawnmowers make more noise and pollution than the airplanes from this park. He stated he would like this project to proceed. Mr. Rafferty asked where he lives. Mr. Zurbey stated he is on the southwest side and is not even a pilot but would like to see something move forward. Mr. Rafferty stated this is the first comment in support of the development. Mr. Zurbey stated he would like to see more of his neighbors become pilots and this is what he wants to learn more about. He stated this is an enjoyable community for him, he likes his neighbors and the environment, and enjoys watching planes take off. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 24 APPROVED MINUTES James Munster, 109 Palomino Lane, stated he was told that nothing would be built behind him but would be built along Sunset so he was under the impression that nothing would be built behind his house. He stated he was told that by realtors and City staff. Mr. Munster stated he remains concerned about the density with the townhomes and does not think it fits the area since most people who moved in there did so to get away from crowds, lights, noise, and traffic. He noted this was zoned for Low Density Residential and as of last summer the plans only showed Low Density. Mr. Blanton stated he purchased from Steve Kelly, a realtor, who had contact with Mr. Uhde. He stated when he purchased his house they said a development would go in behind him but not impact the trees. He stated the development was to go down Sunset so they felt their view would be safe. Mr. Blanton asked if the plans are “set in stone” or moving forward. Chair Schaps stated he is not comfortable moving tonight si nce staff does not have the engineering information for review from Mr. Uhde. Mr. Corson asked Mr. Hunter about the trees that are not in conformance with the airstrip safety zone. Mr. Hunter explained they keep the airport to the Minnesota regulations for airport safety in terms of safety zones. He stated he has not measured where the oaks are but does know where the 25 foot line is and that is not a very tall oak tree. He stated they spoke to Mr. Uhde, the landowner, and have permission to do what is needed to remain in conformance. Mr. Corson asked if a house can be constructed in that area and the trees remain if they are at the height requirement. Mr. Hunter stated if the trees are cut back to 7:1 now, in five years it will not be at conformance any more and the property owner at that time will probably not give permission. Since they ha ve permission from the property owner now, they will remove the trees that do not comply. Mr. Corson stated there may be a way to keep the more northerly stand of oak trees in place. Mr. Hyden asked if someone else could have bought the land, not cut down trees, and shut down the airport. Mr. Hunter explained that should that occur, they would have to change the configuration of the runway to maintain conformance. Mr. Rafferty stated the trees exist now and have not been trimmed. Mr. Hunter stated that is correct but they have trimmed trees on the Airpark property. He stated they have never researched these trees before. Mr. Rafferty stated he agrees the Airpark exists and that is what it is for but is questioning why the trees have to be looked at now since they haven’t been looked at up to this point. Mr. Hunter stated he is unprepared to say whether the trees are more or less than 25 feet. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 25 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Rafferty stated it becomes an issue if it is because the Airpark has expanded to the west. Mr. Lyden asked if they can land multi-engine planes. Mr. Hunter answered in the affirmative. Mr. Hunter stated the issue of the trees came up when City staff raised issues with Lots 4 and 9. Staff had stated that the trees are another reason to remove a couple of Airpark lots. He stated he would be thrilled to make them all Airpark lots and keep the oak stand as long as they can get a taxiway in there. Mr. Uhde stated the Environmental Board made them aware of the stand of oaks and had stressed the need to preserve it. He stated they looked at many solutions but the road has to be located where it is indicated due to wetland impacts. He stated they looked at a way to minimize the impact to the trees but in 1992-1993 they had agreed to work with the Airpark Association to protect their interests at all costs. He stated they continue to do that. Mr. Uhde stated when he and Mr. Johnson addressed the oak tree stand, it was known that the first 25 feet of oak trees would be removed to preserve the safety zone. He suggested putting Airpark lots along that area to minimize the impact of taking the trees down since they will be on Airpark lots and controlled by the Airpark Association. Mr. Uhde noted that if those two Airpark lots are eliminated and the lots extended out to the Airpark, 25 feet and maybe 50 feet of trees will still be lost to maintain the safety zone. He asked if that is the best way to control access to the Airpark. He stated they feel having Airpark lots provides better control than extending the lots and leaving the trees. Also, the trees would be governed by the Airpark Association. In addition, there is no guarantee that the homeowner will not cut them down anyway. Chair Schaps asked how a house can be built on those lots. Mr. Uhde stated they will do designated grading to minimize the negative impact to the trees. He assured the Board they will save every tree possible. Mr. Uhde stated they can add Lots 1, 2, and 3 to the Airpark but the Airpark By Laws will have to be changed so they can accept them, which they have indicated they will do. Chair Schaps asked about Outlot 5 which is identified as a large park area. Mr. Johnson explained that Outlot B is in the first phase and Outlot C is in the second phase. He stated there are eleven acres of upland in the dedicated park area. Mr. Uhde showed the Board the disclosure documents and stated they provided this information to every homeowner in Behm’s and he has those signed disclosure forms on file. He stated they have to sign that disclosure and it details that the Airpark is there. He stated that sales associates were calling him constantly and knew about the Airpark. He stated that if buyers were not told of that, they would probably have legal grounds against their realtor. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 26 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Rafferty asked about the pond to the south and if it will be connected. Mr. Johnson stated a pipe connects the southerly pond, across Palomino, and to the pond on the other side. He stated that is designed to accommodate a 100-year event. Mr. Rafferty stated he missed a few meetings and apologizes for that but has never been comfortable with an extension of Carl Street because it was an existing cul-de-sac. He stated he would be disappointed if that extension were to occur. Mr. Uhde stated they did due diligence for the Airpark Association to make their case and conducted a traffic study that showed Carl Street does not have to be connected. However, City staff has indicated Carl Str eet does need to be extended and have letters from the Police and Fire Departments. Mr. Rafferty stated he would also hope that something can be done with the sod farm property. Mr. Lyden stated Carl Street is not a str eet, this is a neighborhood and the City does not have the right to destroy a current neighborhood to build a new one. He stated he may have made a mistake at the last meeting when he asked for specific Fire and Police Department letters but what is contained in the letters is not the kind of information he was requesting. He requested staff provide response times through different areas of the City, the average response time in the City, and the response time with Carl Street as it is presently and if it was connected. He stated he would also like data on reasonable prudent response times. He stated that he is committed to not extend Carl Street but if it has to be done, that it be for emergency vehicle access only. Mr. Lyden stated the density is an issue for him because it can result in people problems and quality of life impacts. Mr. Smyser stated staff is asking for the Bo ard’s direction on four issues which needs to occur for the application to move ahead. With regard to a 22-foot lane behind the townhomes, staff is comfortable with that. Chair Schaps asked each member to indicate their opinion on the four outstanding issues. Mr. Lyden stated that if changing the width from 22 to 26 feet would alleviate the density issues and redraw the plat with more open space, he supports a 26-foot road. He stated he likes the intersection as it is proposed and to convert Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 into Airpark lots. Mr. Corson stated he would like to see the driveway expanded to 22 feet but thinks people will park along there anyway. He stated he thinks the Carl Street intersection with Century Lane is a good traffic calming techni que, and supports converting Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 into Airpark lots. He asked the applicant to work out a way to keep as many trees as possible. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 27 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Rafferty stated he is comfortable with a 22-foot driveway and the “T” intersection is acceptable but he does not care for an extension of Carl Street whatsoever. He stated that access for emergency vehicles only may be agreeable and converting Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 into Airpark is common sense since it will give the ability to control some of the tree loss. He noted that it does not matter who owns the property, the trees could be removed. Mr. Hyden stated he agrees with expansion to 22-foot driveways and to leave Carl Street as it is. He stated the Fire Department and Police Departments stress safety and he could support an emergency breakaway so the neighborhood can remain as it is. He stated he supports converting Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 into Airpark lots to provide a better buffer. Chair Schaps stated he agrees with the 22-f oot driveways. He noted that action cannot be taken until the engineering plans are submitted and reviewed by City staff. He stated he supports converting Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 into Airpark lots which may save more trees than otherwise. With regard to Carl Street, Chair Schaps stated he is leaning towards extension but thinks that Mr. Lyden raises a good point to request additional data regarding response times and to explore the option of an emergency break off which may solve the issue, at least until there is further development to the north. He stated the issue for him is emergency service and the Police Ch ief and Fire Chief have indicated it would improve their response time. However, the cul-de-sac could remain if the new data shows positive response times or that break off is an option. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the February 12, 2003 meeting and table consideration of the MUSA Reserve Allocation (85.3 acres), the Rezoning from Rural to R-1, Single Family Residential and R-3, Medium Density Residential, a PUD to allow airplane hangers, private streets, and multiple buildings on a single lot, and the preliminary plat for Century Farm North Development Inc. for a 250 unit low and medium density residential development (Century Farm North) located upon a 95.1 acres site north of Thomas Street and east of Sunset Road, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Mr. Lyden asked about the location of a driveway and unit. Mr. Smyser stated there are a number of issues that staff will resolve with the applicant and that is one which will need to be addressed. Chair Schaps thanked Eilene Couture, the representative from the St. Joe’s Social Justice Committee, and stated that all need to keep in mind the need for life-cycle housing. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Smyser noted they will have to re-examine how fire trucks gain access to these hangers since there will be no paved taxi lane. Mr. Johnson stated he spoke with the Fire Chief today who indicated that the State Building Code is in the process of being revised. If approved, the hangers would need to have automatic sprinkler systems which would change the impact for Fire Department Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 28 APPROVED MINUTES access. He stated it will be 30 days until the State adopts that code and then it will take the City a while to consider adoption. E. Jim Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, Keefe Minor Subdivision Jim Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, stated he appreciates the opportunity to present his case. He noted that all of the P&Z members have viewed his property. He explained that he is attempting to split out two five-acre parcels and would end up with 37.5 acres of land with three homes on the property. He stated that would not meet the requirements of the ordinance to a “T” but would meet the spirit of the ordinance. He stated this is a fairly unique piece of property and there is not a whole lot left he can do with it. He stated his access to sewer and water is cut off so he is trying to do what he can with what he has left. Chair Schaps asked if, in general, Mr. Keefe’s request is allowable. Mr. Smyser stated there is a minimum ten acre lot size in unsewered areas and this area is guided for Residential, Sewered in Stage 2 (after 2010). He explained that the problem with making large lot developments in this area is that it will prevent utilities from coming through in the future. Then property owners who want the improvements will not be able to afford the assessments to serve them. That creates gaps where you cannot extend City sewer and water. He stated this is an instance where a proposal goes completely against the Comprehensive Plan and would require many variances of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated it is not a matter of whether staff want s or does not want this to be approved, but a matter that the City made some decisions on what was to happen in areas at certain times. There are guidelines that if development is to occur, there are ways to do that. He stated there is a long public policy determination process that takes years to complete and then things come up so the issue is what credibility the City’s policy have if the rules are made and then ignored. Chair Schaps stated he understands those concerns and that with every set of rules there may have to be an exception. He reviewed the surrounding property uses to the Keefe property, noting that to the north is Clearwater Creek so there will be no service from that area; to the east there is only wetland that will not be developed and if service came from that direction the cost would be unapproachable; to the south the property is developed with wells and septics; and to the west it is wetland. He stated he understands what the Comprehensive Plan says but thinks this is a situation that may not have been addressed and if there is any reasonable use of this property it may have to be through well and septic development. Mr. Smyser stated he has no way of knowing how sewer and water could come to this property since no feasibility studies have been done. He noted that the submittal by Mr. Keefe show just a few of the one acre lots to the south that are served by well and septic, and they have been in place for a very long time. He commented on the Twilight Acres area where septics started to fail and there were no other locations on those one acre lots to locate another septic. He stated that eliminating land from being available for City sewer and water eliminates it for other land as well due to the cost to extend improvements. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 29 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Smyser stated it may be correct that this is an area that merits closer attention and that is a possibility. He stated that staff would fully support re-examining areas more closely but staff does not support just throwing out the adopted rules and granting approval. Chair Schaps stated he does not support throwing out adopted rules either but thinks this may be one area that needs to be readdressed. He noted this property is high ground so he thinks it could be served by a well and septic for a very long time. Mr. Smyser stated another option is clustering and open space guarantees which is allowed under the current ordinance. He stated that to approve this request would result in abandoning the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances and he could not support that. Mr. Keefe stated there is no way sewer and water can come to his property in any way except, perhaps, from the south. He noted that there are small lots to the south but then there are acres of open land. Chair Schaps stated that he understands the concerns raised by Mr. Smyser and the need for Mr. Keefe to have this considered in a timely manner. He stated that he thinks consideration can be crafted in such a way to assure the Comprehensive Plan is not abandoned. Mr. Lyden stated you need to let go of the whole idea of running sewer and water up here and comparing this to Twilight Acres is not a fair comparison. He emphasized that this is a unique property, an island intersected by a road and bordered by wetland to the east and west. He stated he thinks there is a way to make this consideration through a PDO or some other way and that may mean “burning the midnight oil” a little longer and being helpful to this applicant. He noted that this property could be split into four lots with four houses and the City is always considering PDOs for developers that gives them more homes. He stated he would support a PDO consideration with the assurance that the additional space is available for an additional septic system, if needed. Mr. Smyser stated that if a subdivision and PDO are being considered the City will need a survey and documentation on how this will function. However, what Mr. Keefe has proposed is not feasible. Mr. Smyser stated the timing of this consideration all depends on how fast Mr. Keefe gets information to staff. Chair Schaps asked if this can happen by the February meeting. Mr. Smyser stated it can happen if the information is submitted. He noted that Mr. Keefe is not a land designer so staff will have to work with whoever is working for Mr. Keefe. Mr. Smyser stated staff will need a document that can be legally recordable. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Smyser to clarify what Mr. Keefe will need to submit so it can be considered. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 30 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Smyser reviewed changes that can be made to the layout and stated that an agreement will need to be drafted that can be recorded. Mr. Smyser stated lots cannot be created without road frontage. He also not ed that in Lino Lakes lots have not been created on a dirt road for a long time. He asked if the road would be built. Mr. Lyden stated it has been a gravel road for 60 years and suggested that Mr. Keefe work with Ms. Gretz. Mr. Rafferty stated that he refuses to beat up on staff and thinks they have done a good job. He suggested this be worked out within two weeks so it can be considered by the City Council. He stated there have been suggestions that calls are not returned and there is not enough help available. He stated there is a lot of opportunity to create several parcels and work with Mr. Keefe. Mr. Smyser stated he feels he is under attack and wants to set the record straight. He stated that this kind of abuse is uncalled for. Chair Schaps stated that the February meeting would allow a reasonable amount of time to get this worked out. He asked all to agree tonight that this will happen and work together. He urged Mr. Keefe to have his surveyor contact City staff to learn exactly what is necessary to get this application put together. He stated he is sympathetic to Mr. Keefe’s problem and thinks it is not asking too much to work with him and consider his request. Mr. Keefe stated he is not sure what else he can do to move the property lines around. Chair Schaps stated that maybe Mr. Keefe’s surveyor or engineer will have that answer and can work it out with staff. Mr. Grochala stated Mr. Keefe has indicated to the City Council at a workshop that he needs a purchase agreement signed by February 13 and the Planning and Zoning Board meets on February 12 so there is no way for this application to come back to the Planning and Zoning Board and then the City Council by that date. Chair Schaps stated it could be considered at the special meeting. Members indicated a willingness to consider it at the special meeting that has been scheduled for January 22, 2003. Mr. Corson asked if the bank would consider allowing several additional days if this is being considered. Mr. Keefe stated that may be possible. Chair Schaps encouraged Mr. Keefe to work closely with staff and urged all to keep the lines of communication open and friendly. He stated this can be done even though all are busy. B. PUBLIC HEARING, Growth Management Ordinance Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 31 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 10:30 p.m. Staff explained that the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2002 includes important policies relating to the management of growth in the City. Now that the Comprehensive Plan is in place, the City must adopt the means of implementing it. The Growth Management Ordinance establishes the means by which the City will regulate the amount of growth. It will work with the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance, which generally regulate the type of growth. There is some overlap, however. Staff stated the fundamental growth management elements of the Comprehensive Plan are: a)The target for annual growth of 147 new homes per year. b)The future land use map that lays out locational and timing limits on new growth: Stage 1 (pre-2010) and Stage 2 (2010-2020). c)A specified number of MUSA reserve acres for accommodating new growth in each of the staged growth areas. These three elements form the foundation of the Growth Management Ordinance. Staff advised that Section 1 of the ordina nce lists findings. The findings accomplish a number of things. They connect the ordinance to the Comprehensive Plan, and they list facts and justifications that form the basis of the regulations created by the ordinance. Section 2 is the regulatory part of the ordinance. Each paragraph relates to one or more of the fundamental growth management elements listed above. Staff explained that it is important to read Section 2 of the ordinance in order, as each paragraph builds on previous paragraphs. Staff reviewed each of the findings as contained in draft Ordinance No. 01-03 as we ll as the provisions contained in the Growth Management Policy. Staff addressed the approved Phasing Pl an/Final Platting Schedule, noting that Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 refer to phasi ng plans and an inventory of approved phasing plans, which requires some explanation. The City needs a way to keep track of the number of housing units that are approved and the schedule for when they will be built. The best way to do this is to track and regulate the approval of platted lots or housing units. (A single family detached lot will accommodate one housing unit. However, multi-family residential structures can be built on one lot. Therefore, it is the number of units that counts.) Staff explained that lots cannot be built on until the final plat is approved. Once the final plat is approved, we can assume that the lots will be built on relatively soon. The ordinance states (paragraph 9) that all plats over 50 units must include a phasing plan. (The new Subdivision Ordinance also require s a phasing plan. This is one of the overlapping points of the Growth Manageme nt Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance.) The phasing plan will be negotiated during the project review process. Ultimately, when the City Council approves a preliminary plat, the phasing plan will be part of the Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 32 APPROVED MINUTES conditions of approval and included in the development agreement. The phasing plan lists which lots/units will be final platted in each year following preliminary plat approval. Staff noted that Exhibit 1 provides a progr essive explanation of the inventory of approved phasing plans, or final platting schedule. The schedule includes a column for each year and a row for each development project. The approval of Stoneybrook in 2002 included a phasing plan that allows 51 lots to be final platted in 2002 and the remaining 52 in 2003. (Lots can carry over to the next year to some extent.) Staff presented the exhibits as follows: Exhibit 1, pages two and three show additional (imaginary) projects and their phasing plans. According to the schedule, Caroline’s Estates could final plat 47 lots in 2003, 49 lots in 2004, 49 in 2005, and the last 23 in 2006. Page four shows the lots platted in 2002 (prior to the growth management policy being in place) and the total for the projects, assuming additional projects will make up the 147 each year. Page five illustrates several things. It shows that we have an existing inventory at the end of 2002 (about 208 lots) that is not governed by the new policy. It also shows that by year end 2005, the existing inventory of lots will be used up and the annual target of 147 new housing units will be achieved. That is, since the left over inventory is used up, only the lots that are final platted according to the phasing plan schedule will be available. As long as the City follows the policy, 147 new lots will come on line annually, and that is all that can be built on. Mr. Corson asked about the timing of approvals. Mr. Smyser stated staff will look at the existing infrastructure, MUSA, etc. together with the premature development criteria. Staff noted there is some flexibility built into the policy, as explained in paragraphs four and five of the ordinance. Staff advised that the moratorium on residential development expires in February. Because of this, is important for the P & Z to make a recommendation to the City Council at tonight’s meeting. The ordinance is scheduled for a first reading by the City Council on Monday, January 13. Staff recommended the adoption of the Growth Management Ordinance. Chair Schaps asked if anyone in the audience would like to make comment. Eileen Couture, 6973 Lakeview Drive, stated she has lived in Lino Lakes for 20 years and seen the rapid expansion. Because of that, she stated she thinks an annual review is an important thing to assure things remain in check. She asked how individual lot splits would be addressed. Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 33 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Smyser stated it does not have to be just big projects and those individual lot splits also have to be figured into the 147 number. He stated that, perhaps, a line should be added into the matrix for individual lot splits or subdivisions without phasing plans since they are new homes. Or, they could be exempted from the 147 since there are so few of them. Mr. Lyden noted the City Attorney will be looking at this policy closely because some year it could get to the 21% over and a homeowner may make a request to split their lot. He asked what basis would be used to tell them “no.” Mr. Smyser stated the City decided to limit growth and picked a number (147). He stated there will probably be instances where a project would force the number over the limit but a fair policy would have to apply to everyone. Mr. Lyden stated he would assume that the City’s legal counsel will do the research necessary to assure the language can stand up in court if tested. Mr. Smyser stated he had discussed the ordinance at length with the City Attorney, who believes the ordinance is reasonable. Lino Lakes is attempting to do something that is unlike what has been done before in other cities. Mr. Lyden asked if there is any court case history. Mr. Smyser stated there is not in this particular way. He explained how other cities limit growth and how Lino Lakes is unique in its method. Mr. Lyden asked if there is a better way to address growth management and achieve the City’s goals by using the 2010 growth zone through 2020. Mr. Smyser stated that is a possibility if the City wants to redo the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lyden stated the City is already beyond the population growth projections for 2010 so maybe readdressing the Comprehensive Plan is a good idea if it sets realistic goals. Mr. Smyser drew a graph to explain how the number of lots will probably fluctuate. He stated one option was to ratchet down to the 2010 plan but that was not an option accepted by the City Council. Mr. Lyden stated that after 2010 and 2020 the facts will show that the City had high growth, not the moderate growth the residents wanted, and the fact that there was not the backbone to take another course will be obvious to everyone. Mr. Smyser stated that possibility was considered but staff was directed to not go that route. He explained that for the past few years, exceeding the target of 147 per year is almost completely accounted for due to the delay in getting something approved. Chair Schaps asked how many permits were issued last year. Mr. Smyser estimated somewhere between 215 and 220. Mr. Joyer, realtor, stated he read that Woodbury is trying to control their growth to 600 homes a year which is interesting considering the target for Lino Lakes. He stated it Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 34 APPROVED MINUTES looks like the first three largest projects submitted will wrap things up for the next three and a half years. He suggested that is a limited amount of activity in the City and will complicate things for smaller projects. However, he agreed that a policy needs to be fair to everyone. He stated he thinks that staying with 147 will result in drastic impacts to property owners which may push land values down. He stated these policies will result in a self-imposed moratorium as soon as that third plat is submitted. He stated he also finds it interesting that the City Council and City Planner know the new policy precludes any large project to the point that The Village is excluded and that is unfortunate because something exciting may be possible up there. He stated he thinks this ordinance will pass quietly as it is a late hour and it will not be until land owners discover this restriction that it will be more controversial than represented by the crowd tonight. Mr. Corson asked how one developer will be kept from absorbing the entire 147. Mr. Smyser stated that will not be allowed but it is true that only a few developments will be going on. Those who do not get to do what they want will think it is a bad thing but others will think it is a good thing. He stated that policy decisions are needed to place the severe restrictions on growth that the Comprehensive Plan sets. He agreed with Mr. Joyer that many landowners likely will be unhappy that they cannot sell to a developer because the project would be over the limit. Ms. Couture stated there was discussion at the Minnesota Housing Convention that limiting growth will always increase the price. She stated she does not necessarily agree with this ordinance but it can be given a try for a year and if it does not work then it may show others that there is a need to review the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 11:22 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-1 (Lyden). Mr. Lyden stated he thinks a matter such as this deserves more than one public hearing to get public input. Chair Schaps stated he understands that concern but it was also advertised in the official newspaper. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Growth Management Ordinance, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Mr. Lyden stated he does not believe this will achieve the original goals because the numbers do not add up. He stated he has tenuous feelings about the legalities and whether this is the best thinking and way to go. He stated he thinks the City is “sticking its neck out.” Mr. Rafferty stated he thinks staff has done th eir best to address all the needs and wants that have been expressed and he thinks there has been some give and take. He stated he appreciates staff’s efforts and in particular those of Mr. Smyser. Motion carried 4-1 (Lyden). Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 35 APPROVED MINUTES C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARI NG, Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 1 st – 7 th Additions (formerly Behm’s Century Farm 6 th – 10 th Additions) South of Main Street and North of Carl Street – Section 7, Rezone, MUSA Allocation, Preliminary Plat This item was considered earlier in the meeting. D. PUBLIC HEARING, ATS&R, Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch Street, Site Plan Review & Conditional Use Permit This item was considered earlier in the meeting. E. Jim Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, Keefe Minor Subdivision This item was considered earlier in the meeting. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 2002 Year End Summary Mr. Smyser noted the Planning and Zoning Board action summary and final action summary by land use type for 2002. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Smyser to thank Dawn Bugge for this informative summary. VII.ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:27 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .