Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/2001 P&Z Minutes• • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Pla " ing . oning Board meeting to order at 6:33 p.m., September 11, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES u2 '' t 8.2001 Ms. Lane made a MOTI pro y e minutes of the August 8, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning � • g Board, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. III. APPROVAL ., AG The agenda was .pro ed as presented. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:36 p.m. There were no comments made. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:36 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 2 VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Steve Poser, 6180 Ware Road, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the prohibition of accessory buildings in excess of 1,120 square feet on a lot of less than one and one - quarter acres in.order to construct a 1080 square foot detached garage on the northern part of his property. A second variance from the prohibition of building a second detached accessory building in excess of the allowed one attached garage and one detached accessory building would also be required, as there was a 160 square foot shed already in existence on the property. This shed was sited closer to Ware Road than the house, and so it was currently in violation of City Ordinance Section 3, Subd. 4.D.1.c, which prohibits detached accessory structures from being placed closer to the front lot line than the principal building. Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining Mr. Poser wa ed to b d a 1080 square foot detached garage on the northern part of his property, with ac s 62nd reet, for storage of recreational vehicles and trailers. The current garage was at , ch to "� ; ruse, which existed on the western part of the property with access via Ware Ro R •> e w . 10' X 16' shed located to the north of the house on the northwest portion • ` he p 'e %. Staff noted that this shed was currently in non - compliance with City Code ctio . 3, Su s . 4.D.1.c, as it was placed closer to the front lot line than the house, and the City w • :° . ect that the shed be moved to a location which met City Code. Staff stated the s ." r tem was located to the south of the house. Staff indicated the lot was wooded, wit o app 3= nt wetlands. Staff explained the property was locate and 62na Street and zoned Rural. Staf north of the property and zoned R subdivision was located to the n property to the west, south Staff indicated Mr. Poser : ?f'; ort north, east and south. corner of the intersection of Ware Road s South Glen subdivision was located to the le Family Executive. Staff indicated Fox Trace and oned Residential Single Family. Staff stated the e similar in size and zone to that of the subject property. his variance from his three immediate neighbors to the Staff explained the pro about 1.2 acres, or just u building of the size and n 348 X 150 feet, or 52,200 square feet. This put the acreage at der the 1.25 -acre lot size required for the construction of an accessory mber desired by Mr. Poser. Staff explained City Code allowed either one attached garage and one detached structure, or two detached structures, on a lot of less than 1.25 acres, but allowed one attached garage and two detached accessory buildings on a lot in excess of 1.25 acres. Staff stated Mr. Poser already had a detached structure in the 10' X 16' shed located in his front yard (non - conforming). Thus, adding a second accessory building would also require a variance for a lot with his square footage. Staff stated the existing accessory square footage was 820 square feet: a 660 square foot attached garage and a 160 square foot detached shed. Addition of the proposed detached garage would result in 1,900 square feet of total accessory building footage, 780 square feet over what was allowed under City ordinance. Staff indicated if the current non - conforming shed were eliminated from the total accessory square footage, the proposed garage would still be 620 square feet over what was allowed under City ordinance. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 3 Staff indicated construction of the proposed garage in the area desired by Mr. Poser would require a separate, second driveway with access via 62nd street. Staff stated City Code did not preclude construction of such a second driveway. There were, however, easement issues. Staff stated there was an eighty -five foot United Power Association easement along the southern side of 62nd Street. The proposed garage did not impact this easement, but the driveway would cross the easement. Similarly, construction of the proposed garage does not appear to impact the current road right -of -way, however the driveway would be affected by any future improvements to 62nd Street. Staff explained Mr. Poser stated that he wanted to locate the garage on the northern part of the property with access via 62nd street for two reasons: 1) the septic system was located on the southern part of the property and precludes there, and 2) there was less traffic on 62nd Street. Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning '. inanc hat the City shall make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequen Staff recommended denying the variance for the reasons out nom.: the `a..f's report. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Steve Poser, 6180 Ware Road, stated he was .05 wanted to do, which was the equivalent of 5 fe violation on the present shed he had on his a- op not informed at that time he would be i ort from being allowed to do what he he was not sure why there was a tated he had obtained a permit and was Chair Schaps asked if he had give - ho 4 +, to eliminating one of the structures. Mr. Poser replied he could do that, but at t e = e di ' not know when he applied that he was in violation. Chair Schaps indicated the Or short. Mr. Corson agr support this variance. c es were there for a purpose, even if he was only .05 acres d they did need to draw the line somewhere, and he could not Mr. Zych stated Mr. Pos:'"' was only .05 acres short from being able to put as many buildings as he wanted to on the property. He stated the neighbors had indicated it was okay with them, so he did not see why they did not grant the request. Mr. Corson replied that the line needed to be drawn somewhere and the rules were there for a purpose. He expressed concern about setting precedence if this was granted. Mr. Corson stated Mr. Poser did not have a unique hardship and therefore, did not qualify for this variance. Mr. Smyser stated the issue was that he already had an accessory building. Mr. Poser stated he wanted to put the garage up to store additional trailers in. He stated the shed could not be seen from any of his neighbors' yards. Chair Schaps indicated the Ordinance allowed Mr. Poser to have a structure, but not the number he wanted or the size he wanted. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 4 Ms. Lane asked if the shed were removed, what size structure would Mr. Poser be allowed to have. Ms. Gretz replied he could build a 460 square foot building. Mr. Hyden asked about the driveway access off of 62nd. He asked if this would be a problem. Mr. Powell replied the driveway construction would go over an easement and they would need to receive permission to go over the easement, but this was not unusual and this was done all of the time. Mr. Corson asked if there was any problem with having two driveways. Mr. Powell replied the Ordinances did not prohibit it, but he strongly advised against it. Ms. Lane stated she was in agreement with Mr. Zych for allowing this variance, but only if the smaller shed would be removed. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to allow the variance on the conditio a accessory building of 160 feet be removed, and the driveway be moved fee rt . st, and was supported by Mr. Zych. After further discussion, Ms. Lane withdrew her moti Ms. Lane made a MOTION to deny the varianc maximum number allowed, and was supported Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve placed in compliance 20 feet east and that Mr. Poser was extremely clo adjoining landowners, and was Mr. Corson stated staff mi r. Zyrtfi withdrew his second. an accessory building in excess of h. Motion carried 5 -0. , contingent with the driveway being essory building be removed, for the reason e Ordinance, and he had the permission of the d by `1 r. Zych. to ange this Ordinance. Chair Schaps clarified " at y were allowing was one accessory building and the shed would need to be remo Motion carried (4 -1 Corson). B. Rick Piper, 6153 Oakwood Drive, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the required 5 -foot side yard setback for accessory buildings in order to construct a 465 square foot addition on to his existing 624 square foot attached garage. The proposed addition would be used primarily to house a third car, and secondarily for storage. In addition, applicant argued that several homes in the neighborhood had three -stall garages, and that such an addition would add value and marketability to the subject property. Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining applicant wanted to build a 31' X 15' addition onto his existing attached garage. The current garage was located in the northeast corner of the lot, 15 feet from the northern property line. Staff stated a water well was located in Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 5 the front yard, with the septic drainfield in the rear yard approximately 40 feet from the house. There was a ten -foot drainage easement along the western property line. Staff stated the subject property was zoned Rural, with lot coverage of 44,280 square feet. Under City Code, the property was allowed 1,120 square feet for accessory buildings. The existing attached garage measures 26' X 24', or 624 square feet. The addition of the proposed 15' X 31' garage would bring total accessory square footage to 1,089. Staff explained construction of the proposed would result in a side yard setback of zero. The affected neighboring property had street access on the Oakwood Drive cul -de -sac and was heavily wooded along the southern property line. It was currently vacant, with the owner residing in California. Staff stated further implications to a zero side yard setback include Cit 5.F.2, which required curb cut openings and driveways be a minimu yard property lines. Additionally, Minnesota Building Code req • d firewall with no openings on buildings constructed less than 3 ection 3, Subd. et from the side on of a one -hour hboring property. Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in t e om.., + "nance that the City shall make in considering all requests for variance in takin < , 'se. ent a ion. Staff recommended denying the variance. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make co 1A Rick Piper, 6153 Oakwood Drive, sta experience that improvements m enhanced the neighborhood. He looking to put an additional intention was to reduce va of the street and driveway. He intended to take one o be willing to take down resides in Minnesota. ensed real estate agent and it was his y not only enhanced the property, but also w . not contemplating selling the home and they were ge. It would not be for additional storage. His to t ''` cars in his driveway, as well as getting the vehicles off ted he had a problem with oak wilt on his property and he trees down when adding the garage. He stated he would also ased trees on the neighboring lot where the owner no longer Chair Schaps asked if the neighbor who lives in California knew about this proposal and if he was in agreement. Mr. Piper replied he had not been able to get a hold of the landowner, but in the past, the landowner did not have a problem with Mr. Piper putting a garden on his property. Chair Schaps asked if having a zero lot line would affect the value of the lot. Mr. Piper stated it was his experience that zero lot lines did not devalue any property. Mr. Corson indicated he agreed with Chair Schaps, because the future property owner would not be able to do what he wanted to do with the property. Mr. Piper replied that where he was proposing to place the garage, the neighbor would not place his structure because of the layout of the lot. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Zych stated he was not comfortable with Mr. Piper's analysis of where a landowner on the other lot would or would not build their home. He stated they did not have an elevation map in which to make those conclusions. Mr. Piper indicated where the natural entrance to the cul -de- sac would be located. Mr. Zych asked if he could bring the garage forward. Mr. Piper relied he would run into the setback from the street and aesthetically it would not look appropriate. Chair Schaps asked if he could go deeper with the garage. Mr. Piper replied he could, but it would be a detached garage. Mr. Hyden asked how this would increase the value of both properties. He stated Mr. Piper's property value would increase, but the future home on the other lot he believed would be decreased. Mr. Piper asked if he could get the variance if he went to 10 feet stated he needed a five -foot setback and if he went 10 feet, the Mr. Smyser d for a variance. Mr. Rafferty stated the variance was clear and he did not se ow ould approve this, lo especially when it would affect any future home on t Mr. Corson made a MOTION to deny the vari Accessory Building with denial of variance bei neighboring landowner's permission not b Motion carried 5 -0. w a zero side yard setback for an the staff's report, as well as the d was supported by Ms. Lane. C. PUBLIC HEARING - Interim Use Permit, Site Plan Chair Schaps opened the Staff presented the ap existing conditional us site plan review. Staff conditions that were ado , Amended Conditional Use Permit, Amended xplaining applicant had applied for amendments to the CUP), amendments to the existing interim use permit, and for a lained the requested amendments would change several of the ed with previous approvals. The site plan review application was for a new manufacturing building on the site. Staff stated the new building in and of itself required an amendment to the conditional use permit because it differed from what was previously approved. Staff indicated the earliest action in the City's address file was a rezoning in December 1968 and special use permit issued to Molin in January 1969 to construct a concrete plant. The Sherwood Green residential plat was approved in 1978. Amendments to the Molin special use permit were approved for expansions in 1978, 1981, and 1983. In 1984 neighborhood complaints resulted in a task force to study concerns regarding noise, blowing sand, and visual impact. Staff stated a storage building was approved in 1991, and another building addition approved in 1993. All the expansions included approvals of amendments to the special/conditional use permit. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 7 Staff explained on October 27, 1997 the City took several actions relevant to the site. These included: 1. Approval of a CUP to allow expansion of the concrete plant. This referred to additional structures on the southern portion of the site. 2. Amending the zoning ordinance to include outdoor storage as an interim use in the LI zoning district 3. Approval of an interim use permit to allow outdoor storage on Molin's northern 20 acres. 4. Vacating the portion of 77th Street that separated the two areas. Another building addition was approved in 1999. Staff stated the City had received complaints from residents near the Molin site, especially from the Sherwood Green area to the north. The primary concern has been both noise from back -up beepers on equipment and the noise of the complaints had included concerns about landscaping and dust. T issues at several work sessions in 2001. his had included tself. Other 1 discussed these Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining app ant t ° ncluded approximately 55 acres. The entire site was guided for industrial use the ew c•' prehensive plan. The north 20 acres of the site was zoned LI, the southern 35 a ;•s zoned GI. Staff explained the proposed new structure was The building was approximately 600 feet 1 walls 36' high for the majority of the b four feet wide at the 25' height. Near then decrease to 11'. for extruded precast manufacturing. de. It would have precast concrete ould be a smooth band with windows the building itself will increase to 45' high, Staff stated at the south end w o be two cement silos rising to approximately 85' in height. Near the silos are .�rade aterial bins for aggregate and sand. Staff indicated the bui , oulf "cover approximately 38,000 sf. The silos and material bins would use additional ar With respect to height, st f stated the proposed new production facility included two cement silos rising to approximately 85' in height. The height maximum in the GI zone was 45'. With respect to lighting, staff explained when an earlier building was constructed, the exterior lighting caused some concerns among nearby residents. It was unlikely that the exterior lighting would exceed the City's Ordinance restrictions. However, it had been the City's practice to require photometric plans for new commercial/industrial buildings. Staff stated the City allowed a maximum of 0.4 foot candles at the residential property lines and 1.0 foot candles at the centerline of a street. No photometric plans were submitted. With respect to landscaping, no landscaping around the new building is planned. The section of this report on the conditional use permit discusses landscaping for the larger site. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 8 Regarding greenspace, staff stated a maximum of 90% of the site could be impervious surface in the General Industrial and Light Industrial zones. The proposal would not exceed this. With respect to traffic, staff explained the proposed new building would not interfere with or impact traffic on surrounding roads. Internal circulation was governed by the manufacturing process and storage needs. Truck parking on the roads was governed by the CUP. Regarding parking, staff stated there was no parking requirement listed in the ordinance for heavy manufacturing. An analysis in 1997 of previous action on the site included a parking needs calculation using as a basis the parking requirement for a light manufacturing facility. The standard for a light manufacturing facility was one parking space for each employee or one space for each 2000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever was greater. Staff explained the total square footage was 110,200 sf for existing and time, future anticipated buildings. The analysis resulted in a requirement of 55 • street . ' king spaces. A "future" manufacturing building of 35,000 sf on the old plan wa le to this new building, which was about 38,000 sf. The office building that as . 'lt i 11 sf rather than the 4800 sf anticipated in 1997. There are 76 existing par Staff stated if off -street parking caused a problem in t uturei, the 1' ty could re- examine the site to determine means of eliminating any safety concern With respect to Stormwater management, staff reviewed by the Rice Creek Watershed Di ct proposed plan included enlarging an ex new pond in the interior of the site, was subject to the review of the C. Regarding wetlands, staff e wetland in the southeast c Rice Creek Watershed District the northwest corner o rading and drainage plan was ed preliminary approval. The e northwest corner of the site, creating a n area between the two. The drainage plan oposed project would require filling of an existing the s e. Applicant had received preliminary approval from the the wetland impacts. Additional wetland would be created in enlarging the pond there. With respect to signage, aff indicated applicant had not proposed new signage. Staff reviewed the 1997 Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Interim Use Permit. With respect to noise, staff stated applicant had a noise measurement analysis performed in October 2000 by Wenck Associates. On October 24, the firm took readings from 4:30 am to 5:30 am and from 5:30 am to 6:30 am. On October 25, the firm took readings from 4:30 am to 5:30 am. The readings indicated no violation of MPCA noise rules during those times. MPCA did state in a conversation with City staff that if a test was conducted by established methods, MPCA typically accepts the results of the test. Staff stated neighbors were not satisfied by the Wenck analysis. It was possible to arrange another analysis. Staff contacted the MPCA to see if MPCA could conduct the analysis. This was possible, but there is a waiting period of several months. Staff was recommending a condition that requires a noise analysis by another consultant to be arranged for the near future. This analysis should be conducted during a typical working day at the plant. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 9 Staff reviewed the Environmental Board Comments. Staff reviewed the findings for a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommended finding that the project met these requirements. Staff recommends approval of the applications with the following conditions: 1. All permits /approval required by the Rice Creek Watershed District, including drainage and grading and wetland delineation, shall be obtained prior to any site grading. The Watershed permit applies to the overall conditional use permit for the concrete plant, covering the entire site, as well as the site plan review for the new building. 2. Final utility, grading, and drainage plans must obtain approval from the City Engineer prior to site grading or building permit. This condition applies to the ov ; ditional use permit for the concrete plant, covering the entire site, as well as site p review for the new building. 3. If off - street parking creates safety concerns in the futur parking needs and may require additional parking space overall conditional use permit for the concrete pl • 4. Proper building permits must be obtained pr proposed structures shall comply with appli escrow shall be established according t completion of all site improvement review. • re- examine the ition applies to the entire site. 5. The approval of the site plan of the cement silos, as p a building height to ex construction of the new building. All building material requirements. An s part of the building permit to insure n applies to the site and building plan ende' "conditional use permit includes the 70 foot height e . 3. Subd 4.C.3. of the zoning ordinance, which allows zon g district standard with a conditional use permit. 6. The surfacing mat be acceptable. Ad City. This condition covering the entire sit to as shown on the submitted site plan and grading plan shall tuminous areas may be paved without additional review by the lies to the overall conditional use permit for the concrete plant, 7. Outdoor lighting is prohibited in the site's outdoor storage area (north of 77th St./Thomas St.). Permissible exterior lighting on the southern portion of the property shall be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neighboring residential properties and rights -of -way. 8. A photometric lighting plan for the new building and structures shall be submitted to ensure compliance with City lighting requirements. Cut sheets or photos of exterior lighting fixtures shall be submitted. The photometric plan and cut sheets shall be submitted and reviewed prior to City Council consideration of the applications. 9. The site's western access point (from 4th Avenue) shall remain at the 77th St./Thomas St. alignment. Access to Lilac St. shall be maintained as on the plans received by the City August 13, 2001. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 10 10. A minimum 150 -foot setback shall be maintained along the site's northern boundary. The buffer yard consisting of a berm with plantings shall extend 40 feet north into this 150 -foot setback line (i.e., the berm shall be maintained in the southern part of the 150 -foot setback). The berm shall be maintained at an eight foot height. This condition shall apply to both the overall conditional use permit on the entire site for the concrete plant as well as the interim use permit in the northern portion. 11. The City shall prohibit on -street truck parking along Lilac Street. Molin shall inform drivers of this prohibition. This condition shall apply to the overall conditional use permit on the entire site for the concrete plant. 12. All applicable MPCA requirements shall be satisfactorily met. This condition shall apply to the overall conditional use permit on the entire site for the concrete plant. 13. The following noise mitigation efforts shall be utilized: a. The outdoor storage yard on the northern portion shall maneuvers toward residential properties are minimized. use permit. that truck backing applies to the interim b. Molin equipment and trucks shall be outfitted with lights to replace backup beepers during nighttime hours (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a. '. use use of strobes over beepers has been approved by the Minnesota Dept. of L an• dustry, OSHA, this condition shall apply to both the overall conditional us zee «on t� entire site for the concrete plant as well as the interim use permit in the If, in the future, there is some shall be required to apply fo permit. w why the strobes are not sufficient, Molin ndm `` t to the conditional use permit and interim use 14. A noise analysis s all be p rmed to test compliance with MPCA noise standards. 15. The new landscapi ted 8/1/01 and received by the City August 13, 2001 shall be the approved plan. All tings shall be in place by June 2002. Plantings shall be maintained in a healthy state. Dead lantings shall be replaced in a timely manner. This condition applies to the overall conditional use permit on the entire site for the concrete plant as well as the interim use permit for storage in the northern portion of the site. 16. The interim use permit on the northern portion, zoned LI, allows for storage, not production. No production or finishing activities shall be conducted in this area. This includes cutting, grinding, and other such work. 17. The interim use permit will expire if there is a change in the land use in the LI District on the northern portion of the site. 18. The following conditions that were approved on October 27, 1997 shall no longer apply: - condition 11 a. requiring storing wall panels parallel to the buffer yard (berm); - condition 13 c. requiring a solid row of coniferous trees on the north side of the berm and a row of deciduous trees on the south side of the berm; Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 11 - condition 13 e. requiring irrigation for the berm. 19. Molin shall have an analysis prepared to determine the length of the shadow of the silos to determine if there will be a solar access issue on neighboring properties. This analysis should be prepared and submitted prior to City Council review of the current applications. Mr. Hayden asked if there was any concern regarding the height of the towers. Mr. Smyser replied there was not any concern with respect to the height of the towers and the airport. The height zone would be higher than the towers would be. Chair Schaps recessed the meeting and public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Chair Schaps reconvened the meeting and resumed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Tom Molin, President Molin Concrete, 415 Lilac Street, state • °' 1 •'7th d prepared a plan and they were continuing along that plan. The building the ; opo m' g was for manufacturing. He realized that throughout this process the ha• k e a concern with the neighbors and they were trying to be as sensitive as t oul ated they had taken more things into consideration at this time due to those nei • hbo " cerns. He stated they were going to utilize the existing space as much as th co • without having to go further north. Chair Schaps asked if there had been any h: < _ ood :" eetings regarding this. Mr. Molin replied they had not had any neighborh • etin ` `'` garding this phase, but they had met with the neighbors in the past and believed th were aware of what was being requested. He stated the biggest concern am rs was the noise, but now with OSHA allowed them not to use the beepers, the d th had addressed this problem. He also stated that he did not believe they were n. iolations and they had tested the noise themselves, but were willing to have an in • ° ", • `nt co pany come in and test for the noise also, if necessary. He stated he was ope to have ::aei:hborhood meeting. Mr. Corson asked what ,,e •" ° '' oise would be generated by the gantry (overhead crane) system. Mr. Molin replied it bar , made any noise and he invited the Board to come to his facility to look at this system and d ermine for themselves how much noise it generated. He also stated it would reduce the use of the forklifts, and the rest of the noise that was generated was generated inside of the buildings. Mr. Rafferty asked if the proposed crane to the north was approximately 700 feet to the southern edge of the nearest property. Mr. Molin replied it was quite a ways in from the north property line, but he did not have the exact figures for that. Mr. Powell replied it would be about 870 feet. Douglas Miller, 7780 Lois Lane, read a prepared statement that he handed out to the Board members. He asked if the new building would encompass the extruded precast and the existing core slab. He stated they were concerned about increased dust and truck traffic. He thought the City would enforce its Ordinances. They were reassured that there would be minimal impact on their lives with the business expansion. However, he stated they experienced noise at all hours Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 12 of the day and increased dust in the area. He stated that rebar was being cut outside, and he believed it should be sawed indoors. He stated beams were created in an open air bed. He indicated the operation started business at 5:15 a.m. and went into the afternoon. He stated they were exposed to noise at all hours of the day. He wanted to know if with this new proposal, if the outdoor activities that were currently taking place would now be taken place indoors. He submitted pictures of the dust that they were exposed to. With respect to truck traffic, trucks were traveling north past the residential area. With respect to trees, many of the trees were cut down, which no longer created a buffer to the residential area. He stated he was upset that Moline Concrete was asking for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit at this time. He was particularly upset regarding the berm. He suggested trees be planted on the east side of the property. He stated Molin should honor their original commitment. Mark Husnik, 77th Street east of the plant, stated his main concern was the noise levels. He stated he was one of the closest to the plant itself and a lot of noise drif direction. He stated there was no protective berm, just a tree line. noise was coming from the diesel trucks. He indicated his conce of the plant 24 hours a day, which would mean additional acti . stated there was no restriction as to hours of operation. Mr. Husnik stated the noise standard was 7:00 a.m. to took some tests, and he did not believe those tests were activity going on at the business. He stated he a.m. He expressed concern about doubling the deliveries, and therefore the truck traffic. e east in their majority of the ntial for running affic. Mr. Smyser stated Blaine Associates d when there was normal rned a . out the start time being at 5:30 plant, which would increase the ours the plant was going to operate. Sherry Schenck, 7859 Nottingham La mow her lawn at 5:00 a.m. becau from her neighbors, including this would decrease the value of and she asked that there n. ' end ing a good neighbor, she did not get up and pt someone and she expected the same courtesy ess. " e stated she believed what Molin was proposing o hood. She stated Ordinances were there for a reason, nts made to the Ordinances. Becky Miller, 482 Gr • d L. 'e, stated the complaints in staff's report that were made in the 1980's were still proble o. . She indicated her backyard was adjacent to this business and she believed they had ag ed upon landscaping in the past and now the business did not want to put the money into the 1. dscaping. She stated this business appeared to be doing well and she believed they should be made to follow through on their commitment to the neighbors. She expressed concern about Molin changing their plans and not staying with what was originally proposed. She expressed concern about the new building affecting the wetlands and the watershed. She stated she was concerned how this would affect her groundwater and septic system. She stated she believed from the north property line to the berm that that area was not to be used for anything because 77th was given up by the City and she expressed concern that Molin, at some point in the future, could put something in this area. She asked the Board follow through and that Molin follow through on their prior commitments. John Herman, 7859 Lois Lane, asked with a Conditional Use Permit how long was this granted for, and was there a time limit on it. Mr. Smyser replied it depended on the condition and how it was stated. Typically, a Conditional Use Permit involved things that must be in place and must stay there, so most of the conditions would be ongoing. Other conditions might be more time specific. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 13 Mr. Herman stated a number of the issues concerning the berm, irrigating, etc. had not been done ' and now there was a request that these issues be put aside. He stated if this was part of the original Conditional Use Permit, how could this be put aside now. He stated in 1997, they were told that would be the end of the Conditional Use Permit requests and now they were requesting another Conditional Use Permit. He stated Molin was not suppose to be north of 77th Street, but this was not the case. There were many tree stumps and trailers located in this area. He stated the noise from these trailers was unbelievable. He expressed concern about the height of the silos as being unsightly as well as a safety factor with respect to the airport. He expressed concern about taking four -foot trees off an eight -foot berm because of the airport, but they were agreeing to silos. He stated his largest concern was the truck traffic, which had increase substantially over the years. He stated with the increase of the silos, there would be an increase of raw and finished products and asked how many more round trip truck per day to accommodate the facility would be needed for raw and finished product. He express .R rn about the trucks driving slow, the dirt on the trucks, and the debris left on the and ;eway from the trucks. He stated the increase of production would be devastatin > th< etg� orhood. Brad Lindgren, 388 Thomas Street, stated his biggest cone, the truck traffic late at night. He stated when the trucks wer a.m. they were parking along Lilac Street and when t very difficult to see around them when trying to get out o the trucks were parking into the lanes of traffic. year from 1997 —1998, Molin had reduced the increased again. He stated with a new con : o solve all of the noise issues. before 6:00 a.m. and t at 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 wer- arked side by side, it was street. He stated in the winter, a safety hazard. He stated the first ust, but now those issues had at would help, but that would not Ed Schenek, 7859 Nottingham L 'ved some distance away from Molin and was still concerned about the noise d if t e new addition would only store the new product. Sue Miller, 7780 Lois L issues, and their conc - rns with this new operatio them from doing this. City had prepared a sou that the test was above a m. neighbors had fought long and hard about all of these had been addressed by the City Council. They were concerned that o into a 24 -hour production and there was nothing stopping st . none of the promises had been kept in the past. She stated the test, but the sound test had "mysteriously" disappeared. She assumed eptable levels. She stated it was time to draw the line here. She stated Molin received every variance they asked for. She asked how many variances was Molin going to receive. She expressed concern about the number of new trucks coming in. She stated when they had attempted to contact Molin about the issues they had, but Molin had not returned their phone calls. Terry Dunekel, expressed concern about the voices that she heard from the business in the early morning hours. She asked if they had a PA system and if it could be toned down. Kevin Kroells, 7839 Lois Lane, stated he had all of the same concerns as the other neighbors. He also expressed concern about the snowplowing being done and the noise that generated. He stated if cost was a concern with respect to landscaping, Molin should have planted the trees years ago as they had agreed to and this would not be an issue now. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 14 Chair Schaps asked Mr. Molin about the increased size of the operation and if he was proposing more truck trips, etc. Mr. Molin replied back in 1997 it was understood that they would be increasing their operations and this proposal would increase the trips. He stated by enclosing the building, it would take over some of the other work that was being done in the older building. He stated a lot of burden would be taken off of the old building. He stated there would be some increase of capacity. He indicated the raw materials were brought in during the morning hours, but he did not see any increase in truck traffic. He pointed out that his business was not the only business in the area that had truck traffic, and he did not believe they should be blamed for all of the increase in the traffic. He stated they had addressed the parking issue along Lilac. He indicated it had been their intention all along that they did not have to do the berm until they actually started encroaching on that area. With respect to the dust, he believed they were being held responsible for the increase of dust due to the construction of the berm. He indicated there was also increased noise from the construction of the berm and they had received many complaints about noise at that time. With respect to their hours of oper cycles were busy and then slow and they needed flexibility for their present time, they were on 12 -hour shifts from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 in and out at different hours. He stated they would not be a 24 be feasible. He stated there would be more product being s consolidated so they would be using the same space as they "missing" sound test he did remember a policeman t was representative of the noise that was actually generate where the test was or what happened to it. Wit have a PA system, but they did have hand -held plant a double row of trees to help with scr- r_ i discussion with the neighbors, they c would be five foot high and smaller, but would be a nice compromise to s would be kept as a buffer zone an '9 ' had e construction e stated at the trucks did come This would not d, but it would be ere ow. With respect to the ise to but they did not feel that 's business, but he did not know o the PA system, he stated they did not stated the original scenario was to se, but as they got further into oncept of the berm. Originally the berm uded a large 8 -foot berm and a large setback rty. He stated the north end of the property line intentions of doing anything with it. Mr. Rafferty asked when was ti`uilt. Mr. Molin replied the land was purchased in 1968 and the construction of the pl as completed in 1971. Mr. Molin indicated in 1968, it was a very rural site and wh on:" ally purchased the site, they intended on expanding their business and planned o y on the site and building their business. He stated they were still in the growth mode. Mr. olin stated when they originally started business in 1971, there were very few homes in the ar and the majority of the homes had been added since. Mr. Rafferty asked if they were watering down the ground on a daily basis. Mr. Molin stated they did it on a daily basis in the summer when it was dry. Mr. Molin stated they used to use Class 5, but now they used reground asphalt, which compacts very similar to an asphalt surface for any ground space they create, which reduced the dust. Mr. Rafferty stated his concern was that he could not imagine being an individual buying a home in this area and then complaining about an existing business. However, he stated the City planning was terrible to allow homes to be built around the business. He stated there was a rift that was created by nothing having things controlled properly. He stated the neighbors had been promised something and none of those issues had been taken care of. He stated staff had not given the Board members enough time to review this information and therefore he could not support this. He stated he wanted to see some of the prior issues be addressed before new issues • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 15 were approved. He asked they find a way to accommodate the neighbor's concerns, especially with respect to the berm and landscaping. Mr. Molin stated their situation had been dealt with in work sessions and he believed they were all moving in the same direction, but it might not be moving as fast as some people wanted it to. He stated it was in their best interest to fulfill all of their previous commitments in order to move forward. Mr. Rafferty stated he wanted to see some of the things that had been promised. Mr. Molin stated they had invited the Board to his facility to review these issues. Mr. Rafferty stated he had received that letter. Mr. Molin stated he believe there were going to be some people who were never going to be satisfied no matter what they did. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern about the increased diesel traffic an traffic. He asked if there was something that could be done that continue to operate, but have a later start time for hours of ope radios could be turned down, or not used. enerated by that business to d if the hand -held Chair Schaps suggested sitting down with City staff, d : mber , and neighbors and see if they could work out some of the issues that went back to ,A :;; nderstanding that both sides needed to make compromises. Mr. Molin state willing to do that, especially if the City was also involved in this process. Chair Schaps suggested continuing the opportunity to come to some type of continuation. Mr. Smyser stated in the pa the perceived bias, but the representative. o next month to give everyone an Mr. Molin stated he would be agreeable to a did not go to the neighborhood meetings because of to have a meeting in this case with a City Mr. Miller asked if this j" ding covered the current outdoor operation. Mr. Molin replied the outdoor operation w'? Id be enclosed and the beds would be inside the building. Mr. Miller stated they were very willing to go to a meeting and compromise, but they had done this in 1997 and Molin's promises were not fulfilled back in 1997 and he expressed concern about this. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the Public Hearing to the October Planning & Zoning Board Meeting, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Rafferty left the meeting at 8:59 p.m. • D. PUBLIC HEARING - ATS &R/Centennial School District, New Elementary School, Conditional User Permit, Site Plan Review Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 16 Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had requested site and building plan and conditional use permit amendment approval to allow the construction of an elementary school upon the 79 acre Centennial Middle School site located south of I 35E and west of Lake Drive. Staff explained earlier this year, the City approved a rezoning of the 15 acres of land located north of the Middle School site from L -1, Limited Industrial to PSP, Public and a minor subdivision to allow the conveyance of the 15 -acre parcel to the School District. Staff stated because the 15 -acre elementary school parcel was to be combined with the adjacent 64 acre middle school site, the processing of a conditional use permit amendment are necessary. Resultantly, the middle school and proposed elementary school would be governed by a single conditional use permit. Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining the CUP indicating because schools were listed as "conditional uses" withi processing of a conditional use permit was necessary. The Or and Zoning Board may recommend approval of and the City C permit only if it found that the proposed use at the propose ation Criteria and ning district, the that the Planning er a conditional use A. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the pu. he . h, sa ty, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the Cit B. Will be harmonious with the general d appl.ble specific plans and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordin.�. e. C. Will be designed, constructe appropriate in appearanc vicinity and will not ch d maintained so as to be harmonious and th � 'sting and/or intended character of the general ssen al character of the area. D. Will be served ad by " sential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire rotecti drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools; o .,.'e s ed adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agen re © onsible for the establishment of the proposed use. E. Will not create e cessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. F. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. G. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which are so designed as not to create congestion or an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. H. Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. I. Will conform to specific standards of this ordinance applicable to the particular use. • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 17 With respect to land use and zoning, the City's Comprehensive Plan designated the subject property for industrial use. As part of the City's recent rezoning of the property from L -I, Light Industrial to PSP, Public /Semi- Public, a determination was made that the proposed use was consistent with industrial land use designation (Ord. 14 -1). Staff explained with respect to lot requirements, previous approval of the minor subdivision (to create the subject parcel) was conditioned upon the combination of the 15 -acre parcel with the adjacent Middle School parcel. Such condition was imposed to address lot width and setbacks concerns that would have resulted from the creation of an independent Elementary School parcel. The PSP District made a specific allowance for campus type development and the existence of multiple buildings upon a single lot of record. Staff stated in addition to the required lot combination, it was also required that a portion of Fourth Avenue which bisects the property to be vacated. Staff indicated based on the premise that the 15 -acre elemen combined with the adjacent middle school lot and that the bisected the property would be vacated. With respect to vehicular traffic, staff stated as p findings were made that traffic generated by the . ro streets serving the property. Elm Street was sc The City Engineer had stated that the project As such, traffic generated by the propo serving the property. operty would be rth Avenue which rece rezoning of the property, will be within the capabilities of or reconstruction in the Spring of 2002. bstantially completed by Fall of 2002. not exceed the capabilities of streets Staff stated in regard to vehicul la i some concerns existed regarding the necessary backing maneuvers of buses i sign `- d bus parking lot. Such maneuvering created a conflicting traffic pattern t concerns. With respect to pedestrian an• `,,r ycle traffic, staff stated pedestrian access to the school would be provided via an ex _ of e Middle School trailway /sidewalk system and was separated from bus traffic. Staff recommended that •icycle racks be provided which allowed students safe lockage of bicycles within convenient distance of the school's entries. Staff stated the building height complied with the maximum 45 foot height requirement imposed in the PSP District. Staff stated the building materials as shown on the submitted building elevations, the school would be finished in materials and colors that would match the nearby middle school. The base of the building would be finished in red face brick with textured EFIS (tan) being provided on the upper half of the structure. Smooth EIFS (tan) had been provided as an accent to the upper half of the gymnasium portion of the building. Staff explained the proposed building materials met the requirements of Section 3 Subd. 4.B of the ordinance and complement the materials and colors of the adjacent middle school. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 18 Staff stated the school had indicated that no future expansion of the school was anticipated. Staff indicated with a total of 173 parking stalls being provided on site, the minimum off - street parking supply requirements of the Ordinance had been satisfied. Staff stated the elementary school was to be accessed via a northerly extension of the middle school access drive from Elm Street. Staff explained the Ordinance required that a minimum of 35 percent of the subject site be devoted to open space, yard and/or landscaped area. The combined middle school/elementary school site significantly exceeded the minimum green area requirement. Staff indicated trash and recycling handling activities were to occur on the east side of the school (alongside the gymnasium). As a condition of site and building pl,= .• itional use permit approval, all trash handling equipment must be screened from vie t properties by a fence of wall at least six feet in height with a minimum opaquene 9: o erc ` t. Staff stated applicant's submission did not include a photo e`� ghti�a_ plan nor does the site plan illustrate exterior lighting locations. According to a tion d. 4.H of the Ordinance, any lighting used to illuminate an off - street parking _ mum be h•.ded and arranged to deflect light away public streets and adjacent properties. : , condition of site and building P lan/conditional use permit approval, a photo Ian an light fixture details should be submitted subject to review and approval by th ity C. `_„ cil. Staff stated it had been indicated that t be noted that if the school district d would be necessary to process a c fields would not be illuminated. It should illuminate the field at some future point, it permit amendment. Staff explained institutional to o iated with the elementary school was governed by the City's sign Ordinance an be s = ject to a separate permit. All signs would be reviewed with the sign permit a..licatio With respect to landsc.''g, aff stated generally speaking, the submitted landscape plan was well conceived. The p calls for a mixture of coniferous and deciduous plants, trees, and shrubs throughout the si More specifically, a row of spruce trees (Black Hills or Colorado) have been proposed along I -35W and canopy trees (Sugar Maple, Red Maple and White Ash) have been proposed along the periphery of the building. Sod has been proposed in along the perimeter of the school while the outlying areas (play fields etc) are to be seeded. Staff stated the landscape plan specified planting varieties only in a general sense (i.e. evergreen, canopy and understory trees). As a condition of site and building plan and conditional use permit approval, the variety of each individual planting should be specified. Staff explained in addition, the Environmental Board had recommended that planting varieties be evaluated in terms of salt tolerance, particularly those plantings proposed along I -35W. Staff stated as a condition of site and building plan and conditional use permit approval, a tree preservation plan should be submitted. Trees considered worthy of preservation by the • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 19 Environmental Board include some Eastern Red Cedars and a row of Pines on the south side of the proposed building. Staff explained while the site plan illustrated an existing fence along I -35W, it did not indicate whether or not any new fencing was to be provided on site. In review of the site plan, it was suggested that fencing be provided in the following areas: • Along the east side of the play fields to prevent stray balls from entering the adjacent wetland. • Along the sides of the play areas (north and west of the school) which border the bus parking lot. Staff indicated as shown on the submitted site plan, two play fields had been proposed east of the elementary school. The southerly play field was also to be utili oftball field. As mentioned previously, the softball field was not to be illuminated. Staff stated Loading activities were to occur on the east si provided ample area for service vehicle maneuvering plantings (proposed to the north and south of the drive lane). Staff indicated as depicted on the site plan, a wed Rice Creek Watershed District had reviewed th with authorization for administrative action information. mg. The area was reened via evergreen the eastern area of the site. The mission and had recommended to table A) subject to the receipt of certain Staff stated a grading/drainage plan �� -a a` ad been submitted for review. As noted on the utility plan, The acceptability of this co subject to review and app o sed b i ilding encroached on an existing utility easement. as the grading/drainage plan and utility plan should be the t "ty Engineer. Staff stated it also sho ot- ' that the Environmental Board had recommended that the area on the western side of t',us . parking lot be considered for infiltration purposes. Staff recommended app •val of the site and building plan/conditional use permit to allow the construction of an elementary school in a PSP, Public /Semi - Public zoning District. The recommendation was based on the findings contained in this report and subject to the conditions listed below. 1. The elementary school site is combined with the middle school site to create a single lot. 2. A site plan is submitted which encompasses the entire middle school/elementary school. 3. The area on the western side of the bus parking lot be considered for infiltration purposes. 4. The landscape plan is revised to specify the variety of each individual planting. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 20 5. Planting varieties indicated on the landscape plan shall be evaluated in terms of salt tolerance, particularly those plantings proposed along the I -35W. 6. A tree preservation plan is submitted subject to City approval. 7. The site plan is revised to illustrate bicycle rack locations. 8. All trash handling equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties by a fence of wall at least six feet in height with a minimum opaqueness of 80 percent. 9. A photometric lighting plan and light fixture details are submitted subject to review and approval by the City Council. All lighting used to illuminate off - street parking areas shall be hooded (i.e. shoe box fixtures) and arranged to deflect light away public streets and adjacent properties. 10. All site signage comply with the applicable requirements of t t din.` ce. 11. Fencing shall be provided along the east side of the p entering the adjacent wetland) and along the sides of school) that border the bus parking lot. Mr. Rafferty returned to the meeting at 9:07 p. Ms. Lane left the meeting at 9:09 p.m. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make event stray balls from (north and west of the John Christensen, Superintende t " `nnial chool District, stated they did have a meeting with some staff members last we _ • ` t e recommendations /concerns, and the bus issue would come in on an angle and t d c e their wheels to the left and the buses would not back up. The car traffic would be k : separate from the bus traffic. He stated they had no problem with the recommendat . t t ighting would not have as much lighting as the middle school because it was an elem + = ool. He stated they would like to keep the area open where they wanted drainage as gree s . ace for a play area. Mr. Corson asked about the tree preservation plan and if they were agreeable to that. Mr. Christensen stated they were agreeable. Paul Snyder, Lead Architect, stated with respect to the recommendation to add some infiltration, the small children did not need much space for a play area, and that was why they wanted to avoid creating an infiltration area where it was proposed. Mr. Zych asked if it would be possible to add a second story to the gym. Mr. Snyder stated that would probably not be possible because of their budget. Mr. Rafferty asked about the location of the schools being located so close together and why the gym was the farthest away from the middle school, while the kindergarten and first grade rooms were the closest. Mr. Snyder stated they were separate buildings as well as totally enclosed buildings, which would lead to their separateness. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 21 Ms. Lane returned to the meeting at 9:19 p.m. Mr. Christensen stated the starting and ending times would be different for the two schools and therefore, the younger students would not be exposed to the older students. Also, the elementary students when outside, were always with school teachers or other staff. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 9:20 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the site and building plan to allow the construction of an elementary school in a PSP, Public /Semi- Public zoning District as outlined in staff's report and subject to staff's recommendations, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the Conditional Use Permit outlined in staff's report and subject to staff's recommendations recommended as a grassy area, and was supported by Mr. Raf request as d be 'ed 5 -0. E. PUBLIC HEARING - Heritage Development, Sa Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. Staff presented the application by explaining th preliminary plat for property commonly considered an application on the site th rezoning for a portion of the propert was not proposed for developme The property was located so received by the City on A , 200 reliminary Plat t had submitted an application for dle Club. The City previously mprehensive plan amendment and ow proposed to be platted as an outlot and o Old Birch Street. The review was based on plans Staff presented its ana g the : "` quest by explaining the northern 20 acres (approximately) was zoned R -1. The so • res (approximately) was zoned rural. The 28 building sites were all located within the Si le Family Land Use District and the R -1 zoning district. Staff explained the draft Comprehensive Plan identified areas for greenways. The intent of the greenway designation was to protect environmentally sensitive areas. This was previously part of the original application for this area. However, because the area outside of the current MUSA was not being platted for development at this time the greenway area are not specifically addressed but could be required in the future. Staff stated the R -1 District minimum lot size was 10,800 square feet of upland. All lots met or exceed this provision with an average lot size of 17,551.4 square feet of upland. • Staff indicated the minimum lot width was 80 feet at the 30 -foot front yard setback. All lots met this requirement. The minimum lot depth was 135 feet. All of the lots met or exceed this provision. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 22 Staff explained fill was proposed on the site to create the house pad areas and roadways. The grading plan submitted anticipates grading the site for future use. The grading plan was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Staff stated all existing structures would be removed from the site. Staff indicated access to the property was proposed from Old Birch Street. This required right - of -way acquisition from an adjacent parcel, which has been accomplished. A roadway connection was also proposed to Killdeer Drive. This right -of -way acquisition had been completed. Access and road connections had been an issue during discussions regarding the application. Staff had previously stated that neighborhood connections and multiple accesses were desirable and that Birch Street could accommodate traffic from this project. Additionally, the Police Department had reviewed the plat and they were recommending that both accesses be provided. Staff explained water and sanitary sewer were both proposed to b along the proposed roadway alignments from Old Birch to Kil completed and the results of the study would be incorporate development. Staff stated there was a trail corridor proposed on Lots 1 the trail corridor platted in the Oaks of Lino. T the plat. All of the dedication would be cash in based upon the rates in effect at the time o gh the property ity study had been ruction plans for the Block 1 to provide access to o par and dedication proposed with d. The amount to be paid would be Staff explained there were approxima f wetland on the entire property. Some fill was proposed to accommodate ro tion. The proposal was to mitigate the fill adjacent to other wetland areas tlan elineation and proposed fill were subject to the review and permitting of Ri k . t rshed District, which oversaw the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) the e y staff's policy to require preliminary approval (tabled with approval for ad 'nistrati• ction or TWAFAA) from Rice Creek before the City staff recommended approv e P1 ping and Zoning Board. This was completed as of April 25, 2001. Staff stated the Enviro ental Board reviewed the application and generally, the Board recommended approval subject to the use of native vegetation in all surface water treatment areas and that buffer areas should be sign posted. Staff indicated a complete tree inventory had been submitted and a tree preservation plan had been submitted. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The grading, drainage and utility plants are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. Park dedication shall be paid prior to recording the final plat at the rate in effect at the time of the final plat. • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 23 3. Right -of -way acquisition shall be completed prior to City Council review of the final plat. 4. Markers delineating the drainage, utility, and conservation easement shall be installed within platted lots by the developer. Chair Schaps stated Mr. Rafferty would now be Acting Chair. Chair Schaps left the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Zych asked where the sewer and water was coming from. Mr. Powell stated the sewer and water would be extended from the west (Old Birch Street). Mr. Zych asked if this was not the reason for turning this down or , . Mr'`• owell stated sanitary or water service could come from the north, but it was n it from the west. Mr. Zych asked what was the cost difference. Mr. Po, 11 st d it ld be an additional $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 to extend it from the nort Mr. Zych asked if there had been any feasibilit =studie r. Powell stated there was a study prepared on March 12, 2001 and it had been pr t• he City Council and discussed in detail. Acting Chair Rafferty invited appl' o a omment. John Hill, Heritage Develop connection to Killdeer an the same proposal. the major change was to the road alignment near its rn half of the site was now an outlot. Otherwise, it was Mr. Corson stated one or concerns was the access to Killdeer. Applicant replied they had obtained that land . `' tha cleared up the issue. Mike Freeby, 1047 Aspen Lane, stated he was in the neighborhood next to Killdeer. He expressed concern about connecting Killdeer and the fact that they were already a neighborhood that had 90 homes. He stated they had two entrances that serviced 90 homes. He stated they did not want the additional traffic coming through adding safety concerns to their neighborhood. He indicated there were a lot of children in the area. He asked for a gated, emergency entrance be put in place. Mr. Powell stated the entrances would split the traffic and they recommended there being two accesses for emergency vehicles. If there would be only one connection, he would recommend connecting the east end. Sean McArale, 6508 Killdeer Drive, asked if there would be screening off of the Killdeer entrance. He stated he would be against this due to the increase in traffic, noise and lights coming into his home. Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 24 Marilyn Anderson, 8840 Birch Street, stated she had no objection to the development even though it would greatly impact their neighborhood. Her concern was the connection of the sewer and water. She stated it was her last chance to get sewer and water without petitioning for it. She stated four years ago, if they would have connected up to the sewer and water their cost would be $30,000.00 and she was asking for consideration on this at this time. Gary Foster, 882 Old Birch, stated he was not against the development and agreed with Mrs. Anderson regarding the sewer and water. He expressed concern about the Birch Street access and stated they needed to have a study on Birch Street. He stated it was a deadly road and they could not get onto Birch Street during rush hour in the morning. He stated with having an increase in traffic, this would make this area even more unsafe. He stated without any controls on Birch Street, it was a dangerous situation. He stated the safety issue was his biggest concern along with the opportunity to have sewer and water coming through. Birch Street really needed to be done. He stated someone was goin stated he was not against the homes. He asked how they were go ted a study of in this area. He e traffic. Greg Graves, 6532 Killdeer Drive, stated he had lived there o a ears :y. 'd expressed concern the access was not adequate. He believed his neighborhood ed as an access point and this would create a safety issue. He stated the are ,. t: 'ble : d he had problems getting onto Birch Street now and if this went through, this wou increase his wait time. Rick Capocasa, 886 Old Birch Street, stated the would ' e to hook up to sewer and water. He expressed concern regarding the increased f i = d th= dangerous intersection. Eugene Gervais, 890 Old Birch Street hould be a traffic light at the west end. He asked why this project was not sh. . e of the sewer issues. Ms. Lane replied it was because there was a MUSA issu * s ha' .een resolved. Mr. Corson made a MOTI Zych. Motion carried 4 -0. ose "'`e Public hearing at 9:52 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Mr. Corson stated he u there was some additional cost to extend the sewer system, but asked if that additional c t would be assessed to the homeowners. Mr. Powell replied that was not correct and explained `` hat the current rules were with respect to extending the sewer and water to a new development. Mr. Corson asked if the residents were to petition for the utilities, would there be assessments. Mr. Powell stated that may change the situation. If the Council decided they wanted to come from the north, then the City would carry the additional cost for 5 -10 years and they could not expect the developer to pay for that when it was cheaper to come from another direction. However, this was an option. Mr. Corson asked with respect to the 90- degree turn on Killdeer, if that 90- degrees would continue to the south at some point in the future. Mr. Powell stated that was correct and it would then be a "T" intersection. • Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 25 Acting Chair Rafferty inquired about the screening issues along Killdeer. Applicant indicated they had no problem with screening Killdeer and suggested adding a barricade that could be removed for emergency vehicles. Acting Chair Rafferty asked if Killdeer was a cul -de -sac. Mr. Powell replied it was a dead end. Mr. Hayden asked if there had been any traffic feasibility report prepared. He stated this was a very dangerous area. Mr. Powell reviewed for Mr. Hayden the history of this street. He indicated this was a dangerous situation. Mr. Zych stated he was very concerned about the additional traffic being generated along Birch Street and until there was a stop light on Black Duck, he would not support this. Mr. Powell stated Anoka County had received funding for Black Duck and Hodson Road, but this had been delayed due to improvements along Hodson Road, but he did not know y of the other intersections. He stated he would provide information to the Board gar or Ci Council after he had the opportunity to research this further. Acting Chair Rafferty stated the additional traffic going to '_fr eet a concern and also the zigzagging of Killdeer was a concern, as well as screen Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the Preliminary staff's report and subject to staff's recommenda homes that would be affected by car headlights Ms. Lane asked the developer to look up with another solution. Applicant r they went they ran into problems Mr. Powell stated this was This also achieved some the road within the exjsting ri submitted and as outlined in the developer look at buffering the upported by Ms. Lane. a g on Killdeer and see if they could come a traffic calming situation, but either way compromise that was made. e developer to eliminate that double frontage lot. this area. He stated they could attempt to smooth out Motion failed 2 -2 -1 ( and Hyden. Abstain - Rafferty). VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Acting Chair Rafferty stated he was frustrated he had to make decisions for people waiting in line for getting things approved, and he did not believe staff had not done a good job in getting the packets to the Board. He asked staff and the Board work together in getting this information in a timely manner. VII. ADJOURNMENT • Mr. Zych made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4 -0. Respectfully submitted, Planning & Zoning Board September 11, 2001 Page 26 Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • •