Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/1991 Park Board PacketCity of Lino Lakes Park Board Meeting Thursday, September 5, 1991 6:30 PM AGENDA 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Consideration and Approval of Minutes 3. Open Mike 4. Old Business A. Lino Days Review B. Park Dedication Formula C. Parks/Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update D. Trails - Wenzel Farms and Weaver property development update 5. Other Old Business 6. New Business 7. Adjourn Park Board Minutes August 5, 1991 The August meeting of the Lino Lakes Park Board was called to order by Chairman George Lindy at 6:36 at Lino Lakes City Hall. Roll Call was taken, members present were Candi Toffoli, John Baumann, George Lindy and Ken Johnson. Absent was Bill Nissen. Also in attendance were Marty Asleson, Superintendent of Parks, Recreation and Forestry, Barry Bernstein, Parks and Recreation Program Supervisor, and Carole Kohler, Parks Secretary. The minutes of the June 3, 1991 meeting were approved as mailed. OPEN MIKE: Mr. Steve Leese of 74 Marvy Street, along with three other residents of Marvy street, appeared under Open Mike. Mr. Leese the neighborhood spokesman, addressed the board with concerns arising from the proposed Tilsen property development by Mr. Gary Uhde. Evidently Mr. Uhde, during an earlier meeting with residents in the area, told them that the Park Board chose not to put a new park in this development area. This prompted the residents to bring their concerns to the park board. They are worried that the proposed 57 new homes will bring in many more children to use the one small park in the area now, that being the Leonard and Bradley Park on the corner of Leonard and Bradley Streets. The neighborhood group feels that the park in it's present state has out dated, obsolete equipment and is in need of renovation. George Lindy explained to Mr. Leese that the decision of the park board was in keeping with their policy that the City not be dotted with a lot of undersized parks because of maintenance, etc. George drove through the area earlier this evening and noted this is a sparsely populated area with homes on large lots. He reminded Mr. Leese that the parks and recreation needs of the City are being addressed in the Comprehensive Park Plan Study currently underway. Mr. Leese explained that there are 40 children on Marvy Street alone, and with the anticipation of many more, wants to know if there are any options open to the neighbors. Marty Asleson agreed that the park equipment needs to be upgraded, there's nothing there to draw the kids right now, but it looks like there is not a large enough populous to warrant a new, larger park. He suggested bike paths from the new development to the park. Mr. Leese expressed the desire of the neighbors to help in installing new equipment, and to help renovate the park. George Lindy thanked the group for bringing their concerns to the Park Board, he asked Marty Asleson to bring this issue up to the Comprehensive Park Plan Study Committee. Marty informed the board 1 Park Board Minutes August 5, 1991 that the Comprehensive Plan will probably not be completed until at least September. Ken Johnson noted that the increased pressure in this area could cause the Park Board to do something in this area soon. OLD BUSINESS• Wenzel Farms Update - Marty Asleson showed the board aerial photos of the area in question. The photos showed where sewer and water is coming to this area from Ulmer Drive. A one acre (or less) mini park was to be centrally located within this development that will be used mainly by the residents of the townhouses and small children of the townhomes and single family homes planned here. Marty feels it is time now for the park board to make some recommendations concerning the park and trail systems here, as houses are presently being constructed. One issue is where the trail to Sunrise Park from this development will go. One suggestion was to go between the two houses where the water and sewer is coming in on Ulmer Drive. Should we contact the property owners involved to get their permission and/or input? John Baumann says yes. George Lindy thinks that if he were the property owner he wouldn't want a trail in his cul-de-sac. George asked if Marty could look into the cost of running the trail along the wet land. Marty Asleson will do a feasibility study for drainage in this area and report back to the board. Weaver Development - Mr. Kirk Corson of Hokanson Development appeared before the board to present his park plan for this proposed development. The development is a forty acre site located just north of Birch Street and abutting up to the rear property of the homes on Pheasant Run in Lakes Addition #2 and Black Duck Drive in the adjoining Lakes Addition #3 to the north. This is also the particular area Mr. Corson has proposed as park area. He noted that of this forty acre site, 4 acres was lost to the Birch Street trail system, and 1/3 of the property is wetland. The required 10% land dedication is 3.25 acres above wetland with trails into the park area. The proposed park trail will run along Birch Street through the easement between lots 14 and 15 to gain access to the Ed Vaughan proposed nature "area" just east of this property. George Lindy specified "area" as not being well developed. Mr. Corson explained that this is wet land, an environmental lake that is of. no apparent use and could be deeded to the City. Marty Asleson commented that this plan could fit nicely into the area that had been discussed at an earlier meeting with the neighborhood group concerning a park in the area of Pheasant Run and Black Duck Drive, and might satisfy those people's park needs. 2 Park Board Minutes August 5, 1991 It appears that Captain's Place, a proposed street that will most likely never have houses on it, is an ideal location for park extension to the proposed Weaver property park. Marty added that the property being handled by Jeff Joyer and Ron Mikolai that was previously offered to the City for sale in this area, had been sold. George Lindy asked the board for discussion on this proposal. Ken Johnson questioned what the total of the dedication is, it is 12 acres including the wetland. He asked Marty Asleson if there is anything that the wetland area could be used for. Marty explained that the area is too wet to even maintain. He used Shenandoah as an example, a park area in with a lot of wet land. It has been so wet this summer that it's not been able to be kept maintained. They discussed that this small area could possibly handle a tot lot. George Lindy thinks this could satisfy the need for a passive type park now, taking care of the Paul Brandt neighborhood need for a park to handle small children. Marty has been in touch with Mr. Brandt about this, and he (Mr. Brandt) seems satisfied that some action is being taken to put a park in his area. John Baumann thought the park proposal up in this area was a good idea. Ken Johnson questioned whether there would be a trail in on the south side of Birch Street. Yes, and Marty seems to think there would be no problem with this, they will be trying to connect to Black Duck Drive and will make an effort to connect from behind the houses. Marty noted that Jeff Schoenbauer from Brauer and Associates recommended that the ideal set up would get people safely from this area to Birch Park. Mr. Corson explained that they would have to gain access from the County to come through the County road easement that is located between Birch Street and this proposed park area. Evidently there is no problem with this, the procedure is to formally request it either in writing or by phone. Mr. Corson suggested that the City ask, as Cities seem to receive priority treatment from the County as opposed to a developer. Mr. Corson says he has already been in contact with the County regarding this. Marty will write a letter to the County tomorrow. George Lindy called for a recommendation from the board. Ken Johnson thinks the request for access from the County should be done before any recommendations are made. After a discussion Ken Johnson made a recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: Ken Johnson recommended to accept the 3.25 acres parcel for park dedication contingent upon the trail access along Birch Street, and also acceptance of access from Black Duck from the west. 3 Park Board Minutes August 5, 1991 Marty Asleson asked the Board members if they would like a tour through this area. Both Candi Toffoli and John Baumann made arrangements to meet with him on Tuesday afternoon. Mr. Corson will come back to the board next month after Marty Asleson has gotten more information from the County regarding access to the County road easement. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Planning Update - Marty Asleson gave an update on the progress of this committee. He commented on what a good working group the committee was comprised of. There seems to be a variety of skills and interests among them. The group is using the structural guide from Brauer and Associates, and this is adding to the quality of the finished product. The overall plan will not be completed in August as originally anticipated, but this group will meet every 1st and 3rd Wednesday until it's finished. The plan will include forestry and watershed issues. Recreation Activity Summary - Marty Asleson noted that Barry Bernstein has been hired as a permanent full time Parks and Recreation Program Supervisor. Barry handed out summer activity reports to the board members. He explained how successful our parks and T-ball programs were and also the Men's Softball league. He talked about expanding those programs next year, and adding new ones. Barry will be coordinating fall activity programs with the schools. He noted that he will probably be working with the North Metro Park Association. Ken Johnson suggested working with all of the school districts. John Baumann commented on what a fine job Barry did with the T-ball program and how much the kids enjoyed it. OTHER OLD BUSINESS: Forestry Update - Marty Asleson gave an overview of the city forestry program. He explained that city forestry crews are currently doing surveys regrading the forestry needs in the city. Lois Lane is looking better. There is some new oak wilt infestation. The county will be talking to us about the use of the vibratory plow. The Tree Preservation Policy seems to be working pretty well since it's beginning a couple months ago. The city has made arrangements with about four developers to do the planting for them next spring. Marty Asleson feels there is a need for more staff people since the new Tree Preservation Policy increases the need. Marty noted that Columbus Township contacted him regarding hiring some of our people and working together to meet the forestry needs for both communities. That plan could possibly justify the need for more 4 Park Board Minutes August 5, 1991 staf f . Ken Johnson questioned the progress of the new park dedication formula. Marty Asleson will check and have a report for the next meeting. Marty noted that this formula was discussed at the last Comprehensive Parks Plan meeting regarding the future trail system. Right now there are more feeder trails, in the future the need will be for bigger trails. According to this some developers will end up paying a lot more based on the needs of the trail systems. Ken Johnson feels that this is not an equitable formula. Are we missing out on dollars with the proposed plan using the formula regarding cash dedication based on lot size? George Lindy asked Marty to see that this issue is put on the agenda for next month. NEW BUSINESS• 1992 Budget - Marty gave an overview of his proposed 1992 budget. He explained that he is requesting for an extra person to assist Barry Bernstein in the Parks. He is also asking for money for more irrigation. In the Capital Improvement Plan, he is asking for a ballfield groomer. He has also requested money for a golf course feasibility study for a possible municipal golf course. This been discussed at the comprehensive park plan meetings. Marty has put in the budget under equipment needs, the purchase of a Cushman ballfield groomer, and a pick-up truck or reliable transportation for the Recreation Program Supervisor, and irrigation at Birch Park, canoes for use at a day camp program at Country Lakes Park. George Lindy asked Marty if he would see that the board receive a copy of the Budget and the 5 year CIP. He would like to see the proposed plan and dollar figures. Also would like a copy of the Comprehensive Park Plan. He feels there will be a need for a work session in the near future to deal solely with the budget issue. This will probably be in the fall or winter. Marty will see that the board is sent a copy of the budget, plus any supporting information concerning it. Lino Days - Marty Asleson reported directed Don Volk to start working on year. The Council expressed the desire one celebration only. A committee will this. that the City Council has a city celebration for next for city efforts to go into be formed to address with 5 Park Board Minutes August 5, 1991 OTHER NEW BUSINESS: John Baumann expressed his feelings concerning a City golf course. He feels there is a great need for one in the area, and it should be handled through the Parks Department. He doesn't think a study is necessary. There are 2 golf courses in the area now, possibly another going in. They seem to be paying for themselves in about 5 years. Marty Asleson pointed out that the study would come out of the general fund budget under "Professional Services" not the Parks and Recreation budget. John Baumann noted that Parks and Recreation will have to find ways to support themselves. Ken Johnson agrees, he is opposed to putting money into a community center, citing Shoreview as an example. There was no other new business. Candi Toffoli questioned when the next Park Board meeting would be noting that the Labor Day Holiday falls on the first Monday of September. After a brief discussion, all agreed that the next meeting will be on Thursday, September 5, 1991. Candi Toffoli made a motion to adjourn, it was seconded by John Baumann. All were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 PM. C: ,w • GREEN BRIAR DRIVE •ULM 0711 DRIVE -GLADSTONE 0111- Ld IC It 0 z za DATE OF PHOTOGRAPHY MAY, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: All Park Board Members FROM: Marty Asleson DATE: August 29, 1991 SUBJECT: Park Dedication Formula As you may recall at the February 4, 1991 Park Board meeting, we held a special work session with the Design Review Board regarding the adoption of a new park dedication formula. The proposed formula multiplied land cost by a density factor and again by the total acreage, and then divided this number by the number of lots to give a cost per lot figure. (Land Cost) (Density Factor) (Total Acreage) = Dollars/Lot (Number of Lots) The land cost was defined as an average of $10, 000.00 per acre. The argument was that the formula favored developments with higher densities, (ie) developments with lower densities would pay higher rates. Thus and R-1X development would pay more if the Park Board were to ask for cash than R-1 subdivisions. Two ways of looking at this inequality were presented to the Design Review Board. First, it was argued that bigger lots are, more valuable and a higher dedication would fair. These areas, it could be argued, cover greater land area so that they should pay more. The other argument that was used was that residential areas with greater densities need more park facilities because each lot is smaller. Thus the cash dedication should be greater (ie) higher density/more need. It was further shown that using the draft formula, a residential development with a density of 25 homes per acre (average) would pay $400.00 per lot (the current rate), developments with a density greater than 25 homes per acre would pay less than $400.00, and a development with less than 25 homes would pay more than $400.00. ,.y Professional Opinion: In our discussion of building a park system framework within the scope of recreation and planning, certain standards have been addressed. Standards, that when combined with conventional wisdom hopefully, will establish and adequate amount of recreation land for the residents of the City of Lino Lakes. These classifications present a range of sizes per range of population densities within a range of service areas that should be followed. For example, in the case of neighborhood parks class, service areas should cover 1/4 to 1/2 miles radius with a minimum of 5 acres and optimally between 14 to 17 acres, and service each 1000 people with 2.5 to 3.5 developed acres. Here we are stressing that there is a definite need for a somewhat standard amount of land per standard radius. The level of development of these parcels becomes development on population densities. The formula that was previously developed, if taken on a per acre basis, is a fair and equitable way to address the dedication fees of developers. The following examples illustrate the case. Land cost in these examples is defined as a minimum of $10,000.00 an acre. (Land Cost) (Density Factor) (Total Acreage) = Dollars/Lot (Number of Lots) I. WENZEL FARMS A. Townhome Area 75 units on 21 acres 3.57 unite per acre B. R-1 Area 100 units on 46 acres 2.17 units per acre A. Townhome Area ($10,000/acre) (.12 (D.F]) (21.5 acres) _ $344./unit 75 units ($344/unit) (75 units) _ $1200.00/acre 21.5 acres B. R-1 Area ($10,000/acre) (.10 [D.F.]) (46 acres) _ $460./unit 100 units ($460./unit) (100 units) _ $1000./acre 46 acres II. WILLOW PONDS ($10,000) (.10 [D.F.]) (13 acres) _ $481./unit 27 units n ($481/unit) (27 units) _ $999.99/acre (or $10,000.00 per acre) 13 acres III. WOODRIDGE ESTATES ($10,000.) (.10 [D.F.] (38 acres) _ $542./unit 70 units ($542/unit) (70 units) _ $999.99/acre (or $10,000.00 per acre) 38 acres IV. SUNRISE MEADOWS ($10,000) (.10 [D.F.]) (42 acres) _ $408./unit 103 units ($408./unit) (103 units) _ $999.99/acre (or $10,000./per acre) 42 acres In the multi -family example of the Wenzel Farms development, we are faced with a slightly higher percentage. The difference is $200.00 per unit. This might help to supply the higher % of land needs within the range standards. Again, for a neighborhood park the standard was a minimum of 5 acres and optimally between 14 and 17 acres, servicing each 1000 people with between 2.5 to 3.5 developed acres. In all of the single family examples , the ultimate result was to recover enough money to buy park land at the market value. This was the reason for investigating a new approach in the first place. The legal basis for park land dedication is Minnesota State Statute 462.358, Subdivision 2(b). It gives cities the legal authority to acquire "reasonable" proportion of land per subdivision to be used for park purposes. The ordinance also addresses cash equivalents. The Minnesota State Statute stems from a 1971 landmark case of Associated Builders of Greater East Bay, Inc. vs. The City of Walnut Creek, California. This case trial did not address commercial/industrial land dedication requirements. This subject has surfaced recently. There are few models to go by and this one n might be challenged. The City of Vadnais Heights recently adopted an ordinance for commercial/industrial that is basically based on building "footprint" sizes. We have used their model and it is included in the proposed ordinance amendment. I submit a new amended ordinance based on the above information. r-� CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 05 - 91 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LINO LAKES CITY CODE BY CHANGING THE PARK DEDICATION FEE The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota does ordain: I. Property Dedication. Section 1001.14 of the Lino Lakes City code is amended to read as follows: AMENDMENT: ELIMINATE: Entire section 1001.14 after (4) in paragraph 2. ADD: I. Density in Units/Acre 0 to 3 3 to 5 5 to 7 7 to 9 10 or more For residential development the following formula shall apply: Percentage�of Land Dedication 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Land site selection is to be approved by the park board. The city may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant based on the following formula: Land Cost/Acre ($10,000/minimum acre) x (Density Factor % x Subd. Acreage) = Park Number of Lots in Subdivision Dedication /Unit or (Park Dedication/Unit) x (no. of Units) = Dedication Per Acre Number of Acres II. The park board may accept any combination of land and monies, not to exceed the dedication requirements. III. Minor subdivisions, as defined by ordinance, will be required to follow the Land Dedication Density Table listed in the ordinance, or $500.00 per building site, at the decision of the park board. IV. For commercial or industrial development: A. The developer shall pay to the City $200.00 for each 1,000 square feet of proposed building for any commercial or industrial use except those uses set forth as follows: B. The developer shall pay to the City $133. for each 1,000 square feet of proposed building for uses as follows: 1.) Warehousing 2.) Low Labor Intensive Light Manufacturing/Assembly (one or less employee per 1,000 square feet of structure) r'1 3.) Other Low Labor Intensive Uses C. The developer of hotels and motels pay to the City $250.00 per hotel/motel unit. D. All such money must be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit. E. The above shall apply to new buildings and additions to existing buildings. II. On January 1, 1993, the amount of cash dedication set forth in I. (IV) (A) shall become $245 and the amount set forth in (IV) (B) shall become $165.00. On January 1, 1994, the amount of cash dedication set forth in I. (IV) (A) shall become $290 and the amount set forth in (IV) (B) shall become $195. r%� This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its passage and publication as required by City Charter. Passed by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this day of , 1991. ORDINANCE NO. 05 - 91 Harold L. Bisel, Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk -Treasurer The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: The following voted against same: Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. All previous comparisons of dedication fees that have been looked at in the past are submitted with this report, along with a list of ,.� subdivisions that would fall under this ordinance. I believe that this is a fair and equitable way to amend the current ordinance. It will allow the City of Lino Lakes to maintain purchase power as land cost escalate. Respectfully submitted, Marty Asleson, Superintendent of Parks, Recreation and Forestry PROPERTY DEDICATION CRITERIA AS IT READS NOW: Paragraph 1. Subd. 4 1001.14 Property Dedication. The developer shall dedicate to the city a reasonable portion of the proposed subdivision for public streets, roads, utility easements, water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds and other similar utilities and improvements.In addition, the developer shall dedicate to the city land for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails or other open space. Paragraph 2. The criterion to be used by the city in determining the parks needs is as follows: (1) Proposed development density and use. (2) Proximity of development to existing parks. (3) Open space within the development. (4) Future park needs per the comprehensive plan. r EXISTING PARAGRAPH 3. For residential,commercial and industrial development the following land dedication shall apply: 10% of the total land acreage in the development. Land site selection is to be made by the city. The city may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the protion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value at the time of final approval. This equivalent shall be $400.00 per dwelling unit to be constructed within the proposed development or ten (10%) per cent of the fair market land value of the development, whichever is greater. Where land is given to the city for public purposes, the amount shall be determined as follows: Density in units/Acre Percentage of Land Dedication 0 to 3 10% 3 to 5 12% 5 to 7 14% 7 to 9 16% 10 or more 18% CHANGE PARAGRAPH 3 TO READ: Paragraph 3. For residential, commercial, and industrial development the following land dedication will apply: Density in Units/Acre Percentage of Land Dedication 0 to 3 10% 3 to 5 12% 5 to 7 14% 7 to 9 16% 10 or more 18% Land site selection is to be approved by the park board. The city may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from applicant based on the following formula: Land Cost/Acre ($10,000/minimum acre) X (Density factor % x Subd. acreage) ............................................................ Number of ketsAil�f,.in Subdivision Park Dedication/I.eT- Paragraph 4. The park board may accept any combination of land and monies, not to exceed the dedication requirements. Paragraph 5. Minor subdivisions, will be required to follow the Land j' listed in the ordinance, or $500.00 decision of the park board. as defined by ordinance, Dedication Density Table per building site, at the V-kj-x-- U C� /9 MEMORANDUM TO: All Park Board Members FROM: Marty Asleson DATE: August 29, 1991 SUBJECT: Trails in Wenzel Farms and Weaver Property At your request, I have contacted the city engineers concerning trails in the proposed Weaver development and the Wenzel Farms development. Although we do not have anything for the packets at this time for Wenzel Farms, the engineers have assured me that there will be some forthcoming information by meeting time. I will bring what I have to the meeting. In a recent project management meeting, it was decided that before any more work is done in the Weaver property, it is probably best to wait for rezoning to take place. There are also some legal matters to be dealt with on the Captain's Place side. As soon as these matters are cleared up, we will proceed again with the engineers to determine feasibility and cost. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1991 Chairperson Fred Chase call the regular meeting of the design review board to order at 7:02 P.M., at the Lino Lakes City Hall. Mr. Robert King and Mr. John Bergeson answered roll call. Mr. Al Robinson and Mrs. Monica Slatten were absent. City Planner, John Miller; City Engineer, Dan Boxrud; and support staff, Joyce Lund were also present. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Robert King moved to approve the August 14, 1991 design review board minutes. John Bergeson seconded the motion and the motion was approved unanimously. OPEN MIKE No one appeared under open mike. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE REQUEST FOR JOHN P. KENNY DRB APPLICATION #91-29 Mr. John Kenny of 6299 Red Maple Lane, Lino Lakes addressed the board. Mr. Kenny has lived in the city for about a year and wishes to remove an existing detached garage and replace it with a larger accessory building. The existing garage is 20 x 22 feet and is poorly constructed. Mr. Kenny wishes to replace it with an accessory building measuring 30 x 40 feet, to be of custom design with Anderson windows, overhangs and siding to match the home. Mr. Kenny wishes to use this building to house his collection of antique fire engines, that he collects and restores as a hobby. Mr. King asked Mr. Kenny if he could satisfy the six findings of fact. Mr. Kenny said in regard to item #3, there was no hardship, but could not answer to the other findings. Mr. Chase stated that without meeting the six findings of fact the design review board and the city council could not grant a variance and the application needs to be denied. John Bergeson made the motion to table the request, until later during the meeting, for a variance for John Kenny to give the applicant time to explore other options, one of which was that the applicant try to acquire adjacent wetland from WCCO. Robert King seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 2 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1991 CONSIDERATION OF MINOR SUBDIVISION AND RELOCATED STRUCTURE FOR ALFRED AND MARGARET LUNDGREN DRB APPLICATION 91-34 Margaret Lundgren of 6075 Holly Drive addressed the board. The Lundgrens are long time residents of Lino Lakes. They own a 40 acre parcel of land. They wish to subdivide ten acres from the larger parcel to save and relocate a home, which has an attached two car garage, that is now located in Shoreview. Robert King moved to recommend to the city council approval of a minor subdivision for Alfred and Margaret Lundgren, DRB Application #91-34. John Bergeson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Robert King moved to recommend to the city council approval of a plan to relocate the structure for Alfred and Margaret Lundgren, from 160 Sherwood Avenue, in Shoreview, to a ten acre parcel, DRB Application #91-34, and that the relocation meet with all city codes and ordinances. John Bergeson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KEN GUNSALLUS AND JULIE HENNESSEY DRB APPLICATION 91-35 Julie Hennessey of 625 Ash Street, representing Ken-dall Kennels addressed the board. Ms. Hennessey and Ken Gunsallus have purchased ten acres of land, which has two dwellings on the parcel with two accessory buildings. Ms. Hennessey and Mr. Gunsallus with to remodel one of the accessory buildings for use as a dog kennel. They have four adult dogs, which are their pets and they use them for show. They intend to keep these dogs as a hobby only, and not breeding. John Bergeson moved to recommend to the city council approval of a conditional use permit for Ken-dall Kennels, DRB Application #91-35 with the following restrictions: 1) no more than four adult dogs, 2) with kennels to be operated as stated in the DRB Application #91-35 and 3) any renovations be done in accord with city code. Robert King seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 9 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1991 CONSIDERATION OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR GARY UHDE DRB APPLICATION 91-37 Gary Uhde addressed the board. Mr. Uhde owns a parcel of land that is 56 acres, of which Emtech, Inc. will purchase 2.56 acres. This land is part of tax increment finance district 11-04, and is zoned "LI" light industrial. Mr. Marvin Peterson intends to relocated the company Emtech, Inc. from Burnsville. Robert King moved to recommend to the city council approval of a minor subdivision for Gary Uhde, DRB Application 91-37. John Bergeson seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF A SITE AND BUILDING PLAN FOR MARVIN H. PETERSON dba EMTECH, INC. DRB APPLICATION 91-36 Mr. Marvin Peterson addressed the board. Mr. Petersons' company, Emtech, Inc. is a manufacturer of precision machined products. The business wishes to locate on a 2.56 parcel of land, that is zoned "LI" light industrial, at the south end of Fourth Avenue and 74th Street which abuts I-35W. Mr. Peterson introduced his architect from the firm of Ekberg Associates Architects. The architect displayed a site plan for Emtech, Inc. He described the different portions of the building, landscaping, drainage, parking, driveways and signage. He described future expansion for both the building and parking. John Bergeson asked if this was on the paved portion of 74th Street, yes it is. Fred Chase raised an issue. That the drainage ditch lacks screening for the future development next door. The architect said Emtech decided to wait until grading from other developments is in and then they can add spruce trees. John Miller added that they neglected to look at the mechanical "stuff", including heating, ventilation and air conditioning. The architect said that part is not final as yet, but would be screened. John Miller added that driveway on the east appears to be dangerous and may have to be moved. 4 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1991 John Bergeson questioned if action is not taken now on screening in the drainage area, how do we regulate it later. John Miller stated that once an occupancy permit is issued it is difficult - it could be incorporated in TIF that if and when drainage is abandoned landscaping be done at that time. Fred Chase asked about the guaranteed time for storm drainage and road improvements. John Miller said no date had been set for the storm drainage, but the road improvements will be a 1992 project. John Bergeson moved to recommend to the city council approval of the site and building plan for Marvin H. Peterson dba Emtech, Inc. DRB Application 91-36 with the following items: 1) location of the easterly driveway be reviewed with the city planner 2) TIF address the issue of drainage ditch screening. Robert King seconded the motion. Fred Chase added that the issue of drainage ditch screening be dealt with now instead of waiting for the issue to be caught. Mr. Chase recommended to amend to the motion that landscaping be done mid-1993 with a mixture of plantings to be n approved by John Miller, City Planner. The amended motion carried unanimously. Mr. Peterson thanked the board for their consideration. RECONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE FOR JOHN P. KENNY DRB APPLICATION #91-29 John Bergeson moved to again consider the variance for John Kenny, DRB Application 91-29. Robert King seconded the motion. John Kenny requested that the board table the issue of a variance until the regular meeting of the design review board in October. John Bergeson moved to table the request for a variance for John P. Kenny, DRB Application 91-29 until next month. Robert King seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FINA OIL AND CHEMICAL DRB APPLICATION 91-38 Daniel M. Dege, of Finn Daniels Broussard Architects, addressed the board. Fina Oil and Chemical wishes to add a diesel island, increase signage, remove underground storage tanks, add new dispensers - which will separate diesel traffic from auto traffic, 5 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1991 add some landscaping, put in a concrete curb, do some repaving and general painting and face lifting at their service station located on Lake Drive and I-35W. In regard to most of these items there has been agreement with the applicant. The issue is the sign. The application states they wish to raise the pylon sign on the north side of the property from a height of 45 feet to 65 feet. John Bergeson asked if the applicant had explored the possibility of placing the sign on some other property - such as a highway sign, indicating there is fuel at this exit off the freeway. Mr. Dege said he had not. Mr. Dege expressed concern as to the time of year, Fina would like to have most items in place before severe weather sets in. John Bergeson asked John Miller to review the interchange study for that area. Mr. Miller stated that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1990 concerning the land use in the area. In regard to signs - which need a conditional use permit, two applications were made and denied for billboards because they detracted from business use in the area. Fred Chase questioned the driveway width, they were scaled to about 30 feet. Robert King asked if the truck entry to the diesel pumps would be one way. It is not,. and it was scaled to be about 25 feet from the back of the building to the edge of the pavement, but is considered enough room for trucks to go two ways. John Bergeson noticed that in the staff report John Miller recommended to table the conditional use permit request of Fina Oil and Chemical and asked Mr. Miller to expand on that recommendation. Mr. Miller said that historically when items are in general agreement between staff and the applicant he recommends approval. In this case staff and the applicant have been unable to come up with an agreement. He recommend to table the issue, and the applicant and staff must negotiate in good faith and in this regard issued must be resolved and then appear before the design review board in one month. Mr. Miller continued that staff had made every effort to cooperate with the applicant and had asked the city council to set a public hearing date of September 23, and has worked toward helping Fina find applicants for the restaurant portion of the building. However, they cannot agree on the signage issue, it is contrary to the interchange study and therefore should be tabled until an agreement is reached. C DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1991 Mr. Dege stated that more negotiation between two people who disagree would help the issue and asked if there were not some way the matter could proceed. Fred Chase recommended to have a motion to move the issue along. John Bergeson made the motion to recommend to the city council the approval of a conditional use permit for Fina Oil and Chemical, DRB Application 91-38 with the following conditions: 1) allow the driveways to remain at 30 feet, 2) the sign is to be no higher than 45 feet which is consistent with the building height and the height of the present sign, 3) the traffic pattern in the back of the building be reviewed when the conditional use permit is renewed next June. Robert King seconded the motion, and Fred Chase added that MNDOT may help with signage on the freeway or they might consider a sign on property closer to the freeway - to the west. John Bergeson added that concrete curbing be added to replace the bituminous curb between the driveways. Motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF CONCEPT PLAN FOR REITH EIBENSTEINER FOR LAND PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS LAKES ADDITION NO. 7 Keith Eibensteiner, the developer addressed the board. Mr. Eibensteiner wishes to develop 9.8 acres of vacant land on the northwest corner of Birch Street and Black Duck Drive, to be known as Lakes Addition No. 7. Mr. Eibensteiner passed out concept plans No. 2, which reduced the number of double frontage lots and added another entrance onto the County Road and No. 3 which has one lot with double frontage, and one road. The board took a few minutes to look over the two plans. Dan Boxrud said the utilities corridors will connect the two cul- de-sacs, and the code alternatives are best on Concept plan No. 3. John Bergeson questioned the small amount of frontage on the cul- de-sac lot 18. Robert King made the motion to recommend to the city council the approval of concept plan No. 3 on Keith Eibensteiners land, to include the comments of the city engineer and city planner, that attention be paid to lot 18, and that lots 1 and 13 be adjusted to code width of 105 feet. John Bergeson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1991 CONSIDERATION OF PIPELINE SETBACK ORDINANCE Questions about a pipeline ordinance were presented by John Miller. When homes are constructed and pipelines are in the easements, who is responsible for containment. Who is responsible for pipeline placement within the easement, and who pays for everything? John Miller recommended that staff be directed to follow-up and draft issues and bring back the report to the board in October. OLD BUSINESS John Miller will visit with Randy Schumacher to see if the revised zoning ordinance can be presented at the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS There was none. 8:57 P.M. 0