The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/14/2024 PZ Combined PacketMeeting guidelines on reverse side. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, August 14, 2024 Broadcast on Cable TV Channel 16 and northmetrotv.com/lino-lakes-stream ADVISORY BOARD MEETING, 6:30 P.M. Council Chambers (televised) 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Public Comment (sign-in prior to start of meeting per Rules of Decorum) 4. Setting the Agenda: Addition or Deletion of Agenda Items 5. Approval of Minutes: June 12, 2024 and June 17, 2024 6. Action Items A. Watermark 8th Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat 7. Discussion Items A. Main Street Corridor Master Plan Engagement Discussion B. Project Update ADJOURNMENT CITY OF LINO LAKES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING GUIDELINES Advisory boards are fact-finding bodies established to aid the City Council in specific areas. The decisions of any board are considered advisory only and all final decisions rest with the City Council. Board meetings shall operate in accordance with the procedures established by the City Council. The following meeting guidelines are derived from the City Council Rules of Decorum. Members of the Audience – No person in the audience shall engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct such as audible commentary during a meeting, hand clapping, stamping of feet, whistling, using profane language, yelling and similar demonstrations, which conduct disturbs the peace and good order of the meeting. Public Comment– Comments from the public will be accepted on any matter, whether on the agenda or not. Comments will not be accepted during specific agenda items unless a Public Hearing has been noticed. Please remember to be courteous and respectful and abide by the following guidelines: • Sign-in prior to the start of the meeting • Step up to the microphone when recognized by the Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) • State your name and address for the record • State the subject to be discussed • Limit comments to 4 minutes • Address comments to the board as a whole, not any specific member • No question may be asked of a board member or staff member without the permission of the Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) • Elect a spokesperson for a group of persons who wish to address the board on the same subject Public Hearing – A public hearing is a separate item of business on the agenda. It gives the public an opportunity to comment on the topic identified. Please remember to be courteous and respectful and abide by the guidelines outlined for public comment (although no sign-in required). Typically, a public hearing proceeds as follows: 1. The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) will announce the agenda item and staff will present their report. 2. Board members have the opportunity to ask staff questions about the item. 3. The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) opens the public hearing and will recognize those who want to speak. 4. The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) shall close the public hearing. 5. The Board will then discuss the item. No further public comments are allowed. 6. The Board will make a recommendation and/or decision. After a motion has been made or a public hearing has been closed, no member of the public shall address the board from the audience on the matter under consideration. The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) shall maintain strict order and etiquette at all meetings. APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Root called the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on June 12, 2024. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Root declared public comment open at 6:35 p.m. Dr. Abdirashid Shire, 2150 Watermark Way, Lino Lakes, MN 55038. Dr. Shire is in favor of the Madinah Lakes development. Dr. Shire talked about the commute to the Mosque and the convenience to get there once it is built. Dr. Shire wants the City to follow the criteria for approving developments and would like this development to be treated as the City has to others before it. He feels a moratorium is not needed. Jameel Ahmed, 12142 Bataan Street NE, Blaine, MN 55449. Mr. Ahmed is in favor of the Madinah Lakes development. He thought the development would bring economic growth, greenspace within the development, sustainable practices and additional housing. He addressed the misinformation surrounding the development and urged the City to focus on the facts and what the Madinah Lakes development can bring to the community. DATE: June 12, 2024 TIME STARTED: 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED: 9:05 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nathan Vojtech, Neil Evenson, Perry Laden Michael Root, Suzy Guthmueller MEMBERS ABSENT: Isaac Wipperfurth STAFF PRESENT: Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Diane Hankee Julie Whitney Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2024 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Abdul Aleem, 4780 128th Circle NE, Blaine, MN 55449. Mr. Aleem appreciated the proximity of the mosque to his home in Blaine and is in favor of the Madinah Lakes development. He believes this development and mosque is an investment of future inclusion of diversity and progress. Mr. Aleem said the mosque is more than a place to worship, it is a community center that will offer educational programs, social services and a space for dialogue and understanding. Mr. Aleem feels by approving the project the City affirms its commitment to religious freedom and mutual respect welcoming people of all backgrounds. He believes the development will provide modern sustainable living space and it will attract and retain a diverse workforce. He also believes it will stimulate the local economy. He trusts the traffic concern will be addressed in the planning stages and does not think there is a need for the AUAR process. Mr. Aleem encourages the Board to approve the project. Randy Rennaker, 379 Carl Street, Lino Lakes, MN 55014. Mr. Rennaker is in support of the “slow the grow” movement. He still has the concerns he raised previously. Jaylani Hussein, 2581 East Franklin, Minneapolis, MN 55406. Mr. Hussein addressed the injustice regarding the allowance of Muslims to build a mosque and homes next to it. He said what is happening here is “not in my backyard” and treating people as though they do not belong. Two projects came forward and there should be dialog about them but it should be based on facts and merits and allow due process. When new organizations have to go through a different process it is discrimination. He said now we have a moratorium for Madinah Lakes but there was no moratorium for the other two which were larger even when the City was not mature. He also said we now have the requirement for an additional environmental review which he said the City received the information from the last study according to the staff member at the last Environmental meeting. He said it concluded that everything was good but now the City is asking for an additional review. He feels that the development from a planning perspective is very beautiful and is a combination of urban and rural. Suleiman Adan, 2811 East Franklin Avenue, Minneapolis MN 55406. He stated he has built relationships with residents of our City. He stated Councilman Ruhland commented that the moratorium was not meant to stifle developments but to ensure clarity, transparency and thoughtful planning. The message heard in the community is you are not wanted. People across the metro feel strongly for Muslim’s and their allies, that they are willing to travel here countless times for this process. He said when Muslim’s have come together in any City for any proposal it is received “it is not wanted”. Mr. Adan said what is agreed upon and done in the City of Lino Lakes sends a message to who is allowed here versus who is welcome here. He said to let the process and policies be done fairly and without bias when further considering this development. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2024 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Kathy Timm, 815 Country Lake Drive, Lino Lakes, MN 55014. Ms. Timm is in favor of the Madinah Lakes development. She thinks it will be good to have another house of worship, additional park land and trails, access to diverse food and banquet rooms. She understands the concerns regarding traffic and said the County is already taking steps to address that issue whether this development is done or not. The plans need to go through the normal process and if adequate, be approved. Mohammad Islam, 2815 117th Lane NE, Blaine, MN 55449. Mr. Islam said we should follow the process and reject the proposal if it does not meet the criteria. He requested that the people that are concerned about it should state the facts accurately. He addressed a Board member that stated incorrectly the number of people that were going to be moving into the City and had to be corrected by City staff. He said in reality it is about 1500 people. There was also a comment there would need to be a lane added to 35 to accommodate the traffic increase. He said 1500 cars would not require an increase in lanes. Other people said the City will run out of water and the City staff is saying that is not a concern. Another concern is running out of seats at the schools, but there is open enrollment. He said if the proposed development meets the criteria we should move forward and not change the rules in the middle of the game. He mentioned someone was concerned with section 8 in the development. He said the homes will be between 400,000 and 1.2 million dollars. He wanted the truth spoken and no falsifying of facts. Bret Shroyer, 580 Marshan Lane, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Shroyer supports smart development. He read through the staff report and saw there were a lot of good comments from staff regarding the areas of concern. He feels a traffic study should be completed, have a master plan for the main street corridor, the west side relief sewer should be upgraded, and addressing the water supply concerns. He urges the City to continue the process and take in the recommendations of staff. He said it was all in the scope of the 2040 plan and is not being fabricated. He stressed these issues need to be addressed before development. He believes it is not something that can be identified along the way. Mr. Shroyer also mentioned the developer requesting flexibility in the lot size requirements that is not within our standards and guidelines. He also encouraged the Board to carefully consider the application as proposed and the City’s ability to grant PUD flexibility given the uncertainty of other areas and the inexperience of the developer. Mr. Shroyer said this location is mixed development in the 2040 comp plan and that is the way it should be completed. In closing Mr. Shroyer stated if the development does not fit the needs of the City, demand that revisions are made so it does. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2024 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Brian Robinson, 310 Main Street, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Robinson declined to comment. Alan Irwin, 6466 Totem Trail, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Irwin has nothing against the Madinah Lakes development but thought it was adding a lot of houses in a short period of time. He thought there should be a limit on the building permits issued each year. He also referenced the smaller lots and questioned if that’s what our City wanted to approve. He thought the City was building too fast. Mr. Vojtech moved to close public comment. Motion seconded by Mr. Evenson. Public comment was closed at 7:07 p.m. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Vojtech moved to approve the May 8, 2024 meeting minutes. Motion seconded by Mr. Kohler. Motion carried 6 – 0. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Madinah Lakes PUD Concept Plan Review Matt Duffy, 7760 France Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55435, attorney for Zikar Holdings. Mr. Duffy said this development is a revolutionary development. He reviewed the way the development will connect to the trail system the City currently has and addressed the bodies of water that will control run off. Mr. Duffy said the development complies with the zoning ordinances and the comp guide plan. Mr. Duffy does not see the need for an EAW and that the required AUAR can study what the EAW would study. Mr. Duffy feels the moratorium is unnecessary given Madinah Lakes is the only pending project before the City. Mr. Duffy stated Promenade, that was an application for this location before Madinah Lakes, was also subject to an EAW. There was no further environmental review required for that project upon completion. It was determined that that the Promenade development had no impact on the City. Madinah Lakes, that is less dense, should also have no impact. Therefore, Zikar holdings is requesting the process continues on its merits and work through the planning process. Under Minnesota law if the project meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the City must approve the application. Mr. Duffy addressed the history of the Robinson parcel and the timeline of the Promenade application process. It was deemed at the end Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2024 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES of that process that no further environmental review was needed and that the project could move forward. Mr. Duffy said the ordinance was amended in November 2022 and any issues could have been addressed at that time. The City saw no further need to do any further environmental review. In early 2024 Zikar Holdings submitted their concept plan for Madinah Lakes for the exact parcel and they are subject to the amended zoning requirements. Madinah Lakes not only meets those requirements but provides additional public benefit by pursuing a planned unit development. In the 2040 comp plan master planning was not mandatory but was more of a should be completed. Mr. Duffy said Madinah Lakes has a variety of home types, new roads, stormwater retention, sewer and water system upgrades and trail system connectivity. Madinah Lakes has learned from the EAW conducted for the Promenade development. Mr. Duffy addressed the findings and facts from the Robinson EAW that show the City planned for the growth and the impacts were addressed in the 2040 plan and that the impact would not be significant. He added that it was a direct quote. He said it supports their position that an AUAR or moratorium is not necessary because the system has already been upgraded. Mr. Duffy said Madinah Lakes is the only development that has a formal submittal now. This is why they believe allowing Madinah to go through the EAW process, follow the zoning ordinance and follow the planning process would be better and preferred. Mr. Duffy reiterated that the residential housing, religious uses and commercial retail are allowed in the City's zoning code and a mosque is a conditional use. The proposed development includes 4.8 acres of commercial land which is consistent with the comprehensive guide plan. The PUD flexibility is not required for commercial components of the Madinah Lakes development. The application right now is proposed for 34 housing units, which is consistent with the City’s development density range. In 2010 to 2023, the city's average annual number of housing units was 118 units, which is less than the city's predicted allowance of 230 units. This means the City's residential housing growth has been slower than the City's planned growth. He said the development will be done in phases and will comply with the City's anticipated predicted annual housing allowance. In closing, he asked to approve the concept plan without the need for an AUAR but proceed with the EAW. He said to follow the process that anyone else is subject to as that is what the law requires. In closing he added a moratorium is not required. Eric Johnson with Sathre-Bergquist, 14000 25 th Avenue N, Plymouth, MN 55447, Mr. Johnson said he is an engineer working on the project. He covered the current plan for the property and what will be built there. He stated Anoka County would provide the traffic study which was requested as part of the EAW as well as to provide the necessary roadway improvements. Within the development, they will incorporate requests from the Public Safety Department and City staff to ensure the site allows for an efficient way of transportation for emergency vehicles and everyday use. They will follow local and state requirements and will build a development that abides by and exceeds City standards. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2024 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Dean Dovolis, 331 Washington Avenue N, Minneapolis MN 55401, with DJR Architecture who is the architect for the development. Mr. Dovolis spoke of the history of the site and said the goal is to bring as much back, but still allow occupancy of the site by the various residents. Mr. Dovolis said they are going to try to consolidate the green areas together, the natural areas and the water waste together to capture drainage to develop buffers behind all the houses incorporated with the trail. The idea is to cluster density where it is making the houses tight to the road and trying to enhance some buffers as much as possible through the site to create a continuous realm of natural areas, which will create a lot better biodiversity of what exists today. They will create a site that allows more infiltration, a little more concentration in nature, reduces gray areas, which will do two things because they are eliminating the wells that exist today and try to get more infiltration. They are also going to look at planting a natural buffer area so that if there are high nutrients in the soil, they can develop certain plants to remediate the soil. They will capture rainwater to purify the water. The more nature takes hold, the more the water table gets restored, the more the area starts building itself. They will look at the infiltration limiting green landscape due to the fertilizers and other elements on the lawns causing them to become harsh to the environment. They will also be consolidating bodies of water, large areas of natural environment, and putting the trails where the amenities are. This is to emphasize the connectivity that exists already and to tie those bands of nature that run through the development. The trail system follows all the natural features. This is so the public, and not just the private residents, have the experience of nature and water views. Mr. Dovolis addressed the easements around the properties and that the lawns are not going to be a continuous carpet. They are going to restrict an area to allow natural buffers to occur within it. It works for pollinators, birds, waterfowl, and everything by creating these protected areas. The idea is that yards would be sculptured, but there will be what is called natural easements that will continue through various aspects of the property. The Board asked questions regarding the natural buffers and water connections. Mr. Dovolis the buffers will be part of the easement with a height between two to four feet. Mr. Root asked about invasive species after a year and who would be maintaining the areas. Mr. Dovolis said it would be a combination of the City and the HOA. Ms. Larsen presented the staff report. The applicant, Zikar Holdings, is proposing a master planned development located on the Robinson sod farm property south of CSAH 14 (Main Street) and east of CR 53 (Sunset Avenue). The development contains 4 parcels totaling approximately 156 gross acres and consists of mix of residential housing types, commercial development, and a religious building. The proposed development is called Madinah Lakes. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2024 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Evenson likes the buffers between the houses and the extra green space. He is not concerned about the width of the lot. He thinks the holding pond should be connected and that a meeting should be held with the community. Mr. Kohler asked who pays for the utilities to be brought to the development. Ms. Larsen said the utilities are presently in the area. Mr. Laden had asked if the City could get a copy of the Power Point from the architect. Ms. Larsen said we could. Mr. Laden is comfortable with the overall density and appreciates the shorter cul-de-sacs. He is concerned about the 55 ft lots and does not want to see all garage from the street. He thinks they should pay close attention to the product and thinks the mosque should be moved to where it is more visible. He also agrees with public safety that Carl Street should be connected. Mr. Vojtech would also like a public waterway and he thinks the park should be shifted so you can see the large lake from it. He is not in favor of connecting the other streets. Mr. Vojtech wanted to keep the standard lots at 60 feet and agrees for the need of a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Kohler would like to see a topography change when the development is completed. Ms. Larsen stated it would be built up. Ms. Guthmueller is concerned about the density and does not see a whole lot of green space. She does not see much room for wildlife due to the density in the development and thinks we should keep with the standard lot sizes. Ms. Guthmueller also thinks a neighborhood meeting is necessary. Mr. Laden was in favor of 7 ½ foot setbacks and thinks it should be City wide. Mr. Evenson agrees. Mr. Root would like to see the City keep with the density that R-1 requires. Mr. Root dislikes the location of the apartments and believes the density is too high. Mr. Root addressed the traffic and thought a better area for the mosque and commercial buildings would be at Sunset and Main or Century Trail and Sunset if there was a roundabout for traffic control. Mr. Root is skeptical about the green easements around the houses and does not think it will be manageable and would also like to see the architectural plans. He agrees to establish minimum lot width and depth for single family homes. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2024 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES He summarized the Board would like neighborhood meetings and perhaps a sign on the development that there is a development proposed for said property. Ms. Larsen said they had thought of that but would need to change the sign ordinance. He said the mosque location should be shifted closer to Main Street and assure public access to the lakes. The Board was not unanimous on the density. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Project Updates Mr. Grochala provided project updates. Mr. Evenson moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Vojtech. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Julie Whitney – Community Development Administrative Assistant DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Root called the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on June 17, 2024. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Root declared public comment open at 6:36 p.m. Darren Z, 6711 Pine Street, Lino Lakes, MN, declined to comment. Tammy Dunrud, 314 Carl Street, Lino Lakes, MN 55014. Ms. Dunrud says she sees people enjoying Carl Street daily. In reviewing the plans, it appears those living in the new development will have walkways and parks to enjoy. Also with the Carl Street connection she does not see sidewalks for the people on Carl Street who want to continue to walk. She feels the Carl Street residents will be stripped of a quality of life that they have come to enjoy due to their having no safe place to walk. She does not want Carl Street connected to the development and is in favor of the moratorium. Naeem Qureshi, 4506 Orchard Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55422, Mr. Qureshi spoke of his history in this country and his knowledge and training in the water industry. He said a recent study that he completed showed per capita the demands are decreasing. He said he has looked at the City’s capacity in a planning document provided DATE: June 17, 2024 TIME STARTED: 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED: 10:17 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Nathan Vojtech, Neil Evenson, Michael Root Suzy Guthmueller, Perry Laden MEMBERS ABSENT: Isaac Wipperfurth STAFF PRESENT: Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Julie Whitney Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES by the City and it shows constant growth. He said the only thing that is important and constant is change. He said everyone in the City wants things to remain the same now and there should be no change. He said that will not happen. The capacity of the City water system is large enough to support the proposed development. He said the idea of having a moratorium to prevent change is not going to work. He does not want the moratorium and wants the City to work with the consultant and City staff to ensure the issues of traffic or any other issues are addressed. He said there has been an Islamic center in Fridley since 1988 and encourages Lino Lakes to speak to their Council and staff to see how the issues were resolved. Scott Zbikowski, 7765 Clydesdale Circle, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Zbikowski encourages residents and council members to view where the development will be built. He said the developer did not ask for concessions for 55 ft lots and thinks that size is unacceptable for the area. He said the development to the north and south does not fit into our urban area. He does not want to see a change for Carl Street to the south. He says no to the moratorium and wants the City to follow the existing 2040 comprehensive development plan. Mr. Vojtech moved to close public comment. Motion seconded by Mr. Evenson. Public comment was closed at 6:44 p.m. Motion carried 6 - 0. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public Hearing: Consider Interim Ordinance to Creating a Moratorium on the Subdivision of Lands for Residential Uses Mr. Grochala presented the staff report. The northwest quadrant of the City, located along Main Street and generally referred to as “the Sod Farms”, has received significant development interest over the past two years. Two development interests have recently presented or submitted concepts for discussion with the City Council. In February of 2024 Pulte Group presented interest in developing a master planned active adult (55+) residential community on approximately 240 acres north of Main Street. The City Council completed a tour of a similar Del Webb branded project in late Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES March of 2024 to gain a better understanding of site amenities and site layout, using smaller lot sizes and reduced setbacks. The City also became aware of the proposed Madinah Lake project in late March of 2024. A Planned Unit Development Concept Plan has been submitted and is currently under review. The proposed project includes a mix of housing types, totaling 434 units, commercial development and a religious building on approximately 156 acres. Together, the Pulte/Del Webb and Madinah Lakes projects include development of approximately 400 acres and 900 residential housing units along the Main Street corridor. Both projects are requesting design flexibility through the PUD process. In reaction to the development interest, the City Council has discussed the possible need for a moratorium to further study the corridor in preparation for development. Mr. Laden questioned if the work was completed before the one year can the moratorium terminate. Mr. Grochala said it could. Mr. Squires said you would not need to go through the process again and it could be terminated. Mr. Laden wanted to know how the AUAR on the northeast quadrant benefited the City. Mr. Grochala said it allowed the City to look at the different impacts and the different land development scenarios created in terms of transportation and surface water runoff and allowed the City to evaluate and address our needs for that entire corridor. The benefit now is the industrial commercial development that would always require an environmental review. It is already accommodated and they already have a plan that guides development. Mr. Vojtech questioned the history of the Lino Lakes moratoriums. Mr. Grochala said he was aware of three and explained when they were and what they were for. Mr. Evenson questioned if the moratorium stops the process for the developer. Mr. Grochala said it prevents the City from reviewing any new land use of subdivisions. Mr. Kohler asked if there is a 5-year expiration for the AUAR. Mr. Grochala said it is updated every 5 years regardless of development. Mr. Root questioned without the well being replaced and what is coming out of the well now, if any development could be done. Mr. Grochala said it will take a year and half to work on the well problem. Decisions will need to be made to replace well 2 by next year. Mr. Root questioned where we are at in the process of what we are required to do. Mr. Squires, Lino Lakes City Attorney, said the procedure complies with and is consistent with what the law requires. Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Root opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Matt Duffy, 7760 France Avenue South, Bloomington, MN 55435. Mr. Duffy is one of the attorneys working with Zikar holdings. He stated they remain adamant against the moratorium for many reasons that they have already stated. Mr. Duffy said they are under contract with the property. He said even though they had not submitted an application yet to the City they were willing to work with the City on the environmental assessment worksheet that is required for the project. Timing is more of their concern, consistency and some predictability as the board here and as the City Council considers the plan before them. He said Mr. Grochala pointed out there was a negative declaration on the Robinson sod farm a few years ago, the findings in that document we think are still relevant to the development that Madinah Lakes is proposing and currently before the city. He feels there is nothing in there that warrants a much deeper dive. He said in fact the city felt the same way by declaring a negative declaration where they found that there was no need for an environmental review. He said Anoka County has already addressed traffic by adding another roundabout at Century Avenue and Main Street. He stated the EAW process is what should be followed, considering that is what was done to the Robinson sod farm EAW a few years ago. He does not see a need to expand. The idea of an AUAR is not worrisome to Zikar Holdings. If that is the plan that the City decides to go forward with, they would like to be an active participant to collaborate. It is important to them that the City has what they need to make things cohesive. Zikar Holdings believes the EAW is the direction to go. But the AUAR could be done with more discussion with city staff to figure out what the parameters look like and what participation would look like. He said one of their concerns is the timing of the moratorium. He said due to the moratorium being in place for one year it takes two construction seasons for them. He said assuming they can get things done, the 2026 construction season may or may not be on the table. It comes down to how fast things can get approved by the city. The concern is that if they continue to do this and things do not move in a more systematic and more predictable fashion, the construction will not begin until the 2027 season. He said that is a big concern due to the increase in construction costs. He said the more time they wait, the less affordable the proposed houses become. Dean Dovolis, 331 Washington Avenue N, Minneapolis MN 55401, with DJ Architecture questioned the necessity for a moratorium. Mr. Dovolis feels the City has enough information already from previous studies. He said the AUAR is a sufficient process to accomplish all the goals that the City has outlined. He said Madinah Lakes meets a great deal of the City requirements already. He said Madinah is the best and only application right now but did acknowledge other discussions with potential builders. Mr. Dovolis said the City’s rush to stop major development seems unnecessary, especially with a Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES phasing plan, this event will fall at or below the city's 10-year average number of units being created. Water use in households are dropping with low flow toilets and other elements that are saving it. He said this process could be handled by the existing elements within the city. He believes the City should use the AUAR but not the moratorium. He thinks it will accomplish the same outcome but allow the developers to interact with the City planning staff to create the best development possible. Faraaz Yussuf, 12724 Letty Street NE, Blaine, MN 55449, Mr. Yussuf said as the developer he stands in strong opposition to the moratorium. He said the action was unfair and unjust and appears highly targeted given that Madinah Lakes is currently the only application with the city. He said this area has been the topic of development discussion for nearly two decades. There have been multiple proposals with different levels of review. Mr. Yussuf said at no point during these past discussions was a moratorium ever proposed. He discussed the argument for the moratorium is the density, too much growth too fast that would affect water, traffic and schools. This development would only house 1200 to 1300 new residents over the course of three to four years. He said gradual growth is manageable and will contribute constructively and positively to the community. He said that those opposing this development due to the area being a sod farm said every neighborhood that exists today in Lino Lakes was once a farm. Housing developments are an essential part of community growth. He faulted the City for appearing to be inventorying the Robinson sod farm and other farms and treating it as their own property without proper consultation, and permission from the Robinson family. This approach disregards the rights and interests of the property owners and sets a very troubling precedent for future development and property rights in Lino Lakes. He said he could almost guarantee that nearly every resident supporting a moratorium would quickly change their mind if their own property was being taken without any consultation or consideration. He urged the board to consider the broader implications of the moratorium. He said it sent a message to developers that Lino Lakes is not open to growth and development which could have long term negative impacts. In conclusion, Zikar Holdings respectfully requests that you oppose the moratorium, and allow any development to proceed per the set review processes and state statutes that oversee such projects. This project represents a significant opportunity for growth, community development, and economic benefit to Lino Lakes. Scott Robinson, 8179 4th Avenue, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Robinson reviewed the growth in Lino Lakes over the past 50 years and named several farming families that have been in the area and where the land for development came from to give opportunities to people to come to our community to live. He said the northwest quadrant was cited for development in 1990 and has remained in the comprehensive plan since that time. Mr. Robinson said they waited until the timing was appropriate for Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES their families, the community and the economy. In 2006 it was appropriate for a master plan. He said they had 680 acres, and he has 650. He said the density was going to be 3.3 homes per acre average. That growth was reduced by the housing crash of 2008. He said since then opportunities have been presented to them that they have declined. He said they believe now is the appropriate time. He said he doubts the Boards intention is to disrespect the time and energy put forth by past members but said if the City disregards their plans then what are they doing? He believes the time is appropriate now due to the population of the aging community and lack of suitable housing for them. The development Pulte is proposing does not place a burden on our schools or our traffic levels. The older generation make up the largest population of volunteers in our schools, churches and community. It is our responsibility to help provide an environment where our 55 plus population can relax in a one level style home within an association and amenities at their disposal. He said for himself and fellow citizens who are concerned with open space, he said there will always be approximately 40% open land. He said Lino Lakes has approximately 68 miles of walking, running, and riding trails, 15 miles of canoe routes and 21 city parks that will not change. He feels slowing the development with the moratorium continues to delay the need for housing to our aging community. Imam Asad Zaman, 1608 Como Avenue, St Paul, MN 55105, Executive Director of Muslim American Society, Mr. Zaman stated Zikar Holdings is under contract with his organization to build a $10 million mosque. This moratorium will place a one-year delay and is expected to raise the cost between 5% and 9%. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act requires cities to conduct their business in a manner that produces the least negative impact upon religious users. He questioned the Board and wanted to know if at the end of the public hearing if they have considered the obligations under the Religious Land Use Act and taken affirmative steps to make sure that the religious land use proposed is not negatively impacted by this moratorium. Mr. Zaman said, in conclusion, he wanted the Board to vote no to the moratorium. He stated it was unnecessary, wasteful and harmful. The city already has all the tools needed to impose regulations that are needed to protect the water, traffic, safety, and every other concern including blanding turtles. Ashley Johnson, 7839 Lois Lane, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Ms. Johnson said she is in support of the moratorium for the northwest quadrant of Lino Lakes. She asked the Board to vote in favor of the moratorium. She said she spoke three years ago to the City Council regarding concerns of speeding on her residential street. She said Mayor Rafferty came to their home to get an understanding of what was going on in the neighborhood. Mr. Rafferty and the police department was very supportive and took it as a very serious issue. Ms. Johnson believes the moratorium will give the emergency Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES services time to determine how they will accommodate the influx of more than 1000 people regarding vehicle traffic. She believes the safety and security of our residents need to be at the forefront of this decision. Mr. Darren Zabinski, 6711 Pine Street, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Dubinsky stated a moratorium was a legal action implemented by hundreds of cities with precedent in the state of Minnesota and in Lino Lakes. He said many will speak today telling us they need fairness like other developments. At least two other developments in our City have been subject to a moratorium. Many will say judge it on its merits, and then call everyone who asks a question racist and threaten with lawsuits. Although the developer attempted to talk about the merits at the Planning & Zoning board last week, what was conveyed was yards with weedy lawns, mosquito infested drainage ponds, maintenance paid by US taxpayers, tiny lot sizes, highly dense apartments, long cul-de-sacs and a vastly different design from the original plan. He stated the residents have lots of questions. He said many will also get speak and talk to you about their experience as urban planners, many from Minneapolis, population 42,596, Brooklyn Park population 83,324, or even Blaine population 71,739. He said we do not want to be Blaine or Minneapolis or Urban. He stated residents who oppose developments of this size have valid concerns. criminal history, lack of experience, not one single completed development, the White Bear Lake water issues, DNR, environmental concerns, building a new water plant, property taxes and maintenance paid for by taxpayers. He said we need a masterplan for the northwest quadrant which takes time. He said even though residents are now being labeled as a cult they will continue to stand strong and defend their town. He said they reject all ignorant and bigoted statements from anyone. Mr. Zabinski questioned if the development is good for both the City and the developer, why are they forcing this development so quickly and oppose the moratorium so strongly? If the development has merits, it should be able to easily survive a yearlong moratorium and the developer would gladly take this opportunity to work with the residents and council to make this development for everyone. He did not think the developer would do that because he does not believe the development is for everyone and the developer does not care what anyone thinks even stating on television even saying on TV “it does not matter what happens he will stand here every inch of the way and do the development no matter what, even if it takes a lawsuit”. Mr. Zabinski believes the residents of Lino Lakes have the right to ask questions and speak their mind freely and oppose major developments without the threat of being called names, bullied or a lawsuit. The Council has this right too. He wanted to remind the Council and residents that the moratorium has precedent, and the threat of lawsuit and name calling has no place in public discourse. He challenged anyone to come up to speak to not use the word discrimination. He stated it was the developers’ only argument and that they are pushing people away but maybe that is what is wanted, division. Maybe this Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES development really is not for everyone. Mr. Zabinski requested the City not be bullied or threatened away from the moratorium. Bonnie Herman. I live at 7859 Lois Lane, Lino Lakes 55014. Ms. Herman believes if we do not have the moratorium, they will lose street maintenance and the preservation of wildlife. She is concerned if Carl Street ends up being an egress from the new development that people will be coming through the neighborhood. Ms. Herman stands in opposition to the development and would like to see the moratorium. She asked for the City to protect the land, water, environment, schools and all of the other things that are being discussed. The reality is the moratorium should be used to change the lot size, if nothing else, to homes per acre. She always knew that the sod fields would be developed but believed it would be in a conscientious manner. Justin Reynolds, 7328 Stagecoach Trail, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Reynolds is in support of the moratorium. He said moratoriums are nothing new to Lino Lakes and seem to have one every few decades. He said there was one in 1989, 2002 and now in 2024. The City has a master plan and has also completed AUAR studies before and nothing that is being proposed right now is unique. The proposed development on Robinson sod farm is the third proposal to come forward in the last 20 years on that piece of land. The previous developers backed out because they found out the land was not feasible to develop for one reason or another. The most recent development even had an EAW performed. He heard the EAW came back with a negative rating and that there are a great deal of mitigations and concerns that needed to be addressed from it. It is not just well it passed the EAW so we are good to go. Numerous items need to be addressed such as potential endangered species, wastewater and stormwater concerns as well as traffic. The Metropolitan Council said it was a poor candidate for this type of development. Mr. Reynolds said the 2440 comp plan calls for mostly residential development in this area along with some commercial, but it just seems like this will be a difficult and costly task that needs to be done correctly. He asked us to remember two national experienced developers that did not find it feasible to develop on this land. He thinks the moratorium would give the City time to reassess and plan the best future use of this land. He said the north side of Main Street has not had an EAW completed by previous proposals. In general, the City needs to slow the growth of the city. As he said in previous meetings, Lino Lakes used to have an ordinance capping the number of housing units 147 per year on average and thinks the City needs to go back to that. He thinks we have plenty of housing available in Lino Lakes. Some people may say that 147 housing units is not very much, but when we look at the period between 2010 and 2020, there is an average of just 78 housing units per year according to the Met Council figures. Mr. Reynolds thinks that asking you to double that amount is not unreasonable. He said with that number of housing units added, we have seen schools continue to Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES become overcrowded, traffic congestion increased to unsustainable levels and water supply concerns. He thinks it is time for a pause to ensure that that City has the right plan in place to move forward. This is why he is in support of the moratorium. Randy Renneker, 379 Carl Street, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Renneker has lived in Lino Lakes for years and enjoys the quietness of it. Mr. Renneker supports a residential moratorium and said we have one chance to get it right. The city has a fiduciary responsibility to its residents to take a measured look at this area prior to development. He supports the rights of the landowners. He said he is a landowner himself and he supports the rights of the Robinsons to do whatever they would like with their property. He said as a resident and landowner he also has every right to be concerned with any development and to speak his mind. He asks the City to take into consideration the existing residents that live here that help build the community. He said the City is welcoming of all people, all developments, any part of the city, but the City should take a look at what they are doing and give it measured thought. Melissa Schultz, 6821 Black Duck Circle, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Ms. Schultz stated she is here as a Lino Lakes resident and no representation of her employer. However, she said her professional experience is why she is requesting that council vote yes to a moratorium. Ms. Schultz’s degree is in architecture with coursework in urban planning and sustainability. She stated master plans enable clear and concise decision making for everyone involved. They have a lot of financial benefits from a planning and financial perspective. She thinks in the current situation the community will greatly benefit from the participatory nature of a master plan since they typically include community input and outreach. If the City moves forward with a master plan, she would like to see it has an emphasis on context sensitive solutions. As part of the process, she urges the City to look at density and a lot sizing that is in context with existing neighborhood sizing and 5500 acres of natural park lands that these developments surround. A moratorium would also give the Council time to look at the potential future impacts of recent transportation legislation. She referred to omnibus bill HF5247 which now requires the state to look at reducing greenhouse gases by not increasing capacity or vehicle miles traveled on their roadways with potentially costly mitigation for the state. She thinks it is worth the City looking into it especially since County Road 14 in particular is an East and West arterial roadway that is geographically positioned as the next Highway 610. In conclusion, Ms. Schultz has seen a lot of communities wish they had a master plan and is yet to see one regret that they do. She has also found that pausing projects for more in-depth planning and getting the opinion others with more voices always creates a better community outcome. And with that, she encourages the City to continue with a moratorium and a master planning process. Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Sherry Douglas 106 Pony Court, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Ms. Douglas began by stating she is against any fast-paced large developments in the City. Ms. Douglas said there are many concerns regarding rapid growth, traffic, schools, water wells, environmental effects, and public safety regarding our police and fire. She said she had no concern who the builder was and that she was still against it. She said they moved to Lino Lakes because of the small town feel, space, lakes, trees, walking trails, larger lots and it was quiet with nature. She said enjoys walking and biking on Carl Street and other streets. She said she supports development that is carefully planned and not fast paced. James Munster, 109 Palomino, Lane, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Munster wanted to address the surface water. He said we have a high-water table here and with all the rain it has been rising. Mr. Munster said he lives on a pond and his backyard is disappearing. He is concerned with higher density construction and that it will cause flooding in people's homes. Right now, he said he is not considered floodplain and is not required to have flood insurance. He said he does not know what that density of construction would do to the surrounding areas. Mr. Munster hired a private plane to fly over the area to look at density before purchasing a lot to build here. He believes a moratorium would provide information for surrounding neighbors addressing water runoff and ponding. He feels that is needed. Sarah Shahid, 12724 Letty Street Ne Blaine 55449, Ms. Shahid asked the Board before making any decisions to ask themselves the real basis of the moratorium and what exactly will be studied. She feels the EAW will address water, roads, traffic studies and environmental effects which the developer is required to complete. She said the previous EAW was done less than two years ago on the same exact parcel of land with a higher density had a negative declaration. She inquired what more will be studied during the AUAR. Ms. Shahid questioned the timing of the study and the implementation of a moratorium. She said no comp plan amendments were being requested by the only developer with an application submitted to the city in this Northwest quadrant. She encouraged the Board to ask these questions and pass a judgement based on the facts rather than misinformation or biases. Bridget Robinson, 5301 226th Avenue NE, Bethel MN 55005, Ms. Robinson said she understands people have longevity in the community and appreciates people wanting to keep the green space free and not have the development there, but it is inevitable. She said they just got done going through this not even two years ago and there were no issues. She said the development did not go through and it certainly was not because the land was not developable. Ms. Robinson wanted to encourage everybody to try to work with the developer, the one developer that the City has today with one application. Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES Tracy Shroyer, 580 Marshan Lane, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Ms. Shroyer said slow growth is nothing new to the city of Lino Lakes. She has spoken at a few meetings and has heard supporters say stick to the facts even though they do not. She said Mr. Grochala outlined many facts earlier but wanted to address some of those. She stated in prior discussions of the sod farm drainage, we learned that the deep drainage ditches surrounding the property would be filled in and diverted. She said the ditch has reached capacity and wanted to know what was going to happen when houses are added, parking lots and road runoff to that same drainage ditch when we get rain like we have. She believes the supporters of this development have complained that the opposition is simply a case of not my backyard. She thinks in this instance they are correct. Ms. Shroyer voiced her concerns regarding drainage and pollutants going into the lakes. She discussed the 2040 plan regarding density, and she does not think it is suitable for this northwest corner. It also states a master plan for the Main Street corridor between sunset and Fourth Avenue should be completed and there has been no time for that to happen. In addition, for people talking about fairness and other developments who have not had to meet criteria, the 2040 comp plan was completed before any specific developers were identified. Comprehensive plans have a purpose and we cannot just come along later and pick and choose what we agree on. She did not feel we should be rushed to develop the land as there is only one chance to get it right. She is in full support of the moratorium. Angela Coil, 7672 Sunset Avenue, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Ms. Coil questioned the integrity and experience of the builder. She was in favor of the moratorium. Luba Vanyo, 215 Woodridge Lane, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mrs. Vanyo wanted to encourage the Board to do the right thing. Nasiruddin Muhammad, 10514 Hawthorn Trail, Woodbury, MN 55129. Mr. Muhammad questioned the need for a moratorium. He said everything that needs to be known can be done through the regular planning process. He said the moratorium is not going to stop the growth and believes the real motive is wishing the developer would walk away. He is against the moratorium. Randall Corfman, 275 Palomino Lane, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Corfman expressed his appreciation for the current lifestyle in Lino Lakes and was concerned the proposed development would change that. He feels the lack of experience by the developer is problematic. He also addressed the name calling and found it to be offensive. Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES Scott Zbikowski, 7765 Clydesdale Circle, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Zbikowski was in favor of supporting local builders and in favor of the moratorium. He said we only have one chance to get it right. He was also concerned about the number of permits that will be pulled by the developer. Abdullah Aleem, 4780 128th Circle NE, Blaine, Minnesota 55449, Mr. Aleem conveyed disdain for what he viewed as a discrimination issue and believes everyone should have the right to liberty, justice and equality. Mr. Aleem said he opposes the discriminatory moratorium under consideration and advocates for the EAW process. Aaron Frederickson, 7177 Whippoorwill Lane, Lino Lakes, MN, Mr. Frederickson wanted to know what the development would look like. He stated when performing a Google search he found the same pictures and expressed his concern regarding plagiarism. Mr. Frederickson in closing supports the moratorium. John Grattan, 202 Elm Stret, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Gratton created an online petition with over 2400 signatures to slow the grow in Lino Lakes. He said they express their collective opposition as residents of Lino Lakes to large scale densely populated developments within the city. They are concerned about the strain on schools and resources. He is in support of the moratorium. Joyce Hennes, 200 White Pine Road, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Ms. Hennes would like the moratorium passed to give the City time to consider what it means for the whole City and not just the northwest quadrant. Stephanie Falkers, 154 Pine Street, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Ms. Falkers said she is also speaking for her neighbor at 166 Pine Street. She spoke in support of the moratorium and the AUAR and discussed the benefits of the AUAR. Jaylani Hussein, 2581 East Franklin, Minneapolis, MN 55406, Mr. Hussein is the Director of Care in Minnesota and advocates for the American Muslim community. Mr. Hussein feels the Board failed when these two projects were presented for the property and a moratorium was not requested then or they are creating an undue burden on this project now. He questioned the need for a moratorium and requested fairness and equal treatment. Dan Willett, 7892 Century Trail, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Willett thought transportation will be a nightmare and does not think roundabouts will keep the traffic flowing. He is also concerned about the impact to the schools with the extra students and questioned the mitigation process for the property. He is in favor of the moratorium. Mr. Willett expressed his disdain for the racial comments. Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES Maseeh Mohammed, 12081 7th Street NE, Blaine, MN 55434, Mr. Mohammed addressed the issues that continue to be addressed. He said the planner and engineers seemed satisfied with what the developer was presenting and said he went above and beyond the guidelines. Mr. Mohammed requested we continue approving this process and was not in favor of the moratorium. Mr. Mohammed stated people do not like to see a lot of brown or black faces around. Laura Gannon, 114 East Golden Lake Lane, Circle Pines, MN 55014. Ms. Gannon believed the timing of the moratorium was suspicious and believed the City was singling out the Robinson family. She also addressed racism and wanted to see the City vote against the moratorium and allow the process to move forward. Andrew Gess, 1375 Hunters Ridge, Lino Lakes, MN 55038, Mr. Gess said it was evident most of the people supporting this project are from outside of the City and the people that live in Lino Lakes are in support of the moratorium. He feels that what is being proposed is a City within a City for a certain demographic. He feels the City should take their time for the approval process. Ronnie Hamza 1536 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55104. Mr. Hamza was in support of the development and was concerned about the reason for the delay. He believes there is an undercurrent of intolerance and racism. He feels the new development will not only serve the Muslim population, but it will also enrich the entire city by promoting diversity, understanding and unity. Lars Kommienezuspadt, 2020, Marshall Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55418, Mr. Kommienezuspadt believes in religious freedom and that it applies to more than people that were born Muslim. It is not a certain group of people that would be coming to the mosque or in this community. It's diverse, and that is what he thinks we should stand for. Jonathan Felske, 691 Oak Lane, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Felske expressed his opposition to the moratorium and does not understand the timing and questioned if future proposals will be subject to the same kind of pause. He thinks consistency is important to prevent the appearance of impropriety. Sara Shady, 7668, Palomino, Lane, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Ms. Shady believes the City does not need a moratorium. She feels the City has established processes to address the impact of any proposed development would have on our water, roads, public safety, emergency services and classroom sizes. She believes Madinah Lakes would bring diverse housing options, shops and restaurants to our community and increase our property tax revenue. Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES Chris Grimes, 7906 Henry Lane, Lino Lakes, MN 55014. Mr. Grimes said the reason why a moratorium is needed is because change happens every year. (Inaudible) Hussein, 11357 Lincoln Court NE, Blaine, MN 55434, Ms. Hussein strongly opposes the proposed moratorium as it would hinder progress and growth. She questions why it was not proposed for the two other applicants for the same location for similar use. Louis Jungbauer, 679 Andall Street, Lino Lakes, MN 55014, Mr. Jungbauer was concerned about what goes into making the decision for the moratorium and was not in favor of the moratorium. Mr. Laden moved to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Mr. Vojtech. The public hearing was closed at 9:44 p.m. Mr. Root addressed the questions that were asked by the speakers. He said the only thing that has been submitted thus far is a concept plan. Input is submitted by the Boards and if the developer decides to proceed there are many agencies that work on the approval process. He requested Mr. Grochala answer some of the questions regarding traffic and water runoff and other impacts that may occur. Mr. Grochala said tonight is about implanting a moratorium to further study a specific area. He said we are not at a point with either development proposals where there are any specific plans. He explained the application process and what is expected during that process. Mr. Root said there were many questions about why this location and why now. Mr. Grochala said the comprehensive plan suggests we do this. We have never approved a project in this location, and we are guided by the Master Plan to complete the study here. Mr. Root wanted to know who was responsible for wetland delineation. Mr. Grochala said any mitigation is the cost of the developer. Mr. Root said there were questions about what the project would look like and said the plan is available online. It was asked why an EAW was not sufficient for this project and what do you get from an AUAR that you would not get from an EAW. Mr. Grochala said the AUAR is a more in-depth study and EAW is project specific. There was a question about road expansion to which Mr. Grochala said it was part of the county review. They look at projected traffic in a specific area. Mr. Grochala also said the mosque is a religious use which is allowed as conditional use permit. It is permitted everywhere except an industrial district. Ms. Guthmueller asked if the items that were found in the EAW for Promenade would be addressed now. Mr. Grochala said they would be addressed. Planning & Zoning Board June 17, 2024 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden said the way the moratorium is written, it appeared the businesses and the mosque could move forward and that it only affected residential housing. Mr. Grochala confirmed that was correct. Mr. Vojtech moved to approve the moratorium with the inclusion of the AUAR and Master Plan. Motion seconded by Mr. Kohler. Motion carried 6 – 0. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Project Updates Mr. Grochala provided project updates. MS. Guthmueller moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Evenson. Meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Julie Whitney – Community Development Administrative Assistant 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner P & Z MEETING DATE: August 14, 2024 REQUEST: Watermark 8th Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat CASE NUMBER: PF2024-002 FP2024-005 APPLICANTS: U.S. Home, LLC Attn: Josh Metzer 16355 36th Avenue N., Suite 100 Plymouth, MN 55446 OWNER: Same REVIEW SCHEDULE: Complete Application Date: July 8, 2024 60-Day Review Deadline: September 6, 2024 120-Day Review Deadline: November 5, 2024 Environmental Board Meeting: N/A Park Board Meeting: N/A Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: August 14, 2024 Tentative City Council Work Session: September 9, 2024 Tentative City Council Meeting: September 9, 2024 BACKGROUND Watermark is a 372 acre master planned residential community consisting of 692 single family lots and 172 townhome units totaling 864 housing units. U.S. Home, LLC (aka Lennar) submitted a Land Use Application for Watermark 8th Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. The plat proposes 97 single family lots and 1 outlot. This is the final phase and plat of the development. Previous Council approvals include: • June 13, 2016: Resolution No. 16-51 approving PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat 2 • October 9, 2017: Resolution No. 17-95 approving Amendment #1 to Land Use Plan • December 11, 2017: Resolution No. 17-133 approving Amendment #2 to Architectural Design Standards • October 14, 2019: Resolution No. 19-131 approving Amendment #3 to Architectural Design Standards • August 14, 2023: Resolution No. 23-77 approving Amendment #4 to PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat This staff report is based on the following information: • Cost Estimate Summary prepared by Carlson McCain dated July 16, 2024 • Watermark 8th Addition Final Plat prepared by Carlson McCain • Watermark 8th Addition Sanitary Sewer, Water Main, Storm Sewer and Street Construction Plans prepared by Carlson McCain dated June 26, 2024 • Watermark 8th Addition Site Landscape Plan prepared by Carlson McCain dated June 26, 2024 • Watermark Grading, Development & Erosion Control Plan prepared by Carlson McCain revision date June 3, 2024 • Watermark 8th Addition Home Plans Booklet prepared by Lennar dated June 28, 2024 • Watermark Architectural Standards Matrix ANALYSIS PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat The PUD Development Stage Plan approved by Resolution No. 16-51 establishes Watermark’s overall land use plan, street and utility layout, parks and open space plan, architectural design standards, landscaping and lot development standards. These standards are summarized in the PUD Master Plan Booklet and are incorporated as part of the Master Development Agreement. Each phase (i.e. addition) of development shall submit a PUD Final Plan consistent with the PUD Development Stage Plan. In October 2017, Council approved an amendment to the PUD Development Stage Plan’s overall Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan established 871 housing units. As the applicant has worked through final plan design to address City and RCWD comments from the preliminary plat, the number of 55’ wide villas was reduced from 127 units to 120 units. The net number of housing units is now 864. In August 2023, Council approved PUD Amendment #4-PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat. The amendment reconfigured the north end of the preliminary plat in regards to lot sizes and housing products. The total number of housing units remains 864 and does not change. 3 Density The 2030 Comprehensive Plan was in effect at the time of original approval. The Plan guided the area for mixed use and required a density of 3.0 to 4.5 dwelling units per net acre. The current 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the area for Low Density Mixed Residential and requires a density of 3.0 to 4.0 units per net acre. The development meets both density requirements. PUD Amend #4 (August 2023) Gross Area (acres) 372.24 Wetlands & Water Bodies 45.09 Public Parks & Open Space 69.27 Arterial ROW 5.46 Other (Undevelopable) 0.62 Net Area (acres) 251.80 # of Housing Units 864 Gross Density (units/acre) 2.32 Net Density (units/acre) 3.43 Grading and Trunk Utility Improvements Lennar commenced grading and trunk utility improvements in September 2018. Phase I grading was approximately 140 acres and Phase II grading was approximately 20 acres. Phase III grades out the balance of the site, approximately 212 acres. The 8th Addition final plat is within the Phase III grading limits. PUD Final Plan Watermark 8th Addition creates 97 single family lots and 1 outlot. The PUD Final Plan is consistent with PUD Amendment #4 in regards to the land use plan, street and utilities, parks and open space, lot standards, and landscaping. The following housing types and products proposed for the 8th Addition are consistent with the approved Land Use Plan. Housing Type Lot Width Housing Product # Lots Single Family 75’ Landmark 19 Single Family 60’-65’ Heritage/Discovery 15 Single Family 55’+ Venture/Villa 63 4 TOTAL 97 Architectural Standards Resolution No. 17-133 and Resolution No. 19-131 detail architectural design standards for the entire Watermark development. As required, a Watermark 8th Addition Home Plans summary booklet and Architectural Standards Matrix were submitted. The booklet and matrix detail compliance of the housing products with the resolutions in regards to exterior materials and styles, house elevations and garage and porch requirements. There are over 30 different single family house plans with multiple facade and elevation options for a combination of over 275 different housing styles proposed for the 8th Addition. Color packages and anti-monotony plans will be included with each building permit application to ensure that the homes elevations are varied with a minimum of five different styles and those homes in proximity to each other not look alike in terms of the combination of color of siding, accent and roofing materials. Coventry by Alside vinyl siding with .042” panel thickness is proposed on all the housing units. All houses have minimum 4” window trim on the side and rear elevations to meet resolution requirements to incorporate an architectural feature into those elevations that are visible from 20th Avenue (CSAH 54), 21st Avenue N. and the public park. In summary, the Watermark 8th Addition single family housing types and products meet the architectural design standards requirements of Resolution No. 17-133 and Resolution No. 19- 131. HOA Clubhouse Lot 1, Block 3, Watermark 4th Addition was platted for the construction of the HOA clubhouse. Construction started in May 2023 and opened in Spring 2024. Subdivision Ordinance Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code The Watermark 8th Addition final plat has been reviewed for compliance with the comprehensive plan, zoning and subdivision ordinance. The proposed final plat meets the performance standards of the subdivision and zoning ordinance and is consistent with PUD Amendment #4-Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat and Final Plan. Plat Phases The following summarizes the number of lots platted per addition: 5 Addition # SF Lots Remaining #SF Lots # TH Lots Remaining #TH Lots Total # Lots Remaining 692 172 864 1st 100 592 93 79 671 2nd 57 535 0 79 614 3rd 96 439 79 0 439 4th 91 348 0 0 348 5th 97 251 0 0 251 6th 48 203 0 0 203 7th 106 97 0 0 97 8th 97 0 0 0 0 Blocks and Lots The final plat creates 97 single family lots and 1 outlot. The following chart summarizes the purpose of the outlots: Outlot Purpose Ownership A Wetland, Open Space and Trail Corridor HOA Easements Standard drainage and utility easements are being dedicated on individual lots and over Outlot A. An annexation amendment to neighborhood declaration of covenants and supplemental declaration of covenants citing deed restriction shall be recorded stating lots with oversize drainage and utility easements may have limited ability to construct accessory structures. Street and Utilities The 8th Addition proposes construction of the following streets which are consistent with PUD Amendment #4: Street Name Right-of-Way Width Street Width (Back to Back) 6 Lotus Lane 60 feet 32 feet Traverse Drive, Pepin Drive 60 feet 30 feet Watermain, sanitary sewer main, stormwater facilities, streets, sidewalks and trails are being constructed consistent with the PUD Amendment #4. Public Land Dedication and Fees Per Resolution No. 16-51, the City will require the following combination of land dedication and cash in lieu of land dedications: 1. Land dedication for the public and private parks will be credited from the total payment in lieu. 2. Costs for public park improvements and trail construction will be credited from the total payment in lieu. 3. Improvements to the private parks and recreational center will not be credited from the total payment in lieu. An 8.5 ft wide bituminous trail approximately 230 lf in length will be constructed from the existing trail to Lotus Lane. A Permanent Trail Easement with exhibit shall be drafted and recorded after the trail has been constructed to ensure the trail is within the easement. Trail construction costs will be credited. The following is a summary of the public land dedication and fees: Watermark 8th Addition Total # Units = 97 x Park Dedication Fee $3,300 = Cash in Lieu Value $320,100 (Trail Construction Costs) ($9,300) TOTAL CASH FEE DUE = $310,800 Access Drive to Billboard An existing billboard is located in the northeast corner of the Watermark development. U.S. Home, LLC leases the land to the billboard owner. A 12ft wide gravel private access drive is 7 proposed between Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 1, Watermark 8th Addition to provide access to the billboard. This private drive shall be paved from the Traverse Drive to the rear lot lines and signed “Private Drive”. The HOA shall own and be responsible for the maintenance of the private drive. Wetlands Wetland delineations were approved by RCWD and USACE in 2015. The delineation identified 28 wetlands totaling approximately 20 acres in size. The original approved WCA Sequencing Application proposed wetland impacts, wetland creation, wetland restoration and upland buffer establishment. In April 2018, the developer revised the application to purchase 3.3671 acres of wetland banking credits as the proposed compensatory mitigation action. The wetland fill, impacts and mitigation (wetland bank credits) occurred within the Phase I grading limits and are complete. In December 2020, the developer submitted another Wetland Replacement Plan to RCWD for the balance of the site. Phase 3 grading impacts 5.9784 acres of wetland which require a 1:1 mitigation. The plan was to buy wetland credits for mitigation; however, viable wetland restoration and creation opportunities exist within Phase 3; therefore, onsite restoration and creation will be used for mitigation. This is consistent with the Parks and Open Space Plan and the establishment of the greenway corridor including wetlands, trails and open space. To date, wetland mitigation and restoration has been completed on Wetland Restoration Area RA1. Wetland RA2 and RA3 are partially graded and restoration will be substantially completed in 2024. Open Space Easement Section 7.2 of the Watermark Master Development Agreement states the owner shall provide the City with a perpetual open space easement. The easement protects the parks, open space, wetlands etc. from any land disturbance that is not consistent with the Restoration and Management Plan. Currently, a “blanket” easement is in place that covers all outlots in Watermark. As each such outlot is further subdivided, the blanket easement area is re-defined with a detailed open space easement. An Open Space Easement shall be recorded over Outlot A, Watermark 8th Addition. Sheet 3, Watermark 8th Addition Site Landscape Plan details the location of required “Protected Open Space Area” signs. Development Agreement Master Development Agreement 8 A Master Development Agreement was recorded in March 2019. The Agreement covers the entire 372 acre site and details the terms and conditions of City approvals, the Development Plans, the required public and private improvements as part of the first and subsequent phase, the standards for the timing and financing of the improvements, required HOA documents and the terms of payment. Development Agreement and Planned Unit Development Agreement The City will also require our standard Development Agreement specific to each phase of development. This agreement further details required improvements and securities. The City Engineer will draft this Agreement and it shall be approved by the City Council. Homeowner’s Association (HOA) The City Attorney reviewed the HOA and other recording documents. The attorney notes the Open Space Easement to the City for Outlot A shall be recorded before the Quit Claim Deed from U.S. Home to the Association. Title Commitment The City Attorney reviewed the title commitment and final plat. The attorney notes the Open Space Easement to the City for Outlot A shall be recorded before the Quit Claim Deed from U.S. Home to the Association. Stormwater Maintenance Agreement The stormwater facilities will be covered under the City’s Programmatic Stormwater Management Agreement after they have been installed and accepted by the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Watermark 8th Addition PUD Final Plan/Final Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Outlot A, Watermark 8th Addition is preserved as permanent Open Space and shall be improved by the Developer in accordance with the approved plans and upon completion and acceptance by the city of such improvements, they shall be owned and maintained by a Homeowner’s Association in accordance with an approved Restoration and Management Plan. 2. A Permanent Trail Easement with exhibit covering the trail shall be recorded after the trail has been constructed. 3. An annexation amendment to neighborhood declaration of covenants and supplemental declaration of covenants citing deed restriction shall be recorded stating lots with 9 oversize drainage and utility easements may have limited ability to construct accessory structures. 4. The 12ft wide private drive between Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 1, Watermark 8th Addition provides access to an existing billboard. This private drive shall be paved from the Traverse Drive to the rear lot lines and signed “Private Drive”. The HOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of the private drive. 5. The Open Space Easement to the City for Outlot A shall be recorded before the Quit Claim Deed from U.S. Home to the Association. The following items shall be addressed prior to release of final plat mylars: 1. Copies of the executed and recorded documents related to Watermark 7th Addition shall be submitted to the City. 2. A copy of the billboard access and maintenance agreement between the developer and billboard company shall be provided to the City. The following items shall be addressed prior to issuance of any single family home building permits within the 8th Addition: 1. All comments from the City Engineer Letter dated August 7, 2024. 2. All comments from Environmental Coordinator dated July 15, 2024. 3. All applicable plan sheets: a. The 12ft wide gravel private access drive proposed between Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 1, Watermark 8th Addition shall be paved from the Traverse Drive to the rear lot lines. b. The drive shall be signed “Private Drive”. 4. Copies of the following executed and recorded documents shall be submitted to the City: a. Final Plat b. Development Agreement c. Homeowner’s Association i. Annexation Amendment to Neighborhood Declaration of Covenants for Watermark ii. Eighth Supplemental Declaration of Covenants for Watermark Single Family iii. Twentieth Supplemental Declaration of Covenants for Watermark Villas d. Open Space Easement for Outlot A, Watermark 8th Addition e. Deed for Outlot A, Watermark 8th Addition to HOA. The following items shall be addressed prior to issuance of any single family home building permits within the 7th or 8th Addition: 1. Outstanding punch list items from Watermark 4th-6th Addition as prepared by the City Engineer and Environmental Coordinator. 10 ATTACHMENTS 1. City Engineer Memo dated August 7, 2024 2. Environmental Coordinator Memo dated July 15, 2024 3. Watermark 8th Addition Final Plat 178 E 9TH STREET | SUITE 200 | SAINT PAUL, MN | 55101 | 651.286.8450 | WSBENG.COM Memorandum To: Katie Larsen, Lino Lakes City Planner From: Kris Keller PE, WSB Henry Meeker EIT, WSB Diane Hankee PE, Lino Lakes City Engineer Date: August 7, 2024 Re: Watermark 8th Addition Final Plat & Construction Plan Review 026120-000 As requested by City staff, WSB reviewed the Final Plat and Construction Plans for the Watermark 8th Addition in Lino Lakes, MN, prepared by Carlson McCain and received July 8, 2024. Our comments were made on the following documents: •Watermark 8th Addition Plat prepared by Carlson McCain, received July 8, 2024. •Watermark 8th Addition Sanitary Sewer, Water Main, Storm Sewer, and Street Construction Plans prepared by Carlson McCain, dated June 26, 2024, received July 8, 2024. •Watermark Grading Plans prepared by Carlson McCain, revised June 26, 2024, received July 8, 2024. The following review comments should be responded to in writing by the applicant. Additional redline comments may also be found on the attached plans. Engineering •Grading The Watermark 8th Addition is part of the Phase 3 grading. The Watermark 8th Addition includes site grading for Lotus Lane, Traverse Drive, and Pepin Drive. Comments: 1.See redline comments on attached plans. •Stormwater Management Stormwater management for the Watermark 8th Addition includes a storm sewer conveyance system and rear yard drainage systems. Comments: 1.A trash guard is needed at the inlet FES upstream of CBMH 654. Attachment 1: City Engineer Memo dated August 7, 2024 Ms. Katie Larsen 08/07/2024 Page 2 Watermark 8th Addition Engineering Review 2. Crown matching is recommended at STMH 653 where 15” RCP ties into 21” RCP. 3. Crown matching is recommended at CBMH 662 where 15” RCP ties into 18” RCP. 4. Crown matching is recommended at EX CBMH 704 where 15” RCP ties into 21” RCP. 5. The pipe slope between CBMH 657 and STMH 653 shall be reduced to a maximum of 3.5% to reduce excessive flow velocities. a) If this results in a pipe depth greater than 10’, ensure there is sufficient D&U easement width on either side of the pipe. • Water Supply The proposed water system extension is consistent with the preliminary plat. This addition of the development is being served by 16- inch, 12- inch, or 8- inch diameter ductile iron pipe (DIP) water main with 1-inch Type K copper services being extended to each lot. Comments: 2. See redline comments on attached plans. 3. Maintain minimum 18” separation from storm sewer to watermain. • Insulate between storm sewer and watermain where separation is less than 36” 4. Note the trail extension and crossing east of Lotus Lane that includes the 16” watermain extension to Interstate 35E. • Provide how the watermain and hydrant will be installed before or after trail construction at that crossing • Sanitary Sewer The proposed sanitary sewer is consistent with the preliminary plat and PUD Amendment #4. This addition of the development is being served by 8 and 10- inch diameter poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe along with 4-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC service pipe to each lot. Comments: 1. See redline comments on attached plans. • Transportation The proposed roadways are consistent with the preliminary plat and PUD Amendment #4. The work in this addition includes constructing Lotus Lane, Traverse Drive, and Pepin Drive. Lotus Lane is proposed to be 32’ wide from back-of-curb to back-of-curb, and Traverse Drive and Pepin Drive are proposed to be 30’ wide from back-of-curb to back-of- curb. Comments: 1. The billboard access road off of Traverse Drive should be paved to at least the back of the lots but not within the Anoka County drainage easement Ms. Katie Larsen 08/07/2024 Page 3 Watermark 8th Addition Engineering Review Trails and sidewalks Trails and sidewalks are shown extending on one side of both Traverse Drive and Lotus Lane while no sidewalks or trails are proposed for Pepin Drive. A trail connection is also proposed to be extended from Lotus Lane to the existing perimeter looping trail. Comments: 1. Applicant appears to meet typical street light installation requirements (every 400 to 500 ft, at intersections, and at the end of cul-de-sacs) 2. See redline comments on attached plans. • Wetlands and Mitigation Plan Wetlands and mitigation plan reviewed and approved during the Preliminary Plat. Comments: 1. Wetland mitigation work (wetland creation and wetland restoration) to be completed and documentation submitted to the City. • Landscaping The Watermark 8th Addition Site Landscape Plan will be reviewed by staff and the City’s Environmental Coordinator. The Environmental Coordinator will provide separate comments. • Floodplain The Watermark 8th Addition does not impact the existing floodplain. • Drainage and Utility Easements Roadways are proposed within right-of-way and lots include standard drainage and utility easements. Larger drainage and utility easements are provided over surface water management features as required. Comments: 1. Provide additional drainage and utility easement to cover existing the RCWD easement. a. Add note that no shed, fences, etc. will be allowed in the RCWD easement 2. The pipe depth between CBMH 651 and EX CBMH 650 reaches nearly 15’ at the tie-in point. D&U easement width shall be increased at Lots 17 and 18 of Block 3 to allow for 1:1 excavation depth to the pipe. Ms. Katie Larsen 08/07/2024 Page 4 Watermark 8th Addition Engineering Review • Development Agreement A development agreement will be required with the final plat. • Grading Agreement Grading agreement not required. • Stormwater Maintenance Agreement The stormwater maintenance for public facilities in the Watermark 8th Addition will be covered under the City’s Programmatic Stormwater Management Agreement after the facilities have been installed and accepted by the City. Rear yard sump connections are to be privately maintained. • Permits Required 1. NPDES General Construction Permit 2. City of Lino Lakes Zoning Permit for Construction 3. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit 4. Minnesota Department of Health 5. Rice Creek Watershed District Permit (Already in place) If you or the applicant have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Kris Keller at (612) 419-3083 or kkeller@wsbeng.com. You may also contact Diane Hankee at (651) 982-2430 or dhankee@linolakes.us. Page 1 To: Katie Larsen From: Andy Nelson Date: July 15th, 2024 Re: Environmental Comments/Watermark 8th Addition Environmental comments from 7/15/24 in black. 1.A boulevard tree must be added to the Lotus Lane frontage of Block 6, Lot 7. 2.Tree Planting Detail must be added to the landscape plan. The detail is in the overall landscape plan, but must be added to the 8th addition landscape plan as well. Environmental Memo Attachment 2: Environmental Coordinator Memo dated July 15, 2024 WATERMARK 8TH ADDITION ENGINEERINGSURVEYINGENVIRONMENTAL Attachment 3: Watermark 8th Addition Final Plat ENGINEERINGSURVEYINGENVIRONMENTALWATERMARK8THADDITIONMATCH LINE A(SEE SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS)PEPIN DRIVETRAVERSE DRIVETRAVERSE DRIVEWETLAND ENGINEERINGSURVEYINGENVIRONMENTALWATERMARK MATCH LINE B(SEE SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS)MATCH LINE A(SEE SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS)MATCH LINE C(SEE SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS)8TH ADDITION MATCH LINE B (SEE SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS) ENGINEERINGSURVEYINGENVIRONMENTAL WATERMARK 8TH ADDITION MATCH LINE C (SEE SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS) L O T U S LA N E TUS LANELO 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 7A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner MEETING DATE: August 14, 2024 REQUEST: Discussion Public Engagement, Main Street Corridor Study CASE NUMBER: N/A APPLICANT: N/A OWNER: N/A REVIEW SCHEDULE: Complete Application Date: N/A Environmental Board Meeting: N/A EDAC Meeting: August 1, 2024 Park Board Meeting: N/A P & Z Board Meeting: August 14, 2024 City Council Meeting: N/A 60-Day Review Date: N/A 60-Day Extension: N/A INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting the Planning and Zoning Board provide feedback on engagement ideas. BACKGROUND On July 8, 2024 the City Council adopted Ordinance 11-24 establishing a moratorium on residential development around the Main Street corridor between Sunset and 4th Avenue. The purpose of the moratorium is to allow for the completion of a master plan and Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the area. The moratorium is planned to go into effect on August 15 and will last for one year. Staff is currently working on consultant selection to assist with the planning process. 2 A key component with the project will be community engagement. In preparation for developing an overall project scope staff is seeking input from the Planning & Zoning Board on potential stakeholders. Our initial thoughts include the following stakeholders: • Property Owners • Adjacent Neighborhoods/Community at large • Developers • Resident advisory boards o EDAC o P&Z o Environmental o Park • Public agencies i.e., County Highway Dept, Watershed District, School Districts Staff is also interested in the Planning & Zoning Board’s thoughts on the type of information, types of media, and forms of outreach. Is there a need for a baseline information, such as What do we already know? How does the development process work? What does the Comp Plan mean and say? Broadcast, print or electronic/social media – what do you as board members use the most or prefer? The consultant team will certainly have expertise and suggestions with this component, but it is helpful hearing from the Board and we move to develop a scope of services. P & Z CONSIDERATION Discussion on public engagement. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Area Map