Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/2002 P&Z MinutesPlanning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 1 APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I.CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:34 p.m., January 9, 2002. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps requested additions or deletions to this evening’s agenda. Hearing none, the agenda was approved as submitted. III.ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Schaps requested a motion for the nomination of a Chair for the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board for 2002. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to elect Jamie Schaps as Chair of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board for 2002, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5-0. Chair Schaps requested a motion for the nomination of a Vice Chair for the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board for 2002. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to elect Rob Ra fferty as Vice Chair of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board for 2002, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4- 0-1 (Mr. Rafferty). DATE: January 9, 2002 TIME STARTED: 6:34 P.M. TIME ENDED: 9:53 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyden, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty, and Schaps MEMBERS ABSENT: Zych STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Smyser; City Engineer Powell; Community Development Director Grochala (part); Staff Member Tanda Gretz; and Bob Kirmis, NAC Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES IV.APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. DECEMBER 12, 2001 Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, as submitted, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5-0. V.OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:37 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0. VI.ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, (Get hsemane United Methodist Church, CUP Amendment, Tanda Gretz) Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:40 p.m. Staff presented the application by Gethsemane United Methodist Church for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment. The subject property is zoned R-3. Although Gethsemane United Methodist Church was a permitted use in an R-3 zone under the Zoning Ordinance in effect during its construction in 1989, a subsequent change in the Ordinance now requires a Conditional Use Permit for any Church located in an R-3 zone. As a result, the desire of the Church to construct a picnic shelter will need to be handled administratively as a Conditional Use Permit Amendment since it is an alteration of the site, and according to City Zoning Ordinance Section 2, Subd. 2.B.13, “any enlargement, structural alteration, or intensification of such use shall require an amended conditional use permit.” Staff explained the proposed picnic shelter will be considered an accessory building. Under City Zoning Ordinance Section 3, Subd. 4.D.8.f., accessory buildings for property located within an R-3 zone, greater than 1-1/4 acres in size, are limited in number to a maximum of one attached garage and two detached accessory structures. The maximum total square footage for accessory buildings in an R-3 zone for a lot of this size is limited to 2,020 sq. ft. Staff noted there are already two detached accessory buildings on the property: an 8’ X 10’ tool shed and a 24’ X 30’ detached garage. The construction of the proposed picnic shelter would result in three detached accessory structures, one more than is allowed under City Ordinance. The total square foot age of the existing two accessory buildings is 800 sq. ft. The proposed picnic shelter would measure 1,380 sq. ft., resulting in a total Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES accessory square footage of 2,180 sq. ft. This is 160 sq. ft. more than is allowed under City Ordinance. Staff advised that construction of the propos ed picnic shelter would violate the City’s Zoning Ordinance in terms of both number and size of accessory structures. Removing the 8’ X 10’ tool shed already on site and decreasing the size of the proposed picnic shelter by 160-sq. ft. are options to resolving this zoning issue. It should be noted that the City’s Zoning Ordinance reaches a cap, or threshold level, of 2,020 sq. ft. for accessory buildings in any size lot of one and one-quarter acre or greater in an R-3 zone. That is, unlike zoning for Rural and PSP zones, R-3 zones do not allow more accessory square footage as lot size increases. As a result, even though the proposed site is approximately 5.2 acres in size, the proposed picnic shelter would not be allowed under City Zoning Ordinance, and would thus requi re approval of a Variance for construction. Staff reviewed that in 1997, the Gethsemane United Methodist Church site underwent a Rezoning, Minor Subdivision, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment in order to construct a parsonage. The above requests were all approved at that time, subject to the condition that “the subdivision includes the formal de dication of the Stage Coach Trail right-of- way, with the understanding that Parcels B and C will be financially responsible for the future construction of the street”. In other words, subdivision was granted on condition that street right-of-way be granted for the future subdivision. Staff advised that on inspection of the records in preparation of this report, it was found that such right-of-way was never legally recorded. Staff would suggest that the City use the opportunity presented by the current request for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to correct this oversight. Staff stated it cannot recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment as presented, since it violates the City Zoning Or dinance. However, if granted, staff would recommend any approval of this Conditional Use Permit Amendment include the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for construction of the proposed picnic shelter. 2. Issuance of the building permit will not be granted until the former approved dedication of the Stage Coach Trail right-of-way is officially recorded. Such dedication is with the understanding that Parcels B and C will be financially responsible for the future construction of the street, as approved by City Council on May 27, 1997. Ms. Gretz indicated that Pastor Gilbertson was in attendance this evening representing Gethsemane United Methodist Church. Chair Schaps asked if the alternatives of removing the tool shed and decreasing the size of the proposed picnic shelter had been discussed with the applicant. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Gretz indicated Pastor Gilbertson was aw are of the City’s zoning ordinance but the proposed alternatives had not been discussed with him. She indicated that staff has discussed with the applicant the possibility of eliminating the tool shed. Chair Schaps questioned whether attaching the tool shed to the garage would meet the ordinance requirements. Ms. Gretz felt that incorporating the two structures into one would be a possible solution. Mr. Rafferty requested confirmation that the two detached structures currently on site consisted of the tool shed and the garage. Ms. Gretz stated this was correct. Mr. Rafferty requested confirmation that if the tool shed were eliminated approximately 80 square feet of total existing structure would be eliminated. Ms. Gretz agreed. Mr. Rafferty believed that this may be a possible solution if the size of the picnic shelter was also reduced. He was concerned, however, with the appearance of the existing structures and how the proposed picnic shelter would look. He noted that there is currently a sign to the rear of the garage facing the neighborhood. He wished to ensure that a new structure would enhance the site. Chair Schaps invited the applicant like to make comment. Pastor Chad Gilbertson, representing Gethsemane United Methodist Church, introduced himself and Steve Matson, Chairperson of the Gethsemane United Methodist Church Board of Trustees. Chair Schaps asked Pastor Gilbertson his opinion on the proposed resolutions to allow the construction of the picnic shelter. Pastor Gilbertson stated the elimination of the tool shed would be a viable option. He noted the picnic shelter as proposed would still exceed the ordinance square-footage requirement by 80 feet. He questioned whether the size of a structure such as a picnic shelter would be measured according to the size of the slab. Chair Schaps believed this was usually the case. Mr. Smyser noted the plans submitted to the City showed the proposed size of the picnic shelter, which was the size used by staff in making its report. Pastor Gilbertson suggested that the length and width of the picnic shelter could be reduced by one-foot to address the total square footage limitation concern. He noted that an option had been discussed of combining the tool shed with the garage. Mr. Matson suggested that a new tool shed be constructed attached to the garage. Mr. Rafferty stated that any new addition to the site should accent the parsonage building, not the garage. He personally felt the garage is a weak spot on the lot. He Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES questioned whether the trusses currently on site were left over from the construction of the garage. Pastor Gilbertson stated the trusses had been ordered to be used in the construction of the picnic shelter. Pastor Gilbertson stated the proposed picnic shelter would appear similar to a park shelter. He stated the structure would not be enclosed and the roof material would match the color of the parsonage roof. Mr. Lyden stated at times when working with specific and detailed ordinances, it is necessary to make compromises, which at times can be beneficial. However, when discussing compromises such as attaching existing structures, the City ends up with a compromised product, which is not in anyone’s best interest. He stated he would like to see a quality product constructed and would prefer the elimination of the tool shed and approval of a variance to allow the additional 80 square feet for the picnic shelter. Chair Schaps questioned whether the items stored in the tool shed could be stored elsewhere. Pastor Gilbertson stated a local day care leases space from the Church and the items stored in the tool shed are the property of the day care. Chair Schaps asked if the items being stored by the day care could be stored inside the garage. Pastor Gilbertson stated the space inside the garage has been maxed out with the storage of tables and chairs, as well as additional day care materials. However, he felt the Church could work out the storage situation. Mr. Matson suggested that the garage be extended with a floating addition, similar to an addition for a fireplace, to provide storage space for the day care. Mr. Rafferty stated if the square-footage of buildings are measured according to the size of a foundation, he agreed a floating addition may be a reasonable solution. He questioned whether this additional storage space could be added without a foundation while still meeting the total square-footage measurement of the ordinance. Chair Schaps stated this would depend upon the meaning of a detached structure. Mr. Matson noted the square-footage of the picnic shelter could be reduced. Chair Schaps agreed this may be the best option. Mr. Corson asked if reducing the square-footage of the picnic shelter would still meet the Church’s needs. Pastor Gilbertson responded affirmatively. Ms. Lane questioned whether the trusses ordered for the picnic shelter would still work if the shelter was reduced in size. Pastor Gilbertson stated he would have to review the plans but he believed the trusses would still work. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Rafferty questioned if the applicant would still require approval of the proposed picnic shelter if the square-footage of the shelter was reduced and the tool shed was eliminated. Chair Schaps indicated the applicant would still need approval of the conditional use permit amendment. Mr. Rafferty agreed and added that the dedi cation of the Stage Coach Trail right-of-way also needed to be addressed with this application. Chair Schaps asked the applicants if they had any concerns regarding the right-of-way dedication. Pastor Gilbertson requested clar ification on the amount of land that must be dedicated for the right-of-way. He stated the Church agreed to the land dedication, however, it was his understanding that the land needed for the right-of-way would only extend to the end of the parsonage lot. Mr. Powell indicated that Exhibit number three included in the staff report depicted the location of the Stage Coach Trail right-of-way. Ms. Gretz added that information regarding the right-of-way was also included in the excerpts of the May 27, 1997 City Council meeting minutes included as Exhibit number four in the staff report. Pastor Gilbertson questioned why it would be necessary to dedicate the entire right-of- way since there were no plans to develop Parcel B. Chair Schaps stated the dedicated right-of-way would allow for the future extension of the roadway. Mr. Powell indicated the City’s June 2001 Transportation Plan showed the proposed roadway extension. Pastor Gilbertson presented a diagram prepared in December 1997, following the approval of the minor subdivision. He indicated that subsequent to the approval, the Church had a surveyor prepare a sketch of the necessary right-of-way dedication, which extended only to the end of Parcel B. Chair Schaps asked if the surveyor had worked with City staff in the preparation of the diagram. Pastor Gilbertson was not certain, however, he believed the surveyor prepared the diagram per what was approved by the City Council. Pastor Gilbertson questioned whether Exhibit number three in the staff report had been approved by the City Council. Ms. Gretz noted condition number one shown in Exhibit number four stated, “The subdivision include the formal dedication of the Stage Coach Trail right-of-way with the understanding that Parcels B and C will be financially responsible for the future construction of the street.” Additionally, the second paragraph from the bottom of Exhibit number four indicated that Council Member Bergeson moved to approve the Minor Subdivision of Gethsemane United Methodi st Church Property subject to the three conditions presented, including the condition stated above. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Pastor Gilbertson noted this information did not specify the actual amount of land needed for right-of-way dedication. Ms. Gretz indicat ed Exhibit three in this evening’s staff report had been included in the agenda packet for the May 27, 1997 City Council meeting. Chair Schaps stated it would be very unusual for a right-of-way dedication to not extend to the end of a parcel since the intent of the right-of-way was to allow the future extension of and connection to a roadway. Pastor Gilbertson questioned why the Church would be responsible for the extension of the roadway. Chair Schaps stated in the event the property owner wished to develop the land, part of that agreement would be the extension of the roadway. Pastor Gilbertson indicated the Church has no future development plans at this point. Chair Schaps indicated this was the reason the City has a transportation plan in order to plan for future development that may or may not be anticipated at this time. Pastor Gilbertson believed the Church would be willing to provide the necessary right-of- way dedication. However, he reiterated that when the Minor Subdivision had originally been approved the right-of-way expectations had been very unclear. Ms. Gretz noted at this time the City was only asking for the dedication of the right-of- way, not the payment of any assessments. Chair Schaps confirmed it was the consensus of the Board that, along with the right-of- way dedication, the intent would be to recommend approval of the construction of the picnic shelter, conditioned on the picnic shelter being reduced slightly in size and the tool shed being attached to the garage, providing the total square-footage of the structures meets the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Gethsemane United Methodist Church Conditional Use Permit Amendment for the construction of a picnic shelter, subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for construction of the proposed picnic shelter. 2. Issuance of the building permit will not be granted until the former approved dedication of the Stage Coach Trail right-of-way is officially recorded. Such dedication is with the understanding that Parcels B and C will be financially responsible for the future construction of the street, as approved by City Council on May 27, 1997. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES 3. The tool shed and garage structures shall be combined, or the tool shed eliminated, so that the total square-footage of the accessory strucurs on site do not exceed the limiations of the City ordinance and that, once the picnic shelter is constructed, there will only be a total of two accessory structures on site. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5-0. B. PUBLIC HEARING, (Pheasant Hills 12 th Addition, Comprehensive Plan Amendment/MUSA Reserve Allocation, Rezone, Preliminary Plat, Bob Kirmis, NAC) Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 7:06 p.m. Staff presented the application by Ed Vaughan for an eight lot single family subdivision entitled Pheasant Hills Preserve 12 th Addition. The subject property is located on the north side of Birch Street and west of Timberwolf Trail. Staff advised that to accommodate the propos ed subdivision, the following approvals are required: • A Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the guided use of the subject property from Rural to Low Density Residential and allocating 4.5 acres of MUSA Reserve • Rezoning from R-X, Rural Executive to R-1X, Single Family Executive/PDO, Planned Development Overlay • Preliminary plat Staff presented its analysis of the request by reviewing surrounding land uses and zoning. Staff noted the applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the guided use of the subject property from Rural to Low Density Residential. Such change is necessary to accommodate the proposed development density of 1.8 units per acre. The proposed 2001 Comprehensive Plan suggests sewered low density residential use of the subject property which is consistent with the proposed land use. Staff explained that in conjunction with such change, an extension of the MUSA will be necessary to serve the development. Staff presented the evaluation criteria for the allocation of the MUSA reserve that was adopted by the City on September 9, 1996. It was noted that the City presently has 15.7 acres in the MUSA bank. Thus, the requested 4.5 acres of MUSA will not exceed the City’s present allocation. Staff noted the applicant has requested the rezoning of the subject property from R-X, Rural Executive to R-1X, Single Family Executive/PDO, Planned Development Overlay. In consideration of rezoning requests, S ection 2, Subd. 1.E. of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning and Zoning Board must consider possible adverse effects of the amendment (to the zoning map). Staff presente d the factors that must be addressed when considering a request for rezoning. In addition, the proposed development must also satisfy the City’s infill policy which, among other things, states that the cost of operation Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES and maintenance of utility systems must not exceed the normal costs as projected by the water and sewer rate study. Provided proper environmental protections are in place to protect the adjacent wetlands and a determination is made that utilities and vehicular access can be adequately provided, the proposed use is considered consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff noted the applicant is proposing to create eight single family lots upon the 4.5 acre subject property resulting in a density of 1.8 units per acre. Should the City approve the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment, a rezoning of the property to the base R-1X designation is considered appropriate. Staff advised that in conjunction with the R-1X designation, the applicant has requested a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) to allow flexibility from various provisions of the ordinance including shoreland setbacks, cul-de-sac length and vegetative disturbance. The concept of the PDO, as originally conceived, is to essentially trade flexibility from the strict provisions of the ordinance for a superior product that otherwise would not be allowed. While there are obviously many constraints to developing the subject property, it is unclear whether a superior development product will result. Staff presented the proposed preliminary plat, noting that all proposed lots exceed the minimum upland lot area requirement (above the 883.7 ordinary high water level). Additionally, all lots have been found to meet the minimum 90 foot width and 135 foot depth requirements of the R-1X District. Staff again noted that an extension of the MUSA (4.5 acres) will be necessary to serve the development. The area of such allocation will be applied only to upland area (non- wetland above the OHWL). Staff provided a review of the plat details including streets, cul-de-sac length, ownership, street width and bridge construction of a pproximately 300 feet in length to access the subject property. Staff noted the applicant is proposing that the road serving the subject property (and bridge) be privately owned. While the ordinance specifically prohibits the creation of private streets, such street types could be accomodated via the PDO (in response to the unique characteristics of the site) and the establishment of an undesirable precedent could be avoided. Staff prefers that the City not assume maintenance responsibilites for the proposed street segment (including the proposed bridge). Staff indicated, while the applicant has proposed a private street system, a 60-foot right- of-way width has been illustrated on the submitted plans. To ensure long-term private ownership of the street, it is recommended that individual lots be extended through the street and an access easement be established over the proposed street. Staff noted to allow for vehicular turnarounds at the terminous of the abutting public street segment (Ruffed Grouse Road), it is recommended that a cul-de-sac be created at its terminous. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Staff indicated, as shown on the developm ent plans, the construction of a bridge approximaltye 300 feet in length is necessary to access the subject property. The applicant has indicated that the bridge length will extend above the ordinary high water elevation and that no wetlands will be impacted. Because the submitted plans do not indicate pier locations, that cannot be verified. The acceptability of the bridge and its wetland impacts should be subject to comment by the City Engineer. Staff reviewed the requirements of the S horeland Overlay District which imposes a minimum 150 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark (883.7 feet) for all structures. With the upland area of the proposed lots ranging from approximately 160 to 220 feet in depth, the 150 foot setback requirement cannot be satisfied. According to the submitted grading plan, structure setbacks averaging approximately 90 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level are proposed. Staff explained that if a reduction in setback is to be allowed (via the PDO), the following are recommended in exchange for such allowance: 1. A detailed tree preservation plan be submitted which includes the following: A. An inventory of significant trees. B. A description of tree preservation efforts that would be implemented during both mass and custom grading. C. Specific parameters for tree preservation for custom graded lots including the percentages of significant trees to be saved. 2. Custom grading plans be submitted including: A. An escrow for custom graded lots. B. Tree preservation efforts. C. House placement that results in minimal disruption to existing vegetation and natural features. D. Drainage plans for each lot that conform to the final drainage plan and do not negatively impact adjacent properties. E. A 40 foot shoreland buffer strip. 3. Deed covenants are established to prevent disruption of the shoreland buffer area. 4. The shoreland buffer area is physically demarcated to avoid encroachment and disruption. It was noted that the Environmental Board had reviewed the development proposal at their December 19, 2001 meeting and did not recommended approval as currently presented. Specific concerns of the Board related to the inclusion of the property in a “high ecological value zone” (where development should be discouraged) and ground water contamination on the western portion of the island. Additional concerns were cited over proposed tree preservation efforts. The Bo ard also stipulated however, that if the project does move forward that such approval be subject to various conditions. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES It was noted that issues related to grading and drainage should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Issues related to utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer including utility easement establishment. Staff noted that no park land dedication is required of the proposed development. Park dedication will be cash fees in lieu of land and should be paid in the amount in effect at the time of final plat. Currently, the cash dedication requirement is $1,665 per lot, which for eight lots is $13,320. Staff stated the tree preservation plan has been combined with the grading, drainage and erosion control plan. While the plan identifies tree preservation limits on the site, no text regarding specific tree removal, trees to be retained or tree preservation efforts have been provided. Further, the plan does not provide a description of tree preservation or custom grading efforts that would be implemented for the creation of house pads. As a condition of PDO approval, a revised tree preservation plan should be submitted. Staff advised that the Rice Creek Watershe d District issued a TWAFAA for the proposed development at their meeting on September 26 th . The tabling with “authorization for administrative action” was approved subject to eight conditions. Staff reviewed the options available by the Board to recommend approval with conditions, recommend denial with findings being stated, or to table for further consideration. Staff noted the subject site is unique and holds numerous physical development constraints. As currently proposed, it is the opi nion of staff that the intent of the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) has not been satisfied. Rather, it appears the PDO has been requested as a means to circumvent many requirements of the ordinance without resulting in a superior development product. As a result, staff recommends denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and preliminary plat. Should, however, the Planning and Zoning Board choose to approve the request, staff recommends that the following conditions be satisfied: 1.The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning must be in effect before the preliminary plat/PDO plan approval is in effect. 2.The proposed bridge, street, and utilities are established as a private roadway, the maintenance of which shall not be the responsibility of the City. 3.The submitted plans be revised such that individual lots are extended through the private street with an easement established over such street (to allow cross access.) 4.A cul-de-sac is created at the terminus of the existing public street segment to allow for vehicular turnaround maneuvers (including those of City snowplows.) 5.The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to street construction requirements. 6.The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation regarding the acceptability of the bridge and its wetland impacts. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES 7.On-street parking (along the private street) be prohibited. 8.In exchange for setback flexibility, the following be provided: A. A detailed tree preservation plan including: 1. An inventory of significant trees 2. A description of tree preservation efforts that would be implemented during both mass and custom grading 3. Specific parameters for tree preservation for custom graded lots including percentages of significant trees to be saved B.Custom grading plans including: 1. An escrow for custom graded lots 2. Tree preservation efforts 3. House placement that results in minimal disruption to existing vegetation and natural features 4. Drainage plans for each lot that conform to the final drainage plan and do not negatively impact adjacent properties 5. A 40-foot shoreland buffer strip C.Deed Covenants to prevent disruption of the shoreland buffer area. D.The physical demarcation of the wetland boundary and shoreland buffer area to avoid encroachment and disruption. 9.Outlot B south of the single family lots be re-designated as Outlot C. 10.A homeowners association for the proposed development be created. The association shall include language regarding property, bridge and street maintenance and shoreland buffer areas. The bylaws of such an association shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 11.Issues related to grading and drainage shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 12.Issues related to utilities shall be subject to commend and recommendation by the City Engineer. 13.Park dedication shall be cash fees in lieu of land and should be paid in the amount in effect at the time of final plat. 14.The applicant enter into a PDO development agreement with the City. 15.Permit requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District must be fulfilled. 16.Covenants or easements shall be put in place that would restrict landowner activity in the shore impact zone and lake, as recommended by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 17.A new preliminary plat drawing shall be submitted that is consistent with other plan submittals. Mr. Corson questioned how a large emergency vehicle would access the island. Mr. Powell indicated the applicant has proposed a 24-foot wide street and bridge, which the Fire Chief has indicated in the past is adequate for the passage of emergency vehicles. However, he indicated that a means for vehicular turnarounds is needed at the end of the cul-de-sac and the end of the public street. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Corson noted the cul-de-sac appeared very small, being located entirely within the 60-foot right-of-way. Mr. Powell indicated th ere are other similarly sized cul-de-sacs currently within the City. Regarding the wetland delineation on the west side of the island, Mr. Corson indicated during the flooding last spring the flags were out in the water. He questioned whether the applicant had provided documentation showing the wetlands were delineated by a professional. Mr. Smyser could not recall having received a wetland delineation. He noted it was not the City’s responsibility to determine the accuracy of a wetland delineation. Mr. Corson stated this information should be verified. Mr. Corson indicated the Quail Ridge development has three storm water ponds to handle the runoff from the right-of-way. He noted the proposed plat did not include any such ponds and questioned whether a different set of standards was being used in this case. Mr. Powell stated storm water ponds were proposed at the eastern end of the bridge, including a swale, and the eastern end of the project. Mr. Corson requested confirmation that a tr ee preservation plan would be forthcoming. Mr. Kirmis stated this was correct. Mr. Corson noted it appeared as though the proposed bridge would require the construction of major pilings as deep as 250 feet to the bedrock. Mr. Powell indicated staff could not speculate as to the length of the pilings since this information was not submitted with the plat. Mr. Corson, assuming the pilings would be constructed to a substantial depth, questioned where the construction staging area would be located. Mr. Powell stated the applicant had indicated the bridge would be constr ucted during the winter months, however, additional details on this issue would be required. Mr. Corson indicated a couple of winters ago a backhoe was brought into this location and broke through the ice. Mr. Vaughan indicated that this had not occurred during the winter months. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he or his engineer would like to make comment. Jared Andrews, representing Loucks Associates, introduced himself and Paul Wallick, and indicated that they were present this evening to discuss any planning or engineering issues. Mr. Andrews stated he has been working with the necessary public agencies for some time regarding this project. He presented a drawing depicting the property boundaries, which showed total acres. He indicated much of the property contains wetlands and there is approximately four acres of upland. He indicated the intent was for the proposed Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES development to occur on the upland area and to preserve the wetlands as much as possible. Mr. Andrews stated that property is currently zoned R-X and surrounded by R-1X Zoning District and, if the property were r ezoned as requested, the proposed development would meet the standards of the underlying zoning district, with the exception of the street width requirement and the requested va riances from the ordinary high water mark. He stated he has worked with the Department of Natural Resources and the Rice Creek Watershed District for approval, who have recommended a narrow street width to reduce the amount of runoff. He noted there would only be eight lots served by the roadway extension. Mr. Wallick stated that he and Mr. Andrews met with the Environmental Board last month, which recommended that they meet with City staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District to modify the plans. He stated per the recommendations of the Environmental Board and the Watershed District, the street curb and gutter was eliminated. Additionally, the street width would remain at 24 feet wide and the street would be tipped with a three percent grade to the north. He indicated a drainage swale had been added on the north side of the road to help with infiltration and direct the water to the northern pond. He indicated that the pond on the southeast side had been eliminated. Mr. Wallick stated the bottom of the pond had been raised to address the concern of infiltration getting into the ground water. He stated there would be a three-foot separation between the ground water and the bottom of the pond. Additionally, sand will be added to the bottom of the pond to allow the water to be slowly filtered. Mr. Wallick stated the house pads were moved closer to the road and a preservation area had been created along the north side of the island. He stated this preservation area will be delineated during construction with a heavy silt fence and, after construction, markers will be placed so the homeowners know there will be no disturbance of the preservation area. He stated this will allow the homeowners a 25 to 30-foot deep backyard. He stated the homeowner’s association covenants will not allow the use of phosphorus in the yards. He stated the water will sheet drain through the backyards and should infiltrate into the ground before reaching the wetland. All the water will be captured from the road and directed to the drainage swale to allow the water to infiltrate into the ground while it makes its way to the pond. Mr. Wallick stated the Rice Creek Watershed District was pleased with the changes to the plans and are waiting for approval by the City for the variances. Chair Schaps noted Mr. Andrews had indicated he had worked with the Department of Natural Resources. He questioned whether the Department of Natural Resources had submitted a new report since the report dated September 18, 2001 included in the staff report. Mr. Andrews stated the Department of Natural Resources has only granted a permit for the bridge. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps noted the first paragraph of the report from the Department of Natural Resources asked that the City not interpret the issuance of a bridge permit as support of the proposed development. He asked if the applicants have convinced the Department of Natural Resources to be in favor of the proposed development. Mr. Wallick indicated the opinion of the Department of Natural Resources is the same as indicated in the September 18, 2001 report. Chair Schaps stated the primary issue was the requested shoreland setback variance of 50 percent. He noted this development involved a natural lake and he felt the proposed variances would be a significant trade-off. Mr. Andrews noted whether one lot or 20 lots were developed on the parcel, there would still be an average 90-foot setback from the ordinary high water line. He stated the developer has used his best management practices and created an innovative design, which attempted to address any issues. He noted the development of properties within 40 feet of a high water line is not uncommon in the Twin Cities area. Chair Schaps noted the applicant was assuming that all land is buildable, which, per the report by the Department of Natural Resources, is not always the case. Chair Schaps requested confirmation that th e proposed street would be the only private street in the City. Mr. Powell indicated there are approximately three to four other private streets within the City. Chair Schaps noted Mr. Corson had raised a concern for how the construction of the pilings will be handled. Mr. Wallick indicated the final design of the bridge has not yet been determined. Mr. Vaughan indicated Braun Construction ha d performed one boring and reported that the pilings would only need to be 31 feet deep. Chair Schaps asked what was the anticipated construction of the bridge. Mr. Wallick stated the bridge would be constructed of c oncrete four to five feet above ground level. He stated the bridge would be 24 feet wide and would use an arch design with four piers. Chair Schaps asked if there would be drainage off the bridge. Mr. Wallick stated the bridge would drain back to the road into the pond. Chair Schaps noted the staff report stated that there should be no environmental impact with the bridge. He stated with cars traveling across the bridge there is likely to be some oil and gas pollution, as with all roads, and questioned how the runoff will be handled. Mr. Wallick stated the runoff will be treated by the storm water pond like that from any roadway. Chair Schaps noted the runoff from the bridge will flow directly into the pond and not flow through any grass first. Mr. Wallick stated this was correct. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 16 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Lyden questioned the Department of Natural Resources’ jurisdiction compared to the jurisdiction of the Rice Creek Watershed District for granting approval of this development. He also asked if the Rice Creek Watershed District had a more current detailed report on their opinion regarding this application. Mr. Wallick stated the Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the development plans, subject to the approval of the City. He indicated the Watershed District wants more information regarding the design of the bridge. Mr. Smyser stated the Department of Natural Resources has jurisdiction over any project on any public waterway in the State below the ordinary high water level. He stated the Rice Creek Watershed District has jurisdiction over the wetland conservation. He indicated a wetland may or may not be located within the ordinary high water level area and this must be determined on an individual basis. He stated in this case, if the wetland extends into the ordinary high water level area, then the Watershed District would have jurisdiction there under the Wetland Conservation Act. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern for the limited information regarding the bridge. He noted the island cannot be accessed by vehicles without a bridge, which he felt was a major issue. He questioned whether the applicant did not wish to expend the money to design the bridge until the project concept is approved. Mr. Andrews indicated the current application was for a preliminary plat and it would be typical to not submit the final schematics until the final plans are submitted to the City Engineer. Mr. Rafferty noted the drawing from Loucks Associates numbered C3-1 showed the grading and erosion control information but showed no details for the proposed bridge. He questioned whether the bridge should be considered as a secondary issue. Mr. Andrews stated they have considered a number of options for access to the island, however, they have been receiving conflicting recommendations. He stated they did not want to design the bridge prior to determining whether the project would meet the PDO guidelines and MUSA criteria. He stated he did not agree with the statement in the staff report that the result of this PDO would not be a superior product. He believed the applications met the intent of the PDO. Mr. Lyden requested confirmation that the Department of Natural Resources has issued a permit for the construction of a bridge and the Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the current design of the project. Mr. Andrews stated this was correct. Mr. Hyden asked how the water will be treated after reaching the storm water pond. Mr. Wallick stated the pond will have an outlet at a certain level so that when water reaches that level it will drain toward the wetland. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 17 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hyden asked if any studies had been done to determine how the runoff will affect the bodies of water. Mr. Wallick stated storm water ponds are designed to allow water to settle, which he indicated is an accepted practice. Mr. Andrews added the sediment from the runoff would be filtered through the soil and the wetland. He stated wetlands are excellent for filtration prior to runoff water reaching a lake. He indicated they worked with the Rice Creek Watershed District to ensure the project design does not impact the wetland. Mr. Wallick added the Environmental Board had recommended the construction of a drainage swale for additional filtration. He indicated the individual lots will be custom graded and the intent was to work around the existing trees. Mr. Andrews indicated the design of this development will be similar to the existing Pheasant Hills development. Mr. Corson assumed the applicant was granted a bridge permit from the Department of Natural Resources because the bridge would not impact the lake. He questioned whether there will be utilities on the bridge. Mr. Andrews responded affirmatively. Chair Schaps opened the meeting to comments from the public. Ernest Peake, Attorney representing the applicant Mr. Vaughan, stated that he was present this evening seeking a resolution to allow Mr. Vaughan to move forward with his project. He indicated he read through th e staff’s recommendation that the project be denied primarily because the result would be inconsistent with the PDO ordinance. He felt the opposite was true and that the PDO ordinance invites and contemplates this type of development, particularly since the project would be developed in a manner consistent with the current Pheasant Hills development. He believed this would be a logical extension of the Pheasant Hills development, which is currently one of the finer developments within the City of Lino Lakes. Mr. Peake stated when dealing with an island it is important to consider engineering and pollution issues, which he does not have trouble with and he hopes to work with the City toward a resolution on these issues. Mr. Peake indicated several years ago, during litigation between the City and Mr. Vaughan regarding a condemnation proceeding, Mr. Vaughan had entered into an agreement with the City and the City had made a pledge to work with Mr. Vaughan on getting this project through. He acknowledged this agreement did not guarantee that Mr. Vaughan would receive total approval of the project since there are other regulatory agencies involved and City ordinances that must be complied with. However, the City had pledged to work with Mr. Vaughan on this project and he indicated the City has been considering this project for a long time. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Peake if had the agreement in writing. Mr. Peake responded affirmatively. He indicated the pledge was an order of the Court in the settlement Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 18 APPROVED MINUTES agreement. He indicated the settlement agreement stated the City agreed that it would cooperate with Mr. Vaughan for the residential development of the upland area on the island and for him to develop the land at some point he will need City level approval of rezoning or a PDO. Furthermore, the agreement stated that the City, at least at a staff level, will cooperate with Mr. Vaughan in his efforts to develop that parcel for residential purposes. Mr. Peake acknowledged that this statement in the settlement agreement did not mean Mr. Vaughan has the right to develop the land and ignore the City ordinances or State laws. However, he believed the City has contemplated this development and has agreed to work with Mr. Vaughan toward that end, not completely stop the development. Mr. Peake noted the staff report had included recommended conditions if the Planning and Zoning Board wished to recommend approval of the development. He stated he has reviewed the 17 recommended conditions with Mr. Vaughan and his engineers and they can live with virtually every term within those conditions. He felt if the Board was hesitating on recommending the approval the development of the parcel, then they should approve the project with conditions. He stated this would allow Mr. Vaughan the opportunity to demonstrate to the City that this project can work and would also be consistent with the City’s pledge to work with Mr. Vaughan in getting the project through. Regarding the proposed 17 conditions for approval of this project, Mr. Peake noted there had been a recommendation that the lot lines extend into the street and he had not heard an explanation as to why this would be required. He stated he was not necessarily opposed to this recommendation but he noted the lot sizes comply with the ordinance and he needed to know why this was an issue. Mr. Peake noted the staff report had recommended the construction of a cul-de-sac to allow emergency vehicle traffic in the development. He acknowledged that this would be necessary in order for the project to go through. Mr. Peake stated he was also concerned about the bridge construction and possible contamination of the water. However, he noted Mr. Vaughan has worked with the Rice Creek Watershed District and was willing to work with the City further on addressing these concerns. He stated Mr. Vaughan did not wish to cram this seven-lot development down the City’s throat. He believed over the past ten years Mr. Vaughan has demonstrated this is not his style. Mr. Peake stated the applicant was pleased to submit a custom-grading plan but questioned the requirement for an escrow for the custom graded lots. He felt this was a curious requirement but was willing to consider complying if such an escrow is necessary. Mr. Peake noted there is a great deal of concern regarding the shoreline and the distance of the homes from that shoreline and the possible disturbance of it. He indicated that staff’s recommended condition number 8C would address these concerns by, at a Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 19 APPROVED MINUTES minimum, requiring deed covenants to prevent disruption of the shoreland buffer area. He indicated that a deed covenant would be a recorded document that would run with the land and allow the buffer area around the island to remain undisturbed forever. Mr. Peake stated Mr. Vaughn wants to go through with this project and he does expect cooperation from the City, which has been promised. He acknowledged that the Department of Natural Resources or the Rice Creek Watershed District could still shut the project down. Mr. Lyden stated he had been serving on the City Council during the time of the litigation alluded to by Mr. Peake. He stated there had been a great deal of meetings regarding that issue and Mr. Peake was correct regarding the outcome of the litigation. He stated the spirit of the Court order was that the City help facilitate the development of the island and he felt this should be taken strongly into account when making a decision on this application. Mr. Corson noted in their report to the City, the Department of Natural Resources stated they do not support the granting of a variance for decreased setbacks as proposed. Furthermore, the report stated it appears that the island may be un-buildable considering the current zoning and if the City decides somehow that the island can be built on, it may be beneficial to reduce the number of units, “custom” grade the individual building sites to reduce soil disturbance and vegetation loss, minimize the length and width of the road, and minimize the impact to the Shore Impact Zone. With this in mind, although the City is required to work with the applicant, he did not feel this meant the City must approve the construction of seven homes. Mr. Smyser felt it would be wise for the Planning and Zoning Board to not attempt to determine what the legal agreement means, rather he felt this should be left up to the City Attorney. He stated he has been working with the City Attorney on this project and indicated that the City has not committed to approving this project. He stated the City has in no way committed to anything other than cooperating with the review of the project. He did not feel it appropriate for anyone other than the City Attorney to comment on the City’s commitments, legally or otherwise. Mr. Lyden reiterated that he had been serving on the City Council at the time the commitment was made and was privy to all the meetings. Mr. Smyser reiterated the City was not committed to anything. Ken Asleson, Lot #8 Ruffed Grouse, provided the Board with handouts regarding his concerns. He indicated his interpretation of working with a developer on a project did not mean the project would be rubber stamped. Mr. Asleson stated he has a golden retriever who likes to roam in the wood in his back yard. He indicated during summer months his dog likes to dig a little hole and lie in the water that fills the hole. He was curious whether the proposed pond would fill with storm water or would fill with water while being dug. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 20 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Asleson noted the staff report indicated the requested rezoning would allow 1.8 units per acre. However, because there is only approximately four acres of upland area, he questioned why seven units were being proposed. Mr. Asleson stated many years ago he worked on a bridge crew to pay his way through college and a close friend currently runs a family business in North Dakota building bridges. He could not recall ever building a bridge with only 31 feet of pilings. He questioned who will be responsible for inspecting and approving the construction of the private road and bridge and who will design the bridge. He also questioned who would be responsible for the bridge if the private ownership does not pan out. Mr. Asleson noted the applicant has not provided any written approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Asleson stated he had received a bridge permit two summers ago for land he owns in northern Minnesota. He stated his bridge was basically a box car with the top removed. He indicated the requirements of the Department of Natural Resources at that time had been very loose and only required that the bridge not impact the water. Mr. Asleson noted in its report to the City, the Department of Natural Resources had indicated that Ward Lake is a Natural Environment basin and has a structure setback requirement of 150 feet, and a Shore Impact Zone of 75 feet. Additionally, the report cited the loss of virtually all vegetation on the island during grading and that the location of the proposed road is entirely in the Shore Impact Zone and cannot meet the required setback. Mr. Asleson indicated the high water marks had been determined in 1991 and he questioned the accuracy of those marks and whether this needed updating. He believed in the last 10 years the water level has changed. Mr. Asleson stated the Department of Natural Resources’ website states that the Shoreland Management Act regulates all land within 1,000 feet of a lake and 300 feet of a river in a designated flood plane. Additionally, the Shoreland Management Act requires local units of government with priority shoreland to adopt these or stricter standards into their zoning ordinances. Mr. Asleson indicated the Department of Natural Resources has classified Wards Lake as a natural environment lake. He noted the guidelines for a natural environment lake, which require a lot area of 40,000 square feet, lot width of 125 feet and structure setback of 150 feet. He indicated that per the prelim inary plat four of the seven lots would be less than 125 feet wide and all seven lots appear to be less than 40,000 square feet in area. Mr. Asleson indicated his father was a devel oper for many years and he did not want Mr. Vaughn to be prevented from utilizing his land as he sees fit. However, at this point he Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 21 APPROVED MINUTES believed the land would be buildable with one lot per the current zoning. He stated he did not support rezoning the property to allow the construction of seven lots. Mark Groff, 6613 Ruffed Grouse Road, noted Mr. Peake had referred to the proposed development as an extension of Pheasant Hills development. However, he felt the proposed development would in reality be an extension of the Quail Ridge development. He stated Quail Ridge currently has 40 homes with no access to City trails or City parks without crossing the street. Mr. Groff stated that he agreed that a landowner has the right to develop his land, however, he felt the applicant should only be allowed to develop one lot. He felt the proposed development would impact the value of the existing homes in the area. He noted the development will result in the loss of trees, which will alter the view of the current homeowners on the north side of Ruffed Grouse from of a natural area to that of a street and the rear of the proposed homes. Mr. Groff stated there appeared to be no positive impact with the proposed development on the existing neighborhood. He stated the development will generate additional cars, although the additional traffic generated by seven homes was not a primary concern. He felt because the proposed project will devalue the existing homes, the application should be denied. Marc Valerius, 6674 Ruffed Grouse Road, stated the proposed development does not have the support of the Department of Natural Resources, although the applicant’s representatives have intimated that they have such support, which makes him somewhat suspicious of other statements being made. Mr. Valerius stated he did not agree that the proposed development was a logical extension of the Pheasant Hills development si nce, if that were the case, the access would be made from the existing development. Mr. Valerius indicated the majority of the surrounding property owners do not support the proposed development, nor do the Department of Natural Resources or the Environmental Board. He noted the proposal does not meet many of the City ordinance requirements and he questioned what positive aspects there were to the proposal. He stated he was not opposed to the development of one home on the island and he asked that the proposal as submitted be denied and the applicant be allowed to construct one home as originally planned. Mr. Valerius noted when Mr. Peake read the Court order regarding City support of the development, the agreement referred to staff level support. He questioned the interpretation of “staff level support.” He believed City staff has done a great job in assisting the applicant by reviewing the plans and bringing them forward. Mary Kutzman, Lot #13 Quail Ridge, stated her primary concern was with the high level of the water. She noted the issue of the markers had been brought up and she felt many do not realize how high the water has become over the years. She indicated last year her Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 22 APPROVED MINUTES backyard had flooded and there had been fish in her yard. She presented the Board with photographs depicting the high water level. She stated she supported the construction of one home on the island but not seven. Jeff Melby, Lot #8 Quail Ridge, stated the issue concerning the backhoe breaking through the ice had occurred during the month of December. Mr. Melby stated he had obtained a portion of the bedrock map from the United States Geological Survey, which he provided a copy of to the Board. He noted the map depicted the depth of the bedrock at an el evation of approximately 725 feet above sea level. He stated he would be very surprised if the bedrock in this area is only 31 feet deep. He indicated in other projects around the Twin Cities area the bedrock is found at a depth of approximately 150 to 200 feet. Mr. Melby expressed concern for the disrup tion the proposed project would have on the neighborhood. He stated with approximately 45 homes, there are approximately 60 children living in the neighborhood. He indicated at the end of the cul-de-sac there are 13 children, eight of whom are under the age of five. He stated because the neighborhood has no sidewalks the street is used for walking, skateboarding, scooters and for other types of recreation. He indicated at this time there is a low level of traffic in the area and the neighbors watch out for each others safety. Mr. Melby expressed concern for the effect the actual construction of the homes will have on the neighborhood, including heavy equipment and delivery traffic, parking issues, the clearing of trees and removal of the cleared trees by heavy trucks, etc. He indicated the road is rated for seven tons per axel and indicated there could potentially be several hundreds of truck trips through the neighborhood. He indicated the construction of the bridge will raise the level of disruption even higher and will result in noise, pollution and possible vibration concerns when the pilings are installed. Mr. Melby felt that regardless of the number of lots developed on the island, the construction should be brought in from the east rather than through a developed neighborhood. Sandy Seebole, Lot #10 Quail Ridge, provided the Board with a letter addressing her concerns regarding the proposed development. She was concerned that the developer was proposing to bring the development through Quail Ridge as a cost saving measure and that seven lots were being proposed versus one to make up for the cost to construct the bridge. Ms. Seebole was concerned that the construction of the pilings will cause vibrations that could result in structural damage to the nearby homes. She stated she did not want to prevent the applicant from developing his land, however, she felt he should only be allowed to construct one home per the current zoning and the rezoning should not be approved. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 23 APPROVED MINUTES Gwen Pederson stated one reason she opposed the development was due to safety concerns for the neighborhood children. She indicated that all the residents in her neighborhood use the streets and she was concerned about the additional traffic. Ms. Pederson stated at one point the subject property had been included in the City’s Comprehensive Park Plan and she questioned what happened to those plans. She stated when she bought her home she had been informed that a natural trail would be created from the development to the island. She felt the island would be a great place for a natural park and she questioned the credibility of the City Council when the plans for a park are thrown out in favor of development. Kari Bormhoft, Lot #7 Quail Ridge, stated she felt very strongly about the safety of her neighborhood. She stated she has two small children and because her neighborhood has no connections to parks or trails, her children play in the streets and yards. She stated she supported the other comments made this evening in opposition of the proposed development. Margy Cory stated her lot is adjacent to the proposed homes and she was not pleased by the proposed development. She indicated when Quail Ridge had been built there had been concerns for the soil conditions and the road stability. She questioned who will be responsible for the repair of the existing roadway if the construction vehicles cause damage. Ms. Cory stated she had attended the Environmental Board meeting when the proposed development had been recommended for denial. She stated the Environmental Board had expressed concern regarding the existing trees and wildlife. She stated she has seen many deer, raccoons, possums and eagles on the subject property and she was concerned how the development will affect them. A dditionally, she has found Indian artifacts such as arrow heads in the area. Ms. Cory stated when she purchased her home she had been required to purchase flood insurance and noted her lot is much higher than the subject lot. Ms. Cory stated her neighborhood has weekly trash pickups and daily mail and other deliveries. She expressed concern for how these types of services will be handled with the private road and whether one large dumpster will be placed at the entrance to the development. For these and other reasons, she did not support the proposed development. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Smyser noted a letter had been received from Theodore and Cheryl Brausen, 6763 Timberwolf Trail, expressing support for the proposed development, which would be entered into the record. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 24 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps asked if neighborhood meetings had been held regarding this development. Mr. Smyser did not believe any neighborhood meetings had been held. Chair Schaps requested information regarding the FEMA flood plain and noted properties only one-quarter of one mile west of his property require flood insurance. Mr. Powell stated it was not uncommon for the FEMA maps to be inaccurate. Mr. Lyden stated the concerns brought up this evening regarding the proposed construction were legitimate concerns. He stated he has dealt with construction traffic in his neighborhood and agreed the traffic can be ominous, particularly for children. He noted a suggestion had been made that the construction traffic be brought in from the east and he asked if this would be possible. Mr. Powell indicated this would result in those streets potentially being damaged and safety concerns for the children in that neighborhood who play in the street. He did not believe moving the construction traffic to another street would alleviate all the concerns of the proposed development. Regarding concern for damage to streets by the construction traffic, Mr. Powell indicated the City would have to monitor the damage to the roadway and require compensation from the developer for those repairs. Chair Schaps asked if this has been the same expectation for other developments in the City. Mr. Powell could not recall a situation in the past where a new development was brought in through the end of an established development. Mr. Lyden stated any time there is development there is potential construction impact. Mr. Powell agreed but noted there have not been many developments within the City that involved the construction of a bridge. Mr. Lyden expressed concern for the legal history involving the subject property and he felt the City must be reasonable and not single out this particular developer. Mr. Powell did not believe the applicant was being singled out and indicated that he was relying on the City Attorney’s interpretation of the Court ordered agreement. Mr. Corson felt the island was suitable to be developed with as currently zoned with one home. He noted the Department of Natural Resources has recommended denial of the requested variances to the shoreline setbacks, and he indicated that he takes this recommendation very seriously. Mr. Corson believed approval of the proposed development could leave the City open to potential litigation if damage is caused to the nearby homes by the vibration caused by the bridge construction. Mr. Corson noted when Quail Ridge had been developed sand had been placed under the road due to the poor ground conditions. Howe ver, he noted near Mr. Groff’s property Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 25 APPROVED MINUTES there are cracks in the road which water flows up through, which means there is a great deal of water under the road. Mr. Corson stated the quality of life in Lino Lakes must be considered. He did not support the notion of allowing the clearing of an island with mature vegetation simply out of fear of litigation. He stated the property currently has potential use as currently zoned and he felt seven homes would be too many on a small island. Mr. Lyden asked Mr. Corson how the proposed development would affect him. Mr. Corson stated the development would result in the loss of trees and a view of a bridge from his house, as well as have an impact on the neighborhood children. Mr. Lyden noted the neighborhood would likely deal with construction traffic for at least two years. Mr. Corson agreed this was the assumption. Mr. Lyden questioned whether Mr. Corson could vote on the proposed development or if this would be a conflict of interest. Mr. Corson stated the Board has been consistent in voting on all applications regardless of its location providing there is no personal gain or interest on the part of a Board member. Mr. Rafferty stated he appreciated the concer ns expressed by the residents, such as the concern for construction traffic. He stated he lives in the current Pheasant Hills development and has two children ages nine and seven. He indicated his house is located on a cul-de-sac and the school bus has a difficult time turning around, although his cul- de-sac has a center island, which makes maneuvering more difficult. Mr. Rafferty felt that Mr. Vaughan did an exceptional job with the development of Pheasant Hills and had paid a great deal of respect to the neighborhood and the environment. He did not believe there was any clear way of salvaging all the vegetation on the island when developed. He added that his property value has increased significantly since he purchased his home. Mr. Rafferty stated he has visited the island and found the neighborhood to be quiet and to contain a number of children. He stated he was not concerned that the proposed development would devalue the existing property values and he did see an opportunity for the applicant to develop seven lots on the island. Regarding the concern expressed by the Department of Natural Resources for the elimination of vegetative growth, he noted when the applicant developed Pheasant Hills it was felt he had preserved too much of the existing vegetation. Mr. Rafferty was not certain what the right decision is in this case. He agreed the applicant has the right to develop his property, however, he agreed with the concerns regarding construction traffic and the impact on the neighborhood by the construction of the bridge. Mr. Rafferty stated he knows Mr. Vaughan and had, as a concerned citizen, sat through the condemnation proceedings where Mr. Vaughan lost a great deal of land. He stated he Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 26 APPROVED MINUTES has a great deal of respect for City sta ff for their past work, even though he did not support the condemnation action. He stated he was concerned for both the residents and the applicant and suggested the proposal be tabled and efforts be made to come up with solutions that will work for all parties. Ms. Lane stated she was not privy to the agreement in the Court order but she noted the order required City staff to work with the property owner to develop the land but not to change the zoning for seven lots. She believed City staff has worked with the applicant on this development. She agreed that the lot is buildable under the current zoning and she could not support the number of variances being requested. Chair Schaps stated Mr. Vaughan has been a good citizen in the community for a long time and has built and developed premiere neighborhoods in the City. However, he was concerned about the number of items that would be impacted by proposed development, including the residents. He noted none of the residents present this evening supported the development as proposed, although they were not opposed to one house being developed on the property. Chair Schaps stated he understood Mr. Peake’s position regarding the litigation involved. He stated he has not seen the agreement but per the language presented this evening the agreement only required City staff support. He did not believe anyone could argue successfully against the fact that City staff has supported the applicant with this development. He indicated City staff has been working with the applicant for several weeks on this application and has prepared a multi-page report with recommendations. He did not feel this was an issue and he was not concerned about potential litigation. He stated the Planning and Zoning Board needed to be concerned with whether or not the project meets the ordinances and, if not, to consider the fact that a PDO development should involved fair trade-offs. He did not feel the proposed trade offs, such as tree preservation data, were in any way sufficient for what was being requested. He noted a private road was being requested, which there were not many of in the City. He stated this was due to lack of continuity of public services, condition and care, as well the notion of developing a private neighborhood w ithin public neighborhoods. He stated it has always been City staff’s opinion that th e City should not have any jurisdiction over private roads because they do not want to have to deal with the private associations that dictate their own control. Chair Schaps stated the shoreland impact was his primary reason for opposing the development. He noted the applicant was requesting a 75-foot variance to a 150-foot minimum setback requirement. He stated this development would not just impact the adjacent neighborhood, rather it would impact a series of neighborhoods that are surrounded by wetlands and lakes that flow eventually to the river. He felt the neighborhood impact would be significant and l ong-term. He noted just the construction of the bridge alone would likely take a very long time to complete, more than any of the residents would be willing to put up with. He stated he would not be surprised if he would be able to hear the construction fr om his property, which would not please him. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 27 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps reiterated that Mr. Vaughan has been a tremendous neighbor and developer in the City but he felt Mr. Vaughan was asking for too much. He stated he would not be in support of the proposed development under any circumstances in its current status. Mr. Lyden felt if the issue of construction tr affic and noise was the deciding factor for whether developments are approved, there would obviously be no development in the City of Lino Lakes. He stated for him th e real test was whether there was anything positive in the development for the neighborhood, which he felt was not the case with the proposed development. However, this did not mean a person does not have to be rational and fair and look at the facts and make a judgment based on the facts. He stated his primary issue was the zoning and the PDO, which must pass the real approval test. He noted PDO’s have been granted to many developers within the City, such as Trapper’s Crossing. He stated the only trade-off Trapper’s Crossing got for the PDO was a substandard fence and he questioned whether Mr. Vaughan was asking for more or for less. He stated the City must be fair and reasonable and he felt that a PDO made the most sense for the development of an island. Mr. Lyden stated he heard the concerns expressed this evening, which he felt were valid. However, he felt the City must be fair. Mr. Corson stated it was his understanding that zoning actions are judicial actions by a city and was something that most Judges will not deal with. He stated zoning is an action by a city that will affect their future and their plans for how they want their city to grow. He felt if the City did not want seven homes crammed on to a small island, this was the time to stop it. He indicated a rezoning action would be required for the proposed development and he felt this was a discretionary decision by the City. Chair Schaps did not believe the settlement agreement could tie the hands of any of the City’s Boards or the City Council. Otherwise, he believed there would be multiple sections of the Municipal code violated, as well as violation of the due process of law. He stated he understood the intent of the settlement agreement but he did not agreed that it meant the City must rubber stamp any development proposal. Mr. Lyden believed the Judge understood he could not go beyond his jurisdiction by dictating to the City how they should develop the island or whether the island should be developed. However, he noted there is often a difference between what is legal and what is ethical and he felt the Judge, in the spirit of his direction, was clearly looking for what is ethical. Mr. Lyden stated he was looking for a reasona ble, rational, fair and ethical outcome. Mr. Rafferty agreed a PDO would enhance the ability to develop the island. He questioned how tabling the application woul d affect Mr. Vaughan in attempting to find solutions that may work for all parties. He noted the residents did not oppose the use of the land but were concerned that the applicant only be able to develop one lot based on the size requirements of the R-X Zoning Di strict. He questioned what the new Comprehensive Plan showed for the development of the subject parcel. Mr. Smyser Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 28 APPROVED MINUTES stated the new Comprehensive Plan guides the property for single family, sewered development. Mr. Rafferty questioned how the applicant would be affected by the tabling of the request or a delay in the City’s decision, which at this point he did not believe would be favorable from the Planning and Zoning Board. He acknowledged that even if the Board recommended denial, the development will be reviewed by the City Council, however, he believed the Council will have the same difficulty in making a decision. He noted if this was the case and the Council denied the request, the developer would have to wait one year before reapplying. Mr. Peake stated he would be pleased to continue working with the City toward an alternative that will work. However, he noted the applicant was under the eminent threat of a building moratorium, which would not allow the luxury of having this matter tabled. He believed there may be an opportunity for the City Council to waive the moratorium for this proposed development in order to further pursue alternatives that work for Mr. Vaughan, the City and the neighbors. He stated if the development would not be affected by the moratorium he would be willing to accept the proposal being tabled. Mr. Rafferty noted the moratorium will only be in place for 12 months and he was not certain the proposal would be approved as submitted, which he believed would be more damaging to the applicant than the moratorium. Mr. Peake stated the consideration of this proposal must be done in the spirit of cooperation and indicated Mr. Vaughan has been very willing to work with the City and has not been rigid in his expectations. Mr. Peake felt that the impending moratorium directly conflicts with the settlement agreement because he did not believe the City could cooperate with Mr. Vaughan and preclude him from requesting the continued development of the island. He felt that Mr. Vaughan should be given the opportunity to continue working with the Planning and Zoning Board and neighbors to determine whether there were some reasonable solutions. However, there are time constraints. Mr. Rafferty noted the moratorium would appl y to any preliminary plats not approved by the effective date and he questioned whether the applicant was attempting to move too quickly with this development because of the pending moratorium. Mr. Peake believed that the impending moratorium was forcing both the Planning and Zoning Board’s hands as well as Mr. Vaughan’s hands. He expressed his willingness to continue working with the Board, the City Council and staff in attempting to design a development that will work. However, if Mr. Vaughan is precluded from doing this by the moratorium then he felt the City is not accomplishing its job and Mr. Vaughan can not obtain that which he has a constitutional right to. Mr. Rafferty stated the Planning and Zoning Board is not required to make a decision based solely on the possibility of a future moratorium. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 29 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesest for the Pheasant Hills 12 th Addition to change the guided use of the subject property from Rural to Low Density Residential, and the allocation of 4.5 acres of MUSA Reserve, based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Mr. Lyden wished to ask the applicant if he was interested in this matter being tabled. Chair Schaps stated there was a motion of the floor that the Board should take action on. Mr. Lyden asked Mr. Corson if he would be willing to withdraw his motion. Mr. Smyser stated that the issue regarding the impending moratorium was crucial. He indicated if the project is not forwarded to the City Council before the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting there was no chance of the project being considered by the Council prior to the moratorium. He stated staff would recommend the Board make a recommendation to the Council this evening. Based on these comments, Mr. Corson chose to make no changes to the current motion. Motion carried 3-2 (Lyden and Rafferty opposed.) Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend de nial of the rezoning from R-X to R- 1X/PDO for the Pheasant Hills 12 th Addition, based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 3-2 (Lyden and Rafferty opposed.) Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat as submitted for the Pheasant Hills 12 th Addition, based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 3-2 (Lyden and Rafferty opposed.) C. Election of Members to Development Regulation Task Force Staff explained that the new Comprehensive Plan establishes a number of new policies. In order to implement the Comprehensive Plan, the City needs to amend its official controls. This primarily means the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. In order to complete these amendments efficiently, a task force is being assembled. Staff reviewed the membership and purpose of the task force which will meet once a month to consider a new Subdivision Ordinan ce first, then the Zoning Ordinance. The task force will not be revising the comprehensive plan. In addition, staff has arranged to have Government Training Service conduct a special workshop at Lino Lakes City Hall. The workshop will cover the fundamentals of land use planning and regulation. Task force members must attend this workshop. This is set for Saturday, January 26, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. and will be an all-day workshop. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 30 APPROVED MINUTES Staff explained the procedure that will be used and that when all pieces of the ordinance have been reviewed by the task force, the entire ordinance will be brought to each Board for discussion. The Planning and Zoning Board will hold a public hearing. Then it will go to the City Council for a first and second reading. Staff stated the Board is asked to elect two Planning and Zoning Board members to serve on the Development Regulations Task Force. Mr. Rafferty asked how long the task force meetings would last. Mr. Smyser anticipated that the meetings would last as long as it takes to get the necessary work done. Mr. Smyser indicated Mr. Grochala was in attendance at this time to address this issue. He stated Mr. Grochala attended this evening’s City Council work session during which this task force had been discussed. Mr. Grochala stated during the City Council work session earlier this evening the Council discussed the schedule and the bylaws of the Development Regulations Task Force. The Council anticipated the task force would meet once per month on the third or fourth Thursday and first meeting was scheduled for Thursday, January 31, 2002. Mr. Grochala indicted the City Council strongly supported an aggressive schedule in order to complete the work within the scheduled time frame. He indicated if it appeared the work would not be completed within the scheduled time frame, then additional meetings may be added so the deadline is met. Mr. Lyden asked that he be removed from consideration as a member of the task force since he did not believe the new Comprehensive Plan will be able to meet some of its significant goals. Chair Schaps supported this request. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to elect Ms. Lane and Mr. Hyden to serve on the Development Regulations Task Force. Ms. Lane nominated Chair Schaps and Mr. Lyden nominated Mr. Rafferty to serve on the task force. Mr. Rafferty stated he would support any memb er of the Board being elected to the task force. He felt that Chair Schaps would be an excellent choice to serve on the task force due to his experience. He stated he would like to hear the opinions of Ms. Lane and Mr. Hyden on serving on the task force. Ms. Lane stated in the early 1980’s she had served on a task force, which dealt with ordinances. She stated she had the time available and would be willing to serve on the Development Regulations Task Force. Mr. Hyden indicated he was willing to serve on the task force but expressed concern for the fact that he was new to the Planning and Zoning Board. He felt he has a great deal to Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 31 APPROVED MINUTES learn but acknowledged serving on the task force may be one way to be educated. He stated he too would prefer that Chair Schaps serve on the task force. Mr. Corson stated his wife works nights and weekends and serving on the task force would be a conflict for him. Chair Schaps suggested that the motion be withdrawn and a new motion be made regarding one candidate. Mr. Lyden stated he would prefer that his motion stand. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion failed 2-3. Mr. Grochala suggested that the task force members be selected through a secret ballot. Chair Schaps concurred. The result of the secret ballot was five votes for Chair Schaps, four votes for Mr. Hyden, and three votes for Ms. Lane. Chair Schaps and Mr. Hyden were elected to represent the Planning and Zoning Board on the Development Regulations Task Force. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Elect Economic Development Advisory Committee Liaison. Staff advised that in the past, P & Z has appointed a liaison to the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC). There is no requirement to do so, but EDAC has requested the P & Z do so. Chair Schaps noted Mr. Rafferty has served as the liaison to the Economic Development Advisory Committee in the past. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to elect Mr. Rafferty to serve on the Economic Development Advisory Committee, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5- 0. Chair Schaps noted the swearing-in ceremony for Board members will be held on Monday, January 14, 2002. Chair Schaps reminded Board members that when appointed to the Planning and Zoning Board they are expected to attend all meetings. He asked that all Board members attempt to accomplish this goal in 2002. VII.ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:53 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 32 APPROVED MINUTES Respectfully submitted, Lori Rolfson, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .