Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/2002 P&Z MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONI NG BOARD MINUTES I.CALL TO ORDE R AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:37 p.m., April 10, 2002. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – March 13, 2002 Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2002, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, a nd was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Mr. Rafferty abstained). IV.OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:38 p.m. There was no one present for open mike. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:39 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5-0. V.ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING – Bald Eagle Contractors, Lake Drive, CUP for Outdoor Storage DATE: April 10, 2002 TIME STARTED: 6:37 P.M. TIME ENDED: 9:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyden, Lane, Rafferty, Schaps, and Zych. MEMBERS ABSENT: Lyden. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner, Jeff Smyser; City Engineer, James Studenski; Community Development Director, Michael Grochala Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 6:40 p.m. Staff presented the application by Bald Ea gle Contractors CUP for Outdoor Storage. Staff reviewed the background of the lot by explaining applicant had submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor storage. He stated applicants wished to move his construction business to th e site and store vehicl es outdoors, such as trucks and a construction traile r. He explained the current application did not include a site plan review. Typically, a CUP applica tion such as this would be accompanied by complete site plan information. He noted it was staff’s understandi ng that the applicant wanted to find out if the outdoor storage wa s possible before committing to designing the building, grading, utilities, and other elements. Staff presented its analysis by explaining th e site consisted of two parcels totaling approximately 1.3 acres. He explained th e City Council adopted Ordinance 02-2000 in February, 2000. This amendment to the Zoni ng Ordinance established open and outdoor storage as a conditional use in the Light Industrial Zoning Di strict. It also listed very specific limitations regarding where such storage was allowed. • Several requirements pertained to the de sign of the site. Staff did not have specific design information necessary to judge if the application complied with all the Ordinance requirements, such as those for lighting and parking. • Staff can address the location requirement s now. The Ordinance stated that the property could not abut prope rty zoned residential, rura l, or business. Abutting included across the street. The subject site was directly across the street from an R-3 zoning district. Staff explained the intent of the Ordina nce was to allow outdoor storage only on light industrial sites that were internal to the zoning district. He stated th e sites were not to be on the edges of an L-1 zoning district, but toward the inside of the district. That way, the storage sites would always be screened, no t only by onsite design features, but also by other industrial properties. He indicated the proposed site was exactly the type of lo cation prohibited by the outdoor storage Ordinance. • The Ordinance stated that the actual out door storage area c ould not abut a school or park. The property abuts a stor m water pond on school property, but the submitted sketch showed a fenced area for storage, which did not abut the school property. An area with “grass s eed” is shown se parating the two. Staff noted the seeded area appeared to cove r only half the entire site, according to the drawing, rendering it unusable. Staff indicated it was probable that once the business and storage were established, a successful construction bus iness would grow and need additional storage area for equipment. Contra ctor yards typically accumulate more and more equipment and material over time. Staff stated that because of the type of business Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Bald Eagle was in, it would be difficult to keep fully one-half of the site unusable. Staff noted even assuming the property owner properly requested expansion of the storage, the City would have created for itself a diffi cult situation where an intended buffer was threatened. Staff noted that the school district was sent a letter stati ng it did not oppose the application for outdoor storage. Staff stated while they appreciated th e district’s input, it did not erase staff’s concerns. With respect to the standard Conditional Use Permit requirements, staff stated most types of conditional uses in the zoning ordinance had specific conditions, such as those discussed above. In addition, th ere were general requirements that applied to all CUPs. Staff explained one of those was the proposed use “will conf irm to specific standards of his ordinance applicable to the particular use.” Staff noted as previously explained, the property abuts a residential z oning district. This would not conform to the specific standard of the zoning ordinance that pr ohibited outdoor storage on such a site. Staff noted full site and building plans were required for CUP applications. He stated staff had received only sparse information in the submittal. He indicated staff had received grading, utility, and landscaping pl ans on April 3, 2002, which did not allow for a complete site plan review for the P & Z meeting. However, he stated, as a courtesy to th e applicant, staff had reviewed the CUP application without the site and building plans. He noted it was staff’s understanding that the applicant wanted to find out if the ou tdoor storage was possible before committing to designing the building, grading, utilities, a nd other elements. He stated since the proposal clearly did not comply with outdoor storage requirements, staff was comfortable making a recommendation on the storage CUP alone. With respect to the surrounding nonconforming uses, staff noted properties on the north and south of the subject site had outdoor stor age. These were nonconforming uses. This meant that the uses existed prior to the cha nge in zoning requiremen ts that would prohibit such uses. He stated they had a right to continue as they were before the change. However, the City was not obligated to, nor s hould it allow, new uses that did not comply with its Ordinances. Staff recommended denying the CUP applica tion because it did not comply with City requirements, as explaine d in the staff report. Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. Dave Biese, Bald Eagle Construction, and Greg Hayes, Shingobee Builders. Mr. Hayes stated applicant wanted to store a boom truck and a trailer with mats on it that would not be able to be stored inside. He indicated they understood that the School District and the Church potentia lly were in conflict with th e CUP. He stated the Church and school did not have any objection to that ty pe of outdoor storage. He stated they had Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES modified the site plan to include a screening berm along Lake Drive, as well as a perimeter fence for security seasons. He stated the type of building was precast concrete. Mr. Biese indicated the two prop erties on either side also ha d a lot of stuff on their lots. He stated they did not fabricate any steel them selves, they just transported it to job sites. Mr. Rafferty asked for the building dimensi ons. Mr. Hayes replied it was approximately 4500 square feet, 64 x 64. Mr. Biese stated if they expanded in the future, they could expand out the back. Chair Schaps stated the difficulty was that they were asking for approval when the Board had little information as to what they wanted approval on. Mr. Hayes stated they were attempting to be proactive in this and wanted to get staff’s and the Board’s opinions prior to going forward with this. Mr. Hayes stated the reason they were proceeding this way was because staff had recommended they go through this process. He stated they were proceeding in a prudent manner based on staff’s recommendation. Mr. Corson asked what type of storage materi als they were intendi ng. Mr. Biese replied all materials would be stored inside, except the loaded trailers, which would be outside. Mr. Corson asked if they were talking vehicles only and not materials. Mr. Hayes replied that was correct. Mr. Corson stated he was confused whether they should proceed without all of the information. Chair Schaps expressed concern was that they were trying to prevent this from happening, particularly along Lake Drive. Mr. Corson stated he was not in favor of out side storage. He indicated this was an important area of the City. He stated he wa s very sensitive as to how this would appear from the street. Chair Schaps asked the size of the trucks th at would be coming into the site. Mr. Biese stated they would be semi trucks, but they would not always be on the property. Bob Brouty, 437 Portion Lake Drive, stated he was not clear on three items. He asked if they were talking about taki ng things off trucks and stor ing it on the ground, or were they talking about putting thing on the truck only. Mr. Biese re plied they would be storing materials inside. Mr. Brouty stated whether or not the school district or the chur ch had no objection, did not make any difference. There was an Ordi nance and the reason for the Ordinance, was Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES to be followed. However, Mr. Brouty stated if they were only storing vehicles, he was not sure if this fit into the Ordinance, as long as there was no storage of materials on the property. He stated this business was a good neighbor and if the CUP was approved, the CUP would need to be very specific as to not allowing materials to be stored outdoors. Herman Zuetel, stated he was an environmen talist and indicate he was neither for nor against this, but he was wondering if ther e was a possible hazardous materials issue because he had been in the trucking indus try for many years and knew that boom trucks leaked oil and fuel and asked the Board to consider this. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Zych asked if there was anyw here else in the City the a pplicant could be directed for outdoor storage. Mr. Smyser re plied light industrial zones w ould allow it, as long as the storage was on the interior. He stated th e area over by Interstate 35E was zoned light industrial and could accommodate a request such as this. Mr. Corson stated he believed they were l ooking at a variance from the CUP. He stated because it was zoned residential, they did not think they would consider this without a variance to the CUP. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to deny the request of Bald Eagle Construction for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for Outdoor Storage in L1 Zoning District. The reason for the denial was because it does not comply with City requirement. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. B.PUBLIC HEARING – Stoneybrook, Co mprehensive Plan Amendment/MUSA Allocation, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Staff presented the application by Stone ybrook, Comprehensive Plan Amendment/MUSA Allocation, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat. Staff reviewed the background of the lot by ex plaining Tollefson Development, Inc. had submitted an pplication for preliminary pl at approval of Stoneybrook, a 102 lot single- family residential subdivision. The request also required approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allocate MUSA to the site and a Rezoning from R, Rural District to R-1X, Single Family Executive Residential District. Staff stated the site was loca ted adjacent to and south of Birch Street and a quarter mile west of Centerville Road. Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Staff presented its analysis by explaining th e project consisted of a 78 acre parcel that was currently an agricultural use cont aining approximately 19 acres of wetland. Surrounding land uses included sewered resi dential to the north (Pheasant Hills Preserve), unsewered large lo t residential to the west and south, and a single-family dwelling, pasture and wetland to the east. He noted the project site was currently zoned R, Rural Distri ct. Surrounding zoning included R-1X, Single Family Executive to the north, and R, Rural to the east, west and south. With respect to the Comprehensive Pl an Amendment (MUSA Allocation), staff explained the City’s 2002 Comprehensive Pl an was currently being reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. There were approx imately 15.7 acres remaining in the City’s MSUA bank. An existing development proposal , currently being re viewed by the City (Pheasant Hills Preserve 12 th Addition), had requested 4.5 acre s. This potentially would leave the City with 11.2 ac res until the Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Metropolitan Council. He noted this was insufficient to cove r the re requested allocation of 54.73 acres. He noted with respect to rezoning, the City was not in a position to rezone the property until the Comprehensive Plan had been approved and MUSA was available for allocation. With respect to the Preliminary Plat, he explained the minimum lot size of the R-1X District was 12,825 square feet of buildable la nd. He noted that a ll lots met or exceed this provision. However, the buildable ar eas identified for Lot 7, Block 1 and Lot 6, Block 8 were, in part, bisected by wetland. He stated while the calculations were consistent with the definition of buildable la nd, the intent was to insure a contiguous land area suitable for development. The applican t should demonstrate th at the buildable area included only that portion contiguou s to the proposed house pads. He noted the minimum lot depth is 135 feet. Double frontage lots were required to have a minimum lot depth of 145 feet. He stated all lots met or exceede d these provisions. He stated the minimum lot width was 90 feet for standard lots and 115 feet for corner lots. He noted all lots met or exceeded those standards with the exception of Lot 20, Block 8. He stated this lot would need to be modified to conform to district standards. With respect to outlots, he noted there were six outlots included in the proposed subdivision. The outlots covered the majority of the ponds and wetland areas. It was unclear whether these are intended for dedica tion to the City or proposed for ownership by a Homeowners Association. He stated the applicant should be aware that any proposed dedication of outlots to the City w ould not be accepted in fulfillment of park dedication (payment in lieu) requirements. Ho wever, if the outlots were not intended for dedication to the City, they should be adde d to the adjacent proposed residential lots. With respect to setback, he explained th e required setbacks established in the R-1X District were the greater of the following: 40 feet (Collector or Ar terial Street), 30 feet Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES (Local Street), 30 feet (front yard), 30 feet (rear yard), and ten feet (side yard – principal building). He stated the lots had adequa te dimensions to meet required setback. However, the proposed building pad for Lo t 20, Block 8 encroaches into the 30-foot setback for a local street (side yard). He e xplained this lot would n eed to be modified to conform to district standards. Staff explained in addition, ponds and wetland areas would mandate a significant setback between proposed building sites and existing homes on adjacent properties. He stated the building pad for Lot 2, Block 4 extended to within 18 feet of the existing wetland and proposed 100 year High Water Elevation. He st ated every effort should be made to maximize the usable ya rd space on this lot. With respect to street and block design, he noted the site had two accesses, one from Birch Street at the existing Pheasant Hills Drive, and one at the Sherman Lake Road intersection. He noted Street A extended s outherly into the development from Birch Street, looped back and tied into Street B. He stated Street B was proposed to extent from Birch Street to the easte rly property line of the devel opment to provide a connection for future development to the east. Th ere are five proposed cul-de-sacs, which intersected with either Street A or Street B. Staff recommended providing a street stub to the easterly property line for future street extension, the developer should demonstrate how the street would service the adjacent parcel. Staff noted there was a large wetla nd complex east of the proposed street stub that would limit future alignment option. A dditionally, the street abutted the St. Paul Water Utility property, which contained an existing large diameter water main. This might cause conflicts with the sanitary se wer and water main stubs as well as the roadways. Staff stated the water utility wa s currently reviewing the proposal for possible impacts. Should the street be extended to the east property line, the applicant would be required to provide a permanent easement for cu l-de-sac to be constructed until the street was extended. Signage should also be located at the street terminus indicating the future extension of the street. Staff indicated Street A was proposed as a large loop at the sout hern half of the development. While this section had two acce ss points, they form the same intersection and create a situation similar to a long cul-de-sac. Staff had evaluated other alignment options, however it appeared that these would cause additional wetland impacts. Staff stated they were reviewing this issue w ith the Public Safety Department and the Centennial Lakes Fire Department to determ ine if there were any access concerns with the proposed layout. Staff stated they were also recommending th at the applicant eval uate a possible street stud alignment to the south of the developmen t in the approximate location of Street G. This would allow for a future connection with East Holly Drive. The 2001 Transportation Plan identified East Holly Dr ive as a Minor Collector and proposed its future connection with Holly Drive to the we st and Ash Street (County Road J) to the south. While these projects were not planne d in the near term, it would be practical to reserve the option to connect this subdivision to Ho lly Drive in the future. Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES With respect to grading and drainage, staff stated a grading plan had been submitted and was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. A Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Land Development Permit was also required. The house pad on Lot 9, Block 9 should be reoriented to provide a mo re suitable building pa d. The plan does not identify the Normal or High Water Level for wetlands No. 12 and No. 13. Staff noted mitigation sites were proposed to be fenced off after grading was completed to restrict construction traffic. According to the plans, there were no provisions for bringing materials onto the si te or hauling off the site. With respect to utilities, staff stated a preliminary plan had been submitted and was subject to the review and approval of the Ci ty Engineer. Sanitary Sewer was proposed to be expected to the site from its existing lo cation in Sherman Lake Road, north of Birch Street. Water would be provided by connec tion to the existing 16” trunk water main lying adjacent to the property on the south si de of Birch Street. The water main was proposed to be looped back to the system by crossing Birch Street at Pheasant Hills Drive. Staff indicated adequate capacity exis ted in the sanitary sewer system to service the proposed development. In addition, the Black Duck Lift Station, which served the area, was scheduled for replacement in 2003. Staff stated with respect to drainage and utility easements were being proposed five feet in width at adjoining lot lines, and 10 feet in width at adjoin ing street lines and rear lot lines as required. Drainage and Utility easements covering the 100 year High Water Level and those covering underground storm sewe rs were subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Easements would be provided to access all pond and wetland areas. Specifically, easements should be provided to access Outlot F and cover the emergency overflow on Lots 6, 9 and 10, Block 8. With respect to Parkland dedication, staff st ated the Park Board discussed the proposed subdivision at its February 4, 2002 meeti ng. The Board was recommending 100% cash payment in lieu of parkland dedication. As e xplained in the Public Services Director’s February 5, 2002 memorandum, the proposed development lies outside the planning limits of the Comprehensive Park and Trial System Plan. The Park Board looked at several alternatives and recommended the payment in lieu as the preferred option. Regarding floodplain, staff stated portions of th e site lies within the Floor Plain Zone A. Zone A represented areas of 100-year floor where based floor elevations had not been determined. The City’s Floodplain Manage ment Ordinance required that principal structures be located no lower than one foot above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The City’s subdivision Ordinan ce required that proposed basements be four (4) feet above the water tabl e (normal water level) and tw o (2) feet above the design flood levels of ponding areas. Staff stated the submitted grading plan id entified proposed 100 feet High Water Level elevations. Conformance to the requirements could not be determined for Lots 23 and 27, Block 8 due to lack of documentation on the normal and high water levels of wetlands No. 12 and No. 13. The applicant s hould submit this documentation. All other lots were in conformance. Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Staff indicated the proposal wa s subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. If the proposed subdivision was approved, the Developer would be required to make app lication to FEMA for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revi sion (LOMR) to revise the existing Floor Plain maps consistent with the proposed grading. With respect to wetlands, staff stated the project site contained 19.39 acres of wetland. 2.06 acres of wetland were proposed to be impacted by the site development. The wetland mitigation would take place on-site , by creating two new wetlands and three water quality ponds, which would have a total area of 2.51 acres and 3.27 acres, respectively. A portion (.20 acres) of one of the existing wetland areas would be converted from a Type 2 wet meadow to a Type 3 shallow marsh wetland to help facilitate site drainage. Staff stated the developer was proposing to install sign demarcatin g the wetland edge as property corners of where the wetland e dge changed drastically within a lot. Approximately 35 to 40 signs would be in stalled (1 sign per two homes) along the wetland edge. The sign would de signate the area as a protected wetland zone. The sign would also inform homeowners that movi ng or cutting beyond the sign was not allowed. The plans also delineate a wetland buffer easement adjacent to wetland to provide additional transition from culture d lawns to native vegetation. Staff indicated the application also incl uded a Monitoring Plan that provided for monitoring of the newly created wetlands fo r a 5-year period. The report would be submitted to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) on a yearly basis. The RCWD was a Regulatory Government Unit (RGU) for ad ministration of the Wetland Conservation Act. Staff stated security should be required within the developmen t agreement to insure installation of signs as well as the required monitoring. This requirement would need to be coordinated with the RCWD. Staff indicated all exposed soils above the Normal Water Level should be seeded with mixes consistent with City seed mixtures. The applicant should coordinate seed types with the City’s Environmental Specialists. With respect to tree preserva tion, staff stated the site cont ained a number of oaks in the extreme southeast corner of the proposed de velopment and one on the north side adjacent to Birch Street. There was no anticipated tree loss as part of his project. Although a fence area was shown around the tree on the si te, a more detailed description of tree preservation should be submitted. Fences must be placed at a distance from the trees equal to one-foot radius for each inch of tree trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. The developer should coordinate all three preservation activities with the City’s Environmental Specialist. Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated Officer Mike Rumpsa prepared a review on January 21, 2002. He expressed concern with the additional traffic load on Bi rch Street, particularly with morning rush hour traffic. Staff stated a landscaping plan for screen ing along Birch Street had been submitted as required. The plan consisted of a combina tion of deciduous and coniferous trees. The City’s Environmental Specialist was recommending replacement of the proposed Colorado Spruce with White Spruce. Staff indicated the City’s Environmental Board reviewed the request on March 27, 2002, and recommended denial of th e request citing the need to submit plans to the St. Paul Regional Water Utility and the Vadnais Lakes Watershed District. They also submitted recommendation to consider if the proposal was approved. Staff stated the developer had made applic ation to the RCWD for approval of a Land Development Plan and a Wetland Alteration Pl an. The application was scheduled for review by the District on April 24, 2002. It wa s City policy to withhold any development approvals until the RCWD has approved, at a minimum, a TWAFAA (Tabled with Authorization for Administrative Action). Staff indicated the County was preparing comments with regard to the proposed subdivision and impact on Birch Street. It was staff’s recommendation that improvements to Birch Street, adjacent to the project site, might be required by the County. Staff stated they had received by fax t oday a letter from Anoka County Highway Department expressing their concern with th e safety issues that may occur on CSAH 10 as a result of this development. Staff stated a preliminary review by the City Engineer indicated the final construction plans would need to be designed to City St andards. City Standards for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and watermain would need to be shown in the plans. The detail for the outlet control structure called for a treated lumber weir. The weir would need to be concrete. The City’s design standards for storm sewer were minimum full velocity – 3 fps; minimum mainline storm sewer size – 15” RC pipe; minimum culvert size – 15” RC pipe. The submitted design seemed to use a minimum full velocity of 2.5 fps and minimum pipe size of 12” RC pipe. The City ’s Local Water Management Plan called for ponds to be built with a 15 foot, 10:1 side slope bench. The pond detail submitted showed a 10-foot, 10:1 side slope bench. This detail would need to be corrected and the proposed pond adjusted to a 15-foot wide be nch. Supporting information regarding soil types and land uses used to determine the curve numbers would need to be submitted. An SCS TR-55 method should be used to dete rmine the Time of C oncentrations, not the Lag method. Pond 6 was landlocked, according to the model. The 100-year floor elevation for the pond would need to be de termined allowing for a 100-year snowmelt, 10-day runoff of 7.2 inches and a Curve Number of 100. Groundwater information was not provided. The City’s Local Water Mana gement plan called for the minimum floor elevation, including basement to be 4 f eet above the groundwater, 4 feet above the normal water level, or 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation, whichever was greatest. Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES The lowest opening was also requ ired to be at least 1 foot above the emergency overflow. Approval from Rice Creek Watershed was also needed. Staff explained the current status of th e City’s 2001 Comprehensive Plan and the associated MUSA allocation prevented th e City from moving forward with this application. He stated, in addition, there were several preliminary plat issues that needed to be resolved, including the revi ew by Rice Creek Watershed District. Staff recommended tabeling the action on the MUSA allocation, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat requests to obtain additiona l information and modifications as contained in staff’s report. Ms. Lane asked how the Comprehensive Plan had this area zoned. Mr. Grochala replied it was zoned Low Density sewered residential, and this plan met that zoning requirement. Mr. Rafferty asked what MUSA meant and the importance of MUSA. Mr. Grochala explained what MUSA meant and why it was important. Chair Schaps asked why this project was ou tside the moratorium. Mr. Grochala stated when the City Council was approving the moratorium, this development application had been submitted that day. Council elected to accept any applicati ons received as of January 14, 2002 and therefore, this deve lopment was allowed to come through. Mr. Rafferty stated it appeared the Anoka County’s concern wa s regarding the speed limit and the amount of additional traffic. He asked how would this development affect the current residents in the ar ea. Mr. Grochala replied one of the purposes of getting a street through was to provide access to the de velopment to the east. He indicated by providing the street at the particular loca tion would provide for two access points to a future development. He stated the wetlands might also create a problem for street access. He indicated they would look at all options. He stated their major plan would be to put a sign up indicating that a road may go through at so me point in the future. He stated in the past, the problems from the existing resident s occurred when the residents did not know that the road was planned to go through. Mr. Rafferty asked if it was a concept to c onnect east Holly to west Holly. Mr. Grochala replied it was a concept plan and it w ould provide a good connect ion through the City. He stated the problem with Birch Street wa s that there was no other alternative road to use. If east Holly and west Holly were connect ed at some point in the future, this would create another traffic alternative. Mr. Corson asked if the Met Council wanted th e future land plans be consistent with the zoning, there would be no action taken for severa l months. Mr. Grochala stated this was a decision they would have to make. He st ated he was not comfortable at this time making this kind of a decision. Mr. Corson stated considering the land use pl an had not been approved, they should not be making any decision on this developmen t until that issue had been resolved. Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Corson asked who would take care of the wetland buffers signs. Mr. Grochala stated that would need to be worked out with the de veloper. They would be responsible for the installation and reseeding of the wetland areas. He stated the City would not replace those signs; this might be something a homeo wners association would be responsible for maintaining. Chair Schaps asked if Met Council would approve the Comprehensive Plan this year. Mr. Grochala replied a lot of that would de pend on the City Council. He expected the Met Council to give their input on the Plan shortly and then the City would need to respond to their comments. He stated furthe r discussions would need to be held, which would dictate how long it would take. Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. Matthew Weiland and Brian Krystofiak, Tollefson Development, Inc. Mr. Weiland stated they realized that traffic and safety was a big concern for this project. He stated they attempted to design this projec t to protect the wetlands on site. He stated they would work closely with Rice Creek Wate rshed. He realized they were waiting for the Comprehensive Plan approval and they had issues to work out with the Comprehensive Plan before th is project would be approved. Chair Schaps asked if they would be opposed to tabling this issue. Mr. Weiland replied they would not be opposed to that, and he had discussed this option previously with staff as long as it would continue to forward and would not preclude them from looking at the plat. Chair Schaps asked the price of the lots and homes. Mr. Weiland replied the lot prices would be the mid-90’s and the home values would be around $350,000.00. Chair Schaps asked if they had resolved any of the residents’ concerns from the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Weiland replied they were still working on the traffic issue. He stated they were not opposed do do ing additional landscaping for buffering. Chair Schaps asked if they opposed the signs on the streets. Mr. Weiland stated they did not have a problem with making this th e homeowners association’s responsibility. Mr. Rafferty asked if they had any draft of the guidelines/covenants for the common areas. Mr. Weiland stated they did not have a draft of the covenants yet, but he would be willing to look at other development covenants. Ms. Lane stated there was no MUSA applicati on for this, and she di d not see that there was any purpose in looking at this proposal right now. Sh e stated Met Council would not necessarily give the City what they wanted. Lou Masonick, stated they had three nei ghborhood meetings, not two. He stated they were not against development, but expre ssed concern it might be going too fast. He presented to the Board a summary of the concerns and questions by the neighboring Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES properties. He stated while they did not oppose the development of the property, they felt the development should take place in a respons ible manner that increased the quality of life of all taxpaying citizens of Lino Lakes. He stated they neighbors had a concern regarding the City sewer capacity would not handle the proposed increase with the approximately 100 new homes. He asked if the existing sewer could handle the new load. If not, who would pay to correct it? He stated seve ral property owners on or near the Birch Street had been told that they could not hook up to ex isting sewer because it was already at capacity because of Pheasant Hills Preserve. As taxpayers, there was a consensus that capacity issues on sewer s hould include existing property owners, and that those owners have the opportunity to hook up once sewer was available. Mr. Masonick stated there was a great deal of concern on the traffic of Birch. Both adjacent Centerville Road and Birch Street already had problems with existing traffic. The addition of approximately 100 x 2 (ave rage cars/household) equaled 200 more cars driving on that ¼ mile stretch that c ould create a number of problems impacting pedestrians, drivers, noise, pollution, and quality of life in the area. He asked if Birch street would be upgraded to accommodate more traffic and if so, when and how, and if not, why not. He asked if Centerville Road would be upgraded to accommodate more traffic, and if so, how and if not, why not. He asked if there woul d be outlets from the Stoneybrook development onto other streets (s uch as Holly Drive) and how would the greater traffic affect the existing roads, traffi c, and quality of life of area residents. He asked if there would be ongoing traffic studies once development was underway and what would happened if they showed traffi c was too much. He asked if development slowed down while roads were improved. Mr. Masonick stated it was well known that the property owner selling was a member of the Rice Creek Watershed District and they be lieved this was a conflict of interest. He stated neighboring property owners expressed concern that an outside watershed district board of neutral party should review the pr oposed plans to ensure there was no conflict of interest. He stated it was no a generally acc epted fact that residential development was a far greater source of run-off pollutants – es pecially fertilizers – to watersheds than farming or highly regulated industry. He asked what w ould be done to ensure that properties and ponds adjacent to the proposed development are not impacted by the proposed development. He asked if there we re any contingency plans in place should it be shown the development-impacted wetlands. He asked how the wetlands be maintained and monitored once the development was complete. He asked who held liability for these issues if there was such an impact. Mr. Masonick asked if there would be any st udies on the impact this development would have on wildlife in the area. He asked what would be done if wildlife was impacted. He stated there was a general consensus amongst area neighbors that loss of wildlife would affect the quality of life. He indicated th ere were a number of nesting migratory birds, waterfowl, prairie species, fox, deer, wild turnkeys, pheasants, and smaller mammals in the area. Mr. Masonick stated the increase in tr affic on Birch would impact the ability of pedestrians to cross Birch and access trail systems in Pheasant Hills Park Preserve, as well as eventual trail systems that hook into Ch ain of Lakes Park. He stated the safety of Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES children crossing Birch Street to visit friends in Pheasant Hills Preserve and access park trails was of particular concern. He asked if there were any plan s to create pedestrian crosswalks/bridges/lights in the area for residents on the South side of Birch to ultimately access Chain of Lakes Park. He asked if ther e were any plans to extend pedestrian/bike trails along Birch and if so, when and if not , why. He noted that having to get into a vehicle to cross the street because of tra ffic was a lower quality of life standard than being able to bike or walk. He stated th ere was concern that th e proposed development did not “live up to” the adjacent balance of recreational parks/wetlands/trails and residential housing in Pheasant Hills. He st ated there was essentia lly no recreational park property in the proposed pl an and no trail system. Mr. Masonick pointed out that the schools were already fu ll and expressed concern that continued growth in development in the City would create the need for more taxes to build more schools to accommodate the increase in population. He stated eventually this would detract from the quality of schools. He asked if any studies had been performed to evaluate optimal growth. Mr. Masonick asked if any studies had been performed to determine if existing City Services such as police, fire and other city services could handle the increased load from this project. If not, what would be done. He asked if the increased tax revenue from the homes would pay for the needed services, or w ould all of the residents of the City pay for the growth through incr eased property taxes. Mr. Masonick stated there was a general c oncern among the area residents that the “blind faith” adherence to the proposed zoning plan for the City was negatively impacting the quality of life in Lino Lakes. He stated many residents had moved to the City because of the open space and “county like/rural” atmos phere, which was conveniently located near the Twin Cities as well as the schools. He stated the perception was that both of these were negatively impacted by this kind of hi gh-density development. He stated soon the City would be no different from Richfield, Roseville, Fridley, etc. where high density “suburbia” was plentiful. He stated there was a general concern that the added “tax benefit” of increased resident s to the City detracted rath er than added by creating the need for more City, County, and State services. He stated this in turn caused greater and higher cost to already overworked City empl oyees creating the need for infrastructure growth. He asked if studies had been perfor med to determine if added tax revenue would actually benefit the City, or would it detract from the Cit y. He asked what was the eventual impact of development on property value. He asked if this development would benefit the City. Mr. Masonick stated if development positiv ely impacted property values, what would be done to ensure existing long-term residents w ould not be “taxed off of their properties” because of the rising property values. He st ated many retired long-term residents were on “fixed incomes”. Mr. Masonick stated the current plan for th is development called for a two-year growth period. Given the concern over roadways a nd other existing services, it seemed prudent to the neighboring property owners that a sl ower growth, over a l onger time period would make sense. He stated this way roads a nd services could be improved without being Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES “suddenly overwhelmed by the growth”. He asked if it was possible to make this a longer period (such as 5 years) rather than two years. He asked if growth was occurring too fast, could the plan be modified with less homes once the project was started. Bernie Rolstad, 1505 East Holly Drive, stat ed he had lived on Holly Drive since 1960 and he had watched a lot of growth and cha nge within the City. He expressed concern about the density of the project and the incr ease of traffic. He expressed concern about the traffic on Centerville Road. He stated if they put 200 more cars on Centerville Road, this would make a great impact. He stated he had spoken with Anoka County and there was no plan in the immediate future to improve Centerville Road. He stated this increase would make it difficult for people living on Holly Drive to get onto Centerville Road. Herman Zurtel, expressed concern regardi ng the wetland area. He emphasized the wetland area had not been delineated. He st ated he believed the City’s maps did not show the wetland accurately. He expressed concern about the road going through the wetland area. He stated progress was comi ng and he did not know what could be done about it. He stated in previous discussion wi th the City, they were told that as far as MUSA went they could not get MUSA from the west, that they had to get MUSA from some other area. He asked if there was a pl an for this, should it be included in MUSA. He asked that they look at the fu ture and what was going to happen. Harold Breyer, 1521 East Holly Drive, stated he liked wh at he heard. However, he expressed concern about the property owner who was going to have a road right next to their home. He asked what was going to happen with the wildlife in the area while construction was going on. Gil Johnson, Holly Lane, stated he lived on Holly Lane since 1983 and he expressed concern about the increased traffic and density. He stated they had always realized the property would be developed at some point, but he did not realize th e density would be so high. He stated the develop had planned to jam as many homes as possible in this area. He stated 102 homes on 70 acres was too dense. He stated he believed the City also believed the density was too high or they w ould not require traffi c/road studies. He stated he would like to see a much lower density of homes in this project. Mr. Weiland stated they were the fee owners of the property and they were not denying that there was not going to any impact of tra ffic, but they were go ing to be sensitive to this issue and would be willing to work wi th the City and County regarding this issue. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to close th e Public Hearing at 8:40 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5-0. Chair Schaps asked if this was the densest pr oject in the City. Mr . Grochala stated this density was lower than previous projects. He asked if this was tabled, how long would this be tabled for. Mr. Corson clarified a road w ould not go through a resident’s property, it may go up to it, but not through it. Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 16 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hyden asked if they were removing any wetlands. Mr. Weiland replied they would be impacting some of the wetlands, but they were not completely removing any. He stated they were impacting 2 acres and it wa s being replaced 2 to 1 on site. They were replacing more than they were required to repl ace. He stated they were meeting the Rice Creek Watershed rules regarding this. Mr. Hyden asked what was the penalty if futu re residents impacted the wetlands. Mr. Weiland stated this would be up to the City and their rules. Mr. Hyden asked who was overseeing that the future residents would not impact the wetlands. Mr. Weiland stated as the devel oper they were required to monitor the wetlands they created, but beyond that, it wa s under City’s control and monitoring. He stated the monitoring they were talking abou t was the wetlands they created to make sure they got established. Mr. Corson asked if they could extend their util ities across the St. Paul Waterline. Brian Krystofiak stated they could cross over it, but they had strict guide lines that would need to be followed and they would work closely with them on this. Mr. Grochala replied with respect to tabl ing it would need to wait on the Met Council’s comments on the Comprehensive Plan, but this project did meet the Plan as it stood today and they would continue to work with the de veloper and residents to attempt to work out any remaining issues. Mr. Corson requested another not ice be sent to the reside nts once this item was brought back. Chair Schaps asked if further public comments could be made even though the public hearing had been closed. Mr. Smyser rep lied they could reopen the public hearing upon notice. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to table Stone ybrook’s MUSA Allocation, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat requests to obtain additiona l information and modifications as noted in staff’s report until staff directs the item s hould be placed on the Planning and Zoning Board’s agenda. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Zych left the meeting at 8:55 p.m. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Ms. Lane asked how the Ordinance Task Fo rce was coming along. Chair Schaps replied they were having meetings and they were al most on track. He stated the meetings were going well and he believed they would be caught up in two weeks. Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 17 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Corson asked what the City did if a resi dent impacted the wetland. He stated he would like to discuss this at a future meeting. Mr. Grochala replied all of the wetlands were dedicated as easements and they had to st ay as they were. Filling in wetlands was a violation of the Wetland Conservation Law, which was a federal law and was overseen by the Rice Creek Watershed District. He stat ed enforcement was the issue. There were penalties in place, but this was an e ducational process with the residents. VII.ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .