Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/2002 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 6:35 p.m., July 10, 2002. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – June 12, 2002 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the June 12, 2002, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. Chair Schaps abstained due to his absence at that meeting. IV.OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:36 p.m. Barbara Bor, 7707 20 th Avenue North, represented Haron. She stated they were here to learn about the Board process because of a project that would be coming before the Board in the future. She presented a petition to the Chair. Ms. Lane arrived at 6:37 p.m. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6-0. DATE: July 10, 2002 TIME STARTED: 6:35 P.M. TIME ENDED: 10:37 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyden, Lane (arrived at 6:37 p.m.), Lyden, Rafferty, Schaps and Zych. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Smyser; Ta nda Gretz; Michael Grochala; James Studenski Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES V.ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, Spirit Hill s Commercial Development, corner of Birch St./Ware Rd., Rezone to GB/PDO, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 6:39 p.m. Staff explained Rockne Goertz had submitted an application for Site and Building Plan Review, CUP and Rezoning to allow the de velopment of a neighborhood business center at the northwest corner of Ware Rd. and Birch St. Prior to development of the site a final plat would be required and an existing drainage and utility easement platted with the Spirit Hills development would need to be vacated. The final plat and the easement vacation were both subject to City Council review and approval. The application was previously submitted by Glenn Rehbein Companies as Village Hills. Staff presented its analysis by explaining th e City’s Comprehensive Plan guided the subject property for commercial use. The si te’s present R-1 zoning classification was not consistent with this land use designation. The request was to rezone the site to General Business with a PDO overlay to allow multiple buildings on the site with shared access and parking. Staff stated the applicant wa s proposing to construct three buildings and a canopy for gas islands totaling 30,266 square feet. This br oke down to building A at 13,720 square feet, building B at 6,440 square feet, building C at 7,606 square feet plus the canopy was 2,500 square feet in size. The buildings were generally designed with p eaked roofs with focus features at selected ends of the buildings. The highest points of the buildi ngs measured approximately 28’ feet in height and conform to the maximum 45-foot height requirement imposed in the GB District. The buildings were proposed to be finished with rock face block and stucco (EIFS) sign banding and accents. Standing seam metal roof at varying heights would be the roofing materials. The proposed mix of materials conformed to the standards in Section 3, Subdivision 4.B of the City Code. Staff explained the site plan did illustrate exterior trash handli ng areas. According to Section 3, Subd. 4.G of the Ordinance, all refu se and recyclable mate rials must be stored within the principal building or within an acce ssory structure (within a side or rear yard) that was totally screened from eye level vi ew from neighboring uses and public rights of way. The applicant was aware of the provision and had pl aced the enclosures upon the site plan. There were now two 10’ x 10’ foot enclosures with brick walls and gates. The first enclosure was located behind Building A along the western lo t line. The second enclosure belonging to Building B (the bank) was located in the southwest corner of the lot along Birch St., this was not permitted. The enclosure for Building B might be better suited if placed behind the building along the we stern lot line away from Birch St. Both enclosures would be surrounded by landscaping to soften the look of the enclosure. The plan stated that waste for Building C would be stored w ithin the building. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Staff explained signage on the site was proposed to be indi vidual letters mounted over the storefronts. Signage was governed by the C ity’s sign ordinance and required a separate permit. All signs would be reviewed with the sign permit applications and must satisfy applicable requirements of the Ordinance in regard to sign t ype size and location. Staff indicated a variety of tr ees shrubs and ornamental pl antings were proposed on site. A heavier landscaping treatment was include d along Ware Road, which separated the proposed development from existing single-family re sidential uses. A fence six feet in height was provided by the developer on the east side of Ware Rd. at the time of development of the single-family residential area. The proposed Amur Maples had been replaced with less invasive species. Landscaping, in the form of deciduous or coniferous tree s, should be extended along the west property line. Staff stated the standards for calculating th e off-street parking requirements for Retail Store and Service Establishment are outlined in Section 3, Subdivision 5 of the City Code. For the purposes of calculating park ing spaces, the ordina nce requirement was to use 90% of the gross building area. Staff stated a total of 136 off-street parki ng stalls were require d for the proposed use. Because this would be a multi-tenant buildi ng, a general parking ratio had been applied. The applicant’s plan called fo r 138 stalls including the gas is land areas. Thirty-six (36) spaces were proposed to be c onstructed with a pervious Ne tlawn turf. The use of the Netlawn allowed the applicant to satisfy pa rking requirements while reducing the site’s impervious surface area and maximizing on-site infiltration of storm water run-off. Five handicap parking stalls we re required, one of which must be van accessible. These had been provided. Staff stated two access points into the site were propose d. The northern access utilized the existing Ware Road/Ware Circle inte rsection. The southe rn access was located approximately 220 feet north of the Ware Ro ad/Birch Street intersection. The proposed southern access location maximized the sepa ration from both the Ware Road/Ware Circle and Ware Road/Birch Street intersections. The City Engineer had indicated that the proposed development w ould necessitate the need for a right turn lane from Ware Road onto Birch Street. Staff was evaluating this requirement in conjunction with the proposed extension of Ware Road to Hodgson Road (CR 49). A five (5) foot concrete sidewalk was pr oposed along Ware Road, extending from Birch Street to Sioux Lane, to facilitate pedestri an access to the site. Maintenance of the sidewalk shall be the responsibility of the commercial development. A connection to a future trail along Birch Street was also proposed on the plan. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Staff indicated a landscape plan had been s ubmitted for review. The ordinance provided for maximum lighting levels of one-foot can dle at the street a nd 0.4 when casting light onto a residential property. Glar e could be an issue from fi xtures even if foot-candle measurements were met. Because of proxim ity to residential uses the type of fixture will be critical. The ordinance required th at light sources be hooded or controlled. The fixture proposed was a decorative, round cutoff luminaries that has the option of a solid dome or a glow dome. Staff believed all of the lights should include a solid dome. The submitted plan did show a combination of do mes. No specific lighting type had been provided for under the canopy. Lighting under the canopy shall be designed with completely recessed lighting a nd no lighting on the canopy sides. Staff stated the submitted erosion and grading plan was subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Staff noted the submitted utility plan was s ubject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Staff indicated all standard ease ments were to be dedicated w ith the final plat. There was an existing drainage and utility easement to be vacated that was previously platted with the Spirit Hills subdivision; this shall be co mpleted prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff noted park dedication had not previously been satisfied on this parcel. As a result, the proposed final plat would be subject to park dedication requirements. For commercial development, a park dedi cation requirement of $2,175.00 per acre was required. The plat included 3.75 acres, wh ich required a park dedication of $8,156.25 to be paid prior to reco rding the final plat. Staff stated the development was intended to be used for Retail and Service uses consistent with the GB, General Business District. Three uses proposed on the plan include a Day Care Facility, Motor Fuel Station (Convenience Store) and Bank with Drive-Thru, which required a Conditional Us e Permit. Approval of these uses were included as part of the PDO approval. State stated the Planning and Zoning Boar d shall recommend a conditional use permit and the Council shall order the issuance of such permit only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: 1.Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. Comment: Bank drive-thru, child day care and service station uses currently exist within the City of Lino Lakes. None of the uses should be detrimental or endanger the public. 2.Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the comprehensive plan of the City and this ordinance. Comment: The comprehensive plan guides for co mmercial use of this site. Once rezoned from R-1 to General Business the si te would match the comprehensive plan. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES 3.Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existin g and/or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Comment: The building designs include many windows and rock face block. The design will be carried through on all four sides of th e buildings. This should help make the buildings more attractive. Landscaping and fencing should soften the development and help screen the use from residents. Th e added sidewalk should be beneficial for pedestrians. 4.Will be served adequately by essential publ ic facilities and services, including street, police and fire protection, drai nage structures, refuse disp osal, water and sewer systems, and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Comment: The proposal should be served ade quately by such faci lities and services. 5.Will not create excessive additional requiremen ts at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Comment: This development should not increase public costs, nor be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 6.Will not involve uses, activities, processe s, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any pe rsons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Comment: The proposed commercial uses upon this site should not cr eate any excessive externalities that would be abnormal to the character of commercial sites. 7.Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference w ith traffic on surroundi ng public thoroughfares. Comment: The site layout meets standards held within the City’s zoning ordinance including turn lanes, access width, and access spacing/location. 8.Will not result in the destruction, loss, or dama ge of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Comment: The applicant is currently working with the RCWD to satisfy the remaining mitigation requirements through a comprehens ive drainage plan for th e site, future Ware Road extension and surrounding properties. 9.Will conform to specific standards of this ordinance applicable to the particular use. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Comment: Each use should conform to the spec ific standards listed within the General Business section of the zoning ordinance. Specifically, the day care should meet the requirements listed under Section 7 H(11)(a). Staff indicated The Environmental Board re viewed the proposed development on April 24, 2002 and recommended approval. Thei r comments are attached and, where applicable, have been incorp orated into this report. Staff noted the Rice Creek Watershed Distri ct (RCWD) granted a TWAFAA (Table With Authorization For Administration Action) on February 27, 2002, pending resolution of Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) issues. The applicant was proposing to fill 8,000 square feet of existing wetland on the site. 3,041 square feet was proposed to be mitigat ed on-site. The a pplicant was currently working with the RCWD to satisfy the remaining mitigation requirements through a comprehensive drainage plan for the site, future Ware Road extension and surrounding properties. The wetland delineat ions had been approved and RCWD had agreed to work with the applicant to create the best so lution for wetland impacts and protection. No permit for the work at Spirit Hills will be issued until the overall impacts were addressed during the Ware Road permitting process. Staff explained a copy of the applicati on had been submitted to Anoka County for review. Their comments, would need to be in corporated into the s ite design. Dedication of access control, along Birch Street, to Anoka County should be shown on the final plat. State noted it was anticipated that impr ovements to the Ware Road/Birch Street intersection, including turn lanes would be required. Staff stated prior to the commencement of a ny site work, the applicant would be required to enter into a performance ag reement with the City and pos t all the necessary securities required by it. Staff stated based on the fi ndings and subject to the c onditions listed below, staff recommended the following: A.Approval of rezoning the site to GB, Gene ral Business and approval of the PDO overlay subject to the following conditions: 1. The site and buildings shall be develope d as outlined on the plans dated 3/4/02 and last revised 6/12/02. 2. A sidewalk shall be installed along th e frontage of Ware Road and shall be maintained by the commercial development. 3. The PDO shall include the CUP’s for the Motor Fuel Station (Convenience Store), Bank Drive-Thru and Day Care subj ect to the requirements of Section 7, Subdivision 3, H(2), H(5) and H(11), respectively of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES B. Site and Building Plan approval to allow the construction of 30,266 s quare feet in three buildings and canopy as configured on th e site plan dated received June 14, 2002 1. All refuse and recyclable mate rials shall be stored with in the principal building or within an accessory structure (within a side or rear yard) that is totally screened from eye level view from neighboring uses and public rights of way. 2. All signs shall be reviewed with the si gn permit applications and shall be required the applicable requirements of the Ordinance. 3. Light fixture design is a solid dome va riety only and under- c anopy lighting shall be submitted and subject to staff approval. There will be no canopy illumination on the east, west, and north sides of the canopy. 4. The submitted erosion and grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the City Engineer’s comments, dated July 3, 2002. 5. The submitted utility plan sh all be revised to incor porate the City Engineer’s comments, dated July 3, 2002. 6. Stop signs shall be installed and maintain ed at the access points with the public road. 7. The Rice Creek Watershed District issues a permit to allow the development proposal and the conditions requi red by it are fulfilled. 8. A Watershed District Permit is received prior to City build ing permit issuance. 9. A final plat and vacation of easements shall be submitted and approved by the City. The plat shall also include dedica tion of access control, along Birch Street, to Anoka County. 10. Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant enters into a performance agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. 11. No exterior audio system associated with the site. 12. Limiting hours of operations from 5:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 13. Subject to Anoka County traffic approval. 14. The net lawn spaces be noted and marked. 15.CEPTED Review. Mr. Lyden expressed concern about neighborhood businesses a nd the issues they raise. He stated his concern was about protecting th e neighborhoods. He as ked what the traffic Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES flow would be and specifically about the issue of parking and if there was an opportunity to increase the green space to protect some of the neighbors. He asked if they could replace the maple trees with evergreens. St aff pointed out the extr a landscaping that was being added. He reviewed the necessity of th e parking areas. He st ated the parking areas would have green space around them. He expl ained why they were using maple trees instead of evergreens. Mr. Lyden asked if they could trade some park ing for green space. Staff replied this was a flexible issue and could be negotiated. Mr. Corson asked what the ultimate plan was for Ware Road. Mr. Grochala replied the intent was to extend it to County Road 49. It would be a right-in, right-out only. Mr. Corson asked if the CUP was a separate action from the PDO. Staff replied they were suggesting as part of the PDO approval, that they include the CUP. Mr. Corson asked if there was going to be an ATM at this bank. Applicant replied they were not sure at this point. They were working with Lino Lakes State Bank regarding this. Mr. Lyden expressed concern a bout another bank and gas stati on in the City. He asked if there was a daycare on the site, where would the play area be located. Rockne Goertz, applicant, pointed out where the area was being proposed. He stated the northern most portion of the building would be a daycare area, with a fenced in play area. He stated the proposed convenience store was much larger than most convenience stores and would offer more than the usual convenience store would. Mr. Goertz stated the gas station would have four pumps and it was a very small facility. He stated they had worked with staff on this development. He stated he di d not believe they coul d fit more trees on the landscaping, but if they could co me up with alternatives, they would be willing to look at it. He stated he did not want an empty facili ty in the future and intends to work very hard on making this development work. Mr. Zych asked why the gas pum ps were located where they were. Mr. Goertz replied it was due to the access issue. He stated they did not have an access to Birch Street. He stated the County would not al low them access to Birch Street. He stated traffic would be helped by opening up Ware Road. Mr. Grochala stated if ther e was an access allowed onto Bi rch Street, this would add to the additional conflict that wa s already on the road. He stated once Ware Road opened up, this would eliminate some of the Birch Street traffic. Mr. Zych stated he did not agree on adding any more traffi c onto Birch Street without adding traffic controls on th e street. He stated he believed the development was premature. Mr. Grochala replied the princi pal concern was the a dditional traffic. He stated one positive of this de velopment was that it would not increasing traffic. It was a convenience pass through facility. It was not a major draw for people to go out of their way to get to this facility. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Zych stated he believed this would in crease the traffic at this intersection. Mr. Goertz stated on the lots that they ha d developed, everyone was made aware of the potential future development. He stated it should come as no surprise for the neighborhood. Mr. Corson asked what was to keep people from using Ware Road as a shortcut to County Road 49. Mr. Grochala replied ther e were no specific design considerations on Ware Road and it was possible for people to use that as a shortcut. He stated this would still need to be addressed. Mr. Corson asked about a possibl e by-pass lane at this loca tion. Mr. Grochala replied these were the issues the C ounty was currently reviewing a nd they were looking at the need for a right/left turn la ne at this location. He stat ed they had not received the County’s report yet. Keith Moeler, 6575 Hokah Drive, stated the fi rst meeting they had with the developer with Spirit Hills someone asked if there was going to be a gas stati on and they were told at that time that were was not going to be a gas station. He stated they were told a coffee shop or a restaurant would be in the development. He stat ed they were having a problem with drainage in the area. He stated hi s backyard and his neighbors were having water problems and he stated he believed it was from the Spirit Hills development. He requested that whatever goes in there, the dr ainage issues were l ooked at and the water drained from the area. Mr. Goertz stated he was aware of the issue with drainage. He stated whatever drainage problems were th ere, were there prior to the Spirit Hills development and if he had his engineering plans, he could prove that they had drainage problems from the beginning. With respect to the gas station, he replied he did not remember any promises made about not having a gas station. Mr. Lyden asked if the development increase d the drainage to Mr . Moeler’s property. Mr. Goertz replied this was impossible. Mr. Studenski stated they were reviewing this i ssue at this time. He stated in his opinion, these were two separate issues and their d ecision tonight would not affect the drainage issues. He pointed out that the drainage on this site was pointing to the west and would not affect the residents on Hocca Drive. Mr. Moeler stated he was no inferring that Spirit Hills housing development added to the drainage problem. He stated his concern was that this ne w development would not drain to his property. Mike Chapman, Ware Road, stated he believed th is would be a great area for this type of a development. Bruce Pruit, 6517 Hokah Drive, read a statem ent from himself and his neighbors. This section of the City had been zoned resi dential for a long time and should remain residential. He stated he moved into th is area because it met his needs for a serene environment. He stated this rezoning was inappr opriate. It disrupted their daily lives. He Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES expressed concern about the tr affic increase, possible crime increases, as well as other issues. He stated their concerns demanded merit. He expressed concern about decreased property values. He expressed concern about contamination of their wells from the gas station. He stated a commercial development was inappropriate. Sharon Peters, 6501 Hockah Drive, expressed concern about the groundwater safety. She agreed with Mr. Pruit’s comments as well. She stated she also understood there was not going to be a gas station at this site. She st ated a gas station was a definite concern. She expressed concern about the tra ffic increase in this area. She stated she wanted to see traffic control put in before this project went forward. Mark Gubran, 6348 Turtle Lake Road, expre ssed concern about not having a convenient area for shopping in their area. He stated th is was an excellent a ddition to the area. John Johnson, 6657 East Shadow Lake Road, stat ed he was in favor of more commercial development in the City. He stated he believed commercial development was good for the City, so his taxes would not keep increa sing. He stated a co mmercial development added to the tax base, without using the serv ices. He stated 21 years ago, the area was rural, but they needed to re alize that they were no longer a rural area and he believed a shopping area at this location was a good idea. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Rafferty asked what the difference woul d be between the commercial land use and general business. Staff replied commercial land use was for a neighborhood community services and not a community wide facility. This development would serve the residents in close proximity. This would be a conveni ence area for the people that lived in the area. As far as traffic generation, the tra ffic was already there and that was what was driving the commercial development on this s ite. He stated the gas station would be a draw into the proposed development and it was his understandi ng that a convenience store needed a gas station to get business into the development. Mr. Rafferty asked if the architecture fit in to the neighborhood setting. Staff replied it did. Mr. Lyden stated he understood that ultimately there would be a traffic light at Birch to create traffic breaks. He asked if there we re any way they could put a stop sign east/west on Birch at the corner at this time consider ing a traffic light may take some time. Mr. Studenski replied that was an issue the C ounty would be addressi ng. He stated their initial reaction was that the turn lanes would be sufficient. Mr. Grochala stated currently there was no distinct plan for traffic breaks on Birch Street. He stated it was anticipated Birch Street/H odson Road and Centerville Road/Birch Street would be signalized at some point in the futu re. He stated they had discussed with the Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES County about putting a plan together to mon itor locations. He stated they intended on monitoring West Shadow Lake Drive, 12 th Street, and possible Ware Road as development increased. He stated one problem was the lack of left turn lanes on Birch Street. He stated they would have problems with traffic gaps until they put in traffic controls. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Spirit Hills Commercial Development, corner of Birch St./Ware Rd., Rezone to GB/PDO, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit subject to staff’s recommendations and c onditions as outlined in staff’s report. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-1 (Zych) Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve Spir it Hills Commercial Development, Site Plan Review subject to staff’s recommendati ons and conditions as outlined in staff’s report. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-1 (Zych). B.PUBLIC HEARING, Stoneybrook, Birch St ./Sherman Lake Road, Comprehensive Plan Amendment/MUSA allocation, Rezone to R-1X, Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Staff presented the application by Tollefson Development, Inc. by explaining applicant had submitted an application for prelimin ary plat approval of Stoneybrook, a 102 lot single family residential subdivision. Th e 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. The site was located adjacent to and south of Birch Street and a quarter mile west of Centerville Road. Staff presented its analysis by explaining the pr oject consists of a 78 acre parcel that was currently in agricultural use containing ap proximately 19 acres of wetland. Surrounding land uses include sewered residential to th e north (Pheasant Hill s Preserve), unsewered large lot residential to the west and sout h, and a single family dwelling, pasture and wetland to the east. The project site was currently zoned R, Rural District. Surrounding zoning includes R- 1X, Single Family Executive to the north, a nd R, Rural to the east, west and south. The applicant was requesting the allocation of approximately 54.73 acres of MUSA to service the proposed development. In 1996, the Metropolitan Council provided the City of Lino Lakes with a 150-acre “MUSA Re serve”. The reserve was intended to Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES accommodate some limited development within specified areas of the City until the updated Comprehensive Plan, including the transportation element, was completed. There were approximately 15.7 acres remaining in the City’s MUSA Reserve. An existing development proposal, currently be ing reviewed by the City (Pheasant Hills Preserve 12 th Addition) had requested 4.5 acres. Th is potentially leav es the City with 11.2 acres until the Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Metropolitan Council. This amount was insufficient to cover the requested allo cation of 54.73 acres. The City’s 2001 Comprehensive Plan was curr ently being reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. As part of the plan, the City was requesting an addi tional 359 acres of MUSA to service future development through 2010. Upon approval of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update, by Metropolitan Council, the proposed residential development would be eligible for the MUSA A llocation of 54.73 acres based on the following findings: 1. The application for 54.73 acres of MUSA wa s being made in conjunction with the request for preliminary plat approval. 2. The applicant had requested an R-1X zoni ng designation be applied to the proposed development consistent with the proposed land use contained in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan. Such request had been made in c onjunction with the preliminary plat request. 3.The property lies immediately south of Ph easant Hills Preserve, which was within the existing MUSA. The property lies within a Stage 1 growth area as defined in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan. 4.Development of the property was considered a natural utility extensi on. Existing utilities were located immediately to the north of the site. 5. Development of the property was considered a natural extension of existing roadways. Proposed roadways into the site would connect with the existing Ph easant Hills Drive and Sherman Lake Road. 6. Development of the property was environmen tally compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed development had minimized impact s to existing wetlands and tree cover on the site. Approximately 21.44 acres of the 78.07-acre site (27%) would remain undeveloped. 7. The proposed development lies outside the scope of the City’s 1992 Pa rk and Trail Plan. The City’s Park Board has evaluated th e proposed development and recommended a 100% cash park dedication. 8.The Development was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan. 9. Development of the property shall not adversel y affect the health, welfare, and general safety of the community. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES 10. Birch Street (CSAH 10) was ad equate to handle the additiona l traffic generated by the proposed development subject to the impr ovements specified by Anoka County. The developer would be responsible for the necessary upgrades to CSAH 10. 11. The project was proposed to be phased over two years. Th e phasing plan calls for 52 lots in 2002 and 50 lots in 2003. Staff noted the applicant had requested the r ezoning of the subject pr operty from R, Rural to R-1X, Single Family Executive. In consideration of rezonings, the Planni ng and Zoning Board must consider possible adverse effects of the proposed ame ndment based on the following criteria: 1. The proposed action had been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and had been found consistent w ith the official City Comprehensive Plan. Comment: The proposed rezoning was consis tent with the City’s 2001 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed R-1X zoning was cons istent with the Low Density Sewered Residential Land Use designation for the pr operty. The rezoning shall be contingent upon Metropolitan Council Approval of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use is or would be compatible wi th present and future land uses of the area. Comment: The proposed R-1X single family residential zoning was consistent with existing and proposed land uses of the area. The proposed gross development density of 1.30 units per acre provides fo r a suitable transition from su rrounding large lot residential developments. 3. The proposed use conforms with all pe rformance standards contained herein. Comment: The proposed residential subdivisi on was in conformance with all applicable performance standards. 4. The proposed use could be accommodated with existing public serv ices and would not overburden the City’s service capacity. Comment: The proposed use could be ac commodated by existing public services. 5. Traffic generation by the propos ed use was within capabilit ies of streets serving the property. Staff noted the proposed use will require the installation of left a nd right turn lanes on Birch Street (CSAH 10) at Pheasant Hills Dr ive and Sherman Lake Road. The developer will be responsible for making these improvements. Lot Size. The minimum lot size of the R-1X District is 12,825 squa re feet of buildable land. All lots meet or exceed this provision. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES Lot Depth. The minimum lot depth was 135 f eet. Double frontage lo ts were required to have a minimum lot depth of 145 feet. All lots meet or exceed these provisions. Lot Width. The minimum lot width was 90 feet for standard lots and 115 feet for corner lots. All lots meet or exceed these standards. Outlots. There were six outlots included in the proposed subdivisi on. The outlots cover the majority of ponds and wetland areas. Th e applicant was proposing to dedicate all outlots to the City. The applicant should be aware that the dedication of outlots to the City would not be accepted in fulfillment of park dedication (payment in lieu) requirements. Setbacks. The required setbacks established in the R-1X District ar e the greater of the following: 40 feet (Collector or Arterial Street), 30 feet (L ocal Street), 30 feet (front yard), 30 feet (rear yard), a nd ten feet (side yard - principal building). The lots have adequate dimensions to meet required setbacks. In addition, pond and wetland areas would mandate a significant setback between proposed building sites and existing homes on adjacent properties. However, the building pad for Lot 2, Block 4 extends to within 18 feet of the existing wetland and proposed 100 year High Water Elevation. Wh ile the City had no requirements with regard to wetland setbacks, staff recomme nds that the building pad, on this lot, be modified to maximize the usable yard space on this lot. Street and Block Design. Two ac cesses to the site, from Birch Street, were proposed at the existing Pheasant Hills Drive and Sher man Lake Road intersections. Street A extended southerly into the development fr om Birch Street, loops back and tied into Street B. Street B was proposed to extend fr om Birch Street to th e easterly property line of the development to provide a connection fo r future development to the east. There were five cul-de-sacs proposed that inte rsected with either Street A or B. Staff noted the proposed extension of Street B easterly had been evaluated to determine its feasibility. The proposed alignment appeared to allow the street to service the adjacent property with minimal potential wetla nd impacts. Staff was recommending that the curve radius of the street be modified to further minimize potential wetland impacts. Further verification of the potential for Street B to cross the St. Paul Water Utility lines would be required. The developer was currentl y working with the water utility to provide such information. The proposed temporary cul-de-sac should be extended easterly to abut the property line. The cul-de-sac desi gn should be modified to extend into Lot 3, Block 2, rather than Lot 46 Block 8 due the larger upland area on Lot 3. A permanent easement would be required to allow a cul-de-sac to be constructed until such time as the street was extended. Signage w ould be located at the street terminus indicating the future extension of the street. Street A was proposed as a larg e loop in the southern half of the development. While this section had two access points they form the same intersection and create a situation similar to a long cul-de-sac. Staff has ev aluated other alignment options, however it appeared that these would cause additional wetland impacts. Staff had reviewed this Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES issue with the Public Safety Department a nd the Centennial Lakes Fire Department and determined that there are no access concerns with the proposed layout. Staff was also recommending that the appli cant provide a street stub alignment to the south of the development in th e approximate location of Street G. This would allow for a future connection with East Holly Drive. The 2001 Transportation Plan identified East Holly Drive as a future Minor Collector a nd proposes its future connection with Holly Drive to the west and southerl y to Ash Street (County J). While these projects were not planned in the near term, it would be prac tical to reserve the option to connect this subdivision to Holly Street in the future. It appeared that an alignment option was available that would minimize impacts to exis ting properties to the south. It was likely that the connection would not be made un til development takes place to the south. Street Width. In response to comments r eceived by Rice Creek Watershed District the Developer was requesting a reduction in the City’s standard street width to reduce impervious surface. The City currently requires a thirty-two (32) f oot street width. The developer was requesting a twen ty-nine (29) foot width. Section 302 of the City Code states that the City Council may permit varia tions from the street construction standards. Staff had evaluated the request and determined that the proposed tw enty-nine foot width would be sufficient to handle local traffic need s within the development. However, it did appear that parking would need to be limited to a single side to insure emergency vehicle access. Additionally, the reduction in street width coupled with a curvilinear design of the subdivision’s streets ma y reduce visibility of on-st reet pedestrian movements. Sidewalks along Street A and Street B may be necessary to alleviate this concern. The Environmental Board recommended reducing the street width. The City Council had discussed the issue and requested a recomm endation from the Planning & Zoning Board. Grading and Drainage. The Ci ty Engineer had completed review of the Grading and Drainage Plan. A Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Land Development Permit was also required. The City’s Local Water Management Plan calls for the minimum floor elevation, including basement to be 4 feet above th e groundwater, 4 feet above the normal water level, or 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation, whiche ver was greatest. The plan appears to satisfy these requirements base d on the proposed normal and high water levels. The developer was currently monitoring exis ting groundwater elevations for verification. Final adjustments would be made with the final grading plans. Mitigation sites were proposed to be fenced off after grading was completed to restrict construction traffic. If soils are to be brought to the site they mu st be consistent with existing soil types. Utilities. The City Engineer has completed re view of the Utility Plans. Sanitary Sewer was proposed to be extended to the site from its existing location in Sherman Lake Road, north of Birch Street. Water would be pr ovided by connection to the existing 16" trunk water main lying adjacent to the property on th e south side of Birch Street. The water Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 16 APPROVED MINUTES main was proposed to be looped back to the system by crossing Birch Street at Pheasant Hills Drive. Adequate capacity exists in the sanitary sewer system to service the proposed development. In addition, the Black Duck Lift Station, which services the area, was scheduled for replacement in 2003. Drainage and Utility Easements. Drainage and Utility easements were proposed being five feet in width and adjoining lot lines, and 10 feet in width a nd adjoining street lines and rear lot lines as required. Drainage a nd Utility easements covering the 100-year High Water Level and those covering underground st orm sewers are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Easement s should be provided to access all pond and wetland areas. Specifically, an easement s hould be provided for access to Outlot F and covering the emergency pond overflow on Lot 6, Block 8. Parkland Dedication. The Park Board discus sed the proposed subdivi sion at its February 4, 2002 meeting. The board was recommending 100% cash payment in lieu of parkland dedication. As explained in the Public Services Director's February 5, 2002 memo the proposed development lies outside the planni ng limits of the Comprehensive Park and Trail System Plan. The Park Board looked at several alternatives and recommended the payment in lieu as the preferred option. Floodplain. Portions of the site lie with a Fl ood Plain Zone A. Zone A represents areas of 100-year flood where base flood elevations have not been determined. The City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance required that all principal structures be located no lower than one foot above the re gulatory flood prot ection elevation. The submitted grading plan identifies propos ed 100-year High Water Level elevations. The Rice Creek Watershed District’s 1998 Ca libration Study identifi es the regulatory flood elevation for this area as 887.6. As cu rrently proposed, all lo t pads were located entirely above this elevati on and all first floor eleva tions satisfy the flood plain requirements. The proposal was subject to the review and ap proval of the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. If the proposed subdi vision was approved the Developer would be required to make application to FEMA fo r a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to revise th e existing Flood Plain maps consistent with the proposed grading. Wetlands. The project site contains 19.39 acr es of wetland. 2.06 acres of wetland were proposed to be impacted by the site devel opment. 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, respectivel y. A portion (.20 acres) of one of the existing wetland areas woul d be converted from Type 2 wet meadow to a Type 3 shallow marsh wetland to help facilitate site drainage. The developer was proposing to install signs , delineating the wetland edge, at property corners or where the wetland edge changes dr astically within a lot. Approximately 35 to Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 17 APPROVED MINUTES 40 signs would be installed (one sign per two homes) along the wetland edge. The signs would designate the area as a protected wetland zone. The sign would also inform homeowners that moving or cutting beyond the sign was not allowed. The plans also delineate a wetland buffer easement adjacent to wetland to provide additional transition from cultured lawns to native vegetation. Th e developer was proposing the establishment of a Homeowner’s Association to maintain a ll buffer areas and applicable signage. The developer should also make available to all lot purchasers a Best Management Practices/Environmental information brochure identifying purpose of buffer areas, soil and water conditions in infiltration areas, as well as limitations on use of buffer and wetland areas. The application also included a Monitoring Plan that provides for monitoring of the newly created wetlands for a 5- year period. The report would be submitted to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) on a year ly basis. The RCWD was the Regulatory Government Unit (RGU) for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act. Security should be required wi thin the development agreement to insure installation of signs as well as the required monitoring. This requirement would need to be coordinated with the RCWD. All exposed soils above the Normal Water Le vel should be seeded with mixes consistent with City of Lino Lakes seed mixtures. The applicant should coordinate seed types with the City’s Environmental Specialist. Tree Preservation. The site contained a number of Oaks in the extreme southeast corner, along the westerly property line a nd one on the north side adjace nt to Birch Street. There was no anticipated tree loss as part of this project. The grading plan identified the installation of fencing along the drip line of the trees. In stallation of tree preservation measures would be required before grading activity on the site. The developer should coordinate all tree preservation activities with the City's Environmental Specialist. CEPTED. Officer Mike Rumps 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. Landscaping. A landscaping plan for screen ing along Birch Street had been submitted as required. The plan consisted of a combina tion of deciduous and coni ferous trees. The City's Environmental Specialist was r ecommending replacement of the proposed Colorado Spruce with the White Spruce. The developer was also proposing to add an additional coniferous tree buffer along the northeasterly and westerly property lines in response to adjacent property owner concerns. Phasing. The applicant was proposing to phase the development over two years. 52 lots were proposed for development in 2002. The remaining 50 lots would be developed in 2003. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 18 APPROVED MINUTES Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW ). The proposed subdivision did not surpass the mandatory thresholds for an EAW and therefore was not required. Environmental Board. The City's Environm ental Board reviewed the request on March 27, 2002 and June 26, 2002 and recommended denial of the request due to excessive wet characteristics of the site, and incomplete information needed to process the plat. They also submitted recommendations to consider if the proposal was approved. Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). Th e developer had made application to the RCWD for approval of a Land Development Plan and a Wetland Alteration Plan. The RCWD had approved a TWAFAA (Table with Authorization for Administrative Action) for the proposed development. Anoka County. The County had completed its re view of the proposed development. The County would require improvements to Birch Street (CSAH 10) so that there would be left, through and right turn lanes for eastbound and westbound CSAH 10 traffic at both the Sherman Lake Road and Pheasant Hills Dr ive intersections. Th e developer would be required to make these improvements as part of this development. Staff recommended the following: A. Approval of the MUSA Allocation s ubject to the following conditions: 1. Allocation of MUSA shall be subject to the approval of the City’s 2001 Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council. B. Approval of the Rezoning from R, Rural Di strict to R-1X, Single Family Executive District subject to the following conditions: 1.The Rezoning shall not be effective un til 30 days following publication of the ordinance. The ordinance shall not be published until th e Metropolitan Council has approved the City’s 2001 Comprehensive Plan. C. Approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The MUSA Allocation and Rezoning are approved. 2. Approval of the City’s 2001 Comprehe nsive Plan by Metropolitan Council. 3. A revised preliminary plat shall be submitted containing the following modifications: a. The alignment of Street B shall be modified to reduce potential wetland impacts from its easterly extens ion, subject to staff review. b. The proposed Street B cul-de-sac sh all be extended to the easterly property line and modified to re duce the impact on Lot 46, Block 8. c. Street G shall be modified to extend to the southerly property line of the proposed subdivision for future extension. d. Easements shall be provided for a ccess to Outlot F and to cover the emergency pond overflow on Lot 6, Block 8. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 19 APPROVED MINUTES 4. Soils imported to the site, if any, shal l be subject to a pproval by the City Engineer. 5. The developer shall provide a cash payment in lieu of park dedication. 6. The developer shall provide the City with a Homeowne r’s Association agreement including an operation and maintenance agreement for the wetland signage and buffer areas. 7. Developer shall prepare a Best Manageme nt Practices/Environmental Information brochure with regard to buffe r and wetland area requirements. 8. The developer shall submit a revise d landscaping plan showing proposed landscaping on northeasterly and westerly property lines. 9. A phasing plan shall be implemented. Pending Comprehensive Plan approval, Phase 1 development shall be limited to fifty-two lots in 2002. Phase II development will consist of 50 lots in 2003. Nothing herein shall prevent the grading of the entire site in one phase. 10. All modifications as required by the City Engineer shall be satisfied. 11. All required improvements of Birch St reet (CSAH 10), as set forth by Anoka County, shall be the responsibility of the developer. 12. All federal, state, county, and watershed di strict permits shall be obtained prior to commencement of site improvements. 13. The developer shall enter into a Devel opment Agreement with the City prior to commencement of site improvements. Mr. Lyden expressed concern about the 29-foot road and the maintenance of the sidewalks. He stated if they went with a 29-foot road width, they would need to put in a sidewalk. Mr. Grochala stated this woul d be a shift in policy where the homeowners would be required to maintain the sidewalks. Chair Schaps also expressed concern about the 29-foot road and the inability of emergency vehicles to get through. Mr. Corson stated he understood the narrower roads in the past were allowed where they were attempting to save trees. Mr. Grochala stated the street st andard was 32 feet, but there were many streets in the City that were smaller than that. Mr. Lyden expressed concern about the consiste ncy of this plan with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he understood at 2001 the population was 17,002 and he assumed another 100 homes were built this year. He stated that put th e population at 17,322. He stated one piece that was missing was th e number of homes that had already been approved, but not built. He stated the goal again was at 2010 was to have a city population of 17,820. He stated if there were 253 homes already in the works, they were already at their 2010 goal. He stated it was clear to him that they did not need the 2010 growth. He stated the whole idea of the Comprehensive Plan was to have a balance between commercial and residential. He stat ed this was not a bad plan, but at some point they needed to see if they we re going the right di rection. He stated he would be happy to approve these homes if it was w ithin the 2010 goal. He stated they were already 8 years ahead of themselves. He stated this was not balanced growth a nd it would not get them to where they needed to go. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 20 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Grochala replied staff was aware of the numbers. He indi cated the next step once the Comprehensive Plan was completed was the implementation of those policies through the Ordinances. He stated the City did not curr ently have an Ordinance requirement in effect to limit growth to the 2010 number at this ti me. He reminded the Commission that was the reason staff was pushing for the mo ratorium in January,2002 and while that moratorium was granted, this development, as well as other developments had already come in and the City Council al lowed them to proceed. He stated this was a choice that was made by the City Council at that time, even though it was not his recommendation. He indicated the preliminary plat, zoning, MU SA allocation, etc. al l met with the City’s requirements and was consistent as to what was proposed in that area for the future. Matthew Weiland, Tollefson Devel opment, stated they had worked very hard to address the issues that the Board had requested they look at. He st ated they agreed and supported their recommendation. Chair Schaps asked how the neighborhood mee tings went. Mr. Weiland replied there were a number of concerns presented by th e neighborhood, especially regarding density, protection of wetlands, drainage and pending issues, buffers, pr otection of trees, etc. He stated all of those issues were addressed a nd while everyone was not completely satisfied, there were residents who were no longer opposed. Mr. Weiland asked for clarification about recommendation number 13 and asked if grading could occur prior to the Development Agreement. Mr. Grochala replied they would want the Comprehensive Plan i ssues resolved prio r to any grading. Mr. Corson asked about the wetland delinea tion. Mr. Weiland replied the existing tile would be torn up as a part of the grading operation and there would be another outlet on the site. Mr. Lyden stated the layout of the developmen t looked excellent. He asked the price and type of home that would be in the development. Mr. Weiland replied $300,000.00 to $350,000.00. It would be similar to the same developments in the area. Mr. Lyden asked about traffic, rush hour, and Centerville Road. Mr. Grochala replied the concern was being able to get out on the road. He stated the amount of traffic at the intersection was backing up traffic. He stated this was a congestion issue. Mr. Lyden asked when does a congestion issu e become a safety issue. Mr. Grochala replied when there were accidents, volume, etc. that made it a safety issue and not just a congestion issue. Mr. Grocha la replied it appears there were not enough of these issues at that intersection to justify a signal. Mike McNamara, 1525 Holly Drive East, expres sed concern about his lot being split and his property being condemned. He stated he personally thought the City was growing too fast. He stated the traffic had increased significantly and it was difficult to get out of Holly Drive. Chair Schaps pointed out th at this development would not extend Holly Drive. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 21 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. McNamara asked for assurances that his property would not be flooded once this development went in. He stat ed he had drainage issues now and was concerned it would increase with the development. Chair Scha ps replied the intenti on would be to create storm water retention ponds and this was an ex traordinary year for drainage issues due to the heavy rains being experienced. Glenn Wandersee, 1608 Holly Drive East, showed pictures of the properties in the area and the drainage issues they were experien cing. He expressed concern about the drainage issues and the run-off in the area. He aske d if they knew which way the water was going to flow. He stated he had not heard th is addressed at the neighborhood meetings. He also expressed concern about the increase in tr affic. He asked what the water table was in the area. Harold Breyer, 1521 East Holl y Drive, inquired about the homeowner’s association. He asked what recourse the resi dent’s had if rules and regul ations were being broken. He inquired about the road going through on Holly Drive. He agreed with Mr. Lyden and the concerns expressed by Mr. Lyden regard ing the 2010 population goals. He stated he believed this development was going to be done , and it was just a ma tter as to how they were going to do it. He expre ssed concern about the increase in traffic. He asked where the residents stood with respect to traffic issues. He stated he did not have any intention of subdividing his property in the future. Ch air Schaps replied he owned his land and it was up to him if he was going to sell it or subdivide it. Mr. Breyer asked what woul d happen if someone decided to allow Holly Drive to go through. Mr. Lyden replied the residents did not come up with the idea of the road going through, the City did and the City does have the right to take land for roads. Chair Schaps pointed out again that this road issue was not a part of this development proposal. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:01 p.m. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Grochala stated drainage was heading to the north into a new pond. It would end up in the northwest corner of the development. It would not impact the existing developments. Mr. Studenski stated the design was made so the rate would not increase. He noted what was flowing through there was the same amount that would flow th rough there after this development went in. Mr. Lyden replied th ere was a difference between the rate and volume and these could be entirely different. Chair Schaps requested the City Engineer look at the drainage issue and make sure nothing flowed into Outlot F. Mr. Studenski replied that was al ready a part of the conditions. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 22 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to table this issu e giving staff the opportunity to look at this with the Comprehensive Plan population goals of 2010 and to review the consensus. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Mr. Grochala pointed out the deadline for agency action was August 14 and they had previously received two extensions from the de veloper. He stated this would be going to the City Council for action. Mr. Lyden aske d the developer for another extension given the issues. Mr. Weiland stated his position was that they had been working on for 7 months and this was a statutory requirement. He stated there had been adequate time to address this issue. He stated they had met all of the requiremen ts of the City. He requested a decision be made to approve or deny at this time. Motion Failed 3-4. (Yes - Zych, Lane, Lyde n. Nay – Corson, Schaps, Hyden, Rafferty). Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve St oneybrook, Birch St./Sherman Lake Road, Comprehensive Plan Amendment/MUSA allocation, with adding condition A2 to state that the City demonstrates the need, consis tent with the Comprehensive Plan, for the growth population numbers of 3.47 people per home, including the census data of homes built from 2000 to current, as well as what’s included in already approved homes for the lot inventory. Chair Schaps asked for clarification and asked if this requested was a request for an in- depth analysis as to whether the Comprehe nsive Plan goals were exceeded. Mr. Lyden replied that was correct. Mr. Grochala questioned the average househol d figure. Mr. Lyde n cited a Metropolitan Council table indicating the population si ze of the City of Lino Lakes. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4-2. (Yes – Lane, Zych, Lyden, Rafferty; Nay – Corson, Hyden). Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Stone ybrook Birch Street./Sherman Lake Road, Rezone to R-1X, Single Family Executive. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden Motion carried 6-0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve Stoneybrook Birch Street/Sherman Lake Road, preliminary plat subject to sta ff’s conditions and recommendations. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 23 APPROVED MINUTES Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Grochala asked for clarif ication on street width. Afte r discussion, the Board decided to keep the street width at 32 feet. Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:31 p.m. C.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – Russian Baptist Church, Ash St./Baldwin Lk. Rd., Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 9:32 p.m. Staff stated the City had received an appli cation for Site Plan Review and a Conditional Use Permit for Russian Baptist Church. This application was initially presented at the June 12 th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Bo ard, but was tabled pending further information on a number of issues, including: • Investigating providing city services through either the City of Circle Pines or the City of Shoreview, as an alternative to the proposed use of a well and septic system. • Drainage: neighboring reside nts had concerns about runoff onto their property. • Buffer greenbelt: neighboring residents were not supportive of the use of a fence; a revised landscape plan using ve getation and/or berms was proposed. • Lighting: neighboring resident s had concerns over glare. • Traffic issues: Anoka County had not yet responded with comments on the proposed project. At the request of neighboring residents, the Russian Baptist Church held a second neighborhood meeting on June 26 th in order to meet with residents and address their concerns. The proposed site is in the far southwestern corner of the City, west of Baldwin Lake Road and north of Ash Street. The property, wh ich is 4.6 acres in size, is zoned Rural. Since churches are listed as a Conditional Use in a Rural Zone, a Conditional Use Permit has also been applied for. The Russian Baptist Church currently has approximately 180 members. The church is now renting space in Spring Lake Park for their meetings and parish needs, and has applied for a Site Plan Review and Conditiona l Use Permit in order to construct a church of their own. Staff presented its analysis by explaining the City’s proposed 2001 Land Use Plan guides the subject site as Low Density, Sewered Re sidential (one to 2.5 units per acre). While the 2001 Plan is not yet officially adopted, it does reflect the l ong-range goals of the community in relation to existing and future land use. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 24 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated the site is a 4.6-acre lot fronting Ash Street (County Road J). The northern half of the property is wooded, with a wetl and in the northwest quarter. The Southern half of the property is largel y open grassland. The west bord er of the property abuts the rear lot lines of residential homes along Indian Hills Drive in Circle Pines. The northern border abuts the back half of a property located on Baldwi n Lake Road in Lino Lakes. The east border of the property abuts the rear lot lines of three homes also along Baldwin Lake Road, as well as a neighboring home on Ash Street. To the south, across Ash Street in Shoreview, are residential homes. Staff indicated the Site is zoned Rural. Chur ches are listed as a Conditional Use in such a district with the following provisions: 1. Side yard setbacks shall not be less than fifty (50) feet. 2. Adequate screening from abutting reside ntial uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with the landscape and screen ing regulations of Section 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the si te…and such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 3, subd. 4.S of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Adequate off-street loading and servi ce entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Section 3, subd. 6 of this ordinance. Additionally, under Section 2, subd. 2.B.7 of the City Zoning Ordinance, any issued Conditional Use Permits must meet the following standards: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. 2. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the comprehensive plan of the City and this ordinance. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the ex isting and/or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential charac ter of that area. 4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire prot ection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools; or will be se rved adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agen cies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. 5. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be de trimental to the economic welfare of the community. 6. Will not involve uses, activities, proce sses, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. 7. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an inte rference with tra ffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 25 APPROVED MINUTES 8. Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. 9. Will conform to specific standards of this ordinance applicable to the particular use. The proposed site and use appear to co mply with the above-described provisions and standards. Staff indicated the proposed construction include s 15,920 total square feet of building over three levels: • Main Level: 7,438 square feet (s anctuary and related uses) • Lower Level: 7,438 square feet (classrooms, fellowship area and kitchen facilities) • Upper Level: 1,044 square feet (s torage and child /parent room) Plans also show a 60’ X 50’ footprint to the no rth of the proposed church, to be used as a future expansion area. Any future expa nsion would require a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site Plan Review. The exterior of the building will include brick facing/apron and vinyl siding, with a proposed 45-foot steeple. No bells were pr oposed. Asphalt shingles would cover the roof. There is neither water nor sewer available fo r the site. Plans i ndicate a proposed drain field north of the church, with adequate room for a secondary drain field site. Soils tests confirm that the site can adequately support a septic system. As building code requires a sprinkler system for this building, and the site has no public water available, a holding tank for fire suppression purposes will be required. Although design of the tank/sprinkler system would be reviewed as part of the building permit application, staff have requested that design specifications be re quired prior to City Council revi ew due to the fact that the functionality of the site was completely de pendent on the viability of such a system. Staff indicated the site is located in a Phas e 1 Growth Area. Connections to Lino Lakes water and sewer connections are approxima tely 2500 feet away. Although there are no immediate plans for City services to be instal led, it is possible that such services might be available by 2010. The provision of public utilitie s for properties, when at all possible, is a goal of the City. As a result, although Lino La kes utilities are not f easible for the site, staff have investigated the possibility of serv icing the site with utili ties from the City of Circle Pines. City Engineer Jim Studenski reported the Circle Pines connections are located 350’ west and 125’ north of the site , along Indian Hills Drive. Connecting the site to such utilities is es timated to cost approximatel y $55,000 and will require a joint powers agreement between the City of Ci rcle Pines and the City of Lino Lakes. Staff noted City Ordinance required one pa rking space for each four seats in a church. There are 375 seats shown in the main asse mbly hall, which would then require 94 parking stalls. Plans for the church show 99 parking stalls to be constructed. Although there were additional classrooms and fellowshi p areas in the lower level of the church, Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 26 APPROVED MINUTES these areas were not expected to be used by adults concurrently with the main assembly hall. As a result, the parking stall estimate s generated from the number of seats in the main assembly hall appear to be adequate for church needs. Plans indicate an area to the northeast of th e proposed church to be used for additional parking should the church choose to expa nd. This area would contain 27 additional stalls. The Environmental Board has reco mmended use of green parking in future parking expansion areas, as well as an increas e in the use of infiltration and storm water practices around parking areas in general. Access is off Ash Street, a County road. As a result, plans have been submitted to the Anoka County Highway department for review . Plans show a two-lane, 24-foot wide driveway entrance to the site off Ash Str eet. The preexisting gravel driveway, shown on survey and engineering plans, will no longe r share access. There has been no traffic generation study conducted. Staff noted a photometric plan had been s ubmitted, along with fixture details. Lighting will be no-spill, with meter r eadings within City requirements. Neighbors to the west of the site had expressed some concerns at the June Planning & Zoning Board meeting regarding the possibili ty of glare from the lights, a nd had inquired about alternative management measures for the lighting, such as dimming or shutting off lights at night when the church was not being used. In ge neral, shoebox style/no-spill fixtures should solve for any glare problems, as lighting is completely shielded and directed only downward. Additionally, building officials repor t there is nothing in the building code, which specifies a minimum height for fixtures. In responding to inquiries about shutting off lights, police officials recommend that lights should be on “from dusk to dawn,” according to CPTED guidelines. Such guidelines were advisory and not compulsory, however ; police officials recommend that, at a minimum, several poles stay lit and that th e front of the building and all entrances/exits be lit. Staff noted the proposed church would exist as a conditional use within a Rural zone. City Ordinance directed that such conditi onal uses provide “adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping…in compliance with Sec. 3.subd.4.S.” City Ordinance specifically directed buffering/screen ing in the form of “e ither a fence or green belt planting strip.” Neighboring residents had expres sed concern with the idea of using a fence as a buffer. Rather, residents requested a landscaped buffe r be used, with possible use of berming. Such suggestions appeared to be attractive to both church and City, and the landscape plan is being revised to incorporate such changes. Additionally, the current landscape plan s howed some trees within ponding and drain field areas and the Environmental Board had recommended such trees be moved to appropriate areas. The Board also recomme nded consideration of alternate tree species choices. In addition, the Board had reco mmended that a tree inventory and tree preservation plan be submitted for the site. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 27 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated plans show a 13’ X 10’ trash en closure located at th e northern end of the parking area. The enclosure is a 6’-8” high and constructed of concrete block painted to match the principle building color. Staff indicated no signage plans had yet been submitted. The Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance limits institutional signage in the Rural zo ne in the following ways: maximum of 32- square feet of signage area; a maximum of 8 feet high; no closer than 10 feet to any property line. Staff stated there would be no park dedicati on fee required. There were no trails planned for the north side of Ash Street. Staff noted aside from those issues relati ng to the possibility of connecting to public utilities through the C ity of Circle Pines, engineer ing issues had been principally resolved. Minor issues of pond outlet orifice size for a 2-year storm event and an adjacent driveway were being resolved. Rice Creek Watershed District had i ssued a TWAFAA for this project. Staff noted The Environmental Board review ed this applicati on at their May 29, 2002, meeting and recommended approval with some changes. The memo from Marty Asleson dated June 6, 2002, detailed these changes and wa s attached to this report. In general, recommended changes center around the following: 1.) Submission of a tree inventor y and tree preservation plan. 2.) Increase infiltration and storm water pr actices, particularly around parking areas. 3.) Alter tree choices, and move trees out of water infiltration areas. 4.) Use of green parking in futu re parking expansion areas. Staff recommended approval of the app lication, with the following conditions: 1.) Proper building permits be obtai ned prior to any construction. 2.) Permits be obtained by Rice Creek Watershe d prior to any site work or building permit issuance. 3.) A revised landscape plan, which replaces fencing with landscaping for buffer purposes, shall be submitted prior to City Council review. 4.) Any signage must comply with the City’s Sign Ordinance. 5.) Any future expansion shall require Si te Plan Review and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment. 6.) A tree inventory, tree pres ervation plan, and revised landscape plan are to be reviewed by the City’s Environmental Sp ecialist. All trees shown placed in ponding or drain field areas are to be moved to more suitable areas. 7.) All grading, drainage, and utilit y issues are to be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to City Council review. 8.) Design specifications for the fire suppressi on system will be required prior to City Council review. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 28 APPROVED MINUTES 9.) Driveway access shall be exclusive to the site, and shall not be shared with the property to the east. 10.)A performance agreement shall be prep ared, including financial securities, and executed prior to Ci ty Council review. 11.)All applicable permits must be obtained from the Anoka County Highway Department before site work can begin. Mr. Lyden inquired about the bu ilding height. Ms. Gr etz replied 45 feet, to the top of the steeple. Mr. Hyden asked if applicant had the ability to hook up to th e City of Circle Pines for $55,000.00. Ms. Gretz replied technically and theo retically yes, but based on applicant’s estimates, that was approximately $30,000.00 more than they had budgeted for the well and septic system. Mr. Hyden asked about fire suppression system. Ms. Gretz replied the $30,000.00 had taken into account the fire suppressi on system, according to the applicant. Chair Schaps asked if applicant was able to obtain water from the City of Lino Lakes, what would the estimated cost be. The City Engineer replied it would not be inexpensive and it would be a minimum of $30,000.00. Mr. Lyden asked what the buildable land was on the lot. Ms. Gret z replied that, not knowing the size of the wetland, she coul d not answer that at this time. Len Lampert, architect, stated he was presen t to answer any questions they had. Chair Schaps asked him to address the septic syst em and well issue versus the sewer issue. Mr. Lampert replied the $55,000.00 cost for City sewer was to the curb line and then they would need to bring it into the building, which he estimat ed would cost an additional $15,000.00. He replied the storage tank, pump, conc rete, well, and drain field areas were coming in around $30,000. Thus, there would be a $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 increase to get City Sewer. He also expressed conc ern about a timing issue and the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Circle Pines a nd the possibility of delaying this project. Ryan Raske, RLK Engineering, stated th e buildable area of the property was approximately 2 acres. Chair Schaps stated Mary Ann McDouglas, 6116 Baldwin Lake Road, had written a letter to the Board requesting this project not be approved because there was already a Church one-half mile from this proposed project. She stated this would amount to “cluster zoning”. She expressed concern about drai nage. She expressed concern about the Church not hooking up to City sewer. She expressed concern about the lighting. She suggested the Church find another locati on within the City for their building. Michael Kula, 6 Indian Hills Drive, Circle Pines, thanked them for listening to their position. He stated they had a neighborhood meeting, which was not very productive. He stated they conveyed to the Church the sa me concerns they pres ented at the Planning Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 29 APPROVED MINUTES Commission, but they did not ge t anything resolved. He st ated they had tentatively scheduled a meeting for last night, but th is meeting was cancelled. He stated the Comprehensive Plan designated this area as sewered residential and the application was contemplating the use of the current zoning, which was rural. He stated there was no question that this area was residential and should remain residential. He expressed concern about the location of the drain field. He stated he was not opposed to the concept of a Church, but he questioned if the Church fit into this area. He expressed concern about the Church not hooking up to City sewer. He expressed con cern about the drainage issues. He expressed conc ern about lighting and not ha ving any kind of screening to buffer the light. He expressed concern about traffic impact. He asked the speed limit on County Road J be reduced further at the corner of County Road 49. He expressed concern about the building height. He expressed concern a bout the Church not generating a tax base for the City of Lino La kes. He expressed concern about the Church members doing the construction work themselves. Ryan Raske spoke to the drainage issue. He stated they had added an infiltration pond on the property and explained how the drainage would flow. He stated they now had two infiltration ponds and a run-off pond on the prope rty. He stated this had been approved by Rice Creek Watershed. He stated there was no proposed swale on the western side. Mr. Lampert stated they had done an elabor ate lighting plan that was within the City requirements. He stated the fixtures w ould be pointed downward. He addressed the Church building height. Mr. Lyden asked how high was the berm. Mr. Lampert stated approximately 3 feet, with landscaping on top. He indicated this was a one-story building, and it was difficult to conceal a one-story building with a berm, but by adding landscaping, this would be a sufficient buffer. He stated there would be a 50-foot setback to th e residential district. He stated the drain field location woul d be adjusted slightly to the east. Mr. Lyden asked what the Comprehensive Plan said regarding land us e for this property. Ms. Gretz replied it was sewered residential. She stated they should not confuse zoning with land use in this case. Mr. Smyser stated when/if this property was to be rezoned for residential, the Church would still be a conditional use in all of the residential zone s as well. It did not matter what the zoning was for a Church. Ms. Gretz stated the church height was within City requirements and the steeple was exempt from the height requirement. Dick Keiser, 12 Indian Hills Drive, Circle Pi nes, asked about the depth of the ponds. Mr. Raske stated they ranged from 2 to 10 feet deep. Mr. Keiser expressed concern about the safety issues with respect to the ponds (i.e. kids playing in/around the ponds), esp ecially with one being 10 f eet deep. Mr. Raske stated the high water level was calculated on a 100-foot flood and the ponds were designed for a 100-year flood. There would be no fence around the pond. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 30 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Kula suggested a landscaping company be utilized for the purposes of berming and landscaping selection. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 10:22 p.m. The Motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Hyden inquired about the gravel driv eway. Ms. Gretz replied that was for construction purposes and it woul d be paved after construction. Chair Schaps noted if this was a self-constructed site, how long was the building permit good for. Mr. Grochala replied building permits were approved for a 12 – 18 month period. The building inspectors would make sure the site was moving along. Mr. Rafferty asked for clarifi cation about the berming. He requested they firm up the landscaping issues. Mr. Lampert replied the neighbors had requested a landscaping buffer instead of a fence. He stated at this time, they had not come up with a landscaping plan, but they would submit it to staff for their approval. Chair Schaps asked if they agreed to all of the recommendations of staff. Mr. Lampert replied they did. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern about a pproving this without City sewer hook-up, especially since the Comprehensive Plan ha d this zoned as sewered residential. Jerry Clausen, Baldwin Lake Road, stated he has had septic systems for 50 years, and has never had any problems with the systems as long as they were properly maintained. He stated a Church would not incur that much waste to justify hooking up to the City sewer. He stated a sewer system was just as reliable as the City sewer. He stated septic systems do not present a problem. Bev Clausen, Baldwin Lake Road, stated compared to barking dogs, noisy cars and garbage cans, she would take a Church any day of the week. She asked the Board to consider this project as an asset to the City. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, with conditions as outlined in staff’s report. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Mr. Lyden stated in reviewing the Conditi onal Use Permit, was this a good idea for this piece of property. While it was true that th ere was only 2 acres of upland, what hit home most was that it did not fit into this area. He stated he would like to support it, but he could not. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 31 APPROVED MINUTES Motion carried 5-1 (Lyden). VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Draft Subdivision Ordinance Mr. Smyser presented the draft Subdivision Ordinance and stated the public hearing would be at the August Planning & Zoning Boar d meeting. He stated this was most of the Ordinance, but there were a couple of pieces still to be approved by the task force and once these were approved, it would be forwarded to the Board. VII.ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:37 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .