Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/14/2004 P&Z Minutes CITY OF L I NO LAKE S PLANNING & Z O NING BOARD MINUT E S DATE : April 14, 2004 TIME STARTED : 6:38 P.M. TIME ENDED : 11:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Pogalz , Rafferty, Tralle (arrived at 6:55 p.m.), and Root. MEMBERS ABSENT : Lane and Schaps. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff S m yser; James Studenski I. CAL L TO ORDE R AND ROL L CAL L Vice Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:38 p.m ., April 14, 2004. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 10, 2004 Mr. Pogalz m a de a MOTION approve the March 10, 2004 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 4-0. IV. OPEN MIKE Vice Chair Rafferty declared Op en Mike open at 6:39 p.m . There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Root made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:40 p.m ., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. V. ACTION I TEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLI C HEARING, for Rez o ni ng and Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development/Prelim inary Plat for Highland Meadow s East 2 nd Addition, south of 79 th Street and Nancy Lane inters ection APPROVED MINUTES Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Vice Chair Rafferty opened the public hearing at 6:41 p.m. Staff stated applicant had requested appr oval to develop Outlot A of the Highland Meadows East development approved in 1999. The comprehensive plan guides the site for medium density residential use. The applicant requests rezoning to R-3 Medium Density. The request also includes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to allow for a private road and other departures from standard zoning requirements. A preliminary plat also is required with the PUD. The proj ect also requires a site plan review for the townhomes. This typically is an administrative review. Howeve r, it is inherent part of the PUD. Staff presented their analysis and recommende d approval of the project, subject to the following conditions: 1. The project shall not be final platte d until 2005, as dictated by the growth management policy. 2. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. Drainage and utility easements shall cove r the ponds and stormw ater facilities. Easements also shall be platted al ong all the external property lines. 4. The applicant must submit geotechnical information on existing groundwater levels and soils in adequate time for review pr ior to City Council consideration of the application. 5. Sanitary sewer and water utilities in the priv ate drive shall be City facilities, just as they would if it were a public street right of way. 6. Park dedication of $1,665 per unit shall be paid: 18 units for a total of $29,970. 7. A revised landscaping plan shall include additional spruce added to the extreme southwest corner, behind units 9, 10, and 11 a nd specified sod or grass seeded areas. City wetland seeding shall be included and noted on the revised landscaping plan. 8. The project must obtain approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to consideration of the prelimin ary plat by the City Council. 9. A street light shall be added at the access to 79 th St., at the developer’s cost. 10. New building elevations shall be submitted to demonstrate an exterior finish of brick, stucco, and/or natural or artificial stone to meet the requirements in the ordinance. These shall be submitted three weeks prior to consideration of the preliminary plat by the City Council. Mr. Hyden asked how open space was calculated. Mr. Smyser replied they took the amount of non-hard surface (i.e. not building or driveway), so that did include the areas within the private lots. He noted the site wa s oddly configured and how to deal with the open space was “tricky”. Mr. Hyden asked if the City was comfortable waiting for the Rice Creek Watershed’s decision. Mr. Smyser replied they were comfortable moving ahead, but this would need to be clarified before this was final platted. Mr. Pogalz asked what would th e builder be allowed to do this year if final platting was not allowed until 2005. Mr. Smyser replie d after preliminary plat approval a development agreement could be put together that would allow only grading of the site. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES He stated utilities were not allowed to be br ought in until the final plat was issued and no construction of the buildings w ould occur until final platting. Mr. Pogalz asked if there was any consideration by the City as to the type of material brought in to fill the site. Mr . Smyser replied all fill brough t into the site had to be approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Root asked if any grading had taken place on this site. Mr. Studenski replied there had been some grading in the past that ac tually improved the site, but there had been nothing since that time. Mr. Root asked if the two downsized ponds ma de up for the larger area that would be lost. Mr. Studenski replied the pr oposed ponds would be adequate. Mr. Root asked if all of the other engineering issues had be en completed. Mr. Studenski replied basically they had been satisfie d, with the exception of a few minor ones. Mr. Root asked if it was common to have the City responsible for utilities beyond the lot line. Mr. Smyser replied this was an unusual situation. He stated they were concerned about the homeowners association properly main taining and repairing the utilities. He noted if the association did not maintain them, it would come back to the City for repair because it was a public health and safety issu e, so staff was recommending the City be responsible for the utilities beyond the lot line. Mr. Hyden asked what would happen if the association would dissolve. Mr. Smyser replied the road would not be that heavily traveled, so it would be required to be constructed as if it were a pub lic street, only a little narrow er and the maintenance would be essentially plowing and patching. He stated because of the minimal traffic, this should not be a problem. Mr. Pogalz asked if there would be a dual poi nt of connection for the waterline. Mr. Studenski replied a dual point of connection for the waterlin e would not be an issue in this development. Vice Chair Rafferty asked what had they de termined with the phasing plan for the different years. Mr. Smyser replied there wa s a goal of 147 new units per year, but it did allow an additional 20 percent at the Counc il’s discretion, which would make another 29 units, which totaled 176 units. What this did was subtract from the total number available for the year 2010. He stated for 2004 they had “maxed” out and with the projects that they had received applications fo r so far, 2005 would also be full. He noted the City could not go over the 20 percent w ithout amending the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Chair Rafferty invited th e public to make comment. Joe LaCroix, 79 th Street and the new proposed roa d, asked if the density had been changed since the last plan. Vice Chair Raffert y replied it had been reduced by two units, instead of 20 there were now 18. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. LaCroix expressed c oncern about traffic on 79 th Street. Mr. Studens ki stated in the future there might be some type of a traffic control, but at this time, the traffic did not justify a traffic control. Mr. LaCroix expressed concern regarding the elevations and that all of the townhomes looked the same. Eric Englebretson, 712 79 th Street, requested a stipulation of having a berm with trees. He expressed concern about the density of this development. He stated for his privacy, he would like berms with tall tr ees. Mr. Hyden stated it was hi s past experience that trees did not live on berms. Mr. Englebretson replied he would be agreea ble to not berm, but having dense trees. Mr. Englebretson expressed concern about the angled parking and th e lights shining in his home. He asked if the parking could be angled differently so the headlights did not shine in his home. Vice Chair Rafferty re plied they would discuss this with the developer. Kirk Nelson, 710 79 th Street, expressed concern about the zoning. He stated it was his understanding that this was going to be phased in. He indica ted this development did not fit in with single-family homes. He aske d if this could be R-2. Vice Chair Rafferty replied the Comprehensive Plan zoned this as R-3 and the Met Council would have to approve any zoning changes, but ri ght now this was zoned as R-3. Mr. Nelson asked what could he do as a citizen to get this changed. Mr. Smyser replied the process began years ago and this is what ultimately came out of the commission. He stated this had been approved in 2002. Mr. Nelson expressed concern about the density . He presented to the Board a proposed drawing showing the density to be at 10 buildin gs, instead of 20. He asked if this would be feasible. Vice Chair Rafferty asked Mr. Nelson how he woul d feel if he were the developer and his development was cut down from 18 to 10 units. Mr. Nelson replied he realized the more units that were put in there, the more money the developer would get. Vice Chair Rafferty invited the applicant to make comment. Steve Schmidt, developer, stated when the association would be set up, the association dues became a lien on the property, and those due could be collected by the association through foreclosure. He noted the associa tion dues came ahead of the mortgage. He stated he did not know if an association coul d “disband” themselves or not, and this was something the City Attorney would need to an swer. He stated, however, that the City did approve the association documents . He indicated the developer would be in charge of the association for the first two years, at which time it would be turned over to the Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES association. He stated he was confused about the ordinance re garding the exterior material. He asked for guidance regarding this . He stated it was not conducive to put brick everywhere because of the elevations. He noted he would be in agreement to putting more brick on the front entryways, if th ey wanted. He stated he would like to sit down with staff to discuss these things before it came to Council. Mr. Hyden replied he did not have a problem with the development itself, but he wanted more “character” to the buildings. Mr. Schmidt replied he intended to make each building different than the other ones. He stated his struggle was putting the brick on the sides and back without maki ng the whole building brick. Mr. Tralle arrived at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Smyser suggested Mr. Schmidt look at the ordinance and show st aff what they could do with the materials and colors, but staff needed to see everything in writing. Mr. Root stated the landscape buffer was im portant and he wanted to see a lot of coverage. He suggested more black hill spruce be placed in the center of the half circle so it would block all of the headlights. Mr. Schmidt replied he did not have any issues with adding additional landscaping and trees. Vice Chair Rafferty asked him to have colors that were not the usual. He stated the density he was not in favor of, but he appreciated the efforts he has made. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to recommend closing the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Root stated he believed there was a lot of density in this area and asked if the buildings could be shifted around. Mr. Schmid t replied they already had 20 feet between the garages, when the ordinance required 10 f eet, so they had much more space than what was required by City ordinance. He stated he had heard the comments the last time and he had removed two units and he believed th is was a good use for the property with the additional screening they requested. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recomme nd Rezoning from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-3 Medium Density Residential, approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a residential Planned Unit Development, and approval of the development stage plan/preliminary plat with the conditions as noted in staff’s April 14, 2004 report with the addition of condition 11 for adding the additi onal trees and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 4-1 (Vice Chair Rafferty). B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for a Co mprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat/PUD for Oakwood View, 125 Ash Street (Rice Creek Covenant Church) Vice Chair Rafferty opened th e pubic hearing at 8:20 p.m. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated applicant had submitted an applica tion to further develop its current site at 125 Ash Street. The application includes seve ral elements. The goal is to create ten single-family detached home lots on the north part of the property as well as a lot for a duplex on the southern part of the property. The duplex is intended for a group residence for people with disabilities. This project in cludes an odd mixture of actions because of the existing land use category and zoning. Staff indicated a conditional use permit (C UP) was approved by the City in 1996 to provide for building the churc h. That CUP approval included a three-phase plan. Each new building must undergo a site plan revi ew, but would not require a CUP amendment review. However, the CUP did not include a residential facility, as is being proposed now. Therefore, the CUP is not relevant here inasmuch as no additions to the church building itself are being proposed. Staff noted the zoning ordinance provides fo r two different types of PUD. If only residential uses were include d in the project, the PUD w ould require only a conditional use permit. However, the church and the gr oup residence is a mix of uses. A mixed use PUD requires a rezoning to PUD. Staff reviewed their analysis and recomm ended approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat/P UD, subject to the following conditions: 1. The comprehensive plan amendment must obtain the approval of the Metropolitan Council prior to any further City project approvals. The rezoning and preliminary plat are contingent upon the compre hensive plan amendment approval. 2. This approval provides for use of the duplex group residential facility for foster care for developmentally disabled persons. A lternative uses under different county and/or state license shall be subject to City revi ew and state statutory requirements, and at the City’s discretion may require an amen dment of the planned unit development. 3. The project shall be final platted in two phases. The group resident duplex may be final platted in 2004. The ten single-family lots shall not be final platted until 2005. 4. The conditional use permit approved in 1996 to allow the construction of the church is still in effect. Future expansion of the church sh all be as approved with the conditional use permit. 5. The duplex residential facility shall be constructed as depicted on the plans included as part of this approval. 6. The relocation of sanitary sewer and wate r services may occur within the 2004, phase one final plat because these utilities already existed. Howe ver, the construction of the Oakwood Lane street extension shall not occu r until final plat approval of the single family lots in phase two, in 2005. All lots and units shall connect to City sanitary sewer and water. 7. Park dedication of $1,665 per unit shall be paid. Park dedication for the group residence, two units, shall be paid when that lot if final platted. Park dedication for the ten single-family lots shall be paid with that final plat. 8. The new plat must obtain approval by the Ri ce Creek Watershed District prior to final plat approval by the City Council. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES 9. Drainage and utility easements around all wetlands must be large enough to include at a minimum a ten (10) foot buffer exte nding outward from the delineated wetland boundary. 10. The applicant must submit geotechnical information on existing groundwater levels and soils in adequate time for review pr ior to City Council consideration of the application. 11. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review must be addressed to his satisfaction. 12. The City seeding mix must be used for ponds and wetland areas. This must be noted on the plans. 13. The property owner must obtain approval from the City Council to vacate the existing ponding and flowage easements. 14. Site plan information for the group resi dence duplex shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. This shall in clude architectural elevations, floor plan, landscaping, and site lighting. Any ligh ting in the park area must meet City requirements. 15. There must be a shared driveway easement to allow the new lot to use the existing driveway on Ash St. This easement mu st be recorded with the final plat. Mr. Tralle inquired about the garage and asked if a two-stall garage would be an issue. Mr. Smyser replied the residents would not be driving, so they would not have cars. He believed there would be suffi cient garage space. Mr. Tralle expressed concern a bout the insufficient garage space in the event this duplex was ever converted to two single-family homes. Mr. Smyser replied if this ever occurred this could be addressed at that time and the garage could be expanded if necessary. Mr. Root asked about the radius of the stre et. Mr. Studenski replied the design made it less than a 30 mph road, and that would be posted. He noted this was not out of the ordinary. Mr. Hyden asked if they should be concerne d that they were asking for an amended Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Smyser replied he did not believe this w ould be a concern. Vice Chair Rafferty invited public to make comment. Erin Mielke, 165 Ash, asked what was going to be the dimension of the duplex. Mr. Smyser replied he did not have a floor plan, bu t applicant should be able to answer this. Ms. Mielke stated she was concerned about th e lighting of the parking lot. Mr. Smyser replied they did not have any plan for the li ghting right now. However, there were very specific limitations on lighting and they woul d have to meet those requirements, if lighting was proposed. Ms. Mielke stated the duplex as directly behind her house and while there were trees there, they were tall trees and she asked if sm aller trees could also be put in. Vice Chair Rafferty replied they would ask the applican t if they would be willing to do that. Vice Chair Rafferty invited th e public to make comment. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES TimYantos, Chair of Development Task For ce, stated the square footage would be 3500 per floor (7,000 for the entire building). He stated they would follow whatever the City Ordinance required with respect to lighting. Mr. Smyser stated he did not believe the C ity would require any lighting of the parking area. Mr. Yantos stated they were agreeable to adding additiona l pine trees for screening. Vice Chair Rafferty also expressed concern ab out the two-car garage. He stated he would prefer to see what the City had outlined with respect to garages. Mr. Tralle stated he disagreed with this; that this was a C onditional Use Permit and he did not think they needed to add an attached garage, especially with the use they were intending it for. He stated his only concern was if this were to change to a single-family duplex, but he believed that was a remote possibility and he believed they needed the living space and not more garage space. Mr. Yantos stated they were willing to do whatever the City wanted. Mr. Pogalz asked about moving the water ma in stub to and manhole to the center of Oakwood Lane. Mr. Studenski replied that was feasible. Ms. Mielke asked how many attractive homes were 7,000 square feet. She expressed concern about the size of the building. She st ated this did not fit in the area and would not blend in with the neighborhood. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 9:00 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Tralle stated he was opposed to adding a dditional landscaping. He stated he believed there was sufficient landscaping in that area. Mr. Pogalz stated he was also opposed to th is because he believed the new landscaping would not survive under the existing canopy. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend amending the Comprehensive Plan to change the site from Public Semi-Public to Lo w Density Sewered Resi dential, recommend approval of the rezoning of the southe rn portion from R-1X to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for mixed uses: th e existing church and group residence, recommend the PUD development stage plan/p reliminary plat subject to the conditions noted in staff’s April 14, 2004 report with th e 15 conditions as noted in staff’s April 14, 2004 report and adding the following condition: 16. To move the sanitary sewer manhole 4 nor th to the centerline of Oakwood Lane, and also to move the water main to the center of Oakwood Lane with an adjacent stub and gate valve to the west. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Mr. Root made a friendly amendment to a dd a condition 17: To add screening along the south side of the duplex 3-4 evergreen trees, 6 feet tall. Mr. Tralle did not accept the friendly amendment. Motion carried 5-0. Vice Chair Rafferty recessed the hearing at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. C. Variance for St. Paul Water Services, Peltier Lake dam site Staff stated St. Paul Regional Water Servi ces owns numerous pieces of property on and near lakes in Lino Lakes and Centerville. On e of these parcels incl udes the dam between Peltier Lake and George Watch Lake. St. Paul Water wishes to divide this parcel, keep the part with the dam, and sell the rest of Anoka County to include in the regional park. Because the parcel has no road frontage and is shaped very oddly, several variances are needed. No development will occur on the site. Staff presented their analysis and recomme nded approval of the requested variances for lot area, lot width, and lack of road fr ontage, subject to the following conditions: 1. Anoka County shall grant an access easement to the dam parcel from CSAH 14. 2. Anoka County shall combine the land th at does not include the same with an existing parcel to avoid crea ting a completely new parcel. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend the va riance request for lot area, lot width and road frontage subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s Apri l 14, 2004 report and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. D. Variance for 1612 Birch Street Staff stated applicants have submitted a request for variances from requirements for minimum lot area and lot width. Their prope rty at 1612 Birch St. comprises of 15 acres. They wish to divide the prope rty into two parcels. This would be a minor subdivision and does not require public review: it is done administratively. However, the subdivision proposal does not meet lot dimens ion requirements. The property owners have requested the variances from those requirements. Staff presented its analysis and recommende d denying the request because the proposed variances would provide for a minor subdi vision that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan strategy. A new lot would exceed the allowable growth under the growth management policy. The vari ance requested is based on economic considerations. Mr. Hyden asked which acreage was the home s itting on. Mr. Smyser replied it was on the proposed Parcel B on the survey. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Vice Chair Rafferty invited the applicant to make comment. John DeHaven, 1612 Birch Street, stated the reas on they wanted to do this was so they could get a reverse mortgage to supplement their income. He stated they were on social security and they could no longer survive on th eir social security. He pointed out that there was a City sign indicating that there would be a road eventually cutting across their property. He stated this was a hardship for th em and he believed this request fit into the hardship. He noted they had done a lot to beautify the property by planting over 2,000 trees. Mr. Hyden asked before they paid the $250.00, di d staff inform them that this request would not apply. Mr. DeHaven stated sta ff had given them the rules which showed hardship and he believed their request fit under the hardship. He indicated this was their “only out”. Mr. Tralle asked why couldn’t they reverse mortgage the entire 15 acres. Ms. Houle stated they wanted to leave the rest of the land for their children. She noted with a reserve mortgage, once they died, the home would go to the bank. She indicated it was very important that they plan their estate now. Mr. Rafferty asked if they could put the reve rse mortgage on their house and barn only. Ms. Houle replied they needed a legal desc ription and the legal description as it was today, included the whole parcel. She noted th ey could not sell the la nd either because of the Comprehensive Plan requirements. Vice Chair Rafferty asked if they realized th at there was a 10-acre minimum and that a five-acre parcel was not standa rd. Ms. Houle replied their en tire parcel was originally 38 acres. She noted this was farmland and if they wanted to they could raise pigs, but she did not believe their neighbor s would appreciate that. Ms. Houle stated their intent was to avoid a mess with their estate planning. Vice Chair Rafferty stated it was not the intent of the City to avoid or make messes of people’s estates. He stated they had seen hardships when it came to dollars and cents, but this did not follow the guidelines. Ms. Houle stated breaking off their small par cel of land did not affect the City. Vice Chair Rafferty stated it did affect the City because it would set a precedent. Mr. DeHaven stated the City should get rid of the hardship requirement then because they were coming before the Board with this requ irement. Mr. Smyser stated the hardship could not be due to economic considerations al one, according to the State legislature. He noted an economic hardship was not the type of hardship the varian ce was based on. He stated this was a difficult concept to unde rstand, but the law did not say that economics was a hardship and the City was required to follow State law. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to deny the vari ance request for 1612 Birch Street, Martha Houle/DeHaven, because the proposed varian ces would provide for a minor subdivision that is inconsistent with the comprehensiv e plan strategy. A new lot would exceed the Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES allowable growth under the growth management policy. The variance requested is based on economic considerations and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. DeHaven requested the City sign stati ng a road would go through their property be removed. He stated they would not sell th eir property to the City for a road. E. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Re zone, Preliminary Plat and MUSA Reserve Allocation for Fox Den Acres, Royal Oaks Realty, land east of Fox Road (dead end) Staff stated applicant has re quested approval of a single fa mily residential development called Fox Den acres. The comprehensive plan guides the site for low-density residential use and it is zoned R-1. Th e request also includes an amendment of the comprehensive plan and MUSA reserve allocation. This would allow the development to extend beyond the boundary of the area currently guided fo r development to provide for an additional eight lots. Staff noted there are several challenging desi gn issues including a “ponding and flowage” easement, single access point due to past development design, the growth management policies, and wetlands. The City must consid er these issues in the project design while acknowledging that that property is guided a nd zoned for development, and has been for some years. Staff stated the public hearing is for the comprehensive plan amendment and the preliminary plat. The allocation of MUSA reserve does not require a public hearing because such allocation must be in areas already designed for it under the comprehensive plan. Staff presented its analysis and recommended continuing this item for further information including the proposed plat extends beyond the stage 1 (pre-2010) growth area, the MUSA, the Low Density Sewered Residential la nd use area, and the R-1 zone. It would also require the vacation of a ponding and flowage easement. The proposed requested amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning map to accommodate the extra 3-4 acres of development. There is not clear ju stification other than to increase developable area. Staff does not yet know if water servic e is adequate. The traffic study is based on outdated road information and should be re vised. A ghost plat must be created for property north of the proposed northern road stub. Staff stated this should have been noticed as a public hearing and he apologized to the applicant that this had not been done. He st ated, however, that there were issues that needed to be resolved and he believed the outcome would still be the same. He indicated the proper notice would be sent out a nd this would be on the May agenda. Mr. Tralle inquired about the roadways cr ossing wetlands. He asked how would the water flowage through the wetlands would be a ddressed. Mr. Smyser replied this was a tough site and they wanted to fill various ar eas and they would need the approval of the Rice Creek Watershed to do that, but they would also mitigate the site. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES Bob Schack stated he represented the associ ation and indicated they had a concern about the traffic and the one access in and out. He noted an average household would make 8 trips in and out a day and with 70 homes, they were estimating that there would be over 500 cars coming in and out daily. He expres sed concern about the loss of the wetland area. He asked where would they make up the wetland loss as required. He indicated they had several homeowners on the east side of West Shadow Lake Road that had put in the landscaping to keep water levels away fr om their homes and if some of the wetland were filled in, there was a concern that it would cause additional flooding and wet basements in their association. He noted th ere was a natural waterf low and he expressed concern that their ponds would be affected by this development. Steve Cavanagh, 6331 Deerwood Lane, stated tr affic was his number one concern. He stated there were many children in the area and he was concerned for their safety. He indicated this was not a safe area for traffic. He stated they did have water issues in their basements. He asked what was the point of a Comprehensive Plan if they were not going to follow it. Mike Black of Royal Oaks Realty, 1000 Count y Road E, Shoreview, applicant, stated they wanted to build an upscale single-fam ily neighborhood. He stated there would be no variances requested. He stated in May he would have color drawings for the Board’s review. He stated Rice Creek was currently reviewing their proposal. He stated they would be filling less than one acre of the 11 acres of wetland on the site. He indicated he was willing to review tonight whatever the Board wanted him to. Vice Chair Rafferty stated because this would be continued to the next meeting, the Board would prefer to hear everything at that time so all of the information did not need to be repeated. Mr. Pogalz asked for further information about the connection to the strip to the north for the next meeting. Mr. Black stated that wa s their only way out and they had looked at other options. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to continue this item to the next meeting for further information and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 5-0. F. Elect EDAC liaison Staff stated the Economic Development A dvisory Committee (EDAC) is an advisory body appointed by the City Council to a dvise the Council on economic development matters. In the past, there have been liais ons among the different advisory boards, but this has not been a particular ly formal system. EDAC has requested the P&Z to consider if any P&Z members would like to act as a liaison to the EDAC. This would involve attending occasional EDAC m eetings to exchange information on the status of development policies, project, and other issues. There is no formal minimum commitment, and the liaison could arrange his or her own schedule for attending meetings or otherwise comm unicating on these topics. Mr. Hyden stated he was inte rested in being the liaison. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 14 , 200 4 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to appoint Mr . Hyden as liaison to the Economic Development Advisory Comm ittee (EDAC) and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Set up special meeting to discuss signage Mr. Smyser stated it appeared the first this could happen would be on June 16. He asked the Board members to check their calendars and get back to him. B. Joint Meeting: All advisory boards and City Council regarding Master Planning Process for 360 acres W. of 35E and N. of Main Street – tentative date Thursday, April 29, 6:00 p.m. Mr. Smyser stated this was a tentative meeting date. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .