Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/2004 P&Z Minutes CITY OF L I NO LAKE S PLANNING & Z O NING BOARD MINUT E S DATE : May 12, 2004 TIME STARTED : 6:32 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:56 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Pogalz , Rafferty, Root, Schaps, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABS E NT : Lane. STAFF PRESENT : Michael Gr ochala and James Studenski I. CAL L TO ORDE R AND ROL L CAL L Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board m eeting to order at 6:32 p.m ., May 12, 2004. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 14, 2004 Mr. Hyden m a de a MOTION approve the April 14, 2004 Minutes and w a s supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open m i ke open at 6:35 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Tralle m a de a MOTION to close Open Mi ke at 6:36 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. V. ACTION I TEMS A. PUBLI C HEARI NG, for a Re z o ni ng (from R, Rural to R-1X, Single Family Executive) and Preliminary Plat, as w e ll as MUSA Reserve Allocatio n , for Junes Addition, located at 599 – 62 nd Street A PPR OVED MIN U TES Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d May 1 2 , 2 004 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. Staff stated applicant had submitted an applica tion to subdivide an existing lot into three lots. This would require a rezoning from Rural to R-1X, a preliminary plat, and the allocation of six acres of MUSA reserve. The site is guided for Low Density Sewered Residential land use and is within th e stage 1 (pre-2010) growth area. He noted the project involves filling some wetla nd to create buildable area for one of the proposed lots. This needs the approval of the wetland mitigation from the Rice Creek Watershed District. This issu e is key to proceeding with th e project, but has not been resolved. He stated the notification for the public he aring was published and mailed to surrounding property owners. Therefore, the P&Z should open the public hearing. If anyone is present for the public hearing, comments can be heard. The P&Z should then continue the public hearing to the June meeting. Staff w ill have a full review of the project at that meeting. He indicated reconstruction of 62 nd St. will occur this summer. Sanitary sewer and water will be extended west from the intersection w ith West Shadow Lake Drive to serve this property. These utilities will not be extended further west down 62 nd St. Chair Schaps invited the public to make comment. Marvin Emily, 590 62 nd Street, stated he was opposed to th is project. He indicated he did not want the wetland filled in and expressed co ncern that the road was taking 20 feet of his property to dig a ditch and fill in the wetl and. He expressed concern that the wetland being filled in would add drainage pr oblems and excess water on his property. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the June 9, 2004 meeting and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. B. PUBLIC HEARING, for a Rezoning (from R, Rural to R-1X, Single Family Executive) and Preliminary Plat, as well as MUSA Reserve Allocation, for West Shadow Ponds 2 nd Addition, located at 607 – 62 nd Street Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. Staff stated applicant had submitted an appli cation to subdivide an existing lot into two lots. This would require a rezoning from Rural to R-1X, a preliminary plat, and the allocation of 0.74 acres of MUSA reserve. Th e site is guided for Low Density Sewered Residential land use and is within th e stage 1 (pre-2010) growth area. He noted the project involves filling some wetla nd to create buildable area for one of the proposed lots. This needs the approval of the wetland mitigation from the Rice Creek Watershed District. This issu e is key to proceeding with th e project, but has not been resolved. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d May 1 2 , 2 004 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES He stated the notification for the public he aring was published and mailed to surrounding property owners. Therefore, the P&Z should open the public hearing. If anyone is present for the public hearing, comments can be heard. The P&Z should then continue the public hearing to the June meeting. Staff w ill have a full review of the project at that meeting. He indicated reconstruction of 62 nd St. will occur this summer. Sanitary sewer and water will be extended west from the intersection w ith West Shadow Lake Drive to serve this property. These utilities will not be extended further west down 62 nd St. Chair Schaps invited the public to make comment. Marvin Emily, 590 62 nd Street, stated he was also oppos ed to this project because it would fill in the wetland. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the June 9, 2004 meeting and was supported by Mr. Poga lz. Motion carried 5-0. C. PUBLIC HEARING, for a Comprehensive Pl an Amendment, Rezoning (from R, Rural to R-1, Single Family Residential) and Preliminary Plat, as well as MUSA Reserve Allocation, for Fox Den Acres, a 50-acre development south of Birch Street and east of Deerwood Lane, at the east end of Fox Road Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:41 p.m. Staff stated applicant had re quested approval of single fam ily residential development called Fox Den Acres. The comprehensive plan guides the majority of the site for low- density residential use and it is zoned R-1. The request also includes an amendment of the comprehensive plan and MUSA rese rve allocation. This would allow the development to extend beyond the boundary of the area currently guid ed for development to provide for an additional eight lots. He noted there are several challenging desi gn issues including a “ponding and flowage” easement, single access point due to past de velopment designs, the growth management policies, and wetlands. The City must consid er these issues in the project design while acknowledging that most of the property is guided and zoned for development, and has been for some years. There is usable upland outside of the growth boundary and the applicant wishes to utilize this upland. He stated the public hearing is for th e 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. The site is in the existing MUSA. Staff presented their analysis and recommende d denial of the project because the City’s growth management policy and subdivision or dinance prohibit development outside of defined growth boundaries. The proposed pl at extends beyond the stage 1 (pre-2010) growth area, the MUSA, the Low Density Sewe red Residential land use are, and the R-1 Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d May 1 2 , 2 004 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES zone. The proposer requests amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning map to accommodate the extra 3-4 acres of development. It would also require the vacation of parts of a ponding and flowage easement. Ther e is no clear justifica tion for these actions other than to increase devel opable area. Section 1002-6 of th e subdivision ordinance lists criteria for determining if a proposed de velopment is premature. These include consistency with the land use plan, includi ng the staged growth area boundaries. A project that is consistent with these criteria is premature. And staff did not yet know if water service is adequate. If it is not, the project is premature. Mr. Tralle asked who owned the tower. Mr . Grochala replied it was a holding company, but he did not know the name. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, 1000 County Road E, Shoreview, showed the proposed wetland delineation for the site. He noted on a 50-acre site, they were showing wetland impacts on less than 1 acre. He noted they ha d done their job in looking at the impact on the wetlands. He stated they were showing 64 lots on the 50-acre site. He noted they were well below the typical single-family lot density. He indicated the lots were also wider than normal. He showed the Boar d where the access was being proposed. He showed the proposed phasing plan to the Board. He noted pha se 3 was the phase that was affected by the Comprehensive Plan amendm ent. He had a neighborhood meeting in March and one of the concerns was a trail access. He stated he had provided for a trailway to the north by having an open space corridor proposed in their plan. Chair Schaps stated there was a lot of thi ngs missing in this plan and asked what had changed since the last meeting. Mr. Black re plied they had taken soil borings since the last meeting. Chair Schaps stated they were requesting a comprehensive plan amendment without giving anything back. Mr. Black stated they had a meeting with staff after the last meeting and they were working on the issues. He noted this was a process and they were trying to address these things. He stated Rice Creek had not reviewed their wetland delineation at this time. He noted they wa nted to wait until the gr owing season started, but he understood they were goi ng to try and review it tomorrow. He stated they were still working with Tec Panel. Chair Schaps asked if going beyond the MUSA line was a financial issue. Mr. Black replied it made more sense for the development to use those ten lots. Mr. Pogalz asked if there had been any conve rsation with the propert y owner to the north to see if they were willing to sell. Mr. Black replied he had not and he did not know when a potential connection would be made, if at all. A resident of Fox Road expressed his concer ns about increase in traffic and also the construction trucks. He stated he wanted to see an access to the north. He expressed concern regarding the drainage. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d May 1 2 , 2 004 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES John Callan, 784 Deerwood Circle, stated there had been nothing presented as to why the comprehensive plan should be changed. He stated the plan had that area zoned that way for a purpose and a reason, and if there was a change, he wanted to hear what the reasoning was in terms of planning were. He asked why was the zoning change good for the community. A resident from 6433 Deerwood Lane , stated there was a lot of violations of the plan including a long cul-de-sac; it did not meet the open green space requiremen ts; and it did not fit the zoning. She expresse d concern about the children’s safety in the area with the increased traffic. She stated it was importa nt this development had a second outlet. She stated it was her opinion that people w ould use Deerwood Lane more heavily. Paul Casanova, 6323 Deerwood Lane, stated he had done some research and talked to many of his neighbors, as well as the develope r. He noted he respected the fact that people were allowed to do whatever they want ed to on their property to an extent, so he did not have a problem with the developmen t itself, but he did have a concern with increase in traffic. He al so believed more people would be driving on Deerwood Lane. He stated he did not agree w ith the single access point. He indicated waiti ng to get out onto Birch Street was an issue. He stated there was more potential of risk taking when people had to wait to get out into traffic. He expressed concern about the loss of wetlands and wildlife habitat. He expressed concern about the density of the project. He asked if a conservation plan would be looked into. Chair Schaps replied a conservation plan would be up to the developer. Mr. Casanova expressed concern about the st ormwater runoff and drainage. He noted any more water on his property would not be good. He expressed concern about the impact to the wetlands and the increase in in sect populations with more stagnant water. He requested a management plan for the wetlands. Steve Cavanagh, 6331 Deerwood Lane, stated he ha d serious issues with the traffic study. He stated having the developer conduct the tr affic study was a conflic t of interest. He noted the traffic study failed and then the de veloper changed an assumption in the study and then it passed. He noted there was no measurement taken on Fox Road, but they only made an assumption. Mark Pederson, 6307 Deerwood Lane, expresse d concern that the developer had not spoken with the property owners to the north about an access. He expressed concern if there was a north entrance onto Old Birch he did not believe this was a safe access. Janice Beach, 6312 Deerwood Lane, stated sh e was on the Association Board and the Board’s concerns had been well addressed by the previous comments including traffic, safety, and drainage. She expressed concern about only having one access for emergency vehicles. She indicated the Association was not pleased with the proposed development. A resident from 6379 Deerwood Lane , stated besides this development, there were four or five other developments going up in th e area and expressed concern about a major increase in the amount of traffic. He aske d why did they need another development at this time with all of the major traffic concer ns. He asked if there were any plans to put Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d May 1 2 , 2 004 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES lights on County Road J and Highway 49. Mr. Grochala replied there were no plans at this time. Marvin Emily, 590 62 nd Street, stated all of this prope rty used to be good hunting ground and now it was not. He expressed concern abou t the wetland changes over the years. Cindy Lambert, 6339 Deerwood Lane, expressed concerns about the traffic and the new developments in the area and the increase of traffic with those new developments. She expressed concern about the water drainage. She noted they had a wetland section right outside of her backyard and asked what would that do to her wetland. Janice Beach, asked if there was going to be a decision made tonight or would it be continued. Mr. Schaps repl ied it was the intent to make a decision tonight. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 7:40 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Grochala indicated this wa s a challenging site. He stated if they could do a project that would benefit the City, then that was a reason to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tralle asked the traffic e ngineer what dictated the upgr ade of a road and what was the prime mover of designing or redesigning th e road. The Traffic Engineer replied the traffic volumes of the road dictated when it n eeded to be upgraded. He indicated this was not a straightforward calculation and was based on many different factors including accesses, driveways, etc. He noted Deerw ood Lane had not been set up as a collector road and it was not fair to the residents to make this a collector road. Mr. Tralle stated the driving force to an improved road was after a development and not before. The Traffic Engineer replie d that was the typical procedure. Mr. Tralle reminded the residents that the people who lived around the association before their development had been build had said the same concerns about traffic. However, he understood their traffic concerns. Mr. Pogalz asked if the neighborhood meeti ng was well received. Mr. Black replied there were 30-40 residents at the meeting. He stated they had presented a concept plan that as very similar to this plan. He no ted the general concern was traffic, but he struggled to find an answer to that concern. He indicated drainage was also expressed as a concern. He noted there were favorabl e and unfavorable comme nts made at that meeting. Chair Schaps asked if there was enough time be fore July 9 to rect ify the issues. Mr. Grochala replied staff would be hard pressed to do this. He noted there were a couple of options available to the develope r. He stated he would pref er to see an extension by the developer to extend the time period or withdr aw this application and draw up with a new application. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d May 1 2 , 2 004 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Black stated he would like a decision made at tonight’s meeting and make a decision with staff as to whether he would carry th e application forward to the City Council. Mr. Root stated challenging design issues we re what many of the plans presented to the City were. He indicated the access issue was a big problem with this development. He agreed that a northern access to Old Birch would also be a pr oblem. He stated he could not support this as it was curre ntly presented to him. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTI ON to recommend denying the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend de nying the MUSA reserve Root and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend denying the Preliminary Plat and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. D. Final Plat for Justin’s Preserve, Sue Carpenter, 171 White Pine Road Staff stated the City Council had approved the preliminary plat for Justin’s Preserve on March 8, 2004. The applicants have requested approval of the final plat. He noted the submitted final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat. There is no development agreement for this project as there are no improvements requiring City involvement. He recommended approval based on the following conditions as summari zed in staff’s May 12, 2004 report: 1. Lot 1 shall connect to city sanitary sewer and water. 2. Issues discussed in the C ity Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. Park dedication of $1,665 shall be paid. 4. Prior to approval of the final plat by th e City Council, the ap plicant shall submit proof that the powerline easement has been confined. 5. Approval by the Rice Creek Watershed Dist rict must be obtained prior to final plat approval by the City Council. Mr. Rafferty left the meeting at 7:56 p.m. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Justin’s Preserve, Sue Carpenter, 171 White Pine Road subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s May 12, 2004 report and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0 (Mr. Rafferty was absent for the vote). E. Final Plat for E agle Brook Addition Staff stated the City Council had approved th e preliminary plat for Eagle Brook Addition on March 22, 2004 with Resolution 04-17. The Church has now submitted a final plat. The final plat conforms with the approved preliminary plat. The City Attorney has reviewed the title commitment. Staff is pr eparing a development agreement, which will Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d May 1 2 , 2 004 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES include financial securities. The financial secu rities will include the co st of a turn lane on the northbound exit ramp off of I-35E as well as street lights at th e site driveways. A revised right of way deed for the exception piece will be submitted prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. A numbe r of other conditions of approval will be addressed in the development agreement, and some must be met prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Rafferty rejoined the meeting at 8:03 p.m. Staff recommended approving the final plat. Chair Schaps gave staff an e-mail he had rece ived from Barbara Boar and the concerns of the Heron Group. Mr. Grochala replied he had responded to Ms. Boar regarding those concerns. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to approve the fi nal plat for Eagle Brook Addition and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0. F. Master Planning process for 360 acres W. of 35E and N. of Main St. – Recommendation to City Council to proceed with process Chair Schaps left the meeting at 8:09 p.m. and rejoined the meeting at 8:11 p.m. Staff stated there was a meeting of all advi sory boards and the City Council on April 29 to hear a proposal to master plan an area abutting 35E. John Fegis of Benchmark Community Builder Collaborative would like to conduct a master planning process for 360 acres on the west side of the freeway, nor th of Main St. The planning would be a collaborative effort with the City. This w ould involve revisiting the comprehensive plan guidance for development in that area as we ll as other policies. He asked if the P&Z wanted to proceed with the master planning. Chair Schaps asked if there had been a co mmittee set up to come up with a plan. Mr. Grochala replied this was an option, but no committee had been set up at this time. Mr. Rafferty stated the previous meeting on April 29 they had a too va gue, and the reality of coming up with a Master Plan was ideal fo r that area, but the problem was that there was nothing to go on. He indicated if they moved forward, the development firm was basically looking to spend money to change the Comprehensive Plan and the City did not know anything or have enough information. He expressed concern about attempting to develop two major developments (the town center and this devel opment) and spreading staff too thin. He noted however, that Ma ster Planning was the key to success for any type of project. Mr. Grochala stated he did not believe they were trying to create another town center on the east side and he believed the two projects would be tota lly different. He noted the project on the east side had been vaguely pr esented on purpose so the community could get involved and get the type of development they wanted for this area. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d May 1 2 , 2 004 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Root stated he agreed w ith Mr. Rafferty. He asked that the development team give them something to start with. He agreed planning out the entire area was the correct approach and getting community involvement wa s also the correct approach, but to give the City a starting point. Mr. Rafferty stated he did not believe this de velopment could be developed within five or six years as the development team had alluded to. He asked if this was a good plan for the City and asked if it was a good idea to change the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Root asked for concept plan s as a starting point. He asked what would make sense economically for that area. Mr. Rafferty asked if staff could physically st retch themselves to do this, or would they need to hire additional staff. He indicated there were economics to look at also. Mr. Grochala replied staffing concerns were an issue and they woul d need to look at shifts of responsibilities, but that would happe n with or without this project. Mr. Tralle stated the percepti on that Lino Lakes was extremely hard to deal with was a valid one and that was the reas on it took so long to get develo pments into the City. He asked them to proceed with optimistic caution. Chair Schaps stated he heard they should proceed, but agreed they should look at concept plans as a starting point. Mr. Pogalz stated he was not c oncerned that they had not seen anything yet. He indicted he was not opposed to the blank sheet con cept because if the co mmunity came together and developed what was wanted there, it would be a great asset. He noted this was the City’s opportunity to work with a develope r for a good development. He believed this was a good process to go through. Mr. Rafferty noted somebody still had to come forward and actually build the development. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend that the City and staff proceed with the Mast Planning Process for 360 acres W. of 35 E and N. of Main St. and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Confirm date of special meeting to discuss signage: June 16, 2004 Staff stated due to the lengthy agendas for th e past several months, the P&Z has not had the opportunity to discuss the temporary signage issue to any great exte nt. Discussions of the issue began at the June 2003 meeting, and wa s tabled repeatedly. The last time this was discussed, the P&Z decided to have a spec ial meeting devoted sole ly to the topic. Last month, staff suggested June 16, 2004 and asked the board members to check their calendars. Staff would like the P&Z to confirm this date so staff can send out notices to business owners. He noted staff was not at tempting to mail a letter to every single Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d May 1 2 , 2 004 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES business in the city, but to select representativ e businesses, and invite them to inform any other business owner who might be intereste d. He indicated the ultimate goal is to prepare amendments to the sign ordinance that will address temporary signage. OTHER Chair Schaps stated the June meeting would probably be his last meeting as a member of the Board due to his intended relocation to another City. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:56 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .