Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/2004 P&Z Minutes CITY OF L I NO LAKE S PLANNING & Z O NING BOARD MINUT E S DATE : September 8, 2004 TIME STARTED : 6:32 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:27 P.M. MEMBERS PRES ENT : Hyden, Lade n, Rafferty, Root, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT : Lane and Pogalz . STAFF PRESENT : Jeff S m yser; Jam es Studenski; and Paul Be ngtson I. CAL L TO ORDE R AND ROL L CAL L Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Boar d m eeting to order at 6:32 p.m ., September 8, 2004. Mayor Bergeson swore in Mr. Laden to the Planning and Zoning Board. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 16, 2004 and AUG UST 11, 2004 Mr. Tralle m a de a MOTION approve th e June 16, 2004 and August 11, 2004 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open m i ke open at 6:35 p.m . There was no one present for Open Mike Chair Rafferty closed the open m i ke at 6:37 p.m . V. ACTION I TEMS A. PUBLI C HEARI NG, for Re z o nin g to PUD and a Preliminary Plat for Fox Den Acres, Royal Oa ks Realty, a 50-a cre develo p m ent south of Birch Street and east of Deerw ood Lane, at the east end of Fox Road Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 6:38 p.m . DRAF T MINUTES Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Sep t em b e r 8, 20 04 Page 2 DRAFT MINUTES Staff stated applicant had re quested approval of a single fa mily residential development called Fox Den Acres. This is a new submittal of a plan that is different from the previous design reviewed several months a go. The comprehensive plan guides the site for low-density residential use and it is zoned R-1. The site is in the existing MUSA. A PUD is not allowed in a single-family zone, so a rezone to PUD w ould be necessary. He stated the Fox Den Acres Project, with some revisions, could be a good example of a conservation development. This will require the cooperation of the City, the developer, and the Rice Creek Watershed District. Sta ff has met with the Watershed District and Royal Oaks representatives to discuss how best to pursue a conservation development and increasing higher quality wetland and upl and areas. The design has not yet been determined. Because of this, we are reco mmending continuing the public hearing to October. At that time, we hope to present a design that will further the greenway goals of the community. Staff presented their analysis and reco mmended opening the public hearing, taking comments, and continuing the public hearing to next month’s meeting. Mr. Root asked what exactly was the public hearing for toni ght. Mr. Smyser replied the purpose was to hear public comment and some of the comments heard tonight could possibly be incorporated into the final plan. Mr. Laden asked how many acres of greenway were being proposed. Mr. Smyser replied he did not have that information yet. He not ed this was a conceptual plan. He indicated most of the greenway area was along the sout hern and eastern side of the property. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agains t the application to make comment. Bill Ojile, 6420 Deerwood Lane, stated he wa s not against development, but wanted to know how this development would affect hi s neighborhood. He expressed concern about the increase in traffic through his neighborhood. He asked what the other acreage around this development was zoned as. Chair Raffert y replied he believed there could be some development in the future, but it wa s not a part of this development. Mr. Ojile asked what was a traffic study and how did they arrive at their numbers. Mr. Smyser replied traffic studies made certain assumptions. He stated the engineers looked at the existing roads and made educated guesse s as to the traffic and flow on them. He stated the City Engineer had l ooked at this traffic study to see if it made sense for the City and in this case, the traffi c study did make sense. Mr. Ojile stated in general the traffic study assumed approximately 50-60 trips in both the morning and evening. Mr. Smyser replied he di d not have the data in front of him, but it was assumed that half of the traffic would go north and half of the traffic would go south. He noted right now all of the traffic went to Birch Street. Mr. Ojile suggested they have these numbers for the next meeting. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Sep t em b e r 8, 20 04 Page 3 DRAFT MINUTES Chair Rafferty asked if Mr. Ojile was speak ing for the neighbor hood group. Mr. Ojile replied he was only speaking for himself. Mr. Tralle stated he understood it was swamp in the area and the road to the north would be a stub street and there would be no road going to the south. Mr. Ojile stated the associat ion had spent a lot of mone y on their ponds and requested when this development was laid out that th e development did not affect their ponds. He asked their ponds be buffered from this development. Chair Rafferty stated the developer and th e Board were aware of the traffic and pond issues. Debbie Heider, 748 Fox Road, expressed concern re garding traffic. She stated their road was busy the way it was and she did not want to see it increase. She indicated it was not reasonable to add 60 homes with no access to major roadways, other than through existing developments. She noted she had s poken with a lot of he r neighbors and there was a lot of concern about the possible increase of traffic. Tim Abraham, 767 Fox Road, also expresse d concern about the one access into the development and the increase of traffic on Deerwood Lane and Fox Road. He noted Deerwood Lane and Fox Road were not collect or roads. He expressed concern for the safety of the children in the area. He enc ouraged the developer to investigate purchasing the property to the north to put in another access. Dawn Kenny, 6299 Red Maple Lane, asked w ho would be taking care of the existing swamp. She expressed concern about the increa se of mosquitoes. She expressed concern that additional water would be added to this swamp creating more problems. She inquired about emergency vehicle access a nd expressed concern there would not be adequate access for the emergency vehicles. Resident, Deerwood Lane, expressed concer n about the traffic increase on Deerwood Lane. He expressed concern for the safety of the children in the area. He noted he had contacted the City about speed ing on Deerwood Lane and addi ng additional cars to this area was a concern. Rick Kamrath, 779 Deerwood Circle, expressed concern about the drainage system and the ponds. Mr. Studenski re plied the design was curren tly underway for the new development and noted City regulations di d not allow additional drainage onto the existing properties. He stated the Ci ty was aware of the pond concerns. Mr. Kamrath asked what was the timeline of th is development. Mr. Smyser replied the development would not be started this year , but there may be some activity going on at some point next year. He st ated the growth management policy did not allow any further development this year and there was very little growth allowed next year. He noted they were not even sure they would be approvi ng this development so it was premature to state when the development would begin. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Sep t em b e r 8, 20 04 Page 4 DRAFT MINUTES Jim Sievert, 770 Deerwood Circle, asked how was this property being rezoned. Mr. Smyser stated the rezoning was necessary if they were going to do a conservation development because some lot sizes would need to be adjusted in order to achieve the environmental pluses they were attempting. Mr. Sievert asked if there was a plan in place when the current zoning was put into effect. Mr. Smyser replied this was zoned R-1, which was single-family development. He noted this was the same type of zoning as the developments around it. Mr. Sievert asked why they needed to change the original plan. Mr. Smyser replied they were not changing the original use of the site or what would be built on the site. He indicated they were hoping to change how it would be configured on the site, which would be more environmentally friendly. He stated the current zoning on the site would not allow a conservation development and that was the reason for the rezoning. Mr. Sievert asked why the City was not changi ng all of the R-1 zonings so all future developments were environmentally friendly. Mr. Smyser replied developments already developed could not be changed. The City was considering a rezoning to a PUD, which could change some lot sizes. Mr. Sievert expressed concern th at the existing streets were very narrow and the increase of traffic in the existing developments. Al Stender, 6379 Deerwood Lane, expressed co ncern about the increase in traffic in general and the increase in construction trucks, etc. during development. He asked if the developer was responsible for any repairs to Deerwood due to the construction trucks. Mr. Studenski replied the C ity took pictures of the ex isting roads prior to any development and the developer was responsible to repair any damage to those roads. Mark Pederson, 6307 Deerwood Lane, asked if Deerwood Lane was considered a collector road. Mr. Studen ski replied Deerwood Lane was not a collector road. Mr. Pederson asked who prepared the traffic study. Mr. Studenski replied the developer hired for the traffic study and that traf fic study was then reviewed by the City. Mr. Pederson asked how did the City know the traffic study was accurate. Mr. Studenski replied the City had their engineering fi rm, TKDA, review the study for accuracy. Mr. Pederson expressed concern about the ch ildren walking to school and the lack of sidewalks in the area. Mr. Studenski stated these roads were de signed to handle the additional traffic. Mr. Pederson inquired about the access onto Birch Street. Chair Rafferty noted Birch Street did not have anything to do with th is discussion and he suggested Mr. Pederson contact Anoka County regarding tr affic concerns on Birch Street. Mr. Studenski noted the traffic study did address traffic on Birch Street. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Sep t em b e r 8, 20 04 Page 5 DRAFT MINUTES Resident, Deerwood Lane, expressed concern ab out the increase of traffic during the day in his neighborhood. He stated adding an additional 50-60 homes would add additional traffic and he requested the traffic study a ddress the traffic during off peak hours. Mr. Studenski explained how the tr affic study was prepared. He noted while the traffic study made generalizations, there were design standa rd projections that we re followed through on a traffic study. Heather Parony (sp?), 745 Fox Road, expresse d concern regarding tr affic and the safety of children in the area. She encouraged th e Board to have a second access in this development. She stated she was a new re sident in the neighborhood and chose this neighborhood because she did not wa nt to live on a busy street. Bill Ojile, asked the City to get actual trip counts today and determine what this development would add to the traffic. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, stated he c ould understand the anxiety of the residents in the area. He stated they had been working w ith the Board and City staff for some months on this development. He stated they were not able to submit a plan at this meeting was because Rice Creek Watershed District was still working on a MnRAM study. He indicated this type of study took a lot of time. He stated he hoped they would have a plan at the October meeting. He noted the applica tion to the City was for a preliminary plat and did not ask for any variances . He indicated they were aw are of the traffic concern. He stated he could have the tr affic engineer at the next mee ting to answer any questions. He stated the study showed the increase of tra ffic would not have a si gnificant impact to the existing neighborhoods. He noted they would be working closely with the City Engineer on the drainage concer ns. He stated they would provide stormwater quality and rate control. He noted impacts to the wetla nds would lead to mitigation and there would be areas that were upland today that would n eed to be used as mitigation areas for this development. He indicated they would do th eir best to address the concerns brought up at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Hyden asked if there had been any nei ghborhood meetings. Mr. Black stated early on they had a neighborhood meeting. He belie ved the meeting was held in March, 2003. Mr. Laden asked what kind of market would these homes be marketed to and the price range of the homes. Mr. Black replied they were looking for single-family lots comparable to Pheasant Hills. He stated by the time the lots were valued, he believed the homes would be at $500,000.00. Mr. Root stated that he wanted to see tra ffic and drainage issues addressed thoroughly at the next meeting. He asked for specific, te chnical details and recommended the traffic engineer be present at that meeting. Chair Rafferty stated while traffic was a conc ern, the developer had the right to develop the property. He noted the hearing would be continued until next month. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Sep t em b e r 8, 20 04 Page 6 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend con tinuing the public hear ing to the October P&Z meeting and was supported by Mr . Tralle. Motion carried 4-0. B. PUBLIC HEARING for Preliminary Plat for Speiser Acres, Jeff & Marni Sawyer, the combination and subdivision of three existing lots to result in three lots, 453 Birch Street Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 8:02 p.m. Staff stated applicants were requesting approval of a single-family residential development called Speiser Acres. The propert y within the subdivision consists of three existing lots, one with an existing single-f amily dwelling, and two lots of vacant land. The lot for the existing single-family dwelling will be enlarged to include the land on which some accessory buildings have been constructed. Another single-family residential lot with frontage onto Birch Street will be created, and the remaining acreage will be combined into one large lot. Staff noted this application highlights an unusual situation that should be corrected. There are five existing homes on the north side of Birch Street that are outside of the MUSA boundary. Two of the five are on city sewe r, and one of the five is on city water. As part of the building a new single-family dwelling on the single-family residential lot created by this plat, city util ity connection will be required for the new lot. To prepare for the possibility of future utility connections along birch Street, th e city should allocate MUSA reserve to all of the lots fronting on Bi rch Street, with the exception of the large ‘outlot’ being created as part of this plat. That lot should not have MUSA allocation until such time as further development occurs. Staff presented their analysis and recomme nded approving the applic ation, including the allocation of 6.5 acres of 2004 MUSA reserve and the preliminary pl at, subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot 2 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. Permit from the Rice Creek Watershed Distri ct prior to City Council approval of a final plat. Mr. Laden asked if they had used any of the 2004 MUSA reserve yet. Mr. Bengtson replied there was some MUSA still available. Mr. Hyden asked if there was wetland on Lot 2. Mr. Bengtson replied there was wetland on Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Root asked about the eventual development of the outlot. He asked if there was anyway to make a connection if this outlot was developed in the future. Mr. Bengtson Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Sep t em b e r 8, 20 04 Page 7 DRAFT MINUTES replied the majority of the build able land would be on the west side of the parcel, so there would not be a way to have an access where the new lot was being created. Mr. Root expressed concern about the access and suggested an easement be recorded for a future road. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Root inquired about an exis ting home being constructed. Jeff Speiser, 453 Birch Street, applicant, st ated the home Mr. Root was referring to was owned by his son-in-law, who was reconstr ucting it and it was not a part of this application. He stated his da ughter and son-in-law would be living in the new home and he would continue to live in the existing home. Mr. Tralle asked if they pla nned on doing anything with the la rge lot in the future. Mr. Speiser replied they were not planning on doing anything with that lot. Mr. Speiser stated they were in agreement with the condition s as noted in staff’s report. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or against the application to make comment. Ms. Robinson, Hokah Drive, expressed concer n about access to the ar ea if it would be developed. She asked how would constructi on traffic access this lot if it would be developed. Resident, 6501 Hokah Drive, expressed con cern about constructi on traffic coming down his street and the repair of the road damage. Chair Rafferty closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend ap proving the preliminary plat for Speiser Acres, Jeff & Marni Sawyer, subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s September 8, 2004 report and allocation of 6.5 acres of MUSA reserve and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0. Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 8:28 p.m . and reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Temporary Signage Mr. Smyser stated they have been discussi ng temporary signage issues for some time. The extensive use of signage such as ba nners, cardboard signs, and other temporary signage by some businesses has created con cern over the unsightly appearance of the businesses. He indicated sta ff had invited business owners to two meetings to discuss the issue, including a specia l P&Z meeting on June 16. The meeting attendance was Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Sep t em b e r 8, 20 04 Page 8 DRAFT MINUTES disappointingly sparse, but the people who di d attend took the opportuni ty to raise some important points. Staff presented its analysis and noted they ha d conducted an informal poll of some of the local businesses. He noted ove rall the reaction to the poll was one of interest in working with the City to get a procedure/policy in pl ace that would allow bus inesses to advertise their products and gain more visi bility while still enforcing some aesthetic control. Some even offered potential compromises such as requiring all temporary signage to be professionally lettered. The vast majority reinforced their belief that the temporary signage was necessary to gain the attention of consumers and build their customer base. He noted when asked if the businesses had re quirements from their distributors to put signage up, no one answered affirmatively. Those who did receive their signage from their distributors did so only at the businesses request or as promotional items to be used at the businesses discretion. On e of the businesses did state th at the signage they used to advertise tobacco products was posted by th e distributor on a regular basis, though whether the distributor “required” the signage could not be confirmed or denied. Based on this, staff cannot provide definitive inform ation to support or deny the contention that the cigarette and liquor manufacturers or distributors requi re the retailer to display the temporary signs. If business owners have evidence of such a requirement, they should provide it. Mr. Hyden stated he wanted to take two or three options at a time and discuss them. He stated he noticed the other Citi es did not address real estate signs and that appeared to be a concern with the real estate agents in the area. He stated he did not see this as a concern. Chair Rafferty also agreed that real estate signs were not of a concern and this did not need to be addressed further. Mr. Laden asked if the current Ordinance a ddressed signs in the right-of-way. Mr. Smyser replied the Ordinance did address this and signs were not permitted in the right- of-way. He noted, however, the problem was that there was insufficient staff time to monitor these types of signs. Mr. Tralle stated it has been his observation that since this sign i ssue had been discussed, the signage in the City has gotten worse. He stated temporary signs were an eyesore and he did not want them allowed in the City. Mr. Root stated there were other ways to ca tegorize signs as well. He noted there were individual and business signs be ing put up and they needed to address these differences. Mr. Laden asked if it was legal to remove signs out of a right-of-way. Mr. Smyser replied the City did remove the signs. Mr. Hyden asked if they were banning all te mporary signs or not. He noted if they banned all temporary signs, there woul d be no need for a further discussion. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Sep t em b e r 8, 20 04 Page 9 DRAFT MINUTES Chair Rafferty stated he was in favor of temporary signage. Mr. Hyden replied he agreed there was a place for temporary signage. Mr. Root agreed there was a place for temporary signage depending on what was considered temporary. Mr. Laden agreed. Mr. Tralle stated if they allowed tempor ary signage, how would it be regulated. He stated as long as the signs were very shor t-term, one or two days, he might agree to temporary signage. He indicated he unders tood churches and schools would want to advertise their special events. Mr. Hyden asked if they could agree they woul d have temporary signs with restrictions. The remainder of the Board agreed to this. Chair Rafferty asked staff to come up with a list of restrictions with in the next couple of months. Mr. Tralle said he did not want to disc uss this issue if there would not be any enforcement of it. Mr. Root suggested they discuss enforcement process at their next meeting. Chair Rafferty stated they needed to discuss signs in the right-of-w ay. Mr. Tralle noted they did not need to discuss signs in the right-of-way becau se signs in the right-of-way were already not allowed. Mr. Smyser stated enforcement was a staffi ng responsibility and it was up to staff to determine how this would be enforced. Chair Rafferty stated the topic of discu ssion would be wasteful if there was no enforcement. Mr. Bengston suggested they break down the signs into categories and discuss each type of sign individually at the next meeting. Mr. Tralle asked if staff would inform the City Council that the P&Z wanted to clean up the right-of-ways and wanted the temporary signs removed. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend staff enfor ce the existing right-of-way Ordinance and if staff needs City Council appr oval that the Board recommend to the City Council to enforce the current right-of-way Ordinance a nd was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 4-0. B. Master Plan – Hodgson Road (49) and County Road J Staff stated this was an informal item to let the P&Z know about an important planning project. He noted they had begun a study of the area near the in tersection of Hodgson Road and Ash Street (CSAH 49 and County Road J). The study will examine current land use as well as infrastructu re, including road, water, and sa nitary sewer. The goal is Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Sep t em b e r 8, 20 04 Page 10 DRAFT MINUTES to have a master plan that will guide development in the area. The area is guided and zoned for commercial or mixed use developmen t. However, the current infrastructure cannot support such development. This is one of several areas wh ere the comprehensive plan did not sufficiently consider the infras tructure capacities. The master plan will examine such issues and will serve as basis for possible recommendations for any amendments to the comprehensive plan, utility plan, or other documents or policies. Mr. Laden asked if the City knew what was going in place of the 49 Club. Mr. Smyser replied he believed a larger bar/restaurant establishment would be proposed. However, he noted there was not existing water on the site and it would be a diffi cult process to run water lines to this site. Mr. Laden asked if there was any discussion abou t a traffic light in the area. Mr. Smyser replied the development would not be large enough to justify a traffic light at that intersection. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:27 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .