HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/2003 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 6:31
p.m., February 12, 2003.
II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 8, 2003 and January 22, 2003
Mr. Corson made a MOTION approve the January 8, 2003 and January 22, 2003 Minutes
and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carrie d (4-0-2) (Lane and Tralle abstained).
IV.OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m.
There was no one present for Open Mike
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:33 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Rafferty. Motion carried 6-0.
V.ACTION ITEMS
A.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Charles Pfingsten, Charlie’s Tree
Service, 908 ½ Maple Street, Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 6:34 p.m.
Staff stated this applicati on was heard at the January 8 th meeting of the Planning &
Zoning Board. Background, history and analysis was given at that time. At the January
DATE: February 12, 2003
TIME STARTED: 6:31 P.M.
TIME ENDED: 1:28 A.M., February 13, 2003
MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyden, Lane, Lyden, Schaps and Tralle
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Smyser; Michael Grochala; Tanda Gretz;
James Studenski; Bob Kirmis (NAC); Police Chief
Pecchia; Fire Chief Bennett
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 2
8 th meeting a number of residents of the Ma ple Street neighborhood spoke about their
concerns for the proposed use. The reside nts voiced a number of concerns about past
practices on the site, includi ng noise, excess traffic, late/i rregular hours, and parking
issues. Residents stated they didn’t want such conditions to reoccur.
Board members stated that they would not s upport a rezoning of th e property to any kind
of a commercial or industrial us e, but felt that the applicant and residents might be able to
come to some agreement/acceptance of use for the site if they could sit down and discuss
the issue with one another. Board members st ated that since the site had a conditional
use permit for an auto body shop, another such shop could potentially move into the site
in the future. Board members advised resi dents that the applicant’s proposed use was
lower in intensity than that of another auto body shop, and so it might be in the best
interest of the neighborhood to support such a proposed use.
Planning & Zoning Board Chairman Schaps then directed the applicant, residents, and
staff that the following should take place be fore the next meeting of the Planning &
Zoning Board:
1.) Staff is to find a way to cover Mr. Pfingsten’s proposed use by means of a
Conditional Use Permit.
2.) The interested parties (r esidents & Mr. Pfingsten) should meet and, if
possible, draw up a list of conditions for inclusion in the Conditional Use
Permit.
3.) Mr. Pfingsten should provide a complete site plan, specifically noting what
vehicles are to be parked on the site, and where. Additionally, Mr. Pfingsten
should specifically address the issue of whether any repairs to vehicles are
ever to take place on the site.
A memo/letter was then sent to the applicant and residents on January 17 th outlining what
action should take place before the Februa ry meeting. The memo also included
information on a number of issues residents had expressed concern over.
Staff presented its analysis by explaining Mr. Pfingsten and residents met on January
27 th , and all felt it to be a good meeting. Past hi story and concerns rela ted to the site were
discussed, as well as Mr. Pfingsten’s proposed use for the future. Applicant and residents
came up with the following list of conditions for the site, which are proposed to be
attached to a Conditional Use Permit:
1.) Hours of operation:
April through October: 7:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. (or no more than 1 hr. past
sunset)
Winter months: 7:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.
*(occasional exceptions: storm damage or snow storms)
2.) Parking:
a.) No more than two or three passenge r vehicles on the North side of the
street
(no overnight parking).
b.) Parallel to the roadway or on shoulder.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 3
c.) No blocking of street during ingress/egress.
d.) No parking on the South side of street.
3.) Equipment storage:
a.) Height: no more than privacy fence or natural trees or other
landscaping “barrier” (see item 4 below).
Note: Barrier must conceal equipment, product, & vehicles,
without any breaks in barrier. Th e exception for this permit is the
“field office trailer.”
b.) Must be able to be stored within confines of fences area.
4.) Building, fence, landscape; Must meet requirements for a aesthetically
pleasing look for the neighborhood.
*(It is understood that there will be a time allotment for the maturity of
newly planted trees)
a.) Kept painted in a professional manner, general upkeep of
building/grounds.
b.) Trees, shrubs, grass, weeds kept groomed.
c.) Removal of “scrub” trees.
5.) Daily business activity (ie; test driv ing down Maple Street is prohibited)
6.) Noise/air quality (ie; extensive idling of diesel equipment, exhausting
unfiltered air or particles into the atmosphere is not allowed)
a.) No manufacturing/processing equipm ent that creates noise levels
inappropriate for residentia l environment (db level?).
7.) Sewer/water/soil conditions to be with in state and local code requirements.
*(soil testing must be performed and documented before transfer of
property ownership)
8) Disposal of hazardous waste on site (ie; improperly installed floor drains or
containment tanks, or no pumped out by an approved waste management
company) will not be allowed.
9) Septic systems to be consistent with type and/or activity of proposed business.
Permits must be filed with City for activity related to septic system.
10) Runoff from cleaning equipment must be contained in an environmentally
safe manner consistent with EPA/MPCA standards.
11) Weight restrictions for the street must be obeyed.
12) No changes in outdoor lighting to be allowed that would interfere with
neighbors privacy.
13)Renewal of this permit to be enforced as per the City of Lino Lakes, with
renewal requirements provided to neighbors.
Mr. Pfingsten submitted the following conditions:
• Fence will be painted by June 2003
• Remove webbing from gate so police can see in
• Replace back gate with fence by June 2003
• Plant 9 evergreens to border fence
• Keep garbage container inside building
• Minor maintenance and repairs to equipment permissible (oil changes,
washing, etc.)
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 4
• Will not park any equipment outside fenced area
• No wood piles or wood chips will ever be stored at this site
As background, and for comparison, staff attach ed the previous CUP for the site, which
also had a number of conditions.
Certificate of Occupancy
The parties seem to be in agreement on all of the above conditions, with the exception of
#7, which relates to the inspection of the soil , water, and septic system on the property.
This condition is written so as to be fulfille d by the current owner of the property, prior to
Mr. Pfingsten taking ownership.
In light of such issues, it is important to draw attention to Sec tion 2, subdiv. 8 of the
City’s zoning ordinance, which relates to Certificate of Occupancy. This subdivision
stipulates that any change of use (of land or st ructure) requires a C.O. It is through such a
process that the City verifies that property and structures ar e up to code. In the present
instance, the C.O. process can be used to verify septic conditions on site.
Applicants Intended Use
At the January meeting, Chair Schaps direct ed the applicant to address the following
specific issues:
• What vehicles are to be parked on the site, and where.
• If any repairs to vehicles are to take place on the site.
• Provide a complete Site Plan, noti ng where vehicles would be parked.
Mr. Pfinsten has drawn a site plan noting wher e the two items to be stored outside will be
parked (a 16-foot Bobcat tra iler & a Trailer used for field research). No repairs beyond
general maintenance (oil changes) are envi sioned to take place on the property. Any
general maintenance procedures would take place inside the pole building.
Conditional Use Permit Proposal
At the January meeting Chair Schaps directed staff to find a way to cover Mr. Pfingsten’s
proposed use through use of a Conditional Us e Permit. Since the property is zoned
Rural, and the City’s Zoning Ordinance doe s not currently allow any conditional use
similar to that which the applicant is pr oposing, the Zoning Ordinance must be amended
to achieve this objective. If amended, howev er, such a conditional use could then take
place on any property zoned Rural in the City.
To that end, language such as the following might be appropriate to add to Section 5,
subdiv. 1.H of the Zoning Ordinance (Rural Conditional Uses):
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 5
“Tree care & servicing businesses, provided that:
• No byproducts are stored on site (woodchips, brush, etc.)
• Outdoor storage of vehicles is limited
• All outdoor storage is completely screened
Planning & Zoning members should direct staff as to their desire to change the zoning
ordinance in this way. If such a change is desired, it might be most appropriate to include
it with the other proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance that are now under
consideration.
In conclusion, Staff has followed the dire ction of the Planning & Zoning Board, as
outlined at their January 8 th meeting: the applicant and neighborhood residents have met
and drawn up a list of conditions to govern the proposed use for the subject property,
which is to be controlled via a Conditiona l Use Permit; Mr. Pfingsten has submitted a site
plan that details where/what outdoor storage is to take place; staff has submitted possible
language to use in amending the Zoning Ordi nance to allow the conditional use proposed
by the applicant.
As a change to the zoning ordinance such as that being proposed would result in a
commercial-type use to occur on propert y guided residential under the City’s
comprehensive plan, members may want to examine the need to amend the
comprehensive plan.
Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment.
Mr. Pfingsten stated he had met with the neighbors and he understood their concerns. He
stated he found they were all agreeable wi th what he had planned, but they were in
disagreement with the soil testing. He noted he had been in contact with the previous
owner, who stated he had installed a holdi ng tank. He stated the septic system was
another issue. He stated the owner had not obtained a permit for the system, but had put
it in himself. He stated he did not know if the septic system met the standards today.
With respect to the environmental tests, th e former owner was willing to pay for one-half
of the test if the lender required it.
Chair Schaps asked how much would an envir onmental test cost. Mr. Pfingsten replied it
could go anywhere from $2,000.00 to $20,000.00.
Chair Schaps asked other than those two issues , where they in agreement. Mr. Pfingsten
replied that was correct.
Mr. Pfingsten stated he would be willing to put in a street light, wh ich was also requested
by one of the residents.
Chair Schaps asked staff what kind of inspec tion was done for a Certificate of Occupancy
to be issued. Mr. Smyser replied the issue was the septic system, which the City did not
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 6
even know was even in existence. He noted it would be appropriate for the City to see
what was there.
Chair Schaps asked what type of an inspec tion would be done and would it be sufficient
to satisfy the neighbors. Mr. Smyser replie d he did not know what type of inspection
would be necessary – it depended if there was a septic system there or not. He stated it
was difficult to determine what was needed when they did not know what was out there.
He noted they would need to have the building inspector look at the area.
Mr. Pfingsten stated he believ ed the septic system and drainfield was located outside the
paved area. He noted no cars would be driv ing over it. He stated he would have the
septic system pumped every year, which w ould be adequate with the amount of use it
would get.
Chair Schaps invited the neighbors to speak.
Kevin Hedgers, representative of the nei ghborhood, stated they had a good meeting and
they had nothing else to add that staff did not already state. He noted they would like to
have the septic system investigated and an environmental study done.
Mr. Lyden stated the issue of the soil borings and whether there was anything there, he
did not believe they had any c oncrete evidence that there was any issue there, and if there
was an issue there, it was something that had been there for a long ti me. With respect to
the septic, he agreed it needed to be investigated and clean ed out every two years. He
noted there be very limited use of the septic system. He stated he was for the CUP, but
not for amending the zoning ordinance. Mr. Smyser stated they needed to amend the
text, to allow the CUP.
Mr. Tralle stated he did not believe a text change would change all other rural areas,
except for another tree service.
Mr. Corson noted if they did change this in a rural area, it would a pply also to any farm
site and there might be something resulti ng they do not anticipate by making such a
zoning text change. He asked if there was any sense in looking at this area as a rural
commercial zone. Chair Schaps replied he di d not believe the City had this type of a
classification. He asked staff if rez oning to an RBR zone helped this issue.
Mr. Smyser replied the RBR dist rict was created to plan fo r future industrial area along
35E. He noted the concern he had for rezoning the site was did they really want to create
one small parcel in the City that was a diffe rent zone than everyt hing else around it. He
noted if they were going to rezone prope rty, it should be c onsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Schaps noted he did not believe this w ould be inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 7
Mr. Tralle stated he had a tree business ne xt to his property and he has had no problems
with this tree business. He noted a tr ee business was a good business to have in a
residential area.
Mr. Smyser noted if the Ordinance was amended, the applicant could not move in until it
was approved. He noted the schedule for th e Zoning Ordinance revisions was tentative
approval in mid to late April, 2003.
Mr. Corson asked how the applicant would obey th e weight restrictions on the road in the
spring. Mr. Pfingsten replied he ran medium duty trucks and there would be no weight
restriction problems.
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to direct staff to formulate language as to a Conditional
Use in a rural zone, prepare the necessary documents to amend the Zoning Ordinance
accordingly, and prepare the necessary documents to approve applicant’s application, and
to direct staff to conduct an inspection of th e property for the septic system. The motion
was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6-0.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. The motion was
supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6-0.
B.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 1 st –
7 th Additions (formerly Behm’s Century Farm 6 th – 10 th Additions) South of
Main Street and North of Carl Street – Section 7, Rezone, MUSA Allocation
and Preliminary Plat
Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m.
Staff explained Century Farm North Development, Inc. has requested approval of a 249
unit, low and medium density residential development (Century Farm North) located
upon a 95.1-acre site north of Thomas Street and east of Sunset Road .
Specifically, the proposal calls for 33 low density and 216 medium density units upon
85.3 net acres of land resulting in a net density of 2.92 units per acre.
To accommodate the development proposal, the following approvals are necessary:
1. MUSA Reserve Allocation (85.3 acres)
2. Rezoning from R (rural) to R-1 (single fa mily residential) and R-3, Medium Density
Residential.
3. PDO to allow airplane hangers, private streets and multiple buildings on a single lot.
4. Preliminary Plat.
Initial development submissions for the project were received on November 22, 2002.
Subsequently, City staff prepared a planning report dated December 11, 2002 and a
report addendum dated January 8, 2003.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 8
The December staff report outlined 26 conditions that required additional attention prior
to the City taking formal action on the a pplications. At the subsequent December
meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board contin ued the hearing with suggestion that the
applicant work to address the various concer ns of staff. In response to the Board’s
directive, the applicant submitted revised plans dated December 16, 2002.
The January report addendum outlined four prim ary topics that staff felt needed to be
addressed before the Century Farm project pr oceeds. Input on such issues was provided
at the January Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
Staff stated the intent of this report is to provide a comprehensive and detailed review of
the plan set dated January 20, 2003 incorpor ating input received by the Planning and
Zoning Board at the December and January meetings.
Staff presented its analysis by noting with respect to existing conditions - while the
physical characteristics of the site make development challenging, such characteristics
also offer unique design possibilities. The northeasterly portion of the site is open
meadow with scattered brush and trees. The southern portion of the site includes wooded
areas, wetlands and a County ditch and border s the Lino Air Park. The western portion
of the site is somewhat fragmented due to a number of property exceptions along Sunset
Road and includes several acres of unbuildable wetland areas.
MUSA Reserve Allocation. To accommodate the proposed development, the allocation
of 83.5 acres of MUSA will be necessary. Considering that the Comprehensive Plan
calls for the urbanization of the subject property, such allocation is considered
appropriate.
To be noted is that the City’s Growth Management Ordinance establishes a MUSA
reserve limitation of 36 acres annually in the years 2003 through 2009 and an average
limitation of 147 housing units per year during the same time period. The phasing plan
for the project must be consistent with these requirements. This issue will be discussed
in greater detail in the phasi ng discussion of this report.
Land Use and Zoning. The City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for sewered low density
residential uses in the southwest portion of the site and medium density uses on the
balance of the site. The proposed land use de signations are consistent with the land use
directives of the Comprehensive Plan.
To be noted is that the r ezoning request also includes a PDO, Planned Develop Overlay
to allow airplane hangers, private streets and multiple buildings on a single lot.
Additionally, the PDO can accommodate the proposed detached townhome development
concept (a deviation from R-1 District requirements).
Unit types. The concept plan calls for four different housing types, single family
(traditional) 33 units; single family (airpark ), includes accessory airplane hangers; 15;
single family (detached townhomes) 75; townhomes (traditional) 126
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 9
It is the intent of the appli cant to locate the varied housing types such that a transition in
land use intensity exists. Ge nerally speaking, low intensity residential uses are proposed
in the southern portion of the site with hi gher density townhomes located in the northeast
corner of the property. The proposed land use transition is consistent with the land use
directives of the Comprehensive Plan and is considered a positive aspect of the
development plan.
Examples of the proposed housing types have been submitted and are attached to this
report. While finish materials have not be en specified, building el evations illustrate a
variety of roof styles, window and door treat ments and are considered generally positive.
Particularly positive are th e attached townhome elevations where varied roof and
window treatments promote dwelling unit individuality.
Density. The development proposal calls for a to tal of 249 dwelling units resulting in an
overall net density of 2.92 units per acre.
The proposed densities consistent with the di rectives of the Comprehensive Plan and are
therefore considered acceptable.
Street Configuration. The Carl Street/Century Trai l extension through the site is
considered positive as it fulf ills a directive of the City’s Transportation Plan. While the
street is not a continuous, uninterrupted colle ctor street route, th e intersection in the
southeast corner of the site is considered an acceptable compromise considering traffic
speed related concerns voiced by area resident s. Several issues regarding the proposed
street configuration and resulting traffic flow do however exist as summarized below:
• The connection to Carl Street should be made as part of the proposed
development. While such connection n eed not be immediate, the connection
should be made no later than as part of the second phase of the development.
• To improve vehicular convenience, provid e a more efficient traffic flow and
minimize home exposure to oncoming traffic however, it was previously
recommended by staff that the street loca ted approximately 150 feet north of the
Carl Street/Century Trail intersection be shifted southward to create a four way
intersection. While this suggestion was not supported by the Planning and Zoning
Board it remains a concern of staff.
Lot Size and Setbacks.
While the “traditional” single family lots have been found to meet or exceed to minimum
R-1 district dimensional requirements, two concerns exist as summarized below:
• Considering that Carl Street/Century Trail is expected to be a high volume
roadway, it is the opinion of staff that the impact of such roadway upon Lots 5 and 6,
Block 2 (at the intersection of Sunset Road and Century Tr ail) could be lessened by
providing interior access to such lots from the northeast via the proximate cul-de-sac. In
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 10
previous discussion of this issue, the Pl anning and Zoning Board did not share staff’s
concern.
• Concern exists in regard to the drivew ay location of Lot 7, Block 6 (as depicted
on the preliminary site plan). To minimi ze vehicular conflicts with the adjacent
intersection, it is suggested th at the driveway be shifted eastward to the extent possible.
Airpark Lots. As shown on the submitted development plans, the subject site borders
the Lino Airpark and includes 15 “airpark” lots. To accommodate such lots, the
processing of a PDO is necessary. Consider ing that the Comprehensive Plan identifies
the airpark as a long-term use within the City and that non-i nhabitable structures over the
gas line are preferred, the inclusion of such lo ts is considered gene rally acceptable. In
regard to such lots however, some c oncerns do exist as summarized below:
• The locations of Lots 4 and 9, Block 4. Of primary concern is the location of an
airpark lot (Lot 4. Block 4) between two “t raditional” single family lots and the
adjacency of Lots 5-8, Block 4 to the airp ark taxiway and hanger building. To address
this concern, it was previous ly suggested by staff that Lot 4 be converted from an
“airpark” to “traditional” singl e family lot and that Lot 9 be eliminated combined with
the lots to the north to create a buffer yar d. In consideration of the matter, it was the
feeling of the Planning and Zoning Board that such lots did not present a major
compatibility problem and is acceptable. To improve area compatibility however, it was
suggested by the Board that Lots 1-3, Block 2 be converted from “traditional” single
family lots to “airpark” lots. This ch ange has not been made on the revised plan
submission but is illustrated on the attached alternative airpark layout provided by the
applicant.
• The impact of runway safety zone ex tensions upon area lots. As a condition of
PUD approval, the applicant should provide doc umentation to the City that all applicable
runway safety zone requirement s have or will be satisfied.
• Anticipated market demand for the airpark lots. The applicant has indicated that
if demand for the airpark lo ts does not exist, they w ould likely be converted to
“traditional” single family lots. Such ch ange would require the processing of a PDO
amendment.
• The size of the hangers appears equal to th e size of the homes they are to serve.
As a result the visual appearance of the hange rs is considered a significant issue. The
applicant has been working with the ai rpark homeowners association to develop
architectural standards for th e hangers. While the applicant has indicated a willingness to
provide such standards to the City for revi ew, such standards have not, to date been
submitted. As a condition of PDO approval, example hanger designs should be
submitted subject to City approval.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 11
Townhome Issues
Architecture. As a PDO, the City is afforded an opportunity to provide impose
conditions related to the appearance of the townhomes. As previously noted, the
townhome façade designs are considered generally positive by stressing unit
individuality (through varied finish materials, window treatments and roof designs).
Such features also serve to de-emphasize th e “garage forward” design of the townhomes.
Parking. According to the Ordinance, townhomes are required to provide at least two
and one-half rent-free spaces per unit. The Ordinance further states that for projects
involving eight or more units, the City may require additional clustered guest parking.
In addition to satisfying the “p er unit” parking requirement, 49 additional visitor parking
stalls have also been scattere d throughout the townhome development.
Homeowners Association. Accord ing to the applicant, the proj ect will be subject to the
bylaws of three homeowner’s associations. From the City’s perspective, such bylaws
should address issues associated with open sp ace use and private street maintenance and
snow removal. As a condition of PDO approval, all homeowner association by-laws
should be subject to review a nd approval by the City Attorney.
Private Streets. The townhomes in the northea st area of the site are to be served by 22
foot wide private streets. While such stre et width is considered acceptable, the removal
of snow to an off-site location will be ne cessary to ensure ample width for two-way
traffic movements.
Phasing. The City’s recently adopted Growth Management Ordinance establishes a
MUSA reserve limitation of 36 acres per year (2003 –2009) and a housing unit limitation
average of 147 units per year during the same time period. The phasing plan for this
development must adhere to this ordinance requirement.
Assuming that the phasing options reflect year ly unit counts, an av erage of 42 units per
year is considered reasonable. Inform ation relating to acreage absorption has not
however, been provided.
As a condition of PDO approval, the applican t must provide a phasing plan that adheres
to the provisions of the City’s Growth Management Ordinance
Exceptions. As shown on the submitted development plans, a number of property
exceptions exist west of the subject proper ty along Sunset Road. In considering the
proposed development, an assurance should be made that, to the extent possible,
opportunities for future subdivisi on are provided. This is particularly relevant in that
Sunset Road is a designated collector street and direct single fa mily lot access to such
streets are to be discouraged.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 12
Appropriately, an opportunity for future subdi vision of the northerl y extension has been
provided via access to Stallion Road. Considering home placement and wetland
infringements, street access to the southe rly exception is not c onsidered practical.
Wetlands. Three designated wetlands ar e located within the centr al area of the property
and comprise a significant portion of the si te. Such wetlands are considered a site
amenity and obviously influence the configura tion of the development. As required by
ordinance, a wetland mitigation plan has been submitted for review.
The proposed development is subject to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD)
approval. To date, comments from the Distri ct regarding the acceptability of the project
have not been received. The applicant is however, in the process of coordinating the
project with the Watershed District. To date however, the City has no information
regarding the Watershed District review.
To be noted is that the upland area of the s ite cannot be substantiated until such time as
the wetland areas have been veri fied by the Watershed District.
As a condition of PDO approval, all conditi ons imposed by the Watershed District must
be satisfied.
Greenways. The concept plan illustrates a series of interconnecting eight foot wide
bituminous trails. While the inclusion of the trails in considered positive, it would seem
appropriate to extend the east/west trail se gment beneath the power easement to the west
to connect to Sunset Road. The acceptabil ity of the trailways in fulfilling the greenway
directive of the Comprehensive Plan should be subject to comment and recommendation
by the Park Board.
Park Dedication. As shown on the Parks/Open Space Plan, a significant portion of the
subject property is to be dedicated as public park land. Specifi cally, the concept plan
provides 22.5 acres of gross public park la nd, 7.3 acres of which is contiguous upland.
To be noted is that the upland acres of pa rkland cannot be substan tiated until such time as
the wetland areas have been verified by the Watershed District.
The integration of such park areas responds to a specific directive of the Comprehensive
Plan of providing a greenway in the area. While the inclusion of such park land is
considered positive, an assurance should be made that problems do not result from the
combination of private and public park owne rship. Of specific concern is that the
primary east/west trailway through the property be available to all park users (regardless
of private and public ownership).
Tree Preservation. According to the app licant, a significant amount of existing tree
massings in the southern portion of the site are to be preserved. While the existing
conditions map identifies generalized tree massi ngs, a specific tree inventory has not, to
date, been submitted.
The Subdivision Ordinance do es not specifically mandate the submission of a tree
inventory, nor has the Environmental Board requested such a submission.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 13
Easements. The subdivision design is responsive to the 90’ electrical easement and 60’
gas easement that traverse the property. As shown on the submitted plan, a trail has been
proposed within the electrical easement while airpark hang ers border the gas easement in
the southeast corner of the property.
As shown on the preliminary plat, drainage and utility easements have been proposed
along all property lines and over wetland a nd ponding areas. The acceptability of such
easements should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer.
Carl Street Vacation. To accommodate the development proposal, the vacation of a
portion of Carl Street will be necessary. Such vacation will require a separate public
hearing to be held by the City Council. Issu es associated with the street vacation should
be subject to comment by the City Engineer.
Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a
condition of preliminary plat approval, the u tility related modifications and comments, as
recommended by the City Engineer in the attached memorandum should be incorporated
into the plans.
Landscaping. As required by Ordinance, landscape plan has been submitted for review.
The plan calls for a series of overstory tr ees along the public streets and a combination of
understory and evergreen trees scattered throughout th e site. Evergreen trees have been
specifically proposed in areas where screening is desired (i.e. between Century Trail and
the airpark hangers).
As a condition of PDO approval, the recommendations of the Environmental Board
related to landscaping (as documented in the attached memorandum dated 12/6/02)
should be satisfied.
Grading and Drainage. A grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review by
the City Engineer. As a condition of prelim inary plat approval, th e grading and drainage
related modifications and comments, as r ecommended by the City Engineer in the
attached memorandum should to be incorporated into the plans.
The plan is also subject to review and a pproval from the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Environmental Issues. The Environmental Board reviewed the request at their
December 5, 2002 meeting.
As a condition of PDO approval, the recommendations of the Environmental Board (as
documented in the attached memorandum dated 12/6/02) should be satisfied.
Development Agreement. Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant
will be required to enter into a developmen t agreement with the City and post all the
necessary securities required by it.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 14
It is the opinion of staff that the primary development issues which affect the design of
the subdivision have been satisfactorily addr essed. Based on the preceding review, staff
recommends approval of the project subject to the fulfillment of the following
conditions:
1. The Carl Street connection be physically c onstructed no later than as part of the
second development phase.
2. The driveway of Lot 7, Block 6 be shif ted eastward to the extent possible.
3. The submitted townhome housing types and building elevations be modified to
specify finish materials and be subject to City approval.
4. The applicant submit a phasing plan that is consistent with the provisions of the
City’s growth Management Ordinance in te rms of yearly unit and acreage allocations.
Such plan shall be subject to City approval.
5. Lots 1-3, Block 4 be converted from “tradi tional” single family to “airpark” lots.
6. The applicant provide documentation to the City that all applicable runway safety
requirements have or will be satisfied.
7. Specific hanger designs be submitted subject to City approval.
8. All homeowner association by-laws be s ubject to review and approval by the City
Attorney.
9. The wetland mitigation plan be subject to comment and recommendation by the City
Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. All conditions imposed by the Rice
Creek Watershed District shall be satisfied.
10. The east/west trail through the site be ac cessible to the general public including that
segment included in the townhom e component of the project.
11. Grading, drainage and utility related modi fications and comments as recommended
by the City Engineer in the attached memo randum (dated 2/5/03) be incorporated into
the plans.
12. The recommendations of the Environmenta l Board (as documented in the attached
memorandum dated 12/6/02) be satisfied.
13. The City formally vacate the segment of Carl Street which lies within the subject site.
Chair Schaps asked if the developer agreed with all of the conditions. Staff noted they
were.
Mr. Corson asked about the Oak Savannah and th e maintenance of the trees – He asked if
the Air Park would have the ability to main tain the heights of t hose trees. Mr. Kirmis
stated that was his understanding.
Mr. Corson requested the maintenance of those trees needed to be put into any Covenants
they prepared.
Fire Chief Bennett stated he r ecommended that Carl Street went through. He noted it was
necessary for response times. He noted if th ey did not have a Carl Street connection, they
would have to go around the area. He noted it would take approximately a minute and a
half difference between putting Carl Street in or not putting Carl Str eet in. He stated it
was a one mile difference.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 15
Mr. Lyden asked if the road did not go thr ough, how long did it take to the neighborhood.
Chief Bennett replied it took 3-4 minutes.
Mr. Lyden asked how many residents were wi thin 5 minutes of the fire department.
Chief Bennett stated the average response time from time of call to time of delivery was
7.03 on average.
Mr. Lyden asked what was the acceptable res ponse times. Chief Bennett replied that was
a matter of opinion. He noted the ambulance ro ute had the same rout e as the fire route
had.
Mr. Lyden noted without the Ca rl Street connection, they w ould still be below average.
Chief Bennett replied he was not taking into account the response time, so he believed it
was about average without the connection.
Chair Schaps asked about having only emerge ncy accesses. Chief Bennett noted he was
opposed to that idea because th ey were not plowed in the winter and to stop to remove
the barrier cost them in response time. He noted if the road was plowed, even though it
would be only for emergencies, the road would be used by the general public.
Mr. Rafferty asked if they would have more corners to take if they put Carl Street
through. Chief Bennett noted an additiona l corner would not be an issue.
Mr. Rafferty asked if he had a house at the e nd of Carl Street and it was currently a cul-
de-sac, what would you think if a new deve lopment went behind you in and your cul-de-
sac went through. Chief Bennett replie d he could not speak on that issue.
Police Chief Peecha stated their position was a little different than the Fire Department.
He stated he had prepared a study on Grid 7 and stated for the emergency calls in that
area it took 2-5 minutes to respond to a medi cal emergency. Anything over five minutes,
the Fire Department was usually there. He noted with the new development, he expected
their response times to be similar. He noted there were several a dditional accesses off of
Lilac and Sunset to get into that area. He st ated it may or not be beneficial to have access
off of Carl Street depending on where the officer was located.
Chair Schaps asked if the police had any opin ion about the access off of Carl Street. Mr.
Peecha replied as long as they had sufficien t access off of Sunset and Lilac, it did not
impact them that much.
Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment.
John Johnson, engineer, stated they were in agreement with the c onditions in the staff
report. He noted they still needed to disc uss phasing in detail. He stated they had
submitted two phasing plan. Option one would not include townhomes in the first phase
and would not include a connection to Carl St reet. At the completion of pahses one and
two there would be 120 units. Option two woul d have 79 units in the first phase, which
would include the townhomes and the Carl Street Connection. He noted this option
would have 122 units. He stated they were optimistic they could begin construction in
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 16
late April and they would start marketing th e townhomes in late fall, early winter. He
stated it was important to have all three pr oducts available in the initial marketing. He
stated they needed to have an ongoing i nventory of approximately 40 units to allow
people their choice of location. He stated they had a total of 95 acres, with 25 acres being
open space. He stated they were willing to work within the confines of the Ordinance.
He asked for input on their proposed phasing.
Chair Schaps asked what was the materials going to be. Mr. Johnson replied they would
be maintenance free and because it would be a part of a homeowners’ association, they
would be maintained by that homeowners’ association. He stated they had not
specifically talked about what materials we re going to be used, but they would work
within what staff recommended.
Mr. Kirmis noted there were instances where the sides of the multi unit structures faced
the streets and asked that those facades were “dressed up”, so they were not a blank wall
to make them more attractive. Mr. John son replied he believed there were windows
along the side, in addition to additional landscaping. If noted if windows were not there,
he would not be opposed to adding them.
Bill Noel, 346 Carl Street, stat ed his opinion had not changed and he did not want Carl
Street to go through because it affected if pr operty value. He noted traffic on Carl Street
would increase substantially if it went through. He noted there was a danger factor by
having increased traffic on Carl St reet. He indicated other opti ons to get to that area had
not been explored. He stated the sod ow ner was willing to se ll his property, but nobody
followed through with him to see what options were available.
Dave Ramsden, 302 Carl Street, stated he could not see anybody driving down Carl
Street doing 45 mph, which is what Chief Benne tt indicated emergency vehicles traveled.
He asked how was there enough room from the d itch to put in a road. Mr. Smyser replied
they had looked at that issue and it would work.
Mr. Ramsey asked if there would be a fen ce along the road so people did not end up in
the ditch.
Ernest Olson, Lot 12, stated he was opposed to the Carl Street connection. He stated if
they had to have a through street, a compro mise would be to have an emergency only
vehicle route. He noted the police did not ca re if there was a thr ough street or not. He
stated the road could have knock down barrie rs. He stated knock down barriers would
not do any damage to emergency vehicles doing through them. He stated when he
purchased his property, it was on a cul-de-sac and property on cul-de-sacs meant higher
property values.
Jeff Kolstad, 296 Carl Street, stated he was “h ighly” frustrated with the City and the
process. He stated at no time had anyone fr om the City come up with a different proposal
for Carl Street. He stated it appeared th e City wanted to push the street through. He
stated traffic did not warrant Carl Street to go through. He stated he had spoken with the
Rice Creek Watershed District and there was a 50 foot easement from the center of the
ditch to the edge of the road. He noted de velopment history proved the Carl Street was
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 17
engineered as a permanent cul-de-sac. He stated the placement of his home was in
accordance to the original deve lopment plan and wetlands delineated at the time. He
indicated the house was placed at the end of th e street because of the wetlands and the
permanent cul-de-sac. He indicated under ad visement from the City Council, Mr. Uhde’s
development was sent to the P&Z Board to review other options extending Carl Street,
for example, including access to the north in to Robinson’s Sod property and power line
access. He noted the City planners had not offered any other solutions as advised by the
City Council. He stated the Airpark is unique in comparison to normal neighborhoods.
The runway divides the north residences from the south. To “connect” neighborhoods
does not fit since our community is unique to aviators. He stated the traffic study
completed by the City and Mr. Uhde’s devel opment firm specifically stated that the
traffic flows into Carl Street did not warrant the extension. He stated the majority of Carl
Street residents signed a pe tition not to extend Carl St reet. He noted there were
developers interested in purch asing the sod fields for development. He asked why the
City did not plan for the future with the Comprehensive Plan to forecast, design and
develop without infringing upon existing neighbo rhoods. He noted from an engineering
standpoint, the street would not fit. He asked who was responsible to design and
implement the extension. He asked why the C ity had not proved their point with written
documentation. He stated the Rice Creek Wate rshed District requir ed a 50-foot easement
from the center of the ditch. He stated the Ci ties easement from the curb to his house was
35 feet. He asked how would the street fit wi th that easement. He asked if the storm
pond was filled, where would the run off wa ter go. He asked about the cul-de-sac
removal, driveway extension, and trees.
Chair Schaps asked if he was opposed to the de velopment, or just to the extension of Carl
Street. Mr. Kolstad replied he was not opposed to the development, just to the extension
of Carl Street.
Carl Johnson, 314 Carl Street, stated he was oppos ed to the extension of Carl Street. He
asked if it was possible if Carl Street ha d to go through, that it be maintained at a
narrower width. Mr. Studenski replied the City standard for a street was 32-34 feet.
Mr. Johnson noted he was concerned about the small portion that was along Mr.
Kolstad’s property. Mr. Studenski replied curr ently Carl Street was substandard to City
requirements. If a new road was put in, it woul d be put in at the current City standards.
Mr. Johnson inquired about the bike path along Carl Street . Mr. Johnson replied there
was a six foot sidewalks, not an eight-foot bike path that was proposed on Century Trail
and whether it went down Carl Street was up to the City.
Mr. Johnson noted if there were not a sidewa lk, there would leave a larger buffer. He
reviewed the history of Carl Street as he understood it.
Mr. Rafferty asked if Lots 15 and 16 were ev er on the Final Plat. Mr. Johnson replied
those lots were undevelopable due to wetland issues.
Glenn Martig, 376 Carl Street, stated Lot 15 and 16 were wetlands and could not be
developed. He stated the cul-de-sac was put in with the understa nding it would remain a
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 18
cul-de-sac. He noted Carl St reet had two “S” turns, whic h he did not believe would be
appropriate for emergency vehicles. He noted traffic would increase drastically if Carl
Street was put in.
Mr. Olson noted when the cul-de-sac was instal led, the City retained a technical easement
from the main property line to the west to wh ere it hit Sunset. He noted that width was
30 feet or less and this was not large enough to build a 32 foot road that was required. He
noted the City did not have enough easement to put a road through and the traded off by
permitting this entire development. He stated the wetlands were established and this was
meant to be a permanent cul-de-sac.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 8:03 p.m. The motion was
supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6-0.
Chair Schaps asked how difficult would it be to build a road along the sod farms. Mr.
Johnson replied it would not be an impossibilit y. He noted they envi sioned a trail in that
area. He noted a road would impact the pond and/or the house. He asked if it paralleled
the power line, could the road share a power line easement. He noted he did not believe
it could. He noted one of the other problems was that the sod farm was not in the
Comprehensive Plan to be developed at any time in the near future.
Mr. Lyden stated the issue of Carl Street was that it was a nei ghborhood and it was his
position that they did not have the right to create a new neighborhood, while destroying
another neighborhood. He stated he did not believe emergency access had met the merit
to push Carl Street through. He asked staff if this was a viable plat with just a west
connection and if it was possible to look at something where it was viable to approve
Phase 1, 2 and maybe even 3 and look for th e other east/west connection which would
run north of Carl Street. Mr. Kirmis replie d his understanding was th at they wanted Carl
Street for emergency purposes. He noted an east/west connection n eeded to be provided
at some point.
Chair Schaps stated if the City was willi ng to wait until Phase 2, it would buy them some
time to add an east/west connection. He st ated he would like nothing done with Carl
Street right now and allow for the connecti on to made in the future, maybe depending
upon a number of things that might change i.e. emergency situation or there was not any
other connection that could be created. He s uggested the developer ge t in touch with the
sod farm owner to see what options they co uld work out with him to get an east/west
connection. He noted they needed to main tain as much flexibility as they could.
Mr. Corson asked if the City should look fo r a dedication for the street under the power
line if they needed it in the future. Mr. Grocha la noted they would need to dedicate it for
street and utility purposes a nd not parkland. He indicated the stub to the north would be
enough. He stated Carl Street connection wa s more important at the beginning of the
project.
Mr. Corson asked if there was a wetland to the north. Mr. J ohnson replied the only
problem would be the houses off of Fourth. He noted where the trail was now, if they
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 19
wanted a road through there at some point , they would need to come up with an
easement.
Mr. Rafferty asked about the rezoning issues. He stated what the zoning issues were and
what they needed to change and why. Mr. Ki rmis replied it was a combination of using a
PDO for the Airpark lots. He noted the R-1 w ould apply to traditional, family homes and
R-3 would apply to the multi-family homes.
Mr. Johnson stated what had been given to the Planning Board was in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Smyser noted the Comprehensive Plan did not state what
the zoning should be, just wh at the density should be.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to allocate the MUSA Reserve A llocation of 85.3 acres
with staff input. The motion was supporte d by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5-0-1 (Mr.
Tralle - Abstained).
Mr. Corson made a MOTION for rezoning fr om R (rural) to R-1 (single family
residential) and R-3, Medium Density Reside ntial as laid out in the development plan
with all staff conditions as related to th is motion. The motion was supported by Hyden.
Mr. Lyden asked for a friendly amendment from R-1 to R-1X zoning. Mr. Smyser
replied the plan was designed to meet th e R-1 standards, not the R-1X standards.
Mr. Corson rejected the friendly amendment.
Motion carried 4-1-1 (Mr. Lyden – Nay. Mr. Tralle - Abstained).
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to deny a PDO to allow airplane hangers, private streets and
multiple buildings on a single lot. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion
failed 2-3-1 (Mr. Lyden and Mr. Rafferty – Ay e. Ms. Lane, Mr. Corson, and Mr. Hyden
– Nay. Mr. Tralle – Abstained.)
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend a PDO to allow airport hangers, private
streets, and multiple buildings on a single lot. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden.
Motion carried (4-1-1) (Mr. Lyden – Nay. Mr. Tralle – Abstained).
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommended that new Carl Street as shown as in the
plat have a temporary cul-de-sac, and that it remain as shown on the property line for
future consideration as need ; that the 14 recommendations of staff be approved, including
the recommendation of the Board to “dress up” the side of the townhomes, and to
approve the Preliminary Plat. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane.
Mr. Rafferty stated he was objecting to a temporary cul-de-sac and would not be
supporting this motion.
Mr. Lyden also opposed a temporary cul-de-sac . He stated he wanted assurances that
Carl Street would not go through in the fu ture. Mr. Corson noted his motion made it
possible for Carl Street to go through, if necessary.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 20
Mr. Kirmis suggested the condition be that new Carl Street be extended to the eastern
property line and provided a turn around. He stated a temporary cul-de-sac had a
connotation to it. He stated the wordi ng temporary meant it would go through at some
point.
Mr. Corson made an amendment to his MOTION to delete the words “temporary cul-de-
sac” and add the words “a turn around on the new section of Carl Street as identified in
the developer’s plan”.
Motion carried 4-1-1 (Mr. Lyden – Nay. Mr. Tralle – Abstained).
Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:51 p.m.
C.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, ATS&R, Living Waters Lutheran
Church, 865 Birch Street, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit
Chair Schaps reopened the P ublic Hearing at 8:52 p.m.
Staff stated ATS&R has submitted an application on behalf of Living Waters Lutheran
Church for CUP/Site and Building Plan Re view for the property located at 865 Birch
Street (PID# 28-31-22-32-0019). The appli cant is requesting to construct a building
addition to accommodate a new sanctuary. The application indica tes that the subject
property consists of approximately 9.34 acres . The site is zoned R-1 Single Family
Residential. Religious institutions are a conditional use within R-1 Single Family
Residential District. The si te abuts CSAH 10 to the south, Country Lakes Estates (R-1
Single Family Residential) to the west, Re shanau Lake to the North and residential
property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential to the east.
Staff presented its analysis by noting the following:
Site and Building Plan Review
Property Legal Description. The subject property has a metes and bounds legal
description within Section 28, Township 31 North, Range 22 West (PID# 28-31-22-32-
0019) and contains 9.34 acres more or less.
Project Schedule. The application contemplates bidding will commence during the
Winter of 2003 with substantial completi on of the building addition by Fall 2003. The
proposed schedule is in acco rdance with the requirements set forth in Section 2, Subd.
5.E.2 of the Ordinance.
Zoning/Use. The subject property is zoned R-1 Si ngle Family Residential. Religious
institutions are a permitted conditional use within the R-1, Single Family Residential
District provided that:
(a) side yards shall not be less than fifty (50) feet;
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 21
Comment: The proposed building addition shall be located 292 feet from the nearest side
yard lot line.
(b) adequate screening from abutting resident ial uses and landscaping is provided
in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.S. of the Ordinance;
Comment: The proposed building addition wi ll be adequately screened from the
residence located northeast of the site with landscaping including si x (6) spruce trees and
two (2) sugar maples.
(c) adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site in compliance
with Section 3, Subd. 5 of the Ordinance and that such parking is adequately screened
and landscaped from surrounding and abuttin g residential uses in compliance with
Section 3, Subd. 4.S. of the Ordinance; and
Comment: The off-street park ing area will remain substant ially the same. The parking
spaces have been reconfigured to incor porate two (2) additiona l designated disabled
parking spaces in accordance with the guide lines established by the Minnesota State
Council on Disability, resulting a reduction from 91 to 90 total parking spaces. All off-
street parking spaces meet the minimum di mensional requirements of Section 3, Subd. 5
of the Ordinance. A wooded area in the sout hwest corner of the site provides screening
of the parking lot from CSAH 10.
(d) adequate off-street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated
where applicable by Section 3, Subd. 6. of the Ordinance.
Comments: Additional loading is not indi cated by the plans submitted for the building
addition.
A conditional use permit for th e site was previously appr oved by the City in April 1993.
The current application will expand the existi ng structure but will not alter the use as
previously approved. Adequate parking fo r the proposed building addition is currently
available on site and the proposed buildi ng addition meets all relevant setback
requirements.
The site is located less than 1,000 feet from Reshanau Lake, a Recreational Development
Lake, and is therefore subject to the provi sions of the Shoreland Management Overlay
District (“Shoreland District”). The purpose of the Shoreland District is to provide for
the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The
Shoreland District standards ar e applied in addition to standa rds set forth in other zoning
districts.
Access/Site Circulation. Access to the site is provided via an existing driveway along
CSAH 10. Preliminary review by the A noka County Highway Department (ACHD)
indicates that turn lanes may be required as a result of the proposed improvements to the
site. Any roadway improvements should be subject to comment and recommendation by
the City Engineer and the ACHD.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 22
City staff is recommending that the site in clude a separated drop-o ff area outside of the
drive-aisle to prevent vehicle backup upon CS AH 10 and to promote safety and efficient
traffic flow throughout the site. In addition, th e applicant has agreed to install a striped
pedestrian crossing from the designated disa bled parking stalls to the sidewalk.
Lot Size and Setbacks. Staff summarized the lot and bu ilding performance standards for
properties within the R-1, Single Family Residential District and the Shoreland
Management Overlay District.
Staff noted the proposed building addition meets all applicable lot and building
performance standards.
Impervious Surface Coverage. Section 1102.07, Subd. 1(C)(4) of the Shoreland
District standards states impe rvious surface coverage of the lot area may not exceed thirty
percent (30%).
Architecture/Build ing Materials. As shown on the submitted building elevations, the
proposed building addition is to be finished with painte d lap siding, glass windows and
an asphalt shingle roof, all to match the ex isting building. Specifi c building colors have
not been indicated. As a c ondition of site and building plan approva l, building colors
should be specified.
Off-street Parking. The standards for calculating the off-street parking requirements for
the proposed uses are outlined in Secti on 3, Subdivision 5 of the Ordinance.
In addition, the Ordinance requires that chur ches provide parking fo r additional facilities
provided within the building. For example, one (1) parki ng space is required for each
classroom plus one (1) space for each three hundred (300) student capacity plus one (1)
space for each employee. Day car e facilities (nursery) servi ng fourteen (14) or fewer
persons are required to prov ide two (2) sp aces per unit.
Alternatively, the City Council may determ ine parking requirements on an individual
basis taking into account such factors as the size of the building, type of use, number of
employees, expected volume and turnover of customer traffic and expected frequency
and number of delivery and service vehicles.
Ninety (90) parking spaces are currently prov ided on site. All parking is configured at
90º with stall width measuri ng 9 feet and stall depth measuring 19 feet. All off-street
parking spaces meet the minimum dimensiona l requirements of S ection 3, Subd. 5 of the
Ordinance.
The parking incorporates four (4) designated disabled parking spaces in accordance with
the guidelines established by the Minnesota State Council on Disability. All such spaces
must be appropriately signed, including desi gnation of one space as “van accessible”.
Landscaping . Section 3, Subd. 4(S) of the Ordina nce requires adequate screening from
abutting residential uses and landscaping wi th an emphasis on the boundary or perimeter,
the immediate perimeter of the structure and the perimeter of parking and loading areas.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 23
The site plan indicates sod surrounding th e proposed building a ddition and planting of
three (3) trees, one maple a nd one evergreen tree east of the proposed building addition
and one maple within the courtyard area so uth of the proposed building addition. The
proposed building addition will be adequate ly screened from the residence located
northeast of the site with landscaping incl uding six (6) spruce trees and two (2) sugar
maples.
Section 2, Subd. 5.D states th at only such development as preserves the maximum
number of trees may be permitted. The tree preservation plan indicates that two canopy
trees (3” maple and 6” maple) and one ev ergreen tree (4” spruce) will be removed to
accommodate the proposed building addition. Th e applicant is propos ing to replace such
trees with two - 2½” maple trees and one spruce tree six (6) feet in height in accordance
with the requirements set forth in Secti on 3, Subd. 4.S.3. In addition, landscaping will
include six (6) spruce trees a nd two (2) sugar maples for screening from the residence
located northeast of the site.
The Environmental Board has recommended th at the sugar maple trees in the plan be
changed to red maples or oaks (See Exhibit J). The applicant has agreed to substitute pin
oaks for the sugar maples il lustrated on the plans. The applicant has also agreed to
provide foundation plantings in accordance with the recommendations of the
Environmental Board attached hereto as Exhi bits J and K. All landscaping shall be in
compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4(S) of the Ordinance.
CPTED Review. The landscaping indicated on the site plan has been reviewed by the
police department and found to be in compliance with CPTED standards.
Trash Enclosures. The plans do not illustrate any ne w or additional refuse areas. The
existing refuse area is located within the ga rage building in accordance with Section 3,
Subd. 4.G. of the Ordinance.
Signage. The plans do not indicate any new or additional pr oposed signage. The site
plan illustrates a freestandi ng triangular sign located on the east perimeter of the subject
property, north of the entry dr ive. The location of such sign may be impacted by the
addition of turn lanes as determined by the ACHD.
Lighting. The applicant is proposing new exteri or lighting in the form of wall mounted
downlights located at the sanctuary exterior door s. The exterior light fixtures must have
a 90 degree cutoff to reduce glare and light pollution.
The site plan illustrates a light source lo cated on the east perimeter of the subject
property, north of the entry driv e. The location of such light source may be impacted by
the addition of turn lanes as determined by the ACHD.
Utilities. All utilities or construc tion over existing utility service lines are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer.
Grading and Drainage. A grading and drainage plan has been reviewed by the City
Engineer (see comments of City Engi neer on Memorandum dated January 31, 2003
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 24
attached hereto as Exhibit I). The draina ge plan must be approved by the Rice Creek
Watershed District.
Elevations . Pursuant to Section 1102.07, Subd. 2(B), st ructures must be placed with the
lowest floor three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level. The plans indicate that the
ordinary high water level for Reshanau Lake is 883.5 feet. The 100 year flood plain lies
along the 886 foot contour. The site plan indicates a first floor elevation for the proposed
building addition of 896.14 feet.
Development Agreement: Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant
will be required to enter into a developmen t agreement with the City and post all the
necessary securities required by it.
Conditional Use Permit. As previously indicated, the ap plicant is requesting approval
of a conditional use permit to allow expansion of an existing church structure within the
R-1, Single Family Residential District. Relig ious institutions are conditional uses within
the R-1, Single Family Residential District.
In considering conditional use permit requests, the Ordinance states that the Planning and
Zoning Board shall recommend approval and th e City Council shall or der the issuance of
such permit only if it finds that such use at such location:
1.Will not be detrimental to or endange r the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City.
Comment: The proposed use is not anticipat ed to 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 sugge sts public/semipublic use of the site.
The Comprehensive Plan contemplates churches within the public/semipublic
land use designation. Thus, the proposed land use is harmonious with the land
use directives of the Comprehensive Plan.
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 character of that area.
Comment: The building design is consiste nt with material requirements of the
Ordinance and therefore will not negativel y affect the essential character of the
area. In addition, the plan s indicate that th e building materials for the proposed
building addition will match the existi ng building creating a harmonious exterior
appearance.
4.Will be served adequately by essential pu blic facilities and services, including
street, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 25
sewer systems, and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or ag encies responsible for the establishment
of the proposed use.
Comment: The site is currently served by essential public facilities and services.
The plans do not indicate th at the proposed building addi tion will exceed existing
capacity.
5.Will not create excessive additional requir ements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
Comment: The building addition is not e xpected to 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 persons, property, or the general
welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
or odors.
Comment: The use of the subject prope rty as a church has not created any
excessive externalities that are abnormal to the character of the area and there is
no reason to anticipate that the propose d building addition wi ll adversely affect
the same.
7.Will have vehicular approaches to the prope rty which are so designed as not to
create traffic congestion or an interf erence with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
Comment: As referenced above, the plans appear to indicate a new drop off area
located directly in the entrance drive aisle that may cause traffic congestion and
vehicle backup upon CSAH 10. City sta ff recommends providing a separated
drop-off area outside of the drive-aisl e to prevent vehicle backup upon CSAH 10
and to promote safety and efficient tra ffic flow throughout the site. In addition,
preliminary review by the ACHD indicates th at turn lanes may be necessary as a
result of the proposed improvements to the site and redesign of the existing
church entry drive will be examine d. Any roadway improvements should be
subject to comment and recommendati on by the City Engineer and the ACHD.
The applicant must comply with any r ecommendations of and standards imposed
by the ACHD.
8.Will not result in the destruc tion, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic
feature of major importance.
Comment: The proposed building addition should not have a detrimental impact
on any features of major importa nce on the subject property.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 26
9.Will conform to specific standards of th is ordinance applicable to the particular
use.
Comment: The proposed use will, as a c ondition of approval, meet the applicable
requirements of the Ordinance.
Based on the findings contained in staff’s report, staff reco mmends approval of the Site
and Building Plan and Conditional Use Perm it to allow the construction of a new
sanctuary on the 9.34 acre site located nort h of CSAH 10 and south of Reshanau Lake
subject to the following conditions:
1. The need for associated roadway improve ments shall be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Engin eer and the Anoka County Highway
Department. The applicant must comply with all recommendations and
requirements of the Anoka County Highway Department.
2. Building colors shall be specified.
3. If new or additional signage will be in stalled, the location of such signage be
illustrated on the site plan. All such signage shall conform to the provisions of
Ordinance 12-97 regulating signs.
4. Designated disabled parking spaces mu st be appropriately signed, including
designation of one space as “van accessible”.
5. A striped pedestrian crossi ng from the designated disabl ed parking stalls to the
sidewalk shall be installed.
6. The location, intensity and source of the proposed new lighting must be illustrated
on the site plan. Exterior light fixtures must have a 90 degree cutoff to reduce
glare and light pollution. All such ligh ting shall conform to the provisions of
Section 3 Subd. 4.H. of the Ordinance.
7. All utilities or construction over existing utility service lines are subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer
8. All conditions set forth in the Memorandu m from the City Engineer dated January
31, 2003 (Exhibit I) have been met.
9. All recommendations of the Environmental Board set forth in the Memorandum
dated February 3, 2003 (Exhibits J and K) have been met. All landscaping shall
be in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4(S) of the Ordinance.
10. Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant wi ll be required to
enter into a development agreement w ith the City and post all the necessary
securities required by such development agreement.
11. A fire sprinkler system must be installed in the entire building.
12. Approval of drainage plan by the Rice Creek Watershed District.
13. Resolution of drop off issue.
Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment.
Ted Erkenbrack, representative of church, stated the island as proposed he believed
would be a traffic hazard having two lanes of tra ffic. He stated they had talked with the
County engineer with respect to the turn lane situation.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 27
Mark Hayes, architect, stated they had 34 feet in width for a drop off zone with 10 feet of
traffic to do by. He noted the concern with the other option was that if someone was
dropping someone off, the island would restrict people from getting by. He stated their
option allowed vehicles to go around the vehicl e dropping people off. Mr. Smyser stated
staff was in total agreemen t with applicant’s proposal.
Mr. Hayes stated there was already screening in place, which they did not realize. He
noted there were large 8-9 pine trees and well as deci duous trees that were put in
approximately ten years ago. He requested they not be required to add additional
screening. He stated they had originally shown a sidewalk coming out of the sanctuary,
but he has discovered it is not something that was required by Code. He asked they not
be required to add this sidewalk. Mr. Smyser stated the City did not require a sidewalk.
Mr. Smyser suggested adding a Condition numbe r 14 to staff’s report indicating that the
tree issue would be looked at before this went to the City Council and recommendations
would be made to the City Council.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 9:05 p.m. The motion was
supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve ATS&R, Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865
Birch Street, Site Plan Review and Condi tional Use Permit with the 14 recommendations
and conditions as outlined in staff’s re port. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden.
Motion carried 6-0.
D.PUBLIC HEARING, Bruggeman Propertie s, SE corner of Birch Street and
Hodgson Road, Preliminary Plat, Rezone, CUP, and Site Plan Review
Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 9:08 p.m.
Staff stated Bruggeman Propert ies has requested preliminar y plat approval to allow a
three lot, commercial subdivision on property located south of Bi rch Street and east of
Hodgson Road.
The development site overlays 33.3 acres of land, 24.8 acres of which is to be reserved
for future medium density development (to be developed after the present residential
development moratorium is lifted) and lies within the shorela nd overlay district of
Baldwin Lake.
To accommodate the development proposal, the following approvals are necessary:
1.Rezoning of a portion of the property from R, Medium Density Residential to GB,
General Business/PDO (to allow private streets and multiple buildings on a single
lot)
2.Preliminary Plat
3.Site and Building Plan for a 12,160 square foot retail center
4.CUP for an accessory drive-through faci lity (accessory to the retail center)
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 28
While detailed plans have not been submitted at this time, future plans for the site include
a motor fuel station (with a ccessory carwash), a fast f ood restaurant (with accessory
drive-through) and a 7,125 square foot office building/daycare facility.
Staff presented its analysis by summarizing the following:
Development Moratorium
While a significant portion of the subject site overlays an area intended for future
medium density development, the present moratorium prohibits the City from accepting
residential development applications until such time as the moratorium terminates.
While this development application considers impacts of future residential uses in the
area, no specific applications may be consid ered and approvals for such uses cannot be
granted. Thus, this applicati on shall be limited in scope to the commercial component of
the project.
Rezoning
To accommodate the proposed commercial land uses, a rezoning of the northwest corner
of the site from R-3, “Medium Density Residential” to GB, General Business is
necessary. It is the appli cant’s intent to retain the existing R-1 and R-3 and zoning
classifications upon the balance of the site un til such time as the re sidential development
moratorium is lifted and an application for such development may be considered.
The City’s Land Use Plan suggests commercial use of the northwes t corner of the site
and medium density residential use of the ba lance of the site. As a result, the proposed
land uses are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
To accommodate various design flexibilities (p rivate streets, two buildings upon a lot) a
PDO, Planned Development overlay has also been requested.
Preliminary Plat Review
Access. Access to the commercial lots is propos ed via a single point along Birch Street
and two points along Hodgson Road. In prior review of the development proposal, both
the City and Anoka County Highway Department have recommended that the most
northerly access point along Hodgson Road (Count y Road 49) be eliminated. Thus, such
access should be eliminated as a condition of plat approval.
While all three commercial lots technically can be accessed via a publ ic street, the retail
center (which shares Lo t 1 with the motor fuel station) is dependent upon a private street
for access. While the Ordinance requires all lots be provided access via a public street
access, flexibility to this requirement can be accommodated via the PDO.
A cross easement and operation and maintenance agreement will be required as part of
the Development Agreement.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 29
Birch Street/Hodgson Road Intersection. Obviously, the proposed development will
affect area traffic patterns and escalate volum es encountered at the intersection of Birch
Street and Hodgson Road. Recognizing this, th e City has initiated a feasibility study as
requested by the applicant and the developer of the Spirit Hills pr oject north of the
subject site. The feasibility study will exam ine traffic movements in the area and the
need for a traffic signal at the intersection.
Traffic related issues will need to be resolv ed prior to this development moving forward.
Lots. The GB District requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. While all
proposed lots exceed this requirement, it appe ars an error exists on the preliminary plat
as the gross area of Lot 2 (1.18 acres) is listed as being great er than that of Lot 1 (1.05
acres). This should be corrected as a condition of preliminary plat approval.
At this time, it is the applicant’s inten tion to develop the retail center upon Lot 1.
Construction of other site uses will occur at such time when detailed plans are developed.
As demonstrated via the submission of site plans, the configuration of the proposed lots
are conducive to future commercial development and the proposed uses.
Impervious Surface Coverage. As previously indicated, th e subject site lies within the
Baldwin Lake Shoreland Overlay District. W ithin such district, the impervious surface
coverage may not exceed 60 percent of a lot. According to the submitted site plan, an
impervious surface coverage of 70 percen t is proposed upon Lots 1 and 2 while a
coverage of 52 percent has been proposed for Lot 3.
As a condition of preliminary plat approva l, impervious surface coverages must be
reduced to comply with the requir ements of the shoreland ordinance.
It is the opinion of staff that revisions necessary to meet the maximum 60 percent
coverage requirement may result in significant modifications to the submitted site plan.
In this regard, staff feels that this item should be addressed before the Planning and
Zoning Board take formal action on the request.
Streets. The preliminary plat illustrates a str eet segment of approximately 400 feet in
length extending eastward from Hodgson Road. Future extension of the right-of-way
dedication is planned to occur at such time when Outlot A is developed. As a condition
of subdivision approval, a temporary cul-de-sac should be provided at the terminus of the
roadway.
While public street access is t echnically being provided to all three commercial lots,
access to the retail building from the south is essentially provided via a private street. To
accommodate such private street, the processing of a PDO, Planned Development
Overlay is necessary.
As a condition of preliminary plat approval, all street-related recommendations of the
attached City Engineer’s memorandum should be satisfied.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 30
Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a
condition of preliminary plat approval, the u tility related modifications and comments, as
set forth in the attached City Engineer’s me morandum should to be incorporated into the
plans.
Grading and Drainage. A grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review by
the City Engineer. As a condition of prelim inary plat approval, th e grading and drainage
related modifications and comments, as se t forth in the attached City Engineer’s
memorandum should to be incorporated into the plans.
The plan is also subject to review and a pproval from the Rice Creek Watershed District.
At this time, no comments have been receiv ed from the Watershed district. Staff does
not believe it is in the City’s best intere st to approve the project until comments have
been received and a determination has been ma de that concerns of the Watershed District
have been addressed.
Easements. As shown on the submitted site plan, a ponding area lies within portions of
Lots 1 and 2 and Outlot A. A drainage easement corresponding to such ponding area has
not however, been shown on the preliminary plat. As a condition of plat approval,
drainage and utility easements should be shown along all property lines and over ponding
areas. Additional comment regarding such easement should be provided by the City
Engineer.
As a condition of final plat approval, cross parking and access easements will need to be
recorded with the property. Such easements should be subject to review and approval by
the City Attorney.
Tree Preservation . According to the submitted site survey, the significant trees that
exist on the subject property are located wi thin Outlot A and therefore will not be
disturbed by the proposed commercial development.
At such time when Outlot A is to be developed and plans are brought forward, specific
tree preservation measures will be addressed.
Park Dedication. No park land dedication is proposed within the development proposal.
The subdivision should be subject to re view and comment by the Park Board.
Park land dedication for commercial uses is $2,175 per net acre (based on upland
acreage).
Environmental Issues. The Environmental Board reviewed the request at their January
29, 2003 meeting and recommended denial of the request due to the following:
1.The lack of input from the Rice Creek Watershed District.
2.The location of a carwash within a lake protection zone and in an area with high
sensitivity to ground water pollution.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 31
The comments of the Environmental Board are attached to this report.
CPTED Review. The CPTED review was completed on 1/21/03. The primary issues,
as addressed in the attached comments, relate to corresponding roadway improvements
(on Hodgson Road and Birch Street) and tr affic flow around the retail building.
Rice Creek Watershed District Review. The proposed development is subject to Rice
Creek Watershed District (RCWD) approval for both a Land Development Permit and a
Wetland Alteration Permit.
To date, no comments from the Watershed Di strict have been received. Because such
comments may affect the design of the deve lopment, staff cannot recommend approval
of the project until such time as a determinati on has been made that the concerns of the
Watershed District have been satisfied.
As a condition of subdivision approval, all c onditions of the Watershed District permit
must be satisfied.
Site and Building Plan Review
As indicated previously, the ap plicant is seeking site and bu ilding plan approval to allow
the construction of a 12,160 square foot reta il center upon proposed Lot 1. At such time
when specific development projects exist for the remaining lots in the subdivision (Lots 2
and 3) and the northern portion of Lot 1, they will likewise be subject to a site and
building plan review process.
At this point, the site plans provided for the motor fuel station, fast food restaurant and
office building/day care facility are conceptual in nature and are intended to demonstrate
the developability of the lots and a co mprehensive stormwater management and
circulation system.
Access. Access to the proposed retail center is to be provided from the north (from Birch
Street) and from the south vi a a private street (which ul timately provides ingress/egress
to Hodgson Road).
While the submitted development plans illu strate two access points upon Hodgson Road.
Anoka County has indicated it will not allow th e most northerly curb cut and it therefore
must be removed.
To accommodate the proposed private street access from the south, cross parking and
access easements will need to be recorded with the property.
The acceptability of the proposed curb cut loca tions should be subject to comment by the
City Engineer.
Circulation. As shown on the submitted site plan, southerly access to the retail center is
to be provided via a private street system.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 32
A primary concern related to site circulati on involves the potential traffic conflicts that
may exist west of the retail building. As proposed, a motor fuel station customer
traveling north on Hodgson Road will be forced to encounter the backing of vehicles and
pedestrian traffic within the retail center pa rking area. This situation is considered
problematic from a circulation a nd traffic safety standpoint.
In response to staff’s concern in this area, the applicant has submitted a site plan
alternative and supportive na rrative addressing this issue (see attached correspondence).
To address such concerns, the applicant has proposed to install traffic calming devices as
a means of reducing area traffic speeds. Sp ecifically, textured co lored concrete paving
has been proposed in two areas within parking lot. While staff appreciates such efforts,
the actual influence such paving will ha ve upon area traffic speed is considered
questionable particularly in the winter months when they will not be visible.
It is the opinion of staff that the circulation pattern to the west of the retail center needs to
be re-examined and possibly re-designed to ad dress these concerns. It is understood that
resolution of this issue (as well as the impe rvious surface coverage concern) may require
the downsizing of the building.
Lot Size and Setbacks. While the Planned Development Overlay designation can
provide flexibility from the strict terms of the Ordinance, the requirements of the
underlying GB, General business District are c onsidered an appropriate guideline. The
lot and building performance standards for pr operties within the GB District are listed
below.
While it is recognized that the motor fuel station, fast food restaurant and office
building/daycare facility are con ceptual in nature and will be subject to a future site and
building plan review process, their inclusi on in the submission is considered positive by
allowing a comprehensive review of the pr oposal and an overall setback evaluation to
take place. As shown above, all applicable GB District lot area and setback requirements
have been satisfied.
Architecture/Build ing Materials. At this time, building details have only been
provided for the retail center. The building’s architecture is characterized by varied
gable roof forms and column features (wood and stone).
As shown on the submitted building elevations , the building is to be finished in a
combination of cement- based lap siding (p ainted), stone and faux cedar shakes (in
gabled roof areas). The build ing’s roof is proposed to be finished with asphalt shingles.
The proposed building materials are consistent with the material requirements of the
Ordinance. As a condition of site and building plan approval however, building colors
should be specified and approved by the City.
Parking. The standards for calculating the o ff-street parking requirements for shopping
centers are outlined in Secti on 3, Subdivision 5 of the City Code. For the purposes of
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 33
calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use 90% of the gross building
area.
As shown above, a total of 60 off-street park ing stalls are required for the proposed retail
building. The applicant’s plan calls for 91 st alls within Lot 1 and exceeds the minimum
off-street parking supply requirement. To be noted however, is that such parking supply
is also intended to accommodate the future parking supply for the motor fuel station.
Anticipating a parking supply requirement of approximately 8 to 10 stalls for the motor
fuel station, the proposed Lot 1 park ing supply is considered adequate.
As shown on the site plan, 7 off-street parki ng stalls are located on the east side of the
building. Considering that such stalls will not be visible to the general public, and are
located proximate to the building’s drive-through lane, it is suggested that such stalls be
reserved for employee parking.
As a condition of site and building plan approval however, one additional handicap
parking stall (totaling three spaces) should be provided to satisfy applicable State
requirements.
At 18 feet in depth and 9 feet in width, all off-street parking stalls have been found to
meet the minimum dimensional requirements of Section 3, Subd. 5 of the Ordinance.
Likewise, the proposed 24 foot wide driv e aisles also meet minimum Ordinance
requirements.
Interim Development Plan. As shown on the submitted site plan, it is the applicant’s
intent to construct a motor fuel station on the northern one half on Lot 1. While the PDO
provides the flexibility to al low two principal buildings upon a single lot, some concern
exists in regard to the interim improvement s necessary to the northern portion of the lot
(in order to provide access to th e retail building from Birch Str eet). As a condition of site
and building plan approval for the retail building, and interi m development plan for the
northern portion of the site should be de veloped and subject to review by the City
Engineer and approval by the City.
Landscaping. As required by ordinance, a landscape plan has been submitted for
review. To be noted is that a master la ndscape plan encompasses the entire commercial
development site (Lots 1-3) has been submitted.
As shown on the landscape plan, a variety of trees are proposed on site. Specifically,
Marshall’s Ash and Goldflame Spirea have been proposed along Hodgson Road.
Appropriately, screen plantings have been proposed east of the retail center to minimize
the impact of the commercial use upon future adjacent medium density residential uses.
Specifically, Austrian Pine, Black Hi lls Spruce and Redmond Linden have been
proposed.
In review of the landscape plan, it appe ars that some landscaping has been proposed
within the Hodgson Road right-of-way. As a condition of site and building plan
approval, such landscaping should relocated be so as not to lie within public right-of-
way.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 34
In addition, the Environmental Board has recommended the following in regard to
landscaping:
1. Landscaping be provided around the perimeter of the proposed pond.
2. Ground story plantings be identified.
3. Norway Maples and Amur Maples be substituted with on-invasive species.
4. A tree inventory be submitted.
5. Additional Oak trees be planted on th e east side of the retail building.
6. Oak trees be substituted for Laurel Leaf Willow on the east side of the retail
building.
Trash Enclosure. According to Section 3, Subd. 4.G of the Ordinance, all refuse and
recyclable materials must be stored within 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 pub lic rights of way.
As shown on the submitted site plan, a trash enclosure has been proposed on the east side
of the building. The enclosure mimics the materials of the principal building (cement
based siding and stone) and is considered acceptable.
Signage. While the submitted building elevations illustrate general wall sign locations, a
specific sign plan (for both free-standing and walls signs) has yet to be submitted.
To maintain area consistency, it is suggested th at the applicant consid er the creation of a
comprehensive sign plan which establishes a signage theme for all commercial uses in
the development.
As a condition of site and building plan a pproval, all site signage must meet the
applicable requirements of the City’s Sign Ordinance.
Lighting. As required by ordinance, a lighting plan identifying illumination levels on
the subject site has been provided. While the proposed illumination levels have been
found to be acceptable, some concern exis ts regarding the fixture details.
According to the Ordinance, the source of lights should be hooded and controlled so as
not to illuminate adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. While the proposed fixture
selections are considered visually appeali ng, the source of the light (within the fixture)
does not appear to be hooded and theref ore may illuminate surrounding properties.
As a condition of site and building plan appr oval, the lighting relate d requirements of the
ordinance must be satisfied.
Development Agreement:Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant
will be required to enter into a developmen t agreement with the City and post all the
necessary securities required by it.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 35
Conditional Use Permit
As previously indicated, the applicant is requesting approv al of a conditional use permit
to allow an accessory drive-through-facility for the retail center. While the accessory
drive-through associated with the motor fuel station (the carwash) will be required at
some future point, it is not being considered at this time as detailed plans regarding the
motor fuel station have not been received.
The retail center drive-through lane is loca ted on the north side of the building and is
configured to provide ample stacking sp ace (for eight vehicles) and minimize site
disruptions.
In considering conditional use permit requests, the Ordinance states that the Planning and
Zoning Board shall recommend approval and th e City Council shall order the issuance of
such permit only if it finds that such use at such location:
1.Will not be detrimental to or endange r the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City.
Comment: Drive-thru facilities currently ex ist within the City of Lino Lakes. The
proposed use in not anticipated to 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 suggests commercial use of the site. Thus,
the proposed land use sati sfies the land use directives of the Plan.
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 character of that area.
Comment: The building design is consistent with the requirements of the
Ordinance and therefore will not change the character of the area.
4.Will be served adequately by essential pu blic facilities and services, including
street, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer systems, and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and
services provided by the persons or ag encies responsible for the establishment
of the proposed use.
Comment: As a condition of project appr oval, the building wi ll be adequately
served by essential public facilities and services.
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.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 36
Comment: This development is not expect ed to increase public costs, nor be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community .
6.Will not involve uses, activities, processes, 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.
Comment: The proposed commercial use of th e property is not expected to create
any excessive externalities that would be abnormal to the character of commercial
sites.
7.Will have vehicular approaches to the prope rty which are so designed as not to
create traffic congestion or an interf erence with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares.
Comment: The site layout meets standa rds held within the City’s Zoning
Ordinance including turn lanes, access width, a nd access spacing/location.
8.Will not result in the destruc tion, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic
feature of major importance.
Comment: The applicant is currently work ing with City Engineer to satisfy
drainage related issues.
9.Will conform to specific standards of th is ordinance applicable to the particular
use.
Comment: The proposed use will as a c ondition of approval meet the applicable
requirements of the Ordinance.
It is the opinion of staff that several key issues need to be addressed prior to this
development moving forward. Specific issu es of note include excessive impervious
surface coverage, site circulation concerns a nd uncertainties regarding Watershed District
review of the project.
As a result, staff cannot recommend appr oval until the following items have been
addressed:
1.The site plan is modified to address circulation related co ncerns west of the
proposed retail center.
2.The site plan be modified such that impe rvious surface coverage (for each lot) not
exceed 60 percent as required by the Shoreland Ordinance.
3.Comments from the Rice Creek Wate rshed District are received and
recommendations of the Dist rict have been satisfied.
4.The concerns of the City Engineer rela ted to grading, draina ge and utilities as
outlined in the memorandum dated 2/4/03 be satisfied.
5.The preliminary plat is revised to accurately identify the area of Lot 1.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 37
6.A drainage easement is pl aced over the sites ponding area.
7.Drainage and utility easements are placed al ong all lot lines
8.Cross parking and access easements be reco rded with the property at the time of
final plat. Prior to recording, such ea sements shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Attorney.
9.The subdivision satisfy applicable park dedication requirements.
10.The northerly access on Hodgson Road be eliminated.
11.Curb cut locations be subject to re view and approval by the City Engineer.
12.Building colors be specified and subject to City approval.
13.The seven off-street parking stalls loca ted east of the buildi ng be reserved for
employee use.
14. One additional handicap parking stall (totaling three spaces) be provided to satisfy
applicable State requirements.
15. A temporary turn-around be provided at the terminus of the public street stub.
16. An interim development plan for the no rthern portion of the site (addressing
interim access, stormwater management etc. prior to motor fuel station
construction) be prepared subject to re view by the City Engineer and approval by
the City.
17. The applicant consider the creation of a comprehensive sign plan. All site signage
shall meet the applicable requirements of the Sign Ordinance.
18. Light fixture details meet applicable ordinance requirements including the
provision that the source of lights sha ll be hooded and controlled so as not to
illuminate adjacent properties or public rights-of-way.
19. The following landscaping related recommendations be satisfied:
A.Landscaping should be provided around the perimeter of the proposed
pond.
B.Ground story plantings should be identified.
C.Norway Maples and Amur Maples should be substituted with on-invasive
species.
D.A tree inventory should be submitted.
E.Additional Oak trees should be plan ted on the east side of the retail
building.
F.Oak trees should be substituted for Laurel Leaf Willow on the east side of
the retail building.
G.No landscaping be located within designated public rights-of-way.
Chair Schaps noted staff was not asking for a ny action on this tonight due to insufficient
information.
Mr. Lyden requested there be no gas station in this proposed development. He stated
zoning wise, they did not have to put a gas station there. He suggested a restaurant being
put in that area.
Mr. Hyden asked what was the future of C ounty 49. Mr. Grochala summarized what the
plan was for County 49 at this time. He not ed the concept plan was for signalization and
left and right turn lanes at various points, as well as realignment of Ware Road on the
south side of Birch Street. He noted th e only reason the County was not widening the
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 38
road was because the City would not allow it. He noted they would be adding turn lanes,
but not additional travel lanes.
Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment.
Greg Schlink, developer, stated they accep ted staff’s recommendation for tabling this
item. He stated they were working with staff on their recommendations. He noted they
were also working with staff on the traffi c issues. He stated they have had one
neighborhood meeting so far with the resident s. He noted there was good attendance at
the meeting and the residents were concer ned about traffic issues and the townhomes
they were proposing, especially the value of the townhomes. He indicated the residents
did not want a gas station or retail in the area.
Chair Schaps recommended they have more neighborhood meetings. Mr. Schlink replied
if they were fruitful meetings, he would not oppose them. He stated they had a nice
project that they were proud of. He stated th ey had a project in Forest Lake and invited
the public to see it. He encouraged the resident s to see that project. He stated the project
was south of 97, just west of the airport.
Chair Schaps requested in the future, they br ing in pictures of their developments for
review.
Greg Nault, 6450 Ware Road, stated he was a re sident for 22 years. He stated his biggest
concern was the density of the project. He asked they consider R-2 residential on Ware
Road. He requested the density be kept down along Ware Road. Chair Schaps stated
when there was commercial development in th e area, one of the ways to transition back
to single-residential was to put in medium density housing.
Mr. Nault stated if new homes went in Ware Road, they needed to at least know that the
homes behind them would be high density.
Perry Ladem, 6425 Hodgson Road, stated he wa s opposed to the rezoning to commercial.
He stated when he bought his home five years ago, he researched th at the farm was going
to be residential and if he knew it was goi ng to be rezoned commercial, he would not
have bought his property. He suggested putti ng in the commercial property along Birch
Street where the other commercial property was.
Dana Skibsted, 6471 Hodgson Road, agreed th at the commercial should be along Birch
Street. She expressed concern about the lig hting coming into her home and the widening
of the road. She requested th e lighting to low and that a lo t of trees be planted if she
loses her pine trees. She requested a berm to protect lighting from coming into her home.
She noted they had a well and a septic syst em and stated there was an existing drainage
field in the farmland. She stated she unde rstood the water would be ponded and filtered
from the commercial area and that it would drain into her backyard. She asked what
would happen if her septic went bad becaus e of this drainage, or if her well gets
contaminated from this runoff. She also expressed concern about the run-off going into
Baldwin Lake. She stated this could be a huge issue for her.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 39
Beth Piette, 425 Arrowhead Drive, stated she was against the strip mall, commercial part
of the zoning. She stated she believed it ha d been zoned residentia l. She stated the
Comprehensive Plan would not be met if th ey put in townhomes. She noted they had
plenty of gas stations and retail in the ar ea. She requested the area remain retail.
Chair Schaps asked if she had attended the Comprehensive Plan meetings. Ms. Piette
replied she did not, but she received the books from the City today.
Jeff Kerr, 456 Hawthorn Road, stated he also did not get the Comprehensive Plan books
and sometimes it takes something like this as a wake up call. He stated the City was
fortunate to have an Environmental Board a nd requested they take a look at what Lino
Lakes has.
Bryan Olson, 511 Hawthorn Road, stated he was at the neighborhood meeting and was
upset about the disconcern the developer had about the safety and traffic issues on Birch.
He stated putting a stop light on Birch and Hodgson would, he believed, help. He
indicated this was not only a matter of traffic, but of safety for the children in the area.
He stated he was surprised that the devel oper was still going through with the gas station
proposal. He stated there was a gas station going in across the stre et and they did not
need another gas station in the area. He stat ed he was not in favor of zoning this area as
commercial and he was not happy about it bei ng zoned as R-3. He requested the 30 acres
be zoned R-1 residential only. He thanked st aff for their decision to not move forward
with a decision tonight. He stated they needed to have more neighborhood meetings.
Cindy Bramwell, 441 Hawthorn Road, asked if they wanted to be like Minneapolis where
the roads were not large enough to handle th e traffic. She noted they had 142 units
proposed, meaning there was 280 cars. She st ated she wanted to see both Hodgson and
Birch widened with signalization. She believed they should not be developing the area if
it would not support the traffic. She stated her main concern was the traffic and believed
this was the main concern of the residents.
Connie Grundhofer, 235 Linda Avenue, stated she was on the Environmental Board and
stated the Environmental Board did not oppose it because of th e car wash, but also
because of the gas station. She noted ther e would be drainage into Baldwin and Rice
Lake and that was a concern. She stated the soil was not made to hold pollution.
Councilmember Carlson, speaking as a private citizen, called attent ion to the memo by
the EDAC memo dated February 6, 2003. She st ated it was a free market to decide the
locations of gas stations/convenience stores within the City. She noted EDAC was in
unanimous agreement that imposing stricter standards on the number of the location of
gas stations/convenience stores within the City will impede future economic
development. She noted she was at the Comprehensive Plan meetings.
Mr. Lyden stated neighborhood businesses erode d the neighborhood. He stated he would
not approve a gas station in this development.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 40
The developer stated they were willing to m eet with the neighbors again, but wanted the
meetings to be productive. He asked the Bo ard for their suggestions on what they needed
to address.
Chair Schaps stressed the importance of neighborhood meetings.
Mr. Grochala stated the land use for that corner was commercial and medium density
residential in compliance with the Comprehens ive Plan, but he believ ed there were things
that could be done to address some of the ne ighbor’s concerns. He stated the residents
needed to realize that the developer’s propos al was in compliance with what was suppose
to go there.
Peter Hilger, architect, stated they had con cerns about the traffic capacity of Birch and if
the commercial was entirely along Birch Stre et, would not allow good access. He noted
if the access did not work, commercial would not work. He stated they were also dealing
with wetland issues and they felt this propo sal would have the greatest potential.
Chair Schaps stated what was happening to night was that the publ ic hearing would be
continues and the project was tabled until th e next meeting. He noted the public hearing
would remain open and they would be give n the opportunity to speak again if they
wanted. When all of the staff issues had been resolved and once staff recommended
approval or denial, the Board would vote. He stated he did not know when the vote
would happen, it depended on when the staff’s c oncerns were satisfied. Once there was a
vote, this was only a recommendation to Counc il. It was up to the Council to make the
final decision. He noted this was typica lly done within a month after the Board’s
recommendation. He suggested that they attend neighborhood meetings and to remain
civil at those meetings. He stated a de velopment of some sort would happen on this
property and stated the best thing they could do was to be constructive and not
destructive. He stated the next Board meeting was on March 12, 2003.
Diane Lang, 6449 Hokah Drive, asked who de termines who is in the neighborhood and
how are they notified. Mr. Smyser stated pr operty owners within a certain distance was
notified. He stated what they normally did was that when a developer held a
neighborhood meeting, they were given the same mailing list that they were required to
give for a public hearing. For this type of a project, it was 600 feet for everyone around
the property.
Ms. Lang stated she had received the noti ce for tonight’s meeting, but not for the
neighborhood meeting. Mr. Smyser replied it wa s the developer’s responsibility to send
out the letters for the neighborhood meeting and he was given the list. He stated he did
not know why she did not receive a notice and s uggested she talk to the developer and get
on their mailing list.
Mr. Rafferty stated he did not believe the cu rrent plan flowed very well with respect to
traffic and asked the developers keep open ear s to the resident’s concerns. He noted the
developer was the landowner and it was up to th em as to what would work, but suggested
they work with the neighbors and encour aged them to not put in a gas station.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 41
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue th e public hearing to the March, 2003 Board
meeting. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0.
E.PUBLIC HEARING, James Keefe, 6300 Rol ling Hills Drive, Rezone to PDO
and Preliminary Plat
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 10:12 p.m.
Staff stated the applicant, James Keefe, is requesting a rezoning of his property to
Planned Development Overlay Di strict to allow for a rural cluster subdivision consisting
of three build able lots. Each of the lo ts would be accessed from a proposed private
roadway lying within a proposed outlot.
In June of 2001 Mr. Keefe contacted City staff requesting information regarding the
potential subdivision of his property. Mr . Keefe was provided w ith the requirements of
the R-X, Rural Executive District. In Se ptember of 2001 Mr. Keef e met with the City
Council to discuss the potential options for subdividing his pr operty. He expressed at the
time, in a letter dated September 19, 2001, that he would like to sp lit off several 2.5 acre
parcels from his property due to the economic hardship he was currently experiencing.
The council expressed the need for additiona l information before a decision could be
made.
City staff prepared a memo to the City Council, dated September 28, 2001, identifying
issues with regard to the proposed subdivi sion and listing options to be explored,
including the potential for a clustered development usi ng the Planned Development
Overlay District (PDO) requirements. The memo was distributed to Mr. Keefe.
On December 10, 2002 the City received an application from Mr. Keefe requesting minor
subdivision approval. In a letter, dated December 18, 2002, Mr. Keefe was informed that
his application was substantially incomplete and listed information that was necessary to
begin review of the request. Mr. Keefe submitted additional information on January 6,
2003.
On January 8, 2003, at the regular Planni ng and Zoning Board meeting, Mr. Keefe’s
minor subdivision request was added to the board’s agenda for discussion. The board
requested that staff work with the applican t to resolve issues and, if possible place the
item on the January 22, 2003 meeting agenda. Staff met with Mr. Keefe and his surveyor
on January 16, 2003 to discuss is sues relating the proposal.
The minor subdivision request and associated variances were brought to the Planning and
Zoning Board on January 22, 2003. Staff’s recommendation was to deny the Minor
Subdivision and Variance requests. The Pla nning and Zoning Board tabled the request
and recommended that the applicant proceed with a rezoning to Planned Development
Overlay (PDO) to facilitate the development.
Staff presented its analysis by noting the following:
City Code
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 42
Chapter 1001.8, Subdivision 6(1) states All lots shall abut for their full frontage on a
publicly dedicated street.
Chapter 302.03, Subdivision 1 (10) states that private streets shall not be permitted, nor
shall public improvements be approved for any private streets.
Section 5, Subdivision 2.B.1 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance establishes the
minimum lot size of 10 acres for lots within the R-X, Rural Executive District.
Section 3, Subdivision 3.B.2. of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that within
zoning districts with a minimum lot size requi rement of ten (10) acres or more, up to
eighty (80) percent of the minimum lot area ma y be comprised of areas which are platted
as street rights-of-way, is below the 100 year flood elevation, or lies within city
watercourses, wetlands or water bodies.
Section 5, Subdivision 2.B.2 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance establishes the
minimum lot width of 330 feet for lots wi thin the R-X, Rural Executive District.
Section 9, Subdivision 4.A. of the Lino Lakes Z oning Ordinance states that the intent of
the PDO District is to permit greater flex ibility and, consequently, more creative and
imaginative design of the development of resi dential, commercial or industrial areas than
are generally possible under conventional zoni ng regulations. It is further intended to
promote more economical and efficient us e of the land while providing a harmonious
variety of housing choices, a height level of urban amenities, and preservation of natural
scenic qualities of open space.
Article 9, Section 902.2.2.1 of the 1997 Uniform Fi re Code states that Fire apparatus
access roads shall have an unobstructe d width of not less than 20 feet.
Article 9, Section 902.2.2.2 of the 1997 Uniform Fi re Code states that Fire apparatus
access roads shall be designed and maintain ed to support the imposed loads of fire
apparatus and shall be surf aced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Existing Conditions
The property being considered for developmen t consists of two existing lots totaling
37.47 acres. An existing single family reside nce is located on a te n acre lot. The
remaining undeveloped lot consists of 27.47 acres.
The western half of the site is mostly w ooded upland area with wetlands located in the
northwest corner. The eastern half of the property is primarily lowland with wetlands
being the predominate cover type.
Access to the site is limited to an existing 10 foot wide priv ate driveway that extends into
the property from the northern terminus of Rolling Hills Drive.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 43
Land Use
The City’s comprehensive plan designates the west half of the property for Low Density,
sewered residential uses (Stage 2, 2010-2020). Th e eastern half of th e site is designated
for rural land uses. A conceptual greenway is also delineated over the eastern half of the
site. Surrounding proposed land uses include Low Density Sewered Residential to the
north and east, Low Density, Unsewered Reside ntial to the south and Rural to the west.
Zoning
The property is currently zoned R-X, Rural Executive. Adjacent zoning includes R-X to
the west, south and east, and R-1-P DO to the north (Clearwater Creek).
Lot Area
The proposed subdivision would create three parcels and an outlot from the existing two
that are currently owned by the applicant. The proposed lot sizes are as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1:32.08 acres
Lot 2, Block 1:2.35 acres (2.14 acres of upland)
Lot 3, Block 1:1.99 acres (all upland)
Outlot A:1.05 acres
Lot Width
The proposed lot widths of both Lots 2 a nd 3, Block 1 are approximately 180 feet.
Utilities
The City’s Comprehensive Plan designates the western half of the site as Low Density,
Sewered Residential. The Plan furthe r designates this area as a Stage 2, 2010-2020
growth area.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main were stubbed out within Flora Court (Clearwater Creek
3 rd Addition), northwest of the site to service Stage 2 (2010-2020) development. Through
review of existing topog raphic mapping it does appear possibl e to service this property as
well as adjacent properties to the west in the future.
It should be noted, however, th at the proposed Plat, if appr oved, would not eliminate the
possibility of servicing adjacent properties to the west or south.
Access
The property is currently serviced by a grav el private driveway, measuring approximately
10 feet in width. The driveway accesses the terminus of Rolling Hills Drive. One other
existing residential lot utilizes the drivew ay, however, it appear s that there are no
easements currently in place.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 44
As with all subdivisions in the City, publicly dedicated right -of-way is required as well as
the improvement of such to City standards. These standards typically include a paved
bituminous surface with a mini mum width of 32 feet. While the width requirement has
fluctuated on a case by case basis pursuant to City Council approval, all roads, including
private roads allowed within Planned Devel opment Overlay District s have been required
to include bituminous paving.
The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing roadway as a private road operated
and maintained by a Homeowner’s Associati on. The private roadway will lie within
what is proposed as Outlot A. The creation of Outlot A, for this purpose, will need to be
evaluated by the City Attorney. It may be more appropriate to create an ingress/egress
easement rather than a separate parcel of record.
The applicant is proposing to widen the existing roadway to 20 feet using Class 5 gravel.
The proposed improvements are intended to keep traffic to a minimum and maintain the
existing rural characte r of the property.
20 feet is the minimum required width fo r access road to accommodate emergency
vehicles as set forth in the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. Staff will need to further evaluate
the proposed gravel base to determine the adeq uacy of the road to support such vehicles.
Bituminous surfacing of the roadway is preferred.
Easements
Public drainage and utility easements are provided on the preliminary plat being 10 feet
in width and adjoining all lot lines as requi red by City Ordinance. Additional drainage
and utility easements will need to be dedicated to cover all existing wetlands on the site.
Sewage Treatment
Soil borings provided by the appl icant indicate the ability of the newly created Lots 2 and
3, Block 1 to accommodate two standard mound systems on each lot.
Park Dedication/Open Space
The City’s Park Board has not had an opportuni ty to review the request. However, the
City’s 1992 Park Plan and Development Guide identifies a proposed trail corridor from
Cedar Street, through what is now the Clea rwater Creek subdiv ision, and extending
southerly to link up with Otter Lake Road.
Provision of a trail corridor along the eastern half of the proposed subdivision would
provide for the continuation of the trail system, existing within Clearwater Creek, and
provide access to the Clearwa ter Creek neighborhood park fo r residents located to the
south of the Clearwater Creek Developmen t. Such access would allow the City to
maximize its investment in the park by expand ing it’s service area to include a greater
number of area residents. Addi tionally, as stated in the Park Plan, the continuation of this
trail along existing wetlands, drainageways, a nd wooded areas, within an area designated
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 45
as proposed Greenway, represents an excellen t opportunity to use th e linear trail corridor
concept to its fullest potential.
The PDO requirements include a provision that thirty-five (35%) of the total project area
shall be preserved as open space. Base d on the size of the en tire site (37.47 acres)
approximately 13 acres of open space should be provided. The applicant has noted in the
PDO narrative that the PDO is intended, in part , to provide for and preserve the wetlands
and open space for the surrounding properties.
Open Space may be provided for either by conve yance of property to the City or a non-
profit corporation or by establishment of a restrictive c ovenant running with the land for
the benefit of residents of the planned development.
The public drainage and utility easements th at are required around all wetlands on the site
should adequately satisfy this requirement.
Ghost Plat
The applicant has provided a Ghost Plat id entifying how Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, could be
subdivided in the future with th e extension of public utilities. The plat demonstrates the
potential to divide the two lots to create eight lots meeting the R-1X, Single Family
Executive District lot requirements by extendi ng a cul-de-sac into the property from the
west.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed rezoning to Planned Development Overlay
District and associated subdi vision are consistent with th e policies and requirements of
the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance.
The proposed development, subject to the re quirements of approval, will allow for the
subdivision of the subject property while maintaining rural residential densities,
preserving open space, and facilitating the im plementation of the City’s Park plan.
With regards to the rezoning the City’s Z oning Ordinance requires that the Planning and
Zoning Board shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Its
judgment shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors:
1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City
Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: The proposed rezoning is consis tent with the City’s Comprehensive
Plan. The Plan provides for rural clustere d subdivisions. The overall density of
the development (1 unit per 12.49 acres) is consistent with the minimum rural
development density of 1 per 10 acres as specified in the plan. The proposal also
allows for future sewered residential development.
2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the
area.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 46
Comment: The proposed use will be compat ible with both present and future land
uses. The proposed subdivision is compatib le with existing rural residential uses
and does not prevent possible future sewered residential development.
3. The proposed use conforms with all pe rformance standards contained herein.
Comment: The proposed subdivision, in conjunction with the conditions of
preliminary plat approval, will conform to the performance standards contained
with the zoning ordinance.
4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the City’s service capacity.
Comment: The proposed use will not ov erburden the City’s service capacity.
5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is wi thin capabilities of streets serving the
property.
Comment: Trip generation from the addition of two residential lo ts is within the
capabilities of existing st reets serving the property.
Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning.
Staff recommends approval of the prelim inary plat with the following conditions:
1. The proposed private road sh all be improved to a minimum width of twenty (20)
feet and include a permanent cul-de-sac at its northern terminus. The roadway
shall be surfaced with bituminous pave ment. The roadway section shall be
determined by the City Engineer to insure the adequacy of th e roadway to support
emergency vehicles.
2. A Homeowners Association shall be establ ished to insure the continued operation
and maintenance of the private roadwa y. The association agreement shall be
subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney prior to final plat
approval.
3. All wetlands on the subject property shall be delineated and shown on the final
plat.
4. Public drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated to the city and cover all
wetlands on the subject property.
5. An easement for public trail purposes shal l be dedicated to the City extending
from Rolling Hills Drive to the north prope rty line of the subject property. The
location and width of such easement sh all be determined by City staff upon
further review of the existing conditi ons and discussion with the applicant.
6. The developer shall enter into a developm ent agreement with the City to insure
completion of necessary roadway improvements. Such agreement shall be
entered into in conjunction with final plat approval.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 47
Mr. Rafferty asked what was the differen ce between this proposed road and other
proposals that had been made previously by ot her applicants. Mr. Grochala replied this
road would service more than one residen ce, where the other proposals serviced only one
driveway. He expressed con cern about the maintenance of the road and questioned if a
road was going to fit.
Mr. Lyden stated he did not have an issue with the 20-foot gravel road. However, he
would like the cul-de-s ac not to be there.
Ms. Lane asked what the Ordinance said about paved accesses. Mr. Grochala replied this
was a rural district and they were not required to have paved accesses.
Chair Schaps thanked staff for their work ing on this and pushing it through the process.
He stated he agreed with a 20-foot road, bu t did not believe paving it was necessary. He
stated he believed they needed to add more than 5 inches of gravel though. He
questioned the easement for one of the driveway s. Mr. Grochala repl ied that should be a
part of the association agreement. He said the ingress/egress for that parcel should be
included in this process.
Mr. Hyden stated he was not in agreement on the road. He asked what other
development did they approve where they did not require a paved road. He stated what
was being proposed was the development of the property and gaining from that
development and now they were making anothe r concession. He stated the other issue
was what was easier to maintain and where di d all of the gravel go after three or four
winters.
Chair Schaps noted the number of trips on th e road was going to be very minimal, but
they may want to, in the event, it was deve loped where it was right now, a paved roadway
should be required. It was up to the association to maintain the road.
Mr. Hyden stated they needed to be fair to everyone who came before them. Chair
Schaps stated this was a unique situation and if another development came in, it would be
applied to the same standards.
Ms. Lane noted the difference in her mind was that this was zoned rural and had minimal
traffic.
Mr. Grochala stated Mr. Keefe wanted to ha ve the road less than 20 feet wide, which he
would not recommend. Chair Schaps noted the reason they did PDO was to give all sides
flexibility. He noted traffic would be minimal in this development.
Mr. Grochala stated the road has always been an issue as pieces have been split off. He
stated staff wanted something that would work.
Mr. Lyden agreed that the PDO was to look at unique pieces of property. He believed
they were not being incons istent in their decision.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 48
Mr. Rafferty stated he was not as concerned about the bitu minous on the road, as he was
with respect to safety.
Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment.
Jim Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, thanked everyone for their support and effort during
this process. He thanked staff or pushi ng this through. He stated he had worked
something out with the bank today. He stat ed the association was in the works. He
stated he had lived there for 40 years, and if someone did not want to maintain the road,
he would do it himself because he had to ge t in and out. He stated his neighbors were
against a trail running through the area. Mr. Grochala stated they would like to see what
options they had with respect to a trail.
Mr. Keefe noted the only option for a trial w ould be through his front yard because the
rest of the area was too wet. He stated ever yone in the area did not want the trail. Chair
Schaps asked if he would work w ith staff regarding this issue.
Mr. Keefe stated he would prefer to give the City money for the park dedication instead
of having a trail run through his property. He st ated he did not want a trail right next to
his home. He stated he would be willi ng to get a petition from the residents.
Mr. Keefe stated his suggestion was with th e road was to keep the existing width of
Rolling Hills Drive. He noted the neighbors did not want to 20-f oot wide road there
because of people driving on their property. He presented the various road widths in the
area and stated there was no point in wide ning the road. He indicated emergency
personnel could get in the area. He stated the association w ould make the road as wide a
Rolling Hills Drive.
Chair Schaps stated if the road was 12 feet wide, it should not be 12 feet wide and
emergency personnel needed to get in the area. Mr. Keefe noted he would be willing to
widen the road in the future if this developed any further.
Chair Schaps stated it was reasonable to wide n the road and not have it paved. Mr. Keefe
noted if a 20-foot wide road was put in, significant trees would be lost.
Mr. Corson asked staff to look at the road and determine the width. He expressed
concern about parts of the road not being 12 f eet. He asked if the road should be 5 or 7
ton. Mr. Grochala replied 7 ton was the City standard.
Mr. Keefe stated they intended to have this as a private road and they did not want people
to come in and turn around. He noted if serv ice vehicles needed to turn around, they just
drove down to his home and turned around. He indicated he did not see the point of a
cul-de-sac.
Mr. Hyden asked if they could put a sign stating it was a private road.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 49
Mr. Rafferty asked if there was a cost concer n about putting in a cu l-de-sac. Mr. Keefe
replied that was a part of it, but there was not much traffi c on the road and people could
turn around in his driveway.
Chair Schaps noted it was an unfinished situ ation and people shou ld not have to turn
around in his driveway.
Mr. Keefe requested the road no t be widened to 20 feet, especi ally since the roads in the
area were not all 20 feet.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 10:55 p.m. The motion was
supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6-0.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve James Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, Rezone
from R-X Rural Executive to R-X Rura l Executive/Planned Development Overlay
(PDO). The motion was supported by Mr. Lyde n. Motion carried 6-0-1 (Mr. Tralle –
Abstained).
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve th e Preliminary Plat subject to the
recommendations and conditions as outlined in staff’s report with requirement for a seven
ton gravel road design and a 20-foot road wi dth with the idea that at some point these
roads would be improved. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-
0-1 (Mr. Tralle – Abstained).
Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 11:05 p.m. and reconvened at 11:10 p.m.
F.PUBLIC HEARING, Bill Gschwind, 6931 Lake Drive, CUP and Variance
Staff requested Item 5F be deleted from the agenda.
G.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Draft Zoning Ordinance Review
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 11:10 p.m.
Mr. Smyser asked if any of the Board me mbers had questions regarding sections one
through three.
Mr. Smyser noted the following changes/corrections/additions:
Page 4-1, the neighborhood business district will not be deleted.
Section 5, tree service would be added to the rural section. He asked if they wanted to
add tree service to the R-X District as we ll. The Board recommended it not be added to
the R-X District.
Mr. Lyden stated the R-1 was out of date and obsolete. He stated it should be deleted.
He stated the minimum lot standard should be R-1X. He indicated homes were getting
larger and lots smaller. He stated this would be good for the City.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 50
Chair Schaps asked how do they provide housing for the average person. Mr. Lyden
stated there was already in existence hous ing that was affordable and they needed
housing that would support themselves.
Chair Schaps noted smaller homes were not being constructed.
Mr. Rafferty expressed concern that a 10,800 square foot land was not buildable to
today’s standards. He stated he would like to see R-1 at the R-1X size and make the R-
1X size larger. He stated a quarter acre lot was small. He stated this was a good
suggestion for the City to look at.
Mr. Corson expressed concern about affordable housing. He noted with energy costs and
property taxes going up, people may not always be able to afford to build large homes.
Mr. Tralle asked why the average person could not live in the City. He noted the average
person could not afford to live in the City. Mr. Rafferty replied the cost of the lots are
too expensive.
Mr. Lyden pointed out the City did not have to be everything for everybody. Mr.
Grochala noted the cost of the lots depende d on the characteristics of the land. He noted
the City had added an additional district of R-1XEC which was the combination of R-1
and R-1X. He noted the developers were always going to maximize the property.
Mr. Rafferty stated the reality was that Lino Lakes might not be the starter home
community for people.
Chair Schaps noted the committee had decided they wanted the diversity of choice and
that was the reason it R-1 was left in. He noted the market was going to drive this and he
did not see this happening anyway, so it doe s no harm to leave R-1 in the Ordinance.
Mr. Rafferty asked who would be in favor of changing the minimum size of the R-1 lot to
12,800 sq. ft. and the R-1X changed to 15,800 s q. ft. Mr. Smyser pointed out the task
force had discussed this they had determined what would work for the lot sizes. He
stated whenever discussions arise in any community, he wondered if people who invested
in their community and live in townhomes hear everyone hated townhomes, what are
they to think. He stated he would feel insulted.
Mr. Rafferty noted this was not a criticism to anyone, but by having larger lot sizes, it
would only benefit the resident. Mr. Smyser poi nted out as the lots got bigger, the price
went up.
Mr. Smyser noted there was quite a lot of discussion nationwide among religious
organizations that there were a lot of people being excluded from communities for
various reasons (economics, life-styles, re tirees). He asked where are these people
suppose to go when they could not afford to live in the community any longer. He stated
the City was excluding these pe ople and the more expensive the City made things, fewer
people would be able to live here. He stated ethical concerns were extremely important.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 51
Mr. Rafferty noted land was expensive no ma tter what and people were building homes
that were too small for their lots. He stated he was not against people wanting to build a
starter home, but he was for it on a larger lot. He stated they should give the people more
options for their land.
Mr. Tralle stated the community c ould handle both the $150,000.00 home and the
$1,000,000.00 home. He stated the City was bei ng arrogant not allowing diversity into
the City.
Mr. Hyden noted economics drove this, and if th e lots were more expensive, that limited
the amount of people that could afford to live in the City.
Chair Schaps stated he believe d the relative possibility of a lot of R-1 lots in the future
was small. Mr. Lyden replied his concern was the quality.
Mr. Tralle stated his kids were from Lino Lakes and asked where would they live after
college. He asked why could they not live in their hometown. He noted they could not
afford to live in the City they grew up i n. Mr. Lyden pointed out that most of the
children in the City would probably have to live in an inner ring ar ea until they built up
equity.
Mr. Tralle stated this town was built on bl ue-collar workers, and blue-collar workers
should be able to live here if they want. He noted this town was now turning into white-
collar workers. He asked why should his kids not be able to live in Lino Lakes after they
graduated.
Mr. Rafferty stated kids thes e days would have no choice but to buy older homes because
they would not be able to afford new homes.
Mr. Rafferty asked if there was a new comprehensive map that was available. Mr.
Smyser stated the Comprehensive Plan does not change the zoning. The land use map
says what the City wanted the land to b ecome. The zoning map was not changed. He
noted there was a couple of plac es that they would need to look at in the future, but the
Comprehensive Plan does not change the zoning map.
Mr. Rafferty asked who was in favor of incr easing the R-1 minimum. Mr. Lyden and Mr.
Rafferty were in favor.
Ms. Lane noted the market was going to dr ive what the development was and it would
not make any difference what they did.
Mr. Smyser noted in both Rural Districts, they added planned development for rural
cluster. It would be a CUP and not a rezoning.
Page 6-13, garage size requirement would be de leted and it would state that an attached
double garage would be required.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 52
Page 6-34 under conditional uses, clubs and l odges, Mr. Smyser suggested be deleted.
The Board agreed with the suggestion.
No changes were made to the R-6 Dist rict. The R-7 District was deleted.
Brick red would be added to the colors under the neighborhood business district.
Mr. Smyser asked if gas stations should be a llowed in the business districts. He stated
the other committees agreed they shoul d remain in the business districts.
Mr. Lyden stated no -- gas stati ons should not be allowed. He indicated the City did not
need this. Mr. Smyser stated they woul d remain in as a Conditional Use Permit as
written.
Ms. Lane asked if gas stations stayed in the Ordinance, di d they have to approve the
development. Mr. Smyser replied as long as the development met the requirements, the
Board would have to approve the developmen t. He noted they were tightening up the
requirements for gas stations.
Mr. Hyden stated he was concerned that the City would have 50 gas stations. He stated
the City had too many gas stations and banks.
Mr. Smyser replied they could not legally base any decision on how many people showed
up to oppose it, but they could oppose it by lim iting the locations of the gas stations by
putting something in the Zoning Ordinance.
Chair Schaps noted the gas stations were alr eady limited to basically four intersections in
the City.
Councilmember Carlson asked why couldn’t they limit gas stations like they do liquor
stores, by saying they need to be so far apart.
Chair Schaps asked who wanted to eliminate gas stations. The Board recommended to
eliminate it out of the ne ighborhood business district.
Mr. Rafferty suggested limiting gas stations to the freeway accesses. Chair Schaps stated
if they wanted commercial development, whet her they like it or not, it would need to
have a gas station with it to be successful.
Mr. Rafferty noted there were many business th ey could put in. Chair Schaps replied no
developer would be interested in developing if they could not ensure people would get
out of their car. He noted gasoline drives the leasing. He noted the only option they had
was to say where they did not want gas stations – not that they did not want them in the
City.
Mr. Rafferty stated he was in favor of elimin ating gas stations from commercial sites and
limiting them to the freeway entrances.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 53
Ms. Lane stated she wanted to eliminat e them from neighborhood business district.
Mr. Tralle stated gasoline was driving the re ntal, but who was going to come in the City
to start a business if there was no incentive. He noted the economic development in the
City has gone nowhere. He noted to be real istic about bringing businesses into the City,
what did they want here, and what type of incentives were they giving businesses to come
into the City. Mr. Grochala noted the City has put up a lot of roa dblocks to development
and indicated a lot of businesse s did not want to come into the City because it was too
difficult to get in.
Mr. Tralle stated he wanted to spend his m oney in the community he lived in instead of
giving it to other communities. He noted the reality was that people wanted fast food and
convenience.
Mr. Corson asked if they could limit the number of gas stations in the City by limiting the
locations in the neighborhood business district . Mr. Tralle noted competition was a good
thing when it came to gas stations.
Mr. Lyden noted they did not have any ki nd of buffer between general business and
residential. He stated he liked the idea of business parks, but th e problem was that they
were doing things the old way by putting up busines ses next to residential area. He stated
he wanted to see buffers between businesses and residential areas.
Mr. Smyser asked if they wanted to eliminate gas stations from some particular locations.
The Board agreed with that recommendation. The Board agreed to eliminate gas stations
from the Neighborhood Business District and de signate some specific locations for that.
Mr. Smyser stated he would need to l ook into Councilmember Carlson’s suggestion
about limiting gas stations by how close they were located to each other.
Mr. Smyser asked which locations did they not want to see gas stations. The Board
decided the following – Freeway interchanges – yes. County Road J and Hodgson – yes.
Hodgson and Lake Drive – yes. Centervi lle and Birch – no. County Road J and
Centerville Road – yes. Hodgson and Birch – no.
Mr. Smyser asked if the Board wanted bulk pr opane sales. The Bo ard decided to allow
bulk propane sales at gas stations.
Mr. Smyser asked if they wanted to allow tennis domes and if so, where. The Board
decided tennis domes were allowed in the ge neral business and light industrial districts.
Mr. Smyser stated the Central Business Di strict automatically becomes the General
Business District.
Mr. Smyser indicated they were creating a new zoning district called the Planned Unit
Development District to be used for mixed development. Planned Development Overlay
would be deleted.
Planning & Zoning Board
February 12, 2003 APPROVED MINUTES
Page 54
Mr. Lyden stated they needed to plan fo r some accesses to the Regional Park for
snowmobiles.
Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close the publ ic hearing at 1:23 a.m., February 13, 2003.
The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6-0.
Ms. Lane MOTION to approve Zoning Ordinance with recommendations. The motion
was supported by Mr. Corson.
Mr. Lyden requested the snowmobile issue be addressed.
Motion carried 6-0.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
VII.ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 1:28 a.m., February 13, 2003,
and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .