Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/2003 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 6:40 p.m., November 12, 2003. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps requested items V. C. a nd V. E. be placed before item V. A. The agenda was approved as revised. III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 8, 2003 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve th e October 8, 2003 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 3-0. Mr. Rafferty arrived at 6:42 p.m. IV.OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:42 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:42 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0. DATE: November 12, 2003 TIME STARTED: 6:40 P.M. TIME ENDED: 11:14 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyden, Rafferty (arrived at 6:42 p.m.), Schaps, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT: Lane and Lyden. STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Smyser; Mi chael Grochala; James Studenski; Tanda Gretz; and Mary Alice Divine Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES V.ACTION ITEMS C.Joseph Kivel, 6262 Otter Lake Road, Variances Staff stated this item was heard at th e October Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. After discussion, it was agreed by board memb ers and applicant that this application would be tabled pending tw o actions by th e applicant: 1. A full Certificate of Survey would be submitted, with complete setback information and proposed garage dimensions and setbacks. 2. The applicant would explore the possibili ty to swapping land with the neighboring property owner to the north, whereby land coul d be acquired so that a driveway could be constructed along the north ern property boundary with a ga rage to be placed to the east of the home. Staff indicated applicant had not yet submitted a full Certificate of Survey. As a result, applicant had requested this application be tabled until the December meeting. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to table Joseph Kivel, 6262 Otter Lake Road, Variances to the December Planning and Zoning Board Meeting and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. E.Capital Homes, 6750 Black Duck Drive, Variances Staff stated applicant had constructed a home at 6750 Black Duck Drive. The survey submitted for the proposed construction showed a side yard setback on the accessory/garage side at 5 feet and on the home side at 15 feet. After the homes were constructed, the City required that an “As-Built ” survey be done to verify that the home s had been built to specifications. The As-Bui lt survey for this prope rty showed that the required five-foot side yard setback for the garage had not been met, being only 4.5 feet rather than the required 5 feet. For this reason, the applicant is requested a 6-inch variance from ordinance requirements. Staff noted since the home and garage had already been constructed and there was no practical way to correct the setback, staff r ecommended approval of this variance request. Staff indicated the neighbori ng property owner to the sout h had been notified of this variance application. Chair Schaps asked if the home was sold yet. Ms. Gretz replied she did not know. She stated she had sent a notice to the neighbor to the south a nd had not heard from them. Mr. Hyden asked how this error had occurred. Ms. Gretz replied she believed inaccurate measurements were made at the time of construction, when materials and mounds of earth can make measurements more difficult to make. Kerry Burnham, Capital Homes, stated human error was the cause of this. He indicated he was caught between a “rock and a hard pl ace” because the surveyor he originally used was no longer taking any business and did not do the as-built survey. He replied it was Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES probably the foundation workers that made the mi stake. He noted he had spoken with the neighbor to the south and he was no t in objection to this variance. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approving Kerry Burnham/Don Sina – Capital Homes, 6750 Black Duck Drive request for variance from the required 5-foot side yard for accessory building and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0. A. PUBLIC HEARING, Circle-Lex VFW, 7868 Lake Drive, Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 6:45 p.m. Staff stated applicant was interested in c onstructing a new building at their site on the northeast corner of Lake Drive and Lois Lane . He noted the site was guided and zoned for this type of use. He indicated this wa s not within the MUSA and in order to connect to city utilities, it needed to receive MUSA. He noted the site had a conditional use permit (CUP) which would need to be ame nded to allow the construction of the new building. He indicated the City approve d a CUP amendment in April 1999 for the construction of an addition onto the existi ng VFW building. The work proposed by this new application would replace that approved plan. Staff summarized their November 12, 2003 report in detail. Staff noted there were a number of issues that should be addressed prior to approval. He indicated several of these issu es were so important, that th e rest of the plan depended on them. Because of this, staff recommended tabling the project. This would allow applicant time to redesign the ponds and park ing, as well as examine the other issues as noted in staff’s November 12, 2003 report Chair Schaps invited the a pplicant to make comment. Mike Thomas, Architect, stated they realized there were issues with parking. He noted if they looked at the area as a theatre or aud itorium use, there would not be enough parking, but if it was looked at as a da nce hall, there would be adequa te parking. He stated this was a matter of interpretation. Brian Bourassa, Civil Engine er, stated they had relocated the pond, which eliminated some of the parking spaces. He indicated they would address al l concerns regarding ponding issues and they hoped to find a middle ground for parking. Chair Schaps suggested they talk to othe r VFW’s to find out their parking needs and show staff what VFW’s of this size actually needed for parking. Mr. Thompson stated the biggest issue they had from a design standpoint was the parking issue. He stated they would do their best to address the other issues by the next meeting. He noted they hoped to start c onstruction this winter, if possi ble. He showed a sample of the proposed exterior materials and colors. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps asked if this building would look different than the existing one. Mr. Thompson it would. He noted this was an extr emely difficult site with respect to parking and trying to get all of the pi eces together was not easy. He stated he could get the appropriate parking on site, if they did the ponding underground. However, this would significantly increase the cost of the proj ect and they were trying to avoid that. Chair Schaps invited the public to make co mment and to limit their comments to two minutes so everyone could be heard. Bert Noren, 785 Lois Lane, stated his concer n was a privacy fence, or barrier, such as trees between the parking lot and his reside nce. He expressed concern about seeing headlights all night. He noted it was a vacan t lot right now, with a 3-foot fence. He stated he had lived on his property for 18 year s. He stated he liked the looks of the proposed building and believed this woul d provide a good sound barrier between his residence and Lake Drive. Ann O’Brien, 793 Lois Lane, stated she had th e same concerns as Mr. Noren. She stated they had issues with overflow parking in the past and requested no parking signs be posted on her residential street. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to continue the Public Hearing, Circle-Lex VFW, 7868 Lake Drive, Conditional Use Permit request, to the next Planning and Zoning meeting and was supported by Mr. Co rson. Motion carried 4-0. B.PUBLIC HEARING, Eagle Brook Church, 7709 20 th Avenue North, Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. Staff stated applicant was proposing to co nstruct a new facility on 90+ acres on 20 th Avenue, north of 77 th Street. He indicated a church was a conditional use in the Rural zoning district. He noted the City proce ssed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) on this project last year. That re view examined the potential environmental impacts of the project. The design reflected in the current application used information gathered during the EAW process. Sta ff summarized their November 12, 2003 report in detail. Staff recommended tabling this applicati on to the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting. He noted there were numerous unres olved issues that include fundamental site design elements. These included the existing house on the site, clarifications of drainage design issues, clarification of roadway design issues, and traffic management policies. Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. Kettlerine Leonidas, TKDA Architects, stated they had been at this project for quite awhile. She indicated they had been th rough the Environmental Session worksheet and they were now in the design process. She st ated they were in contact with Anoka County and the Rice Creek Watershed District. She indicated they had made great endeavors to Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES meet with the neighbors over the past few months. She stated they hoped to start construction this spring and the construction would last 16-18 months. She stated the easements, stormwater management, roadwa ys, etc. were doable and agreeable to applicant. They were agreeable to ad ding additional screeni ng also. They were agreeable to traffic control during peak times. She assured them the Conservation Easement was being pursued and the church was working with Anoka County Parks and Rice Creek Watershed District on it. She indi cated the church was willing to split the property where the house was located off from the rest of the property. She stated they were working with Anoka County on the roadway. She noted traffic was the most challenging issue, but it was a re gional issue that this project alone would not cause. She indicated the church was willing to work wi th traffic control officers to alleviate the congestion. She stated the proposed turn lane s would also assist w ith traffic congestion. Mr. Rafferty asked if the existing home was wh ere the previous owner of the land lived. Ms. Leonidas replied that was correct. She indicated the Church was agreeable to increasing landscaping along certain areas of the site, which had been a concern to some of the residents. She noted they would put in a berm along the south side for further screening for the residents to the south. Mr. Rafferty asked the footprint of the propos ed church. Ms. Leonidas replied it was 250 x 350. Mr. Corson asked what was the situation with the existing home. Ms. Leonidas replied that under an agreement, the former owner c ould stay there for a specific period of time from the date of purchase, which was last Jul y, but at this point, they had no plans for the building. Chair Schaps invited the public to make comment. Barbara Bor, 7707 20 th Avenue North, stated she lived to the south of the property and her driveway was adjacent to the proposed C hurches driveway. She presented a petition signed by 160 neighbors within one mile of the property who were opposing this development. She stated they did not go in to Centerville or Columbus Township, even though many residents wanted to sign the petiti on. She stated this petition represented 95% of the neighborhood and this was a si gnificant unified indi cation in opposition of this. She presented a letter from RLK regardi ng traffic and a letter from attorney Paul R. Haik. Both letters and petition were given to staff to be made a part of the City’s file. She stated they wanted to see the numbers of services and hours of operation the Church was proposing. She noted the current tra ffic study was done over a year ago and conditions had changed. She also indica ted the traffic study was done for Sunday services only and did not include Saturday or Wednesday night services. She requested the City require updated traffic information ba sed on current data. She expressed concern about the stormwater management plan. She not ed this was a critical project for this area and it would forever change what was curr ently there. She asked as a neighborhood, from an environmental perspective, and fo r their heritage that this project not be approved. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Doug Jost, 7304 Brian Drive, Centerville, read from a written statement, which was given to staff to be made a part of the City’s files. He noted the City should adopt the US Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (L.E.E.D.) standards. He noted by followi ng the standard, projec t could reduce their operating costs for energy and water. He indicated the municipal economic advantages included lower landfill, water supply and treatment infrastructure, and operational and development costs, among others. He expre ssed concern about the increase in traffic if this development was approved. He expresse d concern about the pr oject being too large for this site. He stated the residents of Centerville request that this Conditional Use Permit be denied. Chuck Kerkhoff, 7841 20 th Avenue, stated he owned th e property to the north. He expressed concern regarding keeping people off of his land and asked if he would be responsible if someone got hurt on his land when they were trespassing. He stated his land was inviting to others because of the pa ths and trails. He also expressed concern regarding where the snow woul d be placed in the wintertime from the parking lots. He requested the snow not be put in his direction. Sylvia Marier, 1833 East 77 th Street, presented a diagram overview of Peltier Lake. She read from a prepared written statement, which was given to staff to be made a part of the City’s file. She stated there had been many red flags proposed to this development regarding impact on the wildlife. She st ated this project did not meet the City Conditional Use standards. She indicated they had been open and honest about their opposition to this project to no avail. She asked about the other one-acre parcel where the other residence was located. Mr. Smyser replied there was an existing home along 20 th Avenue that was a separate piece of property and was not owned by the Chur ch. He stated the church had no rights over that. The property was surrounded by C hurch land, but the church had no rights to that property. Ms. Bor replied the property was owned by Pa mela Thiltgen. Pamela had sold the property to John Magill and she would be moving in the spring. Ron Marier, 1801 77 th Street East, stated he was th e Director of the Peltier Lake Association and he had been involved for many years preserving th e heron nesting site. He stated there were quite a few discrepancies with this pr oposal, including ditch 72 and ditch 55. He indicated the church had the drainage area for ditch 72 at less than 600 acres. He replied this was inaccurate and the actual drainage was over 1,400 acres. He presented color photographs of the area which were given to staff to be placed in the City’s file. He stated the Church repres entatives had taken their figures off of the existing maps, which were no longer accurate. He stated he had walked the property with a consultant and came up with the other figur es. He indicated he had informed the church about this, but they had not addresse d it. He stated the impervious surfaces proposed for this property would have a detr imental impact to this area. He noted someone had to look at this concern. With respect to the conservatorship area, he believed they were falling short in acreage. He noted the previous owners had been fantastic in preserving this area for the wildli fe. He indicated just the water issue alone Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES was huge because this was the final spot th at drained hundreds of acres and noted this would destroy this area. He stated if construction was star ted next spring, this was the worst time for the nesting herons and once the herons were gone, they were gone. He stated for the first time in three years they were successful in heron nesting. Walt Eashenaur, Water Resources Engineer, stat ed one of the things they wanted to do when they analyzed the hydrau lics of realigning ditch 72, wa s to make sure what the drainage area was for this particular ditch. He stated they went to Anoka County records and noticed there was 9.6 miles of tile for this ditch and yet when they looked at what was originally commissioned as the drainage area, it was 590-600 plus acres. He noted ditch 55 drained to the east of 35E and connected to ditch 3. He stated ditch 55 did cross 35E to the south and there were no records showing connection betw een the two ditches. He noted together with the staff, Watershed District and the Board, there might be areas added for connections. He stated the extent of the area larger than 600 to 650 acres was not warranted with their investigations. Mr. Tralle requested for future meetings, th e ditch assessment be presented as a handout. Ron Marier stated a lot had happened sin ce 1972. He indicated there was a connection under 35E and he personally watched the conn ection being made. He stated tiles had been added and the City and County knew about this. He indicated this had all happened since 1972. Mr. Eashenaur replied the Wate rshed District was not aware of that connection. Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Mr. Eashenaur stated when they looked at County ditches and when realignment was asked for, State Law required they examined the existing function of that ditch and then the benefiting parties could not be impacted. He stated they would maintain the existing functionality of the drain line, which would ma intain the exact same characteristics as the land had today. Mr. Rafferty stated if that was the Wa tershed’s recommendation, what about the impervious surfaces that was being added. He stated he was surprised that due to the impervious surface the line would not be enla rged. Mr. Eashenaur replied surface water from the proposed impervious surface went in to different directions and did not go into the tile line. He stated the water would drai n at the same rate. He noted the water would drain to the ponds and not the tile line. Barbara Bauman, volunteer with the church, st ated they were concerned about addressing the entire 92 acres to make sure things were done appropriatel y. She indicated they planned a prairie restoration. She stated a conservation easement was a legal binding agreement giving up the churches rights to de velop that area. She stated this was a perpetual agreement. She indicated they were not entering into this lightly because it was 14 acres out of the 92 acres a nd this was a large amount of land. She stated while they planned to put 14 acres into a conservation easement, they also planned to restore the entire area. She stated in addition to the contract, there would be a management plan, which included the restoration effort and manage ment efforts. She stated they had a draft Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES of the management plan, which was being reviewed by various governmental agencies. She noted they would have professionals manage this area. She handed out a copy of the draft of the management plan to staff to make a part of the City’s file. Dave Scheer, Eagle Brook Church, stated th ey had met with Anoka County Parks and they were developing a plan to cultivate the rye grass down and recultivating it with more natural grass. He indicated they had every intention of including th e area Mr. Marier was concerned about. Ms. Bauman noted they were also working w ith an agency regarding the heron nesting. Connie Grundhofer, 235 Linda Avenue, stated sh e was an environmental board member, but she was speaking as a citizen. Sh e indicated she was hoping the Church’s environmental committee would include the extr a three acres into the conservation plan. She stated it was the Church’s plan to use the three acres as a teaching area for children. However, she noted this activity would dist urb the herons because this is where they gathered their nesting materials and it wa s imperative that it was not disturbed, even unintentionally. She expressed concern about th e 50-foot building with lights. She stated the lights would disrupt the life cycles of the wildlife in the area. She expressed concern about being unable to see the night sky. Mr. Rafferty stated he appreciated her comm ents, but noted it appeared the church was trying to find ways to deal with these issues , but are said to be coming up short by three acres. He asked if she were the owner of the property, what would she think after spending a lot of money on this property, and then not being able to develop it. He acknowledged that this area was important for the heron population. He stated he believed the church was trying to work everyt hing out. He noted it appeared to him that the City’s guidelines were th at development was going to happen at some point and there was nothing that could be done about it. He asked if there was not some common ground. He noted the church appe ared to be at least trying. Ms. Grundhofer stated all the Environmenta l Board could do was give recommendations to the Council and it was up to Council to either accept or reject their recommendations. Mr. Rafferty stated it was not staff’s job to not have a project move forward. It was staff’s job to present the facts, and it was up to Council to eventually approve or disapprove the project. He stated he was not saying he was or was not voting for the project, but he believed staff had a responsib ility to bring forward the facts. He noted there had to be a give and take in this a nd while the best environmental thing would be for nothing to happen, this was not realistic. Ms. Grundhofer asked the Board to listen to th e citizens, who had liv ed in the area for many years. She stated the residents want ed to help the area and the residents were looking to the Board for help. She stated so metimes professional specialists did not take enough time on projects to see th e total impact. She asked th em to listen to the citizens and their concerns. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps asked would the 3.2 acres of ma de a difference to the Environmental Board. Ms. Grundhofer stated that would not have ma de a difference because the Environmental Board had many other concerns as well. Chair Schaps asked if the Environmental Boar d had discussed what in their view would be a better project. Ms. Grundhofer re plied they had not discussed this. Chair Schaps noted that to think nothing w ould happen with this property was unrealistic and he was not sure the residents would ag ree with any development that was good for the use of this land. Ms. Grundhofer replied th ey were not asking for this property not to be developed, but this proposed development might not be the best use for this site. Chair Schaps stated professionals had their reputation on the line a nd he did not believe they would give inaccurate information. Greg Stull, 1537 Sherman Lake Road, liaison between the residents and the church, stated this would never have gotten designed as sensitive as it was unless the residents got involved. He indicated this was very difficult for the neighborhood. He indicated this had gotten to the point where it could only come with type of dialogue with the neighbors and he did not believe any other de veloper would have been as concerned as the church was. He stated nobody wanted cha nge, but this developer was being sensitive to the environment and neighbors and they we re only doing this because they wanted to be a good neighbor to the residents. He stated a large neighborhood meeting had been held on November 3, and on an individual basi s, they went door to door and spoke to the people who were home and left information. He indicated the residents’ comments were given to the Church. Mr. Tralle asked about the added growth the Church was looking at in the future. Ms. Leonidas replied this was something that wa s dealt with at the EAW and this had been taken into account. She noted within the f ootprint of the churc h, it could accommodate an additional 700 seats. She stated when this expansion took place, they would need additional classrooms, in addition to additional parking needs. Mr. Tralle asked with all that they needed to do with the 90 plus acres that were added costs, plus the traffic consid eration, why this site? Mr. St ull replied the church did not seek the site out, the seller sought the church out, which started the ball rolling. He noted this was a beautiful site for a church. He stated no other site was considered and where the church was located at the present tim e in Hugo, was no longer adequate for their needs. Ms. Leonidas corrected Mr. Stull’s statem ent to indicated the church had done an exhaustive search, but a member of the c hurch, who was the former owner of the land, had offered the land to the church. She stated this piece of property fit their needs and it was a wonderful site. Mr. Rafferty asked what was the Master Plan for this site. Ms. Leonidas replied there was no Master Plan for this site, but she coul d say that the existing facility in Hugo would continue to be a major focus for them and the administrative offices would stay in Hugo. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES She indicated they intended to be a multi-campus church and to date, this was their only plan for growth. Mr. Tralle asked where would the additional 700 seat be loca ted. Ms. Leonidas replied it would be in the existing f ootprint plans, with the ex ception of additional classroom facilities, which would be roughly 9 percent of the overall space now. Mr. Tralle asked if there would be a gymnasium added in the future. Ms. Leonidas replied a gymnasium was already on the existing plan. Chair Schaps asked if there was going to be any more neighborhood meetings. Mr. Stull replied they would hold as many neighbor hood meetings as the residents wanted. Chair Schaps suggested they have another publ ic hearing prior to the next Board meeting and stated it would be helpful if some of those questions would be asked before this meeting. Jeff Williams, 1920 Rehbein, asked when Mr. Stul l had come out with the surveys. Mr. Stull replied it wasn’t a survey; they went to the homeowners with questions and the individuals that they did not meet with, they left cards so they had a chance for that dialogue. Mr. Williams asked when this was done. Mr. Stull replied it was done over three days, Friday, Saturday and Tuesday. Mr. Williams stated to-date he had only received their newsletter and no other information. Chair Schaps requested Mr. Williams be informed of all meetings. Mr. Stull gave Mr. Williams his card and asked him to call with any questions. Mr. Williams expressed concern that the expe rts were only doing what the Church was giving them and once resident’s concerns we re brought forward, then the residents were being given more information. He expresse d concern that on Sunday mornings, he would have extensive delays getting out onto 20 th Street and his inability to get to the freeway. He noted he lived 1½ miles from the freeway. Ms. Bor stated for two years she had sat through these meetings and she stated they wanted equal representation a nd that a two-minute restric tion for their comments was unreasonable. She stated they were just as deserving of time and effort. She stated the neighbors had spent many, many hours of their time on this project and she wanted the Board to hear their concerns. She indicated this was a highly emo tional issue, but they were trying to keep it factual. She noted everything about this development had changed. She indicated she had no issue with the c hurches mission, but things needed to be separated out. She indicated they needed to look at the zoning issues and if this was too large of a development for this site. She asked them to look at how this would affect their quality of life. She stated this devel opment needed to be done right. She indicated this was not a land use that was dedicated fo r this type of a development, without MUSA and the road infrastructure. She indicated she had met with City staff for over three hours and this area was zone light residential. She indicate d the previous owner had not Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES informed the neighborhood that they were going to sell their land, which did not give the residents the opportunity to possibly collectivel y purchase the land. She stated this side of 20 th , was for conservation purposes. She noted this was not an appropriate land use and she based this on what the City said the land use was. She stated there would be a great impact on traffic also. She i ndicated she wanted a “fair shake”. Chair Schaps asked if Ms. Bor had received a fair shake tonight considering this was her third time at the microphone. Ms. Bor replied she did not feel the Board was concerned about the residents and she had worked her w hole life to preserve this area and it was a very part of the area. She stated two minut es was very harsh and she did not feel she could present her point of view in that amount of time. Chair Schaps pointed out that Ms. Bor had pr esented information to the Board for over a year and all of the information had been rea d. He stated from previous experience, two minutes was sufficient for most people. Mr. Corson stated he had read everything th at Ms. Bor had provided to the Board. Ms. Bor stated this was not just her opinion, it was the opinion of the entire neighborhood. She stated in essence she was representing the neighborhood. She asked if this should be taken “off-line”. She asked how did they know this was a balance to the process. Chair Schaps pointed out that all residents ha d the option to be hear d and listened to. He stated he did not feel the resi dents were being treated unfairly. Mr. Tralle stated he also had read all of the information given to him and he did his homework. He indicated the previous owner wanted their church to have their land and he did not believe they had an obligation to inform the neighbors as to what they were going to do with their land. He stated this was an emotional decision for those owners. He stated the previous owners owned their land and it was their right to pass the land onto the church. Ms. Bor repl ied she understood that, and that was not the issue. The issue was what would the land be used for. Mr. Tralle asked what would happen to th e land if 200 homes were put on the land. Ms. Bor replied she did not believe there would be 200 homes on the land because of the wetlands. She stated there were traffic issues and the impact to the wildlife. Mr. Corson stated he wanted Ms. Bor to unde rstand that they did read everything that was submitted. Pat Smith, 6922 West Shadow Lake Drive, liaison member of Eagle Brook Church, stated they had gone door to door and had prepared a direct mailing inviting them to a neighborhood meeting at one of the church resident’s homes, as well as publishing an open house meeting for the entire city to attend. He stated they made their best effort to have neighborhood meetings and he did not see the benefit of having another meeting. However, if the residents had concerns, they could be addressed individually. Lisa Kettler, 7678 20 th Avenue North, stated she was uncomfortable with the liaisons taking the door to door approach. She stated they had received the card, and when they Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES called one of the liaisons, they were told th at they had already been spoken to when they had not. She stated she did not want people on her property and that the U.S. Mail would be the more appropriate way to communicate. She asked how they could put notices in the mailboxes legally. She asked the Board to protect the resident’s interests and concerns. She noted her property flooded from time to time from ditch 72 and expressed concern that the ditch would not function properly if this development were approved. Chair Schaps asked if she had attended the neighborhood meetings. Ms. Kettler replied she had attended all but the last meeting. Steve Hallblade, 552 Myrtle Lane, stated he was a citizen of Lino Lakes and one of the main reasons they moved to this City was because the Church was going to be building a new facility here. He requested the Board consider all of the residents who were members of the Church. Mr. Smyser noted staff was seeking direction on specifically the traffic issue, as well as other issues brought up this evening. Chair Schaps stated the drainage issue needed to be defined once and for all and if there was a discrepancy to find out why. Mr. Smyser replied the data th ey used for the EAW was from the Rice Creek Watershed District a nd he trusted the Watershed’s District data. He stated they had seen a variety of diag rams showing a number of things, but the Watershed District ran and ditches and had jurisdiction over the d itches and he trusted their data. He indicated it was true that the thing that matters was the ditch flow remained as it was today and as long as that occurs the area drained by the ditch was a moot point because it was functioning as it di d before. He stated the amount it covered was not an issue. He indicated if the Wate rshed District said the ditch was appropriate and would meet the drainage needs, that was what staff went by. He stated the City and the Watershed District worked together a nd that was how they assured the public was protected. He noted in all likelihood unle ss something different was proposed to the Watershed District, the Watershed Dist rict’s opinion would not change. Chair Schaps inquired about the traffic. He asked if the developments were always going to precede the road developments. He asked if there was any reason to have them believe this would change at any time in the futu re. Mr. Smyser replie d right now there were funding issues, and there are never adequate f unds for needed projects. The worst traffic situations get the priority for federal and state funding. Unfortunately, that means the situation gets bad before funds are available. Mr. Grochala stated the County’s five y ear improvement plan was underway for the reconstruction of the east side of 35E in 2005 and they had received Federal funding for reconstruction of 242 from 35W to 35E, not including the interchange . He stated the interchange had been submitted for Federal funding, but the decision had not been made at this point in time and this was potenti ally a 2007-2008 project. He stated that the County’s review process looked at a five-y ear plan. He noted the improvements that were needed immediately adjacent to the project was required as a part of the development plan. He stated the roads would follow development. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hyden stated he wanted more specifics re garding the drainfield. He asked if there had ever been one of this size and nature put in before. Mr. Smyser replied the septic system was being reviewed by Anoka C ounty and he did not know where another drainfield this size had been built, but the County staff person noted this was an expensive proposition and the Church was not requ ired to go to this extent. He stated he would ask for additional information from A noka County. He indicated if a drainfield was built and maintained properly, they did a very good job and were very environmentally friendly. Mr. Hyden asked who would ensure this drai nfield was properly maintained. Mr. Smyser replied they did not have a set procedure, but he agreed there needed to be a maintenance program for the drainfield. Mr. Tralle asked if this sep tic system would need to be pumped. Mr. Studenski replied TKDA had already done a review and there ha d been additional information requested, but to date it appeared the drainfield met the requirements and there would be a maintenance plan. He stated he would obtai n information about other septic systems of this size and would present it at the next meeting. Mr. Hyden asked the hours and number of serv ices the Church would have. He wanted more specific information on how they were going to handle the traffic. He stated he wanted more facts and details. Mr. Smyser stated the P&Z was no t involved in the EAW worksheet which addressed many of these issu es. He indicated the Church would hire personnel to manage the traffi c at driveways and at the 20 th Avenue and Main Street intersections and at freeway ramps. He noted while this would not solve the problem, it would reduce the problem somewhat. He noted Anoka County and MNDot believed having people control the traffic was a good id ea. He indicated a traffic study would focus in on the worse traffic time, so Sunday mo rnings were the focus. He stated if they were going to have services on Saturday, it would be the same information, but if they had services on Wednesday during rush hour, it would still be the same information, but the traffic would obviously be worse. He st ated from the City’s perspective, the peak traffic was whenever there was a service and that was what they had to plan for. He stated if there were services during the rush hour, this was something they needed to look at also. Chair Schaps asked for full disclose of all Church services prior to the next meeting. Mr. Hyden reiterated it was im portant he be provided with more specific information regarding traffic and the drainfield, as well as the other issues brought up at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Smyser indicated he would provide the Board members with information provided for the preparation of the EAW. Chair Schaps requested information regardi ng trespassing on the no rth end and where the snow would be put. He requested further information on the possibility of higher berm on the south side. Mr. Corson stated he wanted further info rmation on getting a right turn lane on southbound 20 th Avenue to Main Street. He asked for information on drainage to the one Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES pond and how the water would be flowing. He asked if the outflow would be draining back to the east to give it more area for it to filter out. Chair Schaps asked for more information regarding the lighting to the south and southeast. He asked if there would be sign ificant lighting on the southwest side of the building. Mr. Smyser replied there would not be lights into the sky, and the additional 14 feet of height on the building had no windows so there would not be any lighting on that portion of the building. He noted there might be some lighting of a cross and this was something the Church and staff needed to discuss prior to the next meeting. Chair Schaps asked for distinct information on the lighting by the next meeting. He asked for further information regarding the drivew ay location. He noted the Board should not be discussing many of these issues tonight as this should have all been disclosed at the neighborhood meetings. Mr. Tralle suggested they w ould light up areas portions of the parking lot as they were being used and not light up the entire parking lot. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the Public Hearing to the December Board meeting, Eagle Brook Church, 7709 20 th Avenue North, Conditional Use Permit to the December Planning and Zoning Board Meet ing and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4-0. D. Ed Vaughan, Pheasant Hills 13 th Addition, 1423 Sherman Lake Road, Final Plat Staff stated the original preliminary plat for Pheasant Hills Preserve was approved in 1990. The area included in the pr eliminary plat had been fina l platted as the first through the 11 th additions. One of the lots on the prel iminary plat was segmented by the final platting. Part of it is Outlot B in the 10 th Addition, the other part is Outlot B in the 5 th Addition. It was not clear why it was done this way, but the two pieces were one lot on the preliminary plat. He indicated the current final plat application proposed to recombine the two outlots into a single buildable house lot. This was consistent with the preliminary plat. Park dedication was addre ssed with earlier platti ng. No additional lots were being created that were not part of the original approvals. He indicated no new roads or other infrastructures were proposed or needed. The stubs for water and sanitary were already in place. A public trail existe d on the south side of the property and would not be affected by the proposed final platti ng. The proposed grades of the new house lot had been examined to ensure they were c onsistent with surrounding properties. The utility stub locations needed to be clarified and this could occur as part of the building permit review process. Mr. Rafferty stated he agreed with the dire ction it was going, but re quested the developer identify to the perspective buyers that ther e were covenants and the covenants would be enforced. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approva l of the final plat for Pheasant Hills Preserve 13 th Addition and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES E. City of Lino Lakes/Hartford Group, Legacy at Woods Edge “The Village”, TIF Plan Staff stated the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Pl an specified the southeast quadrant of 35W and Lake Drive as “the Village”, a 65-acr e mixed-use area to be set aside as a commercial and civic focal point. The in tent was to combine a privately owned commercial site with city-owned land to create a walkable “downtown” neighborhood and to create a sense of civic identify and pride. The Comprehensive Plan established control of the uses of this site in orde r to create substantially more tax base than conventional suburban retail development, and to provide more diverse “lifecycle” housing choices not currently av ailable in the city. The Co mprehensive Plan establishes the housing density at 10 to 24 units per acre. Staff stated in 1998 the City received gr ant money from the Metropolitan Council’s Livable Communities fund to plan this area. The “Calthorpe Plan” was developed to leverage commitments the city had made, including the completed Civic Complex and future YMCA, with private development. The Calthorpe Plan al so established design standards in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan objectives to provide “distinctive, consistent architectural style that prom otes high quality, aesthetically pleasing commercial buildings.” Staff noted Hartford Group, Inc. had submitte d a proposal for the development of Woods Edge (the Village) on the southeast quadr ant of 35W and Lake Drive. Housing components include 450 units of lifecycl e housing, including for-sale townhomes, apartments and condos over commercial, workforce and senior housing. More than 300,000 sq. ft. of commercial, including retail and office sp ace was planned. Pedestrian sidewalks and bicycle paths, tree-lined stre ets, a community green and building sited at the sidewalk would create an intere sting pedestrian environment. Staff stated in September the Lino La kes Economic Development Authority (EDA) authorized preparation of a modified Plan for Development District No. 1 and creation of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11. This was a 25-year Redevelopment District that consisted of the Tagg property and the Lake Drive interchange area. The city-owned land did not qualify for redevelopment and w ould not be included in the district. This TIF district was being reestabl ished because this project ha d not developed solely through private efforts and would require public part icipation to develop in a manner consistent with the city’s goals. The TIF plan es tablished a budget based on the amount of tax increment that could be generated for the duration of the district, once full build-out occurred. A TIF District provided a source of revenue that would be used for improvements to Lake Drive and the 35W bri dge. Approval of the plan by the City was not an approval of any amount of subsidy to the developer. The amount of subsidy would be determined as the City and deve loper moved through the approvals process. Staff indicated the City Council had sche duled a public hearing for November 23, 2003. The plan had been sent to Anoka County a nd Forest Lake School District for review. According to statute, the City’s planning review board must make a finding that the establishment of a new TIF District was consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 16 APPROVED MINUTES Staff recommended adoption of Resoluti on No. 03-02 finding the modification of Development District No. 1 and establishmen t of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11 to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Chair Schaps asked what the timeframe was fo r this. Ms. Divine replied optimistically, late summer was when they hope d to start the building process. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recomme nd adoption of Resolution No. 03-02 finding the modification of Development District No. 1 and establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-11 to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. F. Frank Feela Inc., Hailey Manor, NE portion of MarDon Acres, Final Plat Staff stated the City Council had approve d the preliminary plat for Hailey Manor on September 8, 2003. Under the new revised subd ivision ordinance, the final plat needed P&Z review prior to City Council Approval. He indicated the final plat conformed to the approved preliminary plat. The Metropolita n Council approved the additional MUSA. The rezoning was in effect as of October 30. Prior to City Council approval of the final plat, the City Attorney would review the title commitment and the City Engineer would prepare a development agreement. Construc tion plans for utilities and road work must obtain City Engineer approval in order to prepare the development agreement. Other conditions of approval must be satisfied prio r to City Council approval or included in the development agreement. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend approva l of the final plat for Hailey Manor and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Temporary Signs/Banners Chair Schaps temporarily left the meeting and turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Rafferty. Staff stated they were seeking direction fr om the P&Z Board on how to address the issue of banners and other types of temporary signs . He indicated they had invited business owners to this meeting. He noted staff would then take those recommendations and prepare an ordinance for a future public meeting. Mr. Wagner, business owner, stated he ha d appeared at a Council workshop regarding this. He noted he had received a letter from the City enforcing the Ordinance. He stated he believed the City had focused only on bar/restaurants and not othe r types of businesses in the City. He indicated it was vital to small businesses to be able to advertise through banners. He stated in his business in Spri ng Lake Park, he had banners and other Cities allowed them also. He indicated he could live with banners on a 30-day limitation. He indicated he had one sign attached to th e building, one on the patio, and one in the parking lot. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 17 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hyden asked if he would be agreeabl e to only one sign on th e building and nowhere else. Mr. Wagner replied he would like to work this out with staff. He stated he did not believe portable, rented signs would be economical for the businesses. Mr. Tralle asked Mr. Wagner’s opinion as to how effective the ba nners actually were. Mr. Wagner replied he believed the specials advertised were effective in bringing in customers. Mr. Hyden stated it was not the City’s intent to limit advertising and he realized all businesses needed to advertise. Mr. Tralle noted his concern was the banner s got curled, dirty, a nd eventually fell down. He asked if the stakes for the banners should be permanently mounted. Mr. Corson stated his concern was banners on the right-of-way. Chair Schaps thanked Mr. Wagner for coming to this meeting, but noted they still did not have more than one businesses opinion. Mr . Wagner agreed signs should not be placed in the right away, and he did not believ e the business owners would object to a more permanent structure on which to hang their banne rs. He asked if he could put banners on his roof. Chair Schaps replied the banners could be at tached to the building, but not on the roof. Mr. Smyser stated it was the staff’s intent that the business owners could obtain a sign permit for one month, only for a specific num ber of times during the year, and not a different sign every month. Chair Schaps stated he did not object to ha ving different signs put up every month and he suggested a yearly permit and not make the business owners obtain a new permit every month. Mr. Corson stated free standing banners in th e right of way would not be allowed. Mr. Hyden pointed out this was heading toward s businesses having signs and not temporary banners. Chair Schaps stated the purpose of this wa s for aesthetics and to have a “clean” looking property. Mr. Smyser stated it was more difficult to enfo rce a yearly permit than it was to enforce a monthly permit. He noted with a monthl y permit it was easier to follow-up on it. Mr. Hyden asked at what point would the banner become a permanent sign. He noted if permanent posts were put in, then wouldn’t that make it a sign and not a temporary banner. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 18 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps stated he did not believe in “crimping” businesses as long as the banners were in good shape and looked nice. He noted he did not see this is a big problem and he was willing to look at some regulation, but this type of a regulation bothered him. Mr. Hyden stated he did not have an issue w ith banners as long as they were temporary. Unfortunately, the banners were not being used temporarily and that was the issue. Chair Schaps asked if the issue was the number of signs a business had. Mr. Rafferty stated it was difficult to come up with decisions, but he had to agree with Mr. Tralle that the idea of a new, clean sign was better th an an old sign, but he did not like the idea of a permanent mounting structure. He liked the idea of trying to confine it to the structure itself. He noted it might hamper some businesses, but the common factor was that they were trying to make the City look nice and clean it up. He liked the idea of a clean sign, but believed the admi nistration part of it needed to be reduced. He stated he did not want City staff to be on sign patrol to enforce signa ge issues when the resources could be better used. However, he also di d not want to make this difficult for the businesses owners either. Mr. Smyser stated there was a concern that things were starting to look “trashy”. Mr. Hyden stated it surprised him that only one business owner showed up when many businesses had been notif ied of this discussion. Mr. Wagner stated he had an issue with the two-week time limit for the banners. He did not have an issue with the banner size. He noted a business owner wa nted to change their signs every month to encourage new customers to come in. Mr. Smyser stated it was Counc il’s intent to get P&Z inpu t, but there was no direction from the Council that they wanted a recommendation from the Board. Chair Schaps requested this discussion get continued to the January meeting. B.Fabric Accessory Structures Staff stated a number of residents were constructing temporary fabric structures, primarily for the storage of vehicles. He in dicated staff was seeking direction from the P & Z as to adding language to the zoning ordinan ce to address this type of structure. He noted staff would then take those recommenda tions and prepare an Ordinance for a future public meeting. But, with the number of pr ojects on the upcoming agendas it may be best to drop this one until sometime in the future. Chair Schaps requested this disc ussion be postponed indefinitely. VII.ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:14 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 2003 Page 19 APPROVED MINUTES Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .