Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/10/2003 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 6:39 p.m., December 10, 2003. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps moved item V. E. to the first item on the agenda. III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 12, 2003 Mr. Tralle made a MOTION approve the November 12, 2003 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0-1 (Lane abstained). IV.OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:38 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:39 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. V.ACTION ITEMS E.PUBLIC HEARING for Preliminary Plat, Sue Carpenter, “Justin’s Preserve,” 171 White Pine Road Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. DATE: December 10, 2003 TIME STARTED: 6:39 P.M. TIME ENDED: 11:43 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyden, Lane, Rafferty, Schaps, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT: Lyden. STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Smyser ; Michael Grochala; and James Studenski Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated Carpenter Homes had requested a pproval of a preliminary plat for Justin’s Preserve. This project involved splitting an existing fourteen-acre pa rcel into two lots of four acres and ten acres. Under the curren t subdivision ordinance, the creation of new lots on city sanitary sewer requires a plat rather than a minor subdivision. Staff indicated this applicati on highlighted an unusual situa tion that should be corrected. The existing house on the property is connect ed to city sanita ry sewer and water. However, it is not within the MUSA. It s hould have been included when it connected to the utilities. He noted this also was the cas e with the lot at 173 Wh ite Pine Rd. Neither of these properties is in the MUSA although both are connected to utilities. This should be resolved now by allocat ing MUSA reserve. The area being platted included approximately four acres of upland. The sma ller lot, which is not included in the plat application was 0.35 acres. Staff presented their analysis and recomme nded approval of the allocation of 3.7 acres of 2004 MUSA reserve; variance for lot depth; and preliminary plat with the seven conditions as noted in staff’s December 10, 2003 report. Mr. Rafferty asked was there a ny relationship between the two sites. Mr. Smyser replied he did not know the answer to that question. Mr. Raffery asked if it would make sense to move the lot line to move the minimum width, with a shared driveway. Mr. Smyser replied what they had found over time was that they experienced problems with shared driveways, esp ecially if the neighbors did not get along. Mr. Corson expressed concern about the ordina ry high water level and if the home would be affected. Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. Applicant had no comment. Chair Schaps the public to make comment. There were no public comments. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve prelim inary plat with the seven conditions as noted in staff’s December 10, 2003 report and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the lo t depth variance with the seven conditions as noted in staff’s December 10, 2003 report and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-1 (Rafferty – Nay). Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the a llocation of 3.7 acres of 2004 MUSA reserve with the seven conditions as noted in staff’s December 10, 2003 report and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. A. PUBLIC HEARING for Preliminar y Plat and CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit, Eagle Brook Church, 7709 20 th Avenue N. Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Staff stated the P&Z opened the public hear ing on the Conditional Use Permit application at the November meeting. That public hearing was continued. A number of issues remain unanswered, one of which was the exis ting house on the site. In the interim, the church had submitted an application for a prelimin ary plat to create a separate lot to allow the house to remain. A preliminary plat required a public hearing. New notices were published and mailed. He noted they could now combine the public hearings for the Conditional Use Permit and the preliminary plat. Staff noted the November report also called for additional information on the stormwater design and roadway improvements. Public comm ents at the hearing resulted in requests for further information on several specific issu es, which requests were outlined in staff’s November 12, 2003 report. Staff indicated representatives of the chur ch met with residents on Tuesday, December 2, 2003. The discussion covered several issues. Staff presented their analysis and noted th ere were still many issues remaining to be resolved prior to approval. Staff recomme nded they continue the public hearing on the CUP and preliminary plat to the January 14, 2003 meeting. Mr. Rafferty asked how many acres was upland. Mr. Smyser replied he believed this was in his first report, but he could not come up with that information at this time. Chair Schaps believed it was 65 acres of upland. Mr. Tralle asked who would monitor Ditch 72. Mr. Smyser replied Ditch 72 was the responsibility of the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Tralle asked if Ditch 72 fluctuated throughout the year. Mr. Smyser replied it did fluctuate. Mr. Studenski replied at times the ditch did not have full flow and that was taken into account. Mr. Smyser noted the rate that flows through there would be the same. Mr. Studenski stated they were relocating the pipe in the ditch. To clarify, Mr. Smyser noted it was called a County Ditch, but ther e was actually a pipe flowing on the property. Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Tralle clarified it was the size of the pi pe and not the flowage. Mr. Studenski replied that was correct. Mr. Hyden asked if the pipe was at maximum flow all year. Mr. Studenski replied that was correct. Mr. Hyden asked if the pipe went to maxi mum flow, would that change the amount of water going through the pipe. Mr. Smyser re plied the pipe had capacity for more flow and this project did not have an effect on it. He stated if someone was changing something upstream, it would change the flow , but this project would not change it. Mr. Hyden asked who ultimately would be re sponsible if the calculations were wrong. Mr. Smyser replied that would have to be dete rmined as to what the cause was. He noted there might be changes downstream or upstream, but that does not mean this project changed the flow. Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. Katherine Leonidas, BWBR Architects, stated they had met with the neighbors and the result of that was some design changes. She believed the neighborhood meeting was successful. She showed the primary cha nges, which included the roadway moving 200 feet along the southern property line. She noted additional screening was added to the north, as well as screening along road 21. She summarized the hours of operation. She asked them to keep it in mind that this church would operate on two campuses. She summarized how they would prepare for crim e control. She noted it was still being discussed about the lighting at the two intersections to the ea st. She summarized the site lighting for the Board. She noted the lighti ng was identical to the lighting around City Hall. She indicated they would have some lighting in the back for security and some lighting around the drop off canopy. She noted the spire would be lit with the same fixture lighting the flag outside of City Hall. With respect to snow removal, there was a concern that they not be pushing snow into ne ighbor’s yards. She stated the church had met with the landscaping contractor and summar ized where the snow would be placed, all of it on pervious soil. She stated the desi gn of Ditch 72 would not change the drainage and the area it served. She asked her septic design engineer and traffic consultant to address the septic design a nd traffic flow concerns. Peter Miller, Ecosystems Engineering, El k River, Minnesota, noted they had vast experience regarding septic desi gns. He noted they have b een involved in this project since 2002 and they had done a preliminary inve stigation of the soils and had submitted a preliminary report. He noted Anoka Count y would be handling the permitting of the system. He stated they had submitted a pe rmitting process to Anoka County and they had approved their plans. He stated Anoka County had approved their submittal. He summarized the project for the Board. He not ed the monitoring system consisted of a dedicated phone line so the monitor of the system had on-line instant access to the system. He stated Anoka County had agreed with the design and it was appropriate for the site, but they did have a concern about the length of the sewer line and the possibility of freezing. He informed the Board as to how they would address those concerns, Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES including insulating the lines and placing the lines at a de pth that would not encourage freezing. He noted there was another area iden tified for the drainfield of the house and they would be visiting the site within the ne xt 10 days to look at that location and they were confident they could locate anot her drainfield site for that property. Mr. Corson asked if they would put in some type of barrier around the drainfield to ensure that area was protected. Mr. Miller replied they would comply with State law, which required an owner being made aware of the drainfield area. Ms. Leonidas replied they would fence off the drainfield area, which would consist of a split rail fence, both on this property and the church property. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern about the aesthe tics of having a bunch of split rail fences on the site. Mr. Tralle asked if the septic tank would be pumped annually. Mr. Miller replied they would check it annually to see if it n eeded to be pumped, but it would be pumped minimally every three years, according to State law, unless the City had other requirements. Ria Cote, Traffic Consultant, noted they we re aware of the Wednesday, weekday evening and Saturday traffic. She stated they were in the process of gath ering this information, but they expected the results to be iden tical to what was completed for the Sunday morning peak periods. She recommended th e use of traffic control officers at key intersections and driveways. She noted there should not be a delay in the approval based on the anticipated traffic study results. Pat Smith, 9922 West Shadow Lake Drive, asked about the $500,000 request by Anoka County to MNDot for the two interchanges in the Quad paper. Mr. Smyser replied he had not seen that article. Chair Schaps invited the public to make comment. Mr. Wayne LaBlanc, 1677 Peltier Lake Drive, Centerville, thanked the church for the neighborhood meetings. He expressed concern about the conservation easement and the protection of the herons, as well as the timing of the start of the construction. He stated the island that the herons were on was ve ry fragile and for three years it was not successful for nesting, except for the last year. He noted there was only 200-300 herons that had come back, which was considerably lower than what had previously nested there. He stated this next year was critical for the survival of thes e birds. He urged the church and the City to go the “extra mil e” and protect this area and to shift the construction until July. He indicated the birds nested from March through June. He expressed concern about the conservation easement. He stated he did not see the leadership of the church implement this easement at the time of the permitting process, instead of later. He stated as a condi tion of the conditional use, the conservation easement should be in place. He expressed concern about the traffic and roads. He believed all of these concerns should be solved before the church received the Conditional Use Permit also. He noted he hope d the church paid their fair share for Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES providing infrastructure. He ex pressed concern about the sep tic system and noted he was skeptical if they had a season like 2002 that this water would have no place to go, except in the lake. He asked if they could have a computer simulation of the 2002 season to see what happened if it rained all of the time as it did in 2002. He stated unless these concerns were addressed, he requested the Board not to recommend the Conditional Use Permit. Ron Marier, 1801 77 th Street East, stated he had pulle d Section maps from Anoka County for Ditch 72 and 55, as well as having a di scussion with Rice Creek Watershed District and it was determined that all of the data was from the 1920 maps and they did not know what the actual drainage area was. He stated because the pipe was limited, the system became overloaded, which made a large river flowing through several properties. He noted this affected 1100 to 1200 acres being drained. He indicated this was done by overlaying 1920 and 1972 maps. He stated they could limit the pipe, but they could not control the water once the land became satu rated and did not f ilter through the ground. He stated the water would fill up and overflo w, which would result in the water flowing into the watershed. Once the woods flooded, the trees would be gone forever. He indicated Rice Creek Watershed agreed that this was a possibility. He stated someone needed to go back and find out what the ramifications were. Chair Schaps asked if the Rice Creek Wate rshed indicated they were going to do an additional study, or if they were going to cha nge their opinion. Mr. Marier replied he did not have a definitive answer from them th at they were going to do anything, except they had agreed to look at this area with him. Mr. Marier noted with all of the impervious surfaces, any overflow drainage would drain into the lakes. Chair Schaps asked if th ere was anyone from Rice Creek would agree to this. Mr. Marier replied Rice Creek was just made aware of th is situation and he had not received any confirmation from them regarding this issue yet. He expressed concern that Rice Creek Watershed had not gone the extra dist ance to obtain the correct maps prior to issuing their opinion. He expressed concer n about the conservation easement for the herons. He showed where the herons utilized the site to gather the sticks. He asked the conservation easement be extended to pres erve the area east of the conservation area, which was where the herons gathered their sticks for their nesting. Barbara Bor, 7797 20 th Avenue North, asked for clarification of Anoka County and the State’s intent for the road infrastructure. She noted she had heard there was no money beyond 2006. She stated she also wanted the seven driveways included in the traffic study. She asked for further information about the lighting of the traffic that would be leaving the site. She acknowledged Sheri Broke r for her efforts in communication in this process. Barbara Bauman, Eagle Brook Church and re sident of Lino Lakes, reiterated the Church’s committee had been in conversati on with the Church Board and the easement was approved to proceed as proposed. She noted they were also given approval to start negotiations with Rice Creek to establish the Conservation. However, she indicated until Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES they knew they could build on this site, they did not want to start the process on obtaining the conservation easement. She noted the church was very concerned about the herons on the site and they were committed to working on this issue and were committed to hearing all ideas. She noted as far as the issue of timing of construction, they had looked into this issue also. She pointed out that the closest construction would be 2500 feet from the island, and that would be the septic syst em. She stated they were going by the State of Washington’s recommendation for the pr eservation of the herons and it was recommended a minimum of 984 f eet from human contact be kept away from the nesting season. She noted the primary activity for this construction would be 3,000 feet. She stated they were checking into if it was po ssible to work the construction schedule around the nesting season and have the loudest c onstruction done at the end of the season. Staci Wittner, 7542 Peltier Lake Drive, stated she was not looking forward to the development of this land, but she was not opposed to it either. However, she was opposed to the size of the church. She expr essed concern about the traffic, the herons, the septic system, and the lake. She presented a calendar of events he ld at the church and noted the church would be used every day at al l times of the day. With respect to traffic, she expressed concern for safety on the reside ntial streets and the in crease of traffic on Sunday morning. With respect to the herons , she expressed concer n that the loud spring construction would cause the herons to abandon their nests and the continued noise would cause the herons to permanently leave th is area, as well as the incursion into he southeast corner of the prop erty. With respect to the septic system, she expressed concern about the septic system backing up, or a failure of the system would be disastrous. With respect to Peltier Lake, she expressed concern that pumping water from the lake, increased run off and increased boa t traffic, which could destroy plants and water quality. She requested as a condition of approval, no type of outdoor amplification be allowed; the church not use 77 th or Peltier Lake Drive, a nd no construction be allowed during the heron-nesting season. Scott Anderson, staff on Eagle Brook Church, stated throughout the process, they had tried to be honest. He noted they were a growing church and was a large church. He noted he schedule was public and he would provide a schedule for the whole year if requested. However, he noted this was still a two-campus church and all of the activities would not be moved to this proposed chur ch. He noted their current building was approximately 60,000 square feet and they were located in a residential area. He noted they had performed a traffic study last w eekend and they found that people who came to the church understood the challenges and the p eak times tended to be 17-18 minutes. He noted their most attended service was the 11 :00 a.m. Sunday service, with Saturdays services being less. He noted the Saturday services was when more families attended. He stated there were two se rvices on Saturday night and four on Sunday morning at 9:30, 10:15, 11:00 and 11:45. He stated they manage d the traffic well with one traffic officer and when they had a large event, they hired mo re traffic officers. He noted it was in the best interest of the parishione rs to get them in and out as efficiently as possible. He stated when they have issues of traffic, their attendance reflecte d that and they made improvements. He stated they would do what ever was necessary to keep traffic flowing and make the residents access first priorit y. He noted, however, that there would be challenges to traffic and they were not trying to hide this fact. He thanked the board and Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES residents for their input and they would continue to look at the neighborhood issues and find solutions. Ms. Wittner stated she had attended last week’s service and she was there from 10:30 to 11:15 a.m. and the traffic was nonstop. Roxy Greifenhagen, 8925 20th Avenue North, stat ed she had just moved here from White Bear Lake and the church traffic had been a major problem since it was built in that area. She stated the church also had promised to protect the bird population in that area and now the birds had left. She expressed concer n about the traffic a nd stated this proposal was not appropriate for this site. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing on the CUP and preliminary plat to the January 14, 2003 meeting and wa s supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5- 0. Ms. Smyser asked for comments regarding what the Board wanted for the level of service at 20 th and Main. Chair Schaps stated the issue was what the peak times were. He indicated he did not know if there was good answer and the best way to handle this was to deal with it the best way you could and deal with it. He stated this was a limited period of time that traffic would be affected, but it was not going to be a continuous issue. Mr. Corson noted he did not think the City of Lino Lakes had juri sdiction to add a turn lane, as he had suggested previously. Mr. Tralle stated traffic was a problem in the City and it boiled down to one thing – nothing was going to change, unless the City developed. He stated he believed they should keep building and bring th e roads up to the developments. Ms. Lane agreed with Mr. Tralle’s opini on, acknowledging this was a painful process, but this was the process. Mr. Rafferty noted traffic problems were everywhere and noted there were many residents who did not want road improveme nts, so he did not believe there was an answer. However, he did agr ee with Mr. Tralle’s opinion. Mr. Hyden stated he also agreed with Mr. Tr alle. He noted nothing was going to change until development or a terrible accident occurred. He indicated there was no easy answer to this problem. Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 9:21 and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. B.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for Co nditional Use Permit, Circle-Lex VFW, 7868 Lake Drive Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Staff noted they had met with applicant to discuss the project desi gn. The applicant had requested this item be continued to the January 14, 2004 meeting to allow time to work out unresolved issues. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to continue the Conditional Use Permit, CircleLex VFW, 7868 Lake Drive to the January 14, 2004 m eeting and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5-0. C.PUBLIC HEARING for Rezone and Pre liminary Plat, Legacy Holdings Lino Lakes LLC, Legacy at Woods Edge, SE corner of 35W and Lake Drive Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 9:37 p.m. Staff stated in 1998 the City of Lino Lake s retained the services of the Calthorp Associates to design a Master Plan for the C ity’s Town Center District. He noted the purpose of the Lino Lakes “Town Center” deve lopment was to provide for the orderly and integrated development of a high-quali ty Town Center which included a mix of shops, offices, entertainment, housing, recrea tion, community facilities, and open space. He indicated his development was a cooperati ve effort that would leverage public and private investment to create sustainable value, ecologicall y, economically and culturally. Staff summarized the project and pr esented its analysis to the Board. Staff stated generally, the proposed devel opment was consistent with the original Calthorpe Master Plan and Design Standards. The Hartford Group had been very receptive to design modifications to insure a high quality development. He noted there were some further changes and clarifications th at needed to be incorporated into a final plan as suggested in staff’s re port. He indicated due to the complexity of he project and the amount of information presented to th e Board, it was staff’s recommendation to continue the public hearing un til January. In addition to receiving preliminary comments from the Board and the general public, staff w ould also request consideration of a special Planning and Zoning Board meeting in January. Mr. Hyden asked if the bridge would be a part of the deal. Mr. Grochala replied this was still being worked out with the County, but at this point, they were going to make it work without a new bridge. He indicated they were trying to improve the safety in the area. Mr. Corson asked if it was possible the City do the ramps. Mr. Grochala stated the southern ramps had been an issue since 1986. He stated their proposal would be to align the ramps and add a left turn lane. He stat ed how this ultimately got funded, they would be working with the County and State. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comments. Bill Griffith, Hartford Group, summarized the pr oject for the Board. He noted this was a truly mixed project, which would create an intergenerational village. Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Rafferty noted in staff’s report, staff had requested the building facades be simplified. He asked how would they be si mplified. Mr. Grochala replied they wanted the buildings to be broken up so it looked lik e they were multiple buildings. He indicated staff believed they were getti ng too many different designs. He noted staff did not want mirror images of the buildings. Mr. Rafferty stated he liked the concept of th e design and he liked the direction they were going. He stated the past had been proven successful and he believed there was no reason not to look back to the past for those ideas. He asked staff to not simplify the design too much. Chair Schaps asked how difficult of an issu e was the parking. Mr. Grochala replied it was not difficult and there was sh ared parking where practical. Mr. Griffith stated the range of the housing had not been established at this point, and they were studying this at this time. He stated he estimated they would have this information for the next meeting. Chair Schaps asked if there would always be a set percentage of owned real estate and non-workforce rentals. Mr. Grochala stated the number one requirements for the townhomes would be a for-sale market, with the remainder being rental. He stated roughly just under 50 percent would be rental. Chair Schaps stated a lot of what happene d commercially depended on income level and how did the City protect itself that the rent al income would not increase. Mr. Grochala replied he believed this would not increase a nd they were continuing to work on this with the developer. Mr. Griffith replied the maximum of rental s would be 20 percent and that could not be changed. He noted, however, that an individu al owner could rent their unit, which would not be a part of the 20 per cent, but that was uncommon. Mr. Rafferty asked if this type of developmen t had been done in other cities. Mr. Griffith replied they were currently working on a Master Developm ent in three cities and each have similar elements. He noted they had al so done similar developments in three other cities and invited the Board me mbers to visit those cities. Mr. Rafferty asked about the livable communities grant and asked Ms. Couts if she saw something in that proposal that make this si te desirable. Elizabeth Couts, Executive Vice President of Hartford Group, stated she was the Mayor of Burnsville and she had seen things that made this site a very desira ble place for this type of a development. Mr. Corson asked if they had considered what would be on the other side of Lake Drive and stated if this concept worked, could it be expanded to that area. Mr. Grochala replied they would like to see this development take place and expand to other areas. He stated he believed there were opportunities to the west of Lake Drive for some type of a development in that area. Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Rafferty asked when/if this was approve d, what would be the first things to be developed. Mr. Grochala replied the senior housing would go in first. Mr. Griffith indicated they had a sit down restau rant very interested in this site also. Mr. Tralle asked what type of retail would there be on this site. Mr. Griffith replied it would be a mix of retail, however, they hope d to have some franchise businesses also because those businesses were proven successf ul. He noted there might be a grocer, as well as one or two unique restau rants. He stated there woul d not be a big box user in this project. Mr. Rafferty asked if the Fire Chief had any comments about this development with respect to one entrance. Mr. Grochala stated they had been working with Public Safety and Public Works on these issues and there were design considerations with the street widths, but this did not appe ar to be too much of a concern at this point. Chair Schaps invited the public to make comment. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Tralle asked for a list of other projects Hartford had don e. Mr. Griffith noted their projects were listed on their website and if the Board needed further information, to contact him. Mr. Grochala asked the Board if they w ould oppose a second special meeting in January to discuss only this project. Th e Board agreed to another meeting. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the P ublic Hearing for Rezone and Preliminary Plat, Legacy Holdings Lino Lakes LLC, Legacy at Woods Edge, SE Corner of 35W and Lake Drive and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. D.PUBLIC HEARING for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Plat/Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit, Hokanson Family Partnership, Marshan Townhomes 2 nd Addition, NE corner of Lake Drive & Aqua Lane Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 10:55 p.m. Staff stated applicant had submitted a request for a comprehensive plan amendment, a residential planned unit development/conditiona l use permit, and preliminary plat. The subject site was four acres of property at the northeast corner of Lake Drive and Aqua Lane, adjacent to the existing Marshan Lake Condominiums. Staff indicated the request was to change the land use category from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, and to plat the site as a planned unit developm ent (PUD). A residential PUD required only a conditional use permit under th e 2003 ordinance, rather than a rezoning as before. Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES Staff noted this was the same site disc ussed by the P&Z previously on August 13, 2003 when a comprehensive plan amendment was considered. The P&Z recommended denial of that application. The City Council then discussed the application at a work session on October 22, 2003 and indicated they would not support it. The a pplicant subsequently withdrew that application. A question did ar ise at the work session about whether or not a PUD could accommodate a higher density than the Medium Density category allows. The Ordinance requires that a PUD comply with the density in the comprehensive plan. Staff presented their analysis and r ecommended denying the amendment to the comprehensive plan to change the land us e category from Medium Density to High Density and to also deny the conditional use permit/planned unit development/preliminary plat. He noted sta ff would prepare an amendment to the zoning ordinance to rezone the site to R-3 to bri ng it into conformance with the comprehensive plan. Staff stated the recommendation to deny all aspects of the Marshan Townhomes 2 nd Addition application was ba sed on the following findings: 1. The comprehensive plan guides the fou r-acre site proposed for development and the existing Marshan Lake Townhomes site for Medium Density Residential: 3-6 units per acre. 2. The existing townhomes were built at a dens ity of 6.4 units per acre. That is, the land use map shows the development at a lower density than how it was actually approved and built. 3. The site is zoned R-4, High Density Reside ntial. Under the City’s current zoning ordinance, R-4 is intended for the High Density land use category: 6-12 units per acre. 4. Therefore, the current R-4 zoning is no t consistent with the current Medium Density classification. Such inconsiste ncies should be corrected by amending either the zoning or the comprehensive plan. 5. Hokanson Development has requested a comprehensive plan amendment. The request is to change the land use catego ry from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. 6. A residential conditional use permit PUD may include a variety of residential units, including single family and multifamily units as long as it complies with the density requirements, as stated in th e zoning ordinance, Section 2, Subd. 10.A., Purpose and Intent (for a planned unit development). 7. The maximum allowable density within an urban residential PUD shall be consistent with the density directives of the Comprehensive Plan, as stated in he zoning ordinance, Section 2, Subd. 10.D .3., Urban Residential Planned Unit Development Requirements. Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES 8. High Density of up to 12 units/acre is not consistent with the existing townhome neighborhood, which is 6.4 units/acre. Me dium Density (six units/acre) will allow development that will be very close to and thus consiste nt with the existing neighborhood. 9. The site should be rezoned to R-3 to be consistent with the comprehensive plan classification of Medium Density. 10. The Lino Lakes Growth Management Ordinance, Ordinance No. 01-03 establishes a goal to limit new growth in the City to an average of 147 new housing units per year, with discre tion to exceed this target by 20%. 11. The proposed Marshan Townhomes 2 nd Addition would exc eed the growth goal by 45% if it were final platted in year 2004. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Ron Fuchs, 9174 Isanti Street NE, Blaine , Hokanson Development, stated they had submitted recent documents clarifying some of the concerns the Environmental Board had. He presented various documentation to staff and the Board clarifying their position. He stated the reason why this plan had cha nged from the initial comprehensive plan was because of the Brugemann development that as approved and that the changes that had been requested previously. He noted they had 50 percent open space with this proposed development. Chair Schaps asked how did they expect this proposed to be received, when they were not addressing the concerns of the existing reside nts and the concerns the Board expressed at the August meeting. Mr. Fuchs replied he hop ed the Board would approach this with an open mind. He noted he did not believe wh at they were proposing was different than what was already there. Chair Schaps asked if they had consid ered proposing this as a concept plan. Mr. Rafferty noted he did not see elevations on their plans. Mr. Fuchs replied he had submitted elevations to staff and he did no t know why those were not provided to the Board. Mr. Smyser replied staff had received full size drawings only, not reduc tions to distribute. Chair Schaps asked if he believed they s hould disregard everyt hing the residents had concerns about. Mr. Fuchs replied they we re asking them to take the information provided to the City, review the informati on and make a decision with the understanding that the Comprehensive Plan could be changed. Chair Schaps invited the public to make comment. Jim Crawford, President of Marshan Lake Condominium Association, agreed with staff that this amendment should be denied. He stated the Association wanted this area to Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES remain medium density. He stated when their townhomes were built, Mr. Hokanson did not own the property under consid eration and they were not aware of any second addition plans so how the statement could be made that this was a Master Plan was inaccurate. He stated he had appeared before the Environm ental Board and agreed with their concerns. He stated he hoped that this request would be denied. He expressed concern about the density of this proposal. He stated they we re currently involved in litigation with Mr. Hokanson and the developer, bu t nothing had been corrected. Mr. Fuchs stated when Marshan was initia lly developed, Mr. Hokanson did own the vast majority of this property. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the Publ ic Hearing at 11:30 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to deny the requested change of land use category from medium to high density and was support ed by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to deny the Conditional Use Permit, PUD and Preliminary Plat and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0. F. Variances for detached garage, Joseph Kivel, 262 Otter Lake Road Staff noted there was no information for this meeting and requested this item be tabled to the January P&Z meeting. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to continue tabl e the Variance for detached garage, Joseph Kivel, 262 Otter Lake Road to the Janu ary P&Z meeting and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0-1 (Corson absent for vote). VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Temporary Signs/Banners Staff stated they were seeking direction fr om the P&Z Board on how to address the issue to banners and other types of temporary signs . He noted staff would then take those recommendations and prepare an ordinance for a future public meeting. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to table this it em to the next meeting and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. VII.ADJOURNMENT Mr. Rafferty thanked staff for all of their hard work. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:43 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .