HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2001 P&Z Packet•
AGENDA
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
Wednesday, November 14, 2001
6:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 10, 2001
IV. OPEN MIKE
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. Willard Morton, 7930 Lake Dr., Minor Subdivision, Jeff Smyser
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
• A. Shirley Kaye's, Parking Lot Lighting, Jeff Smyser
VII. ADJOURN
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
October 10, 2001
6:30 P.M.
9:13 P.M.
Corson, Hyden, Lane, Lyden, and Schaps
Rafferty and Zych
City Engineer Powell; City Planner Smyser;
Economic Development Director Grochala;
Associate Planner Gretz
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30
p.m., October 10, 2001.
H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the September 11, 2001, meeting
of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Corson.
Motion carried 3-0-1 (Lyden abstained).
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:31 p.m.
No one was present for open mike.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:32 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0.
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Molin Concrete, 415 Lilac Street,
Amend Conditional Use Permit, Amend Interim Use Permit, Site Plan Review
Chair Schaps declared the continued public hearing opened at 6:32 p.m.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 2
Staff presented the applications by Molin Concrete Products Company for amendments
to the existing conditional use permit (CUP), amendments to the existing interim use
permit, and for a site plan review. The requested amendments would change several of
the conditions that were adopted with previous approvals. The site plan review
application was for a new manufacturing building on the site. The new building also was
an amendment to the conditional use permit.
Staff reviewed that the Planning & Zoning Board opened the public hearing at the
September 11, 2001 meeting and continued the hearing to allow for a neighborhood
meeting. A meeting with the neighbors occurred September 26, 2001. Approximately 15
residents attended, along with representatives of Molin, Cheesebrough Trucking, the City
Planner, and P & Z Chair Schaps.
Staff reviewed the Molin site which included approximately 55 acres and was guided for
industrial use by both the old and the new comprehensive plans. The north 20 acres of
the site was zoned LI, the southern 35 acres was zoned GI.
Staff presented details of the new structure, noting the proposed new production facility
included two cement silos rising to approximately 70' in height. The height maximum in
the GI zone was 45'. But, building heights in excess of the standards of the districts may
be allowed through a conditional use permit as provided in the zoning ordinance.
Staff noted the proposal included overhead cranes (gantry system) that would stand
approximately 33 feet high. The cranes would serve a new storage area covering 150 by
500 feet in the central portion of the Malin site. The cranes would run on rails over the
entire new storage area Finished product would be stored more compactly using the
cranes. The cranes would be able to load product directly onto trucks.
Staff advised that when an earlier building was constructed, the exterior lighting caused
some concerns among nearby residents. It was unlikely that the exterior lighting would
exceed the City's ordinance restrictions. However, photometric plans were submitted
along with a cut sheet of the exterior lighting fixtures and the proposed building lighting
complied with the requirements. The proposed fixture meets City policy requiring a fully
shielded design such as a shoebox fixture.
Lighting on the new crane must also comply with these requirements. Information on
crane lighting must be submitted and reviewed before City Council consideration of the
applications.
Staff advised that no landscaping around the new building was planned. Staff presented
details on traffic, voluntary compliance to prohibit on- street truck parking on Lilac Street,
parking requirements, grading and drainage plans which were reviewed by the Rice
Creek Watershed District and received preliminary approval. Staff noted that Molin had
not proposed new signage.
Staff reviewed the 1997 conditional use permit amendment that Moline had for the
concrete plant that covers the entire site. They also had an interim use permit for outdoor
storage that covered the northern 20 acres. In 1997 the City approved an amendment to
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 3
• the CUP as well as the interim use permit. The CUP amendment did include an
expansion of the production building and included the batch plant that was 80' high.
•
Staff advised that the conditions attached to the 1997 approvals did not specifically
distinguish between the two permits —the conditional use permit and the interim use
permit. The interim use permit only covered the northern 20 acres which was zoned LI.
The conditional use permit covered the entire property. One can infer that conditions
related to storage were intended to apply to the northern area. However, there had been
differing interpretations voiced regarding which conditions apply where.
Staff reviewed the conditions approved in 1997 and Molin's request that conditions 11 a,
13c, and 13e be eliminated.
With regard to noise standards, staff noted the excerpts from MPCA rules as listed with
comments in the staff report. Staff noted that a test must be able to determine if the
specified decibel level was exceeded for 10% of the time for one hour, or for 50% of the
time for one hour. Daytime was defined as 7:00 am to 10:00 pm, night time as 10:00 pm
to 7:00 am. Molin had a noise measurement analysis performed in October 2000 by
Wenck Associates. On October 24, 2000, the firm took readings from 4:30 am to 5:30
am and from 5:30 am to 6:30 am. On October 25, 2000 the firm took readings from 4:30
am to 5:30 am. The readings indicated no violation of MPCA noise rules during those
times. MPCA did state in a conversation with City staff that if a test was conducted by
established methods, MPCA typically accepted the results of the test.
Staff advised that neighbors were not satisfied by the Wenck analysis. Staff contacted
the MPCA to see if MPCA would conduct the analysis. This was possible, but there was
a waiting period of several months. Instead, the City hired a noise analysis consultant to
perform another analysis.
Staff noted the memo from the Environmental Specialist, on August 29, 2001 the
Environmental Board tabled the project pending; submission of landscape plan, tree
inventory, Rice Creek Watershed's TWAFFA requirement information, lighting plan, an
understanding of chemical use on the site, use of well heads on site as indicated by the
County Well Point Index. The landscape plan should show the use of native groundcover
plants and trees, the berm area on the north should be looked at for effectiveness and the
use of irrigation, and the City should re -focus on the priorities set forth in the current
Surface Water management Plan review process so that the surface water issues were
better understood in plan review sites such as Molin Concrete.
Staff commented that it was not clear why the Environmental Board did not receive the
submitted landscape plan. The landscaping plan was approved in 1997. The new plan
was a revision of the previously approved plan, and the drought- resistant species have
already been planted.
Staff advised that no tree loss would occur from the proposed new building. The Rice
Creek Watershed had granted its preliminary approval. A complete lighting plan would
be a condition of approval before City Council review. Chemical use on the site was not
changing, nor were any new wells being proposed.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 4
Staff explained that the City's surface water plan must be consistent with the Watershed
plan. Both the Watershed and the City included surface water plan requirements in the
review of all projects.
Staff presented the findings that must be made for consideration of a conditional use
permit. Staff recommended finding that the project met those requirements.
Staff noted that in addition to those general findings, a CUP for a concrete product plant
must include the provisions detailed in Sec. 8 Subd. 2.I.9. Staff believed these provisions
were addressed in the recommended conditions of approval.
Staff noted the list contained in the report which included specific conditions and then
specified which permit and /or approval it applied to. The "entire site" was the entire 55
acres, which was covered by the conditional use permit. The northern portion was the
20 -acre area zoned LI and covered by the interim use permit. The southern portion of the
site was 35 acres and was zoned GI. The site plan review was for the proposed new
extruded precast manufacturing building, overhead cranes, silos, and associated grading
and site work.
Staff recommended approval of the applications with the conditions detailed in the report.
Mr. Lyden asked about outdoor storage and fencing and how the Ordinance applied in
this instance. Mr. Smyser replied the use would be grandfathered in because they had
originally received an Interim Use Permit for that. The primary reason for not addressing
the fencing issue was because of the 8 -foot berm, as well as the landscaping, which also
provided screening.
Mr. Corson asked what percentage of the buffered area was coniferous landscaping. Mr.
Smyser presented the landscaping plan to the Board and pointed out the types of
landscaping that would be used.
Mr. Corson asked if the staff felt comfortable that there was enough landscaping present
to provide adequate screening year round. Mr. Smyser replied staff believed the
landscaping was adequate. He stated it would take a number of years for all of the
landscaping to sufficiently grow to provide the intended screening.
Mr. Corson stated he would like to see the vegetation become established and suggested a
drip hose for the first and second year. Mr. Smyser replied he would bring this issue to
Council.
Mr. Corson asked for further explanation regarding the semi - tractors on the southern part
of the zone. Mr. Smyser replied the truckers were independent truckers and for some
sites they would be required to have the back -up beepers on their trucks. Staff did not
feel it was workable to have the applicant be responsible for having independently owned
trucks on their property that had beepers on them. If this would become a problem, it
could be addressed at that time.
Mr. Lyden asked where the chain link fence was relative to the plantings and the berm.
He asked for the setback of where the berm started at the northern property boundary.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 5
Mr. Smyser indicated on the landscaping plan where the berm and plantings were. He
stated the berm was 110 feet from the property line to where the berm began. The berm
is 40' wide, which adds up to a 150' setback area.
Mr. Lyden expressed concern about the landscaping and the runway. Mr. Smyser replied
this situation would not have been allowed if the airport overlay were enforced. But this
was a situation where they were dealing with everything the best they could.
Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment.
Randy Molin, applicant, stated with respect for the irrigation on the berm, the
landscaping would be monitored and maintained for the first couple of years by a
landscaping company. After that time, Molin Concrete would maintain the landscaping
themselves.
Douglas Miller, 7780 Lois Lane, believed the landscaping was inadequate. He asked that
a minimum of two rows of coniferous trees be planted along the berm. He expressed that
these problems had not been addressed in 1997. With respect to irrigation, he asked that
the landscaping be adequately watered and maintained. He expressed concern regarding
the noise issues. He stated he was bothered by the early morning noise. He suggested
their hours of operation start at 7:00 a.m. He asked that sound tests be prepared. He
asked there be time limits in place. He asked they not operate their business on Saturday
mornings. He expressed concern about dust control. He expressed concern about traffic
flow on Fourth Avenue. He asked there be a condition that the applicant stay with their
original traffic flow plan of 1997. He asked where he residents could go if they had
problems that could not be worked out with the applicant directly.
John Herman ( ?sp), 7859 Lois Lane, stated he had understood that the irrigation of the
trees had already been addressed previously. He asked if the applicant had a watering
truck. He thanked the applicant and the Board members for working with the neighbors
on their concerns. He stated he did not believe the Molin property met the requirements
of the City's zoning. He indicated many things had changed in that area since it was first
zoned. He stated he understood that the applicant had a business to run, but the neighbors
had lives to lead also. He stated the applicant should have to run its business within the
current zoning ordinances. He expressed concern that Molin kept coming back for
further Conditional Use Permits. He expressed concern regarding the hours of operation.
He stated it was not reasonable to have unlimited hours of operation. He asked the
applicant to compromise on this issue. He expressed concern about the increase in
production necessary to recoup their cost of the expansion. He stated with the increase of
production, that would lead to additional truck traffic. He stated additional traffic was
not only an inconvenience, it was also a safety issue.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:27 p.m., and was supported
by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4 -0.
Mr. Corson inquired about the truck traffic on Lilac and traffic turning north. He asked if
the roads to the north would receive additional traffic and what was the future for those
roads and were they able to handle this additional traffic. Mr. Smyser replied this area
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 6
was zoned for industrial use. The roads were intended for the industrial use. He stated
not all of the trucks that drove on Lilac or Fourth Avenue were from the applicant.
Mr. Corson asked if the speed limit was something that needed to be addressed on Lilac.
Mr. Powell replied if a speed study were done, there would most likely be a
recommendation to increase it. He stated Lilac was a County road and Fourth Avenue
was a State Aid Road. Main Street was a County road.
Mr. Smyser stated with respect to noise, the City had contracted with a consultant to
monitor the noise. He stated he had hoped to have the result for tonight's meeting, but
they had been unable to test for noise due to the weather. However, the noise test would
be done before this went to the Council.
Mr. Hyden expressed concern that that there were not enough coniferous trees on the site.
He stated he would like to see the landscaping plan provide for additional coniferous
trees. Mr. Smyser stated the landscaping shown on the plans were proper, but staff would
review the plan again and if it was necessary, they would add additional landscaping and
this would be presented to the Council. He stated the City Forester was comfortable with
the landscaping.
Chair Schaps agreed that additional landscaping was needed.
Mr. Lyden requested the applicant plant two rows of coniferous trees that were staggered
having them no further apart than 18 feet and no shorter than 8 feet tall. He asked if the
applicant needed to begin their work hours in the early morning hours. He asked that the
City make sure the applicant follows through on all of the conditions and that there be a
deadline in which they need to comply.
Tom Molin stated they did not have any intention of having a 24 -hour operation. He
stated the main business item that started early in the morning was the loading of the
trucks. It was the nature of the business to load the trucks early to get the materials to the
job site on time He stated a 5 :00 a.m. starting time was a very necessary part of their
business and they had been running on that premise for the past 30 years. He stated 8 :00
p.m. was when most of the outdoor activity stopped. Chair Schaps asked if they would
agree that their hours of operation would generally be 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday for outdoor activity.
Mr. Molin asked if there could be any exceptions to this. Chair Schaps replied the Board
understood that there may be times when those hours may not work, but this would only
be allowed as an exception only and not the rule.
Mr. Lyden asked if the applicant would place a sign on their property indicating "left turn
only ". Chair Schaps expressed concern that the applicant would then be dictating traffic
on a public road.
The City Engineer stated this was a legal question, but this would increase the wear, tear
and load on the road to the south.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 7
Mr. Molin agreed to look at the additional landscaping requested. However, he pointed
out that they had spent a great deal of money putting in the berm, which was what he
thought was requested on the 1997 Conditional Use Permit. Chair Schaps stated he was
not necessarily for 8 -foot conifers, but stated he would like to see smaller additional
conifers on top of the berm. He asked for an opinion from the City Forester to see if this
could or could not be done and if the cost was or was not reasonable.
Mr. Lyden asked if there could be anything done with respect to the dust. Mr. Molin
stated this had been addressed at the neighborhood meeting and this would be taken care
of.
Mr. Lyden asked the applicant to have a deadline for completion of everything. Mark
Groff ( ?sp), Chief Financial Officer Molin Concrete, stated he believed that Molin had
met all of the Conditional Use provisions.
Mr. Smyser replied quite a few of the conditions did have deadlines as a part of them.
The conditions that did not have specific deadlines, where not deadline issues.
Mr. Herman expressed concern regarding the hours of operation. He asked what the
compromise was if they were allowed their normal hours of operation.
Mr. Corson asked for clarification on Chair Schaps landscaping suggestion. Chair
Schaps replied this needed to be done before the Council meeting and it would be up to
Council's decision.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the request of Molin Concrete Products
Company Amendments to the Conditional Use Permit and Amendments to the Interim
Use Permit, 415 Lilac Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. All permits /approval required by the Rice Creek Watershed District, including
drainage and grading and wetland delineation, shall be obtained prior to any site
grading. The Watershed permit applies to the overall conditional use permit for the
concrete plant, covering the entire site, as well as the site plan review.
2. Final utility, grading, and drainage plans must obtain approval from the City Engineer
prior to site grading or building permit. This condition applies to the overall
conditional use permit for the concrete plant, covering the entire site, as well as the
site plan review.
3. If off - street parking creates safety concerns in the future, the City shall re- examine
the parking needs and may require additional parking spaces. This condition applies
to the overall conditional use permit for the concrete plant, covering the entire site.
4. Proper building permits must be obtained prior to any construction of the new
building. All proposed structures shall comply with applicable City building material
requirements. An escrow shall be established according to City policy as part of the
building permit to insure completion of all site improvements. This condition applies
to the site plan review.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 8
5. The approval of the site plan and amended conditional use permit includes the 70±
foot height of the cement silos, as provided by Sec. 3. Subd 4.C.3. of the zoning
ordinance, which allows a building height to exceed the zoning district standard with
a conditional use permit.
6. The surfacing material of the site as shown on the submitted site plan and grading
plan is acceptable. Additional bituminous areas may be paved and additional crushed
asphalt may be applied without additional review by the City. This condition applies
to the overall conditional use permit for the concrete plant, covering the entire site.
7. Outdoor lighting is prohibited in the site's outdoor storage area (north of 77th
St. /Thomas St.). Permissible exterior lighting on the southern portion of the property
shall be hooded and directed to reflect light away from neighboring residential
properties and rights -of -way. This condition applies to the overall conditional use
permit for the concrete plant, covering the entire site, as well as the interim use permit
on the northern portion.
8. Lighting fixtures on the new building shall be the KAD model of the Contour Series
with a lens that does not extend below the fixture (submitted to the City 9/19/2001).
Additional information on the lighting on the overhead crane and storage area beneath
it, including a photometric plan and fixture cut sheets, shall be submitted and
reviewed prior to City Council consideration of the applications. This condition
applies to the site plan review.
9. The site's western access point (from 4th Avenue) shall remain at the 77th St. /Thomas
St. alignment. Access to Lilac St. shall be maintained as on the plans received by the
City August 13, 2001. This condition applies to the overall conditional use permit
for the concrete plant, covering the entire site, as well as the interim use permit on the
northern portion.
10. A minimum 150 -foot setback shall be maintained along the site's northern boundary.
The buffer yard consisting of a berm with plantings shall extend 40 feet north into
this 150 -foot setback line (i.e., the berm shall be maintained in the southern part of
the 150 -foot setback). The berm shall be maintained at an eight foot height. This
condition shall apply to both the overall conditional use permit on the entire site for
the concrete plant as well as the interim use permit in the northern portion.
11. Trucks serving Molin shall not park along Lilac Street. Molin and its agents shall
inform drivers of this condition. This condition shall apply to the overall conditional
use permit on the entire site for the concrete plant.
12. All applicable MPCA requirements shall be satisfactorily met. This condition shall
apply to the overall conditional use permit on the entire site for the concrete plant.
13. The following noise mitigation efforts shall be utilized:
a. The outdoor storage yard on the northern portion shall be arranged such that truck
backing maneuvers toward residential properties are minimized. This condition
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 9
applies to the interim use permit.
b. Molin equipment and trucks shall be outfitted with strobe lights to replace backup
beepers during nighttime hours (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.). Because use of strobes
rather than beepers has been approved by the Minnesota Dept. of Labor and Industry,
OSHA, this condition shall apply to both the overall conditional use permit on the
entire site for the concrete plant as well as the interim use permit in the northern
portion. However, this prohibition on beepers does not apply to semi - tractors that are
not owned by Molin operating on the southern (GI zone) portion of the property. Nor
does this prohibition apply to equipment being used on construction projects
anywhere on the site.
If, in the future, there is some reason under law why the strobes are not sufficient,
Molin shall be required to apply for an amendment to the conditional use permit and
interim use permit.
c. There shall be no outdoor cutting, sawing, grinding, or similar activity anywhere
on the site before 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays. (This prohibition does not apply to truck
loading or movement of product.) This condition applies to the conditional use
permit for the concrete plant covering the entire site.
d. There shall be no shuttle lifts, fork lifts, trucks, or other equipment operated in
northern interim use permit area earlier than 8:00 a.m. on any day. This condition
applies to the interim use permit.
e. The general hours of operation of Molin Concrete are to be 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Monday through Saturday, except as delineated under 13 a, b, c and d and that plant
operations outside of those general hours of operations are to be considered
extraordinary and unusual.
14. a. The new landscaping plan dated received by the City October 2, 2001 shall be the
approved plan. All plantings shall be in place by June 2002. Plantings shall be
maintained in a healthy state. Dead plantings shall be replaced in a timely manner.
This condition applies to the overall conditional use permit on the entire site for the
concrete plant as well as the interim use permit for storage in the northern portion of
the site.
b. In addition, trees or other plantings shall be planted in the northeast portion of the
site for screening purposes. These plantings may be small and provide screening in
the future as they grow. A drawing showing the location of these additional plantings
as well as a list of the plantings shall be submitted before review of this application
by the City Council. This condition applies to the overall conditional use permit on
the entire site for the concrete plant as well as the interim use permit for storage in the
northern portion of the site. That the applicant shall review reasonableness and costs
of establishing either two rows of staggered 8 foot coniferous trees no greater than 18
feet apart on either side of the established 8 -foot berm and/or up to 4 foot coniferous
plantings on the established 8 foot berm in the place of plantings identified on the
revised landscape plan of October 10, 2001.
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 10
15. The interim use permit on the northern portion, zoned LI, allows for storage, not
production. No production or finishing activities shall be conducted in this area. This
includes cutting, grinding, and other such work.
16. The interim use permit will expire if there is a change in the land use in the LI District
on the northern portion of the site.
17. The following conditions that were approved on October 27, 1997 shall no longer
apply:
- condition 11 a. requiring storing wall panels parallel to the buffer yard (berm);
- condition 13 c. requiring a solid row of coniferous trees on the north side of the berm
and a row of deciduous trees on the south side of the berm;
- condition 13 e. requiring irrigation for the berm.
18. A noise analysis shall be performed to test compliance with MPCA noise standards.
This analysis should be completed prior to City Council review of the current
applications.
19. The existing outdoor core slab casting bed (outdoor concrete pouring) shall be
eliminated as soon as the new extruded precast manufacturing building is completed.
This condition shall apply to the site plan and the conditional use permit covering the
entire site.
The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden for discussion.
Mr. Lyden requested a friendly amendment to 13(e) to starting time of 7:00 a.m. and item
14(b) to have 2 rows of coniferous trees no greater than 18 feet apart.
Chair Schaps accepted the friendly amendment to item 14(b). He rejected the friendly
amendment to 13 (e).
Motion carried 3 -1 ( Lyden).
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the Site and Building Plan Review subject to
staff's recommendations, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4 -0.
B. Cornerstone Homes, 6483 Clearwater Creek Drive, Variance
Staff presented the application by Cornerstone Homes for a new construction in an R -1
Zone with a PDO.
Staff noted the home was now approximately 90% complete, but had been built 3.2 feet
into the side yard setback. Construction was begun in spring of this year, with the
foundation work done in March. On March 27, 2001 City building inspectors signed off
on footings work, based on the staked property. Both the inspectors and the contractor
admit there were large piles of excess dirt at the site and frost conditions, which could
make measuring difficult. As a further complication, the lot was only just large enough
to accommodate the home, with no room for any error in construction in terms of side
yard setbacks. Plans called for the home to be sited exactly ten feet from the side
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 11
property line on the residence side, and five feet from the side property line on the garage
side.
Staff advised that in August, while out on inspections, City building inspectors noticed
that the side yard setbacks seemed close, and called the contractors attention to it. The
contractor then had an "as- built" survey done, and it was found that the home was built
into the side yard setback on the residence side by 3.2 feet.
Staff explained that an error was made in sitting, and the home sat 6.8 feet from the
property line rather than the required ten feet. The builder was requesting a 3.2 -foot
Variance from the City's required side yard setback of ten feet. The home in question
abuts neighboring garages on both sides, rather than the residences.
Staff advised that according to the City attorney Bill Hawkins, contractors and
homeowners were ultimately responsible for making sure a home was sited according to
specifications. Mr. Hawkins further offered the counsel that other Municipalities in
similar situations had issued Variances when other remedies for correction were not
suitable.
Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning ordinance that the
City shall make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action.
Staff recommended approving the variance for the rationale outlined in the staff's report.
Mr. Lyden expressed concern that these types of issues were becoming more common.
He stated the R -1 lot size did not accommodate these types of homes. He stated the R -1
lot size was outdated.
Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment.
Bob Strause, Cornerstone Home Builders, stated he understood Mr. Lyden's concerns,
but lot prices were getting expensive and the homes were getting larger and it was getting
difficult to find lots large enough to accommodate the size of homes people were
requesting. He stated he did not know how the error occurred. He stated he relied on the
subcontractors. He indicated there was as large dirt pile they had to measure over and he
believed this might have been where the error occurred.
Ms. Lane stated she was not comfortable that the neighbor was not notified about this.
She requested this neighbor be notified of this before it went to Council.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the request of Cornerstone Homes, 6483
Clearwater Creek Drive, for a 3.2 -foot variance from the City's required side yard
setback of ten feet, with the condition that the neighbor be notified of this prior to the
Council meeting, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0.
• C. John Dahl, 6291 Hodgson Road, Minor Subdivision
Staff presented the application by John Dahl to remove a portion of land from one parcel
and attach it to the adjacent parcel. That is, the action would move the lot line
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 12
approximately five feet. The purpose for the proposed action was to settle a question
regarding the property boundary.
Staff indicated the report was based on the document "Survey For: Emerald
Construction ", by Hy -Land Surveying, Inc., dated July 23, 2001.
Staff explained that Mr. Dahl was purchasing the lot from Mr. John Tobish. As part of
the sale of the property, Mr. Dahl had a survey prepared. The survey determined that the
irons marking the property corners were incorrectly placed. That is, the irons are not
located according to the legal description of the property.
Staff explained that the legal description was a legal description of the property
boundaries. However, Mr. Tobish and the neighboring property owners, the Bakers, had
always assumed that the iron monuments represent the property line. In order to avoid a
dispute over the property boundary, Mr. Dahl prefers simply to split off the strip of land
and deed it over to the Bakers. This required a minor subdivision approval by the City.
Staff noted the property was zoned Rural. This lot comprised one acre when measured to
the centerline of Hodgson Rd. The lot was created prior to the 10 -acre minimum lot size
now required in the Rural zone. The strip of land to be removed was approximately 1328
square feet, or 0.03 acre. The application involved a very minor change and poses no
concern for public health, safety, or welfare.
Staff advised that Mr. Dahl planned to construct a new house on the lot. That would
require a building permit. The typical building permit review would address such issues
as setbacks, a driveway permit from Anoka County, a culvert under the driveway, and
septic system requirements.
Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions:
1. The strip of land of approximately 0.03 acre removed from the parcel must be
combined with the lot to the south. Proof of the recording of the new legal
descriptions must be furnished to the City by the applicant within 10 days of the
recording.
Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment.
John Dahl, applicant, stated everyone was in agreement with this proposal.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the request of John Dahl, 6192 Hodgson Road,
for a minor subdivision with the condition in the staff report.
The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0.
Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Chair Schaps reconvened the meeting at 8:47 p.m.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 13
D. McDonalds Corporation /JADT, Southeast Corner of Lake Drive and Apollo
Drive, Revised Site Plan Approval
Staff presented the application for the McDonald's project, located at the southeast corner
of the Lake Drive /Apollo Drive intersection, previously received City Council approval
on April 26, 1999 in conjunction with the JADT Development Group, LLP, Planned
Development Overlay rezoning. A conditional use permit for the McDonald's drive -
through was also approved at that time.
Staff explained that since the original approval date, the City had been working with
JADT to facilitate the easterly extension of Apollo Drive to service the McDonald's site
and the Market Place development. The City Council ordered the preparation of Plans
and Specification for the Apollo Drive extension and Lake Drive improvements at the
September 22, 2001 meeting. It was anticipated that construction would start in April of
2002 and be completed by mid -June.
Staff explained that in conjunction with the Market Place development City staff
recommended changes to the McDonald's site plan to improve vehicle circulation and
safety along Apollo Drive. These changes included the following:
1. Elimination of the right -in only access to McDonald's from Apollo Drive.
2. Realignment of the McDonald's service road to create a ninety (90) degree
intersection with the proposed Market Place service road.
3. Relocation of access drive to the McDonald's parking lot to provide increased
stacking distance on the service road from Apollo Drive
These changes necessitated the need to rotate the McDonald's building on the site.
McDonald's had accommodated these requests, however the changes did require
resubmittal of the site plan for City approval.
Staff advised their review was based on the following updated plan submittals:
Site Plan received 09/24/01
Landscape Plan received 09/24/01
Grading and Drainage Plan received 09/24/01
Building Elevations received 10 /01 /01
Staff presented its analysis of the request noting the property was zoned Planned
Development Overlay District (PDO). The underlying zoning district was SC, Shopping
Center. Staff presented the plans and noted the points of access, building materials,
parking standards, trash enclosure, need for a photometric and light fixture plan, and
proposed signage. Staff also presented details regarding landscaping, tree preservation,
grading and drainage, and utilities.
Staff recommended approval of the McDonald's site and building plan request based on
the findings outlined in the October 10, 2001 planning report and subject to the
conditions outlined by staff.
Mr. Lyden asked what the hours of operation were.
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 14
• Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment.
Mr. Engstrom, applicant, replied stated their hours of operation would be 6:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight on Friday and Saturday night.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of the request by McDonalds
Corporation/JADT, southeast corner of Lake Drive and Apollo Drive, for revised site and
building plans. This recommendation is based on the findings contained in this report
and subject to the following conditions:
1. Architectural Plans shall be provided for the trash enclosure to insure conformance
with City requirements.
2. A photometric lighting plan and light fixture details shall be submitted and subject to
review and approval by staff. All lighting used to illuminate off - street parking areas
shall be hooded (i.e. shoe box fixtures) and arranged to deflect light away public
streets and adjacent properties.
3. A revised Landscaping Plan shall be submitted subject to review and approval by
staff prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. A tree preservation plan shall be submitted subject to review and approval by staff
prior to the commencement of site grading activities.
5. A revised grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by
the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District.
6. A utility plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer.
7. All permits required by the Rice Creek Watershed District shall be obtained prior to
any site grading.
8. All necessary permits must be obtained from Anoka County.
9. The property shall receive final plat approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
A development contract shall be executed in conjunction with such approval.
The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Marketplace Update
Mr. Grochala stated the plan had been approved for the Marketplace development. There
had been no formal ground- breaking ceremony scheduled at this time. The SuperTarget
was anticipating a July, 2002 opening.
Planning & Zoning Board
October 10, 2001
Page 15
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:13 p.m., and was supported by
Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•
•
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM V. A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
P & Z MEETING DATE: November 14, 2001
TOPIC: Minor Subdivision, NE 1/4 NE 1/a of Section 9
Willard Morton
BACKGROUND
Mr. Willard Morton's firm, SSR & W Development, LLC, owns property in Lino Lakes.
The SSR & W property includes 80+ acres in Section 9. The application is to split off 11
acres from an existing 40 -acres parcel, and combine the new 11 -acre piece with a one -
acre strip that connects to Main St. SSR & W would then sell the new lot to allow for a
new home site. Staff understands that Mr. Brad Racutt wants to buy the property and
build a new home.
The application raises numerous important issues regarding implementation of the long -
range plan for the City, as represented in the 2001 comprehensive plan.
ANALYSIS
The land use and zoning are shown in the following table.
The comprehensive plan guides the site for low density sewered residential development.
That is, the long -range plan for the site and much of its immediate area is to serve it with
utilities to allow for residential development. It is in a stage 2 area, so utilities will not be
available until after year 2010. It is important to protect the long -range plan by ensuring
the ability to serve future development with appropriate services. This includes road
access and circulation as well as utilities.
There is a conceptual greenway indicated over much of the area. A greenway is an area
that may be appropriate as protected open space because of environmental features.
Greenways are conceptual because creating them is opportunity based: short of actually
Existing Land Use
Map
New Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Map
Zoning
Rural
site
Rural
Low Dens. Sewered, post -2010
north
Rural
Low Density Unsewered
Rural
east
Rural
Low Dens. Sewered, post -2010
Rural
south
Rural
Low Density Unsewered
Rural
west
Rural
Low Dens. Sewered, post -2010
Rural
The comprehensive plan guides the site for low density sewered residential development.
That is, the long -range plan for the site and much of its immediate area is to serve it with
utilities to allow for residential development. It is in a stage 2 area, so utilities will not be
available until after year 2010. It is important to protect the long -range plan by ensuring
the ability to serve future development with appropriate services. This includes road
access and circulation as well as utilities.
There is a conceptual greenway indicated over much of the area. A greenway is an area
that may be appropriate as protected open space because of environmental features.
Greenways are conceptual because creating them is opportunity based: short of actually
•
•
•
SSR & W Minor Subdivision
page 2
purchasing the land, the City must depend on the development proposals submitted. The
long -range plan for a road in the area will, at the appropriate time, need to consider the
potential for preserving a greenway.
Zoning, Subdivision Requirements
The site is zoned Rural, with a minimum lot size of 10 acres with a minimum of 20%
upland. The proposal meets the lot size requirements.
Park dedication is $1665 for each lot created by a subdivision.
The City's subdivision ordinance requires all lots to have their full frontage on a publicly
dedicated street (Sec. 1001.08 Subd. 6(1)). The intent is to prevent flag lots and provide
for safe, efficient access and circulation within the City, including adequate police and
fire department access.
In past discussions regarding this application, City staff has suggested a means to address
this requirement. Staff recommended creating a road easement along the eastern edge of
the property, including the one -acre strip leading to Main St. The applicant took a
different approach by proposing a road easement along the southern portion of the
property. Access to the property would be from Main St.
This is discussed more fully below, under "Transportation ".
Transportation
As noted above, the City requires that all new lots have the full frontage on a public road.
City staff recommended creating a road easement along the eastern edge of the property,
including the one -acre strip leading to Main St. This would provide frontage on a public
road right of way, though there would be no need to actually construct the road now.
Recommendations for Planning District 3 from the 2001 Comprehensive Plan include
investigating the possibility of an easterly connection to Main St.. The Transportation
Plan recommends this connection in the vicinity of the eastern end of Oak Lane and West
Rondeau Lake Rd.
An access management study was prepared for Main St. by Anoka County and
participating cities including Lino Lakes. The study, completed in 1999, recommends a
full access intersection at West Rondeau Lake Rd. Because W. Rondeau Lake Rd.
already exists, this is a logical location.
The Metropolitan Council also requires the City to preserve right of way to accommodate
future development. The road easement dedication recommended by staff along the east
edge of the site best responds to this requirement.
•
•
•
SSR & W Minor Subdivision
page 3
The proposal submitted by SSR & W is to dedicate additional right of way for Dupont
Ave. along the southern edge of the property. This road would not be constructed. The
prospective buyer of the new 11 -acre lot would use the one -acre strip for access to Main
St. There are several problems with this proposal.
Currently, both Dupont Ave. and Duffee Drive are 'h rights of way (33 ft. wide). Dupont
runs along the southern edge of the site. Duffee Drive meets Dupont at the southeastern
corner of the site. The proposed additional easement would extend along Dupont to Lois
Lane. There is no connection to Main St.
Currently, an electric power transmission line easement follows the Dupont Ave.
alignment: the location for the road easement proposed by the applicant. It would be
very difficult to convert this location to a road.
In contrast, Oak Lane is a full 66' right of way now except 200 feet just west of the
freeway. The option recommended by staff would use this to plan the future Main St.
connection.
Much of the land in the area is wetland. Construction of the future road connection
would involve wetland impacts regardless of the alignment.
Adjacent Property Access
Access to future development is an important issue. Another important issue is the
current access situation for the adjacent land owner. The property at 1196 Main St.
currently accesses Main St. via a driveway in the one -acre piece. The current residents
there, Steve Martichuski and Kathy Matzke, have explained to staff that it was their
understanding that a public road was to be constructed there. The deed to their property
refers to a road easement, they say. For this reason, they oriented their garage to the east,
with their driveway connecting to the long driveway that runs to Main St.
The fact that the one -acre piece is 60 feet wide indicates that, sometime in the past,
someone planned the strip for a road. However, we have no information indicating that
the City has any rights or ownership in the property now.
SUMMARY
If the City is to implement its long range plan, as represented in the 2001 comprehensive
plan, it must recognize opportunities to put together the individual pieces. The 2001
comprehensive plan, the transportation plan which is a key element, and the 1999 access
management plan all point to providing for a future road connection. This would provide
safe access and circulation for existing properties and for future development, if it occurs.
The subdivision ordinance supports this by prohibiting the creation of flag lots.
•
•
•
SSR & W Minor Subdivision
page 4
Access to the new lot will be from Main St. As long as this is the access intended by
both the City and the applicant, it is reasonable to make the access a public right of way
that accomplishes a number of public purposes. In addition, it provides continued access
to the adjacent property.
Approval of the application as submitted is to forego an opportunity for implementation
of the City's long -range plan.
Staff recommends that the minor subdivision be approved only if a road easement is
dedicated to the City that includes the one -acre piece and the eastern 66 feet of the larger
11 -acre portion.
Conditions of Approval
1. A road easement shall be dedicated to the City that includes the one -acre piece and
the eastern 66 feet of the larger 11 -acre portion.
2. Park dedication is $1665.
OPTIONS
1. Approve the minor subdivision as proposed.
2. Approve the minor subdivision with the conditions listed above.
3. Deny the proposed minor subdivision.
4. Return to staff with direction.
RECOMMENDATION
Option 2
alI�11IlMI p S ap r �p0
ra`� �- eeememee�reeeaeaeeo
e �....... ill 1311111102 ma AO
Ila VW MEP own
--2P—
gm NM
ind1"147•40:4
J
ram LiiiaNArtEl
1■
.,p A
mocatt&di
ti6/
Aro_
GEORGE
WATCH LAKE
i
N. E. CrO NE
S 89-5-7.53-4r.-• 2392.39 -• SEC- -9
- -- -
------------------ - - - - - _- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- IGr'
rsa. � -T C.SA.H N0. I4) t .,�
2' ils- .{�7 /4.1 -.. `-B /f.s-f `- 7,14e-a. - - - - - - - - - - .$ -i - /D•5' e.'.y +3-
-.Y ay -yr- 35-44 • 2fG -F.Z4 - • -
(5)
le ap. lsJ , (¢)
ilverie t yd
L %
Sjoldnder A sia 4+9a • //ni �d S
144Ac. A/e��rron
,44Wa - - - -
/rz" -3••
(9)
/Aye C. Sfo, /e•
,S7S9c
roa
/0 0
100
400'
(2)
4;4;414a,
,
Awfolot N 6A�6S
11
/0)
C/G ,e /- /Y• Zo,14 74e
(SSi e/ NE f4 ot,i/E %)
2/6.9
/CAC. ,...:
•
•
.03a
10. ZS/07- 70 RCP* GE,R_.f 15
— — 4 - - -+- _� - -_
I :
tl
\1
\)1t`
x`
�;,:w
W."10037304
• 3
20
2.•
494e
sia 6citte)
0
A 11 D I 110
6 ijII
S U I 0
FANEi
/6
15
19
PINE VISTA
V.11, VS. MO WM
•
I 4'
ir
47
i Sg!
/
/.,3[2 ...../..
. ..
/ j •••••'
SET, •
2-.57714.5,-2 •
7/ • • +4 t•ifi )7n .71
.AKE • " ',116; V40E/LANDS
2 , •
. . •
•
L.
74 so 29.0.
RURAL
• • ■
•
PELTIEI
(N
WATCH LAKE
BDIVISIONI
—T—OS A
t:
GB N
_\ S
=:41:5411-13:i r-
2ND AD I •
AIN-
City Hall
Park
[1-T-T-1111-m 1 i
•
,...d..1_,::,,q
i
Ifin.110i111.2,13 14.1b %A/ L
1 , PAEVV1 , ,,,i.-:_4._ WOODLANDS
TY11-. i a,
,
■ ; i i , .......,
.
,
_ ...
I I
•
•
Pine Streetq
m!
pain Stree)
Sunset Road
3
3
Carl Street
A
1
2
Lilac Street
George Watch Lake
Peltier
Lake
NIB
Elm Street
Reshanau
Lake
LEGEND
Four -Lane Divided
Four -Lane Undivided
Two -Lane
Existing
Proposed
Note: Alignment of all proposed roads
is conceptual
Cmrsuinnc G.uur, Inc
CITY OF LINO LAKES TRANSPORTATION PLAN
RECOMMENEWED ROADWAY SYSTEM
la1/7 e c7s e /`c7;
11
g total Parcel)
• 5-14644;,..tre
R. kt FT: lfEra
OCT 2 5 2001
CT"( OF 1..' ];%i4.0 LAKES
• 14,7. —■
141•■••-a,..14‘1.111.
70/1 WM my 4
rtmot.
i t
E I
EDGE OF
NEILANO
k
44Anallim•
/ 700.0 11 '
Er/ a
/k(7:,/ if itii ) i
/,,, ,._. , 1
\ ii.i,,v/ -,, \
'/
u /
•
LANE ve::
11,-)
[GLENN
1 EHBEIN
COMPANIES
jg 1WIE3 31. A.C.
NAR/C. AN 13•49-472
lu g!,,
•
tee
..••••••••'
•
89'47122"E
664-.00
886.8 ,
•586.8
WETLANDc
s
, od • , <1 si
..
T" LC) ,... ,,, /
1 r
0 CO \ . , /
•., ____ •- „..„ „......, • 1 I •
.,... ,
/
i I
:39 4.f.
o /-: \
' •.
730.00 Ft.
'"-- ..--, . . ,•-:-..- ,•,,- —,/rift,=."....‘.3"•-••••rfW.e......... . _..C.".... j< I.
.. ...
i . I f' / . ••• . I i ST
/
/ CO
it.
\ ' t
‘.•;... • 1.,.. •"1 / \ \ t.."-- ::''. ( \ . (,) •
t
1 . - j/ i .4' ■---A ....
/11 . 9 3 Ac.
, .. _ • .. _ _ _ • , , _ \
N.E. Cor.
Sec. 9, T. 31, R 22.
Main
No. 14)—
• ANOKA COUNTY
RK;i4T-CF-WAY PLAT C.25
N
1 ‘ N ‘ ‘ \
\
N \
• N. \
N8944'0
66.00
66
EDGE OF
WETLAND
• 11
1
r •
8G4.I
1
1 4
• r .
i93.0
\
690.Z.
•
1 66
I
)roposed
Division
Line
(
//-
Gr.-oleri • Per 520796
•. (
Po,,Ner in n 'Assn. Pw-
(UPA)
/...._ ,, ,.....,A ...._ _• ct, A ,A, .....,•„, „,A..,/,„,„Of,,,,,,•.,_..,,,,,
(Way
/
,..,
4'
ie// ; ,..;•!'",:••41,,, ),...
• \
•
cgis •
--r-
C.1.1
896.'5 3 2077Edien acont
41 c---
NIJE.. 37_7
'ss. so
$8950 44...E.
.
\ 1.%• ,)
\
t A IN, (---‘
L./ /- 'n_2
•,„
33
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM VI. A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
P & Z MEETING DATE: November 14, 2001
TOPIC: Discussion Item: Lighting At Shirley Kaye's
You may recall the review of the proposal to expand Shirley Kaye's on Lake Drive. The
building additions and parking lot improvements are complete.
Since the re- opening, the Police Dept. has noted that the parking lot is very dark. There
was no exterior lighting proposed except fixtures on the building.
I recall a brief discussion at one of the meetings about lighting. There was concern about
bright lights on the lake. Since there were only the building fixtures, it was not a
problem.
During construction, a contractor called to ask what kind of lights would be allowed in
the parking lot. Since no lighting was proposed or reviewed, and there was concern
about lights on the lake, staff said there is to be no lighting in the lot.
The question of safety arises from the dark parking lot. The Environmental Board
discussed this and recommends that if lighting is added, the City ensure it shines down
and doesn't bleed onto neighboring properties or the lake.
Staff would like to discuss lighting with the owners of Shirley Kaye's without the need
for a full site plan review. If the P & Z and City Council have no objection, we will
proceed with this.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 1
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
September 11, 2001
6:33 P.M.
10:20 P.M.
Corson, Hyden, Lane, Rafferty, Schaps, and Zych
Lyden
City Engineer Powell; City Planner Smyser;
Community Development Director Grochala;
Associate Planner Gretz; Bob Kirmis (NAC)
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:33
p.m., September 11, 2001.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 8, 2001
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the August 8, 2001, meeting of the
Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion
carried 5 -0.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:36 p.m.
There were no comments made.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:36 p.m., and was supported by
Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 2
VI. ACTION ITEMS
A. Steve Poser, 6180 Ware Road, Variance
Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the
prohibition of accessory buildings in excess of 1,120 square feet on a lot of less than one and
one - quarter acres in order to construct a 1080 square foot detached garage on the northern part of
his property. A second variance from the prohibition of building a second detached accessory
building in excess of the allowed one attached garage and one detached accessory building
would also be required, as there was a 160 square foot shed already in existence on the property.
This shed was sited closer to Ware Road than the house, and so it was currently in violation of
City Ordinance Section 3, Subd. 4.D.1.c, which prohibits detached accessory structures from
being placed closer to the front lot line than the principal building.
Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining Mr. Poser wanted to build a 1080 square
foot detached garage on the northern part of his property, with access via 62nd Street, for storage
of recreational vehicles and trailers. The current garage was attached to the house, which existed
on the western part of the property with access via Ware Road. There was a 10' X 16' shed
located to the north of the house on the northwest portion of the property. Staff noted that this
shed was currently in non - compliance with City Code Section 3, Subd. 4.D.1.c, as it was placed
closer to the front lot line than the house, and the City would expect that the shed be moved to a
location which met City Code. Staff stated the septic system was located to the south of the
house. Staff indicated the lot was wooded, with no apparent wetlands.
Staff explained the property was located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Ware Road
and 62° Street and zoned Rural. Staff stated Miller's South Glen subdivision was located to the
north of the property and zoned Residential Single Family Executive. Staff indicated Fox Trace
subdivision was located to the northwest and zoned Residential Single Family. Staff stated the
property to the west, south and east were similar in size and zone to that of the subject property.
Staff indicated Mr. Poser had support for his variance from his three immediate neighbors to the
north, east and south.
Staff explained the property was 348 X 150 feet, or 52,200 square feet. This put the acreage at
about 1.2 acres, or just under the 1.25 -acre lot size required for the construction of an accessory
building of the size and number desired by Mr. Poser.
Staff explained City Code allowed either one attached garage and one detached structure, or two
detached structures, on a lot of less than 1.25 acres, but allowed one attached garage and two
detached accessory buildings on a lot in excess of 1.25 acres. Staff stated Mr. Poser already had
a detached structure in the 10' X 16' shed located in his front yard (non - conforming). Thus,
adding a second accessory building would also require a variance for a lot with his square
footage.
Staff stated the existing accessory square footage was 820 square feet: a 660 square foot attached
garage and a 160 square foot detached shed. Addition of the proposed detached garage would
result in 1,900 square feet of total accessory building footage, 780 square feet over what was
allowed under City ordinance. Staff indicated if the current non - conforming shed were
eliminated from the total accessory square footage, the proposed garage would still be 620
square feet over what was allowed under City ordinance.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 3
Staff indicated construction of the proposed garage in the area desired by Mr. Poser would
require a separate, second driveway with access via 62nd street. Staff stated City Code did not
preclude construction of such a second driveway. There were, however, easement issues. Staff
stated there was an eighty -five foot United Power Association easement along the southern side
of 62nd Street. The proposed garage did not impact this easement, but the driveway would cross
the easement. Similarly, construction of the proposed garage does not appear to impact the
current road right -of -way, however the driveway would be affected by any future improvements
to 62nd Street.
Staff explained Mr. Poser stated that he wanted to locate the garage on the northern part of the
property with access via 62nd street for two reasons: 1) the septic system was located on the
southern part of the property and precludes there, and 2) there was less traffic on 62nd Street.
Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning ordinance, that the City shall
make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action.
Staff recommended denying the variance for the reasons outlined in the staff's report.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Steve Poser, 6180 Ware Road, stated he was .05 acres short from being allowed to do what he
wanted to do, which was the equivalent of 5 feet. Second, he was not sure why there was a
violation on the present shed he had on his property. He stated he had obtained a permit and was
not informed at that time he would be in violation.
Chair Schaps asked if he had given any thought to eliminating one of the structures. Mr. Poser
replied he could do that, but at the time he did not know when he applied that he was in
violation.
Chair Schaps indicated the Ordinances were there for a purpose, even if he was only .05 acres
short. Mr. Corson agreed and stated they did need to draw the line somewhere, and he could not
support this variance.
Mr. Zych stated Mr. Poser was only .05 acres short from being able to put as many buildings as
he wanted to on the property. He stated the neighbors had indicated it was okay with them, so he
did not see why they did not grant the request. Mr. Corson replied that the line needed to be
drawn somewhere and the rules were there for a purpose. He expressed concern about setting
precedence if this was granted.
Mr. Corson stated Mr. Poser did not have a unique hardship and therefore, did not qualify for this
variance.
Mr. Smyser stated the issue was that he already had an accessory building. Mr. Poser stated he
wanted to put the garage up to store additional trailers in. He stated the shed could not be seen
from any of his neighbors' yards.
Chair Schaps indicated the Ordinance allowed Mr. Poser to have a structure, but not the number
he wanted or the size he wanted.
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 4
Ms. Lane asked if the shed were removed, what size structure would Mr. Poser be allowed to
have. Ms. Gretz replied he could build a 460 square foot building.
Mr. Hyden asked about the driveway access off of 62nd. He asked if this would be a problem.
Mr. Powell replied the driveway construction would go over an easement and they would need to
receive permission to go over the easement, but this was not unusual and this was done all of the
time.
Mr. Corson asked if there was any problem with having two driveways. Mr. Powell replied the
Ordinances did not prohibit it, but he strongly advised against it.
Ms. Lane stated she was in agreement with Mr. Zych for allowing this variance, but only if the
smaller shed would be removed.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to allow the variance on the condition that the small accessory
building of 160 feet be removed, and the driveway be moved 20 feet further east, and was
supported by Mr. Zych.
After further discussion, Ms. Lane withdrew her motion and Mr. Zych withdrew his second.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to deny the variance to allow an accessory building in excess of
maximum number allowed, and was supported by Mr. Zych. Motion carried 5 -0.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the new garage, contingent with the driveway being
placed in compliance 20 feet east and the present accessory building be removed, for the reason
that Mr. Poser was extremely close in meeting the Ordinance, and he had the permission of the
adjoining landowners, and was supported by Mr. Zych.
Mr. Corson stated staff might want to change this Ordinance.
Chair Schaps clarified that what they were allowing was one accessory building and the shed
would need to be removed.
Motion carried (4 -1 Corson).
B. Rick Piper, 6153 Oakwood Drive, Variance
Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the
required 5 -foot side yard setback for accessory buildings in order to construct a 465 square foot
addition on to his existing 624 square foot attached garage. The proposed addition would be
used primarily to house a third car, and secondarily for storage. In addition, applicant argued
that several homes in the neighborhood had three -stall garages, and that such an addition would
add value and marketability to the subject property.
• Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining applicant wanted to build a 31' X 15'
addition onto his existing attached garage. The current garage was located in the northeast
corner of the lot, 15 feet from the northern property line. Staff stated a water well was located in
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 5
the front yard, with the septic drainfield in the rear yard approximately 40 feet from the house.
There was a ten -foot drainage easement along the western property line.
Staff stated the subject property was zoned Rural, with lot coverage of 44,280 square feet.
Under City Code, the property was allowed 1,120 square feet for accessory buildings. The
existing attached garage measures 26' X 24', or 624 square feet. The addition of the proposed
15' X 31' garage would bring total accessory square footage to 1,089.
Staff explained construction of the proposed would result in a side yard setback of zero. The
affected neighboring property had street access on the Oakwood Drive cul -de -sac and was
heavily wooded along the southern property line. It was currently vacant, with the owner
residing in California.
Staff stated further implications to a zero side yard setback include City Code Section 3, Subd.
5.F.2, which required curb cut openings and driveways be a minimum of five feet from the side
yard property lines. Additionally, Minnesota Building Code required construction of a one -hour
firewall with no openings on buildings constructed less than 3 feet from a neighboring property.
Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning ordinance that the City shall
make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action.
Staff recommended denying the variance.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Rick Piper, 6153 Oakwood Drive, stated he was a licensed real estate agent and it was his
experience that improvements made to a property not only enhanced the property, but also
enhanced the neighborhood. He stated he was not contemplating selling the home and they were
looking to put an additional car in the garage. It would not be for additional storage. His
intention was to reduce vandalism to the cars in his driveway, as well as getting the vehicles off
of the street and driveway. He stated he had a problem with oak wilt on his property and he
intended to take one of the diseased trees down when adding the garage. He stated he would also
be willing to take down the diseased trees on the neighboring lot where the owner no longer
resides in Minnesota.
Chair Schaps asked if the neighbor who lives in California knew about this proposal and if he
was in agreement. Mr. Piper replied he had not been able to get a hold of the landowner, but in
the past, the landowner did not have a problem with Mr. Piper putting a garden on his property.
Chair Schaps asked if having a zero lot line would affect the value of the lot. Mr. Piper stated it
was his experience that zero lot lines did not devalue any property.
Mr. Corson indicated he agreed with Chair Schaps, because the future property owner would not
be able to do what he wanted to do with the property.
• Mr. Piper replied that where he was proposing to place the garage, the neighbor would not place
his structure because of the layout of the lot.
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 6
Mr. Zych stated he was not comfortable with Mr. Piper's analysis of where a landowner on the
other lot would or would not build their home. He stated they did not have an elevation map in
which to make those conclusions. Mr. Piper indicated where the natural entrance to the cul -de-
sac would be located.
Mr. Zych asked if he could bring the garage forward. Mr. Piper relied he would run into the
setback from the street and aesthetically it would not look appropriate.
Chair Schaps asked if he could go deeper with the garage. Mr. Piper replied he could, but it
would be a detached garage.
Mr. Hyden asked how this would increase the value of both properties. He stated Mr. Piper's
property value would increase, but the future home on the other lot he believed would be
decreased.
Mr. Piper asked if he could get the variance if he went to 10 feet on the garage. Mr. Smyser
stated he needed a five -foot setback and if he went 10 feet, there would no need for a variance.
Mr. Rafferty stated the variance was clear and he did not see how they could approve this,
especially when it would affect any future home on the adjoining lot.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to deny the variance to allow a zero side yard setback for an
Accessory Building with denial of variance being based on the staffs report, as well as the
neighboring landowner's permission not being obtained, and was supported by Ms. Lane.
Motion carried 5 -0.
C. PUBLIC HEARING - Molin Concrete, Amended Conditional Use Permit, Amended
Interim Use Permit, Site Plan Review
Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 p.m.
Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for amendments to the
existing conditional use permit (CUP), amendments to the existing interim use permit, and for a
site plan review. Staff explained the requested amendments would change several of the
conditions that were adopted with previous approvals. The site plan review application was for a
new manufacturing building on the site. Staff stated the new building in and of itself required an
amendment to the conditional use permit because it differed from what was previously approved.
Staff indicated the earliest action in the City's address file was a rezoning in December 1968 and
special use permit issued to Molin in January 1969 to construct a concrete plant. The Sherwood
Green residential plat was approved in 1978. Amendments to the Molin special use permit were
approved for expansions in 1978, 1981, and 1983. In 1984 neighborhood complaints resulted in
a task force to study concerns regarding noise, blowing sand, and visual impact.
• Staff stated a storage building was approved in 1991, and another building addition approved in
1993. All the expansions included approvals of amendments to the special /conditional use
permit.
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 7
Staff explained on October 27, 1997 the City took several actions relevant to the site. These
included:
1. Approval of a CUP to allow expansion of the concrete plant. This referred to additional
structures on the southern portion of the site.
2. Amending the zoning ordinance to include outdoor storage as an interim use in the LI zoning
district
3. Approval of an interim use permit to allow outdoor storage on Molin's northern 20 acres.
4. Vacating the portion of 77`h Street that separated the two areas.
Another building addition was approved in 1999.
Staff stated the City had received complaints from residents near the Molin site, especially from
the Sherwood Green area to the north. The primary concern has been noise. This had included
both noise from back -up beepers on equipment and the noise of the equipment itself. Other
complaints had included concerns about landscaping and dust. The City Council discussed these
issues at several work sessions in 2001.
Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining applicant's site included approximately
55 acres. The entire site was guided for industrial use by the new comprehensive plan. The
north 20 acres of the site was zoned LI, the southern 35 acres was zoned GI.
Staff explained the proposed new structure was a building for extruded precast manufacturing.
The building was approximately 600 feet long and 66' wide. It would have precast concrete
walls 36' high for the majority of the building. There would be a smooth band with windows
four feet wide at the 25' height. Near the south end the building itself will increase to 45' high,
then decrease to 11'.
Staff stated at the south end there would be two cement silos rising to approximately 85' in
height. Near the silos are below -grade material bins for aggregate and sand.
Staff indicated the building would cover approximately 38,000 sf. The silos and material bins
would use additional area.
With respect to height, staff stated the proposed new production facility included two cement
silos rising to approximately 85' in height. The height maximum in the GI zone was 45'.
With respect to lighting, staff explained when an earlier building was constructed, the exterior
lighting caused some concerns among nearby residents. It was unlikely that the exterior lighting
would exceed the City's Ordinance restrictions. However, it had been the City's practice to
require photometric plans for new commercial /industrial buildings.
Staff stated the City allowed a maximum of 0.4 foot candles at the residential property lines and
1.0 foot candles at the centerline of a street. No photometric plans were submitted.
• With respect to landscaping, no landscaping around the new building is planned. The section of
this report on the conditional use permit discusses landscaping for the larger site.
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 8
Regarding greenspace, staff stated a maximum of 90% of the site could be impervious surface in
the General Industrial and Light Industrial zones. The proposal would not exceed this.
With respect to traffic, staff explained the proposed new building would not interfere with or
impact traffic on surrounding roads. Internal circulation was governed by the manufacturing
process and storage needs. Truck parking on the roads was governed by the CUP.
Regarding parking, staff stated there was no parking requirement listed in the ordinance for
heavy manufacturing. An analysis in 1997 of previous action on the site included a parking
needs calculation using as a basis the parking requirement for a light manufacturing facility. The
standard for a light manufacturing facility was one parking space for each employee or one space
for each 2000 square feet of gross floor area, whichever was greater.
Staff explained the total square footage was 110,200 sf for existing and, at the time, future
anticipated buildings. The analysis resulted in a requirement of 55 off - street parking spaces. A
"future" manufacturing building of 35,000 sf on the old plan was the comparable to this new
building, which was about 38,000 sf. The office building that was built was 6511 sf rather than
the 4800 sf anticipated in 1997. There are 76 existing parking spaces now.
Staff stated if off - street parking caused a problem in the future, the City could re- examine the
site to determine means of eliminating any safety concerns.
With respect to Stormwater management, staff stated the grading and drainage plan was
reviewed by the Rice Creek Watershed District and received preliminary approval. The
proposed plan included enlarging an existing pond in the northwest corner of the site, creating a
new pond in the interior of the site, and an infiltration area between the two. The drainage plan
was subject to the review of the City Engineer.
Regarding wetlands, staff explained the proposed project would require filling of an existing
wetland in the southeast corner of the site. Applicant had received preliminary approval from the
Rice Creek Watershed District for the wetland impacts. Additional wetland would be created in
the northwest corner of the site by enlarging the pond there.
With respect to signage, staff indicated applicant had not proposed new signage.
Staff reviewed the 1997 Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Interim Use Permit.
With respect to noise, staff stated applicant had a noise measurement analysis performed in
October 2000 by Wenck Associates. On October 24, the firm took readings from 4:30 am to
5:30 am and from 5:30 am to 6:30 am. On October 25, the firm took readings from 4:30 am to
5:30 am. The readings indicated no violation of MPCA noise rules during those times. MPCA
did state in a conversation with City staff that if a test was conducted by established methods,
MPCA typically accepts the results of the test.
Staff stated neighbors were not satisfied by the Wenck analysis. It was possible to arrange
another analysis. Staff contacted the MPCA to see if MPCA could conduct the analysis. This
was possible, but there is a waiting period of several months. Staff was recommending a
condition that requires a noise analysis by another consultant to be arranged for the near future.
This analysis should be conducted during a typical working day at the plant.
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 9
Staff reviewed the Environmental Board Comments.
Staff reviewed the findings for a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommended finding that the
project met these requirements.
Staff recommends approval of the applications with the following conditions:
1. All permits /approval required by the Rice Creek Watershed District, including drainage and
grading and wetland delineation, shall be obtained prior to any site grading. The Watershed
permit applies to the overall conditional use permit for the concrete plant, covering the entire
site, as well as the site plan review for the new building.
2. Final utility, grading, and drainage plans must obtain approval from the City Engineer prior
to site grading or building permit. This condition applies to the overall conditional use
permit for the concrete plant, covering the entire site, as well as the site plan review for the
new building.
3. If off - street parking creates safety concerns in the future, the City shall re- examine the
parking needs and may require additional parking spaces. This condition applies to the
overall conditional use permit for the concrete plant, covering the entire site.
4. Proper building permits must be obtained prior to any construction of the new building. All
proposed structures shall comply with applicable City building material requirements. An
escrow shall be established according to City policy as part of the building permit to insure
completion of all site improvements. This condition applies to the site and building plan
review.
5. The approval of the site plan and amended conditional use permit includes the 70 foot height
of the cement silos, as provided by Sec. 3. Subd 4.C.3. of the zoning ordinance, which allows
a building height to exceed the zoning district standard with a conditional use permit.
6. The surfacing material of the site as shown on the submitted site plan and grading plan shall
be acceptable. Additional bituminous areas may be paved without additional review by the
City. This condition applies to the overall conditional use permit for the concrete plant,
covering the entire site.
7. Outdoor lighting is prohibited in the site's outdoor storage area (north of 77th St. /Thomas
St.). Permissible exterior lighting on the southern portion of the property shall be hooded
and directed to reflect light away from neighboring residential properties and rights -of -way.
8. A photometric lighting plan for the new building and structures shall be submitted to ensure
compliance with City lighting requirements. Cut sheets or photos of exterior lighting fixtures
shall be submitted. The photometric plan and cut sheets shall be submitted and reviewed
prior to City Council consideration of the applications.
• 9. The site's western access point (from 4th Avenue) shall remain at the 77th St. /Thomas St.
alignment. Access to Lilac St. shall be maintained as on the plans received by the City
August 13, 2001.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 10
10. A minimum 150 -foot setback shall be maintained along the site's northern boundary. The
buffer yard consisting of a berm with plantings shall extend 40 feet north into this 150 -foot
setback line (i.e., the berm shall be maintained in the southern part of the 150 -foot setback).
The berm shall be maintained at an eight foot height. This condition shall apply to both the
overall conditional use permit on the entire site for the concrete plant as well as the interim
use permit in the northern portion.
11. The City shall prohibit on- street truck parking along Lilac Street. Molin shall inform drivers
of this prohibition. This condition shall apply to the overall conditional use permit on the
entire site for the concrete plant.
12. All applicable MPCA requirements shall be satisfactorily met. This condition shall apply to
the overall conditional use permit on the entire site for the concrete plant.
13. The following noise mitigation efforts shall be utilized:
a. The outdoor storage yard on the northern portion shall be arranged such that truck backing
maneuvers toward residential properties are minimized. This condition applies to the interim
use permit.
b. Molin equipment and trucks shall be outfitted with strobe lights to replace backup beepers
during nighttime hours (6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.). Because use of strobes over beepers has
been approved by the Minnesota Dept. of Labor and Industry, OSHA, this condition shall
apply to both the overall conditional use permit on the entire site for the concrete plant as
well as the interim use permit in the northern portion.
If, in the future, there is some reason under law why the strobes are not sufficient, Molin
shall be required to apply for an amendment to the conditional use permit and interim use
permit.
14. A noise analysis shall be performed to test compliance with MPCA noise standards.
15. The new landscaping plan dated 8/1/01 and received by the City August 13, 2001 shall be the
approved plan. All plantings shall be in place by June 2002. Plantings shall be maintained in
a healthy state. Dead plantings shall be replaced in a timely manner. This condition applies
to the overall conditional use permit on the entire site for the concrete plant as well as the
interim use permit for storage in the northern portion of the site.
16. The interim use permit on the northern portion, zoned LI, allows for storage, not production.
No production or finishing activities shall be conducted in this area. This includes cutting,
grinding, and other such work.
17. The interim use permit will expire if there is a change in the land use in the LI District on the
northern portion of the site.
18. The following conditions that were approved on October 27, 1997 shall no longer apply:
- condition 11 a. requiring storing wall panels parallel to the buffer yard (berm);
- condition 13 c. requiring a solid row of coniferous trees on the north side of the berm
and a row of deciduous trees on the south side of the berm;
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 11
- condition 13 e. requiring irrigation for the berm.
19. Molin shall have an analysis prepared to determine the length of the shadow of the silos to
determine if there will be a solar access issue on neighboring properties. This analysis
should be prepared and submitted prior to City Council review of the current applications.
Mr. Hayden asked if there was any concern regarding the height of the towers. Mr. Smyser
replied there was not any concern with respect to the height of the towers and the airport. The
height zone would be higher than the towers would be.
Chair Schaps recessed the meeting and public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
Chair Schaps reconvened the meeting and resumed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Tom Molin, President Molin Concrete, 415 Lilac Street, stated in 1997 they had prepared a plan
and they were continuing along that plan. The building they were proposing was for
manufacturing. He realized that throughout this process there had been a concern with the
neighbors and they were trying to be as sensitive as they could. He stated they had taken more
things into consideration at this time due to those neighbors' concerns. He stated they were
going to utilize the existing space as much as they could without having to go further north.
Chair Schaps asked if there had been any neighborhood meetings regarding this. Mr. Molin
replied they had not had any neighborhood meetings regarding this phase, but they had met with
the neighbors in the past and believed the neighbors were aware of what was being requested.
He stated the biggest concern among the neighbors was the noise, but now with OSHA allowed
them not to use the beepers, they believed they had addressed this problem. He also stated that
he did not believe they were in any noise violations and they had tested the noise themselves, but
were willing to have an independent company come in and test for the noise also, if necessary.
He stated he was open to having neighborhood meeting.
Mr. Corson asked what type of noise would be generated by the gantry (overhead crane) system.
Mr. Molin replied it barely made any noise and he invited the Board to come to his facility to
look at this system and determine for themselves how much noise it generated. He also stated it
would reduce the use of the forklifts, and the rest of the noise that was generated was generated
inside of the buildings.
Mr. Rafferty asked if the proposed crane to the north was approximately 700 feet to the southern
edge of the nearest property. Mr. Molin replied it was quite a ways in from the north property
line, but he did not have the exact figures for that.
Mr. Powell replied it would be about 870 feet.
Douglas Miller, 7780 Lois Lane, read a prepared statement that he handed out to the Board
members. He asked if the new building would encompass the extruded precast and the existing
core slab. He stated they were concerned about increased dust and truck traffic. He thought the
City would enforce its Ordinances. They were reassured that there would be minimal impact on
their lives with the business expansion. However, he stated they experienced noise at all hours
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 12
of the day and increased dust in the area. He stated that rebar was being cut outside, and he
believed it should be sawed indoors. He stated beams were created in an open air bed. He
indicated the operation started business at 5:15 a.m. and went into the afternoon. He stated they
were exposed to noise at all hours of the day. He wanted to know if with this new proposal, if
the outdoor activities that were currently taking place would now be taken place indoors. He
submitted pictures of the dust that they were exposed to. With respect to truck traffic, trucks
were traveling north past the residential area. With respect to trees, many of the trees were cut
down, which no longer created a buffer to the residential area He stated he was upset that
Moline Concrete was asking for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit at this time. He
was particularly upset regarding the berm. He suggested trees be planted on the east side of the
property. He stated Molin should honor their original commitment.
Mark Husnik, 77th Street east of the plant, stated his main concern was the noise levels. He
stated he was one of the closest to the plant itself and a lot of noise drifted to the east in their
direction. He stated there was no protective berm, just a tree line. He stated the majority of the
noise was coming from the diesel trucks. He indicated his concern was the potential for running
of the plant 24 hours a day, which would mean additional activity and truck traffic. Mr. Smyser
stated there was no restriction as to hours of operation.
Mr. Husnik stated the noise standard was 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. He stated Blaine Associates
took some tests, and he did not believe those tests were conducted when there was normal
activity going on at the business. He stated he was concerned about the start time being at 5:30
a.m. He expressed concern about doubling the size of the plant, which would increase the
deliveries, and therefore the truck traffic. He asked what hours the plant was going to operate.
Sherry Schenck, 7859 Nottingham Lane, stated in being a good neighbor, she did not get up and
mow her lawn at 5:00 a.m. because it might disrupt someone and she expected the same courtesy
from her neighbors, including this business. She stated she believed what Molin was proposing
would decrease the value of their neighborhood. She stated Ordinances were there for a reason,
and she asked that there not be amendments made to the Ordinances.
Becky Miller, 482 Greenwood Lane, stated the complaints in staff's report that were made in the
1980's were still problems today. She indicated her backyard was adjacent to this business and
she believed they had agreed upon landscaping in the past and now the business did not want to
put the money into the landscaping. She stated this business appeared to be doing well and she
believed they should be made to follow through on their commitment to the neighbors. She
expressed concern about Molin changing their plans and not staying with what was originally
proposed. She expressed concern about the new building affecting the wetlands and the
watershed. She stated she was concerned how this would affect her groundwater and septic
system. She stated she believed from the north property line to the berm that that area was not to
be used for anything because 77th was given up by the City and she expressed concern that
Molin, at some point in the future, could put something in this area. She asked the Board follow
through and that Molin follow through on their prior commitments.
John Herman, 7859 Lois Lane, asked with a Conditional Use Permit how long was this granted
for, and was there a time limit on it. Mr. Smyser replied it depended on the condition and how it
was stated. Typically, a Conditional Use Permit involved things that must be in place and must
stay there, so most of the conditions would be ongoing. Other conditions might be more time
specific.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 13
Mr. Herman stated a number of the issues concerning the berm, irrigating, etc. had not been done
and now there was a request that these issues be put aside. He stated if this was part of the
original Conditional Use Permit, how could this be put aside now. He stated in 1997, they were
told that would be the end of the Conditional Use Permit requests and now they were requesting
another Conditional Use Permit. He stated Molin was not suppose to be north of 77t" Street, but
this was not the case. There were many tree stumps and trailers located in this area. He stated
the noise from these trailers was unbelievable. He expressed concern about the height of the
silos as being unsightly as well as a safety factor with respect to the airport. He expressed
concern about taking four -foot trees off an eight -foot berm because of the airport, but they were
agreeing to silos. He stated his largest concern was the truck traffic, which had increase
substantially over the years. He stated with the increase of the silos, there would be an increase
of raw and finished products and asked how many more round trip truck per day to accommodate
the facility would be needed for raw and finished product. He expressed concern about the
trucks driving slow, the dirt on the trucks, and the debris left on the road and freeway from the
trucks. He stated the increase of production would be devastating to their neighborhood.
Brad Lindgren, 388 Thomas Street, stated his biggest concern was the noise before 6:00 a.m. and
the truck traffic late at night. He stated when the trucks were coming out at 7:00 a.m. to 9:00
a.m. they were parking along Lilac Street and when two trucks were parked side by side, it was
very difficult to see around them when trying to get out onto the street. He stated in the winter,
the trucks were parking into the lanes of traffic. This was a safety hazard. He stated the first
year from 1997 — 1998, Molin had reduced the noise and dust, but now those issues had
increased again. He stated with a new conveyor system, that would help, but that would not
solve all of the noise issues.
Ed Schenek, 7859 Nottingham Lane, stated he lived some distance away from Molin and was
still concerned about the noise. He asked if the new addition would only store the new product.
Sue Miller, 7780 Lois Lane, stated many neighbors had fought long and hard about all of these
issues, and their concerns had not been addressed by the City Council. They were concerned that
with this new operation, it would go into a 24 -hour production and there was nothing stopping
them from doing this. She stated none of the promises had been kept in the past. She stated the
City had prepared a sound test, but the sound test had "mysteriously" disappeared. She assumed
that the test was above acceptable levels. She stated it was time to draw the line here. She stated
Molin received every variance they asked for. She asked how many variances was Molin going
to receive. She expressed concern about the number of new trucks coming in. She stated when
they had attempted to contact Molin about the issues they had, but Molin had not returned their
phone calls.
Terry Dunekel, expressed concern about the voices that she heard from the business in the early
morning hours. She asked if they had a PA system and if it could be toned down.
Kevin Kroells, 7839 Lois Lane, stated he had all of the same concerns as the other neighbors.
He also expressed concern about the snowplowing being done and the noise that generated. He
stated if cost was a concern with respect to landscaping, Molin should have planted the trees
years ago as they had agreed to and this would not be an issue now.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 14
Chair Schaps asked Mr. Molin about the increased size of the operation and if he was proposing
more truck trips, etc. Mr. Molin replied back in 1997 it was understood that they would be
increasing their operations and this proposal would increase the trips. He stated by enclosing the
building, it would take over some of the other work that was being done in the older building.
He stated a lot of burden would be taken off of the old building. He stated there would be some
increase of capacity. He indicated the raw materials were brought in during the morning hours,
but he did not see any increase in truck traffic. He pointed out that his business was not the only
business in the area that had truck traffic, and he did not believe they should be blamed for all of
the increase in the traffic. He stated they had addressed the parking issue along Lilac. He
indicated it had been their intention all along that they did not have to do the berm until they
actually started encroaching on that area. With respect to the dust, he believed they were being
held responsible for the increase of dust due to the construction of the berm. He indicated there
was also increased noise from the construction of the berm and they had received many
complaints about noise at that time. With respect to their hours of operation, the construction
cycles were busy and then slow and they needed flexibility for their hours, but he stated at the
present time, they were on 12 -hour shifts from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. However, trucks did come
in and out at different hours. He stated they would not be a 24 -hour operation. This would not
be feasible. He stated there would be more product being stored in their yard, but it would be
consolidated so they would be using the same space as they were using now. With respect to the
"missing" sound test he did remember a policeman taking a noise test, but they did not feel that
was representative of the noise that was actually generated by his business, but he did not know
where the test was or what happened to it. With respect to the PA system, he stated they did not
have a PA system, but they did have hand -held radios. He stated the original scenario was to
plant a double row of trees to help with screening and noise, but as they got further into
discussion with the neighbors, they came up with the concept of the berm. Originally the berm
would be five foot high and smaller, but it was concluded a large 8 -foot berm and a large setback
would be a nice compromise to screen the property. He stated the north end of the property line
would be kept as a buffer zone and they had no intentions of doing anything with it.
Mr. Rafferty asked when the plant was built. Mr. Molin replied the land was purchased in 1968
and the construction of the plant was completed in 1971. Mr. Molin indicated in 1968, it was a
very rural site and when they originally purchased the site, they intended on expanding their
business and planned on staying on the site and building their business. He stated they were still
in the growth mode. Mr. Molin stated when they originally started business in 1971, there were
very few homes in the area and the majority of the homes had been added since.
Mr. Rafferty asked if they were watering down the ground on a daily basis. Mr. Molin stated
they did it on a daily basis in the summer when it was dry. Mr. Molin stated they used to use
Class 5, but now they used reground asphalt, which compacts very similar to an asphalt surface
for any ground space they create, which reduced the dust.
Mr. Rafferty stated his concern was that he could not imagine being an individual buying a home
in this area and then complaining about an existing business. However, he stated the City
planning was terrible to allow homes to be built around the business. He stated there was a rift
that was created by nothing having things controlled properly. He stated the neighbors had been
promised something and none of those issues had been taken care of. He stated staff had not
given the Board members enough time to review this information and therefore he could not
support this. He stated he wanted to see some of the prior issues be addressed before new issues
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 15
were approved. He asked they find a way to accommodate the neighbor's concerns, especially
with respect to the berm and landscaping.
Mr. Molin stated their situation had been dealt with in work sessions and he believed they were
all moving in the same direction, but it might not be moving as fast as some people wanted it to.
He stated it was in their best interest to fulfill all of their previous commitments in order to move
forward. Mr. Rafferty stated he wanted to see some of the things that had been promised.
Mr. Molin stated they had invited the Board to his facility to review these issues. Mr. Rafferty
stated he had received that letter.
Mr. Molin stated he believe there were going to be some people who were never going to be
satisfied no matter what they did.
Mr. Rafferty expressed concern about the increased diesel traffic and the noise generated by that
traffic. He asked if there was something that could be done that could allow his business to
continue to operate, but have a later start time for hours of operation. He asked if the hand -held
radios could be turned down, or not used.
Chair Schaps suggested sitting down with City staff, Board members, and neighbors and see if
they could work out some of the issues that went back to 1997, understanding that both sides
needed to make compromises. Mr. Molin stated he was willing to do that, especially if the City
was also involved in this process.
Chair Schaps suggested continuing the Public Hearing to next month to give everyone an
opportunity to come to some type of an agreement. Mr. Molin stated he would be agreeable to a
continuation.
Mr. Smyser stated in the past the City staff did not go to the neighborhood meetings because of
the perceived bias, but they were willing to have a meeting in this case with a City
representative.
Mr. Miller asked if this new building covered the current outdoor operation. Mr. Molin replied
the outdoor operation would be enclosed and the beds would be inside the building.
Mr. Miller stated they were very willing to go to a meeting and compromise, but they had done
this in 1997 and Molin's promises were not fulfilled back in 1997 and he expressed concern
about this.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the Public Hearing to the October Planning & Zoning
Board Meeting, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0.
Mr. Rafferty left the meeting at 8:59 p.m.
D. PUBLIC HEARING - ATS &R/Centennial School District, New Elementary School,
Conditional User Permit, Site Plan Review
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 16
• Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had requested site and building plan and
conditional use permit amendment approval to allow the construction of an elementary school
upon the 79 acre Centennial Middle School site located south of I 35E and west of Lake Drive.
Staff explained earlier this year, the City approved a rezoning of the 15 acres of land located
north of the Middle School site from L -1, Limited Industrial to PSP, Public and a minor
subdivision to allow the conveyance of the 15 -acre parcel to the School District.
Staff stated because the 15 -acre elementary school parcel was to be combined with the adjacent
64 acre middle school site, the processing of a conditional use permit amendment are necessary.
Resultantly, the middle school and proposed elementary school would be governed by a single
conditional use permit.
Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining the CUP Evaluation Criteria and
indicating because schools were listed as "conditional uses" within the PSP zoning district, the
processing of a conditional use permit was necessary. The Ordinance stated that the Planning
and Zoning Board may recommend approval of and the City Council may order a conditional use
permit only if it found that the proposed use at the proposed location:
A. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or
general welfare of the neighborhood or the City.
B. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance.
C. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and
appropriate in appearance with the existing and /or intended character of the general
vicinity and will not change the essential character of the area.
D. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets,
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 agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
E. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
F. 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.
G. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which are so designed as not to create
congestion or an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
H. Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of
major importance.
I. Will conform to specific standards of this ordinance applicable to the particular use.
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 17
With respect to land use and zoning, the City's Comprehensive Plan designated the subject
property for industrial use. As part of the City's recent rezoning of the property from L -I, Light
Industrial to PSP, Public /Semi - Public, a determination was made that the proposed use was
consistent with industrial land use designation (Ord. 14 -1).
Staff explained with respect to lot requirements, previous approval of the minor subdivision (to
create the subject parcel) was conditioned upon the combination of the 15 -acre parcel with the
adjacent Middle School parcel. Such condition was imposed to address lot width and setbacks
concerns that would have resulted from the creation of an independent Elementary School parcel.
The PSP District made a specific allowance for campus type development and the existence of
multiple buildings upon a single lot of record.
Staff stated in addition to the required lot combination, it was also required that a portion of
Fourth Avenue which bisects the property to be vacated.
Staff indicated based on the premise that the 15 -acre elementary school property would be
combined with the adjacent middle school lot and that the segment of Fourth Avenue which
bisected the property would be vacated.
With respect to vehicular traffic, staff stated as part of the recent rezoning of the property,
findings were made that traffic generated by the proposed use will be within the capabilities of
streets serving the property. Elm Street was scheduled for reconstruction in the Spring of 2002.
The City Engineer had stated that the project would be substantially completed by Fall of 2002.
As such, traffic generated by the proposed use would not exceed the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Staff stated in regard to vehicular circulation, some concerns existed regarding the necessary
backing maneuvers of buses in the designated bus parking lot. Such maneuvering created a
conflicting traffic pattern and raised safety concerns.
With respect to pedestrian and bicycle traffic, staff stated pedestrian access to the school would
be provided via an extension of the Middle School trailway /sidewalk system and was separated
from bus traffic.
Staff recommended that bicycle racks be provided which allowed students safe lockage of
bicycles within convenient distance of the school's entries.
Staff stated the building height complied with the maximum 45 foot height requirement imposed
in the PSP District.
Staff stated the building materials as shown on the submitted building elevations, the school
would be finished in materials and colors that would match the nearby middle school. The base
of the building would be finished in red face brick with textured EFIS (tan) being provided on
the upper half of the structure. Smooth EIFS (tan) had been provided as an accent to the upper
half of the gymnasium portion of the building.
Staff explained the proposed building materials met the requirements of Section 3 Subd. 4.B of
the ordinance and complement the materials and colors of the adjacent middle school.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 18
• Staff stated the school had indicated that no future expansion of the school was anticipated.
Staff indicated with a total of 173 parking stalls being provided on site, the minimum off - street
parking supply requirements of the Ordinance had been satisfied.
Staff stated the elementary school was to be accessed via a northerly extension of the middle
school access drive from Elm Street.
Staff explained the Ordinance required that a minimum of 35 percent of the subject site be
devoted to open space, yard and /or landscaped area. The combined middle school /elementary
school site significantly exceeded the minimum green area requirement.
Staff indicated trash and recycling handling activities were to occur on the east side of the school
(alongside the gymnasium). As a condition of site and building plan/conditional use permit
approval, all trash handling equipment must be screened from view of adjacent properties by a
fence of wall at least six feet in height with a minimum opaqueness of 80 percent.
Staff stated applicant's submission did not include a photometric lighting plan nor does the site
plan illustrate exterior lighting locations. According to Section 3 Subd. 4.H of the Ordinance,
any lighting used to illuminate an off - street parking area must be hooded and arranged to deflect
light away public streets and adjacent properties. As a condition of site and building
plan/conditional use permit approval, a photometric plan and light fixture details should be
submitted subject to review and approval by the City Council.
Staff stated it had been indicated that the proposed ball fields would not be illuminated. It should
be noted that if the school district does decided to illuminate the field at some future point, it
would be necessary to process a conditional use permit amendment.
Staff explained institutional signage associated with the elementary school was governed by the
City's sign Ordinance and would be subject to a separate permit. All signs would be reviewed
with the sign permit applications.
With respect to landscaping, staff stated generally speaking, the submitted landscape plan was
well conceived. The plan calls for a mixture of coniferous and deciduous plants, trees, and
shrubs throughout the site. More specifically, a row of spruce trees (Black Hills or Colorado)
have been proposed along I -35W and canopy trees (Sugar Maple, Red Maple and White Ash)
have been proposed along the periphery of the building. Sod has been proposed in along the
perimeter of the school while the outlying areas (play fields etc) are to be seeded.
Staff stated the landscape plan specified planting varieties only in a general sense (i.e. evergreen,
canopy and understory trees). As a condition of site and building plan and conditional use
permit approval, the variety of each individual planting should be specified.
Staff explained in addition, the Environmental Board had recommended that planting varieties be
evaluated in terms of salt tolerance, particularly those plantings proposed along I -35W.
Staff stated as a condition of site and building plan and conditional use permit approval, a tree
preservation plan should be submitted. Trees considered worthy of preservation by the
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 19
Environmental Board include some Eastern Red Cedars and a row of Pines on the south side of
the proposed building.
Staff explained while the site plan illustrated an existing fence along I -35W, it did not indicate
whether or not any new fencing was to be provided on site. In review of the site plan, it was
suggested that fencing be provided in the following areas:
• Along the east side of the play fields to prevent stray balls from entering the
adjacent wetland.
• Along the sides of the play areas (north and west of the school) which border the
bus parking lot.
Staff indicated as shown on the submitted site plan, two play fields had been proposed east of the
elementary school. The southerly play field was also to be utilized as softball field. As
mentioned previously, the softball field was not to be illuminated.
Staff stated Loading activities were to occur on the east side of the building. The area was
provided ample area for service vehicle maneuvering and will be screened via evergreen
plantings (proposed to the north and south of the drive lane).
Staff indicated as depicted on the site plan, a wetland existed in the eastern area of the site. The
Rice Creek Watershed District had reviewed the plan submission and had recommended to table
with authorization for administrative action (TWAFAA) subject to the receipt of certain
information.
Staff stated a grading /drainage plan and utility plan had been submitted for review.
As noted on the utility plan, the proposed building encroached on an existing utility easement.
The acceptability of this condition as well as the grading/drainage plan and utility plan should be
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
Staff stated it also should be noted that the Environmental Board had recommended that the area
on the western side of the bus parking lot be considered for infiltration purposes.
Staff recommended approval of the site and building plan/conditional use permit to allow the
construction of an elementary school in a PSP, Public /Semi - Public zoning District. The
recommendation was based on the findings contained in this report and subject to the conditions
listed below.
1. The elementary school site is combined with the middle school site to create a single lot.
2. A site plan is submitted which encompasses the entire middle school /elementary school.
3. The area on the western side of the bus parking lot be considered for infiltration purposes.
4. The landscape plan is revised to specify the variety of each individual planting.
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 20
5. Planting varieties indicated on the landscape plan shall be evaluated in terms of salt
tolerance, particularly those plantings proposed along the I -35W.
6. A tree preservation plan is submitted subject to City approval.
7. The site plan is revised to illustrate bicycle rack locations.
8. All trash handling equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties by a fence
of wall at least six feet in height with a minimum opaqueness of 80 percent.
9. A photometric lighting plan and light fixture details are submitted subject to review and
approval by the City Council. All lighting used to illuminate off - street parking areas shall be
hooded (i.e. shoe box fixtures) and arranged to deflect light away public streets and adjacent
properties.
10. All site signage comply with the applicable requirements of the sign ordinance.
11. Fencing shall be provided along the east side of the play fields (to prevent stray balls from
entering the adjacent wetland) and along the sides of the play areas (north and west of the
school) that border the bus parking lot.
Mr. Rafferty returned to the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
• Ms. Lane left the meeting at 9:09 p.m.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
•
John Christensen, Superintendent Centennial School District, stated they did have a meeting with
some staff members last week regarding the recommendations /concerns, and the bus issue would
come in on an angle and they would curve their wheels to the left and the buses would not back
up. The car traffic would be kept separate from the bus traffic. He stated they had no problem
with the recommendations, but the lighting would not have as much lighting as the middle school
because it was an elementary school. He stated they would like to keep the area open where they
wanted drainage as green space for a play area.
Mr. Corson asked about the tree preservation plan and if they were agreeable to that. Mr.
Christensen stated they were agreeable.
Paul Snyder, Lead Architect, stated with respect to the recommendation to add some infiltration,
the small children did not need much space for a play area, and that was why they wanted to
avoid creating an infiltration area where it was proposed.
Mr. Zych asked if it would be possible to add a second story to the gym. Mr. Snyder stated that
would probably not be possible because of their budget.
Mr. Rafferty asked about the location of the schools being located so close together and why the
gym was the farthest away from the middle school, while the kindergarten and first grade rooms
were the closest. Mr. Snyder stated they were separate buildings as well as totally enclosed
buildings, which would lead to their separateness.
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 21
Ms. Lane returned to the meeting at 9:19 p.m.
Mr. Christensen stated the starting and ending times would be different for the two schools and
therefore, the younger students would not be exposed to the older students. Also, the elementary
students when outside, were always with school teachers or other staff.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 9:20 p.m. and was supported by Mr.
Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the site and building plan to allow the construction of an
elementary school in a PSP, Public /Semi - Public zoning District as outlined in staffs report and
subject to staff's recommendations, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the Conditional Use Permit amendment request as
outlined in staff's report and subject to staff's recommendations and that the field be
recommended as a grassy area, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0.
E. PUBLIC HEARING - Heritage Development, Saddle Club, Preliminary Plat
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 9:25 p.m.
• Staff presented the application by explaining that applicant had submitted an application for
preliminary plat for property commonly known as the Saddle Club. The City previously
considered an application on the site that included a comprehensive plan amendment and
rezoning for a portion of the property. That area is now proposed to be platted as an outlot and
was not proposed for development at this time.
The property was located south and east of Old Birch Street. The review was based on plans
received by the City on August 13, 2001.
Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining the northern 20 acres (approximately)
was zoned R -1. The south 20 acres (approximately) was zoned rural. The 28 building sites were
all located within the Single Family Land Use District and the R -1 zoning district.
Staff explained the draft Comprehensive Plan identified areas for greenways. The intent of the
greenway designation was to protect environmentally sensitive areas. This was previously part of
the original application for this area. However, because the area outside of the current MUSA
was not being platted for development at this time the greenway area are not specifically
addressed but could be required in the future.
Staff stated the R -1 District minimum lot size was 10,800 square feet of upland. All lots met or
exceed this provision with an average lot size of 17,551.4 square feet of upland.
• Staff indicated the minimum lot width was 80 feet at the 30 -foot front yard setback. All lots met
this requirement. The minimum lot depth was 135 feet. All of the lots met or exceed this
provision.
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 22
Staff explained fill was proposed on the site to create the house pad areas and roadways. The
grading plan submitted anticipates grading the site for future use. The grading plan was subject
to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
Staff stated all existing structures would be removed from the site.
Staff indicated access to the property was proposed from Old Birch Street. This required right -
of -way acquisition from an adjacent parcel, which has been accomplished. A roadway
connection was also proposed to Killdeer Drive. This right -of -way acquisition had been
completed. Access and road connections had been an issue during discussions regarding the
application. Staff had previously stated that neighborhood connections and multiple accesses
were desirable and that Birch Street could accommodate traffic from this project. Additionally,
the Police Department had reviewed the plat and they were recommending that both accesses be
provided.
Staff explained water and sanitary sewer were both proposed to be looped through the property
along the proposed roadway alignments from Old Birch to Killdeer. A feasibility study had been
completed and the results of the study would be incorporated into the construction plans for the
development.
Staff stated there was a trail corridor proposed on Lots 18 and 19 Block 1 to provide access to
the trail corridor platted in the Oaks of Lino. There was no parkland dedication proposed with
S the plat. All of the dedication would be cash in lieu of land. The amount to be paid would be
based upon the rates in effect at the time of final plat.
•
Staff explained there were approximately 15 acres of wetland on the entire property. Some fill
was proposed to accommodate roadway construction. The proposal was to mitigate the fill
adjacent to other wetland areas. The wetland delineation and proposed fill were subject to the
review and permitting of Rice Creek Watershed District, which oversaw the Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA). It was the City staff's policy to require preliminary approval (tabled
with approval for administration action or TWAFAA) from Rice Creek before the City staff
recommended approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. This was completed as of April 25,
2001
Staff stated the Environmental Board reviewed the application and generally, the Board
recommended approval subject to the use of native vegetation in all surface water treatment areas
and that buffer areas should be sign posted.
Staff indicated a complete tree inventory had been submitted and a tree preservation plan had
been submitted.
Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The grading, drainage and utility plants are subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineer.
2. Park dedication shall be paid prior to recording the final plat at the rate in effect at
the time of the final plat.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 23
3. Right -of -way acquisition shall be completed prior to City Council review of the
final plat.
4. Markers delineating the drainage, utility, and conservation easement shall be
installed within platted lots by the developer.
Chair Schaps stated Mr. Rafferty would now be Acting Chair.
Chair Schaps left the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Mr. Zych asked where the sewer and water was coming from. Mr. Powell stated the sewer and
water would be extended from the west (Old Birch Street).
Mr. Zych asked if this was not the reason for turning this down originally. Mr. Powell stated
sanitary or water service could come from the north, but it was cheaper to obtain it from the
west.
Mr. Zych asked what was the cost difference. Mr. Powell stated it would be an additional
$50,000.00 to $100,000.00 to extend it from the north.
Mr. Zych asked if there had been any feasibility studies. Mr. Powell stated there was a study
prepared on March 12, 2001 and it had been presented to the City Council and discussed in
detail.
Acting Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment.
John Hill, Heritage Development, stated the major change was to the road alignment near its
connection to Killdeer and that the southern half of the site was now an outlot. Otherwise, it was
the same proposal.
Mr. Corson stated one of the major concerns was the access to Killdeer. Applicant replied they
had obtained that land and that cleared up the issue.
Mike Freeby, 1047 Aspen Lane, stated he was in the neighborhood next to Killdeer. He
expressed concern about connecting Killdeer and the fact that they were already a neighborhood
that had 90 homes. He stated they had two entrances that serviced 90 homes. He stated they did
not want the additional traffic coming through adding safety concerns to their neighborhood. He
indicated there were a lot of children in the area. He asked for a gated, emergency entrance be
put in place.
Mr. Powell stated the entrances would split the traffic and they recommended there being two
accesses for emergency vehicles. If there would be only one connection, he would recommend
connecting the east end.
Sean McArale, 6508 Killdeer Drive, asked if there would be screening off of the Killdeer
entrance. He stated he would be against this due to the increase in traffic, noise and lights
coming into his home.
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 24
Marilyn Anderson, 8840 Birch Street, stated she had no objection to the development even
though it would greatly impact their neighborhood. Her concern was the connection of the sewer
and water. She stated it was her last chance to get sewer and water without petitioning for it.
She stated four years ago, if they would have connected up to the sewer and water their cost
would be $30,000.00 and she was asking for consideration on this at this time.
Gary Foster, 882 Old Birch, stated he was not against the development and agreed with Mrs.
Anderson regarding the sewer and water. He expressed concern about the Birch Street access
and stated they needed to have a study on Birch Street. He stated it was a deadly road and they
could not get onto Birch Street during rush hour in the morning. He stated with having an
increase in traffic, this would make this area even more unsafe. He stated without any controls
on Birch Street, it was a dangerous situation. He stated the safety issue was his biggest concern
along with the opportunity to have sewer and water coming through. He indicated a study of
Birch Street really needed to be done. He stated someone was going to be killed in this area. He
stated he was not against the homes. He asked how they were going to handle the traffic.
Greg Graves, 6532 Killdeer Drive, stated he had lived there for 12 years and expressed concern
the access was not adequate. He believed his neighborhood would be used as an access point
and this would create a safety issue. He stated the area was terrible and he had problems getting
onto Birch Street now and if this went through, this would only increase his wait time.
Rick Capocasa, 886 Old Birch Street, stated they would like to hook up to sewer and water. He
expressed concern regarding the increased traffic and the dangerous intersection.
Eugene Gervais, 890 Old Birch Street, stated there should be a traffic light at the west end. He
asked why this project was not shot down because of the sewer issues. Ms. Lane replied it was
because there was a MUSA issue and this had been resolved.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the Public hearing at 9:52 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Zych. Motion carried 4 -0.
Mr. Corson stated he understood there was some additional cost to extend the sewer system, but
asked if that additional cost would be assessed to the homeowners. Mr. Powell replied that was
not correct and explained what the current rules were with respect to extending the sewer and
water to a new development.
Mr. Corson asked if the residents were to petition for the utilities, would there be assessments.
Mr. Powell stated that may change the situation. If the Council decided they wanted to come
from the north, then the City would carry the additional cost for 5 -10 years and they could not
expect the developer to pay for that when it was cheaper to come from another direction.
However, this was an option.
Mr. Corson asked with respect to the 90- degree turn on Killdeer, if that 90- degrees would
continue to the south at some point in the future. Mr. Powell stated that was correct and it would
then be a "T" intersection.
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 25
• Acting Chair Rafferty inquired about the screening issues along Killdeer. Applicant indicated
they had no problem with screening Killdeer and suggested adding a barricade that could be
removed for emergency vehicles.
•
Acting Chair Rafferty asked if Killdeer was a cul -de -sac. Mr. Powell replied it was a dead end.
Mr. Hayden asked if there had been any traffic feasibility report prepared. He stated this was a
very dangerous area. Mr. Powell reviewed for Mr. Hayden the history of this street. He
indicated this was a dangerous situation.
Mr. Zych stated he was very concerned about the additional traffic being generated along Birch
Street and until there was a stop light on Black Duck, he would not support this. Mr. Powell
stated Anoka County had received funding for Black Duck and Hodson Road, but this had been
delayed due to improvements along Hodson Road, but he did not know about any of the other
intersections. He stated he would provide information to the Board and/or City Council after he
had the opportunity to research this further.
Acting Chair Rafferty stated the additional traffic going to Birch Street was a concern and also
the zigzagging of Killdeer was a concern, as well as screening issues.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the Preliminary Plat as submitted and as outlined in
staffs report and subject to staff's recommendations, and the developer look at buffering the
homes that would be affected by car headlights, and was supported by Ms. Lane.
Ms. Lane asked the developer to look at the zig- zagging on Killdeer and see if they could come
up with another solution. Applicant replied this was a traffic calming situation, but either way
they went they ran into problems and this was a compromise that was made.
Mr. Powell stated this was an attempt by the developer to eliminate that double frontage lot.
This also achieved some traffic calming in this area. He stated they could attempt to smooth out
the road within the existing right -of -way.
Motion failed 2 -2 -1 (Nay — Zych and Hyden. Abstain - Rafferty).
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Acting Chair Rafferty stated he was frustrated he had to make decisions for people waiting in
line for getting things approved, and he did not believe staff had not done a good job in getting
the packets to the Board. He asked staff and the Board work together in getting this information
in a timely manner.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
•
Mr. Zych made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Corson. Motion carried 4 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2001
Page 26
Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•
•