Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/2001 P&Z Packet• AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 14, 2001 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. Joseph Schwartz, 558 Pine St., Minor Subdivision, Tanda Gretz B. Clyde Rehbein, 580 Marshan Lane, Minor Subdivision, Tanda Gretz III C. PUBLIC HEARING: Moratorium on Residential Development, Jeff Smyser VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. None VII. ADJOURN • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2001 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : November 14, 2001 TIME STARTED : 6:31 P.M. TIME ENDED : 7:14 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Corson, Hyden, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty (arrived at 6:57 p.m.), Schaps, and Zych MEMBERS ABSENT : None. STAFF PRESENT : City Engineer Powell; City Planner Smyser 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., November 14, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — OCTOBER 10, 2001 Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the October 10, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:32 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:32 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS • A. William Morton, 7930 Lake Drive, Minor Subdivision Staff presented the application by William Morton for a Minor Subdivision. • Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2001 Page 2 Staff reviewed that Mr. Willard Morton's firm, SSR & W Development, LLC, owned 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 understood that Mr. Brad Racutt wanted to buy the property and build a new home. Staff explained the application raised numerous important issues regarding implementation of the long -range plan for the City, as represented in the 2001 comprehensive plan. Staff presented its analysis by explaining the comprehensive plan guided the site for low density sewered residential development. It was in a stage 2 area, so utilities would not be available until after year 2010. It was important to protect the long -range plan by ensuring the ability to serve future development with appropriate services. This included road access and circulation as well as utilities. Staff stated there was a conceptual greenway indicated over much of the area. Greenways were conceptual because creating them was opportunity based: Short of actually purchasing the land, the City must depend on the development proposals submitted. The long -range plan for a road in the area would, at the appropriate time, need to consider the potential for preserving a greenway. • With respect to zoning, staff explained the site was zoned Rural, with a minimum lot size of 10 acres with a minimum of 20% upland. The proposal met the lot size requirements. Staff stated the park dedication was $1665 for each lot created by a subdivision. Staff explained the City's subdivision ordinance required all lots to have their full frontage on a publicly dedicated street (Sec. 1001.08 Subd. 6(1)). The intent was 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 had 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 Street. 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 Street. With respect to transportation, staff explained the City required 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 Street. 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 included investigating the possibility of an easterly connection to Main Street. The Transportation Plan recommended this connection in the vicinity of the eastern end of Oak Lane and West Rondeau Lake Rd. • • Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2001 Page 3 Staff stated an access management study was prepared for Main Street by Anoka County and participating cities including Lino Lakes. The study, completed in 1999, recommended a full access intersection at West Rondeau Lake Rd. Because W. Rondeau Lake Rd. already existed, this was a logical location. Staff indicated the Metropolitan Council also required 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 responded to this requirement. The proposal submitted by SSR & W was 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 Street. However, staff stated there were several problems with this proposal. Currently, both Dupont Ave. and Duffee Drive are `V2 rights of way (33 ft. wide). Dupont ran along the southern edge of the site. Duffee Drive met Dupont at the southeastern corner of the site. The proposed additional easement would extend along Dupont to Lois Lane. There was no connection to Main Street. 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 was 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 Street connection. Staff explained much of the land in the area was wetland. Construction of the future road connection would involve wetland impacts regardless of the alignment. With respect to access, staff stated access to future development was an important issue. Another important issue was the current access situation for the adjacent landowner. The property at 1196 Main Street currently accessed Main Street via a driveway in the one - acre piece. The current residents there, Steve Martichuski and Kathy Matzke, had explained to staff that it was their understanding that a public road was to be constructed there. They indicated to staff that the deed to their property referred to a road easement. For that reason, they oriented their garage to the east, with their driveway connecting to the long driveway that runs to Main Street. Staff indicated the fact that the one -acre piece was 60 feet wide indicated that, sometime in the past, someone planned the strip for a road. However, staff had no information indicating that the City had any rights or ownership in the property now. Staff explained if the City was 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 was 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 Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2001 Page 4 • development, if it occurs. The subdivision ordinance supports this by prohibiting the creation of flag lots. Staff indicated access to the new lot would be from Main Street. As long as this was the access intended by both the City and the applicant, it was reasonable to make the access a public right of way that accomplishes a number of public purposes. In addition, it provided continued access to the adjacent property. Staff stated approval of the application as submitted was to forego an opportunity for implementation of the City's long -range plan. Staff recommended that the minor subdivision be approved only if a road easement was dedicated to the City that included the one -acre piece and the eastern 66 feet of the larger 11 -acre portion. Staff stated the two conditions of approval would be 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, and the park dedication was $1,665.00. Staff recommended approving the minor subdivision with the conditions as listed. Mr. Corson inquired about the wetland boundaries. He asked, if the lot would be crossing wetland. Mr. Smyser replied that was correct. The wetlands existed, but he was not sure where they were delineated. However, there was enough there to meet the minimum requirement. Mr. Lyden asked if there were any other homeowners that would face the other side of the road. Mr. Smyser replied that currently there would not be. Mr. Lyden asked what was the Duffy right of way like. Mr. Smyser replied it was a half right -of -way that existed on paper. There was no road at this time. Mr. Lyden inquired about the possibility of a 66' easement on the north, with a 33' easement on the southern portion, and connecting the road at some point in the future. Mr. Smyser replied that had not been looked at, but he did not believe there would be any problem with that proposal and this would be something that staff would need to look into. Mr. Lyden expressed concern regarding the burdens and benefits being shared and everything tying into the comprehensive plan. The 33' easement would require the other property owner to share the burden of the road by giving the other V2 of right of way. Mr. Rafferty arrived at 6:57 p.m. Brad Racutt, 998 Lois Lane, stated he had met with all of the neighbors and discussed this proposal. He indicated the neighbors would like to see a fence put up. He indicated they had met all of the requirements and had given access to the people who had the larger lots. He stated the proposed Oak Lane addition that was proposed tonight, he had not known about until this meeting. • Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2001 Page 5 Ms. Lane asked if he would prefer the 33 -foot easement, instead of the 66 -foot easement. Mr. Racutt replied he would like a private drive and the neighbors to the east (1196 Main St.) wanted their own driveway. Mr. Powell stated when he had spoken with that property owner, they were concerned about having to put a new driveway out to Main Street and the driveway they had been using over the years would be blocked off. Chair Schaps asked how would the neighbors get out of their property if they were landlocked. Mr. Smyser replied that was a concern the neighbors had that they would not be able to get out onto Main Street. Chair Schaps stated it appeared this needed further work. Mr. Smyser stated with the 66- foot dedication and 33 -foot dedication was acceptable. Mr. Corson stated it appeared the issue was a 33 -foot or 66 -foot easement. Mr. Smyser replied that was correct. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the request of Willard Morton, 7930 Lake Drive, Minor Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: • 1. A road easement shall be dedicated to the City that includes the 66' x 597' northern parcel and the eastern 33 feet of the southern, 11 -acre portion. • 2. Park dedication of $1,665.00. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Lighting at Shirley Kaye's Staff explained since the re- opening of Shirley Kayes, the Police Department had noted that the parking lot was very dark. There was no exterior lighting proposed except fixtures on the building. Staff stated that during the review of the project, there was concern about bright lights on the lake. Since there were only the building fixtures, there was not a problem. Staff explained 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 was to be no lighting in the lot. Staff stated the question of safety arose from the dark parking lot. The Environmental Board discussed this and recommended that if lighting was added, the City ensured it shined down and doesn't bleed onto neighboring properties or the lake. Planning & Zoning Board November 14, 2001 Page 6 Staff indicated they would like to discuss lighting with the owners of Shirley Kaye's without the need for a full site plan review and if the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council had no objection, they would proceed with this proposal. Mr. Corson asked if the owners had run wiring under the parking lot for future lighting. Mr. Smyser replied he did not know the answer to this. This would be something they would have to work with the owners on. Mr. Corson expressed concern that this would be an additional cost to the owner. Mr. Lyden stated he believed the owner would be cooperative with this proposal considering the liability they were exposed to. He requested any lighting not be directed toward the lake, but toward Lake Drive. Mr. Smyser replied staff would need to look at the best way to deal with the lighting issue. Chair Schaps suggested some type of ornamental lighting. The Board had no objections to addressing the problem without requiring a new site plan review. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:14 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • • • AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: December 12, 2001 TOPIC: Approval of a Minor Subdivision Joseph A. Schwartz, 558 Pine Street ACTION REQURIED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND The subject property is located at 558 Pine Street and is owned by Mr. Joseph A. Schwartz. The property is an unplatted 20 -acre Rural parcel which is not connected to City water or sanitary sewer. Mr. Schwartz's son, Joseph M. Schwartz, lives on the neighboring property at 598 Pine Street, which is similarly zoned and 10 acres in size. It is the intention of Mr. Schwartz to transfer five acres of his property to his son's property in order that his son be able to qualify for the Green Acres agricultural program. The result would be two 15 -acre parcels. ANALYSIS The City's zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 10 acres in a Rural zone. The proposed Minor Subdivision would result in a lot size of 15 acres for the properties at 558 and 598 Pine Street. It should be noted that unless and until the proposed five -acre parcel is legally combined with the existing 10 acres at 598 Pine Street, it will be non- conforming, as it will be under the City's 10 -acre required minimum lot size for property in a rural zone. As a result, approval should carry the condition that the properties be legally combined. This application involves a minor change in parcel sizes, and appears to pose no concern for public health, safety, or welfare. Staff would recommend approval of this Minor Subdivision with the following condition: 1. The five -acre piece must be legally combined with the property at 598 Pine Street, in • order to comply with the City's 10 -acre minimum lot size requirement. OPTIONS 1. Recommendation of approval of the Minor Subdivision, with conditions. 2. Recommendation of denial of the Minor Subdivision 3. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1. • • ZG /4.51 ,Qesurve/ ...-• CITY OF LINO a 4 `,�� nt \N (a \ /5D 5 A 721 /9'v 6 E A114 7 A9�1i1E. ......tzar Fy•• . -... /59 8 (.f) N 1/4 CORNER SEC 5 3,' CITY S4j (X) 8 9e- Esw. /,c./ 'Mb M sehw..rf/ A .f e. ,f qty ,r ,o4 -- j ‘ti /0 // 3tE ti 6q (7) Z () ,1 tiro ^tii • • • 1 SKETCH & DESCRIPTION for Joe A. Schwartz (Parcel A) Joe M. Schwartz (Parcel B) Proposed Description "Parcel A" The East Half of the West Ha /f of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and the West Half of the West Half of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 31 North, Range 22 West, Anoka County, Minnesota. Proposed Description "Parcel B" East Half of the West Half of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 5, Township 31 North, Range 22 West, Anoka County, Minnesota. North Line NE1 /4 NW1 /4 Sec.5, T31N, R22W. 1 S89'41 411T-654.13 Jil' S02 09'09 °W C) 490.60 I �T 162.81 490.40 N8854'18 "W C \1 C; C ■ 1 ♦ v S02 09'13 "W 653.87 \v j 163.47 Scale: 1" = 200' The orientation of this Bearing System Is based upon an assumed datum. tre Ao N r. it— NE Cor. NE1 /4 NW1 /41 I (N1 /4 Corner) Sec.5, T31N, R22W. S02 09'14 "W South Line NE1 /4 NW1 /4 Sec.5, T31N, R22W, Note: No field work was done to prepare this Sketch and Description. The Bearings and Distances shown hereon are based the Anoka County Section Breakdown and have not been field verified. i MIDWEST Land Surveyors 710 East River Road Anoka, Mn. 55303 Ph. 763 - 712 -9099 & Civil Engineers, Inc. Fax: 763 - 712 -9055 Aced File 01 -307 Job No. 01 -307 Book —Page none 02001 — Midwest Land Surveyors & Civil Engineers, Inc. — All Rights Reserved, I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I om a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 1 ih day .ef December Fy Bloke L Rivard -- , 2001 Registration No. 19421 nesoto Licensed Land Surveyor Asbwlt Dated this day of NOTE Official Copier of This Survey are Crimp Sealed. .ese• WIL 20 • AGENDA ITEM 5B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: December 12, 2001 TOPIC: Approval of a Minor Subdivision Clyde Rehbein for: Dorothy Rehbein 580 Marshan Lane ACTION REQURIED: 3/5 vote • BACKGROUND The subject property is a 3.9 -acre unplatted parcel which is zoned R -1. The property currently exists as a legal non - conformity, being an unsewered property of less than 10 acres in an R -1 zone. The property is bisected by Marshan Lane, with 2.7 acres south of Marshan Lane and 1.2 acres north of Marshan Lane. The applicant is asking for a Minor Subdivision in order to divide off the piece north of Marshan Lane. Marshan Lane is currently the focus of a feasibility study to determine if water and sewer services can be made available. Completion of the study is anticipated in January. ANALYSIS As the subject property is currently bisected by Marshan Lane, granting a Minor Subdivision would legally separate the two disparate portions of the property and allow the future development of the portion now existing north of Marshan Lane. The resulting two lots would meet the minimum lot size requirements for sewered property in an R -1 zoning district. • • • • Sanitary sewer and water, however, are not yet available along Marshan Lane. A feasibility study is currently being conducted to explore the viability of extending services down Marshan Lane, with results expected in January. Section 6, subd. 1.F of the City Code states "no R -1 subdivision creating a lot less than ten acres shall be permitted in this district without sanitary sewer and water." Thus, a Minor Subdivision prior to availability of utilities would not only continue the non - conformity of the original property, but would result in the creation of a second non - conforming property. Under City code, subdivision should occur only after utilities are available. The applicant, however, maintains that utilities can be provided to the proposed lot north of Marshan Lane via Town Center Drive, through the rear of the lot, and are not dependent upon utility availability down Marshan Lane. It is the position of staff, however, that a Minor Subdivision prior to the provision of utilities to both lots would result in an increase, or exacerbation, of the non - conformity of the original property, as the original property continues to decrease in size while still lacking utilities. In other words, the continuing decrease of property size actually increases its non - conformity. Section 3, Subd. 2.B.8 states that "a lawful non - conforming use may be changed only to a use that decreases its non - conformity." Lastly, the orderly delivery of utilities is a goal of the City. Utilities delivered to residences along Marshan Lane should be delivered in the same manner, at the same time, and thus should await the outcome of the feasibility study currently underway. OPTIONS 1. Deny the request for a Minor Subdivision. 2. Approve the request for a Minor Subdivision. 3. With written agreement from the applicant, Table the application until the Marshan Lane feasibility study is completed. RECOMMENDATION Option 3. Sketch & Description For: Raymond Rehbein - -- 384.81--- r.f. Gov. of Yet %¢ �F .v'•''�• Property description & Road Easement That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Quarter, Quarter; thence North 00 degrees, 04 minutes,East,a4....1 along east line thereof 249.91 feet; thence North 66 degrees, 01 minute s 810.56 feet to the southeasterly right - of-way line of old Trunk Highway No. 8, minutes, point of beginning of land to be described; thence North 24 degrees, 56 minutea,East along said right-of -way line to a point 938.14 feet northeasterly (as measured along said right- of-way line) of south line of said Quarter, Quarter; thence South 66 degrees, 23 minutes, East 241.6 feet; thence South 24 degrees, 14 minutee,Weet 213.98 feet; thence South 67 degrees, 07 minutes,East 527.8 feet to east line of said Quarter, Quarter; thence South 00 degrees, 04 minutes. West along said East line to a point 269.91 feet north of southeast corner of said Quarter, Quarter; thence North 66 degrees, 01 minutes, West 212.56 feet; thence South 23 degrees, 59 minutes, West 91 feet to center of 50 foot radius circle, said point hereinafter called point "A "; thence South 13 degrees, 59 minutes, West 281.8 feet to south line of said Quarter. Quarter; thence South 89 degrees, 56 minutes, West along said south line to a point 384.89 feet West of southeast corner of said Quarter, Quarter; thence North 4 degrees, 36 minutes, East 63 feet; thence North 34 degrees, 45 minutes. West 200 feet; thence North 55 degrees. 30 minutes, West 85 feet; thence North 72 degrees. 16 minutes, West 301.27 feet to said easterly right - of-way line of said road; thence North 24 degrees, 56 minutes, East, along said right- of-way line to point of beginning. Subject to a road easement across that part lying within the circumference of a circle having a radius of 60 feet and the center being point "A ". and, Subject to a road easement across that part described as follows: commencing at the southeast corner of said Quarter, Quarter; thence North 00 degrees, 04 minutes, East, assumed bearing along the east line thereof 269.91 feet; thence North 66 degrees, 01 minutes, West 212.56 feet to the point of beginning of the road easement; thence continuing North 66 degrees, 01 minutes West 30 feet; thence South 23 degrees, 59 minutes. West 40 feet; thence South 66 degrees, 01 minutes, East 30 feet; thence North 23 degrees, 59 minutes East 40 feet to the point of beginning. Scale, l " =L Book Ghcf e JO5No. uoL I hereby cerhi Mal this plan, survey or reporl was prepared by me or under rny &ree/ supervision and lha/ i a'n a duly ReAislertd c Land surveyor under the fawn or /he Slate or Minnesofa. Dated this 6 day of_J r- �� .,► , Re isliY9 /ion i1/o. 4-13 GLENN REFBEIN CCWN1IES 8651 Naples St. N.E. Blaine, Mn. 55449 Tel. 784 - 0657 i y,\c �"4 *� `.f' 0 / U V`�\o EL a (v PAgC UBIEcT e ? ,q ry NG` ` \\ _8 O / Sketch & Description For: Clyde Re'hliein'' To i be fro Puroh se ht a e! inn & rnaRhb'bYCity a °n fG %• s �eyd Nit 3ey 27 • y h c 1 it S89 °s'G' Property description (Su6jed fkrceI) • ;X. 2. of SS%/ •f Al 444. That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 17, T. 31, R.22, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the intersection with the south line of said Southeast Quarter of Northwest Quarter and the southeast line of Lake Drive as now established as 80 feet wide; thence North 24 degrees, 56 minutes East, assumed bearing along said southeast line 938.14 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 66 degrees, 23 minutes East 242.6 feet; thence South 24 degrees, 14 minutes West 213.98 feet to the north line of Marshan Lane; thence North 67 degrees, 07 minutes West along said north line 245.31 feet to the southeast line of said Lake Drive; thence North 24 degrees, 56 minutes East along said southeast line 217.16 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 1.21 acres. hcaie: ok To Vo. I " !e e �e 1 hereby cerfi' Thal this plan,survey, or report was prepared by me or under mmy diced supervision and th / am aoduly Re islered Land uurveyor under the laws or Ihe Annesola. Dated /his. day or isfr_3No.1 l _ . �' .... , e.v)t•19.O/ Emi aENl REEBEIN CCNPPNIES 8651 Naples St. N.E. Blaine, Mn. 55449 Tel. 784- 0657 sg' si; 6. I) .to \ -4. ,•-.. .• sk.....1"..1, s 1 \ IA I y $1 0' it,' it• 1.. 1.* (4). SKE12 ) F:Aw • r(2,:.4,41:0)01,00 4. I • 1.411)1., I•••••• P. 01 .s.::•74% (2),,,,AetrA-14° / • (4) O. L . A • 5 sp' sta.5/ (4) A. / _ **•- fs• • ••■ wer_ —time .ra4-14,g --(Ate) mo-ffie - —(60 /kg. -me (00.eio-ole c. g) •re. . •ra 4#e /e4.,/ H eel% s41 I- 201P., `... A".CP.se•er Ater' 447 ".•••=•.„ II 49) CENTER SEC. 17 • • • AGENDA ITEM V. C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser C. C. MEETING DATE: December 12, 2001 TOPIC: BACKGROUND PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance 23 -01 Interim Ordinance Establishing A Moratorium On Residential Development The comprehensive plan sets the policy direction, while the implementation of the plan occurs through official controls such as the subdivision ordinance and zoning ordinance. The new comprehensive plan establishes a policy to significantly reduce the rate of growth in the city. Staff is setting up a process for amending the official controls to implement the plan. This will take some time to complete. We are concerned about the interim. After conferring with the City Attorney, staff believes it is best to adopt a moratorium to protect the City. The proposed ordinance will prohibit most types of residential development activity in the City for one year. ANALYSIS There are three main reasons for the moratorium. First, the City Council approved the comprehensive plan but is still undergoing review by the Metropolitan Council as required by state statute. Until the Met Council approves the plan, the City is in an awkward position between the old, sketchy plan and the new one. Staff has been using the new plan for guidance, but it is not clear how firmly we can stand on it. Second, while the comprehensive plan establishes the policy of reducing growth to an average of 147 per year, the current official controls don't provide the means to ensure implementation of the policy. The City should be in the position where if it wants to deny new development applications, it should have clear and easily defensible reasons. Three, we anticipate new plat, rezoning, and MUSA reserve applications in the very near future. Revising the ordinances will be a major undertaking. We will have the services of our planning consultant, but the project will require significant effort by staff as well. The moratorium will allow staff to devote time to the ordinance project rather than attempting to review new application using ordinances that may or may not support the comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending the moratorium to protect the City until the ordinances are revised. • • • Scope of Moratorium The scope of the moratorium is found in Section 3, Applicability. It would prohibit new residential preliminary plats, residential rezonings, and allocating MUSA reserve for new residential development. Final platting of approved preliminary plats is allowed. The moratorium does not apply in The Village. Subdivisions that result in up to four lots would be exempt from the moratorium, unless they need MUSA reserve acres. Therefore, minor subdivisions (lot splits) are allowed. Small plats of four lots or less within the existing MUSA are allowed. Rezoning for such small plats within the existing MUSA would be allowed. Commercial and industrial development would be allowed. The moratorium does not apply to building permits or site plan reviews. Schedule Here is the schedule for the interim ordinance establishing the moratorium, as presented to the City Council on November 21: notice to Quad Press Tuesday 11/20 published Monday 11/26 public hearing P & Z 12/12 first reading City Council 12/17 second reading City Council 1/14/02 published 1/21/02 effective 2/21/02 The moratorium would be effective for one year, until February 21, 2003. The City can extend it beyond that, if necessary. Staff plans to complete revisions to the subdivision and zoning ordinances before the expiration date to avoid the need for an extension. OPTIONS 1. Close public hearing and approve Ordinance 23 -01. 2. Deny Ordinance 23 -01. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 23 -01 • Council Member introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption. CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 23-01 • AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PLATTING, REZONING, OR ALLOCATION OF MUSA RESERVE ACREAGE THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN LINO LAKES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFICIAL CONTROLS TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHEHNSIVE PLAN The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes, Anoka County, Minnesota does hereby ordain: Section 1. Findings The City Council finds that: A. The City has recently completed and adopted a new Comprehensive Plan and submitted it to the Metropolitan Council for review according to MN Statute 473.858. B. The City Council has determined that there is a need for further studies to be conducted so that the City may consider appropriate amendments to its zoning code, subdivision regulations, and other official controls to implement the Comprehensive Plan. C. Due to the potential for applications to plat land for residential housing units during the time studies are being undertaken, the City Council has determined that there is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, Subd. 4. D. The purpose of the interim ordinance is to: 1. protect the planning process 2. protect the public health, safety and welfare 3. ensure that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of, and the protection afforded by, the City's comprehensive plan and official controls until the study process is complete and any modifications to the city's official controls become effective. E. A public hearing on this ordinance was conducted by the Planning & Zoning Board on December 12, 2001. • • • Section 2. Moratorium Established In accordance with the findings set forth in this ordinance and pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes 462.355 Subd. 4, there is hereby established a moratorium on new residential development within the City. Section 3. Applicability A. The moratorium prohibits development described in B, C, and D, below and shall be applicable to all lands within the City of Lino Lakes except the area described in E.2. B. During the period of the moratorium, the City shall not accept, consider, or approve applications for new residential preliminary plats C. During the period of the moratorium, the City shall not accept, consider, or approve applications for rezoning to R1, R1 -X, R2, R3, R4, R -6, R -7, or residential Planned Development Overlay (PDO) designations. D. During the period of the moratorium, the City shall not accept, consider, or approve applications for the allocation of Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) acres from the City's MUSA reserve to support new residential development. E. The moratorium shall not apply to: 1. applications for final plat approval for plats that have already received preliminary plat approval 2. preliminary or final plat applications for land within the area of "The Village ", described as the area bounded by I -35Won the north, Lake Drive on the west, the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve on the east, the southern border of The Village No. 1 plat, and the west and south borders of SW 1/4 of the NE 1/a of Section 17 3. applications for subdivisions or rezonings which ultimately result in four or fewer parcels, including both metes and bounds minor subdivisions and plats, but this exception from the moratorium does not include projects needing MUSA reserve acres allocation 4. applications for preliminary plats for commercial, industrial, or other non - residential development 5. building permit or site plan applications of any type Section 4. Effective Date This ordinance shall be in force and effect upon its adoption and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter. This ordinance shall be effective for one year after its effective date and shall expire at that time unless further extended. • • • Passed by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2001 John J. Bergeson, Mayor ATTEST: Ann Blair, City Clerk The motion for adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said ordinance was declared passed and adopted. • • • 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. II. 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 Molin 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 staffs 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.