Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/2002 P&Z Packet• AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 13, 2002 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. Outlot F, Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition, Minor Subdivision, Tanda Gretz VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS • A. Pheasant Hills 12th, EAW Petition B. Development Review Task Force Update C. 2001 Planning & Zoning Board Action Update D. E- mailing of Minutes VII. ADJOURN • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT . MEMBERS ABSENT . STAFF PRESENT February 13, 2002 6:32 P.M. 7:18 P.M. Corson, Hyden, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty, Schaps, and Zych None City Planner Smyser; City Engineer Powell; Community Development Director Grochala; and Assoc. Planner Gretz I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Plann' d p.m., February 13, 2002. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board meeting to order at 6:32 Chair Schaps requested add° • • : -°'ons to this evening's agenda. Chair Schaps requested Item III be del a from e . genda. The agenda was approved with the above noted changes. III. Deleted IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 9, 2002 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the January 9, 2002, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 7 -0. V. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:35 p.m. Mr. John Powell stated he will no longer be the city engineer. He introduced Mr. Jim Studenski, TKDA, as his replacement. Mr. Studenski recapped his qualifications to the board. • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2002 Page 2 Chair Schaps and the Board wished Mr. Powell well and thanked him for a job well done, and then he welcomed Mr. Studenski to the position. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:40 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 7 -0. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, Lino Lakes Market Place 2°d Addition, Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:40 p.m. Staff reviewed that in August of 2001 City Council approved the PDO (Ordinance 16 -01) for Lino Lakes Market Place. Final Plat for the development was approved in October of 2001 and included Outlot D and Outlot E. The two Outlots were intended to be combined with the remnant parcel created from the Apo -, rive right -of -way acquisition per the approved PDO Site Plan. Ordinance No 1 states, under Section 2.D.3 entitled "Special Provisions," the following: Development of Outlot D and Outlo contingent on the developer acq ring tit platting requirements of the Lino said lots as specified herein and in shall not require amendm • he P1 depicted in the site Plan shall be the adjacent parcel and follow ision Ordinance. Development of ance with the Site Plan (Exhibit C) ed Development Overlay (PDO). Staff advised that the appli the Apollo Drive remna plat approval in accordan replat of Lot 2, Block 1, Out o panies US, Inc., is in the process of purchasing e City of Lino Lakes and requesting preliminary rdinance 16 -01. The Market Place 2nd Addition is a and Outlot E of Lino Lakes Market Place and includes the Apollo Drive remnant p. cel. This will allow for the development of the site consistent with the PDO approval. Staff indicated their report is based on the most current submittal, consisting of the preliminary plat prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated February 5, 2002. Staff noted the site is zoned Planned Development Overlay District. The underlying zoning is SC, Shopping Center. The submitted information indicates the establishment of three lots, as follows: Lot 1 equals 45,803 sq. ft., Lot 2 equals 57,690 sq. ft., and Lot 3 equals 42,764 sq. ft. The proposed lots are consistent with the Site Plan approved as part of the Lino Lakes Market Place PDO. Staff advised that the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plans were approved with the Market Place PDO. Grading for individual lots will be subject to the site plan review process. Utility Plans to service the proposed lots were approved with the Market Place PDO. • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2002 Page 3 Staff noted the proposed lots will be serviced by a private road per the Market Place PDO and by the easterly extension of Apollo Drive from Lake Drive. The dedicated right -of- access along Lake Drive should be extended to the southerly boundary of Lot 2, Block 1. All drainage and utility easements are provided as required. Staff presented the Board's options to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat, or return to staff and continue to next meeting. Staff stated it finds the proposed Preliminary Plat is consistent with the City's Subdivision regulations and the Lino Lakes Market Place PDO and recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat with the condition that access control along Lake Drive be extended to the southern boundary of Lot 2, Block 1. Chair Schaps asked if anyone would like to address the board. No one commented. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 6:44 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Zych. Motion carried 7 -0. Mr. Lyden asked why the plans showed thirty spaces f s when the City only required a minimum of eighteen parking spots per City Ord' '. ce. asked if the Bank could, on any given, indicate how many employees are in e b at t s time He stated he was worried about only having eighteen spaces. He s . this could end up to be too few spaces for the employees and public. Mr. ochala l � . this would be discussed in the next section of the meeting. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to f the City's Subdivision regulation approval of the Prelimin be extended to the so Hyden. Motion carried 7- posed Preliminary Plat is consistent with o Lakes Market Place PDO and recommend condition that access control along Lake Drive of Lot 2, Block 1, and was supported by Mr. B. TCF Bank, Marketplace, Site Plan Review Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:45 p.m. Staff reviewed that in August of 2001 the City Council approved the Lino Lakes Market Place PDO (Ordinance No. 16 -01), which included the development of a bank to be located at the northeast corner of the Lake Drive and Apollo Drive intersection. While the PDO established the general use and design parameters within the Market Place development, the Special Provisions section of Ordinance No. 16 -01 requires that the development of single tenant buildings on the site, including the proposed bank, be subject to site plan review approval in accordance with the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. Staff explained that the applicant, TCF Bank, has now submitted an application to construct a 4,500 sq. ft. building upon a 57,690 sq. ft. lot, as previously proposed in the PDO. The property is being platted by Ryan Companies US, Inc. under separate application and in conformance with the Lino Lakes Market Place PDO. Staff indicated its review is based on the most current submittal, consisting of the following plans: Site • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2002 Page 4 Plan dated 2.4.02; received 2.4.02; Grading Plan dated 2.4.02; received 2.4.02; Utility Plan dated 2.4.02; received 2.4.02; Landscape Plan dated 2.4.02; received 2.4.02; Photometric Lighting Plan dated 2.4.02; received 2.4.02; Exterior Elevation Plan dated 2.6.02; received 2.7.02; and Site Detail Plans (undated); received 1.14.02. Staff noted the 57,690 sq. ft. lot is consistent with the approved Lino Lakes Market Place PDO Site Plan In addition, all applicable building and parking lot setbacks have been satisfied. Staff explained the building materials for the site are specified within the Market Place PDO, under "Design Guidelines" (Section 2.B), which delineate a number of materials, colors, finishes and accents to be used for any building constructed within the Market Place complex in order to achieve a uniform architectural aesthetic. Staff reviewed the building material requirements for single use tenants as noted in Section 2.B.5. Materials to be used on the proposed bank include a brick face and gabled roof. The proposed material colors are consistent with the Market Place PDO specifications. Staff advised that according to the Zoning Ordina Center (SC) Zoning District may exceed 45 fee proposed bank complies with the Ordinance re Staff noted that in accordance with site landscape plan has been provided for revie shrubs adequate for screening and CPTED approval and is consis Plan. 78% of the site is covered impervious surface covera o building within a Shopping At 13 feet in height, the d buil plan submission requirements, a dscape plan includes both trees and u .. ses. The landscape plan meets with proved Market Place PDO Landscaping ious surface. The SC District requires that 5% coverage. Staff next reviewed that th Apollo Drive or the second Apollo Drive and Market o the site from Lake Drive (C.S.A.H. 23) is via either rance at Market Place Drive. A private road connecting ace Drive borders the eastern side of the site. An entrance /exit driveway is located at the northeastern corner of the site. The site contains a drive -thru lane, as proposed with the approved Market Place PDO. Accessory drive -thru facilities are subject to the following requirements: 1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area so as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. The Site and Building Plans are consistent with the approved Market Place PDO. 2. At the boundaries of a residential use or district, a strip of not less than ten feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.S. of this Ordinance. Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2002 Page 5 The site does not abut any residential districts. Landscaping is provided around the perimeter of the site in accordance with the approved Market Place PDO Landscaping Plan. 3. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.S. of this Ordinance. The site does not abut any residential districts. 4. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curbs not less than six inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade. Curbing complies with regulations. 5. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a through traffic movements, shall comply with Section 3, and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engi minimum of conflict with Subd. 5. Of this Ordinance Access to the site is limited to the northeast co. < ;'' of Market Place PDO site plan. Adequate pro sio or tr have been made. ite in conformance with the rc separation and stacking 6. The entire area shall have a drainage ch is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. A drainage plan has been sub eview by the City Engineer. 7. The entire area oth .: an oc Bpi ° d by buildings or structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a maten . hic e. will control dust and drainage and which is subject to the approval of the City E eer. Bituminous surfacing of parking areas requirements. is proposed in conformance with city Staff explained that financial institutions and banks are required to provide parking at a rate of four off - street parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area. A minimum of 18 stalls are required by City Ordinance for the proposed bank building. The proposed site plan provides 30 stalls. Staff noted the plans show sidewalks on the south and east sides of the site, linking the site to the other businesses within the Marketplace development. Sidewalks within the larger Marketplace site link to a planned trail along Lake Drive. Sidewalks will be constructed by Ryan Companies, the developer of the Marketplace complex. Staff reviewed the lighting fixtures are shoebox style with downcast lighting, in conformance to City standards and similar to fixtures within the rest of the Market Place complex. The Market Place PDO requires that any building mounted accent lighting Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2002 Page 6 • should conform to standards noted in the PDO. The lighting plan meets with the approval of the CPTED review. • Staff advised that the Lino Lakes Market Place PDO, Section 2.C.1.d, states that wall signage for single tenant buildings within the Lino Lakes Marketplace complex "shall be designed in accordance with the sign requirements of the Shopping Center (SC) Zoning District as specified in Ordinance No. 12 -97" (Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance). According to the Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance, signage in the SC District is limited to one wall sign limited in size to 20% of the building face. Building signage for the proposed bank will be on the west facade, facing Lake Drive, and measure approximately twenty -six (26) square feet (2 X 13). Eighteen inch -high raised black plastic letters spelling out "TCF BANK" will be installed. A 12 foot high x 9 foot wide monument sign with a 35 square foot sign face was approved with the Market Place PDO. The proposed TCF monument sign will need to conform to the design requirements of the PDO approval. Standard small directional signage will be located throughout the site. Staff pointed out that the trash equipment will be confi which will be constructed of brick to match the p southeast corner of the site. to a fully enclosed structure, e building and located at the Staff presented the Board's options to recom d approval of the Site Plan with conditions, recommend denial of Site ' , or r ,. to staff and continue to next meeting. Staff finds the proposed Site onsistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance and the Lino Lakes M. . - t Pla PD d Staff recommends approval of the TCF Bank Site Plan with three c . s. Mr. Grochala stated Staff �_���'_s s with TCF Bank for revisions. TCF bank has revised the plans and th Mr. Corson asked if there was ATM machine at the site. Mr. Grochala stated the inside drive thru lane has one. Mr. Grochala stated this site would have an association that would cover all maintenance and services. Mr. Corson asked if there is a final plat approval. Mr. Grochala stated there would be final plat approval with the City Council. Ms. Lane stated she only saw twenty parking spots instead of thirty on the plans. She wanted to know if this meets the 75% green space required by the City. Mr. Grochala stated he counted thirty spots and this would meet the 75% but the City is requesting 78% green space. Mr. Lyden stated that if they blocked off two parking spots would this meet the required green space needed for approval. Mr. Grochala stated that would work if the developers needed the additional green space. Ms. Lane stated at the workshop she attended someone stated the City is overcompensating for the number of parking spaces required per 1,000 square feet of Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2002 Page 7 • floor area. Mr. Grochala stated this would be something they would need to address in the future. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he or his engineer would like to make comment. Mike Kraft from Shea Architects, Inc. stated they came up with a look that is compatible with what the Board was looking for. The building will have a standing seam metal roof, stucco pattern material around cornice facing, and pillars. The building color will be beige which is compatible with the neighborhood. He also stated the brick colors will be the same as the other brick work in the development. Mr. Kraft stated they would be able to make up for the 3% difference in green space by taking 300 feet away from the drive up area. Mr. Kraft stated one of the differences with TCF Bank is that it is built for customer convenience. He stated TCF Bank has more employees than the average bank and this would account for more parking spaces. He stated there ld always be an available parking space for customers also He stated people h her expectations for service from TCF Bank. Mr. Rafferty asked if the colored floor plan show being shown. Mr. Kraft stated the revised a.._��y is s where another proposed entrance would be. as consistent with the color elevation on the north side of the building Mr. Rafferty asked if the cornice would not be actual stucco; it wo cco on it. Mr. Kraft stated the cornice -like in appearance. Mr. Rafferty asked if th . '`, would ° a ` ay to detract from the drive -thru. Mr. Kraft stated the colonial form of bui ; ing brings attention to the building and not to the drive —thru. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:08 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 7 -0. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the TCF Bank Site Plan with the following conditions: 1. That a site development agreement be executed by and between the City of Lino Lakes and TCF Bank. 2. Revised Site Plan be submitted that satisfies the impervious surface coverage requirements. • 3. Revised Floor Plan and Details be submitted that reflects the change in building entrance. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2002 Page 8 Motion carried 6 -0, (Chairman Schaps abstained due to a conflict of interest. He stated he was involved with a competing bank). VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Growth Update — Mr. Smyser reviewed the 2000 census. He stated he would be reporting new updates every quarter to the Board. Mr. Smyser stated that with the state correction facility being located in the City, the inmates are considered part of the City's population. Mr. Smyser stated that the census did occur in the year 2000 in the beginning of the year. He stated it was impossible to count how many new houses built in 2000 were included in the census. He simply added all permits from year 2000 to the census count. He stated his numbers are just estimates and he thinks that his esti s are higher than what is actually there. Mr. Smyser stated based on the method, they h with an estimated population of 17,000 not inclu population were included, it would bring t total p hous "' olds by the end of 2001 the prison population. If prison tion to over 18,000 people. Mr. Smyser stated that in 1990 the age se Id size in the City was 3.25, in 2000 the average household size decli .20 explained this is smaller in size than in the metro area in general. He stat le are having fewer children so this reduces the per - household size. Mr. Smyser stated he wou back in the next quarter and u e to track the population in the City and would come Chair Schaps thanked him for the information. Mr. Zych asked if the Board could move the June meeting to either a week earlier or a week later. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Smyser could look into this and get back to the board. Mr. Smyser stated he would check on dates and get back to the board. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:18 p.m., and was supported by • Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 7 -0. Respectfully submitted, • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2002 Page 9 Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: AGENDA ITEM 5A Tanda Gretz March 13, 2002 Approval of a Minor Subdivision Outlot F, Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition Gor -Em Builders, LLC, 1875 Commercial Blvd., Andover, MN 55304 ACTION REQURIED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Outlot F, measuring 10 X 150 feet, was originally platted as a pedestrian trail easement, connecting Clearwater Creek Drive to LaCasse Drive, but not providing connection to any other system of trails. The reason for the trail was to provide pedestrian access across the subdivision, since a block of excessive length (1,700 feet) was created when a block in the 3rd addition was added to an existing block in the 2nd addition (Attachments 1 & 2). The trail had not yet been constructed in August 2000, when it came to the attention of the City Council Work Session Meeting of August 23, 2000, via Mr. Petronick, of 6601 LaCasse Drive (Attachment 3). Mr. Petronick expressed a number of reservations about the placement of a trail next to his home, plans for which he was unaware of when he purchased his property. It was reported that "neighbors are also opposed to the trail." After consideration, "council directed staff to proceed with vacating the trail easement," according to the minutes for the September 6, 2000 City Council Work Session (Attachment 4). • • ANALYSIS The City never actually owned or was dedicated Outlot F, according to the Final Plat dedication page for Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition, which states: "...and do hereby donate and dedicate to the public use forever the circle, courts, drives, lane, roads, park and easements for drainage and utility purposes..." (Attachment 5) Outlot F is unique from other Outlots within the subdivision in that it does not have drainage and utility easements over it. As a result, it was never part of the property dedicated to the City. Since the Outlot was never part of the property dedicated to the City, and the proposed trail was never constructed, the Outlot is still owned by Gor -Em Builders. Gor -Em had agreed previously to pay the City $1,000 should construction of the trail not be (Attachment 6). What is further needed, however, is a Minor Subdivision, dividing Outlot F in two along the boundary lines of lots 1 & 14, block 3, Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition. The resulting two 150' X 10' pieces would then be attached to lots 1 & 14. Such action would: 1. Prevent the Outlot from becoming a useless piece of land, and thus going Tax Forfeit. 2. Resolve the trail issue. Staff has assumed that the above described two pieces should be attached to the two lots south of the Outlot, rather that be divided among all four of the neighboring lots (two to the north, and two to the south). This is because the Outlot and the two adjacent properties to the south lie within Addition #3, while the two lots to the north lie within Addition #2. Thus, even though it was originally Mr. Petronack who brought the situation to the attention of the council, it does not seem appropriate to attach the resulting Outlot F land to his property, since his property is located in Addition #2 and the Outlot is located in Addition #3. A conversation on March 4th with Deb Petronack confirmed that such an arrangement meets with the approval of the Petronacks. Outlot F appears physically indistinguishable from the adjacent properties; it has been sodded and taken care of by the neighboring residents and visually blends into their lawns. The four property owners adjacent to Outlot F have all been notified of this meeting, although it is not required that Public Notice be given in the matter of a Minor Subdivision. The two affected property owners (lots 1 & 14, block 3, Addition #3) have each agreed to accept the resulting 10 X 150 -foot property, which will be deeded to them from Gor -Em builders, pending approval of this Minor Subdivision. Thus, it is the recommendation of staff that such approval be granted with the following conditions: 1. Gor -Em Builders will pay the City $1,000, in lieu of not having to construct the trail. 2. Gor -Em will deed over the two subject pieces to the adjacent two property owners to the south for the nominal sum of $1.00 • • • 3. Residents at 6599 LaCasse Drive and 6596 Clearwater Creek Drive must legally combine the resulting 10' X 150' piece with their existing property under a single Property Identification Number (PIN). OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision, with conditions. 2. Recommend denial of the Minor Subdivision. 3. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #1. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location Map 2. Outlot F, Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition 3. City Council Work Session Minutes, August 23, 2000 4. City Council Work Session Minutes, September 6, 2000 5. Memo from Rick DeGardner, September 6, 2000 6. Signature Sheet from Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition ek mut. woo Sa, -,:m PEISIAME:11 Eta IS meatAni rasc102 !fa . \ v Iv Ifix:;*-413 n GI' erAriten- . P.M. Mg, fl FYI vs( 1114VOI 2" 130441 DO gnqt, _An POUI Ligi MADAN (E. egs • ran lillaimnim _..Ans-..4,E-4.1.fflsi Meitehiabonari arli • ATANtri-RT•ek.3.4tAxibTiNoVj I ZMr:a "I? 1:1g.r. tAik El MIN taftl b 4611 Ergitioweilia EN mfflairrArricilmi wo %vim& exuvoirr.„.,1 ■aD gagniangic.iffilrumzenlInAVON 405 INEmeaciwaial witirn 6 atm itPlaIdtt, IMERIMORMICIOCID a I! SRC 1171.1 999 •W1122 0 ca, a 41101147to ladm 011"1.01, 1.64 , • OF L /NO LAVES % 49� CENTER SEC. 25 • ne 89 -A9-J? O. L (8F /8 /.as- /3 /J0 /.30 6,100 /Or 03) 0. ;L. i off, (?) 5 f!B9•52 22) /3-- 478.9-52-J/ /224 . Li /23•/ /4 1,.3,) /30 89'52 -3 /N! /3 �1 /se /05 t (9) 4 2 h 4 ti h o-i 12 l)l 0 -' /S/ 9S .8.4 52 -2/ 04. o w i9 Jo Q 3/ C2> . o. L. C N % ■ ^t u• 29 72.77 vl (5o) 7 -4:72 /3O (g8) /7 (31)/8 4h (0)/9 4b Uh�`�'*re� 2y (4020 5• 3 pti 13 (0) /29.27 .f.49-5. 9 -1.0 (57) 4111191 hm 754 0 /25 (84) 9 (41) It t (40) 6 YZ� 0.L. 8 1 AS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AUGUST 23, 2000 The City Planner advised a request has not been received for a zoning change to that property. The property is located at one of the sites that need clarification. Staff explained the Highway Commercial designation. The Community Development Director advised there is the possibility of mitigation on the northern quadrant. There is a purchase agreement for this property. The closing date is later this fall. There is a question of access to the parcel. A closed meeting has been scheduled on Monday before the regular Council meeting regarding this issue. There has not yet been a definitive plan. A definitive plan is expected in the next six -(6) weeks. The Economic Development Assistant reviewed the two -(2) concept plans for the Village noting the differences. She stated the Village has always been intended to be more of a neighborhood, pedestrian friendly area. The Community Development Director reviewed the land owners Village area. Staff advised the City has the opportunity to purs Livable Communities. The Council needs to indicate their and design standards. Staff referred to a map pointing o h relating to infrastructure. Staff noted the grant would what is needed to complete the infrastructure. volved with the t from the o the concept t would fund ately one -half of Council Member Carlson asked if there will unknown at this point, however, 40 acres of will also apply to housing. ing o " 40 acres. Staff advised that is as presented. The design standards TRAIL CONCERN — 6601 LA :=A ' Y KAY WYLAND Mr. Patronick, 6601 LaCas last year. He discovered the following conce s, regar rward and stated he moved into the development ail `" 1 be placed adjacent to his home. He expressed e trail: 1. Lack of '+tiff ation 2. Undesire•E • y neighbors 3. No strategic significance 4. Safety 5. Grading Staff referred to a map showing the line between Clearwater Creek 2nd and 3`d. This particular block is longer than the ordinance allows, which is why the trail was platted. The Public Services Director stated the trail came about in July 1998. Staff indicated they are interest in what Mr. Quigley has to say about the trail. Approval for the project was based on developing a trail on that property due to the long block. • • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AUGUST 23, 2000 Council Member Carlson inquired what the City hopes to accomplish by developing the trail. Staff advised the trail will be for pedestrian access. The trail is not a trail connection to the major trail loop or a park. Council Member O'Donnell clarified that the trail is a City trail and was required to meet the ordinance. Staff added the whole plat is a PDO. The block is 200 feet longer than a normal block. When the second addition was platted, the developer did not own the property. When the third addition came through it was determined that the block was too long. The City owns the land. The developer must grade the trails. Council Member O'Donnell inquired about the main objections to the trail. Mr. Patronick advised his main objection is privacy. He stated he would not have bought the lot if he had known the trail would be placed there. The trail also has a steep incline that raises safety issues. The trail does not tie into the main trail lo He added that the house is approximately 15 -20 feet from the trail. The Public Services Director stated the City has the optio development or vacate the trail. Staff recommended t standpoint, it has been very clear that the trail woul be not an important trail connection. Council directed staff to contact Mr. Quigle } for co ent. Council will consider the request to vacate the trail. with the trail e trail. From a City d there. Staff noted it is This item will appear on the Cou 2000, 5:20 p.m. TOWN CENTER DESI on agenda Wednesday, September 6, S. AN "ARDS, JEFF SMYSER Staff advised this item Council endorsement o Town Center. rnuation of the discussion at the last Council meeting. e . esign standards would show support for the concepts in the Council Member Dahl asked if the Metropolitan Council has indicated to the City that an endorsement is needed. The Economic Development Assistant reviewed the process for the application of the Livable Communities grant noting there are two (2) phases. Phase 2 will be much more detailed and include a presentation. The Advisory Committee wants to know that the concepts can be implemented. The Committee has not seen the design standards. Council Member Dahl asked if the grant is contingent upon mixed use or the amount of multiple housing within the Town Center. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 Mayor Bergeson suggested the trail be put in when the streets are put in. Staff advised the City has been doing that recently so prospective buyers know where trails will be placed. Council directed staff to move forward with the construction of 62nd Street with barricades and a temporary turn around to the north. The City Engineer introduced Mr. Jason Wedel of TKDA. Mr. Wedel will be filling in for the City Engineer next week. LACASSE DRIVE TRAIL ISSUE, RICK DEGARDNER Staff distributed a memo regarding LaCasse Drive trail. The memo outlined the background of the trail placement and the primary objective of the trail. The developer has indicated that should the City decide to vacate the trail, he wil the City $1,000 since he will not have to pay for the installation of the trail. Staff recommended the developer construct the trail. Ho decide to vacate this trail, perhaps the City may want block lengths in the future to avoid this problem. S aff previously suggested that the trail be kept in a gr Staff advised the trail should be paved or vac Mr. Petronack, 6601 LaCasse Drive, st the trail, the residents will take care in even though it was not shown of the trail noting it is not part the streets were put in. The signatures from the neigh • ,M '� 'ca the Council t allowing excessive ouncil Member Carlson d be mowed by the City. City chooses not to vacate or pave e sta ed he understands why the trail was put stributed a map indicating the placement all segment. The trail was not put in when are also opposed to the trail. He noted he can get g their opposition to the trail. Council Member D keeping the trail is stric was made with the devel trail is not needed. staff's reason for keeping the trail. Staff advised fr om a planning level regarding street layout. An agreement er for the excessive block length. From a park perspective, the , Council Member O'Donnell asked if this situation has occurred anywhere else in the City. The City Planner advised he does not know of anywhere else this has occurred in the City. He stated that if the trail had not been put in, a road would have been put in. He noted there are a number of places within the City that blocks are too long. The City Engineer noted there was a roadway and a watermain loop on that property. Council Member Reinert asked if the staff recommendation is based on the ordinance. Staff advised the recommendation is strictly based on the ordinance. 5 • • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2000 Council Member Dahl asked if a variance is needed if the trail is vacated. The City Planner advised a variance will not be needed. Mayor Bergeson inquired about the cost of the vacation. The City Engineer advised the legal cost is minimal. Staff time should be charged to the developer and the developer should reimburse the City for the trail installation. Historically, the City has not charged for the property. Staff advised someone else should be responsible for restoration of the land. Mr. Petronack advised he will split the cost with the neighbors to restore the land. Council Member O'Donnell stated he is in favor of vacating the easement. He stated the City needs a tool to better document these types of things. Mayor Bergeson stated that normally a developer should do w to do. It then become a legal issue between the developer that in this case he is not sure who would be using the tr maintain it. Council directed staff to proceed with vacating t ement. OAK WILT UPDATE, MARTY ASLES C . Staff advised two (2) years ago the time it was believed that the City was not a real problem last ye Wilt as last year. The City increase in Oak Wilt this d it City needs to come u. with a t they are going wner. He stated would have to lot of trees due to a major storm. At that of more trees due to Oak Wilt. Oak Wilt eve t , 's year there is four (4) times as much Oak d for state aid for tree removal. There is a huge ill be a financial burden to many residents. The o take care of this problem. CSAH 49 RECONST ' C ' ON UPDATE, JOHN POWELL Staff advised a letter has been sent to Jon Olson regarding this project. No response has been received. Anoka and Ramsey County are having a meeting September 7, 2000. Staff noted the City Engineer will be attending the meeting. Mayor Bergeson stated the County spent $1 million dollars on Birch Street and basically the City has the same road it had before. It seems that the City shot itself in the foot regarding this project. The project became a political issue. The City is now stuck with the road for 15 years. He stated this is a good case of politics interfering with engineering and getting less than what the City needs. REGULAR AGENDA, SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 Lino Lakes Public Services Department 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439 • • Memorandum To: Mayor Bergeson and Council Members From: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director Date: September 6, 2000 Re: LaCasse Drive Trail As you recall, this item was discussed at the August 23 work session. Mr. and Mrs. Petronack, 6601 Lacasse Drive, are requesting that the trail adjacent to their property not be installed. The trail was identified in July, 1998 when the preliminary plat identified an excessive block length in the Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition. This excessive length was the result of a block in the 3rd Addition being added to an existing block in the 2nd Addition. Since the total block length of 1,700 feet exceeds the amount permitted by the subdivision ordinance, the recommendation was to grant a variance for excessive block length on the condition that a trail be placed in this location. As discussed at the last work session, this trail is not a critical link from a trails standpoint. The primary objective of this trail is to provide better pedestrian flow between the eastern and western portions of the developments. Mr. Quigley has indicated that should the city decide to vacate this trail, he will pay the city $1,000 since he will not have to pay for the installation of the trail. My recommendation is to have the developer construct the trail. However, should the city council decide to vacate this trail, perhaps the city may want to consider not allowing excessive block lengths in the future to avoid this problem. 12 /20 /00 RD /Corr /CounciVlacasse trail vacation • 0- m 'W ,(100 i(9 `--4-661 rri O N O tMON •3 >.Ok4i a m 41,4 CL O o ° 0 t0 cO 1 0 0 y Q. m m 3 -a O O- m a Q y `W3 -2100 1 G 3 W O - i 0 "q n a 0 0 0 z. (1) am 1 p y O m i o t-).?) a ° co° o o 1. -.a a 0 AD l0 y "1 o- y 0 y n 3 in 3 a 0 y cb (AA A3 � , m O cb 0 v 0 CD :, O o Z a° 0 °. 3 ta 0 4 0 m 3` ° m 3 1 0. orb 0. O 0 10 Ft C 10 0 O 3 0 a y Q. m 0 a 4p m Company, has caused, these presents to be signed by BOLL UUV • • MEMORANDUM March 6, 2002 to: City Council from: Jeff Smyser subject: Petition for EAW: Pheasant Hills 12th Addition We have received a petition requesting the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Pheasant Hills 12th Addition project. The petitioners submitted their petition to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), which forwarded it to the City of Lino Lakes. This process complies with state requirements. The petition requests that the EQB act as the responsible governmental unit for the EAW. In accordance with the rules, the EQB decides which governmental unit has the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole. In this case, it is the City of Lino Lakes, and so the EQB forwarded the petition to us. No final decision can be made on the project until: a) the City decides no EAW is needed, or; b) the City decides an EAW is needed, and afterward decides no environmental impact statement is needed. (.0 The City must decide if an EAW should be prepared. If, because of the nature or location of the project, it may have the potential for significant environmental effects, an EAW should be prepared. If the City does not think there may be the potential for significant environmental effects, it should deny the petition. The City has 30 working days to make this decision: We received the petition February 28. This gives us until April 11. This period includes three City Council meetings: March 11, March 25, and April 8. The decision on preparing an EAW must include written findings. We typically would include findings in a City Council resolution stating the Council's decision. Staff suggests the Council discuss this issue more fully at the March 20 work session. The petition submittal includes the following: • petition with 33 signatures • letter to City Council from Quail Ridge Neighborhood, January 18, 2002 • staff report prepared by NAC, January 9, 2002 • memo from TKDA, January 4, 2002 • memo stating Environmental Board recommendations, December 20, 2001 • letter from MN Dept. of Natural Resources, September 18, 2001 • TWAAFA from Rice Creek Watershed District, September 26, 2001 • project location maps 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651 - 982 -2400 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 • TDD: 651 - 982 -2410 Item 6C • Planning & Zoning Board 2001 Final Action Chronological Summary January: Century Farms Development — Behm's Park Lots, Prelim. Plat, Rezone & MUSA Amend. — Approved 1/10/01 Central Suburban, Inc., Amend CUP — (Tabled on 1/10/01) QWEST Wireless, Rezone — Approved 1 /10 /01 Reshanau Park Estates Homewoners Assoc., Minor Subd. for Trail — Approved 1 /1.0/01 Marvin Emly, Variance — (cont. on 1/10/01) February: Zoning Ord. Text Amendment - Accessory Bldgs. in Ind. & Comm. Dist. — Approved 2/13/01 Circle -Lex VFW, Minor Sub. — Approved 2/1.3/01. Apitz, Minor Sub. — Approved 2/13/01 Summit Fire, Minor Sub., Site Plan Review — Approved 2/13/01 March: Rick Boschee, Variance from Setback — Approved 3 /14/01 April: Tree Preservation Ordinance — (Closed Public Hearing 4/11/01) Steve Dahlstrom, Variance — Approved 4 /11/01 /Iay Saddle Club, Prelim. Plat — Denied 5/9/01: again Failed 9/11/01 Spirit Hills, Rezone to PDO & Prelim. Plat — Approved w/ conditions 5/9/01 John Cartier, Variance — Approved 5/9/01 Stat Transport Systems, CUP — Approved w/ conditions 5/9/01 Community Nat'l Bank Rezone — Approved w/ conditions 5/9/01 (MN Correctional Facility — Storage Bldg. — no comments 5/9/01) June: 1211h & Holly, Prelim. Plat — Denied 6/13/01 Glenn Valentine, Variance — Approved w/ recommendations 6 /13 /01 Highland Meadows W. 3rd Addition, Prelim. Plat — Approved w/ conditions 6 /13/01 (Pinnacle Towers, Rezone, Amend CUP & Amend Zoning Ord. — withdrawn by applicant 6/13/01) Brian Iverson, Minor Subdivision — Approved 6/13/01 Lino Lakes Family Dentistry, Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 6/13/01 Centennial School Dist., Birch St. Site Rezone — Denied 6/13/01 Cent. School Dist., New Elem. School Site, Rezone & Minor Subd. — Approved 6/13/01 North American Composites, Amend Cond. of Approval for Site Plan — Approved 6 /13/01 July: Ryan Co's (Target), Rezone to PDO, Prelim. Plat, Site & Bldg. Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 7/11/01 •ai Lee, Variance — Approved w/ conditions 7/11/01. u ust: erald Ramsay, Variance — not approved — recom. by board — 8/8/01 Jon Crenshaw, Variance — not approved — forward to Council — 8/8/01 September: Steve Poser, Variance — one new access. bldg. approved w/ removal of shed 9 /11/01 Rick Piper, Variance — Denied 9/11/01 ATS &R/Centennial School Dist., New Elem. School, CUP & Site Plan Review — Approved 9/11/01 October: Molin Concrete, Amend CUP, Amend Interim Use Permit & Site Plan Review — Approved 10/10/01. Cornerstone Homes, Variance — Approved 10/10/01 John Dahl, Minor Subdivision — Approved 10/10/01 McDonald's /JADT, Revised Site Plan Approval — Approved 10/10/01 November: Willard Morton, Minor Subdivision — Approved w/ conditions 11/14/01 December: Joseph Schwartz, Minor Subdivision — Approved 12/12/01 (Clyde Rehbein, Minor Subdivision — Pulled by applicant 12/12/01) Moratorium on Residential Development — Approved 12/12/01 • • Item 6C Planning & Zoning Board 2001 Final Action Summary by Land Use Type V• ARIANCE: Rick Boschee, Variance — Approved 3 /14/01. Steve Dahlstrom, Variance — Approved 4/11/01. John Cartier, Variance — Approved 5 /9/01 Glenn Valentine, Variance — Approved w/ recommendations 6 /13/01 Sai Lee, Variance — Approved w/ conditions 7/11/01. Gerald Ramsay, Variance — not approved — recoil'. by board — 8/8/01 Jon Crenshaw, Variance — not approved — forward to Council — 8/8/01 Steve Poser, Variance — Approved one new access. bldg. w/ of shed 9/11/01 Rick Piper, Variance — Denied 9/11./01. Cornerstone Homes, Variance — Approved 10/10/01 PRELIMINARY PLAT: *Century Farms Development — Behm's Park Lots, Prelim. Plat, Rezone & MUSA Amend. — Approved 1/10/01 Saddle Club, Prelim. Plat — Denied 5/9/01; again Failed 9 /11/01 *Spirit Hills, Rezone to PDO & Prelim. Plat — Approved w/ conditions 5 /9/01. Hihland Meadows W. 3`d Addition, Prelim. Plat — Approved w/ conditions 6/13/01 12m & Holly, Prelim. Plat — Denied 6/13/01 *Ryan Co's (Target), Rezone to PDO, Prelim. Plat, Site & Bldg. Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions •/11/01 REZONE: *Century Farms Development — Behm's Park Lots, Prelim. Plat, Rezone & MUSA Amend. — Approved 1/10/01 QWEST Wireless, Rezone — Approved 1 /10 /01 Community Nat'l Bank, Rezone — Approved w/ conditions 5/9/01 *Spirit Hills, Rezone to PDO & Prelim. Plat — Approved w/ conditions 5/9/01 Centennial School Dist., Birch St. Site Rezone — Denied 6/13/01 *Cent. School Dist., New Elem. School Site, Rezone & Minor Subd. — Approved 6/13/01 *Ryan Co's (Target), Rezone to PDO, Prelim. Plat, Site & Bldg. Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 7 /11 /01 MINOR SUBDIVISION: Reshanau Park Estates Homewoners Assoc., Minor Subd. for Trail — Approved 1/10/01 Circle -Lex VFW, Minor Sub. — Approved 2/13/01 Apitz, Minor Sub. — Approved 2 /13/01. *Summit Fire, Minor Sub., Site Plan Review — Approved 2/1.3/01 Brian Iverson, Minor Subdivision — Approved 6 /13/01 *Cent. School Dist., New Elem. School Site, Rezone & Minor Subd. — Approved 6/13/01 John Dahl, Minor Subdivision — Approved 1.0 /1.0/01. *Willard Morton, Minor Subdivision — Approved w/ conditions 11/14/01 Joseph Schwartz, Minor Subdivision — Approved 12/12/01 *denotes item in multiple categories SITE PLAN REVIEW: *Summit Fire, Minor Sub., Site Plan Review — Approved 2/13/01 iiikLino Lakes Family Dentistry, Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 6/13/01 Worth American Composites, Amend Cond. of Approval for Site Plan — Approved 6/13/01 *Ryan Co's (Target), Rezone to PDO, Prelim. Plat, Site & Bldg. Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 7/11/01 *ATS &R /Centennial School Dist., New Elem. School, CUP & Site Plan Review — Approved 9/11/01 McDonald's /JADT, Revised Site Plan Approval — Approved 10/10/01. *Molin Concrete, Amend CUP, Amend Interim Use Permit & Site Plan Review — Approved 10/10/01 CUP / CUP AMENDMENT: Stat Transport Systems, CUP — Approved w/ conditions 5 /9/01 *ATS &R /Centennial School Dist., New Elem. School, CUP & Site Plan Review — Approved 9/11/01 *Molin Concrete, Amend CUP, Amend Interim Use Permit & Site Plan Review — Approved 10/10/01 MUSA AMENDMENT: *Century Farms Development — Behm's Park Lots, Prelim. Plat, Rezone & MUSA Amend. — Approved 1/10/01 ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT: Zoning Ord. Text Amendment - Accessory Bldgs. in Ind. & Comm. Dist. — Approved 2/13/01 INTERIM USE PERMIT AMENDMENT: *Molin Concrete, Amend CUP, Amend Interim Use Permit & Site Plan Review — Approved 10/10/01 MISC: Moratorium on Residential Development — Approved 12/12/01 NO ACTION TAKEN: (Marvin Emly, Variance — cont. on 1 /10 /01) (Central Suburban, Inc., Amend CUP — Tabled on 1/10/01) (Tree Preservation Ordinance — Closed Public Hearing 4/11/01) (MN Correctional Facility — Storage Bldg. — no comments 5/9/01) (Pinnacle Towers, Rezone, Amend CUP & Amend Zoning Ord. — withdrawn by applicant 6/13/01) (Clyde Rehbein, Minor Subdivision — withdrawn by applicant 12/12/01) • *denotes item in multiple categories • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : January 9, 2002 TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS' PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT' 6.34 P.M. 9:53 P.M. : Corson, Hyden, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty, and Schaps Zych : City Planner Smyser; City Engineer Powell; Community Development Director Grochala (part); Staff Member Tanda Gretz; and Bob Kirmis, NAC I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Plan oning Board meeting to order at 6:34 • p.m., January 9, 2002. • II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps requested a• • or + tions to this evening's agenda. Hearing none, the agenda was approved . ed. III. ELECTION OF 0 RS Chair Schaps r otion for the nomination of a Chair for the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning : oard for 2002. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to elect Jamie Schaps as Chair of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board for 2002, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Schaps requested a motion for the nomination of a Vice Chair for the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board for 2002. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to elect Rob Rafferty as Vice Chair of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board for 2002, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4- 0-1 (Mr. Rafferty). • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 2 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. DECEMBER 12, 2001 Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, as submitted, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. V. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:37 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:38 p. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, (Gethsemane milted Metho l ist Church, CUP supported by Mr. Amendment, Tanda Gretz) Chair Schaps declared the public hearin a pened t 6:40 p.m. Staff presented the application . ma e United Methodist Church for a Conditional Use Permit (C men . The subject property is zoned R -3. Although Gethsemane U -d tho Church was a permitted use in an R -3 zone under the Zoning Ord e effect during its construction in 1989, a subsequent change in the Ordi R - •w r- sires a Conditional Use Permit for any Church located in an R -3 zone. As a res the desire of the Church to construct a picnic shelter will need to be handled • istra vely as a Conditional Use Permit Amendment since it is an alteration of th .. according to City Zoning Ordinance Section 2, Subd. 2.B.13, "any enlargemen structural alteration, or intensification of such use shall require an amended conditio .1 use permit." Staff explained the proposed picnic shelter will be considered an accessory building. Under City Zoning Ordinance Section 3, Subd. 4.D.8.f., accessory buildings for property located within an R -3 zone, greater than 1 -1/4 acres in size, are limited in number to a maximum of one attached garage and two detached accessory structures. The maximum total square footage for accessory buildings in an R -3 zone for a lot of this size is limited to 2,020 sq. ft. Staff noted there are already two detached accessory buildings on the property: an 8' X 10' tool shed and a 24' X 30' detached garage. The construction of the proposed picnic shelter would result in three detached accessory structures, one more than is allowed under City Ordinance. The total square footage of the existing two accessory buildings is 800 sq. ft. The proposed picnic shelter would measure 1,380 sq. ft., resulting in a total • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 3 accessory square footage of 2,180 sq. ft. This is 160 sq. ft. more than is allowed under City Ordinance. Staff advised that construction of the proposed picnic shelter would violate the City's Zoning Ordinance in terms of both number and size of accessory structures. Removing the 8' X 10' tool shed already on site and decreasing the size of the proposed picnic shelter by 160 -sq. ft. are options to resolving this zoning issue. It should be noted that the City's Zoning Ordinance reaches a cap, or threshold level, of 2,020 sq. ft. for accessory buildings in any size lot of one and one - quarter acre or greater in an R -3 zone. That is, unlike zoning for Rural and PSP zones, R -3 zones do not allow more accessory square footage as lot size increases. As a result, even though the proposed site is approximately 5.2 acres in size, the proposed picnic shelter would not be allowed under City Zoning Ordinance, and would thus require approval of a Variance for construction. Staff reviewed that in 1997, the Gethsemane United Meth Rezoning, Minor Subdivision, and Comprehensive Plan a parsonage. The above requests were all approved a that "the subdivision includes the formal dedicatio way, with the understanding that Parcels B and future construction of the street ". In other w that street right -of -way be granted for the. subdi od'a. hurch to underwent a order to construct , subject to the condition tageoach Trail right -of- will be financially responsible for the vision was granted on condition Staff advised that on inspection of the r that such right -of -way was never the opportunity presented by t Amendment to correct this eparation of this report, it was found . Staff would suggest that the City use est for a Conditional Use Permit Staff stated it cannot : i a approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment as presented, since it vi . tee 'the Zoning Ordinance. However, if granted, staff would recommend any appro of this Conditional Use Permit Amendment include the following con 1. A building; permit must be obtained for construction of the proposed picnic shelter. 2. Issuance of the building permit will not be granted until the former approved dedication of the Stage Coach Trail right -of -way is officially recorded. Such dedication is with the understanding that Parcels B and C will be financially responsible for the future construction of the street, as approved by City Council on May 27, 1997. Ms. Gretz indicated that Pastor Gilbertson was in attendance this evening representing Gethsemane United Methodist Church. Chair Schaps asked if the alternatives of removing the tool shed and decreasing the size of the proposed picnic shelter had been discussed with the applicant. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 4 Ms. Gretz indicated Pastor Gilbertson was aware of the City's zoning ordinance but the proposed alternatives had not been discussed with him. She indicated that staff has discussed with the applicant the possibility of eliminating the tool shed. Chair Schaps questioned whether attaching the tool shed to the garage would meet the ordinance requirements. Ms. Gretz felt that incorporating the two structures into one would be a possible solution. Mr. Rafferty requested confirmation that the two detached structures currently on site consisted of the tool shed and the garage. Ms. Gretz stated this was correct. Mr. Rafferty requested confirmation that if the tool shed were eliminated approximately 80 square feet of total existing structure would be eliminated. Ms. Gretz agreed. Mr. Rafferty believed that this may be a possible solution if was also reduced. He was concerned, however, with the structures and how the proposed picnic shelter would currently a sign to the rear of the garage facing the that a new structure would enhance the site. Chair Schaps invited the applicant like to Pastor Chad Gilbertson, representing G himself and Steve Matson, Chai Board of Trustees. Chair Schaps asked Past the construction of t e picnic shelter he existing that there is He wished to ensure United Methodist Church, introduced thsemane United Methodist Church son s opinion on the proposed resolutions to allow elter. Pastor Gilbertson state + ,Poe elimination of the tool shed would be a viable option. He noted the picnic picniPshe,lter a ` oposed would still exceed the ordinance square- footage requirement by 0 He questioned whether the size of a structure such as a picnic shelter would be easured according to the size of the slab. Chair Schaps believed this was usually the c e. Mr. Smyser noted the plans submitted to the City showed the proposed size of the picnic shelter, which was the size used by staff in making its report. Pastor Gilbertson suggested that the length and width of the picnic shelter could be reduced by one -foot to address the total square footage limitation concern. He noted that an option had been discussed of combining the tool shed with the garage. Mr. Matson suggested that a new tool shed be constructed attached to the garage. Mr. Rafferty stated that any new addition to the site should accent the parsonage building, not the garage. He personally felt the garage is a weak spot on the lot. He questioned whether the trusses currently on site were left over from the construction of the garage. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 5 Pastor Gilbertson stated the trusses had been ordered to be used in the construction of the picnic shelter. Pastor Gilbertson stated the proposed picnic shelter would appear similar to a park shelter. He stated the structure would not be enclosed and the roof material would match the color of the parsonage roof. Mr. Lyden stated at times when working with specific and detailed ordinances, it is necessary to make compromises, which at times can be beneficial. However, when discussing compromises such as attaching existing structures, the City ends up with a compromised product, which is not in anyone's best interest. He stated he would like to see a quality product constructed and would prefer the elimination of the tool shed and approval of a variance to allow the additional 80 square feet fo e picnic shelter. Chair Schaps questioned whether the items stored in the o she ou n be stored elsewhere. Pastor Gilbertson stated a local day care is spefr` the Church and the items stored in the tool shed are the property of the Chair Schaps asked if the items being stored garage. Pastor Gilbertson stated the spac storage of tables and chairs, as well as a Church could work out the storage situa care could be stored inside the the g . °". ge has been maxed out with the ay care materials. However, he felt the Mr. Matson suggested that the " nded with a floating addition, similar to an addition for a fireplace, to Mr. Rafferty stated if of a foundation, h questioned whether thi while still mee e space for the day care. - footage of buildings are measured according to the size flo ng addition may be a reasonable solution. He ditional storage space could be added without a foundation square- footage measurement of the ordinance. Chair Schaps sta d this would depend upon the meaning of a detached structure. Mr. Matson noted the square- footage of the picnic shelter could be reduced. Chair Schaps agreed this may be the best option. Mr. Corson asked if reducing the square- footage of the picnic shelter would still meet the Church's needs. Pastor Gilbertson responded affirmatively. Ms. Lane questioned whether the trusses ordered for the picnic shelter would still work if the shelter was reduced in size. Pastor Gilbertson stated he would have to review the plans but he believed the trusses would still work. Mr. Rafferty questioned if the applicant would still require approval of the proposed picnic shelter if the square- footage of the shelter was reduced and the tool shed was Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 6 • eliminated. Chair Schaps indicated the applicant would still need approval of the conditional use permit amendment. • • Mr. Rafferty agreed and added that the dedication of the Stage Coach Trail right -of -way also needed to be addressed with this application. Chair Schaps asked the applicants if they had any concerns regarding the right -of -way dedication. Pastor Gilbertson requested clarification on the amount of land that must be dedicated for the right -of -way. He stated the Church agreed to the land dedication, however, it was his understanding that the land needed for the right -of -way would only extend to the end of the parsonage lot. Mr. Powell indicated that Exhibit number three included in the staff report depicted the location of the Stage Coach Trail right -of -way. Ms. Gretz add : ormation regarding the right -of -way was also included in the excerpts s e Ma ' 7, 1997 City Council meeting minutes included as Exhibit number fouttit the ff ~ port. Pastor Gilbertson questioned why it would be nece ,ze edicx ° "e the entire right -of- way since there were no plans to develop Parcel Chair Schaps stated the dedicated right -o the roadway. Mr. Powell indicated the City's J proposed roadway extension. Pastor Gilbertson presented a approval of the minor subd Church had a surveyor p extended only to the w for the future extension of 2001 Transportation Plan showed the ed in December 1997, following the icated that subsequent to the approval, the sket of the necessary right -of -way dedication, which el B. Chair Schaps asked if diagram. Past the diagram per surveyor had worked with City staff in the preparation of the was not certain, however, he believed the surveyor prepared approved by the City Council. Pastor Gilbertson -+ uestioned whether Exhibit number three in the staff report had been approved by the City Council. Ms. Gretz noted condition number one shown in Exhibit number four stated, "The subdivision include the formal dedication of the Stage Coach Trail right -of -way with the understanding that Parcels B and C will be financially responsible for the future construction of the street." Additionally, the second paragraph from the bottom of Exhibit number four indicated that Council Member Bergeson moved to approve the Minor Subdivision of Gethsemane United Methodist Church Property subject to the three conditions presented, including the condition stated above. Pastor Gilbertson noted this information did not specify the actual amount of land needed for right -of -way dedication. Ms. Gretz indicated Exhibit three in this evening's staff Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 7 • report had been included in the agenda packet for the May 27, 1997 City Council meeting. • • Chair Schaps stated it would be very unusual for a right -of -way dedication to not extend to the end of a parcel since the intent of the right -of -way was to allow the future extension of and connection to a roadway. Pastor Gilbertson questioned why the Church would be responsible for the extension of the roadway. Chair Schaps stated in the event the property owner wished to develop the land, part of that agreement would be the extension of the roadway. Pastor Gilbertson indicated the Church has no future development plans at this point. Chair Schaps indicated this was the reason the City has a transportation plan in order to plan for future development that may or may not be anticipate. me. Pastor Gilbertson believed the Church would be willing way dedication. However, he reiterated that when they been approved the right -of -way expectations had b ecessary right -of- i ➢ sion had originally Ms. Gretz noted at this time the City was onl t r the dedication of the right -of- way, not the payment of any assessments. Chair Schaps confirmed it was the cons us of t e Board that, along with the right -of- way dedication, the intent would ec•> d approval of the construction of the picnic shelter, conditioned on t er being reduced slightly in size and the tool shed being attached to the viding the total square- footage of the structures meets the requirements • • • inan Mr. Hyden made a N to ose the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion ied 5 -0. Ms. Lane made N to recommend approval of the Gethsemane United Methodist Church Conditio .1 Use Permit Amendment for the construction of a picnic shelter, subject to the foll ing conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained for construction of the proposed picnic shelter. 2. Issuance of the building permit will not be granted until the former approved dedication of the Stage Coach Trail right -of -way is officially recorded. Such dedication is with the understanding that Parcels B and C will be financially responsible for the future construction of the street, as approved by City Council on May 27, 1997. 3. The tool shed and garage structures shall be combined, or the tool shed eliminated, so that the total square- footage of the accessory strucurs on site do not Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 8 • exceed the limiations of the City ordinance and that, once the picnic shelter is constructed, there will only be a total of two accessory structures on site. • The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. B. PUBLIC HEARING, (Pheasant Hills 12th Addition, Comprehensive Plan Amendment/MUSA Reserve Allocation, Rezone, Preliminary Plat, Bob Kirmist NAC) Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 7:06 p.m. Staff presented the application by Ed Vaughan for an eight lot single family subdivision entitled Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition. The subject propert is located on the north side of Birch Street and west of Timberwolf Trail. Staff advised that to accommodate the proposed subdivi they looming approvals are required: • A Comprehensive Plan amendment cha : ing the gui use of the subject property from Rural to Low Density R` .E and allocating 4.5 acres of MUSA Reserve • Rezoning from R -X, Rural Exec to'" 1X, Single Family Executive/PDO, Planned Development Overla • Preliminary plat Staff presented its analysis by reviewing surrounding land uses and zoning. Staff noted the applicant este®''a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the guided use of the sub' o r from Rural to Low Density Residential. Such change is necessary to acc te th- proposed development density of 1.8 units per acre. The proposed 2001 Co ehensive Plan suggests sewered low density residential use of the subject pro'' - chic s s consistent with the proposed land use Staff explained t tin conjunction with such change, an extension of the MUSA will be necessary to sery the development. Staff presented the evaluation criteria for the allocation of the MUSA reserve that was adopted by the City on September 9, 1996. It was noted that the City presently has 15.7 acres in the MUSA bank. Thus, the requested 4.5 acres of MUSA will not exceed the City's present allocation. Staff noted the applicant has requested the rezoning of the subject property from R -X, Rural Executive to R -1X, Single Family Executive/PDO, Planned Development Overlay. In consideration of rezoning requests, Section 2, Subd. 1.E. of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning and Zoning Board must consider possible adverse effects of the amendment (to the zoning map). Staff presented the factors that must be addressed when considering a request for rezoning. In addition, the proposed development must also satisfy the City's infill policy which, among other things, states that the cost of operation and maintenance of utility systems must not exceed the normal costs as projected by the water and sewer rate study. Provided proper environmental protections are in place to • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 9 protect the adjacent wetlands and a determination is made that utilities and vehicular access can be adequately provided, the proposed use is considered consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff noted the applicant is proposing to create eight single family lots upon the 4.5 acre subject property resulting in a density of 1.8 units per acre. Should the City approve the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment, a rezoning of the property to the base R -1X designation is considered appropriate. Staff advised that in conjunction with the R -1X designation, the applicant has requested a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) to allow flexibility from various provisions of the ordinance including shoreland setbacks, cul -de -sac length and vegetative disturbance. The concept of the PDO, as originally conceived, is to essentially trade flexibility from the strict provisions of the ordinance for a superior product that• e ,m.II e would not be allowed. While there are obviously many constraints to deve it is unclear whether a superior development product wil ubject property, Staff presented the proposed preliminary plat, notin _tha ;t pro F sed lots exceed the minimum upland lot area requirement (above th 883 ordi high water level). Additionally, all lots have been found to meet �, um • 0 foot width and 135 foot depth requirements of the R -1X District. Staff again noted that an extension of th USA � .5 acres) will be necessary to serve the development. The area of such a x on applied only to upland area (non - wetland above the OHWL). Staff provided a review street width and brid subject property. t de s including streets, cul -de -sac length, ownership, Lion of approximately 300 feet in length to access the Staff noted the . _'cant r, roposing that the road serving the subject property (and bridge) be priva • d. While the ordinance specifically prohibits the creation of private streets, s h street types could be accomodated via the PDO (in response to the unique characteristics of the site) and the establishment of an undesirable precedent could be avoided. Staff prefers that the City not assume maintenance responsibilites for the proposed street segment (including the proposed bridge). Staff indicated, while the applicant has proposed a private street system, a 60 -foot right - of -way width has been illustrated on the submitted plans. To ensure long -term private ownership of the street, it is recommended that individual lots be extended through the street and an access easement be established over the proposed street. Staff noted to allow for vehicular turnarounds at the terminous of the abutting public street segment (Ruffed Grouse Road), it is recommended that a cul -de -sac be created at its terminous. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 10 Staff indicated, as shown on the development plans, the construction of a bridge approximaltye 300 feet in length is necessary to access the subject property. The applicant has indicated that the bridge length will extend above the ordinary high water elevation and that no wetlands will be impacted. Because the submitted plans do not indicate pier locations, that cannot be verified. The acceptability of the bridge and its wetland impacts should be subject to comment by the City Engineer. Staff reviewed the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District which imposes a minimum 150 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark (883.7 feet) for all structures. With the upland area of the proposed lots ranging from approximately 160 to 220 feet in depth, the 150 foot setback requirement cannot be satisfied. According to the submitted grading plan, structure setbacks averaging approximately 90 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level are proposed. Staff explained that if a reduction in setback is to be allowe the P 0), the following are recommended in exchange for such allowance: 1. A detailed tree preservation plan be submit w inc�� es the following: A. An inventory of significant trees B. A description of tree preservat : �y ` , that would be implemented during both mass and cust • ping. C. Specific parameters for t pres' , ation for custom graded lots including the percentages of signifi >. t tree o be saved. 2. Custom grading plans - eluding: A. An escrow f, hta .ra.ed lots. B. Tree press _ fox effo C. House E . that results in minimal disruption to existing vegetation and eatu - s. D. Draina• - Mans for each lot that conform to the final drainage plan and do y impact adjacent properties. E. shoreland buffer strip. 3. Deed covenants are established to prevent disruption of the shoreland buffer area. 4. The shoreland buffer area is physically demarcated to avoid encroachment and disruption. It was noted that the Environmental Board had reviewed the development proposal at their December 19, 2001 meeting and did not recommended approval as currently presented. Specific concerns of the Board related to the inclusion of the property in a "high ecological value zone" (where development should be discouraged) and ground water contamination on the western portion of the island. Additional concerns were cited over proposed tree preservation efforts. The Board also stipulated however, that if the project does move forward that such approval be subject to various conditions. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 11 It was noted that issues related to grading and drainage should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Issues related to utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer including utility easement establishment. Staff noted that no park land dedication is required of the proposed development. Park dedication will be cash fees in lieu of land and should be paid in the amount in effect at the time of final plat. Currently, the cash dedication requirement is $1,665 per lot, which for eight lots is $13,320. Staff stated the tree preservation plan has been combined with the grading, drainage and erosion control plan. While the plan identifies tree preservation limits on the site, no text regarding specific tree removal, trees to be retained or tree preservation efforts have been provided. Further, the plan does not provide a description of t pr- . vation or custom grading efforts that would be implemented for the creation • use pa . As a condition of PDO approval, a revised tree preservation plan should Staff advised that the Rice Creek Watershed Distri development at their meeting on September 26th- Th tabli pith "authorization for administrative action" was approved subject t • ditions. AA for the proposed Staff reviewed the options available by conditions, recommend denial with find consideration. o recommend approval with stated, or to table for further Staff noted the subject site ' ' • d holds numerous physical development constraints. As currentl •o d, it the opinion of staff that the intent of the Planned Development Overla O s not been satisfied. Rather, it appears the PDO has been requested as a me . m • cum " t many requirements of the ordinance without resulting in a superior develop - product. As a result, staff recommends denial of the Comprehensive , s amement, rezoning and preliminary plat. Should, however, the Planning and Z rd choose to approve the request, staff recommends that the following condit ins be satisfied: 1. The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning must be in effect before the preliminary plat/PDO plan approval is in effect. 2. The proposed bridge, street, and utilities are established as a private roadway, the maintenance of which shall not be the responsibility of the City. 3. The submitted plans be revised such that individual lots are extended through the private street with an easement established over such street (to allow cross access.) 4. A cul -de -sac is created at the terminus of the existing public street segment to allow for vehicular turnaround maneuvers (including those of City snowplows.) 5. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to street construction requirements. 6. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation regarding the acceptability of the bridge and its wetland impacts. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 12 7. On- street parking (along the private street) be prohibited. 8. In exchange for setback flexibility, the following be provided: A. A detailed tree preservation plan including: 1. An inventory of significant trees 2. A description of tree preservation efforts that would be implemented during both mass and custom grading 3. Specific parameters for tree preservation for custom graded lots including percentages of significant trees to be saved B. Custom grading plans including: 1. An escrow for custom graded lots 2. Tree preservation efforts 3. House placement that results in minimal disruption to existing vegetation and natural features 4. Drainage plans for each lot that confo • the al drainage plan and do not negatively impact adja� 5. A 40 -foot shoreland buffer stri C. Deed Covenants to prevent disrupti D. The physical demarcation of the etlanji bou +$ and shoreland buffer and buffer area. area to avoid encroachment an n. 9. Outlot B south of the single famil ; f 'e re- • gnated as Outlot C. 10. A homeowners association fort prop e . d development be created. The Y=i association shall include langua_ egardi i g property, bridge and street maintenance and shorela er "r" he bylaws of such an association shall be subject to review an • • r • " : . , the City Attorney. 11. Issues related to gr. ' .n•. ainage shall be subject to comment and recommendation,, ity _ineer. 12. Issues related . i shall be subject to commend and recommendation by the City Engin 13. Park dedicatio all be cash fees in lieu of land and should be paid in the amount in effe f final plat. 14. The app - °er into a PDO development agreement with the City. 15. Permit re irements of the Rice Creek Watershed District must be fulfilled. 16. Covenant r easements shall be put in place that would restrict landowner activity in the shore impact zone and lake, as recommended by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 17. A new preliminary plat drawing shall be submitted that is consistent with other plan submittals. Mr. Corson questioned how a large emergency vehicle would access the island. Mr. Powell indicated the applicant has proposed a 24 -foot wide street and bridge, which the Fire Chief has indicated in the past is adequate for the passage of emergency vehicles. However, he indicated that a means for vehicular turnarounds is needed at the end of the cul -de -sac and the end of the public street. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 13 Mr. Corson noted the cul -de -sac appeared very small, being located entirely within the 60 -foot right -of -way. Mr. Powell indicated there are other similarly sized cul -de -sacs currently within the City. Regarding the wetland delineation on the west side of the island, Mr. Corson indicated during the flooding last spring the flags were out in the water. He questioned whether the applicant had provided documentation showing the wetlands were delineated by a professional. Mr. Smyser could not recall having received a wetland delineation. He noted it was not the City's responsibility to determine the accuracy of a wetland delineation. Mr. Corson stated this information should be verified. Mr. Corson indicated the Quail Ridge development has three s the runoff from the right -of -way. He noted the proposed pla ponds and questioned whether a different set of standard r ponds to handle ude any such d in this case. Mr. Powell stated storm water ponds were propose • . t th . ste a' end of the bridge, including a swale, and the eastern end of the pr • ect. Mr. Corson requested confirmation that a Mr. Kirmis stated this was correct. eserv. `an plan would be forthcoming. Mr. Corson noted it appeared as • t • sed bridge would require the construction of major pilings a + • a- , feet to the bedrock. Mr. Powell indicated staff could not speculate as _ = nth of the pilings since this information was not submitted with the plat. Mr. Corson, assu ilin would be constructed to a substantial depth, questioned where the construction, ing area would be located. Mr. Powell stated the applicant had indicated t 'dge Id be constructed during the winter months, however, additional detai fia • 9 issue would be required. Mr. Corson indicad a couple of winters ago a backhoe was brought into this location and broke through the ice. Mr. Vaughan indicated that this had not occurred during the winter months. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he or his engineer would like to make comment. Jared Andrews, representing Loucks Associates, introduced himself and Paul Wallick, and indicated that they were present this evening to discuss any planning or engineering issues. Mr. Andrews stated he has been working with the necessary public agencies for some time regarding this project. He presented a drawing depicting the property boundaries, which showed total acres. He indicated much of the property contains wetlands and there is approximately four acres of upland. He indicated the intent was for the proposed • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 14 development to occur on the upland area and to preserve the wetlands as much as possible. Mr. Andrews stated that property is currently zoned R -X and surrounded by R -1X Zoning District and, if the property were rezoned as requested, the proposed development would meet the standards of the underlying zoning district, with the exception of the street width requirement and the requested variances from the ordinary high water mark. He stated he has worked with the Department of Natural Resources and the Rice Creek Watershed District for approval, who have recommended a narrow street width to reduce the amount of runoff. He noted there would only be eight lots served by the roadway extension. Mr. Wallick stated that he and Mr. Andrews met with the Environmental Board last month, which recommended that they meet with City staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District to modify the plans. He stated per the recommendatioe o t nvironmental Board and the Watershed District, the street curb and gutter w eliminated. Additionally, the street width would remain at 24 feet wi with a three percent grade to the north. He indicated the north side of the road to help with infiltration a 9 dir pond. He indicated that the pond on the southe , t si street would be tipped had been added on er to the northern eliminated. Mr. Wallick stated the bottom of the pon infiltration getting into the ground wate between the ground water and the botto to the bottom of the pond to allo Mr. Wallick stated the hou had been created along t be delineated during will be placed so t area. He stated this wi een ra ''' d to address the concern of d there would be a three -foot separation nd. Additionally, sand will be added slowly filtered. moved closer to the road and a preservation area side the island. He stated this preservation area will n with a heavy silt fence and, after construction, markers wn- know there will be no disturbance of the preservation low the homeowners a 25 to 30 -foot deep backyard. He stated the homeowne ocia covenants will not allow the use of phosphorus in the yards. He stated the w : eet drain through the backyards and should infiltrate into the ground before re • hing the wetland. All the water will be captured from the road and directed to the dr age swale to allow the water to infiltrate into the ground while it makes its way to the pond. Mr. Wallick stated the Rice Creek Watershed District was pleased with the changes to the plans and are waiting for approval by the City for the variances. Chair Schaps noted Mr. Andrews had indicated he had worked with the Department of Natural Resources. He questioned whether the Department of Natural Resources had submitted a new report since the report dated September 18, 2001 included in the staff report. Mr. Andrews stated the Department of Natural Resources has only granted a permit for the bridge. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 15 Chair Schaps noted the first paragraph of the report from the Department of Natural Resources asked that the City not interpret the issuance of a bridge permit as support of the proposed development. He asked if the applicants have convinced the Department of Natural Resources to be in favor of the proposed development. Mr. Wallick indicated the opinion of the Department of Natural Resources is the same as indicated in the September 18, 2001 report. Chair Schaps stated the primary issue was the requested shoreland setback variance of 50 percent. He noted this development involved a natural lake and he felt the proposed variances would be a significant trade -off. Mr. Andrews noted whether one lot or 20 lots were developed on the parcel, there would still be an average 90 -foot setback from the ordinary high water line. He stated the developer has used his best management practices and created an inn o tive design, which attempted to address any issues. He noted the develo t of p perties within 40 feet of a high water line is not uncommon in the Twin C. Chair Schaps noted the applicant was assuming th. 111':` is b - dable, which, per the report by the Department of Natural Resources, s no .lwa e case. Chair Schaps requested confirmation that street in the City. Mr. Powell indicated streets within the City. Chair Schaps noted Mr. Corso pilings will be handled. M been determined. Mr. Vaughan indi pose . reet would be the only private pproximately three to four other private concern for how the construction of the ' ndicated the final design of the bridge has not yet un "k struction had performed one boring and reported that the pilings would only g - d to be 31 feet deep. Chair Schaps as a y was the anticipated construction of the bridge. Mr. Wallick stated the bridge ould be constructed of concrete four to five feet above ground level. He stated the brid e would be 24 feet wide and would use an arch design with four piers. Chair Schaps asked if there would be drainage off the bridge. Mr. Wallick stated the bridge would drain back to the road into the pond. Chair Schaps noted the staff report stated that there should be no environmental impact with the bridge. He stated with cars traveling across the bridge there is likely to be some oil and gas pollution, as with all roads, and questioned how the runoff will be handled. Mr. Wallick stated the runoff will be treated by the storm water pond like that from any roadway. Chair Schaps noted the runoff from the bridge will flow directly into the pond and not flow through any grass first. Mr. Wallick stated this was correct. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 16 Mr. Lyden questioned the Department of Natural Resources' jurisdiction compared to the jurisdiction of the Rice Creek Watershed District for granting approval of this development. He also asked if the Rice Creek Watershed District had a more current detailed report on their opinion regarding this application. Mr. Wallick stated the Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the development plans, subject to the approval of the City. He indicated the Watershed District wants more information regarding the design of the bridge. Mr. Smyser stated the Department of Natural Resources has jurisdiction over any project on any public waterway in the State below the ordinary high water level. He stated the Rice Creek Watershed District has jurisdiction over the wetland conservation. He indicated a wetland may or may not be located within the ordinary hi :h water level area and this must be determined on an individual basis. He stated extends into the ordinary high water level area, then the Wa jurisdiction there under the Wetland Conservation Act. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern for the limited inf noted the island cannot be accessed by vehicles ith major issue. He questioned whether the appli design the bridge until the project concep rove e, if the wetland ict would have Mr. Andrews indicated the current apple ion w typical to not submit the final sc cs °'e final plans are submitted to the City Engineer. ng the bridge. He e, which he felt was a t wish to expend the money to for a preliminary plat and it would be Mr. Rafferty noted the d grading and erosion c He questioned wh om +ucks Associates numbered C3 -1 showed the rmation but showed no details for the proposed bridge. should be considered as a secondary issue. Mr. Andrews _ they $ a "" e considered a number of options for access to the island, however, they h v . receiving conflicting recommendations. He stated they did not want to design th bridge prior to determining whether the project would meet the PDO guidelines and MSA criteria. He stated he did not agree with the statement in the staff report that the result of this PDO would not be a superior product. He believed the applications met the intent of the PDO. Mr. Lyden requested confirmation that the Department of Natural Resources has issued a permit for the construction of a bridge and the Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the current design of the project. Mr. Andrews stated this was correct. Mr. Hyden asked how the water will be treated after reaching the storm water pond. Mr. Wallick stated the pond will have an outlet at a certain level so that when water reaches that level it will drain toward the wetland. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 17 Mr. Hyden asked if any studies had been done to determine how the runoff will affect the bodies of water. Mr. Wallick stated storm water ponds are designed to allow water to settle, which he indicated is an accepted practice. Mr. Andrews added the sediment from the runoff would be filtered through the soil and the wetland. He stated wetlands are excellent for filtration prior to runoff water reaching a lake. He indicated they worked with the Rice Creek Watershed District to ensure the project design does not impact the wetland. Mr. Wallick added the Environmental Board had recommended the construction of a drainage swale for additional filtration. He indicated the individual lots will be custom graded and the intent was to work around the existing trees. Mr. Andrews indicated the design of this development will be in • the existing Pheasant Hills development. Mr. Corson assumed the applicant was granted a bridg Natural Resources because the bridge would not i there will be utilities on the bridge. Mr. Andre ,s res Chair Schaps opened the meeting to co e Department of e questioned whether irmatively. Ernest Peake, Attorney representing the : •lican r. Vaughan, stated that he was present this evening seeking a re Mr. Vaughan to move forward with his project. He indicated he read t e . ff s recommendation that the project be denied primarily because t . m 1 •ul• .e inconsistent with the PDO ordinance. He felt the opposite was true • .t the 10 ordinance invites and contemplates this type of development, part e the project would be developed in a manner consistent with the current P ills •. velopment. He believed this would be a logical extension of the Pheas• , Hills development, which is currently one of the finer developments $;. the urty of Lino Lakes. Mr. Peake stated hen dealing with an island it is important to consider engineering and pollution issues, ' ich he does not have trouble with and he hopes to work with the City toward a resolution on these issues. Mr. Peake indicated several years ago, during litigation between the City and Mr. Vaughan regarding a condemnation proceeding, Mr. Vaughan had entered into an agreement with the City and the City had made a pledge to work with Mr. Vaughan on getting this project through. He acknowledged this agreement did not guarantee that Mr. Vaughan would receive total approval of the project since there are other regulatory agencies involved and City ordinances that must be complied with. However, the City had pledged to work with Mr. Vaughan on this project and he indicated the City has been considering this project for a long time. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Peake if had the agreement in writing. Mr. Peake responded affirmatively. He indicated the pledge was an order of the Court in the settlement • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 18 agreement. He indicated the settlement agreement stated the City agreed that it would cooperate with Mr. Vaughan for the residential development of the upland area on the island and for him to develop the land at some point he will need City level approval of rezoning or a PDO. Furthermore, the agreement stated that the City, at least at a staff level, will cooperate with Mr. Vaughan in his efforts to develop that parcel for residential purposes. Mr. Peake acknowledged that this statement in the settlement agreement did not mean Mr. Vaughan has the right to develop the land and ignore the City ordinances or State laws. However, he believed the City has contemplated this development and has agreed to work with Mr. Vaughan toward that end, not completely stop the development. Mr. Peake noted the staff report had included recommended conditions if the Planning and Zoning Board wished to recommend approval of the devel mew He stated he has reviewed the 17 recommended conditions with Mr. Vaugha . • his e & ineers and they can live with virtually every term within those condition e fe ` ', t Board was hesitating on recommending the approval the developer , t • a • . el, then they should approve the project with conditions. He stated this A =foul'• owe r. Vaughan the opportunity to demonstrate to the City that this roje can and would also be consistent with the City's pledge to work wit .'• han in getting the project through. Regarding the proposed 17 conditions f• .pprov;, of this project, Mr. Peake noted there had been a recommendation that h - nd into the street and he had not heard an explanation as to why this • • • - • red. He stated he was not necessarily opposed to this recommen • s + , b e noted the lot sizes comply with the ordinance and he needed to know why . an is e. Mr. Peake noted t po ad recommended the construction of a cul -de -sac to allow emergency vehie raffic in the development. He acknowledged that this would be necessary in o •r the oject to go through. Mr. Peake stated e was also concerned about the bridge construction and possible contamination of e water. However, he noted Mr. Vaughan has worked with the Rice Creek Watershed District and was willing to work with the City further on addressing these concerns. He stated Mr. Vaughan did not wish to cram this seven -lot development down the City's throat. He believed over the past ten years Mr. Vaughan has demonstrated this is not his style. Mr. Peake stated the applicant was pleased to submit a custom - grading plan but questioned the requirement for an escrow for the custom graded lots. He felt this was a curious requirement but was willing to consider complying if such an escrow is necessary. Mr. Peake noted there is a great deal of concern regarding the shoreline and the distance of the homes from that shoreline and the possible disturbance of it. He indicated that staff's recommended condition number 8C would address these concerns by, at a • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 19 minimum, requiring deed covenants to prevent disruption of the shoreland buffer area. He indicated that a deed covenant would be a recorded document that would run with the land and allow the buffer area around the island to remain undisturbed forever. Mr. Peake stated Mr. Vaughn wants to go through with this project and he does expect cooperation from the City, which has been promised. He acknowledged that the Department of Natural Resources or the Rice Creek Watershed District could still shut the project down. Mr. Lyden stated he had been serving on the City Council during the time of the litigation alluded to by Mr. Peake. He stated there had been a great deal of meetings regarding that issue and Mr. Peake was correct regarding the outcome of the litigation. He stated the spirit of the Court order was that the City help facilitate the develo . ment of the island and he felt this should be taken strongly into account when makin n on this application. Mr. Corson noted in their report to the City, the Dep . r�� nt+ t ; al Resources stated they do not support the granting of a variance for dereas.4 etb. s as proposed. Furthermore, the report stated it appears that th- :islan® may Win- buildable considering the current zoning and if the City decides so the island can be built on, it may be beneficial to reduce the number of uni . r- tom' e de the individual building sites to reduce soil disturbance and vegetatio Moss, imize the length and width of the road, and minimize the impact to the Shore . ct Zo . With this in mind, although the City is required to work with the appl e ' feel this meant the City must approve the construction of seven hom Mr. Smyser felt it would determine what the le Attorney. He stat indicated that the City for t " Planning and Zoning Board to not attempt to ent means, rather he felt this should be left up to the City bee orking with the City Attorney on this project and not committed to approving this project. He stated the City has in no way com `. to "hing other than cooperating with the review of the project. He did not feel ° . • fate for anyone other than the City Attorney to comment on the City's commitm its, legally or otherwise. Mr. Lyden reiterated that he had been serving on the City Council at the time the commitment was made and was privy to all the meetings. Mr. Smyser reiterated the City was not committed to anything. Ken Asleson, Lot #8 Ruffed Grouse, provided the Board with handouts regarding his concerns. He indicated his interpretation of working with a developer on a project did not mean the project would be rubber stamped. Mr. Asleson stated he has a golden retriever who likes to roam in the wood in his back yard. He indicated during summer months his dog likes to dig a little hole and lie in the water that fills the hole. He was curious whether the proposed pond would fill with storm water or would fill with water while being dug. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 20 Mr. Asleson noted the staff report indicated the requested rezoning would allow 1.8 units per acre. However, because there is only approximately four acres of upland area, he questioned why seven units were being proposed. Mr. Asleson stated many years ago he worked on a bridge crew to pay his way through college and a close friend currently runs a family business in North Dakota building bridges. He could not recall ever building a bridge with only 31 feet of pilings. He questioned who will be responsible for inspecting and approving the construction of the private road and bridge and who will design the bridge. He also questioned who would be responsible for the bridge if the private ownership does not pan out. Mr. Asleson noted the applicant has not provided any written approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Asleson stated he had received a bridge permit two s northern Minnesota. He stated his bridge was basical He indicated the requirements of the Department o been very loose and only required that the bride not Mr. Asleson noted in its report to the Cit indicated that Ward Lake is a Natural E requirement of 150 feet, and a Shore Im cited the loss of virtually all vege of the proposed road is entirel setback. r land he owns in the top removed. rces at that time had epart t of Natural Resources had t basin and has a structure setback of 75 feet. Additionally, the report and during grading and that the location pact Zone and cannot meet the required Mr. Asleson indicate questioned the acc the last 10 years the w ater marks had been determined in 1991 and he thos arks and whether this needed updating. He believed in level has changed. Mr. Asleson sta epartment of Natural Resources' website states that the Shoreland Mana ment Act regulates all land within 1,000 feet of a lake and 300 feet of a river in a designated flood plane. Additionally, the Shoreland Management Act requires local units of government with priority shoreland to adopt these or stricter standards into their zoning ordinances. Mr. Asleson indicated the Department of Natural Resources has classified Wards Lake as a natural environment lake. He noted the guidelines for a natural environment lake, which require a lot area of 40,000 square feet, lot width of 125 feet and structure setback of 150 feet. He indicated that per the preliminary plat four of the seven lots would be less than 125 feet wide and all seven lots appear to be less than 40,000 square feet in area. Mr. Asleson indicated his father was a developer for many years and he did not want Mr. Vaughn to be prevented from utilizing his land as he sees fit. However, at this point he believed the land would be buildable with one lot per the current zoning. He stated he did not support rezoning the property to allow the construction of seven lots. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 21 Mark Groff, 6613 Ruffed Grouse Road, noted Mr. Peake had referred to the proposed development as an extension of Pheasant Hills development. However, he felt the proposed development would in reality be an extension of the Quail Ridge development. He stated Quail Ridge currently has 40 homes with no access to City trails or City parks without crossing the street. Mr. Groff stated that he agreed that a landowner has the right to develop his land, however, he felt the applicant should only be allowed to develop one lot. He felt the proposed development would impact the value of the existing homes in the area. He noted the development will result in the loss of trees, which will alter the view of the current homeowners on the north side of Ruffed Grouse from of a natural area to that of a street and the rear of the proposed homes. Mr. Groff stated there appeared to be no positive impact wit on the existing neighborhood. He stated the developme although the additional traffic generated by seven ho felt because the proposed project will devalue the be denied. Marc Valerius, 6674 Ruffed Grouse Roa have the support of the Department of N have intimated that they suspicious of other statements be' Mr. Valerius stated he did extension of the Pheasan be made from the exi d development additional cars, imary concern. He the application should the p..osed development does not ources, although the applicant's support, which makes him somewhat the proposed development was a logical ent since, if that were the case, the access would Mr. Valerius indicate majority of the surrounding property owners do not support the proposed deve nt, n do the Department of Natural Resources or the Environmental Board. He note osal does not meet many of the City ordinance requirements and he questione what positive aspects there were to the proposal. He stated he was not opposed to the de elopment of one home on the island and he asked that the proposal as submitted be denied and the applicant be allowed to construct one home as originally planned. Mr. Valerius noted when Mr. Peake read the Court order regarding City support of the development, the agreement referred to staff level support. He questioned the interpretation of "staff level support." He believed City staff has done a great job in assisting the applicant by reviewing the plans and bringing them forward. Mary Kutzman, Lot #13 Quail Ridge, stated her primary concern was with the high level of the water. She noted the issue of the markers had been brought up and she felt many do not realize how high the water has become over the years. She indicated last year her backyard had flooded and there had been fish in her yard. She presented the Board with • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 22 photographs depicting the high water level. She stated she supported the construction of one home on the island but not seven. Jeff Melby, Lot #8 Quail Ridge, stated the issue concerning the backhoe breaking through the ice had occurred during the month of December. Mr. Melby stated he had obtained a portion of the bedrock map from the United States Geological Survey, which he provided a copy of to the Board. He noted the map depicted the depth of the bedrock at an elevation of approximately 725 feet above sea level. He stated he would be very surprised if the bedrock in this area is only 31 feet deep. He indicated in other projects around the Twin Cities area the bedrock is found at a depth of approximately 150 to 200 feet. Mr. Melby expressed concern for the disruption the proposed neighborhood. He stated with approximately 45 homes, the children living in the neighborhood. He indicated at the children, eight of whom are under the age of five. He has no sidewalks the street is used for walking, sk types of recreation. He indicated at this time th :. e is the neighbors watch out for each others safet Mr. Melby expressed concern for the of on the neighborhood, including heavy e clearing of trees and removal of t road is rated for seven tons per hundreds of truck trips thro bridge will raise the leve possible vibration co uld have on the imately 60 e -sac there are 13 the neighborhood oters and for other of traffic in the area and ual construction of the homes will have nd delivery traffic, parking issues, the y heavy trucks, etc. He indicated the ated there could potentially be several ghborhood. He indicated the construction of the ptio even higher and will result in noise, pollution and n the pilings are installed. Mr. Melby felt that re construction shy neighborhood. less of the number of lots developed on the island, the be br •. ght in from the east rather than through a developed Sandy Seebole, E #10 Quail Ridge, provided the Board with a letter addressing her concerns regarding the proposed development. She was concerned that the developer was proposing to bring the development through Quail Ridge as a cost saving measure and that seven lots were being proposed versus one to make up for the cost to construct the bridge. Ms. Seebole was concerned that the construction of the pilings will cause vibrations that could result in structural damage to the nearby homes. She stated she did not want to prevent the applicant from developing his land, however, she felt he should only be allowed to construct one home per the current zoning and the rezoning should not be approved. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 23 Gwen Pederson stated one reason she opposed the development was due to safety concerns for the neighborhood children. She indicated that all the residents in her neighborhood use the streets and she was concerned about the additional traffic. Ms. Pederson stated at one point the subject property had been included in the City's Comprehensive Park Plan and she questioned what happened to those plans. She stated when she bought her home she had been informed that a natural trail would be created from the development to the island. She felt the island would be a great place for a natural park and she questioned the credibility of the City Council when the plans for a park are thrown out in favor of development. Kari Bormhoft, Lot #7 Quail Ridge, stated she felt very strongly about the safety of her neighborhood. She stated she has two small children and because her neighborhood has no connections to parks or trails, her children play in the street : n • s. She stated she supported the other comments made this evening in oppositi•f the p•posed development. Margy Cory stated her lot is adjacent to the proposehorn, andv e was not pleased by the proposed development. She indicated when • uai Ridg .'`d been built there had been concerns for the soil conditions and the ,• €�x • ty he questioned who will be responsible for the repair of the existing r•,. if the " nstruction vehicles cause damage. Ms. Cory stated she had attended vi + tal Board meeting when the proposed development had been recom ial. She stated the Environmental Board had expressed concern regardi y - a m ng trees and wildlife. She stated she has seen many deer, raccoons, possums . _ es o e subject property and she was concerned how the development will " %,r + . Additionally, she has found Indian artifacts such as arrow heads in the Ms. Cory state - n she rchased her home she had been required to purchase flood insurance and n> of is much higher than the subject lot. Ms. Cory stated her neighborhood has weekly trash pickups and daily mail and other deliveries. She expressed concern for how these types of services will be handled with the private road and whether one large dumpster will be placed at the entrance to the development. For these and other reasons, she did not support the proposed development. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Smyser noted a letter had been received from Theodore and Cheryl Brausen, 6763 Timberwolf Trail, expressing support for the proposed development, which would be entered into the record. Chair Schaps asked if neighborhood meetings had been held regarding this development. Mr. Smyser did not believe any neighborhood meetings had been held. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 24 Chair Schaps requested information regarding the FEMA flood plain and noted properties only one - quarter of one mile west of his property require flood insurance. Mr. Powell stated it was not uncommon for the FEMA maps to be inaccurate. Mr. Lyden stated the concerns brought up this evening regarding the proposed construction were legitimate concerns. He stated he has dealt with construction traffic in his neighborhood and agreed the traffic can be ominous, particularly for children. He noted a suggestion had been made that the construction traffic be brought in from the east and he asked if this would be possible. Mr. Powell indicated this would result in those streets potentially being damaged and safety concerns for the children in that neighborhood who play in the street. He did not believe moving the construction traffic to another street would I ev all the concerns of the proposed development. Regarding concern for damage to streets by the const the City would have to monitor the damage to the rdw . nd r wire compensation from the developer for those repairs. ffc, r. Powell indicated Chair Schaps asked if this has been the s City. Mr. Powell could not recall a situ brought in through the end of an establi Mr. Lyden stated any time ther Mr. Powell agreed but note involved the constructio Mr. Lyden express felt the City must be r did not believ the City Attorn ectati for other developments in the past where a new development was pment. nt there is potential construction impact. not been many developments within the City that rn ., he legal history involving the subject property and he nable and not single out this particular developer. Mr. Powell was being singled out and indicated that he was relying on retation of the Court ordered agreement. Mr. Corson felt t ' island was suitable to be developed with as currently zoned with one home. He noted the Department of Natural Resources has recommended denial of the requested variances to the shoreline setbacks, and he indicated that he takes this recommendation very seriously. Mr. Corson believed approval of the proposed development could leave the City open to potential litigation if damage is caused to the nearby homes by the vibration caused by the bridge construction. Mr. Corson noted when Quail Ridge had been developed sand had been placed under the road due to the poor ground conditions. However, he noted near Mr. Groff's property there are cracks in the road which water flows up through, which means there is a great deal of water under the road. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 25 Mr. Corson stated the quality of life in Lino Lakes must be considered. He did not support the notion of allowing the clearing of an island with mature vegetation simply out of fear of litigation. He stated the property currently has potential use as currently zoned and he felt seven homes would be too many on a small island. Mr. Lyden asked Mr. Corson how the proposed development would affect him. Mr. Corson stated the development would result in the loss of trees and a view of a bridge from his house, as well as have an impact on the neighborhood children. Mr. Lyden noted the neighborhood would likely deal with construction traffic for at least two years. Mr. Corson agreed this was the assumption. Mr. Lyden questioned whether Mr. Corson could vote on the proposed development or if this would be a conflict of interest. Mr. Corson stated the Bo a n consistent in voting on all applications regardless of its location providin_ e is n ersonal gain or interest on the part of a Board member. Mr. Rafferty stated he appreciated the concerns ex sidents, such as the concern for construction traffic. He stated he li ; sin e cu t Pheasant Hills development and has two children ages nine He indicated his house is located on a cul -de -sac and the school bus has a '> ° <g time ing around, although his cul- de -sac has a center island, which makes aneu° 'ng more difficult. Mr. Rafferty felt that Mr. Vaugh.. + ane,` Tonal job with the development of Pheasant Hills and had paid a d spect to the neighborhood and the environment. He did not b t - was any clear way of salvaging all the vegetation on the island when devel e a. f `d that his property value has increased significantly since he a ` his home. Mr. Rafferty stated he visited the island and found the neighborhood to be quiet and to contain a nu of ch ren. He stated he was not concerned that the proposed development w ; l ue the existing property values and he did see an opportunity for the applicant to velop seven lots on the island. Regarding the concern expressed by the Department of Nairal Resources for the elimination of vegetative growth, he noted when the applicant developed Pheasant Hills it was felt he had preserved too much of the existing vegetation. Mr. Rafferty was not certain what the right decision is in this case. He agreed the applicant has the right to develop his property, however, he agreed with the concerns regarding construction traffic and the impact on the neighborhood by the construction of the bridge. Mr. Rafferty stated he knows Mr. Vaughan and had, as a concerned citizen, sat through the condemnation proceedings where Mr. Vaughan lost a great deal of land. He stated he has a great deal of respect for City staff for their past work, even though he did not support the condemnation action. He stated he was concerned for both the residents and • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 26 the applicant and suggested the proposal be tabled and efforts be made to come up with solutions that will work for all parties. Ms. Lane stated she was not privy to the agreement in the Court order but she noted the order required City staff to work with the property owner to develop the land but not to change the zoning for seven lots. She believed City staff has worked with the applicant on this development. She agreed that the lot is buildable under the current zoning and she could not support the number of variances being requested. Chair Schaps stated Mr. Vaughan has been a good citizen in the community for a long time and has built and developed premiere neighborhoods in the City. However, he was concerned about the number of items that would be impacted by proposed development, including the residents. He noted none of the residents present this evening supported the development as proposed, although they were not opposed to being developed on the property. Chair Schaps stated he understood Mr. Peake's positi . eg.'nt t' litigation involved. He stated he has not seen the agreement but per th Ong prented this evening the agreement only required City staff support. He id n th bell - ' anyone could argue successfully against the fact that City staff ha ire the applicant with this development. He indicated City staff has orkin_'r ith the applicant for several weeks on this application and has prep. `dam -page report with recommendations. He did not feel this was an issue and he } . s not +ncerned about potential litigation. He stated the Planning and Zoning B .. ee+ °+e concerned with whether or not the project meets the ordinances •, +nsider the fact that a PDO development should involved fair trade- ! not feel the proposed trade offs, such as tree preservation data, were i private road was bei this was due to lac of developing a privat always been C -. ff's private roads be y su`cient for what was being requested. He noted a which there were not many of in the City. He stated of public services, condition and care, as well the notion ighborhood within public neighborhoods. He stated it has off» ion that the City should not have any jurisdiction over y do not want to have to deal with the private associations that dictate their own • ontrol. Chair Schaps stated the shoreland impact was his primary reason for opposing the development. He noted the applicant was requesting a 75 -foot variance to a 150 -foot minimum setback requirement. He stated this development would not just impact the adjacent neighborhood, rather it would impact a series of neighborhoods that are surrounded by wetlands and lakes that flow eventually to the river. He felt the neighborhood impact would be significant and long -term. He noted just the construction of the bridge alone would likely take a very long time to complete, more than any of the residents would be willing to put up with. He stated he would not be surprised if he would be able to hear the construction from his property, which would not please him. Chair Schaps reiterated that Mr. Vaughan has been a tremendous neighbor and developer in the City but he felt Mr. Vaughan was asking for too much. He stated he would not be in support of the proposed development under any circumstances in its current status. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 27 Mr. Lyden felt if the issue of construction traffic and noise was the deciding factor for whether developments are approved, there would obviously be no development in the City of Lino Lakes. He stated for him the real test was whether there was anything positive in the development for the neighborhood, which he felt was not the case with the proposed development. However, this did not mean a person does not have to be rational and fair and look at the facts and make a judgment based on the facts. He stated his primary issue was the zoning and the PDO, which must pass the real approval test. He noted PDO's have been granted to many developers within the City, such as Trapper's Crossing. He stated the only trade -off Trapper's Crossing got for the PDO was a substandard fence and he questioned whether Mr. Vaughan was asking for more or for less. He stated the City must be fair and reasonable and he felt that a PDO made the most sense for the development of an island. Mr. Lyden stated he heard the concerns expressed this eveni , : hick he felt were valid. However, he felt the City must be fair. Mr. Corson stated it was his understanding that zoni a °» s . "judicial actions by a city and was something that most Judges will not de with. stated zoning is an action by a city that will affect their future and their .. + F'' ow t ey want their city to grow. He felt if the City did not want seven ho e. `• to a small island, this was the time to stop it. He indicated a rezoning ction Id be required for the proposed development and he felt this was a discr onary cision by the City. Chair Schaps did not believe t greement could tie the hands of any of the City's Boards or the City C• . erwise, he believed there would be multiple sections of the Municip. ° • e olat as well as violation of the due process of law. He stated he understo+ nt of the settlement agreement but he did not agreed that it meant the City e • . er st p any development proposal. Mr. Lyden bel the Je understood he could not go beyond his jurisdiction by dictating to the . -° they should develop the island or whether the island should be developed. How giver, he noted there is often a difference between what is legal and what is ethical and he fat the Judge, in the spirit of his direction, was clearly looking for what is ethical. Mr. Lyden stated he was looking for a reasonable, rational, fair and ethical outcome. Mr. Rafferty agreed a PDO would enhance the ability to develop the island. He questioned how tabling the application would affect Mr. Vaughan in attempting to find solutions that may work for all parties. He noted the residents did not oppose the use of the land but were concerned that the applicant only be able to develop one lot based on the size requirements of the R -X Zoning District. He questioned what the new Comprehensive Plan showed for the development of the subject parcel. Mr. Smyser stated the new Comprehensive Plan guides the property for single family, sewered development. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 28 Mr. Rafferty questioned how the applicant would be affected by the tabling of the request or a delay in the City's decision, which at this point he did not believe would be favorable from the Planning and Zoning Board. He acknowledged that even if the Board recommended denial, the development will be reviewed by the City Council, however, he believed the Council will have the same difficulty in making a decision. He noted if this was the case and the Council denied the request, the developer would have to wait one year before reapplying. Mr. Peake stated he would be pleased to continue working with the City toward an alternative that will work. However, he noted the applicant was under the eminent threat of a building moratorium, which would not allow the luxury of having this matter tabled. He believed there may be an opportunity for the City Council to waive the moratorium for this proposed development in order to further pursue alternatives that work for Mr. Vaughan, the City and the neighbors. He stated if the develop " n v. ► ld not be affected by the moratorium he would be willing to accept the proposal Ong to d. Mr. Rafferty noted the moratorium will only be in pla or .ns and he was not certain the proposal would be approved as submitt damaging to the applicant than the moratorium. Mr. Peake stated the consideration of this cooperation and indicated Mr. Vaughan has not been rigid in his expectations. eyed would be more al mu .e done in the spirit of ery willing to work with the City and mpendi + + directly conflicts with the settlement he ity could cooperate with Mr. Vaughan and con ued development of the island. He felt that Mr. ortunity to continue working with the Planning and s tovtermine whether there were some reasonable solutions. onstraints. Mr. Peake felt that the im because he did preclude him from requ Vaughan should be Zoning Board and However, there are tim Mr. Rafferty no &' oratorium would apply to any preliminary plats not approved by the effective date nd he questioned whether the applicant was attempting to move too quickly with this ' - velopment because of the pending moratorium. Mr. Peake believed that the impending moratorium was forcing both the Planning and Zoning Board's hands as well as Mr. Vaughan's hands. He expressed his willingness to continue working with the Board, the City Council and staff in attempting to design a development that will work. However, if Mr. Vaughan is precluded from doing this by the moratorium then he felt the City is not accomplishing its job and Mr. Vaughan can not obtain that which he has a constitutional right to. Mr. Rafferty stated the Planning and Zoning Board is not required to make a decision based solely on the possibility of a future moratorium. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesest for the Pheasant Hills 12th Addition to change the guided use of • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 29 the subject property from Rural to Low Density Residential, and the allocation of 4.5 acres of MUSA Reserve, based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Mr. Lyden wished to ask the applicant if he was interested in this matter being tabled. Chair Schaps stated there was a motion of the floor that the Board should take action on. Mr. Lyden asked Mr. Corson if he would be willing to withdraw his motion. Mr. Smyser stated that the issue regarding the impending moratorium was crucial. He indicated if the project is not forwarded to the City Council before the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting there was no chance of the project being considered by the Council prior to the moratorium. He stated staff would recommend the Board make a recommendation to the Council this evening. Based on these comments, Mr. Corson chose to make no �'� gel t �" current motion. Motion carried 3 -2 (Lyden and Rafferty opposed.) Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend + e rezoning from R -X to R- 1X/PDO for the Pheasant Hills 12th Addi ' sed o e findings of fact listed in the staff report. The motion was supported e. Motion carried 3 -2 (Lyden and Rafferty opposed.) Mr. Corson made a MOTION for the Pheasant Hills 12th The motion was support opposed.) C. denial of the Preliminary Plat as submitted see on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. La Motion carried 3 -2 (Lyden and Rafferty Election of M hers to Development Regulation Task Force Staff explained "'ew Comprehensive Plan establishes a number of new policies. In order to imple ent the Comprehensive Plan, the City needs to amend its official controls. This pri arily means the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. In order to complete these amendments efficiently, a task force is being assembled. Staff reviewed the membership and purpose of the task force which will meet once a month to consider a new Subdivision Ordinance first, then the Zoning Ordinance. The task force will not be revising the comprehensive plan. In addition, staff has arranged to have Government Training Service conduct a special workshop at Lino Lakes City Hall. The workshop will cover the fundamentals of land use planning and regulation. Task force members must attend this workshop. This is set for Saturday, January 26, 2002 at 8:30 a.m. and will be an all -day workshop. Staff explained the procedure that will be used and that when all pieces of the ordinance have been reviewed by the task force, the entire ordinance will be brought to each Board • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 30 for discussion. The Planning and Zoning Board will hold a public hearing. Then it will go to the City Council for a first and second reading. Staff stated the Board is asked to elect two Planning and Zoning Board members to serve on the Development Regulations Task Force. Mr. Rafferty asked how long the task force meetings would last. Mr. Smyser anticipated that the meetings would last as long as it takes to get the necessary work done. Mr. Smyser indicated Mr. Grochala was in attendance at this time to address this issue. He stated Mr. Grochala attended this evening's City Council work session during which this task force had been discussed. Mr. Grochala stated during the City Council work session earlier this evening the Council discussed the schedule and the bylaws of the Development Re Task Force. The Council anticipated the task force would meet once per mon 9 • the t d or fourth Thursday and first meeting was scheduled for Thursday, : • . 2002. Mr. Grochala indicted the City Council strongly su essive schedule in order to complete the work within the schedule • time rame „ e indicated if it appeared the work would not be completed within the s • ime frame, then additional meetings may be added so the deadline is Mr. Lyden asked that he be removed frog consid`F` ation as a member of the task force since he did not believe the new + eh a v lan will be able to meet some of its significant goals. Chair Schap sp •"is request. Mr. Lyden made a MOT Development Regula lect s. Lane and Mr. Hyden to serve on the Force. Ms. Lane nominated Schaps and Mr. Lyden nominated Mr. Rafferty to serve on the task force. Mr. Rafferty statl he would support any member of the Board being elected to the task force. He felt thahair Schaps would be an excellent choice to serve on the task force due to his experience. He stated he would like to hear the opinions of Ms. Lane and Mr. Hyden on serving on the task force. Ms. Lane stated in the early 1980's she had served on a task force, which dealt with ordinances. She stated she had the time available and would be willing to serve on the Development Regulations Task Force. Mr. Hyden indicated he was willing to serve on the task force but expressed concern for the fact that he was new to the Planning and Zoning Board. He felt he has a great deal to learn but acknowledged serving on the task force may be one way to be educated. He stated he too would prefer that Chair Schaps serve on the task force. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 31 • Mr. Corson stated his wife works nights and weekends and serving on the task force would be a conflict for him. • • Chair Schaps suggested that the motion be withdrawn and a new motion be made regarding one candidate. Mr. Lyden stated he would prefer that his motion stand. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion failed 2 -3. Mr. Grochala suggested that the task force members be selected through a secret ballot. Chair Schaps concurred. The result of the secret ballot was five votes for Chair Schaps, four votes for Mr. Hyden, and three votes for Ms. Lane. Chair Schaps and Mr. Hyden were elected to represent the P ;ng an` Zoning Board on the Development Regulations Task Force. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Elect Economic Development Advis Staff advised that in the past, P & Z has Development Advisory Committee (ED EDAC has requested the P & Z Chair Schaps noted Mr. Ra Advisory Committee in t Mr. Corson made Development Adviso 0. ittee Liaison. a liaison to the Economic e is no requirement to do so, but erve as the liaison to the Economic Development ect Mr. Rafferty to serve on the Economic ommittee, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5- Chair Schaps no , d the swearing -in ceremony for Board members will be held on Monday, January 4, 2002. Chair Schaps reminded Board members that when appointed to the Planning and Zoning Board they are expected to attend all meetings. He asked that all Board members attempt to accomplish this goal in 2002. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:53 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 32 • Lori Rolfson, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • •