Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/2002 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, September 11, 2002 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers (Scheduled to be Televised on Ch. 16) AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 14, 2002 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS • A. Laraine Cardarelli & Craig Severson, 82XX W. Rondeau Lake Rd., Minor Subdivision, Tanda Gretz B. Michael & Laura Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck trail, Variance, Tanda Gretz C. Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, Minor Subdivision & Variance, Tanda Gretz D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions, South of Main St. & North of Carl St. - Section 7, Preliminary Plat, Jeff Smyser VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. None VII. ADJOURN • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes P1 p.m., August 14, 2002. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was app.' III. APPROVAL Ms. Lane in Lino Lakes P1 carried 5 -0. ly 1 02 oard meeting to order at 6:37 eve the minutes of the July 10, 2002, meeting of the ard, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:39 p.m. Mr. Smyser stated there was a Comprehensive Plan as of today. The Council voted to approve the Comprehensive Plan. He stated there were a couple of minor conditions. One of them being a ghost platting ordinance within 9 months and the other being to adopt something to protect hydric soils. Ms. Lane asked if they had any problems with the zoning. Mr. Smyser replied that a few weeks ago, staff sat down with the City Council and made a couple of minor changes to the land use map. DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 2 Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:41 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. Mary Zehowski, 900 Oak Lane, Minor Subdivision Staff explained Mary Zehowski is applying for a Minor Subdivision of 30 acres, zoned Rural, at 900 Oak Lane. Although the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is 10 acres, Ms. Zehowski is seeking to create a 2.5 -acre parcel and a 27.5 -acre parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the Lino Lakes City Code: "Habitable single family homes constructed prior to reduce their lot size to a minimum of one acre results in a parcel of ten acres, or is serviced be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the not result in ground water, soil, or other contain the public health." 1992 may of the property d it can Staff reviewed its analysis by explaining division of the 30 -acre parcel. Parcel of which 51.7% is upland; Parcel B, which 28.1 % is upland. With respect to Minimum Lot property in a rural zone is ten requirement, with under Section 3 Staff stated meet this re under the Lino L that "all lots shall a cate o "`''ey shows the proposed Mains an existing house and garage, e balance of the property, of ements, a explained the minimum lot size for e proposed newly created lot would meet this y consisting of the 2.5 -acre parcel, as allowed or property in a Rural zone is 330', and both lots will oth lots will have full frontage on a road, as required rdinance, Section 1008.08, subdiv. 6, which states 1 frontage on a publically dedicated street." With respect to buildable • staff stated Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd. 3.B.1.b requires parcels requiring a minimum of 10 acres or more to have a minimum of 20% upland area. Much of this property is wetland, and as a result, it was necessary for the applicant to delineate wetland boundaries. Results of that delineation indicate that both lots meet the minimum upland requirement, with Parcel A at 51.7% upland and Parcel B at 28.1% upland. With respect to septic issues, staff explained soils tests confirm that there are soils on both the proposed parcels capable of accommodating a septic system, with enough room for both primary and secondary sites. With respect to property boundaries /encroachment issues, staff noted the western property boundary of the parcel is currently being confirmed, as it appears some of the outbuildings belonging to the property are actually sited on the neighboring property. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 3 City Attorney Bill Hawkins has advised that such issues should not interfere with the processing of the application for a Minor Subdivision, and should be handled as a separate issue. In conclusion, staff stated the proposed Minor Subdivision would result in two lots: Parcel A, although under 10 acres, conforms to Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, and otherwise meets all the minimum lot requirements for property in a Rural zone; Parcel B meets all minimum lot requirements for property in a Rural zone. As a result, staff would recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision with the following conditions: 1.) A park dedication fee of $1,665, to be paid of the Minor Subdivision. 2.) Deed granting easements to the City (Z side; easements over all wetlands). e certification and recording c f 10' front and rear & 5' Ms. Lane asked if it would be prudent to add a property boundary location be settled before, *e mino Gretz replied the City Attorney had advis a that the problem with the ion is finalized. Ms. be linked. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make owski did not make any comments. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to eve Mary ski, 900 Oak Lane, Minor Subdivision subject to staff s re ndations and conditions as outlined in staff's report. The motion w Motion carri B. Corey & Shelly Bat' Ash Street, Minor Subdivison & Variance Staff presented the applicat ii by Warren Bachman who owns 29 acres at 1487 Ash Street and is applying for a Minor Subdivision and a Variance from the minimum lot width requirements in order to split 11 acres off, which he then plans to sell to his son and daughter -in -law, Corey and Shelly Bachman. Staff presented its analysis by explaining the Certificate of Survey shows the proposed subdivision of the 29 -acre parcel. Parcel B, approximately 18 acres, contains Mr. Bachman's home, outbuildings and agricultural fields; parcel A, approximately 11 acres, contains the balance of the property. The applicants report they plan to site a home fronting Ash Street and keep the northern 10 acres in agriculture, thereby qualifying for Green Acres status. DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 4 Staff stated the site is almost completely in agriculture at this time, excepting the area immediately surrounding the existing house and outbuildings and the pond/drainage area at the southeastern corner of the property. Staff noted that while the property is Rural, development is likely at some point in time once utilities become available — post 2010, since this is a Stage 2 Growth Area. As a result, ensuring that lot dimension requirements are maintained now will help safeguard the availability of utilities for that future development. For example, future utility availability to the area north of the proposed home site may be put at risk, as there is diminished area for road access. Further, as utility availability is often financially feasible only when shared among a group of property owners, limiting future development may limit future utility availability. With respect to minimum lot requirements, sta ` tat` in a Rural zone is ten acres. Both parcels wo eet imum lot size for property eme t. Staff noted the minimum lot width for property defined in the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance as' lot line of a lot measured at the building setb Additionally, the Subdivision Ordinance shall abut for their full frontage on a p al zone 4`feet. Lot width is o. tal distance between the side aMel to the front lot line.,, 6, requires that "all lots ed street." Staff indicated Parcel A, at 221.6 ft does and as a result the applicant is as or a lot width, then, Parcel A also +t fulfill road. With respect to 3.B.1.b. requ Both parce1" in the far sou With respect to septi parcel is capable of acco for both primary and second e minimum lot width requirement, ith less than the required 330' of uirement of having full frontage on a o Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd. acres or more to have at least 20% upland area. there are wetlands and/or drainage easements only posed 18- acre parcel. noted soils tests confirm that the proposed 11 -acre ting a septic system. In addition, there is adequate room sites. The 18- acre parcel already contains a septic system, with adequate room for a secondary site. With respect to access issues, staff indicated the existing 29 -acre parcel contains an access drive onto Ash Street. A second access drive will be required for the proposed 11- acre parcel. As Ash Street is a County road, plans have been forwarded to the Anoka County Highway Department for review and approval. Staff reviewed the five findings for variance as follows. 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 5 Comment: The property has been, and currently is, being put to reasonable use for agricultural purposes. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property and not created by the landowner. Comment: There is no unique physical circumstance existing on the property; there is simply not enough width and road frontage to meet the minimum lot requirements for a property in the Rural zone, as established under City Ordinance. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: There is no hardship demonstrated a pp ireht, the lot simply does not meet the minimum lot requirements for a property 4. That granting the Variance requested will not c privilege that would be denied by this ordinan the same district. the applicant any special ands, structures, or buildings in Comment: Granting a Variance without lion of hardship or unique physical circumstances would confer s ial ale s on the applicant. It should be noted that other pare, width requirements exist as lo Zoning Ordinance for their cre[ which do not meet minimum lot of require a Variance from the City 5. That the propos of be in key rx ith the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: Ordinance, a circumstances ar id not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the anted only in cases where hardship /unique physical In conclusion, staff note' dw ' x eation of the proposed 11 -acre parcel will not satisfy the 330' lot width requirements or property located in the Rural zone, and thus will also not yield full frontage on a street, as required under the Lino Lakes Ordinance. For these reasons, staff cannot recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision. Staff stated as there are no hardship issues demonstrated or unique physical circumstances apparent on the property, staff cannot recommend approval of the Variance from the minimum lot width requirements. Chair Schaps asked if the corner on parcel A was owned by someone else. Ms. Gretz replied that was correct. • Mr. Lyden stated the reason they had the Ordinance and standards was so things were done in an orderly, standard way. As far as lot width, he noted that the property is zoned DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 6 rural. He asked what was the standard width of the lots along County Road J. Ms. Gretz replied there were quite a few lots that were substandard in that area. Mr. Lyden stated the reality was that the applicant wanted to do the same thing others have done in that area with their substandard lots. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Bachman stated one property in the area was granted a variance last year at 1573 Ash Street and it was not noted. He stated every house in that area had only 100 feet of frontage. He stated there was not a house in the area that had 330 feet frontage. He stated he intended on staying on the property for a long time and once he built a house, he would have no intention of moving. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Cor °'. S �� �, 487 Ash Street, Minor Subdivision & Variance. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4 -1 (Hyden). C. Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, Min Staff stated applicants Don and F " ind. _ nacres of land, zoned Rural, at 855 Ash Street. The Lindahls have red fora, ubdivision and Variance from the minimum lot width requirement er to subdivided their property. Although the minimum lot size in a one is 10 acres, the Lindahls are seeking to create a 10- acre � a s - �rarcel, . wed under Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the Lino Lakes Ci "Hab reduce th results in a p be demonstrate not result in ground the public health." es constructed prior to July 13, 1992 may mum of one acre if the balance of the property res, or is serviced by public sewer, and it can s satisfactory to the City that the division will ater, soil or other contamination which may endanger Staff indicated the Lindahls propose to live on the one -acre parcel containing the residence and outbuildings, and sell the remaining ten -acre parcel to their son. Staff noted that the existing 11 -acre parcel was created in 1997 as part of a minor subdivision of 58.76 acres. Minutes from the meetings of both the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Council note that a further subdivision of the 11 -acre parcel, such as is now being proposed, was discussed at that time. Minutes note that the applicant "had been advised that splitting off one acre with the homestead to provide an additional building site would probably not be recommended in this case." DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 7 Staff presented its analysis by explaining the Certificate of Survey shows the proposed division of the 11 -acre parcel. Tract B, one acre, contains the Lindahl home and outbuildings, of which .89 acres are upland; Tract A, ten acres, contains the balance of the property, of which four acres are upland. With respect to lot size, staff stated the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is ten acres. The proposed newly created lot would meet this requirement, with the balance of the property consisting of the one -acre parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd.3 .A.2 .b.2. With respect to lot width, staff noted the minimum lot width for property in a Rural zone is 330 feet. Lot width is defined as "the horizontal distance between the side lot line of a lot measured at the building setback line and paralleltfront lot line." Additionally, the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance, Section:. 01 , div. 6, requires that "all lots shall abut for their full frontage on a publical Staff stated Tract B, at 155 feet, does not meet as a result, the applicant is asking for a Varian width, then, Tract B also does not fulfill the re road. requirement, and than the required 330' of lot wing full frontage on a Staff indicated Tract A is an irregularly minimum lot width requirement irtemsof re pare one acre ") lot that does not meet the contiguous road width and road frontage. -269 feet to the west of the one acre Thus, although the proposed lot has Rather, the lot wraps around the o parcel and 188 feet to the east c 330' of width on a road, it is n With respect to 3.B.1.b requi 20% upland. of upland, all parcel is almost ous width. cels requh Both parcels 's upland o Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd. zm of 10 acres or more to have a minimum of this requirement: the 10 -acre parcel has four acres s as "islands" among wetland area, and the one acre of upland. With respect to septic isSues:aff stated soils tests confirm that the proposed 10 -acre parcel is capable of accomrrtdating a septic system. In addition, there is adequate room for both primary and secondary sites. The one -acre parcel already contains a septic system, with adequate room for a secondary site. With respect to access issues, staff noted the existing 11 -acre parcel contains a driveway that is the sole source of access for the property to the west, at 815 Ash Street. The minor subdivision approved in 1997, which created the parcels at 815 and 855 Ash Street, required an easement agreement be drawn up for the driveway. This agreement was approved by the City attorney and recorded with Anoka County. In addition, as a further condition of approval, the driveway was approved by the Fire Chief. Staff indicated the driveway is currently used primarily by the residents at 815 Ash Street, as the Lindahls have their own access drive. Further subdivision of the 11 -acre parcel would require shared use of this driveway, which may or may not pose a legal DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 8 issue: the easement agreement states the easement is "for the exclusive benefit of Tracts B (855 Ash Street) and C (815 Ash Street)." Further, the agreement states that "no party may unreasonably increase the burden of the driveway and utility easement." The agreement can be amended only with the written consent of both parties. Staff reviewed the five findings for a variance by explaining the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that "in considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Comment: The property has been, and currently is, applicant is simply asking for a further intensi to reasonable use. The que to 2.) That the plight of the landowners is due W, his property, not created by the landowner. Comment: The landowner is asking for a fur his land, which he was advised "would probably not be recomm purchased his property. 3.) That the hardship is not due to eco reasonable use for the property ex un' er o erm the ordinance. s alone and when a Comment: there is no hardshi nstrate' • apparent; rather the proposed lots simply do not meet the minimum uirements for property in a Rural zone. 4.) That grantin special privile. structures, uest not confer on the applicant any 'ed by ordinance to other lands, 'strict. Comment: Graniz lout the demonstration of hardship or unique circumstances wou % ''the applicant special privilege. 5) That the proposed actions 1 be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: The proposed action would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance, as Variances are to be granted only in cases where hardship /unique physical circumstances are present. In conclusion staff noted the proposed Minor Subdivision would result in two lots: Tract B would have a width of 155 feet, thus not meeting the minimum lot width requirement of 330' for property in a Rural zone, nor the requirement of full frontage on a road; Tract A would have 330' of width and road frontage, but it would not be contiguous width or frontage. As a result, staff cannot recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 9 Staff indicated as there are no hardship issues or unique circumstances apparent on the property, staff cannot recommend approval of a Variance from the lot width requirements. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Lindahl, stated he had made massive improvements to the appearance of the property. He stated when he purchased the property, one of the pluses was that it could be split into a one acre lot. He stated he could have bought more land at the time, but the property offered was set at the minimum at the time. He stated his family would like use of the property and one of his sons would like to have a home site there. He stated he needed the easement to build on the site. He indicated the entire easement for driveway access was on tract A, and so the owner of tract A easement. He stated there would not be a prob driveway easement over tract A. He stated a nice one -acre site and had room for three o there were many good home sites remaining. request. the entire driveway ansfer of ownership of the the old farm house made at on tract A considering this c sy the Bo Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification as to property at 815 Ash St.) Mr. Lindahl r was not a part of this. Mr. Rafferty asked if it was wetl ten acres, there was approximat Mr. Rafferty state and now they wet going throu the minimum was there no a barn involved the soils inspector. ew h•u ewas (the neighboring ome was off of this property and home. Mr. Lindahl replied on the 5 acres of hi - ` ground. to the minimum width/frontage to begin with, half. He stated there was an easement 1perty. f he were to change tract B to accommodate oing north to south, to change that to east and west, inimums in that case. Mr. Lindahl replied there was e the best way to split the property on the advise of e proposing c middle ofe N •. tage by instea' ork with t �eeme.# Mr. Lyden stated he had wed this property and it was the perfect place to build a house and the issue was a nonexistent issue when you looked at this specific property in the way it was laid out. Mr. Rafferty stated if Lot B was rotated that would meet the minimum square footage, which would meet the Ordinances. Mr. Lyden stated this was a natural thing they were proposing. He stated the driveway already existed as a natural road. He stated this was a beautiful setting for a nice house. Mr. Rafferty stated if tract B was one acre why couldn't that be rotated. Chair Schaps stated he was not sure if they rotated it, it would catch the house and the driveway would probably be in tract A. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 10 • Mr. Lyden asked the Board not to get hung up on the numbers. He stated this was an opportunity for a unique piece to be used well. • Mr. Hyden stated he would vote the same way as he voted on the previous minor subdivision. He stated his job, as he sees it, is to follow the Ordinances and this was not even close to the Ordinance. At some point they had to start following the Ordinances, or they had to change the Ordinances. He agreed this was a nice piece of property, but at some point they had to follow the Ordinances. He stated if it was close, he would not have an argument, but this was not close. Mr. Lyden stated he respected Mr. Hyden's opinion, but he did not see what could possibly be the downside to putting a house here, other than it did not follow the Ordinances. He stated the Ordinances were there to . s tools. Mr. Zych asked what had changed from prey'b acre. Mr. Lindahl stated everything five ye done. He stated he was not sure what had happ to the Ordinances. out not splitting it to one at this could be years with respect Mr. Rafferty asked if there was any doc he was proposing when the purchased t did not know in what year the 330 -foo aimed that he could do what ears ago. Mr. Lindahl replied he pted. Mr. Smyser replied the regulatio re in `` ` to this lot split. Y P g P� ° Chair Schaps asked if he was he was going to hg believed he sho Mr. Raffe property. He work as long as topography of the lam to get this done at this time. Mr. Lindahl stated vered there was a potential problem, he e p $ tsnow. at a family member would be moving on that was to see if there was something else that would Ines. Mr. Lindahl stated the best use of the as being proposed. Mr. Lyden asked if they w "`ed the home on County Road J or did they want to have the home sit back farther back on the property. Mr. Rafferty stated he did not know how rotating the lot would be detrimental. He stated he did not think rotating the lot would change the location of the home. He stated he would be in favor of tabling this for further research. He stated he was comfortable with what Mr. Lindahl was proposing. Ms. Lane asked if Mr. Lindahl was involved in the proceedings in 1997 when the previous owner split the property. Mr. Lindahl replied he was not aware of that and he had not received any documentation at that time. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, Minor Subdivision & Variance. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 11 Motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to table Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, Minor Subdivision & Variance for one month for additional findings. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. D. PUBLIC HEARING — JADT Development, Lino Lakes Commercial Center, SE corner of Lake Drive and Apollo Drive Intersection, Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Review /CUP accessory drive -thru Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 7: Staff stated JADT Development Group, LLC. ested pr i . ary plat approval to allow a four lot, commercial subdivision (J e ) on property located east of County Road 23 between Apollo Drive and Staff indicated the subject 7.0 acre de lays Outlot B of the Lino Lakes Commercial Development (PDO) wluc M as s ro ;p year. Staff noted in conjunction wi i`= prel lat request, the applicant is also requesting site and building z •royal to _ the construction of a 14,172 square foot retail strip center upon pr c :' Lot 4 of the subdivision and a conditional use permit to allow a drive ° acilit Staff stated t Developme j ect prop' clay (to allo Staff presented through 3) will be McDonald's site. Whi street access, flexibility to zone. SC, Shopping Center with a PDO, Planned us design flexibilities). laining the Access to three of the four lots (Lots 1 a an existing private street located east the adjacent rdinance requires all lots be provided access via a public s requirement can be accommodated via the PDO. As part of the City's previous consideration of the McDonald's proposal, a determination was made that access to the subject property would be provided by the existing private street. Staff noted a cross easement and operation and maintenance agreement will be required as part of the Development Agreement. Staff stated the SC District requires a minimum lot size of three acres. Through the PDO however, flexibility to this requirement can be provided without need for a variance. As shown on the preliminary plat, the proposed lots range in size from 1.7 to 2.3 acres. As demonstrated via the submission of site plans, the configuration of the proposed lots are conducive to future commercial development. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 12 With respect to utilities, staff stated a utility plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. Water and Sanitary sewer service were provided to service the site as part of the Lake /Apollo Drive improvement project. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the utility related modifications and comments as set forth in the City Engineer's memo should to be incorporated into the plans. Staff indicated a grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the grading and drainage related modifications and comments as set forth in the City Engineer's memo should to be incorporated into the plans. The plan is also subject to review and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Staff stated as shown on the preliminary plat proposed along all property lines and over w of such easements should be subject to c Engineer. As a condition of final plat approval, cross recorded with the property. Such easem the City Attorney. Staff stated the tree preservatio grading plan. According to the p Of those significant trees, 16 protected by snow fence prior utility easements have been are . s. The acceptability tion by the City s easements will need to be to review and approval by perimposed upon the preliminary 2 si ees exist upon the subject property. saved ees to be saved are to be flagged and ction. As part of the result, the pr commercia With the sub dedication of $1 it subdiv opment, a p comprisin '>11 be rty, park dedication was not received. As a ill be ` ubject to park dedication requirements. For dication requirement of $2,175 per acre is required. acres of upland area (exclusive of ponding), a park ed prior to the recording of the subdivision. Staff indicated the En ntal Board reviewed the request at their July 31, 2002 meeting and recommended ;`.proval. Their comments are attached to this report. The CEPTED review was completed on June 21, 2002. The primary issues, as addressed on the attached report, regard traffic flow through the development. The development has been redesigned to address these issues. The proposed development is subject to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) approval for both a Land Development Permit and a Wetland Alteration Permit. The RCWD has not taken final action on the request. With respect to site and building plan review, the applicant is seeking site and building plan approval to allow the construction of a 14,172 square foot retail commercial center upon proposed Lot 4. At such time when specific development projects exist for the remaining lots in the subdivision (Lots 1 -3), they will likewise be subject to a site and DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 13 building plan review process. At this point, the site plans provided for Lots 1 -3 are conceptual in nature and are intended to demonstrate the developability of the lots and a comprehensive storm water management and circulation system. Access to the proposed retail center is to be provided via two 30 -foot wide curb cuts along Apollo Drive. While the westerly curb cut is in direct alignment with an existing curb cut to the north, the easternmost curb cut is slightly offset from an existing curb cut to the north. As a condition of site and building plan approval, the easterly curb cut should be shifted approximately 15 feet to the west to create a direct alignment. Additionally, approval of the easterly curb cut will require an access agreeme t with Kohl's. Staff stated the proposed circulation is consi 1 & bceived and is integrated into the overall circulation system proposed for One minor concern that exists in regard to parking arrangement on the west side of the si turn- around should be provided at the weste-ermin or within Lot 3). lation ittemporary dead -end dress this concern, a temporary arking area (either on site Staff indicated while the Planned flexibility from the strict terms of Shopping Center District are con Staff noted within SC zoning As shown on the proposed alon minimum 3 -a lay designation can provide equirements of the underlying SC, e guideline. a 50 -foot setback is required from arterial streets. 30 -foot principal building setback has been the subject property also fails to meet the ,posed in the SC District. Staff stated t can be establishe be related to the hei deviations can be acco acceptability. rdinance does state however, that perimeter setbacks etback requirements of the surrounding district or can ildings. While both the proposed setback and lot area ted via the PDO, City officials should determine their As a condition of site and building plan approval, a determination should be made that the proposed building is consistent with the design guidelines of the Lino Lakes Marketplace PDO. As shown on the submitted building elevations, the proposed building replicates many of the design features of the adjacent Target and Kohl's buildings including: • Colonial Style gable roof forms • Cornice details • A defined base • Accentuated building corners • Finish colors DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 14 The architectural appearance of the building, finish materials and color selections are considered consistent with the Marketplace PDO design guidelines. With respect to parking, the standards for calculating the off -street parking requirements for shopping centers are outlined in Section 3, Subdivision 5 of the City Code. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use 90% of the gross building area. Staff stated a total of 70 off -street parking stalls are required for the proposed shopping center. The applicant's plan calls for 72 stalls and exceeds the minimum off -street parking supply requirement. To be noted howe er, is that one additional handicap parking stall (totaling three spaces) should be requirements. to satisfy applicable State At 18 feet in depth and 9 feet in width, all ,p aria. ave been found to meet the minimum dimensional requirements ` -ction 3, of the Ordinance. Likewise, the proposed 24 -foot wide driv-'so meet minimum Ordinance requirements. With respect to landscaping, staff noted tree replacement plan was required to for one replacement was intended f'p the applicant identified 217 si subdivision. Of these trees, trees to be provided as part of t tre with the original PDO approval, a operation with City Staff. A one e inventory previously prepared by es or greater) within the proposed intender» preserved. This would require 201 opment of the entire site. Staff indicated Specifically, have been have been p proposed along mature of S "ct c ed along the I along Ap 'LL wetl, Ian, a variety of trees are proposed on site. ine, ilorado Blue Spruce and Cranberry Viburnum tate corridor while a row of Little Leaf Linden trees Drive. Additionally, row of Dogwoods has been In review of the landsca staff recommends the following: 1. The Little Leaf Linden trees along Apollo Drive be changed to a Red or White Oak and spaced at 50 feet. 2. Overstory trees be incorporated into the plaza fronting the building replacing the proposed unidentified plantings. 3. The coniferous trees along I -35 be changed to Austrian Pine and White Spruce. 4. The proposed Purpleleaf Plum trees be changed to disease resistant ornamental crab trees. 5. Plantings within the limits of the east ponding area be eliminated. 6. Tamerack Trees be provided around the east ponding area (to tie into the Marketplace development) and be located above the 100 year HWL. • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 15 Additionally, a master landscaping plan, encompassing the entire subdivision, should be submitted for City review and approval. The plan should demonstrate conformance with the tree replacement requirements for the development. With respect to trash enclosures, staff noted, according to Section 3, Subd. 4.G of the Ordinance, all refuse and recyclable materials must be stored within the principal building or within an accessory structure (within a side or rear yard) that is totally screened from eye level view from neighboring uses and public rights of way. As shown on the submitted site plan, trash enclosures have been proposed on east and west sides of the building. While the proposed locations technically meet the s pir concern exists in regard to the placement of th the visibility of the enclosure from Apollo suggested that it be shifted to the south and building. Staff indicated while the multi -tenant buildi design guidelines are specific to buildi requirements should likewise be applie consistency. In this regard, wall sign with the following: ents of the Ordinance, some cture. Of specific concern is asize the enclosure, it is de of the principal Mats of the Marketplace PDO pollb Drive, it is believed the building in order to maintain area ilding should be in accordance 1. Building fronts should maximum width equal exceed 36 a maxiMutti7laverage sign height of 30 inch and a cent of the lease width. Capitol letters should not 2. Building a maximum average sign height of 24 inches and a maxim width equals k 0% of the lease width. Capitol letters should not excee' 3. In no case s building fronts al sign area, per business, exceed 100 square feet for square feet for building rears. Staff indicated the applicant is proposing one freestanding sign in the southwest corner of the development. Such sign location is considered acceptable but should not exceed 25 feet in height, consistent with other signs in the Marketplace development. As required by ordinance, a lighting plan identifying illumination levels on the subject site has been provided. The proposed illumination levels and fixture details have been found to be acceptable. Details regarding fixture type have not been submitted. As a condition of site and building plan approval, specific fixture details should be submitted subject to review and approval by staff. According to the Ordinance, the source of lights should be hooded and controlled so as not to illuminate adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 16 Staff stated prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. Staff indicated the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow an accessory drive -thru facility. The proposed drive -thru lane is located on the east side of the building and is configured to provide ample stacking space and minimize site disruptions. It is estimated that stacking space exists for a minimum of eight vehicles. In considering conditional use permit requests, the Ordinance states that the Planning and Zoning Board shall recommend approval and the City Council shall order the issuance of such permit only if it finds that such use at such loca 'on: 1. Will not be detrimental to or enda �� ' g lac health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of th he C. Comment: Drive -thru facilities current proposed use in not anticip public. ithin th f Lino Lakes. The detrimental or endanger the 2. Will be harmonious with the ge the comprehensive plan of the able specific plans and policies of ce. Comment: The Comprehe";e PI , commercial use of the site. Thus, the propose use sates e; e land use directives of the Plan. 3. Will be de ated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and app r a anc '''the existing and /or intended character of the genera pity and °` change the essential character of that area. ign is consistent with the design guidelines of the ore will not change the character of the area. 4. Will be served a ely by essential public facilities and services, including street, police and fa `F protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Comment: As a condition of project approval, the building will be adequately served by essential public facilities and services. 5. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Comment: This development is not expected to increase public costs, nor be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 17 6. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Comment: The proposed commercial use of the property is not expected to create any excessive externalities that would be abnormal to the character of commercial sites. 7. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. Comment: The site layout meets s a da within the City's Zoning Ordinance including turn lanes, acces th d c s s acin ocation. 8. Will not result in the destruction, loss, . : e of a ti "1al, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Comment: The applicant is current 3s g wrtleeRCWD and City Engineer to satisfy drainage related issues 9. Will conform to specific sta dao use. inance applicable to the particular Comment: The proposed 11 as a condition of approval meet the applicable requirement 3 h 'din Based on the staff reco A. Approval conditions: s report and subject to the conditions listed below, ddition preliminary plat subject to the following 1. The City finds the proposed lot sizes (less than the minimum SC District requirement) to be acceptable. 2. The conditions of the City Engineer's memo (dated 8/9/02) related to grading, drainage and utilities should be satisfied. 3. Cross parking and access easements be recorded with the property at the time of final plat. Prior to recording, such easements shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 4. A park dedication of $13,920 shall be required prior to the recording of the final plat. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 18 5. Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. The agreement shall also contain and operation and maintenance agreement that addresses pond maintenance and incorporates the use of Best Management Practices. B. Site and Building Plan approval to allow the construction of a 14,172 square foot retail center on property located east of County Road 23 between Apollo Drive and I -35W subject to the following conditions: 1. The City approves the JADT Addition final plat. 2. The City finds the proposed 30 -foot princip Building setback from I -35W to be acceptable. 3. The easterly curb cut be shifted appr • : a ® �" �.;15 e � � � 4 = st to align with an existing curb cut to the north. 4. A temporary turn- around be providedi rminus of the parking area (either on -site or within Lot 3). 5. One additional handicap -par st; to `; three spaces) be provided to satisfy applicable State req 6. To de- emphasize the ly trashy ure, it be shifted to the south and attached to the northwe sef'the principal building. 7. Wall signs 'ect required s of the lace P O: a. be in accordance with the following ave a maximum average sign height of 30 inch and a qual to 80 percent of the lease width. Capitol letters shall otE� 6 inches. ��� � , b. Building Re •a s shall have a maximum average sign height of 24 inches and a maximum width equal to 60% of the lease width. Capitol letters shall not exceed 30 inches. c. In no case shall the total sign area, per business, exceed 100 square feet for building fronts and 75 square feet for building rears. 8. The proposed freestanding sign not exceed 25 feet in height. 9. Light fixture details be submitted subject to staff approval. • 10. The source of lights shall be hooded and controlled so as not to illuminate adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 19 11. The conditions of the City Engineer's memo (dated 8/9/02) related to grading, drainage and utilities be satisfied. 12. The following modification be made to the landscape plan: a. The Little Leaf Linden trees along Apollo Drive be changed to a Red or White Oak and spaced at 50 feet. b. Overstory trees be incorporated into the plaza fronting the building replacing the proposed unidentified plantings. c. The coniferous trees along I -35 be changed to Austrian Pine and White Spruce. d. The proposed Purpleleaf Plum trees be changed to disease resistant ornamental crab trees. e. Plantings within the limits of th area be eliminated. f. Tamerack Trees be provided ar dot c nding, area (to tie into the Marketplace development) an o� a cd abo year HWL. 13. A revised master landscaping plan, enc'binp he entire subdivision, should be submitted for City review an d proval ,plan should demonstrate conformance with the tree replacement emenls or the development. 14. A Watershed District Permit be 15. Prior to the commence development agreem required by it agree ity building permit issuance. of anti "work, the applicant enter into a the Ci . d post all the necessary securities all also contain and operation and maintenance 16.That s easement to the South from the Kohl's property regarge eastern ac s " +ff of Apollo. 17. Shrubs ma plaza area instead of trees as proposed. C. Conditional Use Pt approval to allow an accessory drive -thru facility subject to the following con tions: 1. The City approves the JADT Addition final plat. 2. The City approves the submitted site and building plans. Mr. Lyden asked if they would be able to see through the circle at the top of the building. Mr. Kirmis stated he was not sure, but they could add that as a condition. Mr. Lyden asked what the drive through was proposed to be. Mr. Kirmis replied it was a Caribou Coffee. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comments. DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 20 Tim Baylor, JADT, thanked staff for working on this and stated he had no problems with the conditions and recommendations. He stated they were meeting with the Rice Creek Watershed on August 28 and they intended to meet their requirements so they could meet the City's requirements. With respect to the trash facilities, he requested they turn it and landscape it so it was aesthetically pleasing from all sides. He stated they had a small plaza proposed that requested they add additional landscaping to that area instead of having trees. He stated it would be a problem to have trees if they blocked tenants' signage. He stated they were willing to add additional shrubs. He stated they had discussions with several retailers, including a liquor establishment, pizza establishment, video establishment and a Caribou Coffee. He stated they were still in discussion about the west property. He stated they had been talking t• Buffalo Wild Wings, but this was still in the discussion mode. Mr. Lyden stated as long as it was not anoth support this. He asked if the circle could be a would need to discuss this with the architect. with the Marketplace, but anything was possib architect. fence store, he would ook plicant stated he eir inter a e this compatible uld bring this up with the Mr. Rafferty asked if the main concern access for garbage removal. Applican the parking lot and still make it act i the facility. closure design was for ease of they could recess it is bit from aa ers would not want it to close to Mr. Rafferty asked what the en brick. Mr. Rafferty able to m would not ho this. was made of. Applicant replied he believed it was andint enclosure look odd and the architects may be it was attached to the building, but he stated this cant stated he would speak with his architect about Chair Schaps expresses n :ern about the entrance to the restaurant and it being confusing for people going the restaurant. Mr. Grochala stated there would be an extension to the existing entrance to allow access to the proposed restaurant. He indicated the current curb that was there would be removed and the road would continue through. Mr. Kirmis added one additional condition as B16, that they get an access easement to the South from the Kohl's property regarding the eastern access off of Apollo. Chair Schaps added condition B17 to remove the trees and put in shrubs. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 21 • E. • Motion carried 5 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of JADT Development, Lino Lakes Commercial Center, SE corner of Lake Drive & Apollo Drive intersections, Preliminary Plat based on the recommendations and conditions as outlined in staff's report on pages 9 and 10 number Al through A5. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of JADT Development, Lino Lakes Commercial Center, SE corner of Lake Drive & Ap 1. 1 - intersections, Site Plan Review based on the recommendations and conditions tl m lined in staff's report on Pages 10 and 11 B1 through B17. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recomm Commercial Center, SE corner of Lake,; Use Permit based on the recommei Page 11 Cl and C2. JADT Development, Lino Lakes Drive intersections, Conditional ons as outlined in staff's report on titans axi3 The motion was supported by Motion carried PUBLIC of Main St. G, Gary Uh h. of Carl Behms Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions, South — Section 7, Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps opene earing at 8:04 p.m. Staff stated Century Farm I evelopment Inc. has requested rezoning and preliminary plat approval for Behms Century Farms 6th through 10th Additions. The proposed subdivision comprises 95 acres located north of Lilac Street and east of Sunset Road. The subject property is currently zoned R, Rural and would need to be rezoned to R -1, Single Family. The proposed residential subdivision would consist of 156 single family homes distributed in the following additions: 54 homes in the 6th Addition 28 homes in the 7th Addition 26 homes in the 8th Addition 24 homes in the 9th Addition 24 homes in the 10th Addition DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 22 Staff's review of the application submission materials find that the application is incomplete. As such, this report represents only a preliminary review of the overall subdivision and rezoning. A more detailed review will be prepared for the September Planning and Zoning meeting. Staff presented its analysis by explaining to accommodate the proposed development, the following approvals will be necessary: 1. Rezone from R, Rural to R -1, Single Family. 2. Review and approval of the preliminary plat. 3. If the airplane hangars are found to be an acceptable use, a PDO will be required to accommodate the proposed airplane hangars and insure there will be proper maintenance associated with these accessory ,, . -s. 4. There is a need to vacate a portion of t would not be utilized if the subdivision is approved. Said vacatio as a c.ndition of final plat approval. Staff noted in review of the rezoning applic guides this area for low density residential. is consistent with this land use classifi extended to this subdivision as final p consistency with the Comprehensive consistent with the zoning that is,ea 5th Additions located to the south low - density land use pattern. thorough review of the app requirements for th ffind that the new land use plan amily Residential District tiona MUSA would need to be ed and approved. In addition to n of the R -1 zoning would be ehms Century Farms 1st through s to be the logical extension of the of had the opportunity to conduct a to determine if the proposed plats meet the In review o attention: 1. sta ` indicated the following issues need further The prox' fully designe flight patterns wi: ark raises issue as to whether the plat has been e with required airport safety zones to insure that sturb the future residents of the single - family lots. 2. The proposed Behms Century Farms 6th through 10th Additions surround a number of lot exceptions that contain unsewered residential properties. The application has not provided any type of conceptual plan that would illustrate future subdivision or extension of utilities into these areas. In accordance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance, where a plat abuts undeveloped properties. A concept plan can be required and extension of streets should be considered in conjunction with the plat design. 3. There is a need for a park in this area to accommodate the new subdivision and residents that would live within the plat. A detailed park proposal should be outlined for City staff and Planning and Zoning Board consideration. At this point, City staff has not seen any proposal in that regard. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 23 Staff noted in review of the preliminary plat, we find that it appears that the streets generally meet City requirements with regard to right -of -way and street width provisions. The applicant has provided a through street extension for Carl Street to Sunset Drive as a minor collector, consistent with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. A number of issues that had been raised previously with the concept plan related to the number of proposed cul -de -sacs and the provision for landscape islands within the cul -de -sacs. The City, in the past, has indicated an unwillingness to accept the landscape islands as they tend to be an obstacle for snowplows and street maintenance. The City Public Works Director should comment as to the acceptability to the proposed landscape islands and cul -de -sac design at this time. Staff indicated as per previous discussions, in revie be opportunities for the extension of local streets allow for future subdivision of undeveloped p for extension of local streets within the plat curb cuts or street entrances onto Sunset Road; of the preliminary plat, there may bdivision exception areas to e of the plat. These options d rather than continuous Staff stated in preliminary review of the plat, requirements of the R -1 District related to lotvdth an an interior lot in the R -1 District is 80 a th a lot ar design illustrates lots that meet or exce appear to be irregular in shape and w building pad that would not require would include Lot 15 in Phase 2 enerally appear to meet all the The minimum lot width for f 10,800 square feet. The standards. A number of lots do instrate that they can provide a accommodate a home. These lots the 10th Addition. Staff stated Sunset Road is de should have suffice protect the priv illustrating ho requireme as a collector street. Lots that abut Sunset Road to provide a 20 -foot wide landscape buffer to eseA A detailed landscape plan must be submitted ill be 'properly landscaped to meet and satisfy City Staff stated Car et Road at the southwest corner of the proposed plat. There is a single fam om at is an exception to this subdivision that has a driveway located within five feet arl Street right -of -way as proposed. There is issue as far as the curb cut location with the street entrance at this intersection. Attention should be given to correcting this by requiring relocation of the driveway or allowing for the curb cut to enter Carl Street. With respect to grading and drainage, staff noted to date they have not received a grading and drainage plan or wetland mitigation plan. These plans are critical to the overall site. The site is generally characterized as having a number of wetlands that will greatly influence design. Additionally, there is a drainage ditch along the eastern portion of the plat that results in some severe slopes. Without having the grading plan, staff is not prepared to say that the subdivision design is acceptable in its current fashion. Staff noted a number of outlots are being proposed as part of the subdivision. These outlots contain wetland areas and drainage swales. Determination as to future ownership and use of the outlots must be defined as part of the preliminary plat and a determination DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 24 is needed regarding if they should be dedicated to the City as green space or held in private ownership by the homeowners' association. Staff stated Carl Street right -of -way traverses the proposed plat. A portion of Carl Street will require vacation with the platting of the new Carl Street alignment. The vacation of this right -of -way will have to be done through a public hearing held by the City Council. The Planning Commission will need to make a finding that the vacation of this right -of- way is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that there is no current or future anticipated public need to return the right -of -way. In review of the proposed street alignments, they feel that with the platting of the new Carl Street alignment, the old right - of -way is no longer necessary for either street or utility purposes and vacation would be appropriate. Staff noted the applicant has shown an area accessory buildings that would be used a purchase a lot and still have access to the ai Block 6 of the 2nd Addition. The hangars ar the William Brothers pipeline, a gas line ease proposed hangar space may be a more ap introducing single family homes in close nded for the construction of residents who wish to ocated on Lot 16, at is encumbered by ;nsideration of the land use, the this location rather than as pipeline. Staff stated access to the hangars wou ugh the airport. If this were to proceed ahead, we would ask that d of e hangar construction, including elevations, be provided to insure ®• he h uld be designed in a manner that is compatible and complementary e surro single- family homes. Additionally, we would like to see an association established for the hangars that would outline the terms under whic� ce air v ership would be established. Access into the hangar area should 1 Street for emergency vehicles, as well as general user In conclusion as detern to cl that the application is incomplete. Initially, the submittal was re vs° July 002. At that time, issues of concern, comments, and an outline of the su id to complete application were provided. To date, not all the information has eived. The City staff recommends that the City open the public hearing at the Augu Planning and Zoning meeting, take public comment, and then continue the public hearing to the September meeting and direct the applicant to provide the following information: 1. Grading and drainage plans for the entire preliminary plat. 2. Wetland mitigation plans. 3. A park dedication plan must be outlined and defined to be acceptable by City staff and the Park and Rec Board. 4. A landscape plan that illustrates the intended landscaping for the buffer yard abutting Sunset Road. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 25 5. The plat should illustrate the flight safety zones necessary to allow Lino Airpark to continue to operate in the future without negatively impacting the newly created single family lots. 6. Public Works should provide comments as to the acceptability of landscape islands within the proposed cul -de -sac areas. 7. The applicant should describe how the wetlands and outlots will be utilized or owned pertinent to the establishment of greenway corridors and whether they will become public open space or owned privately through a homeowners' association. 8. A concept plan be that illustrates the future being surrounded by the Behms Ce potential street corridors and lot con negatively impacting Sunset Drive (c currently requested. on of the exceptions (that are reliminary plat) including be implemented without bdivision that is The applicant should provide a description of arcchitec imposed on the proposed hangar area as would guarantee continued maintenance Chair Schaps invited applicant to John Johnson, the applicant's County Road D, Little Canada. regarding alteratio dards that would be ssociation rules that er, Metro �`6 Surveying & Engineering, 412 uested feedback and direction from the Board ary of the proposal. Ferrill Robin collector stree the traffic im of service for se west minor collector RF Consu He reviewed t% e area frog very tion roup,'summarized the proposal for the roads and ffic report prepared on behalf of the applicant and resent to 2015. The report includes expected levels year 2015 conditions, it was assumed that the east - uld be constructed north of Carl Street. Mr. Lyden asked what percent of traffic went north v. south on the collector street. Mr. Robinson summarized that information from the report. Mr. Lyden asked if they had assumed there would be a cloverleaf at I35W and Main. Mr. Robinson replied they had not assumed there was going to be a cloverleaf at I35W and Main. Mr. Smyser stated this traffic report was inconsistent with what was discussed previously. He stated the developer does not want to connect to Carl Street, even though staff recommends there is a connection. He stated there were a number of concerns among residents regarding traffic if the road went through. He stated the design did allow the road to be built, which would not impact the existing homes as far as setback issues. He stated the problem with putting this off into the future is that they would be creating a new neighborhood that had only outlets onto Sunset and this was something to be avoided. The other things is that if this road did not get connected to Carl Street, staff had no idea when/if the connection would be made. He stated if they created a DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 26 development of over 100 lots with only access onto Sunset Road, staff did not believe this was a good idea. He stated no viable alternative has been presented to have this connection. He explained the last discussions indicated the connection would be made, but this traffic report ignored this connection and assumed traffic would only flow out onto Sunset. He stated the Carl Street connection had to happen. If this connection did not go through, the City had some serious circulation problems that would arise in the future. Mr. Rafferty stated there were different locations in the City where there were temporary cul -de -sacs. He asked if this was the same with Carl Street. He asked if it was intended to go through. Mr. Smyser replied different people remember different things regarding this and he was not here at that time. He stated the record is foggy regarding this. He stated there had been an original concern regarding being able to go through because of this wetl determined wetland originally was now not c concern and it would need to be addressed a stated the answer to Mr. Rafferty's question w He stated the assumption was that there was w through, but the wetlands had been reanalyze that was upset with this being reanalyzed ds and the connection not what was originally He tated this was a d parkland. He pened in the past. west and it would not go e was a resident in that area Mr. Robinson stated they were not recd looking at the traffic impacts at w not be any different if Carl went Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Smyser road from Carl to stated the reside: reason they w it significan ground water previously defin confirm this with the respect to this collector ection to Carl; they were just stmg. He stated the impacts would ect and the only place that they could build a was along the existing Carl alignment. He e verb; ,Rp appy with that conclusion and that was the ative onnection. He agreed this was a big issue and ith respect to wetland, there was not any in -depth had since done that analysis and what was of meet the wetland criteria. He stated they would atershed District also. He asked for feedback with e stated they were not opposed to making a connection, looking at acted the pl.`" done, and g g�, eland but the issue was where the onnection should be. He indicated the other big issue was the amount of parkland proposed. He stated this was not an easy subdivision and it had a lot of issues that needed to get resolved. He stated they had also had attempted to work with the current residents in the area. Mr. Lyden asked if it was possible to do option 4, that might be the best option with respect to the road. Ray Kirchoff, 7742 Mustang Lane, stated there were a lot of residents upset on Mustang Lane also. He stated the reason they paid the extra money for their lot was because they were told there was wetland behind them that was going to stay. He stated he felt like he had been taken advantage of, misinformed, and lied to. He expressed concern of the environmental impact of this development and the loss of wetlands. He stated he felt very threatened. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 27 Sheila Peterson, 7748 Mustang Lane, stated they were told it was wetland and would never be developed. She stated they were told no road would ever go through there. She agreed with everything Mr. Kirchuck had said. She stated she was very upset by this proposal. She expressed concern for the safety of the children in the area. She stated if this was approved, there be more than one access. She expressed concern regarding the traffic. Jim Obula ( ?sp), representative of Lino Air Park Association, expressed concern regarding the current residents in the area, turning Carl Street into a collector street, and the impact of this development on the Air Park. He expressed concern about pedestrians crossing the runway. He expressed concern about neise impact to the proposed development from the Air Park. He requested fence w andscaping be made to reduce pedestrian traffic and as a sound barrier e bxp sed concern about the airspace around the Air Park. He stated they did not bo wie C �t needed to be a collector at this time. Linda Eckhardt, 215 Palomino Lane, "I am no however, I have been advised that to assure the continued usage of our prope for rose for which I have purchased it, it would be best to go on re rc ' y con . I also want to be clear u.� that my comments reflect my personal concerns. _ of speaking on behalf of the airp purchased my ' build my house, I knew I was airpark. When I urchased m land an u • �_� a� a �� purchasing land that would be co Leto anrpa-,community. That was the sole reason I decided to purchase this m I has many other lots but the deciding . o ±': h. � � � factor was the fact that my horn - uld be p . Wig. airpark community which would afford me the opportunity to b e ger, keep a plane in my backyard and to be able to fly that plane from ay kyard. It was a community for which the City of Lino Lakes • Dep at of Transportation had developed ordinances an lations t rt its operation, safety and the safety of others in the area. The - had been in cation for many years prior to my purchasing this land. Other ho ne built before since have been given permits by the city to build hangers. The city ab shed regulations about sizes of the hangers, the setbacks of our house and our hangers and i[shed other regulations which endorsed this property as one which would be entr entitle have and operate an airpark. My concern is that I be able to keep the right and ability . use the property for the purpose that it was purchased. I would like to be assured that any new development that is approved in Lino Lakes does not infringe on the agreements established by the City of Lino Lakes for safety and the operation of aircraft on this airpark. I additionally, want to the assurance that those existing regulations that effect the land and airspace safety zones for the operation of this airpark, not be modified or changed whereas to make operations unsafe or non- operational. Houses must not be allowed to be built which enter into the air safety zone either by being too close to our runway or being so tall as to enter the transition zones. Clearly, the City of Lino Lakes has supported the usage of the airpark and the airpark community be establishing a history of regulations and the issuance of permits. So as you consider approving the development in question tonight, I ask you to assure that your approval would in no way allow for any infringement on our rights and ability to utilize the airpark for its intended purpose. Given that this assurance is made and the City DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 28 • enforces the Ordinances and regulations already in placed, I have no objection to the development in question. Thank you for your consideration." Bill Noel, 346 Carl Street, requested the road not go through Carl Street. He stated when he bought his lot he was informed that the road would not go through. He was assured that the street was going to be dead -end. He expressed concern regarding additional traffic and the impact this proposal would have on his property value. He stated he had purchased his property in 1991. Jeff Kolstad, 296 Carl Street, stated he had lived in his home since 1996. "I respectfully request that you allow me to document my concerns over the proposed Comprehensive Plan initiative to extend Carl Street to allow for neig boyhood connections and emergency vehicle access. My home is the last hom Lino Air Park North. The plat shows my lot a is relevant to the case at hand. Let me fill yo with any of the City's records: In 1996, lots wetlands by Ultieg Engineers and The Rice Cr was not granted permission to develop the rem as a fully finished curbed cul -de -sac with m However, current plans are in process for reach east to my property line. Lots 15 by Carl Street only and that is why the that those lots were considered we and developer ended Carl Street easement. Obviously, a misse question: Why can the wetlan sago? My lot (14 lot nearest to th Because of th the hanger considerable proposed street is a very real hazard. my home. 2. My prope homes in cul -de -sacs are m arl Street cul -de -sac on 4. The historical background Youmay check the facts ere considered The Developer ;=and thus, Carl St. was designed o as the ® elopable property. e lop off of Sunset which will originally platted to be accessed that access. Due to the fact d` ale, the city planners, engineers 1 -de- "w' ever bothered to negate the cality fix` ®a std like to pose the most obvious developed when it could not a mere six -year Bated. As a result, my home was placed on the in the plat with access from Carl Street. was orced to place my home nearest the ditch, with treet were extended, it would cause me ng reasons: 1. The proximity of my home to the afety or comfort. I have small children and this poses ere to continue straight, it would run within 18 feet of be decreased drastically. It is common knowledge that e desirable and have higher resale values. 3. There is not enough room to allow for a curbed street of any size, let alone an easement for the ditch and for my home. To consider making the road smaller or moving it closer to my home as a solution is not realistic. It would be intrusive to me and in violation of the intent of the original development. The distance between the ditch bank and my home is 88 feet. The original plat established a 66 -foot easement along the ditch as access to lots 15 -21. As mentioned earlier, these were never developed because they were delineated as wetlands, and the plat was never adjusted to negate the proposed easement. Therefore, Carl Street ended where the 1992 Federal and State Wetland Acts forced it to end. 4. In 1995 when the final plat was approved, Carl Street was purposely curved 45 feet further to the south in order to stay a safe distance from the ditch and allow for appropriate storm water drainage. This design was required and approved at the time by the Rice Creek Watershed District and by the City of Lino Lakes. The developer met this requirement. If the City currently changes its position to fit their proposed needs, it violates Federal, DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 29 State, County, and Municipal laws and Ordinances. The City officers are not above the law. They are as bound as the developer and the residents. 5. The City in its pursuit of the Comprehensive Plan and considerations for future developments have not paused enough to review the impact this planning is having on current residents. The City planners must consider all parties impacted by such planning: Government agency requirements like the DNR, Rice Creek Watershed, Federal Wetlands Acts, input from engineers, and most importantly the opinions and concerns of current residents. Carl Street was engineered and developed in accordance with the laws, rules and ordinances at the time — all of which are still relevant today. Extending Carl Street without the proper regard for this history and recognition of the current status is irresponsible use of municipal power. 6. The current development proposed by Mr. Gary Udhe (sic) has several realistic alternatives to emergency vehicle ac ess. Mr. Uhde (sic) has expressed his concern as well that extending Carl Street is not ption nor advantageous to his project. Please refer to plat designs for his ® el 7. It has been mentioned by City Officials that the preference is to affect per o r an a whole development. I'd like to make the point that making Carl S nigh s t is my neighbors along its entire length by increasing traffic in of r ® orhoo. y gi in an alternative g � Y � g �� � '� g to people looking for shortcuts out to Sunset. Lilac sand 242 are only Y2 mile away. If the City is looking for another access, whdn't they Thomas Street through during development of the Behm Century ect? There would have been no problems with wetlands, easements, ditch Team or resident property infringements. 8. Eventually, as deve s F : of Blaine, 2' the sod fields to the North of me will be developed. Aess to extent a road through to Sunset would be extremely advanta eou e's �rovides for connection to the sod fields allowing for future acces '.. a 30 y '` dent of Lino Lakes, infringing on my property rights using the logic . : the only person inconvenienced is not valid. Emergency vehicle�ce nei . d connections that are part of the Comprehensive ® �� «e with plating current citizens rights and property. Consider for .ale Mr. idh sic) prat submissions, which show realistic emergency access through.- ent and future d elopment. Thank you kindly for allowing me to set the matter stra.. Please keep informed of working sessions and progress on the decisions the Ci yo empl`'about this subject. Mr. Kolstad presented to 7nyser a petition signed by 15 residents on Carl Street expressing their objection tof the extension of Carl Street. Mr. Lyden stated it was his belief that Carl Street was not just a street, but it was a neighborhood and an existing neighborhood should not be destroyed for the benefit of a new development. Glenn Martig, 376 Carl Street, stated he had lived there for 16 years. He stated he was told the cul -de -sac was permanent. He stated the area where the power line was located was the appropriate area for a street. He agreed with Mr. Kolstad's comments. He stated they are an established neighborhood and requested the City not "mess" their neighborhood up. Carl Johnson, 314 Carl Street, stated at the last Council work session, he spoke against the extension of Carl Street and the City staff stated an extension needed to go through DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 30 right away. He stated he did not understand why Carl Street needed to go through right away. He stated there was not an immediate need to extend Carl Street. He stated the further development of airpark lots was essential. Richard Raby, 287 Palomino Lane, stated he was interested in buying one of the proposed Air Park lots and he would give much less consideration to buying if it involved clustered hangars. He stated his preference would be toward having individual hangars that were not attached to other hangars. He stated he would be interested in a lot that had a size that was the size of the current lots. He stated he would not be interested in a small lot. He stated he would prefer the hangar be located close to the house and not in any remote location. He stated his had this position because what this Air Park offered was something unique over other airports. Ernest Olsen, 306 Carl Street, stated he purcha, invested in a new hangar. He stated when he the City, the neighbors and others and he wa would not go through. He expressed concern values. n 1998 and just recently erty he had spoken with rmanent and it oad on his property Robinson Landscaping, 7902 Sunset, stat and to E eve op that area when he had spoken to two developers last year and i � ' em down. How was a road going to go through the sod fields, when the , w� F, it? Chair Schaps stated there were a 1 stated they needed to have a n ' this neighborhood meeting was s i last meeting was i supported the Air es that needed to be addressed. He hood me 'prior to the September meeting and if d, this would be continued again. He stated if the ing had to be held. He stated the City s development did not impact the Park. Mr. Johnso times since t the residents an issue was the conne the collector road shoul the members of the Air Park at least a half a dozen He stated they had been in communication with onally spoke with many of them. He stated the big treet. He asked the Board for an indication as to where ated and if there should be a collector road at this time. He stated they would put th $collector road wherever the City wanted it. They would work with whatever proposed worked for everyone. He stated with respect to the Air Park lots, space became a limiting factor and those lots would go at a premium. He stated they had preserved the airspace and those lots would have conditions placed on them that would prohibit their height and location of the buildings. He stated the collector road was one issue and the Air Park was another. He also requested they speak to the park and trail system issues. Chair Schaps requested the Board receive copies of all prior plats. Mr. Lyden stated exhibit 5 would protect Carl Street. He stated hangars should be individual hangars and the lots should be of the same size in the area. He stated the zoning of R -1 should be R -1X or R -1XL. He stated density was an issue. DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 31 Mr. Rafferty stated his concern was that the Air Park was a unique situation and he strongly suggested they try to continue with those efforts and leave those lots as Air Park lots. He expressed concern about the density of the project. He believed Carl Street should not go through and should remain a cul -de -sac. The connector street should be in a different location. Mr. Hyden concurred with both Mr. Lyden and Mr. Rafferty. He stated it made sense to him to put the road along the power line, but he would like to see more information on this. Ms. Lane also concurred with the other comments. With respect to trail and open space, she would defer that decision to the Park Board. She did not feel this was her position to comment on that. Mr. Zych agreed with staff and what the Come ens A « . resented. He stated they did not own the land where the power lines wer pre� �� ®� about connections for emergency vehicles. Chair Schaps stated he did not want to see t connector road did need to go through any had was from the residents who lived t e_ �6 staff has nothing to show otherwise, then the connector road should not be lines. He asked why they were cr requested further research rega 'nged. He stated a ky, the only record they were told it was permanent and could be permanent. He stated it should be over by the power ots around the Air Park. He ncerns on Mustang Lane. Gary Uhde, Cen Park rights. Wi . numerous time stated they did. He indi difficult to sell. ing irk the resid rid they ha• e rected by sta for [e stated they more marketable. H would be astronomical tated they would not infringe upon the Air p, they met with the Air Park representatives working with them regarding their concerns. He Council to work with the neighborhood, which they mg so many Air Park lots was because they were pted to shrink the lots down smaller to make them lots remained as large as the previous lots, the price d ' ay's buyer. Mr. Smyser stated staff recognized the resident's concerns along Carl Street. He stated the point was that they had a plan as to how the City should be drawn out. He indicated if Carl Street was not connected now, it was guaranteed there would not be a connection in the future. He stated if the road went along the power line in the future, the City would have to deal with 150 residents at that time who opposed that connection. He stated the area to the north was not for sale. They were only deferring the decision down the line and the same problem would exist in the future. He stated they were losing the opportunity for a collector street and this was the only opportunity the City had to put in a collector street now. He indicated Options 4 and 5 were unrealistic, even though it looked good on paper. He stated there was no way to know when/if that property was going to develop. He indicated that was the problem staff was dealing with. DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 32 Mr. Lyden stated he was not in support of destroying this neighborhood and the developer would have to work out these issues. Mr. Robinson stated the road could be put through if the City would allow a developer to buy his land. Chair Schaps suggested he have a discussion with Mr. Uhde. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend continuation of the Public Hearing to the September meeting to allow applicant time to obtain the information required as outlined in staff's report. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 9:54 p. F. PUBLIC HEARING, Subdivision Ordinanc Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at LQ.. Staff stated a task force appointed by th the planning consultant on a new subdi draft ordinance. The next step in as been working with staff and he task force has completed a a public hearing on the ordinance. Staff indicated the subdivision "T ce regu s I' e subdivision of land. It does not deal with lot sizes, setbacks, bin eight, allowable uses, and the like. Such requirements are re the - a o dinance. We are revising the zoning ordinance and, mple et W will bring it through the review process. Staff stated,:, document, w d thus a work in progress. As we review the revisions to the text for clarification purposes. Staff presented its an i 'laining the purpose of the public hearing is to discuss any aspect of the draft o ` st;e that is of interest to the public or the P & Z members. Some general points of interest include: Better list of definitions in Sec. 1001. These have been coordinated with definitions in the zoning ordinance. When the zoning ordinance is complete, some revisions may be appropriate. Clear lists of submittal requirements for preliminary plats, final plats, and minor subdivisions. Clear descriptions of what is specifically required and prohibited in order to eliminate ambiguity and confusion. Staff highlighted the following: DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 33 Premature Subdivision Standards and MUSA Allocation Criteria: These are included in the General Provisions, Sec. 1002. A proposed plat will be compared to these standards to ensure there is adequate infrastructure to support the plat. Note that several items refer to the City's growth management policy. This policy, which will set out specific methods to monitor growth and keep it at the desired level, will be finalized by the City Council in the next few months. Sketch Plan Review: An informal sketch plan step has been added. It is not mandatory but is strongly recommended. Making it mandatory would start the clock on the review deadline. This would not fit into our review process. Therefore, we will emphasize the value of an informal sketch plan review process. Waexpect most developers will participate. Preliminary Plat: Requirements include a tre and .a phasing plan. Tree Plan: The tree plan requirements do not m;e percentage of trees. Rather, they require a completefi affected by the development. City staff and the develo saving trees, and the plan will then clearl rhte_h trees saved. If trees are lost that were designat± ratio. We will add text on page 1004.3f- described in Section 1009, is mand to preser : specified Cory of all trees that will be discuss the potential for be lost and which will be they must be replaced at a 2:1 Free preservation plan, as Phasing Plan: The required p final platting of portions of the might allow fifty loi way, we can tra future. lan for e= dat will specify a schedule for the ent. For example, the phasing of a 150 -lot plat year, fifty next year, and fifty the next. This 1 be created in each of several years in the One point fo implements a pro submitted as phase o that a certain percentage can be submitted? page 1004.11, paragraph 16. As the developer a final plat application for phase two will likely be completion. The question is, should the City require se one is built out before the fmal plat for the next phase This requirement would ensure that the project is proceeding according to the schedule rather than having a large number of lots platted but not selling. It is important that the lots that are approved do get built on in order to meet the growth goals. On the other hand, the demand for housing is so great that this probably will not be a problem, and such a requirement may be more trouble than it's worth. If, developer A isn't on schedule, do we give his MUSA to another developer? How do we track these once we have a schedule of approved lots established for the next three years? Two clarifications should be added to the text. On page 1004.4, requirements for the preliminary plat sheet should include showing the delineated wetland boundaries and the ordinary high water level of any protected waters. This will be added as paragraph 16. on DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 34 that page. On page 1004.5, paragraph 6. should include the normal water level and high water level of all stormwater ponds, wetlands, lakes, etc. Final Plat: Requirements include bringing final plats through the Planning & Zoning Board as well as the City Council. Because of the importance of the phasing plans, staff thought it a good idea to have the P & Z aware of how the growth management system is working. On page 1005.5, a reiteration of the percentage of completion issue occurs. We will amend this to match the statement in the preliminary plat section after P & Z discussion. Minor Subdivisions: An important change from our current procedures is that the draft ordinance states that minor subdivisions would be r administratively, rather than ded to reduce the time and go through the P & Z and City Council. This c expense —for the applicant and the City —for for lot dimensions, wastewater treatment and clear whether or not a proposed lot split meets meets the requirements, it should be approved the opportunity to request a variance from A variance or appeal would then go thro ith clear requirements sties i nd nimums, etc., it is irements the application lay. Applicants always have appeal the staff decision. Council. Please note a correction to be made on 1 aph 1 should end at "...Sections 1004 and 1005 of this aph 2. should begin there, and say: The exchange of abutting land en owne line between two abutting, exist er, .� els of property. `ugh the relocation of the boundary Paragraph 3. m somebody wo. three lots or- enough that undesirable prole parcels, then wants tin This scenario would be problem. However, the fiv The task force had a concern that g property by using repeated minor subdivisions of & Z discussion is whether or not this is likely a resubdivision within five years. It might be an ple, somebody splits 40 acres into two 20 -acre "them a couple years later into two 10 -acre parcels. of size requirements, and would not in and of itself be a ear prohibition would prevent it. Design Standards: There are a number of design requirements that are not listed in the existing ordinance. Land in electricity transmission or pipeline easements cannot be used to fulfill the minimum buildable land requirement for a lot. (page 1007.2) Clarification that every new lot must have the minimum lot width fronting on a public street. (page 19007.2, paragraphs 4. and 5.) Access management requirements for access to collectors and arterials. (page 1007.2, paragraphs 6. and 7.) Paragraph 6. should be amended to say "...major collector street... ". DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 35 Setbacks must be shown for each lot on the plat drawing. (1007.3, par. 8) Minimum 10' buffer around all wetlands, and buildable lot area cannot include this buffer. (1007.3, par 9) Conservation subdivision open space categories and ownership requirements are listed. Conservation subdivision design is not mandatory. If this option is chosen by the developer, ownership and management of the open space must be addressed. A joint trench requirement for utilities has been added. This has been the City's practice, but it has not been formally adopted by ordinance. (1007.9 — 1007.10) Park Dedication: The City adopted new park d equirements last year. These have been included in the . new subdivision ord an No changes were made. Improvements: Section 1010 lists ele installed, and mandates certain ones as the dev ew deve, t that must be esponsib ' In the event a rural visions for communal septic clustering application comes in, this section inc system (p. 1010.2). The new development agreement` _ ents include a final grading survey to ensure that the gradingyppmplemeed by the developer. Mr. Rafferty stated he was in agreemen th 8 =nt completion to encourage the developers to finish the developm H stater wi ese guidelines would force the developers to complete the site. the` ers needed to be contained and forced to uphold their promise ;.made to the- y and the residents. Chair Schaps agree Mr. Lyden ask° they did have Ms. Lane stated slae consider stating it by centive for a developer it be to`keep track of all of this. Mr. Smyser replied ich was not available in the past. 80 percent completion, but they may want to also f unsold lots and not only in a percentage. Mr. Smyser added a condit n to the preliminary plat requirements "16. Ordinary high water level of protected waters and the delineated wetland boundaries ". Paragraph 6 on page 5, to add words, "including the normal water level and high water level of all ponds and water courses ". He stated they were proposing the Final Plat comes to the Planning and Zoning Board, as well as the Council. He stated no work would begin until Final Plat approval. He stated another change is that minor subdivisions would be approved by staff and if staff did not approve the minor subdivision, the applicant could appeal it and it would come before the City Council. He asked how the Board felt about staff handling minor subdivisions and should variances and appeals go to P &Z and then Council, or just go to Council. The Board agreed to let staff handle the minor subdivisions the variances and appeals should go to P &Z and then Council. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 36 Mr. Rafferty asked how easy would it be to change and modify the Ordinance in the future if needed. Mr. Smyser replied it would be published, brought to P &Z and continue through the process. He indicated this Ordinance would follow the same procedures for amending as any other Ordinance in the City. Mr. Smyser asked if they should allow shared driveways in single - family townhomes. The Board reached the consensus to not allow shared driveways. Mr. Smyser asked if surveys for minor subdivisions should show driveways on the other side of the street The Board reached the consensus this was not necessary. Mr. Lyden expressed concern regarding the Metropolitan Council's request for number 11 on page 1004.9 regarding future urbanization for -,wer and water provision. He stated this recommendation was very unfri w esidents. He stated the landowner should be able to plan out their 1. a w: R t to Mr. Smyser replied landowners were not in the business of pl Mr. Smyser asked if they were comfortable wi requested a vote. Mr. Lyden replied he was absolutely no recommendation. Ms. Lane asked if they were re recommendation. Mr. Smyser o foll d they w& olitan Council's request and th the Metropolitan Council's tropolitan Council's Mr. Lyden express o � t the g . olitan Council could direct the City to add this type of a reco Ms. Lane s Ordinance wo this, then she was e would not ez l be passed ped to i issue with the recommendation if it meant the f Metropolitan Council had no authority to direct Metropolitan Council's endation passed 3 -2 (Lyden, Lane). Barbara Bor, 7707 20`h Avenue, stated she lived in a rural area and requested clarification of septic systems. She stated she was a representative of over 200 residents of the northeast corner of the City and they were very concerned with the preservation of keeping the area rural. Mr. Smyser addressed her questions and concerns. Mr. John Johnson, a consulting engineer, stated he strongly supported the sketch plan concept. He liked the idea of the phasing plan, but he stated he was concerned about the wording with it. He asked what could control the start of the various phases. He agreed to a degree with the easement requirements. He stated if the easement was in excess of the width, they then needed to pick a number. He strongly supported a certified grading plan. He stated this had been problem for him in the past. He suggested if they wished to deviate from the plan, the designer of the plan should also approve the deviation. He stated very few developers build the homes, they usually sell to a builder. He stated all of DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 37 their lots were typically presold prior to obtaining financing. He asked if the lots were sold, would that satisfy the percentage criteria. Mr. Rafferty replied it was his understanding that the home would be completed before the developer would be allowed to continue. Mr. Johnson stated it was a good idea, but he asked there be some refinement of the requirements. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 11:25 p.m. The motion was supported by Mr. Zych. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Zych left the meeting at 11:25 p.m. Mr. Lyden asked why growth zones were so stated the Comprehensive Plan had just been a addressed in this Ordinance. Chair Schaps point guidelines. y have them. He and thoseredients were not this Ordinance gave Mr. Lyden indicated they were already He asked what was the City suppose to Grochala stated that was were the :=der Ordinances to implement the Coensiv they could talk about this forevut they w rehensive Plan requirements. ady met the 2010 goals. Mr. o and without the approval of e City had no guidelines. He stated moving forward. Mr. Lyden stated or the Board wets made a mess o la as an individual, but he took offense that he, He stated to insinuate that he held this up and Mr. Grochala long drawn out p started and he could' were trying to get to a po that. uating anyone was doing anything, but this was a ere assumptions made six years ago when it first at did or did not take place in those six years, but they implement a plan and this Ordinance was their intent to do Mr. Lyden asked what about the fact that they were beyond their stated goals. Mr. Grochala replied this document had nothing to do with that. Chair Schaps stated no one was going to argue that they were beyond their goals, but that should not prevent Mr. Lyden from getting behind a set of Ordinances that would get him exactly what he wanted, orderly and organized growth in the City. Mr. Rafferty stated a good example of those issues that were being outlined in this Ordinance was agenda items earlier tonight where there were guidelines in place and they voted to go against what the City had outlined as minimum requirements in certain areas. He stated while this might be minor, his point was that their job was to try and do the best they could to stick within the guidelines of what the City had outlined. He stated if they DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 38 were going to go by the guidelines, then they needed to follow them. He stated he did not believe anyone was trying to insinuate it was anyone's fault, but they are not going to be able to do anything if they are not allowed to move forward. Mr. Lyden replied that there were Ordinances and specifics that needed to be met, and if that was the end of the case and people did not meet specifics, then that would be the end of the discussion. However, there are variances in which someone can ask the Board for other consideration and the Board needs to weight if it is good thing or a bad thing and this is two different things they are talking about. Mr. Rafferty stated if the City wanted to go by guidelines, then they needed to stick with them. Chair Schaps stated they had to continue to update tl, changes in environmental concerns and change concerns had nothing to do with this Ordin beyond their goals, but nobody could predict close the City to people who wanted to live in ces to keep up with the indicated Mr. Lyden's ows the City was d they could not Ms. Lane pointed out that the Ordinance nee even if they did not have a Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lyden expressed concern about the del a -: " requirement for roads. Mr. Grochala replied "C" was the typict le Mr. Lyden asked if they could omethin: er. at moved traffic sufficiently. Mr. Rafferty point 1;• e an'� ig e . • ads were County Roads and the City had no control over the Mr. Raffer of July 9 dr ommend approval of the draft subdivision ordinance by the July 10 memo. The motion was sup Motion carried 3 -1 (Lyden VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr. Lyden asked for an update on the Island project. Mr. Smyser replied Council decided an environmental assessment worksheet must be prepared and they were still working on that with the developers. It had not yet been completed. Mr. Rafferty asked if they knew when it would be completed. Mr. Smyser replied the applicant would be submitting additional information to be reviewed by the City. Staff did not know when the information would be submitted and approved. VII. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 14, 2002 Page 39 Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:58 p.m., and was supported • by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0. • Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT MINUTES • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: AGENDA ITEM 5A Tanda Gretz September 11, 2002 Minor Subdivision For property located at 82XX West Rondeau Lake Road Laraine Cardarelli & Craig Severson ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Ms. Cardarelli and Mr. Severson are applying for a Minor Subdivision of approximately 32 acres of land, zoned Rural, on the 82XX block of West Rondeau Lake Road. The applicant would like to create two lots: one lot of 21.69 acres and one lot of 10.43 acres. This review is based on the following attached exhibits: 1.) General Location Map 2.) Certificate of Survey, dated July 17, 2002. ANALYSIS The attached Certificate of Survey shows the proposed division of the 32 -acre parcel. Parcel A, 21.69 acres, contains 22 % upland. Parcel B, 10.43 acres, does not have upland delineated on the survey, but as aerial photos show the land to have been in agriculture (and now in pasture), meeting the 20% minimum upland requirement does not appear to be an issue. • • • Planning & Zoning Board Cardarelli /Severson Minor Subdivision September 11, 2002 Land Use & Zoning Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Rural Land Use Rural West Low Density, Unsewered Residential & Low Density, Sewered Residential Rural North Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural East Rural Land Use Rural South Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural Minimum Lot Requirements Size: the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is ten acres. Both of the two proposed lots will meet this requirement. Width: the minimum lot width for property in a Rural zone is 330 feet, and both lots meet this requirement. In addition, both lots will have full frontage on a road, as required under the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance, Section 1008.08, subdiv. 6, which states that "all lots shall abut for their full frontage on a publicly dedicated street." Easements and Right -of -Way All created lots are required to include drainage and utility easements. The applicant will need to dedicate drainage and utility easements to the City in accordance with Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance Section 1001.08, subdiv. 4. Such easements shall be five feet in width along side property lines, ten feet in width along front and rear property lines, and cover all ponding and wetland areas. In addition, street right -of -way dedication will be required according to the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance Section 1001.08, subdiv. 10. Lastly, it should be noted as a point of information that there is an existing 30 -foot easement between the proposed parcels that serves as a driveway to an existing lot of record ( "Parcel C ") that lies between the two proposed lots on their southern boundary. This easement is not held by the City, but presumably exists solely for access purposes for Parcel C. • • Planning & Zoning Board Cardarelli/Severson Minor Subdivision September 11, 2002 Buildable Area Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd. 3.B.2.b states that parcels located within a zoning district that carries a minimum lot size of 10 acres must have a minimum of 20% buildable /upland area. Both of the proposed lots meet this requirement. Septic Issues Soils tests confirm that there are soils on both the proposed parcels capable of accommodating a septic system, with enough room for both primary and secondary sites. CONCLUSION The proposed Minor Subdivision would result in two lots: Parcel A of 21.69 acres and Parcel B of 10.43 acres. Both proposed lots would meet all minimum lot requirements, as established under the Lino Lakes City Code. As a result, staff would recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision with the following conditions: 1.) A park dedication fee of $1,665 to be paid prior to the certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision. 2.) The applicant shall dedicate to the City drainage and utility easements measuring ten feet in width along the front and rear property lines, five feet in width along side property lines, and covering all ponding and wetland areas. Such dedication shall be in the form of a Quit Claim Deed, per the City attorney, to be submitted prior to the certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision. 3.) The applicant shall dedicate to the City a 33 -foot wide permanent public right - of -way adjacent to West Rondeau Lake Road. Such dedication shall be in the form of a Quit Claim Deed, per the City attorney, to be submitted prior to the certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision. 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 ai • 20 PINE 2 3 4 N T All '1 ST // PIN E 1 2 3 EVER PEEK VISTA 4 S N 2 \\ NN • 13 2NC 12 7YAIL A D. 11 10 6 7 9 8 /9 EXHIBIT # RgNDEAU LAKE 61ST - ST - 2 - W -0 30 Z 6� L. TATE- AID - HIGHWAY i N0.14 - - -R /-W- PLAT- -NBI- 25- • 16 I3 14 -LANE - - GRAPHIC SCALE (!P!O!) 1 lea - loo ft. O OWrobs 1 i.a. by 14 b, ban p4.. mammon morbid .11.. past4. ay I..erb.d R1S 11121' to b. ..t otlr kb Mks 54ald non • approved by the City N Line Leiw • Daal. ion pp. mosumwt k+m4 Wm and mostchos . 4.dmbd 1M aMtal.n N kb Hwip Skhm M bawd .. awned 046.,. Proposed Dsecrjp_ta. Parcel A' 4....t .231 It NN�Ms Sa wet Pori. 014.. *v4.1 O.�tr N Se.Wo Wry' Mt of X100 S AD001Wf ark w MttN Ow mot 0100 Ave( Nave/ M• EMEPT w ..k 41100 Mt N w .wt 27500 foot of No wad MOO lbst Nowt ry4 pose 4. ..•Mat b • .•d q wm.wt ..e. No .wt 3131 bat t..d •.d MM. b Ow r j tt N wy N kooks. /i. Ibd .I saw ...onto N roma max Proposed D..orOtIon Par0.l $' e se t! spec Molts Llwrste of . Om soot .4 No mot MAO kW kaki Iraqib 1. Nutt r 1.p N Jai. Law Md ml other .ww...b N OM0 flan (as provided) Parcel Woo ..r0431 Mt o w ow. 270 MAN w KM MO kW N w Ser4..t Omar N w ll.k.st noon (SM1/4 rNr1 N Swift Now (., J * Mbiy-on. (31) NM. Amrps 111w.0"tw (�arAMIN O...tr iftswo 4 Imam* Mk oromot Of MINI kW N SMi4.1.t Donn ./ Ow N•0.4wtt Orar4. N •rotAvt. qby lark of w wr0 431 hot ono( Blake L Rivard Lad Iftwo.y.r rm Lb ma Li.. Los. um 4.014 4$1-331-00W kb N. JUL- ses-nan -PE__ /sees _am_ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY > Craig Severson & Laraine Car,dare/lt Make Co. GAIL • NW Ms S. 7314. 112M fd 1/2 l..A P MS 4907 • NW owner S111 /4 NN7/4 5..S 1314. R22K saaSrbtt 331114 w 0,01-014 c�P SON v E - S89'51'5fE rive a Worldeau pia Iv rasa Nark Um w 4 See. 2 73144 82214 - - - -- 989.28 30 J 31 e 1 v t as ry t Proposed Parcel "A" 21.69 Acres 4.7Ac. +/- Upland (22 %) 0.11 12000 Proposed Parcel "B" 10.43 Acres tad 90145'jrs 80500 430.47 s89•09'00'T Ire fad MS 14o. Isar. 18111 EXGP11O 8 O911014 4 200 Anoka Co. cLLL • SW mow 5117/4 NM1 /4 Sic .5 1314. R22* 4047 Existing Parcel "C" 2.53 Acres 891.44 0.11. Row Souk Ll.. w S.7 /4 N. /4 5.o. .5 4.R22K R Road EXHIBIT # 2- PYapaa.d Method Easement D..crptfen Pbmed A' M 4..t pot N to a.eewwt wmkr N w Mrkwwt wmi. N Saw. ; Thaw* 31 Mr.a Map awe Air. Coort1 Y..rb d..ar•N. *km Watt st w YM..N. N.O. *ww..�l .tX .d ilwt 23140 _ . 4. N w .w4. Iwo 4..Y Ae.N..t Moir N No Nr *1..t Mari. .d w oat M 4...Y S..Nwt &wily r w Atskwwt amt.; 4..r .. wwn.N Male, N Nrk cr 4y.m 48 Musk. 34 rr•. art doom ..Y ..t M • 4r.... N 73.4 Mt b. M lrt.w.u..iN w aka leo of w .oil 33131 Mt Null Se.w.t kwbr r w N.w.t Omar; Now M k r d.•r1. . oboist LN ..e.nr /.e stow mkt .1.a w. N w evil 33201 Awe • ikon N 33034 OW to b MmokLe wry w awl w r 111 not 331131 Mt r mkt SIw0..t 0.rlr r w Nr....t Overt N.. Rork Of Mow N w5.bo X week Dot Ms* .08 ..Y vet �M�" wry 00 � 3M Ark rit 6�.�S,w� AMS Mass &Mk •..031 74 Masks 31 w.odr hob. Mw. N 10210 wt Man Se.M K .yaw JO *MM. M .w.+ 9.f • ikon N 33131 0.• 4..r IoM p ftomoo M whet. 34...4. Not it 31iw.. 142.48 fat No... 3o.0i JD *Oro 47 Musks 07 wow* we . Mw ✓ 27131kW 0.1. stark MNwark 40031 MR of MA Se5Ne..t emir of w MrN..t O..rt Non.. Seek MOM Ise art, 31 ROMs 00 Suomi MO 11607 kW Y M tot Ike Wk. not Nh400 It ./.tf Iw..wt Owtr Mime of of w Nr4.wt Owrk; Non J.rk Of dyer 48 Mda s 3.....d. wt done oil ant w • w mot 10500 fat dole. N 43144 Mt M w woes th.N sob, Sr *wt Owl.NwMama! Nor Sywk 31 ••■• 31 Mirka 31 moo* NW glow .t1.rN /r . ikon Las *of OW wt w. N w not 41311.4. *5 kstersost Omtr r w 3131..1 Omb Now Nrk p Mow. 48 *5*5 J4 1.1.14.*5 day ..l ow. M N w mot 4131 I.t, • dkwwN 23127 Mt Y No meI1. of Me n.4. MOM Amt N .ail A.k.nt Lbw krMott ko sky ow* 3. So :w 20110 31 .wk. 31 4147 hot b 1. mist r0soksku r 1...rwot31Ml.d� M r Proposed Wetland Easement Description Parcel T' w Rork 31531AmtNw 'Mk 4.231kWNwOrN..tW.3rNw Irk.r.. O.Y N twotlw 5 31 Nark. Imp St Wm; Mark p.& 4.l. web ides Ike ewt r w mot Mt kar./..I did w wwt N gm, ..a MOO fast N.r.A I km* mile' Net NM rays .,2.w or Ant ... onward by No of Lwdr My dhu! y.N.lo..,4 Net 1 w 14o *5a Lbewd Lewd *row .14r w Me N No Ebb N /d1. 1. M1.4 - blw..te timed Laud Mom: 0.k. 7-17 231! Rootoirothe No 11417 "Mod 8-5* -300 2 b aM *And am b Pawl l A • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: AGENDA ITEM 5B Tanda Gretz September 11, 2002 Variance to allow a detached accessory structure closer to the front lot line than the principle building, for property located at 8065 Wood Duck Trail Michael & Laura Sullivan ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Michael and Laura Sullivan reside at 8065 Wood Duck Trail, a 2.89 acre lot that is zoned Rural. The Sullivans have applied for a Variance in order that they may locate a detached garage closer to the front lot line than the principle building. Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.1.c of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that "no detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal building or its attached garage." This review is based on the following attached exhibits: 1. General Location Map 2. Plan of the Sullivan Property, dated January 25, 2002 3. Narrative from the Sullivans ANALYSIS Lot Requirements The Sullivans home is sited 98 feet back from Wood Duck Trail. Wood Duck Trail is classed as a minor collector street, which has a setback requirement of 40 feet. • Planning & Zoning Board Sullivan Variance September 11, 2002 The property currently does not have a garage on site, although there is a 12' X 16' shed located to the northwest of the house. The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, Section 5, subdiv. 1.C.3, states "all dwellings shall have a double garage." Further, Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.1.c states "no detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principle building or its attached garage." Lastly, Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.8.d allows for 3,600 sq.ft. of accessory buildings, and up to two detached accessory buildings for a property of this size and zone. Land Use & Zoning Location Guided Land Use Zoning Site Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural West Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural North Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural East Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural South Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural Site Constraints To satisfy ordinance requirements, a detached garage would have to be parallel with, or behind, the front line of the house. This is problematic on this site for three reasons. First, the septic drain field is located approximately 24 feet to the south of the house, with the septic tank located southeast of the house approximately the same distance. Second, the well is located to the north of the house approximately 25 feet. Thirdly, there is a pond located to the northwest of the house, directly in back of the current shed location. Each of these features act to preclude locating a garage in what would be a typical location next to, or behind, the house. As a result, the applicant is asking to be allowed to site a garage in a location to the side of, but in front of, the house. Such a site would put the garage closer to the street than the house, and thus violate Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.1.c of the City Zoning Ordinance. Such a location, however, would meet the required 40 -foot setback requirement from Wood Duck Lane. In addition, such a location would allow for the construction of a double garage, which the site currently does not have, but is a building requirement for properties located in the Rural zone. Lastly, a 24' X 36' detached garage would be Planning & Zoning Board Sullivan Variance September 11, 2002 within the allowable size and number of accessory building allowed on a lot of this size and zone. Lastly, as a point of information, it should be noted that at least one neighboring property contains a garage which is sited closer to the street (8025 Wood Duck Trail). VARIANCE - FINDINGS OF FACT The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that "in considering all requests for variance or appeal, and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Comment: the property as a whole may be put to reasonable use, but official controls preclude the construction of a garage (which is a requirement under the Zoning Ordinance) in the only workable location that is near the house. 2.) That the plight of the landowner is due to physical circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner. Comment: The physical location of the septic tank, drain field, well and pond preclude siting a garage in a location which would satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Such a configuration of elements presents a situation unique to this property, although this situation was — at least in part — created by the (previous) landowner. 3.) That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone, and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: The demonstrated hardship is the lack of a garage site that would satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Such a hardship is not economically motivated but, rather, site driven. While such a hardship still allows for the reasonable use of the property, such a hardship does not allow the property to comply with the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, which states that all dwellings in a Rural zone should have a double garage.. 4.) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. • Planning & Zoning Board Sullivan Variance September 11, 2002 Comment: There is no special privilege involved but, rather, a need/hardship that is site - driven. Other properties with similar site constraints would also be valid candidates for a Variance such as this one. 5.) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that a double garage is a building requirement for property located in the Rural zone. Granting this Variance would allow the applicants to comply with this requirement. CONCLUSION This application for a Variance is driven by three site constraints: location of a septic system, well, and a pond. Each of these constraints prevent siting the proposed garage in a location next to, or behind, the house, in compliance with the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. As a result, staff feels there is a demonstrated need/hardship that is site - driven and quantifiable, and so justifiable. Staff would recommend approval of the proposed Variance with the following condition: 1.) Any constructed garage must meet the required 40 -foot setback from Wood Duck Drive. OPTIONS 1.) Recommend approval of the Variance. 2.) Recommend denial of the Variance. 3.) Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #1 • ARE ACR S EXHIBIT # 1 4 1 8 9 10 /1 • 2 OIAN 3 i2 N= 8 6J r 7 6 5 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 7 /3 /0 tar Y� e sr�® Ofairmor era° III °_ 111 w ,- „COUNT 6 5 4 dillVi ` �� pi -AIi,"111 A �17.4sita /3N GHL • 6• ,. Eye,. r � � f6 4 3 � � TWIT � T . �p!7 . M' aws � 1 2 �P ° �Q5 MI v a�lY�� t3 �mm�,n P .:14 - n ; t • is AU U. primmiongeo 1 �© v �iarA:Jt - ® Donor • ��Q ®AO � ■ el° a, t - 2 i I 15 .. Mg . ling aVal SHE' T 1Pi!1 0l 3 2 © �1L 3 ' o d a' a 0 / 9 10 C.1� 5 GJ rMI 6 a q tiQ N o u 8 N® 4 3 2 1 1 S NORTH 7 6 4A � /7 �I I � 2 SL S4T 4 1 2 5 S A7 11 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 /111•011;1•1 II 2 LAK 1 3 4 5 6 7 E 8 9 LO it 2 10 1 3 4 4 .' '.� ►'' °`>: >.>: 4p j� -31'.-L1 35 34 33 32 31 30 -... 29 28 .. O.sAQ -- . 12 4 5TA 90 49.— 8 V 1 B %J ��I G7 OjL. A 9 1 GG Qi _ COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1997 forward pending that determination as there should be no problem with approval of the cemetery expansion. Council Member Bergeson moved to approve the minor subdivision requested by Ruth Andrews for 855 Ash Street, pursuant to the conditions presented. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of an Amended Conditional Use Permit, Pat -a -Cake Childcare, 7761 Lake Drive - Ms. Wyland explained that Ms. Patty Beecher is the owner and operator of the Pat -a- Cake Daycare currently located at 7761 Lake Drive, just north of the Centennial Fire Department. Ms. Beecher has operated this center for approximately three years. Prior to that time, she operated out of her home. Since at least 1989, a daycare center has been located in this building. At this time Ms. Beecher wishes to expand her facility to accommodate a total of 75 children. Currently Ms. Beecher is licensed by the State of Minnesota for 48 children. The site of this daycare center is within the City's Neighborhood Business District and, according to the requirements of the existing Ordinance, a day care is permitted with a conditional use permit. Ms. Beecher will be purchasing the entire building in December and expanding the existing center to a total of 4,200 square feet. The Building Inspector and Fire Chief are aware of the proposed expansion and will be inspecting the site for compliance. The applicant has also been in touch with the Minnesota Department of Human Services to apply for an amended license to allow for the increase to 75 children. Ms. Wyland added that utilities are proposed for extension north on Lake Drive in the Spring of 1998. Ms. Beecher has indicated a willingness to connect to those utilities at that time. The facility is presently serviced by a mound septic system, which will then be removed and the play area moved to the rear of the site. There are 41 parking spaces provided on this site. This reconfiguration will allow for an expansion of the current parking area to allow for the 37 spaces required for the various uses in the building. Ms. Wyland concluded that Staff recommended approval of this amended conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. An amended license for the expanded use is received from the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 2. Permits are obtained, as required, from the Building Department for any remodeling and change in signage. • 3. The Fire Chief shall inspect the sight for compliance. • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. Hardwood Creek Farm, 80th Street, Minor Subdivision EXHIBIT # Fj Ms. Wyland explained that this request by Nancy Erickson, owner of Hardwood Creek Farm, is to split their 40 -acre parcel into two pieces. Parcel A will be 10 acres in size, and Parcel B will be 30 acres in size. Both have required access on 80th Street; Parcel A having 332 feet, and Parcel B, 1300 feet. Parcel B presently contains the existing Hardwood Creek Farm stable and riding arena.. Both parcels will meet the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinance, and a $500 park dedication fee is requested for. Parcel A, which will be retained by Ms. Erickson. The arena and stable area contained in Parcel B are to be sold, hence the need for the subdivision. Ms. Wyland recommended approval of the proposed subdivision contingent upon receipt of the $500 park dedication fee for Parcel A. This fee would be required, as Parcel A would be available as a home site. The question was raised as to why a third parcel -- Parcel C - -was included in the original Sketch and Description provided to the Board. Ms. Wyland explained that Ms. Erickson thought the party planning to purchase Parcel B would want to build a home, which would have to be on a separate parcel. Subsequent to preparation of the Sketch and Description, it was determined that no such plans exist. Mr. Johnson asked if a home could ultimately be constructed on Parcel B without additional action by the Board. Ms. Wyland responded that it could. Buildable space on Parcel A was questioned. Ms. Wyland explained that no topographical survey was ordered, as the property is upland; and, although it is not 100% buildable, it is definitely more than 20 %. Mr. Robinson explained that all of the land is upland with the exception of a portion that slopes down to a creek and back up again. Mr. Dunn made a MOTION to approve the Hardwood Creek Farm, 2306 80th Street, minor subdivision, and was supported by Mr. Robinson. Motion carried, 7 -0. B. Ruth Andrews, 855 Ash Street, Minor Subdivision Ms. Wyland explained that Ms. Ruth Andrews is currently the owner of 58.76 acres of land at 855 Ash Street. This property is immediately adjacent to the Incarnation Cemetery, and contains an existing homestead with three accessory buildings. The 58.76 acres currently includes approximately 12 acres of upland, which is roughly 20% of the site. The property is zoned Rural, and indicated as such on the City's Land Use Map. • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 3 Ms. Wyland stated that according to the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, Subd. 3.B.2.b. "Within zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of ten (10) acres or more, up to eighty (80%) percent of the minimum lot area may be comprised of areas which are platted as street rights -of -way, is below the 100 year flood elevation, or lies within city watercourses, wetlands or waterbodies as defined by this ordinance." The applicant would like to subdivide the property as follows: Tract A would contain 2 acres with 1.52 acres of upland. The plan is to sell this property to Incarnation Cemetery, which is currently just under one acre in size. If the Board should approve this request, the cemetery would be required to request a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Board for expansion of the cemetery. Tract B is proposed to be 11 acres in size with 4.83 acres of upland. This parcel meets the 20% upland requirement, and contains the existing homestead. The applicant has been advised that splitting off one acre with the homestead to provide an additional building site would probably not be recommended in this case. Tract C is 45.76 acres, with 5.66 acres being upland. The majority of the upland is located on a heavily - wooded knoll northwesterly of the existing home, and would require access via a driveway easement just westerly of the existing homestead. Tracts B and C meet the minimum lot requirements for the Rural Zoning District; however, Tract C does not contain the 20% minimum upland. Tract A does not contain a minimum of 10 acres. Should the Planning and Zoning Board determine this minor subdivision to be justified, a variance pursuant to Section 3, Subd. 3.B.2.b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance would be required. On a typical 10 -acre parcel, 2 acres would be required to be upland. Ms. Wyland concluded the following recommendation with regard to this minor subdivision: 1. Consideration of the subdivision of Tract A be subject to Planning and Zoning Board and City Council approval of an amended conditional use permit to allow expansion of the existing Incarnation Cemetery. Should that expansion be denied, the two acres could be left with Tract A. 2. Should the Planning and Zoning Board determine the minor subdivision to be appropriate, Tract B and Tract C be subdivided with a variance to allow the upland area of Tract C to be less than 20% of the total 45.76 acres (two acres would be the typical upland requirement on a 10 -acre parcel). 3. An easement agreement be drafted that would allow access to Tract C from tract B, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. • 4. A $500 park dedication fee be collected for Tract C prior to recording of the Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 4 • subdivision with the County. • Mr. Dunn asked about accuracy of the elevations represented by the map provided to the Board for review of this request. Ms. Wyland explained that she had personally visited the site. She added that the knoll is quite obvious, with the balance of the 40 acres clearly wetlands. The logical location for the driveway easement is that proposed. She stated that the elevations are in the 900+ foot range. Mr. Robinson suggested that short of having delineation by Rice Creek Watershed there would be a problem with the driveway. Ms. Wyland stated that a permit would have to be obtained. It was suggested that the Board's approval would have to be based upon Rice Creek Watershed's approval. Mr. Dunn asked whether or not there are any additional cemeteries provided for within the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Wyland stated that there are not. Ms. Kathy Rickert, broker for Home Realty, spoke on behalf of both buyers and sellers. Ms. Rickert provided pictures of the proposed development of this property, stating that they best fit this unique property. She stated that the planned development would include two houses, preservation of the natural run -off of the land, the trees, and the natural habitat, and in all other aspects conforms with regulations of the area. The proposed use would not impede any normal or orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood. Chair Schaps raised the issue of the 11 -acre parcel, taking into account the possibility of splitting off 1 acre for a home site. Ms. Rickert indicated that thought had been given to that split, but that the decision was made to maintain one parcel. Chair Schaps clarified that all parties understand the City's position with respect to a split. Mr. Don Lyndale agreed that he understood the City's position; however, he stated his understanding that an ordinance was in existence which would provide for such a split. Ms. Wyland explained that there is an ordinance which provides for such a split, but that the property would have to be examined more carefully with the lot configured so as to allow for an additional building site. She could not assure that this could be accomplished. Mr. Lyndale indicated his understanding, adding that he is trying to work with the existing configuration. However, he does not wish to be restricted with respect to future use by the Planning and Zoning Board's present action. Ms. Wyland emphasized that reconfiguration may not be possible. Mr. Thompson stated that it is not presently his intent to attempt such a reconfiguration, but that he may with to explore that possibility some time in the future. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the length of the driveway easement for Tract C, • which would cross wetlands. He added that the knoll connects with the upland property • • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 5 to the north, and that development of the knoll should take place in conjunction with development to the north and not have separate access from the south. Chair Schaps requested clarification of the total number of homes on the site. Ms. Rickert acknowledged that there is an existing home and that another home is proposed for construction on the property. Jerry Hawkins of Incarnation Cemetery stated that his organization proposes to take on an additional two acres, which would triple the size of the current cemetery site. Mr. Hawkins indicated that the cemetery has existed since 1922. Mr. Johnson pointed out that a portion of Tract A is wetland, and not usable by the cemetery. Mr. Hawkins stated that he was aware of that. Steve Thompson, purchaser of proposed Tract C, asked about the Planning and Zoning Board's problem with two structures. He indicated that his plans include an office within the smaller structure, and would build a larger home some time in the future. Ms. Wyland explained that the City allows one single - family home per lot. She added that should the owner choose to build a larger home in the future, the small one would have to be removed. Ms. Wyland further explained that businesses are not permitted within a residential district. Mr. Thompson stated that his view is that of having an office within his home, not as a separate business. Ms. Wyland indicated that further consultation would be required as to the inclusion of a business on the property. Mr. Thompson also questioned payment of the $500 park dedication fee. Ms. Wyland explained that any time a piece of land is proposed for construction of a home, such a fee is required. Mr. Brixius added that home occupations are permitted in this district within a permitted accessory building. He suggested that Mr. Thompson would have to provide additional information regarding his business and, if it meets the definition, can be housed within a separate building. With regard to the park dedication fee, Mr. Brixius explained that the fee is charged as part of the overall subdivision and who actually pays the fee may be negotiable among the parties purchasing/developing the property. Mr. Dunn requested clarification of what the Planning and Zoning Board is acting on at this time. Ms. Wyland explained that the only action proposed at this time is the minor subdivision. Development and use of the property would be a separate issue. Mr. Herr asked about splitting Tracts B and C so that an easement would not be included in Tract B. Ms. Wyland indicated that possibility had not been explored. She added that it would be very difficult to maintain the minimum amount of required upland with the easement placed elsewhere. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 6 • The required width of the easement was questioned. Mr. Ahrens responded that the minimum is a 20 -foot paved surface for emergency vehicle use. Chair Schaps suggested that Mr. Thompson would have to meet certain requirements regarding installation of the proposed driveway in order to satisfy the fire code. Mr. Ahrens clarified that the easement is for 20 feet, while the proposed driveway is 10 feet in width. He added that the City's fire chief would have to approve the proposed driveway. Mr. Thompson agreed that emergency vehicles would have to be able to negotiate the driveway. Mr. Brixius stated that the City's zoning ordinance also contains requirements as to driveway width and surface, which must be satisfied. Mr. Herr asked if the City has in the past allowed something less than 20 %. Ms. Wyland explained that the 20% upland requirement is new to the City's ordinance. Previously the requirement was for 80% for a l0 -acre minimum. Mr. Dunn asked if other options had been explored, in light of the large amount of wetlands. He asked if a wetlands parcel could be created, ensuring that the area would remain wetlands and unbuildable for infinity. Mr. Brixius stated that the disadvantage of splitting the wetlands off as a separate parcel is that it would most likely go tax forfeit. Remaining part of the larger parcel it would stay within single ownership, it would be protected from future development by the easement, and it would remain a property of value. Mr. Thompson pointed out that a portion of the land northwest and south of the subject site, although inaccessible, is dry, potentially buildable parcels of land. Chair Schaps asked about variance criteria. Ms. Wyland cited five findings of fact, as follow: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowner is due to physical circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other land, structures or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 7 Chair Schaps asked Mr. Brixius to respond to the variance criteria as stated by Ms. Wyland. Mr. Brixius indicated that there is justification for a variance in the following areas: First, the area is genuinely unique due to the wetlands. He suggested that the ordinance could be skirted by creating an outlot which would encompass most of the wetland, reducing the overall size and bringing the figure to within 20 %, which would serve no constructive purpose. Mr. Brixius added that it is in the best interest of the City for the land to remain in single ownership and, in that respect, fulfills the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Herr made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision requested by Ruth Andrews, conditioned upon approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District and of the Fire Chief with respect to property access, supported by Mr. Robinson. Motion carried 7 -0. C. Pat -a -Cake Daycare, 7761 Lake Drive, Amended Conditional Use Permit, PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Ms. Wyland explained that Ms. Patty Beecher is the owner and operator of the Pat -a -Cake Daycare currently located at 7761 Lake Drive, just north of the Fire Department. Ms. Beecher has operated this center for approximately three years. Prior to that time, she operated out of her home. Since at least 1989, a daycare center has been located in this building. At this time Ms. Beecher wishes to expand her facility to accommodate a total of 75 children. Currently Ms. Beecher is licensed by the State of Minnesota for 48 children. The site of this daycare center is within the City's Neighborhood Business District and, according to the requirements of the existing Ordinance, a day care is permitted with a conditional use permit. Ms. Beecher will be purchasing the entire building in December and expanding the existing center to a total of 4,200 square feet. The Building Inspector and Fire Chief are aware of the proposed expansion and will be inspecting the site for compliance. The applicant has also been in touch with the Minnesota Department of Human Services to apply for an amended license to allow for the increase to 75 children. Ms. Wyland added that utilities are proposed for extension north on Lake Drive in the Spring of 1998. Ms. Beecher has indicated a willingness to connect to those utilities at that time. The facility is presently services by a mound septic system, which will then be removed and the play area moved to the rear of the site. This reconfiguration will allow for an expansion of the current parking area. • • • AGENDA ITEM V. D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: September 11, 2002 TOPIC: CONTINUTED PUBLIC HEARING: Behm's Century Farms 6th & 7th Addns. BACKGROUND The P & Z continued the public hearing on this project at the August 14 meeting. There were a number of issues to be resolved. Major design issues include access and roads, parkland, potential new air park lots, air park impacts, wetlands, and future development on surrounding lands. The applicant submitted new plans on Wednesday, September 4. This did not allow time for staff to review and analyze the new submittals. ANALYSIS Road access and connections are important design issues. The question of connecting Carl St. was discussed extensively at the August meeting. This is a major issue, and it affects numerous other aspects of the project and of this area of the City. Staff is asking to the P & Z to consider the following information and then give staff direction on whether or not Carl St. should be connected. Based on that direction, staff will work with the applicant on the design of the plat. Traffic Study: The applicant hired a consultant to prepare a traffic study. The study was summarized at the August meeting. At that time, staff had not had the opportunity to review the traffic study. The City Engineer now has had the applicant's traffic study analyzed. That analysis is attached (TKDA memo from Steven Elmer, August 23). Note that several assumptions and conclusions in the study may not be universally accepted. Air Park Lots and Carl Street: The majority of P & Z members voiced opposition to connecting Carl St. to the new development. At the same time, most P & Z members expressed support for new air park lots that would each accommodate a home and a hanger. It would seem that the best way to incorporate new air park lots would be to design them to be part of the existing air park. If this is to occur, they should be connected to the • • • existing air park lots along Carl St. If Carl St. does not connect, the new air park lots will be separated from the rest, which would seem to violate the concept of an air park "neighborhood ". Therefore, if new air park lots are to be created with the Behm's plat, Carl St. should connect to the new plat. Air Park Lot Sizes: Existing air park lots on Carl St. are 373' deep, with widths ranging from 123' to 178' (1.1 acre to 1.5 acre). The hangers can be up to 3200 sf. The size of any new air park lots should accommodate the houses, hangers, and taxiways. Northern Road Alignment in Powerline Location: One of the options presented by the project applicant is the future creation of a road along the powerline easement to provide access to 4th Ave. and a connection between 4th Ave. and Sunset Rd. At the August meeting, discussion included the likelihood of future opposition to this connection by residents of the new Behm's neighborhood —the neighborhood that will be created by the plat under consideration. Staff believes that the opposition that will occur will most likely prevent the connecting road from being constructed. There are physical design issues to consider as well. The powerline easement is 90 feet wide. If a road is built along the northern edge of the easement, the powerline easement will cover the front 90 feet of the lots fronting on the road. The houses will have to be setback at least 90 feet to be out of the easement, with 90' driveways. The front yards will have high voltage powerlines crossing them. This does not seem to be a very inviting neighborhood design. Even if the paved road is offset as close as possible to the towers, at least 50 -60 feet of front yards will be under the powerline easement with the wires overhead. Since the property on which this hypothetical road is located is not being developed, we have no design that shows a road and plat layout that could be workable. Lacking this, it is impossible to know the feasibility of developing the property with a road connecting the Behm's development with 4th Ave. Additional Growth: The property on which this hypothetical road would be built is guided as a Stage 2 (post 2010) area. Because of this, it will not be allowed to develop for some time, if ever. In addition, the comprehensive plan clearly requires decreasing the amount of annual growth. There is no way to know when this property will be developed and the road will be built. RECOMMENDATION Re -open public hearing. Provide direction to staff on the Carl St. connection question. Continue public hearing. � TKDA TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED • • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: Jim Studenski, City of Lino Lakes Copies To: Scott Brink, TKDA From: Steven Elmer 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-2140 PHONE: 651/292 -4400 FAX: 651/292 -0083 Reference: Review of Traffic Analysis for Behm's Century Farm, 6th and 7th Additions Project. Date: August 23, 2002 Commission No. 12475 -002 As requested, I have reviewed the draft technical memorandum prepared by SRF Consulting Group documenting a traffic analysis for the Behm's Century Farm, 6t and 7th Additions Project dated August 5, 2002. I have reviewed their technical analysis and recommendations and have the following comments and conclusions: 1. The traffic analysis is based on the premise that "LOS A through D are generally considered acceptable by drivers." While it may be true that level of service D is considered acceptable to drivers in densely developed urban situations, the same may not be true in rural and outer suburban locations. Drivers' experience with and tolerance for delay varies in urban and rural locations and LOS C is more typical of the upper limit for acceptable delay in rural areas. Given this assumption, the following intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS under 2009 and/or 2015 conditions: Intersection * Main Street/Sunset Avenue * Lilac Street/Sunset Avenue * Main Street/Fourth Avenue 'LOS D for single approach only. 2 LOS F for one approach. Year 2009 Year 2015 LOS D LOS F LOS D1 LOS D2 2. The traffic study concludes that "the east -west minor collector route between Sunset Avenue and 4th Avenue will not be needed to support the proposed development until after Year 2009." Given the assumptions and findings above, this conclusion would not hold. An Equal Opportunity Employer • • Memo to Jim Studenski Page 2 August 23, 2002 3. The traffic analysis offers broad conclusions about the need for an east -west minor arterial without taking into consideration the critical issue of emergency access. Fire, police and emergency services would be provided from the local fire and police departments located along Lake Drive southeast of the proposed development. The lack of an east -west connecting minor collector from Carl Street would add as much as 0.75 to 1 mile to the emergency response route and another 0.75 to 1 mile to the closest freeway access at the I -35W ramps at Lake Drive for hospital emergencies. When every minute is critical in any emergency response, efficient emergency access can be a life or death issue. 4. The technical memorandum should clearly state in the introduction and conclusion sections that the conclusions offered in this memo were derived solely from an analysis of projected traffic demand and available roadway capacity. The overall merits of an east - west connecting minor collector were analyzed and documented in a TKDA memo to Jim Studenski dated June 4, 2002. The criteria considered in that analysis included emergency access, local residential access, grid system connectivity, and layout efficiency. Memorandum DATE: June 5, 2002 TO: Mike Grochala, Jeff Smyser FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Behm's Century Farms 6th and 7th Addition Attached is a memorandum dated June 4, 2002 from Steven Elmer, TKDA, addressing the Carl Street Extension issue regarding the Behm's Century Farm project. This is the transportation review the City Council requested at the last work session. This engineering review recommends Option 2 be implemented to extend Carl Street westward on a southwesterly alignment to connect to Sunset Avenue. Please contact me at 651/982 -2430 with any questions. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651 - 982 -2400 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499 • TDD: 651 -982 -2410 TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 -2140 PHONE: 651/292-4400 FAX: 651/292 -0083 To: Jim Studenski Reference: Review of Access Options for City Engineer for Lino Lakes Behm's Century Farm, Copies To: John Powell 6th and 7th Additions Project From: Steven Elmer Lino Lakes, Minnesota Date: June 4, 2002 Commission No. 12475 -002 BACKGROUND As requested, I have reviewed the memorandum with attachments from Jeff Smyser to Lino Lakes City Council dated May 17, 2002. I have evaluated the proposed options for providing access to the proposed Behm's Century Farm 6th and 7th Additions Project based on criteria established in the Lino Lakes Transportation Plan, the transportation element for the City's Comprehensive Plan. This memorandum discusses my review and recommendations. Several options for providing access to the 170 new homes planned for the latest Behm's Century Farm Project have been previously identified. These include: • Option 1: the direct westward extension of Carl Street connecting to Sunset Avenue; • Option 2: the westward extension of Carl Street along a southwesterly alignment to the south end of Hidden Acres; • Option 3: the development of a new east -west road connecting Sunset Avenue at the south edge of Hidden Acres with Fourth Avenue at the north edge of the utility corridor, north of existing Carl Street; • Option 4: the development of a new east -west road connecting Sunset Avenue from about one -third mile south of Main Street with Fourth Avenue at the north edge of the utility corridor, north of existing Carl Street; and • Option 5: the development of a new east -west road connecting Sunset Avenue from about one - fourth mile south of Main Street with Fourth Avenue at the north edge of the utility corridor, north of existing Carl Street. An Equal Opportunity Employer 3 Memo to Jim Studenski Page 2 June 4, 2002 • Review of Access Options for Behm's Century Farm, 6th and 7th Additions Project • Carl Street is designated as a minor collector street in the Transportation Plan, with a planned westward extension to Sunset Avenue (Option 1). The existing Carl Street serves about 16 homes and provides access via Fourth Avenue, a major collector street. ANALYSIS Specifically, this review is based on the planning principles for minor collector streets described under Appendix B: Functional Classification Criteria, of the Transportation Plan. Collector streets are defined generally in this plan appendix as: "providing connections between neighborhoods and from neighborhoods to minor business concentrations. Mobility and land access are equally important. Collectors serve short trips and are spaced one -half mile to 1 mile apart in developing areas." Minor collectors such as Carl Street are further distinguished as having a primary function to provide access and a secondary function to provide for through travel within the community. The following four planning principles for minor collector streets established in the Transportation Plan were applied for this review. These principles were the four out of nine in total that were determined to show some differences among the access options previously identified. Each principle is followed by a brief assessment of how well each of the options meets the principle. 1) "The design of minor collectors should reflect the function of providing access." Under Options 1 and 2, the proposed Behm's Century Farm Project would be accessed from either the west via Sunset Avenue, or from the east via Fourth Avenue, upon project completion. Due to the timing of future expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), under Options 3, 4, and 5, the project would be accessed solely from the west via Sunset Avenue; the road providing access to Fourth Avenue would not be built until the MUSA was eventually expanded to include the area north of existing Carl Street. Given this circumstance, Options 1 and 2 would have several advantages over Options 3, 4, and 5. These include: • Providing for more direct access (0.75 to 1 mile closer) to Lake Drive (CSAH 23), Lino Lakes shopping and business centers, and the I -35W interchange. • Locating the roadway at or near the midpoint between Main Street and Lilac Street would better approximate a grid street system, which is typically more efficient than other street systems in providing access. 411 • Facilitating better emergency response times by making it possible to access the development from the east or west for fire, police, and emergency services. • • Memo to Jim Studenski Page 3 June 4, 2002 Review of Access Options for Behm's Century Farm, 6th and 7th Additions Project • Providing for a more balanced distribution of the projected 1630 daily vehicle trips to be generated by the planned 170 new homes over Sunset and Fourth Avenues, rather than solely impacting Sunset Avenue under Options 3, 4, and 5. • Providing access to the west for 16 existing Carl Street homes, including more convenient access to the I -35W interchange at Lexington Avenue. 2) "The design of minor collectors should discourage excessive speeds." Narrower streets with a meandering alignment are best for discouraging vehicle speeds in excess of designated limits. Option 1 provides a straight alignment and would be the least effective in meeting this principle. The other options have similar degrees of curvature in their designs and would all be more effective in discouraging excessive speeds than Option 1. For all access options, a previously discussed pavement width of 44 feet could encourage excessive speeds through the planned residential neighborhood. The 36 -foot pavement width recommended in Appendix B of the Transportation Plan for minor collectors in low density residential districts would be more effective in meeting this planning principle. 3) "Minor collectors should permit the efficient use of land for laying out plats." Based on the previous analysis of access options conducted by Metro Land Surveying and Engineering for Century Farm Development, Inc., Option 4 would accommodate 38 new residential parcels, compared to 36 new parcels for Option 2, and 29 new parcels under Option 3. Option 4 would be slightly better than Option 2 with regard to meeting this planning principle. 4) "Minor collectors should be designed to minimize through traffic. The layout of minor collectors should not promote diversion of traffic from arterials and major collectors." Options 1, 2, and 4 provide a relatively horizontal east -west alignment that would not create a time advantage for those traveling on the surrounding arterial and collector streets (i.e., Main Street, Sunset Avenue, Fourth Avenue, and Lilac Street). Option 3 provides a diagonal alignment from southwest to northeast and could arguably promote cut - through trips for travel in either of these directions with diversions from Sunset Road and Main Street. Similarly, Option 5 could promote diversions from Main Street and 4th Avenue for trips moving southeast or northwest. Memo to Jim Studenski Review of Access Options for Behm's Century Farm, 6th and 7th Additions Project Page 4 June 4, 2002 5) "Minor collectors should be laid out in order to be compatible with the topography and environmental constraints of the area." The only apparent environmental constraint is the presence of wetlands. As noted in the analysis done by Metro Land, Option 1 would require crossing over 700 feet of wetland. Option 2 would reasonably mitigate this impact and would require crossing only one county ditch. Options 3, 4, and 5 to the north would also have minimal wetland impacts and each would require crossing two county ditches. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on this review of access options and their consistency with the planning principles established in the City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan, we recommend that access Option 2 be implemented to extend Carl Street westward on a southwesterly alignment to connect with Sunset Avenue approximately 600 feet south of Carl Street. This option would maintain the access advantages of Option 1, but with mitigation of the likely wetland impacts under Option 1. In addition, we recommend that the City consider a 36 -foot wide pavement design as recommended in Appendix B of the Transportation Plan for minor collectors in low density residential districts. • • • EXHIBIT # 3 .4k.hael Witeati? August 12, 2002 To whom it may concern, We are writing in request of a variance concerning the placement of a two -car garage that we wish to build on our property at 8065 Wood Duck Trail in Lino - Lakes. Due to the position of our home on our lot, it is necessary to build the garage closer to the road than the home. There are several conditions that prevent us from building our home anywhere else. First, sixty feet behind our home is a large pond. The land between the home and the pond slopes down into the pond. As a result that area floods often times in the spring. Second, in the ground on the north side of our home is our well. We had considered this option only to find that if there was ever a problem with our well, we would have to go through the top of the roof of the garage to work on it. Finally, one the south side of our home is our septic field. In order to maintain an efficient septic system we must not place any excessive weight onto the septic field and holding tank. This only leaves us with one option, which is to place the garage in front of our home closer to the street. We have noticed that a few of the homes in the neighborhood have remedied similar problems with this same solution. Please consider our request for variance. We thank you for you time. Sincerely, • • AGENDA ITEM 5C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: September 11, 2002 TOPIC: Minor Subdivision & Variance For property located at 855 Ash Street Don & Faith Lindahl ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote PROGRESS SINCE THE AUGUST P &Z MEETING This item was presented at the August 14th meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. After consideration of the issues, members voted to table the application pending additional information from the applicant. Specifically, Mr. Lindahl was asked to present alternate configurations for the proposed one -acre lot (Tract B), in hopes that it might be possible to achieve the required 330 feet of lot width/road frontage. Mr. Lindahl has presented two alternate configurations for consideration by members (Exhibit #4). Both proposals would meet the minimum lot width/road frontage requirement of 330 feet. However, as a result of meeting the width requirement, lot size then increases over the one -acre threshold. Since there are only 11 acres total to be used between the two proposed lots, such an increase in the size of proposed Tract B, then decreases the size of proposed Tract A under the 10 acres minimum requirement for property in a Rural zone. BACKGROUND Don and Faith Lindahl own 11 acres of land, zoned Rural, at 855 Ash Street. The Lindahls have applied for a Minor Subdivision and Variance from the minimum lot width requirements in order to subdivided their property. Although the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is 10 acres, the Lindahls are seeking to create a 10 -acre and a one -acre parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the Lino Lakes City Code: • Planning & Zoning Board Lindahl Minor Subdivision & Variance September 11, 2002 "Habitable single family homes constructed prior to July 13, 1992 may reduce their lot size to a minimum of one acre if the balance of the property results in a parcel of ten acres, or is serviced by public sewer, and it can be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the division will not result in ground water, soil or other contamination which may endanger the public health." The Lindahls propose to live on the one -acre parcel containing the residence and outbuildings, and sell the remaining ten -acre parcel to their son. It should be noted that the existing 11 -acre parcel was created in 1997 as part of a minor subdivision of 58.76 acres. Minutes from the meetings of both the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Council note that a further subdivision of the 11 -acre parcel, such as is now being proposed, was discussed at that time. Minutes note that the applicant "had been advised that splitting off one acre with the homestead to provide an additional building site would probably not be recommended in this case." This review is based on the following attached exhibits: 1. General Location Map 2. Certificate of Survey, dated July 10, 2002 3. "Marked Up" Certificate of Survey, dated December 8, 1997 4. Alternative lot configuration ideas from Mr. Lindahl 5. Minutes from November 24, 1997 City Council meeting 6. Minutes from November 12, 1997 Planning & Zoning meeting ANALYSIS The attached Certificate of Survey shows the proposed division of the 11 -acre parcel. Tract B, one acre, contains the Lindahl home and outbuildings, of which .89 acres are upland; Tract A, ten acres, contains the balance of the property, of which four acres are upland. Land Use & Zoning Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural West LC Rural North " Rural East Rural South (North Oaks) (North Oaks) • Planning & Zoning Board Lindahl Minor Subdivision & Variance September 11, 2002 Minimum Lot Requirements Size: the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is ten acres. The proposed newly created lot would meet this requirement, with the balance of the property consisting of the one -acre parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd.3.A.2.b.2. Width: the minimum lot width for property in a Rural zone is 330 feet. Lot width is defined as "the horizontal distance between the side lot line of a lot measured at the building setback line and parallel to the front lot line." Additionally, the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance, Section 1001.08, subdiv. 6, requires that "all lots shall abut for their full frontage on a publically dedicated street." Tract B at 155 feet, does not meet the minimum lot width requirement, and, as a result, the applicant is asking for a Variance. With less than the required 330' of lot width, then, Tract B also does not fulfill the requirement of having full frontage on a road. Tract A is an irregularly shaped ( "C- shaped ") lot that does not meet the minimum lot width requirement in terms of contiguous road width and road frontage. Rather, the lot wraps around the one acre parcel, with 269 feet to the west of the one acre parcel and 188 feet to the east of the one acre parcel. Thus, although the proposed lot has 330' of width on a road, it is not contiguous width. Buildable Area Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd. 3.B.1.b requires parcels requiring a minimum of 10 acres or more to have a minimum of 20% upland area. Both parcels meet this requirement: the 10 -acre parcel has four acres of upland, although this upland exists as "islands" among wetland area, and the one acre parcel is almost entirely composed of upland. Septic Issues Soils tests confirm that the proposed 10 -acre parcel is capable of accommodating a septic system. In addition, there is adequate room for both primary and secondary sites. The one -acre parcel already contains a septic system, with adequate room for a secondary site. Access Issues The existing 11 -acre parcel contains a second driveway, not used by the Lindahls but existing on their property, that is the sole source of access for the neighboring property to the west, at 815 Ash Street. Without this driveway, the property at 815 would be landlocked, with no access out to Ash Street or any other road. The minor subdivision approved in 1997, which created the parcels at 815 and 855 Ash Street, required an easement agreement be drawn up for the driveway. This agreement was approved by the • Planning & Zoning Board Lindahl Minor Subdivision & Variance September 11, 2002 City attorney and recorded with Anoka County. In addition, as a further condition of approval, the driveway was approved by the Fire Chief. The driveway is currently used primarily by the residents at 815 Ash Street, as the Lindahls have their own access drive. Further subdivision of the 11 -acre parcel would require shared use of this driveway, which may or may not pose a legal issue: the easement agreement states the easement is "for the exclusive benefit of Tracts B (855 Ash Street) and C (815 Ash Street)." Further, the agreement states that "no party may unreasonably increase the burden of the driveway and utility easement." The agreement can be amended only with the written consent of both parties. VARIANCE — FINDINGS OF FACT The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that "in considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Comment: The property has been, and currently is, being put to reasonable use. The applicant is simply asking for a further intensification of use. 2.) That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property, not created by the land owner. Comment: The landowner is asking for a further subdivision of his land, which he was advised "would probably not be recommended" when he first purchased his property. 3.) That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: There is no hardship demonstrated or apparent; rather the proposed lots simply do not meet the minimum lot requirements for property in a Rural zone. 4.) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Comment: Granting a Variance without the demonstration of hardship or unique circumstances would confer upon the applicant special privilege. 5.) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. • • Planning & Zoning Board Lindahl Minor Subdivision & Variance September 11, 2002 Comment: The proposed action would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance, as Variances are to be granted only in cases where hardship /unique physical circumstances are present. CONCLUSION The proposed Minor Subdivision would result in two lots: Tract B would have a width of 155 feet, thus not meeting the minimum lot width requirement of 330' for property in a Rural zone, nor the requirement of full frontage on a road; Tract A would have 330' of width and road frontage, but it would not be contiguous width or frontage. Alternate configurations presented by the applicant meet the minimum lot width/road frontage, but do not meet the minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres. As a result, staff cannot recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision. As there are no hardship issues or unique circumstances apparent on the property, staff cannot recommend approval of a Variance from the lot width requirements. OPTIONS 1.) Recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision and Variance. 2.) Recommend denial of the Minor Subdivision and Variance. 3.) Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #2 EXHIBIT # 1 EKE mm norm ■ met @ • m_n mm; IN mAo EAT IMV mg. �' of I1EAM°odr,°aM4 1,° ■ vim, ■i �'a 0©p 0; >9 MI 1'72 We; reave DIWAY/01 441V '.�he z a 1 10 14 19E 198 1989 1991 1992 1993 1994 REVISED REV. REV, REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. NOV. 1994 JAN. 1996 JULY 1997 JULY 1998 AUG. 1999 SEPT. 2000 MAY 2001 JULY 2002 SHADED AREA DENOTES PARK LOCATION MAP OF 1 500' 3/4 OF L CFNTERVII 1 F R pepT l LBO —ZOOZ aN clop 0 co n N D rr 03 0 D z D O r -am Z 0rn= 0n D N rn2om N N D C o O• .TD) PI m D D D z m r O O O z CO o r 0 - 0 • O O C.i O 0 0 \1 FFM N z co up a 00 w 725.00 Z m D 1025.00 S 02 °09'17 "W N 02 °09'17"E 300.00 1 UCK 300.00 S 02°09'17 "W TRAIL FZMq E. Line of the E1 /2 of the SW1 /4 of Sec. .5, T. 31, R. 22 725.00 Cf) O —I (D (n O O rt 3 O O C)1 C S O C,+ O O O • O O S 2 0 _5.ip (D W(0 0 X O 0 La rt ? ((0 O A 7 CD N O. O N C o >c Quo oo0 • s� rt rt O O 0 7"-4, O S S• t rt O (0 ( 0 - • frl CO ' • 4 • NO = O O 0 0 (D r (O" rt 7 (D 0 (n rt O S C CD s m CD • T • CO cn O O O °0 co m 'D :NOIld110S30 1VOTI EXHIBIT # 2- FEMA REPORT FOR: Michael and Laura Sullivan -1E S1 /2 OF THE SW 1/4 _ECT1ON 33 N89°55 11"W C<J°.ry�/ ifAl14� -• std . / - / \4 / 7 i4`9?9� � / ' t_ -•C��, /. 5\6/ -e • co f / z 0 o; EDGE OF.__ CATTAILS EDGE OF WETLANDS ETLAND DELIN£AT.rON 1 I- I /r BY ANOKA COUNTY 1 I$ 1Nf -:11 w� ,m c) 1r1i.'u m 1.i u1T�t I \ I 1 f I drive c?4 1 •r ivies I o4103 =-- --- T9t- -� � Z1N • I Io I° 1 O tt 5 5(' t , ' 0 Y 232.65- 1.'I 33.03 J. 268,62 NOo °21'13 "E _ 106.76 �fcr, rn ... y4 J/ 0 ` / 4 0- P4 /4� . I 151 � /('). QS _ )/ /1 // 145:09 / 1 588°58'59 ^E J / EDGE OF 11- - = WETLANDS t ', f 1 1 rn N 1 _l TREE LINES - - j / _ N87°045 e 03.81 % \\ 155.01 S89°53'23 "E ° .54,p SEE DETAIL AT RIGHT 2 0 ; zll aoo� 63 Yi PG CV ' : EXISTING ` f ; HDUSE �l 155.00 -N Wf et 1 / /,1, ' h!/ 1, /N,' 2 S p1, 2 W ,,..,1.-,..0,/ , a 1 ' 1407.4' '41. e -- �tot.7° Q- v 155.01 9 21. 83 282.94 / \` X13.00-' F •N81 °4t 32 E \ id ft Fi Ic ti �pPrye It ‘h \IN`. 655.87 -}- 1. 17f. 9F. A 10542 .W 5/8°5B...2.2 - 1f S69°53 23"E' 3197 .)07I / __EDGE OF / WETLANDS N00'24' 28 "W 243.42 In 683.32 187.83 I N89'53 23" W S, INC. 611.46 C 2(fhTY Rath ✓ (4.371/ STR.K. j ,.-) 721.44 _RECEIVED JUL I .1 2002 CITY of Clio LAKE DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS 313.06 G DENOTES 1/2" IRON PIN TO BE SET ("L.S. No. 253.41) • DENOTES MONUMENT FOUND #9808 EXHIBIT it 7-- LYX'h77 SAD ✓ /ASI/ STAttfri I NE corner of the E. .313 06 feet of the S 417.41 fret. Sec. 33; T31, R22 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA V V NTY MAP r 13,81- ,---- 50.6 x 18 Wood / Frome Bldg. 24 "elm 16 "ook }N II L- _82X8.3Shed 14.7 r -11.7 L - -7i 20.3 X 10.4 Shed 6 Stucco House ri.3 1.37 1- ♦I 54.6 " 24.4 SE COR. S1/2, SW1 /4, SEC 33 DETAIL CERTIFICATION: 76.0 1 \ 1 1 / / / I hereby certify that this survey, pion or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Licensed Lon/ Surveyor under t/jre lows of the State of Minnesota. Daniel W. Obernsilier Date: /G Tu.y O.Z Lic. No. 25341 • 894.37 \ \�.•~ •,. :• •••: 893.91 N•. • .� X 91.1.32 913.39 )5( 913.3Q 388.61 -�` NOTE: This is a "mark -up" of a previous survey used for the 1997 subdivision - as a result, the labeling of the tracts varies from that of the survey done for the current application for a minor subdivision. 894.94 - 921.83- ---- 282.94 9 4 602.62 X 902.64 :.......... -. : •' x 907:32 x 908.92 X 909:03 893.56 4P :NO 4bc. 893.78 93.57 drop _o_ 159 J? 893.27 (GMP, Inv. - 893i 893.68 891.53 ...�\7' �j `•X 891.72 /l 311k, B94.9 1593.5...,-,/'„0,5"' S 895.26 icy 893.43 "..;)47' i_ -- 894.75 recnst. drive (411894.5 Elev si e, tl 895.57 tI, r ALL y 894.39 / 894.64 h• 1 4 896.0 895.49 W°j moo, 69. 37• 4,181.4 896.24 - • a 896.29 5201 N89 i6'S1T y••........ .......: rr .'. ................. "7jE.• 1.1 it- 894.75 893.69 'd- .jki..........'65dy 894:.53•... 894.23 By : " -:. . �> - , i 6894.351" t/ ---K 893.28 jo •894.14 M 893.46 yak,. 891.92 .. X 891.9 .m 896. 896.91 895.71 126.96 895.65 895.51 �- 6 X 892.20 ; Note: All silt fenc� e! � N - J L''�to be placid o� / $96.00 eosement line. �ypp^ C 1 891.95 894.2. AIL 891.85,6 v.> _ EDGE OF _ WETLANDS �' a d pp�'' 893.97 TLAND DELINEATION. 893.4 ' Y ANOKA COUNTY " -S, 591.99 jtLL EDGE OF CATTAILS N 895.08 896.3 895.52 896.}3 t) /ILL X89 9,7,t, 113.00-' ••`' '313.07 N89°53.23"W A7 s•E �: EDGE OF 896.2 WETLANDS 896.47 896,A8 • 895.6 • (Prop. 20' of . -1riv. c� v- iusi 696. ';44.6g`l. 12& E ;1,IpEpda 895.97 J.• 895.39 7 '00 X 90252 '2; .< J ��hy� so1.1s 901.18 895.67 895.07 2 00 99.7U0o• -;S, i �: /. D: co 01 .} : `9 sillh. o € CO yyh. 901.29 W ' __EDGE OF 901.1 �& WETLANDS ---- -- 109) • 901.57x,A I n.o 901.05 0 0901 ' c r 900.92 a *�''^'1 lO N2m `•_. ; \•ApA Q•.7e 00.9 • a. oein •1 "� ', o0.3gZ09 7'S9 jt SO �4 \ € 899. 004160\ S)cb `00� � s S.4 O O- v G" 892.36 893.63 893.75 TREE LINES. --- 894.1T \,_8.93.54 10' gravel 693.36 drive - s Proposed Division - Line x 893.86 F`) 388.62 33.03 892.8 893.5 893. 893.42 893.6 ao 87 o o; c9<987:0917-"q 900.1$ 6.9 899.141 : x.X.'8J 664 -... ciao x EXISnrkG 01.43 HOUSE l : 888 899.14cp:' z° N • iv*b. o . v 0� 306 r I • I sit WOVEN•1I'WRE 3 FEET NORTH OF; 905.62 9Q3:92 x _ 95.06 897.33 895.62 97.21 96.4 V 896'. 896.©.: / , , ' co 896.68 895.27 % %_ .. .. • O. o 6.97 897'7 529 896.46 F: %4� 443'41 - ---- -- 388.62 - -- 33.03 1,571I 577A?A7A772 898 0 N8t9 053 3 "TY DENOTES PROPOSED CONTO RS DENOTES PROPOSED CONTO 'S DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS DENOTES 1/2" IRON PIN SET (L. S. 11°46 01 o. 9808) • DENOTES MONUMENT FOUND AS NOTED 896.75 110111 re) cv Csi p vision d Z Line � :2 33.00 104.36 �v 208.71 i) - - - -- 683.32 - -- 906.07 8,9 °53 '23' 208 71 �wL_ N.Q Ko w �G 313.06 ,^ (/) O O W : NE corner of the E. 313.06 J: 25" -- -feet of the S. 417.41 feet. fL �I •U c.,\% EXHIBIT # 3 SE S1/2 of 5 AN EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE. SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32 AND THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO COUNTY ROAD J. EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33, THENCE NORTH 208.71 FEET, THENCE WEST 208.71 FEET. THENCE SOIITH 9nR 71 rrrT Ti- ln.lrr PACT 'N-11:t 71 CC CT Tr) O (N i i / 24 "elm r c� 16 "oak m SE COR. S1 /2, SW1/4, SEC. 33 7.3. CERTIFICATI I hereby certify that me ' under my dire La ,• Surveyor aniel W. Obermill er Date: 69,/)('' 92 Revised Easement 11- 1 4 n.,4 C1 7 / A .J.J C`:I1 • • 1 Iv-. I I I 1 . I l 1 1 N8103.81. 1., i +� i 155.01 t.\\ 18 j b S89°53'23 "E °� 0 -+1 N .e SEE DETAIL AT RIGHT 0 U''s1lao mot - -�%-k ;- - + ! XISTING ! HOUSE // 155.00. —N j.r /1 • / z �16p007, • 1:4 -7E i (A .10 O21Y i155.01 187.83 in 9'53'33 "W 611.46 N) 721.44 1 1 THREE OPTIONS: #1. Original Plan: 155 feet of frontage X 281'/ 1.0 acre lot #2. New Option: 330 feet of frontage X 220'/ 1.66 acre lot #3. New Option: 342 feet of frontage X 220'/ 1.7 acre lot �.1 j I /III •58858"59 "E / /''EDGE OF r • C In�1 �•(• c WETLANDS • t / • 9'53 ` 23"W mol ISTING fj =HOUSE a j M O/ 155.00 . N efYI ..�zl h1 6a,0 -_ Ole „it b/ I;467'43.41-* 330 721.44 lo( ,4ry;/l i _f• • /l /, 1 �x 1 ..1 _ // /1`v� 1 :58858'59 E ___EDGE OF 1 1 ^� J WETLANDS tb N8 iO3.8i� '� . 155.01 tk S89°53'23 "E ! 1 SEE DETAIL . ISTING 6 J r ; HOUSE ^' I 1 2; p/ I 155.00 —N /I e/'. 2 h16s O 4,a S 101.70 . 33.03 1'13 "E 9'53 23"W J MANS � � W N Y� il> W //. • N / 44.32 1 . 07.43' 4ti� W 721.44 • • COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board had reviewed this item at its November 12, 1997 meeting and recommended approval on this basis. Council Member Kuether expressed approval of the proposed subdivision, but disagreed with t condition of collecting the $500 Park Dedication fee prior to issuance of the building permit. Ms. Wyland explained that there is no current procedure whereby collection of such a fee coulc take place at a later date, and that collection of this fee is customary at this juncture. Mayor Landers asked if the 10 -acre parcel is developable. Ms. Wyland explained that there is very little wetland at this site, with Hardwood Creek itself being the only undevelopable portion. Council Member Lyden moved to approve the Hardwood Creek Farm minor subdivision pursuant to the condition presented. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of a Minor Subdivision, Ruth Andrews, 855 Ash Street - Ms. Wyland explained that Ruth Andrews is currently the owner of 58.76 acres of land at 855 Ash Street. This property is immediately adjacent to the Incarnation Cemetery, and contains an existing homestead with three accessory buildings. The 58.76 acres currently includes approximately 12 acres of upland, which is roughly 20% of the site. The property is zoned Rural, and indicated as such on the City's Land Use Map. Ms. Wyland stated that according to the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, Subd. 3.B.2.b. "Within zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of ten (10) acres or more, up to eighty (80 %) percent of the minimum lot area may be comprised of areas which are platted as street rights -of -way, is below the 100 year flood elevation, or lies within city watercourses, wetlands or waterbodies as defined by this ordinance." The applicant would like to subdivide the property as follows: Tract A would contain 2 acres with 1.52 acres of upland. The plan is to sell this property to Incarnation Cemetery, which is currently just under one acre in size. If the Board should approve this request, the cemetery would be required to request a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Board for expansion of the cemetery. Tract B is proposed to be 11 acres in size with 4.83 acres of upland. This parcel meets the 20% upland requirement, and contains the existing homestead. The applicant has been advised that splitting off one acre with the homestead to provide an additional building site would probably not be recommended in this case. Tract C is 45.76 acres, with 5.66 acres being upland. The majority of the upland is located on a heavily - wooded knoll northwesterly of the existing home, and would require access via a driveway easement just westerly of the existing homestead. 6 # IIaIHXi • COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1997 Tracts B and C meet the minimum lot requirements for the Rural Zoning District; however, Tract C does not contain the 20% minimum upland. Tract A does not contain a minimum of 10 acres. Should the Planning and Zoning Board determine this minor subdivision to be justified, a variance pursuant to Section 3, Subd. 3.B.2.b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance would be required. On a typical 10 -acre parcel, 2 acres would be required to be upland. Ms. Wyland stated that the Planning and Zoning Board. expressed its belief that the following variance criteria could be met: A. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to her property not created by the landowner. B. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. C. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. D. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. E. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Ms. Wyland concluded the following recommendation with regard to this minor subdivision: 1. Consideration of the subdivision of Tract A be subject to Planning and Zoning Board and City Council approval of an amended conditional use permit to allow expansion of the existing Incarnation Cemetery. Should that expansion be denied, the two acres could be left with Tract B. 2. Should the Planning and Zoning Board determine the minor subdivision to be appropriate, Tract B and Tract C be subdivided with a variance to allow the upland area of Tract C to be less than 20% of the total 45.76 acres (two acres would be the typical upland requirement on a l0 -acre parcel). 3. An easement agreement be drafted that would allow access to Tract C from tract B, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 4. A $500 park dedication fee be collected for Tract C prior to recording of the subdivision with the County. 5. Permits be obtained from Rice Creek Watershed District requiring easements over all wetland areas. 6. The City Engineer and Fire Chief shall review and approve the driveway plan. Council Member Kuether asked why a $500 Park Dedication fee is not being requested for proposed Parcel A. Ms. Wyland explained that Parcel A includes the cemetery, which is not subject to such a use fee. • COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1997 Council Member Kuether expressed the concern that Council should not consider this request until the December Planning and Zoning Board and City Council meetings. Council Member Lyden requested clarification of the wetlands impact with respect to the proposed driveway. Ms. Wyland stated that such impact would be minimal. The proposal is for 3,400 square feet of wetland fill, and that Rice Creek Watershed will have to approve this aspect of the proposal. Mr. Ahrens explained that wetland fill of up to 5,000 square feet is permitted. Council Member Lyden also asked about impact of the proposed driveway on development of the buildable property located to its north. Ms. Wyland stated that the property to the north of the proposed driveway is owned by another party, and that access is available from Holly Drive. She added that it may be more appropriate for access to come from Holly Drive in the event that that property is developed. Mayor Landers asked if there should be County approval of the proposed driveway. Ms. Wyland explained that any access would require a County permit. Mayor Landers agreed with Council Member Kuether that Council approval of this project should follow . approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Wyland explained that the Planning and Zoning Board had substantially approved the project with the sole exception of the portion intended for expansion of the cemetery. Mayor Landers asked if delay in action by Council would pose a hardship to the project. Ms. Kathy Rickert, broker for Home Realty, spoke on behalf of both buyers and sellers. Ms. Rickert provided pictures of the proposed development of this property, stating that they best fit this unique property. She stated that the planned development would include two houses, and pointed out specifically the proposed driveway. Council Member Lyden repeated Mayor Landers' question regarding hardship to the project in the event Council should determine that it should not act on this request until the Planning and Zoning Board has given final approval. Ms. Rickert indicated that delay by Council would pose a hardship, as pending approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District (scheduled to take place on November 25, 1997) the project can go forward immediately. Council Member Bergeson requested clarification from Ms. Wyland as to precisely what portion of the proposed project had not been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Wyland confirmed that the two acres which were proposed for addition to the cemetery is the only portion of the proposal that had not been finalized. She added that, in the event the Planning and Zoning Board did not approve expansion of the cemetery, the two acres in question would simply revert to the parcel designated as "Parcel A ". Council Member Bergeson indicated that requirements such as those that might be required to expand the cemetery, as proposed, normally relate to property use including buildings and other types of development, and that he could see no reason why the remainder of the project should not go