The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/08/2003 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, January 8, 2003 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: December 11, 2002 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, Charlie Pfingsten, Charlie's Tree Service, 908'/2 Maple Street, Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Tanda Gretz B. PUBLIC HEARING, Growth Management Ordinance, Jeff Smyser C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 1St — 7th Additions (formerly Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions), South of Main St. & North of Carl St. - Section 7, Rezone, MUSA Allocation, Preliminary Plat, Bob Kirmis, NAC D. PUBLIC HEARING, ATS &R, Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch Street, Site Plan Review & Conditional Use Permit, Bob Kirmis, NAC - Open and Continue Public Hearing (No Staff Report) VI. DICUSSION ITEMS A. 2002 Year -End Summary VII. ADJOURN • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:31 p.m., December 11, 2002. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 13, 2002 Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2002, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Lyden abstained). IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared Open Mike open at 6:33 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:34 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING — Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 1st — 7th Additions (formerly Behm's Century Farms 6th- 10th Additions), South of DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 2 Main St. & North of Carl St. — Section 7, Rezone, MUSA Allocation, Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Staff explained Century Farm North Development, Inc. has requested approval of a 250 unit, low and medium density residential development (Century Farm North) located upon a 95.1 acre site north of Thomas Street and east of Sunset Road. Specifically, the proposed calls for 27 low density and 223 medium density units upon 85.3 net acres of land resulting in a net density of 2.93 units per acre. Staff presented its analysis by explaining while the physical characteristics of the site make development challenging, such characteristics also offer unique design possibilities. The northeasterly portion of the site is open meadow with scattered brush and trees. The southern portion of the site includes wooded areas, wetlands and a County ditch and borders the Lino Air Park. The western portion of the site is somewhat fragmented due to a number of property exceptions along Sunset Road and includes several acres of unbuildable wetland areas. Staff stated with respect to the MUSA Reserve Allocation, to accommodate the proposed development, the allocation of 85.3 acres of MUSA will be necessary. Considering that the Comprehensive Plan calls for the urbanization of the subject property, such allocation is considered appropriate. Staff noted with respect to Land Use and Zoning, the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for sewered low density residential uses in the southwest portion of the site and low density /medium density uses on the balance of the site. While, the proposed land use designations are consistent with the land use directives of the Comprehensive Plan, concern exists that the applicant is proposing to apply the R -3 zone to numerous single family lots within the subdivision. Considering that the R -3 zoning district does not allow single family dwellings, it is suggested that the R -1 designation be applied to the single family dwellings in the subdivision and that the R -3 designation be applied to the areas in which multi - family units are proposed. Staff noted that the rezoning request also includes a PDO, Planned Develop Overlay to allow airplane hangers, private streets and multiple buildings on a single lot. Additionally, the PDO can accommodate the proposed detached townhome development concept (a deviation from R -1 District requirements). Staff stated it is the intent of the applicant to locate the varied housing types such that a transition in land use intensity exists. Generally speaking, low intensity residential uses are proposed in the southwestern corner of the site with higher density townhomes located in the northeast corner of the property. The proposed land use transition is consistent with the land use directives of the Comprehensive Plan and is considered a positive aspect of the development plan. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 3 • While the location of the various unit types are considered acceptable, examples of the proposed housing types should be submitted for review as a condition of PDO approval. • • With respect to density, staff stated, the development proposal calls for a total of 250 dwelling units resulting in an overall net density of 2.89 units per acre. The proposed densities consistent with the directives of the Comprehensive Plan and are therefore considered acceptable. With respect to street configuration, staff indicated the Carl Street/Century Trail extension through the site is considered positive as it fulfills a directive of the City's Transportation Plan. While the street is not a continuous, uninterrupted collector street route, the intersection in the southeast corner of the site is considered an acceptable compromise considering traffic speed related concerns voiced by area residents. Several issues regarding the proposed street configuration and resulting traffic flow do however exist as summarized below (see attached development plan alternative for graphic reference): • The connection to Carl Street should be made as part of the proposed development. While such connection may not be immediate (constructed as part of the first phase of the development), the physical connection of the two street segments is imperative. • To improve vehicular convenience, provide a more efficient traffic flow and minimize home exposure to oncoming traffic however, it is recommended that the street located approximately 150 feet north of the Carl Street/Century Trail intersection be shifted southward to create a four way intersection. • The "L" shaped cul -de -sac in the southwest corner should be shifted approximately 150 feet to the east to align with the street to the south. • The cul -de -sac south of Carl Street in the southeast corner of the site lies approximately150 feet from what is likely to be a high volume intersection. The spacing of such intersection should be increased to minimize turning maneuver /vehicular stacking conflicts. It is recognized that such easterly shift of the intersection may result in the loss of an airpark lot (Lot 9, Block 5). While most "traditional" single - family lots have been found to meet or exceed to minimum R -1 district dimensional requirements, several concerns exist as summarized below: • Lots 1 and 13, Block 2 have been found to measure only 95 feet in width. As corner lots, their width should be increased to 100 feet as required within R -1 zoning districts. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 4 • In review of the grading and drainage plan, there appears to be substantial topography upon Lot 12, Block 2 which may limit its buildability. As a result, it is recommended that the applicant demonstrate its buildability via the submission of a custom plan. • Considering that Carl Street/Century Trail is expected to be a high volume roadway, it is believed the impact of such roadway upon Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (at the intersection of Sunset Road and Century Trail) could be lessened by providing interior access to such lots from the northeast via the "L" shaped cul -de -sac. In conjunction with such modification, screening could be provided in the rear yard areas at the Sunset/Century Trail intersection (see attached development plan alternative). • The home and driveway upon Lot 20, Block 2 should be re- oriented toward the cul -de sac. • One final concern relates to Lots 6 and 7, Block 6 (as depicted on the preliminary site plan) where it appears the side lot line between the two lots was inadvertently not shown. In regard to Lot 7, Block 6 specifically, it is recommended that the driveway of such lot be oriented to the west rather than the south (to eliminate driveway maneuvering at what is expected to be a busy intersection and not to isolate the home from neighboring dwellings). With respect to the Airpark lots, staff stated, as shown on the submitted development plans, the subject site borders the Lino Airpark and includes 15 "airpark" lots. To accommodate such lots, the processing of a PDO is necessary. Considering that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the airpark as a long -term use within the City and that non - inhabitable structures over the gas line are preferred, the inclusion of such lots is considered generally acceptable. In regard to such lots however, some concerns do exist as summarized below: • The locations of Lots 4 and 9, Block 4. Of primary concern is the location of an airpark lot (Lot 4. Block 4) between two "traditional" single family lots and the adjacency of Lots 5 -8, Block 4 to the airpark taxiway and hanger building. To address this concern, it is suggested that Lot 4 be converted from an "airpark" to "traditional" single family lot and that Lot 9 be eliminated combined with the lots to the north to create a buffer yard. • The impact of runway safety zone extensions upon area lots. As a condition of PUD approval, the applicant should provide documentation to the City that all applicable runway safety zone requirements have or will be satisfied. • Anticipated market demand for the airpark lots. The applicant has indicated that if demand for the airpark lots does not exist, they would likely be converted to "traditional" single - family lots. Such change would require the processing of a PDO amendment. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 5 • The size of the hangers appears equal to the size of the homes they are to serve. As a condition of PUD approval, specific hanger designs should be submitted subject to City approval. • The direct visual (and audible) exposure of both hangers and the taxiway to Century Trail (in the southeast corner of the plat). While this has been addressed to some extent via landscaping, it is suggested that a berming along the street segment be provided as well. Townhome Issues Architecture. As a PDO, the City is afforded an opportunity to impose conditions related to the appearance of the townhomes. While specific townhome building elevations have not been submitted, the plan drawings illustrate a "garage forward" design. Recognizing this and to avoid visual monotony, creative building design is considered very important. As a condition of PDO approval, specific townhome building elevations should be submitted subject to City approval. Parking. According to the Ordinance, townhomes are required to provide at least two and one -half rent -free spaces per unit. The Ordinance further states that for projects involving eight or more units, the City may require additional clustered guest parking. While the "per unit" parking requirement has been satisfied, it should be noted that the proposed private street widths (16to 18 feet) prohibit on- street parking. Therefore, as a condition of PDO approval, the townhome area in the northeast corner of the site should be modified to incorporate specific visitor parking areas. Homeowners Association. According to the applicant, the project will be subject to the bylaws of three homeowner's associations. From the City's perspective, such bylaws should address issues associated with open space use and private street maintenance. As a condition of PDO approval, all homeowner association by -laws should be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Exceptions. As shown on the submitted development plans, a number of property exceptions exist west of the subject property along Sunset Road. In considering the proposed development, an assurance should be made that, to the extent possible, opportunities for future subdivision are provided. This is particularly relevant in that Sunset Road is a designated collector street and direct single family lot access to such streets are to be discouraged. Appropriately, an opportunity for future subdivision of the northerly extension has been provided via access to Stallion Road. Considering home placement and wetland infringements, street access to the southerly exception is not considered practical. Wetlands. Three designated wetlands are located within the central area of the property and comprise a significant portion of the site. Such wetlands are considered a site amenity and obviously influence the configuration of the development. As required by ordinance, a wetland mitigation plan has been submitted for review. Such plan should be DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 6 subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. To date, the City has no information regarding the Watershed District review Greenways. The concept plan illustrates a series of interconnecting eight foot wide bituminous trails. While the inclusion of the trails in considered positive, it would seem appropriate to extend the east/west trail segment beneath the power easement to the west to connect to Sunset Road. The acceptability of the trailways in fulfilling the greenway directive of the Comprehensive Plan should be subject to comment and recommendation by the Park Board. Park Dedication. As shown on the Parks /Open Space Plan, a significant portion of the subject property is to be dedicated as public park land. Specifically, the concept plan provides 22.5 acres of gross public park land, 7.3 acres of which is contiguous upland. The integration of such park areas responds to a specific directive of the Comprehensive Plan of providing a greenway in the area. While the inclusion of such park land is considered positive, an assurance should be made that problems do not result from the combination of private and public park ownership. Of specific concern is that the primary east/west trailway through the property be available to all park users (regardless of private and public ownership). As a condition of PDO approval, park related issues raised by the Park Board should be addressed. Tree Preservation. According to the applicant, a significant amount of existing tree massings in the southern portion of the site are to be preserved. While the existing conditions map identifies generalized tree massings, a specific tree inventory has not, to date, been submitted. Because the Subdivision Ordinance does not specifically mandate the submission of a tree inventory, the need for such inventory should be subject to comment and recommendation by the Environmental Board and City Officials. Easements. The subdivision design is responsive to the 90' electrical easement and 60' gas easement that traverse the property. As shown on the submitted plan, a trail has been proposed within the electrical easement while airpark hangers border the gas easement in the southeast corner of the property. As shown on the preliminary plat, drainage and utility easements have been proposed along all property lines and over wetland and ponding areas. The acceptability of such easements should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 7 Carl Street Vacation. To accommodate the development proposal, the vacation of a portion of Carl Street will be necessary. Such vacation will require a separate public hearing to be held by the City Council. Issues associated with the street vacation should be subject to comment by the City Engineer. Traffic Generation. Issues related to traffic generation and the ability of the development proposal to accommodate such traffic should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the utility related modifications and comments as set forth by the City Engineer should be incorporated into the plans. Landscaping. As required by Ordinance, landscape plan has been submitted for review. The plan calls for a series of overstory trees along the public streets and a combination of understory and evergreen trees scattered throughout the site. Evergreen trees have been specifically proposed in areas where screening is desired (i.e. between Century Trail and the airpark hangers). As a condition of PDO approval, the landscape plan should be subject to comment and recommendation by the Environmental Board. Grading and Drainage. 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 by the City Engineer should to be incorporated into the plans. The plan is also subject to review and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Environmental Issues. The Environmental Board reviewed the request at their December 5, 2002 meeting. Their comments are attached to this report. Rice Creek Watershed District Review. The proposed development is subject to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) approval. To date, comments from the District regarding the acceptability of the project have not been received. As a condition of PDO approval, all conditions imposed by the Watershed District must be satisfied. Development Agreement. 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. RECOMMENDATION While the proposed development concept and its arrangement of land uses and streets is considered generally acceptable, numerous outstanding issues remain, which should be addressed prior to the development process moving forward. As a result, we cannot recommend approval until the following issues are addressed: DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 8 1. The base R -1 district zoning designation be specifically applied to single family dwelling areas within the project and the base R -3 designation be applied to the multi- family areas. 2. The Carl Street connection be physically constructed as part of the development proposal. 3. Lots 1 and 13, Block 2 be increased from 95 to 100 feet in width as required within R -1 zoning districts. 4. The home and driveway upon Lot 20, Block 2 be re- oriented toward its bordering cul- de sac. 5. The applicant demonstrate the buildability of Lot 12, Block 2 via the submission of a custom plan. 6. Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (at the intersection of Sunset Road and Century Trail) be re- oriented and provided interior access from the northeast via the "L" shaped cul -de -sac. In conjunction with such modification, screening be provided in the rear yard areas of the lots (at the Sunset/Century Trail intersection) 7. The preliminary site plan be revised to illustrate a side lot line between Lots 6 and 7, Block 6. 8. The driveway of Lot 7, Block 6 be oriented to the west rather than the south. 9. Examples of the proposed townhome housing types and building elevations be submitted for review and City approval. 10. The street located approximately 150 feet north of the Carl Street/Century Trail intersection be shifted southward to create a full, four -way intersection. 11. The "L" shaped cul -de -sac in the southeast corner of the site (north of Century Trail and East of Sunset Road) be shifted approximately 150 feet to the east to align with the street to the south. 12. The cul -de -sac south of Carl Street (in the southeast corner of the site) be shifted eastward to maximize spacing from the Carl Street/Century Trail intersection. 13. Lot 4, Block 4 be converted from an "airpark" to a "traditional" single family lot. 14. Lot 9, Block 4 (an airpark lot) be eliminated and combined with the adjacent "traditional" single family lots to the north (to allow the creation of a buffer yard). 15. The applicant provide documentation to the City that all applicable runway safety requirements have or will be satisfied. DRAFT MINUTES • • • 1 Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 9 • 16. Specific hanger designs be submitted subject to City approval. 17. To minimize direct visual and audible exposure of the hangers and taxiway to Century Trail (in the southeast corner of the plat), berming (in addition to the proposed landscaping) be provided along the street segment. 18. The townhome area in the northeast corner of the site be modified to incorporate specific visitor parking areas. 19. All homeowner association by -laws be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 20. The wetland mitigation plan be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. All conditions imposed by the Rice Creek Watershed District shall be satisfied. 21. Issues raised by the park Board in regard to greenway /park land dedication are reviewed and addressed to the satisfaction of the City. 22. The need for the submission of a tree inventory be subject to comment and recommendation by the Environmental Board and determined by City Officials. . 23. Grading, drainage and utility related modifications and comments as set forth by the City Engineer be incorporated into the plans. 24. The landscape plan be subject to comment and recommendation by the Environmental Board. 25. The City formally vacate the segment of Carl Street which lies within the subject site. 26. Issues related to traffic generation and the ability of the development proposal to accommodate such traffic be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Chair Schaps asked if staff believed this development was ready to proceed. Mr. Kirmis replied it was not. He noted applicant had addressed some of the issues since his report, but there were many issues still outstanding. Mr. Corson asked what the hangers were made of. Mr. Kirmis replied he believed they were metal pole buildings. Mr. Corson asked if there were any thoughts regarding the hangers as far as consistency. Mr. Kirmis replied this would be a whole discussion in itself. • Mr. Lyden asked when the change in density occurred. Mr. Kirmis replied it was a very late change in the plan. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 10 Mr. Lyden asked if this was before or after the first public hearing. Mr. Kirmis replied he did not have that information. Chair Schaps clarified staff's recommendation that they were requesting this be tabled until staff's concerns were addressed. Mr. Kirmis replied that was correct. Ms. Lane asked if they had as many MUSA acres as they were referring to. Mr. Lyden stated they had approved a new bank. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Gary Uhde, developer and John Johnson, Metro Land Surveying and Engineering. Mr. Uhde thanked the P &Z Board and members of the staff for their assistance with this development. He noted they had worked extensively with the neighborhood and the Airpark Association. He stated they had worked diligently with all of those parties that answered or tried to be sensitive to all of their concerns. He noted there were some very sensitive environmental issues and he acknowledged there were issues with density and stated they had taken the minimum density as possible. He stated they had a difference of opinion with staff regarding traffic. He stated they hoped to have consistent colors, overheads and eves on the hangers that would fit better into the neighborhood. He indicated he would work with the Airpark Association regarding the hangers. He noted the plan was not perfect; it did not give everyone everything they wanted, but it was the best they could do at this time. John Johnson stated in August they were made aware of the change in the Comprehensive Plan that changed the 78 acres that was the bulk of this 95 acre project, which changed from low /medium density to medium density. He stated when they applied the medium density to the developer acres, that threw 90 plus units into the mix that they had not planned on. He stated they were told they needed to comply with the Comprehensive Plan or get an amendment. He stated this plan addressed all of those density issues. He stated he was not going to debate the good or the bad of the density; they were just attempting to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. He explained how they addressed the traffic issues and concerns that staff had. He stated they had expanded the park and trails. He indicated they increased the ponding and wetland from 9.77 acres to 17.5 acres in this plan. He stated in the landscape plans they showed 1100 trees as being placed on this project. He noted they identified installation of the native grasses. He stated to the Park Board and the Environmental Committee had approved this plan. He stated the Airpark lots had been increased. He stated the Airpark Association requested to buffer as much of their runway outlot with airpark user lots. He stated the elimination of lots 4 and 9 in Block 4 would remove over 350 feet of buffer and add 3 non Airpark lots with direct access and abutting the runway outlot. He noted the phasing plan was outlined in their proposal. He stated it was important to have all four products in their first phase for marketing. He noted if they started construction in April, 2003, they hoped to have the models open in October, 2003. He stated they anticipated they could market 40 units the first year, so they would be at the end of 2004 before they started moving forward with plans for the second addition and when the second addition was approved in 2005, they would be out of lots, if they did an 80 lot subdivision. He DRAFT MINUTES • • • t 4 • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 11 noted option 1, divided that into a 61 lot phase one with no connection to Carl and the connection to Carl would be done in the second phase and there would be no detached townhomes. He noted they would like to do option two. He handed out a memorandum to the Commission responding to staff's recommendations on the project. He stated they would attempt to coordinate the hangers as much as possible. He stated they had addressed all but eight of staff s 26 concerns. Mr. Lyden stated he was for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. He noted it was possible to get a quality product in this development. He stated he had a concern about the density issues. He stated the people who were responsible for a quality development were the people on this Board and the City Council. He noted the Metropolitan Council could not tell the City what to put on this land. He expressed concern about traffic on Carl Street. He indicated they had told people that Carl Street would never be connected. He asked if emergency vehicles could get through there, but nobody else. Mr. Johnson replied it would be possible to make a cul -de -sac at the end of the street and have the connection only be for emergency vehicles. Mr. Lyden stated the Metropolitan Council did not care that Lino Lakes had extensive wetlands, and high density did not work in Lino Lakes. He stated they did not have the capability to handle it. Ms. Lane asked if something was designated a certain density, that they could build lower density, but they could not go higher density. She asked if they could go with a lower density. Chair Schaps asked if they were of the opinion, except for the 8 items, did they believe they were ready to go forward. Mr. Johnson stated he believed except for those items, they could address all of the other issues. Chair Schaps invited the public for their comments. Dave Hunter, Airpark Association, stated they had been trying to watch what was going to happen in this development for many years and at one point, they felt that the development of the area was going in a way that was not going to be in the benefit of the Airpark's interest, so they approached the City and asked them about what type of flexibility they had with negotiating with the developer. The City told him they could not dictate what Mr. Uhde was going to do with the land, and it was up to the developer to negotiate. He stated the Airpark Association had many meetings with Mr. Uhde and he stated he felt Staff was interfering with their negotiations with Mr. Uhde. Specifically, he stated Carl Street had been negotiated with Mr. Uhde that Carl Street should not go through, or if it had to go through it went through as emergency access only. He stated he applauded Mr. Johnson's efforts in trying to build the streets in a traffic calming manner to reduce the traffic as much as possible and by including a four way stop, it would only increase the traffic. He stated the concern with the "L" shaped cul -de -sac was that there was a delineation of their safety zones and as long as it did not infringe upon those safety zones, they were okay with the plan, but this was a concern. In terms of a cul -de -sac for Carl Street, Mr. Johnson said he could move that farther east, and as long as the cul -de -sac would maintain the clearance within regulation, they did not have DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 12 any problems with it. He noted with Lot 14, if it were up to the Airpark, all of the lots west of that lot would also be Airpark lot. He stated staff s concern was that there was a compatibility issue between an airpark owner and a non - airpark owner. He stated this is not an issue and if there was an issue, then make them all Airpark lot. He stated it was not fair to take that away. He noted it provided buffer for the Airpark area and in some way, it could be very effective, because there would not be a feeling of Airpark people versus non - Airpark people. He noted they wanted to keep Lot 4 as part of the Airpark. He noted staff brought up the idea of a buffer. He stated a buffer was for noise reduction and people access. He noted they did not want non - educated people to be out on the runway or taxiway. He stated if Lot 9 remained an Airpark lot with a hanger and a house, that would create an excellent buffer. He noted someone would be a lot more reluctant to walk across the property if there was a house on it. He indicated if that lot went away, then he wanted the lots east of Lot 4 became Airpark lots, so that they would create the buffer they had negotiated with Mr. Uhde. In terms of the hanger designs being submitted with City approval, they had tried to do that with the hangers on the southwest side of the Airpark. He noted they wanted the hangers to blend in well with the area. He stated to just make a simple change to a hanger, that was a huge expense. He stated an Airpark hanger was an Airpark hanger and he requested they not put further restrictions on those hangers. He stated the Association did have a hanger approval process as a part of the Airpark, and if they needed City input that would be fine, but they did not want to make this a political process. He stated all of the hangers were limited to 3200 feet and while they would like them to be larger, they definitely did not want to go smaller than 3200 feet. Mr. Hyden stated with respect to Lot 9, it was his understanding the City was not talking about eliminating that lot. Mr. Kirmis replied they suggested it no longer be an Airpark lot. Mr. Hyden asked if he needed to own a plane to put up a hanger. Mr. Hunter stated as part of owning a lot in the Airpark, he could put up a hanger, even if he did not own a plane, as long as it complied with the regulations of the Airpark and the Airpark dues were paid. Mr. Corson asked if the Airpark would also review the hanger plans prior to them being put up. Mr. Hunter replied that had not been the case before, but they would not oppose reviewing hanger plans. Chair Schaps asked if the Airpark Association ever reviewed any of the covenants and declarations of Century Farm with the continued existence of the Airpark. Mr. Hunter replied they had reviewed these documents, and he acknowledged that the new residents would know about the Airpark. James Munster stated when the plans came out the first time, it was a low density development and it went along with the area and it looked appealing. He stated under this latest plan, the greatest concern he had was with density. He stated high density townhomes with alleys would not match the City of Lino Lakes. He stated alleys in particular was a great concern for him. He stated with the higher density, there was less tree preservation. He stated trees made a great sound buffer and made is much more DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 13 appealing. He expressed concern about sound and light pollution. He requested they go back to the original plan with fewer homes noting this would be more appealing to the residents. Jeff Kolstad, Carl Street, stated this was his third time at these meeting and he noted he was still against Carl Street being connected because of the placement of his home. He stated the history of the development and Carl Street was completed with requirements that Carl Street would not be connected. He stated if the street were to go through, it would hinder his property the way it was now. He stated there was no room for the street. He stated they could use the sod fields for development, if necessary and leave Carl Street as it was. He noted the sod field owner was willing to sell his property for development. He stated a road through the sod fields was a better option, than extending Carl Street through. He indicated he had met with the Police and Fire Chiefs and inquired about emergency vehicle routes. He stated they told him that they would always take the most immediate route. They tried to avoid going through residential neighborhoods. He stated they indicated they would not use Carl Street as an alternative emergency access because that was not the most direct way to get into the development. He stated the City had not done their homework and came up with facts. He noted if Carl Street was moved, he would have no choice, except to go across his neighbor's property to get out of his driveway to get to the road. However, he stated he would prefer that option rather than a cul -de -sac on his property. He stated he had no choice on building his home, except where it was at because of the topography of the land and now the City wanted to put the road right in his front yard. He noted a petition had been submitted previously to the City requesting Carl Street not go through, and he believed the City was not concerned about what the residents wanted. Jeff Morell, stated he was the most affected property owner in this development. He stated he was concerned about Carl street going through. He expressed concern about the construction equipment on Sunset and the ruining of the road. He asked if he would be able to hook up to sewer and water in the future. Chair Schaps replied he did not have a definite answer for him, but he believed he would be able to. Mr. Morell asked why there was no senior housing in this development. He requested when the development went ahead, he not be left behind. He asked if there was any consideration being made along Sunset. He noted the traffic had drastically increased on Sunset over the years. Mr. Lyden stated he was concerned about the Carl Street connection. He stated he thought the Board had requested police and fire input regarding the connection of Carl Street. He again requested staff to get this information for the Board. Chair Schaps stated there were still a number of things needed to be resolved and he believed it required more time. Mr. Kirmis replied he agreed with that. Chair Schaps asked the Board members if they should continue the Public Hearing until January, 2003. He thanked applicant for their efforts, but stated there was still work to do. Mr. Johnson requested they tell them which side the Board wanted to be on to clarify everything. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 14 Mr. Johnson stated the County did not anticipate Sunset would need widening, except for turning lanes, which was their responsibility. He stated he did not know about the repaving of the street. He stated they would look at life style housing brought up by the previous gentleman if the Board wanted them to. Mr. Corson stated he wanted to see some idea of the hanger design and the types of materials used. He requested they be of a consistent color. He noted a resident had a concern regarding the lack of basements in the homes and asked they look into the possibility of a community storm shelter. With respect to Carl Street, it appeared they made an attempt to slow traffic through there, but asked them to look at another way of slowing traffic by maybe more stop signs. Mr. Johnson replied the east half of the existing Carl Street was 24 feet and the west half was a 30 foot. He stated there was a big "S" curb in the middle of that, which would not meet the criteria for 30 mph. He stated if they wanted the street connected, then they could look at further options to reduce and slow down the traffic. He stated the best traffic calming devise on Carl Street was to not connect it. He stated they also had a "T" intersection which would lead to traffic calming. Mr. Corson stated they were looking for police and fire comments regarding Carl Street being connected. He stated with respect to density, it appeared there was too much density packed into the whole site. Mr. Johnson replied to spread the units apart, would mean less open space, or they would not meet the density to meet the Comprehensive Plan. He stated he understood they had to average at least 3 units per acre. Mr. Smyser stated Mr. Johnson was correct and the land use plan stated medium density had to have at least three units per acre and no more than six units per acre. Mr. Johnson indicated he thought the City wanted open space and wetlands as much as possible. Ms. Lane stated she did not believe this area of the City should be medium density. Mr. Smyser replied the City Council made that decision and staff was bound to implement the Council's decision. Chair Schaps asked if they were required to keep this area medium density. Mr. Smyser replied if they changed the density of the area, they would need to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Schaps asked how long would a Comprehensive Plan amendment take. Mr. Smyser replied conservatively six months. Mr. Lyden stated the question here was is this development good for the City. He asked what would the Metropolitan Council do if they changed the density. He stated he would agree with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He stated he did not want Carl Street connected unless it was for safety reasons and safety reasons only. He expressed concern about the density of the development. He stated he would not vote for this development with these densities. He thanked Mr. Uhde for his efforts, especially with the Airpark. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 15 Mr. Uhde stated they would vigorously oppose a Comprehensive Plan amendment because of the time and money they had already spent. He stated this development was born four years ago and did address life style living. He stated it was always his understanding that because of the wetlands, this would be a higher density development. He stated this development was a good development for the City. He stated the swing towards new development was not single - family. He stated multi - family permits had exceeded single - family permits in the State. Mr. Zych stated he would like to see a storm shelter in the area. With respect to Carl Street he believed it still needed to go through. He stated he did not agree with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Chair Schaps agreed with the Board regarding Carl Street. He stated he believed it needed to go through. He stated he understood the resident's comments, but believed there was a way to do it where the resident's property would not be affected. With respect to the Airpark, he agreed with Mr. Hunter's recommendation on Lot 9 and Lot 4 with respect to a buffer zone. He stated if Lot 4 was an issue, then they should drop the houses and create 3 or 4 more Airpark lots. He noted he was not comfortable with the reclassification of the property from low to medium density, but there were a lot of other variables that went into the approval of the Comprehensive Plan that the Board was not a part of. He stated he did not like the looks of the development with respect to the townhomes. He stated there were too many of them. He stated he wanted the multi -units in the middle to be reduced. He stated he would like to see some relaxation of the number of units in the middle. He stated Mr. Lyden's suggestion of a golf course was a good one. Mr. Lyden stated if it was the sentiment on this Board that the medium density was not appropriate, could they let the Council know that they had an issue with it. Chair Schaps stated they could let the Council know of their concerns, but right now they were boxed into medium density and they just needed to make it the best they could make it. Chair Schaps noted Mr. James Bosak, 7798 Sunset Road, had sent a letter dated December 11, 2002 to the Board which stated: "On November 7, a community meeting organized by Century Farm developer Gary Uhde was held to convey to the surrounding residents his latest plans for a new housing development. I have made some comments to the board concerning his earlier plans for his development in a letter sent prior to the first meeting on it in August. I never received any response to those comments or any indication at the subsequent board meetings I attended that they had any impact whatsoever. I nevertheless feel the need, in light of the November 7 meeting, to once again attempt to point out a couple of things that I think it would be important for the board to consider. According to Mr. Uhde, he has changed his plan significantly at the request of city planners to more fully comply with the city comprehensive plan. The changes greatly increase the housing density of the proposed density of the proposed development. Also, according to Mr. Uhde almost none of the proposed housing units will have even a partial basement. I realize that in order to have high density housing in an area with a high water table means that basements are probably a practical impossibility. Unfortunately this is also an area (Minnesota) in which a major tornado DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 16 even occurs virtually every year. In my opinion to build extensive housing in this area without basements is, to put it as diplomatically as I can, very unwise. Yes, I know the building code does not require basements and yes, I know that there are already extensive developments in Lino Lakes and elsewhere that do not have basements. These are not reasons to continue to make this mistake. At the very least a shelter capable of protecting all the residents without basements should be built in the development. (This is required in trailer parks.) Mr. Uhde's suggestion was that residents could build a tornado proof room within their housing unit. How many people will opt for this? My guess is very few. I personally experienced the tornadoes (2) that struck Fridley in 1965. Over 500 homes were destroyed. Because virtually all of these homes had basements only 2 lives were lost. If a similar event were to strike one of these new, high density, multi -story development with no basements, the loss of life will be much greater than it needed to be. Sometimes there are more important things to consider than a developer's desire or the dictates of the Metropolitan Council. If this housing cannot be built with at least partial basements or some other shelter for tornado protection, in my opinion, it should not be built at all. At the November 7 meeting several of the residents, including myself, requested additional information on items of great concern to us. I requested plans showing the elevation of a proposed storm sewer with respect to the elevation of my driveway and plans detailing proposed tree preservation. Our addresses were recorded and it was promised the information would be sent to us. Mr. Uhde delivered some plans to my house in person last night (12 -10). I appreciate his effort, despite it's lateness to comply with my request. Unfortunately the plans he provided did not supply the information I requested. The preliminary grading plan he supplied shows the contour of the property the way it is now, not the way it will be after the project is completed, and is therefore of little value to me in evaluating possible future water drainage problems. A call to Mr. Uhde this morning produced a promise that I could see an elevation plan of the development after it's completion at tonight's meeting. Hopefully this will be the case and I will be satisfied with what I see. Hopefully the board and city engineers have had this information for some time and had a change to evaluate it. I also found the plans showing tree preservation to be very deficient in terms of accuracy and detail. In some cases tree preservation areas are right next to or actually intersect with proposed houses — this can not be. I expected to see some actual tress (sic) plotted rather than just huge areas shaded in. The lack of any detail makes it look as though these plans are merely going through the motions without a serious intent to preserve any trees at all. Also, seeing a final contour plan would make any tree preservation much more believable. If the property is to be seriously re- contourted it will be virtually impossible to preserve trees. I hope that the board will give my written comments as much weight as if they were presented orally at the meeting. I often cannot find the time to attend the meetings. I also, like many people, find it difficult to express myself in a public speaking setting. Especially the intimidating setting of the seven board members up on their `thrones' looking down on the citizens at the podium. (A less authoritative setting would produce a freer exchange of thought, if that is truly what is desired.) I also think I organize my thoughts much better and more completely in writing. And it should even same some time at the meeting. I would however appreciate some minimal feedback, if that is possible." Mr. Hyden stated with respect to Carl Street he was still unsure about that and he requested information from the police and fire department, as well as some hard data on DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 2002 Page 17 this. He agreed that right now it appeared it needed to go through, but given more information, that could change. With respect to the Airpark lots, he agreed with Chair Schaps and Mr. Hunter with respect to the buffer. He stated he went along with Mr. Hunter on all of the issues he brought up. He stated he was surprised at the change of density issue and believed the townhomes were too packed in. He stated he would like to see lower density there, but he definitely did not want to compromise the open space, but his job was to follow the Comprehensive Plan and that was part of the Comprehensive Plan and he felt boxed in, but he would follow the Plan. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to table this and continue the public hearing to the January, 2003 meeting. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Set up extra January meeting date for Zoning Ordinance Public Hearing. Mr. Smyser stated there were several Ordinances coming up and it was necessary to have a Special Meeting on January 22, 2003. Mr. Lyden requested the information be provided to the Board as soon as possible. Mr. Smyser replied they would receive the Zoning Ordinance by Christmas. VII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT MINUTES • • AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: January 8, 2003 TOPIC: Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Rezoning to Allow A Tree Service Business & Outdoor Storage, For property located at "908 -1/2" Maple St. ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Mr. Charles Pfmgsten has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning for property located at 908 -1/2 Maple Street. The property is zoned Rural and guided Low Density, Sewered Residenital under the City's Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently owned by Mr. Bill Flanagan, but Mr. Pfingsten would like to purchase the property as a site to park vehicles and equipment used in his tree care business — "Charlie's Tree Service" (see Exhibit # 8). It was initially Mr. Pfingsten's intention to ask for a Conditional Use Permit, or an amendment to such, based on past uses that took place on the property. However, after a review of past applications, past and present zoning maps, the comprehensive plan, and the present City Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Pfmgsten and staff agreed that it was more appropriate to submit an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning, since: • The property is guided Low Density, Sewered Residenital • The property is zoned Rural • The City's Zoning Ordinance does not list any permitted or conditional uses for the Rural zone that would fit the use intended by Mr. Pfingsten (storage location for equipment used in a tree care business), thus it seemed pointless to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Planning & Zoning Board Pfmgsten Rezoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendment January 8, 2003 This report is based on the following exhibits: 1.) General Location Map 2.) Comprehensive Plan Map 3.) Zoning Map 4.) Plat Map (showing lot combinations) 5.) Sketch of 908 -1/2 Maple Street & 908 Orange Street 6.) Council Minutes — December 12, 1983 7.) Council Minutes — June 17, 1991 8.) Narrative from Mr. Charles Pfmgsten HISTORY OF SITE USE The background/history of the property is somewhat involved and irregular. First, although there does not seem to be any official designation of the address "908 -1/2 Maple Street," this address has come into use for the property because the property was owned and used in conjunction with the property to the north/rear, 908 Orange Street, on which Mr. Flanagan's home and auto repair business was sited. Second, in 1983 Mr. Flanagan asked for, and was granted, a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 40'X60' pole building on the site, to be used for "cold storage" (trucks, autos, parts, etc.) in conjunction with his auto repair business (see Exhibit #6). The minutes and reports for this application state both that the "area is zoned for GB (General Business)" and that "auto and truck repair is listed as a conditional use in the Neighborhood Business District — therefore an expansion or intensification of that use will require a Conditional Use Permit or amendment to such." Third, in 1991 Mr. Flanagan asked to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit in order to allow K &C Custom Auto Body to operate as a business out of the pole building at 908 -1/2 Maple Street (see Exhibit #7). The report for this application states that "the land is a remnant of the City's commercial strip that was eliminated several years ago. Present zoning is General Business...automobile and truck repair (is) a conditional use." The amended Conditional Use Permit was granted, with 16 conditions attached. Importantly, both these past CUPs were approved for specific purposes, under a previous City ordinance, with previous zoning conditions, and do not imply — implicitly or explicitly — rights for any other CUP or uses, such as that proposed by the current applicant. Further, the uses previously approved have now become non - conforming uses under the City's current zoning ordinance. Significantly, the City's zoning ordinance is explicit regarding non - conforming uses (Section 3, subdiv. 2.A), stating as its intent that "all non - conforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity." • Planning & Zoning Board Pfmgsten Rezoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendment January 8, 2003 ANALYSIS The chart below shows both how the subject property and surrounding properties are guided under the City's comprehensive plan and how they are zoned. Land Use & Zoning Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Low Density, Sewered Residential Rural West " Rural North c, Rural & General Business East " Rural South " Rural The comprehensive plan is the tool which guides land use in the City, with the zoning ordinance the more specific tool that allows that stated land use to implemented. As such, both are primary planning tools and must carry requisite weight and importance. The comprehensive plan was adopted as the City's tool to achieve its goals, and we must defer to it for guidance. Since the site is guided Low Density, Sewered Residential and zoned Rural, the proposed use as a parking/storage spot for heavy equipment and commercial vehicles is clearly at odds with what the City has planned for the area. In addition, significantly, the site is abutting a residential area to the west, with the resulting situation of conflicting abutting uses. Overall, the site has a history of uses that were either commercial in nature (auto body painting & repair) or supportive of commercial uses (storage for materials used in conjunction with an auto repair business). However, these uses took place in the past and do not over -ride the current guidance of the City's comprehensive plan or zoning. Such past uses allowed the property to become what it is today: a site containing a large metal pole building, a 6 -foot high privacy fence, and not much else. While such conditions would not seem to readily lend themselves to a Rural or Residential use, the comprehensive plan must be respected as a vision of what the City wants to become. Additionally, it is not appropriate to change the land use and zoning of one single, particular lot. Rather, in considering what uses should be allowed in such an area, it would be appropriate to view the broader area, consult with property owners, and determine if a larger area of commercial or industrial use is justified. In the present case, it is important to remember that once any change takes place, that change would allow not only the use currently proposed, but any other permitted, conditional or accessory use that is listed in the City's Zoning Ordinance for that zone, any of which may be even more intensive or conflicting to the abutting residential neighborhood. • Planning & Zoning Board Pfmgsten Rezoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendment January 8, 2003 • Applicant's Proposed Use • • Mr. Pfingsten, as noted in his narrative, proposes to use the site as a storage location for the equipment used in his tree care business. Mr. Pfingsten proposes to store all equipment within the pole building on site, except for two pieces: a 16 -foot Bobcat trailer and a mobile "field office" structure which Mr. Pfingsten uses to accommodate his research. These two items would be stored outside, screened by the six -foot high fence that surrounds the site, as well as some additional evergreens Mr. Pfmgsten proposes to plant on the site. Problematic is the fact that the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance does not address a use such as that proposed by Mr. Pfingsten. The General Business zone was cited in his request for rezoning because Mr. Pfingsten understood the property to be zoned that way when previous uses were accomodated. However, Mr. Pfmgsten also proposes outdoor storage on the property, and the current Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance allows outdoor storage only in an Industrial zone (Light or General), and then only as an accessory or interim use, with a Conditional Use Permit, and with a number of conditions attached. One such condition, significantly, is that the site "shall not abut property zoned for residential, rural, or business use." As a result, zoning to Industrial is also problematic since the site abuts a residential area. However, even if working around such obstacles as those sited above were possible, rezoning the site to Industrial would then open up the site to any of the permitted or conditional uses listed for such a zone, many of which are much too intensive for a site abutting a residential zone. Further, the City's comprehensive plan, in item #13 on page 129, specifically directs that "there are a number of small isolated industrial sites along CSAH #23 that are out of character with the surrounding land uses. The City will pursue the relocation of these industries into a community industrial park and redevelopment of these existing industrial site." Thus, the creation of such new industrial sites would clearly be counter to what the comprehensive plan indicates. Administration of Rezonings Overall, the situation that is presented is that of a site which is guided and zoned for residential use, similar to that west of the site, but with a past that includes uses more similar to those north and east of the site, being commercial in nature. The City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 2, subdiv. 1, offers guidance for the administration of Rezonings and Amendments. Specifically, such actions are to be evaluated against the following factors: 1.) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of, and has been found to be consistent with, the official City Comprehensive Plan. • • • Planning & Zoning Board Pfmgsten Rezoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendment January 8, 2003 No: the City's Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Low Density, Sewered Residential rather than the commercial or industrial that is proposed by the applicant. 2.) The proposed use is, or will be, compatible with present and future land uses of the area. No: the proposed commercial or industrial use of the property is likely to be at odds with the present abutting residential uses to the west. Additionally, the proposed commercial use does not conform to the proposed future land use of Low Density, Sewered Residential as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3.) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. No: there is nothing in the City's Zoning Ordinance which specifically addresses the use of "vehicle parking for a tree trimming /servicing business." As a result, it was difficult to find a zone in which such a use might be appropriate. While the General Business zone was chosen to cover such a use because the site was zoned that way in the past when it acomodated uses similar to that being proposed, the outdoor storage which is proposed on the site is not something that is allowed in the General Business zone. Rather, the Zoning Ordinance is written to allow outdoor storage only in the Industrial zone, and then only as an accessory or interim use with a conditional use permit and when meeting a number of requirements. Additionally, the permitted use of "contractor storage of equipment and building materials if enclosed within a building," as listed under permitted uses for the Light Industrial zone (# 12, p. 8 -3 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance), may provide the closest match of use to that proposed by the applicant. 4.) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Yes: the applicant has no known plans to install City services. 5.) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Yes: streets should be able to handle the proposed traffic, which is to be limited to several trucks, with equipment, leaving in the morning and returning in the evening. • • Planning & Zoning Board Pfmgsten Rezoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendment January 8, 2003 CONCLUSION Staff must look to the City's comprehensive plan for guidance in the proposed application. In doing so, it appears clear that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning is not in line with the City's approved Comprehensive Plan, which guides the subject property Low Density, Sewered Residential. Additionally, such a proposed rezoning is problematic in that it abuts an established residential zone, and may likely present a conflict of use. Lastly, the applicant's proposed use, together with a need for outdoor storage, is at odds with what is likely to be suitable zoning for the site. While this application represents one prospective landowner's desire to use the site in a particular way, such a proposed use is in conflict with the City's stated goals for its future. Further, there is nothing in the application that would indicate that such a proposed enlargement of a commercial or industrial area would be advantageous for the community in the long term, and thus worth negating the City's approved comprehensive plan. OPTIONS 1.) Recommend denial of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. 2.) Recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. 3.) Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #1 10111111110/ i Mumwri illIMICIII CIPAIMPOW/ IMPA IMMi , NW. \ o fall . �� 2 S . �, EXHIBIT # /8 /7 /6 /5 - -20 INE 3 AL 4 Pity E 2 3 EVERGR EN TRAIL 6 /2 13 2NG 12 A II 10 9 8 N. w hityrd�idl� -ma ® 4W��II3 tr/ Emma Aglell . i IU ©o 1 aL .. ANN .„r ►.® Q� a /9 -6-- AU U. +— COUNTY — STATE— AID — HIGHWAY y NO.14 — - — R / -W-- PLAT- - A/B.F- 25— 2 • EXHIBIT k Y PROPubt Inni 11111 ®iI r III min numiii ®,� 3 r MN= EXHIBIT # 3 .........2648.02 ltesarrey .. N89°2%54 "E EXffiBIT # OF (re 20 200 71d89I: B.a..pG'A'E. tie /0 Or.zih SubdIV] s,0N 900 Mts.—''' i•+0.1. d Vr • 5'0? O r rrm `I 3$ • F�'c5 3o ;� • O C y14 • V o • 4 Z41s MF4PLE St. EXHIBIT # 5 .10+ •1 .8Lr,c,K (op / rence fr l.thE. �af �1nE lot PLt 8/1/ FL A/✓ A G.. n/ 746 Fo 8 D,AA9 c Sf. )15-7 EXHIBIT # Council Meg. „1us December 12, 1983 poLIC HEARING. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - BILL FLANNAGAN :Mayor Benson called the public hearing to order at 7 :40 P.M. Mr. gluegel presented the request of Mr. Flannagan to allow the construction of a 40x60 pole type storage building on property located adjacent to Battery Tire on Maple Street. Mr. Kluegel presented Planning and Zoning recommendations for approval. Mr. Short had also reviewed this and noted the area is zoned for GB and this is , consistent with the Zoning. Mr. Flannagan must present site and building plans before a permit is issued. Mr, Reinert moved to close the hearing at 7:45 P.M. Marier. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Reinert moved to approve the. Conditional Use Permit for the con - struction of this building per the Planning and Zoning recommendations to include proper setbacks and Mr. Short's recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. Motion carried unanimously. Seconded by Mr. CONSIDERATIO/JOF TOWING CONTRACT Chief Myhre presented his results on the bids for towing service for the police department. After computing the bids, Chief Myhre recommended the low bid from Covey's be approved. Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to approve Chief Myhre's recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Marier. Motion carried unanimously WO1 )ably` rise''= Mr. Chuck Wetzler, substituting for Mr. Davidson, presented the Engineer's report. He reported that the Rice Lake Estates sewer and water study will be presented soon after the new year. Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to set a meeting for January 23,1984 at 5:30 P.M. Seconded by Mr. Marier. Motion carried unanimously. is Lo The Shoreveiw Letter on looping the water system was discussed. The Nd. Council expressed interest in looking into this and asked that Mr. sat_ Schumacher contact Shoreview and set up a meeting with he and Mr. Volk. r. Reinert so moved. Seconded by Mr. Marier. Motion carried unanimously. rABK BOARD REPORT lir. Schumacher presented the. actions taken by the Park Board in regards to the development of Country Lakes Park. Since only one bid had been received at the first advertisement, the project had been readvertised and only one bid, from the same company, had been received this time. !le Park Board had recommended acceptance of the bid from H&S Asphalt 1.4 the amount of $93,000.00 for the development of Country Lakes Park. ed r. of fir• Marier moved to approve the bid from H &S Asphalt in the amount of .!93.ofn nn fnr tha rlava?lnnmpnt of Country Lakes Pal-1r • EXHIBIT # explained that most entities will abide by the reguiazions oz tae local municipality. Council Member Kuether said she felt that the Council was wasting their time on this matter. Mr. Schumacher said he felt that there is a good relationship between the City and the Correctional Facility. He noted that they are the biggest user of the utility system and this is a real "shot in the arm" for the City. Mayor Bisel called this matter a "courtesy call" Mr. Herman explained that the purpose is to make the Council aware of what is happening inside of the Correctional Facility. He felt it is valuable to share information and communication.. He noted that if there are concerns, the Facility should be advised. Council Member Bohjanen moved to approve the site and building plan for the Correctional Facility as outlined in DRB application No. 91 - 26. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. VOTING ON THE MOTION: Bisel, Neal Abstained: none Bohjanen Reinert' Motion carried unanimously. Kuether Mr. Miller explained that Mr. Flanagan owns and Operates Bill's Auto Repair at 908 Orange Street. He wishes to amend his 1983 Conditional Use Permit to allow K and C Custom Auto to complete body work in a pole building formerly used for cold storage. The DRB has approved the request with 16 conditions. Mr. Miller noted that the business is located adjacent to a residential area and could be a source of conflict. The conditions attached by the DRB will help alleviate some of the conflict. Mr. Flanagan and the operators of K and C Custom Auto have agreed to all 16 conditions. Mr. Flanagan will have 60 days to complete all of the items that have not already been completed. The Building Official will make an inspection after that time and report back to the Council. Council Member Kuether noted several other areas where this type of business is located adjacent to residential areas. She explained that the area does not look very good and sometimes makes it difficult for residents to sell their homes. Mayor Bisel opened the public hearing at 7:52 P.M. PAGE 5 • • Nick Naga, 850 Olive Street expressed concern about hazardous material that could be on the site. He noted that oil and other hazardous products may not be properly disposed of and can seep into the ground water and contaminate nearby wells. He asked that this matter be addressed prior to granting the CUP amendment. There was no one else to speak for or against the CUP request. Council Member Bohjanen moved to close the public hearing at 8:54 P.M. Council Member Reinert seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Volk explained that the State of Minnesota has regulations regarding the disposal of hazardous waste. He explained that the vendor is required to record where hazardous materials were delivered and the method of disposal of the hazardous waste. If reports of delivery and disposal do not match, the PCA steps in and investigates the matter. In addition, the Centennial Fire Department performs periodic inspections of all businesses known to use hazardous waste products. After further discussion regarding the use and disposal of hazardous waste products, Mayor Bisel said he would like to see well water tests done in areas where possible contamination could occur. Council Member Bohjanen moved to approve DRB application No. 91 - 20 including the 16 stipulations recommended by the DRB. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. VOTING ON THE MOTION: Bisel © Bohjanen Reinert Neal Abstained: El none. Kuether Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Bisel asked that a draft ordinance be prepared regarding testing ground water for contamination. ENGINEER'S REPORT Resolution No. 69 - 91 Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Report, Ware Road Sewer and Water Improvement, Darrell Schneider - Mr. Schneider explained that 10 of the 17 home owners along Ware Road next to PineRidge Addition have signed a petition requesting that a feasibility study be prepared so that the costs of connecting to the sewer and water lines can be determined. Council Member Neal moved to approve Resolution No. 69 - 91 Ordering the Report. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. PAGE 6 • • December 9, 2002 To: Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Lino Lakes City Council EXHIBIT # 8 Mr. Mayor and esteemed planning and council members: my name is Charles A. Pfingsten, II, the proud owner of Charlie's Tree Service, L.L.C. of Lino Lakes. A brief description of my background: 21 plus years in the tree care industry which includes the management of 14 crews on multi- million dollar contracts with Northern States Power Company. I am a Certified Arborist, trained in tree sciences and tree biology, a Minnesota Licensed Tree Inspector, member in good standing with the International Society of Abori- culture, Minnesota Society of Aboriculture and Quad Area Chamber of Commerce. My tree care business was established in 1997 and has always been a profitable endeavor. The growth of my business has enabled me to purchase all the equipment that I need to provide a variety of services to my customers. Some of my tree care projects include work with the Lino Lakes City Forester, Marty Asleson and Rick DeGardner of the Parks and Recreation Depart- ment. The remainder of my work is a combination of commercial, private residential and several townhome communities which entails working with townhome management companies. My work also includes tree disease and insect diagnosis as well as construction related afflictions. I have provided tree care service in many communities including but not limited to Lino Lakes, Circle Pines, Shoreview, White Bear Lake, Mahtomedi, Dellwood, Grant Township, North Oaks, Stillwater, Forest Lake and Wyoming. I have a strong committment to my customers and their tree care needs. I provide a good, honest service today and will continue to do so into the future. I am and will continue to be a viable part of our community and surrounding commu- nities. My intention for the property at 908 1/2 Maple St. will be to park as much of my equipment inside the structure as is possible at all times. Two items may not fit: a 16ft bobcat trailer and my field office which is used for self- funded research at various times throughout the year. Intended improvements shall be the elimination of current undesirable trees to be replaced with evergreens on the exposed north, west and south sides. Currently, these three sides have a privacy fence which will remain in place. In addition, I would eliminate the double -gate between 908 1/2 Maple and 908 Orange in order to finish off with the continua- tion of the privacy fence. (See attached drawing) I ask all of you to consider granting me this permission for a number of different reasons: 1) Mr. Flanagan has counted on the sale of this property to bolster his retirement; also, we have come to an agreement on price, pending your approval. 2) The actual description of this property does not fit into rural agricultural due to its small size. 3) Location borders commercial property and is north of highway frontage property that would best serve the area in the future as commercial. 4) This property has been used in the past under permit as a commercial property. 5) Acquisition of this property will allow me the continued • opportunity to serve the City of Lino Lakes and its residents now and into the future. 6) No wood piles or wood chips will ever be stored at this site. I prefer a clean appearance and do not tolerate "junk" lying about. Also, no fertilizers or herbicides will ever be stored at this site; I have no plans now or in the future to use these chemicals. 7) I reside in the Wenzel Farms Townhome Community of Lino Lakes; rules and order are how I conduct my business and personal life. Thank you. Sincerely, Charles A. $fingsten, II Charlie's Tree Service, L.L.C. cc: Lino Lakes City Council Bill Flanagan • AGENDA ITEM V. B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: January 8, 2003 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING: Growth Management Ordinance BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS The Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2002 includes important policies relating to the management of growth in the city. Now that the Comprehensive Plan is in place, we must adopt the means of implementing it. The growth management ordinance establishes the means by which the City will regulate the amount of growth. It will work with the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance, which generally regulate the type of growth. There is some overlap, however. The fundamental growth management elements of the comprehensive plan are: a) The target for annual growth of 147 new homes per year. b) The future land use map that lays out locational and timing limits on new growth: Stage 1 (pre -2010) and Stage 2 (2010- 2020). c) A specified number of MUSA reserve acres for accommodating new growth in each of the staged growth areas. These three elements form the foundation of the growth management ordinance. The Ordinance Section 1 of the ordinance lists findings. The findings accomplish a number of things. They connect the ordinance to the Comprehensive Plan, and they list facts and justifications that form the basis of the regulations created by the ordinance. Section 2 is the regulatory part of the ordinance. Each paragraph relates to one or more of the fundamental growth management elements listed above. Staff's hope is that the ordinance is largely self - explanatory. Rather than offer a summary here I will go through the ordinance itself, paragraph by paragraph, at the P & Z meeting. It is important to read Section 2 of the ordinance in order, as each paragraph builds on previous paragraphs. • • • Approved Phasing Plan/Final Platting Schedule Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 refer to phasing plans and an inventory of approved phasing plans, which requires some explanation. The City needs a way to keep track of the number of housing units that are approved and the schedule for when they will be built. The best way to do this is to track and regulate the approval of platted lots or housing units. (A single family detached lot will accommodate one housing unit. However, multi - family residential structures can be built on one lot. Therefore, it is the number of units that counts.) Lots cannot be built on until the final plat is approved. Once the final plat is approved, we can assume that the lots will be built on relatively soon. The ordinance states (paragraph 9) that all plats over 50 units must include a phasing plan. (The new subdivision ordinance also requires a phasing plan. This is one of the overlapping points of the growth management ordinance and subdivision ordinance.) The phasing plan will be negotiated during the project review process. Ultimately, when the city council approves a preliminary plat, the phasing plan will be part of the conditions of approval and included in the development agreement. The phasing plan lists which lots /units will be final platted in each year following preliminary plat approval. Exhibit 1 takes us through a progressive explanation of the inventory of approved phasing plans, or final platting schedule. The schedule includes a column for each year and a row for each development project. The approval of Stoneybrook in 2002 included a phasing plan that allows 51 lots to be final platted in 2002 and the remaining 52 in 2003. (Lots can carry over to the next year to some extent.) Pages two and three show additional (imaginary) projects and their phasing plans. According to the schedule, Caroline's Estates could final plat 47 lots in 2003, 49 lots in 2004, 49 in 2005, and the last 23 in 2006. Page four shows the lots platted in 2002 (prior to the growth management policy being in place) and the total for the projects, assuming additional projects will make up the 147 each year. Page five illustrates several things. It shows that we have an existing inventory at the end of 2002 (about 208 lots) that is not governed by the new policy. It also shows that by year end 2005, the existing inventory of lots will be used up and the annual target of 147 new housing units will be achieved. That is, since the left over inventory is used up, only the lots that are final platted according to the phasing plan schedule will be available. As long as the City follows the policy, 147 new lots will come on line annually, and that is all that can be built on. There is some flexibility built into the policy, as explained in paragraphs four and five of the ordinance. • • OPTIONS The moratorium on residential development expires in February. Because of this, is important for the P & Z to make a recommendation to the city council at tonight's meeting. The ordinance is scheduled for a first reading by the city council on Monday, January 13. Option 1: Recommend adoption of the growth management ordinance. Option 2: Recommend that the city council not adopt the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 Attachments: • Ordinance No. 01 -03, January 8, 2003 public hearing draft • Exhibit 1: Approved Phasing Plans: Final Platting Schedule • Exhibit 2: Excerpt From Subdivision Ordinance, December 19, 2002 Draft Premature Subdivision Criteria and MUSA Allocation Criteria • • • DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT January 8, 2003 public hearing draft CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 01 -03 ORDINANCE CREATING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY The City Council of Lino Lakes hereby ordains: Section 1 Findings The Lino Lakes City Council makes the following findings: 1. The City of Lino Lakes adopted a comprehensive plan that includes goals and policies to guide planning and the growth of the city. 2. Managing growth through the orderly provision of infrastructure and other means promotes the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. It is in the best interests of the public to create rational, cost effective means of managing growth so that it will be orderly, efficient, and environmentally sound. 3. Unplanned growth does not meet community needs and is injurious to the public health, safety, and welfare. Inadequately planned growth has created and may create or aggravate negative conditions such as: a. overburdened public facilities b. underutilized public facilities resulting in wasteful investment of public resources c. an inadequate variety of housing choices that does not meet community needs d. environmentally detrimental development projects and patterns 4. The comprehensive plan establishes future land uses, staged growth areas, growth goals, and a Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) reserve for the city. 5. The Stage 1 growth area is the geographic limit for growth prior to year 2010. The Stage 2 area is for growth from 2010 to 2020. 6. The MUSA reserve obtained with the comprehensive plan includes 359 acres for Stage 1, and 909 acres for Stage 2. The MUSA reserve also includes a balance of 15.7 acres designated for residential use left over from the 1995 MUSA reserve. The total Stage 1 MUSA reserve therefore is 374.7 acres. 7. There is undeveloped land within the existing MUSA. 8. A growth management policy is necessary, in addition to official controls such as the zoning and subdivision ordinances, to implement the comprehensive plan and promote the public health, safety, and welfare. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT • 1 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT January 8, 2003 public hearing draft page 2 of 5 Section 2 Growth Management Policy The Lino Lakes City Council hereby establishes a growth management policy with the following provisions: 1. Promoting development within the existing MUSA is preferable to expanding the developing area of the City by granting MUSA reserve acres. This preference is intended to promote the cost - effective use of public investment by maximizing the utilization of existing infrastructure. 2. New growth prior to year 2010 shall occur only in a Stage 1 growth area. However, a Stage 1 growth area does not grant rights to MUSA reserve acres and development approval. 3. Premature development shall not be allowed. This applies to all development proposals, inside the existing MUSA as well as those needing MUSA reserve. The development is premature if it does not meet the conditions established in Section 1002 -6 of the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 1000 of the City Code). 4. The 374.7 acres of MUSA reserve for Stage 1 (pre -2010) shall be designated for new residential, commercial and industrial development as follows and as shown in Attachment A: a. Residential: A total of 300.7 MUSA reserve acres is designated for residential development. The annual target is to allocate no more than 36 acres annually in the years 2003 through 2009. While this is the target, it is an annual average. At the discretion of the City Council, the MUSA reserve acres allocated for any one year may vary by 20% over or below the target. Exceeding the MUSA reserve target will necessitate reducing MUSA allocation for future years. b. Commercial/Industrial: A total of 74 MUSA reserve acres is designated for C/I development. These C/I MUSA acres can be granted at any time prior to year 2010. There is no annual limit for C/I MUSA. 5. The goal for new growth in the city is an average of 147 new housing units per year. This includes all residential growth: both within the existing MUSA and in areas that would need MUSA reserve. While this is the target, it is an annual average. At the discretion of the City Council, the number of lots approved for any one year may vary by 20% over or below the target. Exceeding the new growth target will necessitate reducing the number of lots available for future years. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT • • • DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT January 8, 2003 public hearing draft page 3 of 5 6. No single development project should be awarded an entire year's number of new housing units. This requirement is intended to: a. avoid or minimize potential monopoly price effects b. promote timely development: one project often will not be able to build all 147 in one year c. promote housing diversity d. avoid inefficient concentration of infrastructure expansion that could impede financial return on investments elsewhere in the city e. distribute and minimize potential negative impacts of development f. promote fairness by distributing growth among several projects while observing the goal for new growth 7. An amendment of the comprehensive plan shall be required if, in order to accommodate a specific development project, the annual target for new growth (units /year) or residential MUSA reserve allocation (acres /year) would be exceeded by more than 20 %. The City Council shall consider such an amendment only if the specific development project will promote a clearly identified public purpose. The public purpose may include but is not limited to: a) provision of housing unit variety that contributes toward meeting housing goals, such as medium density, high- density, and mixed -use developments in locations designated for them in the comprehensive plan b) provision of infrastructure that will provide benefits beyond the project site, in accordance with City transportation, sewer, or water plans, that is not financially feasible without exceeding the target c) preservation of environmental features that would not occur without exceeding the target d) provision of economic benefits to the City that would not occur without exceeding the target 8. Use of Stage 2 MUSA reserve acres prior to year 2010 shall require amendment of the comprehensive plan. 9. All preliminary plats and residential development greater than 50 lots /units must have, as condition of approval, a phasing plan that establishes: a. a schedule for final platting a specified number of lots /units on an annual basis b. specifies the location of and number of lots /units in each phase (final plat). 10. The target for the maximum number of lots in each phase is 50. 11. The City will maintain an inventory of approved phasing plans indicating the number of units/lots scheduled for final plat approval in future years. DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT • • DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT January 8, 2003 public hearing draft page 4 of 5 12. The City will not approve a new project's preliminary plat if, according to the phasing plan inventory (final platting schedule), a new project could not final plat its first phase within one year of preliminary plat approval without exceeding the MUSA or new growth goals. 13. An approved phasing plan is a commitment by the City to approve final plats and grant MUSA reserve acres according to the phasing plan. MUSA reserve is actually granted at the same time as final plat approval. The phasing plan does not in any way eliminate the requirements of the subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and other official controls, as may be amended. 14. MUSA reserve acreage to be granted shall be the acres of buildable area only. 15. Allocating or granting MUSA reserve within the Stage 1 growth area in accordance with a phasing plan for the project is an action that implements the comprehensive plan: it is not an amendment of the comprehensive plan. Allocating MUSA reserve shall require the same majority vote by the City Council as is required for a rezoning. 16. This growth management policy shall not apply to the area of "The Village," in the southeast quadrant of the I- 35W/Lake Drive interchange. 17. The City shall review this growth management policy on an annual basis. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2003 John J. Bergeson, Mayor ATTEST: Ann Blair, City Clerk DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT • DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT January 8, 2003 public hearing draft page 5 of 5 ATTACHMENT A CITY OF LINO LAKES GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY The following tables describe how the annual MUSA reserve target was derived and indicate the result for year 2003. MUSA reserve need, as calulated for the comprehensive plan residential commercial /industrial unmet demand existing need 635 350 285 274 200 74 909 550 359 residential MUSA reserve total acres resid. C/I remaining balance pre -2002 new for Stage 1 15.7 15.7 359.0 285.0 74.0 total Clearwater Creek 5th Addn Stoneybrook Stoneybrook 2002 Stoneybrook 2003 balance 374.7 300.7 74.0 20.8 -20.8 54.7 27.0 -27.0 27.7 252.9 74.0 annual residential MUSA 36.1 (2003 to 2009 is 7 years) 2003 allocation Stoneybrook 2003 36.1 -27.7 available for 2003 8.4 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT APPROVED PHASING PLANS: FINAL PLATTING SCHEDULE Tots /units rem aining by phase N O LO nal platted) Qs O O N O CO O O N CD O O N Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be fi CO O O N O CO O O N O Mr O O N CD 2003 CV LO N LO O O N Preliminary Plat CO O Development Name and Phases Stoneybrook 2nd Addn total APPROVED PHASING PLANS: FINAL PLATTING SCHEDULE Tots /units rem aining by phase CV O L) O T T O O LC) O 10 'C N os a as C 0) O O N O W O O N ti o N 'Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be fi O O O N - �) CO O O N CD et O O N 01 O co O T year em 2002 co O O N P relim inary Plat M 0 r CO et N Development Name and Phases Stoneybrook 2nd Addn Jeffs' Woodland Farm 2nd Addn 3rd Addn 4th Addn 5th Addn total I APPROVED PHASING PLANS: FINAL PLATTING SCHEDULE Tots /units rem aining by phase LC) O N Ltd O +- LC) N 1 O N ^ N Ci. To C Co CD O N O CO O O O CD N 'Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be fi Co O O N LC) o01 O N et O O N O) 0) O) N.. et d 1 2003 et el- CD CI N Z' iE cn �. c E p Co N CO co CO Development Name and Phases Stoneybrook 2nd Addn 2nd Addn 3rd Addn 2nd Addn 3rd Addn 4th Addn Donna's Lake View 2nd Addn 3rd Addn total APPROVED PHASING PLANS: FINAL PLATTING SCHEDULE 2004 1 2005 FINAL PLATTING SCHEDULE APPROVED PHASING PLANS Q) o 0 O CO O lots /units remaining by phase N co O p ,_ ,_ ,_ p o to O to ,_ N Co O N^ N •- co O N O � Q ` a , a 0 v -p o N L CO O CV p xi O c6 Q C O O N to CCU ;C �ta ca-? s 'Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be fi CD O O N to N N O G O N O LC) Cr, el. Co tY r el- ^ N zr CO O N to rh t} d- N year en 20021 u7 C p N 1 0,11 & � ,. 210 6�f7 _a_I L_..__L. - ._ /1:a.\ rnn�f rrn� C, CV s3 remaining final platted lots /units at start of year I P relim inary l Platj CO CD Co els N Co CO O N ,- Development Name and Phases 2nd Addn cnu nuun 3rd Addn 3rd Addn 2nd Addn ' total 1 s a final plat Tots approved D O O N CD O N O O N h kit\ 4 10 4) '14;,*e) ev,t 06f; e awl I950 ePhif-j Is a single parcel of residential or agricultural land of not less than twenty (20) acres and having a width of not less than five hundred (500) feet and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel into two (2) or more lots, any one of which is less than twenty (20) acres or five hundred (500) feet in width. A minor subdivision as allowed by the terms of this Ordinance. In any case in which compliance with the foregoing restrictions will create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the subdivision regulations, the Council may waive such compliance by adoption of a resolution to that effect and the conveyance may then be filed or recorded. Any owner or agent of the owner of land who conveys a lot or parcel in violation of the provisions of this Ordinance shall forfeit and pay to the City a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each lot or parcel so conveyed. The City may enjoin such conveyance or may recover such penalty by a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. 1002 -4 BUILDING PERMITS No building permit shall be issued by the City with respect to any land, parcel or lot until the provisions of this Ordinance in regard to the subdividing of property have been met. 1002 -5 VARIANCES The City Council may approve variances from the requirements of this Subdivision Ordinance. All variance requests from these subdivision regulations shall comply with Section 2, Subd. 4 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, as may be amended. 1002 -6 PREMATURE SUBDIVISION Any sketchconcept plan, preliminary plat, final plat deemed premature pursuant to the following criteria shall be denied by the City Council: 1002 -6 -1 Conditions for Establishing a Premature Subdivision A subdivision may be deemed premature should any of the following conditions not be met: 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan including any of the following: Land use plan. Transportation plan. 1002. 2 Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance General Provisions c. Utility (sewer and water) plans. d. Local water management plan. e. Capital improvement plan. f. lrowthi management policies cluding MUSA allocation criteria. er•A•104ce dtv..to 3 Consistency with Infill Policies. A proposed urban subdivision shall meet the City's infill policies: The urban subdivision must be located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) or the staged growth area as established by the City's Comprehensive Plan. The cost of utilities and street extensions must be covered by one or more of the following: (1) An immediate assessment to the proposed subdivision. (2) One hundred (100) percent of the street and utility costs are privately financed by the developer. The cost of regional and/or oversized trunk utility lines can be financed with available City trunk funds. (3) (4) The cost and timing of the expenditure of City funds are consistent with the City's capital improvement plan. The cost, operation and maintenance of the utility system are consistent with the normal costs as projected by the Water and Sewer Rate Study. The developer payments will offset additional costs of utility installation or future operation and maintenance. Roads or Highways to Serve the Subdivision. A proposed subdivision shall have adequate roads or highways when: Manual-Traffic generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service outside of the proposed subdivision to a level worse than the existing level of service. (Level of service, as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual.) 1002. 3 Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance General Provisions - 7J or better, as defined by the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual.The existing level of service must be D or better for anv street providing access to the subdivision. If the existing level of service is E or F, the subdivision developer must provide, as part of the proposed project, improvements needed to ensure a level of service D or better. c. Existing roads providing access to the subdivision have the structural capacity to accommodate projected traffic from the proposed subdivision or the developer will pay to correct any structural deficiencies. The traffic generated from a proposed subdivision shall not require City street improvements that are inconsistent with the Lino Lakes Capital Improvement Plan or the developer shall pay to correct any street deficiencies. Water Supply. A proposed subdivision shall be deemed to have an adequate water supply when a The City water system has adequate wells, storage, or pipe capacity to serve the subdivision. The water utility extension is consistent with the Lino Lakes Water Plan and offers the opportunity for water main looping to serve the urban subdivision. c. The extension of water mains will provide adequate water pressure for personal use and fire protection. Rural subdivision can demonstrate that each of the proposed lots can be provided with a potable water supply. Waste Disposal Systems. A proposed subdivision shall be served with adequate waste disposal systems when: a. The urban sewered subdivision is located inside the City' s MUSA an4or is consistent with the MUSA allocation criteria. The City has sufficient MUSA Brand pipe capacity to serve the subdivision if developed to its maximum density. 1002.4 Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance General Provisions The subdivision will result in a sewer extension consistent with Lino Lakes Sewer Plan and Capital Improvement Plan. A rural subdivision can demonstrate that each lot can be served by an adequate sanitary sewer disposal system. e. A rural subdivision with a proposed communal sanitary sewer or water system has an effective long range management and maintenance program with proper financing. 1002 -7 MUSA ALLOCATION 1002 -7 -1 MUSA Availability and Commitment The City shall determine MUSA availability as part of the review of a submitted preliminary plat/phasing plan. City approval of the plan shall constitute a commitment by the City to allocate MUSA at the time of final plat approval according to the phasing plan. The criteria in Section 1002- 7-2 shall be considered in the review of the preliminary plat/phasing plan. 1002 -7 -2 MUSA Allocation Criteria The following criteria shall be considered to determine if MUSA will be allocated to a preliminary plat/phasing plan: 1. A finding is made that the development of the property is not premature. 2 The existing or proposed zoning of the property is consistent with the proposed use 3. Development of the subdivision will meet environmental design standards of the Lino Lakes Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. 4. The allocation is applied only to net buildable acreage. A utility extension can be made to the subject property. A roadway extension can be made to the subject property. 7. Development of the property shall not adversely affect the health, welfare, and general safety of the community. 1002. 5 Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance General Provisions The area of the MUSA allocation is consistent with the growth management policy established by the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan. 1.74 � ' '� rS14 1002.6 Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance General Provisions • • • Staff Originator: P & Z Meeting Date: Topic: NAC File No: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. C Bob Kirmis / Alan Brixius (Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.) January 8, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Century Farm North: MUSA Reserve Allocation, Rezoning, PUD and Preliminary Plat 194.01 — 02.01 Century Farm North Development Inc. has requested approval of a 250 unit low and medium density residential development (Century Farm North) located upon a 95.1 acres site north of Thomas Street and east of Sunset Road. To accommodate the development proposal, the following approvals are necessary: 1. MUSA Reserve Allocation (85.3 acres) 2. Rezoning from Rural to R -1, Single Family Residential and R -3, Medium Density Residential 3. A PUD to allow airplane hangers, private streets, and multiple buildings on a single lot 4. Preliminary Plat Initial plan submissions were received on November 22, 2002. Subsequently, the City staff has done a review and prepared a planning report dated December 11, 2002. In this report, staff outlined 26 conditions that required additional attention prior to the City taking formal action on the requested development applications. The Planning and Zoning Board heard this application at their December 11, 2002 meeting. The applicant, upon discussing the items with the Planning and Zoning Board, has responded with both a letter and revised plans to address certain conditions and provide an explanation as to why they do not want to meet other conditions that were listed in the planning report. Revised plans were submitted on December 16, 2002. Bob Kirmis of our office prepared a letter response dated December 18, 2002, outlining City staff's position on the various conditions and the applicant's response to those conditions. Following staff review, we have been asked to prepare a brief memo that outlines City staff's position on four of the main topics that require further attention prior to having Behm's Century Farm north proceed. These conditions may significantly influence the overall design of the plat and must be resolved prior to the plat proceeding onto preliminary plat approval and ultimately final plat approval. 1 • • ISSUES ANALYSIS As identified in the December 11, 2002 planning report, the following conditions were asked to be evaluated in greater detail. Condition 10: The street, located approximately 150 feet north of Carl Street and the Century Trail intersection, be shifted southward to create a full four -way intersection. Applicant's Response: This change has not been made. It is the opinion of the applicant that the T intersection will minimize traffic flow to Carl Street. This is, as they described it, a traffic calming effort to reduce traffic flows to both Carl Street and Century Trail. Staff Response: Staff does not agree with the applicant's assessment of the street design for the following reasons: 1. The street jog introduces an additional conflict point for local traffic entering and exiting Century Trail. Stop signs for Carl Street, both east and west, is the preferred option to interrupt traffic and allow for safer traffic movements between these two streets. 2. Residents within Century Farms North wishing to proceed to an easterly destination will not be discouraged from using Carl Street due to the street jog. Rather, it just introduces another unsafe turning movement within a distance of 150 feet between two local streets. 3. It is important to look at the proposed preliminary plat within the context of the larger area. Recognizing that Carl Street provides an access point to the east, and Century Trail will provide for connections into adjoining undeveloped properties. In this respect, a safer four -way intersection at Carl Street and Century Trail is a preferred traffic design in that it reduces the number of conflict points along Century Trail. The two -way stop will provide an interruption of traffic on Carl Street, providing safer access to these street corridors. In this respect, staff believes that the four -way intersection with two stop signs offers a more effective traffic calming element than the street jog currently proposed. Condition 13. Lot 4, Block 4 be converted from an Airpark lot to a traditional single family lot. Condition 14. Lot 9, Block 4, an Airpark lot, be eliminated, combined with the adjacent traditional single family lots to the north to allow the creation of a buffer yard. Applicant's Response: Based on informal comments received from the Planning and Zoning Board supporting the existing lot configuration, they have not made any changes to this and respond to these conditions. Staff's Response: Staff is still concerned regarding the compatibility of the traditional and airport lots in this area of the project, specifically to the following areas: 2 • • • 1. The introduction of the hangars and airport traffic on Lots 4 and 9, Block 4 will introduce incompatible land use relationship with Lots 5, 6, and 7 in the same block. It does not appear, based on the site plan, that there is adequate space between the traditional lots and the airport lots to properly screen or buffer the introduction of airplane hangars, taxiways, and airplane traffic onto this area. Staff believes that this relationship is not a compatible land use relationship and should not be encouraged. 2. Review of the preliminary plat indicates that Lot 9 and portions of Lot 6 and 7 contains a stand of oak trees that have been identified by the Environmental Board to be saved. This significant oak stand will be disturbed with the construction of the cul -de -sac to serve Lot 9 as well as the house placement, hangar placement, and any driveway construction. Consistent with the Environmental Board recommendation, staff agrees that this significant oak stand should be saved as part of the overall subdivision design by expanding the lot areas of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and providing a protected buffer yard between the Airpark and these traditional single family lots. 3. Based on testimony provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, the Lino Airpark supports these additional Airpark lots. However, in past testimony by the applicant to both staff and Planning and Zoning Board, it is questionable as to how marketable this number of Airpark lots will be. Under these circumstances, we believe that it is more important to create a homogeneous neighborhood design within the same block and avoid compatibility issues between the Airpark lots and the traditional single family lots, with the bonus of protecting the significant oak stand. Condition 23. Grading, drainage, and utility related modifications and comments are set forth in the City Engineer's memo and must be incorporated into the plan. Applicant's Response: The engineering report has not to date been produced. The applicant has, however, indicated that engineering related conditions will be satisfied. Staff's Response: In addition to the comments related to grading, drainage, and utilities, the engineering report should provide comment on the acceptability of the private streets within the townhome component (street widths, snow storage, etc.). It should be noted that the private streets, as illustrated on the plan, range from 16 to 18 feet in width. This design from staff perspective is unacceptable in relationship to the number of units that are proposed to use these private streets and the traffic movement that is required within these areas. A standard fire lane width requires 20 feet to allow for emergency vehicle access, however, this is barely wide enough to allow for cars to pass each other. We are concerned that in its present design the private street widths are not adequate. Staff's recommendation would be a minimum width of 24 feet with perhaps a 26 foot width being recommended to insure that there is adequate room to accommodate two -way traffic, emergency vehicles, and adequate width after snow storage. This condition is critical to the overall design of the townhome area in that it will affect building placement, required setbacks, street width, and block configurations. As such, it must be addressed immediately to insure that a complete PUD review can be conducted. 3 • • • CONCLUSION Staff feels strongly that the aforementioned four conditions should be fulfilled as per staff recommendation, rather than compromised in the overall site design. Other conditions that were addressed in the December 11, 2002 planning report can be addressed and will be worked out with the developer. However, we believe that the Planning and Zoning Board should give a strong recommendation that outlines their position on the aforementioned conditions. note: We have attached memos from the Police Dept. and the Centennial Fire District that address the Carl St. connection. Though staff is not asking to open up this question again, the P & Z has asked for documentation of the recommendations from these agencies. 4 • Centennial Fire District 7741 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 784 -7472 - Office r-i (651 4 -2427 — Fax RPr DEC e 2002 . CiTyOL tINCA -i4/ s City of Lino Lakes Attn: Jeff Smyser 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Century Farm North 1St Addition thru 5th Addition Dear Jeff, This letter is to backup what I have verbally said in the past about the Carl Street connection. The addition of this project adds to the issue of getting to the homes in this area for emergency purposes as well as a looped water system. Carl Street is a natural connection to this addition and would reduce response time to this area for emergency calls. Most of the emergency response comes to this area from the east. Also, when looking at the proposed plat, I noticed some building, possibly hangers, that are about 3200 square feet. The new building code will require an aircraft hanger over 2,000 square feet to have an automatic sprinkler system installed. It also looks like there is not required access to these buildings as required by the Fire Code. We must be able to get within 150 feet of the farthest wall with a full size fire truck. This access must be available year round. Sincerely, Milo Bennett Fire Chief • • Department of Public Safety POLICE David J. Pecchia Public Safety Director / Chief of Police Officer Mike Rumpsa Lino Lakes Police Department CPTED Review of the proposed Carl Street Extension. 12 -16 -02 I reviewed the plans for extending Carl Street into the Behm Century Farms Expansion. This is a logical choice. By opening up Carl Street as a thru street, residents from the Behm Century Farm Expansion would be able to access Main Street and Lilac Street Via 4th Ave. This will relieve some of congestion on Sunset Ave. Emergency vehicles need a second entrance into the development; Carl Street will allow emergency personnel and residents an additional way in and out of the area if a critical incident occurs at the Sunset entrance. IE: Natural disaster or accident ect... 4th Ave is a large collector street, which has low traffic volume. 4th Ave should be able to handle the additional traffic. The residents that live on Carl Street will also get an increase of patrol traffic, as squads use Carl Street, to access the new addition. From a public safety view, converting Carl Street to a thru street is an acceptable solution. Carl Street will remain a residential street, but will allow emergency vehicles to access the new Behm expansion. It will also supply a second access in and out of Carl Street and Behm Century Farms expansion. 640 Town Center Parkway ® Lino Lakes, Minnesota ® 55014 -1182 Public Administration /Records: 651 - 982 -2300 ® Fax: 651 - 982 -2399 00 TORY PAR ORIN 1ST ADO. THOU 771 ADD G \Pro1erts SD .• - Gr.o-2\HOLITOR PARCEL630- 001 \UNDE -rev OUTLOT B — --ST #611914— �18AB -- 15 NUMBER OF LOTS I2- 13- 02\630001EN10-30 -0 CENTURY FARM NORTH 1ST ADDITION CENTURY FARM NORTH 2ND ADDITION CENTURY FARM NORTH 3RD ADDITION CENTURY FARM NORTH 4TH 4001110N CENTURY FARM NORTH 5TH ADDITION CENTURY FARM NORTH 611-1 4001110N base .e.• 12/13/2002 103305 AN CST SINGLE AIR FAMILY PARK SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 33 6 9 21 19 9 5 21 TOWNHOUSE TOTAL UNITS 60 12 40 30 30 34 43 38 43 12 33 TOTAL LOTS TOTAL AREA GROSS DENSITY NET AREA NET DENSITY 33 15 75 95.12 ACRES 2.63 U /AC. 85.23 AC. Z93 U /AC. DRAINAGE AND UTIUTY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN AS THUS: 126 = 249 OUTLOT C BEET aoDJ Lmoo 10.00 -1 -Jr 1000 10.00 10.00 REAR UNEf BEING 10 PEST W MIOt11 AOJOYIING SIDE 0011 I1NE5. AND IO 8EET N 8.1011 LOT OJOINN S STREET UNES 170 REAR L ONES. UNLESS N ON 1140 SHOWN 0®54.1100 AS 5110514 ON 111E PLAT 8111 ADD. OUTLOT E ' or room Kra mn` TWCAL LOT AFEAS \-J 6TH AD r7 OUTLOT D c ,• na w a. 1ST ADD. l GRAPHIC SCALE 1 IN FEET 1 inch - 100 1L — 7T II r ___117 OUTLOT B • COMEY FARM MSSIN ADO. 1 3 : ADO. 4 OUTDT 0. DEEMS I / COMMIT RARN 5TH %00. / I // I I / L.J_ -- _ / / / �z/1 \1 +? � 1 _ SAFETY ZONE A (240'X1707') / i i' • DISPLACED THRESHOLD , Nj 9 Urn -I r/ \ —. RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (200'X2600') RUNWAY (122X2200') RUNWAY SAFETY AREA ,H-10 >_ FE FE EXHIBIT A - REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT CENTURY EAR ORTN 1ST ADP 1NRU TTN 000. CAP cts \0.•s -G,.. 2 \1411_1TOR PARCEL630- 001LLM 0E- rc vlsbns- 12- 13- 02‘6300011A10-3D -0 OUTLOT B 1911 ourto c t.. OT P0 NN Di OUTLOT E Roma f non` GRAPHIC SCALE RIO ( 01 FRET ) 1 /nub - 100 fE n. OUTLOT D \-P \\ALO 17 to OUTLOT moot $1 -r If R E" 1 CENTERLINE \ _ _ _ SAFETY ZONE A I +I 4 I 1 s I I I I F. 1 I ) I I I I I (240'X1707') RUNWAY OVERRUN/ / ,./ / L VERRUN/ L DISPLACED THRESHOLD f � 1 j / ',% \\\ is r —+ RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (200'X2600') RUNWAY (122'X2200') L RUNWAY SAFETY AREA CST N 0 EXHIBIT B - REVISED SITE PLAN 2002 Planning & Zoning Board Action Meeting Summary JANUARY 9: Gethsemane United Methodist Church, CUP Amendment — Approved w/ conditions Pheasant Hills 12th Addition, Comp. Plan Amendment/MUSA Allocation, Rezone, Preliminary Plat — Denied Elected members to Development Regulations Task Force Elected EDAC Liaison FEBRUARY 13: Lino Lakes Marketplace 2nd Addition, Preliminary Plat — Approved TCF Bank, Marketplace, Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions MARCH 13: Outlot F, Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition, Minor Subdivision — Approved w/ conditions APRIL 10: Bald Eagle Contractors, Lake Drive, CUP for Outdoor Storage — Denied Stoneybrook, Comp. Plan Amendment/MUSA Allocation, Rezone, Preliminary Plat — Closed Public Hearing — Item Tabled MAY 8: akT adeau, 20th Ave., Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions horp, Oak Lane, Minor Subdivision & Variance — Approved Neeck, Oak Lane, Variance — Approved w/ conditions Raske Building Systems, Apollo Business Park, Minor Subdivision & Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions Glenn Rehbein, Village Hills, NW corner of Birch St. & Ware Rd., Rezone to PDO & Site Plan Review — Continued Public Hearing JUNE 12: Emergency Apparatus Maintenance, 7512 — 4th Ave., Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions Russian Baptist Church, Ash St./ Baldwin Lk. Rd., Site Plan Review & Conditional Use Permit — Closed Public Hearing — Tabled to next meeting — Agreed to reopen Public Hearing at next mtg. William Walton, 8140 — 20th Avenue, Conditional Use Permit — Approved w /conditions JULY 10: Spirit Hills Commercial Development, NW corner of Birch St. & Ware Rd., Rezone to GB /PDO, Site Plan Review, CUP — Approved Stoneybrook, Birch St. /Sherman Lake Rd., Comp. Plan Amendment/MUSA Allocation, Rezone to R -1X, Preliminary Plat — Approved Russian Baptist Church, Ash St. /Baldwin Lake Rd., Stie Plan Review & CUP — Approved • P &Z 2002 Meeting Summary Page 1 of 2 • AUGUST 14: Mary Zehowski, 900 Oak Lane, Minor Subdivision — Approved Corey & Shelly Bachman, 1487 Ash St., Minor Subdivision & Variance — Approved Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash St., Minor Subdivision & Variance — Tabled JADT Development, Lino Lakes Commercial Center, SE corner of Lake Dr. & Apollo Dr., Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit — Approved Gary Uhde, Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions, S. of Main St. & N. of Carl St., Preliminary Plat — Continued Public Hearing Subdivision Ordinance - Approved SEPTEMBER 11: Laraine Cardarelli & Craig Severson, 82XX W. Rondeau Lake Rd., Minor Subdivision — Approved w/ conditions Michael & Laura Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck Trail, Variance — Approved w/ conditions Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash St., Minor Subdivision & Variance — Approved w/ conditions Gary Uhde, Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions, S. of Main St. & N. of Carl St., Preliminary Plat — Continued Public Hearing OCTOBER 9: Raymond Chavez, 6207 Laurene Ave., Minor Subdivision — Approved w/ conditions Dennis Lipoff, 62XX Laurene Ave., Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions •mie Brown, 442 Main St., Variance — Denied Gary Uhde, Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions, S. of Main St. & N. of Carl St., Preliminary Plat — Continued Public Hearing NOVEMBER 13: Ray Benkler, Car Wash, XXX Lake Drive, Conditional Use Permit & Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions Gordon Johnson, UDOR, 500 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions Gary Uhde, Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions, S. of Main St. & N. of Carl St., Preliminary Plat — Continued Public Hearing DECEMBER 11: Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 1st — 7th Additions (formerly Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Add.), S. of Main St. & N. of Carl St., Rezone, MUSA Allocation, Preliminary Plat — Continued Public Hearing • P &Z 2002 Meeting Summary Page 2 of 2 • 2002 Planning & Zoning Board Final Action Summary by Land Use Type VARIANCE: Thorp, Oak Lane, Minor Subdivision & Variance — Approved 5/8/02 * Neeck, Oak Lane, Variance — Approved w/ conditions 5/8/02 Corey & Shelly Bachman, 1487 Ash St., Minor Subdivision & Variance — Approved 8/14/02 * Michael & Laura Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck Trail, Variance — Approved w/ conditions 9/11/02 Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash St., Minor Subdivision & Variance — Approved w/ conditions 9/11/02 * Jamie Brown, 442 Main St., Variance — Denied 10/9/02 PRELIMINARY PLAT: Pheasant Hills 12th Addition, Comp. Plan Amendment/Musa Allocation, Rezone, Preliminary Plat — Denied 1/9/02 * Lino Lakes Marketplace 2nd Addition, Preliminary Plat — Approved 2/13/02 Stoneybrook, Birch St. /Sherman Lake Rd., Comp. Plan Amendment/MUSA Allocation, Rezone to R -1X, Preliminary Plat — Approved 7/10/02 * JADT Development, Lino Lakes Commercial Center, SE corner of Lake Dr. & Apollo Dr., Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit — Approved 8/14/02 * Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 1st — 7th Additions, South of Main St. & North of Carl St., Rezone, MUSA Allocation, Preliminary Plat — (Continued Public Hearing to Jan. 2003) * • REZONE: Pheasant Hills 12th Addition, Comp. Plan Amendment/Musa Allocation, Rezone, Preliminary Plat — Denied 1/9/02 * Spirit Hills Commercial Development, NW corner of Birch St. & Ware Rd., Rezone to GB /PDO, Site Plan Review, CUP — Approved 7/10/02 * Stoneybrook, Birch St. /Sherman Lake Rd., Comp. Plan Amendment /MUSA Allocation, Rezone to R -1X, Preliminary Plat — Approved 7/10/02 * Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 1st — 7th Additions, South of Main St. & North of Carl St., Rezone, MUSA Allocation, Preliminary Plat — (Continued Public Hearing to Jan. 2003) * MINOR SUBDIVISION: Outlot F, Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition, Minor Subdivision — Approved w/ conditions 3/13/02 Thorp, Oak Lane, Minor Subdivision & Variance — Approved 5/8/02 * Raske Building Systems, Apollo Business Park, Minor Subdivision & Site Plan Review — Approved 5/8/02 * Mary Zehowski, 900 Oak Lane, Minor Subdivision — Approved 8/14/02 Corey & Shelly Bachman, 1487 Ash St., Minor Subdivision & Variance — Approved 8/14/02 * Laraine Cardarelli & Craig Severson, 82XX W. Rondeau Lake Rd., Minor Subdivision — Approved w/ conditions 9/11/02 Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash St., Minor Subdivision & Variance — Approved w/ conditions 9/11/02 * •aymond Chavez, 6207 Laurene Ave., Minor Subdivision — Approved w/ conditions 10/9/02 * Item in multiple categories P &Z 2002 Action Summary Page 1 of 2 SITE PLAN REVIEW: TCF Bank, Marketplace, Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 2/13/02 litadeau, 20th Ave., Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 5/8/02 aske Building Systems, Apollo Business Park, Minor Subdivision & Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 5/8/02 * Emergency Apparatus Maintenance, 7512 — 4th Ave., Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 6/12/02 Spirit Hills Commercial Development, NW corner of Birch St. & Ware Rd., Rezone to GB /PDO, Site Plan Review, CUP — Approved 7/10/02 * Russian Baptist Church, Ash St. /Baldwin Lake Rd., Site Plan Review & CUP — Approved 7/10/02 * JADT Development, Lino Lakes Commercial Center, SE corner of Lake Dr. & Apollo Dr., Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit — Approved 8/14/02 * Dennis Lipoff, 62XX Laurene Ave., Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 10/9/02 Ray Benkler, Car Wash, XXX Lake Drive, CUP and Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 11/13/02 * Gordon Johnson, UDOR, 500 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 11/13/02 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / CUP AMENDMENT: Gethsemane United Methodist Church, CUP Amendment — Approved w/ conditions 1/9/02 Bald Eagle Contractors, Lake Drive, CUP for outdoor storage — Denied 4/10/02 William Walton, 8140 — 20th Avenue, Conditional Use Permit — Approved w /conditions 6/12/02 Spirit Hills Commercial Development, NW corner of Birch St. & Ware Rd., Rezone to GB /PDO, Site Plan Review, CUP — Approved 7/10/02 * Russian Baptist Church, Ash St. /Baldwin Lake Rd., Site Plan Review & CUP — Approved 7/10/02 * JADT Development, Lino Lakes Commercial Center, SE corner of Lake Dr. & Apollo Dr., Preliminary Plat, ilkSite Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit — Approved 8/14/02 * ay Benkler, Car Wash, XXX Lake Drive, CUP and Site Plan Review — Approved w/ conditions 11/13/02 * COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT / MUSA ALLOCATION: Pheasant Hills 12th Addition, Comp. Plan Amendment/Musa Allocation, Rezone, Preliminary Plat — Denied 1/9/02 * Stoneybrook, Birch St. /Sherman Lake Rd., Comp. Plan Amendment/MUSA Allocation, Rezone to R -1X, Preliminary Plat — Approved 7/10/02 * Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 1st — 7th Additions, South of Main St. & North of Carl St., Rezone, MUSA Allocation, Preliminary Plat — (Continued Public Hearing to Jan. 2003) * MISC: Elected members to Development Regulations Task Force — 1/9/02 Elected EDAC Liaison — 1/9/02 Subdivision Ordinance — Approved 8/14/02 * Item in multiple categories P &Z 2002 Action Summary Page 2 of 2