Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/2000 P&Z Minutes• • Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME- STARTED TIME ENDED 1VIEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT April 12, 2000 6 :30 P.M. 9 :30 P.M. : Johnson, Schaps, Rafferty, Schilling, Lane, Zych : Kirk Corsan : City Planner, Smyser; Planning Coordinator Wyland; and City Engineer, Powell I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planni p.m., April 12, 2000. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Mr. Rafferty requested a co Rafferty commented that grates does become c Mr. Rafferty mad meeting of the Lin Johnson. Motion c Board meeting to order at 6:35 first paragraph of Page 8 to indicate: "Mr. s become weed beds, and the low luster paint on the atched." to approve the corrected minutes of the March 8, 2000, Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. ed 6 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps informed those in attendance that while the Town Center Development Standards will be discussed, it will be continued to the next meeting to allow an opportunity for additional input. The agenda was approved as presented. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:35 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 2 Mr. Johnson moved to close open mike at 6:36 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. David Pearson, 6280 Ware Road, Variance Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 6:37 p.m. Staff advised that the applicant, David Pearson, has submitted an application for a variance to allow a single family home at 6280 Ware Road to be located closer than the required 40 feet from the property line on a collector roadway. The Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 40 feet. The applicant has redesigned the proposed dwelling to minimize the setback required which will be 30 feet at the north/west corner and 37.6 at the south/west corner. The variance requested ranges from 2 only vacant lot in the area and contains wetlands which res grade on the easterly side. o ten feet. This is the as well as the steep Staff noted the criteria required for variance consid fact. Staff advised this development has coven value range and the applicant maintains the but would not meet that value criteria if t of the variance as requested. ecommended findings of 'eh quire all homes within a e meets that value as proposed educed. Staff recommends approval Chair Schaps asked if comment w�� °cep <' d from neighboring property owners. Ms. Wyland stated notices were o • surrounding property owners. The Metropolitan Council owt. R to the north and a single family residence is on the east side of the wetlan Mr. Johnson sug site. He stated he need for care and to are be given to grading plans to assure a sufficient building what occurred on this site. Ms. Wyland concurred with the e a closer look at that aspect. Mr. Rafferty asked about the actual elevations of the site. He noted it appears the garage entrance is from the Coyote Trail side. Ms. Wyland stated that is correct and noted the grading plan which indicates the elevations of the site. Mr. Rafferty inquired regarding the mention of a setback of 7.5 feet from the back of the house. Ms. Wyland stated that measures the distance from the drainage easement, there is no required setback.. Mr. Rafferty asked if this particular plan had been before the Planning and Zoning Board previously. Ms. Wyland stated it has not been. • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Rafferty noted the question of the value which Staff bases their hardship consideration upon and asked about the style of the house. Ms. Wyland stated a walkout style of house is proposed and the hardship is the wetland, not the value. David Pearson, applicant, stated the house is a 1,360 square foot walkout home. He stated they originally had the walkout toward the wetland but, due to elevations on the site, have changed the walkout to the north side. Mr. Pearson stated they have modified the plan to take the elevations and grading issues into consideration. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Pearson if he will be the owner of the house. Mr. Pearson stated he is building the house to sell it. Mr. Rafferty noted the surrounding homes are much larger than the proposed house. Mr. Pearson stated the size of this house accommodates the required setbacks, elevation, and grading issues. He advised of the location of other homes he has constructed and reviewed the proposed exterior building materials. He assured the Planning and Zoning Board that this house will h d curb appeal. Mr. Rafferty noted the lot has been vacant for six years as �a ere is a concern that this may not be a good location for a house. Mr. � s a d he believes it will be attractive to buyers due to the changes in elevation d the value of the home will be $250,000. Chair Schaps commented on a house in a ® hers unity that was constructed close to a wetland and has now had to be shores o r` arson stated this house will be 7.5 feet from the wetland and the grade ca s it is today. Mr. Powell stated the survey sional without indicating how the house will fit on the existing grades. He • . e variance does not include approval of the survey and the City will need to re • . tion on the elevations, citing of the house, and lowest floor elevation. This i tion will be required to be submitted as well as a certified survey. Mr. Pearson stated is his final certificate of survey and is the second survey conducted. He expla ed that by angling the house, they have been able to reduce the variance request. Mr. Powell reiterated that another certificate of survey will be required prior to issuance of the building permit. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve a variance ranging from 2.4 feet to 10 feet to David Pearson, 6280 Ware Road, to allow a single family home to be located closer than the required 40 foot setback from the property line on a collector roadway based on the rational that the findings of fact for variance consideration have been met and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -1 (Rafferty). B. Lyndal Nelson, 87 Lilac Street, Variance Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 4 Staff advised that the applicant, Lyndal Nelson, has submitted an application for a variance to allow a 422 square foot addition to his existing attached garage. The Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 30 feet from a local street. The south/east corner of the garage would be 26.5 feet from the property line. The north/east corner of the garage would be 32 feet from the property line. Therefore, the setback encroachment applies only to the south/east corner of the garage. Although Mr. Nelson has a very large lot, 1.6 acres, there is a low area behind the home and a large mound septic system. The applicant prefers to construct a three -car attached garage because a detached garage would need to be quite some distance from the house and would require the removal of an existing storage building on the property to meet ordinance requirements. Staff noted the criteria required for variance consideration and recommended findings of fact. In reviewing the variance criteria, Staff noted that a large Maple tree exists directly behind the north/east corner of the proposed addition creating a physical circumstance unique to the property. The City's Environmental Specialist has inspec that locating the garage ten feet or more from the tree will system so Staff suggests moving the proposed addition tree in an effort to minimize the requested variance. variance with two conditions. Chair Schaps asked if the applicant is in a approval. Lyndal Nelson, applicant, stated h site and determined pact to the root eet of the Maple ends approval of the the suggested conditions of Mr. Rafferty noted the moun �`� �tof within the location of the garage. Ms. Wyland stated that is corr- t. ' afferty noted the comment about keeping the aesthetic appeal of the , he need to maintain a buffer. He asked if the garage will provide enough sp all of the vehicles and recreational items that are on the site. Mr. Nelson stated t ? og pen will be reduced in size if the garage is ten feet away from the tree. He explaine+ they wanted a little buffer and an offset of the house front. Mr. Rafferty stated he thinks the addition of the garage will help. He encouraged the need to consider a buffer for Mustang Lane and to keep items within the garage. Mr. Johnson asked how much of a variance is needed with the garage being relocated ten feet from the Maple tree. Ms. Wyland stated the garage can be moved back by only four feet. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve a 3.5 foot variance to Lyndal Nelson, 87 Lilac Street, to allow a 442 square foot addition to the existing attached garage to be located closer than the required 30 feet from a local street based on the rational that the findings of fact for variance consideration have been met and subject to the following conditions: • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 5 1. The proposed addition be located ten feet south of the existing Maple tree to minimize the variance required on the south/east corner. 2. The proposed addition be sided to match the existing house and garage. The motion was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. C. Rick Carlson, 62nd Street, Minor Subdivision Staff advised that the property owners at 599 and 607 62nd Street are requesting a minor subdivision to allow their homes to be split from the balance of their property which has been purchased by Mr. Carlson and is intended for future development. The property is currently zoned Rural and guided for low density sewer residential in the draft Comprehensive Plan. Staff reviewed the past action to approve a minor subdivision for the Junes property that split the parcel into three pieces. Parc as dedicated to the City for park as a part of the Miller's South Glen Plat with dedication credit for future development. This park land was added to B. wo 'es Park. Parcel B was retained by the Junes and contains their existin: parcel C was retained by Mr. Carlson for future development. Following r. Carlson secured a purchase agreement with the Rehbeins at 607 • t ®t (` cels E and F) and proceeded to plat that property and the Junes Parcel C . dow Ponds. That development was approved by the Planning and Zonin oarY a d continued at the November 23, 1998 City Council meeting. Mr. Carl ' es tly requested a delay in Council action which is still pending. Staff advised of the size of e d requirement for at least 20% of upland. The City Engineer is recomme ice:• tal of 40 foot of right -of -way north of the 62nd Street centerline. This will r tal of a new survey document prior to Council action dedicating an additiona feet along Parcels B, E, and F for future reconstruction of 62nd Street. Thi should provide one acre exclusive of right -of -way for Parcel E. Staff re approval of this minor subdivision as provided for within the Zoning Ordinance e two conditions. Chair Schaps asked if you can combine two parcels to get above the ten acre limit. He noted you can reduce the size of a lot to one acre as long as the remaining lot is ten acres or served by public water and sewer. He asked if each parcel will comply under this 10 acre limit. Ms. Wyland stated they will not. Mr. Smyser explained each of the two existing houses can be on a lot smaller than the ten acres according to an exception stated in the Code. Chair Schaps asked if Parcels B and C could request to split off Parcel C. Ms. Wyland stated in that case, Staff would recommend Parcel C be combined with the parcel to the north. She explained the intention is to hold the property until public water and sewer is available. Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 6 Chair Schaps asked if this is approved, does it require use of the sewer system in the future. Ms. Wyland stated that any parcel smaller than ten acres would be required to connect. With regard to a lot being less than ten acres, Mr. Smyser explained it is alleviated since the lot would be combined, at the same time, with another parcel. Rick Carlson, applicant, stated he has nothing to add to Staff's report. Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision request of Rick Carlson as provided for within the Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions: 1. The newly created Parcels C and F be combined into one tax parcel with the previously approved (1997) Parcel C. 2. Additional right -of -way is dedicated to 62nd Street to ovi 4 0 feet from the centerline along Parcels B, E, and F. Parcel E i jus = , provide one (1) acre in area exclusive of right -of -way. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Moti D. PUBLIC HEARING, SSR & W ent, 7920 Lake Drive, Rezone and Minor Subdivision Chair Schaps declared the publi _° o at 7:15 p.m. Staff advised that the of property at 7930 L immediately to the eas split the westerly some commercial Drive. The current appla� ' & W Development is the owner of a .68 acre parcel d CB, Central Business and the 80+ acres is zoned RX, Rural Executive. The applicant would like to om the 80+ acres and rezone it to CB, Central Business (or n) and add it to the .68 acre parcel having frontage on Lake mprehensive Plan guides the westerly 40 acres of this 80+ acre parcel as single famil +residential. The draft plan guides the entire 80+ acres as low density sewered residential in the Phase 1 growth area (1998 - 2010). Both parcels of property are outside the current MUSA boundary, however, sewer and water are available on Lake Drive. Staff reviewed the existing zoning of surrounding property and noted the property owner does not currently have a specific development for this parcel of property but believes that a larger site would be better suited to commercial development and enhances the developability of the .68 acre parcel. The applicant is anticipating a future platting of the area that would provide access from Lake Drive, subject to Anoka County review, should the rezone request be approved. Utilities are currently available on Lake Drive to serve this development, however, until adoption of a Comprehensive Plan, no MUSA designation is available for this site. It was noted that any future development of the site • • Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 7 • will be contingent upon City approval of MUSA, a preliminary/final plat, access /roadway configuration, and site and building plan review. Staff noted the City's EDAC had reviewed this request and unanimously recommended approval. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with two conditions and approval of the minor subdivision with the combination of two parcels. If denial is considered Staff has identified two reasons for denial. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he had anything to add to Staff's presentation. Willard Morton, applicant indicated he had nothing to add to the Staff report which he found to be very thorough. Chair Schaps asked for further public input. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public heari t g` ., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Upon inquiry, Ms. Wyland reviewed the uses s $ ' n g P is site and explained that � property owners within 600 feet were notif lephone calls were received, but no comments received from the VFW. Mr. Rafferty asked if there were c Wyland stated the questions ask parcel but no concerns were sed by the residents on Lois Lane. Ms. applicant intended to rezone the entire arding the four (4) acre parcel.. Mr. Rafferty asked wh d = c, not parallel to Lake Drive rather than a larger rectangular shaped piek goes through a residential area Mr. Morton explai have had a number of people familiar with commercial development study site and it was viewed as being more versatile in this configuration. He ad %ised that a sketch plan of five lots had been developed based on this configuration. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Morton if he owns any additional property on Lake Drive. Mr. Morton stated he owns a sliver of land currently zoned commercial but it is too small to be functional. Thus their request for a combination. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Morton if he has heard any concerns expressed by residents. Mr. Morton stated he has personally visited ten to twelve home owners along Lois Lane and their concern is that they do not want 80 acres of commercial but had no objection to this proposal. Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 8 Chair Schaps stated he spoke with Mr. Evenson who had expressed that same comment but no concern as long as the access is on Lake Drive. Mr. Schilling asked if there is concern about the burden on the utilities of commercial versus residential. Mr. Powell stated there is no concern with utilities but there is concern about the impact to the roadways and the need to orient most of the traffic on Lake Drive. Mr. Johnson stated he attended the Economic Development Board meeting and it was felt this was such a small parcel for commercial it would not be effectively developed but adding this portion would result in more flexibility for development, access can be placed on Lake Drive, and it would provide a benefit to the City's tax base. Ms. Lane concurred and indicated support for gaining additional commercial land when adjacent to major roadways such as Lake Drive. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the rezoning to CB, v tra usiness, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minor s i `• bject to the following conditions: 1. The draft comprehensive land use ; aps amended to reflect a commercial designation for the newly crea • e . cel prior to adoption of the Plan. tee: �� 2. A minor subdivision is app • ® newly created 4 acre parcel and that parcel is legally combine • �� e�'�: acre parcel fronting on Lake Drive. 3. Development of the s ent upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and allocation of 4. Access shall be sively to Lake Drive The motion was e• ; Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. E. PUBLIC H BRING, Lino Lakes State Bank, Otter Lake Road & New Service Road, Conditional Use, Site Plan Review, Minor Subdivision Chair Schaps stated that since he has a financial interest in the Lino Lakes State Bank, he will not participate in the discussion or vote and will only open the public hearing and call for the motion and vote. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 7:30 p.m. Staff advised that the applicant, Lino Lakes State Bank, has submitted an application for a conditional use permit, site plan review, and minor subdivision to allow the construction of a branch bank at Otter Lake Road and a "to be constructed" new roadway. The property is zoned GB, General Business, and guided for commercial development in the • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 9 • current and draft Comprehensive Plan. A bank building with drive - through capacity • • requires a conditional use peiniit. Staff noted the submittal complies with the requirements of the GB zoning district and reviewed the proposed building appearance which is similar to the existing structure at Lake Drive and Town Center Parking. Staff reviewed their analysis of the project aspects including lighting, signage, landscaping, utilities, road, access and circulation, and parking. With regard to the minor subdivision needed to facilitate the necessary minor subdivision, the proposed lot will be 150' x 250' for 62,500 square feet. The current survey document indicates no structures so Staff would require a survey document containing the building placement prior to issuance of the building permits. Staff recommends approval with minor revision to the site plan and subject to eleven conditions. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he had anything to add to ''presentation. John Milbauer, applicant and president of the Lino Lak tats stated he had nothing to add. Mr. Rafferty inquired regarding the shingles . au stated there will be a significant cost savings by shifting to shin • �•t 1. Chair Schaps asked for further public being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Zych made a MOTION by Mr. Johnson. Motion c ublic hearing at 7:39 p.m., and was supported M. Schilling inquired r g the significant drainage and elevation issues. Mr. Powell stated a regional M •u. pond is located south/east of the site and the concern is to control the rate of i a ® rom this site He stated this is commonly done in developed areas and Staff is co ortable they can revise the site to accommodate Staff's concerns. Mr. Rafferty asked if the road will be directly behind this. Mr. Millbauer stated the road is 380 feet south of the County Road centerline. Mr. Powell stated that is correct and the recommended conditions allowed additional right -of -way dedication on Otter Lake Road. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision for Lino Lakes State Bank, to allow the construction of a branch bank at Otter Lake Road and a to be constructed service road and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 5 -0 -1 (Chair Schaps abstained). Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the conditional use permit, and site plan review for Lino Lakes State Bank, to allow the construction of a branch bank at Otter Lake Drive and a to be constructed service road subject to the following conditions: Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 10 1. A survey document indicating building placement is provided prior to issuance of building permits. 2. A cash park dedication fee, based on City Ordinance, is submitted with the building permit. 3. The western parking area is shifted to within 10 feet of the side property line providing a 40 foot setback on the eastern side of the site. The site plan and landscaping plan shall be modified to reflect this revision. 4. Proper building permits are obtained and include a 1% escrow deposit to insure completion of site improvements. Building plans will be subject to the review and comment of the City's CPTED Officer. 5. A photometric lighting plan is submitted prior to issuance of any building permits and approved by City Staff. 6. Sign permits are obtained prior to installation. 7. Utility, grading, and drainage plans are subject to the �, and approval of the City Engineer. 8. Permits are obtained from the Rice Creek Wate d ® prior to any site work. 9. Concerns addressed by the City Engineer in � �,�` April 6, 2000 are addressed prior to any site work. 10. The trash handling areas are screen 11. A shared driveway agreement is p The motion was supported by Mr. abstained). F. PUBLIC HEARIN Use Permit and Site PAM vi by City Staff. for to issuance of building permits. ion carried 5 -0 -1 (Chair Schaps y Queen, Northern Lights Boulevard, Conditional Chair Schaps dec lic hearing open at 7:41 p.m. Staff advised that th'° pplicant, Dairy Queen, has submitted an application for a site plan and conditional use p e rmit to construct a new Dairy Queen on 21st Avenue at Northern Lights Boulevard. The site is zoned GB General Business. Restaurants with a drive - through facility require a conditional use permit in the GB district. The site is part of a preliminary plat that was approved by the City in December of 1997. However, no final plat was approved. Staff recommended it is best to clean up this situation by requiring that a final plat be approved as a condition of approval for the Dairy Queen. Staff indicated they would address the site plan, conditional use permit and platting issues. Staff advised that the applicant for the Dairy Queen project is not the landowner who is responsible for the platting requirements. However, the plat issues must be resolved before additional development occurs. Staff advised the submittal complies with the GB zoning standards. Staff presented their analysis of the building footprint and architecture, trash enclosure, lighting, and signage. • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 • Page 11 • It was emphasized that sign permits are required for all signs and the consideration tonight would imply no approval with regard to the signage. With regard to the landscape plan, Staff advised that a revised landscaping plan was received on April 4, 2000 and Staff will work with the applicant to improve that plan. Staff next addressed plat issues and read the conditions of approval as declared for the preliminary plat in 1997. It was noted that sewer and water does exist on the site but the utilities have not yet been turned over to the City so that will be addressed at the time of final plat considerations. Staff reviewed the parking space requirements as well as road, access, and circulation around the site. It was noted there will be one driveway access from Northern Lights Boulevard. That roadway will need to be dedicated to the City and addressed as part of the final plat review. Staff recommended the conditional use permit findings, including the list of conditions, and indicated they believe the application meet those finding recommends approval of the site plan and conditional use permit subject ` ditions of approval and the project complying with these required findings. Chair Schaps asked why this did not go to final pla er stated his understanding that all the issues did not come together to the aeon ° all parties. Chair Schaps noted it could take several months to comp lat approval process, estimating it could take five months to get the 1-EM • olved. Mr. Rafferty noted the reading tha . • a final plat conforms with the preliminary plat, approval is a technicality. e. + i e difference is the split into two lots. Mr. Smyser identified the . + of the subject site of the preliminary plat and the location of the request _ + to� ate the Dairy Queen site. He explained the City would not be considen.rov. of anything that increases the use of the site. He stated it is not un development projects to include outlots in the final plat if they have not yet i users. Mr. Smyser stated if the final plat proposal included a larger number of lo an the preliminary plat, Staff would require a new preliminary plat. Mr. Rafferty stated his understanding that the rules for residential and commercial plats are the same. Mr. Smyser stated that is correct and explained the types of changes that can be made to the final plat while still remaining within substantial conformance of the preliminary plat. With regard to the road width, the past meeting minutes indicate that the Council discussed the width of the street and the City Engineer, at that time, indicated a width of 60 feet would be adequate and it was approved by the Council. Mr. Johnson inquired how the Amoco project was approved without final plat approval. Mr. Smyser concurred that should not have been possible. Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 12 Chair Schaps asked for further public input. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:05 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Archie Lessard stated he is applying for the permit for the Dairy Queen but is not the developer and is unable to answer the platting questions. He stated he has no objection to the recommended conditions of approval and is aware there may be a delay in the process due to the need to address the final plat issues. Mr. Rafferty referenced the approval for the Amoco application and asked, in consideration of that issue, if there is anything that can be done to speed this process for Dairy Queen. Mr. Smyser stated that consideration would not follow recommend the City make the same mistake twice. Queen application but believes this is the proper ti e would not supports the Dairy the final plat approval. Mr. Rafferty encouraged Staff to do whatev to speed this process. Mr. Powell advised of road constructi determine the boundaries of the pr could take up to 1.5 years whic the FEMA consideration is u Ms. Lane asked if this month, 12 hour a day, this area and Staff's work to ed the FEMA map revision process stantial work which has been completed and onth facility. Mr. Lessard stated it will be a 12 Ms. Lane inquired : A.. , $�- number of parking spaces to be provided. Mr. Lessard stated this is a Dairy Quee tandard and has been working well in other locations. Ms. Lane asked if five to six spaces could be added to the north/east corner of the site if parking became an issue. Mr. Lessard stated he would consider that in an effort to gain more customers. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the site plan and conditional use permit to construct a Dairy Queen on 21st Avenue at Northern Lights Boulevard, subject to the findings of fact as identified in the Staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat must obtain approval from the City before a building permit is issued for the Dairy Queen. The conditions of approval for the preliminary plat must be met before final plat approval. • • Planning & Zoning Board • April 12, 2000 Page 13 2. Building material shall be as shown on revised exterior elevations received April 4, 2000, showing EFIS as the primary materials, rather than corrugated metal. The fence around the cooler and the trash enclosure shall be painted cedar wood, not corrugated metal. These materials shall be reflected on building permit submittals. 3. A lighting plan for the Dairy Queen site must be submitted and must meet City lighting requirements before a building permit is issued. Lighting information shall include a photometric plan as well as figures of any lot and exterior building fixtures. Lighting shall be directed downward and not up into the night sky. 4. Approval of the site plan and conditional use permit is not an implied approval of signage. All signs require a sign permit and must comply with the sign ordinance. 5. Proper building permits must be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the construction costs must be put in escrow to insure completion of all site improvements. Prior to issuance of building permits, building plans must be • • reviewed by the City CSO for compliance with CPTE 6. All permits required by the Rice Creek Watershed to additional grading on the Dairy Queen site. Watershed District permit requirements will 7. Final utility, grading, and drainage plans m Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed Di 8. The City Engineer's concerns, inclu addressed to his satisfaction. 9. A landscaping plan must meet Specialist 10. Park dedication shall be mendations. 11 be obtained prior ure to comply with t approval by the City. proval from the City mo of April 6, 2000, must be oval of the City Environmental The motion was supporte • b ych. Motion carried 6 -0. G. PUBLIC HEA ` -: , Town Center Development Standards Chair Schaps decl .. public hearing open at 8:13 p.m. Staff advised of the 'ork undertaken by City Staff on the Town Center Development Standards, meetings held, and consultant hired to assist in that process. Staff noted the design standards have been developed and the recommendation is to create a new zoning district with the design standards becoming the standards of that zoning district to assure the development of an orderly, high quality downtown Town Center. Staff presented a colored site plan identifying roadways, land use categories, open space /park, boulevard design creating a linear park, and natural environment areas. Staff commented on the effort that will be made to create environmentally - friendly developments with regard to grading and ponding. Staff noted the area identified for highway commercial (gas stations and fast food restaurants) and mixed use areas that would be more pedestrian oriented and include standards and concepts that are pedestrian friendly through setbacks being on the roadway Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 14 to create an "old town" environment. Parking would be on- street or behind the buildings and wide sidewalks would abut the storefronts. Staff pointed out the area identified for housing types including high density. Staff stated that architectural standards will be included that require diversity and articulation of the facade, as opposed to large expanses of concrete block. The parking requirements will allow shared parking between compatible uses where possible in an attempt to reduce the amount of impervious surface. Staff presented a diagram of street alignment and noted that on- street parking would also be allowed. Another consideration will be floor area ratio as opposed to considering a maximum amount of impervious surface. He noted this is possible because of the large expanses of green space within the district. Staff presented the residential component, noting the areas allowed for ground floor retail with residential units on the upper floors. The types of residi ses are not defined but the minimum and maximum densities have been identi noted areas anticipated for higher density that will support the retai as, • e for life -cycle housing, and work toward livable community goals. to ce areas and requirements within the residential areas were note S d the residential buildings will be placed close to the street with parking . d e b dings for multi- density and garages set back from the street for other re a� s. This is being considered in an attempt to avoid a streetscape comprised garages. Mr. Smyser noted the Planning an document and provide input. has met five times to review this Chair Schaps restated that c hearing will not be closed tonight to allow additional comment at y 000 meeting. He invited public comments to be made. Tim Baylor, repre DT Development Group, stated one of his clients is McDonalds Restau . He stated he has specific concerns as the plan relates to their site as well as general comments. Mr. Baylor stated he is a Planning Commissioner in the City of Minneapolis and shares the sentiments about the proliferation of development and appreciates the amount of work involved in the redrafting of such a document. He suggested a lack of a macrovision in looking at a plan of this size and its impact and, on the other hand, having no mention of any zoning or planning on the other side of Lake Drive. Mr. Baylor stated he has talked with the consultant and learned they used no local comparable and all were from different parts of the country such as Florida and other areas which are vastly different from Lino Lakes. He noted their comparable contained nothing from the Midwest which is a concern to him. Mr. Baylor stated this is a detailed plan and appears it should be market driven rather than municipality driven. He • • • Planning & Zoning Board • April 12, 2000 Page 15 • suggested that some of the property owners may indicate they want to be compensated for the taking of their land due to over regulation. Mr. Baylor stated the highway commercial /shopping district currently is one of the most intense zoning designations the City has. It is along the freeway and appropriately zoned because of its access and location. He stated that to put that intense zoning next to open space and a park seems somewhat contradictory especially since north of Apollo Drive is more intense development. He stated they are ready to proceed with the McDonalds Restaurant and have been before the City for over two years. He stated they do not have the luxury of waiting to see what happens and they want to move forward with a certainty as to what will be happening. In April of 1999, the Planning and Zoning Board and Council approved the PDO. Mr. Baylor stated it is his understanding that the design standard incorporated the vision of the document being discussed tonight. About three weeks ago, the Mayor signed the final plat, reconfirming the PDO so they can commence with the project. Mr. Baylor read a portion of the City's Zoning Ordinan ce s the purpose of the PDO, noting the PDO has already been approved . at through the PDO process, most of the City's objectives can be reach •u oncerned that changing the Land Use Plan and zoning designations wil e a ct the marketability and economics of his project and, thus, jeopard .tea have been working on several years to develop. Mr. Baylor asked the P d Zoning Board to consider his comments and to assure the ability fo 'ec • proceed. Peter Coyle stated he is speakin Joel and Elise Tagg who own property south and east of 35W and e k r. e echoed Mr. Baylor's comments regarding Staff's effort to reach out . t < _gs and obtain their input. He noted this area will be an important part of th h • ° ' opment but stated he also shares concerns that the proposed plan goes too s e stated it is intended to assure compatibility of land uses but without the h • e aying that is how it must be He respectfully suggested the document goes to �. ill have an unintended consequence of making it more difficult, more expe ve, and thus less likely for the desirable development to occur. Mr. Coyle stated a docum nt is difficult to create that includes a collective vision and he fears the current document does not reflect the community's vision for Lino Lakes but, rather, the visions that have worked in other regions of the United States. He noted there is no indication if the design criteria is economically feasible or desirable by developers to pursue. He stated they want the Town Center to be a successful part of the City and development of the Tagg property to occur. Mr. Coyle noted the road configuration identified on the land use map was indicated to be a "must do" road configuration which means if a large developer came forward, they would be handed a grid of how the roads must be, regardless of their idea or cost effectiveness. He asserted this would "close doors" that do not, at this time, need to be closed since the City's ordinances allow the ability to make those site specific considerations once a viable site plan is before the Planning and Zoning Board and/or Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 16 City Council. Also, it will be cost prohibitive for a small family -owned enterprise to comply with the required design elements, monuments, etc. He explained that if the land has a certain market value, and the business has a certain economic proforma, the costs reflected by the document need to fit within the developer's budget including the cost of the property itself. He encouraged the City to retain the good elements and to look at how the document can be "softened" or included in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Coyle noted the proposed zoning classifications identified on the land use map for the Tagg property and commented on the restriction it imposes in that a developer may have a different proposal in mind. He suggested an overlay district be considered which would allow that not to occur. He stated another concern is the extent to which the City will commit itself to providing financial resources to accomplish this plan. He suggested the City will have to demonstrate it is willing to place some "money on the table" to assure the architectural requirements of the plan becomes a reality. Mr. Coyle commented on the substantial development occurr aple Grove along the freeway, noting it is the "hottest" development area in t ..longside two major freeways, and Maple Grove has financed the infrastruct an • '�� ' other considerations. He stated he was part of that proces w difficult it was for the developer to commit prior to the City coming f• financial assistance of some kind. Mr. Coyle stated he thinks the Lin e to as done a terrific job in drafting a credible plan but there is a delic ween a plan that shows credible visions and plans and one that goes too fa in urged the City to soften the requirements to assure it is feasible toc Chair Schaps asked if there is a e e City should become involved in absorbing financial costs to ' m attractive. Mr. Coyle stated he has had some discussion with the City ate• • and understands the restrictions placed on TIF use but he thinks the City sho # • ,, a to adopt a TIF district, possibly with the intervention of the Leg `< e, to facilitate future development. He stated he is not presuming to say y should spend its dollars on since the developers may be willing to cover so -� -m. However, there may be some good projects that are marginal and unabl . + "clear the bar" especially with the desired housing projects. Mr. Coyle commented on a Chanhassen project where the Metropolitan Council contributed $700,000 toward the streetscape. He suggested that may be the type of commitment that needs to be present to assure the developer that the City wants these design criteria met. Chair Schaps stated it has been mentioned this plan includes "San Diego" type features and asked if that is a viable type of development for Lino Lakes. Mr. Coyle stated the Maple Grove plan, which is a new urbanist plan, would not have happened but for the City's involvement in a substantial way. He stated it is his personal view that you need a fairly significant population density potential to warrant that type of development and for it to work. He noted the metropolitan area is more accustomed to low density designs and he does not know if the Maple Grove type of development is feasible everywhere else. He urged caution in this consideration and suggested further discussion with the City's consultants. • • Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 •Page 17 • • Mike Winge, Marshan Lane, stated he is a minority property owner with Glen Rehbein. He stated he shares the comments made by the first two speakers. Mr. Winge stated that while visiting Florida he saw a development that was the same concept as being suggested in this plan. He stated that it was enjoyed by all, some even driving their golf carts to the businesses. However, when the whether turned cold, he noticed that the businesses were not patronized. Mr. Winge noted the winter weather in Minnesota will be a negative impact for this type of design. Also, they are being taxed for 40 acres of commercial land and the plan proposes a lot of residential. Tom Vacha, 7702 Lake Drive, stated his concern with the plan that shows an access point to Lake Drive but no provision for any berm or trees for residents on Carolyn Drive or 77th Street. He noted that Lake Drive is also heavily traveled and access is difficult. Greda Jacott, 719 77th Street, pointed out the location of her about the roadway. She stated they have the youngest child the proposed plan results in their having to back out int this will be a concern for other homes in the neighb neighborhood children use the roadway to practice concerned for their safety. Darrel Silverness, YMCA Director, state He explained they are working with a preparing some site plan drawings for a second access point and if money. He explained that o and require street facade. lot side, meaning they YMCA is built and thi development is d believe they have nd stated her concern neighborhood and . Ms. Achott stated She advised that eboard so she is like to offer preliminary comments. o is reviewing design standards and of the requirement results in the need a the cost, they would need to raise more ed site, two sides will be considered street sides most of their users will be entering from the parking e decorative sides. Mr. Silverness stated if the s developed within three years, they will be thrilled. But, if membership will be negatively impacted. He stated they site for the YMCA. James Kauth, West 7 Street, noted the location of his house and asked if the site plan depicts the existing structures or new buildings at the corner of 77th Street. Mr. Smyser stated it depicts the long term vision that the site will be redeveloped. Mr. Kauth asked about the price of housing in the residential area and if it includes public housing. Chair Schaps explained there has been no discussion of price or type of housing that would be included. Mr. Smyser stated that is correct. Mr. Kauth asked about the density for the residential. Mr. Smyser stated that is not yet known, but there is a possibility for townhomes. Mr. Coyle noted the Tagg quadrant has two commercial operations in existence and asked how those facilities measure up to the proposed Town Center standards. Mr. Smyser Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 18 responded that some aspects do comply but some do not. The location of the building on the lot and large parking areas do not comply. He stated the buildings are quite nice and were negotiated designs. Since that time, Staff found the investment in the structures could have been more in the street level. With the new standards, the parking areas would have been combined. Mr. Smyser stated the design and placement of those two commercial uses are more compatible with the highway district as opposed to the mixed use area. Mr. Smyser stated that good comments have been received tonight and at next month's hearing additional information will be provided on the roadway issues that were raised tonight. He thanked all in attendance for their comments. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the May 10, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board meeting., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. DNR Smart Growth Greenways Plan Mr. Smyser advised that Lino Lakes and th ' °t cooperating in a DNR initiated program called the Wildland Urban Interf. = e Pr• ,am. The DNR's goal is to assist local governments with preserving habitat • • dl , water quality, and other natural resources. The DNR has asked Li ugo to be the two cities to participate in this program to work with urb i ities to attempt to minimize the impact on natural resources. Mr. Smys w he three parts to this program and the indication from the DNR that they w . u • further refinements of the natural resource inventory and will make suggesti� • h• o improve the City's method. The City of Hugo will work with a landowner . "development project to create a model for subdivisions that have less negativ „a . ct'• he environment. The City of Lino Lakes is under no obligation to follo�'���ommendations from the DNR. Mr. Smyser noted that Staff has considered deve ing a guidebook to assist small acreage landowners in resource management and the NR program gives the City an opportunity to have the DNR do a large amount of that work. Mr. Smyser stated this is being provided as informational since it may result in the need for ordinance amendments. Chair Schaps inquired regarding "smart growth" initiatives. Mr. Smyser explained it is a combination of using less land to accommodate development (more density) and to be more environmentally friendly with fewer natural impacts. He stated in the City's Town Center, clustering, the preservation program, and sustainable development all addresses smart growth initiatives. Chair Schaps asked if the DNR is asking for the opportunity to become involved, review projects, site plans, etc., and then offer suggestions on how it could be done in a more environmentally friendly or smarter manner but the City has no obligation to follow their • • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 12, 2000 Page 19 suggestions. Mr. Smyser stated they do not want to be involved in the City's design review process. He explained how an open space management plan could be useful to the City in development considerations. Mr. Johnson stated he sees this program as working with certain DNR staff people who have expertise in areas of nature and who will provide an additional prospective on different approaches, similar to the City's Environmental Board. Mr. Smyser stated that is his impression as well and he thinks the DNR will benefit by learning what is being done in Lino Lakes. Ms. Lane stated she saw a presentation on Smart Growth and noted it is a way to prevent urban sprawl. Mr. Schilling asked if the City will receive the full attention • °DNR if Lino Lakes does not participate in their entire program. Mr. Smyser ex ned "'s program is entirely new and being created and he sees nothing to 1• • rating. Chair Schaps noted the consensus of the Planning caution to participate in the DNR collaborative resource guidance to enhance smart growt oard to proceed with ca d "Integrating natural rban interface communities." B. Bluebill Ponds, Preliminary Plat Mr. Smyser advised that negoti o e en occurring with Mr. Powell being the lead facilitator. Staff expects to preliminary plat at the May 10, 2000 meeting which works toward the as of the City, property owner, and developer. Mr. Powell addressed VII. ADJOURNMEN ns o the members relating to the negotiations. Mr. Johnson made a OTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.