Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/12/2000 P&Z Minutes• • Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2000 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE ST i.A TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRES MEMBERS AB STAFF PRESE2 my 12,, 2000 .30 PJ'i •2 P. Orson, Johnson, Lane, Rafferty (arrived at b 39 Schilling. Schaps, and Zycb ity Planner Smyser; City Engineer Powel conomic Development Director Brian Wesse' onomic Development Assis I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planni p.m., July 12, 2000. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — J Ms. Lane made a MOTION Lino Lakes Planning and carried 6 -0. III. APPROVAL 0 Board meeting to order at 6:30 minutes of the June 14, 2000, meeting of the oard, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion It was noted that the , blic hearing for Outlot A, Highland Meadows East Rezone and Preliminary Plat has een deleted from the agenda. The agenda was approved. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:33 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2000 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Apollo Business Center, Conditional Use Permit - Dirt Stockpile Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:34 p.m. Staff presented the application by G.M. Development (Gary Uhde) who is developing an area known as the Apollo Business Center located east of Jon Avenue, between the 74th Street alignment and I -35W. He reviewed a map depicting the subject property noting that within this area the Blue Heron and Contract Hardware sites have been developed, the H& L Mesabi site plan has been approved for development, and the Twin City Fab (parcel D) and Marmon/Keystone (parcel E) sites have submitted site plans for review. Staff advised of utilities provided to the site and creation of borrow pits which were expected to be later utilized as storm water pond sites. Board Member Rafferty arrived at 6:39 p.m. Staff advised that since the original application sub plan revisions and additional information. Staf information on the proposed grading plan report. However, staff was not successfu based on the latest available informat a recommended continuing the publ. Chair Schaps asked the appl. ity has received multiple assemble sufficient e plans to prepare a complete fort. Staff presented their comments ed in the staff report and e August 9, 2000 meeting. is engineer would like to make comment. Gary Uhde, applicant, e d nothing to add at this time. Staff advised that to administratively issue grading plans up to 5,000 yards so grading may oc to the next P & Z consideration. Mr. Johnson made a ' ' OTION to continue the public hearing to August 9, 2000 to allow the applicant to prepare complete information and staff to prepare a complete report and recommendation, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 7 -0. B. PUBLIC HEARING, Twin City Fabrication, 295 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:40 p.m. Staff presented the application of Twin City Fabrication for a site plan and conditional use permit for a metal fabricating business in the private Apollo Business Center. The site is LI Light Industrial. Some outdoor storage on a limited basis will be needed, which requires a conditional use permit. The lot for this project was created by a minor subdivision that was approved by the P & Z on June 14 and approved by the City Council on June 26. Staff indicated that this project, when completed, will be a desirable addition • Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2000 Page 3 to the City and its tax base. However, the application submittal was incomplete. Staff worked with the applicants to attempt to get enough information to prepare a complete report. Unfortunately, the information did not come together enough that staff can recommend approval at this time. Staff presented their comments related to this project as contained in the staff report and indicated they are recommending continuing the public hearing to the August 9, 2000 meeting. Mr. Johnson asked what will be stored on this site. Staff indicated the size has been identified and will be shown on the future plans. He stated they plan to store pipes, on a limited basis, prior to fabrication and/or prior to shipment. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he wished to be heard. Gary Nordness, applicant, stated the staff presented an accurate reflection of his request and he had nothing to add. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public he the applicant to prepare complete information and st recommendation, and was supported by Ms. Lane. C. PUBLIC HEARING, Marmon K and Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps declared the public st 9, 2000 to allow a complete report and led 7 -0. pollo Drive, Site Plan Review at 6:52 p.m. Staff presented the applicati• +n Keystone for a site plan and conditional use permit for a metal pipe an t •rocessing business in the private Apollo Business Center. The site is zon g dustrial. Some outdoor storage of pipe, tubing, and other material will be n , which requires a conditional use permit. The lot for this project was create ; r< subdivision that was approved by the P & Z on June 14 and approved by t •uncil on June 26. Like the TC Fab project, this project, when completed, will be - sirable addition to the City and its tax base. However, the application submittal `" as incomplete. Staff worked with the applicants to attempt to get enough information to prepare a complete report. Unfortunately, the information did not come together enough that staff can recommend approval at this time. Staff presented their comments related to this project as contained in the staff report and indicated they are recommending continuing the public hearing to the August 9, 2000 meeting. Mr. Corson inquired regarding the existing swale. Mr. Powell stated it will be realigned to the common property line and then routed to an existing pond where filtration will be provided that meets the requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he wished to be heard. • The applicant indicated he had nothing to add. Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to August 9, 2000 to allow the applicant to prepare complete information and staff to prepare a complete report and recommendation and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 7 -0. D. PUBLIC HEARING, (Continuation), Town Center Development Standards Staff noted the public hearing and discussion held and continued on the Town Center Development Standards to allow additional time for public input. Staff continues its efforts to discuss the standards and requested the public hearing be continued to the next meeting. Chair Schaps asked if consideration of these standards is on schedule with the previously indicated time line. Mr. Smyser explained that a lot of issues have come up so that schedule is no longer a consideration. Also, there is not a strong unanimous community agreement on the standards as drafted so the issues will conti �q;;; � e addressed. Ms. Divine introduced Ross Fefercorn who staff has be application for the Metropolitan Council Livable Co purpose of this grant to look at alternatives to spra which takes a lot of land, has no mixed use, an typical goods and services. Ross Fefercorn introduced himself as work with development and const under construction and plannin Communities Grant was rec plan and revisions made t location of housing, t plan was refined and p off Village Drive entryway design f to support the need ith in making ant. She explained the suburban development s m``' tiple vehicle trips to find of Country Homes and advised of his iewed the projects they currently have 1 =' endota Heights where a Livable sented his Lino Lakes Town Center concept ow retail would be supported, traffic circulation, and other elements. He explained the Town Center d the changes made to reduce the area of retail, focus retail nnection with northbound I -35W traffic, create larger imination of the cinema use since there was not enough area arking and the site location was not desirable, hotel concept closer to the freeway entranLe, and specialty restaurant. Mr. Fefercorn advised that retail will be the last area to be developed and refinements were made to encourage more rapid residential development. Mr. Fefercorn commented on their effort to review design guidelines and criteria. In response to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Fefercorn stated the design standards will require some refinement. Mr. Corson stated they wanted enhanced pedestrian circulation including covered access. Mr. Fefercorn stated there are sidewalks and boulevards and the intent of the original plan is intact to create a walkable pedestrian friendly uses. However, the senior housing use is a stand alone building without skyways, etc. which would be cost prohibitive. Mr. Fefercorn commented on the possible creation of a master housing association and sub - housing association to address the sidewalks, snow removal, landscape maintenance, I • • Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2000 Page 5 etc. to assure consistent care. He reviewed several commercial projects that abut residential homes and his finding that it is important to properly integrate rather than to segregate such uses. Mr. Fefercorn reviewed the number and types of residential units being proposed in the concept plan, equaling about 440 residential units, 27,000 sq. ft. of retail, and 28,000 sq. ft. of office use. Staff advised the plan being presented is a concept only and in no way has been approved. Mr. Johnson agreed with the benefit of having a final design plan prior to revising the development standards. He stated another issue is whether the Town Center should be made up of two distinct areas (retail - residential). Ms. Divine stated the Metropolitan Council gave money to implement the design standards so if they are not approved, it could be considered ike against us." Chair Schaps stated the Council needs to make a decisi . s s ossible on whether the development standards should be considered pri.� � t e design plan. Mr. Rafferty noted Calthorpe created the desig d n a second concept is being prepared by Mr. Fefercorn who is a develo �a�e. e a that creating a second plan will equate to more dollars being spent. He st d th hile he appreciated having a developer involved, he cautioned the Mr. Fefercorn stated that Caltho lifornia and does a good job in creating a seed plan but such plans can better plan. He stated they reviewed the development standards an j • _ �� was a solid document but, perhaps, somewhat onerous. Mr. Rafferty ask Town Center. Mr. interested in develo consultant. orn if he is a developer with the intent of developing in the answered affirmatively and stated he is a developer and is g in Lino Lakes. He clarified that he is not a hired Lino Lakes Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Fefercorn if he is hiring an architect to make the requested revisions. Mr. Fefercorn stated the changes were made between the City and it's hired consultant (Studio Works). Chair Schaps stated he would like to entertain comments made on the development standards and asked Mr. Fefercorn to submit his suggestions in writing. Mr. Rafferty noted the Midwest is a very different climate and more financially conservative than California. • Mr. Fefercorn presented the project he is currently working with in Mendota Heights. Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the August 9, 2000 Planning & Zoning Board meeting, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 7- 0. E. PUBLIC HEARING, (Continuation) Ordinance 09 -00, Tree Preservation Ordinance Staff noted that at the June 14 meeting, the P & Z opened and continued the public hearing on the new tree preservation ordinance. The hearing was continued for two reasons: 1) There was some concern about requirements for residents building on individual single family lots; and, 2) It was hoped to receive additional input from developers. Staff indicated that rather than rewriting the draft ordinance, they decided to ask the City's environmental specialist, Marty Aslesen, to attend the P meeting to explain how they currently addresses tree preservation on single fa �_ o' The requirements in the draft ordinance reflect current practice. Specifically .1. on page 4, and IV.A. on page 5, and 1V.B.3. apply to single family h• . di 'sue° ots. It was noted staff had received one additional Heritage Development. The P & Z discussed June meeting. The Environmental Board requirements twice. Staff advised that th additional information is needed. T by the City Council. ents from a developer, m arlson & Associates at the t "' ew tree preservation close the hearing or continue it if ill require a first and second reading Chair Schaps excused hims eeting at 7:45 p.m. Vice Chair Lane chaired the remainder of the meetin Mr. Aslesen reviewed tory with tree preservation and importance to educate residents and buil t egard. Mr. Rafferty comm ed on the importance of assuring tree preservation actually occurs. He suggested that th ouse should be located in consideration of tree location and in such a way to save all trees possible. He stated he appreciates Mr. Aslesen's work. Mr. Johnson commented on the importance of open communication between the developer/builder and City staff to assure significant trees are identified and it can be determined which trees are worth saving and which are not due to storm damage, disease, etc. Mr. Corson stated he believes all in Lino Lakes appreciate the need to preserve trees. However, he would like it simply defined which trees are significant and should be saved, or to assure an ordinance such as being considered is correctly written. He noted the indication that certain trees are not considered desirable and cannot be used as replacement. • • • ) • • Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Aslesen stated those issues will have to be considered as well as the most appropriate tree to place along wetland areas. He commented on the importance of assuring a buffer is established. Mr. Corson noted two maple trees that are not allowed. Mr. Aslesen explained that certain maple trees are considered by some to be invasive. In consideration of costs, Mr. Corson asked if the Forester can be used to identify the location of trees. Mr. Aslesen explained that using a survey is necessary to provide the exact tree location on the survey. Mr. Corson stated he wants to assure, when looking at developments and in consideration of the need to balance dirt, that the plans will create the overall drainage that is needed. He stated he wants to assure low treed area are not being saved if it prevents a problem low drainage area. Mr. Powell explained that those low treed . that were mistakenly created in the past are now being considered to provide infi balancing effort. e agreed it is a Mr. Corson stated he believes that some refinemen ed in the beginning stages. Mr. Johnson noted the past meeting minut de °. tement wanting to know how existing single family homes will be imp red. suggested a preamble to single family homes owners to explain what they • expected to do, which may also reduce the number of questions asked of Mr. Smyser recommended t • `• • t," e ordinance, however, indicated he would not be concerned if the P & Z B • • "ed to insert language as suggested by Mr. Johnson. He noted the indication of le that the proposed draft ordinance does not add any requirements that are n " ent today, it simply puts it into writing. Gary Uhde, devel •' he is confused since he had the understanding that the new ordinance is nothm fferent than what has been there in the past. But, at the last meeting he understo the brunt of the tree replacement portion is one that the developer would be responsible for. He advised that he has never replaced any trees in the residential projects they have developed in Lino Lakes. He stated they are in support of saving trees and will modify lots and make house modifications if possible to save trees. Mr. Uhde commented on the need for the developer to clear the area needed for streets and utilities which require clear cutting. Also, with front loading garages a minimum 50 foot pad is needed. He noted that if trees are located too close to the basement so the tree roots are cut, the tree often times dies within two years. He stated they found that it creates more problems when they try to save too many trees too close to the foundation. Also, the Rice Creek Watershed District requires the creation of ponds which results in the need to remove trees. Another impact on trees is creating higher elevation building pads to assure the lowest floor elevation meets the City's requirements. Mr. Uhde stated they support saving trees but do not support the ordinance as it is currently written. He estimated it costs $7,000 to clear the site and the ordinance will Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2000 Page 8 result in an additional $10,000 to replace the trees. He noted that in this scenario, owning a lot with trees will be viewed as a penalty. He suggested a better ordinance can be drafted to enhance tree preservation and restoration, such as requiring a landscaping plan for each lot. Mr. Smyser clarified the draft ordinance puts into writing current practices for single family lots but certainly adds more requirements for larger development areas. John Johnson, engineer representing Gary Uhde, presented a seven acre parcel between Sunset and the Bays Fifth Addition. He noted the property has been surveyed and 4,500 trees have been identified. He noted that 50 trees (over 800 caliper inches) were identified within the public right -of -way that would have to be removed. John Johnson noted that would total 1,500 to 1,600 caliper inches of trees which would require replacement at 90 %. He stated this would equal about 300 trees and asked if this will impact the project to the point it is no longer feasible, noting t eage does not contain adequate space to replace the trees within the seven acre p v� Johnson stated that this is a unique site and they want to assure it is develop v ri �k d to road layout and house placement. He stated he wanted to share this i? on the Board to show an extreme case and suggested there should be a m ss the public spaces (roads and easements) and the private spaces (b d' s asz n how tree replacement is considered. Mr. Aslesen noted that John Johnson pres conservation development approac more flexible. John Johnson suggested the Mr. Rafferty noted thi addressing a spirit of tr be developed if t andard type of design but if a instead, the development standards are flexibility to these development standards. 1. ' _ - a is wooded and for sale but the ordinance is servation and protection. He asked if the area is supposed to oot higher elevations are needed to site a home or if that many trees need to ed. Mr. Uhde stated a survey to identify tree location was needed to consider tree preservation and cost analysis to determine if it is feasible for development. Mr. Johnson asked if the requirements will be this stringent if a project remains fairly wooded after the roads, utilities, and homes are sited. Mr. Aslesen stated there is definitely more flexibility with a planned unit development. Mr. Smyser thanked John Johnson for his work on raising these issues and stated he would like to talk to him further about the issues he raised. He stated the goal of the preservation approach is that the developer would not have to sacrifice lots or housing units in order to retain natural features. Mr. Johnson asked if John Johnson's concern is realistic. Mr. Smyser stated it is a realistic concern and he would like to look further at the example that was presented. He explained the primary concern with regulations on development is the impact on the ability to develop a viable project. • • • l • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 12, 2000 Page 9 John Johnson stated he would welcome a discussion with staff and commented that issues of density, varying setbacks, less right -of -way, more narrow paving, etc. may be considerations. He offered to work with staff on these issues. Mr. Corson stated he would like to see a PDO layout on the property discussed by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson explained that PDOs are generally considered with the City receiving some benefit that would not otherwise have been received. Mr. Corson stated PDOs are looked at suspiciously and stated it would be nice to use the term "Tree Preservation PDO." Vice Chair Lane stated if development is desired, losing some trees is the price that will be paid. Or, perhaps, heavily wooded properties should not be included within MUSA. She stated she does not know that every tree removed for the placement of a road or utility should be required to be replaced. However, she suppo eservation within the residential lot. Mr. Rafferty stated staff has done a good job in findin appreciates the efforts of Mr. Uhde and John Johns stated that effort is worthy of additional considerati protect trees and he tudy this issue. He oard. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue ba ati < 'of Ordinance 09 -00 to the August 9, 2000 Planning & Zoning Board, and w ed by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6- 0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. VII. ADJOURNMEN Mr. Johnson made by Mr. Corson. Mo Respectfully submitted, ON to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 p.m., and was supported carried 6 -0. Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.