Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/2001 P&Z Minutes• Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL DATE : January 10, 2001 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:39 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Corson, Lyden, Rafferty, Schilling, Schaps, and Zych MEMBERS ABSENT : Lane STAFF PRESENT : City Planner Smyser; City Engineer Powell Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:31 p.m., January 10, 2001. 1111 II. / APPROVAL OF MINUTES — DECEMBER 13, 2000 Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the December 13, 2000, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board as submitted, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Corson requested the rescheduling of the next Planning and Zoning Board Meeting be moved from February 14, 2001 due to Valentines Day be placed under Discussion item 7D. Mr. Lyden requested a discussion to review EIFS be placed under Discussion item 7E. The agenda was approved. IV. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to elect Mr. Rafferty as Chair for 2001 for Lino Lakes, and was supported by Mr. Zych. Motion failed 3 -3. (Schaps, Schilling, Corson) Mr. Corson a MOTION to elect Mr. Schaps as Chair for 2001 or Lino Lakes, and was • supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 5 -1. (Zych) Mr. Corson made a MOTION to elect Mr. Rafferty as Vice Chair for 2001 for Lino Lakes, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 2 V. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:37 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:37 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, Century Farms Development, Preliminary Plat, Rezone and MUSA Amendment for Behm's Park Lots Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:38 p. Staff presented the application by explaining Century Farms Development was requesting a rezoning, MUSA Amendment and preliminary plat. The site was within the existing Behm's Park on the southwest corner of Mustang Lane and Palomino Lane. Staff presented Gary Uhde of G. M. Development had requested the City allow him to follow through on his plan for developing the new lots. Staff discussed this with the City Council at a work session on November 8, 2000, and Council directed staff to proceed. Staff presented its analysis of the request noting the land use and zoning for the site and surrounding land. Staff stated the proposed plat would create 9 single - family lots. The draft land use plan showed the site as Public Semi - Public. Staff indicated most of the site was within the area approved for the use of some MUSA reserve. The lower portion was not Because this appeared to be an oversight of the past, staff felt comfortable with this In addition, most of the area approved for MUSA would remain as City parkland. Staff stated all of the proposed lots complied with the minimum lot dimensions. Mr. Lyden asked for an explanation regarding the drainage ditch that was realigned and the impact it would make on Lot 5. He asked if that lot would be a substandard lot. Mr. Smyser replied it would not be a substandard lot. Mr. Powell stated the realignment of the ditch was not realignment of the whole piece that went through the park area, it was just a little bend point in the northeast corner. The bend was put in essentially to accommodate the lots; there was quite a wide easement through there in the ditch itself. The lots were of adequate size. Mr. Lyden asked if Mr. Powell was satisfied the lot was not substandard. Mr. Powell replied he was. Mr. Corson expressed concern regarding the recommendation the native plant and the natural area would be burned. He stated he did not like to see such a small area burned • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 3 when it was so close to residential areas. He expressed concern about burning small areas such as these. Mr. Smyser replied it was a valid point and he also had concerns about burning that close to residential property. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Uhde if he was prepared to make a presentation tonight regarding these issues. Mr. Uhde, Century Farms Development, replied he brought along a copy of the fifth addition that showed all of the disclosures and all of the association documents. Chair Schaps asked if all new buyers of the area were aware of there being aircraft in the area at all times during the day. Mr. Uhde replied all new buyers were being informed of this. Mr. Rafferty asked if there was some continuation with outlots as far as the ponding areas. He stated there was a large size ditch northeast of the property, which appeared to be a ponding area, and he asked if there was a large pond area in that area. Mr. Uhde stated the pond was 50% completed. It was not yet 100% completed. He indicated once they received the approval, the 6th and 7th addition would utilize the rest of the pond area. Mr. Rafferty asked if there would be anything that would significantly impact the current conditions for the people that were currently there. Mr. Uhde replied no. He indicated this was anticipated all along. He stated this development would help control the water table for people who had wet basements in the area He indicated since this development had been put in, there had only been one wet basement and the water table had stabilized. Mr. Smyser stated as a part of the plat approval there could be a condition requiring disclosures be made on the property regarding the airpark. Mr. Joel Chambers, resident who lived on the corner of Palomino Lane and Mustang Lane, stated most of his information was coming third hand and he had relied on his realtor. However, he when they moved in they were informed the whole area across from him would be a family style park for the whole City. He stated the park was built as Mr. Smyser had indicated. However, it was just a natural, native area. He indicated the play area that was there was not much more than a glorified swing set. He stated it was not much of a park. He expressed concern regarding the issue of burning the area. He stated the bottom half of the lot had been flooded and was used as an ice skating rink for the kids in the neighborhood. He indicated that was a very nice addition to the park and would like to see this type of thing in the future. He stated they were concerned about the amount of traffic and exhibition traffic going on late at night. He understood that adding nine houses would not change the way people drove, but adding more homes would still add more traffic in the area. He indicated there were children in the neighborhood that needed access to the park and needed to cross the road to get there. He stated the children were walking in the street because there was no sidewalk; the road was narrow and there was very little signage. He expressed concern for the children in the neighborhood's well being. He stated it was a very beautiful area and he would hate to see it ruined by adding more houses, but stated the basic concern should be for the children. Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 4 • Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:06 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. • • Chair Schaps asked staff about signage, and if anything could be done. Mr. Smyser replied enforcement needed to be done and he would talk to the Chief of Police about that. Mr. Powell stated he would meet with the Department of Public Services and the street superintendant regarding signage. Regarding the street itself, it was a 30 MPH road, and could handle the additional traffic, but crosswalks may be in order. Mr. Corson asked if there was a trail sidewalk planned in that area as a future improvement. Mr. Smyser stated he would need to speak with someone about that issue. He was not sure what the details were in that area. Mr. Corson stated he agreed with Mr. Chambers to make sure they keep the children off of the street and provide a safe access to the park. Mr. Powell stated regarding trail and sidewalks, sidewalks were not a typical standard for a residential area. He stated with respect to the trail, they ran behind the houses to the east and would not follow the path the children could take to the park. Mr. Corson stated if children could get through to the park on a more direct route, the City should be looking at ways to keep the children off of the street. He agreed the children probably would not take the trail route. Mr. Rafferty asked what existed as far as the path. Mr. Smyser pointed out the bituminous trails that had been built on the site and some sections have not been put in, but they were on the short-term list to be put in. Mr. Chambers pointed out where the actual paths were that had been paved off the site. He stated the original path was changed due to resident's requests. He indicated there was a tremendous amount of pedestrian and biking traffic to get to the trail. He stated the street made it difficult to get to the park. Mr. Schilling asked if it was still the intent to not add the trail behind the existing homes east of the site. Mr. Chambers stated each homeowner had to give up 15 feet for an easement for the trail. He stated he had just put in a deck and would not like to see people walking through his back yard. However, if adding a trail to his backyard would keep the children safe, he of course would be willing to do that. Mr. Rafferty asked if that was part of the final plat approval. Mr. Uhde apologized to Mr. Chambers for the misinformation he received from the realtor. Mr. Uhde stated he spoke with the real estate agent today. He stated the real estate agent had been misinformed. He stated the residents did not want a trail through their back yard, and that was why the location of the trail was changed. He stated by putting homes along the park, hopefully would end the exhibition driving. He indicated with the addition of more homes so there • • Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 5 are houses on both sides of the street, people have a tendency to drive more responsibly because they felt they were in a residential area. He stated additional signage should be put in. Mr. Lyden stated he talked with the Director of Parks, and the Director of Parks had admitted the plan for the park had changed over the years. He stated the park needs were great and the funds were limited. He stated although it was a compromise, at least there was a park in the neighborhood, and the neighborhood did not have to wait a long time for a park. Mr. Powell stated that even though a segment of the trail to the east was not going to be constructed because it was also a drainage easement to access the ponds in that area so there was still a need for that easement. Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to approve rezoning of Lot 13 Sunset Oaks to R -1, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried. 6 -0. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve amending the comprehensive plan to allocate 2.55 MUSA reserve to the 9 lots shown in the plat and to adopt the 14 MUSA Reserve Criteria as well as the criteria from Resolution No. 19-85, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the Preliminary Plat for Behm's Farm Park Addition, with the condition that the developer notify any and all potential buyers in the Behm's Farm Park Addition area the presence of aircraft in the area at all hours, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 5 -1. (Rafferty) Chair Schaps closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. B. PUBLIC HEARING, Central Suburban, Inc., 416 Lilac Street, Amended Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 8:21 p.m. Staff presented the application by explaining Central Suburban, Inc. was requesting permission to amend the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approved by the City Council on September 25, 2000. The new application was to amend the CUP to allow storage of recreational vehicles (RVs) on the site. Staff stated that in September, the applicant wanted to build an addition to the existing pole building. The expansion of the pole building in an industrial district required a Conditional Use Permit. They wanted to use the fenced yard for outdoor storage. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the site was zoned GI (General Industrial) and stated the uses permitted in the GI district did not allow for storage yards. Storage yards were clearly prohibited by the Ordinance. The storage of recreational Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 6 • vehicles was not "customarily incidental and subordinate" to a land development company. It was not accessory to the principal use. • • Staff reviewed the findings of fact that needed to be met for a Conditional Use Permit and staff believed this Conditional Use Permit should be denied. Chair Schaps asked what was meant by storage in this instance. Mr. Smyser replied it was a rental operation, but exactly how the business was ran he did not know, but applicant was present to answer any questions. Chair Schaps stated it was different than just storing a vehicle on the property. Mr. Smyser replied that was correct. Mr. Corson asked if this type of activity might be more incidental to activity found in a commercial area. Mr. Smyser replied it would be more conducive to industrial zones. He stated outdoor storage was allowed in light industrial zones with very strict conditions. He stated it was clear at the Council and staff level that outdoor storage needed to be addressed very carefully and monitored very tightly. Mr. Corson asked if this rental business would be similar to the rental businesses present I the cities of Blaine and Elk River. Mr. Smyser replied in Lino Lakes it was not allowable to have that type of outdoor storage. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment. Bruce Kerber, 416 Lilac Street, applicant, stated Can Am RV Company was a rental business and not a sales type business. They were interested in leasing the building with the back storage facility as well as the five offices inside. He stated the RV's would be behind a gate. He stated the business was by appointment only and it would be advertised in the Yellow pages. He stated their basic rental was one unit per day on the average. He stated the hours were 9 a.m. —5 p.m. with one night a week being open later. He stated there would be no old RVs. Once the RV's reach three years old, they were no longer in their fleet. He stated with having the fenced in area, the RVs could not be seen. Chair Schaps stated the difficulty he had with this request was in September, 2000 the Council expressed concern about the storage, and at that time he had indicated it would be used for his business storage only. He stated it was a real stretch that what he wanted was in anyway in compliance with the Ordinance. Mr. Kerber replied Can Am had expressed interest in purchasing the building from him at some point in the future. Mr. Lyden stated the issue was under the zoning and accessory use and the key was the building or portion must be identical or subordinate to the principal. His interpretation of that would be the other RV business could not be larger than his principal business and one might argue if he kept whatever business he wanted below the portion of the principal, there may be some area where they could talk. However, it appeared the rental area would be larger than the principal businesses. Mr. Kerber replied if Can AM leased it, they would have the back storage, less five spaces. He stated the additional area would • • Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 7 be for themselves and the office would be Can AM. He stated his business needed five spaces. Mr. Schaps asked how many RV's would be there. Mr. Kerber replied the maximum would be 40. Mr. Lyden stated the outdoor storage would have to be subordinate to the principal business, and could not exceed the principal business that was there. Mr. Rafferty asked if Mr. Kerber currently owned the property. Mr. Kerber replied he did. Mr. Rafferty indicated there was very little in the yard. Mr. Kerber replied everything had been moved to their Spring Lake Park yard at the moment. He stated they were approached the next day by after the September, 2000 meeting by Can Am so they had not moved their equipment yet. Cam Am had stated they want to take possession of the building in February, 2001. Mr. Rafferty stated there was a backhoe bucket on the lot, but nothing else. Mr. Rafferty stated the lot might be too big for Mr. Kerber's business. Mr. Kerber replied no the lot was not too big for the business; they owned a couple of other pieces of land and that was where the equipment was at the present time. He stated when were approached by CAN AM, it was a good opportunity at that time. He indicated they were it the process of purchasing another building with more shop area. Mr. Rafferty asked if the proposal were not looked upon as a positive to the City, would the yard still meet all of Mr. Kerber's needs. Mr. Kerber replied the lot would meet his needs. Mr. Schilling asked what were the chances of Can Am purchasing the property from Mr. Kerber, which would make this a different issue. Mr. Kerber replied Can Am wanted to start out by renting for two years, and then it would be sold to them after the two years. He stated Cam Am wanted to be in this City, but they did not have the funds at the present time to buy the building. He stated that was why he was here. Mr. Rafferty stated Mr. Kerber would essentially be a real estate /landlord. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:46 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Mr. Rafferty asked in closing the public hearing there was obviously no continuance of the public hearing, but he wanted to know if it would be an advantage to the City to have this matter continued to determine if there was some way this could be worked out. Chair Schaps replied the only way it could work was if Cam Am was willing to buy the property right now and then Cam Am could come to the Council to see if they could store RV's on the property. At that time, it would be the Council's decision as to what to do. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 8 Mr. Smyser stated the CPU designed last fall was tailored for Mr. Kerber's company, but it was not unusual for one entity to own the property and another business to lease the property. He stated it was possible that the principal use of the business could change, as it stood now RVs are not accessory to a land development company. Chair Schaps stated if Mr. Kerber expanded his principal business, this might work. Mr. Smyser stated the public hearing was closed, but the item could be tabled to the next meeting to give them time to work with Mr. Kerber. He stated the concern was making sure they knew what was going to be stored on the facility. He stated they were not adverse to new businesses coming into the community, but wanted to make sure any business coming in would be well managed. Mr. Kerber asked what would happen if he owned part of the RV business. Chair Schaps replied Central Suburban would need to advise the City it had expanded its business to RV rental, but Mr. Kerber needed to decide if he wanted to expand his business. Mr. Lyden stated his concern was regardless of what the principal business use is, the smaller use must be subordinate to the principal business. Mr. Corson stated he believed this was a commercial use, and he was not sure if he was in favor of it. A discussion ensued regarding the possibility of tabling this item to a future meeting to give staff the opportunity to work with Mr. Kerber. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to table this Item until February 13, 2001, or until a later time if applicant could not make that meeting, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. C. PUBLIC HEARING, Qwest Wireless LLC /City of Lino Lakes, 1189 Main Street, Rezone Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 7:57 p.m. Staff presented the application by Qwest Wireless LLC to rezone City Hall Park. Quest proposed to construct a 135 -foot high tower for antennae for wireless telephone service and such towers were not allowed in a rural zoning district, which is what City Hall Park was zoned as. Towers were allowed in a PSP Public Semi - Public district. Qwest requested rezoning City Hall Park to PSP. Mr. Rafferty left meeting at 8:00 p.m. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting it has concluded that new towers were allowed only in PSP and GI districts. Other districts allow antennas on existing structures such as buildings and water towers, but do not allow new towers. It was also noted there was some differences between requirements for wireless service towers and towers for radio and television. Staff stated the new tower was proposed to be constructed next to • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 9 the hockey rink and Public Works buildings. There was no danger of the tower falling on homes if it would fail. It would be designed to accommodate antennas for two additional wireless providers, for a total of three. The antennae would be 135 feet high. Mr. Rafferty returned at 8:02 p.m. Staff stated there were more providers and it was possible more providers could approach the city for towers. Staff stated it might be more practical to have all providers in one area instead of spread out over the City. Staff introduced the City's consultant, Gary Lysiak of Owl Engineering. Mr. Lysiak stated there was a potential of five or six providers that could express an interest in tower space within the City. He point out where the present tower locations were located. He stated he had reviewed the City Ordinance and there was nothing within a mile radius of the proposed structure. He stated with the surrounding six other facilities, there was pretty good coverage in the area. He stated if the tower were not allowed, there would be a gap in coverage. He stated in another scenario, if the tower was moved to the west by the water tower, this also meant there was insufficient coverage. Another scenario, if the tower was over by water tower 2, there was another site in that area that would conflict. He agreed with the intent of the proposal in that they have demonstrated a need for the new tower. He indicated there was some color issues of the tower from the neighbors. He stated he had looked at all different colors and that the unpainted condition works best, especially once the tower oxidized. He indicated there would be no lights on the tower. He believed it would blend in very well leaving it unpainted. He stated he had looked at all existing public safety communications, both City and County, and there would be no impact on those facilities. The only issue they had to look at was structural integrity. He stated Qwest had to make this tower to provide for the other providers. He indicated there are more providers that would approach the City. He indicated they did not know what the telecommunications companies were doing because they could not communicate with each other regarding these issues because of anti -trust restrictions. He stated the coverage in this area was lacking for Qwest. Staff reviewed Qwest's need for an additional tower in the northern part of Lino Lakes noting there were no water towers or existing towers in the northern part of the City. Mr. Rafferty stated he could see a tower between Birch Street and Main Street and Centerville and 20`". Mr. Smyser stated that was an AT &T Tower, but that would be even south of the Centerville water tower, which would provide coverage in the southern side of the City, but not the northern side. Mr. Lyden inquired about the projected lease revenue. Mr. Smyser replied this was an issue to be negotiated and they did not have all of the details yet. On the water tower sites the money they were getting was worth more than leasing land for the tower because the City owned the water towers. The leases on the water towers started out at $14,000.00 per year and they escalated to $15,000.00 or $16,000.00 per year. Another possibility would be an arrangement where the City would get the money from leasing space to other • • Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 10 people, which the City would get, and Qwest would simply own and maintain the tower. He stated if that happened, the City would come out ahead. Mr. Lysiak stated it was a good location for this tower and the next tower that would come in would have a more difficult time finding space. Mr. Lyden stated it was hard to image the continued need for towers, and asked if technology changed and the towers were no longer needed, what would happen then. Mr. Lisiak stated if the tower were abandoned, Qwest would be required to take it down. However, he stated the reality of that happening was very slight. He indicated towers were coming down in size and stated that vertical real estate was more valuable than horizontal real estate at the present time. Mr. Schilling asked if there was any concern regarding security or safety considering where it was located and there would be children in the area. Mr. Lisiak replied the towers were very safe. The equipment could not be damaged, or the tower climbed. He stated the bigger problem was the potential radiation issue. However, he stated the radiation on this tower would be very low. Mr. Smyser asked how did they get up on the towers. Mr. Lisiak replied there was a safety wire for the climbers, there would be no steps. A person could not climb the tower. They are too big to put your arms around it to climb it Chair Schaps asked if there was a chance another monopole could go on the site. Mr. Lisiak replied that could be a possibility in the future. He stated these towers also need a T -1 circuit to get back to their networks. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:35 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Smyser stated staff felt rezoning was justified. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Qwest's request for a rezoning of City Hall Park to Public Semi - Public, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. D. PUBLIC HEARING, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow accessory building in Industrial and Commercial Zoning Districts. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 8:37 p.m. Staff reviewed amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow accessory buildings in the Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts. Staff noted none of the Commercial or Industrial Districts included any type of accessory buildings in the list of accessory uses. However, parts of the Zoning Ordinance imply that accessory buildings were acceptable in the Commercial and Industrial Zones. Staff recommended the City consider the issue and determine if accessory buildings were desired uses. If so, the City could clarify this by adding them to the list of allowed uses in the respective zoning districts. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 11 Chair Schaps asked if this was an oversight in the zoning Ordinances. Mr. Smyser replied he believed it was an oversight in how it was termed. He stated there was some ambiguity. He indicated there was nothing wrong with having accessory buildings, but there should be a size limit, and exterior concerns. Chair Schaps inquired about allowing more than one accessory building. Mr. Smyser stated this could be addressed also. Mr. Lyden requested the City consultant look at this and list the pros and cons so they could make an educated decision. Mr. Zych left the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Smyser replied they had looked at other Cities and they all differed as far as their requirements. He stated it was up to the City as to how they deal with it. He stated some places allowed it and some places did not. He stated again accessory buildings are fine as long as they were accessory buildings and were not a warehouse building where another business could be run. He stated he would like to see the exterior of the building be consistent with the principal building. Chair Schaps stated in some respect this could be a problem if left uncontrolled, however, it does give a business a temporary place to store items. Mr. Zych returned to the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Mr. Schilling stated he believed accessory buildings should be allowed. The number of the buildings and the size of the buildings go hand in hand. He liked the total square footage idea. He stated as far as matching the exterior of the main building that might be difficult, but they should mandate the types of materials used. He stated he did not believe a site plan was necessary for an accessory building. Chair Schaps asked if there was an expansion of the principal building, should the accessory building be removed. Mr. Smyser stated that was an option they could look at. Mr. Rafferty stated he liked the idea of having accessory buildings, and thanked Mr. Johnson for coming in. He indicated he liked the idea of matching the existing building. His main concern was the ability of these types of storage facilities becoming something other than storage facilities. He stated the site plan should be required, so they know in the general area where the accessory building would be located. He believed staffs recommendation was a good start. He stated multiple structures would be a problem and he did not want that. Mr. Gordy Johnson stated his appreciation to the Board for going through all of this effort. He stated, for their purposes, one storage building was adequate. The way it was presented at the previous meeting was what they intended, and the building would be very attractive. Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 12 Chair Schaps asked if they did expand their main building, generally speaking, would the accessory building be needed, or should the City require the expansion building be removed. Mr. Johnson replied it would still be very useful to have storage facilities, and did not believe this suggestion would be a good idea. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to February 13, 2001, to allow staff time to prepare the appropriate Ordinance language amendments, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. E. Resanau Park Estates Homeowners Association /City of Lino Lakes, Black Duck Drive, Minor Subdivisions for Trail purposes. Staff presented the application by explaining over the past few years, City Staff had been working with Reshanau Park Estates Homeowners Association (RPEHA), the private property owners adjacent to Outlot B and Anoka County Parks on development of a trail around the north end of Reshanau Lake. A resolution between Staff and Resanau Park Estates Homeowners Association had been reached. Staff presented its analysis of this resolution, nothing the City, property owners, and RPEHA had agreed to a proposal that provided this trail segment. A 15' wide park trail would begin at the north end of Black Duck Drive, through two residential lots, proceed through Outlots A and B (connecting to the Anoka County Park trail) and included a larger triangular parcel at the north end of Outlot A. To facilitate this agreement, minor subdivisions were required to adequately define and record this trail segment. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivisions to facilitate construction of a trail around the north end of Reshanau Lake, with the following conditions of approval: 1. The City would ensure perpetual access for the RPEHA to its outlots, including vehicular access to the boat ramp. 2. Signage would be placed at the trailheads indicating that only authorized vehicles were permitted. 3. The City would relieve the Association of is obligations with respect to the Easement and Option Agreement with the Schut's and the Easement Agreement with the Kuzel's. 4. The RPEHA would be responsible for any desired fencing along the proposed path. 5. The City shall record the minor subdivision with Anoka County. Mr. Lyden indicated there had been a tremendous amount of work on this and he commended everyone involved. Chair Schaps asked if there would be an addition of the signage regarding the use of the trail for association use vehicles and a public trail signage. He stated at this time, there was only a private property sign. He requested similar signs are placed here as there are on rest of the trails. He also asked about the fencing and asked for an explanation of that. Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 13 • Mr. Smyser replied if the homeowner's association chose to put up fencing, it would be up to them. • Chair Schaps asked to what degree or extent would the fencing be put up. Mr. Smyser replied they had not discussed this issue yet with the homeowner's association. Mr. Rafferty stated if a fence would be put up, this issue should be brought back because of the concern as to what type of fencing would be put up. Chair Schaps stated prior to the installation of any fencing, it come back to the City for approval. Mr. Rafferty stated the homeowners were very excited this was being done, but their main concern was vehicle traffic and walking path. He stated for future references, this was a landlocked deal that was never going to work, and was forced into litigation and he stated he wanted to make sure things like this would not happen again. He stated if the developer had taken care of this in the first place, this would not have been a problem. He wanted this to be looked at for future developments. Chair Schaps stated with vehicular traffic it would only concern the homeowner's vehicles. Mr. Rafferty asked if the boat access would be paved. Chair Schaps stated the residents did not want it to be paved. Mr. Powell replied it would be the size of the typical trail that had always been used in the City. Mr. Rafferty indicted this was a bit different than a regular trail and walking path and requested the City stay on top of this because vehicle traffic could cause some damage if this was not done properly. He asked it be maintained as a proper trail should be maintained. He commended the City for the work they had done. Mr. Powell stated the City had not been focused on the boat ramp itself, but instead on the trail. He stated most of the trails could handle occasional vehicular access and they anticipated that for this trail also. Mr. Smyser stated by the time it would get to Council the Certificate of Survey and other documents would be prepared. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision, Outlot A & B and Lot 8, Block 1, and Lot 8, Block 2, Reshanau Park Estates 2 "d Addition, with recommendations made by staff, and adding signage to the trail, and any installation of fencing was subject to City review, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6- 0. F. Marvin Emly, 590 62 "d Street, Variance Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 14 . Staff stated they had been unable to reach Mr. Emly and requested this matter be continued to February 13, 2001. • Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue this Marvin Emly, 590 62nd Street, Variance to February 13, 2001, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Mini Storage, Al Robinson Staff advised the City's Zoning Ordinance did not currently allow mini storage in any zoning district. The LI and GI Districts allowed "warehousing, storage and distribution facilities... ", which had not been interpreted to mean mini storage. Staff stated Al Robinson was present to discuss the possibility of allowing mini storage on his property north of Main Street. Al Robinson, 8299 4th Avenue, stated he would like to build a mini storage to his existing business. He was wondering why there was no Ordinance that addressed this. Chair Schaps replied for some reason or another, this was overlooked or eliminated. He said the City was surrounded by mini storage facilities. Mr. Robinson stated he had spoken to the Mayor regarding this, and the Mayor indicated he was not against this type of business if it was done correctly. Mr. Robinson asked what his business was zoned as. Mr. Smyser stated it was zoned rural. Mr. Robinson asked why he was paying different taxes on his shop, he believes it's zoned commercial. Mr. Smyser stated he did not have the zoning map with him but it is zoned rural. He said he can not answer the taxation question which is determined by the County. Mr. Robinson stated he thought the zoning might be general business. Chair Schaps stated they would have to have a policy decision and come up with a proposal. Mr. Smyser stated they would need to advertise the public hearing and allow for two Council meetings, and then the Council would need approve it. After the Council approved it, it would get published and then a 30 -day waiting period would go into effect. Mr. Smyser stated along Main Street it was all zoned rural. Mr. Robinson disagreed and stated there was a small section zoned differently. He stated his zoning changed and his taxes quadrupled the first year. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Robinson asked if it were zoned rural, would he need to get it rezoned. Mr. Smyser replied it depended on what type of zoning they would need and also if the City would want this type of business here. Chair Schaps requested staff check with other cities to see how they have this type of business zoned. Mr. Smyser replied if the Board wanted them to look at that, the would do that. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Robinson what is definition of mini storage was. Mr. Robinson replied 150 -200 square feet with an enclosure to it and a door. He stated a lot of people were looking for storage for their recreational vehicles. He said this would be open to negotiation and discussion. Mr. Rafferty asked if he possibility could look into an additional garage. Mr. Robinson stated he could do that, but he wanted to make sure he was within City Code so the City would not have a problem with this in the future. Mr. Lyden stated support of staff doing research to look into this type of business for the City. Mr. Schilling stated support of research being done. He stated the modern storage was of good quality. Mr. Corson stated fire protection would be an issue and asked staff to look at this. He stated the modern facilities were nice, and his concern was the image it would have for the City. Mr. Robinson stated with respect to fire protection, there would be no flammable liquids stored. He was not aware of any mini - storage facilities that had sprinkler systems. He stated the building would be metal. Mr. Rafferty clarified he had misunderstood the vocabulary of mini - storage. He did not understand this as being a lot of rental units. Chair Schaps requested staff to start research of mini - storage construction within the City and asked this be put on the discussion for February 13, 2001 meeting. B. Land Holdings Group, 12th and Holly, Sketch Plan Staff presented the concept plan of The Land Holding Group for developing the northwest corner of 12th Avenue and Holly Drive. Staff presented its analysis of the concept plan, noting Lots 9 and 10 did not met the upland minimum, and it was not clear if Lot 8 did. The other lots met the minimum. The Plan met the minimum lot widths and depths. Staff stated they did not know what house styles were being considered. However, the grading of the site must accommodate the house styles. Staff indicated the concept layout would require driveways on 12th Avenue as well as the cul -de -sac road access on Holly Drive. This would pose problems from the transportation and utility perspective. Utilities existed on both 12th Avenue and Holly • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 16 Drive. However, the plan would require tearing up both roads to provide connection to utilities, which was an undesirable approach. It was noted five lots along 12th Avenue would require separate driveway accesses, which was also undesirable from a safety standpoint. He stated the plan in the packet presented to the Board was undergoing change because staff was not comfortable with what was originally presented. Chair Schaps left the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Mr. Powell stated they took a strong position of the driveways fronting 12th Avenue. There were also utility concerns because the roadways would need to be torn up. They strongly recommended them fronting the driveways along the cul -de -sac. Mr. Smyser stated it was possible there might be a lot depth variance in exchange for keeping the driveways off 12th Avenue. This was something that would be a good compromise. He stated the first concept would have needed many variances, so they asked the developer to rework this concept. Mr. Corson asked about the water drainage and how wet the ditches were in the area. Mr. Powell replied there was a culvert that crossed underneath and took most of the water. Chair Schaps returned to the meeting at 9:31 p.m. Mr. Lyden asked about the PDO and what was the stance on that. Mr. Smyser replied it was not clear to them as to what was required. He stated those where a number of the issues conveyed to the developer and since then the developer had been adjusting the layouts. He stated this was all they had at the time. Mr. Rafferty asked what the solution would be for the park. He asked if this would still be the Birch area. Mr. Smyser replied there was nothing on this site that would work for parkland and Park Board indicated this would be a cash development. C. Dellwood LLC Mr. Smyser stated they were still talking with them and were expecting a packet possibly next week. So far discussions had been largely positive. However, there had been some concerns with the Environmental Board. D. February, 2001 Meeting date The Board decided to move the February 14, 2001 meeting date to February 13, 2001 due to Valentines Day. E. EIFS Update Mr. Lyden stated he had recently received information regarding EIFS. He indicated he would make a copy of this information and would like to discuss this in the future. VII. ADJOURNMENT • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 10, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:39 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.