Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/2001 P&Z MinutesPlanning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT . STAFF PRESENT May 9, 2001 6:30 P.M. 10:30 P.M. Corson, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty, Schaps, and Zych (arrived at 7:14 p.m.) None City Engineer Powell; Economic Development Director Brian Wessel (part); Cindy Sherman (NAC) I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., May 9, 2001. • II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 11, 2001 • Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the April 11, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board as presented, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as prese IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared Open Mike open at 6:37 p.m. Theresa O'Connell introduced herself as a member of the Environmental Board and offered to answer questions the Planning and Zoning Board may have regarding their recommendations, No one else was present for Open Mike. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. John Cartier, 2088 80th Street E., Variance Staff presented the application by explaining the applicant, Mr. Cartier, has submitted an application for a variance from the prohibition on building an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principal building. Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining the City's zoning ordinance states that "no detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal building or its attached garage (Section 3 Subd. 4.D.1.c.)." The existing house is toward the southwest corner of the property and the septic system is to the southwest of the house. Considering the need for an alternate drainfield site, there is little land left for an accessory building. It was noted that the land to the southeast of the house is lowland and unbuildable. Staff noted the aerial photo does show an area that appears to be a pocket pond, possibly wetland. The area noted as "drainage" on the drawing corresponds to a type of soil with seasonally high water table, according to the County soil survey prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. Staff noted it is possible that the accessory building could be built in the far southeast corner of the site, but that would require driving through the wet area to reach it from the house. Mr. Cartier wants to build a 40' by 60' or 40' by 70' accessory building. This site is approximately ten acres so the applicant can have a total of 4,200 square feet of accessory space, including the attached garage. The garage is approximately 868 square feet, which leaves 3,332 square feet. A 40' by 70' building would be 2,800 square feet. Staff read the five findings of fact, as stated in the zoning ordinance, that the City shall make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action. Staff noted it would be unreasonable to require a driveway through the wet area to reach the far southeast corner of the property. The landowner's intent to use the new building for an agriculture use fits with the purpose of the Rural zoning district. Staff recommends approving the variance conditioned on a building permit being obtained before construction of the accessory building begins. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. John Cartier, applicant, stated he has nothing to add to the staff report and would appreciate approval of his variance request since there is no other location that would work. Chair Schaps asked if any of the neighbors have raised objections. Mr. Cartier stated there have been no objections. Mr. Corson asked the intended use. Mr. Cartier stated he has ten acres but has access to additional family -owned property and would like to use the building to park his equipment inside. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Corson asked if he is aware that a business cannot be operated from this building. Mr. Cartier stated he does understand that and plans to keep a dirt floor; however, he would like to sell vegetables. Mr. Corson explained that a contracting or other type of business operation cannot be run from this accessory building. Mr. Cartier stated he does not intend to do so. Mr. Lyden explained the intent of the ordinance is to protect the neighbors and asked how close this building will be to the neighbor's property. Mr. Cartier explained that the buildings are approximately ten acres apart in distance and his neighbors have not voiced any objections. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the variance request of John Cartier at 2088 80th Street to construct an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principal building conditioned on the following: 1. A building permit must be obtained before construction of the accessory building begins. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. B. Glenn Valentine, 64th Street and 20th Avenue, Variance Staff recommended this item be tabled to the June 13, 2001 Board meeting since there was not adequate time to prepare a report. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue consideration of the variance request of Glenn Valentine at 64th Street and 20th Avenue, to the June 13, 2001 meeting, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. C. PUBLIC HEARING, Stat Transport Systems, 416 Lilac Street, Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:45 p.m. Staff presented the application by explaining the applicant, Craig Hubbard and Steve Lawrence of Stat Transportation, have submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a truck freight transfer service station on the property located at 416 Lilac Drive. The subject property is zoned GI, General Industrial District. Truck freight transfer service stations are a conditionally permitted use in the GI District. Staff advised that the subject property has two existing conditional use permits, granted in September of 2000. The first allowed expansion of an existing pole barn, while the second allowed outdoor storage. Together, these permits allowed Central Suburban, Inc. to operate a land development and construction company on this site. This use involved the storage of trucks, equipment, and construction materials. ti • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 4 Staff explained that the new use will be a trucking company. The company operates six straight trucks and five semis. These trucks depart the site daily between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., Monday through Friday, and return between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. for parking overnight. Occasionally, trucks will return to the site with freight that is stored overnight and delivered the next day. The site contains an existing building which the applicant will use for a small office for administrative purposes and a shop area for maintenance of the trucks and trailers. Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining that the applicant has indicated that they plan to add a loading dock. The applicant must submit a site plan showing the location of this loading dock and demonstrate that it conforms with Section 3, Subdivision 6 of the City Code. Staff presented the eight conditions, according to Section 8, Subdivision 2.I.8, that must be weighed when considering a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a truck freight transfer service in the GI District. Staff also presented staff's findings related to each of the eight conditions as listed below: 1. Vehicle access points shall be located along roadways having sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the use and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Finding: Access to the site comes from Lilac Drive. The 1997 Transportation Plan designates Lilac Drive as a minor collector. This road should be capable of accommodating the traffic from this site However, the City Engineer should confirm this finding. 2. A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. Finding: The applicant's survey shows a drainage and utility easement along the site's south property line. The survey also indicates that only a small portion of the parking and storage area will be surfaced with black top, while the balance will be gravel. The City Engineer should review this survey and determine if this design is capable of accommodating the site's drainage needs. 3. Storage areas are landscaped, screened from view of neighboring uses, abutting residential zoning districts, and public rights -of -way in compliance with Section 3, Subdivision 4.S. Finding: According to the applicant's survey, there is an existing fence surrounding the area designated for truck parking, loading and storage. However, it does not indicate the type or height of this fence. According to Section 3, Subdivision 4.S, this fence must be six feet high and provide a solid screen. Staff assumes that this existing fence meets these standards 4. Each light standard base shall be landscaped. • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 5 Finding: According to the applicant's survey, the site contains no light standards. 5. Vehicle access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement and shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Finding: This site has one access to Lilac Drive along its northern property line. This access should provide adequate vehicle movement through the site. 6. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of Appendix C of the City Code. Finding: Staff assumes that Stat Transportation will install new signage. All new signs must comply with the City's Sign Ordinance and a separate permit is required. 7. Provisions shall be made to control and minimize noise, air and water pollution. Finding: As with all commercial and industrial properties, this site will be required to meet the performance standards for noise, air and water pollution. 8. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare or public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions. Finding: The City may review the conditions of this permit and require the applicant to comply with any changes necessary to ensure the original intent of the permit as well as the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Staff recommended approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a Truck Freight Transfer Service Station on the property located at 416 Lilac Drive based on the findings and subject to the four conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Steve Lawrence, applicant, explained their delivery business and stated they are currently operating from Mr. Hubbard's basement. Craig Hubbard, applicant, explained the need for better organization. Chair Schaps asked about the typical hours of operation. Mr. Hubbard stated they have six straight tucks and would operate from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Lawrence estimated one semitruck in town at a time. Chair Schaps asked if deliveries will come in during the day hours. Mr. Lawrence stated that could occur on occasion. Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 6 • Chair Schaps asked if neighbors have voiced objections. Mr. Lawrence stated they are not aware of any objections. • Ms. Lane asked if the semitrucks will idle all night. Mr. Lawrence stated they have plug - ins so the trucks will not be idling all night. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 6:51 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Lyden stated he understands that this is an appropriate use for this Industrially zoned property; however, it is his opinion that it is not good to have semitrucks using the same streets that the neighborhoods use. He asked about point #5 and whether this is a legitimate concern. Mr. Powell stated this road is a collector County street and does not go through the neighborhood. He noted this lot was used by a previous trucking /hauling firm and there were no significant problems with that prior use. He stated staff anticipates no conflict with the proposed use. Mr. Lyden stated it is his personal opinion that the Lake Drive corridor is where families live and there are large acreage parcels on the east side of the City for commercial service areas that would not result in a mixed use situation. Mr. Corson asked if an annual review of this conditional use permit would be appropriate or if it could be reviewed should problems occur Mr. Powell stated conditional use permits run with the property but it is staffs intent to review them annually. He noted that conditions can be placed on the approval and if the conditions are violated, revocation could result. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a Truck Freight Transfer Service Station on the property located at 416 Lilac Drive, based on the findings contained in the staff report and subject to the following conditions. 1. All drainage plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. The site's perimeter fence must comply with the performance standards outlined in Section 3, Subdivision 4.S. 3. All signage must comply with the City Sign Ordinance. 4. This site must comply with all applicable or unmet conditions outlined in the September 25, 2000 staff report for Central Suburban, Inc. 5. The trucks will not be allowed to idle when not in use or between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. • The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Lyden asked about on -site maintenance of these trucks. Mr. Hubbard stated they will do minor truck maintenance but would pull the truck into the garage bay. He explained that any major maintenance would probably be done off -site. Motion carried 5 -0. D. PUBLIC HEARING, Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition, Preliminary Plat (Continue Public Hearing) Staff advised the applicant has withdrawn this application so it can be revised and recommended it be tabled to the June 13, 2001 Board meeting. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue consideration of the Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition preliminary plat to the June 13, 2001 meeting, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. E. PUBLIC HEARING, Community National Bank, Rezone Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 7:00 p.m. Staff presented the application by Community National Bank for a rezoning of the property located at 7651 Lake Drive from NB, Neighborhood Business District to GB, General Business District. The subject property is located directly north of the existing bank and the rezoning will allow the bank to expand its existing parking lot. The applicant will also need to receive site plan approval prior to construction of the parking lot. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting that according to Section 2, Subdivision 1, of the City Code, the Planning Commission and City Council shall weigh five factors when considering a rezoning request. These factors and staff's findings for each were presented as follows: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the City's official Comprehensive Plan. Finding: Rezoning this site from NB, Neighborhood Business District to GB, General Business District is consistent with policies and provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. However, these policies and provisions should also be examined during the site plan review process. Examples of these policies include: a. The Proposed Land Use Map guides this area for commercial use. b. Develop service and commercial centers as cohesive, highly interrelated units with adequate off - street parking. c. Blend commercial redevelopment which is of a similar size and scale with existing businesses and which is supportable by available markets. • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 8 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The Existing Land Use Map indicates that the subject property is bordered by a commercial use to the south, vacant land to the east (across Lake Drive), and residential uses to the north and west. The Proposed Land Use Map guides the surrounding properties for commercial use. Therefore, expansion of the bank use on this site is consistent with the future land use plan for this area. 3. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. Finding: At this time, the applicant is only requesting a rezoning. That application appears to meet the standards for rezoning outlined in the City Code. However, prior to actual construction of the proposed parking lot, the applicant must receive approval of a site plan in compliance with all applicable performance standards and combine this lot with that of the existing bank. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Finding: Rezoning this site from NB, Neighborhood Business District to GB, General Business District will not overburden the City's service capacity. However, this finding is contingent on the applicant combining this property with the bank site. Creating an independent General Business lot in this location could have other issues. Nevertheless, the planned development of an additional parking area on this site may affect the capacity of City service. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant will be required to receive approval of a site plan. During this review, staff will more closely examine this development's effect on City services. 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: Rezoning this site from NB, Neighborhood Business District to GB, General Business District will not have an adverse effect on traffic at the site. However, the actual design of the parking lot may have an effect on future traffic flow. Staff will more thoroughly examine traffic issues during the site plan review process. Staff presented the options of consideration available to the Board and recommended rezoning the property located at 7651 Lake Drive from NB, Neighborhood Business District to GB, General Business District. This recommendation is based on the findings and two conditions contained in the staff report. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Curt Martinson, representing Community National Bank, explained they need additional parking since they now have a total of 35 employees, eight to nine at this location. In • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 9 addition, they hold real estate closings which result in the need for additional parking. Mr. Martinson stated they purchased additional property that is zoned Neighborhood Business and are requesting a rezoning to General Business so it can be used for parking. Mr. Corson asked if the driveway from Lake Drive will be used. Mr. Martinson answered affirmatively and stated Anoka County Commissioner Margaret Langfeld has obtained a letter of approval from Anoka County Highway Engineer Jon Olson. Mr. Lyden asked if they will add drive -thru lanes. Mr. Martinson stated they have no plans at the present time. Ms. Lane asked if this will be a divided roadway in the future. Mr. Powell stated the County has initiated a reconstruction road project and will propose a divided section. However, the City has indicated it prefers one lane in each direction with a shared turn lane. Mr. Martinson stated they are aware of that project in their discussions with the County. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. Ms. Lane asked if the homes to the north are zoned for commercial in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martinson stated the property adjacent to the lot they purchased currently contains a house but is being used as a commercial chiropractic office. Mr. Powell stated the draft Land Use Plan identifies that parcel as Commercial. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of rezoning the property located at 7651 Lake Drive from NB, Neighborhood Business District to GB, General Business District based on the findings made in the staff report and subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant must submit and receive approval of a minor subdivision application prior to construction of any kind on this site. 2. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of a detailed site plan in conformance with all applicable performance standards for properties in the GB District prior to construction of any kind on this site. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. F. PUBLIC HEARING, Pinnacle Towers, 870 Birch Street, Rezone, Amend C.U.P., Amend Zoning Ordinance Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 7:07 p.m. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 10 Staff presented the application by explaining the applicant, Pinnacle Towers, Inc., submitted an application requesting a zoning amendment, rezoning, and a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 530 -foot tower on the property located at 870 Birch Street. The site is currently zoned R -1, Single Family Residential District and has a conditional use permit to allow an existing 500 -foot tower. Should the City approve these requests, the applicant must still request and receive approval of a detailed site plan and conditional use permit in conformance with all applicable performance standards prior to actual construction of the tower. Staff noted the existing 500 -foot tower was granted a special use permit in 1973. The City amended that permit in 1993 to allow a new building on this site. In 1997, the City adopted a new Zoning Ordinance. The following year, the City amended the Code with Ordinance 01 -98, which allowed towers up to 200 feet as a conditional use in the Rural and Industrial Zoning Districts. The end result of these changes is that the existing tower is allowed to continue in its present form as a legal non - conforming use. Staff advised there are several reasons why this site is an appropriate use for both the existing and proposed tower. First, the site's size and location make it relatively isolated. Second, this relatively isolated location helps make a tower use on this site compatible with the surrounding uses. In general, tower uses have a low impact on surrounding uses because they don't have the operational issues associated with other commercial or industrial uses. Finally, according to the applicant's survey, approximately two - thirds of the site is covered with a wooded wetland. It is reasonable to assume that allowing this use to continue will protect and retain the wooded wetland area as open space. Staff presented its analysis of the applicant's request to allow them to replace the existing 500 -foot tower with a new 530 -foot tower request as contained in the staff report. Staff reviewed the five factors, according to Section 2, Subdivision 1 of the City Code, that the Planning Commission and City Council shall weigh when considering zoning amendments or rezoning requests. These factor and staff's findings for each are as follows: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the City's official Comprehensive Plan. Finding: Both the zoning text amendment and rezoning of this site from R, Rural to PSP, Public and Semi Public District are consistent with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Some of these policies are listed below: a. Avoid premature urban expansion into rural areas of the City. b. Develop a cohesive land use pattern that insures compatibility and functional relationships among activities. c. Prevent over - intensification of land use development, in other words, development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities. • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 11 d. Balance land use types throughout the City. Avoid an over - allocation of land use types on a sub -area or planning district basis. 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The Existing Land Use Map shows this site is bordered by vacant and low density residential uses to the north, commercial uses to the east and south and low density residential uses to the west. By comparison, the Proposed Land Use Map illustrates this property is bordered by low density unsewered residential property to the north and south and low density sewered residential property to the east and west. Staff finds that the proposed use will be compatible with the present and future land uses. 3. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. Finding: The applicable performance standards for this use will be dependent on the outcome of the zoning text amendment and rezoning requests. Our review assumes that the City will approve the zoning amendment to allow radio and television broadcasting towers in excess of 200 feet in height as a conditional use in the PSP District and a rezoning of this site from R, Rural District to PSP, Public and Semi Public District. Should the City approve these applications, this site will be in conformance with the applicable performance standards. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Finding: In general, radio and television broadcasting towers are not large users of City services. This use will have a relatively low impact on City services and should not overburden their capacity. 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: Television and radio tower sites have no employees and only a minimum amount of related ground equipment. As a result, this type of use will produce little traffic and have little impact on surrounding roads. The proposed tower site has access from CSAH 10, which is also known as Birch Street. According to the Functional Classification System Plan, CSAH 10 is a Minor Arterial Route. This use should generate an insignificant amount of traffic and be well within the capabilities of this road. However, the Engineer should comment on its impact on surrounding roads. Staff presented the Zoning Code text amendment that would result and recommended approval of a zoning text amendment to permit television and radio broadcasting towers in excess of 200 feet as a conditional use within the PSP, Public and Semi Public District and a rezoning of the property located at 870 Birch Street from R, Rural District to PSP, Public and Semi Public District based on the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 12 Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Chad Lemmons, representing Pinnacle Towers, Inc., stated staff did a good job of presenting their request and explained the current tower cannot accommodate additional towers. He stated the intended use is for cellular communications. Chair Schaps asked if they have any current buyers of space. Mr. Lemmons stated there are none he knows of. He explained they are requesting 35 feet to add more guidewires and assure it is structurally sound to accommodate additional users. Mr. Corson stated this is an obvious location but he would like additional details on how the tower will appear. Mr. Lemmons stated it will be identically to the existing tower except it will be taller. Mr. Corson stated he has no objection to that, but would like a written indication that is what will occur. Chair Schaps noted other communities are no longer requiring towers of this height and he understands the skepticism. He asked if the information on the structure can be provided in writing. Mr. Lemmons stated he will provide that information. Chair Schaps asked if time is of the essence or if this can be considered in June. Mr. Lemmons stated the construction schedule is set and they would like to get this done as quickly as possible. Mr. Lyden stated this issue has more to do with best practices, policy and procedure. He noted there is to be no expansion until such time as a City -wide plan is in place. He noted that text amendment affects all PSB, not just this site. He commented on the need for a broad perspective to assure other areas of Lino Lakes are not impacted. Mr. Lyden stated his support of the Environmental Board's recommendation on the need for a City -wide plan. Mr. Lemmons stated that he understands that concern; however, the conditional use permit can assure that protection. Mr. Zych arrived at 7:14 p.m. Mr. Powell advised that Mr. Smyser attempted to develop a City -wide tower plan and contacted surrounding committees but he had a great deal of difficult in obtaining information from tower users which was needed to develop a City -wide plan. Mr. Lyden asked if the site of the wellhouse on Birch is a potential site for a radio tower. Mr. Powell stated that site is City owned and sized to accommodate future water system treatment of that well. Chair Schaps stated he does not know exactly what is being proposed and would like to see more detailed plans since this is a rather major reconstruction in a more developed • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 13 area than when the tower was first constructed. He asked Mr. Lemmons if he could return to the June meeting to present those plans. Mr. Lemmons stated he is unable to answer that question but understands this is a priority project. He reiterated they will provide copies of the plan and answer all questions raised. He pointed out they will have to return for the conditional use permit anyway. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Lemmons to also provide information on any other additional equipment that could be located on the tower. David Igel, 783 Beaver Circle, stated he lives behind this tower and asked how long the construction will take. He stated the current tower does not bother him that much but wondered if his reception will be interrupted by the capabilities of this new tower. He also asked about the area the tower would impact should it fall over and if a rezoning could result in other commercial uses on this site in addition to the tower. Mr. Lemmons stated the tower is designed to fall within the bounds of the property and will not impact property outside of the boundaries. Mr. Corson asked that guidewire plans also be presented in June. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing of a zoning text amendment to permit television and radio broadcasting towers in excess of 200 feet as a conditional use within the PSP, Public and Semi Public District and a rezoning of the property located at 870 Birch Street from R, Rural District to PSP, Public and Semi Public District to the June 13, 2001 meeting, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6 -0. G. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Rockey Goertz /Spirit Hills, Inc., Rezone to Planned Development Overlay and Preliminary Plat Staff presented the application by explaining the applicant, Rockey Goertz, has submitted an application for a preliminary plat for a single - family development to be known as Spirit Hills. The site is located on the northeast corner of State Highway 49 and Birch Street, between Rice Lake and Shenandoah Addition. The Planning Commission reviewed an application that included single - family lots and townhouses at their April meeting and tabled action based on the mixed use and other issues related to the design. Staff indicated its original review was based on plans dated April 25, 2001. Staff noted that new and additional information had been provided related to this application since the staff report was written. She noted the copy of the preliminary approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District and a plan revision for the northern portion of the site to address lot depth and area concerns that were raised in the previous staff report. The revision eliminates the two cul -de -sac design and proposes one cul -de- sac. The number of lots remains the same. Staff noted the location of the cul -de -sac which is approximately 750 feet in length. The City's street construction standards limit cul -de -sac length to 500 feet. Under the • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 14 ordinance, the Council may "permit variations from the requirements in specific cases which in its opinion, do not affect the general sense of this chapter." In this case, the longer cul -de -sac allows the elimination of one cul -de -sac so it limits the overall number. In addition, the existing development and the road connection to the east and the lake and wetland areas on and surrounding the property limit the design possibilities. Staff noted that Lots 5 -10, Block 2, have been modified so that all of the lots meet the upland lot area requirement. With the revised design, all of the lots meet the ordinance requirements for upland lot area and width. Lot 22, Block 1, does not meet the lot depth requirement of 135 feet; all other lots meet the lot depth provision. Mr. Powell stated he received an e -mail from Anoka County and found the road configuraitons as propsoed are consistent with what has been discussed. Ms. Sherman noted the addtional information that has been provided by the applicant and commented on potential impact to utility layout. She advised that based upon the revised plans and action by the Rice Creek Watershed District, staff recommends approval of the application for preliminary plat subject to the six conditions detailed in the May 9, 2001 staff report. Chair Schaps asked about additional comments from the Environmental Board. Ms. Sherman stated they want to assure the wetland boundary is protected and a homeowner's association is formed to assure that protection. Chair Schaps asked about the Park Board recommendation. Ms. Sherman stated they recommend an all cash park dedication. Mr. Corson asked about the continued trail along Birch Street. Mr. Powell stated he is unsure whether the Park Board considered this since the revised plans were submitted by the applicant on April 25th. Mr. Rafferty stated he is pleased to see the direction toward single - family but finds it difficult to believe the Park Board is recommending a cash donation for 50 homes. He asked where the children from this neighborhood will play. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Rockey Goertz, applicant, explained the site is surrounded by Anoka County parkland which has adequate upland room for a trail. He estimated Anoka County has 25 acres with a 20 foot to 100 foot strip of upland. Mr. Goertz stated he is open to dedicating a portion of trail easement should it be needed. However, the Park Board recommended a cash donation. Chair Schaps asked how many park meetings he attended. Mr. Goertz stated he attended no park meetings but has been in contact with staff. He stated it is his understanding that the Birch Street trail was eliminated due to the high volume of traffic. • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Goertz stated they are open to the homeowner's association or other requests. He addressed the storm sewer easement requirement and explained that Tim Hillesheim did not have any objection to their proposed sketch. Mr. Goertz stated recommended Condition #1 was an oversight on his part and can easily be addressed. Mr. Lyden asked about the rear width of Lot 12 which ends in a point. Ms. Sherman stated the ordinance does not indicate a minimum rear lot width and pie- shaped lots are not prohibited. Mr. Lyden stated his appreciation for the changes made to date and his preference for R1X. He stated he shares the concern expressed by Mr. Rafferty about the need for a park and noted that in the future, funding can be addressed. However, foresight is needed today to obtain the property and he believes it would behoove the Planning and Zoning Board to obtain that property now. He pointed out this would provide an asset to this neighborhood. Mr. Goertz stated they are open to considering a land dedication as long as they get credit for it. He pointed out that this site is difficult to develop but all lots meet or exceed 25,000 square feet and the only R1X criteria it does not meet is lot width. Mr. Lyden stated he would strongly advocate the need for a trail easement whether on Anoka or City property. Mr. Goertz stated it is an existing trail easement and they would not object if they need to dedicate an additional 15 to 20 feet at the back of the lot. Mr. Powell stated a trail easement along the lake would require field survey work but the County has decided not to extend that trail due to site limitations in other areas. He noted that the trail would also raise issues of maintenance. Mr. Lyden noted that goals and ambitions change over time but he strongly supports obtaining the easement at this time to assure Lino Lakes does not fall short Mr. Goertz stated the initial plat provided the trail easement so that area has already been identified. He offered to dedicate that easement to the County or City. Eugene Gervais, 890 Old Birch Street, asked what will happen to the intersection of Highway 49 and Old Birch Street which is not adequate now. Mr. Powell stated Anoka County has begun right -of -way acquisition for the Highway 49 project but the exact width has not yet been determined. He stated he is aware of a legislative bill to reduce the speed on Highway 49 from 50 mph to 45 mph. He added that signals and widening of the bridge will be part of this project. He stated if the speed limit is reduced, it would provide more flexibility with regard to the roadway design features. Bruce Pruitt, 6517 Hokah Drive, stated he has spoken with a number of neighbors and it appears some of their concerns have been addressed. He stated the main issues are with traffic and recreational areas for children. He commented on the need for a trail and stated his concern with Outlot A and potential for a commercial business. • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 16 Mr. Goertz stated it was left an outlot so the zoning can be at the Council and staff's discretion. He stated he will come back with the outlot after the Comprehensive Plan is finalized. Mr. Pruitt stated his understanding that it could be commercial and he does not believe it makes sense to delay that decision for several years. He suggested it be fenced and used as a recreational area. Mr. Goertz stated it is about four acres and he intends to wait until the Comprehensive Plan is finalized. Chair Schaps encouraged Mr. Pruitt to keep track of this property so he is aware when something comes forward. Environmental Boardmember O'Connell stated the northeast corner contains Oak Savanna which they recommend be protected. Chair Schaps asked if a Park Board representative is in the audience. No response was received. • Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:55 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. Chair Schaps asked if conditions for trail or park land are desired. In response to Mr. Lyden, Ms. Sherman estimated that Lot 19 on the old drawing is about one - quarter acre. Mr. Lyden stated he would support a park of that size with any difference being paid in cash. He stated he would also like some open green space. Mr. Goertz asked if they have to revise their preliminary plat prior to the Council consideration and if they will have to revise it again should the Council not support the dedication of park land. Chair Schaps stated that condition could be placed on the approval. Mr. Powell stated that is correct and the plan can be revised following Council action, if appropriate. Mr. Goertz stated his park dedication is $50,000 and asked which lot the Board would like for park land dedication. He suggested Lot 30 since it is adjacent to the other neighborhood. In response to the request of Mr. Goertz, Mr. Powell recommended Condition #2 be revised to remove the size and add approval by the City Engineer. Mr. Corson asked if an easement can be provided along Birch Street if it is outside of this property. Mr. Goertz stated he cannot dedicate land outside his project. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Powell stated that easement is related to the outlot and when it is considered in the future, that easement requirement can be addressed. Chair Schaps noted the Park Board has indicated the intent to continue that trail. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Spirit Hills preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot 22, Block 1, shall be eliminated or revised to meet the 135 foot lot depth as measured in the center of the lot. 2. An area shall be provided for the lift station necessary to serve this site subject to approval by the City Engineer. 3. All comments as listed in the May 1, 2001 memorandum from TKDA shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to proceeding to final plat. 4. Park dedication in area of Lot 30, value to be determined, and dedication of an upland trail corridor around the lake that borders this property subject to approval by the City staff. 5. Appropriate permits shall be acquired from Anoka County for access to the adjacent roadways. 6. The developer shall address all provisions /conditions outlined by Rice Creek Watershed. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. H. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Heritage Development, Saddle Club Site, Old Birch Street, Comprehensive Plan Amendment for MUSA, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat Staff presented the application submitted by Heritage Development for Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning, and preliminary plat for a portion of an area included in their application for preliminary plat. The property commonly known as the Saddle Club is located south and east of Old Birch Street. The review is based on plans received by the City on April 6, 2001. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the project data, acreages, number of lots (46) and density (1.15 units /acre) as contained in the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, and preliminary plat subject to the four conditions detailed in the staff report. Mr. Lyden stated homeowners on that street raised questions about the sewer. He noted the other route for the sewer brings it past a lot of wetland area. Mr. Powell stated the applicant petitioned for a feasibility study and the recommendation is to extend from directly west rather than down Old Birch Street due to saving restoration and crossing costs, and wetland impacts. Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 18 • Mr. Lyden asked what the dollar figure is between the two routes. Mr. Powell estimated a 50% higher cost. • • Mr. Lyden asked about the potential for utility connections with an east/west route. Mr. Powell estimated one to two. Chair Schaps asked if there was discussion about closure to the north entrance from Birch Street. Mr. Powell stated that was recommended. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Mr. Hill, representing Heritage Development, stated he had nothing to add and offered to answer questions. Eugene Gervais, 890 Old Birch Street, stated there are several residents with recently updated septic systems which were costly so he does not support a north/south utility extension. He stated that the street in front of his house is in better shape than Birch Street and he does not want it disturbed. Gary Foster, 882 Old Birch Street, stated he has many concerns. He stated they are changing the directions of access to make it more difficult. He suggested that the developer should be charged to install the sewer and leave it up to the residents if they want to connect. Mr. Foster suggested that is the least the developer should be required to do. He stated 46 houses times two vehicles per house results in a lot of traffic and will make access a bottleneck and even more impossible than it is currently. Mr. Foster stated they only have one exit, but the new project is to have two exits, which may help a little. He stated that his sewer system is about 15 years old so he does not plan to connect right now He stated he has lived there for 25 years and understands that development cannot be stopped, but he believes the residents should get something. Mr. Foster stated he has four acres on a corner lot by the bend in the road and will want to do something in the future so he does not want to be dictated to about what he can and cannot do. He asked about the potential impact of this project to his property and expressed concern about how their ponding and streets will be taken care of to assure they do not impact his property. Hank Meyers, 904 Old Birch Street, stated he has lived there for 30 years and installed many of the septic systems being mentioned. He stated he owns ten acres with little wetlands and wants the sewer extended. He asked where the sewer will be when he does something with his property in five years and if the roads will be impacted. Chair Schaps explained that some of those questions cannot be answered since it is not part of this project. Mr. Powell stated if the pavement is disturbed, it will be replaced at a 7 -ton design. Mr. Meyers asked if the sewer will be available to his property when he wants to develop. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 19 Amy Roth, 889 Old Birch Street, stated her preference for a north/south sewer route so she has access. She explained she would like to add on to her house but the current ten - year old septic system prevents that from occurring. She stated she believes it is not safe to pull out onto the roadway where the traffic is traveling at 50 miles per hour. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:28 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Lyden stated it appears Mr. Foster's concern about water should be addressed. He noted that the Rice Creek Watershed District gave approval but their concern is rate of runoff, not the amount of runoff. He stated if the ground slopes towards Mr. Foster's property, it could receive flow if the rate is exceeded. Mr. Powell clarified that the Rice Creek Watershed District is very much concerned about water volume and encourages infiltration on every site. He stated they have made significant steps to address that issue. Mr. Lyden stated he would like to see the numbers on the cost versus benefit since some residents are interested in connecting to the sewer system. He noted this requests asks for more MUSA which cannot happen right now since Lino Lakes is already beyond the 2010 plan for population. Mr. Lyden stated he would have to be convinced that asking for more MUSA is the right thing for the City. In addition, he is concerned that the houses are getting too large for the lots so he would support upholding R1X lot size standards. Mr. Corson asked if a MUSA bank swap is a consideration with this request. Ms. Sherman stated that is correct and the MUSA allotment would be swapped from the bank. She noted that only eight acres would impact the MUSA allocation. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend denial of the Heritage Development application for MUSA allocation, and was supported by Mr. Zych. Motion carried 4 -1 -1 (Corson voted nay and Schaps abstained). Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend denial of the Heritage Development application for rezoning, and was suported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -1 -1 (Corson voted nay and Schaps abstained). Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend denial of the Heritage Development application for preliminary plat, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0 -1 (Schaps abstained). I. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive Staff presented the application by explaining that staff has been working with Ryan Companies, US Inc. on a proposed retail development called Lino Lakes Marketplace located in the northeast quadrant of the Lake Drive /I -35 W. Interchange. The Planning • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 20 and Zoning Board reviewed the concept plan for the site in December of 2000 and opened the public hearing on February 13, 2001. The main issues raised by staff, and discussed by the City Council and Planning and Zoning Board at the concept stage related to the site layout and design and the departure from the Town Center vision. The direction provided through the concept process was to incorporate special pedestrian- oriented design features, as well as some special architectural elements into the proposal with the goal being an "above average shopping center." Staff advised that the submittal that was reviewed in February 2001 has been modified; this review is based on plan submittals stamped received by the City on April 9, 2001. Staff explained that because there are many outstanding issues related to the site and it is anticipated that revised plans will be submitted, the degree of detail is limited in their report. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the project data, acreages, and square footages of proposed uses and development issues as detailed in the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Board discuss the site plan, building design and signs proposed, provide direction to the applicants and then continue the public hearing until such time as the EAW process is complete and wetland fill and mitigation plans are approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District and more information is submitted related to access, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, screening, engineering comments, signage, building design and materials, and any other issues raised as the process moves forward. Mr. Powell advised that a petition for utilities was received today. Mr. Wessel stated this project is large and complicated, and Ryan Companies is putting this project together in a third the normal time needed for a development of this size. He noted staff is recommending a continuation for many good reasons due to "holes" in the application and the responsibility lies with the developer to provide that information. Mr. Wessel stated the developer has made a good effort but the schedule is very accelerated and if the City wants it to go, would necessitate Board action on June 13, Council action on July 23, the land to close in August, and construction to begin this September. He noted that an enormous amount of work remains for the applicant to complete. Mr. Wessel stated the Council has looked at the design as it is being presented and been active in reviewing this proposal. Chair Schaps stated the Board could give direction but the opportunity to do so is limited in timing compared to the Council's review process. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Tom Palmquist, representing Ryan Companies, introduced the design team including John Payton and Bill Wittrock. He stated his concurrence with staff that a lot of work needs to be done in a short amount of time. He stated there are changes being made that will have to be incorporated into the plans by next week. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 21 Mr. Palmquist stated their submittal package contained a schedule with a draft EAW submission on May 1 lth with a 30 day comment period ending in June and Council action on July 11. He stated two Type 3 wetlands have been identified and they will not be impacted. The 6.36 acre Type 2 wetland is a low quality and will be mitigated on a 2:1 basis (7.62 acres) which they will pursue with Anoka County. He advised that a portion of the wetlands will be mitigated on the Chomonix Golf Course, camp ground, and other areas. Mr. Palmquist stated they are scheduled to meet with Anoka County park staff and the County Attorney to draft the needed legal documentation. It will be heard by the Anoka County Park and Recreation Board on June 5 and formal action taken by the County Board on June 12. He advised that plans were completed today and will be submitted on or before May 11. The Rice Creek Watershed District action will occur in late -July and the 404 Army Corp permit will follow in two weeks of the Rice Creek Watershed District action. Mr. Corson asked what the Anoka County Parks and Recreation Department has to do with the mitigation requirement. Mr. Palmquist explained they looked at mitigation options and based on this development proposal, they will mitigate off -site. The options on Anoka County property are being pursued subject to Rice Creek Watershed District approval. Mr. Lyden stated the proposed mitigation will benefit Anoka County property and asked if the mitigation could help City property rather than the County. Mr. Palmquist stated they did explore various options with City staff regarding mitigation and it was determined the County property was potentially suitable. Ms. Lane asked if it is possible to follow the anticipated time schedule given the meeting schedule for the Rice Creek Watershed District and the City Council. Mr. Wessel stated it is correct that the recommendation to the Council will probably contain several conditions being subject to approval dates that extend beyond the Council decision date. Ms. Lane asked if the project would continue if there is a month delay. Mr. Palmquist explained that it is critical to close on the property in August so they can get the earthwork completed and the building pad prepared. He explained Target has a certain model they rigidly adhere to indicating they open stores only three times a year. Mr. Palmquist stated that representatives from Target will be in attendance at the next meeting and can better answer that question. Chair Schaps noted the City is usually aware of Rice Creek Watershed District concerns and asked if the City will be aware whether it will be approved prior to their meeting. Mr. Powell stated some plans have not yet been submitted to the Rice Creek Watershed District and he does not know if they have started a serious review since the wetland replacement plan has not been submitted. Bill Wittrock presented the colored exterior elevations of the proposed Target Store. He stated he has been working on this property with several different property owners, starting with Mr. Rehbine. He stated they have become aware of the Town Center Guidelines and emphasized that everyone recognizes the importance and value of those • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 22 issues related to form, value, and scale. Mr. Wittrock stated they have worked diligently with Target to get their building to fit as many of the architectural details as possible. He noted the entry areas are articulated with a hip -roof detail and use of different materials. Mr. Wittrock noted the Forest Lake Target Store is a pure prototype but what is being proposed in Lino Lakes is integral colored block, rockfaced block, rose - colored brick, stucco accent stripes, and painted concrete masonry unit (CMU). He noted the premium materials are at a lower pedestrian level with the materials at a higher elevation being more economical. Mr. Wittrock noted these materials are a significant change from Target's prototype materials. Mr. Wittrock presented the Kohl's elevation, noting it is predominantly lighter- colored brick and the addition of stucco cornices which would be a common element throughout the rest of the development. He advised of the Council's inquiry about a different front entry pitched -roof treatment and explained that would look out of place since it is not in the right proportion. Mr. Wittrock stated they will talk with Kohl's about changing the brick to be more compatible with the brick used on the other buildings. Mr. Wittrock presented Buildings A and B that will contain several tenants, each with separate doors. He identified the location of these buildings which will face each other, thus the design with similar facade treatments, pitched roof, strong corner elements, and storefront design. Mr. Wittrock reviewed the materials proposed for these smaller buildings which are oriented for pedestrians. He noted the incorporation of canvass awnings to provide some protection from the elements. Mr. Wittrock stated the other buildings have not yet been designed since tenants have not been secured. But, as part of the development, they will submit an outline of how those buildings should respond to this architecture including a list of preferred materials and color. Mr. Rafferty stated that based on the Kohl's elevations, color will make a dramatic change in appearance. He stated he has more concerns with the Kohl's design than the Target Store design. Mr. Rafferty commented on the effort to create the design standard criteria and stated his appreciation to RSP for the elevations that meet that criteria. He suggested that Kohl's be pulled off to allow a better designed and enhanced structure. Mr. Lyden stated this development corner is the most exciting thing to happen to Lino Lakes and he applauded everyone's efforts to make it come about. He stated it was subtle but said that the idea of a pedestrian -type town center has changed. Mr. Lyden stated this proposal is a very changed set up and his general impression is that if anything is lacking, it is the lower corner. Mr. Lyden noted the proposal has several big box users and then some other smaller uses. Rather than bringing the traffic in and then out to the fast foods, he suggested a different traffic configuration. On aesthetics, he asked if consideration has been given to a common wall configuration. Mr. Lyden stated he does not know if the community needs another bank but that site would be a good location for another retail use and would also free up space for parking by Kohl's. Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 23 Mr. Wittrock explained that a common wall configuration does not work because the Kohl's building would block the Target entrance. Mr. Palmquist concurred regarding the traffic circulation patterns and noted it will be a significant challenge to get that figured out. He explained it was just recently that Kohl's came to fruition (in March) so the plans had to be started over. Mr. Lyden asked why a hip roof would not work on the Kohl's building. Mr. Wittrock explained a different form over the entry signifies an entrance. However, with the Kohl's building, they will not entertain any discussion about changing any of the materials or form of the entries. Chair Schaps commented that retailers want to assure consistency between their stores to assure consumer familiarity. Mr. Wittrock stated that is correct and he had presented that option to Kohl's. He noted that Kohl's has indicated a willingness to consider a different colored brick so their building is more compatible with the other buildings. He stated he does not think a pitched roof design fits with the Kohl's building and he believes getting a color change is a more important consideration and a higher priority. Mr. Lyden asked about the Kohl's building at Tamarack Village in Woodbury. Mr. Wittrock stated that project was driven by other factors since the same architect was used for all of the buildings. Mr. Rafferty asked why KKE is not present to respond to, these questions. Mr. Wittrock stated he does not believe they have been assigned this job yet. Mr. Lyden asked about Ryan's relationship with Target Corporation. Mr. Palmquist stated they are a preferred contractor with Target Corporation and have worked on several projects that included a Kohl's. He stated he will ask KKE to have a representative at the next meeting. Mr. Corson asked if the architects of the fast food stores have been identified. Mr. Palmquist stated they have not. He explained they are proposing something unique in Lino Lakes to assure a cohesive "look" in the project, as was done with a Stillwater project. Mr. Corson asked if the area on the southwest corner of the site has an existing building. Mr. Palmquist stated that property will ultimately be owned by the City. Mr. Corson stated that while it has been many years since he was a City Planner, the rule of thumb was to get 10% of the purchase price as park dedication and higher for commercial and industrial property. He estimated $1.6 million for the site but the park dedication is $44,000 in a community that is very park poor. Mr. Corson stated this is a great concern to him. Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 24 • Ms. Sherman stated that is the current ordinance requirement but the level of park dedication is set at whatever the ordinance requires at the time of final plat adoption. • Rochelle Miller, 7725 Marilyn Drive, stated the Roseville and Forest Lake sites are not adjacent to residential areas. She stated her concern about traffic on Lake Drive and read the April 14, 1999 letter from Anoka County Highway Engineer Jon Olson indicating the proposed access does not support the proposed roadway system. She stated she spoke with Mr. Olson who indicated their position has not changed since that time. Ms. Miller stated the City has not requested resident input about what they want and she feels this project is too large for the area. She stated they have prepared a petition from residents who have been effected. Janelle Janson, 7729 Carole Drive, presented a petition with 95% of the neighborhood objecting due to traffic and Rice Creek Watershed District issues. She stated the pictures are nice but she believes more information is needed. Ms. Miller stated not many people are shopping at the Forest Lake Target Store and asked if they are inundating the market to the point where it is saturated. She stated she found the Roseville Target Store to be so large, it was impersonal. Mr. Powell stated they have done a detailed study of Lake Drive and how it will function with these developments and the County received the second draft of that study. He stated they have requested County comments and found the road supports the additional access and warrants other road improvements now. Mr. Palmquist pointed out a connection point for Apollo Drive which has been eliminated so traffic will not have access to 77th. Chair Schaps asked if any Target Stores have closed in the last 20 years. Mr. Palmquist stated he is not aware of any in the Twin Cities area and noted the complex calculations they undertake prior to construction. Deb Graf, 7757 Carole Drive, asked if that is the same study that said another bank is needed. She asked if the roads will be finished before the Target Store opens. She suggested that Target should meet the needs of the City, not the other way around and urged the Board to not let this project rush through without the level of scrutiny that is given to home developments. Lil Johnson, 7728 Carole Drive, reviewed the questions asked of other applicants tonight and stated she wants Target asked about where their semitrucks will be parked, how long they will be running, hours of delivery, etc. She noted that Carole Drive is very quiet and does not have lighting, which is what the residents like. Ms. Johnson expressed concern that deliveries will be made during the evening hours and disrupt their neighborhood. She stated she does not want to look at the back of a Target Store or at the debris from this and the fast food uses. She also expressed concern about the impact of security for the adjacent residential neighborhood, a concern which they currently do not have. Ms. Johnson stated that she accepts the fact that she will have to drive to go shopping at a Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 25 • Target or to go to the bank and she does not necessarily want it located 20 feet from her house. • Mr. Palmquist suggested the development agreement contain conditions to limit hours of delivery, trucks idling, etc. John Payton, representing Target Stores, reviewed the processes they will follow that monitors air quality and noise levels, and which will also determine the existing noise level. He explained the new whisper grocery refrigeration units are much more quiet. Mr. Payton stated they are looking at the MPCA acceptable noise thresholds and that will be addressed in the ISP that is incorporated into the EAW. Kathy Hansmann, 7601 Lake Drive, stated she owns a business and appreciates the time involved in this process. She stated she is not against bringing a Target or Kohl's into this location but believes a lot of the details are not being obtained which she was required to answer for her business. She asked if there is enough detail on the parking, coloring of the structures, the bank, fast food, and two convenience stores. Chair Schaps agreed that detail on those areas has not yet been provided but that will be considered when those sites are developed. Ms. Hansmann encouraged the Board to assure the issues of traffic and access are adequately addressed. Ms. Lane stated she lives on 77th and has solicited input from those neighbors. She stated that of the five neighbors she talked with, all favor the project. Ms. Lane noted that sometimes people who support a project do not attend a meeting to voice their support. Deb Graf stated they live right in the area of the proposed Target Store and have concerns. Wayne DeHaven, 7761 Carole Drive, stated he moved to Lino Lakes because it is quiet and if he had wanted to live next to a Target Store, he would have bought next to one. He stated he does not mind driving to Target and Festival and does not think a Target Store needs to be located in Lino Lakes. He urged the Board to keep Lino Lakes a quiet community. Ms. Miller stated she would like to know what their petition means to the Board and if it will have an impact on how this project goes forward. She asked what the rush is and if a large conglomerate should be allowed to come in and say when and how. Chair Schaps stated the petition is considered and has an impact but there are always two or three sides to every story. He noted there are many young families in Lino Lakes who may have a different opinion about driving eight or nine miles to a Target and may favor locating one in Lino Lakes. He noted there are a lot of good corporate neighbors in Minnesota and Target Corporation is one of the best in what they bring to a community and give back to a community. He stated this has been reviewed for months and not • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 26 rushed but there are other issues that need to be addressed. Chair Schaps stated others have approached him to ask why Target has not yet been approved, so there is a groundswell of opinion that is different than being expressed tonight. Chair Schaps stated a lot of residents indicated they wanted an increase in commercial business in Lino Lakes so they could stay in Lino Lakes when they shop. He stated he understands the desire to look at birds and wildlife, but that can't always happen when you don't own the property. Mr. Wessel stated the community determined this was the right location for a shopping center and it has been zoned that way for years. He stated this is not a new use for this site. Chair Schaps stated residents need to understand this is a huge project for the City and a huge opportunity but that does not mean anything will be allowed to slide. He stated the applicants understand the rules and so far have followed that direction. Mr. Lyden stated he does not blame any of the residents for their thoughts and feelings and if he lived in that area, would probably feel the same way. He stated that he has done all he could to protect neighborhoods and in the past the property on the north side of 77th was given back to those property owners. Also, none of the traffic will go onto 77th which is a significant issue in protecting the neighborhood. He stated in this proposal, neighbors are being asked to give something and he recognizes that is a sacrifice. Mr. Lyden stated the 2020 was based on balancing residential and commercial and getting tax relief but he in no way wants to diminish the sacrifice residents make in this kind of development. Joel Buys, 7661 Lake Drive, stated his agreement that this is an opportunity that has been awaiting Lino Lakes for quite some time and he would urge them to take this opportunity to assure enough time is spent and the tasks are not cut short to meet someone else's time table. He stated traffic control is a concern and the Apollo intersection needs to be changed to handle this type of traffic along with Lake Drive. He stated his appreciation for the time and effort taken to review this project. Bob Rettner, 729 77th Street, stated he has lived there for 20 years but always known something would be built. He stated his major concern was Apollo exiting onto 77th which has been resolved. He stated his preference for a view of the back of a Target Store rather than a strip mall that goes bankrupt. Mr. Rettner stated at a previous meeting, a Target representative said deliveries at Target would only be from 8:00 a.m. to noon. Mr. Palmquist stated that can be addressed with Target Store and Kohl's. • Mr. Rettner stated he is concerned with night deliveries and mentioned that they currently hear the Schwan's Ice Cream trucks running all night. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 27 Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing until such time as the EAW process is complete and wetland fill and mitigation plans are approved by Rice Creek Watershed District and more information is submitted related to access, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, screening, engineering comments, signage, building design and materials, and any other issues raised as the process moves forward, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Rafferty commented that he hears the resident's concerns and stated his appreciation for their efforts to present a petition. He stated he has not directly worked with Ryan Companies but knows they are a good corporation as well as RSP. He stated he is concerned about the Target Store deadlines and understands Ryan Companies is trying to make the project work, which he also appreciates. Mr. Rafferty stated he respects that residents have enjoyed this open field for 20 years but understood that it would eventually be developed. He stated the property owner has a right to sell at some point but he hopes all can work together to assure the concerns are addressed. J. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Land Holding Group 12th and Holly, Preliminary Plat Staff explained that there are still unresolved issues and information to be submitted related to the application. Therefore, staff recommends the application be continued until June 13, 2001. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the Land Holding Group preliminary plat public hearing to June 13, 2001, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. K. MN Correctional Facility, 7525 Fourth Avenue, Site Plan Review for Storage Building Staff presented the application by explaining the applicant, the Minnesota Correctional Facility, had submitted an application to construct a 40' by 72' pole barn with a footprint of 2,880 sf. for vehicle storage on its site. The building will be approximately 22' high and located outside of the prisoner compound but within a separate fence area. The City of Lino Lakes has no legal zoning jurisdiction over the State of Minnesota land. Therefore, the Department of Corrections is not obligated to submit this project for City review. However, the Depaitment has done so as a courtesy. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the fenced area where the building will be added is approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest property line. Staff explained that for information purposes, the Department of Corrections often delegates building code enforcement to the City through a special agreement. This allows the City to collect building permit fees to cover review and inspection costs. Staff anticipates this will occur for this building. It was noted that the applicant was not present. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 28 No adverse comments were made regarding the application submitted by the Minnesota Correctional Facility to construct a 40' x 72' pole barn, with a footprint of 2,880 sf., that is approximately 22' high for vehicle storage on its site. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Park Dedication Ordinance Ms. Sherman stated the park and trail study analysis indicated there is enough park land within Lino Lakes for the current population. The study further analyzes park and trail needs for future population and recommends making park improvements in certain areas. She used a map to identify the location of parks recommended for improvement. Mr. Corson commented on the need to assure consistent park planning, requirements, and giving consistent credit for trail dedication and improvements. Ms. Sherman stated this study also recommends consistent application of the requirements. Mr. Powell stated credit has been given to paving the trails, but not for grading or placing Class V on the trails. Ms. Sherman presented the conclusions of the analysis and advised it is being presented to the City Council for first reading at their next meeting. She advised the recommendation is to increase the per unit park dedication by $1,900 and that the commercial rate also be recalculated. Mr. Corson suggested that Andover's requirements be reviewed since it remains current by calculating the park dedication fee based on the raw land costs. Chair Schaps noted that a fund is needed for maintenance costs but that is most often forgotten and does not occur. He stated the cost of maintenance needs to be determined and funded. Ms. Sherman stated the report does speak to the maintenance issue which needs to be paid by a different source of funds, not from park dedication fees. Also, future park dedication fees cannot fund improvements to existing parks. She explained this is a State Statute requirement. Mr. Rafferty stated the funds are not adequate to both purchase land and improve the park. He stated his neighborhood has a park with equipment but the size is not adequate for the development. Mr. Rafferty stated he supports increasing the park dedication fee. Mr. Lyden asked if requiring $1,900 per home is the most aggressive proposal and asked what the current park dedication fee is. He agreed the value of land changes dramatically year to year and asked if this fee will be reviewed each year. Mr. Powell stated there is an opportunity to audit any subdivision (to assure the calculation) at the request of the City. Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 29 • Mr. Lyden noted it needs to be a Council priority to assure adequate budgeted funds for parks. • Ms. Lane agreed it is important to obtain park land, but there are instances where the City does not want the land (such as with the Target Store proposal). Mr. Corson commented on the discrepancy in park dedication fee requirements between residential and commercial projects. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.