HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/2001 P&Z Minutes•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 1
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Pla Ting a o oning Board meeting to order at 6:35
p.m., June 13, 2001.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ay.x 2001
Ms. Lane made a MOTI
Lino Lakes Planning a
carried 4 -0.
III. APPROVAL
The agenda was pro ed as presented.
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:36 p.m.
pro e minutes of the May 9, 2001 meeting of the
Board, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion
Teresa O'Connell and Connie Grundhofer of the Environmental Board summarized their
goals of the Environmental Board and offered to answer questions the Planning and
Zoning Board may have regarding their goals. Mr. Lyden and Ms. Lane asked for a copy
of the written goals.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:40 p.m., and was supported by
Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 2
VI. ACTION ITEMS
A. Glenn Valentine, 64th Street and 20th Avenue, Variance
Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the
required setback from a collector road. The site lies between I -35E and 20th Avenue (Co. Rd.
54). Most of the site was wetland. Only a small portion of the site was upland: the area along
the 20th Avenue. Variances from required road setbacks would be needed if a house and
driveway were to be built. Some wetland fill would be required.
Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining in the R -X Rural Executive zoning
district, the City's zoning ordinance required a 40' building setback from a collector road such as
20th Ave. This site had only a small area of upland. Some wetland fill would be required if a
home was to be built. The greater the road setback, the more wetland f : s. ld occur. The
request was to allow the structure to be 10 feet from the right of way Vii` 20`h g-nue.
Staff stated the driveway must be at least 30 feet from the inter
of the property (Sec. 3 Subd. 5.C.8.f of the zoning ordinanc
additional wetland fill for the driveway. Therefore, a vari .r'' e w
driveway as shown on the submitted survey was 10 fe rom he int
With respect to future right -of -way, staff explai
foresaw the need for an additional five feet of r
occurred, the garage and driveway would b on
undesirable situation, it was a trade -off
wetland. The City could not simply
Staff stated the site was located
Management Organization
WLAWMO was pending.
needed. The plan showed just
Increasing the road se
ed from the corner
is would require
d for this as well. The
section.
a County had informed the City that it
on each side of the road. If this
from the ROW. While this was an
oser to the road and filling more
erty owner from using the land.
e ju ''diction of the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed
Because of the wetland impact, a review by
f the house would determine the amount of wetland fill
er 1000 sf of fill, as noted on the attached VLAWMO notice.
increase the wetland fill.
The VLAWO staff reco endation was to approve the plan.
With respect to a septic system, staff explained any new home on well and septic must have an
alternate drain field site designated. This was to ensure that a new drain field could be
constructed if the first one failed.
Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning ordinance that the City shall
make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action.
Staff pointed out that the site was extremely restricted because of the wetlands. Without
variance from setback requirements, the property could not be used. The physical circumstances
were not created by the landowner. The hardship was not due to economic considerations. No
special privilege was being granted. This type of hardship was the reason for the variance.
Staff recommended approval of both variances to allow structure to be 10 feet from the collector
road and approve variance to allow the driveway to be 10 feet from the intersection.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 3
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Ms. Lane stated some lots were not build able lots and indicated this lot appeared to be one of
these lots. She asked what was the City's responsibility. Mr. Smyser replied the Courts had
stated the landowner must be allowed reasonable use of the property. He indicated this property
was very difficult to deal with. He stated they could not prevent somebody to reasonable use of
the property.
Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification of Anoka County's right -of -way. Mr. Smyser stated the right
of way would bring it to within 5 feet of the garage.
Mr. Rafferty asked how long had applicant owned this piece of property. Mr. Valentine
responded he was not the owner of the property, he was the builder an been working on
it for 6 months to get something build able on it The property was ed on ay 20, 2001.
Mr. Rafferty stated there were certain guidelines that had been F' pl. e flE'' believed those
guidelines were such to protect the people who were being ere 'n. However, he stated
they were speculating on the use of a property on guidelines at `. �' =n in place. He stated he
was leery of this request because the buyer should hav . een ware the condition of the
property prior to purchase, and this would not fit into a gr thering clause.
Mr. Valentine replied the previous owner had t s lot pl ed in 1978. Mr. Smyser replied
regardless of the owner of the property, th � tuati.� would exist. The fact that somebody
recently purchased the property did not the: "° °`that whoever owned the property had
reasonable use to the property. He st e:w. ere that the lots had existed for some time
and the Ordinances had changed ._,., j s w of time He stated this type of platting would
never occur under today's Ordin
Mr. Corson inquired abou tic s T' em and secondary system and expressed concern the
wetland was being im acted b e septic system. He asked if they could ensure the septic
system did not impact 't; tlan ' He asked if it was possible to look at a septic system, such as
Ham Lake and Hugo h ked that this be considered. Mr. Smyser stated a properly
designed, built and main ned septic system, treated wastewater better than a treatment plant.
He stated the septic syste `' would not have any impact on the wetland if it properly built. He
indicated the systems Mr. Corson was referring to were considered experimental, and at this
point, there were no regulations by the City, which required this type of a septic system.
Mr. Powell stated he was familiar with these types of systems, and encouraged the applicant to
consider a design of a wetland treatment system.
Mr. Lyden asked about the status of the watershed. Mr. Smyser replied the Board would make a
decision on this tomorrow morning. He stated he had received a copy of the text for this project
and the Board was recommending approval of the wetland mitigation plan.
Mr. Lyden asked if staff had had any concerns. Mr. Smyser replied they had been working with
applicant and had worked out all of the concerns.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 4
Mr. Lyden stated he concurred with Ms. Lane regarding dealing with applicants in a fair and
reasonable manner.
Chair Schaps inquired if other plans had been considered. Mr. Valentine stated other plans had
been considered and explained why this floor plan was chosen.
Tom Carlson, owner, stated he understood that if the variance was granted he waived his right to
complaining about any noise from the traffic on the road.
Chair Schaps requested applicant consider design of a wetland treatment system.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the variance to allow structures to be 10 feet from the
collector road and approve variance to allow the driveway to be 10 feet from the intersection,
with applicant considering design of a wetland treatment system, and w orted by Mr.
Lyden. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lane). Rafferty voted aye.
B. Brian Iverson, 20th Avenue, Minor Subdivis
Staff presented the application by explaining applicant was re ortion of land from one
parcel and attach it to the adjacent parcel. The action ryas ld " ove t lot line ten feet. The
existing property line followed the 1/41/4 section line. The ation was to move that property
line ten feet to the east. The reason was to incre ' e ` 'ze of t e western parcel to make it a
full 20- acres. The applicant had a buyer for th arcel cel B) who wanted a full 20 acres.
Staff explained the action would combi
35E, which currently was a separate tax
ownership.
rn parcel a narrow strip of land along I-
of the land involved was under the same
Staff indicated currently, a • w y easement and the proposed access easement were
private easements, not Cit If t applicant intended the new easement to be a future
public roadway, that would ha o be analyzed in the future. The City had no plans for a road in
that location and there mt -`` t to convey a road to the City at this time The new easement
did not obligate the Cit ay.
Staff stated though the C``'y's subdivision regulations required all lots to have full frontage on a
public street, the existing parcel did not have frontage now. The proposed minor subdivision
would not alter this situation, it simply increased the size of the driveway access easements. Any
future subdivisions that create new lots would be required to have the full frontage on a public
street.
Staff explained the area was guided for long -term rural use. The City had no plan to extend
utilities to this area. Any platting would have to be a maximum density of one lot per 10 acres.
No plat approve was being requested. The applicant involved a very minor change in parcel
sizes and posed no concern for public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommended approval.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Mr. William Walton, stated he was the person who was attempting to purchase Parcel B. He
explained there was an 8 -foot wide easement when they signed the purchase agreement. He was
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 5
informed that the City was requiring the 65 -foot roadway easement. He asked when the
purchase agreement was signed the agreement stated if the roadway was ever to be used as a
dedicated public road, then they would give up the 65 -foot easement, but until that time, it would
remain as it was. He stated Mr. Iverson had agreed to that and had signed the purchase
agreement. He indicated now Mr. Iverson was asking for a 66 -foot easement. He stated if this
did not get resolved, the property might be not closed on.
Chair Schaps stated it appeared Mr. Walton and Mr. Iverson did not see eye to eye and the
Planning and Zoning Board had no authority to enter into this type of a dispute. Mr. Walton
replied he understood that and he requested the 66 -foot easement be struck from the
recommendation to the City.
Mr. Brian Iverson stated he had not figured anything out yet, but whatever the City wanted to do
was fine with him.
Mr. Powell noted that if Mr. Iverson wanted to develop it in the f -way easement
would be required.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivisio ., wi y additional easement
other than what was already platted, and was supporte Lyd Motion carried 4 -0.
C. Item Deleted
D. Lino Lakes Family Dentis
Staff presented the application by
construction of a 5,067 square fo
The subject site was approximate
future commercial develop
Business District. Medic
Development of a co erci
by Section 2, subd. 5
ive, Site Plan Review
ex R t had submitted site and building plans for
e building on property located on Apollo Drive.
40 s i + are feet in size. The property was guided for
mprehensive Plan and was zoned GB, General
uses "` ere allowed within this District as a permitted use.
was subject to site and building plan review as provided for
Ordinance.
om
Staff presented its analy•', of the request by explaining the only issue was that the drive aisle on
the west side of the build g was set on the property line and not back 10 feet as required. This
driveway was within a parking easement established over the common lot line with the property
to the west and was indicated to be temporary.
Staff indicated the footprint was approximately 4,792 sq. ft. The building was a single story
structure with a pitched roof and a height measured to be 19' high.
Staff stated the elevations featured cultured stone on the forward part of the south elevation and a
lap siding of "cement board" on the remaining portion of the south elevation, as well as the sides
and rear of the building. Additional cultured stone accents were provided at the corners of the
building. The peaks of the pitched roof also used the plank material. Section 3, Subd. 4.B
allowed for use of decorative concrete panels for commercial uses. Provided that the "cement
boards" were consistent with this classification of material the exterior of the building would
conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 6
The site plan included a trash and recycling area at the northwest corner of the property. The
trash enclosure was 6 feet in height and constructed out of hardy planks, which would
complement the principal building design.
With respect to the landscape plan, staff explained it proposed a mixture of trees, shrubs and
bushes on the front and sides of the building. The materials included within the landscaping plan
were consistent with the types and sizes required for commercial uses. No landscaping had been
provided for the portion of the property designated for future development. This area should be
seeded to control erosion. The utility plan indicated a sprinkler system was to be provided that
would serve the front portion of the lot. The system should be expanded to serve more of the
property or additional measures made available for watering plantings. The landscape plan was
subject to further review for compliance with CPTED standards.
Staff explained the site had one access to Apollo Drive, which overlay
providing for a shared driveway with the abutting property. Access
to approval of the City and Anoka County under a Joint Power A
est lot line
rive was subject
Staff stated in addition to the shared access, the site plan pr .< i� a'1 - ;�,•' drive aisle abutting
the property line on the west side of the building, which acc sed F sh enclosure and interior
storage area. As noted above, this drive aisle was wit an e = erne ` overlaying the west
property line to provide for shared access and was inten e temporary. The applicant was
therefore requesting that this section of drivewa ed asphalt curb. The parameters for
the temporary allowance of the asphalt curb sh cified as part of the site plan approval.
Staff indicated circulation around the si
12 -foot access aisles (24 foot two -wa
Backing out of the north stalls in
shallow. If possible, the parkin
backup lane to improve acc
with a 26 -foot wide driveway leading to
ng areas and rear trash/storage area.
a might be difficult because the backup lane was
oul 'r . e shifted south to increase the depth of the
Staff explained the to al requir nt was 26 parking spaces based on the gross floor area of the
building. If the calcul clu d the storage area, 22 spaces were required. The plan showed
23 spaces, of which thr o y need to be removed to provide an extension of the driveway to
allow development of th east side of the property. With the potential full use of the property in
mind, accommodation should be made for 26 parking stalls on the site plan outside of the area
necessary to extend the driveway. The site plan should also be revised to provide sufficient
surface width such that the disability accessible stalls are van accessible.
Staff stated the signage was governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits were required for
all signs. The site plan indicated the location of a monument type business sign measured 40
square feet. The sign was located to the south of the parking area approximately one foot from
the lot line. Freestanding signs were required to be at least five feet from the lot line, so the site
plan must be revised.
With respect to lighting, staff indicated the site plan did not identify exterior light fixtures. Any
light fixtures to be installed must be shown on the site plan and accompanied by a photometric
plan.
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 7
Staff stated the proposed site was to be served by sanitary sewer and water services located
within the Apollo Drive right -of -way. Service to the future development of the eastern portion
of the subject site would have access to the planned connection lines. The submitted plans
included a grading and drainage plans for review regarding runoff control and water quality. All
utility and grading plans were subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Staff indicated park dedication requirements for medical offices were $200.00 per 1000 sf of
commercial building. Based on a 4,792 square foot building, the park dedication requirement
would be $958.40.
Staff stated the proposed site plan for Family Dentistry was generally consistent with the
performance standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Minor changes to the site plan were
required to provide required parking stalls, improve parking lot circulation and comply with
setbacks for the west driveway.
Staff stated provided these issues were addressed, staff recomme d ov : of the application
with the following conditions:
a. The site plan is revised such that all drivewa °'e. an leg areas
Mr. Lyden read the Environmental Board's concerns rega
Powell noted this site was served by a regional
system was routed to this pond.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make
Mr. Scott Maurer, Progressive Ar
represented the owners of the pr
building was a rural design.
were trying to respond to
He asked there be no urb or
had understood that a ad
water flow from the site. Mr.
he connection to the storm sewer
E. Fourth Street, Suite 530, St. Paul, stated he
He g e a brief history of the property. He stated this
r clarification regarding the easement. He stated they
goi fy- to be developed on the west side of the development.
on that side; that it be flat asphalt. Chair Schaps replied he
ote of it.
Mr. Maurer pointed out here the lighting would be located. He asked about the irrigation of the
lot to the east. He asked ° this would be irrigated. Mr. Brixius stated they were not looking for
irrigation to the site to the east.
Chair Schaps asked for clarification on the parking stalls. Mr. Maurer replied right now they
were just building the clinic portion of the building and not the storage area, and they had
adequate parking spaces available with just the clinic. He stated they wanted to leave options
open for any developments to the east and west. He asked it be approved with the stipulation
that the additional stalls would be required once development occurred.
Mr. Brixius stated one of the things they could look at was the rear of the property providing
some additional stalls.
Mr. Smyser stated on the western side of the property staff was comfortable with the driveway
back there, but it was normal to have a full curb and they needed to find a reason why this would
not be required for this development.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 8
Mr. Powell stated at many times, the concrete curb was replaced in past developments once
further development occurred. He stated the reason they required this was for a finished look.
He recommended there be a concrete curb placed in the area.
Mr. Smyser indicated the standard lighting was to require a photometric plan with a shoebox
type fixture with lighting directed downward. Mr. Maier replied they had no problem with this
requirement.
Mr. Smyser stated the future development area could not remain dirt and weeds. With respect to
the parking, the City had to plan for parking for the entire building. He stated this had to be
handled now. The parking could not be addressed in the future. He stated the area used as
storage needed to be included in the parking requirements at this time. However, the Board
could recommend a variance from that.
Mr. Maier stated if the trash could be relocated, they may have e
spaces in the back. Mr. Smyser expressed concern about par
in and out. He recommended the variance of the three stall
more parking
ith trucks coming
Mr. Lyden asked for Mr. Brixius' recommendations. z Bri ius r ied the standard parking
arrangement for professional offices, and staff realized so$h +fessional offices required more
parking and some less. He stated granting a var ceuld not be detrimental to this site, but
any change of occupancy would require them t th arking standards. He stated if parking
needed to be accommodated into the futur - u at ld b . ccomplished because there was
sufficient room for additional parking.
Mr. Corson asked the storage be
ses to the north. Mr. Brixius replied this had a
very residential feel and with ad • i land aping, there would not be a problem with this
Mr. Corson asked about t
of t fi' pond. Mr. Powell replied when the pond was
designed, it was desi ed for r for future accommodation.
Ms. Lane made a MO pprove the site and building plans as outlined in staff's report for
Lino Lakes Family Dent try, except item F would allow a variance to allow for 23 off street
parking stalls as opposed `" 0 26 parking stalls, and was supported by Mr. Lyden.
After further discussion regarding the parking requirements, Ms. Lane withdrew her motion and
Mr. Lyden withdrew his second.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the site and building plans as outlined in staff's report for
Lino Lakes Family Dentistry subject to staff's recommendations with exception of item F which
required 26 parking stalls, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0.
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION for a variance of 23 parking stalls instead of 26 parking stalls
referred to in Item F of staff's report, and in the future, if there were any changes to the property,
all City codes shall be applicable, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4 -0.
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 9
• E. PUBLIC HEARING, Centennial School District, Birch St. Site, Rezone
•
Chair Schaps declared the public hearing for both Item E and Item F opened at 8:00 p.m.
Staff presented the application by explaining that ISD 12 requested to locate a new elementary
school next to the Centennial Middle School, the School District also hoped to sell its existing
vacant property along Birch Street. In this regard, the School District had requested that their
38.29 -acre site be rezoned from PSP, Public /Semi- Public District to R -1X, Single Family
Executive District.
Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the following:
Staff explained ISD 12, in evaluating its elementary school needs, determined that a new facility
adjoining the existing middle school would best serve its current and f'= ollment
population. The Birch Street site was seen as a duplicate site for Ri . entary School
and Centerville Elementary School.
Staff stated the 38.29 acre site was zoned PSP, Public /Se
district was limited in the range of uses that were allowed.
range of use was very limiting and in some cases the
with the adjoining residential properties (i.e., clinics nursi
'strict. This zoning
e property for sale, this
not .'p" conducive or compatible
es, public buildings, hospitals).
Staff explained the applicant was proposing to one thproperty to R -1X, Single Family
Executive District. This was a low - densit ba side ial district.
Staff indicated in consideration of re
amendment should be considered
Commission's judgment of the re
factors:
, the possible adverse effects of the
aking, the City Council and Planning
sho '`d be based upon, but not limited to, the following
1. The proposed . ction's i tency with the specific policies and provision of the official
City Compreh
2. The proposed us
s compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e.,
parking, loading, noise, etc.).
4. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks,
schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity.
5. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the
property.
• Staff stated while zoned PSP, the 1990 Land Use Plan guides the subject site for single family
residential and includes the area in the existing MUSA. The Proposed 2020 Land Use Plan
showed the property as public /semi- public, reflecting the public ownership and current zoning.
The 2020 plan also included the site in the MUSA and Phase 1 growth area.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 10
Staff outlined the Comprehensive Plan policies that were applicable to the zoning request, and
stated the zoning change would be compatible with the current 1990 Land Use Plan and would
be consistent with the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan policies.
Staff stated to determine the appropriateness of the proposed use it was beneficial to examine the
adjoining land use and zoning.
Staff explained the proposed zoning from PSP to R -1X would be consistent with the R -1X
zoning of the Pheasant Hills subdivision that adjoined the site on the north and east. The
property laid within the existing MUSA and Phase 1 growth area presents a logical extension of
the existing sewered single - family neighborhoods.
Staff indicated the rezoning application was not accompanied by a
future development must be compliant with the City zoning and
survey delineating wetland in the subject site had been submitte
site contained approximately 10± acres of wetland, leaving 28
through the site. The amount and configuration of th
development of the site.
Staff stated the site lies within the City's existin
residential development of the site should be w
area.
ion request. Any
regulations. A
r calculation, the
able acres scattered
cres would limit the
d Phase 1 growth area. The
capacity of existing utilities serving the
Staff indicated access to any future de f= o. ent '• . d be reliant on access from Birch Street
and local streets in adjoining subdivi Street was a County road. The County
Highway Department must co t• capacity of Birch Street and its ability to
accommodate residential develo . rom e 28 developable acres within the 38.28 -acre total
site.
Mr. Corson asked wit staff i were comfortable for a decision to be made tonight. Mr.
Brixius stated anythm_',' r, oul come in would still be contingent on a site plan review.
Applicant tonight was . p g to see what the thoughts were of the City at this time
Mr. Corson stated there ould be more bus traffic through the Middle School and asked if that
was an issue. Mr. Brixius stated there would be more traffic, but he believed this was a good
land -use fit.
Chair Schaps pointed out the traffic would be at different times. Elementary Schools started later
than the Middle School.
John Christensen, Superintendent Centennial School District, clarified the schools had staggered
start and stop times and there were buses running in that area now. He pointed out an elementary
school in this area would be a good fit to serve the western part of the District. He stated they
would be conscientious about starting times, ending times, and event times.
Mr. Lyden asked how many other PSP sites they had available. Mr. Christensen stated they had
none.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 11
• Mr. Christensen stated the particular site became part of the District in 1959 and it had not been
•
•
deemed as an appropriate site when Rice Lake Elementary School was built.
Mr. Lyden asked if this would be the last elementary school the school district would build. Mr.
Christensen stated it depended upon the density in the next few years.
Mr. Lyden asked if this would come on line in the 2010 growth zone or in the 2020 growth zone.
Mr. Brixius replied this land was in the MUSA and was in the 2010 growth zone.
Chair Schaps asked about consideration of a Kindergarten center. Mr. Christensen stated the
public sentiment was not positive and this project was proposed to be K -5.
Mr. Lyden asked how closely these two items related with respect to action items for the school
district. Mr. Christensen stated if this was not approved, there were no tions for property
at this time and they needed the additional space. Mr. Christensen s there ould be budget
considerations regarding this.
Mr. Rafferty asked if there was a net gain in money based o t d th as trying to be
rezoned. Mr. Christensen replied there was a potential net
Mr. Rafferty asked why there was only a possibilit of a Mr. Christensen replied the
difference was that light industrial zoned prope ._� .r. t in a ifferent price structure. Light
industrial property was more valuable than resi erty.
Mr. Rafferty stated he had a concern w
to take 7.5 acres and trade it for 3.5 acre
decision because it did not make
industrial land that would never
changed again and they wer
already there. He did not . e at w
ecause in May, 2000, it was the proposal
e ditch, and at the time he struggled with that
e stated his problem was that they took light
and -f' as traded for L -1 and now they were trying to get it
t• have to pay a premium price for something that was
s fair to the taxpayers. Mr. Christensen stated he was
not a part of those dis ussions he could not comment on what was requested in the past.
Leaf Palmer asked in t `'Wea ey were trying to rezone where would the access to the
development be Chair haps replied there was not any site proposal prepared yet at this time
Mr. Palmer stated he lived one lot away from the development and expressed concern about the
traffic increasing in front of his house. He stated Birch Street was a busy road and if the access
was off of Birch Street, this would greatly impact him. Chair Schaps stated this could happen,
but there was no proposal now.
Mr. Powell stated that was a dead -end street with a temporary cul -de -sac. He stated they were
concerned about accesses on Birch Street. He stated they needed to consider the bus traffic that
might be coming down into this area to pick up children and take them somewhere else.
Paul Seiferts stated his property backed up to the present school property. He expressed concern
about the taxpayers having to purchase more property for schools. He asked if this would be
rezoned, could there be a covenant regarding adding parkland dedication. He stated he had paid
a premium from his property and parkland would be much appreciated. Chair Schaps suggested
he attend Park Board meetings first and express his concern about parks in his area.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 12
Mr. Smyser stated with the re- zoning request, they could not ensure a park in that area.
However, if a plan came in the future, the Park Board would compare the proposal to the existing
Park and Trail plan. He stated the Park Board made the recommendations as to where the parks
should be located, which then came to the Planning and Zoning Board and then went to the City
Council for consideration.
Gary Trettel stated his concern on the proposed plan was the sharing of facilities with the middle
school. He stated there were wetland mitigation issues, as well as elementary school children
sharing facilities with older children. Also, he would also like a park in the area.
Branden Curtis stated he was not opposed to the development, but his concern was a safety
factor. He stated the traffic on Birch Street needed to be addressed and slowed down. If a
school was proposed to be added, they had to look even more closely a .�_ ffic issues.
Ken Wagner stated he had also paid a premium for his lot and sta
selling the land at this time. He asked the School District wait
knew what they needed in the future.
Mr. Christensen gave some of the advantages of shari
larger events that were too large for one facility could the other facility without
inconveniencing anyone.
see the value of
e land until they
iliti ` He stated some of the
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the . .lics' n Items E and F at 8:46 p.m., and was
supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carrie
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to de
Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0.
m PSP to R -1X, and was supported by Mr.
F. PUBLIC 1G,`' ntennial School District, New Elementary School
Site, Rezone, Minor Subdivision
Staff presented the app io explaining ISD 12 had a letter of intent to purchase 15+ acres
P PP °' y P g P
of industrial zoned land cated at the northeast corner of the existing Centennial Middle School
site for the purpose of bu ding a new elementary school. The site was currently zoned L -I, Light
Industrial and would require a change in zoning to PSP, Public /Semi- Public District to
accommodate the elementary school.
The School District had requested consideration of the following development applications to
facilitate a new elementary school at this location:
1. Rezoning from L -1, Limited Industrial Zoning District to PSP, Public /Semi- Public
Zoning District.
2. Subdivision to create a parcel to be conveyed to the School District.
Staff presented its analysis of the request stating upon investigation of the needed elementary
school, the School District had selected the proposed site next to the Centennial Middle School
for the following reasons:
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 13
110 1. In review of the School District's enrollment distribution and forecasts, approximately 60
percent of the present and future enrollment population lived west of Lake Drive and
County Road 49. The proposed site provided a centralized location to best serve the
School District's population.
•
•
2. The current vacant Birch Street location laid in close proximity to the existing Rice Lake
Elementary and Centerville Elementary. Construction of another school along Birch
Street was seen as a duplication of facilities.
3. The proposed site's proximity to the Centennial Middle School allowed the elementary
school to share facilities with the middle school (i.e., play equipment, play fields). This
allowed the elementary school to be located on a smaller site thus reducing the School
District's investment in land acquisition and development of on -site recreational
facilities.
Staff stated the 15 acre site was zoned L -I, Limited Industrial
Lake Business Park subdivision. The L -I Zoning District did
allowed use therefore mandating the rezoning request. The
Business Park preliminary plat, which was approved in 19
School District was isolated on the far west end of the
existing wetland. This end of the preliminary plat was
a 1,150 feet long cul -de -sac. The rezoning and
needed cul -de -sac length for the industrial park
Dis i. t exis d as part of the
tary schools as an
es within the Lake
Th eing considered by the
sine • ark preliminary plat by an
to gain access to Lake Drive via
u d significantly reduce the
Staff indicated he requested zoning for acr 7 cel was PSP, Public /Semi- Public District.
The purpose of this district was descri
This district was designee • tend ;' to aid in guiding development towards
fulfillment of the Co
lan and to serve the following functions:
1. To provide the unity with properly located schools, colleges, and
health
2. To provi• the community and properly located public services, and
utilities.
3. To provide the community with properly located open green space, parks,
playgrounds and recreational facilities.
4. To relate public and semi- public locations with thoroughfare system.
Staff stated the PSP Zoning District allowed for public and private schools by conditional use
permit. At this time, only the zoning and subdivision requests were being considered. The
conditional use permit would be processed as a separate application with the site plan details.
Staff explained in consideration of rezoning requests, the possible adverse effects of the
amendment should be considered. Generally speaking, the City Council and Planning
Commission's judgment of the rezoning should be based upon, but not limited to, the following
factors:
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 14
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provision of the official
City Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e.,
parking, loading, noise, etc.).
4. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks,
schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity.
5. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the
property.
Staff stated due to the limited application of the PSP Zoning Dist : ;_. t r om ehensive Land
Use Plan seldom applies this land use category except where t i. us xis' r r where there was
public ownership of the property. Recognizing this conditi.,, l ° °' 91 .1 d Use Plan and the
Proposed 2020 Land Use Plan guides this site for industri e.� '� ning Commission and
City Council must therefore determine the appropriat -. s o is z• ing change on the
applicable policies of the 1987 Comprehensive plan and •osed 2020 Comprehensive Plan
policies that relate to the rezoning request.
Staff explained the School District's intere
campus did economize an existing inve
and was located in a manner that best
proposed land use and zoning cha
Staff indicated within the 2
the following recommend s ma
shared elementary and middle school
a greater utilization of existing facilities,
ool District's residents. In this regard, the
nt with the Comprehensive plan policies.
omprehensive Plan under Staged Growth Area Rules,
"In considerin ad the City will discourage the exchange of developable
commercial or 1 • zoned land for a proposed residential development."
Staff stated while the rez 'ning of the industrial land would not directly accommodate residential
growth, the School District, in a related application, was requesting that the existing Birch Street
parcel be rezoned from PSP to R -1X, Single Family Residential. The City must determine if this
requested zoning change was inconsistent with this recommendation. It should be noted that this
was a unique request in that it was driven by the facility needs of the School District rather than
private development.
Staff indicated industrial zoning would adjoin the site on the east and southeast. This area was
preliminary platted in 1998 under the name of Lake Business Park. This preliminary plat
revealed that storm water drainage ponds and a wetland physically separated the proposed site
from most of the industrial area. The Lake Business Park preliminary plat relied on a 1,150 -foot
long cul -de -sac to provide access to the westernmost lot. Long cul -de -sacs provide poor street
access for industrial traffic and site access.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 15
Staff stated the School District would need to submit an application for conditional use permit to
allow a school in the PSP District per Section 9.I.1 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance.
Staff stated applicant had submitted a survey and concept plan with the subdivision request. In
review of this information, staff offered the following comment/suggestions:
1. The site exceeds the lot area for a PSP lot.
2. The site fails to provide for adequate lot width, frontage on a public street, or setback
from the south and west property lines.
3. A wetland delineation is necessary for site development based on information submitted
with the Lake Business Park preliminary plat. The eastern portion of the site had wetland
constraints that must be addressed in the site design. Any wetl ng would require a
wetland replacement plan.
4. The survey indicated that only the eastern half of 4
accommodate the proposed development, the balan
be vacated.
een vacated. To
through the site must
5. A utility easement following the 4th Street align ust be established and recorded.
• The subdivision should also show ten f. • ge an utility easements along the side
and rear property lines.
Staff indicated to avoid the need for lo
creation of a new lot, staff recomme
middle school site to create a sin
to utilize middle school land to
ing setback variances associated with the
roposed site be combined with the existing
bining the lots will allow the elementary school
City '' performance standards.
Staff stated Section 3.C.3 0
building on PSP lots provide
met.
ino t "'. es Zoning Ordinance allowed more than one principal
all the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance were
Staff indicated the site s within the existing MUSA. The proposed site and school was not
anticipated to overburde existing in -place utilities or municipal services.
With respect to transportation, staff explained the elementary school would gain its site access
via shared driveways with the middle school accessing Elm Street. The combined campus would
allow the middle school and elementary school to share bus service. The elementary school
would be designed to accommodate between 750 and 1,000 students, resulting in staffing of
approximately 75 people. Bus traffic, staff and visitor traffic would be the anticipated traffic
generation. This traffic was not anticipated to overburden existing streets serving the site.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the requested rezoning from L -I to PSP
•
based on the following findings:
1. The elementary school site is combined with the middle school site to create a single lot.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 16
2. The applicant pursue a conditional use permit and submit detailed development plans for
the site. The site plan should illustrate how the plan will be integrated with the middle
school.
3. Wetland replacement plans will be required and subject to the review and approval of
Rice Creek Watershed.
4. Vacation of the west half of 4th Street through the proposed site will be required.
5. Appropriate easements must be established over all existing utilities and along side and
rear lot lines.
and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -1 (Rafferty).
Mr. Corson made a MOTION for the minor subdivision, as outlined staff's ` port and was
supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 3 -1 (Rafferty).
Chair Schaps called for a recess at 8:50 p.m.
Chair Schaps reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
G. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEA
Preliminary Plat
Chair Schaps reopened the public heari
Staff presented the application by
preliminary plat entitled Highl
Main Street and west of L
and was zoned R -1/PDO
' • hlan Meadows West 3rd Addition,
licant had submitted an application for a
ows ' ' Addition. The subject site was located south of
e property was planned for low- density residential uses
ts.
The proposed prelims a ..t w a re -plat of Highland Meadows 2nd Addition and incorporated
an additional 25 acres ." ` -F the project. The Highland Meadows 2nd Addition included both
single family and townh se dwelling units in a subdivision based on coving design principals.
The present application i cludes only single - family residential lots.
Staff presented its analysis of the request explaining the subject site was guided for single - family
residential used by the current and draft Comprehensive Plan (1 -3 du/ac.) and it was included
within the current MUSA. Consistent with the land use plan, the subject site was zoned PDO/R-
1 and R -1 District. The PDO Zoning was applied to the site to facilitate a previous subdivision
concept based on coving design principals with flexibility on front yard setback standards. No
such flexibility was being processed as part of this subdivision design. Single - family lots and
uses were a permitted use of these Districts.
Staff stated access to the subdivision is provided via Marilyn Drive from the south and Arlo Lane
from the west. Traffic from this neighborhood must use these routes to reach collector or arterial
streets due to access limitations onto Main Street to the north.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 17
Staff indicated local streets within the preliminary plat have been designed with a 60 -foot right -
of -way, consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. There are three cul -de -sacs within the
project, necessitated by existing development and wetlands. The cul -de -sacs have a 60 -foot
radius as required.
Staff explained the only issue with the street design was the 105 offset of Street A and Street D.
The Subdivision Ordinance discourages offsets less than 125 feet. The potential to align Street A
and Street D should be given further consideration.
Staff indicated the subdivision included 70 single - family lots with an average size of 16,150
square feet within five blocks. The subdivision Ordinance limits block length to not more than
1,500 feet. The lengths of Blocks 1 and 2 exceed 1,500 feet, due to existing development,
wetland and drainage areas, and limitations on access to Main Street.
Staff explained the R -1 District minimum lot size was 10,800 squar
lots listed below did not meet the minimum lot area requirement.
revised such that all lots have at least 10,800 square feet of are
wetlands, water bodies, parks, easements, rights -of -way an
Block 1: Lot 7 and Lot 14.
Block 2: Lots 5,10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20.
Block 3: Lots 3, 4, and 5.
Staff stated lots within the R -1 District mu
corner lots) and minimum depth of 135
meet or exceed these provisions.
d able land. The
y plat must be
drainage ways,
nimum width of 80 feet (100 feet for
or double frontage lots). All of the lots
State stated there were four exis i �'1e -f.- ily dwellings within the project area. The
submitted plans did not ide • s = a are to remain or those that may be removed. The
proposed subdivision desi . • +een 1 id out such that each dwelling would be located on an
individual lot within required ' acks. There was a detached accessory building in the area of
Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 st b removed as it overlayed lot lines and encroaches into the
right -of -way.
Staff explained the subjec' site included several large stands of trees throughout the property. A
tree preservation plan had been submitted that indicates trees to be protected and those to be
removed as part of the development. Trees to be preserved were a large stand in the southwest
corner, a stand in the northeast corner and a small stand in the northwest corner of the property.
All other significant trees were to be removed from the central areas of the property as part of the
grading plan and development of the site.
Staff indicated the existing conditions sheet and grading plan identify a 0.74 -acre wetland in the
center of Block 2. This wetland area was not to be disturbed as part of development of this
project. The wetland would be included within a drainage and utility easement that also covered
drainage ponds adjacent to the wetland.
Staff stated the applicant had submitted grading and drainage plans for the proposed subdivision.
The grading plan was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 18
Staff indicated Outlots A and D were proposed to be dedicated as partial satisfaction of park land
requirements. Outlot A provided a desired trail corridor from Main Street to the neighborhood.
Connections to the park abutting the southwest corner of this parcel would be provided over the
local streets. Outlot D was land dedicated to add to the existing park.
Staff explained the amount of the land required to be dedicated was 10 percent of the gross area
of the plat or 3.37 acres. An additional amount of land must also be dedicated to offset the loss
of existing parkland caused by the extension of Arlo Lane to serve the plat. The area of Outlots
A and D were 0.72 acres, from which the replacement park land must be subtracted. The balance
of required park dedication would be required to be satisfied in the form of a cash fee in lieu of
land based upon the formula outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Staff stated the preliminary plat included Outlots B and C, in addition to those being provided for
park dedication purposes.
Staff explained Outlot B was a parcel of land fronting Street A th
access to a land locked parcel to the south east. This land loc
have frontage to 79th Street via a reserve strip that was to be
need to follow up on resolution of this matter.
to provide
so intended to
e City. Staff would
Staff explained Outlot C was a 0.07 -acre parcel of land t
was being conveyed to the abutting property to
lot and the parkland.
s the expanded park. The Outlot
order to create a buffer between that
Staff stated water and sanitary sewer we d to be provided to serve the single -
family uses. Sanitary sewer and watx shown within the rights -of -way. Storm
sewer facilities were also shown o ' 1.` asements had been provided at the perimeter of
each lot and over all drainage fa All ity plans were subject to review and approval of
the City Engineer.
Staff stated comments from th nvironmental Board had not been received.
Chair Schaps asked if t i ehensive Plan had addressed this area with respect to parkland.
Mr. Brixius stated this "'''uld be an extension to the park area already in existence.
Mr. Lyden asked if it was too late to make this R -1X. Mr. Brixius stated there was no
application before them for R -1X zoning.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Ms. Gail Judd, 670 Arlen Lane, stated she was the person who Outlot C was being dedicated to.
She asked if this was on meeting in a series of meetings, or if this was being approved tonight.
Chair Schaps replied this would go to Council for their decision eventually.
Ms. Judd asked if Outlot D was parkland because they were purchasing Outlot C. She requested
it be residential. Mr. Smyser replied her purchasing Outlot C, did not have any effect on the
decision to make Outlot D a park.
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 19
Ms. Judd stated she did not want a park next to her. She stated she had expressed this concern
since the beginning. Chair Schaps replied the Planning and Zoning Board knew about her
concerns, but there many people who did want a park.
Chair Schaps asked why she was opposed to the park. Ms. Judd replied she did not have
children and wanted the peace and quiet she had now. She felt very strongly about not having a
park next to her property.
Mr. Smyser stated usually a park was not drawn up until they had obtained the neighborhood's
opinions.
Ms. Judd asked how much did her opinion carry and what where her rights. Chair Schaps stated
she needed to go to Council with her concerns, but the Planning and Zoning Board did realize
and acknowledge her concerns, but they did not make the final opinion
Ms. Judd requested the Board not approve this until Outlot D bec
Mr. Lyden stated there were other substandard lots, and it
take Ms. Judd's concerns into consideration.
e to continue this and
Steve Schmitt, developer, stated there was no discussion w ng the park not being big enough
• for the proposed plat. He stated they originally i aA cept o Outlot D being residential, but it
was upon the Park Board's recommendation th =: this w made a park. He stated there were
some issues with Outlot D being made par e sta �' d if it was integrated into a park, it had
g P �.�� g P
to be grading and redesign of the land - as nificant grade change.
•
Mr. Rafferty asked how large wa � ntly. The developer replied the park was five
acres and Outlot D would be in . gx ✓ to th Outlot D would make an appropriate sized
residential lot, approximate
Teresa O'Connell and Connie r ndhofer, Environmental Board, stated Outlot D did not have
oak trees on it so they of t` ' concerned about that. They did have concerns about the
water level however. ' o 1 corrected an error made at the Environmental Board meeting
regarding water levels. e stated the ground water level varied from year to year and that the
City required the lowest oor 4 feet above groundwater, not 6 feet.
Ms. O'Connell asked how open was the Board to having the streets narrower to accommodate
more green space. Mr. Powell replied in the past the City had allowed the streets to be narrowed
to 28 feet and the City could "live" with a 28 -foot street. However, if they wanted to go further
than that, this would have to come under much more consideration.
Mr. Lyden asked why the City did not have a tree Ordinance and when was one expected. Chair
Schaps replied they were unable to resolve many issues involved with the tree ordinance and
there was no set timeframe for when this was expected.
Mr. Lyden requested the tree ordinance be brought back soon.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 20
Ms. Lane asked if the Park Board had seen this. She stated she had no objection to Outlot D
being a residential lot. Mr. Smyser stated the Park Board had made a recommendation for a
park, even though it was not specifically noted in the staff report.
Ms. Lane stated if this was not part of the park, it would increase the developer's donation.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. and was supported by Mr.
Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0.
Mr. Corson asked about the 28 -foot streets with respect to parking. Mr. Powell replied staff was
comfortable with 28 -foot streets. It would not pose any maintenance or parking problems.
Mr. Powell indicated the right -of -way did not change. The right -of -way would stay at 60 feet.
The pavement would be narrower. They were not proposing to reduce t -of -way, only the
paved surface.
The developer stated he did not object to the 28 -foot streets.
Mr. Smyser asked what the anticipated home price range w ld b developer stated it
would be similar to the first addition. He estimated it ;+ ld $18 ,000.00 to $219, 000.00.
With respect to the substandard lots in size, he stated he believe the lots were substandard
in size, but there still had to be some issues wor garding those lots. He stated this was a
preliminary plat and these issues would be wor d out >•r to any decisions. Chair Schaps
stated they still wanted to see it ahead of ti
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to table o'`+' ,,r eeting the Preliminary Plat of Highland
Meadows 3rd Addition. Motion f f a second.
Mr. Rafferty asked what t • , were they imposing upon the developer by delaying
this He asked if the 13 lo • stio ere enough to delay the process. The developer asked
that the Board take action on t onight.
Mr. Lyden asked if Ms. + •" `' oncerns could be addressed. The developer stated he had no
problem having Outlot ,being a residential area This was a decision of the City. It made no
difference to him either y. He was willing to have more discussions with Mr. Degardner
regarding making this a lot versus parkland.
Mr. Smyser stated he would speak with Mr. Degardner about this and raise these issues with
him.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the Preliminary Plat of Highland Meadows 3rd Addition
subject to the following conditions:
a. The preliminary plat is revised to align Street A and Street D, subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer.
b. The preliminary plat is revised such that all lots have 10,800 square feet of build
able area, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
c. Any existing structure not located on a proposed lot within required setbacks is to
be removed at the time of final plat approval.
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 21
d. All grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval of the
City Engineer.
e. Outlots A and D, minus the area of land necessary to replace existing park land
lost with extension of Arlo Lane, are dedicated in partial satisfaction of park
dedication requirements. The balance of required parkland dedication will be
provided in the form of cash fee in lieu of land as prescribed by the Subdivision
Ordinance.
f. Outlots B and C are conveyed to the appropriate landowners for access and a
buffer strip, respectively.
and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lyden).
Mr. Zych arrived at 9:50 p.m.
The developer stated if this did stay parkland, he would plant additi
Judd property and the park.
AMENDMENT to the first motion as seconded and approv
width within the subdivision as opposed to the 32 -foot wi
(Zych).
H. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEA' ° ern'an Comp
Lake Drive
Chair Schaps reopened the public heart
Staff presented the application by
Inc. on a proposed retail devel
Interchange. The Planning
of 2000 and opened the
initial hearing.
es between the
d a 28 -foot street
ied 3 -1 (Lyden) -1
anies UD, Inc. (Target),
f had been working with Ryan Companies, US
ocat in the northeast quadrant of Lake Drive/I -35 W.
and reviewed the concept plan for the site in December
on February 13, 2001 with periodic updates since the
Staff stated the main is rnp ed by staff, and discussed by the City Council and Planning and
Zoning Board at the con .t stage related to the site layout and design and the departure from the
Town Center vision.
Staff indicated 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 stated the submittal that was reviewed in February 2001 had been modified; this review
was based on plan submittals stamped received by the City on May 18, 2001.
Staff indicated many outstanding issues remain related to the site.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 22
Staff stated the property was currently zoned SC, Shopping Center District. This designation
anticipated the development of a single center generally under one ownership. There was no
provision in the SC ordinance to allow zero lot line setbacks for parking or lots without frontage
as proposed.
Staff indicated in order to accommodate the development as proposed, it was necessary to
process the application under the PDO, Planned Development Overlay District. Section 3, Subd.
3 of the Zoning Ordinance required a PDO to allow subdivision of lots for a single building and
for the private roads proposed. This process allowed greater flexibility and consequently a more
creative and imaginative design. It allowed flexibility in the internal setbacks, lot sizes, and in
parking for combined uses and was the appropriate means for review of a development of this
size and scope.
Staff explained access to the site was proposed via an extension of
was located on an adjacent parcel and would require acqu
condemnation. An additional access was proposed to Lake Dri
of the Apollo access. All accesses with Lake Drive (Cou
approval of Anoka County. A petition for public improve
pursue some of the design solutions regarding access.
rive. This access
the owner or
ly 520 feet north
ere subject to the
submitted in order to
Staff stated the City Engineer was in the process of con
the traffic impact of the development. Improv
lanes, by -pass lanes and signalization.
traffic study that would identify
ay include, but are not limited to turn
Staff stated earlier plans proposed a tion� " 77`° Street. This connection had been
eliminated.
It is staff's opinion that circula
line up, spacing of interse
Target lot forces circulat.
back into primary dri e aisle
was poor. It appeared
si = was poor in that the internal intersections did not
rsection jogs may create conflict and confusion, the
the ain drive aisle, some parking was designed to directly
, and generally the access to the smaller retail/ restaurant sites
odification this concern could be addressed.
Staff stated the site desi _n± did not include any coordination of pedestrian access between uses, to
the public roads or to the esidential uses to the north.
Staff indicated while it was not intended that the design incorporate all elements of the Village
concept it was staff opinion that pedestrian circulation could be better addressed and encouraged
both within the site and around the edge of the development. At a minimum pedestrian access
should tie into the proposed path proposed along Lake Drive. This would include sidewalks
along the extension of Apollo Dr. with extensions north to the storefronts of the major stores and
an access out to the northerly access that also ties into the sidewalks in front of the major stores.
In addition, an access should be incorporated to the north on the east side of the development
adjacent to the ponding. Some consideration should be given to internal access within the
smaller retail area. The design as it currently existed was geared toward vehicle access and was
unfriendly and truly discourages pedestrian use.
Staff stated detailed plans had been submitted for sanitary sewer, water and storm water
management. The City Engineer had reviewed the information submitted and a copy of his
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 23
memo was attached for reference. The issues raised by the Engineer were based on the plans and
information provided. Revised plans or additional information may result in additional
comments.
Staff indicated there were two wetlands located on the eastern portion of the site and one was
proposed to be impacted which required approval of the Rice Creek Watershed. There were 752
trees on the site and 566 of these were significant based on their size and species. The grading
proposed on the site would result in the removal of 437 significant trees and a total of 458 trees.
Most of the trees on the property were concentrated in around the wetland or on the southwest
portion of the site.
Staff indicated wetland delineations had been completed but had not been confirmed. There
were two areas of wetland identified on the property. One area was approximately 3.63 in size
and the other 1.24 acres in size. The larger wetland was proposed to ly eliminated and
replaced with a storm water treatment and retention basin. Spec on plans had not
been submitted for the site however, all mitigation was proposed t 'lace ;o ff site
Staff stated the ability to fill and replace wetland area coul
design therefore any final action by the City would be pre
addressed through Rice Creek.
Staff stated green space on the site was con
surrounding ponding and wetland areas. The 1
lots along drive aisles and surrounding th;,te
variety of plantings. Some plantings
indicated that they would not allow a
Staff indicated the critical porti
site, which was adjacent t
visual break but it would
fully screening point where
proposed. In some in
ant impact on the site
the wetland issues were
around the perimeter of the site and
plan calls for plantings within parking
rall plan was well done and provides a
in MnDOT right -of -way, MnDOT had
their right -of -way.
e Ian cape proposed was along the northern edge of the
s'dential uses. The plan as proposed would provide a
ide complete screen. Particular attention should be paid to
dlights would create issues and where loading docks were
ng may be the most appropriate screen.
Staff stated no exterior • `" tails had been provided for the small retail buildings or other
freestanding uses. The a licant had indicated that they would commit to a certain design
concept as previously presented. Staff had not received specific language that addresses this
issue. Previous discussions were that exteriors of the buildings were proposed to be a
combination of masonry materials including brick and rockface block with EIFS (stucco) sign
bands and accenting. The decorative roof elements include standing seam metal that
complement the roof designs in existing Town Square buildings. Awnings were proposed over
the storefront areas.
Staff indicated because of the site layout all buildings should be designed with all sides finished
with equal quality and attention to detail.
Staff stated the Target Superstore used a combination of brick and stucco on the front which
transitions to stucco and rock face block on the sides. The rear elevation was proposed to be
painted CMU (concrete masonry unit). With the surrounding land uses, more attention needs to
be paid to the architecture on the rear of the building. It would be very visible from 77th Street.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 24
There was a screen wall shown on the rear of the building, to be constructed of split face
modular block. The wall did not appear to be of adequate height to screen either the loading
dock doors or the trucks that were often parked in the dock area. The screen wall should be of
sufficient height to substantially screen the dock area.
Staff stated trash enclosures had not been identified on the site plan. The narrative states that all
trash dumpsters should be within the building footprints and that a trash compactor for Target
was within the loading dock area and was screened.
Staff indicated Target often used sidewalk space in front of the stores for cart storage. A full
screen wall should be provided if the intent was to store carts in the front of the store. No
outside storage was permitted without proper screening.
Staff stated Kohl's was proposed to be constructed of masonr _ rials that include
predominantly brick on the front with a stucco accent pattern at the i acces: he sides and rear
of the building transitions to block. As stated with the proposed g � -leva r • n, the rear of the
building was very visible to the area to the north and more att do ho e paid to the design
and materials used.
Staff indicated the applicant had indicated that decor
the development. No details have been provided. Cons
same fixtures throughout the Town Center ar
restriction which is 1.0 foot candle reading a
adjacent residential property.
ting as intended to be utilized in
on should be given to utilize the
lighting shall meet the lighting level
street and 0.4 foot candle reading on
Staff stated park dedication would be ca a eu of land and should be provided at the rate
in effect at the time of the final pl
Staff stated a total sign p . een proposed that includes wall signage as well as
freestanding signs. The � e a• the example submitted for the pylon signs are not
consistent. The signs were su. t to a separate review and sign permit through the City. Under
the PDO staff would ibility in the allowable signage as long as it is submitted as a
total package. No sig s "' . ld be allowed on the rear of any businesses facing the adjacent
residential area.
Staff indicated the application included a preliminary plat for the site. The plat as submitted
proposes nine lots plus four outlots. The lots are created to provide individual lots for each
proposed user. Several of the lots do not have frontage on a public road so appropriate
easements regarding access, parking and circulation will have to be provided. The minimum lot
size in the SC zoning district was 3 acres. Under the PDO this provision would be waived.
Staff stated based on the size of the proposed project, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) was mandatory. This process was designed to identify significant environmental effects
that may require a more detailed environmental impact statement.
Staff stated based upon Chapter 4410.3100 of the administrative rules governing environmental
review, a project may not be started and a final governmental decision may not be made to grant
a permit, approve a project or begin a project until a negative declaration on the need for an EIS
was made. While a draft EAW document has been submitted, the document had not been
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 25
processed through the City or Environmental Quality Board. There was a comment period
currently in effect that runs until July 11, 2001. Until the process was complete and the City had
determined that an EIS was not necessary the City should not take final action to approve the
project.
Chair Schaps asked what the staff's recommendation was regarding traffic flow on Lake Drive.
Mr. Powell replied staff's recommendation would have been to have one access on Apollo Drive,
but the developer has requested a second access. He stated the County still had to approve the
access and as far as he knew, applicant had not submitted this request. With respect to the traffic
flow, he had received a new site plan late last week, but had not had a chance to review it.
Chair Schaps stated this was a major issue that the County had not acted on this yet. Mr. Wessel
stated this was a key issue. He indicated right from the beginning applicant had been made
aware this was an essential element. He stated this was normally dow
but it would need to be acted on soon. He stated Target still intende
completed by July, 2002 and if this was to be accomplished, this
their July meeting.
of things to do,
the project
ty Council at
Chair Schaps asked if staff would support this second access Mr ° "'1 replied from an
engineering standpoint, a second signalized was a bas . a.s state: his recommendation
would have been that applicant made this request to Ano . ty some time ago. He stated
applicant should pay for all costs of access, incl e+ m signa .
Mr. Rafferty asked about the design issues • t ` ohl' building. He strongly recommended
getting design criteria from Kohls. He • hat :` being proposed now was not acceptable.
The bituminous pavement was not acce s .' ° . ted to see green space. He suggested
Kohl's follow the Target design o rar �sls ot. He stated he was against the idea of another
bank in the development. His c i as gr - n space within the parking lot, design criteria for
the Kohl's building and fin • , • a • . eal with all of the other small developments to make
them comparable with oth dev opments.
Mr. Wessel replied K
e adjustments per the City's suggestions and they were
meeting with Kohls in e."uture to see what their new proposals were going to be.
Mr. Rafferty stated he w ted to see heavily landscaped, treed facilities all of the way through
the parking lots. He strongly recommended bringing trees into these areas.
Mr. Lyden agreed with Mr. Rafferty regarding the issue of the bank. Aesthetically, he stated he
had no issues with Kohls or Target. He stated the issue of green space in a commercial center
was not a huge issue for him. His major concern was the traffic layout within the system and
outside the system. He had suggested a two -lane in and a two -lane out which would serve the
front business along Lake Drive versus bringing traffic all of the way in and then back through.
He stated he expected to hear feedback from staff at some point regarding his suggestion.
• Mr. Corson suggested tying in the theme from The Village. He stated how the project looked
from Lake Drive was important. He suggested having pedestrian access to the area.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 26
Mr. Lyden stated he did not see this as a pedestrian friendly plan and had no issues with the site
plan, other than the traffic and the specifics of the bank within the plan. Mr. Corson replied they
needed to make the determination as to how they were going to integrate it with The Village.
Mr. Rafferty reiterated his concern regarding having more trees within the development. He
asked staff what they would like to see. Mr. Wessel replied this was a commercial center and
heavy landscaping was not envisioned for it.
Mr. Rafferty again strongly recommended heavy landscaping, especially trees. He believed trees
could do a good job for masking the large parking lots.
Chair Schaps agreed with Mr. Rafferty with respect to green space in the parking lot. However,
he could live with a mixed concept. He also agreed it should be visually congruent with The
Village. Mr. Wessel replied staff was very aware of making this devel connect with The
Village.
Ms. Lane disagreed with Mr. Rafferty's suggestion about the l . dsc m • °'e stated if they did
a good job with landscaping along the outside businesses, t ' ` g o a. ould not need
excessive landscaping. She did not have a problem with al _e p �:_ area
Mr. Lyden suggested breaking up the parking area and pu ome retail in the middle.
Terry O'Connell asked if it was possible to hav
which would leave more open space. Mr.
contemplated for this project. There w
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to
supported by Mr. Lyden. Motio d 5 -0
I. CONTIN
Preli inary P
Chair Schaps reopened
ramp as part of the Kohl's parking,
a parking structure was never
ace parking available.
lic hearing to the July, 2001 meeting, and was
EARING, Land Holding Group, 12th &Holly,
c hearing at 10:22 p.m.
Staff presented the appli tion by explaining applicant had submitted a preliminary plat for the
northwest corner of 12th Ave. and Holly Drive. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed a
concept plan of the plat on January 10, 2001. The Planning and Zoning Board first reviewed the
preliminary plat on February 13, 2001 and the item was tabled pending the TWAFFA, tree
preservation plan and grading submittals. The additional information had now been provided.
Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the site was zoned for residential development.
The site was within the existing MUSA.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 27
Staff stated the R -1X minimum lot size was 12,825 sf of upland. All of the lots met or exceed
this minimum lot size. The proposed lot widths were compliant with the minimum standard of a
width of 90 feet for interior lots and 115 feet for corner lots. The minimum lot depth was 135
feet. All the lots except Lot 8 comply with this standard. Lot 8 had a depth of 127 feet, which
required a variance.
Staff indicated the ordinance stated that in considering requests for variance the City shall make
a finding of fact that:
1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use of used under
conditions allowed by the official controls.
2. That the plight of the landowners was due to physical circumstance unique to his
property not created by the landowner.
3. That the hardship was not due to economic considera s along,. d when a
reasonable use for the property exists under the to � o ,tie or• ance.
4. That granting the variance requested would not 4°•nf one •plicant any
special privilege that would be denied by thi o �_� 4�`ce t; ether lands, structures,
or buildings in the same district.
5. That the proposed actions would be in •in- with e spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
Staff stated the Planning and Zoning Board ma
and it was located at the intersection of tw •, oll
basis for granting the variance.
that the site was impacted by wetlands
s thereby limiting design options as a
Staff indicated the applicant had s4 ! • •; ng information that was subject to the review
and approval of the City Engine
Staff stated an existing sh • • ole b ding were located within the new street right -of -way
and must be removed.
Staff indicated utilities tes both 12th and Holly, and an extension of utilities down the
proposed cul -de -sac was'' "'?. ±roposed. The water main needs to be looped to 12th Street. The
utilities plan was subject `'`` City Engineer review and approval. Holly and 12th were both major
collector roads. The purpose of major collectors was to channel traffic, and direct access from
lots was discouraged. The number of lots fronting on 12th Avenue had been reduced from five
lots in the concept plan to one lot in the preliminary plat. The number of lots fronting on Holly
Drive had increased from zero to one. The rest of the lots were proposed to front on a new cul-
de -sac street. Based on modifications to the plan which reduced the number of accesses staff
supported the layout.
Staff stated a trail was envisioned along Holly Drive, but had not been designed yet. It had not
been decided whether the trail would be on the north or south side of Holly. It would be within
the road right -of -way. A trail existed on the east side of 12th Ave. as part of Peregrine Pass.
Park dedication for this new development would be cash.
Staff stated wetlands exist in the north central and southeast portions of the site. Although the
boundaries of wetlands are shown on the preliminary plat, a wetland delineation report had been
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 28
submitted. Rice Creek Watershed District has granted a TWAFAA (tabled with approval for
administrative action) for the development.
Staff indicated the site was a former pine tree plantation. A plan for tree preservation has been
submitted. The Environmental Board had suggested that some of the trees might be moved.
Staff stated because the site was located at the intersection of two collector roads staff would
work with the applicants to develop a landscaping plan to provide a buffer between the right -of-
way and the homes to be constructed.
Staff indicated the Environmental Board reviewed the project on January 3, 2001. The
Environmental Specialist's memo included the Board's comments.
Chair Schaps asked if the developer had been asked about eliminating
variance. Mr. Smyser replied there were a couple previous designs
had discussed with staff including a number of accesses onto the
them to remove most of them. If they make the access on Lot
Lot 8 and 1 would access the roads themselves. All of the
requirements. There were wetland issues to be addressed al
were addressed with this design, staff was supportive e ", ianc
would require more accesses onto the roadways. He indi
developer.
opposed to a
ct the developer
rked out with
1 -de -sac, then only
meet the
of the safety issues that
han the other designs that
is had been negotiated with the
Mr. Lyden expressed concern that Lot 1, 2 d - a part of the neighborhood. He
suggested Lot 8 be made part of Lots 7 i • ' nd i orate Lot 1 and 2 and face Lot 2 to the
cul -de -sac. This would make a neigh
Mr. Lyden asked about the Ge
prior to any approval of this
issue and stated that issue needed to be done
Jeff Roos, developer' represe s_ ive, replied they were requesting they proceed with the
variance request. He ey "mbined lots, they would end up with crooked lot lines and
this was not desirable e ` ` ith respect to Gemini Estates, he had no information regarding
this.
Ms. Lane stated while she also believed in developing neighborhoods, she believed Lots 8 and
Lots 1 would become part of the neighborhoods along side of them and may not specifically be a
part of this neighborhood.
Mr. Zych agreed that Lots 1 and 2 should be combined because of their size, but had no opinion
about Lot 8.
Mr. Corson agreed that Lots 1 and 2 should be combined due to safety issues. Mr. Ruus stated
lot designs did not create neighborhoods. He stated the plat met every ordinance, except one
dimension. He stated they could do some lot line manipulation that would meet their criteria, but
believed this plat was the solution. He indicated they might have misunderstood what the City
wanted.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 29
Mr. Lyden asked if the cul -de -sac could be brought the opposite way. Mr. Ruus stated that had
not been looked at and he was not sure if the previous designer had looked at those options or
not. He stated they were limited however by wetlands and topography. He also indicated that by
doing that, he did not believe it would eliminate access off of 12th and Holly.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. and was supported by
Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0.
Mr. Rafferty stated he would like to see the lot lines realigned to create a better neighborhood.
He would strongly support that effort so it would all come off of the same cul -de -sac. Mr. Ruus
stated he understood the Board's concerns, but Lot 8 could be the problem. He stated Lot 1 was
more workable.
Chair Schaps also agreed in combining Lots 1 and 2 and splitting Lot 8 uus stated if that
was the direction, they would need to start all over He indicated th-, onomi'mpact would
affect them and they would need to redesign this area Mr. Raffe r.r e ssed is concern about
them starting over again because of the loss of two lots. He st, d t w _; ry close to being a
very acceptable plan without redesigning the whole area.
Mr. Ruus stated it was his understanding this was wh
wa`ooking for.
Ms. Lane stated she did not have concern about s °`•ts gad 8, but did have concerns about the
• access on 12th and Holly and would not suppo t is bec. se of that
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to deny t
Lane. Motion carried 5 -0.
Chair Schaps stated the reasons
1. There was a re
2. There was no pligh
property.
3. There is an
4. Not applicab
at application, and was supported by Ms.
o w'`al w- e as follows:
use the property in question.
the landowner due to physical circumstances unique to this
consideration.
5. The Ordinanc `' °did allow for reasonable use and there was also a question of access
and safety.
With respect to the preliminary plat, the reason for denial was because of access and safety
issues; no neighborhood consistency; and not all driveways being located on the cul -de -sac.
J. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Pinnacle Towers, 870 Birch Street,
Rezone, Amended C.U.P., Amend Zoning Ordinance
This item was withdrawn by applicant.
• Chair Schaps reopened the hearing at 11:00 p.m.
There being no comments made, the public hearing was closed.
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 30
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the Public hearing closed at 11:00 p.m. and was supported
by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0.
K. North American Composites, Amend Condition of Approval for Site Plan
Staff presented the application by explaining the City Council approved a minor subdivision and
site and building plan for North American Composites on November 13, 2000. One of the
conditions of approval was:
4. The precise concrete panels will be Fabcon Wide Rack 3/8" grooves at 3" O.C.
with smooth concrete cattails design, or similar design. Decorative concrete
block on the office portion of the building shall be either smooth burnished
concrete block or rock -face block.
Staff stated this originated in a request by the Planning & Zoning Boar
elevation along the freeway. Because this was a very visible locatio
additional attention to aesthetics. In response, the applicant then
elevation that included a custom "cattail" pattern in the concre
not see the new pattern, the revision was included in the pr
was specified in the condition of approval listed above.
sit the building
asked for some
ised south
gh the P & Z did
e City Council and
Staff indicated North American Compsites had asked tha e ndition be deleted because of
the cost of the custom design. Instead, they had d a design that included a four -foot blue
stripe across the top of the precast concrete pan s. The '<. els had a raked finish, just like the
original submittal. In addition, the design th � ildin � had been reviewed somewhat. The
office portion exterior would still be de e block. However, the standing seam
metal roof on both portions of the buildi ged in the new design. Instead, the new
proposed design had a flat roof fo , ar �, . e portion. The office portion also had a flat roof,
but the east elevation incorporat . s . ed f . cade.
Staff stated the footprint o de. ' n increased the footprint by about 500 sf, about a 2%
change. Staff considered this atively minor change.
Staff indicated because '' ca 1 design was a condition of approval, it would require action by
the City Council to chan `. it Staff discussed the request with the City Council at the June 6
worksession. Council di +'cted staff to bring the request to the P & Z for a recommendation. It
would then to go the City Council at its June 25 meeting.
Staff recommended approving the new building design and revising the condition of approval to
delete the sentence regarding the cattail design. Condition number four would thus read:
4. The warehouse portion will be precast concrete panels and the office portion of
the building shall be decorative concrete rock -face block as indicated on the
exterior elevations by Stiglich Construction, Inc., dated 5/1/01.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Ivan Levy, presented a history of the project and thanked the Board and staff for all of their
efforts.
•
•
•
r
Planning & Zoning Board
June 13, 2001
Page 31
Mr. Zych made a Motion to approve the new building design and the revision of the condition of
approval, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0.
Mr. Rafferty applauded applicant's efforts.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Mr. Smyser stated the draft Comprehensive Plan was available for review and copying.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Zych made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:12 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Corson. Motion carried 5 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
•
•
Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.