Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/1997 P&Z Minutes• • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT : February 12, 1997 : 6:30 p.m. : 9:45 p.m. : Dahl, Dunn, Herr, Johnson, Schaps Gelbmann arrived at 6:35 p.m. : Robinson : Planning Coordinator Wyland, City Engineer Ahrens, Economic Development Director Wessel, Planning Consultant Alan Brixius I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., January 8, 1997. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 11, 1996 Mr. Herr made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the December 11, 1996 Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting, as submitted. He was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 5 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA - CHANGES /ADDITIONS There were none. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:32 p.m. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:33 p.m. and was supported by Ms. Dahl. Motion carried unanimously, 5 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. 97 -1 Public Hearing - Millers South Glen - Rezone /Preliminary Plat/Interim MUSA Reserve Mr. Brixius stated that this application was previously tabled by the Board and is being resubmitted by Richard S. Carlson Associates for a subdivision of 49 single family homes called Millers South Glen on 27.9 acres of land north of • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 2 62nd Street and east of Ware Road. The application includes allocating 27.9 acres of interim MUSA reserve area to this property if the development is approved. The City is being requested to vacate an existing road easement within the property. A variance is being requested to allow a cul -de -sac that will be greater than 500 feet in length. Trail connections have been requested and are included. A traffic study was recently completed for the proposed development. Mr. Gelbmann arrived at 6:35 p.m. Mr. Brixius reported that the City has specific policies on how its MUSA reserve is allocated. MUSA applications are subject to the following criteria: 1. MUSA reserve application shall be considered at the time of preliminary plat approval 2. The property in question shall be zoned R -1 or R-1X or a rezoning application be in process in conjunction with the preliminary plat but is not guaranteed approval. 3. The property in question must be immediately adjacent to existing MUSA. 4. Development of the property must be considered a natural extension of existing roadways. 5. Development of the property must be considered a natural extension of existing roadways. 6. Development of the property shall not adversely affect the health, welfare, and general safety of the community. 7. Development of the property shall be environmentally compatible with the surrounding area. 8. Development of the property shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Park Plan. 9. Development of the property shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plan. 10. The proposed development shall comply with the City's infill policy as outlined by Resolution No. 92 -85. 11. Roadways serving the proposed development shall be determined adequate according to city engineering standards to handle the additional traffic generated by the proposed development or a financial commitment shall be made by the developer to upgrade said roadway(s). Mr. Brixius stated that the development is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the surrounding area. The MUSA criteria still in question are Nos. 5. 6. and 11., which relate to roadways. Public services could be extended from Pine Ridge Second Addition, which would be a logical extension. The plat, as designed, meets R-1X District minimum dimensions in lot area and width. There is a street jog which is recommended to Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 3 be realigned to achieve a full intersection. The applicant is willing to comply with that recommendation. Mr. Brixius stated that the cul -de -sac variance has been reviewed. It is the overall consensus of the Public Works Director and City Engineer that there is sufficient hardship to justify the variance. Staff is recommending approval of the variance if the project is approved. Wetland mitigation is subject to the Rice Creek Watershed District regulations and the City Engineer's review. Park and trail issues are addressed in the preliminary plat. Mr. Glen Van Wormer, Traffic Engineer from Short, Elliott, Hendrickson engineering firm (SEH), stated that his firm was contracted by the City for a traffic study. Single family dwellings are projected to generate 10 trips per day. With a 48 -lot subdivision 480 trips would be generated daily. Estimates include peak hours of 48 trips in the evening rush hour. Approximately two - thirds of those cars would be going east and the rest traveling west. Approximately 30 additional trips are estimated for the morning rush hour that would be traveling south to County Road J or north to Birch Street. All traffic entering and exiting the proposed subdivision must use 62nd Street and Ware Road. The distribution of development generated traffic will further change if West Shadow Lake Drive is extended to County Road J. This extension would also open opportunities for additional development. If development grows to the south, traffic could decrease as roads are extended to accommodate those developments. Mr. Dunn asked how many residential homes were used for traffic calculations, noting that the project is divided into different phases. Mr. Van Wormer answered that the calculations are based on the addition of 48 homes in the first phase. The ultimate study used an additional 29 homes in the second phase, and a possible 23 homes in the future to the east as well as 18 buildable Tots to the south of 62nd Street were also considered. That is a total of 116 units. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the ability of the exiting roadway to handle traffic jams was reviewed. With full build -out, turn lanes would not be necessary on 62nd Street. However, the condition of Ware Road is not good and is wearing out from a structural standpoint. Mr. Gelbmann asked where the current traffic loads currently exist. Mr. Van Wormer responded that Ware Road has 1,200 cars per day with 120 cars in the p.m. peak hours. This information was provided by Mn /DOT. • Chair Schaps asked if there is a projection as to how long Ware Road will last based on these projections. • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Ahrens stated that there are two parts to the transportation issue: 1) the impact of the new traffic from the proposed development, and 2) the condition of Ware Road. Ware Road is currently 22 feet wide with minimal or no shoulders. It does not meet current design standards of 32 feet width with curb and gutter, or 30 feet with no curb and gutter and shoulders. It is substantially deficient and is the second worst road in the City. However, 62nd Street is a good road and ranks high in the pavement management system. There have been preliminary discussions about Ware Road. The City Council would like to undertake reconstruction. A realistic schedule for such a project would be ordering a feasibility study in March to look at detailed issues of reconstruction, finance, special assessments, drainage, etc. The feasibility study could be completed by May, and the Council could call a public hearing by the end of June. Improvements could begin by the end of the year or spring of 1998. Mr. Ahrens noted that Ware Road is a Minnesota State Aid (MSA) road, and the City has a current balance of $790,000 for MSA road improvements for 1997. It is anticipated that $310,000 will be received for the 1998 reconstruction season. He projected the cost of the Ware Road project to be $1.1 million. The estimate from County Road J to Birch Street is $1.2 million. The developer has agreed to pay $2,000 per lot from the development toward road improvements. This would amount to an additional $96,000 the City would have toward the project. • Mr. Johnson asked at what point in the process the Council would give the actual decision to go forward with this project in the schedule outlined by Mr. Ahrens. Mr. Ahrens stated approval of the feasibility report would indicate a strong desire on the part of the Council to move ahead with the project. Once a bid is awarded to the project the project will be actually underway. Chair Schaps asked if the MSA dollars are earmarked for any other projects. Mr. Ahrens answered that the Council has indicated that the entire amount could be used to improve Ware Road, which is a collector street and designed to carry heavier volumes of traffic. It is a high priority. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Ahrens to identify the worst road in the City. Mr. Ahrens answered, West Shadow Lake Road north of Birch Street where there are no utilities. Ware Road does have utilities except for one portion south of 62nd Street. Chair Schaps noted that with $1.1 million in MSA funds and a contribution of $96,000 from the developer, there would be no cost to current residents for the road improvement. • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Ahrens stated that City policy states that abutting property owners are IIPassessed, but the decision on assessments is made by the City Council. Chair Schaps asked if there is an estimate of what assessments might be. Mr. Ahrens stated that the current assessment rate is $45 per front foot. Sewer and water would be included. Mr. Dunn noted that construction traffic during the process of development can deteriorate the road condition by up to 50 percent. He asked how that is factored into the project cost and if there is a way to recover those costs from the developer. Mr. Ahrens stated that the road would be designed to handle construction traffic and take all factors into consideration. One way is to design the new road as a 9 -ton road rather than a 7 -ton road. Mr. Herr asked how long the new road would be expected to last. Mr. Ahrens stated that with minimum maintenance and built to current standards, the road should last 20 to 25 years, If sealcoating were done every 7 years, the road would last 50 years. illChair Schaps asked if there are any plans for further extensions. • Mr. Ahrens stated that he does not know the status of further extensions at this time. Mr. Rick Carlson thanked the Commission for their consideration and staff for helping to resolve neighborhood issues. He introduced Mr. Ted Matke from Matke Engineering. He stated that the 48 units are anticipated to sell in the range of $160,000 to $250,000. He would like to begin as soon as possible, by early summer of 1997 and finish by the fall of 1997. He has agreed to only take out 15 permits in 1997. He distributed copies of the purchase agreement and property covenants. He noted that the escrow agreement stipulates a $3,500 escrow per building site to insure the City that all requirements will be completed. The site will not be released for building until the grading plan is completed according to the development plan. Mr. Carlson stated that he mailed 70 letters to residents within 650 feet of Millers South Glen. He received one call from Mr. Nick Magnuson, who lives on the corner of 62nd Street and Ware Road who is concerned about his septic system failing and would be interested in hooking up to City utilities. At the neighborhood meeting the issue of real estate taxes was raised and whether these homes would be paying their fair share of taxes. Based on estimated average market value, these homes will pay approximately 125 percent more in school taxes. • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Matke stated that they have reached agreement on the drainage issue along rear property lines with neighboring residents. It was found that there are dirt piles in the swale, and most of the yards do not have sod yet. He has sent letters notifying residents that the development plan will be upheld, and he will make sure that drainage works in the spring. If there is a home that is too low for proper drainage, it will be incorporated into the new development project to achieve good drainage. He believes the problems and concerns of the neighbors have been addressed, and they support the new project. The Watershed District has indicated that the project is environmentally sound with the creation of the ponds. There are 87.9 acres of land, and only 48 homes will be built. That means there will be a lot of open space and big lots. It will be a quality development. Mr. Dunn asked how much wetland is affected by the development. Mr. Matke responded that 1.01 acres of wetland are on the project site which will be filled. Mr. Dunn noted that County Ditch No. 25 is in the area and flows east and north and ultimately into a lake. It has been identified as a major contributor of phosphorus runoff into the lake. He asked what could be done in this development to mitigate additional drainage through County Ditch No. 25. Mr. Matke stated that this development will not have any drainage into County Ditch No. 25, which is to the south of the development. Chair Schaps opened the public hearing to public comment. Ms. Rosemary Williams, 498 62nd Street, stated that the only problem she sees with this development is that the Ware Road improvement has not been approved. She would like to be assured that Ware Road will be reconstructed and would like the road improvement project approved before the development approval. Residents petitioned several years ago to upgrade Ware Road, but the project was not done. She does not believe residents on Ware Road should have to pay any assessments because of the increase in traffic and because they will lose a portion of setback area. Ware Road is not safe without the reconstruction, and this development would do more damage to an already bad situation. She requested that the traffic study submitted by SEH be attached to the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Steve Wisner stated that Ware Road is substandard. He asked who will pay to repair residents' vehicles. No one has addressed the safety factor of children playing on substandard streets. He supports the development project but would like to see the street issues resolved first. • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Tom Drau, 6317 Red Maple Lane, asked how assessments are calculated for adjoining property to a road project. Mr. Ahrens explained that assessments are calculated according to the number of feet fronting the road being improved. The lot being assessed would have to have frontage on the improved road. Mr. Drau stated that 48 lots on 27.9 acres will be small lots. He asked how much acreage will be used for roads and ponds and how much is buildable. Mr. Matke responded that the average size lot is 50,000 square feet, including the ponds. Mr. Craig Harvey, 440 Coyote Trail, stated that he does not believe drainage can be addressed because the current grade of his property is as high as it can be. This means the lot to the rear of his property will have to be cut down to increase the grade for sufficient drainage. His neighbor to the east also has a similar grade. Mr. Carlson stated that he intends to resolve the Harveys' drainage problem in the spring. There are funds set aside in escrow that can be used. If the house is too low, he will put in a window well. Mr. Harvey stated that putting in a window well will bring the grade up to the level of his window sill. Raising the grade higher on his house would put it above the level of the foundation, which he does not believe to be common practice. Otherwise, he supports the new development and believes it is well laid out. Ms. Mary Olstad, 6130 Ware Road, stated that she agrees with Ms. Williams. The development should not be done until after reconstruction of Ware Road, and residents should not be assessed. She noted that many children play on Ware Road, and there have been many near accidents. She is concerned about the number of children with increased traffic and a speed limit of 45 mph. Chair Schaps asked if the situation has improved with three -way stops. Ms. Olstad stated that situation has improved a little, but before the handle is up on a school bus cars zoom by. Mr. Matke stated that everyone who lives on Ware Road is worried about assessments. The City has state aid funds for state aid roads. This is what those funds are to be used for. Assessments should only be to the extent that the value of the property is increased. Mr. Larry Rogers, 514 Linden Lane, stated that he supports Mr. Carlson and would encourage the Board to approve this project. Mr. Carlson has quality developments and has honest dealings with buyers and homeowners. He also Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 8 does not believe it would be fair for the residents on Ware Road to bear the full brunt of the cost to reconstruct it, but he would be willing to pay his fair share. Ms. Olstad asked when 62nd Street will be improved. Without wider roads and sidewalks, an influx of children from the new development will become a safety issue. She asked if any parks are planned with this development so children won't be playing in the street. Mr. Matke stated that the development plan includes a proposal for a trail along the north side of 62nd Street with this project. At this time no parks are planned. There is an area of 13.4 acres of total park land that will be dedicated to the City as part of the project. The area will be connected to Park Grove and Birch Wood Acres and would be stubbed for a future connection west of Shadow Lake Drive. There are four acres of upland which would be large enough for small ball fields. Land for a trail connection will be provided from 62nd Street to the Park Grove Park. Ms. Jane Theilen, 561 Lonesome Pine Tr., emphasized the safety issue on Ware Road. She would like to see the speed limit reduced to 30 mph. She also suggested a bike path for children. Ms. Wyland stated that there will be a trail provided along the north side of 62nd Street and between the easterly side of the cul -de -sac that will connect to the trail coming from Linden Lane. Both trails will meet and go into the Park Grove Park which will be connected to the park land being dedicated. The Park Board is currently working on the development o f this park. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. and was supported by Dahl. Ms. Wyland stated that there is a trail graded on the east side of Ware Road. At Fox Trace, the trail is on the west side. As developments occur, trail dedications will be required by the City for further connections. Chair Schaps asked what assurance there is that plans to reconstruct Ware Road will be approved by the City Council in March 1997, before Mr. Carlson develops this property. Mr. Ahrens stated that the Council has expressed a desire to upgrade Ware Road in 1998, but there is no guarantee that it will be done this year. Funding is the major issue. Chair Schaps asked if it is scheduled on the Council agenda. Mr. Ahrens stated that it will be discussed at the next Council work session. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Brixius stated that from a planning perspective, the Board could defer action until there is a City Council decision. The comments heard from the public are legitimate. If the Council is not prepared to take action, this development proposal may be premature. If the Council is prepared to act, the contributions from the developer will make it easier. Chair Schaps asked if all five actions can be conditioned to approval of the road improvement project. Mr. Brixius answered that all actions can be subject to that condition. He noted that specific conditions in the report that apply to the preliminary plat and determinations of MUSA criteria are dependent upon the City's response to the issue of Ware Road. Mr. Herr asked at what point residents have the opportunity to petition out of the project. Mr. Ahrens stated that at the time of the public hearing on the feasibility study, which may be in June, residents would have the opportunity to present a petition. Mr. Johnson noted that after the public hearing there is a waiting period of 60 days before the Council can order the plans and specifications, which would be late August. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Carlson when he would expect to begin the project. Mr. Carlson stated that nothing can be done until the Council takes action. After Council approval, he would anticipate 60 to 90 days to begin. He noted that he is limiting the number of building permits that can be done in 1997. Mr. Dunn stated that the reallocation of MUSA is the first decision and is fundamental to the whole project. He is uncomfortable with the safety issues raised by residents and does not believe that criteria for MUSA is fulfilled. Residents have testified that roadways are the fundamental issue, and they should be the fundamental issue for the Planning & Zoning Board. He believes Mr. Carlson will build fine homes for the neighborhood, and the tax base is favorable to help the community, but he does not believe MUSA requirements can be justified at this time. There is the issue of assessments and residents' reactions. If everything in this area is rezoned, there will be nothing left to address for the Comprehensive Task Force Plan. Many questions are not answered. Approval of the first plat starts the domino effect to approving everything related to the development. He would like to see the development go forward, but the timing is premature and he would prefer to delay action until the Ware Road issue is resolved. Mr. Herr agreed but also believes this development is consistent with surrounding development. Ware Road is the paramount issue, but he would be • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 10 in favor of the project making it contingent upon Council approval of improvements to Ware Road. Mr. Johnson stated that the Board can only make recommendations to the Council who can do as they wish. He would recommend approval, subject to the Council's firm commitment to the Ware Road project. He would like to see the Board send a strong message to the Council that this project should not be approved until the Council is committed to the Ware Road project. Chair Schaps stated that the fear is that the project will be built, but the road will not be done. He noted that houses will not be salable if customers have to drive on a poor road. Bad roads deter sales. This project more than anything may push the road project to be done. There will be Tess incentive for the road reconstruction if the project is delayed. He agreed with Mr. Johnson about letting the Council set the schedule. Mr. Gelbmann stated that he would approve the project which will test the Council's resolve for this improvement. He also agreed that this project will drive the needed road improvement. Mr. Brixius suggested that before making any recommendations, it be noted that it was the consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board that the Ware Road project is a priority and will support the Council in their consideration of the road improvements. The Board supports the Council's position as to what needs to be done for the City. With this improvement and also as a condition of approval the applicants' agreement to assist with financing, this may be an opportunity that otherwise may be missed. With that preface, the Board would recommend approval subject to the Ware Road improvement being undertaken. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the South Millers Glen development project, including rezoning to R -1 X, approval of the preliminary plat and interim MUSA allocation; acquisition of 27.9 acres of the City's interim MUSA reserve; vacation of an existing road easement within the property; and variance to allow a cul -de -sac in excess of 500 feet in length; with the understanding that the Board supports the Council's position as to what needs to be done for the City; and that with the applicants' agreement to assist with road improvement financing, this action is taken so as not to miss an opportunity for the City. Mr. Gelbmann seconded the motion. Chair Schaps amended the motion to include a condition about Coyote Drive as outlined in the public hearing. Mr. Johnson accepted the amendment. The motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 11 Chair Schaps called a break at 8:16 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:28 p.m. B. 97 -2 Public Hearing - Century Farms Development - MUSA Amendment - North Side of Lilac Street Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 8:24 p.m. Mr. Brixius stated that Mr. Gary Uhde has submitted a request to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to include the Behms Century Farms subdivision within the MUSA. The request is for 48.4 net acres of land north of Lilac Street between Sunset Road and Fourth Avenue. The area is zoned R -1. Preliminary plat approval has been given for the first three phases of development which is 51 acres or 105 single family lots. In 1995, the Metropolitan Council approved a MUSA land exchange resulting in the addition of 25 acres of MUSA of the Behms project, and Phase 1 was developed. The balance of the Century Farms land has not been included in MUSA. The application for MUSA expansion would allow platting of the two other phases of development. When the MUSA expansion request was made in 1995, the 99 gross acres were identified as a growth area to be included in MUSA in the future. At the time of the Phase 1 MUSA expansion, the Metropolitan Council noted concern about traffic volumes and the capacity of the intersection at I -35W and County Road 23. A traffic study has determined that currently the northbound ramp heading into the City is already operating at a deficient level of service. Any additional development under current conditions would result in a level of service rating of F for the functioning of that intersection, which is substandard. Mr. Brixius stated that the City has not prepared an analysis or submitted an improvement plan on the intersection to the Council. The City's transportation engineer has identified the need for the ramps to be signalized at I -35W and County Road 23. This is a need that will have to be addressed if the Town Center area is going to continue to grow. Until the City Council has the opportunity to make a determination on the expenditure, the development is premature. Mr. Johnson stated that the signals would have to be approved by Mn /DOT and Anoka County. He asked if any problems are anticipated. Mr. Ahrens stated that the ramps and bridge are under state jurisdiction, and County Road 23 is under Anoka County jurisdiction. Installing the signals is a matter of funding from the state and county, and this intersection would be a low priority. The traffic volume of the intersection must meet warrants to warrant a signal. It is the traffic engineer's opinion that it meets those warrants. A signal justification report can be submitted, and then it becomes a funding issue. Mr. Johnson stated that there is the potential for a string of traffic signals with the 0 ramps and access to the Town Center and middle school. Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 12 Mr. Wessel stated that the northbound ramp is of particular concern at this time. Additional traffic signals are scheduled over the next five years. Mr. Gary Uhde, Century Farms Developer, stated that this request for MUSA expansion is a timing issue. The second addition needs to proceed. Five builders made a commitment last August to preview at this location. There is a market momentum that he does not want to lose. While he understands that the final decision on MUSA expansion is made by the Metropolitan Council, he needs the City to indicate approval to strengthen his request. He would not be making this request except for the timing issue. If one month is lost, the entire season could be lost. If the season is lost, those who have invested in showing models will not have lots to build them. Mr. Uhde stated that from the beginning he has understood that the traffic at the intersection of the I -35W ramps and County Road 23 has been an issue. While he understands that the City is in the process of a major Comprehensive Plan review, waiting another 12 months will not work. He has tried to find a property owner with MUSA land who would be willing to work out an exchange but has been unsuccessful. His last option is to seek this MUSA amendment. Even so, it will be 60 to 90 days before that approval. Another 30 days delay of approval by the City will cost him the season because 70 percent of homes are sold from January to the middle of May. Chair Schaps noted that the Planning Board expressed concern about the number of Tots that would be developed when the original project was started in 1994, when it was agreed to proceed in phases. Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Uhde is requesting approval for MUSA expansion for all seven phases. Mr. Uhde answered, yes, and noted that the Metropolitan Council may scale back the request. However, he would prefer not to have to come back to the City for approval with every phase because it slows the process. At this time phase 2 will be done over a construction year and a sales year. Typically it takes 18 months to complete a development, and planning must be done a year ahead. Mr. Dunn asked if Mr. Uhde owns the property and the average home price in the development. Mr. Uhde stated that he owns all of the property. The projected price range for the homes is $135,000 to $140,000. As development moves to the west, the values of the homes will increase because the lots are larger and wooded. It will cost more to develop them, and he estimated the price range to increase up to the $160,000 range. • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 13 Mr. Uhde introduced Mr. Peter Coyle from the law firm of Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren, who has agreed to work with him and the Metropolitan Council for the MUSA expansion. Mr. Coyle stated that the developer understands that the traffic issue is the challenge and is prepared to help with the solution. The Metropolitan Council has indicated that they are amenable to a Comprehensive Plan amendment for this project because they do not anticipate that it will generate a significant increase of traffic relative to the problem that already exists. In order for Behms and the Town Center to further develop, a traffic signal must be installed. The application for a MUSA amendment must come from the City. The developer is prepared to offer prefunding for the signalization of the northbound ramp, which amounts to approximately $125,000. In return, Mr. Uhde is requesting that staff work out a method for him to recapture a portion of the prefunding. He is prepared to take this risk because of the timing issues identified, subject to a good faith effort on the part of the City to establish a mechanism by which he can recapture this funding through future development. Chair Schaps asked if the developer is comfortable that a signal for the northbound ramp is all that is needed for Metropolitan Council approval of the MUSA expansion. Mr. Coyle stated that the Metropolitan Council wants to see the City address this problem. This MUSA expansion will extend utilities into an area that will be beneficial both to Behms and to the City. Mr. Dunn asked if the developer expects to pay a proportional share of the traffic signal and not expect to recapture the entire cost. Mr. Coyle stated that the generation of traffic trips can be calculated for each project to contribute a percentage of the cost. Mr. Dunn asked if this would benefit the City's effort to develop Town Center. Mr. Wessel answered, yes. Mr. Brixius added that the Comprehensive Plan Task Force recently reviewed the Land Use Plan and issues regarding a town /village development. Even without the development of Behms, the transportation plan requires signalization at that interchange for the Town Center development. Mr. Herr asked if a frontage road will be incorporated for future development of the Town Center. Mr. Ahrens stated that he would see the signal installation as a temporary measure until there is a major improvement with the bridge replaced and a permanent installation. The proposed improvement would raise the intersection level of service operation to a rank of B, which is a safe level of operation. • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Brixius stated that staff's original recommendation was to suggest tabling action in anticipation that within a month the City would be able to determine whether or not the signal improvement would be undertaken. However, staff has no objections to Mr. Uhde's offer to prefund the signal knowing that the City does not know where the funding will come from. The urgency presented by Mr. Uhde may be an opportunity from which the City would like to take advantage. Mr. Johnson noted that the signal is in a tax increment financing (TIF) district. He asked if staff envisions TIF funding to be used for improvements like this one. Mr. Wessel stated that not all of the intersections are in a TIF district. TIF is primarily used for areas zoned light industry. The City has to be careful how TIF funding is used, and it is not a source of funding for this type of project. He stated that the master plan for the village development was approved two weeks ago, and review of the first project in the village is expected within the next two months. This signal is an improvement that the City must address for the village development to go forward. He believes Mr. Uhde's offer is a good way to initiate a resolution for Behms and for the village project. Chair Schaps asked if the City Council is aware of Mr. Uhde's offer. Mr. Wessel stated that discussion of it only took place that afternoon. The Planning Board's recommendation is needed for the Council to make its own assessment. Mr. Johnson stated that there are no written recommendations to approve this offer. He would feel more comfortable with a written proposal. Chair Schaps stated that it appears somewhat risky to the City in the way it has been outlined. Mr. Wessel responded that Mr. Uhde has made an interesting offer to which he responds positively. The key question is engineering and the traffic issue. Mr. Ahrens stated that many of the engineering and traffic issues are addressed with the growth on Lake Drive and plans for the village development. He agreed that this is a good opportunity to capture funds that the City would not otherwise receive. With the signal, the intersection will be improved to a level B service operation. Without it, the level of service is F, which is a failed system. Mr. Johnson asked when the signal would be installed. Mr. Ahrens stated that if the Council approves, a justification report will be submitted to the state and county for installation this year. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:02 p.m. and was supported by Herr. Motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 15 Mr. Brixius stated that if the Planning Board decides to approve this action, he would recommend adding two conditions: 1) that the financing of the traffic signal at the northbound ramp of I -35W and County Road 23 will be pursued, as outlined by Mr. Peter Coyle and reflected in the minutes; 2) that the four lots on Lilac Street and Laurie Avenue be included in the MUSA extension, so that if septic systems fail those properties can be connected to City utilities. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the request to amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to include Behms Century Farms subdivision within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) which include 99.9 gross acres located north of Lilac Street between Sunset Road and Fourth Avenue, and including the four lots on Lilac Street and Laurie Avenue as approved by the Board at the January meeting; with a financing plan for the traffic signal at the northbound ramp of I -35W and County Road 23, as outlined by Mr. Peter Coyle at this meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Herr. Motion carried unanimously, 6- 0. C. Shoreland Management Ordinance, Public Hearing Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 9:04 p.m. Mr. Brixius stated that the Shoreland Ordinance has a 50 percent open space requirement and a 35 percent impervious surface requirement, which appears to have been included in error. The impervious surface provision appears to be based on the State Model Ordinance but has been modified by the City for residential and commercial development. The DNR has indicated no objection to removing the 35 percent impervious surface provision as long as the mandatory 50 percent open space provision is retained. Development plans are reviewed by the Rice Creek Watershed to maintain the highest level of water quality and land use. Mr. Dunn stated that the initial intent was to allow only a certain percentage of impervious surface. Mr. Brixius stated that the amendment would allow more flexibility and still maintain the mandatory 50 percent of open space. The reference to 35 percent impervious surface is confusing and conflicting and was a mistake that was not caught in the final review of the ordinance. Mr. Ahrens noted that performance standards on ponding under Best Management Practices cover practices for handling surface water runoff. The plan must conform to Rice Creek Watershed District and Vadnais Lake Management Organization. Both have similar performance standards that must be followed for detention ponds as part of development review to keep runoff rates to pre- existing development conditions. • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 16 Mr. J.P. Houchins, 7284 Stagecoach Trail, stated that this amendment will increase impervious surface in PDO development from 35 percent to 50 percent. He is vigorously opposed to the amendment and urged the Board to protect the City's natural resources. The amendment has been presented as a mistake, but he does not believe that to be the case. He distributed copies of a transcript of the public hearing that was held when the ordinance was passed. It was reviewed in January 1995, and a number of questions were raised. The public hearing was continued for two months. In those two months Mr. Brixius had the opportunity to clarify a number of issues and contact the DNR. Mr. Houchins noted that the transcript clearly indicates the intention to allow 35 percent of impervious surface and require 50 percent open space. Mr. Houchins stated that he does not know the reason for this ordinance change, but does not believe it is in the best interests of the City. Both the Metropolitan Council and Watershed District take samples of water quality every summer. Water in Marshan Lake is ranked F; Peltier Lake ranks D; Baldwin Lake is F, etc. The only way to improve water quality is to be vigilant. Chair Schaps asked how water quality is defined and how a ranking of F compares with other lakes in the metro area. Mr. Houchins responded that a ranking of F is the dirtiest 10 percent of tested water. The ranking is based on phosphorous and chlorophyll content and transparency. Water is flowing from remote locations, and he urged the Board to not weaken the standards of the Shoreland ordinance that would increase the pollution of lakes. Holding ponds are a good measure of prevention and remove 50 percent of the pollution before the water flows into the lakes. Mr. Houchins stated that if 50 percent impervious surface is allowed, the vast majority of that open space is concentrated at the shoreline because of the setback requirements. Mr. Johnson asked what the practical implication would be to Marshan Shores development if the ordinance were changed. Mr. Houchins stated that with the maximum limit of 35 percent impervious surface, there would have to be more green space between buildings. Mr. Brixius stated that with the last approval with maximum density for Marshan Shores Townhomes, impervious surface was at 35 percent and open space at 50 percent including what is planned for commercial. This is the specific application that raised the confusion regarding shoreland regulations. When the development was originally presented, the City did not have shoreland regulations, and the developer was pushing the issue under the old regulations. He noted that there are 200 -foot setbacks from the lake before the first Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 17 townhome. He further stated that George Watch Lake does not have any • development, is totally within the park system and yet has a rating of F. • • Mr. Houchins stated that the ordinance should not be written for one site. It is important to keep the standards in place. If the 35 percent stipulation is dropped, the interpretation will be to allow 50 percent of impervious surface. Chair Schaps asked the origin of this request. Mr. Brixius stated that there is confusion in addressing issues with the Marshan Shores application. Chair Schaps asked how many units are approved for Marshan Shores. Mr. Brixius answered, 130 units. No further application for development has been received, and the corner the developer would like to develop as commercial is not zoned commercial. Mr. Dunn stated that he is inclined to support Mr. Houchins and agrees that the City should not create regulations on the basis of one area. The regulations should be applicable citywide. There is enough doubt that the matter should be tabled and left to a work session. It is important to strive to improve the water quality of the City, and this could potentially be a door that should not be opened without more data. Mr. Herr asked if the most recent plan approved was on the basis of 35 percent impervious surface. Mr. Brixius responded that the entire land holdings of Mr. Hokanson are under one contiguous parcel which complies with the letter of the law as it is now written. Mr. Herr stated that his recollection of the discussion in 1995 is that the City intended a maximum of 35 percent impervious surface. Mr. Houchins stated that he calculated Marshan Townhomes at 45 percent impervious surface, not 35 percent of the total land holdings. The initial parcel and amount of available area on the site after taking out park land and roads leaves 18.2 acres. Additional land of 1.6 acres was added that was called a commercial site. Mr. Brixius explained that Mr. Hokanson had more units than were allowed and a 4 -unit townhouse was eliminated. The balance of the commercial site had to be included with the remaining residential development. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. and was supported by Dahl. Mr. Dunn made a MOTION to return this matter to staff for further consideration. Mr. Brixius stated that if the Board is seeking additional data and more information, a report can be prepared. If the Board would like to retain the 35 Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 1997 Page 18 percent stipulation of impervious surface and not change the regulations, approval can be denied. Mr. Dunn withdrew his motion. Mr. Dunn made a MOTION to deny approval of the Shoreland ordinance amendment and was supported by Herr. Motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. D. Sign Ordinance Amendment - Continuation of Public Hearing Chair Schaps opened the continued public hearing regarding the sign ordinance amendment at 9:37 p.m. Mr. Gelbmann stated that he has several questions regarding the proposed language in the amendment. Mr. Gelbmann made a MOTION to further table this matter and was supported by Dunn. Mr. Dunn stated that he has questions about the regulation of traffic signs, daycare signs, garage sale signs and "House for Sale" signs which he will further discuss with staff. illThe motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. • VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr. Wessel noted receipt of a letter regarding architectural guidelines for the master plan effort for the Town Center. Ultimately architectural design issues will end up with the Planning & Zoning Board. He suggested a March meeting to present a preview of what is being drafted by the committee. Chair Schaps noted a public forum meeting March 13, for residents to respond to the task force presentation of the village plan in Districts 1 and 2. Mr. Johnson asked if the name has been officially adopted. Mr. Wessel explained that the quadrant has been referred to as Town Center in the past. The use of the name village is informal to designate that particular quadrant. Mr. Johnson requested that Lino Lakes be incorporated into the name, so that the development is identified with the City. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. and was supported by Ms. Dahl. The motion passed unanimously, 6 -0.