Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/1997 P&Z Minutes• • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT : May 14, 1997 : 6:35 p.m. : 9:19 p.m. : Dahl, Dunn, Herr, Gelbmann, Johnson, Robinson, Schaps : Planning Coordinator Wyland, 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 6:35 p.m., May 14, 1997. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 9, 1997 Mr. Dunn stated that he would not vote to approve the minutes of the April 9, 1997 Planning & Zoning Board meeting because he does not feel that the portion of the minutes regarding the recreational vehicle (RV) public hearing reflects the demeanor of the meeting. Comments pertinent to future discussions and actions made that evening were not fully reported. He stated that his objection is limited to the RV public hearing. He did not suggest changes but indicated that he would vote not to approve the minutes. Mr. Gelbmann corrected the bottom of page 20 to state "frost footings." Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the April 9, 1997 Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting, as corrected. He was supported by Ms. Dahl. Motion carried with 5 Ayes, 1 Nay (Dunn) and 1 Abstain (Johnson). III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair Schaps noted the addition of item No. H., Minor Subdivision, Craig Severson, 8134 Rondeau Lake Drive, which will be considered after item E. IV. OPEN MIKE • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 2 Chair Schaps declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting open at 6:38 p.m. There were no comments. Mr. Gelbmann made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:39 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Dunn. Motion carried unanimously, 7 -0 Chair Schaps recognized Mayor Landers' attendance at the meeting. V. ACTION ITEMS: A. Ordinance Amendment - Recreational Vehicles - PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Brixius stated that in response to the public comments received at the last Planning & Zoning Board meeting, an ordinance has been drafted with regard to storage of RV and utility vehicles in residential areas. The following amendments are suggested to the City's Zoning Ordinance: 1. The vehicles are used solely by the family residing in the dwelling on such site. The intent is to prevent commercial storage of any other vehicles. 2. The vehicles have affixed thereto current registration or license plates as required by law to eliminate junk vehicles. 3. The vehicles are stored no closer than five (5) feet from side and rear lot lines. 4. The vehicles located within front yard areas are confined to designated driveways or parking areas surfaced in compliance with Section 8, Subd. 4(3) of this ordinance. This section requires that all driveways or accesses would be surfaced with asphalt or concrete as approved by the City Engineer. Exceptions would be driveways that serve farm or accesses that serve residential principal or accessory structures on one more than one acre. The surface exception may be gravel, pea rock, crushed rock, as approved by the City Engineer. It would be required that parcels of less than one acre would have asphalt or concrete access drives. The requirement of storage on surfaced areas is intended to avoid storage in landscaped areas which cause deterioration of the site. 5. All front yard storage comply with the following setbacks from street curb or pavement lines: a) minor arterial, 30 feet; b) collector, 20 feet; c) local, 15 feet. The setbacks are measured from the street curb or pavement line because front property lines are not always clear. It is also necessary to keep sight lines unencumbered. • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 3 Mr. Johnson asked if the ordinance would be more enforceable under Section 21 if it were stipulated that the RV must be registered to a resident of the dwelling. Mr. Brixius agreed that change would be easier to enforce. The only problem would be if a vehicle is borrowed. Ms. Wyland noted that the current ordinance states "parked or stored." She suggested the Board may wish to eliminate "parked" and define "stored." Mr. Robinson asked if there is a reference parking RV's for visitors. Mr. Brixius stated that the ordinance allows parking of visitor RV's for up to a two -week period. That provision is not referred to in this draft because it is not being changed. Mr. Gelbmann noted that there is a major arterial street in the City, Main Street. The street classifications should include major arterial streets. Mr. Herr questioned whether the 15 -foot setback for stored RV's on the normal residential street might be too restrictive. If there is a 15 -foot setback from the road, there would not be much room in the driveway for an RV. Mr. Brixius stated that the 15 -foot setback is based on a standard residential street of 30 to 32 feet wide. From pavement to the edge of the right -of -way would be approximately 15 feet. The 15 -foot setback from the edge of the road would keep vehicles out of the boulevard area. Mr. Herr stated that it is reasonable to legally allow RV's to be parked in driveways. A 28 -foot RV unit would barely fit under this proposed ordinance, and he is unsure of the size of a normal RV. Mr. Dunn asked for clarification on the setbacks being reviewed with the City Engineer to be certain that they are consistent with existing standards. Mr. Brixius stated that he wanted to make sure that the setback standards stipulated are reflective of the actual right -of -ways. His only concern with measuring from the curb is that it can be curved or changed which would cause fluctuation. As a general application, it will be easier to enforce because residents will not know exactly where the front property line is located and where the boulevard begins. Mr. Dunn stated that the intent of these setbacks is to prevent any parking or storage of RV vehicles on the right -of -way, and that the assumption is that with a • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 4 60 -foot road right -of -way, a 30 -foot wide road, the average setback on each side would be 15 feet. Mr. Robinson noted, however, that some property owners own and pay taxes on land up to the curb or pavement line, even though 15 feet of it is considered road rig ht -of -way. Mr. Dunn suggested that a workshop be held to further discuss the issues of this ordinance. There are 14,000 residents in the City that have not been heard. There is a lot at stake, and this ordinance should be considered carefully and cautiously. The demeanor of the meeting inhibited some people who wanted to speak but were intimidated by how things proceeded. He wants to be sure that the right decision is made that will affect the entire community. He recommended that once the public hearing is opened and closed, the discussion should be continued at a private workshop session to explore all options and hear from those who did not get a chance to represent themselves at the last public hearing. Chair Schaps stated that this is a continuation of the public hearing. Future City ordinances are not cast in cement. They can be changed, and this issue may be reviewed again in five years. There is a loud voice about what residents want and what they do not want. He recommended that the first sentence of Section 2, Subd. 21. eliminate, "A maximum of ," and begin with "Recreational vehicles, as defined... ". The number of calls to the police to complain about RV parking represents approximately 1/100 of 1 percent of the population in a 5 -year period. He does not want to over legislate anything and sees no reason to set a maximum. It is typical of legislation to set regulations on matters that are not causing problems. The purpose of the ordinance is to control and change as time goes on. Mr. Johnson added that flexibility is needed to address varying lot sizes. He agreed with Chair Schaps recommendation and stated that it would provide the flexibility he would like to see in the ordinance. Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing for public comment at 6:54 p.m. Mr. Joe Spenceman, 8171 Lake Drive, noted that a show of hands at the last public hearing indicated that only two residents were on one side of the issue, and the rest were on the other side. He does not understand how it can be said that anyone was intimidated, when the numbers are on their side. Mr. Paul Brandt, 6789 Shadow Lake Drive, stated that it is perfectly clear what residents want, and everyone has had equal opportunity to speak on the ordinance. Two spoke in favor of a restricted ordinance, and the rest rejected a • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 5 restrictive ordinance. He stated that he would like to re- enforce the fact that position has not changed. He would be happy to mobilize residents to appear again and reiterate the seriousness of the issue. It is important to recognize that if a restrictive ordinance is passed, it would have two effects: 1) it would regulate RV parking; 2) it would be used as a tool by individuals to harass their neighbors. He does not want to be picked on by his neighbors about the way he lives. He believes the residents made their point clear, and it was well received by the City. The proposed ordinance appears to follow what residents expressed at the hearing. Chair Schaps stated that staff will make the proposed ordinance available after this meeting until the June Planning & Zoning Board meeting, so that residents will have the opportunity to respond in writing or by telephone to either staff or Board members, or attend the June meeting where he anticipates that a decision will be made. Mr. Mike Toffley, 6865 Blackduck Drive, stated that the proposed ordinance is reasonable and flexible, especially with the amended wording proposed by Chair Schaps. Mr. Robert Benning, 6788 Shadow Lake Drive, stated that the only thing he has against the proposed ordinance is that it allows an unlimited number of parked vehicles in front driveways. Ten vehicles could be parked as long as they are in compliance with the setback. He would like to see restricted parking in front of homes in residential areas, unless the home has an unusually long setback. Mr. Jim Spenceman, 7539 Jeanne Drive, stated that residents cannot always park in side or back lots because of septic systems. That issue needs to be considered also. Mr. Carl Elmquist, 6310 Otter Lake Road, stated that he would not be affected too much by the proposed ordinance. He believes that the best government is the one that governs least. He does not understand why the City looks at what can be on private property and what cannot, what can be parked in the driveway and what cannot, the color of houses, types of shrubs, etc. Many people who came to the public hearing think along the same lines. Government is too big. Ms. Dahl stated that she is also concerned about a maximum or minimum amount. Although she does not own an RV, she believes those who have them should be allowed to use them. Most of the cities she contacted do not have a problem with their RV ordinance. Eight or ten RV's would not fit on City lot driveways. Her preference would be to keep the back yard open for entertaining. • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 6 Arden Hills allows three RV's on a residential lot. She does not want to see the ordinance be too restrictive on private property. Mr. Herr stated that he sees many RV vehicles on side lots that have been paved or treated with rock, and they are probably not in compliance with a 5 -foot setback. He suggested that RV owners obtain a written acceptance from current affected neighbors that would be accepted as an exception to the 5 -foot setback. Ms. Wyland asked what would happen if the neighbor moved, and the new neighbor does not accept it. She believes there may be enforcement problems. Mr. Herr stated that there would have to be a clear understanding with the resident that if a new neighbor does not accept the encroachment of the 5 -foot setback, the RV vehicle would have to be moved. There are enforcement problems now because vehicles are parked in those locations now. People have been paving or providing a rock surface for these parking areas. Mr. Dunn stated that a number of issues have been put on the table: 1) septic systems, 2) number of RV vehicles, 3) setbacks. He believes a workshop session is needed to address all of the issues and make sure that the final ordinance represents the Board's best effort at doing what is best for the City. The 150 people who attended the public hearing represents 1 percent of the City's population, and he feels that it is unpopular to represent the other 13,000, but that is his job. He read the following from a planning commissioner's guide on how planning commissions are to operate: "Planning is clearly based on a public regarding view of government. Planning is supposed to be a future conception of the public interest. Planning theory frowns on any planning policy which is contaminated by influence from special groups." He asked that the Board keep this thought in mind as the process proceeds with this ordinance. Mr. Gelbmann stated that residents on normal residential lots who will not have room for more than two vehicles. Residents with longer lots and more room frequently do not have good access to back or side yards. The curb setback with an unlimited number of vehicles is self- restricting. The proposed ordinance appears to be a good combination of regulations to address these issues. Mr. Brand stated that he wished to remind the Board that the petition that generated an effort to change this ordinance was a petition signed by 58 people. Chair Schaps stated that there will not be a closed discussion or a closed meeting. He emphasized that he does not like to see over legislation, but this issue will be addressed. The ordinance needs to address septic systems. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Brixius stated that driveways cannot be put over septic systems, and the ordinance is drafted for parking RV's in driveways. Staff did not want to regulate use of rear and side yards except to define a setback from the property line. Chair Schaps asked Board members if they would like to have a separate workshop session that would be public. It was the consensus of the Board to not hold a separate workshop session. Chair Schaps stated that a redraft of the ordinance will be available to the public before the June meeting. Ms. Wyland stated that the ordinance is short enough to publish in its entirety in the Quad, and she will have it put in the community section on page 2, not in the public notice section. Mr. Brixius summarized the changes to be made to the ordinance: 1) eliminate the phrase referring to maximum or minimum; 2) change condition No. 1 to registered vehicles; 3) add major arterial to the road classifications. Mr. Herr stated that perhaps the way to handle side yard parking that is not in compliance with the setback is to leave the situation alone if there is no one in the immediate vicinity and let neighbors resolve their own issues that arise. Requiring written permission may open up more problems than are solved. Ms. Wyland stated that since this issue has arisen, there have been two complaints. One has to do with parking closer than 5 feet to the property line. Both complaints have been resolved. Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the regular Planning & Zoning Board meeting on June 11, 1997, and was supported by Mr. Johnson. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. OPEN MIKE Mr. John Verone stated that he missed the Open Mike portion of the meeting but would like to know who to talk to about the STOP sign on Lake Drive. When cars come up the ramp off I -35W, they can see 1/2 of a City block at most to the left, and traffic on Lake Drive is going 60 mph. It is dangerous to make a left turn onto Lake Drive to travel north. He suggested a STOP sign on Lake Drive to give cars coming off the freeway a chance to turn. Mr. Wessel responded that the person Mr. Verone should speak with is City Engineer Dave Ahrens. He invited Mr. Verone to the public meeting that will be • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 8 held regarding City transportation planning Thursday evening, May 15, 1997. He agreed with the need for a traffic signal at the freeway ramp, and stated that the City is proceeding to implement that change soon. However, the process involves both Anoka County and Mn /DOT classifying the intersection as needing a traffic signal. B. Gethsemane United Methodist Church, 7330 Lake Drive, Rezoning and Minor Subdivision - PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Brixius stated that the application from Gethsemane United Methodist Church is for rezoning and a minor subdivision to create three lots: Parcels A, B, and C. Parcel A would remain zoned R -3 and is the lot where the church is located. Proposed parcels B and C would be rezoned from R -3, Medium Density Residential to R -1, Single Family Residential. Parcel C is being created for the construction of a parsonage in conjunction with the church, which is the reason for the rezoning request. Proposed Parcel B is a tentative seven -lot single family residential subdivision for future residential development. Rezoning approval should be contingent upon a finding that an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan to low density residential use is consistent. Low density residential is indicated on the draft of the Town Center Land Use Plan, and the area is surrounded by single family residential to the south, a vacant parcel to the north which is zoned R -2, and Marshan Lake and the church to the west which would remain R -3. . Mr. Brixius stated that public utilities can be extended from the Marshan Shores single family neighborhood. Compliance with all requirements would be necessary at the time a preliminary plat is pursued. All lots meet or exceed the minimum dimension requirements for R -1 and R -3 zoning. The smallest parcel is Lot C with 19,000 square feet. Parcel A is 5.3 acres and Parcel B is 3.2 acres. The subdivision complies with R -1 standards with one exception. The minor subdivision of parcels B and C does not provide adequate lot width on the public right -of -way. The proposed street connection is the extension of Stagecoach Trail. Instead of a variance, he suggested that the church dedicate what would be needed as right -of -way for the extension of Stagecoach Trail. Actual construction of the platted street extension is not planned until the development of Parcel B. Mr. Brixius stated that his recommendation is for approval of the rezoning and minor subdivision with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Johnson asked if the lot division should be submitted at this time for a full subdivision and all lots in compliance. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Brixius stated that the lots appear to be in compliance with ordinance requirements. When the preliminary plat is submitted, there will be a more formal review. Mr. Herr asked when construction will begin on the parsonage site. Ms. Wyland answered, immediately. Mr. Johnson asked what utility connections would be made. Ms. Wyland responded that the church has a septic system at this time but is interested in hooking up to City water when the road is extended. This plan does not call for utility lines to be extended but to allow a connection for the parsonage. Utilities will be extended when the balance of the property is platted. Parcel C can be connected without a street extension. Mr. Dunn asked if there are shoreline restrictions that would impact changing this property from its current zoning to R -1. Mr. Brixius stated that the one benefit of retaining R -3 zoning would be to allow multiple family housing in close proximity to the lake. There is a precedent to lower density in this district, and this development will be similar to what already exists. Chair Schaps asked if any comments have been received from neighbors. Ms. Wyland stated that she has not received any. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 7:30 p.m. Mr. J. P. Houchins, of Stagecoach Trail, asked if a park dedication would be given at the time of the preliminary plat. Ms. Wyland stated that the preliminary plat would have to be reviewed by the Park Board for a park dedication. Most likely the dedication would be in the form of cash. Mr. Houchins asked what would happen if the church decides not to develop the property for 20 years. Is this not the time to negotiate? Mr. Raymond Byer, Chairman of the Board of Trustees at Gethsemane Church, stated that the church has plans to develop the land within the next two or three years. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 10 Chair Schaps asked if the parsonage is dependent upon the sale of the lots to be developed. Mr. Byer answered that the church can build the parsonage without selling the lots. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:40 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Robinson. The motion carried unanimously, 7 -0. Mr. Herr made a MOTION to approve rezoning the requested portion of the 8.9 acre property of Gethsemane United Methodist Church, and was supported by Mr. Johnson. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. Mr. Herr made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision request with the following conditions: 1. The subdivision include the formal dedication of the Stage Coach Trail right -of -way with the understanding that Parcels B and C will be financially responsible for the future construction of the street. 2. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to utility issues. 3. Any other comments of City staff. Ms. Dahl seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. C. Rick Carlson /Junes Property, 599 62nd Street, Minor Subdivision Ms. Wyland stated that the Junes own approximately 30 acres at 599 62nd Street. They have agreed to sell 21 acres to Mr. Carlson keeping the existing homestead and barn on 8.36 acres. The property is zoned rural. West Shadow Lake Drive dead ends at the north property line. The application is to create three separate parcels of property. Parcel A is 13.41 acres and would be dedicated to the City for park purposes. The Park Board has recommended approval of this park dedication. The conditions attached to the park dedication would ultimately serve as land dedication for three Carlson developments in the area. Parcel C is 8.25 acres and is planned for future development. City ordinances allow homes constructed prior to 1992 to be split from the balance of the lot, provided a parcel with a minimum of 10 acres remains or the property can be serviced by sewer and water. Although less than 10 acres remains, Mr. Carlson's parcel can access sewer and water from West Shadow Lake Drive. There is no specific time frame for rezoning and development. Staff and the • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 11 Park Board are recommending approval of this minor subdivision with the condition that Parcel A is dedicated to the City for park purposes. Mr. Tom Drow, 6317 Maple Lane, Colonial Woods, stated that there has been no notification to adjoining property owners. Ms. Wyland explained that a minor subdivision does not require notification. A public hearing is not required. At the public hearing for Miller's South Glen, future expansion and the park dedication were discussed. The addition of park land in this location is in the current Park Comp Plan and has been anticipated by the Park Board. Mr. Drow stated that he does not understand how land he does not own can qualify for park dedication, unless he owns it all and intends to develop in phases for the same subdivision. Mr. Carlson responded that during the preliminary stages of the development process when Miller's South Glen was being developed, he polled the adjacent neighbors, especially Birchwood Acres. People in Park Grove, and Birchwood Acres expressed concern about existing parks and encouraged him to find what they wanted. This is what they want, and the Park Board agreed. Mr. Drow asked what will happen to West Shadow Lake Drive. Ms. Wyland stated that West Shadow Lake Drive will tentatively be curved to avoid the wetland. The plan tentatively is to extend it to 62nd Street and ultimately connect to County Road J, but it could be a long time before this happens. Plans have existed for the road to go through, but the exact alignment has not been determined. Mr. Wessel noted that the property is in District 4. A District 4 meeting will be held as a neighborhood forum to receive public input on May 22, 1997. Issues related to land use should be raised at that meeting. Mr. Robinson stated that when Birchwood Acres was approved, the concept of West Shadow Lake Drive being extended to County Road J was discussed. It will be a future access through the area, as it is on relatively high ground all the way to Birch Street. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision at 599 62nd Street with the condition that Parcel A be dedicated to the City of Lino Lakes for park purposes as approved by the Park Board. • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 12 D. Gerald Blackbird, 8257 West Rondeau Road, Minor Subdivision Mr. Brixius stated that the application is to shift the property line to convey one acre of land from an existing 4.9 acre tract to a 15 -acre tract. The property is located north of 81st Street and west of Rondeau Road. It is zoned rural. When this property was subdivided, the lot line was in error, and a tennis court was built on an easement between the two parcels. The lot line shift will correct the property line encroachment putting the tennis court onto one parcel, but the result will be the need for a variance for a parcel that is Tess than 10 acres. Density will not be increased, and only two buildable sites will be permitted. The existing street access will not change. The variance will not result in a precedent that would not otherwise be permitted for another property owner, and Mr. Brixius believes that granting this variance is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance. The resulting lot sizes will be characteristic of the surrounding area. Chair Schaps noted that if Mr. Blackbird were to sell, there would be problems with the structures impaled by the lot line. Mr. Brixius responded that easements would have to be established. Easements currently provide access to the back lot. • Mr. Dunn asked if any issues have been raised by adjacent property owners. Mr. Blackbird stated that there is no problem with adjacent properties. There is state land on one side and a farm on the other. Mr. Dunn noted that the property is already under construction. Mr. Blackbird stated that the road is being cut. Ms. Wyland stated that the lot is buildable as it exists. A building permit has not been issued and is not dependent on whether the variance is granted. Mr. Robinson stated that his concern would be setting a precedent, but with the conditions of approval outlined by staff, he believes that issue is resolved. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision at 8257 West Rondeau Road with the variances outlined in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. The granting of requested variances is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 13 2. The granting of the variances will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the neighborhood. 3. Because the granting of the variances do not provide the applicant any additional development rights (i.e., increased density) approval will not confer any special privileges denied to other lands. Mr. Herr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. E. ACCAP - 7056 Sunset Road - Site Plan Review Ms. Wyland stated that this application is a site plan review to allow a home to be moved from Shoreview to property originally owned by the City and recently approved for sale to Anoka County Community Action Programs (ACCAP). The home was received as a donation, and the County plans to make it available to lower or moderate income first time home buyers. The proceeds from the sale of the lot will be directed to the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). Ms. Wyland stated that the Building Inspector has inspected the house and determined that it is a sound structure that can be relocated. The City Engineer has indicated that the house can be placed on the proposed site, and the home will blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. The City owned two lots that were used for drainage purposes. One lot will be retained which will be sufficient for drainage. A detached garage is being proposed because an attached garage would detract from the house design. Although the City's ordinance requires an attached garage, staff is recommending approval for the detached garage and approval of the site plan with the five stated conditions in the staff report. Mr. Gelbmann asked if a variance is required to allow the detached garage. Ms. Wyland stated that the detached garage can be made a condition of the site plan review because it is an older established neighborhood. The ordinance relates to the requirements of new construction. Mr. Johnson asked if sewer and water are provided from the Blaine side of Sunset Road. Ms. Wyland stated that some homes are connected. A line can be extended across the street for hookup. Mr. Dunn noted that adjacent lots sit in a bowl shape terrain where water will collect. He suggested a sixth condition for the City Engineer to make sure drainage is adequate. • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 14 Ms. Wyland stated that there is a detailed drainage plan for the lot where the house is to be moved. A drainage easement will be required over the rear 50 feet to make sure that drainage of the existing home is not affected. A detailed review of drainage was done before the lot was offered for sale to make sure that drainage would not be hampered. This review was completed by our consulting engineer, SEH Inc., who prepared the surface water management plan for the City. Mr. Dunn asked what the City intends to do with the second lot. Ms. Wyland stated that it will be retained for drainage purposes. It is a holding pond at this time. Ms. Donna Mattson, ACCAP, stated that if rehab work is needed on the house, it will be done once it has been relocated. Ms. Wyland noted that a Certificate of Occupancy will be needed before anyone can move in, which will require that any needed rehab work be completed. Mr. Dunn made a MOTION to approve the site plan review to allow a home to be • moved into the City at 7056 Sunset Road with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits shall be obtained prior to any construction to insure all improvements meet state and City code. 2. Sewer and water utilities available from the Blaine side of Sunset Road shall be extended to serve this site. 3. A hard - surfaced driveway shall be provided subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 4. The structure shall conform to all setback requirements. 5. One boulevard tree shall be provided in the front yard, subject to the review and approval of the City Forester. 6. A detached garage shall be allowed and other conditions as imposed by Staff shall be followed. 7. The City Engineer shall review the drainage function of the lot and surrounding area to be sure it is adequate. • Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 15 F. Minor Subdivision - 8134 East Rondeau Lake Drive - Craig Severson Ms. Wyland stated that the request is to split 16 acres into two parcels: one 12- acre lot and one 4 -acre lot which would contain the existing home and accessory structures. The original subdivision approved by the Planning and Zoning Board consisted of one 10 -acre parcel and one 6 -acre parcel. However, the previous owner never recorded the subdivision and sold the entire property to Mr. Severson. Mr. Severson would like to realign the property so that the house and barn sit on the same parcel. This would meet zoning requirements as an existing homestead. Staff is recommending approval with the condition that $500 be paid as a park dedication for the newly created parcel prior to recording the lot split with Anoka County. Chair Schaps asked if the first subdivision paid the park dedication fee. Ms. Wyland explained that the fee was required but never paid because the subdivision was not recorded. Chair Schaps asked if there is a possibility that the first subdivision could be filed. Ms. Wyland stated that the property is entirely owned by Mr. Severson at this time. A subdivision could not be filed by anyone other than the owner. Also, the deed must be signed by the City, and the City will not sign off on the previous subdivision. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision at 8134 East Rondeau Lake Drive, with the condition of a park dedication fee in the amount of $500. Mr. Robinson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7- 0. G. Modification of Tax Increment District Mr. Wessel stated that adoption of the resolution to modify Development District 1 and the plan for tax increment financing (TIF) is the last step for the approval of the Fairview Health Services project. Closing on the land purchase of the Rehbine portion Phase 1 of the Village and Town Center and sale of and to Fairview is scheduled for Friday, May 16, 1997. Because this is a redevelopment district, he felt it appropriate that the Planning and Zoning Board review the plan. This district includes the old Gethsemane Church site where Fairview will build, the Kaiser House which the City will soon own and the 49 Club which is planned to become a family restaurant. These three parcels qualify for redevelopment as they have substandard structures, and it is the City's intent to assist with funding through TIF. Specific funding will not be decided until specific projects are presented. Approval is being requested for • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 16 TIF assistance to Fairview as part of the City's obligation to present a developable site to Fairview. The proposal is to provide $130,000 in TIF assistance to Fairview as generated by Fairview within this particular parcel. Special assessments of $56,000 will be removed that TIF will provide. Administrative fees will be reimbursed to the City, and $65,000 will be used for site preparation. The site must be elevated to make developable. Fairview is being requested to pay back the $65,000 on a pay -as- you -go basis, which means that future taxes will reimburse the City. It is anticipated that the entire amount will be paid back within four years. The proposed TIF assistance is less than 12 percent of the total project cost which is well within TIF guidelines. Mr. Wessel stated that he contacted Anoka County, the Forest Lake School District and Centennial School District who support this TIF district and expressed appreciation for the ultimate tax revenues that will be beneficial to them. Mr. Robinson asked the amount of elevation that must be added to the site and what effect it will have on the property and its access. Mr. Wessel stated that the added elevation is a small amount and has to do with the substandard structures that exist. The intent of TIF is to raze the buildings and allow redevelopment that will increase tax revenues. The building will be demolished as part of the agreement with Mr. Rehbein. Mr. Johnson asked if the old church site, the 49 Club site and the Kaiser House site are separate parcels. Mr. Wessel answered, yes, and stated that all three qualify for redevelopment. Mr. Johnson asked if the 49 Club property includes the separate commercial buildings to the north. Mr. Wessel answered, yes. Mr. Dunn asked what correlation there is between TIF and the Comprehensive Plan districts noting that some districts lend themselves to more commercial development than others and if the new Comprehensive Plan were to redesignate rural land as commercial whether that would make it easier to receive TIF assistance. Mr. Wessel stated that the new TIF redevelopment district would be part of District 1. They are coordinated but each has different sets of circumstances. There are no conflicts. This proposal is an attempt to balance the needs of the • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 17 District 1. Every district has a different set of rules. There are no provisions in the statutes for commercial assistance with the exception of redevelopment. Mr. Brixius stated that the finding can be made that this use of TIF is consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In the future it will be important to separate companies from land use and establish land use goals and policies. Mr. Dunn made a MOTION to adopt Resolution No. 97 -01 finding the modification of Development District No. 1 and the Plan for TIF District No. 1 -8 consistent with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Gelbmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. H. Sign Ordinance - Continuation of Public Hearing Chair Schaps declared the continued public hearing open at 8:50 p.m. Mr. Dunn stated that the proposed ordinance is a good one, but he is concerned that the City Hall sign will be in violation. Councilmember Neal has done a good job installing the sign, and he would like staff to resolve the issue. • Mr. Wessel suggested that Mr. Dunn attend the next Council workshop session to raise this issue. • Mr. Gelbmann noted a correction on page 4, No. 3 that should read RX and R, rather than R -1. On page 13, there are no separate sections for advertising signs, similar to billboards. Ms. Wyland stated that the only place billboards can be placed is in RBR zoning. Benches for advertising are not allowed in the City. Benches can be placed at bus stops, but there are no bus stops in Lino Lakes. Also, no signs are allowed in the road right -of -way. Mr. Johnson stated that additional construction regulations are not clear. The criteria for compliance should be spelled out. He asked if there are criteria to be aware of that are not mentioned in the ordinance. Mr. Brixius explained that most signs are made by sign companies and not contracted by individuals. Reference is made to compliance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards which he believes is preferable to designing standards. Commercial signs must meet UBC specifications statewide. What should be clear are standards applicable to the City, such as location, size, wind load, etc. • 1 • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 18 Ms. Dahl stated that many signs are put in right -of -ways and asked about garage sale signs. Ms. Wyland stated that no signs are allowed in road right -of -ways, nor can they be affixed to public structures or utility poles and boxes. Even with this prohibition, there is not enough staff to remove them. The Building Inspector removes them sometimes but does not have time to remove them on a regular basis. Mr. Brixius added that real estate signs and garage sale signs are only enforced on a complaint basis. Chair Schaps stated that once the sign ordinance is adopted, letters can be prepared to local Realtors to make them aware of the new ordinance. Ms. Dahl requested that the word "advertising" be inserted before the word "balloons" on page 13. Mr. Robinson suggested that the ordinance be proofread thoroughly before the final draft is completed. There were no comments from the public. Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Gelbmann. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to recommend adoption of the Sign Ordinance to the City Council based on all of the above comments and subject to additional proofreading. Mr. Dunn seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Grading Plans Mr. Robinson reported that grading plans are not being completed according to specifications in new development. As his business is involved with sodding many new homes, he is aware that grading plans are not being followed, and he believes that there is not one project in the City within the past five years that has been done totally correct. Drainage easements are not correct. There have been three consecutive dry years. If there is a wet year, residents will have water in their homes. It is the Board's responsibility to review plans and specifications and the projects look good on paper, but they are not being done • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 19 correctly. A cross check on performance is needed before there are serious problems. Mr. Wessel stated that contractor performance is an ongoing problem. He stated that he will forward the Board's concerns to the City Engineer. Mr. Brixius noted that cities that have few staff sign off on grading at the time of the final plat. When the house is built, excavation has to be worked into the site. One community has made it the responsibility of the property owner to verify final grading. The occupancy permit is another check point. Mr. Robinson stated that it starts when the cement is put in. If it is too low, the whole house sits too low. He believes it is the responsibility of the builder, not the homeowner. Chair Schaps stated that the City has leverage with repeat developers and builders. It is important for them to know that if the work is not done according to the specifications, they will not get the next bid. Mr. Wessel stated that he would ask the City Engineer to bring this issue as a discussion item to the next meeting. Mr. Dunn stated that grading is a big concern, as it is potentially dangerous and damaging to residents. He noted that many project approvals carry from one to 15 stipulations. Those stipulations need to be audited to find out how well contractors are performing, and that includes grading. Lack of staff is not an excuse, and perhaps this is the basis for hiring more staff. He requested that Chair Schaps address a note to the City Council to make them aware of the Board's concern. Mr. Wessel stated that operational and policy issues need to remain separate. He does not believe the issue is lack of staff, and he would like the City Engineer to respond directly to the Board to see what steps may be appropriate. It was the consensus of the Board to request the City Engineer to report on performance standards of construction contractors as a discussion item at the next meeting. Ms. Dahl asked if the public meeting the following evening would be televised. She noted that most people have VCR's and can tape the meeting to watch later. Mr. Wessel answered, no. However, a request has been submitted to the Council for professional minutes of the meetings. He agreed to also ask the City Administrator whether it would be appropriate to televise the meetings. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 14, 1997 Page 20 VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:19 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Herr. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0.