Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/1997 P&Z Minutes• • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT . MEMBERS ABSENT . STAFF PRESENT November 12, 1997 6:33 P.M. 8:55 P.M. Dahl, Dunn, Gelbmann, Herr, and Schaps, Robinson, and Johnson None Planning Coordinator Wyland, City Engineer Ahrens, Economic Development Assistant Divine, and Planning Consultant Brixius I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:33 p.m., November 12, 1997. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 8, 1997 Mr. Gelbmann made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the October 8, 1997 meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board, and was supported by Ms. Dahl. Motion carried, 6 -1 with Mr. Robinson abstaining. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting open at 6:33 p.m. There were no comments. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 III Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS • A. Hardwood Creek Farm, 80th Street, Minor Subdivision Ms. Wyland explained that this request by Nancy Erickson, owner of Hardwood Creek Farm, is to split their 40 -acre parcel into two pieces. Parcel A will be 10 acres in size, and Parcel B will be 30 acres in size. Both have required access on 80th Street; Parcel A having 332 feet, and Parcel B, 1300 feet. Parcel B presently contains the existing Hardwood Creek Farm stable and riding arena. Both parcels will meet the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinance, and a $500 park dedication fee is requested for Parcel A, which will be retained by Ms. Erickson. The arena and stable area contained in Parcel B are to be sold, hence the need for the subdivision. Ms. Wyland recommended approval of the proposed subdivision contingent upon receipt of the $500 park dedication fee for Parcel A. This fee would be required, as Parcel A would be available as a home site. The question was raised as to why a third parcel -- Parcel C - -was included in the original Sketch and Description provided to the Board. Ms. Wyland explained that Ms. Erickson thought the party planning to purchase Parcel B would want to build a home, which would have to be on a separate parcel. Subsequent to preparation of the Sketch and Description, it was determined that no such plans exist. Mr. Johnson asked if a home could ultimately be constructed on Parcel B without additional action by the Board. Ms. Wyland responded that it could. Buildable space on Parcel A was questioned. Ms. Wyland explained that no topographical survey was ordered, as the property is upland; and, although it is not 100% buildable, it is definitely more than 20 %. Mr. Robinson explained that all of the land is upland with the exception of a portion that slopes down to a creek and back up again. Mr. Dunn made a MOTION to approve the Hardwood Creek Farm, 2306 80th Street, minor subdivision, and was supported by Mr. Robinson. Motion carried, 7 -0. B. Ruth Andrews, 855 Ash Street, Minor Subdivision Ms. Wyland explained that Ms. Ruth Andrews is currently the owner of 58.76 acres of land at 855 Ash Street. This property is immediately adjacent to the Incarnation Cemetery, and contains an existing homestead with three accessory buildings. The 58.76 acres currently includes approximately 12 acres of upland, which is roughly 20% of the site. The property is zoned Rural, and indicated as such on the City's Land Use Map. • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 3 Ms. Wyland stated that according to the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, Subd. 3.B.2.b. "Within zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of ten (10) acres or more, up to eighty (80 %) percent of the minimum lot area may be comprised of areas which are platted as street rights -of -way, is below the 100 year flood elevation, or lies within city watercourses, wetlands or waterbodies as defined by this ordinance." The applicant would like to subdivide the property as follows: Tract A would contain 2 acres with 1.52 acres of upland. The plan is to sell this property to Incarnation Cemetery, which is currently just under one acre in size. If the Board should approve this request, the cemetery would be required to request a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Board for expansion of the cemetery. Tract B is proposed to be 11 acres in size with 4.83 acres of upland. This parcel meets the 20% upland requirement, and contains the existing homestead. The applicant has been advised that splitting off one acre with the homestead to provide an additional building site would probably not be recommended in this case. Tract C is 45.76 acres, with 5.66 acres being upland. The majority of the upland is located on a heavily- wooded knoll northwesterly of the existing home, and would require access via a driveway easement just westerly of the existing homestead. Tracts B and C meet the minimum lot requirements for the Rural Zoning District; however, Tract C does not contain the 20% minimum upland. Tract A does not contain a minimum of 10 acres. Should the Planning and Zoning Board determine this minor subdivision to be justified, a variance pursuant to Section 3, Subd. 3.B.2.b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance would be required. On a typical 10 -acre parcel, 2 acres would be required to be upland. Ms. Wyland concluded the following recommendation with regard to this minor subdivision: 1. Consideration of the subdivision of Tract A be subject to Planning and Zoning Board and City Council approval of an amended conditional use permit to allow expansion of the existing Incarnation Cemetery. Should that expansion be denied, the two acres could be left with Tract A. 2. Should the Planning and Zoning Board determine the minor subdivision to be appropriate, Tract B and Tract C be subdivided with a variance to allow the upland area of Tract C to be less than 20% of the total 45.76 acres (two acres would be the typical upland requirement on a 10 -acre parcel). 3. An easement agreement be drafted that would allow access to Tract C from tract B, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 4. A $500 park dedication fee be collected for Tract C prior to recording of the • • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 4 subdivision with the County. Mr. Dunn asked about accuracy of the elevations represented by the map provided to the Board for review of this request. Ms. Wyland explained that she had personally visited the site. She added that the knoll is quite obvious, with the balance of the 40 acres clearly wetlands. The logical location for the driveway easement is that proposed. She stated that the elevations are in the 900+ foot range. Mr. Robinson suggested that short of having delineation by Rice Creek Watershed there would be a problem with the driveway. Ms. Wyland stated that a permit would have to be obtained. It was suggested that the Board's approval would have to be based upon Rice Creek Watershed's approval. Mr. Dunn asked whether or not there are any additional cemeteries provided for within the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Wyland stated that there are not. Ms. Kathy Rickert, broker for Home Realty, spoke on behalf of both buyers and sellers. Ms. Rickert provided pictures of the proposed development of this property, stating that they best fit this unique property. She stated that the planned development would include two houses, preservation of the natural run -off of the land, the trees, and the natural habitat, and in all other aspects conforms with regulations of the area. The proposed use would not impede any normal or orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood. Chair Schaps raised the issue of the 11 -acre parcel, taking into account the possibility of splitting off 1 acre for a home site. Ms. Rickert indicated that thought had been given to that split, but that the decision was made to maintain one parcel. Chair Schaps clarified that all parties understand the City's position with respect to a split. Mr. Don Lyndale agreed that he understood the City's position; however, he stated his understanding that an ordinance was in existence which would provide for such a split. Ms. Wyland explained that there is an ordinance which provides for such a split, but that the property would have to be examined more carefully with the lot configured so as to allow for an additional building site_ She could not assure that this could be accomplished. Mr. Lyndale indicated his understanding, adding that he is trying to work with the existing configuration. However, he does not wish to be restricted with respect to future use by the Planning and Zoning Board's present action. Ms. Wyland emphasized that reconfiguration may not be possible. Mr. Thompson stated that it is not presently his intent to attempt such a reconfiguration, but that he may with to explore that possibility some time in the future. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the length of the driveway easement for Tract C, which would cross wetlands. He added that the knoll connects with the upland property • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 5 to the north, and that development of the knoll should take place in conjunction with development to the north and not have separate access from the south. Chair Schaps requested clarification of the total number of homes on the site. Ms. Rickert acknowledged that there is an existing home and that another home is proposed for construction on the property. Jerry Hawkins of Incarnation Cemetery stated that his organization proposes to take on an additional two acres, which would triple the size of the current cemetery site. Mr. Hawkins indicated that the cemetery has existed since 1922. Mr. Johnson pointed out that a portion of Tract A is wetland, and not usable by the cemetery. Mr. Hawkins stated that he was aware of that. Steve Thompson, purchaser of proposed Tract C, asked about the Planning and Zoning Board's problem with two structures. He indicated that his plans include an office within the smaller structure, and would build a larger home some time in the future. Ms. Wyland explained that the City allows one single- family home per lot. She added that should the owner choose to build a larger home in the future, the small one would have to be removed. Ms. Wyland further explained that businesses are not permitted within a residential district. Mr. Thompson stated that his view is that of having an office within his home, not as a separate business. Ms. Wyland indicated that further consultation would be required as to the inclusion of a business on the property. Mr. Thompson also questioned payment of the $500 park dedication fee. Ms. Wyland explained that any time a piece of land is proposed for construction of a home, such a fee is required. Mr. Brixius added that home occupations are permitted in this district within a permitted accessory building. He suggested that Mr. Thompson would have to provide additional information regarding his business and, if it meets the definition, can be housed within a separate building. With regard to the park dedication fee, Mr. Brixius explained that the fee is charged as part of the overall subdivision and who actually pays the fee may be negotiable among the parties purchasing/developing the property. Mr. Dunn requested clarification of what the Planning and Zoning Board is acting on at this time. Ms. Wyland explained that the only action proposed at this time is the minor subdivision. Development and use of the property would be a separate issue. Mr. Herr asked about splitting Tracts B and C so that an easement would not be included in Tract B. Ms. Wyland indicated that possibility had not been explored. She added that it would be very difficult to maintain the minimum amount of required upland with the easement placed elsewhere. • • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 6 The required width of the easement was questioned. Mr. Ahrens responded that the minimum is a 20 -foot paved surface for emergency vehicle use. Chair Schaps suggested that Mr. Thompson would have to meet certain requirements regarding installation of the proposed driveway in order to satisfy the fire code. Mr. Ahrens clarified that the easement is for 20 feet, while the proposed driveway is 10 feet in width. He added that the City's fire chief would have to approve the proposed driveway. Mr. Thompson agreed that emergency vehicles would have to be able to negotiate the driveway. Mr. Brixius stated that the City's zoning ordinance also contains requirements as to driveway width and surface, which must be satisfied. Mr. Herr asked if the City has in the past allowed something less than 20 %. Ms. Wyland explained that the 20% upland requirement is new to the City's ordinance. Previously the requirement was for 80% for a 10 -acre minimum. Mr. Dunn asked if other options had been explored, in light of the large amount of wetlands. He asked if a wetlands parcel could be created, ensuring that the area would remain wetlands and unbuildable for infinity. Mr. Brixius stated that the disadvantage of splitting the wetlands off as a separate parcel is that it would most likely go tax forfeit. Remaining part of the larger parcel it would stay within single ownership, it would be protected from future development by the easement, and it would remain a property of value. Mr. Thompson pointed out that a portion of the land northwest and south of the subject site, although inaccessible, is dry, potentially buildable parcels of land. Chair Schaps asked about variance criteria. Ms. Wyland cited five findings of fact, as follow: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowner is due to physical circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other land, structures or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 7 Chair Schaps asked Mr. Brixius to respond to the variance criteria as stated by Ms. Wyland. Mr. Brixius indicated that there is justification for a variance in the following areas: First, the area is genuinely unique due to the wetlands. He suggested that the ordinance could be skirted by creating an outlot which would encompass most of the wetland, reducing the overall size and bringing the figure to within 20 %, which would serve no constructive purpose. Mr. Brixius added that it is in the best interest of the City for the land to remain in single ownership and, in that respect, fulfills the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Herr made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision requested by Ruth Andrews, conditioned upon approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District and of the Fire Chief with respect to property access, supported by Mr. Robinson. Motion carried 7 -0. C. Pat -a -Cake Daycare, 7761 Lake Drive, Amended Conditional Use Permit, PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Ms. Wyland explained that Ms. Patty Beecher is the owner and operator of the Pat -a -Cake Daycare currently located at 7761 Lake Drive, just north of the Fire Department. Ms. Beecher has operated this center for approximately three years. Prior to that time, she operated out of her home. Since at least 1989, a daycare center has been located in this building. At this time Ms. Beecher wishes to expand her facility to accommodate a total of 75 children. Currently Ms. Beecher is licensed by the State of Minnesota for 48 children. The site of this daycare center is within the City's Neighborhood Business District and, according to the requirements of the existing Ordinance, a day care is permitted with a conditional use permit. Ms. Beecher will be purchasing the entire building in December and expanding the existing center to a total of 4,200 square feet. The Building Inspector and Fire Chief are aware of the proposed expansion and will be inspecting the site for compliance. The applicant has also been in touch with the Minnesota Department of Human Services to apply for an amended license to allow for the increase to 75 children. Ms. Wyland added that utilities are proposed for extension north on Lake Drive in the Spring of 1998. Ms. Beecher has indicated a willingness to connect to those utilities at that time. The facility is presently services by a mound septic system, which will then be removed and the play area moved to the rear of the site. This reconfiguration will allow for an expansion of the current parking area. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 • Page 8 • • Ms. Wyland concluded that Staff recommended approval of this amended conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. An amended license for the expanded use is received from the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 2. Permits are obtained, as required, from the Building Department for any remodeling and change in signage. 3. The Fire Chief shall inspect the sight for compliance. Chair Schaps asked if hookup to City sanitary sewer would occur automatically. Ms. Wyland responded that connection to the new utilities when available would be voluntary, and that the applicant wants access as soon as possible. Mr. Dunn asked whether or not there is a legal requirement for a certain number of square feet per child in a daycare setting. Ms. Wyland responded that there are State requirements, but that she did not have the figures available. Mr. Dunn asked whether or not the facility's current mound septic system would be adequate for the additional number of children. Ms. Wyland stated that it would. The current system was installed only two years ago. Mr. Dunn asked Ms. Beecher if she was indeed serious in her intentions to connect to utilities as they become available. Ms. Beecher indicated that among other things she will be required to install a sprinkler system in the center in order to comply with the fire code, and that the current septic system would not support this system. Therefore, immediate hookup to the new utilities is necessary to her expanded operation. Chair Schaps asked about the total number of employees at the daycare center. Ms. Beecher responded that there are eleven in total, with at least seven or eight on duty at all times during hours of operation. Chair Schaps asked if there was adequate parking available for those coming to drop off or pick up children. Ms. Beecher indicated that parking is more than adequate. Mr. Robinson concurred that parking at the daycare center is quite extensive. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:30 p.m., supported by Mr. Robinson. Motion carried 7 -0. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the amended conditional use permit for Pat -a- Cake Daycare, with the conditions listed above, supported by Mr. Robinson. Motion carried 7 -0. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 • Page 9 • D. Lino Lakes Bank, 7449 Village Drive, Site Plan Review Mr. Brixius explained that within the Villace Center Mr. John Milbauer proposes construction of a 3248 - square -foot building to house the new Lino Lakes Bank. The site for this building is the corner of Town Center Parkway and Lake Drive. This property is zoned Limited Business, and the proposed use of this site is permitted within that zoning classification. Mr. Brixius reviewed the requirements for construction of the Bank, stating that the lot area and width exceed the required minimum size. He added that while the proposed setbacks (20 feet from Village Drive and a 10 -foot parking lot setback) do not conform with minimum Ordinance requirements, they are consistent with the draft architectural guidelines to be applied to the Town Center. Because the architectural guidelines have yet to be formally adopted, the processing of setback variances will be necessary. Based on the preceding review, Mr. Brixius indicated that Staff recommends approval of the Lino Lakes Bank site and building plans subject to the following conditions: 1. The City approve variances from the minimum 30 -foot yard setback applied to principal buildings in LB Zoning Districts, as well as from the minimum 15 -foot parking lot setback. 2. The submitted landscape plan is subject to review and approval by the Town Center Architectural Review Committee, City Forester, and CPTED Officer. 3. Site and building plans are subject to review and approval by the Town Center Architectural Review Committee including a determination that the minimum 50% facade guideline has been satisfied. 4. Consideration is given to providing a vehicular bypass opportunity for drive - through bank teller users. Such provision may be accommodated via a designated "ATM" lane or involve the reservation of an unattended teller as a bypass lane. 5. The site plan is revised to illustrate a designated off - street loading space. 6. Exterior lighting is arranged to reflect light away from adjoining properties. As per the Town Center Design Guidelines, light fixtures should give due attention to both function and aesthetics. 7. A detailed sign plan is submitted subject to City approval. 8. A grading and drainage plan is submitted subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. • Mr. Johnson asked if similar plans had been approved for the proposed Fairview Clinic. Mr. Brixius responded that they had. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 • Page 10 • Mr. Robinson observed that the size of the proposed building site did not appear to be as large as the plans indicate. Mr. Dunn asked if the projected increase in traffic flow to this site was anticipated to pose any ingress/egress problems for Lake Street. Mr. Ahrens pointed out that eventually there will be two traffic signals in the immediate area, and that the proposed circulation should be adequate. Mr. Dunn asked if the building is in keeping with the overall plan architecturally. Mr. Brixius responded that it is. Mr. Dunn asked when the architectural design package could be expected. Mr. Brixius indicated that the package will be reviewed by the Task Force in December and, following investigation of additional issues, should be presented shortly thereafter to the Planning and Zoning Board with Staff recommendations. Mr. Milbauer addressed the Board, stating that he has met with Dennis Grebner, and is taking into account recommended changes. His intention is to comply fully with overall plans for the Village. Mr. Herr requested clarification that the Bank will be a community -owned institution. Chair Schaps asked about the proposed construction schedule. Ms. Divine reviewed the proposed schedule, indicating that ground breaking should take place by the end of February with total occupancy to occur by the first of July. Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to approve the site plan review for Lino Lakes Bank according to the conditions stated above, supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0, with Chair Schaps abstaining. E. Lino Lakes Bank, Temporary Location, Village Drive, Site Plan Ms. Wyland explained that permission is being requested to locate a temporary bank building across Village Drive from the proposed permanent location on City -owned property. This temporary location will facilitate start-up of the bank while the permanent building is under construction. This practice is common in the banking business. Ms. Wyland stated that utilities are available to serve the temporary structure, which is a 56' x 23' modular building provided by G.E. Capital. Mr. Milbauer has been assured that the temporary building will meet all applicable building code requirements. The temporary building is proposed for installation by January with construction on the permanent structure anticipated to begin in December. The modular building should be removed by July of 1998. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 • Page 11 • • Subject to City Engineer approval, parking will be available on a temporary surface adjacent to the temporary building. There is currently a large stockpile of dirt on the site of the temporary building. A portion of this stockpile may be moved to provide room for the temporary building and parking area. No landscaping will be required due to the temporary nature of this project. Ms. Wyland indicated that Staff would recommend approval of this site plan review with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits be obtained and the modular unit be required to meet all State Building Code requirements. 2. Exterior lighting be subject to the review and approval of the CPTED Officer for both security and aesthetics. 3. Grading, drainage, and location of the structure shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer based on utility and curb cut location. 4. Parking lot surfacing shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. 5. No landscaping shall be required. 6. Signage shall conform to the City's Sign Ordinance and proper permits obtained. 7. The temporary building shall be removed and site improvements returned to their pre - construction state by September 1, 1998. A bond or letter of credit shall be deposited with the City to insure removal of the structure and any other temporary improvements on the site. Cost of this security shall be determined by the City Engineer. 8. The applicant shall provide a certificate of insurance as approved by the City Attortney to protect the City from any damages due to the fact that the temporary building will be located on City property. Mr. Johnson asked whether a temporary sign would be located on Lake Drive or on the temporary building. Ms. Wyland indicated that a sign would be located on Lake Drive indicating the future site of Lino Lakes Bank, as well as a sign identifying the temporary building. Mr. Dunn asked if the temporary building had approval of the Fire Chief. Ms. Wyland indicated that the Fire Chief would be focused on the permanent structure, and that building permits would not be issued until the Fire Chief had approved the building plan with respect to fire safety requirements. Mr. Dunn made a MOTION to approve the Lino Lakes Bank temporary site plan according to the conditions stated above, supported by Mr. Robinson. Motion carried 6 -0 with Chair Schaps abstaining. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 • Page 12 • • F. Bruce Hanson, Surfside Seaplane Base, 6980 Lake Drive, Site Plan Review Ms. Wyland provided the following background for this item: Mr. Hanson of Surfside Seaplane Base is asking for a site plan review to allow for the construction of two additional hangers on his property at 6980 Lake Drive. This particular site has experienced various zoning classifications over the years from commercial to resididential and back to commercial. The present zoning classification is R -1 Single Family. The Conceptual Land Use Plan for Planning District 2 has identified this area as a private airfield surrounded by a performance zoning district. The intent of the performance zoning district was to provide for uses that would be compatible with the existing airfield which has been in this location for more than 40 years. Staff determined that the proper channel for reivew of this item is the Site Plan Review procedure. The Zoning Ordinance provides that any use, other than single family, requires a site plan review. The Ordinance also limits exterior storage in both the residential and commercial zoning districts. The construction of two airplane hangers on this site will reduce the existing exterior storage which is currently considered a pre - existing non- conforming use of the site. Mr. Hanson's plan is to construct the larger hanger as soon as possible and the smaller hanger in the Spring. The hangers are constructed of architectural steel with concrete floors. The exterior will be vinyl or metal siding to match or blend with the color of the existing storage buildings. The larger building is proposed to be 4800 square feet (60 x 80), while the smaller building will be 3600 square feet (60 x 60). Both buildings will be located 30 feet from the rear property line and approximately 15 feet apart. These setbacks are within the requirements of the Ordinance, which provides for a 5 -foot setback. Staff recommended approval of this site plan review in order to reduce the existing exterior storage on the site, pursuant to the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits are obtained prior to construction. 2. Any additional exterior lighting proposed shall require a detailed lighting plan reviewed by City Straff and the CPTED Officer. 3. No additional exterior storage is allowed. The intent of the hanger is to reduce existing exterior storage on the site. 4. Exterior coloring of the proposed buildings shall blend with the existing structures. 5. Construction of the second hanger shall ble initiated within one year of the date of this permit. 6. Drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. 7. Permits shall be obtained from the RCWD if required. • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 13 Mr. Dunn asked if the proposed project included any unique landscape features. Ms. Wyland responded that there is no requirement for landscaping, as the hanger site is not visible either from the road or from the lake. Mr. Johnson asked if the site would only contain the two hangers. Ms. Wyland responded that the site would include the two hangers, Mr. Hanson's home, and the landing strip. Mr. Johnson asked if there were any concerns regarding parking. Mr. Hanson stated that there are very few guests on the site. Most vehicles are parked adjacent to the planes which are stored on the site. In any event, parking is more than adequate. Chair Schaps pointed out the unique nature of this installation. Mr. Robinson asked how many planes are currently housed on the site. Mr. Hanson responded approximately 55. Mr. Hanson added that he intends to include berming with trees in order to avoid the possibility of a visibility issue in the future. • Chair Schaps explained that he spends a good deal of time at the lake, and has never noticed the planes in the past. • Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to approve the Surfside Seaplane Base site plan review, supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 7 -0. G. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC BEARING, Telecommunication Ordinance Mr. Brixius explained that this matter was recently discussed at a Council work session where Staff was given direction to amend the proposed ordinance, making it as restrictive as legally possible. The Economic Development Director indicated favor with use of semi- public district, but not with commercial. Therefore, consideration may be given to use of semi - public and industrial districts for personal wireless service antenna towers. Mr. Brixius added that the advantage to use of semi- public and industrial districts would be limiting antenna towers to areas that are most attractive, along the freeway corridor, and that are least intrusive on the residential environment in rural areas. He stated that a concern is that under the 1996 Telecommunications Act the City cannot adopt an ordinance that would prohibit these services or prohibit them from being competitive. Mr. Brixius has requested review and comment by Attorney Barry Sullivan, who has not yet provided a written response. However, he did indicate to Mr. Brixius that a more restrictive ordinance might be appropriate with adequate reason. Mr. Brixius stated that a study has been suggested which will identify areas of oppportunity and coverage of antenna locations. The effect of a denial would not restrict competitiveness within the community. • • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Brixius said that Staff is suggesting restriction to the specific districts named above, and that the search areas be increased again to one mile. It is not proposed that towers be prohibited from being located atop structures such as steeples, water towers, tall buildings, and utility poles. Following receipt of Mr. Sullivan's comments, Mr. Brixius stated that the Planning and Zoning Board's course of action should be to obtain a location study which will indicate opportunity areas and coverage prior to adoption of the Ordinance. Mr. Brixius then recommended that this item be tabled until December when a formal ordinance will be presented. He stressed the importance of the Ordinance being legally defendable. Mr. Herr requested clarification of the proposed study. Mr. Brixius explained that in the case of the City of New Hope appropriate locations were identified, being interchange towers as co- location sites. Mr. Herr also asked if access which needs to be given is being investigated. Mr. Brixius stated that Lino Lakes population and development density will come into play when determining the needed service area. Mr. Dunn suggested that the definition of "tower" could be elaborated upon. Mr. Brixius disagreed, explaining that the proposed definition is integral to arriving at an appropriate ordinance, as the single - purpose tower constructed with the sole purpose of supporting antennas is a major issue. Mr. Dunn also asked if the terms "support structure" and "tower" will be distinguished. Mr. Brixius explained that support structures are referred to as antenna locations, vs. tower locations. As the Ordinance is presently drafted, towers are allowed within any zoning district. Mr. Dunn requested an explanation of the type of antennas that can be erected in residential areas on typical 100 x 160 lots. Mr. Brixius explained that the suggestion is that antennas be very limited. Within residential areas an antenna might be placed where other utilities exist; or, on a building steeple; or, at the site of a light tower. On a standard residential lot, a tower will not be permitted. Mr. Johnson asked about City streetlight poles. Mr. Brixius stated that streetlight poles would be allowed, as well as telephone poles. Mr. Johnson also asked about "essential services ". Mr. Brixius explained that in general the City's Ordinance allows essential services in any zoning district. Within the proposed Ordinance, towers and antennas will not be acceptable under another provision or ordinance. • Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to table this matter until the December Planning and Zoning Board meeting, supported by Ms. Dahl. Motion carried 7 -0. Planning & Zoning Board • November 12, 1997 Page 15 Mr. Dunn asked if the revised Ordinance could be obtained prior to the next meeting in the event that it is completed prior to that date. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Grading Plans/Policv Mr. Robinson stated that ultimate development plans do not necessarily reflect the original intent. He asked Mr. Ahrens to explain how this process works. Mr. Ahrens explained that initially all developers provide a grading plan which is reviewed by Staff and a consulting engineer for the purpose of arriving at a plan satisfactory to all parties. As building permits are issued, builders must comply with the established grading plan. Mr. Ahrens stated that if changes occur they are reviewed and, if not acceptable, revision is required. As building takes place, inspectors focus on the structure itself rather than grading. Mr. Ahrens suggested that field changes might be appropriate to include the grading plan. He added that he personally attempts to visit all project sites at the time grading is taking place, and accuracy within 2/10 of a foot of the plan is expected. Mr. Ahrens also explained that site additions, such as landscaping considerations, might create a deviation. Of course, accidental miscalculations can take place. Mr. Robinson stated that his concern is over the City's liability in this regard. He mentioned a regrading project near Miller South Glen. Mr. Ahrens explained that in that case the developer corrected the problem, and that customarily the developer is responsible for such a correction. However, he did suggest that perhaps the City's development contract should be amended to establish the period for which the City would hold a developer's letter of credit. Mr. Robinson suggested that an inspection be included prior to any planting, which would eliminate a homeowner altering terrain in such a way as to create problems for neighboring properties. Mr. Ahrens referred to an "as -built survey" of a yard, which might be a possibility for inclusion in development projects. Mr. Robinson indicated a need to address this issue in a formal manner. Mr. Ahrens suggested that with Ms. Dahl taking a seat on the City Council, perhaps the time is right to discuss the issue at that level. Mr. Dunn asked if the requirement that a developer's engineer shall certify in writing that all grading complies with the grading plan upon completion of grading could be a remedy for the City to deal with such problems as mentioned above. Mr. Ahrens stated that this is a requirement prior to release of a letter of credit. Beyond that point, property owners have the ability to make changes. Certain developers incorporate individual protections. • Planning & Zoning Board • November 12, 1997 Page 16 B. Teen Facilities Mr. Robinson indicated that funding remains the main concern regarding this issue. Mr. Herr asked if there is any teen representation within the YMCA group. No one was aware of a specific teen facility proposed in conjunction with another project. Chair Schaps pointed out that this matter has been discussed from time to time over the past five years. Mr. Robinson agreed that the Town Center YMCA is a good possibility. Mr. Schaps indicated that the first question would be what would be used. Facilities can be provided, but successful use must be a primary consideration. Mr. Dunn suggested that this is a two -part issue. First, financing must be established. Second, determine a desirable facility. Mr. Robinson suggested that exploring desirability would help determine funding. • All members of the Board agreed that there is a critical need within the community for such a facility. Chair Schaps suggested the potential for use of the present City Hall building after completion of the Town Center. Mr. Robinson indicated that he will check on what is working in other communities and report back to the Board. C. Beyond the Basics, Government Training Services Report, Don Dunn Mr. Dunn explained that this program was a training/refresher course offered by the Government Training Service for citizen planners, held in Rochester on September 24, 1997. He described the course as important both to new planning and zoning board members and to long -time members as a refresher. There were three sessions, including an overview of the history of land planning and comprehensive planning. Mr. Dunn indicated that a program devoted exclusively to comprehensive planning is planned for some time in the future, and that he felt that program would be of significant benefit. A legal representative urged attendees to exercise care with respect to statements made in the course of a typical Planning and Zoning meeting. In some instances meetings are strictly recorded for the purpose of being prepared for possible legal action. Overall, Mr. Dunn recommended adherence to City ordinances in order to take correct and appropriate action. Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 17 As a final matter, Ms. Wyland reminded the group that Thursday, November 20, 1997 is the next Comprehensive Plan Task Force meeting at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. A recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board is anticipated from that meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 7 -0. • •