Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/1996 P&Z Minutes• • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT : December 11, 1996 : 6:30 p.m. : 9:55 p.m. : Dahl, Dunn, Gelbmann, Herr, Johnson, Robinson, Schaps : 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., December 11, 1996. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1996 Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the November 13, 1996 Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting, as submitted. He was supported by Dunn. Motion carried 6 -0. Herr abstained, as he did not attend the November meeting. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:31 p.m. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:32 p.m. and was supported by Robinson. Motion carried unanimously, 7 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. 96 -30 PDO, PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUATION, Twin Cities Townhomes, Apollo Drive • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Brixius, City Planning Consultant, stated that the site plan presented is endorsed by staff for this project. The 5 -acre site is located on Apollo Drive and is zoned R -3 Medium Density Residential with a density maximum of up to 8 units per acre. The boundaries of the property are Apollo Drive, I -35W, a ponding area to the east and LEA Court to the west. To accommodate this development, the applicant has asked for a PDO to allow flexibility in the following areas: - Structure setbacks from the internal public street (30 feet required) - Setbacks for parking and driveway areas - 30 -foot wide paved surface of the roadway (32 feet required) - 50 -foot wide right -of -way (60 feet required) - 40 -foot paved surface cul -de -sac radius (46 feet required) - 50 -foot right -of -way cul -de -sac radius (60 feet required) Mr. Brixius stated that the applicant has reduced the density by one unit to provide additional active open space. The total unit count is 32. The street was shifted to the northeast by 10 feet to increase the setback of one building and increase street parking. Also, on the west end of the cul -de -sac it is suggested that the units be shifted to the south to provide a 15 -foot setback from the parking area instead of the proposed 10 feet. Another staff recommendation is to shift one unit east that now sits on the inside of the curve of the cul -de -sac to maintain a 20 -foot setback off the right -of -way. Mr. Brixius further stated that this site is difficult to develop, and the proposed use is appropriate. The applicant has complied with the 20 -foot separation between buildings and the open space requirement. The applicant is in the process of obtaining the required Mn /DOT approval, and will meet with City staff to address crime prevention measures. The park dedication requirement will be cash as determined by the Park Dedication Ordinance. Mr. Brixius stated that staff is recommending approval of the site plan as revised with the modifications outlined in the staff report: 1. The site plan is revised per Exhibit E, which includes an elimination of one unit, reconfiguration of the units, a shifting to the internal roadway to the northeast approximately 10 feet. 2. The shifting of the two buildings on the west side of the internal street to the south 15 feet, shall result in the following drive aisle and off - street parking stall setbacks: a. The drive aisle and off - street parking stall shall be at least 15 feet back from the Apollo Drive right -of -way. • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 3 b. The drive aisle shall be set at least 15 feet back from the I- 35W right -of -way. c. The off - street parking stalls shall be set at least 10 feet back from the I -35W right -of -way. 3. The off - street parking lot located at the end of the cul -de -sac shall maintain a setback of at least 5 feet back from the road right -of- way. 4. Because the applicant has not submitted specific building plans for this site, prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer must meet with City staff to discuss details of the building plans and site grading, and settle any outstanding issues as necessary. 5. It is recommended that more shade tolerant shrubs are added to the plant list in order to provide some variation of the units. Additionally, landscaping shall be required between the units located west of the internal street, to provide some privacy between adjacent patios (Exhibit H). 6. The applicant, City Forester and the Community Service Officer shall meet to discuss the landscaping plan and ensure that the plans meet the CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) standards. 7 Approval must be obtained from Mn /DOT for the planting of trees within the I -35W right -of -way. 8. The drainage and utility plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 9. The applicant shall be required to pay a park dedication fee in lieu of land based upon the density of the development. Said dedication amount shall be in conformance with Section 1001.14 of the City Subdivision Ordinance, depending upon the density of the development. 10. Snow storage areas may not take up any required parking spaces or block views of motorists entering onto public streets. 11. The applicant must enter into a PDO development agreement with the City. Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 4 • Mr. Johnson asked if there will be a homeowners association to maintain the grounds. Mr. Patrick Simon, Twin City Townhomes, stated that the company only builds owner - occupied townhouses which means there will be a homeowners association. He further noted that a trail or sidewalk is not planned along Apollo Drive. There is a trail corridor but no trail along Apollo Meadows. There may be an opportunity for a trail along Apollo Drive, but it is more likely to be on the north side. Mr. Herr asked if the reduced radius of the cul -de -sac works for traffic and emergency vehicles. City Engineer Ahrens responded that the Public Works Department and the Fire Chief are comfortable with the proposal. Mr. Herr asked if there are park facilities for children in the area. Mr. Brixius stated that there is not a park in the immediate area, which is why the active open space was required and meets the PDO requirements. He further noted that no park was developed with Apollo Meadows. Ms. Wyland added that the Leonard - Bradley neighborhood park serves this area and is located approximately three or four blocks north off Sunset. The park has playground equipment. Mr. Dunn asked if the developer concurs with the staff recommendations. Mr. Forest Harstad, Twin City Townhomes, responded that there is only one open issue, which is condition No. 11 for a deed covenant to be established indicating that the City is not liable for damage caused to vehicles parked in driveways by snow plows. This is an issue that should be handled in a court of law, and he would not be able to grant such a covenant. He agrees with all of the other recommendations. Mr. Brixius stated that condition No. 11 was included when the setbacks were proposed at 10 feet from the right -of -way and 20 feet from the street surface. With the adjustments that have been made, condition No. 11 is no longer necessary. There will be 10 feet of street right -of -way for snow storage. Chair Schaps asked if there is a building plan for the Board to see what the units look like. Mr. Harstad showed a model display of the outside appearance and inside floor plan. Outside units will have three bedrooms, and inside units will have two • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 5 bedrooms with a loft area. He noted that the units have been well received in other communities. It was originally anticipated that they would be sold to young families and an occasional empty nester. However in every development he has built, very few young families buy them and there are no empty nesters. The units are overwhelmingly purchased by single people who have no children. Approximately 5 percent of occupants will have one child. Chair Schaps asked the anticipated selling price. Mr. Harstad answered that the price will be in the $90,000 range. He noted that the homeowners association will contract for snow removal that will include hand shoveling. The biggest bone of contention about this project is that the cul -de- sac will be a City street instead of a private one. Even though the City snow plows will come through, he anticipates that the homeowners association contract service will end up plowing the street, either because they arrive first or because they have to clean the mounds left at the ends of driveways after the City crew has come through. Mr. Ahrens responded that City ordinances prohibit private roads in the City of Lino Lakes. Mr. Robinson asked the direction of the surface water drainage flow. Mr. Harstad answered that surface water will flow to public right -of -ways when possible to enter the City storm sewer. There is a large pond on the east end. Mr. Ahrens added that the water from the pond at the east edge flows eastward to the next parcel. He noted that ponding will be subject to his review, and a permit will be required from Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Robinson stated that his concern is that with the industrial development already in the area, added development brings more and more blacktop with surface water flowing into County Ditch No. 22, which he does not believe has been cleaned for 50 years. He is not so concerned with this project, but with future projects the City should require developers to put money into a pool to upgrade the ditch. Rice Creek Watershed District does not have the money available for this work. Mr. Harstad noted that the City's zoning ordinance requires a minimum of 35 percent of the site to be green grass or open space. This project will have 42 percent. Mr. Ahrens stated that each project provides funds to the Surface Water Management Plan Fund. Also, the City is doing a study of County Ditch No. 22 • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 6 to identify issues that need to be addressed. Rice Creek Watershed District is exploring changing control requirements from the rate of flow to volume. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 7:02 p.m. Mr. Patrick Simon stated that with 42 percent of green space, the project will be attractive. Twin City Townhomes is an award winning builder, and he believes the City will be proud of this development. He thanked staff and the Board for their cooperation and support, especially with the modification for the county road access agreement. Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to approve the preliminary plat and planned development, subject to the conditions and recommendations outlined within the staff report, with the exception of condition No. 11. He was supported by Herr. Motion carried unanimously, 7 -0. B. 96 -35 CUP, Hokanson Development, Marshan Condo's, PUBLIC HEARING, Aqua Lane and Lake Drive Mr. Brixius stated that in June 1995, the City formally approved the Marshan Lake Condominiums located at Highway 49 and Aqua Lane. The initial phase was approved as a condominium project under state shoreland regulations. Part of that approval included additional buildings identified as a second phase. The total number of units that could be accommodated under the new shoreland regulations would be 136. The plan shows 139 units, but five will not be built. The total of 134 units complies with the density standards for the shoreland regulations and is consistent with the previously approved concept plan. Under shoreland regulations, a multiple family development is considered through a PDO. The total size of the site is 30.5 acres with 4.4 acres of street easements and 3 acres of dedicated park land. There is a 5 -acre portion proposed for commercial development, but there has been no commercial application up to this time. The maximum density is 15 units per acre, and this development is 7 units per acre. The building elevation and requirements and parking are the same as in the first phase. Mr. Brixius explained that the City PDO ordinance requires that 50 percent of the project area be open space. With the application of this performance standard, the 35 percent impervious surface standard for condominium development does not apply. This interpretation has been verified by the DNR. He does not believe this additional development will be harmful to water quality and will be in accordance with the criteria of the Lino Lakes Water Management Plan. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: • 1. Phase II structures are found to comply with applicable R -4 District height requirements. • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 7 2. The City approve a variance to allow guest parking within five feet of the project's internal streets. 3. The previously approved landscape plan is revised to address landscaping treatments to be applied to the area of the site where the five -unit structure was previously proposed. 4. Parallel parking is prohibited along the proposed 28 -foot wide driveways. 5. A determination is made that applicable handicap parking requirements have been satisfied over the entire site. 6. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to snow storage. 7 The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to grading, drainage and utility issues. Such comments should address grading, drainage issues associated with the western area of the site where the five -unit structure had previously been proposed. 8. Any restrictive covenants which vary from those applied to Phase I of the project are subject to City review and approval. 9. Comments of other City staff. Chair Schaps asked if there are plans for the western portion of the site Mr. Brixius responded that unless additional land is added to the parcel, two more units could be developed and still meet maximum density requirements. It is not likely that there will be commercial development north of Aqua Lane which will probably remain zoned R -4. In that case, he could envision a continuation of the existing development. Mr. Wessel stated that it is important to stress that the City has made no commitments for a future commercial site. At the present time it is zoned R -4 and will remain so. Mr. Dunn asked why the two buildings now being proposed were not included with the first phase. • Mr. Brixius stated that the shoreland regulations adopted by the City in 1980 did not make provisions for impervious surface or storm water management. The • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 8 City was required to revisit its shoreland regulations for them to comply with state requirements. In this process the DNR agreed to allow community zoning flexibility separate from state regulations. The first phase complied with state standards in density. The second phase complies with the rules the City adopted and which were approved by the DNR. Streets and utilities are available to these additional units. Ms. Dahl asked if the developer has pictures or a model of the project. Mr. Hokanson stated that the new units will be the same as those built in the first phase and will be in the same price range of $85,000 to $100,000. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. and was supported by Robinson. The motion carried unanimously. Chair Schaps noted that the motion will include adoption of the same evaluation criteria that was adopted in July 1995 for the first phase. Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to approve the requested planned development overlay (PDO), subject to the conditions and recommendations listed in the staff report. He was supported by Johnson. Motion carried unanimously, 7 -0. C. 96 -36 CUP, Otter Lake Animal Clinic, Wayne Scanlan, PUBLIC HEARING, 6848 Otter Lake Road Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 7:18 p.m. for the Otter Lake Animal Clinic. Ms. Wyland stated that Dr. Scanlan presented a project to construct an animal clinic and boarding facility that was approved in July 1986. The building was constructed as a pole barn with cedar wood treatment in front. He is requesting to expand the facility by 50 percent which is allowed in the existing ordinance under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The additional space will be used for boarding and will change the capacity of the facility from 42 spaces to 100 spaces. Outdoor kennels will also be expanded. Dr. Scanlan provides animal control service for the cities of Circle Pines, Lexington and Lino Lakes, which is the reason for this expansion. The property consists of 1.4 acres zoned light industrial. Veterinary clinics are a permitted use with a CUP. The roadway and entrance will be realigned, and staff is recommending that parking be reviewed by the City Engineer once the realignment is completed. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan and CUP, subject to the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits be received prior to any construction. 1 • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 9 2. No additional pole barn type construction shall be allowed on this site. Future expansion must be conventional wood /frame type construction with exterior treatment in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Boarding for up to 100 animals shall be allowed on the site. 4. The City Forester shall review and approve the landscape plan. A revised plan shall be required upon determination of the exact driveway located from the realigned Otter Lake Road. 5. The Community Service Officer shall review final building plans prior to issuance of any building permits for CPTED Compliance. 6. Drainage and utility plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 7 Access drives and parking areas shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Handicapped parking shall comply with ADA requirements and the need for additional parking shall be analyzed upon completion of the realigned entrance drive. Mr. Wessel noted that Dr. Scanlan has been very cooperative with the City with regard to the road realignment which will clearly impact his property. He has an immediate need for the increased capacity, and he strongly recommended approval. Chair Schaps asked if there will be enough room for parking with the road realignment and pond. Mr. Ahrens stated that there are currently 17 parking spaces, and there will be enough room to accommodate parking needs. Parking may be shifted to the east, or the pond may be partially filled and moved to another location. There is also space on the west for parking. Mr. Johnson asked if the Board will review the revised site plan, as described in condition No. 4. Ms. Wyland stated that a realigned roadway is typically reviewed at the staff level. Mr. Wessel noted that the Board will review this project again when the third addition is considered. Dr. Scanlan has expressed his interest in quality development through each expansion phase. He sold land to the north which will be developed by a group considering a dog training facility, which could be Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 10 complimentary to Dr. Scanlan's business. Staff is comfortable with this project and has had a good relationship with Dr. Scanlan. Mr. Dunn asked if Dr. Scanlan is fully aware of the impact to his property with the road realignment. Dr. Wayne Scanlan stated that he built the clinic in 1987. He has spent a lot of time with staff and believes the realignment with added traffic will be good for his business. Mr. Dunn moved to close the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. and was supported by Dahl. Motion carried unanimously, 7 -0. Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to approve the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review with the conditions outlined above. Motion carried unanimously, 7- 0. D. 96 -38 Minor Subdivision, Century Farms Development, Lilac Street Mr. Brixius stated that the proposal is for the subdivision of five single family parcels on Lilac Street in close proximity to Laurie Avenue. The area is currently zoned Rural and is unsewered. The lots range in size from 1.8 to 2.5 acres. The subdivision of the five privately owned parcels would create a front parcel and rear parcel on each property. City ordinance requires a minimum 10 -acre lot for unsewered properties to be subdivided. The current size of the parcels is non- conforming and to further subdivide them would increase the non - conformity. Mr. Brixius explained that another issue is obtaining approval to include these lots in the Municipal Utility Service Area (MUSA) in order to extend the City sewer system. These properties are not within MUSA boundaries at this time. The City has approximately 150 acres in reserve for MUSA, but the MUSA reserve may not be utilized north of the Chain of Lakes because of traffic issues at the interchange of I -35W and Highway 49. Without resolution of these traffic issues, it is unlikely that the Metropolitan Council would approve expansion of the MUSA boundaries. The only way these properties could be incorporated into the MUSA boundaries would be through a MUSA land trade from other undeveloped land north of the Chain of Lakes. These circumstances preclude a definite schedule for utility service to the area. If an extension of the City's utility service would be possible, it would be the responsibility of the developer, not the City. Mr. Brixius stated that another concern is approving a subdivision without rezoning. The question is whether, if approved, the City is giving tacit approval to future rezoning. A rezoning application has not been received to allow a public hearing. The Comprehensive Plan suggests this area should remain low • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 11 density, and the application is consistent with that planned use as well as surrounding development in the area. However, with the questions on zoning, MUSA boundary and increased non - conforming use, this subdivision may be premature. On the other hand, the cooperation and willingness of the property owners to sell at this time is an opportunity to set the direction of development in motion for the area. This development is a logical extension of what was approved in 1994, but it is a matter of timing and what would happen if there is a septic system failure before sewer service is provided by the City. If the City chooses to accommodate the property owners for the minor subdivision and variance, he would recommend approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant submit an application for rezoning of the property from R, Rural District to R -1, Single Family Residential. Approval of the minor subdivision and variance should be done in conjunction with the rezoning. 2. No building permits shall be issued for newly created Lots A, C, E, G and /or I, as illustrated by Exhibit D (see staff report), until said lots are subdivided and platted in a manner consistent with the R -1 Zoning District and the sites are served by public sanitary sewer and water. 3. Newly created Lots B, D, F, H and /or J, as illustrated by Exhibit D, shall be required to connect to municipal sewer service at such time as service lines are extended to serve this area of the City, and the existing septic systems of said Lots B, D, F, H, and /or J demonstrate failure. 4. The existing accessory structure on Lot C be demolished or moved to a location on Lot D, in conformance with all applicable setback requirements. Mr. Brixius stated that if this application is accepted, it would be his recommendation to adopt conditions that would not allow any development to occur until the utility capacity on Lilac Street is adequate and City review of the preliminary plat. Mr. Wessel stated that the application in its present form is a dilemma because of the concerns attached to selling this property. Approval would be before the revised Comprehensive Plan is approved, which will not happen for another year and a half. It is also awkward with the MUSA boundaries unresolved. Chair Schaps asked if there is any known opposition to this proposal. Mr. Brixius responded that he has not heard any opposition, but an application for a minor subdivision is not a public hearing process. Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Gelbmann asked the total amount of acreage that the developer, Mr. Uhde, • is purchasing for development. • Mr. Brixius answered that the largest lot is 2.5 acres. City Engineer Ahrens stated that the total acreage of the lots being considered is 6.7 acres. Mr. Gelbmann noted recent septic failure systems in other parts of the City and asked if these properties are likely to experience the same circumstance. Considering the Metropolitan Council's position to restrict MUSA boundaries, this would be a difficult set of circumstances should there be a septic system failure. Mr. Wessel stated that the Metropolitan Council is on record as being supportive to extension of utility systems in emergency situations. Mr. Johnson noted that a Comprehensive Plan decision would need to be made to shift this property from Rural Low Density to R -1 Low Density, which would be consistent with the 1994 decision that changed the zoning of the Behm Century Farm from Rural to R -1. He further noted that a subdivision in the southern part of the City was rejected because of inadequate roads and access. He asked if that is an issue with this expansion. Mr. Ahrens stated that the access road is County Road 153, which is a two -lane, rural roadway with 12 -foot lanes. It is a standard design width, and he does not believe the road presents a problem. Ms. Dahl asked the time frame for extending utilities to these properties and further why this application is being submitted at this time, if there is no definite time frame for utility service. Mr. Brixius stated that the most certain date for MUSA boundaries to include this property would be the completion of the Comprehensive Plan. It will be 18 months to two years for everything to be completed and approved by the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council has also indicated that they do not want to see expanded MUSA boundaries north of I -35W until the City has a plan in place to address traffic concerns. The reason the application has come forward is because the five property owners have agreed to sell their land to the developer. Mr. Herr asked if the potential sewer line location would be affected by this proposal. • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Brixius stated that the utility corridor is Lilac Street to Laurie Avenue, then north along the front of the properties. However, it is not cost effective to extend the sewer for five Tots. The cost of the sewer extension would be the responsibility of the developer or homeowner. He would recommend that the properties be required to hook up to City utilities when the extension is completed, so that there will be no replacement of on -site systems. Mr. Dunn expressed his empathy for the homeowners, but he believes there should be conformance with the rules of the City, which is that unsewered lots have to be a minimum of 10 acres. It is possible that the area will be rezoned, but that is an unknown. He is hesitant to subdivide lots in an unsewered area. When the lots are deeded to new owners, those land owners will have no legal rights to do anything on the property. In studies he has read, approximately 70 percent of the septic systems are not being used properly, and they push bacteria and disease to the ground surface. New land owners will be strapped, and the City will be strapped which is a difficult position to be in. He would like to see the MUSA issue resolved. Then if there is a need to hook up because of septic system failure, it can be done quickly. His preference would be to continue this public hearing to give the developer the opportunity to resolve more of the issues because he cannot approve the application in the current format. Chair Schaps noted that with the initial approval for development in 1994, there was resistance on the part of neighbors to this project. He asked if there is further resistance to this project. Mr. Gary Uhde, stated that he has held neighborhood meetings to involve residents, and now he has their support for this project. Timing is critical, as it is almost impossible to get five property owners to agree at one time. He believes there will be an opportunity for a land exchange regarding MUSA. He noted that although the utility extension will serve five homeowners, the trunk system will also be extended south and serve hundreds of homeowners who may have failing systems. Mr. Wessel stated that staff is not recommending this plan at this time. The developer has pursued this plan on his own, and staff is responding to the application. Mr. John Johnson, Project Engineer, stated that the application has been submitted to try to help property owners effect their desire to subdivide their property. The MUSA issue can be addressed in one of two ways: 1) evaluate other properties for a land swap; 2) include this property in the Comprehensive Plan amendments. The MUSA resolution is contingent upon the traffic impact to the I -35W interchange at Highway 49 for Metropolitan Council approval. There is work being done to analyze the impact to the interchange that will be presented to the Metropolitan Council to request an interim amendment. He stated that • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 14 they have received a favorable verbal response if there is no impact. The reason a rezoning application was not presented is because the Comprehensive Plan amendments must occur concurrently. If the MUSA changes are approved, the developer will request the City to proceed with the feasibility study sometime next year for the next leg of the utility system to Laurie Avenue or further north. It could be under construction by late fall of 1997. He believes the concerns of the City are addressed so as not to cause problems for the property owners. This project would allow these parcels to be integrated with the overall development plan that was started in 1994, and was the original goal of the developer at that time. He requested that the Board respond favorably to the application. Mr. Herr noted that if the septic system fails on the western most property, the property owner will have to extend the sewer line 1,000 feet, which is not a minor cost. Mr. Johnson responded that it is a reasonable cost compared to the cost of an interim sewage system on -site which is approximately $8,000 to $10,000 per lot. Mr. Ahrens stated that initially a pumping system could be used on a failing system for approximately a year until the utility line is extended properly with a trunk line. Chair Schaps asked if there is any indication of failed systems at this time on any of the other lots. Mr. Ahrens stated that he has no knowledge of any. Mr. Johnson stated that there will be an enlarged pond to address the increased storm drainage from these properties, which addresses the concern about County Ditch No. 22. The discharge into the ditch will be regulated by a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Gelbmann asked if five subdivided lots would cut off any existing draining fields. Mr. Johnson answered, no. Each lot would have its own individual package of well and septic system contained within the lot. Chair Schaps asked if it is anticipated that there will be more parcels requesting consideration for subdivision similar to this application. Mr. Johnson responded that there are properties to the east, but the property owners are not interested in selling at this time. He would expect that the • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 15 property owners west of Laurie Avenue may wish to pursue this type of action when the trunk sewer and road improvements are done. Mr. Dunn stated that he would like to see this process put into a formal "Letter of Intent," that outlines a specific plan and what the developer is committing to do. It would be vital to the City to have such a document to make this project move forward in an expeditious manner. While he understands the concept, he would like to see that everyone's rights are protected. He would like to avoid downstream differences of opinion between the City and developer about who is responsible for what, where and how. He would like to see the project delayed 30 days to see if more issues can be resolved. He does not feel any urgency at this point. Mr. Brixius stated that staff has the same concerns as expressed by the Board. The questions to consider are whether this is the type of development that is appropriate for the area and whether property owners can be accommodated in a timely fashion for what they wish to accomplish. Chair Schaps asked if any of the proposed sales has to be done immediately before it falls apart, or whether staff could have time to further review the proposal. Mr. Uhde stated that two of the sales are urgent, and if any one of the sales were to fall through, the entire project would fall through for all five property owners. Timeliness is crucial. Mr. Robinson noted that the Board's action will set a precedent for the future. In essence, approval would mean rezoning the property without a public hearing. The parcels are less than 10 acres which is a problem. There are properties to the west where he foresees the same questions coming up. Mr. Johnson stated that it is clear that this area will be developed as residential, and extending the sewer will be in the public interest. His concern is about water quality in the larger neighborhood with so many septic systems and back yard wells. He would like to see the proper procedure followed and have a formal rezoning application to R -1. He would be willing to consider a rezoning application with the subdivision proposal in 30 days to allow staff time to further review conditions of approval. He asked if rezoning will resolve the concerns until the properties are connected to the City sewer. Mr. Brixius responded that when the City considers rezoning, the issue will be MUSA availability. Rezoning will make the lot size issues consistent. • Chair Schaps directed staff to publish a notice of public hearing to rezone this property to R -1 for the January 11, 1997 Planning & Zoning Board meeting. He • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 16 requested staff to work out an interim system failure procedure, the cost of a land trade for MUSA application, a traffic study of Laurie Avenue, Lilac Street and Lake Drive with an analysis of the impact to the interchange. As the project is development driven, the costs are to be borne by Mr. Uhde. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to continue review of application No. 96 -37, Century Farms Development, Minor Subdivision for 30 days to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. He was supported by Robinson. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. Chair Schaps called a break at 8:41 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:51 p.m. E. 96 -39, Nextel Communication, 7470 4th Avenue, City Water Tower Ms. Wyland stated that Nextel Communication has submitted an application requesting a 12' x 20' communication building to install three 15 -foot whip antennas on the City water tower at 7470 4th Avenue. The three whip antennas will be replaced by panel antennas that are 9' x 8' that will also be mounted on top of the water tower. Nextel was granted an FCC license to operate a low power wireless communication service in the Twin Cities. The applicant's letter notes that no interference with radio or TV reception is anticipated, and there are no known health hazards. Lease arrangements are being reviewed by the City Engineer and Nextel's attorney. It is anticipated that the lease agreement will be presented to the City Council at the January 13, 1996 Council meeting. If the project is approved, it will be contingent upon lease agreement approval by the City Council. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with the conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Robinson asked the monetary return to the City in the lease agreement. Mr. Ahrens answered that the lease agreement will be in the range of $10,000 to $12,000 per year. Ms. Wyland noted that the City anticipates receiving similar requests from other communications companies. Mr. Gelbmann asked if consideration has been given to locating the antennas on the side of the water tower, rather than on top. Mr. Nelson, Nextel, stated that to keep in contact with other sites, a 360- degree angle is needed. At this time it is not possible to be any lower than the top of the tower and still communicate with the other cell sites. • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 17 Mr. Dunn expressed concern about aesthetics and how the panel antennas will look. He asked if the application is for the whip antennas that will be replaced by panel antennas. Mr. Ahrens stated that the application is for an accessory cellular building on City property, not necessarily the installation of antennas. Ms. Dahl asked if there is a possibility that the number of antennas would increase or the communication site strengthened for more channels. Mr. Nelson stated that the application is for three whip antennas to be replaced by three panel antennas. It is unlikely that the number of panel antennas would be increased. He noted that there will be other communications companies interested in water tower space. They may be engineered differently and can be located on the pedestal. Mr. Ahrens stated that the City's concern is public safety, and the manufacturer of the water tower will be contacted to make sure putting a structure on top will not be a hazard. Ms. Dahl asked if there is any cost to the City for the top of the water tower to accommodate the antennas. Mr. Ahrens answered, no and explained that there are supports on a railing to accommodate the antennas. Mr. Gelbmann asked if there are other alternatives in this area to place the antennas. Mr. Nelson stated that Nextel is not negotiating another site at this time. Mr. Gelbmann noted the amount of time that has been spent to carefully develop a quality appearance for the whole industrial park development. He expressed concern that the panels will have a major impact on the appearance that the City has been working so hard to achieve. He questioned whether the panels are worth the substantial fee. Mr. Ahrens stated that the City Council had the same concern but noted that the zoning ordinance does allow construction of a separate structure in that district. Mr. Johnson asked how the City would accommodate another communication company's application for a building. Mr. Ahrens stated that other companies do not necessarily need a building. He has seen requests for 5 -foot high cabinets that are well screened. • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 18 Chair Schaps asked how visible the panels will be. Mr. Nelson responded that unless one looks for them, it is easy to drive by and never notice them. There is nothing to draw the eye to notice them. They will be painted the same color as the water tower. Mr. Gelbmann stated that it would be less intrusive if there were a continuous screen around the central top of the tower with the antenna located within, rather than a ragged profile. Mr. Nelson stated that the antennas will be placed uniformly and symmetrically. There are three groups of three units. A bigger concern is the structural integrity of the rail system and the tower itself. Antennas can be screened, but it is not practical for optimal functioning. Mr. Charles Johnson, Nextel, added that screening has to be done with non - reflective material, which would be fiberglass or canvass. To put it high enough and hold it in place is a lot of structure work and is not practical. Mr. Dunn asked what happens to the next applicant and whether the first applicant for the water tower space established a domain for that lease holder on the tower. Mr. Ahrens stated that space is rented on a first - come - first -serve basis. Mr. Nelson stated that the Nextel operates on a different frequency and can be within a foot of another antenna and still function well. Mr. Dunn asked if the design of the building is compatible with the zoning district. Mr. Wessel stated that staff has reviewed the building plan and is comfortable with what is proposed. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Gelbmann's concern about the industrial park image. What is being presented is a new technology, and the City needs to be diligent in how it is pursued in order to maintain standards that have been established. Mr. Herr asked if other locations are being considered to build a free standing structure. Mr. Charles Johnson stated that there is one on Highway 96, one -half mile west of 1 -35E. He stated that they operate on a lower cellular frequency than the PCS market and can cover a 10 -mile radius as compared to a 3 -mile radius with PCS antennas. Mr. Dunn asked if the shelter will be prefabricated. • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 19 Mr. Charles Johnson stated that the building will be of masonry with a smooth aggregate finish and painted. It will be approximately 12' x 22'. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the site plan with the conditions listed in the staff report and was supported by Robinson: 1. Proper building permits be obtained prior to any construction. 2. The structure and antenna /panels shall be painted to blend in with the existing tower. 3. The applicant shall secure any FAA permits /clearance for the antenna prior to construction. 4. The City Forester shall review and approve the landscape plan prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The Community Service Officer shall review the building and fencing plans for CPTED Compliance prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. The access drive plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. 7 A site lease agreement for the installation of the antenna /panels and building shall be approved by the City Council prior to the issuance of any building permits. Discussion: Chair Schaps offered an amendment to condition No. 4 to require screening from Apollo Drive. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Robinson accepted the amendment. The motion carried, 6 -1 (Gelbmann). F. Public Hearing - Sign Ordinance Amendments Ms. Wyland stated that staff has been working on a sign ordinance update. Nine changes are listed in the staff report. The Economic Advisory Board has reviewed the changes and supports the revisions. Mr. Wessel requested that the Board consider the information presented as an introduction and continue the public hearing to the January meeting. There are some details yet to work out with the sign ordinance. He would like to further investigate setback requirements of other communities Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 9:30 p.m. • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 20 Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing on the sign ordinance to the January 11, 1997 Planning & Zoning Board meeting. He was supported by Dahl. The motion was unanimously approved, 7 -0. G. 96 -37, AdGraphics, 2300 Main Street, Sign Variance Ms. Wyland stated that the applicant, AdGraphics, is requesting a sign variance to allow business identification and two directional signs five feet from the property line. Aside from the setback, the signs meet all requirements of the existing ordinance. She stated that staff is recommending approval based on the noted criteria listed in the staff report: 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 landowners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. 6. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Wessel stated that the building is in the Clearwater Creek Industrial Park and has set a professional, quality standard for the City. The landscaping is designed for the signs to be located where the applicant has requested. Mr. Steve Peterson, AdGraphics, requested approval from the Board for the sign variance. The company's main concern is safety because there is a lot of truck traffic coming to the building. It is not safe to have trucks stopping to figure out which entrance to enter for shipping /receiving. Mr. Herr expressed some concern about the flood lights used to light the sign being directly focused. This is an issue he would like to see more fully addressed in the sign ordinance. Ms. Wyland stated that the new sign ordinance does address that issue. • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 21 Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the variance as requested to allow three signs to be located 5 feet from the front property line and to adopt the criteria for the variance as outlined in the staff report. He was supported by Dahl. Motion carried unanimously, 7 -0. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Future Work Session to Discuss Recreational Vehicle Ordinance Mr. Wessel stated that there will be a future work session to discuss recreational vehicles (RV). There are strong opinions on this issue, and the City Council has asked for direction from the Board. Ms. Wyland stated that Mayor Landers has received a letter from residents requesting that a public meeting not be held in February, which is prime time for RV owners to be out of the state. Chair Schaps stated that it would not be productive to have a work session until a public meeting has been held. He recommended a public meeting in April. Mr. Johnson asked if the RV issue would hold up approval of the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Schaps responded that adoption of the Zoning Ordinance will not be delayed by the subsection on RV's. Mr. Wessel stated that the City Council plans another review of the Zoning Ordinance changes. The sections relating to RV's will remain the same until this public meeting process is completed. He noted that many residents are not aware that there is an ordinance in place on RV's. Mr. Dunn stated that he believes it would be beneficial for the Board to discuss the RV issue as a group before the public hearing. The Board has approved the Zoning Ordinance with changes to the RV section. It is vital that the Board revisit that decision to see if opinions have changed before meeting with the public. It is his hope that the Board will hold to the ordinance that has been recommended. It was the consensus of the Board to schedule the public hearing on RV issues related to the Zoning Ordinance in April, 1997. Planning & Zoning Board December 11, 1996 Page 22 VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Johnson. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0. 1 •