Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/10/1994 P&Z Minutes• Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES ..................... 10:20 ...................... ..................... ...................... tibia aa, Scha ps,; MEMBERS AE ENT::. Gelbmann ................................................................................... .............................;: i ALSO PRESENT City Engineer Schneider, Economic Development Director Wessel, Engineering onsultant.Powell(TKDA) and SEHi Flannina Consultant Kerins Plan nc.;:.0 ©ordina 'd 11 #$ .cares I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Al Robinson made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 21, 1994 meeting as submitted and was supported by John Landers. All voted aye. Motion carried. Chairman Schaps abstained as he was not present at that meeting. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Ed Schones asked to add an item I. • concerning Developer Responsibility /Accountability. • IV. OPEN MIRE: Mr. Al DeMotts, 6265 Holly Drive was present and stated that he would like to commend the P & Z for doing a great job most of the time as far as what they can do. What has happened lately is not the P & Z's fault. He stated that the P & Z may be thinking, "why am I even herett when the Council doesn't even bother looking at the plat. They ok'd the plat but don't even know the number of homes that will be there. Mr. Robinson asked what plat he was talking about. Mr. DeMotts stated - that is a good question. Trappers Crossing. Mr. DeMotts went on to discuss what does a plat consist of and what effect do changes have - does that change the plat. He indicated that he was very disappointed with the Council action. Chris Lyden of Holly Drive was present and stated that he was frustrated and disappointed with the Council action. He wanted to thank the P & Z however for their responsibility and professionalism in examining the plat objectively and sincerely without any preconceived notion. He appreciates your efforts. The issue is one of policy, procedure, due process, validity and credibility. At Mondays meeting of the Council any thread of trust and credibility was obliterated. The Mayor did not allow us to speak at the meeting. The plat submitted was brand new - dated 8/1/94. The P & Z met in 1 • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 July. You did not review the plat. The Planner called the plat a composite, Corsan called it a concept, the agenda called it a preliminary plat. What is a composite. Mr. Lyden asked if the P & Z ever saw where a plat was approved by the Council without the P & Z seeing it. Mr. Robinson indicated that it had happened years ago. Mr. Lyden further indicated that he believes there was a conscious effort to undermine the policies, procedures and the due process and that the P & Z was made to be a joke. The Council should find someone else to do their dirty work. He is now going to go home and would invite any of the members of the board to drop their paperwork in the basket and follow him out. Kathy Nordine asked for a point of clarification. If there is a substantial change in a preliminary plat, they way I interpret the Ordinance, its not really required to come back to us - is that true. Planning Coordinator Wyland explained that the original plat consisted of 124 lots, there was discussion of a 104 lot plat and the Planner's recommendation were used to make up the 118 lot plat - so there is a question as to what a substantial change is - it went from 124 to 104 to 118 to meet the Planners report - then, no it would not have to come back to the P & Z. John Landers stated that he felt the plat was a whole new concept and is still asking for the PDO. He felt it should have been sent back to the P & Z because the public was not allowed to speak and therefore denied due process. I do not feel it was a legal act. Kathy Nordine stated that the Council does not hold the public hearing the P & Z does, however, she too felt the public should be allowed to speak. Mr. Schones asked how many lots did not conform to the R -1X Standards. Ms. Wyland explained that she did not have the exact number, however, the majority of the lots met the area requirement with flexibility given on some for lot width. Carolyn Dahl of Holly Court stated that she would like to speak in regard to the P & Z minutes. As a member of the Trappers Crossing neighborhood, she feels trapped. She stated that she spoke at the Council Work Session regarding the inaccuracy of the P & Z minutes. Excessive summarization resulted in important statements being omitted. Staff has to prepare a staff report, address the meeting and at the same time take accurate notes. This is physically and mentally impossible. You can not take accurate notes and talk at the same time. What is needed is a recording secretary at each and every meeting so that the staff can do the accurate, precise presentation they are equipped to do without interruptions. The City only has a record of what the City Hall wants put in the minutes because tapes are recorded over and over again. On 1/12/94 I stated three times I would prefer R -1X to R -1 yet in the minutes it was typed that I stated R -l. I also stated I wanted the property back to rural and that was omitted. Others stated R -1X and it was omitted. 2 • • • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 Garbage in, garbage out. One needs good information to make good decisions. April 94 minutes did show improvement but errors and omissions still exist. I was told by a member of the staff that we are asking for too many things, taking up too much staff time and that it must end. This is an example of the City expanding - you should be expanding your staff by getting a secretarial service to take notes at all the meetings to free your full time staff to complete their regular duties with efficiency and accuracy. We have tried to take up as little time as possible, done most of the work (copying materials we requested) so as not to disturb the staff. I would like to read one thing from Sue Walseth who could not be here tonight - Sue lives at 1101 Holly Drive. Al Brixius at the 1/12/94 meeting speaks of it not being the Cities intent to force the residents on Holly Drive off of their property with large sewer assessments. Chris Lyden asks if they can have that in writing and Mr. Brixius explains - you have it, it will be on record. However, not one word of this is mentioned in the minutes. We know this to be a fact because we have transcribed every single tape since this process began - we have done it word for word. Mr. Schaps commented to Ms. Dahl that regardless if the R -1X statement appeared in the minutes - the Board clearly got the message. Carolyn Dahl also requested that the minutes be so corrected. Open Mike was closed at 6:55 P.M. V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING - Apollo Business Park Replat Brian Wessel reviewed this item and explained that the City's Economic Development Plan for the Apollo Business Park has maintained the flexibility to create industrial parcels of size and configuration specifically geared to the needs of prospective companies building in the park. This replat reflects that flexibility. Three lots are being platted with outlots remaining. Mr. Wessel further explained that there will be a special meeting of the Council tomorrow evening to review this replat to facilitate the sale of a parcel to U -Dor USA. Staff would recommend approval of the replat. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:00 and closed at 7:02 with no comments from the audience. Al Robinson made a MOTION and was supported by Tom Mesich to approve the Apollo Business Park Replat as presented. All voted aye. Motion carried. B. PUBLIC HEARING - Right -of -Way Plat No. 2 - Apollo Drive John Powell, TKDA, explained that the method used to describe the property to be known as Apollo Drive was to prepare a Right -of -Way Plat for the proposed roadway and easements 3 • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 rather than describing all the easements individually. This process was also used on Phase 1 of Apollo Drive. The City Attorney is in the process of acquiring the ROW for the area west of the Business Park. Staff would recommend approval of the Right of Way Plat No. 2. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:05. Mr. Robinson stated that the right -of -way is already there and he wondered why the property owners were not contacted prior to the construction. One property owner had indicated to him that he was never notified or received any restitution for the project. Mr. Powell explained that every property owner (four on the north end) were contacted regarding rights of entry. The construction actually started within the City's property. Mr. Robinson stated that it is very unfortunate that City residents were subjected to something such as this without being notified. He indicated that he is very upset about this. Mr. Powell explained that they do obtain rights of entry with the understanding that the formal easement acquisition process will proceed afterward. He further added that he personally obtained formal rights of entry from each property owner. Mr. Duke Tully representing Feed Rite Control was present. He indicated that at this time the road is being used by the public. His clients have not been reimbursed yet and they would like the proceedings to be completed prior to completion of the roadway. They also have nothing signed by the City yet either. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:11 P.M. Mr. Schones asked for clarification about what was going on, is the P & Z supposed to deal with these rights of entry and easement issues. City Engineer Schneider explained that John Powell has explained some of the process. To make a better record of the easements this is one of the first projects where the City has actually platted the right of way. That is why it is before the P & Z, because it is a plat. The staff's recommendation is that the ownership question be resolved before the plat is recorded. Mr. Powell explained that when plans are completed and they find out what easements are needed, rights of entry are prepared for property owners. The property owners do not waive any rights to damages by signing the entry forms. At the same time the City Attorney commences formal easement acquisition proceedings. The legal transfer of the property is not yet complete. The City Attorney has been authorized to complete the project so it is now in the process. • Mr. Tully further questioned who would be responsible should an accident occur as the ROW has not officially been acquired. 4 Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 • Mr. Powell explained that if necessary barriers could be installed. Traffic is using the roadway. • • After some discussion Tom Mesich made a MOTION recommending approval of the Right -of -Way Plat with the recommendation that the City Attorney expedite the proceedings, that the plat is not filed until transfer of ownership has occurred and the roadway be blocked off to all but construction traffic. Mr. Schones seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. C. Behm's Century Farms, Rezoning Planning Consultant Kermis reviewed this request and stated that the P & Z had previously denied the rezoning and MUSA Exchange on a 4 to 3 vote. The Council and P & Z subsequently met and discussed the proposal with the suggestion from the Council that this development may represent a logical growth pattern for the City and requested that the P & Z outline conditions under which the development will adhere to if the Council chooses to approve the proposal. Mr. Kermis further outlined conditions outlined in the August 5, 1994 Planner's Report. They included the following: 1. The MUSA expansion to include Behms Century Farms be done as part of a comprehensive City wide MUSA expansion, not as a MUSA land trade. 2. The future plat must comply with R -1 minimum lot area, width and depth standards. 3. The developer is responsible for the full cost of utility extension bringing municipal sewer and water to the site. 4. The plat design must provide sensitivity and protection of the Lino Air Park runway to avoid future land use complaints. 5. The developer pursue a variance for the Thomas Street cul -de -sac length. 6. The developer submit a phasing plan that will outline the staged development of the plat. 7. All grading, drainage, wetland mitigation be reviewed and approved by RCWD. 8. Submission of development bylaws and deed covenants that outline air park protection, home sizes, etc. 9. Submission of detailed landscape and tree preservation plans that address screening at the periphery of the plat and reduces the visual impact of the subdivision from adjacent properties and the County road. 10. Compliance with Park Board recommendation with regard to area park needs. 11. Development contract that outlines the terms of the subdivision developments and includes financial securities that insure performance. Chairman Schaps advised those present that this was not a Public Hearing. He also asked about the concerns of the air park property owners and indicated that Mr. Uhde had stated there would be a disclaimer on the properties assuring the 5 • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 rights of the air park owners to continue their existing operation. Mr. Schones asked about Condition No. 1 and were we talking about the MUSA banking. Mr. Kermis indicated that staff has done some preliminary work on the MUSA question and found that there is very little developable land within the City's existing MUSA boundaries. Rather than trade land and remove a development right from a property owner who currently has MUSA designation, the City would be looking at increasing the whole MUSA area. Mr. Schones asked if obtaining additional MUSA area seems possible. Mr. Schneider explained that we have met with the Metro Council - no commitment has been made but they do see the need. We believe there is only maybe 500 acres of MUSA property and it is not necessarily adjacent to existing sewer lines. We will be meeting with them again later this month or early September. Mr. Schneider further indicated that this land can not be developed until it is in the MUSA and staff recommends that it be added with an overall MUSA increase. He is confident that an expansion will be allowed, especially because it is adjacent to utilities. A comprehensive plan change would have to be processed through the P & Z and include a land use map revision. Mr. Landers asked if maybe we were putting the cart before the horse because we do not know what is going to happen here. We may not get the additional MUSA area. Chairman Schaps stated that we are looking at a rezoning, not a preliminary plat. Tom Mesich indicated that he had heard on the radio that regarding MUSA expansion the Metro Council is using these requests as a tool to get communities to provide a variety of housing opportunities. Is this true? Mr. Schneider indicated that this has not yet been discussed. Gary Uhde, John Johnson and Phil Carlson were present to discuss the concerns that have been expressed at past meetings. These include design layout, phasing, school capacity, MUSA trade /expansion, sensitivity to adjacent properties, traffic, drainage, wetland impact, comprehensive plan amendment. He indicated that they feel this is an appropriate area for expansion. Mr. Carlson explained that they will be asking for no variances and no PDO. They have dropped 18 lots and now have a total proposal of 135 lots. The wetland impact has been reduced, Six lots off Thomas St. have been dropped to two. The proposed overall density is 1.8 units /acre and the development is anticipated to contain 6 phases over the next 7 years with an average of 20 homes per year. A letter has been received from the School District indicating that regardless of what happens, it is better to be in a growth mode then a decline mode. According to the County, this proposal will generate an additional 150 vehicles per day at peak hours and should not pose a problem for the existing roadway design. • Mr. Landers indicated that he did not agree with the County on the traffic question. Mr. Robinson asked if the capacity of 6 • • • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 the sewer line would be larger to serve adjoining areas. Mr. Schneider replied that yes it would. Mr. Landers stated that although this is not a public hearing it appears to be a whole new concept. The property owners were not notified and he thinks the request should be tabled until proper notice is sent. Mr. Johnson explained that this is not a preliminary plat but a rezoning request with a concept plan to show what could happen. Chairman Schaps explained that the P & Z is being asked to reconsider the rezoning because the developer has modified the proposed future plat. Tom Mesich stated that we are talking about land use and have been asked by the Council to look at the Comprehensive Plan. The 1987 Comp. Plan states that changes in the plan represent a need to maintain a balance between growth pressure and limited availability of lands suitable for development. Based on a continuing growth trend of approximately 100 new units per year the City could expect a 1990 population of Their vision of the City was 100 homes per year in 1987. Since 1987 we have averaged 245 homes /year. The last two years we have averaged 367 homes /year. This tells me we are not paying attention to the Comprehensive Plan very well and maybe that it why it needs to be revised. The '87 Plan also talks about pressure from the S/E corner of the City. We have seen this in the Clearwater Creek proposal and the number of lots proposed represents 6 years of growth. This is in an area that would not affect the Centennial School District or the rural nature Behm's Farm area. Urban Residential is an area not planned for development until after the year 2010. Mr. Mesich stated that he personally does not feel it is the time to take 135 potential building lots over the next five years on this side of the City. This will limit the amount of development that can occur on the east side of the City because the City Staff can not handle 300 houses a year and the plan does not call for that much development. Although the plan is well done, I think it is not time. Al Robinson stated that the '87 Plan did not even include anything on the east side of 35E. "I was on the Board when that plan was developed and we had no way of knowing we would experience the growth that has occurred ". The plan needs to be updated. Behm's Farm is a logical place to go because everything is adjacent to it right now. There will be no cost to the City, the School District says it is not a burden, there is nothing wrong with this plan. We are only talking about 20 lots per year. We have been doing 365, this is only 20. Mr. Mesich went on to say that there has been neighborhood opposition. Mr. Robinson stated that it comes down to people saying what someone else can do with their property - if they don't like it - buy it!. Mr. Mesich added - that property is 7 • • • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 zoned rural. Mr. Robinson stated "so was yours" and added that he does not like the way this Board has been going lately. Kathy Nordine indicated that she has had experience with subdivision proposals, MUSA Expansions, and rezonings. We can not attach conditions to a rezoning and that is what we are trying to do. These conditions can be attached to the preliminary plat but not the rezoning. We need to consider that if this property is rezoned to R -1 and the developer pulls out for some reason - then what. The proposal submitted is very nice, but what if Mr. Uhde does not develop it. Resolution 92 -85, Infill Policy, says all new development has to be within the MUSA. Ms. Nordine indicated that she did not think this request was consistent with City policy. Concerning the rate of development, there are about three years of development left, based on current information. The staff should take a look at where the City wants to go with the MUSA expansion before we proceed. Mr. Schones stated that he too has to go by the rules. Regarding rezoning there are six rules and I feel the developer has addressed these rules. There is no PDO, all lots would conform to R -1 requirements. Existing services are available. Fiscal benefits to the community - I feel this plan now complies. Traffic is an issued, but we should put faith in the experts. Compatibility has been addressed and the plans have been so revised. On the six issues concerning rezoning, I believe the plan now conforms. Chairman Schaps indicated that he agreed with Mr. Schones and Mr. Robinson. He indicated that we have taken steps in this community to try and enhance aspects of our life. One of them is economic development and we can not expect that our steps are going to continue to grow if we do not otherwise enhance our community. We need to draw on new people with new ideas and new money. If we decide we are not going to grow our City will die. He indicated that he is not advocating 300 homes per year, but, maybe 150. The 1987 Plan was only a plan, not a dictated set of rules. Everyone in the northern suburbs is expanding. I agree with Ed Schones that the six points have been satisfied. Tom Mesich stated he agreed with Kathy Nordine - once it is rezoned, the City loses control. Mr. Schones indicated that what we need to discuss is developer accountability and responsibility. This particular developer has a good track record in the City. Mr. Landers indicated that he agreed with Mr. Mesich and added that if this proposal is denied we are not killing the City. There are other developments out there. Mr. Wendall Nelson, 87 Lilac, stated that it seems this project has been "ramrodded" down their throats. He felt traffic would be a problem and objected to the fact that there 8 • • • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 was no public notice. He also stated that if anyone on the Board has anything to gain from this development they should not vote. Rene Curley of 101 Lilac was present and objected to the non - publication of the item. It does not seem ethical to act on this because no one was informed. People are tired of coming to hear about this. The schools will be affected and she would like to see the development stopped. Sue Molitor, 7806 Sunset stated that she is in favor of the development and values the opinion of the Superintend of Schools. The developer has done a good job. People who own property have a right to develop it. James Conroy, 351 Thomas, stated that the items he has asked Mr. Uhde to correct have been corrected. The City needs to grow and this is a good development. If people don't like it they should move to the sticks. Mr. Robinson stated that he took offense to Mr. Nelson's comments. Mr. Robinson then made a MOTION and was supported by Mr. Schones to approve the Rezoning request from Rural to R -1. On roll call: Ayes: Schaps, Robinson, Schones Nays: Mesich, Landers, Nordine Mr. Mesich asked if it was proper for the Chairman to vote. Mr. Schaps explained that according to Section 212 of the City Code, yes - it was proper. D. Ida Houle, 7834 20th Avenue, Minor Subdivision Planning Coordinator Wyland reviewed this request which is to split 1 acre from a 60 acre parcel to allow the existing homestead to remain and the balance to be sold. The property is Zoned Rural and currently a 10 acre minimum lot size is required, with an exception allowed as explained in Ordinance No. 93 -18. Staff has recommended approval of the request as submitted with the condition that a park dedication fee be required when the split is recorded. Al Robinson made a MOTION recommending approval of the subdivision with the condition outlined in the staff report. Ed Schones seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. E. PUBLIC HEARING, Westlund,Bodeka, Hoppe, Forsham Lk. Dr. Conditional Use Permit for Land Reclamation Planning Coordinator Wyland reviewed this request which is to reduce the berm behind three properties on Forsham Lake Drive. The berm was initially installed as a part of the Shores of 9 • • • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 Marshan development and does contain some buried debris. Staff would recommend approval with the conditions outlined by our Engineering Consultant John Powell, TKDA. Those conditions are: 1. Grading activity must leave sufficient topsoil cover over the buried debris to support turf establishment. 2. Grading activity is to be contained to that area lying south of the north property lines of the affected lots. Matching the existing grade 2' from the property line as indicated on the drawing. 3. Existing drainage routes must be maintained. sufficient berming must remain such that drainage from the church site is not directed to the south and into the backyards of these lots. 4. Erosion control, consisting of silt fencing, hay bales, etc. will be required until turf is established. 5. Regrading must be gradually blended into the undisturbed berms lying east and west of the proposed regrading area. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:00 P.M. No one was present to speak. The Hearing was closed at 9:02 P.M. John Landers made a MOTION and was supported by Al Robinson to approve the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions outlined above and the additional condition that the trees on top of the berm be replaced upon completion. All voted aye. Motion carried. F. PUBLIC HEARING, Dorothy Kvitek, 582 Main Street, Conditional Use Permit for Land Reclamation The Staff report was reviewed Planning Coordinator Wyland who indicated that this request is to allow 6 -12" of topsoil to be placed on a parcel of property approximately 40 acres in size. City Code requires a conditional use permit for any land reclamation in excess of 50 cubic yards /acre. The material is intended to come from the Main Street reconstruction project. John Powell, TKDA, has reviewed the request and recommended several conditions should the permit be approved. Those conditions are: 1. A wetland delineation of the site. 2. Correspondence from the RCWD indicating whether or not a permit is required from them. 3. Confirmation as to the quantity of material to be brought in and a detailed grading plan. 4. Topsoil is intended to be stockpiled. Is this surficial topsoil which is to be stripped off and then replaced on the County project or is it a peat type material which will be mixed with other materials to meet a topsoil specification. Would this mixing be done on the applicant's site. 5. Proper erosion control of site and stockpile as determined by the City Engineer. 6. Seeding and mulching as recommended by the City 10 • • • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 Engineer immediately following final grading. Mr. Bruce Dresel, of Dresel Contracting, was present and stated that the property is a sandy field, the intention is to spread the topsoil and reseed with rye grass. No mixing will be done on site, the material is peat, topsoil, silt and sand. Erosion control will be handled with hay bales. A wetland delineation has been prepared. Timing is very important as work is underway on the Main Street project. Kathy Nordine suggested that the City secure some type of Bond for the work to be done. Mr. Dresel stated that he would have no problem with that requirement. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 9:15 P.M. Mr. Ken Murphy of 583 Lois Lane was present and indicated a concern about dust from the stockpile and if any chemicals would be used. He also asked for a good faith effort to minimize any challenges to the neighborhood. Clarence Schlaker, 610 Main Street, expressed concern regarding drainage. His property is directly east of the site. There is a small ponding area between the properties and he does not want to see this enlarged, nor does he want any drainage problems on his property because of this project. Mr. Rich Matchkey, property owner to the west, also expressed concern about drainage. The area is low and he has had water in his basement for 20 years. Ms. Bombeck, also to the west, expressed concern about drainage. Mr. Dresel explained that they do not intend to have any runoff onto adjoining properties. They are looking for topsoil only and will stay back from the property lines. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 9:25 p.m. John Landers asked if we could request some type of drainage ditch on the property to prevent runoff. City Engineer Schneider explained that you can't just put in a ditch, proper design and special permits would be required. However, this permit could be contingent upon submittal of a drainage plan that is reviewed prior to Council action. Kathy Nordine asked about completion and was advised by Mr. Dresel that it would be the end of October. Tom Mesich asked if the adjoining property floods, who do the people complain to - the City. Darrell Schneider said yes. Joyce Sharpen asked if you let them put in a pond won't that affect future development of the property. Darrel Schneider replied yes it will. Also, permits will be required from the 11 • • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 MN. Pollution Control Agency. After some discussion Kathy Nordine made a MOTION recommending approval of the permit with the conditions outlined above and the following additional conditions: 7. A bond or letter of credit be supplied to the City prior to any work. 8. Drainage plan be approved by City Engineer. 9. MPCA Permit be obtained if required. 10. Hours of operation be determined and consistent with City Ordinance and /or common practice. Tom Mesich seconded the motion. All voted aye. Al Robinson abstained. Motion carried. NOTE: For P & Z information, this request was withdrawn by the applicant on 8/19/94. G. PUBLIC HEARING, Al Robinson, 401 Main Street, Conditional Use Permit for Land Reclamation Planning Coordinator Wyland reviewed this item which is to allow a stockpile of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of topsoil, 20 -25' in depth for resale and possible coverage over a 5 acre area. The material is intended to come from the Main Street reconstruction project. Staff has reviewed this request and would recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. A wetland delineation of the site. 2. Correspondence from the RCWD indicating whether or not a permit is required from them. 3. Confirmation as to the quantity of material to be brought in and a detailed grading plan. 4. Topsoil is intended to be stockpiled. Is this surficial topsoil which is to be stripped off and then replaced on the County project or is it a peat type material which will be mixed with other materials to meet a topsoil specification. Would this mixing be done on the applicant's site. 5. Proper erosion control of site and stockpile as determined by the City Engineer. 6. Seeding and mulching as recommended by the City Engineer immediately following final grading. Mr. Robinson advised the Board that he would like to keep the material stockpiled for approximately 3 years. He has had a delineation done and should have correspondence from RCWD later this week. Again in regard to this case, timing is very important as the reconstruction work is underway. PUBLIC HEARING opened at 9:50 p.m. and closed at 9:51 as there was no one to speak regarding the request. Mr. Landers asked if there were any drainage concerns. Mr. Robinson stated that the stockpile is on a high piece of ground surrounded by a County Ditch. There should be no drainage problem. The total area is approximately 80 acres. Kathy Nordin asked if Mr. Robinson had a problem with the 12 • • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 previously approved conditions for the Kvitek request and he indicated that he did not. Mr. Schones made a MOTION and was supported by Mr. Landers to approve the request with the conditions outlined above and the following additional conditions: 7. A bond or letter of credit be supplied to the City prior to any work. 8. Drainage plan be approved by City Engineer. 9. MPCA Permit be obtained if required. 10. Hours of operation be determined and consistent with City Ordinance and /or common practice. 11. Drainage is to be directed toward Co. Ditch 22. All voted aye. Motion carried. Al Robinson did not vote. H. Pine Ridge III - Discussion - Grading /Seeding /Sodding Mr. Ted Mattke was present to discuss the conditions imposed on the Pine Ridge III preliminary plat. He stated that he had been advised by Staff, as recommended by the P & Z and Council, that the entire site will need to be sodded immediately following grading. He felt this requirement was excessive. He reviewed the procedure they following in maintaining site grading and indicated that they would be sodding a 10' swath on swales and specific problem areas. The remainder of the area is seeded and /or hydro- mulched depending on the area. After some discussion Tom Mesich stated that it was not his intention to require sod over the entire site, merely in the rear (and front) yards immediately following house construction. Staff indicated that they appreciated the clarification. I. Discussion of Contractor Responsibility /Accountability Due to the lateness of the hour, this item was deferred until next meeting. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Rocky Goertz, Tim Klosner - Woods of Baldwin Lake II. Mr. Tim Kytonen and Tim Klosner were present to discuss the possible development of an area just west of Woodridge Estates and South of the Woods of Baldwin Lake. The development would involve 5 1/2 acres of property and the extension of Woodridge Lane. The wetlands have been delineated and the plat would consisted of 13 lots. The property is currently Zoned R -1X. The anticipated timing is Spring of '95. After some discussion Ed Schones and John Landers highly recommended that all lots meet the R -1X requirements. Tom Mesich indicated that this looked like an excellent infill project. 13 • • Planning & Zoning Board Minutes August 10, 1994 B. Mr. Landers stated that Buys Chiropractic has stripped their parking area and no handicapped space is apparent. Mary Kay indicated she would check into this and have it corrected. VII. ADJOURNMENT: Upon the unanimous consent of the Board the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 P.M. 14