13292 sylvan ave., lindstrom, mnaug 06, 2020 · page 1 of 39 agenda city of lindstrom planning...

August 6, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

of 39

AGENDA

CITY OF LINDSTROM

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Thursday, August 6, 2020 6:30 P.M.

City Hall Chambers

13292 Sylvan Ave., Lindstrom, MN

CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE:

CALL OF ROLL:

CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA:

CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:

1. Minutes of the July 2, 2020, meeting (pgs. 2-4)

PUBLIC HEARINGS/PRESENTATIONS:

1. Olinda Apartments (pgs. 5-29)

BUSINESS:

1. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Review Ordinance Project (pgs. 30-38)

2. Zoning Code Rewrite Update (verbal) 3. Development Updates (pg. 39)

MISC. DISCUSSION:

ADJOURNMENT:


of 39

MINUTES

CITY OF LINDSTROM

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

THURSDAY, JULY 2, 2020

6:30 P.M.

Lindstrom Council Chambers

13292 Sylvan Ave., Lindstrom, MN

CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE:

Chair Mike Klun called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

CALL OF ROLL:

Members Present: Chair Mike Klun; Commissioners, Judy Chartrand, Jim

Swanberg

Members Present (Remote): Mike Albers, Greg Donovan (6:35pm)

Members Absent: Orris Erlandson

Others Present (Council Chambers): Administrator John Olinger, Deputy Clerk Melissa Glenna,

Council Liaison Katie Werman Roche

Others Present (Remote): Planner Beth Richmond Trapp

CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA:

Motion by Albers, second by Chartrand, to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4-0; Chartrand,

yes, Albers, yes, Klun, yes, Swanberg, yes.

CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:

Motion by Albers, second by Chartrand, to approve the May 7, 2020, minutes. Motion passed 4-0;

Chartrand, yes, Albers, yes, Klun, yes, Swanberg, yes.

PUBLIC HEARINGS/PRESENTATIONS:

2. Amendment to City Code Section 152.266: Yard, Area, and Building Size Regulations

City Planner Beth Richmond explained the City received a variance request to allow a detached accessory

structure larger than the area permitted by Code on a 17-acre lot. Staff has received a number of similar requests

in the past. In response to this request, and in conjunction with the Zoning Code Rewrite, Staff determined that an

ordinance amendment adjusting the size and height of detached accessory structures throughout the City would be

the most appropriate way to address this issue. Currently, the City Code allows a maximum total detached


of 39

accessory structure square footage per lot of 900 square feet for smaller lots. For lots larger than 15,000 square

feet, the allowable detached accessory square footage may increase up to 1,200 square feet per lot.

The City has received requests in the past to increase the allowable size of detached accessory structures,

particularly on larger lots where there is often more equipment or recreational vehicles that property owners wish

to shelter. Where smaller lots are naturally more restricted in terms of lot size, impervious surface coverage, and

setbacks, larger lots have more flexibility to allow larger detached structures without interfering with the character

of the neighborhood.

To determine appropriate size requirements, Staff reviewed detached accessory structure regulations from a

number of surrounding municipalities. A chart with the findings of this comparison is attached. The proposed

square footage for detached accessory structures by lot size is below. The allowable detached accessory structure

area for small lots (under 1 acre) closely follows existing size requirements.

Lot Size Total Detached Accessory Structure Area

Under 0.5 acre 75% of the principal structure footprint, up to 900 sq. ft.

0.5 to 1 acre 75% of the principal structure footprint, up to 1,200 sq. ft.

1 to 5 acres 75% of the principal structure footprint, up to 2,000 sq. ft.

5 to 10 acres 3,000 sq. ft.

Over 10 acres 5,000 sq. ft.

Motion by Donovan, second by Swanberg, to open the public hearing at 6:45pm; Motion passed 5-0;

Donovan, yes, Chartrand, yes, Albers, yes, Klun, yes, Swanberg, yes.

There was a caller that noted the extraterritorial review area.Motion by Donovan, second by Chartrand, to

recommend approval of the amendment to Section 154.266 revising allowable square footage and height of

detached accessory structures by lot size with the condition that if a large lot subdivides, the existing

detached accessory structures will need to come into compliance with the accessory structure size

requirements for new lot size. Motion passed 5-0; Donovan, yes, Chartrand, yes, Albers, yes, Klun,

yes, Swanberg, yes.

BUSINESS:

1. Zoning Code Rewrite Update (verbal)

Beth gave a timeline of the zoning code rewrite:

July PC – timeline update

August PC – intro (verbal) about importance of Code rewrite and role it plays in accomplishing

comp plan goals

October 1 PC – Provide draft of new Code to PC (and CC) for review mid-September. Higher-

level discussion of Code changes and how they accomplish City policies/goals.

Mid-October PC (special meeting) – Used for any planning cases coming through at the time

October 15 CC – provide Code intro to CC (similar to Oct 1 content – high/policy level)

December PC/CC – public hearing and bring final draft for approvals

2. Development Updates


of 39

Administrator Olinger went over the current developments in the City:

• Rosehill Resort-Curb and gutter are installed. Building construction has commenced.

• Meredees/Northland- The developer has closed on the property. Waiting on financing.

• Morning Sun Phase 2 and 3-Phase 2 and Phase 3 continue to pull building permits.

• Enchanted Cove-All four building permits have been pulled.

• Lindstrom Storage Solutions-Phase 2 is complete but for paving.

• Chisago Lakes Mini Storage-Under construction. We have had some complaints about runoff and erosion. We have addressed the issues and the

owner has hired an inspector to review erosion control before and after rainfalls.

• Lindstrom Lane Utilities- The utility extension project is complete.

• Olinda Trail Utility Relocation-The project is underway.

• Olinda Trail and trail-Chisago County, in 2020, is planning the reconstruction of Olinda Trail from the High School to the south County line. The City is planning a trail project in 2021, to extend the Olinda Trail Trail from 292nd to

288th Avenue. The City Engineer applied for two more grants to assist in funding this project. Although the City received a $305,000 TAP grant, the DNR notified us that the City was not awarded the DNR grant. We are

reevaluating the project.

• Lindstrom Fire Hall- The Fire Department is working on plans for the facility. Bonds were approved for sale, sale pending. The City Engineer was engaged to provide a preliminary cost estimate of the concept. When this is complete we will share the concept and cost estimate.

• Golf Estates-We expected the Preliminary plat at the June City Council meeting however, the applicant did not meet the submittal deadline. The city

is awaiting the final documents

• Albrecht Land-Mr. Albrecht is working on an 8-unit townhome development on the north side of North Lindstrom Lake. He should be in with an annexation request and preliminary plat soon.

• Apartments-The developer is moving along to the preliminary plat stage.

ADJOURNMENT:

Motion by Swanberg, second by Chartrand, to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Motion passed 5-

0; Donovan, yes, Chartrand, yes, Albers, yes, Klun, yes, Swanberg, yes.

Respectfully Submitted,

Melissa Glenna,


of 39

Deputy Clerk/Office Manager

OVERVIEW

Blackhoof Development LLC has submitted land use and subdivision requests for a proposed multiple-dwelling building to be located on the east side of Olinda Trail between 300th Street and 299th Street. The applicant is proposing to construct 84-units on a 9.15 acre site. The building will consist of 4 studios, 49 one-bedroom and 31 two-bedroom units. In addition, there will be about 4,200 square feet of mechanical, common, and exercise areas in the basement of the building. It should be noted that while most of the land use requests are directly pertaining to the proposed apartment building, the plat does encompass a total area of 16.5 acres. The plat will create a lot for the apartment building and an outlot (7.3 acres) that will be preserved in the future.

Land use and subdivision requests include a comprehensive plan amendment to reguide the site from Single Family Residential to Multi-Family Residential; vacation of Broadway Street right-of-way and site drainage and utility easements; preliminary plat; rezoning to a Planned Unit Development-R-3 (PUD R-3); a conditional use permit for a multiple-family dwelling structure containing 12 or more units; and a conditional use permit for a planned unit development in the shoreland district. The Planning Commission is advised that public hearings are needed for the requests.

The applicant has noted in the narrative submitted that a modular form of construction will be used for this project. This will include staging for the modules. While the site has not been identified, it will likely be within 5 miles of the construction site. This will mean the applicant needs temporary storage of the modules until they are set. Once additional information is available, the applicant should discuss with City Staff the location and the appropriate process for this temporary use to occur if it is within the city limits.


of 39

PROJECT PLANS

Due to file size the Planning Commission packet contains just a few of the application materials. The full plan set is

available at https://hkgi.sharefile.com/d-s6afac62c02746f0a.

REVIEW PROCEDURE

60-Day Land Use Application Review Process Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, local government agencies are required to approve or deny land use requests, such as the rezoning and conditional use permit, within 60 days. Within the 60-day period, an automatic extension of no more than 60 days can be obtained by providing the applicant written notice containing the reason for the extension and specifying how much additional time is needed. The deadline for the land use applications is on or around September 25, 2020. 120-Day Subdivision Review Process Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.358, local government agencies are required to approve or deny subdivision requests, such as the preliminary plat, within 120 days. The 120-day timeline for the review of the preliminary plat expires on or around October 23, 2020. Public Hearing The land use and subdivision applications require public hearings by the Planning Commission The public hearing notice was published in the Chisago County Press on July 25, 2020 and posted on the City Hall bulletin board on July 27, 2020. The public hearing notice was mailed to all affected property owners located within 350 feet of the subject properties on July 23, 2020. The comments the City has received about this project are included as attachments to this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) EVALUATION

The City has evaluated the need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) based on the criteria set forth in 4410.4300, SubpartS 19 and 19a. The determination of whether an EAW is needed involves a formula that takes into consideration the threshold for units in both the shoreland area, which is 50 attached units, and the threshold for units in the nonshoreland area, which is 150 units. When the resultant quotient of dividing the number of units in each area by the applicable threshold is less than 1.0, an EAW is not needed. For this project, the quotient is 0.84 so an EAW is not needed. [(21/50) + (63/150)] = 0.84

DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL REVIEW

Comprehensive Plan

The project area is currently guided as Single Family Residential in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Single Family Residential is intended for single family detached housing with pockets of attached housing and a density range of 1 to 6 units per acre. The applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide Lot 1, Block 1 to Multi-Family Residential. The applicant has not requested that Outlot A be reguided as the area is not to be developed. Multi-Family Residential is intended to provide areas for townhomes, rowhouses, apartments, and manufactured home parks with a density of 6 to 20 units per acre. If this amendment is approved, the project’s proposed density of 9.2 units per acre and apartment use will fit the Multi-Family Residential land use category.

In considering the appropriateness of this amendment request, the Planning Commission should take into consideration the following:

https://hkgi.sharefile.com/d-s6afac62c02746f0a


of 39

• The City of Lindstrom Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2017. As Planning Commissioners are aware, from page 1 of the plan, “While intended to guide change, this plan must also remain flexible to changing needs, conditions, and emerging trends.” Proposed amendments are intended to be evaluated against the values, policies, and goals laid out in the Comprehensive Plan.

• The City values the protection of the environment and the conservation of natural resources. As most easily seen on the plat, the project area encompasses portions of six wetlands. Due to public infrastructure, the use of this site for multi-family is less impactful to the natural resources than single-family detached or attached residential would be. The applicant is able to concentrate development and avoid constructing any roads, which allows the project to eliminate wetland impacts, as well as protect more trees than otherwise would be possible.

• One of the City’s guiding principles for community growth is planning for a variety of housing choices to address current and future housing needs. Consideration should be given to providing more opportunities for a multi-family building as currently fewer than 4% of all housing units (approximately 72 units) in the City are in buildings with more than 20 units. For comparison, more than 76% of housing units (approximately 1,466 units) are detached, single family homes. The need for additional rental units has been noted in the three housing studies completed for the region in the last decade. These studies are available for review on the sharefile site. A few key findings from each include:

− The 2014 Housing Needs Analysis for the East Central Regional Housing Collaborative noted that only 3.4% of the region’s housing stock is located in multifamily structures exceeding 20 units. The overall rental vacancy rate in the region (which includes all types of housing) is extremely low at 2.0%, below the equilibrium of 5.0% for consumer choice and turnover. The market for rental housing is extremely tight for all incomes and new product is needed for all incomes. Renter-occupied households in the region tend to be more housing cost burdened then owner-occupied households.

− The 2017 City of Lindstrom Housing Study noted similar findings for Lindstrom and noted that the City has historically had a below-average supply of rental units. As a result of this pent-up demand and estimated growth, the study identified a potential demand for approximately 330 rental units of all types through 2022.

− The 2018 Comprehensive Housing Needs Analysis for Chisago County noted similar trends as the previous study. In addition, the study noted a need for more than 600 rental units to be created between 2017 and 2030 in Chisago County. This does not include the need for more than 1,000 senior rental units.

• In addition to evaluating the need for more of this type of land use, the Planning Commission also should consider whether this is the appropriate location. Staff notes that the project is located on Olinda Trail, a major collector within the City’s street network. As a major collector the street is intended and able to accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated from the project. In addition, as shown in the excerpt from the zoning map below, this corridor has a variety of zoning districts which include single family, twinhomes, townhomes, and a manufactured home park.


of 39

Vacation of Broadway Street and Drainage and Utility Easements

As shown in the preliminary plat, the applicant has requested the vacation of a portion of Broadway Street that extends through the property and the drainage and utility easements that surround the previously platted right of way. The area was originally platted for a future street to ensure that the property to the north, which is proposed to be platted as Outlot A, had access to a public street. In evaluating the potential for additional development for the site, it was determined that the extension of a roadway through the site would be difficult, particularly given the size and extent of the wetlands on the site. In addition, the property being dedicated as Outlot A is no longer being considered for development, therefore, the right of way and drainage and utility easements can be vacated to allow for the proposed development. In considering the vacations, the City is required to find that the vacation is “in the interest of the public.” For this plat, the public interest achieved by the requested vacations allows for the development of the parcel.

To remain guided

single family

residential

Requested to be

reguided to multi-

family residential


of 39

Preliminary Plat

The preliminary plat will create Lot 1, Block 1 to allow for the construction of the apartment building, as well as Outlot A, which will be left undeveloped. It shows the dedication of a small extension of Broadway Street to allow for the construction of a hammerhead turn around for maintenance and emergency vehicles. It also shows the location of drainage and utility easements across the property. Ten-foot (10’) drainage and utility easements are shown along the property boundaries. A thirty-foot (30’) drainage and utility easement is shown that will contain the watermain. Drainage and utility easements are also shown over each of the wetlands.

Establishment of Site Development Standards

There are multiple applications that all pertain to the use and development of the site. Given that all of the requests will need to be approved concurrently, the proposed site development components will be summarized together after a brief overview of the land use requests.

A planned unit development (PUD) has been requested due to the site’s location within multiple shoreland land districts and the natural resource characteristics of the site. The purpose of a PUD is to provide flexibility in development and design standards so as to allow the site design to better respond to the site characteristics. The City establishes the standards for the site through a rezoning to a PUD R-3 district. The R-3 High Density Residential District is the underlying zoning district as it is where the City allows for medium and high- density residential uses. The R-3 district standards will serve as the foundation for understanding the proposed site development standards. As Planning Commissioners recall, the rezoning will create a site-specific zoning district containing all of the regulations the development will need to meet.

This development also involves the approval of two conditional use permits. The first is related to the construction of a multi-family building with more than 12 dwelling units. The second, required by the state, is to allow a shoreland planned unit development district. In evaluating these requests, the Planning Commission should give consideration to whether there are any specific conditions needed to ensure compatibility between this use and the adjacent uses.

Lot Size

As noted previously, the standards for a planned unit development and the R-3 district will be used as a foundation for understanding the proposed site characteristics of the development. The development is 9.15 acres in size, which is well above the one-acre minimum lot size for a planned unit development and the 16,000 square foot requirement for an R-3 lot. In addition, with 412.51 feet in lot width, this site is more than 4 times the minimum lot width required for the R-3 district. City code also requires that an 84-unit apartment building be on a lot at least 5.78 acres in size, which the proposal meets.

Density - Shoreland Tiering

The site is located within 1,000 feet of two lakes. Approximately 20% of the site is within the shoreland overlay district of South Lindstrom Lake, a general development lake, while approximately 24% of the site is within the shoreland overlay district of South Center Lake, which is also a general development lake. As shown on the layout plan, the applicant is proposing to place a portion of the building on the western side of the property within the shoreland district boundary of South Lindstrom Lake. While there are no buildings being proposed the portion of the lot within the shoreland district boundary of South Center Lake, the applicant is proposing a fenced outside storage area.

In order to ensure that the density proposed in a planned unit development is appropriate, the shoreland regulations require an evaluation based on a formula set forth in the shoreland regulations. Land is divided into 200-foot tiers and any wetlands, bluffs, or land with an elevation below the ordinary high water level is excluded.

The applicant has determined that, excluding any wetlands, the westernmost portion of the site is located in the 5th tier from South Lindstrom Lake. The applicant has also indicated that the average livable area is 763 square feet. Using these project assumptions and the formula from Section 154.205, the number of units allowed in this portion of the site would


of 39

be 10.8 dwelling units. This can be increased by 200% to 21 units as long as certain criteria are met. Since both the criteria are related to setback to or vegetation management near the ordinary high water level and this site is more than 800 feet from the ordinary high water level this criteria is being met. As this site is not riparian and is a commercial rental development, the most important element for the density increase is having more than 50% of the property devoted to open space. The applicant has indicated that the site will have 65% open space. The applicant has indicated that the siting of the building has been made to ensure there are no more than 21 units within that fifth tier.

Layout and Setback Requirements

As shown in the table below, the proposed project also meets the minimum setback requirements for a principal structure in the R-3 district.

Setback

Required for R-3 Underlying District

(feet) Proposed (feet)

Front Yard (W) 30 106.9

Setback from Centerline of Olinda 135 138.9

Side Yard (N) 10 126

Side Yard (S) 10 100.6

Rear Yard (E) 35 500+

It should be noted that Chisago County has indicated that the existing, provided 33 feet of right-of-way from the roadway centerline should be expanded to 50 feet. This will require additional right of way to be dedicated as part of this project. This will likely make some adjustments to the western site layout of the site.

To meet City parking requirements, the applicant has proposed 74 enclosed parking spaces. The applicant is proposing at-grade garages as the water table does not allow for underground parking at this site. Staff notes that the current City code references a size limit of 3,000 square feet for detached accessory structures. Staff’s interpretation is that this regulation does not apply to a multifamily residential project such as is being proposed as the City has a 0.5 enclosed parking space requirement and this size limit would only allow for twelve enclosed spaces if garages were 12 by 20 square feet in size.

As part of the PUD specifications, the setbacks for the proposed garages should also be addressed. As can be seen on the site plan, two sets of garages are being proposed, one to the north of the building and one to the southeast of the building. While the accessory structure standards state that accessory buildings should not be in the front yard, Planning Commission should give consideration to the proposed layout given that it eliminates the need to impact any of the wetlands in the center of the property. Staff will be consulting with the applicant about the first garage shown along Olinda as the additional right of way required may result in that garage being too close to the front property line. Both sets of garages are located with additional setback to the side property lines than typically required by City Code. Staff will be clarifying with the applicant relative to the access to the easternmost garage as it is located immediately adjacent to the fenced outdoor storage area.

Unit Sizes

The 84 units are proposed to be comprised of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. As shown in the table below, the sizes of the one-bedroom and two-bedroom units more than meet the minimum size requirements of the City Code. However, the size of the efficiency units is slightly less than the required 480 square feet. The applicant has indicated that the size of the efficiency units is limited by the modular construction of the building as the studio unit is one box wide and a two box wide one would result in a studio not being smaller than a one-bedroom unit. As there are


of 39

only four studio units and the ratio of studio units is less than the 8% cap established in the code, it is recommended that the minimum unit size for the studio units be established at 457 square feet as part of the planned unit development standards.

Unit Type Number Percent of

Units Required Minimum Size (square feet)

Proposed Unit Sizes (square feet)

Studio 4 4.7% 480 457

One-Bedroom 49 58.3% 580 732 - 733

Two-Bedroom 31 36.9% 720 841 - 1,100

Building Heights

The applicant has indicated that both the principal structure and the accessory structures will meet the City Code established height limits. Staff will be confirming the height of the building using City Code standards but notes that the architectural drawings show the building having a height of 34 feet, 8 inches. The applicant has indicated that the garages will be 8 feet tall with 9 foot by 7 foot doors.

Impervious Surface Coverage

The portions of the property that are within the shoreland districts of each lake are limited to an impervious surface coverage of 25%, while the portion of the property outside of the shoreland districts is limited to an impervious surface coverage of 50%. As shown in the table below, the applicant has indicated that the level of impervious surface coverage is higher than 25% in the South Lindstrom Lake shoreland district, but below in the other two districts.

Project Sub Areas

Sub Area Size

(square feet)

Percent of Lot in Sub

Area

Max Impervious

Surface (square feet)

Max Impervious Surface (%)

Proposed Impervious

(square feet)

Proposed Percent

Impervious

Outside Shoreland 221,115 55% 110,558 50% 74,920 34%

S. Lindstrom 83,628 21% 20,907 25% 44,885 54%

S. Center 93,665 24% 23,416 25% 16,790 18%

Total 398,408 NA 154,880 NA 136,595 34%

Given the site constraints and that the overall proposed square footage of impervious surface coverage for the site is less than the overall allowable square footage coverage, Staff recommends that the planned unit development establish the level of impervious surface coverage for each area with a condition that a surface water management plan be prepared that is acceptable to the City Engineer. This is a similar approach that the City has taken in other non-residential areas of the City, including the central business district, commercial districts, and the industrial district. The City Engineer and Applicant are currently working on the surface water management plan. An update will be provided at the Planning Commission Meeting.

Access

The site will be accessed from Olinda Trail by a single driveway entrance located to the south side of the site. As this is a major collector, Olinda Trail will be able to handle the additional traffic generated by the proposed project. The applicant, City Engineer and Chisago County are currently working on defining the preferred alignment of the right turn lanes and center turn lanes. A condition of approval will be to meet the expectations of the City Engineer relative to these lane configurations.

Trails and Sidewalks


of 39

The applicant is proposing three types of pedestrian connections on the site. There is a sidewalk all the way around the building that allows movement in and around the parking area. A trail is shown to connect the residents to Broadway Street to the south. This will allow residents a lower traffic volume route to reach Town and Country Park and 299th Street. It should also be noted that the City’s CIP identifies the extension of a trail along 299th from Olinda to Town and Country Park and a pedestrian crossing light at 299th and Olinda in 2022. The applicant has also shown a woodchip trail loop extending through the northeast portion of the site to provide a recreational amenity for residents.

Parking

The applicant has shown a total of 126 parking spaces on the layout plan, which does meet City Code requirements. The applicant should be in contact with Chisago County regarding the required number of ADA spaces. The breakdown of parking spaces required and proposed is shown in the table below:

Required Proposed

Total spaces required 126 126

Minimum that must be enclosed 42 74

Staff notes that the applicant has indicated that garages and the fenced outdoor storage area will be available for both personal vehicle and additional storage use for tenants. Staff has concerns about whether there will be sufficient surface parking on the site. Staff will be working with the applicant to evaluate whether there is space for additional proof of parking and how that area, if developed in the future, would impact impervious surface coverage of the site.

Landscaping and Tree Preservation

The applicant has prepared a preliminary tree removal and protection plan. The final plan will need to be certified by a forester or landscape architect. Preliminary review shows that approximately 80 significant trees will be protected on the site and 75 significant trees are to be removed from the site. The layout of the site with the building on the western end does protect more trees from being removed for development, particularly because there is an existing clear area on the west side of the site. City Code requires mitigation when more than 20% of the significant trees on the site are removed. The final calculations and mitigation plan will need to be prepared to meet city requirements. Mitigation can occur on the site or on city property when on-site mitigation is not feasible. The applicant will be expected to meet the requirements of City Code.

The Landscape Plan shows plantings concentrated on the western side of the property. There are plantings proposed along Olinda, the north property line, the south property line, and around the building. A woodchip trail is also proposed in the rear of the property. Staff has completed an initial review and recommends that modifications be made to improve screening of the accessory garages. As the landscape plans will likely evolve as the tree preservation and stormwater management plans are further developed, specific conditions have not yet been identified. The Landscape Plan will need to be established as part of the PUD process, however, so Planning Commissioners are encouraged to provide feedback and guidance on the initial plan submitted.

Lighting

The applicant has submitted a lighting plan that shows LED lights on the building and on the garages. The product specifications note that the lights are a cutoff type that focuses light downward. The lighting plan shows illuminance contour lines ranging from 1 to 0.10. In general, the lighting as proposed casts limited illumination on the property lines. As the garage and front parking area are adjusted in response to Chisago County requirements, the lighting may need to be adjusted to ensure it does not extend over the property line.

Refuse and Loading


of 39

The plans submitted do not address refuse or tenant move-in/move-out. Additional information is needed about how these two areas will be addressed.

Summary of PUD components

A planned unit development was requested for this site due to the complexity of having multiple shoreland districts apply to the site. In addition, the intent was to provide more flexibility in site layout given the priority of limiting impacts to the six wetlands on the site. As can be seen in the review of the proposed PUD components, the areas of flexibility to the underlying zoning district that are anticipated to be granted through the PUD include the location of the accessory garages slightly in front of the building; the size of the studio units which affects only four units; and the approach to the impervious surface coverage that recognizes that the impervious surface coverage may be higher than allowed in the shoreland district of South Lindstrom Lake but less than required in the other areas of the site.

ENGINEER COMMENTS

The City Engineer reviewed the civil plans received by Erickson Civil dated 7/22/2020. The submittal set included an existing conditions/demo plan, layout plan, grading and erosion control plan, SWPPP, Utility Plan, Olinda Trail turn lane plan, lighting plan, details and a preliminary plat. The City Engineer’s memo is attached. Comments were separated into three (3) parts. Part 1 identifies critical design concerns that, when addressed, may cause significant changes to the overall design concept. These have been included below for your reference. Part 2 identifies comments that pertain to constructability concerns. Part 3 identifies additional documentation needed as the project moves through the design and construction phases. Please see the attached memo for Part 2 and Part 3 comments.

Part 1 – Critical Design Comments

1. Prepare a stormwater management plan in accordance with the City Low Impact Design (LID) Standards as described in the City Ordinance. (151.036)

a. Provide design calculations that demonstrate the proposed improvements address volume control and nutrient loading reduction. (151.037A)

b. Provide HydroCAD modeling that demonstrated pre- verses post-development rate control. (151.037B) 2. Provide design calculations that demonstrate all catch basins have sufficient outlets such that runoff will not

backup (out of the catch basin) during a 10-year rain event. a. Provide additional detail and narrative explanation as to how the TDA trenches north of the garages and

south of the south parking lot will effective convey runoff to the larger TDA treatment areas while not allowing sediment deposition or freezing.

3. Chisago County requires 50 feet of right-of-way dedicated from centerline in urban areas. a. The proposed garage closest to Olinda Trail (County Road 25) is currently proposed at 51 feet from the

existing centerline of Olinda Trail. Consider relocating to the east side of the garage row. b. The west curb line of the west parking lot is proposed to be approximately 46 feet from the centerline of

Olinda Trail. The applicant will need to obtain County approval to construct these improvements within the right-of-way.

The City Engineer will continue to work with the applicant regarding the comments. An update will be provided to the Planning Commission at the meeting.


of 39

RECOMMENDATIONS

Comprehensive Plan Amendment

Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of PID 15.00794.24 and PID

15.00794.27 being guided on the future land use plan as multi-family residential.

Vacation of Broadway Street Right of Way and Drainage and Utility Easements

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the vacation of Broadway Street

and the drainage and utility easements as proposed in the Olinda Trail Apartments plat as the vacations facilitate the

redevelopment of the site.

Preliminary Plat

Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the preliminary plat as submitted with the following conditions:

1. All conditions relative to the preliminary plat identified by the City Engineer in his memo dated 7/30/2020 shall be addressed.

2. Applicant revise the preliminary plat to remove the walking trail from the plat documents.

3. Applicant shall address limitations pertaining to the future use of Outlot A as part of the development agreement, if required, or another instrument acceptable to the City Attorney.

4. Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits from county, state, and federal agencies.

5. Applicant shall submit electronically all current and proposed legal descriptions for the property, vacations, and drainage and utility easements in Word.

6. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the preliminary plat application.

7. Any findings from the Title Commitment shall be addressed as part of the final plat process.

8. The City shall record all resolutions with Chisago County. The applicant is advised that the resolutions will not be recording until all conditions have been met.

9. Additional conditions from Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council.

This recommendation is based on the following findings of fact:

1. The proposed preliminary plat facilitates the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.

2. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the design standards and other requirements of Chapters 153 (Subdivision) and Chapter 154 (Zoning) of the City Code.

3. The proposed development will not have a negative fiscal or environmental impact upon the City as the applicant shall be responsible for all improvements proposed and has designed the utilities and stormwater management system in accordance with City specifications.


of 39

4. The proposed development will provide new opportunities for housing in Lindstrom.

5. The proposed development will not negatively impact the public health, safety or welfare of the community.

Rezoning to PUD R-3, Conditional Use Permit for a Shoreland Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family dwelling unit with more than 12 units

Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the rezoning to PUD R-3, conditional use permit for a shoreland planned unit development, and a conditional use permit for a multi-family dwelling unit with more than 12 units as submitted with the following conditions:

1. Approval is subject to the concurrent approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, vacation of right of way and drainage and utility easements, and preliminary plat.

2. All conditions identified by the City Engineer in his memo dated 7/30/2020 shall be addressed.

3. The layout plan, and related plans as needed, shall be revised to address the requirements of Chisago County.

4. Applicant shall provide information about whether proof of parking is needed on the site.

5. A tree preservation plan that meets the requirement of City Code shall be submitted.

6. A revised landscaping plan shall be provided that meets the requirements of the City Planner.

7. The applicant shall provide information relative to how refuse and tenant move-in and move-out shall be handled on the site.

8. A development agreement, if required, shall be prepared as part of the final plat process.

9. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the preliminary plat application.

10. Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits from county, state, and federal agencies.

11. The City shall record all resolutions with Chisago County. The applicant is advised that the resolutions will not be recording until all conditions have been met.

12. Additional conditions from Staff, the Planning Commission and City Council.

This recommendation is based on the following findings of fact:

1. The proposed PUD meets the requirements for a PUD within the City of Lindstrom as listed in Code Section 154.02.

2. The proposed PUD includes uses which are compatible with the surrounding area.

3. The site layout seeks to avoid wetland impacts and tree removal on the site.

4. The proposed PUD provides more open space than the 50% required by City Code.

5. Existing utilities are available and have the capacity to serve the proposed development.

6. The proposed development will not have a negative fiscal or environmental impact upon the City as the applicant shall be responsible for all improvements proposed and has designed the utilities and stormwater management system in accordance with City specifications.

7. The proposed development will provide new opportunities for housing in Lindstrom.

8. The proposed development will not negatively impact the public health, safety or welfare of the community.


of 39

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS

After the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission could take one of the following actions:

1) Recommend approval with the conditions and findings of fact as presented by Staff. Staff requests that each item identified in the recommendations section be addressed individually, as listed below:

a. Move to recommend City Council approval of PID 15.00794.24 and PID 15.00794.27 being guided on the

future land use plan as multi-family residential.

b. Move to recommend City Council approval of the vacation of Broadway Street and the drainage and utility

easements as proposed in the Olinda Trail Apartments plat as the vacations facilitate the redevelopment of

the site.

c. Move to recommend City Council approval of the preliminary plat as submitted with the conditions and findings of fact as presented by Staff.

d. Move to recommend City Council approval of the rezoning to PUD R-3, conditional use permit for a shoreland planned unit development, and a conditional use permit for a multi-family dwelling unit with more than 12 units as submitted with the conditions and findings of fact as presented by Staff.

2) Recommend denial with findings of fact.

3) Table the request to a designated Planning Commission meeting and provide direction to Staff and the applicant as to the additional information needed.

ATTACHMENTS

• City Engineer Memo dated 7/30/2020

• Preliminary Plat

• Layout Plan

• Landscaping Plan

• Public Comments


of 39

Memo

To: Mr. John Olinger, City Administrator

Ms. Rita Trap, City Planner

From: Jon Herdegen, P.E. – City Engineer

Subject: Olinda Trail Apartment - Plan Review

Date: July 30, 2020

MSA received civil plans for the Olinda Trail Apartments proposed for development on parcels 15.00794.24 & 15.00794.27 along Olinda Trail (County Road 25). The plans were prepared by Erickson Civil and dated 7/22/2020. The submittal set included an existing conditions/demo plan, layout plan, grading and erosion control plan, SWPPP, Utility Plan, Olinda Trail turn lane plan, lighting plan, details and a preliminary plat. We have separated our review comments into three (3) parts. Part 1 identifies critical design concerns that, when addressed, may cause significant changes to the overall design concept. Part 2 identifies comments that pertain to constructability concerns. Part 3 identifies additional documentation needed as the project moves through the design and construction phases. Part 1 – Critical Design Comments

4. Prepare a stormwater management plan in accordance with the City Low Impact Design (LID) Standards as described in the City Ordinance. (151.036)

a. Provide design calculations that demonstrate the proposed improvements address volume control and nutrient loading reduction. (151.037A)

b. Provide HydroCAD modeling that demonstrated pre- verses post-development rate control. (151.037B)

5. Provide design calculations that demonstrate all catch basins have sufficient outlets such that runoff will not backup (out of the catch basin) during a 10-year rain event.

a. Provide additional detail and narrative explanation as to how the TDA trenches north of the garages and south of the south parking lot will effective convey runoff to the larger TDA treatment areas while not allowing sediment deposition or freezing.

6. Chisago County requires 50 feet of right-of-way dedicate from centerline in urban areas. a. The proposed garage closest to Olinda Trail (County Road 25) is currently proposed at 51 feet

from the existing centerline of Olinda Trail. Consider relocating to the east side of the garage row.


of 39

b. The west curb line of the west parking lot is proposed to be approximately 46 feet from the centerline of Olinda Trail. The applicant will need to obtain County approval to construct these improvements within the right-of-way.

Part 2 – Constructability Comment Existing Conditions & Demo Plan

1. Coordinate all sheet name with title sheet index. 2. Show all adjacent existing public and private utilities on plan. 3. Plan should include method and extent of pavement markings removal on County Road 25 to facilitate

construction of right and left turn lanes. 4. Add note that the contractor must obtain a MPCA General construction Stormwater Permit and have all

erosion control BMPs in place prior to beginning any construction-related activities. Site Layout Plan

5. Box notes 2 & 8 do not appear on drawing. 6. Box note 13 is duplicated in legend. 7. The proposed hammerhead turnaround shall be constructed in accordance with Lindstrom Fire

Department standards. 8. The applicant must obtain a waiver of trespass or right of entry to reconstruct private driveway and

associated grading outside of Broadway Street right-of-way. 9. Identify location of walking path.

Grading & Erosion Control Plan 10. Note all line types and hatches shown on drawings in plan legend. Provide one (1) foot contour intervals

for clarity. Label all proposed contours. 11. The applicant is strongly encouraged to maintain a minimum of 2% pavement slope throughout the site

particularly between garages to prevent icing during freeze-thaw cycles. 12. Provide spot elevation at beginning and end of handicapped access isle from the south parking lot to the

building to verify a maximum slope of 2% is not achieved. 13. Sidewalk entrance on west side appears to exceed 2% maximum ADA accessibility slope. 14. The contours appear to tie into the existing grading at the property line in many locations. The applicant

will be responsible for obtaining a temporary easement from the adjacent property owner, if needed. 15. Additional spot elevations are needed along east curb line of east parking lot. Add a note to tip out

curbing, where applicable. 16. Revised note 6: “All erosion control BMP’s shall be in place prior to beginning any construction-related

activities. Upon inspection of erosion control BMPs, City Public Works department shall provide written notification that construction activities may commence.”

17. Add the following to note 10: “Copies of all erosion control inspections shall be submitted to the City Public Works Department weekly.”

18. Adjust spot elevation notes so not to conflict with hatching. 19. Provide additional detail and spot elevations for grading Broadway Street turnaround and realigned

driveway. The plan must demonstrate that driveway improvements do not negatively impact lot drainage. The developer shall be responsible for mitigating any negative drainage impacts caused by the new driveway or turnaround.

20. There does not appear to be any proposed grading shown adjacent to the new right turn lane. 21. Label concrete apron corners on southeast garages. 22. Provide all emergency overflow (EOF) location and elevations.


of 39

SWPPP 23. None comments. The plan provided appears consistent with MPCA requirements.

Utility Plan 24. Note all line types and hatches shown on drawings in plan legend. 25. All City-owned utilities shall be contained within a drainage and utility easement. 26. All municipal utilities and public improvements shall be constructed in accordance with applicable City

and industry design standards. 27. Watermain shall be 8-inch DIP and shall have a minimum of 7.5 feet of cover (not 8-foot bury).

Coordinate notes, legend and plan. Use horizontal bends in lieu of sweep as watermain turns south from development.

28. Identify hydrant location on plans. 29. Add Note: “Televise sanitary sewer per City of Lindstrom Requirements.” 30. Box notes 1, 2 and 5 appear to be missing from drawing. 31. Revise box note 3 to open cut watermain crossing to facilitate use of ductile iron pipe. 32. Box note 4 suggests there are two (2) 8” water lines proposed. The plans indicate a single line. 33. Label all drain tile cleanouts with box note eight or modify box note description (typ). 34. Provide detail for box note 9. 35. Provide rim elevations for proposed sanitary manhole. 36. Install Infi-Shield liner on proposed and existing sanitary manholes. 37. Add note to remove and pour new invert on existing manhole to facilitate effective flow through the

manhole. Adjust proposed invert elevation to 0.1 feet above outlet invert elevation. 38. Flow direction for the existing sanitary sewer along the east side of Olinda Trail is shown incorrectly.

Continue sanitary sewer north per utility as-builts. 39. Provide a rim, invert (for all pipes including draintile) and sump elevations for all structures. A table

summarizing this information would be very helpful. 40. 90° bends are not recommended for use within draintile system due to the inability to clean/jet. Replace

90° bends with two (2) 45° bends. 41. Catch Basin 6 appears to be collecting runoff from over one (1) acre with the majority of the surface

coverage impervious. Provide additional catch basin inlets, preferable extended west, to accommodate inlet capacity of proposed structure.

42. Storm sewer structures appear to obstruct TDA trench in multiple locations. Provide additional detail to verify intended functionality.

43. Identify all storm sewer pipe material and size (CB2 and CB6 to respective unnamed FES) Olinda Striping & Turn Lane Plan

44. Modifications to the pavement markings on Olinda Trail (County Road 25) shall be approved by Chisago County. Chisago County provided the following comments following a cursory review of the plans:

a. Given the right-of-way constraints and existing driveway proximity, the applicant should try to maximize the length of the right turn lane. They should start at the property line and perhaps look at a 1:5 taper, given the speed limit.

b. Chisago County is not opposed to a two-way center turn lane but additional review is necessary to determine impacts to other driveways in the corridor.

c. Chisago County requires 50 feet of right-of-way dedicate from centerline in urban areas. 45. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining approval from the Chisago County Highway Department

for proposed right turn lane improvements to Olinda Trail (County Road 25). 46. All signs must be installed in accordance with the MnMUTCD


of 39

Lighting Plan 47. Lighting plan must comply will all applicable conditions of the City Code. (154.275)

Details 48. Provide detail for 6-foot high privacy fence. 49. Provide typical gravel section for outdoor storage area. 50. Provide bituminous pavement section for turn lane. 51. Provide bituminous sections for 10-foot wide path. 52. Provide barrier curb detail. 53. Provide concrete steps detail. 54. Provide bollard detail 55. Modify casting not on detail 301 as follows “NEENAH CASTING R-1733 WITH SELF-SEAL LID WITH (2) C.I

LIFT HANDLES (STAMPED “SANITARY SEWER”). 56. Remove gate valve nut rod extender note on detail. 57. Call out proposed material around 4-inch drain tile in filtration basin section. 58. There are multiple pedestrian curb ramps provided in the details. These details should be consolidated

for clarity. Stormwater Management Plan

59. Drainage calculation were not provided along with this submittal. Without calculations, we cannot provide comment on the overall effectiveness and adequacy of the proposed stormwater management plan and BMP’s.

60. Provide explanation for the purpose and resultant effects of installing the 18” CPP pipe between wetlands.

Preliminary Plat 61. The final plat must be prepared in accordance with the Manual of Guidelines for Platting in Minnesota. 62. The final plat is subject to review by the Chisago County Highway Department. Generally, the County

requires 50 feet (measured from the road centerline) be dedicated as public right-of-way. 63. The title commitment provided appears incomplete as it only covers OUTLOTS A and B of the platted

portion of the submittal. The applicant should provide an updated title commitment that includes the lands lying north of the currently platted SWEN PETER ESTATES in order to get a firm grasp on all of the encumbrances/easements.

64. The title commitment contains two (2) easements that are not shown on the preliminary plat. a. Item #17, document #171400 - A 15’ easement over the westerly portion of OUTLOT A b. Item #21, document #167706

65. The applicant must supply exhibits and legal descriptions for vacations of public row and dedicated D&U easements.

66. The plat must be signed by a professional land surveyor licensed in the State of Minnesota.

Part 3 – Additional Documentation 1. Prior to final construction plan approval, the applicant shall:

a. Prepare and submit a wetland delineation for all apparent wetlands within the project area. b. Submit a light plan.

2. Prior to commencement of any construction activities, the applicant shall: a. Obtain a MN Department of Health approval for the proposed watermain extension. The

watermain and appurtenances shall be design in accordance with CEAM Standard Specification and applicable City Standards.


of 39

b. Obtain a Sewer Extension Permit from the MPCA. The sanitary sewer collection system shall be design in accordance with CEAM Standard Specification and applicable City Standards.

c. Obtain an MPCA General Construction Stormwater Permit. d. Install all erosion control BMP’s in accordance with the SWPPP and MPCA Permit. e. Coordinate a Gopher State One Call to locate all existing public/private utilities adjacent to the

site. 3. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall:

a. Submit an as-built survey that demonstrates the constructed improvements are consistent with the approved construction plans and design modeling.

b. Submit an approved maintenance agreement for all permanent stormwater BMP’s Please contact me directly at 612-548-3124 or [email protected] with questions. Thank you.

mailto:[email protected]


of 39


of 39

Public Comments 1) Bailey Hecker

Hi there, I’m writing to voice my concerns and thoughts regarding the olinda trail proposed project in Lindstrom. I live at 30040 Akerson St. or directly behind this area. We see a TON of natural wildlife that thrive on these woods and would hate for their habitat to be destroyed only for more housing. There are plenty more areas in our city for housing. We personally see a family of deer come and go from the woods to our yard and back, this year we’ve witnesses 2 fawns as recent as last week! There are also, opossums, Fox, and raccoon to name a few. A TON of wonderful birds, blue jays, cardinals, woodpeckers, and many many others that frequent the trees bordering out backyard. We’d hate to have their homes be taken away. We also wanted to voice that the privacy we get from the woods was one of the deciding factors on why we chose our home. We moved from St Paul, in a neighborhood packed with houses, and with that little privacy. We chose this house with the wonderful woods view and less densely populated neighborhood...if said project were to happen, we would move. We love this community but we cannot and will not stand for privacy to be taken away when that’s what we looked for when moving out of the city. We ask that you please leave the woods alone to allow the privacy of the residents who live bordering it and the wildlife that live inside it. Our other concern is rising county taxes that come along with such projects.....Our taxes have jumped 30 some percent since we moved here in August 2018....we can only assume they’ll continue to rise at such an alarming rate should the county keep adding to its bill of projects. The taxes here are now within a few dollars of what we paid IN St. Paul. (We were off 94/hwy 61/10 in the Daytons Bluff area). We realize the need for modernizing the city and community but in other ways. Make use of the empty buildings and the empty fields in downtown And in Chisago city rather than build new housing in wildlife homes to hope that brings new life to our area....

2) Danielle Blackwell

In regards to the proposed complex, I have to say I completely disagree with the addition of a complex of this size in this location. Olinda Trail sees a lot of traffic especially during the school year. Winter snow plowing on Olinda Trail would be even more of a disaster with the need for an apartment complex to empty its lots for plowing, forcing residents of the proposed new building to park on the street. For the 84 Units, let’s assume that’s an average of 3 residents per unit. Of those residents let’s say 2/3 have vehicles. That is a total of 168 vehicles to park on the street when the complex has the need to resurface, plow, paint new lines, etc... While the population may increase and help with extra state funding, clogging up a high traffic area is likely to result in more auto accidents and potential property damage. Furthermore, “affordable housing” is likely to attract a demographic of residents that are not likely to maintain the small town charm and values our quiet community strives to hold onto. I, for one, do not want our quaint town to turn into a bustling suburb like Anoka, a once small quaint town like our own that is now overrun with people and traffic jams. Our population density is already 1200+ people per square mile, do we really want it to continue growing? The 84-Unit complex would increase population


of 39

density in the likely most populated quarter of the city by 20%. Please, do not allow this structure to take over this area.

3) Jon and Tara Resa

Good Morning, I am emailing regarding the proposed 84 unit apartment complex for Olinda Trail. I am against such a high populated multi family complex because of the overflowing amount of children at Chisago Lakes schools. Our small town has already taken on a huge debt from the community center and new Lakeside. Packing in even more people to our vacation destination town will make it lose it's uniqueness and possibly bring large brand name stores in, therefore eliminating the small businesses that make our town special. Please add me and my husband's names to any documentation against this plan.

4) Marty Blue

Suspend all developmental procedure until the tax paying tcitizens of Lindstrom can meet with the planning commission, Olinger, Stenson and the city council, face to face!

5) Kelly Sederstrom

To whom it may concern: I am a resident of Lindström and have been made aware of the proposed apartment complex off of Olinda trail. I understand there was also an initial proposal of stand alone townhouses. I have some concerns regarding this location for an apartment complex this large. Firstly, the location itself seems out of place amongst all of the single family homes. I think the original townhome idea was reasonable and fit the neighborhood well. Aesthetically, the apartment does not make sense to me, however the townhouses would seem to fit the area. Why did the plan change? Secondly, having spent many years living in both the city and suburbs prior to moving back to my hometown, I don't believe this location is conducive to maintaining the small town feel and likely brings its own set of issues. Typically, these types of apartment complexes are meant to make money for the owners, and with little care of helping the community in which they reside. Based on the fact the linked documents on your website were for a project in Mound, MN immediately causes concern that this project is not meant to support the community as much as the pockets of those throwing up an 84 unit apt complex in a single family residential area. Additionally, the apt complex I'm sure will be beautiful to start, but what will it look like in 10 or 15 years, and do we trust the company/individuals putting it up to maintain the building and our town values. Which leads me to my next concern. Why was only a small number of residents of Lindstrom notified of this project via mail. Why such limited information about the project. Why are the documents linked on the Lindstrom page incorrect. Maybe the town would be more open to a project of this nature if it felt more transparent to the community. We would love to know who the developers are and the rationale as to why this location would be ideal for a project of this nature. The fact this is a closed meeting due to 'COVID-19', when I can see it was an open meeting in Mound, MN (based on the attached document), feels uncomfortable.


of 39

Lastly, I see based on the most recent Chisago County Press, that there is discussion regarding putting up a multi-level construction project at what is currently the Elms Estates. It's noted that the goal would be to have floor level offices. It seems that this location would be far more preferable to have a large apartment complex, and possibly similar to what we see on Forest Lakes mainstreet. With that said, where can documentation of housing demands that would support an 84 unit apartment complex off of Olinda and a large apartment complex off of highway 8 be? Again this goes back to transparency and effectively communicating with the Lindström community, maybe we could get on board with a valid explanation.

6)From: dennis bucholz [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 11:59 AM To: Beth Richmond

Subject: To the City of Lindstrom Planning Commission, regarding the 84 unit building on Olinda Trail.

7/31/20 To the members of the City Council, Chair Mike Klun, Vice Chair Greg Donovan, Commissioner Judy Chartrand, Commissioner Orris Erlandson, Commissioner Jim Swanberg, Commissioner Mike Albers, Council Liaison Laurie Burington, and to whomever else is involved in the proposal for the 84-unit apartment building on Olinda Trail, We have several questions about this proposed project, and the re-zoning of the 8-acre property on Olinda Trail. When is construction, on the 84-unit apartment building, slated to start? How will the increased traffic be managed? With 84 more families (200+ more people) what are they going to do to make traffic more manageable on Olinda Trail? It is already often difficult to get out of our driveway, especially when there is a school function taking place. We are in the homes next door to the 8 acres, my husband and I live at 30197 Olinda Trail, and we share a driveway with our neighbors at 30195 Olinda Trail. The map clearly shows traffic exiting the apartment lot on to Olinda Trail. That will be an even higher volume of traffic in the morning and evening, during rush hour times, when it is already congested there. A comment on the Chisago County Historical Society FB page, suggested the proposed 84-unit apartment complex in Lindstrom was not near any old growth nature area. The map of the proposed location shows a heavily wooded area in the middle of the city. Those woods are full of wildlife. Some of the wildlife includes birds, deer (there’s a doe with twins right now), opossum, fox, coyote, turkeys, racoon, owls, and so much more. Why doesn't the owner consider selling the land to the City, County or State, and develop trails and perhaps a park rather than change the zoning to a High density multifamily 84-unit building? These woods are a beautiful piece of nature in a rapidly growing town. Why not preserve and develop it to an area for people to visit? Kichisaga and Paradise Park are the only walking trails around. Why not one on Olinda Trail? As it is residents along Olinda Trail don’t like walking their dogs along a busy street and they keep walking their dogs up our easement/driveway and we have to keep reminding them that it’s private property, only to have them back the next day. Why not give local residents a walking area away from the busy street? My neighbor spoke on the phone with John Olinger and he told her that the woods behind her would be untouched, up to about 4 acres. Four acres is barely anything. How long will those 4 acres be reserved for the wildlife? The wildlife is already hemmed in to about 8 acres. This project will most likely finish them off. How will the wildlife be protected? When animals don’t have enough room to roam, they end up as casualties to traffic. In the first paragraph when they talk about, “a vacation of the undeveloped, platted



of 39

right-of-way and drainage and utility easements.” Does this mean they plan to develop the land further at a later time? What protections for the wildlife will be put into place to protect them from being forced down to even less property? There has to be a better location if they feel the need to add more low-income housing. What will keep the 4 acres of wetlands from being contaminated, with the runoff that apartments and asphalt parking lots generate? When they introduce big city living accommodation's they introduce big city problems. This project will destroy our house values because we will be right next door to it. If this proposal goes through, we want to be compensated for the loss in value of our home and property. Who will compensate us if our property value falls, the City of Lindstrom, the developer? Or, are we supposed to eat the cost of the loss of our property value, because city planners want a high-density residence in what is currently a predominantly single-family neighborhood? Do we have the option to sell our homes to the City of Lindstrom, or to the developer, for the fair market value of our property and home prior to the project proposal? So that we can move out of this town and get into another home, before the value of our house plummets. Those living closest to this monstrosity should at least have that option. This breaks my heart what they are doing to the wildlife that live on that property and I don’t want to be around to witness it firsthand. And I don’t want to live with the problems of the increase in crime due to the over-development of the area. What size apartments are they putting in? What will the different size units rent for? When they say, “The requests to be considered include a comprehensive plan amendment to reguide the property to Multi-Family Residential, rezoning to R-3 high Density Residential” is this referring to the 84 unit apartment building, or are they also still considering a more spread out group of buildings like town homes? If they choose to go with town-homes, how many units then? What happens to the 4 acres reserved for the deer if they choose the more spread out option? Who is moving into all these apartments being built? Not just this building but all the others as well. Where are all these people coming from? Most of the roads in this town are one lane each way, they are not designed for this volume of traffic or population. John Olinger also said about the apartments, “They're not low income. Approximately $1000 a month apartments.” For what size apartments? That sounds like low income to me. And what happens if they can’t fill the units? A 90+ unit is also being built in Lindstrom where Dinnerbel is. It is a ramshackle eyesore and unfinished. There’s also a smaller one with about 20 units on Hwy 8 by Domino’s Pizza being built. Those are just the ones I’m familiar with. So why do we need an 84 unit building on Olinda Trail? There has to be a better location for something of that size. How long until the Olinda apartments become section 8 or HUD apartments? We do not feel like this meeting should be allowed to happen when the residents are not allowed to be present. Some people that live locally said they never received a letter even. We were only given 10 day's notice about the meeting, and initially, the wrong phone number to get more information. What about those of us with hearing loss and therefore have difficulty hearing on a phone? I know they mention sending an email, which I am doing, will anyone actually read it and reply back? There are many older ones in our neighborhood, not all of them own a computer. All of this development talk should be suspended until taxpayers are allowed to engage with their elected representatives face to face and out of the dark shadow of Covid19. Do you really believe that a call-in system is going to work? I guarantee that number will be busy the majority of the time. The meeting for it being held by phone will work to the developer’s


of 39

advantage, and apparently the city’s.... “Sorry, due to the high volume of calls all lines are busy, please try again later.” On Facebook, AnnMarie Brink said, “I talked to Olinger and it’s not Northland, it’s some developer from Duluth, he (Olinger) said there’s no info on our website since he doesn’t even know anything about it and this is his (Olinger’s) first time seeing it in real form. He’s going to get the # updated and stated they’re going to try and figure it out to have people be able to call in and ask questions during the meeting.” He's going to, "try and figure it out to have people be able to call in and ask questions during the meeting"?! So, the call-in system hasn't been tried yet, and if it fails then what? The proposal gets railroaded in then? Who is the builder and how do the council members not know? How will you guarantee that every person has a chance to be heard, and get their questions answered? Why only 10 day's notice, and only to select residents? We have heard that this developer purchased the land across the street also. What happens when the developer puts in apartment buildings there, or over-develops that area too? Olinda Trail was never zoned for this volume of traffic for a reason. I say leave it zoned as it was originally planned for. I’ve seen other cities that over-developed an area and they had to go in and widen the roads, and many people lost their front yards in the process. Lindstrom is a relatively safe town still, but history has shown in city after city that high density housing equals crime and a lower quality of living for people in the area. Whatever the council members decide to do the residents of Lindstrom need our questions answered and we need to have in writing any promises that are made. With the meeting taking place with no residents present what provisions will be made to have things in a legal format, documented, and written out so that all persons have access to the final proposal and everything that is included in it? Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please reply back with answers to our questions. Dennis and Laurie Bucholz [email protected]



of 39


of 39

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: August 6, 2020

SUBMITTED BY: Administrator Olinger ITEM: 2020 Development Updates

• Rosehill Resort-Curb and gutter are installed. Building construction has commenced.

• Meredees/Northland- The developer has closed on the property. They are pursuing HUD financing.

• Morning Sun Phase 2 and 3-Phase 2 and Phase 3 continue to pull building permits

• Enchanted Cove-All four buildings are complete. Final restoration and paving should be complete soon

• Chisago Lakes Mini Storage-Under construction. We have had some complaints about runoff and

erosion. We have addressed the issues and the owner has hired an inspector to review erosion control

before and after rainfalls.

• Olinda Trail Utility Relocations- Project is still underway

• Olinda Trail-Chisago County, is reconstructing Olinda Trail from the High School to the

south County line. They are still installing storm sewer. Once that is complete they will install curb and then pave. Project completion is in September or October.

• Olinda Trail Trail-The City is planning a trail project in 2021, to extend the Olinda Trail Trail from 292nd to 288th Avenue. The City received a $305,000 TAP grant, the DNR notified us that the City was not awarded the DNR grant. We are waiting for the County to complete their project to reevaluate costs of the Trail Extension.

• Lindstrom Fire Hall- The Fire Department is working on plans for the facility. Bonds were proceeds are ready. Preliminary cost estimates of the concept will be available this week. I will share the concept and cost estimate as soon as I have them.

• Golf Estates-The City has received final documents and the development will be presented at the next City Council meeting.

• Albrecht Land-Mr. Albrecht is working on an 8-unit townhome development on the north side of North Lindstrom Lake. He should be in with an annexation request and preliminary plat soon.

• Olinda Apartments-You reviewed the preliminary plat tonight

• Lyman Court Phase Two-Mr. Maloney has presented a revised Lyman Court Plat and Phase Two. The Planning Commission will review the plat at their September meeting.

13292 sylvan ave., lindstrom, mnaug 06, 2020 · page 1 of 39 agenda city of lindstrom planning...

Documents