Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/2004 P&Z Packet• CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, February 11, 2004 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers (scheduled to be televised on Ch. 16) AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 14, 2004 and January 28, 2004. Amend approved minutes from December 10, 2003. (Pg. 4 — Mr. Hyser correct to Mr. Hyden in 3 places.) IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING for Preliminary Plat, Sue Carpenter, Justin's Preserve, 171 White Pine Road — Jeff Smyser B. PUBLIC HEARING for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Preliminary Plat, Marshan Estates, Marshan Lane — Tanda Gretz C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for Rezone and Preliminary Plat, Legacy Holdings Lino Lakes LLC, Legacy at Woods Edge, SE corner of 35W and Lake Drive — Michael Grochala VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. None VII. ADJOURN • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES ME ENDED EMBER PRES anuary 14, 2 :42 11-1‘1' x'0:32 P.M. Hyden (Arrived at 6:47 p.m.), Lane, Rafferty Schaps, and Tralle. None. eff Smyser; Michael Grochala; and James, tudenski;: Tanda Gretz I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:42 p.m., January 14, 2004. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 10, 2003 Mr. Tralle made a MOTION approve the December 10, 2003 Minutes and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 3 -0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:45 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:46 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 3 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS • A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Eagle Brook Church, 7709 20th Avenue N., Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 2 Staff stated at the previous public hearings, a number of issues remained unanswered, one of which was the existing house on the site. He noted they had received an application to plat the property to create two lots, one for the church and one for the house. The public hearing on the plat was opened at the December meeting. Staff presented their analysis of this application. Staff was recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Additional right of way shall be dedicated to Anoka County for 20th Avenue (CSAH 21), as indicated on the plans. This shall be shown on the final plat. 2. A separate deed for the right of way along the exception lot (7791 20th Ave.) shall be recorded with the final plat because this lot is not part of the plat. 3. All necessary permits shall be obtained by the applicant from Anoka County for work in the 20th Ave. (CSAH 21) right of way. 4. Signage is governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits are required for all signs. 5. Additional screening shall be added on a revised landscaping plant. 6. Drainage and utility easements must be created over all ponds and wetlands. These must include land 25' from the delineated wetland edge, as proposed on the plans. These easements must be included on the final plat. 7. Easements must be placed over the relocated drain tile for Co. Ditch 72 and deeded to the Rice Creek Watershed District. 8. Issues listed in the January 7, 2004 memo by the City Engineer must be resolved to his satisfaction. 9. Stop signs shall be installed for vehicles exiting both driveways. 10. The church shall enter into a site performance agreement prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. The church shall enter into a maintenance agreement for the stormwater facilities prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. A management plan for the prairie areas must be prepared and obtain approval from the City prior to building permit issuance. 13. Traffic control personnel shall be employed during peak periods at the I -35E interchange, at the 20th Ave. and Main St. intersection, and at the access driveways to the site. These personnel shall be law enforcement officers. 14. During church services and large events, the northern driveway shall be entry only and the south driveway shall be exit only. Traffic control personnel shall be present at the driveways to assure this. 15. Parking lot lighting shall be turned off no later than two hours after services or other events at night. 16. The terms and dimensions of the conservation easement in the southwest portion of the site must be agreed to by the church and the easement holder prior to issuance of a building permit. 17. The sewer line from the building line to the septic tanks must be insulated to prevent freezing. 18. A fence or other barrier shall be built to protect the septic system treatment areas. 19. Streetlights typical for road intersections shall be installed at the church's cost at the end of each access driveway on CSAH 21 (20th Ave). DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 3 Mr. Hyden asked what was the lowest level of the building. Mr. Smyser replied it was 896. He stated there was no basement planned in this building. Mr. Hyden asked about the treatment system and the guarantee on it. Mr. Smyser replied the Engineer would recommend some way of warranting that the system would work and the City could require they provide some type of a maintenance agreement. Ms. Lane clarified that the signs would not be lit and they would be required to follow the signage Ordinance. Mr. Smyser replied that was correct and if the church wanted to do something in the future that was not allowed under the Ordinance, they would have to request a variance. Mr. Rafferty asked how did the City ensure that the lights were turned off within two hours after an event. Mr. Smyser replied as with a lot of conditions, if they received calls that the church was not following their conditions, then staff would check into the complaint to make sure they were in compliance. He stated if the violations continued, the City would enforce the conditions. Mr. Tralle asked what was the status of the property to the north of the entrance. Mr. Smyser replied at this point that property had never been part of the plat or the Conditional Use Permit application, however, in order for the Conditional Use Permit to be approved and the project to go forward, it would be required they get that additional right of way. Ms. Lane stated she would like to see a cap on how late the lighting could remain on. Chair Schaps invited the public to make comment. Scott Anderson, Eagle Brook Church, thanked the Board for going through the process with them. He stated they had done their best to provide information as completely and fully as they could. He noted they had held two neighborhood meetings and they would continue to be open to the neighborhood and City's suggestions and concerns. He indicated they had made the necessary changes to their plans as requested by the Board. He stated they felt strongly that there was no reason to vote no and they were ready to move on to City Council. He stated as they continued to go through the process, they would continue to deal with the concerns brought forward. He stated they had no objection to putting a cap on the lighting and at their current site, their lighting went off at 10:00 p.m. He did not anticipate this would be an issue and he anticipated they would continue to follow a 10:00 p.m. light off. He stated with respect to the McGill property, the Church had an interest in the property and the McGills were willing to provide the easements. Vernon Swing, Engineer, stated he had been hired by the Heron Group to review the study that was prepared by the Church's consultants. He stated the neighborhood was not opposed to a Church on this site, but they were concerned with the size of the Church. He stated he was not here to contest the results of the Church's study. He indicated he concurred with the results in that there was not sufficient intersection capacity to DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 4 sustained a development of this magnitude. He stated ultimately interchange improvements would be necessary. He summarized for the Board the number of peak hour trips made in this development and noted this was a large number of cars to be going through this area at one time. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Swing had ever seen intersections like this before. Mr. Swing replied he had and the way to solve the problem was to improve the intersection. Chair Schaps asked if he had included the police officers at each of the intersections. Mr. Swing stated he had reviewed the existing report, which included the posting of police officers at the intersections. Mr. Swing expressed concern about the movement of emergency vehicles through the area. Mr. Swing noted ordinarily he was not hired by a Church or a neighborhood, but he indicated this was not a typical Church and strongly suggested infrastructure improvement be put in place prior to the approval of this request. Chair Schaps asked if cities faced infrastructure problems daily with developments. Mr. Swing acknowledged all cities faced these problems. Chair Schaps asked him what he would do to try and relieve the congestion. Mr. Swing replied he would try not to exacerbate the problem. He stated he would try to provide for the citizens that were currently in the City. He stated if the church was built, he would suggest additional lanes were added at the interchange ramps and on Main Street and traffic signals added. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Swing, in his opinion, if having police officers at the intersections was a good idea. Mr. Swing replied for a very short period of time this was a good solution. Chair Schaps asked if there was anything other than police officers and infrastructure improvements Mr. Swing would recommend. Mr. Swing replied permanent infrastructure was the important element, but even some type of temporary infrastructure improvements would help. Mr. Tralle stated in his opinion, emergency vehicles were a rarity and delay would be inevitable whenever there was an emergency. Mr. Tralle asked what would generate a road to get upgraded. Mr. Swing replied the degradation of the road system dictated when it would be repaired and /or upgraded. Staci Wittner, 7542 Peltier Lake Drive, showed a video of the Eagle Brook Church traffic. She stated the tape only reflected one of three services. She noted she counted over 600 cars within a 35- minute period entering the parking lot. She stated her video did not show the front parking lot, so she had no way of counting those cars. Nor did the video show the back entrance. She indicated Highway 61 was also all backed up. She DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 5 indicated after she had stopped taping, the traffic had tapered off She stated she had been to the church three times and the traffic was always the same. She believed her neighborhood would be stuck in a two -mile traffic jam if they wanted to get out before or after a church service. She stated she was not opposing the Church, but she was opposing the size of the church. She noted her neighborhood was rural and quiet, and the roads would not accommodate this type of traffic. She urged the Board to not approve this request. She presented to the Board a list of police calls made to Eagle Brook. Doug Jost, Centerville, asked the Board to deny this request. He presented a written statement to the Board. He stated this development would cause undue stress to the traffic flow in the neighborhoods. He stated the roads could not accommodate this type of development. He noted the current 20th Avenue was not designed to handle the increased traffic that EBC is projecting will occur. The City of Lino Lakes should wait until a consensus is reached between the City of Centerville and the County of Anoka as to how increased traffic levels can be managed for 20th Ave., and the Highway 14 and 20th Ave. intersections. He stated Eagle Brook Church had severely underestimated the problems that will occur for the local residents by their increased traffic flow. If Eagle Brook Church wants to build in Lino Lakes, they should plan on building a site that is already zoned commercial /industrial, because that is the type of area that is more suited for their type of operation due to its immense size. Sylvia Marier, 1833 77th Street, presented the Minutes of the Council from 1990 and a written statement for the Board's review. She stated the Heron Group and the neighborhood was requesting the Board review the history of this area. She stated in 1990 negotiations with the resident occurred and a commercial /industrial area was approved. She requested the Board not approve this development. Paul Rand ( ?sp), stated it was very difficult to deal with traffic in a mathematical way. He stated he believed people would adjust their trips to avoid traffic congestion. He indicated there would be a natural adjustment to traffic until permanent infrastructure improvements were made. He stated human nature would help adjust any traffic jams. Eugene Marier, 7720 20th Avenue North, stated his property was located directly across this development. He presented a petition signed by over 115 residents opposing this development. Mr. Smyser requested in the future, residents make copies of all documents submitted to the Board for staff. Barbara Bor read from a prepared statement. She stated their traffic engineer had tried to address their concerns and clearly there was a traffic issue. She noted there were alternatives to their concerns. She stated the standards for the CUP required an objective comparison of the proposed use. She asked if this proposal met that standard. She noted there were people involved in this equation. She asked if this land use was unique. She noted even if the Church used only half of its capacity, it exceeded all businesses within District 6. She asked how big was too big. She stated if the size and intensity was greater than other size and intensity in their District, then they needed to come to the conclusion that this proposal was adverse. She noted the driveways where the turn lanes DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 6 are proposed to be located, were not on the drawings. She indicated the area was residential, and she was concerned about the size of the building in comparison to the homes. She acknowledged this is a church in need of an expansion, but this was the wrong place to put it. She asked the Board to deny their request. Chair Schaps asked in general what did Ms. Bor think would happen to the roadway if Columbia Township approved the Racino. Ms. Bor stated she believed the impact on traffic and the roads would be great. She stated they needed a road solution and unfortunately, that was not intended for the near future. She asked why were they choosing to leap frog and include a development right now that would make this area worse. Mr. Tralle asked why didn't the residents do something when they knew the wetland areas were disappearing. Ms. Bor replied the Heron Group had notified the Rice Creek Watershed District about this, but nothing had been done. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to act on this request tonight and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4 -0. Chair Schaps added condition 20 that the traffic analysis needed to be revised for the Saturday and Wednesday traffic to meet staff's approval prior to City Council consideration. Ms. Lane added condition 21 that no work or excavating be done until after July 1st or later due to the sensitivity of the heron rookery. Ms. Lane added condition 22 that the lights, with the exception of the security lights, be off by 10:00 p.m. as a part of the CUP. Mr. Rafferty stated he was not in agreement with condition 21. Chair Schaps noted the Council could keep the condition, modify it, or eliminate it. Chair Schaps asked if springtime construction was now a moot issue. Mr. Smyser replied if this goes to the Council after tonight's meeting, and it was approved, the Church could possibly begin grading on the site in the spring, so he did not think springtime construction was a moot point. Mr. Hyden also agreed with Mr. Rafferty in objecting to condition 21 as added by Ms. Lane. Ms. Lane stated the City was in grave danger of losing their heron population and she felt strongly about preserving their nesting area. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 7 Chair Schaps stated his concern was that nobody could say for certain that 2500 feet would impact the heron population. He stated he was not convinced this would be a significant issue with it being over 2000 feet away. Mr. Rafferty agreed with Chair Schaps that nobody had given them definite information if this project would impact the herons. He noted 35W was closer to the island than this development. Chair Schaps asked how many members were in agreement with this condition. Ms. Lane was the only Board member who indicated she was in agreement. Mr. Schaps stated this condition would not be added and condition number 22 would now be condition number 21, but the Ms. Lane's concerns would be noted in the Minutes. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend approving Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions as noted in staff's January 14, 2004 report and also Condition 20 and 21 added at this meeting and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lane). Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend approving the Conditional Use Permit for a church in the Rural Zoning District, Eagle Brook Church, subject to the conditions, and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lane). Mr. Tralle stated this was not an easy decision for him to make and he thanked the Heron Group for all of their efforts and noted he was very dissatisfied with the Rice Creek Watershed District. He noted the church owned the property and they had a right to develop it. He urged the residents and Eagle Brook Church to work together to make this development work to the benefit of everyone. He stated the Board had done their homework for this request. Mr. Rafferty stated he agreed with Mr. Tralle and the information that was brought forward by the residents was very well done. He pointed out that all of the residents who had built their homes in the City added to the traffic problems. He stated he believed the church would be good stewards for the land, and he believed this was a good development for the area. He also encouraged the church and residents to work together. Chair Schaps stated that as chair, he doesn't vote unless there is a tie vote. However, if he had to vote, he would have voted in favor of this development. He stated there were a lot of other things that could have happened and applicant could have acted in a different way, which could have had an adverse impact on this project, but that had not happened. He agreed with Mr. Rafferty that all of the residents contributed to the congestion issues. He thanked everyone for his or her work on this project. Chair Schaps adjourned the meeting at 8:38 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8: p.m. B. Final Plat for Ravens Hollow, K -G Development, East of Hodgson Road and South of Fox Trace Development DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 8 Staff stated the City Council approved the preliminary plat for Ravens Hollow with Resolution 03 -134 in August, 2003. The final plat needs P & Z review prior to City Council approval. Staff indicated the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat. The rezoning of the site is in effect. The City Attorney has approved the title commitment. The City Engineer has prepared a development agreement. Staff noted one condition of approval was: 2. If an area identification monument is planned, information specifying sign design, location, ownership, and maintenance must be submitted for City review with the final plat. Staff noted this was covered in the homeowners association document. Staff stated the park dedication condition read as follows: 6. Park dedication shall be $93,240 less the agreed upon value of a trail dedication along the northern edge of the site. This shall be clarified prior to final plat approval. Staff noted the developer has agreed to deed to the City a trail easement 30 feet wide that will cover the existing trail and a park dedication credit of $8,000.00. Staff has required that the easement deed be submitted including legal description of the easement and a survey showing it. Staff recommended approving the final plat for Ravens Hollow. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Ravens Hollow and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit, Circle -Lex VFW, 7868 Lake Drive Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. Staff stated applicant was interested in constructing a new building at their site on the northeast corner of Lake Drive and Lois Lane. The site has a conditional use permit (CUP), which will need to be amended to allow the construction of the new building. He noted the City had previously approved a CUP amendment in 1999 for the construction of an addition onto the existing VFW building, but that project was never constructed. The work proposed by this application would replace that approved plan. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 9 1. The separate parcel shall be combined into one tax parcel. The applicant must submit documentation that a lot combination has been filed with Anoka County prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Additional right of way shall be dedicated to Anoka County for Lake Drive, as indicated on the plans. A deed for this right of way shall be filed prior to building permit issuance. 3. The Lake Drive driveway must align with 79th Street. The southern edge of the driveway must be moved to the south from what is shown on the 12/18/03 plans. A new plan must be submitted showing this change prior to City Council consideration. 4. The VFW must demonstrate a 50' separation between existing wells on all adjacent residential properties and the proposed stormwater ponds. This must be demonstrated prior to City Council consideration. 5. The VFW must demonstrate how parking will be accommodated during the construction period prior to City Council consideration. Construction limits should be shown on a plan. 6. Drainage and utility easements must be created over all ponds. Deeds for these easements shall be provided to the City prior to building permit issuance. 7. The new building must connect to city water and sanitary sewer and pay appropriate connection charges. 8. Any existing septic system or wells must be properly abandoned according to law. 9. Plantings labeled "vide" are not listed in the plant list. These must be identified. The height of plantings near the driveway must not interfere with sight lines. 10. The City native seed schedule shall be used in infiltration and ponding areas. 11. Issues listed in the January 8, 2004 memo by the City engineer must be resolved to his satisfaction. 12. A stop sign shall be installed for the Lake Drive driveway. 13. All necessary permits shall be obtained by the applicant from Anoka County for work in the Lake Drive (CSAH 23) right of way. 14. Lighting must be shown on submitted plan and fixture cut sheets. 15. Signage is governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits are required for all signs. 16. The VFW shall enter into a site performance agreement prior to issuance of a building permit. 17. The VFW must agree to a mutual cross - access easement with the property to the north when that property develops. 18. If parking or traffic generation create problems in the future, the City may impose additional requirements to resolve such issues. 19. Project approval includes approval of setback variances to allow the building to be 34 feet from the new Lake Drive right of way, and the parking drive to be 5 feet from the new Lake Drive right of way. Mr. Tralle asked if Lois Lane would be their main entrance and where a median would be placed. Mr. Smyser replied the County has not yet determined locations for breaks in a future median. He noted this stretch of Lake Drive had a lot of "T" intersections and this makes planning difficult. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 10 Mr. Rafferty asked if the fence would be six or seven feet high. Applicant replied the fence would be six feet high. Chair Schaps invited the public to make comment. Bert Noren, 785 Lois Lane, expressed concerns regarding parking. Mr. Smyser replied the formula they used was 10 spaces per 1000 square feet, plus employees. For large events that could pose problems, the City could impose additional requirements to resolve such issues. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:13 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Tralle asked applicant if they had ever considered purchasing Mr. Noren's and the adjourning neighbors property. Dean Johnson, VFW, replied they had entertained the idea of purchasing the properties, but they had not acted on it in any way. Mr. Tralle stated he had a concern with the addition of future medians and the access to this site. Mr. Rafferty asked what was the maximum number of people that the building could accommodate. Mr. Johnson replied they cold have 300 people in the dance/banquet area, but realistically it would probably be closer to 200 people. Mr. Tralle asked if there would be an open restaurant in the facility. Mr. Johnson replied there were booths and tables, but it was not a huge eating facility. It was designed for 92 people. Chair Schaps asked if there was anything that would prevent cars from parking along the service drive south of 79th Street. Mr. Smyser replied that was a possibility. He noted Lois Lane was a public street and did allow parking. Mr. Johnson noted Lions Park was also a block away, which had 79 spaces and while they could not post this as overflow parking, it was available. Chair Schaps asked what was the anticipated building schedule. Mr. Johnson replied they wanted to start construction in the spring. Mr. Hyden asked what type of signage would they have. Mr. Johnson showed an example of the signage they were thinking about using. He noted the signage would be attached to the building. He stated he believed the existing pole sign would be moved or eliminated. Chair Schaps encouraged them to eliminate the existing pole sign. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approving Amendment to Conditional Use for a Private Club, subject to the conditions as noted in staff's January 14, 2004 report and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 11 Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approving the variance for setbacks from Lake Drive and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend the allocation of 2.24 acres of MUSA reserve, subject to the conditions as noted in staffs January 14, 2004 report and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0. D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for Rezone and Preliminary Plat, Legacy Holdings Lino Lakes LLC, Legacy at Woods Edge, SE corner of 35W and Lake Drive Staff stated they were continuing to work with the Hartford Group on the building elevations and other issues raised in the December staff report. He noted staff would present the revised plans to the Board for discussion at the January 28, 2004 Special Planning & Zoning Board work session. Staff recommended continuing the public hearing to the February 11, 2004 regular Planning & Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to continue the Public Hearing to the February 11, 2004 regular Planning & Zoning Board meeting and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0. E. PUBLIC HEARING for Rezone, 4 -acre property at NE corner of Lake Drive and Aqua Lane Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. Staff stated a recent development application has brought to light an inconsistency between the comprehensive plan and the zoning on the property. When this occurs, the inconsistency must be corrected. This rezoning was initiated by the City to address the inconsistency. Staff noted the subject site is four acres of property at the northeast corner of Lake Drive and Aqua Lane, adjacent to the existing Marshan Lake Condominiums. The entire Marshan Lake Condominiums site and the remaining four -acres along Lake Drive is guided Medium Density Residential. This allows a density of 3 -6 units per acre. Staff stated the site is zoned R -4, a high - density zone. This is not consistent with the comprehensive plan's Medium Density classification. To address this inconsistency, either the comprehensive plan or the zoning should be changed. Based on the recommendation of the P & Z and the City Council work session discussions, the site should be rezoned to R -3. Staff has prepared an amendment to the zoning ordinance to rezone the site to R -3 to bring it into conformance with the comprehensive plan. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approving the rezoning from R -4 High Density to R -3 Medium Density. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 12 Chair Schaps invited the public to make comment. Ron Fuchs, Hokanson Development, 9174 Isanti Street NE, Blaine, read from a prepared statement which he presented to staff. He requested the Board deny this request. Chair Schaps asked if the medium density was accurate. Mr. Fuchs replied the existing development is 6.4 units /acre, which is in the range of high density. Bob Voeller, representative of owner, 634 Aqua Circle, Vice President Marshan Lakes Townhouse Association, stated they did not want housing units stacked one on top of each other. He stated they had built their homes with the understanding that there would be green space. He requested the Board rezone the property to R -3. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:44 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approval of Rezoning Site from R -4 to R -3, Northeast Corner Lake Drive and Aqua Lane and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4 -0. F. CONTINUED Variances for detached garage, Joseph Kivel, 6262 Otter Lake Road Staff stated applicant had completed the two pending action items requested by the Board at their October 8, 2003 meeting. Staff noted the two action items were a full Certificate of Survey would be submitted, with a complete setback information and proposed garage dimensions and setbacks; the applicant would explore the possibility to swapping land with the neighboring property owner to the north, whereby land could be acquired so that a driveway could be constructed along the northern property boundary with a garage to be placed to the east of the home. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval of the proposed variance with the following condition: 1. The applicant, their successors, and assigns are hereby notified that should Otter Lake Road expand by ten feet or less, neither the City and /or road authority will pay compensation to the property owners for severance damages due to their encroachment in the setback area. Mr. Tralle asked if the City would have to buy Mr. Kivel out if the road went through. Ms. Gretz replied there was a condition in the report that dealt with this issue. Mr. Hyden asked if this would set a precedent for the homes in that area. Ms. Gretz replied this was a difficult question to answer, but there is a clear hardship in this situation. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 13 Mr. Hyden asked if the City would be held responsible if the garage was hit because it was so close to the property line. Ms Gretz replied this was a legal question and she did not know how to answer this. Chair Schaps stated there was awareness on applicant's part that a garage was being placed in a location, which might create a traffic hazard. Joseph Kivel, 6262 Otter Lake Road, stated he did not believe the garage would be a traffic hazard and someone would have to make a real effort to hit it. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend approval of the variance for a detached garage, Joseph Kivel, 6262 Otter Lake Road and was supported by Mr. Tralle subject to the condition as noted in staffs January 14, 2004 report. Motion carried 4 -0. G. Final Plat for Miller's Crossroads, Bruggemen Properties, SE corner of Birch St. and Hodgson Rd. Staff stated the City Council approved the preliminary plat for Miller's Crossroads with Resolution 03 -142 on September 22, 2003. The final plat needs P &Z review prior to City Council approval. Staff stated the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat. The rezoning of the site is in effect. Prior to City Council approval of the final plat, the City Attorney will review the title commitment. The City Engineer will prepare a development agreement. Estimates for utility and roadwork will be used by the City Engineer approval in order to prepare the development agreement. Other conditions of approval must be satisfied prior to City Council approval or included in the development agreement. Staff recommended approval of the final plat. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Final Plat, Miller's Crossroads and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 2003 Year -End Summary Staff presented the 2003 Final Action Summaries for the Board's review. Ms. Lane stated she would find it helpful to see what the Council did also. B. Continued Discussion — Temporary Signs/Banners Mr. Rafferty stated due to the lateness of the hour, he would agree to postpone this discussion, but wanted to discuss this at some point in the future because it was an important issue. He noted this discussion could be held when they had a lighter agenda. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 14, 2004 Page 14 Chair Schaps stressed the importance of getting the business owners involved in this discussion also. C. Updates Mr. Grochala reminded the Board of the special meeting to be held on January 28. Mr. Grochala stated Anoka County was going to do the Main Street project from I -35E to I -35W and was starting the preliminary planning process at this time. The first open house was tentatively scheduled for February 19 at Wargo Nature Center. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:32 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES ME IME ENDED PRESE N EMBE •ERS ABSEN S.. !00 P. yden, Lane, Root, Schaps andTralle one. elf Smyser and Michael Grochala I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Special Meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board to order at 6:37 p.m., January 28, 2004. II. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Rezone to PUD; Development Stage Plan Review; Site and Building Plan Review (Regent (a, Lino Lakes); Legacy Holdings Lino Lakes LLC, Legacy at Woods Staff stated the intent of this meeting was to provide the opportunity for a more in -depth review of the project by the board and to identify and address any issues that needed to be resolved prior to the February Planning & Zoning meeting. Staff noted the Environmental Board met on Wednesday, January 21, to review the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) comments and to review the development proposal. The board recommended a Finding of No Significant Impact on the EAW and approval of the PUD /Development Stage Plan. Action by the City Council regarding the EAW is scheduled for February 9, 2004. Staff indicated the City had also received the Engineers Report from Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). The report recommended approval of the CAPROC (Conditional Approval Pending Receipt of Changes). The projects would be considered by the RWCD Board on January 28, 2004, but staff expected approval. Staff noted the large part of this project would be traffic management. He noted the City realized that some improvements to Lake Drive would need to be made. He noted they had met with MNDOT and Anoka County regarding improvements to Lake Drive. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 28, 2004 Page 2 Glenn VanWormer, SEH, summarized the traffic analysis for the Board. He noted the existing roadway would not handle the additional traffic. He stated the ramps would need to be realigned, which would allow signalization. He indicated they also wanted to get left turn lanes onto the freeway. He stated what they found in their simulation, is this type of plan worked very well, but there would still be a little bit of a delay. He indicated stated in about 2010, was when this plan would expire as to being able to handle all of the traffic. He noted the bridge would not be changed with this plan. Mayor John Bergeson swore in new Board Members Mr. Root, Mr. Hyden and Mr. Pogalz. Heather Kienitz, SEH, presented a simulation of the traffic flow through 2010. Ms. Lane asked if Anoka County was willing to fund any of these proposed improvements. Ms. Grochala replied at the present time, the City would the body that paid for the improvements. Mr. Tralle asked if the Lake Drive and 35W intersection would eventually look like the Lexington intersection. Mr. Grochala replied it would be a very similar intersection. Bill Griffin, Hartford Group, introduced the development team including John Tice, Matt Nugent, and Larry Johnson. Matt Nugent, Project Architect, presented some of the proposed materials they would be working with, the architecture of the buildings, and the building elevations. He indicated they had taken staff s previous suggestions and incorporated them into the new proposals. Mr. Root inquired about the signage. Mr. Grochala replied as a part of the overall project, they would need to have some standard sign criteria and this would be presented at a future meeting. Mr. Grochala pointed out that they wanted an intergenerational development that accommodated many different people. Mr. Pogalz asked if specific standards would be set for the materials used on this project. Mr. Grochala replied the materials presented tonight were what they intended to use for the senior center. Mr. Pogalz asked if it had been determined yet what the cost of the individual units would be. Mr. Griffin stated one of the things they were doing was have a Master Plan for the entire project, but one of the first buildings to be build was the senior housing and that was the materials they were presenting tonight. He noted the performa had not yet been determined. Mr. Grochala stated there would be design guidelines for this development. DRAFT MINUTES • • • 1 • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 28, 2004 Page 3 Mr. Grochala summarized the public improvements for the Board. He noted there would not be any issues with the sanitary sewer and water and there was enough capacity for this development. He presented conceptual drawings of the streetscape. He indicated the City had the ultimate control over this area. Mr. Root asked what would they do about snow storage. Mr. Grochala replied one of the issues they were working on at the present time was snow storage and removal. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern about maintenance costs to maintain the development. Chair Schaps asked if there were any projections made as far as what this development would generate versus the maintenance costs to maintain it. Mr. Grochala replied they would have this figured out in the near future. Chair Schaps stated the City needed to determine what the capital improvements in the future would be also. Mr. Grochala stated there would also be a trail corridor through this development. Mr. Grochala summarized some of the minor changes still to be made to the development plans. He stated if these changes are worked out prior to the next Board meeting, staff would be recommending approval of the development stage plan at that meeting. Ms. Lane stated she thought the development was wonderful and she would like to see it go forward. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board December 10, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Tralle clarified it was the size of the pipe and not the flowage. Mr. Studenski replied that was correct. j �� Mr. Hyser asked if the pipe was at maximum flow all year. Mr. Studenski replied that V was correct. dei� -� Mr. Hyser asked if the pipe went to maximum flow, would that change the amount of water gong through the pipe. Mr. Smyser replied the pipe had capacity for more flow and this project did not have an effect on it. He stated if someone was changing something upstream, it would change the flow, but this project would not change it. .. Mr. Hyser asked who ultimately would be responsible if the calculations were wrong. M� r Smyser replied that would have to be determined as to what the cause was. He noted there might be changes downstream or upstream, but that does not mean this project changed the flow. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Katherine Leonidas, BWBR Architects, stated they had met with the neighbors and the result of that was some design changes. She believed the neighborhood meeting was successful. She showed the primary changes, which included the roadway moving 200 feet along the southern property line. She noted additional screening was added to the north, as well as screening along road 21. She summarized the hours of operation. She asked them to keep it in mind that this church would operate on two campuses. She summarized how they would prepare for crime control. She noted it was still being discussed about the lighting at the two intersections to the east. She summarized the site lighting for the Board. She noted the lighting was identical to the lighting around City Hall. She indicated they would have some lighting in the back for security and some lighting around the drop off canopy. She noted the spire would be lit with the same fixture lighting the flag outside of City Hall. With respect to snow removal, there was a concern that they not be pushing snow into neighbor's yards. She stated the church had met with the landscaping contractor and summarized where the snow would be placed, all of it on pervious soil. She stated the design of Ditch 72 would not change the drainage and the area it served. She asked her septic design engineer and traffic consultant to address the septic design and traffic flow concerns. Peter Miller, Ecosystems Engineering, Elk River, Minnesota, noted they had vast experience regarding septic designs. He noted they have been involved in this project since 2002 and they had done a preliminary investigation of the soils and had submitted a preliminary report. He noted Anoka County would be handling the permitting of the system. He stated they had submitted a permitting process to Anoka County and they had approved their plans. He stated Anoka County had approved their submittal. He summarized the project for the Board. He noted the monitoring system consisted of a dedicated phone line so the monitor of the system had on -line instant access to the system. He stated Anoka County had agreed with the design and it was appropriate for the site, but they did have a concern about the length of the sewer line and the possibility of freezing. He informed the Board as to how they would address those concerns, APPROVED MINUTES • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. A Jeff Smyser February 11, 2004 Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat Allocation of MUSA Reserve Acres Justin's Preserve, White Pine Road This is a re- submittal of the plat reviewed by P & Z in December. Carpenter Homes has requested approval of a preliminary plat for Justin's Preserve. Under the current subdivision ordinance, the creation of new lots on city sanitary sewer requires a plat rather than a minor subdivision. The project involves splitting an existing fourteen -acre parcel. The plat changed to include a neighboring parcel. A portion of the land will be added to that neighbor's lot. This application highlights an unusual situation that should be corrected. The existing house on the large property, 171 White Pine Rd., is connected to city sanitary sewer and water. However, it is not within the MUSA. It should have been included in MUSA when it connected to the utilities. This also is the case with the existing 90' x 170' lot at 173 White Pine Rd (which is being included in the plat with this new submittal). Neither of these properties is in the MUSA although both are connected to utilities. This should be resolved now by allocating MUSA reserve. The area being platted includes 4.4 acres of upland. To accommodate the proposal, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Preliminary plat 2. Allocation of 3.7 acres of MUSA reserve ANALYSIS The following is a summary of the of the proposal: Gross Site Area 14.3 acres Upland Area 4.4 (approximation) Total Lots 3 Gross Density 0.21 units /acre Net Density 0.68 units /acre • • Justin's Preserve page 2 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site residential Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1 North Baldwin Lake Public /Semi- Public PSP South residential Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1X East residential Low Density Unsewered Resid. R -1 West regional park reserve Public /Semi- Public PSP Growth Management: MUSA Reserve: The comprehensive plan and the growth management policy establish a specific number of MUSA acres for residential growth for stage one (prior to year 2010). The MUSA reserve was calculated based on a specified amount of growth in specified areas. That estimate did not anticipate growth resulting from creating new lots on existing sewered property. The Growth Management policy designates 36 acres of MUSA reserve for residential development each year. The City Council has the flexibility to exceed the limit by 20% (7.2 acres) in a year without amending the comprehensive plan. The residential MUSA reserve for 2003 has been allocated. There are 3.7 acres remaining for 2004. The table at the end of this report lists the residential MUSA reserve status. The site is guided and zoned for sewered residential uses, and it is in a Stage 1 (pre -2010) area. The Justin's Preserve site includes approximately 4.4 acres of upland. Both existing homes are connected to the municipal sanitary sewer and water. However, neither is in the MUSA. The City allocates MUSA reserve based on the upland area of a site. The Justin's Preserve plat upland area is as follows: Though the upland of 4.4 acres is greater than the 3.7 acres remaining for 2004, the property is such that there cannot be additional lots created. The extra upland (0.7± acre) is isolated behind house sites and wetlands, with no access or road frontage to it. The 3.7 acres of MUSA reserve will be sufficient to include the house sites. gross area (acres) upland area (acres) Lot 1 3.6 2.1 Lot 2 8.4 1.5 Lot 3 2.3 0.8 total 14.3 4.4 Though the upland of 4.4 acres is greater than the 3.7 acres remaining for 2004, the property is such that there cannot be additional lots created. The extra upland (0.7± acre) is isolated behind house sites and wetlands, with no access or road frontage to it. The 3.7 acres of MUSA reserve will be sufficient to include the house sites. • • Justin's Preserve page 3 Alternatively, the City could use the allowable flexibility to exceed the annual goal of 36 acres by up to 20 %: in this case, 0.7 acre. This is not necessary, since the 3.7 acres is adequate. Growth Management, Units/Year: The comprehensive plan and the growth management policy establish a specific number of dwelling units of residential growth for stage one (prior to year 2010). The goal is 147 per year. The City Council has the flexibility to exceed the limit by 20% (29 units) in a year without amending the comprehensive plan. The table at the end of this report shows the status of the staging plans for final platting new residential units. The goal for 2004 has been exceeded. However, one more lot for 2004 would put the total at 22 over the target, or 15% over (it is at 14% now). This would fall within the allowable 20% range. The option is to deny the application because it exceeds the 147 limit. This would prevent the property owner from selling a lot until 2005. Preliminary Plat Lots: The minimum lot size in the R -1 zone is 10, 800 sf of upland. As listed above, all lots meet this minimum. (The minimum 10,800 sf is 0.25 acre.) The original preliminary plat reviewed in December included a lot width variance. The new plat no longer needs this variance. Shoreland: Baldwin Lake is a "recreational development" lake under the shoreland overlay ordinance. Minimum lot size is 20,000 sf (0.46 acre) with an 80' lot width. The proposed lots are large enough. Structures on sewered lots must be set back 75' from the ordinary high water level of 883.1. The proposed house pad meets this requirement. Streets, Access: No new streets are needed. A new driveway will be needed for Lot 1. The driveways must be five feet from a property line. Parks: The subdivision ordinance includes park dedication requirements. Park dedication is $1665 per residential unit, less any land dedication. There is no land dedication needed, so the park dedication will be $1665. Anoka County owns property that abuts the road on the west side of Rohavic Oaks 2nd Addition. The Anoka County trail map shows a future trail connecting to White Pine Road west of the site of the proposed plat. The proposed new house lot will not affect that future trail. Utilities: The existing house is connected to city water and sanitary sewer. The new house will connect as well. Grading and Stormwater Management: Wetlands cover the northern portion of the site. Drainage and utility easements will cover the wetlands. Easements also will be platted along all the property lines that do not run into wetlands. The Rice Creek Watershed District has issued a • • Justin's Preserve page 4 conditional approval of the first application. The new application should be submitted for re- examination. Power Line Easement: There is an existing power line running along the southern edge of the property. There was a blanket easement over the entire property. The applicant worked with the power company to confine that easement. This will need confirmation for final platting. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD The Environmental Board reviewed this application on January 28. Recommendations are attached. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Approval of the project should include the following conditions: 1. Lot 1 shall connect to city sanitary sewer and water. 2. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. Park dedication of $1,665 shall be paid. 4. Prior to approval of the final plat by City Council, the applicant shall submit proof that the powerline easement has been confined. 5. The new plat must obtain approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to final plat approval by the City Council. OPTIONS. 1. Approve the application, including the following: a. Allocation of 3.7 acres of 2004 MUSA reserve b. preliminary plat, with conditions. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 This review is based on the following plans and information: Preliminary Plat (Existing Conditions and Preliminary Plat), 1/16/04 Preliminary Grading, Erosion Control and Utility Plan, 1/16/04 • • Justin's Preserve page 5 2009 TOTAL 1� O O N LO N Cf) 0 0 O O N CO O O N Ln 0 0 N RESIDENTIAL MUSA ALLOCATION Cfl co O O O CO co O O 0) (O Co Ln M "t O M co 10 O M annual target O O a) C Justin's Preserve CO O co 1 N N O O e N c E a) co 1— Z V/ 1- 0 J Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be final platted) O J O < c F, Op O N N LO 0) N CO Ln N 0 ,— CO N LO T N 5281 0) 0 0 N O co O O N 0 N. O O N M co c1) co Co O O N CO d N co LL) N in O O N N Lc" 51 103 T O co N CO (0 47 r. co T co O O N N Ln 56 N O T CO N N N T 148 year end 2002 'Cr-) L T n E cd N LL a 2491 co OCo C T N T Development Name approved prelim. pla Century Farm North (Ravens Hollow (minor subdivision Iotsl 'Haley Manor (10 new (Crystal Cove (propos(' c co E 0) LT D m Lakeview Estates (2 r 'Pheasant Hills Pres. 1 proposed: 1Justin's Preserve total N N N o LO O 0) c c .c-L3 E 4) O • Memorandum DATE: February 5, 2004 TO: Jeff Smyser FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer l RE: Justin's Preserve Attached is the TKDA review dated February 4, 2004, of the submitted documents for the Justin Preserve site. The project is in general conformance with Lino Lakes requirements. The following comments must be addressed prior to final approval given for this project. 110 Please contact me with any questions. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651- 982 -2400 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 • TDD: 651 - 982 -2410 TKDA 4 ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: James Studenski, City Engineer Reference: Justin's Preserve 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292 -4400 (651) 292-0083 fax www.tkda.com Copies To: City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota From: Scott A. Brink, P.E. Date: February 4, 2004 Comm. No. 12976 -002 Routing: A review memorandum for this development was previously prepared and dated December 4, 2003. Since that time, additional documents have been received as follows: 1. Existing Conditions and Preliminary Plat by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc., dated January 16, 2004, and received by the City of Lino Lakes January 17, 2004. 2. Preliminary Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control, and Utility Plan by Plowe Engineering, Inc., dated • January 16, 2004, and received by the City of Lino Lakes January 17, 2004. The property is located along the south side of Baldwin Lake adjacent to White Pine Road, about 900 feet west of Laurere Avenue. The proposed plat and development essentially splits an existing 14.2 acre parcel of property into three parcels, Lot 1 (3.6 acres), Lot 2 (8.4 acres), and Lot 3 (2.3 acres). The previous submittal provided for splitting the parcel into two lots of approximately 2.2 acres and 11.8 acres. The total area of the property is slightly larger (0.3) from the previous submittal, as an existing house along White Pine Road has been added to the property. It is proposed that existing single family homes will remain on Lots 2 and 3 while a new single family home will be constructed on Lot 1. The following review comments are provided: 1. The proposed subdivision will require the review and approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). Rules indicate that any subdivision of property over 5 acres in size requires a permit from RCWD. 2. A First Floor Elevation (]~'FE) of 890.0 for the new home is proposed. A low floor lowest opening elevation of 989.6 is provided on the Plan, and appears to be in error (should be 889.6 ?) and must be revised accordingly. The 100 -year High Water Elevation of Baldwin Lake is identified as 885.30 according to the survey provided. The City's minimum building elevation floor elevation (including basement), must be the greatest of the following: 2 feet above the Design Flood Elevation, 4 feet above the water table, or 1 foot higher than the emergency overflow elevation. The elevations provided, therefore, would meet requirements based on Baldwin Lake flood elevations. However, the groundwater elevation is not known, and the lowest floor elevation would need to be 4 feet above the water table as required. In addition, the edge of the existing wetland bordering the future home site is An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Justin's Preserve Page 2 February 4, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota at an elevation of roughly 887 -888 feet according to the survey, and an Ordinary Water Elevation (OHWL) of 887.59 has been determined by the Applicant's Engineer. However, the extent of the wetland's bounce or potential High Water Elevation (HWL) is not known or shown on the Plan. Therefore, further documentation must be provided to show that the floor and building elevations proposed will meet City regulations in relation to the wetland. 3. The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining an NPDES Permit and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with State of Minnesota Law. This will also require providing to the City a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), required as part of the NPDES submittal. If the actual area of property to be disturbed is less than 1 -acre, an NPDES permit will not be required. However, the Applicant would be required to demonstrate on the Plan accordingly. Also, because of the close proximity to Baldwin Lake, and the existing wetland immediately adjacent to the proposed home site, sedimentation and erosion control measures must be fully implemented and enforced per City of Lino Lakes and RCWD requirements. 4. Drainage and utility easements are provided adjacent to property lines and over wetland areas in accordance with City requirements. These easements shall also be provided on the Final Plat. 5. Additional notes and details shall be included with the Plans providing for adherence to the standards and requirements of the City of Lino Lakes. This shall include standard details for watermain and sanitary sewer services and appurtenances, and notes referring to utility construction requirements of the City of Lino Lakes and Utility Specifications of the City Engineer's Association of Minnesota (CEAM) as applicable. 6. The proposed subdivision and construction must adhere to Floodplain and Shoreline Management requirements of the City of Lino Lakes as applicable. 7. A heavy dark line is shown extending across the existing wetland on Lot 1 between the proposed new house and the south property line. It is unknown or not noted what this line is. Memo Environmental To: Michael Grochala From: Marty Asleson Date: January 30, 2004 Re: Recommendations of the January 28, 2004 Environmental Board Meeting The Environmental Board met on January 28th, 2004 and made the following recommendations: Marshan Estates Land Cover The developer needs to submit a detailed tree inventory and follow the subdivision ordinance for Tree preservation plans. In addition, the developer should remove /prune any remaining trees to conform to National Fire Wise Standards (Attachment 1). Pre - existing conditions should include Lino Lakes MLCCS. Soils There should be no importing or exporting of soils without City approval. The developer should include a plan for soil compaction prevention. Surface Water Would like RCWD input on impact mitigation. The Environmental Board would like to see a minimum buffer to include at least the designated drainage easement area, and should include a distance of 50 feet from the ditch. The City native seed specification should be used to replant in this buffer area. Signage should be used in this easement area. The signage should say "no cutting, or removal of vegetation, no fill or debris." Developer should submit the required NPDES control measures and best management practices to be used with particular emphasis on the ditch. Ensure the developer is complying with the City Shoreland Management Overlay Ordinance in not exceeding 30% impervious. Downspouts from roofs should be directed to pervious yard areas. • Page 1 • • Additional Comment This Environmental Board review does not include the multi -use area. There is concem for the type of use that may be proposed for this area. Motion by Grundhoffer to approve Marshan Estates with Environmental Board comments and recommendations. The motion was 2 "d by O'Dea. Motion was approved with all in favor. Justin's Preserve Tree Preservation A tree preservation plan should be submitted following the City Tree Preservation Ordinance. Soils Importing or exporting of soils without City permission should be prohibited. Surface Water Create rain gardens to capture extra impervious runoff. Direct runoff from roofs to yard and /or rain gardens. Habitat Concerns Inform property owners of shoreland ordinance and of the benefits of leaving the trees (both alive and dead) as habitat. Other Non - Related Environmental Elevation on plan for future house and lowest floor elevation should be corrected. Motion to approve with staff and Environmental Board recommendations and comments made by O'dea, 2nd by O'Dea. All were in favor, motion approved. • Page 2 Gc RICE LAKE 11NT eAr 43 efleetep 411 !�� � , � • �0 `*aSS Eren ©m oIFnor6ato Ian ®�a Q,,4 � mI ° t� s -rnmi s ®© `aeoenenconnon t.p :Ammo v F _ ,?....mmoillicomkke mg 6*, —P otiQ�Qaa�ni � .... �"""w'. =ate° � Ji eea 1v�° iaosias jLdm::wl- nGEQ�I�a °ytTA[r atm ;,� a L. : f�tO111M . lIR[, aeffspri e= ennoB pB i'2p4NWo�0 op0 ANOKA COUNTY S 'VEYSR DRAWN REVISED REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. 0 SEP. 1974 NOV. 1978 MAR.1980 SEP.1981 DEC .1982 JULY 1985 DEC. 1985 1/4 REVISED REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. JAN. 1987 MAY 1988 AUO. 1989 FEB. 1991 FEB. 1992 FEB. 1993 MAY 1994 SCALE I°= 1 500' 1/2 MILE REVISED REV. REV, REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. 3/4 NOV. 1994 JAN. 1996 JULY 1997 JULY 1998 AUG. 1999 SEPT. 2000 MAY 2001 JULY 2002 LOCATION MAP • • PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Manufactured Home Park Public /Semi - Public Stage 1 Growth Boundary MUSA Line ti Ica Low Density Sewered Residential { 11I1011PlIitiaifl1 1 , Nor Low Density Unsewered Residential Medium Density Residential EMI EOM • • • ZONING MAP 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS and PRELIMINARY PLAT STINIIS PEV CITY OF LINO LAKES FOR CARPENTER HOMES PROPERTY OWNERS: DEANNA HAEG STEVE and JULIE PASELL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A piece of land situated in Lot 2 of Section 31, Township31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as commencing at a stake on the south line of saki Lot 2 distant 305 feet West of the southeast corner of said Lot 2; thence West on the south line of Lot 2 a distance of 730 feet to a point; thence North 460 feet to a point on the Meander Line of soid Lot 2; thence following said Meander Line of said Lot 2 to a stake on sold line; thence South 900 feet to the place of beginning. Hereby meaning to convey the Shore of the Lake and the water thereof Sub Servient to the and described. ZONING INFORMATION PROPERTY IS ZONED R7 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SETBACKS PER CITY FRONT 40 FEET (WHITE PINE ROAD) HOUSE SIDE 10 FEET GARAGE SIDE 5 FEET REAR YARD 30 FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE • 10.800 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOT WIDTH • 80 FEET AT BUILDING SETBACK GRAPHIC SCALE 40 125 240 4 Q,w.MR 1101.11ailT wTN MILL N019.. ( IN FEET ) 1 inch • 80 ft. 1 MONO g ! RE9M .r N ( 1 AIL ' S4913'01•E ' 393.30 / / / / / i / / ; 011E - MEA1+D� .-�. S r i 0,500 NP4 PROPp5E0 ORS BLOCK sit J•.: \ phi lib \\fir b s t -' Y! / r *`'j // q, ,I-LOT 1 \:\ jt y t, ': �O 4 'y TOTAL ARE .3,5g ACRES � Jf t !! UPLAND NtEA.209 ACRES •i.J 4,1 ... f` 1.14 +b 1 +4 +• 4, ONE 4- 1 LEGEND: • Denotes monument found Denotes-2 foot contour Interval* + NGVD Vertical Datum 6i Denotes Existing Spot Elevation .Jllc Denotes Wetland Area -c10, Denotes Overhead Wires and Power Poles Denotes Proposed Elevation I ,../ 4 #.7. Ai I 1 X • 1 1 i w I 1 l I I 1 I 1 I I I �q N 1 1',1(MfSE� C 1 . ..yso.w \ moo 0 89'1']5" IF - • \ n FT.RDAD EASEMENT \ I wow. N0. 871811 n \ dmrx \ 130..--219.04 -- °—y, mAT .7, ACM . floe Aa / 1 - --14HI aces PI .w SRO g -- ioiese MESAS.- - WET LAND OF DH'JhEATED WET LAND ss i - - - -- 4 --- \\ \\ \ �y I I f I ae.LOT+:2 LOT 3 ••TOTAL AREM &4 #HONES f UPLAND AREA.1.54 ACRES �.� w. 1:1 63 4 • 6e 11 886 , b_ i/ e ,y •�C: 1 4-..----1°.;"-----.7 /•.� °Er • 8 T iA ' OF Ak. ������A��� '+ 's WET LAND rAL �• �—..--.....-ifs 4.✓rb e b sup ^, PROPOSED ▪ ANUTILITY EASEMENT • —J '" — 7- — •�- WET LAND ski / i,AA 100 FOOT DICED POWER ASSOaATION -� , ... / % `EA$EWENT PER DOD. N0. 994169 / � :�c � r a�3 90ti� Y ,rti13.73 / \.`.......: \7 . «.-- F'F].' •1 • 1/2 / ' /Y • 1. • '• aa. J o w 1 Rea p:: 640.00 '4, \ \�� i '= 11 S89a13`Q1 "E[E 1-- —_ 1— -- �`- —• -F-- x_730 GEED MO. 4EAS -- _L .4 .- . . . ..4 .,-,.. �Ni' riDD - 44 15 DELINEATED MET LAND /4D;,t _5 F -_ r• E / // /ll vl TYPICAL EASEMENTS Oraleo9• ar,d DWI/ Lawn* .ra ,h.r, wac ON,9 10 two W -We, old 9ep01.9 .tresl r,i ..s bl M. roes .IoM.. Y,Ikvl.,L ad 5 hLL W -WY M adl•MO9 .Id. lot lines. u .4 otn.rai.. YWkatq CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota JASOI. E. RUD Dote /4/, Registration No 41578 IL G. RUD 4 SONS, INC LAND SURVEYORS 9I$ LExINGTON Avd. NO, CIRCLE PINES, MINNESOTA 56QJI4 -3625 TEL. 963- 986 -6666 VICINITY MAP •i 4 bs T I (% 1u r ts 1 Tedananart Dre..999.02 • T.N.N,+ � AT HOUSE N0. Ise SURVEY NOTES TOTAL AREA • 14.15* ACRES JAN 1 6 2004 crrY OF LINO LAKES WETLAND DELINEATION COMPLIED BTY EARTH SCIENCE AND ASSOCIATES. (August 2003) FIELD SURVEY COMPLETED BY E.G. RUD AND SONS IN SEPTEMBER OF 2003. • ;Nr,A -L4 • fILEgopY Job No. 41/8PP 3PROJ \03770 JUSTIN PkELIMiAIARY QAE2fN4 MlNME RoSiaN 001VRal ANA UTILITY PLAN JUSTIN'S PRESERVE MN 1 Q ■ FILE COPY LOW FLOOR LOWEST OPENING 989.6 8 Ar 7 s—� cP / +•60 E 885.21 \ OH J.V. DAUM ClEOCED C.G.S. / 7 \./ \ / \886 t�}l s o • \ \ •sue ctP - —. 0 / / / / �OS / +Lt, 7- f COI 3- R4 889.70 IE 884.64 8� '0 0 SHIED 67'48 WET LAND a7 �X -j 886.47 f 887 PROVIDE INSULATION OVER SANITARY /FR1M CO2 TO HOUSE (3' MINIMUM STYR OAM) EDGE OF DELINEATED WET LAND OHWL 887.59 1 EASEMENT LI PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY - 4SEMENT WET LAND OHw OHW yW r� / \ N 0HW \ / .61 0 as 0.10 �) 7.HD -__ �� AT/ IC 68 OA<S 2 I 1 `?5‘,p ,113.73 1/2 104-}6 -- 1 111SAM WV' 9Ir IAlryfr CASTING SHALL BE 0' DIA BOLTED COMER. AS APPROVED BY 01rNEEi EINS4ED GRADE 1 4- WYE 4' PVC 111114, 4' 'DREADED PLUG 4' CONCRETE PAD 4' PM: 4' X 40• BEND NOTES: — ALL JOINTS SHALL BE SIX.VENT MELD MEAT AS NOTED - 4' S.9 JOINT PLUG SHALL BE BLOCKED SUFFICIENTLY 70 WTI/STAND AIR PRESSURE TESTING. CLEAN OUT (DRIVEWAY) 51: � Ls 89 qR>/ / �RE 2 RE 890.29 ( IE 88.3.64 \\ EROSION CONTROL NOTES RfSR)N COWRY! NOTES b• IMPLEMENTATION SCUM, c (1) PRIOR TO ROUGH GRADING, INSTALL SILT STOP FENCES N LOCATIONS SHOMN AD0110NAL SILT STOP FENCES CULL BE REWIRED WHERE LOCAL CONDITIONS (2) UNCOMPLETED GRADING SHALL PROCEED ON AN AREA BY AREA BASIS iD MWWQE (J) µC101 D y11 A STRAIGHT I HT SET DISC WINN 14 TOPSOIL. OF FINAL RARING. (4) MA4NTAN AND REPAIR SLT 5100 FENCES (NCLUOE 111E REMOVAL OF ACCUMULATED 311.7) UNTIL VEGETATION 15 ESTABLISHED. Support pod anotenvp Jluls Ms. rash N eat -Ra vet SILT FENCE EXISTING 1/11111155 1) The Information shown on these drawing. concerning two and ar all InclusHs The contractor le reepmsble for making his own dote mhatlon ae to the two and location of utilities as may De nemeary to avoid damage to these utilities 2) The Contractor shall be responeble for existing utility locations Call Gopher State One at (851) 454 -0002 for locations. —STREETS- 1) Removal and disposed of oevting street materials as required for conetructIo b hcldentaL CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING U11 D EIR NOTIFY ENWNE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO THE START Of CONSTRUC 1.11 OHW % OH ry of 47 1 1/4° CURB STOP qH SITE PINANG EVCZNEERiAl0 ?LOWE EACAESWVa h%C. 9180 LECING1EW AYE NE CIRCLE PAVES AIN 55014 -3E25 (741) 785 -1043 1 -730 DEED AND MEAS. -- 1 hereby c.rthy that lhie pion awe prepared by me or under my &rad supervbrwl aid tat / om 0 day Licensed Pro- fessional £ .' earsend., the Oars of tAq State of Y.nnesota. 50 51'-4" PVC 0 1.0% CONNECT TO EX!S77NG 8" STUB / 8" X 4" WYE 1E 882. MH 8 -3 RE 894.66 IEE 881.62 IESN 881.81 25 50 GRAFIEC SCALE 100 PINE ROAD 0.10 acres 4 ONNECT TO EX. 6° DIP W/ - 1 1/4° CORPORATION 200 (LN FEET) 1 inch —50 ft. ALL SERVICE LOCATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL SANITARY SLIVER SERVICES SHALL BE 4' PVC S0R 26 UNLESS OTHERIMSE NOTED. WATER SERVICES SHALL BE 1 114° COPPER TYPE K CURB STOPS TO BE PLACED AT PROPERTY LINE. LEGEN D: RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2004 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1) — Denotes Direction of Drainage 2) Denotes Proposed Contour 3) — — Denotes Existing Contour 4) —S— Denotes Silt Fence 5) X938.00 6) X04.14 7) - >— 8)—i 9)—»— 10)—>— k 11)-1 12)—>>-- Denotes Proposed Spot Elevation Denotes Existing Spot Elevation Denotes Existing Sanitary Sewer Denotes Existing Watermain Denotes Existing Storm Denotes Proposed Sanitary Sewer Denotes Proposed Watermain Denotes Proposed Storm PREPARED PCti, CARPENTER HONES 23230 E MART✓N LAKE DRII/E NE STACYa MN 55078 PHONE (65 10 461 -5188 • a4720 11 /03 SHEET cgt • • • AGENDA ITEM 5B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mike Grochala/Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: February 11, 2004 TOPIC: Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Pre - Liminary Plat for Marshan Estates ACTION REQUIRED: BACKGROUND Clyde Rehbein 3/5 vote The property is located adjacent to Marshan Lane. The 4.94 -acre parcel is physically divided by the existing Marshan Lane. However, the parcel, including Marshan Lane, is all one property. Mr. Clyde Rehbein, the applicant, originally applied, in Fall of 2001, for a Minor Subdivision to split -off the portion of the property lying north of Marshan Lane into a separate lot. However, the proposed split required the extension of sanitary sewer and water. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a petition for the installation of sewer and water facilities, signed by four of the nine existing property owners along Marshan Lane. In October of 2001 the City Council ordered preparation of a feasibility study to extend sanitary sewer and water utilities along Marshan Lane. In July 2002 the City Council ordered a public hearing to consider the proposed improvements. Following the meeting, the City received a petition against the proposed assessment, as provided for in the City Charter, and no further action was taken. Since that time, City staff has held several neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed improvements and address cost issues. Since there continued to be interest by some of the residents, in addition to the applicant, for sewer and water the City authorized preparation of plans and specifications, in July of 2003, for the utility improvements. The intent was to provide a more accurate and up to date estimate of the project costs and allow the city to address, more accurately, the possible financing scenarios. Additionally, staff became aware of possible on -site septic system issues developing along the street and believed that it would be beneficial for the city, from a public health standpoint, to pursue the extension of utilities. Planning & Zoning Marshan Estates February 11, 2004 During this lengthy process the City's Comprehensive Plan was approved by Metropolitan Council and the City adopted a new subdivision and zoning ordinance as well as a growth management ordinance. Staff have since noted that while the property is zoned R -1, Single Family Residential, lies within a Stage One Growth Area (1998 - 2010), and within the existing Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), the property is guided for low density unsewered residential. Additionally, due to changes in the subdivision ordinance all subdivisions of sewered residential lots must be platted. Therefore, Mr. Rehbein, is now requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Low Density, Unsewered to Low Density, Sewered. Additionally, the applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval for a 5 -lot subdivision (4 new lots, with potential for 5) which includes the property located on both the north and south sides of Marshan Lane. This review is based on the following submittals: 1. General Location Map 2. Boundary and topographic Survey of Marshan Estates, prepared by Glenn Rehbein and Associates, and dated December 18, 2003. 3. Preliminary Plat of Marshan Estates, prepared by Glenn Rehbein and Associates, dated January 6, 2004, and received by the City of Lino Lakes, January 7, 2004. 4. Preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan, Marshan Lane, prepared by Glenn Rehbein and Associates, dated December 18, 2003, revised January 6, 2004, and received by the City of Lino Lakes January 7, 2004. 5. Preliminary Grading Plan Notes and Details, Marshan Lane, prepared by Glenn Rehbein and Associates, dated December 17, 2003, and received by the City of Lino Lakes January 7, 2004. 6. Preliminary Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Improvements, prepared by TKDA ANALYSIS Project Overview Protect Data: Total Site Area 4.94 acres Number of Lots 5 lots & 6 outlots Density 0.98 Existing Land Use The project consists of a 4.94 -acre parcel that is currently in residential use. Surrounding land uses include residential to the east, south, and west, with the City's civic complex and proposed Legacy project north of the existing residential. • • • • Planning & Zoning Marshan Estates February 11, 2004 2001 Land Use Plan: Zoning The project site is currently zoned R -1, Single Family Residential. The R -1 District is intended for development of single family detached homes on lots served with public sewer and water (Sec. 6, subd. 1.A). The project is located within the designated shoreland district of Marshan Lake. The shoreland district extends 1000 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of public waters. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The 2001 Comprehensive Plan guides this area for low density unsewered residential and mixed use land uses. The project area lies within the Stage 1 Growth Area (1998 -2010) and within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The applicant is requesting a change in the land designation from unsewered residential to sewered residential for that part of the property lying south of the north line of Marshan Lane. Based on the possible extension of public utilities to service all properties along Marshan Lane, staff is recommending that the amendment include adjacent Low Density Unsewered Residential property. Comprehensive Plan The 2001 Comprehensive Plan guides this area for low density unsewered residential, and mixed use land uses. The project area lies within the Stage 1 Growth Area (1998- 2010) and within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The following table provides an overall summary of the Land Use change: Comprehensive Plan (2001) Site: North Mashan Lane of Mixed Use Site: South Marshan Lane of Low Density Unsewered Residential North Low Density Unsewered Residential, and Mixed Use East Low Density Unsewered Residential, and Mixed Use South Low Density, Unsewered Residential West Low Density, Unsewered Residential, and commercial west of Lake Drive Zoning The project site is currently zoned R -1, Single Family Residential. The R -1 District is intended for development of single family detached homes on lots served with public sewer and water (Sec. 6, subd. 1.A). The project is located within the designated shoreland district of Marshan Lake. The shoreland district extends 1000 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of public waters. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The 2001 Comprehensive Plan guides this area for low density unsewered residential and mixed use land uses. The project area lies within the Stage 1 Growth Area (1998 -2010) and within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The applicant is requesting a change in the land designation from unsewered residential to sewered residential for that part of the property lying south of the north line of Marshan Lane. Based on the possible extension of public utilities to service all properties along Marshan Lane, staff is recommending that the amendment include adjacent Low Density Unsewered Residential property. Comprehensive Plan The 2001 Comprehensive Plan guides this area for low density unsewered residential, and mixed use land uses. The project area lies within the Stage 1 Growth Area (1998- 2010) and within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The following table provides an overall summary of the Land Use change: • Planning & Zoning Marshan Estates February 11, 2004 Land Use Designation Pre Amendment Post Amendment Avg. Density Acres # Units MUSA (acres) Avg. Density Acres #Units MUSA Low Density, Unsewered Residential 1.45 13.06 9 13.06 0 0 0 0 Low Density, Sewered Residential ottm, 0 0 0 0 0.9 13.06 13 13.06 Traffic Lake Drive (CSAH 23) is designated as an "A" minor arterial roadway, with Marshan Lane designated as a local street. The proposed land use change would allow for the potential of five new single family residences on the street. Any new single family development within the amendment area will have minimal impact to the system. Wastewater Approval of the amendment will allow for the connection of existing properties to the municipal sanitary sewer system. The amendment area lies within Sewer Service District 2, which has the capacity to carry the anticipated increase in flows. • Water • An existing City trunk water main is located at the intersection of Town Center Parkway and Lake Drive (east side). The existing system is capable of servicing the amendment area. Preliminary Plat: Lot Size. The minimum lot size of the R -1 District is 10,800 square feet of buildable land. All lots exceed this provision, ranging from .47 acres to 1.23 acres. The lot sizes are generally consistent with the existing lots in the neighborhood. Lot Depth. The minimum lot depth is 135 feet. All lots meet or exceed these provisions. Lot Width. The minimum lot width is 80 feet for standard lots and 100 feet for corner lots. All lots meet or exceed these standards. Outlots. There are six outlots included in the proposed subdivision. During the preparation of the plan and discussion with the abutting property owners, it became apparent that there were conflicts between the legal descriptions, monumentation, and occupation lines. The proposed Outlots are intended to correct these irregularities. The parcels are proposed to be deeded over to the abutting property owners. It was also noted in a neighborhood meeting that the east line of Lot 1, Block 1 needs to be shifted westerly • Planning & Zoning Marshan Estates February 11, 2004 to match the existing fence line and monumentation. This adjustment should also be made to the Outlots along the north side of Marshan Lane. By doing this, the proposed boundary of the plat will establish the framework for deed corrections to individual properties north of Marshan Lane. Setbacks. The required setbacks established in the R -1 District are the greater of the following: 40 feet (Collector or Arterial Street), 30 feet (Local Street), 30 feet (front yard), 30 feet (rear yard), and ten feet (side yard - principal building). The lots have adequate dimensions to meet required setbacks. Note: the existing attached garage on Lot 4, Block 1 encroaches approximately 10 feet into the street setback area. This is a preexisting condition created when the road right -of -way for Marshan Court was deeded to the City in 1995. Both the house on Lot 4, Block 1 and the house located immediately to the east were constructed prior to this dedication. Street and Block Design. Marshan Lane and Marshan Court are existing streets, and no changes are proposed. The plat does provide dedicated right -of -way for Marshan Lane and Marshan Court. The plat also provides 20 feet of additional right -of -way for Lake Drive in conformance with City and County requirements for arterial streets. Access control dedicated to Anoka County is also shown on the plat along Lake Drive. Grading and Drainage. A grading plan has been submitted and is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. His comments are attached. The development as proposed is to be custom graded on a lot -by -lot basis. Individual lot purchasers and/or builders will be required to submit a site - specific grading plan as part of the building application. Utilities. Utility plans are being prepared by the City Engineer, TKDA. Both sewer and water are proposed to be extended from the Lake Drive /Town Center Parkway intersection. Drainage and Utility Easements. Drainage and Utility easements are proposed being five feet in width at adjoining lot lines, and 10 feet in width at adjoining street lines and rear lot lines, as required. A 50 -foot drainage and utility easement adjacent to County Ditch Number 10 is also provided. Parkland Dedication. Staff is recommending 100% cash payment in lieu of parkland dedication. However, staff would also recommend dedication of a 10 -foot wide trail easement adjacent to Lake Drive, which would overlay the required 10 -foot drainage and utility easement. City Park and Trail plans identify a proposed future trail along Lake Drive. Additionally, provision of this easement allows for flexibility with future Lake Drive improvements. Floodplain. Portions of the site lie within a Flood Plain Zone A, which follows County Ditch Number 10. RCWD has established the flood elevation at 886.0. The City's Floodplain Management Ordinance requires that principal structures be located no lower than one foot above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The City's Subdivision • Planning & Zoning Marshan Estates February 11, 2004 Ordinance requires that proposed basements be four (4) feet above the water table (normal water level) and two (2) feet above the design flood levels of ponding areas. All proposed buildings are outside the Flood Hazard Area. Shoreland Requirements. The proposed development lies within the Shoreland Overlay District of Marshan Lake, which is classified as a Natural Environment Lake. Impervious surface coverage of lots within the Shoreland District of a Natural Environment Lake cannot exceed 30% for residential development. Upon build -out of the proposed residential lots the impervious surface coverage is estimated to be approximately 20 %. Due to the size of the lots and the minimal impervious surface coverage, stormwater control and water quality treatment is not required provided Best Management Practices (BMP) are incorporated to the maximum extent possible. To insure adequant infiltration and treatment of stormwater runoff prior to entering County Ditch number Ten, staff is recommending a 20 -foot conservation easement be provided along the southern boundary of Lots 1 -4. This easement lies within the proposed 50 -foot drainage and utility easement. City has received a response from Tom Hovey, MN /DNR Area Hydrologist, in which he indicates that the project is consistent with shoreland guidelines. Tree Preservation. Since the site is so heavily wooded, the City's environmentalist has noted that the existing trees should be pruned and/or thinned to conform to the National Fire Wise Standards. A tree preservation plan will be required in conjunction with each individual building application. Lot 1, Block 1 Development. Lot one, Block one is identified as a potential future business site on the preliminary plat. The lot is guided mixed use and was included in the original Calthorpe Town Center Master Plan. However, due to access limitations to Town Center Parkway, it may not be possible to develop in this way without further expansion into the existing residential area to the east. Staff has determined that the property is of sufficient size to be subdivided into two residential lots if the commercial /mixed use option is not feasible. Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). The developer has made application to RCWD for approval of a Land Development Plan. RCWD states that because the proposed impervious area of the project is less than one acre in size, they will not require water quality treatment, noting most drainage will infiltrate in the pervious rear lot areas. The project was reviewed at the January 28th meeting, with a CAPROC (Conditional Approval Pending Receipt Of Changes) being issued. RCWD notes that Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be incorporated to the maximum extent possible. Anoka County. Proposed plans have been submitted to Anoka County. Approval of the development will be subject to Anoka county requirements. Planning & Zoning Marshan Estates February 11, 2004 Growth Management: Growth Management, Units /Year: The comprehensive plan and the growth management policy establish a specific number of dwelling units of residential growth for stage one (prior to year 2010). The goal is 147 per year. The City Council has the flexibility to exceed the limit by 20% (29 units) in a year without amending the comprehensive plan. The following table shows the status of the staging plans for final platting new residential units, including the proposed Marshan Estates. PROPOSED PROJECTS 10/24/03 LOTS /UNITS Development Name Prelim Plat Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be final platted) 2007 2008 2009 year end 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2003 -09 TOTAL 1029 maxim um approved prelim. plats 103 51 52 Stoneybrook 2nd Addn 52 Century Farm North 249 56 65 52 43 33 249 Ravens Hollow 56 56 56 minor subdivision lots 2 2 Haley Manor (10 new lots) 10 10 10 Crystal Cove (proposed) 3 3 3 Bruggeman 152 22 47 51 32 152 Lakeview Estates (2 new) 2 2 2 Pheasant Hills Pres. 13th 1 1 1 Justin's Preserve 1 1 1 Marshan Estates '4 4 total 51 148 173 103 75 33 0 0 532 remaining of 147 annually remaining of 1029 for pre -2010 exceeds annual target of 147 by percent -1 -26 44 72 114 497 26 0.7% 18% As shown in the table, the goals for both 2003 and 2004 have been exceeded. The addition of four lots for Marshan Estates in 2004 would put the total at 26 over the target, or 18% over. This would fall within the allowable 20% range. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD The City's Environmental Board reviewed the application on January 28, 2004, and recommended approval. Their comments are attached and, where applicable, have been incorporated into this report. RECOMMENDATION City staff, the applicant, and neighborhood residents have been working together for the past two years to not only to address utility extension issues, but also resolve long standing property boundary inaccuracies. Approval of the plat would allow for resolution of many of these issues 7 Planning & Zoning Marshan Estates February 11, 2004 • Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Preliminary Plat Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat, with the following conditions: 1. Plat boundary is adjusted along the easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1 to correspond with existing occupation lines and monumentation. 2. A 20 feet wide conservation easement is provided, adjacent to County Ditch 10, across Lots 1 -4. 3. The City Council orders the sanitary sewer and water improvements. 4. Building Permit applications shall include a tree preservation plan and a grading plan in conformance with the approved grading plan. 5. Trees cover will be evaluated against Firewise requirements (ie; trees should be thinned) subject to review by the City Forester 6. The Developer shall enter into a Development Contract with the City. 7. Dedication of a 10 -foot wide trail easement adjacent to Lake Drive, which would overlay the required 10 -foot drainage and utility easement. OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Preliminary Plat. 2. Recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Preliminary Plat. 3. Return to staff with direction. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location Plan 2. Boundary & Topographic Survey 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Preliminary Grading, Drainage, & Erosion Control Plan 5. Preliminary Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Improvements 6. Memo from City Engineer, dated February 5, 2004 7. Memo from City Environmentalist, dated January 30, 2004 • A • ,SAIHr JOSEPH CEYETERY FOURTII—AVENUE P 7a' • Pr — STATE TRUAK 14NUIWr- 41I 5 G) rn 0 G") OWNER/DEVELOPER Clyde Rehbein 5618 Heather Ridge Court Shoreview, MN 55126 TeL 651- 484-1025 / / BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OF: MARSHAN ESTATES \ \ / \ < b bt 41,. \ \y L .. N/ \\ \ \\ • RECEIVED DEC 1 8 2003 CITY OF LINO -LAKES 8 / T /1 / 1 1 /1 /1 1 r /1 L. / 1 fir smear � 1`6rii 44.2°4°1- / r VA= \ r Sr • Met \ ` - - r, acne •` ----- a `\ \ - �. •.t1Dr.:i 4 _� �\ ter , —'mod \ ( r I / t 1 Ni t / / / / /_ / /ry' / / / / / / SW Con \f SE 1/4, NW 1/4, Sea.17. tr rot It era. Vies z \ i 04873 8. 0 11 \lam°' wow ig Vet / / f- -ter • 0 /�J.7L � e— L t I / // /' fi k. 15.8° SSE Cer. SE 1/4 Of NW 1/4 Seg17. Point 101121 ft. soot of SW Car. of SE 1/4, NW 1 /4, Sea17. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The put d the. Seediest Quarter dlhe Northwest Quarter d Soothe 17. T.w.Wy 31, Reap 22,Anoka Gouty, llde.eeer, deseekel u Mown Cauueuiq at the madame tier of said Soothed Qo.rb dNorthwest Quarter{ thus North 08 dopes. 44 Warted, Rest, used hearing Wog the tut 0we there! 269.91 fat to M. peel of bed.neli one heel to 0. d.soibel Moue Neff 66 dep.a. e1 sent. Wet 21236 feet thaw 8.47. 33 ewes, MP seen Wert 31 hot to es orator of.50 foot radios —. d.« thus South 13 degrees, Sl melees Wed 2E27 het to e poet.. the seek See of rid Serene Offerer of Northwest Q.rter ague 101331 eat Owes th...eWwtd cocoak.e4Q these. e.m► 09 dopes, 56 leaves West ekes said ...e Use 65.86Ne4 them Nee 02 d•gwe , 25 elude. Wet 36.11 Ne4 thew Nerd. 012 dep.esy 39 Woo. tut 1/5 Oat these North 26 dogma, 47 mimes Wet 75 Etch then NMh 46 d.47n.., 56 .10.4.W.7 35.5 ter, fire North 23 dopey 10 elute West 5100 fete than North 40 degrees, 40 melds Wet 39.00 fe.4 theca Neff 46 degas, 19 melee West 6190 f.e4 thews teeth 71 degree, 17 =heft Wee 3800 fast; thus Neth 54 degree, 16 Weida West 3930 Net thaw Nee 71 dews, 56 minutes West 5335 fa4 Mae Nee 21 degrees. 41 ee.ls,24 rased Rat 20160 feet theme North 65 dgne, 56 mimeo, 34 secede West 10/1.41 fee to O. seekenaly rkhi.iwey Iva add Trak R(grw.y Nis Q theses North 7A degree, 56 emblem East 26336 feat .le5said sifhtdwy a.a s. poet Reel 93134 fee a.nhe..My tree th.swe m. drld Soothed Quarter ofNOrthwet Quarter es massed .Nei =d rIshteSesy lee these.8wth 66 bpas,23 melees Eat 242.6 Net; Won Seth 24 degrees, 14 meet Wed 21390 213300204 Wets Beek 67 degas. 07 oriels Est 526.24 Nets the 0.a No. ere Swthed Quarter of Northwest Quarter. ton Souk 01 degrees, (Nodose. Wet elms aid eat ice N05 tot to W pest dMdaohq. LEGEND - -OW -- DENOTES O35TN0 CONTOUR l•A.1,.,t.A,f DENOTES TREE LINE a 000.0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVA1WN -4 DENOTES E051100 POWER POLE ® DENOTES SIGNIFICANT TREE FILE 1 hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct s.pervfrion and that I an a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the lawn of the State of Minnesota Date - R.gl.iration No. 18213 COPGRAPHIC SCALE SI� V VW X10 ) 1 GLENN EHBEIN u'1VilAFES NU � NAZI 6t 4C .b0 Na 02522 OWNER/DEVELOPER Clyde Rebbein 5618 Heather Ridge Court Shoreview, MN 55126 TeL 651 - 484-1025 / // / / / / SW Cor.\f SE 1/4. NW 1/4. Soo,17. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF • • MARSHAN ESTATES °h \ of pit/ ' NWN ° °W B \ \ 44 t \\ `'s /1 �. M -1 \\ /■ 4-1- \ \ \ 6 / / / / / C/ < �� �' / / -898/ yt — _.�/ 808 -� \ \ \`-• !I&\ . `— .\ \ at e& .._ -- - `'it, \`\ \ j / County OHch No. 10 1001r. HWL - 8880 DHWL - 883.3 • \ 4 ` an/4' j \ • r 1 t �` t \/ ft 4s{ 1 I rJ 49 e00"I► 41,5'8° Point 101121 0. east of SW Cor. of SE 1/4, NW 1/4, Seo.17. LEGAL DESCRIPTION That put of We Southeast Quarter otthe NxWwat Quarter et &odes 17, Tw aehyu 31, Law 27,Amok% Coat7, 1N ea, deeeOd as *&caw Grmueis w W asedmt career of said &mint Quasar sf Northwest Quarter{ thee& North 00 degrees, 04 adman, Ere, ..need bowls' dead th was err thaw(26931 Rat Ur the pert rheghay etme had te be de& rth.4t thence North 66 depw, 01 athlete West 212.56 fe&h, then Seth 23 eegrw, 50 Wetas Wd 01 iw te th. refer .f. 50 fad radios ee6doeq tlma S.rh 13 aspen, 50 minutes Wort 2a1.s7 *eta. polar o H. r.th Ns. of said S.athe st Q=ua.• of Nrtbwat Quarter diatom 1013.21 oast km the warhead new thereof; than &ash IN degree, 56 Wrote wed sang said teeth &.6530 fees thews North a Lwow, 25 mars watt 3611 try thews Nrth 02 &war, 30 mires East 20.5 Re4 thence Nadu I degree, 47 Wm. wart 75 fe.0 theme North 46 ores, 56 shade cart 353 Re{ thews North 23 Wpm, 10 netsuke wee 5100 Rey there North 40 derma, 40 Meet= Wert 30.00 *sty drew North 46 hp.s, 11 Wrutes wait 41.00 Rey then= North 71 degrees, 17 m&ss west 3100 *e0 Wawa Nerds 54 dress., 16 Wow wet 3930 Leq thus Nara 70 tepee, 56 =Webs wet 5395 fay theca North 21 degrs., 41 Wet..,24 read rant 20266 *sty dew North 65 derma, 56 0000.,34 womb west 1900 *et a the ...dimmed/ eight+Enq Nos. WOW 'freak 00Ww-9 N.. aT dews NNW 24 deg.ew, 56 mimeos East 21396 fret along aid rloptiofunry Nee t.. pert dhrat 13114 feet e.ehauafy ham the teeth Iles d saY Southeast Qeutr.f Nntiwrt Quarter r mewed .l..gsad right-awry New Stoat Seth 66 doper, 33 Wets Had 242.6 Saefi thew Seth 24 bra., 14 slaw wet 213.940.001 thew. Seth 67 degrees, 07 sass= East 524.24 fret be the e=t Sae staid S.ethe.e Quarter of Ner.lwet Quoins the.. South 01 depose, 04 Wads Wed .irg old eat Ow KW feet a the grab t ef0 Tad Arse 434 An RECEIVED JAN 0 7 2004 CITY OF LINO LAKES LEGEND *SE Cr., of SE 1 /4, NW 1/4 SK17. --Ob -- DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR ' / DENOTES TREE UJNE e 000.0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVADON -Q DENOTES EX/11101 POWER POLE A A DENOTES RIGHT OF ACCESS DE12CA/EO TO THE COUNTY OF ANOKA. TYPCN 910.E FATLY LOT N I 10 II II ,�j��tea.as maws is 7 1 stuff mm-1+ 1- 0T 1 GRAPHIC SCALE Wit_�1 `i i Df.�f, I hereby certify that this survey, plan trreport e s prepared rhayc menor under my GLENN Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Dote X— - ReegtgbaDan No. 18213 EHBElN 1 OOOIAIl3 .ee MUUO SR ALL Mb P0) !AO 3 mI -ear • ( 40 PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN ••••'' \ / , • ------ • . - ---- from the north ) I ) I I _.,. ' % * • 0." (.2 ) 4 - - I C.1 1 I .;•,,:„7.'''',•24 -:-- i! 1 40 . cp.) 1 11 ,I., 110 t , - \ • / I' 5\ 1 . ; I \I v`:•ri.6.51;'56 304 \ ."14 1 1 A O,O,61:1,,17y iq ,..... ..,1, , ... •,,,,,,,a-nr,),:vvv,,,,,,,r,,,,..firt,:r.,17.,:,,V.Afi .yi. t.'" ' rc ,..x.- p . •!.k .41 1 v: ,..,,,,Itl,. \ (74 IHI \ 1 , ..., ,-, -,-,;, •iii 4----. 41, kAaki ,- ,A,,v...ww...,. "I Z .,..i , th f= u, i : 1 1-1 ii• '..:--'14 / . ...../,1,,bwallalli .' :, .... ‘,•‘- / i' P4.• li l - ..' 1 ■43 ■-L ,i4 ; / >‘.._....-. 7A • t / 1 / ; / \ 1.4 1 11 1 n 1 u , ......., _i2:111.1114:51 :, /I) / 1 i I • / ' .8.-,' I , lee I II r:■ A' , . : .b \ 11 __ -.913 „., r i 1 • - - - ,. • -. 1 .er N.cle° I 1 4Z- .-1-' 1 t 1 ••• / .• .. -- I . ; il I. '... ' J--- , • . • , . ... .... ‘,.. (2) N N9- ------- 245 GRAPHIC SCALE • (111 Feu ) 30 Ili - -- --- \ I\ 1 \ \ • . \ \ X 1 0 \ \ 0..),2e; cixii.r:IN:::11..11:_., . e) c. 1 !'?,:;sulEt''G 14 „•-• flit: N-A0' [1; .41,0,,, . ,,--- 'FL \ ..: .›. --,• 4- •-, 1111 '6 • 4- -t? 1 c.3.." .§- -... \ s•-:. \ ., SI 41,..,., ''\ 11 - 1 \ : a . 1 \ , "I, , \ „ - ...-- .,,,, ., x I 1 prinnyfininT7171717177nrninn9 \ : 1 Vil i,nt \ \\ \ \ ▪ ' ' .1"115"1 ritinni. :71114:471771111i; . fri \ VP777711717517711 / z AVS.T11.4 ffr'ir''T‘'P77's g.:11:1171i \ i7, • AP , rst,Iiip gill,. Piillia/Illial tre, \O• 1 Tiff .. f ti‘s,...,A. ,Srlig l b \ ' \ tkilig.a.41'11 ' 1 I- -- .` \ I \ • i `‘ \ 1 G ..-1 \ ' .tilii.1„1/r"--.....,,,,--/ / P. , • ■ . 1 I •-. ::-./. 4„....., _ , ...• ". \ C , ‘R 0) ) 1 \ \ I MILWILI Li' illaiallillallak , 1 jfillallaililitgalatillif 4 \ 91.._C_ _ ..---- -4')U11-',,,.. 43152rrLi? ......\ * - (2.32162 013110, -- - ,-0U1101,4041.11 1 OUTLOT 13 .,....„.1 75N-.' . . . . .. . • . . . op. -. cf, • , . • sc31-.. . - - : . ' - • co.'t_„.„---"-- 1 I cFP•h -4." .0 r' .- . • . „i, ,...i.. ......-1-5-. : ::'' .Q1C-..t6:73'.LE- -7.-2;22'. 1..mig"--7.x.i.s.c4;1•ti.-siu•r.f•a...L.'„ .--.."--::-,-::...-......;.:. ....., - . :...---.....7-.:...1.....:-..-.:: : : „......'.•.: . • • • . : .7 '-'7:- 7. ' - • • . -7 • • : • : :. :: • .......5' '-':' Maiihail:••....;•:!---7.-.-e.::••.: - •.• -.2-• -....:-:::::-:•::-....:• ' •-•'' • • . • . . . . .,- ,..,41.-.: .. • . ' . : • y -' s • \ ' 4.?,' ,, .......„. - - - " -4r Pi 2) "1:030:<:ettl::?..:.:4;,.. ...::"..63:\ : \ R. • : . . „...: \ 4; ' 'f::.• ''''' f s ..' / • • .. .1, •N, ;-- ‘._..,.4-, 0 ' • • 7.: -. . ...: • .... - i..- . CI. Q.. .. • ......;,.... . •I . .. _17 -1-- , . • • • • (ir, • -N ts .•:- •• :- . .7"--i, I _ •,, 0 11, • \ .j.c, \ \ \ . "9, I .1.. S6671 00" E -). '.6•, ; ; 0) s ••• f .4„,,S.* '" ■ .,. . ...., 4i.,,4: ::. iit z. , ‘,. ,: .5, . . . yilh i ifr 1 i . T 0 I / • ,44CI -I.,,,‘ ‘,• jIL4.,,14,1 j ... •Tsibs N1; , .. •'/ .-9 • ;., ,•,E, /.), il,. ..... ‘kiti,. ii:i)fl ^141' .'■t„. ,1!/;?‘0, i=.1•••c A• F f f ', .: I ,f, I i pi, ....-- ■,../ .11. • , ,30 1 1‘ .•:. :,;:i / ":":. -_ i , ....-i, 1:Y Ck ; ,,, A • • • j ."--... N \ "'• '--'41 --'-' •- ..4,• , v /. '' / -• - - • : f ,•' / .- . . - : -.3. --,,.3.•,,C.:.er .•5•,,, •'' i , ," ,.• ,-;;.,-•• - '' ," • , ••• -•"• • •.'",-- -, \,‘ •',,'.: --7,.).,,-,2•• _ __..„ „--$.55,?,,c,s-- I' ---'-'%-----•----'` • ' ' / .4;-„0 \ -:.:.-:•-•„:-.:,-,:-..•:_- - -.....-•_-_-_-_.- -,40- I, •.;-',':','.: ''•'.-•' ••• , • / t:,:-',.• '.---- - ;',./ kori -•,-*" ----- 1..„111f.,--,:-----.:•.:----'- ) I 7.1- co ,,,t111,....- :::::--•_-::::::-.- 1)1i` , ..-•--...-*----- 1 „I.. ........- .s ‘.,,, A 1 I \s . 5 f - / --•°- ,'0\ I I I , ' _....---1 1. li .,.. le/ A' ...-- ----'.....59..?"-- 1 I ■ , " ./ `..,. 7r-.. . , , 1:•":". • :1i 171p, I I I I --• ---- .......". ....., I II \ A N. . 7 l'icCY lli' .... \ / 1 / ‘ ,(14, y ,:-•....1.7.,..,..c,...... ::.;11..'4.\I ...._.,. „ .., ,,,.,,,.• • ••• / , I '■ ./......s- f(tk, -.... - si.....:ntv.: . ..--;.\:_x2.-, - --V- " • :: 1 AG A/A/ \ Sitir • --.:1 \•• N ....,) /4:-A..A:s..s"..‘`‘...s:,:::',.. , 1 ' % % 1 ,--s.0 0 tS1 r-O :..., ' / 1 - -'''.:.--. `;..:,t;.-. 1/ ..0„., .,,n‘4. 1•.,.,••.:,..A:,‘..02.i.....-',;,..•••••••7 I, EIZI-ce-•• -.. CA rr) .0 - ./ // • .- - ' , ''• ... .- ........>i. ....‘ •,.,•:. /N ../ , % \ _ th 111 -&-i .1 ' -... .‘ ••• \ ) / . N . v '5's / - C3 % / • . • • ."••..1.0 i -V' Att Ve7F N / / 1,,,,,,,,...„, \ ce, • - _ a) - i / ••• 1 ..1 - ',. • \ \ , • -1 . 0? • . • . 4 (V ss (5), \ , _I -... .V` .1 ^C) ‘6:9' 0 • \ - \ \ s 1 ) 0 \IT - 7-, '' . \ „es r \ 1 % - / ••• \ / \ % *CI • 0 --.. 1 / / ‘.0 , ; -139° i."--1.° .100YEAR ELEV. 886 O.H.W. ELEV. 883.3 sz7.4r- .1( \ • , • REPEIVED JAN 0 7 2004 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 HEREBY CERTIFY 'MAT TINS PLAN OR SPEOFICATON WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MF DIRECT SUPERWSON AND THAT 1 OA A DULY REGIVIERET PRECESSIONAL ENGINEER MEER TIE LAMS EC DIE STATE IANNESOTA IAGCULLY NO.211,10 LLJ ORAAWA WATM DATE 12/09/03 VERTICAL SCALE How. N.A. r,.yt JCR HO. 03512 SHEET 2 way 1020 it,- , ,, , , , I , - •IM cn r I. .. •• _ - - _______ 1 r NOTES: • ALL WATER S - ES SHALL BE 1. K COPPER 3. WATER & SANIT • SEWER SERVICES SHOWN ON THE ? •':.e-." - i , 1 L 1 1 Z.I F&I 33LF-r PVC SAN. 1 LV/ CURB BOX STOP PER CITY OF 0 LAKES PLANS ARE APPR XIWJE. THE ENGINEER S t STANDARDS UN S INDICATE) OTHERWI E ON THE DETERMINE THE FT • LOCATION FOR EACH P EL PLANS. BASED ON HOME) ER INPUT AND CITY REQUIR. ENTS. 2. ALL SANITARY S 4, ALJ. WORK WITHIN E RIGHT-OF-WAY 1 - - --Wit _IN-- . 07 I ;( 1 e.171 P. '147 i t t- ---- I • 1 • , o) s '.:'• gl 8 , 1 •,: ; L::: ' . r- , 7 I o ,:0 0/ ...\ • • - 11- 1 -. - I 10 1 •■\ '--1 • c),, .?. . 2 41 .,, _ I .- F: -- - \ :, SERVICES SHALL 8 4" PVC OF LAKE DNE SCH. 40 PER C OF UNO LAKES STAN. -DS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANOKA : UNLESS INDICA 4. OTHERWISE ON THE P S. COUNTY. : • I Biensrud Christensen Stant.. I NOUSE HOUSE 1 HOUSE LHou‘,,s,,,,1 CARDEN W/ si . 1 I ' C 1NNECT TO .4. 1 I I. LI, -• 0 4' 41 •••• '.5 SERVICE & 43LF-6" DIP SERVICE ' 0, 1 i 1.$ WATERFIALL POOL ... , ,' . i. ,-964 4 i q; i c' I occoRavE -7-"Y"' .- 1 11 ,........ • 0 6 ..,..... , *Z.' • 905 / / OW .' ,,,e,0";-) \. BLOCKpED.:11 TELL ,,-- NO ,34 ,, ‘.. * , 1 -■ .4, . I I Tj''' I 1 - ..,''Oc,06-- 0 .10 • _ ..-- 11. :Ili c9" T:4_.... ,...• -,,, • \ , _ - - PRIVATE DWY. SIGN % * Allisiles 4111.1!.+ rilirting , .. , , , , • _ea; a 1 ST. MH I ,. RH- _1 , ECGE OF En ,.1-5.TEr.E.T. PIA7T_____.4.,\_,d,- pED. * —12-1----9 L-----.. 1 • , P 8_11 _ sFacERvi icir&--6-207FC-61AN. 1 I 1--445/ I DIP SERVICE E 7 I :•-- It I i .E1-4 . J '441 _.------- ) STREET SIGN IM- MIIIII•11 1 i 0 F&I 8" DIP PLUG .s:„..17AVEMENT:744. 12._ - . I', I A la 1 1 1- 2- :') .. 1 UM: -.A 713.4. &I 8"X6" DIP TEE, ' * wt. DWY. 1 -CL 52 DIP, ww.lai 4 +I - I, ( - .1.! IMITLF.A...-,n , - .. R RehlusIn • F&I IrXrTE.7. 6" C.V. & EOX, --. o 1 "--.,. ..-,-....--„.__ ----a".. UMIT STOP SIGN 12"X12"Xr & 8" DIP PLUG an 0 ----- lm. 90 4---.1) Z. - ''"-N 0 1 HOUSE Maser 1 • . 2 F&I 8"X8" --/-78 i / DIP TEE - / /0 ,---) - , ,......_,,,,,, ' .7 t lk ° .q0t 905 ,0904.___,... ....... - !Pt' 1 1-. tso _ _I_ — — —EDGE Of &T. PAVEMENT —7— STREET SIGN FIBER OPTIC CRY MALI. SPEED SIGN SIGN SIGN F&I 12" C.V. & BOX F&I .9 TEE *I. DIP F&I 8" & BOX G.V. - , 1 DEC ME .; HY0RANT .. mooc`wp.u. FIXAVIER .• -. / \-69t,‘\ -GARDEN CC, , ,....- \ \ DECORA6E et.roc/ WALL Winne - 4 70 4 SAIIM '‘' CO C.) ilx CONNECT TO EXIST. STUB SAN. SEWER & 3 12-xi 0. CROSS DIP WATERMAIN 0 ROW ith/ IMF . vk LAKE DRIVE (HWY. 49) - \ / 1 \ '‘' CO 3 \ to N. -....._ F&I 8" ... h- 4kk , 0 2 DIP PLUG ,,, , ........4 2...g ,-' I ..., ..- / . ..- / \ --,-...- Cb / - F&I en" DIP TEE. -_G.V. & BOX, 44. LF--GL. 52 DIP, -......_ \ 16LF-CL 52 DIP, ./ / • , / HYDRANT • -'' N LAN I4 ..... HOUSE .." / .... / HOUSE - Haubrick R: • . ....... 50 100 , SCALE IN FEET ...CIL --o 1111111=Moopq eXij = a) •.) 0, CN - - 0 • - Ch ' ----- --• -- '..- .1 ::ii - - _ RI A -,C1 _o____ . . -. - • - - _.._ -...... CO —o it3 • -o.-- _ .. -0- - ' - - • - --- _ -- -- = - !ARSE". Nrai -- __ gig RKI -- - ___- -- ; V - 920 910 rl* R1M__908- - - MI: IM-90 ii [ = ==[ ; 913-750--7r-- 920 - - ai-D TM ■ - 11.4-902: • RIM-- INV- RIM-8 i . 88G1 CM ;9960 889:90---- RIM 899 0— .90— - - a- 1 a. ___________. ; 9G44 I . _ INW-88 . o 9024- -- DOI A 0 1 1 .-- _ • ucsmigi •lEIPR • -SEW gRon--- POSED-- - - - 11 _ 11E1 _ _ -- - - 910 k -I = _ ma, _____2_-.. It - _ .NEIR1____ - ------- — -- - --- - -- .__ ■■ ma a , IZA ..”. • -r NG-PRO • II II 890 I i Loh. - - IIMI - - . - 437 — — E PRO -.1 • - 900 890 ' -4 - MI 4 ........... ._.... NE EW IN= -.L._t_; . 11M11.1.11.240Z11 — — - in : - • -..-:--- ____ - Eizim"-rr•-• II wor■I %Ewa. ext _ Irmumene I, i If i i -4.-..". ' - r2=131F-':■-- ............., ME • .. --.-__ ilia-M=1:111111111111111 •2 , - 120 - • " •• " ' ' — -. - .- __ - - _....._ 93LF---7-'4-GPVG--S-OFF-- 5 -07072 a ,..M. _ 0-28 wow a 880 _ ,. IA 0-11VC7-SOR735D000-28X____ '`...... - . ...■........wr..,,,p---- 1, . 7 ■Spir...36 . Im.mumill 8-7LF 101.PVC, -S01-...0--7E2 allt —........ 880 '7"1"..r. in UV ^ . .----. actirat ....-rar-wir---- -- -.rep &1211MD1Fr- ----7. - - - - -- - LUG-- --- - ---111:erla __ - _— _ 8 ______ M ,.... 0,4Oill , Pt EMI __ - •. -- _ 4 a,.._ _ „... . t• • 1— --- _ a - -- __ _ __ 00- • c.,_ . . 0 . 5 . 6 8 9 10 11 0 1 DESIGNED DRAWN MDM MOM CHECKED SAB I HEREBY CERTIFY *LAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED ti3YAmmEA raLraMTEDDrEFrEssgrLisglaRT144 UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MARSHAN LANE SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNO LAKES MINNESOTA . Lake Dr.and Morahan Lane PROPOSED UTIUTIES COMMISSION NO. 12857-01 TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED SCOTT A. BRINK DATE UC. NO. ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS SHEET NO 5 OF XX SHEETS • Memorandum DATE: February 5, 2004 TO: Mike Grochala FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Marshan Estates Attached is the TKDA review dated February 4, 2004, of the submitted documents for the Marshan Estates project. The following comments must be addressed prior to final approval given for this project. The project is in general conformance with the City of Lino Lakes standards. Also attached for your information is an 11x17 copy of the Preliminary Marshan Lane Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Improvements plan. Please contact me with any questions. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Phone: 651 - 982 -2400 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 • TDD: 651 - 982 -2410 • TKDA ENGINEERS - ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com To: James Studenski, City Engineer Reference: Marshan Estates ( Marshan Lane) Copies To: City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota From: Scott A. Brink, P.E. Date: February 4, 2004 Comm. No. 12976 -002 Routing: The City of Lino Lakes has received plans providing for a Preliminary Plat and improvements to the properties bordering Marshan Lane. Marshan Lane is essentially a short dead end street, extending easterly from Lake Drive, just south of Town Center Parkway. The street is just under 800 feet in length and serves existing residential properties. The proposed plans provide for re- platting the roadway and properties in order to provide for the construction of additional single family residential units. The following has been received for review: 1. Boundary and Topographic Survey of Marshan Estates, prepared by Glenn Rehbein and Associates, and dated December 18, 2003. 2. Preliminary Plat of Marshan Estates, prepared by Glenn Rehbein and Associates, dated January 6, 2004, and received by the City of Lino Lakes January 7, 2004. 3. Preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan, Marshan Lane, prepared by Glenn Rehbein and Associates, dated December 18, 2003, revised January 6, 2004, and received by the City of Lino lakes January 7, 2004. 4. Preliminary Grading Plan Notes and Details, Marshan Lane, prepared by Glenn Rehbein and Associates, dated December 17, 2003, and received by the City of Lino lakes January 7, 2004. Sanitary sewer and water are currently not available to the existing properties on Marshan Lane. As part of the proposed improvements, preliminary plans providing for the extension of sewer and water to Marshan Lane were initiated in the fall of 2003 by the City of Lino Lakes. This review, therefore, considers the proposed plat and improvements, along with the extension of utilities under a separate plan. Preliminary Plat 1. Additional right -of -way (20 feet) is shown dedicated along Lake Drive (Lot 1, Block 1). Along with 10 feet of platted drainage and utility easement, this may be adequate as further explained in this memorandum under the sewer and water comments. However, the plat shall be subject to the review and approval of Anoka County. In addition to the added property needed for the utilities, it is likely that Anoka County will also require dedication for eventual future roadway improvements, including widening. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Marshan Estates Page 2 February 4, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 2. The Preliminary Plat does show drainage and utility easements around the platted properties per City of Lino Lakes standards. This includes 5 -foot easements along all side property lines and 10 foot easements across the front and rear of all properties. A drainage easement is also provided adjacent to County Ditch 10 on the south boundary of the plat. Sanitary Sewer and Water 1. Plans for extending sanitary sewer and water to Marshan Lane have been initiated by the City and are therefore not included as part of the plans submitted by the Developer. However, comments are being provided herein to address specific issues related to the Developer's submittal. 2. The closest available utilities are 10 -inch diameter water and 12 -inch diameter sanitary sewer mains at Town Center Parkway, a distance of less than 400 feet north of Marshan Lane. It is proposed to connect directly to the existing facilities by extending mains southwesterly along the east side of Lake Drive to Marshan Lane, and further extending mains easterly to the end of Marshan Lane. 3. For the watermain, it is proposed to extend 12 -inch diameter pipe along Lake Drive in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The 12 -inch main would then terminate at Marshan Lane, a 12 -inch stub to the south to be provided for a future connection, and 8 -inch main then extended easterly to the end of Marshan Lane. Individual services would then be provided for the individual parcels along Marshan Lane (for both existing and proposed single family units). 4. For the sanitary sewer, it is proposed to extend PVC sewer pipe to Marshan Lane in a similar fashion. The size of the sewer main has not yet been firmly determined, and can be further explained as follows: • The depth of the sanitary sewer at Town Center Parkway is approximately 19 feet deep. However, the ground elevation drops as much as 11 feet from Town Center Parkway to the end of Marshan Lane, thus raising concerns regarding the depth/cover and invert elevation of the main by the time it reaches the termination point (a total distance of approximately 1100 feet). For the majority of properties on Marshan Lane (including the three proposed new units on the south side of Marshan Lane), gravity flow from the homes to the sewer does not appear to be a concern. However, the three existing units along the south and east sides of Marshan Court are situated at lower elevations, and the lowest floors of these three properties cannot be served sanitary sewer by gravity. Preliminary design of the sanitary sewer places the invert of the sewer at an elevation of 890.5 (plus or minus) at its termination at Marshan Court and the end of Marshan Lane. The low floor elevations of the three properties are as follows: 580 Marshan Lane - 888.97 590 Marshan Lane - 888.78 600 Marshan Lane - 889.01 Therefore, an ejector or lift would be required to service the lowest floors of these three properties. Marshan Estates Page 3 February 4, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota • An 8 -inch diameter sewer is adequate in size for the proposed improvements and area served. However, upsizing of the pipe to further flatten grades and gain additional depth can be done. However, ejectors would still be necessary for the properties as mentioned above. 5. A sewer stub for eventually extending the sewer further south beyond Marshan Lane may not be necessary for the following reasons: • In accordance with the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan, it is not anticipated that a significant amount of additional area would require collection from this extension. In addition, the current Marshan Lake Industrial Park (Panattonni), located just to the south of Marshan Lane, has extended sewer to the east side of Lake Drive for future collection of those properties. • An extension of sanitary sewer further south would require crossing County Ditch No. 10, which is immediately south of Marshan Lane. According to the survey provided, the bottom of the ditch is 5 feet below the sewer invert at Town Center Parkway. If sewer were to be extended to the south of County Ditch 10, a small lift station would be needed, according to the survey information provided. • 6. The alignment and location of the water and sewer along Lake Drive has not yet been firmly determined, pending completion of the utility design and review by Anoka County. However, it appears additional right -of -way and/or utility easements will be necessary to construct the utilities, and will be required by the County. The existing right -of -way currently extends 40 feet from the center of Lake Drive. It is recommended at this time that at least 30 feet be provided. Per the plans provided, 20 feet of additional right -of -way is provided along with the 10 foot standard drainage and utility easement. This may be adequate. However, the actual required amount of dedication will be subject to the review of Anoka County, including their review of the Preliminary Plat and proposed Utility Plans. A permit from the County will also be required for any work within the County right- of -way. 7. The sanitary sewer and services must be placed a minimum distance from existing wells per Minnesota Department of Health requirements. Grading Plan 1. The proposed site development results in grading (disturbing of property) of over 1.0 acre. The development shall therefore be subject to the requirements of NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) as most recently adopted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the City of Lino Lakes. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will also be required. Because the site is less than 2.5 acres, a review and approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) will not be required. Marshan Estates Page 4 February 4, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 2. As part of the NPDES and SWPPP requirements, at least some measure of stormwater treatment must be provided, subject to the review and approval of the MPCA. For the portion of property disturbed as shown on the Grading Plan, it is recommended that the grading be adjusted to provide for detention or infiltration as may be required by the MPCA, prior to discharging to the County ditch. 3. Silt fence and erosion control measures are provided on the Plans. 4. No soil or geotechnical report is provided. Any imported material for the site shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. In addition, floor elevations for the proposed housing units must meet the requirements of the City of Lino Lakes as follows: The lowest building opening must be a minimum of 1 -foot higher than detention basin emergency overflow elevations. Basement floor elevations must be at least 4 -feet above the normal water elevation and 2 -feet above the design flood level (for consideration of County Ditch 10 and any infiltration basins that may be required). The low floor elevation shall also be subject to the level of subsurface groundwater elevations. • Memo Environmental To: Michael Grochala From: Marty Asleson Date: January 30, 2004 Re: Recommendations of the January 28, 2004 Environmental Board Meeting The Environmental Board met on January 28th, 2004 and made the following recommendations: Marshan Estates Land Cover The developer needs to submit a detailed tree inventory and follow the subdivision ordinance for Tree preservation plans. In addition, the developer should remove /prune any remaining trees to conform to National Fire Wise Standards (Attachment 1). Pre - existing conditions should include Lino Lakes MLCCS. Soils There should be no importing or exporting of soils without City approval. The developer should include a plan for soil compaction prevention. Surface Water Would like RCWD input on impact mitigation. The Environmental Board would like to see a minimum buffer to include at least the designated drainage easement area, and should include a distance of 50 feet from the ditch. The City native seed specification should be used to replant in this buffer area. Signage should be used in this easement area. The signage should say "no cutting, or removal of vegetation, no fill or debris." Developer should submit the required NPDES control measures and best management practices to be used with particular emphasis on the ditch. Ensure the developer is complying with the City Shoreland Management Overlay Ordinance in not exceeding 30% impervious. Downspouts from roofs should be directed to pervious yard areas. • Additional Comment • This Environmental Board review does not include the multi -use area. There is concern for the type of use that may be proposed for this area. Motion by Grundhoffer to approve Marshan Estates with Environmental Board comments and recommendations. The motion was 2nd by O'Dea. Motion was approved with all in favor. Justin's Preserve Tree Preservation A tree preservation plan should be submitted following the City Tree Preservation Ordinance. Soils Importing or exporting of soils without City permission should be prohibited. Surface Water Create rain gardens to capture extra impervious runoff. Direct runoff from roofs to yard and /or rain gardens. Habitat Concerns Inform property owners of shoreland ordinance and of the benefits of leaving the trees (both alive and dead) as habitat. Other Non - Related Environmental Elevation on plan for future house and lowest floor elevation should be corrected. Motion to approve with staff and Environmental Board recommendations and comments made by O'dea, 2nd by O'Dea. All were in favor, motion approved. • Page 2 • I 1 0 <r 0 O sr CD 0 Z L = j Q @ I- 11 CG W g L_ = > c_ _C y L a) � W . Z C CD U TO CI CL5 •N 15 Y Y E U O P-0 v v C L ;0 O Q o = 1 •? l•sYcEEE co 5 W Z 0 0 0 CI C• C• C• C• C• C• C7 - N CV TOTAL STRUCTURAL HAZARD HOME FIRE RISK CALCULATION W a• O N LO CO C) .r 1� O N �t 1I • 8 I _ • ifi. 410L- c) 0 * L y � Q O ._ A N W ^• 0 2' N p° CO N� (> am - O o O E 2 O p O 6 N N C L a' N N 17, 2 U O C O O rn. w a � - u_ E N N p § O 6C) D 8 0 g o 8 n °)�3 s°�" a C a E c O L L O O t0 O .2"- W c -0a� !llT --- 8 Ui 0 F- M fl) Ui M J LL M C/) O N C• C• C• C• C• C• C• C• C• C• W C• C• Y ° ,_ c o)c CTS o V o a) V o G • t E. a) >. Q% O 0) )= O O J U7 n 75 o 8� o > o t 8o �a 1 0 CD O ca. Y a �Q a0 1$ , aY > m cn 22 N _o ca o 1 w:= p o = i m :- -a 1.11- cm E w -- c C u) lij 01 -a ix ILI �°gs was°) mma) — D yWy,� S (20 c O '5 c w CO co y 7 C O 4) O J O O a) c^ a) C p O V> r. Cn >"=) O> W N> O Z a) •- a = V� Q p E °°'S °-'w $ E fl- 2 p Q d 60 2 7 .:y' •�C'' F- L Et7.. L. = -a ,- m E O t/) C/) N O M .' r. W it Of N2 2 En in V ci N A a. ca C6 to 111 C O N C o o �) - Ca L -r, O N O O W O rc N N 2 g co o o ai U a v A y Q Z E r ° Z W O7 V 8 .09 L -° C e e N g B o pai L bs vial 6° ts k5 C -O �S F• -O l6 l6 ccvz on 0,_,.- C• C• C. C• C• C• C• C• C. ■• C• C• C• •• C• •• •• C• •• C• (O n CO I (ADDRESS Landowner Home • Waypoint IEVALUATOR IDATE 1- Z m co a 0 IGPS - LAT(X) GPS - LONG(Y) v 1 1 N co 1C) C) O .- N C) 1C) co _ u) O • c 8 U a) • E N U • O W O O m 8' -g N • m O 2 0 0 0 o u 0 CD 03 OO •C .g aa N • O N C O C>. O. v) Oa F- 'U O 3 U ,y, O N C) c° C 3 V V pO p N O -O s 8 u 'b- v y3°Q?O E 0 m -O o >.I∎oM .S N ?2krkr 2 O t E c[ N c cc a) c d 4:b, o o 0 A_ V Nc CLg> m O m .= = a) a)cn�CD c m u) — m a) la Z m° U U 0° u j RI iii OU6L 6L ¢ J0O ccnw • • oo a� C) < C• C• a c-. • C- CO C.-. - C• C• C• Cn C• C• N CV CM ■t 7 cn in N in O o co N V) Z t•) C7 C w CI U O re g" CT] _ W CO Cn m 0) CU I O N 1.0 L N Z Ixn 0 6 a) • 0 C O E d U V) J O O W LI- C• C• C• C• C• C• C• C• N N L 8 w I III III I II I O M 11) O 10 14) 6C) O 1C) N N .— 10 O 0 30 In 10 O -• • N N C yy 1 Z CO .r7 E C1 U O N N 2 v L �0 z E 0• o 8> D 8 c� c8i o co c $ v 2 o- U 0, 1 � 0 h a N I° -C c� O m0 pN Eh z E C C L C L.L. ^y > 0) 2_ O o O O C+Ci -00 -D J v W .•�-• 0 O O 12 ca • .:-. _ 8 ) t w N o U W-2 OQ a d 2 od ..- N N Z� 5LO�� ° v0iOLO� H�= 0w'.b a) W c'0ircS Lu CA a) J Y -0 O --I `) '$ -. C C c c 'v c> c c U ?) U O F- a) T� d m pU -pyC t=i. Q w 00 Q ..L... LR_, O }Q �6 �• OJ c1) Z G Z y� y L C W �S 0) $ n °m w �S W `� o 0 0 0s-C300 >-1 OM>MJO C>J to' F-C)glU OZ F - MgUU CC C. C- C. a' C. C. C. C.. a' c-. c.. Q 0 c-. C.• C. C- C- C• C• C• C• 0 C• C• C. 0 C• C• C• C• 0 C. C. 0 Q C• C. C. C• C• C• C- C• C• 6n co t- CX) O) '- • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: AGENDA ITEM 5C Michael Grochala February 11, 2004 Public Hearing. Rezoning to Planned Unit Development; Development Stage Plan Review; Legacy at Woods Edge ACTION REQUIRED: Simple Majority BACKGROUND In 1998 the City of Lino Lakes, following award of a Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Planning Grant, retained the services of the Calthorpe Associates to design a Master Plan for the City's Town Center District. The purpose of the Lino Lakes "Town Center" development is to provide for the orderly and integrated development of a high- quality Town Center which includes a mix of shops, offices, entertainment, housing, recreation, community facilities, and open space. The mix of uses is designed to implement the principles of the Livable Communities Act and the City's Comprehensive Plan by creating a Town Center for the community and providing more diverse, life -cycle housing — including affordable and rental housing— within an active and interesting pedestrian- oriented community. The development is a cooperative effort that will leverage public and private investment to create sustainable value, ecologically, economically and culturally. The City has concentrated its efforts to implement this plan on the land located adjacent to the Civic Complex, of which, approximately 6.7 acres has been reserved for the Chain of Lakes YMCA. PROJECT LOCATION The 48.84 acre property is located in the southeast quadrant of the Interstate 35/Lake Drive Intersection. It is bounded on the west by Lake Drive, on the north by I -35W, on the east by Rice Creek Regional Park, and on the south by the Civic Complex and the Marshan Lane residential area. The Civic Complex, an additional 10.01 acres, is included in the plat. PROJECT SUMMARY The Hartford Group, Inc., based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota is requesting approvals to allow for the development of the property consistent with the Calthorpe Master Plan and Town Center Design Standards. In total, the Legacy at Woods Edge project is proposed to allow up to 348,000 square feet of office, retail, and service uses. In addition, approximately 450 multi - family residential units are proposed for the development. The residential units provide a variety of • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 housing options and include townhomes, work force or income - qualifying rental housing, senior housing and for -sale condominiums. The Hartford Group as obtained purchase agreements with both the City owned land as well as the northern 29 acres of the site, which is privately owned. ANALYSIS This review is based on the most current submittal, consisting of the following plans: 1. Boundary, Topographic and Tree Inventory Survey, prepared by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc., received November 10, 2003 2. Preliminary Plat, prepared by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc., received November 10, 2003. 3. Master Site Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., dated February 6, 2004. 4. Master Grading Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., received November 10, 2003. 5. Master Landscaping Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., dated February 6, 2004. The following plans were prepared by the City's Engineering Consultant Short, Elliott, Hendrickson, Inc.: • 1. Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan, dated February 1, 2004 2. Site Grading and Erosion and Control Plan, dated February 1, 2004 3. Storm Sewer Routing Plan, dated February 1, 2004 4. Preliminary Storm Sewer Plan, dated November 25, 2001 5. Existing Drainage Plan and Storm Water Calculations, dated November 25, 2001 6. Preliminary Street Grading Plan, dated February 1, 2004 7. Street Lighting Plan, dated February 1, 2004 8. Preliminary Streetscaping Plan (Areas 1 through 4) , dated November 25, 2001 • Project Data: Total Site Area: 42.05 acres (58.82 including Civic Complex & YMCA) Upland Area: 34.55 acres Number of residential units: 450 Commercial sq. ft. 348,492 sq. ft. Net Residential Density: 13.02 units per acre Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.4300, subpart 32 requires the preparation of an EAW for mixed residential and industrial - commercial projects of this size for 3rd or 4th class cities. Subsequently an EAW was prepared. The EAW was reviewed by the City's Environmental Board on November 6, 2003, and approved by the City Council for distribution and comment on November 10, 2003. The required 30 -day public comment period ended on December 24, 2003. The Environmental Board recommended approval of the Record of Decision and a finding of no 2 Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 significant impact at its January 21, 2004 meeting. Final action on the EAW, by the City Council is scheduled for February 9, 2004. Existing Land Uses The southerly end of the site is developed with the Lino Lakes City Hall complex that includes the City Hall offices, police station, and an early childhood learning center. Two existing businesses are located along the west side of the site. The Lino Lakes State Bank and Fairview Clinic have frontage along Lake Drive (CSAH 23), but receive access on Village Drive, which is a backage road connected to Town Center Parkway. The northern portion of the site is currently occupied by Arctic Sandblasting Company and one single - family residence and is bound by I -35W on the north, the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park on the east and CSAH 23 on the west. This privately held business has been in operation since 1975. The commercial business consists of several structures, service roads, and includes a large semi- tractor trailer storage area. Access to the business is along a service road that intersects with Lake Drive north of Fairview Clinic near the I -35W access ramp. Both the business and existing single - family residence will be removed as part of the development project. Adjacent Land Uses The southern property line for the proposed development is bordered by the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park and a small residential development consisting of seven single - family dwellings. The eastern property line is bordered by the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park. Land uses on the west side of Lake Drive include an Amoco service station, limited residential development, and undeveloped property that is currently zoned for commercial development. The northern side of the project area is separated from existing commercial and industrial uses by I -35W. Comprehensive Plan The City's 2001 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Mixed Use Development. The plan specifically states the following: "The southeast quadrant of the I- 35W/Lake Drive interchange represents the Lino Lakes Village area. The Village is intended to integrate a mixture of commercial, medium and high density residential and public land uses in an attractive and cohesive design." The plan is intended to emphasize the following objectives 1. A 65 -acre complex of buildings in a controlled setting. 2. An integrated mix of uses that responds to residents' needs. 3. A gathering place that creates a sense of community, civic identity and pride. • 4. A place that defines the unique character of the community. 5. An economic development initiative to increase the value of the commercial tax base. 6. A distinctive, consistent architectural style that promotes high quality, aesthetically 3 • • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 pleasing commercial buildings. The plan provides for a residential density of between 10 and 24 units per acre within mixed use districts. The proposed mix of residential and commercial, civic, and recreational uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Village Master Plan. Zoning The property is currently zoned LB, Limited Business District. The City's Zoning Ordinance provides for mixed -use development through the use of the Planned Unit Development process. Additionally, The eastern and southern portions of the site are located within the designated shoreland zoning districts for George Watch Lake and Marshan Lake. The Shoreland District extends 1,000 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of public waters. Growth Management Ordinance The City adopted Ordinance No. 01 -03, creating a Growth Management Policy in January of 2003. Section 2, Subdivision 16 of the Ordinance specifically exempts the "Village" area from the provisions of the policy. Design & Development Standards The Design and Development Standards are proposed as the regulating zoning standards for the Legacy at Woods Edge development. The standards establish the use, site layout, site amenity and architectural control guidelines for the Planned Unit Development. The Development Standards were prepared by Calthorpe Associates as part of the "Village" Master Plan process completed in 2000. Staff has revised the standards to reflect the proposed Legacy at Woods Edge project. The majority of changes relate specifically to Chapter 4 Residential District Standards, due to the elimination of single family residences within this area. Additionally, Chapter 3.8 Project Identity & Signage, and Chapter 5, Public Improvement Standards have been removed. Signage requirements will need to be completed and approved before final plan/final plat approval and incorporated into the standards. The public improvement section was removed because the City is designing all public improvements. Master Site Plan The Master Site Plan and its associated Site Development Summary provides the framework from which development will need to conform to. The plan referred to as the "Regulating Plan" within the development standards specifies the essential physical features for the development including: Streets 4 • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 A minimum framework of streets is required as presented in the master plan. Town Center Parkway, including the traffic circle, Village Drive and the roads surrounding the "Community Green" have been established with specific design standards. The proposed street layout is generally consistent with the Calthorpe Master Plan. Build -to Lines Build -to Lines define locations where buildings must be built within a certain distance of the public right -of -way. Bringing building fronts close to the edge of streets enhances the continuity, attractiveness and intimacy of pedestrian spaces. The build -to line defines a location at which 1) a certain minimum percentage of the block length must contain buildings, and 2) those buildings must be built within a maximum distance from the right -of -way. As represented by the building layout on the Master Plan, build -to lines extend along Town Center Parkway, Village Drive, and around the Community Green. A minimum of 50 to 70 percent of the block must have buildings, parks, or plazas adjacent to the build -to lines. In commercial and mixed use areas buildings may be setback no greater than 5 feet from the right - of -way line. In residential districts, buildings adjacent to build to lines can be setback no further than 15 feet. The proposed development conforms to these requirements. Required Building Entries The Regulating Plan identifies the location where major building entries must be provided to create important pedestrian and visual connections. These entries are located at important corners or intersections. An important entry provided for in the proposed plan is located mid Nock on both sides of the community green. This location is the primary access point to upper story residential units and provides an important link between the parking areas and the community green. Gateways Entrances to the Woods Edge development should be marked by distinctive features that announce your arrival at the Town Center. These locations are indicated on the Regulating Plan. Site Development Summary The associated development summary provides the connection between the site layout and the intended use and size of individual buildings. Buildings 6, 7, 10, 16 and 17 represent the mixed commercial /residential structures. 5 Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 Open Space Three types of Open Spaces are proposed within the Woods Edge development. These spaces provide recreation and relaxation space and functions as natural edges to the development. In addition to on -site open space, the site provides unparalleled opportunities for recreation due to its proximity to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park, located immediately to the east and south. The project will provide pedestrian/bicycle trail links into the regional park system. Accessible Commons The residential district must provide a minimum acreage of Accessible Commons equal to 10 percent of the District land area. Located within the center of the townhome area the commons is a neighborhood- oriented open space intended to provide limited recreation and gathering areas. The specific size, location and improvement of the commons area will be reviewed in conjunction with any proposed residential development in this area. City Parks & Plazas An approximately one acre community green is provided for in the heart of the development. This space provides for a public gathering area adjacent to the retail, office, higher intensity uses within the Mixed Use District. Natural Resource Area Natural Resource Areas protect valuable natural features while allowing pedestrian access along trails. The majority of the Open Space within the Woods Edge project falls within this category. As part of the site development, approximately 9 acres of the site, comprising approximately 6.5 acres of wetland, will be preserved in its natural state. The wetland area, located along the northeastern boundary of the site is part of an 87 acre wetland complex that separates the site from George Watch Lake. Additionally, changes in site design have allowed for the opportunity to preserve approximately 1.6 acres of woodlands in the southeastern portion of the project in conjunction with the future YMCA development. Master Landscaping A revised master landscaping plan has been submitted that defines tree quantities, types and locations, typical landscaping details and proposed ground covers. The plan calls for a mixture of shade and ornamental trees, shrubs and perennial plantings throughout the development. The plan does provide for landscaped "connected walkways" that link the parking areas with building entrances most notably between buildings 16 and 17 leading to the future YMCA. Appropriate locations should be identified for native plantings such as along the existing wetland in the northeastern portion of the site. The environmental board has provided a recommendation for proposed tree types as part of their review (attached). 6 • • • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 Streetscaping Plan SEH has prepared a preliminary streetscaping plan in accordance with the Calthorpe Design Standards. Streetscaping is one of the most essential elements to provide a welcoming pedestrian friendly environment. The proposed elements include landscaped medians, boulevard trees, decorative lighting and decorative pavers throughout the development. Also included in the plan is the preliminary design for the community green that will combine both seasonal gardens, a central green space and plaza area. Street furniture and other amenities will be incorporated as the project develops. Further articulation of the design will take place during the preparation of the feasibility study as well as during the preparation of plans and specifications. Proposed features will need to be evaluated based on cost, timing, as well maintainability of the improvements. Traffic /Circulation Access to the proposed development is provided via the Lake Drive/Town Center Parkway intersection. As shown on the Master Site Plan, Town Center Parkway will need to be widened to a four lane section and then taper to a two lane section north of the Civic Complex. A traffic circle is proposed within in the center of the development to promote the efficient flow of traffic at this main intersection. One -way streets are proposed circling the village green. The City's engineering consultant SEH is completing a traffic analysis for the site to evaluate traffic impacts both internally and externally of the site. As part of the study AM and PM Peak Hour trip generation rates were developed for the proposed development as well as the existing facilities (City Hall complex, Fairview Clinic, and Lino Lakes State Bank). Trips to /from each building have been assigned to the street system within the development. This provided a tabulation of traffic volumes at various locations within the development, as well as at the intersection of Town Center Parkway and Lake Drive (CSAH 23). According to this analysis, the Peak Hour traffic volume is 1,155 trips, which occurs from 4:30 -5:30 p.m. Based on the traffic analysis, a concept transportation improvement plan was developed for the Town Center Parkway and Lake Drive intersection. On Town Center Parkway, the plan includes three outbound lanes to separate left turn, through, and right turning traffic and also includes two inbound lanes. Signalization of this intersection would also be necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service. According to the 2020 Traffic Volume Forecast in the Lino Lakes Transportation Plan, traffic volumes on Lake Drive are anticipated to increase to over 17,000 trips per day. Regardless of the proposed development, improvements to Lake Drive are expected in the future. However, to accommodate the full development of the Legacy at Woods Edge Development, several additional improvements to Lake Drive will need to be made in the short term. The concept transportation plan has proposed the construction of two southbound left turn lanes between the intersection of Town Center Parkway and the I -35W bridge. Furthermore, traffic signals at Town Center Parkway and both ramps to I -35W are anticipated. To signalize the south ramp 7 • • • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 intersection, the existing off ramp and on ramp intersections, which are now separated, need to be aligned to a single intersection, which would require the reconstruction of approximately 400 - feet of the on ramp. A simulation of the proposed traffic mitigation plan was presented to the Planning and Zoning Board on January 28, 2004. The analysis demonstrated that the proposed improvements maintain an acceptable level of service through 2010. SEH will be providing a summary of the analysis at the February 11, 2004 meeting. Representatives from SEH met with Mn/DOT on January 29, 2004, to present traffic simulation models for four scenarios. They were: a. Existing traffic levels on the existing system. b. 2005 traffic levels (assuming full buildout of the Legacy plus background traffic growth) on the existing system. c. 2005 traffic levels (see above) on the proposed improvements d. 2010 traffic levels on the proposed improvements. Mn/DOT was satisfied with the models presented. They need to confer with FHWA to determine whether additional simulations would be required. Mn/DOT's opinion was that additional simulations are not likely to be required. They also concur that bridge replacement should be addressed by 2010. The City will be resubmitting the preliminary plat to Mn/DOT for further review. The resubmittal is needed to identify the area of right -of -way within the plat that is needed to accommodate the ramp realignment. With the traffic simulations having been presented to and reviewed by Mn/DOT, they should be in a position to approve the plat once it has been resubmitted. The City will still need to present the traffic simulation models to Anoka County and Met Council. This will be scheduled in the near future. The proposed improvements will require the acquisition of right -of -way along Lake Drive. The proposed improvements and extent of right -of -way acquisition will be evaluated further as part of the feasibility study for the project. Parking. The development standards establish parking requirements through the use of shared parking standards. By recognizing that peak parking demand occurs at different times for different land uses, shared parking facilities help minimize the amount of land and expense devoted to parking lots. Additionally, on- street parking has be included in the development plan were possible. A parking analysis was completed to determine if the site plan has provided adequate parking space for the proposed level of development. The analysis segmented the site into four zones to compare the availability of parking spaces for commercial and office uses to the potential demand within each zone. Based on the analysis, Block 1 was short approximately 15 spaces. However, staff is evaluating the availability of the Civic Complex parking lot due to its close proximity to this area. Otherwise, the site has adequately addressed the parking demands within 8 • • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 each zone for commercial /office uses. Residential parking is proposed to be provided entirely underground throughout the mixed use areas of the development. However there appears to be a 10 stall short fall in Block 3. The parking analysis will have to be revisited on a case by case basis with future development on the site to insure the needs of different land uses are satisfied. Adjustments of allowable square footages and/or residential units may be required during individual site and building plan reviews. Architectural Standards Another key component of the project is the establishment of architectural standards. Architectural Standards for the proposed development fall into four Categories: 1. Facade Transparency. Facade Transparency guidelines help strengthen the relationship between buildings and the street and increase public safety by placing "eyes" and activity on the street. 2. Materials and Methods of Construction. Buildings shall support regional traditions and maintain a level of craft in the process of construction. Wood, masonry, and stone are appropriate building materials. 3. Building Scale and Definition. These guidelines are intended to create buildings with a human scale, making the development more pedestrian - friendly and a pleasant place to walk. 4. Energy Conservation and Climatic Response. The effects of the Minnesota climate can be mitigated through intelligent building design configuration and landscape treatments. The requirements contained within these categories will be incorporated into the building design throughout the development. Master Grading and Drainage and Erosion Control Plan The City's engineering consultant SEH, Inc., has prepared a preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. Runoff from the site currently drains to the south and east and ultimately discharges to Marshan Lake and George Watch Lake. The development proposes to construct a drainage system within all the street improvements and parking areas to convey runoff to proposed ponding areas and infiltration cells (green space or underground storage chambers). Subsurface chamber technology takes advantage of the soil's inherent filtration and renovation capabilities to store and treat storm water runoff while providing the flexibility to plan for additional buildings and green space. To maximize pollutant removal efficiencies, the water quality control structures will be designed and constructed according to NURP, the City of Lino Lakes, and Rice Creek Watershed District standards. Storm water rate control and treatment will occur prior to any storm water being discharged to receiving water bodies. Therefore, water quality in the receiving waterbodies will not be adversely impacted. Treated storm water will either be naturally infiltrated into the groundwater 9 • • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 or will be discharged to existing wetland basins located on and/or adjacent to the site. Water from these wetlands eventually will enter George Watch Lake, Marshan Lake, and the remainder or the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes system. Master Utility Plan The development is proposed to be serviced with public sanitary sewer and water utilities. The sanitary sewer service will be provided by the existing trunk sanitary sewer main that runs within both Town Center Parkway and Village Drive. The sanitary sewer laterals will be extended through the site. Water service will be provided by the existing trunk water main that runs within both Town Center Parkway and Village Drive. The water laterals will be extended through the site. A trunk line will be extended northerly across I -35W to provide a planned improvement to the City's water system. Master Lighting Plan SEH has prepared a preliminary lighting plan for the public streets consistent with the Calthorpe Design Standards. Decorative lighting will be used throughout the development. Private lighting for internal parking areas will be reviewed in conjunction with proposed development. In accordance with the design standards lighting shall not exceed .4 foot candles at the property line and must contain a 90 degree cutoff angle. A lighting plan prepared by a qualified lighting consultant shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. Development, Ownership and Management The Hartford Group will be the Legacy at Woods Edge master developer, and will contract with sub - developers to develop phases of the project. Sub - developers may be affiliated Hartford entities. The rental housing is proposed to be developed and owned by affiliates of the Hartford Group. The townhome and commercial locations are proposed to be developed distinctly by Hartford affiliates or separate sub - developers. The sub - developers for Legacy at Woods Edge have not been finalized at this time. Residences are proposed to be market -rate, with up to a twenty percent affordable component included. The Hartford Group's market studies will determine initial pricing, with flexibility to adjust to market changes. The Hartford may retain ownership, development, and management, or contract for development and management, or sell parcels. The rental/owner occupied housing mix and affordability percentages shall be subject to and incorporated the Development/PUD agreement between Hartford and the City. Market Analysis • The proposed project represents the maximum intensity of development, due to physical and transportation constraints, that can be accommodated on the site. The Hartford Group has 10 • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 commissioned a study, which is nearing completion. The results of the study shall be incorporated into an economic feasibility study that will be required for review by the City prior to Final Plan/Plat approval. Shoreland Requirements The Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park boundary separates the project area from the OHWL of George Watch Lake and Marshan Lake by approximately 800 -feet and 250 -feet, respectively. Given the distance separation and forested nature of the regional park property, no visual impact to the public water bodies is anticipated. Additionally, there will be no disturbance of Shore Impact Zones. Both George Watch Lake and Marshan Lake are classified as Natural Environment Lakes. Impervious surface coverage of lots within the Shoreland District of a Natural Environment Lake cannot exceed 60% for commercial/industrial development and 35% for multi - family residential. The proposed impervious surface coverage within the Marshan Lake Shoreland District is classified as commercial development and has been calculated to be approximately 43% of the total area within the Shoreland District boundary. No impervious surfaces are proposed within the designated Shoreland District of George Watch Lake. The height of structures within the Shoreland Districts shall be limited to thirty -six feet. • Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat, as submitted, proposes 13 lots, including the Civic Complex and future YMCA parcels and 3 outlots. There are no specific lot size standards provided for within the Design Standards. The lot sizes proposed conform to the building arrangements set forth in the Master Site Plan. Street Right -of -Way Adequate street right -of -way is provided for in the plat consistent with the Master Site Plan. However, additional right -of -way to accommodate the realignment the northbound I -35W ramp on Lot 1, Block 2 will need to be incorporated into the plat. Access Control Access control, dedicated to Anoka County, should be shown on the plat for those portions adjacent to Lake Drive. Access Control, dedicated to the Mn/DOT should be shown on the plat for those portions adjacent to I -35W. Drainage and Utility Easements • Drainage and utility easements will be required. Typically, drainage and utility easements at least 10 feet wide are required along exterior lot lines and centered on interior lot lines. 11 Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 However, due to the nature of the development, in consideration of build to lines, these types of easements are not practical. Easements will be required around the 100 year flood elevation for all wetlands and stormwater drainage basins. Additionally easements will be required centered on all stormwater and utility lines not located within public right -of -way. The width and locations of such easements have been determined by the City's Consulting Engineer and are being incorporated into the preliminary plat. Ingress and Egress easements, by separate instrument, will also be required to provide for shared parking throughout the development. Park Dedication The proposed Outlot A should be shown as Park and dedicated to the City. Preservation of natural environment areas is included as part of the Design Standards. Outlot C is identified as the primary preservation area. Anoka County parks, as part of the EAW comments, requested that this portion of the project be held under public ownership. If not dedicated as park, a conservation easement should be placed over the parcel. Existing Easements of Record The preliminary plat references two roadway easements per Anoka County half section maps that run east -west across the northerly portion of the site. Title work should be prepared to verify the status of these easements. If they are existing easements of record they will need to be vacated or otherwise terminated. Individual Site Development Upon approval of the Rezoning and Development Stage Plans individual site development will be reviewed in accordance with the adopted standards. The request for Site and Building Plan approval for the Regent at Lino Lakes (buildings 6 and 7), previously reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Board, has been removed from consideration at this time to allow for further refinement and evaluation of potential uses. City Advisory Board Reviews Environmental Board The Environmental Board reviewed the proposed development on January 28, 2004 and recommended approval with recommendations to be incorporated into the site landscaping and operation/maintenance agreement. Their comments are attached. Park Board. The Park Board reviewed the proposed development on February 2, 2004. Staff will continue to work with the Park Board during final design of the "community green" and during review of the residential component of the development. 12 • • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 City Department Reviews CEPTED. A preliminary CEPTED review was completed, dated November 16, 2003 and is attached for your review. Public Services Community Development staff is working with the public services department on issues related to maintenance, snow plowing etc. Minor roadway geometric changes will be made during the final design process. Staff is anticipating addressing maintenance impacts as part of the economic review of the process prior to final plan/final plat approval. Centennial Fire Department Community Development staff has worked with the Centennial Fire Department to address Emergency Vehicle Access and routing. The proposed design incorporates their modifications Agency Reviews Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). The RCWD reviewed the Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Plan at its January 28, 2004 board meeting. The board approved a CAPROC (Conditional Approval Pending Receipt Of Changes) with nine conditions. Detailed plans and specifications will be required prior to commencement of roadway and/or storm sewer infrastructure improvements. Anoka County Plans have been forwarded to Anoka County for review. Conditions of approval will include the requirements set forth by Anoka County. Minnesota Department of Transportation ( Mn/DOT) Plans have been forwarded to Mn/DOT for review. Staff reviewed the traffic simulation with Mn/DOT officials on January 29, 2004. Further evaluation with Mn/DOT will take place as part of the Feasibility Study and public improvement plan development. FINDINGS Rezoning to Planned Unit Development. The Planning and Zoning Board shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment and its judgement shall be based upon, the criteria established in Section 2, Subdivision 1.E. of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. 1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the specific policies and provision of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed mixed use development is compatible with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed development conforms to all performance standards contained within the zoning ordinance. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City' s service capacity. 13 • • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property subject to the roadway improvements proposed for the development and Lake Drive. Development Stage Plan Approval. Staff makes the following findings with regard to the Development Stage Plan Review Criteria as established in Section 2.8.d of the City's Zoning Ordinance: 1. The developer will be required to submit an Operation and Maintenance Agreement to insure adequate property control is provided to protect the individual owners' rights and property values and the public responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the development. 2. The proposed street improvements, including those proposed for Lake Drive, will not create congestion or dangers and is adequate for the safety of the proposed project residents and the general public. 3. Open space as required in the development standards is provided. 4. The architectural framework as provided for in the design standards will insure compatibility with the surrounding area. 5. The drainage and utility system plans are being designed by the City's consulting engineer and are in accordance with city requirements. 6. The developer will be required to submit a development schedule to insure a logical development of the site which will protect the public interest and conserve land. RECOMMENDATION The intent of the rezoning to Planned Unit Development and the approval of the Development Stage Plan is to establish the overall regulatory framework, unique to the development, while allowing flexibility for individual site design. It is anticipated that modifications to building size, number and placement will happen as the project develops. However, such modifications will be subject to the requirements set forth in the Design Standards. There are several steps in the process that will commence following approval of the rezoning and Development Stage Plan. These include, but are not limited to, preparation and evaluation of the public improvement feasibility study, financial analysis, operation and maintenance agreement and the development agreement. These items will need to be completed and approved in conjunction with the final plan approval. Generally, the proposed development, is consistent with the original Calthorpe Master Plan and Design Standards. The Hartford Group has been very receptive to design modifications to insure a high quality development. There are some further changes and clarifications that need to be incorporated into the final plan as suggested in this report. Additionally, design items such as the streetscaping element will go through further modification and review as part of the Public Improvement Design process. 14 • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 Rezoning to Planned Unit Development Staff recommends approval of the rezoning from LB, Limited Business to Planned Unit Development and approval of the corresponding development standards. Development Stage Plan (Preliminary Plat): Staff Recommends approval of the Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The following modifications shall be incorporated into the Preliminary Plat: a. Additional right -of -way for the northbound I -35W ramps is required and should be incorporated into the preliminary plat as determined by SEH. b. Drainage and Utility easements and dimensions need to be shown on the preliminary plat. Easements are required around the 100 year flood elevation for all wetlands and stormwater drainage basins. Additionally easements will be required centered on all stormwater and utility lines. c. Any portions of the plat bordering Mn/DOT or Anoka County right -of -way should include dedication of access control to the respective agency. d. Outlot A, should be labeled as park. Additionally, is Outlot C should be shown as park. If it is proposed to be retained by the developer a conservation easement shall be provided to the City e. Title work should be prepared to verify the status of existing roadway easements i.e., public or private. If it is determined that they are public easements they shall be vacated in accordance with city and state requirements. f. The extent of the Shoreland Districts of George Watch and Marshan Lakes (1,000 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level) should be delineated on the plat. g. The total upland area should be tabulated and included on the preliminary plat (Gross acreage less area of wetlands). Specific lots with wetlands should show both gross acreage and upland acreage. 2. A development phasing plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. 3. A feasibility study shall be prepared for the installation of Public Improvements. Such feasibility study shall include estimated costs and proposed assessments to benefiting property owners. 4. Developer shall provide and Economic Feasibility Study of the proposed project for review by the City. 5. Developer shall provide an Operation and Maintenance Agreement for the development covering both Public and Private Improvements for review and approval by the City. 6. Developer shall enter into a development contract with the City. 15 • • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 7. Acquisition by the City of parcels adjacent to the site required for proposed Lake Drive improvements. 8. Requirements for project identity and signage will need to be established in conjunction with final plan/final plat approval. 9. The proposed Lakes Drive improvements will be subject to review and approval by Mn/DOT and Anoka County. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location Map 2. CEPTED Report dated November 16, 2003 3. Preliminary Plat, prepared by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc., received November 10, 2003. 4. Master Site Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., dated February 6, 2004. 5. Master Landscaping Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., dated February 6, 2004.. 6. Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan, prepared by SEH, Inc. 7. Site Grading and Erosion and Control Plan, prepared by SEH, Inc. 8. Preliminary Street Grading Plan, prepared by SEH, Inc. 9. Preliminary Streetscaping Plan (Areas 1 through 4), prepared by SEH, Inc. 10. Environmental Board Recommendation 11. Parking Analysis 16 • Planning & Zoning Board Legacy at Woods Edge December 10, 2003 7. Acquisition by the City of parcels adjacent to the site required for proposed Lake Drive improvements. 8. Requirements for project identity and signage will need to be established in conjunction with final plan/final plat approval. 9. The proposed Lakes Drive improvements will be subject to review and approval by Mn/DOT and Anoka County. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location Map 2. CEPTED Report dated November 16, 2003 3. Preliminary Plat, prepared by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc., received November 10, 2003. 4. Master Site Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., dated February 6, 2004. 5. Master Landscaping Plan, prepared by Hartford Group, Inc., dated February 6, 2004.. 6. Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan, prepared by SEH, Inc. 7. Site Grading and Erosion and Control Plan, prepared by SEH, Inc. 8. Preliminary Street Grading Plan, prepared by SEH, Inc. 9. Environmental Board Recommendation 10. Parking Analysis 16 6 5 L04S "L..1 L4 OYTLApT A 2 2I 6 15 14 4 2 u NORTH 6 5 4 2 7 I8 LAKES CENTER •TH — STREET 4 8 I 7 PRAIRIE VIEW PUCE 8 9 8 17 STATE - TRUNK- HIGHWAY NO. 49 4 5, �rR 1A.L 6 5 INO 7 8 / 9 ■0 __pARK IN 10 IIA A1JD -16= RE9S 9__ 12 3 4 es, Q^ VQ 5 6 8 177TH 8 9 `t, II 0 LAKES CO 'MERCIA O EY / 1 W W AUE: • 2 SUB. a� no RAIL o Department of Public Safety POLICE David J. Pecchia Public Safety Director / Chief of Police Officer Mike Rumpsa Lino Lakes Police Department CPTED Review 11 -16 -03 Marshan Townhomes: • I have reviewed the plans, and have one recommendation. House numbering needs to be clear and un cluttered. • A sign indicating what units are in each individual building should be located at each of the buildings. • House numbers on row mail boxes does not work for emergency response personnel. • ERP are driving code to emergency situations and in many cases in the dark. By installing a sign at the entrances of each building, ERP will find the address quickly without wasting time The Village: • The underground parking roadway that connects Town Center Parkway with Unit #17 has to be built so that motorists will not be tempted to take a left from the underground parking onto Town Center Parkway. The driveway should only be a right turn in only • Addressing the plat needs to be done in a way that keeps it simple. Each building entrance should have a sign indicating what addresses are in each complex. • On street parking will have to done in a way that will not obstruct driveways and intersections. • Signage and road paint should be utilized. Secured buildings could become a problem to law enforcement. Responding to critical call could be delayed if the police are not able to enter a locked door. Each secured building should have some sort of key or code that Police and fire can use to gain access to the building. • Surveillance cameras should be utilized in the underground parking area. • Access points to the garage should be keyed and/or proxy cards. The traffic flow in unit #10 appears that it will follow close to the building and around a median. If the median was shortened, traffic would not have to back around within the parking lot. Snow removal will be an issue in this development. Snow will have to be removed and stored in areas that would not impede traffic and pedestrians. Snow will also have to be removed to prevent retail areas becoming targets of criminal activity due to lack of surveillance. 640 Town Center Parkway • Lino Lakes, Minnesota • 55014 -1182 Public Administration /Records: 651- 982 -2300 • Fax: 651- 982 -2399 Environmental Memo To: Michael Grochala From: Marty Asleson Date: January 23, 2004 Re: Environmental Board Recommendations/January 21, 2004 The Environmental Board made the following recommendations at the January 21, 2004 Environmental Board meeting: • Landscaping: • All tree - planting areas should have planting holes prepared as per illustration. • All planting areas where soil compaction is necessary because of buildings and pavement should use CU structural soils or some other method to allow for suitable root growth). It would be better to plant smaller trees in CU soils than larger trees in compacted soils. • Species selection should combine appropriate native /indigenous species that complement the native landscape and architectural features. Suggest some flexibility in street tree planting , specifications in order to add possible traffic calming features (species and spacing) to the landscape. All trees should be zone 4 species. Desirable species for Legacy: • Oaks ( Red, Northern pin, White, Burr and Swamp white) • Page 1 • Red maple /Acer rubrum (North woods, Red maple, Autumn spire, Fire dance, North fire, Red sunset). • Autumn blaze (do not over use) • Birch ( River, Paper) • Common hackberry • Thornless Cockspur Hawthorn • Green ash ( Green, Bergeson, Marshall's, Patmore, Summit) • Honeylocust/Thomless • Larch • Flowering crab (Dolgo, Donald Wyman, Flame, Indian magic, Kelsey, Pink spire, Radiant, Red splendor, Snowdfirt, Sparkler, Spring snow, • Quaking aspen • Linden ( American, Redmond) • Elm ( Discovery, Accolade, or other disease resistant zone 4 elms) • Pines ( White, Red, Austrian along freeway if pines are planned there) • Spruce (white) All shrubs should be zone 4 suitable and non - invasive. • It is encouraged to use native flower and ground cover plants as much as possible. The use of cultivars should be permitted as long as such cultivars are non- invasive. • All native seed areas should approximate the City specifications for seed. It is encouraged to use potted plants and/or plugs as much as possible. • Vines. The Environmental Board has stated an interest in the use of vines on building surfaces. • All planting areas should have available water. Plantings on poles should have available water. Electricity for accent lighting should be available throughout the planting areas. Trails • All future trail extensions should be placed off -of eco- edges. • Site soils • Any soils that are not intended to be compacted should be protected from unnecessary compaction (infiltration areas, pond and park areas). • Pursue a conservation easement on the SE corner of the project. • Use landscape lighting only in the common areas, interior to buildings. Use solar powered lights if possible. In addition, the Environmental Board wished to carry forward previous recommendations made during the review process. These recommendations included: Best management practices for surface water quality should be initiated and integrated into the predicted phosphorous exports for the site. Best management practices should include periodic and timely sweepings to capture sediment laden • Page 2 • • phosphorous on impervious surfaces. A vacuum type sweeper is a better tool for removing phosphorous deposits on impervious surfaces. Best management practices should also include the elements sited in the plan for Market Place north of 35W. All lighting should be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. In all cases, city standards for tree preservation should be implemented. If trees are moved, than storage area needs to be designated until the planting areas are ready. (Usually tree removal happens before initial grading operations). Motion by O'Connell, second by O'Dea to recommend approval of the Legacy project with above recommendations. All were in favor. Motion passed. • Page 3 PRBAIP 11\i r° PLAT OP: THM VI1.1...Ac, Q. FOR: THE HARTFORD CROUP, THE CITY OF LINO. LAKES, AND THE YMCA GKAPIIIC SCALE 1(0 w) 00 n it ___ 41----,! ,!____r__ - /I / 1 ; ,/ I ,/ s i { Ev.i.I .42 g en/. r 9.a n. wr -x.rtr, rt • f•- " /l- / ddL - L... -,�-1 40, 1{ st zo. JI v --- ..10}1 s1 • w ti ire cz) N25.1/PP • / y- / eI i '412 / F,, .. , / - / b.a ,i / /Pg. 1101 -: 0 u i O ,- ,_-,�-,.[[4 / / N _ C i • i i w'""Y/'"6ru1�r \ / h11 �/ 4. i i / / Z / A a ? ��y/. OUTLOT B fe�r4 I 41/4.' .` 1127. 111..1 %4i «k'r 0 0. Y '__ PUBLICLY DEDICATED i .N12N w.I N. smn 110 Y r 0 -11 i J i 1 •i- 1 . / ! / 44/..` •`! / u , / , ,!./ 1 / , / 't /14'IcY`}`y o i • ffr P3:14.0 v <? r • r g ► ►"f� SW 4, 1.,, . 1 , / / / r CORY _4- ` .> D , ` I) 1` '11+ d Lig 11 .( `\ "+a , jr ti 9 .8955943.1 �1t MY L +i°'A4C8 SIE•CN 1 twnr mum 10NB 1104.30014 m.:.,,...4747,41.4.4w.w Y.. IMO 7x12 w cr l 1 'a r N7e+n Ms N wan 779 aNr 7.44.8aa 747J� 100,X.10 11.11 inett 003OPMf3VT OATAr 9120 3' p N1Cb..N K li +il, Iq. a .p0 'i'uoarsn oESrxznTlrnB i2�1 �Ny qI N W nr� a0 N Mlv .°"w'maal.n oliA�Yrr al N' LN' "Arti' too MN•[rr.N md1aaM Mil�lxw WI N No Oa MO Marta N..� pa buh. hr x0.1+11121'012 rvswh;gn N.wC �reWq pwrN%N1r p.rlYbrol qow� 'Y'WLw YU.......YM Nal 1912.12 aa N01.20.w[0...x12 v +X112101 bw+r N 11w11n, IY. hwnb 71. N . Ans. om4 xmwata. wal.ly rl N. hr.� 1l.r ✓1111 1w. msnir.wp M MerN�'4D.a mlvin N �nnb LM Ye� M r.; 1 71,(1`;',.11.1=-01.: Snb Y a� iY 0 .9'N tY i.mu 4.1114111*. 1. e.b. 120.0.0 U. a• pre aw• I.02o YNeC a 9010.0* *000... oM to N. umx. X.01 5.417 . biro.. MOO b212.1.10. nMn 4.1X1 "en N 11X9 SwNn IT, Nrw a. Iuwwl Np.1 SwW.74111 imm ayawl J°a". m,q N•415.1.7i 001 21.014. 1nl 001601 pw 2140 a.'..< 12.211.0 .. /0120 w ea• b '"ir0.nnN W MW Gwb 1•mM. nlpry rw r1N Y W bb N W Wa L N a..mmn1 ls1 i 412 a N• �u.pr ary ,1 s »1�.9.n n, wwi:al iar 414.1 17. Pa. Fa nw.na w:rW✓77 x`w•••]l mrw"� fw /mna.wlF.. w. mN2Mblw�blNM Mn01d .We1•1 1..req Nw.eNn 0:X211 M1M°d ann 711 f .oY 1•.111 • 1.•n N Haut .N; manta w San e1 Nw• 1W1Lwn.".0 w ;It r; 0141.41'1 N'vr. by 9da 12 np'n 1010. !l 1.1111.. RAN MN.1221 eOymhp aizafb :0201.2 1ww afwwn 111.0, O.1 w•1 el W node •rr 1210'10, S.NeJr .h 1211. Ow w %ft =I n N w 0 11 µN w • N MI SwYn n mml hgrl/ 041011'1 pr . 1..•< *mot OS (9•799 r Mod 0. ". .'.7111 y p2 w.... M'p.rV n• 11....4 04 a.. M.11 • N'1 p1 r .sam11.NY< 1110 .. 0121 ary N iww R 91'17 0L r&•7LL .M ly, Yuwere INnv lo:1:N 4.Ir'1x ZINwb my 01.9..0, qaM aenM Dwonol, N•OA Wwwv•wN.• add S..0, ll YwlilbrxanNN+W1M "∎ dep'.ell.1.1.1, mom damn 100.00 NY .vew P1 at iFtM .l M w. IYr4 Vgaihal 911X.. .070 '1.s�1y7 NgNrM 41 lrngNb.•1N• N.oY 9110 Nnn NN.Y 000 eYr. li m%oo' ira,mV :7*"0109.M� m.lw.wl k:b «..1210, ,n We N«..e Yrax n 2011 x 02191 E'iii1 M wY. W b io"iyr... a 0410, 1111 LNrr 0111 •ww.4X091.x1. q x1.N N 01111 012 Nnw Soon 71 0,1071 b m0, In •11 iIraq x719.012" 1:: lnx 4.4 NPe. 52N 1101.00 YNU nx 11+0 Pn1700bbp ai w..Wew1amrw44ww S�P ssi..�N 1X20, VIM 0.{0112 SwP dO ux 0a,lr 4al • 10 Nn. frl E N.b ICo .m N'w 3f mfwl�w oO we FY len x21"1.1••. I4p 00"111 ii 1120 Cnl 0.01/ 0, ayoi lect Si% 3.s. sAs,....■ ,•• *". s••dE i1 •Stet wolf. 00 Ng 1 vs Nome. Raton taaLsnpe o I. ; inf 1,1oa *le of Sm.= 1.o 1SkA 14..41•4i." USW 1 „,.. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER p, HAnueehek II Eanitato r•fil ,,11 ineorporotoR I; w g x...... z-f„ bta....mmitease . OWNER LEGACY AT 11 WOODS EDGE, LLC ...:V:L.%1,'Pv,It%;• 11 PROJECT HUD PROJECT NUMBER: 000-00000 MASTER SITE PLAN 11 AT LEGACY 11 AT WOODS II EDGE II WA, LAKES, SENNSSOTA f 0 1 1 WETLAINV 1 EXISTING,. EXIST;s0 wErLANIP°' ;-• ■, DAYCARE ; 1 • 1,e tmt 1, • Iii11[11-jz; . 1■L., r*kner nnei• uAirrrrmn fmesilo NC. .7.41TECTS 117.11/41,[1k6 MAMMAS 1/ /' URBAN TOWNHOMES 26 UNITS 1.55 AC. 17 UNITS/AC. 11 SCALE: 1° 100' 11 11 ARCHRECTIENGINEER DEVELOPER HARTFORD .512111V111168 Say.. Law Ext,IstwieLLS ,,0111Nat■ 1111: 11 11 J ISSUE: 1/10/01 — an 2004101.4 — 001. 00? SERWISAL REV. THIS SHEET 0 NO REV. THIS SHEET 11 SHEET TITLE: SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBER: 04 No • ii • COR:'S01 2001, 14RTCR8 50005, MC .RCNIT{011,'1 GI8EENSMANIIEAS Plant Schedule Shade Trees Autumn Blaze Maple Northwoods Maple Swamp White Oak Hackberry Skyline Honeylocust Little Leaf Linden Acer x freemanii 'Jeffsred' Acer rubrum'Northwood' Quercus bicolor Celtis occidental's Gleditsia triacanthos'Skycole' Tillie cordate Ornamental Trees 00 Pinkspire Crabapple oO Serviceberry Shrubs Bush Honeysuckle ( Gro -low Sumac Shrub Rose Roundabout , Black Hills Spruce 16 - Bush Honeysuckle Perennials 1 Little Bluestem Prairie Dropseed Black -eyed Susan Purple Coneflower Butterflyweed Lupine Monarda Sedum Maius'Pink Spires' Ametanchier laevis Lonicera'Honeyrose' Rhus aromatica'Gro -Low' Rosa rugosa 2 -112" cal. B &B 849 2 -1/2" cal. B &B 2 -1/2" cal. B &B 2 -1/2" cal. B &B 2 -1/2" cal. B &B 2 -1/2" cal. B &B 1 -1/2" cal. B &B 112 1 -1/2" cal. B &B 24" ht. 18" ht. 24" ht. Picea glauce densata 6' ht. Lonicera tararica'Amold Red' 24" ht. Schizachyrium scoparium Sporoboius heterolepis Rudbeckia hirta Echinacea purpurea Asclepias tuberose Lupinus Monarda'Snow queen' Sedum Rainwater Gardens 1 Pinkspire Crabapple New England Aster Blueflag Iris Cardinal Flower Little Bluestem Indian Grass PLANTING NOTES Malus'Pink Spires' Aster novae- angliae Iris virginica Lobelia cardinalis Schizachyrium scoparium Sorghastrum nutans 1. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL IMMEOIA AREAS AROUND BUS OINOS SHALL BE SODDED. 2. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALLED AND BWKAPPEO. 0. ALL TREES AND SHRUB SEOS 00831 RECEIVE A' (MIN.) DEPTH OF CLEAN DOOM E. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER FILTER FABRIC. SHRUB BEDS AND ADJACENT TURF AREAS SHALL BE BORDERED WMTH STEEL EDGING A. AL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED. 5 THE LANDSCAPE ARCHDECT FOR THE PROJECT SHAL'. COORDINATE AND MEET WITH THE CITY FORESTER AND THE CONTRACTOR FOR FIELD VEF40ICATION OF TRANSPLANT TREES. AL TREES VIABLE FOR TRANSPLA! DG SHALL BE FLAGGED AND AND STAKED PRIOR TO ANY CDNSIRUCT9N ACTIVITY. PROPOSED TRANSPLANT TREE LOCATIONS SHALL BE DE.SNMMEO BY IDENTIFYING AREAS THAT WkL ALLOW THE TREES TO BE MOVED Ol1Y ONCE TO TINA. SINN. LOCATKH4 AND PROTECTED TO ENSURE VIAL ITY. b. PANT MATERIAL GUANIIT.ES ARE APPRO%1MAIE ANT/ DETA*E0 PLANS WILL BE 503MITTER WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL AREA AS THEY ARE DEVELOPED. SHAD: TREES 5HA!.l BE PRO01000 AT A MINIMUM RA.. OF 1 PER 10 PARKING STALLS. T. ALL PONDS. MEET NATION BASINS AND RESTORED AREA ADJACENT WETLANDS SHALL SE PLANTED WITH NATIVE PLANT MATETUALS. Cont. 900 Cont. Cont. B &B 110 Cont. SCALE_ 1" = 10G" ARCHITECT/ENGINEER . DEVELOPER HARTFORD bap ar* 33 SA l 0 a NINE sw PEA. G Are aiaM ES do v-7aiimaJ Ntl an c0 3 SA Ln46w atNe EisAmit. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER,; Con:u an k l H n r,Cerporaftd OWNER LEGACY AT WOODS EDGE, LLC PROJECT HUD PR0lECr NUMBER: i 000 -00000 MASTER LANDSCAPE PLAN AT LEGACY AT WOODS EDGE LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA ISSUE: It/I0/03 - d1' SUDM1RAL • 2/3/04 - REV. 011 SUSNRTU. ; /j REV. THIS SHEET 0 NO REV. THIS SHEET SHEET TITLE: LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NUMBER: C -3.0 • 3 • 5 N 50 0 50 25 /1 -- { =- 1 / •i/ 1/ rf r,'1 1 / 1 /1 / %1 1i 1j/ 1f / 11 1/ j1/ / 1/ �7f j, 1 / 1/ 1 / 1/' 1 / 1; / ? 1/ 1. / / / r // �.•� -42'.-WATERMAIN / 1 f• STUB \� 71 TC 910.5 IN /_589.7¢ -----. N ,/ ,1 / - - a !1 /i f' ?' 6 — IIIIIUIru.1 lllI H C R STUBS ,I I SDR 35 0 0.28% Tp 910.3 Itf V 890.72 TC 8`D 91.09 149 LE 8" PVC — SDR 35 _ 103 LE 10" PVC 26 © SDR 26 0 0.26% TC 0.28% 910.5 131 LF 10" PVC INV 890.43"'\ SDR 35 0 0.28% TC 905.9 INV 892.37 INV 892.54 T 903.6 IN 893.72 /777i' % ! r / /%ate% /1 / /: f f/ 11' / ` / /• / r1\ !% / V 48. y �. SEWER �c-..- TE�es R (fir TC • :. A STUBS .IN G1111111 111 -u0I , ..'L► EXISTING SEWER TER /lli l I I � 6fi j4E INV 88'.54 1 1 /1 887.7 -- ERIS"tING 7�4 - 'VA'1'E:RMAIN _ --- V 887.98_..., EX INV .8 8 „ '�•��JI NOTE: ALL WATERMAIN SHALL BE DIP CL 52 I N V V 888.99_., EX INV 889.94 //. SEH L VC :SfB:3$ "< 0.28% -EX INV, 390 \/ V 689.87 —. \ V 88B.54-. .. z-- p0STING 1"; PVC _ EX_SnNG 12 PVG_. �- • ', \_\ X INV 889.'8 J11-11P DWI 1 Li `11111 i 1 ;', LINO LAKES MINNESOTA a?� LEGACY AT WOODS EDGE SANITARY SEWER AND WATER PLAN FILE NO. DRAWING ALINOL0305.01 NO. DATE 2/01 /04 2 DESCRIPTION SILT FENCE DESCRIPTION HAY BALES DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DESCRIPTION SEED WITH MULCH SEED WITH WOOD FIBER BLANKET DESCRIPTION SOD RIPRAP DESCRIPTION RETAINING WALT • inset \FP \I N105CM. X: \KO \LINOL \030501 \EP \LN305PT. X: \KO \LINOL \030501 \EP \LN3051P. X: \KO \LINOL \030500 \FR rAl 0 0 12. 70 33 14 12 a a3 BAN 2r TO 3r 14 20 G.3 Jr 10 4I' 23 t t a o 3 d' C3 a4 a AND LP S2 and op CL 4 (On outdo Pcrd Y apprwA^aleb' WOO bJ FIER BLANKET REQUIRED RE UNDER RP RAP MR 2 142000 OF BOOK 1WAFL FARac DR EQUAL RIPRAP AT OUTLETS 5, 97 MINE AMINO RPIILV��F STOW SEMEN CA1D11ASIN AT FENCE *STALLED 01 AS PER FENCE E AS 20S FdCE AT R AIF'rl FF® SECRd1 TCP OF RL1 FENCE 10 BE LIVER 11AN LIMEST ADJACENT MUSLIM REF FORCED FLARED END SEa11014 PROFILE _011 210 •POSTS � SECURED BEEHIVE CASTING AND FLARED END SECTION EROSION CONTROL I -POND 1 RF 80W4 CUT OFT BEM 70 WWI RLIIMFF FROM UTE FLIER FASr0C SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCK 1D S10P IRE 111CRA112011HRg1W ROCK. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE REGISTRATION SCHEDULE 1. INSTALL SILT FENCE 2. BEGIN SITE GRADING a. STRIP TOP SOIL b. GRADE SITE c. TOPSOIL DISTURBED AREAS 3. SEED AND MULCH DISTURBED AREAS (WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM COMPLETION OF GRADING) 4. UTILITY CONSTRUCTION 5. STREET CONSTRUCTION 6. SEED AND MULCH NEWLY DISTURBED AREAS (WITHIN 14 DAYS FROM COMPLETION OF GRADING) CIT r * ";' OF IN. yLAMKE,3 2' x 2' wood or Ideal fence post 5' minimum length at 4' madmum spacing Gyatsdps fabric — overlap fabric S and fasten at 2' Intervals Lay fabric In the trench Fabric anchorage bench Boddill trench with tamped natural sap 0I of ruNO =.SEER SILT FENCE (TYP.) LINO LAKES MINNESOTA LEGACY AT WOODS EDGE Support post andarogl In —sou Sag S' 0� 3G y0ty Attach fabric to support poets with lath and staples SILT FENCE - STANDARD SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN FILE NO. DRAWING ALINOL0305.01 NO. DATE 11/25/03 1 scale $0 feet NtA9F 111M. (!E FUJI tEh TOWN MOB% PARKWAY C-C (SEE PLAN ROW Rae 1e 17 0011. PAPRWO fY DIM PA/1010 fY 4 a CRY PARK LOOP F-F (4E PLAN MOW we NON 1? tS PAM PAIR= CRY PARC LOOP EE (sa nee me SEH LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA LEGACY AT WOODS EDGE PRELIMINARY STREET GRADING PLAN FILE NO. ALINOL0305.01 DATE 2/01/04 DRAWING NO. 3 113.2% • CITY OF LINO LAKES Legacy at Woods Edge Parking Requirements & Shared Parking • Retail /Office Block Off Street Building On Street Land Use Surplus/ Deficit Gross Floor Area 31 31 32 Net Floor Area (90% ofGFA) Single Use Peak Hour Demand 34 20 10 Total Spaces Required (no shared) 1 1 General Retail 14,500 13,050 4/1000 52 2 General Retail 8,500 7,650 4/1000 31 2 Office 17,000 15,300 3/1000 46 3 General Retail 4,300 3,870 4/1000 15 3 Office 8,600 7,740 3/1000 23 4 General Retail 7,250 6,525 4/1000 26 4 Office 14,500 13,050 3/1000 39 5 General Retail 3,600 3,240 4/1000 13 5 Office 7,200 6,480 3/1000 19 6 General Retail 22,000 19,800 4/1000 79 7 General Retail 22,092 19,883 4/1000 80 8 General Retail 5,500 4,950 4/1000 20 8 Office 11,000 9,900 3/1000 30 9 General Retail 5,500 4,950 4/1000 20 11,000 9,900 3/1000 30 9 Office Total Block 1 Parking 1 1 ( 1 162,5421 I 146,2881 1 1 1 523 2a 10 General Retail 34,000 30,600 4/1000 122 40,000 36,000 3/1000 108 11 Office Total Block 2a Parking 1 1 1 1 74,0001 I 66,6001 1 1 1 230 4 16 General Retail 13,900 12,510 4/1000 50 17 General Retail 20,800 18,720 4/1000 75 Club 55,000 49,500 4/1000 198 Health Total Block 4 Parking 1 1 1 1 89,700! 1 80,7301 1 ( ( 323 326,242 293,618 1,076 Standard Parking Requirements Peak Demand Period Based on Use Percentage of Peak Demand for Key Times 10 AM 26 15 46 8 23 13 39 6 19 40 40 10 30 10 30 1 PM Weekdays 5 PM Weekends 8 PM 10 PM 10 AM 1 PM 5 PM 8 PM 10 PM 391' 41 35 ',' 39 34 13 23 20 8 23 2 2 12 10 4 12 1 1 20 17 7 20 2 2 10 8 3 10 1 1 59 51 20 60 52 20 15 13 5 15 1 1 15 13 5 15 1 1 26 52 47 34 18 15 31 28 20 11 7 7 2 0 0 8 15 14 10 5 3 3 1 0 0 13 26 23 17 9 6 6 2 0 0 6 13 12 8 5 3 3 1 0 0 40 79 71 51 28 40 80 72 52 28 10 20 18 13 7 4 4 1 0 0 10 20 18 13 7 4 4 1 0 0 355 1'_____ 420 61 108 345 I 228 I 93 196 364 3111 2181 117 92 ' 92 80 31 97.:', 54 5 5 61 122 110 80 43 16 16 5 0 0 169 1" ..._.. 189 1 25 38 37 56 20 158 146 1 8138 56;Sf'. 198 `:`,. 85 ( 36 77 1 139 1 116 1 80 1 43 33 13 49 19 59 20 25 50 45 33 18 37 75 67 49 26 119 158 119 59 20 82 1 252 1 .,,.,:. 292 ( 141 ( 51 181 1 283 1 231 1 141 1 64 606 861 783 453 180 454 786 658 438 224 Commercial Block Building 2b Land Use 12 Office 13 Office 14 Office Number of Units Net Floor Area (90% ofGFA) Single Use Peak Hour Demand Total Spaces Required (no shared) 30000 30000 30000 27000 3/1000 27000 3/1000 27000 3/1000 81 81 81 Total Block 2b Commercial Parking( 900001 ( 81000] 1 243 Parking Provided % Parking vs Demand Off Street Under Ground On Street Total Provided Surplus/ Deficit 76 60 59 31 31 32 8 10 0 115 101 91 34 20 10 142% 125% 112% 195 94 18 63 51 64 126% Parking Ratio Requirements Building Type S Townhouses Senior Multi- Family parking analysis(2) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 2 + Bedruooms Ratio 2 per unit 1 per unit 1 per unit 1.5 per unit 2 per unit Building Tvoe Retail Office Restaurant Health Club Hotel Ratio 4 per 1,000 sq.ft. NFA 3 per 1,000 sq.ft. NFA 10 per 1,000 sq.ft. NFA 4 per 1,000 sq.ft. NFA 1 per room 1 Total Spaces Required Shared Parking Provided Off Street Under Ground On Street Total Provided Surplus/ Deficit Parking vs. Demand 420 288 32 85 (15) 96.4% 189 239 0 41 91 148.3 292 310 0 24 42 114.5 900 837 32 150 119 Parking Summary Standard Parking Requirements Total Parking Required Shared Parking Requirements Total Shared Parking Requirements Parking Provided 1,664 1,489 Off Street Under Ground On Street Total Provided 1,032 465 168 1,665 2/6/04 • Residential 1 6 7 Senior Housing Senior Housing 63 51 1 /unit 1 /unit 63 51 114 0 100 Total Block 1 Residential Parking 1 1 1141 1 1 1 1 ( 114 , 2 10 Multi - Family 1 Bdrm Multi- Family 2 Bdrm Multi - Family 3 Bdrm 17 34 17 1 /unit 1.5 /unit 2/unit 17 51 34 102 105 x: 3 103% Total Block 2 Residential Parking 1 1 1 - 681 1 1 1 1 ( . 4 16 17 Multi - Family Multi - Family 29 36 2/unit 2/unit 58 72 130 120 (10) 92% Total Block 4 Residential Parking 1 1 1 651 1 1 1 1 1 433 646 57 247 589 110% Parking Ratio Requirements Building Type S Townhouses Senior Multi- Family parking analysis(2) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 2 + Bedruooms Ratio 2 per unit 1 per unit 1 per unit 1.5 per unit 2 per unit Building Tvoe Retail Office Restaurant Health Club Hotel Ratio 4 per 1,000 sq.ft. NFA 3 per 1,000 sq.ft. NFA 10 per 1,000 sq.ft. NFA 4 per 1,000 sq.ft. NFA 1 per room 1 Total Spaces Required Shared Parking Provided Off Street Under Ground On Street Total Provided Surplus/ Deficit Parking vs. Demand 420 288 32 85 (15) 96.4% 189 239 0 41 91 148.3 292 310 0 24 42 114.5 900 837 32 150 119 Parking Summary Standard Parking Requirements Total Parking Required Shared Parking Requirements Total Shared Parking Requirements Parking Provided 1,664 1,489 Off Street Under Ground On Street Total Provided 1,032 465 168 1,665 2/6/04 • 1 • Lino Lakes Town Center Design & Development Guide • Lino Lakes, Minnesota Calthorpe Associates DRAFT - 2/6/04 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1. PURPOSE 8 1.2. CONTEXT 8 1.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & DESIGN CONCEPTS 8 1.4. ORGANIZATION 9 Mixed Use Districts 9 Commercial Districts 9 Civic Districts 9 Residential District 9 Open Space District 10 1.5. GOALS 10 Economic Development 10 Land Use 10 Community Design & Architecture 10 Infrastructure 10 Administration 11 CHAPTER 2. GOVERNING PLANS 2.1. THE LAND USE PLAN 14 2.2. THE REGULATING PLAN 14 • Required Streets 14 Build to Lines 14 Landscaped Frontages 15 Required Building Entries 15 Gateways 15 • CHAPTER 3. COMMERCIAL, MIXED -USE, & CIVIC DISTRICT STANDARDS 3.1. ALLOWABLE USES 16 3.2. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY 19 Commercial & Mixed Use 19 Residential Uses 19 3.3. BUILDING MASSING & PLACEMENT 19 Building Orientation and Setbacks 19 Front Setbacks 19 Building Height 22 Minimum Height 22 Maximum Height 22 3.4. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS 23 Facade Transparency 23 Street - Facing Facades along Build -to Lines or within Street Setbacks Facades not along Build -to Lines or within Street Setbacks from Table 3 23 Building Entries and Windows 23 Building Scale and Definition 24 Structural Legibility and Articulation 24 DRAFT — 2/6/04 2 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • Base and Top Treatments 24 Roof Form /Rooftop Equipment 24 Materials and Methods of Construction 25 Energy Conservation and Climatic Response 26 Other Structures 27 Service Areas 27 Fences & Walls 27 3.5. PARKING REQUIREMENTS 28 Parking Requirements & Shared Parking 28 On- Street Parking 29 Parking Lots 29 Parking Dimensions 29 Landscaped Frontages 30 Connecting Walkways 30 Tree Planting 31 Parking Structures 31 Bicycle Parking 31 3.6. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS 32 Site Planning to Preserve Natural Assets 32 Landscaped Frontages 32 Connecting Walkways 33 3.7. ON-SITE LIGHTING 34 Intensity and Direction of Lighting 34 Lamp Color and Consistency 34 Types of Lighting Applications 34 Bollards 35 Submittal Requirements and Design Review 35 3.8. PROJECT IDENTITY & SIGNAGE* (Reserve for signage plan) CHAPTER 4. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT STANDARDS 4.1. ALLOWABLE USES 35 4.2. DENSITY AND DIVERSITY 35 Housing in Residential Districts. 36 Adjustments to District Boundaries Variation in Housing Mix 36 4.3. BUILDING MASSING & PLACEMENT 37 Site Grading 37 Building Height 37 Building Orientation 37 Porches, Stoops, & Other Entry Features 37 Units with Individual Entrances 38 Attached Products with Shared Entries 38 Garages 39 Parking for, Townhomes, and other Residences with Individual Unit and Garage Entrances. 38 Parking for Attached Residences with Shared Unit and 38 Residence and Garage Setbacks 40 4.4. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS 41 Facade Transparency 41 Front Doors 41 Windows 41 Garage Door Treatments 41 DRAFT - 2/6/04 3 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • Building Scale and Definition 42 Articulation 42 Roof Form 42 Materials and Methods of Construction 42 Energy Conservation and Climatic Response 42 Buildings 42 Driveway Paving 43 Other Structures 43 Service and Loading Area Screening 43 Fences and Walls 43 4.5. PARKING REQUIREMENTS 44 4.6. PUBLICLY- ACCESSIBLE COMMONS 44 DRAFT — 2/6/04 4 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED ��f Source: Anoka County, Mn /DOT, USGS, MNDNR, and SEH. County Location Map.mxd 06/16/2003 bd Legacy at Woods Edge General Development Location Map INSERT: Legacy at Woods Edge Proposed Development Site Plan DRAFT - 2/6/04 6 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. PURPOSE The purpose of the Lino Lakes Town Center District is to provide for the orderly and integrated development of a high- quality Town Center which includes a mix of shops, offices, entertainment, housing, recreation, community facilities, and open space. The Town Center is intended to offer citizens a place to enjoy an active street life, community activities, and small town downtown qualities. The Town Center standards are the regulating zoning standards for the Town Center District. Other standards in the zoning ordinance or other regulatory controls notwithstanding, where there is conflict between the Town Center standards and specific elements of the other City ordinances or regulations, the Town Center standards shall prevail. Where there is no conflict and when the Town Center standards do not address a specific instance, other City standards shall apply. In the Design and Development Guide, the words "shall" or "must" specifies mandatory requirements. The word "should" is suggestive and describes what is preferred. 1.2. CONTEXT The Lino Lakes Town Center site is situated near the northeastern edge of the Twin Cities' rapid urbanization area. As a "gateway" to the region and a crossroads of both the urban and rural, the Town Center area gains its identity from rural lands, while looking toward regional job centers for its citizens' livelihood. The Development Standards seek to combine the best aspects of a small town downtown with strong visual and ecological connections to the natural environment. Within Lino Lakes, the Town Center will meet a long- sought desire to create a true center for this maturing community. With good regional access and visibility, the Town Center's location at the Lake Drive and Interstate 35W interchange can harness the market forces needed to create a true downtown, one in which a range of retail, entertainment and cultural needs can be met. See Figure 1, the Context Map. Interchange improvements are planned. Abutting the Town Center, Lake Drive will be a 4 -lane highway and narrow quickly to its existing rural highway cross - section. Pedestrian connections to the Town Center will extend from surrounding uses, including office and commercial uses DRAFT — 2/6/04 7 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • west of Lake Drive, residential neighborhoods to the south , and the Rice Creek Chain -of -Lakes Regional Park Preserve. • 1.3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & DESIGN CONCEPTS These Development Standards provide for the orderly and integrated development of a high - quality Town Center for Lino Lakes, near the junction of Lake Drive and Interstate 35W. The Town Center represents an opportunity to create a place with an active street life and a vibrant and recognizable heart for the Lino Lakes. The Town Center will be a place for citizens to engage in community life and enjoy the small town qualities that make Lino Lakes unique. A mix of shops, offices, entertainment, housing, recreation and community facilities will be brought together to create a preeminent place. Throughout the Town Center, development will emphasize comfortable walking environments. As with classic American towns, tree -lined streets and buildings sited at the sidewalk with frequent entries and windows will create an interesting pedestrian environment. A Community park and other attractive gathering spots also play a special role. A village green will be a focal point for Lino Lakes, and will be framed by retail shops,.and multi-story housing.. The addition of housing to the mix of land uses will ensure that the Town Center sees around -the -clock activity and vitality. Housing also offers important opportunities for seniors and other citizens, who may value locations where conveniences are close at hand and a car is not necessary. The Town Center also affords a unique choice for residents who chose to work from their homes, but want to be a part of and near a "downtown" and have access to commercial services. The Town Center abuts the Chain -of -Lakes Regional Park, offering unparalleled opportunities for wilderness within blocks of homes and businesses. Within the Town Center, the region's natural and scenic qualities shall be preserved and emulated. Building and landscape materials will also convey a regional "sense -of- place." The Regulating Plan (Fig. 4) shows the framework of parks, open space, wetlands, swales, and other natural features. The location of many of these features is not fixed, but will vary depending on where buildings, parking lots, and other development occurs. 1.4. ORGANIZATION The Design and Development Standards are organized by the following categories. Commercial District (Red) Allow a range of retail, office, and other commercial uses, within an environment that is highly oriented to the pedestrian. Mixed Use District (Orange) A range of first -floor retail, office and other commercial uses are required, within an environment that is highly oriented to the pedestrian. Upper -story residential uses are also permitted. Civic District (Blue) • Allow community facilities such as libraries, City Hall, and community recreation such as YMCAs. DRAFT — 2/6/04 8 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • Residential District (Yellow) Housing. Allow a variety of townhome units, as long as parameters for density, design and common open space are met. Ground Floor Retail or Office Space. In the residential subdistrict (Residential -X) , ground floor retail or office space is also encouraged, to enliven streets adjacent to parks and provide transition zones between the Residential District and other Districts. Commons. A minimum area of publicly- accessible commons (parks or other community recreation areas) is also required in the Residential District, including Residential -X;. the location and design are flexible. Open Space District Open Space District includes parks and natural resource areas. They create a hierarchy of open space within the project area, ranging from a formal park or green to undisturbed landscape and habitat areas. Further discussion and schematic design for parks are in Chapter 5, in the section on Open Space Districts: Parks and Natural Resource Areas. Parks. Linear parks are planned in the median of the major streets in the Town Center. Another small park occurs in the center of the traffic circle in this area. A larger, triangular park is planned adjacent to the Mixed -Use District. Natural Resource Areas. A natural resource area adjacent to the regional park is a valuable habitat area which will be protected in its natural state to safeguard ecological processes and wildlife. It contributes to a greenbelt of native landscape along the perimeter of the site. 1.5. GOALS These Development Standards support the following goals: Economic Development • Create a setting that supports the long -term viability of the Town Center. • Optimize job growth, residential opportunities, and tax revenue for the City of Lino Lakes through the creation of an integrated and balanced project. Land Use • Concentrate development at intensities that bring within walking distance the diverse activities that comprise an active downtown or town center. • Provide a complementary mix of land uses, including retail, entertainment, civic facilities, employment, housing, and community open space. • Integrate community- serving open spaces and amenities throughout the Town Center, and make connections to the Chain -of -Lakes Regional Park. • Encourage diverse housing opportunities within the Town Center. Community Design & Architecture • Site and design buildings and landscaping for convenient walking distances, enhanced pedestrian routes, and human comfort and safety. DRAFT — 2/6/04 9 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • Avoid pedestrian routes dominated by parking lots or blank walls. • Encourage architectural diversity. Emulate Minnesota's architectural traditions and scenic beauty. • Encourage energy conservation through architectural features, such as shading devices, natural ventilation, and interior daylighting. • Maintain high standards of quality in the construction of building and site features. • Respect adjacent residential neighborhood and emphasize compatibility through design. Infrastructure • Provide streets that create comfortable walking environments while also allowing safe vehicular movement. • Establish a network of interconnected local streets throughout the Town Center and extend pedestrian connections to surrounding areas. • Generate less automobile traffic than development with segregated land uses by bundling complementary destinations within a walkable district, and by encouraging transit use. • Make new information technologies part of the Town Center's infrastructure and encourage its integration within civic and private uses. • Utilize naturalized, low -cost solutions for drainage throughout the area and avoid "concrete, iron, and steep' solutions. Administration • Strive for the timely and orderly implementation of the Town Center through clear, concise standards. • Establish standards that are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. • Continue to address community concerns as expressed through letters, public comments, and workshops. DRAFT — 2/6/04 10 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • DRAFT - 2/6/04 11 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • Land Use Plan for Legacy at Woods Edge Lino Lakes, Minnesota 15 SITE SUMMARY LEGACY AT WOODS EDGE - LINO LAKES. MN BLOCKS NUMBER eulwlNC, TYPE 12 14 15 North 12/2/2003 MININfU4 x13011 311139.01 9% MAMMY E' WAWA S RESIDENTIAL »7:01991077 0300. 030:0005 B4JN415.2 5 0.1.NC:al RS merdal.n. .ice 13290 71 TIN 13.7. NA commerma9Refe900 . 25..0 Na90Nre ::;7 91 05. NA CommamkuReNiWlfiw 4.794 3 0AW NA cM . nner.10.90.1 9.904 ) 3.9110 2,00 :w NA commeruali...wmn9 Cmmnerciali..171fice 22.992 29.060 55 Cwnmerciel.Mam(Hfice 5. Y 5.500 12.020 NA CommercIWRema.130 3306 i b 2505 15500 NA Commercia12.1.001.12.730 34.000 4 34./22 39.08. 92 Conmerr. 29. 1 09.000 90.006 NA Commercial 30,100 1 309. NA Commercial 1 ]0400 NA C 10.9 r 1 61.000 39300 NA towMmmea NA sn NA NA NA 190 14 Commenia9ReN,9O 400 nnq 29300 4 nsan 20.900 38 f2 Commen0a ..1 /0111.11 .9 72900 4 12,0110 /22100 32 TMCA 902 NA NR NA 19 5716004 FEM. . NA 20 FMB. • NA . 5-.199 C. Hail NA NA NA • NA NA NA 22 Fisting Early 0.125:4CeMn NA N'R. NA 1,4 179 NA 23 Existing 9o9. S1allm Ka NA. NA NA NA Hun 201..9019 MAR 490 *ROM "WE 00111MAi9 SENIOR NONA CORBY. Figure 3 12 Legend - Residential - Residential -X - Commercial - Mixed Use - Open space - Civic Regulating Plan for • Legacy at Woods Edge Lino Lakes, Minnesota /;<‘ X, NcY• `-` • ,>5> j>.‘N . _ „.„ r !A-1144.1-R ' .`■., , \ \ /i” / 1 !---' North L_ Figure 4 13 Legend Build to Line aiI1 70% Required 50% Required Lil Required Streets * Project Identity Features Major Entry 4 Architecture Features • CHAPTER 2. • • GOVERNING PLANS Development in the Town Center is governed by the Land Use and Regulating Plans, described below, as well as by the standards in the following chapters. 2.1. THE LAND USE PLAN Figure 3, the Land Use Plan, spells out the basic arrangement and extent of activities within the Town Center. The land uses shown in the Land Use Plan correspond to the Mixed Use, Commercial, and Civic District, which have one set of design and development standards; and the Residential District, which has another set of design and development standards. The boundaries shown on the Land Use Plan are approximate. As long as development conforms to the regulating plan, boundaries may change based on detailed site analysis and revised regulations for the protection of environmental assets. The Land Use Plan ensures mixed use and shows specific boundaries for the Residential District. However, residences may also be built as upper -story housing over ground -floor retail or office in the Mixed -Use District, as long as the minimum number of units is built. The minimum and maximum numbers of residential units are assigned in the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan, Minor adjustments to the Land Use Plan are permitted at the discretion of the City Council, if the Council finds they are consistent with the intent of the Development Standards. Adjustments are subject to review and reversal by the City Council. Significant adjustments will require amendment to this land use plan and design standards. 2.2. THE REGULATING PLAN Figure 4, the "Regulating Plan," specifies essential physical features for the Town Center area, including required streets, "Build -to Lines," building entrances, gateways, , and landscaped frontages. Required Streets A minimum framework of required streets is shown in Figure 4, the Regulating Plan.. The design of streets must conform to the standards set forth in the Regulating Plan. Parking lot drive aisles are not considered streets. Build -to Lines Build -to Lines define locations where buildings must be built within a certain distance of the public right -of -way. Bringing building fronts close to the edge of streets enhances the continuity, attractiveness and intimacy of pedestrian spaces. The build -to line defines a location at which 1) a certain minimum percentage of the block length must contain buildings, and 2) those buildings must be built within a maximum distance from theRight of Way. The Regulating Plan shows the location of Build -to Lines, which require either 50 or 70 percent of the block to have buildings, parks, or plazas. Specific regulations for Build -to Lines are: • Build -to Lines occur at the edge of the dedicated right -of -way, where private property meets a publicly- accessible street or path. DRAFT — 2/6/04 14 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • • For each block, a minimum percentage (50 or 70 percent) of the linear length of the build -to line must have a building front, park, or plaza, as specified on Figure 4, the Regulating Plan. The minimum build -to requirement is measured as a percent of each "block." A block is defined as a continuous street segment, delimited by two cross streets (not driveways) or where the roadway makes a significant change in direction. If a non - required street is added and bisects a build -to line, the build -to requirements govern each separate segment. • To contribute towards meeting the Build -to requirement, building facades must be set back no more than 5 feet from the public right of way in the commercial and mixed use districts and no more than 15 feet in the residential district. • Parks or plazas may be used to satisfy up to 20 percent of the build -to requirement, and must be landscaped with shade trees and furnished with seating areas. (In other words, 20 percent of the 50 or 70 percent requirement may be parks or plazas. For example, for a 70 percent build -to requirement along a 500 -foot long block, 350 feet (70 percent of 500 feet) would have to have buildings, parks, or plazas, and the parks or plazas could not constitute more than 70 feet of frontage (20 percent of 350 feet). • Parking lots, driveways, loading zones, and other vehicular areas do not count towards the minimum build -to requirement. Such areas, with the exception of driveways and curb cuts, must be screened as described under "Landscaped Frontages" in Chapter 3. Standards for Build -to Lines and associated elements such as minimum building height, building frontage, and building entry and window placement and frequency are described in greater detail in Building Massing and Placement Standards (for the Mixed -Use, Commercial, Highway Commercial, Civic, and Residential District, Chapters 3 and 4. Landscaped Frontages Landscaped Frontages shall be used to extend a sense of enclosure to the street in locations where street - facing buildings are not required. Landscaped frontages will also screen views of parking lots and loading areas, and will help establish a unique project identity. Required Building Entries The Regulating Plan shows locations where major building entries must be provided to create important pedestrian and visual connections. These entries are located at important corners or intersections, typically where a larger store would locate, where pedestrian and automobile activity is high, or where buildings face onto public parks. Placing entries at these locations helps ensure that the buildings relate to the street and that pedestrians have a direct route of entry to the buildings. Pedestrians passing through these entries establish a "critical mass" of activity at major corners and near parks. Although building tenants typically will also need an entry from the rear parking lot, they are prohibited from closing off or locking up the street - facing entry to simplify their security and layout needs. Gateways Entrances to the Town Center shall be marked by distinctive features that announce the Town Center and foster a memorable sense of arrival. DRAFT — 2/6/04 15 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • CHAPTER 3. COMMERCIAL, MIXED -USE & CIVIC DISTRICT STANDARDS 3.1. ALLOWABLE USES Table 1 indicates allowable land uses, both permitted (P) and conditional (C), in each of the land use Districts designated on the Land Use Plan. Conditional uses are expected to meet special requirements in their design or on -going operation. The Mixed -Use, Commercial and Civic Districts preclude uses that would likely detract from their compact and pedestrian - friendly character. In Mixed -Use Districts, community- and neighborhood - serving retail stores (such as full- service grocery, drug and hardware stores), entertainment uses, restaurants, and specialty shops are preferred. Upper -story housing is also allowed in Mixed -Use Districts over retail or office, and is subject to the standards for the Mixed - Use Districts, rather than the standards for the Residential Districts. Flur ist Apartments o. Theater (behird) ::.>!:::::::*:::::: {_ r-`,, -ice - -- t Commercial and Mixed Use Districts. Building entries and windows shall line streets to create a "Main Street" pedestrian friendly character. Activity. Outdoor seating and cafes are encouraged on sidewalks and within setbacks in the Commercial and Mixed -Use District, to increase activity and interest at the street. DRAFT — 2/6/04 16 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • SECTION 3.1 ALLOWABLE USES Table 1. Allowable Land Uses in Mixed -Use Commercial, Commercial . Residential and Civic Districts Allowable Land Use Comm ercial Mixed Use Civic Commercial Uses Amusement enterprises including billiard halls, pinball & video arcades, but exclude driving ranges, miniature golf courses, and go- cart tracks. [1] C - - Bars and cocktail lounges. [2] C C - Cinemas, theaters and auditoriums, except sports assembly, exhibit halls, and convention halls. P - - Dance halls and discotheques. [2] C - - Eating places /restaurants: • With outdoor seating areas [4] • With drive - through or drive -up facilities [5] • With entertainment, bar or cocktail lounge. [2] P C C C P C - C - - - - Finance services including banks, savings & loans, credit services: • With drive - through or drive -up facilities [5]. P C P C - - Drive - through or drive -up services not listed elsewhere [5] C - - Finance, insurance & real estate services, including security & commodity brokers & dealers, insurance & real estate agents, and brokers; not including banks, savings & loans, & credit services. P P - Food stores, including supermarkets, meat & fish stores, fruit & vegetable stores, candy stores, bakeries, health food stores, and catering establishments. P P - Convenience stores. • With gas pumps P - P - - - Furniture & home furnishing retail sales, incl. household appliances, electronic equipment & office furniture. Must be less than 40,000 s.f. footprint. P P - Garden supplies, excluding hay, grain & bulk feed sales and storage. Must be less than 40,000 s.f. footprint. P P - General merchandise retail, including but not limited to: variety, hardware, and dry goods stores, but excluding vending machine operators and direct selling organizations. Must be less than 40,000 s.f. footprint. P P - Miscellaneous retail trade including florists, tobacco shops, newspapers & magazines, camera & photo supplies, gifts, optical goods, pet sales & supplies, books, stationery, art & hobby supplies, antiques, stamps & coins, jewelry sales & minor repair. P P - Health clubs and gymnasiums. P - P Indoor recreation including ice and roller skating rinks, and bowling alleys. C - - TABLE 1 NOTES: P = permitted use. C = conditional use. [1] Driving ranges and other amusement enterprises are prohibited because of their land - intensive nature. Hours of operation may be imposed as a condition of a conditional use permit. [2] Establishments that serve alcohol, and /or feature amplified music are conditionally permitted if they are at least 50 feet from residences. DRAFT — 2/6/04 17 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED Table 1 (continued). Allowable Land Uses. Allowable Land Use Commer- cial Mixed Use Civic Personal services including clothes laundering, photographic services, barber & beauty services, dry cleaning and shoe repairs, but excluding industrial laundering. P P - Professional services including medical & health offices & clinics, engineering & design services, legal and counseling services, but excluding laboratories, hospitals, sanitariums and rest homes. P P - Laboratories, hospitals, sanitariums, and rest homes. - - - Public & Quasi - Public Uses Indoor recreation facilities - - P Outdoor recreation facilities (floodlighting not to exceed 0.5 foot - candles at the property line of adjacent residential uses); - - P Concession stands (not exceeding 500 square feet); P P P Community- serving centers & facilities, including daycare and senior, recreation & teen centers. P P P Cultural facilities including auditoriums, libraries and art galleries. P P P Semipublic facilities and institutions lacking sleeping accommodations, including the following: churches and other religious institutions, non -profit social service organizations, philanthropic and charitable institutions, private clubs and lodges. P C P University, college, community college, and professional schools (except truck driving schools). P P P Residential Uses Residential units above ground -floor commercial space (e.g. retail or employment), including "live work units." - P - Residential units meeting a civic purpose and managed by a public or quasi -public entity, such as senior apartments or assisted living. - P - Temporary Uses Christmas tree or pumpkin lot sales, not to exceed 45 calendar days per year per type of sale. P P P Farmers' markets including the sale of vegetables, fruit, baked goods, and other agricultural products, once a week and limited to 6 hours per week [3] P P P Art fairs & festivals. C C C Temporary outdoor display and sales of merchandise associated with principle use C C - Other Uses - - - Other uses that, in the judgment of the City Council, as evidenced by resolution in writing, are similar to and no more objectionable than any of the uses set forth in this section, and that meet the intent of the Development Standards. C C C [3] The City Planning Department may establish administrative standards. [4] Outdoor seating may occur between buildings and within allowable building setbacks (see Table 3). Outdoor seating may also occur on sidewalks within street rights -of -way, provided that there is a clear passage for pedestrian movement that is at least 6 feet in width. [5] Refer to the diagram on page 20 for guidance on siting drive - throughs. DRAFT — 2/6/04 18 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • 3.2. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY Development densities in Commercial and Mixed Use Districts (SITE SUMMARY .:. LEGACY ,AT WOODS ED A 1 Commercial /Grocery/Office 2 Commercial /Retail /Office 3 Commercial /Retail/Office 4 Commercial /Retail /Office 5 Commercial /Retail /Office 6 Commercial /Retail /Housing 7 Commercial /Retail /Office 8 Commercial /Retail /Office 9 Commercial /Retail /Office znooa UILOINf FOOTPRI¢ UNIMk M UMBER NUMB IN MO l MA%tM. SF SF., RESIDENTIAL,'. COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL y "'.'UNITS» `t 13,700 8,500 4,400 6,700 3,900 26,700 22,092 5,500 5,500 1 3 2 3 3 4 4 2 3 13,700 8,500 4,400 6,700 3,900 26,700 22,092 5,500 5,500 13,700 25,500 8,800 20,100 11,700 26,700 22,092 11,000 16,500 NA NA NA NA NA 67 55 NA NA 10 Commercial /Retail / Office/Housing 11 Commercial B 12 Commercial 13 Commercial 14 Commercial 15 Townhomes 34,000 1 4 34,000 34,000 58 10,000 1 3 10,000 30,000 NA 10,000 1 3 10,000 30,000 NA 10,200 1 3 10,200 30,600 NA 10,000 1 3 10,000 30,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA 190 C 16 Commercial /Retail / Office/Housing 17 Commercial /Retail /Office/Housing 20,800 1 17,000 1 4 4 20,800 17,000 20,800 17,000 38 32 18 YMCA NA NA 19 Existing Fairview NA NA 20 Existing Bank NA NA 21 Existing City Hall NA NA 22 Existing Early Childhood Center NA NA 23 Existing Police Station NA NA 208,992 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 208,992 348,492 450 BUILDING TYPE SUMMARY 450 SENIOR WORK FORCE MULTI - FAMILY TOWNHOMES The total number of units, the maximum number of floors, and the square footage may be shifted around within an individual block as long as the total square footage and number of units remain the same in the block. Adjacent buildings shall not differ by more than two floors. Residential Uses Placement. Residential uses are permitted above commercial uses in the mixed use district. However, except for entry lobbies, residential uses shall not occur on the ground floor of buildings in Mixed -Use Districts. DRAFT - 2/6/04 19 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED 3.3. BUILDING MASSING & PLACEMENT • Building Orientation and Setbacks Front Setbacks Along Build -to Lines. Where the Build -to Lines are shown on the Regulating Plan (Figure 4), buildings shall be sited at or within five feet of (and facing) a street or plaza and shall occupy a minimum percentage of each block's linear street frontage (at least 50 percent or 70 percent, as noted in the Regulating Plan). Table 3 shows minimum and maximum setbacks from the public right -of -way for buildings along Build -to Lines. 7-T. rr-ffieT:i;r7-(frid 1 911.311- grirnt{ei c1IPO r --.J .:" U.LI i S fI _ ' �' ti L. —.. 1 r- _ . i - it t 1; t g 1—ri:nu(J., ij'�j�� 114 .7 i 91u11li i, En ratuze Building Orientation. Buildings shall be sited close to streets, with doors and windows facing the street. Parking lots along street frontages shall be minimized. Buildings set back from the street, beyond the allowable setbacks shown in Table 3, are prohibited along Build -to Lines; elsewhere their entrances shall be connected to the street with landscaped connecting walkways. drive -in entry from rear of lot 1 curb cut, 1 -way drive, 14' width driveway cuts in front of building drive -in building set back too for from street 2 curb cuts Drive - throughs in Mixed Use and Commercial Districts. Drive - throughs, such as for fast food restaurants and banks, are acceptable in Mixed -Use and Commercial Districts only if they maintain a continuous street frontage. Buildings shall have direct pedestrian connections to the sidewalk and the primary entrance facing the street (left). Driveways shall not come between the sidewalk and building entrances (center). Multiple curb cuts are prohibited (right); only one curb cut is allowed per building, not to exceed 14 feet in width (left). Additional vehicle entries are acceptable from rear parking lots entrances on non - pedestrian oriented streets (left). Drive- through windows shall be located to the side or rear of the building. Other, more "standard" drive - through configurations are acceptable in Highway Commercial Districts. • Where Build -to Lines do not Govern. For locations where there are no Build -to Lines, buildings must be sited in one of the two following ways: DRAFT — 2/6/04 20 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • Within the minimum and maximum setbacks from a street as shown in Table 3, or • Set farther back from the street, but with their primary entrances connected to the street with a landscaped walkway. Landscaped walkways are discussed in the section on Landscape Requirements, below. While it is recommended that front facades and entries face towards streets, side -on orientations are acceptable if the side elevation is within 20 feet of a street right -of -way and windows and entrances constitute at least 30 percent of the facade length. Table 3. Setback Requirements (Measured from Property L District Front Setbacks [1, 2] Setbacks at Side Streets [3] Rear Setbacks [3] Along Build -to Lines Where Build- to Lines do not Govern [4] Along Build -to Lines Where Build- to Lines do not Govern Min. Max. Min Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Minimum only Commercial 0 feet 5 feet 0 feet 15 feet 0 feet 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet 5 feet Mixed Use 0 feet 5 feet 0 feet 5 feet 0 feet 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet 5 feet Civic 0 feet 5 feet N/A N/A 0 feet 5 feet N/A N/A 5 feet backing against other non- residential buildings; 10 feet backing against residential buildings Parking Structures 0 feet 5 feet [5] 20 feet 30 feet 10 feet 15 feet [5] 5 feet 10 feet TABLE 3 NOTES: [1] Projections. Awnings and canopies may project up to 10 feet into the public right -of -way, but must be at Least 9 feet above finished grade. Bay windows, decorative roofs, and other architectural features may project up to 3 feet into the public right -of -way, but may not exceed 50 percent of the length of each building facade and must be at least 12 feet above finished grade. Projections may never extend directly above a roadway, because they could interfere with traffic and parking of tall trucks. [2] Arcades. Arcades shall have a minimum clear height of 10 feet from finished grade and a minimum clear width of 8 feet. [3] Side and Rear Setbacks. Pedestrian paths and features shared by adjacent properties, such as plazas and shared driveways, are permitted within side and rear setbacks. [4] Walkways. Alternately, if buildings are not located at or within the allowable setback from the right -of- way shown in Table 3, their entries must be connected to the street with Connecting Walkways. [5] Parking Structures. Parking structures are allowed along Build -to Lines if the ground floor contains retail or offices along the street. Parking garages without these uses are not permitted within twenty feet of any street. [6] Interior Setbacks. Setbacks between adjacent buildings are governed by Fire Code and other requirements for adequate clearance for fire safety and emergency access. DRAFT — 2/6/04 21 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • Flat Roof \ I IN Sloped Roof Cupola .. 1 I It Varied Height Parapet \\ Continuous Parapet 1 1. Minor Parapet Projection Measurement of Minimum Height. As shown here, minimum height (H) is measured at the tallest point of continuous height; that is, excluding minor projections of parapets, cupolas, or other minor height projections • Building Height • Minimum Height Where Build -to Lines are shown along the Regulating Plan, street - facing buildings must be at least 20 feet high along the street - facing facade. (In locations wherebuildings are more than 20 feet from build -to lines, buildings do not have to meet this requirement.) Minimum building height is measured relative to the finished grade. As shown in the diagram, minimum height is measured to the highest point of the roof, excluding minor lengths of parapets, cupolas, or other discontinuous projecting features. Continuous parapets or false fronts and peaked or sloped roofs do qualify towards meeting the minimum height. Maximum Height In all locations, the maximum allowable building height is 45 feet, measured at the tallest part of the building. Minor Projections. Minor projections and special architectural features such as clock towers, bell towers, cupolas and ornamental portions of parapet walls may extend up to 10 feet above the maximum height, provided they make up no more than one third of the length of a building's facade. DRAFT — 2/6/04 22 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED 3.4. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS • Facade Transparency • • The following guidelines help strengthen the relationship between buildings and the street and increase public safety by placing "eyes" and activity on the street. Street- Facing Facades along Build -to Lines or within Street Setbacks For buildings which contribute to frontage along Build -to Lines, or that are within the setbacks shown in Table 3: • Street - facing building facades shall not have a section of blank wall exceeding 30 linear feet without being interrupted by a window or entry. • At least 60 percent of the linear length of street - facing facades must contain windows doors, or arcades at all levels (stories). Clerestory windows or other high, non - eye -level windows do not count towards the 60 percent requirement. • Along Build -to Lines, the ground floor of parking structures must contain shops or other inhabitable spaces. (See Parking Structures in Section 3.5.) • Garage doors or entrances to parking structures shall not occupy more than 30 feet of street - facing facades within each block. Facades not along Build -to Lines or within Street Setbacks from Table 3: For buildings that do not contribute to frontage along Build -to Lines or which are not within the setbacks shown in Table 3: • The primary building entry and windows shall be visible from a street(s). • The main entrance(s) shall open directly onto a publicly - accessible Connecting Walkway. This walkway shall connect directly to the sidewalk or pedestrian walkway of an adjacent street. • Building facades that are visible from the street shall not have a section of blank wall exceeding 30 linear feet without being interrupted by a window, entry, or a section of lattice with vines. See the discussion on Connecting Walkways for further guidance. Building Entries and Windows Entries. Building massing shall be used to highlight the location of building entries. Primary pedestrian entries shall be clearly expressed and be recessed or framed by a sheltering element such as an awning, arcade, porch, or portico. Greater height may be used to accentuate entries in the form of tower elements, tall openings, or a central mass at an entry plaza. Reveals. Windows and doors must be recessed at least two inches from walls or exterior trim to create shadow for visual interest. DRAFT — 2/6/04 23 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • 3.4. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS Facade Transparency The following guidelines help strengthen the relationship between buildings and the street and increase public safety by placing "eyes" and activity on the street. Street- Facing Facades along Build -to Lines or within Street Setbacks For buildings which contribute to frontage along Build -to Lines, or that are within the setbacks shown in Table 3: • Street - facing building facades shall not have a section of blank wall exceeding 30 linear feet without being interrupted by a window or entry. • At least 60 percent of the linear length of street - facing facades must contain windows doors, or arcades at all levels (stories). Clerestory windows or other high, non - eye -level windows do not count towards the 60 percent requirement. • Along Build -to Lines, the ground floor of parking structures must contain shops or other inhabitable spaces. (See Parking Structures in Section 3.5.) • Garage doors or entrances to parking structures shall not occupy more than 30 feet of street - facing facades within each block. Facades not along Build -to Lines or within Street Setbacks from Table 3: For buildings that do not contribute to frontage along Build -to Lines or which are not within the setbacks shown in Table 3: • The primary building entry and windows shall be visible from a street(s). • The main entrance(s) shall open directly onto a publicly - accessible Connecting Walkway. This walkway shall connect directly to the sidewalk or pedestrian walkway of an adjacent street. • Building facades that are visible from the street shall not have a section of blank wall exceeding 30 linear feet without being interrupted by a window, entry, or a section of lattice with vines. See the discussion on Connecting Walkways for further guidance. Building Entries and Windows Entries. Building massing shall be used to highlight the location of building entries. Primary pedestrian entries shall be clearly expressed and be recessed or framed by a sheltering element such as an awning, arcade, porch, or portico. Greater height may be used to accentuate entries in the form of tower elements, tall openings, or a central mass at an entry plaza. Reveals. Windows and doors must be recessed at least two inches from walls or exterior trim to create shadow for visual interest. DRAFT — 2/6/04 23 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • #IflflIIflIIbIIiiid um 11 Transparency. Buildings shall have frequent doors and windows. Building Scale and Definition The guidelines in this section are intended to create buildings with a human scale, making the Town Center more pedestrian - friendly and a pleasant place to walk. Structural Legibility and Articulation Facade articulation is required. Building fenestration (windows and doors) and changes in mass shall relate to structural system(s) and the organization of interior space. Vertical architectural features such as columns and piers help articulate building mass. Base and Top Treatments Unless an exceptional quality of design and materials is demonstrated, building facades must have three recognizable elements: a base, middle, and top. Base. The design of the base shall visually support the building. The base must be 1 to 4 feet in height and must be defined by (but not limited to) one or more features such as: • Thicker walls • Richly textured materials (e.g. tile or masonry treatments) • Special materials such as ceramic tile, granite and marble Top. The top shall create an attractive profile for the building and must be defined by (but not limited to) one or more features such as: • Cornice treatments • Roof overhangs with brackets • Stepped parapets • Richly textured materials (e.g. tile or masonry treatments) Roof Form/Rooftop Equipment A variety of roof forms are permitted. Changes in roof form must correspond with a building's structural bays and massing. Mechanical equipment must be integrated into the overall mass of a building and screened behind parapets or recessed into hips, gables, parapets or similar features. Plain equipment boxes are not acceptable. DRAFT — 2/6/04 24 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • 0 r no Massing: Along build -to lines, building massing shall vary and help highlight entries. "Big Box" Buildings. Even away from build -to lines, the entries to large, boxy buildings shall be defined through building massing, landscaping, or architectural features such as trellises. Screening. Rooftop equipment shall be screened from the line of sight of pedestrians and integrated into the design and massing of the roof form. Materials and Methods of Construction Buildings shall support regional traditions and maintain a level of craft in the process of construction. Wood, masonry, and stone are appropriate building materials. Consistency. Exterior materials and finishes shall convey a sense of integrity and durability. Buildings must incorporate consistent, pedestrian -scale textures and details on all sides that are visible from public streets and pedestrian pathways. Glass. Clear glass must be used for windows and doors; mirrored glass is prohibited. Glass curtain walls are discouraged. Simulated Materials. Materials that are visibly simulated or prefabricated are prohibited. Scored plywood (such as "T 1 -11 ") is prohibited. DRAFT — 2/6/04 25 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • Proper Application and Detailing. Materials must be properly applied and correctly detailed, especially at the base of buildings, along cornices, eaves, parapets or ridge tops, and around entries and windows. Material changes must not occur at external corners, but may occur at "reverse" or interior corners or as a "return" at least four feet from external corners. Proper Application and Detailing. Material changes shall occur at interior or reverse corners (a), or as a "return" of at least four feet from exterior corners (b). Material changes shall not occur at external corners (c). Prohibited Preferred Consistent Application on Facades. All sides of buildings that face streets, parks, or other pedestrian - oriented areas shall have the same level of architectural detail and fenestration (windows.) Entries at corners should address both sides. Energy Conservation and Climatic Response The effects of the Minnesota climate can be mitigated through intelligent building design, configuration, and landscape treatments. The following approach will also foster a regional "sense of place." Daylighting. Daylighting techniques minimize the need for electric lighting and can reduce peak - hour energy consumption by as much as 20 percent. While windows are the most common form of daylighting, light from windows rarely penetrates more than about 20 feet. Additional daylighting can be obtained with clerestories, lightshelves, and skylights. Ventilation and Thermal Mass. To lessen dependence on air conditioning, natural cross ventilation should be maximized. Operable windows, transoms, doors, and vents are preferred to facilitate airflow across a space. These openings are especially useful on sides facing toward and opposite prevailing winds. Passive Heating and Cooling. Site and building design shall consider passive heating and cooling strategies such as deciduous tree plantings that provide shade in the summer and sun in the DRAFT — 2/6/04 26 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • winter. Heat-retaining thermal mass (such as concrete or brick) designed into building walls or columns absorbs heat during the day and radiates heat at night. Building design that shades openings reduces direct heat gain during the day. Shading elements can also add dimensionality to building facades. Eaves or awnings can be sized to shade windows in the summer but admit sun in the winter when the sun is lower in the sky. Pedestrian Shelter. Building exteriors shall provide pedestrians shelter from the sun, rain, and snow. Awnings, entry porticos, arcades, and overhanging eaves are particularly appropriate at pedestrian pathways. Garden structures such as trellises and arbors (with or without vines) shall be used to shade pedestrian routes and seating areas. Other Structures Service Areas Service areas are places where truck loading takes place, refuse is stored, or mechanical equipment is mounted. Service areas must be located away from and screened from view of streets, parks, and plazas, and landscaped walkways. Appropriate screening strategies include vine- covered walls or fences, trellises, arcades, dense landscaping reaching a height of 6 feet, or some combination thereof. Where service areas cannot be avoided along a street, park or plaza, they must be recessed within a building's envelope. Trash dumpsters shall be enclosed on four sides. On grade mechanical or electrical transformers shall be screened from view. Fences & Walls Walls and fences within view of streets, parks, or plazas must be constructed out of attractive, long - lasting materials, such as wood, wrought iron, masonry, or stone. Chain link and wire fencing must not be used. Walls and fences must not exceed 42 inches in height within 20 feet of streets, parks, and plazas. DRAFT — 2/6/04 27 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED 3.5. PARKING REQUIREMENTS • Parking Requirements & Shared Parking • • Development shall provide the maximum number of parking spaces called for in Table 4, and according to the standards below. Parking requirements are based on a building's net floor area (gross floor area minus shared space for circulation and mechanical uses). Table 4. Peak and Shared Parking Land Use Single Use Peak Hour Demand (spaces) Percentage of Peak Demand for Key Times [1] Weekdays Saturdays 10 AM 1 PM 5 PM 8 PM 10 PM 10 AM 1 PM 5 PM 8 PM 10 PM Retail 4/ 1,000 sf 50 75 75 65 25 50 100 90 65 35 Office 3/ 1,000 sf 100 90 50 5 5 15 15 5 0 0 Restaurant 8 /1,000sf 20 70 70 100 95 5 45 60 100 95 Cinema 1/ 3 seats 0 60 60 85 85 0 70 70 100 100 Health Club 4/ 1,000 sf. 10 80 100 30 10 60 80 60 30 10 Hotel 1/ room 45 30 60 90 100 40 30 60 90 100 Residential 2/ 2+ BR unit; 1.5/ <2 BR unit 85 80 85 95 100 70 65 75 95 100 TABLE 4 NOTES: [1] Source of peak demand percentages is the Urban Land Institute's Shared Parking Standards, 1983. Different uses (such as retail, office, and entertainment) shall share off -street parking spaces, particularly in Mixed -Use Districts, and the maximum number of spaces shall not exceed 125 percent of the combined peak demand as derived with the shared parking calculation. By recognizing that peak demand occurs at different times for different land uses, shared parking facilities help minimize the amount of land and expense devoted to parking lots or garages. The Urban Land Institute's Shared Parking Standards (cited below), or equivalent, shall be used to calculate the total number of shared parking spaces. To determine shared parking demand, two or more uses would be added for each hour of the day, for both weekdays and for Saturdays, to see which hour produces the highest parking demand. The following steps shall be used to determine the required minimum number of spaces for mixed -use areas. 1. Note the peak hour demand (above) parking space requirements for each individual land use. 2. Determine the parking demand for each individual land use for given times, i.e. weekdays and Saturdays at 10 AM, 1 PM, 5 PM, 8 PM, and 10 PM. 3. Determine the aggregate parking demand for these given times by summing the demand of the various land uses for each given time. 4. Determine the minimum shared parking space requirement by noting the largest of the aggregate parking demand figures. On -street parking spaces shall be used to help meet this requirement. For more information, see the Urban Land Institute's 1983 publication, Shared Parking, and the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Shared Parking Planning Guidelines. DRAFT — 2/6/04 28 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • On- Street Parking With the exception of Lake Drive and entry roads where parallel parking operations would adversely impact traffic flow, all streets must have on -street parking. On -street parking shall be counted towards the parking requirement of adjacent buildings on the street side abutting the uses. Parking Lots Parking Dimensions Standard parking space dimensions shall have a length of 19 feet, which includes a two -foot overhang, which may be planted, and width of 9.0 feet. For other dimensions associated with parking lots, see the accompanying diagrams. f Proposed Space Size ye Trot '+ 'eI Adfi_el i Corr ac_ Space', \\ 1 ;.. 27-C'' o c. {Typ) rmicle a IS' Space (=rom =ace Of Cu -7 to Shrubs) for L :n. = roscrar..e (; remind C e vnr_ • 1r Cn•i • fir `Gr_u-id Cower Ed,gE Cf CLrb ' Noce: Crot. nd Under Crr Cverhang To Bc a Disable P s:rrtc V.ui:ty, I wFve.rgico. h r b 14.--t in Ovr.;r hang Area. \ \\ fr:. \ C5 �1 .:.• '; \ \ Q= \•.•. _ . . • ,`; - ,_.gecent Tree ea r , \ • •.: ; In Ce.iter (Tvp.l y -''' \4' ' \ lr la s �rr DRAFT - 2/6/04 0 ti •� S, \\` \,,,,,\., svkr` . \\ .- `'Grou id Corer • sf ae: : q Edgc• Of Curb (1 - :tp.) i r'F.7- -.'`% �` a ■ \\ .. \` ., 'i' Nate' Gro'.ird Cower \ •t 3'Y -a' o.c. Under Car. Overhang To \ ti� f' \\ go a DJrable Prctrtre ``\ variety, Low Evergr n. \ Sh,ub Not in Overi-angArca_ 29 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • Parking Lot Trees. Parking lots shall include shade style shade parking tree planting of at least one tree for every 10 parking stalls. Trees should be protected by curbs. Parking Lot Landscaped Frontages Where parking lots abut streets, a landscaped frontage shall be provided on the parcel, adjacent to the sidewalk. Landscaped Frontages are also required where parking lots abut Lake Drive or 35W. The landscaping shall meet the requirements outlined in Landscaped Frontages in Section 3.6 Landscaped Frontages are not required when parking lots are sited behind buildings or plazas. Landscaped Frontages. Where parking lots abut streets, landscaped frontages are required. See the section on Landscape Requirements. Connecting Walkways Across Large Parking Lots. Parking lots shall not exceed 300 spaces without being segmented by Connecting Walkways, Landscaped Frontages, or buildings. Linking Building Entrances to Sidewalks. Where building entries do not abut a street, Connecting Walkways are required to link the building entrance to street sidewalks. This configuration is most likely for large anchor store tenants who require parking lots in front of building entrances. See Connecting Walkways m the section on Landscape Requirements for further guidance. DRAFT — 2/6/04 30 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • Landscaped Connecting Walkways. Landscaped connecting walkways are required in large parking lots and to connect buildings set behind parking lots to streets. Walkways shall be integrated with drainage and stormwater management features. Tree Planting For parking lots, a minimum number of shade trees are required, equivalent to one tree per 10 parking stalls. Trees in parking lots shall be spread throughout the parking area. Parking lot islands must be landscaped to include trees and additional plantings. Trees planted along Connecting Walkways and adjacent Landscaped Frontages may also contribute to the one - per -10 requirement for parking lots. Trees must be set into a tree well and protected by bollards or tree guards, or otherwise protected. Refer to the discussions on Landscaped Frontages and Connecting Walkways in Section 3.6, Landscape Requirements), as well as the discussion on Street Paving and furnishings in Section 5.1 Streets. Segmented Parking Lots Parking lots shall have no more than 300 spaces without being segmented by Connecting Walkways, Landscaped Frontages, or buildings. Parking Structures Parking structures or garages may be provided in Non - Residential Districts, subject to the following restrictions: • Buildings combining structured parking with ground -floor retail, office, or other uses are permitted and encouraged. • Parking structures are prohibited along Build -to Lines unless retail occupies the ground floor facing public streets. • Above ground parking structures, whether stand -alone or combined with other uses, shall meet the front, rear, and side setbacks shown in Table 3 and discussed above. • Above ground parking structures are prohibited within 40 feet of a residence. • Parking structures may not exceed 45 feet in height. Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking must be provided in easily accessible locations in all Districts. One bicycle space shall be provided for every 10,000 square feet of building gross floor area. Bicycle parking should be visible from storefronts or office building front doors, in order to improve security for parked bicycles. See also the discussion on Street Paving and Furnishings in Section 5.1, Streets. DRAFT — 2/6/04 31 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED 3.6. LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS • Site Planning to Preserve Natural Assets While the network of required streets is fixed, many siting decisions remain for other streets and for buildings. Views & Vistas. Site planning shall recognize the role that street alignment and topography contribute to visual prominence. High points on the land and vistas along common routes provide unique opportunities to site important buildings, building entrances, plazas, and monuments. Doing so will add recognizable landmarks that can make the Town Center a memorable place. Grading. Site planning shall minimize grading when locating streets and buildings. When areas with slopes must be graded, "landform" grading techniques shall be used and slopes exceeding 1:3 shall be avoided. Rounded forms that use concave and convex shapes help conceal cuts by presenting a more "natural" look. Varied slopes also disperse drainage flows, reducing the potential for erosion and allowing more percolation. Concentrating drainage in concave swales also enhances on -site stormwater retention and minimizes the need for large detention areas off - site. If required, any retaining walls shall not exceed 5 feet in height. Structural soils should be incorporated into tree planning areas that have limited root space to enable longer lived, faster growing and healthier trees in these areas. Landscaped Frontages (See city landscaping pallet for accepted species) A ten -foot wide landscaped buffer must be placed where parking lots abut local and surrounding streets, including along Lake Drive. However, care shall be taken to design and site the buffers such that they do not provide ambush points or obstruct views. The buffer must include at least one of the following: • A low fence or wall of between 24 to 36 inches high, within 3 feet of the street's sidewalk, and trees planted not more than 30 feet on- center; • A "hedgerow" of trees planted not more than 30 feet on- center, combined with shrubs. • A trellis supported by posts not more than 15 feet apart on center, within 3 feet of the street's sidewalk, and trees planted not more than 30 feet on- center; or • An equivalent feature that screens views of parked cars and defines the street spatially. Along Interstate 35W frontage, there is a metal security fence. Planting to screen the security fence along 35W is required. Chainlink and cyclone fences are strictly prohibited. FenceNJall t:sP.�tirI, Jr' . Trellis Allowable Landscaped Frontages. Along parking lots and other gaps in the building frontage along streets, Landscaped Frontages are required and may be in the form of trellises, fences, walls, or tall landscaping. DRAFT — 2/6/04 32 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • I4C: #7 uC D Fence and Wall Treatments. Fences may be of metal or wood, and shall not exceed three feet in height. Walls shall be made of stone or brick, with additional optional wooden, landscaping, or sculptural elements possible. The solid portion of the wall shall not exceed 3 feet in height. 3 r-vry\,7 , , ��=Y,• •�''IL'�LiL Hedge Treatments. Tall, columnar trees or hedges shall be planted not more than 30 feet on center, and may also be combined with walls or fences. Connecting Walkways Connecting Walkways must meet the following minimum requirements: Width and Clearance. The width of the paved walking surface must be at least six feet clear. Any covered structure such as a trellis must have at least 10 feet clear height, but must not obstruct visibility or provide hiding or ambush places. Paving. Connecting walkways must be paved with a special paving or concrete in a pattern or color that contrasts with the surrounding pavement, as specified under Public Improvements. Tree Planting. Connecting walkways must be planted with either shade trees spaced approximately 30 feet on center or a shade structure such as a trellis with climbing vines. Lighting. Connecting walkways must be equipped with lighting on one side, at least 3 feet in height in order to be visible in deep snow drifts or snow banks. Lighting standards spaced a maximum of 30 feet apart, and a maximum of 15 feet tall, are recommended. DRAFT — 2/6/04 33 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED 3.7. ON -SITE LIGHTING The following standards apply to on -site lighting, including lighting of signs, structures, landscaping, plazas, parking, and service areas. Streets must be lit by lamp standards; refer to the standards in Chapter 5, Public Improvement Standards. Intensity and Direction of Lighting All lighting fixtures, including spotlights, electrical reflectors, and other means of illuminating signs, structures, landscaping, parking, loading, and similar areas, shall be focused, directed and arranged to prevent horizontal glare or direct illumination on adjoining property or streets. A 90 degree cut off must be used to direct light toward walls and landscaping to avoid shining light up into the sky. Indirect illumination of neighboring residential properties or uses by any on -site lighting shall not exceed 0.4 foot candles at the property line, as measured horizontally and vertically from the adjacent grade to a height of 14 feet. No mercury vapor utility yard lights or other light fixtures with high intensity discharge lamps or bulbs, which are not designed to limit or control light direction or which do not shield the light source from view of neighboring residential properties, shall be permitted. Lamp Color and Consistency Subsequent to the adoption of this ordinance, the City is expected to develop a unified lighting plan for the Town Center. Lamp types shall be selected to enhance color recognition within three zones: along streets and walkways, within parks and plazas, and within parking lots. Within each of these zones, lamps of similar type and color shall be used, with the conversion of non- conforming existing lamps encouraged over time. Types of Lighting Applications Architectural. Accent lighting of architectural features is encouraged to highlight building massing and rhythm and enhance the pedestrian environment. Accent lighting shall not be a source of glare, reflected glare, or excessive light, especially when viewed from residences and streets, walkways or open spaces. The following specific standards apply. Building Entries. Building entries with high activity levels shall be illuminated. Appropriate treatments include: bathing entry surfaces and doorways with light, allowing the building interior light to glow through glazing, or using decorative lighting fixtures to announce entries. Service Areas. Building- mounted downlight fixtures, in combination with pole fixtures, are preferred for the illumination of building service areas. Such fixtures do not cause glare or light leakage beyond the service areas. Landscaped Frontages. Regular uplighting of walls or other structures in Landscaped Frontages shall occur throughout the Town Center and must be coordinated to create a consistent and dramatic effect. Landscaping and Furnishing. Uplighting is recommended for all landscaping and furnishings (in both public and private areas) that require accenting (such as specimen trees and shrubs and sculptural features). Specific areas include streets, parks, and plazas. Landscaped Walkways. Landscaped Walkways and other pedestrian paths — unless adjacent to a building that provides adequate lighting -- shall be lit by pole or bollard type fixtures that are DRAFT — 2/6/04 34 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • human - scale, typically not to exceed 16 feet or 4 feet in height, respectively. However, lighting must be at least 3 feet in height in order to be visible in deep snow drifts or snow banks. Seating Areas. Where intimate environments are desired (e.g. seating areas in parks and plazas, and some pedestrian walkways), light bollards and other forms of indirect illumination are appropriate. Bollards Lighting bollards are recommended for illuminating pedestrian walkways, parks and plazas. Bollards must have a diameter of approximately 8 inches and a height of between 3 -4 feet, to avoid being obstructed by snow. Around the light source near the top of the bollard, horizontal louvers must be used to stylistically complement the luminaries and direct light downward. Concrete finishes shall not be used for lighting bollards. Submittal Requirements and Design Review A lighting plan prepared by a qualified lighting consultant shall be submitted for design review All lighting and their methods of installation shall be reviewed and approved by the City. Each owner/ tenant will be responsible for the design, fabrication, and installation of lights on private property. Owner /Tenant shall submit three (3) sets of professionally executed sign drawings for approval by the Planning Department. These drawings shall be of a scale of 1/8 ":1' or larger, showing light locations, size, layout, design, lamp colors, and materials. The Owner /Tenant shall meet all City permit and fee requirements for lights prior to installation of any light. DRAFT — 2/6/04 35 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • CHAPTER 4. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT STANDARDS 4.1. ALLOWABLE USES Housing. The Residential District permits a range of owner occupied housing types at moderate to high densities, including attached and /or stacked residences, such as townhouses and condominiums. Ground -Floor Office and Retail. In the Residential -X District (shown in the Land Use Plan), ground -floor office, retail, or live /work space is permitted and encouraged in multi-story residential buildings, in order to create a more active presence along certain streets. (Live /work units are multi-story residences with a small street - facing storefront or office space for home offices.) Neighborhood Open Space. A minimum area of Publicly- Accessible Commons (a shared open space) is required in the Residential District to provide community areas for gathering, sports, relaxing, and people - watching. See Section 4.6, Publicly - Accessible Commons. Residential Streets. Frequently- spaced street trees, modest setbacks, and street facing homes with porches create an interesting, pedestrian friendly residential neighborhood. 4.2. DENSITY AND DIVERSITY Density and Housing Targets The intention of the following lot size, density and unit count ranges is to allow variation in housing type and size, while ensuring a minimum level of residential development within the Town Center. Districts (as upper story housing over retail or office space). DRAFT — 2/6/04 35 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • Housing in Residential Districts. The Average Cross Density, equal to the number of housing units per Cross Developable per acre range. , or come other guarantee from developers may be required to ensure that enough residential units arc built as planned: Cross, Net Developable Acreage. Net Developable Acreage is the total buildable area within a Residential District and includes publicly- accessible commons and local streets that serve the housing. It does not include environmentally constrained land such as wetlands or forested areas or required streets that serve the greater Town Center. Number of Housing Units. The minimum and maximum number of housing units shown in Table 6 must be built within each Residential District, or an equivalent number in the Mixed Use Districts as discussed in the next section. In the Residential District, the net density will be a minimum of 10 units /acre, and a maximum of 24 units /acre, not to exceed 190 units. NOTES: • Density Applicability. Density limits apply only to units built in the Residential District. They do not apply to units built in Mixed -Use Districts. mss„ Residential and Mixed U%•c Districts. Adjustments to District Boundaries Minor Residential District boundary adjustments arc necc teary may be allowed following further environmental analysis or for other reasons, as long as the density range and maximum number of units is observed. Variation in Housing Mix Within the Residential District, a mi-ef a minimum of two housing models and architectural treatments is required as follows: Facade Treatment. A variety At least two of unique architectural treatments for each housing model is required. The architectural treatments must differ in each of three categories: a) facade color, roof color, or siding material; b) window pattern and trim detail; and c) porch, entryway, or balcony detailing. Identical buildings shall not be adjacent to or across the street from each other. DRAFT — 2/6/04 36 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • 4.3. BUILDING MASSING & PLACEMENT Site Grading Site planning shall minimize grading when locating streets and buildings. When areas with slopes must be graded, "landform" grading techniques shall be used and slopes exceeding 1:3 shall be avoided. Rounded forms that use concave and convex shapes help conceal cuts by presenting a more "natural" look. Varied slopes also disperse drainage flows, reducing the potential for erosion and allowing more percolation. Concentrating drainage in concave swales also enhances on -site stormwater retention and minimizes the need for large detention areas off - site. If required, any retaining walls shall not exceed 5 feet in height. Building Height Residences and garages, including residences built over first -floor commercial, shall not exceed 45 feet in height as measured from finished grade. Chimneys, vents, cupolas, ornamental parapets, and other minor projections may exceed these height limits by up to 3 feet. Building Orientation Orientation. The primary entry of every dwelling shall face and be accessible from a street or Publicly- Accessible Commons or open space. Each primary entry shall be recessed no more than 6 feet behind the face of the primary facade. Rear yards shall not face onto streets, open space, or Commons. See additional standards under "Publicly- Accessible Commons." Building Frontage 1. Where build -to lines govern, entries must face the street. 70 percent of the block length must have building fronts, parks or plaza within the required setback area. 2. Where build -to lines are shown on the Regulating Plan, buildings shall face the street and shall occupy a minimum percentage of each block's linear street (at least 50 percent or 70 percent, as noted in the Regulating Plan, within the required setback area. 3. Buildings shall be sited a minumum of 5 feet and a maximum of 15 feet from the public right -of -way. Porches, Stoops, & Other Entry Features All units must have a porch, stoop, or lobby, as described below. Porches. Porches create a transition zone between the private space of the home and the public space of the street. Porch roofs must be supported by columns or posts, rather than being cantilevered. Side porches and wrap- around front /side porches are encouraged at corner lots to help provide interest and variation for the corner side building elevation. Stoops. Stoops are a simpler transition zone than porches. They are typically not covered, but are a set of steps with a wider stair or landing at the top, and typically are made of stone. Attached Product Entrances. Individual entries to ground -level apartments (rather than shared entries) are encouraged, to create greater connections to the street. DRAFT — 2/6/04 37 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • Units with Individual Entrances This guideline applies to townhouses and other products that have individual, private entrances to each unit. Porches and stoops for such units may extend up to 6 feet into the setback. Attached Products with Individual Entrances. All duplexes, townhouses, and other attached products with individual street -level unit entrances must have a porch or a stoop. Porch Dimensions. All porches must have a minimum depth of 6 feet clear. A porch must make up a minimum of 30 percent of the width of a building's primary front or 10 feet clear, whichever is larger. Stoop Dimensions. Stoops must be proportionate to the scale of the entry. n II n A A Entries Entries Street Facing Entries. Where build -to lines govern, multi family homes shall have entries and windows oriented to the street. Attached Products with Shared Entries Porches or stoops are required where entrances are shared by different units, such as at apartment buildings. Porches may extend up to 10 feet into the front setback. Buildings with 4 or Fewer Units. Shared entries must have a porch with a minimum 10 feet width and a minimum 6 -foot depth. Interior building lobbies must have generous windows facing the adjacent street or Commons. Garages Parking for Townhomes, and other Residences with Individual Unit and Garage Entrances. Residences with individual unit entrances must provide garaged parking as follows: • Garages may be either attached to or detached from the primary residence. Underground parking garages are preferred. Residences with individual units and garage entrances may not have garage doors facing the street. Parking for Attached Residences with Shared Unit and Garage Entrances. Parking for attached residences with shared unit entrances, such as apartment buildings, shall be provided in one of the following three ways. See the diagram below. • Parking provided within the ground floor of the residence, behind a street - facing living space, retail, or home office space that is at least 15 feet deep. DRAFT — 2/6/04 38 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • Parking depressed underneath the living space of the residence, such that the first floor of the living area is no more than 5 feet above the finished grade of the sidewalk. • Parking provided to the rear of the residence structure and away from any streets, either as surface parking, in carports, or in structured parking garage. 1. parking at mar of unia behind a living space or home office of minimum 13' depth ]. Parking behind residential units, aurfa¢ parking or in structure parking garage Parking for Attached Residences with Shared Unit and Garage Entrances. Parking for attached residences shall reduce the visibility of vehicles from the street by using one of the three techniques shown here. Landscaping for Alley- Accessed Garages. The rear setback for alley- accessed garages provides back -up and turn- around clearance for cars. Alley- accessed garages must have landscaping and tree planting between adjacent garages. DRAFT — 2/6/04 39 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • Residence and Garage Setbacks The following table summarizes minimum and maximum setbacks for residences and garages. • Table 7. Residence and Garage Setbacks measured from lot line unless otherwise noted) _ Setbacks Side Setbacks (excluding street- facing sides) Structure Street- facing setbacks [11 . Rear Setbacks Residence Setbacks Attached residences with individual unit entrances 5' min. or 15' max. 15' min. from centerline of alley, or 15' min. from rear property line when no alley , 5 on each side of structure, 0 between attached units in one structure. Attached residences with shared unit entrances 5' on each side of structure. Garage Setbacks Garages or parking lots for townhomes, or other attached units with individual unit entrances If parking is adjacent to the P g adjacent street, it must be tucked under residences such that the level of residences is not more than 5' above street grade. Garage entrances are limited to one doorway of less than 22' in width. [5] 12' min. from centerline of alley, or 3' min. from rear property line if no alley 5' on each side of separate se garage P g g structures, 0' between attached garages in one structure Garage or parking lots for attached units with shared unit entrances 5' on each side of garage structure or lot. NOTES: [1] Projections. Bay windows, fireplace elements, and balconies may extend into the front setback up to four feet, for a width not more than 10 feet. The maximum extension of a projection into a side yard is 3 feet. [2] Depressed Parking. Where a high water table prevents depressed parking, at -grade structured parking must be placed at the rear of the structure with residential uses lining the front facade to finished grade. DRAFT — 2/6/04 40 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • 4.4. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS Facade Transparency Front Doors All unit entries must be clearly marked through articulation, porches, greater massing or thickness, or recessed entries. Front doors must have a substantial, high- quality appearance. Plain, flat doors are prohibited; raised panel doors are required. Doors must have clear glass panes or generous adjacent windows, in order to allow occupants to look out before opening the door and to strengthen the relationship between the private residence and the public street. (a) Prohibited (b) Acceptable (c) Acceptable Front Doors. Residential front doors shall have clear glass panes set in the door (b) or adjacent windows (c), and shall have raised panels rather than being plain (a). Windows Coverage and Orientation. All street - facing facades must have windows covering at least 25 percent of the facade's area. Windows of the living room, dining room, or family room must face the street. Recesses. Windows and doors must be recessed at least two inches from walls or exterior trim to create a shadow line for visual interest. Materials. Horizontal "slider" windows and window frames with metallic finishes are not permitted; vinyl or other finishes with an appearance of painted wood are acceptable. Mirror or tinted glass is not allowed. Garage Door Treatments All residential garage doors visible from a front or sidc street (that is, excluding sidc drive and alley loaded garages at the r ar of the lot) or park shall consist of articulated panels DRAFT — 2/6/04 41 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED Building Scale and Definition • Articulation All Residential Products. The front facade of all residential buildings must be articulated with porches, bay windows, or balconies that face the adjacent street, park, or open space. No wall shall have a blank, uninterrupted appearance exceeding 20 feet in width without a window, recessed panel, lattice, trellis, change in texture or plan, or equivalent treatment. To insure visual interest and appropriate scale, windows, doors, and eaves must have reveals and recesses. Attached Products. The front facades of attached products shall read as a series of distinct vertical building forms or "bays" along a "street wall." The overall composition of the main building shall highlight proportion and rhythm among a series of bays and the overall building mass. Pilasters, columns, reveals, fenestration, and other details may be used to achieve this effect. • • Roof Form All townhome residential buildings must have hipped or gabled roofs.. Flat roofs are provided they are accompanied by an ornate cornice or similar features. Materials and Methods of Construction Materials. New buildings shall support regional traditions and maintain a level of craft in the process of construction. Exterior finishes shall be primarily of wood, brick, stone or stucco. Vinyl, aluminum and metal siding are prohibited Application. To avoid an "applied" look, material changes must not occur at external corners, but may occur at "reverse" or interior corners or as a "return" at least 6 feet from external corners. Scored plywood (such as "T 1 -11 ") must not be permitted. Refer to the diagrams in Section 3.4, "Materials and Methods of Construction," in Chapter 3. Side Elevations at Corner Lots. The street -side elevation of any residence located at a street corner or siding onto open space or publicly - accessible commons (including single - family, attached, and multi- family units) must have the same materials, finishes, and level of detail as the front elevation, with multiple windows. Additional Architecture Features. The following features are encouraged: • Rooftop patios and gardens on flat roofed attached unit buildings. • Corner balconies on street facing facades and multi-level buildings to encourage container gardens and planters. Energy Conservation and Climatic Response Buildings Building design shall respond to hot summers and cold winters with deep recesses and overhangs, and pitched roofs. A porch shall protect entries, particularly the front door. Principal rooms shall have windows on two sides, whenever possible, to provide balanced daylighting and to facilitate natural cooling and ventilation. Homes should be oriented so that a majority of primary living spaces receive direct sunlight, and incorporate overhangs, awnings or trellises that DRAFT — 2/6/04 42 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • allow the low winter sun to penetrate the unit, while blocking the high summer sun. Refer also to Driveway Paving Concrete driveways are preferable to asphalt paving.. have a center planted strip. This reduces the amount of paving required and allows some stormwatcr infiltration. Turf blocks. Turf blocks are masonry unit paver blocks which are planted with turf to create the appearance of a lawn or grassy strip and allow stormwater infiltration, but which can support occasional vehicle use. They are appropriate for secondary emergency access rights -of -way, driveway medians, and other surfaces that do not experience regular use. Other Structures Service and Loading Area Screening Large residential buildings often contain service areas or loading docks. Screening of such areas shall meet the same requirements as described in the section on Service Areas in Chapter 3, Mixed -Use, , and Civic District Standards. Fences and Walls Fences are allowed within the residential neighborhood: "privacy" fences, wrought iron fences and "picket" fences. In no case are cyclone, chain link, or wire fencing allowed. No fence may be constructed in a drainage utility easement without an encroachment permit from the City. Privacy Fences and Privacy Walls. Privacy Fences are allowed only to separate patios of adjacent units and shall not enclose entire area. They may be up to 6 feet high and shall be built with attractive, long - lasting materials, such as wood, masonry, or stone. Privacy fences are permitted back at lust 20 feet from front property lines. Privacy fences may be located along the rear property line, except where lots back onto open space areas, in which case a "picket" or other Hedges may be used as an alternative to a privacy fence provided it meets the privacy fence requirements. Picket Fences. Picket fences shall be not more than 42 inches in height, and shall be primarily wood or wrought iron with the exception of corner posts and gate posts, which may be masonry or stone. Picket fences shall not be solid and must be at least 50 percent visually permeable. An alternative to a picket fence is a hedge, which shall be maintained at a maximum height of 42 inches. Picket fences or hedges may be located at the back of sidewalk along the front or exposed side of a lot. They may also be located along the rear property line of those lots that back onto open space areas. DRAFT — 2/6/04 43 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • • • Depth of Lot = D 20' Min. L D/2 Max. Street Side Interior Side Privacy _ _— Picket 6' Max. 3' - 6' Max. Residential Fence Options. Picket and privacy fences, restricted to the building envelopes shown here, create a clear delineation of public- oriented and private housing spaces on housing lots. 4.5. PARKING REQUIREMENTS Visitor parking and additional resident parking, including any associated with at -home offices such as live /work units, shall be accommodated with on -street parking. Table 8 shows the off - street parking (garage or rear parking areas) requirements by bedroom. Table 8. Street Residential District Parking Housing Minimum Required Off - Street Parking Townhouse 2 Per Unit Other Product 1 Bedroom - 1 per unit 2 Bedroom - 1.5 per unit 2+ Bedroom - 2.0 per unit Accessory None. On- street parking is sufficient. Live /Work and other Products with home Same as for the housing type; Visitor accommodated on- street. DRAFT — 2/6/04 44 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • • 4.6. PUBLICLY - ACCESSIBLE COMMONS Minimum Area. The Residential District must include a minimum acreage of Publicly - Accessible Commons equal to 10 percent of the District land area. The Commons are a landscaped gathering area similar to a park or open space and may be public or privately owned but must be accessible to the general public. However, no more than 5,000 square feet may be used by a private community recreation facility structure such as a pool or clubhouse. lest two thirds of their perimeter, in ordcr to provide activity and informal surveillance. The surrounding homes must face onto the Commons. The remainder, if any, must bc adjacent to the Natural Resource Ards. In no case may a Common bc located behind residential units, away from public view and access. H • -i In PI `1T i :•• N.Ju.J fir:., 411r •. �� ISrj '•f l:iL''I I f nr+iro - r w, J -Li_ 6-1 J I IL I'.. Publicly- Accessible Commons. The diagrams show possible configurations of Commons. All sides of the Commons must be at least 60 feet long. Adjacent residences must front onto the commons along at least 2/3 of the perimeter, although side -ons are acceptable at street corners; any remaining perimeter must be a Natural Resource Area. A street is required along at least one side and along at least 1/4 of the perimeter; any remaining perimeter must have walkways. Homes that face onto walkways (rather than streets) must have alley- loaded parking. DRAFT — 2/6/04 45 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED • • Commons may contain multiple features suited to the diverse needs in the community. DRAFT — 2/6/04 46 PAGINATION TO BE ADJUSTED