Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/10/1996 P&Z Packet
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA April 10,1996 SA INE D 6:30 P.M. I. Call to Order and Roll Call: II. Approval of Minutes: March 13, 1996 III. Approval of Agenda - Changes/Additions IV. Open Mike: V. Action Items: A. Taymark, 2300 Main Street, Site Plan Review B. Northern Wholesale, 6810 Otter Lake Road, Site Plan Review & Minor Subdivision C. Emtech, 400 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review D. Thomas Vacha, 7702 Lake Drive, Minor Subdivision VI. Discussion Items VII. Adjournment PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE :March >13, 199& TIME STARTED : 6:32 p. m. TIME ENDED : 1O:37 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gelbmann, Herr, Johnson, MEMBERS ABSENT : Schaps, Schones ALSO PRESENT : Planning Coordinator Wyland, Planning Consultant Kirmis, Economic Development Director Wessel, City Engineer Ahrens. Mesich, Robinson; 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Guy Herr made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the February 14, 1996 meeting as submitted and was supported by Rick Gelbmann. Motion carried 4-0-1. (Al Robinson abstained as he was not present at the February 14, 1996 meeting). 111. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Acting Chair Johnson noted for the audience that Item VD., Public Hearing was removed from the agenda per request of the applicant. He then suggested changing the order of the agenda action items to B., C., A. and E. IV. OPEN MIKE: Acting Chair Johnson declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting open at 6:36 p.m. Hearing no public comments at this time, Al Robinson made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:37 p.m. and was supported by Thomas Mesich. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. ACTION ITEMS: B. Site Plan Review, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Ware Road Planning Coordinator Wyland briefly reviewed the staff report regarding the request to construct a building resembling a single family home on Outlots A and B of the Pine Ridge 3rd Addition that will house a MCES Sanitary Sewer Lift Station. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Ms. Wyland recommended approval of the site plan review subject to the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits be obtained prior to construction. 2. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Forester. Outlot A and B shall be maintained as a single family residence at all times with a well trimmed and maintained yard area. 3. Site drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 4. Trash generated from the site shall be stored in an enclosed container located in the garage area of the structure. 5. Noise levels generated from the use of the building shall be within required MPCA Standards for a residential area. Mr. Robinson asked if this would be located adjacent to the ponding area and noted his concern with erosion control. Ms. Wyland stated there are ponding areas behind the proposal to the north and south. She noted the lots are quite large. Acting Chair Johnson noted the plan included silver maple trees on the northeast end of the property. He stated he felt there should be more of a buffer on that edge of the property. Planning Coordinator Wyland stated the forester had not yet approved the landscape plan. Mr. Herr noted there was a stipulation for the noise level generated. He asked if there was equipment in the building which would generate a significant amount of noise. Mr. Bill Johnson from MCES stated the building houses a standby generator which will run the pumps in case of electrical failure. This generator will be quite noisy when it runs. He noted maintenance crews come by weekly and make sure the generator is operational. He stated he could not speculate the decibel level on the outside of the building. 2 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 He noted the building will be cavity wall construction and face brick which will be sound deadening. The exhaust louver for the generator faces to the north and there are no homes close in• that direction. Mr. Herr asked if the City had any restrictions in place for maximum decibel levels. Ms. Wyland stated the City uses the MPCA standards which go into great detail regarding decibels. She stated the MCES is required to obtain a permit from the MPCA. Mr. Johnson from MCES stated this lift station will replace the lift station currently located northeast of Laurene Avenue. That generator has been in place for twenty years and is mounted on a trailer. That station will be conveyed to the City and the portable generator will be removed on completion of the proposed lift station. Mr. Gelbmann asked if the older lift station will remain in operation. City Engineer Ahrens stated it would remain in operation. Mr. Mesich asked if the tanks housed in the building contained hazardous chemicals. Mr. Johnson stated the tank in the building injected chemicals to protect against erosion and provide odor control. Some possible chemicals included ferrous chloride and dioxin. He did not know if the chemicals were hazardous but he knew they were not flammable. He noted there will be a diesel fuel storage tank in the building which is flammable. Mr. Mesich asked if the building would be sprinklered. Mr. Johnson stated his initial interpretation was that it would not be necessary. Ms. Wyland noted the Building Inspector has not yet performed the inspection for issuance of the building permit. If it is found that the State Building code requires sprinklers, the City will require it. Mr. Gelbmann asked how frequently the chemicals in the tank are replenished. 3 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Mr. Johnson stated he thought the tanks only required filling once per month. He stated an option being considered was to eliminate the chemicals and add them later if odor complaints were received from residents or if corrosion was noticed. Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve the site plan review for the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, 6290 Ware Road subject to the 5 stated conditions and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted in favor. Motion carried. C. Site Plan Review / Minor Subdivision Progressive Engineering, 450 Apollo Drive Economic Development Director Brian Wessel explained this was the first of five projects which would be discussed at the next three meetings. He briefly outlined Progressive Engineering's background. He recommended approval of the proposed site plan and minor subdivision. Planning Coordinator Wyland briefly reviewed the staff report regarding a request to construct a 16,000 square foot office/manufacturing facility in the Apollo Business Park on a parcel of property approximately 2.5 acres in size. Ms. Wyland recommended approval of the Site Plan Review and Minor Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits be obtained prior to any construction. 2. The applicant shall sign a development agreement and post financial guarantees as specified by the City prior to issuance of the building permit. The development agreement shall include provisions for a shared driveway. 3. The City Engineer shall review and approve the grading, utility and drainage plans. 4. Proper sign permits shall be obtained prior to installation of any signage. 5. The City Forester shall review and approve the landscape plan. 4 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 6. Roof top heating and ventilating units shall be screened and/or blended with the design coloring of the building. 7. The parking area shall be constructed according to City Standards including concrete curb, gutter, bituminous paving and handicapped spaces as required by the ADA Rules and Regulations. Mr. Robinson asked if the project was being funded by TIF assistance. Mr. Wessel stated all light industrial in the Apollo District was provided TIF assistance. The provided amount was to cover land and assessments at 10,000 square feet/per acre. The building proposed is approximately 16,000 square feet which would result in approximately 1.7 acres of incremental assistance. They would finance the remaining .6 acres themselves. The proposed expansion purchase would not include TIF assistance. Mr. Wessel explained this was a new TIF district in 1995. Mr. Mesich asked if hazardous chemicals were used in the manufacturing process. Harry Chappell, owner of Progressive Engineering, stated the company uses a small amount of chemicals. The cutting oil used in the machining process is bio -degradable and the machine lubricant is an oil-based substance which is recycled. Mr. Mesich asked how the bio -degradable substance is disposed of. Mr. Chappell explained they use an evaporator to reduce the waste . He stated they have had the equipment for a couple of years and still have not filled one barrel. Acting Chair Johnson stated he liked the design and was glad to see the diversity in the industrial buildings. Mr. Chappell explained the exterior of the building would be an aggregate brown color with off -set treatments. The front entrance will be constructed of glass and colored metal to match the trim on the windows and doors. 5 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Mr. Robinson asked if there would be a sign located on the back side of the building facing Highway 35W. Mr. Chappell stated the building in Blaine had a sign which was one foot high with the name of the company. He felt it may be appropriate to place this same type of sign on the back side of the building. Mr. Herr stated he felt a lighting plan should be required and included as a condition. Guy Herr made a MOTION to approve the site plan review for Progressive Engineering, 450 Apollo Drive with the 7 stated conditions and an additional condition 8; A lighting plan shall be provided to be approved by staff, and was supported by Al Robinson. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision for Progressive Engineering, 450 Apollo Drive and was supported by Thomas Mesich. All voted in favor. Motion carried. C. CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING - 96-1, Rezoning,Minor Subdivision, Site Plan Review, Centennial School District, Elm Street City Engineer Ahrens explained the Planning and Zoning Board had continued this item at the previous meeting and directed the Engineering Consultant, City staff and School District to meet with the residents and present the options available for this project. This joint meeting was held on February 22, 1996 and approximately 75 residents were in attendance. On March 4, 1996, an open house meeting was held and 31 comment cards were received from residents in attendance. Mr. Ahrens reported the School District was requesting action on the site plan this evening as the site plan will not change depending on which road plan is approved. Acting Chair Johnson opened the public hearing 7:14 p.m. Planning Consultant Kirmis briefly reviewed the staff report regarding concerns which were addressed at the February 14, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. 6 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Mr. Kirmis recommended approval of the Rezoning from Light Industrial, LI and Single Family Residential, R1 to PSP, Public Semi -Public subject to the following conditions: A. Amend Land Use Plan to reflect the proposed use. B. Subject to Final Plat Approval Mr. Kirmis recommended approval of the Subdivision creating two parcels, one parcel for the school site and one parcel for the light industrial site with the condition that a preliminary and final plat be submitted to the City Council for approval which includes all the necessary drainage and utility easements as recommended by the City Engineer. Mr. Kirmis briefly reviewed the issues and discussions involved with the site plan review. Mr. Kirmis recommended Site Plan approval subject to the following conditions: 1. On site traffic control signage must identify entry, exits, one - ways, no parking along fire hydrants, etc. 2. The site plan dated 3/7/96 be made part of the permit approval. 3. Signs for the proposed site are in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. 4. The tree preservation plan and landscape/fencing plan dated 3/7/96 be made a part of this permit and reviewed and approved by the City Forester. 5. Grading, drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for his review and approval. 6. A comprehensive lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer - there shall be no lighting, except the hockey rink, of any athletic fields. 7. Proper building permits be obtained prior to construction. 7 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 8. The City Council adopt a roadway alignment to serve the middle school facility which would not alter the submitted site plan. 9. The City finds no adverse environmental impact and there is no need for an EIS as related to the EAW. Mr. Kirmis recommended approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a middle school in a PSP Zoning District and subject to all conditions of the site plan review. Acting Chair Johnson noted the road alignment is the decision of the City Council not the Planning and Zoning Board. David Mitchell, OSM Engineering presented four alternatives for the road alignment, two of which he found acceptable from an engineering standpoint. He stated he felt from the public safety standpoint it was imperative that a signal light be installed on Lake Drive. Mr. Mitchell explained Option A would provide realignment of Elm Street to the north along the east side of the school site back to Highway 49. This would eliminate Elm Street as it exists between 4th Avenue and Highway 49. This option would guarantee installation of a stop light. Mr. Mitchell explained Option B is similar to Option A except that it would provide a one-way portion of Elm Street between 4th Avenue and Lake Drive. This would provide access for individual property owners who wished to access Highway 49 from the area south of Elm Street. This option would also warrant a stop light. Mr. Mitchell explained Option C is similar except it will maintain Elm Street as it exists and provide access from Elm Street to 4th Avenue to the north. There would be no access to Highway 49 coming south out of the school site. All eastbound traffic on Elm Street will access the school site on 4th Avenue. Mr. Mitchell explained Option D provides total separation of traffic. It leaves Elm Street as it is and provides no connection to the school site from Elm Street. A cul-de-sac would be installed to terminate 4th Avenue at the southern most access to the school site. Mr. Mitchell noted Options C and D would not warrant a stop light. 8 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Troy Weigold, Cinnamon Teal Court, distributed a graph illustrating data he and other neighbors had collected from a survey of residents in the Wenzel Farm area. Almost all of the residents preferred option D. Mr. Weigold felt OSM Engineering had failed to work with the residents in reducing the number of design options and coming to an agreement on the design. Mr. Weigold noted OSM had presented an option 5 or C1. Some of the residents were in favor of this option. He stated he felt OSM is not addressing the citizens concerns but only the concerns of the Superintendent. He stated OSM has not presented data of the impact of any of the designs on the intersection of 2nd Avenue and Elm Street. He expressed his concern with the trees on site. He questioned if the trees removed could be sold for firewood to help fund the road project. He felt there was not enough specific information being provided to make an informed decision. Kim Sullivan, 7132 Whippoorwill Lane, stated she agreed with much of what Mr. Weigold had expressed. She felt an easier solution would have been obtained if the City would have discussed this project with the citizens in the earlier planning stages. She stated she believed Option C1 had been developed with the input of the citizens. 100% of the citizens are not in favor of option C1 but it will produce the minimal impact to the most people. She stated the citizens are not fighting placement of a signal light on Highway 49. Citizens are concerned with the safety issue. She was concerned that a pedestrian survey had not been completed. She felt this was necessary and believed the City would have full resident support. She advocated a flashing yellow light at the intersection of Elm Street and Highway 49 to mark the crosswalk. She stated the citizens did not want a lot of traffic on Elm Street and Elm Street was not in condition to support a lot of additional traffic. She asked that a condition be included for no parking on Elm Street. Ms. Sullivan stated she was concerned with the balance of residential, commercial and industrial properties in the overall development plan of the area. She asked that the Tree Preservation Plan be reviewed carefully before approval. She was concerned that a buffer be provided between the school and the citizens. She noted the Minnesota Department of Education Facilities had submitted their Planning Design Guidelines of a comparison for the proposed athletic fields. She suggested this be taken into consideration but the City look at the site individually and make the best decision based on what would fit in this space and design. 9 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Steve Wurscher, 7132 Gray Heron Drive, stated he had been asked to represent the citizens at the joint meeting. He felt the proposed plan was making a road more dangerous to rationalize a stop Tight. He did not believe MnDOT would feel this was a good idea. The residents do not want Elm Street closed. He asked that the Planning and Zoning Board consider the neighbors as well as the School District. He noted the property owners in the area were concerned with the decrease in property values. Angela Weigold, Cinnamon Teal Court, stated she felt if there was enough money available to turn Elm Street into a four lane road, there should be enough money available to create a cul-de-sac and not intermingle the school, residential and light industrial traffic. Dave Radik, 7184 Cinnamon Teal Court, stated last night he saw the new plan which created a "freeway" on Elm Street. He expressed concern for the children in the area. He felt the cul-de-sac was the best option and would keep the citizens in the area happy. Angela Weigold noted OSM has indicated there will be difficulties with stacking of the buses and cars. She suggested the designers be more creative and find a way to design the site so the neighborhood would not have to have the impact of the increased traffic. She felt it was not fair to force Cinnamon Teal Court and Gray Heron Drive to withstand the full impact of the increased traffic. Daryl Mullens, 7199 Cinnamon Teal Court, stated he had been one of the persons out obtaining the survey information. He stated the residents he had talked to were concerned about the extra cost incurred with the cul-de-sac option but were also concerned with the traffic flow. He felt the City and School District needed to work together to determine the best possible solution. Donald Dunn, 6885 Black Duck Drive, stated he did not understand the purpose of creating a right -turn -only onto Elm Street. He felt it would not be long before traffic would be using 2nd Avenue as a cut -through. He asked if the impact to 2nd Avenue had been considered. He stated he was non -impacted because he did not live in the neighborhood but was impacted as a citizen of Lino Lakes who would like to see things done right. He encouraged the Planning and Zoning Board to send a strong message to the City Council. 10 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Hearing no further comments, Al Robinson made a MOTION to Close the Public Hearing at 8:06 p.m. and was supported by Thomas Mesich. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Mesich noted Elm Street was currently substandard and stated his disappointment that none of the plans included upgrading of that street. He suggested traffic be brought into the school site from Elm Street, the cul-de-sac installed, and the business park install it's own road if necessary. A signal light could then be installed on Elm Street. Mr. Ahrens explained a pedestrian study is planned to assist the school staff and police staff to determine a plan to meet the pedestrian traffic in the area. This pedestrian study will not be performed until a specific roadway plan for the area is determined. He noted there is intent to ask the City Council to consider Elm Street as a state roadway. At that time, it would be possible to consider reconstruction of the road with State Aid. Mr. Ahrens noted Elm Street is narrow and a trail is proposed for the south side of Elm Street. He stated the City Council would be asked to install regulatory signing assuming the roadway approved is inadequate for parking. Mr. Mitchell stated he was confident the pedestrian issue would be addressed. He noted the signal Tight is a major issue in this proposal. Elm Street currently carries 1000 trips per day. It is estimated the school will generate 1500 to 2000 trips per day. Options A and B will triple the amount of traffic on Elm Street. Option C decreases the amount of traffic and Option D eliminates the traffic on EIm Street. He noted the proposal is making a more dangerous intersection to provide for a safer intersection with installation of a signal light. OSM feels this is a better option than having two mediocre intersections. Option C does not allow for a signal light and Option C1 which will leave EIm Street open does not provide for a signal light. He noted if southbound traffic on 4th Avenue is forced to go to EIm Street and wanted to access Highway 49, their best opportunity would be to use 2nd Avenue. This would impact 2nd Avenue. He noted, however, all options would impact 2nd Avenue. Mr. Mitchell noted the option presented by Mr. Mesich had been considered but was not feasible as it would not provide ample storage for the signal. He stated from a professional standpoint, he could not support either Option C or D. 11 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Police Chief, Pecchia, stated the Police Department had requested a pedestrian survey be performed. He noted it would be easy for middle school age children to ride their bikes to the school .and there is concern of how they would cross Lake Drive. He stated the pedestrian survey was not an issue which should be addressed by the Police Department or the School District as they did not have the necessary expertise. Acting Chair Johnson asked if the Police Department would be able to monitor the intersection during crossing times if it was not possible to have a signal light installed. The Police Chief noted there currently is not the staff available to do so. The School District would have to hire someone to perform the monitoring. Mr. Wessel noted the industrial park and school site were two separate issues. There was no relationship between the two sites. Mr. Mesich asked if the school site could be shifted over on the property to allow stacking for busses and other traffic on Elm Street. Mr. Mitchell stated this would be a much more palliative situation. He explained the difficulty with this option was a row of houses and also it would only provide for one access to the school. He noted the original site plan did provide access to Elm Street for the sole purpose of parent drop off or pick up of the children. He indicated residents were against that proposal. Mr. Robinson asked if Mr Rehbein was a party to the funding of the road being built to Lake Drive and if so, which option he preferred. Mr. Ahrens noted Mr. Rehbein was a party in the funding. He stated at the last meeting held in January of 1996, all parties involved had agreed to Option B which included realignment of Elm Street. Mr. Wurscher stated he felt if there was an option to negotiate with Mr. Rehbien for more support it should be explored. Mr. Weigold stated it was obvious to him, after hearing the conversation, that there were still too many questions involved to make a decision. 12 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Mr. Mesich stated his biggest fear was the intersection at EIm Street and Highway 49. He questioned who regulated installation of crosswalks. Mr. Ahrens stated any activity on a State right-of-way required State approval. He noted installation of crosswalks had to be approved by MnDOT. Mr. Mitchell explained crosswalks required the same warrants be met as signal lights. Acting Chair Johnson noted the actions before the Board tonight included rezoning, minor sub -divisions, site plan review and conditional use permit. Guy Herr made a MOTION to approve the Rezoning from Light Industrial, LI and Single Family Residential, R-1 to PSP, Public Semi -Public for Centennial School District, EIm Street, subject to conditions A and B stated by staff and was supported by Al Robinson. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve the Subdivision creating two parcels, one parcel for the school site and one parcel for the light industrial site for Centennial School District, EIm Street, with the conditions stated by staff and was supported by Rick Gelbmann. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve the Site Plan for Centennial School District, EIm Street, with the nine conditions stated by staff and was supported by Rick Gelbmann. Mr. Mesich stated he felt in order to approve a site plan for a school, the site plan needed to fit the school and amenities into the area and should also address the study of safety. He stated he did not believe the pedestrian safety issue was being addressed at all in this plan. He suggested if the site was not able to be made safe, then possibly this was not the correct site for a school. He noted the townhouses that were being built and suggested there would be many more children in the area. He noted the City park and asked how children would cross to access the park. 13 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Acting Chair Johnson acknowledged these concerns but noted these were not issues for the Planning and Zoning Board to address. He stated they could be referred to when the Board members stated their preference of road plan. Mr. Herr stated he would like to be ensured a pedestrian study would be conducted and a correct decision be made based on results of that study. Acting Chair Johnson suggested that could be included as a condition of approval. Mr. Herr suggested amending the MOTION to include condition 10; That a pedestrian study be conducted and propose the necessary safety measures to solve the pedestrian traffic. Mr. Robinson amended his motion and Mr. Gelbmann concurred. Voting on the motion: 4-1 (Mr. Mesich voted naye). Motion carried. Mr. Herr made a MOTION to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a middle school in a PSP Zoning District for Centennial School District, Elm Street, subject to all conditions of the site plan review. Voting on the motion: 4-1 (Mr. Mesich voted naye). The motion carried. Mr. Robinson stated he preferred roadway Options D and C1. He stated he was concerned with closing Elm Street. He stated he could not imagine the State not installing a signal light in an area with this magnitude of traffic. He asked if the City could install a signal light on their own. Mr. Mitchell stated the City would not be allowed to install a stop light without State approval. Traffic from the school alone would not warrant placement of a stoplight. Mr. Robinson suggested a stop sign instead. Mr. Mitchell stated there were similar warrants required for installation of a stop sign. It was not likely that the State would install a stop sign on this type of roadway. Mr. Mitchell expressed his concern with the 14 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 legalities of either Option C or D and suggested this be discussed with the City Attorney. Mr. Gelbmann stated he preferred Option C. He stated he understood the concerns of the neighborhood and the desire to keep the traffic off Elm Street. He felt it was in the City's best interest to justify a signal light at the intersection although he expressed concern that the students would not use the light at 4th and would cross at Elm and Lake anyway. Mr. Herr stated he preferred Option C-1 because of the added potential of pedestrian traffic. Mr. Mesich stated he preferred Option C-1 due to the combination of trips per day and pedestrians. Acting Chair Johnson stated he would prefer either Option B or C-1. He emphasized the concern for pedestrians crossing at Elm Street and felt this needed to be addressed. Mr. Herr noted the concerns of the Church had not been addressed tonight. He stated the Church had been present at the last meeting and had expressed concern about the closing of Elm Street. Angela Weigold stated she felt Option C-1 was not appropriate as it still called for the stoplight to be placed at 4th Avenue and Highway 49 and Elm Street to be widened. Paul Snyder, Project Architect, stated he wished Superintendent McClellan was present at this meeting tonight. The School District is struggling to make the site and the whole area safe. The 1880 students are their responsibility and Mr. McClellan feels strongly that a light should be installed to make the site safe for students and residents. Mr. Snyder noted it is his responsibility to make sure the building and whole project are under budget. He asked the Planning and Zoning Board to make their recommendations by considering total build -out. All parts of the project may not be completed at once, it may have to be done in phases. Randy Schumacher, City Administrator, noted the pedestrian study had not yet been completed due to the engineer's recommendation to wait until the road design had been determined. The City and School District 15 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 have agreed to perform the pedestrian survey. He noted a previous instance on Birch Street where the City and School District worked together to fund an underpass for pedestrians. - He noted the Police Department is only being asked for input as a department. Acting Chair Johnson called a brief recess at 9:07 p.m. Acting Chair Johnson reconvened the meeting at 9:16 p.m. E. PUBLIC HEARING - Animal Ordinance Planning Coordinator Wyland reviewed the changes to the Animal Ordinance. She noted a letter which was received from Sharon J. Lane, a member of the committee who worked on the ordinance, who was unable to attend this evening. Ms. Lane expressed her approval of the ordinance but asked that a collar not be required for animals which are strictly confined to the indoors. Ms. Wyland recommended Planning and Zoning Board approval of the ordinance as submitted and that it be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. Acting Chair Johnson opened the Public Hearing at 9:22 p.m. Steve Andre, 495 Ash Street, stated he had been present at every meeting regarding the ordinance. He explained the ordinance had originally become a concern for a majority of the citizens when their quality of life and value of their homes was affected by a kennel being placed 50 feet from their home. He expressed concerns that the proposed ordinance did not state a maximum allowable number of dogs in a private kennel and allowed a kennel to be placed on 1 acre rather than the previously required 5 acres. He felt the proposed ordinance was too permissive and did not protect the rights of the adjacent property owners. He noted the ordinance did not include violation guidelines for revocation of a kennel permit. He recommended the ordinance not be approved as it was not in the best interest of the majority of the community and the detrimental impact to the quality of life in Lino Lakes it would produce. Donald Dunn, 6585 Black Duck Drive, stated he had also attended the meetings and had no grudge against dogs. His concern was with the owners of the animals and the abuse of the privilege of licenses. He 16 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 objected to animals running loose in the City and depositing feces in other property owners yards. He felt the ordinance needed to be more clearly defined and more restrictive to protect the rights of people who do not have dogs. He stated there had not been a consensus reached at the last two meetings regarding this ordinance. He stated the ease with which a private kennel could go from 2 to 5 to 10 dogs bothered him. He felt the minimum amount of land required for a private dog kennel in residential areas should be maintained at 5 acres. He expressed concern that the maximum number of dogs allowed in a private kennel should be clearly stated in the ordinance. He felt the limit of one litter in a 12 month period per kennel license would allow too many litters. Mr. Gelbmann explained this restricted the owner to "one" litter per kennel license, not per dog. Mr. Robinson explained the input from neighbors was always considered at the public hearing when issuing a kennel license and is included in the conditions of issuance of the permit. If the conditions are not adhered to, the permit will be revoked. Mr. Dunn stated he was concerned that if the requirement for a private kennel was reduced from 5 to 1 acre there would be a flood of people requesting permits. Mr. Robinson noted there had only been 2 applications for a private kennel license in the City in the past 9 years. Police Officer Jeanie Kenow noted some items specific to cats and pot belly pigs. A resident at 6250 Red Maple Lane, felt the ordinance needed to be restrictive in order to prevent nuisances from occurring rather than allowing them to happen and having to resolve the issues after the fact. John Sullivan, commended Mr. Mesich and Mr. Schones for their work on the ordinance and stated it had been a pleasure to work with them. He felt the group who worked on this ordinance had diverse input and had made an attempt to work towards the center. He noted it had been stated there was not a consensus in the group but he felt there was. He felt the group had toughened up the ordinance. He stated by allowing 17 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 the number of dogs, etc. to be determined by the Conditional Use Permit process, situations could be evaluated individually. He felt the Planning and Zoning Board would make decisions in the best interest of the residents of the City of Lino Lakes. Mark Kinney, 6425 Rice Court, stated he did not think this ordinance would be acceptable to the residents of Lino Lakes. He felt the restrictions for a private kennel should be left as they were in the previous ordinance or this ordinance should be sent back for further consideration. Mr. Sullivan questioned why the people who were against this ordinance did not get involved with the planning process. He stated the committee had worked together to try to determine an ordinance which would work for the entire City. He felt individual circumstances could be handled by the Conditional Use Permit process and the Planning and Zoning Board would not allow a private kennel in an area which was not good for the whole community. Al Robinson made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 10:00 p.m. and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Mesich explained the committee had tried to establish a set of guidelines as they worked through the ordinance. The committee felt putting an artificial number on the number of dogs allowed was not putting faith in the Conditional Use Permit process. He noted there was a $350.00 fee for a Conditional Use Permit and he did not feel people would apply if they were not serious. The kennel license application requires submittal of a site plan illustrating where the kennel will be placed, where the neighboring houses located, how it will be kept clean., etc. Neighbors within 1000 feet are notified and a public hearing is held. He noted this ordinance is more restrictive than many other City's animal ordinances. Mr. Gelbmann asked under what circumstances an owner would want more than six dogs in a private kennel. Mr. Mesich stated there may be special cases which would apply to smaller dogs such as poodles, etc. This can be addressed with the Conditional Use Permit process. 18 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Mr. Gelbmann expressed concern that owners of a private kennel would breed one dog every year and keep the litters. Mr. Mesich stated this was not an option. The Conditional Use Permit would limit the number of animals allowed. Mr. Gelbmann stated he would like to see a limit on the number of animals allowed included in the ordinance. Mr. Mesich noted there were other restrictions stated in the ordinance which would result in violation such as the kennel being kept properly. Ms. Wyland noted the Conditional Use Permit also included an annual review process. Other items have been included in previous Conditional Use Permits such as restrictions that when one dog expired, it could not be replaced with another. Mr. Herr stated he saw a problem with an unspecified number of dogs being allowed in a private kennel. Mr. Gelbmann noted there could be situations where a resident would want to have more dogs, such as raising dogs for dog sledding. But he agreed that he would like to see a maximum number of dogs allowed with flexibility for persons with special circumstances. Mr. Mesich stated he felt the problem in Lino Lakes was not with people with more than one dog but was with people who owned one dog and were not responsible. Mr. Herr stated he would like to see six dogs specified as the maximum unless there was a reason for exception. Ms. Wyland stated the reason the number had been eliminated was that the Committee could not agree on a certain number. They then decided the Conditional Use Permit was appropriate to determine the number allowable. Officer Kenow stated she felt the proposed ordinance would allow for better enforcement in the field. 19 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Mr. Herr stated he felt a maximum number of dogs allowed should be 4 and private kennels should only be allowed on lots 5 acres and above. Mr. Mesich suggested verbiage be included in the ordinance that if a resident with a Conditional Use Permit receives more than three violations the Conditional Use Permit will be revoked. Mr. Gelbmann made a MOTION to approve the Lino Lakes Animal Ordinance with three modifications; 1. Property of greater than one acre and less than five acres be allowed 6 dogs in a private kennel. Properties of 5 acres and above are allowed an unspecified amount of dogs to be kept in the kennel which will be specified at the time of the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 2. Three or more violations in one calendar year are grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. 3. No leash is required for cats or fish which are kept indoors at all times and was supported by Al Robinson. All voted in favor. Motion carried. VI. DISCUSSION: Ms. Wyland stated due to scheduling difficulties, she would contact the Planning and Zoning Board members to schedule the upcoming work session. Mr. Mesich announced this would be his last Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting as he was moving to Elk River. He thanked the City and stated this had been a great learning experience. Members of the Board thanked Mr. Mesich for his service. VII. ADJOURNMENT: Thomas Mesich made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:37 p.m. and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 20 AGENDA ITEM V A STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE April 5, 1996 TOPIC Taymark, 2300 Main Street, Site Plan Review KSA Architects have submitted a site plan review package for the Taymark Corporation. Taymark would like to construct a 138,400 square foot building with 108,800 square feet of future production expansion area on Main Street (Co. Rd. 14), just west of the Laborer's Training Facility. The building will consist of office, production and warehousing space. The proposed site is approximately 20 acres in size, zoned Light Industrial, and shown as industrial on the City's Land Use Plan. Taymark would anticipate an employment base of 30 office staff and 170 production area staff. The production area is operated in shifts from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. throughout the year with the possibility mf additional shifts to 12:00 p.m. in the spring. Taymark has an existing facility located on the corner of Otter Lake Road and 9th Street (White Bear Parkway) in the City of White Bear Lake. Fortunately for the City of Lino Lakes, they have no room at that location to expand. Staff has been working on the Clearwater Creek Development Center for several months. Utilities, including a new water tower, are to be extended into the area north of Cedar Street along with a realigned Otter Lake Road. Construction is anticipated for summer and fall of 1996. Plans for the water tower are currently underway and a feasibility report on the realigned Otter Lake Road will be presented for Council review some time in May. The roadway realignment and utility extension will be critical to the development of the Taymark site and ultimate development of the entire Clearwater Creek Development Center. The City's EDAB Department has worked diligently with this company to facilitate their move to Lino Lakes. TIF Financing will be available to the company and they have met all TIF qualifying criteria. The EDAB Board strongly endorses and welcomes this company's proposed construction in our community. SITE PLAN REVIEW: SETBACKS: The building is proposed to be constructed approximately 152' from the realigned Otter Lake Drive and 300' from Co. Rd. 14 (Main Street). This 300' setback may changed to 75' depending on final approval of access drives from Anoka County. All proposed setbacks are well within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The required front setback from an arterial or collector roadway is 50' which must be maintained on both Co. Rd. 14 and realigned Otter Lake Road. BUILDING EXTERIOR: The proposed construction is precast concrete with exposed aggregate and painted panels. It will be aesthetically compatible with the Labor's Training Facility to the east. BUILDING HEIGHT: The warehouse area will be 32' in height. Office spaces has been designed at 16'. The maximum height allowed in the Light Industrial Zoning District is 45'. GREEN AREA: A minimum green area of 10% is required by the Zoning Ordinance, this will be met with the proposed site plan and future expansion area. OFF-STREET PARKING: 202 parking stalls will be provided and include 5 handicapped spaces are outlined on the submitted site plan. According to ADA requirements, the number of handicapped spaces must be increased to 6 and 1 van accessible space if 202 total spaces are to be provided. The proposed construction actually requires only 123 parking spaces according to the City's parking requirements. CIRCULATION AND ACCESS: Two access drives are indicated on the plan to serve the site. One drive is off Co. Rd. 14 (Main Street) and the other is off the "to be constructed" realignment of Otter Lake Road. Both access drives are subject to review and approval by Anoka County. The City should have review comments from the County Traffic Engineer by the Wednesday P & Z meeting. In general, the City has no objections to these access points, however, Anoka County must issue the access permits. LANDSCAPING: A very detailed and complete landscaping plan has been submitted and provides a berm with plantings on the north/west corner of the site to act as a wind and snow screen for the parking area. The City Forester has reviewed the plan and recommended approval. LIGHTING: A detailed lighting plan was submitted and reviewed by our Community Service Officer to insure compliance with CEPTED recommendations. The plan provides a very well light and secure parking, loading and access areas for the project. LOADING AND TRASH HANDLING: The trash handling area is proposed to be located inside the loading dock area and therefore, not visible from the street. The area will include a compactor and dumpsters. Access to the loading area is to be provided by an access drive off Main Street which, again, is subject to County approval. SIGNS: All signage must conform to the City Sign Ordinance. UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND GRADING: Plans for utilities, drainage and site grading will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. As previously mentioned, several plans are in process for this area concerning access, utilities, and drainage and the City Engineer is coordinating those efforts. The RCWD is reviewing drainage and ponding issues for the area and the City has met with Anoka County concerning the realigned Otter Lake Road. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Bio -degradable materials are generated from this use at the rate of approximately 1 barrel every two months. Proper storage and disposal of the materials has been insured by Taymark. ROOF TOP HEATING/VENTILATING UNITS: These units shall be properly screened and or blended with the design and coloring of the building. Staff would recommend approval of this site plan review with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits be obtained• prior to any construction on the site. The building permit shall include a deposit of 10 of construction costs to insure completion of all site improvements. 2. The applicant sign a development agreement and post financial guarantees as specified by the City prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. The City Engineer shall review and approve the grading, utility and drainage plans. 4. The Developer receive access permits from Anoka County. 5. Roof top heating and ventilating units shall be screened and/or blended with the design and coloring of the building. 6. The parking area shall be supplied with adequate handicapped spaces as provided by the ADA Rules and Regulations. 7. Permits be obtained from the RCWD for grading and on-site ponding, if required. 8. Signage shall comply with the City Sign Ordinance and proper permits obtained. 9. Concrete curb, gutter and bituminous paving shall be provided for all access driveways and parking areas. OPTIONS 1. Approve Site Plan Review with the conditions outlined above. 2. Return to staff for further information. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 4T :o SOI 14 rill KM I' ®0 00101All ; : : : :A:: i 11 rpn 07- 1mikinalligisi 53 UimDila91Mt Al" TiLaNilki TAYMARK 804 CN NUMBER 48 TY GF LINO LAMS 1 1. J 1 1 PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL FOR: AD IMAGES A DIVISION OF TAYLOR CORPORATION LINO LAKES. MINNESOTA SUBMITTED ON THE OWNERS BEHALF BY: KSA ARCHITECTS, INC. 526 SOUTH SECOND STREET MANKATO, MN 56001 GEORGE E. CARLSTROM CONSTRUCTION, CO. 1024 NORTH RIVER DRIVE P.O. BOX 76 NORTH MANKATO, MN 56003 PALOUWO lA cat ST. (1.0ua5 St. TEC:QA GL 4, MINNESOTA CORREC TIONAL FACILITIES NM sr. RICE CREEK - CHAIN OF LAKES r fT, REGIONAL PARK RESERVE „%„, wrg i 1 r,4 1 °x1 x x 18 I �; — oo erc - i ; _ S,S�. ZS.00�Y f7'/! 3�Y a �l/ Io b/l 3S a'��s /0 z/l J! aln fo auti7 '� \. - - - aoe-!�y�0•• Iv y'” oo'saz ` ; ` Z'9.0 £ 1 osr - ^ Nz 0. e N, s. I��•--� 2a' a // � \\ \\ \.e = �� i 1 ! 1° jot y$ o2 I If I! // 1 \ , / I ! °�G s 1! ! \\ - ,' / i I _god '�a a 1'�� Ci ..... 8td_ •,4a '`.x °te /\/G • ,�r/ r.! q 11 ���r J�,_e o —% \ 1 x V akgN2 I \ \\ ! // \ y u a a J o \ >, s / °/ \ a / / \ as 3=1.4.o9i \ / \ \ss .\/ l /�_/ x ,►,/ t _ vzoi°�\ / ° �x�o 11 1 x 11 _// ! 1 1 I I , �` • �;\1 11I esr t °'.. 1 / t�. x o°x 1 \ i \ t xx I 1 \ t `x \ e Oat Q) \ to rraco w� vJ t co b co o .......,_ \ 1 s. CI o o / x - 074 J ¢ \x ., ab 41 1 ' 1 1 Qx 1 / °S(, 1 �-- Qt8 �\ x/ // 1 \ / 1 0 N 1 • Sts \ / 1 \ \ ..............................\ \ / 1 �\ \ \\ / x x 4Px \\ \ \ \/ ,, 1 / \ \ / \\ / / 1 / \\ \\ / x \ / / 1 / \ / x 4)4 / / 1 1 �'� `s. N. 4a4 \ 1\ / / '(1 pyx / °x °x x h`°x ; 1 x 1 i 1 \ \ � S* •OZSI 1 1 1 ..` ` •__� - , .S .Lt.00A�` 3N,xy#'I *//.�S am; 10 our/ •J / 1\ \ . -�� .- e . , \ 4x _ x Y V et., ../ , pix x ORIGINAL SITE SURVEY M' 4x 4 s. rE �i z 4) Z ,xo z~l LS) LLit3i, W knQZr- Q 00 -E c.}zzN • i�uclIce.p. s 6 a \ a. 0. zoo 70P , 44` C • ./1 • • 11 11 II 1 I I ; CPO 7-820.s2 E. Lino of the Y1/2 of the SE1/4 of the NE1/4 65.00 --4-7100•52"W‘ E 350.00 —. ‘13 - . liar • — 920 Ito a • ' !* \ I Ns •% • /". A • " • / ,/ ,„• , • , • , /1% / *.. - / / 14/ /IIM ' 7 / • ,' ---- ----------- - 7 - - .. . , nit! , , • / • • / . • MCC 011 • ; No .0 ... tt . ; - .......-- ' • ., 1$ \ • es. 14‘.. ------------ a \ .............., \ 5,..\.‘ \ . ----- ."..„ '\ -4- % \ ‘ •,, \ \ ‘ .• \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/ % ‘ ‘ \ *••• / 1,. .•••.•• —I— t I N 1 • - - \ --------- N • • mar. 0"47'2A• R 1320.73 W. Line a \ a 00/ cr) ft, NI• cti 4 of the NE1/4 cc • 4 „'7 01 cic CONCEPT STORM DRAINAGE PLAN • / S. Line of cc) . 1' ICU '41/2. //5230 INDEX TO DRAVINGS Al SITE PLAN A2 FOOTING PLAN A3 FUER PLAN - A4 ROY' PLAN AS ELEVATIONS A6 VAIL SECTIONS A7 DUALS GRAPHIC SCALE or SWOON • 'RIO' .••• MAW.. SUMP -- • e Ns. C.S.A.H. No. 1 • r r —.– 1 144 I.�i+. LLLLLLL1J11_ll ail. "� 1 11ZE rrIrra x►n n. u�rs,rMM• �s �. . •�.►. � ,� 1 alp /..• � 4.'�S i � i':.1 .r17r7.7iIvorrev V".. mZirI7.r ''t: i_ ieg'. 1 1320.73 Lin.e,.e 1Ke--S£4(4 of the NE 1/4 % 1. SITE LAYOUT L. INDEX TD DRAVINGS Al SITE PLMi A2 F1aTTh G PLAN A3 FLIER PUW • A4 ROOF PLAN AS ELEVATIONS A6 VALL SECTIONS A7 DETAILS GRAPHIC SCALE s • s Joe NU& ER ,2 SHEET NO. A10. of SET NO_ PLANT MATERIALS LIST: KEY OTY COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT CO 57 Colorado Spruce 12'-14' BB SJY 14 Spreading Japanese Yew 24" Cont. CRB 1 Clump River Birch 12'-17' BB RB 9 Single River Birch 2.5" BB RSC 5 Red Splendor Crab 2.5" BB SA 24 Summit Ash 3"-3.5" BB HB 3 Hackberry 4" BB GL 8 Greenspire Linden 3.5" BB RSM 7 Red Sunset Maple 2.5" BB AL 7 American Linden 2.5" BB MSA 18 Marshall's Seedless Ash 2.5" BB PLANTING NOTES: - All plants are guaranteed for 1 year from date of planting completion. - Individual trees are to be mulched with 3" layer of Shredded Bark Mulch. - Planting contractor is responsible for watering of plants until completion of planting operations. -One foot of planting soil is to be installed around and under each tree. - Landscape Architect or his representative is to check planting staking before plants are installed. k L.1 LA tL 0 4 iro4.p.? tu CoPi City c 2t) ( ; V*" MD LANDSCAPE PLAN S9) ' 11•4 I LA.A i•C / cria) IL?G•LI LA' .+0 .4.96 t WT Dee TO DRAWINGS Al SITE PLAN A2 TOOTING PLAN A3 TLOM PLAN A4 ROO:r PLAN A5 ELEVATIONS 646 VALL SWIMS A7 DETAILS FOOTING & FOUI!1DATION rirllitr111,,1111 1 rill+.r1" 1111 ;�1�Ifitt' 11 �' Ill X1,((1:rl�t 1'a 111 1 1,1pr1. (� T!r!!'f vCCr`�,t.• , � Yf r rIJ .r r (t II(''S 1 �f1 f t / CC�� ( t1� r r'1 iYrof`Iflt,7 / .4Q1• i► 1a�%a ofrJ�.1L �MLIkiJ1' I( 'f i' ir/ 1) 1 �It11'�'� 1 / r!,1'ItAr,t�.i.i(r•,/�Jj�.' '"7sf-.4111./-1: t 7� iV l i�.'1fl ; 1 ,-1 .,,rl t ''. ( 'r `f}� t ... • ./..�• t• (•`I {_I �7 1'• ..i�Zv �•f-�r�' r rr !}. r 1.1 � ; 1 r. . � ,. .,.F� ..f,•r .• . ✓ r ,�-.,. J • it vl tit' ,•� •w-'0•1.41,°41° -'y err L� t rr., f ,.t. «<<:F{rl. � : rrLrf1• frt-P•11-, SHIPPING DOCKS Ill f, v 11 r,,1, �1t� :?: -... .. .. _.-..-_ tqIm1� +sw.+11111111 111111susss 1s1E3t•61i011 u�s�s -/NIMMK111t11(I1P21.,r' 1: a• -n. - agi 11111 -LI t 1661/1rflllllt aid ;,a+,.1' a wells i'i art 0 tal_6111irrtatr AVOIFI J'1rt inunatutiegiorograr 11110:011111111111 1l Ulna!! iat��pitr.�alay �/��.�)n ���I/fllr/f1dt lr UVLattl agivoyotir.si ivpir at* tit :l!!JILJH811/41I K611(6111 ----�_—_-- ;ta111t1Vg/111I!WI11�i. u , O **1IflhIUI!t Itr �• r ia�9/,,;tiE)tl �ai1�Elii-IIFm 1,±I!Llt�/!!i'I1WIt/.lLlrti1U 11t JOUTt4111.0• ivtL•d /1 i r,t/11u/1t1JtIAiIU',.1,1t1E. iewro IV,Mligit 0tOtl%111$�,0/1'//1Fili,tal 11116101116,660.F.06ti R1y j%G�1:11yR4' t 111,Utal/10111161111661Wt ffi!t�1t31 aommoargryal• r �r•eAi' krussew 1111iwdec tia�M 0 !1100!1!!1001.1111 fKc kill!. /rf 1r t� NA, tJtR_� 1 "MI " 1$1441 • f r1{► ii:'��liit �i?1�i�RNItJ f,1114111111rQ!14c 114111r0.1'11112 i hdt LOON PLAN IVO 1111 lf7j lilt: NIRI fs/ritin0J 011.01 1.241111,1411-s, .fes KRIM 1206 SHEET A3 or 4,14,0 wr-AOr TOP OF r1EGIAr SOUTH r • r r --r I I 1 i-, • ItOORLIC ;� ■�lf�l���"�iiGii jiii��iiiii NORTH • •1 I EAST ELEVATIONS `'\ ;p; lyi (1 EAST INDEX TO ['RAVINGS AI SITE PLAN A2 FOOTING PLAN A3 FLOOR PLAN A4 ROOF PLAN A3 ELEVATIONS A6 VALL SECTID6 A7 DETAILS 11 at S. ; la 4 f'; b 1 JOB NUMBER 120E SHEET NO. A5 of SET NO. RAMO NM MC RT n•XP SIL 1 wC.•v OtaS! WARZSOIMI TAIL vr•r-.e w/rJ•. •rws rl wr••. w MORN r.0 •`e.awe.00P WM. OP RUCAW 'es\. •Q R•0110 ••e MIL • MCP OR[RY „Q.b 9 TYPICAL STOOP DETAIL © 0 TYPICAL STOOP DETAIL INDEX TO DRAVINGS Al SITE PLAN A2 FOOTING PLAN 43 FLOOR PLAN Al ROOF PLAN AS ELEVATIONS A6 VALE BELTING A7 DETAILS BM t COL GRIDS 2 k S NORTH t 300IH arm TAIL IX . ev yr - r -e WALL SECTIONS .- 1. esir •r -r • ,.� :1111 41. • 1 menses rw.• 110.484. JOB MAWR 120E SHEET NO. A6 —..t. ------- or. rWJ. 9ELH \._PAErED u1t aalcA.Tes • $RnAR PETAL AT 47 5111; v 'MC •-u.. ua.. -5. 55Uv es • 1 1 r ! INDEX TO DRAVINGS Al SITE PLAN A2 FOOTING PLAN A3 FLOOR PLAN A4 ROOF PLAN A5 ELEVATIONS A6 WALL SECTIONS A7 DETAILS MISC. PLAN DETAILS fi JO8 NUMBER 1208 SHEET NO. O A7 - SEC NQ CERTIFICATE, OF SURVEY FOR -1-t-(01---“\-2 Mof-o?-47 (HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY,PLAN,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED PY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT IAM A DULY REGIST.77AHO Rit7R� U, ER THE LAWS °FINE STATE OF MINNESOTA. MINNESOTA REGISTRATION NO. 2.0Z-70 KURTH SURVEYING INC. 4002 JEFFERSON STREET N.E. COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MINNESOTA 5542I 612-788-9769 TRACT "A" (Existing Legal Description Abbreviated (Full legal on back of Sheet) That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly and westerly of the plat of CAROLE'S ESTATES, and easterly of the easterly line of ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 17. Subject to a 16.5 foot roadway easement along the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter. TRACT "B" (To be combined with Tract "A") The west 112.02 feet of Lot 4, Block 1, CAROLE'S ESTATES, Anoka County, Minnesota. TRACT "C" (Remainder) That part of Lot 4, Block 1, CAROLE'S ESTATES, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the west 112.02 feet thereof. PROPOSED EASEMENT VACATION DESCRIPTION That part of the drainage and utility easement being 10 feet in width and adjacent to the most westerly line of Lot 4, Block 1, CAROLE'S ESTATES, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the north 10.0 feet of that part of said Lot 4 which is a common line with Lot 3, Block 1, said CAROLE'S ESTATES. — — O.RO Tos.1-IM ) 0AR. iSc'_• (ULT To tto.'S'LtNC) M w ALL o s�ICD 1 X12 SE1t'T‘L Q cad M 4 "To cQ - 1�Z.oL- 0.171, Ake—. T • DATE 2-I -q� SCALE 1"s L 0I Os IRON MONUMENT GovNP o•SP""<c SGT 3i;A tr4c9 Stap+tNN ?OP. FLS r 1, AGO ;// C-:=1"7-7- SO0i1-t Lt,�J1:1 �w',�i S'k cxC•a) `r,-7j--- - Z"lZ,,DO - - z_ .1)2. - ty AP'V- »' IM111- I O I M -10c) T,NKS tft ,L hCMeNT J/ ® w ct•t_t~ r is -re )0\12.- o G o Lic szoA-0AcS TRch,IILt.kD ° j CN,,k( 1) AGENDA ITEM V B C_.•--� STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE April 5, 1996 TOPIC Northern Wholesale, 6810 Otter Lake Road Site Plan Review & Minor Subdivision Northern Wholesale is requesting a site plan review and minor subdivision to facilitate the construction of a 100,000 square foot office/warehouse and small retailing facility at .the north/east corner of Cedar Street and Otter Lake Road. Approximately 40,000 square feet will be leased and there is an expansion area of 50,000 square feet indicated on the plan. Sewer and water utilities are ;currently in place on Cedar Street to serve the proposed construction. The property in question is zoned Light Industrial and indicated as industrial on the City's Land Use Plan. The site contains approximately 9 acres and is proposed to be split from a larger parcel to the east. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 50' setback from both Cedar Street and Otter Lake Road. Additionally, a 40' landscaping buffer, 50% effective,, must be provided when an industrial use abuts a residential area. The Clearwater Creek Residential Development is immediately south on Cedar Street. Cedar Street is currently an unimproved roadway which cannot handle heavy truck traffic. City Staff will be recommending an improvement to this roadway from Otter Lake Drive westerly to the newly constructed Clearwater Creek Drive. The City has some funds to cover this proposed construction from the Developer of Clearwater Creek and will also be assessing Northern Wholesale for a portion of the cost. Until reconstruction of Cedar is realized, Northern Wholesale has been asked to redesign their site plan to provide access for truck traffic off Otter Lake Road. They have complied with this request. However, they are requesting that this arrangement be temporary in nature as truck traffic and access to the loading dock area would be better facilitated, for their use, off Cedar Street. In addition, their proposed expansion is on the north side of the site. Staff would recommended that Northern Wholesale and any future tenant be required to adhere to a schedule that woulAballow delivery and truck traffic limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. This would minimize disruption to the residential neighborhood south of this site. orthern Wholesale is an owner operated company which has been in operation for 24 years. They are currently located in Maplewood. Their employment base is 50 with an anticipate expansion to 75 following their move to Lino Lakes. EDAB has recommended approval of the project and will be providing TIF Financing to the development of the site. SITE .PLAN REVIEW: SETBACKS: The building is proposed to be constructed 40' from Cedar Street and approximately 220' from Otter Lake Road. The Otter Lake Road access must be approved by Anoka County Highway Department. The required setback from an arterial or collector roadway is 50', however, the parking area may be located 15' from the property line. The building must, therefore, be set back another 10' from Cedar Street. BUILDING EXTERIOR: The building construction will be concrete panels. The window areas will be designed with spandrel glass and accents as will the two entry points to the building. BUILDING HEIGHT: The office area will be two story with approximately 5,504 square feet on the 2nd floor. It will be 24' in height. The maximum height allowed in the Light Industrial Zoning District is 45'. GREEN AREA: A minimum green area of 10% is required by the Zoning Ordinance, this will be met with the proposed site plan and future expansion area. OFF-STREET PARKING: 112 parking stalls will be provided and include 4 handicapped spaces. According to ADA requirements, the number of handicapped spaces must be increased to 5 handicapped and 1 van accessible for 112 total spaces. The proposed construction requires 95 spaces according to the City's parking requirements, assuming 75 employees and 40,000 square feet of leased space. Additional parking for future expansion is also indicated on the plan. CIRCULATION AND ACCESS: Access to the site is provided from Cedar Street and Otter Lake Road. Again, Anoka County Highway Department is reviewing the plan and should be able to provide input prior to the P & Z meeting. Staff would recommend the access on Otter Lake Road for truck traffic to serve the building until reconstruction of Cedar Street is complete. LANDSCAPING: A landscaping plan has been submitted and provides a berm with plantings on the Cedar Street side of the site. This berm must provide a 50% effect screen from the residential property to the South. The City Forester has reviewed the plan and recommended approval. LIGHTING: e -• ig • • - no su•mi ted. We would recommend that a plan be provided and reviewed by our Community Service Officer to insure compliance with CEPTED recommendations. LOADING AND TRASH HANDLING: The trash handling area is proposed to be located inside the loading dock area and include a cardboard baler. SIGNS: All signage must conform to the City Sign Ordinance. UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND GRADING: Plans for utilities, drainage and site grading will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Utilities will be available to serve this site. The RCWD must also review and approve drainage, ponding and grading plans. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: No hazardous materials are used on site ROOF TOP HEATING/VENTILATING UNITS: These units shall be properly screened and or blended with the design and coloring of the building. Staff would recommend approval of this site plan review with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits be obtained prior to any construction on the site. The building permit shall include a deposit of to of construction costs to insure completion of all site improvements. 2. The applicant sign a development agreement and post financial guarantees as specified by the City prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. The City Engineer shall review and approve the grading, utility and drainage plans. 4. The Developer receive access permits from Anoka County. 5. Roof top heating and ventilating units shall be screened and/or blended with the design and coloring of the building. 6. The parking area shall be supplied with adequate handicapped spaces as provided by the ADA Rules and Regulations. 7. Permits be obtained from the RCWD for grading and on-site ponding, if required. 8. Signage shall comply with the City Sign Ordinance and proper permits obtained. 9. The Developer shall participate in the reconstruction of Cedar Street at a cost to be determined by the City Engineer. 10. Delivery vehicles and truck traffic shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. when and if this traffic is allowed on Cedar Street 11. Concrete curb, gutter and bituminous paving shall be provided for all access driveways and parking areas. Curb and gutter shall not be required on the northern access drive in the proposed expansion area. 12. The site plan shall be modified to reflect a 50' setback from Cedar Street. OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval of site plan review with conditions outlined above. 2. Recommend approval of minor subdivision as submitted. 3. Return to staff for further consideration RECOMMENDATION Option 1 and 2 „ p©�•�o' ®© oCYt ritb4dE 41: t51;;;;7P,..M8 rmlIptrl A66466o i'!101 rgsegPo PEWrillaral: -41 f?� wham odd-. o ”5,1 Eir 71")!E. ©o O��a !i yam' s, ado a 4 RA 4 ITT OF CENTERVILLE 'L-COINITY- . TIE- AIO - NOWA ION NUMBER 48 ©na�iva�Ci�®SS®m©p �'�r���� S sib© oP QoEFAEll 11 11 flE d�Pls Y I NORTHERN WHOLESALEII OF ME SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 33 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR. ACTON CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PAUL MILLER 2209 PHELPS ROAD LINO LAKES, MN. 55014 N88"57'36"W NORTH UNE OF 111E SW 1/4 of 111E 5W 1/4 Of 111E 5E 1/4 Of SEC. 24. T. 31. R. 22 EXCEPTION 659.37 • 60.00 —i 33 27 Q } O 3 � f W Y � oo J aA 0 � N LtJ o o H ce O Q- 8 ch 00 O z :1 r 11.?"' .r4 CEDAR(PROPOSED RIGHT—OF—WAY3 STREET — — — — — — — 599.13 WILL 599.37 0 N86°33'12"W 5W COR. OF THE 5W 1/4 OF THE 5W 1/4 OF THE 5E 1/4 a ac. 24, T. 31, R. 22 91CIi IN MI SCALE: 1 inch = 50 ft. • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET TOTAL AREA - 39L, 518 5f. P. AST UNE OF ME SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE 5E 1/4 OF SEC. ,12.33 o M CENTERUNE OF TRAVELLED SURFACE SOUTH UNE OF THE 5W 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 24. T. 31. R. 22 The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 31 N., Range 22 W., Anoka County, Minnesota, except the north 65 feet thereof. Subject to Cedar Street and County Rood No. 84. CARLEY-TORGERSEN, INC. LAND SURVEYORS (612) 484-3301 SUITE 703 70 WEST COUNTY ROAD "C" LITTLE CANADA. MN. 55117 I hereby certify that this survey. pion or report won prepared by me under my direct supervision and that I am o duly Registered Land Surveyor under the loof th State of sola. Lr David E. Torgersen, .L'G Minn. Reg. No. 17551 Dale Revision Date Book No. 668-61 Job No. 96-013 File No.94/72 inmeomPsamesAr an ENO —> v^, /f i-1 f�F E treien y■ —ZIP \glob LIM/� '1 ' jou o F 1/d b F ■ ) 6. liar aar L71f111� rt L r-.. TAM 1." IL MINI NAM VIZ IIILOIN a s a O OMMEIIIAL PLAN NEVIE■ P ON COIF COMPLIANCE L 111111LIMINMINI IMMO IMMUNE/ tmM•tattta K Mkutr� �K ISM MMI IA S ir K MIS �atttt� tta■t■,/r_a-_ • LIMNS Mg MN= Si tei11l-ea7 ma ibis. aimi IL N ee NNNNe1 Er NNNNNA Minn 011111 11.144.1 1 a i - =i) a nflow aw■a.e L RIM NIIIIII. 11111111111MINME ;'Is' `f N i w�.r - DEr 4V _! L MN .•r i UM a War sr WIN L MMMMf MIL Sas NUTaal RI 1111•111011 NI 1111 a CEDA STREET • r'sD 4/11 an ma srr MI= -6111110-4 twa f.1 Air an on e 0 LAN!!IT AMNN1T1 NT■ Oririr ■ lEcnr Ilandmil. Err MI5 Nam Emmons wear as maim. ion w J w 0 z et w 2 z Una Lakes, Mllnnasata IMMIIMMEMMIIMMI !le RAN SIM Nrdor Al 1 SIE 7•110• MN. 11=011 NM SI 6 WSW' — - - — :111,4•16. Tr CEDAR SNIT 7q --r 4r N 1,11111PICIT AlCNITCTI adif ISA lrwm-• ilielem MINI "NEI Nimbi. (1 3 1 CEDAR STREET 0 V W N IIERKIIAL KITES rigammisar•- br .impmeame PLANT/14G SDELIJLE ”aIFAril 11--7•11111F-471•1117F-i III =MI ci=rni n I.11111110 r-7-inom FIRM 11 e 11110110011•111110111 LAIIPEIT ANCIIIITCCTI SAE ' 39 AEA.", NE Mt Ir'?E'EA'SESSir2 lairdirigm air ado LIWOVAII ItN1 Mot auwar 11 E Maty nary at Grty YI LE l ldy Branch Lampert Architects NA F n RR REM= rArr tawny 9 LAAAAIT AIIHITre T■ maw pritsveara 1 AANwer- ad MI MO W J a W -J 0 Z W 1- 0 0 z Uno Lakes. Minnesota Mot Mir Al 1'71 Par pump Km maim mini PLAN kepi 0•110111111/M. imsollorminiftlm 1•01 MOOR MANI Mot Nr. A/ CLEARWATER CR FEK CITY OF LINO LAKES ANOKA COUNTY, MINNES01 A POINT SHEET N.,4 INC Of IC VG V ••••,C.111..61.11. .41/1 11114 ,WC 416. W•W C ORJ I 64? 10 . ores — • I COUNTY RO AO NO. 84 I , • —1 0111:4 1-1:4K I.. . I I ...7.77;;;Z—Nt•-• n• Y104Elf • • • 400,44 4, 3 • -- ...rtr, • .. ....... 4'.71\s y CRteA AO 4 11, ‘::'" 72AGENDA ITEM V C -5 \ v 04\ STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland aUMi1/40A kg DATE April 5, 1996 TOPIC Emtech, 400 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review Emtech Inc. is one of the first businesses to have located in the y[, Apollo Business Center. They do custom manufacturing, plastic �i' molding, and precision machining. Their employee base is currently 28. This request is to allow the construction of a 5400 square foot plastic shop addition and a 3600 square foot machine shop addition. The property is Zoned Light Industrial and located on 2.18 acres. The City's Land Use Map indicates the property as Industrial. EDAB has reviewed this request and would support the building additions as proposed. TIF Financing is not proposed for this construction. SITE PLAN REVIEW: SETBACKS: The building addition will be constructed 20' from the rear property line which is within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. BUILDING EXTERIOR: The building addition will be precast concrete panels, the same construction as the existing structure. BUILDING HEIGHT: The proposed addition will blend with the existing facility and match in design and height. The factory area is 16' in height and the office area 12'. The maximum height allowed in the Light Industrial Zoning District is 45'. GREEN AREA: A minimum green area of 10* is required by the Zoning Ordinance, this will be met with the proposed site plan. OFF-STREET PARKING: A total of 38 parking stalls will be provided and should include 2 handicapped spaces and 1 van accessible space per ADA Rules and Regulations. The parking provided will meet the requirements of the City's Parking Ordinance for this site. CIRCULATION AND ACCESS: Access to the site is provided from Apollo Drive and will not be altered. LANDSCAPING: The landscaping plan has been reviewed by the City Forester. LIGHTING: A lighting plan was reviewed by our Community Service Officer to insure compliance with CEPTED recommendations. LOADING AND TRASH HANDLING: The trash handling area is indicated on the site plan and properly screened from the freeway and Apollo Drive. SIGNS: All signage must conform to the City Sign Ordinance. UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND GRADING: Plans for utilities, drainage and site grading will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: No hazardous materials are .used on site. ROOF TOP HEATING/VENTILATING UNITS: These units shall be properly screened and or blended with the design and coloring of the building. Staff would recommend approval of this site plan review with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits be obtained prior to any construction on the site. The building permit shall include a deposit of 1% of construction costs to insure completion of all site improvements. 2. The City Engineer shall review and approve the grading, utility and drainage plans. 3. Roof top heating and ventilating units shall be screened and/or blended with the design and coloring of the building. 4. The parking area shall be supplied with adequate handicapped spaces as provided by the ADA Rules and Regulations. 5. Permits be obtained from the RCWD for grading and on-site ponding, if required. 6. Signage shall comply with the City Sign Ordinance and proper permits obtained. Concrete curb, gutter and bituminous paving shall be provided for all access driveways and parking areas. OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval of site plan review with conditions outlined above. 2. Return to staff for further consideration RECOMMENDATION Option 1 R EHABILITA1IO - - . 'I 2 3 4 ,.ff_.._6_., 10 PROUERTY L)U NOTES n. UMZronM 33ILOIMG GOD=, 1. Group B, Division 4 Zoning Light Industrial 2. Sec. 506 (a) General (c) Automatic Sprinkler System B. TYPE OP CONSTRUCTION, 1. Structural Frame - Steel 2. Exterior Malls - Precut Insulated Panels 3. Floor - Reinforced Concrete on grade. C. OFFICE) 2,700 S.F. (111 story( 12.-0' NT. Total P00000?, S 100 6.P. 1111 story( 16'-0' Nt. 13600 S.P. 0 LAND5GAPING: 1. Sod all area's except as Noted. 2. Under ground lawn sprinkler system controlled by tine clock. Eguipeent - Controller - Rin Bird MC1260 b1 Valve - Rain Bird DV 100.. Spray Head - Rain Bird 1004 Rotor Bead - Toro 300 3. Provide and install 16• strip of crushed Mankato Stone 4' deep. Placa 6 mil black poly under the stone and !metal( black plastic edging. Thi. edging must bo installed with a dine. 4. Planting Schedule uantlt Sias Botanical Meme Coesom flame (6) B 6 B 5-6' Picea Glauca Densate Spruce, Black Mille (3) 1160 5'6' Area Pungens 0laucs Spruce, Colorado (51 068 2'-24' Acer Saocharun Maple, auger ((5) BLB 2' talus z Myblyds Crab, Flowering (6) rot 30-36• Bhuja Occidentalis Arborvitae, techny Glove (121 Pot 45 Juniperhs Juniper, See Green B 002000AYS AND PARKING LOT 1. Bituminous Paving: 0405.0tlle Fabric under aggregate base. b. !aggregate Base - 6 inches. 2331 Bitumlur Be.urse 2.25 inches. d. :ose 2341 Bituminous we a 2.25 inches. e. Stripping - 2' white linea es shown. Concrete Curb and Gutter: a. 11-616 City of Lino -Lakes 4,000 p.s.1. concrete 5% air -entrainment SIGN 50 EMTECH 400. SITE PLAN SCALE: 30'0 • GD-O`-MrRNe.T. • NORTH ELEVATION C7116'wy'1.: o)1Escv-..T-c...a. ;1:fpJt. e.,,. cwt. ■ EKBERG ASSOCIATES, INC. !I,l. Ph; 400 APOLLO DRIVE PLASTIC SHOP ADDITION TOOL ROOM EXISTOIO OFF)CE FLOOR PLAN ACNINE SHOP sHIpPINO MACHINE MACHINE SHOP ADDITION 2 T OE 5O ET SCALE: I/r• r•O- 0 G7 ■ ■ r x z 400 APOLLO DRIVE y CS V Z g co W •. 2 r 13 11,111011 It Pause, n.. a.l AGENDA ITEM V D STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE April 5, 1996 TOPIC Thomas Vacha, 7702 Lake Drive, Minor Subdivision Mr. Thomas Vacha, owner of Thomas Motors at 7702 Lake Drive, is requesting a minor subdivision of Lot 4, Block 1, Carole's Estates. The property is located on 77th Street, just east of Lake Drive and his present dwelling and business. Mr. Vacha has purchased this property and would like to split the west 112 x 121 feet from the balance of the site and add it to his existing dwelling and business. The purpose for this split is to provide a buffer between his business use and the residential neighborhood to the east. The property is Zoned Rural and indicated as single family residential on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Vacha's business is considered a pre-existing non -conforming use. For P & Z information, at one time Lake Drive was zoned commercial from the City's northern boarder south to Circle Pines. No utilities are available to serve these properties, therefore a 10 acre minimum lot size is required. Lot 4, Block 1 is currently 1.03 acres in size and Mr. Vacha's home/business is .79 acres in size. The rearrangement of lot lines would provide 1.10 acres for the home/business and .72 acres for Lot 4, Block 1. According to the submitted site plan, the existing home on Parcel C will meet all the setback requirements of the Rural Zoning District and provide an alternate site for a septic system should that be required. Parcel B is vacant but is a densely wooded property which could provided an effective buffer between the business use to the west and the residential area to the east. Parcel A is existing and the proposed subdivision will not affect setback requirements. In addition to a minor subdivision request, Mr. Vacha will also need a variance from the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4, Subdivision 17, Areas without Sanitary Sewer. This section of the code requires a minimum lot size of 10 acres when sewer and water are not available. Since both lots exist as non -conforming lots, Mr. Vacha is merely asking for a shift in that non -conformity. Staff has reviewed these requests and would recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. Parcel B shall be legally combined with Parcel A and recorded as such with Anoka County. Parcel la shall not be considered a buildable lot. At some time in the future, when sewer and water become available to 77th Street, Mr. Vacha could then re - subdivide the site and provide an additional building site if so ' desired. 2. The 10' drainage and utility easement located on the west side of Parcel B shall be vacated by the City Council. 3. 10' drainage and utility easements shall be provided on all property lines as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. OPTIONS 1. Approve Minor Subdivision and Variance and requested with conditions outlined above. 2. Return to staff for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 11 r. ;, • I ' I •• r.• r r• •• %;,.. •T I. • 12 13 VI 3 4 2 T 34 3332151 3C 4 5 6 r • • • •.. • . ie 1