Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/12/1996 P&Z PacketPLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA June 12, 1996 6:30 P.M. I. Call to Order and Roll Call: II. Approval of Minutes: May 8, 1996 III. Approval of Agenda - Changes/Additions IV. Open Mike: V. Action Items: A. 96-13-S, Arndt Construction, Phelps Road, Site Plan Review SCANNED B. 96-14-S, Lino Lakes Family Dentistry, Blue Heron Road, Site Plan Review V C. 96-15-S, EAM, 4th Avenue, Site Plan Review D. 96-16-S, Blue Heron II, Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review VE. 96-17-P, Alan Donat, 8134 E. Rondeau Lake, Minor Subdivision F. 96-18-P, Molly & Jim Jungbauer, 2207 Deerpass Trail, Minor Subdivision G. 96-19-P, Richard Carlson, 7932 Lake Drive, Minor Subdivision k/H. 96-20-PDO/Rezone, Bruce Hanson, Surfside Seaplane Base, Rezoning, Planned Development Overlay and Preliminary Plat v/I. 96-21-V, Gary Sandahl, 478 Lonesome Pine, Variance J. 96-22 Jeff Kelley, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment VI. Discussion Items VII. Adjournment PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT ALSO PRESENT : May 8, 1996 : 6:30 p.m. : 9:10 p.m. : Dahl, Dunn, Gelbmann, Herr, Johnson, Robinson, Schaps : None : Planning Coordinator Wyland, Planning Consultant Kirmis, Economic Development Director Wessel I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., May 8, 1996. He welcomed new members, Caroline Dahl and Donald Dunn and congratulated Mr. Robinson on being reappointed another term. All members were present. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the April 10, 1996 meeting as submitted and was supported by Herr. Motion carried 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: There were no changes. IV. OPEN MIKE: Chair Schaps declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:31 p.m. Mr. Ronald Rick, 7080 Sunset Avenue, stated that he has been a homeowner at this location for 10 years and would like to apply to build a tool shed on his property for storage purposes. The design is a 12' x 24' metal construction which the City does not allow. However, a wood building would be twice the cost of his proposal. The type of structure, which is classified as a pole barn, is not allowed on lots less than five acres. He needs the additional accessory building because there is no basement in the house and storage in the garage is crowded. Mr. Rick distributed pictures and design plans to Board Members showing the metal he had selected, which would be under warranty for 40 years. The structure would be built by a professional builder and would match the existing home which is vinyl. Colors would also match. PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Schaps asked if the garage would be attached or detached. Mr. Rick answered that it would be detached. Planning Coordinator Wyland stated that the accessory building ordinance stipulates that pole barn structures are only allowed on parcels of five acres or larger. Because this lot is not five acres, the type of structure Mr. Rick has requested is not permitted. Secondly, any accessory structure would have to be of a wood frame and roof, as metal is prohibited. The metal siding is not a problem, but the metal roof and pole barn type of structure is not permitted. Ms. Wyland further stated that the project does not meet criteria for a variance because Mr. Rick's hardship is not related to the land parcel. Although the accessory structure ordinance is currently under review, no recommendation is being made to allow pole barns on smaller parcels than five acres. Mr. Schaps asked when the house was built. Mr. Rick stated that the house was built in the late 1940's with a later addition. The present garage was built in the early 1980's, and has a wood frame. Mr. Dunn asked the size of Mr. Rick's lot. Mr. Rick stated that it is approximately 8/10 of an acre. It is located on the corner of Fairmont and Sunset. Mr. Dunn asked if there are neighbors nearby that would be affected. Mr. Rick stated that his driveway fronts on Sunset. There are no neighbors close to the location of the buildings. The proposed structure would be in the middle of his property. Mr. Johnson asked if all metal buildings are defined as pole barns. Ms. Wyland stated that it is not the siding of the building that determines classification as a pole barn but the type of construction. The only zoning districts that allow pole barns are rural properties over 5 acres, commercial, industrial and semi-public by Conditional Use Permit only. Mr. Johnson asked if the size of the proposed building is in compliance with the code. Ms. Wyland responded that size is not the issue. The problem is the type of construction. Chair Schaps explained that to the extent that proposals do not comply with City ordinances, the Board has taken the position for the last several years not to grant 2 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 variances unless there is a good reason. Financial consideration is not always a sufficient reason. In this situation, he believes that with creative effort and continued work with staff Mr. Rick can resolve the issues and bring the proposal into compliance with City ordinances. As it stands, he would not be able to vote for it. Rick Gelbmann made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:45 p.m. and was supported by William Johnson. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. ACTION ITEMS: A. Hal Leibel, 7566 Peltier Lake Drive, Minor Subdivision Ms. Wyland reported that Mr. Hal Leibel is seeking to split a 2.36 acre parcel from a 125.4 acre parcel located at 7566 Peltier Lake Drive. Ordinance 93-18 allows a habitable single family homes constructed prior to July 13, 1992 may reduce their lot size to a minimum of one (1) parcel if the balance of the property results in a parcel of ten (10) acres. There is an existing home on the property. Staff has recommended approval with a waiver of the park dedication request. Chair Schaps noted that it is the Board's practice to waive a park dedication, if there is an existing home on the split off portion of a landsplit. Mr. Johnson asked if a park dedication would be required if a house were built on the remainder of the property. Ms. Wyland stated that a park dedication can only be collected when the property is further subdivided. • Mr. Dunn asked if, under the ordinance approved in 1993, the smaller piece of property would have to be a 10 -acre parcel in order to be further subdivided. Ms. Wyland explained that if the balance of the property is 10 acres or less, it cannot be further subdivided unless sewer and water services are available. If the smaller property were further subdivided after sewer and water services are available, it would not have to be as large as 10 acres. Mr. Leibel stated that he has no intention of subdividing the property further until sewer and water are available. The main reason for subdividing the property is because he owns one-half of the undivided portion. The home is his, and he would like to isolate it from the balance of the acreage. The ordinance requires a minimum of one acre, and this proposal is 2.3 acres. William Johnson made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision to split 2.36 acres from the remaining 124 acres and waive the park dedication requirement. Mr. Herr seconded the motion. All members voted in favor. Motion carried. B. Duff Dorschner, 307 Lilac, Minor Subdivision/Variance 3 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Ms. Wyland stated that this application is for a minor subdivision and variance. Mr. Dorschner's current driveway encroaches approximately 10 feet onto his neighbor's property. When the house and garage were built in 1982, the City did not require a survey and allowed the garage and driveway to be situated as they are today. The garage is 26 feet from the property line. The encroachment was discovered when a survey was done by Mr. Uhde for development on the adjacent property. Ms. Wyland stated that two options are presented: 1) to allow the sale of 10 feet to Mr. Dorschner to maintain his existing driveway, and therefore, allow Mr. Uhde's property a lot depth variance of 10 feet; 2) suggest Mr. Dorschner secure an easement from Mr. Uhde for use of the westerly 10 feet until the garage can be reoriented to Lilac Street. Staff is recommending the easement option. Mr. Dorschner stated that he did not know of any problem until a month ago, when Mr. Uhde had a survey done for development. He has lived in his house approximately four years. There are two driveways on the property. The driveway in question has been there since the house was built and is the only straight access to the back yard. He put up a cedar wood fence along the driveway last year, replacing an existing roadway. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Dorschner ever had a survey done when he put up the fence. Mr. Dorschner stated that he had a survey done last week, and it agrees with Mr. Uhde's survey. When he put the fence up last year, a survey was not required. The Building Inspector indicated that as long as he was replacing an existing fence, a permit was not required. His lot is 166 feet wide, and he:had no reason to believe there was a problem. Had he known of this problem at the time he bought the property, he would have had stipulations put in the purchase agreement. Chair Schaps asked if the property was inspected at the time of Mr. Dorschner's purchase. Mr. Dorschner stated that the property was inspected, but there was no survey. He and the mortgage company received a property sketch indicating the orientation of the house on the property. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Dorschner researched the file to see if a survey had ever been done. Mr. Dorschner stated that to the best of his knowledge a survey has never been done. There is nothing on file with the county. Mr. Robinson asked if there is an old fence north of Mr. Dorschner's property along the tree line. 4 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Dorschner stated that the fence is no longer there. In talking with other neighbors who have had surveys done, he was told that many of them found their property lines were off by two or three feet. Mr. Robinson noted that in the past farmers put fences where they thought the property lines were, and those estimated property lines were accepted for many years. He asked if the pins on the corners can be located. Mr. Dorschner stated that he could not find them on the west side. There appeared to be a stake in the northeast corner which is the only one he found. Mr. Herr asked if Mr. Dorschner measured his property when he found the pin. Mr. Dorschner stated that he never had a reason to look for the corner stakes because of the size of his property. Ms. Wyland noted that the present surveys did not locate any existing stakes. Chair Schaps asked how Mr. Dorschner knew where to place the fence. Mr. Dorschner stated that he estimated and thought he was well within his lot line. There is asphalt in front of the garage, but the rest of the driveway is gravel. He jogged the fence to keep kids from playing in the gravel. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Dorschner where -the entrance to the garage would be if it had to be reconstructed. Mr. Dorschner stated that if the garage were rebuilt, access would be on the south side. While that would be a solution, he stated that he cannot afford to have the work done. Also, several trees would have to be removed and new blacktop put down. He would not be able to get his boat to the back yard using the other driveway which is curved. Mr. Robinson asked if Mr. Dorschner carries title insurance. Mr. Dorschner answered that he does, but it has not helped because there is no survey. He was not told at his closing that a survey was needed by the title insurance company. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Dorschner has sought an opinion on the matter from an attorney. Mr. Dorschner answered that he has not seen an attorney. This is the first home he has purchased and was unfamiliar with the process. Chair Schaps asked if the corner house of Mr. Uhde's development would need further variances if the sale of 10 feet to Mr. Dorschner is approved. 5 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Uhde stated the sale of 10 feet will not have a negative effect on the development. He believes that the property line was miscalculated in a metes and bounds survey. Mr. Dunn asked if Mr. Uhde and Mr. Dorschner have reached agreement on a purchase price for the 10 feet. Mr. Uhde responded that a purchase agreement has been reached contingent upon the action of the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council. Mr. Herr stated that he is inclined to bring the matter to a permanent closure and allow the sale of 10 feet to Mr. Dorschner. The rationale for the variance for Mr. Uhde's property is fitting. He asked for staffs rationale in recommending the easement option. Ms. Wyland stated that historically variances are not usually favored. Mr. Herr stated that he believes the City bears some responsibility for the problem because a survey was not required at the time the property was platted. Also, an easement always leaves uncertainties for the future. Mr. Gelbmann agreed with Mr. Herr and stated he would like to see a permanent resolution. The size of the lot where a variance is being created is larger than the minimum standard which minimizes the impact of the variance. Mr. Dunn agreed that Mr. Dorschner has made a reasonable request. It is the duty of the City to rectify this error that has been handed down. He would support granting the minor subdivision contingent upon Mr. Uhde not challenging the City with this action. He recommended that members support Option No. 1 to take care of a difficult situation and one that would be otherwise very costly to rectify. Mr. Robinson stated that his only problem with approving the subdivision request is setting a precedent. Chair Schaps noted that the Board must make specific findings of fact to approve the subdivision and variance as follows: A. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. As it exists, the garage will be difficult to enter without the additional 10 feet provided with this subdivision. However, an easement would allow the same access. B. That the plight of the land owners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. Although the access problem was not created by the current property owner, Mr. Dorschner, the original building/owner created the problem by orienting the garage entrance to the west with only 26 feet to 6 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 access. No survey was conducted, although it is the obligation of every land purchaser to verify what is being purchased. C. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. This hardship could be considered economic as the problem would be eliminated with the reorientation of the garage to face Lilac. However, a reasonable use for the existing garage does not exist unless the subdivision is approved or an easement obtained. It would be an unreasonable amount of money to reconfigure the property for the garage and yard. D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. No special privilege would be afforded this applicant that would not be offered to another under similar circumstances. E. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. Property values should not be "unreasonably" diminished with the variance or easement arrangement. F. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to provide for single family residential use of the property. That shall be maintained in either case. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approvq the subdivision with the variance to allow Lot 1, Block 1, Behm's Century Farms, a lot depth of 125 feet in order to add 10 feet to the adjacent Dorschner property as a result of the findings of fact listed above. Dunn seconded the motion. Mr. Robinson amended the motion to include the 1,000 square foot parcel in the legal description of Mr. Dorschner's property. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Dunn accepted the amendment. All voted aye. Motion carried. C. Jeff Kelley, 20th Avenue, Site Plan Review/Text Amendment to Allow Golf Driving Range Mr. Jeff Kelly has made application for a Site Plan Review which also requires an Interim Use Permit for the construction of a golf driving range and future mini golf facility on 20th Avenue in the Rural Business Reserve Zoning District. The property in question is 20 acres in size and located on the east side of 20th Avenue in the 7300 block. A parking area, club house (garage approximately 24x36), portable sanitation, fencing, tee boxes, and netting are proposed for the site. A future mini golf area is also outlined on the plan. Interim uses were added to the Zoning Ordinance to allow new uses as the need arose within a zoning district or until the code was amended to include the interim 7 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 use. Mr. Kelley is seeking approval for a proposed golf driving range this season as an interim use on the property indicated on 20th Avenue. Mr. Dunn stated that he would like to see detailed construction plans before approving this plan. Ms. Wyland stated that once the concept is approved, the final site plan does not come back to the Planning & Zoning Board. The proposed building does meet all code requirements. Mr. Robinson added that the City has expert staff to review all details so that final plans are in compliance with the City Code. The Board reviews the overall plan in terms of zoning. Chair Schaps stated that there are performance standards in the ordinances that must be applied and rigorously enforced. Anything approved by the Board must meet those standards, or the project cannot proceed. Mr. Kelley stated a survey and site plan have been done, which is as far as he can go without further approval. Chair Schaps asked if lighting is included in the plan. Mr. Kelley stated that there will be five light poles, all of which direct light toward the driving range which is to the east. There is nothing but agriculture from the range to the freeway one-half mile away. Chair Schaps asked how long Mr. Kelley has owned the property. Mr. Kelley stated that purchase of the property is contingent on approval of this plan. He is purchasing the property in two phases of 10 acres each. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Kelley discussed the plans with adjoining neighbors and whether they are in favor of the project. Mr. Kelley stated that there is a subdivision to the west. His property is 20 acres of a 60 acre parcel. The owner is aware of his plans. Otherwise he has not talked to anyone else. Mr. Robinson asked if Mr. Kelley's property would include the pole barn to the north. Mr. Kelley stated that the second 10 acres that he intends to purchase in two years includes the pole barn. Mr. Johnson questioned what would happen if this is not a permitted use in the future. 8 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Ms. Wyland stated that she believes when the new ordinance is adopted, golf courses will be a permitted use in Rural Business Reserve (RBR) zoning districts. If golf courses are not allowed in RBR districts, then a time frame would be set for the interim use. Mr. Kelley stated that it was explained to him that rezoning would come into effect when a certain percentage of area is developed to a certain degree. He is assuming that a temporary use permit would supersede any decision not to allow golf in RBR zoning districts. Mr. Gelbmann cautioned that terms and future possibilities should be clearly stated to protect all parties. He agreed that the changes in the zoning ordinances are likely to include golf courses as a permitted use in the RBR districts. Mr. Herr stated that he would like to see this project operate under an interim use permit with full detailed plans on file for each phase, so that the City has complete documentation. Mr. Schaps asked if Mr. Kelley plans to do anything with the land before the text amendment to the zoning ordinance in June. If golf becomes a permitted use, then an interim use permit at this time would not be necessary. Mr. Kelley stated that he would like to start immediately and had hoped to be on the agenda for the City Council meeting Monday, May 13, 1996. He would not want to wait until mid-June to begin because he would lose the peak season. Ms. Wyland suggested approving the site plan contingent upon the text amendment to the zoning code. This would allow him to seed and grade the property now. Mr. Robinson asked if there is a screen between the natural grass and the proposed tee boxes. Mr. Kelley answered, yes. Mr. Herr asked the type of lighting fixtures that will be used. He expressed concern about the glare to freeway drivers. Mr. Kelley stated that he is considering quartz lights at approximately 1000 to 1500 watts. The area is fully wooded between the golf range and the freeway. There is little visibility from the freeway. Mr. Robinson noted that the golf range is across the road from residential property in Centerville. He asked if Centerville residents should be notified of the public hearing. Ms. Wyland stated that staff will contact the City of Centerville to notify their property owners. 9 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Kelley asked what conditions will play a big role in determining whether or not golf is a permitted use. Chair Schaps responded that at the public hearing staff will draft provisional language adding a golf range or mini golf facility as a permitted use to the RBR zoning district. The amendment will be published throughout the City. Residents will have an opportunity to come forward and state any objections. Typically, there is little response. Mr. Dunn asked what protection there is for the City if the golf range is later abandoned. Ms. Wyland stated that a condition of the permit could include a provision that all equipment items relating to the golf range be removed by the property owner within a year of closing, or the City will do so and assess the property. Mr. Kelley asked what would happen if he resold the property. Mr. Gelbmann responded that if the property is sold and the golf range use continues, removal of the equipment would not be necessary. Mr. Johnson added that a time lapse would be allowed for resale of the property. If the business is ceased for a period of greater than a year, the equipment, would have to be removed. Mr. Gelbmann made a MOTION to approve the site plan review with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits be obtained prior to any construction. A deposit equal to 1 percent of construction costs shall be posted to insure completion of site improvements. 2. The driveway and parking area be provided with a dustless surface approved by the City Engineer. 3. Lighting standards be of the type to provide minimum disruption to the adjoining property owners as determined by the City. 4. The sanitation facilities be located inside the club house/garage area. If this is not possible, screening be provided to adequately screen the facilities from the street right-of-way and adjoining properties. This screening shall be subject to the review of the City Forester and/or Community Service Officer. 5. A landscaping plan shall be provided and reviewed by the City Forester. 10 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 6. Signage shall conform to the City's Sign Ordinance and proper permits obtained prior to installation. 7. Netting serving the golf range shall be durable and secured to poles subject to approval of the City Engineer. A detail of the fencing/netting shall be provided for City review. 8. A public hearing shall be set to add golf course/driving range as an interim use to the R -BR Zoning District. 9. Other conditions as imposed by the City. 10. Handicapped parking shall be provided and an alternate site for future parking needs. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion and amended it to include condition No. 11., that major facilities on the property shall be removed if the business is discontinued for one year, or the cost of removal shall be assessed to the property. Mr. Gelbmann accepted the amendment. The motion carried 6-0-1. Mr. Robinson abstained. Chair Schaps called a five-minute recess to the meeting at 8:25 p.m. He left the meeting at this time. Acting Chair Johnson reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Economic Development Director, Brian Wessel, arrived. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Bruce Hanson, Rezone GB Property to R1, PDO to Allow Residential Homes with Sea Plane Hangars, Aqua Lane Ms. Wyland stated that a portion of Aqua Lane has previously been considered by the Board for rezoning to General Business. The matter was tabled. Mr. Bruce Hanson, who owns the sea plane base, would like to purchase the property and rezone a portion of it to R1, single family residential to allow homes to be constructed with hangars for sea planes that would have a common access to the landing strip on the sea plane base. Ms. Wyland further stated that the City has a Resolution discouraging commercial properties from being rezoned to lesser uses. However, after considering many factors of Mr. Hanson's proposal and the location of this particular site, it may be a more appropriate land use for the area than General Business. A full staff review will be presented at the June 1996 meeting. Mr. Johnson noted a substantial amount of wetland on Lot No. 6, which is landlocked. 11 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Hanson stated that Lot No. 6 would remain part of the sea plane base. Mr. Johnson asked what is planned for the upland area. Mr. Hanson answered that possibly a narrow expansion of the landing strip and possibly a hangar. Mr. Johnson asked what will be in Outlot A. Mr. Hanson stated that Outlot A is wetland. Mr. Robinson asked if Lot No. 5 is buildable. Mr. Hanson stated that he has talked to the City Engineer, and has been assured that he can build on that lot. Ms. Wyland stated that the property is now zoned General Business and is vacant and for sale. Rezoning would be necessary for the five lots, Outlot A and perhaps Lot No. 6. Lot No. 7 would remain General Business. Mr. Robinson asked if the proposed hangars will be large enough for the planes. Mr. Hanson stated that the size of the hangars is the maximum allowed, 60 feet x 40 feet. Mr. Wessel asked if a wetland delineation has been completed. Mr. Hanson stated that a delineation was done the previous day. He does not have the report back, but the map he has presented is fairly accurate. Mr. Wessel noted that the Council passed a resolution that no commercial or industrial property would be down -zoned without an exchange of the equivalent amount of land, or only under special conditions. He agreed that Mr. Hanson's proposal may be a more appropriate use for Aqua Lane because the site is split by wetland. He further noted that this will be an area of focus when the Comprehensive Plan is updated. The City has engaged a planner to begin the Comprehensive Plan update, which is mandated by the state to be completed by December 31, 1997. His concern about down -zoning the area from commercial business is that the City does not have a lot of land zoned for General Business. Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Hanson intends to have a road connection between the north end and south end of the property. Mr. Hanson stated that it is impossible to connect them because of the wetland. Mr. Johnson noted that it may be possible to enlarge Lot No. 6 to increase the General Business area to seven acres. 12 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 Mr. Hanson agreed that may be a possibility, but there is a line of trees he would like to protect. Mr. Dunn asked if any residential areas are affected by this proposal. Mr. Wessel responded that although residents are present in the area, the whole area is zoned General Business and intended to be all business development. The residents understand that they are in a non -conforming status. Mr. Dunn asked the size of the homes planned. Mr. Hanson stated that he does not plan to build homes. He plans to sell the lots to sea plane pilots who would like to live adjacent to his facility. He has had numerous requests for housing that would allow a hangar. Ms. Wyland stated that the concept is for a future application that would require rezoning and a minor subdivision preliminary plat Planned Unit Development that would allow five single family lots rezoned to R1, and allow sea plane hangars with some type of arrangement for the homeowners to use the sea plane base. It would be similar to Lino Air Park. Mr. Dunn asked if the increase in air traffic would be a problem and if there would be any traffic pattern conflict with Anoka County Airport. Mr. Hanson responded that the State of Minnesota air space is designated by the Federal Aviation Association (FAA). State officials have indicated no problem with this proposal. Mr. Gelbmann expressed concern about safety zones and the size of the runway. Ms. Wyland showed a sketch of the air safety zones provided in the City's ordinances. Mr. Hanson stated that the runway being used is 150 feet wide. Buildings within the area have to meet certain criteria in height and setback distances. Mr. Robinson stated that while the City would sustain a net loss of General Business land with this proposal, he questioned who would buy the land for General Business development. The land is undesirable for General Business development because it is on a 7 -ton road with no direct access from the freeway and no visibility. The City may be better off to rezone it to RI or R1X to allow the property to be utilized. Mr. Wessel agreed that the property is a dilemma as zoned General Business. During preliminary investigations of Mr. Hanson's proposal, it was discovered that Mr. Hanson's sea plane base is generally respected and is a unique resource in the community. It is the only sea plane base in the area and considered to be a quality operation. Mr. Hanson is 13 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 supposed to close on purchase of the property in May, but he could pursue an extension on the purchase agreement deadline. Mr. Johnson noted that five residential lots with sea plane hangars might attract some type of economic development to be near the sea plane base. Mr. Robinson noted that if the property is rezoned, there will be neighbors who will want to give their input. Notices must be sent to neighbors within 600 feet of the proposed rezoned property. At best, the process would take two months. He believes residents may be positively disposed to this classification proposal, as they were quite opposed to a convenience center. Mr. Wessel left at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Dunn asked the number of takeoffs and landings at the sea plane base. Mr. Hanson stated that there are approximately 100 landings per year on the landing strip. There are approximately 3,000 water landings per year. Approximately 40 aircraft are based on his site. The approach to land is made over Marshan Lake, and he has received no complaints. Mr. Dunn agreed that Mr. Hanson's proposal may serve a better purpose for this property than trying to sell it for General Business development, and he would support it with more detailed plans. Mr. Herr stated that he would support this concept and likes the idea of R1X lots to maximize the tax base. Mr. Gelbmann agreed and stated he would be open to supporting this concept with further information and expressed his remaining concern about air safety zones. Ms. Dahl asked if noise would become a greater problem. Mr. Hanson stated that he would hope for more sea planes to use the facility, but that is an unknown. He does not believe the noise factor will change. Mr. Robinson stated that if all the problems can be worked out, Mr. Hanson's proposal is a good usage of this property. He does not believe General Business developers will locate on Aqua Lane. If General Business zoning is dropped, he would like to see the General Business portion follow the wetland boundary, so that a full 7.5 acres remains zoned as General Business. It was the consensus of the Board to approve Mr. Hanson's proposal in concept, contingent upon resolution of the problems discussed above and formal application. 14 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MAY 8, 1996 VII. ADJOURNMENT Al Robinson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. and was supported by Don Dunn. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 15 AGENDA ITEM V A STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE June 10, 1996 TOPIC 96-13-S, Arnt Construction, 2190 Phelps Road, Site Plan Review and Variance Arnt Construction is requesting a site plan review and variance to allow the construction of a 17,200 square foot warehouse/shop and 2,528 square foot office on their site at 2190 Phelps Road. The plan is to remove the existing metal building and attach the new warehouse/shop and office to the existing 9,600 square foot warehouse/shop building. Removal of the existing metal building was a condition of approval when the 9,600 square foot warehouse/shop building was construction in 1988. Setback requirements for the LI, Light Industrial Zoning District in the current Zoning Ordinance are as follows: From Streets: Residential Street: Collector/Arterial St: Front Yard: Rear Yard: Principal Building: Accessory Building: Parking Lot/Driveway: Side Yard: Principal Building Accessory Building Parking Lot/Driveway From Residential District: 10 feet 50 feet 50 feet 15 feet 10 feet 5 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet 75 feet Setback requirements in the LI, Light Industrial Zoning District in the proposed Zoning Ordinance are as follows: From Streets: Residential Street: Collector/Arterial St: Parking Lot 30 feet 50 feet 15 feet Front Yard: 50 feet Rear Yard: Principal Building: Accessory Building: Parking Lot/Driveway: Side Yard: Principal Building Accessory Building Parking Lot /Driveway 15 feet 10 feet 5 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet Between Principal Buildings: Not less than 1/2 the sum of the building heights of the two buildings. The new office area is proposed to be located 27.7' from Phelps Road which is a residential street and 7.7' from the west property line. The realigned Otter Lake Road will abut the east side of this property and become the focal point, or front, of the property. Presently, Phelps Road is the front of the property and a 50' setback is required. We would recommend approval of a 20' variance that would allow the building to be setback 30' from Phelps Road. When, and if, the new zoning ordinance is approved, a 30' setback from a residential street is recommended and would, therefore, be maintained. For P & Z information, the bor-mor building located to the north of this site is set back 40' from Phelps Road. This 30' setback requirement would mean that the property owner must reduce the size of the proposed office, or warehouse/shop area by approximately 3 feet. The property owner is also requesting a variance on the east property line of 2.3'. The existing block building is located 8.1' from the property line at a slight angle. The new building will be 7.7' from the property line, therefore another variance is necessary. We would suggest that Arnt Construction purchase an additional 2.3' from the property to the west to eliminate the need for this variance. Staff has been advised that Arnt currently has a purchase option on that parcel of property. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. That the property in questions cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property owner could reduce the size of his building and meet the setback requirements, however, the ordinance is proposed to be changed to a 30' setback. B. That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The pending realignment of Otter Lake Road was not created by the property owner, therefore, a unique circumstance does exist. C. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. There is no economic consideration in this case. D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Under similar circumstances the opportunity to apply for a variance would be given to other lands, structures, or buildings. E. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. Property values should, in fact, be increased with this proposed construction. F. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The spirit and intent of the ordinance is to provide for light industrial development and eliminate pole barn type construction. This will be facilitated with the proposed construction. SITE PLAN REVIEW: SETBACKS: Staff recommends a setback from Phelps Road of 30' and a setback on the west property line of 10', facilitated by the purchase of an additional 3' of property. BUILDING EXTERIOR: Rock faced concrete block is proposed to match the existing block building. BUILDING HEIGHT: The structure will be approximately 20' in height for the shop area and 14' in height for the office area. GREEN AREA: The Ordinance requires a minimum green area of 10% which will be exceeded on this plan. OFF-STREET PARKING: A total of 36 parking spaces will be provided. Handicapped spaces must be provided according to ADA Regulations. CIRCULATION AND ACCESS: Access to the site will be provided off Phelps Road. LANDSCAPING: A landscaping plans has been reviewed by the City Forester. He would, however, suggest some modification to the plan which must be coordinated with him prior to issuance of any building permits. LIGHTING: The City's Community Service Officer must review the lighting and overall security plan for the building with the applicant prior to any construction. LOADING AND TRASH HANDLING: A trash handling area has not been indicated on the plan and should be addressed by the applicant. This area should be properly screened from adjoining properties. SIGNS: All signage must conform to the City's Sign Ordinance and proper permits obtained prior to any installation. UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND GRADING: Utilities will be available to serve the site from the realigned Otter Lake Road. The applicant intends to construct the office building and defer construction of the shop area until that roadway is complete due to the location of their existing drain field which is adjacent to the shop area which is to be demolished. All plans will be subject to the final review and approval of the City Engineer. RCWD permits may be required for the proposed construction. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Any hazardous materials generated from the site will be subject to MPCA disposal rules and regulations. ROOF TOP HEATING/VENTILATING UNITS: not applicable In summary, staff would recommend approval of the site plan and Variance from Phelps Road with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the construction costs be escrowed to insure completion of all site improvements. The City's CSO Officer shall review the building plans prior to issuance of the building permit to insure compliance with CEPTED recommendations. 2. Landscaping of the site shall be coordinated with the City Forester prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. Signage shall conform to the City's Sign Ordinance and proper permits obtained prior to installation. 4. RCWD Permits shall be obtained, if required, prior to any site grading. 5. Utility, grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 6. A variance for 20' on the front setback (Phelps Road) shall be approved allowing a setback of 30'. The Variance setback requested on the West property line is denied. 7. Concrete curb, gutter and bituminous paving shall be provided for all access driveways and parking areas. OPTIONS 1. Approve Site Plan Review with conditions outlined above. 2. Approve 20' variance on Phelps Road (requiring reduction in size of office or warehouse) and Deny Variance on West property line. 3. Approve 22.3' variance on Phelps Road (allowing building as indicated on site plan) and 2.3' variance on West property line. 4. Return to staff for further consideration. .............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. AECOIMENDATION :> ...:................................................::....... Options 1 and 2 OUTLOT 4��• e . Ac4 ®®o .4 ril ,00 0,[ iicoi ©CREEK link �©� akine El: T® � ©o:Asa sees aw 1:36 ; ' i no tie rebt. atteidED 11 WI.' rAsion......, 7113lArT1 r• Dow am ip.m' Wang, Ita $�..;:. IClh'i:1Y� 3.s r moo iiii 1,19-e dOG9i '-44©u-al R g iY�7i��iV41©�' t tlm eo nr!i.W 1 r;w„1la jj OUTLOT A 24 Y OF CENTERVILLE - AID - INIIM• TY OF LINO LAKES 1 1 BIT. ENT. RD. . !PHELPS ROAD BIT. LOT CHAIN LINK FENCE 24' FF ICE 80 (41 1 1 1 I: 1 1 1 /1� / I. I I I,4 I ' SKIMMER 907.14 --- 906--- 0 BIT. el. 04 LOT EXISTING BLOCK BUILDING 57 90& 68 —910--- __ � 906.51 --_ 907. 12 I}VERGREENS 1 907.37—�;, (4 9tts .�y �-���� - �'i5' RCP_-- — �� / _ - BIT. ENT. R0. PHELPS ROAD BIT. LOT 0 \\ 0 \ \\ \\\ - 910 CHAIN LINK FENCE --------- — NEW CONC. WALK 1;) 1 i$,pl dir h I I I ^ I II EVEN EXISTING METAL DUILDING N W BUILDIN3 I.ADDITION G HOP AREA 24'� ' pAY�4C SC4Cf INSTALL NEN CONC.CURB •, REMOVE CURB / TO LOT COR. 90 // / / / / NEN BIT. / / / / / SALT SHED BIT. LOT CONC. LOADING EXISTING BLOCK BUILDING 10L■ I/ i @VERGREENS REMOVE EX .CURB z / / 017.1. / / , moi-. _ i -906—� / / • i -e. --"-----,i i / 155RC�� gpp/ �I 5 ,ii .../-I.,,_____.-- I --' _�-- f0„--. CS\ -- I 906''/ iii-'�_ -�i- moi /moi EXIST. CONTOUR DJIX{ g MOM 7285 FOXBORO CT. Woodbury Mn. 55125 PROP. CONTOUR 'AMU M MUMMM1T l UW Mu 0 [F 0 C[E MUM UCS BUILDING ADDITION PLAN ©MMUM SCALE: i° =30' 1 ®RIFT TAT MIS R.IM US REMMO PIEMMOWM=MMMM MD MIT 1 M l OLLT IESISTE.D 11SE I UL MKS WEB A TIE U17 .I. Imo, RAI 4/lt,. 900 ammV Rmw MMMUOMm COMMIE MUM SET BACK MEASUREMENTS AS NOTED OEM la. NEW BLD. ADDN. EXIST. BLOCK EXIST. METAL BUILDING BUILDING MUM SCALE: l'.30' RAI WV% 60' ex's-1.IN. tvILPII-14. t 4 It 4" FLOOR PLAN 'yr- prOrA 114, .1g,,X VW" el hererve eee tiimot :9 LINO LAKES. MN MU) CS: Z I %UJ 0 < t ›- t ct 03 z SHUT NO. We, EAST ELEVATION suaa VS•.I:o• G s�AXd - �iiW ViN AYW4 - � J �.OiaiAl�rW�iY cwr w dw+) J Elf i OVA OBUILDING SECTION Mf[M ItK, ILdwKOH'CM WON ort.....) tl z7` Yml ILg41 fM) ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE GP.UMW Ir /VIM kn LT uP.d'N 1 7,..;.:,7:7,_RY_6, r- U NORTH WALL .. _. • NYI. Nelly TlorTART H, NH, _..-. iipL (q/wdH4 --_. __.. _._a Ggr✓Z,,A Weir. • i NLWrsS [�Y�l iro'—T MT” Rti!W41z.z... Wnisefra _ Y mi®❑E■■■❑■■momm jt. 4i. ns:—v .Fxc —wNGwt. OBUILDING SECTION Mf[M ItK, ILdwKOH'CM WON ort.....) tl z7` Yml ILg41 fM) ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE GP.UMW Ir /VIM MEM=ILRri.lr1 !I a„!.•�IELLELL U NORTH WALL illnatil' MT” rF welt mi®❑E■■■❑■■momm E❑M■a� ■1=11=1111•1❑■■■■❑E■N❑■11s■■O■NdINIM=1 111111=61=IN❑■■M■ NII ■■ MUM DIME ■OEN ❑■NM■E❑■Mill DIME ■■ OEM 19 111112=1:=I■■MnNMn■■ 1111Qiii'r-..1■■■❑1111❑■■ CAM CNN ■MN ■■■ DIM DIM 13 31� NIiT'«111.'7NEND■ NOME LINKMEN [INN 511111• INr fie■■1111■■D■■D■s■■■❑MMai� =zZIIIIIIINE■U■■❑■■❑■■NEN❑■■a 11111=1111111mmorm■Os■❑■M■■■❑■Eai micamiaimi■NE❑■moss❑■■■■■ CAIN ill � III G.ia=MEND■■n■■❑■■■■■❑■■1i NIam111■M■■❑■■❑■En■■■■■❑■■a■NN= NI IMININIIIIIIIIID■■■EM■D❑NN■■D■■aim IN lEISIALINIIII NIECE II NEDIS ME■■E ❑■N 15 MI—E• MOM ■■ NOON DENIM DIM LL� •'x.� E❑■■■ NONE D■■■■■ ❑■M b •rmnr---v- -11111■■'] ■■■r NEON 1111❑■■■ NNE NON smo ■r,■St ■ ■' ar mi —■■❑MN 111117=1211111111111■■❑s■EN❑■ ■■■■D■ ■:.E aliiiiiia.il NII=EMINI■M❑ MN■■❑sUMM■11■■L■3 iiiirliiiill M_____ MI■■■MU■■■D■■MO■s T1111■■D■■■■❑m■■■■D■NL■aimiirii■ MD■3i� III Q.IZININI■■■EG■N■D■■■D■■ NUN 9ENEEN N1111=1•1111111■■■MDMMNC■MM PAN MIN9� EIL"2=111■M■G■■EN■E■ED■ •NIIIIINIENNI NM= MINN ,■■N■■■ NEE ■� III 1•11111111111•1111•1111 ■M■■■ NEN ■IN■■ MN■� 1111O MINIM WI■NUMNEN■■■' IN NORM MINN MINIM ■sEII LINO LAKES. MN SHEET 140. 2 AGENDA ITEM V B STAFF OR XNATOR Mary Kay Nyland DATE TOPIC June 6, 1996 96-14-S, Lino Lakes Family Dentistry, 6691 Blue Heron Drive, Site Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit, and Variance Lino Lakes Family Dentistry is requesting a site plan review and conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 5,874 square foot office building on Outlot A of Rice Lake Estates. In 1985, when the property was platted, this Outlot was Zoned Neighborhood Business NB) and set aside for some future commercial development. Professional Offices are permitted in this Zoning District with a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, the applicant is requesting a Variance that would allow the building to be located 28' from an adjacent residential district - the Ordinance requires a setback of 35,. The proposed structure has been designed to fit into the general character of the existing neighborhood. Access will be provided off Blue Heron Drive and screening provided r the oat residence VARIANC According to the Zoning Ordinance, a setback of 35' from any residential district is required in the NB Zoning District. The proposed structure indicates a setback of 28' from the adjoining residential district, therefore, a Variance of 7' is required. Staff would recommend approval of the Variance request based on the following Findings of Fact: A. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. A smaller building could be constructed on the site and meet the setback requirements, however, the applicant has determined that the size requested is a minimum for their intended use. 5,840 sq. feet is not a larger structure and there is an odd shape to the existing lot. B. That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The property in question is an odd shaped lot calling for unique design considerations. Additionally there is a large ponding/wetland area to the rear which further restricts design. C. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the proper exists under the terms of the ordinance. The hardship in this case appears to be the shape and configuration of the lot, not an economic consideration. D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. We would afford any applicant the option of applying for a variance under similar circumstances. E. That the proposed action will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. A 7' variance should not impair property values in the neighborhood. The proposed variance is actually adjacent to a large wetland, not an individual residence. F. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The spirit and intent of the ordinance is to maintain a larger setback between a business use and a residential use. The proposed variance is adjacent to a large wetland area, not an individual residence, therefore the spirit and intent of the ordinance is maintained. SITE PLAN REVIEW: SETBACKS: The proposed structure will be located toward the rear of the lot 40' from Hodgson Road and 28' from the interior side property line. A variance of 7' is required for this 28' setback as 35' is required by Code. The front and rear setbacks will be well within the requirements of the Code. The parking area is setback 5' from the side property line and 15' from Blue Heron Drive and Hodgson Road as required by Code. BUILDING EXTERIOR: The building exterior will consist of aluminum siding, clad windows and asphalt shingles. The design of the structure is intended to blend with the residential character of the immediate vicinity. BUILDING HEIGHT: The structure will be approximately 25' in height, 30' is the maximum height allowed in the NB Zoning District. GREEN AREA: The Ordinance requires a minimum green area of 35%, 56% of green area will be provided with this site plan. OFF-STREET PARKING: A total of 36 parking spaces, including two (2) handicapped, will be provided on the site. The majority of these spaces are provided in an angle fashion. The Ordinance requires a maximum of 32 spaces. CIRCULATION AND ACCESS: Access to the site will be provided by two (2) entrance drives off Blue Heron Drive. Due to the unusual shape of the lot, the City Engineer has determined that this arrangement is acceptable. LANDSCAPING: A landscaping plans has been reviewed by the City Forester and found to be acceptable. He would, however, request a final review and discussion with the applicant concerning the grasses and wild flower area being provided on the rear of the lot. A tree preservation plans has also been provided, however, the majority of the existing trees on the site are scrub cottonwood trees and will be removed. Additionally, park dedication will not be required in this case as there is no subdivision of the site. We would, however, recommend that the applicant be required to grade and rock a pedestrian trail, to City specifications, within the right-of-way of Hodgson Road, the length of the property. This work shall be coordinated with the City Forester and MnDOT. LIGHTING: The City's Community Service Officer would like to review the lighting and overall security plan for the building with the applicant prior to any construction. LOADING AND TRASH HANDLING: No loading area has been provided due to the nature of the business. Trash handling will be via residential containers located on the west side of the building. This area should be property screened from the adjoining properties. SIGNS: All signage must conform to the City's Sign Ordinance and proper permits obtained prior to any installation. The existing monument marker is planned to be removed. UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND GRADING: Utilities are available to serve the site off Grey Heron Drive. All plans will be subject to the final review and approval of the City Engineer. RCWD permits will also be required for the drainage and grading of the site. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Any hazardous materials generated from the site will be subject to MPCA disposal rules and regulations. ROOF TOP HEATING/VENTILATING UNITS: not applicable In summary, staff would recommend approval of the site plan, conditional use permit to allow the professional building, and variance for 7' on the interior side setback with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the construction costs be escrowed to insure completion of all site improvements. The City's CSO Officer shall review the building plans prior to issuance of the building permit to insure compliance with CEPTED recommendations. 2. A pedestrian trail shall be graded and rocked, to City Specifications, along the Hodgson Road side of the property. This trail work shall be coordinated with the City Forester and MnDOT. 3. Landscaping of the site shall be coordinated with the City Forester, in particular, the grasses and wild flower area shown on the plan. 4. Signage shall conform to the City's Sign Ordinance and proper permits obtained prior to installation. 5. A detail of the proposed fencing on the west property line shall be provided prior to City Council Review. 6. RCWD Permits shall be obtained, if required, site grading. 6. Utility, grading and drainage plans shall be approved by the City Engineer. prior to any reviewed and 7. A variance for 7' on the interior side setback line shall be approved allowing a setback of 28'. OPTIONS' 1. Approve Site Plan/Conditional Use Permit/and Variance with conditions outlined above. 2. Approve Site Plan/Conditional Use Permit and required building to be setback 30' on the interior lot line. 3. Return to staff for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 ,: 5 RICE LAKE PS :1 1 0 BALDWIN 'AM- .1t; rilliffm- er: :...1,1-'•:i . 0,444 moose immliss- m, misigerzLrizicam3s 251sisswseisr242 IMINSAnsE,,.4...;4; ":„,,.. iiiiiillit.minc:15' L _:: HY -:-.. :ms N;. Y :-. ;, ��q4 ter -Nr, 'tasolavatseiYYwwtiy��ig s `.. SRM :. 4 ► a4.,£4d r Fs *1'4jLc. �e‘ws9 �7. i SHE INR7RIIIMION SHE AREA 48258.57 SO. Fr. SRR00NSAREA aOSaFT- COlNO WALK 07!280. PT. WL PALO 14120.0 DO. FT. TOTAL HARK? SURF 10771180. FT_ GREEN SPACE 3Me7i PARKINS EMPLOYEES PANNE. REVD SPACES PROVIDED HANDICAP STAAVARAD TOTAL STALL SIM 1 2! SPACES 2 31 X SPACES 0.0X40-0 //*AY / V * /# - S 45'32'29' E 110.00 - SITE PLAN 1 •+m• NORTH ELEVATION 1/r_,' WEST ELEVATION UM ELEVATION 7 ALJ.M MM. COLOR M • TRIPLE T ALUM 31D1146. COLOR 43 ALOE LOUVERS PLAS14I146. COLOR 41 ALUM BEAN COLOR 41 4 ALUM TRIIN COLOR.1 SOUTH ELEVATION 3 COLUMN:+ FLOOR PLAN SOFFIT 4 Y FACIA< COLOR 41 ALUM TRIP. COLOR N ' ALUM SIDUN6. COLOR oO GLAD 4444004-45 A'YFIALT 3140461E3 OPTIONAL, H16F1U611T OA1O CURVED. ALUM BEAM. COLOR N CONC COLIAM<3—h EAST ELEVATION Tiff ELEVATION J z 0 J 4 0 Q. 0. 4 U ��►?,.moi 1 mg/ Ada 1=219 Imola "swam faaliYi riffrom onumo II 11 1 II 11 II J z 0 J 4 0 a. 4 U OMNI RV 1 1 1 1 II 1I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $43 1 1 1 1 ii saw 1 1 1 I1 amu_-_-_ i magma usersitioutalruswii 0 00 LAKES CFAMILY ODENINTRY ak BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY OF OUTLOT A, RICE LAKE ESTATES LOCATED IN GOVERNMENT LOT 2, SECTION 30, T31 N, R22W, W \ CITY OF LINO LAKES, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA MMann TM.MY2111 WITalkI LEGEND tCMNKM2•.2 Non s OI in KS 12•421.2• • 22224 O 010121 &MCI NMnr An WOW .M1.b O 1010 --9 NOR: ARCHITECT TO ViJYFY ALL SETBACK PEOUPEWENTS. MCLIAM' POSSIBLE 6ETLAM SETBACK. OUTLOT A LOT AREA 4256.5683 50 FT 1.0160 ACRES PARK 1 we C• Imola • Mb IK• I NISI MINS M ICr NOS ra Wilke. MOM CUNT MIMOAW scab g ala s w M2•1r1p NOY EO r-1Aa COMM MANX -1ner 2110021.022 AI A WAN . - .M.san 2. 11.M.r WS A BtMIgL 2212• %OW MO IC 2•a' an tv Iola MCA Moil 211.2/021111 10 VS w Mr. MIM I MOM . 1 ROT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS MIM t. Suw MN! NM= 1211221. MIR Ann 0112=11111121 s 11211111[ MONT 122112 t0 RR CM- 22 WV -9-9, MMM CM MO M MU MC IMO M RT TNI. YT • RT an 212022 Or ye WC aft lir AMM 106 AMO P)/131111 f OnM1M10• M1.N 8 SIM 9 / / S 2•.M sJ. . / LOT 1, BLOCK 3. July 2•n Maa CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 1.r ,MtMJIN .i 0 0 1AM0i Nav mouKArw•I 1.I 42•nR p 9970 •••222E 11 2•. 0. M . NMT /MO" 1•12122T2• IN MMMT Me 12.2111222 I1 I. X %am tTT IOW 11•e12.01 re 2•l I 22 _ 24162021. 2•222112CO24 µT1*1 rX AMaNuv `1 .e vale. MMM.ti IMI ▪ O Via nM -9w22 NN naT .MMk 22 { 0M912102 .1.[ Warr IML 1MCIOA MMC N0-1Mt KEMPER Sc ASSOCIATES INC. LAND SURVEYING • ENGINEERING PI4IAUCK OR10E PARK 2722 19V. 704. SLC 130 ST. PAIR. 1MIMSOTA 35112 072-031-0331 FAS 012 -671 -MOS AGENDA ITEM V C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland DATE: 6/7/96 TOPIC: EAM, 4th Avenue, Site Plan Review BACKGROUND: CNH Architects has submitted a site plan review package for Emergency Maintenance Apparatus (EAM). MIwouldlike to construct a 5,250 -square foot building with 5,600 square feet of future expansion area on 4th Avenue next to the Klosner-Goertz building in the Apollo Business Park. The building will consist of office, warehousing area, and repair bays. The proposed site is approximately one acre in size, is zoned General Industrial, and is shown as industrial on the city's Land Use Plan. EAM repairs, customizes and upgrades emergency apparatus for fire departments, including the Centennial Fire District, and is a distributor for pumps, lighting, foam systems and valves. They have been leasing space in Blaine since 1987 and currently employ six people. They anticipa employee every 18 months. EDAAB has recommended awf and will be providing TIF to cover the cut of a portion of the s• SITE PLAN REVIEW: SETBACKS: The building is proposed to be constructed 60 feet back from 4th Avenue. The required setback from a collector or arterial street is 50 feet. BUILDING EXTERIOR: The proposed construction is rock face concrete block, with accent colored block striping. It will be compatible with other buildings in the business park. BUILDING HEIGHT: The building will be 18 feet dear in height. 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: Eight parking stalls will be provided and include one handicapped van space. The proposed construction based on the number of employees actually requires six. CIRCULATION AND ACCESS: One 26 -foot wide access drive off of 4th Avenue is indicated on the site plan. Since there will be no access to Apollo Drive, the drive is not subject to review by Anoka County. LANDSCAPING: The landscaping plan submitted shows a variety of decorative trees and shrubs along 4th Avenue and in front of the building, plus several pine trees to be used for screening the parking area from 4th Avenue. The Community Service Officer has recommended the pines be replaced with decorative trees so that the area is not totally screened from view. LIGHTING: A detailed lighting plan was not submitted. We would recommend that a plan be provided and reviewed by our Community Service Officer to ensure compliance with CEPTED recommendations prior to issuance of the building permit. LOADING AND TRASH HANDLING: The trash handling area was not included on the site plan. It is proposed to be located and screened on the northeast side of the building on the concrete pad. SIGNS: All signage must conform with the city Sign Ordinance. UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE: 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 the site. An underground storage tank shown on the site "plan contains water for testing equipment. ROOF TOP HEATINGNENTILATING UNITS: No roof top units are involved in this construction project. 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 ensure 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 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 comply with the City Sign Ordinance and proper permits obtained. 7. 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 concrete pad on the east side of the building in the proposed expansion area. 8. The contractor shall review final construction documents with the Community Service officer to ensure compliance with CEPTED recommendations. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of the site plan review with conditions outlined above. 2. Return to staff for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 12 I I 0 9 -Op 5 111 .x-:;5".••;) 2 .3 a I ' ,Is49%.0$114_,jr8t, ti",..,44,1 ' 41N) 17 11)_?•EN tkk..ri • itlY '4v,Vrjfkik• r.:',Dtkt,,p3 tk9ri ,it-LOU;i.riiEr,ieva ,_ L.1", itra ..., •azgc 4 1:,,iiiti,itql rS15.Littai dei'll" "" zo y:itokap, _ re' 11 itte i=tirno Aillgw4mv.:n-cnv:Ic gPriill .04".1.15PPen4: ptu arm trt:Zikiiitf:,7C ... ' .• ' •• ,KiDfaIMIM 911= OW rismgo-nt, Two' Fra 'AM ©� En'ilaulilria?:V Ei MIMI MI ill 'Lam B'.14, gi 111111,11 gta • , 0 4 En MIMI . r ra ,__.- , At n 0 , .-C, ffilicralleill Er.;O:Le 'fi E:11 III cigmlValliall 15.4mi )73,7irt.:',„,, MANlk all 11. Ci %Lfl-4- fillaiirliNIRM 4 ElleNIUM,;-04g . . - if)iir 12 Pittipog 7tf re — :. . 4,4111;INWPWar i. fQDiVgr '6` "‘'oleimw 11:7"1" • •°,,, MARSHAN LAK -.s .—._..—._. • .aasr.a.cf ai+a W.I.v« YAaa1...a7 u.af. s ads sseraa.c 1 Dowd rw.w LLS 111/1110,11111111r/MS ti .tp xna$1 r w Moa. fRA 1/1.1'R . RAS. fRefel.4 If W . AIMSnefMa maw ♦M 4 MOM Aa MINA rv.axwrq r tart SGHEMATIG WEST EL.EVATIGN ....,,m MRS &A..e AMR, raam MX Nee CPpCIL ROM MGM P.M CnLeCit .fl AGSM' 44A1:0 AMA IKL &ARAM WAX V, - r-1 1 ////,/,r,1'/!/////////„///✓////,//!L/„//Y /' A . !/LIUY,V Y /N/I(/T -� EMERGE ICY APPARATUS r`, -_-_---- -- "7 mnow i/1/I//.il///!///////J/////,///,/////r//,/,/,,/Y,//, rl,ll}A;,/-4,/ /✓/✓,;,;J;/;,;;;;,,N,i//(,/ /i7 4_ 1 I 1 1 I 1 I� '.... -'-t --r1 -, -L. I =N _ rIl . rI 'T' , r ' 11111111111111111111111111I 1 ______ 10111111111111H11TT ._____,7___ `'1'1 -7 ��� I♦��I• TT �j I " I`1 1I I I I f -1— 7r' — /�// / tri/ �����>�iY ' f i S,,,II T%iori0 4,4,7 :i / �fr IW : j. �f���o Ar ��ii� I . I I SGHEMATIG WEST EL.EVATIGN ....,,m MRS &A..e AMR, raam MX Nee CPpCIL ROM MGM P.M CnLeCit .fl AGSM' 44A1:0 AMA IKL &ARAM WAX V, - r-1 1 ////,/,r,1'/!/////////„///✓////,//!L/„//Y /' A . !/LIUY,V Y /N/I(/T -� MM=_-- "7- r`, -_-_---- -- "7 mnow _lmonsomill Itimeim L_ ._____,7___ `'1'1 " I`1 1I I I I f -1— 7r' — -.� _ L �--T -, r r 1 1 _ I 1 1 I [ 1 -rte- - r aT _ r`ru ^' / 1 - f� I 'z SCHEMATIC SI2JJH 9 FVATIGN naa+WWm UMW rt.vus ALCpIf ulA® Iq]l MQ (.MAIL Riot MCA PAM LAMM ROM oatco tunes, tevr MRIPr aURI NM P.M MGM, races AAat FOWL iNpCIL RAX a RAMORM. GAI ese a• AL o I,! - fp • • • COMM:9629 S/22/96 EMERGENCY APPARATUS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS M U n r 01 7 OFFICE 0 MEN 0 STOCK ROOM Nal 111[111. Ldiil lldlb sr -s• REPAIR BAYS 111 A SG1-tEMATIG FLOOR FLAN 5(:1 vt _rd CO4w:9629 5/22/96 EMERGENCY APPARA �} G 3 17, g� 3 FLOOR PLAN U V) AGENDA ITEM V D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland DATE: 6/7/96 TOPIC: Blue Heron II, Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review BACKGROUND: The Blue Heron I1 project involves the construction of a 35,000 -square foot building just west of the newly constructed Blue Heron Phase I building. It will contain 11,600 square feet of office space and 23,400 square feet of warehouse space. The property is located in the Apollo Business Center which is zoned Light industrial. Office and warehousing are permitted uses within this zoning district. It is the developer's intent to offer space for rent in 3,500 square foot increments. A dock area is provided to access the warehousing portion of the building. This phase also requires a minor subdivision and site plan review. MINOR SUBDIVISION: The developer is also requesting a minor subdivision that will create a 3.1 -acre parcel. Staff has reviewed this request and would recommend approval. The minimum lot size requirement in the Light Industrial Zoning District is '1 acre with 100' of lot width. The proposed subdivision will exceed the zoning requirements. Additionally, the developer will be required to provide park dedication consistent with our Park Dedication Ordinance. A certificate of survey should be provided prior to City Council action of this subdivision. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN REVIEW: SETBACKS: The building is proposed to be constructed 50 feet from Apollo Drive, which meets the required setback from an arterial or collector roadway. BUILDING EXTERIOR: The proposed building exterior is rock face block and breakoff block design to match the construction used in Phase I. BUILDING HEIGHT: The office and warehouse area will be 20' feet clear. GREEN AREA: A minimum of 10% green area is required by the Zoning Ordinance. The site plan shows a 16% green area. OFF-STREET PARKING: 95 parking stalls plus four van handicapped stalls are indicated on the site plan. This meets the ADA requirements for handicapped vehicles, and exceeds the number of parking spaces required by the city. CIRCULATION AND ACCESS: A 40 -foot shared access drive with Blue Heron Phase I is indicated on the site plan. This is in compliance with Anoka County requirements on Apollo Drive. The drive is subject to review and approval by Anoka County. A shared driveway agreement will be required. LANDSCAPING: A landscaping plan has been submitted which indicates a number of Chinese lilac, Norway maples, ash, spruce and other ornamental shrubbery. All sod and planting areas are to have water irrigation systems. We recommend the landscaping on the southwest corner be revised to ensure compliance with CEPTED recommendations. LIGHTING: A lighting plan was not submitted with the site plan. We recommend that a plan be provided and reviewed by our Community Service Officer to ensure compliance with CEPTED recommendations prior to issuance of the building permit. LOADING AND TRASH HANDLING: All exterior trash is to be stored in 7 -foot high masonry enclosures that match the exterior of the building. 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: Proper storage and disposal of any hazardous materials generated on the site must be ensured by the developer. ROOF TOP HEATINGNENTILATING UNITS: All roof top HVAC units are to be screened with standing seam metal panels. 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 ensure 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 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 comply with the City Sign Ordinance and proper permits obtained. 7. Concrete curb, gutter and bituminous paving shall be provided for all access driveways and parking areas. 8. The developer receive access permits from Anoka County. 9. The developer pay the required park dedication fees. 10. A shared driveway agreement be included in the development contract. 11. The contractor shall review final construction documents with the Community Service officer to ensure compliance with CEPTED recommendations. 12. A certificate of survey shall be provided prior to City Council action on the minor subdivision. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval of the site plan review with conditions outlined above. 2. Recommend approval of the minor subdivision as submitted. 3. Return to staff for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION: Options 1 and 2 1111111 611 OUTLOT s Lk4 O lAIR PARK NORTH � _ �mmNM IfirrN rtani" '- .r — - - - LAC----/TKLT— _�.' -.. .....•.1 Ili 0 E ensue � d4"44 km vs,,S} �F4: wpm pli2f 2ceKt'2M w- miss Pr:se. WI= ti' 'Zip -ii g5ti4.13 41111111, FE= _4i"litvt'' r4t-7,9 riamira inieremar,mrtzm il' jaC11111311' ,1 �., :t < Mg.uKlixa,xy 5P II 111111011 —• ii 1lVii 212171LOVai MI U4 fiVi' PIP FL1631 'II (4 �'9di73f67 A �! gas user < assB« ;=-5� 7 - -- - s o ria d . _ .,y_ �...--2.474r;=-5!4", ,4,PMN -es RETENTION POW :I.. ;liar LOCATION MAP SITE PROPOSED BLUE HERON 11 PROJECT SITE PLAN NORTH SCALE 1' 40'-0" NOTES 1.) ALL EXTERCRTRA9I TO BE STOPED IN 7•-0' HIGH MASONR0 ENCLOGUFES TO MATCH BUILDING 2) ALL ROOF TOP HVAC UNITS TO BE SCREENED WITH STANDING SEMI METAL PANELS 3.) BIT PAVING TO BE AS FOLLOWS 5' CLASS 5 CRUSHED GRAVEL B ON APPROVED SUB GRACE 2" BITUMINOUS MAT 112' BTUMINOIS WEAR COURSE PUNT SCHEDULE MARK PLANT A LILAC 900889EENSIS BMRE A0,016 CER PLAPUTANOIOES TON, C BERGESON ASH PA ONUS PEINSTLVAMCA LANCE OUTA D PICEA DE0SATFRUCE 5COTSVLVTPNE 1206 ESTNS ANOORAJUNIPER JINIPEIWS HOMZONTALUS )PLUM05A) NOTE, W TER R85PL N9YCEM STO WAVE 11 BLUE HERON LTD 1500 JACKSON ST N.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 VOICE 7886840 FAX 789 0608 ROOT BBB Bab 85B B 885 Bae CONTRACTOR RIVER WOODS DEVELOPMENT CORP 1500 JACKSON ST N MENNEAPOIIS, MN 55413 VOICE 788 6840 FAX 789 0608 073 4 2 42 ARCHITECT CHARLES J. RADLOFF ARCHITECT 9979 VALLEY VIEW RD SUITE 9256 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55544 VOICE 9411667 FAX 941 5240 ZONING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SITE AREA 3.1 ACRES GREEN AREA 21,150 SQ FT 1696 CODE 1994 UBC OCCUPANCY 8/F/5 CONSTRUCTION TYPE V FIRE PROTECTION AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM BUILDING AREA 35,000 SQ FT OFFICE 11,600 SQFT WAREHOUSE 23,400 SQFT PARKING 95 CARS 4 VAN AC HC TOTAL 99 CARS PROJECT BLUE HERON OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE INTERSTATE 35W APOLLO DRIVE LINO LAKES, MN SHEET DATA REVISIONS SHEET TITLE 1«2 SHEET NUMBER G SOUTH ELEVATION II '1 II'll NORTH ELEVATION G®� i EAT ELEVATION IIll R,.;. r. II WEST ELEVATION II� C. Z� I`Iry�� 1� !I UNIT 1 UNITE r Ir , NORTH FLOOR PLAN �I I BLUE HERON 1500 JACKSON ST N.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 VOICE 7886840 FAX 7890608 PROPOSED BLUE HERON 11 PROJECT CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT RIVER WOODS CHARLES J. RADLOFF DEVELOPMENT 1500 JACKSON CRP MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 VOICE 7886840 FAX 7890608 ARCHITECT 9979 VALLEY VIEW RD SUITE 4256 EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 55344 VOICE 941 1667 FAX 941 5240 PROJECT BLUE HERON OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE INTERSTATE 35W APOLLO DRIVE LINO LAKES, MN SHEET DATA REVISIONS SHEET TITLE 2 .SF 2 SHEET NUMBER REVISED 06/12/96 AGENDA ITEM V E STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Nyland DATE June 6, 1996 TOPIC 96-17-P, Alan Donat, 8134 Rondeau Drive East, Minor Subdivision Mr. Alan Donat of 8124 Rondeau Drive East has requested a minor subdivision to allow a 16.76 acre parcel to be split into two. He has an existing home which will remain on 6.76 acres an will be creating an additional building site of 10.00 acres for future development. Mr. Donat has revised this request from the original submittal to avoid a wetland along 81st Street. Access for both parcels will be off Rondeau Lake Road. The property is Zoned Rural and indicated as such on the City's Land Use Map. As the P & Z is aware, Ordinance No. 93-18 allows a property construction prior to July of 1992 to reduce the homesite to a minimum of one acre provided the balance of the site is 10 acres or more. Staff has reviewed the request and would recommend approval with the condition that a $500 Park Dedication Fee be require for the 12 acre parcel and that this fee be collected prior to recording of the subdivision with the County. 1. Approve minor subdivision with Park Dedication requirement. 2. Return to staff for further consideration. • Option 1 44-042. ?33? �� 1Is 33 336 ti "O >40 zjssss?a". SUBD/V/S/O N ---26296--- 8944.L/12E_68 • 01� / xis ri G fh 9 x oo--- 0 FENCE x p 41J Vi• y ' O' . ti • ti ti y LOT 3 Z /0.00 Ac. 0 METAL BLDG • 4 4v V NUMBER 49 A_ z & 7(, A. ?T 3 //4 W1 44— ---N89°54'/2"W 371./3--- a ,N89°54' /2"W 6.99 ANOKA COUNTY --- 427.9/--- 3'13 co S 89°54'/2'E I' /03.00 -` ' a4,! �4�/0� , ROPOSED \ "a c."10,1�DRA/NAGE-2 _ // EASEMENT SWAMP ---N 89` 54' /2"W i/6/7.00--- >33.00 --6/7.00--L� LN00°52'40 E u+ ��_ SQOvOu---300.OP- -- \II 8I S t---N.89444'.2"W 1044.9/--- STREET \SOUTH L/NE LOT 3 AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 49 REV/SED (SOUTH LINE NW //4 - SW//4 SECT/ON 2) h . EAST 4 SOUTHEAST COR. LOT 3 0 • Orii STAFF ORIGINATOR Al Brixius/Bob Kermis - Northwest Associated Consultants DATE TOPIC see attached report June 6, 1996 96-20-PD©/Rezone/Preliminary Plat Bruce Hanson, Surfside Seaplane Base Duni -ter -ice i led Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH Mary Kay Vlfyland Bob lfirmis 7 June 1996 Lino lakes - Surfside Addition Rezoning and Final Plat 194.01 - 96.05 submitted ins to deep five, air strip accessible single portion of a 18_6 acre pal of land located east of Lake and efly, such lots are Intended to be provided access to the Base via ataxiway easement The erect propertyis B, General Business. To accommodate the proposed cevelopment, the following amtrovals 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Land Use Plea). 2. Rezoning of`the eastern portion of the site (air strip accessible lots) from GB, General Business to R -1X, Single Family Executive. 3. PDO overlay of air strip accessible lots to accommodate to oversized accessory buildings. Preliminary plat. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Bled Site Location Exhibit C - Land Use Plan Exhibit D - Preliminary Plat Exhibit E - House/Hanger Detail Exhibit F - Air Safety Zones MN 55416 • (612) 535-9636•Fax. 595-9837 JUN -07-1996 12:02 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02 Recommendation The City's 1991 Comprehensive Plan suggests commercial use of the subject property. While the down zoning of property is commonly discouraged within the City (unless a land trade is negotiated) a rezoning of the eastern portion of the subject property may be justified in consideration of the site's context and physical characteristics of the site. Also to be noted is that the area in question is to be subject to specific study as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. In this light, rezoning at this time may be considered premature. Matters of land use appropriateness are, however, considered City policy issues to be determined by City officials. If the City finds the proposed R-1X/PDO rezoning to be acceptable, it should be approved only upon fulfillment of the following: • The necessary Comprehensive Plan amendment is approved by the Metropolitan Council. • The City approve the proposed subdivision (parcel must be created to which R -1X zone is to be applied). Should the City approve the requested rezoning, our office recommends approval of the Surfside Addition preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The preliminary plat is revised such that Lot.6 and Outlot A are combined with the adjacent Surfside Seaplane base property. 2. Hanger building materials and heights are specified and found to comply with applicable City requirements. 3. Seaplane hangers not exceed 2,400 square feet in size. 4. No detached accessory buildings other than the Seaplane hangers are allowed_ 5. A copy of restrictive covenants be applied to the proposed residential Tots are submitted for City review and approval. Such covenants must address architectural requirements for hangers and include a provision that such hangers are to be used solely for airplane (seaplane) and related equipment storage. 6. It is demonstrated to the City that wetland boundaries have been delineated by a qualified individual. 2 JUN -07-1996 12:03 NAC 612 595 9837 P.03 7. Drainage and utility easements are provided along all lot lines and a drainage easement is provided over the site's wetland. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. 8. All park dedication requirements as determined by the City Park Board are satisfactorily met. 9. A grading and drainage plan be submitted. Such plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 10. All conditions of operation as required by the FAA and/or Minnesota Department of Aeronautics are satisfied. 11. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to utility issues. 12. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan Amendment: As noted previously, both a Comprehensive Plan amendment (minor) and rezoning will be necessary to accommodate the proposed use; These requests are interrelated considering that a basis for rezoning evaluation is the use's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the applicants have proposed to rezone the eastern one-half of the subject property from GB, General Business to R 1X, Single Family Executive. The portion of the subject property which flanks the Lake Drive corridor is to retain its existing GB, General Business zoning designation. That portion of the site proposed for R -1X zoning is to be overlaid by a PDO, Planned Development Overlay zoning designation. Such designation will allow some flexibility from the strict provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, particularly in regard to accessory building requirements. In review of all rezoning requests, the following criteria should be considered. Comprehensive Plan. As shown on Exhibit B, the City's Land Use Plan suggests commercial (business) use of the subject property. While the western 7.6 acres of the subject property (along Lake Drive) is proposed to retain its current GB zoning designation, the proposed residential use (rezoning) of the eastem 11.0 acres will require an amendment to the City's Land Use Plan. 3 JUN -07-1996 12:03 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04 While the City's economic development policy discourages the down zoning of commercial property, it is believed the physical characteristics of the eastern portion of the site make future commercial use questionable (Le., visibility, wetland containment, etc.). In this regard, the proposed air strip accessible residential lots may represent an appropriate use of the eastern portion of property. The proposed residential use is also supported by the following Comprehensive Plan policies: • Future community development shall take into account social, economic, and environmental opportunities and constraints in an effort to provide an optimal arrangement of future land use activities. A variety of residential development types is desirable and shall be encouraged in the community. Particular areas of the City shall be designated for each of the desired housing types which range from multi family residential to rural. While the preceding policies would tend to support the proposed land use, a change to the City's Land Use Plan is considered a matter of City policy to be determined by City officials. Also to be noted in this matter is that the issue of land use appropriateness of the area will be specifically examined as part of the City's pending Comprehensive Plan Update. If the City feels rezoning of the subject property would, at this time, be "premature", the postponing of action may be considered. Such action should, however, be contingent upon a request for extension by the applicant. The requested rezoning request should be subject to recommendation by the EDAB. Compatibility. To determine the compatibility of the proposed use, it is considered beneficial to examine existing and anticipated land uses which surround the subject property. The following is a listing of land uses and zoning designations which lie adjacent to the subject property: Direction Land Use Zoning North Multiple Family 1174 South Residential R-1 East Surfside Seaplane Base R-1 West Commercial GB 4 JUN -07-1996 12:04 NAC 612 595 9837 P.05 In many ways, the proposed land use represents a westward expansion of the Surfside Seaplane Base, as all residential units are to have base access via a taxiway easement. Considering the orientation of dwelling units and the existence (and location) of the site's wetland, it is believed the proposed residential use can compatibly exist upon the subject property. Public Services. Public sanitary sewer and water service is available to the subject property as a result of the Marshan Townhomes development This issue should be subject to comment by the City Engineer. Performance Standards. As part of the City's consideration of the preliminary plat and forthcoming final plat, the proposed use will be required to comply with applicable performance standards. Specific items of issue will be discussed in the preliminary plat review section of this report. Preliminary Plat: In addition to the rezoning/Comprehensive Plan amendment request, the applicant has also requested preliminary plat approval of a seven lot subdivision, six Tots of which are to be rezoned to an R -1X zoning designation. The remaining lot along Lake Drive is to retain its existing GB, General Business zoning designation. Lot Layout. While the general lot layout is viewed as acceptable, some concerns exist in regard to the designations of Lot 6 and Outlot A. Technically, a lot cannot be created within the City which is not provided public street access. While it is acknowledged that Lot 6 is to overlay a wetland, it is recommended that the lot be combined with the adjacent Surfside Seaplane Base property which lies to the east. Likewise, it is also recommended that Outlot A (located in the northeast portion of the subject site) be combined with the existing Seaplane Base property to avoid the creation of a lot remnant. Lot Dimensional Requirements. All proposed Tots have been found to comply with R -1X and GB District dimensional requirements, as listed below 5 JUN -07-1996 12:04 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06 =Interior lot width requirement applicable. As noted previously, it is recommended that Lot 6 (which is overlaid almost entirely by a wetland) and Outlot A be legally combined with the adjacent Seaplane Base property. Streets. No new streets have been proposed as part of the proposed subdivision. The air strip accessible lots are to receive access from Aqua Lane while the commercially zoned parcel (Lot 7) is to be provided access from the west via Lake Drive. PDO, Planned Development Overlay. To accommodate the unique and creative circumstances surrounding the proposed air strip accessible residential lots (e.g. air hangers), a PDO, Planned Development Overlay of such Tots has been proposed. The PDO designation will allow for some flexibility from the strict provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, particularly in regard to accessory building requirements. Appropriately, the applicant has submitted plans detailing hanger locations, sizes and relationships to principal structures. According to the submitted plans, Seaplane hangers are to measure a maximum of 2,400 square feet in size (40 feet by 60 feet). As part of the PDO, the following conditions should be upheld: 1. Hanger building materials and height are specified. 2. Seaplane hangers not exceed 2,400 square feet in size. 3. No other detached accessory buildings other than the referenced hangers are allowed. 4. A copy of applicable restrictive covenants to be applied to the Airpark lots should be submitted for City review and approval. The aforementioned site plan should require architectural controls be placed upon hangers and specify that such hangers are to be used solely for airplane (seaplane) and related equipment storage. 6 R -1X District (Lots 1-5) GB District (Lot 7) Required Proposed Required Proposed Lot Area 12,825 SF 37,500 SF 20,000 SF . 7.6 acres Lot Width- 90 feet 125 feet 100 feet 900+ feet Lot Depth 135 feet 300 feet None 280 feet =Interior lot width requirement applicable. As noted previously, it is recommended that Lot 6 (which is overlaid almost entirely by a wetland) and Outlot A be legally combined with the adjacent Seaplane Base property. Streets. No new streets have been proposed as part of the proposed subdivision. The air strip accessible lots are to receive access from Aqua Lane while the commercially zoned parcel (Lot 7) is to be provided access from the west via Lake Drive. PDO, Planned Development Overlay. To accommodate the unique and creative circumstances surrounding the proposed air strip accessible residential lots (e.g. air hangers), a PDO, Planned Development Overlay of such Tots has been proposed. The PDO designation will allow for some flexibility from the strict provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, particularly in regard to accessory building requirements. Appropriately, the applicant has submitted plans detailing hanger locations, sizes and relationships to principal structures. According to the submitted plans, Seaplane hangers are to measure a maximum of 2,400 square feet in size (40 feet by 60 feet). As part of the PDO, the following conditions should be upheld: 1. Hanger building materials and height are specified. 2. Seaplane hangers not exceed 2,400 square feet in size. 3. No other detached accessory buildings other than the referenced hangers are allowed. 4. A copy of applicable restrictive covenants to be applied to the Airpark lots should be submitted for City review and approval. The aforementioned site plan should require architectural controls be placed upon hangers and specify that such hangers are to be used solely for airplane (seaplane) and related equipment storage. 6 JUN -07-1996 12:04 NAC 612 595 9837 P.07 5. PDO performance standards shall be recorded with the properties in question and shall apply regardless of ownership. Setbacks. All R -1X lots (proposed) have been found to have an ability to comply with the following R -1X District setbacks: Wetland. Lot 6 of the proposed subdivision is overlaid almost entirely by a wetland. While no wetland impact/ mitigation has been proposed, specific wetland boundaries must be delineated by a person recognized as qualified by the City for such work. To ensure that such wetland is reserved for the storage of storm water, it is recommended that a drainage easement over the wetland be provided. This issue should be subject to further comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Easements. As mentioned previously, a drainage easement should be placed over the subject site's wetland. Additionally, drainage and utility easements should be placed along all lot lines. To gain access to hangers, a 50 foot wide private taxiway easement has been proposed. Applicable restrictive covenants should address maintenance responsibilities for such easement. Parks. The proposed subdivision should be subject to review and comment by the City Park Board in regard to preferred dedication requirements. Grading and Drainage. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, a grading and drainage plan must be submitted subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Air Space Obstruction Zoning. The subject property lies directly adjacent to the Surfside Seaplane Base landing strip. According to the FAA, the following setback requirements are imposed on private landing strips: • 125 foot setback from runway centerline. • 200 foot setback from roadway ends. 7 Required Setback Front Yard 30 feet Side Yard - Principal Building Side Yard - Accessory Building 10 feet 5 feet Rear Yard - Principal Building Rear Yard - Accessory Building 30 feet} 5 feet Wetland. Lot 6 of the proposed subdivision is overlaid almost entirely by a wetland. While no wetland impact/ mitigation has been proposed, specific wetland boundaries must be delineated by a person recognized as qualified by the City for such work. To ensure that such wetland is reserved for the storage of storm water, it is recommended that a drainage easement over the wetland be provided. This issue should be subject to further comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Easements. As mentioned previously, a drainage easement should be placed over the subject site's wetland. Additionally, drainage and utility easements should be placed along all lot lines. To gain access to hangers, a 50 foot wide private taxiway easement has been proposed. Applicable restrictive covenants should address maintenance responsibilities for such easement. Parks. The proposed subdivision should be subject to review and comment by the City Park Board in regard to preferred dedication requirements. Grading and Drainage. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, a grading and drainage plan must be submitted subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Air Space Obstruction Zoning. The subject property lies directly adjacent to the Surfside Seaplane Base landing strip. According to the FAA, the following setback requirements are imposed on private landing strips: • 125 foot setback from runway centerline. • 200 foot setback from roadway ends. 7 JUN -07-1996 12:05 NAC 612 595 9837 P.08 • 20 to 1 approach may not be obstructed. In addition to the aforementioned requirements, uses proximate to the landing strip must comply with the safety zone requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (see Exhibit F for reference). Zone A. Areas designated as Zone A shall contain no buildings, temporary structures, exposed transmission lines, or other similar above -ground land use structural hazards, and shall be restrictive to those uses which will not create, attract, or bring together an assembly of persons thereon. Permitted uses may include, but are not limited to, such uses as agriculture (seasonal crops), horticulture, animal husbandry, raising of livestock, wildlife habitat, light outdoor recreation (non -spectator), cemeteries, vehicle parking lots, and single family dwellings. Zone B. Areas designated as Zone B shall be restricted in use as follows: 1. Each use shall be on a site whose area shall not be less than one (1) acre. 2. The following uses are specifically prohibited in Zone B: churches, hospitals, schools, theaters, stadiums, hotels and motels, campgrounds, and other places of frequent public or semi-public assembly. As shown on Exhibit F, the land use safety zones do not appear to have an impact on the submitted development plan. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, all applicable conditions of operations are specked by the FAA and/or Minnesota Department of Aeronautics must be satisfied. Utilities. Utilities for the proposed single family dwellings are to be extended from Aqua Lane. The City Engineer should provide comment and recommendation in regard to utility issues. CONCLUSION While our office believes justification exists to approve the requested R -1X rezoning and PDO overlay, changes in land use are considered matters of City policy to be determined by City officials. Should the City approve the requested rezoning, our office recommends approval of the Surfside Addition plat subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. 8 JUN -07-1996 12:05 NAC 612 595 9837 P.10 NORTH 1 MILE CITY OF LINO LAKES MINNESOTA EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION JUN -07-1996 12:06 NAC ego •••• ••• 7600 R 1 612 595 9837 P . 11 MARSHAN LAKE 7000 67 4i • .I'.4:* • EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION JUN -07-1996 12:08 WY U...6 :::'. Trt a e I • • NAC PU 612 595 9E37 P.12 AVIA BILITaT ': LE ti r tT Amarricov, ar/! o-0 ', 1' MARSHAN LAKE • • REE EXHIBIT C - LAND USE PLA' JUN -07-1996 12:09 NRC 612 595 9837 P.13 • PRELIMINARY PLAT OF: PROPOSED SURFSIDE ADDITION FOR: 9RUCE MIM HAN30N ACREAGE/WIDTH/DEPTI-1 TABULATION; LOT j SQUARE FEET ACREAGE SETBACK WIDTH DEPTH LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 OUTLOT A _ 37,501 sq_ft. 37.501 sq.ft. 37,501 sq.ft. 37.501 sq.ft. 36,127 sq.ft. 265,083 sq.ft. 329,602 sq.ft_ 27.908 sq.ft. 0.86 acres 0.86 acres 0.86 acres 0.86 acres 0.83 acres 6.09 acres 7.56 acres 0.64 acres 125.0 ft. wide 125.0 ft. wide 125.0 ft. wide 125.0 ft. wide 125.0 ft. wide 1350 ft. wide 900+ ft. wide 300 ft. deep 300 ft. deep 300 ft. deep 300 ft. deep 300 ft. deep 100-420 ft. deep 280-400 ft. deep , iTOTAL AREA, 808.724 sq.ft. 18.57 ocres ,EXHIBIT D - PRELIMINARY PLAT JUN -07-1996 12:10 NAC XISTING SAN. MN INV:NO.54 Cor- of Gov't t 3, Sec. 20 — EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINES --•• wAlfERMAIN ILJA 15W It • • • • .• • I I • • :" f':• 7 • .0.. h • IL •111 • 1•I 1 1 1 612 595 9837 P . 14 N FIWPC7SED5Ati NV..8.97.00- UN I EXISTING 8P.V.C. SANITARY SEWER 0 0,40X N. line of Govt EXISTING HYDRANT & " POviER ur Lot 3. Sec. 20 EXISTING 12* D.I.P. PROPOSED SANITARY EXISTING C SEWER 385' • 0.44% 0 ce 0 oil' 413- cIP 4.EXISTING 12* DIP. % • -: ., --, / ...-• \ • . 55.1 2 HOME • 898,0 It) to 32.5. HANGER 898.5 2co 0 r co 0 0 50' ER 5.00• 12 .• • Rate SHADED AREA MOM AL. BUSNeSS O P- 1 1 • • • . "•• -1,- • • I 1" 1 • • • -8,94 JUN -07-1996 12:10 NAC 612 595 983? P.15 PF?OPOSED HOUSE/HANGER 1-40'4UT 0 0 r) 32.5 125.00 0 PROPOSED HOUSE PAD 0 rn 60.0' of PROPOSED HANGER CONCRETE 15' APRON ---- 0 0 1- 125.00 0 1 PROPOSED HOUSE PAD 0 rn 60.0' PROPOSED HANGER 15' 0 15' r1 1 O 50' GRASS 125.00' TAXIWAY ° EASEMENT 125.00' 15' 0 0 0 32.5' CON CRE TE — APRON 0 EXHIBIT E • HOUSE/HANGER DETAIL 612 595 9837 P.16 MARSHAN LAKE RICE LAKE EXHIBIT F - AIR SAFETY ZONES TllTOI 17 1 G AGENDA ITEM V I STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE June 6, 1996 TOPIC 96-21-V, Gary Sandahl, 478 Lonesome Pine, Variance Mr. Gary Sandahl is requesting a Variance from Section 4, Subd. 31 Swimming Pools (1) (D) which states: The pool filter unit, pump heating unit and any noise making mechanical equipment shall be located at least 35 feet from any adjacent or nearby residence and not closer than 10 feet to any lot line. The Planning and Zoning Board may recall that the proposed Zoning Ordinance has been modified under the swimming pool section by deleting the "35 feet from any adjacent or nearby residence" reference but keeping the 10 foot setback requirement. The proposed pool is currently located in a position that does not allow the property owner full view of the pool area from the kitchen area of the home as it must be located 25' from the property line to maintain a 35' distance from the adjoining residence. The applicant would like to locate the pool 10' from the side property line which would place it 20' from the adjoining residence. This would require a variance of 15' from the existing ordinance. No variance would be required if the proposed ordinance were approved as revised: For your information, the applicant does intend to locate the pool equipment adjacent to his existing residence. The Findings of Fact to consider in review of a Variance application include the following. A. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. The pool could be located within the required setback, however, full view would not be available from within the home. B. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. There are no unique characteristics to this reques t . C. That the hardship is not due to economic Considerations alone and when a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The applicant could consider a smaller sized pool or locating the pool in a different area on the property al though it May be more costly. D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Staff is anticipating adoption of the revised zoning ordinance which would eliminate the need for this request. E. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within he neighborhood. Property values should not be diminished one way or the other - however, that is a subjective statement. F. That the proposed action will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance was to provide a separation between existing neighboring residences and pool equipment. Placement of the pool itself requires a 10' setback according to the existing ordinance and revised ordinance. For P & Z information, the applicant has supplied staff with a petition from twelve (12) adjoining property owners, including the owners immediately to the south, indicating no objections to the variance request. OPTIONS 1. Approve Variance request to allow pool construction 10 feet from side property line with condition that pool equipment be located adjacent to existing dwelling. 2. Deny Variance request. '.--0RECOMMENDATIONm ..............................................................:.. ................................................................. ................................................................. P & Z Discretion 1 ,O \ r $ 1 m/ 8798 �\ to 89.7 2S . 899 6 4 -?/a IAA;ty Drca;nacje., base n -K:— - . i r r (i. .!4 142►fl Vocarck- Loti, Block 6, PINERIDGE ADDITION swords shown ars from plats of record or Information provided by 'edify that this Is a true and correct representation of a survey of the of the above described land and the location of all buildings and vis- ,hmsnts► M any, from or on said land. us mss_ 26th day of February 19 92 699. Signed ioo 0 N x mond A. Prasch Minn. Reg. N LAKE RESHANAU MOWS, Rt°11151 -Vel_Eiffg. '4Ziat- larritif,•it,flar peepittlit TOMMO . • /MYR! i . 1.2 'Ar ai tzsTA , ililk: '41 4 To whom it may concern: Gary and Nancy Sandahl have my permision to put a in ground swimming pool in at 478 Lonesome Pine Trail, Lino Lakes Minnesota. 1 fully understand the swimming pool will be located 10 feet from the Sandahls south lot line. 7 2-6 4'g - %27 63o/ Co�la-4.%c.n4Y 5<19516�8s' ;3c9 Cepyoi-, 4184- 72o3 4)) 77: e - • G� 7o CG. e pAe Os - /'e 7k( on e ome Ali(' Tr/. %'Yy- `‘ 1 yd's -5'3Y 2181 / Q S P(J 2.1g2. oG Qf I-4 co 9LbN�sor� E 1 i�; � X 8 i- 0 - 31 ‘Y26( 6,yoEe T�,; ( qe661-0-( THANKYOU GAR AND N1\NCYCLNDAHL J Y AGENDA ITEM J STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland June 6, 1996 Jeff Kelly, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment PUBLIC HEARING DATE TOPIC Mr. Jeff Kelly is requesting a text amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance that would add "golf course and driving range" to the list of "Interim Uses" in the R -BR Zoning District. This particular Interim Use would cease at such time as the entire Zoning Ordinance is updated and golf courses/driving ranges become a permitted use in the R -BR Zoning District or some other event as determined by the P & Z and Council. As the Board will recall, a recommendation to add the permitted and conditional uses currently contained in the Rural Zoning District to the R -BR Zoning District has been recommended as a part of the current Zoning Ordinance update/revision and this would include golf courses and driving ranges. 1. Adopt Ordinance Amending the City's Zoning Ordinance, Appendix Bi Section 6, Subd. 21, R -BR by adding Golf Course/Driving Range as an Interim Use 2. Refer to staff for further consideration. Option 1