HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/1994 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
AGENDA
February 9, 1994
6:30 P.M.
,904
4/4,0
I. Call to Order and Roll Call:
(NOTE: Election of Chairman and Vice -Chairman will
be postponed until the March meeting. The Mayor
will be making appointments/reappointments at their
February 14, 1994 meeting)
II. Approval of Minutes:
January 12, 1994
III. OPEN MIKE:
IV. ACTION ITEMS:
A. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - Willow Ponds,
G. M. Development, Rezoning and Subdivision
B. PUBLIC HEARING - Pine Ridge II, Preliminary Plat
C. MINOR SUBDIVISION - Art LaCasse, 6609 24th
Avenue
D. VARIANCE - 1049 Black Duck Court
V. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
Planning & Zoning Board
January 12, 1994
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: John Landers moved and was supported by
Ed Schones to approve the minutes of the December 8, 1993
meeting as submitted. All voted aye. Rick Gelbmann
abstained.
III. OPEN MIKE: No one was present to speak under open mike.
IV. ACTION ITEMS:
A. Minor Subdivision, 582 Main Street, Francis Lichtscheidl
Planning Coordinator Wyland presented this item which involves
the subdivision of a 37 acre parcel of property Zoned R-1
Residential by removing a 1.94 acre piece of property
containing the homestead. The balance of the property would
then be available for development. A recently adopted
Ordinance, No. 93-18, provides "a habitable single family home
constructed prior to July 13, 1992, may reduce their lot size
to a minimum of one acre if the balance of the property
results in a parcel of ten acres...". Ms. Wyland explained
the history of the parcel and indicated that the staff felt
the proposed split serves the future development of the site
far better than the previously approved 5 acre split. Staff
has recommended approval with the condition that a 30' wide
drainage and utility easement be provided on the east property
line of the newly created 1.94 acre parcel.
Mr. Schones made a motion and was supported by Kathy Nordine
to approve the minor subdivision with the condition outlined
in the staff report. All voted aye. Motion carried.
B. Fox Trace, R. Properties Subdivision, Ware Rd/Hwy 49,
Continuation of Public Hearing
Planning Consultant Brixius reviewed this item which involves
the subdivision of a 25.67 acre parcel of property into 52 R-1
Single Family Lots. Staff is recommending that the north 33'
1
Planning & Zoning Board
January 12, 1994
of the existing roadway easement be vacated but the south 33',
on the Lehman property, be maintained. A temporary cul-de-sac
is being proposed on an easement on the property south (owned
by Vernon Lehman) of this site to serve the subdivision. This
easement will be for roadway purposes and will also serve as
future access to the Harold Lehman property located west of
the property containing the temporary cul-de-sac. Mr. Lehman
has agreed with this arrangement and been advised that the
easement would be wide enough to provide a roadway and avoid
the existing power poles, however, ultimate access to his
parcel may be provided further south when development actually
occurs. After a brief review Mr. Brixius explained that the
staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plat with
the conditions outlined in the January 5, 1994 Staff Report.
Mr. Schones had a question concerning the Ordinary High Water
(OHW) and the 100 year flood and which mark would apply in
this case. Mr. Brixius explained that the area was not within
a flood zone, therefore the 100 year flood elevation did not
apply, and not adjacent to water, therefore the OHW did not
apply. However, some wetlands had been delineated and will be
avoided. The lot areas are recommended to be a minimum of
10,800 without including any wetland area. The RCWD has also
reviewed the plat and recommended approval.
Mr. Tony Hager, adjoining property owner on Ware Road, was
present and asked if he would be assessed for sewer and water.
He was advised that he would not, unless he petitioned for the
improvement and wanted to be included. He also asked if it
would be possible for the developer to provide some type of
screening between his property and the proposed development.
He has an existing pole building and some exterior storage he
is concerned that new residents may not like the looks of. It
was suggested that he discuss this with the developer - no
recommendation on the matter was offered.
After some discussion Mr. Schones made a motion and was
supported by Mr. Gelbmann to approve the preliminary plat with
the conditions outlined in the staff report of January 5,
1994. All voted aye. Motion carried.
C. PIIBLIC HEARING- Willow Ponds Rezoning & Subdivision
The Planning and Zoning Board was advised that the developer
has requested this item be continued until the February 9,
1994 meeting. Mr. Gelbmann made a motion recommending that
the public hearing be continued until the February 9, 1994
meeting. Mr. Landers seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Motion carried to continue public hearing.
D. PIIBLIC HEARING - Pheasant Hills 5th Addition, Rezoning and
Preliminary Plat
Mr. Brixius reviewed this item which is a request to rezone a
portion of the proposed preliminary plat for Pheasant Hills
Fifth Addition and approve a revised preliminary plat. The
2
Planning & Zoning Board
January 12, 1994
portion to be rezoned consists of approximately 8.5 acres
which is currently zoned PSP and was recently subdivided from
a larger parcel owned by the School District. This piece is
to be added to the existing 17.3 acres, zoned R -1X, to become
Pheasant Hills Fifth Addition which consists of 36 single
family lots. Staff has recommended approval with the
conditions outlined in the January 5, 1994 Planning Report.
There was some discussion regarding Item 6 and the platting of
Outlots. Mr. Shopek, representing the developer, explained
that Pheasant Hills has a Homeowners Association and they
would be responsible for maintenance, taxes, etc. on the
Outlot. There are currently other Outlots platted within
Pheasant Hills.
Mr. Schones made a motion recommending approval of the
rezoning and was supported by Mr. Gelbmann. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
Mr. Landers made a motion and was supported by Mr. Schones to
approve the preliminary plat with the conditions indicated in
the staff report dated January 5, 1994 and the rewording of
Condition No. 6 to indicate that "Outlot A shall be placed in
the ownership of the Subdivision Homeowners Association and
recorded as such on all property deeds". All voted aye.
Motion carried.
E. Behm's Century Farms Rezoning & MUSA Exchange, Rural to R-1
PUBLIC HEARING: Mr. Brixius explained that Mr. Uhde would like
to develop a 153 +/- lot single family subdivision on
approximately 94.5 acres located north of Lilac Street and
east of Sunset Road. The property is Zoned R-1 and Rural,
therefore, a rezoning for a portion of the site is required.
The property is not located within the MUSA Boundary therefore
a MUSA exchange will need to be considered should the property
be rezoned. Mr. Brixius reviewed the staff report, dated
December 30, 1993, and advised the P & Z that certain criteria
need to be used in review of any rezoning request and that
although citizen input is welcome, the criteria outlined in
the staff report must serve as the basis for decision making
in this matter. He further explained that the City faces the
urban/rural dilemma in almost all areas of the City.
Mr. Schones asked that the Phasing Plan be explained. Mr.
Johnson reviewed the phasing which would run from 1994/95
through the year 2000. He added that utility installation
would coincide with the phasing plan. Mr. Schones questioned
the impact of density on the large existing lots. Mr. Brixius
explained that with the existing wetlands, overall density is
reduced and the proposed phasing plan should provide a gradual
impact on the existing neighborhood.
Kathy Nordine had a question concerning the MUSA and whether
we would be involved in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment due to
3
Planning & Zoning Board
January 12, 1994
a MUSA expansion or would this be a land trade. Mr. Brixius
explained that in 1990 the City acquired 570 additional acres
in MUSA expansion. This time we would be looking at a land
trade but it would still involved a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. Mr. Gelbmann asked if the sewer trunk would be
sized to serve the entire area and Darrell Schneider advised
that it would.
Mr. Uhde introduced his Development Team consisting of Ron
Peterson, Wildlife Biologist and Wetland Delineator; Ed Hasek,
Planner with Dahlgren Shardlow and Uban; and John Johnson,
Engineer. He briefly reviewed his experience and explained
that he has developed over 300 single family lots in the past
10 years within the City of Lino Lakes. He currently has 54
acres in the Apollo Business Center and feels that in order to
encourage business to located within the City we need roof-
tops to provide housing for newly created jobs. The key
issues in this case revolve around timing and lot size. Mr.
Uhde further explained that all the major developments that
have occurred within the City since 1987 have backed up next
to larger lots. Future development will be the same - urban
vrs rural. The City has taken a strong stand on economic
development - housing must follow. He stated that when he
first started working in the Lino area people would say -
"where is that, somewhere between the Cities and Duluth?".
Now people are becoming aware of the location and it is
becoming a desirable place to live.
The Sunset Oaks area, adjacent to the proposed development,
was platted in 1976 with the expressed intention in the
Council minutes at that time that the area would develop at a
future date into smaller lots.
Two neighborhood meetings were held in the area and some of
the concerns were 1) residents did not want to be charged any
costs for sewer/water/streets, 2) some wanted to sell and/or
develop, 3) others were interested in developing their
property. Mr. Uhde indicated that he has talked with many of
the property owners in the area and indicated that he would be
willing to purchase their property, help them develop their
property, have them included in the extension of utilities if
they wish.
Some concerns were raised regarding the Air -Park. Mr. Uhde
explained that he held a meeting with those property owners
(only 1 person attended) and will add verbiage to the deeds of
the properties to the west of the Air -Park advising them of
the air -parks proximity and insuring disclosure to potential
property owners.
Mr. Uhde has had two preliminary meetings with the P & Z and
has made revisions based on their input. The impact of the
wetlands has been addressed and the proposed plan will have a
minimal impact - greater wetland impact will be realized if
4
Planning & Zoning Board
January 12, 1994
the existing 1 - 2 acre lots are developed as is w/o
utilities.
Mr. Uhde also briefly discussed the existing Lot Inventory,
which is low, and the results of a 1989 housing study which
would confirm that the City has grown more rapidly than
anticipated and that additional housing stock is needed.
In conclusion, Mr. Uhde indicated that he felt Behm's Century
Farms would be a positive step for the City to take. He then
introduced his Planner, Mr. Hasek, who explained that the City
of Lino Lakes is a third ring suburb of the Metro Area and
growing rapidly. Lino Lakes has developed 20% beyond its
projected growth. He reviewed some of the items Mr. Uhde had
discussed and explained that landscaping is being proposed
along Lilac to screen the proposed developing area from the
adjoining properties.
Mr. Johnson then addressed the engineering concerns. He
indicated that in order to make the development financially
feasible, a minimum of 153 lots is needed. There are
approximately 40 acres of wetland in the 94.5 acre
development. The overall density of the development is
approximately 1.72 units/acre. The County Traffic Engineer
has indicated that the existing roadways will be able to
accommodate the proposed development.
Planning Coordinator Wyland reported that in discussion with
School Superintendent McClellan, he indicated that the school
system will be taxed for capacity even if no further
development occurs within the City.
COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS:
Christopher Lydeen of 6275 Holly Drive stated that he is a
teacher and is highly disturbed when people say the schools
are already full. He would expect a more responsible comment.
Sue and Jay Molitor of 7806 Sunset were present and indicated
that they have lived in the area for 12 years. They own 63
acres and purchased the property as an investment. Extension
of utilities with the Behm's Century Farm proposal is the only
opportunity they will have for the extension of utilities to
serve their property. They are in favor of the proposed plan
and feel the P & Z is responsible for carrying out consistent
policies in the planning of the cities future neighborhoods.
To allow the development of 2 1/2 acre lots now does not
coincide with the city's current rules and regulations of city
sewer and water for residential development. They added that
Mr. Uhde has done a very good job with his presentation.
Rene Curley, 101 Lilac, was present to voice her opposition to
the request due to the density, extension of public utilities,
increased traffic, neighborhood petition against the
development, and impact on the schools. She added that she
5
Planning & Zoning Board
January 12, 1994
had been contacted several times by Mr. Uhde seeking her
support of the proposal.
Julie Reniker, Sunset Avenue, was present and stated that 6
homes facing her property was too many. It is not appealing.
Dan Novak, 7672 Sunset, also expressed a problem with the 6
lots facing the 2 acre parcels. He indicated that it would be
an eye sore, the homes would be less expensive then existing
homes, there would be increased traffic on Sunset.
Mr. Landers advised the audience that in an R-1 Zoning
District the minimum house size is 850 sq. ft. to 1050 sq. ft.
Gordon Johnson, 115 Lilac, stated that this development has a
100% negative impact. There should be some positive. He
believes the development is oversized. He does not want the
area to be known, he wants it to remain rural. He also asked
the P & Z members to give their reasons for voting.
Mr. Landers asked if he could see a copy of the petition the
City had received.
Dick Shoop, Sunset Avenue, stated that the acreage is
misleading because they own 6 acres and are surrounded by 2
acre parcels.
Steve McDonald, 336 Carl Street had some concerns about the
Air Park. He indicated he moved out here because of the open
area and the Air Park. He thinks this development is not
needed at this time - maybe in the future. He would like to
see reduced density.
Tom Christianson, 339 Lilac, stated that the petition
represents 100% of the adjoining property owners. He added
that Mr. Uhde had done a good job on his presentation.
Mr. Uhde thanked Mr. Christianson for the compliment and added
that he felt they been well prepared and made an honest
presentation. He stated that Mr. John Johnson would address
some of the concerns expressed by the residents.
Mr. Johnson stated that in response to their concerns about
traffic, he had spoken with a traffic engineer from the
County who assured him that the existing roads can handle the
anticipated increase in traffic. Property values are proposed
to be similar to those existing and screening will be provided
as illustrated by Mr. Uhde's planner. They are working with
the RCWD to resolve drainage issues and concerns. He added
that Mr. Uhde has indicated that he will work with any of the
property owners who are interested in either selling their
property, developing it or discussing future possibilities.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEMBERS:
6
Planning & Zoning Board
January 12, 1994
Mr. Schones advised the P & Z and Audience that he did not
feel he had enough information to address the six criteria
outlined in the Planning Report. He needed more information
to address item #1, had "no clue" about item #3, was not sure
of #4, and did not feel the fiscal information was proven to
his satisfaction - #5. Mr. Johnson tried to explained some of
the fiscal impact charts.
Mr. Robinson responded that in regard to #1, the Comprehensive
Plan shows this area for residential development and a portion
of it is already Zoned R-1.
Kathy Nordine questioned items #4 and #6.
Rick Gelbmann stated that in regarding item #5, there will be
a benefit to the community as a whole because utilities will
be extended, wetland disturbance will be minimized, properties
with failing septic systems will be able to connect, there
will be improved ground and surface water drainage. This is
a major benefit to the community - when system failure occurs
- then we will have a burden to the City and a much greater
cost.
Kathy Nordine added that she is concerned about the ground
water and has heard that systems in the area are failing.
Mary Kay responded that in the last five years there have been
12-15 repairs, that we are aware of, within a 1 mile radius of
the Behms Farm.
Planning Coordinator Wyland stated that in conversation with
the Superintendent of Schools - there will be over -crowding in
the future with or without additional development.
Mr. Gelbmann added - we are on the frontier, we need to have
the facilities in place - this is an excellent way to get
them. He also expressed some sensitivity toward the 2 1/2
acres lots that would be facing the 6 homes.
Al Robinson added that Mr. Uhde must look at the financial
constraints and the City must look at the overall benefit to
the City. This development would be a benefit.
City Engineer Schneider added that there is a problem when on-
site systems are allowed to remain or are expanded.
Mr. Uhde concluded that they believe they have met all six (6)
criteria and would be happy to go over any of the items with
the P & Z. These will be residential homes that are
compatible with residential homes.
Mr. Tom Christianson, 339 Lilac, stated that he believes
sooner or later this development will go through. He asked if
they would be limited to the small lots on the farm itself.
Mr. Uhde added that the overall density is 1.6 units per acre.
7
Planning & Zoning Board
January 12, 1994
The farm area is more dense but landscaping will be provided
and they have, in the past, taken control of their
developments and provided well designed plats. Property
values in the area will be increased. It is possible that
something can be done about the 6 homes facing the 2 1/2 acre
lots —additional landscaping, more evergreens, or something.
Planning Consultant Brixius requested that the
tailor their vote along the criteria outlined
report.
MOTION: Ed Schones made a motion recommending
rezoning from R -Rural to R-1, Residential.
seconded the motion. On roll call:
Ayes: Schones, Landers, Nordine
Nays: Robinson, Gelbmann
Motion carried to deny rezoning request.
P & Z explanation of Vote:
P & Z members
in the staff
denial of the
John Landers
Ed Schones stated the he would provide a written detail of
his vote if necessary. The year 2010 for ER, Expansion
Residential, is stated in the 1987 Comprehensive Plan.
Although the plan does not dictate a time line, this number is
out there. He added that he has been a resident of the City
for eight (8) years and feels the City needs to move on issues
like this with caution. As a member of the P & Z Board I do
not feel comfortable at this time with the facts I have been
presented. The land use is a question and the fiscal benefit
to the community at large is another question.
Kathy Nordine stated that she felt the proposal was premature
because it is outside the MUSA Boundary. She would like to
see the MUSA area prioritized. Utilities would have to be
extended into this area and she felt there was infill land
available. She also indicated that the density seemed high
for a portion of the project.
John Landers stated that he agreed with Ms. Nordine that the
development is premature because it is outside the MUSA. He
thinks the year 2010 is more feasible and overall the density
is too great.
Rick Gelbmann stated that the benefit and impact to the
community as a whole far outweighs the negative factors. He
can see no major defects in the plan and although it is
located outside the MUSA, he felt the project was within the
scope of the City's Comprehensive Plan. There is some
difficulty with compatibility and density.
Al Robinson stated that he felt all six (6) items were
covered. Maybe as the oldest member of the Board he is
8
Planning & Zoning Board
January 12, 1994
getting tough in regard to citizen input. We do need
development in the City and developable property is at a
minimum. To get reduced taxes we need industry, to get
industry we need roof -tops. The tax base will not improve if
we are a bedroom community . Additionally, a person should be
able to develop their property within the scope of the law -
this proposal is within that scope. I think it is unfortunate
that people do not want development in their backyard.
Development is inevitable, good development is important.
The Board was advised that although Tom Mesich was absent from
the meeting he had indicated that he was not in favor of this
rezoning.
F. PUBLIC HEARING: Lamotte/Whitcomb, Property south of Birch
Street and West of 12th Ave., Rezone from R-1 to R -1R
Mr. Brixius reviewed this item which is a staff initiated
rezoning of approximately 108.7 acres of property located
within the MUSA, south of Birch Street and west of 12th
Avenue. The property is bordered by Brandywood (Zoned R -1X)
on the East and D. Ericksons 2nd Addition (Zoned R-1) on the
west, and Quail Ridge (Zoned R -1X) on the north. Based on the
information provided in the staff report, the rezoning is
consistent with existing conditions and current land uses,
will not be detrimental to sensitive environmental features of
the land, may increase property valuation and City tax base,
and is consistent with the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan.
A Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment was briefly discussed
relating to minimum lot sizes in the R -1X Zoning District.
Mr. Schones stated that he was opposed to reducing lot sizes
in this zoning district and would prefer to see a minimum of
12,825 square feet above the OHW and/or wetland. Mr. Gelbmann
asked if this change would have any effect on the house pad
size and was advised that it would not.
Mr. Kirk Corson, representing Hokanson Development, indicated
that they have a purchase agreement on a portion of the
property to be rezoned. He indicated that of the 72 acres
proposed to be development, 15 acres are Type I and II wetland
which may be wet for only a few weeks of the year. The
overall proposed density for this projects would be
approximately 1.7 lots per acre. Providing R -1X overall area
with R-1 area above the wetland and/or OHW would seem to fit
with the existing wetland restraints and cost of development.
An 83' wide lot would be adequate to construct a three -car
garage which seems to illustrate the difference between an R-1
home and R -1X home. Mr. Corson stated that the would prefer
to see some flexibility as proposed in the ordinance
amendment.
Mr. Chuck Secora was present representing the Whitcomb's and
indicated that they would support Mr. Corsons recommendation
which would provide flexibility in lot area and width and the
9
Planning & Zoning Board
January 12, 1994
R -1X standards as to housing type. He added that of the 125
acres that the Whitcombs own, 55 acres are not buildable due
to wetlands. They would like to see the R-1 size standards
remain.
COMMENTS FROM RESIDENTS:
Susan Walseth, 1101 Holly Drive, owns a 5 acre hobby farm and
would rather see the R -1X zoning because of the reduction in
density. She expressed some concerns regarding run-off on her
pasture if the adjoining property is developed. Also
protection from fertilizers and construction debris.
Concerned about the cost of the sewer, where it would run,
additional traffic on Holly Drive. She indicated that she was
under the impression that the property was zoned Rural and was
not aware of it when it was rezoned. She further indicated
that she had told the City, when asked, that she did not want
to be in the MUSA.
Christopher Lyden, 6275 Holly Drive asked when the area south
of Holly Drive was included into the MSUA. He also expressed
concern about any additional crowding of the school district.
He would like to see the area remain rural. The difference
between R -1X and R-1 is like the difference between 3/4" and
1" - he would prefer 10"(10 acres).
Mr. Brixius explained that the 1987 Comprehensive Plan showed
MUSA on the north side of Holly Drive. In 1990 this was
expanded with a Plan Amendment to include the 40+ acres to the
south.
Carolyn Dahl of Holly Court stated that she has a 10 acre
parcel. If the choice is between R -1X and R-1 she would
prefer the R-1. Additionally she expressed concern about 250
additional cars per day on Holly Drive.
Ken Albrecht of 1210 Holly Drive stated that he owns the 30
acres east of the proposed Whitcomb development. He is a bow
hunter and does not like the idea of development in the area.
If the development has to come he would prefer to see the R -1X
zoning. He also questions if the existing roadway would be
able to handle the additional traffic and was worried about
construction debris during construction.
Al LaMotte of 6510 12th Avenue stated that he has received a
lot of additional run-off since Brandywood was constructed.
He feels like the "little man that is being shit on". He
would rather see the property R -1X than R-1 but would prefer
no development.
Al DeMotts, 6265 Holly Drive would prefer the R -1X. He
expressed concerns regarding crowding of the schools and
additional traffic.
10
Planning & Zoning Board
January 12, 1994
There was some discussion by the P & Z regarding the proposed
ordinance amendment. It was decided that this item would be
discussed at a later date and a public hearing was not
scheduled at this time.
Mr. Landers then made a motion and was supported by Mr.
Gelbmann to approve the rezoning of this subject property from
R-1 to R -1X for the reasons outlined in the Dec. 6, 1993
Planning Report. All voted aye, except Mr. Schones who
abstained. Motion carried.
V. ADJOURNMENT: Upon the unanimous consent of the Board the
meeting was adjourned at 11:55 P.M.
11
AGENDA ITEM IV A
STAFF ORXGINATON Al Brixius, NAC
DATE December 6, 1993
TOPIC Willow Ponds, Preliminary Plat
BACKGROUND
G. M. Development Inc. has submitted a preliminary plat application
for Willow Ponds to divide a 13.6 acre property into 27 single
family lots. The property a.s located east of Sunset Road Between
Interstate 35W and Elm Street (County Road 12) .
During our review of the subject preliminary plat application, it
was discovered that this property was recently rezoned as part of
the Lino Lakes Cottages subdivision, to an R-4 High Density
Residential/Plat?, Planned Development Overlay District, therefore,
a rezoning of the property is necessary. The subject proposal was
put together under the assumption that the property was zoned R-1.
Attached for reference are the following exhibits:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C - Grading & Drainage Plan
Exhibit D - Apollo MeadowsSubdivision
RECOMMENDATION
Based on, the following review, it can be determined that the
proposal meets review criteria based on a zoning designation of R-
1. An R-1 zoning classification is necessary to accommodate the
proposed development which contains lot sizes ranging from 11,100
s.f. to 24,050 s.f. However, the property is currently zoned R-
4/PDO, therefore, approval of the preliminary plat cannot be given
c77R 111lrx.�-,- — QI.,.4 _ ..:►., acC _ Ca 1 , ..i.s an.t. AAM cc 40 . 1 1')\ Ir'._tna0a.Cav r►O�_C3ti47
LI c—
1.1 lJ N
until the City determines that an R-1 zoning designation is an
appropriate land use.
Based on the fact that a rezoning is necessary, our office
recommends tabling the request until the applicant applies for a
rezoning of the property, and a public hearing is scheduled. The
preliminary plat application may then be reviewed and considered
for approval the same night as the rezoning.
The following provides a preliminary review of the proposed
preliminary plat based on an R-1 zoning, and an analysis of
rezoning the property from R-4/PDO to R-1. The following
conditions are suggested to be placed on the preliminary plat:
1. Access permits onto County Road 12 must be obtained from Anoka
County.
2. Comment and recommendation by the Anoka County Highway
Department in regard to access and intersection alignment on
County Road 12.
3. Drainage and utility easements are established along property
lines in accordance with the provisions of the City
Subdivision Ordinance. This item is also subject to comment
by the City Engineer.
4. The Lino Lakes Park Board provide comment and recommendation
in regard to subdivision park dedication requirements.
5. The sanitary sewer and water plan is subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
6. Building pad locations should be adjusted to meet all minimum
setback requirements.
7. Driveway turnarounds shall be constructed on Lots 24-27 to
prevent cars from backing onto County Road 12.
8. Shared driveway easements shall be executed and filed as part
of the Final Plat.
9. Comments by other City Staff.
10. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with
the City.
ANALYSIS
REZONING
As noted previously, a rezoning of the subject site from R_4/PDO to
R-1 is necessary. The R-1 zoning is necessary to accommodate a
single family residential development with lot sizes ranging from
11,300 s.f to 24,050 s.f. in size. Prior to consideration of the
submitted building plans, the City must make a determination
whether the proposed use is appropriate for the subject area.
Jude extxent triter __4_�In review of rezoning requests, the Planning
Commission and City Council should consider its possible adverse
effects. Judgement should be based upon, but not limited to the
following factors:
a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the
specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be
consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan.
b. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and
future land uses of the area.
c. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards
contained herein.
d.
e.
The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public
services and will not overburden the City's service capacity.
Traffic generation by the proposed use within capabilities of
streets serving the property.
Comprehensive_an The City's Land Use Plan has designated the
subject site for "urban residential" or low density single family
development. The intent of the urban residential designation is to
provide a development density which will ensure a high level of
public services (sewer, water, parks, police, fire). The proposed
rezoning of the property to R-1 is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Lan4,.Use CompOibility. To determine the appropriateness of the
proposed use, it is considered beneficial to examine adjacent land
uses and zoning designations.
Directej,973 Use
North Undeveloped/low density residential
(Interstate 35 W)
South Low density residential
Zoning
R-1
R-1
DireCt.on tj,
East Semi-public (St. Joe's Church) R-1
West City of Elaine - -
Based on the above the proposed R-1 development is compatible wi:h
the surrounding land uses.
Publicgrvicas, The subject site has public services such as
sewer and water available. Over a year ago the City of Lino Lakes
gave approval for a 90 unit, multi -family subdivision called Lino
Lakes Cottages on the subject site. The subject Willow Ponds
proposal, is for a 27 unit subdivision, therefore will have less an
impact on the existing system than would the Lino Lakes Cottages
development.
Traffic Generation. The proposed R-1 density development will have
less an impact on the roadways than would a development at an R-
4/PDO density. However, there are some concerns regarding access
to County Road 12, and intersection alignment. These items will be
discussed in the Preliminary Plat section of this report.
Perfermance Standards, As a condition of the Preliminary Plat
approval, the proposed development will be required to comply with
applicable performance standards.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
In addition to the rezoning request, the applicant is
simultaneously requesting preliminary plat approval of the Willow
Ponds Subdivision. The subject subdivision includes 27 single
family residential lots (assuming necessary rezoning is approved).
pesign Concept. As shown on Exhibit B, the subject plat has been
designed so as to minimize negative impacts associated with its
proximity to Interstate 35W. Specifically, lots have been oriented
toward interior cul-de-sacs to limit exposure to the interstate.
Additionally, a series of ponding areas and berm will be
constructed along back yards as buffering devices.
The proposed design concept mirrors a previously approved
subdivision called the Apollo Meadows (Exhibit D), located to the
North, across Interstate 35W. The Apollo Meadows subdivision also
abuts the Interstate. Four cul-de-sac entrances were constructed
off of Apollo Drive to access the lots. These cul-de-sacs were
considered acceptable due to the property's proximity to the
Interstate Freeway, which prevented construction of through
streets. The same holds true for the proposed Willow Ponds
subdivision.
Density. within R-1 zoning districts, the maximum number of
dwelling units per buildable area must not exceed 3.2. The
proposed density of Willow Ponds is 1.9 units per acre, therefore,
meets the density requirement of the proposed R-1 zoning
classification.
Pot Sizos. In the R-1 district, lot area requirements are 10,800
square feet (s.f.) for interior lots and 11,800 s.f for corner
lots. All proposed lots meet or exceed these requirements.
Lot Width. In the R-1 district, lot width requirements are 80 feet
for interior lots and 105 feet for corner lots. Lot widths are
measured at the property setback line, rather than at the front
property line. All of the proposed lots meet or exceed these
requirements.
lat_p_gjatti, Within the R-1 district, a minimum lot depth of 135
feet is required, or 145 feet if a lot has double frontage. Lot
depths are measured by taking the average length of the two side
property lines, as homes are constructed typically in the middle of
lots. As such, all of the proposed lots meet the above mentioned
minimum requirements.
streets/Cul.-De-Sacs. The proposed subdivision gains access off of
County Road 1.2 by three cul-de-sacs. Each cul-de-sac meets the
City's maximum length requirement of 500 feet, the minimum width
requirement of 60 feet, and the minimum radius requirement of 60
feet. The cul-de-sac arrangement raises some concerns, however, is
a more desirable arrangement than a through street due to the
proximity to Interstate 35W. Additionally, this proposal mirrors
the Apollo Meadows Subdivision (on the North side of 35W), which as
mentioned, was recently approved by the City.
The proposed intersections and lot access to County Road 12 for
lots 24-27 raise some concern. First, the proposed Cricket Court
and Grey Squirrel Court don't line up with existing or potential
future roadways, creating staggered intersections. The centerline
of Cricket Court and the existing Sunset Drive are 220 feet apart,
and the centerline of Grey Squirrel Court are 180 feet apart.
While the proposal exceeds the City's 125 foot minimum, the
proposed layout shall be subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer, and Anoka County.
Also, consideration of lining up Cricket Court with a potential
roadway constructed with the property to the South being further
subdivided should be given. If this property is subdivided a
street would have to be constructed down the middle of the existing
block. This would severely limit lot depths and would not meet the
City's minimum requirement. Therefore, any further subdivision
will be complicated.
Second, the proposal creates shared driveways for lots 24-27 to
gain access to County Road 12, similar to what was approved on the
North Side of Apollo Drive. This raises concerns over the
potential for backing onto a busy County Road. Driveway
turnarounds should be reauired on each of these four lots, to
prevent potential traffic hazards. Also, access permits will have
to obtained from Anoka County. If the shared driveway arrangement
is approved, the shared access easements shall be executed and
filed as part of the Final Plat.
$Vt70Acke. The following table illustrates the minimum setback
requirements within the R -I zoning district. All of the proposed
lots located adjacent to County Road 12 do not meet the minimum
front yard setback requirement of 40 feet to collector streets.
The building pad locations should be adjusted to meet all City
setback requirements.
pegiired R-1 Setbcka
Front Yard
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
40 Feet (Collector)
30 Feet (Local)
10 Feet
30 Feet
aadina & Draina e., In accordance with subdivision regulations,
the applicant has submitted a grading plan for review. The said
plan will be subject to comment and approval by the City Engineer.
Park Dedication. As a prerequisite to all plat approvals, the
subdivider shall dedicate to the City or dedicate the public use,
for park or playground purposes, for public open space or in lieu
of a cash equivalent, as stipulated by the Lino Lakes Park Board.
Landscapiig. In compliance with Ordinance requirements, a
landscape plan has been submitted for review. The plans call for
a berm constructed along the rear yards of lots which abut the
Interstate freeway. The berm will be include planting of 8 foot
high coniferous trees spaced 15 feet apart. Also ponds will be
constructed along the rear yards. The proposed ponds, berm and
trees will serve as a buffer from Interstate 35W.
Utility Plan. As required by Ordinance, a utility plan has been
submitted for review. The plan should be subject to comment and
recommendation of the City Engineer.
CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding review, our office recommends tabling the
application until the applicant apply for a rezoning of the
property from R-4/PDQ to R-1, and a public hearing is scheduled.
Second, the proposal creates shared driveways for lots 24-27 to
gain access to County Road 12, similar to what was approved on the
North Side of Apollo Drive. This raises concerns over the
potential for backing onto a busy County Road. Driveway
turnarounds should be required on each of these four lots, to
prevent potential traffic hazards. Also, access permits will have
to obtained from Anoka County. If the shared driveway arrangement
is approved, the shared access easements shall be executed and
filed as part of the Final Plat.
$etbAcks. The following table illustrates the minimum setback
requirements within the R-1 zoning district. All of the proposed
lots located adjacent to County Road 12 do not -meet the minimum
front yard setback requirement of 40 feet to collector streets.
The building pad locations should be adjusted to meet all City
setback requirements.
2ecruired R-1_ Bet4acks
Front Yard
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
40 Feet (Collector)
30 Feet (Local)
10 Feet
30 Feet
Grading & pr4inase„, In accordance with subdivision regulations,
the applicant has submitted a grading plan for review. The said
plan will be subject to comment and approval by the City Engineer.
park Dgdication. As a prerequisite to all plat approvals, the
subdivider shall dedicate to the City or dedicate the public use,
for park or playground purposes, for public open space or in lieu
of a cash Equivalent, as stipulated by the Lino Lakes Park Board.
Landscapi.ng, In compliance with Ordinance requirements, a
landscape plan has been submitted for review. The plans call for
a berm constructed along the rear yards of lots which abut the
Interstate freeway. The berm will be include planting of 8 foot
high coniferous trees spaced 15 feet apart. Also ponds will be
constructed along the rear yards. The proposed ponds, berm and
trees will serve as a buffer from Interstate 35W.
Utility Pl n. As required by Ordinance, a utility plan has been
submitted for review. The plan should be subject to comment and
recommendation of the City Engineer.
CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding review, our office recommends tabling the
application until the applicant apply for a rezoning of the
property from R-4/PDO to R-1, and a public hearing is scheduled.
0
G- `=� -? I -I CO tA 1 4= 1 3
P 7
SUBJECT SITE
NORTK
1 MILE
CITY OF LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
EXHIBIT A . CtTE 1 nrts-ne ,
03
•-rr
£ 4Q A1.3u1�l3 bOd
t
ewr *WI r •••••••• •••••
I
re.r
�t 112 tfi
•
•
-� • 1011,0
111.09'0 aw.erq.l .w ANN
wore we saw y 3w. tdt! 1!.
NEM
?I1Y0 trews
1 D.et,Vee
M•111......pblebb
......."071,•••••••%..."71:•••"704.•.+ie w'r ��.moi-,
Mss•; h r••••11 ••••••
H1. a.
✓X.b++cwt.I Mewl
0 1 1 �
• �i •c
�s
✓ .E. --
r---1. -
•
St
It
•
awn operree.
IIIOS.9'1YMM 53N17 0M7
SONOd M077IM
st
T`
'•••.
Ke1e:. v•wE a. NOW..
1111 R
SON.
t
0
2
rn
x
:74
0
z53
>
0
z
0
o
zg 1
(.7)
rn
LO s&ii
Sar,ro In
=it
41 I
"
s '
• 041
J
n
ittO S. (44'
Oat MO Ormatatal.
ra •••• • Ow, a.
aoriaawaa
"
•.1•••• 041..h...f
161.V.
— • - - —
1
D1
;
; .1ta-s.
• • 0
•
•-• ;
'4% P
pi
•
tt
1 • I
„.....,„1"4,4%, •
•
•••
,
______
..,. 1. ,...2„.............„........................„
............: •, ,..
.....1...,-______.,_; _•-:-..,-2-.-: • - --4. -
a:;...,.•
--::;----- __....- ----
_., ,-
a.. - •••• '
..-...s.."-. - '..* ........:-.:."::::--:?--...::::
........--::::-.......:.-----.,.............r......r.,.....='' __
-- •
,LL •
!4-41
• ---- • -i. -
.•
10,S •
••••-ars.
vat
•
avw loa 11 "Pt
I....1AL. a
allawpait • 61.6.0
••• k•• ••••
•
.4.. 4••••• •
1.0 • .••••
• 1,
0
1.a
•••••1•
maw ow..
LI
2
I 1
APOLLO MEADOWS -- PRELIMINARY PLAT
SIJNSET
1 1
1 1/ t
1
•.i-.
OAKS
t 1
.r J. _ .3. •' • t 6 1 i 1
18 1 t 1
1
rs• 0 —
j•I
12
L
3
6
tm''
(1,
0.1
i
r
-www 0. I/ Kl++��
w ' , µ
- '✓. r
u PROPOSED R-4 ZONING-•'';ir'"�
Cm MVO 111.
M
r r „ti •+
l,` • 1...•
s.
✓- .— a S •^
OWNER / SUMMER
MEW menu
mew
50515 O. IA. OEVELOPYENT. IYC.
50 1606 66T. AYE. Y
p11.110010.114 5000. 1111/061(10141.1111/061(10141. 1.1 i•,
uuni.P It.▪ -ri• I Ipl PN. 124-6666
•••0.1 •
E[r W
EE
avow
w.. w.. •• 4011•140
0 1,11 WIN
Wilma �•- �- rwrw. up u I ••.
oPu Ii/WO - WWII NI Ma Ulla SIR ••
Wilw YAM
wo
SFP,"
u �1
E
L fr
ul
N%G
t
L KIITIO l YEP
i
10
2 h
O
10150 4•5
tlY
U
L EIYu
20
20
Z.
TYPGIL AYE PgeI RC1R
2
v
�Upj70R f ,
$ sBlvls60"
00. 15 23
•
•
*Mew
UWER01NQY TIONI
WPC.. .PLf..NT.V W,L« T..T 1.eew0/ e*T.a
O. raw 4141.
TYPICIL ffIOII 'y
Illi FENCE OLEAN
PRELIMINARY
FOp I EV1EW ONLY.
p rsmYI.E.T -
:2
.0
0
:a
m
0
r qo
al
fi O
�i ^3
3
~'3
TKDA
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL. ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS
MEMORANDUM
Darrell Schneider
To: Mary Kay Wyland
Copies To:
1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA
444 CEDAR STREET
SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101-2140
PHONE:612292-4400 FAX:612292-0083
Reference: Preliminary Plat Review
Gary Uhde Willow Ponds
John Johnson Lino Lakes, MN
From: John Powell //P
Date: December 6. 1993 Commission No. 10414-033
The following review is based on the preliminary plat dated November 17, 1993 and the preliminary
grading and utility plans prepared by Merila and Associates also dated November 17, 1993. The
following comments are in addition to the items indicated on the attached Subdivision Application
Check List.
1. Shared driveway accesses were used previously on Apollo Drive and although not ideal, they are
acceptable.
2. Lakeview Circle is aligned opposite Lakeview Drive but the other two cul-de-sacs are not aligned
with any likely future roadways on the south side. Although in order to maintain reasonable lot
dimensions within Willow Ponds this doesn't appear possible.
3. Elm Street is currently Anoka County Road 12 but is scheduled to be turned over to the City in the
near future as part of the Apollo Drive Joint Powers Agreement.
4. The entire watermain extension leads to a dead-end. Proper sizing will be determined prior to
final design.
5. Hydrants are not spaced properly.
6. Gate valve locations must be determined.
7. The drainage information we've received indicates the house pad elevations will be acceptable
with only minor modifications to the storm sewer design.
8. No wetlands are noted on the plans, this must be verified with the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Please contact me at 292-4433 if you have any questions or comments regarding this review.
JMP/mha
Attachment
Planning & Zoning Board
December 8, 1993
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CAll:
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: John Landers made a motion and was
supported by Al Robinson to approve the minutes of the
November 10, 1993 meeting as submitted. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
III. OPEN MIKE: There was no one present to speak under Open Mike.
IV. ACTION ITEMS:
A. 93-5-P, Oaks of Lino, Aspen Lane Subdivision
Planning Coordinator Wyland reviewed this case which has been
before the P & Z in previous months. The final design
provides for 9 lots on approximately 9.3 acres of property
zoned R-1 Residential. The RCWD has reviewed the mitigation
plan and recommended approval. They will be reviewing the
grading plan at their Dec. 29th meeting. The City's
Engineering Consultant, John Powell, has reviewed the revised
plan and recommended approval with some qualifiers outlined in
his report dated Dec. 16, 1993. The Planning Consultant has
also recommended approval as outlined in the Dec. 6. 1993
Planning Report which includes approval of a variance for cul-
de-sac length and irregular lot shapes.
After some discussion, Ed Schones moved and was supported by
Al Robinson to approve the preliminary plat for the Oaks of
Lino as presented, with the conditions outlined in the staff
reports of Dec. 6, 1993. All voted aye. Motion carried.
XB.93-21-P, Willow Ponds, Elm Street, Subdivision
Planning Consultant Brixius reviewed this item which involves
a 13.6 acre property north of Elm, south of 35W and just east
of Sunset (the former Senior Cottages project). The request
is to plat 27 single family lots. The property is currently
1
Planning & Zoning Board
December 8, 1993
zoned R-4 with a PDO originally intended to serve the Senior
Cottages project. To facilitate this project, a rezoning of
the site to R-1 is necessary but has not yet been scheduled.
Staff would, therefore, recommend tabling of this item until
the applicant applies for a rezoning of the site.
In a brief summary, Mr. Brixius explained that utilities are
available to serve this site and the property has been
previously assessed. The proposal submitted appears workable
- the property is within the MUSA, this is a logical infill
development, lots exceed the R-1 requirements for area, and
the general layout of the plat appears acceptable.
Chairman Schaps advised the P & Z that a petition has been
received from 16 property owners in the area who are opposed
to a rezoning to R-1 and want the property to remain R-4 with
the PDO Overlay. There was no one in the audience to speak to
this petition. However, Planning Board Member Landers
indicated that the residents in the area would like to see the
senior project go forward. They do not want the additional
traffic that would result with a single family development.
The original S -F development showed only 13 lots - that would
be acceptable.
Mr. Gary Uhde, developer, was present and explained some of
the history of this property to the P & Z. In 1989 utilities
were installed and assessed. Denny Erickson purchased the
property and proposed a town home development which was
denied. Then a plat similar to the one presented was
submitted but later withdrawn by Mr. Erickson. The property
then diverted to the previous owner, Tilsen. In Feb. of 1992
Mr. Derek purchased the site for a Senior complex which was
approved by the P & Z and CC. Unfortunately, financing has not
been secured for this project and the purchase option was
canceled in October of 1993. The senior project could be
delayed 6 months to two years or more. Mr. Uhde is anxious to
develop the site and has therefore resubmitted the R-1
proposal.
Mr. Schones asked what bearing the petition has on the
proposal. Mr. Brixius explained that it is merely the opinion
of the property owners who signed it - citizen input. The P
& Z is charged with determining if the proposed land use is
acceptable and fits in with the City's Zoning Ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan. They are not to be directed solely by
public input but by comprehensive planning for the community.
Mr. Robinson asked what merit there would be in denying a
request based on neighborhood opposition when the developer
meets all the requirements of the code. Mr. Schaps stated that
he believed some consideration should be given to neighborhood
input even though "controlling and dispotive". Mr. Mesich
2
Planning & Zoning Board
December 8, 1993
commented that the only reason the property was rezoned to R-4
was to provide for the Senior Cottages. Mr. Brixius stated
that although that was the reasoning, a property can not be
rezoned for a specific use - that is why the PDO Overlay was
included with the R-4 rezoning - to provide additional control
over the development of the properties. However, any R-4 use
could submit plans for a PDO for this property and the City
would be required to provide appropriate review of the
request.
A resident, Mr. J. P. Houchins, asked what type of barrier is
proposed between the properties and the freeway. Mr. Johnson
explained that a 5-6' berm with 8' evergreens staggered on
either the top or sides of the berm is proposed.
Mr. Robinson then made a motion and was supported by Mr.
Mesich to table the request and continue the Public Hearing
until the January meeting, provided a rezoning application is
submitted. All voted aye. Motion carried.
C. 93-22-P, Fox Trace, Subdivision -Ware Rd/Hodgson Road
Mr. Brixius explained that this is a request to plat 55 lots
on a 25.67 acre parcel of property (2.6 units/acre) just north
of 62nd Street between Ware Road and Hodgson Road. The
property is Zoned R-1 Residential. Several concerns were
outlined in the staff report including wetland mitigation,
findings regarding the vacation of 62nd Street, modification
of plat to avoid wetlands, RCWD review, isolation of Lot 6,
additional depth on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 21, Block 2, and
other items. Staff has recommended this request be tabled
until RCWD has reviewed the wetland delineation and
mitigation/grading plans and until staff has had more time to
review other items of concern.
Mr. Clyde Rehbein was present and stated that he has met with
Kate Drewry of the RCWD and made some modifications to the
plat according to her suggestions. These modifications have
reduced the number of lots. Peterson Environmental has done
a wetland delineation and an application will be submitted for
review by RCWD. He indicated that the P & Z has given concept
approval and they are seeking approval of the preliminary plat
contingent upon items listed in the staff report.
Al Robinson stated that he has a concern regarding mitigation
and problems which could occur if the plat is approved before
reviewed by RCWD. Mr. Mesich asked about access to the
property to the south and a temporary cul-de-sac. Planning
Coordinator Wyland explained that the property owner to the
south had contacted the City today and expressed concern
should his property become land -locked. It was further
explained that if any right-of-way is to be vacated, a public
hearing would have to be held to consider said vacation.
3
STAFF ORIGINATOR
DATE
TOPIC
AGENDA ITEM IV. B
Al Brixius, Planning Consultant
January 4, 1994
Pine Ridge II Preliminary Plat
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The applicant, Mr. Richard Carlson, is requesting prelimina plat
approval of a 9.96 acre single family subdivision entitle Pine
Ridge II. The subject site is proposed to contain 18 lots and is
zoned R -1X, Single Family Executive Residential with a FDO, Planned
Unit Development overlay designation. The property lies east of
Ware Road and south of Pine Ridge I Addition.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location
Exhibit C - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit D - Grading and Drainage Plan
Exhibit B - WCA Letter
Recommendation
In review of the submitted preliminary plat, the majority of
required ordinance standards have been satisfactorily met and the
proposed layout of streets and lots is reflective of the
surrounding area land uses and zoning. eased on the following
analysis of issues, we recommend that the Pine Ridge II Preliminary
Plat be approved subject to the conditions as outlined below:
1. A full cut -de -sac is provided at the terminus of the western
most street within the 60 foot right-of-way. The cul-de-sac
must be constructed either within the subject plat boundaries
5775 Wayzata Bird. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park. CM 55416 • (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837
E 13- 4- 3 4 F R I 1 0= 0 1 0
or within the adjacent westerly property. To accommodate cul-
de-sac construction, appropriate easements must be obtained.
The said cul-de-sac will be removed and right-of-way vacated
at such time when extension of the street occurs.
2. The grading plan and location of drainage and utility
easements are found to be acceptable by the City Engineer.
3. Park and trail dedication requirements are met as dictated by
the City Park Board.
4. Any other comments of City Staff.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Density, Within R -1X zoning districts, the maximum number of
dwelling units per acre must not exceed three. The proposed plat
contains 18 lots at a density of 1.8 units per acre and is
therefore acceptable according to ordinance standards.
Pot Areas., According to established City policy, lot area
calculations must exclude all waterbodies3. As such, the lot area
calculations on the submitted preliminary plat must be revised
prior to final plat submittal. Within R -1X zoning districts, the
minimum lot size exclusive of wetlands is 12,825 square feet. All
proposed lots meet the minimum lot area standard.
Lot Width, A minimum lot width of 90 feet is required of all
interior R -1X zoned lots with a width of 115 feet on corner lots.
All proposed lots have been found to comply with minimum lot width
requirements.
Lot Dessath. According to the Zoning Ordinance, lots within R -1X
districts must provide 135 feet of depth. All proposed lots meet
this requirement as shown on the Preliminary Piat.
Setbaa.s. The following setback requirements are required for
structures in the R -1X zoning district:
Front Yard 30 feet
Side Yard (Interior) 10 feet
(Corner) 30 feet
Rear Yard 30 feet
All lots show an ability to accommodate required setbacks.
2
FEE- 4-'SJ4 FR I 1 Ci 121
Wetlandp . The subject site contains two wetlands, both of which
require some mitigation to subdivide the land and install streets
as indicated in the Preliminary Plat. The applicants have obtained
approval of the wetland mitigation plan shown in Exhibit n from
both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Rice Creek Watershed
District (see Exhibit E).
rt't Caisficrttratfon. The proposed layout of streets is viewed as
appropriate given the land zoned R, Rural District which abuts the
subject property to the east and south that subsequently requires
minimum lot sizes of 10 acres. The parcels which exist in this
vicinity at the present time are all 10 acres or less and therefore
cannot be further subdivided unless brought into the City's MUSA
and rezoned and will not require street access from the Pine Midge
Plat. A full cul-de-sac must be provided at the western edge of
the property or within the adjacent westerly property via easement
dedication. The said cul-de-sac easement will be vacated at such
time when the street is extended.
Gradix)q and Drainaetej. The required ten foot drainage and utility
easements have been placed along all lot lines and over wetland
areas which should be subject to the City Engineer's review and
comment prior to Preliminary Plat approval,. Additionally, a
grading and wetland mitigation plan has been submitted which should
also be subject to the Engineer's review and comment.
Park Dedig„au. The subject plat does not include any provisions
for park land dedication as required by ordinance, The City Park
Board should provide comment/recommendation as to the appropriate
cash contribution. Additionally, trail dedication will be
required, although the exact location of the trail has yet to be
determined by the City.
CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding review, it is recommended that the Pine
Ridge II Preliminary Plat be approved provided the conditions as
listed in the Executive Summary of this report are met to the
satisfaction of the City.
pc: Darrell Schneider
Randy Schumacher
Richard Carlson
3
(
FES- a-- -4
FFZI 10
MONTH
MENINInsperesterniiit
1 MILE
CITY OF LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
�+ s
EXHIBIT
,FES - 4- 9 4 F R I 1 0= 0 4 0
; Wager
_ 0 5
.kzeripo
zip
AVA° 0° 4?
tetatingliterfOrklidiS
EXHIBIT B
4-9-4
F R I
1 : 0 5 0
' C
- 0
r®t{-. _ .. .
i--- s ., L} n d e n I .. c n e
06'
r� �� L.._� - .. . --. ,',.9C ..._ �..�,,4 Krp ,... �.. tai.
NA. bt
do 1
. e
I_ . _ - --
et ?•. Y- ..r ,
H T
v-0
EXFUBIT f
3
1
1 ,
1 ,
1 ,
I 1
1 1
1
4 1
_ 1 y
PERI 10:06 0
j i1-t�
t \�1
t1�
1
1
f
P - 0 0
Under]1
_ane
w--- .w..- _......�...f ter, ..+..
1 I
1_ 1
.I {
4
900
ti
4.11
/
r
/
t
•
HI PT. 902.0
CAP tNV.=8
r/
1`
I t*
•
}
7.
HLPT. 901.0
/
1
r/
/-ti
t
4. /
EXHIBIT E
FER— 4-94 FR I 1 6 : 136 CI
' JAN ' 9.4 14:12 MRTTKE ENG I1' : - G. INC.
RICE CRUX WAT' .RSRIiD OXSTRIC'D
SUITS 374, .MDZN KAA
3585 LEXINGTON VENUS NOVTX
MDE U HILLS, H/NOZsC TA 55126
6x3302
TO:
iortio ?EMIT NO. 93-199
cc: City of i.i�na takes
t4opt$Cmery Watson
Inspector Eklin
itcwo File
F - €'9
e2
93-139 Richaird S. Carlson
. aa�uad toi Richard S. Carlson & Associates, 7671 Central Avenue NE, Fridley, MN 5543..
Lecatiorix Northeast quadrant of Ware RCad and 62nd Street W, lino takes
Purpaees Approval of Land Development and Wetland AlterattOrr Plans for a
single-familyresidential• developm nt to be known as fflneridge II,
19 tots on 1+ acres.
At their meeting on r �nnb L, 19,9 ___, the Baird of isanagorz
of tha Rico Creek Rateethed atetrl,ot reviewed yau: permit
application and the recommendation Qt the District rn ginoar Nixed
upon the following.exhi3>itq
1. Permit application dated July 27, 1993.
2. Letter prepared by Hattke Engineering. dated August 10, 1993, addressing wetlands.
received August 11, 1993.
3. Preliminary plat prepared by Mattke Engineering, dated August 10, 1993, received
August 11, 1993.
4. Grading and Drainage Phan prepared by llattka Engineering, dated August 10, 1993,
received August 11, 1993.
S. MPCA !Notice of Intent to Grade Area Over 5' Acres, doted August 20, 1993,
recei ked Augu t 23, 1993.
6. Letter prepared by Mattke Engineering, dated December 2, 1993, received
December 2 1993, summarizing wetland impacts.
7. Memo to fide from nate Drewry dated November 10, 1993, reCei wed november 1f1. 1993.
verifying wetland classification.
8. HEC -1 calculations for 1- and 10O -year storm runoff and ponding volutes,
dated December Z 1993, received December 2, 1993,
9. Skimmer calculations for outlet for west pond, dated December 2, 1993.
received member 2, 1993.
10_ Grading and sediment erosion control plan prepared by Mattke Engineering, last
revised (ov er 28, 1993. received December 2, 1993,
11. Cosh Surety in the amount Of $3,000 received Decreer $2, 1993.
12. US Army Corpsof Engineers NatiOnwide Permit authorization letter dated
December 20, 1993, received December 21, 1993.
They found the project as planned to be in accordance with too
Viso a aeguiatLons and Guideline(' of the District and thozefore
approved the permit as requestedL with thea Following additional
etipul,ations s ND ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS
xt is he: reaponsibillt' of the Pexmittea to pxc vlda 42.1, toeesu. is
necaseary to contain sediment. on the 'site during conetructiast.
Thit may moire the use of erosion control measurer not outlined
6µ0d -w. I nreariN..i.•.
EXHIBIT E
F E R— 4— 9 4 F R I 10:07 CI
' JAN 20 '9111'a:3i i A'CTE bIiE
612/130300
TO:
- 1 9
U _ Pey
RCWD PERMIT No. 93-139, continued t Page 2
on the emotion oontrol plan. If this requirement is not mat, the
Permitter) may be ordered to provide additional erosion control
measures if deemed necesseary by the District Inspector.
Intmottiately upon completion of rough grading, sto t water x,snagerarerLt
features =at be completed according to plane permitt. d by the
District. It to also tris responsibility of the property owner to
provide necessary maintenance to assure that the, stormtr'eter
management systems approved as part of this Pezm t will continue
to function as originally iesigned.
NOTE FOR pRot DSRS DIP A CASA SO Et : Failure to implement and
maintain the sediment -erosion control and cover establishment
measures outlined in the permit erhibito may result in forfeiture
of yo'sr Catex1t surety. If such measures are satLe factoxily provided,
the cosh surstg will be return d with interest after permanent
vegetative cover has boon a stszbl.inhed. pl,easae notify the District
Office in writing when pefma»ent vegetative cover has bean
eatabl#,sahcd and a final inspections will be weds.
TwO (2) insspettions: of the . pr'ojoct site axe included with this
Permits. one after erosion control measures are to place and one
after project Completion and revegetation, and will be conducted
to a8avre compliance with all simeements, to rms,r and stipulations
of this Peamait. ' Failure to comply with the foregoing arty result
in rescission of the Permit, and is in violation of Chapter 112.$9
14SA1 a misdemeanor. Jany additional inspection, requested or
required, will. be billed at $251vi,sit.
This document is not transferable, and is valid for one (1) year
after the date of issuance. 14o Construction le authorized beyond
the expiration date. if permittee requires more time to complete
construction, a renewal of the Permit will be necessary.
Plessor contact IICWD at 493-0634 when the project is about to
commence so an inspector may view the work in pragrnsiR. By
acceptance of this Permit, Permittee has consented to the
foregoing. The enclosed u'ser's Certification form must be
completed and forwarded within ten (10) days of project completion.
rear dtxtt, : - ar • 0 managers
Butene L. Peterson, End Vice 'Presrfe nt
' .) 17
a • _' '
aretaxyf RCW =acrd o hd,ttaSmr4,
Andrew J:Z,ar41ne , Sr.
,j4nradP I�. 7l4A _
Fora C Revised 1/9/91 Qat• of Xasrutinc+a
iidt
=SEN
MEMORANDUM
XST PAUL, MN
❑ MINNEAPOLIS, MN ❑ ST CLOUD, MN
TO: Darrell Schneider
FROM: Steve Heth
DATE: February 3, 1994
RE:
❑ CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI ❑ MADISON. WI
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Engineering Review of Pine Ridge 2nd Addition
SEH No. A-LIN03336.00
1. Preliminary Plat
A. No location given (section, town and range).
B. Boundary does not close.
2. Grading and Drainage
A. Easements - Provide adequate drainage easement on Lot 6, Block 2 for lateral
drainage at back of lot.
B. Street - Street should end with cul de sac on the west end.
C. Typical Street Section - Current standard for location of private utilities in
common trench may be changing. Be aware that a new detail may need to be
used.
3. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main
A. Sanitary - Invert at tie-in on north end of Coyote Trail should be 877.75 (from
record drawings).
B. Consideration should be given to installing sanitary sewer deep enough for future
extension to the west. (Shorten drop in manhole adjacent to Lot 6, Block 2).
tlo
AGENDA ITEM IV C
STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Nyland
DATE February 4, 1994
TOPIC Minor Subdivision - Art LaCasse, 6609 24th St.
Mr. LaCasse is seeking approval of a minor subdivision splitting
6.21 acres from the balance of his 40 acre parcel. The property is
located on the east side of I-35 W south of Cedar Street and is
Zoned Rural. It is also located within the boundaries of the MUSA.
The purpose of this subdivision is to allow Mr. LaCasse to retain
the 6.21 acres as his homesite and sell the balance of the property
for development.
An 85' wide strip of property will be provided on Elmcrest Avenue
(24th Street) that could provide access to the parcel to the north.
It is questionable, however, if this piece is even buildable due to
extensive wetlands. The parcel to the west, however, has more
buildable land and could be accessed from the west when those
properties develop.
Ordinance No. 93-18 provides "...a habitable single family home
constructed prior to July 13, 1992 may reduce their lot size to a
minimum of one acre if the balance of the property results in a
parcel of ten acres or more..".
Staff would recommend approval of the subdivision as submitted.
OTT
1. Approval
2. Return to staff for further consideration
Option 1
igaggalipozg parerragM
0, alp 4mi
a,,rirrUD
CC
lodd
FOR `VOM
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
THIS IS NOTA BOUNDARY SURVEY
KURTH SURVEYING. INC.
4002 JEFFERSON ST. N.E.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS. MN. 55421
(612) 788-9769 FAX (612) 788-7602
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN OR REPORT
WAS PREPAARED BY 11E OR UNDER WY DIRECT SUPERVISION
AND THAT I AU A DULY REGISTERED SURVEYOR UNDER THE
AW OF THE STpT-V MINNESDT�
/ )
MINNESOTA` REGISTRATION N0.2oz10
IJ
T
IJ
4'
o Jt
03
1%.R0*P05ED 607D1•115\014
5,at° 2\' 4• — - \315,7_O --
r- 1.10(tTN L.tIvc-z) %)y,NL%11y, `>isC •2.'�T•�j\,R.22
4/
1 �
1
�O
0
1
1•
1
/
/
5\.22- ".4-OOOZ)
It CMINNG:r07 A
•
1 - (0.54..50-
11
CP \ k ZS '\ 2Z IH- 000 t )
G) L AND to sal R ) w
i
•
\
1
l
I
•\ 984°595+I13
rA
N
(1 7
o .
s
°/
- 511,05 - ( o,: 5
•
yer
•
II
TRAcT�o�ti�❑
6.211•
CuR�ss�
- 65b.19 -
% \
(-Soy<G•l4 1-1 N6CI�wN`11�1,h\iC•25T.31R.22 -/
u�° 3,19 5'4 " \r4 - - 13\3, 43q
-CURRENT LEGAL
The East Half
1/4 of NE 1/4
CURRENT LEGAL
The West Half
of NE 1/4) of
)
)
r
DD
r
DATE NA`' -t. -1"•''1g94
SCALE I ' • T_Oo FT.
o - IRON MONUMENT
BEARINGS ARE ON AN
ASSUMED DATUM
••••••••4,..9e2-0-1,, a 044C OF
vV1::TLA1vOS AS
\hTC•POLA-t•G-D
PNoToS,hou.b,
To90 MAPS
- BgRN i Hep SNowN
rFOrl (=1GL.0 LGC-+.T\oN
K0 \cions PLQr.Go
IJ
s
9)
11)
A5 TR4v�0i:o
—Ha cozova ,5,ylb.tv3FT•,
w,41,4,4-14.; 1'-1
I W
ok:1\sj
DESCRIPTION (P.I.N. 25-31-22-14-0001)
of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (E 1/2 of SE
of Section 25, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota.
DESCRIPTION (P.I.N. 25-31-22-14-0002)
of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (W 1/2 of SE 1/4
Section 25, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota.
PROPOSED TRACT A (Combining above,except Homestead)
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE 1/4 of NE 1/4)
of Section 25, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying northerly
and -west ly-af-the_Aouth416.63 feet of the E 1/2'of the SE•1/4 of the NE 1/4
and northerly of a line drawn from a_il_
distant 346.63 feet north of the southeast cornersaid N-linoE 1/4 to aid 8 1/4 ._
the north line of the south 416.63 feet, distant 85 feet westerly of the on
northeast corner of said south 416.63 feet.5wbje t to Clmcre9t A\ven�conthct:ast.
PROPOSED TRACT B (Homestead Site)
That part of the south 416.63 feet of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter (E 1/2 of SE 1/4 of NE 1/4) of Section 25, Township 31,
Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a line drawn from a point
on the east line of said Northerly Quarter,distant 346.3 feet north of the
southeast corner of said NE"1/4 to a point on the north line of the south 416.63
feet, distant 85 feet westerly of the.northeast corner of said south 416.63
feet. Sub;ec.t to Clmcre5t 1we4-‘,.I.e on the asi .
AGENDA ITEM IV D
STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland
DATE February 4, 1994
TOPIC Variance - 1049 Black Duck Court
This case involves an "after the fact" variance request to allow a
home to be constructed 6' from the side property line. The
property in question is Zoned R-1 Residential and a 10' side
setback is required. The variance in this case is for 4'.
Apparently when the house was staked the survey was misread and it
was assumed the side setback was 10' because of an easement line
shown on the plat. This easement line, however, was not 10' but
5'.
The builder has secured a letter from the adjoining property owner
indicating that they have no objections to the proposed request.
According to the City Zoning Code, Sec. 5, Subd. 7, Variances and
Appeals. Variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance may
be granted in instances where their strict enforcement would cause
undo hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual
property under consideration.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable
use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.
Staff feels it would be unreasonable to request that the
builder remove the footings and locate the structure within
the setback requirements.
2. 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 unique due to a large drainage and
utility easement on the property and the configuration of the
lot itself which is located at the end of a cul-de-sac. In
order to meet the 10' requirement, the home would have had to
be located further back on the lot than the existing 30' thus
encroaching on the rear easement - or moved further to the
west thus increasing the angle of the driveway.
3. 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. As described in Item 2, there is
a hardship to the land in the configuration of the drainage
easement. The single family home being constructed on the
lots is a reasonable use of the property.
4. 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. The City considers similar requests on a case by
case basis.
5. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or
impair established property values within the neighborhood.
The property in question is estimated to be valued at over
$200,000 - this value is consistent with other homes in the
subdivision.
6. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the ordinance. The property is Zoned R-
1 Residential and single family use is intended for the area.
For these reasons we would recommend approval of the Variance as
requested.
1. Approve request as submitted
2. Deny request
COMMEZWAT I .
......................................
......................................
Option 1
JAN -21-1994 14 49 FROM Kurth Surveying
TO
4644569 P.03
PLOT PLN
' THIS t3 NOT A 8OUNOA '6SURVEY
FOR L" �`� �, PROPOSES
1 HEMP CQiiFY THAT T6113 PLOT PLYI 1RA3 PPEPAIED {Y IE GRADE-:;'
OR MEED IC DIRECT SIFMYISION TWT TH13 PLAIT °DIRECTLY
MRS THE PI*CEDEHT OF PROPOSE° Swum Ow THE LAO -.
1EiEa11 DESC311E0 ISD TWT i AY A OYLY RE81sTER57$o@e
EO LAM s QO.�j` DATE tt-0
•
31131EY061 ODER TIE TAR of t6E. STATE,/F' OIY[SOTA.GA1PAOE
- ti 4
KURTH SURVEYING. INC.
4002 JEFFERSON ST. N.E.
COLOMBIA HEIGHTS.. YT. 55121
46121 788-9769 FAX (612) 718-7602
TOP OF BLOCK X101.0 SoCALEIRON MONU- NEN3f011aJi}
TIASENENT FLOOR •% PSV `" 01"1')REAR RIGS ARE PER PLAT
MNNESOTa REGISTRATION NO.150V7C> + - SPIKE SET
(7_:› - EXISTING ELEVATION
( I - PROPOSED ELEV.
- DRAINAGE ARROW
flT. H:Y*T; ILevy
j
rJ
5.
0
0
y:t.. 0
�a
N.11 - v 0
O• .`'-'
42
i>•
.jiVe4
r
TOTAL P.03
GEORGE WATCH LAKE
AARSHAN LAKE
CENTERVILLE
LA
, a:
January 31. IL.F.J4
City Of Lino Planning Commission
Please be advised t-Lat. 1 do not oblect to a variancE tor a
property set back at the 1049 Black Duck Ct. con2truction
ot a single family rk,,sigence_ it is ;-iLy undefstandir
new home iEJ two and one half feet to three feet too close
to my adjoirrinpL home.
Brian Johnsc
057 Black Duck Ct.
Lino Lakes., MN 550..1
7-- -5/
2-7