Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1994 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA July 21, 1994 6:30 P.M. SCANNED I. Call to Order and Roll Call: II. Approval of Minutes: June 8, 1994 III. Approval of Agenda - Changes/Additions IV. OPEN MIKE: V. ACTION ITEMS: A. 94-15-V, Niel Banta, 7829 Nottingham Lane, Variance B. 94-11-P, Trappers Crossing, Hokenson Development, Holly Drive C. UDOR USA: Consideration of Resolution to Recommend Hearing on Project TIF District 1-6 D. UDOR USA: Minor Subdivision E. 94-16-P, PUBLIC HEARING, Pine Ridge III F. Text Amendment, PUBLIC HEARING - Zoning Ordinance - LI and GI Zoning District VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Clearwater Creek Development (35E) VII. ADJOURNMENT: note: PUBLIC HEARING ON PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR APOLLO BUSINESS PARK CANCELLED UNTIL AUGUST 10, 1994 MEETING MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Board FROM: Mary Kay Hyland DATE: July 18, 1994 This memo is to remind you that the Regular July P & Z meeting was rescheduled to THURSDAY, July 21, 1994 at 6:30 P.M. If you are unable to attend this meeting please let me know as soon as possible. For your information I have enclosed information on Insurance Coverage for City Volunteers and Board Members. This item was adopted by the City Council at their last meeting. NOTICE OF MEETING CITY COUNCIL and PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD July 20, 1994 6:00 P.M. City Hall - Council Chambers Informational Meeting to Discuss Behm's Century Farms Rezoning Sul, 1 ,1994 Dear Mayor Reinert and City Council Members, The purpose of this brief letter is to officially request to be placed as a icheduted agenda= item at'the nexrcouncil mooting= tea bd held on July 25. 1994. Monday evening at 6.30PM. Wer as thq prpperjp owners of ow nejghbolhoodr located on flay Drive West and Holly Court would like to share our various opinions and feelings with you, in a public forum, on the zoning issues that have happened to this area, over the past years. We would appreciate your listening to us, at this =voting.. Thank you. S incerelg _._5? The crop rtj. Owners of HpIly Drive and Oulu Court 61/4-6,14-vc, iqW cc: J ohrr G rzzbek E 50 PLANNING 8c ZONING BOARD June 8, 1994 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 11, 1994 - Al Robinson moved approval of submitted and was supported by John Landers. Motion carried. May 18, 1994 - Al Robinson moved approval of submitted and was supported by Rick Gelbmann. Motion carried. the minutes as All voted aye. the minutes as All voted aye. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The Agenda was approved as presented. IV. OPEN MIRE: No one was present to speak under Open Mike. V. ACTION ITEMS: 94-15-V, Niel Banta, 7829 Nottingham Lane, Variance Planning Coordinator Wyland reviewed this request which is to allow the construction of a 384 square foot addition to the existing 528 square foot garage. Mr. Banta also has an 800 square foot storage building on his property. The property is Zoned Rural, contains 1.09 acres, and is allowed a total of 1100 square feet of garage area. Property consisting of 1.25 acres or more would be allowed an 1100 square foot garage and an 800 square foot storage building. The variance in this case is for 712 square feet of garage area. The Staff report indicated that variance requests are generally discouraged unless there is an obvious hardship. There does not appear to be one in this case. However, Mr. Banta was insistent. There is some concern that should this request be granted, the door would be opened for future, similar requests. 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD June 8, 1994 Mr. Banta was present and stated that his closest neighbor has no objections to the request. He added that he could purchase an additional 20' or so from the neighbor and then have the additional square footage necessary to allow the proposed construction. However, his lot is large now, the storage building is screened by tall evergreen trees, and he would prefer the variance request. When the storage building was construction, in about 1983, it was a permitted use. (NOTE: the Accessory Building Ordinance prior to 1990 allowed an 800 square foot storage building on property from 1 to 2 1/2 acres in size in addition to an attached or detached garage). Kathy Nordine asked what the existing storage building was used for. Mr. Banta explained that he has a boat and motor home stored in the building. She also asked if he would be willing to remove that building to comply with the square footage requirements - he was not and added that you can not see the storage building from the street. Mr. Schones stated that Mr. Banta is to be commended for having such a well maintained property. However, he expressed concern at setting a precedent by granting this variance - we need to follow the rules we have established for the overall good of the community. There was some discussion concerning how this variance could be granted without setting a precedent. Planning Consultant Brixius indicated that if specific findings of fact are found that would be unique to this site it may be possible. Kathy Nordine suggested looking at the characteristics of the neighborhood - large lots, some over 1.25 acres which would allow the additional storage building, the fact that this is going from a two car garage to a three and three car garages are becoming more the norm. Chairman Schaps suggested that the P & Z take time to consider the request and what options are available and is it possible to approve without setting a precedent. After some discussion, Al Robinson made a motion recommending that Mr. Banta return to the July meeting to allow the P & Z time to consider his request. John Landers seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. B. 94-11-P, Trappers Crossing, Preliminary Plat/PD This item was continued from the May 11, 1994 P & Z Meeting. The Public Hearing was closed at the May meeting. Chairman Schaps asked if there were any additional comments from Staff. There were none. Mr. Corsan, representing Hokanson Development, stated that he was confused about the status of the PDO. He stated that the 2 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD June 8, 1994 PDO tool had been used in the platting of Quail Ridge, Park Grove, and Pine Ridge. This particular plat has only four (4) lots which do not meet the R -1X area requirements. The lot width requirements are adhered to on 95% of the lots. The flexibility that is being requested is on the interior of the plat - the exterior lots all meet or far exceed the requirements of the R -1X District. If the plat is redrawn to conform to the R -1X standards, there would need to be additional street area and the exterior lots would become smaller. Mr. Corsan stated that the plan presented would look the best and adhering to the R -1X requirements would not improve the looks of the development. (He did not have a drawing of an arrangement that would meet the R -1X requirements as requested by the P & Z) The economics of the plat are indicating that the costs will exceed $38,000 per lot therefore requiring open field lots demanding a price of $50,000. The Quail Ridge Plat has lots ranging from $32,900 - 49,900 with amenities like open space and wooded lots. Al Robinson stated that when the Plat for Quail Ridge was approved there were certain requirements regarding erosion control. These requirements have not been met. Kirk Corson explained that they have cleaned the street twice and used 100 lbs. of seed and hay bales for the drainage swales. The homes in the plat were constructed in the winter and road restrictions just went off May llth. Homeowners are putting in their driveways, landscaping and should be sodding within the next few weeks. Mr. Robinson indicated that Hokansons track record was not good and the plat looks like heck. The P & Z's intention was that the plat look good and there be no erosion into the wetlands or storm sewer system or onto the streets. These are the reasons I have problems with this PDO request. Planning Consultant Brixius advised the P & Z that the PDO Classification has nothing to do with the erosion problems in Quail Ridge. Chairman Schaps stated that he believes Hokanson is shaded by the numbers - he had wanted to see what the plat would look like as R -1X. What we asked be done has not been done! John Landers asked how many lots they would lose. Mr.•Corsan indicated about four which would increase the costs to over $40,000/lot. Chris Lyden asked if the residents would have an opportunity to speak to the 47 lots that do not meet the requirements of R -1X Zoning. Chairman Schaps stated that the Public Hearing had been closed at the last meeting. Al Robinson then made a MOTION to deny the preliminary plat and PDO as presented. John Landers seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. 3 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD June 8, 1994 VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. MUSA AMENDMENT: Al Brixius advised the P & Z that staff would be meeting next week with the Metro Council to discuss a MUSA Amendment. We may be seeking an arrangement similar to Lakeville's where the MUSA Areas is held in a banking type arrangement. This Amendment will set framework for an updating of the Comprehensive Plan as outlined in the report dated June 2, 1994. Ed Schones stated that the report presented was a top notch piece of work. Mr. Robinson stated that Lino Lakes is unique in several aspects - large park areas cutting through center of the community, extensive wetlands, City Charter constraints. Mr. Landers asked if this item was open to public discussion. Chairman Schaps stated - not at this time. Mr. Landers added that there is a group of citizens, himself included, who would like to see a new Citizen Survey done to see what direction the citizens want the City to go. Al Brixius stated that a full comprehensive plan revision will address many issues, including sewer, water, transportation, zoning. The Council has directed staff to pursue these discussions with the Metro Council. Diana Turner of 7404 Sunset was present and stated that she is interested in what is going on for the future of Lino Lakes. She is interested in volunteering to help in the process and thinks a Citizen Survey would be a good idea. Chairman Schaps suggested she make this request to the Council as the P & Z is only an advisory body. Al Robinson asked what are the chances of getting a banking type system approved by the Metro Council. Mr. Brixius indicated that he would know more after next week. -VI. ADJOURNMENT: Upon the unanimous consent of the Board the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 P.M. 4 AGENDA ITEM 5-B STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland DATE July 13, 1994 TOPIC Reconsideration of Trapper's Crossing Since the June 8, 1994 Planning and Zoning meeting, Roger Hokanson submitted a letter to the City requesting that the City Council direct his proposal back to Planning and Zoning to allow him to make the changes originally requested by Planning and Zoning to comply with the R1 -X Zoning on the property. The City Council was shown a new, recently completed drawing of Trapper's Crossing which was said to comply with the R1 -X Zoning with 104 lots. Mr. Corson made some comments on the increased lot costs in reducing the number of lots. The City Council voted to send the proposal back to Planning and Zoning in compliance with Mr. Hokanson's request and if there is a change in design for the plat, consideration of a new plat design should begin with Planning and Zoning. 4D1 37-1:A4 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. URBAN P L A N N I N G • D E S I G N - M A R K E T RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT - ADDENDUM TO: Mary Kay Wyland FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius DATE: 7 July 1994 RE: Lino Lakes - Trappers Crossing Preliminary Plat Design Alternative FILE NO: 194.01 - 94.02 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background In May of this year, Hokanson Development Inc. requested preliminary plat approval of a 124 lot single family subdivision entitled Trappers Crossing. The 72.4 acre site on which the subdivision is proposed lies south of Birch Street between Holly Drive and 12th Avenue South. To allow a degree of design flexibility within the subdivision, the applicant had requested a combination R-1X/PDO - Planned Development Overlay Zoning Designation. Such designation was intended to recognize the site's contained wetlands and provide some degree of flexibility in regard to lot size and width. In its original consideration of the Trappers Crossing preliminary plat, the Planning Commission denied approval of the PDO zoning and requested that the applicant prepare a plat design alternative which responds strictly to the subject property's R -1X zoning designation. The Lino Lake City Council prior to taking action on the applicant's initial development application requested that the Planning Commission review the most recent submittal. 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 It should be noted that this report is intended to supplement our office's 4 May 1994 review of the original plat submission (combination R-1X/PDO Zoning Designation). Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Previous Preliminary Plat (R-1X/PDO Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat Design Alternative (R -1X) Recommendation: The submission of the preliminary plat design alternative responds to a specific request of the Planning Commission. A decision regarding a preference between the design alternative and the previously submitted plat (R-1X/PDO application) is considered a policy matter to be determined by City officials. If the City determines that the strict provisions of the R -1A Zoning District should be upheld, our office recommends approval of the submitted plat design alternative subject to the following conditions: 1. The forthcoming final plat include ten foot wide utility easements centered on rear and other lot lines. Drainage easements should also be placed over the site's wetlands. This item should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. 2. To avoid a duplication in block number assignment, "Block 3" in the southeastern portion of the plat is relabeled as Block 5. 3. The wetland in the southeastern corner of the plat and a strip 15 feet wide trail corridor (above the OHWL) be formally dedicated as park land. 4. Fifteen foot wide trail corridors are provided between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 and Lots 5 and 6, Block 5. 5. A variance is pursued to accommodate the length of the subdivision's northerly cul-de-sac. 6. All wetlands are delineated by the Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or persons recognized as qualified by such agencies. 7. The proposed subdivision is subject to review by the Rice Creek Watershed District. 2 8. A grading and drainage plan is submitted subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 9. A utility plan is submitted subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 10. A detailed landscape plan is submitted. Such plan should identify specific methods of screening the site's perimeter from adjacent rural uses (i.e., plantings, fencing, berming). 11. If applicable, a phasing plan is submitted subject to City approval. 12. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS Lot Configuration. The preliminary plat design alternative reflects the strict provisions of the property's R -1X zoning designation. Generally speaking, the proposed lot configuration is highly similar to that shown on the previously submitted preliminary plat (see Exhibits A and B). Adherence to the R -1X lot provisions has, however, resulted in a reduction in the total number of lots within the design alternative. A comparative summary is provided below: Preliminary Plat (R-1X/PDO R -1X Design Alternative R -1X) Block 1 29 lots 27 lots Block 2 21 lots 20 lots Block 3 14 lots 12 lots Block 4 10 lots 8 lots Block 5 50 lots 37 lots* TOTAL 124 lots 104 lots *Block is incorrectly labeled on Concept Plan As shown above, the imposition of the strict R -1X lot performance standards has resulted in a loss of 20 lots from the previous plat submission. 3 Lot Performance Standards. Within the design alternative, all proposed lots have been found to meet or exceed the following R -1X minimum lot area, width and depth requirements. Requirement Lot Area 12,825 square feet Lot Width Interior 90 feet Corner 115 feet Lot Depth 135 feet* * 145 foot lot depth required for double frontage lots. Setbacks. Within R -1X districts, the following setbacks are imposed: Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Required Setback 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet All proposed lots demonstrate an ability to meet applicable R -1X setbacks as identified above. Wetlands. The configuration of the site's wetlands on the plat design alternative differ slightly from those depicted on the previous preliminary plat submission. Of specific issue is the wetland(s) located along the site's southern border. As a condition of plat approvali this issue should be resolved. As required by the City Zoning Ordinance, all wetlands must be delineated by the Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or persons recognized as qualified by such agencies. In addition, the plat must be subject to review by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Streets. Generally speaking, the proposed street configuration of the preliminary plat design alternative is highly similar to that shown on the previous plat submittal. To accommodate R -1X lot width provisions, however, some slight modifications to the street configuration have taken place. 4 In reference to the previous plan submittal (Exhibit A), the following changes have been made: • Omission of cul-de-sac providing access to Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15, Block 2. • Omission of cul-de-sac providing access to Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 5. • Omission of cul-de-sac providing access to Lots 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, Block 5. • Shortening of cul-de-sac in northern portion of Block 5. The proposed street modifications do not adversely impact the subdivision's circulation and are considered acceptable. While the proposed street modifications are considered acceptable, a number of street related concerns identified in the previous plat submission remain with the preliminary plat design alternative. 1. Holly Drive. Holly Drive, which bisects the subject site, has been designated a "collector" street by the City's Thoroughfare Plan. Reflective of its classification, the City Engineer has recommended that the street's existing 66 foot right-of-way width be increased to 80 feet. In this regard, an additional seven feet of right-of-way should be dedicated on each side of the street. 2. Cul -De -Sac Length. At ± 1,200 feet in length, the subdivision's northerly cul-de-sac significantly exceeds the City's maximum 500 foot cul-de-sac length requirement. Such cul-de-sac length is due to the configuration of the subject property and area wetland containment. In this regard, the proposed cul-de-sac length is considered justified for the following reasons: a. The subject property may not be put to reasonable use if the City's 500 foot cul-de-sac length requirement is imposed. . b. Circumstances unique to the property were not created by the landowner. c. The hardship is not economic in nature. d. The allowance of the proposed cul-de-sac length will not impair area property values. e. The allowance of the cul-de-sac will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. 5 If the PDO zoning application is not to be utilized, the proposed cul-de-sac length may only be accommodated via variance. Drainage and Utility Easements. The forthcoming final plat should include 10 foot wide utility easements centered on rear and other lot lines. In addition, drainage easements should be placed over the site's wetlands. This item should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. Grading and Drainage. In accordance with Ordinance submission requirements, a grading plan should be submitted for review. Such grading plan will be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Parks/Trails. The subject plat does not include any park land dedication. In review of the submitted preliminary plat, the City Park Board had recommended the following at its 2 May 1994 meeting: 1. A 15 foot wide trail dedication be provided between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 and between Lots 5 and 6, Block 5. 2. The wetland located in the extreme southeastern corner of the plat and a 15 foot wide strip above the wetlands OHWL are formally dedicated as park land. Utility Plan. As required by Ordinance, a utility plan must be submitted for review. The plan shall be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Five Acre Exception. The plat design alternative does not provide for a future street extension through the five acre exception which lies west of the subject plat. Such access omission is intended to respond to property owner opposition to the street extension. To be specifically noted is that development of the five acre parcel will require sole access from Holly Drive. Landscaping. In consideration of the previous plat submission, concerns were raised in regard to the intrusion of urban type uses into adjacent rural areas., To fully address this issue, it is recommended that a landscape plan be submitted which identifies specific methods of screening the perimeter of the subject site (i.e., plantings, berming, fencing). Phasing. If the proposed subdivision is to be developed in phases, a phasing plan must be submitted subject to City approval. 6 CONCLUSION A decision regarding the appropriateness of the R-1X/PDO application to the subject property is considered strictly a matter of City policy. If the City determines that the strict provisions of the R -1X zoning district should be upheld, our office would recommend approval of the plat design alternative subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. pc: Darrell Schneider Randy Schumacher 7 rn CO PRELIMINARY PLAT DESIGN ALTERNATIVE (R -1X) M4 A. )1, • • g :47 11 44; Jo t• • Ai • ! effi f...t • ••.. • Ilakaim.inerAisik& .7140014 • . \ /11( 4.6 =Lir' 12-- -1 ›c . . -111111111111- NORTH 1" = 200' 11 / IM -71-7 \c •I , : / /---- ..---. ;----. / \". r......'---.'•-• 1 \ . / . ..*-- . - - • ' .. - - - -----"; \ -• • 11.-‘;:./' \ ..,../:- . ,../- • 7 11 13 HOLLY DRIVE I 14 • • /1-° 7 1 \ ' • I • / J 1 27 \ • .1 3 / / ')! NOTE: BLOCK #'S ASSIGNED FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES R -1X PDO PROPOSAL 1. 12,825 square foot lots or greater shall be created. When lots are adjacent to wetlands, such lots shall be 90% above wetland boundaries. 2. The minimum lot width at setback shall be 85 feet on interior lots and 105 feet on corner lots. 3. Lots adjacent to Sue Walseth shall meet all R -1X requirements given that she is surrounded by the development site. AGENDA ITEM 5-C STAFF ORIGINATOR Alan Brixius DATE July 6, 1994 TOPIC Rt ................. Public Hearing for Apollo Business Park Replat The replat for Apollo Business Park is scheduled for July 13, 1994. All required documents are not complete. City staff requests the public hearing be continued. 1. Open the public hearing and continue it until August 10, 1994. 1MM! Option 1 MEMORANDUM /1‘.47F,4149/9 > TWA/ 57- (� TO: Lino Lake Planning Commission FROM Alan Brixius DATE: 6 July 1994- /11114:::: RE• Apollo Industrial Park Replat FILE NO.: 194.02 - 94.10 RAMMRi}X (612) 595-9636 The Apollo Industrial Park replat is scheduled for public hearing for July 13, 1994. We have not been able to have all the required documents prepared for this meeting. City staff requests that this item be continued until the August 10, 1994 meeting. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555 axmikO PRAP +j XxfttIItoi • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 WHITE - ORIGINAL YELLOW - FILE COPY PINK - C FILE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-6 LINO LAKES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY July 28, 1994 This document drafted by: HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 RHB72360 LN140-29 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-6. A. Definitions For the purposes of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-6, the following terms shall have the meanings specified below, unless the context otherwise requires: "Administrative expenses" means all expenditures of the Authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of real property in the District, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District, or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for; or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to section 469.178 of the TIF Act. Administrative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants and planning or economic development consultants. "Authority" means the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority, a body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota; "City" means the City of Lino Lakes, a municipal corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota; "City Council" or "Council" means the Lino Lakes City Council; "City Development District Act" or "Act" means Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.124 through 469.134, as amended; "Comprehensive Plan" means the City's objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development, redevelopment and preservation for all lands and water within the City; "County" means Anoka County, Minnesota; "Development District" or "District" means Development District No. 1 in which Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-6 will be located and which was established on January 26, 1987; "Development District Program" or "Program" means the Program for Development District No. 1 which was adopted by the City Council on January 26, 1987; "Project" means Development District No. 1; "State" means the State of Minnesota; "Tax Increment Bonds" means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds issued by the City or the Authority to finance the public costs associated with Development District No. 1 as stated in the Program and in the Plan for TIF District No. 1-6 or any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment Bonds; "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes sections 469.174 through 469.179, as amended; RHB72360 LN140-29 1 "Tax Increment Financing District" or "TIF District" means Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-6, which is being created and established within Development District No. 1 pursuant to the TIF Act; and "Tax Increment Financing Plan" or "Plan" means the Plan for !IP District No. 1-6, which will be adopted by the City Council on July 28, 1994. B. Statutory Authority. Pursuant to section 469.175, subd 4 of the TIF Act, the Authority is authorized to establish tax increment financing districts to facilitate and provide financing for the development objectives articulated in the Development District Program. The Authority has previously established and currently administers five tax increment financing districts within the Project. The Authority now intends to establish TIF District No. 1-6 pursuant to the 111' Act. C. Statement of Objectives. The Authority seeks to achieve the following objectives through the establishment of TIF District No. 1-6: 1. promote and secure the prompt development of property in Development District No. 1 in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with minimal adverse impact on the environment, which property is currently less productive because of the lack of proper utilization and lack of investment, thus promoting and securing the development of other land in the City; 2. promote and secure additional employment opportunities within Development District No. 1 for residents of the City and the surrounding area, thereby improving living standards and preventing unemployment and the loss of skilled labor and other human resources in the City; 3. secure the increase of property subject to taxation by the City, County, school district and other taxing jurisdictions in order to better enable such entities to pay for public improvements and governmental services and programs required to be provided by them; 4. promote the concentration of appropriate industrial uses and related development within Development District No. 1 in order to maintain the area in a manner compatible with its highest and best use; and 5. encourage development within the District which is aesthetically pleasing and which creates a positive visual image of the City. The Authority's specific objective in establishing TIF District No. 1-6 is to assist the developer of a proposed 6,000 square feet warehouse facility. The facility will be a national distribution center for a company manufacturing agricultural and horticultural pumps. The Authority intends to assist the project by using tax increment to pay for special assessments which have been levied against the property by the City. D. State of Public Purpose. In adopting the Plan for TIF District No. 1-6, the Authority and the City will make the following findings: 1. Anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of '11P is deemed necessary; 2. The TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for development of the Project by private enterprise; and RHB72360 LN190-29 2 whole. 3. The 111, Plan conforms to general plans for development of the City as a 4. The area included within TIF District No. 1-6 qualifies as an economic development TIF district within the meaning of the TIF Act. The conclusions to be reached by the Authority and the City Council regarding the above will be based upon the recommendations of city staff and the planning and zoning board as well as the familiarity of members of the Authority and City Council with the property involved and the likelihood that the property will develop within the reasonably foreseeable future solely through private efforts. E. Development District Program. The Authority adopted a Program for Development District No. 1 on January 26, 1987. The plan for development of the City outlined in the Program will continue to provide the basis of the Authority's efforts to develop portions of the community which have not and remain unlikely to be developed solely through private efforts. The Authority does not propose to modify the Program at this time. This Plan for TIF District No. 1-6 is consistent with the Program for Development District No. 1. F. Description of TIF District. Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-6 will consist of a single parcel of land. The legal description of the property within TIF District No. 1-6 is listed on Exhibit A. A map of the boundaries of TIF District No. 1-6 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. G. Development District Contracts. The Authority has not yet entered into a development contract with regard to the development of any property within 1'J1- District No. 1-6. The Authority is currently negotiating a contract with the developer, UDOR U.S.A., Inc., a manufacturer of agricultural and horticultural pumps. The Authority expects to complete negotiations and to authorize execution of a contract with UDOR U.S.A., Inc. by the time this 111 Plan is approved by the City Council. Contracts regarding property within TIF District No. 1-6 will be entered into in accordance with section 469.176, subd 5 of the TIF Act. H. Classification of TIF District. TIF District No. 1-6 qualifies as an economic development TIF district, pursuant to section 469.174, subd. 11 of the TIF Act. Virtually all of the 6000 sq. ft. within the proposed facility will be a warehouse for the agricultural and horticultural pumps manufactured by the developer in Italy or office space directly related thereto. I. Modification of TIF Plan. The Plan for TIF District No. 1-6 may be modified by the Authority, provided that any enlargement of the geographic area of the TIF District, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on the debt if that determination was not a part of the original Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured tax capacity to be retained by the Authority, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the Authority shall be approved upon the notice and after such discussion, public hearing and findings as required for approval of the original Plan. J. Use of Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469.176, subd 4 of the TIF Act, all revenues derived from TIF District No. 1-6 shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay the capital and administrative costs of development activities within the Project as identified in the Program and Plan. K. Excess Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469.176, subd 2 of the TIF Act, in any year in which the increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the Plan, the Authority shall use the excess amount to do any of the following, in the order determined by the Authority: RHs72360 LN140-29 3 1. prepay any outstanding bonds or other obligations; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of bonds or other obligations; or 4. return the excess amount to the Anoka County auditor who shall distribute the excess amount to the City, the County and school district in direct proportion to their respective tax capacity rates. The Authority and the City may also choose to modify the 1 IF Plan in order to provide for other public improvements or to assist other developers within the Project. L. Limitation of Increment. 1. No increment shall be paid to the Authority from TIF District No. 1-6 after three years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of the property in the TIF district by the county auditor unless within the three year period (a) bonds have been issued pursuant to section 469.178 of the 111- Act, or (b) the Authority has acquired property within TIF District No. 1-6, or (c) the Authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within TIF District No. 1-6. 2. If, after four years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 1-6, no demolition, rehabilitation, or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street or right-of-way adjacent to a parcel but not installation of underground utility service, including sewer or water systems, have been commenced on a parcel located within TIF District No. 1-6 by the Authority, or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the TIF Plan, no additional increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original tax capacity of the TIF District. If one of these activities subsequently commences, the Authority shall so certify to the county auditor, and the tax capacity of the property as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue may be added to the TIF District. 3. No tax increment shall in any event be paid to the Authority from TIF District No. 1-6 after nine years from the date of receipt by the Authority of the first increment or 11 years from the date of approval of the Plan, whichever occurs first M. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. Pursuant to section 469.176, subd 3 of the TIF Act, administrative expenses are limited to 10 percent of the total tax increment expenditures budgeted or actually incurred, whichever is less. Each time the Authority increases the budget of TIF District No. 1-6, the amount of increment allocated to administrative costs may be increased as long as the total of administrative expenditures does not exceed 10 percent of the total budget of the TIF District. N. Limitation on Boundary Changes. The geographic area of TIF District No. 1-6 may be reduced, but cannot be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original tax capacity by the Anoka county auditor. 0. Relocation. Although no relocation is anticipated, the Authority accepts as binding its obligations under state law regarding relocation benefits and, if necessary, will administer relocation services for families, individuals and businesses displaced by public action. P. Parcels to Be Acquired Within the '1'1F District. The land within TIF District No. 1-6 is currently owned by the City and will be sold to the Developer prior to construction of the warehouse facility. It is not anticipated that the Authority will acquire any property within 1'11, District No. 1-6. RHB72360 4 LN140-29 AGENDA ITEM 5-D STAFF ORIGINATOR Brian Wessel DATE July 13, 1994 TOPIC Resolution Recommending the City Council Hold a Public Hearing and adopt the Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District 1-6 The City has authorized preparation of a Tax Increment Financing Plan to establish Tax Increment Financing District 1-6 in the Apollo Business Park (See attached map). This. project TIF District is to provide public assistance for the UDO • U.S.A. distribution facility. A special City Council meeting has been set for «`` V't'iold a public hearing and adopt the Plan. The Planning and Zoning Board initiates this process. through a resolution recommending the City Council hold the public hearing and adopt the Plan. 1. Adopt the Resolution recommending the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the Plan. 2. Return to staff for further consideration. .................... Option 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: LINO LAKES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-6 WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes City Council and Economic Development Authority have authorized preparation of a tax increment financing plan (Plan) for the proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-6; and WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Planning and Zoning Board for its comment pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed the Plan and compared it with the City's comprehensive plan and other plans for development of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-6 is found to be consistent with the plans for development of the city of Lino Lakes as a whole. 2. It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hold the public hearing required by law and adopt the Plan. Dated: Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary RB72400 I.N140-29 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RHB72400 LN140-29 74TH STREET UNO LAKES CORRECTIONAL FACILITY LILAC ST. - S.T. I{WY NO. 49 J x/94 may, L — . \\SER t r APOLLO BUSINESS CENTER CITY OF 8US+HESS P#RX i eocxDARrr APOLLO BUSINESS PARK IINOLAKRS Q STAFF ORIGINATOR: DATE: TOPIC: AGENDA ITEM S- 6 Alan Brixius July 7, 1994 UDOR Minor Subdivision The City wishes to convey an one acre industrial lot in Lino Lakes Industrial Park to UDOR USA. the land sale is scheduled for July 28, 1994. This land sale will serve to complete extensive economic development efforts that solicited UDOR to locate in Lino Lakes. The City had anticipated creating the lot for sale to UDOR via a replat of the entire Lino Lakes Industrial Park, however, the plat document will not be completed for Planning Commission review until August. To meet the city's land sale schedule, the Planning Commission is requested to review a minor subdivision that addresses the creation of the UDOR site. The site is zoned G -I, General Industrial. The City has previously approved a lot area variance and site plan for UDOR USA-. The design details of the plat are outlined in the July 7, 1994 Planning Report. 1. Approve the minor subdivision with conditions outlined in the staff report dated July 7, 1994. 2. Refer to staff for further consideration. Option 1 Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. URBAN P L A N N I N G • D E S I G N • M A R K E T RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Lino Lakes Planning Commission FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 7 July 1994 RE: Lino Lakes - UDOR Minor Subdivision FILE NO: 194.02 - 94.12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The City of Lino Lakes has been working with UDOR USA to have them locate their industrial facility within the City. In June the City approved a lot area variance and a site plan for UDOR to locate in the Apollo Business Park. The City is now scheduled to sell the land to UDOR on July 28, 1994. The City was anticipating creating the lot to sell to UDOR through the platting of the entire business park, however, the work on this replat is not complete and will not be reviewed until the August 1994 Planning Commission meeting. To meet the City schedule for the July 28th land sale, the Planning Commission is requested to review a minor subdivision that addresses only the creation of the UDOR site. Recommendation To facilitate the sale of a one acre lot to UDOR USA, the Planning Commission is requested to approve a minor subdivision. In review of the proposed subdivision concept, we recommend approval of the minor subdivision subject to the following conditions: 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 1. The City of Lino Lake proceed with the replat of the balance of the industrial park in August 1994 to redefine property lines, vacate existing easement, and clarify legal descriptions for the remaining land. 2. After the property sale, UDOR be requested to participate in the industrial park replat to clear up the legal description and vacate existing easement locations for the UDOR site. 3. The City develop a description for an access easement for shared driveway to run the length of the lot line between Parcel A and Parcel C of the minor subdivision. This access easement must be recorded with the minor subdivision. 4. Ten foot utility easement be identified along all lot lines of Parcel A. 5. A formal survey document be prepared by the city that illustrates the proposed subdivision and is recordable with Anoka County. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Section 1001.2 (13) of the Lino Lake Subdivision Ordinance defines a minor subdivision as follows: (13) Minor Subdivision - a subdivision which results in four (4) or fewer parcels, tracts, or lots from one (1) or two (2) existing parcels, tracts, or lots. (Amended by Ordinance No. 04 - 90, passed May 29, 1990) The proposed UDOR Subdivision is consistent with the minor subdivision definition. Property Ownership. All the property involved is owned currently by the City of Lino Lakes. With the approval of the minor subdivision, the City will convey the newly created Parcel A to UDOR USA for the development of a first phase 6,000 square foot industrial facility. The ultimate building development will be 12,000 square feet in area. The balance of the land involved will be retained by the City and will be included in new subdivision of the Lino Lakes Industrial Park scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in August 1994. Subdivision Configuration. The proposed subdivision intends to subdivide portions of existing Lots 7 and 8, Block 2, Lino Industrial Park that remain after the realignment of the Apollo Drive right-of-way. The proposed subdivision will create the UDOR lot (Parcel A) and a lot remnant that is intended to be replatted with the balance of the industrial park in August. 2 Lot size. the site is zoned G -I, General Industrial with the following minimum lot standards: lot area - 3 acres, lot width - 200 feet. The proposed UDOR lot was sized to accommodate the ultimate development of a 12,000 square foot industrial building. The proposed size of the UDOR parcel is 1 acre with a lot width of 215 feet. The City has approved lot area variances in conjunction with its approval of the UDOR site plan. Site Access. The site fronts on Apollo Drive. Access will be provided by a shared driveway arrangement recommended by the County. To accommodate the shared access, an access easement must be provided along the length of the shared lot line between Parcels A and B. The easement must be provided by the City as a separate document which will be recorded with the property. Utilities. Both sanitary sewer and water are available via the newly improved Apollo Drive. Easements. The Lino Lake Subdivision Ordinance requires the establishment of utility easements along all property lines. The minor subdivision should illustrate 10 foot utility and drainage easements along all lot lines. Recording Documents. The submission document to date represents only a concept for the minor subdivision. If approval is given, a formal survey must be prepared in a manner that the subdivision can be recorded at Anoka County. CONCLUSION In the absence of a plat for the entire industrial park, the Planning Commission is requested to approve minor subdivision that will create a one acre site for UDOR USA. This will allow the City to convey this lot to this industry on July 28th. While presented in concept form, the proposed minor subdivision appears to comply with City standards and as such approval is recommended subject to the conditions outlined in the Executive Summary. pc: Darrell Schneider Brian Wessel Randy Schumacher John Powell 3 JUL-06-1994 15:22 4 • TKDH w 612 22 008 H.02/02 NORTH SCALE : I/1 = 1001 7-6-94 TKDA K ATZ. KING, OUYKI. ANDERSON AND AS.,OCIAlES A CORRORA1ED ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS s.0 4r ANA Im.NE5OT4 U - DOR U.S.A. PROPOSED LOT CONN AO (1NY 110: OP+w'C 143 S547B4 TOTAL P.02 STAFF ORIGINATOR: DATE: TOPIC: AGENDA ITEM 3-7r Alan Brixius July 6, 1994 Pine Ridge 3rd Addition Preliminary Plat Mr. Richard Carlson is requesting preliminary plat approval of a 19 lot single family subdivision entitled Pine Ridge 3rd Addition. The subject 10 acre site lies east of Ware Road and south of the Pine Ridge 1st Addition. The property is zoned R -1X, Single Family Executive. Design details of this plat are outlined in a July 6, 1994 planning report. 1. Approve with conditions outlined in staff report dated 6 July 1994. 2. Refer to staff for further consideration. :�5•1..�;�'R.......i�",it���a'rY`r?•� :'�`t�'M_'..`,:?L7�iY•'.:::th% Option 1 �A Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. URBAN P L A N N I N G • D E S I G N • M A R K E T RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Mary Kay Wyland FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius DATE: 6 July 1994 RE: Lino Lakes - Pine Ridge 3rd Addition Preliminary Plat FILE NO: 194.01 - 94.05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Mr. Richard Carlson is requesting preliminary plat approval of a 19 lot single family subdivision entitled Pine Ridge 3rd Addition. The subject 10 acre site lies east of Ware Road and south of the Pine Ridge 1st Addition. The property is zoned R -1X, Single Family Executive. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Preliminary Plat Exhibit D - Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Exhibit E - Wetland Locations Exhibit F - Buildable Area Summary 5775 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 Recommendation Based on the following review, the Pine Ridge 3rd Addition following conditions: our office recommends approval of Preliminary Plat subject to the 1. The subdivis is reconfigured such that Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 are prod internal access from the subdivision. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. 2. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to right-of-way dedication associated with Ware Road and the need for a financial security for the eventual upgrading of Ware Road 3. The side lot line separating Lots iF and 1, Block 1 is reconfigured to lie radial to the adjacent cul-de-sac. 4. The subdivision's cul-de-sac is specifically named. Such street name shall be subject to City approval. 5. The proposed wetland mitigation plan is subject to approval by the Army Corps of Engineers and Rice Creek Watershed District. 6. The lot layout shown on the submitted grading and drainage plan is changed to match the lot configuration shown on the preliminary plat. The grading and drainage plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 7. A utility plan is submitted subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. Ten foot wide utility easements are provided along rear and other lot lines. This issue should be subject to .comment/ recommendation by the City Engineer. 9. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to drainage easement establishment. 10. The City Park Board provide comment/recommendation in regard to park and trail dedication. 11. Comments from other City staff. 2 ISSUES ANALYSIS Density. Within R -1X Zoning Districts, the maximum number of dwelling units per acre must not exceed three. The proposed plat contains 19 lots at a density of 1.9 units per acre. As such, the proposed density conforms to Ordinance standards. Blocks. According to the City subdivision Ordinance, blocks shall have a maximum length of 1,500 feet and a minimum length of 400. Both proposed blocks within the subdivision comply with required block length standards. Lot Depth. According to the Zoning Ordinance, lots within R -1X Districts must provide 135 feet of depth. All proposed lots have been found to meet this requirement. Lot Area. According to City policy, lot area calculations must exclude all waterbodies. In this regard, all lots must provide at least 12,825 square feet of lot area (R -1X standard) exclusive of waterbodies. All proposed lots have been found to meet or exceed minimum R -1X lot area requirements (see Exhibit F for reference). Lot Width. Within R -1X Zoning District, a minimum lot width of 90 feet is required for interior lots and a minimum of 115 feet is required for corner lots. All proposed lots have been found to meet minimum lot width requirements. Setbacks. All lots successfully demonstrate an ability to accommodate the following R -1X Zoning District setbacks. Front Yard 30 Feet Side Yard - Interior 10 Feet - Corner 30 Feet Rear Yard 30 Feet Lot Configuration. Generally speaking, the proposed lot configuration is considered positive and responds to the site's design parameters (i.e., wetlands). One concern which does exist relates to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 in the northwest corner of the plat. As shown on Exhibit C, these lots will be required to obtain 'access from Ware Road and lie isolated from the balance of the subdivision's lots. While Ware Road itself is classified as a local street (per 1987 Transportation Plan), the street is listed on the City's Municipal State Aid (MSA) System and is expected to accommodate significant traffic volumes in the future. Although the existence of direct single family lot access is acknowledged along Ware Road both north and south of the subject site, such access condition should not justify the proliferation of a genuine safety problem. 3 The City in past plat reviews required lots to be accessed through an internal streets to protect more heavily travelled street corridors. Most recently, Fox Trace was required to modify its plat to avoid direct lot access onto Ware Road. Emphasizing the isolation of Lots 1 and 2 is the need to extend utilities from the proposed cul-de-sac along side lot lines to serve Lots 1 and 2. This long utility extension would become a City owned utility with the final plat approval. We would express concerns with regard to the maintenance and upkeep of this sewer line which would require the disruption of private yards. The City Engineer should comment on the acceptability of the utility arrangement. Based on the aforementioned issues, we would suggest that the preliminary plat should be reconfigured so as not to isolate said Lots 1 and 2 from the balance of the subdivision. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. One additional concern in regard to lot configuration relates to the side lot line separating Lots 8 and 9 of Block 1. According to Section 1001.08, Subd. 6 (3) of the Subdivision Ordinance, side lot lines must be substantially at right angles to straight street lines or radial to curved street lines. So as to comply with the provisions of the ordinance, the side lot line separating Lots 8 and 9, Block 1 should be reconfigured to lie radial to the adjacent cul-de-sac. Streets. The proposed street layout has to a large extent been dictated by existing development which surrounds the subject property. In this regard, the street configuration is considered generally acceptable. While it is acknowledged that the subdivision's street configuration is influenced by the site's wetland locations, interior street access should be provided to Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 if at all possible. All proposed streets are shown to provide appropriate right-of-way widths and cul-de-sac lengths. The City Engineer should provide comment in regard to specific right-of-way dedication requirements associated with Ware Road and the need for any financial security for the eventual upgrading of Ware Road. While the subdivision's east/west street shall exist as simply an extension of Coyote Trail, the subdivision's cul-de-sac has not been specifically named. Such cul-de-sac should be named as part of the forthcoming final plat submission. Such street name shall be subject to City approval. Wetlands. As shown on Exhibit E, the subject site contains two wetlands/drainageways. Some mitigation of the wetland/drainageway will likely be necessary to accommodate the proposed extension of Coyote Trail. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the submitted wetland mitigation plan (incorporated in grading and 4 drainage plan) must be approved by both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Rice Creek Watershed District. Grading and Drainage. In accordance with City subdivision regulations, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted for review. To be noted, however, is that the lot layout depicted on the grading plan does not match the layout depicted. Whereas, the preliminary plat depicts 115 foot wide corner lots, the grading plan illustrates 110 foot wide corner lots. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the lot layout illustrated on the grading plan should match that shown on the preliminary plat. The grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Utilities. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, a utility plan must be submitted. Such plan must demonstrate how all proposed lots are to be serviced and shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Easements. According to the City Subdivision Ordinance, easements at least 10 feet wide (centered on rear and other lot lines) must be provided for utilities where necessary. In addition, easements for drainage purposes must be provided when determined necessary. While the submitted preliminary plat has appropriately provided easements over the property's two drainageway/wetland areas, additional easements for utilities and drainage must be provided. This issue should be subject to further comment by the City Engineer. Park/Trail Dedication. As shown on Exhibit C, a 12 foot wide trail corridor has been proposed along the subject plat's northern border. Such trail would constitute a westerly extension of an existing trail corridor. The acceptability of the proposed trail location, as any other park/trail dedication requirements should be subject to the recommendation by the City -Park Board. CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the Pine Ridge 3rd Addition Preliminary plat subject to the conditions' listed in the Executive Summary of this report. pc: Darrell Schneider Randy Schumacher Richard Carlson 5 NORTH 1 MILE CITY OF LINO LAKES MINNESOTA EXHIBIT A A Irv. dfirgaardieVirlecikjil'it"" irfErana "olosgratp.,Lf. • 40.1:..0", g4$1‘i.171/Midi ‘7% toe at> • • damn • UM S OF CITY OF LINO LACES Wirt— —A+o7. •1•1104rMr-019.-x- – EXHIBIT B NISEMEMINISEMEgi IINEEMEMISKIEVE SEREMBEINNISMISi 4. .•.e. • damn • UM S OF CITY OF LINO LACES Wirt— —A+o7. •1•1104rMr-019.-x- – EXHIBIT B Trol; 1 14,490 SF 5. 8 22,909 SF z 2 16,074 S 9 30,803 SF 14°- 00 71.16• , —G;T:74.41. 6 14,464 SF 10 23,824 SF 5 15,115 SF 3 27,261 SF 4 7' 17,1?8 SF 11 16,973 SF 12 13 13,550 SF '13,517 SF Q ) .31.65• 3LOC 1 17,251 SF 2 18,995 ,SF 3 4 A 5 6 4 5,812 S413,501 SF '413,501 SF :13,501 SFS — 44.99' es 1 hereby cerlity that this pion. specification, or report .as prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that 1 oma duly Registered Professional Engineer under the State of Minnesota Statutes. Sections 326.02 326.16. l✓ )77.".• TeddW. Moltke• P.E. Dote: lie/sy Minn. Req. No. 15612 ADD111ON5 kir vi.,JONT. 1.0. DRIP RWN. CHIN). 4PPVD COMMIT+` EXHIBIT C 0 O -- 690 — 892 — 11 INSTALL 1S CMP • D0STN6�D1LET EEEVIRIow 111fff rr/White 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 6 /1 / 0 5 Trail AddItlon• • d Pond U t •, �1 \ t \ \ t L _\ 41//0'/h...� no 1 1 I \� 2716 Sr W Ibizrzlzmiv •,% 902 ;1\671: 906 ` "�'•�; 100 L/-24. GM. ArRws N \ t ti 11 11 1 11 NOTE: ANY UTIUTIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE ONLY APPROXIMATE IN DEPTH AND LOCATION AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR. OTHER UTIUTIES MAY EXIST. AND IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN THE LOCATION OF SUCH. S Done. nnmu NOTE Mar. FLOOR ELEv.- 843. 5 \_\ 6 / i I hereby certify that this plan. specification. or report •os prepared by me or under my direct supervision. and lhot 1 am o duly Registered Proiessionol Engineer under the State of Minnesota 5tolutes. Sections 326.02 10 326-16. .:_41L✓. )ri.• Tedd W. Motlke, P.E. Data: t/t/sr Minn. Reg. No. 15612 _NO. DATE_ •RWN. COMMENTS__` -•- d Q M ATTKE ENGINEERING, INC. 7671 Central Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 (612) 783-0300 AUTHORITY Richard S. Carlson & Associates, Inc. 7671 Conbd Avenue NE, rrld.x MN 55432 612 766-1216 PROJECT TITLE PineRidge 3rd Addition Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control DRAWN APPROVED CHECKED DATE 6/6/94 I SCALE: 1'-50' 3 3 DRAWNG TITLE EXHIBIT D O O r NOTE: ANY UTIUTIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE ONLY APPROXIMATE IN DEPTH AND LOCATION AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR OTHER UTILITIES MAY EXIST, AND IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN THE LOCATION OF SUCH. '7/ Trail / 8 D 2 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report woe prepared by me a under my direct supervision, and that 1 om a duly Regletred Professional Engineer under the State of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 326.02 to 326.16. . ADDITIONS / REVISIONS COMMUN. NO. DATE DRWN. CHKD. APPV0 Tedd W. Moltke, P.E. Date: (A/r. Minn. Reg. No. 15612 EXHIBIT E PINE RIDGE 3RD ADDITION LOT WETLAND AREAS Lot No. Total Area Upland Area Wetland Area (SF) (SF) (SF) Block 1 1 14,490 12,841 1,649 2 16,074 13,173 2,901 3 26,772 13,401 13,371 4 17,128 13,577 3,551 5 15,118 12,934 2,184 6 14,464 13,227 1,237 7 18,709 18,709 -0- Block 2 2 19,744 17,197 2,547 3 15,812 13,128 2,684 EXHIBIT F AGENDA ITEM G STAFF ORIGINATOR: Dan Licht DATE: July 7, 1994 TOPIC: Zoning Amendment - L -I, G -I Lot and Yard Requirements ......................................... .......................................... ......................................... A draft Zoning Ordinance amendment which would reduce the minimum lot width requirements of Light Industrial and General Industrial Districts and reduce the minimum lot size requirement within a General Industrial District. In addition, the amendment creates an exception to the Ordinance standard regarding side yard setback requirements of driveway. The preparation of this draft amendment was prompted by a desire to provide the City with more flexibility with regards to encouraging economic development. By altering the lot width in both districts and reducing the minimum lot size in the General Industrial District, the City will achieve greater marketability for land because the of ability of the land to accommodate different types and sizes of businesses. 1. Approve amendments outlined in Memorandum with draft Ordinance dated 7 July 1994. 2. Refer to staff for further consideration. ................................................. ........................................................ ......................................................... ........................................................ ......................................................... Option 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN AMENDMENT TO THE LINO LAKES ZONING ORDINANCE REDUCING VARIOUS LOT AND YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS AND GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 6, Subd. 17.(2) (Light Industrial District) of the Zoning Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Lot (A) (B) (C) (D) and Yard Requirements: Minimum District Size: Three (3) acres. Minimum Lot Size: One (1) acre. Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet. Setbacks: (The greater of the following:) (i) From Streets: A. Residential Street: Ten (10) feet B. Collector or Arterial Street: Fifty (50) feet. (ii) Front Yard: Fifty (50) feet. (iii)Rear A. B. C. (iv) Side A. B. C. (v) From feet. Yard: Principal Building: Accessory Building: Parking Lot/Driveway: Yard: Principal Building: Accessory Building: Parking Lot/Driveway: except for the purpose on the property line lots approved by the C Residential District: Fifteen (15) feet. Ten (10) feet. Five (5) feet. Ten (10) feet. Ten (10) feet. Five (5) feet, of a shared access of two adjoining ity. Seventy -Five (75) Section 2. Section 6, Subd. 18.(2) (General Industrial District) of the Zoning Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (2) District, Lot and Yard Requirements: (A) (B) (C) (D) Minimum District Size: Ten (10) acres. Minimum Lot Size: One (1) acre. Minimum Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet. Setbacks: (The greater of the following:) (i) From A. B. Streets: Residential Street: Fifty (50) feet. Collector or Arterial Street: Fifty (50) feet. (ii) Front Yard: A. Principal Building: B. Accessory Building: C. Parking Lot/Driveway: (iii)Rear A. B. C. (iv) Side A. B. C. (v) Yard: Principal Building: Accessory Building: Parking Lot/Driveway: Fifteen (15) feet. Ten (10) feet. Five (5) feet. Fifteen (15) feet. Ten (10) feet. Five (5) feet. Yard: Principal Building: Ten (10) feet. Accessory Building: Ten (10) feet. Parking Lot/Driveway: Ten (10) feet, except for the purpose of a shared access on the property line of two adjoining lots approved by the City. From Residential District: One hundred (100) feet. Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication according to the City Charter. PASSED this ATTEST:, day of 1994. Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor Marilyn G. Anderson, City Clerk 2 AGENDA ITEM 9 STAFF ORIGINATOR Randy Schumacher DATE July 8, 1994 TOPIC Consideration of Amending Current Insurance Coverage to Add Accident Coverage for City Volunteers and Board Members The City insurance policy currently does not have insurance coverage for volunteers or Board Members(Park Board, Planning and Zoning, Economic Development Advisory Board). Volunteer Accident Coverage The cost to add coverage for volunteers would be .10 per capita or approximately $1,300. This volunteer coverage would includes 1.Disability of $400/week up to 26 weeks 2.Death benefit of $100,000 3.Permanent impairment based on % of Disability $750 - $100,000 At this time, the City wishes to not purchase the additional medical reimbursement coverage ($585.00) or construction/demolition coverage($435/project) for volunteers. Optional Accident Policy for Board Members The cost of this limited coverage is $12.75 per person. This limited accident coverage would include: 1.Dismemberment maximum of $100,000 2.Total disability benefit, $400 per week, with a maximum of 26 weeks 3.Death benefit of $100,000 All members of the board must be covered. The coverage cannot be offered on an individual choice basis. OPTION: ............................. ............................. a. Provide optional volunteer accident coverage for city volunteers at .10 per capita, and provide optional accident coverage for board members at $12.75 per person. b. Provide no coverage to City volunteers or City board members at this time. RECOMMENDATION Recommend option a. 6125917404 League of Minnesota Cities 9ERKLEY E9A F-155 T-056 P-002/006 OCT 14 '91 13s25 183 University Ave. East 61 Patti, MN 65101.2528 (812) 227.5600 (FAX: 2210988) April 19, 1991 To: cities and agents - L?(CIT workers aompeneation program From: L14CIT Board of Trustees Re: Accident coverage for city volunteers The LMCIT Board of Trustees is pleased to announce a naw program to provide accident protection to city volunteers. This program provides a schedule of benefits to compensate city volunteers who are injured while performing volunteer services for the city. This optional coverage is available to member cities of the LMCIT workers compensation program. Whom will the new program cover? With only a few exceptions, all city volunteers working under the city's direction and control will be automatically covered on a blanket basis if the city chooses to add this coverage. This could include, for example, coaches and instructors in recreation programs, volunteers working on a city -sponsored festival or celebration, Nclean-up day' volunteers, etc. The city will not need to list the individuals who are to be covered, either by name or by project; nor will the city need to keep track of the time the various volunteers put in. There are four classes of volunteers Who would not be automatically covered: 1. Volunteers who are covered by workers compensation. Certain volunteers are defined to be "employees" for purposes of workers compensation, and are therefor eligible for workers compensation benefits if they are injured. These include volunteer firefighters, ambulance attendants, first responders, law enforcement assistance volunteers, and civil defense volunteers. Since these volunteers are already protected by workers compensation, they are not covered under this plan. 2. City council, board, committee, and commission members. Other coverage options are already available for these people. The workers compensation law gives cities the option to extend workers compensation coverage to elected and appointed officials. LMCIT has also for several years offered an accident policy underwritten by CIGNA for members of city councils, boards, and , committees. (. 612591?404 BERKLEY ERR F-155 T-956 P-003/906 OCT 14 '91 13x25 04 3. Members of rivate or•anitationa which •rovide sery ces or •art c •a e n a -s nsore es as a • rte'.. 4. volunteers vorkin• on construction or demolition projects. T ese vo unteers v no •e covers• automatically. However, for en additional charge, city can add coverage for volunteers on a specific construction or demolition project. the What benefits would an injured volunteer receive? The plan will provide three basic benefits: 1. Disability benefit. A volunteer who is unable to engage in the aatiiites of his/her normal occupation because of en injury suffered while performing volunteer services for the city will receive a disability benefit of $400/week for up to 26 weeks. 2. Death benefit. If a volunteer dies as a result of an in3ury suffered while performing volunteer services for the city, a death benefit of $100,000 will be paid to the volunteer's survivors or estate. 3. Impairment benefit. .If a volunteer suffers a permanent impairment or disability es a result of an injury suffered while performing volunteer services for the city, the volunteer will receive a lump sum payment as compensation for that impairment. Payments are based on the percentage of disability, ranging from $750 for a 1% disability to $100,000 for 1004 disability. The percentage of disability is determined in the same manner used for impairment compensation in the workers compensation system. For an additional charge the city can add coverage for up to $1000 of medical costs. This limited medical coverage is intended to pick up relatively` minor first aid costs. On amore serious injuries, it could also be applied to costa 'which the individual would otherwise have to bear undo/ bis/her•own health coverage's .deductible or co -pay provisions. What does it cost? The cost is based on the city's population. The basic annual charge is $.lo per capita, subject to a minimum premium of $150 and a maximum premium of $1300. The additional post to add the optional medical coverage is 45% of the basic premium. Coverage for volunteers working on a construction or demolition project can be added for a charge of $300 per project, or 5435 per project if the optional medical coverage is included. 6125917404 BERKLEY EBA F-155 T-056 P-004/006 OCT 14 '91 13:26 The expiration date of this coverage will be coordinated with the city's LMCIT workers compensation coverage. For cities that add this coverage mid-term, the initial premium will be pro -rated. Why would the city want this coverage? Aren't injuries to volunteers already covered under the city's liability coverage? An injury to a volunteer would be covered by the IMCIT liability coverage only if the city was legally liable for that injury; that is, if the injury was caused by some negligence by the city or a city officer or employee or another city volunteer. However, just as with any other tort claim, the city would not be liable for en injury to a volunteer if the volunteer him/herself were more at fault than the city, or if the injury were simply an accident that really wasn't an one's fault. A volunteer coach being hit in the heed by a batted baseball might be an example of the latter situation. The volunteer accident coverage protects the volunteer on a "no-fault" basis. The benefits are automatically payable if the injury occurs while the volunteer is performing cervices for the city, regardless of whose fault it was. Besides protecting the volunteer whose injury isn't caused by the city's negligence, having these no-fault benefits available could also help avoid . litigation in cases where the city (or a city officer, employee, or other volunteer) is or may be at fault. The injured volunteer can receive these benefits without getting into an adversary situation against the dity. Of course, if the volunteer's injuries exceeded the benefits paid under this coverage, he/she would still be able to make a tort claim against the city for those excess damages, if the injury was caused by the city's negligence. Why did LMCIT create a whole new _program? Why not just offer e "voluntary workers compensation endorsement" andprovide workers compensation benefits to volunteers? The LMCIT Board chose this approach for several reasons. First, this approach is substantially less expensive to the city 'than providing workers compensation benefits would be. The basic premiums are roughly a fifth of the cost of workers compensation benefits, reflecting the more limited scope of benefits provided. Second, administration iia simpler for the city, since the city doesn't have to keep records of how many hours were worked by how many volunteers, etc. Third, it eliminates the problem of determining what the appropriate indemnity rate is for an unpaid volunteer. (This is particularly problematic with volunteers who don't have other paying employment.) 6125917404 BERKLEY RBA F-155 T-056 P-005/006 OCT 14 '91 13:2? Fourth, providing voluntaryworkers compensation coverage would create a potentially unlimited risk for LMCIT, since the reinsurance LMCIT purchases from the state workers compensation reinsurance association wouldn't apply to this exposure. The LHCIT Board was very concerned about the danger of assuming an open-ended risk that conceivably could jeopardize the financial stability of the entire pool in•a catas rophic-situation. How do we enroll? To enroll, complete the attached form and return it to Berkley Administrators. (Don't worry, this isn't bomeone new. ERA has just changed its name. It's still the same company that has administered LMCIT's Workers compensation program since 1980.) They will bill the city for the premium. .Further information Call Pete Tritz or Pat Deshler at the League office if you have any questions or need any additional information. League of Minnesota Cities December 16, 1991 To: City officials From: Peter Tritz 183 University Ave. East St. Paul, MN 55101-2526 (612) 227-5600 (FAX: 221-0986) ENROLLMENT WILL BE OPEN DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY FOR LMCIT'S ACCIDENT POLICY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCILS AND OTHER CITY BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS. This accident coverage is provided by CIGNA, and provides a lower-cost alternative to workers compensation coverage. By statute, elected officials and officers appointed for a fixed term of office are covered by workers compensation only if the city has passed an ordinance or resolution to that effect. The accident coverage applies while the individual is traveling to or from a committee meeting, or while conducting other official business on behalf of and at the request of the committee. The coverage provides a $100,000 accidental death benefit and a $400/week short-term benefit for total disability. While this accident policy was developed as a lower-cost alternative to providing workers compensation coverage, it is important to understand that the benefits are not equivalent to those of workers compensation. Some of the differences are that it does not include medical, rehabilitation, or retraining benefits; disability and death benefits are fixed, rather than being based on the individual's actual earnings; disability benefits are paid only for total disability, and for a maximum of 26 weeks; and the accident policy disability benefits may be taxable income to the individual. The city may provide coverage for any city boards, commissions, or committees it designates. However, all members of the respective board or commission must be covered; that is, the coverage cannot be offered on an individual choice basis. The cost of the accident coverage is $12.75 per person per year. (By comparison, LMCIT's current minimum rate for workers compensation coverage for council members is $122 per person per year.) The accident policy coverage year runs March 1 to February 28. Additional information and application forms are enclosed. For questions concerning the coverage or to put coverage into effect, contact Julie Seidlitz, The Brehm Group, 706 Second Avenue South, Suite 750, Minneapolis, MN 55402; (612) 339-7385. Dear Member City, The League of Minnesota Cities is pleased to offer through T. C. Field and Company and Life Insurance Company of North America, an Accidental Death & Dismemberment and Short Term Disability benefit for your city council members, and selected Committee, Commission or Board members. This insurance covers all eligible council members while they are traveling to, participating in, or traveling from a regular or special meeting of the council or other city board, commission, or committee of which the individual is a member, or while conducting official council business on behalf, and at the request of the council. Coverage begins at the start of a trip, whether from their home, office or other location, and ends upon their return to their home or office, or makes a personal deviation. "Personal deviation", as used here, means an activity that is not necessarily related to their business, and not incidental to the business trip. ELIGIBILITY All active Minnesota Municipal Council members whose municipality has elected to participate in this program and all members of City or Municipal Committees, Commissions and Boards for whom the Municipality has applied for coverage. THE BENEFIT Accidental Death & Dismemberment If bodily injuries result in death or dismemberment within one year of a covered accident, the plan will pay as follows: Loss of Life $100,000' Loss of two or more members $100,000" Loss of one member $50,000* Loss of thumb and index finger of the same hand $25,000* "Member" means hand, foot or eye. Only one amount, the largest to which you are entitled, will be paid for all losses resulting from one accident. "If you are age 70 or over at the time you sustain injuries in a covered accident, your Principal Sum reduces to 65% of the original amount; at age 75, to 45%; at age 80, to 30%; and at age 85, to 15%. Total Disability Weekly Benefit If, within 30 days of the date of a covered accident, an insured becomes totally disabled as a direct result of injuries sustained, and from no other cause, the Plan will pay $400.00 per week, following a 3 -day waiting period, for up to 26 weeks, or until such time as a benefit becomes payable for loss of life, limb or sight. Exposure and Disappearance If the body of an Insured has not been found within one year of the disappearance, stranding, sinking or wrecking of any vehicle in which the Insured was an occupant, then it shall be presumed, subject to all other provisions and conditions of the policy that the Insured has suffered loss of life covered under the policy. EXCLUSIONS No coverage is provided for loss due to: a) b) c) d) e) Suicide, attempted suicide, or intentionally self- inflicted injuries. War or any act of war. Full-time service in the armed forces. Taking part in a felony. Travel or flight in any aircraft while being used for any testing or experimental purposes, fire fighting, pipe- or power -line inspection, aerial photography or exploration; or one operated by the insured, a member of their household, the Municipality or any Municipality or affiliate; or in military aircraft other than transport aircraft operated by the Military Airlift Command (MAC) or similar service of another country; or while serving as a pilot or other crew member of any aircraft. Please fill out the enclosed enrollment form, and send it along, with the first annual premium, calculated as shown. All checks should be made payable to, and mailed to: The Brehm Group 706 Second Avenue South Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 This brochure is intended as a brief benefit description. The Policy will determine the benefit payable.