The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/10/2021 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, November 10, 2021 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers Please be courteous and turn off all electronic devices during the meeting. A C 11 1V11 A 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 13, 2021 5. OPEN MIKE 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Take 5 Car Wash and Oil Change PUD Concept Plan Review 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Zoning Ordinance Update -Zoning Districts & Performance Standards, Kendra Lindahl & Kevin Shay, Landform B. Project Updates 8. ADJOURN Meeting guidelines on reverse side. City of Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board MEETING GUIDELINES Open Mike — The purpose of a Board Meeting is to accomplish the business of the city. When presenting at a meeting please remember to be respectful, and follow these guidelines: oo Please address the meeting chair. oo State your name and address for the record. oo Please observe a 4-minute limit. oo The topic must relate to city business. oo Open Mike is for items not on the agenda. oo A spokesperson must represent a group of five or more — groups will have 8 minutes. oo The Presiding Officer may limit duplicative presentations. oo Remember, the meeting is to discuss city business only. Public Hearing - Held as a separate item of business on the agenda. The public hearing segment is your opportunity to tell the Board how you feel about issues scheduled to be heard. Typically, a hearing follows these steps: oo The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice -Chair) will announce the proposal to be reviewed and ask for the staff report. The presiding Officer shall maintain strict order and etiquette at all meetings. oo Staff will present their report on the proposal. oo Board members will then ask City Staff questions about the proposal. oo The Presiding Officer will then open up the public hearing for anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Comments should be limited to four (4) minutes unless further time is granted by the Presiding Officer. All comments should be directed to the Board as a body and not to any individual Board Member or City Staff Member unless permission is granted by the Presiding Officer. No person shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Board without the permission of the Presiding Officer. oo After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his/her comments, the Presiding Officer shall close the public hearing. oo The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. oo The Board will then make a recommendation(s) and/or a decision. When you are called upon for your comments, please step to the microphone at the podium and state your name and address for the record. Occasionally, the Board may continue a hearing to another meeting before taking action. Meeting Etiquette The Planning & Zoning Board must preserve order and decorum while the meeting is in session. A resident shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the business of the Board, nor disturb any resident or Board Member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the Board. CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE: TIME STARTED: TIME ENDED: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: October 13, 2021 6:30 P.M. 8:27 P.M. Michael Root, Neil Evenson, Isaac Wipperfurth Nathan Vojtech, Perry Laden, Jeff Reinert Paul Tralle (Chair) Katie Larsen, Diane Hankee, Janele Waterman, Jessica Eller I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Vice -Chair Root called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on October 13, 2021. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presen IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to approve the September 8, 2021 meeting minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Wipperfurth. Motion carried 5 — 0. Vice -Chair Root abstained. V. OPEN MIKE Vice -Chair Root declared Open Mike at 6:31 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Wipperfurth made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:31 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 — 0. Vice -Chair Root abstained. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Lake Amelia Woods Preliminary Plat DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 2 Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. A public hearing was held by the Planning & Zoning Board to review the preliminary plat for Lake Amelia Woods on September 8, 2021. At that time, the Board motioned to continue the public hearing in order to give the applicant time to address staff s and Board's concerns. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat for Lake Amelia Woods subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Board Comments Vice -Chair Root asked what is the status of the utility easement vacation. Ms. Larsen said the applicant is currently working with the utility company to have the easement removed from the property. She clarified once the final plat application is submitted, the City will have more information concerning the vacation. Vice -Chair Root declared the Public Hearing open at 6:37 p.m. There was no one present for the Public Hearing. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 6:38 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 — 0. Vice -Chair Root abstained. Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Lake Amelia Woods subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 — 0. Vice -Chair Root abstained. B. PUBLIC HEARING: Belland Farms — AECP Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Review Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. The property owner, Rehbein Properties, is platting two (2) commercial lots. Lot 1 is 1.76 acres for the purpose of constructing a 12,230 sf medical eye clinic. Lot 2 will be a future commercial development and a formal site plan will be reviewed at a later date. The name of the preliminary plat is Belland Farms. The name of the eye clinic is Associate Eye Care Partners (AECP). Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat and site plan review for Belland Farms and Associate Eye Care Partners subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Board Comments Mr. Reinert asked if staff had any concerns regarding this project. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 3 Ms. Larsen said City staff did not have any concerns with the project. However, she noted improvements to the transportation corridor will be needed. Mr. Laden asked which elevation of the building will face Main Street. Ms. Larsen asked the architect to come forward to the podium to specify which side of the building will face Main Street. Denton Mack, with Sperides Reiners Architects, Inc. located at 6442 City West Parkway, Suite 300, Eden Prairie, MN 55344, stated the south elevation will face Main Street. Mr. Wipperfurth wondered if the City will require the sidewalk on the north side of the site to be developed in the future. Ms. Larsen said development of the sidewalk will be required in the future. She stated it is also possible the existing sidewalk on the south side of the parking lot will be extended to the trail. Mr. Wipperfurth asked if there is trail along 24th Avenue currently. Ms. Larsen said no. Mr. Wipperfurth questioned if trail along 24th Avenue will be constructed in the future. Ms. Larsen said the applicant will be responsible for constructing sidewalk and the trail section along 241h Avenue. Mr. Wipperfurth asked if the street next to Duncan Donuts in the Main Street Shoppes development was private or public. Ms. Larsen said it is a private street. Mr. Wipperfurth then inferred connection to the street would not occur because it is private. Ms. Larsen explained the City needs to communicate with the Main Street Shoppes development first to identify what is going to work best for them and who will be their end users. Mr. Wipperfurth asked if the lot between the Belland Farms site and the Main Street Shoppes development is still vacant. Ms. Larsen said the parcel is still vacant. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 4 Vice -Chair Root declared the Public Hearing open at 7:02 p.m. Ed McCormick, 14880 Empress Ave N, Hugo MN 55038, said when he purchased his home he did not realize Rosemary Way would be extended. Rather, he thought the road near Kwik Trip would be extended for the connection to the Belland Farms parcels. Mr. McCormick wondered when construction of the Otter Lake Road extension would begin and where the street would go. Lastly, he asked if there are plans for Elmcrest Avenue/241h Avenue to be widened. Dick Pickhartz, 14941 Empress Ave N, Hugo, MN 55038, expressed concern regarding the possible increased traffic on Rosemary Way. He informed the Board he recently witnessed a child get hit by a vehicle at the corner of CR 14 and Rosemary Way. Moreover, he also stated there was a recent major accident at the intersection of Victor Hugo Blvd and CR 8. Mr. Pickhartz expressed concern with the U-turn at the stoplight on Victor Hugo Blvd. He asked why the City would not connect Rosemary Way across 24th Avenue to the controlled intersection at CR 14 and Otter Lake Road. He explained by directing traffic to Otter Lake Road, U-turns at the stoplight on Victor Hugo Blvd. would be prevented. He asked if the City has considered connecting Rosemary Way across 24th Avenue to the intersection at CR 14 and Otter Lake Road. Furthermore, Mr. Pickhartz questioned why the City is waiting to proceed with road construction until the other lot is developed. Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 7:06 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Wipperfurth. Motion carried 5 — 0. Vice -Chair Root abstained. Staff Comments Diane Hankee, City Engineer, said Rosemary Way is a future planned road intended to be a frontage road to Main Street in the City of Hugo. There are plans for Rosemary Way to be extended all the way to Highway 61. She commented Rosemary Way may come out at McDonalds or it may come out to the north depending on intersection spacing, stacking distance for cars, and turning to serve the commercial area. She said there is potential for a round -a -bout or a signal at that future intersection. Ms. Hankee stated Rosemary Way as it heads west will likely be a collector road and will have more traffic than 24th Avenue. She noted, Otter Lake Road at the intersection with McDonalds is planned to be right in right out only. Ms. Hankee stated Otter Lake Road is dependent upon wetlands. She said the City cannot set alignment of Otter Lake Road at this point because the City is required to go through a wetland sequencing process with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Rice Creek Watershed District. She explained the wetland sequencing process is set in coordinator with those agencies through their permitting process. The next phase of the Otter Lake Road extension is planned for 2024 due to the fact the City will need to work with property owners, wetland delineations will need to be complete, and permitting will need to be authorized. Ms. Hankee said Otter Lake Road will likely connect near Heritage Parkway and thus traffic on 24th Avenue will likely be reduced to mainly Hugo traffic. She stated street improvements for 24th Avenue have DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 5 not been planned as it depends on traffic volumes and future development phasing in the City of Hugo. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the preliminary plat and site plan review for Belland Farms and Associate Eye Care Partners subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Motion was supported by Mr. Vojtech. Motion carried 5 — 0. Vice -Chair Root abstained. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Zoning Ordinance Update — Zoning Districts, Kendra Lindahl, Landform Ms. Kendra Lindahl, Landform, presented a summary of changes to the Zoning Districts section of the Zoning Ordinance. She requested feedback from the Planning & Zoning Board on impervious surface coverage in Residential Districts and house footprint minimums. Board Comments Vice -Chair Root asked Ms. Lindahl when the Board would see the general provisions section again since several items have been moved to that section of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Lindahl stated a comprehensive, full copy of the zoning ordinance will be presented to the Board in December. Mr. Reinert asked Ms. Lindahl or staff to define bicycle racing in regards to Rehbein Arena. Ms. Larsen stated bicycle racing at the Rehbein Arena was specific to individual pedal bikes and not motorized bikes. She explained several years ago, Rehbein Arena had been operating without a conditional use permit so the City created a provision in the ordinance thereby granting them a conditional use permit which allowed them to continue operating within the City. She reiterated the provision in the ordinance concerning bicycle racing was specific to the Rehbein Arena. Mr. Reinert wondered why the City has an issue with this particular use and why staff would like to remove it from the zoning ordinance. Ms. Larsen clarified the City does not have an issue with bicycle racing as a use. Rather, she explained the City does not see the value in retaining a provision in the ordinance that is specific to only one site in the City. She commented the provision does not benefit the entire City. Moreover, bicycle racing at Rehbein Arena has ceased for several years. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 6 Mr. Reinert asked if a bicycle racing project is presented to the Board in the future and the City wants to approve the use, could the project still be allowed given the removal of the bicycle racing provision. Ms. Larsen said the Board can amend the zoning ordinance and resume the bicycle racing provision at any time. Regarding minimum garage sizes, Mr. Reinert said having a decent sized garage is important especially in Minnesota as space is needed for snow removal equipment, lawn mowers, garbage cans etc. He stated in townhomes particularly, garages are quite small and they cannot accommodate large vehicles. He also shared he has heard many complaints about garage sizes from residents over the years. Because of these factors, Mr. Reinert recommended adjusting the minimum garage width to a more reasonable size. He explained contractors build small garages in order to fit more houses within developments and though he understood why they do so, Mr. Reinert said residents' quality of life should be considered as well. Vice -Chair Root asked if minimum garage sizes are in the general provisions section of the zoning ordinance. Ms. Lindahl stated minimum garage sizes were discussed during the review of the general provisions section. She said the code states a two car garage is required for single family homes. For twin homes and townhomes, a two car garage with a 20 ft. minimum width and a 440 sq. ft. minimum is required. Ms. Lindahl recommended applying the same minimum garage width and square foot minimum of townhomes to single family homes. She informed the Board City Council had a recent discussion on the topic and questioned if the City is doing enough to protect buyers. Mr. Reinert stated when he bought his first home, he did not consider garage size. The previous owner of the home added a foot on either side of the garage because he wanted extra space. Mr. Reinert said while he lived in that home, he was grateful for the additional foot on either side of the garage. In regards to adjusting the porch minimum depth from 8 ft. to 6 ft., he said porches typically not are large in size and having an addition 2 ft. of porch width would be desired by most homeowners. Concerning impervious surface percentages, Mr. Reinert stated he did not support the reduction of impervious surface from 65% to 40% years ago. He thought the decision to do so was a mistake and it suppressed property owner's use of their land. He said he would support increasing impervious surface to 65%. He asked if the shoreline impervious surface maximum was 65% in years past. Ms. Lindahl explained the ordinance from the DNR limits shoreline impervious surface to 25% on shoreland lots. However, when Lino Lakes adopted their shoreland ordinance, they received a special exemption from the DNR to allow 30% impervious surface and 35% on multifamily units. She clarified 65% impervious surface was never allowed on shoreland lots. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 7 Ms. Larsen said the Lino Lakes shoreland ordinance was adopted in 1995. Mr. Reinert supported reducing the number of categories in regards to minimum footprint. He agreed with the idea to create a rambler category. He said the smallest footprint of 850 sq. ft., although it is small is larger than what it used to be in years past. He recalled the minimum in the late 70s was 800 sq. ft., but City Council wanted a minimum of 760 sq. ft. because gas and energy prices were expensive. He asked Ms. Lindahl what would be a bad example of indoor self -storage. He stated most of the self -storage buildings he had seen were nice, multilevel buildings with a lot of glass. Mr. Reinert asked how the City can ensure a poor indoor self -storage facility is not constructed in Lino Lakes particularly in a visible part of town. Ms. Lindahl explained indoor self -storage is proposed only in the general and light industrial districts where mini storage is allowed. She said, for the most part, people generally like indoor storage. She stated companies will sometimes brand the storage buildings with particular colors and people will sometimes complain about the color. Some companies will also have a lot of signage and this can be an issue for residents if signage is not managed by the City. Ms. Lindahl stated typically indoor self - storage facilities have a lot of windows and the interior lights remain on 24 hours a day. She said it is noticeable in an industrial district since light is not usually seen in such areas at night. She explained she has not received complaints about the lighting, but it is a factor to be aware of. Ms. Larsen noted all commercial and industrial buildings in Lino Lakes are required to meet particular design standards. Mr. Reinert commented the problems acknowledged by Ms. Lindahl could likely be mitigated, for example, tint could be added to the windows of the indoor self -storage facility to reduce light pollution. In regards to the impervious surface discussion, Mr. Evenson asked Ms. Lindahl if the conversation is specifically addressing low density. Ms. Lindahl said she is addressing low density which is typically single family homes. Mr. Evenson asked if 60% impervious surface is allowed in some areas of the City. Ms. Larsen explained in an R-2 district in a low density guided area, 40% impervious surface is allowed which is consistent with the current R-1 standard. In a medium density guided area, impervious surface up to 50% is allowed. Ms. Lindahl stated staff's proposal is to change the areas that were 40% impervious surface to 65%. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 8 Mr. Evenson commented the reduction from 65% impervious surface to 40% in years past was a significant change. He wondered why the change to impervious surface percentages was made. Ms. Larsen said, due to a Rice Creek study, the decision was made to change the impervious surface percentages. However, staff has since learned the decision was based on inapplicable information and if the Board desires, the impervious surface can be increased to 65%. Mr. Evenson mentioned, while on the Planning and Zoning Board, he has never recalled an applicant having too much impervious surface. Ms. Larsen said impervious surface on individual lots are not reviewed at a P&Z level. Mr. Laden asked if impervious surface requirements are an issue at a staff level. Ms. Larsen shared in some instances, residents have been close to surpassing the 40% impervious surface requirement. Mr. Laden asked if any residents have wanted 65% impervious surface. Ms. Larsen said no. Ms. Lindahl informed the Board staff pulled some examples from the Watermark development. She said the homes were 25% to 33% impervious surface on smaller lots and they did not have yard barns or sheds. Mr. Reinert explained with small lots and a small impervious surface requirement, the amount of land a homeowner can use is limited. He commented the home may meet the impervious surface requirement during construction, but if a new homeowner wants to pour a large patio they may not be allowed to do so. Mr. Reinert said on his previous home, he had a large patio approximately 15 ft. in width and the length of the house. He enjoyed the large patio because that was the area of the yard his kids often played. Mr. Evenson commented due to the City's limits on driveway size and setbacks, impervious surface is also limited. He stated he would support 65% impervious surface in all urban residential districts. Mr. Laden expressed concern with increasing the impervious surface to 65% on large lots. He commented if his neighbors, who live on large lots, were able to do 65% impervious surface, it would equate to creating a commercial sized parking lot. He asked if impervious surface requirements could be scaled per lot size. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 9 Mr. Reinert asked Ms. Larsen when impervious surface was at 65% previously if it was ever an issue. Ms. Larsen said she was not on staff at the time, but she would ask other staff if it had been an issue previously. Mr. Wipperfurth asked Ms. Larsen if she believed residents are knowledgeable of the 40% impervious surface requirement thus they do not submit plans with more impervious surface than what is allowed. Ms. Larsen surmised most residents do not know the City has an impervious surface ordinance. Mr. Reinert recommended increasing the impervious surface to 65% for lots less than three-quarters of an acre and 50% for lots three-quarters of an acre of more. Ms. Lindahl said she and staff will review the proposal and return with a recommendation for the Board to consider. Mr. Evenson asked if several 6 ft. wide porches were granted by the City or if it was only one. Ms. Larsen stated 6 ft. wide porches were granted for the Watermark development and Century Farm development. She commented she would need to check to see if the NorthPointe development requested them as well. Mr. Wipperfurth said he lives in the NorthPointe development and he was certain his porch is only 6 ft. wide. He commented the porch is plenty big as he can fit two chairs and a table in the space. Mr. Evenson said a 6 ft. porch is too small. He preferred the two foot recess on the third stall of the garage rather than the four foot recess. He commented his third stall garage is recessed two feet and he did not think it looked bad. Mr. Reinert agreed with Mr. Evenson. He supported the two foot recess on the garage and he favored the 8 ft. wide porch. Mr. Laden said he was fine with the two foot setback on the garage. He stated since it is typical in most single family homes, the setback should be the same for townhomes. He noted a 6 ft. wide porch is restrictive and feels small when a railing is added to the front. He said since townhomes are slab on grade, porches on these homes do not require a railing and thus a 6 ft. wide porch would be comfortable. Mr. Reinert suggested changing the ordinance to state if no railing is needed, a 6 ft. wide porch is acceptable, but if a railing is necessary, an 8 ft. wide porch is the minimum requirement. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 10 Mr. Wipperfurth commented he does not have a railing on his porch, but if he did its current size would not be preferable. Mr. Evenson and Vice -Chair Root liked the idea of differentiating porch size based on whether a railing is added or not. Mr. Vojtech said if someone desired a larger porch, he would support the 8 ft. wide porch requirement. Mr. Wipperfurth stated porch sizes are a buyer beware issue. He said if a homeowner wants a big porch, they will have to pay for it. He commented he does not have a preference if the City mandates garage setbacks to 4 feet or 2 feet. Vice -Chair Root said he was fine with the proposed 2 foot garage setback. He noted the developments who requested 6 ft. wide porches were PUDs which were negotiated developments. He commented if a large porch is a buyer's top priority, a buyer will simply seek out homes with large porches when house shopping. Ms. Lindahl reiterated the Board's recommendations. She stated the Board is fine with the garage setback of 2 feet in R-2, a 6 ft. wide porch is acceptable if it is at grade and unenclosed, and if a porch has a railing it needs to have an 8 ft. width. Mr. Laden said the definitions need to be reduced and some are not applicable anymore. He suggested simplifying the entire footprint requirement section and changing the footprint requirement to 980 sq. ft. for ramblers, split entries, and 2 story homes. Mr. Evenson agreed with Mr. Laden. Mr. Wipperfurth stated he is not a fan of having minimum sizes, but he understands having minimum sizes increases property values. He commented the City would probably not want a tiny house on a quarter -acre lot, but he said he would not be opposed to it. Mr. Laden agreed with Mr. Wipperfurth. He said most developments have their own covenants which dictate minimum size anyway. He asked Ms. Lindahl what is wrong with a tiny house if it is on a rural lot, not visible, and 100 ft. from each of the property lines. He commented the Board should find a way to allow something unique that is beyond the norm of a house on an average lot in a standard size development. Ms. Lindahl said most cities have a minimum floor area requirement, but Lino Lakes has a footprint requirement. She noted she does not see most cities specify square footage. She commented minimum size was implemented by cities to stop individuals from placing single wide trailer homes on lots within city limits. Cities did not want those on lots because they were concerned property values would decrease and they believed the homes functioned more like temporary dwellings. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 11 Mr. Laden asked if other cities detail minimum floor area requirements by type or just x amount of square footage irrespective of type. Ms. Lindahl said Lino Lakes is the only City she has seen that details minimum footprint requirements by type. She noted the intent of minimum requirements is to ensure property values are maintained. She commented since tiny homes do not have garages they would not be allowed in Lino Lakes. Nonetheless, tiny house subdivisions do exist, but they tend to be PUDs because cities typically are not prepared to handle such developments. Mr. Laden asked if an individual property owner wanted to have a tiny house, would he/she have to apply for a PUD. Ms. Lindahl said the property owner would likely apply for a variance from the minimum footprint requirement. Mr. Reinert commented if a resident was able to construct any type of house anywhere in the city, zoning districts would not be needed. He said if we did not have zoning districts, large houses would be built next to small houses and it would look reminiscent of the 1920s. He stated people typically do not like such neighborhoods and it does affect property values. He said if the Board wanted to add a tiny house development standard, he would not be opposed to it. He noted tiny homes are a current fad and who knows if they will be around ten years from now. 6 Mr. Laden said most of the time, individuals want to own a tiny home for themselves and they are not typically looking to construct tiny home developments. Mr. Reinert reiterated if a resident was able to construct any type of house anywhere in the city, zoning districts would not be needed. Mr. Laden stated the city could create a zoning district which allows individuals to build whatever they desire. Mr. Vojtech said he questions why the City has minimum requirements as well. He commented there is a small house on his block approximately 650 sq. ft. and another small house on the block was recently torn down and a new large house was constructed in its place. He stated he likes differentiation between houses and he does not like suburban tract housing. Mr. Vojtech said the idea of allowing tiny homes should be discussed further because tiny homes are quite popular and there may be in influx of requests if the City decides to allow them. He stated he knows a builder who quit his job building homes in order to build tiny homes and he receives at least 10 calls a day from interested buyers. Vice -Chair Root commented there should be individual zoning districts in the City and minimum standards for each zone to ensure consistency from lot to lot. He suggested clustering tiny homes or implementing buffers. He said having the DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 12 minimum footprint in the R-1 and R-2 districts is sensible. He cautioned staff on implementing an overall square feet requirement in these areas because the footprint of the building could be small, but it could have several stories. He stated 850 sq. ft. is sufficient because it is relative to the 1080 sq. ft. requirement in the urban residential districts. Mr. Reinert said suburban tract housing has been mitigated by the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council because developers are told their houses need to have more variety in color, treatment, and design. Mr. Laden stated the minimum garage size is currently 440 sq. ft. and it is more than enough space. He said a parking stall is 19 ft. deep and it accommodates most vehicles so there would be 3 ft. remaining in the front of the vehicle for garbage bins, etc. He commented he did not like the 20 ft. width requirement because it eliminates a lot of design opportunities. He stated he would rather have a square foot minimum than a dimensional minimum in order to give the builder more freedom with configuration. Mr. Wipperfurth, Mr. Evenson, and Mr. Reinert liked the recommendation to have a square foot minimum instead of a dimensional minimum on garages. Mr. Laden said many times builders will propose a small garage and upsell a larger one in order to make more profit. Therefore, by requiring contractors to build larger garages per the square foot minimum it makes them less competitive than other contractors in neighboring cities. Mr. Wipperfurth recalled brewpubs are allowed in the general business district, but breweries are not. He stated breweries would be a good fit for the area and should be added to the general business district. Mr. Reinert explained in years past, many cities had ordinances in place to prohibit breweries because they were large scale production breweries such as Hamm's or Schmidt Brewery. He asked Mr. Wipperfurth what is the difference between breweries then and now. Mr. Wipperfurth said a brewpub is a combination of a restaurant and a brewery. He noted brewpubs can have a full bar while breweries cannot and due to the Surly bill, breweries can now sell food. Vice -Chair Root specified large scale production breweries should only be allowed in industrial districts. Mr. Wipperfurth concurred. Mr. Wipperfurth noted while veterinary hospitals are allowed in the business and industrial districts, some hospitals have a max boarding capacity of 20 animals while DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2021 Page 13 others have a capacity of 40 animals. He said the capacity figures seem arbitrary and do not have anything to do with the lot size. He suggested for the light industrial district, reducing the minimum lot size from 1 acre to allow smaller businesses to move into the area. Mr. Laden asked if the shoreland overlay district was being removed. Ms. Lindahl explained the airport zoning overlay, shoreland overlay, and floodplain overlay was removed from the general zoning district provisions section because they are not zoning districts rather they are standards. Vice -Chair Root asked if the number of people permitted at day care facilities has been an issue. Ms. Lindahl explained the decrease from 16 to 14 people is due to state law compliance. Mr. Laden commented since the light industrial district is allowed next to residential areas, the City needs to be cognizant of light pollution from the indoor self -storage facilities. He noted there is already a neutral color ordinance in place for light industrial districts. He said if indoor self -storage facilities are allowed in full industrial areas, he would not be partial to building color. Mr. Vojtech commented since indoor self -storage facilities are well lit at night, they will be especially noticeable in dark industrial areas and it is something the City will need to take note of. B. Project Updates Staff provided verbal updates to the Board on current City projects. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Laden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 — 0. Vice -Chair Root abstained. Respectfully submitted, Janele Waterman, Community Development Administrative Assistant DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner P & Z MEETING DATE: November 10, 2021 REQUEST: Take 5 Car Wash and Oil Change PUD Concept Plan Review CASE NUMBER: PC2021-001 APPLICANT: Boing US HOLD CO, Inc. Attn: Jerod Hanaman 6300 S Syracuse #205 Centenial, CO 80111 OWNER: The Huntington National Bank Attn: Bryant Doss 5555 Cleveland Ave, GW1097 Columbus, OH 43231 REVIEW DEADLINE: Complete Application Date: October 12, 2021 60-Day Review Deadline: December 11, 2021 120-Day Review Deadline: February 9, 2022 Environmental Board Meeting: October 27, 2021 Park Board Meeting: N/A Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: November 10, 2021 City Council Work Session: December 6, 2021 City Council Meeting: N/A BACKGROUND The applicant, Boing US HOLD CO, Inc., submitted a Land Use Application for a PUD Concept Plan for a proposed car wash facility and separate oil change facility at 601 Apollo Drive. The 1.32 acre site is legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Lino Lakes Market Place 2nd Addition. Per the Market Place Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Design Guidelines Ordinance No. 03-05 and site plan, this lot is to be developed as a bank. The applicant submitted a PUD Concept Plan to obtain input from advisory boards and City Council as to whether there is interest to amend the Market Place PDO Ordinance to change the site use from a bank to a car wash and oil change facility. The PDO zoning provides Council the flexibility to change the site plan use. If there is support from the boards and City Council, the applicant could move forward with formal ordinance amendment and site plan review land use application. Future Land Use Applications may include: oo Amendment to PDO, Planned Development Overlay Ordinance No. 03-05 oo Conditional Use Permit for Automobile & Truck Repair oo Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Car Wash oo Site and Building Plan Review This staff report is based on the followings plan sets: 0o ALTA Survey prepared by Blew & Associates, PA dated October 7, 2021 0o Site Plan prepared by One! Architecture dated October 1, 2021 0o Elevations for Take 5 Car Wash prepared by One! Architecture dated October 1, 2021 oc Elevations for Take 5 Car Oil Change prepared by One! Architecture dated October 1, 2021 oo Applicant Narrative prepared by Neptune Design Studio dated October 12, 2021 ANALYSIS History Lino Lakes Market Place is a master planned shopping/retail center approved in 2001. The development includes Target and Kohl's, the four (4) Apollo Drive retail buildings as well as those commercial buildings and lots along Lake Drive. Ordinance No. 16-01 and amended by Ordinance No. 03-05 regulates site plan and design guidelines for the development. The design guidelines detail requirements for building composition, materials, lighting, signage, landscaping and building elevations. Per the Marketplace Site Plan, the subject site is shown as a future 4,500 sf bank. Per the Marketplace Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Design Guidelines Ordinance No. 03-05, substantial departures from the approved plans require an amendment to the ordinance. Zoning and Land Use The subject site is zoned GB, General Business with a PDO, Planned Development Overlay as established by Ordinance No. 16-01 and amended by Ordinance No. 03-05 and Ordinance No. 04-05. Current Zoning GB, General Business w/ PDO Existing Land Use Vacant Commercial Future Land Use per CP Commercial Utility Staging Area 1A=2018-2025 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use Direction Zoning Existing Land Use Future Land Use GB -General North Business Commercial Commercial GB -General East Business Commercial Commercial GB -General South Commercial Commercial Business GB -General West Commercial Commercial Business Site and Building Plan Review The Lino Lakes Marketplace PDO Design Guidelines are the regulating zoning and performance standards for the subject site. A full site and building plan review would be required if the applicant moves forward with the project. The following are high level staff comments. Existing ALTA Survey The 1.32 acre site is legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Lino Lakes Market Place 2" d Addition. The site has been graded and is pad ready. Market Place Drive is a private road that provides access to the lot. There is a 15ft wide pedestrian and trail easement along CSAH 23/Lake Drive. Several private Declarations and Operation and Easement Agreements encumber the property. The monument sign for Target and Kohls is located in the southwest corner of the site. Staff Comments: 1. The ALTA survey incorrectly notes the City of Circle Pines under Schedule A. 2. Doc. # 1662516.0 Declaration of Restrictions by Ryan Companies restricts the development on Lot 2 to a 4,500 sf retail/office use. a. This Declaration would need to be amended. 3. Setbacks shown on ALTA survey are not correct and shall be consistent with Master Site Plan unless otherwise amended. a. Minimum building setbacks shall be: i. CSAH 23/Lake Drive = 40ft ii. Apollo Drive = 30ft iii. Market Place Drive = 30ft (measured from curb) iv. North Lot Line (side) = 1 Oft Site Plan The site plan shows 2 separate buildings on the one (1) lot. A 4,000 sf car wash is on the south side and a 1,400 sf oil change building is on the north side. The car wash includes 15 vacuum cleaner bays and multiple drive aisles. The oil change building includes 3 oil change bays and parking stalls. Trash enclosures are shown being accessed directly from Market Place Drive. Conditional use permits are required for both Automobile and Truck Repair (oil change building) and Commercial Car Wash. Staff Comments: 1. The site and building plan shall meet the performance standards of the City zoning ordinance and the Lino Lakes Marketplace PDO Design Guidelines. 2. The site and building plan shall meet the performance standards of the GB, General Business Conditional Use Permit requirements. 3. The car wash building does not meet the minimum 30 ft setback requirements from Market Place Drive. 4. The car wash exit is also too close to the Market Place Drive in regards to tracking water and icing on the road. 5. The trash enclosure cannot be accessed directly from Market Place Drive. 6. The number of driveway access points onto Market Place Drive shall be limited to two (2) or possibly three (3). 7. Driveways onto Market Place Drive shall be a minimum of 40 ft apart and 5 ft from side lot lines. 8. Attention shall be made to ensure vehicle stacking is adequate for both the car wash and oil change facilities. 9. An emergency exit/driveway should be considered for the car wash. Architectural Plans and Exterior Building Materials Car Wash The proposed exterior materials consist of black and gray CMU, limestone metal panels and decorative blue accent. There are only a few windows shown on the elevations. The existing building height is 22'-4" to the top of the parapet wall and 30' 11" to the top of the branding tower. The proposed height is less than the allowed 45ft. 2 Staff Comments 1. The site and building plan shall meet the performance standards of the City zoning ordinance and the Lino Lakes Marketplace PDO Design Guidelines. a. Attention shall be made to composition, massing, materials, colors and lighting. 2. The site and building plan shall meet the performance standards of the GB, General Business Conditional Use Permit requirements. 3. Windows are required along the north and south elevations of the car wash. 4. A stronger building "top" is required. 5. The car wash and oil change building architecture, exterior materials and colors shall be the same. Oil Change Exterior material information was not provided. Elevation colors are tan, brown and red. Detailed building height information was not provided. Measuring the plans, the building height is approximately 16ft to the roof and 20ft to the top of the tower. The proposed height is less than the allowed 45ft. Other City Ordinance and Site Performance Standards Other applicable site and building plan ordinances include but are not limited to: oo Parking oo Grading Plan and Stormwater Management oo Public Utilities oo Landscaping and Tree Preservation oo Signage Wetlands There are no wetlands located on site. Floodplain The site is not within a floodplain. Stormwater Maintenance Agreement A stormwater maintenance agreement may be required. Site Improvement Performance Agreement A Site Improvement Performance Agreement is required. 5 EDAC-Economic Development Advisory Committee EDAC reviewed the concept plan on November 4, 2021. Due to the high visibility of this commercial corner parcel, they did not support changing the land use from a bank to car wash and oil change facility. PUD Concept Plan The City's review and comments on the concept plan's relation to the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations does not grant any rights to the applicant to develop the property as depicted by the concept plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the following input from the Planning & Zoning Board: 1. Should the City amend the Market Place PDO ordinance to change the site use from a bank to a car wash and oil change building? 2. If yes, does the Board have additional site and building review comments? ATTACHMENTS 1. PUD Concept Plan -Take 5 Car Wash and Oil Change 2. Exterior Elevations -Take 5 Car Wash 3. Exterior Elevations -Take 5 Oil Change Con 7 N N /F / OWNER: D7-3 LLC SITE ADDRESS: 625 APOLLA DRIVE, w-en e E LINO LAKES, MN / 55014 Since 1911 PARCEL ID: 08 31-22-43-0036 10' DRAINAGE & � �/ �/ / `� ��-_ ,,9 4`\\ �� UTILITY EASEMENT / S \ s 20 0 20 Fe DUMPTER SCALE 1 = 20 ,jAREA i f / v = N / /. O4 f Jk m973 / � 44/ / O J0�� i / � ./l i 7 � ° - q12-- ° 77 / Zoe /� / / 90, 'CIDjc / J4� d� / 0) / pJ� s O w v Q / N ro Q� h^� • a DRAINAGE /�0 / �• / ` EASEMENT f .J o . ` \ i 15' PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE O C TRAIL EASEMENT, PER /G ` DOC. NOC. C o /� 1662511 / / � v / / / �� \\� b'qC i / ? cVO�o OWNER: `V VOGL LINO LAKES / /.�� PROPERTIES LLC �20 C ��,,ti�Q w SITE ADDRESS: � _x �� // 609 APOLLA DRIVE, LINO LAKES, MN 55014 N / PARCEL ID: 120, QQ N / 08-31-22-43-0041 10) a ADO 14' DRAINAGE & d: / J� // �UTILITY EASEMENT / / Q / a / l a s N Eo v p �. 41 a a1 1 OPERATION AND y i EASEMENT AGREEMENT, i N DOC. NO. 1662514 W C\\ \ (to CSq`TBgCK\ \ ) 00 00 / 00 L 10' DRAINAGE & \ — / 0r TILITY EASEMENT — / 00 s �A Cl 00 'ClVARIggLE �\ . 9 � ° " �! SITE DATA \ \` WIDTH S LLO DRI — PROJECT NAME: TAKE 5 EXPRESS CAR WASH STATE M/ 4/VNL 7 T VT ANDOIL CHANGE OF LINO LAKES, MNOF / OV q y LE Iy� NTH NT)" SITE ADDRESS: 601 APOLLO DRIVE Mq/NTq/NED \\ �� O CIRCLE PINES, MN 55014 TOTAL PARCEL AREA: ± 1.32 AC \ \ JURISDICTION: CITY OF LINO LAKES 9 ZONING DISTRICT: GB - GENERAL BUSINESS & PDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT I TAX PARCEL NO.: 08-31-22-43-0037 INTENDED USE: CAR WASH & AUTO REPAIR EXISTING USE: VACANT GRASS LOT FLOOD ZONE: ZONE X MAP 27003CO365E \ DATED DECEMBER, 16TH 2O15 SETBACKS: REQUIRED FRONT - ARTERIAL 40 FT. FRONT -LOCAL 30 FT. PARKING LOT 15 FT. SIDE 10 FT. REAR 30 FT. PARKING CALCULATIONS AUTO REPAIR PARKING REQUIRED: 2 SPACE/ SERVICE BAY = 6 SPACES COMMERCIAL CAR WASH PARKING REQUIRED: 1 SPACE/ EMPLOYEE (10 STACKING) = 4 SPACES TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 10 SPACES (REQUIREMENT MET) BROKER MICHAEL A & CATHLEEN J ID# 08-31-22-43-0001 ZONE: NB CITY OF LINO LAKES I D# 08-31-22-43-0002 ZONE: NB CARON PAMELA J MANN, KRISTIN M LE VESSEUR CHRIS ID# 08-31-22-34-0013 ID# 08-31-22-43-0005 & GREGORY ZONE: NB ZONE: NB ID# 08-31-22-43-0003 HYLANDER LLC ZONE: NB ID# 08-31-22-43-0004 ZONE: NB ARNDT, BEVERLY A I D# 08-31-22-43-0006 ZONE: NB WEINGARTEN ENTERPRISES LLC I D# 08-31-22-34-0019 ZONE: GB CASEY'S RETAIL COMPANY ID# 08-31-22-43-0012 ZONE: GB CASEY'S RETAIL COMPANY ID# 08-31-22-43-0013 -.ZONE: GB DEVELOPMENT TEAM DEVELOPER/APPLICANT DRIVEN BRANDS, INC. 440 S. CHURCH STREET SUITE 700 CHARLOTTE, NC 28202 CONTACT: MATTHEW GILBERT PHONE: (980) 259-0701 EMAIL: MATTHEW.GILBERT@DRIVENBRANDS.COM ARCHITECT BUYS, JOEL D ID# 08-31-22-43-0007 ZONE: NB BUYS CHIROPRACTIC ID# 08-31-22-43-0008 ZONE: NB FARMERS & MERCHANTS SAVINGS BANK I D# 08-31-22-43-0021 ZONE: GB MCDONALDS CORP I D# 08-31-22-43-0033 ZONE: GB WELLS FARGO BANK ID# 17-31-22-12-0057 ZONE: GB OWNER 14U) XLNIUM LN N PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 SURVEYOR ONE! ARCHITECTURE BLEW Et ASSOCIATES, PA 8801 N. CENTRAL AVE. SUITE 101 3825 N. SHILOH DRIVE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85020 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 CONTACT: DUSTIN CURTIS CONTACT: HEATH A. MYERS, P.L.S. PHONE: (602) 266-1688 PHONE: (479) 443-4506 EMAIL: SURVEY@BLEWINC.COM NOTE: SURVEY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BLEW & ASSOCIATES, PA CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS (DRAWN 7-29-2021) C w LINO LAKES Qp o DEVELOPMENT LLC ❑ 9 ID# 08-31-22-43-0043 Q ZONE: R4 O N ui (if r?0 N woo J Z <❑ U) CITY OF LINO LAKES / I D# 08-31-22-43-0029 ZONE: GB HALLE PROPERTIES LLC I D# 08-31-22-43-0022 ZONE: GB D7-3 LLC ID# 08-31-22-43-0036 ZONE: GB PROJECT LOCATION q� v� VQ" GALLEON LLC ID# 08-31-22-43-0024 ZONE: GB VOGL LINO LAKES PROPERTIES LLC ID# 08-31-22-43-0041 ZONE: GB SMW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION I D# 08-31-22-43-0039 ZONE: GB SMW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ID# 17-31-22-12-0009 ZONE: GB AERIAL MAP 1" = 100' PRIOR LAKE PROPERTIES LLC C, - ID# 08-31-22-43-0025 ZONE: GB a` PRIOR LAKE PROPERTIES LLC I D# 08-31-22-43-0026 ZONE: GB « KOHLS ILLINOIS INC I D# 08-31-22-43-0028 ZONE: GB PRIOR LAKE PROPERTIES LLC ID# 08-31-22-43-0042 ZONE: GB ,t KDC MANAGEMENT LLC ID# 08-31-22-43-0040 ZONE: GB -77f[Y lStrecii W R-4 11-14'" GB PROJECT a6 LOCATION Ord. 04=Oi PI'aG� Drive Nnn In 1"1 .'"! 500' OFFSET j Parcels ZONING R-3 Medium Density Residential GI General Industrial R Rural ��-^- Streams R-4 High Density Residential LI Light Industrial R-X Rural Executive Lake I Manufactured Home Park R-BR Rural/Business Reserve R-1 Single Family Residential PDO Planned Development LB Limited Business PSP Public Semi -Public RAX Single Family Executive _ GB General Business PUD R-2 Two Family Residential NB Neighborhood Business CLIENT Z O t= U co w H J w 125 PROTOTYPE \L1J � / Ir— LO IUD Z O J W oY Q Q �0 (0 Z_ J ARCHITECT: ARCHITECTU • 8801 N. Central Ave. Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85020 Phone: 602.266.2712 Fax: 602.266.1688 www.0 N Ea rch itectu re. us Architect: Dustin Curtis STAMPS THIS DRAWING FOR PERMITTING AND BID PURPOSES ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THESE PLANS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AND ARE PROTECTED BY COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS INCLUDING COPYRIGHT. THEY MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT SHEET TITLE PROJECT NUMBER 21-047 DATE 10.01.2021 SCALE AS NOTED DRAWN RO CHECKED JE SHEET NO ZONING MAP 1" = 300' CLIEN' jh T BRANDING TOWER IRV ELEV. + 30'-11" T PARAPET WALL ELEV. + 22'-4" B CMU BLOCK OVERHANG ELEV. + 10'-8" jh T FINISHED FLOOR NV ELEV. + 0'--0" ORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/16" = V-0" WEST ELEVATION Aaao SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" T/ BRANDING TOWER ELEV. + 30'-1 1 " ,T/ PARAPET WALL ELEV. + 25'-8" T/ PARAPET WALL ELEV. + 22'--10" CANOPY SIGNAGE . + 10'-0' T/ FINISHED FLOOR ELEV. + 0'-0" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION E: 3/16" = 1'-0" EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE I N0. I AREA 1 COLOR T BRANDING TOWER dk jh T/ BRANDING TOWER ELEV. + 30'-11 ELEV. + 3D'--11" T PARAPET WALL qv ELEV. + 25'--8" T/ PARAPET WALL T PARAPET WALL ELEV. + 22'--4" ELEV. + 22'-4" 3 CMU BLOCK OVERHANG B CMU BLOCK ELEV. + 10'-S" ELEV. + 10'-8" T FINISHED FLOO jh T FINISHED FLOOR ELEV. + 0'-0" 14F ELEV. + 0'-0" 4 EAST ELEVATION A2oo SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" Z H w 0 Q J J 125 PROTOTYPE Y Q H d" w r 0 J W IL Q r D 0 (0 Z ARCHITECTONEIN ARCHITECTURE 8801 N. Central Ave. Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona B5020 Phone: 602.266.2712 Fax: 602.266.1688 www. O N E a rch itecture. us Architect: Dustin Curtis STAMPS J THIS DRAINING FOR PERMITTING AND BID PURPOSES ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THESE PLANS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AND ARE PROTECTED BY COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS INCLUDING COPYRIGHT. THEY MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT SHEET TITLE ELEVATIONS PROJECT NUMBER 21-047 DATE 10.01.2021 SCALE AS NOTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DRAWN RO CHECKED JE 0 I TOWER 0 METAL PANELS 0 DARK CMU ® ACCENT CMU BY MANUF. MATCH SW 6169, SEDATE GRAY BY MANUF. 1760 LIMESTONE MATCH SW COLOR #7020, BLACK FOX MATCH SW COLOR #6169, SEDATE GRAY A-200 CLIENT EAST ELEVATION 114"=1 r-Q" VILEST ELEVATION 114"=1 r-Q" ELEVATION COLOR SW 7693 Stonebriar IrrIe&r 1 Fxle0or -O"Oon Nefter.194-C8 SW 7678 Cottage Cream Intonuv ! EdL por Lorallon Member 296-C2 SOUTH ELEVATION 11411=11-0" 4 NORTH ELEVATION A -too 11411=11-D" LL) Q Z O H CL U LU THESE PLANS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AHD ARE PROTECTED 6Y COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS INCLUDING COPYRIGHT. THEY MAY NOT BE REPROOUCCD OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT J 0 w Y Q LU T L0 Liz ❑ Z ❑5 J J Ua LJJ Q Q v—Q 0 C0 Z J ARCHITECT ONEIF7. ARCHITECTURE 8801 N. Central Ave. Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85020 Phone: 602.266.2712 Fax- 602.266.1688 www.QN Earchitecture.us Architect- Dustin Curtis THIS DRAWING FOR PERMITTING AND BID PURPOSES ONLY. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SHEET TITLE ELEVATION RENDERS PROJECT NUMBER 21-048 ❑ATE SCALE DRAWN CHECKED SHEET NO 2021.10.01 AS NOTED RO JE A-201 STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: REQUEST: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANTS: OWNERS: BACKGROUND PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 7A Kendra Lindahl and Kevin Shay, Landform November 10, 2021 Zoning Ordinance Update -Zoning Districts and Performance Standards N/A City of Lino Lakes Multiple On March 8, 2021, the City Council authorized Landform to update the City's Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. This is one of the steps required to implement the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that was adopted by the City Council on November 9, 2020. On May 12, 2021, the P&Z Board kicked off this effort with a discussion of Planned Unit Developments (PUD). The P&Z had a robust discussion about the purpose and intent of PUDs and provided direction to staff about desired changes to the ordinance. On June 9, 2021, the P&Z board reviewed the first draft of the changes to the general provisions section. P&Z provided input to staff about the proposed revisions to the ordinance. On August 11, 2021, the P&Z board reviewed the first draft of the Planned Unit Development section of the ordinance. The P&Z provided feedback regarding the proposed changes to the ordinance. On October 4, 2021, staff provided an update on the project at the Council work session. On October 13, 2021, the P&Z board reviewed the first draft of the zoning district sections of the ordinance. The P&Z provided feedback about the proposed changes and provided input on other potential changes to the ordinance. ANALYSIS Staff is bringing forward specific items related to the zoning ordinance update which warrant further discussion. The items to discuss tonight include the following: oo Driveway Width oo Impervious Surface Area oo Brew Pub Locations oo Garage Area oo Side Yard Setbacks oo Porch Depth Driveway Width — There has been interest from a resident to increase the minimum driveway width. The current city standard is a maximum driveway width of 26 feet for residential zones. This standard has been in place since 2003. The P&Z and City Council recently reviewed driveway width standards in 2018 and 2019 (staff report attached) and recommended no change at that time. The current driveway width standard is in place to maintain the front yard green space, preserve on -street parking and to minimize the conflicts with pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic on the public street. In the 2018 report, a table was included comparing the driveway width standards for Lino Lakes to surrounding communities. The table showed that Lino Lakes is consistent with the vast majority of surrounding communities. Therefore, staff is not recommending a change to the driveway width at this time. 2. Impervious Surface Area — At the October meeting, the P&Z discussed increasing the maximum impervious surface to 65% across all residential districts. They also recommended applying a different standard based on lot size. Varying the allowed impervious surface based on lot size creates differences between uses within the same zoning district and would increase the time for staff to review and track permits. In addition, the stormwater rules allow 10,000 square feet of impervious surface before triggering rate and water quality requirements. This effectively limits larger lots from placing large amounts of impervious surfaces due to the cost of complying with the stormwater rules. Due to the reasons above, staff is not in favor of varying the impervious surface limit based on lot size. The current draft changes the standards to allow 65% across all residential districts as recommended by the P&Z at the October meeting. Additionally, staff notes that within the Shoreland District the maximum impervious surface is limited 30%. The shoreland map is included as an attachment for reference to the areas this includes. 3. Brewpub Locations — At the October P&Z meeting, there was some discussion regarding brewpubs and brewer taprooms. Brewpubs are currently allowed in the limited business and general business zoning districts. Brewer Taprooms are allowed in the light industrial district as an accessory to a malt liquor beverage production and bottling facility. Brewpubs are defined as, "A restaurant that conducts the retail sale of malt liquor brewed on the premise and licensed under Minnesota Statute section 340A.301, subdivision 6(d). Areas used exclusively for brewing operations shall not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area. Included within this use is the off -sale of malt liquor produced on site in refillable growlers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 340A.301, subdivision 7(b)." 2 Brewer Taprooms are defined as, "Facility on the premises of, or adjacent to, a malt liquor beverage production facility / brewery intended for the on -sale and consumption of malt liquor produced by the brewer pursuant to Minnesota Statute section 340A.301, subdivision 6b. A brewer taproom may include a restaurant." The key difference between the two is that brewpubs are limited to 25% of the space being used for brewing operations while a brewer taproom has no restriction on the percentage of space used for brewing operations. If the P&Z wishes to change the ordinance to allow brewer taprooms in more districts, they should provide staff with the direction on which districts they would like to see them allowed. 4. Garage Area — The City Council would like the P&Z to provide direction on a possible amendment to the garage area standards. Garages are intended to provide space to store vehicles and other equipment. The intent is to provide enough space within the garage and other accessory structures to contain all equipment in addition to the vehicles. The current minimum standard is 20 feet wide with a total size of 440 square feet for two family and townhomes. The proposed zoning draft includes a change that would also adopt this standard for single family dwellings. A table of the minimum standards for the surrounding cities has been included which shows a variety of standards for minimum width, minimum size and minimum stall requirements. For reference, a standard parking space is 9 feet by 18 feet. There are a few options before the P&Z for garage area and staff is looking for a recommendation on the most desirable option. When considering an ordinance amendment, beyond the change already proposed by staff to establish a minimum garage size for single family homes, P&Z should consider what the purpose of a garage is and if there is a problem that is trying to be addressed. a. Recommend approval of the amendment proposed by staff to require single family homes to have a 440 sq. ft. garage a minimum 20 feet wide as that is the existing size standard for two family homes and townhomes. Keep the current minimum standards. b. Remove the minimum width standard and keep the current minimum size standard. c. Require the garage to be 21 x 23 feet or 483 square feet of internal floor area. The ordinance does not define how garage area is measured and staff is looking for P&Z to recommend a way to measure garage area from the following: d. Measure from the exterior of each wall for length and width. This option is typically the easiest to measure from a set of building plans as it is commonly dimensioned from the exterior edge of the structure. 3 e. Measure from the midpoint of the wall for length and width. This option is currently how the building official measures for garages. f. Measure from the interior of each wall for length and width. This option provides the usable interior space for the garage while also eliminating the difference in wall thickness from the measurement. 5. Side yard setbacks — the P&Z asked to discuss the possibility of 7.5-foot side yard setbacks rather than the current standard of a 10-foot setback on the living side and 5-foot setback on the garage side. Both standards provide the same 15-foot separation between buildings when at the minimum setback distance. The 7.5-foot side yard setback is easier for staff to apply and for homeowners to understand. However, this would create nonconformities for those homes built at the 10-foot/5-foot setbacks. It would be necessary to include a restriction on homes previously built under the 10-foot and 5-foot setback standard to limit them from making additions closer to the lot line. The P&Z should discuss and provide direction on whether they wish to change the standard to a 7.5-foot side yard setback. 6. Porch depth — The P&Z discussed porch depth during the October 131h meeting. Specifically, the potential change to reduce the porch depth from 8 feet to 6 feet. The Century Farms North, Century Point and Watermark developments are recent examples of projects that have been granted PUD flexibility to allow a 6-foot porch depth. When there is repeated flexibility for a specific item it is an indication that the code should be looked at and changes considered. The porch standard is in place for only the R-2 zoning district and is intended as an aesthetic component for when the garage is front facing and staff believes it is a functional space at 6 feet deep, however, homeowners and builders can choose a deeper porch if desired. Therefore, staff is recommending the change to the ordinance to establish a minimum porch depth of 6 feet. The P&Z Board should review the recommendations from staff and identify any questions or concerns. Any recommended changes will be included in a future draft for review. SUMMARY The Planning & Zoning Board should review the changes recommended by staff and provide direction on the desired changes. The direction will be incorporated into the full draft that will be presented later this year. Our next meeting to review ordinance revisions is December 8th and we intend to cover the administrative section along with definitions. RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to staff on the proposed revisions. 11 ATTACHMENTS 1. Shoreland Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Garage Area Table 4. 2018 Driveway Width Staff Report Shoreland District Map lu bus o d AM AW. � ..r �'��i -�� sir ':� •�r z -�'f`� , -,� .,.., � r.i Z30' fayfl ;¢yy+: , •:.,r,�_,�'Y�f �`. � , `140 4A ,art, +�I n :'J J-`' c� ,ems+� •J�{'-. .i�.`.�� . . 41 ' 53 [ 23 54 ' L y �y f r r _ r F; ai'� I ` - � �:` �. fir•' a � V•�� ` <a _ 21 - _`>�84 � r.: 49 jr �I J E'7'J�V G 1 JE � a .n. North Oaks 5g White Be 249 p. Lao 51 249 �� Shoreland District 1 in = 4,800 ft N A November 4, 2021 Map Powered By DataLink wsb 84 83 82 79( WEI 77( 76C 75C 74C 0 730 720 710 7001 :•1 'w 670( Q a) 660( 0 y� 650( 640C 630C 620C 6100 Ash City of Lino Lakes Zoning District Map N OM 25 LO COO 000 City of Shoreview Lino Lakes Community Development 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 Phone (651) 982-2400 ° odd even C: HOUSE NUMBERING SYSTEM Coordinate System: Anoka County NAD83 Feet Lambert Conformal Conic Anoka County Parcel Data: Jun 2017 Release O O O O O O O CV co City of North Oaks N W E DRAWING SCALE IN FEET 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 February 23, 2021 Maps are for illustrative purposes only. Recent changes may not be included. Land Use and Zoning Information should be verified with City Staff. e� C I T OF O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 d7 O N N N N N Legend Parcels Streams Lake PDO Planned Development White Bear Township ZONING R-3 Medium Density Residential R Rural R-4 High Density Residential R-X Rural Executive R-6 Manufactured Home Park R-1 Single Family Residential LB Limited Business R-1X Single Family Executive GB General Business R-2 Two Family Residential NB Neighborhood Business Updated Through Ordinance No. 02-20 GI General Industrial LI Light Industrial R-BR Rural/Business Reserve PSP Public Semi -Public PUD 8400 8300 8200 8100 - 7900 7700 7600 7500 7400 0 7300 Z 0 7200 7100 7000 6700 6500 6400 6300 Lake 0 6 6200 6100 Map Document: J:\gis\city\Lino Lakes\Maps\ZoningDistrictMap202l.mxd CITY GARAGE SIZE STANDARDS COMPARISON CHART CITY ZONING WIDTH DEPTH SIZE STALLS Blaine R-1, R-1AA 20 - 400 - Champlin Residential 20 20 400 - Coon Rapids LDR-1 22 22 484 2 Hugo No minimum standards or stall requirements. - Maple Grove Single -Family Units No minimum standards. 2 Woodbury Residential No minimum standards or stall requirements. St. Michael R-1 18 - 440 2 Anoka All - - 400 - Single -Family Units - - 440 - Two -Family Units - - 400 2 Townhouses - - 400 2 Andover RR, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 - - 440 - Dayton R-1 - - 440 2 Buffalo Residential 21 - 450 2 Ostego Residential - - 1 480 - Memorandum To: File From: Katie Larsen, City Planner Date: October 18, 2021 Re: Driveway Discussion Summary Summary of Recent Council and Planning & Zoning Board Meetings: • March 5, 2018 Work Session o Councilmember Stoesz requested discussion of possibly increasing the allowable width for residential driveways. o WS staff report detailed current 26 foot wide driveway requirements and neighboring community requirements. o The Council concurred that the current regulations are fine. • January 9, 2019 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting o Agenda Item 6B was Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Regarding General Provisions. This included driveway widths. o The March 5, 2018 WS staff report was presented to the Planning & Zoning Board. o The Planning & Zoning Board did not support a change the ordinance. They did suggest contractor education or modifications to the permit process. • March 4, 2019 Work Session o Staff presented an update on the January 9, 2019 Planning & Zoning Board meeting regarding amendments to the zoning ordinance, including driveway widths. o The Council did not propose any changes to driveway widths. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Phone: 651-982-2400 • Fax: 651-982-2499 January 8, 2020 P&Z Minutes: o In an effort to minimize future driveway width variance requests, the Board recommends contractors be notified and educated on driveway width requirements then take a firmer stance on future variance applications. Staff proposes to mail educational handouts to contractors and further discuss at the spring Contractor's Workshop. Summary of Driveway Width Requirements • 1971-1998: Driveway access shall not exceed 26 feet in width. • 1998-2003 (Ord. No. 09-98): Residential driveways shall not exceed 36 feet as measured at the curb line except within a cul-de-sac where they shall not exceed 26 feet as measured at the curb line. • 2003-Current (Ord. No. 08-03): No curb cut shall exceed twenty-six (26) feet in width within a residential zoning district as measured at the street right-of-way line unless approved by the City Engineer. Attachments: 1. March 5, 2018 WS Staff Report 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Phone: 651-982-2400 • Fax: 651-982-2499 WS — Item 8 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 8 Date: March 5, 2018 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Re: Allowance for Wider Driveways Background Councilmember Stoesz requested discussion of possibly increasing the allowable width for residential driveways. The City Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum residential curb cut width of 26 feet. The driveway may increase in width at a 45 degree angle at the property line. Driveway width restrictions are fairly common and serve a number of purposes. These include: • Maintain front yard green space and enhance the streetscape. • Preserve areas for on -street parking. • Minimize impact and maintenance costs to public right-of-way and utility corridors. • Preserve street snow storage. • Minimize conflicts with vehicle, pedestrian and bicycles using street. • Minimize impervious surfaces. A preliminary study of municipal zoning ordinances shows residential driveway widths ranging from 24 — 30 feet. 10 of the 12 communities had maximum driveway widths of 24 feet or less. Roseville has a 26' width and Blaine allows up to 30'. Over 500 driveways have been permitted during the last 5 years. There has not been any significant issues raised by the existing ordinance requirements. Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance requires a public hearing be held by the Planning & Zoning Board and approval of an ordinance by the City Council. Requested Council Direction Determination by the City Council whether to initiate an Ordinance amendment related to driveway widths. Attachments 1. Driveway Exhibit 2. Driveway Community Survey CURB CUT WIDTH AT RIGHT OF WAY LINE: 26 FT. MAXIMUM IF RESIDENTIAL 36 FT. MAXIMUM IF COMMERCIAL STREET A d� DRIVEWAY CITY -C7F EXHIBIT LN�/L UEgS LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA Sept. 2013 Lino Lakes Driveway Research Info Date 2/2612017 City Driveway Access Ordinance Language Number of Curb Cuts Driveway Dimension Driveway Separation (intersections, other driveways, Shared Driveways Standards and lot lines) Lino Lakes No curb cuUdriveway access shall be located less than thirty (30) feet from the intersection of two (2) or more local or Curb cut/driveway access on a public street except for minor street rights -of -way. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot lines. Curb cuUdriveway access single, two family, and townhouse dwellings shall not be setbacks from the intersection of streets with higher functional classifications shall be consistent with the located less than forty feet from one another. Except with recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and require approval by the City Engineer. Residential is 26 ft. special approval from the City Engineer, curb cut openings Single family detached uses: Maximum Slope -Ten foot vertical rise in one hundred horizontal feet. Minimum Width ; - maximum width and driveways shall be a minimum of five feet from the Ten foot wide driveway base. Vegetation should be cleared to eight feet on each side of driveway centerline from the Commerical -maximum width is 36 ft. side yard property line in all districts. Any shared driveway roadway to the front property line. Commerical Uses: Maximum Slope - Eight feet rise in one hundred horizontal. shall include a maintenance and access agreement. Minimum Width - Twenty feet driveway base or as approved by community engineer. Driveway Access Minimum. Each property other than single family uses shall be allowed one driveway access for each 125 ft. of street frontage. All property shall be entitled to at least one driveway access. Single family uses shall be limited to one driveway access per lot, except when the property exceeds the required street frontage per zoning district requirements, a second driveway access may be allowed by approval of the Zoning Administrator. Except as otherwise approved by the Zoning Administrator, single family uses shall not access arterial and major collector streets. In such Residential - maximum width is 24 ft. Setback required is five ft. from property line. No driveway Corcoran, MN cases, if a lot does not have frontage upon a local street and where the Zoning Administrator determines driveway 1 or 2 (conditional basis) Commercial - maximum width is 32 ft. can be within 60 ft. of any street intersection. access to arterial and major collector streets necessary, joint access through the use of shared curb cuts and access easements shall be utilized to the extent possible. Only one curb cut shall be allowed per parcel of land, except as permitted below. If the parcel of land is bordered by more than one right-of-way, the curb cut shall be located on the less traveled right-of-way, as determined by the Public Works Director. If all of the following conditions are met, two curb cuts may be allowed for a residential property: (i) Lot width at street side shall be 100 ft. or greater; (it) If the curb cuts are for a corner lot with curb cuts on separate streets, the total street frontage shall be 150 ft. or greater; (III) The property owner entering into an agreement with the city setting forth the terms and conditions for the two curb Setback required from property line will be no greater than 10 cuts. The agreement with the city shall be recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. - Residential maximum width is 24 ft. at the is -at ft. in residential zone, and must comply with side yard setback (iv) A storm water treatment system must be constructed on the property to treat the storm water from the area of the curb28 the pertline34 ftcombined , ropy , . in other zones. Driveway required to be 100 ft. from corners Medina, MN second curb cut. A storm water treatment system management plan must be submitted to the city and approved by the 1 or 2 (conditional basis) if two drives . unless zoned urban residential, urban commercial, or urban Public Works Director prior to the start of construction; and Commercial - maximum width is 32 ft. at the industrial districts. In which case the requirement is 50 ft. from (v) A storm water treatment system may be constructed in public right-of-way if it does not hinder the use of the road by property line. the corner. others, it is approved by the Public Works Director, the property owner agrees to be responsible for maintaining the area and the property owner enters into a maintenance agreement with the city. Each apartment or non-residential property shall be allowed one driveway access for each 125 feet of street frontage. All No curb cut or driveway access shall be allowed within 40 ft. such properties shall be entitled to at least one driveway access. Two family homes, townhouses, and manor homes shall of two intersecting street's Rows. Curb cut openings shall be be allowed one driveway access per dwelling unit. Single family uses shall be allowed one driveway access per lot, located at a minimum of three feet from the side yard lot line except when the property exceeds the required street frontage per zoning district requirements, a second driveway For single-family detached uses, curb cut in residential districts and a minimum of 10 ft. from the side Plymouth, MN access may be allowed by approval of the Zoning Administrator. 1 or 2 (conditional basis) access for driveways shall not exceed 24 ft. in lot line in all other districts. Driveway access curb openings on width. For all other uses, curb cut access for a public street except for single, two family, townhouse, and driveways shall not exceed 36 ft. in width. manor home dwellings shall not be located less than 40 ft. from one another. Only one driveway permit will be granted per lot or parcel of land, except one or more additional permits may be Residential: the maximum width is 16-24 ft. approved by the city engineer if such accesses will not impede traffic or pose a public safety risk. Commercial: the minimum driveway width is 16 The driveway separation distance is 20-30 ft. for both Hugo, MN 1 or 2 (conditional basis) ft. and the maximum width is 30-33 ft. residential and commercial districts. The street corner setback for driveways is 20.30 ft. for residential and 60 ft. for commercial. On lots less than 75 ft. in width, no more than one driveway per lot shall intersect a street. No driveway access is allowed on a street designated on as a collector or arterial street unless it is needed for adequate access. Curb cuts on collector streets . The number of driveways intersecting a street designated as a collector or arterial by the comprehensive plan shall be limited to those driveways essential for adequate access. When properties adjoin more than one street, driveways shall be restricted, if possible, to the street with a lower volume of traffic. The following additional Commercial: The minimum driveway width for restrictions apply to lots in the R-1 district and R-2 district: a one way street is 12 ft., the maximum is 20 ft. a. On interior lots, as defined in chapter 36, no more than one driveway per dwelling unit shall intersect a street Residential: 1 or 2(conditional basis) The minimum driveway width for a two way All driveways must be located 50 ft. from the nearest Edina, MN designated by the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial. Commercial: adequate access for street is 20 ft., the maximum is 30 ft. intersection. The driveway must also be located 10 ft. from all b. On corner lots or through lots, as defined in chapter 36, no driveway shall intersect with a street designated by the commercial and industrial Residential: The maximum driveway width is 30 side yard lot lines. comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial. ft, Each single family or duplex property is entitled to only one driveway from a public right of way unless it can be demonstrated that an additional driveway improves traffic safety/circulation for the general public. Commercial and For residential: The driveway width outside the industrial properties have no limit to the amount of accesses. ROW is allowed to be no larger than the garage width plus 10 ft. or 20 ft. if no garage exists. Residential: 1 or 2 (conditional The driveway width inside the ROW can be no All driveways must be located five ft. from rear and side yard Anoka, MN basis) Commercial: no limit larger than the garage width plus four ft. or 24 lot lines. ft. The minimum width is 12 ft. For commercial and industrial: The maximum driveway width is 30 ft. White Bear Lake, All properties shall be entitled to at least one curb cut. Each property shall be allowed one curb cut access for each 125 No curb cut shall exceed 24 ft. in width in single MN ft. of street frontage except for single family uses. Single family uses shall be limited to one curb cut access per property and two family developments and 32 ft. in width All curb cuts must be located 40 ft. from the intersection of unless a 1 or 2 (conditional basis) in all other two or more streets. All curb cuts must maintain a minimum Conditional Use Permit is reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. districts unless approved by the City Engineer. distance of five ft. from all side yard lot lines. Prior Lake, MN Accessory structures which are deemed by the Zoning Administrator to have potential access to a public or private street In residential districts, the driveway width may Driveways must be setback at least five ft. from side yard and have door openings exceeding six feet in width shall have a bituminous or concrete surfaced driveway to access the not exceed 24 ft. For all other uses, the property lines. Driveways must remain at least 30 ft. away structure. 1 or 2 (accessory structure) driveway width may from street intersection not exceed 36 ft. corners. Blaine All driveways and approaches must be hard surface using concrete or blacktop. Driveways cannot exceed a total of 45 % Depending on zoning districts, driveways cannot be of the area of the front yard and comer side yard with a maximum width of 36 feet beyond the public right-of-way. The constructed closer than three feet or five feet from the driveway width in the public right-of-way cannot exceed 24 feet for single-family lots with less than 70 feet of frontage or Case by case basis Residential - Maximum width is 24 - 30 ft. adjacent property line. 30 feet for lots with 70 feet or more of frontage. Commercial - Maximum width is 36 ft. Shoreview Driveway and parking areas shall not exceed 40 % of the area within the minimum required front yard setback. Property located on an arterial or collector street may construct a turnaround to prevent backing onto the street. The turnaround shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet from any property line and shall not be located in front of the dwelling. If adequate One curb cut per dwelling, unless width of lot Depending on zoning districts, driveways cannot be setback from the side lot line is not otherwise available, the City Manager may approve an alternate location. No parking exceeds feet, is a corner lot in which a Residential - Maximum width is 24 ft. constructed closer than three feet or five feet from the shall be permitted in any turnaround unless landscape screening is provided. Nonconforming driveways and parking second cuurbrb cut may be permitted. Commercial - Maximum width is adjacent property line. areas shall only be replaced in conformance with these regulations. Vadnais Heights All streets, driveways and right-of-ways shall be constructed as approved by the council. Street right-of-ways shall be a Curb Cut Width. No curb cut access shall Any driveway lying between the edge of the roadway and the minimum of sixty feet in width. All streets shall be public. (2) Access drives to all parking spaces, manufactured home exceed 24 feet in width unless approved property line (boulevard area) of the property being served by sites and buildings shall be paved. (3) All streets shall have a concrete (mountable, roll type) curb and gutter. (4) Ingress by the City Engineer. said driveway, shall be constructed with a hot mixed and egress from manufactured home parks shall be approved by the council. bituminous surface, or portland cement concrete surface. If portland cement concrete is used, where there is no concrete curb or gutter, the concrete driveway shall be held back two (2) feet from the curb line. The remaining two (2) feet shall be surfaced with hot mixed bituminous material. Roseville Driveways must be constructed of a hard surfaced material such as concrete, asphalt or brick pavers. Gravel is not If replacing curbing on a city street please Residential - Maximum width is 26 ft. Driveways must be set back from side property lines a allowed as a finished surface. On roadways without curb and gutter if a concrete driveway is being installed the concrete contact Supervisor Steve Zweber at 651-792- Commercial - Maximum width is 36 ft. minimum of 5 feet (for snow storage). Driveways must be set shall be kept two feet from the roadway edge and asphalt placed in this last section. 6 7052 for curb specifications. 1 back a minimum of 30' to a street right-of-way. Maximum impervious surface coverage on an LDR1-LDR2 property is 30%.