Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/2001 P&Z Packet• • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, March 14, 2001 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 13, 2001 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. Rick Boschee, 1205 Peregrine Circle, Variance from Setback Requirement, John Powell B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Heritage Development, Saddle Club Site, Old Birch Street, Comprehensive Plan Amendment for MUSA, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Cindy Sherman (NAC) C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive, Continue Public Hearing to 4/11/01, Cindy Sherman (NAC) D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Land Holding Group, 12th & Holly, Preliminary Plat, Continue Public Hearing to 4/11/01, Cindy Sherman (NAC) E. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Tree Preservation Ordinance, Continue Public Hearing to 4/11/01, John Powell VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Mini - Storage, Tabled February 13, Cindy Sherman (NAC) B. Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition Concept Plan, Cindy Sherman (NAC), John Powell VII. ANNOUNCEMENT: P & Z Boardmember Todd Schilling VIII. ADJOURN Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT February 13, 2001 6:30 P.M. 8:15 P.M. Corson, Lane, Rafferty, Schilling, and Schaps Lyden and Zych City Planner Smyser; City Engineer Powell; Planning Coordinator Wyland; Economic Development Director Wessel; Planning Consultant Sherman (NAC) I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zanng Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., February 13, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 10, 2001 Motion carried 4-0-1 (Lan Mr. Schilling made a MOT to approve the minutes of the January 10, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Plannin :and Zoning Board, a 1 and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps stated item VI.A.had been withdrawn by the applicant, but he would allow limited time for the public to express comments. He stated there would be no public hearing this evening. The agenda was approved. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:36 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:37 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 2 VI. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, Molin Concrete, 415 Lilac, Amended Conditional Use Permit. Chair Schaps stated the applicant had withdrawn this item. Douglas Miller, 7780 Lois Lane, stated he had received a phone call this afternoon from Ms. Wyland informing him this issue was not on the agenda tonight due to the fact that the applicant had been out of town and had not had time to prepare for the meeting. He stated he believed this was an excuse by applicant and applicant had sufficient time to prepare for the meeting. He stated this was a very serious issue for the citizens and wanted the City address these concerns and not just the business issues. Ed Schenck ( ?sp), stated he was also very concerned about the same issues. He indicated he lived a block and a half away from the business and was getting woken up early each morning. He stated this had been a problem in the past and. he believed this was a sneaky way for the applicant to play with the zoning Ordinances Faith , stated she had been woken up early -very ornin : exause of the noise. She was concerned about the morning and nighttime s that were very loud and could be heard inside her home. Sherry Schenck ( ?sp), 7859 Notingham Lan ° . tat + her concern was that she had no control over this and the noise fr• • �lican curred very early in the morning. She stated the noise could be heard "• sed windows, and there was nothing they could do about it She indi e • d not shut the noise off; it was there continuously. B. PUBLIC HEARIN , an Companies US, Inc. (Target) Lake Drive, PDO Rezone, Preliminary Plat, C r "nditional Use & Site Plan Review. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:44 p.m. Staff presented the application by explaining staff had been working with Ryan Companies, US Inc. on a proposed retail development located in the northeast quadrant of Lake Drive/I -35W Interchange. The main issue raised by staff and discussed by the City Council and Planning and Zoning Board related to the site layout and design and the departure from the Town Center vision. The direction provided through the concept process was to incorporate special pedestrian- oriented design features, as well as some special architectural elements into the proposal with the goal being an "above average shopping center ". Staff presented is analysis of the request, noting the site was currently zoned SC, Shopping Center District. This designation anticipated the development of a single center generally under one ownership. There was no provision in the SC Ordinance to allow zero lot line setbacks for buildings and parking as proposed. In order to accommodate the Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 3 development as proposed, it was necessary to process the application under the PDO, Planned Development Overlay District. Section 3, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Ordinance required a PDO to allow subdivision of lots for a single building. This process allowed greater flexibility and consequently a more creative and imaginative design. It allowed flexibility in the internal setbacks and in parking for combined uses and was the appropriate means for review of a development of this size and scope. Access to the site was proposed via an extension of Apollo Drive from Lake Drive through the site to 77th Street. An additional access was proposed to Lake Drive approximately 520 feet north of the Apollo access. All accesses with Lake Drive (County Road 23) were subject to the approval of Anoka County. The City Engineer was in the process of conducting a traffic study that would identify which improvement were necessary to accommodate the development. Improvements may include, but were not limited to turn lanes, by -pass lanes and signalization. Design alternatives to deter traffic from using Carole Drive needed to be examined and implemented if necessary. Staff explained detailed plans had been submitted for sanitary sewer, water and storm water management. The City Engineer had reviewed th- "formation submitted. With respect to natural features, there was a large wetland]. . - d on the eastern portion of the site that was proposed to be impacted. There were 752 tre •n the site and 566 of those were significant based on their size and species. The grading roposed on the site would result in the removal of 437 significant trees for a total of 458 trees. Most of the trees on the property were concentrated in around wetland „Qon the southwest portion of the site. The site design had incorporated a si layout along Apollo Drive and throughout the site along the storefr• ts. There were sidewalk connections shown at both accesses proposed with Lake Dri = Additiarially, different pavement treatments were proposed at significant crossing p its within' the development. Green space on the site was concentrated around the perimet° • the site and surrounding ponding and wetland areas. The landscaping plan calle or •lantings within parking lots along drive aisles and surrounding the site. The overall p: an was well done and provided a variety of plantings. Some plantings were shown in MnDOT right -of -way, which would require cooperation from MnDOT. The critical portion of the landscaping proposed was along the northern edge of the site, which was adjacent to existing residential lines. The plan as proposed would provide a visual break, but it would not provide a complete screen. Staff explained the exterior of the buildings were proposed to be a combination of masonry materials including brick and rockface block with EIFS (stucco) sign bands and accenting. The decorative rock elements included standing seam metal that complemented the roof designs in existing Town Square buildings. Awnings were proposed over the storefront areas. The Target Superstore used a combination of brick and stucco on the front which transitions to stucco and rockface block on the sides. The rear elevation was proposed to be painted CMU (concrete masonry unit). With the surrounding land uses, more attention needed to be paid to the architecture on the rear of the building. It would be very visible from 77th Street. There was a screen wall shown on the rear of the building, but materials to be used were not identified. This should be constructed of materials to match the building and should be of sufficient height to screen the dock area. Trash enclosures had not been identified on the site plan. • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 4 The applicant had proposed the City accept outlots that included ponding and right -of- way in lieu of park dedication. This would not be consistent with City Ordinance or policy. Cash fees in lieu of land dedication should be provided at the rate in effect at the time of the final plat. Based on the size of the proposed project, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet was mandatory. This process was designed to identify significant environmental effects that may require a more detailed environmental impact statement. The sign Ordinance allowed one pylon sign per street frontage, up to 200 square feet, with 25% of the sign designated for the Center name. The applicants were proposing two pylon signs with a sign face of 285 square feet plus the center name, which was approximately 35 square feet in area. On the retail buildings, wall signs were proposed over each tenant space and on the rear of the buildings. Staff did not support signs on the rear of the building unless it was incorporated into some enhanced design. The Target facility proposed a number of signs on three sides of the building. There was no signage proposed on the rear of Target. The total square footages allowed were based on the wall area; up to 20% of the wall area or 100 square feet, whichever was less. In this case, the wall areas were very large and 100 square feet was not adequate area for signage. The front of the building was approximately 9836 sq. ft. in area, which allowed up to 1967,.sq ft. of signage. Target was proposed to have a total of 1320 square fee of signage on the front elevation, which was within the 20% allowed. Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Boardsdiscuss the site plan, building design and signs proposed, provide direction to the applicant and then continue the public hearing until such time as the EAW process was completed and wetland fill and mitigation plans were approved b Riot`Creek. Staff stated the retail, other than the Target Store, would probably be downsized and the plans would be resubmitted once they were changed. Chair Schaps asked about the timeline for the closing of the public hearing. Mr. Smyser responded they expected this item to be back next month. Because of the size of the project, an Environmental Assessment Work would need to be done and that had to be completed before the City could approve the project. Mr. Corson asked if the EAW application had been made, or if that be applied for in the final process. Ms. Sherman replied the EAW had not been submitted or completed yet. Steve Baker, 77th & Carroll Drive, stated his concern was that 77th Street was going to be cut in half. Mr. Powell responded the City vacated 30 feet of right -of -way and had given it back to the property owners on the north side. Mr. Powell indicated the City was very concerned about the traffic patterns and Powell Drive would not connect to 77th Street. Mr. Baker stated he had moved to this area to have quiet and now there was going to be a store in his neighborhood with bright lights. He also asked if there would be enough economic support for a Target Store in this area. Mr. Smyser replied with respect to the lighting, it was a very important concern and they were aware of the potential effects this Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 5 project would have on the resident's near -by. He stated the lighting would only be on in the parking lot when the store was open. He stated this project was a huge investment on the part of Target Corporation. It would be a Target Superstore and that kind of an investment would not have been made lightly without a lot of market research. He stated Target Corporation would not invest that kind of money if they did not believe it would survive in this area. Resident, 874 Oak Lane, was concerned about the traffic issues. He asked what was going to be done about the traffic. Mr. Powell responded they were taking this development and assigning traffic generation to that use. He stated Lake Drive in its current state was not the future. He indicated there would be signals added, and they were in the evaluation process to determine what would be needed for this project. Sue Miller, 7780 Lois Lane, stated she came to this area for peace and quiet. She asked why they needed a Target Store in this area when there was one 10 miles down the road. She stated it did not fit with the City's concept. Tom Bacca ( ?sp), 77th and Lake Drive, asked if the Ciet m eed with the Anoka County's findings on traffic with respect to Apollo Drive be' he . entrance. Mr. Powell stated Target Corporation had proposed another onntion t .- ake Drive and that would be evaluated and discussed with the County. They had not received any answers from Anoka County. However, Anoka County had indica 'g polio Drive would be the main entrance, but Target Corporation wanted another connection, which the City would need to evaluate. Dave Moss ( ?sp), 7785 Lois Lane, stated Target Corporation tried to build a Superstore in the City of Blaine, and the City of Blaine =did not let them build in that City because of the grocery store. Mr. Moss stated he had a vested in this because he worked at Festival Foods and was in the unio e s Target Corporation simply going up the freeway to build their store. He stated m tores stock their stores at night and asked that a curfew being put on the noise and activities at night. Mr. Smyser replied a curfew would be taken into consideration. John Herman, 7859 Lois Lane, stated another Target Store was not needed in the area. He stated he moved up here to get out of the City and get peace and quiet. He indicated he did not want this to become another Woodbury where there were stoplights at every corner. He stated he hoped the City would look at the traffic concerns the citizens had on Lake Drive. He indicated he did not want to see the City keep developing without looking at the traffic impacts that would be made. He stated the roads were not there to support this project, and he wanted to see improvements to the road before any construction would be started. He indicated Tanger Mall was a very similar situation, and they had only one entrance and did not have a problem with having one entrance. Wendy , 849 77th Street, expressed her concern regarding Apollo Drive. She stated she did not think people on Apollo Drive realized they had a stop sign to get on to Lake Drive. She stated this area was a disaster waiting to happen. She realized that something was going to eventually be put on the land that Target Corporation proposed to • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 6 put their store on. However, she was concerned about the access off of 77th Street to the Target Store. She stated Target Corporation had indicated the City wanted the access. She indicated she did not want access off of 77th Street into Target. Mr. Powell responded the City wanted some sort of a connection from 77th Street to Target Store; not from Target Store to 77th Street. He stated they originally had discussions for an access for emergency vehicles only, not for traffic to go from Apollo Drive to 77th Street. He stated the way the development was proposed, they were looking at Target Corporation's proposal for another access, but the Target Corporation was still revising their plans and nothing had been decided on. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing until such time as the EAW process was completed and wetland fill and mitigation plans were approved by Rice Creek, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. C. PUBLIC HEARING, Land Holding Group, 12th & Holly, Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 7:14 Staff presented the application by Land Hold Group r a preliminary plat for the northwest corner of 12th Avenue and Holly Driv 6 Staff presented its analysis of the request, nwting the site was zoned for residential development. The site was within the exist n_ ` USA, and all of the lots met or exceeded the minimum lot size. The propose . • t widths were compliant with the minimum r lots standard of a width of 90 feet for lot depth was 135 feet. All of t e had a depth of 127 feet, w consider the site was i collector roads thereby lira stated applicant had not subm considered. The grading of the site must accommodate the housing styles. Staff indicated an existing shed and pole building were located within the new street right -of- way and must be removed. Utilities existed on both 12th and Holly, and an extension of utilities down the proposed cul -de -sac was proposed. The water main needed to be looped to 12th Street. The utilities plan was subject to City Engineer review and approval. The number of lots fronting 12th Avenue had been reduced from five lots in the concept plan to one lot in the preliminary plat. The number of lots fronting on Holly Drive had increased from zero to one. The rest of the lots were proposed to front a new cul -de -sac street. Based on modifications to the plan, which reduced the number of accesses, staff approved the layout. d 115 feet for corner lots. The minimum Lot 8, complied with this standard. Lot 8 variance. The Planning Commission could nds and it was located at the intersection of two gn options as a basis for granting the variance. Staff information about what house styles were being Staff indicated a trail was envisioned along Holly Drive, but had not been designed yet. It had not been decided whether the trail would be on the north or south side of Holly. It would be within the road right -of -way. Park dedication for this new development would be cash. Although boundaries of wetlands were shown on the preliminary plat, a wetland delineation report would need to be submitted. Wetland review should determine if the filling of the created pond that was proposed to be built in the southwest portion of the • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 7 site, was subject to the Wetland Conservation Act. If so, additional mitigation might be required. Parts of both the north central and southeast wetland were proposed to be filled. If the Rice Creek Watershed District did not approve the filing, Lots 1 and 13 would not be buildable and must be eliminated. It was Staffs policy to require preliminary approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District before City staff recommended approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. A tree preservation plan needed to be submitted. The Environmental Board suggested that some of the trees might be moved. Staff recommended the application be tabled to allow time for the Rice Creek Watershed District to review the project and to allow applicant time to submit additional information with regard to tree preservation, wetlands, grading and house elevations. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue to public hearing to March, 2001 to allow time for additional information as outlined in the planning report to be submitted and reviewed, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 5 -0. D. PUBLIC HEARING, Heritage Developmen dle Club, Old Birch Street, Preliminary Plat CONTINUED TO 3/14/01. Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to continue the p allow the City Council time to amend the d use future Phase 1 growth area, and was suppo c hearing to March 14, 2001, to include the entire parcel in the Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. E. Circle Lex VFW, Apoll7ri , , Mi Subdivision. Staff presented the applica ing applicant owned approximately 7.48 acres of land west of the Co ity N on Bank and Fast Break 66 Station. The property was split in two by Apollo ; ive and Zone GB, General Business. It was guided for commercial development in b the current and draft Land Use Plan. The VFW had recently sold a portion of the property to Lino Lakes Dentistry and would like to split the north side of the site into two parcels containing 1.5 acres for the dentists and 1.47 acres for future development. Staff anticipated submittal of a site plan review for an office building on this site some time in the near future. The VFW, however, was anxious to close on the property prior to this site plan review, thus the minor subdivision request. Staff explained access to the parcel would be provided from Apollo Drive. The City had a Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County that limited direct access of Apollo Drive to "not more than one (1) access on each side of the roadway in each 600 feet of length... ". This agreement mandated one (1) access on the north side of the VFW property along with a shared driveway agreement with the parcel to the west. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. 2. A revised survey document was provided indicating a shared access drive with the parcel to the west. A shared driveway agreement was provided for the access drive. • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 8 The City approved a site plan/conditional use permit for the VFW on their site at 7868 Lake Drive. To facilitate that development, the VFW asked for and received approval of the MUSA Land Exchange authorizing the transfer of 2.25 acres of MUSA from this site on Apollo Drive to 7868 Lake Drive. This transfer had not taken place yet. The transfer location should be determined before additional development activity occurred. To assure this, the following condition should be attached to the subdivision approval: Before City Council approval of this minor subdivision, the specific location from which the MUSA acres are to be taken from must be determined to complete the MUSA land exchange. Chair Schaps asked how the shared land exchange would work. Ms. Wyland replied that all along Apollo Drive they had shared driveways and this would look and work similar to all of the other shared driveways in that area. Chair Schaps asked applicant if he wanted to comment. Mr. Johnson asked when the Comprehensive Plan Would be completed. Chair Schaps replied the Comprehensive Plan had been with " the City Council since 1998 and he could not answer that question. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision, with the conditions of: (1) a revised survey document be provided indicating a shared access drive with the parcel to the west. (2) A shared driveway agreement was provided for the access drive. (3) attaching the following to the subdivision approval: Before City Council approve of this minor subdivision, the specific location from which the MUSA acres are to be taken from must b « - termined to complete the MUSA land exchange, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. otie carried 4 -0 -1 (Rafferty). F. Rocket/ Goertz, 325 Birch Street (Apitz), Minor Subdivision. Staff presented the application for a Minor Subdivision to subdivide a 39.67 -acre parcel of property located at the north/east corner of Hodson Road and Birch Street. The minor subdivide would create two parcels — Parcel A being a 3.98 net acres /3.51 upland acres and Parcel B being 35.69 net acres /26.85 upland acres. Staff explained Mr. Grubbs would retain ownership of the 3.98 parcel for future commercial development and Mr. Goertz would retain the 35.69 -acre parcel for development similar to the sketch for Spirit Hills. Staff presented it analysis by explaining the property was currently zoned R -1 Single Family Residential and located within the existing MUSA line. The property immediately south containing Apitz Garage and the small corner house was zoned GB, General Business. Utilities could be extended to serve the property. The Draft Comprehensive Plan guided this area for a mix of commercial, low- density residential and medium density residential. The current comprehensive Plan guided the area for • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 9 single family residential. Staff explained Mr. Grubbs also owned the adjoining Apitz Garage and was the potential owner of the adjoining City /County owned property at the corner of Hodgson Road and Birch Street. The City /County and Mr. Grubbs were currently working on an agreement that would include right -of -way dedication along Hodson Road and transfer of the remaining parcel to Mr. Grubbs. The property owner had agreed to dedicate an additional 27' to 29' of right -of -way on the east side of Hodson Road in this location that was acceptable to the County. Staff had reviewed this minor subdivision request and commented the applicant had demonstrated that a future street layout was possible to serve the plat and minimize access on to Birch Street. The applicant had met with Anoka County regarding right -of- way needs for Hodson Road and was willing to dedicate the additional right -of -way along the west property line and had revised his sketch accordingly. The proposed new lots met the minimum lot dimensions and other requirements under the current zoning. Staff recommended approval of this minor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Dedication of 27 — 29.73' of right -of -way isdedicated along the west property line of both Parcel A and B and uired by Anoka County. 2. Approval of this minor subdivision does not=,, .uarantee, nor imply approval of any subsequent development plans for the p perty. Chair Schaps asked if the property on the corner was, Wyland replied it had been confiscated by the County by the City. uired by foreclosure. Ms. and then purchased from the Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Grubbs had indicated any desire for an expansion of the business onto that property d Ms. Wylanct replied Mr. Grubbs may want to expand his business into this area. Chair Schaps asked if applica =anted to make comment. Rockey Goertz, applicant, presented a color diagram indicating what they proposed. He stated he and Mr. Grubbs had not decided what they were going to do with the corner piece. Mr. Rafferty asked how the entrance on Hwy 49 was going to work. Mr. Powell responded they intended on an entrance off of Birch Street, which they would attempt to line up with Ware Road to create a cross intersection. That would eliminate Mr. Grubbs access onto Birch Street. The Hwy 49 access would be a right -in, right -out access only. Mr. Corson inquired about the impact this would make to the lake and asked this be considered. • Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the Minor Subdivision, with the conditions outlined by staff, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Rafferty). Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 10 G. Ryan Companies, Summit Fire Protection, 2XX Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision and Site Plan Review. Staff presented the application for Ryan Companies on behalf of Summit Fire Protection, which was requesting a minor subdivision and plat approval to allow the construction of a 30,076 square foot office /warehouse facility on the property located in the 200 block of Apollo Drive. The site plan also illustrated 22,800 square foot future expansion and parking for this expansion. Staff presented its analysis by explaining the site's L -1, Light Industrial zoning classification was consistent with this land use designation. The lot, parking and building met all of the performance standards in the L -I, Light Industrial District. Staff stated applicant was proposing to construct a 30,076 square foot office /warehouse facility. The building was considered one story; however, the office and warehouse portions would have different heights. All heights conformed to the 45 -foot future expansion along with future parking. The building exterior materials conformed to the City Code. The plan's indicted all trash and recycling containers would be stored aside the principal structure. With respect to lighting, the plans did not include a detailed photometric plan. The site plan showed shoebox light fixtures both on the building and in the parking area Staff recommended a condition of approval required the applicant td submit a detailed photometric plan prior to City Council review. Staff stated signage was governed by the C` t rdinance and separate permits were required for all signs. The landscap •lan p $ ent • a variety mix of landscaping. Most notably, the applicant's plan call throughout the site. The applican grasses. The applicant sho the loading areas of the construct parking stalls in ix of prairie grasses and wild flowers it a maintenance plan for the native prairie ng along the western side of the site to screen d: tial use. In addition, should applicant decide to along the western side of the site, they would need to add landscaping to screen it fr ' the adjacent residential use. Utilities would come from the existing sewer and water mains constructed as part of the Marmon/Keystone site to the east. Water access would be stubbed across Apollo Court and split to serve both Summit Fire Protection site and the parcel to the north. Storm water runoff from the subject property would be stored and treated on site. The applicant's parking plans called for 48 stalls and another 27 future stalls. If the proposed addition were constructed, it would need 10 additional stalls. Together, the proposed and future parking exceeded the total number of off - street parking stalls required by the Ordinance. Mr. Corson asked if applicant wanted to make comment. Frank Zelle, Ryan Companies Project Manager, presented color diagrams showing the project. He stated with the 32 -foot wide drive, it would make it easier for service vehicles to get in and out. He stated this was a cul -de -sac and it would not interfere with anything by having a wider driveway. Chair Schaps inquired about the native prairie grass. Mr. Zelle replied the front and side of the building would be sod, with the rest of the area native prairie grass. • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 11 Mr. Corson asked about sprinkling and burning of the native prairie grass. Mr. Zelle replied the sod would be sprinkled and they would take precautions if the native prairie grass would need to be burned. John Johnson stated they were looking into finding a prairie grass that would not require burning, and hopefully they would find some native prairie grass that would not need to be burned. Mr. Schilling asked if exterior storage would become an issue in the future. Mr. Zelley, Summit Fire Protection, replied they did not intend to have any outside storage. They were building the building large enough that they would not need additional storage. There would be no forklifts or other equipment on the outside of the building. Mr. Smyser suggested the following amendments: On number 9, it read: City Engineer's comments in the January 23, 2001 TKDA memo must be addressed to the City Engineer's satisfaction by March 2, 2001, and add a number 10 to s ° : If possible, find a type of prairie grass that would not require burning. Mr. Schilling suggested getting input from the e D` artme r' regarding the burning of contact the Fire Department and the native prairie grass. Mr. Smyser replied he present their information to Council. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to ap construction of a 30,076 square f outlined in the February 13, 2001 by staff and the two amen Lane. Motion carried 4 ve th °` inor Subdivision and site plan to allow the ice /w .- house building based on the findings port and subject to the conditions outlined d by Mr. Smyser, and was supported by Ms. H. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow Accessory Buildings in Industrial and Commercial Districts. Chair Schaps continued the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Staff explained they had prepared an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to accessory buildings in the commercial and industrial zoning districts based on discussion at the January Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. The draft would allow only one (1) accessory building a maximum of 400 square feet in area. Roof height would be limited to 12' and district setbacks would apply. No site plan review would be required, but standard building permits may be required per the Uniform Building Code. Roof and exterior color materials was to be compatible with the existing building. Metal buildings and pole barns were unacceptable excepting those used for bus storage. Staff recommended adopting the Ordinance amendment as presented. Chair Schaps asked for staffs comments regarding this amendment. Mr. Powell responded he had no response. Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 12 Chair Schaps stated the only comment he had was with respect to language being changed with respect to the accessory building being taken down if the business expanded. Mr. Corson responded he would like to give applicant the option if they still needed the accessory building. Mr. Smyser stated this would leave some arbitrariness as to whether the storage was necessary. He stated this would be something staff would need to look at. Chair Schaps suggested adding after the comma in Item I - "the accessory building shall be removed if the intended need no longer exists ". Chair Schaps closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to the Ordinance amendment as presented subject to Chair Schaps' suggestion, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. I. Central Suburban, 416 Lilac, CUP Tabled fro anuary meeting. Staff explained applicant had submitted an applic ' to a d its existing conditional use permit (CUP) to allow storage of recreation vehicles on e site. At the January Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, the Board opened and closed the public meeting, then tabled the item to allow applicant to • k with on unresolved issues. Since that time, the recreational vehicle firm that wan another city. Central Suburban then submitt amending the CUP. Staff recommend the this item from the table and acknowl utilise the site decided to locate in a letter withdrawing the application for ning and Zoning Board Meeting remove withdrawal of the application. The Planning and Zoning "Board a nowledged the withdrawal of the CUP application 5- 0. J. PUBLIC HEARING, Tree Preservation Ordinance, Continue to 3/14/01. Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to continue this item to March 14, 2001, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Mini Storage, Al Robinson Chair Schaps indicated Mr. Robinson was unable to attend tonight's meeting and tabled this item. B. Appointment of P & Z Liaison to EDAC Staff noted the previous liaison to the City's Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDAC) was Bill Johnson. As Mr. Johnson was not reappointed to the Planning & Zoning Board, there needed to be new liaison appointed. Staff stated the Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 13 • EDAC generally met on the first Thursday of the month at 7:00 a.m. to discuss various economic development concerns within the community. Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to nominate Mr. Rafferty as the Economic Development Advisory Commission's (EDAC) liaison with Ms. Lane as the alternate, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. C. Discussion — EIFS Chair Schaps indicated Mr. Lyden was not in attendance this evening and tabled this item. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • 3oschee/ �f ova; Iru Co -vLtra ctar Custo-vwgO144 '3cA,ad&r Z Er Ad , t'LO vw ",gcccis'Your Drectane Offtcex. 651-636-6709 Fovg 651-636-7099 Mob -tie' 612 -414 -5505 4 Lire. # 3325 • AGENDA ITEM V. A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: March 12, 2001 TOPIC: Variance From Collector Street Setback Rick Boschee, 1205 Peregrine Circle Lot 8 Block 1 Peregrine Pass BACKGROUND Mr. Rick Boschee of Boschee Homes, Inc., has applied for a variance from a setback requirement for a lot in Peregrine . Mr. Boschee is a builder who prepared a plan for a house on Lot 8. The plan does not fit within the setbacks, which is the reason for the variance application. This report is based on the certificate of survey by Metro Land Surveying & Engineering dated February 13, 2001. ANALYSIS Peregrine Pass is an unusual development in that the developer worked very closely with staff to incorporate many environmentally friendly design elements. These resulted in some unique aspects to the development. In many ways, the project is an experiment utilizing serval conservation subdivision elements. The site is zoned PDO Planned Development Overlay, and the unique design elements are part of the approved plat. Standards in the zoning ordinance apply if not specifically altered by the approved plat. For example, the conditions of approval for the plat state that the minimum house footprint size is that of the R -1X zone. However, no mention is made of altering building setbacks, so the setbacks in the ordinance apply. Setbacks are identical in both the R -1 and R-1X zones. Setbacks • Street local collector or arterial 30 40 • Front Yard 30 • Rear principal 30 accessory 5 • Side principal 10 accessory 5 • Boschee Variance page 2 Normally, the right of way is the same as the property line. In this case, there is a park trail strip along the side of Lot 8, on 12th Ave. The trail strip is owned by the City, so the property line is the edge of the trail corridor. The side yard setback is measured from that. This poses no conflict with the proposed house plan. The standard 40 ft. building setback from a collector street also applies because 12th Avenue is a collector street. The setback from the road, which applies to all buildings, is measured from the edge of the right of way. The trail strip is 15 ft., and the proposed garage is shown 13.5 ft. from that, for a total setback from the road of 28.5 ft. This encroaches into the required setback by 11.5 ft. (40 — 28.5 = 11.5). Lot 8 does include some unusual elements. The lot is rather narrow at its front line. As noted, the trail corridor exists along 12th Ave., which reduces the lot width from what it would be without the trail. There is a drainage and utility easement covering a large portion in the northeast corner of the lot. In addition, there is an extra 30 feet covered by a wetland conservation buffer easement which further reduces the buildable area of the lot. Moving the house toward the back of the lot would leave very little backyard. Mr. Boschee's letter states that the problem arises due to a larger setback on a corner lot. It would be more accurate to state that the street setback is greater than the side yard setback, which results in a de facto larger setback on a corner lot, though it is not listed as a "corner -lot setback." During the review of the plat in 1999, City staff and the developer discussed the building pads for the lots. The building pad location on Lot 8 of the approved preliminary plat and associated grading plan meets the 40 ft. road setback. Nothing has changed between the time of plat approval and the house design. No additional requirements have been added, nor are there any hidden requirements. All easements are recorded with the property and show up on a survey. The house pad location is a standard element of plat approvals. The setback requirements have not changed in the past two years. Findings for Variance In considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Boschee Variance page 3 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Though the builder should have known the requirements of the site and designed the house to fit within them, Lot 8 is a relatively difficult lot. • Its shape and the double street setbacks combined with the wetland and extra buffer easements create unusual circumstances. • It is not reticence to spend extra money to avoid the variance, but rather the desire to build a home of a high enough value to fit in with the neighborhood. While this is an "economic consideration" of a sort, it is the desire for a higher expenditure rather than a lower one. • The other lots in the development do not have the same combination of constraints. Lot 1, which has several road setbacks, is wider and can accommodate a house within the setbacks. Lot 4 is narrow, but does not have the collector road setback or the extensive wetland easements. • Higher value homes are the reason for the R -1X district compared to the R -1, and the house proposed is in keeping with that goal. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the variance request. Staff notes that the recommendation on this variance request is based on the unique attributes of Lot 8 and in no way implies support for variances on the other lots in the development. OPTIONS 1. Approve the setback variance to allow the garage to be constructed 28.5 feet from the road right of way as indicated on the survey. 2. Deny the variance request. 3. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 • vto'Q O al III MIN my DOW= 1 A J ��� '' ���!r_.. M 1!I IU li boy � I JflLSIII �ooR` imam: U %2N01 SHADED AREA DENOTES PARK LOCATION MAP OF • CITIES OF LINO LAKE; CENTERVILLE, 131 PART OF CIRCLE F /"\I 40.00 33 N N \ 6' or 6 liJ - 33 —J 40 0 0 00 0, (0 0 N 9 353.01 T \. ..r,1) • %,1 _ 1 •,f i 129.27 r -- DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT WETLAND S 89 °45'53” W 0 0 0 1n 40 185.56. • . BLOCK 1 • 4 APPROXIAAATE EDGE OF WETLAND O O N O r7 )N9oroo'oo-E I 37.49 40 i,07 40 S 00°14'07" E N N 8 / / 7 / / / / I N N � L =256.4 \ °o 20 \L90°00'00' vN 73.09 20 r o O fVco "a L =25.57 R =15.00 A=97°41'03" Y64%.* Dy, w - S89 05.1 'E v o 12.00 42'9' "++C ° 0 / / / / 2 S 89 °29'10” W 144.44 J L 1 /\ \ _--4--- � 4'—' r r \ \y I 4 11 11 N O \?p C..)N �0 SOP\ J iD N 0� W LT N s 0= 3 , 5 E S 89°29'10 W 154.27 0 HOLLY DRIVE I r, r, I ir- Y L_ SW CORNER OF I ,` ; „�_ � Y _ SEC 27, TWP 31,I RNG 22 II (ANOKA COUNTY i NONUA'FN11 S89 °24 T23" W 408.01 co S00°14 '07"E 792.03 1 • S89°24'23 -W —• S. LJNE OF SW 1/4 SWI /4 OF SEC. 27. T.31, R. 22 • CITY OF LINO LAKES RICK BOSCHEE HOMES, INC. 2540 NORTH SNELLING CURVE ROSEVILLE, MN. 55113 -3145 RECEIVED FEB 1 2 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; MY NAME IS RICK BOSCHEE, I AM PRESIDENT AND OWNER OF RICK BOSCHEE HOMES, INC., THE EXCLUSIVE BUILDER ON THE 8 LOTS ON PEREGRINE CIRCLE, IN PEREGRINE PASS. I HAVE A MODEL HOME UP AND FOR SALE AT 1220 PEREGRINE CIRCLE. MY INTENTION IS TO BUILD LIKE STYLE HOMES ON THE REMAINING LOTS. I'M LOOKING FOR A FRONT PORCH SPACE, (BECAUSE OF LIMITED BACK YARD AREA IN THE DEVELOPMENT), AND COMPARABLY PRICED HOMES, $350.000.00 AND UP. I SOLD LOT 8 TO A CLIENT, WE HAD A PLAN DEVELOPED TO SUIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HE GOT CONSTRUCTION FINANCING AND WE HAD THE LOT STAKED AND APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT WE FOUND OUT THAT THE LOT WAS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY AS A CORNER LOT WITH A BIGGER THAN ANTICIPATED SET BACK REQUIREMENT. EVEN THOUGH IT IS BORDERED FROM THE STREET BY A WALKING PATH • DESIGNATED AS AN OUTLOT. THE PHYSICAL CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT WILL NOT ALLOW MOVING THE HOUSE TO ANY OTHER PART OF THE LOT. A LARGE PORTION OF THE REAR OF THE LOT HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO THE CITY OF LINO LAKES (PARCEL A) AS AN OPEN SPACE EASEMENT, UP TO THE WETLANDS. I AM ASKING THE CITY TO ALLOW A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT THE HOUSE I HAVE APPLIED FOR AS PLANNED AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED SURVEY, IF NOT, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD A HOUSE COMPARABLE TO THE OTHERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. (I.E. HOME VALUE AND 3 CAR GARAGE). I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GRANTING ME THIS VARIANCE WILL CHANGE ANYTHING THAT WASN'T ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. WITHOUT THE VARIANCE I AM CONFRONTED WITH AN UNUSUAL AND DIFFICULT PIECE OF PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT A CONSISTENTLY VALUED NEIGHBORHOOD HOME ON. PLEASE CONSIDER THAT THERE ALREADY IS A BUFFER IN THE FORM OF THE WALKING PATH OUTLOT NEXT TO 12Th AVE. AND THAT THE REAR YARD HAS BEEN DESIGNATED A PERMANENT OPEN SPACE BY THE CITY. PLACING THE HOME I HAVE INTENDED FOR THE PROPERTY WOULD STILL BE IN KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. THANK YOU RICK BOSCHEE 12ickv3oscheP.}iom.�.s; � al/ C Cuisto-vw ft o-vn2' B waxier 2e-made- U'.vtWEr Ad lit "Acce'Your rem Office,: 651-636-6709 Foot,: 651 -636 -7099 Mo1rae/: 612-414-5505 Lice # 3325 CERTIFICATE Or SURVEY for Rich Boschee Homes, Inc. 33' c 0 o. 0 v w /t 40' -- -15- -- 12TH AVENUE 0 N89 °45' 53 "E 12_27T _\ 1 \ 1 1 \ oy\ 1Ag I \ I 1 \�� -- -- 40 - --\ y \ \ \ \ CO \ \ +`. \ \ °'` ` \ SSOg GIs. \ \ X 910.7 X910.5 \,��`,6= X 910.3 DTI\ ` -/ ` I / ` ) f / •T N89 °45'53 "E 167.44 t 1 co M 10.4 Setback Line \Id tiT / / 0 ,0 X910.4 910.8 [Building Pod X910.4 11.9 911.0 12.00 00 (0 10.67 913 2 15.6 50.00 PROPOSED HOUSE 12 COURSE BASEMENT WALKOUT 1 910.4 ^w 11.4 91? 1 X916.9 GARAGE 1 19.67 cv o "17.OpORCH O 0 .67 12.00 6. 918 O 916.6 CANT. 916.8 •S 40 - -- X912.1 911.6 or3 0;O 4O 11 912.3 ® Denotes 10 ft. offset hub �.� Denotes direction of proposed surface drainage. 035.) Denotes proposed elevation x 935.0 Denotes existing elevation • Denotes iron monument found o Denotes iron monument set PROPOSED BUILDINGS ELEVATIONS /a�.pRliot ,,. 2/13/01 Add setback Sc consery esmt 91 X911.6 Bd9e 0 0113 METRO LAND SURVEYING & ENGINEERING 412 EAST COUNTY ROAD D LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA 55117 TEL (651) 766 -0112 FAX 766-022 EMAIL' survey ®metrols.com Job No. 596.002 Scale: T-30' Drawn by: JMB Lowest Floor Garage Floor Top of Block =911.5 =918.8 =919.2 PEREGRINE PASS LOT 8, BLOCK 1 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Subject to easements of record, if any. I hereby certify that this survey, plan by me or under my direct supervision licensed land surveyor under the laws • Dat B y: 1s daof or report was prepared and that I am a duly of the state of Minnesota. Surveyor, Minnesota License N ,2001 7765 • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. B Cindy Sherman (NAC) March 14, 2001 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: MUSA Allocation Rezoning Preliminary Plat Saddle Club, Old Birch St. Heritage Development has submitted an application for comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, and preliminary plat for a portion of an area included in their application for preliminary plat. The property commonly known as the Saddle Club is located south and east of Old Birch Street. The review is based on plans received by the City on February 12, 2001. ANALYSIS Project Data: Site Total Wetlands Upland Right -of -Way Number of Lots Gross Density Net Density (Upland Only) 39.77 acres 15.34 acres 20.10 acres 4.33 acres 46 lots 1.15 units /ac 2.20 units /ac Land Use and Zoning: The northern 20 acres (approximately) is zoned R -1. The south 20 acres (approximately) is zoned rural. The application is to rezone the entire parcel to R -1. Additionally, the applicant includes a comprehensive plan amendment to bring the entire property into the MUSA. The existing and proposed comprehensive plan designates the northern portion of the parcel for low density residential development. While the entire parcel is proposed to be platted, the wetland portion of the property is 15.34 acres so the area to be added to the MUSA does not have a net impact on the amount of land to be serviced. Nonetheless, the MUSA line will have to be moved to include the southern portion of the site in the MUSA. The amount of upland in the southern portion is about eight acres, which would be the amount of MUSA reserve to be allocated to the site. • • • Surrounding Land Use: * Low Density = 1 -3 units per acre in the draft comprehensive plan Greenway: The draft Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for greenways. The intent of the greenway designation is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. This will be accomplished by overlaying a drainage and utility easement in the areas to be protected. Additionally, staff recommends that wetland markers be placed along the perimeter of the delineated wetlands to protect the space. Lot Sizes and Layout: The R -1 District minimum lot size is 10,800 square feet of upland. Lot 13, Block 1 does not meet this standard. All other lots meet or exceed this provision. The minimum lot width is 80 feet at the 30 foot front yard setback. There are 11 lots that do not meet this provision. The minimum lot depth is 135 feet. All of the lots meet or exceed this provision. Grading: Fill is proposed on the site to create the house pad areas and roadways. Much of the site is proposed to remain undisturbed and will be encumbered by drainage and utility easement. The grading plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Existing Structures: All existing structures shall be removed from the site. Transportation: Access to the property is proposed from Old Birch Street. This requires right - of -way acquisition from an adjacent parcel. A roadway connection is also proposed to Killdeer Drive. This also requires right -of -way acquisition from an adjacent parcel. The adequacy of the access is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Acquisition of right -of -way is the responsibility of the applicant. A feasibility study is underway which will include road access and impacts to the Old Birch St. roadway. This study was scheduled to be received by the City Council on March 12. Utilities: A feasibility study is underway which will examine the best way to provide utility services to the property. This study was scheduled to be received by the City Council on March 12. Parks and Trails: There is a trail corridor proposed between Lots 8 and 9, Block 2 and the right -of -way on the northeast corner of the site provides access to the trail corridor platted in the 2 Comprehensive Plan (Existing) Comprehensive Plan (Draft) Zoning Site Urban Residential /Residential Low Density * /Residential R / R -1 North Urban Residential Low Density * /Sewered Unsewered R -1 East Low Density * /Residential Low Density * /Greenway R / R -1 South Residential Greenway R West Residential Low Density * /Greenway R -1 * Low Density = 1 -3 units per acre in the draft comprehensive plan Greenway: The draft Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for greenways. The intent of the greenway designation is to protect environmentally sensitive areas. This will be accomplished by overlaying a drainage and utility easement in the areas to be protected. Additionally, staff recommends that wetland markers be placed along the perimeter of the delineated wetlands to protect the space. Lot Sizes and Layout: The R -1 District minimum lot size is 10,800 square feet of upland. Lot 13, Block 1 does not meet this standard. All other lots meet or exceed this provision. The minimum lot width is 80 feet at the 30 foot front yard setback. There are 11 lots that do not meet this provision. The minimum lot depth is 135 feet. All of the lots meet or exceed this provision. Grading: Fill is proposed on the site to create the house pad areas and roadways. Much of the site is proposed to remain undisturbed and will be encumbered by drainage and utility easement. The grading plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Existing Structures: All existing structures shall be removed from the site. Transportation: Access to the property is proposed from Old Birch Street. This requires right - of -way acquisition from an adjacent parcel. A roadway connection is also proposed to Killdeer Drive. This also requires right -of -way acquisition from an adjacent parcel. The adequacy of the access is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Acquisition of right -of -way is the responsibility of the applicant. A feasibility study is underway which will include road access and impacts to the Old Birch St. roadway. This study was scheduled to be received by the City Council on March 12. Utilities: A feasibility study is underway which will examine the best way to provide utility services to the property. This study was scheduled to be received by the City Council on March 12. Parks and Trails: There is a trail corridor proposed between Lots 8 and 9, Block 2 and the right -of -way on the northeast corner of the site provides access to the trail corridor platted in the 2 Oaks of Lino. The park dedication for this subdivision primarily will be cash in lieu of land. • The amount to be paid will be based upon the rates in effect at the time of final plat. • • City staff is examining the potential for a trail through the southern portion of the site. This will depend on the wetlands, the cost of the trail, and the potential to provide linkages to and through other properties. The park dedication could possibly include this trail. Wetlands: There are 15.34 acres of wetland on the property. Some fill is proposed to accommodate roadway construction. The proposal is to mitigate the fill adjacent to other wetland areas. The wetland delineation and proposed fill are subject to the review and permitting of Rice Creek Watershed District, which oversees the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). It is the City staff's policy to require preliminary approval (tabled with approval for administration action or TWAFAA) from Rice Creek before the City staff recommends approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Environmental Board: The Environmental Board reviewed the application and their comments are attached. Tree Preservation: There are woods identified on the site. No specific inventory was provided and a preservation plan was not submitted. A plan for tree preservation shall be submitted. OPTIONS FOR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ACTION 1. Recommend denial of the preliminary plat based on lots which do not meet the minimum lot width, lack of a tree preservation plan, lack of access to the site and lack of Rice Creek Watershed review. OR 2. Continue the public hearing to allow time for additional information as outlined in the planning report. RECOMMENDATION Option 2 • • AGENDA ITEM 1 - 02 STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: January 31, 2001 TOPIC: Saddle Club BACKGROUND: See Project Trac Sheet OPTIONS: The Environmental Board and Staff have made the recommendations listed in the project trac sheet. Options are to: 1. Accept the proposal and forever loose a planned greenway and good site for future restoration. 2. Recommend denial of the proposal unless provisions are made for public greenway in the south area of the proposal (if and when MUSA is allocated). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends option 2. • • ti THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTTAACCTALL PUBUC UIIUTIES FOR LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLE, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER; PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR: SADDLE CLUB PREPARED FOR HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT INC. CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PROJECT LOCATION SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS SOIL TESTING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55305 SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION 1. COVER 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT 4. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL 5. UTILITY 6. DETAILS HERESY CERTIFY THAT TINS PIN1, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED 00 ME DR UNDER 110 DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT 1 AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIDM1 ERCNEER UNDER 1110 LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA OATS: REG. N0. 195na REVIEWE0 NY: DATE 2 -12 -01 PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMRTAL sZIE REVISIONES S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 1 OF 6 SHEETS BLOCK 2 LO1 -- ..+ MO,. 1 22645.2 68262 32471.4 2 18596.3 8549.6 27245.9 3 25874.2 370.4 26244.6 4 20451.0 4464.0 24935.0 5 25090.7 2449.5 27540.2 6 19364.5 11327.4 30801.9 7 40359.7 47717.4 88077.1 8 36179.9 155194.0 191373.9 9 15069.3 18143.3 33212.6 10 15193.4 9764.4 24957.8 11 20774.4 33148 24089.2 12 18717.6 2958.0 21705.6 13 13817.9 0 13817.9 14 13008.0 1295.3 14303.3 15 14683.6 5266.3 19969.9 16 18497.9 60251.0 78748.9 17 26291.4 95620.2 121911.6 18 46353.9 53713 51725.2 19 14572.0 894703 84042.3 20 26795.5 15212.0 42007.5 21 29227.9 29227.9 29227.9 22 23821.4 4784.4 286058 23 13886.2 12253.3 26139.7 24 20105.5 3400.3 23505.8 25 20872.4 0 20872.4 26 20861.6 18387.7 39249.3 27 16259.7 7724.3 23964.0 20 13303.9 0 13303.9 29 14853.2 8968.3 23821.5 30 18176.0 7599.7 23775.7 TOTAL 621750.2 609717.6 1231467.6 I FEB Z ;?D 01 • • 0 0 00 O N O 03 N J 0 . ILL • 1.f] co 4a; 288'50'70"6 1307.62 DBM4149.1 & -- OW) OFF - _..._ VL,OCK 4 3 +00 995- 7-- UPANA.2E iTSITY E SE1H.1.7 ORH11120 6: 010Y EASS.SE4 • N. 156.3 / 30' FRONT SETBACK (TYP) WETLANDS CRAt . ¢ -_ i uTx er EUYM NT ; t ASPEN LA OR3'ROT F BENCHMARK: 180 FEET SOUTH OF SOUTHEAST CORNER ` OF OUTIAT A. TOP OF WATERMAN PIPE. y ELEVATION 1034.19 ,, 'ASSUMED FROM TOPO PLAN) RY O TER!) 1306.98 232.9 N88'44'01 "6' 1 BLOCK 1 ht 3 0 60 120 180 SCALE FEET LEGAL DESCRIPTION SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECDON 28, TOWNSHIP 31, R NCE221 ANOKA. COUNTY, MINNESOTA. LEGEND EXISTING CONTOUR - • - • - • - • - EXL9TING WETLAND BOUNDARY - - - - - - PROPOSED DROWSE At UTILITY EASEMENT �- PROPOSES TRAL EASEMENT TYPICAL SET -BACK DETAIL 0/W UN SETBACK UN 10' H3 REM LOT UNE BLOCK N0. -100 101 NO. TYPICAL ESMT. DETAIL (DRAINAGE AND UTILITY) R/W UNE 10' - _- 5' pE 1 1 ` REAR LOT UNE LOT - n •..n - " 464 MO,. 1 21622.4 0 21122.4 2 12800.4 0 12600.4 3 13128.9 0 13128.9 4 15789.8 0 15789.8 5 12661.1 0 12661.1 6 17185.4 2662.2 19847.6 7 21713.7 7241.6 28955.3 8 18219.4 3769.1 19988.5 9 15447.4 0 15447.4 10 11481.7 11570.6 230523 11 15043.8 113.5 151573 12 11242.1 3658.8 14900.9 13 10673.5 5946.0 16619.5 14 19031.4 4093.5 23124.9 15 17864.8 8779.3 26644.1 16 22004.8 10763.1 32767.9 TOTAL 253910.2 58597.7 312507.9 AREA TABULATIONS TOTAL SITE AREA : 39.77 ACRE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY AREA : 4.33 ACRE AREA WITHIN PLATTED LOTS : 35.44 ACRE : 44 A 4' E 9, AREA : 33564 S.F. DENSITY : 088 UNRS /M.RE REVISIONS REVISION 2 -12 -01 RE PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL BOOK 6231. PACE 46 (106/88) / I HEREBY CERTIFY 11445 1115 PUN. SPECIfICA90N, OR ` !!!!ii REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER Mr DIRECT SLPERMSION AND THAT I AM A DULY 8E015111RO) PROFESSIWIA. ENGINEER UNDER TIE LAWS OF TIE SPATE OF YINNES01A 441E REC. N0. 19584 REVIEWED BY: DATE SCHOELL & MADSON, INC� ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNING SOIL TESTNG • ENVIRONMENTAL. SERVICES 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 1 M169800NKA, MN 55305 (612) 546 -7601 F9X: 546 -9085 WWw.90hoMMa69on.eom / OWNER /DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN 651-481 -0017 DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2001 PROJECT NAME /SHEET TITLE ' Uk- SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN PRELIMINARY PLAT S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513 -006 SHEET 3 OF 6 SHEETS AMY Ar. ^61.6 . .a., -1281104* 11 E 60 1 64ANPI" 67R;7 1.907.82 1 ' . . . — 4, 1* .aS4 •t, . • * .....,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,a4..-..-.-",,,....„......„, ,..4' \ ,...,,,,,, Sa'a , 1 NE1LANDS t': • A tala 04..x ar'' 559 .BL,. E,. .." , • .,1 N..I 1 s Si1 '4r s" ,. \ /iM. .0.. , . ''1':1' \ '7,v:'' ,. )I A • ...°- a , / *a* i \ \ / 4'' Fi..#' \ A M ,\I , -/ ' \ \ ▪ f\ \ 51251\ 1111 \ ■ a Aw.s, bX,A 90, V '22 -21 a... a ia i , aft t 4▪ „,„'1* aia rzi=-4 Kr) A a ._ A AS** / WETLANDS ,e.....,A,,,, A . / - n /Aa a a i ",..,. / 1 • 0 i fa at,• ,, a Jet, .. ..• .: ', 0 It ) • a 00 a . :: at * i h ( l: . I I i .1. . 7 a silt ) Nal, . / ... ; ..a ' " f.... at .A.Maa • JE A f ---- 11rP4 — ----::::A:, ..„• :" CF VM „,71, , Oat 115121 "'"I .7 SI.C..";:' • 1 g •■••• 1 rt4r: At. ,a1 +L • a \ 0, j_12 1, 12* 51 OUTLOT E 12 A .1tact rA, t'emat 'a 1 Y.., ''' atal (KASE tx*,..) i :t. '' t.. taut i i 1 - itaa rtir4.......%*-:::: 1 1taa a .2. 1251 \x,... . t 7,, 6A"m. ' u 'P''oyx ,,,..,, ',"-,'" „.. k) .tr 1 .. . . ? ' ;' ..`:,,• ' , '. ,,r ' .• 4' . , 's” „.> . .,0,1..,:., A tA —"0',S 5• 1 \ '.. "4 *.' 6 A \ ..K `. •aaii'..rt. /51 1251 125112 . D ,I t f . 1a . V WETLANDS A A AS a i , ' A *t " • - , 1 A /t .„aA ” . e l.a. . • A1 C i i I k .......4._..A.N-._., .a- • 0 . .,. . ' ..." .. .r , e .A•:,g : a'. ..M.r• r. , e111. S tae, •m 1,-A.\ , , , .. 7,! i n.„c''','.,,`‘-, .y.„• 4 -P64- ' . , A.,.E,a , a - / ..A... . "A- A,,,,.a.,.. . •; - ,... 'ka V': , ' & , "" ' NDS 1 A. f a * 7 ., A . A . WO A ®f * ' .. 4 - a A 'A ' 41 A - • * Y. /A a . \ 5 ■/ . :A A AA ' • V I ‹' Nowee ae.6A Yr* ::A- y paw .A MAN .1) AS* WETLANDS A la? • NE1LANDS t• act.. --A ▪ • '02"A"‘". *80411 BENCHMARK: 1306.98 par.prorr, /tan a a 2 ;9, I ISM" • ,Saa Awn* WETLANDS • * r 6V2 r ;MR 3.1.21 new A A MINDS A • .S2 •AA. aftiMatA elt X g1V5 St' SWAM 668151,A, SaaaT Ear 0 0 60 120 180 LEGEND 0050700 0551050 COMUR DENOTES COSTING SPOT ELEVATION DENOTES EDSTINC STORM SEWER DENOTES =TING WATERILAIN, 40508640 t GATE 2AL2E MO= EXISTING SANITART SEWER 0 DENOTES EXISTING 1REE • — WO:RES COSTING WERN4D BOUNOART DENOTES EXISTING FENCE .... Doom ID:mom wErtmo DEI40T00 SOIL BORING NOTE SURVEY WORK PERFORMED HY METRO LAND SURVEYING t ENGINEERING, 1 531-709-0112 WETLAND OELJNEATION P01FORMED BY AQUATIC ECOSOLUTIONS. 1 952-545-0912 '-n]Ezr!..-st TE BY REVISIONS 2-12-0 RF PRELIMINARY PUN SUBMITTAL (1.1.1EREST CERTIFY THAT IRIS RAN SPECIFICATION. OR REPORT W. PREPARED BY lAr OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND 15461 I AA A DULY REGISTERED PROFIESSOONAL ENGINEER UNDER TIE LAWS OF TIE STATE OF MINNESOTA DATE R NO. 19544 \ ...REVIEWED RY. DATE SCHOELL & HADSON, ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNING SOIL IrsnNo • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 1 MINNETONKA. MN 55305 (812) 546-7601 FAX: 546-9065 Almschoollmodeon.corn OWNER/DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN 851-481-0017 DATE: FEBRUARY 12 2001 (PROJECT NAME/SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN EXISTING CONDITIONS S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513-006 SHEET 2 OF 6 SHEETS LA KES 9 • • 100 YR 14111,895.0 (05 PER 1004 STUDY) 388•50VT3 f307.82 DRAINAGE At LOOT EASEMENT ROAD OFFSET WMAIN R.D.W. SLOCK •T' "ASPEN IA. - w 1csUtLUT SURMOUWN3LE CURB k cuntii (TYP) 00000000 E30cooppi,To no 5 WETLANDS RP j /7' O.919'1:°'••°:° /C 905.5 20 „ SEWO 902.0 ,00000000 ,SEWO 4 SEWO 90875. EA& NURP 0051 15 001-890.3 1001-594.5 900.0 42 WO 899.5 WO 9070 ... --... ,01 /01005••05 •005' g • F'H•F :,,,, , ? ,,„,..„ 30. OTIONT • : , ( , SETBACK (TM,/ i 09 1 za,' .' ..o.:- \ 1 \ 0,,, „Am:, •,,,,>" 7 ii., 'V ...• ' 00 WETLAND BUFFER 13085 SCLFT. WETLAND BUFFER 10053 SQ.FT. WETLANDS _....I.FT• /Tr '- LATII:. *8 ,..............__A____41: _.,...,ib.,0 ÷.,,,,,r.......46,1„..t.:11"...9, + T *ITTT"-T. no9.• ,-- AA s'" TT . WETLANDS con 4:1:0 1 4 1 gle' ... 48.C. iA WETLLIND ALTERATION 2930 ACRES, TT-T.4 1100 \ o WE 777 k • mS4V2'. " r7 / R9.9 1/ /V fAvAT•31.4.70,/, &VAT AVAITAR.,7 t't / , 001.5 TAYA;AVAAVOIAT1VA:t • /1",• / AYATOA,AVAVAa / / '..74aVAAVAVIAVAVVAgn AITATAATEASTAXGRATAY yititz f•roT Avlf f: V, A WETLANDS 0•F"F 901.0 WETLAND ALTERATION 4964 SOFT. .11 ACRES 20 TRAIL EASEMENT TT'AALy/ 90100- Dd. WETLANDS BLOCK 2 PAN, MUM '0. MOVeOrri'A, &MAI „"" z 050151500 Lii LOT WIDTH AT SETBACK (TOP) 30' SRONT SEIBACK (VP) WETLANDS - - DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT \ '&„?7, tsa- WETLANDS TATK0., ....AT,. 00 DRANAGE & unun. EASEMDIT 95110090 901510 7369 50.51. ORAINAGE k EASEMENT IIIETUND BUFFER 6840 STIFT. _Sy WETLAND MMCATION 13840 SOFT. I.' 0.32 ACRES /HI TA k,k ON NM= MOS TO.H.P120 PAH SA APO =en PDX 311. WETLAND MITIGATION TYPICAL CROSSAIECTION PHA flealaw SHAS ■ANN.• HAP. = - Nov, PH FPI 1.•• HiNey• • NA AP* g.E."4:1E4F4IS:1;",7S-Ein4i5IL , WETLAND MITIGATION SEED MIXTURE LIST 0 60 120 180 1.074 LEGEND DISING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR PERCENT OF GRADE MANAGE ARROW EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER LIMIT Or CONSTRUCTION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EROSION 5080001 50.1 FENCE X 988.3 X 1180.3 ;95959555.55t:59.' 1114. WO SE 513-1 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION 501511NG SPOT ELEVATION 0510.0090 011.110641500 WETLAND MITIGATION ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE HOUSE PAD MATH GRADE ELEVATIONS WALKOUT SPUT SOIL BORING LocknoN WETLAND NOTES TOTAL REMAND ALTERATION 16.303 S.F. Tark MITIGATOR RECO... 36.606 S.F. TOTAL WETLAND TAMGAIXIN •• 18,521 S.F. PUBLIC VALUE CREDIT (BUFFER) 26,010 S.F. (.75 X 37,347 S.T. 28010 S.F.) TOTAL WETLAND MITIGATION A. 46,531 S.F. EROSION CONTROL NOTES I. Al PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTOR 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHAU. CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE BASINS PRIOR TO SITE GRADING. • 3. 005 CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE SITE ANO INSTAU. UTIUTIES. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, 5. WHIN IWO WEEKS OF SITE MADRID, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABIUZED WITH SEED, SOD OR ROCK BASE SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH IANDOT SPEC. 2575. SEED MIXTURE SHALL BE MN= MIXTURE 500. ALL MULCH SHALL BE TYPE 1 AND SHALL BE DISC ANCHORED. FERTILIZER 5040LL BE 15-10-10 COMMERCIAL GRADE 4001165 THE REOUIRDADTTS FOR MNOOT 3881 AND SKILL BE APPUED AT A RATE OF 200/LBS. PER ACRE 500 DWI MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF IANDOT 3879. ALL AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED SHALL BE COVERED WITH MINIMUM OF FOUR INCHES OF TOPSOIL. 6. NJ_ EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND IMINTAJNED MI ACCORDANCE WITH CITY, WATERSHED 04510405 4240 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL (NPDES) PERMITS. 7. NE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF ACCUMULATED SILT IN FRONT OF SILT MACES, DURING THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION. B. ANY MESS SEDMAENT IN PROPOSED BASINS SMALL BE REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 9. ROAOVE ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AFIF.R VEGETATION IS ESTABUSHED. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO EXISTING STREETS AND PAVED AREAS. 11. 12. IF 131511ING DUST BECOMES A NUISANCE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY WATER FROM A TANK TRUCK TO ALL CONSTRUCTION ARDS. SWEEP AILLACFMT STREET IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REOUIRDENTS FED 1 2 2!(301 ("ATE BY REVISIONS REVISION 2-21-0 RE PRELIMINARY PLAN SUBMITTAL /1-"HEREBY GERM THAT ORS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR 8EPO01 PAS PREPARED HY ME OR UNDER IfY DIRECT SUPERNSION AND THAT 1 Am A DULY REGISNEREO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNOER THE AANS 000 105 sTATE Or miNeirsoTA DATE, REG. NO. 59684 \,,,R0ADIED TN. oar r 1 SCHOELL & MADSON, ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNING SOIL TunNG • DAARONMENTAL SERVICES 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 1 MINNETONKA. MN 55305 (612) 546-7601 1420 546-9065 watrxehoellmodson.com r OWNER/DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN 651-481-0017 DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2001 (PROJECT NAME/SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN LLL Li?"N S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513-006 SHEET 4 OF 6 SHEETS ‘.s KFS CONNECT e DIP CL50 WM 1320' TO CITY CONNECTION 17\ 2 BL CK 1 LINV.591.9 16112 RIMw902.3 RIMw903 0 INVw1393.0 1 NURP atsiN A IfilLw5915.3 ovo..-8943 2 BLOCK RIA1w902.4 IRP6w1592.4 2 a 588.6010-1 1307.62 6 4 6 6114.904.6 INV-894.6 902.8 4 INVw591 5 ‘'44, * RIM .906.0 URVw897.0 6 di/ 4 14 IfILL15 414 -901.0 INVw893.7 98 ASPEN LA. 8060900.5 PiVw491,O co 4144901.13 INV 6693.4 s. co 6 CP 12 18 14 168-4 RIM-405.0 4266686.8 4110-900.0 R6/.567.0 RUA-905.40 I4116690.6 9 IAH 14 *I R4.1-903.2 INv-B90.2 14 98 rP. 0 29 BLOCK 2 4.426 smnoN' , KELE RIM-901.6 114V-037.9 RIM■904.5 MV■858.3 ev BLOCK 2 30 c: J - NOW PARIAI 414L-1393.2 NWLw1191.5 18 MILLS MA-903.9 I94-508.0 / BLOCK 2 1306.98 xer44'orr EXIIEND EXITING SAN 1811.6 R110•901.5 IlAv-387.4 0 60 120 180 ■!!!■,■,.77 LEGEND 12. 5294 SEXTR-o-- PROPOSED STORY SEWER E60100 NATI:MANN 8 DIP WAT01I6A91 memo %ovum 11112241T - warm, SEWER 8 L211 231R3-4-- PROPOSED wow/ sem PROPOSED MAWR W/ VALVE 1-44-- PROPOSED CATE VALVE 1816400 4414 CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1. 8009 10 ARCHITECTS SITE MIN FOR BUDDING AND PARKING LAYOLEF, INSEENSIONS. NC LOCATIONS. 2. THE MIMI CONTRACTOR SMALL VERIFY 1940 LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS 00 100 BULDPC P420525868 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING SERVICE CONNECTORS. 3. ALL PPE CONNECTIONS TO 65801640 UTEMES STRUCTURES DOLL BE 64OR-N-SE64: OR MN APPROVED EOM. 18164 60906610 BUM( OR BRICK STRUCTURES. CONSTRUCT M °POLING EQUAL 10 THE PIPE SUE GROUT MOUND PIPE TO CLOSE WONG mo REPAIR STRUCTURE TO CITY REDUIRDIENIS. THE CONIRALTOR SWILL VERIFY PPE OF CONNECTION WITH COY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MID COORDINATE AM REWIRED eny DISINFECTONS NEEDED FOR CITY ACCEPTANCE 4. STREET RESTORATION REOUIRDIENTS. 1-1/2' BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 3-1/2 BTLIMINOUS BASE COURSE r CI. 5 IGO. (1002 CRUSHED MESTERE) COMPACTED SUDGRADE AND TRENCH SACK FEL 5. PRIOR TO MUM CONSTRUCTOR THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RED VOLITY COSTING tMLITY 1004110615 682 INVERTS ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PLANS AND FIELD CONDITIONS SHALL BE REPORTED TO ME MINER OLIMEDIATELY. WARNING 1HE CONTRACTOR SKALA. CONTACT All PUBLIC 01811160 FOR 62CA11040 OF ILL UNDERGROUND 'TARES. CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES. OR MILER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. HE SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN !AWED DURING CONSTRUCTOR AT NO COST TO 091402. KY REVISIONS REMS04 2-12-01 RE PRELIMINARY PIAN 536611102 I HERESY CERTIFY NAT ORS PLAN. SPECIFICADON. OR REPORT 505 PREPARED EN mE OR UNOER LIT DIRECT SUPERVISION MO NAT I AN A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS Or THE STAIR Of M19N60TA. REC. NO. 19584 RENEWED Sr: DATE SCHOELL & MADSON, INC" 940610005 • SURVEYORS • PLANNING SML TESTING • DMRONLIENTAL SERA= 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, sun 1 MINNETONKA, MN 55305 (512) 546-7601 FM 546-9065 wwwwohoollmad•on.com I OWNER/DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 422 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST PAUL, MN B51-481-0017 DATE: JANUARY 15, 2001 / PROJECT NAME/SHEET TITLE SADDLE CLUB ADDITION LINO LAKES, MN PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 61513-006 SHEET 5 OF 6 SHEETS 1 2 26T1 • • • AGENDA ITEM V. C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Cindy Sherman (NAC) P & Z MEETING DATE: March 14, 2001 TOPIC: Target PDO At the February 13th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board continued the public hearing related to the proposal by Ryan Companies for a mixed commercial site located north of Lake Drive, adjacent to I -35W. No new information has been submitted and therefore, staff recommends that the hearing be continued until April 11, 2001. • • • AGENDA ITEM V. D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Cindy Sherman (NAC) P & Z MEETING DATE: March 14, 2001 TOPIC: 12th and Holly Preliminary Plat At the February 13th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board continued the public hearing related to the proposal by Land Holding Inc. for a single family development located at 12th and Holly. No new information has been submitted and therefore, staff recommends that the hearing be continued until April 11, 2001. • / AGENDA ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Smyser, City Planner FROM: Cynthia Putz -Yang / Alan Brixius DATE: Fe lu , 2001 /( RE: Lino Lakes — Mini - Storage Regulation FILE NO.: 194.01 — 01.01 We have been asked to look at where mini - storage might be located in the City and provide examples of appropriate performance standards. Mini - storage has the same characteristics as other types of warehousing. Our research indicates that industrially -zoned land is most suitable for mini - storage. Land that is zoned for commercial uses is a possibility, but this land would be better suited for higher value uses. Mini - storage is not usually allowed in agricultural or rural residential zoning districts. The rationale behind this is as follows: 1. The purpose of the rural districts is to preserve agricultural land and provide some residential use at rural densities. Mini - storage is not consistent with that purpose. 2. The rural districts cover a very large geographic area. Therefore, allowing mini - storage in rural districts would have a far - reaching impact on the City and contains the potential for many land use conflicts. 3. If mini - storage is built, it could interfere with future land use planning in areas that are not specifically earmarked for commercial or industrial growth. In light of the previous discussion, it would appear that mini - storage is most suitable in industrials districts and potentially the R -BR district. In Lino Lakes, the R -BR, Rural- Business Reserve District, is a district that could potentially contain mini - storage as an interim use until the land is rezoned, or the mini - storage could remain if the land was rezoned to an industrial district. A disadvantage of allowing mini - storage in the R -BR District is the possibility that it could hinder the extension of utilities in the future. As illustrated in the research by Mary Divine, frequently mini - storage raises concerns about appearance and design. Examples of performance standards for mini - storage are attached. Issues to consider include green space, landscaping, building coverage, paving, security systems, and building appearance. Building • • appearance may include regulation of exterior building materials and requiring that the garage doors be oriented to the interior of the property. Requiring a high - quality appearance will go a long way toward improving the value of the property. Performance standards should not be compromised. The City has few to no existing mini - storage uses, and now is the time to set a high - quality standard that can be maintained in the future. FEH- Ub - -2001 12:07 NRC 612 595 9637 P.04/07 Oak. Park i—te P• 1316^ineSS • seld LJa.e, 100,4 14i c-f- Adequate analysis and provisions are made to resolve issues related to demand for services. No use shall be allowed that will exceed the City's ability to provide utility, police, fire, administrative or other services to the site. q. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.7 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. • Mini - storage facilities provided that: a. At least twenty (20) percent of the site is open, green space which is sodded and landscaped in accordance with a plan approved by the City Council. b. Building coverage shall not exceed sixty (60) percent of the lot area. c. Parking, loading, driveway and fire lane design shall be subject to review and approval of the City Staff and Fire Marshal. d. Adequate space is provided for snow storage. e. Fire hydrant location shall be subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal. f. All driveways and parking areas are to be hard (blacktop or concrete) surfaced and adequate turning radius for fire truck maneuverability is to be maintained throughout the site. Designated snow storage space is to be provided to insure adequate and safe access during winter months. In an °on- premises" caretaker dwelling unit is provided on site, constructions of said dwelling unit shall conform to all design standard regulations for dwelling units of the Minnesota State Building Code and the Oak Park Heights Zoning and Building Code. The occupancy and minimum interior and floor area standards shall be controlled by Sections 401.15.0 of this Ordinance. Off- street parking shall be made available for said dwelling unit in conformance with Section 401.15.F. g. h. Any structures having exposure to an adjacent residential use or public right - of -way, park, or similar public use areas shall be of brick, rock face block, natural stone, wood, or stucco facing material. 1. No retailing, wholesaling, manufacturing, repair, or other such activity other than storage is to occur within the self storage, mini - warehousing facility. 300 -7 • FEB -05 -2001 12:08 NAC 612 595 9937 P.05/9? Adequate analysis and provisions are made to resolve issues related to demand for services. No use shall be allowed that will exceed the City's ability to provide utility, police, fire, administrative or other services to the site. k. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.7 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 7. Landscape sales and material storage provided that: a. There are no growing fields on the site. b. Outdoor sales /display area shall be limited to thirty (30) percent of the gross lot area and be in conformance with the performance standards of Section 401.15.B.14 of this Ordinance. c. Adequate analysis and provisions are made to resolve issues related to demand for services. No use shall be allowed that will exceed the City's ability to provide utility, police, fire, administrative or other services to the site. d. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.7 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 8. Commercial PUD as regulated by Section. 401.06 of this Ordinance. 9. Cellular telephone antennas not located on a public structure provided that: a. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.7 and Section 401.15.P of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. 10. Manufacturing, compounding, assembly, packaging, treatment or storage of products and materials as accessory use provided that a. The proposed use complies with the performance standards outlined in Section 401.15.B and all other applicable provisions of this Ordinance. b. All manufacturing and assembly operations shall be enclosed within a building. c. Adequate analysis and provisions are made to resolve issues related to demand for services. No use shall be allowed that will exceed the City's 300 -8 FEE -0b -2001 12:08 NRC v1� U vt.w ' 'r— — y,- ef 4.144(10)(6) (ix) 4.144(10)(b) (x) 4.144(10)(0) (xi) c_iv'n,r•Ccr 612 595 9837 P.06/07 nch.45.4Yral i (.0 11 -11 / ' jca1/4/2 Water Quality. The site development shall minimize impacts on wetlands, streams, lakes and ponding areas. Recreation: The site development shall not conflict with existing recreational facilities in the City. Public Hearing. Comments and testimony of the public on the proposed use of such a site will be heard and made available at one or more, Public Hearings in the City. 4.144 (11) Self Storage (mini warehouse) Facilities. Provided that: • 4.144(11) (a) 4.144(11) (b) 4.144(11) (c) 4.144(11) (d) 4.144(11) (e) 4.14 4(11) (1) 4.114(11) (g) 4.144(11)(b) 4.144(11) (1) 4.144(11) (J) (Code 077684) Green Space. At least thirty five percent of the site is open, green space which is sodded and intensely landscaped in accordance with a plan approved by the City Council. Building Coverage. Building coverage shall not exceed forty percent of the lot area. Building Location. No buildings shall be located closer than thirty -five feet to each other to allow for parking, loading, driveway and fire lanes. Building Length. No building shall be greater than one hundred fifty feet in length. Snow Storage. Adequate space is provided for snow storage. Fire Hydrant. All strictures are to be within two hundred feet of a fire hydrant. Sprinkler Systems. All storage buildings are to be equipped with dry sprinkling systems which will be subject to review and approval of the City Building Official and the City Director of Fire and Safety. Fire Alarm System. Every 2,000 square feet of the storage structure is to be separated by a fire wall and a complete and comprehensive fire alarm system with smoke detectors shall be initiated in each structure subject to the review and approval of the Director of Fire and Safety. Driveways and Parking Area. All driveways and parking areas are to be hard (blacktop or concrete) surfaced and adequate turning radius for fire truck maneuverability is to be maintained throughout the site. Designated snow storage space is to be provided to insure adequate and safe access during winter months. Carets er Apartment. • If an "on- premises" caretaker dwelling unit is provided on site, construction of said dwelling unit shall conform to all design standard regulations for multiple family dwelling units of the Minnesota State Building Code and the New Hope Zoning and Building Code. The occupancy and minimum interior and floor area standards shall be controlled by sections 3.353, 3.361, 3.362 and 4.035(6)(b) of this Code. Off- street parking shall be made available for said dwelling unit in conformance with section 4.036(10)(a) of this Code. 4 -127 072684 FEB -06 -2001 12 08 NAC 4.144(11) (k) Buikdinz Appearance. Any structures having exposure to an adjacent residential use or public right -of -way, park, or similar public use areas shall be of brick, natural stone, wood, or stucco facing material. 4.144(11) (I) Other Business Activity. No retailing, wholesaling, manufactur ng, repair, or other such activity other than storage is to occur within the self storage, mini warehousing facility. (Ord. 85 -24) 612 595 9837 P.07'07 4.144 (12) Outdoor Storage of Propane or TAP Gas, Accessory. Outdoor storage of propane or LP gas shall be allowed as a conditional accessory use provided it is used exclusively by the occupant of site where it is stored for a use incidental to said occupant's business, it is not stored for wholesale or retail sale unless specifically permitted by another section of this Code, and the following requirements are satisfied. 4.144(12) (a) 4.144(1.2) (b) 4.144(12) (c) 4.144(12) (d) 4.144(12) (e) 4.144(12) (f) 4.144(12) (g) 4.144(12) (h) Location. All propane or LP gas outdoor storage tart: s shall be located in the rear yard not less than twenty-five (25) feet from any property boundary lines. No tanks shall be permitted in the front yard and side yard abutting public streets. Open Area. Storage tanks shall be surrounded by twenty-five (25) feet of open area. Storage of any kind is prohibited in said open area, except equipment incidental to the storage tank. Approved parking areas must be setback ten (10) feet from any storage tank. Setbacks from Building. Storage ranks shall be setback from existing structures, as outlined in the Uniform Fire Code, based on tank size. Circulation. Storage tanks shall not interfere with site circulation including, but not limited to, parking, driveway, curb cuts and loading areas. Fencing. A wire weave/chain link security fence shall be required around all storage tanks. The location of the fence shall be as per the Uniform Fire Code. Access. Storage sites shall be accessible by, service and emergency vehicles. Valves. All filling valves of the storage tanks shall be enclosed and have locking devices. Warning_Simrs. A warning sign shall be required for every tank and shall be placed in a conspicuous location directly on the tank indicating a supplier's name, address, phone number, that highly dangerous and flammable material is stored therein and that no smoking requirements must be observed or a sufficient warning to that affect. Said signage may not exceed four (4) square feet nor may it be used for advertising purposes. (Ord. 88-15) U-1.4.144 (13) Adult Uses - Principal. Subject to the regulations of §4.039C and $4.20 of this Code. (Ord. 92 -06) 4.144 (14) Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers. Personal wireless service antenna towers in conformance with §4.039D of this Code. 4 -128 072684 • . TOTAL P.07 • • • AGENDA ITEM VI. B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: March 14, 2001 TOPIC: Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition Discussion of Concept Plan BACKGROUND Highland Meadows West 3rd Addn. is the next phase of a larger development area. The "first addition" preliminary plat was approved in 1999 with a final plat approval in 2000. The 2nd Addn., approved in 2000, added two new lots. The 3rd Addn. re -plats the 211d Addn. and adds 25 acres to the development, as well as 10+ acres that were outlots in the first two approvals. ANALYSIS Project Data: Site Total 34.67 acres Wetlands undetermined, some possible pocket wetlands Upland majority of site Right -of -Way 6.66 acres Number of Lots 75 lots Gross Density 2.16 units /ac Net Density (Upland Only) similar to gross acreage Land Use and Zoning: The entire area is within the current MUSA. Lot Sizes and Layout: Minimum lot size for the R -1 zone is 10,800 sf with an 80 ft. width and 135 ft. depth. Corner lots must be 100 ft. wide. As this is a concept review, no extensive detailed review was conducted of the plan. Comprehensive Plan (Existing) Comprehensive Plan (Draft) Zoning Site Single Family Residential Low Density /Residential PDO R -1 and R -1 North Single Family Residential Low Density /Residential R -1 East Single Family Residential Low Density /Residential R -1 South Single Family Residential Low Density /Residential R -1 West Single Family Residential Low Density /Residential R -1 The entire area is within the current MUSA. Lot Sizes and Layout: Minimum lot size for the R -1 zone is 10,800 sf with an 80 ft. width and 135 ft. depth. Corner lots must be 100 ft. wide. As this is a concept review, no extensive detailed review was conducted of the plan. • Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition March 14, 2001 page 2 Transportation: Conditions of approval for previous stages included the requirement that access to Main St. must be resolved before this area could be developed. With the construction of Bluebill Ponds and Arlo Lane, the access to Main St. will be the new Wood Duck Trail south of Main St. Marilyn Drive and 79th St. provide access to Lake Drive. Arlo Lane in this development will meet the Arlo Lane portion in Bluebill Ponds. This will require losing a piece of Highland Meadows Park. This loss of land must be replaced somehow. This is discussed below under parks and trails. Utilities: Utility service will need to be determined. Development of Adjacent Land: There is property on the southeast corner of this site that is owned by another party. If that land owner wishes to develop the property, some access will be necessary. Staff will communicate to the developer that he should contact that landowner and discuss this issue. Parks and Trails: The Park Board discussed the plan on March 5. This must be replaced. They recommend that Outlot B and Lot 1 Block 4 be dedicated for park. The Judds, who live immediately to the east of Lot 1, have expressed interest in acquiring part of the parcel. In addition, the existing Highland Meadows Park will lose some land to the new Arlo Lane, which must be replaced. A trail connection must be provided to Main St. Typically, parkland is labeled on a final plat and dedicated to the City at the time of recording the plat. TSM Development preferred to label the park as outlot and deed it to the City. We agreed with this for the Highland Meadows West (first addition) plat. However, the park lands have not been deeded to the City. This must be done before further development occurs. Natural Features: There is a historic oak savannah on the west side of the property. There may be some small pocket wetlands on the site. There has not been a delineation prepared. Other Issues: There are several issues relating to the first two stages that will need to be addressed before the 3`d Addn. can proceed. These include the association document for the townhomes to the south; deeding several outlots to adjacent properties, and documentation relating to the trail through the utilities easement. In addition, the parkland has not yet been deeded to the City. These issues are being discussed with the developer. RECOMMENDATION Discuss the concept plan and give direction to staff for further refining of the plan. ARE ACR A 1i,Ir1 gig ICI Wino= WI NW- mat i a -MAIN - 9iREET — - r�Y�aiYi�IfU 0 1111,'x!. alma OP eQ2 5 4 z - -I—COUNT 2 3 o *mons . ©a �� � © o 191,1■77.40pr �rift 0mumaPo. A :ate ®0Aar/WU. risum a'1' 1.0 OUTLOT 8 PARK 4 • K 9 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 6 7 8 9 E 35 10 11 12 3 VI 2 14 15 It 15 16 4 33 32 31 330 29 28 27 c NTURY2 fto'p- IFARM`4 I 0 ZND DD K- HI3HWA N0.49r- LINO L LAKES REHABILITATION? CENTER 97307E TRUNK HIGHWAY N049 -74 TN —MEET — 0 pN GEC • • 40- -1-- nl Ur, ,. /1/1 -r,V L7: .:VLF. i:v. i1 /L/ 204.00 S00 °37'02 "W 7-IA/II I/, I 1 T - I VV IL.I\7r1 101.54 A /, :1 r- r \' I \ L_ .� 663.91 S00 °37'02 "W T1 A 11 I I /, 1 I T 1 V V I L. I\ 7 r 1 1 A /'�, / -1 v 1 \ L_ w 0• 0., M D � n ,D . -' DRAINAGE E0 N 2. V M CO OUTLOT A 6111 Sr. 8 30 - 204.00 N00 °37'02 "E - -; W 1 0 M a0 n co to 204.00 S00 °33'26 "W 40.65 120.20 79.55 DRAINAGE & U _ EASEMENT 0 0 M C L) w CJ_ N0 O �' n0 0 Z 1\ 1 I- L!_ LI 0 I- - so- -50- -- 1 1 / o / \ 27 \ 9 UMiTY EASEMENT L _ • e " - _ / ` r -iii re \r, ,\ 34 1 /''p\ 16102 Yr. of d\ / 1 > 1 \ J< ,628. / /\ \.- 33 �V % , "' / \4r 14.29 Sr �{ \V 2./ / V / Off\ ♦�/ / \ 0 \ Vii/ 32r \ i\ / E9 9A �J\ / 40 8, 35 \ 34.3 S<. -J VLJ /- \\�I\L_..) SCALE IN FEET 60 120 1 inch - 60 feet 270.03 500 °37'02 "W gi 26 7r 20303 Se. .5 `9 1 39 15064 sr. 40 -1' I 1 I I 1 I 42 I I ""2'4 1 '/ %.v / 6♦ v' 24 \ \ 11343 Sr 273188 12' \ ex.so 3 11 4 1 10970 Sr. 11 -I1 s1 11 1 J L_ J 70.81 23 \- 12361 Sr. 221, "7I 0♦ �-{- 166.44 R� MARILYN 30 4 inP co oss4 140.61 5 1 10900 Sr. 1 I '2 I I L__J 129.67 140 87 \ 6092 50 20 4.); 115.60 -1 ;i 19 i, pl (2366 Sr. 11- �e L _ ,45.35 _ L- 18 �1. 14797 Ir. 30 -4I -30 315 -3o 17 1.80_ 16991 Sr. 2523.. i 7j 76.en: --1 \ r \\ 15 -c,\ 13 \a 1 14 J\ \ 1"91 Sr. •A 1� 1 7201 S7. n1 13421 Sr. �\ \ \ °I - - - - -J 1 //'/� \1 \.( - - ,- 4,.'ti - - I ` J % 666 49. 9 1 --1..-- 1- 'S3 ' 12 (1 .0 25. n2t0 Sr. "\•�•y29 �O9A73 3. •• V M / /1 I� r� 3 5. 228 °' ssy 01100 / a r� �= _ '' \\ 8 \ , 1 ( ,010 $ \\ 7221' ir. 1\ \ ,4 03 Sr. / 1 9 \ 1 \7 '/ / 1 0 1'g \ 13x2 S.r. \ \\_-i 4J \ ?\ 14352 Sr. ''\ / / 1 \ >_,. T .._ 109.77 J X9./5 bb f 210 1'.' 10995 MEN1 E`er 1a9.ay -7 `16r s 7.2 16\ 7 - --1 -- 7 ' 4 1 \ ,6444 5.7. 1 I II 6 143011 Sr. - 113724- °I 11039 Sr. 12 \ 135.00 / / ti/ J, e �� \/l yTQt �/ / 723,1 Sr. // 265 5. RF / / ?Q D� 1 " 61.75 -y6$ .43 22 r �e \ ` / 66 of i mid 2'd V // ,169v 23 \ 1j� 24,33 - I d•• 636 d._ // 11236 Sr. \•iJ. �I / 2 /// /// 12232 Sr. 7 I / a�• \ lI 2 5 servo ss. // ,66\� -4 1 1 I // 4 // \J ;,.7 101 ,t Sr. 8/// e,.7y\ 54.72 R=343.45 inr - - CO 6 20675 ir. 45.06 334.60 L_ 69.13 RI ARILYN 103.93 128.16 30.82 a/ / 8/ \ / 11167 Sr. tor 98.65 30 • ti/ 80\/ gi 8/ 17 M- _ 6'0.00 STREET "C" 260.92 47 13 ,0 2 ml °ol 20706 55. of f 1 12 I27523 35 1 10f I ^° / 25 1 5017 n 81 1 18 13000 SS. moo 30.00 30.00 1 34 16470 S.r. 0 tri L 35.23 5 170711 Sr. \ 9 12W0 5r. 1 12.55.•: 8�7a 25394 Sr. • - -60- -60- - 34 L :1-27.41 /6A / �; 9 .L- - -- 75.01- •___ -/`_. Ito DRAINAGE ••• 9 : UnuTY '32.67 EASEMENT •�___. 111.57 724.31 139.09 $ 4, = 76.66 --1 ' - _ - T 34.75 _ -___:_ a. DRAINAGE 197.07 3- �\ I • ,7362 S.F. 7 \\ ( 16416 5.7. I \\ 1 Ir-� 'iI 1 E)n I■ IrTh L.L_vL_L.IL_L_ I\I L/ 1292.48 S00 °33'22 "W 17 k U11UTY 4270 mil .' EASEMENT< 61.75 2 128 913 0 344.94 N89 °3 0 213 76 1 17024 Si. 30 • R=162.66 30 00 30 103.68 54.94 Ce EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING ZONING R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) ACREAGE 34.67 ACRES PROPOSED SITE DATA PROPOSED ZONING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TOTAL LOTS 75 LOTS 27.72 ACRES 6.66 ACRES 0.29 ACRES OVERALL 34.67 ACRES SMALLEST LOT AREA LARGEST LOT AREA AVERAGE LOT AREA 40,594 S.F. MINIMUM SETBACKS FRONT REAR LOT WIDTH 0 SETBACK MINIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT AREA 30 FEET 30 FEET 10 FEET 30 FEET 80 FEET DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SH014fl THUS: BEING 5 FEET IN MTH ON ADJOINING SIDE LOT LINES. AND 10 FEET IN WIDTH ON ADJOINING STREET LINES AND REAR LOT LINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON TI-10 PLAT pRoposED LEGAL DESCRIPTION The West 660.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, Except Parcels 32, 33, 34, and 35, ANOKA COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 25, Anoka County. Minnesota And The East 300.00 feet. of the West 960.00 feet of the North 660.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 8. Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, Except Parcel 36, ANOKA COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 25. Anoka County. Minnesota And Outlot D and Outlot E. all in HIGHLAND MEADOWS YfEST, accordIng to the plat thereof, Anoka County, And That part of Outlot C, HIGHLAND MEADOWS WEST, according to the plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. lying northerly and vresterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Outlot C; thence South 00 degrees 33 minutes 22 seconds West, assumed bearing along the West. line of said Outlot C, a distance of 30.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 30 minutes 01 seconds East a distance of 54.94 feet; thence northeasterly a disance of 103.68 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 21 degrees 12 minutes 55 seconds and a' radius of 280.00 feet; thence northeasterly a disance of 60.23 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 21 degrees 12 minutes 55 seconds and a radius of 162.66 feet; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 01 seconds West a distance of 215.13 feet to the point of beginning. CC T 3RD ADD. '6 al DRAWN BY PLM DATE 1/15/01 REVISIONS 2/6/01 Easements CAD FILE 20196pp.dwg PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. 1-01-011 SHEET 3 OF 8 cr) rn n n U2 o z U)to s< W U LL A x ✓ ✓Z O N w S En W N x x COUNTY ROAD 14 0 NOTES: SCALE IN FEET 100 200 300 1 inch s 100 feet 1. ALL EXISTING SOILS ARE TYPE 'A' PER ANOKA COUNTY SOIL SURVEY. 2. WETLAND BOUNDARIES ARE APPROXIMATE AND WILL BE VERIFIED IN SPRING 2001. j FEND SOIL BORING EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION WETLAND DELINEATION EXISTING CONTOURS TREE LINE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATER MAIN EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACE *6> DRAWN BY TDL DATE 02/12/01 REVISIONS CAD FILE 20196EX PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 2 OF 8 • 0700 ri ; I 1-1 LJ 0001 ! • : I • ! 1 t I 1 0 ! : I I i ■ MON - 7-4 1 N 19.13'52" 1151 660.00 77510 fl59 - - ------ -51.1 8 0 ----------- 0. 0 1 0 0. 0701 3 .9.01100 a 0 ft 1)0 9.00/ • 3 Onlatt dam Fr 9, 4 4 ▪ :wow rr 5 t • 0007 0 OUTIOT C mt., son • MAIN STRE7 CSA.II. NO 74 N 29 r W N 09 - 19I 10. 79:114 g A A 0057 N3V1915'W 300.00 N OC4rl S•E rfl 415 N Sri 935- 125.03 N 89•191.5' W 165.00 OUTLOT E 11 OUTLOT E 111 0, ELIZABETH _ 5. 11.,6,,14z 0 0 0U17.0TD - 1015 1051 --- : 50 0555' "‘1211 11 09115.7lig OUTIOT 3010111051 012200 3 .545.100 2 , • 1 ; 90000 N 5115.52" W 165.00 ! i , ' $(..1501410ER: i T514 Develops**. Ix. us ,/ /OWNER: = Monroe th. 941 _._ 1.4't 1 s / Anoka. MN 55203 . ' noes (012) 576-9121 ; so / 2 1 CLT.'ER MA And .. In 1 SLIDTIfi POI -73' Ave. No, ftc. ? ____.,__:.„_::. oE9GNEr •Breeldo Pot 7L'4 55425 1 I Elmo: (612)521-7595 1 3 ! . • a: , LEGAL DESCRIPTION: - --i .. 2 4 1 rorrel t • ELN.ASE11113,110 kb 1 .! TM South.. '4 of tbe Northeast V. of Seed. S. Toon** II. Rote 22, .Moka Coon. -- a fitisooa. no* the oloodog gereel .... 1 The Nosh 135.00 fret a the West 135 00 feet of de EMI 6.5530 feet of the Soutboess Quarto • 5 of lat Node. Quaner of Seelia, 0. Tooriship 31. Ranee .7:1, Anoka County. Minoan. • Subject us oil together with en non* for roadway 'swoons over the North ADO feel a the ■ 1 10,537000105 of the Ea* 660 00 fen of said Southwest Donn 5( 14,, Northern 00500 35357 33 ••.... together Aids to easement for ingren and egress enier the Ern 66 feet a the Mob 71.00 ha orl ni our rl* North 31.00 fen 07 50 East 33600 fen a said Sarno. goner of the Narthex* o o Dthern (39.0031 AO 7e4 ras-at.11-12-6e02 no Ern 130 feet of the Wen 990 for of the Nan.. Darner of the Northeast Quartel 05 S°10.9 0. 79•,312111 21. 7450e 33. Anoka Coos,. Minn.**. oeept ete Ern 200 fan of the 960 fen of the North 660 feet thereof. and also cseer, Parcel 37 Anoka County thglooy 73370 01 Wry Plat No. 25, rending to the United States Ctononned Survey thorn' and situate in Aroka Coonry. Mimeos. (5.4379 As) 41 707l2: ?IN 441-31-22-1.210_11.4 V• A\ •7•54 South 1% fen 07 55 Non.. Quasar of the 550h5- l,5 07 5mction I. ToAnshm 11. Rang< 22: ...rot the West 990 het and the East 165 feel thereof. Together with an casement for *gress and tiros ova the (ollooma 11ie East 354 fen of the 33 feet of the South.* Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5. Towni9ip 31, V (1.4004 99) 2 to ths rinoi 4; 71•1 0119.11-22.1141102 Ile North...Quo. Odle Nrnhoto Quarter of Sena. 1 Toonitip 3), Role 22. excepting the Nord, '264 feet, the South 196 fen. and the Ws 990 Go donor. the incluckag the West 30 3 feet of h E 195 et of the North 164 fe of said Nord.. Qoster of h Nohea Dunn, except that part *km for Anoka County Higlory Pl. So 25. (5 0099 0..) 43 100 Areo • 56.5513 Across F imam ans_sn 16100 10,4,5, 10 feet (as r0e05001 Non the 909 055l Ane1 • _,AA--■-14*_____ I: ! Eaiseng Zones, 11.1 (Sin(le-Family Readentia) 1 IProposed Lerner i Pl. ls Rd (Single.fraily.fleaderairn Multhinnilys 7.3 (Median Dowry Itendomah 1 i ! 5 c4it Preh f p.4.... . r : 55 loss for single (oily home, t • MulthrosiNt _SI Oats 1 T.457 Units 107 541el0110o Let 3iers 70.00307. ___15A21. • 0. -- 7 '"Z. ; 51 RE; noon Setbacks : EFT >Yard'd 5300feet:„. Nth yard.intrinr icth t. • nr- • 50755? i n 9s. so Side yenfiterner.strayr • 30 7555 Side ined-gange-interioe • Sko ----- 7 NNW, t3055017 1 _; • ( • - :0 ; !No SOF,: 00 „ 1029251: 9 N 3 14 , 102120 11 •sr LOIS LANE 0113' 5 if 904920 2 0210- 1 -,--- „Ss 1:005. 011 OP 9 OAK LANE I, ----- -------- NON , • 9111 30 04 11 • ----- morr - • - 3 llostlarr -------- - fa 55 2 ,114 son' ; - . ?NO 7509/00 1 NON 010800 3 *MN sorr 0 0 9220 .11 991:50 • 2 : 24500 • :17 FOLi. sOl‘"7- 4 S 1 I "ii,A . 1.• " 1 : I 1-.■ , m N anror w • t!' R t3L E "...A03560 LANE 71 7 E . _ 0•54.*194,„_tj..05.3.1.1.0„. • 1307.36 E 2 Aprtrion: 5.1... 7 ,3" • „a7' • f. 20 0037 - • - is VA. is no dieneosiee she. Fenn. the 020 do building setback. then the 057.5,4 be is at de standard 50' depth. Noe el Prep...don htsvernher n.1999 Notes Drainage and Utility Encoseno shall he pnavided as silo.os by the fiord setboth lines admoing toe 57M.(.. .y lines. 5 fen Ot *IN. and permitting all other ha hoes arn as 06557010 required. Park ttedkadoot Oudot A Oudot C Outhe 7.1 0.63 4 01 aces 0.06 ono ///yo+ leu 400 Ofeodow.$ 0016 lee**, /997 frel 74ANO" /4/0 doed4/. NORTH 0 Et ite 200 57.51.7 11 FEET EELSTEIG EBCCOSFJ3 025002 10E9 157E9500415 550.97.5 )1, O .15EC70. OF ROO 09100 YMMILI 0 • 5001.301 • oath 1 C5500 15555 Swoon sm. 0. VIAITA1•• • 300.01 -4 - NIT .705 SHEET .50.12-99 21. 2. 0.re HIGHLAND MEADOWS ' tor TSM DEVELOPMENT 1NG REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT LINO LAKES. 122,17015150 IN , I noroot con9 Oa roe poo sooNsaaco o• men I L • 9•• - •m nSam I A 1401 PIN Avenue No 20 03 r20 E RL 51i-13-7595 Fs. 612431193/ & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING on MINNESOTA n • .■ odnr a. M a wOt We t. aw I y a l O M las .4/ /,'.,d2- oesInmeD de CROV09 MX 0E020 NM v I **••• mSew K. Roo 5.• 1 111-3 .e..,.,71 00. 51-2.2 ORE NO 99-015 • • • • NANCY DRIVE 1. 1 ! i 1 t 1 1 ; 1 3 I 4 . i 2 I 4 / I I .5 r /t• / , \ 2 \ / a .„, r I 1 \ .. 40 •. .2 N P I-- ... .....-. N 00'31'14 -- - E 663.77 -v . N 0O5I4 C 204.00 COUNTY H /GHWRY t _ i ■ I ; I I I I 1 ,-4-------I 1. i I 1 01.17LOT E. N 00'4736- "E....60a00 , . i a 4 I IL. / OUILOT A `.., I ounor E r-1-4-11 1 417,603 SO FT N................„9 -41.-1 St:1 ...., 6........... / . ,.."" m E A or tv S it E S ; • 0 n _ 0 iv 1 N 001 r 27a03 If G N El -7.-7------3,4=7, --,1 7Z 5 2 1\1 \ / • N. DRIVE -4 2 014. ..4` '''..••• k 11 I! Iit II . ... .. . .......„....„7..,:-..-..2.-.......- . 4:.4v- .,..:19.f.00°9,1 : --::7;77-_ l, 51,,i: , , , "-- --1•17- 41:1IIT s itte4cr,::"v1-7,4- T. • 4. " " 40 it • 0, r■-_,..._-_--,* 04 .■ l, 11. t ..... . 7p i sla t --,0.71..-- !..,.....1..."!. Pr sO -AiT.-- l--',.-■-•-•--......- \, .....1 ....--.----- ..--- • N 0ty4ric E 663.05 ^-........../ ( L , J .....--- ...., ill. 0 . . ... , .„.....- _. r i _.....) ......--------- /.. ‘\ / /I 4' 1---''.-- .. 1 0 .>•-• .14 • • : 6Wng Zarin, -. R4 ELN•f rah RmalvIMI , l Plopernd Tonne ••• • : Phan 2: R4 16.10.F.11/ Rraidorii4 --T- , . 1 1 . Urd Praposod• Rosa 2: 4 UMW. angI• lanai hoe. Miriam Lol Sze : 10,803 Nom WI SCALE: 1 INCH 60 FEET 0 00 LEGEND 120 Scab Ishii • NO USING RBLIBISED =TOWN INDEX IIITERIEMATE SPOT El -EVATC•1 <Ginn ONECTION Of FLOW MANGLE 0 • WOMAN G • CATO1 BAIN UNITARY WIER WATERMAN NORM MIER ORMAN AUTLITY EASEN3ff SUMMER T3Wrikownl. Ire OWER 2Z1 Mame 91 Ana; WtI5S:CO Ron* Ft?' maw ENGIPEBI Mods 1LAnwrialf• SURVEYOR 8401 -73rd Ava 0. 63 COWPER Boalchn Pad% 16151431 Phan ff0)0217593 01/7LOT A OrNawra 19411, . 90 1•41 Ma mounted skahilha NW arkbackIrr) MOMIIII %Undo F,.1 1.l • 331.9 I 1 Roar ywd • 331.1 1 11, Sad* radinlmor • IOW L...... ri 13 EM• rednoalandwl • 331.41 Sao radlarage.nharor • Nal MOP 2 o Nab 0 Inn • no Maws. Noun bah,. Ih• PRP /1014444vay and ...C. 11011bridos naInsch Wm Ow ward W. a al Ow *Mani Xrd•plh as 01. al Rowena • S•Mwton29, 2080 \ • Nahr 01. and LAIN E••••••1. kat pohndea alio. by Ito NW Naha& Ina nArnari Wool eshl. draw aras.5 n math and MOWN bl .1.. 1.4 Nos and olhoram 4aIW CEIVED NOV 2 0 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES Injal Dracapben Oallar E. MOWN) IrEASOWS WEST, moardny (woad* tweet Ands Con* Arnmasol• and hal of Ehrabalh l• p10.4 rod adored nand HGIIIND MOONS NOT. han• v4461114 AMMO/ Wenn. d taint, No srl LW 2, Bork 10, sad HGENO 101:OwS 0.49manwy, Lob • 62,9139 Equiv. MO OWN. • 417,0114Am hal OlVirf • was,..1011 hark.. • )00S. 11431 Ame a Z A a b a. 5 0 5. t ; I 9 ° 1 of 4