Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/2001 P&Z Packet• UPDATED AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Wednesday, April 11, 2001 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 14, 2001 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. Steve Dahlstrom, 6641 East Shadow Lake Drive, Variance, Jeff Smyser B. PUBLIC HEARING, Rockey Goertz /Spirit Hills, Inc., Rezone to Planned Development • Overlay and Preliminary Plat, Cindy Sherman (NAC) C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Heritage Development, Saddle Club Site, Old Birch Street, Comprehensive Plan Amendment for MUSA, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Jeff Smyser D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive, Jeff Smyser E. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Land Holding Group, 12th & Holly, Preliminary Plat, Jeff Smyser F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Tree Preservation Ordinance, Jeff Smyser G. Comprehensive Plan: Recommendation for City Council, Jeff Smyser VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Mini - Storage, Tabled 3/14/01, Cindy Sherman (NAC) VII. ADJOURN • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT March 14, 2001 6:30 P.M. 7:54 P.M. Corson, Lane, Lyden, Schaps, and Zych Rafferty and Schilling City Engineer Powell; Economic Development Director Wessel; Cindy Sherman (NAC) I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., March 14, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 13, 2001 Ms. Lane requested the following corrections: Page 2, last paragraph, first sentence, to read "Staff presented its analysis...". Page 3, first paragraph, third to the last sentence, to read "...that would identify which improvements were necessary... ". Page 4, second to the last paragraph, change Powell Drive to Apollo Drive. Page 5, 4th paragraph, correct spelling for Tom Bacca is Vacca. Page 5, 5th paragraph, to read "Mr. Moss stated he had a vested interest in this... ". Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the February 13, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0 -2 (Lyden and Zych). III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. Brian Wessel, Economic Development, stated he was available to give an overview as to why there was a delay on the Ryan Companies US, Inc. issue. • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:34 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Rick Boschee, 1205 Peregrine Circle, Variance from Setback Requirement. Staff presented the application by explaining the applicant had applied for a variance from a setback requirement for a lot in Peregrine Pass. Mr. Boschee was a builder who prepared a plan for a house on Lot 8. The plan does not fit within the setbacks, which was the reason for the variance application. This report was based on the certificate of survey by Metro Land Surveying & Engineering dated February 13, 2001. Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining Peregrine Pass was an unusual development. 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 was an experiment utilizing several conservation subdivision elements. The site was 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 Normally, the right of way was the same as the property line. In this case, there was a park trail strip along the side of Lot 8, on 12th Ave. The trail strip was owned by the City, so the property line was the edge of the trail corridor. The side yard setback was measured from that. This poses no conflict with the proposed house plan. • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 3 The standard 40 ft. building setback from a collector street also applied because 12th Avenue was a collector street. The setback from the road, which applies to all buildings, was measured from the edge of the right of way. The trail strip was 15 ft., and the proposed garage was shown 13.5 ft. from that, for a total setback from the road of 28.5 ft. This encroached into the required setback by 11.5 ft. (40 — 28.5 = 11.5). Lot 8 did include some unusual elements. The lot was rather narrow at its front line. As noted, the trail corridor exists along 12`" Ave., which reduces the lot width from what it would be without the trail. There was a drainage and utility easement covering a large portion in the northeast corner of the lot. In addition, there was an extra 30 feet covered by a wetland conservation buffer easement, which further reduced the buildable area of the lot. Moving the house toward the back of the lot would leave very little backyard. Mr. Boschee's letter stated that the problem arose due to a larger setback on a corner lot. It would be more accurate to state that the street setback was greater than the side yard setback, which results in a de facto larger setback on a corner lot, though it was 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 met the 40 ft. road setback. Nothing had changed between the time of plat approval and the house design. No additional requirements had been added, nor were there any hidden requirements. All easements were recorded with the property and show up on a survey. The house pad location was a standard element of plat approvals. The setback requirements had not changed in the past two years. Staff stated 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 was due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship was not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested would 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 would 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 was a relatively difficult lot. • Its shape and the double street setbacks combined with the wetland and extra buffer easements create unusual circumstances. • It was 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. • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 4 While this was an "economic consideration" of a sort, it was 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, was wider and can accommodate a house within the setbacks. Lot 4 was 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 was in keeping with that goal. For these reasons, staff recommended approval of the variance request. Staff notes that the recommendation on this variance request was based on the unique attributes of Lot 8 and in no way implied support for variances on the other lots in the development. Staff recommended approval of the setback variance to allow the garage to be constructed 28.5 feet from the road right -of -way as indicated on the survey. Chair Schaps asked if there was going to be any other variance requested by Mr. Boschee. Mr. Powell stated there would be no more variance requests. Mr. Lyden asked for an explanation why it was not feasible to move the house back to gain the width they needed. Mr. Powell replied it was due to the triangular shape of the lot; it would move it into a 30' buffer easement in the back of the property if the home was moved back. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Applicant did not have any comments to make. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to 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, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Lyden stated he believed this was a reasonable request. B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Heritage Development, Saddle Club Site, Old Birch Street, Comprehensive Plan Amendment for MUSA, rezoning, Preliminary Plat. Staff presented the application by explaining Heritage Development had 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 was located south and east of Old Birch Street. The review was based on plans received by the City on February 12, 2001. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the following: • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 5 Land Use and Zoning: The northern 20 acres (approximately) was zoned R -1. The south 20 acres (approximately) was zoned rural. The application was to rezone the entire parcel to R -1. Additionally, the applicant included a comprehensive plan amendment to bring the entire property into the MUSA. The existing and proposed comprehensive plan designated the northern portion of the parcel for low - density residential development. While the entire parcel was proposed to be platted, the wetland portion of the property was 15.34 acres so the area to be added to the MUSA did not have a net impact on the amount of land to be serviced. Nonetheless, the MUSA line would have to be moved to include the southern portion of the site in the MUSA. The amount of upland in the southern portion was about eight acres, which would be the amount of MUSA reserved to be allocated to the site. Greenway: The draft Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for greenways. The intent of the greenway designation was to protect environmentally sensitive areas. This would be accomplished by overlaying a drainage and utility easement in the areas to be protected. Additionally, staff recommended 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 was 10,800 square feet of upland. Lot 13, Block 1 did not meet this standard. All other lots met or exceeded this provision. The minimum lot width was 80 feet at the 30 -foot front yard setback. There were 11 lots that did not meet this provision. The minimum lot depth was 135 feet. All of the lots met or exceeded this provision. Grading: Fill was proposed on the site to create the house pad areas and roadways. Much of the site was proposed to remain undisturbed and would be encumbered by drainage and utility easement. The grading plan was 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 was proposed from Old Birch Street. This required right -of -way acquisition from an adjacent parcel. A roadway connection is also proposed to Killdeer Drive. This also required right -of -way acquisition from an adjacent parcel. The adequacy of the access was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Acquisition of right -of -way was the responsibility of the applicant. A feasibility study was underway which would 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 has been completed which examines the best way to provide utility services to the property. This study was received by the City Council on March 12. • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 6 Parks and Trails: There was 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 Oaks of Lino. The park dedication for this subdivision primarily would be cash in lieu of land. The amount to be paid would be based upon the rates in effect at the time of final plat. City staff was examining the potential for a trail through the southern portion of the site. This would 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 were 15.34 acres of wetland on the property. Some fill was proposed to accommodate roadway construction. The proposal was to mitigate the fill adjacent to other wetland areas. The wetland delineation and proposed fill were subject to the review and permitting of Rice Creek Watershed District, which oversees the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). It was the City staff's policy to require preliminary approval (tabled with approval for administration action or TWAFAA) from Rice Creek before the City staff recommended approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Tree Preservation: There were 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. Staff recommended continuting the public hearing to allow time for additional information as outlined in the planning report. Mr. Corson asked when the additional property acquisition would take place. Mr. Powell replied it would be part of the preliminary, plat approval process. Mr. Lyden asked if there had been any discussion of the R -1 versus the R -1X. He stated the R-1X might be a better fit in the long run. Ms. Sherman stated she had not been a part of any of these types of discussions with the City. She stated that zone was surrounding the area, and it would make sense to continue that type of zoning. Chair Schaps asked if there had been any additional information after the staff report had been prepared and distributed. Mr. Powell stated staff had submitted the feasibility study to the City Council. He reviewed the sanitary sewer, watermain, and street elements of the study with the Board. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Applicant asked if there was any option of the Greenway to the south being available. Mr. Powell stated there had been discussions among staff regarding the trail corridor, but there had been no specific recommendations made to the developer at this time. Applicant stated his engineers were reviewing the feasibility report. Chair Schaps asked if applicant was confident they were going to be able to acquire the necessary land they would need. Applicant responded he was confident they could. • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 7 Chair Schaps asked if they could address all of the concerns in the staff report. Applicant responded he was confident they could meet those requirements. Applicant stated the homes would be single - family homes. Mr. Lyden expressed concern that this would be a better development if it were R -1X. Applicant stated he did not know what R -1X was. Mr. Powell explained what the R -1X development consisted of. Mr. Lyden strongly encouraged applicant to look at an R -1X development. Marilyn Anderson, 8840 Birch Street, stated she was two lots north of the proposed subdivision. She stated her concern was for the placement of the sewer and water utilities. She did not have a concern regarding the subdivision. She stated the north/south stretch of Birch Street would not receive sewer and water and there were residents that wanted it. She stated they could not get enough signatures for a petition for the sewer and water utilities. She stated her concern was that this would forever leave them without sewer and water. She stated they would like to have service. She asked the Board take into consideration a route that would include them and that would give them access to those utilities, and a reduced assessment cost. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to allow time for additional information as outlined in the planning report, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive, CONTINUE TO 4/11/01. Staff stated 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. Staff recommended that the hearing be continued until April 11, 2001. Mr. Wessel presented a status of the project since the last meeting. He stated the site plan was changing and therefore, so was the schedule. He stated the problem was that the market did not support the building of the large three pads. He stated the development team had presented the three pads to the market, but could not get any interest in it. Therefore, one option would be to downsize the project to eliminate the three large pads. The other option would be the replacement of the pads and go with a development that was similar as to what they were originally looking at. He stated they could not respond until they receive something official. He indicated they did not expect a proposal until just before the May 2001 Planning & Zoning meeting. He stated more likely they would be breaking ground in the fall rather than in the summer, if this project received approved. • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 8 Chair Schaps asked if there was any update regarding the road. Mr. Powell replied applicant still wanted two accesses to the site. They had prepared an impact study of that second access and how it would function and had submitted it to the County for initial review. He stated the plan would need to be reevaluated with the change of the site plan. Mr. Lyden asked looking at Plan A vs. Plan B economically, was there a more economic advantage to one plan over the other Plan. Mr. Wessel replied the plan with the three larger pads was a larger project and therefore, it would a more economically advantageous project for the City. Mr. Lyden asked if they could allow the Target to be built and wait for the remainder of the development for sometime in the future. Mr. Wessel replied this could be a possibility, but Ryan and Target were committed to having this as one development and completing the whole project. He stated Ryan and Target were not interested in purchasing the land and holding it for future development. John Obrestad, 7738 Carole Drive, stated he was concerned where the two roads were going to be and where it would put the traffic. Mr. Powell replied the access would be off of Lake Drive. There would be no access off of 77th Street with the recent concept plan submitted. Tim Graf, 7757 Carole Drive, asked if there would be streetlights going from the new Target onto Lake Drive. Mr. Powell replied in the Lake Drive corridor there would be lights added once it was developed as warranted. He stated they did not anticipate lights on 77th Street, but there would be gaps in the traffic to allow traffic on 77th Street to get out onto Lake Drive. Mr. Graf asked about a buffer around Target. Mr. Powell stated there would be some type of a buffer, possibly some type of landscaping. Mr. Wessel reminded there was no official plan submitted yet. Deb Graf, 7757 Carole Drive, stated they had three banks and convenience stores within a few blocks and she did not believe they needed more banks. She asked if this was staying with the old town village look. Mr. Wessel replied the question of another bank and convenience store was a decision ultimately to be made by the Council, but the market supported another bank and convenience store. He stated the developer was looking at the architectural aspects of the Target and the developer was aware they needed to give it a "village feel ". There had been an effort made to put together something with the appropriate architectural design. Mr. Lyden stated Ms. Graf's comment about the bank was well taken. He indicated even though the market may absorb the bank, it might not be an asset to the City. Chair Schaps stated the architectural design they had seen did not look like the typical Target Store. Ms. Graf asked when they submit their final proposal, did Planning and Zoning have the final say. Chair Schaps replied the function of Planning and Zoning was to review the Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 9 • plan and make a recommendation to the Council. The Council could either agree or disagree with P &Z's recommendations. The final decision would be up to the Council. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to April 11, 2001 to allow time for additional information to be submitted and reviewed, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Land Hold Group, 12th & Holly, Preliminary Plat, CONTINUED TO 4/11/01. Staff stated 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 had been submitted and therefore, staff recommended that the hearing be continued until April 11, 2001. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to April 11, 2001, to allow time for additional information to be submitted, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. E. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING,, Tree Preservation Ordinance, CONTINUED TO 4/11/01. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to April 11, 2001, to allow time for additional information to be submitted, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Mini Storage, Al Robinson, Tabled from February 13, 2001 Meeting Chair Schaps stated Mr. Robinson would not be in attendance at this meeting, but he was still interested in working with staff regarding the Mini Storage. This item was tabled until April 2001, or until Mr. Robinson was available to be present for the meeting. B. Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition Concept Plan Ms. Sherman explained Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition was 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 2' Addn. and added 25 acres to the development, as well as 10+ acres that were outlots in the first two approvals. Staff presented the project data indicating the following: Project Data: Site Total 34.67 acres • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 10 Wetlands undetermined, Upland Right -of -Way Number of Lots Gross Density Net Density (Upland Only) Land Use and Zoning: some possible pocket wetlands majority of site 6.66 acres 75 lots 2.16 units /ac similar to gross acreage The entire area was 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 was a concept review, no extensive detailed review was conducted of the plan. 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. would 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 would meet the Arlo Lane portion in Bluebill Ponds. This would require losing a piece of Highland Meadows Park. This loss of land must be replaced somehow. This was discussed below under parks and trails. Utilities: Utility service would need to be determined. Development of Adjacent Land: There was property on the southeast corner of this site that was owned by another party. If that landowner wished to develop the property, some access would be necessary. Staff would communicate to the developer that he should contact that landowner and discuss this issue. 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 was 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 was a concept review, no extensive detailed review was conducted of the plan. 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. would 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 would meet the Arlo Lane portion in Bluebill Ponds. This would require losing a piece of Highland Meadows Park. This loss of land must be replaced somehow. This was discussed below under parks and trails. Utilities: Utility service would need to be determined. Development of Adjacent Land: There was property on the southeast corner of this site that was owned by another party. If that landowner wished to develop the property, some access would be necessary. Staff would communicate to the developer that he should contact that landowner and discuss this issue. Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 11 Parks and Trails: The Park Board discussed the plan on March 5. This must be replaced. They recommended that Outlot B and Lot 1 Block 4 be dedicated for park. The Judds, who live immediately to the east of Lot 1, had expressed interest in acquiring part of the parcel. In addition, the existing Highland Meadows Park would lose some land to the new Arlo Lane, which must be replaced. A trail connection must be provided to Main St. Typically, parkland was 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. Staff agreed with this for the Highland Meadows West (first addition) plat. However, the parklands had not been deeded to the City. This must be done before further development occurs. Natural Features: There was a historic oak savannah on the west side of the property. There may be some small pocket wetlands on the site. There had not been a delineation prepared. Other Issues: There were several issues relating to the first two stages that would need to be addressed before the 3rd Addn. could proceed. These included 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 had not yet been deeded to the City. These issues were being discussed with the developer. Joel Cooper, Developer, stated a wetland delineation had been done and an application submitted to Rice Creek Watershed with the stipulation that the wetland be verified once the snow was gone. He stated all of the lots conformed to R -1 zoning. He stated the oak trees along the west line would be preserved. There would be no grading done to that area. Chair Schaps asked what the price range of the home were. Mr. Cooper replied $180,000 up to $250,000. Mr. Cooper stated the existing homes would stay in place, but those homes would probably need to be remodeled. Chair Schaps stated his concern with respect to their not being enough acreage set aside for parkland. He asked if the Park Board had any concern about the parkland in the area. Ms. Sherman replied the Board recommended Outlot B and Lot 1, Block 4 be dedicated for park. Mr. Lyden shared Chair Schaps concerns regarding the parks. He stated in the past the parkland was always the left over piece instead of it being the most accessible piece and that was a major drawback they had seen. • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 14, 2001 Page 12 Chair Schaps asked if they had had a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Cooper stated they had had a meeting and the neighborhood's main concern was regarding traffic issues. Mr. Powell indicated that owners of the Lichtscheidl and Judd properties have expressed concern regarding the effect on their properties. Mr. Corson asked if there would be access to the trails. Mr. Powell stated Park Board had reviewed the proposed plat, but they did not have the minutes. Mr. Zych left the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Mr. Lyden suggested the Park Board revisit these issues. Chair Schaps agreed. Mr. Powell stated they would convey these concerns to the Park Board. VII. ANNOUNCEMENT Chair Schaps stated Mr. Schilling had advised the City he was moving out of the City, and therefore he would need to resign his position on the Board. Chair Schaps wished Mr. Schilling the best and expressed appreciation for the years of service he performed for the City. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:54 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0 (Zych absent). Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • 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 Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., February 13, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 10, 2001 Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the January 10, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Lane). 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 Ordinance. Faith , stated she had been woken up early every morning because of the noise. She was concerned about the morning and nighttime voices that were very loud and could be heard inside her home. Sherry Schenck ( ?sp), 7859 Notingham Lane, stated her concern was that she had no control over this and the noise from applicant occurred very early in the morning. She stated the noise could be heard through her closed windows, and there was nothing they could do about it. She indicated they could not shut the noise off; it was there continuously. B. PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target) Lake Drive, PDO Rezone, Preliminary Plat, Conditional 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 its 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 improvements 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 the information submitted. With respect to natural features, there was a large wetland located on the eastern portion of the site that was proposed to be impacted. There were 752 trees on the site and 566 of those were significant based on their size and species. The grading proposed 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 the wetland or on the southwest portion of the site. The site design had incorporated a sidewalk layout along Apollo Drive and throughout the site along the storefronts. There were sidewalk connections shown at both accesses proposed with Lake Drive. Additionally, different pavement treatments were proposed at significant crossing points within the development. Green space on the site was concentrated around the perimeter of the site and surrounding ponding and wetland areas. The landscaping plan called for plantings within parking lots along drive aisles and surrounding the site. The overall plan was well done and provided a variety of plantings. Some plantings were shown within 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 feet of signage on the front elevation, which was within the 20% allowed. Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Board discuss 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 by Rice 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 Apollo 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 Vacca, 77th and Lake Drive, asked if the City agreed with the Anoka County's findings on traffic with respect to Apollo Drive being the only entrance. Mr. Powell stated Target Corporation had proposed another connection to Lake Drive and that would be evaluated and discussed with the County. They had not received any answers from Anoka County. However, Anoka County had indicated Apollo 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 interest in this because he worked at Festival Foods and was in the union. He saw Target Corporation simply going up the freeway to build their store. He stated most stores 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 p.m. Staff presented the application by Land Hold Group for a preliminary plat for the northwest corner of 12th Avenue and Holly Drive. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the site was zoned for residential development. The site was within the existing MUSA, and all of the lots met or exceeded the minimum lot size. The proposed lot widths were compliant with the minimum standard of a width of 90 feet for interior lots and 115 feet for corner lots. The minimum lot depth was 135 feet. All of the lots, except Lot 8, complied with this standard. Lot 8 had a depth of 127 feet, which required a variance. The Planning Commission could consider the site was impacted by wetlands and it was located at the intersection of two collector roads thereby limiting design options as a basis for granting the variance. Staff stated applicant had not submitted information about what house styles were being 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. 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 Development, Saddle Club, Old Birch Street, Preliminary Plat CONTINUED TO 3/14/01. Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to March 14, 2001, to allow the City Council time to amend the land use map to include the entire parcel in the future Phase 1 growth area, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. E. Circle Lex VFW, Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision. Staff presented the application by explaining applicant owned approximately 7.48 acres of land west of the Community National Bank and Fast Break 66 Station. The property was split in two by Apollo Drive and Zone GB, General Business. It was guided for commercial development in both 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 be determined to complete the MUSA land exchange, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Rafferty). F. Rockey 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 2'T 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 is dedicated along the west property line of both Parcel A and B and required by Anoka County. 2. Approval of this minor subdivision does not guarantee, nor imply approval of any subsequent development plans for the property. Chair Schaps asked if the property on the corner was acquired by foreclosure. Ms. Wyland replied it had been confiscated by the County and then purchased from the County by the City. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Grubbs had indicated any desire for an expansion of the business onto that property. Ms. Wyland replied Mr. Grubbs may want to expand his business into this area. Chair Schaps asked if applicant wanted 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 inside 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 to submit a detailed photometric plan prior to City Council review. Staff stated signage was governed by the City's sign Ordinance and separate permits were required for all signs. The landscape plan presented a variety mix of landscaping. Most notably, the applicant's plan called for a native mix of prairie grasses and wild flowers throughout the site. The applicant must submit a maintenance plan for the native prairie grasses. The applicant should add screening along the western side of the site to screen the loading areas of the adjacent residential use. In addition, should applicant decide to construct parking stalls in the future along the western side of the site, they would need to add landscaping to screen it from 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 state: If possible, find a type of prairie grass that would not require burning. Mr. Schilling suggested getting input from the Fire Department regarding the burning of the native prairie grass. Mr. Smyser replied he would contact the Fire Department and present their information to Council. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the Minor Subdivision and site plan to allow the construction of a 30,076 square foot office /warehouse building based on the findings outlined in the February 13, 2001 planning report and subject to the conditions outlined by staff and the two amendments suggested by Mr. Smyser, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Rafferty). 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 from January meeting. Staff explained applicant had submitted an application to amend its existing conditional use permit (CUP) to allow storage of recreational vehicles on the 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 work with staff on unresolved issues. Since that time, the recreational vehicle firm that wanted to utilize the site decided to locate in another city. Central Suburban then submitted a letter withdrawing the application for amending the CUP. Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting remove this item from the table and acknowledge the withdrawal of the application. The Planning and Zoning Board acknowledged 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. • • • AGENDA ITEM V. A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: April 11, 2001 TOPIC: Variance Application Steve Dahlstrom, 6641 East Shadow Drive BACKGROUND Mr. Steve Dahlstrom has submitted an application for a variance from the side yard setback requirement in an R -1 zoning district. He wants to construct a large addition to his existing house. The setback requirement for a garage differs from the setback for the house. Mr. Dahlstrom's addition includes garage space on the main level with additional bedrooms over the garage. This living space must meet the larger setback, which is the reason a variance is needed. ANALYSIS The property is in an R -1 Single Family zoning district. The side yard setbacks are 10 feet for the principal building, 5 feet for an accessory building. A garage, even an attached garage, is considered an accessory building. Therefore, a garage wall must be 5 feet from the side property line. The house itself must be 10 feet. Adding garage space would need to meet the 5' setback. Living space must meet the 10' setback. Since the proposed new living space would be 5' from the property line, a variance is needed. Please note that the letter from Mr. Dahlstrom was written before the survey was prepared, so the distances in his letter are estimated. As shown on the submitted survey, the front corner of the existing garage wall is 4.19 feet from the side lot line. (It is unknown why this was not built at the 5 ft. setback.) The rear corner of the existing garage is approximately 7 %2' from the side lot line. (This is a scaled measurement of the submitted survey, it is not shown on the survey.) Therefore, at its closest point, the new addition will be about 7 %2' from the property line. This is 2 Y2' less than the required 10' setback, or about 25% less. The proposed addition will be 23' 8" high at the peak of the roof. The house next door at 6634 East Shadow Lake Drive is 16.01 feet from the property line. A submitted letter indicates that the neighbors, the Sandstroms, have no objection to the project. The existing home has approximately 1000 sf of living space, with some additional space in the lower level. This is just over the minimum 980 sf required in the zoning ordinance for a split level. The house has two bedrooms • • • Dahlstrom Variance page 2 Mr. Dahlstrom's plans include adding 20 feet onto the entire rear of the house as well as the new garage space with bedrooms above. Findings for Variance As stated in the zoning ordinance, 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. 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. The size of the existing home meets minimum standards, but an addition to a two - bedroom house is not unusual, nor is putting bedrooms over garage space. The design incorporates the existing structure layout to maximize use of the existing structure. Current housing space demands typically require more than 1000 sf, and it seems unreasonable to require the second story to step back from the lower level wall. Pie - shaped lots on cul de sacs present special challenges, though they are not unique. For some reason, this house was built closer to the road than current standards allow. If the house were further back, the variance need would be reduced. As it stands, the variance is needed only for the front 13± feet of the new addition. That is, the new addition will meet the 10 ft. setback at a point 13± feet to the rear of the existing garage corner. It is not a situation where the variance application is an attempt to avoid extra costs. Economic considerations are not at issue here. OPTIONS 1. Approve the variance request. 2. Deny the variance request 3. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 CENTERVILLE 1 • SHADED AREA DENOTES PARK LOCATION ri-nce MAP r'1L' OF 1 !Kin AKE • BIRCH STREET 1 23 9 lBl 16 5 4" 1011. ERI CIf 0 2 22 3 4 20 4 19 5 6 5 7 17 m a 16 m 0 7 El 9 8 16 C) a 9 10 15 8 14 9 10 16 15 la z' O.L.A 2N0 LA E 62 • • • To: City of Lino Lakes Zoning Commission: Re: Land use application — Variance Request for the property located at 6641 E. Shadow Lake Drive. Sir: we respectfully request a small variance for the purpose of adding an addition to our residence. We believe the variance may be necessary in the area where we would like to add 2 bedrooms above and a garage below. Please see the attached drawings that are drawn to scale. The specific area of the variance is on the south side of the house away from the lake. The amount of variance is approximately one foot. The addition will be garage below and bedroom above, and will be, after construction 9 feet from the property line instead of the required 10 feet. Due to the pie- shaped lot, the variance would only be required for a very short distance — about 5 feet along the property line. Thank you. Sincerely, Steve Dahlstrom 6641 E. Shadow Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651- 653 -6675 (n) 763 -514 -2756 (d) 763 -514 -3607 (fax) RECEIVED MAR 0 7 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES • • To: City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182 Subject: Variance for addition at 6641 E. Shadow Lake Drive; Lino Lakes, MN. Pertaining to the requested variance for the addition at 6641 E. Shadow Lake Drive; Lino Lakes, MN.: We have seen the plans for the proposed addition to the Dahlstrom property and have no objections to it. ? //o 3/5/01 • • 4 I VI ..o t � 0 eve W Ce4 CO R V) • 0 .33)h ri (11.41-; :O )...L!D 100Z L 0 tidal D O N 7 77 1 s !`" rTI N Z. • • . TII . DAIIL& QOM � c�IDENCE LOT 28, BLOCK 4, LAKES ADDITION NO. 2 CITY OF LINO LAKES, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA / ,/ Ad / / 44� ' / yy / / / 10'O-Owe ILO06 DC„. 6166 (NM Pe] 4" , .�,..�m rE 6I O'(N CIO / / LOT 281 (A6 M ono No NOON CO 6H -NroAN , / ' / / (As oft PLAY /' / / /'‘,:f°''' ' / ,,/ / '.Qj`!l/ 04._ / / // / rr 6sLO6 / / / d� /9 .6 / / / j / / / / /' / / r 6m1o.6m iliM :,t, / / r rmno... / ■ 4f4j ( -••• •.w® WOW NOT K c•n•16606 / ***.• OW 0 .- . m Om1o66sm / \ / N. tr ..,...,.;.4. w- , „4.,./ ~ °'.,� • / \ 4 4 • \ w �Mp•M�sa �a4\ LDf (EsTATFS �( \�, 1 N ^r w 11s \ Gm le WP SON Ina _ _ R1Mr. 6,yy CERTIFICATE O F SURVEY ` a,x (m,Ma6c) ��� its IMO MONO / 0 i F•,uo / ` \ BLOCK 41 r„9, Ia '_J 11 / t ' O b 6641 EAST SHADOW LAKE DRIVE to".ocnvrt,6L..,1, so. Ai'i' ,..... ... NO . 2, ,�4- 7 s `P t,'' ,N2.55.4 '/ / 4/ ' S / / / 9LDa 6. z LA 5 .DC'' �' PREPARED FOR. STEVEN a STAGY DAHLSma( 6W "" -6675 SHADOW LAKE DRIVE UNO LAKES. MINNESOTA 55016 551 - LAKES. 15 I \ . t* \ ',/ 4 < \ ` ' • • Ht1 5 4\ • V C( 5 \ 4 4 AJ - Iola ti rrr V S 5 4 • - , ./... moo more cocoon solo n ..,o,, sN • .. or•� Y moo corn( osolotoiNCS. .. ' /t .. ON r•cc h ,ems • Y6 IQt cNaAA,m .O.6•,> . N - . '\ I� \ , Mi*' \ r 6am TM MA % *O. / , ‘ , DIJON ES LAK / ' ✓ y OA COMM �� 4 -�I g / ;V %i / /// i %,(ptp0 !' , / 7 e / 'X MN' IYi¢ mLEGEND eor /. ONO WOW MONO \ \ ...., ,_ ....... __ SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 2aED R -, - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OUNDING SETBACKS mat - 7F FEET SIDE - 10 FEET GARAGE SIDE - S FEET REAR (SNONEUNE) - 75 IFFY Y,Q _ : RRDFERSOMI _ 5 ' 18407 +1r „A "........ .i „ „OF nMw,.,, "' etxnom _ KEMPER & ASSOCIATES INC. 1(OW .0wM NPR�ONOO;N" 1 Ali A ow” LAND SURVEYING • ENGINEERING or roO1p4°' VA 1""s °f x s ,i 12 HIGHWAY 6 / _ . a) moos moor. Noon Po coax ce os orws •.., or LA ss Nano cooc o 1 61»6 ,..,,,, °°°m o° BRIGHTON, A 5 NEW BR1fOLD 1HMNE50TA 55113 651 -621 -0.151 1u•,O , , FAX 651- 631 -6605 7,17,.., REcElvEF) APR 0 `6 2001 CITY OF Lim) LAKES bTV +0 c sir; ) I/ ■ 10 R 9. • �o. `"1 5' GARAGE SIDE SEIEACK LINE P R O B A B L E 10' SANIT AASEWER EASEMENT (OHO� N) (OWNER TO -L S55°43'55" W 140.19 (M) S 56'41'59" W 140.19 (R) ASS Fry Pk Gi{/ C i A <O(4.4 o ?to .0 ,1 gVj SS. • • \•• SS • • • E X� S T , ti a GGLe—. M 3 -21 -01 I/4 -- II -O • 't,;PX;;42WOVIL4liet;;; ;,7.57,W7,702. Imetclakk 0 csi It 0 rt1 0 .) J 3 N .:....,,,......„,...: A..,,,.. , „ ; jc 12. -41 j2.A ,•SE 5GA 9 4. .-_...--- TV- • o 2. 31-6 4-3! e cui Erosr :44 13/ 1 CASC,14 I VRAn, LIC4 20:0 44-10 15%2. 7= 44' 2d' -v / -2-0' -4 Ex•, 3 r • • • 5 ti IS• rca-r I cE 4 wwrc.a. Sh 14.0 VG,. /1.4 0- f, Y.. S GA 714 1./4 I'. a p.m. • t`t 0 VO TILO 55 GS P..hs 56 0 I4vI.s Iht' Gas.P. Do. PO4`. - ICI ZAJSuot.A TIms STV P.S -711{,, OS 4b. HC.1071.4 41 DiVe-tt. ea. taanc- I 11,4.4 T-C.Chn • Sr_At- 5.--TS 15%- to sa4.4t-nota 1-4 -414 m4t 4. s/E5 ca.vp•- C-ook.rc- f LIZ 17- 17- x T< 4--7c-- 3 r2" pIo rt r I 5/6-r1pe•x• Ca•/? O LxL 4- 11 ■;- 11. • c30.. E L./ ,zo -MOZZCOM *7- V■1.•5 1ZL • "t/ PoLst1 5/6 1-1?E'X' C.'1P r'-a_ ""a- 6' L. v. L. )iS. • • Hon MI 4- imi 111111 ,u 1 '14 t v.. I5/ • • • � ?i `Y T4 4 r - ' 2X1VS f' t}' co�,c r .Iz 13'g/'`a.La: "Y'. /4 , • • 2oLo oL U 0 0 H • • fl4-`s ► 1p Ill • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. B Cindy Sherman (NAC) April 11, 2001 Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Land Use Change Rezoning R -1 to PDO Preliminary Plat — Spirit Hills Mr. Rocky Goertz has submitted an application for Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, and a preliminary plat for a development to be know as Spirit Hills. The site is located on the northeast corner of State Highway 49 and Birch Street, between Rice Lake and Shenandoah Addition. This review is based on plans received by the City on March 13, 2001. ANALYSIS • Project Data: • Density: Site Total 35.69 acres Wetlands 8.84 acres Upland (residential) 29.02 acres Right -of -Way 5.00 acres Number of Single Family Lots 31 lots Number of Townhomes 49 Commercial Area 1.67 acres Density Gross Net Total Site 2.24 acres 2.9 acres Townhomes 3.8 units /acre 4.8 units /acre Single Family 1.91 units /acre 3.31 units /acre Land Use and Zoning: The current Land Use Plan designates the property as single family residential. The draft Land Use Plan designates the site for low density and low density /medium density residential "that promotes the intermixing of low to medium density residential and commercial land uses in an integrated and cohesive design. The City will pursue quality architecture, pedestrian interaction between land uses, and a neighborhood focal point." The land use comparison between the draft land use and the application is as follows: • * Land areas are approximate so totals do not match. The proposed development is consistent with the proposed land use but is not consistent with the anticipated areas allocated to each use. Surrounding Land Uses: Acres on Draft Land Use Plan Application Low Density Sewered 24 16 Medium Density Residential 2.5 13 Commercial 15.5 7 Right -of -Way Urban residential 5 TOTAL 42* 41* * Land areas are approximate so totals do not match. The proposed development is consistent with the proposed land use but is not consistent with the anticipated areas allocated to each use. Surrounding Land Uses: 411 Shoreland Management Overlay District: All areas within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) are subject to the Shoreland Management Regulations. Nearly all of this development falls within the Shoreland Overlay, as determined by the OHW of Rice Lake, a Natural Environment Lake. Because there is public land between the proposed lots and the OHW, none of the lots are considered abutting and thus, the regulations aren't as restrictive. However, there is a 150 foot setback requirement from the OHW for all structures. This creates an issue for Lots 12 -16 and Lots 25 and 26. There is not adequate space to meet the setbacks and accommodate a reasonable house pad. An analysis of density as it relates to the Shoreland Ordinance needs to be provided by the applicant. This exercise identifies the density as it relates to the suitable land area and is required under the PDO. Greenway: The draft Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for greenways. The greenway areas adjacent to this property are currently public land and thus are already protected. In addition, the wetland areas will be encumbered by a drainage and utility easement. Environmental Board Review: The Environmental Board reviewed the application and their comments are attached. The comments submitted by the Board related to curbing are in conflict with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. 2 Comprehensive Plan Existing Comprehensive Plan Proposed Existing Zoning Site Rural Low /Medium Density and Commercial R -1 North Public open space Public open space Public East Urban residential Low /medium density R -1 South Multiple family Commercial R -3 West Public open space Public open space Public 411 Shoreland Management Overlay District: All areas within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) are subject to the Shoreland Management Regulations. Nearly all of this development falls within the Shoreland Overlay, as determined by the OHW of Rice Lake, a Natural Environment Lake. Because there is public land between the proposed lots and the OHW, none of the lots are considered abutting and thus, the regulations aren't as restrictive. However, there is a 150 foot setback requirement from the OHW for all structures. This creates an issue for Lots 12 -16 and Lots 25 and 26. There is not adequate space to meet the setbacks and accommodate a reasonable house pad. An analysis of density as it relates to the Shoreland Ordinance needs to be provided by the applicant. This exercise identifies the density as it relates to the suitable land area and is required under the PDO. Greenway: The draft Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for greenways. The greenway areas adjacent to this property are currently public land and thus are already protected. In addition, the wetland areas will be encumbered by a drainage and utility easement. Environmental Board Review: The Environmental Board reviewed the application and their comments are attached. The comments submitted by the Board related to curbing are in conflict with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. 2 • • • The creation of an overall homeowners association is advisable. Language regarding property maintenance and demarcation of the wetland edge could be included in the documents so that the association is responsible for the maintenance and therefore, it does not become a City expense. Lot Size and Layout: All of the gross lot areas meet or exceed the shoreland standard of 10,800 square feet. The applicant needs to provide an analysis of individual lot areas excluding wetlands. The base lot calculation for the townhomes requires 5,000 square feet per unit and the project as designed is at approximately 9,600 square feet per unit. Generally speaking, NAC believes a better site design could be created to address transition to existing and future land uses and to respect the natural features on the site. Utilities /Grading and Drainage: The office of the City Engineer has reviewed the application and comments are attached related to these items. Transportation: There are two accesses proposed, both onto County roads. The location and design of the intersections are under County jurisdiction. No comments have been received to date. County permits will be required. Parks and Trails: This site is adjacent to the County park. No additional land dedication is required. Park dedication will be cash fees in lieu of land and will be paid in the amount in effect at the time of final plat. There was historically a trail proposed by the County in the vicinity of this plan. However, that trail has been eliminated from the County's plan and therefore, no connection is necessary through this area. Site Plan: The area proposed for townhomes requires a full submittal regarding site layout, parking unit design, unit exteriors, landscaping, etc. Because of the number and location of the units, NAC believes all details related to the proposal should be part of this review. Wetlands: There are 8.84 acres of wetlands on the property. Some is proposed to be filled to accommodate road crossings. The wetland delineation and related plans are subject to the review and permitting of Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), which oversees the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). It is the City staff's policy to require preliminary approval from RCWD before City staff recommends final action by the Planning and Zoning Board. OPTIONS FOR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ACTION: 1. Recommend denial of the application as submitted based on the issues as outlined in the planning report, lack of information relating to the site plan, and lack of Rice Creek Watershed review. 3 OR 2. Continue the public hearing to allow time for additional information as outlined in the planning report. RECOMMENDATION Option 2 4 • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. B Cindy Sherman (NAC) April 11, 2001 Public Hearing Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Land Use Change Rezoning R -1 to PDO Preliminary Plat — Spirit Hills Mr. Rocky Goertz has submitted an application for Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, and a preliminary plat for a development to be know as Spirit Hills. The site is located on the northeast corner of State Highway 49 and Birch Street, between Rice Lake and Shenandoah Addition. This review is based on plans received by the City on March 13, 2001. ANALYSIS 40 Project Data: • Density: Site Total 35.69 acres Wetlands 8.84 acres Upland (residential) 29.02 acres Right -of -Way 5.00 acres Number of Single Family Lots 31 lots Number of Townhomes 49 Commercial Area 1.67 acres Density Gross Net Total Site 2.24 acres 2.9 acres Townhomes 3.8 units /acre 4.8 units /acre Single Family 1.91 units /acre 3.31 units /acre Land Use and Zoning: The current Land Use Plan designates the property as single family residential. The draft Land Use Plan designates the site for low density and low density /medium density residential "that promotes the intermixing of low to medium density residential and commercial land uses in an integrated and cohesive design. The City will pursue quality architecture, pedestrian interaction between land uses, and a neighborhood focal point." The land use comparison between the draft land use and the application is as follows: • * Land areas are approximate so totals do not match. The proposed development is consistent with the proposed land use but is not consistent with the anticipated areas allocated to each use. Surrounding Land Uses: Acres on Draft Land Use Plan Application Low Density Sewered 24 16 Medium Density Residential 2.5 13 Commercial 15.5 7 Right -of -Way Low /medium density 5 TOTAL 42* 41* * Land areas are approximate so totals do not match. The proposed development is consistent with the proposed land use but is not consistent with the anticipated areas allocated to each use. Surrounding Land Uses: Shoreland Management Overlay District: All areas within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) are subject to the Shoreland Management Regulations. Nearly all of this development falls within the Shoreland Overlay, as determined by the OHW of Rice Lake, a Natural Environment Lake. Because there is public land between the proposed lots and the OHW, none of the lots are considered abutting and thus, the regulations aren't as restrictive. However, there is a 150 foot setback requirement from the OHW for all structures. This creates an issue for Lots 12 -16 and Lots 25 and 26. There is not adequate space to meet the setbacks and accommodate a reasonable house pad. An analysis of density as it relates to the Shoreland Ordinance needs to be provided by the applicant. This exercise identifies the density as it relates to the suitable land area and is required under the PDO. Greenway: The draft Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for greenways. The greenway areas adjacent to this property are currently public land and thus are already protected. In addition, the wetland areas will be encumbered by a drainage and utility easement. Environmental Board Review: The Environmental Board reviewed the application and their comments are attached. The comments submitted by the Board related to curbing are in conflict with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. 2 Comprehensive Plan Existing Comprehensive Plan Proposed Existing Zoning R -1 Site Rural Low /Medium Density and Commercial North Public open space Public open space Public East Urban residential Low /medium density R -1 South Multiple family Commercial R -3 West Public open space Public open space Public Shoreland Management Overlay District: All areas within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) are subject to the Shoreland Management Regulations. Nearly all of this development falls within the Shoreland Overlay, as determined by the OHW of Rice Lake, a Natural Environment Lake. Because there is public land between the proposed lots and the OHW, none of the lots are considered abutting and thus, the regulations aren't as restrictive. However, there is a 150 foot setback requirement from the OHW for all structures. This creates an issue for Lots 12 -16 and Lots 25 and 26. There is not adequate space to meet the setbacks and accommodate a reasonable house pad. An analysis of density as it relates to the Shoreland Ordinance needs to be provided by the applicant. This exercise identifies the density as it relates to the suitable land area and is required under the PDO. Greenway: The draft Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for greenways. The greenway areas adjacent to this property are currently public land and thus are already protected. In addition, the wetland areas will be encumbered by a drainage and utility easement. Environmental Board Review: The Environmental Board reviewed the application and their comments are attached. The comments submitted by the Board related to curbing are in conflict with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. 2 • • • The creation of an overall homeowners association is advisable. Language regarding property maintenance and demarcation of the wetland edge could be included in the documents so that the association is responsible for the maintenance and therefore, it does not become a City expense. Lot Size and Layout: All of the gross lot areas meet or exceed the shoreland standard of 10,800 square feet. The applicant needs to provide an analysis of individual lot areas excluding wetlands. The base lot calculation for the townhomes requires 5,000 square feet per unit and the project as designed is at approximately 9,600 square feet per unit. Generally speaking, NAC believes a better site design could be created to address transition to existing and future land uses and to respect the natural features on the site. Utilities /Grading and Drainage: The office of the City Engineer has reviewed the application and comments are attached related to these items. Transportation: There are two accesses proposed, both onto County roads. The location and design of the intersections are under County jurisdiction. No comments have been received to date. County permits will be required. Parks and Trails: This site is adjacent to the County park. No additional land dedication is required. Park dedication will be cash fees in lieu of land and will be paid in the amount in effect at the time of final plat. There was historically a trail proposed by the County in the vicinity of this plan. However, that trail has been eliminated from the County's plan and therefore, no connection is necessary through this area. Site Plan: The area proposed for townhomes requires a full submittal regarding site layout, parking unit design, unit exteriors, landscaping, etc. Because of the number and location of the units, NAC believes all details related to the proposal should be part of this review. Wetlands: There are 8.84 acres of wetlands on the property. Some is proposed to be filled to accommodate road crossings. The wetland delineation and related plans are subject to the review and permitting of Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), which oversees the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). It is the City staff's policy to require preliminary approval from RCWD before City staff recommends final action by the Planning and Zoning Board. OPTIONS FOR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ACTION: 1. Recommend denial of the application as submitted based on the issues as outlined in the planning report, lack of information relating to the site plan, and lack of Rice Creek Watershed review. 3 OR 2. Continue the public hearing to allow time for additional information as outlined in the planning report. RECOMMENDATION Option 2 • • TKDA • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM To: John Powell Reference: Spirit Hills 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 -2140 PHONE: 651 /292 -4400 FAX: 651/292 -0083 Copies To: Lino Lakes, Minnesota From: Jason Wedel Date: April 4, 2001 Commission No. 11985 -012 I have reviewed the preliminary plat and plans for Spirit Hills received on March 13, 2001. I have the following comments: Plat 1. The drainage and utility easement between Lots 2 & 3, Lots 16 & 17, and Lots 24 & 25, Block 1, must be 10 feet on either side of the property line to accommodate the proposed storm sewer. Grading Plan 1. The existing contours do not tie into the proposed contours around the basin at the north end of the project. 2. The emergency overflow locations and elevations must be labeled. 3. The normal water elevations and high water elevations must be shown for all of the basins. 4. Soil borings must be submitted for the site. Utility Plan 1. The second townhouse unit south of Sioux Lane, on the east edge of the proposed subdivision, has inadequate fire protection. 2. A hydrant must be added at the end of the watermain stub, located south of Sioux Lane, for flushing purposes. This will also correct the previous comment. • 3. The 10 -inch PVC sanitary sewer is not justified by the proposed flows. The sanitary sewer should be 8 inch. An Equal Opportunity Employer John Powell April 4, 2001 Page 2 4. Storm sewer calculations need to be provided for the site. 5. The minimum storm sewer size is 15" RCP. Drainage 1. In the HydroCAD model, all Time of Concentrations were "Direct Entry ". Time of Concentration computations need to be submitted. 2. The 2 and 100 -year storm events were submitted. The City requires rate control for the 1, 10, and 100 -year storm events. Please submit the 1 and 10 -year events. 3. The 2 -year computations used a 3.25" rainfall event. Typically, 2.8" is used for a 2 -year event. How was this value determined? 4. The curve number for soybeans, straight row, good condition is 72, not 78. The computations need to be revised to reflect the correct curve number. 5. The City Surface Water Plan does not allow for dry basins. All basins must be designed to wet NURP basin standards: 2.5" dead storage volume 4:1 side slopes max. 15 feet of 10:1 bench at normal water level 4 feet minimum depth on dead storage 3:1 length to width ratio 6. Storm sewer computations need to be submitted. 7. Storm sewer pipe sizes and slopes are needed on the plan sheets. Miscellaneous 1. Permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District and the Anoka County Highway Department will be needed for this project. If you have any questions or comments regarding this review, please contact me. • INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT #: 21-7a/3/28/01... ' PROJECT: Spirit Hills DATE OF ORIGIN: TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: Concept Plan Reviewed January 31, 2001 Environmental Board Meeting INDIVIDUAL PROJECT TRACKING SHEET CITY OF LINO LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT #: 21 -7 PROJECT: Spirit Hills DATE OF ORIGIN: January 31, 2001 � TO: Environmental Board Members City of Lino Lakes FROM: Marty Asleson Environmental Coordinator OVERVIEW STATEMENTS: 1 Located In the present MUSA 1 Immediately adjacent to a Natural Resources Lake 1 Shore Land Overlay District 1 Planned Greenway through this area STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 1 Sensitive Area 1 Buffering needed 1111 Should be checked for rare and endangered 17apar &_Psxpsariov_BoapS Xtn_oO Aivo Aaxs6 1.... Tree preservation plan needed 0 Ideal area for a PUD Environmental ISSUES: 1 Water Quality 1 Greenway /connectivness • Edge /buffering and rare and endangered ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a made by the January 31, 2001 Environmental Board: summary of the comments 1 No comments about minor subdivision. environmental Board had no concerns. 1 Favorable first look on the expansion to the north. • questions and concerns about greenway /buffer around lake /and land trust and or conservation easement with covenants. • Shoreland overlay /and designated Lake Protection zone( Environmental Plan) Extra care needs to be instilled in development planing on this site. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION /POSITION STATEMENT: the Board reached the following consensus: subdivision1.yes 1....Favorable on initial look at expansionlsee comments above. FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member FINAL VOTE DATE: January 31, 2001 Formal Application made Planned Development Overlay Maps and Drawings included in Packet Yes No 6 • Open Space issue on Development Goertz has indicated that he is o native plant buffers and signage. • Landscape Plan indicates boulevard • Wetland delineation Completed • Natural Resources Lake /Shore Land • Trees on site • Future Commercial expansion area to Ordinary High Water elevation 883.1 sketch is indicated in gray. Mr. pen to a conservation easement with and landscape around the town homes. Overlay District. •• south indicated. 17apico_ &_Pexpeartov_Boaps Xtrt_oq Alva AaiceO • Wetland mitigation needed • Infiltration basins indicated Implied Trail through a proposed greenway area(1992 -2001) STAFF COMMENTS /ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION: 1 Good idea to ask for a conservation easement with signage in the area directly east and west of the lake. Signage should be posted along edge reminding I no mow /disturb) For this to work, there needs to be covenants restricting use and providing for a management agency. A minimum association fee should be set aside for management of this area. A management plan should be developed. The management agency should be the local environmental review board. 1 A Tree preservation plan has been submitted. A site visit and a bit more detail may be needed. 1 .Shoreland Overlay district means that on a sewered lot, building setback must be 150 feet from the ordinary high water level. This needs to be verified. • City Engineering has shown concern for the house pad elevations. Soil may need to be imported to raise the pad elevations. Mr. Goerts has indicated to me that they will need to fill only on two lots if a lift pump can be installed near NE cul de sac 1 .,. The trail proposal through the planned greenway area (conservation easement area) may have physical barriers at the area circled in red on the enclosed GIS map. The county has indicated that they have abandoned this idea. • Ilnfiltration areas are indicated on the North end, and a I Treed) swale overflow on the south central side will be preserved. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFERENCES: ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments made by the March 28, 2001 Environmental Board: Recommendations include all of the staff recommendations listed above in project trac report to The Environmental Board on March 28th, and in addition the Environmental Board made the following recommendations: • Those cul de sacs proposed by the developer to be devoid of curbing are allowed with surface water trained into retention swails along side of the road. • That the angle of the townhomes as positioned on the plan be opened up if possible in the area between the water /tree swaile area on the south side of the townhome area. • That the Environmental Board advises that this is a High Ecological Value Zone based on the City Environmental Inventory, and that wetland 0 should be buffered as much as possible. 17apico_ &_Pe %psarlov_Boap8 Xirt_o0 Aivo Aaresa • . That the Developer has agreed to involve the Environmental Board in the language of Homeowners Association Agreements to include issues such as zero phosphorous use and soil preparation. That the Environmental • Board would be established as the City review Board for the future management of this area. • The use of native plants in drainage and buffer areas. FINAL VOTE COUNT: Board Member FINAL VOTE DATE: Marc 28, 2001 l A EVIRS / • • MENTAL Coordinator Yes No 6 17apKO= &_Pexpeanov_BoapS Xirc_oO Azvo AaKev • oM om a �m QUM Oft ME EOM MOM IMao lEINZ mC® o� -u o0 min 1•1111101 ©MI ©M am aMI MI= MI 0� 0M ■ova v® WINES milri MOWN MI suellimill MIMI MIEN IV MOM ER.=i as -oinms , o� °ai - I ■m■ Ir ' ief?i�9 ,.., j giLVX ...V4,..15110 rumip quakiiime - mommom 11.01 ;'W.. ,. Ennic 1.9 20C113 Palridal BIC P i b la ©, Alwrim f �®� L.Q . ® lit uii� Eg ir�o ev , � y_ �rnetna ee 000 / L1ii _ �> Ii r aIL � '©ct QPOd ®aiGi % p Pip 11 leg, n - WAX' rP NE pZ 4q, � kilo ±1-- �� octi m o m 0 o mm'' Iwo0 neoom000ex sans • • PRELIMINARY PLAT OF: SPIRIT HILLS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION That port of Government Lot 3, and tst pat of the Northeast Qate of the Southeast Quarter of Section 30, T.31, R. 22, Anoka County. M'imeeou lying mealy of the omtaliee of Highway NoA9 and southeasterly of the following deea'bed line: Commencing st the ewebaet COME of said Government Lot 3; thence North 1 degree, It minutes, 49 seconds Bat, assumed baring, along the Oat line thereof 950 feet M the point of beginning of the line to be described; them South 66 degrees, 29 mbmta, 55 moods Wet 721.30 Wet thence South 9 degrees, 08 minutes, 52 seconds West 654.19 feet; hence South 28 degrees, 25 mimeo, SI seconds Wet 881.74 feet, mare or lea, to the ieteteeede with the northmt sty dgbtof way lien of HighwayNo.49 end aid Ilea them terminefiog. Except that pea of said Northeast Queer of Southeast Quieter lying west end south of the following described live: Commencing at the southeast caner of said Northeast QuEt 0 of Southeast Quarter; thence west along the earth line 533.41 feet to • point dhtat 513 feet, more or less, from the iotersectle with the centerline of Highway No.49 and said math Eve, being the point of beginning of the line to be daubed; them north E right mogla 538 feet; thence went E right engine 62834 feet, more ales, to the centerline of aid Highway No.49 and said line there emmlotlng. Subject to Highway No.49, and except theme platted a Anoka County Right-of-Wm Fla No.I1. Monet A M. O. Oft f. VICINITY MAP TREE LEGEND: H DENOTES HICKORY AP DENOTES APPLE SP DENOTES SPRUCE A DENOTES ASH PL DENOTES POPULAR C DENOTES CEDAR RO DENOTES RED OAK M DENOTES MAPLE P DENOTES PINE BX DENOTES BOX ELDER E DENOTES ELM LEGEND: DENOTES SOIL BORING -0 DENOTES UTILITY POLE goi.o DENOTES SPOT ELEVATION o DENOTES SET IRON MONUMENT • DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT Q DENOTES ANOKA COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT AREA BRFAKDONN TOWNHOUSE UNITS • 49 TOTAL MULTI FAMILY AREA (NET) 12.87 AC. SINGLE FAMILY LOTS • 31 TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT AREA (NET) • 16.15 AC. AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AREA • 22,687 SO .FT TOTAL RIGHT —OF —WAY AREA • 5.00 AC. TOTAL BUSINESS AREA • 167 A(' TOTAL AREA • 35.69 Ac. 70 EXISTING ZONING IS R -1 TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT 42 SETBACK LINE 1-J HSE GAR r 80 FT MIN. Street 10.800 SO. FT. MIN. 42 42 2 UNITS 2, 70 70 f 2f 42 30 3 UNITS TYPICAL TOWNHOME LOT SIZES AND AREAS 42 30 FT. FROM CITY STREET R —O —W 30 FT. BETWEEN REAR AND SIDE YARDS 15 FT. BETWEEN TOWN —HOME SIDES 24 FT. PRIVATE ROADS 24 FT. PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS �.g Ono ., ny ! ! — �1 SO .11 / ! ( tn4 \ 1 ek/j /rya �/ •y rJ, / ., / 3 c 4, / .1.4e.42310 I / 4 I / am/ iy I 1 1' I / I I Cre,. // Loner `. o MId \TI trIR8'14 1,31.36 BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENTS. GLENN EHBElN COMPANIES NO sea 0! l0 Al. 1114 :+? a / G CPl"L l' //1 �14�a ® N1a' �µ 11 H4 N0�.�9 mw/r 2. I ` �C \N.:10 ; 0. Ily2w x 11 1 r at: A _ .312— -- -- \ �a'; {tl N8�14'le•w t`•�'� \l 305.09 a s • a l 1 1 I 9B' _ Nt993'4rw 4SL 1..._l!^ l —_ -% S 11.91 44 \ SEX WON ,i cac ( :! , EXCEPTION tail Hagbborihmd�bma ine I '..7.-..-- 1 I i t / SB dt.JiT ze.-.. sea rt TIM �h ac � 7 --r...:::_' [ S LFe of NE 1/4 SE I/4 — — \ / / c Ire 1" n 21)&03- _ _ .. / C `�_ /r line C.B. A. N. 10 1488 #6 tee RECEIVED MAR 1 3 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES GRAPHIC SCALE a to fO 400 (III Mt') 1 inch w 100 R • • • PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE ▪ SO 12, IMO (Di PELT I 1 linch BO ft. 100 '(R. = 886.0 OH' 3811 _ A00 •iir& 1313-• 014 as6 ° • • 883.0 883.6, ..ef" 5) NO° /; •" A83.6 ,/ • ( - i I 1_4 883.06 If) 88.1 gZ): 6) 1(2 • •>I ! (51 LI ! !• a) ;7) I-, c4 '1,------ i t..---.--- I • C - 7 ' ' /1 L ..) • / .../ .• 1.‘ • ../ / ____ 883.4 • / 885.3 883.3 \i/ x Q ef? 1 I • EE—SHEET 2 OF 5 (HEREBY CERTIFY THAT PUN OR SPECIFICATON WAS PREPARED BY IAE OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA W.A.T. McCULLY NO.2,1L3B ••=••••,S c=s -•••=C C1721C 1:=C Ui IN CD L J C) f=1 :5 Ui H- cn LJ -cc cD DRAWN DRL CHECKED WATL1 DATE 03/12/2001 VERTICAL SCALE HORIZ. 1" : 60' JOB NO. 00109 BOOK PAGE SHEET OF 5 SHEETS.," PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN, GRAPHIC SCALi. 110 /- \--3a2-•- 881.8 ; x ,,. _ 1 883.4 SEE SHEET 1 OF 5 885.3 883.3 \i„.• 0 .*• , • q9; C:5 • ( IN PI= ) 1ch-6O 60 H. SHED S. ,, - - ,,.. -1/4.---1,,30. - 62854' •:-- -San 5'02"E ,,...1 _ .... ,N,.... .... s ..), , % .....,.., ,, 1 ^....•.... '93 -37 . fn6*--• ‘1..i14 3 \ \ -----NE'ly ):/vi'l line of; -0 • n : 1,) •••.: /, r .2.-_-...-_-:',........ ------ •- 4 \ 3V4 ' Stotti..Hwy. NO .49 ... 1 J 1 ? , "1i 1 I I, a 8?.)' .,'-' \-, - : g's•-. " •a...• */, •;- 0 ra 1 I'l - -:::r i- . Yi ... tC3°' t 895.6 x . 11 "°0 .' LA: 11 tO ( il 1 't. ■I -• -: 441 ll (...1°)4 .1a. Co .14.0C1 I 1 11! I — I ■/' f XCEPTION ‘ 1 I k 1 '• i - ,• /.- :`;;;,2 - - - - _. s. 0 ., 1 --c-,-, '. 1Z _..... "...11.. I< ..o o /1 Ti- - ; 3 Lii : Lj.•' Li -"'--->:-.. <,. )....1- 67 < E.E..''':4 cn .- ... ... _ _:•,. \ . ., r-r-.-c-1 fl' '1'"). `11 N. r /w line C.S.A.H. 10 . .... .‘--, EXCEPTION x 893.5 , • ) • ‘...-• -,...-- - _ ,.. • -_•... ).• 3.... 1- 5- ). ..., s.• Iq ...- r, k ..._-/ /......„..---_,L----- Neighborhood: business „,.., 11 :' 1 899.8 X C i•- • .„------r Di- - -, ..,-- =.---..J_--- ) CZ Id I 0 1 I r 1 1 1 -.4,...,7 1— — — — _,.. 0•41_1_612-CIR=sirtzt:Einkti=rsrcolv-......::::_p....33-61:1",.1_....„_. F,----...... i = ......-. -._.,..„--,-. 208:03- -- - ..... 2..;?-1" -.1 —...._ 7... . , _ 7•_•__......_____•._____J___ ,c..., ...._...., , ow -8-, : '. jr_IF:T3,-"telqi-a-eF lin-e-E3TrrS171\18B22$ Q'''W - -,;-r- P" - - 1:* .c l'',- - - - , / .,..—• ....„.c._ k-••._ _ — - .... _—.. •... „.7.... „. _ • -- it c_. I t. --- — .. ._ .._ _ .._ _ _ _ — _ _ ._.. _ ... — \ . —_. r--. , •- ,n4J •-••-•";- 1 • • > 3 /1'EREBY CERTIFY SHAT 111; PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I All A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER DIE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA W.A. T. UcCULLY ........PEG NO c=7:. I=C 1:== 8=3C LU LU DRAWN DRL CHECKED WAN DATE 03/12/2001 VERTICAL SCALE HORIZ. : 60' JOB NO. 00109 BOOK PAGE SHEET 2 OF 5 SHEETS2 f i VITAS w+ At `4+ Nee 03. i • • • WETLAND REPLACEMENT AND SOIL & EROSION CONTROL PLAN WETLAND MITIGATION NOTES SEED AND MULCH GRADED AREA WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF COMPLETION OF ROUGH GRADING PROVIDE AN UNDULATING BOTTOM FOR AQUATIC VEGETATION DIVERSITY EXCAVATION OF SOME WETLAND BANKING AREAS TO BE DONE BEFORE ANY FILLING TAKES PLACE AQUATIC ROOTING ZONE MATERIAL SHALL BE RE- SPREAD FROM FILLED WETLAND TO A PART OF THE NEWLY CREATED WETLAND A iA PHOTO CONTROL POINTS SHALL BE THE WEIR STRUCTURE AND ROCK OVERFLOWS (SEE GRADING PLAN FOR LOCATION AND ELEVATION) CONTACT PERSON IIWAM McCULLY - GLENN REHBEIN CO. WETLAND LOCATED IN SECTION 30. TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22 DRAINS TOWARDS RICE LAKE. RICE CREEK WATERSHED RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT NPDES PERMIT NEEDS TO BE OBTAINED FOR THE WORK NEW WETLAND SHALL BE SEEDED WITH A MODIFIED MNDOT 25A SEED MIXTURE SEEDED AT A RATE OF 50 LBS PER ACRE MULCH RATE SHALL BE 2 TONS PER ACRE *000 I I L't I'll, , E- rJ =IA[ 1'My sf 1 . DEVELOPER MAY ENHANCE AREA WITH OTHER VARIETIES SUCH AS WILDFLOWER MIXES ACCESS AND INSPECTION SHALL BE DONE FROM THE ROAD OFF WARE ROAD NO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE SHALL BE RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC CONSERVATION PROGRAMS IN ORDER TO DO THIS WORK ROUGHENED SIDE SLOPES WITH A SLOPE OF NO MORE THAN 5:1 WILL ESTABUSH A ZERO MAINTENANCE ZONE CONSERVATION BUFFER WHICH SHALL BE SIGNED EVERY 300 FEET TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL SHALL REVIEW WETLAND DELJNEATION WITH APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE AND MONITORING CONSULTANT AFTER I GROWING SEASON OR WHEN WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS ARE EVIDENT -4.1 4= Av. • y,:;, : • •i yi v 11L7S`i 4LOOS; WOO- I II I tt t// 74 re � i/1 T . i— I` F I TOTAL WETLAND FILL = 12.414 SF TOTAL WETLAND MITIGATION - 25,104 SF TOTAL FLOODPLAIN FILL - 106 CY TOTAL FLOODPLAIN MITIGATION - 332 CY � F I 1 -I OW:3 . 00, rD--■ xurar K GRAPHIC SCALE ( DE TQT) 1 Dada - 100 IL (HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS. PLAN OR SPECF1CARON WAS PREPARED BT It OR UNDER MT DI1ECT SUPERNSOW MO THAT I AMA OILY IEOSTEfED PROFESSIONAL EROREFR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA W.AT. McOILY Ip iE. W� ND.Z11y / DRAWN DRL CHECKED WAIL DATE 03/12 2001 VERTICAL HORIX. :101' JOB NO. 00109 BOOK PAGE SHEET 3 OF 5 SHEETS} ILL; -r CZC "1 PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN PLAN • .1; ; if .1 — ‘`/ • , . : , •,,, •,,,,,........„.4, .,...-■ I. L- t i 1 i Li !•./ ''''‘t . ■ . 7,1•-• : 3 I I : — • , -' I- I L . ! N r • „. • / .4 i ,r - "T_ si 47411., , " • ":‘,..t0900_,..--1 7.7:7 19.1.6t,.ptli-L9N ..__ _ ____,_ __ , . • f- i ,-40-• i I, oPP, 6 I . l''''''',.. • ' I — .r 1 ilVOZ 1 - - - I I',.... .... \ r. •". t I C \I 4. • • GRAPHIC SCALE 40 MO 1•0 WO c---I, ,._. _..1 : It H ‘ j ■ i i r....., i __—.1 \ 11_F- 1 --, I, I _ ..1 i 1.....J / ; i , ........ ........„1 i , , 1 I 1 , 1 / i ,-....ii ! ! L. i I i i li I f----1 I „, , , .,,-„, 4 ,, i LrI.' , t, t..., i I. I 9 (I I ! ,... t ' to ....,•.3, 7 V : On; T"...:, I! ; 1, .,... ini ..... ZrkiE 1 .0C .3% ."3 tri.1.324.C‘ ' r i _...„- ,.....c.20-1 * oD....,117.0 • -'," * I. i \ . is i °et, I— — — M:l:-.... ÷ a...,... i *'" — -t--- r (IN FELT ) I inch 80 N. < 7 7 15•5087.73 35 1 • .... I , .... , , 1 , (......,,A.O.A......,..,....,,,,..V.,,....i • . . 897.0C F *0* -skk). \s, rm".‘ ks• . • • . 3S 10 3N1 1,3 ro 35 - N* M▪ IMS \ •.,„ ; 'V.., et-rvvy VY.11 I I I WWI .N • , .) \ , __ 4. .., 4 SO .....ifostot.LR5 \ \ ....,•• ‘ 1 --- A••• toop...„ . \ . ftl 4. wWea, o. • .13' • 3 • 040,41.31505 - pok 1/41 " • • •. • ."0 ' s97.0-- Wcr gi 'VS •-90 Cita - +0 LEGEND EXISTING FORCEMAIN EXISTING WATERMAIN PROPOSED 8" CL52 WATERMAIN PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER I I • "-,:- • ; FM t I 4.1209e,_:-/99 .0 a 1 RI; a Z To 8 z 4.4 _ Niv3:3 63 si av 03 6 0. 1.61 90 LIP ,i,7;„ -7,---;; 1 % II t I ., ,' / .., ,,, V-----icIN 0, Iii LI° 4-, i ‘ it "-) -.-.-- j P.+4/1 . I ,•r„,.. ....... : 4 I/ 1 .o „,.....- _ - i LI • —tz, 1 t I . : 7 ...-„ \ ,1,., 4"/ ew ft J -7i- --1- ..-_,,,•,....._,:cr..?-27....5,;(_s:4,s_....tro,.,--4414-90-0.-::: J-33AR:71141-443i6-..42313-. -- 03 (HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TN:\ PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERASION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA W.A.T. McCULLY NO.23136,1 cn --=.c .-- -..c -...I O=3C CD z 0 DRAWN WAN CHECKED WAN DATE • 03/11/2001 VERTICAL SCALE HORIZ. 80' JOB NO. 0 0 1 09 BOOK PAGE SHEET 4 OF 5 SHLt • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. C Jeff Smyser April 11, 2001 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment: MUSA Allocation Rezoning Preliminary Plat Saddle Club, Old Birch St. The P & Z continued the public hearing at the March meeting. Design issues have not been resolved. RECOMMENDATION Continue the public hearing to the May meeting. • • • AGENDA ITEM V. D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: April 11, 2001 TOPIC: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Rezone to PDO, Preliminary Plat Dellwood LLC (Ryan Companies, Target Project) BACKGROUND The P & Z continued the public hearing at the March meeting. Design issues have not been resolved. RECOMMENDATION Continue the public hearing to the May meeting. STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. E Jeff Smyser April 11, 2001 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat, 12th & Holly Land Holding Group The P & Z continued the public hearing at the March meeting. Design issues have not been resolved. RECOMMENDATION Continue the public hearing to the May meeting. • • • • • AGENDA ITEM V. F STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: April 11, 2001 TOPIC: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Tree Ordinance BACKGROUND At the February meeting, the discussion and public hearing was continued to the April meeting. We have determined that the unresolved issues for a new tree preservation ordinance will require significant time and effort. In short, we are regrouping on this project. Staff cannot predict when we will be able to address the issues. Therefore, we recommend closing the public hearing. We will bring up the discussion again in the future and re- initiate the public hearing process. Until then, there is nothing to be accomplished by keeping this project on the P & Z agenda. RECOMMENDATION Close the public hearing. • • NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Smyser, City Planner FROM: Cynthia Putz -Yang / Alan Brixius DATE: February 6, 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. FEB -06 -2001 12:07 NAC 612 595 9837 P.04/07 Oak. Park 1-i4 1-3 I-1 ��'wc4 13H51'ness LJare.tioliS.✓<3 D; a44— 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. The provisions of Section 401.03.A.7 of this Ordinance are considered and satisfactorily met. • • P• q• 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. I. 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 -06 -2001 12:0e NAC 612 595 9837 P.05/07 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 401.15.8.14 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. 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 FEB -06 -2001 12 08 NAC vt� U as. c. ' w�.r` - } - 4.144(10)( b) (ix) 4.144(10)(b) (x) 4.144(10)(b) (xi) 612 595 9837 P.06/07 1 ,e f du S+Y ro( 51Y.. .T %b At.' 'tiL, (/'jc )/, 2/ / c� 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)(elf Storage (mini warehouse I Facilities. Provided that: 4.144(11) (a) 4.144(11) (b) 4.144(11) (c) 4.144(11) (d) 4.144(11) (e) 4.144(11) (f) 4.144(11) (g) 4.144(11)(h) 4.144(11) (i) 4.144(11) (J) (Code 072684) 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 Coveram 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 structures are to be within two hundred feet of a fire hydrant. Sprier 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. Caretaker 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 612 595 9837 P.07/07 4.144(11) (k) Buildinz 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) 0) 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) • 4.141 (12) Outdoor Storage of Propane or LP 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(12) (b) 4.144(12) (c) 4.144(12) (d) 4.144(12) (e) 4.144(12) (0 4.144(12) (g) 4.144(12) (h) U-1.4.14-4 (13) 4.144 (14) Location. All propane or LP gas outdoor storage ranks 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 tanks 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. Wes. 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 srnoldng 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) Adult Uses - Principal. Subject to the regulations of §4.039C and $4.20 of this Code. (Ord. 92 -06) Personal Wireless Service Antenna Towers. Personal wireless service antenna towers in conformance with §4.039D of this Code. 4 -128 072684 TOTAL P.07 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1