The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/13/2001 P&Z Packet• AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 9, 2001 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. Glenn Valentine, 64th Street and 20th Ave, Variance, Jeff Smyser B. Brian Iverson, 20th Avenue, Minor Subdivision, Jeff Smyser C. Item Deleted D. Lino Lakes Family Dentistry, Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review, Cindy Sherman (NAC) E. PUBLIC HEARING Centennial School District, Birch St. Site, Rezone, Al Brixius (NAC) F. PUBLIC HEARING Centennial School District, New Elementary School Site, Rezone, Minor Subdivision, Al Brixius (NAC) G. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition, Preliminary Plat, Cindy Sherman (NAC) H. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive, Cindy Sherman (NAC) I. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Land Holding Group, 12th & Holly, Preliminary Plat, Cindy Sherman (NAC) J. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Pinnacle Towers, 870 Birch Street, Rezone, Amend C.U.P., Amend Zoning Ordinance, Cindy Sherman (NAC) K. North American Composites, Amend Condition of Approval for Site Plan, Jeff Smyser VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Packet Delivery VII. ADJOURN • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT May 9, 2001 6.30 P.M. : 10:30 P.M. Corson, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty, Schaps, and Zych. (arrived at 7:14 p.m.) None : City Engineer Powell; Economic Development Director Brian Wessel (part); Cindy Sherman (NAC) I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning a c Zoning Bo p.m., May 9, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 11, Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board Motion carried 5 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGEND meeting to order at 6:30 utes of the April 11, 2001, meeting of the esented, and was supported by Ms. Lane. The agenda was approved as presented. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared Open Mike open at 6:37 p.m. Theresa O'Connell introduced herself as a member of the Environmental Board and offered to answer questions the Planning and Zoning Board may have regarding their recommendations. No one else was present for Open Mike. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. John Cartier, 2088 80th Street E., Variance Staff presented the application by explaining the applicant, Mr. Cartier, has submitted an application for a variance from the prohibition on building an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principal building. Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining the City's zoning ordinance states that "no detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal building or its attached garage (Section 3 Subd. 4.D.1.c.)." The existing house is toward the southwest corner of the property and the septic system is to the southwest of the house. Considering the need for an alternate drainfield site, there is little land left for an accessory building. It was noted that the land to the southeast of the house is lowland and unbuildable. Staff noted the aerial photo does show an area that appears to be a pocket pond, possibly wetland. The area noted as "drainage" on the drawing corresponds to a type of soil with seasonally high water table, according tothe County soil survey prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. Staff noted it is possible that the accessory buil g could be built in the far southeast corner of the site, but that would require driving .gh the wet area to reach it from the house. Mr. Cartier wants to build a 40' b .0' or 40 70' accessory building. This site is approximately ten acres so the applicant otal of 4,200 square feet of accessory space, including the attached gara The garage is approximately 868 square feet, which leaves 3,332 square feet 40' b 0' building would be 2,800 square feet. Staff read the five findings /it= as stated in the zoning ordinance, that the City shall make in considering all uests f' variance in taking subsequent action. Staff noted it would be unrea .'.le to require a driveway through the wet area to reach the far southeast corner of the property. The landowner's intent to use the new building for an agriculture use fits with the purpose of the Rural zoning district. Staff recommends approving the variance conditioned on a building permit being obtained before construction of the accessory building begins. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. John Cartier, applicant, stated he has nothing to add to the staff report and would appreciate approval of his variance request since there is no other location that would work. Chair Schaps asked if any of the neighbors have raised objections. Mr. Cartier stated there have been no objections. Mr. Corson asked the intended use. Mr. Cartier stated he has ten acres but has access to additional family -owned property and would like to use the building to park his equipment inside. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 3 Mr. Corson asked if he is aware that a business cannot be operated from this building. Mr. Cartier stated he does understand that and plans to keep a dirt floor; however, he would like to sell vegetables. Mr. Corson explained that a contracting or other type of business operation cannot be run from this accessory building. Mr. Cartier stated he does not intend to do so. Mr. Lyden explained the intent of the ordinance is to protect the neighbors and asked how close this building will be to the neighbor's property. Mr. Cartier explained that the buildings are approximately ten acres apart in distance and his neighbors have not voiced any objections. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the variance request of John Cartier at 2088 80th Street to construct an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principal building conditioned on the following: 1. A building permit must be obtained before construction of the accessory building begins. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Glenn Valentine, 64th Street and 20th Avenue, Variance B. Staff recommended this item be ,`:lei 'o theyne 13, 2001 Board meeting since there was not adequate time to prepare Ms. Lane made a MOT u? consideration of the variance request of Glenn Valentine at 64th Street and20th A enue, to the June 13, 2001 meeting, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. C. PUBLIC HEARING, Stat Transport Systems, 416 Lilac Street, Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:45 p.m. Staff presented the application by explaining the applicant, Craig Hubbard and Steve Lawrence of Stat Transportation, have submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a truck freight transfer service station on the property located at 416 Lilac Drive. The subject property is zoned GI, General Industrial District. Truck freight transfer service stations are a conditionally permitted use in the GI District. Staff advised that the subject property has two existing conditional use permits, granted in September of 2000. The first allowed expansion of an existing pole barn, while the second allowed outdoor storage. Together, these permits allowed Central Suburban, Inc. to operate a land development and construction company on this site. This use involved the storage of trucks, equipment, and construction materials. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 4 Staff explained that the new use will be a trucking company. The company operates six straight trucks and five semis. These trucks depart the site daily between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., Monday through Friday, and return between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. for parking overnight. Occasionally, trucks will return to the site with freight that is stored overnight and delivered the next day. The site contains an existing building which the applicant will use for a small office for administrative purposes and a shop area for maintenance of the trucks and trailers. Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining that the applicant has indicated that they plan to add a loading dock. The applicant must submit a site plan showing the location of this loading dock and demonstrate that it conforms with Section 3, Subdivision 6 of the City Code. Staff presented the eight conditions, according to Section 8, Subdivision 2.I.8, that must be weighed when considering a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a truck freight transfer service in the GI District. Staff also presented staff's findings related to each of the eight conditions as listed below: 1. Vehicle access points shall be located al,; g r ways raving sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by t use and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Finding: Access to the site comes fr. Lila riv- The 1997 Transportation Plan designates Lilac Drive as a minor of $ tor. 1 's road should be capable of accommodating the traffic from thi ever, the City Engineer should confirm this finding. 2. A drainage system s'iib'ect k • the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed. Finding: The applicant's survey shows a drainage and utility easement along the site's south property line. The survey also indicates that only a small portion of the parking and storage area will be surfaced with black top, while the balance will be gravel. The City Engineer should review this survey and determine if this design is capable of accommodating the site's drainage needs. 3. Storage areas are landscaped, screened from view of neighboring uses, abutting residential zoning districts, and public rights -of -way in compliance with Section 3, Subdivision 4.S. Finding: According to the applicant's survey, there is an existing fence surrounding the area designated for truck parking, loading and storage. However, it does not indicate the type or height of this fence. According to Section 3, Subdivision 4.S, this fence must be six feet high and provide a solid screen. Staff assumes that this existing fence meets these standards 4. Each light standard base shall be landscaped. • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 5 Finding: According to the applicant's survey, the site contains no light standards. 5. Vehicle access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement and shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Finding: This site has one access to Lilac Drive along its northern property line. This access should provide adequate vehicle movement through the site. 6. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of Appendix C of the City Code. Finding: Staff assumes that Stat Transportation will install new signage. All new signs must comply with the City's Sign Ordinance and a separate permit is required. 7. Provisions shall be made to control and minimize noise, air and water pollution. Finding: As with all commercial and industrial prope his site will be required to meet the performance standards for noise, air and ' r pollution. 8. All conditions pertaining to a specific site '' subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a f al request, finds that the general welfare or public betterment can be served as V eI fir better by modifying the conditions. Finding: The City may review t itions of this permit and require the applicant to comply with any changes necess. • ',the original intent of the permit as well as the health, safety and generwelfare b he community. Staff recommended approv9f a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a Truck Freight Transfer Service Statibj n the property located at 416 Lilac Drive based on the findings and subject to the four conditions listed in the staff report. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Steve Lawrence, applicant, explained their delivery business and stated they are currently operating from Mr. Hubbard's basement. Craig Hubbard, applicant, explained the need for better organization. Chair Schaps asked about the typical hours of operation. Mr. Hubbard stated they have six straight tucks and would operate from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Lawrence estimated one semitruck in town at a time. • Chair Schaps asked if deliveries will come in during the day hours. Mr. Lawrence stated that could occur on occasion. Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 6 • Chair Schaps asked if neighbors have voiced objections. Mr. Lawrence stated they are • not aware of any objections. Ms. Lane asked if the semitrucks will idle all night. Mr. Lawrence stated they have plug - ins so the trucks will not be idling all night. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 6:51 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Lyden stated he understands that this is an appropriate use for this Industrially zoned property; however, it is his opinion that it is not good to have semitrucks using the same streets that the neighborhoods use. He asked about point #5 and whether this is a legitimate concern. Mr. Powell stated this road is a collector County street and does not go through the neighborhood. He noted this lot was used by a previous trucking/hauling firm and there were no significant problems with that prior use. He statotaff anticipates no conflict with the proposed use. Mr. Lyden stated it is his personal opinion that the LalDrivc rridor is where families live and there are large acreage parcels on the easts• °e of the City for commercial service areas that would not result in a mixed use t(uation. Mr. Corson asked if an annual review of thi or if it could be reviewed shouldyrobl permits run with the property but i • that conditions can be plac revocation could result. ondr ional use permit would be appropriate s oc r Mr. Powell stated conditional use ntent to review them annually. He noted royal and if the conditions are violated, Ms. Lane made a MOTION t •= commend approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a Truck Freig t Transfer Service Station on the property located at 416 Lilac Drive, based on the findings contained in the staff report and subject to the following conditions. 1. All drainage plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. The site's perimeter fence must comply with the performance standards outlined in Section 3, Subdivision 4.S. 3. All signage must comply with the City Sign Ordinance. 4. This site must comply with all applicable or unmet conditions outlined in the September 25, 2000 staff report for Central Suburban, Inc. 5. The trucks will not be allowed to idle when not in use or between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Lyden asked about on -site maintenance of these trucks. Mr. Hubbard stated they will do minor truck maintenance but would pull the truck into the garage bay. He explained that any major maintenance would probably be done off -site. Motion carried 5 -0. D. PUBLIC HEARING, Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition, Preliminary Plat (Continue Public Hearing) Staff advised the applicant has withdrawn this application so it can be revised and recommended it be tabled to the June 13, 2001 Board meeting. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue consideration of the Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition preliminary plat to the June 13, 2001 meeting, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. E. PUBLIC HEARING, Community National Ban t, Rezone Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 7 :00 p. Staff presented the application by Community National Bank for a rezoning of the property located at 7651 Lake Drive fro B, Neighborhood Business District to GB, General Business District. The subject pro. ° ocated directly north of the existing bank and the rezoning will allow i e ba to expand its existing parking lot. The applicant will also need to recei .lan roval prior to construction of the parking lot. Staff presented its analysisof the qu Est, noting that according to Section 2, Subdivision 1, of the City Code, the P Arngommission and City Council shall weigh five factors when considering a rezoning west. These factors and staff's findings for each were presented as follows: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the City's official Comprehensive Plan. Finding: Rezoning this site from NB, Neighborhood Business District to GB, General Business District is consistent with policies and provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. However, these policies and provisions should also be examined during the site plan review process. Examples of these policies include: a. The Proposed Land Use Map guides this area for commercial use. b. Develop service and commercial centers as cohesive, highly interrelated units with adequate off - street parking. c. Blend commercial redevelopment which is of a similar size and scale with existing businesses and which is supportable by available markets. • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 8 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The Existing Land Use Map indicates that the subject property is bordered by a commercial use to the south, vacant land to the east (across Lake Drive), and residential uses to the north and west. The Proposed Land Use Map guides the surrounding properties for commercial use. Therefore, expansion of the bank use on this site is consistent with the future land use plan for this area. 3. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. Finding: At this time, the applicant is only requesting a rezoning. That application appears to meet the standards for rezoning outlined in the City Code. However, prior to actual construction of the proposed parking lot, the applicant must receive approval of a site plan in compliance with all applicable performance standards and combine this lot with that of the existing bank. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with ng public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Finding: Rezoning this site from NB, Neigh .o d Business District to GB, General Business District will not overburden the 't 's service capacity. However, this finding is contingent on the applicant combining oprty with the bank site Creating an independent General Business lot in his loc: "on culd have other issues. Nevertheless, the planned devel n additional parking area on this site may affect the capacity of City r to issuance of a buildin g P ermit, the applicant will be required to receists appro a site plan. During this review, staff will more closely examine this develti end effect on City services. 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: Rezoning this site from NB, Neighborhood Business District to GB, General Business District will not have an adverse effect on traffic at the site. However, the actual design of the parking lot may have an effect on future traffic flow. Staff will more thoroughly examine traffic issues during the site plan review process. Staff presented the options of consideration available to the Board and recommended rezoning the property located at 7651 Lake Drive from NB, Neighborhood Business District to GB, General Business District. This recommendation is based on the findings and two conditions contained in the staff report. • Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Curt Martinson, representing Community National Bank, explained they need additional parking since they now have a total of 35 employees, eight to nine at this location. In • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 9 addition, they hold real estate closings which result in the need for additional parking. Mr. Martinson stated they purchased additional property that is zoned Neighborhood Business and are requesting a rezoning to General Business so it can be used for parking. Mr. Corson asked if the driveway from Lake Drive will be used. Mr. Martinson answered affirmatively and stated Anoka County Commissioner Margaret Langfeld has obtained a letter of approval from Anoka County Highway Engineer Jon Olson. Mr. Lyden asked if they will add drive -thru lanes. Mr. Martinson stated they have no plans at the present time. Ms. Lane asked if this will be a divided roadway in the future. Mr. Powell stated the County has initiated a reconstruction road project and will propose a divided section. However, the City has indicated it prefers one lane in each direction with a shared turn lane. Mr. Martinson stated they are aware of that project in the iiscussions with the County. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearin at 7:05 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. Ms. Lane asked if the homes to the north Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martinson state purchased currently contains a house,but is office. zoned for commercial in the proposed erty adjacent to the lot they ed as a commercial chiropractic Mr. Powell stated the draft LAY e,- identifies that parcel as Commercial. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to r ommend approval of rezoning the property located at 7651 Lake Drive from NB, Ng borhood Business District to GB, General Business District based on the findings made in the staff report and subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicant must submit and receive approval of a minor subdivision application prior to construction of any kind on this site. 2. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of a detailed site plan in conformance with all applicable performance standards for properties in the GB District prior to construction of any kind on this site. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. F. PUBLIC HEARING, Pinnacle Towers, 870 Birch Street, Rezone, Amend C.U.P. Amend Zoning Ordinance Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 7:07 p.m. • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 10 Staff presented the application by explaining the applicant, Pinnacle Towers, Inc., submitted an application requesting a zoning amendment, rezoning, and a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 530 -foot tower on the property located at 870 Birch Street. The site is currently zoned R -1, Single Family Residential District and has a conditional use permit to allow an existing 500 -foot tower. Should the City approve these requests, the applicant must still request and receive approval of a detailed site plan and conditional use permit in conformance with all applicable performance standards prior to actual construction of the tower. Staff noted the existing 500 -foot tower was granted a special use permit in 1973. The City amended that permit in 1993 to allow a new building on this site. In 1997, the City adopted a new Zoning Ordinance. The following year, the City amended the Code with Ordinance 01 -98, which allowed towers up to 200 feet as a conditional use in the Rural and Industrial Zoning Districts. The end result of these changes is that the existing tower is allowed to continue in its present form as a legal non - conforming use. Staff advised there are several reasons why this site i ° rig appropriate use for both the existing and proposed tower. First, the site's size any • tion make it relatively isolated. Second, this relatively isolated location helps ma tower use on this site compatible with the surrounding uses. In general, tower u ha =aa lowimpact on surrounding uses because they don't have the operational issue w= sociated with other commercial or industrial uses. Finally, according to the applicant' vey, approximately two - thirds of the site is covered with a wooded wetlands It;i: reasonable to assume that allowing this use to continue will protect and retainnthe wc tied vetland area as open space. Staff presented its analysis of the 500 -foot tower with a new reviewed the five factor 4_ ccordi Planning Commission an Cit? 11 request to allow them to replace the existing r request as contained in the staff report. Staff ection 2, Subdivision 1 of the City Code, that the Council shall weigh when considering zoning amendments or rezoning requests. These factor and staff's findings for each are as follows: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the City's official Comprehensive Plan. Finding: Both the zoning text amendment and rezoning of this site from R, Rural to PSP, Public and Semi Public District are consistent with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Some of these policies are listed below: a. Avoid premature urban expansion into rural areas of the City. b. Develop a cohesive land use pattern that insures compatibility and functional relationships among activities. c. Prevent over - intensification of land use development, in other words, development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 11 d. Balance land use types throughout the City. Avoid an over - allocation of land use types on a sub -area or planning district basis. 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The Existing Land Use Map shows this site is bordered by vacant and low density residential uses to the north, commercial uses to the east and south and low density residential uses to the west. By comparison, the Proposed Land Use Map illustrates this property is bordered by low density unsewered residential property to the north and south and low density sewered residential property to the east and west. Staff finds that the proposed use will be compatible with the present and future land uses. 3. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. Finding: The applicable performance standards for this use will be dependent on the outcome of the zoning text amendment and rezoning req;ts. Our review assumes that the City will approve the zoning amendment to alio i ?io and television broadcasting towers in excess of 200 feet in height as a con w anal rise in the PSP District and a rezoning of this site from R, Rural District to PSPPublid and Semi Public District. �zK Should the City approve these applications, th °`ate will be in conformance with the applicable performance standards. 4. The proposed use can be accp 1, mod acit overburden the City's se h existing public services and will not Finding: In general, radio maa a vi ij broadcasting towers are not large users of City services. This use will . ve a re atiVely low impact on City services and should not overburden their capacity. 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: Television and radio tower sites have no employees and only a minimum amount of related ground equipment. As a result, this type of use will produce little traffic and have little impact on surrounding roads. The proposed tower site has access from CSAH 10, which is also known as Birch Street. According to the Functional Classification System Plan, CSAH 10 is a Minor Arterial Route. This use should generate an insignificant amount of traffic and be well within the capabilities of this road. However, the Engineer should comment on its impact on surrounding roads. Staff presented the Zoning Code text amendment that would result and recommended approval of a zoning text amendment to permit television and radio broadcasting towers in excess of 200 feet as a conditional use within the PSP, Public and Semi Public District and a rezoning of the property located at 870 Birch Street from R, Rural District to PSP, Public and Semi Public District based on the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 12 Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Chad Lemmons, representing Pinnacle Towers, Inc., stated staff did a good job of presenting their request and explained the current tower cannot accommodate additional towers. He stated the intended use is for cellular communications. Chair Schaps asked if they have any current buyers of space. Mr. Lemmons stated there are none he knows of. He explained they are requesting 35 feet to add more guidewires and assure it is structurally sound to accommodate additional users. Mr. Corson stated this is an obvious location but he would like additional details on how the tower will appear. Mr. Lemmons stated it will be identically to the existing tower except it will be taller. Mr. Corson stated he has no objection to that, but would like a written indication that is what will occur. Chair Schaps noted other communities are no longer requiring towers of this height and he understands the skepticism. He asked if the information on the structure can be provided in writing. Mr. Lemmons stated he will paidet?;information. Chair Schaps asked if time is of the essence or i this can be considered in June. Mr. Lemmons stated the construction schedul: • set and they would like to get this done as quickly as possible. n_ Mr. Lyden stated this issue has me re tdo wbest practices, policy and procedure. He noted there is to be no expansion until su 1itime as a City -wide plan is in place. He noted that text amendment affect all PSB, ° 'ust this site. He commented on the need for a broad perspective to assuAother :{ as of Lino Lakes are not impacted. Mr. Lyden stated his support of the Environ tal ;• ard's recommendation on the need for a City -wide plan. Mr. Lemmons stated that he understands that concern; however, the conditional use permit can assure that protection. Mr. Zych arrived at 7:14 p.m. Mr. Powell advised that Mr. Smyser attempted to develop a City -wide tower plan and contacted surrounding committees but he had a great deal of difficult in obtaining information from tower users which was needed to develop a City -wide plan. Mr. Lyden asked if the site of the wellhouse on Birch is a potential site for a radio tower. Mr. Powell stated that site is City owned and sized to accommodate future water system treatment of that well. Chair Schaps stated he does not know exactly what is being proposed and would like to see more detailed plans since this is a rather major reconstruction in a more developed • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 13 area than when the tower was first constructed. He asked Mr. Lemmons if he could return to the June meeting to present those plans. Mr. Lemmons stated he is unable to answer that question but understands this is a priority project. He reiterated they will provide copies of the plan and answer all questions raised. He pointed out they will have to return for the conditional use permit anyway. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Lemmons to also provide information on any other additional equipment that could be located on the tower. David Igel, 783 Beaver Circle, stated he lives behind this tower and asked how long the construction will take. He stated the current tower does not bother him that much but wondered if his reception will be interrupted by the capabilities of this new tower. He also asked about the area the tower would impact should it fall over and if a rezoning could result in other commercial uses on this site in addition to the tower. Mr. Lemmons stated the tower is designed to fall withinlbounds of the property and will not impact property outside of the boundaries. Mr. Corson asked that guidewire plans also be pesentd in J Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue -the public' hearing of a zoning text amendment to roadcastin ermit television and radio b �� p gto" �ets in, excess of 200 feet as a conditional use within the PSP, Public and Sem 'ublic'District and a rezoning of the property located at 870 Birch Street from , Dist to PSP, Public and Semi Public District to the June 13, 2001 meeting, an . ed by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6 -0. G. CONTINUED P JLIC FEARING, Rockey Goertz/Spirit Hills, Inc., Rezone to Planned Development • rla #and Preliminary Plat Staff presented the application by explaining the applicant, Rockey Goertz, has submitted an application for a preliminary plat for a single - family development to be known as Spirit Hills. The site is located on the northeast corner of State Highway 49 and Birch Street, between Rice Lake and Shenandoah Addition. The Planning Commission reviewed an application that included single- family lots and townhouses at their April meeting and tabled action based on the mixed use and other issues related to the design. Staff indicated its original review was based on plans dated April 25, 2001. Staff noted that new and additional information had been provided related to this application since the staff report was written. She noted the copy of the preliminary approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District and a plan revision for the northern portion of the site to address lot depth and area concerns that were raised in the previous staff report. The revision eliminates the two cul -de -sac design and proposes one cul -de- sac. The number of lots remains the same. Staff noted the location of the cul -de -sac which is approximately 750 feet in length. The City's street construction standards limit cul -de -sac length to 500 feet. Under the • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 14 ordinance, the Council may "permit variations from the requirements in specific cases which in its opinion, do not affect the general sense of this chapter." In this case, the longer cul -de -sac allows the elimination of one cul -de -sac so it limits the overall number. In addition, the existing development and the road connection to the east and the lake and wetland areas on and surrounding the property limit the design possibilities. Staff noted that Lots 5 -10, Block 2, have been modified so that all of the lots meet the upland lot area requirement. With the revised design, all of the lots meet the ordinance requirements for upland lot area and width. Lot 22, Block 1, does not meet the lot depth requirement of 135 feet; all other lots meet the lot depth provision. Mr. Powell stated he received an e -mail from Anoka County and found the road configuraitons as propsoed are consistent with what has been discussed. Ms. Sherman noted the addtional information that has been provided by the applicant and commented on potential impact to utility layout. She advised that based upon the revised plans and action by the Rice Creek Watershed District, staff= recommends approval of the application for preliminary plat subject to the six conchs detailed in the May 9, 2001 staff report. Chair Schaps asked about additional comments Sherman stated they want to assure the wetlnd bou association is formed to assure that protection: the Environmental Board. Ms. is protected and a homeowner's Chair Schaps asked about the ParlBoa rd rec emendation. Ms. Sherman stated they recommend an all cash park deli Mr. Corson asked abou unsure whether the Park B the applicant on April 25th. htV contirited rail along Birch Street. Mr. Powell stated he is coidered this since the revised plans were submitted by Mr. Rafferty stated he is pleased to see the direction toward single - family but finds it difficult to believe the Park Board is recommending a cash donation for 50 homes. He asked where the children from this neighborhood will play. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Rockey Goertz, applicant, explained the site is surrounded by Anoka County parkland which has adequate upland room for a trail. He estimated Anoka County has 25 acres with a 20 foot to 100 foot strip of upland. Mr. Goertz stated he is open to dedicating a portion of trail easement should it be needed. However, the Park Board recommended a cash donation. Chair Schaps asked how many park meetings he attended. Mr. Goertz stated he attended no park meetings but has been in contact with staff. He stated it is his understanding that the Birch Street trail was eliminated due to the high volume of traffic. • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 15 Mr. Goertz stated they are open to the homeowner's association or other requests. He addressed the storm sewer easement requirement and explained that Tim Hillesheim did not have any objection to their proposed sketch. Mr. Goertz stated recommended Condition #1 was an oversight on his part and can easily be addressed. Mr. Lyden asked about the rear width of Lot 12 which ends in a point. Ms. Sherman stated the ordinance does not indicate a minimum rear lot width and pie- shaped lots are not prohibited. Mr. Lyden stated his appreciation for the changes made to date and his preference for R1X. He stated he shares the concern expressed by Mr. Rafferty about the need for a park and noted that in the future, funding can be addressed. However, foresight is needed today to obtain the property and he believes it would behoove the Planning and Zoning Board to obtain that property now. He pointed out this would provide an asset to this neighborhood. Mr. Goertz stated they are open to considering a land deli `ation as long as they get credit for it. He pointed out that this site is difficult to deve ` t all lots meet or exceed 25,000 square feet and the only R1X criteria it doesliot me6tis lot width. Mr. Lyden stated he would strongly advocate the need for a trail easement whether on Anoka or City property. Mr. Goertz stated it is an existing tr pease ' t a they would not object if they need to dedicate an additional 15 to 20 f bacf the lot. Mr. Powell stated a trail e County has decided not that the trail would also rai he lake would require field survey work but the at 'ail due to site limitations in other areas. He noted of maintenance. Mr. Lyden noted that goals and ambitions change over time but he strongly supports obtaining the easement at this time to assure Lino Lakes does not fall short Mr. Goertz stated the initial plat provided the trail easement so that area has already been identified. He offered to dedicate that easement to the County or City. Eugene Gervais, 890 Old Birch Street, asked what will happen to the intersection of Highway 49 and Old Birch Street which is not adequate now. Mr. Powell stated Anoka County has begun right -of -way acquisition for the Highway 49 project but the exact width has not yet been determined. He stated he is aware of a legislative bill to reduce the speed on Highway 49 from 50 mph to 45 mph. He added that signals and widening of the bridge will be part of this project. He stated if the speed limit is reduced, it would provide more flexibility with regard to the roadway design features. Bruce Pruitt, 6517 Hokah Drive, stated he has spoken with a number of neighbors and it appears some of their concerns have been addressed. He stated the main issues are with traffic and recreational areas for children. He commented on the need for a trail and stated his concern with Outlot A and potential for a commercial business. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 16 Mr. Goertz stated it was left an outlot so the zoning can be at the Council and staff's discretion. He stated he will come back with the outlot after the Comprehensive Plan is finalized. Mr. Pruitt stated his understanding that it could be commercial and he does not believe it makes sense to delay that decision for several years. He suggested it be fenced and used as a recreational area. Mr. Goertz stated it is about four acres and he intends to wait until the Comprehensive Plan is finalized. Chair Schaps encouraged Mr. Pruitt to keep track of this property so he is aware when something comes forward. Environmental Boardmember O'Connell stated the northeast corner contains Oak Savanna which they recommend be protected. Chair Schaps asked if a Park Board representative. received. fence. No response was Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the,blic he at 7:55 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. Chair Schaps asked if conditions or to or p land are desired. In response to Mr. Lyden, estimated that Lot 19 on the old drawing is about one - quarter acre. Mr. L zi; n state e ould support a park of that size with any difference being paid in cap Hem ated he would also like some open green space. Mr. Goertz asked if they have to revise their preliminary plat prior to the Council consideration and if they will have to revise it again should the Council not support the dedication of park land. Chair Schaps stated that condition could be placed on the approval. Mr. Powell stated that is correct and the plan can be revised following Council action, if appropriate. Mr. Goertz stated his park dedication is $50,000 and asked which lot the Board would like for park land dedication. He suggested Lot 30 since it is adjacent to the other neighborhood. In response to the request of Mr. Goertz, Mr. Powell recommended Condition #2 be revised to remove the size and add approval by the City Engineer. Mr. Corson asked if an easement can be provided along Birch Street if it is outside of this property. Mr. Goertz stated he cannot dedicate land outside his project. • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 17 Mr. Powell stated that easement is related to the outlot and when it is considered in the future, that easement requirement can be addressed. Chair Schaps noted the Park Board has indicated the intent to continue that trail. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Spirit Hills preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot 22, Block 1, shall be eliminated or revised to meet the 135 foot lot depth as measured in the center of the lot. 2. An area shall be provided for the lift station necessary to serve this site subject to approval by the City Engineer. 3. All comments as listed in the May 1, 2001 memorandum from TKDA shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to proceeding to final plat. 4. Park dedication in area of Lot 30, value to be determined, and dedication of an upland trail corridor around the lake that borders this property subject to approval by the City staff. 5. Appropriate permits shall be acquired from Anoka County for access to the adjacent roadways. 6. The developer shall address all provisions /conditions outlined by Rice Creek Watershed. The motion was supported by Mr. Cp /. on. l Po carried 6 -0. H. CONTINUED PUBLIC A , Heritage Development, Saddle Club Site, Old Birch Street, Co nkiveiPlan Amendment for MUSA, Rezoning Preliminary Plat Staff presented the application submitted by Heritage Development for Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning, and preliminary plat for a portion of an area included in their application for preliminary plat. The property commonly known as the Saddle Club is located south and east of Old Birch Street. The review is based on plans received by the City on April 6, 2001. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the project data, acreages, number of lots (46) and density (1.15 units /acre) as contained in the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, and preliminary plat subject to the four conditions detailed in the staff report. Mr. Lyden stated homeowners on that street raised questions about the sewer. He noted the other route for the sewer brings it past a lot of wetland area. Mr. Powell stated the applicant petitioned for a feasibility study and the recommendation is to extend from directly west rather than down Old Birch Street due to saving restoration and crossing costs, and wetland impacts. Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 18 • Mr. Lyden asked what the dollar figure is between the two routes. Mr. Powell estimated • a 50% higher cost. Mr. Lyden asked about the potential for utility connections with an east/west route. Mr. Powell estimated one to two. Chair Schaps asked if there was discussion about closure to the north entrance from Birch Street. Mr. Powell stated that was recommended. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Mr. Hill, representing Heritage Development, stated he had nothing to add and offered to answer questions. Eugene Gervais, 890 Old Birch Street, stated there are several residents with recently updated septic systems which were costly so he does not support a north/south utility extension. He stated that the street in front of his house is 4n better shape than Birch Street and he does not want it disturbed. Gary Foster, 882 Old Birch Street, stated he has., t ianyoncerps. He stated they are changing the directions of access to make it moreicult. He suggested that the developer should be charged to install the kftwer an . rave it up to the residents if they want to connect. Mr. Foster suggested that" '° the developer should be required to do. He stated 46 houses times tw vehicl,er ouse results in a lot of traffic and will make access a bottleneck and ev- t' mom impassible than it is currently. Mr. Foster stated they only have one exit, but the i,(vk to have two exits, which may help a little. He stated that his sewer sy . b 5 years old so he does not plan to connect right now. He stated he has 1' -. there for 25 years and understands that development cannot be stopped, but he believes i - residents should get something. Mr. Foster stated he has four acres on a corner lot by the bend in the road and will want to do something in the future so he does not want to be dictated to about what he can and cannot do. He asked about the potential impact of this project to his property and expressed concern about how their ponding and streets will be taken care of to assure they do not impact his property. Hank Meyers, 904 Old Birch Street, stated he has lived there for 30 years and installed many of the septic systems being mentioned. He stated he owns ten acres with little wetlands and wants the sewer extended. He asked where the sewer will be when he does something with his property in five years and if the roads will be impacted. Chair Schaps explained that some of those questions cannot be answered since it is not part of this project. Mr. Powell stated if the pavement is disturbed, it will be replaced at a 7 -ton design. Mr. Meyers asked if the sewer will be available to his property when he wants to develop. • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 19 Amy Roth, 889 Old Birch Street, stated her preference for a north/south sewer route so she has access. She explained she would like to add on to her house but the current ten - year old septic system prevents that from occurring. She stated she believes it is not safe to pull out onto the roadway where the traffic is traveling at 50 miles per hour. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:28 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Lyden stated it appears Mr. Foster's concern about water should be addressed. He noted that the Rice Creek Watershed District gave approval but their concern is rate of runoff, not the amount of runoff. He stated if the ground slopes towards Mr. Foster's property, it could receive flow if the rate is exceeded. Mr. Powell clarified that the Rice Creek Watershed District is very much concerned about water volume and encourages infiltration on every site. He stated they have made significant steps to address that issue. Mr. Lyden stated he would like to see the numbers elk e cost versus benefit since some residents are interested in connecting to the sew ? sys m. Hoted this requests asks for more MUSA which cannot happen right now sin ino Lakes is already beyond the 2010 plan for population. Mr. Lyden stated he uld have be convinced that asking for more MUSA is the right thing for the City. « Vin, he is concerned that the houses are getting too large for the lots so lie ould pport upholding R1X lot size standards. Mr. Corson asked if a MUSA bank=s Sherman stated that is corr- <an She noted that only eig il .. res wo tconsideration with this request. Ms. SA allotment would be swapped from the bank. d impact the MUSA allocation. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION commend denial of the Heritage Development application for MUSA allocation, and was supported by Mr. Zych. Motion carried 4 -1 -1 (Corson voted nay and Schaps abstained). Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend denial of the Heritage Development application for rezoning, and was suported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -1 -1 (Corson voted nay and Schaps abstained). Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend denial of the Heritage Development application for preliminary plat, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0 -1 (Schaps abstained). I. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive Staff presented the application by explaining that staff has been working with Ryan Companies, US Inc. on a proposed retail development called Lino Lakes Marketplace located in the northeast quadrant of the Lake Drive/I -35 W. Interchange. The Planning • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 20 and Zoning Board reviewed the concept plan for the site in December of 2000 and opened the public hearing on February 13, 2001. The main issues raised by staff, and discussed by the City Council and Planning and Zoning Board at the concept stage 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 advised that the submittal that was reviewed in February 2001 has been modified; this review is based on plan submittals stamped received by the City on April 9, 2001. Staff explained that because there are many outstanding issues related to the site and it is anticipated that revised plans will be submitted, the degree of detail is limited in their report. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the project data, acreages, and square footages of proposed uses and development issues as detailed in the staff report. Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Board discuss the site plan, building design and signs proposed, provide direction to the applicants and then continue the public hearing until such time as the EAW proces omplete and wetland fill and mitigation plans are approved by the Rice Creek e' ershed District and more information is submitted related to access, vehicle az d pedefrian circulation, screening, mow.; engineering comments, signage, building designd materials, and any other issues raised as the process moves forward. Mr. Powell advised that a petition f. utiliti -. as eceived today. Mr. Wessel stated this project is this project together in a th noted staff is recomme application and the respon and .complicated, and Ryan Companies is putting time needed for a development of this size. He uation for many good reasons due to "holes" in the s with the developer to provide that information. Mr. Wessel stated the developer h.. ade a good effort but the schedule is very accelerated and if the City wants it to go, would necessitate Board action on June 13, Council action on July 23, the land to close in August, and construction to begin this September. He noted that an enormous amount of work remains for the applicant to complete. Mr. Wessel stated the Council has looked at the design as it is being presented and been active in reviewing this proposal. Chair Schaps stated the Board could give direction but the opportunity to do so is limited in timing compared to the Council's review process. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Tom Palmquist, representing Ryan Companies, introduced the design team including John Payton and Bill Wittrock. He stated his concurrence with staff that a lot of work needs to be done in a short amount of time. He stated there are changes being made that will have to be incorporated into the plans by next week. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 21 Mr. Palmquist stated their submittal package contained a schedule with a draft EAW submission on May 11th with a 30 day comment period ending in June and Council action on July 11. He stated two Type 3 wetlands have been identified and they will not be impacted. The 6.36 acre Type 2 wetland is a low quality and will be mitigated on a 2:1 basis (7.62 acres) which they will pursue with Anoka County. He advised that a portion of the wetlands will be mitigated on the Chomonix Golf Course, camp ground, and other areas. Mr. Palmquist stated they are scheduled to meet with Anoka County park staff and the County Attorney to draft the needed legal documentation. It will be heard by the Anoka County Park and Recreation Board on June 5 and formal action taken by the County Board on June 12. He advised that plans were completed today and will be submitted on or before May 11. The Rice Creek Watershed District action will occur in late -July and the 404 Army Corp permit will follow in two weeks of the Rice Creek Watershed District action. Mr. Corson asked what the Anoka County Parks and Recreation Department has to do with the mitigation requirement. Mr. Palmquist explained they looked at mitigation options and based on this development proposal, they w 1? mitigate off -site. The options on Anoka County property are being pursued subject oy e Creek Watershed District approval. Mr. Lyden stated the proposed mitigation will be Anoka County property and asked if the mitigation could help City property her tha County. Mr. Palmquist stated they did explore various options with City taff' ' , mg mitigation and it was determined the County property was otentially su able. Ms. Lane asked if it is possible toTall i 8 : nticipated time schedule given the meeting schedule for the Rice CreepVila hecl$I, istrict and the City Council. Mr. Wessel stated it is correct that the recomlrnendati to the Council will probably contain several conditions being subject to'approval dates that extend beyond the Council decision date. Ms. Lane asked if the project would continue if there is a month delay. Mr. Palmquist explained that it is critical to close on the property in August so they can get the earthwork completed and the building pad prepared. He explained Target has a certain model they rigidly adhere to indicating they open stores only three times a year. Mr. Palmquist stated that representatives from Target will be in attendance at the next meeting and can better answer that question. Chair Schaps noted the City is usually aware of Rice Creek Watershed District concerns and asked if the City will be aware whether it will be approved prior to their meeting. Mr. Powell stated some plans have not yet been submitted to the Rice Creek Watershed District and he does not know if they have started a serious review since the wetland replacement plan has not been submitted. Bill Wittrock presented the colored exterior elevations of the proposed Target Store. He stated he has been working on this property with several different property owners, starting with Mr. Rehbine. He stated they have become aware of the Town Center Guidelines and emphasized that everyone recognizes the importance and value of those • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 22 issues related to form, value, and scale. Mr. Wittrock stated they have worked diligently with Target to get their building to fit as many of the architectural details as possible. He noted the entry areas are articulated with a hip -roof detail and use of different materials. Mr. Wittrock noted the Forest Lake Target Store is a pure prototype but what is being proposed in Lino Lakes is integral colored block, rockfaced block, rose - colored brick, stucco accent stripes, and painted concrete masonry unit (CMU). He noted the premium materials are at a lower pedestrian level with the materials at a higher elevation being more economical. Mr. Wittrock noted these materials are a significant change from Target's prototype materials. Mr. Wittrock presented the Kohl's elevation, noting it is predominantly lighter - colored brick and the addition of stucco cornices which would be a common element throughout the rest of the development. He advised of the Council's inquiry about a different front entry pitched -roof treatment and explained that would look out of place since it is not in the right proportion. Mr. Wittrock stated they will talk with Kohl's about changing the brick to be more compatible with the brick used on the other buildings. Mr. Wittrock presented Buildings A and B that will c several tenants, each with separate doors. He identified the location of these ° " ding ® hich will face each other, thus the design with similar facade treatments, R' che« oof, strong corner elements, and storefront design. Mr. Wittrock reviewed the ma °` ' . is proposed for these smaller buildings which are oriented for pedestria He no A ..he incorporation of canvass awnings to provide some protection from ttie e went Mr. Wittrock stated the other buildings have not yet been designed since tenants have not been secured. But, as part of the development, they will submit an outline of how those buildings should respond t t s hi ure including a list of preferred materials and color. Mr. Rafferty stated that bases : he Kohl's elevations, color will make a dramatic change in appearance. He stated he has more concerns with the Kohl's design than the Target Store design. Mr. Rafferty commented on the effort to create the design standard criteria and stated his appreciation to RSP for the elevations that meet that criteria. He suggested that Kohl's be pulled off to allow a better designed and enhanced structure. Mr. Lyden stated this development corner is the most exciting thing to happen to Lino Lakes and he applauded everyone's efforts to make it come about. He stated it was subtle but said that the idea of a pedestrian -type town center has changed. Mr. Lyden stated this proposal is a very changed set up and his general impression is that if anything is lacking, it is the lower corner. Mr. Lyden noted the proposal has several big box users and then some other smaller uses. Rather than bringing the traffic in and then out to the fast foods, he suggested a different traffic configuration. On aesthetics, he asked if consideration has been given to a common wall configuration. Mr. Lyden stated he does not know if the community needs another bank but that site would be a good location for another retail use and would also free up space for parking by Kohl's. • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 23 Mr. Wittrock explained that a common wall configuration does not work because the Kohl's building would block the Target entrance. Mr. Palmquist concurred regarding the traffic circulation patterns and noted it will be a significant challenge to get that figured out. He explained it was just recently that Kohl's came to fruition (in March) so the plans had to be started over. Mr. Lyden asked why a hip roof would not work on the Kohl's building. Mr. Wittrock explained a different form over the entry signifies an entrance. However, with the Kohl's building, they will not entertain any discussion about changing any of the materials or form of the entries. Chair Schaps commented that retailers want to assure consistency between their stores to assure consumer familiarity. Mr. Wittrock stated that is correct and he had presented that option to Kohl's. He noted that Kohl's has indicated a willingness to consider a diffett colored brick so their building is more compatible with the other buildings Htated he does not think a pitched roof design fits with the Kohl's building anhie be`fes getting a color change is a more important consideration and a higher pry it Mr. Lyden asked about the Kohl's building at Tamarack Village in Woodbury. Mr. Wittrock stated that project was driven by ors since the same architect was used for all of the buildings. Mr. Rafferty asked why KKE is no p � s respond to these questions. Mr. Wittrock stated he does not believe �e assigned this job yet. Mr. Lyden asked about Ry. rel `ionship with Target Corporation. Mr. Palmquist stated they are a preferred con for with Target Corporation and have worked on several projects that included a Kohl's. He stated he will ask KKE to have a representative at the next meeting. Mr. Corson asked if the architects of the fast food stores have been identified. Mr. Palmquist stated they have not. He explained they are proposing something unique in Lino Lakes to assure a cohesive "look" in the project, as was done with a Stillwater project. Mr. Corson asked if the area on the southwest corner of the site has an existing building. Mr. Palmquist stated that property will ultimately be owned by the City. Mr. Corson stated that while it has been many years since he was a City Planner, the rule of thumb was to get 10% of the purchase price as park dedication and higher for commercial and industrial property. He estimated $1.6 million for the site but the park dedication is $44,000 in a community that is very park poor. Mr. Corson stated this is a great concern to him. Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 24 • Ms. Sherman stated that is the current ordinance requirement but the level of park • dedication is set at whatever the ordinance requires at the time of final plat adoption. Rochelle Miller, 7725 Marilyn Drive, stated the Roseville and Forest Lake sites are not adjacent to residential areas. She stated her concern about traffic on Lake Drive and read the April 14, 1999 letter from Anoka County Highway Engineer Jon Olson indicating the proposed access does not support the proposed roadway system. She stated she spoke with Mr. Olson who indicated their position has not changed since that time. Ms. Miller stated the City has not requested resident input about what they want and she feels this project is too large for the area. She stated they have prepared a petition from residents who have been effected. Janelle Janson, 7729 Carole Drive, presented a petition with 95% of the neighborhood objecting due to traffic and Rice Creek Watershed District issues. She stated the pictures are nice but she believes more information is needed. Ms. Miller stated not many people are shopping at the Forest Lake Target Store and asked if they are inundating the market to the point where itis saturated. She stated she found the Roseville Target Store to be so large, it was impeonal Mr. Powell stated they have done a detailed stud, ake Drive and how it will function with these developments and the County received th fond draft of that study. He stated they have requested County comments a. nd the road supports the additional access and warrants other road imps vements --now. for Apollo Drive which has been eliminated Mr. Palmquist pointed out a corii so traffic will not have acc Chair Schaps asked if any et ores have closed in the last 20 years. Mr. Palmquist stated he is not aware of any i e Twin Cities area and noted the complex calculations they undertake prior to construction. Deb Graf, 7757 Carole Drive, asked if that is the same study that said another bank is needed. She asked if the roads will be finished before the Target Store opens. She suggested that Target should meet the needs of the City, not the other way around and urged the Board to not let this project rush through without the level of scrutiny that is given to home developments. Lil Johnson, 7728 Carole Drive, reviewed the questions asked of other applicants tonight and stated she wants Target asked about where their semitrucks will be parked, how long they will be running, hours of delivery, etc. She noted that Carole Drive is very quiet and does not have lighting, which is what the residents like. Ms. Johnson expressed concern that deliveries will be made during the evening hours and disrupt their neighborhood. She stated she does not want to look at the back of a Target Store or at the debris from this and the fast food uses. She also expressed concern about the impact of security for the adjacent residential neighborhood, a concern which they currently do not have. Ms. Johnson stated that she accepts the fact that she will have to drive to go shopping at a Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 25 • Target or to go to the bank and she does not necessarily want it located 20 feet from her • house. Mr. Palmquist suggested the development agreement contain conditions to limit hours of delivery, trucks idling, etc. John Payton, representing Target Stores, reviewed the processes they will follow that monitors air quality and noise levels, and which will also determine the existing noise level. He explained the new whisper grocery refrigeration units are much more quiet. Mr. Payton stated they are looking at the MPCA acceptable noise thresholds and that will be addressed in the ISP that is incorporated into the EAW. Kathy Hansmann, 7601 Lake Drive, stated she owns a business and appreciates the time involved in this process. She stated she is not against bringing a Target or Kohl's into this location but believes a lot of the details are not being obtained which she was required to answer for her business. She asked if there is enough detail on the parking, coloring of the structures, the bank, fast food, and two convenience stores. Chair Schaps agreed that detail on those areas has yet been provided but that will be considered when those sites are developed. Ms. Hansmann encouraged the Board to assure the i of traffic and access are adequately addressed. Ms. Lane stated she lives on 77t stated that of the five neighbors sometimes people who sup ed input from those neighbors. She 'th, all favor the project. Ms. Lane noted that o not attend a meeting to voice their support. Deb Graf stated they live rit in t j e area of the proposed Target Store and have concerns. Wayne DeHaven, 7761 Carole Drive, stated he moved to Lino Lakes because it is quiet and if he had wanted to live next to a Target Store, he would have bought next to one. He stated he does not mind driving to Target and Festival and does not think a Target Store needs to be located in Lino Lakes. He urged the Board to keep Lino Lakes a quiet community. Ms. Miller stated she would like to know what their petition means to the Board and if it will have an impact on how this project goes forward. She asked what the rush is and if a large conglomerate should be allowed to come in and say when and how. Chair Schaps stated the petition is considered and has an impact but there are always two or three sides to every story. He noted there are many young families in Lino Lakes who may have a different opinion about driving eight or nine miles to a Target and may favor locating one in Lino Lakes. He noted there are a lot of good corporate neighbors in Minnesota and Target Corporation is one of the best in what they bring to a community and give back to a community. He stated this has been reviewed for months and not • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 26 rushed but there are other issues that need to be addressed. Chair Schaps stated others have approached him to ask why Target has not yet been approved, so there is a groundswell of opinion that is different than being expressed tonight. Chair Schaps stated a lot of residents indicated they wanted an increase in commercial business in Lino Lakes so they could stay in Lino Lakes when they shop. He stated he understands the desire to look at birds and wildlife, but that can't always happen when you don't own the property. Mr. Wessel stated the community determined this was the right location for a shopping center and it has been zoned that way for years. He stated this is not a new use for this site. Chair Schaps stated residents need to understand this is a huge project for the City and a huge opportunity but that does not mean anything will be allowed to slide. He stated the applicants understand the rules and so far have followed that direction. Mr. Lyden stated he does not blame any of the reside and if he lived in that area, would probably feel then, all he could to protect neighborhoods and in the ast the prop y on the north side of 77th was given back to those property owners. none of the traffic will go onto 77th eighb their thoughts and feelings e v� He stated that he has done is a significant issue in protecting t neighbors are being asked to give somethin Lyden stated the 2020 was based on balanci relief but he in no way wants to ini h the development. d. He stated in this proposal, he-recognizes that is a sacrifice. Mr. residential and commercial and getting tax rifice residents make in this kind of Joel Buys, 7661 Lake Dom, stated;', is greement that this is an opportunity that has been awaiting Lino Lakes for quite om time and he would urge them to take this opportunity the tasks are not cut short to meet someone else's time to assure enough time is spen table. He stated traffic controlls a concern and the Apollo intersection needs to be changed to handle this type of traffic along with Lake Drive. He stated his appreciation for the time and effort taken to review this project. Bob Rettner, 729 77th Street, stated he has lived there for 20 years but always known something would be built. He stated his major concern was Apollo exiting onto 77th which has been resolved. He stated his preference for a view of the back of a Target Store rather than a strip mall that goes bankrupt. Mr. Rettner stated at a previous meeting, a Target representative said deliveries at Target would only be from 8:00 a.m. to noon. Mr. Palmquist stated that can be addressed with Target Store and Kohl's. • Mr. Rettner stated he is concerned with night deliveries and mentioned that they currently hear the Schwan's Ice Cream trucks running all night. • • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 27 Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing until such time as the EAW process is complete and wetland fill and mitigation plans are approved by Rice Creek Watershed District and more information is submitted related to access, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, screening, engineering comments, signage, building design and materials, and any other issues raised as the process moves forward, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Rafferty commented that he hears the resident's concerns and stated his appreciation for their efforts to present a petition. He stated he has not directly worked with Ryan Companies but knows they are a good corporation as well as RSP. He stated he is concerned about the Target Store deadlines and understands Ryan Companies is trying to make the project work, which he also appreciates. Mr. Rafferty stated he respects that residents have enjoyed this open field for 20 years but understood that it would eventually be developed. He stated the property owner has a right to sell at some point but he hopes all can work together to assure the concerns are addressed. J. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Land Holding Group 12th and Holly, Preliminary Plat Staff explained that there are still unresolved issues acid infor ation to be submitted related to the application. Therefore, staff recommends the application be continued until June 13, 2001. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to cont/ ue they and Holding Group preliminary plat public hearing to June 13, 2001, and w uprted rMs. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. K. MN Correctional , Fourth Avenue, Site Plan Review for Storage Building Staff presented the application b` explaining the applicant, the Minnesota Correctional Facility, had submitted an application to construct a 40' by 72' pole barn with a footprint of 2,880 sf. for vehicle storage on its site. The building will be approximately 22' high and located outside of the prisoner compound but within a separate fence area. The City of Lino Lakes has no legal zoning jurisdiction over the State of Minnesota land. Therefore, the Department of Corrections is not obligated to submit this project for City review. However, the Department has done so as a courtesy. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the fenced area where the building will be added is approximately 1,000 feet from the nearest property line. Staff explained that for information purposes, the Department of Corrections often delegates building code enforcement to the City through a special agreement. This allows the City to collect building permit fees to cover review and inspection costs. Staff anticipates this will occur for this building. It was noted that the applicant was not present. • • Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 28 No adverse comments were made regarding the application submitted by the Minnesota Correctional Facility to construct a 40' x 72' pole barn, with a footprint of 2,880 sf., that is approximately 22' high for vehicle storage on its site. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Park Dedication Ordinance Ms. Sherman stated the park and trail study analysis indicated there is enough park land within Lino Lakes for the current population. The study further analyzes park and trail needs for future population and recommends making park improvements in certain areas. She used a map to identify the location of parks recommended for improvement. Mr. Corson commented on the need to assure consistent park planning, requirements, and giving consistent credit for trail dedication and improvements. Ms. Sherman stated this study also recommends consistent application of the requirements. Mr. Powell stated credit has been given to paving the :' but not for grading or placing Class V on the trails. Ms. Sherman presented the conclusions of the analysis and advised it is being presented to the City Council for first reading at their next meeting She advised the recommendation is to increase the per unit parkdedication by $1,900 and that the commercial rate also be recalculateda, Mr. Corson suggested that Andov .ments be reviewed since it remains current by calculating the park ded. °rvt fee p ed on the raw land costs. Chair Schaps noted that a eeded for maintenance costs but that is most often forgotten and does not occur stated the cost of maintenance needs to be determined and funded. Ms. Sherman stated the report does speak to the maintenance issue which needs to be paid by a different source of funds, not from park dedication fees. Also, future park dedication fees cannot fund improvements to existing parks. She explained this is a State Statute requirement. Mr. Rafferty stated the funds are not adequate to both purchase land and improve the park. He stated his neighborhood has a park with equipment but the size is not adequate for the development. Mr. Rafferty stated he supports increasing the park dedication fee. Mr. Lyden asked if requiring $1,900 per home is the most aggressive proposal and asked what the current park dedication fee is. He agreed the value of land changes dramatically year to year and asked if this fee will be reviewed each year. Mr. Powell stated there is an opportunity to audit any subdivision (to assure the calculation) at the request of the City. Planning & Zoning Board May 9, 2001 Page 29 IIMr. Lyden noted it needs to be a Council priority to assure adequate budgeted funds for • • parks. Ms. Lane agreed it is important to obtain park land, but there are instances where the City does not want the land (such as with the Target Store proposal). Mr. Corson commented on the discrepancy in park dedication fee requirements between residential and commercial projects. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • AGENDA ITEM V. A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: June 13, 2001 TOPIC: Variance From Collector Street Setback and Variance From Driveway Setback From Intersection Glenn Valentine, Ventura Homes, Inc. Southwest Corner, 64th St. & 20th Ave. BACKGROUND Mr. Glenn Valentine of Ventura Homes has applied for a variance from the required setback from a collector road. The site lies between I -35E and 20th Ave. (Co. Rd. 54). Most of the site is wetland. Only a small portion of the site is upland: the area along 20th Ave. Variances from required road setbacks will be needed if a house and driveway are to be built. Some wetland fill will be required. This report is based on the certificate of survey by E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc. dated 5/23/01. ANALYSIS Structure Setback From Road: In the R -X Rural Executive zoning district, the City's zoning ordinance requires a 40' building setback from a collector road such as 20th Ave. This site has only a small area of upland. Some wetland fill will be required if a house is to be built. The greater the road setback, the more wetland fill will occur. The request is to allow the structure to be 10 feet from the right of way of 20th Ave. Driveway Setback From Intersection: The driveway must be at least 30 feet from the intersection, measured from the corner of the property (Sec. 3 Subd. 5.C.8.f of the zoning ordinance). However, this would require additional wetland fill for the driveway. Therefore, a variance is needed for this as well. The driveway as shown on the submitted survey is 10 feet from the intersection. Future Right of Way: Anoka County has informed us that it foresees the need for an additional five feet of right of way on each side of the road. If this occurs, the garage and driveway will be only five feet from the ROW. While this is an undesirable situation, it is a trade -off between being closer to the road and filling more wetland. The City cannot simply prevent the property owner from using of the land. Valentine Variance page 2 • Wetland: The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization (VLAWMO). Because of the wetland impact, a review by VLAWMO is pending. The location of the house will determine the amount of wetland fill needed. The plan shows just under 1000 sf of fill, as noted on the attached VLAWMO notice. Increasing the road setbacks will increase the wetland fill. • The VLAWMO board meets June 14 at 7:30 am. (the morning after the P & Z meeting). The VLAWMO staff recommendation is to approve the plan. Alternate Site for Septic System: Any new house on well and septic must have an alternate drainfield site designated. This is to ensure that a new drainfield can be constructed if the first one fails. The survey shows two drainfield sites. Findings for Variance In considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 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. This site is severely restricted because of the wetlands. Without variances from setback requirements, the property cannot be used. The physical circumstance is not created by the landowner. The hardship is not due to economic considerations. No special privelege is being granted. This type of hardship is the reason for variances. Recommended Conditions of Approval Staff would recommend the following conditions of approval apply: 1. Building permit must be obtained for the structure. 2. Applicant must obtain approval of wetland plan from the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization • • Valentine Variance page 3 OPTIONS 1. Approve variance to allow structure to be 10 feet from the collector road and approve variance to allow the driveway to be 10 feet from the intersection,. 2. Deny the variance request. 3. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 • • Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Application For Impacts <) > 10,000 Square Feet Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization 4701 Highway 61, White Bear Lake MN 55110 Tel. / Fax: 651/429 -8522 e -mail: officeuuvlawmo.org Website: www.viawmo.org Name of Applicant: Tom Carlson, Glenn Valentine, agent, 1815 Trailway Dr. #5 Eagan 55122 Application Number: 032001 Type of Application: ❑ Exemption ❑ No Loss Date of Application: 5/24/01 x Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan Location of Application: NW 1/4 Sec 36Twp. 31 Range 22W Summary of Project: To establish homesite and driveway between County road setback and wetland boundary. Variance has been requested for road setback. Several alternatives to minimize wetland impact have been analyzed. Driveway crossing from 64th Street and west side of house will require just under 1000 s.f. of fill of type 3 wetland. Mitigation is planned on site: 1150 sf new wetland credit and 862 sf of upland buffer adjacent to the mitigation area. Total mitigation 2012 sf. List of Addressees: Landowner: Members of the Technical Evaluation Panel: Phil Be /fiori, BWSR; Tom Petersen, - Ramsey SWCD; Stephanie McNamara, VLAWMO Department of Natural Resources: Region 6 office, 1200 Warner Rd. St. Paul, MN 55106 Department of Natural Resources: Wetlands Coordinator @ Ecological Services Section, 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155 Corp of Engineers Project Manager @ Dept. of the Army, Corp of Engineers, St. Paul District ATTN: CO -R, 190 Fifth Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101 -1638 You are hereby notified that the above referenced application was made to the Local Government Unit on the date state above. A decision on this matter will be made June 14, 7:30 am, White Bear city hall, White Bear Lake. Call the VLAWMO office at 651- 429 -8522 for details or changes to decision - making schedule. E -mail: office @vlawmo.org Notice mailed: 5/29/01 by Stephanie McNamara, Administration / Wetland Specialist CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: TOM CARL SON The NW 1/4 corner of Sec. 36, T.31N, R.22W,-- Anoka County, Minnesota. 0' 07 OC 9 0' U gi,37 Om • tie DJ 91807 N89 °26 ' 40"W 385.73 line of the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Sec 36, T.31N, R.22W. HAP'/ • "D ?spy 92809 F6Y', 92817 ... 28 7811 / � EA'7 p a D,G 17 JP" CB7 DIG <J 91801 .............pY6. •M. S89 °26'40 "E Builder to expose 4 -5 feet of Block to Match Wetland Elev. Proposed Wetlond Fill Area sigma 5.30 Squore Feet M=927.6 Borings by System Solutions Edge of delineated wetland E87J 1 • ,l „---33.00' Rood Easement - - - -'' 339.20 � 6� ` i w %/. JRSES) N00 °57'03 "E 0 z 0 ) RE lY AY 2.3 2001 C OF Lil• O LAKES IVED • 700 r ly o 0 V CO 49# co *fer r9 / /North Scat,6' : "= 50' O J ?/ Qi 93/ G El- 24.33 QQ �g � k' 0 cs 9-67 o GARAGE N N i L y3/ 96. . Togo 8/k i32 3 PROP. HOUSE to 5 CRS. BSMNT ' fs. 71- 929./ 44.00 DIAGIONAL: 44.33 X 72.00 = 84.55 /FOFERTY DESCRIPTION Note: No title work provided That part of Goverment Lot 7, Section 36, Township 37, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, excepting the easement to the State of Minnesota for Highway purposes. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: .fir e3 - 000/ License No. 5'-gg LEGEND • DENO TES Cam) DENOTES x 863.24 DENOTES DENOTES • DENOTES DENOTES DENOTES 11 FOOT OFFSET. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS EX /STING ELEVA T /ONS. DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE. FOUND IRON BORING' FOUND C./.1v1. E .G.RUD 4 SONS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS 9180 LEXINGTON AVE. NO. CIRCLE PINES, MINNESOTA TEL. '163 -186 -5556 FAX 163- 186 -6001 JOB".133h s • • AGENDA ITEM V. B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: June 13, 2001 TOPIC: Minor Subdivision, xxx 20th Ave. SW 1/4 Section 1 Brian Iverson BACKGROUND The application is to remove a portion of land from one parcel and attach it to the adjacent parcel. That is, the action will move the lot line ten feet. The existing property line follows the 14 1/4 section line. The application is to move that property line ten feet to the east. The reason is to increase the size of the western parcel to make it a full 20 acres. The applicant has a buyer for the parcel (Parcel B) who wants a full 20 acres. In addition, the action would combine into the eastern parcel a narrow strip of land along I -35E which currently is a separate tax parcel. All of the land involved is under the same ownership. Currently, a private driveway easement runs along the northern edge of the existing western parcel and part of the eastern parcel. The proposed minor subdivision would replace the existing driveway easement with a 66' access easement. This will ensure that Parcel A will continue to have access to 20th Ave. Both the existing driveway easement and the proposed access easement are private easements, not City roads. If the applicant intends the new easement to be a future public roadway, that would have to be analyzed in the future. The City has no plans for a road in that location and there is no intent to convey a road to the City at this time. The new easement does not obligate the City in any way. Though the City's subdivision regulations require all lots to have full frontage on a public street, the existing eastern parcel does not have frontage now. The proposed minor subdivision will not alter this situation, it simply increases the size of the driveway access easement. Any future subdivisions that create new lots will be required to have the full frontage on a public street. The area is guided for long -term rural use. The City has no plan to extend utilities to this area. Any platting would have to be at a maximum density of one lot per 10 acres. No plat approval is being requested. • • Iverson Minor Subdivision page 2 The application involves a very minor change in parcel sizes and poses no concern for public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends approval. This report is based on the document "Proposed Minor Subdivision for Brian Iverson ", by Passe Engineering, Inc., dated 4/30/01 and received by the City May 2, 2001. (We received the 11" x 17" reduction on May 17.) OPTIONS 1. Approve the minor subdivision. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 ks, ;LTIER LAKE (N H,_ ARM) r PELTIER LAKE • 101 • • -- 469.56' -_ S r3/,R • - u27 .774441 Rom d EersB C /TY OF L /NO LAKES (1) 4lo m // f hlyr //e 4 Cam /saw i ,� CENTER SEC. /at; (� B¢ /00 42 • • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE :: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY UNE OF COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 21, THENCE EASTERLY ON SA10 SOUTH UNE 450 FEET 70 THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL NTH THE WEST UNE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST OUAR7ER 700 FEET MORE OR LESS TO SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY UNE THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ON SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY UNE TO THE NORTH UNE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THERE TERMINATING, EXCEPT THE NORTH 8 FEET THEREOF. THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22, ANOKA COUNTY. MINNESOTA, AND THE NORTH 8 FEET OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION AND RUNNING WEST TO THE CENTERWLLE AND FOREST LAKE ROAD, SO— CALLED, INTENDING THEREBY TO CONVEY A STRIP OF LAND 8 FEET WIDE AND RUNNING TO SAID ROAD FROM THE STAR77NG POINT ABOVE MENTIONED. THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF 774E SOUTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 2Z ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. LYING WESTERLY OF 35E AS NOW LAID OUT AND TRAVELLED. CERTIFICATION: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATED: MARK F. MAIS7ROVICH, MN LIC. NO. 25287 REVISED 4/30/01 NOTES / , 1. NO TITLE WORK WAS FRONDED FOR THE PREPARATION OF THIS SURVEY TO VERIFY THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, OWNERSHIP, OR THE EXISTENCE OF ANY EASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES 2 BENCHMARK :: MNDOT DISK IN SE CORNER OF BRIDGE (WING WALL) AT HWY 35E / AND 8077/ STREET. MONUMENT D1SK / 0282F. ELEVATION 919.46 (NAD '88 DATUM). • /' 7 /Q' < PROPOSED PARCEL A / �• THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST / i.• QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22 ACCORDING TO T71E �J UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF, ANOKA COUNTY. MINNESOTA, LYING EAJItNLY OF THE WESTERLY 10 FEET. /![ AND ! /J ' ;j' THAT PART OF 774E NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST /// / \ QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 1 LYING WESTERLY OF THE WESTERLY ✓ MINNESOTA. AY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35E, ANOKA COUNTY, /// ( /' \I/ I\ /, PROPOSED PARCEL B: - _ - -D' THAT PART OF 771E NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST jl 1 QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 2Z ANOKA COUNTY. MINNESOTA, LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED UNE: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER WITH THE ' / co EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 21: THENCE EASTERLY ON SAID SOUTH LINE 450 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING* THENCE NORTH PARALLEL 711771 THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER 700 FEET MORE 01? LESS TO SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ON SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER AND THERE TERMINATING; % /O I 1 1 1 1 't /TREE LINE - N34 00.56' 125.50 ELY R/W UNE CSA.H. 21 , i PROPOSED MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR BRIAN IVERSON -ET Y R/W UNE, CS.A.H. 21 ry ry 1ry,0 AND THE WESTERLY 10 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER. SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 31. RANGE 22 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, PROPOSED ACCESS EASEMENT THE NORTHERLY 66.00 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 570.00 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22 ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY THEREOF, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. AND THE NORTHERLY 66.00 FEET OF 7HE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF LINE OF COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 21. h • 1LINE RALLEL MTN 174E WEST NE OF 174E NW 1/4 OF E SW 1/4, SEC 1. T. 31, R. 22 SW CORNER OF TT7E SE 1/4 • OF THE NW 1/4, SEC 1, r J1, R. 22 ''GRAVEL 45753 'NORTH LINE' NW I /4, SW I /4, SEC. I. L J1, R. 22 EDGE OF WETLAND / \/ EAST UNE OF THE NW 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SEC. 1. T. J1, R. 22. PARCEL B AREA =873,279 SQ FT. 20.048 ACRES 900 TREE UNE., "1 74251 �.._— yfifi --`— 1 •''GRAVEL, --7REE UNE I RECEIVED MAY 1 7 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES S89 52'54'E 1323.56 ---# -- -10.00 WEST UNE OF 774E NE 7/4 OF 1/4 OF SEC. 1, T. 31, R. 22 0 100 200 400 SCALE „A+Nt \ \ OITG4._ -�++ 1781.09 IN FEET 1 INCH = 100 FEET NORTH UNE NE. 7 /4, SW 7/4, SEC 1, T. 31, R. 22. /��SEP nC MANHOLE --_Q \ t • PROPOSED 66 FT. ACCESS EASEMENT PONER (r POLE' 1 I%/ P1) 1,11 KILO") ,- cLEANOUT •1 V l 1 'I V.3 '5 V • POINT 450 FT. EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NW 1/4 OF 5W 1/4 OF SEC. 7, T. J1, R. 22 AND THE EASTERLY R/W LINE OF CSA.H 21 SOUTH UNE OF THE NW I/4 OF•' SW 7/4 OF SEC 1, T. 37, R. 22 S 9°58'59"w 2049.47 1306.97 2 xi r r/ PARCEL A AREA =2740,315 SQ, FT 39.952 ACRES '-EDGE OF'. W£TLANO 1 217. EAST UNE OF 7HE NE I/4 OF --- - - -"I -' SW 1/4 OF. -SAC 1, T. 3I, R. 22 PART OF 774E NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 LTIN7 W'LY OF INTERSTATE 35E I :�- --TREE LINE DITCH.: ''SOUTH UNE OF THE NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 OF SEC. I. L 37. R. 22 N89 58 56 E 16.55 INTERSTATE PASSE ENCINEEIPINC INC. REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS LICENSED LAND SURVEYORS • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: ACTION REQUESTED: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. D Daniel Licht (NAC) June 13, 2001 Site & Building Plan Review Lino Lakes Family Dentistry Site and Building Plans (3/5 vote) Lino Lakes Family Dentistry has submitted site and building plans for construction of a 5,067 square foot medical office building on property located on Apollo Drive. The subject site is approximately 65,340 square feet in size. The property is guided for future commercial development by the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned GB, General Business District. Medical office uses are allowed within this District as a permitted use. Development of a commercial use is subject to site and building plan review as provided for by Section 2, subd. 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. This review is based on the following plan submittals: Site Plan Grading/Drainage Plan Landscape Plan Utility Plan received 14 May 2001 received 14 May 2001 received 14 May 2001 received 14 May 2001 • • • Lino Lakes Family Dentistry Page 2 ANALYSIS Performance Standards The table below illustrates GB District performance standards in relation to the proposed site plan. The only issue is that the drive aisle on the west side of the building is set on the property line and not back 10 feet as required. This driveway is within a parking easement established over the common lot line with the property to the west and is indicated to be temporary. Building Design The footprint is approximately 4,792 sq. ft. The building is a single story structure with a pitched roof and a height measured to be 19' high. The elevations feature cultured stone on the forward part of the south elevation and a lap siding of "cement board" on the remaining portion of the south elevation, as well as the sides and rear of the building. Additional cultured stone accents are provided at the corners of the building. The peaks of the pitched roof also use the plank material. Section 3, Subd. 4.B allows for use of decorative concrete panels for commercial uses. Provided that the "cement boards" is consistent with this classification of material the exterior of the building would conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The site plan includes a trash and recycling area at the northwest corner of the property. The trash enclosure is 6 feet in height and constructed out of hardy planks, which would complement the principal building design. Landscaping The landscape plan proposes a mixture of trees, shrubs and bushes on the front and sides of the building. The materials included within the landscaping plan are consistent with the types and sizes required for commercial uses. No landscaping has been provided for Required Proposed Lot size minimum 20,000 sq ft 65,340 sq ft Lot width minimum 100 ft. 420 ft. Setbacks: buildings from street rear lot line side lot line parking from street rear lot line side lot line 40 ft. 30 ft. 10 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 53.5 ft. 30.0 ft. 24.5 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. 0 ft. Bldg. Height 45 ft. 19 ft. Green space 25 % 57.2% Building Design The footprint is approximately 4,792 sq. ft. The building is a single story structure with a pitched roof and a height measured to be 19' high. The elevations feature cultured stone on the forward part of the south elevation and a lap siding of "cement board" on the remaining portion of the south elevation, as well as the sides and rear of the building. Additional cultured stone accents are provided at the corners of the building. The peaks of the pitched roof also use the plank material. Section 3, Subd. 4.B allows for use of decorative concrete panels for commercial uses. Provided that the "cement boards" is consistent with this classification of material the exterior of the building would conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The site plan includes a trash and recycling area at the northwest corner of the property. The trash enclosure is 6 feet in height and constructed out of hardy planks, which would complement the principal building design. Landscaping The landscape plan proposes a mixture of trees, shrubs and bushes on the front and sides of the building. The materials included within the landscaping plan are consistent with the types and sizes required for commercial uses. No landscaping has been provided for • • • Lino Lakes Family Dentistry Page 3 the portion of the property designated for future development. This area should be seeded to control erosion. The utility plan indicates a sprinkler system is to be provided that would serve the front portion of the lot. The system should be expanded to serve more of the property or additional measures made available for watering plantings. The landscape plan is subject to further review for compliance with CPTED standards. Access The site has one access to Apollo drive, which overlays the west lot line providing for a shared driveway with the abutting property. Access to Apollo Drive is subject to approval of the City Engineer and Anoka County under a joint power agreement. In addition to the shared access, the site plan provides a 12 foot drive aisle abutting the property line on the west side of the building, which accesses the trash enclosure and interior storage area. As noted above, this drive aisle is within an easement overlaying the west property line to provide for shared access and is intended to be temporary. The applicant is therefore requesting that this section of driveway be allowed asphalt curb. The parameters for the temporary allowance of the asphalt curb should be specified as part of the site plan approval. Circulation around site is adequate with a 26 -foot wide driveway leading to 12 -foot access aisles (24 foot two -way) for the parking areas and rear trash/storage area. Backing out of the north stalls in the parking area may be difficult because the backup lane is shallow. If possible, the parking stalls should be shifted south to increase the depth of the backup lane to improve access. Parking Off —street parking as required by Section 3, Subd. 5 of the Zoning Ordinance is outlined below. The building includes 5,067 square feet of floor area, divided between 4,039 square feet of office and 1,028 feet of storage. The applicant indicates that the storage space could be converted to additional office space The total requirement is 26 parking spaces based on the gross floor area of the building. If the calculation excludes the storage area, 22 spaces are required. The plan shows 23 spaces, of which three would need to be removed to provide an extension of the driveway to allow development of the east side of the property. With the potential full use of the property in mind, accommodation should be made for 26 parking stalls on the site plan outside of the area necessary to extend the driveway. The proposed stalls measure 9 x 18 feet as required by Ordinance. One stall is designated as disability accessible consistent with ADA standards. However, the ramp leading down from the sidewalk encroaches into the area required to make the stall wide enough to be gross Code required area 90% requirement spaces Medical Office 5,067 4,560 3 + 1/200 sq. ft. 26 The total requirement is 26 parking spaces based on the gross floor area of the building. If the calculation excludes the storage area, 22 spaces are required. The plan shows 23 spaces, of which three would need to be removed to provide an extension of the driveway to allow development of the east side of the property. With the potential full use of the property in mind, accommodation should be made for 26 parking stalls on the site plan outside of the area necessary to extend the driveway. The proposed stalls measure 9 x 18 feet as required by Ordinance. One stall is designated as disability accessible consistent with ADA standards. However, the ramp leading down from the sidewalk encroaches into the area required to make the stall wide enough to be • • Lino Lakes Family Dentistry Page 4 van accessible. The site plan should be revised to provide sufficient surface width such that the disability accessible stalls are van accessible. Signage Signage is governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits are required for all signs. The site plan indicates the location of a monument type business sign measuring 40 square feet. The sign is located to the south of the parking area approximately one foot from the lot line. Freestanding signs are required to be at least five feet from the lot line, so the site plan must be revised. Lighting The site plan does not identify exterior light fixtures. Any light fixtures to be installed must be shown on the site plan and accompanied by a photometric plan. Installation of exterior lighting must conform to the requirements of Section 3, Subd 4.H regarding glare. Utilities The proposed site is to be served by sanitary sewer and water services located within the Apollo Drive right -of -way. Service to the future development of the eastern portion of the subject site will have access to the planned connection lines. The submitted plans include a grading and drainage plans for review regarding runoff control and water quality. All utility and grading plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Park Dedication Park dedication requirements outlined by Section 1001.14, Subd 4 of the Subdivision Ordinance. For medical offices, the requirement is $200.00 per 1000 sf of commercial building. Based on a 4,792 square foot building, the park dedication requirement would be $958.40. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION The Environmental Board comments have not been received. OPTIONS 1. Motion to approve the site and building plans for Lino Lakes Family Dentistry subject to the following conditions: a. The site plan is revised such that all driveways and parking areas meet required setbacks. Lino Lakes Family Dentistry Page 5 • b. Building materials used for the exterior facade are to be specified and must conform to the materials allowed for commercial uses. c. The site plan is revised to identify any exterior light patterns and a photometric plan is provided illustrating the illumination pattern of all site lighting. d. The landscape plan is revised to indicate all seeded or sod areas and measures for watering the full area. The landscape plan is subject to further review for consistency with CPTED Standards. e. All utilities, easements and grading plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. f. The site plan is revised to provide 26 off - street parking stalls inconsideration of future expansion plans, ADA accessibility standards and improved stall access. g. Site access is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer and Anoka County. h. Park dedication requirements are satisfied in the amount of $958.40 based upon current City policies and Ordinances. i. Comments of other Commissions and City Staff. 2. Motion to deny the application based upon a finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION The proposed site plan for Family Dentistry is generally consistent with the performance standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Minor changes to the site plan are required to provide required parking stalls, improve parking lot circulation and comply with setbacks for the west driveway. Provided these issues are addressed, our office would recommend approval of the application as outlined under option 1 above. • • • • RECEIVED MAY 14 2001 G1ri Of LINO LAKES May 14, 2001 Lino Lakes City Offices 1189 Main Street Circle Pines, MN 55014 -2123 Attn: City Planning RE: Lino Lakes Family Dentistry Narrative PROGRESSIVE Architecture 275 East Fourth Street Suite 530 Saint Paul, MN 55101 (612) 292-1061 Fax 292 -1819 Attached is our application for a new Dental office. The proposed location is on the north side of Apollo Drive and West of Lake Drive. Lino Lakes Family Dentistry has had a reputable practice in the city of Lino Lakes for many years. It is owned and operated by Dr Mike Hyden and Dr. Craig Sulzdorf. If approved, they are planning to move their practice to this new location. The site is presently zoned GB "General Business ", and a Dental office is considered to be conforming use. We are proposing a 5,067 square foot building. 4,039 square feet will be used for office space and the additional 1,028 square feet is planned as storage and or future office space. Parking requirements have been met for the proposed office space and provisions have been made on the site to accommodate for the additional parking requirements if and when the storage area is converted to office space. The site location is divided into approximately two equal halves. The West side of the parcel will accommodate the Dental office and the East side will remain for future development. Because of a restriction limiting the number of driveways on to Apollo Drive, our lot will share a common driveway with the lot to the West. This will be located in the drive easement previously approved by the city council. Our main and customer driveway will quickly turn to parallel Apollo Drive. Parking will be on the East side of our building. Future parking spaces will have a "green strip" between the existing and proposed. This will break up the mass of asphalt and give more of a rhythm to building mass and vacant or parking space. We will also have a service drive directly down the parking easement. This is a temporary drive and will service storage area and the trash receptacle. This service drive is temporary and will only service minor traffic. Due to its low use, we would like to use an asphalt curb in this area. The rest of our site will have a B 6/12 concrete curb. • • The building will have faux stone material on all the "Gable End Walls ". Hardy Board "Cement board" will be used on the remainder. The look of the contrasting materials will give the end walls a solid or structural look with the Hardy plank giving a warm agricultural feeling to the building. Overall, the appearance will be professional but with a touch of the rural character and history of the area. We have discussed the landscape requirements with Jeff Smizer and we are confident that our plants cape surpasses the basic requirements of the city. The plantings have been designed to enhance both the site and building when viewed from the road, to offer privacy to the staff when using the exterior patio area, and to offer additional enhancement for patients when approaching the main entrance. Our signage will be a low monument type sign that conforms to the city's requirements. We are excited about the new office and look forward to moving to this new location. We feel that the proposed dental office will be a positive addition to the area and the development that is coming to the new neighborhood. Sincerely, Scott Mower Progressive Architecture SM:so Enclosures eTKDA • TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 -2140 PHONE: 651 /292 -4400 FAX: 651/292 -0083 John Powell Reference: Lino Lakes Family Dentistry Copies To: Lino Lakes, Minnesota From: Jason Wedel Date: June 7, 2001 Commission No. 11985 -012 I have reviewed the preliminary plans for Lino Lakes Family Dentistry received on May 14, 2001. I have the following comments: 1. A licensed engineer must sign the engineering submittals. 2. The proposed utilities plan sheet is extremely difficult to review. The line types must be different for the proposed and existing utilities. The size, length, slopes, and class of pipe must shown on the plans. 3. There is a bend in the sanitary sewer service. A cleanout is needed at that location. 4. The storm sewer hydraulic computations must be submitted. 5. The Time of Concentration calculations must be submitted. 6. No construction details were included in the plans. A detail sheet must be provided which includes the details for the street and utility construction. 7. The grading plan does not include any erosion control measures. Silt fence, a rock construction entrance, and other erosion control measures must be included in the plans. If you have any questions or comments regarding this review, please contact me. An Equal Opportunity Employer 3 pp. if 1 NA in.!' 6 - 6OU1V-F14-NW 1`.— R /6NF-1 OF WA3' 7 PL-A* NUMBER -2-5 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ■ 6� ■a,, _vo, SUB IVISIO tii SCHUB a 3e ® ®19 �0�'ml�� Akin 1111 Ty NE2naII1©01 +— COUNTY—STATE—AID—mem T V& ' T our or I 41, s a O 6 a AUU. 8 � A D. 3 2 2 3 4/ 6 7 NE 0 N, s U 5. bohimill STAT - NI(- ' N0.49 r— - -- LW AM' O BuS /NE35 PqR 1 • t Area north of Apollo Drive easement 129,544 sq. ft. 2.97 acres N89 °06 '02 "W P•A. 20 20j 247.33 PARCEL B 64,203.36 sq. ft. 1.47 acres 11? 8a x$-5 D�1 so N •-) co rn 20 11/001402e "4601.1. .44,,ec7,11- i/ - -S. line of the N. 693 feet 659.40 E -� 4 N00 °47'36 "E 20 1 c•-• oc i: 4, a) )N U 0 U W a 0' N o o., as 0� a. 25'31 412.07 412.07 PARCEL A 65,340.50 sq. ft. 1.50 acres 1 �3 r YO ---"B18.51 110.96 N e� ti eos 231.. t aa 12 0 143411 Doc • Area south of Apollo Drive easement 196,582 sq. ft. 4.51 acres Area south of Apollo Drive easement minus Lilac street 178,653 sq. ft. 4,10 acres 418.60 27°36 55 -7 • • _ _ _ ° M L-,AC STREET (STATE TRUNK 1-11G.4NVAY NO. 49) M M S89 °0000 "E ^ 537.01 S. line of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 8, T.31, R.22 \X ' 0 0 M 0 n rn 0 .1) to szr 0 V) I I L C I 0 121.88 N89°00'00 "W An off Sec. E )e es Iron Set • Denotes Iron Found Bearings shown are ?er y certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my ect supervision and that l am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws t State of Minnesota. Dated this S71, day of /1 fa J, , 2001. 4,j) l d/. 444-,,:e.deG.,s License No. a5.3 9 ) on an assumed E.G.RUa 4 L,4■0 SURvEY slam LEXINCSTON CIRCLE PINES, MP TEL. 163 -1a6 -555 LCERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: Circle-Lex VFW N., o n 247.33 /.S L E Is-r) C000\-OoNS Q /t i X911.51 • 911.08 X912.71 91'.x3 X912.66 • X913.30 • X913.03 S. Tine of the S8§°0621.09 ' E N. 693 feet X913.76 X91.3012.81 •.10-pine; '912.8$ 412.07 X914.00 ..............•. .. .X913.99 X914.39 X91;1.85 X911.75 p.1% X � 912.45 tt X911.56 PATE: 5/ Pr Jol PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. 9180 LEXINGTON AVE. N.E. CIRCLE PINES, MN 55014 (763) 785 -1043 FAX 786.6007 RECEIVED MAY 1 5 2007 CITY Y OF LINO LAKE. PROPER X91:1.87 M • • 20 Eo 912 915.20 6 "pine 6"pine 914.94 913.89 10 "cherry 914.58 912.41 912.31 10 -Box 10 -Box 10 -Box 10 "Box 12.12 912.77 912.54 23 X911.15 ox 911.74 : 8 "cedar X911.99 8 -Box 911.72 X911.57. 912.23 913.57 912.92 10 pine 913.93 x A -12.67 8 -Box X912.84 16 -box •913.07 X 91,x. 6 pine 9� 914.85 8 'oak 912.5 '. . X 912.14 .......... ............ • . X911.82 65,34 1.5C 1 A , X911.0 1 /I, .. r r X911.25 91,x• • • 911.12 8 -Box :` X910.6u X910.6 i 11.87 12 -box 50 sq. ft. acres X911. X9•0;85 X910.47 X911.50 91� 910.66 X910.57 X911.23 X910.41 913.99 913.49 ... 912.18 910.18 R-- E. line of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 8, T.31. R.22 ;20 911.35'....... 911.33 ........ 909,18' 909.65 .Son• MH Inv =884.181 4'4 Inv -904 1t R= 868.51 910.99 917.0. - 911.58 911.30 909 0 91a•........ 909.44 9b9,8 ...... 910.31 909.64 909.11 .000/i- Storm MH Inv - 901.8 / The East 412.07 feet of Lot 16, Auditors Subdivision No. 134, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying within the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, Tying south of the North 693.00 feet and Tying north of the 100.00 foot road easement for Apollo Drive as per Doc. 9p9 ... ^w 908.66 908.26 Inv - 903.5 ±N Inv - 902.51E -W 908.12 NORTH / 911.D3. X9/.20 911.09 X911.03 9 12.25 ............... ..... .g12•.•� 908.52 908.99 rn •••./(911:13 909.77 1 / ociI L - / 12.50 912.99 8.10 O O tt I I Pi -ZY1 7-s Scale 1"= 50' Drawn By: CWS o Denotes Iron Set • Denotes. Iron Found Project Manager: XXX Bearings shown • are Job No.: on an assumed datum. / hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that / am a du /y Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this day of , 2001. License No. E.G.Ruo 4 SONS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS 9180 LEXINGTON AVE. NO. CIRCLE PINES, MINNESOTA 55014-3625 TEL 163 -186 -5556 FAX 163- 186 -6001 • • AREA SQ.FT. % HARD SURFACE 20,697 29 IMPROVED DEVELOPMENT 34,112 100 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 31,228 NA • OM a Piet' ' •1„5.' man r•.f a �I�II %ill ;,: -4 —..r j I ■ M iii M. r.. i •••r21•u••••••ii• POW_ 'AL •• I ti • FUTURE DEVELOPMENT I i L UNIMPROVED 1 i a 1 I i 1 L __ "J ��M NuIg YAe/Y ■ FUTURE STRUCTURE L J MOMRIEiT SION TO IBE RaOGATID NTH PUKED: OEVELOREMT APOLLO DRIV_ pggCJ� Y'I.1�/Y a OSITE1 PLAN -204 LINO LAKES FAMILY DENTAL 1 N7NIT TO COIIGRI TO LOCAL WOOS L Ga PQQNr! TO GarOPH TO NOCK PAM OLOGIC ®SU3NAGE 1/4' - V-0 • TRASH RECYCLE ENCLOSURE ��_ 1/4 -P-0 7k- .40". Seams 01"11 9 9 R-888A! (7 )CONTEXT PLAN Rd REVISIONS: RECEIVED MAY 1 4( Z 0 01 CITY OF LINO LAKES DRAM BY: xxxx CHECKED BY: 8 8 LINO LAKES FAMILY DENTISTRY A1.2 • • r L PICIP Mm Pu PIA sus O GRADING DRAINAGE PLAN 1' _204 Z: \LLF2 \DWG \LLF2A1.dwg, 05/11/2001 02:31:50 AM REVISIONS: RECEIVED MAY 1 4 2 -1TY OF LINO 0 DRAVM BY: XXXX CHECKED BY: III !IPP 45.6 g ninX LINO LAKES FAMILY DENTISTRY A1.3 01 KE5 • • • • • • r r I L � NN INLET 905.50 OUTLET 905.02 — GB R = 910.53 OUTLET 906.53 INY 905.53 ?Bast sr SEINER IW ELEV 90sC2 18" RO 23LP CL V, 1.0a% J Nam • • C) UTILITY PLAN V ∎274 Z: \LLF2 \DWG \LLF2A1.dwg, 05/11/2001 02:32:20 AM REVISIOS: REC MAY CITY OF L ORAVM Err: xxxx CHECKED BY: EIVED Yy €I4 450 teffil a g li A1.4 4 2001 NOLA01 • • • �ANDSCAPE PLAN r -aa- Z: \LLF2\DWG \LLF2A1.dwg, 05/11/2001 02:32:50 AM DESIGNATION NAME BOTANICAL NAME QTY SIZE A SUGAR MAPLE ACER SACCHARUM 'MAJESTY 2 2" B MARHALL'S SEEDLESS ASH FRAXINUS PENSYLVANICA "MARSHAL'S SEEDLESS' 1 2" C RIVER BIRCH BETULA NIGRA 1 2' D PAPER BARK MAPLE ACER GRISEUM 1 *7 gal E MADONA FLOWERING CRAB MALUS'MAZAM' 3 *15 gal F DWARF BURNING BUSH EUONYOMUS ALATUS'COMPACrUS" 1 *5 gal G AMUR MAPLE ACER GINNALA "BAILEY COMPACTUS' "NOT BIGUS• 1 *10 gal H ERMERALD ARBORVIATE THUJA OCCIDENTALIS "EMRALD' 14 *7 gal I JIM DANDY WINTERBERRY L VERITILICALLATA "JIM DANDY' 8 *5 gal J HOLLY'S HONEY 'HOSTA' 13 *1/2gal K SNOW MOUND SPIREA APIRAEA NIPPONICA "SNOWMOUND' 4 *2 gal L SUNGOLD FALSECYPRESS CHAMAECYPARIS PISIFERA'FILIFERA SUNGOLD" 14 *2 gal M LITTLE PRINCESS SPIREA SPIREA JAPONICA "LITTLE PRINCESS' 2 *5 gal N ANNUALS 0 MESCANTHIUS 9 *1/2 gal RECE1\ MAY 14 %f CITY OF LINO D 01 KES DRAM BY: XXXX CrEC M Bv: LINO LAKES FAMILY DENTISTRY A1.5 • • OPER 11251 OPER 11241 OPER 1201 OPER OPER MEI 0 OFFICE nil HALL HALL HALL (10 1 LAU ENTRY MATCH LINE • STORAGE KITCH Nossor Qro HALL 11331 HALL 11301 OPER 11251 CONF 0 OFFICE 1261 BATH Eil O HALL 11061 MEN'S ( 1251 J ENTRY COURT [1001 FINANCE III BREAK 11051 11051 TANK STOR /1061 RECEPT 11031 BUS 11041 AIR LOCK 1011 WAITING AREA 11021 Z: \LLF2 \DWG \LIf2A2.dwg, 05/11/01 09:18:01 AM MATCH t INE k 1, L 11 11 11 11 I, 11 11 1, I a A6 ratty REVISIOS: RECET MAY 1 4 CITY OF LIN DRANK BV: XXXX CHECKED BV: /E® LINO LAKES FAMILY DENTISTRY A 2.2 ;001 LAKE • SOUTH ELEVATION 114'. 1,0' e Lll u • OEAST ELEVATION ta'-ra OEM MIR C C1 i= • ff 4 4 4 4 0 a- 0 Z: \LLF2\DWG \LLF2A3.dwg, 05/11/2001 02:36:33 AM L •! NJ TOP R ILLY. FlK PL* t'[,N TOP Q SLOB • trlr TDP. q0,,41 tvs' Els nom_ ■ .�. _'_ 1 -. t•� 1111111111C N11.. uP LTEL .c:r�� f;jl,.�:. • -._t /_stir • REVISIONS: R CEFVED MAY 1 4 2001 TY Ot. O ...) LAKES DRRV.I WY: mom omaEO ev: fikipi !OM A 3.1 • r :i:.. Pia0110. $ ALL CMS mar romenwnws TD Fl5L RJ.ILLY iooud MMIIw' ICY Q SLAM Mg SW 4441 M.. 0 °NORTH ELEVATION TOP e* SUNS 414 Sir TAP. TO!'. .10L1 SOY ®WEST ELEVATION Z:\LLF2 \DWG \LLF2A3.dwg, 05/11/2001 02:36:04 AM • r lsI s: RFCE V. D MAY 14 4101 CITY Or 'NO KES °PAWN n: XXXX a,000® BY: LINO LADS FAMILY DENTISTRY A3.2 • • AGENDA ITEM 5 -E STAFF ORIGINATOR: Alan Brixius (NAC) P & Z MEETING DATE: June 13, 2001 TOPIC: ISD 12 Rezoning Request — Birch Street BACKGROUND With the ISD 12 request to locate a new elementary school next to the Centennial Middle School, the School District also hopes to sell its existing vacant property along Birch Street. In this regard, the School District has requested that their 38.29 acre site be rezoned from PSP, Public /Semi- Public District to R -1X, Single Family Executive District. Attached for your consideration: Site Location Site Survey Wetland Delineation ANALYSIS Rezoning School Locations: ISD 12, in evaluating its elementary school needs, determined that a new facility adjoining the existing middle school will best serve its current and future enrollment population. The Birch Street site is seen as a duplicate site for Rice Lake Elementary School and Centerville Elementary School. Existing Zoning: The 38.29 acre site is zoned PSP, Public /Semi- Public Zoning District. This zoning district is limited in the range of uses that are allowed. To market the property for sale, this range of use is very limiting and in some cases the uses may not be conducive or compatible with the adjoining residential properties (i.e., clinics, nursing homes, public buildings, hospitals). Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to R -1X, Single Family Executive District. This is a low density urban residential district. Rezoning Evaluation Criteria: In consideration of rezoning requests, the possible adverse effects of the amendment should be considered. Generally speaking, the City Council and Planning Commission's judgment of the rezoning should be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: ISD 12 Rezoning -Birch Street June 13, 2001 page 2 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provision of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. 5. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Comprehensive Plan While zoned PSP, the 1990 Land Use Plan guides the subject site for single family residential and includes the area in the existing MUSA. The Proposed 2020 Land Use Plan shows the property as public /semi- public, reflecting the public ownership and current zoning. The 2020 plan also includes the site in the MUSA and Phase 1 growth area. The following Comprehensive Plan policies are also applicable to the zoning request. 1987 Comprehensive Plan Policies • Future community development shall take into account social, economic, and environmental opportunities and constraints in an effort to provide an optimal arrangement of future land use activities. • Moderately intense development (residential, commercial and industrial) shall be encouraged to locate within Lino Lakes. The location of such land uses will be consistent with the availability of public facilities, thoroughfare accessibility and conformance with established adjacent land uses. • Where possible, land uses will be grouped together, according to similarity of their characteristics, in order to minimize potential negative impacts. Where conflicting land uses must be located adjacent to one another, steps will be taken to minimize the potential negative impacts. • Urban development will be encouraged to locate within the areas of the community where public investments (streets, utilities, police and fire protection, parks, etc.) have already been provided to meet the needs of existing development. This policy will be promoted in an effort to maximize benefit from existing public investments. • • ISD 12 Rezoning -Birch Street June 13, 2001 page 3 2020 Comprehensive Plan Policies (Proposed) Land Use Goals, Page 26 • Maintain and, where necessary, strengthen the character of individual neighborhoods. • Develop a cohesive land use pattern that insures compatibility and functional relationships among activities. Land Use Policies, Page 28 • Examine requested land use changes in relation to adjoining land uses, site accessibility, utility availability, and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and policies. Residential Goals, Page 29 • Maintain and enhance the strong character of Lino Lakes' single family residential neighborhoods. Residential Policies, Page 29 • Prevent the intrusion of incompatible land uses into low density single family neighborhoods. The zoning change would be compatible with the current 1990 Land Use Plan and would be consistent with the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan policies. Land Use Compatibility: To determine the appropriateness of the proposed use it is beneficial to examine the adjoining land use and zoning. Direction Use Zoning North Single Family Residential R -1X South Rural Single Family R East Single Family Residential R -1X West Single Family/Regional Park R -1/RX The proposed zoning from PSP to R -1X would be consistent with the R -1X zoning of the Pheasant Hills subdivision that adjoins the site on the north and east. The property lies within the existing MUSA and Phase 1 growth area presents a logical extension of the existing sewered single family neighborhoods. Performance Standards: The rezoning application is not accompanied by a subdivision request. Any future development must be compliant with the City zoning and subdivision regulations. A survey delineating wetland in the subject site has been submitted. Based on our calculation, the site contains approximately 10+ acres of wetland, leaving 28 acres of buildable acres scattered through the site. The amount and configuration of the buildable acres will limit the development of the site. • ISD 12 Rezoning -Birch Street June 13, 2001 page 4 Public Service Capacity: The site lies within the City's existing MUSA and Phase 1 growth area. The residential development of the site should be within the capacity of existing utilities serving the area. Transportation: Access to any future development would be reliant on access from Birch Street and local streets in adjoining subdivisions. Birch Street is a County road. The County Highway Department must comment to the capacity of Birch Street and its ability to accommodate residential development from the 28 developable acres within the 38.28 acre total site. OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval of the requested rezoning from PSP to R -1X based on the findings of this report, subject to positive comments of Anoka County Highway Department regarding the capacity of Birch Street to accommodate traffic from the subject site. 2. Recommend denial of the rezoning and outline findings for denial. 111 3. Extend the 60 day review period and refer back to staff for further information. RECOMMENDATION Any land use change is a policy decision determined by the City Council. This request is tied to the School District's request to locate a new elementary school next to Centennial Middle School. If the City finds the middle school site appropriate for an elementary school, then the City must decide the appropriate future land use of the Birch Street site. The change from PSP to R -1X would be consistent with adjoining zoning and guide low density sewered residential land uses. If the County finds that Birch Street has the capacity to accommodate the future development of the site, then the rezoning request can be supported. • • • • SITE LOCATION MAP BO ' .. � ,,m N 40 111 ....10... ...... Rai _ lir MIMI i kiiiirriiriajtr w pus lir ION � � mr Cm atil �� 4lNil{I II-1� ' ' . ,1 �II■mIIIIIIIIIOIII ��Ii. I I�I.ti -�. _g.. 11 •I I: i? ITuL., — =i —mill 'yllllll iiii1/ /'i .IIII11M11111 � = MIMI No..ITlt - = E:::: . � •I PE ■a,�+ ='t inn fl 14 1 ra PARCEL BOUNDARIES III City of Centerville Site In Question i1 { l atiiimen ATI .11175 n- L,� p-. = mum ► .....ems■ mm LEGEND Parcel Boundaries Water Bodies 2 0 2 Miles LINO LAKES EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION • Si' v A 3.;.333.3 . ;„ • g ., ,, . . g 9 9 i if- 2,11.211!glif:;.1:38. 31:8* 30/F1.3111A' J'14; i I- I .. 3333113:J1:I 11 "2111!:1:3 V31 4 4 : '1:11 ali lava • IH 062PS ..MO IN , EXHIBIT B - SITE SURVEY a WETLAND AREAS WERE DELINEATED BY P.E.C. • s \set ( set • \ EXHIBIT C - WETLAND DELINEATION • AGENDA ITEM 5 -F STAFF ORIGINATOR: Alan Brixius (NAC) P & Z MEETING DATE: June 13, 2001 TOPIC: ISD 12 Rezoning Request from L -I to PSP at Middle School Site BACKGROUND ISD 12 has a letter of intent to purchase 15+ acres of industrial zoned land located at the northeast corner of the existing Centennial Middle School site for the purpose of building a new elementary school. The site is currently zoned L -I, Light Industrial and would require a change in zoning to PSP, Public /Semi- Public District to accommodate the elementary school. The School District has requested consideration of the following development applications to facilitate a new elementary school at this location: 1. Rezoning from L -1, Limited Industrial Zoning District to PSP, Public/Semi- . Public Zoning District. 2. Subdivision to create a parcel to be conveyed to the School District. These applications are evaluated in greater detail in the body of this report. This review is based on the following: • Site Location Site Survey Concept Plan ANALYSIS Location of Elementary School Upon investigation of the needed elementary school, the School District has selected the proposed site next to the Centennial Middle School for the following reasons: 1. In review of the School District's enrollment distribution and forecasts, approximately 60 percent of the present and future enrollment population lives west of Lake Drive and County Road 49. The proposed site provides a centralized location to best serve the School District's population. • • ISD 12 Rezoning- Industrial June 13, 2001 page 2 2. The current vacant Birch Street location lies in close proximity to the existing Rice Lake Elementary and Centerville Elementary. Construction of another school along Birch Street is seen as a duplication of facilities. 3 The proposed site's proximity to the Centennial Middle School allows the elementary school to share facilities with the middle school (i.e., play equipment, play fields). This allows the elementary school to be located on a smaller site thus reducing the School District's investment in land acquisition and development of on -site recreational facilities. Rezoning Existing Zoning: The 15 acre site is zoned L -I, Limited Industrial District and exists as part of the Lake Business Park subdivision. The L -I Zoning District does not allow elementary schools as an allowed use therefore mandating the rezoning request. The proposed site lies within the Lake Business Park preliminary plat which was approved in 1998. The site being considered by the School District is isolated on the far west end of the Lake Business Park preliminary plat by an existing wetland. This end of the preliminary plat is intended to gain access to Lake Drive via an 1,150 feet long cul -de- sac. The rezoning and subdivision would significantly reduce the needed cul -de -sac length for the industrial park. Proposed Zoning: The requested zoning for the 15+ acre parcel is PSP, Public /Semi- Public District. The purpose of this district is described as follows: This district is designed and intended to aid in guiding development towards fulfillment of the Comprehensive Plan and to serve the following functions: 1. To provide the community with properly located schools, colleges, and health institutions. 2. To provide the community and properly located public services, and utilities. 3 To provide the community with properly located open green space, parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities. 4. To relate public and semi- public locations with thoroughfare system. The PSP Zoning District allows for public and private schools by conditional use permit. • At this time, only the zoning and subdivision requests are being considered. The conditional use permit will be processed as a separate application with the site plan details. • • • ISD 12 Rezoning- Industrial June 13, 2001 page 3 Rezoning Evaluation Criteria: In consideration of rezoning requests, the possible adverse effects of the amendment should be considered. Generally speaking, the City Council and Planning Commission's judgment of the rezoning should be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provision of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. 5. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Comprehensive Plan Due to the limited application of the PSP Zoning District, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan seldom applies this land use category except where the use exists or where there is public ownership of the property. Recognizing this condition, the 1990 Land Use Plan and the Proposed 2020 Land Use Plan guides this site for industrial use. The Planning Commission and City Council must therefore determine the appropriateness of this zoning change on the applicable policies of the 1987 Comprehensive plan and the proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan policies that relate to the rezoning request. 1987 Comprehensive Plan Policies • Future community development shall take into account social, economic, and environmental opportunities and constraints in an effort to provide an optimal arrangement of future land use activities. • Where possible, land uses will be grouped together, according to similarity of their characteristics, in order to minimize potential negative impacts. Where conflicting land uses must be located adjacent to one another, steps will be taken to minimize the potential negative impacts. • Urban development will be encouraged to locate within the areas of the community where public investments (streets, utilities, police and fire protection, parks, etc.) have already been provided to meet the needs of existing • • • ISD 12 Rezoning- Industrial June 13, 2001 page 4 development. This policy will be promoted in an effort to maximize benefit from existing public investments. 2020 Land Use Policies (Proposed) Growth Management, Page 24 • Promote an orderly development pattern that capitalizes on in -place utility and service investment. Land Use, Pages 26 -27 General Goal • Develop a cohesive land use pattern that insures compatibility and functional relationships among activities. General Policies • Establish a cohesive image for the entire community through the uniform application of community promotion, land use development, design and service. • Build on community strengths such as regional parks, environmental quality, open space, strong residential neighborhoods, quality local government, and excellent school and park amenities in defining the City's identity. • Ensure that changes in types of land use occur either at center, mid -block points so that similar uses front on the same street, or at borders of areas separated by major man -made or natural barriers. Community Facilities, Pages 38 -39 Goals • Maintain, improve existing services, and develop new community facilities and services to meet the needs and interests of the community. • Provide for safe, easy access to all facilities and services within the community. • Coordinate facilities and services on a joint use basis between various governmental units to avoid duplication and provide cost effective services. School Policies • Coordinate community growth with the School District to insure proper school facilities to meet future population needs. The School District's interest in creating a shared elementary and middle school campus does economize an existing investment, promote a greater utilization of existing facilities, and is located in a manner that best serves the School District's residents. In this regard, the proposed land use and zoning change is consistent with the Comprehensive plan policies. Within the 2020 proposed Comprehensive Plan under Staged Growth Area Rules, the following recommendation is made: • ISD 12 Rezoning- Industrial June 13, 2001 page 5 "In considering land trades, the City will discourage the exchange of developable commercial or industrial zoned land for a proposed residential development." While the rezoning of the industrial land will not directly accommodate residential growth, the School District, in a related application, is requesting that the existing Birch Street parcel be rezoned from P SP to R -1X, Single Family Residential. The City must determine if this requested zoning change is inconsistent with this recommendation. It should be noted that this is a unique request in that it is driven by the facility needs of the School District rather than private development. Land Use Compatibility: To determine the appropriateness of the proposed use, it is beneficial to examine the adjoining land use and zoning. Direction Use Zoning North I -3 5 W L -I South Middle School/Vacant PSP/L -I East Industrial/Vacant L -I West Middle School PSP The proposed site adjoins the middle school site which allows a shared campus arrangement. I -35W represents a physical separation from land uses to the north. Industrial zoning will adjoin the site on the east and southeast. This area was preliminary platted in 1998 under the name of Lake Business Park. This preliminary plat reveals that storm water drainage ponds and a wetland physically separates the proposed site from most of the industrial area. The Lake Business Park preliminary plat relied on a 1,150 foot long cul -de -sac to provide access to the westernmost lot. Long cul -de -sacs provide poor street access for industrial traffic and site access. Performance Standards: The School District would need to submit an application for conditional use permit to allow a school in the PSP District per Section 9.I.1 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted a survey and concept plan with the subdivision request. In review of this information, we offer the following comment /suggestions: 1. The site exceeds the lot area for a PSP lot. 2. The site fails to provide for adequate lot width, frontage on a public street, or setback from the south and west property lines. • 3. A wetland delineation is necessary for site development based on information submitted with the Lake Business Park preliminary plat. The eastern portion of the site has wetland constraints that must be addressed in the site design. Any wetland filling will require a wetland replacement plan. • • • ISD 12 Rezoning- Industrial June 13, 2001 page 6 4. The survey indicates that only the eastern half of 4a' Avenue has been vacated. To accommodate the proposed development, the balance of 4th Street through the site must be vacated. 5. A utility easement following the 4th Street alignment must be established and recorded. The subdivision should also show ten foot drainage and utility easements along the side and rear property lines. To avoid the need for lot width and building setback variances associated with the creation of a new lot, we would recommend that the proposed site be combined with the existing middle school site to create a single parcel. Combining the lots will allow the elementary school to utilize middle school land to meet the City's performance standards. Section 3.C.3 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance allows more than one principal building on PSP lots provided that all the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance are met. Public Service Capacity: The site lies within the existing MUSA. The proposed site and school is not anticipated to overburden existing in -place utilities or municipal services. Transportation: The elementary school will gain its site access via shared driveways with the middle school accessing Elm Street. The combined campus will allow the middle school and elementary school to share bus service. The elementary school will be designed to accommodate between 750 and 1,000 students, resulting in staffing of approximately 75 people. Bus traffic, staff and visitor traffic will be the anticipated traffic generation. This traffic is not anticipated to overburden existing streets serving the site. OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval of the requested rezoning from L -I to PSP based on the findings outlined in this report. Approve the subdivision subject to the conditions outlined in this report's recommendations. Recommend denial of the rezoning and subdivision and outline findings for denial. 3. Extend the 60 day review period and refer back to staff for further information. • ISD 12 Rezoning- Industrial June 13, 2001 page 7 RECOMMENDATION Any land use or zoning change is a policy decision that is determined by the City Council. In this request, the Council must weigh its decision against the criteria outlined in the body of this report. Based on staff review, it would appear that the rezoning of the 15 acre parcel would be reasonable to create a school campus for both the elementary school and the middle school. If the rezoning is deemed appropriate, staff would recommend that the subdivision be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The elementary school site is combined with the middle school site to create a single lot. 2. The applicant pursue a conditional use permit and submit detailed development plans for the site. The site plan should illustrate how the plan will be integrated with the middle school. 3. Wetland replacement plans will be required and subject to the review and approval of Rice Creek Watershed. 4. Vacation of the west half of 4t' Street through the proposed site will be required. 5. Appropriate easements must be established over all existing utilities and along side and rear lot lines. • • LI i'1lL9iIIIIHftiIIIiI a Ula4nm��q illl�r= ■ ��Ula d1aid_il: -Iiir 1.w imiimmduaw.4..I Question, ■.._ I� a G�1..... I N N 1 N , . rr rrnr . u�I1� I;� Ii�111111lI '�► ari iiiiii1 :l�"r�/ ,,•`fir :. r 111111 AL i :mn =p1 , aliiir- er rrawi ■ 11111111`1'1 11 MOO EffEBNINIMMIMMU it -_ :mullnum .:_ 111111. 1 SITE LOCATION MAP PARCEL BOUNDARIES City of Centerville LEGEND Parcel Boundaries Water Bodies 2 0 2 Miles EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION LINO LAKES E - 1 111 fl MI 'V", Olin 6Lr .1111310 1001-051.10N3BONI VDN CI3101d A1MJN NO S-N 100HDS 121V1N31/1313 1VINNILND M3N 31-11 I I; • z N ‚0. co 10 • 19 OA, 10*(1, 3„frY, I S.00N • sr. tr.00N ------- \ 2 \ \Idx ":,== .P.tra3 Ze747 C3 1 "00 (.4 tn — 5.990E 5 n N 5 A ''.1Z:11/11-4net2=1 I' 7, H ,L ea V 410-MIG-Ear 44 14 rtf:". A F.:: Z' cz Q • 2▪ i. -e_ fe 1, ,..1.7., 4i s) — ',. ',. -.. rg 65 -- 4 ..::: —li !I': # A. : : v •^' ' • ,\) 4: " ':. V' '''' '''- '1, •S.•• cz.'.. 4 T'cri;', oo` p,'''' .7.: c) ..... ,.., ... eip it EXHIBIT B - SITE SURVEY Pqdir I i - g 1 I 1 , 1 WI o; NW 'MM.. 61.I.0111l5101001.05.110.3.101,11 VV 111.01d AlAUN NO S-N 100HDS ANVIN1A1313 1VINNILN3D M3N JHI 1 • 5 4011M.11101I • 011111111111111111 \ 01111111111111111111 ZZ 'It •. •11 'Ms I411.9 __ 0 4 Mr. • •qC. \ ..0.111111111111111 0111111111111 • EXHIBIT C - CONCEPT PLAN • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM V. G Daniel Licht (NAC) June 13, 2001 TOPIC: Preliminary Plat Highland Meadows 3rd Addition ACTION REQUESTED: Preliminary Plat (3/5 Vote) BACKGROUND TSM Development, Inc.has submitted an application for a preliminary plat entitled Highland Meadows 3rd Addition. The subject site is located south of Main Street and west of Lake Drive. The property is planned for low density residential uses and is zoned R -1/PDO and R -1 Districts. The proposed preliminary plat is a re -plat of Highland Meadows 2nd Addition and incorporates an additional 25 acres as part of the project. The Highland Meadows 2nd Addition included both single family and townhouse dwelling units in a subdivision based on coving design principals. The present application includes only single family residential lots. The following analysis is based upon a review of the following submittals: Preliminary Plat Preliminary Grading P1an' Preliminary Utility Plan Tree Preservation Plan Erosion Control Plan Existing Drainage Map Proposed Drainage Map Details and Notes ANALYSIS Project Data: dated 9 May 2001 dated 9 May 2001 dated 9 May 2001 dated 9 May 2001 dated 9 May 2001 dated 9 May 2001 dated 9 May 2001 dated 9 May 2001 Site Total Wetlands Upland Right -of -Way Outlots Number of Lots Gross Density Net Density (Upland Only) 33.39 acres 0.74 acres 32.65 acres 6.53 acres 0.94 70 lots 2.09 units /ac 2.14 units /ac • • • Land Use and Zoning. The subject site is guided for single family residential uses by the current and draft Comprehensive Plan (1 -3 du/ac.) and it is included within the current MUSA. Consistent with the land use plan, the subject site is zoned PDO/R -1 and R -1 District. The PDO Zoning was applied to the site to facilitate a previous subdivision concept based on coving design principals with flexibility on front yard setback standards. No such flexibility is being processed as part of this subdivision design. Single family lots and uses are a permitted use of these Districts. The following are surrounding land uses. The proposed subdivision is anticipated to be compatible with existing and planned uses in the area. Access. Access to the subdivision is provided via Maryland Drive from the south and Arlo Lane from the west. Traffic from this neighborhood must use these routes to reach collector or arterial streets due to access limitations onto Main Street to the north. Local streets within the preliminary plat have been designed with a 60 foot right -of -way, consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. There are three cul -de -sacs within the project, necessitated by existing development and wetlands. The cul -de -sacs have a 60 foot radius as required. The only issue with the street design is the 105 offset of Street A and Street D. The Subdivision Ordinance discourages offsets less than 125 feet. The potential to align Street A and Street D should be given further consideration. Blocks and Lots. The subdivision includes 70 single family lots with an average size of 16,150 square feet within five blocks. The subdivision Ordinance limits block length to not more than 1,500 feet. The lengths of Blocks 1 and 2 exceed 1,500 feet, due to existing development, wetland and drainage areas, and limitations on access to Main Street. The R -1 District minimum lot size is 10,800 square feet of buildable land. The lots listed below do not meet the minimum lot area requirement. The preliminary plat must be revised such that all lots have at least 10,800 square feet of areas exclusive of drainageways, wetlands, water bodies, parks, easements, rights -of -way and steep slopes. Block 1: Lot 7 and Lot 14. Block 2: Lots 5,10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20. Block 3: Lots 3, 4, and 5. Highland Meadows 3rd Page 2 of 5 Comprehensive Plan (Existing) Comprehensive Plan (Draft) Zoning Site Single Family Residential Low Density/Residential PDO / R -1 and R -1 North Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Low Density/Residential Low Density/Residential R -1 R -1 East South Single Family Residential Low Density/Residential R -1 West Single Family Residential Low Density/Residential R -1 Access. Access to the subdivision is provided via Maryland Drive from the south and Arlo Lane from the west. Traffic from this neighborhood must use these routes to reach collector or arterial streets due to access limitations onto Main Street to the north. Local streets within the preliminary plat have been designed with a 60 foot right -of -way, consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. There are three cul -de -sacs within the project, necessitated by existing development and wetlands. The cul -de -sacs have a 60 foot radius as required. The only issue with the street design is the 105 offset of Street A and Street D. The Subdivision Ordinance discourages offsets less than 125 feet. The potential to align Street A and Street D should be given further consideration. Blocks and Lots. The subdivision includes 70 single family lots with an average size of 16,150 square feet within five blocks. The subdivision Ordinance limits block length to not more than 1,500 feet. The lengths of Blocks 1 and 2 exceed 1,500 feet, due to existing development, wetland and drainage areas, and limitations on access to Main Street. The R -1 District minimum lot size is 10,800 square feet of buildable land. The lots listed below do not meet the minimum lot area requirement. The preliminary plat must be revised such that all lots have at least 10,800 square feet of areas exclusive of drainageways, wetlands, water bodies, parks, easements, rights -of -way and steep slopes. Block 1: Lot 7 and Lot 14. Block 2: Lots 5,10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20. Block 3: Lots 3, 4, and 5. Highland Meadows 3rd Page 2 of 5 • • • Lots within the R -1 District must also have a minimum width of 80 feet (100 feet for corner lots) and minimum depth of 135 feet (145 feet for double frontage lots). All of the lots meet or exceed these provisions. Existing Structures. There are four existing single family dwellings within the project area. The submitted plans do not identify those that are to remain or those that may be removed. The proposed subdivision design has been laid out such that each dwelling would be located on an individual lot within required setbacks. There is a detached accessory building in the area of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 that must be removed as it overlays lot lines and encroaches into the right - of -way. Natural Features. The subject site includes several large stands of trees throughout the property. A tree preservation plan has been submitted that indicates trees to be protected and those to be removed as part of the development. Trees to be preserved are a large stand in the southwest corner, a stand in the northeast corner and a small stand in the northwest corner of the property. All other significant trees are to be removed from the central areas of the property as part of the grading plan and development of the site. The existing conditions sheet and grading plan identify a 0.74 acre wetland in the center of Block 2. This wetland area is not to be disturbed as part of development of this project. The wetland will be included within a drainage and utility easement that also covers drainage ponds adjacent to the wetland. Grading. The applicant has submitted grading and drainage plans for the proposed subdivision. The grading plan is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Parks and Trails. Outlots A and D are proposed to be dedicated as partial satisfaction of park land requirements. Outlot A provides a desired trail corridor from Main Street to the neighborhood. Connections to the park abutting the southwest corner of this parcel will be provided over the local streets. Outlot D is land dedicated to add to the existing park. The amount of the land required to be dedicated is 10 percent of the gross area of the plat or 3.37 acres. An additional amount of land must also be dedicated to offset the loss of existing parkland caused by the extension of Arlo Lane to serve the plat. The area of Outlots A and D is 0.72 acres, from which the replacement park land must be subtracted. The balance of required park dedication will be required to be satisfied in the form of a cash fee in lieu of land based upon the formula outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance. Outlots. The preliminary plat includes Outlots B and C, in addition to those being provided for park dedication purposes. Outlot B is a parcel of land fronting Street A that is intended to provide access to a land locked parcel to the south east. This land locked parcel is also intended to have frontage to 79th Street via a reserve strip that was to be dedicated to the City. Staff will need to follow up on resolution of this matter. Highland Meadows 3rd Page 3 of 5 • Outlot C is a 0.07 acre parcel of land that abuts the expanded park. The outlot is being conveyed to the abutting property to the east in order to create a buffer between that lot and the park land. • • Utilities. Water and sanitary sewer are both proposed to be provided to serve the single family uses. Sanitary sewer and water service are shown within the rights -of -way. Storm sewer facilities are also shown on the plan. Easements have been provided at the perimeter of each lot and over all drainage facilities. All utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Environmental Board. Comments from the Environmental Board have not been received. OPTIONS 1. Motion to approve the Preliminary Plat of Highland Meadows 3rd Addition subject to the following conditions: a. The preliminary plat is revised to align Street A and Street D, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. b. The preliminary plat is revised such that all lots have 10,800 square feet of buildable area, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. c. Any existing structure not located on a proposed lot within required setbacks is to be removed at the time of final plat approval. d. All grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. e. Outlots A and D, minus the area of land necessary to replace existing park land lost with extension of Arlo Lane, are dedicated in partial satisfaction of park dedication requirements. The balance of required parkland dedication will be provided in the form of cash fee in lieu of land as prescribed by the Subdivision Ordinance. f. Outlots B and C are conveyed to the appropriate landowners for access and a buffer strip, respectively. g. Comments of other Commissions and City Staff. 2. Motion to deny the application based upon a finding that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and performance standards of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. RECOMMENDATION The proposed preliminary plat is generally consistent with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan and is anticipated to be compatible with existing or planned uses in the area. Technical issues with the plat include necessary revisions to conform to the minimum lot area requirements and reconsideration of one street intersection. Our office does not foresee any significant Highland Meadows 3rd Page 4 of 5 • difficulties in overcoming these issues and would recommend approval of the application as outlined for Option 1 above. • • Highland Meadows 3rd Page 5 of 5 Amman MENLEF t•7c�. MIMI Jr AUD SU mimmorm ammomb SITE HIGHLAND MEADOWS WEST 3RD ADDITION MAIN STREET -C.R. 14 LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY PLAT EXHIBITS FOR TSM DEVELOPMENT 222 MONROE STREET, ANOKA, MN 55303 PHONE: (763) 576 -9121 FAX: (763) 576 -9122 SITE MAP (NO SCALE) N x/ MAIN STREET_ —1 I— 1 16 15 20 21 22 19 23 10 2 3 4 4 17 18 20 22 23 24 21 25 6 4 3 2 I 8 9 10 11 12 ;n U O HIGHLAND 0 0 0 0 n i 5 Es_��, • I I 5 6 7 / 7 JH C) /\ / 0 SCALE IN FEET 100 200 300 1 inch = 100 feet RECEIVED MAY 1 12001 CITY OF LINO LAKES SHEET INDEX 1. TITLE SHEET 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT 4. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 5. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN PLAN 8. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 7. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 8. EROSION CONTROL PLAN 9. EXISTING DRAINAGE MAP 10. PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAP 11. DETAILS & NOTES U co E z Xa ci• o cc ▪ co fri U v 3.. E DRAWN BY TDL DATE 02/12/01 REVISIONS cumspe Rcv. ion a PER RCM wmvm 00. uTTan' CAD FILE 20196TS PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 1 OF 11 -L 7 COUNTY ROAD 14 Ell Kn.WO 32.436 Yi..O.74 AC EX. 9C1UNO 9,645 si..0.22 AC \ N r �� 1 / k, ' \ / \: / -� z I I I w -1- - - --I L I MAR DON ACRES 1.l 1 HIGHLAND MEAD() I I I z CV I 0 NOTES: SCALE IN FEET 100 200 300 1 inch = 100 feet 1. ALL EXISTING SOILS ARE TYPE 'A' PER ANOKA COUNTY SOIL SURVEY. LEGEND 0 SOIL BORING +60.00 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION WETLAND DELINEATION EXISTING CONTOURS TREE LINE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATER MAIN EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACE RECEIVED MAY 112001 CITY OF LINO LAKES C■) al I 1 DRAWN BY TOL DATE 02/12/01 REVISIONS CAD FILE 20196EX PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 2 OF 11 • 11 j CJ 0 r1J LJ_ 1I- 0 - r',vV. Jv L7. �.6o-- n r11, V . ? 7.17./ T1AllI I /-,I IT A /11 )r -^ ,- 1 0 0 I L . I v f l I /\ I\ 52.70 I • O 0 0• ^ to 663.91 S00 °37'02 "W I-1- A / 1 L) r- ^ /) n 111 A / • L) f- ^ I VV IL.IVfI I /-\ s-01 \L_.� LI NLJ i \v7. \L_..i 150.58 119.29 DRAINAGE k LIMY EASEMENT / \\A / � 7 / 204.00 300 037'02 "W --.\,; 000 234.00 OUTLpOT A 9 5.i. - 204.00 N00 °37'02 "E d O 31. ca 9 N W N \ ZiYS ii. \ \ 3123 35. rv02. \0 ' / - 204.00 S00 433'26 "W 20 88.19 `8741..- 97.07 - \\ \\ 13523 Si. /. 711 -60- W 1D 00 00 o 0 Z ,� t \, - -50- • i9\ A1,7 JBJ 25 \ \o11015 SF 24 \ \ /0^" \\ -7 23 � 25457 sr. - 1 17153 2?i. - - 45.3.09 21 13205 IF ,45.00 2 - 20. IP 14100 19 Im ,2515 Sr. In - - - 18 14797 Sr. L- 4' .45 108.04 2 { 73.32 rrv< r 80.00 J1 �1 I �I \ ,2445x. 17. I1 6 'I L 10931 55. JI 1 11431 I 73 -26 40.9- �. g9 ---�- J 41.11 35.97 r I I -ter 90. 79 I 69 STREET i "A' 80.00 �10 1 I I 7 1 12225 Si. J3.500 .47 5.0.) TIT.-0,,, / -2.67 1 // 1 15311 5 -r. • % / I � r _ / I+ 9y / 0J N. • 6 17950 u. \� V 25l03 S.F. 2 I J / / ▪ � 1 / C - 84• �m 106 .663 T•••" Tin 13120 5i. L546 _ J 7.48 IJ89� ,2.36 - - \ 4 I27050 57. \11 / \.o fit. / / 5 20175 Si. 43 J 81.34 202.48 9.31 25 14 13151 Sr. L _ IJ5.00 J0 _ r - - -- 24 If c7. 11600 S.F. I; L is.00 -J 3.2 50.05 135.27 �i.- DRAINAGE k EASEMENT w,. - - - - - 14250 Si. 2021;3 \ •I \ 16 1 \ 26725 Sr. 1 \ 1 J 47.06 334.60 23 11244 Sr. I8" 1J7.67 - J L 22 L _ I\ 141.49 10 o0 00 o F S00 °37'02 "W 177.76 SCALE IN FEET 60 120 180 1 inch = 60 feet OUTLOT B ° 1 g 6.4 SE $1 16493 1 SS. In F. ■ „2 1 L r215.05 - - - 1 1 20 1a oI r - - - 19 I- �a 15923 Si. I wry -- 63.2, _ - -, L2,D�22 - LiJ 19)$;51 - 0_ 2 , f..' 11 I° 1 7.4 13474 ?r. 1 Ig sr. 40.6 60.08J 10 I °- I 73402 SS 2 10521 S.F. 03 up 21 109A.F. 21 10854 SE Ig 81 18 35 00 1090 6 11144 sy. 10104 Si. o� \ 17 \ 15991 S.F. N _75.48 28 260.92 10 81 <C 00.00 S89 °33'46 "E STREET "C" - 8 17895 78 18 2131 9 13050 55. >27.41 -60- - 141.57 1 29274 Si. -�J 3Z874:*". ml / / Ig 8 25394 Sr. 50 7 164,5 ii • DRAINAGE k 224.31 F.-, L_L.IL -L- UTILITY EASEMENT `. 139.09 VI VLJv 197.07 1292.48 S00 °33'22 "W IA I EASEMENT 8343 \ 1 150L. 30.00 0 I L- 213 49 1 17012 IF cS • - rs to • 60.23 R=162.66 IN 30 30 0: 30 I 30 103.68 54.94 EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING ZONING R -1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) ACREAGE 33,68 ACRES PROPOSED SITE DATA PROPOSED ZONING R-1 TOTAL LOTS DENSITY LOTS OUTLOTS OVERALL SMALLEST LOT AREA LARGEST LOT AREA AVERAGE LOT AREA 2.1 D.U./ACRE 25.92 ACRES 6.53 ACRES 0.94 ACRES 33.39 ACRES MINIMUM SETBACKS FRONT REAR SIDE YARD INTERIOR SIDE YARD CORNER (STREET) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH SETBACK MINIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT AREA 30 FEET 30 FEET 10 FEET 30 FEET 80 FEET 10,800 S.F. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH ON ADJOINING SIDE LOT LINES, AND 10 FEET IN WIDTH ON ADJOINING STREET LINES AND REAR LOT LINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLAT PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION The West 660.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 8, Tovmship 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, Except Parcels 32, 33. 34, and 35, ANOKA COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 25, Anoka County, Minnesota And The East 300.00 feet of the West 960.00 feet of the North 660.00 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 8. Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, Except Parcel 36, ANOICA COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 25, Anoka County, Minnesota And Outlot A, all in HIGHLAND MEADOWS WEST 2ND ADDITION, according to the plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, And That part of Outlot C, HIGHLAND MEADOWS WEST, according to the plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying northerly and westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Outlot C; thence South 00 degrees 33 minutes 22 seconds West, assumed bearing along the West line of said Outlot C, a distance of 30.00 feet; thence South 89 de2rees 30 minutes 01 seconds East a distance of 54.94 feet; thence northeasterly a disance of 103.68 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 21 degrees 12 minutes 55 seconds and a' radius of 280.00 feet; thence northeasterly a disance of 60.23 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 21 degrees 12 minutes 55 seconds and a radius of 162.66 feet; thence North 89 degrees 30 minutes 01 seconds beginning. EIVED MAY 1 1 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES MIN CC tit j. co co Lel Cit O. cn Cn cn DRAWN BY PLM DATE 1/15/01 REVISIONS CAD FILE 20196pp.dwg PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. 1-01-011 SHEET 3 OF 11 7 - .,•:LKA OLIE Q F 1i;i RTZ:RT''JF' 25 MAN STREET 1 CSAH 6 am. imam MA I 1.91 F s SIN I s PE IFFVEZwum EMI 41.1.116-ellt.J ROCK I / CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 1 / , I \ yl BENCHMARK FROM CITY OF LINO LAKES: 1.) TNH 726 MAIN STREET ELEV. = 918.82 2.) TNH WEST ENO LINO LAKES ELEMENTARY ELEV. = 914.96 \; WETLAND DATA: TOTAL WETLAND AREA ON SITE 42,081 SQ. FT. = 0.97 ACRES WETLAND FILL AREA 0 SQ. FT. = 0.00 ACRES NURP POND NWL AREA 94,940 5Q. FT. = 2.18 ACRES 0 SCALE IN FEET 100 200 300 1 inch = 100 feet NOTES: 1. ALL EXISTING SOILS ARE TYPE 'A' PER ANOKA COUNTY SOIL SURVEY. FGFND O 1000 EXISTING ELECTRIC METER EXISTING ELECTRIC BOX EXISTING AIR CONDITIONING UNIT EXISTING GAS MARKER EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE — EXISTING CONCRETE SURFACE EXISTING GRAVEL SURFACE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING TREE LINE /TREES EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WETLAND PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROPOSED WETLAND FILL RECEIVED MAY 1 1 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES C4N) ST 3RD ADD. a �w--4 DRAWN BY CMR /TDL DATE 02/12/01 REVISIONS wna/m IC/. on A rte ICYD /1)Y /m a[Y. col-T W/09M MY IaIWT CAD FILE 20196PG PROJECT NO. 20196 SHEET 4 OF 11 • I I > O LEGEND EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATER MAIN > EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER 1 PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER NOTE: ALL SANITARY SEWER IS 8" PVC. . NOK .:0=1 W,.'( - nvc. .�..,KA ......�..� IiI�N..,.� f2CFiT qT ..... P':AT =:5. .._. MAIN STREET ;CS.1i` 4i 15 1 r II II I 11 I _JL__J I I I I I I I I I I L__J -, r- - - -1 11 1 I1 \ 11 11 ▪ � 11 /// �/ // ■ / , L r_^+ H —7 7 7 7 I / 1 / \ It 91,.78 L — — — I— I i r" 1 1 II 1 I I I I L__J J r I FM L- __J 1 I J — 0 cc - 4 0 CO -1 RECEIVED MAY 1 1 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES SCALE IN FEET 100 200 300 1 inch = 100 feet U N CC 9� }O n '0 I _w 99� CC N 7 • N J.. m N W Cd LI Z ▪ O CO W a L � II CD C/1 g o, E w 8 04 co z Q o w eL r HIGHLAND DRAWN BY ' TDL DATE 04/07/01 REVISIONS 04/88/01 REV 71Y0YT CAD FILE 5 OF 11 2019611 PROJECT NO. 20196 SHEET / I L —�6//_ M o� ois e 1► 1' ci�R NOTE: $IGHNS SHALL BE PLACED APPROX. 50' APART ALONG TREE PROTECTION FENCE INDICATING IT IS A TREE PRESERVATION AREA, NO GRADING ALLOWED. LEGEND or ,•-•/,',7WIWYW• TP— TP— iP- 1P— TP— TP —TP- 1000 EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING TREE LINE /TREES EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE PROTECTION FENCE PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 150 1 inch = 50 feet 16 41 J .8 25 E 4 „� ,,ter• v • --,..........., epolo „I , ...4 ,n1 11 II 11 11 II I� • � ..tl�st• 3rd 4 \ \ A ------- --- - - - - -- -- _f\ . ENTRANCE/CONCRETE RUCK \ A ROCK CONSTRUCTION d,. 0" \ \\ • I--- ( I I If // / it I■ RECEIVED MAY 1 1 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER 11-IE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DATED THIS DAY OF 2001. JAMES STURM, ASLA REGISTRATION NUMBER 18380 ✓ i !/7 OO n N 1) - = M N c/1 ■ 2 0 • i 09 CC ■ w x — LL W end Z CD W W e \ c (17 s Z U m asZ } —5 I DRAWN BY TDL DATE 04/09/01 REVISIONS 01/0001 REV. WWI CAD FILE 20196EX PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 6 OF 11 • NOTE: SIGHNS SHALL BE PLACED APPROX. 50. APART ALONG TREE PROTECTION FENCE INDICATING IT 15 A TREE PRESERVATION AREA, NO GRADING ALLOWED. LEGEND r wr 0 0 TP— TP— TP— TP— TP— TP —TP- 1000 EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER LINE EXISTING FENCE EXISTING TREE LINE /TREES EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE PROTECTION FENCE PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED S40RM SEWER SCALE IN FEET 50 100 150 1 inch = 50 feet ►J a d,1Q �\�_:�rsuac�c�+egm ",° SI of 733 04 0 8 V N O NW j`1 ,n Cr ZD ce cn o to a x • LaJ Cd W ° a Z CD e CO W r.3 0 V/ �� \ Y 1 / o cst /i W T� en ,v Z 3 ZvZ O O t0_ - r i RECEIVED MAY 1 1 2001 CI TY OF LINO LAKE; I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN. SPECIFICATION OR REPORT S WAS PREPARE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPER MSION AND THAT AM A DULY REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATED THIS DAY OF 2001. JAMES 5TURM, A5LA REGISTRATION NUMBER 18380 DRAWN BY TDL DATE 04/09/01 REVISIONS 03/00/01 IRO. NMI, CAD FILE 20196EX PROJECT NO. 20196 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 7 OF 11 • STAFF ORGANIZATION: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. Hi Cindy Sherman, NAC June 7, 2001 Lino Lakes Marketplace PDO Preliminary Development Plan/ Preliminary Plat /Site Plan Staff has been working with Ryan Companies, US Inc. on a proposed retail development located in the northeast quadrant of Lake Drive /I -35 W. Interchange. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the concept plan for the site in December of 2000 and opened the public hearing on February 13, 2001 with periodic updates since the initial hearing. The main issues raised by staff, and discussed by the City Council and Planning and ill Zoning Board at the concept stage 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 ". The submittal that was reviewed in February 2001 has been modified; this review is based on plan submittals stamped received by the City on May 18, 2001. Many outstanding issues remain related to the site. The issues or concerns are addressed throughout the report and then are summarized as a list of issues at the conclusion of the report. Preliminary Project Summary Site Area Target Superstore Kohl's Other Retail Space Convenience Store Bank Fast Food 40.15 acres 182,760 sq. ft. 86,584 sq. ft. 35,600 sq. ft. size not specified size not specified size not specified • • Parking 1,747 stalls Existing Comprehensive Plan: Shopping Center Draft New Comprehensive Plan: Commercial Existing Zoning: SC, Shopping Center Proposed Zoning: SC /PDO Overlay (rezoning) Zoning The property is currently zoned SC, Shopping Center District. This designation anticipated the development of a single center generally under one ownership. There is no provision in the SC ordinance to allow zero lot line setbacks for parking or lots without frontage as proposed. In order to accommodate the development as proposed, it is necessary to process the application under the PDO, Planned Development Overlay District. Section 3, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a PDO to allow subdivision of lots for a single building and for the private roads proposed. This process allows greater flexibility and consequently a more creative and imaginative design. It allows flexibility in the internal setbacks, lot sizes, and in parking for combined uses and is the appropriate means for review of a development of this size and scope. Transportation/Circulation Access to the site is proposed via an extension of Apollo Drive. This access is located on an adjacent parcel and will require acquisition from the owner or condemnation. An additional access is proposed to Lake Drive approximately 520 feet north of the Apollo access. All accesses with Lake Drive (County Road 23) are subject to the approval of Anoka County. A petition for public improvements has been submitted in order to pursue some of the design solutions regarding access. The City Engineer is in the process of conducting a traffic study that will identify which improvements are necessary to accommodate the development. Improvements may include, but are not limited to turn lanes, by -pass lanes and signalization. Earlier plans proposed a connection to 77th Street. This connection has been eliminated. It is staff's opinion that circulation on the site is poor in that the internal intersections do not line up, spacing of intersections and intersection jogs may create conflict and confusion, the Target lot forces circulation into the main drive aisle, some parking is designed to directly back into primary drive aisle areas, and generally the access to the smaller retail/ restaurant sites is poor. It appears with some modification this concern can be addressed. Ryan Companies Target Superstore Page 2 of 6 • • • Pedestrian Elements The site design does not include any coordination of pedestrian access between uses, to the public roads or to the residential uses to the north. In the submitted narrative it is stated that different pavement treatments are proposed at significant crossing points within the development although they are not indicated on the plan. While it is not intended that the design incorporate all elements of the Village concept it is staff opinion that pedestrian circulation could be better addressed and encouraged both within the site and around the edge of the development. At a minimum pedestrian access should tie into the proposed path proposed along Lake Drive. This would include sidewalks along the extension of Apollo Dr. with extensions north to the storefronts of the major stores and an access out to the northerly access that also ties into the sidewalks in front of the major stores. In addition, an access should be incorporated to the north on the east side of the development adjacent to the ponding. Some consideration should be given to internal access within the smaller retail area. The design as it currently exists is geared toward vehicle access and is unfriendly and truly discourages pedestrian use. Utilities Detailed plans have been submitted for sanitary sewer, water and storm water management. The City Engineer has reviewed the information submitted and a copy of his memo is attached for reference. The issues raised by the Engineer are based on the plans and information provided. Revised plans or additional information may result in additional comments. Natural Features There are two wetlands located on the eastern portion of the site and one is proposed to be impacted which requires approval of the Rice Creek Watershed. There are 752 trees on the site and 566 of these are significant based on their size and species. The grading proposed on the site will result in the removal of 437 significant trees and a total of 458 trees. Most of the trees on the property are concentrated in around the wetland or on the southwest portion of the site. Rice Creek Watershed Review Wetland delineations have been completed but have not been confirmed. There are two areas of wetland identified on the property. One area is approximately 3.63 in size and the other 1.24 acres in size. The larger wetland is proposed to be totally eliminated and replaced with a storm water treatment and retention basin. Specific mitigation Ryan Companies Target Superstore Page 3 of 6 plans have not been submitted for the site however, all mitigation is proposed to take • place off site. The ability to fill and replace wetland area could have a significant impact on the site design therefore any final action by the City would be premature until the wetland issues are addressed through Rice Creek. Green Space /Landscaping Green space on the site is concentrated around the perimeter of the site and surrounding ponding and wetland areas. The landscaping plan calls for plantings within parking Tots along drive aisles and surrounding the site. The overall plan is well done and provides a variety of plantings. Some plantings are shown within MnDOT right -of- way, MnDOT has indicated that they will not allow any work within their right -of -way. The critical portion of the landscape proposed is along the northern edge of the site, which is adjacent to existing residential uses. The plan as proposed will provide a visual break but it will not provide a complete screen. Particular attention should be paid to fully screening points where headlights will create issues and where loading docks are proposed. In some instances, fencing may be the most appropriate screen. Building Exteriors No exterior details have been provided for the small retail buildings or other • freestanding uses. The applicant has indicated that they will commit to a certain design concept as previously presented. Staff has not received specific language that addresses this issue. Previous discussions were that exteriors of the buildings are proposed to be a combination of masonry materials including brick and rockface block with EIFS (stucco) sign bands and accenting. The decorative roof elements include standing seam metal that complement the roof designs in existing Town Square buildings. Awnings are proposed over the storefront areas. • Because of the site layout all buildings should be designed with all sides finished with equal quality and attention to detail. Target The Target Superstore uses a combination of brick and stucco on the front which transitions to stucco and rockface block on the sides. The rear elevation is proposed to be painted CMU (concrete masonry unit). With the surrounding land uses, more attention needs to be paid to the architecture on the rear of the building. It will be very visible from 77th Street. There is a screen wall shown on the rear of the building, to be constructed of split face modular block. The wall does not appear to be of adequate height to screen either the loading dock doors or the trucks that are often parked in the dock area. The screen wall should be of sufficient height to substantially screen the dock area. Ryan Companies Target Superstore Page 4 of 6 Trash enclosures have not been identified on the site plan. The narrative states that all • trash dumpsters shall be within the building footprints and that a trash compactor for Target is within the loading dock area and is screened. • • Target often uses sidewalk space in front of the stores for cart storage. A full screen wall should be provided if the intent is to store carts in the front of the store. No outside storage is permitted without proper screening. Kohl's Kohl's is proposed to be constructed of masonry materials that include predominantly brick on the front with a stucco accent pattern at the entrances. The sides and rear of the building transitions to block. As stated with the proposed Target elevation, the rear of the building is very visible to the area to the north and more attention should be paid to the design and materials used. Site Lighting The applicant has indicated that decorative lighting is intended to be utilized in the development. No details have been provided. Consideration should be given to utilize the same fixtures throughout the Town Center areas. All lighting shall meet the lighting level restriction which is 1.0 foot candle reading at a public street and 0.4 foot candle reading on adjacent residential property Park Dedication Park dedication will be cash fees in lieu of land and should be provided at the rate in effect at the time of the final plat. Signs A total sign package has been proposed that includes wall signage as well as freestanding signs. The narrative and the example submitted for the pylon signs are not consistent. The signs are subject to a separate review and sign permit through the City. Under the PDO staff would anticipate flexibility in the allowable signage as long as it is submitted as a total package. No signage should be allowed on the rear of any businesses facing the adjacent residential area. Preliminary Plat The application includes a preliminary plat for the site. The plat as submitted proposes nine lots plus four outlots. The lots are created to provide individual lots for each proposed user. Several of the lots do not have frontage on a public road so appropriate easements regarding access, parking and circulation will have to be provided. The Ryan Companies Target Superstore Page 5 of 6 • minimum lot size in the SC zoning district is 3 acres. Under the PDO this provision would be waived. Environmental Assessment Worksheet Based on the size of the proposed project, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is mandatory. This process is designed to identify significant environmental effects that may require a more detailed environmental impact statement. Based upon Chapter 4410.3100 of the administrative rules governing environmental review, a project may not be started and a final governmental decision may not be made to grant a permit, approve a project or begin a project until a negative declaration on the need for an EIS is made. While a draft EAW document has been submitted, the document has not been processed through the City or Environmental Quality Board. There is a comment period currently in effect that runs until July 11, 2001. Until the process is complete and the City has determined that an EIS is not necessary the City should not take final action to approve the project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board discuss the site plan, building design and signs proposed, provide direction to the applicants and then continue the • public hearing. Items that remain to be addressed before action can be recommended by staff include: 1. Completion of the EAW process. 2. Wetland fill and mitigation plans are approved by Rice Creek. 3. Revised layout of internal road system to address concerns expressed herein. 4. Completion of traffic study for off site impacts and related improvements. 5. Screening of the property from adjacent residential properties is addressed to the City's satisfaction. 6. Lighting plan details are provided as to fixtures proposed throughout the development and the lighting levels. 7. All engineering comments are addressed. 8. A detailed sign proposal that includes all signage proposed with detail on sign dimensions to allow an overall analysis 9. Proposed building design and materials either specific to individual buildings or in the form of a recordable document that addresses the materials to be used throughout the center. 10. Any other issues identified as the process moves forward. Ryan Companies Target Superstore Page 6 of 6 - fr ••�-- .uu��,nnj-inm On Illl�r �; � aunty 7•.11.11 u■�nnulnuum.,';;;E2:I 1111 -- ■-_ gnu ,_i, " "'111111111' �� : V !A MIN 111111�mituuli mom lllllllllll ...��. - -Tm� — IIIMM = f! :! ♦ ♦ r �.EIni_ �••' = ■i ■..II ' AV I�Ia1 uiulum �� EMU Iuuuu. 111: PP' ill liarptkr ,,, '1/br 11 ramr a tits _ �gim it 1 dl l�CI JU � CI JLU1 a 's �II /4 i AnirtwAsisi. xi- gum'_ � Amonalow:A mamma , al� ', ':�� !ate! ME MdIIIIIIII -31a. eirl......1:%" 11/ • 1... •••• III Site Location Map 0 2 3 Miles W E • • • Memorandum To: Cindy Sherman From: Mary Divine Date: 5/21/01 Re: Lino Lakes Marketplace comments cc: Jeff Smyser John Powell Brian Wessel Mai Asleson I would like to submit additional comments regarding the Lino Lakes Marketplace Site Plan (updated 5/18/01). 1. Pedestrian linkages: The earlier site plan had a short sidewalk from the northern entrance to the Kohl's building, and one along the west side of the Target parking lot (which didn't seem particularly useful). In the new plan all sidewalks have been eliminated. While we recognize that this shopping center is not designed for pedestrian traffic, no opportunity exists to walk or bicycle into the site. The intent has always been to have a pedestrian connection between the north and south quadrants. Walking/biking paths are intended be a part of the Village and the Lake Drive bridge reconstruction connecting the north and south side of the freeway. There should be a sidewalk into the shopping center at Apollo Drive, with supporting sidewalks up to the two anchors and into the retail areas. There should also be a pedestrian link to the neighborhood to the north so residents are not required to get in their car and drive around through the shopping center entrance. The buildings in the small retail area have been further separated in the latest plan. Special consideration should be given to pedestrian passage from one retail shop to the next. 2. Landscaping: An additional row of trees was added in the Target parking lot. This should be considered in the Kohl's parking lot to break up the massive expanse of parking in front of the store. 3. Screening: It is my understanding that Target stores its shopping carts outside in front of the grocery store. We had asked them to consider a stone wall similar to the one at the Stillwater Target to screen the carts. 4. Street lights: Ryan has indicated that it has decorative street lights planned. More information regarding the streetscape needs to be submitted. If decorative streetlights are used, there should be agreement that these are the streetlights that are used throughout the Town Center. • DATE: June 4, 2001 TO: LINO LAKES PLANNING AND ZONING • • CC: Marty Asleson FROM: Scott Lanyon, Chair Lino Lakes Environmental Board RE: TARGET PROJECT I am writing to clarify that the Environmental Board has yet to make final recommendations regarding the TARGET Project. The Environmental Board has been working under the assumption that the normal progression is for projects to be reviewed by the Environmental Board and subsequently by P &Z. Unfortunately, this timing could not be worked out for the Target Project. There is an EAW for this project and we will not see the comments and associated developer responses until early July we are told. Therefore, the Environmental Board cannot provide P &Z with a fmal assessment of this project in time for your meeting. We have requested that copies of the comments and associated developer responses be made available to the Board as soon as they are available. The board will review these and make our final recommendation to council at that time. RETAIL E 3.600 SO. FT. 30. (VA CA TED 77 TH STREET) 840.0 DRAINAGE AND UTRJTY EASEMENT 320 KOHL•S 2F -SFR 86,584 SF ROPOSED 5'039' BUILDING SIGNAGE 92 0' R90.0 3501 PROPOSED 77TH STREET 24 0' MUTT EASEMENT 60 0= 30.0' 1J 050,904ARGET 182.760 s I•i -' -1 O oC ••. 5074 303 3 8665 CONCRETE LOADING AREA Coll 48 Hours before digging GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twig Cities Area 454 -0002 MN Toll Free I -800- 252 -1166 (VACATED 77TH , ,STREET) GRAZE ( 4P 1 30 650' —ZR6NL 5 63 0' TYP • ( 1 PYLON SIGN N000LAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL POND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT OVER ALL OF OU1L0T B DRAINAGE AND U111J0T EASEMENT OVER ALL OF OUILOT A 30 ALIGNMENT AND CONFIGURATION BY OTHERS (TAIL 4.000 50 FT. RETAIL A 6.600 SO. FT. ONUMENT 51 380' MI SITE NOTES 30 0' • ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE • CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERA, ME LOCATIONS AN0 ELEVATONS OF DUSTING UTIUTES AND TOPOGRAPRIC FEATuRES. SUCH AS 00151105 ;UTTER GRADES AT THE PROPOSED ORNEWAYS. PRIOR 40 THE START OF SITE GRAp*G, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IUA4DIATELT NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIAIONS FROM THE PLANS • HANDICAPPED PARNNIG STALLS TALL BE PROVIDED AND IDENTIFIED PER ADA CODES AN) LOCATED ON SITE AND 51GNAGE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCION • ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO BE CONCRETE 6612 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE • TYPICAL FULL SUE 90' PARKIN: STALL Is 9' 09' UNLESS NOTED at/TERNS( • ALL CURB RADII 601 BE 50' UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE • CONCRETE APRONS TO BE ANS1ALLED FOR ALL ACCESS ERNES ON TO PUBLIC STREETS PER CITY STANDARDS. • REFER TO LIGHTING PUN FOR FOOTCANDLE PR041 OUT. • BUILDING 0MENMON5 REFER TO OUTLDE OF BUILDING FACE (TfP 1 UNLESS OTHERYRSE NOTED • VA REFERS TO VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL WHICH REOIARE5 AN B' STALL AND 8' LANDING AREA • RETAINING WALL - COLOR OF MODULAR BLOCK TO BE SELECTED BY BUILDING ARCHITECT, 0013961 COLOR AND TEXTURE SELECTIONS FOR APPROVAL OM LEGENDI PROPOSED EXISTING 0— • 0 936 -� q� V RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE PROPERTY UNE CuRB LINE NUBASH /STORM SEWER/MANHOLE MANHOLE/SANITARY SEWER TOPOGRAPHICAL CONTOUR UNE U11UTY POLE HYDRANT GATE VALVE SOIL BORING 141T FENCE HAt BALE NORTH 0 60 120 I60 SCALE IN FEET SITE WORKS STUDIO a Z 0 a a 1 8 • • AGENDA ITEM V. 1 STAFF ORIGINATOR: Cynthia Putz -Yang / Cindy Sherman (NAC) P & Z MEETING DATE: June 13, 2001 TOPIC: Preliminary Plat Northwest Corner of 12th and Holly BACKGROUND The Land Holding Group has submitted a preliminary plat for the northwest corner of 12th Ave. and Holly Drive. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed a concept plan of the plat on January 10, 2001. The Planning and Zoning Board first reviewed the preliminary plat on February 13, 2001 and the item was tabled pending the TWAFFA, tree preservation plan and grading submittals. The additional information has now been provided. This review is based on the following plans submitted on May 23, 2001: Preliminary Plat Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan Utility Plan ANALYSIS Project Data: Site total 8 acres Wetlands approx. 1.2 acres Upland approx. 6.8 acres Number of lots 13 Gross density 1.75 units/acre Net density (upland only) 1.9 units /acre • • • 12th and Holly June 13, 2001 Page 2 Land Use and Zoning: As shown, the site is zoned for residential development. The site is within the existing MUSA. Site Single Family Resid. Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1X North Single Family Resid. Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1X East Single Family Resid., and Rural Low Density Sewered Resid., Low Density Unsewered Resid. PDO -SF Resid. and Rural South Single Family Resid. Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1X West Single Family Resid. Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1X Lot Sizes and Layout: The R -1X minimum lot size is 12,825 sf of upland. All of the lots meet or exceed this minimum lot size. The proposed lot widths are compliant with the minimum standard of a width of 90 feet for interior lots and 115 feet for corner lots. The minimum lot depth is 135 feet. All the lots except Lot 8 comply with this standard. Lot 8 has a depth of 127 feet, which requires a variance. Variance Criteria: The ordinance states that in considering requests for variance the City shall make a fording of fact that: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use of used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstance unique to his property not created by the landowner. 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 Planning and Zoning Board may consider that the site is impacted by wetlands and it is located at the intersection of two collector roads thereby limiting design options as a basis for granting the variance. Grading: The applicant has submitted grading information that is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Existing Structures: An existing shed and pole building are located within the new street right -of -way and must be removed. • • • 12th and Holly June 13, 2001 Page 3 Transportation and Utilities: Utilities exist in both 12th and Holly, and an extension of utilities down the proposed cul -de -sac is proposed. The water main needs to be looped to 12t1i Street. The utilities plan is subject to City Engineer review and approval. Holly and 12th are both major collector roads. The purpose of major collectors is to channel traffic, and direct access from lots is discouraged. The number of lots fronting on 12th Avenue has been reduced from five lots in the concept plan to one lot in the preliminary plat. The number of lots fronting on Holly Drive has increased from zero to one. The rest of the lots are proposed to front on a new cul -de -sac street. Based on modifications to the plan which reduces the number of accesses staff supports the layout. Parks and Trails: A trail is envisioned along Holly Drive, but has not been designed yet. It has not been decided whether the trail will be on the north or south side of Holly. It will be within the road right -of -way. A trail exists on the east side of 12th Ave. as part of Peregrine Pass. Park dedication for this new development would be cash. Wetlands: Wetlands exist in the north central and southeast portions of the site. Although the boundaries of wetlands are shown on the preliminary plat, a wetland delineation report has been submitted. Rice Creek Watershed District has granted a TWAFAA (tabled with approval for administrative action) for the development. Landscaping and Tree Preservation: The site is a former pine tree plantation. A plan for tree preservation has been submitted. The Environmental Board has suggested that some of the trees might be moved. Because the site is located at the intersection of two collector roads staff will work with the applicants to develop a landscaping plan to provide a buffer between the right -of -way and the homes to be constructed. Environmental Board: The Environmental Board reviewed the project on January 3, 2001. The Environmental Specialist's memo includes the Board's comments. OPTIONS 1. Recommend denial of the preliminary plat due to concerns that have not been adequately addressed. OR 2. Approve the preliminary plat application subject to the following conditions: a) Grading and Utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. b) Existing structures shall be removed from the property. 12th and Holly June 13, 2001 Page 4 • c) Park dedication shall be cash and shall be paid in the rate in effect at the time of final plat. d) A landscaping /buffer yard plan shall be provided for the lots abutting the collector roads and shall be installed. e) A variance for the lot depth of Lot 8 shall be granted based on site constraints. 1) Comments of other City staff and Boards /Commissions RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Option 2. • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 recommendations, the Board concurred with staff in promoting native vegetation, along with the standard recommendations. Mr. Dalbee, Project Designer for Ryan Companies US, Inc., indicated that an environmental architect had been hired. Donlin complimented the use of premium cut off lamps because it was a good choice to reduce glare, and suggested to staff that the information about these lamps be given to Target. Chair Lanyon stated that the Board approved the project. D. VFW Post 6583 /Apollo Drive (Item 1 -04) — Asleson read the background sheet. The VFW wishes to sell 1.5 acres and have the area surveyed. Staff recommends that the elderberries on the bank's property be extended to Lake Drive, and that the Board should approve the request to sell and survey the VFW land. He asked for comments. O'Connell asked for a clarification who the buyers would be. Asleson answered a dental group, and that it was zoned commercial. Donlin inquired about the access road. Asleson indicated it would be on the regional road Apollo Drive. Chair Lanyon questioned if the property had any relevance to the greenway. Asleson answered the woodland in the eastern part was threatened. k L..•F 4:L2 -.Y 6?" No additional recommendations from the Board were stated. The project was approved unanimously. E. 12th and Holly Drive /Subdivision Application Review (Item 1 -05) — The background for agenda Item 1 -05 was read by Asleson. The area on the northern side had been impacted, and shows no evidence of rare or unique species. Staff visited the site and made recommendations. Asleson asked for any new recommendations. Grundhofer suggested shortening the road and removing Lot 5. Donlin stated that with the possibility of rich fen on the site, there should be no grading. In the past, the area was a wetland, a bog type landscape, and quite wet. Asleson noted that he went to look at the site, it had been heavily impacted, and ditched in the west. The reports were inconsistent with the findings of the site visit. Chair Lanyon asked what recourse the Board had to respond to the delineation of the project plan, and if there was disagreement, could it be recommended that the report be repeated. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING JANUARY 31, 2001 Donlin indicated there is bias when a company hires another company to report findings. Asleson continued that it had been impacted. Chair Lanyon mentioned that there was a difference between the wetland delineation of 20 years ago and that of today in the vegetation. Mach pointed out that there was no plan for restoration, and submitted the possibility the Board not approve. Donlin agreed in light of the ditches and the past projects the company has worked on, they have not fulfilled the obligations of those projects. Chair Lanyon explained that the Board was concerned about those previously unfulfilled obligations. Mach indicated that the goal should be to raise the environmental quality of the parcel, which would ultimately increase the value. Chair Lanyon advised the applicable information should be reissued, because even if the area was degraded, it may not take much to restore the area to increase its value. Asleson identified the parcel was the same size as Peregrine Pass at 80 acres, where the streets were narrowed, retention ponds added. With no conservation ordinance on the books, they needed something to refer to Trehus noted the plat map had been modified, and Smyser's report stated concerns over multiple driveways that connect to t2 Street or Holly Drive. He explained that there should be no driveways on arterial roads, because traffic congestion was an environmental issue: Chair Lanyon submitted that other groups would follow this example, Lots 1 and 8 with a driveway going onto 12th Street should be removed to retain open space. Donlin stated that Smyser again supports it with the statement, "When 5 to 7 of the 14 lots don't meet the standards..." Grundhofer reviewed the recommendations to reduce the number of lots, which were not attempted, but merely changed the street position. The present proposal threatens the potential fen site. She then asked if the person in the existing house was developing the property. Chair Lanyon stated that the proposal was a step backwards in terms of efforts promoting green developments. E. Apitz/Birch/Hodgeson (Item 1 -06) — Mr. Goertz stated that the area in the west was in the greenway corridor so the configurations had been changed, although the same maps 25 50 Preliminary Site Development Plan 100 NORTH 200 for 12th Avenue and .Holly Drive Lino Lakes, Minnesota W 6 cs, Po O co O z Presented by Land Holding Group, Inc. S89'41'26 "W 580.81 7 10 11 1 T z. 9 tigu DRIVE mv.ena.s. 580.81 = -89.41,26.14- _ ._.._ _ _. --- —„— Site Plan r, VICINITY MAP NO SCALE Index of Sheets 1 Title Sheet 2 Preliminary Plat 3 Preliminary Grading Plan 4 Preliminary Utility Plan 5 Preliminary Tree Protection Plan 6 Traffic Control & Detail Sheet 7 Detail Sheet OWNER /DEVELOPER: Land Holding Group, Inc. 4704 Highway 61 White Bear Lake, MN 55110 PLANNER /ENGINEER: McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Phone: (763) 476 -6010 Fax: (763) 476 -8532 Contact: Jeff Elliott I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name Date Registration Number Jeff Elliott 5/23/01 19174 Scale SHOWN Designed RJE Drawn JHB Date 5/23/01 Checked Approved Engineering • Pionning • Surveying 15050 23rd Avenue North • Plymouth, Mx,nesofo • 55147 phone 763/476 -6010 • fax 763/476 -8532 f— Ilo>7: m/roOnho.con) Client Land Holding Group White Bear Lab, MN Project 12th Avenue and Holly Drive Lino Lakes, MN Sheet Title Title Sheet Sheet 1 /7 Revision MFRA FILE No : 13306 Li , O ZV O 0 0 Z 'CABLE B la BOX S89'41 '26"W 580.811 k 85' 214' No 115' E I- - -1-27"- - ' 1 I 1 I I� i 8 I� I I� \ , 27� o- , DRAINAe AND I� UTILITY E'' ZIT / 1 7 ^ 6 I \ 1 t0 I \ /, - -_� \��\ j�- '53�,y'/ �0 / N i r - -1 - 7 N � / N ./ No "/ 10 I� �� / 4 i---� o I / �� 4 \ mil\ ` 1 • - 1 (/ - 20'� 11 Iw 1 _+- IEXiil 1 C HOUSE! GA' 1 I 3 I- I I I I L_ __ 18.2. - -_I -J I -?I 12 I I I L - i - - -J , 269' DRAINAGE AND - 95'' - I--S 1 1 11 4 1 Iii 10'- I 1 95' - ~' 'o- 1 1 1 2 I: fi 1 I ,D'.1 0 116' 1 I 1 1 1 13 'I I r- ,G' UTILITY EASEMENT TEL 804, •' �,e ' _ _... _. _._.HOLLY DRIVE _- 580.81 .._ S89'41 r26•'W CD O O O ¢i N TOP OF MY' ELEV :109.47_. 25 50 NORTH 100 200 DEVELOPMENT NOTES 1. GROSS 9TE AREA 348,488 SF OR 8.00 ACRES 2. PROPOSED -ZONING 1 LOT TABULATIONS - NUMBER OF UNITS - MINIMUM LOT AREA - AVERAGE LOT AREA* - MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT 40' SETBAO( - MINIMUM LOT DEPTH - MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT CCRNER .EXCLUDES OUTLOTS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 13 12,830 SO FT 21,800 SO FT 90 FEET 135 FEET 115 FEET 4. EASEMENTS SHALL BE PRONGED AS REQUIRED. 5. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST FOOT AND ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST 100 SQUARE FEET. 6. STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO CITY APPROVAL, 7. LOT SIZE TABULAI1ON/IMPERMOUS COVER/BUILDING COVER LOT 1, BLOC( 1 LOT 2, 81.00K 1 LOT 3, BLOCK 1 LOT 4, 8L00( 1 LOT 5, 81.00< 1 LOT 6. BLOCK 1 LOT 7, BUM( 1 LOT 8. 61.00< 1 LOT 9. 8L00< 1 JOT 971' 12,830 SF 15,720 SF 30,170 SF 30,900 SF 33,600 SF 24,070 SF 13.510 SF 13,760 SF 13,620 SF LOT 10, BLOCK 1 16,240 SF LOT 11, BL00(1 23.750 SF LOT 12, BLOCK 1 24,180 SF LOT 13, BLOCK 1 30.980 SF TOTAL LOT SIZES 283,330 SF DeERV10US C0Irdi RUH 111NG COVER (S,E,), % OF L0T ($,E,1 E OF LOT 3,830 3,840 4,320 3,640 3,960 3,590 3,590 3.810 3,600 3,580 3,810 3.540 5.5511 48,670 30% 24% 149 12% 12X 159 27% 28X 269 22% 18% 15% 113 17% 2,450 2,450 2,890 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2,450 2._4511 32,090 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: II 5 ---1 to T- -5 10 L__L BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT -OF -WAY ONES AND REAR LOT LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. TYPICAL EASEMENTS 19% 18% 99 89 7% 10% in 18% 18% 15% 10% 109 11% I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name Date Registration Number Jeff Elliott 5/23/01 19174 Scale SHOWN Designed RJE Drawn JHB Date 5/23/01 Checked Approved Engineering • Planning • Surveying 15050 2 'd Avenue North • Pljmouth, Minnesota • 55447 phone 763/476 -6010 • fox 763/476 -8532 E -No% mfro6nfa.cam Client Land Holding Group White Bear Lake, MN Project 121h Avenue and Holly Drive Lino Lakes, MN Sheet Title Preliminary Plat Sheet 2/7 Revision MFRA FILE NO : 13306 EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEV. =909.8 SILT FENCE / S89:41 '26"W 6%, 58.1 I! on r / a`AA 912 ID li 11:4811.1,7 NV, 8117.24 I R 914 912 SILT FENCE 11 9 908 P n 1 I •ey° �� _, LEGEND >j Nr Ht0 Y' V POND 11 'one TEL B4 SILT FENCE EXISTING CONTOURS EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WETLANDS PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL FENCE EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER DRAINAGE ARROW DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT LIMIT LJg4 EXISTING DRIVEWAY &15 " CMP TOBE REMOVED Y , DR1V .....• � 1111- ..•_."'^ MN _ -M .._.- ..) -ac X (NUt"! x OHHLA 920 - tX-��yu.H,�y �� (WON,p 4, x -580 81 ) X S89'41126 "W '— ROCK ENTRANCE DRIVE O N 0 O O V) EXISTING DRIVEWAY & 15 CMP TO BE REMOVED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEV. =910.0 OUTLET STRUCTURE ELEV. =909.5 SILT FENCE 1RARj y • TOP OF De ELEV - i0Y.47 _. ..�. _ - _ N4V =997.98 SILT FENCE 25 50 100 NORTH 200 PIMUTY L8E DOORS 0(8 0 POD SAM IRF.1 Al (88440 GRADE (YE 8400 PAD CRAM 044.) ( 912.0 WO ^'C�g08 PRONGED RIMED =TOUR 401 PUNIER 18818400445746 8AO ROM 01418 N Naw9ENDED REUSE 11PE INIAOUT NAB 10XOUT 90) SPLIT 1111441 890001 (SE60) AUNT ROOF (EXCEPT AS NOTED) (ALSO WAX ROCK E0EV. EXCEPT AS NOTED) a30ERLNE - TYPICAL LOT NO SLUE NOTES: A. THE CCNTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF TINS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR Will BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. B. 111E CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT ALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFUCT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE LOCATIONS OF SMALL UTIUTIES SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR BY CAVING GOPHER STATE ONE CALL (I -80D-252-118S). C. SILTATION AND EROSION CONTROL THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBRTY FOR CONTROLLING ALL SILTATION AND EROSION OF THE PROJECT AREA. AU. EROSION CONTROL AND SILTATION CONTROL MEASURES WALL COMPLY W1111 MINNESOTA'S BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL AND THE CITY OF UNO LAKES' POLICY FOR EROSION AND SLTATON CONTROL THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY TO CONTROL EROSION AND SILTATION INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED 10 STAKED STRAW BALES, ROCK ENTRANCES AND /0R SILT FENCES CONTROL SHALL COMMENCE WITH GRADING AND CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK BY THE OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDES ALL DESON MD IMPLEMENTATION AS REQUIRED TO PREVENT EROSION AND THE DEPOSITING OF SILT. THE OWNER MAY, AT HIS/HER OPTION, DIRECT THE CONTRACTOR IN HIS/HER METHODS AS DEEMED FIT TO PROTECT PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS. ANY DEPOSITING OF SILT OR MUD ON NEW OR EXISTING PAVEMENT OR IN EXISTING STORM SEWERS OR SWALES SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAIN AND EFFECTED AREAS CLEANED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER, ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE SILT FENCES SHALL BE REMOVED AND THE SILT REMOVED FROM THE PENDING AREAS BY THE CONTRACTOR AFTER THE 11.1R1 IS ESTABUSHED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPON98LE FOR APPLYING FOR THE MPCA GENERAL STORM WATER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH AND MONITORING THE REQUIREMENT OF THE MPCA PERMIT. O. PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE GRADE. E. THE CONSTRUCTION REOIUNEMENTS AND DEFINITIONS OF TYPES OF MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED W MN /COT 'STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION' 2000 EDITIONS AND ALL SUPPLEMENTS. RIGHT Or my FINISHED [ GRADE 107 ( S1A10P F. 111E EIOSTING TOPSOIL ON 1I1S 511E VARIES IN DEPTH. IT I5 THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY THAT ALL SURFACE VEGETATION AND ANY TOPSOIL OR OTHER LOOSE. SOFT OR OTHERWISE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREET AND BUILDING PAD AREAS PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY EMBANKMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOILS REPORT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL TO BE SPREAD TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4 INCHES BY THE CONTRACTOR IN AREAS THAT ARE DISTURBED BY THE GRADING CONSTRUCTION. G. EMBANKMENT MATERIAL NOT PLACED IN THE STREET, STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY OR BUILDING PAD AREAS SHALL BE COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WI111 THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE QUAUTY COMPACTION METHOD AS OUTLINED IN 1.141/001 2105.3E2. H. EXCAVATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING UNSTABLE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. EMBANKMENT MATERIAL PLACED N THE STREETS SHALL BE COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIED DENSITY METHOD AS OUTLINED IN MN/DOT 2105.311. EMBANKMENT MATERIAL PLACED IN THE BUILDING PAD AREA SHALL BE COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SOILS REPORT. J. ALL DISTURBED AREAS, EXCEPT ROADWAYS, SHALL BE RESTORED WITH MINIMUM 4' TOPSOIL AND SEEDED AND MULCHED WITHIN 7 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF 517E GRADING. SEEDING SHALL BE MN /001 MIXTURE N0. 50A (OR APPROVED EQUAL). DORMANT SEEDING AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED, MULCHED AND DISC ANCHORED. STRAW MULCHING QUANTITY SHALL BE 2 TONS PER ACRE. WHERE SLOPES EXCEED 11, A POLYPROPYLENE NETTING OR WOOD FIBER BLANKET SHALL BE PROVIDED AND STAKED OVER THE MULCHED AREA. FERT)UZER (15- 10-10) SHALL BE APPUED AT A RATE OF 400 POUNDS PER ACRE. K. TOLERANCES 1. THE STREET SUE/GRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION OF ANY PONT WHERE MEASUREMENT 15 MADE. 2. AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION. UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ENONEER. 3. TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1/2 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS. M. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT STANDARDS N. ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY A SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER. Revisions No. Dote By Remarks I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Uinnesota. Name Jeff Elliott Date 5/23/01 Registration Number 19174 Scale SHOWN Designed RJE Drawn JHB Dote 5/23/01 Checked Approved Engineering • Planning • Surveying 15050 23'd A,enue North • Plymouth, Minnesota • 55447 phone 763/476 -6010 • fax 763/476 -8532 E -Mal: mfroQnfa.can Client Land Holding Group White Bear Lake, MN Project 121h Avenue and Holly Drive Lino Lakes, MN Sheet Title Preliminary Grading Plan Sheet Revision MFRA FILE NO : 13306 • POND I NWL 908.0 1YR 908.01 10YR 908.2 . 100YR 908.5 / 1 / 1 6 1 1 7 1 ' ) \\ N 5 \ '.� N 1 N 9 - .N 51 LF 18" CMP I - 9 J i I 1 • ; td / r 10 L I 11 • r - - POND 2 NWL 907.8 r�..yp0 .- -„ 1YR 908. i0YR-••008.9 1 2 I 100YR 909,9 / 25 LF 18' RCP 0 0.50% 113" OAP 25 LF 16" RCP TCpkRIE 80 0 0.50% 11�I INV.-907.5 Ji -�.� 2 (2) 30LF 4' DIA POLY TUBING • 0.5% I I I I. I 13 1 I !, 25 LF 18" RCP- ..�~ 2 6 0 ...0. " - s1:LF�I QIU-'_.' -4- ® i% RI1.1-909.7 CBMN 2 INV- 907.38 INV 90724 THE LOCATIONS CF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY CtLLY. THE EXCAVATING CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERNNE THE EXACT LOCATION CF ALL EXISTING UTULTIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES VAIICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 38 LF 8' PVC O 0.40X POND 11 - :JOq.. 1EL 8a .1 j,lt5t Op7i'4 ,D966 PROP..I - -.- li : NV:s898 -9i -_ 19 IN VII NOTES: 1. ALL WATERMAN SHALL BE DUC18E WON, CLASS 52, PATH 8.0 FOOT MINIMUM COVER. 2. ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE PVC ASTM 3034 SDR 35 UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 1 WATER SERVICES SHALL BE 1' TYPE K COPPER. 4. SANITARY SERVICES AND CLEANOUTS SHALL BE 4' PVC SCHEDULE 40. PAOKRIT MN *RAM UNE SARTAIN SEW 198 LEGEND 101 NANO TYPICAL SERVICE DETAIL, NO SEINE EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER DRAINAGE & UTILTY EASEMENT LIMIT gyp- Sr PROPERTY UNE r• • TOP OF CIU ELEV - 909.47 EX. 819 .sue.. 1NV "997.95 14' SEE BE 16' 8911 • NAY 60' PROPERTY UNE H 16' 14' T.V. L; 0 TEL. O ()GAS 0 ELEC. COMMON TRENCH 3:1 (SW O T.V. 0 cos 0 O TEL 0 ELEC. 1 STORM I SAN. I W.N. t 2s' 1'I O 10' I 10' I gl TEL O ILS_L J GAS ELEC. I CURB I 36" 8015: MINIMUM R/W CROSSING DEPTH 30 ". URBAN STREET UTILITY LOCATION NO SCALE 25 50 100 NORTH 200 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP ALL CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE SITE PLAT RIGHT OF WAY AN0 DESIGNATED AREAS. THE BUILDING PADS ARE NOT TO BE DISTURBED . 6. REGRADE ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO ORIGINAL GRADING PLAN. •L 18i 181 A. THE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STANDARD UTIUTIES SPECIFICATIONS" AS PUBLISHED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS. 1. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE TO CITY OF LINO LAKES, AND MNDOT SPECIFICATIONS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPEN, TURN OFF, INTERFERE WITH, OR ATTACH ANY PIPE OR HOSE TO OR TAP WATERMAIN BELONGING TO THE CITY UNLESS DULY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE CITY. ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED DISRUPTIONS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBUC ARE THE LIABILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR 3. A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES IS REQUIRED AT ALL WATERMAIN AND SEWER MAIN (BUILDING, STORM AND SANITARY) CROSSINGS. B. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN CEAM SPECIFICATIONS EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN. 1. ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 2. ALL SANITARY SEWER TO BE PVC SDR -35, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 3. ALL WATERMAIN TO BE DUCTILE IRON - CLASS 52, WITH 8.0 FEET MINIMUM COVER. 4. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE TO BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE WITH R -4 JOINTS. AND RUBBER GASKETS. 5. RIP RAP SHALL BE Mn /DOT CLASS 3. C. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND /OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND, WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE LOCATIONS OF SMALL UTILITIES SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR, BY CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 454 -0002. D. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. E. SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN, ON OR NEA THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. F. ALL AREAS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES THAT ARE DISTURBED BY UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RESTORED IN KIND. SODDED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED WITH 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL PLACED BENEATH THE SOD. G. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS AND THE ENCLOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL MAP AND NOTES. H. ALL SOILS TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY AN INDEPENDENT SOILS ENGINEER. EXCAVATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING UNSTABLE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE UTILITY BACKFILL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOILS TESTS AND SOIL INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE GEOTECHNICAL FIRM WILL BE SELECTED BY THE OWNER. I. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREET AND PARKING AREA SUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. J. THE TREES AND OTHER NATURAL VEGETATION WITHIN THE PROJECT AND /OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT ARE OF PRIME CONCERN TO THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS, HE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE TREES WHICH ARE TO BE SAVED TO BE SURE THAT EQUIPMENT IS NOT NEEDLESSLY OPERATED UNDER NEARBY TREES AND SHALL EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTION IN WORKING ADJACENT TO TREES. SHOULD ANY PORTION OF THE TREE BRANCHES REQUIRE REMOVAL TO PERMIT OPERATION OF THE CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT, HE SHALL OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF A PROFESSIONAL TREE TRIMMING SERVICE TO TRIM THE TREES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE OPERATION. SHOULD THE CONTRACTORS' OPERATIONS RESULT IN THE BREAKING OF ANY UMBS, THE BROKEN LIMBS SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND CUTS SHALL BE PROPERLY PROTECTED TO MINIMIZE ANY AUTHORIZATION BY THE ENGINEER. COSTS FOR TRIMMING SERVICES SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONSTRUCTION AND NO SPECIAL PAYMENT WILL BE MADE. A PRELIMINARY TREE PROTECTION PLAN IS ATTACHED. r CENE D MAY 2 4 2001 CITY OF l_ii'ZO LAKES Revisions No. Dote By Remarks I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name Date Registration Number Jeff Elliott 5/23/01 19174 Scale SHOWN Designed 12,..E Drown JHB Date 5/23/01 Checked Approved Engineering • Planning • Surveying 15050 23rd Avenue North • HJmptth, Yionesoto • 55447 phone 763/476 -6010 • lox 763/476 -8532 E -14o17' mlroOtaa,com Client Land Holding Group White Bear Lake, MN Project 121h Avenue and Holly Drive Lino takes, MN Sheet Title Preliminary Utility Plan Sheet 4/7 Revision MFRS FILE NO : 13306 1 i Preliminary Tree Protection Plan for 12th Avenue and Holly Drive - S89'41'26 "W w I ij . - -8. &-__. 7 r - sss.se POND I1 i G LX.; Mfi. :.� ?t4. e1 N Y..3:17,24 c o N Q O (t)O 0 tn WOODLOT 6' MIN TREE PROTECTION DELINEATION ALL TREE PROTECTION MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO GRADING OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. STANDARD 48" HIGH SNOW FENCE OR ORANGE SAFETY FENCE SHALL BE LOCATED AT THE OUTER PERIMETER OF THE DRIPLINE. ALL UTILITIES INSTALLED AS A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE WITHIN STREET RIGHTS —OF —WAY OR WITHIN DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS. LEGEND EXISTING CONTOURS EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WETLANDS PROPOSED TREE FENCE PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER 920 NORTH 25 50 100 200 IY tr NUN 242001 C IT'( OF LINO LAKES • • Revisions No. Dote By Remarks I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name Date Registration Number Jeff Elliott 5/23/01 19174 Scole SHOWN Designed RJE Drawn JHB Date 5/23/01 Checked Approved Engineering • Planning • Surveying 15050 23rd Avenue Na?h • HXnoufh, Minnesota • 55447 phone 763/476 -6010 • fox 763/476 -8532 mbaOn/m.cavn Client Land Holding Group White Bear Lake, MN Project 12th Avenue and Holly Drive Lino Lakes, MN Sheet Title Preliminary Tree Protection Plan Sheet 5/7 Revision MFRA FILE No : 13306 s • RINGS (3 MIN., 1.0' MAX. OF RINGS & MORTAR). 1/2' MORTAR ON OUTSIDE, BETWEEN RINGS, CASTING & MANHOLE FINISH SMOOTH ON THE INSIDE. NO MORTAR ON INSIDE. PRECAST COVER SLAB (TYPE 2) 2 STRIPS BITUMASTIC SEAL ON SLAB JOINTS, NO CEMENT. PRECAST BASE MH DIAL. 48" 54" -192' 108 120" 'INFI- SHIELD" SEAL OR EQUAL SLAB THICKNESS 10 12 1AI NO W000 SMALL 8E U5E0 FOR MJUSONG •5114101 COMM' MORTAR OILY. FAST IRON MANNOLE FRAME & COVER AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. MANHOLE STEPS SHALL BE CAST IRON, ALUMINUM OR STEEL REINFORCED PLASTIC PER AST1* 0476 LOCATION SHALL BE AS NOTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE MANHOLE SECTIONS k BASE SLAB PER ASTI C476. FURNISH PRECAST MANHOLE section WITH 0 -RING GASKETS k LUBRICANT EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. A 12. OR 10' HARREL SECTION SMALL BE INSTALLED UNDER TIE CONE WHENEVER POSSIBLE FILL OPENING BETWEEN PIPE k W WALL MIHH CEMENT MORTAR. INSIDE SURFACE 51841 BE 41445HE0 54000100 STORM SEWER MANHOLE, TYPE 409 NO SCALE "INFI- SHIELD" SEAL OR EO244L REMOVE CURB BOX BOLTS RINGS (3 MIN., 1.0' MAX. OF RINGS AND MORTAR). 1/2" MORTAR ON OUTSIDE, BETWEEN RINGS, CASTING 4 MANHOLE. FINISH SMOOTH ON INSIDE. NO MORTAR ON INSIDE NO WOOD SHALL 8E USED FOR ADJUSTING CASTING: CEMENT MORTAR ONLY. CAST ■ITN CATCH BASIN FRAME k COVER CASTINGS PER SPEC:MATONS PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE CONE SECTION k PRECAST BASE PEA ARM 0475. FILL OPEH8 5 BETWEEN PIPE AND MANHOLE WALL WITH CEMENT MORTAR INSIDE SURFACE SHALL BE FWKHED SMOOTH. • MwNUM PIPE COVER CAN BE 5EDUCE0 FROM 4' 10 2' -5' NTH INSTALLATION OF PERFORATED PIPE ORAN PER "ORANWM 5MOOT AND PERFORATED PIPE ERNN' DE1NL. 'INFI - SHIELD' SEA. OR EQUAL 1/2' MORTAR ON OUTSIDE. BETWEEN RINGS, CASTING 4 CATCH BASIN. FINISH SMOOTH ON INSIDE NO MORTAR ON INSIDE 1/2" MORTAR ON OUTSIDE. BETWEEN RINGS, CASTING & MANHOLE. FINISH SMOOTH ON INSIDE. NO MORTAR ON INSIDE. RINGS (3 MIN.. 1.0' MAX. OF RINGS 4 MORTAR). 48' CEMENT MORTAR SECTION A —A 6' PRECAST BASE SLAB ELEVATION NO 5000 S0VLL BE USED FOR ADJUSTING CASTING: CEMENT MORTAR ONLY. CAST IRON MANHOLE FRAME k COVER AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. MANHOLE STEPS SINAI. BE CAST IRON. ALUMINUM OR STEEL REINFORCED PLASTIC PER ASIAN C476. LOCATION SNAIL BE AS NOTED N THE SPECIFICATIONS. WANHOIFS 00' DEEP AID OVER TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT STEPS. PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE MANHOLE SECTIONS k EASE SLAB PER AS111 C475. FURNISH PRECAST MW4OIE SECTIONS WON 0 -RI10 CASKETS k LUBRICANT EXCEPT AS OTHERWSE SPECIFIED. A IN' 0R 16' BARREL SECTION SHALL IL WALLED UNDER THE CONE MINE4IR POSSIBLE. ELL OPENING BETWEEN PPE k MN WALL WITH CEMENT MORTAR. NSIOE SURFACE SHALL BE FUSIED SMOOTH. STORM SEWER MANHOLE, TYPE 407 NO SCALE (PIPES 27" OR LESS) REMOVE CURB BOX BOLTS RINGS (5 MIN.. 1.0' MAX. OF MORTAR), RINGS 4 - SHIELD' SEAL OR EQUAL. POWRECAST 2) COVER SU8 3 PLACE 2 STRIPS BITUMAST SEAL ON SLAB JOBID PRECAST BASE MH DA. 40" 54" -122" 408 120' SUB THICKNESS 10 12" NO W000 SHALL BE USED FOR ADJUSTING CASONG: CELEHT MORTAR ONLY. CAST WON FRAME k GRATE CASTINGS PER SPECEICATIONS. MANHOLE STEPS SMAL1 BE CAST NON, ALUMINUM OR STEEL *ENFORCED PIASIIC PER ASIAN 0075. LOCATION SHILL BE AS NOTED IN 141E SP0000*T1ONS. PRECAST *ENFORCED CONCRETE BASE SLAB k COVER SLAB PER ASTM C478, PRECAST *ENFORCED CONCRETE MANHOLE SECTIONS PER ASN C470. OR W. CONCRETE *4484LE FLOCK NMI I/2• MORTARED UMBER. FUI645H PRECAST CONCRETE WNN01E SECTIONS WITH 0-RING CASKETS k I/RECANT EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPEC(ED. nLL OPENING BONED PIPE AND MANHOLE WALL W00 =EAT MORTAR. INSIDE SURFACE SHALL BE FINISHED SMOOTH. • MINIMUM PPE COVER CAN BE REDUCED FROM 4' TO 2' -6' WITH RLSTALLA110N OF PERFORATED PPE DRUM PER 'GRANNM SOWN' AND PERFORATED PIPE DRAIN• DETAIL CATCH BASIN /MANHOLE, TYPE 406 NO SCALE •t. PROVIDE DRAIN ON BOTH SIDES OF C.B. LEAD IF AT LOW POINT TRANSVERSE C.B. LEA) (4' MIN. DEPTH OF COVER) TOP OF SUBGRADE 5:1 CONTINUE SUBCUT FROM BEGINNING OF SATURATED SOILS THROUGH DOWNSTREAM C.B.'S 4" P.E 2' GRANULAR BORROW SUBCUT BEG. 10:1 TRANSITION 5.1 TRANSITION TO 4" BELOW BOTTOM OF DRAIN PIPE GEOTEX11.0 SOCK ROCK ENTRANCE DRIVE NO SCALE NOTE: ME ROCK ENTRANCES SHALL 8E IN5TALIE0 PRICK TO THE STMT OF ANY STE WORK THE ROCK ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSPECT( FOLL0M410 EACH RAINFALL MAINTENANCE OF THE ROCK ENTRANCES SHALL NCLUCE A TOP DRESSING OF NEAR GRAVEL, CR REMOVAL ANO REPLACEMENT OF 711E onAvo. AS NEEDED, TO KEEP TIE ENTRANCE FREE FROM COLLECTED MUD. 1011 20' (,III KO!-4 -SEAL 30LF -4" DIAL MNDOT 3278 CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE DRAINAGE TUBING WITH MNDOT 3733 TYPE 1 GEOTEXTILE SOCK -PLACED PARALLEL TO C.B. LEAD BOTTOM OF CLASS 5 MODIFIED 2' MN. GRNIUUR BORROW SUBCUT. UPSTREAM END: DRAW PIPE CROWN DRAIN PVC PLUG TO WATCH CROWN PIPE TIE SOCK OF C.B. LEAD nnnnononnnnnononnnnannonnnt iiREERiiiiiiiiiiti 60110184 OF SAND SUBCUT AT TRANSmO4 TO DRAIN PIPE GEOTEXTILE WITH NET BACKING KM-IN-TEE CONNECTOR: INSERT DRAIN PIPE INTO BELL, PULL SOCK OVER OUTSIDE GRANULAR SUBCUT AND PERFORATED PIPE DRAIN NO SCALE y' METAL OR 2'382"W00D FENCE POST CEOTEXOLE TO OVERLAP THROUGH TRENCH. NOTE : -SILT FENCE SHALL CONFORM TO MNDOT 3886, TYPE B. - FENCING SHALL BE PLACED ALONG CONTOURS OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. SILT FENCE NO SCALE • CATCH BASIN, TYPE 402 NO SCALE Revisions No. Date By Remarks I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Nome Date Registration Number Jeff Elliott 5/23/01 19174 Scale SHOWN Designed R,E Drawn JHB Date 5/23/01 Checked Approved ROAD CLOSED LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY R11 -3 60 "o 30" REFER TO ADVANCED ROAD CLOSED SIGN FOR POST REQUIREMENTS (PROVIDE 2 POSTS) LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY SIGN NO SCALE LEGEND • (2) "ADVANCE ROAD CLOSED AHEAD" SIGN a' (2) "LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY" SIGN • (2) TYPE III BARRICADE -1 MILT ttE AWH TRAFFIC CONTROL MAP N0 SCALE NOTES: 1. FURNISH AND PLACE ADDITIONAL BARRICADES, TRAFFIC CONES, AND OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. (INCIDENTAL) 2. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO THE "MINNESOTA MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES" (MMUTCD), INCLUDING APPENDIX "B" DATED NOV. 1992, OR MOST CURRENT UPDATE. 3. DURING THE INSTALLATION OF THE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AND WATER SERVICE LINE ON 12TH AVE., HOLLY DR. MUST REMAIN OPEN TO LOCAL TRAFFIC. 4. DURING THE INSTALLATION OF THE SEWER, WATERMAIN AND SERVICES ON HOLLY DR., 12TH AVE. MUST REMAIN OPEN TO LOCAL TRAFFIC. 5. THE ADVANCE ROAD CLOSED SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE ROAD BEING CLOSED. W20-3 4•5*8" 00 2,5 1/A FLANGES CHANNEL 10 6101 POST 01007 3401) 42" OVBILAP - ANCHCR 641N (2) 5/16"X 1' BOLTS NTH WASHERS AND 10C14 NUR 3.0 N/40 FLANGED CHANNEL h SIGN POST (MOOT 3401) FNUSIED GRADE ADVANCE ROAD CLOSED SIGN K0 SCALE 2' 4. Al 11 M. rfi414 11 7' FM Pi I I RN MI '7,-1 w� NORMAL 1'16'x0' NO. 1 GRADE LUMBER I` TREATED 1 OII Posrs�l I I 4 "X408 141'1 LJ NO 2 GRADE LUMBER CR BETTER (DILTFRNA10 MATERIALS FOR POSTS MAY BE USED MIEN APPNO0 BY THE ENGINEER. NOTES EXISTING 6Yt0UNO 1/2" x 8' GALVANIZED ears NTH CUT WASHERS (CARRIAGE, HEX. CR 50.) THE BARRICADE BOARD FACE SURFACES SHALL BE FULLY REFIECTORIZm N ALTERNATE SLKR -10111E AND RED STRIPING, US06 REFLE0110 SHEETING CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF MNDOT SPEC. 33522A26, STMOARD N0. 2. TYPE III BARRICADE NO SCALE I I V )NIL l 2 4 ZOO • Engineering • Planning • Surveying 15050 23d AHTFNue North • Plymouth, Minnesota • 55447 phone 763/476 -6010 • fox 763/476 -8532 E -Rah': mfro*n/ro.com Client Land Holding Group White Bear Lake, MN Project 12th Avenue and Holly Drive Lino Lakes, MN Sheet Title Traffic Control & Detail Sheet Sheet 6/7 Revision MFRA FILE NO : 13306 "INFI -SHIELD" SEAL OR EQUAL. 1/2" MORTAR ON OUTSIDE, BETWEEN RINGS. CASTING & MD MANHOLE. FINISH SI400TH ON THE INSIDE. NO MORTAR ON INSIDE. SANITARY SEWER OUTSIDE DROP 48" SECTION A—A • FLEX BLE SLEEVE MANHOLE SLEEVE NO WOCIO SHALL BE usEo FOR ADJUSTING cAsnmc; CEMENT mORTAR ONLY. CAST IRON MANHOLE FAME it COVER AS PER SPECIFICATIONS. MANHOLE STEPS SHAU. BE CAST IRON, ALUMINUM OR STEEL REINFORCED MASTIC. PER ASTII C476 STEP LOCATION SHALL BE AS NOTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS MANHOLES 20' PEEP AND OVER TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT STEPS. PRECAST REINFORc ED CONCRETE mANNOLE sECTONS PER ASTI 1470, FumGRE0 eTTH 0-m0 GAsKETs MO LUBRICANT (00070 43 OTHEFNASE SPECIFIED. A I 2' OR I Ir SORREL SEMEN SHALL BE INSTALLED UNOER THE CONE WKNEVER POSSIBLE PIPE CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLE SHALL BE YAM WATER TIGHT BY cAsT NPLAGE Dom AND CEMENT MORTAR. INSIDE SURFACE .441 04 *01001.0 SMOOTH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE, TYPE 301 NO SCALE (PIPES 27" OR LESS) A. HAY BALES OFFSET 04 NE CENTER B. HAY BALES END TO END 21 11=j'—::rt 123 \.4*4 1440045 PLAbLYlat 1.17M• wal /11.11.:1"' .11. www moojegtotoro, P LMLYIEti C. SILT FENCE WITH ROCK ONERSION MOUND law L.M111 jaeirgiv. ‘. M Arc rIxerr 7.7:44W MC NM" 3/4. Mow ■• P LAN VIEW BILE012AL SPACING FOR ALL DITCH BLOCKS: DITCH GRADE SPACNG (%) (FT) 2 100 4 6 75 50 e 10 40 25 104 25 DITCH BLOCKING NO SCALE 2* o 2" HARDWOOD MARKER W/SPIKE. 0.0.+2' 0.D. * ASTAI 02321 EMBEDMENT MATERLAL- (SEE SPEC.) City Plate ERO-6 COMPACTED BACKFILL COMPACTED SAND OR PIT RUN GRANUIAR MATERIAL COMPACTED BACKFILL 10.D/4 (4' MIN) PIPE INSTALLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2321, TABLE 2. * EMBEDMENT MATERIAL 11047,11 CONFORM TO ASTM 02321. TABLE 1. METAL FENCE POST MARKER PLANTED GREEN 1111112-111: DEPTHS GREATER THAN 14' WHERE RISER APPROVED BY ENGINEER, 004510L044 BEDMNG 45• BEND MATERIAL (COMPACTED) WITHOUT RISER 2" x 2" HARDWOOD MARKER W/SPIKE. AJRTICHT PLUG OR CAP 6' METAL FENCE POST MARKER PAINTED GREEN MAX. 45' WITH RISER RTIGHT PLUG OR CAP 45' BEND GRANULAR BEDDING MATERIAL (COMPACTED) SERVICE WYE TO BE EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE 140TE: SERVICE PIPE TO BE PVC. SCH. 40 (ASTM 0-2665). SOLVENT WELD ALL JOINTS. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE NO SCALE GRANULAR MATERIAL BEDDING METHOD NO SCALE (FOR PVC PIPE) WATERMAIN SIZE VARIES TEE COVER AS SPECIFIED CURB COMPACTED SACKFUL (IN CORROSIVE SOILS USE GRANULAR ENC.ASEMENT) 0.13.+2' 1 1 III 11111 11111 11111 1 1/2"CRUSHED ROCK OR WASHED ROCK 0.0/2 1 DEPTH AS NEEDED TO STABILIZE TRENCH MIN. 0.0/4 BUT NOT LESS THAN 10", SPECIAL FOUNDATION FOR STABILIZING OR DEWATERING OF TRENCH NO SONE GRANULAR MATERIAL BEDDING H/2 and EARTH FOUNDATION PIPE FOUNDATION DETAILS N0 SCALE GATE VALVE BOX GATE VALVE 1 1/2" WASHED ROCK ALL AROUND. MIN.1/3 C.Y. (MIN, 1 C.V. IN IMPERVIOUS SOILS) 13-X8"X16- CONC. BLOCK 114 RODS uNDOT 3733 TYPE 3 GEOTEXTTLE FABRIC MIN, 1 LAYER ATTACH TO TOP OF BONNO' GATE VALVE INSTALLATION NO SCALE PROPOSED OR COSTING ROADWAY a' STEEL FENCE POST PAINTED BLUE CURB BOX LONG AT FULL EXTENSON TNL WITH CRIMPED END HORIZONTAL IDOP ORPORATION STOP WATER SERVICE DETAIL 50 50000 NA_ SUPPORT CURB BOX 017}1 CONC. BLOCK 3/4' GALVANIZED STEEL IIE ROCIS OR "MEGA LUG" BRAND THRUST RETAINER GLANDS AT JOINTS SEE STD. DWG 203 SAND OR PIT RUN GRANULAR BEDDING AND ENCASEMENT MATERIN_ COMPACTED GRANULAR BACKFXL GRANULAR MATERIAL ENCASEMENT CONCRETE UNDISTURBED SOIL PLAN WATERMAJN HYDRANT CONCRETE CRADLE PIPE BEDDING DETAILS NO SCALE CURB 24 WELD CONDUCTIVITY ST11D 2" BELOW FLANGE (FOR LOCATION PURPOSES) COVER AS SPECIFIED GEOTERILE FABRIC MNDOT 3733 TYPE 3 CONCRETE BLOCK RucrioN BACKING rxe`x16' CONCRETE BLOCK TYPICAL HYDRANT LAYOUT 00 SCALE (VALVE IN BOULEVARD) 1 1/2" WASHED ROCK ALL AROUND MIN. I/O C.Y. (MIN. 1 C.Y. IN IMPERVIOUS SOILS.) PLAN SECTION NOTE COVER FITTINGS WITH POLYETHYLENE (NAIL) PRIOR TO POURING CONCRETE 2500 P.S.I. CONCRETE 28 DAY STRENGTH CONCRETE REACTION BACKING NCI SCALE (FOR TEES AND CROSSES) NOTE: COVER FITTNGS WITH PLASTIC (4 M(L) PRIOR TO POURING CONCRETE Revisions No. Date By Remarks I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Nome Date Registration Number Jeff Elliott 5/23/01 19174 Scale SHOWN Designed RJE Drawn JHB Date 5/23/01 Checked Approved Engineering • Planning • Surveying 15050 23M Avenue North. Plymouth, Minnesota • 55447 phone 763/476-6010 • fax 763/476-8532 E—U07: miradrnfro.00m Client Land Holding Group While Boar lake, MN Project 12th Avenue and Holly Drive Lino Lakes, MN Sheet Tie 1---N. i — '''‘. 1 Detail ShAtY 2 4 200• 1 OF LO LAtcrz,-, UNDISTURBED SOIL SECTION CONCRETE REACTION BACKING 00 0056 (FOR BENDS) 2500 751 CONCRETE 28 DAY STRENGTH 6 MIN. • • Asx heel Revision MFRS FILE NO : 13306 • • AGENDA ITEM V. K STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: June 13, 2001 TOPIC: Revised Building Design and Site Plan Condition of Approval North American Composites, 330 Apollo Drive ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 BACKGROUND The City Council approved a minor subdivision and site and building plan for North American Composites on November 13, 2000. One of the conditions of approval was: 4. The precast concrete panels will be Fabcon Wide Rack 3/8" grooves at 3" O.C. with smooth concrete cattail design, or similar design. Decorative concrete block on the office portion of the building shall be either smooth burnished concrete block or rock -face block. This originated in a request by the Planning & Zoning Board to revisit the building elevation along the freeway. Because this is a very visible location, the P & Z asked for some additional attention to aesthetics. In response, the applicant then submitted a revised south elevation that includes a custom "cattail" pattern in the concrete panels. Though the P & Z did not see the new pattern, the revision was included in the project review by the City Council and was specified in the condition of approval listed above. North American Composites has asked that this condition be deleted because of the cost of the custom design. Instead, they have submitted a design that includes a four -foot blue stripe across the top of the precast concrete panels. The panels have a raked finish, just like the original submittal. In addition, the design of the building has been revised somewhat. The office portion exterior will still be decorative concrete block. However, the standing seam metal roof on both portions of the building has been changed in the new design. Instead, the new proposed design has a flat roof for the warehouse portion. The office portion also has a flat roof, but the east elevation incorporates a peaked facade. The footprint of the new design increases the footprint by about 500 sf, about a 2% change. Staff considers this a relatively minor change. • • • North American Composites Building Revision page 2 Because the cattail design was a condition of approval, it will require action by the City Council to change it. Staff discussed the request with the City Council at the June 6 work session. Council directed staff to bring the request to the P & Z for a recommendation. It will then go to the City Council at its June 25 meeting. Staff recommends approving the new building design and revising the condition of approval to delete the sentence regarding the cattail design. Condition number four would thus read: 4. The warehouse portion will be precast concrete panels and the office portion of the building shall be decorative concrete rock -face block as indicated on the exterior elevations by Stiglich Construction, Inc., dated 5/1/01 OPTIONS 1. Approve the new building design and the revision of the condition of approval. 2. Deny the request for a different building design. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 • C.3 cD • my. we," tet•cf oft, 47' CD OSk 196-0 WV Of MC Iran nr-e CC) CD U 0.0eR 1,3•4" - # OW. OW-1r war ar ro + tat-4, PP Or 1,1. CD # Num ter4r Cf) C73 - r-1 4 ter-0 tut,. ts(-3° ar Itat. 1.-e 0 an net 11, P.0 3% SOUTH ELEVATIOII w. r a tat. MAIII LI- .r. "Ir ro nrimrA 1,1121:111M11 1.1% 4. + Nam RP ar 11" 4, ma et ttlf -f 1.0 Mrl idln nlWq 1_1 oat telf-er. IN ALIA AWE r LEM. ELAM roasealeir LEADERFM". JG SILL 1 A \ eanc tw-a- WES T LEVATION a*. ilV44t # WIP ft/ VIVALIF MAL 11111hr MAI OE n 11101110 MAK 10,-e MON rra 91.41. LO 7 P131134111113t R d 0 i I 1, I I ■I' :; , 1 I , - • — r I I, 1,1 ' Ve ET• Irani I MI =31117.1 F1 GINN • ; ' arr.,1•161,111p11.2.:43 .1LU ■10 14 116 , maim-Aso .9 L'A Mr. ra rt Irt tifirlAR wen. P-11 LISFIT MI AI POCK CiralLe 3 TOTAL ' aroma gor-e POCX LEVSLOR 3 TOTAL Om. Fn211 ten 61141Ct. NORTH ELEVATION EAST ri \ELEVATION VitylAr. • • Cowl. FINISHED METAL ROOF EDGE FLASIINC. CUSTOM 'Called' PATTERN co PRECAST CONC. WALL PANEL - 5M00TH FINISHED CONC. on THIS ELFVATION ONI T. EXACT CONC. F91SH n) to Oe VERIFIED •1 SELECTED PRECAST CONC. PANEL MANUFACTURER. 'WORE RAKE' FINISH on TYPICAL PRECAST CONC. WALL PANEL v/ INTEGRAL 1INT (or Reid panted. IIr South (I 351,NI) Elevation Warehouse ARC'n9 METAL ROOF ow 5/R DOCK DOORS beland. FLOOR uric ELEY: 907.15' Scale : 1/8 = 1' -0" PRE- FINISHED STANDINO -SEAN METAL ROOFING INSULATED ALUM /CLASS WINDOW UNITS NM DOOR/FRAME v/ SNIELDED EGRESS LIOIT. PROVDE CONC. STOOP .1 au FOUNDATION co CONC. STRIP FOOTING. 6' -0' .ride PRECAST CONCRETE WALL PANELS w/ 'WIDE RAK0' FINISH and INTECRK TINT (or neld painted). V-0' wide PC Wo11 Panel 3' -0• 12. 'Cattail' Pattern Scale : 1/4 = 1' -0" HM DOOR/FRAME w/ SHELDED EGRESS LNAIT. PROVIDE LONG 5100P ./ CMU FOUNDATION on CONC. STRIP FOOTING. West Elevation Office beyond L�I Warehouse Soule : 1/8 a 1' -0" ELEY. 4 26' -1' FIN. FIR. ELEV. 907.15' David J. Kelly Architect, Inc. See 1195 3925 Veit 5099. 51 **pees. *eraet. 55134 0521 921.2239 Consultants Certification I her* *PM, vet tee pot pee....... 1,0l I on,. a.. Dave Joseph Kelly Reg. No. : 15251 Comm. No. :00.031 Drown By : Kelly Date Issued :10.26.2000 Revisions • • Project A New Distribution Office /Warehouse for North American Composites, Co. Apollo Business Pork 300 Apollo Drive Lino Lakes, MN Drawing Title Design Development: Exterior Elevations Scale As Noted Sheet Number R.M.ed for Oty Review dat.d 11.02.2000 Not to Canetruatlaa a3.2 .17) • 1111111111M11111111111111MINIMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMIIIMMIMM111111111M1M1111111111111111111111111111111W1111111 ELEV. - (3"-B) L ELEV. + ELEV. + 16'-e FIN. FLR. ELEV . 907.15' . L --- = ------- - - ------------------ Main Entrance Loading O — 10' x 12' ---------— 8' x 10' — —8' x 10' — 8' x Drive-In OH Door OH Door OH Door OH Door Office Preliminary East Elevation Seoul : 3/32 Warehouse beyond David J. Kelly Arditect, Inc. tunr lO vest 511Th SI Ri<-12$ Consultants RECEIVED SEP 1 1 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES Preliminary South Elevation Scale 3/32 - V-0" PRE-FINISHED STANDING-SEAM METAL ROOFING INSULATED ALUM/GLASS WINDOW UNITS Office beyond Preliminary Hest Elevation Scott : 3/32 PRECAST CONCRETE WALL PANELS 11 =: =_- ------------------ ------------- -R623'-Cr Warehouse ELEV. 1- 28"-4'. FIN. PLR. ELEV. 907.15' FIN. GRADE Certification Ira., me., wi ina prook •••••• •••• ••• *or Ar *KV yen.. am Imal •• • *Ay Lmr....1 sew. thy •.• of 1. 1141 at lemego. saw Jose*, 1,444 Reg. No. • 15254 Comm. No. :00.031 Drawn By : Kelly Dote Issued :09.11.200 Revisions • Project A New Distribution Office/Warehouse for North American Composites, Co. Apollo Business Park Apollo Drive Lino Lakes, MN Drawing Title Prelimhory Exterior Elevations Scale As Noted Sheet Number a3.1 • LAKE Pritr Ott icy -.� p a� iieli�o +.6�seeQ of �. aa. a'tot. d� omvp EA //_11\\-L toris pardit °A in ©mmC© l3 aaampanomma © o mm oW STALII )F 3 C'5 34, 33 T 31- p.22 W _X {a_ MitTpl p ®,�ao�m itiEVISPAR:11)1461 krnaltiNNAZIKOMMin ArtiebiatIMAIIIII 4