Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/2001 P&Z Packet• AGENDA • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Wednesday, July 11, 2001 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. Correction of April 11, 2001 Approved Minutes B. June 13, 2001 IV. INTRODUCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR V. OPEN MIKE VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Sai S. Lee, 8075 20th Ave. N., Variance, Jeff Smyser B. Gerald Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, Variance, Jeff Smyser C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive, Cindy Sherman (NAC) i) Rezone to PDO ii) Site and Building Plan Review iii) Preliminary Plat VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Recommendation from Environmental Board for moratorium on new development B. Environmental Board Goals VIII. ADJOURN Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 1 • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : April 11, 2001 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:23 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Corson, Lyden, Schaps, Schilling and Zych MEMBERS ABSENT : Lane STAFF PRESENT : City Engineer Powell; City Planner Smyser; Cindy Sherman (NAC) I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:31 p.m., April 11, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 14, 2001 Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Rafferty). III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. No comments were made. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:35 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT : June 13, 2001 . 6:30 P.M. : 11:12 P.M. : Corson, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty, Schaps, and Zych (Arrived at 9:50 p.m.) : None. : City Engineer Powell; City Planner Smyser; Al Brixius (NAC) I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:35 p.m., June 13, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 9, 2001 Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the May 9, 2001 meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:36 p.m. Teresa O'Connell and Connie Grundhofer of the Environmental Board summarized their goals of the Environmental Board and offered to answer questions the Planning and Zoning Board may have regarding their goals. Mr. Lyden and Ms. Lane asked for a copy of the written goals. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:40 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 2 VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Glenn Valentine, 64th Street and 20th Avenue, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the required setback from a collector road. The site lies between I -35E and 20th Avenue (Co. Rd. 54). Most of the site was wetland. Only a small portion of the site was upland: the area along the 20th Avenue. Variances from required road setbacks would be needed if a house and driveway were to be built. Some wetland fill would be required. Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining in the R -X Rural Executive zoning district, the City's zoning ordinance required a 40' building setback from a collector road such as 20th Ave. This site had only a small area of upland. Some wetland fill would be required if a home was to be built. The greater the road setback, the more wetland fill would occur. The request was to allow the structure to be 10 feet from the right of way of 20th Avenue. Staff stated 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 was needed for this as well. The driveway as shown on the submitted survey was 10 feet from the intersection. With respect to future right -of -way, staff explained Anoka County had informed the City that it foresaw the need for an additional five feet of right of way on each side of the road. If this occurred, the garage and driveway would be only five feet from the ROW. While this was an undesirable situation, it was a trade -off between being closer to the road and filling more wetland. The City could not simply prevent the property owner from using the land. Staff stated the site was located within the jurisdiction of the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed Management Organization (NLAWMO). Because of the wetland impact, a review by WLAWMO was pending. The location of the house would determine the amount of wetland fill needed. The plan showed just under 1000 sf of fill, as noted on the attached VLAWMO notice. Increasing the road setbacks would increase the wetland fill. The VLAWO staff recommendation was to approve the plan. With respect to a septic system, staff explained any new home on well and septic must have an alternate drain field site designated. This was to ensure that a new drain field could be constructed if the first one failed. Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning ordinance that the City shall make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action. Staff pointed out that the site was extremely restricted because of the wetlands. Without variance from setback requirements, the property could not be used. The physical circumstances were not created by the landowner. The hardship was not due to economic considerations. No special privilege was being granted. This type of hardship was the reason for the variance. Staff recommended approval of both variances 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. • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 3 Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Ms. Lane stated some lots were not build able lots and indicated this lot appeared to be one of these lots. She asked what was the City's responsibility. Mr. Smyser replied the Courts had stated the landowner must be allowed reasonable use of the property. He indicated this property was very difficult to deal with. He stated they could not prevent somebody to reasonable use of the property. Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification of Anoka County's right -of -way. Mr. Smyser stated the right of way would bring it to within 5 feet of the garage. Mr. Rafferty asked how long had applicant owned this piece of property. Mr. Valentine responded he was not the owner of the property, he was the builder and he had been working on it for 6 months to get something build able on it. The property was closed on May 20, 2001. Mr. Rafferty stated there were certain guidelines that had been in place and he believed those guidelines were such to protect the people who were being grand fathered in. However, he stated they were speculating on the use of a property on guidelines that had been in place. He stated he was leery of this request because the buyer should have been aware of the condition of the property prior to purchase, and this would not fit into a grand fathering clause. • Mr. Valentine replied the previous owner had this lot platted in 1978. Mr. Smyser replied regardless of the owner of the property, the same situation would exist. The fact that somebody recently purchased the property did not change the fact that whoever owned the property had reasonable use to the property. He stated the facts were that the lots had existed for some time and the Ordinances had changed over this period of time. He stated this type of platting would never occur under today's Ordinances. Mr. Corson inquired about the septic system and secondary system and expressed concern the wetland was being impacted by the septic system. He asked if they could ensure the septic system did not impact the wetland. He asked if it was possible to look at a septic system, such as Ham Lake and Hugo had He asked that this be considered. Mr. Smyser stated a properly designed, built and maintained septic system, treated wastewater better than a treatment plant. He stated the septic system would not have any impact on the wetland if it properly built. He indicated the systems Mr. Corson was referring to were considered experimental, and at this point, there were no regulations by the City, which required this type of a septic system. • Mr. Powell stated he was familiar with these types of systems, and encouraged the applicant to consider a design of a wetland treatment system. Mr. Lyden asked about the status of the watershed. Mr. Smyser replied the Board would make a decision on this tomorrow morning. He stated he had received a copy of the text for this project and the Board was recommending approval of the wetland mitigation plan. Mr. Lyden asked if staff had had any concerns. Mr. Smyser replied they had been working with applicant and had worked out all of the concerns. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 4 • Mr. Lyden stated he concurred with Ms. Lane regarding dealing with applicants in a fair and reasonable manner. • • Chair Schaps inquired if other plans had been considered. Mr. Valentine stated other plans had been considered and explained why this floor plan was chosen. Tom Carlson, owner, stated he understood that if the variance was granted he waived his right to complaining about any noise from the traffic on the road. Chair Schaps requested applicant consider design of a wetland treatment system. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the variance to allow structures to be 10 feet from the collector road and approve variance to allow the driveway to be 10 feet from the intersection, with applicant considering design of a wetland treatment system, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lane). B. Brian Iverson, 20th Avenue, Minor Subdivision Staff presented the application by explaining applicant was to remove a portion of land from one parcel and attach it to the adjacent parcel. The action would move the lot line ten feet. The existing property line followed the 1/4 1/4 section line. The application was to move that property line ten feet to the east. The reason was to increase the size of the western parcel to make it a full 20- acres. The applicant had a buyer for the parcel (Parcel B) who wanted a full 20 acres. Staff explained the action would combine into the eastern parcel a narrow strip of land along I- 35E, which currently was a separate tax parcel. All of the land involved was under the same ownership. Staff indicated currently, a private driveway easement and the proposed access easement were private easements, not City roads. If the applicant intended the new easement to be a future public roadway, that would have to be analyzed in the future. The City had no plans for a road in that location and there was no intent to convey a road to the City at this time The new easement did not obligate the City in any way. Staff stated though the City's subdivision regulations required all lots to have full frontage on a public street, the existing parcel did not have frontage now. The proposed minor subdivision would not alter this situation, it simply increased the size of the driveway access easements. Any future subdivisions that create new lots would be required to have the full frontage on a public street. Staff explained the area was guided for long -term rural use. The City had no plan to extend utilities to this area. Any platting would have to be a maximum density of one lot per 10 acres. No plat approve was being requested. The applicant involved a very minor change in parcel sizes and posed no concern for public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommended approval. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. William Walton, stated he was the person who was attempting to purchase Parcel B. He explained there was an 8 -foot wide easement when they signed the purchase agreement. He was • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 5 informed that the City was requiring the 65 -foot roadway easement. He asked when the purchase agreement was signed the agreement stated if the roadway was ever to be used as a dedicated public road, then they would give up the 65 -foot easement, but until that time, it would remain as it was. He stated Mr. Iverson had agreed to that and had signed the purchase agreement. He indicated now Mr. Iverson was asking for a 66 -foot easement. He stated if this did not get resolved, the property might be not closed on. Chair Schaps stated it appeared Mr. Walton and Mr. Iverson did not see eye to eye and the Planning and Zoning Board had no authority to enter into this type of a dispute. Mr. Walton replied he understood that and he requested the 66 -foot easement be struck from the recommendation to the City. Mr. Brian Iverson stated he had not figured anything out yet, but whatever the City wanted to do was fine with him. Mr. Powell noted that if Mr. Iverson wanted to develop it in the future, a right -of -way easement would be required. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision, without any additional easement other than what was already platted, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0. C. Item Deleted D. Lino Lakes Family Dentistry, Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had 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 was approximately 65,340 square feet in size. The property was guided for future commercial development by the Comprehensive Plan and was zoned GB, General Business District. Medical office uses were allowed within this District as a permitted use Development of a commercial use was subject to site and building plan review as provided for by Section 2, subd. 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining the only issue was that the drive aisle on the west side of the building was set on the property line and not back 10 feet as required. This driveway was within a parking easement established over the common lot line with the property to the west and was indicated to be temporary. Staff indicated the footprint was approximately 4,792 sq. ft. The building was a single story structure with a pitched roof and a height measured to be 19' high. Staff stated the elevations featured 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 were provided at the corners of the • building. The peaks of the pitched roof also used the plank material. Section 3, Subd. 4.B allowed for use of decorative concrete panels for commercial uses. Provided that the "cement boards" were consistent with this classification of material the exterior of the building would conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 6 The site plan included a trash and recycling area at the northwest corner of the property. The trash enclosure was 6 feet in height and constructed out of hardy planks, which would complement the principal building design. With respect to the landscape plan, staff explained it proposed a mixture of trees, shrubs and bushes on the front and sides of the building. The materials included within the landscaping plan were consistent with the types and sizes required for commercial uses. No landscaping had been provided for the portion of the property designated for future development. This area should be seeded to control erosion. The utility plan indicated a sprinkler system was 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 was subject to further review for compliance with CPTED standards. Staff explained the site had one access to Apollo Drive, which overlayed the west lot line providing for a shared driveway with the abutting property. Access to Apollo Drive was subject to approval of the City and Anoka County under a Joint Power Agreement. Staff stated in addition to the shared access, the site plan provided a 12 -foot drive aisle abutting the property line on the west side of the building, which accessed the trash enclosure and interior storage area As noted above, this drive aisle was within an easement overlaying the west property line to provide for shared access and was intended to be temporary. The applicant was 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. Staff indicated circulation around the site was 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 might be difficult because the backup lane was shallow. If possible, the parking stalls should be shifted south to increase the depth of the backup lane to improve access. Staff explained the total requirement was 26 parking spaces based on the gross floor area of the building. If the calculation excluded the storage area, 22 spaces were required. The plan showed 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 site plan should also be revised to provide sufficient surface width such that the disability accessible stalls are van accessible. Staff stated the signage was governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits were required for all signs. The site plan indicated the location of a monument type business sign measured 40 square feet. The sign was located to the south of the parking area approximately one foot from the lot line. Freestanding signs were required to be at least five feet from the lot line, so the site plan must be revised. • With respect to lighting, staff indicated the site plan did not identify exterior light fixtures. Any light fixtures to be installed must be shown on the site plan and accompanied by a photometric plan. • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 7 Staff stated the proposed site was 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 would have access to the planned connection lines. The submitted plans included a grading and drainage plans for review regarding runoff control and water quality. All utility and grading plans were subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Staff indicated park dedication requirements for medical offices were $200.00 per 1000 sf of commercial building. Based on a 4,792 square foot building, the park dedication requirement would be $958.40. Staff stated the proposed site plan for Family Dentistry was generally consistent with the performance standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Minor changes to the site plan were required to provide required parking stalls, improve parking lot circulation and comply with setbacks for the west driveway. Staff stated provided these issues were addressed, staff recommended approval of the application with the following conditions: a. The site plan is revised such that all driveways and parking areas Mr. Lyden read the Environmental Board's concerns regarding water flow from the site. Mr. Powell noted this site was served by a regional pond, so the connection to the storm sewer system was routed to this pond. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Scott Maurer, Progressive Architecture, 275 E. Fourth Street, Suite 530, St. Paul, stated he represented the owners of the property. He gave a brief history of the property. He stated this building was a rural design. He asked for clarification regarding the easement. He stated they were trying to respond to what was going to be developed on the west side of the development. He asked there be no curb or gutter on that side; that it be flat asphalt. Chair Schaps replied he had understood that and had made note of it. Mr. Maurer pointed out where the lighting would be located. He asked about the irrigation of the lot to the east. He asked if this would be irrigated. Mr. Brixius stated they were not looking for irrigation to the site to the east. Chair Schaps asked for clarification on the parking stalls. Mr. Maurer replied right now they were just building the clinic portion of the building and not the storage area, and they had adequate parking spaces available with just the clinic. He stated they wanted to leave options open for any developments to the east and west. He asked it be approved with the stipulation that the additional stalls would be required once development occurred. Mr. Brixius stated one of the things they could look at was the rear of the property providing some additional stalls. Mr. Smyser stated on the western side of the property staff was comfortable with the driveway back there, but it was normal to have a full curb and they needed to find a reason why this would not be required for this development. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 8 Mr. Powell stated at many times, the concrete curb was replaced in past developments once further development occurred. He stated the reason they required this was for a finished look. He recommended there be a concrete curb placed in the area. Mr. Smyser indicated the standard lighting was to require a photometric plan with a shoebox type fixture with lighting directed downward. Mr. Maier replied they had no problem with this requirement. Mr. Smyser stated the future development area could not remain dirt and weeds. With respect to the parking, the City had to plan for parking for the entire building. He stated this had to be handled now. The parking could not be addressed in the future. He stated the area used as storage needed to be included in the parking requirements at this time. However, the Board could recommend a variance from that. Mr. Maier stated if the trash could be relocated, they may have enough room for more parking spaces in the back. Mr. Smyser expressed concern about parking in the back with trucks coming in and out. He recommended the variance of the three stalls. Mr. Lyden asked for Mr. Brixius' recommendations. Mr. Brixius replied the standard parking arrangement for professional offices, and staff realized some professional offices required more parking and some less. He stated granting a variance would not be detrimental to this site, but any change of occupancy would require them to meet the parking standards. He stated if parking needed to be accommodated into the future that could be accomplished because there was sufficient room for additional parking. Mr. Corson asked the storage be buffered from uses to the north. Mr. Brixius replied this had a very residential feel and with additional landscaping, there would not be a problem with this. Mr. Corson asked about the design of the pond. Mr. Powell replied when the pond was designed, it was designed for room for future accommodation. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the site and building plans as outlined in staff's report for Lino Lakes Family Dentistry, except item F would allow a variance to allow for 23 off street parking stalls as opposed to 26 parking stalls, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. After further discussion regarding the parking requirements, Ms. Lane withdrew her motion and Mr. Lyden withdrew his second. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the site and building plans as outlined in staff's report for Lino Lakes Family Dentistry subject to staff's recommendations with exception of item F which required 26 parking stalls, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION for a variance of 23 parking stalls instead of 26 parking stalls referred to in Item F of staff's report, and in the future, if there were any changes to the property, all City codes shall be applicable, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4 -0. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 9 • E. PUBLIC HEARING, Centennial School District, Birch St. Site, Rezone Chair Schaps declared the public hearing for both Item E and Item F opened at 8:00 p.m. Staff presented the application by explaining that ISD 12 requested to locate a new elementary school next to the Centennial Middle School, the School District also hoped to sell its existing vacant property along Birch Street. In this regard, the School District had requested that their 38.29 -acre site be rezoned from PSP, Public /Semi - Public District to R -1X, Single Family Executive District. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the following: Staff explained ISD 12, in evaluating its elementary school needs, determined that a new facility adjoining the existing middle school would best serve its current and future enrollment population. The Birch Street site was seen as a duplicate site for Rice Lake Elementary School and Centerville Elementary School. Staff stated the 38.29 acre site was zoned PSP, Public /Semi - Public Zoning District. This zoning district was limited in the range of uses that were allowed. To market the property for sale, this range of use was 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). 111 Staff explained the applicant was proposing to rezone the property to R -1X, Single Family Executive District. This was a low- density urban residential district. Staff indicated 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. Staff stated 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 showed the property as public /semi - public, reflecting the public ownership and current zoning. The 2020 plan also included the site in the MUSA and Phase 1 growth area. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 10 Staff outlined the Comprehensive Plan policies that were applicable to the zoning request, and stated the zoning change would be compatible with the current 1990 Land Use Plan and would be consistent with the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan policies. Staff stated to determine the appropriateness of the proposed use it was beneficial to examine the adjoining land use and zoning. Staff explained the proposed zoning from PSP to R -1X would be consistent with the R -1X zoning of the Pheasant Hills subdivision that adjoined the site on the north and east. The property laid within the existing MUSA and Phase 1 growth area presents a logical extension of the existing sewered single - family neighborhoods. Staff indicated the rezoning application was 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 had been submitted. Based on our calculation, the site contained approximately 10+ acres of wetland, leaving 28 acres of build able acres scattered through the site. The amount and configuration of the build able acres would limit the development of the site. Staff stated 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. Staff indicated access to any future development would be reliant on access from Birch Street and local streets in adjoining subdivisions. Birch Street was 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. Mr. Corson asked with staff if they were comfortable for a decision to be made tonight. Mr. Brixius stated anything that would come in would still be contingent on a site plan review. Applicant tonight was attempting to see what the thoughts were of the City at this time. Mr. Corson stated there would be more bus traffic through the Middle School and asked if that was an issue. Mr. Brixius stated there would be more traffic, but he believed this was a good land -use fit. Chair Schaps pointed out the traffic would be at different times. Elementary Schools started later than the Middle School. John Christensen, Superintendent Centennial School District, clarified the schools had staggered start and stop times and there were buses running in that area now. He pointed out an elementary school in this area would be a good fit to serve the western part of the District. He stated they would be conscientious about starting times, ending times, and event times. Mr. Lyden asked how many other PSP sites they had available. Mr. Christensen stated they had none. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 11 • Mr. Christensen stated the particular site became part of the District in 1959 and it had not been deemed as an appropriate site when Rice Lake Elementary School was built. • Mr. Lyden asked if this would be the last elementary school the school district would build. Mr. Christensen stated it depended upon the density in the next few years. Mr. Lyden asked if this would come on line in the 2010 growth zone or in the 2020 growth zone. Mr. Brixius replied this land was in the MUSA and was in the 2010 growth zone. Chair Schaps asked about consideration of a Kindergarten center. Mr. Christensen stated the public sentiment was not positive and this project was proposed to be K -5. Mr. Lyden asked how closely these two items related with respect to action items for the school district. Mr. Christensen stated if this was not approved, there were no other options for property at this time and they needed the additional space. Mr. Christensen stated there would be budget considerations regarding this. Mr. Rafferty asked if there was a net gain in money based on the land that was trying to be rezoned. Mr. Christensen replied there was a potential net gain. Mr. Rafferty asked why there was only a possibility of a net gain. Mr. Christensen replied the difference was that light industrial zoned property brought in a different price structure. Light industrial property was more valuable than residential property. Mr. Rafferty stated he had a concern with this project because in May, 2000, it was the proposal to take 7.5 acres and trade it for 3.5 acres of drainage ditch, and at the time he struggled with that decision because it did not make any sense. He stated his problem was that they took light industrial land that would never be PSP and was traded for L -1 and now they were trying to get it changed again and they were now going to have to pay a premium price for something that was already there. He did not believe that was fair to the taxpayers. Mr. Christensen stated he was not a part of those discussions and he could not comment on what was requested in the past. Lee Farmer asked in the area they were trying to rezone where would the access to the development be. Chair Schaps replied there was not any site proposal prepared yet at this time. Mr. Farmer stated he lived one lot away from the development and expressed concern about the traffic increasing in front of his house. He stated Birch Street was a busy road and if the access was off of Birch Street, this would greatly impact him. Chair Schaps stated this could happen, but there was no proposal now. Mr. Powell stated that was a dead -end street with a temporary cul -de -sac. He stated they were concerned about accesses on Birch Street. He stated they needed to consider the bus traffic that might be coming down into this area to pick up children and take them somewhere else. Paul Seiferts stated his property backed up to the present school property. He expressed concern about the taxpayers having to purchase more property for schools. He asked if this would be rezoned, could there be a covenant regarding adding parkland dedication. He stated he had paid a premium from his property and parkland would be much appreciated. Chair Schaps suggested he attend Park Board meetings first and express his concern about parks in his area. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Smyser stated with the re- zoning request, they could not ensure a park in that area. However, if a plan came in the future, the Park Board would compare the proposal to the existing Park and Trail plan. He stated the Park Board made the recommendations as to where the parks should be located, which then came to the Planning and Zoning Board and then went to the City Council for consideration. Gary Trettel stated his concern on the proposed plan was the sharing of facilities with the middle school. He stated there were wetland mitigation issues, as well as elementary school children sharing facilities with older children. Also, he would also like a park in the area. Branden Curtis stated he was not opposed to the development, but his concern was a safety factor. He stated the traffic on Birch Street needed to be addressed and slowed down. If a school was proposed to be added, they had to look even more closely at the traffic issues. Ken Wagner stated he had also paid a premium for his lot and stated he did not see the value of selling the land at this time. He asked the School District wait on the sale of the land until they knew what they needed in the future. Mr. Christensen gave some of the advantages of sharing the facilities. He stated some of the larger events that were too large for one facility could be held in the other facility without inconveniencing anyone. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing on Items E and F at 8:46 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to deny rezoning from PSP to R -1X, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0. F. PUBLIC HEARING, Centennial School District, New Elementary School Site, Rezone, Minor Subdivision Staff presented the application by explaining ISD 12 had 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 was 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 had 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. Staff presented its analysis of the request stating upon investigation of the needed elementary school, the School District had selected the proposed site next to the Centennial Middle School for the following reasons: • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 13 1. In review of the School District's enrollment distribution and forecasts, approximately 60 percent of the present and future enrollment population lived west of Lake Drive and County Road 49. The proposed site provided a centralized location to best serve the School District's population. 2. The current vacant Birch Street location laid in close proximity to the existing Rice Lake Elementary and Centerville Elementary. Construction of another school along Birch Street was seen as a duplication of facilities. 3. The proposed site's proximity to the Centennial Middle School allowed the elementary school to share facilities with the middle school (i.e., play equipment, play fields). This allowed 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. Staff stated the 15 acre site was zoned L -I, Limited Industrial District and existed as part of the Lake Business Park subdivision. The L -I Zoning District did 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 was isolated on the far west end of the Lake Business Park preliminary plat by an existing wetland. This end of the preliminary plat was intended to gain access to Lake Drive via a 1,150 feet long cul -de -sac. The rezoning and subdivision would significantly reduce the needed cul -de -sac length for the industrial park. Staff indicated he requested zoning for the 15+ acre parcel was PSP, Public /Semi- Public District. The purpose of this district was described as follows This district was 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. Staff stated the PSP Zoning District allowed for public and private schools by conditional use permit. At this time, only the zoning and subdivision requests were being considered. The conditional use permit would be processed as a separate application with the site plan details. Staff explained 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: Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 14 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. Staff stated 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 existed or where there was 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. Staff explained the School District's interest in creating a shared elementary and middle school campus did economize an existing investment, promote a greater utilization of existing facilities, and was 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. Staff indicated within the 2020 proposed Comprehensive Plan under Staged Growth Area Rules, the following recommendation was made: "In considering land trades, the City will discourage the exchange of developable commercial or industrial zoned land for a proposed residential development." Staff stated while the rezoning of the industrial land would not directly accommodate residential growth, the School District, in a related application, was requesting that the existing Birch Street parcel be rezoned from PSP to R -1X, Single Family Residential. The City must determine if this requested zoning change was inconsistent with this recommendation. It should be noted that this was a unique request in that it was driven by the facility needs of the School District rather than private development. Staff indicated industrial zoning would 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 revealed that storm water drainage ponds and a wetland physically separated 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. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 15 • Staff stated 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. • • Staff stated applicant had submitted a survey and concept plan with the subdivision request. In review of this information, staff offered 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 had wetland constraints that must be addressed in the site design. Any wetland filling would require a wetland replacement plan. 4. The survey indicated that only the eastern half of 4th 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 4t" 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. Staff indicated to avoid the need for lot width and building setback variances associated with the creation of a new lot, staff recommended 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. Staff stated Section 3.C.3 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance allowed more than one principal building on PSP lots provided that all the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance were met. Staff indicated the site lies within the existing MUSA. The proposed site and school was not anticipated to overburden existing in -place utilities or municipal services. With respect to transportation, staff explained the elementary school would gain its site access via shared driveways with the middle school accessing Elm Street. The combined campus would allow the middle school and elementary school to share bus service. The elementary school would be designed to accommodate between 750 and 1,000 students, resulting in staffing of approximately 75 people. Bus traffic, staff and visitor traffic would be the anticipated traffic generation. This traffic was not anticipated to overburden existing streets serving the site. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the requested rezoning from L -I to PSP based on the following findings: 1. The elementary school site is combined with the middle school site to create a single lot. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 16 • 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 4th 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. and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -1 (Rafferty). Mr. Corson made a MOTION for the minor subdivision, as outlined in staff's report and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 3 -1 (Rafferty). Chair Schaps called for a recess at 8:50 p.m. Chair Schaps reconvened at 9:00 p.m. G. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Highland Meadows West 3rd Addition, 1111 Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had submitted an application for a preliminary plat entitled Highland Meadows 3`d Addition. The subject site was located south of Main Street and west of Lake Drive. The property was planned for low - density residential uses and was zoned R -1 /PDO and R -1 Districts. The proposed preliminary plat was a re -plat of Highland Meadows 2nd Addition and incorporated 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. Staff presented its analysis of the request explaining the subject site was guided for single- family residential used by the current and draft Comprehensive Plan (1 -3 du/ac.) and it was included within the current MUSA. Consistent with the land use plan, the subject site was 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 was being processed as part of this subdivision design. Single- family lots and uses were a permitted use of these Districts. Staff stated access to the subdivision is provided via Marilyn 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. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 17 • Staff indicated 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. Staff explained the only issue with the street design was 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. Staff indicated the subdivision included 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. Staff explained the R -1 District minimum lot size was 10,800 square feet of build able land. The lots listed below did 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 drainage ways, 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. Staff stated 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. State stated there were four existing single - family dwellings within the project area. The submitted plans did not identify those that are to remain or those that may be removed. The proposed subdivision design had been laid out such that each dwelling would be located on an individual lot within required setbacks. There was a detached accessory building in the area of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 that must be removed as it overlayed lot lines and encroaches into the right -of -way. Staff explained the subject site included several large stands of trees throughout the property. A tree preservation plan had been submitted that indicates trees to be protected and those to be removed as part of the development. Trees to be preserved were 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 were to be removed from the central areas of the property as part of the grading plan and development of the site. Staff indicated the existing conditions sheet and grading plan identify a 0.74 -acre wetland in the center of Block 2. This wetland area was not to be disturbed as part of development of this project. The wetland would be included within a drainage and utility easement that also covered drainage ponds adjacent to the wetland. Staff stated the applicant had submitted grading and drainage plans for the proposed subdivision. The grading plan was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 18 Staff indicated Outlots A and D were proposed to be dedicated as partial satisfaction of park land requirements. Outlot A provided a desired trail corridor from Main Street to the neighborhood. Connections to the park abutting the southwest corner of this parcel would be provided over the local streets. Outlot D was land dedicated to add to the existing park. Staff explained the amount of the land required to be dedicated was 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 were 0.72 acres, from which the replacement park land must be subtracted. The balance of required park dedication would 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. Staff stated the preliminary plat included Outlots B and C, in addition to those being provided for park dedication purposes. Staff explained Outlot B was a parcel of land fronting Street A that was intended to provide access to a land locked parcel to the south east. This land locked parcel was also intended to have frontage to 79th Street via a reserve strip that was to be dedicated to the City. Staff would need to follow up on resolution of this matter. Staff explained Outlot C was a 0.07 -acre parcel of land that abuts the expanded park. The Outlot was being conveyed to the abutting property to the east in order to create a buffer between that • lot and the parkland. Staff stated water and sanitary sewer were both proposed to be provided to serve the single - family uses. Sanitary sewer and water service were shown within the rights -of -way. Storm sewer facilities were also shown on the plan. Easements had been provided at the perimeter of each lot and over all drainage facilities. All utility plans were subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Staff stated comments from the Environmental Board had not been received. Chair Schaps asked if the Comprehensive Plan had addressed this area with respect to parkland. Mr. Brixius stated this would be an extension to the park area already in existence. Mr. Lyden asked if it was too late to make this R -1X. Mr. Brixius stated there was no application before them for R -1X zoning. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Ms. Gail Judd, 670 Arlen Lane, stated she was the person who Outlot C was being dedicated to. She asked if this was on meeting in a series of meetings, or if this was being approved tonight. Chair Schaps replied this would go to Council for their decision eventually. Ms. Judd asked if Outlot D was parkland because they were purchasing Outlot C. She requested it be residential. Mr. Smyser replied her purchasing Outlot C, did not have any effect on the decision to make Outlot D a park. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 19 Ms. Judd stated she did not want a park next to her. She stated she had expressed this concern since the beginning. Chair Schaps replied the Planning and Zoning Board knew about her concerns, but there many people who did want a park. Chair Schaps asked why she was opposed to the park. Ms. Judd replied she did not have children and wanted the peace and quiet she had now. She felt very strongly about not having a park next to her property. Mr. Smyser stated usually a park was not drawn up until they had obtained the neighborhood's opinions. Ms. Judd asked how much did her opinion carry and what where her rights. Chair Schaps stated she needed to go to Council with her concerns, but the Planning and Zoning Board did realize and acknowledge her concerns, but they did not make the final opinion. Ms. Judd requested the Board not approve this until Outlot D became residential. Mr. Lyden stated there were other substandard lots, and it might make sense to continue this and take Ms. Judd's concerns into consideration. Steve Schmitt, developer, stated there was no discussion regarding the park not being big enough for the proposed plat. He stated they originally had a concept of Outlot D being residential, but it was upon the Park Board's recommendation that this was made a park. He stated there were some issues with Outlot D being made parkland. He stated if it was integrated into a park, it had to be grading and redesign of the land. There was a significant grade change. Mr. Rafferty asked how large was Outlot D currently. The developer replied the park was five acres and Outlot D would be in addition to that Outlot D would make an appropriate sized residential lot, approximately a'' /2 acre. Teresa O'Connell and Connie Grundhofer, Environmental Board, stated Outlot D did not have oak trees on it so they were not that concerned about that They did have concerns about the water level however. Mr. Powell corrected an error made at the Environmental Board meeting regarding water levels. He stated the ground water level varied from year to year and that the City required the lowest floor 4 feet above groundwater, not 6 feet. Ms. O'Connell asked how open was the Board to having the streets narrower to accommodate more green space. Mr. Powell replied in the past the City had allowed the streets to be narrowed to 28 feet and the City could "live" with a 28 -foot street. However, if they wanted to go further than that, this would have to come under much more consideration. Mr. Lyden asked why the City did not have a tree Ordinance and when was one expected. Chair Schaps replied they were unable to resolve many issues involved with the tree ordinance and there was no set timeframe for when this was expected. Mr. Lyden requested the tree ordinance be brought back soon. • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 20 Ms. Lane asked if the Park Board had seen this. She stated she had no objection to Outlot D being a residential lot. Mr. Smyser stated the Park Board had made a recommendation for a park, even though it was not specifically noted in the staff report. Ms. Lane stated if this was not part of the park, it would increase the developer's donation. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Corson asked about the 28 -foot streets with respect to parking. Mr. Powell replied staff was comfortable with 28 -foot streets. It would not pose any maintenance or parking problems. Mr. Powell indicated the right -of -way did not change. The right -of -way would stay at 60 feet. The pavement would be narrower. They were not proposing to reduce the right -of -way, only the paved surface. The developer stated he did not object to the 28 -foot streets. Mr. Smyser asked what the anticipated home price range would be. The developer stated it would be similar to the first addition. He estimated it would be $189,000.00 to $219, 000.00. With respect to the substandard lots in size, he stated he did not believe the lots were substandard in size, but there still had to be some issues worked out regarding those lots. He stated this was a preliminary plat and these issues would be worked out prior to any decisions. Chair Schaps stated they still wanted to see it ahead of time. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to table to July, 2001 meeting the Preliminary Plat of Highland Meadows 3rd Addition. Motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Rafferty asked what type of hardship were they imposing upon the developer by delaying this. He asked if the 13 lots in question were enough to delay the process. The developer asked that the Board take action on this tonight. Mr. Lyden asked if Ms. Judd's concerns could be addressed. The developer stated he had no problem having Outlot D being a residential area This was a decision of the City. It made no difference to him either way. He was willing to have more discussions with Mr. Degardner regarding making this a lot versus parkland. Mr. Smyser stated he would speak with Mr. Degardner about this and raise these issues with him. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the Preliminary Plat of Highland Meadows 3`d 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 build able 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. • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 21 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. and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lyden). Mr. Zych arrived at 9:50 p.m. The developer stated if this did stay parkland, he would plant additional pine trees between the Judd property and the park. AMENDMENT to the first motion as seconded and approved to recommend a 28 -foot street width within the subdivision as opposed to the 32 -foot width. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lyden) -1 (Zych). H. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies UD, Inc. (Target), • Lake Drive • Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 9:51 p.m. Staff presented the application by explaining Staff had been working with Ryan Companies, US Inc. on a proposed retail development located in the northeast quadrant of Lake Drive /I -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. Staff stated 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. Staff indicated 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 stated the submittal that was reviewed in February 2001 had been modified; this review was based on plan submittals stamped received by the City on May 18, 2001. Staff indicated many outstanding issues remain related to the site. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 22 • Staff stated the property was currently zoned SC, Shopping Center District. This designation anticipated the development of a single center generally under one ownership. There was no provision in the SC ordinance to allow zero lot line setbacks for parking or lots without frontage as proposed. • • Staff indicated in order to accommodate the development as proposed, it was necessary to process the application under the PDO, Planned Development Overlay District. Section 3, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Ordinance required a PDO to allow subdivision of lots for a single building and for the private roads proposed. This process allowed greater flexibility and consequently a more creative and imaginative design. It allowed flexibility in the internal setbacks, lot sizes, and in parking for combined uses and was the appropriate means for review of a development of this size and scope. Staff explained access to the site was proposed via an extension of Apollo Drive. This access was located on an adjacent parcel and would require acquisition from the owner or condemnation. An additional access was proposed to Lake Drive approximately 520 feet north of the Apollo access. All accesses with Lake Drive (County Road 23) were subject to the approval of Anoka County. A petition for public improvements has been submitted in order to pursue some of the design solutions regarding access. Staff stated the City Engineer was in the process of conducting a traffic study that would identify the traffic impact of the development. Improvements may include, but are not limited to turn lanes, by -pass lanes and signalization. Staff stated earlier plans proposed a connection to 77th Street. This connection had been eliminated. It is staff's opinion that circulation on the site was poor in that the internal intersections did 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 was designed to directly back into primary drive aisle areas, and generally the access to the smaller retail/ restaurant sites was poor. It appeared with some modification this concern could be addressed. Staff stated the site design did not include any coordination of pedestrian access between uses, to the public roads or to the residential uses to the north. Staff indicated while it was not intended that the design incorporate all elements of the Village concept it was 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 existed was geared toward vehicle access and was unfriendly and truly discourages pedestrian use. Staff stated detailed plans had been submitted for sanitary sewer, water and storm water management. The City Engineer had reviewed the information submitted and a copy of his • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 23 memo was attached for reference. The issues raised by the Engineer were based on the plans and information provided. Revised plans or additional information may result in additional comments. Staff indicated there were two wetlands located on the eastern portion of the site and one was proposed to be impacted which required approval of the Rice Creek Watershed. There were 752 trees on the site and 566 of these were significant based on their size and species. The grading proposed on the site would result in the removal of 437 significant trees and a total of 458 trees. Most of the trees on the property were concentrated in around the wetland or on the southwest portion of the site. Staff indicated wetland delineations had been completed but had not been confirmed. There were two areas of wetland identified on the property. One area was approximately 3.63 in size and the other 1.24 acres in size. The larger wetland was proposed to be totally eliminated and replaced with a storm water treatment and retention basin. Specific mitigation plans had not been submitted for the site however, all mitigation was proposed to take place off site. Staff stated 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 were addressed through Rice Creek. Staff stated green space on the site was concentrated around the perimeter of the site and surrounding ponding and wetland areas. The landscaping plan calls for plantings within parking lots along drive aisles and surrounding the site. The overall plan was well done and provides a variety of plantings. Some plantings are shown within MnDOT right -of -way, MnDOT had indicated that they would not allow any work within their right -of -way. Staff indicated the critical portion of the landscape proposed was along the northern edge of the site, which was adjacent to existing residential uses. The plan as proposed would provide a visual break but it would not provide a complete screen. Particular attention should be paid to fully screening points where headlights would create issues and where loading docks were proposed. In some instances, fencing may be the most appropriate screen. Staff stated no exterior details had been provided for the small retail buildings or other freestanding uses. The applicant had indicated that they would commit to a certain design concept as previously presented. Staff had not received specific language that addresses this issue. Previous discussions were that exteriors of the buildings were proposed to be a combination of masonry materials including brick and rockface block with EIFS (stucco) sign bands and accenting. The decorative roof elements include standing seam metal that complement the roof designs in existing Town Square buildings. Awnings were proposed over the storefront areas. Staff indicated because of the site layout all buildings should be designed with all sides finished with equal quality and attention to detail. Staff stated the Target Superstore used a combination of brick and stucco on the front which transitions to stucco and rock face block on the sides. The rear elevation was 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 would be very visible from 77th Street. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 24 There was a screen wall shown on the rear of the building, to be constructed of split face modular block. The wall did not appear to be of adequate height to screen either the loading dock doors or the trucks that were often parked in the dock area. The screen wall should be of sufficient height to substantially screen the dock area. Staff stated trash enclosures had not been identified on the site plan. The narrative states that all trash dumpsters should be within the building footprints and that a trash compactor for Target was within the loading dock area and was screened. Staff indicated Target often used sidewalk space in front of the stores for cart storage. A full screen wall should be provided if the intent was to store carts in the front of the store. No outside storage was permitted without proper screening. Staff stated Kohl's was 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 was very visible to the area to the north and more attention should be paid to the design and materials used. Staff indicated the applicant had indicated that decorative lighting was 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. Staff stated park dedication would be cash fees in lieu of land and should be provided at the rate in effect at the time of the final plat. Staff stated a total sign package had 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 were 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. Staff indicated the application included 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 minimum lot size in the SC zoning district was 3 acres. Under the PDO this provision would be waived. Staff stated based on the size of the proposed project, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was mandatory. This process was designed to identify significant environmental effects that may require a more detailed environmental impact statement. Staff stated 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 was made. While a draft EAW document has been submitted, the document had not been • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 25 processed through the City or Environmental Quality Board. There was a comment period currently in effect that runs until July 11, 2001. Until the process was complete and the City had determined that an EIS was not necessary the City should not take final action to approve the proj ect. Chair Schaps asked what the staff's recommendation was regarding traffic flow on Lake Drive. Mr. Powell replied staff's recommendation would have been to have one access on Apollo Drive, but the developer has requested a second access. He stated the County still had to approve the access and as far as he knew, applicant had not submitted this request. With respect to the traffic flow, he had received a new site plan late last week, but had not had a chance to review it. Chair Schaps stated this was a major issue that the County had not acted on this yet. Mr. Wessel stated this was a key issue. He indicated right from the beginning applicant had been made aware this was an essential element. He stated this was normally down the list of things to do, but it would need to be acted on soon. He stated Target still intended on having the project completed by July, 2002 and if this was to be accomplished, this had to go to City Council at their July meeting. Chair Schaps asked if staff would support this second access. Mr. Powell replied from an engineering standpoint, a second signalized was a bad idea. He stated his recommendation would have been that applicant made this request to Anoka County some time ago. He stated applicant should pay for all costs of access, including any signal. Mr. Rafferty asked about the design issues for the Kohl's building. He strongly recommended getting design criteria from Kohls. He stated what was being proposed now was not acceptable. The bituminous pavement was not acceptable; he wanted to see green space. He suggested Kohl's follow the Target design on the parking lot. He stated he was against the idea of another bank in the development. His criteria was green space within the parking lot, design criteria for the Kohl's building and find someway to deal with all of the other small developments to make them comparable with other recent developments. Mr. Wessel replied Kohls had made adjustments per the City's suggestions and they were meeting with Kohls in the near future to see what their new proposals were going to be Mr. Rafferty stated he wanted to see heavily landscaped, treed facilities all of the way through the parking lots. He strongly recommended bringing trees into these areas. Mr. Lyden agreed with Mr. Rafferty regarding the issue of the bank. Aesthetically, he stated he had no issues with Kohls or Target. He stated the issue of green space in a commercial center was not a huge issue for him. His major concern was the traffic layout within the system and outside the system. He had suggested a two -lane in and a two -lane out which would serve the front business along Lake Drive versus bringing traffic all of the way in and then back through. He stated he expected to hear feedback from staff at some point regarding his suggestion. Mr. Corson suggested tying in the theme from The Village. He stated how the project looked from Lake Drive was important. He suggested having pedestrian access to the area. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 26 Mr. Lyden stated he did not see this as a pedestrian friendly plan and had no issues with the site plan, other than the traffic and the specifics of the bank within the plan. Mr. Corson replied they needed to make the determination as to how they were going to integrate it with The Village. Mr. Rafferty reiterated his concern regarding having more trees within the development. He asked staff what they would like to see. Mr. Wessel replied this was a commercial center and heavy landscaping was not envisioned for it. Mr. Rafferty again strongly recommended heavy landscaping, especially trees. He believed trees could do a good job for masking the large parking lots. Chair Schaps agreed with Mr. Rafferty with respect to green space in the parking lot. However, he could live with a mixed concept. He also agreed it should be visually congruent with The Village. Mr. Wessel replied staff was very aware of making this development connect with The Village. Ms. Lane disagreed with Mr. Rafferty's suggestion about the landscaping. She stated if they did a good job with landscaping along the outside businesses, the parking lot would not need excessive landscaping. She did not have a problem with a large parking area Mr. Lyden suggested breaking up the parking area and putting some retail in the middle. Terry O'Connell asked if it was possible to have a parking ramp as part of the Kohl's parking, which would leave more open space. Mr. Wessel replied a parking structure was never contemplated for this project. There was adequate surface parking available. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue to public hearing to the July, 2001 meeting, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. I. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Land Holding Group, 12th &Holly, Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 10:22 p.m. Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had 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 had now been provided. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the site was zoned for residential development. The site was within the existing MUSA. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 27 Staff stated the R -1X minimum lot size was 12,825 sf of upland. All of the lots met or exceed this minimum lot size. The proposed lot widths were compliant with the minimum standard of a width of 90 feet for interior lots and 115 feet for corner lots. The minimum lot depth was 135 feet. All the lots except Lot 8 comply with this standard. Lot 8 had a depth of 127 feet, which required a variance. Staff indicated the ordinance stated that in considering requests for variance the City shall make a finding 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 was due to physical circumstance unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship was not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff stated the Planning and Zoning Board may consider that the site was impacted by wetlands and it was located at the intersection of two collector roads thereby limiting design options as a basis for granting the variance. Staff indicated the applicant had submitted grading information that was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Staff stated an existing shed and pole building were located within the new street right -of -way and must be removed. Staff indicated utilities existed in both 12th and Holly, and an extension of utilities down the proposed cul -de -sac was proposed. The water main needs to be looped to 12th Street. The utilities plan was subject to City Engineer review and approval. Holly and 12th were both major collector roads. The purpose of major collectors was to channel traffic, and direct access from lots was discouraged. The number of lots fronting on 12th Avenue had been reduced from five lots in the concept plan to one lot in the preliminary plat. The number of lots fronting on Holly Drive had increased from zero to one. The rest of the lots were proposed to front on a new cul- de -sac street. Based on modifications to the plan which reduced the number of accesses staff supported the layout. Staff stated a trail was envisioned along Holly Drive, but had not been designed yet. It had not been decided whether the trail would be on the north or south side of Holly. It would be within the road right -of -way. A trail existed on the east side of 12th Ave. as part of Peregrine Pass. Park dedication for this new development would be cash. Staff stated 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 had been Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 28 • submitted. Rice Creek Watershed District has granted a TWAFAA (tabled with approval for administrative action) for the development. • • Staff indicated the site was a former pine tree plantation. A plan for tree preservation has been submitted. The Environmental Board had suggested that some of the trees might be moved. Staff stated because the site was located at the intersection of two collector roads staff would work with the applicants to develop a landscaping plan to provide a buffer between the right -of- way and the homes to be constructed. Staff indicated the Environmental Board reviewed the project on January 3, 2001. The Environmental Specialist's memo included the Board's comments. Chair Schaps asked if the developer had been asked about eliminating Lot 8 as opposed to a variance. Mr. Smyser replied there were a couple previous designs of this project the developer had discussed with staff including a number of accesses onto the road. Staff worked out with them to remove most of them. If they make the access on Lot 2 go onto the cul -de -sac, then only Lot 8 and 1 would access the roads themselves. All of the other lots would meet the requirements. There were wetland issues to be addressed also. Because of the safety issues that were addressed with this design, staff was supportive of the variance than the other designs that would require more accesses onto the roadways. He indicated this had been negotiated with the developer. Mr. Lyden expressed concern that Lot 1, 2 and 8 were not a part of the neighborhood. He suggested Lot 8 be made part of Lots 7 and 9 and incorporate Lot 1 and 2 and face Lot 2 to the cul -de -sac. This would make a neighborhood. Mr. Lyden asked about the Gemini Estates tree issue and stated that issue needed to be done prior to any approval of this development. Jeff Roos, developer's representative, replied they were requesting they proceed with the variance request. He said if they combined lots, they would end up with crooked lot lines and this was not desirable either. With respect to Gemini Estates, he had no information regarding this. Ms. Lane stated while she also believed in developing neighborhoods, she believed Lots 8 and Lots 1 would become part of the neighborhoods along side of them and may not specifically be a part of this neighborhood. Mr. Zych agreed that Lots 1 and 2 should be combined because of their size, but had no opinion about Lot 8. Mr. Corson agreed that Lots 1 and 2 should be combined due to safety issues. Mr. Ruus stated lot designs did not create neighborhoods. He stated the plat met every ordinance, except one dimension. He stated they could do some lot line manipulation that would meet their criteria, but believed this plat was the solution. He indicated they might have misunderstood what the City wanted. • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 29 Mr. Lyden asked if the cul -de -sac could be brought the opposite way. Mr. Ruus stated that had not been looked at and he was not sure if the previous designer had looked at those options or not. He stated they were limited however by wetlands and topography. He also indicated that by doing that, he did not believe it would eliminate access off of 12th and Holly. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Rafferty stated he would like to see the lot lines realigned to create a better neighborhood. He would strongly support that effort so it would all come off of the same cul -de -sac. Mr. Ruus stated he understood the Board's concerns, but Lot 8 could be the problem. He stated Lot 1 was more workable. Chair Schaps also agreed in combining Lots 1 and 2 and splitting Lot 8. Mr. Ruus stated if that was the direction, they would need to start all over. He indicated the economic impact would affect them and they would need to redesign this area. Mr. Rafferty expressed his concern about them starting over again because of the loss of two lots. He stated this was very close to being a very acceptable plan without redesigning the whole area. Mr. Ruus stated it was his understanding this was what the City was looking for. Ms. Lane stated she did not have concern about Lots 1 and 8, but did have concerns about the access on 12th and Holly and would not support this because of that Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to deny the preliminary plat application, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Schaps stated the reasons for denial were as follows: 1. There was a reasonable use of the property in question. 2. There was no plight of the landowner due to physical circumstances unique to this property. 3. There is an economic consideration. 4. Not applicable. 5. The Ordinance did allow for reasonable use and there was also a question of access and safety. With respect to the preliminary plat, the reason for denial was because of access and safety issues; no neighborhood consistency; and not all driveways being located on the cul -de -sac. J. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Pinnacle Towers, 870 Birch Street, Rezone, Amended C.U.P., Amend Zoning Ordinance This item was withdrawn by applicant. Chair Schaps reopened the hearing at 11:00 p.m. There being no comments made, the public hearing was closed. • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 30 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the Public hearing closed at 11:00 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. K. North American Composites, Amend Condition of Approval for Site Plan Staff presented the application by explaining 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 precise concrete panels will be Fabcon Wide Rack 3/8" grooves at 3" O.C. with smooth concrete cattails 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. Staff stated this originated in a request by the Planning & Zoning Board to revisit the building elevation along the freeway. Because this was 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 included 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. Staff indicated North American Compsites had asked that this condition be deleted because of the cost of the custom design. Instead, they had submitted a design that included a four -foot blue stripe across the top of the precast concrete panels. The panels had a raked finish, just like the original submittal. In addition, the design of the building had been reviewed somewhat. The office portion exterior would still be decorative concrete block. However, the standing seam metal roof on both portions of the building had changed in the new design. Instead, the new proposed design had a flat roof for the warehouse portion. The office portion also had a flat roof, but the east elevation incorporated a peaked facade. Staff stated the footprint of the new design increased the footprint by about 500 sf, about a 2% change. Staff considered this a relatively minor change. Staff indicated because the cattail design was a condition of approval, it would require action by the City Council to change it Staff discussed the request with the City Council at the June 6 worksession. Council directed staff to bring the request to the P & Z for a recommendation. It would then to go the City Council at its June 25 meeting. Staff recommended 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. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Ivan Levy, presented a history of the project and thanked the Board and staff for all of their efforts. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 31 • Mr. Zych made a Motion to approve the new building design and the revision of the condition of approval, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Rafferty applauded applicant's efforts. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr. Smyser stated the draft Comprehensive Plan was available for review and copying. VII. ADJOURNMENT • • Mr. Zych made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:12 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • • AGENDA ITEM VI. A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: July 11, 2001 TOPIC: Variance To Allow Accessory Building Closer To Front Lot Line Than Principal Building Sai Lee, 8075 20th Ave. No. BACKGROUND Mr. Sai Lee has applied for a variance from the prohibition on building an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principal building. This report is based on a 1999 Certificate of Survey of the property by E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc. and a hand drawing showing the approximate location of the proposed accessory building. Both were receive 6/6/01. 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.). ANALYSIS Mr. Lee wants to build an accessory building near the existing house but closer to the road than the house. The existing house is in the south central part of the property. The septic system is to the southwest, behind the house. The aerial photo indicates a low- lying, wet area to the north of the house and another, larger wet area to the east. A large area of the western part of the property is in a drainage easement. A larger portion of the western part of the lot is covered by a right of way easement for the electric transmission lines. The transmission easement is 200 feet wide. There may be upland available to build the storage building behind the house. However, creating a driveway to get to it would require impacting the wet areas to the north and east of the house. The drainfield prevents a driveway running on the south of the house. These physical constraints limit the location where a structure could be built. • 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. The low- lying, wet area to the north of the house limits the location of a driveway to serve the area behind the house where there might be upland to build a storage building on. The area behind the house is also limited by the transmission line easement, even if a driveway could be built to serve it. Conditions of Approval Staff recommends approving the variance application with the following condition: 1. A building permit must be obtained, which will require that the building meets the size and other requirements of the zoning ordinance and building code. OPTIONS 1. Approve the variance based on physical constraints described in the report. 2. Deny the variance application. 3. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 • • • _ lZ ON H O1y 31b'iS 'O�x Z r CERTIFICATE OP SU 2vE- ALLISON HUIRAS W • 3.9 t.00.LON , _ .00'091 �7JN31 3dw OlD • .2F,61.11 SIP'S££ a 1 o 3.1,0.01.90N -•6.g3 e L ♦ • \ 1- c d O 0 4 M 0) '-- O QIn A cZ VI _ � v • N ▪ 0 aa) 1 rn W to O -� CV .FS'Bb� 3.FS.ZCL CN • property line • subtic : tank ' property line pond RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES • • AGENDA ITEM VI. B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: July 11, 2001 TOPIC: - Variance From Road Setback - Variance To Allow 6' Fence Along Rear Yard Abutting Front Yard of Neighbor Gerald & Geraldine Ramsay 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court BACKGROUND Mr. & Ms. Ramsay require a variance to allow a pool that does not meet the required 30' setback from the right of way of Ruffed Grouse Road. The Ramsays also want a six -foot fence around the pool. The City's zoning ordinance states that a fence can only be four feet high when it would be along the neighbor's front yard. This is the reason for the second variance request. This report is based on the 5/7/01 building permit application for the pool, which shows the approximate location of the pool drawn by hand on a 3/29/94 Surveyors Certificate of the property by Hy -Land Surveying. ANALYSIS Setback Variance: The Ramsays applied for a permit in May to build an above- ground pool. The first proposal was to put the pool in the middle of the back yard. However, this was not allowed because the yard slopes to a "V" in the middle and drains through the middle of the yard. A pool in the originally proposed location would block drainage and water would back up to the house. The Ramsays then proposed to put the pool over on one side of the yard. This was an appropriate location for drainage purposes. Engineering and building inspections approved the permit and the Ramsays built the pool. The pool is approximately 20 feet from the right of way. Belatedly, inspections staff recognized that the pool didn't meet the required setback from a road, which is 30 feet for all structures. (Pool shall not be located within any required front or side yard setback. Sec. 3 Subd. 4.D.3.3)) Staff is processing this variance at no charge to the Ramsays because of the oversight. • • Fence Variance: The second variance involves a proposed fence around the back yard and pool. The Ramsay's lot fronts on Ruffed Grouse Court. Their rear lot line is the side lot line of their neighbors' house, which fronts on Ruffed Grouse Road. The zoning ordinance addresses fences in such a situation, which is common with corner lots: Should the rear lot line of a lot be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equate to the required front yard of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to a height of more than four (4) feet. (Section 3 Subd. 4.T.b.) The ordinance is verbally clumsy: substitute "equal" for "equate ". In addition, our interpretation has always been that the intent is: "that portion of the rear yard equal to the required front yard of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to height more than four feet." The intent is to prevent a front yard from being closed in by a neighbor's six -foot fence along that neighbor's back and side yards. It is instructive that a later passage states: Fences in residential districts may be located in any yard to a height of four (4) feet, except that a fence up to six (6) feet in height may be erected from the front facade of the principal building to the side and/or rear lot line. (Section 3 Subd. 4.T.4.) Clearly, the intent is to keep front yards visually open, free from six -foot fences. The fence along the side lot lines can go up to six feet beginning at the building front and going back from there — except when the lot abuts another where the taller fence would fence in the abutting lot's front yard. The ordinance regarding pools requires only a four -foot fence if a fence is the safeguard to prevent children from gaining uncontrolled access. In fact, because the ladder to the pool can beretracted, the ordinance does not actually require a fence. The Ramsays are concerned about children climbing a four -foot fence and gaining unsupervised access to the pool. Staff was unable to contact the neighbors on the abutting lot due to their phone number being unlisted. The Ramsays have said they are amenable to constructing the six -foot fence as far back from the road as possible while still enclosing the pool. 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. • The grading of the lot created a physical constraint on the location of the pool. Based on City approval of a building permit for the pool, the home owners built the pool in a location that does not meet the required setback. Staff supports the setback variance. • The variance for the taller fence is less supportable. It is not clear that a four -foot fence would provide an inadequate security safeguard. Under the ordinance, four feet is enough. The ordinance clearly intends to prevent a tall fence around a back or side yard from closing in the front yard of a neighbor's abutting lot. Corner lots have inherent constraints which should be recognized by the owner. While the grading of a lot may be out of a prospective buyer's control, the use of the lot once the house is constructed must recognize the physical surroundings as well as the internal aspects of the lot. A rear yard abutting a neighboring front yard must be considered when planning the use of the lot. OPTIONS 1. Approve the setback variance based on physical constraint described in the report. 2. Deny the setback variance application. 3. Approve the variance allowing a six -foot fence in the area equal to the front yard of the abutting lot. 4. Deny the variance for the taller fence in the area equal to the front yard of the abutting lot. 5. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Options 1 and 4 5 N 2 i 4 PRESI 3 W 01.F p9Th PHE 6i 4 PRESET pis raker] rienrri m® 30 UImt® �' F���Ci 32 BIRCH STREET C.S.AH. 10 -- A3AaflS3a GS/ '2171.1-- 92' 62 1 kc I 3 �QM,9Z,£ZobS 9 6 6ZoZ:B /N 92'19 SZ .4 co '8£'F£I ZsI ZZ.BS� N �O oNN O ~�N 6 ...Cf.d• 022' b m OFT • �� ••SF N N N ' °2 F0.FH h 0 z pr -- n �, -09'112 - M � 69'16 i I '1) I N mN I os mo 021 1 is 10 I I—. n 1 W wp I I t: u q W ,p. 1 00'912 - w-' -- 00'94Z-- I V) N M 3 „62,2000N Z = «0 T 0£ m co N 3 N a 0I = 'h. 0 90Z19 b9'b6 i01 (/y) Pio 13 „64,9£o0N y, 1 a3 •'69•_ p6 . I - _ es° 9 49'116 a 1 69'S0I W-. o -1 • ., p v ti• ,M �- , - . m ...... n 1 - 4- 1� .- N IN 1♦ NCO CO p) 81.1£I b - ,p 60'101 tZ Z£Z bo + 1' o1N i 3 12 1N 0 141 20'291 bl'22Z d 3 „9 4,L90ZN ••�+ S d ♦ 2 (H0110 NIYN) SZ 'ON N3110 A.Nfl03 •a oc IZ 60'0119 0 tO N 3 „OZ,£I00 N — 66'£221 — :ol / SO' 201A e 011 011 N• I • j0'9b N2 yl 011 0 -,p N t O p m 99 60'b6b b 9e N .0 se O M m O P H M m O) NN 0 re o N p _ N — p Y d C -I U m N co z M m SURVEYOR 1- 0 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA REDRAWN 7/30/93 RAM e. 97.3 Proposed Top of Block 8 4 (.8 Proposed Garage Floor 689.3 Proposed Lowest Floor Type of Building - 1 \ \' V0.se�ehV (2c) 2ntruggord eftlifirate 1-1Y-LAND OC11tVEYING LAND SURVEYORS 7845 Brooklyn Blvd. INVOICE NO. 7 F. B. NO. I 2 SCALE I" = 2O1.. o Denotes Iron Monument o Denotes Wood Hub Set Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55445 For Excavation Only 560 -1984 SWIFT CONSTRUCTION A// E UFFE D ROUSE 6OUT x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation QDenotes Proposed Elevation dolf. Denotes Surface brainag Tc.' 8'1.67 0 TOP MOH — 15.00 A9 .4.ua°" - P,51.5 Io ., p 22= p" PROPOSED RE5.f1E1 CF 5 A`) LOT 7, BLOCK 2, QUAIL RIDGE The only easements shown are from plats of record or Information provided by client. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that t am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. surveyed by us this 29TH• -day of MARCH 19 94 Milton E. Hyland, Mi :Reg. No. 20262 • AGENDA ITEM VI. C • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: Community Development Staff Cindy Sherman NAC P & Z MEETING DATE: July 11, 2001 TOPIC: Review Lino Lakes Marketplace PDO Preliminary Development Plan Preliminary Plat/Site Plan Revised plans were received on Friday, June 29, 2001. A review of the plans, based upon the issues and concerns that were raised in the June 7, 2001 report to the Planning and Zoning Board, as well as the memo dated June 18, 2001, has been completed. This memo is intended to review the revised plans with the earlier comments as an outline and with the earlier reports attached for general background. 1. Completion of the EAW process. Comment: This is underway but will not be completed prior to Planning and Zoning Board review. The EAW comment period ends on July 11, 2001. Staff will be addressing those comments and forwarding the EAW to the Environmental Board for review on July 18, 2001. 2. Wetland fill and mitigation plans are approved by Rice Creek. Comment: This is not complete. They are in the process of addressing remaining issues related to wetland mitigation. An update on this process is included on page 2 of the attached July 6, 2001 TKDA engineering review. 3. Revised layout of internal road system to address concerns expressed herein. Comment: The overall internal circulation pattern has been improved. However, the secondary access into the site, located between Apollo Drive and 77th Street, and first intersection internal to the site is wide, off -set, and at an odd angle. Based on the users identified, this will be a high traffic location. The entrance and intersection should be redesigned to eliminate the offset and angle to improve site circulation and reduce vehicle conflicts and confusion. Additionally, we indicated a desire to reduce the number of drive aisle conflicts within the access drives. The Kohl's parking has been modified so that each drive aisle is forced out to the main drive. Staff is recommending that only two • • • access points to the extension of Apollo Drive from the Kohl's parking lot be allowed. At a minimum the easternmost and westernmost drive aisles shall be eliminated due to their proximity to the adjacent intersections. Generally, the number of parking stalls is adequate based on the ordinance. The Kohl's lot is designed with their standards, which is a 9.5 foot wide stall with 20 foot deep parking spaces and 25 foot drive aisles. Any parking lost to the limitation of access to Apollo Drive could be partially replaced by reducing the stall width to the standard 9 feet. The balance of the site has stalls 9 feet by 19 feet, with 25 foot two -way drive aisles. The main drive areas are 30 feet in width. The handicap parking on the Kohl's lot needs to be shifted southerly to allow for a landscaped island at the end of the parking rows. The proposed layout forces handicap unloading to take place immediately adjacent to the main drive in front of Kohl's. Staff has requested that the remnant parcel located between Apollo Drive and Lots 3 and 4 of the development be integrated into the proposed development. At a minimum a cross access and ingress /egress easement should be provided for this parcel. 4. Completion of traffic study for off -site impacts and related improvements. Comment: The traffic analysis has been completed for improvements the City anticipates. Because Lake Drive is a County road, the County ultimately has to approve access and schedule improvements. Dedication of access control to Anoka County should be shown on the plat along Lots 1,2,3 and Outlot C adjacent to Lake Drive. The opening width for the secondary access will need to be determined by Anoka County. 5. Screening of the property from adjacent residential properties is addressed to the City's satisfaction. Comment: Screening is proposed to consist of landscaping materials. There is not adequate space to provide a berm in the area behind the stores. While the landscape materials will provide visual relief, it will not screen the site or drive aisles. We believe the critical points of screening are where vehicles will be directing headlights towards the adjacent residential uses primarily in the northeast and northwest corners of the Target Parcel. Landscaping treatment within these areas should provide year round screening from adjacent residential areas. Coniferous plantings other than the White Pine currently shown and /or fencing should be applied to these areas. • 6. Lighting plan details are provided as to fixtures proposed throughout the development and the lighting levels. • • Comment: Lighting details have been provided. The applicant is proposing to use a decorative fixture similar to City campus lighting. The layout and spacing of the fixtures does not provide the effect intended. Staff recommends that decorative lighting fixtures be spaced at 75 to 100 foot intervals and staggered on opposite sides of each main drive aisle and along the fronts of buildings. The parking lot fixtures are shoebox style with downcast lighting which is desirable to control spill -over lighting. Lighting levels meet the ordinance, except along the rear of Kohl's. The ordinance requires 0.4 foot candles at the property line where adjacent to residential. This lighting level will need to be reduced. 7. All engineering comments are addressed. Comment: The City Engineer's comments are attached in a letter dated July 6, 2001. 8. A detailed sign proposal that includes all signage proposed with detail on sign dimensions to allow an overall analysis. Comment: Signage has been addressed in the project narrative and sign submittal for the monument signs. The Sign Ordinance does not specifically address a development such as this, which is designed as a multiple tenant site, but all of the buildings are detached. The Sign Ordinance speaks to single tenant buildings and multiple tenant buildings. Under the ordinance, each lot or building would be allowed one wall sign and one freestanding or pylon sign. Instead of having multiple freestanding or pylon signs, the applicant is proposing to limit freestanding signs to two adjacent to the freeway; one at Apollo Drive; two at the second entrance; and one off of Apollo Drive. The sign faces of the freestanding signs are within the area allowed by ordinance and the height requested is consistent with the ordinance. Staff is concerned about the size of the non -sign portion of the monuments and the height of signs along Lake Drive. The structures are 18 feet in length and are proposed at the access which could cause sight — distance concerns. Staff recommends that free - standing signs be allowed as follows: A. Freestanding signage along 1 -35 be limited to one Joint Identification Sign • • • B. One Joint Identification sign be allowed along Lake Drive with a maximum height of 20 feet. C. Three individual user signs in the locations shown with a maximum structure and sign size of 9' in width and 12' in height. On the smaller retail buildings, wall signs will be individually internally lit letters, 36 inches in height, and located within a stucco sign band. The building elevations indicate signs on both front and back of the buildings. Signage on the rear of buildings shall be limited to a uniform low profile identity sign. The sign face shall have a maximum dimension of 2' x 8'. 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. Comment: Building design guidelines have been included in the project narrative. These requirements should be incorporated into the development agreement and /or declaration of covenants for the property. The building materials have not changed. They intend to use a common theme and common materials throughout the development. No additional treatment has been added to the rear The architectural design of Kohl's, Target and Buildings A, C, and D have been submitted and included for approval as part of the PDO. The Convenience Store (Lot 1), Fast Food (Lot 2), Bank (Lot 8), and Buildings B and E shall require Site Plan Review approval in accordance with Section 2, Subd. 5 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. 10. The site does not include any coordination of pedestrian access between uses, to the public roads or to the residential uses to the north Comment: The plans have been revised to incorporate pedestrian linkages between the smaller shops and Target/Kohls. Sidewalk has been extended in the northwest corner of the Target site to link the site with the northern residential area. A bituminous trail will be provided adjacent to Lake Drive in conjunction with future improvements. The developer will be responsible for the cost of the segment adjacent to this property. Modifications to the plan should include 1. a concrete pavement treatment for crosswalks on major drive lanes 2. Extension of sidewalk on Lot 8 (Bank) to the southerly property line (Apollo Drive). • RECOMMENDATION The revised plans have addressed the majority of issues previously identified. The remaining concerns can generally be addressed through design changes. Staff is recommending approval of the PDO and preliminary plat subject to the following: • 1. No formal approval of the application shall be in effect until the EAW process is complete. 2. No formal approval of the application shall be in effect until Rice Creek Watershed has completed their review and issued appropriate permits for the development. 3. All required on and off -site improvements shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and County Engineer, as appropriate. 4. Landscaping treatments along residentially zoned property shall provide for year round screening. Suitable coniferous plantings and /or fencing shall be applied in these areas to minimize the impact of vehicular lighting from said properties. 5. The lighting plan shall be modified to provide decorative lighting at 75 to 100 feet spacing staggered along the primary drive aisles. The lighting plan shall be modified to limit lighting to 0.4 foot candles at the boundary line. 6. All information /modifications requested by the City Engineer per the July 7, 2001 Engineering Review shall be provided prior to PDO approval. 7. Wall signage on the rear of Buildings, A, C and D shall be limited to a low profile identity sign. The sign face shall have a maximum dimension of 2' x 8'. All other buildings shall be subject to the wall signage requirements of the Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance. 8. Freestanding signs shall be limited as follows: A. One Joint Identification Sign along I -35W. B. One Joint Identification sign along Lake Drive with a maximum height of 20 feet. C. Three individual user signs in the locations shown with a maximum structure and sign size of 9' in width by 12' in height. 9. Refrigeration units on delivery vehicles shall not operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be limited to the same hours. 10. All trash containers shall be fully contained within the building footprints. • 11. The Convenience Store (Lot 1), Fast Food (Lot 2), Bank (Lot 8), and Buildings B (Lot 4) and E (Lot 5) shall require Site Plan Review approval in accordance with Section 2, Subd. 5 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. 12. The secondary access and intersection located adjacent to Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 shall be redesigned to eliminate the proposed offset and angle to improve site circulation and reduce vehicle conflicts and confusion. 13. The Kohl's parking lot shall be modified to minimize access points to the Apollo Drive Extension and to include landscaping islands adjacent to the proposed handicap stalls. 14. All required plan changes shall be completed prior to the final plan review by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Plans dated June 29, 2001 2. City Engineer's Review 3. June 7, 2001 Staff Report 4. June 18,2001 NAC Memo • • •TKDA TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • July 6, 2001 Mr. Jeff Smyser City Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 Re: Preliminary Plat Review — Lino Lakes Marketplace City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota TKDA Commission No. 11985 -012 Dear Mr. Smyser: 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 551 01 -21 40 PHONE: 651/292 -4400 FAX: 651/292 -0083 We have completed our review of the Lino Lakes Marketplace preliminary plat submittal received by the City on June 29, 2001. Previous submittals were received by the City on January 16, 2001, and April 9, 2001. The Lino Lakes Marketplace subdivision is located on the northeast corner of Lake Drive and I -35W. The subdivision consists of a total of 40.158 acres of undeveloped property that are to be subdivided into 10 PDO conditional use lots. The submittal documents for the PDO consist of a topographic survey, preliminary plat, preliminary tree preservation plan, preliminary site plan, preliminary grading and drainage plan, preliminary utility plan, preliminary lighting plan, preliminary landscape plan, and preliminary site infiltration plan. A project narrative as well as Site Lighting Fixture specifications were also submitted. At this time we cannot recommend approval of these submittals. We are requesting that the enclosed observations and comments be addressed by the developer and re- submitted for a subsequent review. From our review of the Lino Lakes Marketplace preliminary plat submittal, we have the following observations and comments: Drainage / Storm Sewer Computations / Erosion Control 1. The City of Lino Lakes requires that the 1 -, 10 -, and 100 -year storm calculations be provided for both the predevelopment and post - development runoff. To date, the City has only received the 1- and 100- year storm calculations. The 10 -year storm calculations still need to be provided. In addition, the storm calculations that were provided model the use of a 2" An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Jeff Smyser • July 6, 2001 Page 2 • • culvert or orifice for rate control. This is not practical and will not be accepted, because an orifice this size is prone to clogging. 2. The City of Lino Lakes requires that the storm sewer for commercial areas must be designed and sized to accommodate a 10 -year storm event. These calculations have not yet been provided for review. 3. The grading plan includes the proposed storm sewer. To aid the City with our review additional information must be provided for the storm sewer including the size, length, and slope of the pipe. 4. Included in the storm calculations that were received in the previous submittal was the use of a broad crested weir. The location of the weir is still not shown on the grading plan. 5. Included in the plan are the locations of several bio- retention basins. The bio- retention basins appear to be located primarily in the parking lot islands and medians, which are surrounded by concrete curb and gutter. Additional information must be provided that illustrates how the storm water runoff from the site enters the bio - retention basins. 6. The City of Lino Lakes requires that the construction details must be included in the plan set. Some of the details that are needed are erosion control measures, storm sewer manholes, catch basins, and outlet control structures. 7. To date the Rice Creek Watershed District has tabled the review of this project. They have not granted a TWAAFA nor have they approved the wetland replacement. The submittal for the site is still lacking information. I have enclosed a copy of the fax from the Rice Creek Watershed District, which lists in detail the information that is missing. The cutoff for information to be received by the Rice Creek Watershed District, if it is to be included at the next meeting of the Board of Managers, is July 12, 2001. The next meeting of the Board of Managers is June 25, 2001. As of today, not all of the information had been received. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain Plan 1. The proposed utility plan includes the connection to the City watermain on 77th Street and on Lake Drive, as well as a connection to the sanitary sewer on Lake Drive. Currently, there is an existing 21" sanitary sewer main and a 12" watermain that runs parallel to Lake Drive on the east side. The existing watermain on 77th Street is 8 ". In my review of the previous submittal I stated that the utility plan must include the length and slope of the proposed sanitary sewer. The current submittal does include this information. Mr. Jeff Smyser • July 6, 2001 Page 3 • 2. As part of our review we modeled the proposed watermain system. The proposed system will provide adequate pressure as well as fire flows. Street Plan 1. A detailed transportation impact study was completed by Steve Elmer of TKDA for this project. At the request of the developer, a second signalized intersection was included in the study as an option. The Anoka County Highway Department has stated that they will not permit a second signalized intersection for this site. The second intersection must be a right - in right -out situation. The developer has stated that the second signalized intersection is absolutely necessary for this site. This matter still needs to be resolved. 2. The site does not include access from the existing 77th Street. The decision not to connect to 77th Street was the developer's and was not required by City staff. Miscellaneous 1. Copies of approvals from the necessary review and regulatory agencies including the Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and Anoka County Highway Department must be submitted. John Powell will review the information contained in this letter when he returns on July 9, 2001. He may have additional comments at that time. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (651) 292 -4630. Sincerely, ason C. Wedel, P.E. Enclosure cc: John Powell, City Engineer From to 9822499 TRANSMISSION RICE CREEI{ WATERSHED DISTRICT 3585 Lexington Ave. N, Suite 330 Arden Hills, MN 55126 at 6/28/01 11:29 AM Pg 001/009 FROM Rice Creek Watershed District Janell Miersch, Program Coord. TO Lino Lakes Page(s) 9 12 / 0 6/28101 11:29 AM - Message To: Mark Vargo, Glenn Rehbein, et al PA# 01 -05 Fax #: 763 - 784 -6001 NOTICE OF PERMIT APPLICATION STATUS At their meeting held June 27, 2001, the Board of Managers of the Rice Creek Watershed District took action on your Permit Application as shown on the attached document. The following definitions may be helpful to acquaint you with our procedure and effect timely permit issuance: TABLE = The District does not have exhibits sufficient to adequately review your project and iomake a recommendation to the Board of Managers for permit issuance. Submit exhibits to District Office in triplicate before 4:30 p.m. on the Thursday 13 calendar days before the 4th Wednesday meeting of the Board of Managers. Include your Permit Application number on all exhibits and submit in triplicate. • Since your project requires an easement, this can be submitted either drawn on the preliminary plat or as a separate legal document. Guidelines for a separate legal document are available upon request. If your project requires a cash surety, the surety will be kept through final inspection to assure erosion control measures remain current as shown in plan and also for compliance with other permit requirements. The first $5,000 must be cash - a check from the applicant is acceptable. Amounts over $5,000 are accepted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit or an insurance company bond. After receipt and review of additional exhibits, more information may be required for clarification to ensure that District's requirements have been met. If you have any questions, please call the District Office at (651)766 -4191. cc: Lino Lakes Applicant's Agent: John Payton, Parsons Transportation Group - fax: 612 - 332 -6180 Correspondence RCWD File #01 -05 JM - Ag1- 7AA-i14A lPhone : 651- 766 -4192 From to 9822499 at 6/28/01 11:29 AM Pg 002/009 • • • Rice Creek Watershed District Permit Application Number 01 -05 Applicant: Mark Vargo Glenn Rehbein, et al 8651 Naples Street Blaine, MN 55449 Ph: 763 - 784 -0657 Fx: 763- 784 -6001 Agent: John Payton Parsons Transportation Group 111 Third Ave. S, Suite 350 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Ph: 612- 370 -2610 Fx: 612- 332 -6180 Purpose: Final Site Drainage Plan and Wetland Alteration Plan for a commercial development to be known as Lino Lakes Town Center, 40± acres. Location: North of I -35W and East of Lake Drive, Lino Lakes. T -R -S: 31 -22 -28 dc and dd Recommendation: Table pending receipt of: 1. Detailed post - development hydrologic model to determine and evaluate HWL's for the 100 -year event on the bioretention /infiltration basins to establish first floor elevations for the surrounding buildings. 2. Revised subwatershed boundary maps for post - development conditions. 3. Pond outlet details providing skimming capability up to the 1 -year event. 4. Revised site plan demonstrating how runoff from impervious surfaces is routed (e.g. via curb cuts) to stormwater BMP areas (e.g. infiltration trench and bio- swale). 5. Narrative addressing the need for excavation of detention pond to 880 feet. 6. Bio -swale detail providing depressional storage, adequate separation between bottom of practice and water table if stormwater infiltration is one of the objectives of the bio- swale (at least 3 feet) and specification of native vegetation seed mix or native landscaping plan. 6/27/01 From to 9822499 at 6/28/01 11:29 AM Pg 003/009 • • • Permit Application No. 01 -05 Glenn R. Rehbein, et. al. 7. Narrative of "structural soil" addressing the proposed silt and clay content. Provide any soil analysis (e.g. measured permeability) performed on this structural soil. 8. Infiltration trench detail providing sufficient separation between trench bottom and water table. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency draft manual: Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas a minimum three -foot distance should be provided below the bottom of the infiltration practice and bedrock or the water table. 9. Depressed island detail providing curb cut or flush curb details, depressional storage, adequate separation between bottom of practice and water table (at least three feet) and specification of native vegetation seed mix or landscaping plan. 10. Additional information for the bioretention basins in the northwestern and southwestern corners of the site including: depressional storage, outlet elevations, HWL's for the design events, adequate separation between bottom of practice and water table (at least three feet) and specification of native vegetation seed mix or native landscaping plan. 11. Narrative addressing consideration of pervious parking and green roof (contact Curt Sparks @ North American Wetland Engineering, 651- 433 -215, for design considerations). 12. Quantification of floodplain fill and compensatory storage measures below elevation of 886.9. 13. Identification on Grading Plan of detention pond emergency overflow and stabilization measures. 14. Revised lowest proposed first floor elevation (if necessary) complying with District 2 -foot, 100 -year and 1 -foot, emergency overflow elevation freeboard requirements (per Pending Item 1). 15. Revised erosion control plan specifying riprap at all storm sewer outfalls, detailed re- vegetation specifications, and an implementation schedule. 6/27/01 From to 9822499 at 6/28/01 11:29 AM Pg 004/009 • • • Permit Application No. 01 -05 Glenn R. Rehbein, et. al. 16. Revised Wetland Replacement Plan Application reflecting additional wetland on NE portion of parcel, or documentation for exemption deterniination. 17. TEP approval of sequencing flexibility for Wetland Replacement Plan — preliminary determination is that additional justification for rejection of avoidance / minimization alternatives must be provided. 18. Location map of wetland mitigation sites and clarification of created wetlands D and F (letter date June 14, 2001 states that Mitigation Site D has been added to the Plan while the attached diagrams identify sites E, F and B). 19. Completion of WCA 30 -day continent period. 20. Proof of Title and signed/notarized WCA Deed Forms for Replacement Wetlands. 21. Revised preliminary plat or legal document with satisfactory form and description granting ponding and flowage easements over all onsite wetland, ponds, and all other hydrologic features (including proposed infiltration BMPs). 22. Copy of MPCA NPDES Permit Application. 23. Cash surety in an amount to be determined. Stipulations: 1. The replacement wetland approved as part of this permit shall be constructed concurrent or prior to any wetland fill activity. 2. The Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland shall be properly filed and recorded prior to any wetland fill activity, with proof of recording furnished to the District. 3. The pennittee shall submit a monitoring report on the replacement wetland to RCWD which includes the information specified in Minnesota Rules 8420.0620 each year for five years following completion of the replacement wetland. The report shall be 6/27/01 From to 9822499 at 6/28/01 11:29 AM Pg 005/009 Permit Application No. 01 -05 Glenn R. Rehbein, et. al. • submitted no later than November 15 of each year. • • 4. District Inspector to be contacted for preconstruction meeting prior to grading. Exhibits: 1. Permit Application, dated January 26, 2001, received January 29, 2001. 2. Topographic survey prepared by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., dated January 15, 2001, received January 18, 2001. 3. Topographic survey prepared by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., dated January 15, 2001, received January 18, 2001. 4. Draft Preliminary Plat prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated January 15, 2001, received January 18, 2001. 5. Preliminary Site Plan prepared by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., dated April 9, 2001, received April 10. 2001. 6. Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by Parsons Transportation Group Inc., dated April 9, 2001, received April 10, 2001. 7. Preliminary Utility Plan, prepared by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., dated April 9, 2001, received April 10, 2001. 8. Preliminary Site Infiltration Plan prepared by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., dated April 9. 2001, received April 10, 2001. 9. Project narrative prepared by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. revised April 6, 2001, received April 11, 2001. 10. Tree Survey prepared by Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc., dated December 11, 2000, received January 18, 2001. 11. Wetland Delineation Report prepared by Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc., dated December 11, 2000. received January 18, 2001. 12. WCA Wetland Replacement Plan and Corps Section 404 Permit Application prepared by Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc., dated May 17, 2001 and received May 18, 2001. 6/27/01 From to 9822499 at 6/28/01 11:29 AM Pg 006/009 • • • Permit Application No. 01 -05 Glenn R. Rehbein, et. al. 13. Revisions to (Wetland) Mitigation Plans prepared by Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc., dated June 14, 2001, received June 15, 2001. 14. Wetland Replacement Plan continents prepared by MnDNR, dated June 21, 2001, received June 25, 2001. 15. Preliminary storm water calculations prepared by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., dated April 9, 2001, received April 11, 2001. 16. Subsurface boring log prepared by American Engineering & Testing Inc. Soil borings performed on 12/14/00, 12/15/00 and 12/18/00, received January 18, 2001. 17. RCWD Permit Files 99 -108, 96 -161, 77 -94. Findings: 1. Proposed project entails development of an existing undeveloped 40 -acre lot into a commercial center with a Target Super Store and 8 retail buildings. The site ultimately discharges to George Watch Lake via a culvert under I -35W. Proposed project will result in approximately 29 acres of new impervious area in the form of buildings, parking lots, and roadways. 2. Currently proposed storm water management plan includes excavation of one detention (NURP) basin located on the north side of the site and four smaller bio- retention /infiltration basins located along the west side of the site. The bio- retention/infiltration basin in the northwest corner of the site is intended to serve future Lake Drive street improvements. The remaining four basins (one NURP basin and three bio - retention/infiltration basins) are intended to serve the proposed development. Additional stormwater features include an infiltration trench, a bio -swale and depressed islands. As currently proposed, the detention (NURP) basin is designed in accordance with District water treatment requirements. However there does not appear to be a reason to excavate the basin to an elevation of 880 feet making the NWL depth eight feet deep. The detention pond is also designed in accordance with the District rate control requirements. Hydrologic calculations for the 1- and 100 -year events demonstrate that there is a decrease in discharge rates from existing to proposed conditions. Additional modeling will be required to establish 1 -IWL's for the 100 -year event for the 6/27/01 From to 9822499 at 6/28/01 11:29 AM Pg 007/009 • • Permit Application No. 01 -05 Glenn R. Rehbein, et. al. four bio- retention/infiltration basins in order to verify first floor elevations of surrounding buildings. 3. There are two wetland basins identified along the East property boundary. Basin A, in the southeast corner, is a 3.63 -acre Type II wetland. Basin B, in the northeast corner, is a 1.24 -acre Type III wetland. A third basin was located during an onsite review of TEP and District stag. This basin may qualify for incidental wetland exemption but further documentation must be provided by Applicant. As currently proposed, the project would entail 2.48 acres of fill and 1.15 acres of excavation in wetland Basin A. There is no proposed impact to wetland Basin B. According to the Wetland Permit Narrative, a total of 6.11 acres of wetland replacement is required for the Lino Lakes Marketplace. The 2.48 acres of wetland fill will be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio per the WCA rules and the 1.15 acres of excavation will be replaced at 1 to 1. The wetland replacement requirement for the 1.15 acres of excavation is based upon the RCWD rules, which require 1 to 1 acreage replacement for adverse impacts to wetlands that are not regulated under WCA. A total of 6.3 acres of mitigation is being provided, consisting of 3.7 acres of New Wetland Credit (NWC) and 2.625 acres of Public Value Credit (PVC). The proposed wetland replacement plan consists of created wetlands at two sites located within the Chomonix Golf Course Property (Mitigation Sites B and F) and a third on county parkland south of the park reserve campground, east of the Centerville Lake Beach (Mitigation Site E). A preliminary review of the 1998 Calibration Study indicates that Mitigation Sites B and F may not be within the same subwatershed (MRC -9) as the proposed impact. Proposed infiltration BMPs to be incorporated on -site include: • Four bio- retentionJinfiltration basins. The northwest basin is intended to serve future Lake Drive Street improvements. The remaining three basins (located along the west side of the site) are intended to serve this development. • A bio -swale north of Target upstream of the NURP Basin. • An infiltration trench along the entire north and east parking lot curbs surrounding Target. • Depressed islands are located throughout the development site. 6/27/01 From to 9822499 at 6/28/01 11:29 AM Pg 008/009 • • Permit Application No. 01 -05 Glenn R. Rehbein, et. al. There is not enough information regarding the bio - retention/infiltration basins provided on the current grading plans to determine what their impact will be to the overall stormwater management plan. Based on the submitted soil borings (SB -1 and SB -2), it appears that the bio - retention/infiltration basins will be effective infiltration practices since there is no ground water observed to a depth of 16 to 18 feet. It is unclear if the bio - swale, the infiltration trench or the depressed islands will be effective BMPs since details of these features have not been submitted. 5. The regional floodplain for the site is 886.9 (1998 Calibration Study). It appears that there is a small amount of floodplain fill below this elevation in the southeast corner of the site. Quantification of floodplain fill and compensatory storage measures below elevation 886.9 is required. It appears that proposed first floor elevations satisfy District 2 -foot freeboard requirements, however the Grading Plan does not identify emergency overflow elevations of proposed ponds. Proposed first floor elevation buffer requirements will be verified after receipt of revised storm water management plan identifying 100 -year and emergency overflow elevations for all on -site ponds and wetland basins are identified. 6. An erosion control plan has been submitted specifying silt fence downstream of all graded areas and around entire project site, rock construction entrances, and erosion control blanket east of parking area on slopes leading to the NURP pond. A revised erosion control plan is required specifying riprap at all storm sewer outfalls, pond overflow stabilization measures, detailed site revegetation specification, and an implementation schedule. A Preliminary Plat is required specifying drainage and utility easements over all wetlands, ponds, and all other hydrologic features. RCWD Permit 99 -108 was issued for the McDonald's site within the Village Center immediately south of the site. RCWD Permit 77 -94 was issued for Carole's Estates immediately north of the site. Withdrawn Permit 96 -161 was reviewed for the Lino Lakes Golf Learning Center on the site. 6/27/01 From to 9822499 at 6/28/01 11:29 AM Pg 009/009 Permit Application No. 01 -05 Glenn R. Rehbein, et. al. • Board Action: • • 9. This permit was tabled on February 28, 2001 for 24 issues regarding storniwater management, wetland impact, infiltration BMP's, floodplain impact, first floor elevations etc. 6/27/01 • • • STAFF ORGANIZATION: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V H 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 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 Tots 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 lots 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 Tots 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 • VICINITY MAP SCAZ 1\189`12'03"4' 709 5 (525155 550 fG l 709.25 E.C50•20' 91.,10920 17 (VACA TED 77TH STREET) W O U 7172.040172 58972'0,3'E (VACATED 77T0 STREET) '^ `PARKING SELBAEN OUTLOT 8 own.OT B 544 Att 3147TY EASEMENT Raj LOT 9 DRAINAGE AND 3T61TY EASEMENT OVER A1,. OF 0315.05 A OUT7.OT A gee at I � I 0 0 3 40 z O 47 7" 0 O 5` z: 0's F hY- 12497 M •,. Z 0 Ab- e •SKI z�n ®P° n EL ...El 11 I 11 1g lez hox 391 391.01 N89'12'024W TY- EASfl02241 .m 405 AREA SUMMARY MEOW 1 7011 54440 S.F. • 1.743 AC 1011 37073 .V. - .471 AL 107 4 .47•0 7.2!1 5f.. 116 AL 5.213 1197 S7. - 147 7 AC m Es 12975..- 27730 0 UN ! / l / / / / TED 7 STREET) ROP E 5f%E -Y' RIGHT OF WAY PER 00E0 OF RIGHT OF WAY PFR BOOK 27 OF OEEOS PAGE 491. (VAC/! TED '/ / ins'ipIG/ /13viarx Call 48 Hours before digging GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin Cities Area 454 -0002 MN. Toll Free 1 -800- 252 -1186 77T4 -1 + STREET) �j16— . 1. "-PARKING SE1&ICK LME_, I OUTLOT B 1 "80.40040 SETBACK I 1 422.5 EXISTMG LOADING AREA 84. 35 4 201 544 32.0' �oe?rARGET 182,760 s.f. FFE: 908.30 KOHL•S 2F -SFR 86,584 SF FFE: 910.70 LOT 10 ROPOSED 57039' 60000460 SIOHAOE ii .. ■,,:r0■ ■■ ■ i'111•1•• 110_ • 16� I ,.R_ ! ...,_ ±■■C ■i$• #•4; :i.•• !e•;, is nh ill: ■:P!91!rg4Zir GATE (GYP.) of ' imp ■ ' T ■ ■ ►..E. Si ...SSt.SIl. i■R0 2i AfiriA 507.4' S Ilk 1111 1.41;49 !!::l:l:47:B °.ilSS 'i.=fa�.i,t ..T.`.o.•t4 \ L■■ ORNAMENTAL 11014TH N: FIXTURE POND DRAINAGE AND UTEITY EASEMENT OVER ALL CF OU10OT A OUTLOT A sod O / /'A GI. 63. ,0' •O• TENANT 6250.49215 SIGN •C• MINI SITE DATA ■ • SUPER TARGET • ROH L'S • REM- A • RETAIL B • RETAIL C • RETAIL D • RETAIL E • BANN • FAST FOOD • CONVERRICE STORE' TOTAL BY OTHERS BUXOM FLOOR IKEA. REOb REO'S PROVIDED S1D.FT. SOFT. 10310 SPACES SPADES 182.760 184,484 5.0 823 014 �y 106.584 95.926 5.0 480 $V 5 0 1 7,800 7,020 5.0 35 35 8,800 7,920 5.0 40 40 5.400 4,860 5.0 25 28 6.000 5.400 5.0 27 27 3.800 3,240 5.0 17 67 5,100 4,590 5.0 23 23 3.400 3,060 15 48 46 3,800 870 S. Nato 18 1C� 18 337.014 300,970 •306( .� I5 4 1,t, Car 06660p461 VORE =MOM 6Nl60 ONO •MMlw M. 0.166 I067 - FILM N. BY DOERS MI SITE NOTES 4G PR.G4 IGLU .'d'�/ /00 -H D • ALL DMENSfO 0 SHRANI ARE TO FIB OF GARB MRB.EA NOTED ODERWSE • CONTRACTOR SNW1 FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING 01TER16 AND 10P)CIRAPIOC FEATURES. SUCH AS EJSTR40 GLITTER GRADES AT Tiff PROP08ER ORNEl8AYS, PRIOR TO TIE START OF STTE GRADING, 174E CONTRACTOR SHALL 982D(ATELY ROILY 11E ENGINEER OF ANY OSCJEPMGE5 OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLATS. • BRIO/CAPPED PARKING STALLS VGA. BE PROVIDED AND 0806101ED PER A84 CODES AND IODATED ON SITE AND 0.084008439400400001086509* • ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO BE CONCRETE 8612 UNLESS NOTED OTNEMNSE • 1MIC9L F1RI. SZE 90' PMRIIG STALLS 9'X19' UNLESS NOTED 01140900, • ALL CURB RAM WILL BE 5.0' UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE • CONCRETE APRONS TO BE INSTALLED 005 ALL ACCESS DRIVES ON TO PUBLIC STREETS PER CITY STANDARDS. • REFER TO LIGHTING PAN FOR 000TCAND E PRINT OUT. • 9725 WG D MENSON5 REFER TO OUTSIDE OF 918,5190 FACE (114.) 60005 011ERW5E NOTED. • VA REFERS TO VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL 12185)1 REQUIRES AN 8' STALL AND 8' 1ANIM4G /REA. NMI LEGEND1 PROPOSED EXISTING — I- -I --1— — I -1—I— 4 - -6 0-.-5 '4• V laaNT -OF -WAY 1.9E P506551Y TIE GARB 1WE 5E9CAT ECH 80584/0504 R WATER MAIN MANNOE/SANGARY SEDER TOPOGRAPHRJOL CONTOUR U!E UTILITY POLE HYDRANT GATE VALVE SOIL BOW* SILT FENCE HAY BALE / SCALE !.1ORTM IA IN 160 FEET 0 0 7 a • z • t a i • • CD O /1 UNITS OF 1Ci0A10• I/EZS1 G' Mu /j. 0 a 3 1° w µaF 0 1- 8 LIMITS OF RJMVTOON ofr- KOHLS 2F -SFR 86,584 SF FFE: 910.70 z 0 a 4 €g X • !psalm! Omi\YpN ='in •N :�C�► s` Jlierl ;gallith NAT q© '� , cagii) Ell ' '. IA Eon Mill 4 �In o © ©.. ‘IV , rf!1�o • Q, O p 1 ra i�11s ■PI! t - t O11N wlea alHUuaatcas =isi�,1 114 3=......_ - 1 I�a „: j. 114100... :E!! =• t k ami ■ Ia _j., ar iP p`!A BUM- .”" .,r •'I= \aDLP I.aI.Q /: a PPIII I©NI© r�1 'tp7� ro .. 4rgla.ca il.- - • TAL Ili ©jV of :al 1% 411 11, (k) 1% =►fir 1��ow f ' ro yP I1 11 Cil iiitil 11 410 (0 411 11 e41 ilj :ail (0 ill tr4a- WITS Of IRRIGATION CI 10 Elm 7t IQ C. o. o in) ( ` ci �.,� Viix �r vili ul c..4.!•iiilti. 1;...:9; 0 4,..." ....„..,,,,,, 611) .��IC n/:,,,,,+40, 10 .0'- .4.04:4p. `" .6TP" - �,° `� El 07.4111 •tan keg C••oii !rI AnotRa M..._ wan PERENNIALS AROUND S01 NMI PLANT SCHEDULE RECIDIVOUS TREES / SHRUBS CODE IM COMMON NAME LATIN NAME SIZE ROOT REMARKS VL M NANNYBERRY VIBURNUM 24• ■Il FULL FORM .. = rfiiiPl!t►ij,. _. HT. PA MIN `'T :tR III B&B CLWAP M IIIIIIIIIII PRUNUS III •'T1 IIIIIIIII AND FULL CROWN GO I�I� miel • 18' (.m: t : •x.T ,.1 llos IIII STRAIGHT LEADER R Rl1a111t_____•3n ° :b :•'�Zp;7 iT►IIIIIIIIIMINIIMPAIIIt;m 08 ININNII SWAMP WHITE OAK 111M111111111111111 B&B STRAOHT LEADER • Ili III QUERCSIS @COLOR IIIIF1itTII•l MEMIIIIMEMEUEIMBIEGMM a FP2 MIN Cxi11, 111- -Z .4aa'7faS.IR IMMOt?` 8&8 _ _t:l_ tXMIMNI il.W IIIIIIIIINETNIIIIIIII OUERCUS PAUISRLS IllEd111Im AND FULL CROWN AILS! - _ 1111 GT III •.: • II ©iQQJEy;+XHaIvi _ +19:ll _5_ MEN IIII131= MNIIIIIIIIIIIIMIEMILLWIl= 1 _• IIWRINE II - - 511410A PAPUA 'MSS ON' I -NM DECIDIUOUS TREES / SHRUBS CODE QTY COMMON NAME /LATIN NAME SIZE ROOT REMARKS VL 8 NANNYBERRY VIBURNUM 24• POT FULL FORM VIBURNUM tENTA00 HT. PA 6 AMERICAN PLUM 5° B&B STRAIGHT LEADER PRUNUS CAL- AND FULL CROWN VT 52 AMERICAN CRYBUSH 18' POT FULL FORM VIBURNUM TR&OBtM NT. 08 21 SWAMP WHITE OAK 2° B&B STRAOHT LEADER QUERCSIS @COLOR CAL AND FULL CROWN OP 55 PIN OAK 2 8&8 STRAIGHT 1,.EADER OUERCUS PAUISRLS CAL. AND FULL CROWN EVERGREEN TREES / SHRUBS CODE QTY COMMON NAME/LATIN NAME SIZE ROOT REMARKS PC 52 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 6' B&B ?IAA. FORM PICEA GLAUCA DENSAT6 HT. PR 26 AUSTRIAN PINE 6' B&B FULL FORM PRR15 NKLRA IR. PP 17 COLORADO SPRUCE 6' B&B FULL FORM PCEA PU GENS NT. PS 8 WHITE PINE 6' B&B FULL FORM PIMA 51R085 HT. J5 85 SEA GREEN JUNIPER i5 POT A NIPERlS CNRNF16I5 SEA GREEN MIN LANDSCAPE NOTES • ALL PLANT MATERIAL SUCH AS, 500 AND 5050 AREAS SHALL 85 IRRIGATED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A SHOP DRAWING OF 1RRfGA140N PLAN TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL • ALL TREES REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION saki 55 CHIPPED AND STOCKPILED ON SITE FOR OF OFF SITE. USE WHERE SPECIFIED. REMAINING WOOD CHIPS SHALL BE DISPOSED • ALL DISRJRBED LAWN AREAS TO BE SODDED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. • ALL INTERIOR PARKING LOT ISLANDS TO BE PLANTED WITH CTIY STANDARD NATTVE WRDGRASS MIXTURE AND COVERED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. • ALL EXISTING ASPENS NM COTTONWOODS TO 85 CLEARED AND GRUBBED. • ALL OVERSTORY AND UNDERSTORY TREES PLANTED IN 50D AREAS SHALL BE MULCHED W/ A 4' DIA. MULCH CIRCLE TO A DEPTH OF 4' MINIMUM. SCALE NORTH 9 FEET • • L ANTOP OF PARAPET EL • 130' -8" Ji, TOP CO CORNICE q EL • Q0' -4• 1 Y CO gi 1 Lig n�nfn = -m FIRST FLOOR EL • 100' -0" FRONT ELEVATION - RETAIL OUTLOT BUILDING "A" .nFaanww � wzss.tl 6f1••P 1•N�gO PETAL COPING PETAL ROOF BRICK EJ?8. CANVAS AWING PETAL COPING PETAL FRAME WALL SCONCE NTEGRAL COLOR CT% EASE At TOP OF PARAPET Y EL. • 130'-8' ANR TOP OF CORNICE EL. • Q0' -4' FIRST FLOOR EL. 100' -0" MMINIMINIMMOMMINIMMO SIDE ELEVATION - RETAIL OUTLOT BUILDING "A" V8" • 1' -0" AtTOP OF PARAPET EL • Q0' -4' FIRST FLOOR EL • 100' -0' 1 SIDE ELEVATION- RETAIL OUTLOT BUILDING "A" 1' T 1/8' • 1' -m" — PETAL COPING - PETAL GUTTERS ■ �1 == == �.: IM LIM row= Emma maw m. EJFL NTEGRAL COLOR CPUL BACK ELEVATION - RETAIL OUTLOT BUILDING "A" V8' • P -0" EVAN: LINO LAKES MARKETPLACE- LINO LAKES, MN Ryan Companies US, Inc. l.•Ws Losefis. l.i.N.•.YN• Jule 28, 2001 ZIP I![r ArW4eM, L11 I as N P P1:10.1161111 • • • L STOP OF PARAPET EL • 130' -e' TOP OP CORNICE EL • 120' -4• FIRST FLOOR EL • 100' -0' FRONT ELEVATION - RETAIL OUTLOT BUILDING "C" 4 "D" i FETAL COPING FETAL ROOF EJP CANVAS INNING FETAL COPING FETAL FRAME WILL SCONCE FEEGRAL COLOR CPU BASE Aa TOP CP PARAPET EL • 130' -S" TOP OF CORNICE EL. • 120'-4. FIRST FLOOR EL • 100' -0" SIDE ELEVATION - RETAIL OUTLOT BUILDING "C" 4 "D" I/S• • 1' -0" •TOP OF PARAPET EL. • OD' -4• FIRST FLOOR EL • 100' -0" BACK ELEVATION - RETAIL OUTLOT BUILDING "C" 4 "D" Jiuiuiriuii ✓ —T 1 L J 1 SIDE ELEVATION - RETAIL OUTLOT BUILDING "C" 4 "D" ✓ r I I - I L J L J IS 1 - FETAL COPIG FETAL GUTTERS EJFA INTEGRAL COLOR CM LL litYANEM LINO LAKES MARKETPLACE- LINO LAKES, MN Ryan Companies US. Inc. •.u.$.g a.... •a•.o•..u•. June 28, 2001 2JP RAP AntSseeu, Ltd. W na MMfhRRM I..NDIf11I ,.Ia • AGENDA ITEMS VII. A & B • Memorandum TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director DATE: July 5, 2001 RE: Discussion Items — Environmental Board The Environmental Board requested, at its July 27th, 2001 meeting, that the following items be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board. They are as follows: A. Recommendation to establish a moratorium (interim ordinance) on all residential development and possibly all development for a period of one year: In response to the recent approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the City Council, the Environmental Board adopted the attached recommendation to allow time for the development of official controls to implement the goals and policies of the plan. Staff is not recommending the adoption of such an ordinance at this time. While an interim ordinance is an effective tool granted to municipalities for the purpose of protecting the planning process, the implications of such an ordinance need to be fully identified. An all- encompassing prohibition of development, as proposed, could generate many unintended consequences. Several steps should be undertaken prior to consideration of an interim ordinance, which include: a. Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Comprehensive Plan. b. Identification of "official control" modifications and timeline for development of such. c. Inventory of existing /proposed development and available MUSA. d. Identification of the potential impact on Economic Development activities. • • • By addressing the above items the City would be able to better ascertain the need for an interim ordinance and, if warranted, the appropriate scope it should have. B. 2001 Environmental Board Goals: The City Council will be reviewing the proposed goals with the Environmental Board at an upcoming joint meeting. They will also use the meeting as an opportunity to review the ordinance establishing the board, the expectations of the City Council and the Environmental Board and the relationship of the Environmental Board to other City boards. These items do not require any action by the Planning & Zoning Board. Attachments 1. EB moratorium recommendation 2. EB goals • On June 27, 2001, the City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board approved a resolution to forward the following recommendation to City Council: • • As you know, the environmental board has determined that our present ordinances, policies and practices are not such as to adequately provide for appropriate environmental protection in proposed development projects. We have for many months advocated a review of all aspects of community development to help insure the highest quality community possible. We have made clear that there is a need to put into practice the principles and guidance of the handbook for conservation development (and the reasoning behind this need is well stated therein). To date we have found insufficient resources in our city to address these needs. In light of the recent adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan and the obvious increase in development activity to follow, the need to allocate resources to address these needs is increased dramatically. Beyond that, it seems ill- advised to attempt to undertake the processes required to bring about the necessary changes while at the same time burdening ourselves with an increase in development activity brought on by the addition (or anticipation) of 359 acres of MUSA bank. The City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board hereby recommends that the City of Lino Lakes immediately institute a moratorium on all residential development, and possibly on all development, for the period of-one year. This will allow the city to redirect resources now engaged in development projects toward developing the official controls and policies we need to be able to effectively manage new development proposals in our city. The handbook for conservation development outlines a process we must go through as a community, and it would be best to begin immediately. The state statute passage which provides for this is 462.355 Subd. 4., included below. S.S. 462.355 Preparation, adoption, and amendment of comprehensive municipal plan. Subd. 4. Interim ordinance. If a municipality is conducting studies or has authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official controls as defined in section 462.352, subdivision 15, or if new territory for which plans or controls have not been adopted is annexed to a municipality, the governing body of the municipality may adopt an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict or prohibit any use, development, or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not tn_exceesl one year from the date it is effective, and may be extended for such additional periods as the municipality may deem appropriate, not exceeding a total additional period of 18 months. No interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance. HIST; 1965 c 670 s 5; 1976 c 127 s 21; 1977 c 347 s 68; 1980 c 566 s 24; 1983 c 216 art 1 s 67; 1985 c 62 s 1,2; 1995 c 176 s 4 Copyright 2000 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. • Recommendations of the June 27, 2001 Environmental Board 8075 20th Ave North The Environmental Board reviewed a plan for a variance to build a garage at 8075 20th to give feed back on environmental considerations of this site. At he time of review, the Environmental Board recommended that the applicant check with Rice Creek Watershed District to ensure that no wetlands are impacted; and if the building size would exceed the allowable fill (no building size was available at the time of the meeting) than they work with the watershed to develop a plan. The Environmental Board would like this plan to include a simple method of maintaining additional impervious runoff on the site since it is in a designated lake protection area adjacent to Hardwood Creek. Since the meeting a site visit has indicated that the proposed area of the garage construction is devoid of wetlands, and that any water running from this site seems to be directed to a natural depression between the creek and the building site, with a good distance of reed canary grass between the depressional area and the creek. Target Ryan • The Environmental Board voted to forward the following recommendation: The draft EAW states on page 19, second -to- last - paragraph, that it is not known what "impact will result from the increased volume of runoff into the wetlands in the regional park reserve and George Watch Lake" The last paragraph on that page also states that phosphorous runoff loads will increase from the current 22 lbs per year to 60 lbs per year after the development is completed, all of it going to "the wetlands in the regional park reserve and George Watch Lake" An analysis should be done to fully determine these impacts to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Preserve, wetlands and lakes. If the Rice Creek Watershed is unable to provide this, it may be appropriate for the applicant to provide this analysis. The analysis should utilize computer modeling. Draft Comprehensive Plan That an emergency building moratorium ordinance be enacted for all residential development and consideration for all development. (see letter and memo) Environmental Board Goals • Should be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board for their information. (attached) • • Environmental Board Goals 2001 GOAL #1. Educate developers about the benefits of including prairie gardens in their landscape designs. Potential Activity – Provide developers with the opportunity to see examples of blooming prairie gardens and to talk with the people who "maintain" them. GOAL #2. Increase citizen understanding and appreciation Lino Lakes' unique environmental qualities. Potential Activities — create a web site Pilot Restoration Project Update Environmental Board Packet Encourage landscaping companies to advertise in city Investigate possibility of using the "City Wagon" Work with Homeowners Associations to educate and implement sound conservation practices. GOAL #3. Identify and pursue preservation of, unique environmental assets of the city. Potential Activity -- Promote the preservation of the property located on the north side of Lino Lakes Elementary. GOAL #4. Restructure monthly meetings to preserve 50% (one hour) of the meeting to advance our proactive goals. Potential Activity— assign responsibilities (e.g., tree preservation, buffers) to individual board members GOAL #5. Increase communication with analogous units in other metro -area cities to avoid "re- inventing the wheel" and to look for collaborative opportunities. Potential Activity — develop a list of cities that have groups focused on the environment Host a social event that brings these groups together to share ideas, goals, and experiences. GOAL #6. Investigate and promote the possibility of developing a conservation development ordinance for the city. Potential Activity —get examples of such ordinances from other cities. GOAL #7. Develop and implement a strategy to obtain more resources (staff and financial) to enable the city to establish itself as the leader in the metro area in terms of development that is both economically and environmentally intelligent. sGOAL #8. Communicate more regularly, and more directly, with City Council. GOAL #9 Assist the City Council with the Comp Plan • • • 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 and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., May 9, 2001. • II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 11, 2001 • Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the April 11, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board as presented, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 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 to the County soil survey prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. Staff noted it is possible that the accessory building could be built in the far southeast corner of the site, but that would require driving through the wet area to reach it from the house. Mr. Cartier wants to build a 40' by 60' or 40' by 70' accessory building. This site is approximately ten acres so the applicant can have a total of 4,200 square feet of accessory space, including the attached garage. The garage is approximately 868 square feet, which leaves 3,332 square feet. A 40' by 70' building would be 2,800 square feet. Staff read the five findings of fact, as stated in the zoning ordinance, that the City shall make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action. Staff noted it would be unreasonable 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. B. Glenn Valentine, 64th Street and 20th Avenue, Variance Staff recommended this item be tabled to the June 13, 2001 Board meeting since there was not adequate time to prepare a report. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue consideration of the variance request of Glenn Valentine at 64th Street and 20th Avenue, 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 along roadways having sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic generated by the use and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Finding: Access to the site comes from Lilac Drive. The 1997 Transportation Plan designates Lilac Drive as a minor collector. This road should be capable of accommodating the traffic from this site. However, the City Engineer should confirm this finding. 2. A drainage system subject to 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 properties, this site will be required to meet the performance standards for noise, air and water pollution. 8. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare or public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions. Finding: The City may review the conditions of this permit and require the applicant to comply with any changes necessary to ensure the original intent of the permit as well as the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Staff recommended approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a Truck Freight Transfer Service Station on 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 stated staff anticipates no conflict with the proposed use. Mr. Lyden stated it is his personal opinion that the Lake Drive corridor is where families live and there are large acreage parcels on the east side of the City for commercial service areas that would not result in a mixed use situation. Mr. Corson asked if an annual review of this conditional use permit would be appropriate or if it could be reviewed should problems occur Mr. Powell stated conditional use permits run with the property but it is staff's intent to review them annually. He noted that conditions can be placed on the approval and if the conditions are violated, revocation could result. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a Truck Freight 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 Bank, Rezone Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 7:00 p.m. Staff presented the application by Community National Bank for a rezoning of the property located at 7651 Lake Drive from NB, Neighborhood Business District to GB, General Business District. The subject property is located directly north of the existing bank and the rezoning will allow the bank to expand its existing parking lot. The applicant will also need to receive site plan approval prior to construction of the parking lot. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting that according to Section 2, Subdivision 1, of the City Code, the Planning Commission and City Council shall weigh five factors when considering a rezoning request. 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 existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Finding: Rezoning this site from NB, Neighborhood Business District to GB, General Business District will not overburden the City's service capacity. However, this finding is contingent on the applicant combining this property with the bank site. Creating an independent General Business lot in this location could have other issues. Nevertheless, the planned development of an additional parking area on this site may affect the capacity of City service. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant will be required to receive approval of a site plan. During this review, staff will more closely examine this development's 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. IDChair 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 their discussions with the County. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. Ms. Lane asked if the homes to the north are zoned for commercial in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martinson stated the property adjacent to the lot they purchased currently contains a house but is being used as a commercial chiropractic office. Mr. Powell stated the draft Land Use Plan identifies that parcel as Commercial. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of rezoning the property located at 7651 Lake Drive from NB, Neighborhood 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 is an appropriate use for both the existing and proposed tower. First, the site's size and location make it relatively isolated. Second, this relatively isolated location helps make a tower use on this site compatible with the surrounding uses. In general, tower uses have a low impact on surrounding uses because they don't have the operational issues associated with other commercial or industrial uses. Finally, according to the applicant's survey, approximately two - thirds of the site is covered with a wooded wetland. It is reasonable to assume that allowing this use to continue will protect and retain the wooded wetland area as open space. Staff presented its analysis of the applicant's request to allow them to replace the existing 500 -foot tower with a new 530 -foot tower request as contained in the staff report. Staff reviewed the five factors, according to Section 2, Subdivision 1 of the City Code, that the Planning Commission and City 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 requests. Our review assumes that the City will approve the zoning amendment to allow radio and television broadcasting towers in excess of 200 feet in height as a conditional use in the PSP District and a rezoning of this site from R, Rural District to PSP, Public and Semi Public District. Should the City approve these applications, this site will be in conformance with the applicable performance standards. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Finding: In general, radio and television broadcasting towers are not large users of City services. This use will have a relatively 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 provide that information. Chair Schaps asked if time is of the essence or if this can be considered in June. Mr. Lemmons stated the construction schedule is set and they would like to get this done as quickly as possible. Mr. Lyden stated this issue has more to do with best practices, policy and procedure. He noted there is to be no expansion until such time as a City -wide plan is in place. He noted that text amendment affects all PSB, not just this site. He commented on the need for a broad perspective to assure other areas of Lino Lakes are not impacted. Mr. Lyden stated his support of the Environmental Board'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 within the bounds of the property and will not impact property outside of the boundaries. Mr. Corson asked that guidewire plans also be presented in June. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing 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 to the June 13, 2001 meeting, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6 -0. G. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Rockey Goertz /Spirit Hills, Inc., Rezone to Planned Development Overlay 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 conditions detailed in the May 9, 2001 staff report. Chair Schaps asked about additional comments from the Environmental Board. Ms. Sherman stated they want to assure the wetland boundary is protected and a homeowner's association is formed to assure that protection. Chair Schaps asked about the Park Board recommendation. Ms. Sherman stated they recommend an all cash park dedication. Mr. Corson asked about the continued trail along Birch Street. Mr. Powell stated he is unsure whether the Park Board considered this since the revised plans were submitted by the applicant on April 25th. 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 dedication as long as they get credit for it. He pointed out that this site is difficult to develop but all lots meet or exceed 25,000 square feet and the only R1X criteria it does not meet is 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 trail easement and they would not object if they need to dedicate an additional 15 to 20 feet at the back of the lot. Mr. Powell stated a trail easement along the lake would require field survey work but the County has decided not to extend that trail due to site limitations in other areas. He noted that the trail would also raise issues 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 is in the audience. No response was received. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:55 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. Chair Schaps asked if conditions for trail or park land are desired. In response to Mr. Lyden, Ms. Sherman estimated that Lot 19 on the old drawing is about one - quarter acre. Mr. Lyden stated he would support a park of that size with any difference being paid in cash. He stated 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. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. H. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Heritage Development, Saddle Club Site, Old Birch Street, Comprehensive Plan 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 in better shape than Birch Street and he does not want it disturbed. Gary Foster, 882 Old Birch Street, stated he has many concerns. He stated they are changing the directions of access to make it more difficult. He suggested that the developer should be charged to install the sewer and leave it up to the residents if they want to connect. Mr. Foster suggested that is the least the developer should be required to do. He stated 46 houses times two vehicles per house results in a lot of traffic and will make access a bottleneck and even more impossible than it is currently. Mr. Foster stated they only have one exit, but the new project is to have two exits, which may help a little. He stated that his sewer system is about 15 years old so he does not plan to connect right now He stated he has lived there for 25 years and understands that development cannot be stopped, but he believes the 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 on the cost versus benefit since some residents are interested in connecting to the sewer system. He noted this requests asks for more MUSA which cannot happen right now since Lino Lakes is already beyond the 2010 plan for population. Mr. Lyden stated he would have to be convinced that asking for more MUSA is the right thing for the City. In addition, he is concerned that the houses are getting too large for the lots so he would support upholding R1X lot size standards. Mr. Corson asked if a MUSA bank swap is a consideration with this request. Ms. Sherman stated that is correct and the MUSA allotment would be swapped from the bank. She noted that only eight acres would impact the MUSA allocation. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend 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 process is complete and wetland fill and mitigation plans are approved by the 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. Mr. Powell advised that a petition for utilities was received today. Mr. Wessel stated this project is large and complicated, and Ryan Companies is putting this project together in a third the normal time needed for a development of this size. He noted staff is recommending a continuation for many good reasons due to "holes" in the application and the responsibility lies with the developer to provide that information. Mr. Wessel stated the developer has made 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 1 lth 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 will mitigate off -site. The options on Anoka County property are being pursued subject to Rice Creek Watershed District approval. Mr. Lyden stated the proposed mitigation will benefit Anoka County property and asked if the mitigation could help City property rather than the County. Mr. Palmquist stated they did explore various options with City staff regarding mitigation and it was determined the County property was potentially suitable. Ms. Lane asked if it is possible to follow the anticipated time schedule given the meeting schedule for the Rice Creek Watershed District and the City Council. Mr. Wessel stated it is correct that the recommendation 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 contain several tenants, each with separate doors. He identified the location of these buildings which will face each other, thus the design with similar facade treatments, pitched roof, strong corner elements, and storefront design. Mr. Wittrock reviewed the materials proposed for these smaller buildings which are oriented for pedestrians. He noted the incorporation of canvass awnings to provide some protection from the elements. 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 to this architecture including a list of preferred materials and color. Mr. Rafferty stated that based on the 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 comer 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 different colored brick so their building is more compatible with the other buildings. He stated he does not think a pitched roof design fits with the Kohl's building and he believes getting a color change is a more important consideration and a higher priority. Mr. Lyden asked about the Kohl's building at Tamarack Village in Woodbury. Mr. Wittrock stated that project was driven by other factors since the same architect was used for all of the buildings. Mr. Rafferty asked why KKE is not present to respond to these questions. Mr. Wittrock stated he does not believe they have been assigned this job yet. Mr. Lyden asked about Ryan's relationship with Target Corporation. Mr. Palmquist stated they are a preferred contractor 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 it is saturated. She stated she found the Roseville Target Store to be so large, it was impersonal. Mr. Powell stated they have done a detailed study of Lake Drive and how it will function with these developments and the County received the second draft of that study. He stated they have requested County comments and found the road supports the additional access and warrants other road improvements now. Mr. Palmquist pointed out a connection point for Apollo Drive which has been eliminated so traffic will not have access to 77th. Chair Schaps asked if any Target Stores have closed in the last 20 years. Mr. Palmquist stated he is not aware of any in the 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 not yet been provided but that will be considered when those sites are developed. . Ms. Hansmann encouraged the Board to assure the issues of traffic and access are adequately addressed. • Ms. Lane stated she lives on 77th and has solicited input from those neighbors. She stated that of the five neighbors she talked with, all favor the project. Ms. Lane noted that sometimes people who support a project do not attend a meeting to voice their support. Deb Graf stated they live right in the 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 residents for their thoughts and feelings and if he lived in that area, would probably feel the same way. He stated that he has done all he could to protect neighborhoods and in the past the property on the north side of 77th was given back to those property owners. Also, none of the traffic will go onto 77th which is a significant issue in protecting the neighborhood. He stated in this proposal, neighbors are being asked to give something and he recognizes that is a sacrifice. Mr. Lyden stated the 2020 was based on balancing residential and commercial and getting tax relief but he in no way wants to diminish the sacrifice residents make in this kind of development. Joel Buys, 7661 Lake Drive, stated his agreement that this is an opportunity that has been awaiting Lino Lakes for quite some time and he would urge them to take this opportunity to assure enough time is spent and the tasks are not cut short to meet someone else's time table. He stated traffic control is 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 and information to be submitted related to the application. Therefore, staff recommends the application be continued until June 13, 2001. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the Land Holding Group preliminary plat public hearing to June 13, 2001, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. K. MN Correctional Facility, 7525 Fourth Avenue, Site Plan Review for Storage Building Staff presented the application by 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 Depattinent 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 trails, 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 park dedication by $1,900 and that the commercial rate also be recalculated. Mr. Corson suggested that Andover's requirements be reviewed since it remains current by calculating the park dedication fee based on the raw land costs. Chair Schaps noted that a fund is needed for maintenance costs but that is most often forgotten and does not occur. He 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 Mr. 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. • •