HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/2002 P&Z Packet•
•
AGENDA
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
6:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 12, 2001
V. OPEN MIKE
VI. ACTION ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARING: Gethsemane United Methodist Church, CUP Amendment, Tanda
Gretz
B. PUBLIC HEARING: Pheasant Hills 12th Addition, Comp. Plan Amendment/MUSA
Reserve Allocation, Rezone, Preliminary Plat, Bob Kirmis, NAC
C. Election of members to Development Regulation Task Force, Jeff Smyser
VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Elect EDAC liaison
VIII. ADJOURN
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
December 12, 2001
6:38 P.M.
8:41 P.M.
Corson, Hyden, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty, Schaps,
Zych
• None.
rty Planner Smyser; Associate Planner Gretz!
ontm Development Dictnr Grocha
Engineer Powell; City Administrator Waite Smith
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning an ing Board meeting to order at 6:38
p.m., December 12, 2001.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Schaps indicated Item
III. APPROVAL OF MIN
ed at the request of the applicant.
ER 14, 2001
Mr. Corson made a MOTIO''pprove the minutes of the November 14, 2001, meeting
of the Lino Lakes Planning an w" Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion
carried 6 -0.
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:39 p.m.
Rich Matzke, 482 Main Street, stated he had a concern regarding a drainage problem he
now had due to the housing project construction next to his home. He indicated the City
Engineer had been notified and had looked into the situation. He stated he was at this
meeting to inform the Board that he believed he would still have the same problem next
spring based on the fact that they were pumping water into the drainage ditch. He
believed the water table was up and stated usually at this time of year, the drainage ditch
was dry. He stated his carpet in his basement was ruined from the water. He believed the
City made a mistake and invited the Board to look at his property. He stated the City
Engineer did not believe the addition of the ponds affected his water table, while he
believed it did. He indicated he would be going to the next Council meeting and
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 2
III informing the Council of this problem. He stated in the past he had had water problems,
but once the drainage ditch was put in, he had not had any further problems, until now.
•
Judy Barthels, Baldwin Lake Trailer Court, stated she was interested in obtaining more
information regarding her neighborhood and the City. She indicated she was a recent
"transplant" from North Dakota.
Al Robinson, stated Mr. Matzke's water problem was due to a dewatering project going
on up the road.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:52 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0.
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. Joseph A. Schwartz, 558 Pine Street, Minor Subdivision
Staff presented the application by Joseph A. Schwart za inor Subdivision.
Staff indicated the subject property was located a `':` Pine - t and was owned by Mr.
Joseph A. Schwartz. The property was an unp n d ..cre`ural parcel which was not
connected to City water or sanitary sewer. Mr. S $ bartz's son, Joseph M. Schwartz,
lived on the neighboring property at 598 ich was similarly zoned and 10
acres in size. It was the intention of Mr. Sc `transfer five acres of his property to
his son's property in order that his e ab to qualify for the Green Acres agricultural
program. The result would be t R cre p ; els.
Staff presented its analyse <v3 i the City's zoning ordinance required a
minimum lot size of 10 s in a r zone. The proposed Minor Subdivision would
result in a lot size of 15 acres for e properties at 558 and 598 Pine Street. Staff
explained it should be noted t nless and until the proposed five -acre parcel was
legally combined with the existing 10 acres at 598 Pine Street, it would be non-
conforming, as it would be under the City's 10 -acre required minimum lot size for
property in a rural zone. As a result, approval should carry the condition that the
properties be legally combined.
Staff indicated this application involved a minor change in parcel sizes, and appeared to
pose no concern for public health, safety, or welfare.
Staff would recommend approval of this Minor Subdivision with the following condition:
1. The five -acre piece must be legally combined with the property at 598 Pine Street, in
order to comply with the City's 10 -acre minimum lot size requirement.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the request of Joseph A. Schwartz, 558 Pine
• Street, Minor Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. The five -acre piece must be legally combined with the property at 598 Pine Street,
in order to comply with the City's 10 -acre minimum lot size requirement.
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 3
• The motion was supported by Ms. Lane.
•
•
Motion carried 6 -0.
B. Clyde Rehbein, 580 Marshan Lane, Minor Subdivision
Pulled at the request of applicant.
C. Moratorium on Residential Development — PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:54 p.m.
Staff explained the comprehensive plan set the policy direction, while the implementation
of the plan occurs through official controls such as the subdivision ordinance and zoning
ordinance. The new comprehensive plan established a po y to significantly reduce the
rate of growth in the city. Staff was setting up a proce m . or amending the official
controls to implement the plan. This will take some Mme complete. Staff explained
they were concerned about the interim. After co P rr ng wig City Attorney, staff
believed it was best to adopt a moratorium to Cit The proposed ordinance
would prohibit most types of residential developm activity in the City for one year.
Staff presented its analysis by explaining t ere ` ' e main reasons for the
moratorium. First, the City Council appro _ prehensive plan but was still
undergoing review by the Metropo,,. Cou it as required by state statute. Until the
Met Council approved the plan is in " awkward position between the old,
sketchy plan and the new one. Sta r n using the new plan for guidance, but it was
not clear how firmly they
Second, while the compreh :' ' an establishes the policy of reducing growth to an
average of 147 per year, the c "''>'= nt official controls do not provide the means to ensure
implementation of the policy. The City should be in the position where if it wants to
deny new development applications, it should have clear and easily defensible reasons.
Third, staff anticipated new plat, rezoning, and MUSA reserve applications in the very
near future. Revising the ordinances would be a major undertaking. They would have
the services of our planning consultant, but the project would require significant effort by
staff as well. The moratorium would allow staff to devote time to the ordinance project
rather than attempting to review new application using ordinances that may or may not
support the comprehensive plan.
Staff reviewed what types of applications would not be affected by the moratorium and
the process used for this moratorium.
Chair Schaps asked where in the process the Comprehensive Plan was with the
Metropolitan Council. Mr. Smyser replied he was not sure where they were with the
Plan, but they were reviewing it.
•
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 4
Chair Schaps asked if the Metropolitan Council did not approve the Comprehensive Plan,
but wanted modifications, would that affect this moratorium. Mr. Smyser replied that
was possible, but it would likely affect density issues, etc. and not necessarily the
Ordinances. He did not anticipate any changes made would affect the Ordinances.
Chair Schaps indicated he had a concern regarding the effect this would have on
commercial development within the City. He stated he would like this moratorium to be
as short as possible, so commercial development would not be adversely affected.
Mr. Smyser stated at the present time, there were 400 residential lots that were in
approved plats and those projects would not be affected by this moratorium. Therefore,
the residential growth would still continue, but any new plats would not be approved for
one year while the moratorium was in effect.
Chair Schaps asked if there had been a discussion to prevent the moratorium being
prolonged. Mr. Smyser replied the City did have the right to extend it, but neither the
Council nor staff want to see this extended.
Mr. Corson asked how many years had the Compre
Mr. Smyser replied it took approximately 3 1/2 ye
deal with the Comprehensive Plan at all, only
This would have nothing to do with whether the
the Comprehensive Plan.
lan taken to get completed.
d sta e task force would not
isio and zoning Ordinances.
opolitan Council liked or disliked
Mr. Corson asked if the City had a
the City could not just state the
Metropolitan Council could a
told the City was out of
future, this would creat
ed a ount of MUSA at the present time and why
SA. Mr. Smyser replied the
USA at any time, and if developers were
he City received more MUSA in the near
the moratorium would avoid.
Mr. Zych asked if the staff ha me to work on both Ordinances and plats at the same
time. Mr. Smyser replied that was the reason they wanted the moratorium at this time.
He stated staff did not have the time to work on both.
Mr. Rafferty asked what the Comprehensive Plan called for regarding the population of
2010. Mr. Smyser replied he did not have that information on hand, but it was probably
somewhere around 20,000.
Mr. Rafferty asked if a moratorium was a message to developers as being negative, and
what did the City gain from a moratorium. Mr. Smyser replied people who wanted more
growth would see it as a bad thing and those who want less growth, would like the
moratorium, but also would want to stop the 400 lots already approved. He believed the
commercial industry would not be happy with this moratorium. However, the City was
making it clear that there were enough lots available to provide for at least the amount of
annual growth the City has experienced for at least the next year. He stated the
moratorium would put a dent in the growth, but would not stop it.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 5
Mr. Rafferty asked if this did not go into effect, would staff be overloaded with work.
Mr. Smyser replied this would definitely exacerbate the situation and staff would be
overloaded.
Peter Coyle, attorney from Larkin Hoffman law firm, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South,
Bloomington, indicated he represented Mr. Uhde, developer, and expressed his concern
regarding the moratorium and asked that the moratorium not be approved. He stated the
lots available for development, may not be ready to be sold or developed. He stated
based on the development patterns in the past few years, if new plat development was
stopped, there would be no new supply of lots in the City, and the direct consequence
would be that the supply of lots in the City would be severely diminished and people
buying lots in the City would be unable to afford the lot or the home on it. He stated this
would limit residents being able to buy into the City. He expressed concern about the 12-
month limit on the moratorium. He indicated he did not believe this was possible to
complete this in 12 months. He stated from his experience, a moratorium such as this
would be extended out beyond the 12 months. He indicated the developers would be
deprived of utilizing their investments if the moratorium . s approved. He stated the
nder Minnesota Statutes. In
t, and the Town City project
would be discriminatory
sed omprehensive Plan was
moratorium would create spot zoning, which was illeg
addition, the City had an investment in the Town Ci
was exempt from the moratorium and, therefore
and unfair. He stated the 147 -lot restriction b
illegal and suggested the City contact their attorne
reject the moratorium.
Mr. Rafferty stated this was a way
citizens wanted. He indicated
He expressed concern regardin
He indicated he did not b
job with respect to aski
"cut off at the knees" if this
assumption that development
garding this. He asked the Board to
e Ci to have guidelines with respect to what the
e any developer was hurting in this area.
the lots and homes being placed on them.
asking for too much, and they were doing their
orium. Mr. Coyle replied Mr. Uhde would be
rium was approved, when Mr. Uhde was under the
uld continue.
Mr. Lyden asked what case law did Mr. Coyle base his premise on that a moratorium was
illegal. Mr. Coyle stated that information would be provided when necessary.
Mr. Zych asked if there was a moratorium in 1989; how long did that one last; and was it
extended. Chair Schaps stated there was one 90 -day moratorium.
Mr. Zych asked if it was common for moratoriums to be extended. Mr. Smyser replied it
was not unusual for moratoriums to be extended, but that was not always the case.
Mr. Rafferty indicated he did not see any problem if the moratorium was extended as
long as this was what the citizens wanted and the end result was what was good for the
City and the citizens. He stated not all developers would like this, but he believed staff
had contacted the City Attorney regarding the decisions being made and were working
within the law.
Chair Schaps expressed his concern if the moratorium ended up being prolonged.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 6
Al Robinson, 8299 Fourth Avenue, stated the Comprehensive Plan had taken three and
one -half years and felt that there was a very small percent of the City's population that
wanted growth limited. He expressed concern about the limit of 147 homes being built a
year. He stated they needed more people in the City to support the infrastructure it
currently had. He indicated the City would be sending a wrong message to developers
and commercial development if it went with a moratorium. He indicated Lino Lakes was
anti - business and that was why the taxes were so high. He stated a moratorium would
not make sense at this time.
Mr. Rafferty asked if it would make more sense to wait until the Metropolitan Council
had responded to the Comprehensive Plan and then address the moratorium at that time.
Mr. Robinson replied that would make more sense. This was not the right time for a
moratorium.
Mr. Zych stated he believed there was inadequate infrastructure in the City the way it
was.
Mr. Corson asked if they waited until they had a respo
and then approved a moratorium, would the morato
development as well as plats already in process.
problems and there were no clear -cut answers
Mr. Corson asked if the Metropolitan Cou
decisions on the MUSA. Mr. Smyser repli
way to do it within the City and no on
from Metropolitan Council,
w them to freeze residential
lied that was one of the
Judy Barthels, indicated she liked
space would disappear if
adverse affect on the en
ould asked to wait to make any
ved the City needed figure out a
appointed body to make those decisions.
es. She expressed concern that the open
lowed to develop and this would have an
Tom VonBische, Oakdale, an '`eveloper of the Saddle Club project, stated he did not
have an objection with a moratorium. He stated he was working with many Cities that
had moratoriums and it was his experience that it was a very common practice to extend
moratoriums. He stated if the City wanted to control growth, they should contact the City
of Woodbury, who were currently approving a growth plan. He indicated the City of
Woodbury was controlling their growth properly. He stated Woodbury was also anti-
growth. He indicated Lino Lakes would grow or not grow, but this would not control the
metropolitan growth. He asked why the Village project was exempt from the
moratorium, and what gave it a special position above other developers. He stated
developers did not like not knowing what was going on and wanted to know where the
City was going.
Connie Grundhofer, 235 Linda Avenue, asked if the Metropolitan Council had 60 days to
respond to the Comprehensive Plan and inquired if January was when the Metropolitan
Council would respond to it. Mr. Smyser replied the Metropolitan Council could extend
the deadline if they wanted.
Ms. Grundhofer asked if the Ordinances could be put in place, even not knowing what
the Metropolitan Council was going to do. Mr. Smyser replied the Metropolitan Council
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 7
. had nothing to do with this and this was not the driving force with respect to staff's
request for a moratorium. He indicated the Ordinances could be worked on at this time.
•
•
Ms. Grundhofer stated she was in support of the moratorium.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. and was supported
by Mr. Lyden.
Motion carried 5 -0 (Ms. Lane absent for vote).
Chair Schaps asked if there would be consultant assistance with this. Mr. Smyser replied
there would be consultants working with staff on this.
Mr. Lyden stated one of the major parts of the Comprehensive Plan was controlled and
balanced growth. He indicated the dilemma faced was that they were already beyond the
2010 goal with respect to population growth. He expressed concern that the numbers did
not add up. He indicated he believed the Comprehensive an was a bad plan because it
could not deliver what it said it would do.
Mr. Rafferty expressed concern if the Metropolit . s unci " r ested changes and
everything else would get sidetracked, and sta i e; ouls ".e taken up with addressing
the Metropolitan Council's requested changes inst s? of working on the things they
should be working on Mr. Smyser replies was = `reason they should get started
right away.
Mr. Corson asked why was the
Smyser replied the City Council w
authority under State Stat
Village that were for th
was exempt from the moratorium. Mr.
empted, and the City Council had that
ed the city was pursuing several goals in the
Mr. Grochala stated the Comp ° ensive Plan had many policy actions that needed to be
incorporated into zoning and other Ordinances, which the City's plans did not incorporate
right now. Because the City had control of property in the Village, it could ensure the
goals were met there. He stated there were a lot of issues right now other than growth
that needed to be addressed, and the moratorium would allow those issues to be handled.
He stated the moratorium would allow the City to write up what they wanted with respect
to development, as well as the other issues that needed to be dealt with. He stated it was
not staff's intention to ask for an extension of the moratorium past one year.
Mr. Rafferty expressed concern about not having the right person in place to control the
people involved in the task force. Mr. Smyser replied this could be a problem, and staff
would be on the people involved in the task force to stay on track and get through
everything.
Mr. Lyden asked if they had looked into the legality of spot zoning. Mr. Smyser replied
the City Attorney had reviewed the proposed Ordinance and had approved it.
Chair Schaps expressed concern regarding an extension of the moratorium once the
Metropolitan Council requested changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He requested the
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
December 12, 2001
Page 8
City Council put a drop -dead date deadline on any moratorium and no extensions be
allowed.
Mr. Lyden stated his statement that the Comprehensive Plan was a bad plan, was not a
reflection upon anyone involved in the work on the Plan.
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend a moratorium on residential development
for one year with emphasis to the City Council that this should only be a one -year
moratorium.
The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden.
Motion carried 5 -1 (Mr. Hyden).
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the 8:41 -.m., and was supported by
Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Altman, Recording Secreta
TimeSaver Off Site Secret
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM III
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
P & Z MEETING DATE: January 9, 2002
TOPIC: Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2002
BACKGROUND
Each year, the P & Z must elect a chair and vice chair.
The chair runs the meetings. The vice chair runs the meetings if the chair is absent.
Election of each officer requires a separate vote. Election of officers requires a simple
majority vote.
RECOMMENDATION
Elect a chair and a vice chair.
•
•
•
STAFF ORIGINATOR:
P & Z MEETING DATE:
TOPIC:
AGENDA ITEM 6A
Tanda Gretz
January 9, 2002
Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment for the construction of a 1,380
sq.ft. picnic shelter
Gethsemane United Methodist Church
7330 Lake Drive
ACTION REQURIED: 3/5 vote
BACKGROUND
The subject property is zoned R -3. Although Gethsemane United Methodist Church was
a permitted use in an R -3 zone under the Zoning Ordinance in effect during its
construction in 1989, a subsequent change in the Ordinance now requires a Conditional
Use Permit for any Church located in an R -3 zone. As a result, the desire of the Church
to construct a picnic shelter will need to be handled administratively as a Conditional Use
Permit Amendment since it is an alteration of the site, and according to City Zoning
Ordinance Section 2, Subd. 2.B.13, "any enlargement, structural alteration, or
intensification of such use shall require an amended conditional use permit."
ANALYSIS
The proposed picnic shelter will be considered an accessory building (see Exhibit #2).
Under City Zoning Ordinance Section 3, Subd. 4.D.8.f., accessory buildings for property
located within an R -3 zone, greater than 1 -1/4 acres in size, are limited in number to a
maximum of one attached garage and two detached accessory structures. The maximum
total square footage for accessory buildings in an R -3 zone for a lot of this size is limited
to 2,020 sq. ft.
•
•
•
There are already two detached accessory buildings on the property: an 8' X 10' tool
shed and a 24' X 30' detached garage. The construction of the proposed picnic shelter
would result in three detached accessory structures, one more than is allowed under City
Ordinance.
The total square footage of the existing two accessory buildings is 800 sq. ft. The
proposed picnic shelter would measure 1,380 sq. ft., resulting in a total accessory square
footage of 2,180 sq. ft. This is 160 sq.ft. more than is allowed under City Ordinance.
It is anticipated the proposed picnic shelter would be used for the Church's annual Booya
Festival, Vacation Bible School classes, Youth Events, Church picnics, and reunions.
Construction of the proposed picnic shelter would violate the City's Zoning Ordinance in
terms of both number and size of accessory structures. Removing the 8' X 10' tool shed
already on site and decreasing the size of the proposed picnic shelter by 160 -sq. ft. are
options to resolving this zoning issue. It should be noted that the City's Zoning
Ordinance reaches a cap, or threshold level, of 2,020 sq.ft. for accessory buildings in any
size lot of one and one - quarter acre or greater in an R -3 zone. That is, unlike zoning for
Rural and PSP zones, R -3 zones do not allow more accessory square footage as lot size
increases. As a result, even though the proposed site is approximately 5.2 acres in size,
the proposed picnic shelter would not be allowed under City Zoning Ordinance, and
would thus require approval of a Variance for construction.
OUTSTANDING RELATED ISSUE
In 1997 the Gethsemane United Methodist Church site underwent a Rezoning, Minor
Subdivision, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment in order to construct a parsonage.
The above requests were all approved at that time, subject to the condition that "the
subdivision include the formal dedication of the Stage Coach Trail right -of -way, with the
understanding that Parcels B and C will be financially responsible for the future
construction of the street" (see Exhibit #3 & #4). In other words, subdivision was
granted on condition that street right -of -way be granted for the future subdivision.
On inspection of the records in preparation of this report, it was found that such right -of-
way was never legally recorded (see Exhibit #5). Staff would suggest that the City use
the opportunity presented by the current request for a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment to correct this oversight.
Such action is prudent for several reasons. First, it corrects an administrative oversight
made in the past: the Re- Zoning, Minor Subdivision, and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment granted in 1997 were approved with conditions, and those conditions were
never carried out. It is only fair that, this being discovered to be the case, corrective
action be taken to carry out what was previously approved by Council.
Second, it is important from a planning and engineering perspective to have right -of -way
dedication through the future subdivision. Such dedication assures access and allows for
the planning of neighboring future subdivisions so that road alignment and other such
issues can be effectively resolved.
Staff cannot recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment as
presented, since it violates the City Zoning Ordinance. However, if granted, staff would
recommend any approval of this Conditional Use Permit Amendment include the
following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained for construction of the proposed picnic shelter.
2. Issuance of the building permit will not be granted until the former approved
dedication of the Stage Coach Trail right -of -way is officially recorded. Such
dedication is with the understanding that Parcels B and C will be financially
responsible for the future construction of the street, as approved by City Council on
May 27, 1997.
OPTIONS
1. Recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment as presented.
2. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment, with
• conditions.
3. Return to staff with direction.
RECOMMENDATION
Option 1.
•
APOLLO
NOSINESS PAR
NO P
I/
,NC
QA
,r) OIL A
is
on-
0
a
9
0
LINO LAKES
L
R EHABILITATIOr CENTER
EXHIBIT #1
OuNYI B
Q
II['4
12
14 113
STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY NO.49- 74TH - STREET
SAN' -V
2)
5
6
C.S.A.H.
MEADOW
7
tows
INCH OF
JOSEPH
CINNAMON
TEAL
COURT
sUB:'' 4..'�� IM�rac���YMW�r b
NO. / I o2RE54 RV r 13 sH 11 1.9 beT. /, TAM
* 3 OF1
p`Y 7 9 9
MARSHAN LAKE
- ELM -SIRE
13
t4
HINNYOAT
2
OUTLOT
A
S
2
BPS
J
9 A
•
•
•
EXHIBIT #2
Concept Plan
Pot*: Gethsemane United
Methodist Church
1330 tsaluo Drive
Lino Laicise, MN 14014
NORTH LINE GOVERNMENT LOT 4
571.4)
•
•
•
•
SS-
N89°411 '22"W 1150± DEED
990± AMEASI4RED
fi
/ 4 /
LEGEND
f DENOTES FOUND IRON PIPE
• DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE
DENOTES TREE LINE
- -s— DENOTES FENCE LU
DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR
2 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL
N.G.V.D. VERTICAL DATUM.
TOPOGRAPHY DATA COLLECTED IN FIELD
ON APRIL 9. 1997 BY E.G. RUD & SONS.
PARSONAGE LOCATION SHONN PER
PROPOSED LOCATON STAKED 8Y E.C.
8110 AND SON'S. HOUSE NOT AS-BUILT.
•
,
•
1 ' i1
1
,
1 I I
I I ' .......1...
I I I
1 I 1
S
.526.39- 1
TRACT C
P /
:t
r - NOM Ur a TUC* •
t S66'60'63'E 2
801.61
TRACT
/ - 806.00
11882± ME4URED
S89 °b0'53 "E 1 1400± DEED
i:: r I 1 i
:I
I I
; •
A
I 1 Cs - S• A r-. ,. I r A e r
I--4 I 11-f 7-- - I 11-- I \/I /._1 t! - 5--S / 1 I\I
./ 1 r • r 1 L_ � . \ . • I I I I _ I 1 1./ I I I- 1 I •
LEGAL DESC Cr" i 0111
TRACTS A. B, AND C REGSTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1132
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
PROPOSED WIT CP WAY CRSCRPYIONI
THE NEST 60 FEET OF THAT PART OF TRACT C. REGISTERED
LAND SUHb€Y NO. 182, ANOKA COUNTY. MINNESOTA LYING SOUTH
OF THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH L//E OF TRACT 8 OF
SNO REGISTERED LAND SURLEY NO. 182.
I A r i r-
I / \ L\ F-
L - I \ • L
1�870.od,
1,42.8,'.
03'ar"
S0OY15.Yb7t
LI 60
•
•
637
uu 11
.2
1 ?.
< r_r /
4 "
CER I r CATIONI
cartiae.1 lor000lat O M
NWT. oar OF m1Cre
190.04
i
I hereby certify that this survey. P400 Or report was prepared by
me or under my direct superwsian and that I am a duty Licensed
Land Surveyor under the taws of the State of Minnesota
Ernest O. Rud. Lic. Na 9808
Data
Vicinity 1"1ap
1 bah a e0 n
L�G...� 4 NC.
LAND + T Yi V�
91130 LExINGioN AVE. NE
CIRCLE PINES, MN 55014
TEL .(1b3) 786 -6686 RAX (1b3) 13e3 -bt9o1
Job No. 91t2bCP
/
/
/
Concept Flan
and Proposed Descriptions
'For: Gethsemane United
• Methodist Church
- 1330 Lake Drive
Lino Lakes, M1•1 55014
+901.38
S88 °49'11 "E
+ 901.04
+ 901.59
+ 909.77
a
'+ 902.03
s,
-- -AREA TO BE REZONED TO R1-
1
+11+ 53
I/
+ 901.60
)
+ 897.03
+ 0938°
+ 801.93
+s99.13
+ 894.74
I t 901.63 1
+ 901.44
+2°1.07 +901.75 3
+ 992.:2' '
® +902.54 +01134
4 '• 1143J.
I\
9AlDHQ
•
PARCEL A
•
/ / / .
/ /
/ /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ /
/1/
1
90118 +901.9`.- /
•0
( �O
9m.n + mi.e9`
20117 • �� _ \��
Jfy
•
° fF10CE
I , :
137 r }901 4: f $ •
y
!P tl /NCO
".�° 90154
+85903
i
8p •
` .64.R.
44.13.
891.44 \ ••i
1
+887.00
144'
901.80
+ .32
1
•
x,16' ydl d5 f
X11`° . --- r
•' • • 7 ... �g� 9 08 + 490.03 + °j4..
j ti' r4.. i °.i 69�8p.83.58 ' , • • • -
i [ 1 + 4 %25 r'
11' 79 7.2
1 4R?•I7?1. 89114.! 'p11�
/`9•.837.`3'. e4,1,�° A+ 815.53
+6 }97:111 '0
-- -. -- +.. ---- +! ''1. t Os9$01L39 49•
DV 944'61 9, •
1
.11
2
3
4
S H 0
DESCRIPTION FOR REZONING TO RI
N88 °56•-2-7"W
5
R E S
THAT PART OF THE LOT 1, A!1OITOR'S SUBDIVISION No. 54. A.C.M. LYING NORTH OF
SHORES OF MARSHAN LAKE. ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF AND
LYING EAST OF A LINE DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
LOT 11. BLOCK 1. SAID SHC ES or MARSHAN LAKE; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED
BEARING OF N88.56'27-1/ ALCA.G THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 1. A DISTANCE
OF 205 FEET TO THE POINT CF BEGINNING OF THE LINE TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE
N01'03.33 -E TO THE NORTH Lu:E OF SAID LOT I AND THERE TERMINARNC.
1
6
0 F
7
M A R' .S H A N
13.119 140.
++9 %22 •• •
j • • +09332
•
• 171
994.:4
rj
EXHIBIT #3
CLAC
1•
•
h
082.00
+ 897.44
+ 089.23
7
.25
21.142 9499.
+ 113.94
+'492 07
. r
80493
883.1
15.473 Ian.
+ 067.11
893.38
\V +84621
b
20.817
+ 450.43 `•. 1
0..K ... •
•
+ 887.13 237'
'I .
+4167.70 bt•1
+106.29
5
20.305 44A
+ 896.
I :1188.17'
• 1/
9 3.:1
L;AK.E
+ 491,•
10 !
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED LOT 4
035T. WI. tel
11
THAT PART OF LOT 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION No. 54 A.C.M. LYING NORTH OF SHORES
OF MARSHAN LAKE. ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF AND BEING
DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 11, BLOCK 1. SAID
SHORES OF MARSHAN LAKE; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED BEARING OF N88'56'27 -W
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK T. A DISTANCE OF 205 FEET; THENCE
N01 03'33 "E A DISTANCE OF 94 FEET; THENCE S88'56'27"E A DISTANCE OF 205
FEET; THENCE S011/3'33 -W A DISTANCE OF 94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
se
+e• 1
}99
3 I
69
/
/
/
/
2
LEGEND
• DENOTES FOUND IRON PIPE
CI DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE
DENOTES TREE LINE
- -o- DENOTES FENCE LINE
• , 59114 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVARON
- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR
2 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL
N.G. V D.
TOPOGRAPHY DATA COLLECTED IN FIELD
ON APRIL 9, 1997 BY E.G. RUD Is SONS
` SEC, 17. TOWNSHIP 31. RANGE 22
\` ANOKA COUNTY. MINNESOTA
i
0103.•00.13
o1W 03/0112
Vicinity Map -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION
No. 54, ANOKA COUNTY. MINNESOTA, LYING EAST
OF S.T.H. No. 49.
AREA:
PARCEL AREA a 389,415 SO. FT. - 8.93 ACRES
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was ;weal
me. or under my direct supervision and that I om o duly
Land Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota.
Ernest C. Rud. loc. No. 9808
ae •
E.C. RUC) 4 SONS, N.
LAND SURvMYORS •
(EXHIBIT C - SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PI
•
COUNCIL MINUTES
■
Consider FIRST READING of Ordinance No. 1-5 - 97, Rezone Gethsemane United
Methodist Church Property and Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Mr. Brixius reviewed
the staff report with regard to the rezoning, Comprehensive Plan, compatibility, public services,
and performance standards and advised decisions regarding land use appropriateness are
considered matters of City policy to be determined by City officials. If the Council finds the
proposed land use to be acceptable, staff would recommend approval of the rezoning request.
This rezoning approval should, however, be made contingent upon the City amending its
Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) such that low density residential use is guided upon the
subject site. If considered for approval, Mr. Brixius recommended the following conditions:
1. The subdivision include the formal dedication of the Stage coach Trail right -of -way with
the understanding that Parcels B and C will be financially responsible for the future
construction of the street.
2. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to utility issues.
3. Any other comments of City staff.
Council Member Bergeson asked why the Planning & Zoning Board's recommendation is for
approval but staffs recommendation is open. Mr. Brixius noted the recommendation of the
Planning & Zoning Board and explained any land use change is ultimately a Council
determination.
EXHIBIT #4
MAY 27, 1997
Council Member Bergeson noted sometimes churches grow and need more area for parking. He
asked if this is an adequate piece of property for future needs. Mr. Brixius stated this is difficult
to estimate but Parcel A, as shown, appears to have adequate room and setback to accommodate
an expansion with some parking. He noted with utilities in the immediate vicinity, land becomes
available for expansion. Mr. Brixius stated it appears the site serves the needs of the church and
there is area for expansion.
Council Member Bergeson asked if the entire parcel is tax exempt and when this would change
in status. Mr. Hawkins advised this occurs when title is changed from the church.
Council Member Lyden moved to approve the FIRST READING of Ordinance No. 15 - 97,
Rezone, Gethsemane United Methodist Church property, and to approve a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment (Land Use Plan) such that low density residential use is guided upon the subject site
(as shown on draft town Center Land Use Plan) subject to three conditions as presented. Council
Member Kuether seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Consider Minor Subdivision - Council Member Bergeson moved to approve the Minor
Subdivision of Gethsemane United Methodist Church Property subject to three conditions as
presented. Council Member Lyden seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Consideration of a Minor Subdivision, Rick Carlson /Junes Property, 599 - 62nd Street -
Ms. Wyland explained that Mr. and Mrs. Junes own approximately 30 acre at 599 - 62nd Street
• and have agreed to sell 21.66 acres to Mr. Rick Carlson but will keep the existing homestead and
PAGE 11
REC"TEREC LAND 5UR*E*r NO.
NW CORNER GOVERNMENT LOT 4
c.-
N �-
o ` 8
z
t
►-
0
f-
la/
z
z
S89 °41'22 "E
978.19
ANOKA COUNTY, M INN1ESO1
v.
7
SW CORNER SEC. 17, T31, R22
•
NORTH UNE GOVERNMENT LOT 4
N89 °41'22 "W
900.0
m
182
iXHIBIT #5
200 0 100 200 400
990± MEASURED -
1150± DEED
571.41
TRACT A
.'
733.13 r
1
1
.rr
S89°50153"
'5 6 I ; I
e• I I i. r. ••••
/
i rFe' r-
\/ I I / I I L_ %
IIf-
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS REGISTERED LAND SURVEY
THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4, SEC. 17, T31, R22
IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF N 89'41722" W.
•1 inch = 200 ft.
g
326.59 �' 4
� � o
' (4. TRACT C .0 + 'l:�
IV
4. '+ , �\
.;
o AI.- A..09 05'04" e
Q R ..270.00 • '
O N89'50 53 W SL■42.61
TRACT B 1--/..,N5001.3•097 '0.7T \y \
a g
Ch 05.00
11111* M ASURED 60
Y•
8 201.61
1140 0�t ED
9 10 11 `
v• 4
••
ai
. i , r♦ •••1 II I I I 1 , 1 1 , r-
iv,I he' •.raili+I I i+n I--
250.04
,ac. ' 3&12' 47
P6 /// /797
i 2.'k 5p4e 3
O Denotes A. C. Monument
O Denotes Iron Set
• Denotes Iron Found
I, ERNEST G. RUD, LAND SURVEYOR, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 508, MINNESOTA
STATUTES OF 1949, AS AMENDED, I HAVE SURVEYED THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND IN THE COUNTY OF ANOKA,
STATE OF MINNESOTA, TO WT:
THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4, SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 17; THENCE ON AN ASSUMED BEARING OF NORTH 00 DEGREES
00 MINUTES 23 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 1333.14 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 978.19 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF STATE TRUNK
HIGHWAY No. 49 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 20 MINUTES
49 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY No. 49, A DISTANCE OF 379.90 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 53 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1400 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SHORELINE OF
MARSHAN LAKE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID SHORELINE, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT
LOT 4; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 41 MINUTES 22 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4, A DISTANCE
OF 1150 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
(SAID TRACT IS ALSO KNOWN AS PART OF LOT 1, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 54)
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY SHOWN
eye.,, 6 e"- , 1997.
ERNEST G. RUD
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR
MINNESOTA REGISTRATION No. 9808
HEREON IS A CORRECT DEUNEATION OF SAID SURVEY, DATED THIS to DAY OF
THIS REGISTERED LAND SURVEY HAS BEEN APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
AT/P REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD THIS '274 DAY OF %�e. - . 1997.
ff
h(AYOR
LERK
CHECKED AND APPROVED THIS /7'71/DAY OF ..EC. , 1997.
MegLyAl A,.nexse,J 4,
MERLYN D. ANDERSON
ANOKA COUNTY SURVEYOR
RUCs NS, INC
•
•
ADE
METAL RIDGE CAP
ENGINEERED TRUSSES 9 l'S" OC
ROOF BRACING PER MANUFACTURER
12
4 ��
2S GA. RIF3BED METAL ROOFING
2X4 ROOF PURLINS e 24" OC
W/ 2X4 METAL JOISTS HANGERS
2 -2X12 HEADERS
X6 TREATED POSTS
'° l'8" OC
X4 LATERAL BRACING
X6 TREATED POSTS
I I e 10'0" OC
3 1/2" CONC SLAB
II
II
II
II
OPTION:
2X4 CEILING JOISTS ' 24" OC
2X4 JOISTS HANGERS
2S GA METAL ROOFING
2' -O"
EXHIBIT #6
•
1/2" X e" BOLTS
6 EACH TRUSS
ALUM FASCIA
ALUM SOFFIT
2X6 SUBFASCIA
NOTE:
MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL
BRACING AT POSTS -
CHECK LOCAL CODES
(KNEE BRACING 4
V- BRACING)
•
6X6 POST BASE ANCHOR
1/2" X S" ANCHOR BOLT
— — — l 24" X 12" TURNED DOWN FOOTING
GROSS SECTION
.A
•
2' -0"
9
•
•
•
STAFF ORIGINATOR:
P & Z MEETING DATE:
TOPIC:
BACKGROUND
AGENDA ITEM VI -B
Bob Kirmis (NAC)
January 9, 2002
Public Hearing
• Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Land Use Change
and allocation of 4.5 acres of MUSA Reserve
• Rezoning from R -X to R- 1X/PDO
• Preliminary Plat (Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th
Addition)
Mr. Ed Vaughn has submitted an application for an eight lot single family subdivision entitled
Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition. The subject property is located on the north of Birch
Street and west of Timberwolf Trail.
To accommodate the proposed subdivision, the following approvals are required:
• A Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the guided use of the subject property from
Rural to Low Density Residential and allocating 4.5 acres of MUSA Reserve.
• Rezoning from R -X, Rural Executive to R 1X, Single Family Executive/PDO, Planned
Development Overlay.
• Preliminary plat.
This review is based on the following submittals:
Site Location
Site Layout/Preliminary Plat (received 12/28/01)
Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control & Tree Preservation Plan (received 12/28/01)
Utility Plan (received 12/28/01)
Street and Grading Plan (received 12/28/01)
Rice Creek Watershed District Correspondence
Environmental Board Comments
•
•
o
ANALYSIS
Surrounding Land Uses
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the guided use of the
subject property from Rural to Low Density Residential. Such change is necessary to
accommodate the proposed development density.
To be noted is that the proposed 2001 Comprehensive Plan suggests sewered low density
residential use of the subject property which is consistent with the proposed land use.
In conjunction with such change, an extension of the MUSA will be necessary to serve the
development. On September 9, 1996, the City adopted the following evaluation criteria for the
allocation of the MUSA reserve.
1. An application for MUSA Reserve shall be considered at time of Preliminary Plat
approval.
The application for 4.5 acres of MUSA Reserve is being made in conjunction with the
request for preliminary plat approval.
2. The property in question shall be zoned R -1 or R -IX or a rezoning application be in
process in conjunction with the preliminary plat. MUSA would not be made available
without rezone approval.
The applicant has requested an R- 1X/PDO zoning designation be applied to the proposed
development. Such request has been made in conjunction with the preliminary plat request.
3. The property in question must be immediately adjacent to existing MUSA.
The subject property lies abuts the Quail Ridge addition which is within the existing MUSA.
2
Existing Land Use
Plan (1990)
Proposed Land Use
Plan (2001)
Zoning
Site
Rural
Low Density, Sewered Residential
R -X
North
Rural
Public /Semi- Public
R -X
South
Single Family Residential
Low Density, Sewered Residential
R -1X
East
Rural
Public /Semi - Public
R -X
West
Rural
Public /Semi - Public
R -X
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the guided use of the
subject property from Rural to Low Density Residential. Such change is necessary to
accommodate the proposed development density.
To be noted is that the proposed 2001 Comprehensive Plan suggests sewered low density
residential use of the subject property which is consistent with the proposed land use.
In conjunction with such change, an extension of the MUSA will be necessary to serve the
development. On September 9, 1996, the City adopted the following evaluation criteria for the
allocation of the MUSA reserve.
1. An application for MUSA Reserve shall be considered at time of Preliminary Plat
approval.
The application for 4.5 acres of MUSA Reserve is being made in conjunction with the
request for preliminary plat approval.
2. The property in question shall be zoned R -1 or R -IX or a rezoning application be in
process in conjunction with the preliminary plat. MUSA would not be made available
without rezone approval.
The applicant has requested an R- 1X/PDO zoning designation be applied to the proposed
development. Such request has been made in conjunction with the preliminary plat request.
3. The property in question must be immediately adjacent to existing MUSA.
The subject property lies abuts the Quail Ridge addition which is within the existing MUSA.
2
•
4. Development of the property must be considered a natural utility extension.
The extension of utilities to the subject property will require extra ordinary effort as
evidenced by the integration of a bridge crossing. The extension of utilities from the south is
however, considered the most logical direction from which utilities may be provided.
5. Development of the property must be considered a natural extension of existing
roadways.
As in the case of utility extension, the extension of roadways to the subject property will
require an extraordinary effort. The 2,500 foot long cul -de -sac and bridge crossing necessary
to serve the development represent an unusual situation. Access to the subject property from
the south is however, considered the most logical point at which access to the subject
property may be provided.
6. Development of the property shall be environmentally compatible with the surrounding
area.
The applicant has indicated that the proposed development will not result in any wetland
disturbance.
While the applicant has submitted a Tree Preservation Plan, details regarding specific tree
removal and preservation efforts have not been specified.
7. Development of the property shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Park
Plan.
The City's Park Plan calls for the development of an east/west trail segment in the area of the
proposed development, noting that boardwalks and/or bridges may be necessary to traverse
several stretches of wetlands. No trails have been proposed as part of the development.
This development will be discussed at the forthcoming January 7, 2002 Park Board meeting.
8. Development of the property shall be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Sewer
and Water Plan.
The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Sewer and Water Plan.
9. Development of the property shall not adversely affect the health, welfare, and general
safety of the community.
The City presently has 15.7 acres in the MUSA bank. In this regard, the addition of 4.5 acres
into the MUSA is not expected to overburden the City's various systems.
3
•
41
10. The proposed development shall comply with the City's Infill Policy as outlined by
Resolution No. 92 -85.
The adopted "infill policy" relates to the location of new development and includes the
following criteria:
• All new developments must be located within the MUSA as established by the
Comprehensive Plan.
• All new developments must be analyzed for impact on utility and street system costs both
from the initial cost standpoint and operation and maintenance.
• New development shall only be allowed if:
a) The cost of utility and street extensions can be covered by immediate assessment,
and
b) The cost of operation and maintenance of the system will not exceed the normal
costs as projected by the water and sewer rate study, and
c) An upfront payment or series of payments by the developer would offset any
additional costs of installation and/or future operation and maintenance.
If the road, bridge, and utilities are private, these criteria don't apply.
11. Roadways serving the proposed development shall be determined adequate to handle
the additional traffic generated by the proposed development or a financial
commitment shall be made by the developer to upgrade said roadways.
The roadways will be sufficient to handle the additional traffic generated by the
development. However, a financial commitment would be advisable to restore the roads if
damaged by construction vehicles.
12. The MUSA is to be allocated in the following manner: 50 acres in 1996, 50 acres in
1997, and 50 acres in 1998.
As previously indicated, the City presently has 15.7 acres in the MUSA bank. Thus, the
requested 4.5 acres of MUSA will not exceed the City's present allocation.
Rezoning
As previously indicated, the applicant has requested the rezoning of the subject property from R-
X, Rural Executive to R 1X, Single Family Executive/PDO, Planned Development Overlay.
In consideration of rezoning requests, Section 2, Subd. 1.E. of the Zoning Ordinance states that
the Planning and Zoning Board must consider possible adverse effects of the amendment (to the
zoning map). Its judgment must be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors:
4
•
•
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 official City
Comprehensive Plan.
The 2001 Comprehensive Plan includes several goals and policies considered applicable
to the development proposal as listed below:
• Protect a healthy variety of housing types, styles and choices to meet the changing
life cycle needs of the Lino Lakes population.
• Balance the types of residential development to ensure long term stability of
residential bases.
• In evaluating residential subdivisions, factors will be the physical implications of
the residential land use related to traffic generation, sewer and water demands,
environmental issues, and compatibility with neighboring land uses.
In addition to the preceding criteria, the proposed development must also satisfy the
City's infill policy which, among other things, states that the cost of operation and
maintenance of utility systems must not exceed the normal costs as projected by the water
and sewer rate study.
Provided proper environmental protections are in place to protect the adjacent wetlands
and a determination is made that utilities and vehicular access can be adequately
provided, the proposed use is considered consistent with the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of
the area.
The subject site is surrounded by single family land uses zoned R -1X, Single Family
Executive. The proposed single family residential uses are consistent with present and
future land uses of the area.
3. The proposed use conforms to all performance standards of the zoning ordinance.
The uniqueness of the subject property has prompted the request for a Planned
Development Overlay. As a result, the applicant has requested flexibility from a number
of performance standards including shoreland setbacks, cul -de -sac length and vegetative
disturbance.
4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the City's service capacity.
Providing public services to the proposed use (eight single family lots) will require an
extra ordinary effort including a bridge crossing and a 2,500 foot long cul -de -sac. The
proposed use, however, is not expected to overburden the City's service capacity.
5
5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the
• property.
Traffic generated by the proposed use (eight single family lots) will be minimal. The
traffic generated by the use can be safely and effectively accommodated by the proposed
2,500 foot long cul -de -sac.
The applicant is proposing to serve the development via a private street. Issues related to
such street will be discussed in a later section of this report.
The applicant is proposing to create eight single family lots upon the 4.5 acre subject property
resulting in a density of 1.8 units per acre. Should the City approve the requested
Comprehensive Plan amendment, a rezoning of the property to the base R -1X designation is
considered appropriate.
In conjunction with the R -1X designation, the applicant has requested a Planned Development
Overlay (PDO) to allow flexibility from various provisions of the ordinance including shoreland
setbacks, cul -de -sac length and vegetative disturbance. The concept of the PDO, as originally
conceived, is to essentially trade flexibility from the strict provisions of the ordinance for a
superior product that otherwise would not be allowed.
While there are obviously many constraints to developing the subject property, it is unclear
whether a superior development product will result.
•
Preliminary Plat
Lot Requirements. The subject site lies within the shoreland overlay zone for Wards Lake (a
natural environment lake) which requires a minimum upland lot area of 20,000 square feet. All
proposed lots exceed the minimum upland lot area requirement (above the 883.7 ordinary high
water level).
Additionally, all lots have been found to meet the minimum 90 foot width and 135 foot depth
requirements of the R -1X District.
MUSA Allocation. As previously indicated, an extension of the MUSA (4.5 acres) will be
necessary to serve the development. The area of such allocation will be applied only to upland
area (non - wetland above the OHWL)
Streets
Cul -de -sac length. At approximately 2,500 feet in length, the proposed cul -de -sac
significantly exceeds the maximum 500 length requirement of the Ordinance. The
acceptability of such street length from an emergency vehicle service standpoint should be
subject to comment from the police and fire departments.
•
•
•
Ownership. The applicant is proposing that the road serving the subject property (and
bridge) be privately owned.
While the Ordinance specifically prohibits the creation of private streets, such street type
could be accommodated via the PDO (in response to the unique characteristics of the site)
and the establishment of an undesirable precedent could be avoided. Staff prefers that the
City not assume maintenance responsibilities for the proposed street segment (including the
proposed bridge).
While the applicant has proposed a private street system, a 60 foot right -of -way width has
been illustrated on the submitted plans. To ensure long term private ownership of the street,
it is recommended that individual lots be extended through the street and an access easement
be established over the proposed street. A Homeowners Association should be established
which governs the maintenance of the private street. The bylaws of such association should
be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.
To allow for vehicular turnarounds at the terminus of the abutting public street segment
(Ruffed Grouse Road), it is recommended that a cul -de -sac be created at its terminus. The
creation of such turnaround area would however, likely result in the omission of Lot 1, Block
1.
Street Width. The submitted grading plan illustrates a 24 foot wide street width which is
less than the minimum 32 foot width required by the Ordinance. Flexibility from such street
width requirement may however, be accommodated via the PDO. The acceptability of the
proposed street width should be subject to comment by the City Engineer.
If the proposed 24 foot street width is determined to be acceptable, it is recommended that
on- street parking along such street be prohibited (to ensure a safe two way traffic pattern).
Bridge Construction. As shown on the development plans, the construction of a bridge
approximately 300 feet in length is necessary to access the subject property. The applicant
has indicated that the bridge length will extend above the ordinary high water elevation and
that no wetlands will be impacted. Because the submitted plans do not indicate pier locations
this however, cannot be verified.
The acceptability of the bridge and its wetland impacts should be subject to comment by the
City Engineer.
Setbacks. The Shoreland Overlay District imposes a minimum 150 foot setback from the
ordinary high water mark (883.7 feet) for all structures. With the upland area of the proposed
lots ranging from approximately 160 to 220 feet in depth, the 150 foot setback requirement
cannot be satisfied. According to the submitted grading plan, structure setbacks averaging
approximately 90 feet from the Ordinary high Water Level are proposed.
If a reduction in setback is to be allowed (via the PDO), the following are recommended in
exchange for such allowance:
7
•
1. A detailed tree preservation plan be submitted which includes the following:
A. An inventory of significant trees
B. A description of tree preservation efforts that would be implemented
during both mass and custom grading
C. Specific parameters for tree preservation for custom graded lots including
the percentages of significant trees to be saved
2. Custom grading plans be submitted including:
A. An escrow for custom graded lots
B. Tree preservation efforts
C. House placement that results in minimal disruption to existing vegetation
and natural features
D. Drainage plans for each lot that conform to the final drainage plan and do
not negatively impact adjacent properties
E. A 40 foot shoreland buffer strip
3. Deed covenants are established to prevent disruption of the shoreland buffer area.
4. The shoreland buffer area is physically demarcated to avoid encroachment and
disruption.
Outlots. Outlot B is shown to lie south of the proposed bridge and south of the proposed single
family lots. Because the outlots are segmented and do not share a common boundary, it is
recommended that Outlot B south of the single family lots be redesignated as Outlot C.
Environmental Board Review. The Environmental Board has reviewed the development
proposal at their December 19, 2001 meeting and did not recommended approval as currently
presented.
Specific concerns of the Board related to the inclusion of the property in a "high ecological value
zone" (where development should be discouraged) and ground water contamination on the
western portion of the island. Additional concerns were cited over proposed tree preservation
efforts.
The Board also stipulated however, that if the project does move forward that such approval be
subject to various conditions (see attachment).
Homeowners Association. If approved, the creation of an overall homeowners association for
the proposed development is advised. The bylaws of the association should include language
relating to property, street and bridge ownership and maintenance and shoreland buffer areas.
The bylaws of such an association should be subject to review and approval by the City
Attorney.
Grading and Drainage. Issues related to grading and drainage should be subject to comment
• and recommendation by the City Engineer.
•
Utilities. Issues related to utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the
City Engineer including utility easement establishment.
Parks and Trails: No park land dedication is required of the proposed development. Park
dedication will be cash fees in lieu of land and should be paid in the amount in effect at the time
of final plat. This development will be discussed at the forthcoming January 7, 2002 Park Board
meeting.
Currently, the cash dedication requirement is $1,665 per lot, which for eight lots is $13,320.
Tree Preservation. The tree preservation plan has been combined with the grading, drainage
and erosion control plan. While the plan identifies tree preservation limits on the site, no text
regarding specific tree removal, trees to be retained or tree preservation efforts have been
provided. Further, the plan does not provide a description of tree preservation or custom grading
efforts that would be implemented for the creation of house pads.
As a condition of PDO approval, a revised tree preservation plan should be submitted.
Rice Creek Watershed District Review. The Rice Creek Watershed District issued a
TWAFAA for the proposed development at their meeting on September 26th. The tabling with
"authorization for administrative action" was approved subject to eight conditions (see
attachment).
OPTIONS FOR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ACTION:
1. Recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and preliminary
plat based on the findings outlined in the January 9, 2002 planning report and subject to
the conditions outlined by staff.
2. Recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and preliminary
Plat based on the following findings:
A. At approximately 2,500 feet in length, the proposed cul -de -sac significantly exceeds
the maximum 500 foot length requirement of the ordinance.
B. Minimal tree preservation will result from the proposed development.
C. The minimum 150 foot setback requirements cannot be satisfied.
D. The minimum 32 foot street width requirement has not been satisfied.
E. The purpose of the PDO has not been fulfilled.
• 3. Table the application and request more information.
•
RECOMMENDATION
The subject site is unique and holds numerous physical development constraints. As currently
proposed, it is the opinion of staff that the intent of the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) has
not been satisfied. Rather, it appears the PDO has been requested as a means to circumvent
many requirements of the ordinance without resulting in a superior development product. As a
result, staff recommends denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and
preliminary plat.
Should, however, the Planning and Zoning Board choose to approve the request, staff
recommends that the following conditions be satisfied:
1. The Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning must be in effect before the
preliminary plat/PDO plan approval is in effect.
2. The proposed bridge, street, and utilities are established as a private roadway the
maintenance of which shall not be the responsibility of the City.
3. The submitted plans be revised such that individual lots are extended through the
private street with an easement established over such street (to allow cross
access).
4. A cul -de -sac is created at the terminus of the existing public street segment to
allow for vehicular turnaround maneuvers (including those of City snowplows).
5. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation in regard to street
construction requirements.
6. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation regarding the
acceptability of the bridge and its wetland impacts.
7. On- street parking (along the private street) be prohibited.
8. In exchange for setback flexibility, the following be provided:
A. A detailed tree preservation plan including:
1. An inventory of significant trees
2. A description of tree preservation efforts that would be
implemented during both mass and custom grading
3. Specific parameters for tree preservation for custom graded lots
including the percentages of significant trees to be saved
10
B. Custom grading plans including:
1. An escrow for custom graded lots
2. Tree preservation efforts
3. House placement that results in minimal disruption to existing
vegetation and natural features
4. Drainage plans for each lot that conform to the final drainage
plan and do not negatively impact adjacent properties
5. A 40 foot shoreland buffer strip
C. Deed covenants to prevent disruption of the shoreland buffer area.
D. The physical demarcation of the wetland boundary and shoreland buffer
area to avoid encroachment and disruption.
9. Outlot B south of the single family lots be redesignated as Outlot C.
10. A homeowners association for the proposed development be created. The
association shall include language regarding property, bridge and street
maintenance and shoreland buffer areas. The bylaws of such an association shall
be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.
11. Issues related to grading and drainage shall be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer.
12. Issues related to utilities shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the
City Engineer.
13. Park dedication shall be cash fees in lieu of land and should be paid in the amount
in effect at the time of final plat.
14. The applicant enter into a PDO development agreement with the City.
15. Permit requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District must be fulfilled.
16. Covenants or easements shall be put in place that would restrict landowner
activity in the shore impact zone and lake, as recommended by the MN Dept. of
Natural Resources.
17. A new preliminary plat drawing shall be submitted that is consistent with other
plan submittals.
11
JAN -04 -2002 12:58
TKDA
•
•
GINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS
651 292 0083 P.02/84
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA
444 CEDAR STREET
SAINT PAUL MINNESOTA 55101.2140
PHONE: 651 /292.4400 FAX: 651/252-0003
January 4, 2002
Mr. Jeff Smyser, City Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014
Re: Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
TKDA Commission No. 11985 -012
Dear Mr. Smyser:
Per the City's request, we have prepared a review of the PDO /preliminary plat submittal for the
referenced subdivision. We cannot recommend approval of the Pheasant Hills Preserve 121'
Addition preliminary plat at this time. Our review is based on the following submittals, all of
which have been prepared by Loucks Associates:
1. Submittal letter and attachments, dated September 10, 2001, and received by the City the
same day.
2. Street and Grading Plan (C5 -1) and Utility Plan (C4 -1), undated and unsigned, received by
the City December 28, 2001.
3. Preliminary Plat, undated and unsigned, received by the City on September 12, 2001.
4. Submittal letter and attachments, dated September 25, 2001, and received by the City the
following day.
5. Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control & Tree Preservation Plan (C3 -1), with a revision date of
September 26, 2001, unsigned, received by the City on December 28, 2001.
6. Submittal letter dated November 7, 2001, unsigned, submitted to the City at a City Council
Work Session by the developer on November 21, 2001. An original of this letter dated
November 20, 2001, was later submitted.
7. Site Layout (C2 -1), undated and unsigned, received by the City on December 28, 2001.
8. Submittal letter dated December 28, 2001, and received by the City the same day.
The following items must be addressed prior to preliminary plat approval:
1. The existing profile information on C5 -1 begins at 1+65; the proposed profile starts at 0+00.
The proposed elevation at 0 +00 is about 892.0 and the City's record information on Ruffed
Grouse Road indicates an elevation at this location of about 894.2, 2.2 feet higher than you
have proposed.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
•
1i
JAN -04 -2002 12:58
Mr. Jeff Smyser
City of Lino Lakes
January 4, 2002
Page 2
651 292 0083 P.03/04
2. The road improvements are shown as an extension of existing Ruffed Grouse Road but there
is no information showing how the new road connects to the existing road.
3. The profile elevations on C5 -1 are not defined, the reviewer is left to assume one is existing
grade and the other is proposed finished grade.
4. C3 -1 shows no lot grading information for Lots 1 -5 of Block 2. The lots generally drain to
the front and back but how drainage between houses is treated is not shown.
5. All lot and block numbers need to be shown on C3 -1, C4 -1, and C5 -1.
6. Additional detail is required on the proposed pond outlet structures.
7. No proposed street detail is shown. A 24 -foot wide street is proposed but it is not clear
whcther the dimension is between curb faces or to the back of same. The pavement section is
not shown. Special construction may be required depending on the soils. The presence of
catch basins implies an urban road section. A rural road section may be considered as part of
a PDO request. The proposed roadway slopes of 0.40% and 0.50% may not drain
effectively.
8. Section 302 of the City code sets out street standards. The road width of 24 -feet and the
additional cul -de -sac length of 1,300 feet are significantly out of compliance with these
standards. The most recent submittal letter indicates this is now to be a private rbad. As the
City no longer allows private roads, all of these items arc dependent upon granting of a PDO.
If a private road is allowed, a full cul -de -sac should be constructed at the north end of the
public portion of Ruffed Grouse Road.
We are also concerned about the impact the construction activity will have on existing
Ruffed Grouse Road; while this road is adequate to accommodate the additional trips
generated by eight lots
9. No soil borings have been submitted. These are necessary to evaluate both the stability of
the proposed roadway on the island and the bridge supports.
10. Construction staging should be described. The bridge is the only source of access that is
proposed.
11. The bridge design will be a major consideration. Options for connecting the island to the
existing roadway could include an earthen berm (if permitted by RCWD and DNR and with
significant mitigation), concrete beams, concrete slabs, or timber construction. It is my
understanding the applicant has stated the bridge will be constructed in the winter. If
accurate, this is likely to avoid constructing a temporary access to the bridge area which
would require fill in a wetland and the associated permits. If construction in the winter is a
condition of approval, it would have to be defined as frost depth; ice thickness, calendar
dates, or the like. The bridge sketch has piers drawn every 100 feet but indicate 50 -foot
JAN -04 -2002 12:58
Mr. Jeff Smyser
City of Lino Lakes
• January 4, 2002
Page 3
651 292 0083 P.04/04
spacing is typical. During any bridge construction, the existing houses must be protected
from excess vibration.
The most efficient and ecologically responsive design cannot be determined based on the
information provided. From a safety standpoint, no escape route has been provided to the
pedestrians on the bridge aside from going over the side into the water.
12. No preliminary lift station design information has been submitted.
13. C4-1 has incomplete and inconsistent profile information.
If you have any questions, please call me at 651 - 982 -2430.
Since y¢1
M. Pc&vell, RE.
Cyfy Engir{eer
C: M. Grochala, Director of Community Development
J. Smyser, City Planner
W. Hawkins, City Attorney, 2140 Fourth Avenue North, Anoka, MN 55303
TOTAL P.04
•
Environmental
Memo
To: Michael Grochala
From: Marty Asleson
CC: Jeff Smyser
Date: December 20, 2001
Re: Environmental Board Recommendations /December 19, 2001 /Pheasant Hills
Preserve 12th Addition
The Environmental Board, at the Environmental Board Meeting of December 19,
2001, made the following comments and recommendation concerning the proposed
development of Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition:
• The development proposal is in a Lake Protection Zone.
• The development proposal lies within a high ecological value zone, where no
development should occur according to the Lino Lakes Environmental Handbook
and the Shoreland Management Ordinance.
• The high ecological value zone in the Lino Lakes Environmental Management
Plan recommends a 200 -foot buffer in this area.
• The West End of the island is very sensitive to ground water contamination taking
hours to minutes for contaminants to reach the first layer of the aquifer.
• The storm pond on the West Side should be met with a high level of scrutiny.
Connie Grundhoffer made a motion to not recommend approval of the plan as
it is now presented. Teri O'Connell added that if the project moves forward, all
recommendations submitted by staff shall be followed, and that staff be
involved with Rice Creek Watershed District in dealing with future Storm Water
Management issues. Teri O'Connell Second the Motion.
•
•
All Approved.
Recommendations made by Staff:
• Redesign Surface Water plan. Use Barr Engineering BMP Manual. Reduce
hydraulic spiking in ponding situations. Use infiltration /ponding design in areas
where they would be effective and non - polluting
• Reduce Lots /or cluster Houses. Use rest of the island for Surface water
treatment including buffering.
• Move swale idea to South side of island. Incorporate rainpond idea into treatment
train along proposed road to flow water to the infiltration area on East End of the
Island.
• Produce tree inventory. Needed for planning.
• Replace Trees lost in areas of disturbance.
• Restore all areas disturbed for road /bridge and surface water treatment/infiltration
with native tree shrub and ground story vegetation. Materials replaced to be
determined by inventory, and species list specified by the City.
• Incorporate on -lot infiltration practices as described in Barr Engineering BMP
manual.
• Use BMP's for sequencing as described in the Barr Engineering BMP Manual.
Develop a management plan based on this manual. Plan should include
protection measures for trees, vegetation, swale and infiltration areas, and
erosion control measures.
• Submit a 5 -year management plan that uses the services of a company
experienced in native plant re- establishment. Show financial commitment for this
management.
• Initiate covenants with homeowner association for the protection of vegetation,
and the prohibiting of vegetation removal.
• Place areas of the island in land trust as an alternative to covenants.
• Develop an education program for new residents moving on the island. Brochure
information at the least should be developed describing vegetation management.
• Page 2
•
OF NAV F.\--
September 18, 2001
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 -6793
Telephone: (651) 772 -7910 Fax: (651) 772 -7977
Mr. Jeff Smyser, City Planner
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182
SEP20Zc:
CFFY OF LINO LE'
RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT/PDO, COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT, PHEASANT HILLS
PRESERVE 12TH ADDITION, WARDS LAKE (2 -10P), CITY OF LINO LAKES, ANOKA
CO.
Dear Mr. Smyser:
We have reviewed the site plans for the above - referenced proposal (NW 1/4 section 27, T31N-
R22W) and have the following comments to offer:
1. The island is in Wards Lake, a public water. DNR permit No. 2001 -6109 has been issued for
the bridge crossing and stormwater outfalls. Please do not interpret the issuance of a bridge
permit for support of the proposed development. Other wetlands on the site may be under
local or federal regulatory jurisdiction.
2. The site is within the shoreland district of Wards Lake and is subject to City shoreland
ordinances and regulations. It is listed in the City's shoreland controls as a Natural
Environment basin and has a structure setback requirement of 150 feet, and a Shore Impact
Zone of 75 feet. It appears that the entire island will be graded to some extent, leaving no
original vegetation. Due to the width of the island, no structure will be able to meet the
required setbacks. The variances needed to proceed with this project are considerable.
3. The development of the island will increase the percentage of impervious surface. We
recommend that the runoff volumes and rates be held to their pre - development levels through
appropriate landscaping, minimizing impervious surface, and adequate ponding.
4. During the review process of DNR permit No. 2001 -6109, there was considerable concern
over the development of the island, specifically the additional work in the wetland that often
follows when houses are built adjacent to wetland. We anticipate that landowners will want
to excavate in the wetland to have open water close to their houses, and avoid planting
vegetation that will block the view of the lake. If approved, we ask that covenants or
easements be put in place that would restrict landowner activity in the Shore Impact Zone
and Lake.
DNR Information: 651- 296 -6157 • 1- 888 - 646 -6367 • TTY: 651- 296 -5484 • 1- 800 -657 -3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
A' Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
1r Minimum of 20% Post - Consumer Waste
• Jeff Smyser
September 18, 2001
Page 2
5. Considering the proposed grading of the entire island, the loss of virtually all vegetation on
the island during grading, the disturbance of the entire Shore Impact Zone, the location of the
proposed road entirely in the Shore Impact Zone, the failure of all structures to meet the 150
foot required setback, it is hard to see how the proposal is consistent with the intent of the
City's Shoreland Management Overlay Ordinance, or the Statewide Standards for
Management of Shoreland Areas. We do not support the granting of a variance for decreased
setbacks as proposed.
6. It appears that the island may be unbuildable considering current zoning. If the City decides
somehow that the island can be built on, it may be beneficial to reduce the number of units,
"custom" grade the individual building sites to reduce soil disturbance and vegetation loss,
minimize the length and width of the road, and minimize impact to the Shore Impact Zone.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please feel free to call me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
• Tom Hovey
Area Hydrologist
•
CENTERVILLE
LAKE
6V5. 64f
AUp
RESHANAU
LAKE
CITY OF CEN
CITY OF LIN,
FS
0,„ R iP9Q OW a L_
E,1111- 1;a4:611 RPM
SHADED AREA DENOTES
PARK LOCATION
A I al.= II Om,A
MAP
w a
OF
• m, • w • Ift • dia 11•1■1 4111
IT
CENTERVILLE
LAKE
LAKE
It:f
t';,...VO4,1011■11[674Fre
-1141,
latc7ifittoo
,414
wolt036641
1--st 'ft fL.,0
zatt rtit)-
inti. 40 *44
men EMEN.zompn
1-2744,Z9919dIE
.iibUSLIT,
ral , ,..
r-31 AT& ff relltini rig
111 ii-410 t.., ,E: al RI EL31 : yr
2.....,V 14r2 IgallTX , Ell
We W"414.11g r KID 01 a
0044014
el) fiekle-o' - ftn. 1.r
. • gsamp,VAlik„
ousiihnnitai
t ll5
•
•
J
Edge Of Wetland
NOTE:
BRIDGE LENGTH TO 300'±
BRIDGE TO BE TYPE 54M PRESTR
BEAM W/45 " -54" DEPTH BEAMS, 9"
S. Line Of N. 1100 Ft. Of Outlot D, PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE --,N
589 42'27"W 1303.55
131,880 S
P
D CONCRETE
LAB DECK
O
AS SHOWN ON PLAT OF
— PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE
TREE PRESERVATION
AREA EASEMENT
58922'451W 723.90
S. Line Of N. 1100 Ft. Of Outlot D, PHI
619
162
75
Outlot A OU
50' („P.)
CITY OF
I IXN SOTA
PHEASANT HILLS
PRESERVE
12TH ADDITION
061=6•160=
ID YADOea
use
Pbemast NM Drive
>d a 06046
BELLY
1112-21 113-312
I 8102 I 6222
QU
r�
IAI
I
N8941:31 1E 1_ 5' 3 %.`'>`
2 I �t
/ ■
- -\ \\ / 12 /
\ '
/ I • -.
,, ,' (� /
,, ,�_\ fj�e • .
/ / / • �' \ 1 '
8 /
%.
.\ I
/ 7 ` \ /
13
,, .
I L ;
\ ,_.
//
6 \
/
/
\'
I
S.\ I
7 4 y
/
/
6R I\D G E
\--
c2 \ 5
tfl \ /
rLu
tn
166
WETLAND EDGE
zras
OUTLOT A
Edge Of Wetlandm••61(
LPN
—4
_LIMO,
.PUN
MAR S. •
— • — S.
I I.+r..46 rl r ex, ...46.64. or ow
rIp.r b r mar ." Ow! age idm r NM
IYr n,.r,rrl I•4•• iwr r 1•
Pod C...
I•••• Ir .NP
OHW 883.7±
RECIENED
13E° 2 8 2001
CrTY OF LINO LNKES
NORTH
D 60 120
SCALE IN FEET
•R MUCH
Moan •..■rr MOIR
'
•••
Loucks
ASSOCIATES
6644.414 • /04.164
s•• rrr r^w I
• r la bp r.r.••
SITE LAYOUT
WWI
C2 -1
n
4' RIPRAP BEDDING
1'
SEC. B -B
RIPRAP • THICK
FILTER FABRIC
B
SPAN
PLAN
PPIIPE EAR H D FOR
E 1' RIPRAP
S. Line Of N. 1100 tlot 0, PHEASANT HILLS PRESERVE --`,
5D
I-D► B
L O TOTM M COWAN A
WoW MAN VLOW APP
At LS W AWL
L ATTACH M RAT fine
TO M WE TDOM
OWE IT TO llen
14e1
RIPRAP AT OUTLETS
L WW1 WOW MOM R
TIM ION&
A 141[1 =.M aver
CONSTRUCTION OF A SILT FENCE
SILT FENCE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
L 101400/ -ALT MO WILL IC WNW= 11OATL.T 2410 GOI LLIAIL
M AT LNR IOW MOM MOM WNW. M m WNW WILL
W NNW 1.OAALT.
t O{AOPOT - Ili ML It MUM ATILT AO R 11*/* 0 06
10/001* OW At WIO1 • 0 41* l®tLT.
L Ham WINK - aaa n l WI L/ w 0010 NW. TAO 3101 MIT.
Amt LI T W awo WOO MOM m1 TTTYLrmT:rrs At WNW a
4V-
T FFNCF
Winn
EMERGENCY
OVERFLOW
LT AO
POND I
NWL•888.O
HVL -8886 100YEAR STORM
HWL -8881 1YEAR STORM
I. ^-'f 272 n
T4*f• ANININf• -
172 afT'a
flNINr- T711WW1-T-1•
nwe :Tum e :
PMIE : TIM T:_ r*
BOW
L All IMINCAO .TL TO N fA
IWO WAVAIm WWI
WWWWWI M Fw10 LAO
L 424[1[ rltCIS A w
T,WIWOMM M A®T2110
paw OUlI ET DETAL
100 PPHOT LIED E
Ilt
.Liar
10.
ANA al HALM M t'r r hr.
AA,II w 'MOOR CA-I 24 CA-2 2424. q/g10•
W N1 a w wTt w■
�`
MU the 2.2w
i 31,880 S
L
RTLrfr WILL
GRADING /EROSION CONTROL NOTES
.1M.. .L1.
I. NEE 300. DIRECTORS ,.,ORS NIl/ FO.LOG OCCUR WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT- CF -VAY. TIE
1AOIFOI MATERIAL SHALL E COrACTED TO 35X OF TIE STANDARD NOISILRE TENSITY
RELATDMHOP OF SOILS TASTN D- 191-70 EXCEPT THE TOP TWEE FEET CF) CF THE DOCK-
FILL WHICH SHALL E COMPACTED TO 100X DENSITY. M INDEPENDENT TESTING FINN SHALL
TEST TIE STREET SWIM DH FILL AREAS AND P1WOE TEE REALTS OF THESE TESTS TO
TIE CITY, OGDEOt AND THE CLIENT.
2. THE CO(TRACTOT HALL DISTA-L SET MICE PRIER TO COMQICDG UTADDHG ACTIVITIES
AND MALL NAOnAIN SAID FENCE FOP TIE ORATION OF COISTRLETION ACTIVITIES.
1 TIE ONTRACTCR SHALL LDOT IDS ACTIVITIES TO TIE GRADING LIMITS RONI IN THE
DOSING PLAN. ALL WfTRUCTION ACTIVITIES HALL DIMPLY WITH THE LO A& C ODINIC .
4. TIE InITRACT= SHALL =TALL DEN FUCE, AS DIRECTED NY TIE ENGINEER. TO PROTECT
TEE ROOTS.
0. THE COITRACTO! MALL IOEALE 142 O :RATHOIS TO =DOE DE DISTUt=ED AREA AT
ANY GIVEN TD6
A. ALL =M ED NON -SIEET AREAS SHALL E REVERED WITH A 114141* OF 4• TIP SOIL
M41 SEED OR SOD AS DOMED NY TIE OCOEE'S. V1T01 72 TORS OL COMPLETION E
THE ODADDG ACTIVITY DH THAT PERTDIAAR AREA
A. ALL SEED, SOD, NLCH AND FERTILIZER SHALL OMAN WITHI THE FOIDVDG
I01/IOT SPEW/CATIONS, AS N®ffED SELDIA
ITDP SPECIFICATION RIDER
S 3170
SEED WA
FERTILIZER UDC ANDOiED) 301E
FERTDJL A 4111
GEIEML PLATDENf 2577
D. SOD HALL K PLACED MOO CURS DOEADIATELY FOIAVDG TIE 1A0e 0l 00
WRIER CITY STREET MI UTILITY PROJECT.
C. TIE SEED NOME STALL CORIST OF A RI/DOT TYPE 500 OLDS NOTED ELSE-
WHERE IM TIE PLAN.
7. FE.LOVDPG STREET ODISTRUCTICK TIE DEVFLQQ SHALL CL.EM TIE STREETS ON M OP-
GONG DAIS AS REQUIRED FP TIE CITY.
6
UNLESS ODO /ISE POTED. THE SILTATIDI PODS ME TOPIFMY, NO SHALL E REMOVED
NO RESUMED TO TIE OtGD4AL =TOUR NY THE DEWED:PER FU. DVDG TIE PERTINENT
ESTAAIAIENT OF TURF ON 750 OF THE T A11Ni MCA TIE PODS AND POD OUTLETS
SHALL E COISTRETED UNDER TIE OIAD2G CORRACT.
9. RIP -RAP AIN.L K PLACED AT ALL STON SEVER OUTLETS UNDER THE UTILITY CONTRACT
M0 SHALL COME WITH APPLIC/11LE CITY ADO WATERSHED DISTRICT STANDARDS AND
SPECIFICATIONS.
10. VERTICAL tRADOG TOLERANCE HALL K WITHIN D2 FEET IF TIE CITY APPROVED
GRADING PLAN
111E PIRVA710N MU;
Edge Of Wetland --''--
OHW 883.7±
LOT GRACUIS
MOM FOR EACH HOUSE
EMERGENCY
OVERFLOW
MAE
RUNNING LA1L
POND 2
NVL=883.5
HVLa887b 100YEAR STORM
HWL=883.871YEAR STORM
NORTH
AO 120
SCALE IN
i4 . w
way ME Ra
MIA. w. • ■••2410
CATCH BASH SILT PROTECTION BAL
CITY Of
MOM
PHEASANT HILLS
12TH ADDITION
A!r ®�
ND TA AN
1400 PL1wLL Hml Orlw
lir LMw. 101 00400
Feu
Ni~-NS , NW -NT
DEC 28 1 SEC 27 I
<
S.
ra
044
w-A
ne TArw
Aw W MEIN
WANT MA
MAW • MANN WM
1 A..T A.Iy rat w AWL awATwr or repot wt
0 to OWN M ..A•1a
Pad C. W
W
L••• w 4124
s ILr AAwra..A
r.a.rY rr...r
A...r r r r .rrr wr
, �aT.y�
Sal AA... taw. fa 1..ri. Ar r lrM.
OUR fMa
Ir1aT nLMTIWI6 BOWS
111
t0LICKS
ASSOCIATES
Maass • tw Liss* • W `WART
2Wa4r • Masao
••• NOW." wow LM
Mow Mira ••••••••
1x24 MI. WW2..
GRADING, DRAINAGE,
EROSION CONTROL &
TRBB PRESERVATION
PLAN
911331
C3-1
$89'42'27'W 1303.55
• Of Wetland
_ .___ _ ._._ ✓ '+� 1
• I 1 31,880 S / %� _ '"` 1.: RUNE MU.
/ J �/� mien
N8941'31 E i.c� 53 ``.
i �,
2 13 ; `,,
- - - --- -- 12 / /
\ \• •C `N
5 = =' R 11
58922'45'W 723.90
WETLAND
8 / / 10 ;
/ \ i /
\ / ,;
, 7 \ \, ,
\ �; �--_
UI�A 1 L,' 9
I \ ■
i
21 5 SPAN/ 21,799 SF � /r- - - -1
1101;x` n. !COI' :. / ; �. ! 122 ,348-"Scl
7,
\ ` , it, = oo r.I 1 r /
"; % �,'��2 897 SFr /
.� — s1
NORTH
0 00 1-420
SCALE IN FEET
1..
fa/ Pala
Edge Of Wetland
faTiaNIO
GM WAN
•
WRONG MIL
NNO
$ : $
i IX °.ccmzei
P ee
9.CI
EniatIG GRO( D
.- 4444.:
kite AVA
FROM- 1111086 "
1a 114
.2.00
.ae.p..; 4444 .........
, PROPOSEQ 'CRAM
'01.04r C
Ir{ -3 .11+25.:C1).
: in 879.110 ;
emINI muniummingem
,4444
.880
•
•
:••
•.:
war
• 1 �iA. .�,. 4444
x.89.0
ct c
•
•
. IS aeL18
Cif .04P tik
.011
••0:411
880
•n
0°
-87.
O+QQ 1 +00 � +QQ j -00 4 +90
:
5+QQ 91-00
7 +QQ
8 +99
9 +90 19�QQ 11 +Q0 12 +Q0
13 +40
CITY OF
WINO
PHEASANT VE' HILLS
PRESER
127H A001710N
talsimas
m..0®.N
1422 Plmea•c ®. Why
Um Lam. 121 NON
1
1 1
tee! 1
1 1 I
111—Nr
SIC 27
%/17 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / i % ///
111111
•
• /,,j
w
w
1_1R
•w° =MI •
tam PIM
M • MI■ 11.E
w1 �r rr rrr
��.r.rrr mrrrr
1Pw+. —+., •.I w MR..arr.Awt w•
y r . war ay fool .ww�rr r IN
primal ••,,ll..1-!•.r w.11m1wa 6enow r w. 1r
M 1r iY1. .1 lrrla
A, G...
Orir
Lima*
0
.. WT W.IYI =MR
M •O•
LOuC Ks
ASSOCIATES
1 1 • 12.1 Wm.* • W 1•g/se
Wimp ,.,,,,s • il•Yl••rY •
III *aka Ws, Ms Illowelk Monk
UTILITY PLAN
mama
0113&
C4-1
.5ow •< </ W I.nhJ.:xi
•Ofld -_,,
i 31,880 S
W
.iM.D .ILL
OM i,wis
I N8941'311'E --' +1 '.��
I 'N. >.
wwra
1 2 I 13 ;' \
1 `
F_ -- — \ \\\ 12
1 ,/ \ • \. : ' %'�.
5 ` 4 `. % 11
�`d \\ �' 10 �• � 1 �,,� 8 i ` \ i / \�
,� �' 7 /' \ i i ' \‘
U ; A I L;' \\ \ 9 1
6 \ 1
5
ci
i qc
it 0
3 _
B W~
2
C3
44. 141
.44
8.90
8.8.0
25,891 SF
NORTH
0 60 120
rimr.L. SCALE IN FEET
Nse....ob:a.
lMR.►.a1M
wm.wa
. WOW wW
• M
�wr
AAide li i-.
•
•
•
Edge Of Wetland
RECEIVED
DEC 282001
•
•
•
»▪ PROPDSED:GRADE •
�I 10511•
a bNG GROUND'
E8.4
�:. 591.90
Ca
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,C.MG.a .
•
•
•
•
•
•
4t4Q 1 +00
F.Z.. 35
IRV 885.x..
CO
• 1W
Rr:evaaa • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I I!. I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11:: r: :
2-t-4Q *QQ
4+00
4tQQ Q+04 7 +00 8 +00
9100
10 +00 11 +00
12tDQ 13 +00
890
880
87
CITY OP
MOW
MIWNSSOTA
PHEASANT PRESERVE
12TH ADDITION
DIIIMARINGOD
ND ..DO.tll
tae noel i Drive
Um Lm. to MID
; NW-NW
S ;
2 1 WIC I
Ilia
CCM
_,.O.
9M° mss:.
any D..
MEW •.r -
Pi=m
e.�/r•� �1 • � Ywir ^rr •r r ��
Ii wily er K -• a ea1 �lI w
Iwe yI flt1 r� &Or •rr sr
AIM C. MOM
Yrr r tlSD
SCAM 1111111111
M ORO
Lou :I\s
ASSOCIATES
• adD mbl • I-
� . •
VII Wilt r M. D..wr D•.
16111.. MENU MI 022211413
STREET & GRADING
PLAN
C5-1
6
•
AGENDA ITEM VI C
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
P & Z MEETING DATE: January 9, 2002
TOPIC: Election of P & Z Representatives To The
Development Regulations Task Force
BACKGROUND
The new comprehensive plan establishes a number of new policies. In order to
implement the comprehensive plan, the City needs to amend its official controls. This
primarily means the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance. In order to
complete these amendments efficiently, a task force is being assembled.
The task force will not be revising the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the task force
is to amend the ordinances to implement the comprehensive plan.
The task force will consist of two members each from the Planning & Zoning Board, the
Environmental Board, and the Economic Development Advisory Committee. City
Councilmember Jeff O'Donnell will chair the task force. The task force will meet once a
month. The task force will consider a new subdivision ordinance first, then the zoning
ordinance. There will be some overlap between the two ordinances, however.
We have arranged to have Government Training Service conduct a special workshop at
Lino Lakes City Hall. The workshop will cover the fundamentals of land use planning
and regulation. Task force members must attend this workshop. This is set for Saturday,
January 26, 2002. It will be an all -day workshop.
Staff and our consultant will distribute a draft section of the new ordinance at each
meeting. That draft will be the subject of discussion for the following meeting. This will
give the task force a month to review each ordinance section. The attached schedule lists
the meeting dates and topics.
When all pieces of the ordinance have been reviewed by the task force, we will bring the
entire ordinance to each board for discussion. The P & Z will hold a public hearing.
Then it will go to the City Council for a first and second reading.
RECOMMENDATION
Elect two P & Z members to serve on the Development Regulations Task Force.
•
•
•
1
January 31,
2002
DRAFT
Ordinance Review Schedule
Draft
Introduction
Schedule
Work Plan
Ground Rules
2
February 21
2002
(Tentative)
Subdivision Ordinance:
Growth Management
Phasing
MUSA Allocation
Premature Subdivisions
March, 2002
3
March 21,
2002
(Tentative)
Subdivision Ordinance:
1. Conservation Subdivision
Principles
Design Strategies
Approval Process
April, 2002
4
April 25,
2002
(Tentative)
Subdivision Ordinance:
1. Design Elements (not inclusive):
Greenway Protection
Stormwater Management
Landscaping/Tree Pres.
Zoning Ordinance:
1. General Provisions (not inclusive)
Greenway Protection
Stormwater Management
Landscaping/Tree Pres.
May, 2002
5
May 23, 2002
(Tentative)
Subdivision Ordinance:
1. Design Elements (not inclusive)
Lot Configuration
Street Access Management
CEPTED Standards
Traffic Analysis Standards
Zoning Ordinance:
1. General Provisions (not inclusive)
Parking
Lighting
Building Materials
June, 2002
Ordinance Review Schedule 1 01/02/02
Draft
DRAFT
cI
ess Rev1ewMeetia
6
June 20, 2002
(Tentative)
Subdivision Ordinance:
1. Administration
Review Process
Submittal Requirements
2. Wrap -up
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Residential District Standards
Rural Zoning Districts
Low Density Residential Districts
July, 2002
7
July 18, 2002
(Tentative)
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Residential District Standards
Low Density Residential Districts
Medium & High Density Districts
August, 2002
8
August 22,
2002
(Tentative)
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Commercial District Standards
2. Industrial District Standards
September,
2002
ea 'o Subdivisiork
ce l eprea
e
9
September 19,
2002
(Tentative)
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Planned Unit Developments
Residential
Mixed Use
Commercial/Industrial
October,
2002
10
October 24,
2002
(Tentative)
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Overlay District Standards
Public & Semi - Public
Rural- Business Reserve
Airport
November,
2002
11
November 21,
2002
(Tentative)
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Administration
Review Process
Submittal Requirements
2. Wrap -up
November,
2002
Ordinance Review Schedule
Draft
2
01/02/02
•
•
AGENDA ITEM VI C
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
P & Z MEETING DATE: January 9, 2002
TOPIC: Election of P & Z Representatives To The
Development Regulations Task Force
BACKGROUND
The new comprehensive plan establishes a number of new policies. In order to
implement the comprehensive plan, the City needs to amend its official controls. This
primarily means the subdivision ordinance and the zoning ordinance. In order to
complete these amendments efficiently, a task force is being assembled.
The task force will not be revising the comprehensive plan. The purpose of the task force
is to amend the ordinances to implement the comprehensive plan.
The task force will consist of two members each from the Planning & Zoning Board, the
Environmental Board, and the Economic Development Advisory Committee. City
Councilmember Jeff O'Donnell will chair the task force. The task force will meet once a
month. The task force will consider a new subdivision ordinance first, then the zoning
ordinance. There will be some overlap between the two ordinances, however.
We have arranged to have Government Training Service conduct a special workshop at
Lino Lakes City Hall. The workshop will cover the fundamentals of land use planning
and regulation. Task force members must attend this workshop. This is set for Saturday,
January 26, 2002. It will be an all -day workshop.
Staff and our consultant will distribute a draft section of the new ordinance at each
meeting. That draft will be the subject of discussion for the following meeting. This will
give the task force a month to review each ordinance section. The attached schedule lists
the meeting dates and topics.
When all pieces of the ordinance have been reviewed by the task force, we will bring the
entire ordinance to each board for discussion. The P & Z will hold a public hearing.
Then it will go to the City Council for a first and second reading.
RECOMMENDATION
Elect two P & Z members to serve on the Development Regulations Task Force.
•
•
DRAFT
Ordinance Review Schedule
Draft
•
eF � �
Introduction
Schedule
Work Plan
Ground Rules
N
1
January 31,
2002
2
February 21
2002
(Tentative)
Subdivision Ordinance:
March, 2002
Growth Management
Phasing
MUSA Allocation
Premature Subdivisions
3
March 21,
2002
(Tentative)
Subdivision Ordinance:
April, 2002
1. Conservation Subdivision
Principles
Design Strategies
Approval Process
$.FSY sY cil Pr r 4e40R°.A.i.m'�,C';`^` -P MaH
4
April 25,
2002
(Tentative)
Subdivision Ordinance:
May, 2002
1. Design Elements (not inclusive):
Greenway Protection
Stormwater Management
Landscaping/Tree Pres.
Zoning Ordinance:
1. General Provisions (not inclusive)
Greenway Protection
Stormwater Management
Landscaping/Tree Pres.
5
May 23, 2002
(Tentative)
Subdivision Ordinance:
June, 2002
1. Design Elements (not inclusive)
Lot Configuration
Street Access Management
CEPTED Standards
Traffic Analysis Standards
Zoning Ordinance:
1. General Provisions (not inclusive)
Parking
Lighting
Building Materials
Ordinance Review Schedule
Draft
1
01/02/02
•
•
DRAFT
6
June 20, 2002
(Tentative)
Subdivision Ordinance:
1. Administration
Review Process
Submittal Requirements
2. Wrap -up
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Residential District Standards
Rural Zoning Districts
Low Density Residential Districts
July, 2002
7
8
9
July 18, 2002
(Tentative)
10
August 22,
2002
(Tentative)
11
September 19,
2002
(Tentative)
October 24,
2002
(Tentative)
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Residential District Standards
Low Density Residential Districts
Medium & Hi :h Densit Districts
November 21,
2002
(Tentative)
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Commercial District Standards
2. Industrial District Standards
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Planned Unit Developments
Residential
Mixed Use
Commercial/Industrial
August, 2002
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Overlay District Standards
Public & Semi- Public
Rural- Business Reserve
• • 'ort
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Administration
Review Process
Submittal Requirements
2. Wra9 -us
September,
2002
October,
2002
November,
2002
November,
2002
Ordinance Review Schedule
Draft
2
01/02/02
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM VII A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
P & Z MEETING DATE: January 9, 2002
TOPIC: Liaison to EDAC
BACKGROUND
In the past, P & Z has appointed a liaison to the Economic Development Advisory
Committee (EDAC). There is no requirement to do so, but EDAC has requested the P &
Z do so. Please see the attached memo from Mary Divine, our Economic Development
Assistant.
RECOMMENDATION
Elect a liaison to EDAC.
•
•
Memorandum
To: Jeff Symser
From: Mary Divine
Date: 1/03/02
Re: P &Z Liaison to EDAC
cc: Michael Grochala
At the January 3, 2002 Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) meeting,
members requested that the Planning & Zoning Board appoint a liaison to attend 2002
EDAC meetings. The purpose of a liaison is to periodically inform EDAC about P &Z
issues, and to keep P &Z informed about economic development issues. Rob Rafferty
served as liaison in 2001.
EDAC meets at 7 a.m. on the first Thursday of the month in the community room. It is
not a requirement that P &Z appoint a liaison, but it has been the practice for a number of
years. If members wish to continue this practice, please ask them to appoint a liaison for
this year.
Thank you.
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2001
Page 1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
DATE ' • November 14
TIME STARTED : 6:31 P.M.
TIME ENDED : 7:14 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT : Corson, Hyden, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty (arrived a
6:57 p.m.), Schaps, and Zych
MEMBERS ABSENT • None.
STAFF PRESENT!
ity Engineer Powell, City Planner Smyser
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
II.
The agenda was approved.
III. APPROVAL OF M
Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Plan ' Zom Board meeting to order at 6:30
p.m., November 14, 2001.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
OCTOBER 10, 2001
Ms. Lane made a MO
the Lino Lake
carried 5 -0.
N to approve the minutes of the October 10, 2001, meeting of
Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:32 p.m.
No one was present for open mike.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:32 p.m., and was supported by
Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0.
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. William Morton, 7930 Lake Drive, Minor Subdivision
Staff presented the application by William Morton for a Minor Subdivision.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2001
Page 2
Staff reviewed that Mr. Willard Morton's firm, SSR & W Development, LLC, owned
property in Lino Lakes. The SSR & W property includes 80+ acres in Section 9. The
application is to split off 11 acres from an existing 40 -acres parcel, and combine the new
11 -acre piece with a one -acre strip that connects to Main St. SSR & W would then sell
the new lot to allow for a new home site. Staff understood that Mr. Brad Racutt wanted
to buy the property and build a new home.
Staff explained the application raised numerous important issues regarding
implementation of the long -range plan for the City, as represented in the 2001
comprehensive plan.
Staff presented its analysis by explaining the comprehensive plan guided the site for low
density sewered residential development. It was in a stage 2 area, so utilities would not
be available until after year 2010. It was important to protect t ange plan by
ensuring the ability to serve future development with approp
road access and circulation as well as utilities.
Staff stated there was a conceptual greenway indica
Greenways were conceptual because creating them
actually purchasing the land, the City must de
submitted. The long -range plan for a road in the a
need to consider the potential for presery
With respect to zoning, staff explai ! t
of 10 acres with a minimum of
Staff stated the park dedic
Staff explained the
frontage on a publ'
prevent flag lots and p
including adeq lice
s. This included
f the area.
ity based: Short of
e development proposals
uld, at the appropriate time,
s zoned Rural, with a minimum lot size
e proposal met the lot size requirements.
5 for each lot created by a subdivision.
on ordinance required all lots to have their full
cate•'treet (Sec. 1001.08 Subd. 6(1)). The intent was to
de for safe, efficient access and circulation within the City,
d fire department access.
In past discussio regarding this application, City staff had suggested a means to address
this requirement. taff recommended creating a road easement along the eastern edge of
the property, including the one -acre strip leading to Main Street. The applicant took a
different approach by proposing a road easement along the southern portion of the
property. Access to the property would be from Main Street.
With respect to transportation, staff explained the City required that all new lots have the
full frontage on a public road. City staff recommended creating a road easement along
the eastern edge of the property, including the one -acre strip leading to Main Street. This
would provide frontage on a public road right of way, though there would be no need to
actually construct the road now.
Recommendations for Planning District 3 from the 2001 Comprehensive Plan included
investigating the possibility of an easterly connection to Main Street. The Transportation
Plan recommended this connection in the vicinity of the eastern end of Oak Lane and
West Rondeau Lake Rd.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2001
Page 3
Staff stated an access management study was prepared for Main Street by Anoka County
and participating cities including Lino Lakes. The study, completed in 1999,
recommended a full access intersection at West Rondeau Lake Rd. Because W. Rondeau
Lake Rd. already existed, this was a logical location.
Staff indicated the Metropolitan Council also required the City to preserve right of way to
accommodate future development. The road easement dedication recommended by staff
along the east edge of the site best responded to this requirement.
The proposal submitted by SSR & W was to dedicate additional right of way for Dupont
Ave. along the southern edge of the property. This road would not be constructed. The
prospective buyer of the new 11 -acre lot would use the one -acre strip for access to Main
Street. However, staff stated there were several problems with •osal.
Currently, both Dupont Ave. and Duffee Drive are 1/2 righ
ran along the southern edge of the site. Duffee Drive
corner of the site. The proposed additional easeme
Lane. There was no connection to Main Street.
Currently, an electric power transmission line eas
alignment: the location for the road eas
very difficult to convert this location to
In contrast, Oak Lane was a ful
freeway. The option recommen
connection.
Staff explained muc
t. wide). Dupont
e southeastern
along Dupont to Lois
ollows the Dupont Ave.
posed 3y the applicant. It would be
y now except 200 feet just west of the
ould use this to plan the future Main Street
the area was wetland. Construction of the future road
connection would '` etl,d impacts regardless of the alignment.
With respect t• =., st °' stated access to future development was an important issue.
Another import ss was the current access situation for the adjacent landowner. The
property at 1196 ' ain Street currently accessed Main Street via a driveway in the one -
acre piece. The c 3 rrent residents there, Steve Martichuski and Kathy Matzke, had
explained to staff that it was their understanding that a public road was to be constructed
there. They indicated to staff that the deed to their property referred to a road easement.
For that reason, they oriented their garage to the east, with their driveway connecting to
the long driveway that runs to Main Street.
Staff indicated the fact that the one -acre piece was 60 feet wide indicated that, sometime
in the past, someone planned the strip for a road. However, staff had no information
indicating that the City had any rights or ownership in the property now.
Staff explained if the City was to implement its long range plan, as represented in the
2001 comprehensive plan, it must recognize opportunities to put together the individual
pieces. The 2001 comprehensive plan, the transportation plan, which was a key element,
and the 1999 access management plan all point to providing for a future road connection.
This would provide safe access and circulation for existing properties and for future
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2001
Page 4
development, if it occurs. The subdivision ordinance supports this by prohibiting the
• creation of flag lots.
•
•
Staff indicated access to the new lot would be from Main Street. As long as this was the
access intended by both the City and the applicant, it was reasonable to make the access a
public right of way that accomplishes a number of public purposes. In addition, it
provided continued access to the adjacent property.
Staff stated approval of the application as submitted was to forego an opportunity for
implementation of the City's long -range plan.
Staff recommended that the minor subdivision be approved only if a road easement was
dedicated to the City that included the one -acre piece and the eastern 66 feet of the larger
11 -acre portion.
Staff stated the two conditions of approval would be a roa as 11 be dedicated
to the City that includes the one -acre piece and the east 6 eef e larger 11 -acre
portion, and the park dedication was $1,665.00.
Staff recommended approving the minor subdii
Mr. Corson inquired about the wetland b
wetland. Mr. Smyser replied that was c
where they were delineated. Howe
requirement.
on kith t conditions as listed.
s. He asked if the lot would be crossing
wetlands existed, but he was not sure
nough there to meet the minimum
Mr. Lyden asked if there y homeowners that would face the other side of
the road. Mr. Smyser re
t curntly there would not be.
Mr. Lyden asked�, a ` the '_,_ ffy right of way like. Mr. Smyser replied it was a half
right -of -way t at exist -n caper. There was no road at this time.
Mr. Lyden inqu`a t the possibility of a 66' easement on the north, with a 33'
easement on the +uthern portion, and connecting the road at some point in the future.
Mr. Smyser repli that had not been looked at, but he did not believe there would be any
problem with that proposal and this would be something that staff would need to look
into.
Mr. Lyden expressed concern regarding the burdens and benefits being shared and
everything tying into the comprehensive plan. The 33' easement would require the other
property owner to share the burden of the road by giving the other 1/2 of right of way.
Mr. Rafferty arrived at 6:57 p.m.
Brad Racutt, 998 Lois Lane, stated he had met with all of the neighbors and discussed
this proposal. He indicated the neighbors would like to see a fence put up. He indicated
they had met all of the requirements and had given access to the people who had the
larger lots. He stated the proposed Oak Lane addition that was proposed tonight, he had
not known about until this meeting.
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2001
Page 5
Ms. Lane asked if he would prefer the 33 -foot easement, instead of the 66 -foot easement.
Mr. Racutt replied he would like a private drive and the neighbors to the east (1196 Main
St.) wanted their own driveway.
Mr. Powell stated when he had spoken with that property owner, they were concerned
about having to put a new driveway out to Main Street and the driveway they had been
using over the years would be blocked off.
Chair Schaps asked how would the neighbors get out of their property if they were
landlocked. Mr. Smyser replied that was a concern the neighbors had that they would not
be able to get out onto Main Street.
Chair Schaps stated it appeared this needed further work. Mr. tated with the 66-
foot dedication and 33 -foot dedication was acceptable.
Mr. Corson stated it appeared the issue was a 33 -foot o 6- t e ent. Mr. Smyser
replied that was correct.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the r est : Will d Morton, 7930 Lake
Drive, Minor Subdivision, subject to the followin:= tions:
1. A road easement shall be dedicated the Ciy that includes the 66' x 597' northern
parcel and the eastern 33 feet o fie here 1 -acre portion.
2. Park dedication of $1,665
The motion was support a 's. L
Motion carried 6-
VI. DISCUSSIO
A. Lighting t Shirley Kaye's
Staff explained since the re- opening of Shirley Kayes, the Police Department had noted
that the parking lot was very dark. There was no exterior lighting proposed except
fixtures on the building.
Staff stated that during the review of the project, there was concern about bright lights on
the lake. Since there were only the building fixtures, there was not a problem.
Staff explained during construction, a contractor called to ask what kind of lights would
be allowed in the parking lot. Since no lighting was proposed or reviewed, and there was
concern about lights on the lake, staff said there was to be no lighting in the lot.
Staff stated the question of safety arose from the dark parking lot. The Environmental
Board discussed this and recommended that if lighting was added, the City ensured it
shined down and doesn't bleed onto neighboring properties or the lake.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
November 14, 2001
Page 6
Staff indicated they would like to discuss lighting with the owners of Shirley Kaye's
without the need for a full site plan review and if the Planning & Zoning Board and City
Council had no objection, they would proceed with this proposal.
Mr. Corson asked if the owners had run wiring under the parking lot for future lighting.
Mr. Smyser replied he did not know the answer to this. This would be something they
would have to work with the owners on.
Mr. Corson expressed concern that this would be an additional cost to the owner.
Mr. Lyden stated he believed the owner would be cooperative with this proposal
considering the liability they were exposed to. He requested any lighting not be directed
toward the lake, but toward Lake Drive. Mr. Smyser replied st.. °_ d need to look at
the best way to deal with the lighting issue.
Chair Schaps suggested some type of ornamental lighti
to addressing the problem without requiring a new s
VII. ADJOURNMENT
ad no objections
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjou e ing at 7:14 p.m., and was supported by
Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Altman, Recordin
TimeSaver Off Site S