Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/2002 P&Z Packet• • AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Wednesday, February 13, 2002 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 9, 2002 V. OPEN MIKE VI. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING: Lino Lakes Marketplace 2nd Addition, Preliminary Plat, Mike Grochala B. TCF Bank, Marketplace, Site Plan Review, Mike Grochala VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Growth Update, Jeff Smyser VIII. ADJOURN • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES c aps;' I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and . 'ng Board meeting to order at 6:34 p.m., January 9, 2002. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps requested addi o letions to this evening's agenda. Hearing none, the agenda was approved as III. ELECTION OF OFFICE Chair Schaps requested a motion for the nomination of a Chair for the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board for 2002. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to elect Jamie Schaps as Chair of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board for 2002, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Schaps requested a motion for the nomination of a Vice Chair for the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board for 2002. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to elect Rob Rafferty as Vice Chair of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board for 2002, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4- 0-1 (Mr. Rafferty). • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 2 IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. DECEMBER 12, 2001 Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, as submitted, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. V. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:37 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, (Gethsemane U ed l Ietho . Church, CUP Amendment, Tanda Gretz) Chair Schaps declared the public hearing o = �, 60 p.m. rte, Staff presented the application b Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Although Gethsemane Uni under the Zoning Ordin change in the Ordinance n an R -3 zone. As a result, the ✓ q' e 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." nited Methodist Church for a he subject property is zoned R -3. Church was a permitted use in an R -3 zone t ring its construction in 1989, a subsequent es a Conditional Use Permit for any Church located in Staff explained the proposed picnic shelter will be considered an accessory building. 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. Staff noted 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 • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 3 accessory square footage of 2,180 sq. ft. This is 160 sq. ft. more than is allowed under City Ordinance. Staff advised that 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. Staff reviewed that 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 t xa" `'. e, subject to the condition that "the subdivision includes the formal dedication o tage Coach Trail right -of- way, with the understanding that Parcels B and C fk u:. e cially responsible for the future construction of the street ". In other won visio as granted on condition that street right -of -way be granted for the future advised that on inspection of the reco that such right -of -way was never le the opportunity presented by the Amendment to correct this oversi ation of this report, it was found ed. taff would suggest that the City use for a Conditional Use Permit Staff stated it cannot re presented, since it violates recommend any approval of t following conditions: pr'val of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment as oning Ordinance. However, if granted, staff would onditional Use Permit Amendment include the 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. Ms. Gretz indicated that Pastor Gilbertson was in attendance this evening representing Gethsemane United Methodist Church. Chair Schaps asked if the alternatives of removing the tool shed and decreasing the size of the proposed picnic shelter had been discussed with the applicant. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 4 Ms. Gretz indicated Pastor Gilbertson was aware of the City's zoning ordinance but the proposed alternatives had not been discussed with him. She indicated that staff has discussed with the applicant the possibility of eliminating the tool shed. Chair Schaps questioned whether attaching the tool shed to the garage would meet the ordinance requirements. Ms. Gretz felt that incorporating the two structures into one would be a possible solution. Mr. Rafferty requested confirmation that the two detached structures currently on site consisted of the tool shed and the garage. Ms. Gretz stated this was correct. Mr. Rafferty requested confirmation that if the tool shed were eliminated approximately 80 square feet of total existing structure would be eliminated. Ms. Gretz agreed. Mr. Rafferty believed that this may be a possible solution if the size of the picnic shelter was also reduced. He was concerned, however, with the appearance of the existing structures and how the proposed picnic shelter would lo. "'`` e noted that there is currently a sign to the rear of the garage facing the nee i *rhood. He wished to ensure that a new structure would enhance the site. Chair Schaps invited the applicant like to make c Pastor Chad Gilbertson, representing Geth R�'ted Methodist Church, introduced himself and Steve Matson, Chairper of ; e semane United Methodist Church Board of Trustees. Chair Schaps asked Pastor o opinion on the proposed resolutions to allow the construction of the Pastor Gilbertson stated the e ` ation of the tool shed would be a viable option. He noted the picnic shelter as proposed would still exceed the ordinance square- footage requirement by 80 feet. He questioned whether the size of a structure such as a picnic shelter would be measured according to the size of the slab. Chair Schaps believed this was usually the case. Mr. Smyser noted the plans submitted to the City showed the proposed size of the picnic shelter, which was the size used by staff in making its report. Pastor Gilbertson suggested that the length and width of the picnic shelter could be reduced by one -foot to address the total square footage limitation concern. He noted that an option had been discussed of combining the tool shed with the garage. Mr. Matson suggested that a new tool shed be constructed attached to the garage. Mr. Rafferty stated that any new addition to the site should accent the parsonage building, not the garage. He personally felt the garage is a weak spot on the lot. He questioned whether the trusses currently on site were left over from the construction of the garage. • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 5 Pastor Gilbertson stated the trusses had been ordered to be used in the construction of the picnic shelter. Pastor Gilbertson stated the proposed picnic shelter would appear similar to a park shelter. He stated the structure would not be enclosed and the roof material would match the color of the parsonage roof. Mr. Lyden stated at times when working with specific and detailed ordinances, it is necessary to make compromises, which at times can be beneficial. However, when discussing compromises such as attaching existing structures, the City ends up with a compromised product, which is not in anyone's best interest. He stated he would like to see a quality product constructed and would prefer the elimination of the tool shed and approval of a variance to allow the additional 80 square feet for the picnic shelter. Chair Schaps questioned whether the items stored in the tool shed could be stored elsewhere. Pastor Gilbertson stated a local day care leas . ace from the Church and the items stored in the tool shed are the property of the d Chair Schaps asked if the items being stored by garage. Pastor Gilbertson stated the space inside storage of tables and chairs, as well as ad. nal Church could work out the storage situatio care ld be stored inside the garage has been maxed out with the e materials. However, he felt the Mr. Matson suggested that the g d with a floating addition, similar to an addition for a fireplace, to proved . ce for the day care. Mr. Rafferty stated if th uare -f ta_` of buildings are measured according to the size of a foundation, he agreed ' . ate E _ addition may be a reasonable solution. He questioned whether this additi .I storage space could be added without a foundation while still meeting the total square- footage measurement of the ordinance. Chair Schaps stated this would depend upon the meaning of a detached structure. Mr. Matson noted the square- footage of the picnic shelter could be reduced. Chair Schaps agreed this may be the best option. Mr. Corson asked if reducing the square- footage of the picnic shelter would still meet the Church's needs. Pastor Gilbertson responded affirmatively. Ms. Lane questioned whether the trusses ordered for the picnic shelter would still work if the shelter was reduced in size. Pastor Gilbertson stated he would have to review the plans but he believed the trusses would still work. Mr. Rafferty questioned if the applicant would still require approval of the proposed picnic shelter if the square- footage of the shelter was reduced and the tool shed was • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 6 eliminated. Chair S chaps indicated the applicant would still need approval of the conditional use permit amendment. Mr. Rafferty agreed and added that the dedication of the Stage Coach Trail right -of -way also needed to be addressed with this application. Chair Schaps asked the applicants if they had any concerns regarding the right -of -way dedication. Pastor Gilbertson requested clarification on the amount of land that must be dedicated for the right -of -way. He stated the Church agreed to the land dedication, however, it was his understanding that the land needed for the right -of -way would only extend to the end of the parsonage lot. Mr. Powell indicated that Exhibit number three included in the staff report depicted the location of the Stage Coach Trail right -of -way. Ms. Gretz added that information regarding the right -of -way was also included in the excerpts of the May 27, 1997 City Council meeting minutes included as Exhibit number four in the staff report. Pastor Gilbertson questioned why it would be necess dedicate the entire right -of- way since there were no plans to develop Parcel B Chair Schaps stated the dedicated right -of -way the roadway. Mr. Powell indicated the Ci ' June proposed roadway extension. allow for the future extension of Transportation Plan showed the Pastor Gilbertson presented a di approval of the minor subdivision. Church had a surveyor pre extended only to the en in December 1997, following the ted that subsequent to the approval, the the necessary right -of -way dedication, which Chair Schaps asked if the su ` "v; r had worked with City staff in the preparation of the diagram. Pastor Gilbertson was not certain, however, he believed the surveyor prepared the diagram per what was approved by the City Council. Pastor Gilbertson questioned whether Exhibit number three in the staff report had been approved by the City Council. Ms. Gretz noted condition number one shown in Exhibit number four stated, "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." Additionally, the second paragraph from the bottom of Exhibit number four indicated that Council Member Bergeson moved to approve the Minor Subdivision of Gethsemane United Methodist Church Property subject to the three conditions presented, including the condition stated above. Pastor Gilbertson noted this information did not specify the actual amount of land needed for right -of -way dedication. Ms. Gretz indicated Exhibit three in this evening's staff • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 7 report had been included in the agenda packet for the May 27, 1997 City Council meeting. Chair Schaps stated it would be very unusual for a right -of -way dedication to not extend to the end of a parcel since the intent of the right -of -way was to allow the future extension of and connection to a roadway. Pastor Gilbertson questioned why the Church would be responsible for the extension of the roadway. Chair Schaps stated in the event the property owner wished to develop the land, part of that agreement would be the extension of the roadway. Pastor Gilbertson indicated the Church has no future development plans at this point. Chair Schaps indicated this was the reason the City has a transportation plan in order to plan for future development that may or may not be anticipated at this time. Pastor Gilbertson believed the Church would be willing to provide the necessary right -of- way dedication. However, he reiterated that when the Subdivision had originally been approved the right -of -way expectations had bee s unclear. Ms. Gretz noted at this time the City was only way, not the payment of any assessments. r the dication of the right -of- Chair Schaps confirmed it was the consens • � s and that, along with the right -of- way dedication, the intent would be • reco ens '-approval of the construction of the picnic shelter, conditioned on th . shelt being reduced slightly in size and the tool shed being attached to the garage, e total square- footage of the structures meets the requirements of Mr. Hyden made a MOTI o cl e the public hearing at 7:05 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carrie Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Gethsemane United Methodist Church Conditional Use Permit Amendment for the construction of a picnic shelter, subject to 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. 3. The tool shed and garage structures shall be combined, or the tool shed eliminated, so that the total square- footage of the accessory strucurs on site do not Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 8 exceed the limiations of the City ordinance and that, once the picnic shelter is • constructed, there will only be a total of two accessory structures on site. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. B. PUBLIC HEARING, (Pheasant Hills 12th Addition, Comprehensive Plan Amendment/MUSA Reserve Allocation, Rezone, Preliminary Plat, Bob Kirmis, NAC) • • Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 7:06 p.m. Staff presented the application by Ed Vaughan for an eight lot single family subdivision entitled Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition. The subject property is located on the north side of Birch Street and west of Timberwolf Trail. Staff advised that to accommodate the proposed subdivision, the following approvals are required: • A Comprehensive Plan amendment changi . d use of the subject property from Rural to Low Density Re q ent and ocating 4.5 acres of MUSA Reserve • Rezoning from R -X, Rural Execut to R -1 '5 -'ngle Family Executive/PDO, Planned Development Overlay • Preliminary plat Staff presented its analysis of the eviewing surrounding land uses and zoning. Staff noted the applicant h . tee omprehensive Plan amendment to change the guided use of the subje •perty oin Rural to Low Density Residential. Such change is necessary to accommoda e oposed development density of 1.8 units per acre. The proposed 2001 Comprehe `; `ve Plan suggests sewered low density residential use of the subject property which is consistent with the proposed land use. Staff explained that in conjunction with such change, an extension of the MUSA will be necessary to serve the development. Staff presented the evaluation criteria for the allocation of the MUSA reserve that was adopted by the City on September 9, 1996. It was noted that 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. Staff noted 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). Staff presented the factors that must be addressed when considering a request for rezoning. In addition, 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 • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 9 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. Staff noted 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. Staff advised that 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. Staff presented the proposed preliminary plat, noting minimum upland lot area requirement (above the Additionally, all lots have been found to meet t depth requirements of the R -1X District. Staff again noted that an extension of the development. The area of such allo ion wetland above the OHWL). 1 proposed lots exceed the Or water level). um `' foot width and 135 foot acres) will be necessary to serve the applied only to upland area (non- Staff provided a review of d including streets, cul -de -sac length, ownership, street width and bridge of approximately 300 feet in length to access the subject property. Staff noted 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 types could be accomodated 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 responsibilites for the proposed street segment (including the proposed bridge). Staff indicated, 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. Staff noted to allow for vehicular turnarounds at the terminous of the abutting public street segment (Ruffed Grouse Road), it is recommended that a cul -de -sac be created at its terminous. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 10 Staff indicated, as shown on the development plans, the construction of a bridge approximaltye 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, that cannot be verified. The acceptability of the bridge and its wetland impacts should be subject to comment by the City Engineer. Staff reviewed the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District which 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. Staff explained that if a reduction in setback is to be allowed (via the PDO), the following are recommended in exchange for such allowance: 1. A detailed tree preservation plan be submittedw, + °h includes the following: A. An inventory of significant trees. B. A description of tree preservatio ffo that uld be implemented during both mass and custom gra C. Specific parameters for tre <• eserva or custom graded lots including the percentages of signific e saved. 2. Custom grading plans be s . ted in= ding: A. An escrow for cus -_�� ots. B. Tree prese C. House p1 ent t ` t r sults in minimal disruption to existing vegetation and natural D. Drainage plans 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. It was noted that the Environmental Board had 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. • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 11 It was noted that issues related to grading and drainage should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Issues related to utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer including utility easement establishment. Staff noted that 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. Currently, the cash dedication requirement is $1,665 per lot, which for eight lots is $13,320. Staff stated 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. Staff advised that the Rice Creek Watershed District development at their meeting on September 26t • administrative action" was approved subject to Staff reviewed the options available by th conditions, recommend denial with finding consideration. a TWAFAA for the proposed tab v.with "authorization for ditio mmend approval with ed, or to table for further Staff noted the subject site is umq s numerous physical development constraints. As currently p i .; e opinion of staff that the intent of the Planned Development Overlay (' _�) has t en satisfied. Rather, it appears the PDO has been requested as a means to cir ve many requirements of the ordinance without resulting in a superior development pro r `t. 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. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 12 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 percentages of significant trees to be saved 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 shoreland buffer area D. The physical demarcation of the we • bow=. ary and shoreland buffer area to avoid encroachment and rup ' • n. 9. Outlot B south of the single family lots b designated as Outlot C. 10. A homeowners association for the .. osed g - lopment be created. The association shall include language r � �'operty, bridge and street maintenance and shoreland . fer ar T e bylaws of such an association shall be subject to review and .. by City Attorney. 11. Issues related to grading, a shall be subject to comment and recommendation b ` , ►� �� . eer. 12. Issues related to 1 be subject to commend and recommendation by the City Engineer. 13. Park dedication shall nr': sh fees in lieu of land and should be paid in the amount in effect at the time of mal 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 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 17. A new preliminary plat drawing shall be submitted that is consistent with other plan submittals. Mr. Corson questioned how a large emergency vehicle would access the island. Mr. Powell indicated the applicant has proposed a 24 -foot wide street and bridge, which the Fire Chief has indicated in the past is adequate for the passage of emergency vehicles. However, he indicated that a means for vehicular turnarounds is needed at the end of the cul -de -sac and the end of the public street. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 13 Mr. Corson noted the cul -de -sac appeared very small, being located entirely within the 60 -foot right -of -way. Mr. Powell indicated there are other similarly sized cul -de -sacs currently within the City. Regarding the wetland delineation on the west side of the island, Mr. Corson indicated during the flooding last spring the flags were out in the water. He questioned whether the applicant had provided documentation showing the wetlands were delineated by a professional. Mr. Smyser could not recall having received a wetland delineation. He noted it was not the City's responsibility to determine the accuracy of a wetland delineation. Mr. Corson stated this information should be verified. Mr. Corson indicated the Quail Ridge development has three storm water ponds to handle the runoff from the right -of -way. He noted the proposed plat did not include any such ponds and questioned whether a different set of standards was being used in this case. Mr. Powell stated storm water ponds were proposed eastern end of the bridge, including a swale, and the eastern end of the proje Mr. Corson requested confirmation that a tree pr ation plan would be forthcoming. Mr. Kirmis stated this was correct. Mr. Corson noted it appeared as tho the posed bridge would require the construction of major pilings as • • 250 to the bedrock. Mr. Powell indicated staff could not speculate as to the e pilings since this information was not submitted with the plat. Mr. Corson, assuming the . gs ould be constructed to a substantial depth, questioned where the construction stagin _ _ ° a would be located. Mr. Powell stated the applicant had indicated the bridge woul•' be constructed during the winter months, however, additional details on this issue would be required. Mr. Corson indicated a couple of winters ago a backhoe was brought into this location and broke through the ice. Mr. Vaughan indicated that this had not occurred during the winter months. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he or his engineer would like to make comment. Jared Andrews, representing Loucks Associates, introduced himself and Paul Wallick, and indicated that they were present this evening to discuss any planning or engineering issues. Mr. Andrews stated he has been working with the necessary public agencies for some time regarding this project. He presented a drawing depicting the property boundaries, which showed total acres. He indicated much of the property contains wetlands and there is approximately four acres of upland. He indicated the intent was for the proposed Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 14 development to occur on the upland area and to preserve the wetlands as much as possible. Mr. Andrews stated that property is currently zoned R -X and surrounded by R -1X Zoning District and, if the property were rezoned as requested, the proposed development would meet the standards of the underlying zoning district, with the exception of the street width requirement and the requested variances from the ordinary high water mark. He stated he has worked with the Department of Natural Resources and the Rice Creek Watershed District for approval, who have recommended a narrow street width to reduce the amount of runoff. He noted there would only be eight lots served by the roadway extension. Mr. Wallick stated that he and Mr. Andrews met with the Environmental Board last month, which recommended that they meet with City staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District to modify the plans. He stated per the recommendations of the Environmental Board and the Watershed District, the street curb and gutter was eliminated. Additionally, the street width would remain at 24 feet wide and the street would be tipped with a three percent grade to the north. He indicated a d the north side of the road to help with infiltration and pond. He indicated that the pond on the southeast ge swale had been added on the water to the northern en eliminated. Mr. Wallick stated the bottom of the pond had b aised to address the concern of infiltration getting into the ground water. stated § +;: would be a three -foot separation between the ground water and the bottom Additionally, sand will be added to the bottom of the pond to allow t water be ° owly filtered. Mr. Wallick stated the house pad d closer to the road and a preservation area had been created along the d= _ e island. He stated this preservation area will be delineated during co 'th heavy silt fence and, after construction, markers will be placed so the home ers . ` ow there will be no disturbance of the preservation area He stated this will alloy homeowners a 25 to 30 -foot deep backyard. He stated the homeowner's association covenants will not allow the use of phosphorus in the yards. He stated the water will sheet drain through the backyards and should infiltrate into the ground before reaching the wetland. All the water will be captured from the road and directed to the drainage swale to allow the water to infiltrate into the ground while it makes its way to the pond. Mr. Wallick stated the Rice Creek Watershed District was pleased with the changes to the plans and are waiting for approval by the City for the variances. Chair Schaps noted Mr. Andrews had indicated he had worked with the Department of Natural Resources. He questioned whether the Department of Natural Resources had submitted a new report since the report dated September 18, 2001 included in the staff report. Mr. Andrews stated the Department of Natural Resources has only granted a permit for the bridge. • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 15 Chair Schaps noted the first paragraph of the report from the Department of Natural Resources asked that the City not interpret the issuance of a bridge permit as support of the proposed development. He asked if the applicants have convinced the Department of Natural Resources to be in favor of the proposed development. Mr. Wallick indicated the opinion of the Department of Natural Resources is the same as indicated in the September 18, 2001 report. Chair Schaps stated the primary issue was the requested shoreland setback variance of 50 percent. He noted this development involved a natural lake and he felt the proposed variances would be a significant trade -off. Mr. Andrews noted whether one lot or 20 lots were developed on the parcel, there would still be an average 90 -foot setback from the ordinary high water line. He stated the developer has used his best management practices and created an innovative design, which attempted to address any issues. He noted the development of properties within 40 feet of a high water line is not uncommon in the Twin Cities area. Chair Schaps noted the applicant was assuming that • is buildable, which, per the report by the Department of Natural Resources, is G €. . w he case. Chair Schaps requested confirmation that the pro `s = d street would be the only private street in the City. Mr. Powell indicated th are ap imately three to four other private streets within the City. Chair Schaps noted Mr. Corson pilings will be handled. Mr. Wal been determined. cern for how the construction of the d the final design of the bridge has not yet Mr. Vaughan indicated Bra. Co ruction had performed one boring and reported that the pilings would only need t 31 feet deep. Chair Schaps asked what was the anticipated construction of the bridge. Mr. Wallick stated the bridge would be constructed of concrete four to five feet above ground level. He stated the bridge would be 24 feet wide and would use an arch design with four piers. Chair Schaps asked if there would be drainage off the bridge. Mr. Wallick stated the bridge would drain back to the road into the pond. Chair Schaps noted the staff report stated that there should be no environmental impact with the bridge. He stated with cars traveling across the bridge there is likely to be some oil and gas pollution, as with all roads, and questioned how the runoff will be handled. Mr. Wallick stated the runoff will be treated by the storm water pond like that from any roadway. Chair Schaps noted the runoff from the bridge will flow directly into the pond and not flow through any grass first. Mr. Wallick stated this was correct. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 16 Mr. Lyden questioned the Department of Natural Resources' jurisdiction compared to the jurisdiction of the Rice Creek Watershed District for granting approval of this development. He also asked if the Rice Creek Watershed District had a more current detailed report on their opinion regarding this application. Mr. Wallick stated the Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the development plans, subject to the approval of the City. He indicated the Watershed District wants more information regarding the design of the bridge. Mr. Smyser stated the Department of Natural Resources has jurisdiction over any project on any public waterway in the State below the ordinary high water level. He stated the Rice Creek Watershed District has jurisdiction over the wetland conservation. He indicated a wetland may or may not be located within the ordinary high water level area and this must be determined on an individual basis. He stated in this case, if the wetland extends into the ordinary high water level area, then the Watershed District would have jurisdiction there under the Wetland Conservation Act. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern for the limited info `fix regarding the bridge. He noted the island cannot be accessed by vehicles wi , t a . age _e, which he felt was a major issue. He questioned whether the apphc di• mot to expend the money to design the bridge until the project concept is app Mr. Andrews indicated the current applicat typical to not submit the final sche 'cs un the mal plans are submitted to the City Engineer. a preliminary plat and it would be Mr. Rafferty noted the dra _' ks Associates numbered C3 -1 showed the grading and erosion co info ti • F but showed no details for the proposed bridge. He questioned whether the • ge n ould be considered as a secondary issue. Mr. Andrews stated they have considered a number of options for access to the island, however, they have been receiving conflicting recommendations. He stated they did not want to design the bridge prior to determining whether the project would meet the PDO guidelines and MUSA criteria. He stated he did not agree with the statement in the staff report that the result of this PDO would not be a superior product. He believed the applications met the intent of the PDO. Mr. Lyden requested confirmation that the Department of Natural Resources has issued a permit for the construction of a bridge and the Rice Creek Watershed District has approved the current design of the project. Mr. Andrews stated this was correct. Mr. Hyden asked how the water will be treated after reaching the storm water pond. Mr. Wallick stated the pond will have an outlet at a certain level so that when water reaches that level it will drain toward the wetland. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 17 Mr. Hyden asked if any studies had been done to determine how the runoff will affect the bodies of water. Mr. Wallick stated storm water ponds are designed to allow water to settle, which he indicated is an accepted practice. Mr. Andrews added the sediment from the runoff would be filtered through the soil and the wetland. He stated wetlands are excellent for filtration prior to runoff water reaching a lake. He indicated they worked with the Rice Creek Watershed District to ensure the project design does not impact the wetland. Mr. Wallick added the Environmental Board had recommended the construction of a drainage swale for additional filtration. He indicated the individual lots will be custom graded and the intent was to work around the existing trees. Mr. Andrews indicated the design of this development will be similar to the existing Pheasant Hills development. Mr. Corson assumed the applicant was granted a bridge " ` 't from the Department of Natural Resources because the bridge would not imp _ lake. He questioned whether there will be utilities on the bridge. Mr. Andrews a . n ffirmatively. Chair Schaps opened the meeting to comments f ` "the public. Ernest Peake, Attorney representing the ap aughan, stated that he was present this evening seeking a resol .n to . 4 ow . Vaughan to move forward with his project. He indicated he read thr e sta "$ . recommendation that the project be denied primarily because the resu inconsistent with the PDO ordinance. He felt the opposite was true a A�ht,• ordinance invites and contemplates this type of development, particu } since s e project would be developed in a manner consistent with the current Pheasant de " lopment. He believed this would be a logical extension of the Pheasant Hil velopment, which is currently one of the finer developments within the City of Lino Lakes. Mr. Peake stated when dealing with an island it is important to consider engineering and pollution issues, which he does not have trouble with and he hopes to work with the City toward a resolution on these issues. Mr. Peake indicated several years ago, during litigation between the City and Mr. Vaughan regarding a condemnation proceeding, Mr. Vaughan had entered into an agreement with the City and the City had made a pledge to work with Mr. Vaughan on getting this project through. He acknowledged this agreement did not guarantee that Mr. Vaughan would receive total approval of the project since there are other regulatory agencies involved and City ordinances that must be complied with. However, the City had pledged to work with Mr. Vaughan on this project and he indicated the City has been considering this project for a long time. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Peake if had the agreement in writing. Mr. Peake responded affirmatively. He indicated the pledge was an order of the Court in the settlement • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 18 agreement. He indicated the settlement agreement stated the City agreed that it would cooperate with Mr. Vaughan for the residential development of the upland area on the island and for him to develop the land at some point he will need City level approval of rezoning or a PDO. Furthermore, the agreement stated that the City, at least at a staff level, will cooperate with Mr. Vaughan in his efforts to develop that parcel for residential purposes. Mr. Peake acknowledged that this statement in the settlement agreement did not mean Mr. Vaughan has the right to develop the land and ignore the City ordinances or State laws. However, he believed the City has contemplated this development and has agreed to work with Mr. Vaughan toward that end, not completely stop the development. Mr. Peake noted the staff report had included recommended conditions if the Planning and Zoning Board wished to recommend approval of the development. He stated he has reviewed the 17 recommended conditions with Mr. Vaughan and his engineers and they can live with virtually every term within those conditions. He felt if the Board was hesitating on recommending the approval the developm , z''` f the parcel, then they should approve the project with conditions. He stated this wee' low Mr. Vaughan the opportunity to demonstrate to the City that this pro can ark and would also be consistent with the City's pledge to work with .k.,than 11 getting the project through. Regarding the proposed 17 conditions for a had been a recommendation that the . t line an explanation as to why this wo opposed to this recommendation he needed to know why thi this project, Mr. Peake noted there xte into the street and he had not heard . He stated he was not necessarily the lot sizes comply with the ordinance and Mr. Peake noted the staff r recommended the construction of a cul -de -sac to allow emergency vehicle traf the development. He acknowledged that this would be necessary in order for the project to go through. Mr. Peake stated he was also concerned about the bridge construction and possible contamination of the water. However, he noted Mr. Vaughan has worked with the Rice Creek Watershed District and was willing to work with the City further on addressing these concerns. He stated Mr. Vaughan did not wish to cram this seven -lot development down the City's throat. He believed over the past ten years Mr. Vaughan has demonstrated this is not his style. Mr. Peake stated the applicant was pleased to submit a custom - grading plan but questioned the requirement for an escrow for the custom graded lots. He felt this was a curious requirement but was willing to consider complying if such an escrow is necessary. Mr. Peake noted there is a great deal of concern regarding the shoreline and the distance of the homes from that shoreline and the possible disturbance of it. He indicated that staff's recommended condition number 8C would address these concerns by, at a Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 19 minimum, requiring deed covenants to prevent disruption of the shoreland buffer area. He indicated that a deed covenant would be a recorded document that would run with the land and allow the buffer area around the island to remain undisturbed forever. Mr. Peake stated Mr. Vaughn wants to go through with this project and he does expect cooperation from the City, which has been promised. He acknowledged that the Department of Natural Resources or the Rice Creek Watershed District could still shut the project down. Mr. Lyden stated he had been serving on the City Council during the time of the litigation alluded to by Mr. Peake. He stated there had been a great deal of meetings regarding that issue and Mr. Peake was correct regarding the outcome of the litigation. He stated the spirit of the Court order was that the City help facilitate the development of the island and he felt this should be taken strongly into account when making a decision on this application. Mr. Corson noted in their report to the City, the Depart of Natural Resources stated they do not support the granting of a variance for dec . • setbacks as proposed. Furthermore, the report stated it appears that the is `_ " ma un- buildable considering the current zoning and if the City decides some R aw t the i nd can be built on, it may be beneficial to reduce the number of units, "cus grade the individual building sites to reduce soil disturbance and vegetation 1 a.. mini - the length and width of the road, and minimize the impact to the Shore Impa..ith this in mind, although the City is required to work with the applic he di . of f el this meant the City must approve the construction of seven homes. Mr. Smyser felt it would b .r °�u �'lanning and Zoning Board to not attempt to determine what the leg areeme m ans, rather he felt this should be left up to the City Attorney. He stated he has n +rking with the City Attorney on this project and indicated that the City has not 'tted to approving this project. He stated the City has in no way committed to anything other than cooperating with the review of the project. He did not feel it appropriate for anyone other than the City Attorney to comment on the City's commitments, legally or otherwise. Mr. Lyden reiterated that he had been serving on the City Council at the time the commitment was made and was privy to all the meetings. Mr. Smyser reiterated the City was not committed to anything. Ken Asleson, Lot #8 Ruffed Grouse, provided the Board with handouts regarding his concerns. He indicated his interpretation of working with a developer on a project did not mean the project would be rubber stamped. Mr. Asleson stated he has a golden retriever who likes to roam in the wood in his back yard. He indicated during summer months his dog likes to dig a little hole and lie in the water that fills the hole. He was curious whether the proposed pond would fill with storm water or would fill with water while being dug. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 20 Mr. Asleson noted the staff report indicated the requested rezoning would allow 1.8 units per acre. However, because there is only approximately four acres of upland area, he questioned why seven units were being proposed. Mr. Asleson stated many years ago he worked on a bridge crew to pay his way through college and a close friend currently runs a family business in North Dakota building bridges. He could not recall ever building a bridge with only 31 feet of pilings. He questioned who will be responsible for inspecting and approving the construction of the private road and bridge and who will design the bridge. He also questioned who would be responsible for the bridge if the private ownership does not pan out. Mr. Asleson noted the applicant has not provided any written approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Asleson stated he had received a bridge permit two summers ago for land he owns in northern Minnesota. He stated his bridge was basically He indicated the requirements of the Department of been very loose and only required that the bridge x car with the top removed. Resources at that time had e water. Mr. Asleson noted in its report to the City, the D' ma" ment of Natural Resources had indicated that Ward Lake is a Natural Env' .nment;f and has a structure setback requirement of 150 feet, and a Shore Impa 5 feet. Additionally, the report cited the loss of virtually all vegetat • s on t isl. • during grading and that the location of the proposed road is entirely i i ore act Zone and cannot meet the required setback. Mr. Asleson indicated t arks had been determined in 1991 and he questioned the accuracy o *se �k: ks and whether this needed updating. He believed in the last 10 years the water lev= s changed. Mr. Asleson stated the Department of Natural Resources' website states that the Shoreland Management Act regulates all land within 1,000 feet of a lake and 300 feet of a river in a designated flood plane. Additionally, the Shoreland Management Act requires local units of government with priority shoreland to adopt these or stricter standards into their zoning ordinances. Mr. Asleson indicated the Department of Natural Resources has classified Wards Lake as a natural environment lake. He noted the guidelines for a natural environment lake, which require a lot area of 40,000 square feet, lot width of 125 feet and structure setback of 150 feet. He indicated that per the preliminary plat four of the seven lots would be less than 125 feet wide and all seven lots appear to be less than 40,000 square feet in area. Mr. Asleson indicated his father was a developer for many years and he did not want Mr. Vaughn to be prevented from utilizing his land as he sees fit. However, at this point he believed the land would be buildable with one lot per the current zoning. He stated he did not support rezoning the property to allow the construction of seven lots. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 21 Mark Groff, 6613 Ruffed Grouse Road, noted Mr. Peake had referred to the proposed development as an extension of Pheasant Hills development. However, he felt the proposed development would in reality be an extension of the Quail Ridge development. He stated Quail Ridge currently has 40 homes with no access to City trails or City parks without crossing the street. Mr. Groff stated that he agreed that a landowner has the right to develop his land, however, he felt the applicant should only be allowed to develop one lot. He felt the proposed development would impact the value of the existing homes in the area. He noted the development will result in the loss of trees, which will alter the view of the current homeowners on the north side of Ruffed Grouse from of a natural area to that of a street and the rear of the proposed homes. Mr. Groff stated there appeared to be no positive impact with the proposed development on the existing neighborhood. He stated the development will generate additional cars, although the additional traffic generated by seven homes not a primary concern. He felt because the proposed project will devalue the exi omes, the application should be denied. Marc Valerius, 6674 Ruffed Grouse Road, state have the support of the Department of Nat,. Reso representatives have intimated that they ha suspicious of other statements bein •s ade. proposed development does not , although the applicant's port, which makes him somewhat Mr. Valerius stated he did not agr extension of the Pheasant be made from the existi roposed development was a logical nt since, if that were the case, the access would Mr. Valerius indicated the ma `y of the surrounding property owners do not support the proposed development, nor do the Department of Natural Resources or the Environmental Board. He noted the proposal does not meet many of the City ordinance requirements and he questioned what positive aspects there were to the proposal. He stated he was not opposed to the development of one home on the island and he asked that the proposal as submitted be denied and the applicant be allowed to construct one home as originally planned. Mr. Valerius noted when Mr. Peake read the Court order regarding City support of the development, the agreement referred to staff level support. He questioned the interpretation of "staff level support." He believed City staff has done a great job in assisting the applicant by reviewing the plans and bringing them forward. Mary Kutzman, Lot #13 Quail Ridge, stated her primary concern was with the high level of the water. She noted the issue of the markers had been brought up and she felt many do not realize how high the water has become over the years. She indicated last year her backyard had flooded and there had been fish in her yard. She presented the Board with • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 22 photographs depicting the high water level. She stated she supported the construction of one home on the island but not seven. Jeff Melby, Lot #8 Quail Ridge, stated the issue concerning the backhoe breaking through the ice had occurred during the month of December. Mr. Melby stated he had obtained a portion of the bedrock map from the United States Geological Survey, which he provided a copy of to the Board. He noted the map depicted the depth of the bedrock at an elevation of approximately 725 feet above sea level. He stated he would be very surprised if the bedrock in this area is only 31 feet deep. He indicated in other projects around the Twin Cities area the bedrock is found at a depth of approximately 150 to 200 feet. Mr. Melby expressed concern for the disruption the proposed project would have on the neighborhood. He stated with approximately 45 homes, there are approximately 60 children living in the neighborhood. He indicated at the end of the cul -de -sac there are 13 children, eight of whom are under the age of five. He st because the neighborhood has no sidewalks the street is used for walking, skate. A :ng, scooters and for other types of recreation. He indicated at this time there to, el of traffic in the area and the neighbors watch out for each others safety. Mr. Melby expressed concern for the effe•TM a actu :. nstruction of the homes will have on the neighborhood, including heavy equi elivery traffic, parking issues, the clearing of trees and removal of the ared es heavy trucks, etc. He indicated the road is rated for seven tons per indic :; d there could potentially be several hundreds of truck trips through th'r_ ood. He indicated the construction of the bridge will raise the level •, •ti. en higher and will result in noise, pollution and possible vibration conc e pY ings are installed. Mr. Melby felt that regardless _ °' e number of lots developed on the island, the construction should be brough in from the east rather than through a developed neighborhood. Sandy Seebole, Lot #10 Quail Ridge, provided the Board with a letter addressing her concerns regarding the proposed development. She was concerned that the developer was proposing to bring the development through Quail Ridge as a cost saving measure and that seven lots were being proposed versus one to make up for the cost to construct the bridge. Ms. Seebole was concerned that the construction of the pilings will cause vibrations that could result in structural damage to the nearby homes. She stated she did not want to prevent the applicant from developing his land, however, she felt he should only be allowed to construct one home per the current zoning and the rezoning should not be approved. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 23 Gwen Pederson stated one reason she opposed the development was due to safety concerns for the neighborhood children. She indicated that all the residents in her neighborhood use the streets and she was concerned about the additional traffic. Ms. Pederson stated at one point the subject property had been included in the City's Comprehensive Park Plan and she questioned what happened to those plans. She stated when she bought her home she had been informed that a natural trail would be created from the development to the island. She felt the island would be a great place for a natural park and she questioned the credibility of the City Council when the plans for a park are thrown out in favor of development. Kari Bormhoft, Lot #7 Quail Ridge, stated she felt very strongly about the safety of her neighborhood. She stated she has two small children and because her neighborhood has no connections to parks or trails, her children play in the streets and yards. She stated she supported the other comments made this evening in opposition of the proposed development. Margy Cory stated her lot is adjacent to the proposed, and she was not pleased by the proposed development. She indicated when • 6 • .. ad been built there had been concerns for the soil conditions and the ro asta►, ity . e questioned who will be responsible for the repair of the existing roadwa e construction vehicles cause damage. Ms. Cory stated she had attended th development had been recomme expressed concern regarding the deer, raccoons, possums the development will of arrow heads in the area. nviro ent r den Board meeting when the proposed She stated the Environmental Board had and wildlife. She stated she has seen many subject property and she was concerned how d tonally, she has found Indian artifacts such as Ms. Cory stated when she purc ased her home she had been required to purchase flood insurance and noted her lot is much higher than the subject lot. Ms. Cory stated her neighborhood has weekly trash pickups and daily mail and other deliveries. She expressed concern for how these types of services will be handled with the private road and whether one large dumpster will be placed at the entrance to the development. For these and other reasons, she did not support the proposed development. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Smyser noted a letter had been received from Theodore and Cheryl Brausen, 6763 Timberwolf Trail, expressing support for the proposed development, which would be entered into the record. Chair Schaps asked if neighborhood meetings had been held regarding this development. Mr. Smyser did not believe any neighborhood meetings had been held. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 24 Chair Schaps requested information regarding the I EMA flood plain and noted properties only one - quarter of one mile west of his property require flood insurance. Mr. Powell stated it was not uncommon for the FEMA maps to be inaccurate. Mr. Lyden stated the concerns brought up this evening regarding the proposed construction were legitimate concerns. He stated he has dealt with construction traffic in his neighborhood and agreed the traffic can be ominous, particularly for children. He noted a suggestion had been made that the construction traffic be brought in from the east and he asked if this would be possible. Mr. Powell indicated this would result in those streets potentially being damaged and safety concerns for the children in that neighborhood who play in the street. He did not believe moving the construction traffic to another street would alleviate all the concerns of the proposed development. Regarding concern for damage to streets by the construc the City would have to monitor the damage to the roa from the developer for those repairs. traffic, Mr. Powell indicated and require compensation Chair Schaps asked if this has been the same exp tion for other developments in the City. Mr. Powell could not recall a situate in the . , here a new development was brought in through the end of an establishe ent. Mr. Lyden stated any time there Mr. Powell agreed but noted ther involved the construction there is potential construction impact. een many developments within the City that Mr. Lyden expressed cony _ or e legal history involving the subject property and he felt the City must be reasonab d not single out this particular developer. Mr. Powell did not believe the applicant was being singled out and indicated that he was relying on the City Attorney's interpretation of the Court ordered agreement. Mr. Corson felt the island was suitable to be developed with as currently zoned with one home. He noted the Department of Natural Resources has recommended denial of the requested variances to the shoreline setbacks, and he indicated that he takes this recommendation very seriously. Mr. Corson believed approval of the proposed development could leave the City open to potential litigation if damage is caused to the nearby homes by the vibration caused by the bridge construction. Mr. Corson noted when Quail Ridge had been developed sand had been placed under the road due to the poor ground conditions. However, he noted near Mr. Groff's property there are cracks in the road which water flows up through, which means there is a great deal of water under the road. Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 25 Mr. Corson stated the quality of life in Lino Lakes must be considered. He did not support the notion of allowing the clearing of an island with mature vegetation simply out of fear of litigation. He stated the property currently has potential use as currently zoned and he felt seven homes would be too many on a small island. Mr. Lyden asked Mr. Corson how the proposed development would affect him. Mr. Corson stated the development would result in the loss of trees and a view of a bridge from his house, as well as have an impact on the neighborhood children. Mr. Lyden noted the neighborhood would likely deal with construction traffic for at least two years. Mr. Corson agreed this was the assumption. Mr. Lyden questioned whether Mr. Corson could vote on the proposed development or if this would be a conflict of interest. Mr. Corson stated the Board has been consistent in voting on all applications regardless of its location providing there is no personal gain or interest on the part of a Board member. Mr. Rafferty stated he appreciated the concerns expre wn: y the residents, such as the concern for construction traffic. He stated he lives m:` he cgz nt Pheasant Hills development and has two children ages nine an. eve He 1 icated his house is located on a cul -de -sac and the school bus has a difficult <TQ = turning around, although his cul- de -sac has a center island, which makes euverine ire difficult Mr. Rafferty felt that Mr. Vaughan Pheasant Hills and had paid a gr environment. He did not believe on the island when develo significantly since he p pti e ` al job with the development of ct to the neighborhood and the y clear way of salvaging all the vegetation that his property value has increased e. Mr. Rafferty stated he has visi, "the island and found the neighborhood to be quiet and to contain a number of children. He stated he was not concerned that the proposed development would devalue the existing property values and he did see an opportunity for the applicant to develop seven lots on the island. Regarding the concern expressed by the Department of Natural Resources for the elimination of vegetative growth, he noted when the applicant developed Pheasant Hills it was felt he had preserved too much of the existing vegetation. Mr. Rafferty was not certain what the right decision is in this case. He agreed the applicant has the right to develop his property, however, he agreed with the concerns regarding construction traffic and the impact on the neighborhood by the construction of the bridge. Mr. Rafferty stated he knows Mr. Vaughan and had, as a concerned citizen, sat through the condemnation proceedings where Mr. Vaughan lost a great deal of land. He stated he has a great deal of respect for City staff for their past work, even though he did not support the condemnation action. He stated he was concerned for both the residents and Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 26 the applicant and suggested the proposal be tabled and efforts be made to come up with solutions that will work for all parties. Ms. Lane stated she was not privy to the agreement in the Court order but she noted the order required City staff to work with the property owner to develop the land but not to change the zoning for seven lots. She believed City staff has worked with the applicant on this development. She agreed that the lot is buildable under the current zoning and she could not support the number of variances being requested. Chair Schaps stated Mr. Vaughan has been a good citizen in the community for a long time and has built and developed premiere neighborhoods in the City. However, he was concerned about the number of items that would be impacted by proposed development, including the residents. He noted none of the residents present this evening supported the development as proposed, although they were not opposed to one house being developed on the property. Chair Schaps stated he understood Mr. Peake's position ding the litigation involved. He stated he has not seen the agreement but per the 1 e presented this evening the agreement only required City staff support. He di • + bey anyone could argue successfully against the fact that City staff has s spo d the ; plicant with this development. He indicated City staff has been ng with the applicant for several weeks on this application and has prepare ` multi- report with recommendations. He did not feel this was an issue and he wa fined about potential litigation. He stated the Planning and Zoning Bo • eede ° o b concerned with whether or not the project meets the ordinances and � to co 'der the fact that a PDO development should involved fair trade -offs. _ el the proposed trade offs, such as tree preservation data, were in ._ s,,'ent for what was being requested. He noted a private road was being retested, there were not many of in the City. He stated this was due to lack of con 9ity f public services, condition and care, as well the notion of developing a private neigh ood within public neighborhoods. He stated it has always been City staff's opinion that the City should not have any jurisdiction over private roads because they do not want to have to deal with the private associations that dictate their own control. Chair Schaps stated the shoreland impact was his primary reason for opposing the development. He noted the applicant was requesting a 75 -foot variance to a 150 -foot minimum setback requirement. He stated this development would not just impact the adjacent neighborhood, rather it would impact a series of neighborhoods that are surrounded by wetlands and lakes that flow eventually to the river. He felt the neighborhood impact would be significant and long -term. He noted just the construction of the bridge alone would likely take a very long time to complete, more than any of the residents would be willing to put up with. He stated he would not be surprised if he would be able to hear the construction from his property, which would not please him. Chair Schaps reiterated that Mr. Vaughan has been a tremendous neighbor and developer in the City but he felt Mr. Vaughan was asking for too much. He stated he would not be in support of the proposed development under any circumstances in its current status. • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 27 Mr. Lyden felt if the issue of construction traffic and noise was the deciding factor for whether developments are approved, there would obviously be no development in the City of Lino Lakes. He stated for him the real test was whether there was anything positive in the development for the neighborhood, which he felt was not the case with the proposed development. However, this did not mean a person does not have to be rational and fair and look at the facts and make a judgment based on the facts. He stated his primary issue was the zoning and the PDO, which must pass the real approval test. He noted PDO's have been granted to many developers within the City, such as Trapper's Crossing. He stated the only trade -off Trapper's Crossing got for the PDO was a substandard fence and he questioned whether Mr. Vaughan was asking for more or for less. He stated the City must be fair and reasonable and he felt that a PDO made the most sense for the development of an island. Mr. Lyden stated he heard the concerns expressed this evening, which he felt were valid. However, he felt the City must be fair. Mr. Corson stated it was his understanding that zonin city and was something that most Judges will not by a city that will affect their future and their p1 He felt if the City did not want seven homes cr time to stop it. He indicated a rezoning a. n wou development and he felt this was a discreti ons are judicial actions by a e stated zoning is an action ow t ` want their city to grow. on to a small island, this was the required for the proposed on by the City. Chair Schaps did not believe the City's Boards or the City Counci sections of the Municipal c He stated he understoo it meant the City must rub ement could tie the hands of any of the , he believed there would be multiple well as violation of the due process of law. e settlement agreement but he did not agreed that any development proposal. Mr. Lyden believed the Judge understood he could not go beyond his jurisdiction by dictating to the City how they should develop the island or whether the island should be developed. However, he noted there is often a difference between what is legal and what is ethical and he felt the Judge, in the spirit of his direction, was clearly looking for what is ethical. Mr. Lyden stated he was looking for a reasonable, rational, fair and ethical outcome. Mr. Rafferty agreed a PDO would enhance the ability to develop the island. He questioned how tabling the application would affect Mr. Vaughan in attempting to find solutions that may work for all parties. He noted the residents did not oppose the use of the land but were concerned that the applicant only be able to develop one lot based on the size requirements of the R -X Zoning District. He questioned what the new Comprehensive Plan showed for the development of the subject parcel. Mr. Smyser stated the new Comprehensive Plan guides the property for single family, sewered development. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 28 Mr. Rafferty questioned how the applicant would be affected by the tabling of the request or a delay in the City's decision, which at this point he did not believe would be favorable from the Planning and Zoning Board. He acknowledged that even if the Board recommended denial, the development will be reviewed by the City Council, however, he believed the Council will have the same difficulty in making a decision. He noted if this was the case and the Council denied the request, the developer would have to wait one year before reapplying. Mr. Peake stated he would be pleased to continue working with the City toward an alternative that will work. However, he noted the applicant was under the eminent threat of a building moratorium, which would not allow the luxury of having this matter tabled. He believed there may be an opportunity for the City Council to waive the moratorium for this proposed development in order to further pursue alternatives that work for Mr. Vaughan, the City and the neighbors. He stated if the development would not be affected by the moratorium he would be willing to accept the proposal being tabled. Mr. Rafferty noted the moratorium will only be in place certain the proposal would be approved as submitted, damaging to the applicant than the moratorium. 2 months and he was not he believed would be more Mr. Peake stated the consideration of this propos cooperation and indicated Mr. Vaughan h een ve has not been rigid in his expectations. ust be done in the spirit of illing to work with the City and Mr. Peake felt that the impendin agreement because he did not bel preclude him from request Vaughan should be give Zoning Board and neighbo However, there are time cons r °` ts. irectly conflicts with the settlement could cooperate with Mr. Vaughan and d development of the island. He felt that Mr. y to continue working with the Planning and rmine whether there were some reasonable solutions. Mr. Rafferty noted the moratorium would apply to any preliminary plats not approved by the effective date and he questioned whether the applicant was attempting to move too quickly with this development because of the pending moratorium. Mr. Peake believed that the impending moratorium was forcing both the Planning and Zoning Board's hands as well as Mr. Vaughan's hands. He expressed his willingness to continue working with the Board, the City Council and staff in attempting to design a development that will work. However, if Mr. Vaughan is precluded from doing this by the moratorium then he felt the City is not accomplishing its job and Mr. Vaughan can not obtain that which he has a constitutional right to. Mr. Rafferty stated the Planning and Zoning Board is not required to make a decision based solely on the possibility of a future moratorium. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment requesest for the Pheasant Hills 12th Addition to change the guided use of • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 29 the subject property from Rural to Low Density Residential, and the allocation of 4.5 acres of MUSA Reserve, based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Mr. Lyden wished to ask the applicant if he was interested in this matter being tabled. Chair Schaps stated there was a motion of the floor that the Board should take action on. Mr. Lyden asked Mr. Corson if he would be willing to withdraw his motion. Mr. Smyser stated that the issue regarding the impending moratorium was crucial. He indicated if the project is not forwarded to the City Council before the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting there was no chance of the project being considered by the Council prior to the moratorium. He stated staff would recommend the Board make a recommendation to the Council this evening. Based on these comments, Mr. Corson chose to make no changes to the current motion. Motion carried 3 -2 (Lyden and Rafferty opposed.) Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend d 1XJPDO for the Pheasant Hills 12th Addition, staff report. The motion was supported b w s. Rafferty opposed.) he re ing from R -X to R- the findings of fact listed in the otion carried 3 -2 (Lyden and Mr. Corson made a MOTION to for the Pheasant Hills 12th Additi The motion was supported opposed.) nial of the Preliminary Plat as submitted the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Motion carried 3 -2 (Lyden and Rafferty C. Election of Members i evelopment Regulation Task Force Staff explained that 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. Staff reviewed the membership and purpose of the task force which will meet once a month to consider a new Subdivision Ordinance first, then the Zoning Ordinance. The task force will not be revising the comprehensive plan. In addition, staff has 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 at 8:30 a.m. and will be an all -day workshop. Staff explained the procedure that will be used and that when all pieces of the ordinance have been reviewed by the task force, the entire ordinance will be brought to each Board • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 30 for discussion. The Planning and Zoning Board will hold a public hearing. Then it will go to the City Council for a first and second reading. Staff stated the Board is asked to elect two Planning and Zoning Board members to serve on the Development Regulations Task Force. Mr. Rafferty asked how long the task force meetings would last. Mr. Smyser anticipated that the meetings would last as long as it takes to get the necessary work done. Mr. Smyser indicated Mr. Grochala was in attendance at this time to address this issue. He stated Mr. Grochala attended this evening's City Council work session during which this task force had been discussed. Mr. Grochala stated during the City Council work session earlier this evening the Council discussed the schedule and the bylaws of the Development Regulations Task Force. The Council anticipated the task force would meet once per month on the third or fourth Thursday and first meeting was scheduled for Thursday, January 31, 2002. Mr. Grochala indicted the City Council strongly supp ►an aggressive schedule in order to complete the work within the scheduled ti� z" ram e indicated if it appeared the work would not be completed within the sc • ule time e, then additional meetings may be added so the deadline is met. Mr. Lyden asked that he be removed from ti n as a member of the task force since he did not believe the new Co u. .rehen > e P an will be able to meet some of its =gip significant goals. Chair Schaps d thi quest. Mr. Lyden made a MOTIO;�: c' a Lane and Mr. Hyden to serve on the Development Regulatio Ms. Lane nominated Chair Sc "" s and Mr. Lyden nominated Mr. Rafferty to serve on the task force. Mr. Rafferty stated he would support any member of the Board being elected to the task force. He felt that Chair Schaps would be an excellent choice to serve on the task force due to his experience. He stated he would like to hear the opinions of Ms. Lane and Mr. Hyden on serving on the task force. Ms. Lane stated in the early 1980's she had served on a task force, which dealt with ordinances. She stated she had the time available and would be willing to serve on the Development Regulations Task Force. Mr. Hyden indicated he was willing to serve on the task force but expressed concern for the fact that he was new to the Planning and Zoning Board. He felt he has a great deal to learn but acknowledged serving on the task force may be one way to be educated. He stated he too would prefer that Chair Schaps serve on the task force. • • Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 31 Mr. Corson stated his wife works nights and weekends and serving on the task force would be a conflict for him. Chair Schaps suggested that the motion be withdrawn and a new motion be made regarding one candidate. Mr. Lyden stated he would prefer that his motion stand. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion failed 2 -3. Mr. Grochala suggested that the task force members be selected through a secret ballot. Chair Schaps concurred. The result of the secret ballot was five votes for Chair Schaps, four votes for Mr. Hyden, and three votes for Ms. Lane. Chair Schaps and Mr. Hyden were elected to represent the Planning and Zoning Board on the Development Regulations Task Force. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Elect Economic Development Adviso Committee , iaison. Staff advised that in the past, P & Z has a Development Advisory Committee (EDA EDAC has requested the P & Z do s Chair Schaps noted Mr. Rafferty Advisory Committee in th Mr. Corson made a MOTI Development Advisory Co 0. inted a h 1: on to the Economic no requirement to do so, but the liaison to the Economic Development ct Mr. Rafferty to serve on the Economic e, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5- Chair Schaps noted the swearing -in ceremony for Board members will be held on Monday, January 14, 2002. Chair Schaps reminded Board members that when appointed to the Planning and Zoning Board they are expected to attend all meetings. He asked that all Board members attempt to accomplish this goal in 2002. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:53 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Planning & Zoning Board January 9, 2002 Page 32 Lori Rolfson, Recording Secretary • TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mike Grochala P & Z MEETING DATE: February 13, 2002 TOPIC: Lino Lakes Market Place 2nd Addition: Preliminary Plat BACKGROUND In August of 2001 City Council approved the PDO (Ordinance 16 -01) for Lino Lakes Market Place. Final Plat for the development was approved in October of 2001 and included Outlot D and Outlot E. The two Outlots were intended to be combined with the remnant parcel created from the Apollo Drive right -of -Way acquisition per the approved PDO Site Plan. Ordinance No. 16 -01 states, under Section 2.D.3 entitled "Special Provisions," the following: Development of Outlot D and Outlot E as depicted in the site Plan shall be contingent on the developer acquiring title to the adjacent parcel and follow platting requirements of the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance. Development of said lots as specified herein and in conformance with the Site Plan (Exhibit C) shall not require amendment to the Planned Development Overlay (PDO). The applicant, Ryan Companies US, Inc., is in the process of purchasing the Apollo Drive remnant parcel from the City of Lino Lakes and requesting preliminary plat approval in accordance with Ordinance 16 -01. The Market Place 2nd Addition is a replat of Lot 2, Block 1, Outlot D and Outlot E of Lino Lakes Market Place and includes the Apollo Drive remnant parcel. This will allow for the development of the site consistent with the PDO approval. This report is based on the most current submittal, consisting of the preliminary plat prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated February 5, 2002. • Planning & Zoning Board Lino Lakes Market Place 2 "d Addition February 13, 2002 • ANALYSIS Zoning Site is zoned Planned Development Overlay District. The Underlying zoning is SC, Shopping Center. Lots, Blocks The submitted information indicates the establishment of three lots, as follows: Lot 1 = 45,803 sq. ft. Lot 2 = 57,690 sq. ft. Lot 3 = 42,764 sq. ft. The proposed lots are consistent with the Site Plan approved as part of the Lino Lakes Market Place PDO. Stormwater Management Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plans were approved with the Market Place PDO. Grading for individual lots will be subject to the site plan review process. • Utilities Utility Plans to service the proposed lots were approved with the Market Place PDO. Transportation • The proposed lots will be serviced by a private road per the Market Place PDO and by the easterly extension of Apollo Drive from Lake Drive. The dedicated right -of- access along Lake Drive should be extended to the southerly boundary of Lot 2, Block 1. Drainage and Utility Easements All drainage and utility easements are provided as required. OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat. 2. Recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat. 3. Return to staff and continue to next meeting. Planning & Zoning Board Lino Lakes Market Place 2 "d Addition February 13, 2002 • RECOMMENDATION The proposed Preliminary Plat is consistent with the City's Subdivision regulations and the Lino Lakes Market Place PDO. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat (option 1) with the condition that access control along Lake Drive be extended to the southern boundary of Lot 2, Block 1. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location Map 2. Preliminary Plat 3. PDO Site Plan • • UY- a 1 0) 0 J E J • r — 26 d 'V1 / /�I 30QIa& d^ 102 NOa3H ' �¢ TQPWOOddIHA�`Je � 'Vl 1A0 PIONS V1 3201 37Ia aQ 3HV-1 33I1r1 1 ONINaf10N dUl31NVq '3AW 'aQ '3AV 13SNfS Z 'aa 13SIMS W L 1S 1Vd0 11 1/-) 11 m es a z 0 U O • • L 02000 Westwood Professional Services. Inc LEGEND ie®(>1 m®© TELEPHONE BOX CABLE TV BOX HANG HOLE 9011- VTAR7C /O04ER POSER POLE HYDRANT NELL SAMTAR7 MANHOLE OAS LMC POSER OVEMILAO SANITARY SESER TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND WATERMAIN DECIDUOUS TREE LINE CONCRETE SURFACE RIGHT Or ACCESS DEDICATED 70 ANO'A COUNTY 7e OMNER -RYAN COMPANIES US MC LOT t/ 4S. ! ! / 6. °t 4.- / / nl /TI nn- VV 1 L.V I V / yl so 2 / ;Y ��6N?tY N89 °12'02 "W / h ` / a` c /'-- -- - -- 92.37 .7.,,,le, lli r-E ,.....1, 1,,,,,,,7,,,--r.:,..7",.....=7mr= /,' e. rp °t �Te.3e M,,,,,, %,3911.01 f / 589 °T1 "01'E O ^:9'YYTryy :Li L /' ...La Q or Ye4 / / ML _______ A.o`00>N pAweff • aWn'rASa(vr --i `�:` / 3 7 4" 1 T / GONER- KOHL'S /L DEPARTMENT StORE, INC LOT 4 O0VER -RYAN COMPANIES US AC LOT .5 MINER-RYAN COMPANIES US 0/6 tea, / :/ -/ =fir A7 "'yam w '•.r\ / ! .'E / u'. / '�P+a N (- - / / / 3 7 i E '''''''''''• e l 1 / y b / Racy ..:....,i ,7./o -/ n '�,I,il /'�.�� •?t 1.r). ! / EMSTTNC DEBRIS PILE ,, .`E3 G 3?2.OS I__� L-- - - - ^ - �' a4.+a "In/ 1`ys ' rL..r`"Q'14g n"'°Aa.= %� /�^ lr '`.`'A, �. 0'4 271 d�9J'47' - -- Ar R7I =.Y _ I /l/ t� �e s- Ge,)e�s'231Y "�ti:A�rL _�1° ii / / _. /�/ rL'�r/v�,\ \ ���''��`''r')..x•� 1.%glt`---- �?�: 122.05 / / ! ^)Y�y\ .. L'L.a ". 26 o1y1 ,' / 589°12.02T / 71.i I/� /yry /:' Y'r}y.V�� ..CN�r.I'rOy OOSER-OTYOFLMOLAKES u i�;,'r'�11° oy.io- % l _ / el '' / -� s.Air� Z _ _ fi/ / -'i , A i ) p / -, / / - 1 %Liee O'MSO Cr tle se/e er sec a Is Aas rwinri / °MYER -RYAN COMPANIES US INC 0SNER -RYAN COMPANIES US INC LOT A�3 nI I L/ _ n, VL.L.V l/i \IIVL '1 _r, 1.0 L, ORV,E 1.'N GRAPHIC SCALE (51 FEET ) 1 Web - 40 R VICINITY MAP NO SCALE PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2, Block 7 and Outlots 0 and E, L1/10 LAKES MARKET PLACE, according to the recorded plat thereof. Anoka County, Minnesota. together with: That port of Lot 15, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION N0. IJ4, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows Commencing of the intersection of the south line of the South Half of the Southeast Welder of Section 8, Township 31, Range 22, said Anoka County and the easterly right of way line of Old Minnesota Highway No. 8; thence North 25 degrees 20 minutes 54 seconds East, assuming said south line of the South Hal/ of the Southeast Overt*/ beors South 89 degrees 12 minutes 02 seconds East, along said easterly right of way line, a distance of 444.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 12 minutes 02 seconds East, parallel to said south line of the South Half of the Southeast Ouartr, a distance of 21.99 feet to the easterly line of Parcel 2, ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAT N0. 17, according to the recorded plot thereof, said Ands County, being the point of beginning; thence continuing South 89 degrees 12 minutes 02 seconds East, parallel to said south line of the South Hoff of the Southeast Quarter, o distance of 391.01 feet; thence South 25 degrees 20 minutes 54 seconds West, parallel to said easterly right of way line, o distance of 143.40 feet; thence North 89 degrees 12 minutes 02 seconds West, o distance of 0.57 feet; thence North 77 degrees 53 minutes 26 seconds West, a distance of 61.24 feet; thence westerly, o distance of 264.49 feet, along a non - tangential curve, concave to the north, hoeing o radius of 66133 feet, a central ong/e of 22 degrees 50 minutes 45 seconds and a chord bearing of North 78 degrees 06 minutes 23 seconds West; thence North 19 degrees 48 minutes 13 seconds West, a distance of 56.42 feet to said easterly line of Parcel 2; thence North 25 degrees 20 minutes 54 seconds fast, along said easterly line of Parcel 2, o distance of 76.56 feet to the point of beginning. AREA SUMMARY BLOXX 1 LOT 7 LOT 2 LOT 45803 Sr. - 1.0515 AC 37,590 S.F. - 1.3244 AC 42784 SF. - 0.9817 AC 9/E 146.257 SC - 11578 AC CURRENT SITE DATA Current Zoning.: Shopping Center District Setbacks: Building: Front Side Rear Street Parking: Side Rear Street OWNER RYAN COMPANIES US INC. 700 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 612- 336 -7200 DEVELOPER RYAN COMPANIES US, INC 700 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 35402 612 -336 -7200 50 feet 10 feet 30 feet 50 feet 5 feet 5 feet 15 feet PLANNER - ENGINEER: PARSONS TRANSPORTADON GROUP, INC. 117 Third Avenue South Suite 350 Minneapolis. MN 55401 612 - 370 -2610 SURVEYOR: WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC. .3701 12th Street North Suite 206 5t. Cloud MN 5630.3 320 -253 -9495 `®SWestwood Professional Services, Inc. non 24 xISrth fla Xt IL *wet MN 8001 11••• 3204534491 Toe 310051037 L boa, e•••• wr we, Y,.rr y - --fl r -F-,w• r er 1 es • ell Yr* it e--1- r- e.r r do a. r /arr. Na 2/1/02 LEGAL AND BOUNDARY Prepared Ian cov: sr > e w Ryan Companies US, Inc Minneapolis, Minnesota 55442-3310 Lino Lakes Market Place 2nd Addition Lino Lakes, Mlnn.Sota Dos 2/01/02 10005851PPF1.D5D PRELIMINARY PLAT / J r -- �,,. / 1 14 -it =rte TED 7 TW STREET) PROPOSED MINT OF WAY FER GEM 6 Rid( 0, WAY PER 6:071 27 OF CEE05. PAGE 491,. Coe 48 flours before digging GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin Cities Area 454 -0002 MN. 1011 Free 1 -800- 252 -1166 ;1 f (VAC,A TO 77TH + STREET) A I EA15)RVG OSING �J /131110.6 plItaY, T 1 27.0' 1 1 n n n n n n R60.0 877.3 1 CONCRETE LOA001G AREA R66.5' 68.0' 35 "- '- -PROCF OF POR%NG 310' �&erTARGET 182,760 s.f, KOHL'S 2F -SFR 86,584 SF DOCK R50 tat" AO; jihan riagr r • � • ' 1� ..Ptn •• 830.0' 320' 65' 3 3 S i 01023.0• . .�1Rrwrgaa ..If :al :.: »:: : !�+o 4., ,;�_.i�:ui.?:r. s:: A m30.0 :j eea - ara ° los WA IIN:pia ma ti8 t. 507. POND MANAGE AND MISSY EASEMENT OVER ALL OF OUTL01 A W7J .1e1:•AI 11iC. 4C.0' r 30. 0 r '61NA1N089 1014 ( 25.0'(` '57ffi 52.0 M R:\ 6 4 4 266!i n o to k e s \OWG \If n o- si t. o w g --.•vv _ .... 9- . _. i * 5130.0'1 ill SITE DATA • SUPER TARGET • KOHL'S (W/ PROOF) • RE'AI. A • RETA6 8 • RETAIL C • RETAIL 0 • WV& E • BANK • RESTAURANT • CONVENIENCE STORE' TOTAL • i30011, ROADWAY AND SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION 81 CITY OF LINO LANES 8URIVNG 4L00R AREA. RE0'D REDD PROAOED 5071. 5071. RAT) SPACES SPACES 182.160 164.484 5.0 823 914 006.584 95.926 5.0 480 532 6,500 5.40C 5.0 27 45 6,000 5,400 50 27 30 6.000 5.400 5.0 27 30 6.000 5.400 5 0 77 32 6.000 5.400 5.0 27 35 4.500 4.050 5.0 20 30 4,500 3.000 15 45 45 3,600 870 Sn Note 18 18 330.544 294.140 1518 1663 (4.lTK s m[ MOIAnm mast 44 1.05 /fae)roNO) -01 21444 8 uu •eAwwG au 154 0w P1110110.11. AMOK o4ww' vans 2) -45 TOLLS mum 0111N:NNS P 4EM°_NF - -_••••••'-==.919_11••• END O CITY PROJECT Mill SITE NOTES IIIIMMOOF • ALL DIAIENSA0NS SHOWN ARE TO FAC`. OF CURB UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE • CONTRACTOR SHALL FIE1O VERIFY THE LOCATIONS 800 EIEVAT1085 OF EXISTING MUPES A4) TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES. SUCH AS E4ISDNG GUTTER GRADES AT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS, PR611 TO 114E START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL 14NED1TELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM 714E PUNS • HANDICAPPED PARKING STALLS W11. OE PROVIDED AN3 IDENTIFIED PER ADA CODES AND LOCATED ON SITE AND SIGNAGE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION. • ALL CURB AND OVITEN TO BE CONCIIEE 8612 UNLESS 140100 OTHERWISE. • TYPICAL FULL 512E 90* PARKING STAU. 15 0419' UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. • ALL CURB RAM WILL BE 5.0' UNLESS NOTED OTHERWI56. • CONCRETE APRONS TO BE INSTALLED FOR ALL ACCESS ORNES ON TO PERM STREETS PER CITY STANDARDS. • REFER 40 LIGHTING PUN FOR FOOTC5N01E PRINT OUT. • BUR.TNNG 0.ENSI0N5 REFER TO OUTSIDE CF WADING FACE (TYP.) UNLESS OTHERWISE HOMO. • VA REFERS TO VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL W1111 REQUIRES AN 6' STALL AND 8' LANDING AREA MI LEGENDi PROPOSED 1 o' RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE. PROPERTY 114,E CUR8 UKE CATCH 96594/STOi4 SEHER /TJANIIOLE WA1ER MAW MANHOLE/SANITARY SEWER TOPOGRAPHICAL CONTOUR ONE U0:ITY POLE HYDRANT GA111 VAVE NORTH 0 s T 120 60 SCALE IN fEEI 'NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION • • • AGENDA ITEM 6B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mike Grochala P & Z MEETING DATE: February 13, 2002 TOPIC: TCF Bank: Site Plan Review Lake Drive and Apollo Drive, Marketplace 2 °d Addition BACKGROUND In August of 2001 the City Council approved the Lino Lakes Market Place PDO (Ordinance No. 16 -01), which included the development of a bank to be located at the northeast corner of the Lake Drive and Apollo Drive intersection. While the PDO established the general use and design parameters within the Market Place development, the Special Provisions section of Ordinance No. 16 -01 requires that the development of single tenant buildings on the site, including the proposed bank, be subject to site plan review approval in accordance with the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. The applicant, TCF Bank, has now submitted an application to construct a 4,500 sq. ft. building upon a 57,690 sq. ft. lot, as previously proposed in the PDO. The property is being platted by Ryan Companies US, Inc. under separate application and in conformance with the Lino Lakes Market Place PDO. This review is based on the most current submittal, consisting of the following plans: • Site Plan dated 2.4.02; received 2.4.02. • Grading Plan dated 2.4.02; received 2.4.02 • Utility Plan dated 2.4.02; received 2.4.02 • Landscape Plan dated 2.4.02; received 2.4.02. • Photometric Lighting Plan dated 2.4.02; received 2.4.02 • Exterior Elevation Plan dated 2.6.02; received 2.7.02 • Site Detail Plans (undated); received 1.14.02 • Planning & Zoning Board TCF Bank Site Plan Review February 13, 2002 ANALYSIS Lot Area Requirements The 57,690 sq. ft. lot is consistent with the approved Lino Lakes Market Place PDO Site Plan Setbacks As shown below, all applicable building and parking lot setbacks have been satisfied. Principal Building Parkin Lot Required Proposed Required Proposed From Arterial and Collector Streets 50 feet 60 feet (Lake Dr.) 95 feet (Apollo Dr) 15 feet 15 feet Side Yard 10 feet 123 feet (north) 5 feet 5 feet Rear Yard 30 feet 75 feet 10 feet 12 feet Note: Both Apollo Drive and Lake Drive are designated arterial or collector streets. Building Materials Building materials for the site are specified within the Market Place PDO, under "Design Guidelines" (Section 2.B), which delineate a number of materials, colors, finishes and accents to be used for any building constructed within the Market Place complex in order to achieve a uniform architectural aesthetic. Building material requirements for single use tenants are particularly noted in Section 2.B.5, which states: "Single use tenants shall substantially comply with the development standards outlined above while still maintaining their retail dress image. It is strongly encouraged that each building incorporate the gable end roof form and standing seam metal over the entry or on the corners to reflect the vernacular established by other buildings on the site." Materials to be used on the proposed bank include a brick face and gabled roof. The proposed material colors are consistent with the Market Place PDO specifications. Building Height According to the Zoning Ordinance, no building within a Shopping Center (SC) Zoning District may exceed 45 feet in height. At 13 feet in height, the proposed bank complies with the Ordinance requirement. Landscaping • In accordance with site and building plan submission requirements, a landscape plan has been provided for review. The landscape plan includes both trees and shrubs adequate Planning & Zoning Board TCF Bank Site Plan Review February 13, 2002 for screening and aesthetic purposes. The landscape plan meets with CPTED approval and is consistent with the approved Market Place PDO Landscaping Plan. Green Area 78% of the site is covered with impervious surface. The SC District requires that impervious surface coverage not exceed 75% coverage. Access /Circulation Access to the site from Lake Drive (C.S.A.H. 23) is via either Apollo Drive or the secondary entrance at Market Place Drive. A private road connecting Apollo Drive and Market Place Drive borders the eastern side of the site. An entrance /exit driveway is located at the northeastern corner of the site. The site contains a drive -thru lane, as proposed with the approved Market Place PDO. Accessory drive -thru facilities are subject to the following requirements: 1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area so as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. The Site and Building Plans are consistent with the approved Market Place PDO. 2. At the boundaries of a residential use or district, a strip of not less than ten feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.S. of this Ordinance. The site does not abut any residential districts. Landscaping is provided around the perimeter of the site in accordance with the approved Market Place PDO Landscaping Plan. 3. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.S. of this Ordinance. The site does not abut any residential districts. 4. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curbs not less than six inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade. Curbing complies with regulations. 5. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movements, shall comply with Section 3, Subd. 5. Of this Ordinance and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. • • • Planning & Zoning Board TCF Bank Site Plan Review February 13, 2002 Access to the site is limited to the northeast corner of the site in confomance with the Market Place PDO site plan. Adequate provisions for traffic separation and stacking have been made.. 6. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. A drainage plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. 7. The entire area other than occupied by buildings or structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a material which will control dust and drainage and which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Bituninous surfacing of parking areas is proposed in conformance with city requirements.. Parking Financial Institutions and Banks are required to provide parking at a rate of four off - street parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of floor area. A minimum of 18 stalls are required by City Ordinance for the proposed bank building. The proposed site plan provides 30 stalls. Pedestrian Circulation Plans show sidewalks on the south and east sides of the site, linking the site to the other businesses within the Marketplace development. Sidewalks within the larger Marketplace site link to a planned trail along Lake Drive. Sidewalks will be constructed by Ryan Companies, the developer of the Marketplace complex. Lighting Lighting fixtures are shoebox style with downcast lighting, in conformance to City standards and similar to fixtures within the rest of the Market Place complex. The Market Place PDO requires that any building mounted accent lighting should conform to standards noted in the PDO. The lighting plan meets with the approval of the CPTED review. Signage The Lino Lakes Market Place PDO, Section 2.C.1.d, states that wall signage for single — tenant buildings within the Lino Lakes Marketplace complex "shall be designed in accordance with the sign requirements of the Shopping Center (SC) Zoning District as specified in Ordinance No. 12 -97" (Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance). Planning & Zoning Board TCF Bank Site Plan Review February 13, 2002 According to the Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance, signage in the SC District is limited to one • wall sign limited in size to 20% of the building face. Building signage for the proposed bank will be on the west facade, facing Lake Drive, and measure approximately twenty - six (26) square feet (2 X 13). Eighteen inch -high raised black plastic letters spelling out "TCF BANK" will be installed. • • A 12 foot high x 9 foot wide monument sign with a 35 square foot sign face was approved with the Market Place PDO. The proposed TCF monument sign will need to conform to the design requirements of the PDO approval. Standard small directional signage will be located throughout the site. Trash Trash equipment will be confined to a fully enclosed structure, which will be constructed of brick to match the principle building and located at the southeast corner of the site. OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval of Site Plan with conditions. 2. Recommend denial of Site Plan. 3. Return to staff and continue to next meeting. RECOMMENDATION The proposed Site Plan is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance and the Lino Lakes Market Place PDO. Staff recommends approval of the TCF Bank Site Plan with the following conditions: 1. That a site development agreement be executed by and between the City of Lino Lakes and TCF Bank. 2. Revised Site Plan be submitted that satisfies the impervious surface coverage requirements. 3. Revised Floor Plan and Details be submitted that reflects the change in building entrance. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location Map 2. Site Plan 3. Grading Plan 4. Utility Plan 5. Landscape Plan 6. Photometric Plan 7. Elevation Plan S pi U d L d —� O ) (1) L REGIONAL PAR W W N y -J • 1.441, • 3 '2!Q •:21I f1QHIZ d0131NV % '3AV 13SNf1S 'Q21 i 13SN(1S 1S WdO 1,1 tA 13 d 6 J 6 Q t 1 r S + r • Z I• s dO 4.- /. OMITS OF CCNSj(2UCT1ON / / / / / / / TENANT MONUMENT SIGN PROPOSED LOT UNE REFER TO PREUMINARY PLAT PREPARED BY WESTWOOD. / / ( . J DRIVE ST AGE •A' SEE, T. 40.2 , G \ ' V / <'‹ / O , / G V / / , Q /1 , / / / / , , / I .A LIMITS C CONSTRUCTION / // // / / PED • (TYP4 / / q.ryF LC RED aca PFi 7oe N8 RETAL A ma NO. PI. MOUE RECEIVED FEB 0 4 2002 CITY OF LIMND LAKES / MARKETPLACE - / (BY OTHERS) 2 • 3. A044 0494z :' 1 3 • 3•• ntiftv,„„ A CONSTRUCTION Y••■■■■■■�•�.�� . 122.0 SITE PLAN NOTES: 1. AU. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF BUILDING AND /OR FACE OF CURB. 2. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR CONCRETE STOOPS ADJACENT TO PROPOSED BNDER 0. 3. AU. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER ADJACENT TO CONCRETE WALK SHALL BE SEPARATED BY A 1/2 INCH EXPANSION JOINT. 4. CONTINUOUS CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER WHICH CHANCES TYPE SHAD. HAVE A FIVE FOOT TRANSITION. 5. ALL STRIPING SHALL BE 4 INCH YELLOW. 8. ALL WORK WITHIN 114E R.O.W. STALL COMPLY WIH THE CITY OF 1NO LAKES ENGINEERING D ESIGN STANDARDS. 7. AU. EXISTING CURB CUTS TO BE REPLACED WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER EOUNALENT TO THAT WHICH CURRENTLY oasis. 8. ALL CURB AND GUTTER TO BE CONCRETE 8612 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 9. CONCRETE APRONS TO BE INSTALLED FOR ALL ACCESS D RNE5 ON TO PUBLIC STREETS PER 01Y STANDARDS. 10. REFER TO UGH LNG PUN FOR FOOTCANDLE PRINT OUT. 11. BUILDING DIMENSIONS REFER TO OUTSIDE OF BUDDING FACE (TIP.) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING U71UTIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES, SUCH AS EXISTING GUTTER GRADES AT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS, PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IpiEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLAN5. SITE LEGEND: k a 4- •8 SITE DATA: BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 8612 CURS AND GUTTER CURB AND GUTTER - 8Y OTHERS UMITS OF CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC FLOW PAVEMENT ARROW EUMINARE ZONING - P00 (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) PROPOSED GROSS LOT AREA - 58498 SO. FT. OR 1.34 ACRES TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA . 4,500 50. FT. BUILDING sin COVERAGE - 7.7W IMPERIOUS COVERAGE - (44,324 S0. FT) 78* PERVIOUS COVERAGE . (14.174 S0. FT) 22% PARKING DATA: TCF REQUIRED: 20 STALLS TCF PROPOSED: 30 STALLS STANDARD PAVEMENT 1.5- BIT. WEARING COURSE 11400T SPEC. 2340, TYPE 41 I.5 BIT. BINDER COURSE MOOT SPEC. 2340, TYPE 31 6• AGG. 8A51. CLASS 5 (100X CRUSHED) HEAVY PAVEMENT: 1.5' BIT. WEARING COURSE MnDOT SPEC. 2340, TYPE 41 2' BIT. BINDER COURSE BACOT SPEC. 2340, TYPE 31 8' ACC. BASE. CUSS 5 (100X CRUSHED) 50418 CPCCS. SIP RSEO 80441 IS71D ro1C5 NOTE: PARKING LEGEND DATA BASED UPON PUNS PREPARRED BY PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. CUENT: TCF FINANCIAL CORPORTATION 801 MARQUETTE MINNEAPOUS. MN 20' 40' 00' SCALE IN FEET NORTH ALLIANT ENGINEERING WS PARK AMUR SOUTH 0181! 6000 1610 MONO M161 7N -1060 FAX SHEA ARCNITEETR.INC g E 1 1 TCF LINO LAKES MARKETPLACE 0 O I to ML VI 2 4 3 SO 2 C 3 on en 0 3 4 GN W J CZle W z La G7 (.1= T 4.T V1 DRAWN BY PH CHECKED BY CW DATE ISSUED 2.4.02 SCALE 1•=20' JOB N0. 02002 C -1 ! / 1/ / / sZ UUITS aF CONSf�tUC1 ON , • • C/1 LOT2 SILT FENCE • • 4. • 1, I/ I, I/ I/ /I ,I /7' . J / 547 ', / • FENCE ; // • • • • �' ROCK / , l L • LC PE1 8001 oft / V CH - - - - - -- 916- - - - - -- • • • • • • • • NI T I I AT ( I • • PETAL A ODOO Oa PT: PPM= %~ \.ice,. •,...: �';. n �;t : �i ��c: �• 1.4s - _?4:.... ?11 2!1111 S'.. AIL :. •- it�S 'ice.. 1. INSPECT SILT FENCES ONIFD141ELY 41155 FACT 44414414. 4410 HMO AT LEST 614.7 DURING PIOIONC= 114114241. 01EDIA1RT RERIR FAZED 011 FAUN AT FENCE. 2. REPIACDCNT - FABRC MULL BE NFPIAcw NORM? 0471 17 OFC5120SCS OR BECOMES NEFFoc7NE BEFORE THE BARREN s 10 LOCO NCCLSIARI: 3. scow ROANS. - •MiEf*T COMM SHOULD BE ROMEO AFTER DICK STORY NON. THEY RN BE 110*0VED MIEN DEPOSITS R010H APPROOWVN.Y ON -Ml 7!40 H(RRE OF THE WARM. ANY MAYOR RONA1410 N PEACE AMR ME 947 FENCE OR FILTER FOR{ 1 MO LOW ROMEO OVAL RE DRESSED TO C4RF0R1 NON EXSTI G GRADE 2455/4455. ANO SEEDED 4101 141E APPROPRMi5 SEED 240. AS ERECTED BY 1140 ENORFA. 4. REMO& OF S1.T MACE - SAT FiNCE3 SMLL BE ROOYFD MIEN THEY H440 SPAYED T10R USU1.A. PLHPOSL. But NOT BOON 440 OPNWO SI=P IC AREA HAS BUN PERIIINOOLT SFABERED. E THE UPNNB SL0170 AREA 5 TO N EXPOSED LONGER 11•2 SE (B) NONMS. THAT ARIA SN•L BE CON= RIM TOPORARY MUM* MEN FIRST WORD. > 1. NOR TO ANY CO41R.C7sN OR 004U10N, SILT 4000 AND FILTERS WU. M NSIALLED AS 9044 1O WIERCFPT RUNOFT. 1 YEMIELT FOLLDIM° GAONG OF SIN SLOPES. 4000 8970 BLANKET (OR OTHER AOPE mama 8071100 APPRO.'S BT ENGINEER) MULL 040 4PPUID OVER APPOOf0 SEED INCUR AM A Rosa Of 4- TEMP- 3. ALL OOSON CONTROL NSTNIATONS MULL 104411 N PUCE AND 8E NANTAN4D N 5000 COMMON BT ENE CONTB4C701 UNTK TIC 910 XMAS BEEN 15- WCETA¢0. 0OIRCT01 MY ROAM NECESSARY $LT FOICNO/RLIOS TO CONSIN= RO1011RS. MNE WAMPUM AOWWIE CROWN CONTROL N ADJACENT ANA 4. 9NF00NT t10. SNAIL BE STOG PIED TO 41JD4 FOR 440 RORAC110NT 0' 4. OF TOPSOL FOR MORBID AREAS 10 57 1E- 9EOETAI5. 1 MC CONTRACTOR 9MLL SCHEDULE SEE GRA040. MUTT 161NU10N AND ROOMY CONsT9NCDON S0 MET 440 CON N. 910 CPR BE R4C1(O NO 1E- /5555 SOON AMR 0 *044400 AREAS THAT 1141 NOT BE SUB= TO CCRMIL407011 RAMC 9MLL BE SEEDED 410 YUL0E0 05 5000ED INN TIRO (2) 9005 0' BEM Os1US7D. 0. THE GRASSES UTIRED N 4E SEED 410 300 ANA/ SHALL BE K A 9440E TCLIANO TYPE APPROVED BY THE 1E416OTA DEPART071 or 1RNy0R7*00L 7. FOJDNNO C061RUCTTON v CATCH MANS. rims AND SILT FOCE 9444.1 M mom REIN 3110144 TO LINT 9LTN0N IE/0N0 10 ME SEMEST PODS 4ESE MASu ES 9411 RERAN N PUCE 011E RACOENT OF BITw10US COURSE. THE CONTRACTOR 3824. BE NSPOISNE FOR 80044. OF Mt SIDIYDR APO OEMS mums THE SWAN SOLOS UPON CONPLL704 DE THE PROJECT. GAO NOTES 1. ALL PN4EIE1173 MULL SLCPE AWN IRON PROP09D 41115110 AT 1141U11 GRADE OF 2.02. 2. 040 CONTR/C1011 OPAL KEEP THE AMCOR RO10MY5 FREE OF 0544%5 AND PROW ON OFF -ST7 7114400410 OF 304. N ACCOROMICE ■114 THE REOIAR 44(S OF THE DRY OF too LAKES 1 COID01C70R TO Miry =MG ELERTI IB AL COSTING CENAAON AN OARED ON MASS MI N; 14•1 PREMISED OF PARSOIS FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION. FEB 0 4 2002 CITY OF LINO LAKES V ti 1 '►'dYITS of ' • COaSTRUCn0F1 • • • • • • • • • tcP � ACA a - COSTING CONTOUR ■ 44 - PROPOSE NCUO /y��� 710 TOP OF CURS ■ O -0 now UNE PROPOSED CATCH BARN DRAINAGE OTYIOE 4■XXX DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE FFE FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION RE RAI ELEVATION N- AT FENCE PROPERTY UNE DRNNAGE DRILY EASEMENT 1?0, PROPERTY CORNER HAY BALES 0' 20' 40' 00' SCALE IN FEET NORTH 1 ALLIANT ' ENGINEERING 1 NCO 1► O 4 A T 1 0 SU PARK SOO MINIM 10UTH =TR 'ruw >♦ w Mm 7111140114 PAX SHEA SAW E... b1. AMC 110 AMA 5.110.4 414.+.14 r 3303 (h0 375.507 yr. (BEE) 3411-0110 l.. ARCRITECTLIRC 1 1 TCF LINO LAKES MARKETPLACE re 0 O <W z Z ggz 410 CQ- ON W 0 co La lo F- 5 cg 0 2 a mo Ci' 44°37 CO 0 REVISIONS DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE ISSUED SCAM JOB N0. PH OW 2.4.02 0 4120. 02002 C -2 SHEET 3 or 9 / / / v LOT2 V P GO V COORDINATE RELOCATION OF EXISTING STORM SEVER PIPETS AND STRUCTURES PROPOSED BY PARSONS TRANSPORTATION CROUP PRIOR TO CONSTRUCT, OF ROADWAY. J RDA 912.10 INV 906.86 SE INV 906.96 NW 2'X3' BOX NEENAH R -3246 OMITS CONS CORE DRILL AND CONNECT TO EXI5TIND CATCH BASIN PROPOSED BY PS TRANSPORTATION CROUP. IE 906.71 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY STUB PROPOSED BY PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP. IE 903.28 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER SERVICE STUB PROPOSED BY PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP. C8//H6 RN 912.30 INV 907.84 W INV 907.74 SE 22.1. BOX NEENAH R -3248 6,DOD 60. FT. FFSIDEM VERIFY LOCATION OF EXISTING U DUTY SERVICE STUBS NTH PARSONS TRANSPORTATION CROUP. \ 4/ iiii•i�ili1 o NITS CON51 / ._ ------ ._ \.\ WtflY NOTES: 1. MANTA: 16- VERTICAL SEPARATION AT ALL PPE SINGS. 2. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS PRIOR TO THE STMT OF CONSTRUCTION. 1 UOUIY CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE POLYSTYRENE INSULATION FOR ALL STORY SEWER AND WATERMNN CROSSINGS WHERE VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL SEPARATION 6 LESS THAN IF. 4. ALL U11U1Y WORX WITHIN THE R.O.W. SHALL COMPLY WITH THE COY Of UNO LANc5 ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS 5� GOPHER ONE 48 HDQRS IN AOVINCE OF ANY GOUTY & PROVIDE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL IN COYPUANCE W1114 NOR 'TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS -FELD MANY. DATED APR11. 1995, FOR ANY UIIUIY CONSTRUCTION WONN PUBUC 7. REMOVE ALL POSTING LOUPES WHICH INTERFERE WON PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. 8. 6' OP WATER SERVICES SHALL 8E CLASS 52. 9. swum. SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE IF PVC sea 35. 10. CONTRACTOR STALL FIELD VERFY DE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF 0I5-11NG UTILITIES ARO TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES, SUCH AS MONO OTTER GRADES AT IRE PROPOSED ORNE'NAYS, PRIOR TO THE STAID OF STE TRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMIED9TELY NOTIFY TIE ENGINEER OF ANY OSCREPANCES OR 1ARIATONS FROM ONE PLANS. UTPJTY I 0 4 H ■ • PROPOSED 59/MN PROPOSED MERMAN PROPOSED !WARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORY SETTER (ST OTHERS) PROPOSED WATERMAIN (,,. OTHERS) PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER (BY OTHERS) PROPERTY LAVE POSTING ORNNAGE TRILBY EALSEMfM PROPERTY COWER PROPOSED HYDRANT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED GTE VALVE (BY OTTERS) PROPOSED GTE VALVE PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (EN OTHERS) PROPOSE MANHOLE (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED VANSFORYER (BY OTHERS) ,40,504 ' ALLIANT ENGINEERING US MK MBAS ROUTH WATS 1041 MINMEAPOUS. IAN M WIN 7111941010 MONS 1880 7808006 FAX SHEA 4944 48w 4414 4188 >m 8** TINA 4148 Y4GA44A r 1*81 1018 3s -7797 Owe CM) 910-2630 r ANCIIITECTLINC �9rSa bila ell 11 pal 1 1 19 LINO LAKES MARKETPLACE IL U 1— 0 0 < a. O < W ,912 M = O W C 'sz REVISIONS DRAWN BY PH CHECKED BY CW DATE ISSUED 2.4.02 SCALE 14 =20' .08 NO. 02002 C -3 SHEET 4 OF 9 S00 t 1760 8E05 TO' . BEDS 7YP. MULCH OVER TER MAT OP. r • • • • • • uuITS CONS1E UCTION • • • • • LIMITS Wigan 10( CONSTRUCTION r•����•`��1. RECEIVED 2 LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE 0TY. KEY COMMON NAME BOMNICAL NAME SIZE REMARKS IMES 6 AB AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE Acer treemanni 'Autumn BIOT:s' 2 B&B a.sme W.. 3 3 ON CC RACR BIRCH THORNLESS COCICSPUR HAWTHORN Crat a nitro oegw true -ga16 var. inermi. 10' HT. BOB 1S' BkB maws _— w.•awtl maw 0..116 w v-amp 1 CO COMMON HAC3CBERRY Collis ccc denlollls 2 B&8 mar IMAa w.-eseaN 5 FP GREEN ASH Froxinus p6nnsytvanico 2' B&B mom sum, w.w10a 5 GT SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST Mediha triceonthm 'Skyline 2' BOB aver awn w r-a4a 1 08 SWAMP WHITE OM Ouercus bicolor 2' B&B VOW 000 0.0001 2 TA REDUOND (JNDEN Tdio amaricona 'Redmond' 2' 8i8 AMOK IMAM ..01001 13 AH ANNABELIE HYDRANGEA Hydrangea oroorescans 'Annabelle 24' HT., 0061. ro. ove 11 11 CA 016 COMPACT AMERICAN CRANBERRY COMPACT AMUR MAPLE Khumum Mitchum 'Batley Compact' ACM Sinnott 'Compoctum 24' HT.. CONT. 3' B!8 Falf 1�IA.A ;;7�� ATE.. BdEL 20 SP 16155 KM LU1C Lyringa potula 'Miss Kam' 3' HT. Bk8 7 OR DN77'S RED SPIREA Spircac x Oumoldo 'Darts Red' 18' HT.. 0061. If541 VW 19 CS 15ANn DOGWOOD Comm =rice° 'ISanti' 24' HT.. CONT. 36 LP LITTLE PRINCESS SPIREA Spinout japonica 'Little Princess' 18' HT.. CONT. X511 iltE 29 J5 SEA GREEN JUNIPER Juniparw Minansis 'Sea Green' 24' DIA.. CONT. rtA; 24 SJ 5CANDIA JUMPER Juniparus wain 'Scond'a' 24' DUI. CONT. rbl.W2 PERENNIN S 2 1R BOSTON IW Porth.nocbsus Iricuapida1. 'Robust& 1 GAL.. CONT. ca9F LANO LAKES PLANTING NOTES: LATOSCAP0 CONOA0101 AML VISIT 9R PROI! TO � O BECOME Ca1Mli1RY FAA/LW RE *67AU. P MN. 8(ACi 00 10 ALL 390 Aw saw AREAS. CON7MCld1 RCSPONSEI1 TOR FRE MONO OF 970 AREAS. CONTRACTOR WU . SWQ OR NARK ALL PLANT MAIERA LaG710Ns MOOR TO 161/110. CONTRACTOR 51ALL IIANE OIRARS REPRLSORA1NE APP1O4 AU. 51.14 1/ MNp8 TO P0T9F.A110N. ALL 9816 AREAS MISS SPECTRE!) AS OMER. 70 BE BED MU0(O RAM 4-.- DEPTH Or 98m0E0 HAROR000 WADI OVER NEED BMMER. MY-EDGER 10 BE 61(11Y NEW BUCK DAWN/ OR APPROVED E0118. 147A11 4 -0' CORM 0111000) INNOWpwP MAO. AMMO ROOT BAKER Cr AL TREE CALA=EO FROM PLANT SEOS. FLAMM Sol 91Att CONSIST Or SOX SELECT 1061! 1CPS0E. 705 PEAT ROSE( 221L PIT RIM SERA. CCI1RACI0R ML CCIIRETELY GUARANTEE TILL WORE TOR A PER 00 OF ONE YEAR ETEMPA G AT RN ON/ Or ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR WU. um( 08oL 0 0014 ALL R[PUCEIAAq PROMPTLY (AS Pq AMY 1M7831µ M4CH 014 OR MECUMS (POOR TO ACCCPTAMCE Of INC M7R9 8RL BE PROWL? REMOVED A10 ROMEO. THE OWNERS REPRESENTATNE RESERVES RC ROHw TO REJECT AMT RANT 1MTERNL 901 8E130 SPECPIC:ATIC 4. AL 1ATOLNL 91161 COMPLY WWI 111E LATEST 001101 Or 114 AMERICAN STANDARD FOR MIRSERY SICOI A ER MI ASSCOAlO11 Or NURSERYMEN PAINE DEAD Aar MOON AOCi IMA01 6(81110 TOR. 0W0010 160190 OSHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NNW !CALL ALL TREE MRIPA4 SEAL EC WRAPPED 8131 91091 CREPE TREE MAP. APPLY RAMP M NOVEMBER ANO 1010.5 N WOK. LANDSCAPE CONTACTOR TO RARER AO MACAW AL PUNT IM7TAA1.3 MO 01) UNTIL YORE ACCEPTANCE. REPAIR AT 10 COST TO OWNER ALL OUNCE TO PROPERTY 169Ata16 FROM IAOSCWE WORK. IRESMISEILE FOR CALLING GERWER UM ONE ATCONTRACTOR -O 7 MO FOR =XING ALL UNOEACROU0 mines APO 91AL A00 DAMAGE 70 =UM DURING 0[ COURSE OP 171E RORR. CONTRACTOR 6 RESPONSIBLE TOR REPNR- CIPANGGE% MIXTURES. ETC. RESIR.711G FROM LAMOYJVS CONTRACTOR 6 TO BE RCSPOWSNE TOR SIA10.Na ALL Peat MARINES UM THE IMO 771( PEA(ANEM V66AR9N SYSTEM 6 RELY FUNC O NL CRUM. WEED CONTROL MUST BE APPl1E0 TO ALL IAIOSCAPE AREAS NEM TO AMP PLANT NSTAlA101. IANOSOIPE COMR6CT016 TO COOMN It NSAUAROM 1611 MEWL CONTRACTOR STA10r0 A10 NANO Or TREES OPTONA: IAMOSGIPE CONTRACTOR MAJ. MANT N PLUIBNESS Or TREES no OWOION a MINIANN1Y PEa00. SWEEP NCI 1691 ALL PAVED 9RQAQS MO R N E ALL OEMS IRSL7INO FROM MAMMA OPERNIONS. CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY DC9G11 Aar 66T91A7108 Or AN NR 01011 PLAN MfE1 100; COVERAGE FOR s00 NO 9166 BEDS BOO NO 9MUB AREAS TO SE ON S PERAR TUNS USR+F 1MR OR APPROVED EQUAL. COORO 0110 PR N 1PERTY OTREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO STALE 0' 20' 40' 80' SCALE IN FEET PRRL MM Alp W WN BRAN Es 1- 100E MEN STRAP ON RARE (MUM mom= MAp PEEL WOE .UaAP NAIPO Sal 040.01 KUO NORTH ALLIANT ENGINEERING 1100160 RBA PARK AVMS SWAN NM ZOO Is/0 661 S 1010 701-8000 FAX SHEA ON. swat. TW AMC tea 11r. ..N 016..1 w..wr 10 5500 $00 1s-7AS1 SIN.. (TOP) 3168114 1A ARCHITECTII,INC TCF - LINO LAKES MARKETPLACE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE ISSUED SCALE JOB No. 2.4.02 1 -s20' 02002 L -1 SHEET 5 or 9 L1.Wrhe Location Su.ary Project. 701 Projects AOtb Lobel S r Z Orient Tit 60 1 10310 10135 30 154.722 0 60 ACC -1 10810 100.772 10 3 0 70 8 10235 10016 33 174.722 0 70 M 11170 9939 30 O O 92 0 10125 9911 30 1049 0 94 DO 10010 10009 30 335.905 0 95 3 10193 10107 30 337.932 0 90 117 10071 10120 30 334.44 3 00.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 19 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.5 0.2 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.8 3.8 3.4 2.5 604.9 B 5.7 4.7 2.4 4.5 '' : 3.1 3.0 /4.6 4.3 BITS 4.3 3.5 .3705.0 2.9 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.3 3.1 4.3 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 _ 2.0 2.2 2.7 0 6.6 2.2 /4.5 47 4.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.o 0.i 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2� 5.6 79 n8 5.3 RETAIL 6,000 SQ. FT. FFE1910.10 • 4.1 3.6 2.4 2.2 3.1 O.s 0.7 11 4.3 2.3 2.6 2.2 -. -•�� 4.`44.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 `6.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.a 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.i 0.2 12 0.( 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.i 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.o FRECFNED FEB 0 4 2002 CITY OF LIWO LAKES ',In. r _.p.4.. Il Otr tnr Y NOt -en nm ly a71 0.11A 004.q3. n m..tt wl kn.. 41 10 MI snsf Win are• 7•M 111a..a -a -4.R 01..4.4. M Wu. 7 • r1 Main u•2 111071 nm 1000 als 4qA 1110.4.1FMA Ill*.tt m •....% h0.4 /1n•-7M9.n IMntl M 0.4..* nle 0171E nm 1770 0.04 111.010-70 -n leln0* M Goons Mann Coos Mtn H ctio ✓ roo-..01 . Iles 01 0.41LA •100 40.19-n 0111..n M UM. • OW MIL LTA 1.4 1M -.146n 39A N@]4(4Q 2.r ant Of M K MOLL MOO 677• 1.84 10.4. -n-n -n nern 00 Claw* ....ay pm.l.. •0 -1 71102 /m 1771 09311 100 nu 0 a W • 114- x000 1 -man- e...4 wr 06 . I2ntt n7.110 non. ti..l... COOPER C•oroer (UMW Lino Lakes, MN TCF Bank- Area Only PULSE PRODUCTS MINNET.NKA,MN WT #0006746G -Bank Date: 01 -10 -02 Security level 1 SDM: PA /PE iff,ccif664 0 SO' eo ao SCALE IN FEET NORTH ALLIANT ENGINEERING I r e 0• r 0 4* t t 0 MEMMINIMEIMMI US 090 AV00008 4011TH NNN0APOL* 101 884* 0)1!! 70040•0 PHONE 4N01 7104040 PAR SHEA Who far. 6.4* 000 100 WM erne..n srnon 00 76491 911» 31 -7177 ern fe» 440 -0670 I1RCMITECTII.IMC LIU 03 1 1 TCF - LINO LAKES MARKETPLACE 90 W ad z Z N = � W OZ REVISIO►u DRAWN BY YA CHECKED BY NA DATE ISSUED 2.4.02 SCALE 1"A30' JOB N0. 02002 L -2 SHEET 5 or 9 • • 1 J (EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION �. I/o ' • r -0• -. W' -0 PEAK H-f R. EL QS - r ®FRL FLR PEAK HGHT. tL. a -0-v PEAK 1-1G-IT EL. 173' -l' EAVE HGHT. L. 114' -9'� SOFFIT FIGHT. L. llj' -9'� MAJ. FIGHT. tL. 110' -0'Ur FIN. FLR tL. 100 -0 :ituL_- �_ —_�_ - •i■■■ ■■■■■■■1 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/8••I' -0. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF EaFS. currrrrrrrry STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF ---\ _r,_a,_„ _,r._T__ _mom.,■- rr•MIENEI rk, ► m. _�- NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION PEAKHGHT.� �PEAKHGM. L. 01' -0- EL- IN -m- PEAK HGHT. _! tL ILA- 1 OW EAVE FIGHT.s eEA' E 1GNT. tL. U -L' kI. I -t SOFFIT HGHT. scam. Nifr. tL. 11b' -L' �EL EAVE HGHT. EAVE f 4T, tL 114' -9 "� � LIN -9' 50 Z. FIGHT, saFrt ur, rt, tL. 11S•9 �kL 115'•9 LLNDW HGHT. NDm r,1rt. tL 110' -0 �etL i� 1-o• FIN. FLR 0 • 1 /8• • 1' -0' ‘1 FN R LL 1WZ -0" SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION I/8'.I' -0• R FE CITY 100 north sixth street suite 650c minneapolis, ma 55403 -1594 T 612 339 2257 F 612 349 2930 www.shealink.com «mbiepul6» «ryourk» client: TCF FINANCIAL CORPORATION 801 MARQUETTE MINNEAPOLIS,MN °CFIVFD B 0 7 2002 F LINO LAKES project title: TCF BANK BRANCH BANK LINO LAKES MINNESOTA sheet title: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Infect no.: 95126.00 scale: AS SHOWN drawn by: MN checked by: MK team captain: MK date: no. dale Issued for 2/8102 City Review !Web,/ carry Mattis plan spec fcanon or report was Ind by me or under my direct supaelon and that I am a day registered archMect anderiM law or the state of MINN� Us: ma. no. 21585 A7.1 • 1 METAL DU'IPSTER EXTERIOR FACE TO MATCH BUILDNG S' CMJ LW FACE BRICK.--- CONTROL JOINT FOOT2r -5 SEE STRUCAL 4' CONCRETE SLAB I' PLAN TRASH ENCLOSURE F- --ROSE COLOR FIELD BRIOG Z FOOTINGS SEE STRUCTURAL • L J REAR ELEvATION (-- PREFNISHED METAL CAP FLASHNG UNITE DOGEARED PLASTIC WOOD SLATS ON 2X4 PLASTIC WOOD STRICTURE 3)V HEAVY DUTY LATCH AND LOCK CONTNOU5 NNGE ALL DOORS TAPER CURB TO DRNE LEVEL N FRONT OF ENCLOSURE (____—.4---- FOOTNGS SEE STRJCTURA- H J 1 L J FRONT ELEVATION I/4' • 1' -0' TO' BANK PAN NO O ADDITIONAL SIGN FACES RFBANIC, 4 TRAFFIC SIGNS 7CFBANK TQ BARK 2' -6. BURGUNDY MATTE UNITE vINYL SILVER GREY VINYL. BLACK REFL. vINYL LETTERING SIGNAGE BY OTHERS COORDINATE BY G.C. FOOTINGS BY SINAGE CONT. V2' • I. -0' FLAG POLE DETAIL SLOPE ENDS OF ISLAND MINUS 3' AT EACH END. BOLLARD FLEXIBLE GLO POST. COLOR, YELLOW 6' ABOVE DRIVE / 5L TO 3' AT ENDS B AN< EQUIPMENT VERIFY LOCATION LW EQUIP. SUPPLIER BOLLARD FLEXIBLE 04.0 POST. COLOR. YELLOW DETAIL OF DRIVE -TNRU ISLAND SIM. I/4' • I' -0' BROOM FINISH SURFACE OF RAMP. SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR DETAILS. 5' -0' X 4' -0' X 5' -0' DETAIL I-ICF CURB CUT I/4' • I' -0' 5 DIA. ALUM. BALL NOTE. SEE ELECTRICAL PLAN FOR FLAGPOLE LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE LIGHTS ON PHOTOCELL TO LIGHT FLAG AFTER HOURS. CONE STYLE ALUM. POLE FINISH SIM TO 260 ALUM. COLLAR CAULKING GRADE U.EDGE5 DRY SAND ccNc. ALUM TUBE WEDGES LIGHTNING PROTECTION I/2' • 1' -0' IRON FENCE WITH 1' 50. PICKETS • M EACH ROW. PROVIDE I' X 3' RAIL TOP AND BOTTOM MASONRY WALL 4 FENCE DIAGRAM Am 1' • l' -0' 8,_0' ' -0 41t/ ■ xnnanw IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII611NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIltIII6II60111II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl111611I11I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 L ROAD SIGN PRECAST STONE CAP ACCENT CRJCIC BRICK 5GNAGE BY OWNER VERIFY WITH OWJER FOR EXACT SIGN INFORMATION FONTS, SIZES, ETC. VERIFY W/ SHOP DRAWINGS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. I/4' • 1' -0' 4-7"1 �.r DETAIL 11/2' • l' -0' PROVIDE CAULK JOINT AT EDGE OF BRICK TREATED 2 X 12, ANCHOR BOLT TO BLK 5/6'4 2' 0L. PROVIDE CONT. HINGE TO DOOR 100 north sbdh street suite 650c rrdrsleapols, mn 55403-1594 T 612 339 2257 F 512 349 2930 www.shealInk.com «mYe•pdb» «ro•Jme» client: TCF FINANCIAL CORPORATION 801 MARQUETTE MINNEAPOLIS,MN project title: TCF BANK BRANCH BANK LINO LAKES MINNESOTA sheet title: SITE DETAILS • prolect no.: 55126.00 scale AS SHOWN drawn by MN checked by: MK tsarn captain: MK date: no. date Issued for I hereby certify that tide plan specincafbn or report Was prepared by me or Wider my direct supenislon and that I am a duly lecistered architect under the law of the state or. MINNF' " date: reo no 21565 A012 .I i, ;,'-, : RECYCLING AREA ASPEN MSBC 600.4100 V 1` `: �� 11 Py� I 1 r3' -0'li w E3' -0' 1' I I^ I4'-3' I' PLAN TRASH ENCLOSURE F- --ROSE COLOR FIELD BRIOG Z FOOTINGS SEE STRUCTURAL • L J REAR ELEvATION (-- PREFNISHED METAL CAP FLASHNG UNITE DOGEARED PLASTIC WOOD SLATS ON 2X4 PLASTIC WOOD STRICTURE 3)V HEAVY DUTY LATCH AND LOCK CONTNOU5 NNGE ALL DOORS TAPER CURB TO DRNE LEVEL N FRONT OF ENCLOSURE (____—.4---- FOOTNGS SEE STRJCTURA- H J 1 L J FRONT ELEVATION I/4' • 1' -0' TO' BANK PAN NO O ADDITIONAL SIGN FACES RFBANIC, 4 TRAFFIC SIGNS 7CFBANK TQ BARK 2' -6. BURGUNDY MATTE UNITE vINYL SILVER GREY VINYL. BLACK REFL. vINYL LETTERING SIGNAGE BY OTHERS COORDINATE BY G.C. FOOTINGS BY SINAGE CONT. V2' • I. -0' FLAG POLE DETAIL SLOPE ENDS OF ISLAND MINUS 3' AT EACH END. BOLLARD FLEXIBLE GLO POST. COLOR, YELLOW 6' ABOVE DRIVE / 5L TO 3' AT ENDS B AN< EQUIPMENT VERIFY LOCATION LW EQUIP. SUPPLIER BOLLARD FLEXIBLE 04.0 POST. COLOR. YELLOW DETAIL OF DRIVE -TNRU ISLAND SIM. I/4' • I' -0' BROOM FINISH SURFACE OF RAMP. SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR DETAILS. 5' -0' X 4' -0' X 5' -0' DETAIL I-ICF CURB CUT I/4' • I' -0' 5 DIA. ALUM. BALL NOTE. SEE ELECTRICAL PLAN FOR FLAGPOLE LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE LIGHTS ON PHOTOCELL TO LIGHT FLAG AFTER HOURS. CONE STYLE ALUM. POLE FINISH SIM TO 260 ALUM. COLLAR CAULKING GRADE U.EDGE5 DRY SAND ccNc. ALUM TUBE WEDGES LIGHTNING PROTECTION I/2' • 1' -0' IRON FENCE WITH 1' 50. PICKETS • M EACH ROW. PROVIDE I' X 3' RAIL TOP AND BOTTOM MASONRY WALL 4 FENCE DIAGRAM Am 1' • l' -0' 8,_0' ' -0 41t/ ■ xnnanw IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII611NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIltIII6II60111II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl111611I11I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 L ROAD SIGN PRECAST STONE CAP ACCENT CRJCIC BRICK 5GNAGE BY OWNER VERIFY WITH OWJER FOR EXACT SIGN INFORMATION FONTS, SIZES, ETC. VERIFY W/ SHOP DRAWINGS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. I/4' • 1' -0' 4-7"1 �.r DETAIL 11/2' • l' -0' PROVIDE CAULK JOINT AT EDGE OF BRICK TREATED 2 X 12, ANCHOR BOLT TO BLK 5/6'4 2' 0L. PROVIDE CONT. HINGE TO DOOR 100 north sbdh street suite 650c rrdrsleapols, mn 55403-1594 T 612 339 2257 F 512 349 2930 www.shealInk.com «mYe•pdb» «ro•Jme» client: TCF FINANCIAL CORPORATION 801 MARQUETTE MINNEAPOLIS,MN project title: TCF BANK BRANCH BANK LINO LAKES MINNESOTA sheet title: SITE DETAILS • prolect no.: 55126.00 scale AS SHOWN drawn by MN checked by: MK tsarn captain: MK date: no. date Issued for I hereby certify that tide plan specincafbn or report Was prepared by me or Wider my direct supenislon and that I am a duly lecistered architect under the law of the state or. MINNF' " date: reo no 21565 A012 • Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2001 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES ecember 0 aps, an sociate Planner Gr e men„ Director rag, a Administrator Waite S °mt I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL H. Chair Schaps indicated Ite III. APPROVAL OF Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Plan ' Zorn Board meeting to order at 6:38 p.m., December 12, 2001. APPROVAL OF AGENDA een pulled at the request of the applicant. NOVEMBER 14, 2001 Mr. Corson made a ON to approve the minutes of the November 14, 2001, meeting of the Lino L lann ' µ . d 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 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 Subdivi Staff presented the application by Joseph A. Schw ' •;� subdivision. Staff indicated the subject property was locate Joseph A. Schwartz. The property was an unpla connected to City water or sanitary sewe lived on the neighboring property at 59 acres in size. It was the intention of r. his son's property in order that program. The result would be Staff presented its analy minimum lot size of result in a lot size explained it should be legally combs • h conforming, as property in a rur zone. properties be leg. °`y combined. t 55 ine '`" eet and was owned by Mr. cre Rural parcel which was not chwartz's son, Joseph M. Schwartz, t, which was similarly zoned and 10 to transfer five acres of his property to qualify for the Green Acres agricultural cels. plai ' g the City's zoning ordinance required a a Rural zone. The proposed Minor Subdivision would es fo e properties at 558 and 598 Pine Street. Staff d that unless and until the proposed five -acre parcel was xisting 10 acres at 598 Pine Street, it would be non- e under the City's 10 -acre required minimum lot size for As a result, approval should carry the condition that the 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 directs • while ` e implementation of the plan occurs through official controls such as the su •_ vi ord ° ance and zoning ordinance. The new comprehensive plan established a 'candy reduce the rate of growth in the city. Staff was setting up a pro 0,11 ng the official controls to implement the plan. This will take some `;me•m�`�lete. Staff explained they were concerned about the interim. After , + erri _ wi the City Attorney, staff believed it was best to adopt a moratorium to City. The proposed ordinance would prohibit most types of residential R °-ve ent activity in the City for one year. Staff presented its analysis by explainen. there e three main reasons for the moratorium. First, the City Counc ,,•ped th�'comprehensive plan but was still undergoing review by the Metro •s Co ` „ ` as required by state statute. Until the Met Council approved the pl an awkward position between the old, sketchy plan and the new . =. • been using the new plan for guidance, but it was not clear how firmly the • tand.on it. Second, while the •: e'' ensi plan establishes the policy of reducing growth to an average of 147 . er ye ! e current official controls do not provide the means to ensure implementatio y. The City should be in the position where if it wants to deny new devel e E _. pplications, it should have clear and easily defensible reasons. Third, staff antici rated 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 prolonged. Mr. Smyser replied the City did have the righ Council nor staff want to see this extended. Mr. Corson asked how many years had the Compreh Mr. Smyser replied it took approximately 3 l deal with the Comprehensive Plan at all, onl the This would have nothing to do with whe the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Corson asked if the City ha the City could not just state th Metropolitan Council cou told the City was out of future, this would cr ium being ut neither the aken to get completed. stag the task force would not ision and zoning Ordinances. etropolitan Council liked or disliked nt of MUSA at the present time and why MUSA. Mr. Smyser replied the e MUSA at any time, and if developers were d t ' n the City received more MUSA in the near that the moratorium would avoid. Mr. Zych asked if the s .R. had time to work on both Ordinances and plats at the same time Mr. Sm •lie•' at was the reason they wanted the moratorium at this time He stated staff • o. ve the time to work on both. Mr. Rafferty aske l., 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 believ complete this in 12 months. He stated from his experience, would be extended out beyond the 12 months. He indicat deprived of utilizing their investments if the moratoriu moratorium would create spot zoning, which was ill addition, the City had an investment in the Town was exempt from the moratorium and, therefo and unfair. He stated the 147 -lot restriction b illegal and suggested the City contact th- reject the moratorium. Mr. Rafferty stated this was a w citizens wanted. He indicated He expressed concern reg He indicated he did not job with respect to a "cut off at the kne 4's mo possible to such as this ers would be . He stated the esota Statutes. In d the Town City project rato m would be discriminatory sed Comprehensive Plan was y regarding this. He asked the Board to o have guidelines with respect to what the eve any developer was hurting in this area. of the lots and homes being placed on them. taff as asking for too much, and they were doing their oratorium. Mr. Coyle replied Mr. Uhde would be torium was approved, when Mr. Uhde was under the assumption that develo nt would continue. Mr. Lyden aske a ° "'. e law did Mr. Coyle base his premise on that a moratorium was illegal. Mr. Coy " 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 infrastruct in the ` 'ty the way it was. Mr. Corson asked if they waited until they had a res and then approved a moratorium, would the morator development as well as plats already in proces problems and there were no clear -cut answers to Mr. Corson asked if the Metropolitan C decisions on the MUSA. Mr. Smy way to do it within the City and Judy Barthels, indicated s space would disappear i adverse affect on the ropolitan Council, em to freeze residential yseF``eplied that was one of the d be asked to wait to make any elieved the City needed figure out a ppointed body to make those decisions. paces. She expressed concern that the open s allowed to develop and this would have an Tom VonBische, Oak and developer of the Saddle Club project, stated he did not have an object a y`•ratorium. He stated he was working with many Cities that had moratorium s as his experience that it was a very common practice to extend moratoriums. H;. tated if the City wanted to control growth, they should contact the City of Woodbury, wh 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. there would be consultants working with staff on this. Mr. Lyden stated one of the major parts of the Comprehensive balanced growth. He indicated the dilemma faced was that t 2010 goal with respect to population growth. He express not add up. He indicated he believed the Comprehensi could not deliver what it said it would do. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern if the Metrop everything else would get sidetracked, and staff's the Metropolitan Council's requested ch should be working on. Mr. Smyser repl right away. Mr. Smyser replied s controlled and eady beyond the the numbers did ad plan because it ncil sr quested changes and ould be taken up with addressing tead o working on the things they s the reason they should get started Mr. Corson asked why was th Smyser replied the City C authority under State Sta Village that were fo Mr. Grochala tat incorporated i right now. Bec goals were met t that needed to be rty was exempt from the moratorium. Mr. it exempted, and the City Council had that cated the city was pursuing several goals in the enefit. ed th;.mprehensive Plan had many policy actions that needed to be d other Ordinances, which the City's plans did not incorporate ity had control of property in the Village, it could ensure the re. He stated there were a lot of issues right now other than growth ddressed, 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 mee :41 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. • Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording TimeSaver Off Site Secr t' ' nc. •