Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/08/2002 P&Z Packet• AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Wednesday, May 8, 2002 6:30 p.m. L CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 10, 2002 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. Nadeau, 20th Ave., Site Plan Review, Tanda Gretz B. Thorp, Oak Lane, Minor Subdivision and Variance, Tanda Gretz C. Neeck, Oak Lane, Variance, Tanda Gretz D. Raske Building Systems, Apollo Business Park, Minor Subdivision and Site Plan Review, Bob Kirmis - NAC E. PUBLIC HEARING, Glenn Rehbein, Village Hills, NW corner of Birch St. and Ware Rd., Rezone to PDO and Site Plan Review, Cindy Sherman - NAC VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Ordinance Revision Update VII. ADJOURN • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes P1 p.m., April 10, 2002. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was ap III. APPROVAL OF 'INUT" arch ' 2002 ,Board meeting to order at 6:37 Ms. Lane m Lino Lakes Plann carried 4 -0 -1 (Mr. yy IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:38 p.m. There was no one present for open mike. OTION to a d Zonin ve the minutes of the March 13, 2002, meeting of the ard, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion ed). Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:39 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING — Bald Eagle Contractors, Lake Drive, CUP for Outdoor Storage DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 2 Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 6:40 p.m. Staff presented the application by Bald Eagle Contractors CUP for Outdoor Storage. Staff reviewed the background of the lot by explaining applicant had submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for outdoor storage. He stated applicants wished to move his construction business to the site and store vehicles outdoors, such as trucks and a construction trailer. He explained the current application did not include a site plan review. Typically, a CUP application such as this would be accompanied by complete site plan information. He noted it was staff's understanding that the applicant wanted to find out if the outdoor storage was possible before committing to designing the building, grading, utilities, and other elements. Staff presented its analysis by explaining the si approximately 1.3 acres. He explained the C. February, 2000. This amendment to the Zonis storage as a conditional use in the Light Industn specific limitations regarding where such stora two parcels totaling Ordinance 02 -2000 in open and outdoor lso listed very • Several requirements pertained specific design information ne all the Ordinance requirement e. Staff did not have if the application complied with ighting and parking. • Staff can address the loc n requ entow. The Ordinance stated that the property could not ab erty zon a sidential, rural, or business. Abutting included across the stre w ;subject site was directly across the street from an R -3 zonin Staff explaine industrial sit on the edges storage sites wou other industrial prope intent of were interim zoning dig sbes° cinance was to allow outdoor storage only on light e zoning district. He stated the sites were not to be -et, but toward the inside of the district. That way, the cned, not only by onsite design features, but also by He indicated the proposed se was exactly the type of location prohibited by the outdoor storage Ordinance. • The Ordinance stated that the actual outdoor storage area could not abut a school or park. The property abuts a storm water pond on school property, but the submitted sketch showed a fenced area for storage, which did not abut the school property. An area with "grass seed" is shown separating the two. Staff noted the seeded area appeared to cover only half the entire site, according to the drawing, rendering it unusable. Staff indicated it was probable that once the business and storage were established, a successful construction business would grow and need additional storage area for equipment. Contractor yards typically accumulate more and more equipment and material over time. Staff stated that because of the type of business Bald Eagle was in, it would be difficult to keep fully one -half of the site unusable. Staff DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 3 noted even assuming the property owner properly requested expansion of the storage, the City would have created for itself a difficult situation where an intended buffer was threatened. Staff noted that the school district was sent a letter stating it did not oppose the application for outdoor storage. Staff stated while they appreciated the district's input, it did not erase staff's concerns. With respect to the standard Conditional Use Permit requirements, staff stated most types of conditional uses in the zoning ordinance had specific conditions, such as those discussed above. In addition, there were general requirements that applied to all CUPs. Staff explained one of those was the proposed use " his ordinance applicable to the particular use." ; ffiaf property abuts a residential zoning district. T standard of the zoning ordinance that prohibi rm to specific standards of s previously explained, the orm to the specific a site. Staff noted full site and building plans were re staff had received only sparse information in,tthe subm received grading, utility, and landscaping pril 3 a complete site plan review for the P & SUP applications. He stated e indicated staff had 2, which did not allow for However, he stated, as a courtesy toi application without the site and b the applicant wanted to find o designing the building, grading, proposal clearly dig ®y wi making a reco sto ad reviewed the CUP g pl. w` $ted it was staff's understanding that outdoor was possible before committing to , and other elements. He stated since the or storage requirements, staff was comfortable ra b JP alone. With respe and south o meant that the us such uses. He stated However, the City was r with its Ordinances. surrounding ct site had dnrio onforming uses, staff noted properties on the north oor storage. These were nonconforming uses. This the change in zoning requirements that would prohibit ght to continue as they were before the change. ated to, nor should it allow, new uses that did not comply Staff recommended denying the CUP application because it did not comply with City requirements, as explained in the staff report. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Dave Biese, Bald Eagle Construction, and Greg Hayes, Shingobee Builders. Mr. Hayes stated applicant wanted to store a boom truck and a trailer with mats on it that would not be able to be stored inside. He indicated they understood that the School District and the Church potentially were in conflict with the CUP. He stated the Church and school did not have any objection to that type of outdoor storage. He stated they had modified the site plan to include a screening berm along Lake Drive, as well as a DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 4 perimeter fence for security seasons. He stated the type of building was precast concrete. Mr. Biese indicated the two properties on either side also had a lot of stuff on their lots. He stated they did not fabricate any steel themselves, they just transported it to job sites. Mr. Rafferty asked for the building dimensions. Mr. Hayes replied it was approximately 4500 square feet, 64 x 64. Mr. Biese stated if they expanded in the future, they could expand out the back. Chair Schaps stated the difficulty was that they were.sking for approval when the Board had little information as to what they wanted approval; Mr. Hayes stated they were attempting to be pactiven and the Board's opinions prior to going forward s. Mr. Hayes stated the reason they were proceedi recommended they go through this process. manner based on staff's recommendation anted to get staff's was because staff had e proceeding in a prudent Mr. Corson asked what type of storage q ''a' er l they e intending. Mr. Biese replied all materials would be stored insid trailers, which would be outside. Mr. Corson asked if they were that was correct. g vehicle' ` and not materials. Mr. Hayes replied Mr. Corson state information. ey should proceed without all of the Chair Schaps that they were trying to prevent this from happening, part s 's,ong 1 Drive. Mr. Corson stated he wa � favor of outside storage. He indicated this was an important area of the City. He stated he was very sensitive as to how this would appear from the street. Chair Schaps asked the size of the trucks that would be coming into the site. Mr. Biese stated they would be semi trucks, but they would not always be on the property. Bob Brouty, 437 Portion Lake Drive, stated he was not clear on three items. He asked if they were talking about taking things off trucks and storing it on the ground, or were they talking about putting thing on the truck only. Mr. Biese replied they would be storing materials inside. Mr. Brouty stated whether or not the school district or the church had no objection, did not make any difference. There was an Ordinance and the reason for the Ordinance, was to be followed. However, Mr. Brouty stated if they were only storing vehicles, he was DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 5 not sure if this fit into the Ordinance, as long as there was no storage of materials on the property. He stated this business was a good neighbor and if the CUP was approved, the CUP would need to be very specific as to not allowing materials to be stored outdoors. Herman Zuetel, stated he was an environmentalist and indicate he was neither for nor against this, but he was wondering if there was a possible hazardous materials issue because he had been in the trucking industry for many years and knew that boom trucks leaked oil and fuel and asked the Board to consider this. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 7:00 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Zych asked if there was anywhere else in the Ci outdoor storage. Mr. Smyser replied light ind storage was on the interior. He stated the are industrial and could accommodate a request applicant could be directed for ould allow it, as long as the 35E, was zoned light Mr. Corson stated he believed they were lookin because it was zoned residential, they did no variance to the CUP. ce from the CUP. He stated consider this without a Mr. Corson made a MOTION to deny t e• u o , ; w . agle Construction for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ap. ''a ati.n torage in L1 Zoning District. The reason for the denial was be e it doe � ° ply with City requirement. The motion was supported by Motion carried B. PUBLIC Allocation, G — Stoney Prelimi Chair Schaps opene k, Comprehensive Plan Amendment/MUSA Plat 'earing at 7:05 p.m. Staff presented the application by Stoneybrook, Comprehensive Plan Amendment/MUSA Allocation, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat. Staff reviewed the background of the lot by explaining Tollefson Development, Inc. had submitted an pplication for preliminary plat approval of Stoneybrook, a 102 lot single - family residential subdivision. The request also required approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allocate MUSA to the site and a Rezoning from R, Rural District to R -1X, Single Family Executive Residential District. Staff stated the site was located adjacent to and south of Birch Street and a quarter mile west of Centerville Road. Staff presented its analysis by explaining the project consisted of a 78 acre parcel that was currently an agricultural use containing approximately 19 acres of wetland. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 6 Surrounding land uses included sewered residential to the north (Pheasant Hills Preserve), unsewered large lot residential to the west and south, and a single - family dwelling, pasture and wetland to the east. He noted the project site was currently zoned R, Rural District. Surrounding zoning included R -1X, Single Family Executive to the north, and R, Rural to the east, west and south. With respect to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (MUSA Allocation), staff explained the City's 2002 Comprehensive Plan was currently being reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. There were approximately 15.7 acres remaining in the City's MSUA bank. An existing development proposal, curfently being reviewed by the City (Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition), had requeste% leave the City with 11.2 acres until the Compre,si Metropolitan Council. He noted this was ins cent of 54.73 acres. res. This potentially would was approved by the e re requested allocation He noted with respect to rezoning, the City wa until the Comprehensive Plan had been appro allocation. With respect to the Preliminary Plat, h District was 12,825 square feet of this provision. However, the build �e Block 8 were, in part, bisected tl consistent with the definition o area suitable for de included only th sition to rezone the property as available for um lot size of the R -1X oted that all lots met or exceed area - "a =� for Lot 7, Block 1 and Lot 6, and. . d while the calculations were le land, the intent was to insure a contiguous land t should demonstrate that the buildable area roposed house pads. He noted t ® um lot dept 35 feet. Double frontage lots were required to have a minimum to d . f 145 feet e stated all lots met or exceeded these provisions. He stated the minim lots. He noted all lots m o vas 90 feet for standard lots and 115 feet for corner rxceeded those standards with the exception of Lot 20, Block 8. He stated this lot VO6uld need to be modified to conform to district standards. With respect to outlots, he noted there were six outlots included in the proposed subdivision. The outlots covered the majority of the ponds and wetland areas. It was unclear whether these are intended for dedication to the City or proposed for ownership by a Homeowners Association. He stated the applicant should be aware that any proposed dedication of outlots to the City would not be accepted in fulfillment of park dedication (payment in lieu) requirements. However, if the outlots were not intended for dedication to the City, they should be added to the adjacent proposed residential lots. With respect to setback, he explained the required setbacks established in the R -1X District were the greater of the following: 40 feet (Collector or Arterial Street), 30 feet (Local Street), 30 feet (front yard), 30 feet (rear yard), and ten feet (side yard — principal building). He stated the lots had adequate dimensions to meet required setback. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 7 . However, the proposed building pad for Lot 20, Block 8 encroaches into the 30 -foot setback for a local street (side yard). He explained this lot would need to be modified to conform to district standards. Staff explained in addition, ponds and wetland areas would mandate a significant setback between proposed building sites and existing homes on adjacent properties. He stated the building pad for Lot 2, Block 4 extended to within 18 feet of the existing wetland and proposed 100 year High Water Elevation. He stated every effort should be made to maximize the usable yard space on this lot. With respect to street and block design, he noted the site had two accesses, one from Birch Street at the existing Pheasant Hills Drive, an one at the Sherman Lake Road intersection. He noted Street A extended southerly ® evelopment from Birch Street, looped back and tied into Street B. He sta d e � was proposed to extent from Birch Street to the easterly property lin e d r ,t to •rovide a connection for future development to the east. There ar = � • se s which intersected with either Street A or Street B. Staff recommended providing a street stub to eastern` erty line for future street extension, the developer should demonstraf " ®e street a' ld service the adjacent parcel. Staff noted there was a large wet a co 4 least of the proposed street stub that would limit future alignment optio d• ri 1 - street abutted the St. Paul Water Utility property, which cones e�mg ge diameter water main. This might cause conflicts with the s sewer r main stubs as well as the roadways. Staff stated the wad- . ty was ctrf y reviewing the proposal for possible impacts. Should the street be e to the east property line, the applicant would be required to provide k ant ea " or cul -de -sac to be constructed until the street was extended. e`'a'k �nr "aa o bey red at the street terminus indicating the future extension of Staff indicate was pro A d as a large loop at the southern half of the development. While �hi sectio d two access points, they form the same intersection and create a situation � to •a ong cul -de -sac. Staff had evaluated other alignment options, however it app - e t tat these would cause additional wetland impacts. Staff stated they were reviewing this issue with the Public Safety Department and the Centennial Lakes Fire Department to determine if there were any access concerns with the proposed layout. Staff stated they were also recommending that the applicant evaluate a possible street stud alignment to the south of the development in the approximate location of Street G. This would allow for a future connection with East Holly Drive. The 2001 Transportation Plan identified East Holly Drive as a Minor Collector and proposed its future connection with Holly Drive to the west and Ash Street (County Road J) to the south. While these projects were not planned in the near term, it would be practical to reserve the option to connect this subdivision to Holly Drive in the future. With respect to grading and drainage, staff stated a grading plan had been submitted and was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. A Rice Creek Watershed DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 8 District (RCWD) Land Development Permit was also required. The house pad on Lot 9, Block 9 should be reoriented to provide a more suitable building pad. The plan does not identify the Normal or High Water Level for wetlands No. 12 and No. 13. Staff noted mitigation sites were proposed to be fenced off after grading was completed to restrict construction traffic. According to the plans, there were no provisions for bringing materials onto the site or hauling off the site. With respect to utilities, staff stated a preliminary plan had been submitted and was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. Sanitary Sewer was proposed to be expected to the site from its existing location in Sherman Lake Road, north of Birch Street. Water would be provided by connection to the existing 16" trunk water main lying adjacent to the property on the south side of Bit proposed to be looped back to the system by cr Staff indicated adequate capacity exists . n the proposed development. In addition, the B aI Fly' Lii�i M hich served the area, was scheduled for replacement in 2003. t. The water main was treet at Pheasant Hills sewer system to service Staff stated with respect to drainage and util. in width at adjoining lot lines, and 10 fee lines as required. Drainage and Utility Level and those covering underground by the City Engineer. Easements :ffic= az1 areas. Specifically, easements sh emergency overflow on Lots With respect to P subdivision at i payment in lie February 5 limits of the �fp several alternativ aseme re being proposed five feet adjoining street lines and rear lot ng the 100 year High Water subject to review and approval access all pond and wetland ccess Outlot F and cover the stated the Park Board discussed the proposed The Board was recommending 100% cash . As explained in the Public Services Director's ftparkland memorandum';; pensive Par roposed development lies outside the planning d Trial System Plan. The Park Board looked at ed the payment in lieu as the preferred option. Regarding floodplain, s' "`:tea d portions of the site lies within the Floor Plain Zone A. Zone A represented areas o 00 -year floor where based floor elevations had not been determined. The City's Floodplain Management Ordinance required that principal structures be located no lower than one foot above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The City's subdivision Ordinance required that proposed basements be four (4) feet above the water table (normal water level) and two (2) feet above the design flood levels of ponding areas. Staff stated the submitted grading plan identified proposed 100 feet High Water Level elevations. Conformance to the requirements could not be determined for Lots 23 and 27, Block 8 due to lack of documentation on the normal and high water levels of wetlands No. 12 and No. 13. The applicant should submit this documentation. All other lots were in conformance. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 9 Staff indicated the proposal was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. If the proposed subdivision was approved, the Developer would be required to make application to FEMA for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to revise the existing Floor Plain maps consistent with the proposed grading. With respect to wetlands, staff stated the project site contained 19.39 acres of wetland. 2.06 acres of wetland were proposed to be impacted by the site development. The wetland mitigation would take place on -site, by creating two new wetlands and three water quality ponds, which would have a total area of 2.51 acres and 3.27 acres, respectively. A portion (.20 acres) of one of the existing wetland areas would be converted from a Type 2 wet meadow to a Type 3 shallow marsh wetland to help facilitate site drainage. Staff stated the developer was proposing to in property corners of where the wetland edge cl Approximately 35 to 40 signs would be installe wetland edge. The sign would designate the ar would also inform homeowners that movin The plans also delineate a wetland buffer e additional transition from cultured lawn. Staff indicated the application a1sq monitoring of the newly created submitted to Rice Creek Wate a Regulatory Government Uni Act. acing the wetland edge as astically th lot. In per two iomes) along the � tected wetland zone. The sign the sign was not allowed. wetland to provide ed n oni ring Plan that provided for s fo period. The report would be 'strict on a yearly basis. The RCWD was or administration of the Wetland Conservation Staff stated see ired within the development agreement to insure installation `` s as well as ` required monitoring. This requirement would need to be coordinate Staff indicated all ex p eg' s hove the Normal Water Level should be seeded with mixes consistent with mixtures. The applicant should coordinate seed types with the City's Environmental Specialists. With respect to tree preservation, staff stated the site contained a number of oaks in the extreme southeast corner of the proposed development and one on the north side adjacent to Birch Street. There was no anticipated tree loss as part of his project. Although a fence area was shown around the tree on the site, a more detailed description of tree preservation should be submitted. Fences must be placed at a distance from the trees equal to one -foot radius for each inch of tree trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. The developer should coordinate all three preservation activities with the City's Environmental Specialist. Staff stated Officer Mike Rumpsa prepared a review on January 21, 2002. He expressed concern with the additional traffic load on Birch Street, particularly with morning rush hour traffic. DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 10 Staff stated a landscaping plan for screening along Birch Street had been submitted as required. The plan consisted of a combination of deciduous and coniferous trees. The City's Environmental Specialist was recommending replacement of the proposed Colorado Spruce with White Spruce. Staff indicated the City's Environmental Board reviewed the request on March 27, 2002, and recommended denial of the request citing the need to submit plans to the St. Paul Regional Water Utility and the Vadnais Lakes Watershed District. They also submitted recommendation to consider if the proposal was approved. Staff stated the developer had made application to the RCWD for approval of a Land Development Plan and a Wetland Alteration Plan. Tla review by the District 011 April 24, 2002. It waste approvals until the RCWD has approved, at a Authorization for Administrative Action). Staff indicated the County was preparing co subdivision and impact on Birch Street. It w_ improvements to Birch Street, adjacent t County. ication was scheduled for o withhold any development AA, (Tabled with regard to the proposed endation that t be required by the Staff stated they had received by f A fax a :` erg Anoka County Highway Department expressing their conew ith t , sues that may occur on CSAH 10 as a result of this developmen Staff stated a prey plans would ne sanitary sewe outlet contr concrete. The .k fps; minimum m pipe. The submitte minimum pipe size of 1` ity Engineer indicated the final construction dards. City Standards for storm sewer, ld nee to be shown in the plans. The detail for the eated lumber weir. The weir would need to be s for storm sewer were minimum full velocity — 3 size — 15" RC pipe; minimum culvert size — 15" RC d to use a minimum full velocity of 2.5 fps and ipe. The City's Local Water Management Plan called for ponds to be built with a 15 5 ot, 10:1 side slope bench. The pond detail submitted showed a 10 -foot, 10:1 side slope bench. This detail would need to be corrected and the proposed pond adjusted to a 15 -foot wide bench. Supporting information regarding soil types and land uses used to determine the curve numbers would need to be submitted. An SCS TR -55 method should be used to determine the Time of Concentrations, not the Lag method. Pond 6 was landlocked, according to the model. The 100 -year floor elevation for the pond would need to be determined allowing for a 100 -year snowmelt, 10 -day runoff of 7.2 inches and a Curve Number of 100. Groundwater information was not provided. The City's Local Water Management plan called for the minimum floor elevation, including basement to be 4 feet above the groundwater, 4 feet above the normal water level, or 2 feet above the 100 -year flood elevation, whichever was greatest. The lowest opening was also required to be at least 1 foot above the emergency overflow. Approval from Rice Creek Watershed was also needed. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 11 Staff explained the current status of the City's 2001 Comprehensive Plan and the associated MUSA allocation prevented the City from moving forward with this application. He stated, in addition, there were several preliminary plat issues that needed to be resolved, including the review by Rice Creek Watershed District. Staff recommended tabeling the action on the MUSA allocation, Rezoning, and Preliminary Plat requests to obtain additional information and modifications as contained in staff's report. Ms. Lane asked how the Comprehensive Plan had this area zoned. Mr. Grochala replied it was zoned Low Density sewered residential, and this plan met that zoning requirement. Mr. Rafferty asked what MUSA meant and the importance f MUSA. Mr. Grochala explained what MUSA meant and why it was Chair Schaps asked why this project was outsides oratoriu . , - ,'Grochala stated when the City Council was approving the mora u n this develc�pia�'tent application had been submitted that day. Council elected to ace' lications received as of January 14, 2002 and therefore, this development was ai roved to come through. Mr. Rafferty stated it appeared the Ano "o ® 4cern was regarding the speed limit and the amount of additional traf e e would this development affect the current residents in the area. Gr -�ch. eph �HOne of the purposes of getting a street through was to provide acce o the d ant to the east. He indicated by providing the street at the parts k location rovide for two access points to a future development. He stated fh wetlands might also create a problem for street access. He indicated they at a�: He stated their major plan would be to put a sign up indicatin;a goFs at some point in the future. He stated in the past, the prob residents occurred when the residents did not know that the road planned to go' gh. Mr. Rafferty ask !as a con e pt to connect east Holly to west Holly. Mr. Grochala replied it was a concern it would provide a good connection through the City. He stated the problem wi h Street was that there was no other alternative road to use. If east Holly and west 'Iolly were connected at some point in the future, this would create another traffic alternative. Mr. Corson asked if the Met Council wanted the future land plans be consistent with the zoning, there would be no action taken for several months. Mr. Grochala stated this was a decision they would have to make. He stated he was not comfortable at this time making this kind of a decision. Mr. Corson stated considering the land use plan had not been approved, they should not be making any decision on this development until that issue had been resolved. Mr. Corson asked who would take care of the wetland buffers signs. Mr. Grochala stated that would need to be worked out with the developer. They would be responsible for the installation and reseeding of the wetland areas. He stated the City would not replace DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 12 • those signs; this might be something a homeowners association would be responsible for maintaining. • • Chair Schaps asked if Met Council would approve the Comprehensive Plan this year. Mr. Grochala replied a lot of that would depend on the City Council. He expected the Met Council to give their input on the Plan shortly and then the City would need to respond to their comments. He stated further discussions would need to be held, which would dictate how long it would take. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Matthew Weiland and Brian Krystofiak, Tollefson Development, Inc. Mr. Weiland stated they realized that traffic an d safe t big concern for this project. He stated they attempted to design this project prot ect. he wetlands on site. He stated they would work closely with Rice Creek Wat ®ed a r� °'were waiting for the Comprehensive Plan approval and they had i«' V! • work o r the Comprehensive Plan before this project would Chair Schaps asked if they would be opp they would not be opposed to that, and as long as it would continue to forward' plat. Chair Schaps asked the price q ue. Mr. Weiland replied this option previously with staff lude them from looking at the ots and h Mr. Weiland replied the lot prices would be the mid -90's and the dues would be around $350,000.00. Chair Schaps as " e f olve• Hof the residents' concerns from the neighborhoo• • 'ings. Mrs 1 d replied they were still working on the traffic issue. He stated th b -re not oppose doing additional landscaping for buffering. Chair Schaps as the signs on the streets. Mr. Weiland stated they did not have a problem . �a`` "s the homeowners association's responsibility. Mr. Rafferty asked if they h`• any draft of the guidelines /covenants for the common areas. Mr. Weiland stated they did not have a draft of the covenants yet, but he would be willing to look at other development covenants. Ms. Lane stated there was no MUSA application for this, and she did not see that there was any purpose in looking at this proposal right now. She stated Met Council would not necessarily give the City what they wanted. Lou Masonick, stated they had three neighborhood meetings, not two. He stated they were not against development, but expressed concern it might be going too fast. He presented to the Board a summary of the concerns and questions by the neighboring properties. He stated while they did not oppose the development of the property, they felt the development should take place in a responsible manner that increased the quality of life of all taxpaying citizens of Lino Lakes. He stated they neighbors had a concern DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 13 regarding the City sewer capacity would not handle the proposed increase with the approximately 100 new homes. He asked if the existing sewer could handle the new load. If not, who would pay to correct it? He stated several property owners on or near the Birch Street had been told that they could not hook up to existing sewer because it was already at capacity because of Pheasant Hills Preserve. As taxpayers, there was a consensus that capacity issues on sewer should include existing property owners, and that those owners have the opportunity to hook up once sewer was available. Mr. Masonick stated there was a great deal of concern on the traffic of Birch. Both adjacent Centerville Road and Birch Street already had problems with existing traffic. The addition of approximately 100 x 2 (average cars/household) equaled 200 more cars driving on that 1/4 mile stretch that could create a number of problems impacting pedestrians, drivers, noise, pollution, and quality of hf in the area. He asked if Birch street would be upgraded to accommodate more�t affic and if so, when and how, and if not, why not. He asked if Centerville Road o accommodate more traffic, and if so, how and if not, why not. Hen`s ke here d utlets from the Stoneybrook development onto other streets (such oily Dnv how would the greater traffic affect the existing roads, traffic, of life of area residents. He ��y� asked if there would be ongoing traffic studs „pnce dev � r ent was underway and what would happened if they showed traffic much asked if development slowed down while roads were improve Mr. Masonick stated it was well the Rice Creek Watershed Distri stated neighboring property o board of neutral party should r interest. He state far greater sour fanning or hi properties and proposed dev be shown the de owner selling was a member of they p 1 vehis was a conflict of interest. He xpresse a botcern that an outside watershed district e proposed plans to ensure there was no conflict of epted fact that residential development was a ecially fertilizers — to watersheds than . He asked what would be done to ensure that proposed development are not impacted by the there were any contingency plans in place should it d wetlands. He asked how the wetlands be e development was complete. He asked who held was such an impact. regulated i m' ds adjacent ti erlt. He aske i YL'Y. ntent -imn maintained and mo liability for these issues`r` Mr. Masonick asked if there would be any studies on the impact this development would have on wildlife in the area. He asked what would be done if wildlife was impacted. He stated there was a general consensus amongst area neighbors that loss of wildlife would affect the quality of life. He indicated there were a number of nesting migratory birds, waterfowl, prairie species, fox, deer, wild turnkeys, pheasants, and smaller mammals in the area. Mr. Masonick-stated the increase in traffic on Birch would impact the ability of pedestrians to cross Birch and access trail systems in Pheasant Hills Park Preserve, as well as eventual trail systems that hook into Chain of Lakes Park. He stated the safety of children crossing Birch Street to visit friends in Pheasant Hills Preserve and access park trails was of particular concern. He asked if there were any plans to create pedestrian crosswalks/bridges /lights in the area for residents on the South side of Birch to ultimately DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 14 access Chain of Lakes Park. He asked if there were any plans to extend pedestrian/bike trails along Birch and if so, when and if not, why. He noted that having to get into a vehicle to cross the street because of traffic was a lower quality of life standard than being able to bike or walk. He stated there was concern that the proposed development did not "live up to" the adjacent balance of recreational parks /wetlands /trails and residential housing in Pheasant Hills. He stated there was essentially no recreational park property in the proposed plan and no trail system. Mr. Masonick pointed out that the schools were already full and expressed concern that continued growth in development in the City would create the need for more taxes to build more schools to accommodate the increase in population. He stated eventually this would detract from the quality of schools. He askedif any studies had been performed to evaluate optimal growth. Mr. Masonick asked if any studies had been Services such as police, fire and other city se this project. If not, what would be done. He as homes would pay for the needed services, or w the growth through increased property taxes. Mr. Masonick stated there was a faith" adherence to the proposed quality of life in Lino Lakes. He the open space and "county like/ the Twin Cities as well as the s were negatively impacted by t City would be no "suburbia" was benefit" of in need for mot higher cost to growth. He aske actually benefit the eventual impact of deve benefit the City. ine if existing City aridly ceased load from e mcrease ° revenue from the e residents of the City pay for genera zonin stated the area residents that the "blind as negatively impacting the s ad moved to the City because of ich was conveniently located near perception was that both of these f high- density development. He stated soon the oseville, Fridley, etc. where high density a general concern that the added "tax e City etracted rather than added by creating the e services. He stated this in turn caused greater and pity employees creating the need for infrastructure n performed to determine if added tax revenue would it detract from the City. He asked what was the on property value. He asked if this development would an atmo s. He stat d resideri_ , County, an overwork esh.« Mr. Masonick stated if development positively impacted property values, what would be done to ensure existing long -term residents would not be "taxed off of their properties" because of the rising property values. He stated many retired long -term residents were on "fixed incomes ". Mr. Masonick stated the current plan for this development called for a two -year growth period. Given the concern over roadways and other existing services, it seemed prudent to the neighboring property owners that a slower growth, over a longer time period would make sense. He stated this way roads and services could be improved without being "suddenly overwhelmed by the growth ". He asked if it was possible to make this a longer period (such as 5 years) rather than two years. He asked if growth was occurring too fast, could the plan be modified with less homes once the project was started. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 15 Bernie Rolstad, 1505 East Holly Drive, stated he had lived on Holly Drive since 1960 and he had watched a lot of growth and change within the City. He expressed concern about the density of the project and the increase of traffic. He expressed concern about the traffic on Centerville Road. He stated if they put 200 more cars on Centerville Road, this would make a great impact. He stated he had spoken with Anoka County and there was no plan in the immediate future to improve Centerville Road. He stated this increase would make it difficult for people living on Holly Drive to get onto Centerville Road. Herman Zurtel, expressed concern regarding the wetland area. He emphasized the wetland area had not been delineated. He stated he believed the City's maps did not show the wetland accurately. He expressed concern about the road going through the wetland area. He stated progress was coming and he did no know what could be done about it. He stated in previous discussion with C � ey were told that as far as MUSA went they could not get MUSA from the west, h had to get MUSA from some other area. He asked if there was a plat for, , shoul _ c nded in MUSA. He asked that they look at the future and what : : to hap Harold Breyer, 1521 East Holly Drive, state expressed concern about the property own, their home. He asked what was going t construction was going on. heard. However, he goi ave a road right next to e wildlife in the area while Gil Johnson, Holly Lane, stated concern about the increased tr property would be developed a high. He stated the He stated 102 ho believed the d stated he w ed on • ° v s a since 1983 and he expressed d densit stated they had always realized the oint, but he did not realize the density would be so jam as many homes as possible in this area. was 'c�dnse. He stated he believed the City also 3's they would not require traffic /road studies. He wer density of homes in this project. y was too'lu� :e to see a m Mr. Weiland stag that there was not go this issue and would be e owners of the property and they were not denying pact of traffic, but they were going to be sensitive to to work with the City and County regarding this issue. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 8:40 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Schaps asked if this was the densest project in the City. Mr. Grochala stated this density was lower than previous projects. He asked if this was tabled, how long would this be tabled for. Mr. Corson clarified a road would not go through a resident's property, it may-go up to i but not through it. Mr. Hyden asked if they were removing any wetlands. Mr. Weiland replied they would be impacting some of the wetlands, but they were not completely removing any. He stated they were impacting 2 acres and it was being replaced 2 to 1 on site. They were DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 16 replacing more than they were required to replace. He stated they were meeting the Rice Creek Watershed rules regarding this. Mr. Hyden asked what was the penalty if future residents impacted the wetlands. Mr. Weiland stated this would be up to the City and their rules. Mr. Hyden asked who was overseeing that the future residents would not impact the wetlands. Mr. Weiland stated as the developer they were required to monitor the wetlands they created, but beyond that, it was under City's control and monitoring. He stated the monitoring they were talking about was the wetlands they created to make sure they got established. Mr. Corson asked if they could extend their utilities Krystofiak stated they could cross over it, butt e' to be followed and they would work closely e St. Paul Waterline. Brian guidelines that would need Mr. Grochala replied with respect to tabling it wa comments on the Comprehensive Plan, but this and they would continue to work with the developer an any remaining issues. ed to w he Met Council's meet the Plan as it stood today nts to attempt to work out Mr. Corson requested another notice b Is once this item was brought back. Chair Schaps asked if further commentsTd be made even though the public hearing had been closed. Mr. S' y - • lied they could reopen the public hearing upon notice. Ms. Lane ma Preliminary:, staff's report Board's agenda. OTION to obi staff directs t Stoneybrook's MUSA Allocation, Rezoning, and dditional information and modifications as noted in em should be placed on the Planning and Zoning The motion was support' . Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Zych left the meeting at 8:55 p.m. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Ms. Lane asked how the Ordinance Task Force was coming along. Chair Schaps replied they were having meetings and they were almost on track. He stated the meetings were going well and he believed they would be caught up in two weeks. Mr. Corson asked what the City did if a resident impacted the wetland. He stated he would like to discuss this at a future meeting. Mr. Grochala replied all of the wetlands were dedicated as easements and they had to stay as they were. Filling in wetlands was a DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 17 violation of the Wetland Conservation Law, which was a federal law and was overseen by the Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated enforcement was the issue. There were penalties in place, but this was an educational process with the residents. VII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT MINUTES • • AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: May 8, 2002 TOPIC: Site Plan Review for the relocation of a structure to a 13.5 acre parcel on 20th Avenue Pete & Norma Nadeau, 6644 -20th Avenue ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Pete and Norma Nadeau have applied for a Site Plan Review for the relocation of their existing home. The home, constructed in 1976, is currently located at 6644 -20`h Avenue on a 9.27 acre parcel which is zoned Rural and guided for Low Density/Medium Density Residential under the 2001 proposed Comprehensive Plan. The Nadeaus have recently sold the land on which the house is sited, and wish to move the house across 20th Avenue to a 13.5 acre parcel they own, which is zoned Rural and guided Low Density, Sewered Residential. ANALYSIS Section 3, subd. 7 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance requires a Site Plan Review for any structure moved onto a vacant lot, in order to determine "whether the structure will be compatible with other development in the area, and conform to all City code and ordinances." • • Planning & Zoning Board Nadeau Site Plan Review May 8, 2002 Land Use Compatibility The following chart identifies the existing land use and zoning surrounding the proposed site. Direction Land Use Zoning North Low Density, Sewered Residential Rural East Low/Medium Density Residential Rural South Low Density, Sewered & Unsewered Residential Rural West Low Density, Sewered Residential Rural Setbacks The following chart identifies the required setbacks for property located in a Rural zone and the proposed setbacks for the Nadeau house. Rural Regulations Required Setbacks Proposed Setbacks Front Yard 40' (from a collector street) 100' Side Yard 10' principle building 5' accessory building 70' (house) 30' (garage) Rear Yard 30' principle building 30' accessory building >30' >30' Access Moving the house onto the proposed site will require an access drive off 20th Avenue, which is a County Road. An existing access drive with culvert, formerly used for farm vehicle access onto fields, exists on the site. Plans have been forwarded to Anoka County for approval to use this existing drive. Utilities Although the site is located in a Phase 1 Growth Area, with City sewer expected to be available by 2010, sanitary sewer is not yet available to the site. As a result, the Nadeaus have submitted plans for a septic system. Primary and secondary drain field sites have been delineated along with soils and septic design specifications. Planning & Zoning Board Nadeau Site Plan Review May 8, 2002 City water is available on the east side of 20th Avenue. To connect to City water would require tunneling under 20th Avenue, and this will require County approval. The water service would be performed as a City project. The fee to the Nadeaus would follow the City's public improvement financing policy. Septic Plans have been submitted for a mound system septic design. Plans delineate both a primary and secondary site, soils, and design specifications. The system has been reviewed and approved by City building officials. Building The home was constructed in 1976, and is a 1,600 sq.ft. single -story rambler - style. The home contains a full basement foundation and attached garage (470 sq.ft.), and meets the Rural District minimum building dimensions. City building officials have inspected the home and found it to be structurally sound, with plumbing, electrical, and mechanicals meeting local ordinances. A detached 30' X 24' (720 sq.ft.) garage is also planned for the new site. City Ordinance allows a maximum of 5,000 sq.ft. of accessory building space, limited in number to one attached garage and two detached accessory structures, for a property of this size and zoning district. The proposed garages fall well within these limits. The proposed relocation of the above described home appears to meet all building code and zoning district requirements. Staff would recommend approval of the proposed Site Plan Review with the following conditions: 1.) Approval from Anoka County for an access drive onto County Highway No. 54 (20th Avenue) 2.) Application of all necessary building permits for the relocation of the home and construction of the detached garage. OPTIONS 1.) Recommend approval of the proposed Site Plan Review. 2.) Recommend denial of the proposed Site Plan Review 3.) Return to staff with direction • Planning & Zoning Board Nadeau Site Plan Review May 8, 2002 RECOMMENDATION Option #1 ATTACHMENTS 1.) General location map. 2.) Certificate of Survey • • 4 3 LAND pEtle — T.Rzi'azra tom, °p0 4 EXHIBIT # 1 ,PYS!R�ku�1=1 t1C�tY� o =, O-aJ F3f v era. C4o1 q!!Q7tinwnn �: a goal. ORY OF LIMO LANES 13 24 '13� n Etit i LIE =�4O :gl0 �A : n a"' . iraili�i �, I Eni no nrl►ii■■■ ■■1 llll: a m p Fri �m&!Isee on = .= ©F IF. . Mr.11.21M ME ' "m4.41t, 00101 I, 11111t1MOIM EMAMI _COUNTY - 8111[ -AP- p'TtiO 4 , 4 CENT R„I �jOoa :, ssn b ti JApaf e D 00 liaggI MIXIM ©©EIn ooh (3 �j ©Qyyt^r4it(i!!►�� ER- tErigi ltler 04O ai er'pm �'ono mFr aetp4, 111•1 1 ST rT F 8E55 34, 38 7.31-11.22 W FOR T,-- 1ta�I.1 1.IA0cAS I HEREBY ORIIrY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN OP PEPORI r VAS PR =PALED BY ME OR LNDEEP MY DIRECT SUP= RVISIOf,` AND THAT I Am A DULY LICENS SURVEYOR UNDER :1 ,j - VS Or THE T- p-1 A1INNrSOi Rondy L. Kurth. L'.S. No. 20270 RusselI J. Kurth. L.L.S. No. 16113 Move oty s�� u. Lt►.� s-(yam. 'A___ s ; Cs_ 2-gX30 . • NSW! CDN5TRUCT101.1., /\/ 0 O 0 o N'T O' S C= Zot-- NI A KL,PCD NCZ CRT+4440770 CONTOUR 11.1TCRVAL \. 2. FOOT MOTEL DRAYNli 1.1 o Ft i.L_b s-rA,c t u OKL . To 0 P.T� tk c- -cr 1 M • FT� / - - LI tv ah3 3 6- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY i 3 IRCr1 dD cl" Df,.1 i H WN IN r ^ =7 .N - ^ /Au A FOOT) C T1-7 0 ■ \00� SCALE. IN f 7 / / C, / i i i i / r�L C, , 7-0.0 7 / 0 1 1� V -*)• Li VS t= r �' z te,.1 1 33 .‹r a wt d KLPTH SLF?VE142. NC 4w- - S a4 ST. NE. CD JrzIA . . Ads 5421 I62) 72E-S76 ;,X E2 78E-7502 DAB- -4 0 = IRON MONUMENT Commencing at the Southeast corner of the East half (E 1/2) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 26. Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota; thence north along the East line of said E Y. NE ''/. a distance of 941.14 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence westerly along the North line of the south 941.0 feet, a distance of 865.13 feet, to the West line of the east 865.00 feet of said E %z. NE '/+; thence southerly along said westerly line, a distance of 196.03 feet to the North line of the south 745.00 feet of said E'A, NE' /; thence westerly, along said north line, a distance of 135.02 feet, to the West line of the east 1000.00 feet of said E %z, NE '/; thence southerly, along said West line, a distance of 495.11 feet to the North line of East Birch Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, thence easterly along said North line of East Birch Addition, a distance of 582.09 feet to the Northwest corner of Outlot A of said East Birch Addition; thence southerly along the West line of said Outlot A, a distance of 192.75 feet; thence easterly, along the southerly line of said Outlot A, a distance of 60.00 feet; thence northerly along the East line of said Outlot A, a distance of 148.74 feet to the North line of the south 208.71 feet of said E %z. NE '/; thence easterly along said North line, a distance of 120.02 feet to the west line of the East 208.71 feet of said E %z, NE' /; thence northerly, along said West line, a distance of 417.46 feet to the North line of the south 626.11 feet; thence easterly, along said North line, a distance of 208.74 feet, to the East line of said E'/ NE' /,; thence northerly, along said East line, a distance of 314.94 feet to the actual point of Subject to County Road Numbcr 54 RC.P.A. easement, and NSP easements. • • AGENDA ITEM 5B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: May 8, 2002 TOPIC: Minor Subdivision; Variance from the minimum lot size requirement (10 acres) for property located in an R -X Zone. Jeff Joyer (for Mr./Mrs. Thorp of 901 Oak Lane), for property located at 901 Oak Lane. ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Mr. Jeff Joyer is the real estate agent for Mr. & Mrs. Thorp, who own property at 901 Oak Lane. The property, zoned Rural- Executive (R -X), consists of Lot 28 and Lot 29, Block 2, Lake View Woodlands, combined under one Property Identification Number (PIN). The Thorps would like to subdivide their property into two 100' X 423' lots, and sell the resulting lot to a prospective buyer, Mr. Willam Neeck. Soil tests have confirmed that the proposed lot could support a septic system, which would be necessary for this location. However, Section 5, subdiv. 2.B.1 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 10 acres for property located in an R -X Zone, which would preclude such a subdivision. Property is defined by its legal description. Every property has a Parcel Identification Number. The County will not allow property to be subdivided unless the City has approved the subdivision. The City uses the PIN and legal description to determine what the parcel is. Since the property in question has one PIN and the legal description included all the property, it is one parcel. Division of any parcel must comply with City requirements, including lot size. Mr. Joyer and the Thorps are questioning when and how the two lots became combined • under one PIN. It is their contention that the two lots were purchased seperately and Planning & Zoning Board Thorp Variance & Minor Subidivison May 8, 2002 should never have been combined under one PIN. Were this the case, Lot 28 would exist as a legal non - conformity and could be sold to Mr. Neeck. What is known, is that in 1983 Anoka County records show that Lots 28, 29, & 30 were owned by the Thorps under one PIN (09- 31- 22 -24- 0030). In 1998 the Thorps sold Lot 30, leaving the resulting Lots 28 & 29 combined as they are at this time. In reviewing such a transaction, the separate sale of Lot 30 in 1998 clearly should not have taken place or been allowed according to City Ordinance, for the same reasons that preclude the sale of Lot 28 at this time. However, an administrative oversight seems to have taken place, as records show that the Lino Lakes City Clerk certified the subdivision of the parcel to break off Lot 30 without City Council approval. ANALYSIS City Ordinance requires property zoned R -X to be a minimum of 10 acres in size. The Thorps property currently exists as a legal non - conformity, as do most all of the lots in the Lake View Woodlands subdivision. Further subdivision, however, would increase, or exacerbate, the non - conformity of the property, violating City Zoning Ordinance. For this reason, it is the recommendation of staff to deny the request for a Variance from the minimum lot size for property located in an R -X Zone as well as the Minor Subdivision. • OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision and Variance. 2. Recommend denial of the Minor Subdivision and Variance. 3. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #2. ATTACHMENTS 1. General location map. 2. Survey of lot, showing proposed split. 3. Anoka County half - section map (pre -2001: date unknown). 4. Anoka County half - section map (2001). 5. Applicant submittal: "Rationale for Variance." 6. Applicant submittal: email of time -line. • /0 EXHIBIT # 1 '9 .y iraiierm�ml i, IA° . amooveioeomm 1111m 1=41 MEM% 4. :.� 1�7mmmmmmomm A f .�.� LINO LAKES .ITATION CENTER GEORGE. WATCH LAKE 2 n / FOR R�� -1 Kd�p CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY (MEASUREMENTS SHOWN IN FEET AND DECIMALS OF A FOOT) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY. PLAN OR REPORT VAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER 'MY DIRECT SUPERVISION 0 CIO AND THAT 1 AM A DULY LICENS LANDS VEYOR UNDER / THE'tAVi. OF THE (TATE/OF M NE f 1 I /,iitA 1 \ ) SCALE IN FEET RonUy L. Kurth. L.L.S. No. 20270 Russell J. Kurth. L.L.S. No. 16113 i •• 0 loo , Aoo.o ( ?) LY\,g3cr") c :1 tr_ • Ut,?A0't54•FT. 2'5.o L}.lo pr�,c� 7eP. .o SGAVM PJ4\ , \oO.0 10! 64 4 bo— --1 Io A_< @R■ r?vLc. SC'P'c \c.- I 1 RC.,g1-M1: PA'Y ,v A P 1P a Mb S'.-o 4 onl Ir I IDvNrN4P.' cerAST• Ski Tc.H ? cn nl I t L_ 4 \OO''SI -t C^•.) \oo .,, tc7 T._ !L,.) ?<MTH SLRVEMG. N 4002 .EFFERSON ST. NE. COLLM13A 103111S. I I1. 55421 (612) 788-9769 FAX (612) 788.7602 DATE Li- Z. \-OZ 0 = IRON MONUMENT FruND (y) `v�r�Y V�STgNcu (M)• ki\LASURC4 `z■SCIaNCt: L.XU LZU141.. \? 1- 0I-I Lois 28 /\ W.) 7-r k) `"jLJL\`- L) L_4a14..Gs.4sGW wco'O��4-4OS7 LH0 Ll± counaTy , cr■ PV.oOO'aC D •-v c ' p," t1 o\CcWcW Woo°LC,N0`J) A•OKfA Lounityl Mrl VV- 0?0'7ep i.Zr - b•, LoT L&, QJLOLK L) L_hKC:YACW ' ooVLP\N07, INT-lt,KfA r.01.iut -1 7 MIL• # 11gIHX3 r `% C V N to a ° °e 422,23 + 7;.ia0, dee. /ia6 /1 4 ;' ir• s Ba W I ` , o +- - 220 "..._ _1- 422 )2..4- 4 ---'•- .?D3 - .,. o o ---... 213 . ..... •� , ♦ --- �4a_!__ * ` a c ' 42227 422,2# / 4-- 412.3.P `���.'7771 ¢. '-',..,:s c a o 422 30 422.% ..42 42233 412 33 421.3' a o 42135 14117,,,, ` 42z a7 o Off., a o o 42237' ?;,.. 412 3a i \\ s 42233 1 42213 o N t / Ik. o / _' 422.4P _ w,,. / P n % I. Wes. k 3 u . -'Z— - - 432 A2 �'- —4L_ `a .. 411.44' a 4:a a 42.2.44 b a a e 422. 4.4- 422 45 V 4. 0 is .122 47 -222.47 R. 77/2 /2447 vv �\ __ 353.7• . V I, .,e' �, sq s �� tv ►4-v\ \! s >e • III A e •1/� i4 /. A 5 0 s N N `7-1 y H / y4 7 .4 -r ar• .4'' I •0/ N �' DRIVE .a S 6.76 /lt /Se ik� # IIEIIHX3 • 3476/ 34738 VT-N 347/5' 0 346.92 b� 34469 346.46 .4¢6.23 H 34599 ww 34576 34.-33 3 <S•3o 34507 341. 1 344.6/ 3¢437 344• /4 34-3.9/ N� 34368 hm 3f1d�6 • • • EXHIBIT # S Rationale for Variance A variance is requested for the unique hardship associated specifically with this property for the following reasons: 1. The property in question cannot be put to reasonable use under the conditions allowed by the official controls currently, if "reasonable" is defined as building a home on each platted lot as permitted on approximately 70 other properties in the plat of Lake View Woodland. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to physical circumstances unique to the property and not created by the land owner. The two lots were combined unknown to the owners. If sellers owned two lots not adjoining each other, they would not have been mistakenly combined without the knowledge of the seller. The proposed procedure remedies an injustice caused by administrative action impacting this sellers rights. 3. While there is a very significant economic impact to the owners, the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone. The owners purchased and held this property (Lot 28) since 1965, with the intention of selling it to support their retirement. Regardless of economic value of Lot 28, the combining by the taxing authority of Lots 28 and 29 at an unknown time and through an undocumented process amounts to a "taking of property rights ". Approval of the variance restores the owners original rights. 4. This is not a special privilege over 70 adjoining property owners have built on similar sized and previously platted lots. 5. The spirit and intention of the ordinance was to grandfather situations similar to this. The owners should not be penalized for not objecting when their tax statement started showing 3 parcels on one page nearly 20 years ago. EXHIBIT # (� Tanda Gratz •rom: Joyer, Jeffrey [JJoyer@CBBURNET.COM] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:08 PM To: Joyer, Jeffrey Cc: 'jsmyser@ci.Iino- Iakes.mn.us; 'tgretz@ci.Iino- lakes.mn.us'; ' jbergeson @ci.lino- lakes.mn.us'; 'dcarlson©ci.lino- lakes.mn.us'; 'jodonnell@ci.Iino- Iakes.mn.us; 'cdahl @ci.lino- Iakes.mn.us'; 'jreinert @ ci.lino- Iakes.mn.us' Subject: FW :Letter from Ray and Arlene Thorp Following is a letter from Ray and Arlene Thorp... We are writing to request the City Council to intercede for us in a very difficult situation. Recently the City Staff prevented us from selling a lot we own on Oak Lane. This lot was purchased over 35 years ago as an investment. Following is a timeline summarizing the history of this lot. Timeline Summary: 1963 We, Ray and Arlene Thorpe, purchase home at 901 Oak Ln and extra adjoining lot to west, lots 29 & 30, Lake View Woodlands. 1965 Two years later, we purchase a 3rd lot, Lot 28, as long term investment for retirement. 1975 1200 sq. ft. garage built on lot 28. Garage was built by our eighbor who was also the Lino Lakes Building Inspector at the time. 1983 We started receiving one tax statement instead of 3 tax statements. We did not authorize this change. No documentation at the county or city is available to explain what prompted this change. The consolidation of statements coincides with a major records conversion from paper to computers at the county, 1982 -1983. We assumed it an efficiency measure at the county level. 1998 Lot 30 is sold and closed. Recent retirement and health conditions prompted our decision. New owners build house currently 873 Oak Lane at 2002 Mounting medical and prescription drug bills prompted a decision to sell Lot 28. February 23, 2002 to March 27, 2002: Purchase agreement signed with Bill Neeck. Satisfactory perc and soils tests completed for proposed septic system. Survey completed, determined garage setback as adequate Trees cleared from building site by buyer in preparation for construction start April 2nd. Application made for building permit. Buyer notified of issues with building permit Size of accessory building exceeds current limits, if proposed 1 attached garage is built. Required variance. Application made for variance. Further complication: lot sale required subdivision because it illexists on one tax parcel with lot 29. March 28, 2002 City staff graciously explains to our agent, Jeff Joyer, that a minor subdivision and variance are required to sell Lot 28. Application fees of $500.00 and other requirements need to be submitted by April 8th for May 8th Planning and Zoning and May 13th Council decision. Staff shared that they are likely to recommend against request as property no longer meets current city requirements. Lake View Woodlands, including Oak Ln, Knoll Dr and Lois Ln, has 70+ homes on neighboring lots of comparable size. According to city staff there is no administrative action available (to remedy what we believe is an administrative error) and only the Council can authorize the sale of lot 28 separately. April 1, 2002 Closing cancelled for sale to Bill Neeck. Our first choice would be for Council to direct staff to resolve this matter administratively. As a last resort, we are prepared to submit application IIIfor Minor Subdivision. Given our present health conditions, we have asked our agent, Jeff Joyer, to work with the city on our behalf. • • • • AGENDA ITEM 5C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: May 8, 2002 TOPIC: Variance request to allow an accessory building in excess of the maximum allowable square footage. William Neeck, for property located at 907 Oak Lane ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND The existence of this lot as a separate piece of property depends on City Council approval of the Variance and Minor Subdivision addressed in the previous agenda item (Thorp). Should this approval occur, then consideration of this request for a Variance is in order. The subject site is zoned Rural Executive (R -X) and measures 100' X 423' (42,300 sq. ft.). The property is surrounded to the north, east and west by similarly zoned property, and to the south by property zoned Rural. The property contains a 1200 -foot detached garage. Mr. William Neeck is the prospective buyer of the property and plans to construct a 1,125 square foot home with a 630 square foot attached garage. ANALYSIS Accessory square footage is limited to 1,120 square feet for a parcel of this size and zoning classification according to the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance (Section 3, subd. 4.D.8.g). Since the pre- existing garage alone measures 1200 square feet, under City • • • Planning & Zoning Board Neeck Variance May 8, 2002 Ordinance Mr. Neeck would not be allowed to construct his proposed attached garage. Further, City Ordinance requires an attached garage as a building requirement for the Rural Executive Zone (Section 5, subdivision 2.C.3). As a result, Mr. Neeck is asking for a Variance from the maximum allowable accessory square footage cited under City Ordinance, in order that he be allowed to construct a 630 - square foot attached garage. Square footage of the existing detached garage and the proposed attached garage would bring total accessory square footage on the property to 1,830 sq. ft. This is 710 sq. ft. over what is allowed under City Ordinance. The applicant has been apprised, in light of so much resulting accessory building square footage, of City Ordinance as it relates to exterior storage issues (Section 3, subd. 4.R.1.a.) and home occupations (Section 3, subd. 8.D). FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE In considering all requests for a Variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The pre- existing detached garage on the property precludes any additional accessory square footage without a Variance. In particular, the existence of the garage precludes construction of an attached garage, which is a requirement for property of this size and zone (Sec. 5, subdiv. 2.C.3). 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property and not created by the landowner. The garage was constructed by the previous owner and not Mr. Neeck, the prospective buyer. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. City Ordinance requires an attached garage on property of this size and zone, but such a garage is precluded by the existence of the 1200 sq. ft. detached garage already on the site. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Planning & Zoning Board Neeck Variance May 8, 2002 • Granting the Variance will not allow any special privilege beyond allowing the applicant to comply with a conflicting requirement of the City Ordinance. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Granting the Variance will allow the applicant to comply with City Ordinance. As a result of the above Findings of Fact, staff recommends approval of the Variance, with the following condition: the lot size Variance and Minor Subdivision discussed in agenda item 5B (Thorp) must obtain City Council approval before this Variance is effective. OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval of the Variance with the above condition. 2. Recommend denial of the Variance. 3. Return to staff with direction. • RECOMMENDATION Option #1. ATTACHMENTS 1. General site location map. 2. Survey of site, with existing and proposed structures. • \ \ EXHIBIT # 1 ........ . . miry VIM El Agaricz!p IN W allatiali O , 6... 1 - 2S- t I I IPCA_______ WEVW11111 1 I Nl I tri 1 i , mAndlIMETMEZIEI =Es • p t., MMPI /9 1111111111111111111MM spi jpY LINO LAKES CENTER GEORGE WATCH LAKE 44,1-51,4thg isb '..ga-440 °1104 IO.D 07,2- HY -LAND SURVEYING, P.A. LAND SURVEYORS Proposed Top of Block Proposed Garage Floor Proposed Lowest Floor Type `of\ � 1 Building – JOHN MEYER BENCHMARK: Top of Electric: Box, Southwest Corner of Lois Lane and Knoll Drive Elevation 904.16 feat -roB 8700 Jefferson Highway Osseo, Minnesota 55369 PHONE (763)493 -5761 FAX (763)493 -5781 'urutjurz (�Prtifirut, (100.0 qMO•° 9 MPLAT o 9.93 MEAS. Fou+d F"4.4 SMreN T r^ 907.16 e.3e / • EXISTING • / /n GARAGE / qA °. /!!!/ / / low %BV 1061 i q PROPOSED . RESIDENCE , %!� ,Lap 1Y -o. h a i ' e II.W 4 -0.ry q.e• 0 � P ii 164,1eR'09.1-5 youa' DRIVE s ■ 04.1 168.11' ISa o t 910 I 100.34 MEAS. (100.0 PLAT) 608 6.6 EDGE OF BITUMINOUS 101.7:1 40 IOAK LANE O LOT 28, BLOCK 2, LAKE VIEW WOODLAND The only easements shown are from plate of record of Information provided by client I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Surveyed by us thls 7TH day of MARCH 20 02 Signed INVOICE NO. F.B. NO. — SCALE 1 "= EXHIBIT # 2- O Denotes Iron Monument C) Denotes Wood Hub Set For Excavation Only x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation O Denotes Proposed Elevation E— Denotes Surface Drainage Property. Located In Part Of Sec. 9 Twp. 31, R. 22. NOTE: PROPERTY CORNERS SET BY DEVELOPERS SURVEYOR Milton E. Hyland, Minn. Re No. 20262 • • AGENDA ITEM V. D. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Bob Kirmis (NAC) P AND Z MEETING DATE: May 8, 2002 TOPIC: Raske Building Systems - Minor Subdivision and Site & Building Plan Review BACKGROUND Raske Building Systems Inc. has requested site and building plan approval to allow the construction of a 25,568 square foot office /warehouse facility on the property located south of Apollo Road and east of Jon Avenue. The building will be occupied by Hillyard Inc., a manufacturer of cleaning supplies. In conjunction with the request for site and building plan approval, the applicants have also requested approval of a minor subdivision to allow the subdivision of a 6.6 acre parcel of land (presently described as Parcel E, Apollo Business Park) into 4.5 and 2.1 acre parcels. The proposed office /warehouse building would occupy the 2.1 acre parcel. This application was originally submitted in the Fall of last year but was withdrawn prior to consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board. This review is based on the following plan submittals: Sketch and Description Plan dated 4/8/02 Site Plan dated 4/4/02 Landscape Plan dated 3/27/02 Preliminary Erosion and Grading Plan dated 4/4/02 Preliminary Utility Plan dated 4/4/02 Floor Plan and Building Elevations dated 4/4/02 Lighting Plan dated 4/23/02 Environmental Board Comments dated 4/30/02 City Engineer memo dated 5/2/02 • • Raske Building Systems Inc. Page 2 ANALYSIS Land Use and Zoning: The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property for industrial use. The site's present L -I, Light Industrial zoning classification is consistent with this land use designation. The table below illustrates the surrounding existing and proposed land uses. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Industrial Industrial L -I, Light Industrial North Industrial Industrial L -I, Light Industrial South I- 35/Public I- 35/Public /Semi Public PSP, Public and Semi- Public East Industrial Industrial L -I, Light Industrial West Undeveloped Industrial L -I, Light Industrial Lot Size and Setbacks: The lot and building performance standards for properties in the L- I, Light Industrial District are outlined in the table below. Requirement Proposed Parcel F Proposed Parcel G Lot size minimum 1 acre 2.1 acres 4.5 acres (1.8 buildable acres) Lot width minimum 100 feet 299 feet 1,085 feet Setbacks — building from street rear lot line side lot line residential Setbacks — parking from street rear lot line side lot line 50 feet 40 feet 10 feet 75 Feet 15 feet 5 feet 5 feet 71 feet 40 feet 15 feet 900+ feet 15 feet 40 feet NA on west side (shared access proposed), 20 feet on east side NA Building height 45 feet 34 feet NA Green space 10 percent 21 percent NA • Raske Building Systems Inc. Page 3 • As shown above, the proposed lots (Parcels F and G) and office /warehouse building have been found to meet all of these standards. Building: The applicant is proposing to construct a 25,568 square foot office /warehouse building on the eastern one half of proposed Parcel F. Such building placement will allow for a shared access with a future building upon adjacent Parcel G to the west. Based on the building size and placement upon the lot, future building expansion is not anticipated. The office /warehouse building measures 34 feet in height and conforms with the maximum 45- foot height requirement imposed in the L -I District. The building is to be finished in pre -cast concrete wall panels which conform to the standards in Section 3, Subdivision 4.B of the City Code. At this point, the applicant is unsure of whether or not the building will be painted. If the building is to be painted however, the applicant has indicated it would most likely be gray in color. While the proposed building has been found to meet the material requirements of the Code, the appearance of the building is considered somewhat stark and could potentially be improved. To improve the appearance of the building, the following modifications should be considered: • Recess or project building entrances • Provide an entrance canopy or canopies • Introduce foundation plantings to accentuate building entrances • Integrate varied but complementary colors or materials at building entry points • Paint of all or part of the building (i.e. the building's horizontal band). Trash Enclosure: The site plan does not illustrate an exterior trash handling area. According to Section 3, Subd. 4.G of the Ordinance, all refuse and recyclable materials must be stored within the principal building or within an accessory structure (within a side or rear yard) that is totally screened from eye level view from neighboring uses and public rights of way. If trash and recyclable materials are to be stored outdoors, they must be located within a side or rear yard and screened by a fence or wall at least six feet in height with a minimum opaqueness of 80 percent. If trash is to be stored outdoors, the site plan should be modified to illustrate the proposed trash handling area and elevations of the enclosures hould be submitted prior to City Council consideration of the application. Signage: Neither the site plan or building elevations illustrate any signage. Signage is • governed by the City's sign ordinance and separate permits and require a separate permit. All • Raske Building Systems Inc. Page 4 • • signs will be reviewed with the sign permit applications and must satisfy applicable requirements of the Ordinance in regard to sign type size and location. Landscaping: As shown on the landscape plan, a variety of trees are proposed on site. Specifically, a mixture of Ash, Maple, Crab and Spruce trees have been proposed. To be noted is that three trees have been proposed within the site's stormwater pond. To ensure the trees survival, they should not be planted in an area of the site intended for ponding. To visually enhance the site, it is suggested that additional planting be provided in the following areas on the site: • Along the off - street parking areas between sidewalks and the building foundation • At the south end of the row of parking stalls that abut the west side of the building (to screen loading activities from Apollo Road) • Within the off - street parking island west of the building (to visually break up an expanse of parking area) Further, the Environmental Board has recommended that Oak species (a mixture of Burr, Red, and Swamp White) rather than evergreens be provided along the freeway and that existing cedars on the site be relocated and re -used in a screening location. Parking: The standards for calculating the off - street parking requirements for office and warehouse uses are outlined in Section 3, Subdivision 5 of the City Code. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use 90% of the gross building area. Use Gross Area 90% of Gross Area Ratio Required Spaces Office 5,576 s.f. 5,018 s.f. Three spaces plus one space per 200 s.f. 28 Warehouse 19,992 s.f.* 17,993 s.f. One space per 2000 s.f. 9 TOTAL 25,568 s.f. 23,011 s.f. N/A 37 * Warehouse space includes 3,690 square feet of service /repair space As shown in the table above, a total of 37 off - street parking stalls are required for the proposed use. The applicant's plan calls for 51 stalls and significantly exceeds the minimum off - street parking supply requirement. Likewise, three handicap parking stalls have been proposed in satisfaction of applicable State requirements. • • Raske Building Systems Inc. Page 5 The applicant has indicated that the additional parking stalls (beyond that required by Ordinance) are necessary as occasional training sessions are to be held on site which will escalate parking demand. Roads, Access, Circulation. The standards for access and traffic circulation are outlined in Section 3, Subdivision 5 of the City Code and illustrated in the table below. The subject property meets all of the requirements of this section with the exception of the curb cut opening. It should be note that a property may exceed the curb cut opening standard with the approval of the City Engineer. *Measured at right -of -way line (may exceed with approval of City Engineer) Lighting: As required, a lighting plan identifying illumination levels on the subject site as well as fixture type details have been provided and have been found to be acceptable. According to the Ordinance, the source of lights should be hooded and controlled so as not to illuminate adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. The Environmental Board has specifically recommended that downward directed, no spill lighting be used on site. Outside Storage: According to the applicant, there will be no outdoor storage on -site. If outdoor storage is proposed at some future point, the processing of an interim use permit will be necessary. While the Ordinance does not specifically define "outdoor storage ", it is the opinion of staff that continuous overnight parking of company vehicles constitutes "outdoor storage" and is not allowed except via an interim use permit. Grading, Drainage and Utilities: As a condition of site and building plan approval, the conditions of the City Engineer's memo (dated 5/2/02) related to grading, drainage and utilities should be satisfied. Easements: The submitted "Sketch and Description" illustrates a drainage easement over a • ponding area in the western portion of Parcel G. Additionally, drainage and utility easements are Required Proposed Curbing Perimeter curbing Perimeter curbing Curb Opening 26 feet* 55 feet Access Drive 24 feet 55 and 24 feet Stall Width 9 feet 9 feet Stall Depth 18 feet 18 feet *Measured at right -of -way line (may exceed with approval of City Engineer) Lighting: As required, a lighting plan identifying illumination levels on the subject site as well as fixture type details have been provided and have been found to be acceptable. According to the Ordinance, the source of lights should be hooded and controlled so as not to illuminate adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. The Environmental Board has specifically recommended that downward directed, no spill lighting be used on site. Outside Storage: According to the applicant, there will be no outdoor storage on -site. If outdoor storage is proposed at some future point, the processing of an interim use permit will be necessary. While the Ordinance does not specifically define "outdoor storage ", it is the opinion of staff that continuous overnight parking of company vehicles constitutes "outdoor storage" and is not allowed except via an interim use permit. Grading, Drainage and Utilities: As a condition of site and building plan approval, the conditions of the City Engineer's memo (dated 5/2/02) related to grading, drainage and utilities should be satisfied. Easements: The submitted "Sketch and Description" illustrates a drainage easement over a • ponding area in the western portion of Parcel G. Additionally, drainage and utility easements are • Raske Building Systems Inc. Page 6 shown along the northern and southern boundaries of Parcel F. The acceptability of such easements should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Park Dedication: As part of the previous platting of the property, park dedication was not received. As a result, the proposed minor subdivision will be subject to park dedication requirements. For industrial development, a park dedication requirement of $2,175 per acre is required. With proposed Parcels F and G comprising 3.8 acres of upland area (exclusive of ponding), a park dedication of $8,265 will be required prior to the City certifying the proposed minor subdivision. Environmental Issues: The Environmental Board reviewed the proposed development on April 24, 2002. The comments and recommendation of the Environmental Board are attached to this report. Rice Creek Watershed District Review: This application was brought before the Rice Creek Watershed District on April 24, 2002. The Watershed District approved the tabling with authorization for administrative action (TWAFAA). • As a condition of site and building plan approval the Watershed District Permit must be received prior to City building permit issuance. Development Agreement: Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in this report and subject to the conditions listed below, our office recommends the following: A. Approval of a minor subdivision to allow the subdivision of a 6.6 acre parcel of land (presently described as Parcel E, Apollo Business Park) into 4.5 and 2.1 acre parcels subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicable conditions of the City Engineer's memo dated 5/2/02 are satisfactorily met. 2. Based on 3.8 acres of upland, a park dedication of $8,265 (for Parcels F and G) is received prior to the City certifying the proposed minor subdivision. • 3. Deeds conveying the easements to the City shall be submitted prior to City certification of the subdivision. • Raske Building Systems Inc. Page 7 B. Site and Building Plan approval to allow the construction of a 25,568 square foot office /warehouse facility on the property located south of Apollo Road and east of Jon Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed 55 foot curb cut width is approved by the City Engineer. 2. To improve the appearance of the building, the following modifications should be considered: • Recess or project building entrances • Provide an entrance canopy or canopies • Introduce foundation plantings to accentuate building entrances • Integrate varied but complementary colors or materials at building entry points • Paint of all or part of the building (i.e. the building's horizontal band). 3. All refuse and recyclable materials shall be stored within the principal building or within an accessory structure (within a side or rear yard) that is totally screened from eye level view from neighboring uses and public rights of way. If trash is to be stored outdoors, the site plan shall be modified to illustrate the proposed trash handling area and elevations of enclosure shall be submitted prior to consideration by the City Council. 4. All signs shall be reviewed with the sign permit applications and shall be required the applicable requirements of the Ordinance. 5. To ensure survival, no trees shall be planted in an area of the site intended for ponding. 6. To visually enhance the site, additional plantings be provided in the following areas on the site: • Along the off - street parking areas between sidewalks and the building foundation (to enhance the visual appearance of the site) • At the south end of the row of parking stalls that abut the west side of the building (to screen loading activities from Apollo Road) • Within the off - street parking island west of the building (to visually break up an expanse of parking area) • 7. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted prior to consideration by the City Council which incorporates the following: • Raske Building Systems Inc. Page 8 • • • The additional plantings listed in condition #6 above. • Oak species (a mixture of Burr, Red, and Swamp White) rather than evergreens along the freeway. • The relocation of existing cedars on the site in a screening location. • The use of native materials in drainage and swale areas. • Ground cover which utilizes City schedules. 8. A contract is submitted to ensure that native landscape materials are installed by a company specializing in native landscape construction. 9. Outside storage (which includes the overnight parking of company vehicles) shall not be allowed. 10. Downward directed, no spill lighting as submitted shall be used on site. 11. Revisions stated in the City Engineer's memo dated 5/2/02 shall be addressed to the City Engineer's satisfaction prior to the application being considered by the City Council. 12. A Watershed District Permit is be received prior to City building permit issuance. 13. Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. • Memorandum DATE: May 2, 2002 TO: Mike Grochala FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer j RE: Raske Building Systems Site Plan Review A site plan review of the submitted documents including a six -page drawing set dated April 4, 2002, a Sketch and Description sheet dated April 8, 2002, a letter to RCWD dated April, 11, 2002, with drainage calculations for the proposed Raske Building Systems site has been performed. The following comments must be addressed prior to a recommendation given for this site: Watermain: - An 18" vertical separation is required between the water line and the sanitary line. - Existing water services must be located. - The cover for watermain that is 10 inches or Tess is 8 feet. Sanitary Sewer: An 18" vertical separation is required between the water line and the sanitary line. Existing sanitary services must be located. A manhole structure will be required at the west end of the sanitary line. Utility easements will be required for the main sanitary line. Coordination and easements will be required on adjacent property to the east. Street Standards: Driveway entrance must maintain drainage to the existing storm sewer structure. The construction entrance must note that the width is a minimum of 20 feet. Storm Sewer /Grading: The 4" PVC vent must be define as to it's use. Approval is required from RCWD. The trees shown in the south pond must be relocated. Existing storm sewer flows to the north. Attached is a memorandum dated May 1, 2002, which addresses the storm sewer and grading design. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1132 Phone: 651 -982 -2400 • Fax: 651 - 932 -2499 • TDD: 651 -982 -2410 • • TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-2140 PHONE: 651/292-4400 FAX: 651/292-0083 Jim Studenski Reference: Drainage Review for Copies To: John Powell Raske Building Systems, Inc From: Stephen W. Hartley A- Lino Lakes, Minnesota Date: May 1, 2002 Commission No. 12475 -002 The following documents, submitted April 23, 2002, to the City of Lino Lakes, were used to review the Raske Building Systems, Inc. site plan: Rice Creek Watershed District submittal dated September 13, 2001 Rice Creek Watershed District submittal dated April 11, 2002 Grading Plan C -2 dated September 10, 2001, and signed April 4, 2002 After reviewing the above documents, I have the following comments: 1. In the April 11, 2002, letter to Rice Creek Watershed District, it is stated that the west pond on parcel "E" was designed as part of the 1992 Apollo Drive Project. The west pond is not an existing pond, but an old borrow pit. The City has no objection to this pit being turned into a pond, but it is the developer's engineer's responsibility to show the pond will work. 2. The west pond was reanalyzed at the request of Rice Creek Watershed District according to the April 11, 2002 letter. In this letter the maximum flood elevation is given as 900.84 feet. This elevation will need to be used as the High Water Elevation on the grading plan. 3. What is the High Water Elevation of the proposed sedimentation basin on the Raske Building Systems, Inc. site? This elevation will need to be shown on the grading plan. 4. The proposed parking lot drains to a single curb cut in the southwest corner of the parking lot. This curb cut is too close to the outlet of the sedimentation basin and will need to be moved to the east end of the basin. An Equal Opportunity Employer Drainage Review for Page 2 May 1, 2002 • Raske Building Systems, Inc. 5. Drainage easements are needed around the sedimentation basin, the drainage ditch, and the pond. These easements need to be shown on the grading plan. 6. The second grading note makes no sense. Please revise. 7. A note should be added to the grading notes that the silt fence, rock construction entrance, and sedimentation control bales may only be removed after approval from the City Engineer. 8. Has Rice Creek Watershed District given its final approval? • • • • Memo To: Michael Grochala From: Marty Asleson CC: Jeff Smyser/Tanda Gretz Date: April 30, 2002 Re: Environmental Board Recommendations /April 24, 2002 Raske Building Systems, Inc. Environmental Board Meeting Date: April 24, 2002 Topic: Raske Building Systems Recommendations: The Environmental Board made the following recommendations: The Environmental Board made the following recommendations: • That the September 26, 2001 Environmental Board review and recommendations of the Raske Building site be applied. September 26, 2001 Environmental Board Recommendations: • Parking stalls be reduced to a minimum • Use depressional islands in the parking lot if possible • Use downward directed no spill lighting on site • Submit a tree preservation plan for the site. Recommend Approval with standard conditions to include: • Page 1 • • • • The use of native materials in drainage and swale areas, as well as any portions of the property the owner may be open to the use of these materials such as the southwest corner of the parcel. This area would be nice to plan a transitional area from cultured sod to natives through the use design tools such as formal hedge separation, transitional alternative sod mixes, and formal flower gardens that may include both native and non native annuals. The northwest corner could carry the same flower be idea. • Change tree species on the freeway side to Oak species, preferably a mixture of Burr, Red, and Swamp white oaks. If evergreens are desired in this area, then a change to a salt tolerant species such as Austrian pine should be used. All evergreens in this area be grouped and mulched in to separate native plant maintenance concerns. • Ground cover is designed using the City schedules. • A contract is submitted to have the native materials installed by company specializing in native landscape construction. • A 3 -year maintenance agreement with a landscape company specializing in native landscape maintenance should be submitted, and dollars escrowed for this purpose. • Use of low- impact lighting. Motion made by Tere O'Connell /Second by Connie Grundhofer/ All in favor. • In addition, the Environmental Board recommended that trees removed from the site be replaced. Motion to approve with the above stated Environmental Board recommendations to be passed on to the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. All were in favor. Motion passed. • Page 2 im000vvogoong il moon m, Itrolgirommi MAO moo GE( ME■ M ■■ Qt70tuGeirat ' rim 111111111131 so I WM= IM171 -em e© 0MI 00 WWII a© alliell MM. e© e© 11111113 e•112 ■v0 Od MIME MIEN ■raMI 0IMI °O../ /VW W --tuEsomes -.4 lioninunts .a.m-s�� 4 4 i 11113111ErMIMI MUM eri� ev - " RESHANAU l SKETCH AND DESCRIPTION FOR: G.M. DEVELOPMENT MINOR SUBDIVISION AT APOLLO BUSINESS PARK OF: FORMERLY DESCRIBED PARCEL E W 2 Q 8 2 74Th 2277.92 N 88'22'57" E STREET \ \ \ \ / Za \ / \ \\ - / 1 / \ / x$05 9 °' \\ �/ /p�y691 v� „AP X47 .i i /� S 18 li g91' - ^ L RGE� \ / , / / MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 14 9 P 91 I. to ry 3\ / / / .� '�' 129 pbY \:: - .. A, / i\-# s \� 'A A (1t as° � "6+. ��1CSL Flt tvs At / 6'r) / /,.;::: D42 ¢f1 ay 96 �\ Q P�e9os6 dpi en nDq 9, q0 / / N , ,� G \rum � \r y L A /991 vt t „r. a 54 �8e 3 r *. I POND \•,, , / / • / / / , 5 /• /� // __-; : 1 = j• / \II A5 8�' 1‘.pA29 ,04.64 • 1. 31∎a e fir.✓ ■�.•alle_�: �'llillial ®� ®iaaaa(L: LAND SURVEYING • '412 East County Road A LAU. Canada. MN 55117 Telepboae: (851)766 -0112 F. (851)766 -0612 E -meth surveyOmetrote.com METRO INGRESS AN0 EGRESS EASEMENT FOR PARCEL F M egress and ingress easement over and across the Southwesterly 20.00 feet of Parcel F. DRAINAGE AND UTIUTY EASEMENT FOR PARCEL F A drainage and uteity easement ow, under and °crone the Northerly 55.40 feet and the Southerly 40.00 feet of Paced F. DRAINAGE AND U)1J1Y EASEMENT FOR PARCEL F A drainoge and utility easement over. under and across Parcel C described as followK Beginning at the Southeast comer of sold Pacd 9; thence North 19 degrees 24 minutes 42 seconds West on on assumed bearing along the Northeasterly line of said Parcel G. o dislonce of 52.95 feet; thence South 19 degrees 20 minutes 39 seconds West, 0 distance of 82.39 feet; thence South BO degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 71.96 feet, thence South 75 degrees 15 minutes 39 seconds West, a distance of 117.01 feet; thence South 86 degrees 16 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 74.84 feet; thence North 04 degrees 52 pules 17 seconds West. a distance of 49.35 feet thence North 25 degrees 26 minutes 14 seconds West o distance of 85.91 feet thence North 15 degrees 19 minutes 07 seconds East. a distance of 32.96 fee% thence North 38 degrees 07 minutes 48 seconds West. o distance of 49.24 feet to the Southeasterly line of Parcel 14 of City of Lino Lakes Right -Of-Woy Plat No. 1; thence Southwesterly, along said Southeasterly line. to the Northwesterly right of way line of Interstate No. 35W, thence Northeasterly. along said Northwesterly right of woy live, to the point of beginning. MGRESS ANO EGRESS EASEMENT FOR PARCEL G An pees and ingress easement ow one across the Northeasterly 20.00 feet .1 Parcel G. DRAINAGE AND 0191TT EASEMENT FOR PARCEL 0 A drainage and ullily easement eve, under and scram lM Northerly 55.40 feel el the Easterly 45.00 feel of Parcel G \ RECEIVED APR Q 8 2002 CITY OF LINO LAKES NOTE: PONDING EASEMENT AT SOUTHWESTERLY END OF PARCEL E IS NOT SHOWN ON IRIS SURVEY. • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND (UNLESS OTHERWISE MARKED) NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE eo V (a FEET ) 1 inch - 100 0. DESCRIPTIONS OF PROPOSED PARCELS PARCEL F That part of the Southeast Ouorter of Section 16, Township 31. Runge 22. Anoka County. Minnesota. Tying southeasterly of the City of lino Lakes Right -of -Woy Plat No. 1. Apollo Drive. according to the recorded plat thereof and lying northwesterly of Interstate No. 35W and Tying southwesterly of the following described Tna. Commencing at the most meterly comer of Pored 14 of said City of Lino Lakes Right-of-Way Plat No. 1. Apollo Drive. Anoka County. Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof, thence on on assumed bearing of South 68 degrees 12 minutes 20 seconds West along the southeasterly line of said plot 60.07 It thence southwesterly 243.99 lest dong said southeasterly line being o tangentiol curve concave to the southeast. having o radius of 610 feet and a central angle of 22 degrees 55 minutes 02 second$ thence South 45 degrees 17 minutes 18 seconds West tangent to said curve 316.66 feet thence southwesterly 396.97 feet'olong o tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 599.00 feet and o central angle of 25 degrees 18 minuteK thence South 70 degrees 35 minutes 18 seconds West 177.32 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; Nimes South 19 degrees 24 minutes 42 seconds East 298.31 feet to the northwesterly right of woy line of Interstate No. 35W and said line there terminating. EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY; That port of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 31, Range 22. Anoka County, Minnesota. lying southeasterly of the City of Lino Lakes Right -of -Way Plot No. 1, Apollo Drive. according to the recorded plat thereof and lying northwesterly of said Interstate No. 359 and lying southwesterly of the following described 1in0 Commencing of the most eastery come of Pacd 14 od said City of Lino Lakes Right -of-Way Plot No. 1, Apollo Drive, Anoka County. Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof; thence on on assumed bearing of South 68 degrees 12 minutes 20 seoonds West along the southeasterly line of said plat 60.07 feet: thence southwesterly 243.99 feet along said southeasterly lin• being a tangential turn concave to the southeast. having a radius of 610 feet and o central angle of 22 degrees 55 minutes 02 second0 thence South 45 degrees 17 minutes 18 seconds West tangent to sold curve 316.66 feet; thence southwesterly 396.97 feet along a longentiol curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 899.00 feet and 8 central angle of 25 degrees 18 minoteK thence South 70 degrees 35 minute. 18 seconds West 478.50 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 19 degrees 24 minutes 42 seconds Lost 297.80 feet to the northwesterly right of way line of said Interstote No. 359 and said line there terminating. PARCEL 0 That pat of the Southeast Ouorter of Section 18. Township 31, Range 22. Anoka County, Minnesota, lying southearterly of the City of Lino Lake. Right -of -Way Plat No. 1. Apollo Drive, according to the recorded plat Thereof and lying northwesterly of Interstate No. 359 and lying southwesterly of the following described rK Commencing at the most easterly corner of Pacd 14 of said City of Lino Lakes Right -of -Way Plot No. 1, Apollo Drive. Anoka County. Minnesota occading to the recorded plot thereof, thence on on assumed bearing of South 68 degrees 12 minutes 20 seconds West Wong the southeasterly line of said plat 60.07 test thence southwesterly 243.99 feet along said southeosterly line berg o tangential curve concave 10 the southeast, having a radius of 610 feet and a central angle of 22 degrees 55 minutes 02 second. thence South 45 degrees 17 minutes 18 seconds West tangent to said curve 316.65 feet thence southwesterly 396.97 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 899.00 feel and 0 central angle of 25 degrees 18 minuteK thence South 70 degrees 35 minutes 18 seconds West 476.50 feet to the point of be9'hnning of the line to be described; thence South 19 degrees 24 minutes 42 seconds East 297.80 feet to the northwesterly right of troy line of said Interstate Na 35W and said line there terminating. I hereby certify that this survey. plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I om a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under ows of tae State of J4jnnefd(a Ronald P. Alw/l� Date: 'l/g! Z. License No. 17765 • APOLLO DRIVE ■ X03 ■ .=1110.. _. 'N'•--•-•••-"Th 1\ 17i ▪ \ 1 1 ,. N • 11 POIIINPUIF Wadi ta. , .,a_mmikr.4-7._ "is ram, Iiiiiiimil 2 ;� iv.4 • is MORN ItErANTICH POND U!I ,r • II\, op/ ,^,/" /; • INTERSTATE SI.TE ew pj,AN L COVERAGE PA I. SIZE (2 4.19`.t21b.24`) • 091290 S.F. EUILDIM4 AREA 264.6b S.F. CQcRZtE AREA RIO 8.r. TII7IW MIaaV w+Rrra.a - .v�..+..... • (69,2300 S.F. X 30S • -NASA B.F. g bin. L4ro2 • • • METAL FL.L.N.lI v� EAST ELEVATION •P-d CAP -LMw - IMMUNE ESEREIRLIMENINEESESEMEMESMEMIFEEMEN Egu....1...M1111F=11111PIPOPII no ssrc+ly m NON. POONVIsts w t IMILL. GLANS ❑❑ MlE3T El NATION vvw� P-w Las CATe POOL - _ . f - -.. • MI :+. , .'. 1. -- •:• ...4:;V.' . -. :- . :t:Y': . ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑❑ LE ❑❑ _ __ 0 1❑0 LT_______ v� EAST ELEVATION •P-d CAP -LMw - IMMUNE ESEREIRLIMENINEESESEMEMESMEMIFEEMEN Egu....1...M1111F=11111PIPOPII no ssrc+ly m NON. POONVIsts w t IMILL. GLANS ❑❑ MlE3T El NATION vvw� P-w Las CATe POOL - _ . • Lxs« 11.0r11 TV ibLLt w RPTtRAP f - -.. • d;i'•_ :+. , .'. 1. -- •:• ...4:;V.' . -. :- . :t:Y': . ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑❑ LE ❑❑ ■ 0 1❑0 • Lxs« 11.0r11 TV ibLLt w RPTtRAP E{QVf}I EtE1IATIGN • T.P.P. WLd c rT W MALL PAWLS T.T.E. _W!_ POdp CO C. MOLL. OJAI* Y 4014 NALL MEMETIlle MO I. __ _VLIZ CREcoreo APR 0 $ 2002 GI © ONO LAKES • L 1 } c``'i"• ., may :.: • anurscus room MONO F -; CCR PLAN .`.- ��F7.'sfS�L c :Lr....x-•._s,Na:CJti1f'.C.md�,� `tivsz..attLL'� nVILDING AREA Orricze Iwirma 111,176 Sr ItasA 1S VLCE 11,010 Or • • r aa,.. r: La.1C2 eP • :TOTAL AliZA asses or Letoi-"iri P MIII[ 11,376 e PARKING OrAL.WAGED 11 StlL ON, ?LUX IPR11gLm • f - -.. • d;i'•_ :+. , .'. 1. -- •:• ...4:;V.' . -. :- . :t:Y': . E{QVf}I EtE1IATIGN • T.P.P. WLd c rT W MALL PAWLS T.T.E. _W!_ POdp CO C. MOLL. OJAI* Y 4014 NALL MEMETIlle MO I. __ _VLIZ CREcoreo APR 0 $ 2002 GI © ONO LAKES • L 1 } c``'i"• ., may :.: • anurscus room MONO F -; CCR PLAN .`.- ��F7.'sfS�L c :Lr....x-•._s,Na:CJti1f'.C.md�,� `tivsz..attLL'� nVILDING AREA Orricze Iwirma 111,176 Sr ItasA 1S VLCE 11,010 Or • • r aa,.. r: La.1C2 eP • :TOTAL AliZA asses or Letoi-"iri P MIII[ 11,376 e PARKING OrAL.WAGED 11 StlL ON, ?LUX IPR11gLm • • laiter 1,-(ST _ ...5PICIE3 - 6f2t 1st*, MitilAits Asii Z4,946 ' 2 Iltitusisv NAZI NM 2" 646 2 p:10 OUNIVA (.10.114.trlis .3 c.. 01ACIC Nita SeVelig.846_ 4 D • 4...V • . ••• ..r • •■■■••■ ••■• offlow•-- ad. \ I \ / / APOLLO kir .•••: • 9o5 • - - I --ACOIV3rgUCTIO4/ W0715 Ti RETANTICN PCI4D iLZ,ii •-:•' • • At- s. 1.4.RiSetts10011:1041._ NoRTilliaduladIrd ilollit9_141hYLreinal;A.44. .-tbet_4 . ;/ .•••••1•-z/.- Aitheineat •••-•• .•.. . r■:••Vv:'••••- • • • • • : • • ^ • • • • • 1-4,4*•*ii.4/ 4;7 .•.. IL . • • .e14, • • ' INTERSTATE calk • " ' • . 492A?1J1-• •-• • • • . . • • • • • • ... • . . FRECEIVE.D APR 0 8 2002 .. .. . . , - •_ .•`• • • • • ■ .• • • • •, • • * • • Ler " enknalt.AGIE - . • • • - '• • •••••••-•/:- . _ • • ••••••;.',71:.7ra- ' •' ' • •'•''' • ' • ••••-'4, •'■ • • . •- • • - •• •• . • -.9 „ * - t•••-•••••;VititY0'.-f7t'•4$7,:/1.:4"-Vr.;"1.*7•/.:"4";"/••$.;".talt*,/,f,,,5tit/-••.:ii- • ' • • •-,'„.'•••:.,/./.,..-1-,/i•Nz•:::•••??:-'••-tX.til•••17`2•"•itiViitl.....;;.1/`:•••7;i:•:.r.•;.'W,-...4.•--I'••,:riii43'1-;;:41•W:k51...•;21:-A-.4:Z...;:.;,,4-,:.:-.ZilY.,,•;,/•, • • - aciq 'WS 907 - 4,PAroon- sax (219.11,008.249 • 61,230 15.71. s.r. . 11110 • • 8.r. los SO. 4-"Itkic IN \ \ \ \ \ 20 \o\ PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN LEGEND DRIVE"f �l • ,• (/ /ApOLLa-~ 34 EXISTING SANITARY SEVER NAN■1O.E PROPOSED MANHOLE PROPOSED VATERNAIN EXISTING UTILITIES PROPOSED SANITARY ® CLEANOUT ■ '� / r DG VALVE p'..R ,aV A-a Imo ZGP p96� o 4' PVC VEN.1,4/ OFFICE /WAREHOU: BUILDING 25,556 S.F. FF EL 905.0 IrE J6 � RIV BAFFLED YRIR 1 I I -- - -- - - -� 1.) 512- 48 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 u ro 160 t• (01 FEET ) 1 Inch - 40 11. 5 E i C -1 751 -001 LEGEND EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CDITDUR5 PROPOSCD SPOT ELEVATIONS EXISTING ELEVATION SHOT PROPOSED DRAINAGE ARROV OPTIONAL CDITOURS N 1.00 FT. 0.00 POND BOTTOM 16.0' 16.0' 906.8 ..R11 ___ EARTH DIKE SCE RIP RAP DITCH CHECK DETAIL .• 8' WATERMAIN /" /' /' / • • ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE I0 SOLI PRELIMINARY EROSION + GRADING PLAN FES RCPA .775 OFFICE/WAREHOU BUILDING 25.556 S.F. 4 'FF EL 905.0 +� ?i ADDTIONAL SLY FENCE SHOULD 8E PLACED AFTER ROUGH 0RA0N0 OF TIE INHUMATION POND 10 REDUCE THE GONPAC1401L AFTER FNAL GRADING 511E SHOULD BE 5TAEAUZED 70 PREVENT RAMC 50L 0.000N6 1ATH FINES GRAPHIC SCALE Ao 0 SD AO 00 100 (IXFEET) 2 Inch - 40 f. 1111L,MT"`"'6 SILT FENCE r DRG SEDIMENT CONTROL BALES J\ 082002 Grrf (3. NOTES PRIG,! TO ROUGH GRADING, NSTAUL SILT PENCE N LOCATIIONS SHOWN OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL SILT FENCE MILL BE REQUIRED MERE LOW. CO40111044 REOUIRL ROUGH GRADING SHALL PROCEED ON AN AREA BY AREA BASS 10 112411WZE UNCOMPLETED AREAS AS EACH AREA OUTSIDE THE STREET 15 GRADED. PROVIDE NATIVE TOPSOIL. SEED. AND MULCH ANCHORED PAM A 51R0GNT SET DSC M11HN 48 HOURS Qi FINE GRADING. MAINTAIN AN0 REPAIR SAT FENCES (INCLUDING REMOVAL OF AC0NNAATED 911) UNIX VEGETATIGH 0 ESTABU5HE0. SEED 10 BE MnWT TYPE 500, MULCH TYPE 1 (2 TONS /AGUE). SEED FOR PONDING AREAS TO BE Mn0OT TYPE 15A (MET MEADOW MIX). TOPSOIL 70 BE RESPREAD 10 A DEPTH OF • INCHES ON AREAS TO BE SEEDED. NST441 M000 FIBER BLANKET AT BASE OF N0ILLTRA110N ONES TO NORMAL WATER ELEVATION (MOOT seas) Z 4 4 t?F 1 0Z gg4 Z ; 0 't� ›. < x 4 iIz F W a 4 40 C -2 751 -001 • • • AGENDA ITEM 5E STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala P AND Z MEETING DATE: May 8, 2002 TOPIC: Village Hills — Final Plat and easement vacation, Rezoning, and Site & Building Plan Review BACKGROUND Glenn Rehbein Companies has submitted an application for Site and Building Plan Review and Rezoning to allow the development of a neighborhood business center at the northwest corner of Ware Rd. and Birch St. The project was scheduled for a public hearing at the May 8, 2002, Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. However, due to recent modifications of the site, the developer has requested that review of the proposed development be postponed until the June 12, 2002, Planning & Zoning Board meeting. RECOMMENDATION No action is necessary at this time, however public hearing notices were previously distributed. As such staff will provided a general overview of the project and be available to address any general public comment on the proposed project. A full review of the project will be prepared for the June meeting.