Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/14/2002 P&Z Packet
CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, August 14, 2002 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers (Scheduled to be Televised on Ch. 16) AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 10, 2002 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. Mary Zehowski, 900 Oak Lane, Minor Subdivision, Tanda Gretz B. Corey & Shelly Bachman, 1487 Ash Street, Minor Subdivision & Variance, Tanda Gretz C. Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, Minor Subdivision & Variance, Tanda Gretz D. PUBLIC HEARING, JADT Development, Lino Lakes Commercial Center, SE corner of Lake Drive & Apollo Drive intersection, Preliminary Plat & Site Plan Review /CUP accessory drive -thru, Bob Kirmis (NAC) E. PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions, South of Main St. & North of Carl St. - Section 7, Preliminary Plat, Bob Kirmis (NAC) F. PUBLIC HEARING, Subdivision Ordinance, Jeff Smyser VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. None VII. ADJOURN • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes P1. � g . � �' oard meeting to order at 6:35 p.m., July 10, 2002. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was ap III. APPROVAL ne 1 02 Mr. Corson the Lino Lakes carried 5 -0. Chair OTION to ; ;rove the minutes of the June 12, 2002, meeting of and Z Board, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion b ed due to his absence at that meeting. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:36 p.m. Barbara Bor, 7707 20th Avenue North, represented Haron. She stated they were here to learn about the Board process because of a project that would be coming before the Board in the future. She presented a petition to the Chair. Ms. Lane arrived at 6:37 p.m. . Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6 -0. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, Spirit Hills Commercial Development, corner of Birch St./Ware Rd., Rezone to GB/PDO, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 6:39 p.m. Staff explained Rockne Goertz had submitted an application for Site and Building Plan Review, CUP and Rezoning to allow the development of a neighborhood business center at the northwest corner of Ware Rd. and Birch St. Prior to development of the site a final plat would be required and an existing drainage and utility easement platted with the Spirit Hills development would need to be vacated. The final plat and the easement vacation were both subject to City Council review . , royal. The application was previously submitted by Glenn Rehbein Comp es : i• a Hills. Staff presented its analysis by explaining subject property for commercial use. The site consistent with this land use designation. Th Business with a PDO overlay to allow multi and parking. Plan guided the R -1 z sification was not to rezone the site to General the site with shared access Staff stated the applicant was proposin islands totaling 30,266 square feet building B at 6,440 square feet, b square feet in size. The buildings were_ ends of the bui feet in height GB District 'buildings and a canopy for gas uilding A at 13,720 square feet, are feet plus the canopy was 2,500 'th peaked roofs with focus features at selected f the buildings measured approximately 28' irrium 45 -foot height requirement imposed in the The buildings banding and accent materials. The propo Subdivision 4.B of the Ci finished with rock face block and stucco (EIFS) sign am metal roof at varying heights would be the roofing of materials conformed to the standards in Section 3, ode. Staff explained the site plan did illustrate exterior trash handling areas. 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 was totally screened from eye level view from neighboring uses and public rights of way. The applicant was aware of the provision and had placed the enclosures upon the site plan. There were now two 10' x 10' foot enclosures with brick walls and gates. The first enclosure was located behind Building A along the western lot line. The second enclosure belonging to Building B (the bank) was located in the southwest corner of the lot along Birch St., this was not permitted. The enclosure for Building B might be better suited if placed behind the building along the western lot line away from Birch St. Both enclosures would be surrounded by landscaping to soften the look of the enclosure. The plan stated that waste for Building C would be stored within the building. • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 3 Staff explained signage on the site was proposed to be individual letters mounted over the storefronts. Signage was governed by the City's sign ordinance and required a separate permit. All signs would be reviewed with the sign permit applications and must satisfy applicable requirements of the Ordinance in regard to sign type size and location. Staff indicated a variety of trees shrubs and ornamental plantings were proposed on site. A heavier landscaping treatment was included along Ware Road, which separated the proposed development from existing single - family residential uses. A fence six feet in height was provided by the developer on the east side of Ware Rd. at the time of development of the single - family residential area. The proposed Amur Maples had been replaced with,less invasive species. Landscaping, in the form of deciduous or coniferous trees, should e c ded along the west property line. Staff stated the standards for calculating the p . cements for Retail Store and Service Establishment are outline . ° tion 3, sion 5 of the City Code. For the purposes of calculating parkin ordinance requirement was to use 90% of the gross building area. Staff stated a total of 136 off -street p Because this would be a multi -tenant l The applicant's plan called for 1 spaces were proposed to be con Netlawn allowed the applican impervious surface area and m ere required for the proposed use. arking ratio had been applied. s i dm•= gas island areas. Thirty-six (36) ed w ' g ous Netlawn turf. The use of the tisfy par .. . equirements while reducing the site's on -site infiltration of storm water run -off. Five handicap had been prow: Staff stated the existing W approximately 220 southern access location and Ware Road/Birch Streetntersections. ne of which must be van accessible. These e site were proposed. The northern access utilized cle intersection. The southern access was located e Ware Road/Birch Street intersection. The proposed =zed the separation from both the Ware Road/Ware Circle The City Engineer had indicated that the proposed development would necessitate the need for a right turn lane from Ware Road onto Birch Street. Staff was evaluating this requirement in conjunction with the proposed extension of Ware Road to Hodgson Road (CR 49). A five (5) foot concrete sidewalk was proposed along Ware Road, extending from Birch Street to Sioux Lane, to facilitate pedestrian access to the site. Maintenance of the sidewalk shall be the responsibility of the commercial development. A connection to a future trail along Birch Street was also proposed on the plan. Staff indicated a landscape plan had been submitted for review. The ordinance provided for maximum lighting levels of one -foot candle at the street and 0.4 when casting light onto a residential property. Glare could be an issue from fixtures even if foot -candle • • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 4 measurements were met. Because of proximity to residential uses the type of fixture will be critical. The ordinance required that light sources be hooded or controlled. The fixture proposed was a decorative, round cutoff luminaries that has the option of a solid dome or a glow dome. Staff believed all of the lights should include a solid dome. The submitted plan did show a combination of domes. No specific lighting type had been provided for under the canopy. Lighting under the canopy shall be designed with completely recessed lighting and no lighting on the canopy sides. Staff stated the submitted erosion and grading plan was subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Staff noted the submitted utility plan was subject o review and approval by the City Engineer. Staff indicated all standard easements were t the nal plat. There was an existing drainage and utility easement to j.. °� tha� . usly platted with the Spirit Hills subdivision; this shall be comp r to iss a - a building permit. Staff noted park dedication had not previously been s. - on this parcel. As a result, the proposed final plat would be s .ark cation requirements. For commercial development, a park de ent of $2,175.00 per acre was required. The plat included 3.75 acres c quupark dedication of $8,156.25 to be paid prior to recording the fina Staff stated the developmen intende d. used for Retail and Service uses consistent with the GB, Gen .-t . ess District. Three uses proposed on the plan include a Day C. -; Mo �a r£. Station (Convenience Store) and Bank with Drive -Thru, w o ' a ondi se Permit. Approval of these uses were included as p State stated and the Council s proposed location: g Board shall recommend a conditional use permit ance of such permit only if it finds that such use at the 1. Will not be detrimental to o endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. Comment: Bank drive -thru, child day care and service station uses currently exist within the City of Lino Lakes. None of the uses should be detrimental or endanger the public. 2. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the comprehensive plan of the City and this ordinance. . Comment: The comprehensive plan guides for commercial use of this site. Once rezoned from R -1 to General Business the site would match the comprehensive plan. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and/or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 5 Comment: The building designs include many windows and rock face block. The design will be carried through on all four sides of the buildings. This should help make the buildings more attractive. Landscaping and fencing should soften the development and help screen the use from residents. The added sidewalk should be beneficial for pedestrians. 4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including street, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Comment: The proposal should be served adequate) -'� facilities and services. 5. Will not create excessive additional require or public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the eco ays far= EEw unity. Comment: This development should not increa economic welfare of the community. ts, nor be detrimental to the 6. Will not involve uses, activities, procesna • uipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to an y se p E $Q or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, sti se. Fsmo «° . glare, or odors. Comment: The proposed com uses ups > y site should not create any excessive externalities that would be abn. " the character of commercial sites. 7. Will have vehio traffic conges Comment: including turn la y, which are so designed as not to create with Traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. dards held within the City's zoning ordinance and access spacing/location. 8. Will not result in the des n, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Comment: The applicant is currently working with the RCWD to satisfy the remaining mitigation requirements through a comprehensive drainage plan for the site, future Ware Road extension and surrounding properties. 9. Will conform to specific standards of this ordinance applicable to the particular use. Comment: Each use should conform to the specific standards listed within the General Business section of the zoning ordinance. Specifically, the day care should meet the requirements listed under Section 7 H(11)(a). Staff indicated The Environmental Board reviewed the proposed development on April 24, 2002 and recommended approval. Their comments are attached and, where applicable, have been incorporated into this report. • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 6 Staff noted the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) granted a TWAFAA (Table With Authorization For Administration Action) on February 27, 2002, pending resolution of Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) issues. The applicant was proposing to fill 8,000 square feet of existing wetland on the site. 3,041 square feet was proposed to be mitigated on -site. The applicant was currently working with the RCWD to satisfy the remaining mitigation requirements through a comprehensive drainage plan for the site, future Ware Road extension and surrounding properties. The wetland delineations had been approved and RCWD had agreed to work with the applicant to create the best solution for wetland impacts and protection. No permit for the work at Spirit Hills will be issued unt' the overall impacts were addressed during the Ware Road permitting process. Staff explained a copy of the application review. Their comments, would need to be of access control, along Birch Street, to Anoka State noted it was anticipated that impro intersection, including turn lanes would be r d t• Anoka County for d esign. Dedication should .ri awn on the final plat. the Ware Road/Birch Street Staff stated prior to the commencement to enter into a performance agreement required by it. Staff stated based on the fi recommended the following: , the applicant would be required ost all the necessary securities o the conditions listed below, staff A. Approval of rezp� 'N e_ tl GB, 1 Business and approval of the PDO overlay ..max �.;.• subject to the 1 be developed as outlined on the plans dated 3/4/02 2. A sidewalk s stalled along the frontage of Ware Road and shall be maintained by the'ommercial development. 3. The PDO shall include the CUP's for the Motor Fuel Station (Convenience Store), Bank Drive -Thru and Day Care subject to the requirements of Section 7, Subdivision 3, H(2), H(5) and H(11), respectively of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. B. Site and Building Plan approval to allow the construction of 30,266 square feet in three buildings and canopy as configured on the site plan dated received June 14, 2002 1. 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. • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 7 2. All signs shall be reviewed with the sign permit applications and shall be required the applicable requirements of the Ordinance. 3. Light fixture design is a solid dome variety only and under- canopy lighting shall be submitted and subject to staff approval. There will be no canopy illumination on the east, west, and north sides of the canopy. 4. The submitted erosion and grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the City Engineer's comments, dated July 3, 2002. 5. The submitted utility plan shall be revised to incorporate the City Engineer's comments, dated July 3, 2002. • 6. Stop signs shall be installed and maa� ned� �eess p.ints with the public road. 7. The Rice Creek Watershed District i "`` p unit to allow the development proposal and the conditions require 8. A Watershed District Permit is 9. A final plat and vacation City. The plat shall also to Anoka County. 10. Prior to perform requir 11. No ei City building permit issuance. e submitted and approved by the access control, along Birch Street, ny site work, the applicant enters into a %ty and post all the necessary securities ciated with the site. 12. Limiting hour fop a ns from 5:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. 13. Subject to Anoka County traffic approval. 14. The net lawn spaces be noted and marked. 15. CEPTED Review. Mr. Lyden expressed concern about neighborhood businesses and the issues they raise. He stated his concern was about protecting the neighborhoods. He asked what the traffic flow would be and specifically about the issue of parking and if there was an opportunity to increase the green space to protect some of the neighbors. He asked if they could replace the maple trees with evergreens. Staff pointed out the extra landscaping that was being added. He reviewed the necessity of the parking areas. He stated the parking areas would have green space around them. He explained why they were using maple trees instead of evergreens. Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 8 Mr. Lyden asked if they could trade some parking for green space. Staff replied this was a flexible issue and could be negotiated. Mr. Corson asked what the ultimate plan was for Ware Road. Mr. Grochala replied the intent was to extend it to County Road 49. It would be a right -in, right -out only. Mr. Corson asked if the CUP was a separate action from the PDO. Staff replied they were suggesting as part of the PDO approval, that they include the CUP. Mr. Corson asked if there was going to be an ATM at this bank. Applicant replied they were not sure at this point. They were working with Lino Lakes State Bank regarding this. Mr. Lyden expressed concern about another b there was a daycare on the site, where wou applicant, pointed out where the area was b portion of the building would be a daycare are proposed convenience store was much larger offer more than the usual convenience sto would have four pumps and it was a ve staff on this development. He stated h landscaping, but if they could come up it. He stated he did not want an ern on making this development wor tion in the City. He asked if loca ed. Rockne Goertz, the northern most fenced " gi s- area He stated the onvenience stores and would oertz stated the gas station ated they had worked with they could fit more trees on the ey would be willing to look at e and intends to work very hard Mr. Zych asked why the gas p was due to the ac stated the Co be helped by re located where they were. Mr. Goertz replied it did not have an access to Birch Street. He ess to Birch Street. He stated traffic would Mr. Grochal the additional co up, this would elimut access allowed onto Birch Street, this would add to ady on the road. He stated once Ware Road opened e Birch Street traffic. Mr. Zych stated he did no gree on adding any more traffic onto Birch Street without adding traffic controls on the street. He stated he believed the development was premature. Mr. Grochala replied the principal concern was the additional traffic. He stated one positive of this development was that it would not increasing traffic. It was a convenience pass through facility. It was not a major draw for people to go out of their way to get to this facility. Mr. Zych stated he believed this would increase the traffic at this intersection. Mr. Goertz stated on the lots that they had developed, everyone was made aware of the potential future development. He stated it should come as no surprise for the neighborhood. Mr. Corson asked what was to keep people from using Ware Road as a shortcut to County Road 49. Mr. Grochala replied there were no specific design considerations on Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 9 Ware Road and it was possible for people to use that as a shortcut. He stated this would still need to be addressed. Mr. Corson asked about a possible by -pass lane at this location. Mr. Grochala replied these were the issues the County was currently reviewing and they were looking at the need for a right/left turn lane at this location. He stated they had not received the County's report yet. Keith Moeler, 6575 Hocca ( ?) Drive, stated the first meeting they had with the developer with Spirit Hills someone asked if there was going to be a gas station and they were told at that time that were was not going to be a gas station. He stated they were told a coffee shop or a restaurant would be in the development. He stated they were having a problem with drainage in the area. He stated his backyard problems and he stated he believed it was requested that whatever goes in there, the drag, drained from the area. Mr. Goertz stated h stated whatever drainage problems were the development and if he had his engineering pl problems from the beginning. With respe remember any promises made about not eighbors were having water rit Hills development. He looked at and the water with drainage. He e there ` r to the Spirit Hills d prove that they had drainage on, he replied he did not o the as statio Mr. Lyden asked if the development a'' ease th "' age to Mr. Moeler's property. Mr. Goertz replied this was imposw9'1 Mr. Studenski stated they were these were two separate issue issues. He pointed,: not affect the resfefifs ei wing thi at this time. He stated in his opinion, eir decision tonight would not affect the drainage this site was pointing to the west and would Mr. Moelet drainage prob to his property. he was no i stated hi Mike Chapman, Ware R a development. g that Spirit Hills housing development added to the cern was that this new development would not drain sated he believed this would be a great area for this type of Bruce Pruit, 6517 Hokah Drive, read a statement from himself and his neighbors. This section of the City had been zoned residential for a long time and should remain residential. He stated he moved into this area because it met his needs for a serene environment. He stated this rezoning was inappropriate. It disrupted their daily lives. He expressed concern about the traffic increase, possible crime increases, as well as other issues. He stated their concerns demanded merit. He expressed concern about decreased property values. He expressed concern about contamination of their wells from the gas station. He stated a commercial development was inappropriate. Sharon Peters, 6501 Hockah Drive, expressed concern about the groundwater safety. She agreed with Mr. Pruit's comments as well. She stated she also understood there was not going to be a gas station at this site. She stated a gas station was a definite concern. She • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 10 expressed concern about the traffic increase in this area. She stated she wanted to see traffic control put in before this project went forward. Mark Gubran, 6348 Turtle Lake Road, expressed concern about not having a convenient area for shopping in their area. He stated this was an excellent addition to the area. John Johnson, 6657 East Shadow Lake Road, stated he was in favor of more commercial development in the City. He stated he believed commercial development was good for the City, so his taxes would not keep increasing. He stated a commercial development added to the tax base, without using the services. He stated 21 years ago, the area was rural, but they needed to realize that they were no longer a rural area and he believed a shopping area at this location was a good idea. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the publi The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Rafferty asked what the difference w general business. Staff replied commer services and not a community wide fa in close proximity. This would be area. As far as traffic generation, driving the commercial develo draw into the proposed develop store needed a gas + +' pet bit ommercial land use and s for a neighborhood community ent would serve the residents or the people that lived in the affic Daly there and that was what was on this s e stated the gas station would be a d it was his understanding that a convenience • to the development. i o the neighborhood setting. Staff replied it Mr. Lyden states + + + stoo +�+ ` ultimately there would be a traffic light at Birch to create traffic breaks . $.+ ere were any way they could put a stop sign east/west on Birch at the corner a a ; ;,; a considering a traffic light may take some time. Mr. Studenski replied that was Tissue %issue the County would be addressing. He stated their initial reaction was that the turn lanes would be sufficient. Mr. Grochala stated currently there was no distinct plan for traffic breaks on Birch Street. He stated it was anticipated Birch Street/Hodson Road and Centerville Road/Birch Street would be signalized at some point in the future. He stated they had discussed with the County about putting a plan together to monitor locations. He stated they intended on monitoring West Shadow Lake Drive, 12th Street, and possible Ware Road as development increased. He stated one problem was the lack of left turn lanes on Birch Street. He stated they would have problems with traffic gaps until they put in traffic controls. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Spirit Hills Commercial Development, corner of Birch St./Ware Rd., Rezone to GB/PDO, Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit subject to staffs recommendations and conditions as outlined in staff's report. • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 11 The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -1 (Zych) Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve Spirit Hills Commercial Development, Site Plan Review subject to staff's recommendations and conditions as outlined in staffs report. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -1 (Zych). B. PUBLIC HEARING, Stoneybrook, Birch St he t ke Road, Comprehensive Plan Amendment/MUSA allocation, Rezone R - s mina Plat Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 7:5 Staff presented the application by Tollefso had submitted an application for preli single family residential subdivision Comprehensive Plan Amendment to a Rural District to R -1X, Single Fame c. by explaining applicant approv @ of Stoneybrook, a 102 lot also required approval of a e site and a Rezoning from R, ential District. The site was located adjacent; Centerville Road. Staff presented • currently in land uses i large lot rem wetland to the e ch Street and a quarter mile west of lannti project consists of a 78 acre parcel that was g approximately 19 acres of wetland. Surrounding 1 to the north (Pheasant Hills Preserve), unsewered d south, and a single family dwelling, pasture and The project site was c zoned R, Rural District. Surrounding zoning includes R- 1X, Single Family Executive to the north, and R, Rural to the east, west and south. The applicant was requesting the allocation of approximately 54.73 acres of MUSA to service the proposed development. In 1996, the Metropolitan Council provided the City of Lino Lakes with a 150 -acre "MUSA Reserve ". The reserve was intended to accommodate some limited development within specified areas of the City until the updated Comprehensive Plan, including the transportation element, was completed. There were approximately 15.7 acres remaining in the City's MUSA Reserve. An existing development proposal, currently being reviewed by the City (Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition) had requested 4.5 acres. This potentially leaves the City with 11.2 acres until the Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Metropolitan Council. This amount was insufficient to cover the requested allocation of 54.73 acres. The City's 2001 Comprehensive Plan was currently being reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. As part of the plan, the City was requesting an additional 359 acres of MUSA • • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 12 to service future development through 2010. Upon approval of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update, by Metropolitan Council, the proposed residential development would be eligible for the MUSA Allocation of 54.73 acres based on the following findings: 1. The application for 54.73 acres of MUSA was being made in conjunction with the request for preliminary plat approval. 2. The applicant had requested an R -1X zoning designation be applied to the proposed development consistent with the proposed land use contained in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan. Such request had been made in conjunction with the preliminary plat request. 3. The property lies immediately south of Pheasant Hills Preserve, which was within the existing MUSA. The property lies within a Stage, g .• , area as defined in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan. 4. Development of the property was considered fr „� tih` `�� Existing utilities were located immediately to the north of the si 5. Development of the property was consider Proposed roadways into the site would co Sherman Lake Road. sion of existing roadways. g Pheasant Hills Drive and 6. Development of the property was e viroiun :.11y ,' patible with the surrounding area. The proposed development had �� � ized er pact existing wetlands and tree cover on the site. Approximately 2 res of °13.07 -acre site (27 %) would remain undeveloped. 7. The proposed d The City's P 100% cash cope of the City's 1992 Park and Trail Plan. ted the proposed development and recommended a 8. The Developme ° sist . }' th the City's Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan. 9. Development of the pro : all not adversely affect the health, welfare, and general safety of the community. 10. Birch Street (CSAH 10) was adequate to handle the additional traffic generated by the proposed development subject to the improvements specified by Anoka County. The developer would be responsible for the necessary upgrades to CSAH 10. 11. The project was proposed to be phased over two years. The phasing plan calls for 52 lots in 2002 and 50 lots in 2003. Staff noted the applicant had requested the rezoning of the subject property from R, Rural to R -1X, Single Family Executive. In consideration of rezonings, the Planning and Zoning Board must consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment based on the following criteria: Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 13 1. The proposed action had been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and had been found consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. Comment: The proposed rezoning was consistent with the City's 2001 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed R -1X zoning was consistent with the Low Density Sewered Residential Land Use designation for the property. The rezoning shall be contingent upon Metropolitan Council Approval of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use is or would be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. Comment: The proposed R -1X single family residential zoning was consistent with existing and proposed land uses of the area. The proposed gross development density of 1.30 units per acre provides for a suitable transition;'¢. ounding large lot residential developments. 3. The proposed use conforms with all perform Comment: The proposed residential subdivisi performance standards. 4. The proposed use could be accommo overburden the City's service capaci erein. onformance with all applicable g public services and would not Comment: The proposed use co t`= acco by existing public services. 5. Traffic generation b the prop se was within capabilities of streets serving the g Y P p P g property. Staff noted the Birch Stree will be respo osed use 0 10) at Phe ble fat making t] quire e installation of left and right turn lanes on . ills Drive and Sherman Lake Road. The developer es improvements. Lot Size. The min ��* ot °of the R -1X District is 12,825 square feet of buildable land. All lots meet or oX s provision. Lot Depth. The minimum lot depth was 135 feet. Double frontage lots were required to have a minimum lot depth of 145 feet. All lots meet or exceed these provisions. Lot Width. The minimum lot width was 90 feet for standard lots and 115 feet for corner lots. All lots meet or exceed these standards. Outlots. There were six outlots included in the proposed subdivision. The outlots cover the majority of ponds and wetland areas. The applicant was proposing to dedicate all outlots to the City. The applicant should be aware that the dedication of outlots to the City would not be accepted in fulfillment of park dedication (payment in lieu) requirements. Setbacks. The required setbacks established in the R -1X District are the greater of the following: 40 feet (Collector or Arterial Street), 30 feet (Local Street), 30 feet (front • • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 14 yard), 30 feet (rear yard), and ten feet (side yard - principal building). The lots have adequate dimensions to meet required setbacks. In addition, pond and wetland areas would mandate a significant setback between proposed building sites and existing homes on adjacent properties. However, the building pad for Lot 2, Block 4 extends to within 18 feet of the existing wetland and proposed 100 year High Water Elevation. While the City had no requirements with regard to wetland setbacks, staff recommends that the building pad, on this lot, be modified to maximize the usable yard space on this lot. Street and Block Design. Two accesses to the site, from Birch Street, were proposed at the existing Pheasant Hills Drive and Sherman ake Road intersections. Street A extended southerly into the development from Birch t, loops back and tied into Street B. Street B was proposed to extend fro s =`" t to the easterly property line of the development to provide a connectio fu i ment to the east. There were five cul -de -sacs proposed that intersect Staff noted the proposed extension of Street B its feasibility. The proposed alignment adjacent property with minimal potential the curve radius of the street be modifi Further verification of the potential fo would be required. The developer such information. The propose - por abut the property line. The c ac desig% d been evaluated to determine the street to service the pacts. ff was recommending that 'nimize potential wetland impacts. e St. Paul Water Utility lines rig with the water utility to provide ac should be extended easterly to ii d be modified to extend into Lot 3, Block 2, rather than Lot 46 B easement would b street was exte extension of th e the larger upland area on Lot 3. A permanent -de -sac to be constructed until such time as the ed at the street terminus indicating the future Street A was section had two similar to a long c appeared that these wo issue with the Public Safe p in the southern half of the development. While this y form the same intersection and create a situation aff has evaluated other alignment options, however it se additional wetland impacts. Staff had reviewed this 'Department and the Centennial Lakes Fire Department and determined that there are no access concerns with the proposed layout. Staff was also recommending that the applicant provide a street stub 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 future Minor Collector and proposes its future connection with Holly Drive to the west and southerly to Ash Street (County J). While these projects were not planned in the near term, it would be practical to reserve the option to connect this subdivision to Holly Street in the future. It appeared that an alignment option was available that would minimize impacts to existing properties to the south. It was likely that the connection would not be made until development takes place to the south. Street Width. In response to comments received by Rice Creek Watershed District the Developer was requesting a reduction in the City's standard street width to reduce • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 15 impervious surface. The City currently requires a thirty -two (32) foot street width. The developer was requesting a twenty -nine (29) foot width. Section 302 of the City Code states that the City Council may permit variations from the street construction standards. Staff had evaluated the request and determined that the proposed twenty -nine foot width would be sufficient to handle local traffic needs within the development. However, it did appear that parking would need to be limited to a single side to insure emergency vehicle access. Additionally, the reduction in street width coupled with a curvilinear design of the subdivision's streets may reduce visibility of on- street pedestrian movements. Sidewalks along Street A and Street B may be necessary to alleviate this concern. The Environmental Board recommended reducing tlke street width. The City Council had discussed the issue and requested a recommendation ; Planning & Zoning Board. Grading and Drainage. The City Engineer; Drainage Plan. A Rice Creek Watershed Di was also required. The City's Local Water Management P1 including basement to be 4 feet above level, or 2 feet above the 100 -year fl appears to satisfy these requirements ba The developer was currently moni Final adjustments would be mad view of the Grading and velopment Permit ..minimum floor elevation, water, et above the normal water hichever was greatest. The plan d normal and high water levels. water elevations for verification. g plans. Mitigation sites were proposed construction traffi existing soil enced off after grading was completed to restrict aught to the site they must be consistent with Utilities. Engineer was propose xtended north of Birch Ir ater water main lying adj main was proposed to b Hills Drive. h mpleted review of the Utility Plans. Sanitary Sewer to trite from its existing location in Sherman Lake Road, d be provided by connection to the existing 16" trunk property on the south side of Birch Street. The water d back to the system by crossing Birch Street at Pheasant Adequate capacity exists in the sanitary sewer system to service the proposed development. In addition, the Black Duck Lift Station, which services the area, was scheduled for replacement in 2003. Drainage and Utility Easements. Drainage and Utility easements were proposed being five feet in width and adjoining lot lines, and 10 feet in width and adjoining street lines and rear lot lines as required. Drainage and Utility easements covering the 100 -year High Water Level and those covering underground storm sewers are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Easements should be provided to access all pond and wetland areas. Specifically, an easement should be provided for access to Outlot F and covering the emergency pond overflow on Lot 6, Block 8. • • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 16 Parkland Dedication. The Park Board discussed the proposed subdivision at its February 4, 2002 meeting. The board was recommending 100% cash payment in lieu of parkland dedication. As explained in the Public Services Director's February 5, 2002 memo the proposed development lies outside the planning limits of the Comprehensive Park and Trail System Plan. The Park Board looked at several alternatives and recommended the payment in lieu as the preferred option. Floodplain. Portions of the site lie with a Flood Plain Zone A. Zone A represents areas of 100 -year flood where base flood elevations have not been determined. The City's Floodplain Management Ordinance required that all principal structures be located no lower than one foot above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The submitted grading plan identifies proposed 10 The Rice Creek Watershed District's 1998 C,t -br flood elevation for this area as 887.6. As c entirely above this elevation and all first requirements. gh Water Level elevations. dy identifies the regulatory all 1 • t pads were located the flood plain The proposal was subject to the review and app Watershed District. If the proposed sub, required to make application to FE Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to re the proposed grading. Wetlands. The project site co proposed to be impacted by place on -site, by c have a total are the existing shallow m Engineer and Rice Creek d the Developer would be Map Amendment (LOMA) or bod Plain maps consistent with 19.39 ac etland. 2.06 acres of wetland were evelopment. The wetland mitigation would take s and three water quality ponds, which would respectively. A portion (.20 acres) of one of e converted from Type 2 wet meadow to a Type 3 ate site drainage. The developer g �osing ' stall signs, delineating the wetland edge, at property corners or where the "� w� a changes drastically within a lot. Approximately 35 to 40 signs would be insta e sign per two homes) along the wetland edge. The signs would designate the area as a protected wetland zone. The sign would also inform homeowners that moving or cutting beyond the sign was not allowed. The plans also delineate a wetland buffer easement adjacent to wetland to provide additional transition from cultured lawns to native vegetation. The developer was proposing the establishment of a Homeowner's Association to maintain all buffer areas and applicable signage. The developer should also make available to all lot purchasers a Best Management Practices/Environmental information brochure identifying purpose of buffer areas, soil and water conditions in infiltration areas, as well as limitations on use of buffer and wetland areas. The application also included a Monitoring Plan that provides for monitoring of the newly created wetlands for a 5- year period. The report would be submitted to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) on a yearly basis. The RCWD was the Regulatory Government Unit (RGU) for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act. • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 17 Security should be required within the development agreement to insure installation of signs as well as the required monitoring. This requirement would need to be coordinated with the RCWD. All exposed soils above the Normal Water Level should be seeded with mixes consistent with City of Lino Lakes seed mixtures. The applicant should coordinate seed types with the City's Environmental Specialist. Tree Preservation. The site contained a number of Oaks in the extreme southeast comer, along the westerly property line and one on the north side adjacent to Birch Street. There was no anticipated tree loss as part of this project. The grading plan identified the installation of fencing along the drip line of the tr es Installation of tree preservation measures would be required before grading activityle .site. The developer should coordinate all tree preservation activities with ronmental Specialist. CEPTED. Officer Mike Rumps prepared ai concern with the additional traffic load on Bi hour traffic. Landscaping. A landscaping plan for scr, required. The plan consisted of a com City's Environmental Specialist wa Colorado Spruce with the White S 02. He expressed t, part icull ly with morning rush ong Bir street had been submitted as iduous and coniferous trees. The eplacement of the proposed The developer was also prop o add an & fV onal coniferous tree buffer along the northeasterly and westerly p concerns. lines in response to adjacent property owner Phasing. Th were propo 2003. ing to phase the development over two years. 52 lots 002. The remaining 50 lots would be developed in Environmental Ass - ° mer Worksheet (EAW). The proposed subdivision did not surpass the mandatory threshalas for an EAW and therefore was not required. Environmental Board. The City's Environmental Board reviewed the request on March 27, 2002 and June 26, 2002 and recommended denial of the request due to excessive wet characteristics of the site, and incomplete information needed to process the plat. They also submitted recommendations to consider if the proposal was approved. Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). The developer had made application to the RCWD for approval of a Land Development Plan and a Wetland Alteration Plan. The RCWD had approved a TWAFAA (Table with Authorization for Administrative Action) for the proposed development. Anoka County. The County had completed its review of the proposed development. The County would require improvements to Birch Street (CSAH 10) so that there would be left, through and right turn lanes for eastbound and westbound CSAH 10 traffic at both • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 18 the Sherman Lake Road and Pheasant Hills Drive intersections. The developer would be required to make these improvements as part of this development. Staff recommended the following: A. Approval of the MUSA Allocation subject to the following conditions: 1. Allocation of MUSA shall be subject to the approval of the City's 2001 Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council. B. Approval of the Rezoning from R, Rural District to R -1X, Single Family Executive District subject to the following conditions: 1. The Rezoning shall not be effective ordinance. The ordinance shall not has approved the City's 2001 Compr ollowing publication of the e Metropolitan Council C. Approval of the Preliminary Plat subject to the 1. The MUSA Allocation and Rezo 2. Approval of the City's 2001 Co 3. A revised preliminary plat modifications: a. b. c. d. The alignment impacts from it rove l . by Metropolitan Council. ed containing the following eet B sh`: odified to reduce potential wetland extension, subject to staff review. 1 -de -sac shall be extended to the easterly educe the impact on Lot 46, Block 8. odifie to extend to the southerly property line of the for future extension. rovided for access to Outlot F and to cover the ow on Lot 6, Block 8. , if any, shall be subject to approval by the City e 4. Soils impo Engineer. 5. The developer shall `:rovide a cash payment in lieu of park dedication. 6. The developer shall provide the City with a Homeowner's Association agreement including an operation and maintenance agreement for the wetland signage and buffer areas. 7. Developer shall prepare a Best Management Practices /Environmental Information brochure with regard to buffer and wetland area requirements. 8. The developer shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing proposed landscaping on northeasterly and westerly property lines. 9. A phasing plan shall be implemented. Pending Comprehensive Plan approval, Phase 1 development shall be limited to fifty -two lots in 2002. Phase II development will consist of 50 lots in 2003. Nothing herein shall prevent the grading of the entire site in one phase. 10. All modifications as required by the City Engineer shall be satisfied. 11. All required improvements of Birch Street (CSAH 10), as set forth by Anoka County, shall be the responsibility of the developer. • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 19 12. All federal, state, county, and watershed district permits shall be obtained prior to commencement of site improvements. 13. The developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City prior to commencement of site improvements. Mr. Lyden expressed concern about the 29 -foot road and the maintenance of the sidewalks. He stated if they went with a 29 -foot road width, they would need to put in a sidewalk. Mr. Grochala stated this would be a shift in policy where the homeowners would be required to maintain the sidewalks. Chair Schaps also expressed concern about the 29 -foot road and the inability of emergency vehicles to get through. Mr. Corson stated he understood the narrower were attempting to save trees. Mr. Grocha there were many streets in the City that were ast were allowed where they tandard was 32 feet, but Mr. Lyden expressed concern about the consist Plan. He stated he understood at 2001 another 100 homes were built this year. stated one piece that was missing w approved, but not built. He stated population of 17,820. He stated if already at their 2010 goal. He s growth. He stated the whole between commercial and reside they needed to see approve these he ahead of the to where the plan with the Comprehensive 17,002 and he assumed population at 17,322. He of homes that had already been at 2010 was to have a city es already in the works, they were 'm that they did not need the 2010 of the Co �: # ensive Plan was to have a balance e stated this was not a bad plan, but at some point t direction. He stated he would be happy to 0 goal. He stated they were already 8 years s was not balanced growth and it would not get them Mr. Grochala re Comprehensive Plane Ordinances. He stated t to limit growth to the 2010 the reason staff was pushing for the moratorium in January,2002 and while that moratorium was granted, this development, as well as other developments had already come in and the City Council allowed them to proceed. He stated this was a choice that was made by the City Council at that time, even though it was not his recommendation. He indicated the preliminary plat, zoning, MUSA allocation, etc. all met with the City's requirements and was consistent as to what was proposed in that area for the future. e of the numbers. He indicated the next step once the ed was the implementation of those policies through the did not currently have an Ordinance requirement in effect umber at this time. He reminded the Commission that was Matthew Weiland, Tollefson Development, stated they had worked very hard to address the issues that the Board had requested they look at. He stated they agreed and supported their recommendation. Chair Schaps asked how the neighborhood meetings went. Mr. Weiland replied there were a number of concerns presented by the neighborhood, especially regarding density, protection of wetlands, drainage and pending issues, buffers, protection of trees, etc. He Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 20 stated all of those issues were addressed and while everyone was not completely satisfied, there were residents who were no longer opposed. Mr. Weiland asked for clarification about recommendation number 13 and asked if grading could occur prior to the Development Agreement. Mr. Grochala replied they would want the Comprehensive Plan issues resolved prior to any grading. Mr. Corson asked about the wetland delineation. Mr. Weiland replied the existing tile would be torn up as a part of the grading operation and there would be another outlet on the site. Mr. Lyden stated the layout of the development loo -d excellent. He asked the price and type of home that would be in the development . and replied $300,000.00 to $350,000.00. It would be similar to the same to r 'n the area. Mr. Lyden asked about traffic, rush hour, an concern was being able to get out on the roa intersection was backing up traffic. He stated Mr. Lyden asked when does a congesti replied when there were accidents, vol congestion issue. Mr. Grochala replie at that intersection to justify a sign Mike McNamara, 1525 Holly his property being condemned. fast. He stated t Holly Drive. Drive. e Ro ochala replied the stated the i t of traffic at the ngestion issue. ecom m afety issue. Mr. Grochala a de it a safety issue and not just a ere not enough of these issues East, ex y concern about his lot being split and d he personally thought the City was growing too ignificantly and it was difficult to get out of this development would not extend Holly Mr. McNam development wen increase with the d storm water retention p s that his property would not be flooded once this had drainage issues now and was concerned it would Chair Schaps replied the intention would be to create this was an extraordinary year for drainage issues due to the heavy rains being exper'nced. Glenn Wandersee, 1608 Holly Drive East, showed pictures of the properties in the area and the drainage issues they were experiencing. He expressed concern about the drainage issues and the run -off in the area. He asked if they knew which way the water was going to flow. He stated he had not heard this addressed at the neighborhood meetings. He also expressed concern about the increase in traffic. He asked what the water table was in the area. Harold Breyer, 1521 East Holly Drive, inquired about the homeowner's association. He asked what recourse the resident's had if rules and regulations were being broken. He inquired about the road going through on Holly Drive. He agreed with Mr. Lyden and the concerns expressed by Mr. Lyden regarding the 2010 population goals. He stated he believed this development was going to be done, and it was just a matter as to how they were going to do it. He expressed concern about the increase in traffic. He asked where • • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 21 the residents stood with respect to traffic issues. He stated he did not have any intention of subdividing his property in the future. Chair Schaps replied he owned his land and it was up to him if he was going to sell it or subdivide it. Mr. Breyer asked what would happen if someone decided to allow Holly Drive to go through. Mr. Lyden replied the residents did not come up with the idea of the road going through, the City did and the City does have the right to take land for roads. Chair Schaps pointed out again that this road issue was not a part of this development proposal. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:01 p.m. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Grochala stated drainage was heading to in the northwest corner of the development. developments. a new pond. It would end up t the existing Mr. Studenski stated the design was mad was flowing through there was the development went in. Mr. Lyde ; - Q=ed th volume and these could be ent''fferent. Chair Schaps requi nothing flowed conditions. Mr. Lyden m with the Compre old flow through there after this ifference between the rate and d not increase. He noted what ook at the drainage issue and make sure replied that was already a part of the this issue giving staff the opportunity to look at this ation goals of 2010 and to review the consensus. The motion was supported s. Lane. Mr. Grochala pointed out the deadline for agency action was August 14 and they had previously received two extensions from the developer. He stated this would be going to the City Council for action. Mr. Lyden asked the developer for another extension given the issues. Mr. Weiland stated his position was that they had been working on for 7 months and this was a statutory requirement. He stated there had been adequate time to address this issue. He stated they had met all of the requirements of the City. He requested a decision be made to approve or deny at this time. Motion Failed 3 -4. (Yes - Zych, Lane, Lyden. Nay — Corson, Schaps, Hyden, Rafferty). Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Stoneybrook, Birch St. /Sherman Lake Road, Comprehensive Plan Amendment/MUSA allocation, with adding condition A2 to state • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 22 that the City demonstrates the need, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, for the growth population numbers of 3.47 people per home, including the census data of homes built from 2000 to current, as well as what's included in already approved homes for the lot inventory. Chair Schaps asked for clarification and asked if this requested was a request for an in- depth analysis as to whether the Comprehensive Plan goals were exceeded. Mr. Lyden replied that was correct. Mr. Grochala questioned the average household figure. Mr. Lyden cited a Metropolitan Council table indicating the population size of the City of Lino Lakes. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4 -2. (Yes — Lane, Zych, Lyde�`'aff °' ma ors n, Hyden). Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Stone Rezone to R -1X, Single Family Executive. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden Motion carried 6 -0. irch Str ee ° erman Lake Road, Ms. Lane made a MOTION to a. e Ston ® irch Street/Sherman Lake Road, preliminary plat subject to staff° . '. ditions : °• ommendations. The motion was s Motion carrie Mr. Grochala to keep the stree on street width. After discussion, the Board decided Chair Schaps recessed t R 'P ng at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:31 p.m. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING — Russian Baptist Church, Ash St./Baldwin Lk. Rd., Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 9:32 p.m. Staff stated the City had received an application for Site Plan Review and a Conditional Use Permit for Russian Baptist Church. This application was initially presented at the June 12th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, but was tabled pending further information on a number of issues, including: • Investigating providing city services through either the City of Circle Pines or the City of Shoreview, as an alternative to the proposed use of a well and septic system. • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 23 • Drainage: neighboring residents had concerns about runoff onto their property. • Buffer greenbelt: neighboring residents were not supportive of the use of a fence; a revised landscape plan using vegetation and/or berms was proposed. • Lighting: neighboring residents had concerns over glare. • Traffic issues: Anoka County had not yet responded with comments on the proposed project. At the request of neighboring residents, the Russian Baptist Church held a second neighborhood meeting on June 26th in order to meet with residents and address their concerns. The proposed site is in the far southwestern corner o rAhe City, west of Baldwin Lake Road and north of Ash Street. The property, which s in size, is zoned Rural. Since churches are listed as a Conditional Us „a R a Conditional Use Permit has also been applied for. The Russian Baptist Church currently has appro now renting space in Spring Lake Park for applied for a Site Plan Review and Con of their own. Staff presented its analysis by exp the subject site as Low Density, the 2001 Plan is not yet offici community in relation t• existin 0 members. The church is ;parish needs, and has -order to construct a church g the `• 's posed 2001 Land Use Plan guides red Re one to 2.5 units per acre). While ted, it d °: efiect the long -range goals of the ture land use. Staff stated the half of the pr half of the rear lot lines o border abuts the b The east border of the'' Lake Road, as well as a Ash Street (County Road J). The northern a wet and in the northwest quarter. The Southern assland. The west border of the property abuts the ng Indian Hills Drive in Circle Pines. The northern erty located on Baldwin Lake Road in Lino Lakes. uts the rear lot lines of three homes also along Baldwin oring home on Ash Street. To the south, across Ash Street in Shoreview, are residentiaFhomes. Staff indicated the Site is zoned Rural. Churches are listed as a Conditional Use in such a district with the following provisions: 1. Side yard setbacks shall not be less than fifty (50) feet. 2. Adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with the landscape and screening regulations of Section 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Adequate off - street parking and access is provided on the site...and such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 3, subd. 4.S of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Adequate off - street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Section 3, subd. 6 of this ordinance. • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 24 Additionally, under Section 2, subd. 2.B.7 of the City Zoning Ordinance, any issued Conditional Use Permits must meet the following standards: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. 2. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the comprehensive plan of the City and this ordinance. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and/or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. 4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage s sewer systems, and schools; or will be edy services provided by the persons or a the proposed use. 5. Will not create excessive additional req facilities and services and will not be d community. 6. Will not involve uses, activities, of operation that will be detrime welfare because of excessive p odors. 7. Will have vehicular appro ,a ®" ' to th create traffic congestion interfer thoroughfares. 8. Will not re feature 0. 9. Will c use refuse disposal, water and tely by such facilities and for the establishment of at pu. 1;:` for public the economic welfare of the quipment and conditions ons, property, or the general noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or , which are so designed as not to th traffic on surrounding public ss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic dards of this ordinance applicable to the particular The propo and standard pear to comply with the above - described provisions Staff indicated the propose s onstruction includes 15,920 total square feet of building over three levels: • Main Level: 7,438 square feet (sanctuary and related uses) • Lower Level: 7,438 square feet (classrooms, fellowship area and kitchen facilities) • Upper Level: 1,044 square feet (storage and child/parent room) Plans also show a 60' X 50' footprint to the north of the proposed church, to be used as a future expansion area. Any future expansion would require a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site Plan Review. • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 25 The exterior of the building will include brick facing/apron and vinyl siding, with a proposed 45 -foot steeple. No bells were proposed. Asphalt shingles would cover the roof. There is neither water nor sewer available for the site. Plans indicate a proposed drain field north of the church, with adequate room for a secondary drain field site. Soils tests confirm that the site can adequately support a septic system. As building code requires a sprinkler system for this building, and the site has no public water available, a holding tank for fire suppression purposes will be required. Although design of the tank/sprinlder system would be reviewed as part of the building permit application, staff have requested that design specifications be required prior to City Council review due to the fact that the functionality of the site was completely dependent othe viability of such a system. Staff indicated the site is located in a Phase 1 water and sewer connections are approximat immediate plans for City services to be inst available by 2010. The provision of public util a goal of the City. As a result, although Lino L staff have investigated the possibility of se • Circle Pines. City Engineer Jim Studens located 350' west and 125' north of the site to such utilities is estimated to cost, powers agreement between the Ci Connections to Lino Lakes Although there are no ssil services might be roperti ,.® en at all possible, is s are not feasible for the site, the si utilities from the City of the Ciro � fines connections are Hills Drive. Connecting the x,000 and will require a joint the City of Lino Lakes. Staff noted City Ordinance re There are 375 seats shown in t parking stalls. P1 there were addit] these areas w hall. Asa 1 main assembix ne par 'ace for each four seats in a church. ssembly hall, which would then require 94 urc • • '$ ' • parking stalls to be constructed. Although a nd fe N • e ' ip areas in the lower level of the church, used b ' adults concurrently with the main assembly mates generated from the number of seats in the equate for church needs. t expectezl the parking sta • • ear to be Plans indicate an areal east of the proposed church to be used for additional parking should the churc se to expand. This area would contain 27 additional stalls. The Environmental Board has recommended use of green parking in future parking expansion areas, as well as an increase in the use of infiltration and storm water practices around parking areas in general. Access is off Ash Street, a County road. As a result, plans have been submitted to the Anoka County Highway department for review. Plans show a two -lane, 24 -foot wide driveway entrance to the site off Ash Street. The preexisting gravel driveway, shown on survey and engineering plans, will no longer share access. There has been no traffic generation study conducted. Staff noted a photometric plan had been submitted, along with fixture details. Lighting will be no- spill, with meter readings within City requirements. Neighbors to the west of the site had expressed some concerns at the June Planning & Zoning Board meeting regarding the possibility of glare from the lights, and had inquired about alternative management measures for the lighting, such as dimming or shutting off lights at night • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 26 when the church was not being used. In general, shoebox style /no -spill fixtures should solve for any glare problems, as lighting is completely shielded and directed only downward. Additionally, building officials report there is nothing in the building code, which specifies a minimum height for fixtures. In responding to inquiries about shutting off lights, police officials recommend that lights should be on "from dusk to dawn," according to CPTED guidelines. Such guidelines were advisory and not compulsory, however; police officials recommend that, at a minimum, several poles stay lit and that the front of the building and all entrances /exits be lit. Staff noted the proposed church would exist as a conditional use within a Rural zone. City Ordinance directed that such conditional uses p 6, a equate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping...in .1 th Sec. 3.subd.4.S." City Ordinance specifically directed buffering/scr g a of "e'ther a fence or green belt planting strip." Neighboring residents had expressed concern Rather, residents requested a landscaped bu Such suggestions appeared to be attractiv plan is being revised to incorporate suc of using a fence as a buffer. ossible use of berming. ity, and the landscape Additionally, the current landscape zany o a so q ees within ponding and drain field areas and the Environmental ended such trees be moved to appropriate areas. The Board commen : ? ®nsideration of alternate tree species choices. In addition, the Board . mmended that a tree inventory and tree preservation plan for Staff stated pia parking are match the pnn. trash enclosure located at the northern end of the " high and constructed of concrete block painted to Staff indicated no si ad yet been submitted. The Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance limits institutional signa e Rural zone in the following ways: maximum of 32- square feet of signage area; `:maximum of 8 feet high; no closer than 10 feet to any property line. Staff stated there would be no park dedication fee required. There were no trails planned for the north side of Ash Street. Staff noted aside from those issues relating to the possibility of connecting to public utilities through the City of Circle Pines, engineering issues had been principally resolved. Minor issues of pond outlet orifice size for a 2 -year storm event and an adjacent driveway were being resolved. Rice Creek Watershed District had issued a TWAFAA for this project. Staff noted The Environmental Board reviewed this application at their May 29, 2002, meeting and recommended approval with some changes. The memo from Marty Asleson • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 27 dated June 6, 2002, detailed these changes and was attached to this report. In general, recommended changes center around the following: 1.) Submission of a tree inventory and tree preservation plan. 2.) Increase infiltration and storm water practices, particularly around parking areas. 3.) Alter tree choices, and move trees out of water infiltration areas. 4.) Use of green parking in future parking expansion areas. Staff recommended approval of the application, with the following conditions: 1.) Proper building permits be obtained prior to any construction. 2.) Permits be obtained by Rice Creek Watershed prior to any site work or building permit issuance. 3.) A revised landscape plan, which replace fencing h landscaping for buffer purposes, shall be submitted prior to 4.) Any signage must comply with the C 5.) Any future expansion shall require Site Permit Amendment. 6.) A tree inventory, tree preservation pl reviewed by the City's Environme ponding or drain field areas are 1 7.) All grading, drainage, and utili City Engineer prior to Cityutcil r 8.) Design specifications for e sup Council review. il 9.) Driveway access shall property to 10.)A perfo execu 11.)All Dep ditional Use dscape plan are to be ees shown placed in ore suitable areas. solved to the satisfaction of the ystem will be required prior to City sive to the site, and shall not be shared with the epared, including financial securities, and it rev w. e obtained from the Anoka County Highway can begin. Mr. Lyden inquired a steeple. ding height. Ms. Gretz replied 45 feet, to the top of the Mr. Hyden asked if applicant had the ability to hook up to the City of Circle Pines for $55,000.00. Ms. Gretz replied technically and theoretically yes, but based on applicant's estimates, that was approximately $30,000.00 more than they had budgeted for the well and septic system. Mr. Hyden asked about fire suppression system. Ms. Gretz replied the $30,000.00 had taken into account the fire suppression system, according to the applicant. Chair Schaps asked if applicant was able to obtain water from the City of Lino Lakes, what would the estimated cost be. The City Engineer replied it would not be inexpensive and it would be a minimum of $30,000.00. Mr. Lyden asked what the buildable land was on the lot. Ms. Gretz replied that, not knowing the size of the wetland, she could not answer that at this time. • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 28 Len Lampert, architect, stated he was present to answer any questions they had. Chair Schaps asked him to address the septic system and well issue versus the sewer issue. Mr. Lampert replied the $55,000.00 cost for City sewer was to the curb line and then they would need to bring it into the building, which he estimated would cost an additional $15,000.00. He replied the storage tank, pump, concrete, well, and drain field areas were coming in around $30,000. Thus, there would be a $30,000.00 to $40,000.00 increase to get City Sewer. He also expressed concern about a timing issue and the Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Circle Pines and the possibility of delaying this project. Ryan Raske, RLK Engineering, stated the buildable area of the property was approximately 2 acres. Chair Schaps stated Mary Ann McDouglas to the Board requesting this project not be ap one -half mile from this proposed project. She zoning ". She expressed concern about drainag Church not hooking up to City sewer. She e suggested the Church find another locati ald in ' oad, had written a letter aus i� ° , ' lready a Church s would t to "cluster ressed concern about the bout the lighting. She eir building. Michael Kula, 6 Indian Hills Drive, position. He stated they had a nei He stated they conveyed to the C Commission, but they did not scheduled a meeting for last m Comprehensive Pi contemplating question that concern abo of a Church, about the Churc them for listening to their which was not very productive. the s rns they presented at the Planning hing res. ' . He stated they had tentatively this meeting was cancelled. He stated the ed tin'' ` ` sewered residential and the application was hich was rural. He stated there was no and hould remain residential. He expressed in field. He stated he was not opposed to the concept Church fit into this area He expressed concern City sewer. He expressed concern about the drainage ut lighting and not having any kind of screening to buffer the light. He expr " oncern about traffic impact. He asked the speed limit on County Road J be reduced er at the corner of County Road 49. He expressed concern about the building height. He expressed concern about the Church not generating a tax base for the City of Lino Lakes. He expressed concern about the Church members doing the construction work themselves. ea was r location of th uestioned ng issues. He expresse Ryan Raske spoke to the drainage issue. He stated they had added an infiltration pond on the property and explained how the drainage would flow. He stated they now had two infiltration ponds and a run -off pond on the property. He stated this had been approved by Rice Creek Watershed. He stated there was no proposed swale on the western side. Mr. Lampert stated they had done an elaborate lighting plan that was within the City requirements. He stated the fixtures would be pointed downward. He addressed the Church building height. • • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 29 Mr. Lyden asked how high was the berm. Mr. Lampert stated approximately 3 feet, with landscaping on top. He indicated this was a one -story building, and it was difficult to conceal a one -story building with a berm, but by adding landscaping, this would be a sufficient buffer. He stated there would be a 50 -foot setback to the residential district. He stated the drain field location would be adjusted slightly to the east. Mr. Lyden asked what the Comprehensive Plan said regarding land use for this property. Ms. Gretz replied it was sewered residential. She stated they should not confuse zoning with land use in this case. Mr. Smyser stated when/if this property was to be rezoned for residential, the Church would still be a conditional use in all of the residenti .1 zones as well. It did not matter what the zoning was for a Church. Ms. Gretz stated the church height was with y req'" and the steeple was exempt from the height requirement. Dick Keiser, 12 Indian Hills Drive, Circle Pine, k Aut the depth of the ponds. Mr. Raske stated they ranged from 2 to 10 feet de Mr. Keiser expressed concern about they playing in/around the ponds), especiall the high water level was calculate 100 -year flood. There would be ence ar Mr. Kula suggested a landscap landscaping select respect to the ponds (i.e. kids feet deep. Mr. Raske stated and the ponds were designed for a ond. any be utilized for the purposes of berming and Mr. Corson m = MOTIO - ® se the ' ublic Hearing at 10:22 p.m. The Motion wassu ' orted by . fferty. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Hyden inquired about to gravel driveway. Ms. Gretz replied that was for construction purposes and it would be paved after construction. Chair Schaps noted if this was a self - constructed site, how long was the building permit good for. Mr. Grochala replied building permits were approved for a 12 — 18 month period. The building inspectors would make sure the site was moving along. Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification about the berming. He requested they firm up the landscaping issues. Mr. Lampert replied the neighbors had requested a landscaping buffer instead of a fence. He stated at this time, they had not come up with a landscaping plan, but they would submit it to staff for their approval. Chair Schaps asked if they agreed to all of the recommendations of staff. Mr. Lampert replied they did. • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 30 Mr. Rafferty expressed concern about approving this without City sewer hook -up, especially since the Comprehensive Plan had this zoned as sewered residential. Jerry Clausen, Baldwin Lake Road, stated he has had septic systems for 50 years, and has never had any problems with the systems as long as they were properly maintained. He stated a Church would not incur that much waste to justify hooking up to the City sewer. He stated a sewer system was just as reliable as the City sewer. He stated septic systems do not present a problem. Bev Clausen, Baldwin Lake Road, stated compared to barking dogs, noisy cars and garbage cans, she would take a Church any day of the week. She asked the Board to consider this project as an asset to the City. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend a oval e Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, with conditions as o ort. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Mr. Lyden stated in reviewing the Condition piece of property. While it was true that most was that it did not fit into this are could not. Motion carried 5 -1 (Lyden). VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Draft Subdivis 9 q: this a good idea for this 2 ac of upland, what hit home ould like to support it, but he Mr. Smyser would be at the Ordinance, b once these were app VII. ADJOURNMENT ivision Ordinance and stated the public hearing oning Board meeting. He stated this was most of ple of pieces still to be approved by the task force and d be forwarded to the Board. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to adjoum the meeting at 10:37 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 10, 2002 Page 31 Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: August 14, 2002 TOPIC: Minor Subdivision & Variance for property located at 900 Oak Lane Mary Zehowski ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Mary Zehowski is applying for a Minor Subdivision of 30 acres, zoned Rural, at 900 Oak Lane. Although the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is 10 acres, Ms. Zehowski is seeking to create a 2.5 -acre parcel and a 27.5 -acre parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the Lino Lakes City Code: "Habitable single family homes constructed prior to July 13, 1992 may reduce their lot size to a minimum of one acre if the balance of the property results in a parcel of ten acres, or is serviced by public sewer, and it can be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the division will not result in ground water, soil, or other contamination which may endanger the public health." This review is based on the following attached exhibits: 1. General Location Map 2. Certificate of Survey, dated August 5, 2002 Planning & Zoning Board Zehowski Minor Subdivision August 14, 2002 ANALYSIS The attached Certificate of Survey shows the proposed division of the 30 -acre parcel. Parcel A, 2.5 acres, contains an existing house and garage, of which 51.7% is upland; Parcel B, 27.5 acres, contains the balance of the property, of which 28.1 % is upland. Land Use & Zoning Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site '/2 Low Density, Unsewered Residential; 1/2 Medium Density Residential Rural West Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural North Low Density, Unsewered Residential & Rural Rural- Executive East Medium Density Residential Rural South Public /Semi- Public (Regional Park across 35W) Public /Semi - Public Minimum Lot Requirements Size: the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is ten acres. The proposed newly created lot would meet this requirement, with the balance of the property consisting of the 2.5 -acre parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2. Width: the minimum lot width for property in a Rural zone is 330', and both lots will meet this requirement. In addition, both lots will have full frontage on a road, as required under the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance, Section 1008.08, subdiv. 6, which states that "all lots shall abut for their full frontage on a publically dedicated street." Buildable Area Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd. 3.B.1.b requires parcels requiring a minimum of 10 acres or more to have a minimum of 20% upland area. Much of this property is wetland, and as a result, it was necessary for the applicant to delineate wetland boundaries. Results of that delineation indicate that both lots meet the minimum upland requirement, with Parcel A at 51.7% upland and Parcel B at 28.1% upland. Septic Issues Soils tests confirm that there are soils on both the proposed parcels capable of • accommodating a septic system, with enough room for both primary and secondary sites. Planning & Zoning Board Zehowski Minor Subdivision August 14, 2002 • Property Boundaries/Encroachment Issues • • The western property boundary of the parcel is currently being confirmed, as it appears some of the outbuildings belonging to the property are actually sited on the neighboring property. City Attorney Bill Hawkins has advised that such issues should not interfere with the processing of the application for a Minor Subdivision, and should be handled as a separate issue. CONCLUSION The proposed Minor Subdivision would result in two lots: Parcel A, although under 10 acres, conforms to Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, and otherwise meets all the minimum lot requirements for property in a Rural zone; Parcel B meets all minimum lot requirements for property in a Rural zone. As a result, staff would recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision with the following conditions: 1.) A park dedication fee of $1,665, to be paid prior to the certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision. 2.) Deed granting easements to the City (lot line easements of 10' front and rear & 5' side; easements over all wetlands). OPTIONS 1.) Recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision. 2.) Recommend denial of the Minor Subdivision. 3.) Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #1. " 4ii.�li --�. © GQPpflACf30ODGpQAp�e �' eill5rt1 �I N P9I l� aikt�MRl� _eememe55_zeeooeaoes :i -a Omar, mi mill Iii ►v% a s _y Milligialin Ve *II diMillk EXHIBIT # / 0 i� ■0 iii ®w moo .L 1111111 minim ca 4e-- uh MMY PG1F NyYB(N- dl -�- --- - M "1 #10:1 11101207 4 yawl °�� IAllig area 11 17 Alek ,m Do' © ,eea¢ 40tiliren n Q'y nyiltAll ili vp_� ��Ed 4 a v0p0 1111 ism 'al ooh �a,��A r ;. l°� 1 Op `1""" ATA7F r®° �wi o ...,,aw.. .. .. .. ....__ . plpir.r,,, uii. A-' GEORGE WATCH LAKE MARSHAN LAKE :�iGETGH AND L4-hINTIQN NORTH ICO FOR: MARY ZEHOWSKI P.O. BOX 39511 EDINA MINNESOTA 55439 TELE: 952-906-0546 GRAPHIC SCALE 200 '6p ( IN FEET ) 1 Inch = 100 ft EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: • N89'57'10-11 1322.50 (West Quarter Corner Sec. 9. T 31. R. 22 Anoka County, as Monumented SS EXHIBIT # Z — North line of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1 /4 330.00 9894" THERE ARE POTENTIAL ENCROACHMENTS ALONG WEST BOUNDARY LINE. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH TO BE COMPLETED. The Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 9. Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, except Interstate Highway No. 35W and except that port of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 31, Range 22 lying Southerly of the Southerly Right of Way line of Interstate Highway 35W as now located and established. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: PARCEL A: The West 330 feet of the North 330 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter 11 lof Section 9, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to easements of record. PARCEL B: The Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota. except Interstate Highway No. 35W and except that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 9, Township 31, Range 22 lying Southerly of the Southerly Right of Way line of Interstate Highway 35W as now located and established, and except the West 330 feet of the North 330 feet thereof. Subject to easements of record. a a r, ®f" 0 0 M 89278 e91,48 �XXC� 330.0 _ — .. ; .x- / 89284 890.94 P t' LEGEND: AREA: DENOTES ANOKA COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT. PARCEL A: TOTAL AREA — RIGHT OF WAY = AREA EXCLUDING R/W o DENOTES 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT SET. DENOTES BITUMINOUS LAYER. o- DENOTES EXISTING FENCE LINE. PARCEL B: TOTAL AREA — RIGHT OF WAY = AREA EXCLUDING R/W DENOTES SOIL BORINGS COMPLETED BY OTHERS. x1023 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATIONS. 2.5 ACRES — .25 ACRES = 2.25 ACRES NOTES: BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM. 2."-repared By_ E. G. RUC 4 SONS, NC. ONSurveyors O LEXINGTON 4, y'ENLE NE. CIRCLE PINES, MN. 55014 -3625 Tel. '163- ''56 -555e Fax 163.1Sb -6001 Drawn 3y. ^.;AA Project Manager: JER 27.48 ACRES — .75 ACRES = 26.73 ACRES i hereby certify that this survey. plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am o duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: License No. S00 02'49 "W N89•57"10"1" 330.00 N � r 0 17 -x89077 h 17b/ 890 8f9jN't_. O Y,69.477 South line of the North 330 feet of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 PN) "o^In`°td � 9 t� v� � 02• uo4o N ty 3 . o� f I ` r_ ■ t / "p 1/ / 0, a 132250 000-4y�( 88911 f t ' alk. Existing Bituminous as Traveled 4I 899.54 9920 / JCis9 rr dtlt / x88691 /88658 Edge of MbHme A ■ ! XeV 30 „887.41 `.-_- - 1� kl80. 7474 X687.47 o t ri at \ pet(oJ�e� c p:�9 35 a � 9� N Way , No 09, 84 r T 892 N Erb. d 901/.,0 .56 -' • 89278 000 ®ly xM m X891.<9 J� The Right of Way of Oak Lone was establl'nshed by using o 33 foot easement South of the East -West Ouarter line as shown on Anoka County Half Sections // x089.87 cee925 89040 89048 { 289048 88959 / /xb6 870 ottan F 021114 Q 8878, 88781 lT 867../' yi/ll. X887.94 087.79x 887.81 887,80. - 987.75 887.95 687.17 go a 55 go ca 0 / 9, N89'50 '57"E ..0 Parcel A 9, Southerly Right cf Way line \ / of Interstate Highway 35W 1320.42 WETLAND AREAS Uplands = 108.900 sq. ft. / 51.7% Wetlands = 56.259 sq. ft. / 48.39. Total = 108.900 sq. ft. / 1005 • -- South line of the NE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 Parcel B Uplands = 336.182 sq. ft. / 28.1X ''Wetlands = 860,836 sq. ft. / 71.95 Total = 1,197,018 sq. ft. / 1005 .IrIR NO D2.3.30 • • • AGENDA ITEM 5B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: August 14, 2002 TOPIC: Minor Subdivision &Variance 1487 Ash Street Corey & Shelly Bachman (applicants) Warren Bachman (owner) ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Warren Bachman owns 29 acres at 1487 Ash Street and is applying for a Minor Subdivision and a Variance from the minimum lot width requirements in order to split 11 acres off, which he then plans to sell to his son and daughter -in -law, Corey and Shelly Bachman. This review is based on the following attached exhibits: 1. General Location Map 2. Certificate of Survey 3. Applicant Narrative ( "Variance for 1487 Ash St/Finding of Facts ") ANALYSIS The attached Certificate of Survey shows the proposed division of the 29 -acre parcel. Parcel B, approximately 18 acres, contains Mr. Bachman's home, outbuildings and agricultural fields; parcel A, approximately 11 acres, contains the balance of the property. The applicants report they plan to site a home fronting Ash Street and keep the northern 10 acres in agriculture, thereby qualifying for Green Acres status. Planning & Zoning Board Bachman Minor Subdivision & Variance August 14, 2002 The site is almost completely in agriculture at this time, excepting the area immediately surrounding the existing house and outbuildings and the pond/drainage area at the southeastern corner of the property. Land Use & Zoning Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Low Density, Sewered Res. Rural West Low Density, Sewered Res. Rural North Low Density, Sewered Res. Rural East Low Density, Sewered Res. Rural South Low/Medium Density Residential Rural It should be noted, that while the property is Rural, development is likely at some point in time once utilities become available — post 2010, since this is a Stage 2 Growth Area. As a result, ensuring that lot dimension requirements are maintained now will help safeguard the availability of utilities for that future development. For example, future utility availability to the area north of the proposed home site may be put at risk, as there is diminished area for road access. Further, as utility availability is often financially feasible only when shared among a group of property owners, limiting future development may limit future utility availability. Minimum Lot Requirements Size: the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is ten acres. Both parcels would meet this requirement. Width: the minimum lot width for property in a Rural zone is 330 feet. Lot width is defined in the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance as "the horizontal distance between the side lot line of a lot measured at the building setback line and parallel to the front lot line." Additionally, the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 1001.08, subd. 6, requires that "all lots shall abut for their full frontage on a publically dedicated street." Parcel A, at 221.6 feet, does not meet the minimum lot width requirement, and as a result the applicant is asking for a Variance. With less than the required 330' of lot width, then, Parcel A also does not fulfill the requirement of having full frontage on a road. Buildable Area Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd. 3.B.1.b. requires Rural parcels of 10 acres or more to have at least 20% upland area. Both parcels meet this requirement, as there are wetlands and/or drainage easements only in the far southeast corner of the proposed 18- acre parcel. • Planning & Zoning Board Bachman Minor Subdivision & Variance August 14, 2002 • Septic Issues Soils tests confirm that the proposed 11 -acre parcel is capable of accommodating a septic system. In addition, there is adequate room for both primary and secondary sites. The 18- acre parcel already contains a septic system, with adequate room for a secondary site. Access Issues The existing 29 -acre parcel contains an access drive onto Ash Street. A second access drive will be required for the proposed 11 -acre parcel. As Ash Street is a County road, plans have been forwarded to the Anoka County Highway Department for review and approval. FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE In considering all requests for Variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. • Comment: The property has been, and currently is, being put to reasonable use for agricultural purposes. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property and not created by the landowner. Comment: There is no unique physical circumstance existing on the property; there is simply not enough width and road frontage to meet the minimum lot requirements for a property in the Rural zone, as established under City Ordinance. 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. Comment: There is no hardship demonstrated or apparent; the lot simply does not meet the minimum lot requirements for a property in the Rural zone. 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. Comment: Granting a Variance without the demonstration of hardship or unique physical circumstances would confer special privilege upon the applicant. • Planning & Zoning Board Bachman Minor Subdivision & Variance August 14, 2002 It should be noted that other parcels along Ash Street which do not meet minimum lot width requirements exist as lots of record, and did not require a Variance from the City Zoning Ordinance for their creation. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: The proposed action would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance, as variances are to be granted only in cases where hardship /unique physical circumstances are present. CONCLUSION The creation of the proposed 11 -acre parcel will not satisfy the 330' lot width requirements for property located in the Rural zone, and thus will also not yield full frontage on a street, as required under the Lino Lakes Ordinance. For these reasons, staff cannot recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision. As there are no hardship issues demonstrated or unique physical circumstances apparent on the property, staff cannot recommend approval of the Variance from the minimum lot width requirements. OPTIONS 1.) Recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision & Variance 2.) Recommend denial of the Minor Subdivision & Variance 3.) Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #2. • EXHIBIT # / Junacoman tattglaint CRY OF CENTEML ._ CRY OF LINO LANE. 111111.1111111.1111ZIEn �t Mo !Ui Imiii In aom- 0 . Q% . ca!om:r°i mD,�ti�em©Jm II!IJ__ IP ill 61 r Al / 411m pp w1ILiL El �iuuimi ,, II{ISIO iIIIIllI r /r � MAP OF .S OF LINO LAKES, '11 1 r O rft ou.r A11 nnI r Valk IIL II Pimw • EXHIBIT # ?- I,0'I' SPLIT SURVEY k TOTAL PARCEL CURRENTLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (10w 1/4) OF (SE 1 /4) OF SECTION THIRTY -FOUR (34), TOWNSHIP THIRTY -ONE (31), RANGE TWENTY -TWO (22). ANOKA COUNTY. MINNESOTA. EXCEPT THE EAST 1'71 r'EEN (E 15) RODS THEREOF, AND EXCEPT THE TRACT DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF (SE 1/4) of SECTION THIRTY -FOUR (34). TOWNSHIP THIRTY -ONE (31), RANGE TWENTY -TWO (22); RUNNING NORTH TWO HUNDRED SIXTY -FOUR (264) FEET THENCE EAST FOUR HUNDRED NINETY -FIVE (495) FEET; THENCE SOUTH TWO HUNDRED SIXTY -FOUR (264) FEET: THENCE WEST FOUR HUNDRED NINETY -FIVE (495) FEET TO THE BEGINNING. PROPOSED PARCEL "A" DESCRIPTION The South 871.84 feet of the West 716.62 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, EXCEPT that part of the said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter which is described as follows Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, thence North, along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 264 feet: thence East. parallel with the South line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 495 feet; thence South, parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 264 feet to the South line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, thence West, along the South line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 495 feet to the Point of Beginning. All in Section 34, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County. Minnesota. PROPOSED PARCEL "B" DESCRIPTION The Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, EXCEPT the East 247.5 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter. AND ALSO EXCEPT the South 871.84 feet of the West 716.62 feet of said Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter. All in Section 34, Township 31, Range 22. Anoka County. Minnesota. NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST OUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22. ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. (ALSO CENTER OF SECTION) LEGEND DENOTES 5/8 INCH BY 14 INCH RE —BAR SET MARKED 1MTH PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED 23300 DENOTES 5/8 INCH BY 14 INCH RE —BAR x MARKED INTH PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED 23300 TO BE SET UPON LOT SPLIT APPROVAL • A • DENOTES PK NAIL SET DENOTES SOIL BORING LOCATION DENOTES PERK TEST LOCATION DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22, ANOKA COUNTY. MINNESOTA. NOTE: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS USED AND THE SECTION BREAKDOWN SHOWN (NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER) ARE BASED ON A WORKSHEET (DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 1982) WHICH WAS OBTAINED FROM THE ANOKA COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST OUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 34. TOWNSHIP 31: RANGE 22. ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. GRAPHIC SCALE tOM ( IN Pin ) semonmetelik N89'37'47' E N N 00'09'52"W N P L„ COREY 8 =1CILIRA NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST OUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 34. TOWNSHIP 31, RANCE 22. ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 1314.27 1066.77 PROPOSED PARCEL "B" S89'31 '5fi W 716.63 PROPOSED PARCEL "A" ICI CO CO S89'31'56'W 495.00 \ O� b0�p0��5 021 p 4, ,O 00 0\� o E'. .o 0 FCUND tri 495.00 N89'31'56'1 _ i 4 589'31'56 "W ...... .............................. .... -...- .1317.14 - .. /-----I -- --- OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION J 34, TOWNSHIP 31, RANCE 22. ANOKA COUNTY. MINNESOTA. '221.63 ;w — t N 0 m WPM, M11,02-1M2 UV GI MO2/R Iv 117 � aI0UC MOM.. Az CMISTR nrDl 352.93,4 1 SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AREAS: (EXCLUDES ROAD R /W) TOTAL AREA (BEFORE LOT -PLIT) — 1,265.175 SO. F7. OR 29.0444 ACRES PROPOSED PARCEL 'A AREA = 485.734 SO. FT. OR 113509 ACRES PROPOSED PARCEL 'B- AREA = 779.441 SO. FT. OR 17.9935 ACRES 574.64 EDGE OF ASPHALT ROAD CENTERLINE OF ROAD (as constructed) N8917'47 "E 247.50 (15 RODS) ;c t 1 m N I t 0 0 (15 RODS) 247.50 S89'31'57 "W 09 09 M 0- 0 EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 31, RANCE 22. ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. Client. MR. COREY SACHMAN 1497 ASM STREET HUCO. NN. 55038 Design by Qhlnol dole: q^�;Ni"`A �;,),w, �.i'4N �,�,•a�� Oro•e by. ,K Revision; N C. Nom T. 7 -9 -02 ...... M e. 23300 DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING, P.A d RN. LANG & LAND SURVLIING OWL m.GINCOH L.wo ati.R.alDrsr AVM AND WTBDrAty 7_712 (296 HUDSON ROAD, S7 PAUL MN 55106 ii0D8 (651) 170-8211 DBVON:PA•Qf0S 40T SwveT Data Ps4: Po.1e Cllr. 201 08th S.A.P.num6er: 2002.092 acct .amber I .4 I EXHIBIT # 3 • VARIANCE FOR 1487 ASH STREET FINDING OF FACTS Sewer and water will not be brought through until a much later date, therefore, the land can not be developed. If a variance is granted, a new home along with well and septic will be occupying 1+ acres. The additional 10 acres of land will be left in Green Acres and will continue to be farmed. There are no homes built nearby that have 330 feet of road frontage. Furthermore, a new home was built last year at 1573 Ash Street with much less road frontage than what we would have upon approval of a variance. • • • • AGENDA ITEM 5C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: August 14, 2002 TOPIC: Minor Subdivision & Variance For property located at 855 Ash Street Don & Faith Lindahl ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Don and Faith Lindahl own 11 acres of land, zoned Rural, at 855 Ash Street. The Lindahls have applied for a Minor Subdivision and Variance from the minimum lot width requirements in order to subdivided their property. Although the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is 10 acres, the Lindahls are seeking to create a 10 -acre and a one -acre parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd. 3.A.2.b.2 of the Lino Lakes City Code: "Habitable single family homes constructed prior to July 13, 1992 may reduce their lot size to a minimum of one acre if the balance of the property results in a parcel of ten acres, or is serviced by public sewer, and it can be demonstrated by means satisfactory to the City that the division will not result in ground water, soil or other contamination which may endanger the public health." The Lindahls propose to live on the one -acre parcel containing the residence and outbuildings, and sell the remaining ten -acre parcel to their son. It should be noted that the existing 11 -acre parcel was created in 1997 as part of a minor subdivision of 58.76 acres. Minutes from the meetings of both the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Council note that a further subdivision of the 11 -acre parcel, such as is now being proposed, was discussed at that time. Minutes note that the applicant "had Planning & Zoning Board Lindahl Minor Subdivision & Variance August 14, 2002 • been advised that splitting off one acre with the homestead to provide an additional building site would probably not be recommended in this case." • • This review is based on the following attached exhibits: 1. General Location Map 2. Certificate of Survey, dated July 10, 2002 3. "Marked Up" Certificate of Survey, dated December 8, 1997 4. Minutes from November 24, 1997 City Council meeting 5. Minutes from November 12, 1997 Planning & Zoning meeting ANALYSIS The attached Certificate of Survey shows the proposed division of the 11 -acre parcel. Tract B, one acre, contains the Lindahl home and outbuildings, of which .89 acres are upland; Tract A, ten acres, contains the balance of the property, of which four acres are upland. Land Use & Zoning Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Low Density, Unsewered Residential Rural West GG Rural North Rural East GG Rural South (North Oaks) (North Oaks) Minimum Lot Requirements Size: the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is ten acres. The proposed newly created lot would meet this requirement, with the balance of the property consisting of the one -acre parcel, as allowed under Section 3, subd.3.A.2.b.2. Width: the minimum lot width for property in a Rural zone is 330 feet. Lot width is defined as "the horizontal distance between the side lot line of a lot measured at the building setback line and parallel to the front lot line." Additionally, the Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance, Section 1001.08, subdiv. 6, requires that "all lots shall abut for their full frontage on a publically dedicated street." • • Planning & Zoning Board Lindahl Minor Subdivision & Variance August 14, 2002 Tract B at 155 feet, does not meet the minimum lot width requirement, and, as a result, the applicant is asking for a Variance. With less than the required 330' of lot width, then, Tract B also does not fulfill the requirement of having full frontage on a road. Tract A is an irregularly shaped ( "C- shaped ") lot that does not meet the minimum lot width requirement in terms of contiguous road width and road frontage. Rather, the lot wraps around the one acre parcel, with 269 feet to the west of the one acre parcel and 188 feet to the east of the one acre parcel. Thus, although the proposed lot has 330' of width on a road, it is not contiguous width. Buildable Area Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd. 3.B.1.b requires parcels requiring a minimum of 10 acres or more to have a minimum of 20% upland area. Both parcels meet this requirement: the 10 -acre parcel has four acres of upland, although this upland exists as "islands" among wetland area, and the one acre parcel is almost entirely composed of upland. Septic Issues Soils tests confirm that the proposed 10 -acre parcel is capable of accommodating a septic system. In addition, there is adequate room for both primary and secondary sites. The one -acre parcel already contains a septic system, with adequate room for a secondary site. Access Issues The existing 11 -acre parcel contains a driveway that is the sole source of access for the property to the west, at 815 Ash Street. The minor subdivision approved in 1997, which created the parcels at 815 and 855 Ash Street, required an easement agreement be drawn up for the driveway. This agreement was approved by the City attorney and recorded with Anoka County. In addition, as a further condition of approval, the driveway was approved by the Fire Chief. The driveway is currently used primarily by the residents at 815 Ash Street, as the Lindahls have their own access drive. Further subdivision of the 11 -acre parcel would require shared use of this driveway, which may or may not pose a legal issue: the easement agreement states the easement is "for the exclusive benefit of Tracts B (855 Ash Street) and C (815 Ash Street)." Further, the agreement states that "no party may unreasonably increase the burden of the driveway and utility easement." The agreement can be amended only with the written consent of both parties. VARIANCE — FINDINGS OF FACT • The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that "in considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: Planning & Zoning Board Lindahl Minor Subdivision & Variance August 14, 2002 1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Comment: The property has been, and currently is, being put to reasonable use. The applicant is simply asking for a further intensification of use. 2.) That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property, not created by the land owner. Comment: The landowner is asking for a further subdivision of his land, which he was advised "would probably not be recommended" when he first purchased his property. 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. Comment: there is no hardship demonstrated or apparent; rather the proposed lots simply do not meet the minimum lot requirements for property in a Rural zone. 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. Comment: Granting a Variance without the demonstration of hardship or unique circumstances would confer upon the applicant special privilege. 5.) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: The proposed action would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance, as Variances are to be granted only in cases where hardship /unique physical circumstances are present. CONCLUSION The proposed Minor Subdivision would result in two lots: Tract B would have a width of 155 feet, thus not meeting the minimum lot width requirement of 330' for property in a Rural zone, nor the requirement of full frontage on a road; Tract A would have 330' of width and road frontage, but it would not be contiguous width or frontage. As a result, staff cannot recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision. As there are no hardship issues or unique circumstances apparent on the property, staff 40 cannot recommend approval of a Variance from the lot width requirements. • • • Planning & Zoning Board Lindahl Minor Subdivision & Variance August 14, 2002 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 EXHIBIT # 1 KE C ©t l m,,m P s11 10 I II 107 14 IA 1 _mOurrAo 7 1991 1992 1993 1994 REVISED REV. REV, REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. NOV. 1994 JAN. 1996 JULY 1997 JULY 1998 AUG. 1999 SEPT. 2000 MAY 2001 JULY 2002 SHADED AREA DENOTES PARK LOCATION 500' 3/4 MAP OF OF L CENTERVII 1 F R Peon -4E S1 /2 OF THE SW 1/4 ECTION 3 N89°55 11"W 4/ c0ryro / '\/ 667'�/ Spr '� f O • ° � _' -§:5 1.1-74, �45 ig .c__ +15 15 e- { i � 1 EDGE OF._ CATTAILS EDGE OF ____- WETLANDS WETLAND DELINEAT.ON B'' ANOKA COUNTY rn v ( z 0 A 0? / 1 1 921.83 106.7E Ifs v p� a 9S \ • .0 1 au_ ,\ 1 I K. i :::1/ 4 / M �,[ I 4',5'. "9 .. :, / I v I 1 Pry /h f �97`f E // 0 t =ry//1 r / /. • / / / 148:09 / �. 1 `t •,. :'I 1j 588°58•59 "E J / ''.__EDGE OF 1 i �� `' 1r - WETLANDS 1 .9. / / I 1 Tin, r r 1 + .fir^ *, . i 1 f 282.94 / \N N8103.812E '\\ 155.01 cA S89°53'23 "E °\ `P r ---i / . SEE DETAIL AT RIGHT TREE LINES - -- j t-I j �'C 4 10. gravel I w 4 WI �P drive = F �el f� --� O 11r,01 . r,.., N - - - -- -_-__------ T7I = -P-4' zr Nt ■ A iv ' 0 10 S, INC. 1 X15 11: t. 10 232.65 ...,__.1 , .Y II 3333' - l 268.62 NO2°21•13 "E -- ff J 155.01 N89'53 '\. 89'53� 23" W . 022UVr4v ROAD ✓ mot G P EXISTING !HOUSE : ` - - -I o. °/ 155.00 - H tat .("411 N Z.)/ 101 70 . 0 11A /i% • • / 2 3'g1�w ■lUE NE. ' -3625 611.46 0 12!96 0 z 105.42 - w s 8?5 --I/ S89 °5323"E' ^ 3)3'07I 1r_ I EDGE OF / WETLANDS a.1u 1 '\C) \ -17t- 683.32 187.83 i ,.) 721.44 (AI4W sTR62 __RECEIVED JUL 112002 CITY OF LINO LAKE DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS 313.06 0 N00'24'28" W 0 DENOTES 1/2" IRON PIN TO BE SET ("L. S. No. 253.1) • DENOTES MONUMENT FOUND #9808 EXHIBIT # �- CtW47Y ROAD ✓ (ASX STREA) ) Sec. 33; T31, R22 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA VICINITY MAP NE corner of the E. 313 06 feet of the S 417 41 feet. T 13.81+ - - -- 50.6 x 18 Wood �' r� ---- -, Frome Bldg. 24 "elm 16 "ook ., 03 -\ /14.7 - -11.7 /J 20.3 X 10.4 Shed L-- 8.2 X 8.3 Shed Stucco House J r7.3 1.3ti I. _ 1 4 1c 5.6 3h 24.4 SE CDR. S1 /2, SW1 /4, SEC 33 76.0 DETAIL CERTIFICATION: .,• 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 1 I hereby certify that this survey, pion or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Licensed Lon/ Surveyor under tyre lows of the State of Minnesota. /J Daniel W. Obermille, Date: /G.Tu - OJ,� Lic. No. 25341 894.37 \�c�`•..• • A- • ki .7-1 33.00 893.2 893.56 NOTE: This is a "mark -up" of a previous survey used for the 1997 subdivision - as a result, the labeling of the tracts varies from that of the survey done for the current application for a minor subdivision. 915.17 x • 4 913.39 913.30 - ~ 202:0 9:. 894.99 • 894.94 X 899.20 - 921.83 -- 902.62 :9 . ............. _. ......... x 907:32 X 909:03 : . •....x- 906.2 §: ' 908.92 x 902.64 "•• 52 01' • \da:F ................ . „11 893.69 .r -- ....... y5 B94.23 89 01894.3571: i/ie x �X 893.28 jq 894.14 K) 893.46 O b9 X60 �c1 89j3 78 93.57 ��rop- of T5"' `/ P, Inv. 893. :� 894.92 893.23, U c a 89r5 .` 26 ttio 893.43 ',...;)'4/ .i� 'om1Con- st. 8d9r4e75 41894.5 flay 893.27 893.68 1 � 891.53 :' X 891.72 895.57 282.94 11 I11 111L_ c - g98• 126.96 896.91 v..r.vi "'N89°53'23"W 8• 9© ^i .01 896.24 896.29 1R -9PP / /7! �- X 892.20 .; w Note: All slit tence- % to be placed one 4 ' N / J1 easement line. 1 N • 1 :ate be*? 591.99 j ...../ate C3314 . ,, 95. • • Sa/. / ;/4. ��n Ab, ` 894.64 so. , 895.49 o) 0)10.89 37• 896.0 ° X 893.47 891.92 ;= .......... - .......: x 891.9 L AL 10, paopale`1,'` ('4.a5 4e 388.61 O r O z 1 891.95 EDGE OF_, - CATTAILS <� - �`: -s.\ 1 vim:\ `' 03,4 891.85 $96.00 895.71 895.65 894.39 895.51 895.08 .O .: 895.52 896.3 x 89 rte- ._EDGE OF 996.2 WETLANDS 895.6 896.47 896,.46 ,e= '2-0:30f.0; F;Triv..oat grade; 896. 96 g`L :` `1 a Each End j 895.97 n. 895.39 .676 9 loo 96 .....a j 0 cce _ EDGE OF �`` ; ice - WETLANDS 1Wetland Fi11 893.97 TLAND DELINEATION`. 893.4 ' 1 • \ 892.36 4o Y ANOKA COUNTY \�S; '� 893.63 PG 93.75 -2J PG• - 894 TREE LINES-�� -- -894.1 . ■ 893.54 �6'C 10' gravel z 893.36 ��'i drive c - p! 892.81 �' .1� L 893.5 _V; 1 '--- ------- --- -:�___-_ - -- �__- �_ -- 33.03 Proposed Division - -: Line 30-11 arc of 04 X 893.86 388.62 - -- -388.62 -- 15.71 S77REAY> d. \,0 893. 893.42 893.6 7 33.03 . •e 4 lir • e- R MON $97.97 Si ® •' 89:.01 ., 900.16 rn 895.62 99.14; 89889266 : a f x EX!S1 'tG 01.43 House oe i : 888 . • 899.14cp.."' 95.06 895.67 895.07 AIL rt 0) NA M. %' A79.5° .ce • +0 N=m • I I:: N W pw- 9pp " Cdr �`v 'V ' A C �` • �0�0.3T . (4) '04% F•r - '90, ►p) ° O' rO ° - o of ' ?E_ 4. 896.• c. a N21,113 0,0 {°)° a ° ^° a `�' o�W \a� o)° 1j4 S36 W .C+0 9oq ••'` X 904.41 897 08 WOVEN IMRE FENCE• - _'. 3 FEET NORTH OF•.L1NE� 903:92 905.62 x.902.52 901.18 °•.g02 �,/ . . • 901.16 W �+�`' __EDGE OF 9o1.18 1onOril 900.68 WETLANDS'" -"- 10 •1 ,901.57xP; I 00 92 pi- N a.0 901.05 z ' • 0 0'901 f CO • '0 O •5 , N n 00 ° 99. /U0 -,y, •.9 LO 0&- AL 901.29 4) N W 5*nt- P z0 i y- EXHIBIT # 3 SE S1/2 of 5 AN V) w NE corner of the E. 313.06 g --feet of the S 417.41 feet. 897.33 897.21 -` v 906.07 co. 996.4 896.;3: . / 896.68 ''.371 2895.27 r' v _V- -4- 97 8g2g% 47' O 896.46 897 n% t^ Proposed CO c Dision N0 4s41* Z Line p 894,.6 - 101.70, .98 11.46 00 0 896.75 N&9053 DENOTES PROPOSED CONTO DENOTES PROPOSED CONTO RS 898 DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS S xisting 1e Culver O DENOTES 1/2" IRON PIN SET (L.S. I•D° tri o. 9808) • DENOTES MONUMENT FOUND AS NOTED 1101.11 v Z n 33.00 w • 104.36 $V 208.71 M - -- 683.32 - --- M 313.06 EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE. SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32 AND THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO COUNTY ROAD J. EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 33, THENCE NORTH 208.71 FEET, THENCE WEST 208.71 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 208.71 FEET. THENCE FAMT 208 -71 FFRT in i i r i / 24 "elm I I n 16 "ook it SE COR. S1/2, SW1/4, SEC. 33 .3e CEPTIEICATI I hereby certify that me r under my dire La :� Surveyor aniel W. Obermiller Date: 69/347? 92 Revised Easement 11- 11 -74 -Q7 (4 rid Silt • COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board had reviewed this item at its November 12, 1997 meeting and recommended approval on this basis. Council Member Kuether expressed approval of the proposed subdivision, but disagreed with t condition of collecting the $500 Park Dedication fee prior to issuance of the building permit. Ms. Wyland explained that there is no current procedure whereby collection of such a fee coulc take place at a later date, and that collection of this fee is customary at this juncture. Mayor Landers asked if the 10 -acre parcel is developable. Ms. Wyland explained that there is very little wetland at this site, with Hardwood Creek itself being the only undevelopable portion. Council Member Lyden moved to approve the Hardwood Creek Farm minor subdivision pursuant to the condition presented. Council Member Neal seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of a Minor Subdivision, Ruth Andrews, 855 Ash Street - Ms. Wyland explained that Ruth Andrews is currently the owner of 58.76 acres of land at 855 Ash Street. This property is immediately adjacent to the Incarnation Cemetery, and contains an existing homestead with three accessory buildings. The 58.76 acres currently includes approximately 12 acres of upland, which is roughly 20% of the site. The property is zoned Rural, and indicated as such on the City's Land Use Map. Ms. Wyland stated that according to the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, Subd. 3.B.2.b. "Within zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of ten (10) acres or more, up to eighty (80 %) percent of the minimum lot area may be comprised of areas which are platted as street rights -of -way, is below the 100 year flood elevation, or lies within city watercourses, wetlands or waterbodies as defined by this ordinance." The applicant would like to subdivide the property as follows: Tract A would contain 2 acres with 1.52 acres of upland. The plan is to sell this property to Incarnation Cemetery, which is currently just under one acre in size. If the Board should approve this request, the cemetery would be required to request a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Board for expansion of the cemetery. Tract B is proposed to be 11 acres in size with 4.83 acres of upland. This parcel meets the 20% upland requirement, and contains the existing homestead. The applicant has been advised that splitting off one acre with the homestead to provide an additional building site would probably not be recommended in this case. Tract C is 45.76 acres, with 5.66 acres being upland. The majority of the upland is located on a heavily - wooded knoll northwesterly of the existing home, and would require access via a driveway easement just westerly of the existing homestead. • COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1997 Tracts B and C meet the minimum lot requirements for the Rural Zoning District; however, Tract C does not contain the 20% minimum upland. Tract A does not contain a minimum of 10 acres. Should the Planning and Zoning Board determine this minor subdivision to be justified, a variance pursuant to Section 3, Subd. 3.B.2.b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance would be required. On a typical 10 -acre parcel, 2 acres would be required to be upland. Ms. Wyland stated that the Planning and Zoning Board. expressed its belief that the following variance criteria could be met: A. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to her property not created by the landowner. B. 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. C. 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. D. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. E. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Ms. Wyland concluded the following recommendation with regard to this minor subdivision: 1. Consideration of the subdivision of Tract A be subject to Planning and Zoning Board and City Council approval of an amended conditional use permit to allow expansion of the existing Incarnation Cemetery. Should that expansion be denied, the two acres could be left with Tract B. 2. Should the Planning and Zoning Board determine the minor subdivision to be appropriate, Tract B and Tract C be subdivided with a variance to allow the upland area of Tract C to be less than 20% of the total 45.76 acres (two acres would be the typical upland requirement on a 10 -acre parcel). 3. An easement agreement be drafted that would allow access to Tract C from tract B, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 4. A $500 park dedication fee be collected for Tract C prior to recording of the subdivision with the County. 5. Permits be obtained from Rice Creek Watershed District requiring easements over all wetland areas. 6. The City Engineer and Fire Chief shall review and approve the driveway plan. Council Member Kuether asked why a $500 Park Dedication fee is not being requested for proposed Parcel A. Ms. Wyland explained that Parcel A includes the cemetery, which is not subject to such a use fee. • • COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1997 Council Member Kuether expressed the concern that Council should not consider this request until the December Planning and Zoning Board and City Council meetings. Council Member Lyden requested clarification of the wetlands impact with respect to the proposed driveway. Ms. Wyland stated that such impact would be minimal. The proposal is for 3,400 square feet of wetland fill, and that Rice Creek Watershed will have to approve this aspect of the proposal. Mr. Ahrens explained that wetland fill of up to 5,000 square feet is permitted. Council Member Lyden also asked about impact of the proposed driveway on development of the buildable property located to its north. Ms. Wyland stated that the property to the north of the proposed driveway is owned by another party, and that access is available from Holly Drive. She added that it may be more appropriate for access to come from Holly Drive in the event that that property is developed. Mayor Landers asked if there should be County approval of the proposed driveway. Ms. Wyland explained that any access would require a County permit. Mayor Landers agreed with Council Member Kuether that Council approval of this project should follow . approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Wyland explained that the Planning and Zoning Board had substantially approved the project with the sole exception of the portion intended for expansion of the cemetery. Mayor Landers asked if delay in action by Council would pose a hardship to the project. Ms. Kathy Rickert, broker for Home Realty, spoke on behalf of both buyers and sellers. Ms. Rickert provided pictures of the proposed development of this property, stating that they best fit this unique property. She stated that the planned development would include two houses, and pointed out specifically the proposed driveway. Council Member Lyden repeated Mayor Landers' question regarding hardship to the project in the event Council should determine that it should not act on this request until the Planning and Zoning Board has given final approval. Ms. Rickert indicated that delay by Council would pose a hardship, as pending approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District (scheduled to take place on November 25, 1997) the project can go forward immediately. Council Member Bergeson requested clarification from Ms. Wyland as to precisely what portion of the proposed project had not been recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. Ms. Wyland confirmed that the two acres which were proposed for addition to the cemetery is the only portion of the proposal that had not been finalized. She added that, in the event the Planning and Zoning Board did not approve expansion of the cemetery, the two acres in question would simply revert to the parcel designated as "Parcel A ". Council Member Bergeson indicated that requirements such as those that might be required to expand the cemetery, as proposed, normally relate to property use including buildings and other types of development, and that he could see no reason why the remainder of the project should not go • • COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 1997 forward pending that determination as there should be no problem with approval of the cemetery expansion. Council Member Bergeson moved to approve the minor subdivision requested by Ruth Andrews for 855 Ash Street, pursuant to the conditions presented. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Consideration of an Amended Conditional Use Permit, Pat -a -Cake Childcare, 7761 Lake Drive - Ms. Wyland explained that Ms. Patty Beecher is the owner and operator of the Pat -a- Cake Daycare currently located at 7761 Lake Drive, just north of the Centennial Fire Department. Ms. Beecher has operated this center for approximately three years. Prior to that time, she operated out of her home. Since at least 1989, a daycare center has been located in this building. At this time Ms. Beecher wishes to expand her facility to accommodate a total of 75 children. Currently Ms. Beecher is licensed by the State of Minnesota for 48 children. The site of this daycare center is within the City's Neighborhood Business District and, according to the requirements of the existing Ordinance, a day care is permitted with a conditional use permit. Ms. Beecher will be purchasing the entire building in December and expanding the existing center to a total of 4,200 square feet. The Building Inspector and Fire Chief are aware of the proposed expansion and will be inspecting the site for compliance. The applicant has also been in touch with the Minnesota Department of Human Services to apply for an amended license to allow for the increase to 75 children. Ms. Wyland added that utilities are proposed for extension north on Lake Drive in the Spring of 1998. Ms. Beecher has indicated a willingness to connect to those utilities at that time. The facility is presently serviced by a mound septic system, which will then be removed and the play area moved to the rear of the site. There are 41 parking spaces provided on this site. This reconfiguration will allow for an expansion of the current parking area to allow for the 37 spaces required for the various uses in the building. Ms. Wyland concluded that Staff recommended approval of this amended conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. An amended license for the expanded use is received from the Minnesota Department of Human Services. 2. Permits are obtained, as required, from the Building Department for any remodeling and change in signage. 3. The Fire Chief shall inspect the sight for compliance. • • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. Hardwood Creek Farm, 80th Street, Minor Subdivision EXHIBIT # "5 Ms. Wyland explained that this request by Nancy Erickson, owner of Hardwood Creek Farm, is to split their 40 -acre parcel into two pieces. Parcel A will be 10 acres in size, and Parcel B will be 30 acres in size. Both have required access on 80th Street; Parcel A having 332 feet, and Parcel B, 1300 feet. Parcel B presently contains the existing Hardwood Creek Farm stable and riding arena. Both parcels will meet the requirements of the City's subdivision ordinance, and a $500 park dedication fee is requested for. Parcel A, which will be retained by Ms. Erickson. The arena and stable area contained in Parcel B are to be sold, hence the need for the subdivision. Ms. Wyland recommended approval of the proposed subdivision contingent upon receipt of the $500 park dedication fee for Parcel A. This fee would be required, as Parcel A would be available as a home site. The question was raised as to why a third parcel -- Parcel C - -was included in the original Sketch and Description provided to the Board. Ms. Wyland explained that Ms. Erickson thought the party planning to purchase Parcel B would want to build a home, which would have to be on a separate parcel. Subsequent to preparation of the Sketch and Description, it was determined that no such plans exist. Mr. Johnson asked if a home could ultimately be constructed on Parcel B without additional action by the Board. Ms. Wyland responded that it could. Buildable space on Parcel A was questioned. Ms. Wyland explained that no topographical survey was ordered, as the property is upland; and, although it is not 100% buildable, it is definitely more than 20 %. Mr. Robinson explained that all of the land is upland with the exception of a portion that slopes down to a creek and back up again. Mr. Dunn made a MOTION to approve the Hardwood Creek Farm, 2306 80th Street, minor subdivision, and was supported by Mr. Robinson. Motion carried, 7 -0. B. Ruth Andrews, 855 Ash Street, Minor Subdivision Ms. Wyland explained that Ms. Ruth Andrews is currently the owner of 58.76 acres of land at 855 Ash Street. This property is immediately adjacent to the Incarnation Cemetery, and contains an existing homestead with three accessory buildings. The 58.76 acres currently includes approximately 12 acres of upland, which is roughly 20% of the site. The property is zoned Rural, and indicated as such on the City's Land Use Map. • • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 3 Ms. Wyland stated that according to the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, Subd. 3.B.2.b. "Within zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of ten (10) acres or more, up to eighty (80 %) percent of the minimum lot area may be comprised of areas which are platted as street rights -of -way, is below the 100 year flood elevation, or lies within city watercourses, wetlands or waterbodies as defined by this ordinance." The applicant would like to subdivide the property as follows: Tract A would contain 2 acres with 1.52 acres of upland. The plan is to sell this property to Incarnation Cemetery, which is currently just under one acre in size. If the Board should approve this request, the cemetery would be required to request a conditional use permit from the Planning and Zoning Board for expansion of the cemetery. Tract B is proposed to be 11 acres in size with 4.83 acres of upland. This parcel meets the 20% upland requirement, and contains the existing homestead. The applicant has been advised that splitting off one acre with the homestead to provide an additional building site would probably not be recommended in this case. Tract C is 45.76 acres, with 5.66 acres being upland. The majority of the upland is located on a heavily - wooded knoll northwesterly of the existing home, and would require access via a driveway easement just westerly of the existing homestead. Tracts B and C meet the minimum lot requirements for the Rural Zoning District; however, Tract C does not contain the 20% minimum upland. Tract A does not contain a minimum of 10 acres. Should the Planning and Zoning Board determine this minor subdivision to be justified, a variance pursuant to Section 3, Subd. 3.B.2.b. of the City's Zoning Ordinance would be required. On a typical 10 -acre parcel, 2 acres would be required to be upland. Ms. Wyland concluded the following recommendation with regard to this minor subdivision: 1. Consideration of the subdivision of Tract A be subject to Planning and Zoning Board and City Council approval of an amended conditional use permit to allow expansion of the existing Incarnation Cemetery. Should that expansion be denied, the two acres could be left with Tract A. 2. Should the Planning and Zoning Board determine the minor subdivision to be appropriate, Tract B and Tract C be subdivided with a variance to allow the upland area of Tract C to be less than 20% of the total 45.76 acres (two acres would be the typical upland requirement on a 10 -acre parcel). 3. An easement agreement be drafted that would allow access to Tract C from tract B, subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 4. A $500 park dedication fee be collected for Tract C prior to recording of the Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 4 • subdivision with the County. • • Mr. Dunn asked about accuracy of the elevations represented by the map provided to the Board for review of this request. Ms. Wyland explained that she had personally visited the site. She added that the knoll is quite obvious, with the balance of the 40 acres clearly wetlands. The logical location for the driveway easement is that proposed. She stated that the elevations are in the 900+ foot range. Mr. Robinson suggested that short of having delineation by Rice Creek Watershed there would be a problem with the driveway. Ms. Wyland stated that a permit would have to be obtained. It was suggested that the Board's approval would have to be based upon Rice Creek Watershed's approval. Mr. Dunn asked whether or not there are any additional cemeteries provided for within the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Wyland stated that there are not. Ms. Kathy Rickert, broker for Home Realty, spoke on behalf of both buyers and sellers. Ms. Rickert provided pictures of the proposed development of this property, stating that they best fit this unique property. She stated that the planned development would include two houses, preservation of the natural run -off of the land, the trees, and the natural habitat, and in all other aspects conforms with regulations of the area. The proposed use would not impede any normal or orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood. Chair Schaps raised the issue of the 11 -acre parcel, taking into account the possibility of splitting off 1 acre for a home site. Ms. Rickert indicated that thought had been given to that split, but that the decision was made to maintain one parcel. Chair Schaps clarified that all parties understand the City's position with respect to a split. Mr. Don Lyndale agreed that he understood the City's position; however, he stated his understanding that an ordinance was in existence which would provide for such a split. Ms. Wyland explained that there is an ordinance which provides for such a split, but that the property would have to be examined more carefully with the lot configured so as to allow for an additional building site. She could not assure that this could be accomplished. Mr. Lyndale indicated his understanding, adding that he is trying to work with the existing configuration. However, he does not wish to be restricted with respect to future use by the Planning and Zoning Board's present action. Ms. Wyland emphasized that reconfiguration may not be possible. Mr. Thompson stated that it is not presently his intent to attempt such a reconfiguration, but that he may with to explore that possibility some time in the future. Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the length of the driveway easement for Tract C, which would cross wetlands. He added that the knoll connects with the upland property • • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 5 to the north, and that development of the knoll should take place in conjunction with development to the north and not have separate access from the south. Chair Schaps requested clarification of the total number of homes on the site. Ms. Rickert acknowledged that there is an existing home and that another home is proposed for construction on the property. Jerry Hawkins of Incarnation Cemetery stated that his organization proposes to take on an additional two acres, which would triple the size of the current cemetery site. Mr. Hawkins indicated that the cemetery has existed since 1922. Mr. Johnson pointed out that a portion of Tract A is wetland, and not usable by the cemetery. Mr. Hawkins stated that he was aware of that. Steve Thompson, purchaser of proposed Tract C, asked about the Planning and Zoning Board's problem with two structures. He indicated that his plans include an office within the smaller structure, and would build a larger home some time in the future. Ms. Wyland explained that the City allows one single - family home per lot. She added that should the owner choose to build a larger home in the future, the small one would have to be removed. Ms. Wyland further explained that businesses are not permitted within a residential district. Mr. Thompson stated that his view is that of having an office within his home, not as a separate business. Ms. Wyland indicated that further consultation would be required as to the inclusion of a business on the property. Mr. Thompson also questioned payment of the $500 park dedication fee. Ms. Wyland explained that any time a piece of land is proposed for construction of a home, such a fee is required. Mr. Brixius added that home occupations are permitted in this district within a permitted accessory building. He suggested that Mr. Thompson would have to provide additional information regarding his business and, if it meets the definition, can be housed within a separate building. With regard to the park dedication fee, Mr. Brixius explained that the fee is charged as part of the overall subdivision and who actually pays the fee may be negotiable among the parties purchasing/developing the property. Mr. Dunn requested clarification of what the Planning and Zoning Board is acting on at this time. Ms. Wyland explained that the only action proposed at this time is the minor subdivision. Development and use of the property would be a separate issue. Mr. Herr asked about splitting Tracts B and C so that an easement would not be included in Tract B. Ms. Wyland indicated that possibility had not been explored. She added that it would be very difficult to maintain the minimum amount of required upland with the easement placed elsewhere. • • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 6 The required width of the easement was questioned. Mr. Ahrens responded that the minimum is a 20 -foot paved surface for emergency vehicle use. Chair Schaps suggested that Mr. Thompson would have to meet certain requirements regarding installation of the proposed driveway in order to satisfy the fire code. Mr. Ahrens clarified that the easement is for 20 feet, while the proposed driveway is 10 feet in width. He added that the City's fire chief would have to approve the proposed driveway. Mr. Thompson agreed that emergency vehicles would have to be able to negotiate the driveway. Mr. Brixius stated that the City's zoning ordinance also contains requirements as to driveway width and surface, which must be satisfied. Mr. Herr asked if the City has in the past allowed something less than 20 %. Ms. Wyland explained that the 20% upland requirement is new to the City's ordinance. Previously the requirement was for 80% for a 10 -acre minimum. Mr. Dunn asked if other options had been explored, in light of the large amount of wetlands. He asked if a wetlands parcel could be created, ensuring that the area would remain wetlands and unbuildable for infinity. Mr. Brixius stated that the disadvantage of splitting the wetlands off as a separate parcel is that it would most likely go tax forfeit. Remaining part of the larger parcel it would stay within single ownership, it would be protected from future development by the easement, and it would remain a property of value. Mr. Thompson pointed out that a portion of the land northwest and south of the subject site, although inaccessible, is dry, potentially buildable parcels of land. Chair Schaps asked about variance criteria. Ms. Wyland cited five findings of fact, as follow: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowner is due to physical circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other land, structures or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. • • Planning & Zoning Board November 12, 1997 Page 7 Chair Schaps asked Mr. Brixius to respond to the variance criteria as stated by Ms. Wyland. Mr. Brixius indicated that there is justification for a variance in the following areas: First, the area is genuinely unique due to the wetlands. He suggested that the ordinance could be skirted by creating an outlot which would encompass most of the wetland, reducing the overall size and bringing the figure to within 20 %, which would serve no constructive purpose. Mr. Brixius added that it is in the best interest of the City for the land to remain in single ownership and, in that respect, fulfills the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Herr made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision requested by Ruth Andrews, conditioned upon approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District and of the Fire Chief with respect to property access, supported by Mr. Robinson. Motion carried 7 -0. C. Pat -a -Cake Daycare, 7761 Lake Drive, Amended Conditional Use Permits PUBLIC HEARING Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Ms. Wyland explained that Ms. Patty Beecher is the owner and operator of the Pat -a -Cake Daycare currently located at 7761 Lake Drive, just north of the Fire Department. Ms. Beecher has operated this center for approximately three years. Prior to that time, she operated out of her home. Since at least 1989, a daycare center has been located in this building. At this time Ms. Beecher wishes to expand her facility to accommodate a total of 75 children. Currently Ms. Beecher is licensed by the State of Minnesota for 48 children. The site of this daycare center is within the City's Neighborhood Business District and, according to the requirements of the existing Ordinance, a day care is permitted with a conditional use permit. Ms. Beecher will be purchasing the entire building in December and expanding the existing center to a total of 4,200 square feet. The Building Inspector and Fire Chief are aware of the proposed expansion and will be inspecting the site for compliance. The applicant has also been in touch with the Minnesota Department of Human Services to apply for an amended license to allow for the increase to 75 children. Ms. Wyland added that utilities are proposed for extension north on Lake Drive in the Spring of 1998. Ms. Beecher has indicated a willingness to connect to those utilities at that time. The facility is presently services by a mound septic system, which will then be removed and the play area moved to the rear of the site. This reconfiguration will allow for an expansion of the current parking area. • • • AGENDA ITEM 5D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Bob Kirmis (NAC) P AND Z MEETING DATE: August 14, 2002 TOPIC: JADT Addition - Preliminary Plat, Site & Building Plan Review and CUP for Accessory Drive - through BACKGROUND JADT Development Group, LLC. has requested preliminary plat approval to allow a four lot, commercial subdivision (JADT Addition) on property located east of County Road 23 between Apollo Drive and I -35W. The subject 7.0 acre development overlays Outlot B of the Lino Lakes Commercial Development (PDO) which was approved last year. In conjunction with the preliminary plat request, the applicant is also requesting site and building plan approval to allow the construction of a 14,172 square foot retail strip center upon proposed Lot 4 of the subdivision and a conditional use permit to allow a drive -thru facility. The subject property is zoned SC, Shopping Center with a PDO, Planned Development Overlay (to allow various design flexibilities). This review is based on the following plan submittals: Preliminary Plat dated 7/15/02 Preliminary Site Plan dated 7/15/02 Preliminary Utility Plan dated 7/154/02 Preliminary Grading Plan dated 7/15/02 Site Plan dated 7/15/02 Floor Plan dated 7/15/02 Building Elevations dated 7/15/02 Planting Plan dated 7/15/02 Landscape Details dated 7/15/02 Lighting Plan dated 7/15/02 City Engineer Comments dated 8/9/02 Environmental Board Comments dated 8/6/02 • • • JADT Addition Page 2 of 12 ANALYSIS Preliminary Plat Review Access. Access to three of the four lots (Lots 1 through 3) will be provided via an existing private street located east the adjacent McDonald's site. While the Ordinance requires all lots be provided access via a public street access, flexibility to this requirement can be accommodated via the PDO. As part of the City's previous consideration of the McDonald's proposal, a determination was made that access to the subject property would be provided by the existing private street. A cross easement and operation and maintenance agreement will be required as part of the Development Agreement. Lots. The SC District requires a minimum lot size of three acres. Through the PDO however, flexibility to this requirement can be provided without need for a variance. As shown on the preliminary plat, the proposed lots range in size from 1.7 to 2.3 acres. As demonstrated via the submission of site plans, the configuration of the proposed lots are conducive to future commercial development. Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. Water and Sanitary sewer service were provided to service the site as part of the Lake /Apollo Drive improvement project. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the utility related modifications and comments as set forth in the City Engineer's memo should to be incorporated into the plans. Grading and Drainage. A grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the grading and drainage related modifications and comments as set forth in the City Engineer's memo should to be incorporated into the plans. The plan is also subject to review and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Easements. As shown on the preliminary plat, drainage and utility easements have been proposed along all property lines and over wetland and ponding areas. The acceptability of such easements should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. As a condition of final plat approval, cross parking and access easements will need to be recorded with the property. Such easements should be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Tree Preservation. The tree preservation plan has been superimposed upon the preliminary grading plan. According to the plan, 22 significant trees exist upon the subject property. Of • • • JADT Addition Page 3 of 12 those significant trees, 16 are to be saved. All trees to be saved are to be flagged and protected by snow fence prior to construction. Park Dedication. As part of the previous platting of the property, park dedication was not received. As a result, the proposed subdivision will be subject to park dedication requirements. For commercial development, a park dedication requirement of $2,175 per acre is required. With the subdivision comprising 6.4 acres of upland area (exclusive of ponding), a park dedication of $13,920 will be required prior to the recording of the subdivision. Environmental Issues. The Environmental Board reviewed the request at their July 31, 2002 meeting and recommended approval. Their comments are attached to this report. CEPTED Review. The CEPTED review was completed on June 21, 2002. The primary issues, as addressed on the attached report, regard traffic flow through the development. The development has been redesigned to address these issues. Rice Creek Watershed District Review. The proposed development is subject to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) approval for both a Land Development Permit and a Wetland Alteration Permit. The RCWD has not taken final action on the request. Site and Building Plan Review As indicated previously, the applicant is seeking site and building plan approval to allow the construction of a 14,172 square foot retail commercial center upon proposed Lot 4. At such time when specific development projects exist for the remaining lots in the subdivision (Lots 1 -3), they will likewise be subject to a site and building plan review process. At this point, the site plans provided for Lots 1 -3 are conceptual in nature and are intended to demonstrate the developability of the lots and a comprehensive stormwater management and circulation system. Access. Access to the proposed retail center is to be provided via two 30 foot wide curb cuts along Apollo Drive. While the westerly curb cut is in direct alignment with an existing curb cut to the north, the easternmost curb cut is slightly off -set from an existing curb cut to the north. As a condition of site and building plan approval, the easterly curb cut should be shifted approximately 15 feet to the west to create a direct alignment. Additionally, approval of the easterly curb cut will require an access agreement with Kohl's. Circulation. The proposed circulation is considered well conceived and is integrated into the overall circulation system proposed for the subdivision. • • JADT Addition Page 4 of 12 One minor concern that exists in regard to site circulation is the temporary dead -end parking arrangement on the west side of the site. To address this concern, a temporary turn - around should be provided at the western terminus of the parking area (either on site or within Lot 3). Lot Size and Setbacks. While the Planned Development Overlay designation can provide flexibility from the strict terms of the Ordinance, the requirements of the underlying SC, Shopping Center District are considered an appropriate guideline. The lot and building performance standards for properties within the SC District are listed below. * Flexibility requested Within SC zoning districts, a 50 foot setback is required from arterial streets. As shown on the preliminary site plan, a 30 foot principal building setback has been proposed along I -35. At 2.3 acres in size, the subject property also fails to meet the minimum 3 acre lot requirement imposed in the SC District. The PDO section of the Ordinance does state however, that perimeter setbacks can be established by applying the setback requirements of the surrounding district or can be related to the height of the buildings. While both the proposed setback and lot area deviations can be accommodated via the PDO, City officials should determine their acceptability. • Architecture/Building Materials. As a condition of site and building plan approval, a determination should be made that the proposed building is consistent with the design guidelines Required Proposed Lot size minimum 3 acres 2.3 acres* Lot width minimum 100 feet 643 feet Setbacks — building Apollo Drive I -35 side lot line Setbacks - parking Apollo Drive I -35 side lot line 50 feet 50 feet 10 feet 15 feet 15 feet 5 feet 70 feet 30 feet* 50 feet 15 feet 20 feet NA on west side (shared access proposed) 36 feet Building height 45 feet Green space 25 percent 46 percent * Flexibility requested Within SC zoning districts, a 50 foot setback is required from arterial streets. As shown on the preliminary site plan, a 30 foot principal building setback has been proposed along I -35. At 2.3 acres in size, the subject property also fails to meet the minimum 3 acre lot requirement imposed in the SC District. The PDO section of the Ordinance does state however, that perimeter setbacks can be established by applying the setback requirements of the surrounding district or can be related to the height of the buildings. While both the proposed setback and lot area deviations can be accommodated via the PDO, City officials should determine their acceptability. • Architecture/Building Materials. As a condition of site and building plan approval, a determination should be made that the proposed building is consistent with the design guidelines • • • JADT Addition Page 5 of 12 of the Lino Lakes Marketplace PDO. As shown on the submitted building elevations, the proposed building replicates many of the design features of the adjacent Target and Kohl's buildings including: • Colonial Style gable roof forms • Cornice details • A defined base • Accentuated building corners • Finish colors The architectural appearance of the building, finish materials and color selections are considered consistent with the Marketplace PDO design guidelines. Parking. The standards for calculating the off -street parking requirements for shopping centers 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 Shopping Center 14,172 s.f. 12,755 s.f. 5 1/z spaces per each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (exclusive of common areas) 70 As shown above, a total of 70 off - street parking stalls are required for the proposed shopping center. The applicant's plan calls for 72 stalls and exceeds the minimum off - street parking supply requirement. To be noted however, is that one additional handicap parking stall (totaling three spaces) should be provided to satisfy applicable State requirements. At 18 feet in depth and 9 feet in width, all off - street parking stalls have been found to meet the minimum dimensional requirements of Section 3, Subd. 5 of the Ordinance. Likewise, the proposed 24 foot wide drive aisles also meet minimum Ordinance requirements. • • • JADT Addition Page 6 of 12 Landscaping. In accordance with the original PDO approval, a tree replacement plan was required to be designed in cooperation with City Staff. A one for one replacement was intended for this site. The tree inventory previously prepared by the applicant identified 217 significant trees (8 inches or greater) within the proposed subdivision. Of these trees, 16 are intended to be preserved. This would require 201 trees to be provided as part of the development of the entire site. As shown on the landscape plan, a variety of trees are proposed on site. Specifically, a mixture of Scotch Pine, Colorado Blue Spruce and Cranberry Viburnum have been proposed along the Interstate corridor while a row of Little Leaf Linden trees have been proposed along Apollo Drive. Additionally, row of Dogwoods has been proposed along the site's wetland. In review of the landscape plan, staff recommends the following: 1. The Little Leaf Linden trees along Apollo Drive be changed to a Red or White Oak and spaced at 50 feet. 2. Overstory trees be incorporated into the plaza fronting the building replacing the proposed unidentified plantings. 3. The coniferous trees along I -35 be changed to Austrian Pine and White Spuce. 4. The proposed Purpleleaf Plum trees be changed to disease resistant ornamental crab trees. 5. Plantings within the limits of the east ponding area be eliminated. 6. Tamerack Trees be provided around the east ponding area (to tie into the Marketplace development) and be located above the 100 year HWL. Additionally, a master landscaping plan, encompassing the entire subdivision, should be sumbitted for City review and approval. The plan should demonstrate conformance with the tree replacement requirements for the development. Trash Enclosures. 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. As shown on the submitted site plan, trash enclosures have been proposed on east and west sides of the building. While the proposed locations technically meet the requirements of the Ordinance, some concern exists in regard to the placement of the westerly structure. Of specific concern is the visibility of the enclosure from Apollo Drive. To de- emphasize the enclosure, it is suggested that it be shifted to the south and attached to the northwest side of the principal building. JADT Addition Page 7of12 Signage. While the multi -tenant building sign requirements of the Marketplace PDO design guidelines are specific to buildings north of Apollo Drive, it is believed the requirements should likewise be applied to the subject building in order to maintain area consistency. In this regard, wall signs for the subject building should be in accordance with the following: 1. Building fronts should have a maximum average sign height of 30 inch and a maximum width equal to 80 percent of the lease width. Capitol letters should not exceed 36 inches. 2. Building rears should have a maximum average sign height of 24 inches and a maximum width equal to 60% of the lease width. Capitol letters should not exceed 30 inches. 3. In no case should the total sign area, per business, exceed 100 square feet for building fronts and 75 square feet for building rears. The applicant is proposing one freestanding sign in the southwest corner of the development. Such sign location is considered acceptable but should not exceed 25 feet in height, consistent with other signs in the Marketplace development. ID Lighting. As required by ordinance, a lighting plan identifying illumination levels on the subject site has been provided. The proposed illumination levels and fixture details have been found to be acceptable. • Details regarding fixture type have not been submitted. As a condition of site and building plan approval, specific fixture details should be submitted subject to review and approval by staff. 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. 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. Conditional Use Permit As previously indicated, the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow an accessory drive -thru facility. The proposed drive -thru lane is located on the east side of the building and is configured to provide ample stacking space and minimize site disruptions. It is estimated that stacking space exists for a minimum of eight vehicles. In considering conditional use permit requests, the Ordinance states that the Planning and Zoning Board shall recommend approval and the City Council shall order the issuance of such permit only if it finds that such use at such location: • • • JADT Addition Page 8 of 12 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. Comment: Drive -thru facilities currently exist within the City of Lino Lakes. The proposed use in not anticipated to be detrimental or endanger the public. 2. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the comprehensive plan of the City and this ordinance. Comment: The Comprehensive Plan suggests commercial use of the site. Thus, the proposed land use satisfies the land use directives of the Plan. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and /or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Comment: The building design is consistent with the design guidelines of the Marketplace PDO and therefore will not change the character of the area. 4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including street, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Comment: As a condition of project approval, the building will be adequately served by essential public facilities and services. 5. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Comment: This development is not expected to increase public costs, nor be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 6. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. • • JADT Addition Page 9 of 12 Comment: The proposed commercial use of the property is not expected to create any excessive externalities that would be abnormal to the character of commercial sites. 7. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. Comment: The site layout meets standards held within the City's Zoning Ordinance including turn lanes, access width, and access spacing/location. 8. Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Comment: The applicant is currently working with the RCWD and City Engineer to satisfy drainage related issues. 9. Will conform to specific standards of this ordinance applicable to the particular use. Comment: The proposed use will as a condition of approval meet the applicable requirements of the Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings contained in this report and subject to the conditions listed below, our office recommends the following: A. Approval of the JADT Addition preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The City finds the proposed lot sizes (less than the minimum SC District requirement) to be acceptable. 2. The conditions of the City Engineer's memo (dated 8/9/02) related to grading, drainage and utilities should be satisfied. 3. Cross parking and access easements be recorded with the property at the time of final plat. Prior to recording, such easements shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 1110 4. A park dedication of $13,920 shall be required prior to the recording of the final plat. • • JADT Addition Page l0 of 12 5. 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. The agreement shall also contain and operation and maintenance agreement that addresses pond maintenance and incorporates the use of Best Management Practices. B. Site and Building Plan approval to allow the construction of a 14,172 square foot retail center on property located east of County Road 23 between Apollo Drive and I -35W subject to the following conditions: 1. The City approves the JADT Addition final plat. 2. The City finds the proposed 30 foot principal building setback from I -35W to be acceptable. 3. The easterly curb cut be shifted approximately 15 feet to the west to align with an existing curb cut to the north. 4. A temporary turn- around be provided at the western terminus of the parking area (either on -site or within Lot 3). 5. One additional handicap parking stall (totaling three spaces) be provided to satisfy applicable State requirements. 6. To de- emphasize the westerly trash enclosure, it be shifted to the south and attached to the northwest side of the principal building. 7. Wall signs for the subject building be in accordance with the following requirements of the Market place PDO: a. Building fronts shall have a maximum average sign height of 30 inch and a maximum width equal to 80 percent of the lease width. Capitol letters shall not exceed 36 inches. b. Building Rears shall have a maximum average sign height of 24 inches and a maximum width equal to 60% of the lease width. Capitol letters shall not exceed 30 inches. c. In no case shall the total sign area, per business, exceed 100 square feet for building fronts and 75 square feet for building rears. • • • JADT Addition Page 11 of 12 8. The proposed freestanding sign not exceed 25 feet in height. 9. Light fixture details be submitted subject to staff approval. 10. The source of lights shall be hooded and controlled so as not to illuminate adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. 11. The conditions of the City Engineer's memo (dated 8/9/02) related to grading, drainage and utilities be satisfied. 12. The following modification be made to the landscape plan: a. The Little Leaf Linden trees along Apollo Drive be changed to a Red or White Oak and spaced at 50 feet. b. Overstory trees be incorporated into the plaza fronting the building replacing the proposed unidentified plantings. c. The coniferous trees along I -35 be changed to Austrian Pine and White Spuce. d. The proposed Purpleleaf Plum trees be changed to disease resistant ornamental crab trees. e. Plantings within the limits of the east ponding area be eliminated. f. Tamerack Trees be provided around the east ponding area (to tie into the Marketplace development) and be located above the 100 year HWL. 13. A revised master landscaping plan, encompassing the entire subdivision, should be sumbitted for City review and approval. The plan should demonstrate conformance with the tree replacement requirements for the development. 14. A Watershed District Permit be received prior to City building permit issuance. 15. 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. The agreement shall also contain and operation and maintenance agree C. Conditional Use Permit approval to allow an accessory drive -thru facility subject to the following conditions: 1. The City approve the JADT Addition final plat. 2. The City approves the submitted site and building plans. • ATTACHMENTS 1. City Engineers Report 2. Environmental Board Report 3. CEPTED Review 4. Preliminary Plat 5. Preliminary Site Plan 6. Preliminary Utility Plan 7. Preliminary Grading Plan 8. Lot 4 Site Plan 9. Lot 4 Building Elevations 10. Landscape Plan 11. Lighting Plan • • • Memorandum DATE: August 9, 2002 TO: Mike Grochala FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer g RE: JADT Addition A review of the submitted documents has been performed. The submittal included a six -page plan set dated July 15, 2002, and drainage documents dated July 15, 2002, July 31, 2002, which were received on August 5, 2002. The following comments must be addressed prior to final approval given for the project: Preliminary Plat: The plat meets the City requirements and will be reviewed upon completion of the storm sewer design. Watermain: - No gatevaives are shown. - Watermain lines must be Class 52 ductile iron pipes. - The 6000 sf service retail building doesn't a hydrant. - Adequate water system supply must be confirmed. The submittal meets all remaining design standards required by Lino Lakes. Upon receiving the final plans and specifications for the project, the specific details of materials, construction standards, and testing requirements will be reviewed. Sanitary Sewer: Sanitary sewer grades should be lowered servicing east buildings. Sanitary sewer grade can't change slopes without a manhole for the east retail building. Sanitary sewer crossings of the watermain are to, have a minimum of 18 inches of vertical separation. The submittal meets all remaining design standards required by Lino Lakes. Upon receiving the final plans and specifications for the project, the specific details of materials, construction standards, and testing requirements will be reviewed. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651- 982 -2400 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499 • TDD: 651-982-2410 • Memorandum Dated August 9, 2002 Page 2 Street Standards: Layout allows adequate traffic movement. The most easterly street connection is onto private property and would require an access agreement. Storm Sewer: - The storm sewer and drainage package complete submittal was not received until August 5th and is currently being reviewed. Grading Standards: General design meets the requirements by the City of Lino Lakes. Further review will be required upon addressing issues as outlined in the storm sewer review. Documentation of material entering and leaving the site will be necessary prior to approval of the plans. Minimum ditch grades of 2% will be required. Recommendation: • The design generally meets City requirements. Upon completion of the above issues, final approval can be given for the proposed JADT Addition. • • Memo To: Michael Grochalla From: Marty Asleson Date: August 6, 2002 Re: Recommendations of the July 31, 2002 Environmental Board Environmental Board Meeting Date: July 31, 2002 Topic: JADT Plat Review • Recommendations: • • Remove or substitute green parking for the four parking stalls on the East side of the proposal near the pond. Substitute green parking for some of the lots by the retaining wall and the wetland mitigation area. • Change the island parking lot areas to depressional infiltration areas if possible, similar to the Target/Kohls site. • Provide a one - for -one tree replacement for significant trees removed from the site. • Preserve as much as possible the oaks in front of the "V" shaped building, and plant shade trees in front of this building for trees removed. Provide a pervious type of surface in front of this building. • Eliminate driveway on the East side. • Use the same lighting that is on Apollo Drive side of Target. That is, downward focused, low - spill, low - impact, low- intensity lighting. • Fill in street trees along Apollo Drive at 50 Foot spacing with alternating red and white oaks instead of Lindens. • Substitute White spruce for Colorado Spruce along Freeway. • Substitute Austrian Pine for Scotch pine along the Freeway. • Move tree species to above 100 -year flood elevation around the pond on the East side. Plant oaks and or Tamarack in this area. • Page 1 • • • • Substitute a disease resistant ornamental Crab, or thornless Hawthorn for Purpleleaf plum. • Provide a project- sequencing plan similar to the plan submitted by Target/Kohls. • Provide a BMP Plan similar to Target/Kohls. Joint agreement with Target Kohl's is recommended. • Provide an irrigation plan for all non - native landscape areas. • Use the City seed schedule for all infiltration, swale and wetland/pond areas. Motion By O'Connell, Second By O'Dea to Approve with the above recommendations. All were in favor. Motion passed. • Page 2 • Department of Public Safety POLICE David J. Pecchia Public Safety Director / Chief of Police Officer Mike Rumpsa Lino Lakes Police Department CPTED Review of the JADT Development 06 -21 -02 I have reviewed the plans for the JADT Development, and have a comment on the traffic flow. It appears that the traffic flow is directed thru the parking lots. For instance, if a person enters the development via the McDonalds entrance and is attempting to visit Retail space three or four, they would have to navigate thru the parking lots, avoiding vehicles backing out of parking spots and other traffic entering or leaving the development. If vehicles are unable to leave the development parking areas due to congestion on Apollo Dr, the problem will compound deeper into the parking lot, increasing the chances of an accident. Depending on the volume of traffic and the amount of traffic in the development, the chances of property damage accident is high. A way to remedy the problem would be to put a service road in that would allow access to each retail structure thus eliminating the congestion in the lots and the feeder roads. Another area of concern would be the entrance /exit on the East end of the development, and the roadway between Kohl's and Target. With the traffic that Target/Kohl's is projected to generate, these exits may be difficult to use. Motorists leaving via the East Exit and the center exit will be waiting not only for the vehicles entering Target/Kohl's, but also waiting for vehicle to leave Target/Kohl's before they would be allowed to enter the Apollo Drive traffic. Motorists no doubt will be taking chances to blend with traffic by attempting to merge with vehicles on Apollo Drive increasing the chances of a property damage or injury accident. 640 Town Center Parkway • Lino Lakes, Minnesota • 55014 -1182 Public Administration /Records: 651 - 982 -2300 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2399 (V 2002 RYAN ENGINEERING, INC. LOT AREA DATA RETAIL /COMMERCIAL AREA LOT NUMBER BLOCK 1 1 2 3 4 Total LOTS 1,2,3 & 4 CO TOTAL PLAT tf`Ii1 N / 7.02f AC AREA 88,525 SF 59,284 SF 59,444 SF 98,605 SF 305,858± SF 305,858±SF JADT ADDITION APOLLO DRIVE NO0'47' 6.66'�� , D &U EASMT. N8912'02 "W 888.38' UPLAND AREA CALCULATION GROSS SITE AREA EXISTING UPLAND AREA PROPOSED UPLAND AREA PROPOSED UPLAND AREA, LOT I PROPOSED UPLAND AREA. LOT 2 PROPOSED UPLAND AREA, LOT 3 PROPOSED UPLAND AREA, LOT 4 Sq. Ft. 305,858 285876 279,484 85,692 5.1:339 54,569 85,884 Armes 7.02± 6.56± 6.42± MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ISO Setback from Streets Principal Building - Local Street Principal Building - Collector /Arterial Parking Lot/Driveway 50' 50' 15' Front Yard S0' Rear Yard Principal Building Accessory Building Parking Lot/Driveway Side Yard Principal Building Accessory Building Parking Lot/Driveway From Rcsillential District Between Principal Structures 30' 10' 5' 10' 10' 5' .35' 1/2 the sum of the bldg. hts of 2 b/dgs. i \ • - -S1/4 CORN OF SEC. 8, 1, R.22 S89112'02'E 216.21 / \ 6. Fk/st / L N1/4 CORNER OF 7 SEC.17, T.31, R. 2 . ANOKA . MON. ;/ 1 2 Ns / \ / \ \ ' \ 44+0 D&U EASMT. • 4 / 643' ( J -D&U EASMT. / / 1 D &U EASMT. 1 8A' / R= 484.96 Del to =20'28'16 Tan 87.57 • 42 N74.5251., 'ft DeRo oe 55 k / CRO ESS AGREEMENT AND PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENTS COVERED BY DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT. D&U EASEMENTS 10' AROUND PERIMETER AND CENTERED ON LOT LINES AS SHOWN. DENOTES MNDOT OR COUNTY ACCESS CONTROL DEVELOPMENT DATA ZONING EXISTING ZONING RETAIL /COMMERCIAL PROPOSED ZONING RETAIL /COMMERCIAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS PER PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION OUTLOT B, LINO LAKES COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. DEVELOPER: JADT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC 4175 WEST BROADWAY AVE. MINNEAPOLIS MN 55422 762 -592 -0911 OWNER: JAOT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC 4175 WEST BROADWAY AVE. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55422 RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2002 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 0' 50' 100 150' Ryan Enginee) LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 947-9100 wwwryenenpineerinp.com Mnby urUfy that this plan, specification, et apart was prepared by me w anew my direct uuprWbn Pad that 1 am a duty registered odw M ian of the State Registratka fro Date LINO LAKES COMMERCIAL CENTER Lino Lakes, MN for JADT DEVELOPtu' "T GROUP, LL Project Na Digital Drowhg Nome BASBAAPSDVIG Omen By ot_o Checked By MAR Date 5/13102 Revisions 8/10/02115113133 & WTM4. 7/1/02 IEV PSI CITY =mein Issued For Dater Schematic Deei, Design Development . Preliminary R°" Final Review Eiddrip Construction Preliminary Plat Pepe C -1 or 0 2002 RYAN EIGNEEnNa INC. MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ISCI Setback From Streets 10 Principal Building — Local Street Principal Bur7ding - Collector /Arterial Pocking Lot/Driveway Front Yard Rear Yore Principal Building Accessory Building Parking Lot/Driveway Side Yard Prtnc;ool Building Accessory Building Parkkrg Lot/Driveway From Residential District Between Principal Structures 50' 50' 15' 50' 30' 10' 5' 10' 10' 5' 35' 1/2 the sum of the bldg. hts of 2 bldgs. JADT ADDITION PERVIOUS /IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 Lot Pervious Area, Total Sq. Ft. 88,525 SF 59,284 SF 59,444 SF 98, 605 SF 48 267 (54.5X) 23,922 (40.4X) 17,814 (30.0X) 4.3.625 (44.2X) Impervious Pond/Wetland Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. 37,425 (42.3X) 2,833 (.2X) 29,417 (49.6X) 5,945 (10.0X) 36,755 (61.8X) 4,875 (8.2X) 42,259 (428X) 12721 (13.0X) WETLAND 1 15,107 sq.ft. 0.35 ocres PROJECT 3e °6114 5% MOI1UMER� — EASEMENT NOTE CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT AND IVATE UTILITY EASEMENTS TO BE COVERED BY DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT. BUILDING DATA REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR EXACT BUILDING DIMENSIONS SITE DATA GROSS SITE AREA RIGHT OF WAYS NET STE AREA BLOCK 1 Sq. Ft. 305,858 Of 305,858 305,8581 Acres 7.021 0.03 7.02± 7.021 RECEIVED JUL 1. 5 2002 CITY OF LitNO LAKES x 0' 50' 100 150' Ryan • Engineering" LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 947 -9100 vewszyane^Gineerinacore I hereby certify that this pkee, ape tfkoUon, v report um prepersd by me or wider my direct supervision and that I an o duly regletered Engineer under the Ian of the State of temesota. Semen Registration Na. Date UNO LAKES COMMERCIAL CENTER Lino Lakes, MN for JADT DEVELOPMC GROUP, LLC Project No. Digital Drawing Nome Drawn By DLO Checked By MAR Dote 5113/02 Rd 'ions e/D/o2 imwaeo swum 6N7/02 RE'S'. PER ctrr COMMENTS 7/15/02 tE4, POI CRY COMMENTS Issued For Date: Schematic Detigt Deitim ar Development Fnei Review BCo�ertructIon Preliminary Site Plan • Pepe C -2 © `2002 RYAN ENGINEERING, NC. LEGEND DU= ea0P0D Sanitary Sewer —1— SANITARY SEWER WATER — 1 WATER HYD. W/VALVE 1 -4 HYD. W/VALVE STORM SEWER —44— STORM SEWER PROPOSED RY OTHERS SANITARY SEWER — — — _ WATER HYD. W/VALVE — — — 1 —+e► STORM SEWER — — —N- • I ^999.94 15 RCP 0 0.5; 24 RCP 0 1.0 P 1 ■907.0 ■907.0 PROJECT MONUMENT EASEMENT NOTE: CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT AND IVA7E UTILITY EASEMENTS 7O BE COVERED BY DEVELOPETFS AGREEMENT. I WETLAND 1 15,107 gq.1L 0.35 acres GENERAL UTILITY NOTES • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR 70 CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THE OIINER OF ANY DIFFERENCES ALL WORK SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED 9 ACCORDANCE NITN THE CITY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR AS MODIFIED HEREIN. ' • UNLESS 07HCRN1ST NOTED, OR AS SPECIFIED D TESTING SHALL CONFORM IN THE ABOVE NOTE ALL MATERIALS CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AN TO THE 1999 ED OF THE "STANDARD UTILITIES SPEGF1CAT1CWS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE UNE INSTALLA77CN AND SANITARY SERER AND STORM SERER INSTALLATION BY THE OTY ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION OF M /NN. • AND TO THE "STANDARD SP INCLUDING MI HIGHWAY D EN7RUCROW' MINN. DEPT. OF TRANS, 2000 EDITION INCLUDING THE CURRENT ADDENDUM. • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RECEIVE THE NECESSARY PERMITS FOR ALL WORK OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY LIMITS • SEE ARCH. PLAN FOR EXACT BLDG. LOCATION SEE SITE PLAN FOR LAYOUT DIMENSIONS SERVICE ENTRY LOCATIONS TO BE COORDINATED IWIH THE ARCHITECT. • VERIFY EXISTING INVERT LOG & ELEV. PRIOR 70 BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. • THE WATER SERVICE SHALL BE INSTALLED N1TH A MIN. OF Z5 FT. OF COVER. • ALL STORM SEVER PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 5 UNLESS OIHERNISE NOTED. • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL' FOR FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO UTILITY INSTALLATION. RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2002 CITY OF LINO LAKES 0' 50' 100' 150' Ryan Engine LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 947 -9100 wwwryenenpineeer,,,4cam 1 hereby caddy that age plan, 9edflcatioe Of report was prepared by TO a under my died supervhkn and that 1 an a duly registered Engineer under the laws of the Stets of 1/Mmta. SI•10bee Reg*Gatfm 11a Dale LINO LAKES COMMERCIAL CENTER Lino Lakes, MN for JADT DEVELOP , GROUP, LL Project No. Digital Crowing Nome BAB IAAP5,DWQ Drawn By Checked By PAfi Date 5/13/02 Revisions N+o/oz 1EYSED S .WTAL OI17/02 IEV. PIM CRY COMIENTS 7/1e/02 REV. PER CITY ca,IERTB leaned For: Date: Schematic Deeicn Desim Preliminary Review Development Frail Review Bidding Construction Preliminary Utility Plan Pepe C -3 © 2002 RYAN lersINEERNG, INC. • TREE INVENTORY NO. SIZE SAVED LOST 1 e' BOXELDER x 3 8' BOXELDER X 4 8' BOXELDER X 5 20' POPLAR X 6 a' BOXELDER x 7 4' ELM X 8 4' ASH X 9 9' EL1A X 10 27' OAK X 11 38' OAK X 12 22' OAK X 13 8' CHERRY X 14 5' CHERRY X 15 15' OAK X 16 12. OAK x 17 13' OAK 19 17' OAK (DBL) 19 14' OAK (DEL) 20 2t' OAK 21 20' OAK (DBL) 22 19' OAK (DBL) TOTAL CALIPER INCHES ON STE TOTAL CAUPER INCHES SAVED TOTAL CALIPER INCHES LOST x x 372 200 172 ALL TREES DESIGNATED 70 BE SAVED SHALL BE FLAGGED AND PROTECTED BY SNOW FENCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. LEGEND -1 927- - -927— X 931 815.5 • NO EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS SLT FENCE EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION DRAINAGE DIRECTION LANDSCAPE YARD DRAIN 4' DROP CURB SECTION Sanitary Sewer WATER HYD. W/VALVE STORM SEWER PBCIEDSIL SANITARY SEWER WATER HYD. W/VALVE STORM SEWER —I{— POLE / SUPPORT NET FRL7ER FABRIC COMPACT BAOX77U. �IIYL //NAME SOIL TOE -IN TRENCH FOR ENVIROFENCE METHOD 1. Piece the ..d.hehtatl.n control fabric ,ld. Of the fence In the db.ctton of the anticipated sediment floe (net .We of the system away from the flu.) and position M. Awl.s against the bock roil of the trench. 2. Use 0 /e Wed9e hammer or Nn.v desks to drive the Pula Into the ground .ntl N. bottom of the Indu.We netting l■ approximately 2 below ground level. (5.. db9ron) 3. Loy the bottom 8' of .edfnentatlon control fabric Into the trench. 4. Backlit, the trench with nothe .o1 and compact. ( SILT FENCE DIVERSIONARY DIKE • / 9os 1 ..899.94 198 Y5 HWL .(<90.---1..3.5- ..- / / g00 100,1R. � 903:85/ / / / / ALL CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN TO 77N191 0 SURFACE/GUTTER GRADES UNLESS SNOW / / / / / \ �� PAVING PLAN FOR DETAILED SPOT ELEVATIONS (TRADE PERCENTAGES AND / �; / 902 / • / / � ' AAwr�A L�NrM WALL BE W MERE TURF PLACE 9 GROUND TO 75 EESi 9 D. 7499004 77149 It s+AL1 BE RE.VO1 0. / • // / / ' TELPOPARr PDXJOWG DICES HATBALE� ETC, REWIRED BY THE Orr 9ULL 8E 02001TAL ro n1E OWN° / / / / THE COED DURING SMALL USE A ROUX m. CONSTRUCTION CLEA ENTRANCE AC OF EACH TO THE DETAILS. ALL STREETS • _ / / /yvE / / / �' I DISTURBED /RAFTING MOWING NW/RS MUST �' QEANED AT 1119 END OF EAUH RO4HfANG DAY. / 12 Ot0 90g / / �' GRAVEL * FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE WSTALLED PER DETAIL AT ALL CATCH BASINS (BNCIDE/TAf,). / / / I ' 9 / ' CONIR�ANCILI4 SHALL �' RESPON57BLE DRAINAGE 4ARYDI DIMAWTANED /909 THE STYE AT ALL TINES �3 974 / / / C ' / / TOES PANG OR OTHER MEANS REQUIRED ID �, �^ _ / '� INSURE PROPER DRAYAGE DURING CONSTRUCnDIL LOW POINTS W ROADWAYS OR BUILDING PADS 4 _ / �' / .../. MUST BE PRONGED xrnR A PAAn1E OUTFLOW c� / NINON 7 DAYS OF MULCHED W COMPLETION Or DAPICE ALL NEWLY sno SLOPES SHALL BE SEEDLI; 1 T 4 RATE AND M11LCIlm W ACOYRDANCE NTH ME CITY SPEC7FICA TIONS SE79 SMALL BE MIXTURE NO 50.A �' '" / AT A RATE Or 75 POUNDS PER ACRE MULCH MATERIAL SHALL err r9 79 7 PLACID AT or 2 TONS PER ACRE ALL POIANS SHALL REMYE A REILAND SEED MIXTURE NO 25A AROSE THE Mk PER CITY SPECIFICATIONS / // / ice/ / /WETLAND 1 15,107 sq.fL 0.35 acres / w6-41 R GENERAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES LT FENCE GW7ACTOP SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE 'ONE CALL' FOR UNLIT' G77 LO 1S AT 454 -0002 �- - CAL) IRE CYW7RACT04 SHALL tER1fr THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND 894 TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES WTH THE OWNERS AND f7E10- 14ERIFY PRYOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL 9VMEDIATET NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FASEMENT NOTE: CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT AND IVATE UTILITY EASEMENTS TO BE COVERED BY DEVELOPE1 S AGREEMENT. TIE LIMNS OF CLEARING AND GRADING SHALL EXTEND TO THE LINTS CF 771E PROPOSED CONTOURS AS SHOWN ON 7I¢ PLANS UNLESS INDICATED BY 771E CITY ON ME CITY'S PROPERTY, THERE SHALL 8E NO NEED FOR TREE PRESERVATION FENCING PRIOR 70 ORADWG PLACE ORANGE CONSTRUCTION SAFETY FENCE ALONG TIE PERIMETER 09. THE INFILTRATION AREAS 7O PREVENT CCIMPACnCW OF THE SOILS 00 NOT OAR—EXCAVATE THESE AREAS FOR BORROW MATERIAL JUL 1 5 2002 CITY OF LINO LAKES FINAL GRADING or Wf7LTRATIOW AREAS SHOULD NOT OCCUR LINTS THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA IS CONSTRUCTED AND STABILIZED. 0' 50' 100' 150' gos, Ryan'. Engineering LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 434 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 947-9100 ww"vysnenp neerpacorn I hereby artily that fh1 plan, .Wed 9collon, ar report was prepared by n.e a ender my direct stheniske and that I am o dWy m re Minnesota. ands the laws of t e 5— Regbballm No Data LINO LAKES COMMERCIAL CENTER Lino Lakes, MN for JADT DEVELOP COUP, LL Project Na Digital Drawing Nome BASEMAP5DW0 Drawn By OL O Checked By PAIR 001. 5/13/02 Revisions e/10/02 HEWED ffiBMTAL 6/17/02 REV. PER CRT' COMMENTS 71W021€1. PER CITY COMMENTS Issued For Date, Schematic DeTiGn Design Prek nsrry Review Ni Find Review adding Construction Preliminary Grading . Plan C -4 • • • • 12 TA0L ?V; CE esra.osact ; 1 ,• \z.s, • APOLLO DRIVE 24 72 ensAus TM KK architects minneepolle newport beech deltas _ KKE Architects, Inc. se" .ess' TE PLAN • C l' • ea-0' 50' o. -.1124e. ikectpitp VC`l Of 040 LAOS 300 Ilrot avenue north intnnonpolo, mn 53401 612/35B-4200 B12/342-9267 tax MDT DEVELOPMENT Key Plan !bonsai certify :hot Ws p.m, sposetneatkm. or report Aosss propo,od ow r uselar stA olroot ovoorflolon, aro IlsoC 1 or o LiLetle110 Orehttset smdor the low of the eats* vInnoi•oto. Pe.ntec Voile eScrocuros Lasing •s No. Date Revision Desotstian 7.15.02 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL LINO LAKES RETAIL Lino Lakes, MN Site Plan Proloct Debi dawn by Checked by • 02176.:0384: Deming Number A-101 0,040 < 2000 Or ME kass.hiss.... • • • AP ID -0 TIMM. MM. GOTINS ---,MTN. WI. COPING .2 , BABY= BOX INDICATES TYT,CAL AL-011AELE WON AR!A INTL. GO.PING - 1111111111111 1 111111111111 ■••• Ittcani. coot. 1144 ittm 111111111111 111111E1W . • l'-'-=--1.'===:1:111111111111111111111111111:11117U- • It• 04.1 .1 t 17,•• • ONt•maitli•t 11111.■ POTTIOH O LDINS - STRAIGHIMMO ''OFt OLARJTY FRONT ELEVATION 111111111111111111111111 I • .11 v. a C4-A417". -AUX VTORE.TRONT INTEGRALLY OOLORLO CJ .e (4. HIGH BLOCK/ -INTEGRALLY COLORED RAGE (b. HIGH MOC) C ANY AS AMINO IE ELEVATION yr • P-O' 1111111111111111111 ' ' ' " —0.101111111111rrar.--- -M-11111111111111e_ TIT'Afe7.* - :674-„.„ •1ATERIALS CORNICE EIFS SIGN AREA ACCENT CM) FIELD Cht: EASE CNN METAL CO0ING *I METAL CO.ING 2 1^INDOIN FRAMES DRWIT DRTVIT ANCHOR ANCHOR ANCHOR UNA-CI-AD LINA-CLAD BUCKSKIN NDLEHOOD BEIGE MIMER MITE *301 - SMOOTH CEDAR *420 - ROCKFACE SADDLE I16, - B•JR1.41F-HED ALMOND HARTFORD DARK BRONZE r —TENANT I- -YEN/QC-It F TENANT I I —1. :r4 17) [TENANT CrICAL REAR ELEVATION PREFIN GM* elmeAsr fatoc( ---- INTEGRALLY GOLOPMP ON.-/ P,EIRG (4' 1.1611 *.MK) INTEGRALLY COLORED G,") !,A*! ;E er", C7IDE ELEVATION TENANT 1 1111111111111 1111111111111%;" "PRIfFIN. Mit -orate ----PREGAST ELOOK —TRES/RALLY COLORED CAI PBXS (4 HIGH PR 0.-r..) INTEGRALLY COLORED CM) SASE 4■4314 BLOCK/ ---i II TENANT -71 . r- --1 I TENANT • ! - 1 ' ' TENANT I TENANT LINT, , li itilitillit •,...1............... . .. . .=1 _%.. _,-.., ... ......, = ...4 .... = _., ..._ _ .... _. .- ....... IYFICAL REAR ELEVATION TM KK architects mInneapolla nawport beach clallaa KKE Architects, Inc. 300 first avenue Borth mammon% ten 55401 512/339-4200 612/342.9207 fax JADT DEVELOPMENT Key Plan 1 NeeciN eerily tna We plan. epeoPlcatlen, or report woe prepared ey oG o mi areal crervilAm...411not I ern o diy :mowed ArcHtect ACIO1' the Ions of • 5tots at Hitosoto. P•Inteo No7e, Signoto-s. nate, Looms IN Na Date Revision DeseeptIon 7•5-02 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL LINO LAKES RETAIL Lino Lakes, MN Elevations • Prefect 020b.1090,01 Mavis tUrber A-301 Checked by ICA 2CO2 KU 'edam-n.114 / 1 Euonymus data 'Compacts' Corpoe: Algae Euoneno. • � J s a • • APOLLO DRIVE ;F 0,600 P «1TIrn4s, WETLAND 1 15,107 eq.ft. 0.35 Odra* Loic-isc.ape Leee -d S nc.I Decidu;.rs T -ees Srmco O Bo:oni.d Nam./ Common Nome (ACS ginno a 'COmpoetum Comaoct Amur Maple 1 1 Prune crosifem `I Ft.radraf Plum / Syingo reVcuIWo ..np0,e.e Tree Leas \ Lorge Deciduous Trees 1 Aar. piantindaee 'Crknacr King' Canon King Norway Maple Aver dent :noidee 'Schwedlerr Sdrrocir Nawoy Maple ('Ouerwa Po mans 'Sovereign' . Sovereign Pin Oak l a "-ordain 'C•.espire' Beersava Lilt des' :Linden Root Sue S-'ec. Balled/ Surkl.d Evergreen Trees Dorothy t 1 + CO1Oar ( Balled / ) Ily' jDudoPed I Ca ll�l j \ / lolled, (I oO e- I l Bork1700 Caap Pled/ rimed ailed/ -Mooed 2' CGIY.r I 4 Oallpsr\ �l I.�.., I (Existing L f Large _J `_ -. `. I Tree - Demo i xisting Trees l drnlperu. veginon - 4' c 'Sky Krau21' Baled•' I 3 - 4' I 8vdmv, Tal Sky Rocket ‘..Eastern Reccedor •v / Pksa pu 91.. 'Clauca' _ BOiied,' 54 -� Colorado Blue SPruee I �g :.� :� Tall Pmus .)l.nbl. 'Fa*6gaic' I 15.164/ : 3 - 4 j i'i0111mn ScotcF. Fins I 30dop •: ; i 7011 l / 1. Botanical Nome/ Common Name EKbtklq k C- Tree - To Remain apee v. lof.ed/ • 2' I 2 Iuropee Gop.• lllJJ L_� dot) 276 I arl�d !yrerJ • r- 13 Cabe, Averog• Told A`tecc_a Cuipo Ccl.per 0. 5'L. ' Screed] Saver !" 44% • ▪ ( Sa,T5 I`6. • I I last 200 L.osl ' ( i7.!29• • Last • 6676 aG '_lruia Carrua aercicac 'Feviarnea vdbow:nq lecosier 2ogwooa • I, 00011 .14ini•Ar 554-05741 Low hr.!: fi Spreading) Ever9r69- Turf Maumum *reran, 'r,mr.ct:nn Owe'' erne-Icon Cra,5e-0, ! turve- �eerpa•o In,raargi e -1-L r' _oI' I`7e1 -Loa' _apr.ese ANDSGAPE PLAN • Sao 50' 001' 25_50' 100' engtalne cos P' r 3bt0• \ f [galled/ 3 - 4' 19 urlapaa Tat. J �_ L 92404/ • I IS -4' Bur;oped I I Toli Balled/ Bumped • r \ Bred/ Bur aped 5 - Tau 5_c l Tail (, cd m (I• i 10 9orheay C1 (al_c l• �. �_J L r- --1 J Tarur aopidctc 'Anne 7I7�t c.iim I [Tall • • lee- ; -porn. a 'roe l !Cartoherl — —, l]DEJ] ,c Bail • • Exlstlna Tree Inventory N0. 5IZr rrre 1 e• e031.P95 5 Y •0510.2155 e r 90214214 ▪ V 9006.0011 5 :0• rawtM • r eo.ELDe. 1 4' ISM 6 4•A*N e a'am ▪ 2.0 OAx X 510 OAK 251 CAC 5 r CHOIR( + r CHERRY e V 0AK Y 0' OAK rt le• OAK le T OAK raw 14.0 treLl 20 0 20 71 OM 21 20• OAK m15J z 1,0AK rocs ALL TR= ID5516NAF5 TO ea 30v1517 5.-ALL. 90 PLh65$2 ANO PROTEr.7c. 5• %Ott PENC! PR.OR To C^N5'7I.CT10N. KK architects m►nneepolle newport beach shall= KKE Architects, Inc. 300 tfet avenue north minneepoiIs, inn 55401 512/339 -4200 012/342 -0257 lax JADT DEVELOPMENT Isela>•r' Key Man 1 Ivareb; certify Nay :,b plain, spaolkatIOrt or report AM prepared ou me or tea, ry drool supervision, awl the am a 0014 Licenced trchl:ec: Linder th. 10r3 Of the Stole e' ht '»o :r.. No. Date Revision Desaiptbn 7.15-02 REVISED CITY SUBMMAL LINO LAKES RETAIL Lino Lakes, MN Planting Plan • Pa/ea 0209.1039•01 0f.wkte Number �w L- *21.22 L -301 Checked by KA rirym•R r 2001 b KKE AMU..C, Iv. a • • • w ..-e. a "e e.a- . - 8D0-020. zi=rs -s- -, -.- =0-e--oef « a, a oa OA Pi SO Of 00 SO 00 pi a 11 01 a as OA ea as of ea as on} 4,2 ar u 01144 01 0.1 0. w m 01 e1 a a r r• ia- 4 •• . ' .. I,... YI aL Ia ,. 12i ,. . >, tlr�at1, .. I5. 1.. 79.91( m c • 81.:6501,3 0 la . 31 E ah Ir• • >. r la Oa CO ... » 4. r \ \\ ea m1 a, w - APOLLO DRIVE 4. .. PP *40.44,1, 1- w 1-I .. <1 9y . 4404* 00 tie. .4 .4 00 �� 00 00 •. 40 00 •• De OA OD 04 OS DO ..,_.:.. OS 00 os es 00 al 00 as 4 -i 1e 06 ,IM a..,.., old I 1 M • { a! OA CS IP w . 1 as 6 5. • . As as o •. ae .. 0000»».. • Oe 00 as ae p� e. asi 00 » .y .4 a. at et y ✓.. ▪ se se .e .a ,. 7. •• c:,b ., .. • a is a GS OS OS Di » ,: • ‘„.- .. 4e OS a e . r e. e. ., 14°2 0,7g; 5£. e. 61 I7 A710V .a V.EA�.ND 1 \ o » •.13.U1 ae u � s. 44 o./t. 0.3 G - oa ea 60 a .. v\ a. SUP 0/1 00 00 00 Oaf ea .e OA . en as GS 00 OS 50' 44 •••.» laa .. ee M /u 42 00 .. ., • ?. e. Oe Oa 00 OP w v as « ea� .r a. a .. 00 40 ea AS we CO Oa 11,1901bessos ewrrr, osee Melee -st ~ ar4...i M- t. -M.N• ✓ e ae-..m 5.a .4.w aae• .�rti.n --er 001- -m ..1..•740 •-•••••••• soy . 4.4.014014.1. , $11144....1, 740.6 rrMaaM 1,.� Mar .Ia•.wM. O 744... 6mrrNN -R OM. Mae14 WasM,4 04740.010 -744.0 1 01 .. --.4 - a - 0 r5a.4.0$0 s-4.1.1.0$0 nos • .Pa.a 01/.1. :a.e`�r .rr.n5.at aut i4- e•de7.arrie.11 •1•401r1w- .a. 01•• .0 0.1410.004110.11.1. 74.■•••••5.N r01eA ■74.0.1074 5- 5.10.,.4..41/ NO. -4-RW-- n1▪ .t1 .9011. 6b - saawra ate,.- r.IM.NVwr 010.00ie.. NM v4 wile-ell„O.. asIncycurbuic uic 4400... 6ru..a4raraa can m5nrraaerour Mar 1, 1. Nr ......7401 -. r... ,001 0 • /�; - .`,t •`F 740..0 -x,40 AO p.' w w So a. cat/ a. w 1 4i at 00 • ea- ve 4.a CO J00 ••• .. ae .. . . ,p a SOO .. as wA {'' .11 .! m a. as Kr V ONVISION 1•a•••aw MO ,4. -.e 4454. and Rar. --- rtnl�6u..1.14 Oa OA 011 00 00 SO OS AO 40 infrosnmem aturrarmit ■N ■101q ■� ■ ■ ■�Y� a•Ne.1111.I•. -4 k - - - . Tx•».Yr1w• IPS *A i,- _ ban, 0 •3 • 42 ea e. en M� iN 41 10. W 600•10111.101: 00011•4100•.•• ���1DOYI I I _' ; = J _1 we MX 14. ▪ u4 ae tee`', 't.^I'eaw r T.: i0e 1m n..v M I ▪ ye• w' • . : m1a 41.0001 4.44114 40.0 40.....400.9n ems. 1.0••. •••∎• .e64,1t 7440 114114444.4.1114010.0680.$4 O.. km. e.-.M .Y- �a►11Yi°`rw.ra�rw5wwr w. r.- ..r.- 0174..40(. - ,0401•(74" ..1 4Y.-.1 4101174...41- fJA,se rAi.04 11-r.. .411744.0 W 1W- 1SYY..1VNiy.�i ri' DO .ww.a.wue 107610.0174 •1.∎0.41.44.4444.. ai i4174 . 05.110 Y1.11.040"041 Te- .1404 ante. r �N • .14.4444.10 4401.4.1 Za.1411.11.1-11OLIMIL- SL V 6a. •r ��:r'ae140' �w40w.w.urw.re.... 41. .. ▪ a,..N0 e. aa,..as •LO In ea Or ea 00 OP O0 00 OA 00 OS 04 Oa ea Oa 00 00 ea CDS ;• Photometric Lighting Pion 1• c 90' -0• 30' • o• 15' 50' ' 50' &wit: & *a/o .. _406 -. 5n,.45 Pro pat. All FbinSta .- nvoi arm Lnb.i Mrony5 040 WSW, LL0 I7,acrlptlm 2 I 6 Ji :a i 354900 52000 0.700 14.6rv0-edron v%19- '00- 1.1- 2_X-4P (20' mtg) 540346 194453 I e ".b °51 \eLE 32000 0.100 N.c6- o.. -BdMOn VXM4400 -M+ -X-95 (70' mtgt -- 6 2b . 944 .5AOK 52000 0.100 Mc6ro4 -EdIen VXM- 400 -74- -X-93 (30' rats) 1 A.WFORYYR BASES War edelnsa paleW7,■ 55446nar b-4 an tort mounds 11,1 tInn., So trans TM 1 Tea • TV,a r TTp 0 ale 0rx4. renal rl44 TVUF ''.H 10540• a.» 4 x450 „T114 DD .1RATIVE BABES 4-4.M,1wRmN.MW 440. , N 0)7E3:1 O.. .1 a 040450 e•.• n F w eo .. 61414110 --604 •553. -r $754 04. -4r1 nalaa. mad 1800,50. Wb1011A ollaaa 40710 rat A3 Lumina re Locatlen Sun-wry rrolect, AS Projects 5e4,1401 Lobel X 4081 Y -201 2 90 Orient 150 Tk 0 2 I M lb 9064 3016 -141 -254 '0 -0 540346 194453 0 0 29 2v 24 2b 5172 -301 50 154453 0 12 26 5914 -300 30 90 O 10 2n 2995 -412 BO 155225 0 11 5041 315 50 395336 0 6 b 5450 -405 50 40 O 15 . 6 5141 - 422 50 241.699 0 26 b 5262 -561 30 23621 0 24 le 3956 5212 -343 055 50 1210 50 240.945 0 0 50 b .59 2b 5516 -205 50 40 0 54 In 3636 -229 90 90 0 55 In 5019 -25S 50 40 O .56 b 3144 -176 50 270 0 55 15 3960 -254 BO 40 O 59 ID 5922 -222 50 15435' 0 310091w1 Aroa 5Ynmay larepek. All rro ecte l.2 61 LOt1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Avg Max 200 222 149 1.05 12 12 41 73 MYt 1 Avg/M:.1116X/5414 03 . 400 14.40 0.4 1 9.a.' 10A0 05 12156 19_40_ 03 1 6J1 129.00 3\3‘..15 2002 Of 140 LAKES KK architects tnlnneapolls newport beach dallaa KKE Architects, Inc. 300 first ays • north ndmteepalb, ran 55401 812/339.4200 812/342 -9257 fax JADT DEVELOPMENT r• teePULSE 8190 Blue CYete Or Sta. 100 Mlnnetonlu, NN 65343 Ph 952. 217 -0400 Fox 952- 905 -0000 w■w.puleeprduato.eam Key Plan 1JO57N aee1•11115eawFe No. Date Revision Deaaption 745.02 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL LINO LAKES RETAIL Lino Lakes, MN Photometric Lighting Plan • Data a 71:X12 L -601 AJH wed bJ - __ -__ -• ove.ot a 1411 kr ea seeMN4 1 • AGENDA ITEM V. E STAFF ORIGINATOR: Al Brixius (NAC) P & Z MEETING DATE: August 14, 2002 TOPIC: Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Behm's Century Farms 6th — 10th Additions BACKGROUND Please see the attached report from NAC. RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing, take public comment, continue the public hearing. • • NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners @nacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Lino Lakes Planning Commission FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: August 8, 2002 RE: Lino Lakes — Behms Century Farms 6th through 10th Additions FILE NO: 194.01 — 02.01 BACKGROUND Century Farm Development Inc. has requested rezoning and preliminary plat approval for Behms Century Farms 6th through 10th Additions. The proposed subdivision comprises 95 acres located north of Lilac Street and east of Sunset Road. The subject property is currently zoned R, Rural and would need to be rezoned to R -1, Single Family. The proposed residential subdivision would consist of 156 single family homes distributed in the following additions: 54 homes in the 6th Addition 28 homes in the 7th Addition 26 homes in the 8th Addition 24 homes in the 9th Addition 24 homes in the 10th Addition Staff's review of the application submission materials find that the application is incomplete. As such, this report represents only a preliminary review of the overall subdivision and rezoning. A more detailed review will be prepared for the September Planning and Zoning meeting. The following items were not available to staff in preparation of this review. 1. Site grading plans. 2. Wetland mitigation plans. 3. The City needs to resolve park planning for this subdivision. • 4. On this date, August 8, 2002, we received the first draft of the traffic analysis figures and have not had an opportunity to evaluate the findings of this study. • ISSUES ANALYSIS • • Processing. To accommodate the proposed development, the following approvals will be necessary: 1. Rezone from R, Rural to R -1, Single Family. 2. Review and approval of the preliminary plat. 3. If the airplane hangars are found to be an acceptable use, a PDO will be required to accommodate the proposed airplane hangars and insure there will be proper maintenance associated with these accessory buildings. 4. There is a need to vacate a portion of Carl Street that would not be utilized if the subdivision is approved. Said vacation would be done as a condition of final plat approval. Rezoning. In review of the rezoning application, we find that the new land use plan guides this area for low density residential. The R -1, Single Family Residential District is consistent with this land use classification. Additionally, MUSA would need to be extended to this subdivision as final plats are reviewed and approved. In addition to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the extension of the R -1 zoning would be consistent with the zoning that is already in place on Behms Century Farms 1st through 5th Additions located to the south. The proposal appears to be the logical extension of the low density land use pattern. However, we have not had the opportunity to conduct a thorough review of the application to determine if the proposed plats meet the requirements for the R -1 District. Preliminary Plat. In review of the preliminary plat, the following issues need further attention: 1. The proximity to the Lino Airpark raises issue as to whether the plat has been fully designed in compliance with required airport safety zones to insure that flight patterns will not disturb the future residents of the single family lots. 2. The proposed Behms Century Farms 6th through 10th Additions surround a number of lot exceptions that contain unsewered residential properties. The application has not provided any type of conceptual plan that would illustrate future subdivision or extension of utilities into these areas. In accordance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance, where a plat abuts undeveloped properties. A concept plan can be required and extension of streets should be considered in conjunction with the plat design. 3. There is a need for a park in this area to accommodate the new subdivision and residents that would live within the plat. A detailed park proposal should be outlined for City staff and Planning and Zoning Board consideration. At this point, City staff has not seen any proposal in that regard. 2 • Streets. In review of the preliminary plat, we find that it appears that the streets generally meet City requirements with regard to right -of -way and street width provisions. The applicant has provided a through street extension for Carl Street to Sunset Drive as a minor collector, consistent with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. A number of issues that had been raised previously with the concept plan related to the number of proposed cul -de -sacs and the provision for landscape islands within the cul -de -sacs. The City, in the past, has indicated an unwillingness to accept the landscape islands as they tend to be an obstacle for snow plows and street maintenance. The City Public Works Director should comment as to the acceptability to the proposed landscape islands and cul -de -sac design at this time. As per previous discussions, in review of the preliminary plat, there may be opportunities for the extension of local streets to the subdivision exception areas to allow for future subdivision of undeveloped properties outside of the plat. These options for extension of local streets within the plat should be explored rather than continuous curb cuts or street entrances onto Sunset Road. Lots. In preliminary review of the plat, the lots generally appear to meet all the requirements of the R -1 District related to lot width and area. The minimum lot width for an interior lot in the R -1 District is 80 feet, with a lot area of 10,800 square feet. The design illustrates lots that meet or exceed the minimum standards. A number of lots do appear to be irregular in shape and would have to demonstrate that they can provide a building pad that would not require future variances to accommodate a home. These lots would include Lot 15 in Phase 2 and Lot 5, Block 1 of the 10th Addition. Sunset Road is designated as a collector street. Lots that abut Sunset Road should have sufficient lot width or lot depth to provide a 20 foot wide landscape buffer to protect the private enjoyment of these lots. A detailed landscape plan must be submitted illustrating how the buffer yard will be properly landscaped to meet and satisfy City requirements. Carl Street enters Sunset Road at the southwest corner of the proposed plat. There is a single family home that is an exception to this subdivision that has a driveway located within five feet of the Carl Street right -of -way as proposed. There is issue as far as the curb cut location with the street entrance at this intersection. Attention should be given to correcting this by requiring relocation of the driveway or allowing for the curb cut to enter Carl Street. Grading and Drainage. To date, we have not received a grading and drainage plan or wetland mitigation plan. These plans are critical to the overall site. The site is generally characterized as having a number of wetlands that will greatly influence design. Additionally, there is a drainage ditch along the eastern portion of the plat that results in some severe slopes. Without having the grading plan, staff is not prepared to say that the subdivision design is acceptable in its current fashion. 3 • • • Outlots. A number of outlots are being proposed as part of the subdivision. These outlots contain wetland areas and drainage swales. Determination as to future ownership and use of the outlots must be defined as part of the preliminary plat and a determination is needed regarding if they should be dedicated to the City as green space or held in private ownership by the homeowners' association. Carl Street. Carl Street right -of -way traverses the proposed plat. A portion of Carl Street will require vacation with the platting of the new Carl Street alignment. The vacation of this right -of -way will have to be done through a public hearing held by the City Council. The Planning Commission will need to make a finding that the vacation of this right -of -way is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that there is no current or future anticipated public need to return the right -of -way. In review of the proposed street alignments, we feel that with the platting of the new Carl Street alignment, the old right -of -way is no longer necessary for either street or utility purposes and vacation would be appropriate. PDO. The applicant has shown an area of the plat intended for the construction of accessory buildings that would be used as hanger space for residents who wish to purchase a lot and still have access to the airport. The hanger space is located on Lot 16, Block 6 of the 2nd Addition. The hangars are located in an area that is encumbered by the William Brothers pipeline, a gas line easement. In consideration of the land use, the proposed hangar space may be a more appropriate use in this location rather than introducing single family homes in close proximity to a major gas pipeline. Access to the hangars would be provided through the airport. If this were to proceed ahead, we would ask that a detail of the hangar construction, including elevations, be provided to insure that the hangars would be designed in a manner that is compatible and complementary to the surrounding single family homes. Additionally, we would like to see an association established for the hangars that would outline the terms under which maintenance and ownership would be established. Access into the hangar area should also be provided via Carl Street for emergency vehicles, as well as general user consideration. CONCLUSION Staff has determined that the application is incomplete. Initially, the submittal was reviewed in July of 2002. At that time, issues of concern, comments, and an outline of the submittals needed to complete application were provided. To date, not all the information has been received. The City staff recommends that the City open the public hearing at the August Planning and Zoning meeting, take public comment, and then continue the public hearing to the September meeting and direct the applicant to provide the following information: 1. Grading and drainage plans for the entire preliminary plat. 4 • • • 2. Wetland mitigation plans. 3. A park dedication plan must be outlined and defined to be acceptable by City staff and the Park and Rec Board. 4. A landscape plan that illustrates the intended landscaping for the buffer yard abutting Sunset Road. 5. The plat should illustrate the flight safety zones necessary to allow Lino Airpark to continue to operate in the future without negatively impacting the newly created single family lots. 6. Public Works should provide comments as to the acceptability of landscape islands within the proposed cul -de -sac areas. 7. The applicant should describe how the wetlands and outlots will be utilized or owned pertinent to the establishment of greenway corridors and whether they will become public open space or owned privately through a homeowners' association. 8. A concept plan be that illustrates the future subdivision of the exceptions (that are being surrounded by the Behms Century Farm preliminary plat) including potential street corridors and lot configurations that could be implemented without negatively impacting Sunset Drive (collector street) or the subdivision that is currently requested. 9. The applicant should provide a description of architectural standards that would be imposed on the proposed hangar area as well as homeowners' association rules that would guarantee continued maintenance of this facility. pc: Michael Grochala Jeff Smyser 5 • Memorandum DATE: August 8, 2002 TO: Brent Paulson, TKDA FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Lake Drive /Apollo Drive Improvements Attached is a copy of the SJRs for the above referenced project. Please contact me at 651/982 -2430 with any questions. • • Lino Lakes Public Services Department 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651) 982 -2440 Fax (651) 982 -2439 August 6, 2002 TO: Jeff Smyser, City Planner FROM: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director SUBJECT: Behm's Century Farm 6th - 10th Additions — Preliminary Plat The Park Board discussed the Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions Preliminary Plat (dated 7/9/02) at the August 5, 2002 Park Board Meeting. There was consensus from the Park Board Members to approve the plan as presented with the following caveat: Assurance that when the wetland area within the park is defined there is at least 4 %2 acres of contiguous upland area suitable for park development. In addition there should be a minimum of eight acres of useable upland within the entire park area. There is a concern from the Park Board that the open space /green ways are reducing the size of active park areas. For example, the 150'x100' area east of the park is classified as upland but really can't be used for anything than a trail corridor and open space. If the open space areas are credited towards fulfillment of the park dedication requirements, this reduces the amount of active park land (or cash) derived from the developer. The open space areas proposed to be owned by the city need to be addressed. A determination must be made as to whether any enhancements will take place (i.e. natural prairie, native plantings) and any maintenance plan so all interested parties, including potential adjoining home owners, are aware of the plans for the open space areas. I think the development has done a good job incorporating several linear trail corridors. However, I question the necessity of having two trails branching out southward from Carl Street. The western most trail will result in a property owner having a trail on the front and the side of their home. Unless this is a pristine, natural area that residents will use for the aesthetic value, perhaps one trail access directly south of the proposed park area will suffice. Perhaps we can get together and discuss the proposed park area, trail corridors, and open space to determine what is reasonable in fulfilling the park dedication requirements. Any remaining balance should be fulfilled by cash or in -kind services such as grading. If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at 651 982 -2444. 8/6/02 RD /Corr /City Staff/Behms 6 -10 additon comments Memo To: Michael Grochalla From: Marty Asleson Date: August 6, 2002 Re: Recommendations of the July 31, 2002 Environmental Board/Behm's Environmental Board Meeting Date: July 31, 2002 Topic: Behm's Century Farms 6th Through 10th Additions/Preliminary Plat Review. Recommendations: • Detail a Tree Preservation Plan. Ask Developer to reevaluate the preservation of historic oak areas on the South side. • Integrate Tree preservation into Operations plan for protection of soil, pond, infiltration and swale areas. This would include a plan for fenced protection areas for these as well as siltation fence locations. • Preserve the wet meadow area to the North and West. Restore the hydrologic system supporting this meadow as much as possible to earlier, pre - ditch/tile situation. • Require City native seed mix specifications for all pond, swale, ditch, infiltration, and conservation easement areas where possible. Use transitional mix when transitioning sod yards areas. • Require city ownership of outlot and buffer areas. Use conservation easements under city ownership in other areas requiring buffering. • Require signage locating all conservation areas. • Require covenants in the Homeowner Association for no impacts in buffer areas. • Require a separate and distinct conservation disclosure brochure to be given to homebuyers before lot purchase. • Prohibit the removal or importing of soils off -site without approvals from the City. • Require the Developer to Escrow (1) 2.5 -inch boulevard tree per frontage. • Detail a Plan that sequesters park and greenway areas. • Page 1 • • Require low impact, downward focused, low - spill, low- impact street lighting. • • Motion: Motion to Approve with the above considerations made by Halen, Second by Grundhofer. Motion passed. All were in favor • Page 2 • Memorandum DATE: August 9, 2002 TO: Mike Grochala FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Behm's Century Farms 6th Through 10th Additions A Review of the submitted documents has been performed. The submittal included an 18 -page plan set and a Composite Sketch of Preliminary Utility Plan, dated July 15, 2002. No grading plans or drainage computations were included in the submittal. The following comments must be addressed prior to any recommendation can be given for the project: • Preliminary Plat: The use of center islands is not recommended by the public works department and could affect the plat layout. Street design doesn't appear to meet 30 -mph design and could affect the plat layout. Right -of -way dimensions were not shown. The design has an alternative single family layout. Watermain: - No profile sheets were submitted. - Watermain lines must be class 52 ductile iron pipe. No gatevalves are shown. - Adequate water system supply must be confirmed. Trunk lines may be required. - Watermain must be able to be flushed at all future stubs. - Watermain stubs at the subdivision boundaries must be extended for future connections. Utility extension to Carl Street will be reviewed. - Termination of the water lines at each phase will require temporary hydrants. Sanitary Sewer: - No profile sheets were submitted. - No manhole information was provided. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Phone: 651 -982 -2400 0 Fax: 651-982-2499 ® TDD: 651 -982 -2410 • • Memorandum Dated August 9, 2002 Page 2 No sanitary sewer lengths were provided. No lift station information was provided. No force main information provided. Sanitary sewer must be SDR 26 or 35 pipe. Angles of pipes entering manholes must be provide for appropriate flow. Trunk Lines may be required. Utility extension to Carl Street will be reviewed. Sanitary sewer stubs at the subdivision boundaries must be extended for future connection. Street Standards: No profile provided. No street layout dimensioning provided. No street cross - section provided. It appears the streets do not all meet a 30 -mph design. No connection is shown to Carl Street. An alternate street is shown for the proposed hanger area. Phasing of the plan shows dead end street lengths in excess of City standards with no circulation of traffic until all phases have been completed. No proposed layout showing future street connections was provided. A traffic study dated August 5, 2002, and received on August 7, 2002, is currently under review. Storm Sewer: No storm sewer information was provided. Grading Standards: Review will be performed upon receiving the necessary information as outlined above. Recommendation: No recommendation can be given at this time due to the insufficient amount of design information provided. 11111N'1 f7<Nn mw rAwu d11r Am TF4 !J 10774 A7120121 i7 PRELIMINARY PLAT BEHM'S CENTURY FARM 6TH ADDITION nun, BEHM'S CENTURY FARM 10TH ADDITION ANDOVER RECEIVED JUL 15 2002 CITY OF LINO LAKES HAM LAKE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA COLUMBUS TOWNSHIP FOREST LAKE TOWNSHIP COON RAPIDS • 1 BROOKLYN PARK GOLDEN VALLEY ST. LOUIS PARK DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN AS THUS: STREET r 1 10.00 i 1 L 10.00 1 1 1 1 • r---1 0.00 10.o0-. 10.00 I 10.00 REAR UNE BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH ADJOINING SIDE LOT LINES, AND 10 FEET IN WIDTH ADJOINING STREET LINES AND REAR LOT LINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN INDICATED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT INDEX: Cl PHI R1 E1 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 U1 U2 U3 U4 U5 U6 WI GI G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 COVER SHEET PHASE PLAN REZONING PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT (SHEET LOCATION) PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT UTILITY PLAN (SHEET LOCATION) UTILITY PLAN UTILITY PLAN UTILITY PLAN UTILITY PLAN UTILITY PLAN WETLAND/FILL/MITIGATION GRADING PLAN (NOT INCLUDED GRADING PLAN (NOT INCLUDED) GRADING PLAN (NOT INCLUDED) GRADING PLAN (NOT INCLUDED) GRADING PLAN (NOT INCLUDED) GRADING PLAN (NOT INCLUDED) C\P..J.c47 \D-si-0,11r. P+4O11T4i PAR 470- 001 ∎070001947- 1 -03d.q 07 /t3 /20O2 120024 Pit SDT LEGAL DESCRFflON And S.S..ed timber of the Nordaed Out 4t d South. 7, Todd 31, Ne.p. 22, Med Canty des d4d The Soutlwaat barb of Ms Nrth.ed died et Sidon 7, %dig 31, and 22, wog! Mad pals daai.d . bled a Sr INr6...t corner of Id Southend Odor of to Nor#.e.t Odor d Soothe 7, Toured 36 lury 22. a4ep the Mat be of odd Sanded! Ouster M Vie Nrdmeot Sister d Sod 71 a dieted M 1:0 fish ♦thou r t with to Nod the of the butted O,a4r of Sr North,.t Odd a d.4a.. d 310 Leh there North ids the that b of the Soud.e.t Odor of the Nrded Wrtr 4 o d W..... Uon with 6r � s tlwtpM a usiu M y �M M North IM of b lahewt Ourtr .4 1M Nortwt ind Awt port bested at M. Seuth.at srnr .(iM Sweat Surer of the Nrthed martyr of Lotion 7. N1rd read di Waded 01r1r diked et 175 fah Newe lot r id i �° . $us andsasld . 3N Mat M , the peed did. the d M 4, i mid Iler6wo.t Northam! 4 a p444 1 d n octet b sin n MI Mud the d sad NdrMeed Odd Vide Sad Mq 11m #.e.! the d odd Ilrthsaet dad r di pen d ad d. •hm•V't 1Mt part of the 344.44 Guard M IM Northd.* Odd' of dean 7. Toned 71. had 7t dse.Osd a folder blYo uq d • pent . the M.4 the of sad 11ou6.ed Clued of IM NrMssd Curt dent 376 Mt South .4 IM Nr1Mat ether M sold Southwest Odor of tM Nmthad Sartori %ar.o. tot gold o1M Vie North Id of odd Seder! Odd of M. Nodded Sorter • dame of 1047 het: Naas South pad with th. Wad Sse d sad Sided Odd of the Nrth..d Odd • Odes d 706 te.4 !ends Id std win you North #net d sad 3eu6...t Coates of the Northwest Ouster o dame of 1047 fat tw the Mad Ma 04 sad Seethed Odin of the liddred Ord Shwa North dory sad Mat M • dada of 1011 feet in the poi* d beeinreg, ad alp wooed 1A.t pat of Sou Sortie d derby d the Nr6aed Orly of Seed 7. Toond5 31. den 22, deeded a 44.. 11•liwd•l d • pot on the Vid Ms of sad Meddd Courts of the Nrd ed Srir dad 356 /lot South M the Nrdiet odr of odd 4o.rdeet Odor of the dead Curd them. Ed p444 di the North the of sod Sa.6nat Quad of the Nrthad Curd o dieted M 1047 Id des. South prod with the 1~4 4,. of sod 11a.theed Our4r d the Warded Orin • dhows d 706 fed thud Mod weld .SA the Nan M of mid Sidled Quad of the #.41..7 O.,r4r • edam. d 1047 I..t r Sou art At of odd 3m,Mwdt Clued of the Mrthind Odd Mud North dory dd te.t Ens • dusts. d 1011 feet b M pod d My*514. Mato Cady, AND 1bs Sods! Odd of Sr Northeast Cede d Sind 7 Todd 31. fid6e 22. Mar Cantle Ida...dr. SCORNS the fold% deed paddy of propene 1Mt hot of Sd4. 7. Teed. 31. pea . 22, Mar tdw.4. dime* sealed .dean oaurip et IM 3o.th.at owner d add Indeed M d d w Nr4wsd Odd of Sedan 71 Mew North 00 dyer 27 Mesta 22 sale.& 0010 . eon.ed bead dory the Mat the of dl 11au....d Outer of the Nodes* Or1r of 11s.tee 7 • dame of 173.00 toe 4 M pnt of beginning theme in did bawd of North CO third 27 ..bode 22 .edonde art dos aM 11at M of orbs 3dutho.d Cued of t e 444. with d 1..340 7 • donee d 730.00 4..0 them North 37 dyed 22 debts 14 dad dot air Seth M of .ed dawn* O,rd el the dad* Oder d Sued 7 • Mtr.d of 7345 bet Mead South 00 dye. 27 Mad. 22 odd tiet dap • M pay ..A .d Sat Id of w S.u#.r..t Curd of the Worded Odor of Sad 7 • drew of 15000 fah See Sad p deed 32 aen4. 14 dad Set dry • i.e pared di south the d the Sodded Outer of Id dead Odor of did 7 • Nodes. d 75450 feet Is IM point a di d& aide! Is • eddy mal ter Sr fed 33 feet wd o.Wi 2.50 .one tot of add Cary, road AID Awe part of Sad4. 7, Teed. 31, Nrq. 23. And pr.ha 4101101004 duri.d . Mod Ideal 27 f22wuaad i et Sea ..! did d IM dread Coin d Satan 71 Muss North 00 Nar5aad date .4 3.Ibn 7 r date an mourned d 32100 4.74 4.s mid Medd .eedMwiy on odd d broad of North 00 did 37 reed 22 deeds Vast a Mono o M,d Sand the 444.! Wed ef�.1M e line Wordred ONrd d L.M M of add 11. u4wat garter of the NorOfwd O5ur~ M 1 dud 14 7 • i d .4 756.50 Lai, Mud Sod 003 thyme 27 done gird d 11.Id. 7�. dh4a... el 151200 Loh Mamie Sod with di lid the of the Sedan* earth el 47 d..,.. 32 odd 14 ..odd, fat *mg •N grid ides odd South the d Sow ttwlwed Oder of 114 Ndrldet Srd of .a4A. 7, 0 Mom. at 75450 id to tlw pod of ba4.iM . dirt le • sang road war #r fast 33 1.t d eddy 130 ease Foe d .d odu.ty read 110 to the !dare d p end ., 8..44'.4 and 4n the Oda of Nook 1. y Itho or, 51 C id the got 164111 L.0 mooning Cub Reoordr, Moir did; Nbe.e.a4v. MO lot Iliedc % Mq aderiq b 414 Redid pot . Se ed d mood 4 M. 0411. d M. Cimty Reader. And Ato We 14 16 17. 16. N and 20. seat 1. MO MR PANIC NORM oddardi to IM moored plot on M. art of record In the Ode of the Soddy borer, Mar 4kunt7t Ifinne df4 NO 0u4e4 4 C. anal 5. alters CENCI tY rA161 57N AOt7I1CJL .odard.l lo the domed pit d fie and of mad In M. Ode of the County d nir. Mdt4 thud Winded NO That pert of dated CAN. STREET 4b.g teddy of the Nerdy died of the Eat Id of tot 16. sw4 1. MO AR PARK NORM, odds 4 the rmdd plot d M cad et nord In the Cold et now County boordr. Anoka Cited N4doee4 .14 ..trly of the East Rfyrt- of-way M M Canty Road WA 63 NOTES: PROPOSED PLAT ZONING DOSTING PLAT ZONING MINIMUM LOT DEPTH MINIMUM LOT WIDTH MINIMUM LOT AREA BUILDING SETBACKS NUMBER OF LOTS BEHM'S CENTURY FARM 8TH ADDITION BEHM'S CENTURY FARM 7 d ADDITION BEHM'S CENTURY FARM 8Th ADDITION BEHM'S CENTURY FARM 9TH ADDITION BEHM'S CENTURY FARM 1OTH ADDITION R -1 R 135 FEET 80 FEET 10,800 S.F. FRONT REAR SIDE 30 FEET 30 FEET 10 FEET 54 28 26 24 24 TOTAL LOTS 156 TOTAL AREA 95.12 ACRES 1 g g Z 4 a c1 PHASE 1 and PHASE 2 EQUALS 6TH ADDMON OUTLOT B NCLUDED IN 6TH ADDMON 6TH ADD. 54 LOTS 7TH ADD. 28 LOTS 8TH ADD. 26 LOTS 9TH ADD. 24 LOTS 10TH ADD. 24 LOTS RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2002 CITY OF LINO LAKES 1 UNWAY SAFETY EA ' RUNWAY : 1 1 i i 1 i r 1 / 1 i 1 in I t 1 i .L._ _ _ — t I ----; — r 1.6%sl.i j :::: I f',1 / r: 11/ 1: / " 1 1 1 / - - -- -I- - 1 - i , , 47: I a L a- it PH1 • 004e5 CENTURY rArtu 67I4 A00, THRU ions A00. CLVY2Lier_tilikni-riagirmae-02.A., tIZZLIC2212 I21425._Pfl ;, 1 2 SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHEET C1 RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2002 CITY OF LINO LAKES -- C.:.------4-3,----— I I,. \ 1 1 •I I \\ I I I \ ‘ im isr, v.) I • r: -.---- , 1 r r k ; LIU TLC T R. I I / I / 1 1 I 7 \ I, / / .-- I I I I -•:.: i I -_4._4 I fl-. , - -- - L I 1 , 11 / . - L 1 I I / . I %.% t ■ .1 I I I I UNWAY SAFETY AREA RUNWAY ' • CARL ST--:* r —4 SEWS CEN1URY riau ITN AM IOU IOTH ACO. .1.3.33•3.3 %PO eftlfecloe LOO'S ...... :es kk32.3... • ............. s 3 scOT°21°/00s‘A I ....... ‘0.* 49.dlo Iot's.Ps‘P ; 13,31.11•3 , ------- 1.% • .. ) ....... ........ ... ... e .. . - . ....... ( ........... .... .. ... • • • ..... ... ...... ........ . \ • ........ ........ .............. •"7- ......... ..... .• .• 'MY • *. ............ -17148 44.5 ..... ........... of' ........... •••. ..... ...... •"' ........................... .-* 1 ........................ /4. • , v t ...... \ • RECEIVED JUL 1. 5 200a CrTY OF LINO LAKES 41tet-t-* 13 111,1.4AY ......... EA • .......... — ...RONWAv • • • • "*. ,• .• _11 ...--_-_-.....--t,-.• it .z--:::_■_:-tq:;;::::...-'_..:_::_--_-:-:,:ts, ::::::: :z.i.-:::..-L114-.i.:•:-:--, li i ••=tiLLIES-a .n.... :::: , ::: ..,.*:•., .., — 1 --;—, — — — — r•--- ',TY:P X. tr: / '‘;:•.-.:..:..:..-. ... ,4...4. L s f , ,:;L . '/ 1.. ..-- ti. -"" — • . — • . .1" \‘' ......... t.7.31t.1:3 t: • • . th OA Vs.., ........ t..7r.- - . . ... . ....... - - - - . • t 1 ........................... !MS'S MOAT rues .M reo. WOW 101N ADO. cAnmk irsl.a.- ¢•ta- 2�IQI70t PaRtEL670- OOt�LIDA1477 -9-ffi .0_ 17 /IIMO2 24221 • lail ®umonsa111111!11 t ®1110111110I1��1®li ®11®1101 fir r1.' ^" 'mot 1"411111111 Am. ito RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2002 CITY OF LINO LAKES IfIttt2STITZU SEE SHEET HMI =11= .if1, 11111 =1f;2311 1111 ®111:31111:11 114-3EtW2311-11-312trraitirialiii I1 SEE SHEET onfil- airaik4 744 e r ii1!!Itt . r � rA r Isa°711 E=1111E214M11=41=14 UNWAY SAFETY AREA • • 1 I / 1 „mot 1.a �‘. / .L ice__: i r • .4 1 • / L. --- -'-- L— I I / r ,%, 1 1 . , ,.,.�_ � ._..4, . , „M!, a ,., -« •/ 2 ...W. ,- ......i i % . • a •...,.« e a .•-e.k • e e • - ...,.. a .-•• : ••••■••• k • RUNWAY — - -- — ti! 1 c.&;44. STiik: :: r- 13 1 Sg Znb 116Q�pv -s vD3 y ein4ws cENnlar run* en, ADM tweu tom CO. A I, /f - \� \I , '` .1 1. 1 / \ 1 \ \ \f - -J5l . % 1\ \ 1 1 \ \\ \=_ - 1 \ ` 1 1 \ N. _ 1 \ `\ ■ \ l. \ . -- 1p-.TV eOk`�j'/ j— —� .� // / \ \\ \ i t1 1 (4� \ 1 $ \`\ \ \` ``I \ t R) / ',, / / Oa 1 r/ f 1 SEE SHEET P3 ds 41"11"16-A4A"'" Atatarailimileat 3 44 CELfl12- 4411670Il01647_4 -Q2. 07"132002 127p25 127 84 85.10 1,41E S.F. 6.77 r _got__---- 33,882 S.F. - --\ ``•S 1 ��� ���-J : 3 \\ . 1 \ co a. LYJ 7 ■ C�[ " - //, • I //,p�P //, // , / , \ \ \`am- zest , / / /I // l/ // /, /, /�,/ ,- _ --\ \ \\I\- -may -- 1 / // ..- , , , / -- -\ \ • 1- �..� l l r \- _ , / /j // / `\ \ ` - /, /i &``d.1)T4.13-_-5_41.4_ AbD ./ `\. R1 I _ �_ 1 ___ -�--- / /! — _ . — —rr — r- — I1.#' / /1 i -' / i - 7777) POJ �- rte: = = -111 I = =_ *A �_ - ` / /•� 4 `' 111' I -Mf' = _� 3 �\ \ \\ \ 4 '\ - // \ l t \ 1 \ GRAPHIC SCALE b t,p ( IN rttr I inch - 60 IL P2 1:104seS C MO& CAM 61N A00. NM ION ADO. O1 $I 11 11 11 11 1,1 ti.1 `"Pa1r ' 1 Aee�EIA f \ • \ I \ \ 1 I \\ \, 1 I A 1 1 c I ,\ , $ 1 1 1 1 1 \♦ I 1 1 , 1, 1 • SEE SHEET P4 -- OAS 0 11611 YESL AP'9hS1\A 05- Yt9'2\14.1TOt PASDCE1-629- 0011830001447- 9- 02.d•a 07/17/20132 PM fA GRAPHIC SCALE Rscer4 ED 15 2002 GO Of LIAO LAKES • • (01 Mr) 1 Ineb • 60 0. N 11 • 1 11 X11 III 111 111 111 111 111 1 1 \ 1 I 1 I IOMEIE FIZZ 94)' POWER ASEMENT \ • 1410N-111C PO E 90* POWER EASEMENT / foam / I I I I 1 I 1 1 J • 759.50 .06°' - OUTLOT / A / 1 1 158,129 S.F. / 1 • • / 0 l \ /� ' ' 1 _ \ \ ,, / \ \ 1 1 / ` \\ \\ `'1 \ / 1 \\ \ 1 I 1 • ,/\ 1 r 1 i \\ \ \ / 1 \ i 1 \ \ / 1 1 \ " \ \ 0. \ 1 % 1 / \ — ---- /iiipdalsc \\ % 1 1 \\ / r �� \ 4O I 1 / 1 1 / 1 % — — — 1/ 1 1 r //iiiu //iil \ I 1 —902.0 _ — Crt-r 1 \ 1 11, BOX / 1 t 0 L 7 r r t I - _CENTELINE ISRiV T -�- ORII� 1 • 1 , 1 i , / \ w _ , / / _ii e,0 , , _ \ / /' / 'OiE�t pe t or , % , , 1 / !q9' / . , . _ _ 1 / / / / ' / ii 4 0 4:4 , „ G 11 . 11 /�''. *<4° _ - - - - . . // .ls V9 +tot tet 0 •414„ i _ '... - _` I�IIlill���_ i 85.5_ /� l • \ / // 0 1- / — / � 1\ /-* 1 t "/ t / \ / 50-- / . L__,___4..L • 1 / l 1 1 1 1 • I / 1 ila�\ - • \ 1 ■ 1 /1t 1 1 1 \ \\`_�/) � 1 \ \ 1 1 .-...- 1 \� _ 1,•� TCI 1k TV AnX 91. -- ^iS% • / 1$312'3\ \ - SEE SHEET P2 1 I 1 r\ 0•71' .t'Se 1 85_10 1,418 S.F. 84 a. P3 • acmes CENTURY FARM 6M A00. TAW 10tH A00. RECEN JUL 15 ZOO. CM' Of LINO LAKES O\RroJeces\D.A4- frea- 2\NOUTOR PARC11670- 001\630001be7- 9- 02.d.g- 07/17/200; 1200,26 oN C se GRAPHIC SCALE O II N, (0' MET ) 1 Ineh - 60 11. / • / • 1-- ..„-e---. / , / / / / / / / 7 • / • • • • • • / • • / .' 7 • • / / 7 • / • / / • / • / / • 1 r r� 10.804 S.F. -I • 94 • 3 12,829 S.F. v \ 3 / 1 12,829 S.F. \ l 0 U \ ,'L 1 10.804 -1 S.F. 1 1 - J r S r 1014.72 1 1 1 1 1 : i TEL. sox ♦ 1 1 / 1 1 I 1 1 ` \ 1 1 \ 1 / \ \\ 1 • \ S. / 11 11 11 11 11 11 1 1 11 11 01 $1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 / / I 1 I 1 I I 1 , r — 1 / —/ 1 1IQ4 -INF. ear \ \ \ o. Y / 90' POWER EASEMENT / • -- T , 0 MN YELL • / / \1 / m rn / • / 1 1 MQh/.DC PCIE OW'LOT / ."'SEE SHET P3 / I P4 6tl1fl CFNIURY r4RY 61H 400. 11414U 10114 .100. GRAPHIC SCALE PP r r w tm cartel l hrh - 60 IL CEI ED JUL 15 2002 CITY OF LINO LAKES • 66".1114CT, sz' /*o- PVLITTP PARCEL 630-001\674061w7 4.614*a 07'11/2.602 TOM PH C' __ ---- ,-- -- -- ___- _ - --_- - - -- ' --�z -------- - -- -- _ —.c • 066 S &f =__ - - -- _ >;-_ - -- L -1 -2._-_- .._ -____ _.- _- ______ 076P- , •., -- •_- .i-f .. \ It I i `��_ J i1 1 _ - - _- - - :.,•. a. •'• :..• ,/ r -7 r �- % r �- i 1 \ 1 1 11 x1',1. 1 '� • - - _ _ p�6�= - - r. _ - r l / 1 L 1 t1 S� -I 11 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 -- -111\ 1 11 3 I 4 I ► 61 / 111'r'''' ,' 1 I nz59oSF., ----- 1 1 1 Y -II', 1 II 11,597 S.F. 1 1 1 13,31 SF / / �� 1 I I \ i ' 1 :Ili- Il�ll rrlll,0.804 S,F.I 10.804 SF/ 1 �n1 1 / / 1 // �.` 1 1 ( \ i 1 1 11 1,11111i 111, N eol G 1 al I �'/ 15,SS6 SF./ % ! j ��` Jam` 1( - -..�JI �j1�1�'SI��11 o . 1 I / ! �/ r / / r �b.1/�Tl!I1 ui 11i ,I I\n d 1 %1 / o / // / 1 -. �. Y /--.-..'I 1 1 1 111.1 1 1- -` 1 1 / / / / // r/ 1 �` / ' 1 1 g 1� 1 ,' ,� / // / 18085 SF �` �./ p�11l,I>II I llia 1/ /. . - -- ''/ �/ / >/ ,; 1111 16 111 J ` J 1-- .4'4� -J ��1` ,� 1• +� 11 i�/ II 1111 < / / .{7% 1 11111 11111 / Lip• / a =� / / / `�� 1 1111'lll�il 1114 711��1. �� 11111111 hl ds - // - - ' / ./ -•/ �` 1�,I 11,11'1:111 11 1 1 1 1011! 11o�J 'i 1 {1t11I111o, 1;. 4.IIII 111 1 =• Iii 11 r 1 10,804 S.F. 10,804 S.F. T 14,114 S.F. 1, 30 • S84CX a, 1- -- oo -7d 1 .35.00 887,758 1 � 1 V •� �O 11 �, 1 . ti t 4" • 10,800 S.F. / r69 JO r r— 1 \ I � � 135.00 1!97.6 -� • 1 ` • � .RF'P Pip , • - 1 ! I I I t • •41,,,t(itistok, . I 1 � -1 y t•\ -=may. A11, -7 r 1 same -WE rar ASE 4ENT 1,/ OBfi L T • • 1 7 • • 0'609 I 1.35.,00 / - - to • 1 10,860SR,.1 i °o / SEE SHEET P6 13,41 12 S. 111 III 11 I' SEE SHEET P7 4i,w, S.rs POWER ASEMENT\ \\ 1/ ,' _ - \ 1 . . ■ o•asa_ -, 1 . / I - / .... i - % .1 ._w -L 7 \----' • ... ..- _�A 7 1 \ 1 • \ �a- 135.00 // v\f\, E,}-7 / • / ,' , \ 13,758 St,' • \\ 12..12 -SaF/ • T.• / •'1., • /' �1 , • / K„, s (1� 13,484 SF. / / ). \/ /4. • / x?�r \\ /// v / 12:898tS.F. � A' j \ , / - _ 'c \ \\ \ t \1 \ \ •\ 11.064 S slk • rd\ / 10,883 S.F. \\ 127f84 — 1 nzo ; - -- • \ \ 8600 80.00 1 t 8O. _ \ 2 I 3�� � ,�94,�.�. 12,189 S.F. 12.016 SF. } ; I� 1. • r .1\ _F- rte_ - i \ \ \I` of � � i.l 4ti C - • • t.!• 7 ; • \ ' 1 L ; • --ZL Y1���° i `uy,._ _� rj o 1 tIl I ) 1 I • rte`' . It x 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 �, , 1 1 1. 115.4 1 S.F. II; 15,287 S.F. j1 , 11 14,932 S.F. 1 1 t\ II11 a II 1 I '1 of I N 1 1 1 1...., I I, h 45—,1 p J / / L �i�'�� r— I ` 1 I EASEMENT 1 1 1 ti 1 l I I 1 1 -- - �n OA \t t 13,910 S.F. A • O f tAINAGE 9l.o eolee- PL .\ \ ,1,' h \\ \ 1 \ \ - - \ 1 -a l 15,793 S.F. 1' 1 9 I • • • 1 GRAPHIC SCALE is • a se we toe ( o+FEL7) 1 [net - 50 R N COs 4j } 0 0 P6 ;r fi t Real CENTURY YAM 61N ADO. MRU IoM i00..':• co LU 0) SHEET . "; *71.-; k1: 41.077 S.F./ Ice i / 1 11111 \ � 1 1 111 � III I 1�I 1, 41,974\ \SFp� bl 1' 1 1111 1 ,111111,1 1111111 \.8°111111111,, 1111111 ijj(IlIIIIII 11,1 11!1_ 111 111/ 1111 / ♦ 1111,11 11111 / / \ 114411,, 111111 '/ „Z.,111); 11111,1,111111,11/11: NNN \./...., \ !1 - - 12,471 Ia 1 111 111 tt I /1 11 <� 1L�,II j11�111 1 1 .1* IIpN 1 111 .. \ ■ 1 _ti's 11�1'�A16' 1111 A8013,02 ‘31LP:101111111:111.1,1101:141:111:ctill..4,:.:16.111 11 .00 - -3- , 1421 SF. I / I / 11111 I 1.4 IS it 90' POWER EASEi1ENT` ..;:.(OIRaT) 1 IAA/ - 131 It • ` C.Vro]feq \D gf- C+�g�2\/0.IT01 PARCEL670- 001.630001bd7-9-ORd.9 o'f/f7/2001 l 0 PM CDT GRAPHIC SCALE ALTERNATE SINGLE FAMILY LAYOUT 8.238 5.R / ._ --- - -' Tom ` _ T\ — \ 1 1 / — — 1 /ph. \/ 1 t\ W , ..., iv, 5 . ./... 1 // / \O. 1 //,;- 44". 64 POSED GER M PROPOSED S HANGER PROP05 €D °o HANGER - 1 1 1 - /Y-./2 Ly / IS ■ / i— 1 ?(� It 1 • N. ss I 1 //^ `"` 18.132 S.F. j I o/ • \ N. __ -_ -i I 15 1; \ /8i\ \\ 1 -I \ \.. -\ \ 1 \ \JQ, 1f \ 21,152 S.F. `� 1 I • I -\ I - -- ♦ • 1- 1 -- Lf • \ 1 / -, L - \ \ • 1 \--. 1- I \ / 1.1 00 a d= V • / / PROPOSED HANGER J / 1 1 / / ,1I \ / / w • / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 \\ — •1 • 1 / • l / / • • - • .4 • P7 1 • AGENDA ITEM V. F STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: August 14, 2002 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING: Subdivision Ordinance BACKGROUND A task force appointed by the City Council has been working with staff and the planning consultant on a new subdivision ordinance. The task force has completed a draft ordinance. The next step in the process is to hold a public hearing on the ordinance. The subdivision ordinance regulates the subdivision of land. It does not deal with lot sizes, setbacks, building height, allowable uses, and the like. Such requirements are regulated by the zoning ordinance. We are revising the zoning ordinance and, when a draft is completed, we will bring it through the review process. • The ordinance is a draft, and thus a work in progress. As we review the document, we will be making minor revisions to the text for clarification purposes. • ANALYSIS The purpose of the public hearing is to discuss any aspect of the draft ordinance that is of interest to the public or the P & Z members. Some general points of interest include: Better list of definitions in Sec. 1001. These have been coordinated with definitions in the zoning ordinance. When the zoning ordinance is complete, some revisions may be appropriate. Clear lists of submittal requirements for preliminary plats, final plats, and minor subdivisions. Clear descriptions of what is specifically required and prohibited in order to eliminate ambiguity and confusion. • • • Specific Highlights Premature Subdivision Standards and MUSA Allocation Criteria: These are included in the General Provisions, Sec. 1002. A proposed plat will be compared to these standards to ensure there is adequate infrastructure to support the plat. Note that several items refer to the City's growth management policy. This policy, which will set out specific methods to monitor growth and keep it at the desired level, will be finalized by the City Council in the next few months. Sketch Plan Review: An informal sketch plan step has been added. It is not mandatory but is strongly recommended. Making it mandatory would start the clock on the review deadline. This would not fit into our review process. Therefore, we will emphasize the value of an informal sketch plan review process. We expect most developers will participate. Preliminary Plat: Requirements include a tree preservation plan and a phasing plan. Tree Plan: The tree plan requirements do not mandate preserving a specified percentage of trees. Rather, they require a complete inventory of all trees that will be affected by the development. City staff and the developer will discuss the potential for saving trees, and the plan will then clearly list which trees will be lost and which will be saved. If trees are lost that were designated to be saved, they must be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. We will add text on page 1004.3 to clarify that the tree preservation plan, as described in Section 1009, is mandatory. Phasing Plan: The required phasing plan for each plat will specify a schedule for the final platting of portions of the development. For example, the phasing of a 150 -lot plat might allow fifty lots to be final platted this year, fifty next year, and fifty the next. This way, we can track exactly how many lots will be created in each of several years in the future. • One point for P & Z discussion is on page 1004.11, paragraph 16. As the developer implements a project's phasing plan, a final plat application for phase two will likely be submitted as phase one is nearing completion. The question is, should the City require that a certain percentage of phase one is built out before the final plat for the next phase can be submitted? This requirement would ensure that the project is proceeding according to the schedule rather than having a large number of lots platted but not selling. It is important that the lots that are approved do get built on in order to meet the growth goals. On the other hand, the demand for housing is so great that this probably will not be a problem, and such a requirement may be more trouble than it's worth. If, developer A isn't on schedule, do we give his MUSA to another developer? How do we track these once we have a schedule of approved lots established for the next three years? • • Two clarifications should be added to the text. On page 1004.4, requirements for the preliminary plat sheet should include showing the delineated wetland boundaries and the ordinary high water level of any protected waters. This will be added as paragraph 16. on that page. On page 1004.5, paragraph 6. should include the normal water level and high water level of all stormwater ponds, wetlands, lakes, etc. Final Plat: Requirements include bringing final plats through the Planning & Zoning Board as well as the City Council. Because of the importance of the phasing plans, staff thought it a good idea to have the P & Z aware of how the growth management system is working. On page 1005.5, a reiteration of the percentage of completion issue occurs. We will amend this to match the statement in the preliminary plat section after P & Z discussion. Minor Subdivisions: An important change from our current procedures is that the draft ordinance states that minor subdivisions would be reviewed administratively, rather than go through the P & Z and City Council. This change is intended to reduce the time and expense —for the applicant and the City —for simple lot splits. With clear requirements for lot dimensions, wastewater treatment and water facilities, upland minimums, etc., it is clear whether or not a proposed lot split meets City requirements. If the application meets the requirements, it should be approved with little delay. Applicants always have the opportunity to request a variance from the requirements or appeal the staff decision. A variance or appeal would then go through the P & Z and City Council. Please note a correction to be made on page 1006.1. Paragraph 1 should end at "...Sections 1004 and 1005 of this Ordinance." Paragraph 2. should begin there, and say: 2. The exchange of abutting land between owners through the relocation of the boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property. • Paragraph 3. merits discussion by the P & Z. The task force had a concern that somebody would try to avoid platting property by using repeated minor subdivisions of three lots or less. The question for P & Z discussion is whether or not this is likely enough that the City should prohibit a resubdivision within five years. It might be an undesirable prohibition if, for example, somebody splits 40 acres into two 20 -acre parcels, then wants to split one of them a couple years later into two 10 -acre parcels. This scenario would be within lot size requirements, and would not in and of itself be a problem. However, the five -year prohibition would prevent it. Design Standards: There are a number of design requirements that are not listed in the existing ordinance. Land in electricity transmission or pipeline easements cannot be used to fulfill the • minimum buildable land requirement for a lot. (page 1007.2) • Clarification that every new lot must have the minimum lot width fronting on a public street. (page 19007.2, paragraphs 4. and 5.) • • Access management requirements for access to collectors and arterials. (page 1007.2, paragraphs 6. and 7.) Paragraph 6. should be amended to say "...major collector street... ". Setbacks must be shown for each lot on the plat drawing. (1007.3, par. 8) Minimum 10' buffer around all wetlands, and buildable lot area cannot include this buffer. (1007.3, par 9) Conservation subdivision open space categories and ownership requirements are listed. Conservation subdivision design is not mandatory. If this option is chosen by the developer, ownership and management of the open space must be addressed. A joint trench requirement for utilities has been added. This has been the City's practice, but it has not been formally adopted by ordinance. (1007.9 — 1007.10) Park Dedication: The City adopted new park dedication requirements last year. These have been included in the new subdivision ordinance. No changes were made. Improvements: Section 1010 lists elements of a new development that must be installed, and mandates certain ones as the developer's responsibility. In the event a rural clustering application comes in, this section includes provisions for a communal septic system (p. 1010.2). The new development agreement requirements include a final grading survey to ensure that the grading plan was implemented by the developer. OPTIONS 1. Approve the draft subdivision ordinance, with any recommended changes. 2. Continue public hearing, return draft ordinance to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1