HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2002 P&Z Packet•
•
•
btlA Vic;
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
Wednesday, November 13, 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: October 9, 2002
IV. OPEN MIKE
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. Ray Benkler, Car Wash, XXX Lake Drive, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review,
Bob Kirmis (NAC)
B. Gordon Johnson, Udor, 500 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review, Tanda Gretz
C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th
Additions, South of Main St. & North of Carl St. - Section 7, Preliminary Plat, Rezone,
MUSA Allocation, Jeff Smyser - NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION — CONTINUE
TO DECEMBER MEETING
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. None
VII. ADJOURN
•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
•
September 11, 2002
: 6:37 P.M.
8:16 P.M.
: Corson, Hyden, Lyden, Schaps and Zych.
: Lane and Rafferty.
: Jeff Smyser; Tanda Gretz; James Studenski
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:37
p.m., September 11, 2002.
Chair Schaps requested a moment of silence in remembrance of the victims and their
families of September 11, 2001.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 14, 2002
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the August 14, 2002, meeting of
the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion
carried 3 -0 -1 (Corson abstained).
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:39 p.m.
David McDonald, 790 Lois Lane, asked for clarification regarding plans he had for an
addition that he wanted to put on. He presented a diagram of his proposed plans for the
Board's review. He asked for the Board's suggestions and recommendations.
Chair Schaps stated he has had conversations with Mr. McDonald and Mr. Smyser
regarding the expansion of his business, and asked if Mr. McDonald changed the wall
construction, would it still be considered a pole barn. Mr. Smyser replied before Mr.
APPROVED MINUTES
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 2
McDonald built onto this building, it was a pole barn and he told Mr. McDonald as long
as it did not fulfill the definition of a pole barn, there would be no problem. He stated as
long as the building did not have metal skin and poles in the ground, the City would not
view this as a pole barn. However, he would still be required to meet the other Code
requirements. He indicated this expansion was a good idea, as long as it was not a pole
barn construction.
Mr. Lyden asked if the definition of a pole barn was the material that was used on the
outside. Mr. Smyser replied that was one of the factors.
Mr. Lyden pointed out the City should not have a problem with the metal roof,
considering the City Hall had a metal roof.
Chair Schaps asked if the building inspector could look at this to determine if it was a
pole barn. Mr. Smyser replied he had checked with the building inspector, and the
building inspector agreed that as long as there were not both poles and metal skin on the
building, it was not a pole barn.
Mr. McDonald noted on the surveyor's map he had received when he added the last
addition on, it was noted that at some point in the future, he was intending on adding onto
the back of the building.
Chair Schaps informed Mr. McDonald to work closely with staff and submit a
commercial site and building plan.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:50 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0.
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. Laraine Cardarelli & Craig Severson, 82XX W. Rondeau Lake Rd., Minor
Subdivision
Staff explained Ms. Cardarelli and Mr. Severson are applying for a Minor Subdivision of
approximately 32 acres of land, zoned Rural, on the 82XX block of West Rondeau Lake
Road. The applicant would like to create two lots: one lot of 21.69 acres and one lot of
10.43 acres.
Staff presented its analysis by explaining the Certificate of Survey shows the proposed
division of the 32 -acre parcel. Parcel A, 21.69 acres, contains 22 % upland. Parcel B,
10.43 acres, does not have upland delineated on the survey, but as aerial photos show the
land to have been in agriculture (and now in pasture), meeting the 20% minimum upland
requirement does not appear to be an issue.
• Staff explained the minimum lot size for property in a Rural zone is ten acres. Both of
the two proposed lots will meet this requirement.
APPROVED MINUTES
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 3
Staff stated the minimum lot width for property in a Rural zone is 330 feet, and both lots
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 publicly dedicated street."
Staff noted all created lots are required to include drainage and utility easements. The
applicant will need to dedicate drainage and utility easements to the City in accordance
with Lino Lakes Subdivision Ordinance Section 1001.08, subdiv. 4. Such easements
shall be five feet in width along side property lines, ten feet in width along front and rear
property lines, and cover all ponding and wetland areas.
In addition, street right -of -way dedication will be required according to the Lino Lakes
Subdivision Ordinance Section 1001.08, subdiv. 10.
Staff stated it should be noted as a point of information that there is an existing 30 -foot
easement between the proposed parcels that serves as a driveway to an existing lot of
record ( "Parcel C ") that lies between the two proposed lots on their southern boundary.
This easement is not held by the City, but presumably exists solely for access purposes
for Parcel C.
Staff indicated Lino Lakes City Ordinance Section 3, subd. 3.B.2.b states that parcels
located within a zoning district that carries a minimum lot size of 10 acres must have a
minimum of 20% buildable /upland area. Both of the proposed lots meet this
requirement.
Staff stated 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.
In conclusion, staff noted the proposed Minor Subdivision would result in two lots:
Parcel A of 21.69 acres and Parcel B of 10.43 acres. Both proposed lots would meet all
minimum lot requirements, as established under the Lino Lakes City Code. 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.) The applicant shall dedicate to the City drainage and utility easements measuring ten
feet in width along the front and rear property lines, five feet in width along side
property lines, and covering all ponding and wetland areas. Such dedication shall be
in the form of a Quit Claim Deed, per the City attorney, to be submitted prior to the
certification and recording of the Minor Subdivision.
3.) The applicant shall dedicate to the City a 33 -foot wide permanent public right -of -way
adjacent to West Rondeau Lake Road. Such dedication shall be in the form of a Quit
Claim Deed, per the City attorney, to be submitted prior to the certification and
recording of the Minor Subdivision.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Applicants did not make comments.
APPROVED MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 4
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Laraine Cardarelli & Craig Severson, 82XX W.
Rondeau Lake Rd., Minor Subdivision, subject to staff's recommendations and
conditions as outlined in staff's report.
The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden.
Motion carried 4 -0.
B. Michael & Laura Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck Trail, Variance
Staff stated Michael and Laura Sullivan reside at 8065 Wood Duck Trail, a 2.89 acre lot
that is zoned Rural. The Sullivans have applied for a Variance in order that they may
locate a detached garage closer to the front lot line than the principle building. Section 3,
subdiv. 4.D.1.c of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that "no detached accessory
structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal building or its attached
garage."
Staff noted the Sullivans home is sited 98 feet back from Wood Duck Trail. Wood Duck
Trail is classed as a minor collector street, which has a setback requirement of 40 feet.
Staff indicated the property currently does not have a garage on site, although there is a
12' X 16' shed located to the northwest of the house. The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance,
Section 5, subdiv. 1.C.3, states "all dwellings shall have a double garage."
Staff stated Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.1.c states "no detached accessory structure shall be
closer to the front lot line than the principle building or its attached garage."
Staff indicated Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.8.d allows for 3,600 sq.ft. of accessory buildings,
and up to two detached accessory buildings for a property of this size and zone.
Staff indicated to satisfy ordinance requirements, a detached garage would have to be
parallel with, or behind, the front line of the house. This is problematic on this site for
three reasons. First, the septic drain field is located approximately 24 feet to the south of
the house, with the septic tank located southeast of the house approximately the same
distance. Second, the well is located to the north of the house approximately 25 feet.
Thirdly, there is a pond located to the northwest of the house, directly in back of the
current shed location. Each of these features act to preclude locating a garage in what
would be a typical location next to, or behind, the house.
As a result, staff stated the applicant is asking to be allowed to site a garage in a location
to the side of, but in front of, the house. Such a site would put the garage closer to the
street than the house, and thus violate Section 3, subdiv. 4.D.1.c of the City Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff noted such a location, however, would meet the required 40 -foot setback
requirement from Wood Duck Lane. In addition, such a location would allow for the
construction of a double garage, which the site currently does not have, but is a building
requirement for properties located in the Rural zone. Lastly, a 24' X 36' detached garage
APPROVED MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 5
• would be within the allowable size and number of accessory building allowed on a lot of
this size and zone.
Staff noted that at least one neighboring property contains a garage which is sited closer
to the street (8025 Wood Duck Trail).
Staff stated 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:
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 as a whole may be put to reasonable use, but official controls
preclude the construction of a garage (which is a requirement under the Zoning
Ordinance) in the only workable location that is near the house.
2.) That the plight of the landowner is due to physical circumstances unique to his property,
not created by the landowner.
Comment: The physical location of the septic tank, drain field, well and pond preclude
siting a garage in a location which would satisfy the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. Such a configuration of elements presents a situation unique to this property,
although this situation was — at least in part — created by the (previous) landowner.
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: The demonstrated hardship is the lack of a garage site that would satisfy the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Such a hardship is not economically motivated
but, rather, site driven. While such a hardship still allows for the reasonable use of the
property, such a hardship does not allow the property to comply with the requirement of
the Zoning Ordinance, which states that all dwellings in a Rural zone should have a
double garage.
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: There is no special privilege involved but, rather, a need/hardship that is site -
driven. Other properties with similar site constraints would also be valid candidates for
a Variance such as this one.
5.) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
Comment: The Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that a double garage is a building
requirement for property located in the Rural zone. Granting this Variance would allow
the applicants to comply with this requirement.
APPROVED MINUTES
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 6
Staff noted this application for a Variance is driven by three site constraints: location of a
septic system, well, and a pond. Each of these constraints prevent siting the proposed
garage in a location next to, or behind, the house, in compliance with the Lino Lakes
Zoning Ordinance. As a result, staff feels there is a demonstrated need/hardship that is
site - driven and quantifiable, and so justifiable. Staff would recommend approval of the
proposed Variance with the following condition:
1.) The proposed garage be placed no closer than 62 feet from Wood Duck Trail.
2.) The 10 x 10 shed is to be removed.
Mr. Lyden asked what was the number of accessory buildings. Ms. Gretz stated she
believed it was two.
Mr. Lyden stated when he drove out to the site, there were two sheds and asked if they
were both owned by Mr. Sullivan.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Mr. Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck Trail, replied there was a 10x10 shed that would be taken
down once they got a dumpster for the construction of the proposed garage.
• Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Sullivan agreed to adding the 10 x 10 shed to be removed as a
part of the conditions. Mr. Sullivan replied he did agree to that requirement.
Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to approve Michael & Laura Sullivan, 8065 Wood Duck
Trail, Variance subject to staffs recommendations and conditions as outlined in staffs
report.
The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden.
Motion carried 4 -0.
C. Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, Minor Subdivision & Variance
Staff stated this item was presented at the August 14th meeting of the Planning & Zoning
Board. After consideration of the issues, members voted to table the application pending
additional information from the applicant. Specifically, Mr. Lindahl was asked to present
alternate configurations for the proposed one -acre lot (Tract B), in hopes that it might be
possible to achieve the required 330 feet of lot width/road frontage.
Mr. Lindahl has presented two alternate configurations for consideration by members.
Both proposals would meet the minimum lot width/road frontage requirement of 330 feet.
However, as a result of meeting the width requirement, lot size then increases over the
one -acre threshold. Since there are only 11 acres total to be used between the two
proposed lots, such an increase in the size of proposed Tract B, then decreases the size of
proposed Tract A under the 10 acres minimum requirement for property in a Rural zone.
APPROVED MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 7
Staff indicated 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."
Staff noted 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.
Staff stated t \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 been advised that splitting off one acre with the homestead to provide
an additional building site would probably not be recommended in this case."
Staff presented its analysis by noting the 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.
Staff indicated 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.
Staff noted 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."
Staff stated 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.
Staff noted 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
APPROVED MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 8
1111 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.
Staff indicated 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.
Staff stated 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.
Staff indicated the existing 11 -acre parcel contains a second driveway, not used by the
Lindahls but existing on their property, that is the sole source of access for the
neighboring property to the west, at 815 Ash Street. Without this driveway, the property
at 815 would be landlocked, with no access out to Ash Street or any other road. 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.
Staff noted 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.
Staff stated the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that "in considering all requests for
variance or peal 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.
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
APPROVED MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 9
• 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.
Staff noted 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.
Alternate configurations presented by the applicant meet the minimum lot width/road
frontage, but do not meet the minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres. As a result, staff
cannot recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision.
Staff noted as there are no hardship issues or unique circumstances apparent on the
property, staff cannot recommend approval of a Variance from the lot width
requirements.
Chair Schaps asked if they made the smaller lot bigger, was that the only flaw. Ms. Gretz
replied that was correct.
Mr. Lyden stated the reason they had minimum lot frontage was to have orderly
development in the future. He noted the reality was that this was the right way to develop
this property. He noted there was not going to be development around this property
because there was wetland on one side and a cemetery on the other side.
Chair Schaps stated in this case were would likely be no development alongside of this
property.
Mr. Lyden stated in his opinion the first option presented last month was the best option.
Mr. Zych asked if there was a park dedication fee to be paid. Ms. Gretz replied the park
dedication would be $1,685 and applicant was aware of this amount.
APPROVED MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 10
• Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
•
•
Don Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, stated he preferred to go back to his original plan with the
one -acre. He stated that option worked the best for all of the buildings that was on the
one -acre parcel. He indicated his second choice would be option 3. He stated he would
want to record to reflect that the one parcel was not 10 acres so a future buyer would not
have a problem obtaining a building permit.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve Donald Lindahl, 855 Ash Street, with option
number one as outlined in staff s report.
Mr. Lyden requested Mr. Lindahl obtain some written agreement with the neighbor
regarding use of the driveway. Mr. Lindahl replied all of that land would be owned by
Tract A, so it would be entirely owned by the new owner, and the new owner would be
informed to work out the driveway easement with the neighbor and this requirement
would be made at the time the land was transferred. He noted his neighbor was very
agreeable to working with this situation.
Ms. Gretz requested the following three conditions:
1. Park dedication fee to be paid
2. Standard drainage and utility easements
3. Right -of -Way as required by Anoka County.
The motion was supported by Mr. Corson.
Motion carried 3 -1 (Hyden).
D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th
Additions, South of Main St. & North of Carl St.
Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
Staff stated the P & Z continued the public hearing on this project at the August 14
meeting. There were a number of issues to be resolved.
Staff noted major design issues include access and roads, parkland, potential new air park
lots, air park impacts, wetlands, and future development on surrounding lands.
Staff indicated the applicant submitted new plans on Wednesday, September 4. This did
not allow time for staff to review and analyze the new submittals.
Staff stated road access and connections are important design issues. The question of
connecting Carl St. was discussed extensively at the August meeting. This is a major
issue, and it affects numerous other aspects of the project and of this area of the City.
APPROVED MINUTES
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 11
Staff is asking the P & Z to consider the following information and then give staff
direction on whether or not Carl St. should be connected. Based on that direction, staff
will work with the applicant on the design of the plat.
Staff stated the applicant hired a consultant to prepare a traffic study. The study was
summarized at the August meeting. At that time, staff had not had the opportunity to
review the traffic study. The City Engineer now has had the applicant's traffic study
analyzed. That analysis is attached (TKDA memo from Steven Elmer, August f3). Note
that several assumptions and conclusions in the study may not be universally accepted.
Staff noted the majority of P & Z members voiced opposition to connecting Carl St. to
the new development. At the same time, most P & Z members expressed support for new
air park lots that would each accommodate a home and a hanger.
Staff indicated it would seem that the best way to incorporate new air park lots would be
to design them to be part of the existing air park. If this is to occur, they should be
connected to the existing air park lots along Carl St. If Carl St. does not connect, the new
air park lots will be separated from the rest, which would seem to violate the concept of
an air park "neighborhood ".
Staff indicated therefore, if new air park lots are to be created with the Behm's plat, Carl
St. should connect to the new plat.
Staff stated existing air park lots on Carl St. are 373' deep, with widths ranging from 123'
to 178' (1.1 acre to 1.5 acre). The hangers can be up to 3200 s£ The size of any new air
park lots should accommodate the houses, hangers, and taxiways.
Staff noted one of the options presented by the project applicant is the future creation of a
road along the powerline easement to provide access to 4th Ave. and a connection
between 4th Ave. and Sunset Rd. At the August meeting, discussion included the
likelihood of future opposition to this connection by residents of the new Behm's
neighborhood —the neighborhood that will be created by the plat under consideration.
Staff believes that the opposition that will occur will most likely prevent the connecting
road from being constructed.
Staff indicated there are physical design issues to consider as well. The powerline
easement is 90 feet wide. If a road is built along the northern edge of the easement, the
powerline easement will cover the front 90 feet of the lots fronting on the road. The
houses will have to be setback at least 90 feet to be out of the easement, with 90'
driveways. The front yards will have high voltage powerlines crossing them. This does
not seem to be a very inviting neighborhood design. Even if the paved road is offset as
close as possible to the towers, at least 50 -60 feet of front yards will be under the
powerline easement with the wires overhead.
Staff stated since the property on which this hypothetical road is located is not being
developed, we have no design that shows a road and plat layout that could be workable.
Lacking this, it is impossible to know the feasibility of developing the property with a
road connecting the Behm's development with 4th Ave.
APPROVED MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 12
Staff noted the property on which this hypothetical road would be built is guided as a
Stage 2 (post 2010) area. Because of this, it will not be allowed to develop for some
time, if ever. In addition, the comprehensive plan clearly requires decreasing the amount
of annual growth. There is no way to know when this property will be developed and the
road will be built.
Mr. Lyden stated his first point of concern was whether a road was 44 feet wide or 36
feet wide and noted that were would be a lot of pedestrians using the road. He stated he
believed they would need to have a trail in this area also. Mr. Smyser replied they were
proposing a 36 -foot wide road with a trail on the side, separated from the road. He
pointed out if they were just doing it as a local road, they would need to go back and look
at the design.
John Johnson, Director of Engineering, Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, 412
County Road D, Little Canada, asked they address the collector roads tonight only so
they could move on with the design. He presented diagrams of the proposal for the
Board's review and comment.
Mr. Zych noted that emergency vehicle access was an issue that needed to be addressed.
Mr. Johnson agreed.
• Mr. Zych noted his concern was not just for emergency vehicles, but for public concern
as well.
•
Mr. Corson stated they would not be making any decisions tonight, but would be giving
direction.
Chair Schaps asked what other options would they have to make an east -west connection.
Mr. Johnson replied there were no other options.
Chair Schaps asked if he believed it was a good idea to create two air park
neighborhoods. Mr. Johnson replied there was already a north and south air park
neighborhood. He indicated there was no connection between the east and west lots on
the south side because of a ditch. He stated the neighbors had asked they create
additional air park lots. He stated as far as if it was important for the air park
neighborhood to be connected, the neighbors would be the best ones to ask that question
to.
Bonnie Bigler, 346 Carl Street, stated the air strip was the neighborhood and that was
what connected them. She indicated they had no problem having any other type of a
connection.
Mike Cirese ( ?sp), 215 Palomino Lane, agreed that the air strip was the community. He
pointed out a group of people with a common interest formed a tight bond. He stated this
was a good community to live in and noted roads would not divide them. He stated he
supported his community and if there was a way to have Carl Street remain the way it
was, that was what he supported.
APPROVED MINUTES
•
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 13
Chair Schaps asked if it would drastically affect him, if it were extended. Mr. Cirese
replied it would not affect him, but he could see his neighbor's point of view regarding
traffic.
Dave Ramsden, 302 Carl Street, stated he was against this proposal. He indicated he did
not understand why emergency vehicle access came into play right now. He indicated he
did not like the curving of the proposed road and expressed concern that the road would
be too close to the ditch.
Jim Obowa, representative of Lino Air Park, stated he had seen the plans and from the
neighborhood's perspective, they would want the connector road to the north and not on
Carl Street.
Chair Schaps asked if he understood the concerns about the emergency vehicle access.
Mr. Obowa replied he did.
Mr. Lyden stated he had not seen anything from the police department, fire department,
etc. that there was a concern and requested seeing something in writing. Mr. Smyser
replied they would follow -up and obtain a report.
Mr. Zych noted that this was an opportunity to do this right and allow for sufficient
• emergency vehicle access.
Chuck Kolstad, 296 Carl Street, expressed concern about the "jogging" of the proposed
Carl Street. He noted an emergency vehicle would not make this jog without
considerably slowing down. He stated he did not want arrows in his front yard indicating
the street curved to the right. He indicated an emergency vehicle could not make it any
faster into the development by taking Carl because of the jogs in the road. He stated he
believed the City already had their mind made up to put Carl Street through. He
expressed concern about vehicles ending up in his front yard or house because they could
not make the turn. He stated most residents on Carl Street were opposed to this. He
urged the Board to see his point of view as a homeowner in the City.
Tom Schmelzer, 398 Carl Street, supported the connection of Carl Street. He expressed
concern about dividing up the neighborhood by not expanding Carl Street. He stated it
was unfortunate developments were not integrated as a main design. He expressed
concern for the safety of landing aircraft.
Glenn Martig, 376 Carl Street, agreed with Mr. Kolstad that with two outlets going to
Sunset should be adequate for emergency vehicles and the proposed bends in Carl Street,
was dangerous. He stated they had been told they would be living on a cul -de -sac. He
pointed out anybody moving into the new development would know where the collector
street were, but they were told they had a cul -de -sac.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the Public Hearing to the October, 2002
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting.
APPROVED MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 14
• The motion was supported by Mr. Corson.
Motion carried 4 -0.
Mr. Lyden requested public safety information regarding specifics. He requested the Air
Park officers get together and come up with a list of what their concerns were. He stated
they did not have the right to destroy a current neighborhood for the development of a
new neighborhood.
Chair Schaps agreed the Air Park needed to submit a letter and requested they address if
the extension of the street in any fashion would affect their property, their neighborhood,
etc. He invited anyone else in that neighborhood to also offer opinions in writing. He
stated overall he had a concern about emergency vehicle access into the new
development. He stated an alternative would be for Mr. Uhde to purchase the sod farm
property, but there would still be challenges Mr. Uhde would need to work out. He noted
sometimes the public safety of everyone became more important than one group of
people. He believed Carl should be expanded.
Mr. Corson stated he did not believe he had enough information on option B to know if
he should agree with that one or not. He stated he agreed they needed a connection.
Mr. Zych stated he wanted Carl Street to be connected.
Mr. Hyden stated he believed they needed a connection.
Linda Eckart, asked for clarification about the distance issue when they referred to safety.
Chair Schaps stated future development would be within the square she had described
and stated they wanted a connection in the middle of the square to allow for emergency
vehicle access.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Mr. Lyden asked under action item 5A there were a couple of easements that needed to
be conveyed to the City and inquired as to how that would be accomplished. Mr. Smyser
replied what the City was doing now was when these types of conditions were placed on
a property, the City required the deeds to be conveyed to the City before it got recorded
by the County.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:16 p.m., and was supported by
Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
APPROVED MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
September 11, 2002
Page 15
•
•
•
APPROVED MINUTES
•
•
AGENDA ITEM V. A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Bob Kirmis (NAC)
P AND Z MEETING DATE: November 13, 2002
TOPIC: Benkler Carwash - Site & Building Plan Review
and CUP
BACKGROUND
Ray Benkler has requested approval of site and building plans and a conditional use peimit to
allow the construction of a full service carwash, a self - service carwash and a quick lube facility
(within a single structure) upon a 1.6 acre site located west of Lake Drive between I -35W and
Elm Street.
While the applicable LI, Light Industrial district provisions do not specifically list carwashes as a
permitted or conditional uses, the district does state that uses permitted in commercial zoning
districts shall be allowed within LI districts. As a result, the use will be treated as a conditional
use and processed accordingly.
This review is based on the following plan submittals:
Preliminary Site Plan dated 10/7/02
Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan dated 10/10/02
Utility Plan dated 10/10/02
Landscape/Tree Preservation Plan dated 10/10/02
Floor Plan dated 10/7/02
Building Elevations dated 10/7/02
Lighting Plan dated 9/10/02
TKDA Engineering Comments dated 11/5/02
Environmental Board Comments dated 11/4/02
ANALYSIS
Site and Building Plan Review
Property Legal Description. The subject property is described as part of Auditor's Subdivision
# 54 and comprises two individual lots. As part of the CUP processing, the two lots which
comprise the subject property should be legally combined.
•
•
Benkler Carwash
Page 2 of 11
Access. Access to the subject site is to be provided via a 30 foot wide curb cut along Lake
Drive. Appropriately, the access point is in direct alignment with Church Drive to the east.
The acceptability of the proposed curb cut location and width as well as the need for associated
roadway improvements (i.e. turn lanes) should however, be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer and the Anoka County Highway Department.
Circulation. The proposed use includes a full service carwash, a self - service carwash and a
quick lube facility. Recognizing the co- existence of these activities, a well- conceived plan for
site circulation is both very important and very challenging.
As shown on the submitted site plan, site circulation is proposed to occur in a counter - clockwise
fashion. While the proposed circulation pattern is considered well conceived and follows a
natural tendency to "keep right ", some concern exists in regard to a users understanding of the
circulation pattern and a potential for congestion at the sites entry point.
To address this concern, the applicants are proposing to separate site entry and exit areas with a
landscaped median and identify desired site circulation routes with freestanding directional
signage. To further identify desired traffic movements, it is suggested that pavement directional
signage also be provided.
Two circulation - related concerns exist in regard to the by -pass lane on the west side of the
property. One concern relates to the necessary u -turn maneuvers that will occur west of the
building where full service carwash vehicles move from the staging area to the conveyor area. It
appears conceivable that such maneuvers could interfere with access to both the self - service
carwash and quick lube facility.
A second concern with the by -pass lane relates to the areas west of the self - service wash and
quick lube facility where a potential overlapping of vehicular stacking could potentially occur.
The applicant has indicated that the self -serve wash is to accommodate recreational vehicles. It
appears likely that a recreational vehicle waiting to occupy the southerly self - service stall may
block access to the quick lube stacking area.
While the applicant is encouraged to address the aforementioned concerns, it is acknowledged
that such circulation issues are internal to the site and constitute more of an inconvenience to site
patrons than a threat to public safety.
•
•
•
Benkler Carwash
Page 3 of 11
Lot Size and Setbacks. The lot and building performance standards for properties within the LI
District are listed below.
As shown above, all applicable lot and building performance standards have been satisfied.
Architecture/Building Materials. According to the Ordinance, the architectural appearance of
the building may not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or areas as to cause impairment in
property values or constitute a blighting influence.
As shown on the submitted building elevations, the building is to be finished in a combination of
colored rock face block, face brick and stucco. Such materials are consistent with the building
material requirements of the Ordinance. While the elevation indicates that the building is to be
finished in two varied colors of rock face block, specific building colors have not been indicated.
As a condition of site and building plan approval, building colors should be specified.
Although the proposed building materials satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance, some
concern exists in regard to the presentation of the building to Lake Drive. As proposed, the
eastern facade of the building will consist of ten garage doors. To draw attention away from the
garage doors, the applicant has proposed landscaped medians in the front of the building. Aside
from "softening" the appearance of the building to Lake Drive passersby, the landscape medians
also serve to channel traffic throughout the site.
Required
Proposed
Lot size minimum
1 acre
1.6 acres
Lot width minimum
150 feet
273 feet
Setbacks — building
Lake Drive
side lot line
rear lot line
Setbacks - parking
Lake Drive
side lot line
rear lot line
50 feet
10 feet
15 feet
15 feet
5 feet
5 feet
52 feet
26 feet
68 feet
15 feet
10 feet
15 feet
Building height
45 feet
18 feet
Green space
10 percent
29 percent
As shown above, all applicable lot and building performance standards have been satisfied.
Architecture/Building Materials. According to the Ordinance, the architectural appearance of
the building may not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or areas as to cause impairment in
property values or constitute a blighting influence.
As shown on the submitted building elevations, the building is to be finished in a combination of
colored rock face block, face brick and stucco. Such materials are consistent with the building
material requirements of the Ordinance. While the elevation indicates that the building is to be
finished in two varied colors of rock face block, specific building colors have not been indicated.
As a condition of site and building plan approval, building colors should be specified.
Although the proposed building materials satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance, some
concern exists in regard to the presentation of the building to Lake Drive. As proposed, the
eastern facade of the building will consist of ten garage doors. To draw attention away from the
garage doors, the applicant has proposed landscaped medians in the front of the building. Aside
from "softening" the appearance of the building to Lake Drive passersby, the landscape medians
also serve to channel traffic throughout the site.
•
•
Benkler Carwash
Page 4 of 11
Off- street Parking.
The standards for calculating the off - street parking requirements for the proposed uses are
outlined in Section 3, Subdivision 5 of the City Code.
Use
Ratio
Requirement
Full Service
Carwash
Spaces equal to five times the capacity of
the operation plus one space for each
employee (capacity of 6 vehicles with 6
employees *)
36
Self Service
Carwash
Spaces equal to five times the capacity of
the operation plus one space for each
employee (capacity of 2 vehicles with no
employees *)
10
Oil/lube facility
2 spaces per service bay
4
Total
50
* Per information provided by the applicant
The Ordinance does not indicate whether or not stacking spaces may be counted toward fulfilling
this requirement. While the need for drying and employee stalls is obvious, it is believed that
excluding stacking space from the off - street parking requirement for the carwash would result in
an excessive off - street parking supply. Therefore, stacking spaces are considered acceptable off -
street parking spaces.
Including exterior stacking spaces, a total of 56 spaces are provided on site, exceeding that
required by Ordinance.
The site plan illustrates one handicap parking stall. To satisfy applicable State requirements, one
additional handicap stall should be provided.
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.
In regard to vehicular stacking space, the Ordinance states that stacking space associated with
carwashes should accommodate the number of vehicles that can be washed during a maximum
thirty - minute period and shall be subject to comment by the City Engineer.
According to the applicant, it is anticipated that the full service carwash can accommodate 30
vehicles in a half hour period. As shown on the submitted site plan, four stacking lanes have
been provided for the full serve carwash accommodating a total of 30 vehicles.
•
•
Benkler Carwash
Page 5 of 11
Landscaping. As shown on the landscape plan, a variety of trees are proposed on site.
Specifically, mixtures of Swamp White Oak, Austrian Pine and River Birch trees have been
proposed along Lake Drive. Additionally, shrub plantings have been proposed within the two
medians (within the interior of the site) and clump grass has been proposed at the northwest
comer of the building.
Two concerns exist in regard to the landscape plan. As noted in the attached Environmental
Board comments, concern exists in regard to the number of plantings provided on site. The
Board has specifically recommended that additional trees be provided.
A second concern is the placement of trees within the "rainwater garden" in the southeastern area
of the property and their ability to survive. As a condition of site and building plan approval, the
tree plantings proposed within the "rainwater garden" should be relocated.
Tree Preservation. The tree preservation plan has been superimposed on the landscape plan.
The plan however, does not specify the types and sizes of trees to be saved and removed. As a
condition of site and building plan approval, the tree preservation plan should be modified to
indicate all significant trees on site and those to be saved.
Curbing and Striping. As a condition of site and building plan approval, all off - street parking
areas and associated drive lanes should be provided a continuous concrete curb. This includes
the planting medians on the east side of the building where such curbing will both define the
drive lanes and serve to protect the vegetation within such medians.
Aside from the striping of off - street parking stalls (a standard ordinance requirement), it is
recommended that the one -way bypass lane around the perimeter of the building be striped and
thereby segregated from adjacent stacking lanes.
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.
The submitted site plan does not illustrate a trash enclosure. If trash is to be stored outdoors, the
location of the enclosure should be illustrated on the site plan.
Green Space. Within LI districts, a minimum green area of 10 percent of the lot area is
required. The amount of impervious surface coverage on the site has not been specified. As a
condition of site and building plan approval, the applicant should demonstrate compliance with
the minimum green area requirement.
•
•
Benkler Carwash
Page 6 of 11
Signage. The site plan illustrates a freestanding sign in the northeast corner of the site within the
"rainwater garden ". The acceptability of the sign placement (within the "rainwater garden ")
should be subject to comment by the City Engineer.
Details regarding site signage have yet to be submitted. As a condition of site and building plan
approval, all site signage must comply with the applicable requirement s of the Sign Code.
As previously indicated, the applicant is proposing freestanding directional signage to identify
desired traffic movements on the site. In addition to such freestanding signage, it is
recommended that pavement directional signage also be provided to ensure proper site
circulation.
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.
According to the plan, freestanding shoebox style fixtures have been proposed within parking
areas while wall mounted fixtures have been proposed on the north, south and east sides of the
building.
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. More specifically, low- impact,
downward - focused, low spill, low intensity fixtures should be used.
While the shoebox style fixtures meet this requirement, the source of the light from the wall -
mounted fixtures will be visible from adjacent properties. As a condition of site and building
plan approval, the wall - mounted fixtures should be changed such that the source of the light will
not be visible from adjacent properties.
Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of
site and building plan 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.
One noteworthy concern related to drainage involves the handling of wastewater from the self -
serve carwash. Of particular concern is the potential "dragging" of water toward the site's egress
point (on Lake Drive) in the winter months and the potential for the creation of an ice slick. As a
condition of site and building plan approval, the issue should be addressed to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
•
•
Benkler Carwash
Page 7 of 11
As a condition of site and building plan approval, the grading and drainage related modifications
and comments as set forth in the TKDA letter dated 11/5/02 should to be incorporated into the
plans.
CEPTED Review. The primary issues of the CEPTED review regard traffic flow through the
development. The development has been redesigned to address these issues.
Environmental Issues. The Environmental Board reviewed the request at their October 30,
2002 meeting and recommended approval. Their comments are attached to this report.
To be noted is that the Board's recommendations related to lighting and landscaping have been
included as conditions of site and building plan/conditional use permit approval.
Rice Creek Watershed District Review. The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has
determined that the proposed development will not require a Watershed District Permit as the
impervious surface coverage on the property does not exceed one acre.
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
a carwash within an I -1, Light Industrial zoning District (both drive - through and self - service
carwashes are listed as conditional uses).
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:
1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City.
Comment: The proposed use is 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 industrial use of the site. Within
the applicable LI, Light Industrial zoning district, carwashes are considered a
•
Benkler Carwash
Page 8 of 11
conditional use. 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 material requirements of the
Ordinance and therefore will not negatively affect the essential character of the
area. The proposed building is in fact anticipated to improve the appearance 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.
Comment: The proposed use of the property is not expected to create any
excessive externalities that would be abnormal to the character of the area.
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.
•
•
•
Benkler Carwash
Page 9 of 11
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 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, our office recommends approval of the Site and
Building Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a full service carwash, a
self - service carwash and a quick lube facility (within a single structure) upon a 1.6 acre site
located west of Lake Drive between I -35W and Elm Street subject to the following conditions:
1. The two lots, which comprise the subject property, be legally combined.
2. The acceptability of the proposed curb cut location and width as well as the need for
associated roadway improvements (i.e. turn lanes) be subject to comment and
recommendation by the City Engineer and the Anoka County Highway Department.
3. Building colors be specified.
4. One additional handicap parking stall (totaling three spaces) be provided to satisfy
applicable State requirements.
5. Additional trees be provided on -site as recommended by the Environmental Board.
6. Tree plantings proposed within the "rainwater garden" be relocated. Revised plans
depicting such change shall be provided prior to City Council consideration of the
application.
•
•
Benkler Carwash
Page 10 of 11
7. The tree preservation plan be modified to indicate all significant trees on site and
those to be saved. Revised plans depicting such change shall be provided prior to
City Council consideration of the application.
8. All off - street parking areas and associated drive lanes (including the planting medians
on the east side of the building) be provided a continuous concrete curb.
9. The one -way bypass lane around the perimeter of the building be striped and thereby
segregated from adjacent stacking lanes.
10. If trash is to be stored outdoors, the location of the enclosure be illustrated on the site
plan. Revised plans depicting such change shall be provided prior to City Council
consideration of the application. 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.
11. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation regarding the proposed
sign placement within the "rainwater garden ".
12. All site signage comply with the applicable requirements of the Sign Code.
13. Pavement directional signage be provided to ensure proper site circulation.
14. The wall mounted light fixtures be changed such that the source of the light is hooded
and controlled so as not to illuminate adjacent properties or public rights -of -way.
Specifically, low- impact, downward - focused, low- spill, low - intensity fixtures shall be
used. Revised plans depicting such change shall be provided prior to City Council
consideration of the application.
15. The conditions of the TKDA letter (dated 11/5/02) related to grading, drainage and
utilities are satisfied. The easement issues must be resolved prior to City Council
approval of the application.
16. 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 an operation and maintenance agreement.
•
ATTACHMENTS
1. Preliminary Site Plan
2. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan
3. Utility Plan
4. Landscape/Tree Preservation Plan
5. Floor Plan
6. Building Elevations
7. TKDA Comments
8. Environmental Board Comments
•
•
Benkler Carwash
Page 11 of 11
•TKDA
•
TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS
November 5, 2002
Mr. Jim Studenski, P.E.
City of Lino Lakes Engineer
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014
Re: Ray Benkler Car Wash
Commercial/Development Engineering Review
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
TKDA Commission No. 12475 -002
Dear Mr. Studenski:
The following engineering review is based on these documents:
1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA
444 CEDAR STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 -2140
PHONE: 651 /292 -4400 FAX: 651 /292.0093
• Preliminary Site and Building Concept for Ray Benkler from Raymond R. Raffel, Architect. Dated
October 7, 2002, but unsigned.
• Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan for Carwash Site - Ray Benkler, as submitted by Glenn
Rehbein Companies and W.A.T. McCully, P.E. (3 plan sheets and dated
October 11, 2002).
• Stormwater calculations (HydroCAD) by Glenn Rehbein Companies entitled Ray - 2nd Revised
Carwash Site (12 pages).
• Previous Ray Benider Car Wash Site engineering review comments from City Engineer and dated
October 9, 2002.
• "A Geotechnical Evaluation Report" for Benider Carwash by Braun Intertec Corp. (Darin E. Hyatt,
P.E.) and dated May, 8, 2002.
Engineering Review Comments:
A. Grading Plan:
1. Show existing topography around property perimeter to a fifty (50) width from property
line(s).
2. Identify area to west of development site as an existing stormwater pond, including
ownership.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Mr. Jim Studenski, P.E.
411 City of Lino Lakes
November 5, 2002
Page 2
3. Show proposed easements for drainage purposes. Show drainage and utility easements
parallel and along the proposed property lines.
4. The proposed infiltration swale along the northerly development property line is shown
with a 2% slope but computes to only a 1.6% slope between the rainwater garden and the
west infiltration basin. Correct on plans and in stormwater calculations.
5. Correct and revise parking stall grades as water appears to be trapped in the northerly
stall of six (6) stalls on the east of the site and south of access road from Lake Drive.
6. Recommend that when on -site or imported soils are used to fill low areas that they must
be a minimum "SCS - Soil Group B" material.
7. All development site concrete curb and gutter is to be Mn/DOT B618. For the proposed
"flat" areas, it is recommended that a pattern be established to maintain the back of the
curb to the maximum extent possible. This will be a better guide to vehicle drivers and
will protect the adjacent stormwater system from damage. The pattern should consist of a
three (3) foot opening with one (1) foot tapers along areas designated for "flat" curb, as
shown on the plans.
8. Provide to the City a copy of the Anoka County Highway Department permit (approval)
for driveway access requirements prior to construction start-up.
B. Watermain:
This extension and service would require plans and specifications that follow City standards for
utility construction in public rights -of -way. It would also require Anoka County, Lino Lakes, and
Minnesota Department of Health permits.
C. Sanitary Sewer:
In general, the proposed sanitary sewer alignment from 4th Avenue to the Development site is
acceptable with the following comments:
1. Provide the City with a permanent 20' wide easement that is parallel to the proposed
sanitary line. Also, grading along the easement that provides future maintenance access.
2. A sanitary manhole will be needed at the junction of the N -S 8" sanitary pipe and the 6"
sanitary service pipe to the building. Also, check with the City regarding the size and
material of the service pipe to the building as well as clean-out or other manhole
requirements.
•
Mr. Jim Studenski, P.E.
S City of Lino Lakes
November 5, 2002
Page 3
•
3. There are concerns regarding wetlands possibly crossing the sanitary sewer alignment. If
there are wetlands that will need to be crossed, then these areas should be identified in
plan and specification format including solutions for addressing any wetlands crossing
issues. Generally, crossing a wetland with a sanitary sewer pipe is discouraged.
4. Since the 8" sanitary sewer line will be owned and maintained by the City, plans and
specifications following City standards for utility construction in public rights -of -ways
and/or easements. This work will require a permit (approval) from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency for sanitary sewer extensions.
D. Erosion Control:
1. Label and list on the plans an erosion control schedule for the project.
2. The City reserves the authority to site - inspect and provide instruction to the Owner for
the installation, maintenance, repair and removal of all erosion control devices. This is
regardless of whether it has been shown on the plans or not, if it is deemed to be in the
best interests of the City. Owner to provide unlimited site inspection access to designated
City Staff until such time as erosion control devices are no longer deemed necessary by
City forces.
3. Owner's civil engineer to provide design for the type and depth of the growing medium
material to be placed at the labeled infiltration basins, infiltration swale and other
sod/seed areas throughout the development site:
E. Storm Sewer System:
1. Storm calculations (Ray - 2nd Revised Carwash Site and dated October 10, 2002):
• Page 3 under Subcatchment 3S, change Curve Number (CN) for pervious parking
area from 10 to 49.
• Page 5, revise calculations for Reach1R: NSWALE as outlet invert cannot be
896.4 as this is lower than any elevation throughout the storm system.
• Page 7 under Pond 3P, West Infiltration Area and Routing #4: The modeling says
that a "27" Horiz Orifice/Grate" is being used to convey stormwater to the
existing pond along the westerly property line. From the information shown on
Plan Sheet 1, an 8" PVC pipe would be the controlling factor. Please modify to
fit the plan sheet or provide an explanation for how this component works.
2. Contours shown along westerly property line do not show enough detail and would fall
into the adjacent private property. If as Plan Sheet 1 indicates, an 897 contour (not
shown) would be needed on private property in order to construct to the 897.75 top of
Mr. Jim Studenski, P.E.
• City of Lino Lakes
November 5, 2002
Page 4
•
•
berm. If this is the case, then easement documents need to be submitted to the City. Also,
rip -rap and an 8" PVC. storm outlet pipe along the westerly property line are shown on
property that is not on the development site. This would require an easement to be
submitted to the City.
3. MH with R -4342 casting and 8" PVC outlet located along the westerly development
property line. The 8" PVC is recommended to be changed to a 15" RCP with fixed end
section and set at the normal water elevation of 895.7 (instead of 895.00 shown on the
plans). That is, the outlet structure and pipe are recommended to be re- designed.
4. Provide stormwater calculations for the 2 -year design rainfall event, the 10 -year design
rainfall event and the 100 -year (revised) designed rainfall event.
5. Determine if 4" or 6" perforated draintile (or both) will be used on the project. Either
correct the plans and/or re- compute the stormwater runoff /routing calculations to match
the sizing.
6. Provide the City Engineer with literature and technical data describing the proposed "4-
inch Netlon Advanced turf' and "Netpave 50 backfilled with 3/8" clear- washed dresser
trap bit. admix rock" for review. There are concerns about permeability and bituminous
component of the Netpave regarding compaction over time.
7. Prior to construction commencement, provide the City Engineer with a completed copy
of the MPCA -NPDES permit..
8. Regarding separation between groundwater elevation and the mostly westerly infiltration
basin base or finish elevation. Groundwater elevations have been established by two (2)
soil borings as described by a Braun Intertec Report (May 8, 2002). The groundwater
elevations were 890.5 and 892.5. These groundwater elevations provide greater than the
three (3) foot separation from all of the development site proposed basins or swales base
elevations.
It is also recommended that nearby private water supply wells be located for adjacent
properties to determine the proximity of the water wells to the stormwater system. The
location of the adjacent private wells along with well log information needs to be
provided to the City Engineer for his review.
9. Pretreatment features, such as basin slope geometry, ponding water depths and detention
time, length/width for ponds, swale slope and overflow issues have been addressed on the
revised plans. It is recommended that these plan items be accepted as shown.
Mr. Jim Studenski, P.E.
City of Lino Lakes
November 5, 2002
Page 5
10. Provide Construction Sequencing and Maintenance Plan for review and consequent
approval. It is recommended that these items be provided to the City Engineer for review
prior to plan approval.
In specific, it is recommended as part of the Maintenance Plan that the Owner be required
to file yearly reports to the City describing the working condition of the stormwater
system by a qualified person capable of recommending corrective measures as they
become apparent. It should be expected that the rainwater gardens would need removal
and replacement for plugging on an average of three (3) years.
F. Provide preliminary plat for review and approval that includes all the easements for drainage and
utilities.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 651/726 -7925.
Sincerely,
kI\ /‘ \tJ.-(,
Patrick M. Windier, P.E.
Project Engineer
PMW:art
r
•
1
Environmental
Memo
To: Jeff Smyser
From: Marty Asleson
CC: Michael Grochala
Date: November 4, 2002
Re: Recommendations /Environmental Board/October 30, 2002/Car Wash
The Environmental Board recommended the approval of the Proposed Lake Drive
Carwash with the following stipulations:
• That the soil boring documents submitted to the Environmental Board be
analyzed by our City Engineer to determine if the seasonally high water
elevations are at least 3 feet from the bottom of the designed infiltration ponds.
The Environmental Board recommended that an additional boring be drilled at the
Westem most infiltration pond to ensure that this 3 foot separation will exist. This
additional boring is requested at the discretion of the City Engineer.
• That the lighting plan be changed to reflect our City standard for low- impact,
downward - focused, low- spill, low- intensity fixtures.
• That the project applicant submit a sequence plan and Best Management
Practices Plan. Best management should include a plan for periodic sweeping of
the parking areas, trash and litter pick -up, proper storage of any materials that
may spill into the environment, and a plan to maintain the pervious surfaces in the
design. The Environmental Board requested that no pesticides be used on the
pervious surfaces.
• That the developer would change landscape species in the proposed plan, as
requested by the Environmental Board and provide additional trees in the
landscape.
• Page 1
11i_ir__
MWM
,,:; ..,
Aer1 SPIMRNYIIMF2NlMiy/Nyq�H
yy A1r1�11tlif }�AICW�r;
•
•
GF2AD 1 \G FLAN
1
so
GRAPHIC SCALE
(IBI MET )
1 BneR - 9:0 IL
0.5CY CIJI RIPRAP CY am
O 6" ADS N12 RIPRAP
PERFORATED PIPE CHECK DAM
NO GRADING TO
BE DONE OFF STE ,� 1
SALVAGE AND 0
REPLACE RIPR - C q
0;
1405F,4ETLON YIX
EROS$ON CONTROL
2002
900 - - ---
4CY CLII RIPRAP �y
OVERFLOW /CHECK
2/4' FLAT CURB/ DAM - /I
CIJI' RIRRAP."' -;
V7
v a V 0AP(WATER+
a 7 VWWI 7 77 7
7 7 7 VV 6
1.1111•8111111101110111.11111
sr
0 vIPIP_
; a Pc E
/'
!CY ELO RIPRAP
�gL OVEkFtow /cHECK
DAM
.691.E •:r;
CASING R -4342
RI►t 697.70
NY.695.90
6" PVC 695,00 (
802.06
zr'CL
1
i
'CL
GRADING NOTES AND SEQUENCING
SILT FENCE TO BE INSTALLED DOWNHILL FROM
ANY GRADING ACTIVITY
SOME TREES AND DEAD FALL ARE TO BE
CLEARED
BEGIN STRIPPING TOPSOIL IN RIGHT OF WAY
SITEWORK SHALL BEGIN ONCE SILT FENCE IS
INSTALLED
CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN ROCK CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE OFF LAKE DRIVE
SILT FENCE TO BE MAINTAINED DURING GRADING
SEED AND MULCH DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN TWO
WEEKS OF FINAL DISTURBANCE
SEED MIXTURE SHALL BE MNDOT SPEC 3876, AT
A RATE OF 35 PLS Lbs /ACRE OR MNDOT SPEC.
500 AT A RATE OF 50 PLS Lbs /ACRE
MULCH RATE SHALL BE TWO TONS PER ACRE
MIN. BSMT. OR FLOOR ELEV. SHALL BE A MIN. OF TWO FEET
ABOVE 100 YEAR POND /LAKE ELEVATIONS
ANY RIPRAP SHALL BE CLASS 11
CONTACT WILLIAM MCCULLY AT GLENN REHBEIN
COMPANIES AT (763) 784 -0657
STRIP PERVIOUS PARKING AREA AND FILL WITH WASHED
SAND 2' BELOW FINISHED GRADES
OVERSIZE WASHED SAND AREAS AT 1:1
PREVENT COMPACTION OF PERVIOUS AREA
DRAINTILE UNDER BITUMINOUS TO BE COVERED WITH
2" INSULATION, 4' WIDE
•••NO GRADING TO BE DONE OFF SITE
LEGEND
SILTFENCE
PERVIOUS PARKING
SF
SF
RAINWATER GARDEN 7
SF
,..-----r 7 7 7 7 V'`' 7 c 7 V 7 c a
v 7 07 07777.77'? 7 .. 7 .7
vC 0 7 0 7 7 7 7 7 a a. a. 7 777 - f
t+sto-
C INFILTRATION BASIN �- - ' • • • - - - • • -- i
•
. • c
NETLON AREAS
PA M NT CTION
1.5 ":ITWEA
1.5" BIT. BASE
6" CL V RECYCLED
'Cr
Oq'NRF o *j -.1P
// .4C
02.04 1,4? ^!1`
•�V Q
4~T
/1'
02.02 /
CL f '
`CL
MANTNN ROC( DORMICE IF TRACKING BEONS
ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
(HEREBY EER1WY THAT THIS
PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS
PREPARED OT YE OR UNDER
YY DIRECT SUPERM90N AND
THAT I MI A OULY REQS1ERED
PROFE5S91014IL ENGINEER
UNDER THE LANS OF THE
STATE OF YNIESOTA
W.A.T. lAcCOLLY
pATE: RFC. No.2j 12 %
B
iii
11/l7TURF DISTALLATlON AT
tNLRG CY ReON O .1 rs N0 b17DNo�rs�0
MY IffN.S. l" 0114Y(a or MOM MOO NO ISM
Nr" - a ,e,s tort aaa■
.Nlt 10!/1100. s ac
01110117.171•I AL >s NIY
10 111t 1111011 M
RN .RCS ION P1Nr
. . f rRr 17IFIV OI Rn
LR.w""'Gri.Ni1pO"`imlK 1°b`"{.ma'u"'o�i'iiOali"J`Lft` 'b.'°"`�
Z W
1
DRL
O D
DATE
08/12/2002
'ERnCA1 SCALE HOW,
1' : 20
.108 NO.
02504
BOO( PACE
SHEET
\or 3 slicers/
SITE AND UTILITY PLAN
60' 8l PVC SDR 35 0.5%
CONNEdT TO
EIOSTINc OUTSIDE OR
INSIDE ()ROP
CORE 11V:889.0
SSMH1
RIM:901.0
INV: 889.40
INV: 889.30
7
Art TA
EX-1413'3
TC 90P.0
INV:88 .97
8" rePt B 0 889
/,9 I
fro
901.) -'F
UTILITY NOTES
•
.rs
;‘5
5514112
RIM: 901.0 /
INV:890.05
INV:1389,95 '
400' 8"
/
PVC SDR 35 0.5%
WATERMAIN SERVICE CONNECTION TO BE MADE
. FROM EXTENSION OF 12" TRUNK MAIN
IF REQUIRED DOMESTIC AND FIRE -FLOW SHALL BE SPLIT
IN THE BUILDING
PROPOSED 12" WATERMAIN EXTENSION WAS PROPOSED TO BE
ON THE EAST SIDE OF LAKE DRIVE
CITY TO DETERMINE IF 12" DIP WATERMAIN NEEDS TO
MOVE TO WEST SIDE OF LAKE DRIVE
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE SHALL BE EXTENDED FROM
MAINLINE ON WEST PROPERTY LINE
NO SEWER SERVICE CURRENTLY EXISTS FROM THE WEST
SANITARY SEWER TO BE EXTENDED FROM 4TH AVENUE AND
TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE
PLAN AND PROFILE CONSTRUCTION DRAWING SHALL BE
SUBMITTED AFTER ALIGNMENT APPROVAL
NO TREES TO BE PLANTED OVER UTILITY LINES OR IN
ANTICIPATED EXPANDED ROW
PROVIDE 2" INSULATION, 4' WIDE OVER /(" DRAINTILE
WHERE IT IS UNDER BITUMINOUS 8"
SITE NOTES
TOTAL SITE AREA:1.56AC
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS:0.98AC /42,819 SF OR 63.1%
TOTAL PARKING SPACES:16
FLAT CURB USED WHERE SHOWN TO
CONVEY WATER TO RAINWATER GARDENS
AND INFILTRATION BASINS AND SWALES
RETAINING WALL TO BE NO TALLER THAN
FOUR FEET
RETAINING WALL GREATER THAN 3.5 FEET
SHALL HAVE METAL BANISTER
NETLON NETPAVE 50 USED TO CREATE PERVIOUS
PARKING SPACES AND DRIVE LANES
LEGEND
PERVIOUS PARKING
5c
, v c v7:oc7c voocv.,,
RAINWATER GARDEN i G^ G' G 7 c 7 7 C7 ^. G^ G v c
INFILTRATION BASIN
NETLON AREAS
0
726
90
O
GRAPHIC SCALE
N
•
IN
.[rrrw .NL cm.)
( se F T)
1 Web - 30 It
AMON IULMY
00 r
WYNN INrc
Nal
1.5' BIT. YEAR
1.5' BIT. BASE
6" CLV RECYCLED
al' STEP
4' NETLON ADVANCED TURF
S5A1H4
RIM: 901
IN V. 892.63
0.2' LOVER
6' TESTED SAND
z• PEA GRAVEL
FLAT 24' CURB
SLOPED
ENDS TRAN9110N
TO 8612 CURB
60- A4 PERF. ADS 1112
NETLON AREAS
CURB TO CURB DETAIL
MAY BE LANDSCAPED / \or
GRANULAR NSITU MATERIAL
6 /
R\ � 1 \ 7444k P 1k ,1
_� \ q a v:ooc 1
\ -1`' °sue/
\
/
LS at EM
IS OM IAEE
C Qv MCTWD
32
2,g
IMAM 50 /60611110
MI 3/4' DEAR- 1M51FD
136593 TRAP -BT. /MX
ROC
IE1O11 11100 INTO
TIE
10, 7' OF SAM
we as
9021ME TO IC
AT 10RCY OF
STRPP.IC tA1ER
RAT 2C CPS
SLOPDO
005 104419301
10161: OM
A=11=11=11ll
=11 = II =1i =D
n n -n -il:
:::::::: '11=11=11=F =11=11=-11' ^ I1 =11-
.. ... ...- .,._ _ - .. � -... .. -•. 171 -11 =.
11- 11= `V- Ta11-n ll= 1I- 'ffnali :=1: ll=` 2Tias- lr=`Ir`LII= `u- 1r-1r` r'' i = il= n= n -uii -u
11= n.7- -11 =11= 11=11 -11 , 11- 11-. i1= 11= II- 11- 11= 11= 11= IR- 11= 11= 11= 11= 11- II -11= 11_11._1.
t•- Ir -,Y- „�
NOTE: I ISTML ORMN111
AS SAN) 6 16TA11ID
N
F. A051112
1ASIED CONCRETE
05 SPOR19ER 11PE
5440
NETPAVE AREAS
CURB TO CURB DETAIL
DUMRMt 11110 NAW UAL
NAM 5ATO EDGES TO
I DOMED AT A 1:1
SLOPE
(REVISIONS B\
PER CITY 9 -9 -02
DRL
PER CRY 10 -10 -02
WATM
1
(CREW CERTIFY THAT TINS
PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER
MY 0l CT Sl1PERNSION ANO
THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED
PROFESS/0N& ENGINEER
UPWER THE LANS OF THE
STATE OF Im11ES0TA
YLA.T. McCULLY
$40.23L381 /
Q W
fy
CL d
Q
>- J O
=Z
V) 2
w
D
>--z
W � �
V
ORL
CHECKED
WATM
DATE
08/12/2002
VERTIC6L SCJALE HORIZ.
: 30'
.100 MO.
02504
BOOK
PACE
SHEET
2
3
SHEETS)
3
OF 3 5IEETS
4
LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
TRIES
KEY
Scientific Name
Cotranon name
Hebtat•
Comments
AG
Antelesd'd inimilflora
'Annum Brie' --=
Amsam Brilliance
Swacebary
MD
Cheep form
AR
Am' rabrae.'Notduwooda'
Ikrthwooda Red l.4ple
M
Mo.. tolerant
BN
Sa da Mean
Ri•erBurb
MD
Champ f
CC
C.MMa use- A&1fr.r. Men.
Thanker Hawthorn
MD
Drought tenant
CO
Cakesoa4.ddi,
Heckhary
14D
Toksm wet sites
MP
Maher 'Pr.iucfre'
PakdueFlowakg Crabap*k
M
Red 2.5-3' nabtomirg
MS
Makes'Smyian'
Sugar Tye. Flowering
C
M
Pik 2- 3'apblmig
PGS
Now lemma donate
Beek fide Spruce
MET
Red3'
PN
Pietas tetra
Austrian Pine
MD
S•ktolerant
PR
Phase miaow
Norway or Red Pint
MD
Red 23- 3'ereshbaaing
PT
PopdaaMwtddca
Qukig Aspen
MD
Plat i.gmnpig
QB
Damn bicolor
Sweep White Oak
MD
Camped
SRI
Syrimea nw/arlda'Ivory Silk'
Renew Tree Lilac
M
10-12'
SHRUBS
Ke9
Scientific Name
Crememume
Habitat
Commits
AGC
:amain pd '
Compact Amer Maple
MD
MW
CS
Conner memo lane
las. Dogwood
MW
Mo.. tolerant
DL
DieMlles keep&
Dwarf Bash Honeysuckle
DM
Draught tolerant
IBC
hNpener 'Bhr Chip'
Eke chip Juniper
MD
Gaepie
PPG
Picea ping.. 'Globose
DwnfBbn Sprout
MD
Toksm wet sites
RC
Ram 'Champlain'
Chempkio Shrub Rom
M
Red 2.5-3' nabtomirg
RC
Rasa 'Carefree Wonder
Carefree Weeder Sbrab Rose
M
Pik 2- 3'apblmig
RGV
Rom 'George V.eeoorer
George Vanm.er Shrub Rose
M
Red3'
RH
Rosa 'Hairy Hudson'
Huy Hod. Shrub Rase
M
White 3'
RICH
Rasa 'Hope for Han.nt
Hope for Humanity Shrub
Rose
M
Red 23- 3'ereshbaaing
RW
Rosa 'Maim; Perko
Winnipeg Pula Shrub Rue
M
Rod 2-2_5 exmbkamiog
SG
Sleeve 'Goldmound'
Gokhaormd Spina
DM
Camped
SH
Syrb.ga z liyaeleitheiflone
'Poc.hoema'
Pedant= Like
M
10-12'
SP
Syringepvmlo 'Dins Kim'
Mm Kim Lilac
M
6-1'
PERENNIALS AND PRAIRIE PLANTS (PORES)
KEY
Sciatific Name
Cameron narae
Habitat
Size
Comments
AD
Aaciepius hcmwata
Stump lfilkwead
MW
23-
Widely adaptable
CV
CorsoprisvertldVam 'Zagreb'
Zagreb Caeops's
MD
01
Tolerate deoogk
EM
apemen. no elate
Jan Pye Weed
MW
23"
EP
&Mom e a pima*
Pope Cone Flower
MD
4'
Toksm wet sites
HPM
Hanerun.Str'Pardon Me' or 'Baja'
Daylily 'Pardon Me'
M
MI
Deep Rod
HSD
He erocallis'Stella de Om' or
'Ropy Rattans'
Sk la de OroD.ylily
M
01
Golden yeller err light
yeller
IS
lift stheks 'Raffled Velvet'
Reeled Vela Sberen hie
M
01
ry
per renhnler
Blue FOg Tub
MW
4"
MF
Mwwdaftradose
Wild Beaune
MWD
25"
NW
Motto XAmend 'Walkers Low'
welter's Low Catmint
MD
01
Toler.te drought
RG
Rrameckia'Oddes a'
Oedema Studbooks. or
Bon mEyed Satan
MD
4'
GRASSES
KEY
Scientific Nme
Comwas.°
Habitat
Sire
Comment
CA
Cak.nagroatlr z axSJkra/Cori Foerster'
Feather Reed Gar
M
4'
Widely adaptable
SH
Sporoboh& ?murals*,
Pa cie Dropeeed
M
4'
SN
Sargbasmo. em.
Inch= Gnu
M
4"
SP
Spare. pece.m
Prairie Cadgrb.
MW
23"
Toksm wet sites
33
Sd anchyriom scope/.s
Little Bhrnkm
MD
4-
•0- Plant safes • dry . ite, M - Masi -pleat prefers asite that is moderately, be not areessirely moat. W Plan pew • moan ketion std
will tolerate shat periods of.ta>ubng water or moderately keg periods of constantly mom sal msd tioo.
REQUIREMENTS FOR TREES, SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, AND PRAIRIE PLANTS:
• All deciduous nee are to be 2" in diameter or greeter (termed at 6" from grand) and me systems hall and Mewed (B&B) and supported o.
a sturdy wee basket that holds the mot 1&B i a fun, rgid condition (See pp. 5-6, item 13.1 through 1.4 of AAN Standards for Nursery Stock).
• All rape. (coniferous)hem are to bey'6' in height and tree dug and psoolsad using B&B method with Wady wire basket wand root
5.11. Mfiimm root ball diameter shall be the same as those specified for deciduous trees (nem 13.1 through 1.4 and pp 14.15, iron 32.1)
Minimum dimmer ball is 20- fe • 5' eonata, 22" minimum for . 6' treA
• Al shako, evergreen and deciduous, are to be of 45 gallon omtamer aim (u 83 or 05 pot size)
• All paemiak and prairie plants are to be in contain= no m.Ber than what is specified in plant list. Container size specified ed in inches refer to
the diameta or width ofooaaioa or pot. A 81 size refers to a 1 gallon siaoamaimr.
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
• whin d1 tree ad dvubs with 4" of hardwood shredded bark mulch. Mulched areas .round tree bunk should be 4' in diameter.
• Mukh all perennial beds wish 2' of hardwood shredded bark ankh
• Af1er pleating and before mulching apply • granular pssanerged herbicide (such as Preen) arced all plies.
• Edge •11 beds with Black Dimmed Vinyl edging or equivalent
• Water plants thoroughly after planting. Aiwa wet down mulch thoroughly so moisture pooenate into soil below in order to activate herbicide.
REQUIREMENTS FOR SEEDING AREAS:
• btfsltradar brim shall be seeded with • Prairie Rera.« musedhdgbtIMak Wildflower sad mix. Secdiog th.D be broadcast at a4
oz/1000 SF.
• Gar areas and berms dull be seeded with • Prairie Resmatims ShortlDrf seed mu. Seeding can be broadcast at • 0316. PLS /1000 SF or
drilled at 10 Ibs PLS /ace
• Rain water gardens shall be planted with Is.oti Dogwood, Red Twig Dogwood and Pussy Willow shrub. In ad6tim Swamp Milkweed, Marsh
Mkrigold, Joe Pye Weed, Blue Flag kis, Blade Eyed Stan and Big Blue Stem Clomps will be mod A plea shall be placed every 25 square feet
S nlinwala Peden =806,1 NE rainwater g.rdea -1769 sf
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IM PCT)
1 Web - PA R
SSMH3
RIM: 898.0
INV: 892.05
INV: 892.15
LEGEND
SWAMP WHITE OAK
PINE
ails GRASS CLUMP
G ® SHRUBS AND
0 0 PERENNIALS
GENERAL LANDSCAPING NOTE$
NO IRRIGATION PLANNED
SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND BERMS WITH SPECIFIED SEED
SEED INFILTRATION BASINS WITH THE PRAIRIE RESTORATION MIX
ALL TREES TO BE BALL AND BURLAPPED
AU. TREES SHALL BE STAKED AND GUYED PER NURSERYMAN'S
STANDARDS
LANDSCAPER TO INSTALL EDGING MATERIAL AROUND SHRUBS,
FILLED MATH MULCH OR ROCK PER DEVELOPER'S CHOICE
PRESERVE AS MANY TREES ALONG NORTH, WEST AND SOUTH
PROPERTY LINES AS POSSIBLE
oi
-r
1
7.7
/RATION SWALE
w •
..
CASTING R -4342
RM :897.30
INV:895.90
8" PVC 895.00
3MH4
M:901
V: 892.63
QB
PN
PN
PN
2 —AG
BN
BN
I1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER
MY DIRECT SIIPERN510N AND
R4A3 1 AM A DULY REGISTERED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
UNDER TIE LAMS OF Tit
STATE OF MINNESOTA
LAT. M<CLLLY
b E: REG NO.I]y7! /
• DRAW14
oat
CHECKED
WATM
DATE
08t _12/2002
voiOCAL SCALE HGta2.
J08 N0.
02504
BOOK PAGE
0
•
0
z
ro
1
1 I 1 • 1
I 1 I
I.- -- --I 1 - - - --_I
r
I
air/ I t etirr_
loy.10 i 1 10'X10'
`Ta6o-4&
1►J
.
fi
w r
3t
6 =o
sae
2
X44
33
Vi
PZ
3
OIL
10?l'e GK Ttg 1-
dl A-
C 11:F-e A Cs
c4.OM.
.'0••. C.3101.11.414
1 •
..40.x .,
4-014t- RAPIPCitc•Aga•Cli...
•4001t.V. 40.1100. 44004.
oilloCZ 0
4•441.0144
balgarvir
if
• / {i1.01LA
•
ur11Hitp
14ep!.1w N.
a
tL
-awor 11xrrx "x01441LA
.t MJ� FHl ln4
wt.olc 1s
•
9
614400 p,oGiEr[ -.tii
wn+� ry .PGt.i. uup. 6
1E
t'1ai7.1. pJlyd ir4.
a! rt4'
Ids.d
to's. to'
C.p1:01.60 R.oty -Mce,
store. fSyIGM.'.G¢-oR
GIL UL $'G$FA-Ct •
.:G or4c.(QULtK 401.411.. A
_G 04910 RPC1410C4. –._
CA.0 014.146- AotoiciL =_..
Aawyrac - J.OG9FfXGi
Gl+b/Fi% Ge
—. b5t lb• .ort. A
SHEET
P3
3
AGENDA ITEM 5B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz
P & Z MEETING DATE: November 13, 2002
TOPIC: Site Plan Review for UDOR Co. for
an expansion to their existing building
ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote
•
BACKGROUND
Mr. Gordon Johnson of UDOR company is applying for a site plan review in order to
construct a second expansion onto their current facility at 500 Apollo Drive. UDOR first
constructed their 6,000 sq.ft. building in 1994. In 1999 a 2,400 sq.ft. addition was
constructed. The applicant is now asking for approval for a second addition of 3,600
square feet, to be used for cold storage /warehousing and testing.
This report is based on the following attached exhibits:
1. Existing Conditions Plan (C1-1), dated 10- 31 -02.
2. Site Plan (C2 -1), dated 10- 31 -02.
3. Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan (C3 -1), dated 10- 31 -02.
4. Utility Plan (C4 -1), dated 10- 31 -02.
5. Landscape Plan (L1-1), dated 10- 31 -02.
Os
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
UDOR Site Plan Review
November 13, 2002
ANALYSIS
Land Use Compatibility
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
Site
Industrial
Light Industrial
North
Industrial
Light Industrial
(General Business to the NE)
East
Industrial
Light Industrial
South
35W
35W
West
Industrial
Light Industrial
Site Description
UDOR is located at 500 Apollo Drive, with the rear of the property abutting the 35W
interstate highway. The proposed addition site is immediately adjacent (south) of the
1999 addition. There is a ponding area to the southwest of the proposed addition site.
Access to the addition is to be completely internal; there are no docking bays, parking, or
sidewalks proposed to access the addition.
Setbacks
Setback
Required
Proposed
Front — from Apollo Drive
50 feet
+ 50 feet
Side
10 feet
+ 10 feet
Rear — from 35W
50 feet
+ 50 feet
Building Issues
The applicant has submitted no full -view elevation plans. The proposed addition is to be
constructed of rock faced block to match the existing building in terms of construction
material and height.
Since the addition site is at the rear of the lot, with a ponding area to the south of the site
and only approximately 15 feet on the north side of the site, access for construction
purposes will be via the property to the north, with which the applicant has an acquired
an access agreement.
•
Planning & Zoning Board
UDOR Site Plan Review
November 13, 2002
Public Services
This site is served by both City water and sewer. The existing building is, and the
proposed addition will be, sprinkled and meet fire code.
Parking/Access /Traffic
UDOR is a warehouse -type facility with approximately 2,000 sq.ft. of office space.
However, parking requirements for the initial building approved in 1994 were based
solely on warehouse use and square footage (1 stall for each 2,000 sq.ft.). The parking
calculations made at that time were for 6,000 sq.ft. of warehouse and 6,000 sq.ft. of
future warehouse expansion, for a total of 12,000 sq.ft. of warehouse. Thus, 6 parking
stalls were required, with 7 stalls actually constructed. As a result, parking for the
proposed 3,600 sq.ft. addition has already been provided for. The applicant reports that
there are actually eight stalls at the site and that parking is not a problem. The applicant
further reports that there are seven employees at the company, with no additional
employees proposed.
Access to the site is via a shared access driveway off Apollo Drive, which is a County
road. As a result, plans have been forwarded to Anoka County for review.
• Lighting
There is no additional lighting proposed for the addition or site.
Landscaping
City Code allows impervious site coverage up to 90 %, and the proposed addition is
within this requirement.
Approval of the initial building in 1994 came with the following requirement:
"Following completion of the proposed expansion, plantings will be located to the
rear of the property line to provide an appealing view from I -35W."
Since this second expansion appears to use the space limits of the site, with no room for
further expansion in the future, it is now appropriate to require the landscaping be done.
As a result, the applicant has proposed planting 11 trees of various varieties (oak, maple,
spruce) in the buffer area between the proposed addition and 35W.
Additionally, there is a ponding area on the site, to the southwest of the proposed
addition. This should be protected with silt fencing during construction
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
UDOR Site Plan Review
November 13, 2002
Grading/Drainage
City Engineer Jim Studenski has reviewed the submitted plans and reports that they
generally meet City requirements. The following two outstanding issues need to be
resolved, after which final approval can be given:
1. Drainage calculations must be submitted.
2. Documentation allowing access to the construction site from the adjacent site must be
submitted.
CONCLUSION
As the proposed addition appears to meet all requirements, staff would recommend
approval, with the following conditions:
1. Drainage calculations must be submitted prior to City Council review.
2. Documentation allowing access to the construction site from the adjacent site must be
submitted.
3. Silt fencing shall be staked at the top of the ponding area, rather than on the sides, to
prevent erosion.
4. No additional lighting is to be added without review.
5. Landscaping should be completed within one year of issuance of the building permit.
OPTIONS
1. Recommend approval of the proposed Site Plan Review, with conditions.
2. Recommend denial of the proposed Site Plan Review.
3. Return to staff with direction.
RECOMMENDATION
Option #1.
\4• N
\ \R \
,4 \ 1.1i./ N.. N., • 'N. ''N
\ \ ` \.,,,,,, \ \ 1 .la. l• 5' SEL262( 1 MI
\,\ „...., ,,....- --. --- ----° \V::: - -"'
/
1; a. Weg NAFFE 9A1 "°FN
\ J\ • / '9� /..i¢ST.
r
\ 4 i( 1 ��. APOLLO
\ J 1
.\ 1
\ \ J
\ / \
J
w..
NCI
1 1
n I 1. 1 !\
\A l
1 \l l
/\ 4./ 1 i l_ 1 t \
1 1 o t 1 1 1 I
- ■..• F- ■.0
SDo•OS3e'
J90.J7
J
I0" EASEMENT
f
Lot 1
BIoCk -2.-
-
DOING
rFE 9010
\ \ \l*- \ \
_ , /
\ _.._ .7 / \ / \
/ \\ wt
• - \
` ` —� /J / /— ` -� �r..
0„...._. / / /MA
'807 % /j 1./ \
..-- --9ol / Z
—
- — /
— / m., w
/ . ;.1� — — — ,,c _ -.,f /
way =:pis �: X�F tw / — .� ., .tv �/ '.
.../... / —�
loi' J _� — .ma // 0�, / BP 7' / / DTI
B Sll'/S 4 %�i'
/// �1 t //.4,/.,, ,
/ a,"^ \ �l04 / 5,,52.
i/
\ jp::,,'<`
f
\
\ J\
\ r \
40 \ \
\
BENCHMARK
TOP NUT OF HYDRANT ON NORTH SIDE
OF APOLLO DRIVE AS SHOWN HEREON.
ELEV = 909.25 FT.
(INV= 904.16) DENOTES ELEVATIONS PER
AS -BUILT PLANS BY TKDADATED 1996
LEGEND
. CATCH BASIN
o SANITARY MANHOLE
91 GATE VALVE
HYDRANT
01 TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
...A SPOT
—AA—STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
I — WATERMAIN
—a.—* CHAIN LINK FENCE
CONCRETE CURB
CONCRETE
�`.. .. • �
CONTOUR
■
19000• =MO 1
x �
1 \
1
1 //
1 \ /y� \)
1 ,l /
/
t.
41
20
PARK
UDOR
USA
C I T Y OF
LINO LAKES
M 1 N N E S 0 1' A
SEIEN1ZION
DBMS GPM CC RAC7N0
8E MAIN 8TREEI; gym.
MIINEAPOUM
y �.wry�,yyy �. pin" o°••�iw
/.w Y W rA•�1� •r
•N,_
._
mr
ens
O
B-I
(9-2
N-1
CO�-
MT PLO
MOM PLO
MIR w1
1 booby catty that W. Olm, gsMeet. at nyat w
DM* by Pro sr maw my dreg noonlelol out ow
a IM St. .4 remelt
111Na1 1 R 111119 Uenw Ns IMP
oats
021E
IK2Sw
9- -27 -02
CITY SUBMITTAL
)0 -31 -02
PER CITY COMMENTS
BUAIITY ll1t112Om1E =Mk
DESGN BY' DRAWN BY
CHECKED BY: DA's
LOUCKS
ASSOCIATES
N AN* • CI,0 ddmmiK • Lad Saw*
Under 4eltl.edle • bylnam OW • 4ei mloo
Ilk llo t• ek ICY s=
Tapirs M � 1 md110.Amm
EXISTING CONDITIONS
94146A
CH
000
700.10012.14
SEIDACK
°MIN& tilt&DIM
PIT MID
APOLLO
S00.0216T 39a37
ICT EASEMENT
D7571MG
ADOD7ON
90.69
• .rj.'
MJ
SULAM
PROPOSED
ADDITION
FFE.•
9019
60'
Lot 1
Block 2
1
BUSINESS
552,14
BM
BRUM= 22111rA�
7
•1
VALL7
BENCHMARK
TOP NUT OF HYDRANT ON NORTH SIDE
OF APOLLO DRIVE AS SHOWN HEREON.
ELEV = 909.25 FT.
(INV=904.16) DENOTES ELEVATIONS PER
AS-BUILT PLANS BY TKDADATED 1996
LEGEND
MI CATCH BASIN
o SANITARY MANHOLE
DI GATE VALVE
.C) HYDRANT
M TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
007.0 SPOT
>— STORM SEWER
— > SANITARY SEWER
I — WATERMAIN
—K—I0 CHAIN LINK FENCE
CONCRETE CURB
jCONCRETE
CONTOUR
0 20
1.1
SCALE IN
40
FEET
d L t
76, 07
PARK
NOTES:
LOT AREA
ORIGINAL BLDG AREA
EXISTING ADDITION AREA
PROPOSED ADDITION AREA
TOTAL BUILDING AREA
EXISTING PAVED AREA
48,672 SQ. FT.
6,042 SQ. FT.
2,400 SQ. FT.
3,600 SQ. FT.
12,042 SQ. FT.
12,335 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED PAVED AREA 12,207 SQ. FT.
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 20,777 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 24,249 SQ. FT.
EXISTING PERVIOUS AREA 27,895 SQ. FT.
PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA 24,423 SQ. FT.
NOTE:
27.74%
25.08%
49.82%
50.18%
NO ADDITIONAL LIGHTING WILL BE ADDED TO THE SITE
UDO
USA
CITY OF
LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
MIN OUPTL CONTRACTP40
219 FE MAN 8114Ea, surrE r
IMNEAPOUB,114 85414
012 p.r"=19.
9.4.00 71=r00=0 ow.aw
"'goo r r0•0= rp ••• I
*a. 0001ore Woo 110 00■10 ok: be Ranh
7.14744
SHER
11122
C1-I
C1-1
CO-I
U-1
Karmic C01911721111
MI PUN
ORPTIOTO RAT
[TIM MAN
We* colify 94I 01M16291101, •••
me sr mula. 9190.109 991 PPP
2•900T. 1•11.9 Ms Pam
1191991 2 St 1.19
tlunso 2.1.0
9-27-02
PTV MUTT.
10-21-02
PET CATY COMMENTS
01721172 VANA010/XIT 1149312
02290.1 Pr
Dam Br
CMPC2997 017 DATE
LOUCKS
ASSOCIATES
Phasing • Civil Wm.* • 1.1 Saw*
- baited/me • boiromestal • kehmeriap
UN babe L. Na. amp/4 Illarla
tligire MOM-NU he (10014111
• sow IN hp iN011=1•1NEAM
SITE PLAN
ZMIECIAO.
941466
C2-1
•
• rl IS 1 1 r\
;1 1 1 T 1 (-IT
\A t t \/
1./
rl 1 1 • I• 1 r— r i
vse a ��• �_ v v
YOLS
a
+R PAC 03.9 i
F PE 90,19
APOLLO
5100'02 JA'E 390.J7
SILT FENCE"
\ \ .
O \
\ \ ,6_ 1 \%
._1$) \� ) ) %,o,
j -'v
i
�9D6-
_
COMM
WI�FOQY
Rmm DOM1
PROPOSED--
'ADDITION
F .•
903.9
60'
i
_".119A- ' ,/ — 1\ rw \
3 / / /
I ■ 902`_ // / \
1r!
X901 / /
1
\1112.,
°11 �\
tto
� f /
IIRi 1�j1A
Block 2—
B14 I/11 'i$S4
SILT FENCE –' --•-1 /� \ / /� /
5�A 5.51
4\N
\ 114
BENCHMARK
TOP NUT OF HYDRANT ON NORTH SIDE
OF APOLLO DRIVE AS SHOWN HEREON.
ELEV = 909.25 FT.
(INV= 904.16) DENOTES ELEVATIONS PER
AS –BUILT PLANS BY TKDADATED 1996
LEGEND
10 CATCH BASIN
Q SANITARY MANHOLE
DO GATE VALVE
Q HYDRANT
M TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
Me SPOT
— »— STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
— I WATERMAIN
CHAIN LINK FENCE
CONCRETE CURB
CONCRETE
�-- 902^1 CONTOUR
20 40
SCALE
FEET
\
11
ir, I I r 1 Y\ r
• L t V l
PARK
1. SET POSTS MO EXCAVATE
4$4' 192) 4 190.19E ALONG
TIE UNE OF POSH
3. ATTACH 11€ 4I1ER FABRO
10 THE THE FENCE AND
MEND 111410 11* 1EEHCIL
2. STAPLE MA MF/OND TO
THE POSTS
4. BAC10E1 AND COMPACT
THE SOT.
141e1
CONSIRUC110N OF A AT FENCE
AT FENCE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
1. INSPECTION - AT FENCES SHALL BE MSPECIED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL
AND AT LEAST DAILY 010416 PROLONGED RAINFALL MT REWIRED REPAIRS 9U11
BE MADE M*0)111 LY.
2 REPLACEEENI - FABRIC 94A.1 BE REPLACED PROMPTLY 'WHEN IT DECOMPOSES CR
BECOLES MEFFEC11W BEFORE THE BARRIER IS NO LWICE6 FECESSARY.
3. SEDIMENT REMOVAL - SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOLfD AFTER EACH
STORM EVENT. DV MUST BE ROOMED MEN DEP0915 REACH APPROXMATELY
WE -HALF THE NOWT OF TIE BARMER.
SALT FENCE
UDOF
USA
C I T Y O F
LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
0
DB4,13 GUM CONTRACTING
215 8E UAI !MEET, BATE Dos
IRIEAPOIB, W 854I4
v,w�11 r W Wore y1.1h1yN.w�"Warr�
M~ie Y� Mr iyWM wwW
M•1w ..111E • r. 111.•
MEW
,1119
01 -1
R-1
o-1
C4-1
10011110 mlmenle
rflsX
1AM10. motley Pal OY gm 4.10.11. 111 a
1 a1�'p h err :.a ow, `
Pr..* r iw4,�U r M.a
d w 51.1• of M1,nrls
M..11 .L 31. 11s4I,
Um. 11. 0.0
DAR PENSION
1 -27 -02 CITY 0112117 ?AL
0 -31 -02 PER CITY COMMENTS
Liman 1UNAaomrr av¢►
DESIGN RI DRAWN BY•
111110110:11 Er 01E
LOUCKS
ASSOCIATES
1 OmNEE • C11il bEiam* • Lod taw*
Maim* d1ehltetbe • IN1e...w • dttllWep
R 1Tr E.eYd 1.e• •11 MA 0111 ( MO•
GRADING, DRAINAGE
& EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
PBOEGIJ6
94146A
C3 -1
NOS
S00'02'J0 £ 390.37
10' EASEMENT
• "° ms`s 9
VOTING
ACVMON
/FE 90.110
APOLLO
PROPOSED m
ADDITION
FFE-
903.9
SA
mums -34
60'
BUSINESS
enemas same
\
BENCHMARK
TOP NUT OF HYDRANT ON NORTH SIDE
OF APOLLO DRIVE AS SHOWN HEREON.
ELEV = 909.25 FT.
(INV= 904.16) DENOTES ELEVATIONS PER
AS -BUILT PLANS BY TKDADATED 1996
CATCH BASIN
O SANTARY MANHOLE
IM GATE VALVE
.0 HYDRANT
T TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
..m.. SPOT
>>-- STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
WATERMAIN
-- • CHAIN LINK FENCE
CONCRETE CURB
CONCRETE
CONTOUR
\
SCALE IN
FEET
I n 1 i T 1 Al T
PARK
NOTE:
UTILITY EXTENSIONS TO PROPOSED ADDITION
PROVIDED FROM EXISTING BUILDING AS NEEDED.
UDO
USA
CITY OF
LINO LAKES
M I N N E S O T A
DENNIS OUPTL CONTRACTING
SURE 306
hoodoo IANNEAPOUB, IAN 5664
d
002
IIr.1t 1 or ly Mar*. or ropOrt
I ra M' 1b.1 F1* Erroboor mi . IM 4w
M No SW* M I&* 4
Michael
i x •.n
Um.. Ir Use
MAN
0910 REM O*
9 -27 -02 CITY SUBMITTAL
10 -31 -02 PER CITY COMMENTS
90*210 11.09■iemlt .1900.
DESIGN 131,
CHEMED He
DRAWN 9
DIM
OUCKS
ASSOCIATES
1 A•••W • OBI Oda+U[ • Wd
Wimp /alUseh.. • 6lhmamW • Areaway
1111BWet -•tlb1 k MINNA
• woo IM M. N. en
UTILITY PLAN
PBOIBGL110.
94148A
C4 -1
OR
,GP•MLW
CUMIN
r
NJ s t 1 4' rl l.
\A t t ',/ 1
r'N I I . I • I I"
r a r.
!' it • IS1 1
I
I
S0O.O2'36
390.37
1]
-- — ,o' Sf / / ± ;"•
9Y7MAL &LAM
•t.= Nf MOIR
Qp
/ / \ i =;
APOLLO
1 t
Lot 1
,_.__\
`'\
DISTINO
ADDITION
FFE MIA
■
...,,.; , } J _ /
•
*;:' };"���Vj ice% =1—` I
// .110 , /,�A� tob
B (�l S .l ,S j
I
`.
11 T I /1 T
\A l l \J 1
•wt NIL
.b)
SYMIQTY1 COMMON NAME
'SCIENTIFIC NAME
1 SIZE 1 CONT 1 COMMENTS
DECIDUOUS TREES
PO 2 NORTHERN PIN OAK
NM
Quercus elliosoldalls
2" CAL B &B SINGLE STEM
3 NORTHWOOD RED MAPLE
Acer rubrum 'Northwood'
2" CAL B &B SINGLE STEM
EVERGREEN TREES
BH
NP
3 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE
3 NORWAY PINE
Picea alauca densata
Pinus resinoso
6' HGT
6' HGT
B &B
B &B
FULL FORM
FULL FORM
PLANT SCHEDUL
--- -�
- \-"
903_ - ILJ/ \
-�� "..,/ or- \
//
- -- ▪ /
MA H.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
POSITION 1 THROOUUG TREES IN B
PERIOD. STAKING IS SUGGESTED BUT
NOT REQUIRED. ANY STAKING MUST
CONFORM WITH PRACTICES AS DEFINED
IN A.N.A. GUIDEUNES FOR STANDARD
PRACTICES
PRUNE DAMAGED AND CROSSING
BRANCHES AFTER PLANTING IS COMPLETE.
REMOVE ALL FLAGGING AND LABELING
TREE.
WATER TREE THOROUGHLY DURING
PLANT1NQ OPERATIONS. PLACE BACKFILL
IN 8-12 UFTS AND SATURATE SOIL W1TH
WATER. DO NOT COMPACT MORE THAN
NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN PLUMB.
16 "N2" POLYPROPYLENE OR
POLYETHYLENE STRAP
TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH
SAFETY FLAGGING - ONE PER WIRE
MULCH - 4- DEEP - PER SPEC.
PLANTING SOIL - PER SPEC.
WOOD STAKE (OPTIONAL)
EDGE VARIES - SEE PLAN
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF
HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING
ROOT BALI. SET ON MOUNDED SUBGRADE
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
TESTING PERCOLATION RATES PRIOR TO
PLANTING. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
IMMEDIATELY IF POOR DRAINAGE EXISTS
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL
SCALE: 1/2" -
PLANTING DETAIL
Deciduous Tre&DW
ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE LAID SO THAT TRENCHES DO
NOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO
REMAIN.
WHERE EXISTING TREES AND/OR SIGNIFICANT SHRUBS MASSINGS ARE
FOUND ON SITE, WHETHER SHOWN ON THE DRAWING OR NOT, THEY
SHALL BE PROTECTED AND SAVED UNLESS NOTED TO BE REMOVED
AND /OR ARE IN AN AREA TO BE GRADED. ANY QUESTION REGARDING
WHETHER PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD REMAIN OR NOT SHALL BE BROUGHT
TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO
REMOVAL
NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL COMPLETE GRADING AND
CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
SEED ALL AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING OTHER THAN THOSE
AREAS NOTED TO RECEIVE SOO. SEED SHALL BE INSTALLED AND
MULCHED AS PER MNDOT SPECS.
ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF
THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE,
DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 5 CANES AT THE
SPECIFIED SHRUB HEIGHT. ORNAMENTAL TREES SHALL HAVE NO V
CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 3' ABOVE
ROOT BALL STREET AND BOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING
NO LOWER THAT 6' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.
ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED AND STAKED AS SHOWN
ON PLAN. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE ALL STAKING OF PLANT
MATERIAL PRIOR TO ANY AND ALL DIGGING.
NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS
APPROVAL IS REQUESTED OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THE
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A 81D AND /OR
QUOTATION.
ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON INSTALLATION
WITH DRIED BONE MEAL, OTHER APPROVED FERTILIZER MIXED IN
WITH THE PLANTING SOIL PER THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS
OR MAY BE TREATED FOR SUMMER AND FALL INSTALLATION WITH AN
APPUCATION OF GRANULAR 0 -20 -20 OF 12 OZ PER 2.5" CALIPER
PER TREE AND 6 OZ PER SHRUB WITH AN ADDITIONAL APPUCATION
OF 10 -10 -10 THE FOLLOWING SPRING IN THE TREE SAUCER.
ALL PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER PLANTING DETAILS.
WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE CORRUGATED PVC PIPING 1" GREATER
IN CAUPER THAN THE TREE BEING PROTECTED OR QUALITY, HEAVY,
WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAP
ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO 12 -1 AND
REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER 5 -1.
ALL EVERGREEN TREES TO RECEIVE 4" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD
MULCH WITH NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK.
IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS CONCERNED OR PERCEIVES ANY
DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT SELECTIONS, SOIL CONDITIONS OR ANY
OTHER SITE CONDITION WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT
ESTABUSHMENT, SURVIVAL OR GUARANTEE, HE MUST BRING THESE
DEFICIENCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO PROCUREMENT AND /OR INSTALLATION.
CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE
CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE.
WARRANTY (ONE FULL GROWING SEASON) FOR LANDSCAPE MATERIALS
SHALL BEGIN ON THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF PLANTING OF ALL LANDSCAPE
MATERIALS. NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED.
CONIFEROUS PLANTING MAY OCCUR FROM AUGUST 15 - OCTOBER 1 AND
FALL DECIDUOUS PLANTING FROM THE FIRST FROST UNTIL NOVEMBER
15. PLANTING OUTSIDE THESE DATES IS NOT RECOMMENDED. ANY
ADJUSTMENT MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
PROTECT ALL EXISTING OAKS ON SITE SCHEDULED TO REMAIN. IF
EXISTING OAKS ARE DAMAGED IN ANY MANOR ABOVE OR BELOW
GROUND IN THE ROOT SYSTEM, AN ASPHALTIC TREE PRUNING PAINT
SHOULD BE APPUED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WOUNDING. OAKS ARE NOT
TO BE PRUNED, REMOVED OR TRANSPLANTED BETWEEN APRIL 15 AND
JULY 1. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF THESE DATES ARE
UNAVOIDABLE.
PLANTING NOTES
UDO
USA
C I T Y O F
LINO LAKES
M I N N E S O T A
DENNIS OUPTL CONTRACMo
2111 8E MAN STREET, BUTS 908
MNE.APCLB, MN 55414
a:afr. r .. ur"ap/=% c"""am lr.
7p.°` -µms -r`
tor. r vM.....v
Tma
COMM culmBLme
sm PUS
GRAMM mum PLAN MUTT PLAN
LANGSC.PS P.M
I IM*•Y erbry Mal qM put tp.pMmllm or noted e
pnp* by not or u,dr my *. t wato0M." tool bat
I so • aAr LMard Lto,M1C,q. AMilsl u.d tM Iew
N Dot SU. of Idbm.. .
PRA Pt -e -
e �
L1.a*• Ne
D ATE IIEVmO4
9 -27 -02 CITY SUBMITTAL
10 -31 -02
PER CITY COMMENTS
•UYlrf MABAOOmR 1111TYc
DESIGN BC DRAWN 0*
CHECKED Br MrE
LOUCKS
ASSOCIATES
Thu* • aril k Io.o ng • IOU Surveying
Wkye 4tlitedme • k.io,. atU • 4eNm4o0
,r ink& 1.2 .NN Me 12•2•112 NI* .M►�
• MM T'I'C IN N s
LANDSCAPE PLAN
94148A
L1 -1