Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02/12/2003 P&Z Packet
CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, February 12, 2003 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: January 8, 2003 and January 22, 2003 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS 4111) A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Charlie Pfingsten, Charlie's Tree Service, 908'/2 Maple Street, Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Tanda Gretz B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 1St — 7th Additions (formerly Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions), South of Main St. & North of Carl St. - Section 7, Rezone, MUSA Allocation and Preliminary Plat, Bob Kirmis, NAC C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, ATS &R, Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch Street, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, Bob Kirmis, NAC D. PUBLIC HEARING, Bruggeman Properties, SE corner of Birch Street and Hodgson Road, Preliminary Plat, Rezone, CUP and Site Plan Review, Bob Kirmis, NAC E. PUBLIC HEARING, James Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, Rezone to PDO and Preliminary Plat, Mike Grochala F. PUBLIC HEARING, Bill Gschwind, 6931 Lake Drive, CUP and Variance, Tanda Gretz • — OPEN AND CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING per applicant (no staff report) G. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Draft Zoning Ordinance Review, Jeff Smyser VI. DICUSSION ITEMS A. Rice Creek Watershed District permit information. (As requested by Board Member Corson at the P &Z mtg. on January 8, 2003) VII. ADJOURN • • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT January 8, 2003 6:34 P.M. 11:27 P.M. Corson, Hyden, Lyden, Rafferty, and Schaps Lane and Zych City Planner Smyser; City Engineer Studenski (part); Staff Member Tanda Gretz; Community Development Director, Mike Grochala (part); and Bob Kirmis, NAC I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:34 p.m., January 8, 2003. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps requested additions or deletions to this evening's agenda. Mr. Smyser stated that Case VD was noticed in the newspaper but staff did not receive adequate information to review the project. However, it remained on the agenda in case someone attended and wanted to provide input. Chair Schaps requested that Item VD, ATS &R Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch Street, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, be considered as the first item under Action Items. Mr. Lyden requested the addition of Item VE, Jim Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, Keefe Minor Subdivision. The agenda was approved III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 11, 2002 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the December 11, 2002, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Rafferty abstained). DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 2 IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared Open Mike open at 6:36 p.m. No one else was present for Open Mike. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:37 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS D. PUBLIC HEARING, ATS &R, Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch Street, Site Plan Review & Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:38 p.m. and asked if anyone was present in the audience who wished to speak to this application. No one from the audience wished to speak to this application. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to February 12, 2003 to allow the applicant to prepare complete information and staff to prepare a complete report and recommendation, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Smyser explained that several important pieces of this project were not submitted so staff was not able to provide a review. Mr. Corson stated that someone had told him everything had been submitted on this project and asked if the delay had to do with the County's review of the turn lanes. Mr. Smyser stated there is more information missing than turn lane information. Mr. Corson asked when the application will be heard by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Smyser stated that he is not intimately familiar with the Watershed District's rules but it is his understanding that if the project does not disturb more than one acre or a wetland, then it is not a big deal. Mr. Corson asked if the Rice Creek Watershed District decides whether it is a project they should review. Mr. Smyser stated it is the District's decision whether the project needs a permit and review. Mr. Corson stated that it appears there is more than one open issue. Mr. Smyser stated the architect told him that the Watershed District had indicated they did not need to review this project. However, that does not mean the City will not review the storm water issues to assure the on -site water is properly managed. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 3 Chair Schaps asked how large is this project site. Mr. Smyser stated he is unsure. Mr. Smyser stated staff will contact the Rice Creek Watershed District to request a summary of their review. A. PUBLIC HEARING, Charlie Pfingsten, Charlie's Tree Service, 908'A Maple Street, Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:45 p.m. Staff presented the application by Charles Pfingsten for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning for property located at 908 -1/2 Maple Street. The property is zoned Rural and guided Low Density, Sewered Residential under the City's Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently owned by Bill Flanagan, but Mr. Pfingsten would like to purchase the property as a site to park vehicles and equipment used in his tree care business — "Charlie's Tree Service ". Staff explained that it was initially Mr. Pfingsten's intention to ask for a Conditional Use Permit, or an amendment to such, based on past uses that took place on the property. However, after a review of past applications, past and present zoning maps, the Comprehensive Plan, and the present City Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Pfingsten and staff agreed that it was more appropriate to submit an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning, since: • The property is guided Low Density, Sewered Residential • The property is zoned Rural • The City's Zoning Ordinance does not list any permitted or conditional uses for the Rural zone that would fit the use intended by Mr. Pfingsten (storage location for equipment used in a tree care business), thus it seemed pointless to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Staff explained that the background/history of the property is somewhat involved and irregular. First, although there does not seem to be any official designation of the address "908 -1/2 Maple Street," this address has come into use for the property because the property was owned and used in conjunction with the property to the north/rear, 908 Orange Street, on which Mr. Flanagan's home and auto repair business was sited. Second, in 1983 Mr. Flanagan asked for, and was granted, a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 40'X60' pole building on the site, to be used for "cold storage" (trucks, autos, parts, etc.) in conjunction with his auto repair business. The minutes and reports for this application state both that the "area is zoned for GB (General Business)" and that "auto and truck repair is listed as a conditional use in the Neighborhood Business District — therefore an expansion or intensification of that use will require a Conditional Use Permit or amendment to such." DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 4 Third, in 1991 Mr. Flanagan asked to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit in order to allow K &C Custom Auto Body to operate as a business out of the pole building at 908 -1/2 Maple Street. The report for this application states that "the land is a remnant of the City's commercial strip that was eliminated several years ago. Present zoning is General Business...automobile and truck repair (is) a conditional use." The amended Conditional Use Permit was granted, with 16 conditions attached. Staff explained that, importantly, both these past CUPs were approved for specific purposes, under a previous City ordinance, with previous zoning conditions, and do not imply — implicitly or explicitly — rights for any other CUP or uses, such as that proposed by the current applicant. Further, the uses previously approved have now become non- conforming uses under the City's current Zoning Ordinance. Significantly, the City's Zoning Ordinance is explicit regarding non - conforming uses (Section 3, subdiv. 2.A), stating as its intent that "all non - conforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity." Staff presented the chart below which shows both how the subject property and surrounding properties are guided under the City's Comprehensive Plan and how they are zoned. Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Low Density, Sewered Residential Rural West Rural North Rural & General Business East Rural South " Rural Staff reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan is the tool which guides land use in the City, with the Zoning Ordinance the more specific tool that allows that stated land use to be implemented. As such, both are primary planning tools and must carry requisite weight and importance. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted as the City's tool to achieve its goals, and we must defer to it for guidance. Since the site is guided Low Density, Sewered Residential and zoned Rural, the proposed use as a parking/storage spot for heavy equipment and commercial vehicles is clearly at odds with what the City has planned for the area. In addition, significantly, the site is abutting a residential area to the west, with the resulting situation of conflicting abutting uses. Staff stated that overall, the site has a history of uses that were either commercial in nature (auto body painting and repair) or supportive of commercial uses (storage for materials used in conjunction with an auto repair business). However, these uses took place in the past and do not over -ride the current guidance of the City's Comprehensive Plan or zoning. Such past uses allowed the property to become what it is today: a site DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 5 containing a large metal pole building, a 6 -foot high privacy fence, and not much else. While such conditions would not seem to readily lend themselves to a Rural or Residential use, the Comprehensive Plan must be respected as a vision of what the City wants to become. Staff noted that additionally, it is not appropriate to change the land use and zoning of one single, particular lot. Rather, in considering what uses should be allowed in such an area, it would be appropriate to view the broader area, consult with property owners, and determine if a larger area of commercial or industrial use is justified. In the present case, it is important to remember that once any zoning change takes place, that change would allow not only the use currently proposed, but any other permitted, conditional or accessory use that is listed in the City's Zoning Ordinance for that zone, any of which may be even more intensive or conflicting to the abutting residential neighborhood. Staff explained that Mr. Pfingsten, as noted in his narrative, proposes to use the site as a storage location for the equipment used in his tree care business. Mr. Pfingsten proposes to store all equipment within the pole building on site, except for two pieces: a 16 -foot Bobcat trailer and a mobile "field office" structure which Mr. Pfingsten uses to accommodate his research. These two items would be stored outside, screened by the six -foot high fence that surrounds the site, as well as some additional evergreens Mr. Pfingsten proposes to plant on the site. Staff stated that problematic is the fact that the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance does not address a use such as that proposed by Mr. Pfingsten. The General Business zone was cited in his request for rezoning because Mr. Pfingsten understood the property to be zoned that way when previous uses were accommodated. However, Mr. Pfingsten also proposes outdoor storage on the property, and the current Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance allows outdoor storage only in a General Business or Industrial zone (Light or General), and then only as an accessory or interim use, with a Conditional Use Permit, and with a number of conditions attached. One such condition for an Industrial zone, significantly, is that the site "shall not abut property zoned for residential, rural, or business use." As a result, zoning to Industrial is also problematic since the site abuts a residential area. However, staff explained that even if working around such obstacles as those cited above were possible, rezoning the site to Industrial would then open up the site to any of the permitted or conditional uses listed for such a zone, many of which are much too intensive for a site abutting a residential zone. Further, the City's Comprehensive Plan, in item #13 on page 129, specifically directs that "there are a number of small isolated industrial sites along CSAH #23 that are out of character with the surrounding land uses. The City will pursue the relocation of these industries into a community industrial park and redevelopment of these existing industrial site." Thus, the creation of such new industrial sites would clearly be counter to what the Comprehensive Plan indicates. Staff noted that overall, the situation that is presented is that of a site which is guided and zoned for residential use, similar to that west of the site, but with a past that includes uses DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 6 more similar to those north and east of the site, being commercial in nature. The City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 2, subdiv. 1, offers guidance for the administration of Rezonings and Amendments. Specifically, such actions are to be evaluated against the following factors: 1.) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of, and has been found to be consistent with, the official City Comprehensive Plan. No: the City's Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Low Density, Sewered Residential rather than the commercial or industrial that is proposed by the applicant. 2.) The proposed use is, or will be, compatible with present and future land uses of the area. No: the proposed commercial or industrial use of the property is likely to be at odds with the present abutting residential uses to the west. Additionally, the proposed commercial use does not conform to the proposed future land use of Low Density, Sewered Residential as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3.) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. No: there is nothing in the City's Zoning Ordinance which specifically addresses the use of "vehicle parking for a tree trimming /servicing business." As a result, it was difficult to find a zone in which such a use might be appropriate. While the General Business zone was chosen to cover such a use because the site was zoned that way in the past when it accommodated uses similar to that being proposed, the outdoor storage which is proposed on the site is not something that is allowed in the General Business zone. Rather, the Zoning Ordinance is written to allow outdoor storage only in the Industrial zone, and then only as an accessory or interim use with a conditional use permit and when meeting a number of requirements. Additionally, the permitted use of "contractor storage of equipment and building materials if enclosed within a building," as listed under permitted uses for the Light Industrial zone ( #12, p. 8 -3 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance), may provide the closest match of use to that proposed by the applicant. 4.) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Yes: the applicant has no known plans to install City services. 5.) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Yes: streets should be able to handle the proposed traffic, which is to be limited to several trucks, with equipment, leaving in the morning and returning in the evening. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 7 Staff explained that it must look to the City's Comprehensive Plan for guidance in the proposed application. In doing so, it appears clear that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning is not in line with the City's approved Comprehensive Plan, which guides the subject property Low Density, Sewered Residential. Additionally, such a proposed rezoning is problematic in that it abuts an established residential zone, and may likely present a conflict of use. Lastly, the applicant's proposed use, together with a need for outdoor storage, is at odds with what is likely to be suitable zoning for the site. Staff explained that while this application represents one prospective landowner's desire to use the site in a particular way, such a proposed use is in conflict with the City's stated goals for its future. Further, there is nothing in the application that would indicate that such a proposed enlargement of a commercial or industrial area would be advantageous for the community in the long term, and thus worth negating the City's approved Comprehensive Plan. Staff noted the available options and recommended denial of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning. Chair Schaps asked if the Comprehensive Plan identifies commercial on both sides of the street. Ms. Gretz presented a map, identified the commercial area, and advised that the surrounding property and up to Columbus Township is Low Density, Sewered Residential. Mr. Lyden stated the Comprehensive Plan indicates this should be Low Density Residential homes, but the reality is that there is a parking lot and building already there. He asked if the City expects someone to buy this property, tear down the pole building and parking lot, and build a house. Ms. Gretz stated she can only speak to what the Comprehensive Plan is guided for. Mr. Lyden stated in that case the City better get ready to buy the property, remove the building and parking lot, and get the property ready for a house. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Charles Pfingsten II, President of Charlie's Tree Service and applicant, pointed out that when he received the agenda information, he discovered that the chart on Page 3 indicates the guided land use for the east side of the site is Low Density, Sewered Residential but the existing zoning is Rural. He stated this used to be a tire and battery shop from Orange to Maple. He asked how that could be zoned Rural since it has an existing business and suggested that may be an oversight. Chair Schaps asked what is across from the subject site, across from County Road 23. Mr. Pfingsten stated across County Road 23 is a remote control car sales and service business. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Pfingsten stated he believes the map was taken from what is on file with the City but it seems odd that it is zoned Rural and businesses exist. He reviewed the map identified as Exhibit #3 and advised that the General Business area only covers a portion of the end of the block. He reviewed Exhibit #5 and noted it shows General Business across the entire block, which he believes to be the most accurate map included in the exhibits. Mr. Pfingsten stated when he first looked at this property, they were under the impression that it was zoned Commercial based on past usage and permits. He stated his real estate agent got involved and looked into it further. That is when questions came up about the exact zoning. He stated he contacted Mr. Smyser and was told by Mr. Smyser that this would never happen but he decided he wanted to pursue it anyway. He stated his appreciation to Ms. Gretz for her assistance and the information she provided to him. Mr. Pfingsten stated that this property is actually a building and parking lot with a fence around it. On the residential side to the west it serves as a buffer zone between the residential and General Business which is a larger building. He stated his proposal is to make it more aesthetically pleasing to surrounding properties by removing some of the scrub trees and planting other conifers to better screen this property. The gate on the northern end will be eliminated and the privacy fence continued across that section. He stated he is looking for something in this price range which is difficult to find in Lino Lakes for a small company. He stated he wants to be able to park his trucks inside and have a base of operation. Mr. Hyden asked which direction the trucks will come from. Mr. Pfingsten stated they will have to come in from Maple. Mr. Hyden asked how many trucks will be on the site. Mr. Pfingsten stated there will be three trucks inside the building. His field office, a 32 -foot 2000 Golfstream RV, is part of his company's vehicle fleet and will be parked outside. A 16 -foot bobcat trailer would also not fit inside so it will be parked outside. Mr. Hyden asked if he has talked with any of the residents. Mr. Pfingsten stated he talked about this to one resident who lives across the street, to the west, and he said he didn't have a problem as long as he does not do what the body shop did which was to be operating at 2 a.m. He stated he did not talk to the other neighbors. Mr. Hyden asked if the trucks will be parked inside by dark. Mr. Pfingsten stated they would be parked before dark. He explained that he started this company about five years ago and at the end of the work day the crews come back and park the trucks inside. He stated that in the evening he does estimating and deals with other customers which is done away from this property. Mr. Hyden asked if other materials, such as wood chips, will be stored on the site. Mr. Pfingsten stated they would not and he has no desire to store that type of material. He explained how wood chips are handled in his business. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 9 Mr. Corson asked if the auto repair shop has adequate access to Orange without crossing the subject site. Mr. Pfingsten stated it does have access and would not cross this property. Mr. Corson stated Exhibit #4 shows an easement that is part of Lot 22. Mr. Pfingsten stated that Lot 22 is one that Mr. Flanagan had already sold and contained a house. Chair Schaps asked if only one resident responded after the notice of the public hearing went out. Mr. Pfingsten stated he spoke to that resident before he contacted the City and made application. He stated the only other resident who contacted him was Planning Commissioner Lyden. Chair Schaps stated it appears that Mr. Pfingsten will use the property to store his vehicles inside, except for the 32 -foot RV and a 16 -foot bobcat trailer, the landscaping would be upgraded, screening added, the privacy fence extended, no exterior lights or manufacturing conducted. Mr. Pfingsten stated that is correct and he does not think the building currently has any exterior lights. Kevin Hedger, 862 Maple Street, stated he is the spokesperson for the majority of the residents on Maple Street and has a prepared presentation regarding the proposed rezoning. He stated their objective is to bring to the table the concerns of the local residents about the requested rezoning and intended use. He displayed a picture of the current pole building, which they found to be in fair condition. He stated the privacy fence is about five feet in height. Mr. Hedger stated some of the concerns related to valuation and impact to their residential properties, the type of business that could come into the building, environmental issues related to possible noise control issues, septic system issues, and potential impact to private wells. He stated past practice is what brought residents to the meeting tonight. He explained that the auto body shop created a difficult situation for residents of the block for many years due to parking problems, access for emergency vehicles, and operations occurring at 2 -3 a.m. Mr. Hedger stated they would like more information about the following: traffic volume and frequency; parking guidelines; working hours and possible curfew since this is in a residential neighborhood; type, size, and quantity of equipment; type of storage outside the building; and property maintenance. He displayed a picture of the adjoining property, noting the roof is rusting through, the fence is full of holes and not screened, and the sign is outdated. He stated this is an eyesore to the community and the residents do not want this to occur with this new business. Mr. Hedger asked staff to elaborate on the differences between Residential and Commercial property zoning, and related noise, air, and pollution control requirements. He stated they are also concerned about the septic system. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Hedger asked if Commercial zoning or conditional use permitting fits this neighborhood. He stated that the majority of residents on Maple Street say that it does not fit. He thanked the Board for this opportunity to present their concerns and questions. Terry Johnson, 987 Maple Street, provided a history for this property. He stated that Mr. Flanagan was given a conditional use permit to run a muffler shop out of his garage in the 1980s. The back of the building was supposed to be for his wife's embroidery work. Mr. Flanagan then split the property to make money off the back half. Mr. Johnson noted that Mr. Pfingsten said that traffic would be limited to early morning and late at night. He stated there are children on the street who like to play in the morning and night and the street is not equipped for this type of equipment to turn onto the street. He stated this building is not large enough to store a motor home or other things. Mr. Johnson stated he has spent 27 years in this neighborhood and this building has not been anything but problems. He stated he does not want this to be approved. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Johnson what type of problems he experienced. Mr. Johnson stated it was a test driving area for cars and the problems included unsafe acceleration, swearing, speeding, pot smoking, etc. He stated that business has been moved for about six months. Jeff Joyer, realtor representing Bill Flanagan, stated it is true that there have been problems and he empathizes with the residents that the previous use caused some problems since it was leased out for an auto body shop. He stated he would like to confirm the fact that if Mr. Pfingsten cannot buy the property, their only alternative is to specifically advertise for another auto body shop since it is permitted for that use, been used for that purpose for about 20 years, and only recently through the remapping of the City become Low Density Residential for the long term. He stated if the Flanagans cannot find a buyer with a different use permitted by the City, the alternative is to revert back to the previous situation. He stated they are sensitive that this may not be the best thing for the community. Mr. Joyer agreed that this building would provide a buffer between the residential neighborhood and the other commercial building. He stated it may be better for the City to look at this entire area as a future node for redevelopment. He stated it was strip zoned on Lake Drive and then there was a concept to pull it into nodes which was the intent for the buildings that currently exist. Mr. Joyer stated the Flanagans felt there were a lot of lines drawn and that just by chance the intent may not have been to pull their property out of General Business zoning. He stated he believes a case can be made that in the future a larger piece along Lake Drive would be more easily redevelopable than just the smaller piece adjoining County Road 23. He stated he thinks there is an opportunity for a win/win situation since the concerns raised by the residents can be addressed by Mr. Pfingsten and his use which is a much lower impact. Chair Schaps asked if this is the first exchange between the residents and applicant. Mr. Joyer stated the residents called the City about the past tenant that just moved out but that was a long -term tenant (about 12 years) so Mr. Flanagan couldn't do much with upkeep. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 11 • Eilene Couture, 6973 Lakeview Drive, asked if employee cars will be parking in the • • street or the applicant will be idling diesel trucks. Mr. Pfingsten stated they would not. Mr. Hedger stated that when Mr. Pfingsten moves on in several years the zoning would stay in place so there is a concern about future uses. Mr. Pfingsten stated he runs a clean business and takes care of his business. He stated that in a high profile business such as his, perception is everything. He stated he has been in this industry for 21 years and since he started this business five years ago it has grown 15% overall per year. He stated that is because he maintains his equipment with high curbside appeal and uses a professional mechanic. He stated his desire is to get his equipment inside and out of the weather. With regard to traffic on the street and children in the area, Mr. Pfingsten stated that he has no reason to go down the street beyond the location of this shop. He stated there is a lot of traffic in this area but not nearly the amount as on the other side of the bridge where the new development is taking place. He stated he has the greatest respect for the residents. Chair Schaps asked if he will be parking cars on the street. Mr. Pfingsten stated he will not. Mr. Lyden stated the residents have been "burned" in the past and that is being heard loud and clear. He stated he would not consider a rezoning but may consider a conditional use permit if the right conditions are placed. He stated he would like to consider that option so the issues of screening, parking, and lighting can be addressed. He stated if the City is not willing to purchase the property, remove the buildings, and get it ready for a house, then someone else will buy the property and want to use the building for a business. He raised the question whether anyone who purchased the property would be able to park their RV and a trailer on the property. Chair Schaps stated Mr. Pfingsten impresses him as a decent guy and very honest and he also thinks the neighborhood has provided a thorough, thoughtful, and well laid out response to this proposal. He stated it is unfortunate that these two groups have not gotten together and do not know each other at all. He stated he would hate to see a much less intensive use, such as Mr. Pfingsten's, not considered when another auto business could occur. He suggested that they take 30 days so they can meet together and see if there are ways within reason for Mr. Pfingsten to buy this property and use it in a way that is acceptable to the residents. He noted that they may not agree to everything but there should be a reasonable mariner that it can be considered and eliminate the potential of another auto shop. Chair Schaps stated Mr. Pfingsten is talking about a few trucks, not a lot of activity, and only activity in the morning and evening. He asked if a 30 day delay is of interest to Mr. Pfingsten. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 12 Mr. Pfingsten stated it is and he is interested in scheduling such a meeting with the residents. Mr. Hedger asked if there is no way to enforce a conditional use permit or to provide input. He stated if there is not, they are not interested in anything like that. Chair Schaps explained that conditions can be placed on a conditional use permit and it can be enforced. He stated if the conditional use permit is violated it can be taken away. Mr. Hedger stated that Mr. Pfingsten seems to be a responsible person but it is not known what will happen after he is gone and there is a new owner. Chair Schaps stated he does not think the Commissioners are willing to consider a rezoning tonight but he believes this is a reasonable request for a conditional use permit and if the residents can meet with Mr. Pfingsten it would be a better option than taking a chance that an auto body shop starts again. Mr. Lyden asked if a new buyer can be stopped from parking these vehicles on the site. Mr. Smyser recalled there have been several issues with properties that have outdoor storage and trucks. He stated that it is an issue in rural zoning areas where some people have businesses operating and residents object. Mr. Smyser stated there are ordinances that allow indoor storage but the outdoor storage and activities on site are what are in question here. Mr. Smyser stated that the staff report raises the question of what type of business is appropriate to consider. The Comprehensive Plan says those uses should be moved off to an industrial area. If that is not going to be done, then the Comprehensive Plan language should be reviewed. He noted the City is in the process of revising the Zoning Ordinance, which addresses conditional use permits. Currently this is a nonconforming property in a Rural district and there is nothing that says you can park vehicles outdoors with a conditional use permit. He noted the City needs to consider the implications beyond this one property. Mr. Smyser stated if directed, staff can consider language to allow outdoor storage of vehicles in Rural zones. Mr. Smyser stated that in this case whether the cars can be parked outdoors depends on how large the vehicles are. He stated if the use was only storage inside the building, that would not be a problem. The question is what is stored outside and what activity occurs outside. Diane Schally, 892 Maple Street, asked what happens when there are road restrictions. Chair Schaps stated this business would be treated the same as other businesses. Ms. Schally stated the building does not have bathroom facilities and asked if one would have to be installed. She also noted there is not much space to park vehicles on this property and asked if his equipment will be repaired on this site. If so, she asked if fluids will be going into the ground. She stated she does not support this being approved. DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 13 Chair Schaps asked Mr. Pfingsten how many employees he has. Mr. Pfingsten responded that he has one employee. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Pfingsten how he would be treated as a customer if the job takes one week. He asked if his yard would be cleaned up at the end of each day. Mr. Pfingsten stated it will vary depending on the type of job, customer, and location. He explained that if the job is out in Scandia Township and on a large residential lot, nine out of ten times that customer will say it is fine to leave the trees and equipment on site. Mr. Rafferty asked if brush would be blowing off site while the project is in progress. Mr. Pfingsten stated it would not. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Pfingsten if he did a job in the 1500 block of Merganser Court, where he noticed that the job site was cleaned up at the end of each day. Mr. Pfingsten stated he did do that job which was a massive amount of work and involved some other subcontractors. He stated that job used all of his equipment and in a residential neighborhood like that one, their practice is to clean up the site at the end of each work day. Mr. Rafferty stated the business is only five year old, but has equipment and an RV that would be parked outside with a bobcat trailer. He asked if equipment would be repaired on this site and where new equipment will be parked. He also asked Mr. Pfingsten if his business is already exceeding the size of this pole barn. Mr. Rafferty stated that a Golfstream RV is a nice unit but he does not know what condition it is in. He asked about how the grass will be mowed around the items parked outdoors and how that appearance will be maintained. He stated he does not want this to become a "cancer" in the neighborhood that continues to grow. He asked where the broken vehicles will be stored and if not repaired how they will be disposed. Mr. Rafferty stated he saw a job done by Mr. Pfingsten in his neighborhood and was very impressed but he wants to be sure Mr. Pfingsten is aware of these concerns. He questioned how much the business can grow and remain on this site. Mr. Corson stated he assumes this will be discussed again next month. He stated he would like to receive a history of this site to assure whether or not a conditional use permit was approved and what those conditions were. He stated that a conditional use permit and site plan should be considered which would resolve some of the questions. Mr. Pfingsten stated Mr. Flanagan had addressed some of the concerns in the past by installing a fence and asphalt parking area. He stated that he will plant more beneficial trees and remove undesirable trees but there is not a lot more that can be done to create a buffer zone. Mr. Corson stated if this is to become a growing business, there may be a need for a septic system. Mr. Pfingsten stated there is a septic with a single bathroom that was permitted at some time. He stated he only has one employee and is out on the job site most of the time. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 14 Mr. Pfingsten stated he could make this into a multi - million dollar business but he has no desire for those kinds of headaches. He stated he has a profitable, manageable business and that is what he wants. Mr. Rafferty stated that his concern is with the growth in the number of vehicles. He stated he sees no beauty in a five -foot fence that says "keep out" and Mr. Pfingsten may have some suggestions as to how to plant the area to enhance the site including the neighborhood. Mr. Pfingsten stated he would be happy to inform the residents of the type of trees he would like to plant. Mr. Rafferty stated a diagrammed landscape plan would be helpful as well as pictures. Mr. Corson stated if this application is tabled, he would like to consider a recommendation that it return as a conditional use permit and site plan review rather than a rezoning. Mr. Johnson asked how conditional use permits are enforced. Mr. Lyden stated they are reviewed annually but if there are concerns there is no reason why it cannot be reviewed more often than annually. That review is done by staff in conjunction with the City Council. Mr. Johnson asked if a conditional use permit has ever been revoked for violations. Chair Schaps stated it probably has occurred and residents can come to the Board with such a complaint about a violation. Mr. Johnson stated the residents have called the City Hall with complaints before and even though the staff agreed there was a violation, nothing changed. He stated that is all that is done. Mr. Smyser asked when Mr. Johnson called to complain about something. Mr. Johnson stated he has called numerous times in the past several years. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to February 12, 2003 and table consideration of the Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requested by Charlie Pfingsten, Charlie's Tree Service, 908 1/2 Maple Street, to encourage Mr. Pfingsten and the residents to meet to discuss the issues, and that this application return as a conditional use permit and site plan review. Chair Schaps mentioned to Mr. Pfingsten that there is no sentiment for outdoor storage, other than the one RV and one trailer, and no consideration as to any future expansions or additional equipment stored outdoor. He stated Mr. Pfingsten will also have to address the issues of noise and lights. Chair Schaps stated this is an opportunity for the residents to make an agreement all can live with, not to lay down unreasonable demands. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 15 The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. In consideration of audience members, Chair Schaps asked that Item 5C be considered next. He declared a recess at 7:58 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at 8:07 p.m. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 15` — 7th Additions (formerly Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions) South of Main Street and North of Carl Street — Section 7, Rezone, MUSA Allocation Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps declared the public hearing reopened at 8:09 p.m. Staff presented the application by Century Farm North Development Inc. for a 250 unit Low and Medium Density Residential development (Century Farm North) located upon a 95.1 acres site north of Thomas Street and east of Sunset Road. To accommodate the development proposal, the following approvals are necessary: 1. MUSA Reserve Allocation (85.3 acres) 2. Rezoning from Rural to R -1, Single Family Residential and R -3, Medium Density Residential 3. A PUD to allow airplane hangers, private streets, and multiple buildings on a single lot 4. Preliminary Plat Staff advised that the initial plan submissions were received on November 22, 2002. Subsequently, the City staff has done a review and prepared a planning report dated December 11, 2002. In this report, staff outlined 26 conditions that required additional attention prior to the City taking formal action on the requested development applications. The Planning and Zoning Board heard this application at their December 11, 2002 meeting. The applicant, upon discussing the items with the Planning and Zoning Board, has responded with both a letter and revised plans to address certain conditions and provide an explanation as to why they do not want to meet other conditions that were listed in the planning report. Staff noted that revised plans were submitted on December 16, 2002. Bob Kirmis prepared a letter of response dated December 18, 2002, outlining City staffs position on the various conditions and the applicant's response to those conditions. Following review, staff was asked to prepare a brief memo that outlines its position on four of the main topics that require further attention prior to having Behm's Century Farm north proceed. These conditions may significantly influence the overall design of the plat and must be resolved prior to the plat proceeding onto preliminary plat approval and ultimately final plat approval. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 16 Staff noted that as identified in the December 11, 2002 planning report, the following conditions were asked to be evaluated in greater detail. Condition 10: The street, located approximately 150 feet north of Carl Street and the Century Trail intersection, be shifted southward to create a full four -way intersection. Applicant's Response: This change has not been made. It is the opinion of the applicant that the "T" intersection will minimize traffic flow to Carl Street. This is, as they described it, a traffic calming effort to reduce traffic flows to both Carl Street and Century Trail. Staff Response: Staff does not agree with the applicant's assessment of the street design for the following reasons: 1. The street jog introduces an additional conflict point for local traffic entering and exiting Century Trail. Stop signs for Carl Street, both east and west, is the preferred option to interrupt traffic and allow for safer traffic movements between these two streets. 2. Residents within Century Farms North wishing to proceed to an easterly destination will not be discouraged from using Carl Street due to the street jog. Rather, it just introduces another unsafe turning movement within a distance of 150 feet between two local streets. 3. It is important to look at the proposed preliminary plat within the context of the larger area. Recognizing that Carl Street provides an access point to the east, and Century Trail will provide for connections into adjoining undeveloped properties. In this respect, a safer four -way intersection at Carl Street and Century Trail is a preferred traffic design in that it reduces the number of conflict points along Century Trail. The two -way stop will provide an interruption of traffic on Carl Street, providing safer access to these street corridors. In this respect, staff believes that the four -way intersection with two stop signs offers a more effective traffic calming element than the street jog currently proposed. Condition 13. Lot 4, Block 4 be converted from an Airpark lot to a traditional single family lot. Condition 14. Lot 9, Block 4, an Airpark lot, be eliminated, combined with the adjacent traditional single - family lots to the north to allow the creation of a buffer yard. Applicant's Response: Based on informal comments received from the Planning and Zoning Board supporting the existing lot configuration, they have not made any changes to this and respond to these conditions. Staff's Response: Staff is still concerned regarding the compatibility of the traditional and airport lots in this area of the project, specifically to the following areas: DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 17 1. The introduction of the hangars and airport traffic on Lots 4 and 9, Block 4, will introduce incompatible land use relationship with Lots 5, 6, and 7 in the same block. It does not appear, based on the site plan, that there is adequate space between the traditional lots and the airport lots to properly screen or buffer the introduction of airplane hangars, taxiways, and airplane traffic onto this area. Staff believes that this relationship is not a compatible land use relationship and should not be encouraged. 2. Review of the preliminary plat indicates that Lot 9 and portions of Lots 6 and 7 contain a stand of oak trees that have been identified by the Environmental Board to be saved. This significant oak stand will be disturbed with the construction of the cul -de -sac to serve Lot 9 as well as the house placement, hangar placement, and any driveway construction. Consistent with the Environmental Board recommendation, staff agrees that this significant oak stand should be saved as part of the overall subdivision design by expanding the lot areas of Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and providing a protected buffer yard between the Airpark and these traditional single family lots. 3. Based on testimony provided to the Planning and Zoning Board, the Lino Airpark supports these additional Airpark lots. However, in past testimony by the applicant to both staff and Planning and Zoning Board, it is questionable as to how marketable this number of Airpark lots will be. Under these circumstances, staff believes that it is more important to create a homogeneous neighborhood design within the same block and avoid compatibility issues between the Airpark lots and the traditional single family lots, with the bonus of protecting the significant oak stand. Condition 23. Grading, drainage, and utility related modifications and comments are set forth in the City Engineer's memo and must be incorporated into the plan. Applicant's Response: The engineering report has not to date been produced. The applicant has, however, indicated that engineering related conditions will be satisfied. Staff's Response: In addition to the comments related to grading, drainage, and utilities, the engineering report should provide comment on the acceptability of the private streets within the townhome component (street widths, snow storage, etc.). It should be noted that the private streets, as illustrated on the plan, range from 16 to 18 feet in width. This design from staff perspective is unacceptable in relationship to the number of units that are proposed to use these private streets and the traffic movement that is required within these areas. Staff explained that a standard fire lane width requires 20 feet to allow for emergency vehicle access, however, this is barely wide enough to allow for cars to pass each other. Staff is concerned that in its present design the private street widths are not adequate. Staff's recommendation would be a minimum width of 24 feet with perhaps a 26 -foot DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 18 width being recommended to insure that there is adequate room to accommodate two -way traffic, emergency vehicles, and adequate width after snow storage. This condition is critical to the overall design of the townhome area in that it will affect building placement, required setbacks, street width, and block configurations. As such, it must be addressed immediately to insure that a complete PUD review can be conducted. Staff concluded by indicating it feels strongly that the aforementioned four conditions should be fulfilled as per staff recommendation, rather than compromised in the overall site design. Other conditions that were addressed in the December 11, 2002 planning report can be addressed and will be worked out with the developer. However, staff believes that the Planning and Zoning Board should give a strong recommendation that outlines their position on the aforementioned conditions. Chair Schaps invited the applicant to make comment. Gary Uhde, Century Farm North Development, Inc., stated they would like to zero in on those four items and Mr. Johnson can provide additional details on them. He stated they hope that once those items are discussed, a recommendation is made to move ahead for discussion at several City Council work sessions. He stated they are running out of time and are concerned about the timing. He noted that Marie Cote, SRF Engineering, is also present to address the traffic study, if desired. John Johnson, Director of Engineering for Metro Land Surveying and Engineering and representing the applicant, stated the changes incorporated since the last meeting are to realign a roadway, minor shifting of townhome units to put more of the private open space within the middle of the project, and they have submitted a screening plan to address the compatibility issue with the hangers. He noted the proposed board -on -board fence with screening to screen the single - family homes from the hanger area. He stated they feel this is a solution that would solve the compatibility issue. He stated there was discussion about density so two prospectives have been provided on that issue. He displayed a large colored density prospective for the Board's review. Mr. Johnson stated phasing is an important part of the growth management program. He explained that proposed Phase I would have 60 lots but did not provide for connection to Carl Street or townhomes. Phase II went from 60 units to 80 units, provided all four townhome styles, and the connection to Carl Street. He stated there is a much higher level of interest than anticipated a month ago. He stated several townhomes would be eliminated and five more Airpark homes would be added. Mr. Johnson stated they continue to coordinate with the Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated they started working with them in 1987 and submitted a delineation plan in 1998 but not yet received their response. On the driveway access, Mr. Johnson noted that they purposely designed the alley to be an alley to discourage people from making it a street and park along it. He stated they made it more narrow so parking would not occur. Now the plan has a distance of 60 feet DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 19 minimum which will create offsets and minimize the straight row appearance. Now they can possibly widen the driveway to 20 feet without effecting the plat as it is drawn. However, then the shorter driveways would be 20 feet in length instead of 22 feet as currently provided. He noted that would also lower the amount of impervious surface. Mr. Johnson stated if a wider driveway is required, they would not want to consider 24 feet since it may encourage people to park in that area. Chair Schaps asked if people won't park there anyway. Mr. Johnson stated he did not think so if it was more narrow in width. With regard to the Century Trail and Carl Street intersection, Mr. Johnson stated the proposed design was important to those who live on Carl Street. He stated there is some opportunity for traffic calming and he thought the Board wanted it as is being proposed. Mr. Johnson stated that units will not be sold until next year and they anticipate 40 units in 2004 and 40 units in 2005. He stated the phasing plan will be important in how it will sequence since the first addition will not be sold out until the end of 2005. He stated they would prefer to do 80 units instead of 60 units. Mr. Johnson stated they would like a recommendation from the Board tonight so they can move forward to discuss the project with the City Council at several workshops. He stated he believes they have boiled many issues down to a remaining few. Mr. Rafferty asked about snow removal. Mr. Johnson stated the homeowner association will handle snow removal and there are places where snow can be stored in piles at the end of the driveways or by the power lines where there are a number of open areas to provide for snow storage. Chair Schaps noted the Police Chief and Fire Chief are nervous about an 18 -foot street. He noted that it may be called an "alley" but it will be used as a street and he is not in favor of it as proposed. Mr. Johnson asked the Board to indicate the width that is preferred. Chair Schaps stated there are some 22 -foot wide private streets in townhome areas. Mr. Smyser stated he thinks that is correct and that it had a wider easement. He noted these are rear- loaded townhome units. Chair Schaps stated he would support a width of 22 feet. Mr. Johnson stated that would reduce the space along the walkway side of the building but will not change the plan dramatically. Chair Schaps asked about the easternmost intersection that staff recommends be combined into the intersection. Mr. Johnson stated that was the four -way intersection where Carl Street connects with Century Trail. He stated they do not want to make this a four -way intersection. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 20 Chair Schaps stated it appears there are still some open issues that need to be addressed. He invited residents to make comment. David Hunter, 263 Palomino, stated he represents the Airpark Association. He stated the issues that need to be addressed are that they do not want Carl Street to go through and can live with an emergency access. He stated they definitely prefer the proposed intersection style as being presented ( "T" intersection) which will provide more traffic calming than a four -way stop. Mr. Hunter stated Lot 9 was discussed before and there was a question about compatibility. He noted that Lots 5, 6, and 7 have a back yard that faces some outbuildings. He stated the Airpark Association believes nothing provides a better buffer than a house with an outbuilding in between non - Airpark lots. He noted the line that represents a 25 -foot height limitation and explained the need to maintain a 7:1 slope within the safety zone. Any trees taller than 25 feet within that primary surface will be removed to maintain a safety zone. He explained that Mr. Uhde expressed interest to keep some oak trees in that tree stand north of Lot 9 which would provide an additional buffer between Lots 6, 7, and 8 and the Airpark area. With regard to incompatibility between Airpark and non - Airpark lots, Mr. Hunter stated Mr. Uhde is willing to convert Lots 1, 2, and 3 into Airpark lots. Chair Schaps asked if the pond presents some problems. Mr. Hunter stated that it does so they will allow the pond to be shifted towards the south (towards their property) to allow level land. He noted that the pond does not impact their safety zone. Nikki Schneider, 152 Palomino, stated she serves on the Lino Lakes Environmental Board. She noted that if Lots 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9 are made into Airpark lots, then it makes 18 more Airpark lots going in behind a neighborhood, which is extremely concerning to her as a resident in the area due to noise and air pollution. She advised that the Environmental Board feels strongly that the oak savanna needs to remain intact and that resource needs to be kept in mind as Lino Lakes continues to develop. She noted that several lots are right in the oak savannah and if those trees are removed then the neighborhood that backs up to it will have a view into the Airpark. Mr. Kirmis stated the conversion of Lots 1, 2, and 3 would solve some of the problems. He asked if a solution is to convert Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and eliminate Lot 9 which would eliminate the compatibility issue. Mr. Hunter stated that Lots 5 -8 would still have open access to the runway area and a house and building would help restrict access. He stated they are just trying to create a buffer, restrict access, and keep "friendlies" next to the runway. Mr. Hunter stated there is a lot of dense scrub brush along the south side of the Airpark but people gain access over the pipeline and from the west. He stated that he has seen kids on bicycles try to cut DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 21 across the runway and he has gone out and explained to them that this is private property and it is an active runway. Mr. Hyden noted the residents are not at home all of the time so there is nothing to stop them from crossing all of the runways. Mr. Hunter stated he doesn't usually catch the same kids twice. Chair Schaps asked if the area is posted with signs. Mr. Hunter stated there are some signs. Chair Schaps stated the taxiway may be the problem and asked if there is a way to hook the pond around and keep the trees. Mr. Hunter indicated there is not. Kyle Kruger, 345 Carl Street, stated they just purchased their house and while working on the plans and septic were told that nothing was happening on this property for the next ten years. Chair Schaps stated public hearings have been held on this project for a while now. Mr. Kruger stated that he started asking questions of the neighbors and learned about it as well as Century Farms. He stated the seller and realtor did not tell him about this and it would have been nice to have been told this information. Eric Schneider, 250 Palomino, stated he lives on the west end of the runway and while there has been discussion about adding the Airpark hangers to buffer the noise, that may be for 15 to 20 feet but what about when the plane is taking off. He stated they fly right over his house. He noted that the beginning proposal was for something much smaller and asked if this is a money issue. He stated he has lived there for three years. Chair Schaps noted that the Airpark has been there longer than three years so Mr. Schneider knew this was an active airport when he purchased his home. Mr. Schneider stated they did know that but he is concerned about additional noise pollution. He stated that a bike path was proposed around the airport when his area was developed along with a safety fence but nothing has happened. Mr. Rafferty asked if his lot is part of the Airpark. Mr. Schneider stated it is not and his house is where the safety zone starts. Chair Schaps stated he is having a hard time being sympathetic since the Airpark existed when they purchased the house three years ago and it should have been known that there would be additional houses in the open area. He noted the issue is about two additional houses and asked Mr. Schneider if the noise is so bad that he is thinking about moving. Mr. Schneider stated he is not thinking about moving. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 22 Bonnie Bigler, 346 Carl Street, stated she does not keep a log but thinks there is less than one airplane takeoff and landing most days and there are days that none take off. She stated the only noise pollution would be the annual Airpark picnic event. She stated she does not think an additional lot or two will make a big difference and the residents will be "Airpark friendlies" who know the issues involved with an airport. Scott Moore, 149 Palomino Lane, stated he did not notice a neighborhood park for this development. He stated he just received notice the other day so most of his questions are addressed towards City staff. He stated the noise they are dealing with now is from planes taking off since they glide in. He asked if the planes would taxi down to the other end of the runway before takeoff. Mr. Hunter stated planes take off in both directions, depending on the wind. Eilene Couture, 6973 Lakeview Drive and representing St. Joe's Social Justice Committee, stated they discussed some of the issues with affordable housing and would like to request that the Board recommend that the project include lower income houses in the connected townhomes in the first phase. Mark Blanton, 93 Palomino Lane, stated he lives across from Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. He stated he came tonight to leam more about what is going on and some things have troubled him. Chair Schaps asked how long he has lived in this area. Mr. Blanton stated he has lived there two and a half years, is a "toy fanatic," and appreciates the large number of recreational vehicles in this neighborhood. He stated the hanger on Lot 4 will destroy his view and the neighbor behind him complains all the time about planes flying too low. He stated there are a lot of young kids in the neighborhood and that is a concern as well. Chair Schaps asked if he had believed there was no runway there when he bought the property. Mr. Blanton stated he knew it was there and has no objection to what is there now, but objects to future expansion. Mr. Blanton asked if Sunset will be widened to accommodate the additional traffic. He stated he is concerned about the trees that will be removed and replaced by pole barns. He stated he would like more time to work through some of these issues. He stated he cannot believe that alleys are being suggested and is also concerned about police and fire protection with this number of additional homes. Steve McDonald, 336 Carl Street, asked if the stub can be relocated to where the highline wires are and ignore Carl Street all together. He stated he sees no advantage to putting Carl Street through and asked if he will have to pay for a street improvement. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 23 Chair Schaps stated he does not know but if a street project is approved then benefiting properties are assessed a portion of the cost. Mr. McDonald stated if the traffic is increased then the street will need to be improved. He stated he has lived on a cul -de -sac for 12 years and putting Carl Street through would ruin his life. He asked them to move the connection to the stub that is under the power line wires where there is an easement. Mike Blazek, owner of Lot 10 on Carl Street, stated this is the first meeting he has been able to attend and he agrees with what Mr. McDonald said about not putting through Carl Street. He stated he planned to build on his beautiful cul -de -sac lot and believes that extending Carl Street would ruin his lot. He agreed with the suggestion that the street be aligned under the power lines. Mr. Blazek stated there is already a jog in the street and when he purchased the lot the selling point was that it was on a cul -de -sac. He stated he is also a licensed pilot. Mr. Blazek stated he thinks extending Carl Street is an extremely bad idea. Dave Ramsden, 302 Carl Street, stated he does not want to see Carl Street extended. He stated if there is an easement under the power lines that should be considered instead of wrecking a nice quiet neighborhood. Glenn Martig, 376 Carl Street, stated he also has an issue with Carl Street going through. He stated that since Phase 1 and 2 are not going in for several years, the decision on Carl Street can be delayed and then it will be known what will happen with the sod field property. He stated he was told it would remain a cul -de -sac. Mr. Martig stated that Lots 4 and 9 do make a good buffer, he thinks they make good neighbors, and do not make a lot of noise. He stated that he thinks Lots 1, 2, and 3 are also a good idea since it will provide a buffer. Mr. Martig stated the more people who are Airpark and pilot -aware it will educate the neighborhood. He stated that trespassing across a private lot is less likely to happen if a private home is built on Lot 9. Mr. Martig stated if Carl Street has to go through, he would support the "T" intersection rather than a four -way stop. He stated he thinks that provides a calming effect and he does not think Carl Street has to go through. Jeff Kolstad, 296 Carl Street, reviewed the history of their development and explained that a permanent cul -de -sac was placed in 1996 due to parameters in place at that time by the Council and watershed restrictions. He stated that he had to place his house in such a way due to the wetland delineation and since he would be the most effected with Carl Street being jogged and extended, it would impact his property evaluation. He stated the developer and residents said they would come up with other alternatives to Carl Street going through. In addition, the sod farmer has said he wants to sell and developers are lined up to develop it. He stated this is about future planning and not ramming through a road. He rebutted the fact about the traffic flows not working since there is a traffic study. He stated the sod fields will be developed in the future depending on the City's forecast for developing. He stated that a decision needs to be made and all Carl Street DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 24 residents who have attended have stated they object to Carl Street going through. He noted that there has also been a petition submitted against the extension. Mr. Kolstad stated he is all for safety and emergency vehicle access but based on the history of the cul -de -sac and house placement, he does not think Carl Street needs to be connected at this time, especially when the phases will not be constructed for several years. He noted that the directive of the Mayor and Council was to come up with other alternatives which they have done. He stated he hopes the Board hears the Carl Street residents. Mike Zurbey (sp ?), 215 Palomino, stated most of the Airpark residents fly for fun and there are only a few days a week where the weather is right for flying. He stated he thinks riding lawnmowers make more noise and pollution than the airplanes from this park. He stated he would like this project to proceed. Mr. Rafferty asked where he lives. Mr. Zurbey stated he is on the southwest side and is not even a pilot but would like to see something move forward. Mr. Rafferty stated this is the first comment in support of the development. Mr. Zurbey stated he would like to see more of his neighbors become pilots and this is what he wants to learn more about. He stated this is an enjoyable community for him, he likes his neighbors and the environment, and enjoys watching planes take off. James Munster, 109 Palomino Lane, stated he was told that nothing would be built behind him but would be built along Sunset so he was under the impression that nothing would be built behind his house. He stated he was told that by realtors and City staff. Mr. Munster stated he remains concerned about the density with the townhomes and does not think it fits the area since most people who moved in there did so to get away from crowds, lights, noise, and traffic. He noted this was zoned for Low Density Residential and as of last summer the plans only showed Low Density. Mr. Blanton stated he purchased from Steve Kelly, a realtor, who had contact with Mr. Uhde. He stated when he purchased his house they said a development would go in behind him but not impact the trees. He stated the development was to go down Sunset so they felt their view would be safe. Mr. Blanton asked if the plans are "set in stone" or moving forward. Chair Schaps stated he is not comfortable moving tonight since staff does not have the engineering information for review from Mr. Uhde. Mr. Corson asked Mr. Hunter about the trees that are not in conformance with the airstrip safety zone. Mr. Hunter explained they keep the airport to the Minnesota regulations for airport safety in terms of safety zones. He stated he has not measured where the oaks are but does know where the 25 foot line is and that is not a very tall oak tree. He stated they spoke to Mr. Uhde, the landowner, and have permission to do what is needed to remain in conformance. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 25 Mr. Corson asked if a house can be constructed in that area and the trees remain if they are at the height requirement. Mr. Hunter stated if the trees are cut back to 7:1 now, in five years it will not be at conformance any more and the property owner at that time will probably not give permission. Since they have permission from the property owner now, they will remove the trees that do not comply. Mr. Corson stated there may be a way to keep the more northerly stand of oak trees in place. Mr. Hyden asked if someone else could have bought the land, not cut down trees, and shut down the airport. Mr. Hunter explained that should that occur, they would have to change the configuration of the runway to maintain conformance. Mr. Rafferty stated the trees exist now and have not been trimmed. Mr. Hunter stated that is correct but they have trimmed trees on the Airpark property. He stated they have never researched these trees before. Mr. Rafferty stated he agrees the Airpark exists and that is what it is for but is questioning why the trees have to be looked at now since they haven't been looked at up to this point. Mr. Hunter stated he is unprepared to say whether the trees are more or less than 25 feet. Mr. Rafferty stated it becomes an issue if it is because the Airpark has expanded to the west. Mr. Lyden asked if they can land multi- engine planes. Mr. Hunter answered in the affirmative. Mr. Hunter stated the issue of the trees came up when City staff raised issues with Lots 4 and 9. Staff had stated that the trees are another reason to remove a couple of Airpark lots. He stated he would be thrilled to make them all Airpark lots and keep the oak stand as long as they can get a taxiway in there. Mr. Uhde stated the Environmental Board made them aware of the stand of oaks and had stressed the need to preserve it. He stated they looked at many solutions but the road has to be located where it is indicated due to wetland impacts. He stated they looked at a way to minimize the impact to the trees but in 1992 -1993 they had agreed to work with the Airpark Association to protect their interests at all costs. He stated they continue to do that. Mr. Uhde stated when he and Mr. Johnson addressed the oak tree stand, it was known that the first 25 feet of oak trees would be removed to preserve the safety zone. He suggested putting Airpark lots along that area to minimize the impact of taking the trees down since they will be on Airpark lots and controlled by the Airpark Association. Mr. Uhde noted that if those two Airpark lots are eliminated and the lots extended out to the Airpark, 25 feet and maybe 50 feet of trees will still be lost to maintain the safety zone. He asked if that is the best way to control access to the Airpark. He stated they DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 26 feel having Airpark lots provides better control than extending the lots and leaving the trees. Also, the trees would be governed by the Airpark Association. In addition, there is no guarantee that the homeowner will not cut them down anyway. Chair Schaps asked how a house can be built on those lots. Mr. Uhde stated they will do designated grading to minimize the negative impact to the trees. He assured the Board they will save every tree possible. Mr. Uhde stated they can add Lots 1, 2, and 3 to the Airpark but the Airpark By Laws will have to be changed so they can accept them, which they have indicated they will do. Chair Schaps asked about Outlot 5 which is identified as a large park area. Mr. Johnson explained that Outlot B is in the first phase and Outlot C is in the second phase. He stated there are eleven acres of upland in the dedicated park area. Mr. Uhde showed the Board the disclosure documents and stated they provided this information to every homeowner in Behm's and he has those signed disclosure forms on file. He stated they have to sign that disclosure and it details that the Airpark is there. He stated that sales associates were calling him constantly and knew about the Airpark. He stated that if buyers were not told of that, they would probably have legal grounds against their realtor. Mr. Rafferty asked about the pond to the south and if it will be connected. Mr. Johnson stated a pipe connects the southerly pond, across Palomino, and to the pond on the other side. He stated that is designed to accommodate a 100 -year event. Mr. Rafferty stated he missed a few meetings and apologizes for that but has never been comfortable with an extension of Carl Street because it was an existing cul -de -sac. He stated he would be disappointed if that extension were to occur. Mr. Uhde stated they did due diligence for the Airpark Association to make their case and conducted a traffic study that showed Carl Street does not have to be connected. However, City staff has indicated Carl Street does need to be extended and have letters from the Police and Fire Departments. Mr. Rafferty stated he would also hope that something can be done with the sod farm property. Mr. Lyden stated Carl Street is not a street, this is a neighborhood and the City does not have the right to destroy a current neighborhood to build a new one. He stated he may have made a mistake at the last meeting when he asked for specific Fire and Police Department letters but what is contained in the letters is not the kind of information he was requesting. He requested staff provide response times through different areas of the City, the average response time in the City, and the response time with Carl Street as it is presently and if it was connected. He stated he would also like data on reasonable DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 27 prudent response times. He stated that he is committed to not extend Carl Street but if it has to be done, that it be for emergency vehicle access only. Mr. Lyden stated the density is an issue for him because it can result in people problems and quality of life impacts. Mr. Smyser stated staff is asking for the Board's direction on four issues which needs to occur for the application to move ahead. With regard to a 22 -foot lane behind the townhomes, staff is comfortable with that. Chair Schaps asked each member to indicate their opinion on the four outstanding issues. Mr. Lyden stated that if changing the width from 22 to 26 feet would alleviate the density issues and redraw the plat with more open space, he supports a 26 -foot road. He stated he likes the intersection as it is proposed and to convert Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 into Airpark lots. Mr. Corson stated he would like to see the driveway expanded to 22 feet but thinks people will park along there anyway. He stated he thinks the Carl Street intersection with Century Lane is a good traffic calming technique, and supports converting Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 into Airpark lots. He asked the applicant to work out a way to keep as many trees as possible. Mr. Rafferty stated he is comfortable with a 22 -foot driveway and the "T" intersection is acceptable but he does not care for an extension of Carl Street whatsoever. He stated that access for emergency vehicles only may be agreeable and converting Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 into Airpark is common sense since it will give the ability to control some of the tree loss. He noted that it does not matter who owns the property, the trees could be removed. Mr. Hyden stated he agrees with expansion to 22 -foot driveways and to leave Carl Street as it is. He stated the Fire Department and Police Departments stress safety and he could support an emergency breakaway so the neighborhood can remain as it is. He stated he supports converting Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 into Airpark lots to provide a better buffer. Chair Schaps stated he agrees with the 22 -foot driveways. He noted that action cannot be taken until the engineering plans are submitted and reviewed by City staff. He stated he supports converting Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 into Airpark lots which may save more trees than otherwise. With regard to Carl Street, Chair Schaps stated he is leaning towards extension but thinks that Mr. Lyden raises a good point to request additional data regarding response times and to explore the option of an emergency break off which may solve the issue, at least until there is further development to the north. He stated the issue for him is emergency service and the Police Chief and Fire Chief have indicated it would improve their response time. However, the cul -de -sac could remain if the new data shows positive response times or that break off is an option. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 28 Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the February 12, 2003 meeting and table consideration of the MUSA Reserve Allocation (85.3 acres), the Rezoning from Rural to R -1, Single Family Residential and R -3, Medium Density Residential, a PUD to allow airplane hangers, private streets, and multiple buildings on a single lot, and the preliminary plat for Century Farm North Development Inc. for a 250 unit low and medium density residential development (Century Farm North) located upon a 95.1 acres site north of Thomas Street and east of Sunset Road, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Mr. Lyden asked about the location of a driveway and unit. Mr. Smyser stated there are a number of issues that staff will resolve with the applicant and that is one which will need to be addressed. Chair Schaps thanked Eilene Couture, the representative from the St. Joe's Social Justice Committee, and stated that all need to keep in mind the need for life -cycle housing. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Smyser noted they will have to re- examine how fire trucks gain access to these hangers since there will be no paved taxi lane. Mr. Johnson stated he spoke with the Fire Chief today who indicated that the State Building Code is in the process of being revised. If approved, the hangers would need to have automatic sprinkler systems which would change the impact for Fire Department access. He stated it will be 30 days until the State adopts that code and then it will take the City a while to consider adoption. E. Jim Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, Keefe Minor Subdivision Jim Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, stated he appreciates the opportunity to present his case. He noted that all of the P &Z members have viewed his property. He explained that he is attempting to split out two five -acre parcels and would end up with 37.5 acres of land with three homes on the property. He stated that would not meet the requirements of the ordinance to a "T" but would meet the spirit of the ordinance. He stated this is a fairly unique piece of property and there is not a whole lot left he can do with it. He stated his access to sewer and water is cut off so he is trying to do what he can with what he has left. Chair Schaps asked if, in general, Mr. Keefe's request is allowable. Mr. Smyser stated there is a minimum ten acre lot size in unsewered areas and this area is guided for Residential, Sewered in Stage 2 (after 2010). He explained that the problem with making large lot developments in this area is that it will prevent utilities from coming through in the future. Then property owners who want the improvements will not be able to afford the assessments to serve them. That creates gaps where you cannot extend City sewer and water. He stated this is an instance where a proposal goes completely against the Comprehensive Plan and would require many variances of the Zoning Ordinance. He DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 29 stated it is not a matter of whether staff wants or does not want this to be approved, but a matter that the City made some decisions on what was to happen in areas at certain times. There are guidelines that if development is to occur, there are ways to do that. He stated there is a long public policy determination process that takes years to complete and then things come up so the issue is what credibility the City's policy have if the rules are made and then ignored. Chair Schaps stated he understands those concerns and that with every set of rules there may have to be an exception. He reviewed the surrounding property uses to the Keefe property, noting that to the north is Clearwater Creek so there will be no service from that area; to the east there is only wetland that will not be developed and if service came from that direction the cost would be unapproachable; to the south the property is developed with wells and septics; and to the west it is wetland. He stated he understands what the Comprehensive Plan says but thinks this is a situation that may not have been addressed and if there is any reasonable use of this property it may have to be through well and septic development. Mr. Smyser stated he has no way of knowing how sewer and water could come to this property since no feasibility studies have been done. He noted that the submittal by Mr. Keefe show just a few of the one acre lots to the south that are served by well and septic, and they have been in place for a very long time. He commented on the Twilight Acres area where septics started to fail and there were no other locations on those one acre lots to locate another septic. He stated that eliminating land from being available for City sewer and water eliminates it for other land as well due to the cost to extend improvements. Mr. Smyser stated it may be correct that this is an area that merits closer attention and that is a possibility. He stated that staff would fully support re- examining areas more closely but staff does not support just throwing out the adopted rules and granting approval. Chair Schaps stated he does not support throwing out adopted rules either but thinks this may be one area that needs to be readdressed. He noted this property is high ground so he thinks it could be served by a well and septic for a very long time. Mr. Smyser stated another option is clustering and open space guarantees which is allowed under the current ordinance. He stated that to approve this request would result in abandoning the City's Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances and he could not support that. Mr. Keefe stated there is no way sewer and water can come to his property in any way except, perhaps, from the south. He noted that there are small lots to the south but then there are acres of open land. Chair Schaps stated that he understands the concerns raised by Mr. Smyser and the need for Mr. Keefe to have this considered in a timely manner. He stated that he thinks DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 30 consideration can be crafted in such a way to assure the Comprehensive Plan is not abandoned. Mr. Lyden stated you need to let go of the whole idea of running sewer and water up here and comparing this to Twilight Acres is not a fair comparison. He emphasized that this is a unique property, an island intersected by a road and bordered by wetland to the east and west. He stated he thinks there is a way to make this consideration through a PDO or some other way and that may mean "burning the midnight oil" a little longer and being helpful to this applicant. He noted that this property could be split into four lots with four houses and the City is always considering PDOs for developers that gives them more homes. He stated he would support a PDO consideration with the assurance that the additional space is available for an additional septic system, if needed. Mr. Smyser stated that if a subdivision and PDO are being considered the City will need a survey and documentation on how this will function. However, what Mr. Keefe has proposed is not feasible. Mr. Smyser stated the timing of this consideration all depends on how fast Mr. Keefe gets information to staff. Chair Schaps asked if this can happen by the February meeting. Mr. Smyser stated it can happen if the information is submitted. He noted that Mr. Keefe is not a land designer so staff will have to work with whoever is working for Mr. Keefe. Mr. Smyser stated staff will need a document that can be legally recordable. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Smyser to clarify what Mr. Keefe will need to submit so it can be considered. Mr. Smyser reviewed changes that can be made to the layout and stated that an agreement will need to be drafted that can be recorded. Mr. Smyser stated lots cannot be created without road frontage. He also noted that in Lino Lakes lots have not been created on a dirt road for a long time. He asked if the road would be built. Mr. Lyden stated it has been a gravel road for 60 years and suggested that Mr. Keefe work with Ms. Gretz. Mr. Rafferty stated that he refuses to beat up on staff and thinks they have done a good job. He suggested this be worked out within two weeks so it can be considered by the City Council. He stated there have been suggestions that calls are not returned and there is not enough help available. He stated there is a lot of opportunity to create several parcels and work with Mr. Keefe. Mr. Smyser stated he feels he is under attack and wants to set the record straight. He stated that this kind of abuse is uncalled for. Chair Schaps stated that the February meeting would allow a reasonable amount of time to get this worked out. He asked all to agree tonight that this will happen and work DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 31 together. He urged Mr. Keefe to have his surveyor contact City staff to learn exactly what is necessary to get this application put together. He stated he is sympathetic to Mr. Keefe's problem and thinks it is not asking too much to work with him and consider his request. Mr. Keefe stated he is not sure what else he can do to move the property lines around. Chair Schaps stated that maybe Mr. Keefe's surveyor or engineer will have that answer and can work it out with staff. Mr. Grochala stated Mr. Keefe has indicated to the City Council at a workshop that he needs a purchase agreement signed by February 13 and the Planning and Zoning Board meets on February 12 so there is no way for this application to come back to the Planning and Zoning Board and then the City Council by that date. Chair Schaps stated it could be considered at the special meeting. Members indicated a willingness to consider it at the special meeting that has been scheduled for January 22, 2003. Mr. Corson asked if the bank would consider allowing several additional days if this is being considered. Mr. Keefe stated that may be possible. Chair Schaps encouraged Mr. Keefe to work closely with staff and urged all to keep the lines of communication open and friendly. He stated this can be done even though all are busy. B. PUBLIC HEARING, Growth Management Ordinance Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 10:30 p.m. Staff explained that the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2002 includes important policies relating to the management of growth in the City. Now that the Comprehensive Plan is in place, the City must adopt the means of implementing it. The Growth Management Ordinance establishes the means by which the City will regulate the amount of growth. It will work with the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance, which generally regulate the type of growth. There is some overlap, however. Staff stated the fundamental growth management elements of the Comprehensive Plan are: a) The target for annual growth of 147 new homes per year. b) The future land use map that lays out locational and timing limits on new growth: Stage 1 (pre -2010) and Stage 2 (2010- 2020). c) A specified number of MUSA reserve acres for accommodating new growth in each of the staged growth areas. These three elements form the foundation of the Growth Management Ordinance. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 32 Staff advised that Section 1 of the ordinance lists findings. The findings accomplish a number of things. They connect the ordinance to the Comprehensive Plan, and they list facts and justifications that form the basis of the regulations created by the ordinance. Section 2 is the regulatory part of the ordinance. Each paragraph relates to one or more of the fundamental growth management elements listed above. Staff explained that it is important to read Section 2 of the ordinance in order, as each paragraph builds on previous paragraphs. Staff reviewed each of the findings as contained in draft Ordinance No. 01 -03 as well as the provisions contained in the Growth Management Policy. Staff addressed the approved Phasing Plan/Final Platting Schedule, noting that Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 refer to phasing plans and an inventory of approved phasing plans, which requires some explanation. The City needs a way to keep track of the number of housing units that are approved and the schedule for when they will be built. The best way to do this is to track and regulate the approval of platted lots or housing units. (A single family detached lot will accommodate one housing unit. However, multi - family residential structures can be built on one lot. Therefore, it is the number of units that counts.) Staff explained that lots cannot be built on until the final plat is approved. Once the final plat is approved, we can assume that the lots will be built on relatively soon. The ordinance states (paragraph 9) that all plats over 50 units must include a phasing plan. (The new Subdivision Ordinance also requires a phasing plan. This is one of the overlapping points of the Growth Management Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance.) The phasing plan will be negotiated during the project review process. Ultimately, when the City Council approves a preliminary plat, the phasing plan will be part of the conditions of approval and included in the development agreement. The phasing plan lists which lots /units will be final platted in each year following preliminary plat approval. Staff noted that Exhibit 1 provides a progressive explanation of the inventory of approved phasing plans, or final platting schedule. The schedule includes a column for each year and a row for each development project. The approval of Stoneybrook in 2002 included a phasing plan that allows 51 lots to be final platted in 2002 and the remaining 52 in 2003. (Lots can carry over to the next year to some extent.) Staff presented the exhibits as follows: Exhibit 1, pages two and three show additional (imaginary) projects and their phasing plans. According to the schedule, Caroline's Estates could final plat 47 lots in 2003, 49 lots in 2004, 49 in 2005, and the last 23 in 2006. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 33 Page four shows the lots platted in 2002 (prior to the growth management policy being in place) and the total for the projects, assuming additional projects will make up the 147 each year. Page five illustrates several things. It shows that we have an existing inventory at the end of 2002 (about 208 lots) that is not governed by the new policy. It also shows that by year end 2005, the existing inventory of lots will be used up and the annual target of 147 new housing units will be achieved. That is, since the left over inventory is used up, only the lots that are final platted according to the phasing plan schedule will be available. As long as the City follows the policy, 147 new lots will come on line annually, and that is all that can be built on. Mr. Corson asked about the timing of approvals. Mr. Smyser stated staff will look at the existing infrastructure, MUSA, etc. together with the premature development criteria. Staff noted there is some flexibility built into the policy, as explained in paragraphs four and five of the ordinance. Staff advised that the moratorium on residential development expires in February. Because of this, is important for the P & Z to make a recommendation to the City Council at tonight's meeting. The ordinance is scheduled for a first reading by the City Council on Monday, January 13. Staff recommended the adoption of the Growth Management Ordinance. Chair Schaps asked if anyone in the audience would like to make comment. Eileen Couture, 6973 Lakeview Drive, stated she has lived in Lino Lakes for 20 years and seen the rapid expansion. Because of that, she stated she thinks an annual review is an important thing to assure things remain in check. She asked how individual lot splits would be addressed. Mr. Smyser stated it does not have to be just big projects and those individual lot splits also have to be figured into the 147 number. He stated that, perhaps, a line should be added into the matrix for individual lot splits or subdivisions without phasing plans since they are new homes. Or, they could be exempted from the 147 since there are so few of them. Mr. Lyden noted the City Attorney will be looking at this policy closely because some year it could get to the 21% over and a homeowner may make a request to split their lot. He asked what basis would be used to tell them "no." Mr. Smyser stated the City decided to limit growth and picked a number (147). He stated there will probably be instances where a project would force the number over the limit but a fair policy would have to apply to everyone. Mr. Lyden stated he would assume that the City's legal counsel will do the research necessary to assure the language can stand up in court if tested. Mr. Smyser stated he had DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 34 discussed the ordinance at length with the City Attorney, who believes the ordinance is reasonable. Lino Lakes is attempting to do something that is unlike what has been done before in other cities. Mr. Lyden asked if there is any court case history. Mr. Smyser stated there is not in this particular way. He explained how other cities limit growth and how Lino Lakes is unique in its method. Mr. Lyden asked if there is a better way to address growth management and achieve the City's goals by using the 2010 growth zone through 2020. Mr. Smyser stated that is a possibility if the City wants to redo the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lyden stated the City is already beyond the population growth projections for 2010 so maybe readdressing the Comprehensive Plan is a good idea if it sets realistic goals. Mr. Smyser drew a graph to explain how the number of lots will probably fluctuate. He stated one option was to ratchet down to the 2010 plan but that was not an option accepted by the City Council. Mr. Lyden stated that after 2010 and 2020 the facts will show that the City had high growth, not the moderate growth the residents wanted, and the fact that there was not the backbone to take another course will be obvious to everyone. Mr. Smyser stated that possibility was considered but staff was directed to not go that route. He explained that for the past few years, exceeding the target of 147 per year is almost completely accounted for due to the delay in getting something approved. Chair Schaps asked how many permits were issued last year. Mr. Smyser estimated somewhere between 215 and 220. Mr. Joyer, realtor, stated he read that Woodbury is trying to control their growth to 600 homes a year which is interesting considering the target for Lino Lakes. He stated it looks like the first three largest projects submitted will wrap things up for the next three and a half years. He suggested that is a limited amount of activity in the City and will complicate things for smaller projects. However, he agreed that a policy needs to be fair to everyone. He stated he thinks that staying with 147 will result in drastic impacts to property owners which may push land values down. He stated these policies will result in a self - imposed moratorium as soon as that third plat is submitted. He stated he also finds it interesting that the City Council and City Planner know the new policy precludes any large project to the point that The Village is excluded and that is unfortunate because something exciting may be possible up there. He stated he thinks this ordinance will pass quietly as it is a late hour and it will not be until land owners discover this restriction that it will be more controversial than represented by the crowd tonight. Mr. Corson asked how one developer will be kept from absorbing the entire 147. Mr. Smyser stated that will not be allowed but it is true that only a few developments will be DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 35 going on. Those who do not get to do what they want will think it is a bad thing but others will think it is a good thing. He stated that policy decisions are needed to place the severe restrictions on growth that the Comprehensive Plan sets. He agreed with Mr. Joyer that many landowners likely will be unhappy that they cannot sell to a developer because the project would be over the limit. Ms. Couture stated there was discussion at the Minnesota Housing Convention that limiting growth will always increase the price. She stated she does not necessarily agree with this ordinance but it can be given a try for a year and if it does not work then it may show others that there is a need to review the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 11:22 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -1 (Lyden). Mr. Lyden stated he thinks a matter such as this deserves more than one public hearing to get public input. Chair Schaps stated he understands that concern but it was also advertised in the official newspaper. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Growth Management Ordinance, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Mr. Lyden stated he does not believe this will achieve the original goals because the numbers do not add up. He stated he has tenuous feelings about the legalities and whether this is the best thinking and way to go. He stated he thinks the City is "sticking its neck out." Mr. Rafferty stated he thinks staff has done their best to address all the needs and wants that have been expressed and he thinks there has been some give and take. He stated he appreciates staff's efforts and in particular those of Mr. Smyser. Motion carried 4 -1 (Lyden). C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 15` — 7th Additions (formerly Behm's Century Farm 6th —10`h Additions) South of Main Street and North of Carl Street — Section 7, Rezone, MUSA Allocation, Preliminary Plat This item was considered earlier in the meeting. D. PUBLIC HEARING, ATS &R, Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch Street, Site Plan Review & Conditional Use Permit This item was considered earlier in the meeting. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 8, 2003 Page 36 E. Jim Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, Keefe Minor Subdivision This item was considered earlier in the meeting. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 2002 Year End Summary Mr. Smyser noted the Planning and Zoning Board action summary and final action summary by land use type for 2002. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Smyser to thank Dawn Bugge for this informative summary. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:27 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES SPECIAL PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT : January 22, 2003 • 6.37 P.M. 9.12 P.M. : Corson, Hyden, Schaps and Zych. : Lane, Lyden, Zych. : Jeff Smyser; Michael Grochala; 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., January 22, 2003. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Smyser requested item B be started until item A could be completed. III. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:38 p.m. Lee Whitmore, 7698 Sunset Avenue, stated three years ago Mr. Uhde built six new homes on the north side of him. He stated at that time, Mr. Uhde had flooded some of his property. He stated this past summer with the rain, his garden was once again flooded because of five new homes built on the east side. He stated he believed Mr. Uhde should put in some kind of a swale or drainage to prevent flooding on his property. He noted his property was lower than the existing properties. He stated he had spoken with Mr. Uhde a couple of years ago. Chair Schaps noted Mr. Uhde had another development coming to the City in February and that Mr. Whitmore's problem would be brought up at that meeting. He requested Mr. Whitmore contact Mr. Uhde about this problem prior to the February P &Z meeting. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:43 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 3 -0. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, Draft Zoning Ordinance Review Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m. Staff stated they had been working on the Zoning Ordinance since May or June. He stated there was a Citizen Task Force formed to work with the staff and consultant to work on this Ordinance. He stated the Subdivision Ordinance would be going to the City Council this Monday for first reading. He noted tonight was the start of the public hearing for the Zoning Ordinance and it would be continued to the regular February P &Z meeting. Staff reviewed the following in the proposed Zoning Ordinance: Page 1 -3, paragraph E, the current Ordinance says if a use is not specifically listed, then it is prohibited. This was changed to say if there was a proposed use either specifically allowed or denied, the City Council will determine if the proposed use was comparable to something that was listed and if there were, they would go by that comparable use. If not, they would prepare a study to research the use. Page 2 -5, changes were made to the conditional use permit standards. He stated the standards they have are very general and ambiguous. He stated what they had done in this draft was to replace them with clear standards. Page 2 -8, paragraph 14, he stated they cleared up the language on that paragraph by stating anything listed as a conditional use in the zoning district, if it was there already, it would be considered to have a CUP. At the bottom of the page, as item C, a revocation clause was added to the conditional use permits. Page 2 -9, interim use permits was made the same as conditional use permits. Page 2 -12, under variances, submittal requirements are clearer. Page 2 -15, an appeal procedure was added. Page 2 -16, paragraph F, this will be revised to add the extension to the 60 days under Minnesota Statutes 15.99. Page 2 -19, paragraph 5, the extension issue must be added to the 60 days. Page 2 -22, paragraph A, site and building plan review would now be reviewed and approved or denied administratively by the community development department. It would not go through P &Z and City Council. If there were a disagreement, it would go into the public process. Very specific submittal requirements for the plans were added to pages 2 -23 through 2 -28. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 3 • Page 2 -29, a paragraph will be added stating that appeals were available through the process described in section 2. • • Mr. Corson asked if it was a relatively small application, was there any possibility of having a maximum fee in order not to discourage the homeowner from making an application. Mr. Smyser replied a small application does now have a small fee. He stated the fee was $250.00 for a variance or a minor subdivision, and if that amount were not completely used, it would be refunded to the homeowner. Page 2 -33, subdivision 6, with respect to Metes and Bounds Conveyances was deleted. Page 2 -36, added that the Community Development Director shall be the Zoning Administrator. Page 2 -39, the main part of the PUD changed. Under the current ordinance a PUD is treated as a rezoning. What was being proposed was that a PUD would be a conditional use within each zoning district, in most cases. He noted this would simplify the PUD. A mixed use PUD project will require a special rezoning. Page 2 -43, paragraph C, deals with rural residential development without City sewer and water. He noted under this process lots would be allowed to be smaller than the standard for a rural area, as long as open space was preserved. Page 2 -47, a clause would be added that in a rural cluster development they would allow the possibility of having a common septic system. However, it must be in agreement that if it was not maintained properly, the City can fix it and assess the property owners. Page 2 -47, paragraph 2, urban residential PUD shall be applied only within the City's R- 2, R -3 and 4 -2 Zoning Districts. He noted this was discussed at length at the Task Force to deal with clustering single - family homes. A new R -EC zone is proposed for clustering. Page 2 -50, the process for PUD would in general follow the platting process. He noted the language would be changed some noting that the concept plan was voluntary. He noted the density of the PUD must comply with the land use category in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose was to preserve open space. Mr. Corson asked how the density was calculated. Mr. Smyser replied it was calculated by the delineated wetland being subtracted. He noted this would need further clarification. Mr. Corson asked if they expected anything from the Land Trust, other than the perpetual easement. Mr. Smyser replied that typically when the Land Trust took on an easement, there was a legal document recorded that stated the Land Trust takes on the easement responsibility, and would be responsible to monitor it on a regular basis. However, the landowner is responsible for what occurs on the land. He noted not all open space would be set up with the Land Trust. He stated some open land may be donated to the City. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 4 Page 3 -1, the non - conforming issue was changed to 50 percent to match State law. Page 3 -3, the General Parcel, lot and yard provisions was reorganized. Page 3 -8, number 3, will be clarified further. Page 3 -11, was reorganized. Design standards were added for two - family and town homes. Page 3 -14, apartment standards were added. At the bottom of the page, colors of materials were added for industrial buildings. He stated red brick would be added to the color options. Page 3 -17, an obstructions clause was added. Page 3 -18, accessory buildings and structures, clarifications were made. Page 3 -24, paragraph 8, number b, will be corrected to add R -1X District to this clause to accommodate an existing farm in the City. Page 3 -90, farm operations will be left as is, even though it is shown as being deleted. Page 3 -28, paragraph F, will be changed to 1200 square feet. Page 3 -32, diagrams to illustrate outdoor lighting requirements will be added. Page 3 -39, paragraph Q was clarified. Species of trees and shrubs was added. Landscaping requirements were clarified. Page 3 -46, tree preservation requirements were added. Mr. Corson asked what would be considered to be a savable, significant tree. Mr. Smyser explained what a significant tree requirements were and stated there was a list of definitions in the subdivision ordinance. Page 3 -53 through 3 -55, the fence requirements are clarified and diagrams would be added. Page 3 -63, paragraph 4, language would be added stating a single - family residential lot shall not have more than one driveway access to a public street. Page 3 -94, regulations for antennas that were adopted in 1997 would be codified in this Ordinance. Page 4 -1, paragraph 3, central business will be deleted and CB land will be converted to general business. The shopping center district will be deleted and this would be a conditional use in other districts. He noted the neighborhood business district would not be deleted as indicated. DRAFT MINUTES • • • 1 • • Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 5 Page 4 -3, annexations clause was clarified. Sections 5 through 9 will be discussed at the February 12 P &Z meeting. Chair Schaps invited audience members to speak. Ann Boeckman, 6492 Tomahawk Trail, stated she wanted assurance that the Ordinance would not allow a property owner to have junk in their yard. She was concerned about a particular property. She asked what the repercussions were for violating the ordinance. Chair Schaps replied daily fines could be imposed if there was a violation of the ordinance. Mr. Smyser stated this was an issue the Building Inspector would deal with. He stated he would ask the Building Inspectors to look into this property. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to February 12, 2003. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -0. Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 7:51 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. B. JAMES KEEFE, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, Minor Subdivision & Variance Staff explained applicant was requesting minor subdivision approval of a two lot subdivision of a 27.47 acre parcel and combination of two remnant parcels with an existing 10 acre parcel. Approval of the minor subdivision will also require variances to (1) allow creation of lots that do not meet the minimum lot area requirements, (2) allow the creation of lots that do not meet the minimum lot width requirement; (3) allow the creation of lots that do not abut for their full frontage on a publicly dedicated street; and (4) to allow a private street. Staff stated in June, 2001, applicant contacted City staff requesting information regarding the potential subdivision of his property. Applicant was provided with the requirements of the R -X, Rural Executive District. In September, 2001, applicant met with the City Council to discuss the potential options for subdividing his property. He expressed at that time, in a letter dated September 19, 2001, that he would like to split off several 2.5 acre parcels from his property due to the economic hardship he was currently experiencing. The Council expressed the need for additional information before a decision could be made. City staff prepared a memo to the City Council, dated September 28, 2001, identifying issues with regard to the proposed subdivision and listed options to be explored, including the potential for a clustered development using the Planned Development Overlay District (PDO) requirements. The memo was distributed to applicant. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 6 Staff stated on December 10, 2002 the City received an application from Mr. Keefe requesting minor subdivision approval. In a letter, dated December 18, 2002, Mr. Keefe was informed that his application was substantially incomplete and listed information that was necessary to begin review of the request. Mr. Keefe submitted additional information on January 6, 2003. Staff stated on January 8, 2003, at the regular Planning and Zoning Board meeting, Mr. Keefe's minor subdivision request was added to the Board's agenda for discussion. The board requested that staff work with the applicant to resolve issues and, if possible, place the item on the January 22, 2003 meeting agenda. Staff met with Mr. Keefe and his surveyor on January 16, 2003 to discuss issues relating to the proposal. Staff presented its analysis by explaining the City Code, Chapter 1001.8, Subdivision 6(1) states all lots shall abut for their full frontage on a publicly dedicated street. Chapter 302.03, Subdivision 1 (10) states that private streets shall not be permitted, nor shall public improvements be approved for any private street. Section 5, Subdivision 2.B.1 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance establishes the minimum lot size of 10 acres for lots within the R -X, Rural Executive District. Section 5, Subdivision 2.B.2 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance establishes the minimum lot width of 330 feet for lots within the R -X, Rural Executive District. With respect to land use, staff noted the City's comprehensive plan designates the west half of the property for Low Density, sewered residential uses (Stage 2, 2010- 2020). The eastern half of the site is designated for rural land uses. A conceptual greenway is also delineated over the eastern half of the site. Surrounding proposed land uses include Low Density Sewered Residential to the north and west, Low Density, Unsewered Residential to the south and Rural to the east. With respect to zoning, staff stated the property is currently zoned R -X, Rural Executive. Adjacent zoning included R -X to the west, south and east, and R -1 -PDO to the north (Clearwater Creek). Staff indicated with respect to the lot area, the proposed minor subdivision and lot combination would create three parcels from the existing two that are currently owned by the applicant. The proposed lot sizes are as follows: Parcel A: Parcel B: Parcel C: 33.09 acres 2.40 acres (2.14 acres of upland) 1.99 acres (all upland) The proposed lot sizes of parcel B and C are inconsistent with the R -X Districts minimum lot size of 10 acres. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 7 With respect to lot width, staff stated the proposed lot widths of both Parcel B and C is approximately 180 feet. The proposed lot widths are inconsistent with the R -X Districts minimum lot width of 330 feet. Staff stated with respect to utilities, the City's Comprehensive Plan designates the western half of the site as Low Density, Sewered Residential. The Plan further designates this area as a Stage 2, 2010 -2020 growth area. Staff noted the sanitary sewer and water main were stubbed out within Flora Court (Clearwater Creek 3`d Addition), northwest of the site, to service land to the north and west of the Keefe property. Through review of existing topographic mapping it does appear possible to service the Keefe property from the west. Staff noted that the proposed Minor Subdivision, if approved, would not eliminate the possibility of servicing adjacent properties to the west or south. With respect to access, staff noted the property is currently serviced by a gravel private driveway, measuring approximately 10 feet in width. The driveway accesses the terminus of Rolling Hills Drive. One other existing residential lot utilizes the driveway, however, it appears that there are no easements currently in place. Staff stated the applicant has submitted proposals for both a private road easement and a public road easement. City Code requires that all lots front on a publicly dedicated street. Additionally, private roads are prohibited by City Code. Staff noted as with all subdivisions in the City publically dedicated right -of -way is required as well as the improvement of such to City standards. These standards typically include a paved bituminous surface with a minimum width of 32 feet. While the width requirement had fluctuated on a case by case basis pursuant to City Council approval, all roads, including private roads allowed within Planned Development Overlay Districts have been required to include bituminous paving. Staff stated the applicant has acknowledged his preference to maintain the drive access as a private road. No proposed improvements to the road have been submitted. With respect to easements, staff noted public drainage and utility easements are not provided on the survey. Easements will be required measuring 5 feet in width on interior property lines and 10 feet in width on exterior property lines. Drainage and Utility easements will also be required to include all existing wetlands on the site. Staff stated with respect to sewage treatment, soil borings provided by the applicant indicate the ability of the newly created Parcels B and C to accommodate two standard mound systems on each lot. Staff stated the applicant has provided a Ghost Plat identifying how Parcels B and C could be subdivided in the future with the extension of public utilities. The plat demonstrates the potential to divide parcels B and C to create eight lots meeting the R- DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 8 1 X, Single Family Executive District lot requirements by extending a cul -de -sac into the property from the west. Staff indicated approval of the proposed minor subdivision will require the City to approve four variances from City Code requirements with regard to minimum lot size, minimum lot width, frontage on a publicly dedicated road and finally allowance of a private street. Staff noted variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance may be granted in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Staff stated in considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the 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. 4. That granting the variance request 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. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Staff stated following review of the applicant's request, it is difficult for staff to justify granting of the necessary variances when the above - enumerated criteria are applied. Staff stated with regards to the lot size and lot width variances staff agrees that there may be physical circumstances due to existing wetlands on the site that would warrant a deviation from typical standards. Additionally, the proposed subdivision would maintain the same rural density of four units per forty acres that is established by the 10 acres minimum lot requirement. However, it is staff's opinion that these issues are more adequately addressed through the Planned Development Overlay process. Staff indicated there appears to be no suitable reason to allow variances for public road frontage and the improvement of said road to City standards outside of the Planned Development Overlay process. Staff stated the intent of the PDO District is to permit greater flexibility and, consequently, more creative and imaginative design of the development of residential, commercial or industrial areas than are generally possible under conventional zoning DRAFT MINUTES • • • • r • Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 9 regulations. It is further intended to promote more economical and efficient use of the land while providing a harmonious variety of housing choices, a height level of urban amenities, and preservation of natural scenic qualities of open space. Staff noted an important aspect on the PDO process is that it provides for public notification and comment on the proposed plans. While recognizing the applicant's economic situation staff is extremely concerned with the expedited nature of this request, the proposed blanket acceptance of variations from standard City requirements and the lack of opportunity of surrounding property owners to comment on or be aware of the proposal due to the nature of the request. Staff stated they recommended denial of the proposed Minor Subdivision and related Variance. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Keefe thanked the Board and staff for their time. He stated he believed the PDO process would have the same end result. He stated with respect to the road, he would like to keep the rural feel to the area. He stated he would be willing to have a rural roadway association formed for maintenance, plowing, etc. of the road. He noted he only intended on selling two lots. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Keefe about his deadline. He asked if it was etched in stone. Mr. Keefe replied it was a bank issue and the deadline was a firm deadline. Chair Schaps stated his personal preference was to have a public notification. Mr. Ryden noted they needed to follow a process and that concerned him. Chair Schaps stated everything has been in the open about this issue, but they were being asked to not do the public notification process and that concerned him also. Mr. Corson expressed concern about setting precedence, even though he agreed with the request. Chair Schaps asked if the developer would step into the process and assist with the bank issues. He noted if the developer was willing to do that, it would give the P &Z Board the time to go through the process legally. Chair Schaps noted it appeared everyone was in favor of this proposal, but were concerned about the legalities of the request. Mr. Rafferty indicated it was a situation where certain things had to get done. He stated he believed the directions that the staff presented were correct. He stated he was on Mr. Keefe's side, but that support was needed to get the application approved. Chair Schaps stated the only option he could see was that the developer gets involved. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 10 Mr. Corson asked if they could have a building added to Parcel A, which was previously split. Mr. Grochala explained technically someone could start building on Parcel A, but the lot would need public road frontage. Mr. Corson asked if a developer would be willing to purchase Parcel A and once Parcel B and C were approved, Parcel A would revert back to Mr. Keefe and the developer could then take possession of Parcels B and C. Chair Schaps asked if things were tabled tonight and the PDO process was initiated tomorrow, the soonest this could get approved would be the end of February. Chair Schaps stated they would not get by the public notification process. However, he suggested Mr. Keefe look into the suggestion Mr. Corson made regarding selling Parcel A. He stated the P &Z Board wanted to approve this, but they could not forgo the public notification process. He suggested tabling this. Mr. Hyden stated he agreed with Chair Schaps and they needed the public notification process, even though he would personally like to recommend approval of this tonight. He stated the best thing would be the PDO process. Mr. Corson agreed with Chair Schaps and Mr. Hyden. He stated he was concerned about setting a precedent. He noted a denial would probably not do Mr. Keefe any good. Mr. Hyden noted he did not believe a denial would help Mr. Keefe with the City Council, but what they were doing tonight might send a strong message to his developer. He noted if the City Council denied the variance, the process would end. He stated he wanted to give a positive signal to give Mr. Keefe something to work with and take to the people he was dealing with. Mr. Keefe asked if they were in favor of the split, if it was a PDO process. Chair Schaps replied they were definitely in favor of this and they wanted this to happen, but they had to follow the City Ordinances and City Charter. Mr. Keefe asked what was the City's staff opinion. Mr. Grochala replied they were much more comfortable with the PDO process. He stated the road would still be a struggle, but there would be flexibility there. He stated there would still need to be some improvements to the private road, but they could work with applicant on this. Mr. Rafferty stated he wanted to send a positive reflection about this to the people Mr. Keefe was dealing with. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to table the Minor Subdivision and Variance to the February meeting, or to a time to be determined by staff. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 3 -0. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board January 22, 2003 Page 11 Chair Schaps stated they were all in favor of the subdivision as outlined by Mr. Keefe and in accordance with staff direction, they are in favor of a PDO with a public notification process. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. None. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT MINUTES • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: ACTION REQUIRED: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM 5A Tanda Gretz February 12, 2003 Zoning Ordinance Amendment & Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Tree Service Business to Operate in a Rural Zone, at 908 -1/2 Maple Street Charles Pfingsten ( "Charlie's Tree Service ") 3/5 vote This application was heard at the January 8th meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. Background, history and analysis was given at that time (see report dated January 8, 2003). At the January 8th meeting a number of residents of the Maple Street neighborhood spoke about their concerns for the proposed use. The residents voiced a number of concerns about past practices on the site, including noise, excess traffic, late /irregular hours, and parking issues. Residents stated they didn't want such conditions to reoccur. Board members stated that they would not support a rezoning of the property to any kind of a commercial or industrial use, but felt that the applicant and residents might be able to come to some agreement/acceptance of use for the site if they could sit down and discuss the issue with one another. Board members stated that since the site had a conditional use permit for an auto body shop, another such shop could potentially move into the site in the future. Board members advised residents that the applicant's proposed use was lower in intensity than that of another auto body shop, and so it might be in the best interest of the neighborhood to support such a proposed use. • Planning & Zoning Board Pfingsten Zoning Ord. Amendment & CUP February 12, 2003 Planning & Zoning Board Chairman Schaps then directed the applicant, residents, and staff that the following should take place before the next meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board: 1.) Staff is to find a way to cover Mr. Pfingsten's proposed use by means of a Conditional Use Permit. 2.) The interested parties (residents & Mr. Pfingsten) should meet and, if possible, draw up a list of conditions for inclusion in the Conditional Use Permit. 3.) Mr. Pfingsten should provide a complete site plan, specifically noting what vehicles are to be parked on the site, and where. Additionally, Mr. Pfingsten should specifically address the issue of whether any repairs to vehicles are ever to take place on the site. A memo /letter was then sent to the applicant and residents on January 17th outlining what action should take place before the February meeting. The memo also included information on a number of issues residents had expressed concern over (SEE EXHIBIT 3). This report is based on the following exhibits: 1.) General Location Map 2.) Site Sketch 3.) Memo to residents, dated January 17, 2003 4.) Planning Report for site, dated June 17, 1991 5.) Site Plan for exterior storage, submitted by Mr. Pfingsten ANALYSIS Applicant & Residents Meeting Mr. Pfingsten and residents met on January 27th, and all felt it to be a good meeting. Past history and concerns related to the site were discussed, as well as Mr. Pfingsten's proposed use for the future. Applicant and residents came up with the following list of conditions for the site, which are proposed to be attached to a Conditional Use Permit: 1.) Hours of operation: April through October: 7:00 a.m. — 8:00 p.m. (or no more than 1 hr. past sunset) Winter months: 7:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. *(occasional exceptions: storm damage or snow storms) 2.) Parking: a.) No more than two or three passenger vehicles on the North side of the street (no overnight parking). b.) Parallel to the roadway or on shoulder. • Planning & Zoning Board Pfingsten Zoning Ord. Amendment & CUP February 12, 2003 c.) No blocking of street during ingress /egress. d.) No parking on the South side of street. 3.) Equipment storage: a.) Height: no more than privacy fence or natural trees or other landscaping "barrier" (see item 4 below). Note: Barrier must conceal equipment, product, & vehicles, without any breaks in barrier. The exception for this permit is the "field office trailer." b.) Must be able to be stored within confines of fences area. 4.) Building, fence, landscape; Must meet requirements for a aesthetically pleasing look for the neighborhood. *(It is understood that there will be a time allotment for the maturity of newly planted trees) a.) Kept painted in a professional manner, general upkeep of building /grounds. b.) Trees, shrubs, grass, weeds kept groomed. c.) Removal of "scrub" trees. 5.) Daily business activity (ie; test driving down Maple Street is prohibited) 6.) Noise /air quality (ie; extensive idling of diesel equipment, exhausting unfiltered air or particles into the atmosphere is not allowed) a.) No manufacturing /processing equipment that creates noise levels inappropriate for residential environment (db level ?). 7.) Sewer /water /soil conditions to be within state and local code requirements. *(soil testing must be performed and documented before transfer of property ownership) a.) Disposal of hazardous waste on site (ie; improperly installed floor drains or containment tanks, or no pumped out by an approved waste management company) will not be allowed. b.) Septic systems to be consistent with type and/or activity of proposed business. Permits must be filed with City for activity related to septic system. c.) Runoff from cleaning equipment must be contained in an environmentally safe manner consistent with EPA/MPCA standards. 8.) Weight restrictions for the street must be obeyed. 9.) No changes in outdoor lighting to be allowed that would interfere with neighbors privacy. 10.)Renewal of this permit to be enforced as per the City of Lino Lakes, with renewal requirements provided to neighbors. 11.)Mr. Pfingsten submitted the following conditions: • Fence will be painted by June 2003 • Remove webbing from gate so police can see in • Replace back gate with fence by June 2003 • Plant 9 evergreens to border fence • Keep garbage container inside building • Minor maintenance and repairs to equipment permissible (oil changes, washing, etc.) • Will not park any equipment outside fenced area • No wood piles or wood chips will ever be stored at this site Planning & Zoning Board Pfingsten Zoning Ord. Amendment & CUP February 12, 2003 • As background, and for comparison, I have attached the previous CUP for the site, which • also had a number of conditions (SEE EXHIBIT #4). Certificate of Occupancy The parties seem to be in agreement on all of the above conditions, with the exception of #7, which relates to the inspection of the soil, water, and septic system on the property. This condition is written so as to be fulfilled by the current owner of the property, prior to Mr. Pfingsten taking ownership. In light of such issues, it is important to draw attention to Section 2, subdiv. 8 of the City's zoning ordinance, which relates to Certificate of Occupancy. This subdivision stipulates that any change of use (of land or structure) requires a C.O. It is through such a process that the City verifies that property and structures are up to code. In the present instance, the C.O. process can be used to verify septic conditions on site. Applicants Intended Use At the January meeting, Chairman Schaps directed the applicant to address the following specific issues: • What vehicles are to be parked on the site, and where. • If any repairs to vehicles are to take place on the site. • Provide a complete Site Plan, noting where vehicles would be parked. Mr. Pfinsten has drawn a site plan (SEE EXHIBIT #5), noting where the two items to be stored outside will be parked (a 16 -foot Bobcat trailer & a Trailer used for field research). No repairs beyond general maintenance (oil changes) are envisioned to take place on the property. Any general maintenance procedures would take place inside the pole building. Conditional Use Permit Proposal At the January meeting Chairman Schaps directed staff to find a way to cover Mr. Pfingsten's proposed use through use of a Conditional Use Permit. Since the property is zoned Rural, and the City's Zoning Ordinance does not currently allow any conditional use similar to that which the applicant is proposing, the Zoning Ordinance must be amended to achieve this objective. If amended, however, such a conditional use could then take place on any property zoned Rural in the City. To that end, language such as the following might be appropriate to add to Section 5, subdiv. 1.H of the Zoning Ordinance (Rural Conditional Uses): Planning & Zoning Board Pfingsten Zoning Ord. Amendment & CUP February 12, 2003 "Tree care & servicing businesses, provided that: • No byproducts are stored on site (woodchips, brush, etc.) • Outdoor storage of vehicles in limited • All outdoor storage is completely screened Planning & Zoning members should direct staff as to their desire to change the zoning ordinance in this way. If such a change is desired, it might be most appropriate to include it with the other proposed revisions to the zoning ordinance that are now under consideration. CONCLUSION Staff has followed the direction of the Planning & Zoning Board, as outlined at their January 8th meeting: the applicant and neighborhood residents have met and drawn up a list of conditions to govern the proposed use for the subject property, which is to be controlled via a Conditional Use Permit; Mr. Pfingsten has submitted a site plan that details where /what outdoor storage is to take place; staff has submitted possible language to use in amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow the conditional use proposed by the applicant. As a change to the zoning ordinance such as that being proposed would result in a commercial -type use to occur on property guided residential under the City's comprehensive plan, members may want to examine the need to amend the comprehensive plan. OPTIONS 1.) Return to staff with direction 2.) Recommend approval of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment & CUP 3.) Recommend denial of the proposed zoning ordinance amendment & CUP RECOMMENDATION Option #1 • • I itmrprandilgefallioWl* ihipmmemmanotaft nsfusennereeennes AL. 111911112rwrirtreffza = mil[ MINI vip NI /AAA MOE EXHIBIT # 1 6 7 IOW ViNETRA AV NE Yr! 3 Q Elm 11115 - , ° SUM 1 D I- .M uiiti 2'. �u�. �' /i■ F—VerIVFAIIIIMMTIAM e V/ ! I 3 S •' B S' 0 6 14 PIN E 1 2 EV R R (' N VISTA 6 7 A 13 12 11 10 9 8 /2 '"' N. N. /9 W5; 6F- f-- COUNTY- STATE- AI0- H16HWAY -- NO.14 - - PLC -M k- 25-- 43 9 10 /019 d F -ray�c r� 570g th AYl le- 't3 r Subdjvis oN 4 . 90O M pi 2.9' -4 _- . ,� \ S . • x -PINS `. c.: I ii 11-e43 3o' / 1 X.. ) 40' EXHIBIT # 2- 6 ly P ": 7 i r 4 iv .9 € - . 4 = o c i 0 1� Or: 1' 131:P. k , • 4 -4 -- o + GAt0 M &PLE *St 1'l,o�K op ,Gox //f foiebue fd!r y .1 o t PL/1 iv ,81.1/ rLAnvAGkn/ 746. FOE O,Arrgc Sf• 1159 • • • EXHIBIT # ,3 MEMO 01.17.03 TO: Residents/Interested Parties FROM: Tanda Gretz, City of Lino Lakes Associate Planner RE: Pfingsten Land Use Application for 908 -1/2 Maple Street At the January 8th meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting, Chairman Jamie Schaps advised the parties interested in/ concerned with the Pfingsten land use application to meet, discuss issues, and, if possible, come up with an agreed- upon list of conditions for use of the site. Chairman Schaps noted that the Planning & Zoning Board would NOT support any rezoning for the site (currently zoned Rural), nor any outdoor storage in excess of the two vehicles proposed by Mr. Pfingsten. Instead, Chairman Schaps directed that the following should take place before the next meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board (February 12th): 1.) Staff is to find a way to cover Mr. Pfmgsten's proposed use by means of a Conditional Use Permit. 2.) The interested parties (residents & Mr. Pfingsten) should meet and, if possible, draw up a list of conditions for inclusion in the proposed Conditional Use Permit. 3.) Mr. Pfingsten should provide a complete site plan, specifically noting what vehicles are to be parked on the site, and where. Additionally, Mr. Pfingsten should specifically address the issue of whether any repairs to vehicles are ever to take place on the site. Lastly, the residents who spoke at the January 8th meeting had a number of concerns and questions with regard to the site and its history. In an attempt to address such issues, I have compiled some information/research (attached). • ISSUES FOR PROPERTY AT 908 -1/2 MAPLE STREET • 1 PAST POLICE CALLS I asked the Police Department to give me a list of all calls they had received on the property. They generated a report listing 6 calls, which were made between 2000 and present. Although they searched back to 1989, the year in which their records were computerized, they did not pull up any records beyond those six. This is probably due to the fact that the computer system that was used between 1989 and 2000 was name - specific, and not address - specific, and so in order to access specific records one would have to know the name of the person at the site in question (per Renee, PD). Searches were made using "K & C Custom Auto Body" and "Vision Automotive," (the known names of businesses in existence at the site), but no further records were found. I think it is a given that past site uses have caused an extremely high number of calls to the police department. Police Chief Dave Pecchia stopped to talk to me on this issue. He said residents should feel free to call the police with any complaints and concerns. I explained that residents had stated at the meeting that they had called many times on the property, but that nothing ever seemed to change or get resolved. To speak to such issues, I can only offer: 1.) Chief Pecchia has encouraged residents to use the police to resolve any concerns /complaints on site usage. 2.) Conditional Use Permits are to be reviewed by the City on an annual basis. Permits can be revoked by the City if the conditions which govern the permit are not met. Residents can make their concerns /complaints know by either contacting City staff directly, or appearing at any Planning & Zoning Board or City Council meeting and speaking during "Open Mike." City staff and Board and Council members are here to serve residents. SEPTIC ISSUES Residents expressed concern about the septic system on site. A review of past records indicate that no permit was ever issued for a septic system installation. A 1991 memo from building inspector Pete Kluegel, however, indicates that he noted a "toilet and sink" in the pole barn. Since a permit was never issued for a septic system, it seems likely that past owners /occupants may have either installed a system without pulling a permit, or hooked the pole building up to the system existing on the property adjacent to the north (908 Orange Street). • • • I have found no further records on the septic system, nor any records indicating what materials may have been dumped on site or into the system, as some residents have questioned. ROAD RESTRICTIONS I have consulted with Tom DeWolfe, of the City's Public Works department, on this issue. Tom has indicated that since Maple Street is classed as a local street, it is restricted to vehicles with a maximum weight of seven tons per axle during the year. When Spring "road restrictions" are on, this decreases to a maximum weight of five tons per axle. • • EXHIBIT # AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA ITEM 5 M STAFF ORIGINATOR: John Miller, City Planner DATE: June 17, 1991 TOPIC: Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for Bill Flanagan /K and C Custom Auto. DRB Application #91 -20. Background: Bill Flanagan owns and operates Bill's Auto Repair at 908 Orange Street. He wishes to amend his 1983 conditional use permit to allow K and C Custom Auto to complete body work in a pole barn formerly used for cold storage. The design review board considered this request on June 12th and recommended approval with several conditions. Options: 1. Close the public hearing. 2. Motion to approve the amended conditional use permit for Bill Flanagan /K and C Custom Auto as described in DRB Application #91 -20 and as recommended by the design review board with the following conditions: 1. Remove the present wood fence. Replace it with a 6 foot high board on board fence 1) observing the front property line and 2) extending the entire length of the side lot line. 2. Downsize the driveway to 26 feet. Replace the gates across the driveway and remove the advertising sign from the gate. The new gate should swing in and not into the street right -of -way. 3. One professionally constructed sign should be permitted on the building meeting all requirements of the city's sign ordinance. 4. The dumpster should be removed from the front of the building and located in the southwest corner of the property. 5. Clean the site of all windows, timbers, panels, metal, tires, and other material. 6. Install the asphalt driveway and parking area as shown on the 1983 • conditional use site plan. 7. Locate a curb on the west side of the building to protect the metal exterior from automobile traffic. 8. Remove the recently erected 10 x 12 metal storage shed. 9. All areas not covered with asphalt are to be seeded to grass. 10. No outside storage of car bodies, frames, fenders, hoods, or "parked cars" is to be permitted. 11. The unlicensed vehicles at the site are to be moved inside or removed from the property. 12. All outside lighting is to be hooded so no glare falls on the adjacent residential area. 13. All other applicable requirements of the 1983 conditional use permit (as determined by the city's building inspector are to be implemented. 14. The applicant must apply for all appropriate permits for previous improvements that were not paid for originally. 15. The city's building official will inspect the site in 60 days to be sure that all the requirements have been completed. The CUP could be denied if all the requirements are not completed. 16. Four customer parking spaces will be allowed, two company parking spaces, and two personal parking spaces will be allowed. 3. Motion to table DRB Application #91 -20 for further study. 3. Motion to deny DRB Application #91 -20. Recommendation: Options one and two should be implemented. • • EXHIBIT # r fi 1.Axct 9± \ V 0 • • 4 • AGENDA ITEM V.B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Bob Kirmis (NAC) P AND Z MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003 TOPIC: Century Farm North - MUSA Reserve Allocation, Rezoning, PDO, and Preliminary Plat BACKGROUND Century Farm North Development, Inc. has requested approval of a 249 unit, low and medium density residential development (Century Farm North) located upon a 95.1 acre site north of Thomas Street and east of Sunset Road. Specifically, the proposal calls for 33 low density and 216 medium density units upon 85.3 net acres of land resulting in a net density of 2.92 units per acre. To accommodate the development proposal, the following approvals are necessary: 1. MUSA Reserve Allocation (85.3 acres) 2. Rezoning from R (rural) to R -1 (single family residential) and R -3, Medium Density Residential. 3. PDO to allow airplane hangers, private streets and multiple buildings on a single lot. 4. Preliminary Plat. Initial development submissions for the project were received on November 22, 2002. Subsequently, City staff prepared a planning report dated December 11, 2002 and a report addendum dated January 8, 2003. The December staff report outlined 26 conditions that required additional attention prior to the City taking formal action on the applications. At the subsequent December meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board continued the hearing with suggestion that the applicant work to address the various concerns of staff. In response to the Board's directive, the applicant submitted revised plans dated December 16, 2002. The January report addendum outlined four primary topics that staff felt needed to be addressed before the Century Farm project proceeds. Input on such issues was provided at the January Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The intent of this report is to provide a comprehensive and detailed review of the plan set dated January 20, 2003 incorporating input received by the Planning and Zoning Board at the December and January meetings. • • • Century Farm North Page 2 of 11 This review is based on the following plan submittals dated January 20, 2003 (except as otherwise noted): Existing Conditions Plan Land Use/Rezoning Plan Preliminary Plat Preliminary Site Plan Phasing Plans Preliminary Landscape Plan Preliminary Grading Plan Preliminary Utility Plan* Wetland Mitigation Plan Developed Conditions Plan Townhome Building Elevations* Alternative Airpark Lot Layout *Included in prior 12/16/02 submission ANALYSIS Existing Conditions. While the physical characteristics of the site make development challenging, such characteristics also offer unique design possibilities. The northeasterly portion of the site is open meadow with scattered brush and trees. The southern portion of the site includes wooded areas, wetlands and a County ditch and borders the Lino Air Park. The western portion of the site is somewhat fragmented due to a number of property exceptions along Sunset Road and includes several acres of unbuildable wetland areas. MUSA Reserve Allocation. To accommodate the proposed development, the allocation of 83.5 acres of MUSA will be necessary. Considering that the Comprehensive Plan calls for the urbanization of the subject property, such allocation is considered appropriate. To be noted is that the City's Growth Management Ordinance establishes a MUSA reserve limitation of 36 acres annually in the years 2003 through 2009 and an average limitation of 147 housing units per year during the same time period. The phasing plan for the project must be consistent with these requirements. This issue will be discussed in greater detail in the phasing discussion of this report. Land Use and Zoning. The City's Comprehensive Plan calls for sewered low density residential uses in the southwest portion of the site and medium density uses on the balance of the site. The proposed land use designations are consistent with the land use directives of the Comprehensive Plan. • • Century Farm North Page 3 of 11 To be noted is that the rezoning request also includes a PDO, Planned Develop Overlay to allow airplane hangers, private streets and multiple buildings on a single lot. Additionally, the PDO can accommodate the proposed detached townhome development concept (a deviation from R -1 District requirements). The table below identifies the existing and land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Vacant Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential R, Rural, R -1, Single Family Residential North Ag/undeveloped Rural R, Rural South Residential Low Density Residential R -1, Single Family Residential East Ag/undeveloped and residential Low Density Residential R, Rural West Residential/City of Blaine Low Density Residential/City of Blaine R, Rural/City of Blaine Unit types. The concept plan calls for four different housing types as summarized below. Unit Type Number of Units Single family (traditional) 33 Single Family (airpark)* 15 Single Family (detached townhomes) 75 Townhomes (traditional) 126 * includes accessory airplane hangers It is the intent of the applicant to locate the varied housing types such that a transition in land use intensity exists. Generally speaking, low intensity residential uses are proposed in the southern portion of the site with higher density townhomes located in the northeast corner of the property. The proposed land use transition is consistent with the land use directives of the Comprehensive Plan and is considered a positive aspect of the development plan. Examples of the proposed housing types have been submitted and are attached to this report. While finish materials have not been specified, building elevations illustrate a variety of roof styles, window and door treatments and are considered generally positive. Particularly positive are the attached townhome elevations where varied roof and window treatments promote dwelling unit individuality. • • • Century Farm North Page 4 of 11 Density. As calculated below, the development proposal calls for a total of 249 dwelling units resulting in an overall net density of 2.92 units per acre. The proposed densities consistent with the directives of the Comprehensive Plan and are therefore considered acceptable. Street Configuration. The Carl Street /Century Trail extension through the site is considered positive as it fulfills a directive of the City's Transportation Plan. While the street is not a continuous, uninterrupted collector street route, the intersection in the southeast corner of the site is considered an acceptable compromise considering traffic speed related concerns voiced by area residents. Several issues regarding the proposed street configuration and resulting traffic flow do however exist as summarized below: • The connection to Carl Street should be made as part of the proposed development. While such connection need not be immediate, the connection should be made no later than as part of the second phase of the development. • To improve vehicular convenience, provide a more efficient traffic flow and minimize home exposure to oncoming traffic however, it was previously recommended by staff that the street located approximately 150 feet north of the Carl Street/Century Trail intersection be shifted southward to create a four way intersection. While this suggestion was not supported by the Planning and Zoning Board it remains a concern of staff. Lot Size and Setbacks. The following table compares lot size and setback requirements imposed within R -1 and R -3 Districts with those shown on the development plans. Allowable Density (net) Units Acres (net) Proposed Density (net) Low density Up to 3 units /acre 26 13.9 1.87 units /acre Medium Density 3 to 6 units /acre 223 71.4 3.12 units /acre Total 249 85.3 2.92 units /acre The proposed densities consistent with the directives of the Comprehensive Plan and are therefore considered acceptable. Street Configuration. The Carl Street /Century Trail extension through the site is considered positive as it fulfills a directive of the City's Transportation Plan. While the street is not a continuous, uninterrupted collector street route, the intersection in the southeast corner of the site is considered an acceptable compromise considering traffic speed related concerns voiced by area residents. Several issues regarding the proposed street configuration and resulting traffic flow do however exist as summarized below: • The connection to Carl Street should be made as part of the proposed development. While such connection need not be immediate, the connection should be made no later than as part of the second phase of the development. • To improve vehicular convenience, provide a more efficient traffic flow and minimize home exposure to oncoming traffic however, it was previously recommended by staff that the street located approximately 150 feet north of the Carl Street/Century Trail intersection be shifted southward to create a four way intersection. While this suggestion was not supported by the Planning and Zoning Board it remains a concern of staff. Lot Size and Setbacks. The following table compares lot size and setback requirements imposed within R -1 and R -3 Districts with those shown on the development plans. • • • Century Farm North Page 5 of 11 *Can be accommodated via the PDO While the "traditional" single family lots have been found to meet or exceed to minimum R -1 district dimensional requirements, two concerns exist as summarized below: • Considering that Carl Street/Century Trail is expected to be a high volume roadway, it is the opinion of staff that the impact of such roadway upon Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 (at the intersection of Sunset Road and Century Trail) could be lessened by providing interior access to such lots from the northeast via the proximate cul -de -sac. In previous discussion of this issue, the Planning and Zoning Board did not share staff's concern. • Concern exists in regard to the driveway location of Lot 7, Block 6 (as depicted on the preliminary site plan). To minimize vehicular conflicts with the adjacent intersection, it is suggested that the driveway be shifted eastward to the extent possible. Airpark Lots. As shown on the submitted development plans, the subject site borders the Lino Airpark and includes 15 "airpark" lots. To accommodate such lots, the processing of a PDO is necessary. Considering that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the airpark as a long -term use within the City and that non - inhabitable structures over the gas line are preferred, the inclusion of such lots is considered generally acceptable. In regard to such lots however, some concerns do exist as summarized below: • The locations of Lots 4 and 9, Block 4. Of primary concern is the location of an airpark lot (Lot 4. Block 4) between two "traditional" single family lots and the adjacency of Lots 5 -8, Block 4 to the airpark taxiway and hanger building. To address this concern, it was previously suggested by staff that Lot 4 be converted from an "airpark" to R-1 DISTRICT R-3 DISTRICT Requirement Proposed Requirement Proposed Lot size minimum 10,800 sq. ft. 10,808 sq. ft. 5,445 sq. ft. per unit Not specified NA Lot width minimum interior lot corner lot 80 feet 100 feet 80 feet 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet Building Setbacks from private street from local street from collector rear lot line side lot line NA 30 feet 40 feet 30 feet 10 Feet NA 30 feet 40 feet 30 feet 10 feet None 30 feet 40 feet 30 feet 10 Feet 20 feet 30 feet 30 feet* 30 feet 10 feet Building height 35 feet Not specified 36 feet Not specified *Can be accommodated via the PDO While the "traditional" single family lots have been found to meet or exceed to minimum R -1 district dimensional requirements, two concerns exist as summarized below: • Considering that Carl Street/Century Trail is expected to be a high volume roadway, it is the opinion of staff that the impact of such roadway upon Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 (at the intersection of Sunset Road and Century Trail) could be lessened by providing interior access to such lots from the northeast via the proximate cul -de -sac. In previous discussion of this issue, the Planning and Zoning Board did not share staff's concern. • Concern exists in regard to the driveway location of Lot 7, Block 6 (as depicted on the preliminary site plan). To minimize vehicular conflicts with the adjacent intersection, it is suggested that the driveway be shifted eastward to the extent possible. Airpark Lots. As shown on the submitted development plans, the subject site borders the Lino Airpark and includes 15 "airpark" lots. To accommodate such lots, the processing of a PDO is necessary. Considering that the Comprehensive Plan identifies the airpark as a long -term use within the City and that non - inhabitable structures over the gas line are preferred, the inclusion of such lots is considered generally acceptable. In regard to such lots however, some concerns do exist as summarized below: • The locations of Lots 4 and 9, Block 4. Of primary concern is the location of an airpark lot (Lot 4. Block 4) between two "traditional" single family lots and the adjacency of Lots 5 -8, Block 4 to the airpark taxiway and hanger building. To address this concern, it was previously suggested by staff that Lot 4 be converted from an "airpark" to • • Century Farm North Page 6 of 11 "traditional" single family lot and that Lot 9 be eliminated combined with the lots to the north to create a buffer yard. In consideration of the matter, it was the feeling of the Planning and Zoning Board that such lots did not present a major compatibility problem and is acceptable. To improve area compatibility however, it was suggested by the Board that Lots 1 -3, Block 2 be converted from "traditional" single family lots to "airpark" lots. This change has not been made on the revised plan submission but is illustrated on the attached alternative airpark layout provided by the applicant.. • The impact of runway safety zone extensions upon area lots. As a condition of PUD approval, the applicant should provide documentation to the City that all applicable runway safety zone requirements have or will be satisfied. • Anticipated market demand for the airpark lots. The applicant has indicated that if demand for the airpark lots does not exist, they would likely be converted to "traditional" single family lots. Such change would require the processing of a PDO amendment. • The size of the hangers appears equal to the size of the homes they are to serve. As a result the visual appearance of the hangers is considered a significant issue. The applicant has been working with the airpark homeowners association to develop architectural standards for the hangers. While the applicant has indicated a willingness to provide such standards to the City for review, such standards have not, to date been submitted. As a condition of PDO approval, example hanger designs should be submitted subject to City approval. Townhome Issues Architecture. As a PDO, the City is afforded an opportunity to provide impose conditions related to the appearance of the townhomes. As previously noted, the townhome facade designs are considered generally positive by stressing unit individuality (through varied finish materials, window treatments and roof designs). Such features also serve to de- emphasize the "garage forward" design of the townhomes. Parking. According to the Ordinance, townhomes are required to provide at least two and one -half rent -free spaces per unit. The Ordinance further states that for projects involving eight or more units, the City may require additional clustered guest parking. In addition to satisfying the "per unit" parking requirement, 49 additional visitor parking stalls have also been scattered throughout the townhome development. Homeowners Association. According to the applicant, the project will be subject to the bylaws of three homeowner's associations. From the City's perspective, such bylaws should address issues associated with open space use and private street maintenance and • • Century Farm North Page 7of11 snow removal. As a condition of PDO approval, all homeowner association by -laws should be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Private Streets. The townhomes in the northeast area of the site are to be served by 22 foot wide private streets. While such street width is considered acceptable, the removal of snow to an off -site location will be necessary to ensure ample width for two -way traffic movements. Phasing. The City's recently adopted Growth Management Ordinance establishes a MUSA reserve limitation of 36 acres per year (2003 —2009) and a housing unit limitation average of 147 units per year during the same time period. The phasing plan for this development must adhere to this ordinance requirement. The applicant has proposed four phasing plan options as summarized below (see attached phasing plans for graphic reference): Assuming that the above phasing options reflect yearly unit counts, an average of 42 units per year is considered reasonable. Information relating to acreage absorption has not however, been provided. As a condition of PDO approval, the applicant must provide a phasing plan that adheres to the provisions of the City's Growth Management Ordinance Exceptions. As shown on the submitted development plans, a number of property exceptions exist west of the subject property along Sunset Road. In considering the proposed development, an assurance should be made that, to the extent possible, opportunities for future subdivision are provided. This is particularly relevant in that Sunset Road is a designated collector street and direct single family lot access to such streets are to be discouraged. Appropriately, an opportunity for future subdivision of the northerly extension has been provided via access to Stallion Road. Considering home placement and wetland infringements, street access to the southerly exception is not considered practical. Option 1 Option 2 Option 1A Option 2A Phase 1 60 units 81 units 60 units 79 units Phase 2 40 units 36 units 61 units 43 units Phase 3 30 units 13 units 52 units 51 units Phase 4 43 units 43 units 43 units 43 units Phase 5 43 units 43 units 43 units 33 units Phase 6 33 units 33 units NA NA Total 249 units 249 units 249 units 249 units Assuming that the above phasing options reflect yearly unit counts, an average of 42 units per year is considered reasonable. Information relating to acreage absorption has not however, been provided. As a condition of PDO approval, the applicant must provide a phasing plan that adheres to the provisions of the City's Growth Management Ordinance Exceptions. As shown on the submitted development plans, a number of property exceptions exist west of the subject property along Sunset Road. In considering the proposed development, an assurance should be made that, to the extent possible, opportunities for future subdivision are provided. This is particularly relevant in that Sunset Road is a designated collector street and direct single family lot access to such streets are to be discouraged. Appropriately, an opportunity for future subdivision of the northerly extension has been provided via access to Stallion Road. Considering home placement and wetland infringements, street access to the southerly exception is not considered practical. • • • Century Farm North Page 8 of 11 Wetlands. Three designated wetlands are located within the central area of the property and comprise a significant portion of the site. Such wetlands are considered a site amenity and obviously influence the configuration of the development. As required by ordinance, a wetland mitigation plan has been submitted for review. The proposed development is subject to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) approval. To date, comments from the District regarding the acceptability of the project have not been received. The applicant is however, in the process of coordinating the project with the Watershed District. To date however, the City has no information regarding the Watershed District review. To be noted is that the upland area of the site cannot be substantiated until such time as the wetland areas have been verified by the Watershed District. As a condition of PDO approval, all conditions imposed by the Watershed District must be satisfied. Greenways. The concept plan illustrates a series of interconnecting eight foot wide bituminous trails. While the inclusion of the trails in considered positive, it would seem appropriate to extend the east /west trail segment beneath the power easement to the west to connect to Sunset Road. The acceptability of the trailways in fulfilling the greenway directive of the Comprehensive Plan should be subject to comment and recommendation by the Park Board. Park Dedication. As shown on the Parks /Open Space Plan, a significant portion of the subject property is to be dedicated as public park land. Specifically, the concept plan provides 22.5 acres of gross public park land, 7.3 acres of which is contiguous upland. To be noted is that the upland acres of parkland cannot be substantiated until such time as the wetland areas have been verified by the Watershed District. The integration of such park areas responds to a specific directive of the Comprehensive Plan of providing a greenway in the area. While the inclusion of such park land is considered positive, an assurance should be made that problems do not result from the combination of private and public park ownership. Of specific concern is that the primary east /west trailway through the property be available to all park users (regardless of private and public ownership). Tree Preservation. According to the applicant, a significant amount of existing tree massings in the southern portion of the site are to be preserved. While the existing conditions map identifies generalized tree massings, a specific tree inventory has not, to date, been submitted. The Subdivision Ordinance does not specifically mandate the submission of a tree inventory, nor has the Environmental Board requested such a submission. • • Century Farm North Page 9 of 11 Easements. The subdivision design is responsive to the 90' electrical easement and 60' gas easement that traverse the property. As shown on the submitted plan, a trail has been proposed within the electrical easement while airpark hangers border the gas easement in the southeast corner of the property. As shown on the preliminary plat, drainage and utility easements have been proposed along all property lines and over wetland and ponding areas. The acceptability of such easements should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Carl Street Vacation. To accommodate the development proposal, the vacation of a portion of Carl Street will be necessary. Such vacation will require a separate public hearing to be held by the City Council. Issues associated with the street vacation should be subject to comment by the City Engineer. Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the utility related modifications and comments, as recommended by the City Engineer in the attached memorandum should be incorporated into the plans. Landscaping. As required by Ordinance, landscape plan has been submitted for review. The plan calls for a series of overstory trees along the public streets and a combination of understory and evergreen trees scattered throughout the site. Evergreen trees have been specifically proposed in areas where screening is desired (i.e. between Century Trail and the airpark hangers). As a condition of PDO approval, the recommendations of the Environmental Board related to landscaping (as documented in the attached memorandum dated 12/6/02) should be satisfied. Grading and Drainage. A grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the grading and drainage related modifications and comments, as recommended by the City Engineer in the attached memorandum should to be incorporated into the plans. The plan is also subject to review and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. Environmental Issues. The Environmental Board reviewed the request at their December 5, 2002 meeting. As a condition of PDO approval, the recommendations of the Environmental Board (as documented in the attached memorandum dated 12/6/02) should be satisfied. • • Century Farm North Page 10 of 11 Development Agreement. Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. RECOMMENDATION It is the opinion of staff that the primary development issues which affect the design of the subdivision have been satisfactorily addressed. Based on the preceding review, staff recommends approval of the project subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions: 1. The Carl Street connection be physically constructed no later than as part of the second development phase. 2. The driveway of Lot 7, Block 6 be shifted eastward to the extent possible. 3. The submitted townhome housing types and building elevations be modified to specify finish materials and be subject to City approval. 4. The applicant submit a phasing plan that is consistent with the provisions of the City's growth Management Ordinance in terms of yearly unit and acreage allocations. Such plan shall be subject to City approval. 5. Lots 1 -3, Block 4 be converted from "traditional" single family to "airpark" lots. 6. The applicant provide documentation to the City that all applicable runway safety requirements have or will be satisfied. 7. Specific hanger designs be submitted subject to City approval. 8. All homeowner association by -laws be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 9. The wetland mitigation plan be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. All conditions imposed by the Rice Creek Watershed District shall be satisfied. 10. The east /west trail through the site be accessible to the general public including that segment included in the townhome component of the project. 11. Grading, drainage and utility related modifications and comments as recommended by the City Engineer in the attached memorandum (dated 2/5/03) be incorporated into the plans. • Century Farm North Page 11 of 11 12. The recommendations of the Environmental Board (as documented in the attached memorandum dated 12/6/02) be satisfied. 13. The City formally vacate the segment of Carl Street which lies within the subject site. ATTACHMENTS Existing Conditions Plan Land Use/Rezoning Plan Preliminary Plat Preliminary Site Plan Phasing Plans Preliminary Landscape Plan Preliminary Grading Plan Preliminary Utility Plan Wetland Mitigation Plan Developed Conditions Plan Townhome Building Elevations Alternative Airpark Lot Layout Environmental Board Comments dated 12/6/02 City Engineer Comments dated 2/5/03 • CENTURY FARM NORTH 1ST ADD. N. 6TH PDC, C,ProJects•0.os-Getg-2SHOLITOR PARCE1630-001,1610E CREE1,63000116011-26-02oreq-SICE-CRCE0.chrg 12/18/2002 11117,37 PM CST GRAPHIC SCALE 1• 11 •=1 30 me (00 rerr 1 irAh 000 ft WETLAND ____ _ • EXISTING SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY 444'01.22; >> TEDIXDIT TO ROUTING FOR Tc CALCULATION = SUBWATERSHED = SUBWATERSHED OFFSITE 1 = 1,390,195 S.F./31.91 ACRES = 377,355 S.F./8.66 ACRES = 659,039 S.F./15.13 ACRES = 150,971 55.13.47 ACRES = 1,412,039 S.F./32.42 ACRES = 19,388 S.F./0.45 ACRES = 717,135 S.F./16.46 ACRES = 366,732 S.F./8.42 ACRES = 686,452 S.F./15.76 ACRES • 1 I • *441 - W _ - - • 4 ••• • / • 71. o 4% * * // _ ‘‘, 1- ___________ • . ________ •,‘ — , ___ , ___ , • , n I ' , _ _ _.--- / / 1/ / to ,; ; / -;,." I . _ _ _1 _ , ,,".: _• i - %// I- - ' - ry _.,•_,_. 1 '----•-. • \PARK NORTH ,....... •.;. _ \----- ,/ ---e ,/ ,,o-- ;.. ---------- —.....5,- --------- ---------- ,,:.___„•.... — — s' - • Wiii*/+1:41A411.6k '.• 1' 14 6 a g g g, '•-• 8 z O ' 6 N gLf?,, E 0 3 • z z 6 O • a U- o LT; w ° 13 00 REVIS IONS W1 CENTURY fAR0 00016 1ST 200. 11117U 6100 000. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111.111 INN 11 MI I INN 11 MI 11 MI 10 MN 11 Ilan I 11M11 01 1•0•11111=1111111=1111111•11111101M III 00 MOM 11 r-r 11 MN II 1 INN 11 OU1LOT 9 me I EIN 01 NEM 11 ■I 00 MIN II 1 NM II I MI 1! — 11 MI 11 CAIN, iec1s,111.05-Gre -2,1413_17011 PARCEL630-001,01100-cevisions-12-13-02,630001.1CNG-50-UTILITT-S00ETS.00 01/21/2003 11:01)54 A44 CST 11 WINN 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 s■lismiosimisimmagaimea■malmosij wm • wor rine tot ri 1111 111•11 mom 11 am s Cilia 11 ■1 i 0 MIN 1 • • 1-11■ _ SEE SHE'' ,,, / L / _.L. \ . , . I I •,.,. IVILIEw , I jil■ • •• a 1 i. 1 i •// a misoom■s m 01 11 3 1 ■ 11•1 0 .I / /I I 1 ion 11 was 11 ma IN*. 11 ■ \ I MM 11■0 IIME11111101111 I.- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NOT TO SCALE a 3- ,§) 00 REVISED FOR CITY CHANGES 01 U1 CENTURY FM l ROP 1H 157 AOO. NFU 6117 A00 . C.Pro�ects,O.ps- Oreq-2 \1701_lTOR PARCEL630- 001,1010E- revisions- 12- 13- 02 \630001btl1- 09- 03greq- bnsea.q 01/20/2003 04- -0033 PM CST OUT 8 6TH NUMBER OF LOTS CENTURY FARM NORTH 1ST ADDITION CENTURY FARM NORTH 2ND ADDITION CENTURY FARM NORTH 3RD ADDITION CENTURY FARM NORTH 4TH ADDITION CENTURY FARM NORTH 5TH ADDITION CENTURY FARM NORTH 6TH ADDITION SINGLE AIR FAMILY PARK SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 33 6 9 TOWNHOUSE TOTAL UNITS 21 60 19 12 40 30 30 9 34 43 5 38 4.3 21 12 3.3 TOTAL LOTS TOTAL AREA CROSS DENSITY NET AREA NET DENSITY ROW TO BE VACATED 33 15 75 126 = 249 95.12 ACRES 2.63 U /AC. 85.23 AG 2.93 U /AC. DRAINAGE ANO UT1UTY EASEIENTS ARE SH0NN AS TNLIS STREET 00 L,,00 ,D.DO•-1 ,coo ,do° I REAR UNEI 01000 10 MT N 10004 Mfl0000 901 LOT 00E3. A010 10 FEET M 1110174 AOJOUMO 0111740 0.0 3110 REM LOT LINES. UNLESS OT4ERWg 0010001 POUTED AS SNOW. ON 1,1E PLAT TYPICAL LOT AREAS 31. Si. rN g 2.112 Si. GRAPHIC SCALE (IN PEET ) 1 inch - 100 it o e•,'•-�.M4 JmeO.e.'�.a �� • e• ♦• • •.�: ♦6o e . �♦.a � a♦ 4A' ♦ • i �� • •••• J c e • 11 ..rt -.... JJJ STREET = 5 3 g 4 4 Ut(WAY SAFETY''''EA • RUNWAY....SAEI:TY'•tiIREA (200'X2600') _RON• .WA(J i R 9VAXJ(T�2X220II) - -- - '4 RUNWAIC OVERRUN/ DISPLACED THRESHOLD 1 I.: TSAFE:pi AREA • 22 s0 H 0 S 2 C« P1 • CENTURY EARU NOR. UST ADD. 0.R.1 6114 ADD. ( OW0..cts •0.gs- Greg- 2101RITQ PARCCl630- 001\ 1110C. e,+ sMS- 12- 13- 022630001bd1- 09- 03greq- 6ase4. 01/20:2003 04.0003 PM CST OUTLOT B GRAPHIC SCALE OUTLQT'ii :, i', ( 0 Fur) 1 inch 100 FL raildadi WAIVE atei1jil Vii! W1is ..:,..� A-.. A 4 j' ` _ - - .��TSw�T// ��' ':: ..• �` D_ ; /• / �^ -gyp • ,.. $ -... _ . .A ■rill � �': - �►nA,+/Pq�`j.�.- w+�►�s!1i:/lr Yti��GYim �.,.T - . \���r��` :""��►`' ; =� "ate 51 IV -3't -- — NO -- �'"'w�..�� ,'P • • ' OT . �� via 41' V si3g�l `;. %. . ; i 1 .1 Mr, I. 4.0 ; �, � icy F..- -,. •V • _ _ �. - x �:;; t `••t it- ir,�,�_'•� .�., �'C� _ •i !�: psi '� ��� r ;i — Y�'`�• �``` ;�, . `'J^ I �f 1-- [•.•`•. 1 Y ' �� `:c•--•--T \ ii' ifs + �.1 ca_tt• ..,�' �� i _ l£_ �� 4 - h \c..•'�L :v .�r�.' LEI% . • G°�. o "„P, 4 � '' I�r•. ": , \ •• • sp=51 u �e'!!� =MEOW MENEM • 4 irQ'`Ir,TILV raicrj :u, �� . R ® i116INqii MOW_ NAP" sv RUNWAY- -.SAEET'/ \ ?'REA (200'7(2600') 0 6 0 < Zn r m Q g �z CC CC CC gLU OWNER /DEVELOPER • RUNwAy./ RUN'iVAT.-1122'1220133- _ _ -- ii -- ='•fir `:�' :f:`-._.. .g. RUNWAY OVERR)N/ DISPLACED THRESHOLD A rc 0 0 30 00 S1 s 3 0, r.Jrct.,0gs{irp-2 \IOLITDR PM(Fl630- 001MACE- rr.hbns- 12-1] -02\ 300010,00 -30- 020x40- 0.x.0.0 12,1W202 I037a, NI CST OUTLOT 8 1.4 a SI a�.siaa�> amama� �mn® a a�am:aoao®��re mffi�u 1 1 ' ® 411. r w 119 44411.00L... • /4,�I /ri r•xt' i GRAPHIC SCALE ft. im1 I IX MU 1 losb - 100 IL Option 1 Phasing OUTLOT E Phase 1 60 Total Phase 2 40 Total Phase 3. 30 Total Phase 4 43 Total Phase 5 43 Total Phase 6 33 Total 249 Total Units - -7 __ I_ ________ iio! °�co� RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (200'X2600') atianumuGI:i— ytimawa► 14 cj Q OQ 1- 1- nF = 0 K ~ MO z O D 3 z z� 11_ < J LL >- rz Fes - Z 1- LJ Z U x oz cc z ¢ Z Q 2 LJ 0-L raps re °m wow 2S U m SAFETY ZONE A 1" _ " ". RUNWAY Y "NIK X. OVERRUN/ DISPLACED THRESHOLD I r7Z i i PR�'I r 1 F r r I r I i RUNWAY (122'X22001 _ -_- RUNWAY SAFETY AREA • 1 CENIUDT F0*A MORN 15T ADO. DAV 5151 000. OUTLOT B CAPro ects•Dwas-o.e -2,5OLITOE P.CCI-630-001,01ADE-revisions-12-13-02N6300011.111-30-02prop-DesellPTICH-TAAArg 01/22/2001 01■47.01 PM CST STALLION ROAD 5TH AD Option 1A Phasing 2003 — Phase 1 60 Total 2004 — Phase 2 61 Total 2005 — Phase 3 52 Total 2006 — Phase 4 43 Total 2007 — Phase 5 33 Total SLOT B J 249 Total Units [RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (200'X2600') —SAFETY ZONE A (2405(1707) ■ RUNWAY OVERRUN/ RUNWAY SAFETY AREA DISPLACED THRESHOLD REVISIONS CORRECT UNIT NUMBERS PH1A CCMRRIT FM11 140R11.1 IST Am. DM 71M 700. 1+v70JRCeS \Yep7vrey -C \Nll 1 UK rnwca y5w- WI\ I1 H0[ - 021630011b110- 30- 020rFp -base Po, 12/19/2002 10,37O9 M CST OUTLOT 8 wYA ma9IaO'l 9t igeminSlaOPF> IAiti!®® 1> 09l ®!rmAiiwa®F9aila ®1I ®R9l"'111I o1••� o R b OUTLOT E • 13 Total 43 Total 43 Total 33 Total 249 Total Units d O d F- In • z O D oO z Z,rZ1 CC H 1- • z W Z U U .J� CENTERLINE - \ I SAFETY ZONE A I (240'X1707') x44106∎ \. NW. ' E !�``►� S'1 rn j I e rh 5 i Ala 1 , PS''''; , 1 1 1 I 1 - -- ---- L- --1- i // I \' RUNWAY OVERRUN/ DISPLACED THRESHOLD —, RUNWAY (122_X2200) L� ) RUNWAY SAFETY AREA 2 CENTURY FARM N00014 1ST 000. 04131./ 614 A00. O JTLOT 8 C:\Prq 0cts\D.ns- Greg-2VI131_I7019 PARCEL630- 001\ UHDE- revaions- 12- 13- 02\ 6303016tl10 -30- 02greq- boseOPTICN- 2•tl.g 01/24/2003 09'1928 AM CST Option 2A Phasing 2003 — Phase 1 2004 — Phase 2 2005 — Phase 3 2006 — Phase 4 2007 — Phase 5 79 43 51 43 33 Total Total Total Total Total 249 Total Units r RilMIC=Zray RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (200'X2600') a • • _ ---- cn+r�mlMC SAFETY ZONE A (240'X1707) • f RUNWAY (122_X2200')•____ T ST RUNWAY OVERRUN/ DISPLACED THRESHOLD RUNWAY SAFETY AREA • .a0 • fp� Q tL z 4 a a LL IL o cc cc• - g • o REVISIONS PH2A CENTURY FARM NORTH 151 ADO THRU 0TH ADD ii iiii,,.,;:.,, ,.i..,...,n,,,...:-- gii;l;1,49 ilii: T! }}Saai }tta;c;ii• _ C \P,•o' cts\11.gs- Greg- 2 \11OLITO! P1$EL630- 001\ 1MOE- revisM,n- 12-13- 02\630001ba1- 09- 03ong_b. e.a.q 01/20/2003 040003 PH CST OUTLOT B ,��,/ �• r �'., 1 1--- 1��_ ■ _ 1111 11 o■.w.a ®o�anaaevI•. ��l�' .. '� ��i� $oo Sri• ao■maolao.aQ�.ar�■- ioormlra.o =_ � ,io N o it 1,..ttAlgr• i 0� '�d�����,-�=.� >�.�.�.=e - - "'T —= Am, � "r�1i "r yi61�:���r �._,r +'�,• PI P II 9 tit irii �s•1■�i•..■ov�.odici _ �� r a w , CIO «% i���1t� T®�igl�t PSI - - OUTLOT -8 1 *` !Ono. :WIsliit rf�■. m� +1 :15 ;' 1 r ■11� ■(Y•` + I f0 / / ,. NOTES Or Peat eapalef GRAPHIC SCALE (01 FELT) 1 loch - 100 01. TREE PRESERVATION AREAS NATIVE SEEDING AREAS: WETLAND AND MEADOW • XCEL ENERGY APPROVED STREET UGHT 1. IN ORDER TO PRESERVE EXISTING TREES AND WETLAND ALONG SUNSET ROAD, NO ADDITIONAL BERMING AND LANDSCAPING WILL BE INSTALLED. 2. TOWNHOMES BOTH ATTACHED AND DETACHED SHALL HAVE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING PER ATTACHED TYPICAL DETAIL. TYPICAL TREE PALETTE OOVERSTORY TREES AMERICAN UNDEN SUGAR MAPLE SWAMP WHITE OAK NORTHERN PIN OAK IRONWOOD GREEN ASH UNDERSTORY TREES CRAB APPLE THORNLESS HAWTHORN SERVICEBERRY O EVERGREEN TREES BLACK HILLS SPRUCE WHITE PINE STREET TREE COUNT UNITS (sf & det th) 124 STREET TREES (sf & det th) 381 STREET TREES /UNIT (sf & det th) 3.1 AUSTRIAN PINE _ - - `Ic,>►�"d+�,Cr\Y r \ti�� a�!'� — _a�rr r ,f���ps.r� -- ;:�•r.'.�' \� 4�,`��•0� � 'C ®.s./::c.�as•ty. r!na s'� f�/ - ,.1. �--+ s ti ti A RUNWAY...SAE$TY\AREA (200'X2600') RUNIyAY / RU N9JA /(1�2X22DII)__..._ _ .h EE............................................... RUNWAY OVERRUN/ • - i DISPLACED THRESHOLD ;RUNWAY SAFETl AREA A 1_ LS1 CC511I70 FARM NORTH 151 A00. TH./ 6TH A00. 41 _ 1. 1 1 1 1 11_11_11_1■_ 11_ ■1 ENE 11_11_11 1_ 11_ n _n_n_11_.._n_11_11_11_1d1RAN._. ����aa�aasj r �L�rrr ,.a its 1 1111. ?' �.. ' r�� \ ^"rr � a 1111 ,�.. s>.�,� .w! 1 1 1 1 1 m �_r'� ��• err °Foil ; - �y.�1 1aV.1•t!}YI11��2� w_ r1i7• 3700') MEE- 1 -- 5 1 1 1 i i1 • 1 -+_ r Frifr/k, ■Wi Aoh,ivA 4ta moWil G \Prbie<ts\0.as-Greg- 2 \M0.ITER PARCCL630- 001\ u10E - revisions- 12- 13- 02 \630001ba10- 30- 02greq- bnseCPTI00 ,dvg 01/06/2003 000,42 PM CST 0 a g. a a S 04 00 a • • • CENNRV GARY NORTH 1ST ADD. 1000 610 ADD. — !iY._. •\ :14 • OT . I� �S o ... Ij �I+oe' �a .o i ".•1 aj••• •• 1= `► !i� 1 I •_`: �•rr ���: =ate �'����- '1���'" a:,�., J ; CM/0 ectsSD4s- Grea-2 \NEE1TER PARCEL630- 001 \UHDE - revisions - 12 -13- 02\6300011.1- 09- 03,re,- based., 01/20/2003 0400.0] PM CST GRAPHIC SCALE 2.160 S.r. AtO 'ICI .r1 (26 FEET ) 1 Inert . 000 (t NORYAL.0 DRY r••• .: 00DTTdc 1900.00 1 \, ••{� o e. E a i + ^�m • RUN WAI_SAEtTY` Ai? EA (200'X26001 ..RUNWqL• •'•,RUNWAY ,SAFER AREA v0I m 10 Q G2 CENTURY FARM NORTH 15T Ana 111100 7111 000. 18 CAP', iects,5.os-Greo-2 NOL/TOR P0RCEL630-001,evieci base 10-30-02,30C011.10-30-02ores-base..o 1/ 49/21402 04.0122 PM CST OUTLOT 8 le° E:3 OUTLO ACUTLOT F ri ■ ((t* i , 00 MOM WOO 11\ 100 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 SO 000 See 020 Ito?) 1 inch A. 100 ft r I AIL - ill Hirmomumn•u■omm...:=2... '"'"••-geoiA t.; I .: / 1 1 / ; 1 / / / i'°:?11111r I 17 - I Sr107 74/ 1:11MILIN- • MI mimAim ol • FA I Eiraele liza r - 111=1.101IMINZW, V is: 1 a : I 111111 I MO A a ii■•••=mr \ :S ' SENTERILNE _2_,..._ _ _ _ ____-2------„. -----,-, \AC 1)' ■ -----SAFETY ZONE A ;I: s. T , :: (24n1707) ' ,-, \_ _ \\\\\\ 2 \\\ _ \\ \ _ RUNWAY OVERRUN/ 7, • a 0 0 z 0 0 < g (2R >fziFiLT; < • IL o >— ILI CC cc 0 w w 00 RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (200'X2600') - -= RUNWAY (122'X2200') DISPLACED THRESHOLD • -•- • -• -•-• LRUNWAY SAFETY AREA / *-j\-•/ 5. CO 0 U1 CEHMIT FNMA NOR 157 •Co r II 11 WA NO .!‘ 1_0 00,100 OUTLOT B ICJTIS PARLTL630 —at,I .DE- ..wnntt2 I3-tDS 0WIbal-O5- 21pr.q- b...G.s 01/2o /2Cai GRAPHIC SCALE ( TR P5LT ) 1 bait -wna NOTES 1 IY t £t OAPs IIIIAll iti am~ o �-lgl0 EINOIigl! • aWitMt ! ayl1 s sri1yhq�lI • 1001 Rng:i!ii lMall li_ WETLAND FILL MOSAIC FILL SOX WETLAND 50X UPLAND MITIGATION MOSAIC MITIGATION 50X WETLAND REPLACEMENT 50% WETLAND UPGRADE Ponding ExistingWetlands TOTAL. FILL REQUIRED MITIGATION AVAILABLE MITIGATION 40,699 S.F. 81,399 S.F. 127,508 S.F. Mitigation Plan F A a 1 J 2 /..>/ te/ I N L i a w a a OMOOL� PR CST -r r -- a a a 8 8I 8 7 5 iI .. ,,FT7e1.7..._....,-,IES...1•4_,.„-Alr.,,, ... - •:.---...414CLIV" ---,1, ....1..,..cli-,,... -4,-...... ,,,,,,",,.......,,,,,-, --'''''''',,Tualt.m_ alar,a".,_.2.4serS.,... .:,..a..,•„..,_..,4,1-....31,Mg.ar.•-•2....S.54.7.....,.. ,-ttgr_ -.-1-=, ',la` ITS.-.1 ...".2.-.1,.., -, ‘,,,,23,G-1,..n..:-.17.7.x....-ax....1.1,-,, LIR aiMr........,,. lit -.•r-,•R.Fifie,,,Bibl.FIrt ITAKM,r, ....r.”.,..._74436•Er r----•t&W.Y.,,Or4,..",-,-,.,...,-.c. =R. •■..41,--'• -'''''''''''''''-.Z.VA',..-Zr. •ia+25:2£1.307.41MS.doi .22.4-ra, •.,,..'+'..•AMi• CV.. fiel2,21,713.1..,,,,,,,...S.4,--,1,93210- . - -- - . `,03.4.2,`R". 4:01.-.4165..rost.,---,..”..,,,'29.. tr'"'-:.'.-a6£-.:•-r••a.SIMPZ1591'.'"'''' '‘............M.,,A1F-,FAIL.C.--.56/,-4,-..r==.1=md-s.r..,,...,r,,-.......Ft•VaL%-_ .,... ,, ..,..„, ,. 7,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,,,,,....,..„.....„...,,....,,,,„.. iv. ■ '''''''.42412...1.101101:2CFM.21219.419^,-.,,,VRIKVar.s.el ShYS.V.,--,,.47.1 _ -.• •- , _,IIISMI,Afeb•PMELMYSirf-n, ,71,,, .....-1,-2=.P• ".2.1", -LA., VAIMMS@MaStffiDESIFer -,.-- IMEM.119.,.• ,8/3.#91141,14.0,1LASMSW,,,n- ...1M- .-.'''''''';77:"7-70.ialusTInes'il■nr'''7-.•L''''''7--I `49.,Mt,111.3:Y.ri="4" WS: alZ.ZAWSII glhletit.. ,ffeseorc,ezEmn-tat.,-....3- .19=-,2 .„, .......,„, it,‘ -...771 a ‘.. :•11, kmareagh,sers f-.1.gr...waw. ...Zs, MC IEKM21282‘,....aMMI:2'......,.<7:411"..,-,AS f...mm 4ar.,......nreacsasom-aze...,..ms,..,.....,,,,....., •ff...ts•Wl[1.13MIESIZET-_.171737.-.171 4 . 1•:r IgENSISE°1=912393151.111211.614,E=-=...BESIVINE tannnolliairgrMoreimenalmassams-,,nvesr..—..erganravesizat '112 =111111:=Maafir.teEllsounim =moms. N Immo E■swiuxafggxfRLmrzagssa...„...,...„„...,...,r,.. .........mwmrl=.=...=.jgnmhaep•..g....... • . Maxna,....-awanaes• - .6031.s...zniass.a.M116M115, 111=11,,,IIMMI '... ,4 • SraREECOMIIMMS.:9.1.10. • , g..1 =UMMM.= - Aliimmensensmiacumaamsmain 1=1EMMIMM 1 agildialli sOiniasuwasi.... imze -..s =I ■ 111 a MI CENTURY FARO NORTH 1ST 000. TNRU 6100 00D. C\Prgpcts\D.gs- Greq- 21.146SjTOt PARCEl630 -X1 \RICE CREEB\630001be11-26- 02gre9- RICE- CREER.beg 12/18/2002 11 :0797 CST POND N TOP: 901.00 100 YR MU 898.79 NORYAL 9t: 896.75 OUTLOT B BOROY: 89200 ^ ^2 _ ____ ____ _ ______ _ —___tee �=^ GRAPHIC SCALE EN E .v" A 1 Vll' ( IN FEET ) I Inch . 100 IL WETLAND •---- ---,.• EXISTING SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY 444'®1.2% = SUBWATERSHED ROUTING FOR Tc CALCULATION = SUBWATERSHED OFFSITE 1 = 250.580 SF./5.75 ACRES = 576.376 SF./13.23 ACRES = 732,475 56./16.82 ACRES = 430,796 5.6./9.89 ACRES = 68,268 S.F./1.57 ACRES = 586.559 0.6./13.47 ACRES = 280.313 S.F./6.44 ACRES = 202,303 S.F. /4.64 ACRES = 113.365 5.6.12.60 ACRES = 115.664 5.1./2.66 ACRES 73.844 S.F. /1.70 ACRES � ems. P ./ �>• K •� , I�� : ■ �If�i:���� . ." ,��+ �-�'� •' �6 a � RVimw!— � 111� AS` � ►�_ ._ �f _ 'te ► 1i i � ,i twin — wits ( -;� ,R .��ii■i SWJ = 339.273 5./7.79 ACRES = 968,480 S.F. /22.23 ACRES = 67,625 S.F. /2.01 ACRES 10,186 S.F. /0.23 ACRES = 70,161 S.F./1.81 ACRES = 44.210 S.F. /1.01 ACRES 157.609 5.6.3.62 ACRES = 254,622 S.F. /5.85 ACRES = 44,363 51./1.02 ACRES ® = 18,372 S.F./0.42 ACRES .___ RUNWAY_SAFETY0,AE2EA (200'X2600') L �-` —� --_— rr'. 1. RUNWAY ='6-22_X7200.) - -_ -_ ,RUNWAY StkfrEI,V, AREA `_ . 13 0 z gP i` 81 W2 _ . '� ,.,,= -.} -.+.,f �i1 ,1". ."-'9�� ]S�i'ciY�l" ..=E. =_•.-,,,,,,,_ - 2` `�E',i e+- ..--.d :� `tae.. -,.. .,. , .� .. �i}..,,,. �.L11 . 11.1....�u 4....3.'.a^. ^- LL�J^. =i �..`1t5lLa .�F 15€.. Y,6� -.F7'9 C.�i X9'17.3.31 :.^�r -'�_. 1C -.,-1 ,C WME "-- .J .._tip aE' t�. �� c'�u�..E' C`�591i ti .Crr 5:.'Sffidei9..- _'_�fr - '�a6.:va,,, +1@"^�1 ,(-1+ `,, ,.fC LE^- Q"'°' fl t 'ice..' T(T�it �T._!'�'r'r-"�i 16 �.. ®a=F'�.-t5.3.mt=1:1 R e 9 d^aT. `�• ®® �ir?_'9i i ----• �JF' i +e__./°�' G3f�3L4w_-'��^9® li�i -Z3 t. ZI . (m_...d: �kasia e3_i.. �S.^� ®Pir^an_i &i:i G^.�l�z.a°Y._`� Es ,,._C7-...Sr. ^ Ei"u '7' �: TrZtd :_. S"vtG'�i3e3€§.^J"_ t`99GM eE ��`..- ":��:ta f 4LSC- vctm1IDd :� ^� ® ®s�s._;...�'B&.+.'a'_. fimarit - _ &L "sctssi mtr - © ...._. �f�� tv�9 ]Su'EJSS ".EMt ii.E=9B1E�l� -v. .. fdnti.,Z1'd®t 1fiOnMac+..ei� ®. .�R ..,,$..'emtiY.3awv ==,== _ nrat:M F. ` �� ®>�1i MNEMIE � ®@ i*S.x`. �� A �l>��'GE J 6�?t2 ® ®�S912 �SS�a a&SA....ds- t EZEIM -u L ' a M11 ,2'i ®�5EM3 ® ®ias�1L2Mismi6 1312 a l f_'v ¢sa/�� ���+sa,,IMS A E i9 :� ®a»Q�]�•..... ®�mo=1 � ®��» veS JS' l��cT ®mF�a ®aw�w�sasax P37 ®�vu� le�ememmw 1 E@ ® ®MENTaiti:1 . 7a! 2'�J'- -^ ®�Si ®f����gliii ..�f S+39. sr�RS&�' C,'.. ® ® ®®C ,...°. 31 �P.-,M.i 19 'daaaaa..zos Jl�® 3vs�5 ® ®>Sr- :S'i�' '-]� 13Sr a ��Etlg�� ®ESI C,� ®8` `D'�� ® ®1s ®B1.�Pasi ®3�u1itAF�; &9 ®GHffil1L.5@ ....7xR1R®A /1r=1S ■WV.1313EM� S �l` 21 ester 1 ®�� ®® c3}13 GAfl�� 61� ® ® ®`CAII� ®&T314�d31 1� ®BiTal.:Sfl v" IT�TZ ...3Q ® ®S'� ®'A4Zl5hT�� ®C€=1. 3 .IM,2E. �tA�i�41HF � ©'� ISIII ___ .'�WTm9 ®!i: s ®1 J1e�cl&1¢3T ®�E£'- 9[Sl{21 ® ®� 9L9 �'d1M15'S'W.4i��Q�C�E.1 P�'.l�]E°B a♦$IC® ®66^.1 �] S@ll�® - -- �GS� ®�A 1 ® ® ®A^.]R??I ®6�i � �.a'3�Si �� ®1��9�LR:Hi�BS+' w' ZMiiaVVME --�1 ElL Es ®�3 ca ®�Yomi� ® ®�® �i•GG'U01 12aME 3t»1 11 iiE9® = 1 ®WIE, sa Cr `Z31 9m0g gg=F'9� -a F_S3 E57 ][Si ®.. ® ® ®0 49012 ®MEIM LLT:II- 7. -- t @?tl ®ca Es ®1is�! ®)s , ` "4'elELi60.11 • Fril eall2k .a vC"r:AINIZ® `Wli.'i ®9I��9S63 ®6Ei t IFIZI f_eg® 9!! RS ® L wa e'1 G69�]L/ -� •5�1� ® ® ®� 9® ® ®L`� ,s1 ,...0.. :vo 11iMi ..ta `6C1�®' . 6�16ii1 "4IId� ®fl'i�iii3 aaBa06'��SA 8399 ®� -�6�' Ali. �QS ®� ®�� ®Ilil� @i9�,s[9. ..61131.81 -- 1 ®ii101 ''1� ®�}gta1�10 ®2T���9 ®6. ®✓�� ® ®��11 ®6Y:4� ®6e��. �{ �� ®� {Ilirldl Hi /i, -a, fI1[I�IfI[� 'weea® ®mow® m.a1 r Maill1114 PPv]ctv�] ®a3 5 ✓ gy' °'YBSm� ®9.ac 3� ®i�1��1® s.1� • ®s/ N ®ate ®� �� ® � s ® ®®. - kfLiiiiiiinnab EN no -_. ailor -..1.11 so- ... acEL.�u:. : tc�ya_.. 9. -..c. ,,, e9 �c El nOMM Pi MUMS 591 MEE= 1w ®�eent ®®�a6 ® ®���4 ®i. E€�D.6Bffiaa� ipso O !1 .� ® C`11�i1 MI - .. .. ® mown om .: t K E 15® E` mENENNE m ®1.® , - -- - 1® r � ®� ® ® ® ®=7-r.C17..®Elmsa®lmizaM®1-0.•W.ta A Emma ill - Z; 1 '�� ®' ® ® ®.14 �s ,Z:1 lE 2.1, A ® A�n �li� ®i�L 3 ® ®'234.4J Fb�_°.al ®�"!^'Gu=2�� tom- Z-;� ®mEns RL99'.S] ®ss�'I ®as'3G. ^3� SdG`3'i ® ®���3+�'3 ® ®�t� ® ® ®® d ® ®ua.9 Tsui Grp -l�� Bk� ®® 1Ini es ®t�1..���22 1, 9 i1s=1, -- =min. SL i ® ®LaIVKORJ�'•'+ .azr&S -_.a.J ®E6� ®E`.1 91 X71.. � ®7ta WIka s�6v�^ s > ( SSS= ® ®Gc3'?exI6m ® ®Lxdl ® ®S�F } uu1a gamsmamsilirp� a lasm®6&Et ® ®�T��E:n ®t ® - - - - - ® ® ! � F� �t�® u5����3 ®9 gam( ®1EZE91=641= ®mi30.d1 ® 2B2Maa.,-+�c4a9t ®£.-^i8®1..N® ®'.gE3 ®mod cliMMOBSR3=1fism■® Baireaa 1 c� E��+��MOea� ® ®Sawo' Vffi©9a9 .:e-Mm� ®� .s�� Issol acs3s��. ®� ® ® ®l ildr.'.C1 tii �' ®1®[89i��' ® ®�1/ ����Ti1G�/� ®f3'@@i® ®l��=F� ®fit 4E ®���® +.- aacv� -. 51g9®.�i9 ®»A� ® ®/ eu� ®�am9eraer z��� ®sac- ,a$,a ®�v ®s��a ®� ® ® ® ®® �' ®mm i ® ®��� ®.i -a® -A� ®EMAEn ®� ®�a~�e� ®1 l.: �EL]�e9�6�i ��1 ®Gt+aP� i3r& rrfln-ru2.i ® ®%�"�l ® ®E� ® ®E'SR'd;' 6s �i t 15L9 t l ®Pn�l d®Sa"t - ®Wd9^m�t� ten1,46tSE sirm sums ®' ®®>310. -S !WEiV ® grc am ®g2.1 ® 3 ®P ® ®EE�t'��W FZ3t�.,M:1.23' f •3a-L6�s' ® ® 1 - !M71®i / te. 83F ® ® ® ®E7a1EFEf3 ®1t�5�iMliN9WE® "18 ®�!c"A2� ® ®: a�� ®� ' ® �...^aS>6E9 ®9/ lr.®t®® �a� ®IZSMMIF �i ®0aa .0®a1.ra��39 ®®3� ��a F@ ® ® ®A@1I�i ®NS [® ®�'® ®a�d69Z® A� 43.a swam • I 43�6ti8.�t�?@»® 9/ 4W-3E135.36.02.58 ME;■..13.4.125¢7133..E1P2MBESSOSIENE■31312rEgEnaf CO. �.a�]��' �9 ®�6�1� ®dam ® ®�IS�(:i�- H'i�� ®� ®�9 I 141. mod+ �i /. ;�1 •ems)- ® ®ire � AFB Affa ®f�ht � = ®�® ® Mb= 1111351 1� ®rte '1 ®.v.® ®� ® ® ®® ®Ii®aa9B ® ®I0ag ®■=a1191MIME®/ ,Etr.ESIGIEN Vii® ®��!'®C® ®� ®� ®V ti�� ®9lM191.5M®® a1f9118 ®999 ® ®9G ®I tv50 20Nt®fi ® ®® !1! ®•MB! / .11t/M2naMIMMI.' SEMEMMEMEN NIB 8.■NIMON SEINIMMINMININI Ccntur: • WRMWNtr68 L, yi4y 1.911.413w ®mss ° v, • - ' ® ugcv.� ®� ® ®s /' Aelselsomtsl.ra mom_ -® a2»�,52V• rtffMriil'ac� ® ® ® >� ®one i - �V"1rUfr6r7Rlf7tr. .ffrflfrf3lrtr►� astray mar v 61:ED .t.^.�-:m�a ®® ®arses/ rwasesmomensre ® NYfrlrirrlirNfdl" turf $m���.RIL ®msmm ® ®��= agr,m 1LMRMrirfr{r'. ° ®ecsa�® '° 1M.= - �-^S ®CMS a finnna Ur9AAf " �r1rt>® ®maw ® ®o �sa,9. £ l ® � /MrWlMrfiirf " An/VA= mast ®�® ®32.3 moseg, lift, a �L. mersar' "® En [3.21SEMIME3MMUSSIMMIn., .6i3teDi.S=®ate ® smassommeva = . ®=MS SIM ®® ®ems a •�a..•ne ,' ®_ ®� ®_ - a -■� � MUM 0® ®1S�. IMININI ff s® ® cas ®tea ®® mammon 11111=1=1•11111 MOMS GM■I ISOIMIMIZMMC MEM a■ao : �I11! J w® car s cat ■1111111•111I ESE 9 _.i'�.. - ate_ ®o ® _° d ���ggFj sc. a0® IMOOMMICIMIMMI ®® ®� .711.6 ® - . -1f�1 ® �®n® ME ® ®® .1.0.11 via °a�� ®w ll® s ®a ®_ - - - -- °ate ®S® 6666 ® ® ® ®� ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®® a�� ®���. -, : ® ®�e=s ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®� ® ®a ®® ®map �r ®� ....Re s.ar-Enzalg..Eas, taw .. ®&sue ✓� ®® NE8:8ae:Y:3aiei•1"U ® ® ®E�' aers� ®® trrr47rrrRrt4dflrD °,2.911.5niti ®vim INNOMINim ®® ®mom CO ®® Inlaan36.21=1..1¢0.5ZEMES1=o C.1• 1=1. /3=1.M1 SnFEL9 =13.30 C313231216.1.7 Wee..1 ttt2» m ®i ® ilk ® ���® ® ®� ®tom ® ® ® ®�eo� ,n�°� 2� �® ®ass+ ,sc..� � r.zwi®2.1®� ® ® ® ®sMI aa. ® ® ®s.®sSM®sue 111JI " Illlr' 1 3iema r. anema pure 7 13 68,03 R 25,191 S.F. 60 AIRCRAFT STORAGE AREA 249.32 19,770 S.F. T I °. 600 AIRCRAFT 0 STORAGE AREA • 244.94 309.46 24,747 S.F. / 6 / 1 AIRCRAFT STORAGE AREA IRCRAFT STORAGE I AREA _7 AIRCRAFT / STORAGE / AREA / 50 30' R (TYP.) N / 0 Co // // CENTERLINE SAFETY ZO \E A • (240'X1707') v \\ \\\ \ \_ _ \\\___ \_\_\. \\__ i � �_' RUNWAY OVERRUN/ .�.�( -ni nrcfl TNRFHi�I.D / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / — --7__ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / , / / a ---- - - - - -- / `� —„— / / /� / / / / / / / / / / , '`,. N �, aT 1-.A r • • • • DEC -17 -2062 15:20 CITY OF LINO LAKES 851 982 2499 P.02/03 Environmental Memo To: Michael Grochala From: Marty Asleson CC: Jeff Smyser Date: December 6, 2002 Re: Recommendations of the December4, 2002 Environmental Board The following recommendations were given at the December 4, 2002 Environmental Board concerning Behm's Century Farms 6th Through 10th Additions: Carried forward from the July 31s`, 2002 meeting • Detail a Tree Preservation Plan. Ask Developer to reevaluate the preservation of historic oak areas on the South side. • Integrate Tree preservation into Operations plan for protection of soil, pond, infiltration and swale areas. This would include a plan for fenced protection areas for these as well as siltation fence locations, • Preserve the wet meadow area to the North and West. Restore the hydrologic system supporting this meadow as much as possible to earlier, pre- ditch/tile situation. • Require City native seed mix specifications for all pond, swale, ditch, infiltration, and conservation easement areas where possible. Use transitional mix when transitioning sod yards areas. • Require city ownership of outlot and buffer areas. Use conservation easements under city ownership in other areas requiring buffering. • Require signage locating all conservation areas. f Require covenants in the Homeowner Association for no impacts in buffer areas. • Require a separate and distinct conservation disclosure brochure to be given to homebuyers before lot purchase. • Prohibit the removal or importing of soils off -site without approvals from the City. ✓ Require the Developer to Escrow (1) 2.5 -inch boulevard tree per frontage. • Page 1 DEC -17 -2002 15:20 CITY OF LINO LAKES 651 982 2499 P.03/03 • Detail a Plan that sequesters park and greenway areas. • Require low impact, downward focused, low - spill, low- impact street lighting. And in Addition the December 4th Environmental Board Recommended • The tightly banded soil areas within the proposed public open -space are analyzed for preservation and restoration of possible unique resources. That these areas are protected from soil disturbance, and have the original hydrologic characteristics restored where it is possible. • That the developer be required to use pervious paving in the town home overflow parking areas if the City determines these parking areas are needed. • That staff works with the developer on changes to the proposed landscape species. Additional Comment it is important that the City honors population limits and goals as set forth in the 20/20 vision process. (147 units /per year). Motion by Amy Donlin, Second by Tere O'Connell to Approve. Motion passed • unanimously. • • Pape 2 FEB -05 -2083 12:44 TKDA • ENGINEERS • ARCFIJTEGIS • PLANNF.RS • • MEMORANDUM CITY OF LINO LAKES 651 982 2499 P.03/11 150o Piper affray Plaza 444 Cedar street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 051) 292 -4400 (851) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com To: James E. Studenski, P.E. Reference: Engineering Review of Century Copies To: Farms North (1st - 6th Additions) Residential Development Comm. No. 12701 -002 From: Patrick M. Windier, P.E. Routing: Date: February 5, 2003 The enclosed engineering review was based on the following documents: 1. Plan Sheets for Century Farms North (1st - 6th Additions): • Preliminary Grading (G1, 02, G1A - D) • Preliminary Utility Plan (U1, U1A - D) • Existing Conditions Plan (Storm Drainage Areas) Plan Sheet W1 ▪ Developed Conditions Plan (Storm Drainage Areas) Plan Sheet W2 The above plans were provided by Metro Land Surveying and Engineering (Developers Engineering Firrn) and dated November 20, 2002. 2. Copy of Rice Creek Watershed District Permit Application dated December 6, 2002. 3. HydroCAD stormwater modeling calculations and dated January 3, 2003: • Pre - Development Conditions (2 -year, 10 -year and 100 -year) - Post - Development Conditions (2 -year, 10 -year, 100 -year and 2.5" rainfall) • Outflow peak Flow Comparison Chart (not dated) and other summary Tables 4. Previous Engineering Review and dated November 7, 2003. ENGINEERING RE i ✓I 7 %) % COMMENTS: 1. Sanitary Sewer System - Plan Sheets U1 and U1A through U1D: A. The existing sanitary manhole invert elevation located at the intersection of Pinto Lane and Mustang Lane should be 892.25 according to our records, and not 882,25 as shown on Plan Sheet U1A. This is a ten (I 0) foot differential. Because of this differential, sanitary service to the proposed homes on Century Trail from Sunset Road to the proposed Sanitary Lift Station An Employee Owe Company Promoting Affirmative Anion and Equal Opportunity FEB -05 -2003 12:44 CITY OF LINO LAKES 651 982 2499 P.04/11 Engineering Review Page 2 February 5, 2003 Century Farms North (1st -6th Additions) and the cul -de -sac to the north of Century Trail and Pinto Lane have potential bury depth issues for providing service to the adjacent homes. E. The utility plans that our office has received do not show the connecting sanitary sewer piping line work. The proposed sanitary manholes along with pipe size and slopes are shown. For this reason, it is difficult to determine the sanitary sewer piping flow direction for Block 13, 14, and 15. C. An overall engineering analysis for the proposed sanitary sewer system is recommended to be undertaken that takes into account not only the Century Farms North subdivision; but also, includes the future needs of currently undeveloped and adjacent unsewered areas. That is, sanitary sewer system trunk and lateral lines along with pumping Aft station(s) need to be sized, depth determined and alignments chosen with future use considered beyond the subdivision boudaries. D. Sanitary sewer system materials and installation methods shall follow the City of Lino Lakes engineering standards. E. Provide to the City of Lino Lakes a copy of the completed MPCA sanitary sewer permit. F. Provide permanent easements for sanitary sewer system piping and components for utilities not in the public right -of- -way. 2. Watermain System - Plan Sheets U1 and U1A through U1D: A. Fire Hydrants shall be added at the watermain terminus for the east end of Stallion Road and the north end of Century Trail for flushing purposes. B. An overall engineering analysis for the proposed watermain system is recommended that takes into account not only the Century Farm North subdivision; but also, the future development needs of adjacent properties. It would be expected that a watermain pipe will need to be installed parallel and near to Sunset Road (CSAH #53) to address overall water system balancing and capacity considerations. C. Watermain system materials and installation methods shall follow City of Lino Lakes engineering standards. D. Provide to the City of Lino Lakes a copy of the completed MDH permit for watermain installation. E. Provide permanent easements for watermain piping and fire hydrants in locations not in the public right -of -way. • • • FEB -05 -2003 12:45 CITY OF LINO LAKES 651 982 2499 P.05/11 Engineering Review Page 3 February 5, 2003 Century Farms North (lst -6th Additions) 3. Stonnwater System - Plan Sheets G1, G2 and G1A through G1D: A. Stipulations set forth by Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) permit application review /approval process must be met including wetland issues. It will be important for the Developer's Engineer to keep the Lino Lakes City Engineer updated as the review process with RCWD progresses. ultimately, the City will review the approved RCWD permit to determine if its interests are met. The Developer's Engineer has claimed through analysis that water levels in a wetland in Outlot C cannot support the delineated vegetation. They are requesting that the wetland area be reduced by fifty (50) percent. It is the LGU's (RCWD) responsibility to resolve this issue with the Developer's Engineer. Resolution of this issue could involve City Staff input. B. There are concerns of the proposed depths of the stormwater ponds in relation to groundwater elevations. Geotechnical evaluation indicates that the range of groundwater elevations to be in the 891 to 893 range. Many of the proposed stormwater pond bottom elevations would be lower than the range of groundwater elevations. Thus, stormwater capacity will be potentially reduced as well as issues involved with excavating below groundwater levels. C. In general, the City does not allow storm sewer pipes or inlets to be less than twelve (12) inches in diameter. The Developer's Engineer should make the changes necessary to the proposed storm sewer conveyance system and inlet structures to comply with this City requirement. D. Permanent easements with access availability will be required for all stormwater ponds and conveyance system not located within the public rights -of -way. 4. Airport Issues: On the south side of the development site there is an airport runway landing strip area. Since the proposed construction will abut the runway area, it is recommended that the Developer provide written permission (or if a permit is needed) from the appropriate regulating authorities stating that there are no conflicts or issues that affect the airport runway. 5. Street System - Plan Sheets Gl, G2 and G1A through G1D: A. All centerline street grade slopes are to be a minimum of 0.5 %. The Developer's Engineer needs to be aware that all construction plans will be held to this standard including slopes around the perimeter of cul -de- sacs. B. At the east end of Carl Street, a roadway connection to the existing cul -de -sac is recommended to be constructed as part of the Century Farm North subdivision. This should include a thirty -two (32) foot wide permanent street with modifications to the existing cul-de- sac. It is also recommended that utilities and sidewalk be extended in conjunction with the street construction. • • FEB- 05 -2 003 12 :45 CITY OF LINO LAKES 651 982 2499 P.08/11 Engineering Review Page 4 February 5, 2003 Century Farms North (1st -6th Additions) C. All of the public streets with the exception of Stallion Road scale as thirty -two (32) foot wide roadways. Stallion Road scales as a thirty -six (36) feet wide. It is recommended that no parking be allowed on any public subdivision street. Recommended speed limits should range between thirty (30) and forty (40) miles an hour. Street typical sections will need to be developed based on engineering traffic and soils data. A two (2) foot thick granular borrow section will be required under the proposed aggregate base and bituminous pavement design roadway section. D. All the non -public interior streets such as in Block 14, 10, 11, and 15 should be reviewed by City staff to determine if emergency vehicles have the required access to perform their functions. E. All street system components shall as a minimum meet City of Lino Lakes engineering standards. 6. Anoka County Highway Department Issues: A. Anoka County Highway Department staff through its permitting process will need to be involved with connection from Century Trail and Stallion Road to Sunset Road (Anoka County No. 53). It could be expected that turn lanes will be necessary at these two (2) intersecting subdivision roadways. It is important that this issue remain at the forefront of final street layout considerations. City staff needs to be involved with any County/Developer access discussions. 13. Also regarding driveway access to an existing home in the southeast quadrant of Century Trail and Sunset Road (CSAH No. 53), it could be required by Anoka County to relocate this driveway from Sunset Road to possibly Century Trail. The closeness of the existing driveway to the proposed Century Trail Street has safety traffic concerns. 7. Bikeway /Sidewalk - Plan Sheets G1, G2, and G1A through 01D: According to the information provided on the plan sheets, there is an existing walkway (type unknown) located approximately at the SW corner of Lot 1 and Block 4 on the south side of Century Trail and rims parallel to the existing ditch. It is recommended that a connection from Century Trail be extended to the south to meet this existing walkway. City Staff to review comprehensive trail plan to determine if this connection is necessary. 8. Preliminary Plat with Easements: The Developer is to provide to the City Engineer a copy of the preliminary plat clearly showing dimensions of public rights -of -way and permanent easements with designation for review and comment. • AGENDA ITEM V.C. STAFF ORIGINATOR: P AND Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND Anne Marie Solberg /Alan Brixius (NAC) February 12, 2003 Living Waters Lutheran Church - Site & Building Plan Review and CUP ATS &R has submitted an application on behalf of Living Waters Lutheran Church for CUP /Site and Building Plan Review for the property located at 865 Birch Street (PID# 28- 31- 22- 32- 0019). The applicant is requesting to construct a building addition to accommodate a new sanctuary. The application indicates that the subject property consists of approximately 9.34 acres. The site is zoned R -1 Single Family Residential. Religious institutions are a conditional use within R -1 Single Family Residential District. The site abuts CSAH 10 to the south, Country Lakes Estates (R -1 Single Family Residential) to the west, Reshanau Lake to the North and residential property zoned R -1, Single Family Residential to the east. This review is based on the following plan submittals: Boundary and Topographic Survey dated 11.18.02 Tree Preservation Plan dated 01.13.02(03) Site Plan dated 01.13.02(03) Site Grading Plan dated 01.13.02(03) Birch Street Elevation dated 12.09.02 Exterior Image dated 12.09.02 ANALYSIS Site and Building Plan Review Property Legal Description. The subject property has a metes and bounds legal description within Section 28, Township 31 North, Range 22 West (PID# 28- 31 -22 -32 -0019) and contains 9.34 acres more or less. Project Schedule. The application contemplates bidding will commence during the Winter of 2003 with substantial completion of the building addition by Fall 2003. The proposed schedule is in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 2, Subd. 5.E.2 of the Ordinance. • Zoning/Use. The subject property is zoned R -1 Single Family Residential. Religious institutions are a permitted conditional use within the R -1, Single Family Residential District provided that: • Living Waters Lutheran Church Page 2 of 10 • (a) side yards shall not be less than fifty (50) feet; Comment: The proposed building addition shall be located 292 feet from the nearest side yard lot line. (b) adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with Section 3, Subd 4.S. of the Ordinance; Comment: The proposed building addition will be adequately screened from the residence located northeast of the site with landscaping including six (6) spruce trees and two (2) sugar maples. (c) adequate off - street parking and access is provided on the site in compliance with Section 3, Subd 5 of the Ordinance and that such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 3, Subd 4.S. of the Ordinance; and Comment: The off - street parking area will remain substantially the same. The parking spaces have been reconfigured to incorporate two (2) additional designated disabled parking spaces in accordance with the guidelines established by the Minnesota State Council on Disability, resulting a reduction from 91 to 90 total parking spaces. All off - street parking spaces meet the minimum dimensional requirements of Section 3, Subd. 5 of the Ordinance. A wooded area in the southwest corner of the site provides screening of the parking lot from CSAH 10. (d) adequate off - street loading and service entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Section 3, Subd 6. of the Ordinance. Comments: Additional loading is not indicated by the plans submitted for the building addition. A conditional use permit for the site was previously approved by the City in April 1993. The current application will expand the existing structure but will not alter the use as previously approved. Adequate parking for the proposed building addition is currently available on site and the proposed building addition meets all relevant setback requirements. The site is located less than 1,000 feet from Reshanau Lake, a Recreational Development Lake, and is therefore subject to the provisions of the Shoreland Management Overlay District ( "Shoreland District "). The purpose of the Shoreland District is to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The Shoreland District standards are applied in addition to standards set forth in other zoning districts. • Access /Site Circulation. Access to the site is provided via an existing driveway along CSAH 10. Preliminary review by the Anoka County Highway Department (ACHD) indicates that turn lanes may be required as a result of the proposed improvements to the site. Any roadway improvements should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer and the ACRD. • Living Waters Lutheran Church Page 3 of 10 City staff is recommending that the site include a separated drop -off area outside of the drive -aisle to prevent vehicle backup upon CSAH 10 and to promote safety and efficient traffic flow throughout the site. In addition, the applicant has agreed to install a striped pedestrian crossing from the designated disabled parking stalls to the sidewalk. Lot Size and Setbacks. The lot and building performance standards for properties within the R -1, Single Family Residential District and the Shoreland Management Overlay District are listed below. * from proposed ten (10) foot street widening ** Setbacks from CSAH 10 relative to the proposed building addition may be impacted by the introduction of a turn lane on CSAH 10. (S) Shoreland Management Overlay District standard As shown above, the proposed building addition meets all applicable lot and building performance standards. Impervious Surface Coverage. The plans indicate the following regarding impervious surface coverage for the site: Total Site Area Existing Impervious Proposed Impervious Total Impervious +/- 9.34 acres 1.46 acres (15% of site) 0.16 acres (1.7% of site) 1.62 acres (17% of site) Section 1102.07, Subd. 1(C)(4) of the Shoreland District standards states impervious surface coverage of the lot area may not exceed thirty percent (30 %). Architecture/Building Materials. As shown on the submitted building elevations, the proposed building addition is to be finished with painted lap siding, glass windows and an asphalt shingle roof, all to match the existing building. Specific building colors have not been indicated. As a condition of site and building plan approval, building colors should be specified. REQUIRED PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION EXISTING BUILDING Lot size minimum 20,000 SF (S) 9.34 acres 9.34 acres Lot Width/Base Lot 80 feet (S) — 530 feet — 530 feet Setbacks — building CSAH 10 ** side lot line (east) side lot line (west) rear lot line (OHWL) 40 feet (S) 50 feet 50 feet 75 feet (S) 62 feet* 280 feet N/A 166 feet 125 feet 390 feet 30 feet (garage) 174 feet Building height 35 feet <25 feet <25 feet * from proposed ten (10) foot street widening ** Setbacks from CSAH 10 relative to the proposed building addition may be impacted by the introduction of a turn lane on CSAH 10. (S) Shoreland Management Overlay District standard As shown above, the proposed building addition meets all applicable lot and building performance standards. Impervious Surface Coverage. The plans indicate the following regarding impervious surface coverage for the site: Total Site Area Existing Impervious Proposed Impervious Total Impervious +/- 9.34 acres 1.46 acres (15% of site) 0.16 acres (1.7% of site) 1.62 acres (17% of site) Section 1102.07, Subd. 1(C)(4) of the Shoreland District standards states impervious surface coverage of the lot area may not exceed thirty percent (30 %). Architecture/Building Materials. As shown on the submitted building elevations, the proposed building addition is to be finished with painted lap siding, glass windows and an asphalt shingle roof, all to match the existing building. Specific building colors have not been indicated. As a condition of site and building plan approval, building colors should be specified. • • • Living Waters Lutheran Church Page 4of10 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 Ordinance. USE RATIO REQUIREMENT Church at least one (1) parking space for each four (4) seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall (seating capacity of 250 *) 63 TOTAL 63 * Per information provided by the applicant In addition, the Ordinance requires that churches provide parking for additional facilities provided within the building. For example, one (1) parking space is required for each classroom plus one (1) space for each three hundred (300) student capacity plus one (1) space for each employee. Day care facilities (nursery) serving fourteen (14) or fewer persons are required to provide two (2) spaces per unit. BUILDING AREA SEATING CAPACITY / ACCOMMODATION RELEVANT CODE PROVISION PARKING REQUIRED Proposed Sanctuary Seating for 250 persons Section 3, Subd. 5(F)(9) 63 parking spaces Classrooms 7 classrooms Section 3, Subd. 5(F)(9) Section 3, Subd. 5(F)(7) 14 parking spaces Nursery Fewer than 14 children Section 3, Subd. 5(F)(9) Section 3, Subd. 5(F)(12) 2 parking spaces TOTAL 79 parking spaces Alternatively, the City Council may determine parking requirements on an individual basis taking into account such factors as the size of the building, type of use, number of employees, expected volume and turnover of customer traffic and expected frequency and number of delivery and service vehicles. Ninety (90) parking spaces are currently provided on site. All parking is configured at 90° with stall width measuring 9 feet and stall depth measuring 19 feet. All off - street parking spaces meet the minimum dimensional requirements of Section 3, Subd. 5 of the Ordinance. The parking incorporates four (4) designated disabled parking spaces in accordance with the guidelines established by the Minnesota State Council on Disability. All such spaces must be appropriately signed, including designation of one space as "van accessible ". Landscaping. Section 3, Subd. 4(S) of the Ordinance requires adequate screening from abutting residential uses and landscaping with an emphasis on the boundary or perimeter, the immediate • Living Waters Lutheran Church Page 5 of 10 • perimeter of the structure and the perimeter of parking and loading areas. The site plan indicates sod surrounding the proposed building addition and planting of three (3) trees, one maple and one evergreen tree east of the proposed building addition and one maple within the courtyard area south of the proposed building addition. The proposed building addition will be adequately screened from the residence located northeast of the site with landscaping including six (6) spruce trees and two (2) sugar maples. Section 2, Subd. 5.D states that only such development as preserves the maximum number of trees may be permitted. The tree preservation plan indicates that two canopy trees (3" maple and 6" maple) and one evergreen tree (4" spruce) will be removed to accommodate the proposed building addition. The applicant is proposing to replace such trees with two - 21/2" maple trees and one spruce tree six (6) feet in height in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 3, Subd. 4.S.3. In addition, landscaping will include six (6) spruce trees and two (2) sugar maples for screening from the residence located northeast of the site. The Environmental Board has recommended that the sugar maple trees in the plan be changed to red maples or oaks (See Exhibit J). The applicant has agreed to substitute pin oaks for the sugar maples illustrated on the plans. The applicant has also agreed to provide foundation plantings in accordance with the recommendations of the Environmental Board attached hereto as Exhibits J and K. All landscaping shall be in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4(S) of the Ordinance. CPTED Review. The landscaping indicated on the site plan has been reviewed by the police department and found to be in compliance with CPTED standards. Trash Enclosures. The plans do not illustrate any new or additional refuse areas. The existing refuse area is located within the garage building in accordance with Section 3, Subd. 4.G. of the Ordinance. Signage. The plans do not indicate any new or additional proposed signage. The site plan illustrates a freestanding triangular sign located on the east perimeter of the subject property, north of the entry drive. The location of such sign may be impacted by the addition of turn lanes as determined by the ACHD. Lighting. The applicant is proposing new exterior lighting in the form of wall mounted downlights located at the sanctuary exterior doors. The exterior light fixtures must have a 90 degree cutoff to reduce glare and light pollution. The site plan illustrates a light source located on the east perimeter of the subject property, north of the entry drive. The location of such light source may be impacted by the addition of turn lanes as determined by the ACHD. • Utilities. All utilities or construction over existing utility service lines are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. • Living Waters Lutheran Church Page 6of10 • Grading and Drainage. A grading and drainage plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer (see comments of City Engineer on Memorandum dated January 31, 2003 attached hereto as Exhibit I). The drainage plan must be approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Elevations. Pursuant to Section 1102.07, Subd. 2(B), structures must be placed with the lowest floor three (3) feet above the ordinary high water level. The plans indicate that the ordinary high water level for Reshanau Lake is 883.5 feet. The 100 year flood plain lies along the 886 foot contour. The site plan indicates a first floor elevation for the proposed building addition of 896.14 feet. 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 expansion of an existing church structure within the R -1, Single Family Residential District. Religious institutions are conditional uses within the R -1, Single Family Residential District. 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 public /semipublic use of the site. The Comprehensive Plan contemplates churches within the public /semipublic land use designation. Thus, the proposed land use is harmonious with the land use directives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and/or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. • Comment: The building design is consistent with material requirements of the Ordinance and therefore will not negatively affect the essential character of the area. • Living Waters Lutheran Church Page 7of10 • In addition, the plans indicate that the building materials for the proposed building addition will match the existing building creating a harmonious exterior appearance. 4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including street, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Comment: The site is currently served by essential public facilities and services. The plans do not indicate that the proposed building addition will exceed existing capacity. 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: The building addition 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 use of the subject property as a church has not created any excessive externalities that are abnormal to the character of the area and there is no reason to anticipate that the proposed building addition will adversely affect the same. 7. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. Comment: As referenced above, the plans appear to indicate a new drop off area located directly in the entrance drive aisle that may cause traffic congestion and vehicle backup upon CSAH 10. City staff recommends providing a separated drop - off area outside of the drive -aisle to prevent vehicle backup upon CSAH 10 and to promote safety and efficient traffic flow throughout the site. In addition, preliminary review by the ACHD indicates that turn lanes may be necessary as a result of the proposed improvements to the site and redesign of the existing church entry drive will be examined. Any roadway improvements should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer and the ACRD. The applicant must comply with any recommendations of and standards imposed by the ACHD. • Living Waters Lutheran Church Page 8 of 10 8. Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Comment: The proposed building addition should not have a detrimental impact on any features of major importance on the subject property. 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 new sanctuary on the 9.34 acre site located north of CSAH 10 and south ofReshanau Lake subject to the following conditions: 1. The need for associated roadway improvements shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer and the Anoka County Highway Department. The applicant must comply with all recommendations and requirements of the Anoka County Highway Department. 2. Building colors shall be specified. 3. If new or additional signage will be installed, the location of such signage be illustrated on the site plan. All such signage shall conform to the provisions of Ordinance 12 -97 regulating signs. 4. Designated disabled parking spaces must be appropriately signed, including designation of one space as "van accessible ". 5. A striped pedestrian crossing from the designated disabled parking stalls to the sidewalk shall be installed. 6. The location, intensity and source of the proposed new lighting must be illustrated on the site plan. Exterior light fixtures must have a 90 degree cutoff to reduce glare and light pollution. All such lighting shall conform to the provisions of Section 3 Subd. 4.H. of the Ordinance. 7. All utilities or construction over existing utility service lines are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer Living Waters Lutheran Church Page 9 of 10 8. All conditions set forth in the Memorandum from the City Engineer dated January 31, 2003 (Exhibit I) have been met. 9. All recommendations of the Environmental Board set forth in the Memorandum dated February 3, 2003 (Exhibits J and K) have been met. All landscaping shall be in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4(S) of the Ordinance. 10. 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 such development agreement. 11. A fire sprinkler system must be installed in the entire building. 12. Approval of drainage plan by the Rice Creek Watershed District. • • • Living Waters Lutheran Church Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Exhibit G. Exhibit H. Exhibit I. Exhibit J. Exhibit K. • • Site Location Boundary and Topographic Survey dated 11.18.02 Site Plan dated 01.13.02 (03) Site Grading Plan dated 01.13.02 (03) Tree Preservation Plan dated 01.13.02 (03) Birch Street Elevation dated 12.09.02 Exterior Image dated 12.09.02 Illustration of drop -off lane and median Memorandum dated January 31, 2003 from City Engineer (2 pages) Memorandum dated February 3, 2003 from Marty Asleson regarding Environmental Board Recommendations Memorandum dated February 4, 2003 from Marty Asleson regarding Environmental Board Recommendations y re GEN • maim 1C: 0 %% ©"�►�rao - Ea: 9J�1 teal 6311E mmQ, stxtgorphi aioroom be.�al -40 -11 EXHIBIT A .••• 7 W mJ RESHANAU 1 INCH a 40 FEET -40 0 le FOOT SOMME t OUT 0AMENDIT OF GO TT1.07 ] F1127 -\ \ 40 298+/ - N00"4V49'E LL- 80 120 �N \ `''N\ \N, 4p,, _g \\ 0. -O` 4 `G,,:- \\ csN\ s,\ \/. \\ \ \v\\Q a �� ■ GDS / ire \ \\., \ 'PSI \;\ . G4J' '''.4/ . Boundary & Topographic Survey for Living Waters Lutheran Church e h WETLAND MITIGATION NOTE The find alto drainage and wetland alteration pions for the R. was approved by the Rice Creek Watershed Di strict on Apra 28. 1993 (Perrnit Application No. 93 -65). The wetland mitigation the entrance and East of the parking parking around sup South of BENCH MARKS 9A 1 - TOP OF SLANTED RIGHT OF WAY MONUMENT BY DRIVEWAY INTO CHURCH PROPERTY - ELEVATION - 893.67 FEET. - -NORTH SIDE OF. CONCRETE.BASE.FOR UGHT- POLE - ELEVATION - 897.02 FEET. BIF 3 - TOP OF NUT ON HYDRANT IN COUNTRY LAKES DRIVE CUL DE SAC - ELEVATION - 898.44 FEET. BM 4 - TOP OF NUT ON HYDRANT AT WHITE BIRCH COURT & BIRCH STREET - ELEVATION - 904.06 FEET. (NOT SHOWN ON THE SURVEY). \ \I\ \1\1 \ \ \\ \\ \\ g3 t \ \\ \ \\ , \Bali \ ' \ \ s _ .., a SCOT i `��\1\ f 1 l \ \ ` �§ 1 \ \ \g \ A \n$ " / k \ \;\,-1 I q I \ \ / 1�0 \ ' I�' °, \\ 1) \ \C \ I :If \ \ \\ t -4 \ \\ \, 1... �. IIIN \ 1e, \\ /,../. 4i?" / ` \ \ \\ \ \\ I 8 \ \ //` �\ P 1.\\\ \ \ \c7 \ \ \\ r IL ```\ \� \ \.‘\\,\ \ �` \ y� 40 \ , \\ \ \+ \\\\\ \\ • \ \ \ter \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \rB 6 \1 *if P P tom\ /Svaa •w� V * 0. i / • gNp� � s \ ��� sP4/1 -if I 74' 1--s{ Vi i - Coy w \ %\ 44, m,qF ' NTy \\ \ \ • °A�r;\`\ lea � \ 8� \ ° .� \3w\ \ - =44)- r`NT . Aks ¢.� \ \ II _ _ _ _ .akT�� PARKING RECAP REGULAR SPACES HANDICAPPED SPACES TOTAL SPACES (cs 1,941** /OA/ S'' \\ \ as 91 ko ZONING RECAP THE 511E 15 ZONED 8 -1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT 40 FEET SIDE 50 FEET REAR 30 FEET PARKING SETBACKS FRONT 15 FEET SIDE 15 FEET REAR 10 FEET 1 _892" - ■ 1 \ -C QB� \ - -5- -- _, ' \ \ 1 %C \ --- --- m \ \ j 1 eee AeA \J µUOOf T 0 �f4 I 1 t ' /. \\ \ �2s0 b\ a ", \ • \ e \ I \ \\ \ \ \ ° \°\\ \ D - to FOOT 0RAMA06 A \Mrn 7tglm12 / / d48 \. FAST U90 a 1001308 FELT e GOWraocr 1.073 NOTES /'/\t IA IT-T\/ V V V I v i r\ I WEST tar OF etiediesete7 1.870 AWa ac r (RTE a =DOH 26 T. 0.22\ / 37-0- f I 1. N beorvtgs drown are based en an assumed datum. 2. AS elehations shown an NGVO 1929 sea level datum 3. Bench marks. ore shoe the survey. 4. Utility data shown taken from planate and Field locations provided by serious utility companies and' shown 'n approximate Woy only. Gopher State One Cell (851 - 454 - 0002); must be contacted for field location prior to any excavation demolition. 5. Sewer and water main data shown is per plans provided by the City of Lino Lakes and field verified where possible. 6. Gopher State One Call was contacted, Ticket No. 665435, to locate ut9ltle,. However, not all /ditties were located 7. Zoning d setback r Irementa ore as per the qty of Lino Lakes. 8 Items certified to ore' limited to those kerns Mich are viable or made known to the surveye. 9. 12/7/92 legal description shown ie per a previous survey dated 10/12/92 flathead 10. This survey is subject to easements a conditions tasdosed by a current title commitment title opinions 1 Re�rr LAKES -06 -- 207.0 --- `e PARK ESESTATES// A Tf'S 1 A 1 L%/ A COUNTRY 11 1 LAKES, 1 \\ DRIVE \ \ \ 0 \ / / / / / L_ -- gl ctiti 4t - - _. _097 -- -896 -- LEGEND AC MR CONDITIONER UNIT BB BASKET BALL HOOP BE BOX ELDER TREE CB CATCH BASIN ET ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER FP FENCE POST CM GAS METER -DATE VALVE �!G HYDRANT 11- -LIGHT TMAN HOLE SIGN 10 TOP OF CURB ELEVATION UNITY POLE X SPOT ELEVATION • MONUMENT - FOUND (IRON MONUMENT. UNLESS OTNERVASE NOTED) 0 IRON MONUMENT - SET ACM ANOKA COUNTY-MONUMENT GAS -- SAN �- -- VAT CE) y EL EC CJ EC CURB GAS MAIN SANITARY SEWER WATER MAIN EDGE OF WOODS DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS TREE ELECTRIC UNE - UNDERGROUND HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE PRINTS ISSL DESCRIPTION DAP REVISIONS sN \ SCZ \ ■0Y■ I E 525.5 k� NORTHERLY UNE OF ANOKA COUNTY_ YA 414' \ HIGHWAY 9/0 PLAT N0. 11 \ �\ \ 0 'DESCRIPTION (Parcel-contains 9.34 acr.s, mere a thee) The East 536.63 feet of the West 1036.93 feet of Government Lot 3, Section d e athe Sohdt Section 28 and North of the North Me of that part of Government Lat 3. Section 28, 131N,•6227, lying East of the West 500 feet thereof, Northerly of o r.. 10 fool Northerly of and porad0 to the Northerly line of!Molus County Highway right -of -way Plat 11, South of the North lids of the South half add 5ec0an 28 and West of the following descried find Beginning at a point North on the l 1036.65 feet East of the West line Government Govnment Lotl 3.l said point being 1035.83 feet, as measured at right angles. east of the West line of said Government Lot 3. said North lira arnmed to bee South 88 degrees 56 minute, 15 seconds East; the,.. 50001 11 degrees 13 minute, 53 seconds East 152.18 feel more e Wes. to the Northerly right- of-way line of said Highway yht -ofway that 11 and there terminating, subject to a 10 foot drainage and utility easement over the Wan East and Southerly 10 feet thereof. DESCRIPTION: (10 foot taking by Metro County - contain. 0.24 0000, man or leas) That part of Government Lot 3, Section 28, T31N, 8227, lying Southerly of Anoka County Highway right -of -way Rot 11, ortherl y of a tine 10 fat Northerly of and Parallel to the Northerly line of Anoka County Highway right -of -toy plat 11 and Easterly of the West 500 feet of avid Government Lot 3 Anoka County, Minnesota L L 3 t U 1 DAla MC2002 JON rm Zones BOCA 100 As HOED 1� 1 EXHIBIT B58 PROJECT INFORMAT ION: LIVING WATERS LUTHERAN CHURCIA 565 BIRCH STREET LINO LAKES, M.NESOTA 55014 PHONE: FAX: SURVEYOR. =000510005 DAVIS INC. 1449 COUNTY 9040 .5 MIFNEAPOLIS, Ft...5E407A 55432 0504E. 163.154.9244 FAX. 163354E395 ARCHITOCT/ ANF•SCAP= AR-HITErt/ 1111 030114005<, 415.0. 0501 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 300 655454005.25. 5155423064 55421 PHONE: 1633403131 FAX: 1633253249 ATT. HAW HAYES- ARCHITECT ATT: KEVN 7E00E05. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 416. 1419< 0554.301- 0015. 04311900 6046311<5< G70546550611014 BIDDING: WINTER 2003 START CONSTRUCTICT): 509006 3003 5.1155TANTIAL COMPLETION: FALL 2003 SITE STATISTI05. PROPERTY 31=: 934 H- ACItES EXISTING IMPERVIOUS: I.46 ACRES 555 OF GTE, PROPOSED RIPERVICUSt 0.14 4,2055 (1115 CO SITE) TOTAL 00ER410115, 5.62 ACFES ()MCP SITE) IETLAND• 110140-r AREAL NONE 45.0 0103010550 51050405<5 900 WE CONCRETE 049(606 5341151505 95<5571143 05500306: 61(4 4C) 52059. 10 ARCHITECTURAL 05.2645 009 BELONG Slaw8.)1.46.004145, ANO 1441750109. 552212536, PLANT SCHEDULE EVERGREEN TREES OTT. I I romoN / 20124C4L NAIES st, ROOT I REMARKS ACK HILLS SPRUCE 5"'F4 H P1N cOsue dn.. I S HT. 575 50 .7, CANOPY TREES COMICAI 001103024. 5211165 552E ROOT ELRIARcE 1 2- 1/2.- 1 I STE. LEADER 4 NA 1 . L I NC '3< .))01.0.1 1440;c9AKPI;-.8.4 PLANTING NOTES I. PROVIDE SOD 14 AREAS AS INDICATED ON 05.415. 45.5. 40345 501 DESIGNATED TO BE SCODED.SHALL BE SEEDED 250 703.0620. 2. ALL 'MEE SAUCERS 1211T14 56900050 003.05 1145.555 015425055 NOTED. ruLa4 MATERIAL TO 005154<551 DEPTR • ---- \ ••. •-• ' -• • ..... • • 24.' Ltt;E .5+ \ iitAV • • • • • • • • . . .... , . , c.?4111'3? SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT SCALE r-20' riTh SITE PLAN I ■ no I SCALE 1" 40' kar- • kemmer"""'"1 41) . ss • LasnoNTasoNSTwerhasmc KicKrale oolowne Rusin@ Twectr. B501 GOLDE/OKM ROAD Sot 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55427 TEL 783.5453751 752525.3280 WRY yeavErlya.com If MOM= .11.11.51t. • .y 0191.114. CONSULTANTS LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REVISIONS DMWNSY R.Le., KIT 04590052 IRLES, KIT =OMR CITT RE-5LIP-111TT.AL 50,50476 JANUART LS. 2002 KESKANIE SITE FLAN AMA PROJECI,O. 07032 SKETNUMBH1 P1.0 EXHIBIT C • •• IKITORT Y KT {••■ J _ POSTIN SLIPPORT sew 3P .431 ) PLAN •EVATNTI " " PPRE5E1R, D a ro 17.112 01.111,16 ERECT PP 3155 FENCE 8500 70 ,..T Cae715c+� 437-..o73 NOT 57004 .7. Dam-1.0 OR MATERIALS UM. Oar AFTER ccwTR.CTO, c.— Eicamo :...a 'a ,ID a Rew:%TNC.eNCa 0 TREE PROTECTION 2 • zoh .......� rrVI, .. i \ GRADING PLAN P2.0/ SCALE r _ 40' • • • • • 'SyYIC -% r To _ 84150 ROCK �s ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE Nor ROAR , • i. ' T • ( GRADING PLAN ENLARGEMENT SCALE 1 " =20' �T R sNAtt ... 2' v • PROJECT INFORMATION: LIVING WATERS LUTHERAN CHURCH 865 BIRCH STREET LINO LAKES. MINNIESOTA 55014 P14CNE: FAY 511RVETOR: CGTISTGCK . 44315 NG. 1446 CCUNTT.ROCD J MIPOCAPOLIS. MINNE3074 55432 PHONE: 163.184.9346 FAX: 169.184.5355 47505 8501 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 300 M0101E4P0L15, 73116E5004 55421 PHONE: 1633453131 FAY.: 1639253255 4TT: MARK HATE,- 4RC117ECT 4TI, KEVN TEPPEN- LAND5CAPE ARCHITECT ATT, KIRK ROESSLER- CIVIL ENGINEER . TE11 411VF )70N5T70 TICH trwnUI E; 'ERDDING: WNTER 3733 57457 CCNSTFSICTION: SPRING :003 .°5003TAIJTI4L COMPLETION: FALL 3003 41517E'ST4TL9TtGS ;;7tl� CRu^1PER1Y 5125 :'934 :. ACRES :. 55857440 8180031005. 4H: 401555 ; 61: OF SITE) 'PIm . SED IMPERyiOUS OI$ 405155 CE1t CF SITE) TOT'4L TLPERVICLLS. 162 60__5 (00 OF 61TE) ..3115TL.Nm "IMP4CT AREA. NONE PROPOSED 61005444.00 WILL BE CCTICRETE STATISTICS ��TI ..,P4E NKr 91 I4 144.1 1ERTO 4041ITECILIRAL PLAN5 FOR MULLIN , EE 0TIC4l4. PL41J5. •44.01 • ▪ E50R>rc4 •�. ATS An6i�a`- !8188N54445 R)54N NC maraca. Namara Rama Taraccoa I6006:YNI 43504550000 8501 GOLDEN VALLEY ICAO SUITE 300 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55427 TEL 361.453751 FAT: 351535335 WEE T,.Rm.mm 33 8161.408 T0HM em4 • moms or CONSULTANTS 0 1— z • U W t • 3 CI V Z Z • Z LO J �.... P 0 0 LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REVISIONS DRAWN NT ROE, KIT D3EGI6D ET F5LE. KIT b3T1®WR CITY RE- 5UEf1ITTAL =LEDATE ANUARY 13, 2002 5NEEENAME ITE RADING- 'L4N 1TSSS PROJECT NO. 2032 IEETNUMBER • EXHIBIT D PROJECT INFC,F:-Ul.TiON: =MEI LIVING WATERS LUTHERAN CHLIRCH SSE BIRCH STREET LIJO LAKES, MINNESOTA 560I4 PAX: COr1STOCK 4 2446 INC IAA& 0OU4T7 60404 MII.HEAPCLIS, MINNESOTA 55432 163184•334. FAR. 163.184•9563 ARCHITECT/ LAN1PrAP. ARTHITEr 3/ civil 4354R 41501GO-001 vALLET ROAD SUITE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55421 44010, 163}483131 PAX 163325E2E9 ATT: MAW HATES- ARCHITECT ATT• Ivrt.ITERP01. LAHOARE ARCHITECT Arr. 6403. 605344.65. ClvIL ENGINEER 535rAT13F cnntsmirilnid C9FJ)Jll 6. 5300158, WINTER 2003 START CONSTIRACTIGN 5PRII1G 2003 SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION: PALL 2000 513.s. STATISTICS- PROPERTY' SIM: 3534 •1.. ACRES ExiSTING ImPERviouS• 3.4. 405E6164. CF SITE, PROPOSED P1PERNCLIS. 036 .40666 (1.14. oF SITE: TOTAL IMPERvIOUS, 162 40055 (3304 CF SITE) LLETLAND ItrACT 4554. 63=45 ALL PRCROSED SIDEWALKS WILL BE GCNCITE PARKINs STATISTIC1 exisING PARKING 53 (4 RC) 55155 30 ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS. PLANS, AND ERTERIOR 0,1''.4:17:'"".44 .• ('TREE PRESERVATION PLAN ■.po.i) SCALE: 1" — 40' , . • ""' • \ (2) CANOPY TREEE AND (I) EVERGREEN TREE TO IBE REMOVED • *. DUE TO BUILDINGADDMCN. .---• r". • 35-2. .4433 • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • ! •• 11,1 • ? . 4, 04132A,1. ----- - - - - - • „ --- "!.:14 4 ".•••••• 46 35 • ‘"?' : % •••••„ .. 1, .......................•••••—•...„...„ • ..i.„ '••• 1 '•-■:-- -.I:, ,,,„„, „,.„ • • .1; \ mr•ARA: .s.... .............. - • s \ •••••• 4.'C:•:•••. ..„ . ;;• , • .)...... • --- x‘ .. U .-• N.. ' • r -7;;•, ...:._ ......e., .-..•• . . --r i, -„ ) , \ • .'. „.: ... , - - A -, 1 k \ - . ( ' , . . - , C . , .. . . , N • , \ „.... ; „ k • ' — f kma4gelmo.,:,111) ....... ATS• "WAREING 7mEn Rric ttRmEN • Aromanw EuRrm TE(7•1■106, Inporaluser ImorArrthrommon 8501 001.00 ALLEY 130111 &ME 300 MENEVOLIS, MN 55427 TEL 71115413731 F31 713.525.309 %Vat nyvAtaxem ..4111131110147,01.11.150. ,R711133/11C. CONSULTANTS LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA REVISIONS • . • 054550! R1.5, KIT GRECS:EGET RUE, KIT 554.66 355 CITY RE-5U5511/71'AL issuEorn JANUARY 13. 2002 SIEETNAME REE .RE5ERVATION .LAN TSSE PEGIECT NO. 52032 NEETNUMSER I pool . .• • • ' • EXHIBIT E • LIVING WATERS LUTHERAN CHURCH NOTE: COLORS AND MATERIALS OF PROPOSED ADDITION TO MATCH EXISTING BUILDING CLASSROOMS EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED ADDITION • OR PLAN. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF NEW ENTRANCE RELOCATE EXISTING: CROSS ASPHALT SHINGLE. u D fl PAINTED LAP SIDING. BIRCH STREET ELEVATION ROOF PAINTED LAP SIDING 0 50 MCI Gam Rum Rape PairaVOla, NM E549 TM:211/Sa nt FAG nvas 7, Y$ wwatrsm �ever+�maoeaa�s CONSULTANIS REVISIONS BT CHECKEDHY yq,2ZZY2 ISVJEOCIE SHEEt NAYS o2o3Z MN{ PROJECT140. suscressaeora EXHIBIT F • • LIVING WATERS LUTHERAN CHURCH- . • . . . . . . . . • . • : • . • • : .• : • • •••.• : i; : : • • . • • . . . ..... . . : . . • • • .. • . ' . . . • . . . . . . . . *: • • :*** :•:: • • • • • • • • . ••s• • '•••::•• : • . • . • . • . . . % • . . " . . . . . . . • . . . . . , :::: • • • • : : • :: : • ... : .. . . • • • 0•5" \ • • • • :•: • • • • . • •1 • • • • • • • • • • EXTERIOR IMAGE • . . . . . .... tt••*:10::"K*4.y•• • • • • ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: •••••••••••••••:. . . ' . • .. .. .... : ... • ..... . . . . . . •• . •:• • .;'..•.:: ... • . • . • . : . . • • . •. . • ' • . • CONSULTANTS • REVISIONS. 0 FAWN BY CHEC733 BY 15=0 MA • =El= • •• MET Ma' . • o.Oz,3f-- EXHIBIT G nl • ':� .ti :ihdRt,a6i:tr.: tiwi+l'�3".,,E•:.;,..;w�.:, ,..d";t.. ., Mr•• ;Ftktj 1?a5.; . SOD .iv�wt:+i�e AMARA } .ADDITION ( iTECr.!.r.LI „�t2) ,.... 4: �,.."..,,..:.t..,":•:.:,".„- F i,L;1- F J•• RAISED MEDIAN W/ PLANTINGS ``� f �, itti . S. ....isc-'•-• ,,`+'rte. `,C•ti ii:9i"�h.c•�1..,,,: �a5.,tti'•ilr +q• ny■ . �,•,..�y�- ';,:,r .._c .. ,iy: p+a, .• ��' d,•,,:•,. r.: C; tij+ t; 11`.• �'. �, �.`.�•'i`W�, ^k4'u'1�`t�tw`,1\: �?it',,,y. `�:•:hld'1kw`t;:t4 °\: „ i,.^ b\V •:: bl:; t:• qw\. � `w'IR'`i'aiw4�w' ph1?;j„l :w:,. •tw, s.,,', .., i ..: rii ::' .L :t,tah, ,i ,..: r.. a.w. ;" at ° „t. 'tf ... `Ft .ib..� ,�' , ., ,.,; 'l•`:� •;`ti... ^hK ti;:.” `:h . ` k.; ' "; ;l :,i`•, k •.v;: +s-0 :Ve tip:; ,t; ,�1;t�,�`.irT�a:• • a" a;,,,:.,:; tl� L� �'��.;te$i��at;�:,a..,.ts,�' shah_.,;, :•;1ihw.,a�:�icc,a�,.;a,i `� r'. EXHIBIT H FEB -04 -2003 11:27 CITY OF LINO LAKES Memorandum iA CITY.; ,�t fiF *` 0 F IN '. ICE DATE: January 31, 2003 TO: Mike Grochala FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer ,g RE: Living Waters Lutheran Church 651 982 2499 P.02/03 A review of the submitted documents has been performed. The submittal included a six -page plan set with a date of January 13, 2003, and drainage calculations dated January 10, 2003, for the Living Waters Lutheran Church expansion. This existing site didn't have any storm water run off control. The City will require them to only address the drainage for the expansion. Attached is a TKDA memorandum dated January 31, 2003, addressing the drainage design. Sanitary sewer and water services are already servicing the existing building. Driveway access will remain in its current state. The drop off area should be separated from the main flow of traffic. Upon receiving RCWD approval and addressing the drop off area, we would recommend the acceptance of the expansion to the Living Waters Lutheran Church. 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota ;5014-1182 Phone: 651 -982 -2400 • Fax: 651-982-2409 • TIED: 651 - 982.2410 EXHIBIT 1 FEB -04 -2003 11 :27 • ENG1A TKDA, ERS • ARCHtTECIS • PLAPRIERS MEMORANDUM CITY OF LINO LAKES 651 982 2499 P.03 /93 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cadar Street Sahli Paul, MN 55161 -2140 (651)292 -4400 (651) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.eom To: James E. Studenski Reference: Drainage Review for Copies To: Living Waters Lutheran Church City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Comm No. 12701 -002 From: Stephen W. Hartley Routing: Date: January 31, 2003 The following documents, submitted to the City of Lino Lakes, were used to review the Living Waters Lutheran Church expansion plan: Plan Set dated January 13, 2003 from ATS &R Stormwater Calculations dated January 10, 2003 from ATS &R el After reviewing the above documents, I have the following comments. • 1. The City is only requiring the area to be disturbed to be submitted in the computations. 2. The maximum increase of 35 cfs over existing conditions does not warrant a separate pond and control structure. Such a control structure would have maintenance issues due to the small apertures needed to control the flow rates. This water discharges to a ditch that ultimately discharges to a pond in the northeast corner of the property. According to conversation with AST&R, the addition of the Sanctuary is the end of Phase 1, and the parking lot and pond were sized for the Phase 1 ultimate design. It is realized that if any future expansion happens, that the parking lot and pond size may have to increase. 2. The City will need to verify that Rice Creek Watershed District has given approval before final approval is given from the City. An Employee Ownod compaay Promoting Affirmative AcIiarr and Equal Opportunity TOTAL P.03 memo To: !Michael Grochala From: Marty As eson CC: Jeff v yS e r Date: February 3, 2003 Re: E !viron 1entai Board Recommendations/January i iendations /January 29 2003 eLiving =maters Lutheran "sre�l rch • Lutheran t Boar commended January 29, 2003 that the e Environmental teal iitiQi� Recommended FcY iu�.0 Gn aiQF iuuF� 2„� 2a3�3 that i,i iii. �.i'rvf.iL'3C Living Waters aLers C !urc! ! Addition be approved with ! the TGilo.vvii iG comments: 1. h - �,, protection North the tin here are 1 ilyt ! ;vi IUI Ito Uf VCCLtItJn areas to the ivGl li F of the eiUSliF FIV�i. path. This area should not be disturbed_ 2. City native seed mix should be used in proposed pond and s a e areas. The landscape plan Si !lulu include building foundation plai ts. 3. P1 tJ o,,,U sod should have at least 4 inches. of topsoil thoroughly incol porated into the around. 3, Any new iiihti ra should follow l' ahtinu guidelines in the new Draft Zoning Ordinance. 4. Sugar maples in the plan should be changed to Red maple or Oaks. Motion to approve by Haien, Second by Donlin. All approved. EXHIBIT J • sa 2111 1121. Pt, ala~44.4 "1. 20.0%.,, z00% AP".11 war.% 1,0(4 CerrSICINY ��� �a:K�p�»/\S|S��n stnff Report R.PCommBnriEdinnc/R[Ugg9m:qn Living WAbPrOiuthe[ ChUrCh/EnVironrTiental Board Meeti0a'janUary 29'20O3 Staff made the fol Recommendations: v ����at=rs����eran�������� Since 1993 (the tirne The church was built), the Environmental Board has asked new au�aoevm�ermanagement consistently �� The Area to the North is designated' as a High-Priority Protection Area in the Lino Lakes Handbook for Conservation Design. Soils in this area are sandy, arid pervious. if an infiltration train were designed into the site plan, there appears to be enough separation between the CHW and a Tdesigned rainpondlswall area. The rain pond area must be in an area wheie i;Je S ,zzU1 Jai ly high water tabie is at least 3 feet from the bottom of the pond. Please refer to (Attachment 8). The seasonally high ground-water level should be verified. Peak flow analysis indicates a .23 cfs increase in water volume flow in a two year event, a _32 cis increase in water volume flow in a 10 year event, and a .36 increase in water volume flow for a 100 year event for the entire site. The basin should be designed if. possible to accommodate this extra surface water volume, if not for the entire site. Additianal ponding is shown in the turf areas. No surface-water analysis information is available at this time. The soil areas around proposed remaining pervious areas should be protected from compaction during construction. A buffer of native plants incorporated into edges and a surface-water-treatment-train should be planted. Ground story materials should be native in the pnnding and dna|ms Ali proposed sod areas —should have cd least 4 inches of topsoii tilled thoroughiv into the subsoii as deep as possibie. /\ detailed |andacape plan should indicate more foundation p|ants /\ few oak trees should be planted into the audaoevm� treatment SugQe��ohang|'' �gthe Sugar maples hoa variety of Red mapie or oak. Although there is no proposed lighting for the added space on the ohumch the pooaibUdx azi�b�ths��henarnaybean�edtu|ight�habuUdingin�hefutuns |fihioohou` happen �ho' thaUghtinQnhc:!dbedownwa:Jfucuaed.no'spiUtype !ight!ng.' '" ' '/ 1 EXHIBIT K • • AGENDA ITEM V.D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Bob Kirmis (NAC) P AND Z MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003 TOPIC: Bruggeman Properties - Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site & Building Plan Review and CUP (for accessory drive - through) BACKGROUND Bruggeman Properties has requested preliminary plat approval to allow a three lot, commercial subdivision on property located south of Birch Street and east of Hodgson Road. The development site overlays 33.3 acres of land, 24.8 acres of which is to be reserved for future medium density development (to be developed after the present residential development moratorium is lifted) and lies within the shoreland overlay district of Baldwin Lake. To accommodate the development proposal, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Rezoning of a portion of the property from R, Medium Density Residential to GB, General Business/PDO (to allow private streets and multiple buildings on a single lot) 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Site and Building Plan for a 12,160 square foot retail center 4. CUP for an accessory drive - through facility (accessory to the retail center) While detailed plans have not been submitted at this time, future plans for the site include a motor fuel station (with accessory carwash), a fast food restaurant (with accessory drive - through) and a 7,125 square foot office building /daycare facility. This review is based on the following plan submittals: Topographic Survey dated 1/13/03 Preliminary Plat dated 1/13/03 Grading Plan dated 1/13/03 Utility Plan dated 1/13/03) Site Plan dated 1/13/03 Landscape Plan dated 1/13/03 Lighting Plan dated 1/13/03 Retail Center Floor Plan dated 1/13/03 Retail Center building Elevations dated 1/13/03 Environmental Board Comments dated 2/3/03 and 2/4/03 CPTED Comments dated 1/21/03 Applicant correspondence dated 1/30/03 Anoka County Comments datedi 1 /20/02 City Engineer Comments dated 2/4/02 • • Bruggeman Properties Page 2of13 ANALYSIS Development Moratorium While a significant portion of the subject site overlays an area intended for future medium density development, the present moratorium prohibits the City from accepting residential development applications until such time as the moratorium terminates. While this development application considers impacts of future residential uses in the area, no specific applications may be considered and approvals for such uses cannot be granted. Thus, this application shall be limited in scope to the commercial component of the project. Rezoning To accommodate the proposed commercial land uses, a rezoning of the northwest corner of the site from R -3, "Medium Density Residential" to GB, General Business is necessary. It is the applicant's intent to retain the existing R -1 and R -3 and zoning classifications upon the balance of the site until such time as the residential development moratorium is lifted and an application for such development may be considered. The City's Land Use Plan suggests commercial use of the northwest corner of the site and medium density residential use of the balance of the site. As a result, the proposed land uses are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. To accommodate various design flexibilities (private streets, two buildings upon a lot) a PDO, Planned Development overlay has also been requested. Preliminary Plat Review Access. Access to the commercial lots is proposed via a single point along Birch Street and two points along Hodgson Road. In prior review of the development proposal, both the City and Anoka County Highway Department have recommended that the most northerly access point along Hodgson Road (County Road 49) be eliminated. Thus, such access should be eliminated as a condition of plat approval. While all three commercial lots technically can be accessed via a public street, the retail center (which shares Lot 1 with the motor fuel station) is dependent upon a private street for access. While the Ordinance requires all lots be provided access via a public street access, flexibility to this requirement can be accommodated via the PDO. A cross easement and operation and maintenance agreement will be required as part of the • Development Agreement. Birch Street/Hodgson Road Intersection. Obviously, the proposed development will affect area traffic patterns and escalate volumes encountered at the intersection of Birch Street and Bruggeman Properties Page 3 of 13 Hodgson Road. Recognizing this, the City has initiated a feasibility study as requested by the applicant and the developer of the Spirit Hills project north of the subject site. The feasibility study will examine traffic movements in the area and the need for a traffic signal at the intersection. Traffic related issues will need to be resolved prior to this development moving forward. Lots. The GB District requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. While all proposed lots exceed this requirement, it appears an error exists on the preliminary plat as the gross area of Lot 2 (1.18 acres) is listed as being greater than that of Lot 1 (1.05 acres). This should be corrected as a condition of preliminary plat approval. At this time, it is the applicant's intention to develop the retail center upon Lot 1. Construction of other site uses will occur at such time when detailed plans are developed. As demonstrated via the submission of site plans, the configuration of the proposed lots are conducive to future commercial development and the proposed uses. Impervious Surface Coverage. As previously indicated, the subject site lies within the Baldwin Lake Shoreland Overlay District. Within such district, the impervious surface coverage may not exceed 60 percent of a lot. According to the submitted site plan, an impervious surface coverage of 70 percent is proposed upon Lots 1 and 2 while a coverage of 52 percent has been proposed for Lot 3. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, impervious surface coverages must be reduced to comply with the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. It is the opinion of staff that revisions necessary to meet the maximum 60 percent coverage requirement may result in significant modifications to the submitted site plan. In this regard, staff feels that this item should be addressed before the Planning and Zoning Board take formal action on the request. Streets. The preliminary plat illustrates a street segment of approximately 400 feet in length extending eastward from Hodgson Road. Future extension of the right -of -way dedication is planned to occur at such time when Outlot A is developed. As a condition of subdivision approval, a temporary cul -de -sac should be provided at the terminus of the roadway. While public street access is technically being provided to all three commercial lots, access to the retail building from the south is essentially provided via a private street. To accommodate such private street, the processing of a PDO, Planned Development Overlay is necessary. • As a condition of preliminary plat approval, all street - related recommendations of the attached City Engineer's memorandum should be satisfied. Bruggeman Properties Page 4 of 13 Utilities. A utility plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the utility related modifications and comments, as set forth in the attached City Engineer's memorandum should to be incorporated into the plans. Grading and Drainage. A grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of preliminary plat approval, the grading and drainage related modifications and comments, as set forth in the attached City Engineer's memorandum should to be incorporated into the plans. The plan is also subject to review and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. At this time, no comments have been received from the Watershed district. Staff does not believe it is in the City's best interest to approve the project until comments have been received and a determination has been made that concerns of the Watershed District have been addressed. Easements. As shown on the submitted site plan, a ponding area lies within portions of Lots 1 and 2 and Outlot A. A drainage easement corresponding to such ponding area has not however, been shown on the preliminary plat. As a condition of plat approval, drainage and utility easements should be shown along all property lines and over ponding areas. Additional comment regarding such easement should be provided by the City Engineer. As a condition of final plat approval, cross parking and access easements will need to be recorded with the property. Such easements should be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Tree Preservation. According to the submitted site survey, the significant trees that exist on the subject property are located within Outlot A and therefore will not be disturbed by the proposed commercial development. At such time when Outlot A is to be developed and plans are brought forward, specific tree preservation measures will be addressed. Park Dedication. No park land dedication is proposed within the development proposal. The subdivision should be subject to review and comment by the Park Board. Park land dedication for commercial uses is $2,175 per net acre (based on upland acreage). Environmental Issues. The Environmental Board reviewed the request at their January 29, 2003 meeting and recommended denial of the request due to the following: 1. The lack of input from the Rice Creek Watershed District. 2. The location of a carwash within a lake protection zone and in an area with high sensitivity to ground water pollution. The comments of the Environmental Board are attached to this report. • Bruggeman Properties Page 5 of 13 CPTED Review. The CPTED review was completed on 1/21/03. The primary issues, as addressed in the attached comments, relate to corresponding roadway improvements (on Hodgson Road and Birch Street) and traffic flow around the retail building. Rice Creek Watershed District Review. The proposed development is subject to Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) approval for both a Land Development Permit and a Wetland Alteration Permit. To date, no comments from the Watershed District have been received. Because such comments may affect the design of the development, staff cannot recommend approval of the project until such time as a determination has been made that the concerns of the Watershed District have been satisfied. As a condition of subdivision approval, all conditions of the Watershed District permit must be satisfied. Site and Building Plan Review As indicated previously, the applicant is seeking site and building plan approval to allow the construction of a 12,160 square foot retail center upon proposed Lot 1. At such time when specific development projects exist for the remaining lots in the subdivision (Lots 2 and 3) and the northern portion of Lot 1, they will likewise be subject to a site and building plan review process. At this point, the site plans provided for the motor fuel station, fast food restaurant and office building/day care facility are conceptual in nature and are intended to demonstrate the developability of the lots and a comprehensive stormwater management and circulation system. Access. Access to the proposed retail center is to be provided from the north (from Birch Street) and from the south via a private street (which ultimately provides ingress /egress to Hodgson Road). While the submitted development plans illustrate two access points upon Hodgson Road. Anoka County has indicated it will not allow the most northerly curb cut and it therefore must be removed. To accommodate the proposed private street access from the south, cross parking and access easements will need to be recorded with the property. The acceptability of the proposed curb cut locations should be subject to comment by the City Engineer. • Bruggeman Properties Page 6of13 • • Circulation. As shown on the submitted site plan, southerly access to the retail center is to be provided via a private street system. A primary concern related to site circulation involves the potential traffic conflicts that may exist west of the retail building. As proposed, a motor fuel station customer traveling north on Hodgson Road will be forced to encounter the backing of vehicles and pedestrian traffic within the retail center parking area. This situation is considered problematic from a circulation and traffic safety standpoint. In response to star s concern in this area, the applicant has submitted a site plan alternative and supportive narrative addressing this issue (see attached correspondence). To address such concerns, the applicant has proposed to install traffic calming devices as a means of reducing area traffic speeds. Specifically, textured colored concrete paving has been proposed in two areas within parking lot. While staff appreciates such efforts, the actual influence such paving will have upon area traffic speed is considered questionable particularly in the winter months when they will not be visible. It is the opinion of staff that the circulation pattern to the west of the retail center needs to be re- examined and possibly re- designed to address these concerns. It is understood that resolution of this issue (as well as the impervious surface coverage concern) may require the downsizing of the building. Lot Size and Setbacks. While the Planned Development Overlay designation can provide flexibility from the strict terms of the Ordinance, the requirements of the underlying GB, General business District are considered an appropriate guideline. The lot and building performance standards for properties within the GB District are listed below. Required Proposed Lot size minimum 20,000 sq. ft. 46,533 sq. ft. Lot width minimum 100 feet 177 feet Setbacks — building Collector Streets Local Streets Side yard Rear yard Setbacks - parking Streets Side yard Rear yard 40 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet 40 feet* 30 feet 50 feet 25 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet Building height 45 feet 21 feet Green space 25 percent 29 percent Bruggeman Properties Page 7 of 13 While it is recognized that the motor fuel station, fast food restaurant and office building/daycare facility are conceptual in nature and will be subject to a future site and building plan review process, their inclusion in the submission is considered positive by allowing a comprehensive review of the proposal and an overall setback evaluation to take place. As shown above, all applicable GB District lot area and setback requirements have been satisfied. Architecture/Building Materials. At this time, building details have only been provided for the retail center. The building's architecture is characterized by varied gable roof forms and column features (wood and stone). As shown on the submitted building elevations, the building is to be finished in a combination of cement- based lap siding (painted), stone and faux cedar shakes (in gabled roof areas). The building's roof is proposed to be finished with asphalt shingles. The proposed building materials are consistent with the material requirements of the Ordinance. As a condition of site and building plan approval however, building colors should be specified and approved by the City. Parking. The standards for calculating the off - street parking requirements for shopping centers are outlined in Section 3, Subdivision 5 of the City Code. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use 90% of the gross building area. Use Gross Area 90% of Gross Area Ratio Required Spaces Shopping Center 12,160 s.f. 10,944 s.f. 5 1/2 spaces per each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (exclusive of common areas) 60 As shown above, a total of 60 off - street parking stalls are required for the proposed retail building. The applicant's plan calls for 91 stalls within Lot 1 and exceeds the minimum off - street parking supply requirement. To be noted however, is that such parking supply is also intended to accommodate the future parking supply for the motor fuel station. Anticipating a parking supply requirement of approximately 8 to 10 stalls for the motor fuel station, the proposed Lot 1 parking supply is considered adequate. As shown on the site plan, 7 off - street parking stalls are located on the east side of the building. Considering that such stalls will not be visible to the general public, and are located proximate to the building's drive- through lane, it is suggested that such stalls be reserved for employee parking. Bruggeman Properties Page 8 of 13 As a condition of site and building plan approval however, one additional handicap parking stall (totaling three spaces) should be provided to satisfy applicable State requirements. At 18 feet in depth and 9 feet in width, all off- street parking stalls have been found to meet the minimum dimensional requirements of Section 3, Subd. 5 of the Ordinance. Likewise, the proposed 24 foot wide drive aisles also meet minimum Ordinance requirements. Interim Development Plan. As shown on the submitted site plan, it is the applicant's intent to construct a motor fuel station on the northern one half on Lot 1. While the PDO provides the flexibility to allow two principal buildings upon a single lot, some concern exists in regard to the interim improvements necessary to the northern portion of the lot (in order to provide access to the retail building from Birch Street). As a condition of site and building plan approval for the retail building, and interim development plan for the northern portion of the site should be developed and subject to review by the City Engineer and approval by the City. Landscaping. As required by ordinance, a landscape plan has been submitted for review. To be noted is that a master landscape plan encompasses the entire commercial development site (Lots • 1 -3) has been submitted. As shown on the landscape plan, a variety of trees are proposed on site. Specifically, Marshall's Ash and Goldflame Spirea have been proposed along Hodgson Road. Appropriately, screen plantings have been proposed east of the retail center to minimize the impact of the commercial use upon future adjacent medium density residential uses. Specifically, Austrian Pine, Black Hills Spruce and Redmond Linden have been proposed. • In review of the landscape plan, it appears that some landscaping has been proposed within the Hodgson Road right -of -way. As a condition of site and building plan approval, such landscaping should relocated be so as not to lie within public right -of -way. In addition, the Environmental Board has recommended the following in regard to landscaping: 1. Landscaping be provided around the perimeter of the proposed pond. 2. Ground story plantings be identified. 3. Norway Maples and Amur Maples be substituted with on- invasive species. 4. A tree inventory be submitted. 5. Additional Oak trees be planted on the east side of the retail building. 6. Oak trees be substituted for Laurel Leaf Willow on the east side of the retail building. Trash Enclosure. 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. • Bruggeman Properties • • Page 9 of 13 As shown on the submitted site plan, a trash enclosure has been proposed on the east side of the building. The enclosure mimics the materials of the principal building (cement based siding and stone) and is considered acceptable. Signage. While the submitted building elevations illustrate general wall sign locations, a specific sign plan (for both free - standing and walls signs) has yet to be submitted. To maintain area consistency, it is suggested that the applicant consider the creation of a comprehensive sign plan which establishes a signage theme for all commercial uses in the development. As a condition of site and building plan approval, all site signage must meet the applicable requirements of the City's Sign Ordinance. Lighting. As required by ordinance, a lighting plan identifying illumination levels on the subject site has been provided. While the proposed illumination levels have been found to be acceptable, some concern exists regarding the fixture details. 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. While the proposed fixture selections are considered visually appealing, the source of the light (within the fixture) does not appear to be hooded and therefore may illuminate surrounding properties. As a condition of site and building plan approval, the lighting related requirements of the ordinance must be satisfied. Development Agreement: Prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. Conditional Use Permit As previously indicated, the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow an accessory drive - through- facility for the retail center. While the accessory drive - through associated with the motor fuel station (the carwash) will be required at some future point, it is not being considered at this time as detailed plans regarding the motor fuel station have not been received. The retail center drive - through lane is located on the north side of the building and is configured to provide ample stacking space (for eight vehicles) and minimize site disruptions. 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: Bruggeman Properties Page 10 of 13 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. Comment: Drive -thru facilities currently exist within the City of Lino Lakes. The proposed use in not anticipated to be detrimental or endanger the public. 2. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the comprehensive plan of the City and this ordinance. Comment: The Comprehensive Plan suggests commercial use of the site. Thus, the proposed land use satisfies the land use directives of the Plan. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and/or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Comment: The building design is consistent with the requirements of the Ordinance and therefore will not change the character of the area. 4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including street, police and fire protection, . drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use Comment: As a condition of project approval, the building will be adequately served by essential public facilities and services. 5. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Comment: This development is not expected to increase public costs, nor be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 6. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. • Bruggeman Properties • • Page 11 of 13 Comment: The proposed commercial use of the property is not expected to create any excessive externalities that would be abnormal to the character of commercial sites. 7. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares Comment: The site layout meets standards held within the City's Zoning Ordinance including turn lanes, access width, and access spacing/location. 8. Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. Comment: The applicant is currently working with 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 It is the opinion of staff that several key issues need to be addressed prior to this development moving forward. Specific issues of note include excessive impervious surface coverage, site circulation concerns and uncertainties regarding Watershed District review of the project. As a result, we cannot recommend approval until the following items have been addressed: 1. The site plan is modified to address circulation related concerns west of the proposed retail center. 2. The site plan be modified such that impervious surface coverage (for each lot) not exceed 60 percent as required by the Shoreland Ordinance. 3. Comments from the Rice Creek Watershed District are received and recommendations of the District have been satisfied. 4. The concerns of the City Engineer related to grading, drainage and utilities as outlined in the memorandum dated 2/4/03 be satisfied. • Bruggeman Properties Page 12 of 13 5. The preliminary plat is revised to accurately identify the area of Lot 1. 6. A drainage easement is placed over the sites ponding area. 7. Drainage and utility easements are placed along all lot lines 8. Cross parking and access easements be recorded with the property at the time of final plat. Prior to recording, such easements shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 9. The subdivision satisfy applicable park dedication requirements. 10. The northerly access on Hodgson Road be eliminated. 11. Curb cut locations be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 12. Building colors be specified and subject to City approval. 13. The seven off - street parking stalls located east of the building be reserved for employee use. 14. One additional handicap parking stall (totaling three spaces) be provided to satisfy applicable State requirements. 15. A temporary turn- around be provided at the terminus of the public street stub. 16. An interim development plan for the northern portion of the site (addressing interim access, stormwater management etc. prior to motor fuel station construction) be prepared subject to review by the City Engineer and approval by the City. 17. The applicant consider the creation of a comprehensive sign plan. All site signage shall meet the applicable requirements of the Sign Ordinance. 18. Light fixture details meet applicable ordinance requirements including the provision that the source of lights shall be hooded and controlled so as not to illuminate adjacent properties or public rights -of -way. 19. The following landscaping related recommendations be satisfied: A. Landscaping should be provided around the perimeter of the proposed pond. B. Ground story plantings should be identified. C. Norway Maples and Amur Maples should be substituted with on- invasive species. • Bruggeman Properties Page 13 of 13 • • D. A tree inventory should be submitted. E. Additional Oak trees should be planted on the east side of the retail building. F. Oak trees should be substituted for Laurel Leaf Willow on the east side of the retail building. G. No landscaping be located within designated public rights -of -way. ATTACHMENTS Site Location Map Topographic Survey Preliminary Plat Grading Plan Utility Plan Site Plan Landscape Plan Lighting Plan Retail Center Floor Plan dated Retail Center building Elevations Environmental Board Comments CPTED Comments Applicant correspondence Anoka County Comments City Engineer Comments EDAC Comments DRAWN SEP. 1974 REVISED NOV. 1979 REV. MAR. MO REV. SEP. 1911 REV. DEC .19/C REV . JULY 1996 REV. DEC. 1929 REVISED JAN. 1907 REVISED NOV. 199 4 REV. MAY 1998 REV. JAN.1996 REV. AU61. 1989 REV. JULY 1247 REV. FEB. 1991 REV. REV. FEB. 1992 REV. REV . FEB. 1993 REV. REV. MAY 1994 REV. SCALE e SOO• 1/4 3,4 LOCATION MAP IMAM AMA opecnu PIM LOOM' • CITIES CENTERVI LLE I1) oundary \Top® (1) aphis Survey ]BRIJGGEMAN PROPER 1 d 1 i a 66 i H CS le a. t- r ..y ggc r ' I�. nrs \` /A -\ SPIRIT HILLS \\ \ ';.cL SHENANDOAH 3Ri- AdiTiON .Ne,tlreasl Cane, of Gait Lot 6 Section 30 Al. 532 0 ▪ HOUSE 1' ROUSE r 'z 1. / \ z , - -�_ ="44' �•1- ) t t ) 1 ilk - ♦ I \ \ t \ L(• " � . - -\ ac, ° $ARROWHEAD DRIVE ARTHU `Saetl, ale of $1/0 of Section - 30. 131. 022 E. THOM ACRES NO. 2 Cost ken N0000.I Southeast Caner of SC1 W 8. !.oe 3q 731. 622 1 S, LLC DESCRTPTION PARCEL 1: All that port of Government Lot 6 in Section 30, Township 31, Range 22. Anoka County, Minnesota, which ties East of the road now constructed in a Northerly and Southerly direction through said property, EXCEPT therefrom the following described Property: Commencing of a point in the North line of said Government Lot 6 which is 198 feet West of the Northeast corner of soil lot; thence South parallel to the East fine of said lot. 660 beet; thence West and parallel to the North line of said lot, 198 feet; thence North and parallel to the East line of sold lot, 660 feet; thence East along the North line of said Lot 6, 198 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL 2: That part of Government Lot 6 in Section 30. Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County. Minnesota, described os follows: Commencing of o point in the North 5ne of said Government Lot 6 which is 198 feet West of the Northeast comer of said lot; thence South pommel to the East fine Of said lot. 660 feel; thence West and parallel to the North line of said lot. 198 feet; thence North and parallel to the East line of said lot, 660 feet; thence East along the North Ire of sold Lot 6, 198 feet to the point of beginning. r NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE LEGEND Denotes • 0 Denotes Ocelot. • Denotes O Denotes ot Denotes O Denotes O Denotes Denotes rDenotes Denotes r+-' Denotes Denotes 1 Inch • 100 6. Iron Pipe Monument found. Iron Pipe Monument found Pedestal Power Pol. Hydrant Gate Vol.. Sanitary Manhole Stone Manhole Sign Catch Basin Soil Boring W.Uond Yorker existing spot elevation JAN I t 2003 CITY OF LIN() LAKES NOTES: The north fine of property was established as the southerly line of ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAT N0. 11. Research is being done to verify this location with Anoka County records. The west lire of property was estoblished os 66 feet easterly of and parallel with the easterly line of ARTHUR E. THOM ACRES Research is being done to verify this location with tinDoT records and with existing centerline of pavement. The proposed right of way and proposed easements along Hodgson Rood ore shown per a proposed Anoka County right of way plat. Easements shown ore as listed in Chicago Title Insurance Company Commitment Case No. 202440 with effective dote January 9. 2002. Elevations ore on 50VO 29 datum. Benchmark • Second order benchmark set in ground in covered tube 42 feet north of centerline County Rood 10 of Wore Rood. Stomped Benchmark 145 Anoka County Surveyors Office. Elevation = 900.537 feet Some tree information is per Kjolhoug Environmental Services Compony. I hereby certify that this survey. pion or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision end that 1 om o duly licensed Land Surveyor under the lows of the 5tote of Minnesota. AREAS: Tolol Area 1,449,864 Sq. Ft. or 33.284 Acres m.ol Area less existing right of way 1.354,901 Sq. Ft. or 31.104 Acres m.o.l. Area less existing and proposed right of way 1.322.217 Sq. FL or 30.354 Aces m.o.l. DRAM S0. Al 1 .On f10: 150.473 DATE: 7/29/02 CHECK Br 004' 060 xis 0170 -031T SHEET: 1 el 2 x/13/03 Ada now wtoea :rb N 0/13/02 ASS 4n ilia .n* NO. DATE 0E507000M Br E�,►. ' g METRO 11t990Sl��Qi�! ®l� lri. -• =•1 t ENGINEERING '402 wt County Road D. UMW Canada. MK 55117 Telephone: (650766 -0112 Fuc (651)760 -0612 E -melt surveymetrole.cem I50.033T srz/SeA.m"N PRav(RMSNIO M+u I I I I 1 i I 1 n 25.38 I 7 1 S a 1 BFFCH STREET N South line PI *0.50 COwI « F4051-oI WPy Plol No. 1 CA Projects50.55 -CRp- 2 1 111517 51 A-15TlDp L5/10- 110115CacepnvtOey sPPe<sS tTwp WO/AM 02251 P1 CS1 / \ 5 89'09'00 °E - 63.0 Tg 8: a d • Iao Imo^ N. — 1. N 63.86 S82.42'041 LOT 1 433.15 589'58'23 "E %" ,�0;, k�' �4. 1.6 '.83.23 �o`\ --gam. ;c-")-7'.,,,,, 9 58'3 "E �° , _ ^ /cr; UD �K7: ____..-..%'....' / TOTAL SITE 4D//// EXISTING ROW �5( f BIRCH STREET 1 / WARE ROAD .5. FUTURE ROW \ / 1/ Y./ / 01 M OTih c0 206.64 S82'41 27••E co cci 22) O$ LOT 2 AP- CQa. <143. 5/J •c-'7 ?y�L9J� S' S)0. 9 E ev o° No 0 6^ W N(0 N. LOT 3- 1- $82'42'04 "E 135.00 9) • LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 HODGSON ROAD WARE ROAO 476.88 S8 9'513.23"E 1.449,864 S.F./33.284 ACRES 53,255 S.F./1.223 ACRES 41,708 S.F. /0.857 ACRES 45,595 S.F. /1.047 ACRES 3.671 S.F. /0.084 ACRES GROSS 45.595 S.F./1.047 ACRES EX. WETLAND 9.880 S.F./0.227 ACRES NET 3.671 S.F. /0.084 ACRES IMPERVIOUS 3.671 S.F. /0.084 ACRES GROSS 51,573 S.F. /1.184 ACRES EX. WETLAND NET 51.573 5.9./1.184 ACRES IMPERVIOUS 38.619 S.F. /0.887 ACRES GROSS 46,533 S.F. /1.068 ACRES EX. WETLAND NET 46.533 5.9. 11.068 ACRES IMPERVIOUS 29,080 S.F./0.668 ACRES OUTLOT A OUTLOT A GROSS 1.081.616 S.F./24.830 ACRES EX. WETLAND 90.421 S.F./2.076 ACRES NET 991.195 S.F.22.755 ACRES 1119.22 1177.60 58910'44"W 33 O oo O O 50 75 100 150 500 SCALE IN FO Ln O 0 O U7 (0 N r 0 0 CC 10 i , 1 STREET.STORM SEWER. rr 050.5400 OI AND MUTT \ EASEMENT PER / \DOCUMENT NO. 1352514 9 .– QC12ADIT NO. 136062._ 110.5 1 POMO 13151• FEET to Y s . aL y �; :E� 7Q03 elp 1 • • W.P.dri/47 , •". ...... .... NMI -- - --■■:7IMINIf 13111116i' '''......" ,,,, Z.,:.,, ./ ■Wiii,i r:Iir/2"! .r,..,0:4'0% .4' .4'4'''''':" V; ji A' "7 ' 111 MP i Ill 1-cea 1 ITISM II! in. I i ................ < / . ...... .......... .. ^ "^Lijkft S9 I 6 2oc3 COW01l0■1. SILMAJELDWI M00001004M.7 LA. ............... . fr Imo' ii -____. Z./ il 161 ..... _._. ........................................................ 4,4,1f,/ .,./ ..44,4,&,./ i I 5AProJects.2.os-...-2•stuccova-rsov.s0 1,43-15(1033,Csaceet,afty 0nwels,.911:Cia., 01/131E003 MIMI 70 CST 50 75 100 150 200 SCALE IN .1:4411,1101V SO. NI* INV-11113.16 FEET 5 111 • 64 2rin-:4 i T1" iftjo • • KEYNOTES DESCRIPTION DETA11 HANDICAP PAF19949 51604 0 �3 0 0 0 HANDICAP PARKIN& 516N W VAN ACCESSIBLE 51604 HANDICAP 0115 RAMP HANDICAP AGGE55 ISLE Pt PAINTED SRLP1.I6 PAINTED HAMIC.4P SYMBOL PAINT AT END OF STALL CONCRETE 51DEtAL' 8 0 COLORED CONCRETE SIDEMALK COLORED CONCRETE DRIVE .STOLE l FETAL HALL CURB 4 GUTTER 0 BITUMINOUS PATH ASFNALT PAVB4ENT 4' IRDE YIOTE PAINTED 5TRIPIN6, TYP. 161DERERCVND TANKS SITE STATISTICS LOT 1 AREA 139.493 5P. = 330 ACRM 45,165 5F IMPERVIOUS, 41,505 PERVIOUS LOT 2 AREA, 52,260 5P. • 170 ACRE 56,500 5F RPEtVIOS, 15960 PE2VI0U5 LOT 3 AREA. 43E26 SP. • I.05 ACRES 231630 5F IMPERVIOUS, 22.146 PERVIOUS 95RDT A (INCL 5T.1 110.415 5P.. 2356 ACRES TOTAL SITE AREA. 1951,14 5P. = 35.01 ACRES SETBACKS. Ag.[E1161-STEEEIS 41066 WILDING* 40'd 90'0 PARKMS= 0'd 10'-0' PARKINS REQUIREMENTS. RETAIL 1/200 5P. (12)60 5F/200) = 61 REQUIRED G -5TORE 4 • VEACH SHIFT S,PLOT@ (4 SHIFT EFPJ . 6 REG UIRED TOTAL RECUIR® LOT I . 69 STALLS S OFFICE 3 • 1/200 5P. (1916 5F/200) = 41 REGUIREP FAST F000 ISApoo 5P. DRUMS 0,600 5F DIHIN60000) • 5 REWIRED TOTAL REQUIRED = ID STALLS PARKINS Rt0VIDE9, LOT 6 91 HANDICAP REQUIRED - 2. PROVIDED - 2 LOT 2. 44 HANDICAP REHIRED - 2. PROVIDED - 2 LOT 3, 33 HANDICAP REQUIRED - 2. PROVIDED - 2 (104 PROOF OF PARK1t46) TOTAL (15 HANDICAP REQUIRED - 6, PROVIDED - 6 0 50 100 200 1 SITE PLAN 1 " =50' ARCHITECT I HEREBY Cann' 1HAT IRS FLA4 AND 550:Fl9TEN MAS PREPARED 9T •E CR 134X_1 MY DIRECT SF1SZ\15104 ASV THAT I AM A I0 LT IMSISTERED ARGHITLGT 1.19732 1E LAMS CF TFE STATE CFMNESOTA AS SOWED 5Y MY FWD AND 5E#L APETEL 141562 415662 SEAL REVI54015 LINO LAKES RETAIL 1- 00 U tc 0 0 - ¢9' w O < N J 00 0? Ste! SITE PLAN DATE 0123.63 WALE I'S0' DRAYM 5C PDO/CH 0HIY.KED BY APH SP -1 JOB4 02 -041 i=s II I. ti LUi:JJ NOTES. CONIFER TO HAVE HARDWOOD MULCH UNLESS 0THERVISE NOTED. NO MACH TO BE IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK SCARIFY BOTTOM L SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TD PLANTING LANDSCAPE FABRIC TOP SOIL 269024DE ROOTBALL TO SIT ON SUBGRADE ON, 4' DEEP SHREDDED BARK P.V.C. EDGING NTING SOD. ERING OF SHRUB IN BED TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIMENSION FROM EDGE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS CONIF. SHRUB DETAILS NOTES. HAND LOOSEN ROOTS 00 CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL SCARIFY BITTEN ASIDES 1F TAE PROM TO PLATING. LANDSCAPE FABRIC TOP SOIL SUBGRADE SHRUBS TO O4 SUBGRADE 1 4' DEEP SHREDDED BARK P.V.C. EDGING LANTING SOIL LNG OF SHRUB IN BED TD TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIMENSION FR131 EDGE 1. PLANTING BED PREPARATION, ALL MASS PLANTING BEDS 5Hµ1 BE TIDED TO A GRIMM DEPTH OF 10 ". AMENDMENTS SHALL BE APPLIED AFTER CULTIVATION. 2. SACKFUL SOIL' USE SOIL EXCAVATED FROM PLANTING HOLES AND PROVIDE AMENDMENTS. REMOVE ALL DEBRIS INCLUDING ROOTS LARGER MAN 3' °MANTEL 3. FL"RTIUZATION: Al PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON INSTALLATION YAM DRIED BONE MEAL OR OTHER SPECIFIED FERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE RANTING SOIL PER 114E MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. 4. ■A4LC14 MATERIAL: AS SPECIFIED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. 4HAS5 4211.04 ALL PLANTING BEDS TO 3' DEPTH OVER FINER MAT WEED BARRIER. ALL PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 3' DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH 811H NO FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER ALL EVERGREEN AND DE000005 TREES TO RECEIVE 6' DEEP SHREDDED 44N0W'090 MULCH RIM NO MULCH M DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK 1 TREE STARING: R 5Hµ1 BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO STAKE AND /OR GUY THE TREES ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS R IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE EVERY STEP NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE TREES AND SHRUBS IN AN UPRIGHT AND PLUMB CONDITION AT ALL TIMES UNTIL THE END OF THE PLANT GUARANTEE PERIOD ESPECUI1Y WHERE VANDAJSAM, SOIL OR WINO CONDITIONS ARE A PROBLEM. 6. TREE WRAPPING: WRAPPING MATERIAL S11µ1 BE QUALITY, HEAVY WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PUNTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO 12 -1 AND RE9UVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER 5-1. 7. RODENT PROTECTION: PROVIDE ON ALL TREES. EXCEPT SPRUCE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 8. PLANTING PLAN: ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL. BE LOCATED CAREEULLY AS SHOWN ON THE PUNS. PLAN TAXES PRECEDENCE OVER RANT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES IN OLMNi11105 EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES. RESPECT STATED DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS 9. EDGING EDGING SHALL BE 4' P.V.C. COMMERCIAL GRADE EDGING WITH SA (1) ALTAR ANCHOR STARES PER 20 FOOT SECTION. ALL MUSS PLANTING BEDS SERI. HAVE EDGING PLACED BETWEEN MULCH AREA AND ANY ADJACENT TURF AREA GENERAL NOTES 2 SHRUB DETAILS A21 16' x 1 I/O' WOE POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE NOTES. SCARIFY BOTTOM L SIDES OF 41.E PRIOR 10 PLANTING TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE ILLUSTRATED IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES, HOWEVER. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. ROOTBALL TO SIT 2' x r x 2 WOOD STAKE SET E ANGLE ON SUBGRADE 1. LANDSCAPE CONDUCTOR TO VERIFY ALL UOLRY LOCATIONS ON PROPERTY WON THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND B1 CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE CAL (454 -0002) PRIOR TO STARING PLANT LOCATIONS. 2. COORDINATE THE PHASES OF 00445TRUODON AND PLANTING INSTALLATIONS WITH OTHER. CONTRACTORS WORKING ON 500. 3. WHERE EXISTING TREES AN0 /OR RGNR1CANT SHRUBS GASSINGS ARE FOUND ON SITE WHETHER SHOWN ON THE 01AWING 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 PUNT MATERIAL 2110UL0 RE44N OR NOT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO REMOVAL 4. ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN TO BE FERTILIZED AND PRUNED TO REMOVE DEAD W000 AND DAMAGED OR RUBBING BRANCHES 5. BB TREES AND SHRUBS ARE BALLED AND BURLAPED. EL NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL. BE H.1..I'ThO UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTED OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND /OR QUOTATION. 7. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EOOION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOOK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYUER 8, CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR ON-GOING MAINTENANCE OF Al NEWLY INSTALLED MATERAL5 UNTIL TIME OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE ANY ACTS OF WANDµ104 OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE SHALE 8E THE RESPONSIBUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE 245PEC1106. 10. WARRANTY FOR LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 014U.L BEGIN ON THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE 142405010241 ARCHITECT AFTER 114E COMPLETION OF PLANTING OF ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE WRH ALL REPLACEMENTS TO BE PROADED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER PLANTING NOTES 3 DECIDUOUS DETAIL OUANITY 0089409 NAME !OTAMCAL NAME ern DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA VIRE �- INTERVALS R ERVA AL ' 1NT STEEL STAKE STRAP, 16' X 1 I/O' VIDE POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE GONG, ONE PER VIRE ULCH, 4' DEEP SHREDDED BARK SOD TOP SOD. - GRADE X 2' X 24 WOOD STAKE SET a ANGLE NOTES. RODTB TO SIT ON SE CONFER TO MA NO MULCH TO SCARIFY B TWO ALTERNA NG SOIL WOOD MULCH WEESS OTHERWISE NOTED. T WITH TRUNK. HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING OF TREE STRONG ARE ILLUSTRATED. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES, HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. 1. NO PLANTING TO BE INSTALLED UNTIL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION EMS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA 2. ALL PUNT MATERIAL LOCATIONS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE AR04RECT PRIOR TO ANY ANO ALL DIGGING. 3. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PERCEIVES ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE PUNT SELECTIONS, 501L CONDITIONS, OR ANT 01NER SATE OIND4ON WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT RAW MATERIAL ESTABLI514MENT, SURVIVAL. OR GUARANTEE, THEY sou_ BRING THESE DEFICIENCIES TO 1440 ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 4. ADJUSTMENTS N LOCATION OF PROPOSED PUNT MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED IN FIE10. SHOULD AN ADJUSTMENT BE ADVISED, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED.. 5. ALL PLANTS TO BE 1N5TALLE0 AS PER PLANTING DETAILS. 6. ONE SHRUB PER TYPE AND 512E IN EACH PLATING BED AND EVERY TREE SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED (COMMON OR LATIN NOMENCLATURE) WITH A PLASTIC TAG WHICH SHALL NOT BE REMOVED PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE 7. WHERE 500 /5EE0 ABUTS PAVED SURFACES. 41615X01 GRADE OF 500 /5EE0 SHALL BE HELD 1' BELOW SURFACE ELEVATEN OF TRAIL SUB. CURB. ETC. 8. 500 SHALL. BE LA0 PARNIEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL 4AVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 011 IN DRAINAGE SIRES. THE 500 SHALL BE STAKED TO THE GROUND. 9. SEED ALL AREAS DISTURBED WE TO GRADING OTHER THAI THOSE AREAS NOTED TO RECEIVE SOD. 10. REPAIR All. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT NO COST TO THE 9IWNFR PLANTING LEGEND A 15 448TR4N PINE 1414I5 NIGRA. 8• -8.545 • B 6 BLAO04ILLe BPpKE F•ICE4 N A10 4 '12ERL5AT4' a. "8. D 4 D. C 8 71AR94444.5 .444 MANNA P@NBYLVAlIC4 '41AM9LALL' 214'4245 D 10 RFL041GIO LADEN TLA UbILGRA 'RED41420' 214'42 4D. E 4 NORMIIop MAPLE AIER R1BRf1 1NGRTMIgC, D" 24]' B 4D. F 6 NORWAY 112404 B ACEIR PL414144 D24 244' 15 • G 3 P94 OAK WE-R=5 PAL121R15 244. 45 4 19 H J 5 LAUREL LEAF 1411 U SALDK PEN -ANDRA 5 GA- POT 12 5 RA01ATCRABAPPLE MAUL5 'RA0UANT' $• BIB K JAPAN TREE LILAC STRINGA .24.t4545 JAPONICA 2 GAL POT M 4 Alm MAPLE ACER's1MAL A. 2 GAL POT N 32 11155 KIM LILAC 9TRING4 VELUTN4 '411811 KD1• I GAL- POT P 29 GOLDR.42E SPIRAL 0PIFE4 LIMALDA '001, 2_115. I GAL. POT 0 25 RED TWIG DCGICOD CORN115 STCLCNIFERA 1 GAL. 201 R 8 R GO8A ROSE ROSA RUO054 S 4'15E81 T 2' BERT IRRIGATION NOTES 4 CONIFEROUS DETAIL 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A SHOP DRAWING ILLUSTRATING AN 1811=110N PUN AND SPECIFICATION AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK WHEN BIDDING. THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDER. 2. VERIFY E1D511NC /PROPOSED IRRIGATION SI54:M LOCATION 3. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL SOD /SEED AND PLANTING AREAS ND4ATED ON PLAN SHALL BE 10011 8R.GA101. THE IRRIGATION 514ALL INCLUDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN PROPERLY LINE AND BACK OF CURB OR SOUND WA1. WHERE NEW LANDSCAPE BIPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED. 4. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILTY TO INSURE NAT ALL SODDED/SEEDED AND PRATED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION. 5 THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A WATERING /LAWN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SINE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANT MATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. 5 SITE PLAN 1 ".50' ARCHITECT I HEREBY 00914 Y THAT THIS PLAN NIB aw11FAT1@4 WAS PR_-^'ARED-BY FE DR LAGER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND TIM I AM A 00.1 REGISTERED AR0M11ELT 1140ER THE LAYS C THE STATE @TDB101014 AS 510901 EY NT RAND AO SEAL HACfR. 45862 SEAL LAKES RETAIL 0 DATE C3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 01,1323 SCALE 1._50. DRAWN By JOH CHECKED BY 200 L -1 JOB L 02-041 LM dd i td J 7 OF HAMM S 3/4' CONDOR MBJMUM 3/4- CROFER FHSNEO GRADE ANCHOR BOLTS SEE SPECROMONS SECTION =CO FOR COMMIE id1111gFNENTS (4) /6 REROCN_ REINFORCING ROCS sir x to GROUND ROD #3 HORIZONTAL T&5 AT 12 CODERS TOP 3•-Y OF POURED CONCRETE 1D BE RDUO FORM (CONCRETE FOUNDATION BY ElECTRICN. CONTRACTOR) POLE BASE DETAIL 9+R0 1�GR -C CONTOUR LEVELS: A= 0.50 IMO'L.1.::. �.;.•,�. -r�-IIII rain :a•., ..�RUaI Damn By NLH Cracked By RFw/ Pr.jeci Number 00303 NI 1 m1�IR i araE to B n) 9 TM 80 it NM >a 44SAAAS94S99SALS599. 1.SA94a1.4YAAAS49A4. LS. 1.AS444 .yASASAASSASALAAAAAALSISSSS 4 AAAAAAAAASAAAA AASASAAAAAAAAA549994AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAA4SAASS94599AAAAA AASAAAAAAAA444 4. 44ASSAAAAA AA9AAAAAAAA& A &A48AAAASAA4AAAAAAAASAAAA4944S4 N. 1 .SJ.d.,1d4.M.1. 6 SA45SSS d Jr 3,4 41.9 S A SSA 54 A dAS S S 411. 549ah Ars Sdbddb ,t.t.t.t.t.t.t.t.t.L.L.0.,-,yyY AAA4A444669.1.45444A4S - ww4444444Y44A AA AAY AAAAAAAAAAWASAAAAASSAASASAAAAe 4J.AA.6.1.4A./ASSSASA949 99444 ..49444 4 4944SASSAAAA444 .:.k .1.44494'4 .MSA9S994 AAA 4A99AASSAAA49A 4A. 94 AAS SY _ 44959444 S9 4 S S SS SS AS SS AAA AAA AAA SAA59 AAA./ AAAAAALASSA SA49AAA4994 Y.1. 4444494444 SSALSSSAASSS 44AS94AAAAASA9 SSASSAAAALSSSSA SASASAYSSSAASAS ASSSAAAASSAASSS AAAASAS4AAAAASA SSAASAAASSASSLS AASAAAa1.694AAAA SSAAAAdSSAAAAd AASASASSAAAAAA ASYAdAASSSSSSS SSSAASAAAAAAAS SASAASAAIAASAAS A 4S Y 444.444. d4A 4A AA ..,S ASAASA4AAAAAWAAASA SSSAAAAAAAAASLSSSALSSSS ASASAAAASLSSASSASSAAASSS SAASASAAASSSAIAASAAAAAAS AAASASYASAASdSLLSAAAAAAA SSa1.4 Y Y 454644 A A9 L SSA.1.A 4944 S1.4444444444444444444444444 S4SA44444444494SSL44SSS49444 AAAASAYSSAAAAASSSSLSSSYSSASY 444944444444444444494449444 44444449449LAdS94444499444 SASSSASSAAAAAASASSSSASLSS ASSSSSSSSSAAASSSSAAAASAAS 4S49449S94444444449444444 SAAAAAAAASAAAAAAAASSSASASS SAASYAASSSSLAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ASASAAAAAAAA4 SLSAAYSASAAAS 444444544449449444444444444 ASSASAdSdSSSSASSSSSSSASAAAAA A AASSASSASAAASYAAAAAASAASASAAA 4 44449499 s 444444444 44444444444SS AAA SAASAdAAASAISdSAAAASAAAASSSSSs AAAASSAAASSdAAAAA4SASASSSSAAASS 44444444SS44449444SSS49444444444444 4444444444444SSS44SSS449444444449444 AAAAASYAAAAAASSSAAASSAAAAAAAAASSSdd44 49444444449444444444444444494444449 444444494444494494444444444444449 SSASAASASSSSSSSSSASASSAAAAAAASSS AASYSSSSSAAASSSAAAASSSSASSSSSS 4 49444444494494444444494444499 4 4494449444444994444AS4444444 A iAAAASS54AAAAA .SSSSASAAAAA4 J, A S 54 SS SSSSS SASS A 444494 L di ti A 1'AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1. 4SASAAAAAAASAAAAAAA S A AAAA444444449449 S ASSAA99SSAAAAA4 SSS 494494444444444444 di AAA'AAAAAAAAAASAS SSSSAAAAASAAAASASS ASASAAAAAAAAdASAAS L SS494ASSA444444SS 4444.94944494994999 A S 1 1" AAAA4.1.444444d. ASASAdAdAAASSAASSS SSSSAAYSAAAAdASSSS ASSSASSSSSAASAASSS 44444444444SSASAS 99445994444494444 AdAdAdSASAAdAAAAA 44444444444449444 49444944444944444 AASS4ASAAAS4SAAAS 941r4944444944AA49 44449944449444444 AAAA4AA49499445AA 9949449499499949 99494AAAS4944444 4444449.94994494 4444444444449444 9994449494449444 9SSSd44994949444 AASSSLAASASSAAAA 4444944444494445 444SAAdASdd4AdAA 949949499449444 444994494494949 444994949494444 449444444444444 449544449494944 44999444944494 4994499SS94444 94944454994994 SA449444494444 49994944994949 44444494444441. 4444494499944 414AAdAd9SA444a 4449944444944 4944444999549 9444449444449 4444449994444 444499994444 544494945944 449944444494 449499494444 944449444444 .949544444544 494494994444 444444495949 944444449444 99444999444, 554494944441 44444999994 44444994994 94449449444 94444444949 44454444495 94454444494 44494449444 4954994494 4444449449 4494494449 94444499AS 4444449944 9949949944 4449994449 4444444459 45454994 944944994 494444944 49444499 54544495 54499449 94449945 99494945 49494454 54444949, 94444499 44594949 4AS49999 99994494 49944959 94944445 44944994 44449449 94444499 44944994 49AS4S94 499445SS. 49444444 54954999 59449445 A9 .. .... 9 459 9449444 AA y '- ..944495 4494444 SA 954945 .995. +. SA94.3�495 44449445 994449994599949494449949444.99 45AS5555454s45A 444499 AAA - AAAAAAAAAAAA494994444944944�,4 Ada14545A545AAAAAAAS594A54SSSS S4989S99444449949949999444994449499449449994449Sd4S59Y5A94Sdd54544995 4499494944499999995994. 554599AAAAAASSSA494SASSJ ,SSSAAAAAA959SS55S459SS 1, A A 49444449944 949444 SY4 YS AA S A 44444444'!, O 4 .t 4t1A,b ALAAS..kil994, .. , S1L �A'•,Zii .aL_J.&.kS-4s.ASn,.. ..,-E-.e.r 9 L 4�u 49549x1. &s 4444 441 4Jy4A441 1. IA44SS Sill AAS yy1.�(4SSdd�, 49444 -9 9AA.t(ta it d6RL4ii+�l•1h�+AA A A4 4�AJy.,g�6l,44tl.L d.A .4 '91.4 1.9 444444 . 1.444.1..4 �jY �tyL 4AA ��I''�S &S 444dl fl .y .S. A.A 499,1, 449 SA AA AA AA AS A4 Ai AA4. 44444 44494. 44494, 54 S4 4 ail L51399 At .Wass 94 kAS9 49.ij. A4 9445 44499 44999 1. 4 4 4 4 9 4445 49444, 4 4 A AAA a s4 AA s s A 4 944 AA A. A A 5 A4 AA S A .k:. A 144,:11 AJi44ASAAA55 A A59 94444 A•m; A 444A TTD s•:�.:` AAA& AAA L49A AAA r 2' 4 151. 4 9s A SA A 949A A 9444 AAd A SSS A t. A` 444 9494 SSYS AA •994 yA�SyA ;X 444 AAA AAA ' 4{L'Y ,94454 S S S - k , • " 9S �y •'u+1 i1r Aas 1.9 SYT1A AAA TLS A. 4 449 4 ' ;1. h,. A •..44994499 4' .44344959 44:4 S A 4 ell s A +.C,: A 9 A 9ih: 4 . P 4 6� 1.4 d4,101. `;:�: •,�;:. -- IV r iii; . ,456 yS 4. �. � •Sy,.h ar9i: ;' 1..A�l A.LSSS9S� ; 9.tr4.,L s Y 9 ...a1. - +1:4.1! 4499949894 S9, R AS '.�• 9 t 444449. AS 4 544 - 544994 AAS 5 r-9, ASAAAA AAA .h49944.,9, 9 .SSS, 4444449944999 S . 1.94449949499 S: ..1.4 _SA S S4uu- 594.T; 7-949.{444944 _ A S A.A W-4- ir41-*- 9 AAAAAS49944944.94AA44Ya1.4S US 44449994444494994999 944994494994944994994 4944999944999949444494 49499499994994999994449 .�4949AAAAAAAAASAA949999 99949999494449994494949 99494499449944994999959 4944994944499449499449 94494494949494499994499 X11 1 1 AAAAASAAASSAS94S994 AAAAAS'999444SS499944994 4999994944944949$9949999 44944449S949494499494499 a AASAAALSAASIASSAAASSAAAS 99999994949494949499999999 49449499994949994999444944 399494944994944444994949994 994444444999999994945944994 9439949949949394494999994 599444999599994449494944444 544444994499945449949994944 59444994949444994544' 949454 94444944449444449944494494499 ASSAAAASSAAS434SSAA49AS449449 99949944439469444494944944999 94949999494459949944449499449 A 94944944999944449994499499944 949944999949944945944449999944 944499494999999999944434949994 999994449494499494494949494494 999594494994444949954444444949 999944494449493949494994449444 4 99944994499494999949949444954 ;11,4 ivA 95949494944494999494999944993 4449..), 9494449999439349994949494499 A � 414AAA44S444444549494SAA &4.1.99454 44444949499994443494444444499 49549499499999549499949999.449 99444944444494994499449944944 44444994445999959449499449444 5994449549944 1 ES1 SITE LIGHTING CALCULATION sr T_60 -0 MAW 1(4 < 64 2:13 Crrs.r OF NO hs <•- u 00 LINO LAKES RETAIL HODGSON ROAD & BIRCH STREET LINO LAKES, MN SITE LIGHTING PLAN Dab 01/13/2003 Scale AS NOTED Damn By NLH Cracked By RFw/ Pr.jeci Number 00303 ES1 1 FLOOR PLAN - RETAIL BUILDING 1/8 " -1' ARCHITECT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN AND SPECIFICATION VAS PREPARED BY IE DR TINDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIDN AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER TIE LAWS OF THE STATE DFH1)WSEITA AS SIGNIFIED BY NY HAND AND SEAL APETER HILGER *5862 SEAL DRAWN BY REVISIONS CHECKED BY P00 A -1.1 LINO LAKES RETAIL HODGSON RD. & BIRCH ST. LINO LAKES, MN FLOOR PLAN • DATE 01.13.03 SCALE 1/8' =1' DRAWN BY PDC CHECKED BY P00 A -1.1 1:03 * 02 -041 PANTED WOOD FASCIA VINYL (PALM - CEDAR) SHAKE I OOD TRELLIS T:.ETr i E PANTED WOOD VENT PREMAN. VINYL ASPHALT SHINGLES AW11In JFA . ..--.0 1Hnnln — d111n 11n t ioa 4Ht.FtH_aH11�111Aa7"` I5t111111H11n1111111811E 1 WHEEL .- ,1111111.111111hilillAWIES4111111111111.11MIEWIRISIMIN111/.. 01 111NMHIDMmn11111E110n1111N11 111RERlEIEBIII EI111 4, ufII11IIEMPPE -IPUIIIEHnIn111IIIIB1 UIDIA! 1PPy'pn /MEIN le. 11181 @NLV 11'-1 .s 111RSIEVE n111111 pLM 1 /y . H�Hn111il n11HnIL= IUD.. -L LIMERMnn11nnp1INESH. -AIL _I Inglnlgn LIMN/ IIIMI1Eg1111nJIMI IBEI lOnillNNINDIAI 1111116! TRELLIS PANTED LOCO SIGN BAND CHANI•EL SIGNS SIGN SIGN SIGN SIGN 11111i1�:_ ..N11B W *111D®11 _\ ..1a1n11H1 W gy�1U14.. /•�uIHmIIUlIlI —'11LLfln1IIIPP nINR1l1FIL MEP- .Ul51 1181 III111nn1U11 ADP- ..1I 1.111111_ /.wM41111n.11I111nInngHl..... 11n1/111.1 BRTh. 1n1nIIII51 Wlnlflnl7ln P'- .1;onnlnaminliitnturna,�'" /.1Nfnnll5IlUI nNnlninlnin Onit1taniti lE/0HM11n1111H ire.. 91nn1W111111n111n1n1 11n•' / 11gnI /Hn11In1AII/HEI1nlHIEWIT11nIW. FN�11111 0 1f'HI'1 I1TIENHE .LLIN 11In11n1nIP I1WPi41 LIn11�in1Wh. '1111n11111_^i 1 r IgnnlnlnlnnlgMIIIIMERICII 1 PI 111111E11nRInMi1nl111 11gn1n)h; L't, ..I.1111nn1nn111W11111I1n11n1 ./l.h_mIlHi HITEMI1111 1In111 WOHIIII11n1f1 BIIIIW E11111nnlnnlnpin111 ninlnn111ngHi1�n11i�InI111n1nt T/ROCF EL 17T-0• IGN El.: 114'-81 E1: ID I STONE BABE ALUM STORE FR7NT DOORS PAINTED WOOD COUSI.15 PREFING. VINYL WINDOWS WEST ELEVATION PAINTED •NARDI -PLANO. LAP BIDING • E1.. P00` -¢ 41111.1111. .en1111.1n115h. H71NIt1I1H71Hit1r� 4111111111111INNI 1n111n1n si.111111n1111N1 = .lD1Hni1H1 .J Il I nlglt,,tlHtn�llnl:(1f111M� W � W �11�1Y1® 1/8 "_1' SIGN 2 SOUTH ELEVATION PAINTED WOOD TRASH GATES TRRASH ENC. EL :108• -0" 1/8 " =1' .1H.U�. rl 11111. 1!818111Hn11Hn1. 111111 "11Hn11�. aINn11nn1 11e1111h 41.11111100, 81MII5NIf., .48Q.nHIC 811H11N Rapti IW11111n. SIGN TRASH ENC. TO HATCH BUILDING - -.4LlM DRIVE OF WINDOW NORTH ELEVATION 4 T ROCP EL. ET.-0. 1/8 " :1' EAST ELEVATION 1/8 " =1' fiel _ . � ;;P r� J/414 " 2d 03 ARCHITECT 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN AND SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME DR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A IH1LY REGISTERED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAYS OF THE STATE DFMIMESITTA AS SIGNIFIED BY NY HAND AND SEAL A.PETER HILGER 15E62 SEAL REVISIONS JOB K 02 -041 DATE 011303 SCALE 1 /S' =I' DRAVN BY PDT CHECKED HY APH ggjjgg A`2 1 JOB K 02 -041 • 9 e ®— t1A/1 • ".% "v g itM �/a 1 s ag g4 -1I a[ gm vi 4 i I V • a.4 a.re s ra g To: %.7v. Michlei Grochaiia I•a LI 1 ul „• I e Smyser. Marty As eso r' D•te• 2I" /20'12 5rr Sea Staff Report Recommendations /Rrtlggeman a and Living Waters Luther Church /Environmental Board Meeting, January 29, 2003 .tall made the following Recommendations: elan Development _'nt 3 shows the Lake Protection areas, Zone 1 and 2 Protection irface water flow patterns, and High Priority Protection areas. This e:te is in a Lake Protection Zone. Existing agricultural drainage nnels water for the most part to Baldwin Lake. A small area on the SE comer travels to Rice Lake. Surface water issues are the most important issues on this site. Water is ditched directly into Baldwin Lake. Surface water is proposed to be directed into a new NURP pond. Water from this NURP pond will be discharged to the existing ditch. Surface water information will have to be evaluated to determine impacts, if any, to Baldwin Lake. Givenis asoline ser. ice fa..'I' +.f planned i.-.. +ham. ite there v. a.wiveiii Ci ivrG. J a i��.'uv "vii: iv v it li..�. :u'vii3 i�7 ivy it1i Ci iir. JiC'v, ii IG: 'v vi - URA some structured plan for containment. The !e Lai dscaiie Plan does not si ioW landscaping for the proposed pond. The should show this pond area with City of 1 L3i O ! ..kes Native Pond and Drainage A suggestion should b.. made to obtain Crainage area seed i t tin. H suC�.-.�j. -G sCiVii 3i ivuii..+ be rr3G[t,t� to �J'bizain a landscape ho1Ualy experienced this type Ud landscape establishment and maintenance. 1 • • • February 4, 2003 There is no plan for ground story plantings ii the existing plan. t there is proposed sod for thie,se areas, than these arias should be si-lo , as irrigate-d. gate,.! The plan should show intentions of ground story for all ,i7 iL�. aceU. ai3s' plan viiO' U 33iV J�3y 31 'a.3 �t3 VIls iii aL'u u JtV3' and cover for a3, landscaped areas including islands. All soils in these areas should be thoroughly tilled with at least an additional 4" of topsoil added tilling. ti i uyi'3 IIy ili.G:: Lv313 3 ai vast � ,.at.tvit3V3 iGi ;3• C3 ;Gi;;��E a,:;;c� before ��3 g. Norway maples and Amur maple should be substituted with a non-invasive species. Write oaks in this area would be more appropriate than Lindens. Since there are a number Lf oaks proposed fOi removal from this site, oaks should be placed back in. Additional oaks should be required around the 1 3ail R l 3a3 ive pond. There vi IVU.0 be a tree iii V v'iitV ya submitted iit'1G•tU:- 1i IGt is in i data base tJ.. al U readable. la is difficult to tell from ahe plan how many oaks and what size oaks are proposed for removal. Sever al more oaks it(.1r and I�,.,.a Side. t the Retail I..:i.4 /. } should .V planted in this, V1 � µ {la,i L.{,AV L}VIIJ>.. �ICi111i , Ilittlll ✓411 Vff lrl,.• {.kt i'i �.i of the landscape octp plan to screen i i lousing to the Cast later. Oahe should be substituted for Laurel leaf willow on the East Side of the Retail Building. The ^r e- JGttlG. Gfl+ lGUe+a tio E for this area is depicted Or Exhibit t). The lighting plan should be 1uv-impact , "no-spill", do V U rd focused 11ia, IUi lumen type Of focus liviti1 any canopy enclosures Limit. ..4 e AI tine V light i a descriptions do not meet this ieauiy mGn} . This plan needs s revision. Surface 'i n t a+e r Management is very y important V I this site. Existing i"ig ails proposed eu ruto.i slit 3 v a.y a3 ivi. systems l.i ti ,v3'vaaa.. C. direct .1JI i3 iaiLt3Vi 3 to Baldwin 3i Lake by t h e , ditch. Since 'This is in a lake, p oaecaion area, +h s developer should show creativity in attenuating volume and quality issues. Post development should try 10 lower volumes, l i ainiaii i required rates, and 3 e,du .ia iy. nutrient loads. . Pre.. and post-nutrient ii ii odeli3 3gg should be demonstrated. Vu 4ace waa-'. direction on i iii pJervious ar ,as vi iould be, a. -..-i a... curb drop by the .J if +h:.. c be .d., a„ work. It directed 3:V 001 .. drops by 141 i pond a this can be i i iat.i'a. to ii"vl t.. L ai.i i.iea3 v a ica before ditching, VC ter flowed a0 Rice Lake a iU had u bit more buffer be,foi e i e, ach in .' the Lake,. 4i its iiiiyy.'i ii be an alternative. The A i0 a '1JOu4 iiy Sand Plane Ground Water Modal depicts this area as very sensitive e t1'oi ground rater ,vi4 U+I Vi 4 potential. (Ex i • it a_..). Any infiltration anticipated Oi planned should have at least the 3-foot 7 ii •n im recommended 3ep ai ation from the seasonally high water tame. large die iii Vi.Jtis'ea.i pond is, Cai ge enouyi i to coritaii 44 all surface ester storm i events for a 100-year flood, than the environmental l l taut Co ce l la UGcome much IULi I less. A • • • February 4, 2003 A Eest M un. iagze ✓ mi i ievni it i pan i shnl i re:jufire d i for en of post be . i C+v ; development agreement. This plan should address soil and tree protection iloi during ueV'vltii.+i 'vi It, and v'!iv keeping after development. i'v. C. viii keeping y C1i t'v development ss lu1 d include parking area sweeping, iiutte . pick-up, storage of any hazardous materials, Later rail, turf and native -area maintenance plans, and pond maintenance. Al! topsoil in the site should remain o i the site. Any intention to import soils, , must have the approval of the City, and be 3t✓ ri tted to RC'W D for review of surface water infiltration rate chances L:vanau Waters Lutheran Church: Since 1993 (the time The church was built), the Environmental Board has consistently asked new surface water management features es to buffer watershed features. The Area to the North is designated as a High-Priority Protection Area in the Lino Lakes Handbook for Conservation Design. Soils in this area are sandy, and pervious. If an infiltration train were designed into the site plan, there appears to be enough separation between the OHW and a designed rainportdlswall area. The rain pond area must be in an area where the Seasn, laity high water table is at least 3 feet from the bottom of the pond Please refer to (Attachment u). The seasonally high 11 yruui io- vvaier level should be verified. Peak flow analysis indicates a .23 cfs increase in water volume flow in a two year event, a .32 cfs increase in water { volume flow in a 10 year event, and a .36 increase in water volume flow for a 1 g00 year event for the entire site. The basin should be designed if possible to accommodate this extra surface water volume, if not for the entire site. Additional ponding is shown in the turf areas. No surface-water analysis information Cation is available at this time. The soil areas around proposed remaining pervious areas should be protected from compaction during construction. n buffer of native plants incorporated into edges and a surface-water-treatment-train should be planted. Ground story ma =4 materials should be native in the ponding and drainage stage areas, All proposed sou areas Si iould have at least inches of topsoil tilled thoroughly into the subsoil as deep as possible. A detailed landscape pion should indicate more foundation plants. A few oak trees should be planted into the surface 'water treatment areas. Suggest changing the Sugar maples to a variety of Red rnapie or oak. Although there is no proposed lighting for the added space on the church, the possibility exists that there may be a need to light the building in the future. if this should happen, than the lighting ng-.' should be gown irv'ar u focused, no-spill type'' lighting. n • ma am MUM 114111201•1 law • WI I To. Michar.;IGrochald From: Marty Asleson CC: Jeff Smyser Date: February 3, 2003 Re: r_nvironmental Board Recommendations/January 9. 2003 Bruciaernan Properlies The Environmental Board Recommended on January 29, 2003 that the proposed Bruaaernan-Properties Development be denied, because: 1. The nc!: of input from Rirs Creek watershed District and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 0 The proposal to build a car wash and gas station in a Lake Protection Zone and an area with high sensitivity to around water pollution. The rivironmental Board made the following additional reCOriliTiendations should the proposal go forward for approval: 1. Follovv Staff Recommendations in Environmental Board Meeting Report. 0. That the Developer wouirl work with Staff on Landscaping Plan changes. The NURP pond proposed in the NW corner should be entirely landscaped. Ti e City native grass and flower seed list should be used. 3. Grit and oil filters should be part of the design. • 4. The OrriinaDnec\re'e.loper should follow HUI ILII 1U guidelines in u new Draft Zoning 0-4 PagE., 1 • 5. The surface water plan must be evaluated to determine environmental impacts. • 6. That at aany proposed lighting canopy is designed with recessed lights and with no fascia Lighting. 7. That Gar kinaa be reduced to City minim um stanU'ai Us. lotion b:: Snyder, second t - f' ; A' .4s» All approved. IY ®Cali Litt 0..y a�i �l1%6.]Gr , JGLL31 IiA by l UI i IV IIGi . j ii ai,p Li1%' LIVID g 11i esters Lutheran 1 1011U1 Li 11 The Environmental Board Recommended on January 29, 2003 that the ivposed .i Living Waters Lutheran Church Addition be approved with the folio ing comments: 1. There are hiah-priority protection areas to the North of the cxis+ii u path. This area should not be disturbed. 2. it. '1GU be �s in proposed iv L JtJl landscape plan should include building lv foundation giants. 4. _Dr i% iJ� r;d Ji:i ,d Jh Ir !r I .Y \L at I:uJ.+ t into the ground. •� inches of topsoil r' Any ':.�:- .6i: -..v h.- .::!.�! dam.!!• -...- !• +'. ' -,! '•i, . 8. A 1V new shut Itll lY should follow flu! Itil lu uuiueiil les it l Ordi, lance. and swale areas. The s �;.. r..+..3-1 i! Iv! SJUjJ iiy i7 iCiv! f 1L./: iwtva.I +bar. f.'s:. ## -' ti IC neV1� L)I aft LVl111lu ^ : � +�... plan ' R h � # Red Oaks. Sugar maples in the Ulan should be changed to I led maple or Oaks. Motion Lotion to approve by Haien, Second by Doniin. All approved. ® Page 2 FEE-03-2M: 17: 40 • • CITY OF LINO LAKES Department of Public Safety POLICE David ). Pecchia Public Safety Director / Chief of Police Officer Mike Rumpsa Lino Lakes Police Department CPTED Reviews 01 -21 -03 651 982 2499 P.02/03 I have reviewed the plans for Living Waters Lutheran Church, Bills Rental Center and Bargeman Properties. Living Waters Lutheran Church; • From a crime prevention stand point, I have only two comments for Living Waters Church. I would like to see a plan for lighting and landscaping. • The church has an abundant amount of natural surveillance, so tree/shrub placement will be important to preserve that positive feature. Bills Rental Center. a. I am going to have see plans for Lighting and Landscaping before I am going to be able to comment on this proposal. • .Also, if the Rental center is going to have an alarm and video surveillance, I would like to know what kind of equipment, and how complete of a system would be implemented_ Bruggeman Properties, I have reviewed this property in the past, and have the same concerns that I did then. o Will the intersection of Hodgson/Birch be improved? Semaphores? o Will NB Hodgson Rd have three lanes? With one dedicated to the Bruggeman property. o The exit/entrance on Birch Street will it be controlled via stop signs, and will it have its own turn lane into the property? o The traffic now appears to be directed around the office/daycare and QSR space, but then is forced to go thru the retail building and C- store area. o How will the future residential area tie into the property? I see that a roadway will connect Hodgson Rd to Ware Rd. Will another roadway allow access to Bich? 640 Town Center Parkway • Lino Lakes, Minnesota • 55014 -11132 FEB -0 2003 17:40 CITY OF LINO LAKES Department of Public Safety POLICE David 1. Pecchia Public Safety Director / Chief of Police 651 982 2499 P.O3 /0; o I see that a lighting chart was enclosed, but I pan, unable to read the values due to the small copy I was given. 640 Town Center Parkway • Lino Lakes, Minnesota • 55014 -1182 Public Administration /Records: 651- 982 -2300 3 Fax: 651 -982 -2399 TfIT d P Gi s • • JAN -30 -2003 16:12 BRUGGEMAN HOMES 6517709273 P.O2 Bruggeman Properties, LLC 3564 Rollingview Drive White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Telephone (651) 770 -2981 Fax (651) 770 -9273 January 30, 2003 Mr. Jeff Smyser City of Lino Lakes. 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 Re; Hodgson Rd & Birch Street Dear Jeff, Upon review of your concern regarding potential traffic conflicts near the retail building, we believe traffic calming will provide an appropriate solution. You have stated the drive aisle could present a problem for vehicles backing out of parking spaces. This condition exists in most retail centers, and typically does not present a problem. However, the introduction of traffic calming devices can reinforce the need to maintain a safe speed. Attached is a sketch depicting the location of two traffic calming areas. There are several options for creating traffic calming. We are proposing textured paving (ie concrete or some other material) to alert drivers. The paving would be included at the south entry drive to the parking area and midway along the building frontage. The south entry would be designed to create the feeling of a bridge. The perceived narrowness, change in pavement texture, and curve in the roadway will provide traffic calming. To reinforce the concept to the north, a second band of textured paving will be installed near the midway point of the building. This band will include the extension of parking islands, which will also provide a pedestrian connection to the proposed trail along Hodgson Road. We also considered at your request, the relocation of the drive aisle. We believe this option will introduce additional impervious surface which will contribute to an all ready environmentally sensitive drainage issue. The Environmental Board has recommended reducing the impervious surface with the elimination of any parking spaces not required by city ordinance. Shifting of the building or parking to the east will also encroach on the proposed residential development, and it is our desire to maximize the distance between the two uses. • • JAN -30 -2003 16:12 BRUGGEMAN HOMES Mr. Jeff Smyser January 30, 2003 Page 2 6517709273 P.03 I trust this proposed solution addresses your concerns. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Grego Schlink Brugg er : n Properties, LLC C: Bob Kirmis Peter Hilger John Johnson PO'd 14101 vex a amwtiHlthar7µ,+,.���Tlw�t'IC► tMr� ItrJ.Q++d't 4 �� 81.�311lgt1Y vne „a mutton NIN Ty4; Weld 3¢YM60Net NW •er771Y1 9$17 '1€ eObts v an Mnenook 1[Y13H 69)IV1 ONI1 5 A l4 �[�1/� _V SLZ6©LLTS9 t'O'd 0 t'l EJ 4-� w3 k 4a, , i '� �'��;�;rr.:a� � �j .+gyp. �u', • 4 °w __ � y !II*: j ��44ff( �r ;cis 1y_y. vYOti NDSagOR N V .- R- H SdWOH NU4299le1H ET :9T 200E- OS -Ndr • COUNTY OF ANOKA Public Services Division HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD. N.W., ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 -4005 (763) 862 -4200 FAX (763) 862 -4201 JANE K. PEMBLE, TRAFFIC ENGINEER DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (763) 862 -4231 e -mail Jane.Pemble @co.anoka.mn.us November 20, 2002 Mike Grochala City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182 RE: Preliminary Plat - Bruggeman Homes Additional Review Comments — Spirit Hills Dear Mike, We have reviewed the preliminary plat of Bruggeman Homes to be located south of CSAH 10 (Birch St.) and east of CSAH 49 (Hodgson Rd.) within the City of Lino Lakes. In conjunction with this review, I offer the following comments for the Bruggeman Homes plat and additional review comments for the adjacent Spirit Hills development: Additional right -of -way will be required adjacent to CSAH 49. Existing right -of -way south of CSAH 10 equal 60 ft, which in typical applications is adequate for future reconstruction purposes. However, any future reconstruction of CSAH 49 /CSAH 10 will likely require that the roadway alignment, widening and reconstruction be shifted to the east on CSAH 49 and to the south on CSAH 10 given the existing conditions and adjacent wetlands. Consequently, it is likely that additional right -of -way will be required adjacent to CSAH 10 as well. Because we do not yet have a detailed design for this future intersection, I am not able to convey the exact right -of -way requirements for CSAH 10 and CSAH 49 at this time. I am optimistic that we will be able to determine the right -of -way needs for both routes as plans for these two development concepts continue and the access points and associated turn lane construction requirements are defined for the county highways. It is likely that additional easements, in the form of temporary construction easements and/or permanent trail and utility easements will . also be required along CSAH 49 and CSAH 10. Anoka County has met with Developer and the City regarding access locations in this area. The County has stated the following: 1) It is acceptable to have full access at the south -most entrance proposed onto CSAH 49, provided it is a Public roadway. Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer 2) The right - in/right -out access point proposed on CSAH 10 between CSAH 49 and Ware Rd. is not necessary and we recommend that it be eliminated. Instead, internal flow (local roadways /connections) should be provided for connectivity to Ware Road. We may reconsider this position if the developer is willing to construct this access with: 1) a raised median pork chop island at CSAH 10 so that the access is a right in/right out access point, and 2) construct an EB CSAH 10 right turn lane to accommodate these right turning vehicles. In addition, the RI/RO access point must be located in such a way that it does not interfere with the necessary turn lane construction and intersection integrity for either the CSAH 10 /CSAH 49 intersection nor the CSAH 10/Ware Road intersection. 3) The alignment of Ware Road south of CSAH 10 must line up with the alignment of Ware Road on north side of CSAH 10. Because the developments will cause a significant increase in the number and location of turning movements on CSAH 10 and CSAH 49, turn lane construction will be required to be constructed on the county highway system in conjunction with this development. We have prepared a concept plan detailing the turn lane construction that will be required. The concept plan is consistent with the discussions which have previously taken place, and consists of the following: A. Construction of EB and WB CSAH 10 left and right turn lanes at Ware Road; B. Construction of SB CSAH 49 left turn lane with painted channelization and speed: 1 transition at CSAH 10; C. Construction of NB CSAH 49 right turn lane and SB CSAH 49 left turn lane at Arrowhead Street with painted channelization and speed: 1 transitions (maintain 8ft. paved shoulder); In addition, the Traffic Impact Study prepared regarding these developments indicates that signalization of the CSAH 10 /CSAH 49 intersection must also take place in conjunction with these developments in order to ensure public safety and maintain acceptable levels of delay at the intersection. Also, if and/or when the extension of Ware Road proceeds north of CSAH 10 with a tie -in to CSAH 49, it shall be constructed with a raised median pork chop island at CSAH 49 so that the access is a right in/right out access point. Costs for the design and construction of the turn lane, shoulder and painted channelization of CSAH 10 and CSAH 49 shall be the responsibility of the developer. Design details for this construction are to be coordinated through this department. Further discussions will need to take place between the City and the county regarding any cost sharing arrangements for the traffic signal construction. It appears that all applicable Intersection Sight Distance requirements can be met with minor clearing and/or grading for these developments. The City and/or the Developer shall ensure that all applicable Intersection Sight Distance requirements are satisfied to the fullest extent possible for these developments. Please note that no plantings or business signs will be permitted within the county right -of -way. Care must be exercised when locating signs /plantings/berms /etc. outside the county right -of -way, so as not to create obstructions that will obstruct intersection sight distances. • • • Calculations must be provided along with a grading and erosion control plan that delineates the drainage areas for this site. The post - development rate /volume of runoff must not exceed the pre- developed rate /volume of runoff for the 10 -year, 24 -hour storm, utilizing the "SCS Method" of design. If any culverts are required within the county right -of -way, they shall include 6:1 safety grates and aprons. As discussed in previous meetings, it is the county's understanding that the on -site ponding for this development shall also provide for both the existing and future rate /volume of runoff from CSAH 10 and CSAH 49. It should be noted that residential land use adjacent to highways will usually result in complaints regarding traffic noise. Traffic noise at this location could exceed noise standards established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Anoka County policy regarding new developments adjacent to existing county highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. The city and/or developer should assess the noise situation and take any action deemed necessary to minimize associated impacts at this site from any traffic noise. There are Regional and Municipal trail easements adjacent to this Development. Please coordinate trail issues with Ron Cox, Anoka County Parks Department. Please note that it is preferred that all trail easements are located outside of the county right -of -way. A permit for work within the county right -of -way is required and must be obtained prior to the commencement of any construction. License Permit Bonding, method of construction, design details, work zone traffic control, permanent traffic control and pavement striping, restoration requirements and follow -up inspections are typical elements of the permitting process. Please contact Roger Butler, Traffic Engineering Coordinator, or Josie Scott, Permit Technician, for further information regarding the permit process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, jr '`,' �rf� /t '(t Jane Pemble Traffic Engineer xc: File: CSAH 10/Plats /2002 Roger Butler, Traffic Engineering Coordinator Mike Kelly, Chief Right Of Way Agent Larry Hoium, County Surveyor Josie Scott, Permit Technician Tom Hornsby, Traffic Services Supervisor - Signs Al Bradford, Traffic Services Supervisor - Signals FEB-0.7.-2003 12:45 TKDA • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS - PLAMJEF(S • • MEMORANDUM CITY OF LINO LAKES 651 982 2499 P.08/11 1500 Piper Jatfray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101-2140 (551) 292-4400 (551) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com To: James E. Studenski, P,E. Reference; Bruggeman Properties, LLC Copies To: Engineering Review of a Commercial/Retail Site Comm. No. 12701-002 From: Patrick M. Windier, P.E. Routing: Date: February 4, 2003 Intent The following engineering review mainly concerns the westerly half of Government Lot 6 (approximately 33 acres overall site). This is the commercial/retail component of the development parcel located along Hodgson Road (Anoka County #49). The remainder of the development parcel is proposed to be residential. The engineering review is based on the following documents submitted to the City Engineer: 1. Stormwater runoff/routing analysis (HydroCAD model) as submitted by Developer's Engineer and dated 1/13/03 for existing and developed conditions. 2. Plan Sheets: • Boundary/Topographic Survey fir Bruggeman's Properties, LLC and dated 1/13/03. • Preliminary Plat and dated 1/13/03. • Proposed Grading Plan and dated 1/13/03. • Proposed Utility Plan and dated 1/13/03. All of the above Plan Sheets provided by Metro Land Surveying and Engineering, 3. Anoka County Highway Department preliminary plat review by Jane Pemble, Traffic Engineer and dated November 20, 2002. 4. A Geotechnical Evaluation Report for Bruggeman Properties, LLC by Braun Intertec Corporation and dated July 18, 2002. prgineerinr Review Comments: 1. Sanitary Sewer System (Plan Sheet U1): It is unclear by the plan sheet if both a gravity system and a pumping lift station system will be on -site. The gravity system would originate from the intersection of Arrowhead Trail and Ware Road; however, it does not appear that there is enough depth to serve the proposed convenience store in the NW corner of the development site based on the plan sheet information. There are some markings on the plan sheet that a lift station system will be needed; An Employed Owned Company Pnimotinng Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity • • • FEB -05 -2003 12 :46 Engineering Review Bruggeman Properties, LLC CITY OF LINO LAKES 651 982 2499 P.09/11 Page 2 February 4, 2003 however, it is unclear as to which buildings that this system would serve or where it would connect to. Thus, further information will be necessary to determine if the sanitary sewer system will meet City requirements. It is strongly urged that a gravity sanitary sewer system be investigated for the entire parcel for present and future proposed development. The ten (10) inch PVC sanitary sewer piping shown on the plan sheet will not be allowed if it will be installed as a slope reducing mechanism only. The residential properties on the west side of Hodgson Road do not currently have sanitary sewer service from the City. However, it is the right time to evaluate whether the proposed sanitary sewer system to the Bruggeman Properties can also serve these properties. Public cost would be increased if this option is possible. Sanitary sewer system materials and installation shall follow City of Lino Lakes engineering standards. MPCA will require a permit for the sanitary sewer system installation, and the City will need permit verification prior to field construction. 2. Watennain System The watermain system layout as shown on plans (Sheet U1) in general is acceptable depending on connection for looping on either the north side (Birch) and/or the east side (Ware) of the overall project site. That is, the overall project site will need to be considered for watermain layout and sizing prior to approval of the commercial /retail portion of the development site. Also, if wet taps to the existing 12" watermain on Hodgson Road are necessary due to gate valve position, then a tapping sleeve with gate valve will most likely be necessary. A permit will be necessary from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The City will need permit verification prior to field construction. Watermain system materials and installation shall follow City of Lino Lakes engineering standards. 3. Stormwater System From the submitted plans (G1) and the stormwater calculations (existing and post development), the information submitted was incomplete to determine stormwater compliance with City of Lino Lakes requirements. For example, a drainage area map with divides was not submitted so that the runoff / stormwater calculations could be tracked. Stormwater conveyance systems (piping and catch basin) were not included in the HydroCAD modeling. Thus, more detailed stormwater runoff and routing information will be needed. • • • FEB -85 -2003 12:46 Engineering Review Bruggeman Properties, LLC CITY OF LINO LAKES 651 982 2499 P.10/11 Page 3 February 4, 2003 There are also concerns about the elevation of the groundwater to the bottom of the proposed stormwater main pond. The geotechnical report estimates that the ground water elevation in the area of the pond to be 888 with the bottom of the proposed pond to be 879. This indicates that the proposed stormwater pond will lose some of its holding capacity coupled with potential permit issues for excavating in groundwater. This potential issue needs to be addressed in future development plans for review. While the plan sheet makes some indication of where an overflow from the proposed stormwater pond may be directed, it is not specifically shown on the plans (GO. ). This issue needs to be addressed in future submittals for engineering review. It will also be important to address the downstream impact to adjacent properties as part of the overflow issue. The developer must obtain a stormwater permit with consequent review to the Rice Creek Watershed District. A copy of the approved permit application must be provided to the City of Lino Lakes prior to site construction approval by the City. This will include addressing wetlands issues. Storm sewer system materials and installation shall follow City of Lino Lakes engineering standards. Of further importance, future stormwater system submittals need to include the undeveloped portion of the overall development site so that downstream adjacent areas can be analyzed for impacts from the overall proposed development site. In general, it will be important to track where stormwater runoff goes and its impact to downstream properties and stormwater systems. Designated permanent drainage easements will be required for the stormwater conveyance and pending areas. 4. Bikeway /Sidewalk Systems Discuss with Lino Lakes City Staff the locations and types of public trails and walkways that will be necessary for the development site 5. Street/Grading Systems Discuss with City Staff if fifty (50) foot wide public RJW widths will be allowed for this development. Also, discuss with City Staff if thirty (30) foot wide (scaled from plan sheet G1) back to back of curb street width will be allowed in the development. In some past cases, the City has allowed twenty -eight (28) foot streets in order to reduce impervious area, but the ultimate width will be evaluated from traffic amounts, turning criteria, and other traffic measures. It is recommended that a thirty -two (32) foot wide street from back to back of curb and a sixty (60) foot wide right -of -way public corridor be used within the overall development site. No on- street parking would be allowed. Speed limit between 25 and 30 mph is recommended. • • FEB -05 -2003 12:46 Engineering Review Bruggeman Properties, LLC CITY OF LINO LAKES 651 982 2499 P.11/11 Page 4 February 4, 2003 Street systems shall follow City of Lino Lakes engineering standards. Note: First floor elevation(s) for the proposed buildings are incorrect by a magnitude of one hundred feet. 6. Anoka County Highway Department The developer shall follow the requirements from negotiations with Anoka County Highway Department staff along with input from the City of Lino Lakes Staff regarding various issues along Birch Street (CSAH #10) and Hodgson Road (CSAH #f49). TOTAL P.11 • s • Memorandum To: Jeff Smyser From: Mary Alice Divine Date: 2/06/03 Re: EDAC recommendation on gas station/convenience store cc: Michael Grochala EDAC members unanimously supported today a recommendation to the City Council to allow the free market to decide the locations of gas station/convenience stores within the city. The members believe that the proposed zoning ordinance regulating gas station/convenience stores is restrictive enough and they support their location in commercial districts as a Conditional Use. Members were in unanimous agreement that imposing stricter standards on the number or the location of gas station/convenience stores within the city will impede future economic development. • • AGENDA ITEM 5E STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala P & Z MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003 TOPIC: Rezoning from R -X, Rural Executive to R -X, Rural Executive/Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Preliminary Plat Approval, Keefe Estates REQUEST The applicant, James Keefe, is requesting a rezoning of his property to Planned Development Overlay District to allow for a rural cluster subdivision consisting of three buildable lots. Each of the lots would be accessed from a proposed private roadway lying within a proposed outlot. BACKGROUND In June of 2001 Mr. Keefe contacted City staff requesting information regarding the potential subdivision of his property. Mr. Keefe was provided with the requirements of the R -X, Rural Executive District. In September of 2001 Mr. Keefe met with the City Council to discuss the potential options for subdividing his property. He expressed at the time, in a letter dated September 19, 2001, that he would like to split off several 2.5 acre parcels from his property due to the economic hardship he was currently experiencing. The council expressed the need for additional information before a decision could be made. City staff prepared a memo to the City Council, dated September 28, 2001, identifying issues with regard to the proposed subdivision and listing options to be explored, including the potential for a clustered development using the Planned Development Overlay District (PDO) requirements. The memo was distributed to Mr. Keefe. On December 10, 2002 the City received an application from Mr. Keefe requesting minor subdivision approval. In a letter, dated December 18, 2002, Mr. Keefe was informed that his application was substantially incomplete and listed information that was necessary to begin review of the request. Mr. Keefe submitted additional information on January 6, 2003. • Planning & Zoning Board Keefe Minor Subdivision & Variance February 12, 2003 On January 8, 2003, at the regular Planning and Zoning Board meeting, Mr. Keefe's minor subdivision request was added to the board's agenda for discussion. The board requested that staff work with the applicant to resolve issues and, if possible place the item on the January 22, 2003 meeting agenda. Staff met with Mr. Keefe and his surveyor on January 16, 2003 to discuss issues relating the proposal. The minor subdivision request and associated variances were brought to the Planning and Zoning Board on January 22, 2003. Staff's recommendation was to deny the Minor Subdivision and Variance requests. The Planning and Zoning Board tabled the request and recommended that the applicant proceed with a rezoning to Planned Development Overlay (PDO) to facilitate the development. This report is based on the following attached exhibits: 1. Existing Conditions Survey dated January 21, 2003 2. Preliminary Plat dated February 5, 2003 3. Soil Borings dated January 4, 2003 4. Applicant's narrative dated February 5, 2003 ANALYSIS City Code • Chapter 1001.8, Subdivision 6(1) states All lots shall abut for their full frontage on a • publicly dedicated street. Chapter 302.03, Subdivision 1 (10) states that private streets shall not be permitted, nor shall public improvements be approved for any private streets. Section 5, Subdivision 2.B.1 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance establishes the minimum lot size of 10 acres for lots within the R -X, Rural Executive District. Section 3, Subdivision 3.B.2. of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that within zoning districts with a minimum lot size requirement of ten (10) acres or more, up to eighty (80) percent of the minimum lot area may be comprised of areas which are platted as street rights -of -way, is below the 100 year flood elevation, or lies within city watercourses, wetlands or waterbodies. Section 5, Subdivision 2.B.2 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance establishes the minimum lot width of 330 feet for lots within the R -X, Rural Executive District. Section 9, Subdivision 4.A. of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that the intent of the PDO District is to permit greater flexibility and, consequently, more creative and imaginative design of the development of residential, commercial or industrial areas than are generally possible under conventional zoning regulations. It is further intended to promote more economical and efficient use of the land while providing a harmonious • • • Planning & Zoning Board Keefe Minor Subdivision & Variance February 12, 2003 variety of housing choices, a height level of urban amenities, and preservation of natural scenic qualities of open space. Article 9, Section 902.2.2.1 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code states that Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet. Article 9, Section 902.2.2.2 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code states that Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all - weather driving capabilities. Existing Conditions The property being considered for development consists of two existing lots totaling 37.47 acres. An existing single family residence is located on a ten acre lot. The remaining undeveloped lot consists of 27.47 acres. The western half of the site is mostly wooded upland area with wetlands located in the northwest corner. The eastern half of the property is primarily lowland with wetlands being the predominate cover type. Access to the site is limited to an existing 10 foot wide private driveway that extends into the property from the northern terminus of Rolling Hills Drive. Land Use The City's comprehensive plan designates the west half of the property for Low Density, sewered residential uses (Stage 2, 2010 - 2020). The eastern half of the site is designated for rural land uses. A conceptual greenway is also delineated over the eastern half of the site. Surrounding proposed land uses include Low Density Sewered Residential to the north and east, Low Density, Unsewered Residential to the south and Rural to the west. Zoning The property is currently zoned R -X, Rural Executive. Adjacent zoning includes R -X to the west, south and east, and R -1 -PDO to the north (Clearwater Creek). Lot Area The proposed subdivision would create three parcels and an outlot from the existing two that are currently owned by the applicant. The proposed lot sizes are as follows: Lot 1, Block 1: Lot 2, Block 1: Lot 3, Block 1: Outlot A: 32.08 acres 2.35 acres (2.14 acres of upland) 1.99 acres (all upland) 1.05 acres • • • Planning & Zoning Board Keefe Minor Subdivision & Variance February 12, 2003 Lot Width The proposed lot widths of both Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 are approximately 180 feet. • Utilities The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the western half of the site as Low Density, Sewered Residential. The Plan further designates this area as a Stage 2, 2010 -2020 growth area. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main were stubbed out within Flora Court (Clearwater Creek 3rd Addition), northwest of the site to service Stage 2 (2010 -2020) development. Through review of existing topographic mapping it does appear possible to service this property as well as adjacent properties to the west in the future. It should be noted, however, that the proposed Plat, if approved, would not eliminate the possibility of servicing adjacent properties to the west or south. Access The property is currently serviced by a gravel private driveway, measuring approximately 10 feet in width. The driveway accesses the terminus of Rolling Hills Drive. One other existing residential lot utilizes the driveway, however, it appears that there are no easements currently in place. As with all subdivisions in the City, publicly dedicated right -of -way is required as well as the improvement of such to City standards. These standards typically include a paved bituminous surface with a minimum width of 32 feet. While the width requirement has fluctuated on a case by case basis pursuant to City Council approval, all roads, including private roads allowed within Planned Development Overlay Districts have been required to include bituminous paving. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing roadway as a private road operated and maintained by a Homeowner's Association. The private roadway will lie within what is proposed as Outlot A. The creation of Outlot A, for this purpose, will need to be evaluated by the City Attorney. It may be more appropriate to create an ingress /egress easement rather than a separate parcel of record. The applicant is proposing to widen the existing roadway to 20 feet using Class 5 gravel. The proposed improvements are intended to keep traffic to a minimum and maintain the existing rural character of the property. 20 feet is the minimum required width for access road to accommodate emergency vehicles as set forth in the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. Staff will need to further evaluate the proposed gravel base to determine the adequacy of the road to support such vehicles. Bituminous surfacing of the roadway is preferred. • • Planning & Zoning Board Keefe Minor Subdivision & Variance February 12, 2003 Easements Public drainage and utility easements are provided on the preliminary plat being 10 feet in width and adjoining all lot lines as required by City Ordinance. Additional drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated to cover all existing wetlands on the site. Sewage Treatment Soil borings provided by the applicant indicate the ability of the newly created Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 to accommodate two standard mound systems on each lot. Park Dedication/Open Space The City's Park Board has not had an opportunity to review the request. However, the City's 1992 Park Plan and Development Guide identifies a proposed trail corridor from Cedar Street, through what is now the Clearwater Creek subdivision, and extending southerly to link up with Otter Lake Road. Provision of a trail corridor along the eastern half of the proposed subdivision would provide for the continuation of the trail system, existing within Clearwater Creek, and provide access to the Clearwater Creek neighborhood park for residents located to the south of the Clearwater Creek Development. Such access would allow the City to maximize its investment in the park by expanding it's service area to include a greater number of area residents. Additionally, as stated in the Park Plan, the continuation of this trail along existing wetlands, drainageways, and wooded areas, within an area designated as proposed Greenway, represents an excellent opportunity to use the linear trail corridor concept to its fullest potential. The PDO requirements include a provision that thirty -five (35 %) of the total project area shall be preserved as open space. Based on the size of the entire site (37.47 acres) approximately 13 acres of open space should be provided. The applicant has noted in the PDO narrative that the PDO is intended, in part, to provide for and preserve the wetlands and open space for the surrounding properties. Open Space may be provided for either by conveyance of property to the City or a non- profit corporation or by establishment of a restrictive covenant running with the land for the benefit of residents of the planned development. The public drainage and utility easements that are required around all wetlands on the site should adequately satisfy this requirement. Ghost Plat The applicant has provided a Ghost Plat identifying how Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, could be subdivided in the future with the extension of public utilities. The plat demonstrates the • • • Planning & Zoning Board Keefe Minor Subdivision & Variance February 12, 2003 potential to divide the two lots to create eight lots meeting the R -1X, Single Family Executive District lot requirements by extending a cul -de -sac into the property from the west. OPINION Staff is of the opinion that the proposed rezoning to Planned Development Overlay District and associated subdivision are consistent with the policies and requirements of the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed development, subject to the requirements of approval, will allow for the subdivision of the subject property while maintaining rural residential densities, preserving open space, and facilitating the implementation of the City's Park plan. With regards to the rezoning the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning and Zoning Board shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Its judgement shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. Comment: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Plan provides for rural clustered subdivisions. The overall density of the development (1 unit per 12.49 acres) is consistent with the minimum rural development density of 1 per 10 acres as specified in the plan. The proposal also allows for future sewered residential development. 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. Comment: The proposed use will be compatible with both present and future land uses. The proposed subdivision is compatible with existing rural residential uses and does not prevent possible future sewered residential development. 3. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. Comment: The proposed subdivision, in conjunction with the conditions of preliminary plat approval, will conform to the performance standards contained with the zoning ordinance. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City' s service capacity. Comment: The proposed use will not overburden the City's service capacity. Planning & Zoning Board Keefe Minor Subdivision & Variance February 12, 2003 • 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Comment: Trip generation from the addition of two residential lots is within the capabilities of existing streets serving the property. RECOMMENDATION A. Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning. B. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1. The proposed private road shall be improved to a minimum width of twenty (20) feet and include a permanent cul -de -sac at its northern terminus. The roadway shall be surfaced with bituminous pavement. The roadway section shall be determined by the City Engineer to insure the adequacy of the roadway to support emergency vehicles. 2. A Homeowners Association shall be established to insure the continued operation and maintenance of the private roadway. The association agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. 3. All wetlands on the subject property shall be delineated and shown on the final plat. 4. Public drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated to the city and cover all wetlands on the subject property. 5. An easement for public trail purposes shall be dedicated to the City extending from Rolling Hills Drive to the north property line of the subject property. The location and width of such easement shall be determined by City staff upon further review of the existing conditions and discussion with the applicant. 6. The developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City to insure completion of necessary roadway improvements. Such agreement shall be entered into in conjunction with final plat approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Existing Conditions Survey dated January 21, 2003 2. Preliminary Plat dated February 5, 2003 • NORTH 100 GRAPHIC SCALE so lop 400 NW Comer of Section 36r Twp. 31, Rng. 22 (Cast Iron Monument) NOTESI ( IN FEET ) 1 Inch = 100 ft. N89.28•57W - 2619.06 - - Wetlands on site were delineated by rlult & Associates In December of 2002. - Bearing's shown are per Anoka County Section breakdown doted September, 2002. - Benchmark: Top Nut Hydrant at lot comer, Lot 15, Block 3, CLEARWATER CREEK 5171 ADDITION. Elevation = 927.81 - Property description per title commitment by Lake Area Bank, file number TL-100053, policy number 047-0581386, dated Febuary 12, 2001. - Grovel driveway and spot elevations located in January of 2003 by E.G. Rud & Sons. - Contours shown are based upon spot elevations taken in field and Anoka County Half Section contour maps. Contours to be verified in field prior to any design/construction. N1/4 Corner of Section 36g-) Twp. 31, Rng. 22 (1 Inch Iron pipe) & NW Corner of NW1/4 of NE1/4 po N. cri EXISTING PROPERTY DESORPTION -D .., PARCEL A The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast! Quarter of Section 36, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka Count), Minnesota, EXCEPT that part of the South 303.47 hot of sold Quarter-Quarter lying westerly of the following described Ilnis Beckining at the northeast corner of Lot 28, Otter Lake 0829 thence North 23 .41 0 c 2 1 0 \'' degrees 20 minutes 31 seconds West (costumed bearing of north lOss of said It.a..; 0, Al' a AL Lot 28 is NOrtil 89 degrees 08 minutes 29 seconds East) a distance of 55.00 (Z. .,. ni feet; thistles northerly on a tangential curve to the right having a radios of 1.- V•0\11 .'t Z ____,,v, 251.00 feet with a central angle of 81 degrees 06 minutes 10 seconds o distante of 267.68 feet and sold line there terminating; and EXCEPT the "a" t * ce Ili 060 ..- 's" .9 North 660 feet of the East 660 feet of the Myst 990 feet 0( 20. Northwest `.... . Quarter .2 26. Northeast Quarter of Section 36. Township 31, Range 22, Anoka ;7; ilk 1144 County, Minnesota. z . PARCEL 20. B The North 660 Net of the East 600 feet of the West 990 feet of the Northwest 15 ''''''' '914 92... Quarter 0( 90. Northeast Quarter of Section 36, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka I g County, Minnesota. Cn . 920 g IF, \ : .............. • . '''' • Extent IN5 CONCITIONS FOR JIM KEEF &300 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE LINO LAKES, MN. 55110 ((12) 2&9-158& CLEE.6.R.•:VATER CRE-:EEK 5TH :‘,DDiTiON S86:98 '57"R North line 07 70, NW1/4 of NE1/4--, of Sec. 36, Twp. 31, Rng. 22 >31a76 1 j LEGEND r, • Denotes Iron Monument Found r .3 Denotes Iron Monument Set Marked by RLS 141578 ,...0) SDenotes Soil Boring A. Denotes Wetland ..c ; Denotes Existing Contour ..... ..... AIL P12•05 ..„ ......... House, ditch, easement and outbuilding locations from aerial photo by Markhurd Corporation dated April 1985. tat 912.39 PARCEL 435,618 sq. ft. 10.00 acres • 47440 40.00 9494 92,,„„;),/977tRes • 47301 , •••••• .................... itra.39 / C.` 2 • 22 - (Set LP. In amp Nama'srot - 2621.53 - - z. z d, '15*. • r, ; '''..4,..":0,,,'07"?,):,7,,,,...,e9„..,_.-.:,,-.0:'24,...1:5;'1\:0:29?:7 ‘r-'' • '. • 0 . , i .,. ,, „.?.. *■ , 77 s , ._ (7) \ ',...-South linTo53f the North 660 feet A of the NIA1/4 of NE1/4 \ • I .91,1•6' 0 of Sec. 36, Twp. 31, Rng. 22 2., v...,..",sso % '.... .0 ..40.30, ...,.../a, /,d1,. 027, 'Nand / 1,-1 .. 'AftSh;1;:-Edge 4, .i `,. ."z ow% : • .. .. A /4 .„....s. < --s-. 7 1",‘• .4'../ 7 IL • , ............ .... iait ‹, i " %. ‘. . •_ ;17/6: .. ../ 2 4 k7 27. 77 7. '7 / .7 -.. PARCEL A ....."7- 1.i's 1,196,775 sq. ft. 27.47 acres , ... 9 ....., ,....•.,., qv/ ''''"b.,- .•-' dvy ........ ..-.ti;',../ ".?itg.he ,-North line of the'South 303.47 feet of MS :' ,,ks.!.•,..ft.;,.:,. 4441 _ \ 06I/4 of the 0E1/4 of Sec. 36, T. 31, R. 22. isirf,4::::::,•7.12/ 4.,.:it:ming • I ....,.. •••... . . Grovel Driveway 0 1,.;;,,.g,,,,t,VJ as field located Z IV, gi .31 ..i air Ii.....-1-- 090.9°, .:10rid : \ "4. •i ' WV° t.'"I'V cgi -%;'''',„.•,..\,4-1::,..s..,,:).. IV° • 1" 77,0 ' --• N.,015d-T----:: 425.08 T r NE Comer Lo-t-128- SW Corner of NW1/4 of 0E1/4 of-.. Section 36, Twp. 31, Rng. 22 ; / ir."376.-Iron po. 1.02)1 kNo 2.49, We. 1.04--- Wf iron P0,711 1RLS 19018 North 0.3411 DRAWN BY ERV JOB NO.. 93788 'DATE: 01-06-03 CliECK JER DWG NO: 93780-existing_conditions.dwg 2 3 610 DATE DESCRIPTION BY South line of the NW1/4 of NE1/4Th of Sec. 36, Twp, 31, Rng. 22 "if V: • I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am o duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Rud Date: / e2/A3 Reg. No. 41578 ;5 I- -0.,;--4/2 Iron Pipe and fence post (No. 9.8, 5,. 14.1) „ r V- • I NE Corner of Section 36,-"" Twp. 31, Rng. 22 (1-1/2 Inch Iron pipe) 5,' • A / --it • t. RU ID 4 SONS, INC. LAND euRverreRe t IOC LEXINGTON AVE. NE CIRCLE PINES, MN SSOI4 'EL (163) 1664866 PAX (163) 186-6001 [JAMES L & MARY J. LABUDA 1 12250 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE LWHITE BEAR LAKE, IAN. 1 [PRO CRAFT HOMFS INC. j 1102 BRIOGEWA1ER DRIVEL LVAONAIS HEIGHTS, MNJ IPRO CRAFT HOMES NC j 1102 BRIDGEWATER DRIVEL 1VADl4A6S HEIGHTS, MN J ,KENNETH E. & JAYNE D. SPELT2 j 16440 OTTER LAKE ROAD 'ONO LAKES, MN. J --NW Corner of Suction 36, 1 Top. 31, Rng. 22 \ (Cast Iron Monument) N89•28'57 "W i - -2619.06- N1/4 Corner of Section 36r7 Twp. 31, Rng. 22 / (1 inch iron pipe) / & NW Corner of NW1 /4 of 41/4 100 GRAPHIC SCALE 50 non 200 ( 16 FEET ) 1 inch = 100 ft. 330.01 rGOR -EM LLC. 1 11875 COMMERCIAL BLVD. N.W. @1 ANDOVER, MN. J 'TO ;5:" g PRE'. f f 411" OF <EE E E T TE r a House, ditch, easement and outbuilding locutions from aerial photo by Markhurd Corporation dated April 1985. a7< "_ Yi oat SBµµ 916... doin 1:5' ?618.30 Or FOR: JIM KEEFE 6300 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE LINO LAKES, MN. 55110 (612) 269 -1586 North lino of the NW1 /4 of 661/4--,. of Sec. 36, Twp. 31, Rng. 22 1310.76 • . t 1 `, ` • .< ` • k,,, ......... • p 1 _ ' \ 1 isting Gravel Driveway It as field located i8 i to I'V i8��411 SW Corner of NW1 A�7, of NEI /4 of Section 11\ 36, Twp. 31_ Rng. 22-V• gNo. 2.77, We, f.a3 rw Van pipe 1 ISO: 249, We 1.08 1172 Van Pi➢e1 1RLS pore 1 YNorth 0.344 East line of EXCEPTION Pen4 existing property descriptioN 1r� �•SOR O f`o° G w ii y� 1 '� —LL _ 425.09 _ _'� -`• T r NE'comer 1.oT28- 1 1Z l'_ 0 ■A'58•57 16 TiP I I 1 I " 60 \ dye;' l`0v; l l<.. ,, \\ DEER PAS , ,.,".,._ ern; — 1310.53 — NBB° °51'96 ")Y Y / %24 N8d38'S7'W -12621.53 - (Set 1.P. in swamp)r \7 South line of the NW1 /4 of NE1 /4-...„ of Sec. 36, Twp. 31, Rng, 22 NOTES — Wetlands on site were delineated by Hult & Associates in December of 2002. — Bearing's shown are per Anoka County Section breakdown dated September, 1992. — Soil borings per Test Report by Art Dunn Associates date 01- 04 -03. — Benchmark: Top Nut Hydrant at lot comer, Lot 15, Block 3, CLEARWATER CREEK 5TH ADDITION. Elevation = 927.81 — Property description per title commitment by Lake Area Bank, file number 7L- 100053, policy number 047- 0581386, dated Febuary 12, 2001. — Grovel driveway and soil borings Maid located in January of 2003 by E.G. Rud & Sons. LOT AREAS — Total area of Lot 1 = 32.081 acres — Total area of Lot 2 = 2.351 acres — Total area of Lot 3 = 1.99± acres — Total area of Outlot A = 1.05± acres C -� 1 , 1 LJJ L1_ - 1 1 LJ.J —SS— NE Comer of Section 36:-> 'Ng,. 31, Rng. 22 (1 -1/2 Inch Iron pipe) DEVELOPMENT DATA — Centerline length of private ingress and egress easement = 660± — Total property area = 37.47 acres. — 3 proposed single family lots. — Property currently zoned Rural Executive. — Proposed Zoning = Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) — Existing and proposed building Setbacks: Front = 30 feet Rear = 30 feet House side = 10 feet Garage side = 5 feet `-1/2' Iran Pipe and fence post (NO. 9.6, Ea 14.1) feet LEGEND • 0 Denotes Iron Monument Found Denotes Iron Monument Set Marked by RLS 147578 Denotes Soil Boring Denotes Wetland Denotes land owner name and address EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Northwest thirster of the Northeast Quarter of Section 36. Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that port of the South 303.47 feet of sold Quarter-Quarter 15in9 westerly of the following described Ihe: Beginning at the northeast comer of Lot 28, Otter Lake HN; thence North 23 degree. 20 minutes 31 seconds Nat (.seamed boring of north Ike of sold Lot 28 is North 89 degrees 08 minutes 29 seconds Eat) a dbtmoe of 5500 het; thence northerly on a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 251.00 fat with o central angle of 61 degrees 06 minutes 10 emcands o distance of 267.68 feet and said the there terminating. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: 5.00+.j 10.00 11 F-5.00 T- 1 10.00 BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING ALL LOT LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. DETAIL SNOWING PROPOSED PAD ELEVATIONS AND POSSIBLE FUTURE GHOST PLAT • [-TRUST IN STATE OF MINNESOTA 1 1.ANOKA COUNTY PROP. TAX 21001 L3RD AVENUE, 55303 F,r - I / e } r i I I- t r r ! SCALE; I INCH = 60 FEET DRAWN BY: ERV JOB NO: 93788 1 OA 7E: 02 -04 -03 CHECK BY, JER DWG N0: 93789- proliminapplof dwg 2 3 NO. DATE DESCRIP T70N BY I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am o duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. (Jason . Rud Date: 2-5-2003 Reg. No. 41578 i4e1. RU✓ 4 fbONS, NC. LAMP I URVINYOR6 9180 LEXINGTON AVE. NE GIRGLE PINES, MN 650141 fEL. (16)) 186 -5666 PAX (163) 156 -6001 • AGENDA ITEM V. G STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: February 12, 2003 TOPIC: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Ordinance Amendments BACKGROUND The P & Z opened and continued the public hearing at the special meeting on January 22. The staff presentation went through Section 2 and 3. The definitions (Section 1) were still being reconciled with the new subdivision ordinance. This has been completed and the completed section is attached to this report. Section 4 — 9 concern the individual zoning districts. The staff presentation will begin with Section 4, highlighting changes from the existing ordinance and noting any recommended changes to the draft new ordinance. As with all public hearings, public comment should be heard. OPTIONS 1. Continue the public hearing, close the public hearing, recommend adoption of the draft zoning ordinance with revisions, if any. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 • • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AN UPDATED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AND ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. TITLE / APPLICATION / RULES Subd. 1. Title and Application. A. Title. This Ordinance shall be known, cited and referred to as the ACITY OF LINO LAKES ZONING ORDINANCE= except as referred to herein, where it shall be known as Athis Ordinance. B. Intent and Purpose. This Ordinance is adopted for the purpose of: 1. Protecting the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. 2. Dividing the City of Lino Lakes into zones and districts restricting and regulating therein the location and use of structures and land and lot size. 3. Promoting orderly development of the residential, business, industrial, recreational and public areas. 4. Providing adequate light, air, and convenience of access to property. 5. Limiting congestion in the public right -of -way. 6. Preventing overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by regulating the use of land and buildings in relation to the land and buildings surrounding. 7. Providing for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the City of Lino Lakes. 8. Protecting and guiding the development of the rural area. 9. Conserving and developing natural resources. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -1 • • • 10. Fostering agriculture and other industries. 11. Preventing a wasteful scattering of population. 12. Securing safety from flood. 13. Reducing waste and municipal maintenance cost from excessive mileage of roads. 14. Conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of road sides and lakeshores. 15. Providing for the administration of this Ordinance and amendments thereto. 16. Defining the powers and duties of the administrative officers and bodies, as provided hereinafter. C. Application. 1. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. Where the conditions imposed by any provisions of this Ordinance are either more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other law ordinance, statute, resolution, or regulation, the regulations which are more restrictive, or which impose higher standards or requirements shall prevail. 3. Except as in this Ordinance specifically provided, no structure shall be erected, converted, enlarged, reconstructed or altered, and no structure or land shall be used for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with this Ordinance. 4 When land- is proposed -4o- be a hearing, along with a recommendation, shall be presented to the City Counoit -114-the- event- of- ar141 exation- praoee `ii�n�gs- becoming - final- before -the terminrr�rrr nred chre-aRnexGct -L ' • = S ` the interim stop pending permanent clac.sification. D. Relation to Comprehensive Municipal Plan. It is the policy of the City of Lino Lakes that the enforcement, amendment, and administration of this Ordinance be accomplished with due consideration of the recommendations contained in the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 1 -2 Title / Application / Rules • • • City Comprehensive Plan as developed and amended from time to time by the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council of tho City. The Council recognizes the City- Comprehensive Plan as the policy for responsibility to regulate land use and development in accordance with the policies and purpose herein set forth. E. Uses Not Provided for Within Zoning Districts. Whenever in any zoning • • a + - MA . e ._ sensi€ Bred- prohfbitcd. 1 au-oh-oases, theCity- Coueoi4-or Planning-and Zoning if the u o is acceptable and if so, what zoning district would be most appropriate the- u- she-- Cft-y- Soured, P- fanning and-Zoning-Board or property- owwner -upon receipt of the staff study, shall, if appropriate. initiate an amendment to the provide for the particular use under consideration or shall find that the use is not oematib or-development-wit lc far- deeloperuftl�ia #diei #y In any zoning district, whenever a proposed use is neither specifically allowed nor denied, the City Council shall determine if the proposed use is comparable in potential activities and impacts to a use listed within the zoning district and is acceptable related to land use compatibility, traffic, and /or nuisance issues and established conditions and standards relating to development of the use. Where such a determination is made, the requirements established for the listed use shall apply as minimum standards for the proposed use. Additional requirements may be applied to address differences between the listed use and the proposed use. In such cases where, in the judgment of the City Council, there is no comparable use listed, the City Council or Planning and Zoning Board, on their own initiative or upon request from the property owner, may conduct a study to determine if the proposed use is acceptable and, if so, what zoning district would be most appropriate and what conditions and standards should apply to the proposed use. The City Council, Planning and Zoning Board, or property owner, on receipt of the staff study, may initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance consistent with Section 2, Subd. 1. of this Ordinance to provide for the particular use under consideration or shall find that the proposed use is not compatible for development within the City. F. Separability. It is hereby declared to be the intention that the several provisions of this Ordinance are separable in accordance with the following: 1. If any court or competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of this Ordinance to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provision of this Ordinance not specifically included in such judgment. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -3 • • • 2. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge invalid the application of any provision of this Ordinance to a particular property, building, or structure, such judgment shall not affect other property, buildings or structures. G. Authority. This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by the Municipal Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.351 to 462.363. H. Comprehensive Revision. This Ordinance shall be a comprehensive revision to 4iaeB -1- Ordinance 09 -97, adopted July 14. 1997, of the City Code, as amended. Any act done, offense committed, or rights accruing or accrued, or liability, penalty incurred or imposed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance is not affected by its enactment. Fees. No application for a Zoning Ordinance amendment, rezoning, conditional use permit, interim use permit, variance, administrative permit, or site and building plan review shall be accepted or considered by the City Council or any other body of the City unless such application is complete and accompanied by a deposit. The total fee for processing such application, which shall be paid by the petitioner to the City, shall be paid whether or not such application is approved or denied. The deposit shall be used to cover the total out of pocket expenses incurred by the City in processing such application, for such necessary items as, but not limited to, attorney =s, planner =s, and /or engineer =s fees and costs, and any other costs incident thereto, and shall be in addition to a fee for the City staff services, to be paid to the City, which separate fees and deposits shall be established by City Council resolution. The deposit shall not be considered as the total amount to be paid. The total amount shall be the actual amount expended plus the fee for the City staff services. Any unused portion of the required deposits will be returned to the petitioner. The fees established herein may be changed by the City Council from time to time, by resolution or ordinance, as appropriate.; a A copy of whishsaid resolution or ordinance shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk- Treasurer and available for inspection during regular City office hours. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -4 • Subd. 2. Rules and Definitions. A. Rules. The language set forth in the text of this Ordinance shall be interpreted in accordance with the following rules of construction: 1. The singular number includes the plural, and the plural the singular. 2. The present tense includes the past and the future tenses, and the future the present. 3. The words "shall" and "must" +s-are mandatory while the word "may" is permissive. 4. The masculine general gender includes the feminine and neuter. 5. Whenever a word or term defined hereinafter appears in the text of this Ordinance, its meaning shall be construed as set forth in such definition thereof. 6. In the event of conflicting provisions, the more restrictive shall apply. 7. All measured distances expressed in feet shall be the nearest tenth of a foot. 8. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be the minimum requirement for the promotion of health, safety, and welfare. B. Definitions. The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this Ordinance, shall be interpreted as herein defined: Accessory Building. A portion of the principal building or a detached structure on the same lot which is used for an accessory use. Accessory Use. A use of land or of a building or portion thereof customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and located on the same lot with such principal use. Addition. A structure-added-to-the- orig+ f-- stroctu -re -at some - time --a #tee the oamp ketioh- sf- the-oiginal:physical enlargement of an existing structure. Adjoining Lot or Land. A lot or parcel of land which shares all or part of a common lot line with another lot or parcel of land. Adult Use Related Terms. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -5 • • • 1. Adult Uses. Adult uses include adult bookstores, adult motion picture theaters, adult- motion picture theaters, adult massage parlors, adult steam room /boathouse /sauna facilities, adult companionship establishments, adult rap /conversation parlors, adult health /sport clubs, adult cabarets, adult novelty businesses, adult motion picture arcades, adult modeling studios, adult hotels /motels, adult body painting studios, and other premises, enterprises, establishments, businesses or places open to some or all members of the public, at or in which there is an emphasis on the presentation, display, depiction or description of Aspecified sexual activities= or Aspecified anatomical areas= which are capable of being seen by members of the public. Activities classified as obscene as defined by Minnesota Statutes 617.241 are not included. a. Specified Anatomical Areas: 1) Less than completely opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttock anus, or female breast(s) below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and 2) Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered. b. Specified Sexual Activities: 1) Actual or simulated sexual intercourse, oral copulation, anal intercourse, oral -anal copulation, bestiality, direct physical stimulation of unclothed genitals, flagellation or torture in the context of a sexual relationship, or the use of excretory functions in the context of a sexual relationship, and any of the following: sexually- oriented acts or conduct: anilingus, buggery, coprophagy, coprophilia, cunnilingus, fellatio, necrophilia, pederasty, pedophilia, piquerism, sapphism, zooerasty; or 2) Clearly depicted human genitals in the state of sexual stimulation, arousal or tumescence; or 3) Use of human or animal ejaculation, sodomy, oral copulation, coitus, or masturbation; or 4) Fondling or touching of nude human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, or female breast; or 5) Situations involving a person or persons, any of whom are nude, clad in undergarments or in sexually revealing costumes, and who are engaged in activities involving the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -6 • flagellation, torture, fettering, binding or other physical restraint of any such persons; or • • 6) Erotic or lewd touching, fondling or other sexually- oriented contact with an animal by a human being; or 7) Human excretion, urination, menstruation, vaginal or anal irrigation. 2. Adult Use - Accessory. the offering of retail goods for sale which are classified as adult uses on a limited scale and which are incidental to the primary activity and goods and /or services offered by the establishment. Examples of such items include the sale of adult magazines, the sale and /or rental of adult motion pictures, the sale of adult novelties, and the like 3. Adult Uses - Principal: The offering of goods and /or services which are classified as adult uses as a primary or sole activity of a business or establishment and include but are not limited to the following: a. Adult Use - Body Painting Studio. An establishment or business which provides the service of applying paint or other substance, whether transparent or non - transparent, to or on the body of a patron when such body is wholly or partially nude in terms of Aspecified anatomical areas. b. Adult Use - Bookstore. A building or portion of a building used for barter, rental or sale of items consisting of printed matter, pictures, slides, records, audio tape, videotape, compact discs, computer software, digital recordings, motion picture film, or other communication mediums if such building or portion of a building is not open to the public generally but only to one or more classes of the public excluding any minor by reason of age or if a substantial or significant portion of such items are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the depiction or description of Aspecified sexual activities= or Aspecified anatomical areas =. c. Adult Use - Cabaret. A building or portion of a building used for providing dancing or other live entertainment, if such building or portion of a building excludes minors by virtue of age or if such dancing or other live entertainment is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the presentation, display, depiction or description of Aspecified sexual activities or Aspecified anatomical areas =. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -7 • • d. Adult Use - Companionship Establishment. A companionship establishment which excludes minors by reason of age, or which provides the service of engaging in or listening to conversation, talk or discussion between an employee of the establishment and a customer, if such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Aspecified sexual activities= or Aspecified anatomical areas=. e. Adult Use - Conversation /Rap Parlor. A conversation /rap parlor which excludes minors by reason of age, or which provides the service of engaging in or listening to conversation, talk, or discussion, if such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Aspecified sexual activities or Aspecified anatomical areas =. f. Adult Use - Health /Sport Club. A health /sport club which excludes minors by reason of age, or if such club is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Aspecified sexual activities or Aspecified anatomical areas. 9. Adult Use - Hotel or Motel. Adult hotel or motel means a hotel or motel from which minors are specifically excluded from patronage and wherein material is presented which is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to Aspecified sexual activities, or Aspecified anatomical areas. h. Adult Use - Massage Parlor, Health Club. A massage parlor or health club which restricts minors by reason of age, and which provides the services of massage, if such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Aspecified sexual activities or Aspecified anatomical areas. i. Adult Use - Mini - Motion Picture Theater. A building or portion of a building with a capacity for less than 50 persons used for presenting material if such building or portion of a building as a prevailing practice excludes minors by virtue of age, or if such material is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Aspecified sexual activities or Aspecified anatomical areas. for observation by patrons therein. Adult Use - Modeling Studio. An establishment whose major business is the provision, to customers, of figure models who are so provided with the intent of providing sexual stimulation or sexual gratification to such customers and who engage in Aspecified Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -8 • • • sexual activities or display Aspecified anatomical areas= while being observed, painted, painted upon, sketched, drawn, sculptured, photographed, or otherwise depicted by such customers. k. Adult Use - Motion Picture Arcade. Any place to which the public is permitted or invited wherein coin or slug- operated or electronically, electrically or mechanically controlled or operated still or motor picture machines, projectors or other image - producing devices are maintained to show images to five or fewer persons per machine at any one time, and where the images so displayed are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on depicting or describing Aspecified sexual activities= or Aspecified anatomical areas. Adult Use - Motion Picture Theater. A building or portion of a building with a capacity of fifty (50) or more persons used for presenting material if such building or portion of a building as a prevailing practice excludes minors by virtue of age or if such material is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Aspecified anatomical areas= for observation by patrons therein. m. Adult Use - Novelty Business. A business which has as a principal activity the sale of devices which stimulate human genitals or devices which are designed for sexual stimulation. n. Adult Use - Sauna. A sauna which excludes minors by reason of age, or which provides a steam bath or heat bathing room used for the purpose of bathing, relaxation, or reducing, utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning, relaxing or reducing agent, if the service provided by the sauna is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Aspecified sexual activities= or Aspecified anatomical areas =. o. Adult Use - Steam Room /Bathhouse Facility. A building or a portion of a building used for providing a steam bath or heat bathing room used for the purpose of pleasure, bathing, relaxation, or reducing, utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning, relaxing or reducing agent if such building or portion of a building restricts minors by reason of age or if the service provided by the steam room /bathhouse facility is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on Aspecified sexual activities. or Aspecified anatomical areas =. Aesthetic .-- T -he-- pe-rseptio- a -4f -- art +stia - elements; ar....efer eats —irl- -floe- natural - - -ar man made- eerwareeat -w# ieh- are -p#e as-' to-t e -eye. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -9 • • Agricultural Farm Building. An accessory building designed, constructed, used or intended to house farm implements or agriculture areas, as defined by this Ordinance, on an active farm operation of more than twenty (20) acres. A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Permit may be required. Agriculture. The production, keeping or maintenance, for sale, or personal use, of plants and animals useful to man, including but not limited to: forages and sod crops, grains and seed crops; dairy animals and dairy products, poultry and poultry products; livestock, including beef cattle, sheep, swine, horses, ponies, mules, or goats, or any mutations or hybrids thereof, including the breeding and grazing of any or all of such animals; bees and apiary products; fruits of all kinds, including grapes, nuts and berries; vegetables; nursery, floral, ornamental and greenhouse products; or lands devoted to a soil conservation or forestry management program. Agricultural land uses do not include slaughter houses or the processing of crops, produce, animals for public purchase or consumption as to constitute a commercial or industrial land use. Airport. A place where aircraft can land and take off, usually equipped with hangars, facilities for refueling and repair, and various accommodations for passengers. Airport, Private Use. Airports which are intended for use by certain individuals or associations and not to the public. Animal Unit. A unit of measure used to compare differences in the production of animal wastes which has a standard amount of waste produced on a regular basis by a slaughter steer or heifer. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the following equivalents apply. To determine the animal unit measure for any animal not specific below, divide the average adult weight by one thousand (1,000). Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 1 -10 Title / Application / Rules Animal Unit (1) Slaughter Steer or Heifer 1.0 L1) Cow and Calf Pair 1.2 Mature Dairy Cow (1) Over 1,000 Ibs 1A a) Under 1,000 lbs 1.0 Swine (1) Over 300 lbs .4 (1) Between 55 -300 lbs .3 11) Under 55 Ibs .05 11) Sheep .4 11) Duck .01 Turkey (1) Over 5 lbs .018 1) Under 5 lbs .005 Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 1 -10 Title / Application / Rules • • Chickens (Dry Manure) (1) Over 5 ibs .005 11) Under 5 ibs .003 (1) Chicken (Liquid Manure) .033 (1) Horse 1100 Animals, Domestic. For purposes of this Ordinance, domestic animal shall be defined as house pets such as dogs, cats, traditional and typical animal pets, and birds (not including pigeons, chickens, geese, turkeys or other domestic fowl) which can be contained within a principal structure throughout the entire year, provided that the containment can be accomplished without special modification to the structure requiring a building permit from the City. In addition, it includes rabbits normally sheltered outside the home. Animals, Farm. Cattle, hogs, bees, sheep, goats, chickens, turkeys, horses and other animals traditional and commonly accepted as farm animals in the State of Minnesota. Antenna Related. 1. Personal Wireless Service. A device consisting of a metal, carbon, fiber, or other electromagnetically conducive rods or elements on a single supporting pole or other structure, and used for the transmission and reception of wireless communications including cellular, personal communication services (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services. 2. Public or Commercial Radio and Television, Broadcast Transmitting. A wire, set of wires, metal or carbon fiber rod or other electromagnetic element used to transmit public or commercial broadcast radio, or television programming and including the support structure thereof. 3. Public Utility Microwave. A parabolic dish or cornucopia shaped electromagnetically reflective or conductive element used for the transmission and /or reception of point to point UHF or VHF radio waves in wireless telephone communications, and including the support structure thereof. 4. Radio and Television Receiving. A wire, set of wires, metal or carbon fiber element(s) other than satellite dish antennas, used to receive radio, television, or electromagnetic waves, and including the support structure thereof. 5. Satellite Dish. A device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, 40 open mesh, or bar configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone, Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -11 • • • horn, or cornucopia. Such device shall be used to transmit and /or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and /or orbitally based uses. This definition shall include, but not be limited to, what are commonly referred to as satellite earth stations, TVROs (television receive only) and satellite microwave antennas and support structure thereof. 6. Satellite Dish Height. The height of the antenna or dish measured vertically from the highest point of the antenna or dish when positioned for operation, to the top of the foundation which supports the antenna. 76. Short -Wave Radio Transmitting and Receiving. A wire, set of wires or a device, consisting of a metal, carbon fiber, or other electromagnetically conductive element used for the transmission and reception of radio waves used for short -wave and citizen band radio communications, and including the supporting structure thereof. 87. Secondary Use. A use of land or of a building or a portion thereof which is subordinate to and does not constitute the primary use of the land or building. 98. Structure, Public. An edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner which is owned or rented, and operated by a federal, state, or local government agency. 109. Support Structure. Any building or other structure other than a tower which can be used for location of antennas. 118. Tower. Any ground mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, masts, intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar apparatus above grade. 12 -1. Tower, Temporary Mobile. Any mobile tower, pole, or structure located on a trailer, vehicle, or temporary platform intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar apparatus for personal wireless services, which is commonly referred to as Cellular on Wheels (COW). Apartment. A room or suite of rooms which is designed for, intended for, or used as a residence by a single family or an individual, and is equipped with cooking facilities. Includes dwelling unit and efficiency unit. Applicant. The person(s) whose name(s) are on an application as owner, their agent or person having legal control, ownership and /or interest in land for which the provisions of this Ordinance are being considered or reviewed. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -12 • • • Base Map. A map having sufficient points or reference, such as state, county or municipal boundary lines, streets, easements, and other selected physical features to allow the plotting of other data. r « • * * •w • lass- _suoh- floor- 4euef- qualif+es -as-a- first -stogy - de-fine€141e -i :That portion of a building between floor and ceiling, which is partly below and partly above grade, but so located that the vertical distance from grade to the floor below is more than the vertical distance from grade to ceiling. Bay. A part of a building projecting or cantilevered from the main part. Bluff. A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics: 1. Part of all of the feature is located in a shoreland area. 2. The slope rises at least twenty -five (25) feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body. 3. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty -five (25) feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages thirty (30) percent or greater. 4. The slope must drain toward the water body. Bluff Impact Zone. A bluff and land located within twenty (20) feet from the top of a bluff. Bluff, Toe Of: The lower point of a fifty (50) foot segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen (18) percent. Bluff, Top Of: The highest point of a fifty (50) foot segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen (18) percent. Boarder. An individual other than a member of the family occupying the dwelling unit or a part thereof who, for a consideration, is furnished sleeping accommodations and may be furnished meals or other services as part of the consideration. Boarding House. A building other than a hotel where, for compensation and by pre- arrangement for definite periods, meals, or lodging and meals are provided to three (3) or more persons, not of the principal family therein, pursuant to previous Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -13 arrangements and not to anyone who may apply, but not including a building providing these services for more than ten (10) persons. Boardi .ng.. - Stables- Cornnaersia1. —T e- business -of- boarding- loses- -fa- fee - #or a a sale of horses. a- : * Boathouse. A structure used solely for the storage of boats or boating equipment. Buffer. The use of land, topography, difference in elevation, space, fences or landscape plantings to screen or partially screen a use or property from another use or property or to shield or mitigate noise, lights or other impacts. Buffer Yard. A strip of land utilized to screen or partially screen a use or property from another use or property or to shield or mitigate noise, lights, or other impacts. Buildable Area. The portion of a lot remaining after yards have been provided. Buildable Land, Cc nt- r u- GusContiquous. Land area occurring within the property lines of a parcel or lot excluding drainage ways, wetlands, and /or water bodies, efghteee--(43}- pereent. Building. Any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for the shelter, housing or enclosure of any individual, animal, process, equipment, goods or materials of any kind or nature. Building Coverage. The horizontal area measured within the outside of the exterior walls and supporting columns of the ground floor of all principal and accessory buildings on a lot. Building Height. The vertical distance above a reference datum measured to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The reference datum shall be selected by either of the following, whichever yields a greater height of building: 1. The elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a five (5) foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than ten (10) feet above lowest grade. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -14 • • 2. An elevation ten (10) feet higher than the lowest grade when the sidewalk or ground surface described in Item 1 above is more than ten (10) feet above lowest grade. The height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building. Building Line. A line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. Building, Pole. Any structure possessing the following characteristics: structural wood poles or timbers buried in ground without footings or without individual footings; metal wall coverings hung ga-e in a manner that the wall coverings provide structural support for the wood frame. Such definition shall not include or apply to decks, sign supports, earth retention structures, playground equipment, electric utilities, or any other similar structure not covering or enclosing a specific area. Building, Principal. A building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot on which it is located. Business. Any establishment, occupation, employment or enterprise where merchandise is manufactured, exhibited or sold or where services are offered for compensation. Canopy. An accessory roof -like structure, which is either attached to or detached from an allowable primary building: which is open on all sides, other than where attached: and, which is located over and designed to provide cover for entrances, exits, walkways, and approved off - street vehicle service areas. Channel. A natural or artificial depression of perceptible extent, with definite bed and banks to confine and conduct water either continuously or periodically. Church. A building, together with its accessory buildings and use; where persons regularly assemble for religious worship and which building, together with its accessory buildings are uses, is maintained and controlled by a religious body organized to sustain public worship. City Council. The governing body for the City of Lino Lakes. Club or Lodge. A club or lodge is a non - profit association of persons who are bonafide members paying annual dues, use of premises being restricted to members and their guests. Commercial Use. The principal use of land or buildings for the sale, lease, 40 rental or trade of products, goods and services, including, but not limited to: Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -15 • • • Automobile Repair - Major. General repair, rebuilding or reconditioning engines. motor vehicles or trailers; collision service, including body, frame or fender straightening or repair; overall painting or paint job; vehicle steam cleaning. 2. Automobile Repair - Minor. An establishment providing goods or services related to automobiles such as car washes, repair businesses limited to minor engine repair, fluid changing, tire service and muffler repair and other uses of similar character, but not including uses defined as a major automobile business or automobile sales. 3. Automobile Sales. The use of any building or land area for the display and sale of new or used automobiles, trucks, vans, trailers or recreational vehicles including any major or minor automobile repair or service uses conducted as an accessory use. 4. Automobile Service Station. Any building, land area or other premises, or portion thereof, used or intended to be used for the retail dispensing or sales of vehicular fuels; and including as an accessory use the sale and installation of lubricants, tires, batteries, and similar accessories. 5. Hospitality Business. An establishment offering transient lodging accommodations on a daily rate to the general public, leasable events. meeting or conference facilities and exhibition halls or other uses of similar character including hotels, motels, convention facilities, and hospices. 6. Liquor Sales, Off -Sale. Licensed sale of intoxicating beverages for consumption off site. 7. Liquor Sales, On -Sale. Licensed sale of intoxicating beverages for consumption at the premises where the beverage is purchased. 8. Motor Fuel Station. A place where gasoline is stored only in underground tanks, kerosene or motor oil and lubricants or grease, for operation of automobiles, are retailed directly to the public on premises, and including minor accessories and services for automobiles, but not including automobile major repairs and rebuilding. 9. Office Business - Clinical. An establishment located within a building or portion of a building providing out - patient health services to patrons, including general medical clinics, mental health providers, chiropractor, dentists, orthodontia, oral surgeons, opticians, and other uses of similar character. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -16 • • • 10. Office Business - General. An establishment located within a building or portion of a building for the conduct of business activities involving predominantly professional administrative or clerical service operations including attorneys, financial advisors, insurance, travel, real estate, and other uses of similar character. 11. Personal Service. Personal services shall include the following: barber shops, beauty salon, electrolysis, manicurist, tanning parlor, physical therapy, therapeutic massage, and tattooing. 12. Recreational Business. Arcade, health club, bowling alley, billiard (pool hall), dance hall, skating rinks, theaters, and indoor firearms range. 13. Restaurant. An establishment that serves food in individual servings for consumption on or off premises, including sit -down restaurants, die -+n resta r-an s, take out, pick up, or delivery food sales, but not including drive - through facilities. Outdoor dining areas and drive - through facilities may or may not be allowed in each zoning district: they are not automatically allowed when a restaurant is an allowable use. 14. Retail Business. An establishment engaged in the display and sale of products produced off -site directly to consumers within a building or portion of a building excluding any exterior display and sales. 15. Service Business Off-Site. A company that provides useful labor, maintenance, repair and activities incidental to business production or distribution where the service is provided at the customer's location, including delivery services, catering services, plumbing and sewer services, and other uses of similar character. 16. Service Business On -Site. An establishment that provides useful labor, maintenance, repair and activities incidental to business production or distribution where the customer patronizes the location of the operation, such as banks (not including drive - through facilities), copy centers, Laundromats, dry cleaners, funeral homes and mortuaries, appliance repair, tailor shops, travel bureaus. Commercial Recreation. Bowling alloy, cart track, jump center, golf, pool hall, vehisfe -raci g-- or-- anauseme+ t danse -- hall; -skat €rig- rar poline;- tavern -,-- theater} e - •. boa# - rental-, _ •- . — -• — : - .. • t s ds,park, and similar uses. Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan prepared and approved by the City, including a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, fiscal guidelines, and maps indicating the general locations recommended for the various functional classes of land use, places and structures, and for the general Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 1 -17 Title / Application / Rules physical development of the City, including any unit or part of such plan • separately adopted and any amendment to such plan or parts thereof. • • Conditional Use. A land use or development that may not be appropriate generally within a certain district but may be allowed in that district with appropriate restrictions, conditions or limitations as imposed by the City Council Conditional Use Permit. A permit issued by the City Council in accordance with the procedures specified within this Ordinance as a device to enable the City Council to assign conditions to a proposed use or development after consideration of the adjacent land uses and the special characteristics which the proposed use presents. Condominium. A - ?•rr�sa aaVRers - - -on a-- -pwort anal; - .undivided - -basis ;multiple family dwelling or development containing individually owned dwelling units and jointly owned and shared areas and facilities, which dwelling or development is subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Condominium Law, Minnesota Statutes sections 515.01 through 515.29. Condominium Association. This community association which administers and maintains the common property and common elements of a condominium. Construction. The erection, alteration or extension of a structure. Cooperative Housing. A multiple family dwelling owned and maintained by the residents and subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 290.09 and 290.13. The entire structure and real property is under common ownership as contrasted to a condominium dwelling where individual units are under separate individual occupant ownership. Critical Area. An area with one or more of the following characteristics: (1) slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent; (2) floodplain; (3) soils classified as having a high water table; (4) soils classified as highly erodible, subject to erosion; (5) land incapable of meeting percolation requirements; (6) land formerly used for landfill operations or hazardous industrial use; (7) fault areas; (8) stream corridors; (9) estuaries; (10) mature strands of native vegetation; (11) aquifer recharge and discharge areas. Critical Root Zone (CRZ). An imaginary circle surrounding the tree trunk with a radius distance of one (1) foot per one (1) inch of tree diameter, e.g., a twenty (20) inch diameter tree has a CRZ with a radius of twenty (20) feet. Cul -de -sac. (See Street) Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -18 • • • Day Care Facility. Any facility licensed by the State Department of Public Welfare, public or private, which for gain or otherwise regularly provides one or more persons with care, training, supervision, habilitation, rehabilitation or developmental guidance on a regular basis, for periods of less than twenty -four (24) hours per day, in a place other than the person =s own home. Day care facilities include, but are not limited to, family day care homes, group family day care homes, day care centers, day nurseries, nursery schools, daytime activity centers, day treatment programs and day services, as defined by Minnesota State Statutes, Section 245.782.5. Deck. Horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site and at any point extending above grade. Density. The number of families, individuals, dwelling units, or housing structures per unit of land. In this Ordinance, itnet density shall mean number of dwelling units per acre of buildable land. Gross density shall mean number of units per acre of the total subject property. Detached Garage. A one -story accessory building used or intended for the storage of motor driven passenger vehicles. Detached Outdoor Living Area. A flat surfaced seasonal outdoor room intended for casual human use which may be screened but may not have permanent structural walls or be covered by a permanent roof. Development. The division of a parcel of land into two or more parcels; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any structure; any mining, excavation, landfill or land disturbance, and any use or extension of the use of land. District. A section or sections of the City for which the regulations and provisions governing the use of buildings and lands are uniform for each class of use permitted therein. Dock (Boat Launch). A structure accessory to the principal use of the property which extends into navigable waters and used for the launching, landing or mooring of watercraft. farm— -- mat er +als — — Said - - -b+ ifd +rag — shall -- require — ieneseta GI Ager cy- l"eediot- P -errrr : Dormitory. A building used as group living quarters for a student body or religious order as an accessory use for a college, university, boarding school, orphanage, convent, monastery or other similar institutional use. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 1 -19 Title / Application / Rules • Drainage. The removal of surface water or groundwater from land by drains, grading or other means which include runoff controls to minimize erosion and sedimentation during and after construction or development, the means for preserving the water supply and the prevention or alleviation of flooding. Drainage System. Any natural or artificial feature or structure used for the conveyance, drainage, or storage of surface and /or underground water, including, but not limited to, streams, rivers, creeks, ditches, channels, conduits, gullies, ravines, washes, lakes or ponds and structures such as culverts, drainage tile, dams, bridges and water storage basins. Drainageway. Any natural or artificial watercourse, trench, ditch, swale or similar depression into which surface water flows. 3rive -I estaerant-- A- lau44dinge-r -parti a-tk eof where food- dIirbevecages the consumption takes place or is designed to take place outside the confines of Drive -In Use. An establishment which by design, physical facilities, service, or Drip Line. The farthest distance away from the trunk that rain or dew will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of the tree or one (1) foot per one (1) inch of diameter, whichever is greater. Drive - Through Facilities. A physical facility that permits customers to receive services? or obtain goods : - • • . w while remaining in their motor vehicles. Examples include but are not limited to bank and fast food restaurant drive - through facilities. Driveway. A private roadway providing access for vehicles to a parking space, garage, dwelling or other structures. Dwelling. A structure or portion thereof which is used exclusively for human habitation. Dwelling, Efficiency. A dwelling unit consisting of not more than one habitable room together with kitchen or kitchenette and sanitary facilities. Dwelling, Multiple - Family. A structure containing more than two dwelling units. which is not a farm dwelling. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 1 -20 Title / Application / Rules • • • Dwelling, Single Family Detached. A dwelling which is designed for and occupied by not more than one family and surrounded by open space or yards and which is not attached to any other dwelling by any means. Dwelling, Townhouse. A one - family dwelling in a row of at least three (3) such units in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one or more common fire resistant walls. Dwelling, Two - Family. A structure containing two dwelling units, each of which is totally separated from the other by an unpierced wall extending from ground to roof or an unpierced ceiling and floor extending from exterior wall to exterior wall, except for a common stairwell exterior to both dwelling units. Dwelling Unit. One or more rooms, designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters, with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities provided within the dwelling unit for the exclusive use of a single family maintaining a household. Easement. A grant of one or more of the property rights by the property owner to and /or for the use by the public, a corporation or another person or entity. Elderly (Senior Citizen) Housing. A public agency owned or controlled multiple dwelling building with open occupancy limited to persons over sixty (60) years of age. Essential Services. The erection, construction, alteration, or maintenance by public utilities or municipal departments of underground or overhead telephone, gas, electrical, communication, water or sewer transmission, distribution collection, supply or disposal systems including poles, wires, mains, drains, sewers, pipes, conduits, cables, fire alarm boxes, police call boxes, traffic signals, hydrants and other similar equipment and accessories in connection therewith for the furnishing of adequate service by such private or public utilities or municipal departments. Personal wireless service and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered an essential service. Existing Use. The use of a lot or structure at the time of the enactment of a zoning ordinance. Exterior Storage /Storage Yards. An outside area where equipment, vehicles, trailers, or material relating to the principal use of a parcel of land is stored. This includes semi - trucks and trailers. The stored items are not for sale or display but are used in the everyday operation of the principal use. Also referred to as "outdoor storage." Outdoor sales lots are not outdoor storage but are distinct uses regulated by this ordinance. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -21 • • • Extractive Use. The use of the land for surface or subsurface removal of sand, gravel, rock, industrial minerals, other non - metallic minerals and peat not regulated under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 93.44 to 93.51. Family. An individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood or marriage or of not more than five (5) persons (excluding servants) who need not be related by blood or marriage living together in a dwelling unit. Farm. Real property used for commercial agriculture or horticulture comprising at least twenty (20) contiguous acres and which may contain other contiguous or noncontiguous acreage, all of which is owned or leased and operated by a single family, family corporation, individual or corporation. Farm Building. See Agricultural Farm Building. Farm Dwelling. A single family dwelling located on a farm which is used or intended for use by the farm =s owner, a relative of the owner, or a person employed thereon. Farm, Limited. A limited farm is a food producing use primarily intended for the use of the residents and on parcels of from one (1) to twenty (20) contiguous acres in size. Limited farming uses may include the production of crops, such as fruits, vegetables, flowers, plants, shrubs and trees. Animals and domestic pets may be allowed subject to the provisions of City Code Sections 502 and 503. Fast -Food- Restaurant. An- establishment-wh-ese-p c;" ' ac: s is the -sale consume state for consumption either within the restaurant building or off premises. Feedlot. A confined area or structure used for feeding, breeding, or holding livestock for eventual sale in which animal waste may accumulate but not including barns, pens or other structures used in a dairy farm operation. Fence. A fence is defined for the purpose of this Ordinance as any partition, structure, wall or gate erected as a dividing mark, barrier or enclosure. Fence, Boundary Line. All fences located within one (1) foot of a property line. Fence, Interior Yard. All fences located five (5) feet beyond a property line. Filter Strip. A linear strip of land along a lake, wetland, river, creek, or stormwater pondinq area where vegetation is established and maintain as a means to slow the velocity of stormwater drainage and to filter sediment and pollutants from the stormwater. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -22 • Filling. The act of depositing any rock, soil, gravel, sand or other material so as urse, or wottand -on a site. Flood. A temporary rise in a stream flow or stage which results in inundation of the areas adjacent to the channel. Flood Fringe. That portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway. Floodplain. The areas adjoining a watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. Flood Profile. A graph or a longitudinal plot of water surface elevation of a flood event along a reach of a stream or river. Floodway. The channel of the watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplains which are reasonably required to carry and discharge the regional flood. Floor Area, Net. The total of all floor areas of a building, excluding stairwells and elevator shafts, equipment rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading; and all floors below the first or ground floor, except when used or intended to be used for human habitation or service to the public. Footprint. The horizontal area measured within the outside of the exterior walls and supporting columns of the ground floor of a building or structure. Garage. A deck building or structure, or part thereof, used or intended to be used for the parking and storage of vehicles. Garage, Public. A garage other than a private garage, used for the housing or care of motor vehicles, or where such vehicles are equipped for operation repairs, or kept for renumeration, hire or sale. Garage, Storage. Any building or premises used for the storage only of motor - driven vehicles, pursuant to previous arrangements, not to transients, where no equipment, parts, fuel, grease or oil are sold and vehicles are not equipped, serviced, repaired, hired or sold. Gazebo. A freestanding accessory structure or pavilion from which views of surrounding scenery are commonly offered. Such structures are characterized by partly open construction, design symmetry, and the use of ornamental architectural features. Grade (Adjacent Ground Elevation). The lowest point of elevation of the • finished surface of the ground, paving, or sidewalk within the area between the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -23 • • building and property line, or when the property line is more than five (5) feet from the building, between the building and a line five (5) feet from the building. Grading Plan. Existing topography and proposed finished grades with a contour interval of no greater than two (2) feet clearly indicating the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and remaining features. Green -lea: -- Land -sh€ awn- or3- a- deve- lopment -pla -n a-star- pfanar affisia4 map -for pie- rva -t +on, roc ation, landscaping or park. Greenway. Land shown in the Comprehensive Plan that is intended to: Preserve contiguous open space to define neighborhoods. 2. Preserve ecologic features and function of unique environmentally sensitive areas. 3. Protect a diversity of natural features and habitat. 4. Provide for passive recreational trail opportunities. Hardship. The same as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. Hazardous Waste. Any refuse, sludge, or other waste material or combination of refuse, sludge, or other waste materials in solid, semi - solid, liquid, or contained gaseous form which because of its quantity, concentration, or chemical, physical, or infectious characteristics may: 1. Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious or irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness, or 2. Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, or transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. Categories of hazardous waste materials include, but are not limited to: explosives, flammable, oxidizers, poisons, irritants, and corrosives. Hazardous waste does not include source, special nuclear, or by- product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Historic Site. Structure or area of land or water of historic, archaeological, paleontological or architectural value which has been designated as an historic site in the Federal Register of historical landmarks, the Minnesota Historical Society, or by a local governmental unit. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -24 • • • Home Extended Business. A business conducted as part of a residential use which is beyond the limits and scope of activities for home occupations as defined by this subdivision. Home Occupation. Any activity by a resident carried out for business purposes and which activity is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, and which activity does not change the residential character thereof. Homeowners Association. A community association, other than a condominium association, which is organized in a development in which individual owners share common interests in open space or facilities. Horse Arena. A building or site used for showing and training horses, exclusive of sta * r rte_ it 'e : e Horse —& reedi•ng— Operation a -.. al: — A- -bu&ines &-- for—the —p +rpese---ef Horticulture. The use of land for the growing or production for income of fruits, vegetables, flowers, nursery stock, including ornamental plants and trees, and cultured sod. Horticulture is a type of agricultural use. Hotel. A-f acuity -- offering -t sent - - lodging -aeco► adatia+ s -to the -- general-- pulatic recreation facilities (see Boarding House; Motel). Houseboat. A watercraft vessel having a super structure resembling a house, usually moored, designed and used as a dwelling. Impervious Surface. An artificial or natural surface through which water, air or roots cannot penetrate. Individual Sewage Treatment System or Individual Sewage Disposal System. A system-for-the-disposal- e- ground; which--is -so designed-and-constructed—as--t to--# ea-t- sew a--fil annex mest -Gf .A sewage treatment system, or part thereof, serving a dwelling, or other establishment, or group thereof, and using sewage tanks followed by soil treatment and disposal or using advanced treatment devices that discharge below final grade. Individual sewage treatment system includes holding tanks and privies (per Minnesota Rules 7080). e e It Industrial Park. A large tract of land that has been planned, developed and operated as an integrated facility for a number of individual industrial uses, with Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 1 -25 Title / Application / Rules • special attention to circulation, parking, utility needs, aesthetics, and compatibility. Interim Use. A temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer allow said use. Irrigation System. Any structure or equipment, mechanized or other, used to supply water for landscaping, vegetation, commercial agriculture or horticulture, including, but not limited to, wells, pumps, motors, pipes, culverts, gates, dams, ditches, tanks, ponds, and reservoirs. Junk Yard. Any area, lot, land, parcel, building or structure or part thereof used for the storage, collection, processing, purchase, sale or abandonment of wastepaper, rags, scrap metal or other scrap or discarded goods, materials, machinery or two (2) or more unregistered, inoperable motor vehicles or other type of junk. Kennel, Commercial. Any structure or premises on which three (3) or more dogs or cats, of one species, over six (6) months of age are kept, owned, boarded, groomed, sheltered, protected, bred, or offered for sale or any other merchandising that is not defined as a private kennel. Every commercial kennel shall be enclosed or fenced in such manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein. Kennel, Private. Any structure or premises on which between three (3) and six (6) dogs and cats, over six (6) months of age are kept for private enjoyment and not for monetary gain. Every kennel shall be enclosed or fenced in such manner as to prevent the running at large or escape of animals confined therein. Land Reclamation. The process of the re- establishment of, acceptable topography (i.e., slopes), vegetative cover, soil stability, and the establishment of safe conditions appropriate to the subsequent use of the land. Lighting Related: A Cutoff. The point at which all light rays emitted by a Tamp, light source or luminaire are completely eliminated at a specific angle above the ground. B Cutoff Angle. The angle formed by a line drawn from the direction of light rays at the light source and a line perpendicular to the around from the light source above which no Tight is emitted (see Figure 1). Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -26 • • Figure 1. Cut Off Angle C Cutoff Type Luminaire. A luminaire with elements such as shields, reflectors, or refractor panels which direct and cut off the light at a cutoff angle that is less than ninety (90) degrees. D. Flashing Light. A light source which is not constant in intensity or color at all times while in use. E. Foot candle. A unit of illumination produced on a surface, all points of which are one (1) foot from a uniform point source of one (1) candle. F. Light Source. A single artificial point source of luminescence that emits measurable radiant energy in or near the visible spectrum. G. Luminaire. A complete lighting unit consisting of a light source and all necessary mechanical; electrical and decorative parts. H. Outdoor Lighting. Any Tight source or collection of light sources, located outside a building, including but not limited to, light sources attached to any part of a structure, located on the surface of the ground or located on freestanding poles. Outdoor Light Fixture. Outdoor electrically powered illuminating devices, outdoor lighting or reflective surfaces, lamps and similar devices, permanently installed or portable, used for illumination or advertisement. The fixture includes the hardware that houses the illumination source and to which the illumination source is attached including, but not limited to, the hardware casing. Such devices shall include, but are not limited to, search. spot, and flood lights for: Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -27 • f • 1. Buildings and structures. 2. Recreational areas. 3. Parking lot lighting. 4. Landscaping lighting. 5. Signs. 6. Street lighting. 7. Product display area lighting. 8. Building overhangs and open canopies. J. Security Lighting. Outdoor lighting fixtures installed exclusively as a measure to reduce the possible occurrence of a crime on the property. Figure 2 — Shielding K. Shielding. A technique or method of construction permanently covering the top and sides of a light source by a material which restricts the Tight emitted to be projected below an imaginary horizontal plane passing through the Tight fixture (see Figure 2). L. Spillage. Any reflection, glare or other artificial Tight that emits onto any adjoining property or right -of -way and is above a defined maximum illumination. Lvery- Stable.— The -- business-- of- keepin - horses- -fog the-- pu.rpose -o -reeti-ng- to -t ie general- pobfio fo eupe- rvised--r +ding -aodie -trail Lot, Lot of Record. A des4gnatedcontiquous parcel, tract or area of land established by plat, subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, - --be- -used; developed- or—bu +lt upon as a +nit that has one legal description and parcel identification number recorded with the Anoka County Property Records Department. Also referred to as a "parcel." Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -28 Lot Area. The total area within the lot lines of a lot measured in a horizontal • plan • • Lot, Base. Lots meeting all the specifications in the zoning district prior to being subdivided into a two family dwelling or . • - - townhome subdivision. Lot, Corner. A lot situated at the junction of and abutting on two (2) or more intersecting street; or a lot at the point of deflection in alignment of a single street, the interior angle of which is one hundred thirty -five (135) degrees or less. Lot Depth. The shlote- stmean horizontal distance between the front lot line and the rear lot line measured from a ninety (90) degree angle from the street right - of -way within the lot boundaries. Lot, Double Frontage. A lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two (2) substantially parallel streets, and which is not a corner lot. Lot, Flag. A lot that has access to a public street via a narrow strip but does not have the full required frontage on a public street. Lot Frontage. The narrowest lot boundary abutting a public street that meets minimum lot width requirements. If none of the boundaries abutting a public street meet minimum lot width requirements, then the lot frontage is the widest boundary abutting a street. Lot, Interior. A lot, other than corner lot, including through Tots. Lot Line. A property boundary line of any lot held in single or separate ownership except that where any position of the lot extends into the abutting street or alley, the lot line shall be deemed to be the street or alley right -of -way. Lot Line, Front. The lot line separating a lot from the street right -of -way along the lot frontage. Lot Line, Rear. The lot line opposite and most distant from the lot frontage which connects the side lot lines. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the rear lot line of a triangular lot shall be a line entirely within the lot at least ten (10) feet long and parallel to and most distance point from the front lot line. If the front lot line on such a lot is curved, the rear lot line shall be parallel to a line tangent to the front lot line. Lot Line, Side. Lot lines extending away from the lot frontage, which connects the front and rear lot lines. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 1 -29 Title / Application / Rules • Lot, Through. A lot fronting on two parallel streets. • • Lot, Triangular. A lot in which the side lot lines converge into a single vertex. The vertex shall be deemed to be the rear lot line. Lot, Unit. Lots created from the subdivisions of a two family dwelling or quadraminkimtownhome having different minimum lot size requirements than the conventional base lots within the zoning district. Lot Width. The horizontal distance between the side lot line of a lot measured at the front building setback line and parallel to the front lot line. If the front lot line is curved, such as on a cul -de -sac, the lot width is measured along a line parallel to a tangent to the front lot line. Manufactured Home. A manufactured home means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode is eight (8) body feet or more in width, or forty (40) body feet or more in length, or, when erected on side, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein; except that the term includes any structure which meets all the requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certificate required by the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and complies with the standards established under Minnesota Statute 327 including the Manufactured Home Building Code adopted therein. Manufactured Home Subdivision. A subdivision designed and /or intended for the sale of lots for residential occupancy by manufactured homes. Manufactured Home Park. Any site, lot, field or tract of land upon which two (2) or more occupied manufactured homes are located, either free of charge or for compensation, and includes any buildings or structures used or intended for use as part of the equipment of the manufactured home park. Manufactured Home Lot. A plot of land for placement of a single manufactured home within a manufactured home park. Medical- and - -- Dental Clinic -_ A-- str-ueture - -ante ee -- far —prc vi iin lcal—and without overnight care available. Mini Self - Storage — Warehouse. An enclosed storage facility containing independent, fully enclosed bays that are leased to individuals exclusively for the storage of the household goods or personnel belongings. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 1 -30 Title / Application / Rules • • Mobile Homes. A single family detached dwelling unit or other structure designed for year around occupancy constructed at a factory or assembly plant and drawn to the site on a permanently attached undercarriage and wheels. Mobile homes should not include all types of manufactured homes as defined herein. Model Home. A home which is similar to others in a development and which is open to public inspection for the purpose of selling said other homes. Al • a • •a.... a a, 111.0.0, 0 _• �.aaaa� 0• . -00 a • or-c care fooms -with at least twenty -five (25 %)- peroent- the building. Motor- uel- St-atian: Any buil-ding,- land - area -c— other arem+scs, or portion fuels; and including as an accessory use alt- rooms - -hang- direst Non - Conforming Uses. A use or activity which was lawful prior to the adoption, revision or amendment of a zoning ordinance, but which fails, by reason of such adoption, revision or amendment, to conform to the present requirements of the zoning district. Nuisance. • 0 _ • _ to... • e •!�• defined as a nuisance by Section 900 of the City Code. • - - - - - Anything Nursing Home (Rest Home). A building having accommodations where care for pay is provided for two (2) or more invalids, infirm, aged or convalescent persons who are not of the immediate family; but not including hospitals, clinics, sanitariums, or similar institutions. Office Building. A building used primarily for conducting the affairs of a b sines -s; - professions service, -ind +stry - -or- government; -or -- like -- activity; - that -may include ancil1. •. - _ or-- office -- workers such -es a r- _ . - . e - - shop; newspaper or candy stand. Off- Street Loading Space. A space accessible from the street, alley, or way, in a building or on the lot, for the use of trucks while loading or unloading merchandise or materials. On- Street Parking Space. A temporary storage area for a motor vehicle which is located on a dedicated street right -of -way. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -31 Open Sales Lot. Any open land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, • selling, and /or renting merchandise and for the storing of the same prior to sale. • • Open Space. Any parcel or area of land or water essentially unimproved and set aside, dedicated, designated or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment, or for the use and enjoyment of owners and occupants of land adjoining or neighboring such open space. Open Space, Private. Common open space held in private ownership, the use of which is normally limited to the occupants of a single dwelling or building. Open Space, Public. Open space owned by a public agency and maintained by it for the use and enjoyment of the general public. Ordinary High Water Level. (OHWL) The boundary of public waters and wetlands as determined by the Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources: an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. Outdoor Storage. See "exterior storage." Parcel. A separate-area-of-land, frIcklding A tot; -k au+eg- speoifis- beuecfarios -and capable of being conveyed and rccordod.A contiguous tract or area of land established by plat, subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, that has one legal description and parcel identification number recorded with the Anoka County Property Records Department. Also referred to as a "lot" or "lot of record." Park, Private. A tract of land presently owned or controlled and used by private or semi - public persons, entities, groups, etc. for active and /or passive recreational purposes. Park, Public. A tract of land publicly owned and used by the public for active and /or passive recreational purposes. Parking Lot. An off - street, ground level area, usually surfaced and improved, for the temporary storage of motor vehicles. Parking Space. A space for the parking of a motor vehicle within a public or private parking area. Party Wall. A common shared wall between two (2) separate structures, buildings, or dwelling units. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -32 • Permitted Use. Any use allowed in a zoning district and subject to the restrictions applicable to that zoning district. • Planned-Indust-Oa - Development—A- played- developme+3t- that-aes modates Industrial uses. Planned Unit Development. An area of a minimum contiguous size, as specified by ordinance, to be planned and developed as a single entity containing one or more residential clusters or planned residential developments and /or one or more public, quasi - public, commercial or industrial areas in such ranges of ratios of non - residential uses to residential uses as shall be specified. Play and Recreational Facilities. Equipment customary and incidental to the principal use of the site intended for the enjoyment and convenience of the residents of the principal use and their occasional guests. Such facilities include swing sets, play sculptures, sand boxes, picnic tables, basketball standards, barbeque grills and the like. Poultry Facility. A confined area or structure used intensively for raising, feeding}- breedi _ e •e -'. - ; turkeys and -othe ouftry- fer- eventui l -safe Principal Use. The primary or predominant use of any lot and /or building. Professional Office. The office of a member of a recognized profes &ion maintained for the conduct of that profession. Public Waters. As defined in Minnesota Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision 15: 1. Public Waters, General Development. Those waters whose shores are generally characterized by medium density residential development with or without limited service - oriented commercial development. 2. Public Waters, Natural Environment. Generally small, often shallow lakes with limited capacities for assimilating the impacts of development and recreational use. They often have adjacent lands with substantial constraints for development such as high water tables, exposed bedrock, and unsuitable soils. These lakes, particularly in rural areas, usually do not have much existing development or recreational use. 3. Public Waters, Recreational Development. Generally medium sized lakes of varying depths and shapes with a variety of landform, soil and ground water situations on the lands around them. They often are characterized by moderate levels of recreational use and existing development. Development consists mainly of seasonal and year round residences and Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -33 recreational - oriented commercial uses. Many of these lakes have 411 capacities for accommodating additional development and use. • • 4. Public Waters, Tributary Rivers. Segments consisting of watercourses mapped in the Protected Waters Inventory that have not been assigned one of the river classes. These segments have a wide variety of existing and and recreational use characteristics. The segments have considerable potential for additional development and recreational use, particularly those located near roads and cities. Publication. Notice placed in the official City newspaper stating time, location and date of meeting and description of the topic. Quadraminium. A single structure which contains four (4) separately owned dwelling units, all of which have individually separate entrances from the exterior of the structure. Quarter - Quarter Section. The northeast, northwest, southwest or southeast quarter of a quarter section delineated by the United States Government system of land survey and which is exactly or nearly forty (40) acres in size. Recreation Area. A parcel which may include water bodies and incidental buildings thereto used or intended for active or passive recreation, including, but not limited to, parks, playground, golf courses, hunting preserves, polo grounds, nature trails, bridle paths, beaches, campsites, ski and snowmobile trails, and canoe routes, provided that parcels on which there are located stadiums, arenas, bowling alleys, swimming pools, and other recreational activities conducted primarily in structures are not recreation areas. Recreational Vehicle. A vehicle designed and used for recreational purposes and enjoyment including, but not limited to, snowmobiles, motorized all terrain vehicles, boats, boat trailers, race cars, travel trailers, truck campers, camping trailers, and self - propelled motor homes. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. A point not less than one (1) foot above the elevation of the floodplain, plus any increases in flood heights attributable to encroachments on the floodplain. It is the elevation to which uses regulated by this Ordinance are required to be elevated or flood proofed. Relative. Father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, son -in -law or daughter - in -law. Residential Facility, State Licensed. Any program, defined by Minnesota Statutes section 245A.02, subdivision 14, that provides twenty four (24) hour a day care, supervision, food, lodging, rehabilitation, training, education, habilitation, or treatment outside a person's own home, including a nursing home Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -34 • • • or hospital that receives public funds, administered by the commissioner of the Department of Human Services to provide services for five (5) or more persons whose primary diagnosis is mental retardation or a related condition or mental illness and who do not have a significant physical or medical problem that necessitates nursing home care; a program in an intermediate care facility for four (4) or more persons with mental retardation or a related condition; a nursing home or hospital that was licensed by the commissioner of the Department of Human Services on July 1, 1987, to provide a program for persons with a physical handicap that is not the result of the normal aging process and considered to be a chronic condition; and chemical dependency or chemical abuse programs that are located in a hospital or nursing home and receive public funds for providing chemical abuse or chemical dependency treatment services under Minnesota Statutes 254B. Residential programs include home and community -based services for persons with mental retardation or a related condition that are provided in or outside of a person's own home. Restrictive Covenant. A restriction on the use of land usually set forth in the deed. opposerto -p adeots, to the— geeerat- pubfiGi- ieeludin ..eating a drinking -plans hotels and motels, finance, real estate and insurance, personal services, motion pictures, amusement and recreation services, health, education and social services, museums and galleries. Sanitary Land Fill. A site used for solid waste disposal. Satellite Dish. A combination of: 1. Antenna or dish antenna whose purpose is to r ceive communication or other signal from orbiting satellites and other extraterrestrial sources. 2. A loAw -noise am plifier (LEA}- wthieh --is- sit- uated --at- the -- focal- poin4t- of -the receiving component and whose purpose is to magnify and transfer signals. 3:------- A- coaxiat-oabte -- whose purp sany4-he signals into the- interior of the uH ing: Satellite - Dish- Meight. The -- height -of -- the - antenna or=- -dish- measured- vertieaily 40m-t14e-- highest point - of-- tk�e --a $erIfao or dish when- positioned-- liar- eperat+e -to Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -35 • School. Any building or part thereof which is designed, constructed or used for educational or instruction in any branch of knowledge. • Scl oof- Parechiaf -. -A -sob l- s_ppar ed-- an-cl-Gori-trotlec -- b_a-ok r rreIfgious organ i zatio .. School, Private. Any building or group of buildings the use of which meets state requirements for primary, secondary, or higher education and which use does not secure the major part of its funding of any governmental agency. Setback. bold- ing- 4oundat+ee- The minimum horizontal distance between a structure, individual sewage treatment system, or other facility, and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, top of bluff, road, highway, property line, or other facility. Setback Line. That line that is the required minimum distance from the street right -of -way line or any other lot line that establishes the area within which the principal structure must be erected or placed. Shopping Center. An integrated grouping of commercial stores, undor sing o Shoreland. Land located within the following distances from public waters: one thousand (1000) feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond or flowage and three hundred (300) feet from a river or stream or the landward extent of a floodplain designated in Chapter 1102 of the City Code on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources. Shoreland Impact Zone. Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of fifty (50) percent of the structure setback. Sign. Any object, device, display or structure, or part thereof, situated outdoors or indoors, which is used to advertise, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business, product, service, event or location by any means, including words, letters, figures, design, symbols, fixtures, colors, illumination or projected images. Sign Area. The entire face of a sign including the advertising surface and any framing, trim or molding, but not including the supporting structure. • Significant Tree - See definition of Tree. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -36 •Specimen Tree — See definition of Tree. • • Site Plan. The development plan for one or more lots on which is shown the existing and proposed conditions of the lot including: topography, vegetation, drainage, floodplains, marshes and waterways= open spaces, walkways, means of ingress and egress, utility services, landscaping, structures and signs, lighting and screening device; any other information that f-easonably may be required in order that an informed decision can be made by the approving authority. Slope. The degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal, usually, expressed in percent or degrees. Soil Conservation Plan. A description of the soils of the site and information on soil suitability. Also included shall be any remedial steps taken by the developer to render the soils suitable and any erosion and sedimentation controls indicating type and location of control measures. The plan should provide for the protection of soils during the construction process and /or the Tong -term occupancy of the site. Sport Court. A facility that typically includes a paved playing surface for one or more sport activities such as, but not limited to, tennis; basketball, or volleyball. Stable, Commercial. The business of boarding horses for fee for persons not residing on the premises and may include instruction, exhibition and sale of horses. This shall include the raising and breeding of horses. Steep Slope. Land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site =s oil, characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over twelve (12) percent, as measured over horizontal distances of fifty (50) feet or more, that are not bluffs. Storage Building. A one -story accessory building used or intended for the storage of hobby tools, garden equipment, workshop equipment, boats, snowmobiles, etc. Storage, Exterior or Outdoor. See "exterior storage." Story. That portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement or unused under -floor space is Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -37 • • more than six (6) feet above grade as defined herein for more than fifty (50) percent of the total perimeter or is more than twelve (12) feet above grade as defined herein at any point, such basement or unused under -floor space shall be considered as a story. Story, First. The lowest story in a building which qualifies as a story, as defined herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than four (4) feet below grade, as defined herein, for more than fifty (50) percent of the total perimeter, or more than eight (8) feet below grade, as defined herein, at any point. Street. A right -of -way affording access by pedestrians and vehicles, whether designated as a street, highway, thoroughfare, parkway, throughway, road, avenue, boulevard, court, way, trail or however otherwise designated. Private, ingress and egress easements shall not be considered streets. Street, Cut -de -Sac. A local street, one end of which is dosed and consists of a circular turn around. Street, Collector. A street which collects traffic from local streets and connects with minor and major arterials. See City =s Function Classification System for Roadways contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Street, Local. A street designed to provide vehicular access to abutting property and to discourage through traffic. See City =s Function Classification System for Roadways contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Street, Minor Arterial. A street with signals at important intersections and stop signs on the side streets, and which collects and distributes traffic to and from collector streets. See City =s Function Classification System for Roadways contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Structure. Anything which is built, constructed or erected, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up and /or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner whether temporary or permanent in character. Structure Alteration. Any change in either the supporting members of a building, such as bearing walls, columns, beams and girders, or in the dimensions or configurations of the roof or exterior walls. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance 1 -38 Title / Application / Rules • Substantial Improvement. Any extension, repair, reconstruction, or other improvement of a property, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty (50) percent of the fair market value of a property either before the improvement is started or if the property has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Swimming Pool. A water - filled enclosure, permanently constructed or portable, having a depth of more than eighteen (18) inches below the level of the surrounding land, or an above surface pool having a depth of more than thirty (30) inches designed, used and maintained for swimming and bathing. Taver a.- Are testabtishrnen - + -sed -p =irna-rity- fear -- floe -s uing- of-- liquor-by the - irink - -to only as accessory to the primary use. Temporary Structure. A structure without any foundation or footings and which is removed when the designated time period, activity, or use for which the temporary structure was erected has ceased. Terrace. A raised flat area with sloping sides or sides held by retaining walls, unroofed and landscaped or surfaced. • Tool Shed. A small one -story accessory building used or intended for the storage of hobby tools and garden equipment. Topography. The configuration of a surface area showing relative elevations. Townhouses. Structure housing three (3) or more dwelling units contiguous to each other only by the sharing of one (1) common wall, such structures to be of the town or row houses type as contrasted to multiple dwelling apartment structures. No single structure shall contain in excess of eight (8) dwelling units and each dwelling unit shall have separate and individual front and rear entrances. Travel Trailer. A recreational vehicle that is towed by a car or a truck. Tree. Any of the following type of trees, as each is defined herein: 1. Coniferous Tree. A woody plant which, at maturity, is at least twelve (12) feet or more in height. having foliage on the outermost portion of the branches year round. 2. Deciduous Tree. A woody plant which, at maturity, is at least fifteen (15) feet or more in height, having a defined crown, and which sheds leaves annually. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -39 • • 3. Significant Tree. A healthy tree measuring a minimum of six (6) inches in diameter for deciduous trees, or a minimum of twelve (12) feet in height for coniferous trees. 4. Significant Tree Stand. A grouping or cluster of coniferous and /or deciduous trees with contiguous crown cover, occupying five hundred (500) or more square feet of property, which are comprised of deciduous trees six (6) inches or larger in diameter or coniferous trees twelve (12) feet or higher in height. 5. Specimen Tree. A healthy hardwood tree measuring equal to or greater than thirty (30) inches in diameter and /or a coniferous tree measuring fifty (50) feet or greater in height. Tree Certification. A certified inventory of trees on the site after work is complete listing all trees and their final disposition, which is signed by a licensed forester or landscape architect. Tree Preservation Plan. A plan and inventory certified by a forester or landscape architect indicating all of the significant trees and their locations in the proposed development or on the lot. The tree preservation plan shall include the size, species, tag numbers, and location of all significant trees proposed to be saved and removed on the area of development, and the measures proposed to protect the significant trees to be saved. Trucking Terminal. t e _ e - • e - • e_ e _ e e e• _ • _ - -= Land or buildings used primarily as a relay station for the transfer of freight from one vehicle to another or one party to another rather than permanent or long term storage. The terminal facility might include storage areas for trucks and buildings for truck maintenance and repair. ..e Variance. A modification of the strict provisions of this Ordinance as applied to a specific piece of property in order to provide relief for a property owner because of undue hardship imposed upon the property by this Ordinance. A variance shall normally be limited to height, density and yard requirements. A modification in the allowable uses within a district shall not be considered a variance. Wading Pool. An above - ground or in- ground structure containing Tess than eighteen (18) inches of water. Warehouse. A building used warehousing. e ,. eeee - for Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -40 • • Warehousing and Distribution. Terminal fa The storage, wholesaling, or dis manufactured products, supplies, and equipment. f Waterbody or Watercourse. M 1k . t vtrith- or bution of surrounded by land, Any natural or man -made passageway on the surface of the earth so situated and having such a topographical nature that surface water stands or flows through it from other areas. The term includes pondinq areas, drainage channels, swales, waterways, creeks, rivers, lakes, streams, wetland areas, and any other open surface water flow which is the result of storm water or ground water discharge. This term does not include man -made piping systems commonly referred to as storm sewers. Watershed. The area drained by the natural and artificial drainage system, bounded peripherally by a bridge or stretch of high and dividing drainage areas. Wetlands. An area where water stands near, or above the soil surface during a significant portion of most years, saturating the soil and supporting a predominantly aquatic form of vegetation, and which may have the following characteristics: 1. Vegetation belonging to the marsh (emergent aquatic), bog, fen, sedge meadow, shrub land, southern lowland forest (lowland hardwood), and northern lowland forest (conifer swamp) communities. (These communities correspond roughly to wetland types 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 described by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 39, AWetlands of the U.S. 1956 ".) 2. Mineral soils with gley horizons or organic soils belonging to the Histosol order (peat and mulch). 3. Soil which is water logged or covered with water at least three (3) months of the year. 4. Swamps, bogs, marshes, potholes, wet meadows, and sloughs are wetlands, and such property, may be shallow water bodies, the waters of which are stagnant or actuated by very feeble currents, and may at times be sufficiently dry to permit tillage, but would require drainage to be made arable. The edge of a wetland is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to preeminently terrestrial. Yard. An open space that lies between the principal or accessory building or buildings and the nearest lot line. Such yard is unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward except as may be specifically provided in the Zoning Ordinance. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -41 • • • Yard, Front. An open space that lies between the principal or accessory building or buildings and the nearest lot line. Such yard is unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward except as may be specifically provided in the Zoning Ordinance. Yard, Rear. A yard extending across the full width of the lot and lying between the rear line of the lot and the nearest line of the principal building. Yard, Side. A yard on each side of the building between the building and the side line of the lot and extending from the front yard to the rear yard. Zero Lot Line. The location of a building on a lot in such a manner that one or more of the building =s sides rests directly on a lot line. Zoning Administrator. The duly appointed officorCommunity Development Director, who is charged with the administration and enforcement of this Ordinance. Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules 1 -42 • • • Rice Creek Watershed 4325 Pheasant Ridge Drive, Suite 611 Blaine MN 55449 -4541 Phone: (763) 398 -3070 Fax: (763) 398 -3088 Mission: Prevent flooding and enhance water quality in harmony with development for the common good PERMIT INFORMATION Rev. April 1999 The Rice Creek Watershed District encompasses 201 square miles of Anoka, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington Counties and was established by the Minnesota Water Resources Board on January 18, 1972. The District boundary approximates the natural watershed area tributary to Rice Creek. Updated Rules and Regulations were adopted by the Board of Managers on August 12, 1998. Additional policies of the District are included in District's Watershed Management Plan. The general policies outlined in these documents conform to those expressed in MS 103B and 103D. The District provides a legal and financial authority to regulate activities which have the potential to affect the water resources of the District. The District has adopted a permit program which requires property owners to obtain approval for the following plans: • Land Development (land subdivision) • Final Site Drainage • Rough Grading • Appropriation of Public Water • Bridge and/or Culvert Construction • Wetland Alteration • Shoreland Alteration • Public and Private Drainage Systems In addition, projects sponsored by governmental units must be reviewed by the Board of Managers. Preliminary plans must be submitted for town, city, county, or other govemmental entity projects listed above and any road, trail, or utility construction. Permits are generally required of the contractor hired to perform the work if the govemment project will impact the water resources of the District. The Board of Managers meets regularly on the fourth Wednesday of each month to act on permit applications. Complete applications must be submitted twenty (20) calendar days prior to the meeting date for consideration at the meeting. Applicants must present all of the items below prior to consideration by the Board: o Completed permit application signed by the landowner (or contractor on govemment projects). o All necessary maps, plans, specifications, and calculations in triplicate. Additional information may be required by the District after the initial review. o Permit fees per the fee schedule on page 4. A refundable cash performance surety will also be required. 1 • • • Land Development Plans Land Development Plans are any proposal to subdivide land. Permit approval is required for: 1. Residential land development plans greater than 5 acres. 2. Industrial, commercial, and multi -unit residential plans greater than 2.5 acres. 3. Subdivision of any size located within: • 100 -year floodplain. • 1,000 feet of a public water or protected wetland, or any parcel containing wetland. 300 feet of Rice Creek, a major tributary to Rice Creek, or a county or judicial ditch. • Areas with slopes exceeding 15 %. Applications for Land Development Plans must include: A. Stormwater Management Plan (see page 3). * B. Grading & Sediment - Erosion Control Plan (see p. 3). * C. Preliminary plat or certificate of survey granting easements over all hydrologic features such as floodplain, wetlands, ditches, ponds, and swales. * A and B are required only for land splits where construction is proposed. Wetland Alteration Plans Permit approval is required for any activity that may affect the size, shape, or character of a wetland. Proposals for wetland alterations must include: 1. Narrative describing purpose of project and efforts taken to avoid or minimize wetland impacts. 2. Grading & Sediment - Erosion Control Plan (see page 3) showing existing and proposed elevations for wetland and spoil disposal areas. 3. Wetland delineation and support documentation in accordance with WCA rules. 4. Wetland Replacement Plan application for projects involving fill or drainage. Public and Private Drainage Plans Construction, improvement, or repair of public or private drainage systems (open or tiled) requires permit approval. Exhibits necessary to accompany the permit application include: 1. Map showing location of project and tributary area. 2. Existing and proposed cross sections and profile of affected area. 3. Description of bridges or culverts required. 4. Narrative describing wetland impacts and affects on water levels above and below the project area. 2 Final Site Drainage Plans Approval of Final Site Drainage Plans is required for: 1. Development of individual sites of 2.5 acres or greater. 2. Impervious additions to existing buildings on sites 2.5 acres or greater. 3. Development on any individual site within: • 100 -year floodplain. ■ 1,000 feet of a public water or protected wetland. • 300 feet of Rice Creek, a major tributary to Rice Creek, or a county or judicial ditch. Construction of a single - family detached dwelling on an isolated lot will not require permit approval unless one of the above - listed conditions exists. Construction on lots within a residential subdivision approved by the District will not require District approval unless the activity does not comply with the original development plan or has been superseded by State law. Permit applications for Final Site Drainage Plans must include: A. Stormwater Management Plan (see page 3). * B. Grading & Sediment- Erosion Control Plan (see p. 3). C. Preliminary plat or certificate of survey granting easements over all hydrologic features such as floodplain, wetlands, ditches, ponds, and swales. * A is not required for construction of a single - family dwelling on an isolated lot. Bridge or Culvert Construction and Repair Bridge or culvert construction and repair on creeks, public ditches, or major tributaries requires permit approval. Necessary exhibits to accompany the application include: 1. Construction details showing: • existing and proposed flow line (invert) elevations. • end details with flared end sections and rip rap (energy dissipaters). • size and description of structure. • emergency overflow elevation and route. 2. Construction schedule. 3. Narrative describing construction methods. 4. Erosion - Sediment Control Plan (see below). 5. Computations of watershed area, peak flow rates, and discussion of potential effects on water levels above and below the project area. to • Appropriation of Public Waters Permit approval is required for the appropriation of water from: 1. A public water basin or wetland wholly within Hennepin or Ramsey County which is Tess than 500 acres in surface area. 2. A protected watercourse which has a drainage area of less than 50 square miles. Applicants requesting approval to appropriate from public waters must complete an Appropriation Checklist (available from the RCWD office). Rough Grading Plan Rough Grading Plans are issued to regulate earthwork on sites which will eventually require either a Land Development Plan or Final Site Drainage Plan, but for which development plans have not been finalized. Construction of impervious surfaces or structures is not generally allowed with this permit. Necessary exhibits include: 1. Grading and Sediment - Erosion Control Plan (see below). 2. Delineation of any ditches, floodplain, and wetland areas. Shoreland Alteration Plans Alteration of the beds, banks, and shoreland of lakes and streams may require permit approval. Most activity is regulated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and /or municipalities. Actions requiring a permit from the watershed district are limited to review of structure and septic field setbacks within the cities of Centerville, Columbia Heights, Fridley, New Brighton, St. Anthony, and Spring Lake Park. Additionally topographic alterations (grading and filling) within the distances specified above under Land Development and Final Site Drainage Plans will require watershed district approval. Necessary exhibits to accompany an application are: 1. Site plan showing building setback from the ordinary high water elevation. 2. Grading and Sediment - Erosion Control Plan (see p.3). 3 4 • Rice Creek Watershed District Permit Fee Schedule Effective 1 -1 -96 Land Development Plans* Less than 10 lots $250 10 - 99 lots $500 100 or more lots $750 Final Site Drainage Plans* Less than 1 acre impervious surface $150 Greater than 1 acre impervious surface $500 Bridge or Culvert Crossing Rice, Clearwater Hardwood Creek $750 Other Public Ditches $500 All Other $150 Streets and Utilities Appropriation of Surface Water All Other Extensions $500 $50 $150 There is no fee for extending your permit. *An Additional $500 fee will apply if project involves a Wetland Replacement or Banking Plan, or a crossing of Rice Creek or a Public Ditch. Note: Extraordinary expenses (inspection, engineering, legal) associated with bringing non- compliant projects into compliance with District rules will be billed based on actual costs incurred or deducted from any performance surety on file with the District.