The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/12/2003 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, March 12, 2003 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers (will not be televised on Ch. 16) AMENDED AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 12, 2003 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Bruggeman Properties, SE corner of Birch Street and Hodgson Road, Preliminary Plat, Rezone, CUP and Site Plan Review, Bob Kirmis, NAC B. RJM Construction, Mueller Office Facility, SW corner of Lake Drive and James Street, Site Plan Review, Mike Grochala C. PUBLIC HEARING, Frauenshuh Companies, Dairy Queen Grill & Chill, Lino Lakes Marketplace 2nd Addition, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for accessory drive - through, Mike Grochala D. Michael McGough, 153 Parkview Drive, Variance, Tanda Gretz E. William Noel, 346 Carl Street, Variance, Tanda Gretz VI. DICUSSION ITEMS A. None VII. ADJOURN • • DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES ehruary 12, 20 :31= P.M y1 I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:31 p.m., February 12, 2003. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 8, 2003 and January 22, 2003 Mr. Corson made a MOTION approve the January 8, 2003 and January 22, 2003 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried (4 -0 -2) (Lane and Tralle abstained). IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:33 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Charles Pfingsten, Charlie's Tree Service, 908 % Maple Street, Rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 6:34 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 2 DRAFT MINUTES Staff stated this application was heard at the January 8th meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. Background, history and analysis was given at that time. 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 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. Staff presented its analysis by explaining 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 DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 3 DRAFT MINUTES (no overnight parking). b.) Parallel to the roadway or on shoulder. 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) 8) 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. 9) 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. 10) Runoff from cleaning equipment must be contained in an environmentally safe manner consistent with EPA/MPCA standards. 11) Weight restrictions for the street must be obeyed. 12) No changes in outdoor lighting to be allowed that would interfere with neighbors privacy. 13)Renewal of this permit to be enforced as per the City of Lino Lakes, with renewal requirements provided to neighbors. 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 DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 4 DRAFT MINUTES • 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 As background, and for comparison, staff attached the previous CUP for the site, which also had a number of conditions. 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, Chair 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 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 Chair 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): DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 5 DRAFT MINUTES "Tree care & servicing businesses, provided that: • No byproducts are stored on site (woodchips, brush, etc.) • Outdoor storage of vehicles is 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. In 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. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Pfingsten stated he had met with the neighbors and he understood their concerns. He stated he found they were all agreeable with what he had planned, but they were in disagreement with the soil testing. He noted he had been in contact with the previous owner, who stated he had installed a holding tank. He stated the septic system was another issue. He stated the owner had not obtained a permit for the system, but had put it in himself. He stated he did not know if the septic system met the standards today. With respect to the environmental tests, the former owner was willing to pay for one -half of the test if the lender required it. Chair Schaps asked how much would an environmental test cost. Mr. Pfingsten replied it could go anywhere from $2,000.00 to $20,000.00. Chair Schaps asked other than those two issues, where they in agreement. Mr. Pfingsten replied that was correct. Mr. Pfingsten stated he would be willing to put in a street light, which was also requested by one of the residents. • Chair Schaps asked staff what kind of inspection was done for a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued. Mr. Smyser replied the issue was the septic system, which the City did not DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 6 DRAFT MINUTES even know was even in existence. He noted it would be appropriate for the City to see what was there. Chair Schaps asked what type of an inspection would be done and would it be sufficient to satisfy the neighbors. Mr. Smyser replied he did not know what type of inspection would be necessary — it depended if there was a septic system there or not. He stated it was difficult to determine what was needed when they did not know what was out there. He noted they would need to have the building inspector look at the area. Mr. Pfingsten stated he believed the septic system and drainfield was located outside the paved area. He noted no cars would be driving over it. He stated he would have the septic system pumped every year, which would be adequate with the amount of use it would get. Chair Schaps invited the neighbors to speak. Kevin Hedgers, representative of the neighborhood, stated they had a good meeting and they had nothing else to add that staff did not already state. He noted they would like to have the septic system investigated and an environmental study done. Mr. Lyden stated the issue of the soil borings and whether there was anything there, he did not believe they had any concrete evidence that there was any issue there, and if there was an issue there, it was something that had been there for a long time. With respect to the septic, he agreed it needed to be investigated and cleaned out every two years. He noted there be very limited use of the septic system. He stated he was for the CUP, but not for amending the zoning ordinance. Mr. Smyser stated they needed to amend the text, to allow the CUP. Mr. Tralle stated he did not believe a text change would change all other rural areas, except for another tree service. Mr. Corson noted if they did change this in a rural area, it would apply also to any farm site and there might be something resulting they do not anticipate by making such a zoning text change. He asked if there was any sense in looking at this area as a rural commercial zone. Chair Schaps replied he did not believe the City had this type of a classification. He asked staff if rezoning to an RBR zone helped this issue. Mr. Smyser replied the RBR district was created to plan for future industrial area along 35E. He noted the concern he had for rezoning the site was did they really want to create one small parcel in the City that was a different zone than everything else around it. He noted if they were going to rezone property, it should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Schaps noted he did not believe this would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 7 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Tralle stated he had a tree business next to his property and he has had no problems with this tree business. He noted a tree business was a good business to have in a residential area. Mr. Smyser noted if the Ordinance was amended, the applicant could not move in until it was approved. He noted the schedule for the Zoning Ordinance revisions was tentative approval in mid to late April, 2003. Mr. Corson asked how the applicant would obey the weight restrictions on the road in the spring. Mr. Pfingsten replied he ran medium duty trucks and there would be no weight restriction problems. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to direct staff to formulate language as to a Conditional Use in a rural zone, prepare the necessary documents to amend the Zoning Ordinance accordingly, and prepare the necessary documents to approve applicant's application, and to direct staff to conduct an inspection of the property for the septic system. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Century Farm North 1st — 7th Additions (formerly Behm's Century Farm 6th — 10th Additions) South of Main Street and North of Carl Street — Section 7, Rezone, MUSA Allocation and Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. Staff explained 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. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 8 DRAFT MINUTES 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. Staff stated 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. Staff presented its analysis by noting with respect to 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. 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). Unit types. The concept plan calls for four different housing types, single family (traditional) 33 units; single family (airpark), includes accessory airplane hangers; 15; single family (detached townhomes) 75; townhomes (traditional) 126 DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 9 DRAFT MINUTES 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. Density. 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. 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 DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 10 DRAFT MINUTES 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 "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. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 11 Townhome Issues DRAFT MINUTES 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 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. Assuming that the 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. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 12 DRAFT MINUTES 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. 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 DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 13 DRAFT MINUTES 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. 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. 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: DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 14 DRAFT MINUTES 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. 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. Chair Schaps asked if the developer agreed with all of the conditions. Staff noted they were. Mr. Corson asked about the Oak Savannah and the maintenance of the trees — He asked if the Air Park would have the ability to maintain the heights of those trees. Mr. Kirmis stated that was his understanding. Mr. Corson requested the maintenance of those trees needed to be put into any Covenants they prepared. Fire Chief Bennett stated he recommended that Carl Street went through. He noted it was necessary for response times. He noted if they did not have a Carl Street connection, they would have to go around the area. He noted it would take approximately a minute and a half difference between putting Carl Street in or not putting Carl Street in. He stated it was a one mile difference. Mr. Lyden asked if the road did not go through, how long did it take to the neighborhood. Chief Bennett replied it took 3 -4 minutes. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 15 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Lyden asked how many residents were within 5 minutes of the fire department. Chief Bennett stated the average response time from time of call to time of delivery was 7.03 on average. Mr. Lyden asked what was the acceptable response times. Chief Bennett replied that was a matter of opinion. He noted the ambulance route had the same route as the fire route had. Mr. Lyden noted without the Carl Street connection, they would still be below average. Chief Bennett replied he was not taking into account the response time, so he believed it was about average without the connection. Chair Schaps asked about having only emergency accesses. Chief Bennett noted he was opposed to that idea because they were not plowed in the winter and to stop to remove the barrier cost them in response time. He noted if the road was plowed, even though it would be only for emergencies, the road would be used by the general public. Mr. Rafferty asked if they would have more corners to take if they put Carl Street through. Chief Bennett noted an additional corner would not be an issue. Mr. Rafferty asked if he had a house at the end of Carl Street and it was currently a cul- de -sac, what would you think if a new development went behind you in and your cul -de- sac went through. Chief Bennett replied he could not speak on that issue. Police Chief Peecha stated their position was a little different than the Fire Department. He stated he had prepared a study on Grid 7 and stated for the emergency calls in that area it took 2 -5 minutes to respond to a medical emergency. Anything over five minutes, the Fire Department was usually there. He noted with the new development, he expected their response times to be similar. He noted there were several additional accesses off of Lilac and Sunset to get into that area. He stated it may or not be beneficial to have access off of Carl Street depending on where the officer was located. Chair Schaps asked if the police had any opinion about the access off of Carl Street. Mr. Peecha replied as long as they had sufficient access off of Sunset and Lilac, it did not impact them that much. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. John Johnson, engineer, stated they were in agreement with the conditions in the staff report. He noted they still needed to discuss phasing in detail. He stated they had submitted two phasing plan. Option one would not include townhomes in the first phase and would not include a connection to Carl Street. At the completion of pahses one and two there would be 120 units. Option two would have 79 units in the first phase, which would include the townhomes and the Carl Street Connection. He noted this option would have 122 units. He stated they were optimistic they could begin construction in late April and they would start marketing the townhomes in late fall, early winter. He stated it was important to have all three products available in the initial marketing. He stated they needed to have an ongoing inventory of approximately 40 units to allow DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 16 DRAFT MINUTES people their choice of location. He stated they had a total of 95 acres, with 25 acres being open space. He stated they were willing to work within the confines of the Ordinance. He asked for input on their proposed phasing. Chair Schaps asked what was the materials going to be. Mr. Johnson replied they would be maintenance free and because it would be a part of a homeowners' association, they would be maintained by that homeowners' association. He stated they had not specifically talked about what materials were going to be used, but they would work within what staff recommended. Mr. Kirmis noted there were instances where the sides of the multiunit structures faced the streets and asked that those facades were "dressed up ", so they were not a blank wall to make them more attractive. Mr. Johnson replied he believed there were windows along the side, in addition to additional landscaping. If noted if windows were not there, he would not be opposed to adding them. Bill Noel, 346 Carl Street, stated his opinion had not changed and he did not want Carl Street to go through because it affected if property value. He noted traffic on Carl Street would increase substantially if it went through. He noted there was a danger factor by having increased traffic on Carl Street. He indicated other options to get to that area had not been explored. He stated the sod owner was willing to sell his property, but nobody followed through with him to see what options were available. Dave Ramsden, 302 Carl Street, stated he could not see anybody driving down Carl Street doing 45 mph, which is what Chief Bennett indicated emergency vehicles traveled. He asked how was there enough room from the ditch to put in a road. Mr. Smyser replied they had looked at that issue and it would work. Mr. Ramsey asked if there would be a fence along the road so people did not end up in the ditch. Ernest Olson, Lot 12, stated he was opposed to the Carl Street connection. He stated if they had to have a through street, a compromise would be to have an emergency only vehicle route. He noted the police did not care if there was a through street or not. He stated the road could have knock down barriers. He stated knock down barriers would not do any damage to emergency vehicles doing through them. He stated when he purchased his property, it was on a cul -de -sac and property on cul -de -sacs meant higher property values. Jeff Kolstad, 296 Carl Street, stated he was "highly" frustrated with the City and the process. He stated at no time had anyone from the City come up with a different proposal for Carl Street. He stated it appeared the City wanted to push the street through. He stated traffic did not warrant Carl Street to go through. He stated he had spoken with the Rice Creek Watershed District and there was a 50 foot easement from the center of the ditch to the edge of the road. He noted development history proved the Carl Street was engineered as a permanent cul -de -sac. He stated the placement of his home was in accordance to the original development plan and wetlands delineated at the time. He indicated the house was placed at the end of the street because of the wetlands and the DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 17 DRAFT MINUTES permanent cul -de -sac. He indicated under advisement from the City Council, Mr. Uhde's development was sent to the P &Z Board to review other options extending Carl Street, for example, including access to the north into Robinson's Sod property and power line access. He noted the City planners had not offered any other solutions as advised by the City Council. He stated the Airpark is unique in comparison to normal neighborhoods. The runway divides the north residences from the south. To "connect" neighborhoods does not fit since our community is unique to aviators. He stated the traffic study completed by the City and Mr. Uhde's development firm specifically stated that the traffic flows into Carl Street did not warrant the extension. He stated the majority of Carl Street residents signed a petition not to extend Carl Street. He noted there were developers interested in purchasing the sod fields for development. He asked why the City did not plan for the future with the Comprehensive Plan to forecast, design and develop without infringing upon existing neighborhoods. He noted from an engineering standpoint, the street would not fit. He asked who was responsible to design and implement the extension. He asked why the City had not proved their point with written documentation. He stated the Rice Creek Watershed District required a 50 -foot easement from the center of the ditch. He stated the Cities easement from the curb to his house was 35 feet. He asked how would the street fit with that easement. He asked if the storm pond was filled, where would the run off water go. He asked about the cul -de -sac removal, driveway extension, and trees. Chair Schaps asked if he was opposed to the development, or just to the extension of Carl Street. Mr. Kolstad replied he was not opposed to the development, just to the extension of Carl Street. Carl Johnson, 314 Carl Street, stated he was opposed to the extension of Carl Street. He asked if it was possible if Carl Street had to go through, that it be maintained at a narrower width. Mr. Studenski replied the City standard for a street was 32 -34 feet. Mr. Johnson noted he was concerned about the small portion that was along Mr. Kolstad's property. Mr. Studenski replied currently Carl Street was substandard to City requirements. If a new road was put in, it would be put in at the current City standards. Mr. Johnson inquired about the bike path along Carl Street. Mr. Johnson replied there was a six foot sidewalks, not an eight -foot bike path that was proposed on Century Trail and whether it went down Carl Street was up to the City. Mr. Johnson noted if there were not a sidewalk, there would leave a larger buffer. He reviewed the history of Carl Street as he understood it. Mr. Rafferty asked if Lots 15 and 16 were ever on the Final Plat. Mr. Johnson replied those lots were undevelopable due to wetland issues. Glenn Martig, 376 Carl Street, stated Lot 15 and 16 were wetlands and could not be developed. He stated the cul -de -sac was put in with the understanding it would remain a cul -de -sac. He noted Carl Street had two "S" turns, which he did not believe would be appropriate for emergency vehicles. He noted traffic would increase drastically if Carl Street was put in. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 18 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Olson noted when the cul -de -sac was installed, the City retained a technical easement from the main property line to the west to where it hit Sunset. He noted that width was 30 feet or less and this was not large enough to build a 32 foot road that was required. He noted the City did not have enough easement to put a road through and the traded off by permitting this entire development. He stated the wetlands were established and this was meant to be a permanent cul -de -sac. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Chair Schaps asked how difficult would it be to build a road along the sod farms. Mr. Johnson replied it would not be an impossibility. He noted they envisioned a trail in that area. He noted a road would impact the pond and /or the house. He asked if it paralleled the power line, could the road share a power line easement. He noted he did not believe it could. He noted one of the other problems was that the sod farm was not in the Comprehensive Plan to be developed at any time in the near future. Mr. Lyden stated the issue of Carl Street was that it was a neighborhood and it was his position that they did not have the right to create a new neighborhood, while destroying another neighborhood. He stated he did not believe emergency access had met the merit to push Carl Street through. He asked staff if this was a viable plat with just a west connection and if it was possible to look at something where it was viable to approve Phase 1, 2 and maybe even 3 and look for the other east/west connection which would run north of Carl Street. Mr. Kirmis replied his understanding was that they wanted Carl Street for emergency purposes. He noted an east/west connection needed to be provided at some point. Chair Schaps stated if the City was willing to wait until Phase 2, it would buy them some time to add an east/west connection. He stated he would like nothing done with Carl Street right now and allow for the connection to made in the future, maybe depending upon a number of things that might change i.e. emergency situation or there was not any other connection that could be created. He suggested the developer get in touch with the sod farm owner to see what options they could work out with him to get an east/west connection. He noted they needed to maintain as much flexibility as they could. Mr. Corson asked if the City should look for a dedication for the street under the power line if they needed it in the future. Mr. Grochala noted they would need to dedicate it for street and utility purposes and not parkland. He indicated the stub to the north would be enough. He stated Carl Street connection was more important at the beginning of the project. Mr. Corson asked if there was a wetland to the north. Mr. Johnson replied the only problem would be the houses off of Fourth. He noted where the trail was now, if they wanted a road through there at some point, they would need to come up with an easement. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 19 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Rafferty asked about the rezoning issues. He stated what the zoning issues were and what they needed to change and why. Mr. Kirmis replied it was a combination of using a PDO for the Airpark lots. He noted the R -1 would apply to traditional, family homes and R -3 would apply to the multi - family homes. Mr. Johnson stated what had been given to the Planning Board was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Smyser noted the Comprehensive Plan did not state what the zoning should be, just what the density should be. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to allocate the MUSA Reserve Allocation of 85.3 acres with staff input. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0 -1 (Mr. Tralle - Abstained). Mr. Corson made a MOTION for rezoning from R (rural) to R -1 (single family residential) and R -3, Medium Density Residential as laid out in the development plan with all staff conditions as related to this motion. The motion was supported by Hyden. Mr. Lyden asked for a friendly amendment from R -1 to R -1X zoning. Mr. Smyser replied the plan was designed to meet the R -1 standards, not the R -1X standards. Mr. Corson rejected the friendly amendment. Motion carried 4 -1 -1 (Mr. Lyden — Nay. Mr. Tralle - Abstained). Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to deny a PDO to allow airplane hangers, private streets and multiple buildings on a single lot. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion failed 2 -3 -1 (Mr. Lyden and Mr. Rafferty — Aye. Ms. Lane, Mr. Corson, and Mr. Hyden — Nay. Mr. Tralle — Abstained.) Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend a PDO to allow airport hangers, private streets, and multiple buildings on a single lot. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried (4 -1 -1) (Mr. Lyden — Nay. Mr. Tralle — Abstained). Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommended that new Carl Street as shown as in the plat have a temporary cul -de -sac, and that it remain as shown on the property line for future consideration as need; that the 14 recommendations of staff be approved, including the recommendation of the Board to "dress up" the side of the townhomes, and to approve the Preliminary Plat. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Mr. Rafferty stated he was objecting to a temporary cul -de -sac and would not be supporting this motion. Mr. Lyden also opposed a temporary cul -de -sac. He stated he wanted assurances that Carl Street would not go through in the future. Mr. Corson noted his motion made it possible for Carl Street to go through, if necessary. Mr. Kirmis suggested the condition be that new Carl Street be extended to the eastern property line and provided a turn around. He stated a temporary cul -de -sac had a DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 20 DRAFT MINUTES connotation to it. He stated the wording temporary meant it would go through at some point. Mr. Corson made an amendment to his MOTION to delete the words "temporary cul -de- sac" and add the words "a turn around on the new section of Carl Street as identified in the developer's plan ". Motion carried 4 -1 -1 (Mr. Lyden — Nay. Mr. Tralle — Abstained). Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:51 p.m. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, ATS &R, Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch Street, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps reopened the Public Hearing at 8:52 p.m. Staff stated 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. Staff presented its analysis by noting the following: 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: (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. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 21 DRAFT MINUTES (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 ACHD. 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 DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 22 DRAFT MINUTES 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. Staff summarized the lot and building performance standards for properties within the R -1, Single Family Residential District and the Shoreland Management Overlay District. Staff noted the proposed building addition meets all applicable lot and building performance standards. Impervious Surface Coverage. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 23 DRAFT MINUTES 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 - 2%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. 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. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 24 DRAFT MINUTES 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. 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 DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 25 DRAFT MINUTES 4 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 ACHD. The applicant must comply with any recommendations of and standards imposed by the ACHD. 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. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 26 DRAFT MINUTES Comment: The proposed use will, as a condition of approval, meet the applicable requirements of the Ordinance. Based on the findings contained in staffs report, staff 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 of Reshanau 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 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. 13. Resolution of drop off issue. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Ted Erkenbrack, representative of church, stated the island as proposed he believed would be a traffic hazard having two lanes of traffic. He stated they had talked with the County engineer with respect to the turn lane situation. Mark Hayes, architect, stated they had 34 feet in width for a drop off zone with 10 feet of traffic to do by. He noted the concern with the other option was that if someone was DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 27 DRAFT MINUTES dropping someone off, the island would restrict people from getting by. He stated their option allowed vehicles to go around the vehicle dropping people off. Mr. Smyser stated staff was in total agreement with applicant's proposal. Mr. Hayes stated there was already screening in place, which they did not realize. He noted there were large 8 -9 pine trees and well as deciduous trees that were put in approximately ten years ago. He requested they not be required to add additional screening. He stated they had originally shown a sidewalk coming out of the sanctuary, but he has discovered it is not something that was required by Code. He asked they not be required to add this sidewalk. Mr. Smyser stated the City did not require a sidewalk. Mr. Smyser suggested adding a Condition number 14 to staff's report indicating that the tree issue would be looked at before this went to the City Council and recommendations would be made to the City Council. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve ATS &R, Living Waters Lutheran Church, 865 Birch Street, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit with the 14 recommendations and conditions as outlined in staff's report. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6 -0. D. PUBLIC HEARING, Bruggeman Properties, SE corner of Birch Street and Hodgson Road, Preliminary Plat, Rezone, CUP, and Site Plan Review Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 9:08 p.m. Staff stated 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) DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 28 DRAFT MINUTES 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. Staff presented its analysis by summarizing the following: 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. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 29 DRAFT MINUTES 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 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. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 30 DRAFT MINUTES 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. DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 31 DRAFT MINUTES • The comments of the Environmental Board are attached to this report. • • 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. Circulation. As shown on the submitted site plan, southerly access to the retail center is to be provided via a private street system. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 32 DRAFT MINUTES 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 staff 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. 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 DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 33 DRAFT MINUTES • calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use 90% of the gross building • area. 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. 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. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 34 DRAFT MINUTES 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. 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. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 35 Conditional Use Permit DRAFT MINUTES 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: 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. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 36 DRAFT MINUTES Comment: This development is not expected to increase public costs, nor be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 6. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Comment: The proposed 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. 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, staff 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. 5. The preliminary plat is revised to accurately identify the area of Lot 1. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 37 DRAFT MINUTES 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. 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. Chair Schaps noted staff was not asking for any action on this tonight due to insufficient information. Mr. Lyden requested there be no gas station in this proposed development. He stated zoning wise, they did not have to put a gas station there. He suggested a restaurant being put in that area. Mr. Hyden asked what was the future of County 49. Mr. Grochala summarized what the plan was for County 49 at this time. He noted the concept plan was for signalization and left and right turn lanes at various points, as well as realignment of Ware Road on the south side of Birch Street. He noted the only reason the County was not widening the DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 38 DRAFT MINUTES road was because the City would not allow it. He noted they would be adding turn lanes, but not additional travel lanes. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Greg Schlink, developer, stated they accepted staff s recommendation for tabling this item. He stated they were working with staff on their recommendations. He noted they were also working with staff on the traffic issues. He stated they have had one neighborhood meeting so far with the residents. He noted there was good attendance at the meeting and the residents were concerned about traffic issues and the townhomes they were proposing, especially the value of the townhomes. He indicated the residents did not want a gas station or retail in the area. Chair Schaps recommended they have more neighborhood meetings. Mr. Schlink replied if they were fruitful meetings, he would not oppose them. He stated they had a nice project that they were proud of. He stated they had a project in Forest Lake and invited the public to see it. He encouraged the residents to see that project. He stated the project was south of 97, just west of the airport. Chair Schaps requested in the future, they bring in pictures of their developments for review. Greg Nault, 6450 Ware Road, stated he was a resident for 22 years. He stated his biggest concern was the density of the project. He asked they consider R -2 residential on Ware Road. He requested the density be kept down along Ware Road. Chair Schaps stated when there was commercial development in the area, one of the ways to transition back to single- residential was to put in medium density housing. Mr. Nault stated if new homes went in Ware Road, they needed to at least know that the homes behind them would be high density. Perry Ladem, 6425 Hodgson Road, stated he was opposed to the rezoning to commercial. He stated when he bought his home five years ago, he researched that the farm was going to be residential and if he knew it was going to be rezoned commercial, he would not have bought his property. He suggested putting in the commercial property along Birch Street where the other commercial property was. Dana Skibsted, 6471 Hodgson Road, agreed that the commercial should be along Birch Street. She expressed concern about the lighting coming into her home and the widening of the road. She requested the lighting to low and that a lot of trees be planted if she loses her pine trees. She requested a berm to protect lighting from coming into her home. She noted they had a well and a septic system and stated there was an existing drainage field in the farmland. She stated she understood the water would be ponded and filtered from the commercial area and that it would drain into her backyard. She asked what would happen if her septic went bad because of this drainage, or if her well gets contaminated from this runoff. She also expressed concern about the run -off going into Baldwin Lake. She stated this could be a huge issue for her. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 39 DRAFT MINUTES Beth Piette, 425 Arrowhead Drive, stated she was against the strip mall, commercial part of the zoning. She stated she believed it had been zoned residential. She stated the Comprehensive Plan would not be met if they put in townhomes. She noted they had plenty of gas stations and retail in the area. She requested the area remain retail. Chair Schaps asked if she had attended the Comprehensive Plan meetings. Ms. Piette replied she did not, but she received the books from the City today. Jeff Kerr, 456 Hawthorn Road, stated he also did not get the Comprehensive Plan books and sometimes it takes something like this as a wake up call. He stated the City was fortunate to have an Environmental Board and requested they take a look at what Lino Lakes has. Bryan Olson, 511 Hawthorn Road, stated he was at the neighborhood meeting and was upset about the disconcern the developer had about the safety and traffic issues on Birch. He stated putting a stop light on Birch and Hodgson would, he believed, help. He indicated this was not only a matter of traffic, but of safety for the children in the area. He stated he was surprised that the developer was still going through with the gas station proposal. He stated there was a gas station going in across the street and they did not need another gas station in the area. He stated he was not in favor of zoning this area as commercial and he was not happy about it being zoned as R -3. He requested the 30 acres be zoned R -1 residential only. He thanked staff for their decision to not move forward with a decision tonight. He stated they needed to have more neighborhood meetings. Cindy Bramwell, 441 Hawthorn Road, asked if they wanted to be like Minneapolis where the roads were not large enough to handle the traffic. She noted they had 142 units proposed, meaning there was 280 cars. She stated she wanted to see both Hodgson and Birch widened with signalization. She believed they should not be developing the area if it would not support the traffic. She stated her main concern was the traffic and believed this was the main concern of the residents. Connie Grundhofer, 235 Linda Avenue, stated she was on the Environmental Board and stated the Environmental Board did not oppose it because of the car wash, but also because of the gas station. She noted there would be drainage into Baldwin and Rice Lake and that was a concern. She stated the soil was not made to hold pollution. Councilmember Carlson, speaking as a private citizen, called attention to the memo by the EDAC memo dated February 6, 2003. She stated it was a free market to decide the locations of gas stations /convenience stores within the City. She noted EDAC was in unanimous agreement that imposing stricter standards on the number of the location of gas stations /convenience stores within the City will impede future economic development. She noted she was at the Comprehensive Plan meetings. Mr. Lyden stated neighborhood businesses eroded the neighborhood. He stated he would • not approve a gas station in this development. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 40 DRAFT MINUTES The developer stated they were willing to meet with the neighbors again, but wanted the meetings to be productive. He asked the Board for their suggestions on what they needed to address. Chair Schaps stressed the importance of neighborhood meetings. Mr. Grochala stated the land use for that corner was commercial and medium density residential in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but he believed there were things that could be done to address some of the neighbor's concerns. He stated the residents needed to realize that the developer's proposal was in compliance with what was suppose to go there. Peter Hilger, architect, stated they had concerns about the traffic capacity of Birch and if the commercial was entirely along Birch Street, would not allow good access. He noted if the access did not work, commercial would not work. He stated they were also dealing with wetland issues and they felt this proposal would have the greatest potential. Chair Schaps stated what was happening tonight was that the public hearing would be continues and the project was tabled until the next meeting. He noted the public hearing would remain open and they would be given the opportunity to speak again if they wanted. When all of the staff issues had been resolved and once staff recommended approval or denial, the Board would vote. He stated he did not know when the vote would happen, it depended on when the staff's concerns were satisfied. Once there was a vote, this was only a recommendation to Council. It was up to the Council to make the final decision. He noted this was typically done within a month after the Board's recommendation. He suggested that they attend neighborhood meetings and to remain civil at those meetings. He stated a development of some sort would happen on this property and stated the best thing they could do was to be constructive and not destructive. He stated the next Board meeting was on March 12, 2003. Diane Lang, 6449 Hokah Drive, asked who determines who is in the neighborhood and how are they notified. Mr. Smyser stated property owners within a certain distance was notified. He stated what they normally did was that when a developer held a neighborhood meeting, they were given the same mailing list that they were required to give for a public hearing. For this type of a project, it was 600 feet for everyone around the property. Ms. Lang stated she had received the notice for tonight's meeting, but not for the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Smyser replied it was the developer's responsibility to send out the letters for the neighborhood meeting and he was given the list. He stated he did not know why she did not receive a notice and suggested she talk to the developer and get on their mailing list. Mr. Rafferty stated he did not believe the current plan flowed very well with respect to traffic and asked the developers keep open ears to the resident's concerns. He noted the developer was the landowner and it was up to them as to what would work, but suggested they work with the neighbors and encouraged them to not put in a gas station. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 41 DRAFT MINUTES • Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the March, 2003 Board meeting. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6 -0. • • E. PUBLIC HEARING, James Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, Rezone to PDO and Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 10:12 p.m. Staff stated 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 build able lots. Each of the lots would be accessed from a proposed private roadway lying within a proposed outlot. 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. 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. Staff presented its analysis by noting the following: City Code DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 42 DRAFT MINUTES 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 water bodies. 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 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. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 43 Land Use DRAFT MINUTES 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 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. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 44 DRAFT MINUTES 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. 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 DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 45 DRAFT MINUTES • 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 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. 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 judgment 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. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 46 DRAFT MINUTES 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 severed 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. 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. Staff recommends approval of the Rezoning. 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. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 47 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Rafferty asked what was the difference between this proposed road and other proposals that had been made previously by other applicants. Mr. Grochala replied this road would service more than one residence, where the other proposals serviced only one driveway. He expressed concern about the maintenance of the road and questioned if a road was going to fit. Mr. Lyden stated he did not have an issue with the 20 -foot gravel road. However, he would like the cul -de -sac not to be there. Ms. Lane asked what the Ordinance said about paved accesses. Mr. Grochala replied this was a rural district and they were not required to have paved accesses. Chair Schaps thanked staff for their working on this and pushing it through the process. He stated he agreed with a 20 -foot road, but did not believe paving it was necessary. He stated he believed they needed to add more than 5 inches of gravel though. He questioned the easement for one of the driveways. Mr. Grochala replied that should be a part of the association agreement. He said the ingress /egress for that parcel should be included in this process. Mr. Hyden stated he was not in agreement on the road. He asked what other development did they approve where they did not require a paved road. He stated what was being proposed was the development of the property and gaining from that development and now they were making another concession. He stated the other issue was what was easier to maintain and where did all of the gravel go after three or four winters. Chair Schaps noted the number of trips on the road was going to be very minimal, but they may want to, in the event, it was developed where it was right now, a paved roadway should be required. It was up to the association to maintain the road. Mr. Hyden stated they needed to be fair to everyone who came before them. Chair Schaps stated this was a unique situation and if another development came in, it would be applied to the same standards. Ms. Lane noted the difference in her mind was that this was zoned rural and had minimal traffic. Mr. Grochala stated Mr. Keefe wanted to have the road less than 20 feet wide, which he would not recommend. Chair Schaps noted the reason they did PDO was to give all sides flexibility. He noted traffic would be minimal in this development. Mr. Grochala stated the road has always been an issue as pieces have been split off. He stated staff wanted something that would work. • Mr. Lyden agreed that the PDO was to look at unique pieces of property. He believed they were not being inconsistent in their decision. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 48 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Rafferty stated he was not as concerned about the bituminous on the road, as he was with respect to safety. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Jim Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, thanked everyone for their support and effort during this process. He thanked staff or pushing this through. He stated he had worked something out with the bank today. He stated the association was in the works. He stated he had lived there for 40 years, and if someone did not want to maintain the road, he would do it himself because he had to get in and out. He stated his neighbors were against a trail running through the area. Mr. Grochala stated they would like to see what options they had with respect to a trail. Mr. Keefe noted the only option for a trial would be through his front yard because the rest of the area was too wet. He stated everyone in the area did not want the trail. Chair Schaps asked if he would work with staff regarding this issue. Mr. Keefe stated he would prefer to give the City money for the park dedication instead of having a trail run through his property. He stated he did not want a trail right next to his home. He stated he would be willing to get a petition from the residents. Mr. Keefe stated his suggestion was with the road was to keep the existing width of Rolling Hills Drive. He noted the neighbors did not want to 20 -foot wide road there because of people driving on their property. He presented the various road widths in the area and stated there was no point in widening the road. He indicated emergency personnel could get in the area. He stated the association would make the road as wide a Rolling Hills Drive. Chair Schaps stated if the road was 12 feet wide, it should not be 12 feet wide and emergency personnel needed to get in the area. Mr. Keefe noted he would be willing to widen the road in the future if this developed any further. Chair Schaps stated it was reasonable to widen the road and not have it paved. Mr. Keefe noted if a 20 -foot wide road was put in, significant trees would be lost. Mr. Corson asked staff to look at the road and determine the width. He expressed concern about parts of the road not being 12 feet. He asked if the road should be 5 or 7 ton. Mr. Grochala replied 7 ton was the City standard. Mr. Keefe stated they intended to have this as a private road and they did not want people to come in and turn around. He noted if service vehicles needed to turn around, they just drove down to his home and turned around. He indicated he did not see the point of a cul -de -sac. Mr. Hyden asked if they could put a sign stating it was a private road. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 49 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Rafferty asked if there was a cost concern about putting in a cul -de -sac. Mr. Keefe replied that was a part of it, but there was not much traffic on the road and people could turn around in his driveway. Chair Schaps noted it was an unfinished situation and people should not have to turn around in his driveway. Mr. Keefe requested the road not be widened to 20 feet, especially since the roads in the area were not all 20 feet. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 10:55 p.m. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve James Keefe, 6300 Rolling Hills Drive, Rezone from R -X Rural Executive to R -X Rural Executive /Planned Development Overlay (PDO). The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 (Mr. Tralle — Abstained). Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the Preliminary Plat subject to the recommendations and conditions as outlined in staff's report with requirement for a seven ton gravel road design and a 20 -foot road width with the idea that at some point these roads would be improved. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6- 0-1 (Mr. Tralle — Abstained). Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 11:05 p.m. and reconvened at 11:10 p.m. F. PUBLIC HEARING, Bill Gschwind, 6931 Lake Drive, CUP and Variance Staff requested Item 5F be deleted from the agenda. G. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Draft Zoning Ordinance Review Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 11:10 p.m. Mr. Smyser asked if any of the Board members had questions regarding sections cne through three. Mr. Smyser noted the following changes /corrections /additions: Page 4 -1, the neighborhood business district will not be deleted. Section 5, tree service would be added to the rural section. He asked if they wanted to add tree service to the R -X District as well. The Board recommended it not be added to the R -X District. Mr. Lyden stated the R -1 was out of date and obsolete. He stated it should be deleted. He stated the minimum lot standard should be R -1X. He indicated homes were getting larger and lots smaller. He stated this would be good for the City. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Pige 50 DRAFT MINUTES Chair Schaps asked how do they provide housing for the average person. Mr. Lyden stated there was already in existence housing that was affordable and they needed housing that would support themselves. Chair Schaps noted smaller homes were not being constructed. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern that a 10,800 square foot land was not buildable to today's standards. He stated he would like to see R -1 at the R -1X size and make the R- 1X size larger. He stated a quarter acre lot was small. He stated this was a good suggestion for the City to look at. Mr. Corson expressed concern about affordable housing. He noted with energy costs and property taxes going up, people may not always be able to afford to build large homes. Mr. Tralle asked why the average person could not live in the City. He noted the average person could not afford to live in the City. Mr. Rafferty replied the cost of the lots are too expensive. Mr. Lyden pointed out the City did not have to be everything for everybody. Mr. Grochala noted the cost of the lots depended on the characteristics of the land. He noted the City had added an additional district of R -1XEC which was the combination of R -1 and R -1X. He noted the developers were always going to maximize the property. Mr. Rafferty stated the reality was that Lino Lakes might not be the starter home community for people. Chair Schaps noted the committee had decided they wanted the diversity of choice and that was the reason it R -1 was left in. He noted the market was going to drive this and he did not see this happening anyway, so it does no harm to leave R -1 in the Ordinance. Mr. Rafferty asked who would be in favor of changing the minimum size of the R -1 lot to 12,800 sq. ft. and the R -1X changed to 15,800 sq. ft. Mr. Smyser pointed out the task force had discussed this they had determined what would work for the lot sizes. He stated whenever discussions arise in any community, he wondered if people who invested in their community and live in townhomes hear everyone hated townhomes, what are they to think. He stated he would feel insulted. Mr. Rafferty noted this was not a criticism to anyone, but by having larger lot sizes, it would only benefit the resident. Mr. Smyser pointed out as the lots got bigger, the price went up. Mr. Smyser noted there was quite a lot of discussion nationwide among religious organizations that there were a lot of people being excluded from communities for various reasons (economics, life- styles, retirees). He asked where are these people suppose to go when they could not afford to live in the community any longer. He stated the City was excluding these people and the more expensive the City made things, fewer people would be able to live here. He stated ethical concerns were extremely important. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 51 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Rafferty noted land was expensive no matter what and people were building homes that were too small for their lots. He stated he was not against people wanting to build a starter home, but he was for it on a larger lot. He stated they should give the people more options for their land. Mr. Tralle stated the community could handle both the $150,000.00 home and the $1,000,000.00 home. He stated the City was being arrogant not allowing diversity into the City. Mr. Hyden noted economics drove this, and if the lots were more expensive, that limited the amount of people that could afford to live in the City. Chair Schaps stated he believed the relative possibility of a lot of R -1 lots in the future was small. Mr. Lyden replied his concern was the quality. Mr. Tralle stated his kids were from Lino Lakes and asked where would they live after college. He asked why could they not live in their hometown. He noted they could not afford to live in the City they grew up in. Mr. Lyden pointed out that most of the children in the City would probably have to live in an inner ring area until they built up equity. Mr. Tralle stated this town was built on blue - collar workers, and blue - collar workers should be able to live here if they want. He noted this town was now turning into white - collar workers. He asked why should his kids not be able to live in Lino Lakes after they graduated. Mr. Rafferty stated kids these days would have no choice but to buy older homes because they would not be able to afford new homes. Mr. Rafferty asked if there was a new comprehensive map that was available. Mr. Smyser stated the Comprehensive Plan does not change the zoning. The land use map says what the City wanted the land to become. The zoning map was not changed. He noted there was a couple of places that they would need to look at in the future, but the Comprehensive Plan does not change the zoning map. Mr. Rafferty asked who was in favor of increasing the R -1 minimum. Mr. Lyden and Mr. Rafferty were in favor. Ms. Lane noted the market was going to drive what the development was and it would not make any difference what they did. Mr. Smyser noted in both Rural Districts, they added planned development for rural cluster. It would be a CUP and not a rezoning. Page 6 -13, garage size requirement would be deleted and it would state that an attached double garage would be required. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 52 DRAFT MINUTES Page 6 -34 under conditional uses, clubs and lodges, Mr. Smyser suggested be deleted. The Board agreed with the suggestion. No changes were made to the R -6 District. The R -7 District was deleted. Brick red would be added to the colors under the neighborhood business district. Mr. Smyser asked if gas stations should be allowed in the business districts. He stated the other committees agreed they should remain in the business districts. Mr. Lyden stated no -- gas stations should not be allowed. He indicated the City did not need this. Mr. Smyser stated they would remain in as a Conditional Use Permit as written. Ms. Lane asked if gas stations stayed in the Ordinance, did they have to approve the development. Mr. Smyser replied as long as the development met the requirements, the Board would have to approve the development. He noted they were tightening up the requirements for gas stations. Mr. Hyden stated he was concerned that the City would have 50 gas stations. He stated the City had too many gas stations and banks. Mr. Smyser replied they could not legally base any decision on how many people showed up to oppose it, but they could oppose it by limiting the locations of the gas stations by putting something in the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Schaps noted the gas stations were already limited to basically four intersections in the City. Councilmember Carlson asked why couldn't they limit gas stations like they do liquor stores, by saying they need to be so far apart. Chair Schaps asked who wanted to eliminate gas stations. The Board recommended to eliminate it out of the neighborhood business district. Mr. Rafferty suggested limiting gas stations to the freeway accesses. Chair Schaps stated if they wanted commercial development, whether they like it or not, it would need to have a gas station with it to be successful. Mr. Rafferty noted there were many business they could put in. Chair Schaps replied no developer would be interested in developing if they could not ensure people would get out of their car. He noted gasoline drives the leasing. He noted the only option they had was to say where they did not want gas stations — not that they did not want them in the City. Mr. Rafferty stated he was in favor of eliminating gas stations from commercial sites and limiting them to the freeway entrances. DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 53 DRAFT MINUTES • Ms. Lane stated she wanted to eliminate them from neighborhood business district. Mr. Tralle stated gasoline was driving the rental, but who was going to come in the City to start a business if there was no incentive. He noted the economic development in the City has gone nowhere. He noted to be realistic about bringing businesses into the City, what did they want here, and what type of incentives were they giving businesses to come into the City. Mr. Grochala noted the City has put up a lot of roadblocks to development and indicated a lot of businesses did not want to come into the City because it was too difficult to get in. Mr. Tralle stated he wanted to spend his money in the community he lived in instead of giving it to other communities. He noted the reality was that people wanted fast food and convenience. Mr. Corson asked if they could limit the number of gas stations in the City by limiting the locations in the neighborhood business district. Mr. Tralle noted competition was a good thing when it came to gas stations. Mr. Lyden noted they did not have any kind of buffer between general business and residential. He stated he liked the idea of business parks, but the problem was that they were doing things the old way by putting up businesses next to residential area. He stated he wanted to see buffers between businesses and residential areas. Mr. Smyser asked if they wanted to eliminate gas stations from some particular locations. The Board agreed with that recommendation. The Board agreed to eliminate gas stations from the Neighborhood Business District and designate some specific locations for that. Mr. Smyser stated he would need to look into Councilmember Carlson's suggestion about limiting gas stations by how close they were located to each other. Mr. Smyser asked which locations did they not want to see gas stations. The Board decided the following — Freeway interchanges — yes. County Road J and Hodgson — yes. Hodgson and Lake Drive — yes. Centerville and Birch — no. County Road J and Centerville Road — yes. Hodgson and Birch — no. Mr. Smyser asked if the Board wanted bulk propane sales. The Board decided to allow bulk propane sales at gas stations. Mr. Smyser asked if they wanted to allow tennis domes and if so, where. The Board decided tennis domes were allowed in the general business and light industrial districts. Mr. Smyser stated the Central Business District automatically becomes the General Business District. Mr. Smyser indicated they were creating a new zoning district called the Planned Unit Development District to be used for mixed development. Planned Development Overlay would be deleted. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board February 12, 2003 Page 54 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Lyden stated they needed to plan for some accesses to the Regional Park for snowmobiles. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 1:23 a.m., February 13, 2003. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. Ms. Lane MOTION to approve Zoning Ordinance with recommendations. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Mr. Lyden requested the snowmobile issue be addressed. Motion carried 6 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 1:28 a.m., February 13, 2003, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Bob Kirmis (NAC) P AND Z MEETING DATE: March 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) The Planning & Zoning Board tabled the request at the February 12th meeting, as a number of issues had yet to been addressed. Specifically, staff had stated that they "cannot recommend approval until the following items have been addressed: (items 1- 19)." RECOMMENDATION Staff is continuing to work with the developer on these issues and recommends tabling this item again. STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM 5B Michael Grochala March 12, 2003 Site & Building Plan Review and Commercial MUSA Allocation 7960 Lake Drive Robert Mueller The application is for a site and building plan review on a vacant commercial lot on the southeast corner of Lake Drive and James St. Mr. Robert Mueller proposes to build an office building for professional offices. The site is guided and zoned for this type of use. It is not within the MUSA: in order to connect to city utilities, it must receive MUSA. This review is based on the following plan submittals: 1. Plan Set, Sheets 1 -3 (Site, Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control; Site and utility Plan; Landscaping and Tree Preservation), prepared by Glenn Rehbein Companies, dated February 1, 2003. 2. Certificate of Survey for Robert A. Mueller, prepared by Glenn Rehbein Companies, dated February 6, 2003. 3. Architectural Plans, prepared by RJM and received by the City on February 10, 2003 4. Photometric Lighting Plan, prepared by RJM and received by the City on February 10, 2003. ANALYSIS Land Use and Zoning: Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site vacant Commercial CB Central Business North commercial (bank) Commercial CB Central Business South commercial (rental business) Commercial CB Central Business and R -X Rural Executive East single family home Low Density Unsewered Residential R -X Rural Executive West Lake Drive, single family homes Low Density Sewered Residential R -1 Single Family Residential • Mueller Site Plan March 12, 2003 page 2 The submittal complies with the CB zoning standards as follows: MUSA: The site currently is not within the MUSA. With the adoption of the comprehensive plan, the City has a MUSA reserve. As stated in the comprehensive plan and reiterated in Ordinance 01 -03, the Growth Management Policy, we have a total of 74 acres of commercial/industrial MUSA reserve. This can be allocated anytime prior to year 2010. The Mueller project will require .73 acres of MUSA reserve. Building: The building resembles a rambler, and thus will be compatible with the residential character of the James St. neighborhood. The footprint is approximately 5766 sf. The building will be approximately 20 ft. high (average height of the pitched roof, according to the definition in the zoning ordinance). The exterior walls of the building will have a cultured stone base with face brick above. The roof will be asphalt shingles. The trash area is shown on the plan and will be screened with a wall of the same face brick as on the building. Parking For offices, our code requires three spaces minimum, plus one space per 200 sf. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use 90% of the gross building area. gross Required Proposed Lot size minimum none 0.8 acres (existing) Lot width minimum none Required Setbacks: buildings from street rear lot line side lot line parking from street rear lot line side lot line 40, 30 10 10 15 10 10 40, 30 140 ± 10 15 10 10 Bldg. height 45 20 ± Green space 85% 53% MUSA: The site currently is not within the MUSA. With the adoption of the comprehensive plan, the City has a MUSA reserve. As stated in the comprehensive plan and reiterated in Ordinance 01 -03, the Growth Management Policy, we have a total of 74 acres of commercial/industrial MUSA reserve. This can be allocated anytime prior to year 2010. The Mueller project will require .73 acres of MUSA reserve. Building: The building resembles a rambler, and thus will be compatible with the residential character of the James St. neighborhood. The footprint is approximately 5766 sf. The building will be approximately 20 ft. high (average height of the pitched roof, according to the definition in the zoning ordinance). The exterior walls of the building will have a cultured stone base with face brick above. The roof will be asphalt shingles. The trash area is shown on the plan and will be screened with a wall of the same face brick as on the building. Parking For offices, our code requires three spaces minimum, plus one space per 200 sf. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use 90% of the gross building area. gross code Spaces Spaces area 90% requirement Required Provided 5766 5189 1 per 200, plus 3 29 31 Lighting: Light fixtures in the parking lot will be on two poles. One, in a central location, will have four fixtures. The other will be near the driveway. All parking lot fixtures will be 90 degree cutoff fixtures. • Mueller Site Plan Marchl2, 2003 page 3 The photometric plan must indicate no more than 0.4 foot candles at the residential property line to the east, and no more than 1.0 at street centerlines. Signage: Signage is governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits are required for all signs. All signs will be reviewed with the sign permit applications. Landscaping: As shown on the landscape plan, a variety of trees, shrubs and ornamental plantings are proposed on site. Five existing 12 inch pines located along the eastern property line will be preserved. Utilities A utility plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. Water and Sanitary sewer service were provided to service the site as part of the Lake Drive Utility Extension improvement project. As a condition of plan approval, the utility related modifications and comments as set forth in the City Engineer's memo should to be incorporated into the final plans. Stormwater management A grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of plan approval, the grading and drainage related modifications and comments as set forth in the City Engineer's memo should to be incorporated into the plans. The plan is not subject to review and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. The City native seed schedule should be used in infiltration and ponding areas. Revised plans should also include tree protection measures. The applicant will also be required to enter into a ponding maintenance agreement with the city. Roads, Access, Circulation The Site will be accessed from James Street. The access location is appropriately spaced between the Lake Drive intersection and an existing access into the US Bank property. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION The Environmental Board reviewed the project on February 26, 2003. Their comments • are attached and have been incorporated into this report were applicable. 4.4 Mueller Site Plan March 12, 2003 page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Site and Building Plans and MUSA Allocation with the following conditions: 1. The trash screening enclosure will use the same brick as the principal building. 2. Lighting must meet ordinance requirements of no more than 0.4 foot candles at the residential property line to the east, and no more than 1.0 at street centerlines. 3. The utility related modifications and comments as set forth in the City Engineer's memo, dated March 6, 2003, shall be incorporated into the final plans. 4. The grading and drainage related modifications and comments as set forth in the City Engineer's memo, dated March 6, 2003, shall be incorporated into the plans. 5. The grading and drainage plans shall be revised to include tree protection measures and measures to avoid soil compaction in designated infiltration areas. 6. The Landscaping Plan shall be revised to include City native seed schedule for all infiltration and ponding areas. 7. The applicant shall enter into a Site Performance Agreement with the City. Such agreement shall provide for ongoing maintenance of ponding and infiltration areas. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location Map 2. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan 3. Site and Utility Plan 4. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Plan 5. Building Exterior Elevations 6. Environmental Board Comments 7. City Engineer's Comments N // /9 COUNTY-- STATE -AID- HIGHWAY-' - NO.14 24' 14 15 16 IT 18 1 . 231 • 909.0 GRADIING.. PLAN 909.3 GRAPHIC SCALE • r r r 909.6 / / 909.0 /,,,, (araT) 1 lack -m R. 1 1 0 03 0 tO I 1 11 1 4911.7 TNH 0 CV 909 1 GRADING NOTES AND SEQUENCING SILT -FENCE TO BE INSTALLED DOWNHILL FROM ANY GRADING ACTIVITY SOME TREES AND DEAD FALL ARE TO BE CLEARED BEGIN STRIPPING TOPSOIL SITEWORK SHALL BEGIN ONCE SILT FENCE IS INSTALLED CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE OFF JAMES STREET SILT FENCE TO BE MAINTAINED DURING GRADING SEED AND MULCH DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF FINAL DISTURBANCE GRASS AREAS AND BERMS SHALL BE SEEDED WITH THE CITY OF LINO LAKES SEED SPEC. #5, SHORT/DRY MIX SEEDING, SUPPLEMENTED WITH BLUEGRASS. CAN BE BROADCAST AT 0.5LBS PLS /1000 SF OR DRILLED AT 10LBS PLS /ACRE. MULCH RATE SHALL BE TWO TONS PER ACRE STORMWATER POND SHALL BE SEEDED WITH THE CITY OF LINO LAKES SEED SPEC. #2. CAN BE BROADCAST AT 40Z /1000SF EQUIVALENT SEED MIXTURES MAY BE USED RECOMMENDED SEEDING DATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: OPTIMUM: MAY 20TH-JUNE 20 RANGE: SPRING THAW TO AUGUST 10 SEPTEMBER 20 TO FREEZE UP SITE .DRAINS TOWARD .LAKE. DRIVE, DITCH AND THEN HEADS . TO THE SOUTH MIN. BSMT. OR FLOOR ELEV. SHALL BE A MIN. OF TWO FEET ABOVE 100 YEAR POND /LAKE ELEVATIONS ANY RIPRAP SHALL BE CLASS II CONTACT WILLIAM MCCULLY, P.E. AT GLENN REHBEIN COS. ® (763) 784 -0657 909.5 909.9 James Street "'NO GRADING TO BE DONE OFF SITE ROCK CONST. $LTRANCE SIGN r TUFF TURF 908.5 LINED SWAI.E 909.2 909 4, PROPERTY LINE 910.8 -x - -910.0 910.4 END CURB AT BC WEIR (SEE ND DOA! F, /ELEVArnON / Af 08.7 �I 909. II J_ 8' I28� FLAT si CURB (TYP. A•P tiI PAVEMENT SECTION 1� bI I WEAR] 1.5" BIT. ASE 6" CL V CYQLED x X909.87 6612 CURB -Yi (TYP 910.07 �ry 908.2 oa' X j 909.4 908.6 Box -- EXisting Bldg \\ TUFF -LINED S x 907.7 4- x 907.3 4- i0 9G9.'0 X 912.4 911.3 LEGEND SILTFENCE SF SF SF DRAINAGE ARROWS ■• EXISTING CONTOURS k 909 - EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONS 909.2 PROPOSED CONTOURS PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONS X909.5 TEMPI. I MFM0 001 OM& I1 TOP VIEW WEIR DATA POND 213 FO. TOP NWL SILL ORIFICE INVERT WEIR LENGTH 0.0. 807.8 807.75 807.0 807.0 108.75 (483137.) r M••MW DEPTH - Y WASHED ROOC 18" e•TW8111 CUT OFF BERM TO INMAN 1819 F7 FROM STE NWIAr ROCK aU1ANCE W TRACKING !EONS ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE •I END7EBY CERTIFY THAT TINS , PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY WE OR UNDER WY DIRECT S.IPERVI0ON AND THAT I AY A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UINOER WE LAWS CF THE STATE OF IRNNESOTA W.A.T. NCGIALY o I -L_ W -"C I r .2 c W Z C2 W c --I 'i co DRAWN DRL WATMD DATE 02/0 1 03 VERTICAL SCAtE HOM2y 1. : 20 Joe NO. 02523 BOOK PAGE SHEET 1 OF 3 SHEETS/ r • SITE AND UTILITY PLAN r' / CONNE � 6" WM W/ y TAP. -1� R C FR GEX. W SER GRAPHIC SCALE • • ■ ( 61 P16T) 1 Web - 1:e N. *911.57 TNH EX- SSMH23 TC: 909.02 INV: 690.45 SIGN EX. James Street EOP 21.5" ENO CURB AT PROPERTY LINE SAN. WYE / 12 L.F. 4" j,Q L.F. 4" INV. EL if LF.4 / .1 / P~ / (SEEP N �0 FOR ELEV 1 eiztamfk+::SNrnTE::: T 2 / 4" CONC. —WALK CURB CUT 55 SER FOR HANDICAP (50 LF•VC) RAMP BUILDING 5,766 SF FFE: 910.3 6" ND. 6" ATE VALVE BOG AO 5.0' CURB (TYP.) PARKING STALL 9'X16' (TYP.) / STORM P BUILDING BI T. ACK (TYP.) EX- SSMH22 TC: 907.97 IN V:889.57 P.P Te1.c Box Existing Bldg X - -ANDON SWALE X EXISTING FENCE 10' x EXISTING FENCE X -4— X x X 1 BoC RAD 15.0' H612 10' CURB f —TYP.) 1, ,11 I P { ., 0 12'X12' -IF- DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE _ W /6" CONC. PAD (SE- ARGHITECTURN PLANS FQR DETAIL —I► X X t- X 10� • UTILITY NOTES WATERMAIN CONNECTION TO BE WET TAPPED INTO EX)SITNG 12" LINE ALONG LAKE DRIVE DOMESTIC AND FIRE —FLOW SHALL BE SPLIT IN THE BUILDING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE SHALL BE EXTENDED FROM EXISTING SEWER SERVICE ALONG LAKE DRIVE NO TREES TO BE PLANTED OVER UTILITY LINES OR IN ANTICIPATED EXPANDED ROW SITE NOTES TOTAL SITE AREA: 0.73AC TOTAL IMPERVI0US:0.39AC /16,804SF OR 52.8% TOTAL PARKING SPACES: 31 (BASED ON USABLE FLOOR SPACE) FLAT CURB USED WHERE SHOWN TO CONVEY WATER TO INFILTRATION SWALES BY HAVING WIDER CURB OPENINGS RUNOFF WILL BE BETTER DISTRIBUTED OVER SWALES, THUS RESULTING IN A HIGHER QUALITY AND BETTER FUNCTIONING INFILTRATION SWALE AND REDUCING OR ELIMINATING AREAS OF CONCENTRATED SEDIMENT BUILD —UP LEGEND EXISTING 21" SANITARY SEWER > > > EXISTING SANITART SEWER MANHOLE QS EXISTING 12" WATERMAIN 1 l I l EXISTING HYDRANT V EXISTING STORM SEWER — ST 5T ST ST — ROAD CENTERLINE --------------- EDGE OF BITUMINOUS (HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS , PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERAS06 AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONN. ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA W.A.T. McCUILY DRL CHECKED WATM 02/01/03 VERTICAL SCALE •OINZ. : 20' BOOK JOB NO. 02523 PACE SHEET 2 3 SHEETS r• • LANDSCAPING & TREE PRESERVATION PLAN KEY Scientific Nome Common name Habitat. Comment. AO Aaslanchtsr xgrondiflora ',Mann Brillimeo' Autumn Balance Servioeberry MD Clump farm AR Acs rubnun •Nodhwooda' Northwood. Red Maple M Moisture tolerant BN Berth nigra River Birch MD Clomp form CC Crataegmu ma -gall via Mersa. Thornless Hawthorn MD Dtosaht tolerant CO Gftlraceidsnldir Haokbeny MD Red 2.5-3' everbloomirg MP Mahe 'Prairifbe' Pracda. Fleweriag Cabappl° M Pink 2- 3'everblaning MSD Mahn'Saodri&' Sondra Crabapple M Red 3' POS Picmglarea dnvora Bleak Hills Spam MD White 3' PN Pines 'ogre Austrian Pine MD Salt tolerant PR Pbau reairora Narway or Rod Piro MD Rd 2 -2.5 everblooming IT Populcea orenWoider QaakoS Amon MD Plant in gaagwg QB Quenon bicolor Swamp White Oak MD 10-12' SRI Syringe reticulate 'Ivoty_SBk' J•pamwe The Liao M 48' SHRUBS Key Scientific Name Common nine Habitat Comments AOC A.... ai, ^abr'..•eve..tw.r Cw.p'.. Anus hfayte MD MW CS Corms ..teen 'laadri' hand Dogwood MW Moisture tolerant -BwinfiloolrlionoymnelDroughttelconant Blue Chip laminar MD Creeping JBC Juniper+ 'Blue Chip' PPG Ptc.a pygmy 'Globose' Dwarf Blan Spruce MD 4'-5' RC Rosa 'Champlain' Champlain Shrub Rose M Red 2.5-3' everbloomirg RC Rosa 'Carefree Wonder' Carefree Wonder Shrub Rase M Pink 2- 3'everblaning RGV Rom 'George Vmeauver' Geo ge Vancouver Shrub Rose M Red 3' RH Ram 'Henry Hudson' Henry Hurhon Shrub Rom M White 3' RHH Rom 'Hope for Humanity' Hope foe Humanity Shrub Ram M Rd 2.5-3' everbloomirg RW Rosa 'Wimipeg Parks' Wienipsg Parks Shrub Rae M Rd 2 -2.5 everblooming SG Spirant 'Ooldmound' Goldrnowid Spirea DM Compel SH Syringe x hyacinrharllora 'Pocahontas' Pocahontas Lilac M 10-12' SP Syringe pantie 'Miss Kim' Miss Kim Lilac M 48' PERENNIALS AND PRAIRIE PLANTS (FORDS) KEY Scientific Name Common name Habitat Sae Camara AI Asekplru renraaa SmumMi kweed MW 25" Widely adaptable CV Commits waHNWa'Zagreb' Zagreb Careopria MD NI Tolemba drought EM Rupatorhws nmcvletur Joe Pie Weed MW 2.5" 1 -2' height EP Robin.= papaya Purple Cam Flower MD 4^ Tolerate. web .ilea HPM Hemeroea/Jia 'Pardo. Me' or'Baji Drylily 'Pardon M•' M AI Doer Red HSD Reneeecaits 'Steal de Oro' or 'Happy Retur•a' Stout do Om Dayhly M NI Goldin yellow or light yellow 15 Iris sibaka'Ruftlud Velvet' Raffled Velvet Siberia. Iris M Al IV Iris rersicolar Bee Flag kin MW 4^ MF Monarda frrtulosa Wild Bergamot MWD 25" NW MopetaXfearenil 'Waken Low' Walker's Law Catmint MD NI Tolerate. drought RG Redbeckia 'Goldatrm' Goldner. Radbekia or Brows Eyed Swan MD 4" GRASSES KEY Sdeetifc Name Corso. same Habitat Sao Commando CA Caarrogrostis x aevniiara 'Karl Ranter' Feather Reed Gram M 4" Widely adaptable SH Sporobdur heterakpa Prairie Dreamed M • 4" KM Kodara nnaranthe Jmegra. M 4^ 1 -2' height SP Spam. pectinate Nitric Cordgraa MW 2.5" Tolerate. web .ilea SS Scbirachyrtua romaruu gale Bluest® MD 4" • D" Plant prefers • dry aim M= Male -plant prefers a site that is moderately, but not aaoewively moist W "plant prefos a mein location and will tolerate short periods of naedirg water or moderately long period. of constantly moist soil eaditioa. REQUIREMENTS FOR TREES, SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, AND PRAIRIE PLANTS: • All deciduous trees coo to be 2" in diameter or greater (measured at 6" from ground) and root systems ball and burlappcd (B&B) and supported in a sturdy wire basket that bolds the root ball in a firm, rigid condition (See pp. 5-6, item 13.1 through 1.4 of AAN Standards for Nursery Stock). • All evergreen (coniferous) trees are to be 5'-6' in height and trees dug and processed using B&B method with sturdy wise basket around root ball. Minimum root ball diameters shall be the same as those specified for deciduous trees (item 1.3.1 through 1.4 and pp 14.15, item 314 Minimum diameterball.ia2A " for a5'conifer, 2 "minimumioea6'Lee. ' • All shrubs, evergreen and deciduous, are to be of 4-5 gallon container Size (in 113 or 45 pot sizes). • All perennials and prairie plants are to be in containers no smaller than what is specified in plant list Container sizes specified in inches refer to the diameter or width of container or pot. A 41 size refers to • 1 gallon size container. OTHER REQUIREMENTS: • Mulch all trees and shrubs with 4" of hardwood shredded bark mulch. Mulched areas around tree trunk should be 4' in diameter. • Mulch all perennial beds with 2" of hardwood shredded bark mulch • After planting and before mulching, apply a granular pre - emergent herbicide (such as Preen) around all plants. • Edge all beds with Black Diamond Vinyl edging or equivalent • Water plants thoroughly after planting. Also wet down mulch thoroughly an moisture penetrates into soil below in order to activate herbicide. REQUIREMENTS FOR SEEDING AREAS: • Infiltration basins shall be seeded with the City of Lino Lakes Seed Spec N3, mixed height/Mesic Wildflower seed mix. Seeding shall be broadcast at a 4 oz./10C0 SF. • Grass areas and berms shell be seeded with the City of Lino Lakes Seed Spec 05, Short/Dry seed mix Seeding can be broadcast at a 0.51bs PIS /1000 SF or drilled at 10Ibs PLS /acre. • Rain water gardens shall be planted with Isanti Dogwood, Red Twig Dogwood and Pussy Willow shrubs. In addition Swamp Milkweed, Marsh Marigold, Joe Pye Weed, Blue Flag In; Black Eyed Susan and Big Blue Stem Clumps will be used. A plant shall be placed every 25 square fat. • Provide four inches of black dirt, tilted seven inches into sub -grade throughout landscape areas ' • Provide decorative mulch and/or foundation planting under building roof overhang • W storm pond -1590 sf S rainwater garden -881 sf a GRAPHIC SCALE Y w w ( at nom ) 1 Inch • SO R 4 /EDGING (1313SF WOOD / MULCH) 'V 2 —•., o / . .0 t / of NO LA QTO • :r r OVE: 1 LIN' / T, / LEGEND SWAMP WHITE OAK • PINE Ali- GRASS CLUMP G e SHRUBS AND Q PERENNIALS (GGVV W 911.57 TNH le -�- SIGN 8 —J8C 3 —CO GENERAL LANDSCAPING NOTES SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE DONE BY OTHERS SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND BERMS WITH SPECIFIED SEED ALL TREES TO BE BALL AND BURLAPPED ALL TREES SHALL BE STAKED AND GUYED PER NURSERYMAN'S STANDARDS LANDSCAPER TO INSTALL EDGING MATERIAL AROUND SHRUBS. FILLED WITH MULCH OR ROCK PER DEVELOPER'S CHOICE PRESERVE AS MANY TREES ALONG EAST AND SOUTH PROPERTY UNES AS POSSIBLE TREE SPECIES ALONG LAKE DRIVE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR SALT TOLERANT SPECIES NO LANDSCAPING TO BE PLANTED OVER UTIUTY UNES OR IN ANTICIPATED ROW James Street CO AR EXISTING FENCE X x 2I MSC SEE ARCHITECTURE PLANS FOR DUMPSTER DETAILS AND SCREENING PROVIDE DECORATIVE MULCH AND /OR FOUNDATION PLANTING UNDER BUILDING OVERHANG Existing Bldg X PRESERVE EXISTING 15' TREES EXISTING — -"FENCE RECEIVED FEB 1 0 2003 CITY OF LINO LAMES PRESERVE EXISTING 12' PINE TREES (HEREBY CERTFY 1HAT TWS PLAN OR SPECIFIWICN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DRRECT SIIPERNSKR AND THAT 1 AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS a 1)R STATE Of IMME50TA W.A.T. McctLLY TTATE: REG. NO.221JI / • 1 11.-0' 38.. b N • • FRONT S.7E8 S.F. TYPICAL SIDE AND REAR PREFINISHED M1L CAP FLASHING CHAIN LINK GATES. W/ SLATS PREFINISHED 1411.. CAP FLASHING SOLDIER COURSE FACE BRICK EIIICL0SURE ELEVATION NOTE TOTAL SIGN S.F. ONE FACE W/ BASE IS 143 SU'. 4 12 111111111.1.1 211121111111111111M11111, TRUSS BRG EL 112 ' -0" 1 $ TRUSS BRG EL 110' -0" EL 100 -0` 2' 4 12 $ ERUSS PRO El. 11T-0- •7 I,1RU55 0' BEL 11-0" RG 100. -0' ASPHALT SHINGLES FACE BRICK SOLDIER COURSE ALUM GLAZING SYSTEM W/ 1' INSUL CLASS PRECAST CONC SILL BLK. DECORATIVE UGHT FIXRJRE CULTURED STONE BASE ELEVATION 1 WW1 TIP. O LOW SFFT. I I _umx__g1 =wm__ 1 _— n-- d�.�= __ —___ ®ATN PREFINISHED M11- CAP FLASHING SOLDER COURSE SIGN CAB. - 52 SF. DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE FACE BRIO( PRECAST CONC. SILL CULTURED STONE BASE I aL ASPHALT SHINGLES FACE BRICK SOLDIER COURSE ALUM GLAZING Sial.M W/ 1' INSUL GLASS PRECAST CONC 5 U. BLJ(. DECORATIVE UGHT FIXTURE CULTURED STONE BASE TRUSS BR 'Fl. 112' -0' G 1RUSS BRG $FL 110' -0' T.O. FIN. FLR. $EL 100. -0' ELEVATION ..WRIFY FOOTING DEPTH THIS ELEVATION PER GRADING REQUIREMENTS RJM 5455 HWY 169 PLYMOUTH, MN 55442 4 763 -383 -7600 (TEL) 763 - 383 -7601 (FAX) W at 3 LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA DATE ISSUED SCALE JOB NO • MEMORANDUM • • To: Michael Grochala CC: Jeff Smyser From: Marty Asleson Date: 03/03/03 Re: Environmental Board Recommendations /February 26, 2003 The following recommendations were made at the February 26, 2003 Environmental Board Meeting regarding the Mueller Office Building: • Mueller Office should submit soil boring information to the City, demonstrating that the seasonally high ground water would be at least 3 feet below the bottom of the proposed infiltration swales and ponds. • All lighting proposed should be kept to a minimum numbers and minimum heights. All lighting should be pointed down. Lighting should not exceed the City Standards for lot "spillage." Lights for the parking lot should be timed for off after business hours. • The City native seed schedule should be used in infiltration areas. • All sod areas should have four inches of topsoil thoroughly incorporated into the subsoil and should be irrigated. • A sequencing plan should be submitted indicating soil and tree protection measures. • A site maintenance plan should be submitted for pond and swale areas. The maintenance plan should include plans for parking lot sweeping and litter pick -up. Motion was made by O'Dea, Second by Grundhofer. All were in favor. Motion passed. Memorandum DATE: March 6, 2003 TO: Mike Grochala FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Mueller Office Facility Attached is the TKDA design review dated March 6, 2003, of the submitted documents for the proposed Mueller Office Facility. The overall design is in conformance with the City of Lino Lakes requirements. The following comments must be addressed prior to final approval given for this project. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Phone: 651 -982 -2400 • Fax: 651 -982 -2499 • TDD: 651 -982 -2410 TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM 1500 Piper Jaffrey Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com To: James Studenski, City Engineer Reference: Mueller Office Facility Copies To: City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota From: Scott A. Brink Date: March 6, 2003 Comm. No. 12701 -002 Routing: The construction of an office facility is proposed at the southeast corner of Lake Drive (CSAH 23) and James Street. A set of plans has been submitted to the City of Lino Lakes, and the following review comments are presented based on the following: 1. Plan Set, Sheets 1 -3 (Site, Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control; Site and Utility Plan; Landscaping and Tree Preservation), dated February 1, 2003, Glenn Rehbein companies, W.A.T. McCully. 2. Certificate of Survey for Robert A. Mueller, Glenn Rehbein Companies, dated February 6, 2003. • 3. Architectural Plans, Mueller Office Facility, RJM, Sheets Al, PH -1, and A3, undated and received by the City of Lino Lakes on February 10, 2003. 4. Drainage Review calculations submitted by W.A.T. McCully and dated February 10, 2003. Comments - General The project site is located adjacent to and along the east side of Lake Drive (CSAH 23), just south of James Street. Access to the site is proposed to be from James Street, including construction access, and a permanent driveway /entryway. However, any work within the CSAH 23 (County) right -of -way will be subject to the conditions of Anoka County, including any permits and restoration requirements. In addition, the Contractor shall adhere to the requirements and limits of construction activity and working hours as established by the City of Lino Lakes. Sheet 1- Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan 1. The site area is approximately 0.75 acres in size, and it does not appear that any wetlands are impacted. Therefore, review and approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District will not be required. However, erosion control measures must be established in accordance with the requirements of the City of Lino Lakes. 2. The downstream invert elevation of the existing 12" CMP culvert pipe within the Lake Drive right of way must be verified to assure that storm water discharge will leave the site as proposed. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity • • • Mueller Office Facility Review Page 2 March 6, 2003 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 3. There are shadings and graphics on Sheet 1 of the plan that do not correspond to any identification in the legend. These include drainage swales, pond outlets, and construction entrances, etc. These should be provided in the legend. 4. Grading Notes and Sequencing • Grading notes must be numbered to provide organization and clarity. • A rock construction entrance shall be furnished and installed as shown per the detail provided. The contractor will be responsible for clean-up of public streets, including sweeping as directed by the City, on a daily basis. • Silt Fence locations must be shown on the plan. • The note regarding clearing of trees should be revised to include language stating that clearing and grubbing shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of MnDot 2101. In addition, there are existing trees along the south property line where the grading of a swale is proposed. These trees appear to be on the property line, and if it is necessary to remove the trees, it is recommended that the owner reach an agreement with the neighboring property owner accordingly. • Notes regarding seeding and mulching should refer to the appropriate MnDot Specification for turf establishment (2575) and for the seed mixture specified (3876), or City of Lino Lakes seed spec. as appropriate. Equivalent seed mixtures may be used only upon approval of the City Engineer. • A note refers to the 100 -year flood elevation. The elevation itself should be stated with the note. • A pavement section for the parking lot is listed for bit. base (1.5 "), wear (1.5 ") and CL 5 (6 "). Additional information must be added stating that the base must conform with MnDot 2331, the wear with MnDot 2341, and the aggregate base with MnDot 2211, and with the requirements of the City of Lino Lakes. An approved granular subgrade in accordance with the requirements of the City of Lino Lakes must also be provided. • A permanent driveway entrance /apron detail in accordance with the standards of the City of Lino Lakes must be provided. • An access and maintenance plan for the proposed ponding area must be provided. The property owner and any subsequent owners will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of said ponding area. • • • t Mueller Office Facility Review Page 3 March 6, 2003 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota • All grading shall be confined to the property. No additional runoff from the site shall enter upon neighboring properties. Along the south property line where a swale is proposed, the existing ground elevation appears to slightly slope up as the property line approaches Lake Drive. There are also trees along the property line at this location. If grading requires any work into the adjoining property, the Contractor shall be responsible for attaining authorization as needed. 5. Hydro -Cad calculations have been reviewed and accepted. 6. Type A soils for the site are specified in the drainage calculations. No mining and removal from the site of Type A soils shall be permitted. Any soil imported to the site will be allowed only upon approval of the City Engineer. The plan states that existing topsoil is to be salvaged and re -used. No topsoil may be imported to the site without approval of the City Engineer. Sheet 2 - Utility Plan 1. The watermain tap should state connect to existing 12" watermain rather than existing 6" watermain. 2. The location and condition of the existing sanitary sewer service must be verified prior to making connection. In the event the existing service is not deemed adequate or in good condition, a new service shall be extended from the 21" sewer main. 3. The existing 15 LF of 1" copper should be disconnected and capped at the main. 4. A note must be added that the City of Lino Lakes Utility Supt. must be contacted at least 48 hours prior to any utility work, utility connections, or any work in the public right of way performed. The plans must provide an additional note stating that the Contractor shall be responsible for verifying and locating all underground utility locations, and must contact Gopher State One Call in accordance with State of Minnesota Regulations prior to performing and excavating. 5. A note must be added that all sanitary sewer and water main installed as part of this project shall be installed, tested and accepted per the requirements of the City of Lino Lakes, Specifications of the City Engineers Association of Minnesota, the Minnesota Department of Health, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as required. Sanitary Sewer service pipe shall be SDR 26 and ductile iron water pipe shall be CL 52. Gate Valves shall be Mueller A- 2370 -20 with mechanical joints, meeting AWWA Specifications C500 -61. Valve Boxes shall be Mueller H -10357 with H -10361 drop lid and extensions shall be Mueller H- 10363. 6. The utility notes must be numbered to provide order and clarity. Sheet 3 — Landscaping 1. General Landscaping Notes must be numbered. • • • AGENDA ITEM 5C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala P & Z MEETING DATE: March 12, 2003 TOPIC: DQ Grill & Chill: Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit (for a drive - through) Lake Drive & Apollo Drive, Lot 1, Block 1, Lino Lakes Marketplace 2nd BACKGROUND In August of 2001 the City Council approved the Lino Lakes Market Place PDO (Ordinance No. 16 -01), which included the development of a restaurant to be located along Lake Drive. While the PDO established the general use and design parameters within the Market Place development, the Special Provisions section of Ordinance No. 16 -01 requires that the development of single tenant buildings on the site, including the proposed restaurant, be subject to site plan review approval in accordance with the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. The applicant, Frauenshuh Companies, has now submitted an application to construct a 3,487 sq.ft. building upon a 45,802 sq.ft. lot, as previously proposed in the PDO. The building would house a DQ Grill & Chill Restaurant. This review is based on the most current submittal, consisting of the following plans: 1.) General location map. 2.) Site Plan (Al), dated 2- 10 -03. 3.) Landscape Plan (L1), dated 2- 10 -03. 4.) Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan (C1), dated 2- 10 -03. 5.) Utility Plan (C2), dated 2- 10 -10. 6.) Equipment Plan (A2), dated 2- 10 -03. 7.) Exterior Elevations (A3), dated 2- 10 -03. 8.) Exterior Elevations (A4), dated 2- 10 -03. 9.) Signage Plan (A5), dated 2- 10 -03. 10.) Photometric Plan (A6), dated 2- 10 -03. Planning & Zoning Board March 12, 2003 DQ Grill & Chill Site Plan Review & CUP III ANALYSIS • Land Use & Zoning Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Mixed Use Shopping Center (SC) PDO West Commercial Neighborhood Business & General Business North Mixed Use Shopping Center (SC) PDO East Mixed Use " South Mixed Use " Lot Area Requirements The 45,802 sq.ft. lot is consistent with the approved Lino Lakes Market Place PDO Site Plan. Setback Requirements Principle Building Parking Lot Required Proposed Required Proposed From Arterial Street 50 feet 50 feet 15 feet 15 feet Side Yard 10 feet 27 +feet 5 feet 5 feet Rear Yard 30 feet 50 feet 5 feet N/A per PDO Building Materials Building materials for the site are specified within the Market Place PDO, under "Design Guidelines" (Section 2.B), which delineate a number of materials, colors, finishes, and accents to be used for any building constructed within the Market Place complex, in order to achieve a uniform architectural aesthetic. Building materials requirements for single use tenants are particularly noted in Section 2.B.5, which states: "Single use tenants shall substantially comply with the development standards outlined above while still maintaining their retail dress image. It is strongly encouraged that each building incorporate the gable end roof form and standing seam metal over the entry or on the corners to reflect the vernacular established by other buildings on the site." The building elevations, as submitted, do not satisfy this requirement. Staff is recommending that the building facade incorporate face brick consistent with the material types and colors used throughout the Market Place Development. The stone • Planning & Zoning Board March 12, 2003 DQ Grill & Chill Site Plan Review & CUP treatment on the "chimneys ", as proposed, would still be permitted to maintain the franchise image. The applicant is revising the building elevations to address these comments and comply with the Market Place PDO requirements. Building Height According to the Zoning Ordinance, no building within a Shopping Center (SC) Zoning District may exceed 45 feet in height. At 27 feet in height, the proposed bank complies with the Ordinance. Landscaping In accordance with site and building plan submission requirements, a landscape plan has been provided for review. As proposed, the tree quantities and species are not consistent with the approved Market Place PDO Landscaping plan. Perimeter and interior landscaping will be required in conformance with the Market Place PDO. Additionally, islands located within the parking area need to be a sufficient width to accommodate landscaping. ' • The applicant is revising the Landscaping Plan to incorporate these comments and to comply with the Market Place PDO requirements. • Green Area Plans currently show the property at 75.7% impervious surface coverage. The SC District requires that impervious surface coverage not exceed 75 %. The applicant is revising the site plan to address these comments. Access /Circulation Access to the site from Lake Drive (C.S.AH. 23) is via either Apollo Drive or the secondary entrance at Market Place Drive. A private road connecting Apollo Drive and Market Place Drive borders the eastern side of the site. An entrance /exit driveway from the site connects to this road. As stated in the Engineer's report potential queuing or stacking of drive through service traffic into the driveway entrance area and neighboring street is a possible concern. The proposed construction appears to be consistent with similar types of facilities constructed elsewhere. However, based upon the configuration, it appears that there is enough stacking for only about 4 cars from the ordering kiosk, before spilling in the entryway. During periods of high volume traffic (i.e., lunch hours) this may create congestion and • Planning & Zoning Board March 12, 2003 DQ Grill & Chill Site Plan Review & CUP safety concerns. Staff would recommend movement of the ordering Kiosk westerly to accommodate additional stacking. Additionally, it is recommended that the drive - through exit be extended slightly further south, eliminating one parking space, to route existing traffic through the parking lot more uniformly. The applicant has agreed to make these changes. Accessory drive - through facilities are subject to the following requirements: 1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area so as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot. Comment: The Site and Building Plans are consistent with the approved Market Place PDO. 2. At the boundaries of a residential use or district, a strip of not less than ten feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Section 2, Subd. 4.S. of this Ordinance. Comment: The site does not abut any residential districts. Landscaping will be provided around the perimeter of the site in accordance with the approved Market Place PDO Landscaping Plan. 3. Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.S of this Ordinance. Comment: The site does not abut any residential districts. 4. Parking areas and driveways shall be curbed with continuous curbs not less than six inches high above the parking lot or driveway grade. Comment: curbing complies with regulations. 5. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movements, shall comply with Section 3, Subd. 5 of this Ordinance and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Comment: the site is accessed via a single entrance /exit driveway. Modifications to the location of the ordering Kiosk and design of the exiting land, as noted above will minimize vehicle conflicts. • 6. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. • • Planning & Zoning Board March 12, 2003 DQ Grill & Chill Site Plan Review & CUP Comment: a drainage plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. 7. The entire area other than occupied buildings or structures or plantings shall be surfaced with a material which will control dust and drainage and which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Comment: bituminous surfacing of parking areas is proposed in conformance with city requirements. Parking Fast Food restaurants are required to provide parking at a rate of fifteen off - street parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use 90% of the gross building area. gross code Spaces Spaces area 90% requirement Required Provided 3487 3138 15 per 1000 square feet 47 54 Approximately three spaces are expected to be removed to accommodate the larger landscaping islands, discussed previously. This will reduce the number of parking spaces provided to 51 which still conforms to the ordinance requirements. Pedestrian Circulation Plans show sidewalks on the east side of the site, linking the site to the other businesses within the Market Place development. Sidewalks within the larger Market Place site link to a planned trail along Lake Drive. The 10 foot width of the proposed sidewalk will be reduced to six feet, consistent with the remainder of the Market Place sidewalks. This will provide separation between the sidewalk and parking stalls on the southeast side of the site. Lighting Lighting fixtures are shoebox style with downcast lighting, in conformance to City standards and similar to fixtures within the rest of the Market Place complex. The lighting plan meets with the approval of the CPTED review. The Market Place PDO requires that any building- mounted accent lighting should conform to standards noted in the PDO. Accent lighting is proposed for the building and staff are working with the applicant to insure that minimal direct or sky- reflected glare results. Signage Planning & Zoning Board March 12, 2003 DQ Grill & Chill Site Plan Review & CUP Signage is governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits are required for all signs. All signs will be reviewed with the sign permit applications. The Lino Lakes Market Place PDO, Section 2.C.1.d, states that wall signage for single tenant buildings within the Lino Lakes Market Place complex "shall be designed in accordance with the sign requirements of the Shopping Center (SC) Zoning District as specified in Ordinance No. 12 -97" (Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance). According to the Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance, wall signage in the SC District is limited to one wall sign, which is limited in size to 100 sq.ft. or 20% of the building face, whichever is less. The Market Place PDO, provides for one monument sign on the site in accordance with the approved design standards. Trash Trash equipment will be confined to a fully enclosed structure, which will be constructed of brick to match the principle building and located at the southeast corner of the site. Utilities A utility plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. Water and Sanitary sewer service were provided to service the site as part of the Market Place development. As a condition of plan approval, the utility related modifications and comments, as set forth in the City Engineer's memo, should to be incorporated into the final plans. Stormwater management A grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of plan approval, the grading and drainage related modifications and comments as set forth in the City Engineer's memo should to be incorporated into the plans. The plan is not subject to review and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION The Environmental Board reviewed the project on February 26, 2003 and recommended approval. Their comments are attached and have been incorporated into this report were applicable. RECOMMENDATION The proposed Site Plan is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance and the Lino Lakes Market Place PDO. Staff recommends approval of the proposed DQ Grill & Chill Site Plan Review and CUP, with the following conditions: 6 • Planning & Zoning Board March 12, 2003 DQ Grill & Chill Site Plan Review & CUP 1. Building elevations shall be modified to incorporate face brick consistent with the material types and colors used throughout the Market Place Development with the exception of the stone treatment on the "chimneys ", 2. Perimeter and interior landscaping will shall be provided in conformance with the MarketPlace PDO requirements. Islands located in the parking lot shall be landscaped and of sufficient width to accommodate the vegetation. 3. The plans shall be modified to the reduce the impervious surface to 75% or less. 4. The modifications and comments as set forth in the City Engineer's memo, dated March 6, 2003, shall be incorporated into the plans. 5. The ordering Kiosk, in the drive - through lane shall be relocated westerly to accommodate additional stacking. 6. The drive - through exit shall be extended to the south to route existing traffic through the jparking lot more uniformly. 7. The sidewalk area shall be modified to provide separation between the parking stalls. 8. The applicant shall enter into a Site Performance Agreement with the City. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location Map 2. City Engineer's Comments 3. Environmental Board Comments 4. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan 5. Utility Plan 6. Site Plan 7. Landscaping Plan 8. Building Exterior Elevations ww al hK-H14HWAY- NO. 49 Memorandum DATE: March 6, 2003 TO: Mike Grochala FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Dairy Queen Chill and Grill Attached is the TKDA design review dated March 6, 2003, of the submitted documents for the proposed Dairy Queen Chill and Grill. The overall design is in conformance with the City of Lino Lakes requirements. The following comments must be addressed prior to final approval given for this project. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Phone: 651 -982 -2400 Fax: 651 -982 -2499 a TDD: 651- 982 -2410 • TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM 1500 Piper Jaffrey Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292 -4400 (651) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com To: James Studenski, City Engineer Reference: Dairy Queen Chill and Grill Copies To: City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota From: Scott A. Brink Date: March 6, 2003 Comm. No. 12701 -002 Routing: The proposed plans provide for the construction of a Dairy Queen "Chill and Grill" facility directly east of Lake Drive (CSAH 23) in the westerly portion of the Lino Lakes Market Place development. A set of plans has been submitted to the City of Lino Lakes for the above referenced project. The following review comments are presented based on the following: 1. Full Size and Reduced Size Plan Sets, Sheets T1, C1 -C3, L1, Al -A6, (11 sheets total), prepared by Welman Sperides Architects and BKBM Engineers • 2. Copy of Drainage Calculations submitted by BKBM Engineers to Rice Creek Watershed District and dated February 7, 2003. 3. Plans previously submitted to the City and titled "Lino Lakes Marketplace ", prepared by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. for Ryan Companies, USA, dated October 3, 2001. • Comments - General The project site is located adjacent to the east side of Lake Drive (CSAH 23), just north of I -35W. Any type of temporary access or work within the right of way will be subject to the review and approval of Anoka County. Any work within the County Right -of -Way requires a permit from the County. The Developer shall be responsible for attaining said permit and adhering to any other conditions of the County as required. The plan review has been performed in conjunction with plans previously submitted and titled "Lino Lakes Marketplace ", prepared by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. for Ryan Companies, USA, dated October 3, 2001. The Chill and Grill site generally conforms within the scope and layout of the larger Marketplace area plan. The Contractor shall adhere to working hours for construction activities in accordance with the requirements of the City of Lino Lakes. A single entrance from the east (Marketplace area) is provided for the site. Potential queuing or stacking of drive through service traffic into the driveway entrance area and neighboring street is a possible concern. The proposed construction appears to be consistent with similar types of facilities constructed elsewhere. However, based upon the configuration, it appears that there is enough stacking for only about 4 cars from the ordering kiosk, before spilling into the entryway. During periods of high volume traffic (i.e., lunch An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Dairy Queen Chill and Grill Page 2 March 6, 2003 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota hours, etc.), this may create congestion and safety concerns. It is recommended that the Owner address this issue further. In addition, it is recommended that the drive- through exit be extended slightly further south (eliminating one parking space), to route exiting traffic through the parking lot more uniformly. Comments - Drainage Review and Calculations Hydro -Cad calculations have been reviewed and accepted. The proposed site is included within the greater area of the Lino Lakes Market Place Master Plan, which was previously reviewed and approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District. The proposed Dairy Queen Chill and Grill site generally meets the concept design presented in the permit previously approved. Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control 1. The site area is approximately 1 acre in size. Although the site area has already been approved by Rice Creek Watershed District, erosion control measures will be required, and are addressed on the plans. 2. Under note 7, the Contractor shall provide a sweeper to clean streets and paved areas outside of the project site on a daily basis as needed. 3. The Contractor shall confine all work activity, including storage of equipment and materials, to the site area itself. The Contractor's activity shall not impede or impact traffic access for other businesses and through traffic in the immediate area. All adjacent streets and access drives shall be kept clear at all times. Utilities 1. The proposed site improvements will be connected to either in place utilities or utilities constructed as part of the overall Lino Lakes Marketplace Plan. The Chill and Grill utility plan shows a combination of existing and proposed sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water facilities. These utilities are not clearly defined as to which are existing and proposed, and whose responsibility it is to construct them. It does appear that all necessary supporting existing infrastructure has been constructed and is in place. 2. A note must be added that the City of Lino Lakes Utility Supt. Shall be contacted at least 48 hours prior to any utility work, utility connections, or any work in the public right of way performed. 3. A note must be added that all sanitary sewer and water main installed as part of this project shall be installed, tested and accepted per the requirements of the City of Lino Lakes, Specifications of the City Engineers Association of Minnesota, the Minnesota Department of Health, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as required. Sanitary Sewer service pipe shall be SDR 26 or SCH 40 and • ductile iron water pipe shall be CL 52. Gate Valves shall be Mueller A- 2370 -20 with mechanical joints, meeting AWWA Specifications C500 -61. Valve Boxes shall be Mueller H -10357 with H- 10361 drop lid and extensions shall be Mueller H- 10363. • MEMORANDUM To: Michael Grochala CC: Jeff Smyser From: Marty Asleson Date: 03/03/03 Re: Environmental Board Recommendations /February 26, 2003 The following recommendations were made at the February 26, 2003 Environmental Board Meeting regarding the Dairy Queen Grill and Chill: • The site landscaping proposal should be redesigned to reflect the original intent of the Market Place Landscape Plan. • - Island areas large enough to support shade trees should be designed into the parking areas. Additional shade trees should be incorporated in to the North and South boundary areas of the design. - Island areas on the SE and SW sides of the building should include shade trees. - Island areas on the SE and SW side of the building should include a native "ornamental style" ground story that complements the front island design of Target. - Screening -type plant materials along Apollo Drive should be consistent with the landscape -scale design approved in the Market Place Plan. - Additional trees should be placed in the green area to the West of the building. Additional shade trees should be placed along Apollo Drive. Added trees should be oak species. Northern Pin/Red Oak or Burr /White Oak. • • • • The City minimum standard for parking stalls should be used for the design of this site. • A suggestion was made to lower the parking lot light fixtures without adding additional fixtures. • That the surface water calculations for the site should not exceed the intended calculations approved by the original Market Place, after adjustment for lot size changes. Our City Engineer should verify this. • A sequencing plan should be submitted for erosion control and soil compaction prevention in areas designated as future green space or infiltration areas. • A site maintenance plan should be submitted for parking lot sweeping, and litter pick- up. Motion to approve with staff and Environmental Board recommendations by O'Dea. Second be Schneider. All approved. • EX SAN TOP - 912.60 NV - 655.17 4./- DORM TOP - 912.69 RN N - 907.96 E - 907.56 ,.� SW - 907.66 a\ 12• RCP 0846 TOP - 912.75 IN'I W - 907.00 EN 5- 907.00 441 9' PVC Cr 0.40 NV •• aaa4.1¢ :T-P N�T63 r..•T •- ■•■■rR.M.,•7 �rT a.•T . SAN NH TOP - 9 EN - SILT FMCS O • TOP 1- 913.2 NY AI RAR C 904 4 •I��7elU 111 ■■IUI anima Ermin ' PROPOSED BUILDING ;7171-4111111: F.F E. 91550 �rn■■e R *gm,. 411)2R' .471.;•. - ./M4% � .R ►,l•�I .•�ElC�Yr. 010.7 •e91•i� .GNU .1-.2• ►� .R1Yt /Q I2 0 a) 09164 TOP -.9080 .INV W - 903.50 WW E - 902.59 CB J SL FENCE EONSTRUCITON fmns OLTR FABRIC 65OTEXT{2 F5755 PABRIG SHALL BE INSTALLED PIM SILT FLNGe DETAIL 4' • 11 11111-4 • MAXIMUM DSTAME B9T7E51 P0975 IS 4'. AN EXTRA POST MAY BE ADD® ON EACH 5IDC GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN 14000 OR METAL STAKE CATCH BASIN - 24' 1< -2s INLET SEDIMENTATION PROTECTION NOT TO SCALE P0575 4' ON CENT' PO95T3 SHALL Ea 2' x 2' HARDWOOD PTE OR STANDARD 51 _ 11510! POSTS P061% SHALL BE DRIVEN 2' INTO THE 661O64D. SAN TOP - 911.54 NV - 901.25 =TEL PLACE BOTTOM( EDGE OF PENCE INTO 6' DER TROYAI AND BACIPILL IMEDATELY, SILTATION FENCE NOT TO SCALE 5(51146 509400.8 4.1 SLOPE PROPOSED PLAN SYMBOLS CONSTRUCTION 4144175 -- --- - -- PROPERTY UNE - •' -' • - • • - PROPO°E CONTOUR -013- SPOT ELEVATION .- DRAINAGE ARROW -7► STORM SEWER CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE SANITARY SEY1ER GLEANC/tf • SILTATION FENCE -x X- ROGKACOELSTR ACTION ABBREVIATIONS 91-0,5 BM1 G9 GO CONC. ELEV PX. PPE HOPE INV MAX M4 RCP TNH Building Bench Mork Catch Eosin Gleorout Concrete Elevation Existing Finished Floor Elev. High thb Density Polysne Invert Maximum Manhole RsIMO1ced Concrete Roe Top Nut of Hjd -ant TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH 20 10 0 20 40 SCALE I" = 20' LRO` ION CONTROL NOTE51 - L ALL 0.06106 CONTROL PAGL)T55 SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY SITE 69110086 OPERATIONS. THE CITY 049* AID WA7EE4CD DISTRICT MUST BE NOTIFIED UPON COMPL.ETON OP BE INERALLATION OF THE RECIRED 09051011 CONTROL PALILMES MID PRIOR To ANY 6RAD119 oPISRATON 099 6 00M6E4CED. 1191 0WIRAGTOR 5 Rl610I6151J: TO SCmUE A PRE-GONEWBTION WADN6 '504)46 04-9145 117H Tie-GIx OWNED. MD WATINSMED DISTRICT. P DAMI6CD OR 31940VED (24114346 CCONSTRUCT10N ALL EROSION CONTROL PAGLIT75 SHALL ISE RIMIBED AHD N 1LA.C! AT THE 50, OP EACH DAY. 2. Ale 0031014 GONRROL 11ACCWT5 055'® IL'65SAR'C pY TIC DRY 017 WA7ER5H50 8B'ORD MOO OR AFTER TIE 9RADIN6 ACTIVITIES. SHALL BE INSTALL® AT BE RE5U57 OP TIC an' AID /OR WATERSHED. A ID DEVIATIONS SHALL SE MADE PROM Be ELEVATIONS 6140444 ON THE APPROVED 61437IN6 PLAN WITHOUT MAW APPROVAL PROM 71E ,11Y. 4. 1.4.011811904401009540910,464990091409 (704PORW[Y OR 115)44.14047) SWILL BE ROUTED TO 5EDREITAT0N !OWNS OR APPR003810 a BMW" DIE PATE S TO PRUNED TRANSPORT or 569704150. TO OVTPLOS OR LATERAL GONIEYORE AND TO PREVENT EROSION AND 5m95ERAT1ON MEN RJNO0) ROWS IMo TC cower ores. 6. SITE ALDESS ROADS STALL BE GRADED OR OTCRWSe PROTECTED WTI SILT PISCES DIVERSION CHANNELS. OR DIES NO Pfd TO PREVENT SEDIMENT PROM 0071145 THE 517E VIA TE ALCMS ROADS 5T5- A00555 ROAL79DRMEWAYS SHALL SE SURFACED WITH CRC! D. ROOK MERE TEY ADJOIN MENN6 PAVED ROADRAAAS. 1. SOILS -MAGIC® PROM THE SITE SY MOTOR VEHICLES OR LONIRER 51441.1 BE C15414ED DAILY PROM PAVED ROADWAY SAWIC * OR 14091E P 500561LY IP MOREED BY CITY OR OVATE 4900. T9OJECDT TIE DURATION OP GONSTM4 74041- a OUST GOMR0. 406450 MALI. BE PERFORM= 0511071CALLY MEN OONIDITI06 RPdARE AND/OR A5 DIRECTED BY Be LI77 DR 4'4111 MD. R. ALL EROSION CONTROL "LAW= SHALL. EE 1.607 AID %AI4AITED P0R TIC DIRATION OP SITE GONI RIG710N. IP 00/61RKTON OURAn0e OR NATURAL EVENTS DAMME OR 1NTOFORE -STN MESE ERO010N CONTROL IEASLRGS THEY SHALL 0e RESTORED TO SERVE TE1R 6450,50, R4CTIOM AT TM 154 OP SACK VAT CR AS SOON AS %ED 0040m018 ALLOW ALCMS. 10. ALL COS744TION AREAS DORM= D1144146 CONSTRUCTOR SHALL OE RIMMED AS SOON A6 POSSIBLE ANY AREAS MBGH NAVE SEEN PNINCD MOOED OR AREAS THAT HAVE MN DISTURBED ADD POR WHICH 6RADIN6 OR 3170 AALDNS 0OSTRYTO4 OPERATIONS ARE NOT ACTIVELY ISDERWAY SHALL 4 5 157250, AND MLOOD AS MT FORTH N TIC POLLEY%) PARAGRAPHS WIINN K DAYS. A 1M.' 650)46 CONTRACTOR MAR CONTACT THE CRY AM WATERBED PRIOR TO APPLICATION OP 5E02 A110 MULCH. 5. ALL 95050 AREAS 9141 BC OTHER MLD•CD 10140 DISC ANG44RED OR LOVE® EY I0 ous outicer3 TO 0307507 SLEDS ,AND LIMIT E106104. TEMPORARY OR PE4MN64T M.LC// SWLLL BE DISC- AHCNOR O 4910 APPLIED AT A LWPOISI RATE OP NOT LE55 71034 TWO TONS PER ACM AM NOT 11-55 TIN SON CCTVERASE G. P 491 6RADED AREA B A4410PATED 7O BE RE-DISTURBED/DEVELOPED WHIN SIX MONWI%. PROVIDE A T?TORMY V56RATN5 COVER COSI57546 OP MNlATA 055'1751.4 O0 TRANSPORTATION (MOOT) SEED MIXTURE. 17015 AT -A RATE CP 25 1OUD5-0E1 ACRE. . D. P SPADED AREA WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED 003 A PE41012 $1RE.7LR TAN SIX MONTHS, PROVIDE A 0E0-W54T *565TA71VE COVER OF SEE, 44)X71RE 44007 ROD AT A M7E Of 30 P0305 PER ACRE. • L SRA0N6 BONDS OR TIC 15013VALdR SILLR555'SMALL 34 RETA450 WTI. 700146.OEWRA1ED /END SURVIVE, A 60-0AT 6ROMN6 PE 100. . P. 111 AREAS TAT RILL =Ise more, OR MAINTAINED AS PANTO", M ULTIMATE D516N POLL B5 PE HAI5R7 !STORED USING 550 MIXTURE 1400T 5015 AT A RATE OP 50 POEM PER AVE. ' 11. 14ECVp507151- 0!051014 AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACT05 ARE INADEGUATE TEMPORARY 014-917! Mo14E17 BASINS TAT 0,0844009 TO TC CRITERIA POR 04-0 171: DETENTION BASINS SHALL BE PROVIDED. . 0- RUNOFF SHALL. BE PREVENTED PROM 575146 ALL 57004 semen GATGI BA91N5 PROVID7 6 TREY ARE 507 NEEDED MAINS 004871434C11041. V.ERE ST0104 SEP= CATCH BASINS AE IEOESSARY FOR SIT! DRAINAGE EVROS GOST161GTION, A SILT RIO! OR DOLR5 RN6 OP RAH® BALLS BALI®m SNOW PONCE 9FALL 55 INSTALL50 AND MAINTAINED ARCRD ALL CATCH BASINS . UNTIL TIE AREA TRISUTA*Y TO TC CATCH BASIN S RESTORED. - .. :3. GRADING A07MTR3 PIRO'G5ED TO 79ERN APTOR OCTOBER 5 RILL REOIne AN A110ROVED PNA500 905041-5. TC AEA OP LAND THAT TC CITY WILL ALLOW TO S 12151190:452 AT 11I5 117C OF YEAR WILL BO 55VE®.Y LISTED. 7791 CITY WILL ALSO REWIRE ADDRIONAL EROSION CONTROL DEVI55, LE. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASKS, DoRANT 5EEDIN6'A30 N46N RATES OP APPULA11061 OP 1004 350 AND 44 .GL M. %L70R BLANKET AND /WRAP 51ALL S' INSTALLED ON T S DOMSIRBAI SEES OP ALL 970441 semen OUTLETS ALL RIPPLY SHALL 0 5 MOW= AND 'STALLED WIT). A FILTER MATERIAL MEET1144 THE 'DOT WECIPIGATIONS'FOR RI0RAP AID 011.155 MATERIAL • .69. 0605154 CONTROL PAGL175 SHALL R INSTALLED ND HAINTAIIID AR04D 71C ORIMETR or ALL LACP3. 110405 AND 1ETLADS WHIN OR AD.A0SR To 7/Q AREA TO BE 9R4DED urn. 719 AEA 100U4ARY TO TC • LAKE. POD OR REMAND IS RESTORED. a N6. TO MI 4412! EROSION ALL 5.1 SLOPES 514ALL Be COVERED M174 MATERIAL APPROVED BY M GOYS ENSINEERINS DIVISION AND WATERSHED DISTRICT. SUCH AS POROUS BLANKETS OR STN® SOD. T. ALL 35RE4TAT1011 DCC4RRN6 111 5T0RM swots, DRGl5, LAMES, FOD5 AID WETLANDS STALLS 192140VED PRIOR TO, DNON6 OR AFTER GOMPL57ON or 696110619 ACTIVRim. - S. 06051044 CONTROL IT554 AND DEVICES 510,1.[0 BL' REMOVED 08.7 AS CAREGI50 OY THELITU AND/OR WA1EEHm. • • 5BADIN6 - NOTES, .< - 1. M CONTRACTOR 15 TO VEIT M RITZ REVISE ALL COFST4UGTO4 000.340413 A•O MELD *55111)' TIC. PASTN6 GO4DRIONS PRIOR TO 50,0166. TO ADDTONAL UHOMATON WILL BE WV= FM WORK TNT 01-1-0,48/15 SEE 3199000450 BY A 5115 V19IT OR 401457RIGTTON 0001516611 ROAM. . •..I 2. R S M GONMACTORS RE0POSI3IL4TY TO ASCERTAIN BE 5OCA710N Or ALL MIRTH') UTILITIES M CONTRACTOR WALL 05@'Y TE LOCATOR ELEVATOR MD MARK ALL METRO UTILITIES 46 HOURS SWORE CONSTRUCTION STARTS. M MERCER AROHIT5OT OR OP ER 00125 -NOT 611A*AHTS THAT ALL THE UTILITIES ARE MF.14'5, OR IF MAPPED, ARE SHOWN OOWEGILY. CONTACT SOWER 049 AT 631-464-0002 FOR FIELD kDGATTH1 505746 )/)11-1415. CONTACT UTILITY O'ER -P DAMA60 GOONS W! TO DONSTRLOTDH < 4. PROTEOT ALL BXSTN6 STRIOTRES AND 01ILLT15 WHICH ARE NOT SG�OLID FOR R51WAL . • L NOWT CM MILDN6 70115070* 55403573319049445/00 590AVATON WORK GOMtENGE5 TC CONTRACTOR' SHALL OBTAN ALL APPLICABLE PERMITS PRIOR TO START O• COSTRY.1101L 6. ALL SPOT ELEVATORS sew AS 5,4, 110* EXAMPLE.1*5 TO BE'UlDEC9TOOD TO MEAN SSA. . . y 1. NO SLOPES ARE TO EXCEED 5.1 E PEST HORSD47AL TO 1 FOOT 055710AL) IAL56 NOTED 0TE89195.. - . C. NA/CILAP PARKING AREAS SHALL NOT HAVE BOPE5 IN ANY DIRECTION THAT 5X4750 A - . 4. PROVIDE POSITME ORAMA6! FROM TIE EALDINS AT ALL TIES. _ - . 10. IOW COMPL51101 OP 71C GRADING WORK, THE DNE,ORR 544.1-). CECT1T THAT ALL GRADING Tie PURPORTED IN ACCORDAIIGE 44116 1115 APPROVED 6RADIN9 PERMIT. AN AS-BUILT 6MADIN6 PLAN WALL= 5801471172 70 THE CITY FOR RN59R AND DSTRIBUT1014. - - .. IL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE 011 =LOINS PERMITS, ALL MSLE96ARY 154090N COT301. DACES MST BE N PLACE AD 1RIGTIONIN6. THE CRT AND WATOREED PILL INSIEC4 THE SITE TO DE155MK ITS SUTASILTY PM OULDI416 A :WIVES 10 ITC PLEJC VIILIT155 NAVE NON .450 INSTALLED AT THIS POINT. IT MAYS NELE9SA*Y 7O 414601-0 9IILDIN6 PERMITS FOR VAR10S LOTS TO ALLOW 11C 0ONTRAOTDR AD5LATS SPACE TO PERP0f04 THIS TIORK . i1 DEBRIS DEE CREATED N TMC PROCESS O11 CLENCH6 AD 63104711.19 TIE SITE SHALL 6E R1540J157 PROM M 5115. THIS SOLLID0 S TREES AND 9H005 UNDER NO GRCUOTVGb SHALL TINS TYPE OP MATERIAL BE BUR= OR BURNED ON M SITE.. , E. ALL TOPSOIL 3I0CE BE STRIPPED AND 5ALVA65D FOR 3C- 5PREADI4 6 O4 1791 SITE POLO 114055 CO TOPSOIL - APT! COITAO TON - 5#4.11 OE 101.-50EA0 PRIOR TO BINS Me MLLNHS. 0X0556 TOPSOIL MAY 00 . . R5DVED PROM T! SR! Fve VI..A TIER! IS 100Ei4IATE 700SOIL REVUNN6 TO PROPERLY NOSH THE 517E AS NDR9 ABOVE. THE TOPSOIL STR0PIN6, STOGPWN6 AND N6 SHALL BE DONE IN ALLOWANCE TO, AVIV MDT@ oN 7715 APPROVED a3A0IH6 PLA44 ANO 6TLIFICATONS. M. ALL &NADIRS OPERATIONS SHALL 591 CONDUCTED M A MANOR TO WNN12Z THE 110155TH. FOR SITE EROSION. EROSION CONTROL 4C15UR5 WALL SE INSTALLED TO FREVQR 9m4E6TP1 OM M NIN& GPP .ON= . ' ADJACENT 07000015, ANY DAMA65 TO ADJACENT PROPERI55 MST Be 0ORREGTED AND !STORED AS 500+1 AS PERMISSION S SMARTED PROM TE PROPERTY 04450(5. KM:E12. • ALL 1Kral, 0M AIR Now( w OGI ReN . • CI I HANDICAP PAWM19 AND ULOADIN6 AEA! AE NOT TO HAVE 3NDPE5 THAT EYC50 25 IN ANY DIR0611046 PRIOR TO STAR 0' CONSTRUCTOR 491 CONTRACTOR 5 TO VRPY: SWOT ELEVATIONS DENT) NE> ON TE PLATE AS 6 AND MK 'THESE SPOT EX 1071075. ARE M A55L1m ELEVATORS OP TM 085TNS 60470! 1.16! AND BACK OP 9)03XALK CONTRACTORS TO 5EDATS.TNOTIPY ARGNITGT IP TER S A DI5CRSANGI5, - 61051166 SIDEWALK AND DIANE ENTRANCE IS NOT TO BE DSIUE5D EXGSY MERE NOTED, I4OV coNORCTE Gil n AND SURER AM 0)17101171030 AVSER AE 70 WATCH INTO 5)45•1,16 6MADE3. NO AEEYT TRANSITIONS CM POIDIN9 OP WATER POLL 05 R444TTED. CONTRACTOR S TO COORDINATE WY744. VTLIOY GONTRAOT0* TO VEUPY STORM 654155 SANITARY SEWER AW WME SERVICE ELEVATION. 542E5 AND LOCATIONS. - .. • ❑5 CONTRACTOR IS TO 1R540VE 7910 () PISOSTRAN /AIDICAY RAMPS, CONCRETE DRIVE OTRARCE SIDEWALK AND CURB ADS 64TTE• 1454 CONCRETE WALK AND CONGRE75 0.1165 4 SUTTER ARE To BE INSTALLED TO MATCH 505466. FOLLOW ALL CITY OP 44145 LAKES STANDARDS AHO 9P3CIPIGATONS. ID ABRUPT.MA4151016 OR PENDING OP WATER WILL BE PERMITTED. CONTRACTOR 5 TO VISIT PRE* TO 50,0169 TO OBTAIN A CLEAR 4DRSTADINS O' WORK TO BE 00!•0101130. © 102571/0 CATCH BASIN IS 60410 BE DISTURBED. MOW TWO h..) FOOT 14014 ROCK BERM 005511146 C+ 1 INCH TO 2 NCH DIAMETER W550 ROC: • 16�6�4�6�6�6jet -4 e- eeee6e4e6seee4e6e�j 66666�e • � -e tee6eese6e6e &ee &6/34�R666666e466 _&_ 6- e- e. 1- 6. e. e- e- e. ReRi6RRRRARRReR &13Ro:o.•.44.•.E.•Woladird.. ^EMI SUEZ 0 INCH M)NMIM OP 1 - INCH TO 2 INCJ4 DIAMETER W51f ROCK S 6504691411-! 11145960 50'1764-4.44 I. 1101KM LE 0 of 50 PEET A mow or 12 PST. 5, PO .N4. LOW ALL GTE, ND WAT9RS ED DISTRICT AID NTGA STANDARDS. S. GLIAN STREETS W A DAILY BASIS OR MORE PRECLENTLY R MOLESTED BY GOT, WATERSHED DISTRICT OR MCA BERME, ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NOT TO SCALE HOLD DOWN SCHEDULE DRIVES t PARKING. LOTS 9' BUILDING 10" SIDEPt4LK5 t PLAZA 10" CONCRETE DRIVE ENTRANCES 14' CONCRETE SLABS 10' LANDSCAPE AREAS 4" APPROXf MATE -DISTURBED AREA 15 0.Q2 ACRES ES. SAN N TOP - 912.80 90 - 686.17 0091 1Q - -,230 144! N 907.86 NV E - 907.89 SW - 907.86 CON TOP 9 912.76 9N N . 907.00 944 5 . 907.00 2' RCP 9w 1.54 TOP - 9 644- E9 9,3 9064 261 55991 TOP - 908.0 944 5 - 90330 944 E - 90239 91 45 74 74 .24 24 r ca 11. 7.1 9L1 FENCE r. (IH _\ • SUN 72P WNSIRIIC00N 5905 911.04 901.25 UTILITY FLAN 1. -20 ABBREVIATIONS BLD6 BM CB GO GONG. EF/ EX. Pre HOPE INV MH RCP TNH Bulldog Ben6h Mark G0toh Eosin Gleatout Concrete Elevation ExlstV9 rinehed Ploor Elev. High Density Polyethene Invert Manhole RoMoread 6orlcrete Pepe To Nut. of Rs :front PROPOSED PLAN SYMBOLS PROPERTY LINE - ••- •• -••- CONSTRUCTION LIMITS - SEWER SANITARY SEAM )) CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE WATER SERVICE 1 i REDUCER ■ 1 1 vrnLITT' NOTES. 1. COORDINATE 3OMQ CONl6T06 4. 6AT,ON6 AT T E 501.0166 417/1 M MWIAWGAL CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO 00687R10TON NO 9905ITIa4AL COMPENSATION WILL 00 ALLCreD FOR 4.90.0 907INATm WORK 2. PROTECT ALL 50971146 51181.1011.119.155 AND 9TILR155 r81IC11 AIR NOT SC CDILOD TO BE REMOVED. S. ALL Ed•GR Alm WATER 560961666 SIM4L HAVE A 44949 4 VORTICAL SEPARATION OP 2 PST AND 604155674.4. SEPARATION OP 10 PST. POLLOW ALL MMAL1H DE6A4RN0 STA/OATt06. 4. ALL RATER MAIN SHALL R' DLGTLE IRON PIPE CLASS 52. 5. ALL WATER MAIN SHALL HAVE 13 or 00401 OVERTOP Or PIE. 6. SANITARY SUER PIPIN6 66.04.4. B SCR SS PVC. LACERS NOSES 05ERINISE T. STORM 0B`ER 0401446 SHALL 55 04.456 V RCP 194.4.93 NOTED 0794599E KEYCD NOTES ALL KEYED NOTES ARE DENOTED BYO ON PLAN. 2j REMOVE EXISTING PLUS AND INSTALL 6 -INCH Bt' 4-INCH REDUCER AND 4-INCH PIP 90 DEGREE BEND AND THRUST BLOCK 27 INSTALL 4 -INGh4 DIP 90 055REE BEND WITH THRUST BLOCK , © STUB NEW 4-INCH CLASS 52 DIP 5 PEET PROM BUILDINX.. COORDINATE EXACT LOCATION AND ELEVATION WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO START OP CONSTRUCTION. Q POTHOLE AND VE RIPY EXACT LOCATION AND INVERT ELEVATION OP 9X1511445 6 -INCH SANITARY SERER STUB. CONNECT NEW 4-INCH SANITARY SEWER TO 0X45T1N6 4 -INC14 SANITARY SEWER WITH CLEAN OUT PER DETAIL 23 STUB NEW 4-INCH 5DR55 PVC. SANITARY SEWER STUB 5 PEET PROM BUILDING 4.7 INVERT ELEVATION 90650. COORDINATE EXACT LOCATION AND INVERT ELEVATION WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO START OP CONSTRUCTION. © PRIOR TO START -OP CONSTRUCTION, POTHOLE AND DETERMINE EXACT LOCATION, INVERT ELEVATION, SIZE AND MATERIAL OP 5X1571146 STORM SEWER VMS. CONNECT STORM SEAM TO NEW CATCH BASIWMANHOLE. ❑T 571)8 14EN 6 -46044 5DR55 PVC STORM SEWER 5-FEET PROM BUILDING AT INVERT ELEVATION 90911. COORDINATE EXACT LOCATION AND INVERT ELEVATION WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO START OP CONSTRUCTION. R TA TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH 20 10 0 20 SCALE 1 = 20' STRUCTURE IDEN I1FICATON STRUCTURE DIMENSION (INCHES) NEENAH CASTING TOP ELEVATION INVERT ELEVATION PIPE LENGTH, DIAMETER. SLOPE & NEXT UPSTREAM STRUCTURE EX. CB j1 N/A N/A N/A EX. STUB 907.25 5 LF. OF 12' RCP 0 1.0X, CB 0 CB j2 24" X 36' R -3057 911.50 E. 907.31 S 907.64 6 LF. OF 12- RCP 0 1.0X, CB #3 CB #3 24" X 36" R -3067 911.70 N. 907.70 EX. C9 #4 N/A N/A N/A EX. STUB 907.25 5 LF. OF 12' RCP 0 1.0X. CB j5 CB j5 24 -.X 36 ". 5 -3067 91255 NE. 907.44 NW. 905.11 50 LF. OF 6" SOR35 PVC 0 2.05, BLDG. CO j1 N/A N/A 915.5 907.0 (VERIFY) 32 L.F. OF 4- PVC SDR35 0 2.05. 5' FROM BLDG. 40 • • North r-r\ SITE PLAN AI SCALE, I. • 20'-0' SITE PLAN NOTE5 50'4 sut"H• •eT•ACK fi v moorma sac a1/10 BlLaw n 9 I00' -r ft 4 9 12010ScTIONAL I5, -0• T2' -0• Oj PARKING LOT STRIPM6 G WR TD ee TN6WNY war OR •SAFETY YELLOW, HANDICAPPED STALL PICTOGRAM COLOR PER LOCAL CODE, VER/FY. SEE SPECS p DECORATIVE METAL FENCE. O CONCRETE CL D1N515 6' WIDE ATr 10' DEEP 57RN6HT PROFILE WITH 6• DPOSED MOVE PARKW6 %WAGE O ACCESSIELE FAWNS 5I5$A6E 0 SIZERALK O LMO5CAPIN6 TO EE 51' crineR, TO MEET LOCAL ORDINANCE. O DECORATIVE PATIO u&HITNs O STAMPED CONCRETE PATIO AREA SEE SPEC 517E PLAN LEGEND PARKING LOT L16H7 06 SN6LE LIGHT 060 Dg151F LI6*MT • PATIO LIGHT O TRASH CAN 6' RAILING YV GATE ❑ PLANTER SITE AREA IMPERVIOUS SURFACES: 56,15:10 sP. NON - IMPERVIOUS AREA 8,472 s.t. TOTAL LOT AREA, 45.802 st. RECEIVES) FEB 1 0 2.003 art OF LIMO LAKES M1 5r FOOT CANDLE LEVEL • PROPERTf L56 ALONG PLBUC STREETS SHALL NOT ECM F.C. LIGHT POLE DETAIL AI RECEIVED FEB 1 0 2003 CITY OF LINO LAKES t 2 as 5'-O' 5' -r 4' -r 5' - • 5'-O• 17- t r� jI c ' 0 0� w BOLLARD 2k R2;' Kie, STEB. ANGLE k FRAME FV DIAS. BRACE S 2x6 6 TRTD WD. PT. TO MATCH MPS. • �- / P'1*OVIDE Lj•• DOWELS 5•16• $ BRACKET • •ATE. 5/4•0 HOLES IN SAO FOR LATCH. • s s' w TEFORT , I 6'0 x4'-0• PIPE BOLLARD PAW TO HATCH SASE OF DAMNS M. [ '-' - 10.- 7 • TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN AI SCALE. 1/•••I' -0• PREPS 54t MIL COPING 1'Y CCPIT. KE°Bl CAER SUM= CEDAR SON �1RTD. FRANKS E PS TO MATCH ELUL EMME SOR MACE PLYWOOD SCATHING 6916 MD. POSTS • 40' OC. 5/6' MASONRE PAM. PM. TO MATCH BPS 206 TRTD. FO. STIR • 16. 0G. MAX •6 ROD. FO. SILL CGi0. _LAB ON GRADE n TRASH ENCLOSURE Y'IALL SECTION AI SCALP. NONE vi Zo g g 5 ;11:4111100‘...7 w d moll Ohl i1► T••I P A 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imre n North /1 SITE PLAN 1. • • GENERAL NOTES LATCWAVE CONTRACTOR TO 6@ERAL GGNTRAGTOR BY�CAL U46 ROPIER STATE O�PE GAIL To TN THE STACKS PLANT LOCATIONS. 2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL LOWLY WEN TE LATEST EDMON OF ME APEMAN STANDARD POR VERSEIRY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NRSERRE N 5. CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSE= PM 0N•60INS MAINTENANCE Cr ALL REPLY INSTALLED MATERIALS UMT11. TB•E Of OWER AL EPTANCE. ANY AGT5 OR VANDALISM OR DAMAGE PIMICHI MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO GRIM AGGSTONGC 51W1 BE TIE RESPONSIBILITY OF RC CONTRACTOR 4. 140 FLArr MATERIAL SUB5TITRi0N5 TELL BE ACCEPTED WTMOUT APPROVAL BY TIE ARCHITECT 5, PROVIDE PARK GRADE TREES 6. ARCHITECT. L.ARDSGAPG MATERIALS SHALL MIN ON THE DATE OF ALC$TANC! Sr TIE 7. CONTRALTOR 54•44. GUARANTEE NEST RANT MATARIAL TROUGH ONE CALM AR YEAR • FROM 11E DATE C1P OVER ACCEPTANCE TETN ALL RH'LACEP8(T5 TO Be PROVE AT NO ADDMONAL COST TO TIE OM R. 6. A L 4105GAP1N6 tNSPEGTION PEE SALL BE PAID TO TI1e CITY AT THE IRE A BALD1146 OR 011132 PEWIT IS ISSUED FOR WORK TO Be DONE ON TIE SAFE PROPERTY AS 11E LANDSCAPING MAX, AND A6 A COMMON TD THE 155UANCE OF THE PERMIT. 4. ROCK M.LCN SPED. RINSE ROCK' ffl,CCE,NED FEB 1 0 100 CITY OF LINO LAKES •I.I SGALE, I• • 20,-0• ND15 STAKING TREES 5 0PT101AL HEVEVEL 11C CONTRACTOR 15 REERONS♦BLE FOR TIE MANTA/UM TREES R A 19.09 POSITION THROUNICUT THE GUARANTEE DEMO& DQELE STRAND 14 4A MIRES AT DO' WAVES TIC PRATING PRA. TO MST PRAWN TPREPAPE AREA 1411. 1 X TIE 110114 EP '� FOOTBALL. REMOVE BURLAP PROM LPPCR 1/5 BALL 5- GUYING 5TAKES AT 120' STALIN* 2' X 7 N 24' MOD 5TAKE5 AT AN AHMLE TREE INSTALLATION LI DECIDUOUS TREE BALLID AND BURLAPPPD SACK DIAMOND EOSINS OR APPROV® MHL MEL 24' SHRUB INSTALLATION LI DECIDUOUS OR CONIFEROUS SHRUB PLANT SCHEDULE 5T14 OTY TYPE SIZE ROOT COMMON NAAE LAIN NAM 6T DEGPln15 0VER5T2RY 7 BIB SKYLBE NONETLOG15T 6LEDIMA TRIALANT105510L2E' AB 2 OEUGUOb 0VBi5T0RY r GB AUMR BLAZE MAPLE ACM FRE154A1111 x A1/101N BLAZE ® S DE'GIOUCUS OVERSTOR'Y 7 BIB 514.4P PISTE OAK CLERA S BICOIAR R2 DPLIBUOS WSgTORY r BIB MARSHALL'S SEED ^'F ASH MARIUS PENNSYLVANICA ' MARSHALLS SEECT.ESS' HA 40 9R1B . 24. 11ST11 24' HST POT POT ~MLLE NYDRAN6EA N4MMtt86TY VICLIGR.II HYDRAPY�EA AFBORgC@5 'AHNABELLE' VIBLRNII LEMMO Vt. 14 ` rir.7.111,11111H111111100,.,. 1 rSHEET LIM N0. r' r' (--1-L EAST ELEVATION A3.1 SALE: I/4" - I' -0" i ■■ ■■■■■■■iii■ ■ ■iiWii■■■Ir■■■i ■i ■■■ ■■■■■MU■■■■■■■■ ■■ ■■ MMEM■ ■■■■ 1 ■ ■■ ■■■■ ■MM■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■■ •WIU■■ ■ ■ ■i 111•■■ ■ ■I SOUTH ELEVATION A3.1 SCALE, I/4" - ILO" EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES O5114UTED woe, SWUM MIDAIR STONE MG STS L.D. 5T0/E- 115*E551= MOUNTAIN STACK YV MATGNINS SILL CAVE • YDPG O=mom MYL.ATION PStlSH SYSTEM (Eft. MANIPAOTREPL DRY -VIT COLOR NIS AMSRI.LO PMTS PMll546 SAND PEBBLE OcaRAHC TILL SIPPL E:R. CERAMIC EaRF 5101G H:00-425-115 STYLE NORTHERN U&4115 6'X6' COLOR. APPLE 6ROUT. "HAM` S44 STRAIN OCAP H-45N 46, over Lai SO.TRHR. COLOR, UU -CLAD, 24 6l., AL IO4O FINISH. KYNAR Soo OMETAL PANS., MMLPAGfUR8A AL.POL.IG S PPLIEt. M1 -F0m4 PRODUCTS, MO COLOR. PRISMATIC RED OME TAL PAWL. %M , NAPOR 4 PRODUCTS. ING COLOR. DIA-CLAD. 14 6A. BLACK PIN5I6 KYNAR SOO OFETAL PANG. SPRIER N1f0101 PRODUCTS, RC COLOR URA-CLAD. 1340 M10DWM ALIA PINSK CLEAR SATIN OMETAL PANES.. MANJFACIURBL ALPOLC SLPPLI84 Nl -FORM PRODUCTS INC COLOR MARATg4 BOLE OFABRIC CANOPY, MAN.FACILIRER. ASI111P CANOPY STYLE. MELON COA5TL)K P115 COLOR, •726 DEEP RED PRAM 1' 50. ALUM 1. CLEAR SATIN FINISH MD ALL J0•415 K macro RtAM.' MANPAG111RER. CM ARCHITECTURAL. PRODUCTS, 510. PROM. 600354 -1 COLOR, 1.3/4144/2' CLEAR MOO MUM PM544 SATIN SLAMS. CLEAR DOME MUTED PROVIDE .MOPED PRAYS COVER • DRIVE -11•11 PRAMS OSILL GAP, 2' CLEAR MOD= AL•01•4, SATIN FINISH (;;) DRIVE -7HW 41140O4 VERIFY OPBlM6 SIZE WIN MPR PRIOR TO FABRICATION OP PRAM OKai ISEe EtC,1. SUM 1544 COLOR, VOLT ARO KO -BLOC OMOCKINS CM SIGN AT POOLS STOREPRONT). PROVIDE POR 54511 MOIMTIN6 AT 5UL0116 PLANE. E, COORDINATE PY 51641 INSTALLER ® EXTERKM U6M name. 58' Euz OR NOT two Ocam: WARD, 47M4' MRS STARLESS 51E0_ O DO HM OR PRAM PAINT 44 TNTT5BUR6 PAINTS' 516-5 BOLE PMTS OQ' 4464 BLACK ANODIZED MUM ADDRIESS RIMERS RECEIVED FEB 1 0 2003 CITY Of IMO LAKES N Z igg ss 4 Ili a -i an- i ; .litm 6G24 /I0- MODIFIED- 6RI ELEVATIONS NORTH t"6 6 /UN. 50014 Nau,l 111.5050 0010 m 13111000101 5VN 0I 0114167 11 • • • AGENDA ITEM 5D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: March 10, 2003 TOPIC: Variance: to allow a home addition 10 feet into the rear yard setback Michael McGough, 153 Parkview Drive (Lot 1, Block 1, Parkview Estates) ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Mr. Michael McGough would like to construct an addition onto his home, located at 153 Parkview Drive. The proposed one -story addition (with basement), measuring 30' X 16', would extend 10 feet into the required 30 foot rear yard setback. This report is based on the following attached exhibits: 1.) General location map. 2.) Certificate of Survey. 3.) Plan of home, with proposed addition. ANALYSIS Land Use & Zoning Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Low Density, Sewered Residential R -1, Single Family Residenital West 44 North " " East G4 South 44 " Planning & Zoning Board McGough Variance March 12, 2003 • As noted in the above chart, the subject property is surrounded by properties which are similarly zoned and guided. The required rear yard setback for the property is 30 feet. The applicant is asking to build 10 feet into the rear yard setback, or 1/3 of the setback area. Setbacks are established to provide safety and aesthetic value to a property. As such, they provide for not only the subject property, but the surrounding properties as well. To this end, setbacks are a key tool in keeping lots from being over - built, and maintaining adequate open space on property — and by extension, in the City as a whole. Further, variances are governed by issues of hardship. Section 2, subdiv. 4.A of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance states that "in considering all requests for variance or appeal, and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a Finding of Fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Comment: the property can and is being put to reasonable use. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property, and not created by the landowner. • Comment: there are no physical circumstances unique to the property in this case. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone, and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: there is no hardship demonstrated and the property can be put to reasonable use. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Comment: Lacking any unique physical circumstance /condition or hardship issues, granting the variance would be conferring special priviledge on the applicant. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Comment: there is no hardship demonstrated and no unique physical circumstances in play in this case, and as a result, granting the variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. • Planning & Zoning Board McGough Variance March 12, 2003 RECOMMENDATION Variance requests are governed by the issue of hardship. As there are no unique circumstance or conditions on the property which are creating a hardship situation, staff must recommend denial of the proposed variance. OPTIONS 1.) Recommend denial of the proposed Variance. 2.) Recommend approval of the proposed Variance. 3.) Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #1. • • M® O® IMO= MIEN t33i51 ENE a - — OR11.1. Optai NEMO rirY® !Io KEu GLADSTONL 1 ;O 2 19 20 9 4 17 6 4 16 15 14 13 12 10 pR1V 20 3 18 19 16 4 17 4 17 6 16 16 6 IS 14 6 13 IS '4 13 49 12 9 12 10 41 10 9- :acv iii _ gym. ,� Lit glair=tp gm Ell= ICI 3C Br Em.ragal CC fife o� ©„ � �' uNR ,. i �0 2/ a .�1 IS ULME $ - ,1i1:>�•3C( U JR / C1� 1 12I 7 3 / F�,1 �t _o © ©o ©odoom o �!�p n Ir �© 109 6 L t7NS m90ti OW . FARM 2ND ADO. EXHIBIT # 1 OLENVIEW V � a� NIS•4 13 13 1 12 9 7/ RICE. LAKE fc.<402si, OR. 0 **et, sA4 04), „tionstx*FA _`.q0 oeo em ©mm eeA �_. W V11 tb tuu uFi[�M Q�uiiPMElmsuEuQEi! STREET WI MEOW nr. ®edo©t� ° ©�i _trevs CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For: /? ,4ae/ /Ji7c 'oa9/7 GLENVIEW LANE 1• Proposed elevations: Top of Block = 903.9 Garage Floor = 9D3.5 Lowest Floor = 89s,s /o /0 9 �. 4/ 89°44 741' E EXHIBIT # ,Z-- /45./8 100 0— — !oa??1 53.2 O o - -- I 1 1 Proposed House N ,3.5 6.8 Garage a, w Q1 r 5.58 Cs L S L 19% /45. /8 --�-- N 89 ° 44 ' /C' E PARKVIEW DRIVE ail Lot 1, Block 1, PARKVIEW ESTATES, Anoka County, Minnesota. o Denotes 11 foot offset. (::)Denotes proposed elevations. ",-Denotes direction of drainage. Diag.: 91.3x54.3 = 106.22 FOR BU, L _-...:_� PERMIT 3.',1',7 SCALE:i Inch = 3D Feet o Denotes Iron Bearings shown are on an assumed datum. Job No `t337461 Book Page_ e hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the Boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. E.G. RUD & SONS, INC. N // Dated this I''' day of JUh r 4 d„/, - / 9 2— 1994 Minn. Reg. No 91/128 E.G. RUD & SONS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS 9.190 Lexington Avenue N. Circle Pines, Minnesota 55014 Telephone: 786 -5556 1,1 • • EXHIBIT # 3 Go o 1 • AGENDA ITEM 5E • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: Tanda Gretz P & Z MEETING DATE: March 10, 2003 TOPIC: Variance: to allow an accessory building (hanger) to be located closer to the front lot line than the principle structure. William Noel, 346 Carl Street (Lot 8, Block 1, Lino Air Park North) ACTION REQUIRED: 3/5 vote BACKGROUND Mr. William Noel owns property at 346 Carl Street, located in the Lino Air Park. Mr. Noel would like to construct a 2,400 sq.ft. hanger, to be placed 135 feet from the right -of- way of Carl Street. Since Mr. Noel's home is approximately 243 feet from Carl Street, such a proposed hanger location would be closer to the street than the home, and thus violate the Lino Lakes City Zoning Ordinance (Section 3, subd. 4.D.1.c), which states that "no detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal building or its attached garage." This report is based on the following attached exhibits: 1.) General location map. 2.) Sketch of property and surrounding properties. ANALYSIS Land Use & Zoning Location Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Low Density, Sewered Residential Rural West “. North " " East LL South (Airstrip) (Airstrip) Planning & Zoning Board Noel Variance March 12, 2003 As noted in the chart above, the subject property is surrounded by similarly zoned and guided properties. The property to the east and west of the site are also Lino Air Park lots. The properties to the north of the site, across Carl Street, are either acreage lots or undeveloped at this time. Accessory Building Issues Maximum allowable accessory square footage for a lot of this size and zone is normally 2,020 sq.ft. The applicant currently has an attached garage (572 sq.ft.) and a tool shed (144), for a total of 716 sq.ft. of accessory building. Lino Air Park property, however, is allowed additional accessory square footage, allowing hangers up to 3,200 sq.ft. to be constructed. The proposed hanger, at 2,400 sq.ft. is within these size requirements. There are a number of properties in the Lino Air Park which have hangers located closer to their front property lines than the principle structure. Two such properties are on either side of Mr. Noel: Lot 7 to the east has a 2,688 sq.ft. hanger located 135 feet from the Carl Street right -of -way; Lot 9 to the west has a 2,496 sq.ft. hanger located slightly closer to the Carl Street right -of -way. The owners of both these properties have submitted letters in support of Mr. Noel's variance application. In addition, the Air Park Association is also in support of the hanger placement. 7:1 Transition Air Space Requirement Properties located in the Lino Air Park belong to the Air Park Association, which is governed by covenants. One such covenant states that nothing should be constructed within the area surrounding the airstrip, defined by a slope of 7:1, and know as the transition air space, or "safety zone." This air space requirement is not a requirement of the MNDOT Office of Aeronautics, but rather is one adopted by the association. In a review of past reports (Anderson at 352 Carl Street), it appears that should the proposed hanger be sited in compliance with the zoning ordinance, in a location behind the home, the hanger would then infringe on the safety zone. For this reason, there appears to be a clear issue of hardship demonstrated. Finding of Fact According to the City's Zoning Ordinance, in considering all requests for variance, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Comment: the property cannot facilitate a hanger without the granting of the variance. In this respect, it could not fulfill its function as an Air Park property without a variance. 2 • Planning & Zoning Board Noel Variance March 12, 2003 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property, and not created by the landowner. Comment: unique circumstances - in the form of the transition air space /safety zone - preclude placement of the hanger in a location compliant with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone, and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Comment: hardship is in the form of the transition air space /safety zone, which precludes placement in a location behind the home. Without a hanger, the property can not fully be used as an Air Park property. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Comment: this variance would be similar to previous variances granted for hanger placement, for similar reasons. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. • Comment: hardship and unique physical circumstances have been demonstrated for the property, thus there are grounds for a variance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed Variance, as hardship and unique physical circumstances, in the form of the transition air space /safety zone, have been demonstrated. OPTIONS 1.) Recommend approval of the proposed Variance. 2.) Recommend denial of the proposed Variance. 3.) Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option #1 • • t- YOUNTY- HIV?"- YRJGNT OPWAY Pc sr NO 50 Z 16 a LOT l?0,0 15 14 10" Et� 5 6 7 18 LINO 17 I EXHIBIT # l - ^,TREET — CARL OUTLOT 8 PARK E T. .AL, pro . Milo 11-4 CaNTURY z3 _ arfa mg®a 4TH �IADD � ��' ®:412111 wm ® ®� I I APP• C � � l0 S �. ©Bo'� ' man G� ©T °boo 12 FAR 3 0 n n o a o 0 CENTURY 5 10 12 9 18 7 COUNTY- ROA 4 FARM 4 3 ORTH .17 -6-BUNT? HWY.-- H /FHT -IOF WA' PbtT N UMBER �5 I�E11Om_ ® ©G7� ■ 6 St ■ Pik TOAD= �-, 7�y � OUTU If Z4`' a 3 111 a 2 3 A/ 5 6 7 AI I 01 A 2 11432 1 P 3 12 — NO 153- - 3 3 4 5 5 0 5 6 6 6 7 7 001.0, 2 5 2 30 4 3 8 4 AUD —LILAC— - -STREET— LINO LAKES L R EHABILITATIOtI CENTER 8 v X44 3116 Cars -r EXHIBIT # �-- • • �ov'le' 3 Cc