HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/2003 P&Z Packet•
•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
MEETING
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
6:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers
(scheduled to be televised on Ch. 16)
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 13, 2003; amend June 11, 2003 minutes
IV. OPEN MIKE
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARING, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, add Personal Services as permitted
use in the GB District, Jeff Smyser
VI. DICUSSION ITEMS
A. Village Update, Mary Alice Divine
B. Concept Plan, Pro Terra, NW corner of Apollo Drive and Lilac Street, Jeff Smyser
C. Concept Plan, VFW Expansion, 7868 Lake Drive, Jeff Smyser
D. Temporary Signs/Banners, Jeff Smyser
E. Fabric Accessory Structures, Jeff Smyser
VII. ADJOURN
•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:36
p.m., August 13, 2003.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 9, 2003
Mr. Corson made a MOTION approve the July 9, 2003 Minutes and was supported by
Ms. Tralle. Motion carried 4 -0 -2 (Mr. Lyden and Chair Schaps abstained).
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:37 p.m.
There was no one present for Open Mike
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0.
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. GEORGE AND LYNN FERNSTROM, 6340 RED MAPLE LANE
Staff stated applicants would like to construct a second, detached garage, but such a
proposed garage would have to be sited in front of the home due to placement of a septic
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 2
system. Staff noted the Zoning Ordinance allowed for such placement of an accessory
building in the Rural zone, but stipulated that it should be set back from the street right -
of -way at least 100 feet. The proposed garage could only accommodate a setback of 58
feet, however, due to the location of the septic system, so the applicants were requesting a
variance. Staff reviewed the five findings of fact for a variance and indicated hardship
could be demonstrated in this instance by the location of the septic system. Staff stated
the septic mound precluded the proposed garage from being sited in an area that would
satisfy ordinance requirements. In this way, hardship could be demonstrated and staff
would recommend approval of the requested variance.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
George Fernstrom, 6340 Red Maple Lane, stated their septic system failed last year and
was replaced. He stated they now wanted to put in a garage, but the septic system was in
the way. He noted no neighbors had expressed concerns or objected to this proposal.
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend approval of a variance for a second,
detached garage with a setback of 58 feet, as outlined by staff's August 13, 2003 report
and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0.
B. PUBLIC HEARING — Bruggeman Properties, SE Corner of Birch St. and
Hodgson Road., Rezone, Preliminary Plat/Planned Unit Development,
Conditional Use Permit
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
Staff reviewed their August 13, 2003 report and reviewed the unresolved issues that
needed to be addressed further.
Staff recommended continuing the public hearing or close the public hearing and table
the application to allow for resolution of the issues.
Mr. Lyden asked how much increase in traffic would there be from Hodgson Road north
of County Road J. Mr. Smyser replied there would be 152 homes
Mr. Lyden pointed out that there was the possibility of 500 -600 additional traffic trips a
day. Mr. Smyser noted the problem with the intersection was at the peak hours, not
generally during the day.
Mr. Lyden stated he disagreed with the traffic figures staff was giving. He believed there
would be more than 28 cars added to this intersection.
Mr. Rafferty asked if there would be a traffic light at Ware and Birch. Mr. Smyser
replied that was correct.
Mr. Tralle asked when were the road improvements proposed to be done. Mr. Smyser
replied the road improvements would have to be done as a part of this project.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 3
Mr. Grochala stated previously the City and County had disagreed on the road
improvements and the funding was used elsewhere. He stated what has transpired since
that time is that it was decided some improvements were needed and in November, 2002
road design plans were given to Anoka County. He stated Anoka County had reviewed
the plans and had made suggestions. He indicated they had received a letter of credit to
cover Spirit Hills share of the improvements, with the rest of the funds coming from this
development. He stated Anoka County had agreed to help fund the signalization of the
intersection. He noted in order to get the rest of the project done, they needed this project
to be approved.
Mr. Rafferty asked if the taxpayers would pick up any of the cost. Mr. Grochala replied
they would not. If anything, if they needed to fill some gaps, it would come out of the
State Aid account, so no specific taxpayer dollars would pay for this improvement.
Mr. Tralle asked if the people living on Hodgson Road would be able to exit right or left
out of their driveways. Mr. Grochala replied there would be no divider in the Road and
the homeowners would have full access both ways.
Mr. Corson asked if there was a concern about people trying to cross at Ware Road
during rush hour hours. Mr. Studenski stated they were improving the situation by
aligning the two roadways instead of having them offset.
Mr. Grochala noted with the signalization of Birch and Hodgson there would be gaps of
traffic.
Mr. Lyden asked if there would be any traffic control at Ware Road and Birch. Mr.
Grochala stated there would be stop signs, but in order to get a four way stop or a signal,
there were requirements that needed to be met and at this time, that intersection did not
meet those requirements, but they would be watching this area.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Greg Schlink, 6564 Rollingview Drive, Bruggeman Properties, stated they could review
the issues now or comment after the public comments.
Chair Schaps invited anyone for or against the proposal to make comment.
Perry Laden, 6425 Hodgson Road, stated he was glad to see the changes with respect to
the commercial aspect and what they were proposing now was much more suitable for
the neighborhood. He stated they had done a nice job of transitioning between low and
medium density and he asked for the same consideration along the Hodgson side. He
expressed concern regarding the architecture and elevations of the townhomes. He noted
this would be a highly visible project and the image of it would have an impact on the
City and he hoped the City would want a quality project. He stated he believed the
proposed businesses fit better for a neighborhood business instead of a limited business
and encouraged a rezoning. He stated he did not know if this development rose to the
expectations of neighborhood focal point and he asked the City to consider making the
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 4
park a public park. He stated there were no playgrounds within a reasonable distance for
the children in the neighborhood.
Diane Lange, 6449 Hokah Drive, stated she was concerned about the traffic issues,
especially around the Arrowhead area. She stated the image of the City of Lino Lakes
was not represented by this medium density townhome development. She stated she had
moved to the City because of the open space and she stated she was worried about the
overpopulation of the area, as well as the increases in traffic, and the pollution. She
asked them to look at the area and asked if the townhomes fit into the look of the area.
Mr. Lyden stated he would like to see a development without the PUD.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing 7:57 p.m., and was supported
by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -1 (Lyden).
Greg Schlink, Bruggeman Properties, stated they had made adjustments to this plan for a
lower use on the commercial property. He stated he believed the plan they were
presenting now was a good plan that fit into the City's requirements.
Mr. Tralle stated he wanted this development have the look and feel of a neighborhood.
He stated while he agreed this project was a great improvement over the original plan, he
wanted to see a variety of color in the siding and shingles. Mr. Schlink reviewed the
types and colors of materials they were proposing to use for this development.
Mr. Schlink stated he would like to come back with more detail on the exterior materials
and colors to see if it would meet with the Board's requirements. Chair Schaps also
expressed concern about having all of the townhomes look the same.
Mr. Schlink stated they would change the elevations to address the Board's issues.
Mr. Corson asked about the private park versus a public park. Mr. Schlink replied the
Park Board's concern was that there was not enough public access to the park.
Mr. Corson asked if the park would be monitored. Mr. Schlink replied it would be
private property and it would be up to the Townhome Association as to how it would be
enforced. He stated they did not have any problem with the park being public and they
would be willing to have it as a public park.
Mr. Corson noted there was not another park in the area and it would be nice to have a
park for the residents. Mr. Lyden pointed out this would be consistent with the
comprehensive plan to have a neighborhood focal point if the park was public.
Chair Schaps asked how they could recommend a public park if the Park Board
recommended against it. Mr. Smyser replied the Park Board had a serious discussion
regarding this and if it were going to be a public park, the Board was not comfortable
with the design of the park. He noted it was an isolated area and it was not a space
conducive to public use. He stated if there were going to be a public park on the site, it
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 5
would need to be set up differently. He noted this park did not fit into the Park Board
plan.
Mr. Grochala stated staff would explore the option of a public park with design changes.
He stated they would bring this back to the Park Board for their thoughts.
Mr. Lyden stated this development needed a place for kids to play. He noted this type of
a development was an unhealthy development for kids. He strongly recommended the
park be made public.
Mr. Corson asked if there were issues with drainage because of all of the bituminous in
the area. Mr. Studenski replied they would install reverse grade pipes, which would
handle any runoff.
Peter Hillger, Portfolio Design Services, reviewed the commercial site.
Mr. Rafferty stated he understood there was a certain degree of give and take and he
believed the developers tried to do a good job at giving for this development. He stated
he believed the developer had come a tremendous way since their first proposal. He
indicated he liked all of the trails through the development and the sidewalk around the
development. However, he expressed concern about all of the rooftops, bituminous, and
driveways. He stated he did not believe there was anything innovative in the
development itself. He stated they had maximized this land to the best of their ability to
put as many units as possible. He noted he was not in favor of going forward on this
development at this time based on its architectural standards. He stated he would like 3 -4
units per acre instead of the proposed 6 units per acre. He indicated he did not want to
see Lino Lakes look like Woodbury. He thanked the developer for addressing some of
the Board's issues, but he was not in favor of this development at this time. He suggested
110 to 120 maximum units. He stated he did not want to see the 8 units along Hodgson
Road. He suggested 4 units along Hodgson Road. He stated he did not like the colors
they were proposing for the exterior. He asked for more variety and innovative design.
Mr. Lyden stated he would like to see a plan without a PUD and he supported Mr.
Rafferty's suggestions.
Chair Schaps expressed concern about the size of the garages. He noted cars were getting
larger and the City wanted to encourage residents to keep their vehicles in their garages.
Mr. Schlink stated the development they were proposing was a successful development
from past experience, but they would look at the elevations and more variety in the
colors. However, he noted they would have an issue with decreasing the number of units.
He noted they were within the City requirements.
Mr. Rafferty stated he believed they were attempting to maximize this development and
he still wanted to see 3 -4 units per acre and not 6 units. He indicated if he had his way,
they would not have more than 3 units per acre.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 6
Paul Bruggeman, 3565 Willabye Drive, White Bear Lake, stated they were a for profit
business and have been around since 1959. He stated they had a product that residents
wanted in their communities. He stated there was a need in this area for a variety of price
ranges. He stated if they brought this down to 3 -4 acres per unit, it would bring up the
price of the unit, which would leave out a large market. He stated they have met every
City expectation he knew about. He pointed out they had more green space than
originally proposed. He stated a townhome was a great product and they needed it in the
City. He stated they were investing a lot of money into this project and were being
required by the City to invest a lot of money into the roads and trails.
Chair Schaps asked them if they could lower the density on the northwest side. He asked
what was the price range of the units. Mr. Bruggeman replied they would be sold for
$165,000.00 to $200,000.00.
Mr. Rafferty stated he had seen Mr. Bruggeman's developments and knew they could
have a more innovate development. He stated he liked green space and he wanted to see
more open space. He indicated this would be a successful development with more green
space. Mr. Bruggeman respectfully disagreed with Mr. Rafferty's opinion.
Mr. Tralle stated he was not in agreement with Mr. Rafferty's opinion. He indicated he
wanted to see his children live in the community and with the home prices going up, they
could not afford to live here. He asked where would the kids in the area live. He
indicated if the City had nothing to offer the kids that they could afford, why would they
want to stay here.
Mr. Rafferty stated he was concerned about the density. Mr. Tralle stated he wanted to
go on record with disagreeing with Mr. Rafferty.
Ms. Lane stated she liked the development and this was the kind of home that belonged
in that area. She stated this was a good transition into the other neighborhoods and she
also disagreed with Mr. Rafferty and Mr. Lyden.
Mr. Corson stated it was important to create a good image for the City and asked for
more architectural innovation. He stated he was satisfied with the development if they
could address the concerns with the exterior and the park. He believed this was a good
development for the area.
Mr. Smyser stated he was not uncomfortable with this proposal. He stated they could
work out the exterior building materials prior to City Council. Park dedication was an
issue and ultimately Council would need to make this decision. He stated regardless of
whether they tabled it or voted on it, the Council would make the final decision. He
stated he did not see any advantage to tabling this and staff would be comfortable
approving this with conditions.
The Board agreed they wanted the park to be public and not private.
Mr. Rafferty suggested a proposal for satisfying his concerns.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 7
Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 9:10 p.m. and reconvened at 9:18 p.m.
Mr. Smyser presented the following conditions of approval for this project:
1. Developer must construct or participate in the improvements to Ware
Road, Birch Street, and Hodgson Road, as appropriate, including traffic
signals at Birth and Hodgson intersection. Specific costs and participation
shall be determined prior to City Council approval.
2. It must be verified that the proposed right -of -way dedications are adequate
to accommodate the ultimate CSAH 49 roadway improvements prior to
City Council approval.
3. It must be verified that the proposed stormwater ponds will accommodate
the ultimate CSAH 49 roadway improvements prior to City Council
approval.
4. Park dedication shall be determined for City Council consideration. It is
the intent of the Planning & Zoning Board that the park facility be public
with the development being consistent with the comprehensive plan
community focal point.
5. Additional landscaping /screening shall be added to the commercial site
along Hodgson Road prior to City Council approval.
6. A signage plan shall be prepared prior to City Council approval.
7. Exterior lighting fixtures must be 90- degree cutoff fixtures: this shall be
verified prior to City Council approval.
8. Issues discussed in the July 24, 2003 TKDA memo must be addressed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
9. Exterior building materials to be on all sides of the buildings subject to
City Council approval.
10. The garage sizes are to be subject to the City Council approval.
Mr. Rafferty stated after further discussion with the developer he agreed they should
move forward with the development as presented. He stated while he was not
comfortable with this, he believed the developer was attempting to work within the City's
requirements.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the rezoning of the residential area to R -3
Medium Density Residential, and the commercial site to LB Limited Business and was
supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 3 -2 (Rafferty and Lyden).
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 8
Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to approve the preliminary plat/PUD plan with the
conditions as outlined by staff both in their report and at the meeting and was supported
by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -2 (Rafferty and Lyden).
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the conditional use permit with the conditions as
outlined by staff both in their report and at the meeting and was supported by Mr. Tralle.
Motion carried 3 -2 (Rafferty and Lyden).
Chair Schaps stated he wanted a strong recommendation made to the City Council that
the Board wanted the park to be a public park to expand on the urgent need for park
space.
C. PUBLIC HEARING, Roger Hokanson, NE corner of Lake Drive and Aqua
Lane, Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Chair Schaps opened the Public Hearing at 9:24 p.m.
Staff stated applicant has submitted a request for a comprehensive plan amendment. The
subject site is four acres of property at the northeast corner of Lake Drive and Aqua Lane,
adjacent to the existing Marshan Lake Condominiums. The request is to change the land
use category from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, which
would be consistent with the adjacent development. Staff reviewed their analysis and
recommended approving the amendment to the comprehensive plan to change the land
use category from Medium Density to High Density, and submit the amendment to the
Metropolitan Council.
Chair Schaps asked if any residents had made comments to staff. Mr. Smyser replied he
had received some calls from residents calling for information only.
Chair Schaps invited anyone for or against the proposal to make comment.
Bill Gillespie, 624 Aqua Circle, stated he was opposed to this because he did not think
the area was ever zoned commercial. He stated he has lived in Lino Lakes for 28 years
and they bought on this site so they had a larger townhome on the lake. He stated there
was a community atmosphere on the property that did not include 32 or 38 townhomes.
He stated they had a lot of issues with Mr. Hokanson. He stated he had a crooked
chimney and Mr. Hokanson has been unresponsive to fixing their concerns. He asked
that they deny this request. He noted it did not fit what was intended for this area.
Chair Schaps pointed out this had nothing to do with a plan or Mr. Hokanson. Mr.
Gillespie stated he understood this, but he wanted to make the City aware of the issues.
Mr. Rafferty asked if he would be opposed if the development would continue with the
large plexes. Mr. Gillespie replied he would not be opposed to that as long as it was
consistent with the existing development. He stated they did not want a gas station, a fast
food restaurant, or a large apartment building. He wanted the ambiance of the area to
continue.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 9
Steve Butler, 612 Aqua Circle, stated he had a concern regarding the density. He stated
he did not want to see high density in this area. He indicated he would be agreeable to
the development as long as it was consistent with the existing development. He
expressed concern regarding traffic on Lake Drive and Aqua Lane. He encouraged the
builder be involved with upgrading that intersection.
Jim Crawford, President of Marshan Lake Townhome Association, stated they were
concerned about the density and that a large apartment complex could be put in. He
stated they had a plat problem now with the stub street that was put in and stated this
could be a conflict down the road. He stated the townhome association would have no
objection to a development of the same density and nature as the existing development.
Shelly Supan, 504 Aqua Circle, stated she was not opposed to townhomes being built on
this property, but she was opposed to high density. She stated the townhome she was
currently living in was too small, especially the garage, and she would not recommend
the City approve the size of townhome she was living in or smaller townhomes in the
future. She stated she did have problems with this developer and recommended a
different developer build on this site.
Mary Strohmayer, 7178 Ivy Ridge Court, stated she was on the Board for Wenzel Farm
Townhomes. She noted they would be opposed to a large apartment complex, but they
would not be opposed to townhomes. She expressed concern about the traffic.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:45 p.m. and was supported
by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5 -0.
Ms. Lane pointed out that everything around there was medium density and she did not
believe they should increase the density.
The Board agreed the density should not be increased.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to deny the amendment to the comprehensive plan to change
the land use survey from Medium Density to High Density and was supported by Mr.
Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0.
D. PUBLIC HEARING, Glenn Rehbein, Marshan Lake Industrial Park
iformerly known as Lakes Business Park), NE of Blue Heron Elementary
School (West of Lake Drive and East of I -35W), Preliminary Plat
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 9:52 p.m.
Staff stated applicant is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of a four -lot subdivision, to
be sited on 30.6 acres of land for the purposes of developing an industrial park. The
property is located northeast of Blue Heron Elementary School and west of Lake Drive.
Staff reviewed their analysis and recommended approval of the Marshan Lakes Industrial
Park with the eleven (11) conditions as noted in staff s August 13,2003 report.
Mr. Hyden arrived at 10:13 p.m.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 10
Mr. Tralle expressed concern about the traffic. He stated he would like to see the
development, but asked what was going to happen with the bridge over 35W. Mr.
Grochala replied staff was continuing to work on that, but what ultimately needed to be
done was a total reconstruction of the bridge. He noted the biggest issue was movement
coming off the northbound ramp from 35W. He stated signalization on an interim basis
was needed, which would require realignment of the ramps. He stated this was not the
highest priority bridge with Anoka County, but they were coming up with a package to
present to the County for reconstruction. However, he noted they did not anticipate the
bridge being reconstructed with the next five years.
Mr. Lyden stated there were only three or four places in the City that would support
commercial development and Lake Drive was the place to put commercial development.
He noted this site was too valuable to put an industrial site on it. He stated in 10 to 15
years they would want this to be commercial land. He stated the City might have to be
patient, but the wait would be worth it. Mr. Grochala replied he made a viable point and
this was a piece of valuable land. He stated this land however, had been zoned industrial,
and what was being proposed was consistent with the existing zoning. He pointed out the
land north of this development was zoned commercial.
Mr. Lyden replied he realized this, but he believed this area should be zoned commercial.
Mr. Corson stated he believed this was a difficult site to develop and stated he wanted the
City Engineer to review any plans.
Mr. Rafferty expressed concern about the east elevation and the trailers that could be
lined up at the doors. He asked why they needed 30 doors on the visible side of Lake
Drive. Mr. Grochala stated they did not want to put the doors along I -35W either. He
noted what they wanted to do was to put the doors more interior to the site. He pointed
out when Lot 1 developed, there would be additional screening to the doors. He stated if
they faced the doors along I -35W, it would be there permanently with no screening, but
once Lot 1 was developed, there would be screening.
Mr. Rafferty expressed concern about the lack of landscaping and the loss of trees. Mr.
Grochala stated this was a concern of the Environmental Board and they would attempt to
preserve as many trees as possible.
Ms. Lane agreed she would like to see this area commercial.
Chair Schaps invited anyone for or against the proposal to make comment.
Theresa Weinkauf, 7280 Lea Court, stated she owned three properties in Lino Lakes,
including TRW Tax Service off of Lake Drive. She stated when the moved her business
in there and purchased the property, one of the concerns of the Board was that it was safe
for her clients to enter and exit. She stated her concern was what was going to happen to
the access to her property with the right turn lane being installed there. She asked if her
driveway was set back far enough and expressed concern about losing one of her
accesses. She expressed concern about the truck traffic in the area. She asked how far
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 11
back would the building sit from the property line. Mr. Grochala replied what was
proposed was a right turn lane, which would taper down. He stated they were not
proposing closing any driveways to the site. He indicated there would be shoulder work
done in that area. He noted what happened down the line with Lake Drive with the
County however, was out of their control.
Ms. Weinkauf expressed concern that both of her accesses would be in a turn lane. Mr.
Grochala stated they would attempt to avoid any impacts to her accesses.
Carl Buchholz, 7417 Lake Drive, asked where would the docks be in relation to his
house. He expressed concern about construction occurring 24 hours a day. Mr. Grochala
pointed out where the docks would be in relation to his property.
Mr. Pat Lind, Palico Instruments, Lake Drive, asked what were the plans to get City
water and sewer to him. Mr. Grochala replied they were getting it up to that point and as
development took place it would be extended. He noted the City was committed to
getting a waterman through this area with sanitary sewer as needed. He indicated it was
heading that way.
Mrs. Pat Lind, Palico Instruments, Lake Drive, stated she was objecting to the size of the
building as well as the increase of traffic, especially truck traffic. She noted if was
difficult to see at the intersection of 35W and Lake Drive. She stated this area needed
traffic control and this was the important issue at the moment. She requested this
development not be put in until the traffic issue was addressed.
Donna Carlson, 6808 East Shadow Lake Drive, stated vision 20/20 indicated this was the
main gateway to the City and the proposed land use and comprehensive plan said this
area was commercial. She noted the City had just established this area as a TIF district.
She stated her main point is traffic and the County's refusal to reconstruct the Lake Drive
bridge. She stated with the addition of future housing, as well as commercial traffic, it
did not make sense to add additional truck traffic to Lake Drive. Mr. Grochala pointed
out this area was currently zoned light industrial and the proposed land use was light
industrial, and with respect to TIF, the City took action to establish a TIF district. He
noted no commitments have been made to the developer for TIF. He stated staff had
looked at this option for traffic improvement in this area. He stated Anoka County had
dropped the Lake Drive bridge project because of funding limitations and the City not
approving the Hodgson Lake corridor. He stated it was his main concern to get this
bridge reconstructed as soon as possible.
Mr. Lyden stated he believed this area should not be a TIF district.
Ms. Weinkauf asked if the State could contribute to the bridge. Mr. Grochala replied
with the State turn back to the County, it did include some limited dollars for the bridge
project, but the County had utilized those dollars elsewhere.
Jim Wyatt, 1705 85th Avenue, Blaine, stated he owned a business at 7337 Lake Drive.
He asked if he could waive out of connecting to sewer and water at this time. He stated
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 12
he was not opposed to the project, but he did not need to hook up to City water and sewer
right now. Mr. Grochala replied it would end prior to his property line.
Mayor Bergeson, stated comments by Councilmember Carlson did not represent the City
Council and requested the Board keep this in mind.
Ms. Carlson stated when she approached the podium, she was not acting as a
Councilmember and she did not introduce herself as a Councilmember. She stated she
was expressing her concerns as a long time resident of Lino Lakes.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 11:14 p.m. and was supported
by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Jeff Raduechel, representative of developer, stated this was not anticipated to be a high
volume industrial operation. He stated the building was a very high quality industrial
building. He noted this would be a substantially higher quality buildings then what
existed on the north side of 35W. He noted they were being sensitive to the environment
in the area. He noted while this was a large building, it would be significantly screened.
He stated when the area was fully developed, the impact of the docks would be
minimized.
Mr. Rafferty stated he could appreciate the comments from the developer and staff
regarding the design and orientation of the building, but he expressed concern about the
number of dock doors. Jeff Raduechel pointed out the doors would be significantly
screened and they had tried to minimize the impact. He stated the number of docks was
relatively small in comparison to the size of the building. He indicated they chose the
colors to coordinate with the school.
Rob Davidson, Davidson Companies, stated they were not contemplating a 24 -hour
operation. This was intended to be a distribution facility only. He stated there would be
125 -150 employees on the facility and there would be low truck traffic volume. He
stated this was an existing business consolidating to a new location.
Mr. Lyden asked what were the hours of operation. Mr. Davidson replied Monday
through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with an occasional 1/2 day on a Saturday.
Mr. Rafferty asked if there would be a lot of truck retainage at the dock doors. Mr.
Davidson replied the trucks would be in and out of the facility. He stated they did not
own any of the trucks and trucks would not be stored on the facility. He indicated there
might be trucks on the property for a short period of time, but not for long periods.
Mr. Lyden asked if they were receiving any TIF funding on the properties they currently
owned. Mr. Davidson replied to his knowledge there has not been any TIF funding.
Ms. Lane pointed out this was for preliminary plat approval only and they were not
approving the business.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 13
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the Marshan Lakes Industrial Park with the
eleven (11) conditions as noted in staff's August 13, 2003 report and adding condition
twelve (12) to state and also upon further investigation of the driveway to the satisfaction
of Ms. Weinkauf's business and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -1
(Lyden).
Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 11:40 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:52
p.m.
E. PUBLIC HEARING — Fogarty Investments, Lino Lakes Sportatorium, West
of 35E and North of Cedar St., Conditional Use Permit, MUSA Allocation
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 11:52 p.m.
Dick Thompson, consultant, stated applicant is proposing to develop part of a 40 -acre
parcel located east of Centerville and west of I -94. Staff noted applicant was proposing
to use the southern one -third of the parcel for an inflatable bubble to house three ice
rinks, a restaurant, a banquet hall, and a pro shop. In addition to the bubble, the proposal
includes on -site parking for 462 vehicles. Staff recommended approval of the MUSA
allocation request, the conditional use request based upon height requirements and the
restaurant/banquet hall /pro shop subject to the four (4) conditions as noted in staff's
August 13, 2003 report.
Mr. Lyden inquired about fire protection in this type of a building. Mr. Thompson
replied there were emergency exits, but there were not any extraordinary precautions for
fire protection.
Mr. Hyden asked if the rinks could be taken down to play baseball. Mr. Thompson
replied the rinks could be removed.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Brian Bourassa and Brian Robbie, applicants.
Ms. Lane asked how much heating would there be in the Winter. Mr. Bourassa replied
the heating would be minimal. He noted this was primarily for practice and not games.
In the summer, the boards would come down and there would be football, baseball, and
soccer.
Brian Robbie stated the flooring would have refrigerated ice and the refrigeration in the
summer would act as the air conditioner. He stated when the hockey season was over,
they would put down turf for baseball, soccer, football, etc. practice and tryouts. He
indicated this type of a facility would be in demand and would definitely be utilized. He
stated in the summer, they would have football camps, baseball camps, volleyball, etc.
He stated their busy time would be from October through May, but they would be open
year round. He indicated this would be a nice, well maintained facility. He noted the
restaurant would be family- oriented.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 14
Mr. Lyden asked how old was the dome and how long would it last. Mr. Bourassa
replied it was approximately ten years old and should generally last 20 to 25 years.
Mr. Tralle asked if figure skating would be allowed on the hockey rink. Mr. Robbie
replied it would.
Chair Schaps invited anyone for or against the proposal to make comment.
Mark Fourre, West Cedar St, expressed concern regarding making West Cedar a four
lane road. He stated he would like to see them come off of 21St and build another
driveway. Chair Schaps replied applicants were agreeable to having a driveway off of
21st.
Mr. Fourre replied they wanted most of the traffic to come off of 14. He stated he would
like the sidewalk to be on the other side of West Cedar Street, so the sidewalk was not
crossing driveways. He expressed concern regarding the drainage. He expressed concern
about increased traffic along West Cedar Street, especially late at night.
Maureen Fourre, West Cedar, expressed concern about the traffic increase.
Connie Duellman, 2162 Cedar Street West, expressed concern about the lack of
information being provided and the lack of representation by the developer at the
Environmental Board. She expressed concern about the size of the dome. She stated this
was a cheap way to put up a structure to make money. She expressed concern about the
buffer and screening. She expressed concern about the entrance off Cedar Street. She
asked if both entrances could come off of 21st Street and not attach Cedar Street to 21st
Street. She expressed concern about possibly being assessed for sewer and water. She
requested the Board deny this request.
Ken Duellman, 2162 Cedar Street West, stated he was opposed to this because he
believed it would be of benefit to maybe five percent of the population and it would have
a negative effect on the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 12:40 a.m., and was supported
by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0.
Mr. Bourassa stated he had met with the residents in an attempt to explain to them what
this development would entail. He stated they had no problem with the sidewalk on the
other side of Cedar Street. He stated they were proposing a 38 -foot wide street on both
Cedar Street and 21st Street. This would not allow for four lanes to be constructed, but it
would allow for center turn lanes and an on street trail system. He noted the bulk of the
drainage off Cedar Street would be pushed to the north, and once it got past 21st Avenue
it would be drained toward 20th Avenue. He stated they would be watching the drainage
issue. He stated that Cedar Avenue would be moved and the residents would be gaining
front yard area. He indicated they had always had the banquet hall as a part of this
proposal and he apologized for being unable to attend the Environmental Board meeting.
He stated they would work with staff to get the 40 -foot buffer. He noted they would like
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 15
entrances off of Cedar and 21St. He stated they would meet with each of the residents to
determine where they wanted their services stubbed to their property.
Mr. Robbie stated he believed this facility would be fully utilized and would serve the
entire population. He stated this would not be a cheap operation.
Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve allocation of 38 acres of MUSA and was
supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 6 -0.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the Sportatorium as a conditional use with
conditions as noted in staff's August 13, 2003 report based upon exceeding the height
requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and was supported by Mr. Lyden.
Mr. Tralle requested under condition number 4 the word "should" be changed to "will"
provide.
Motion carried 6 -0.
Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to approve the restaurant /banquet hall /pro shop as a
conditional use with conditions based upon the requirements of the City Zoning
Ordinance and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0.
F. PUBLIC HEARING, North Suburban Development, Crystal Cove, SW Corner
of Lake Drive and 79th St., Rezone, Preliminary Plat, Variance
Mr. Lyden left the meeting at 12:51 a.m.
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 12:51 a.m.
Staff stated this site was platted as Outlot B when the Highland Meadows East plat was
approved in 1999. The parcel of 0.64 acres is located at the southwest corner of Lake
Drive and 79th Street. The application involves the rezoning of part of the outlot and a
preliminary plat that covers the entire outlot. The plat would create three lots: one lot for
a single family detached home, and two lots that would accommodate a two - family
attached structure (duplex). The rezoning applies to the two duplex lots. The irregular
shape of the property creates a number of constraints that affect the ability to meet
several minimum requirements regarding lot dimensions and area. Staff reviewed their
analysis and recommended approving the rezoning of the eastern portion of the site (Lot
2 and Lot 3 on the preliminary plat) from R -1 to R -2; approve variances: lot depth for all
three lots, lot width and lot area for Lot 2; and approve the preliminary plat for Crystal
Cove with the eight (8) conditions as noted in staffs August 13, 2003 report.
Ms. Lane asked if there would be some type of an agreement between the homeowners
for maintenance. Mr. Smyser replied there would be.
Chair Schaps invited anyone for or against this proposal to make comment.
There were no comments either for or against this proposal.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 16
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 1:00 a.m., and was supported
by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5 -0.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Seth Marshall, Generation Homes, 14601 Kripton Street, Ramsey, stated they had no
problem shifting the lot lines over and would comply with all of the recommendation and
conditions. He stated all of the siding would be vinyl with no painting involved. He
stated these would be single - family owned homes and would not be rentals.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of a rezoning of the eastern
portion of the site (Lot 2 and Lot 3 on the preliminary plat) from R -1 to R -2, and was
supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the variances: lot depth for all
three lots, lot width and lot area for Lot 2, with the specific dimensions to be determined
prior to City Council review, and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Crystal
Cove, with the eight (8) conditions as listed in staff's August 13, 2003 report, and was
supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0.
G. PUBLIC HEARING, JADT Development, Inc., East of Lake Dr. and South of
Apollo Drive, Conditional Use Permit
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 1:06 a.m.
Staff stated in September, 2002, the City Council approved the JADT Addition, which
included the creation of four lots for single and multiple tenant use on property located
east of Lake Drive and South of Apollo Drive. Applicant is now requesting site plan
approval for development of Lots 2 and 3. The proposed development consists of two
multi -tenant retail buildings that are 13,847 square feet and 3,500 square feet
respectively. Staff noted the smaller building also consists of a proposed three bay
automobile repair facility. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval of
the CUP subject to the twelve (12) conditions as noted in their August 13, 2003 report.
Chair Schaps invited anyone for or against this proposal to make comment.
There were no comments either for or against this proposal.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 1:10 a.m., and was supported
by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5 -0.
Applicant was not present to make comment.
Mr. Hyden expressed concern about major auto repairs being made. Mr. Grochala
replied this was being classified as a minor repair facility.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 17
Mr. Rafferty asked if staff had any concerns about traffic and the garage doors opening
and closing. Mr. Grochala replied staff was comfortable with the proposal.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the CUP subject to the twelve
(12) conditions as noted in staff's August 13, 2003 report, and was supported by Mr.
Tralle. Motion carried 5 -0.
H. PUBLIC HEARING, Woodstone Builders, Inc., Apollo Center, SE corner of
Apollo Dr. and Lilac St., Conditional Use Permit
Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 1:16 a.m.
Mr. Thompson stated applicant is proposing to construct a small strip mall of 15,763
square feet on the SE property at the intersection of Apollo Drive and Lilac Street. The
Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan designates this area as commercial. Staff noted
applicant is proposing to construct a small strip mall on the south end of this triangular -
shaped lot. The mall would include an auto repair shop of approximately 3,100 square
feet with attached retail space to the east of approximately 12,663 square feet. The strip
mall and auto repair business would be located on the back side of the lot with parking to
the north and south. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approving the
conditional use permit subject to the conditions as noted in their August 13, 2003 report.
He stated staff would work with the developer on the color scheme of the building.
Mr. Tralle asked if the home located on this property would be removed. Mr. Grochala
replied it would be demolished. He pointed out there would not be two Precision Tune
franchises in this area, even though the previous approval also approved a Precision
Tune.
Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment.
Charles Skarphol, Woodstone Builders, stated it would be decided by Friday which area
the Precision Tune would be located at.
Chair Schaps inquired about the color of the banding. Mr. Skarphol replied it would be a
forest green color, not lime green as depicted on the drawing.
Chair Schaps invited anyone for or against this proposal to make comment.
There were no comments either for or against this proposal.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 1:25 a.m., and was supported
by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5 -0.
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the conditional use subject to
the three (3) conditions adding the condition that developer work with staff on the
exterior colors of the building as noted in staff's August 13, 2003 report, and was
supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
August 13, 2003
Page 18
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 1:28 a.m., August 14, 2003 and
was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
unelI,2
6 :30 P.M.
7:14 P.M'
Corson,1
Tralle
den, Lane, Lyden, Ra
Schaps an
a Gre
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
• Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:36
•
p.m., June 11, 2003.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Schaps requested additions or deletions to this evening's agenda. Hearing none,
the agenda was approved as submitted.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 14, 2003
Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the May 14, 2003, meeting of the
Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion
carrie ftJ 1. Ms. Lane abstained.
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared Open Mike open at 6:37 p.m.
No one was present for Open Mike.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:37 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Rafferty. Motion carri9'd N -0.
G
APPROVED MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
June 11, 2003
Page 2
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 — Jeff Smvser
Chair Schaps advised that this application has been withdrawn by the applicant and will
be resubmitted as a new application to include the entire property.
Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to e the public hearing at 6:39 p.m., and was supported
by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carri d 5j -0.
(0
Mr. Corson inquired if the residents will receive a new notice regarding this public
hearing. Chair Schaps responded in the affirmative.
B. PUBLIC HEARING, Discount Tire, 633 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review and
CUP — Mike Grochala
Chair Schaps noted that this public hearing will be continued to July.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to July of 2003, and was
supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carrie
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Banners, as they relate to the City Sign Ordinance — Jeff Smyser
Mr. Smyser presented the staff report regarding banners as they relate to the Sign
Ordinance and advised that staff has seen an increase in these signs of late in Lino Lakes.
He presented staff's analysis along with photocopies of several instances of banners and
other temporary signage currently found in Lino Lakes. Mr. Smyser asked for direction
from the Board on how to address the issue.
Chair Schaps noted it appears in certain cases the ordinance is being violated, probably
unknowingly.
Mr. Rafferty stated this relates to aesthetics and the City should step forward and curtail
it.
Mr. Corson suggested a maximum square footage such as 32 square feet be enforced,
which is the limit enforced in other cities. He commented they need to keep the situation
under control so they do not look like Las Vegas.
Ms. Lane suggested some limits be placed, as banners begin to look tattered if they have
been up for too long.
APPROVED MINUTES
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 11, 2003
Page 3
Mr. Tralle inquired about the use of flags shown in one of the photographs. Mr. Smyser
replied these are streamers, they fall under the classification of portable signs and are not
typically allowed without a permit, like banners. There are places that get told to take
them down and six months later put them back up.
Mr. Hyden asked if a permit is required each time a sign is put up. Mr. Smyser
responded a permit would be required each time a portable sign is put up. The cost would
be less than $100 for the permit.
Mr. Lyden stated there is a difference as to whether the sign is attached to the building or
not. These restrictions would do what he would like, however, he does not want to over -
regulate either. He noted ninety % of the banners will be regulated to liquor stores and
those types of places. He also stated while they are discussing aesthetics, the grass that is
ten feet high in front of the City Hall is an eyesore coming into the City.
Chair Schaps asked if the Council has discussed this. Mr. Smyser responded they have
not discussed it to any degree. Business owners came to a Council worksession stating
that they should be able to have banners when they had been informed to take them
down. The Council directed staff to look into this. He indicated staff will come back to
the Board with a matrix of different options at the next Commission meeting.
• The Board directed staff to come back with a fee schedule also.
•
B. Fabric Accessory Structures, used as Carports — Jeff Smyser
Mr. Smyser advised that a number of residents are constructing temporary fabric
structures, primarily for storage of vehicles. This is a relatively new product that
typically consists of aluminum poles with plastic fabric stretched over the poles. He
presented the staff report and explained that staff is bringing the issue to the Planning &
Zoning Board for discussion to if see staff should pursue adding language to the Zoning
Ordinance to address this type of structure.
Chair Schaps stated the very nature of these structures is temporary.
Mr. Tralle suggested the structures not be allowed in the front yard or visible from the
front street.
Mr. Rafferty stated neighbors do not have an interest in looking at something like this and
it causes rifts in neighborhoods. The people that put these up do not protect the rights of
the individuals that live next to them. This relates to aesthetics and the City should step
forward.
Mr. Lyden commented residents can be fiercely independent, whether it concerns the
wrecked vehicle or the garbage ordinance. This will be a `slippery slope' and he
questions where they will end if they start here. He noted some people may not want to
allow something like trampolines. He agrees with a requirement for the structures to
APPROVED MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
June 11, 2003
Page 4
meet setbacks and the City has brought this on by allowing houses to be built on such
small lots.
Ms. Lane suggested the structures be restricted from visibility from the street, with a
placement restriction in the back yard so side neighbors do not have to view them.
Mr. Corson suggested as a minimum the structures should be well maintained.
Mr. Hyden indicated he agrees in allowing the structures for temporary use. If they are
used for storage the property owner should obtain an accessory structure permit.
Chair Schaps stated this should be recognized as a temporary structure, which can be
allowed with a permit for a time period of several months. It would not be wise to put
these structures up in the winter due to possible damage by snow.
Mr. Smyser explained this issue has not been discussed by the City Council. There has
not been any enforcement action on these structures. When residents have inquired what
is allowed with the structures staff has informed them they must meet setbacks and
accessory square footage requirements on the lot. There is nothing in the ordinance,
however, that states that. Many of the structures have been put up without notifying the
City. He advised if something is done from a regulatory standpoint the zoning ordinance
would need to be amended. He explained when staff first started seeing these structures a
few years ago they questioned if they would be a safety hazard due to the possibility of
them being crushed by snow. Most of the structures, however, are to cover things such as
boats. Staff did not believe there would be safety issues from that standpoint.
Chair Schaps suggested there be an exception to the permit requirement for a situation
such as a party, as the structure would only be needed for a day or two. He directed staff
to bring the suggestions of the Commission to the Council for discussion.
Mr. Tralle commented not all of these structures are cheap. There are some structures
that can house four rv's at a cost of $6,000.
Chair Schaps inquired if a structure of that size would fall under the accessory structure
ordinance. Mr. Smyser responded it is very common in situations like this for the
manufacturer to say a permit is not required. That, however, is up to the individual
municipality.
Mr. Tralle asked how a large structure like this would fit into a rural zone. Mr. Smyser
responded currently the amount of allowed accessory building space is dependent on the
size of the lot, and the temporary structures could be included in this.
Mr. Tralle questioned if passing an ordinance in relation to these structures would create
another ordinance that is not going to be enforced.
APPROVED MINUTES
•
J
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
June 11, 2003
Page 5
Mr. Lyden asked how many inquiries or complaints staff receives regarding these
structures in a one year period. Mr. Smyser responded in the last 12 months staff has
been contacted regarding this approximately 12 times, with two or three of these being
complaints. They are not peppered with complaints, but by the time we are, there would
already be a problem. He indicated staff will discuss the suggestions of the Commission
and bring back the possibilities to be considered. They may not even want to deal with it,
but he thinks it is important to have the discussion.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION_to adjourn the meeting at 7:14 p.m., and was supported
by Ms. Lane. Motion carrie
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Hamer, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
APPROVED MINUTES
•
STAFF ORIGINATOR:
P & Z MEETING DATE:
TOPIC:
BACKGROUND
AGENDA ITEM V. A
Jeff Smyser
September 10, 2003
PUBLIC HEARING: Amending Zoning Ordinance
to Include Personal Services as Permitted Uses in
the GB General Business Zoning District
The major revisions to the zoning ordinance included amending and reorganizing the uses
allowed in each of the zoning districts. In the business districts, the uses now are more
generalized than before. The previous lists were very specific, which created a problem
for uses that were not listed but were common activities in commercial areas.
Another amendment to the ordinance changed a statement that prohibited anything not
specifically listed. Now, the ordinance states that "whenever a proposed use is neither
specifically allowed nor denied, the City Council shall determine if the proposed use is
comparable in potential activities and impacts to a use listed in the zoning district..."
We discovered an oversight that should be corrected. Both the Neighborhood Business
and Limited Business districts specifically list "personal services" as permitted uses. The
General Business district does not. (See attached permitted uses lists from those
districts.)
In the definitions, Section 1, Subd. 2.B., the ordinance says:
Personal Service. Personal services shall include the following: barber shops,
beauty salon, electrolysis, manicurist, tanning parlor, physical therapy, therapeutic
massage, and tattooing.
All three districts include some type of "service business ", a generalized category.
However, since "personal services" are listed separately in two districts as well, there is a
distinction. Personal services should be included in the GB district as well. The GB
district is the most intense commercial zoning district. If personal service businesses are
acceptable in the less intense districts, they should be allowed in GB as well. Section 7,
Subdivision 3.F. is the permitted uses in the GB district. The proposed amendment
would add "Personal Services" to the list.
Staff discussed this with the City Council at a work session. As a stop gap measure,
Council was comfortable considering personal services as comparable to other service
•
•
businesses. However, because it is a distinct use in the other districts, it should be added
to remove ambiguity. Council agreed that the ordinance should be amended.
With P & Z approval, an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance will be prepared for a
first reading by the City Council on September 22. The second reading would occur on
October 13. It would be published the next week on October 21, with an effective date
30 days later.
OPTIONS
1. Conduct public hearing. Approve amending the zoning ordinance to include personal
services as permitted uses in the GB zoning district (Sec. 7, Subd. 3.F.).
2. Deny amendment of zoning ordinance.
3. Return to staff with direction.
RECOMMENDATION
Option 1
percent of the lot area resulting in less than thirty -five (35) percent pervious
landscaped area.
E. Building Requirements. All newly constructed commercial buildings shall
meet the exterior building standards of Section 3, Subd. 4.B.4 of this Ordinance.
F. Permitted Uses. in the NB District, unless otherwise provided in this
Ordinance, no building or land sal iereater be erected, or structurally altered
except for one or more of the following uses.
1. Adult use — accessory.
2. Governmental or public regulated _ utilities, buildings, or structures
necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of the City.
Office business — clinic.
Office business — general.
Personal services (subject to any licensing requirements of City Code,
County or State).
6. Restaurant without drive - through service facilities or outdoor dining.
Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Business Districts
7 -2
7. Retail business without drive - through service facilities.
..49 8. Service business — on -site without drive - through service facilities.
G. Accessory Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the
following are accessory uses in the NB District:
1. Accessory buildings and structures as regulated by Section 3, Subd.
4.D.9. of this Ordinance.
2. Fences, as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 4.R of this Ordinance.
3. Off - street loading as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 6. of this Ordinance.
4. Off - street parking as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 5. of this Ordinance.
5. Outside services, sales, and equipment rental accessory to the principal
use and limited in area to twenty -five (25) percent of the gross floor area
of the principal building.
6. Radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs three (3)
meters or Tess in diameter, short-wave dispatching antennas, or those
necessary for the operation of electronic equipment including radio
receivers, ham radio transmitters and television receivers as regulated by
Section 3. Subd. 14 of this Ordinance.
structures of any type, buildings, or other features cover more than sixty -five (65)
percent of the lot area resulting in less than thirty -five (35) percent pervious
landscaped area.
E. Building Requirements. All newly constructed commercial buildings shall
meet the exterior building standards of Section 3, Subd. 4.B.4 of this Ordinance.
•
•
Permitted Uses. In the LB District`no building or land shall be used, and no
building shall be erg ecea, converted or structurally altered unless otherwise
provided herein, except for one or more of the following uses.
1 Adult use — accessory.
2. Governmental or public regulated utilities, buildings, or structures
necessary for the health, safety, and general welfare of the City.
3. Liquor sales — on and off sale.
4. Office business — clinic.
5. Office business — general.
Personal services (subject to any licensing requirements of City Code,
County or State).
7. Residential extended care facilities such as nursing homes.
8. Restaurant without drive - through service facilities or outdoor dining.
Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Business Districts
7 -6
9. Retail business.
'} 10. Service business — off -site.
"0,P 11. Service business — on -site, without drive - through facilities.
G. Accessory Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the
following are accessory uses in the LB District:
1. Accessory buildings and structures as regulated by Section 3, Subd.
4.D.9. of this Ordinance.
2. Fences, as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 4.R of this Ordinance.
3. Off - street loading as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 6 of this Ordinance.
4. Off - street parking as regulated by Section 3, Subd. 5 of this Ordinance.
5. Outside services. sales. and equipment rental accessory to the principal
E. Building Requirements. All newly constructed commercial buildings shall
meet the exterior building standards of Section 3, Subd. 4.B.4 of this Ordinance.
F. Permitted Uses. In the GB District no building or land shall be used, and no
building shall be erected, conve ed or structurally altered unless otherwise
provided herein, except for one or more of the following uses.
1. Adult use — principal and accessory.
2. Governmental and public regulated utilities, buildings, and structures
necessary.
3. Greenhouses and landscape nurseries.
4. Hospitality business.
5. Liquor sales, on and off sale.
6. Office business — clinical.
• • 7. Office business — general.
••• 8. Recreational business contained entirely within the principal building.
9. Restaurant with or without drive - through facilities, without outdoor dining.
10. Retail business.
11. Service business — off -site.
.►2 12. Service business — on -site.
Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Business Districts
7 -18
13. Specialty schools such as music, dance, gymnastics, or business /trade
schools.
14. Theaters.
G. Accessory Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of this Ordinance, the
following are accessory uses in the GB District:
1. Accessory buildings and structures as regulated by Section 3, Subd.
4.D.9. of this Ordinance.
2. Drive - through service facilities:
a. Not less than one hundred twenty (120) feet of segregated
automobile stacking must be provided for the single service lane.
Where multiple service lanes are provided, the minimum automobile
starkinn may ha rani Iran to civty (Ffll f =at near In
... vv arwv 11SJ vu...v. . u . varaawv..v. n..v.III. .vva.aavaw •..a. n.. a.. 0,11.41.3%4 I 1 v.
portion of a building providing out - patient health services to patrons,
including general medical clinics, mental health providers, chiropractor,
dentists, orthodontia, oral surgeons, opticians, and other uses of similar
character.
10. Office Business - General. An establishment located within a building or
portion of a building for the conduct of business activities involving
predominantly professional administrative or clerical service operations
including attorneys, financial advisors, insurance, travel, real estate, and
other uses of similar character.
•
Personal Service. Personal services shall include the following: barber
shops, beauty salon, electrolysis, manicurist, tanning parlor, physical
therapy, therapeutic massage, and tattooing.
12. Recreational Business. Arcade, health club, gymnasium, bowling alley,
billiard (pool) hall, dance hall, dance studio, skating rinks, theaters, and
indoor firearms range.
Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Title / Application / Rules
1 -16
Orarammomemmme
13. Restaurant. An establishment that serves food in individual servings for
consumption on or off premises, including sit -down restaurants, take out,
pick up, or delivery food sales, but not including drive - through facilities.
Outdoor dining areas and drive - through facilities may or may not be
allowed in each zoning district: they are not automatically allowed when a
restaurant is an allowable use.
14. Retail Business. An establishment engaged in the display and sale of
products produced off-site directly to consumers within a building or
portion of a building excluding any exterior display and sales.
15. Service Business Off -Site. A company that provides useful labor,
maintenance, repair and activities incidental to business production or
distribution where the service is provided at the customer's location,
including delivery services, catering services, plumbing and sewer
services, and other uses of similar character.
16. Service Business On -Site. An establishment that provides useful labor,
maintenance, repair and activities incidental to business production or
distribution where the customer patronizes the location of the operation,
such as banks (not including drive - through facilities), copy centers,
laundromats, dry cleaners, funeral homes and mortuaries, appliance
repair, tailor shops, and travel bureaus.
Comprehensive Plan. A Comprehensive Plan prepared and approved by the
City, including a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, fiscal
ni,inclin=e and mane inrlirafinn +hc ncncral Inrafinno rcnnmmcnrlor -1 fro- +ho
AGENDA ITEM VI -A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Alice Divine
P & Z MEETING DATE: September 10, 2003
TOPIC: Village Update
ACTION REQUIRED: None
BACKGROUND
Lino Lakes staff has been working since early 2003 with the Hartford Group, a
development firm based in Eden Prairie, on a proposal for completion of the "Village"
project on the southeast quadrant of 35W and Lake Drive. A development plan and
design standards for this site were originally developed by Calthorpe Associates and
completed in 2000. The city has pursued development of this site according to this plan,
with the ultimate goal the creation of a new "downtown" Lino Lakes.
SITE
The site is comprised of approximately 60 acres total, and consists of three components:
1. The Tagg Site. This site consists of 30 acres comprised of the Arctic Sandblasting
facility and the Tagg family home. The Hartford Group has entered into a
purchase agreement with the Taggs that is contingent upon city approvals of the
project.
2. City -owned property of approximately 11.7 acres. This land was purchased by the
city on Contracts for Deed in the late 1990's. Two parcels were sold to Lino
Lakes State Bank and Fairview Clinic. The Hartford Group has entered into a
purchase agreement with the city contingent upon city approvals.
3. City -owned property of approximately 14 acres. This parcel was a part of a land
trade with Anoka County. Because this land was taken out of the regional park,
the Metropolitan Council had ultimate approval. A condition of approval was that
the parcel could be used only for public use, and not sold to a private developer.
The Civic Complex was built on the site, and approximately 6.7 acres were set
aside for the future YMCA.
•
•
HARTFORD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The vision of the Village project, which has been renamed Legacy at Woods Edge, is
unlike conventional suburban commercial and residential development. This project, as
defined in the city's Comprehensive Plan, calls for a mixed -use development comprised
of residential, commercial, recreational and civic uses. The intent is to create a "sense of
- place" by including:
• Road design and sidewalks for people to walk and bicycle as well as providing for
vehicular circulation.
• Opportunities for activities that bring people together — community green, civic
facilities, health and fitness, and access to the regional park —to encourage social
values of a community.
• Restoring physical design that is human in scale, using build -to lines so that
buildings have windows looking onto the street. In the residential area garages
will be behind the homes to encourage people to turn outward toward their
neighborhood.
• On street parking and other traffic calming features to make the street a part of the
neighborhood, not a barrier between uses.
The Hartford Group will act as master developer of the project. This site will have the
city's highest housing densities, and will provide housing opportunities not currently
available in Lino Lakes. The Hartford housing concept plan includes:
• 113 market rate for -sale townhomes
• 74 rental townhomes
• 91 workforce rental townhomes (the developer has applied for tax credits to
provide rental rates at 50% of the median income).
• 48 condominiums built over commercial
• 124 senior apartment/condominiums built over commercial
The commercial component of the master plan includes commercial /retail /office space in
the range of 250,000- 300,000 sq. ft. This will be a combination of first floor leased space
with housing above, and pad -ready sites.
The Hartford Group will build and own the rental townhomes and the commercial
buildings that have apartments /condominiums above. The Hartford Group will bring in a
developer to build the for -sale townhomes and market the remaining sites for commercial
development.
APPROVALS PROCESS/DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
There are four major components of the approvals process —the site plan/PDO, the EAW,
the Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District, and the Public Improvements
process. Because of the complexity of this mixed -use project, the City has retained Short
Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) to oversee the planning, engineering and approvals process.
The following is the status of each process:
• Site plan/PDO: Hartford has completed site assembly, and staff /SEH have been
reviewing concept plans. Once predevelopment work is complete, The Hartford
Group expects to submit for preliminary plat and PDO approval in November or
December, with final plat approval in March.
• EAW: SEH is preparing the document, with the draft expected in October. A
major component of the EAW is a traffic study. Staff and consultants are working
with Anoka County and MnDOT to ensure they are on board with the
recommended public improvements within the site and on Lake Drive. Comments
and review by outside agencies are expected to be complete in December, with a
final declaration by the city in January.
• TIF: The Economic Development Authority will be considering authorizing the
establishment of a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District on the Tagg
property on September 22, with the city council calling for a public hearing to be
held in December. In November, the Planning & Zoning board will review the
document for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of the TIF plan
for the district is expected in December.
• Public Improvements: The public improvements will be city initiated and are
expected to coincide with the development schedule. The feasibility study will be
ordered this fall.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL GRANTS
The city has received two Livable Communities Demonstration Grants from the
Metropolitan Council for development of Woods Edge:
1. In 1997 the city received $220,000 for planning and market studies for the
project. Calthorpe Associates was hired to complete the Master Plan and Design
Guidelines, which was completed in 2000.
2. In 2000, the city received $450,000 to be used to provide housing in the project.
That funding is expected to be used towards developer land and/or infrastructure
costs.
3. The city has applied for approximately $1.3 million in 2003 for amenities within
the project, including public realm and streetscape elements.
YMCA
The YMCA and the city entered into a collaborative agreement for the construction of a
Y on the city -owned land that cannot be developed for private use. The city's goal was to
provide a community center for Lino Lakes residents without the public expenditure of a
city -owned facility. The intent is also to incorporate the Y as a major anchor in the
physical setting of the new downtown. The city will participate in the project with the
donation of land, infrastructure and $1.5 million towards construction.
•
The Y has been fundraising for the facility for the past several years and has raised
approximately $5 million. City staff has been working with the Y and its consulting
architect to incorporate the Y's preliminary site plans into the overall development plan.
•
•
LEGACY AT WOODS EDGE
•
ILOT BUILDING NUMBER BUILDING SF BUILDING SF
NUMBER BUILDING TYPE
FOOTPRINT FLOORS COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL LOT RESIDENTIAL
UNITS
SF TYPE
1 Commeraai/GroceryIO?(ce 16,415
2 CammerciaYRauill0l6ce 7,500
3 Cornmercial,Ret i 10Mce 11,000
4 ConmerciatIRela40O16t 4250
5 CommercaauReia4 five 5.000
6A CornaterciaLIRefaiUOff■ce- Normmg 113300
68 CammeraeliRetaisOKxx- tierr:irq 15,600
7 Commeraiai/MedisMOffice 15,600
8 Comemo;i4/Retai/ONKe 5.500
9 Commerc4lRetaiU1410eJHoaein0 30.950
10 Comrt.cicuUReraiIADfrce 6.500
11 Cor=xreraMRetailIOffitc 6.000
12 Corzcmemi4:rRetaiYf 1'i t 5.000
13 Commercial/Read/Office 5.000
14 Cormrerc al,Ratar:rOrfce 5.000
Cornmer is Reta OI0 a 10.300
Cornrreraai.0 care 9.500
7 Affordable Towntiomes
to Fa' Sale Towntwrees
19 For Sole Town.lt .-nca
20 YMCA
21 Exe.O F* eev
22 Eiostu19 Bank
23 Ex4ting Ca± Han
24 Exianng Ct'ildren's Wedare
25 Eating Poke Station
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
18,415
22500
33.000
42,750
15,000
18.300
15300
46.800
16,500
30,950
19.500
18,000
15.000
15.000
15.000
30,900
9,500
0
0
0
0
0
TBD
TBD
0
0
TBD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TED
TBD
TBD
NA
NA
98 SENIOR/ASSISTED LIVING
NA
NA
NA
75 LEJLTIFAMILY
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
81 WOP,K'FORCE TOWNHOMES
112 FOR SALE TGWNHCI4 S
74 FOR -SALE TOWNHOMES- UNDERGROUND PARKING
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TOTAL 17T.415 350,715 0 450
•
AGENDA ITEM VI. B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
P & Z MEETING DATE: September 10, 2003
TOPIC: Discussion Item: Concept Plan
Northwest Corned Apollo Drive/Lilac Street
ProTerra Design for Equinox Development
BACKGROUND
Equinox Development is interested in developing property on the northwest corner of the
intersection of Apollo Drive and Lilac St. ProTerra Design has prepared a concept sketch
for discussion purposes. No formal action is needed on this item at this time. This is a
concept plan only. Nothing has been formally submitted for approval. The purpose of
the discussion is to share information about the site the proposed development, as well as
general City requirements for the site. This will help in designing a better project.
• The comprehensive plan guides the site for commercial development.
Location
Existing Land Use
Guided Land Use
Existing
Zoning
Site
vacant
Commercial,
Stage 1 (pre -2010) growth area,
part in, part outside of MUSA
Rural
North
rural residential
Industrial
Rural
South
rural residential (north
of Lilac) and
blacktop business
(south of Lilac)
Industrial and Commercial
General
Business
East
rural residential,
vacant commercial
and dentist office
Commercial
General
Business
and Rural
West
rural residential and
cemetery
Industrial
Rural
• The site is made up of two separate parcels: a "T- shaped" parcel and a smaller parcel
on its east side. Both parcels front on Apollo Drive. The "T" has some frontage on
Lilac St.
• The entire site is approximately 7.8 acres, exclusive of Apollo and Lilac right of way.
•
• The southeast parcel is within the current MUSA, the larger portion of the site is not.
Development would require allocation of commercial MUSA. We have 73 acres of
commercial MUSA available.
• The site currently is zoned Rural. The site would need to be rezoned.
• To accommodate a hotel, General Business zoning would be needed. This would
be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
• The rezoning requires information such as a plat or site plan application. It all
would be reviewed together.
• A planned unit development would be needed to place more than one building on a
single parcel. Because of the configuration of the site and its limited road frontage, a
PUD may be the best option.
• Outdoor seating for a restaurant requires a conditional use permit.
• One driveway onto Apollo Drive is allowed.
• The number of accesses onto Apollo is restricted by an agreement between the
City and Anoka County. (Apollo Drive is County State Aid Highway 12).
• The lot on the east of this site, separating it from the dentist office, will be served
by a shared driveway constructed with the dentist office building.
Some Design/Discussion Issues
These items are offered for discussion, but are in no way intended to be comprehensive.
• An existing pond down in the lower portion, near Lilac St., is shown as being
relocated to the north. Is it preferable to move the pond to accommodate parking or
would it be better to have the building out near the street?
• The developer is contemplating underground stormwater storage. This would
require review, and any stormwater management must comply with Rice Creek
Watershed District requirements. Infiltration is a question to be addressed.
• Internal pedestrian circulation should be included in the site. There is no trail planned
on Apollo Drive. However, land on the south side of Apollo likely will develop in
the foreseeable future, and pedestrian access to and through that site also should be
planned.
• Land to the north and south is guided for future industrial use. However, single
family homes exist there now. Design of the site should be sensitive to this.
•
2
6 7
GREENWOOD L AN
3
6
7
IO
I7
STATE - -TRUNK - HIGHWAY
6
5
¢ sl ?lL1
Now' t.g
1
8
9
1 � ;
QV 0i L. A
Ve4 ,1 ‘'
,"" 0/5
8
10
.w 4-
7
8
CRES
9
CC1-
z >-
0
0
10
11
12
2
BARB:
NO. +49 .
1
2
2
APOLLO
BUSINESS PAR
NO 2
'I
DEV.
1
z
OUTL,
6,
AI)! 7.10,.
•
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN
LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Industrial
Low Density
Unsewered
Residential
Stage 1
Growth Area
Boundary
MUSA line
Commercial
Equinox/ProTerra site
1
P1
�I
SG Pi
zodvm/6
M9i
MARSHAN LAKE
•
•
•
J
VFreat- . veenu_, es
psnw(.470 ='so
.swir-a L4' 'W
tece-
011=
V
o■rer —
1
C�l
H
teas sr N.
/
!wait ::r.
e i 125m Not No
r� l
.ofA.er3 here 't v(S tice TreC.t oy
Crett'keln ctr��
ItAN F+p IN ' e3. .^ Countyy MtmuriN
parr
1i<t Creek tint.". vt..I.rYnle
$anent Ierk�
iNuq Ap._.vh..� Merp3lett ,k '
11 Cif ltY`erk�J' l`N Cpunlrk ,. _ Sot St Z vt
9filY "'"''',17,1:°'! i r Haft Creek /' ��,'
6 /' Coiten %i k t '
qo 1 �'� IIIIT_ IZ ✓ Fi , .t..e N. 34W n tenet rat :92005 newel.^ 1«... _+ '' \—.
L c -flOT4 r1 -
6;
111• City Nall ter..
o ti 113
"7. ctmJ Styr
tit
0.1
lost**L 3
„„oorfy.etk_®
t
t
PRELIMINARY
FOR REVIEW ONLY
o' ad *1
PREPARED FOR
•
REGISTRATION
I hereby certify that this
plan. specAcatdn, or
report was prepared by
me or uncle. my deed
supemvon, and mat 1
am a duty Licensed
Rolessanal Engineer
under the laws oh the
sate of Minnesota.
PREPARED BY
REVISIONS.
No (Lot Non
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM VI. C
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
P & Z MEETING DATE: September 10, 2003
TOPIC: Discussion Item: Concept Plan
VFW, 7868 Lake_Drive,
Northeast Corner, Lake Drive/Lois Lane
BACKGROUND
The Circle -Lex VFW Post 6583 is interested in constructing a new building. DSGW, an
architectural firm, has prepared a concept sketch for discussion purposes. No formal
action is needed on this item at this time. This is a concept plan only. Nothing has been
formally submitted for approval. The purpose of the discussion is to share information
about the site the proposed development, as well as general City requirements for the site.
This will help in designing a better project.
• The comprehensive plan guides the site for commercial development.
Location
Existing Land Use
Guided Land Use
Existing
Zoning
Site
VFW
Commercial,
Stage 1 (pre -2010) growth area,
outside of MUSA
General
Business
North
residential
Commercial
General
Business
South
auto garage, retail
Commercial
General
Business
East
residential
Commercial
General
Business
and Rural
West
residential (across
Lake Drive)
Low and Medium Density
Sewered Residential
R -1
• The entire site is approximately 2 acres.
• The site is outside of the current MUSA. The MUSA line runs down Lake Drive.
This development would require allocation of commercial MUSA. We have 73 acres
of commercial MUSA available.
• • The new building would need to connect to City sanitary sewer and water. The
•
existing VFW is on well and septic.
• The currently GB zoning is appropriate.
• A private club requires a conditional use permit. The new building would require an
amendment of the existing CUP.
• The new building would be approximately 11,000- 12,000 sf.
• A sprinkler system will be necessary in the new building.
Some Design/Discussion Issues
These items are offered for discussion, but are in no way intended to be comprehensive.
• Access onto both Lois Lane and Lake Drive is planned. The location of the driveway
access onto Lake Drive is important.
• A future median down Lake Drive is likely. A full access may have better
probability if the driveway aligns with a public roa (79th St.), though this is not
assured.
• However, access directly into the parking lot may be desirable.
• Additional right of way on Lake Drive may be needed. Providing it now would
prevent future site design conflicts if the County acquires more right of way.
• Land to the north will be developed for commercial uses. It may be possible to link
the parking lots to create, in effect, a "frontage road" for more access to both sites.
• Design of the site should be sensitive to existing single family homes.
• The building setback on the east side will be examined. Fire access is an issue as well
as adequate separation from the neighboring property.
•
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
0
2
02WHI :i - - - -- is
I
L
1
2
L
3
4
K
36
5
E
6
2
2$
carenzr
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
35
34
•
•
•
PROPOSED LAND USE
LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Low Density
Sewered
Residential
7
8
9
10
35
34
33
•
•
PROPOSEb SITE PLAN
1" = 50' -0"
//
of 7 /
Lot 7 /
/
/
79TH STREET`
NW Cor. Lot 9
N / 1
�
/ /
c.o. ,
O /
t3`_ '
> �
O/
,O
Gam:,' u
SE Cori Lot 7
/
1� n" LI
visA p7,
I .��.'���� N'ly line of Lot 9
LOIS LANE
op
Sg9°06-.
8
200.00
N89°05.08" if
189.89
SITE SUMMARY
ZONED GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
LOT SIZE = 97,755 SF OR 2.24 ACRES
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE = 65,356 SF (66.9 X)
PERVIOUS SURFACE = 33,219 5P (33.1 X)
REQUIRED PARKING
BAR 10/1,000 SF + 1 /STAFF
1,350/1,000 = 20 + 8 STAFF = 28
DANCE HALL 20 + 1/200 OVER 2,000 5F
4,500 - 2,000 = 2,500
2,500/ 200 = 12.5
20 +13 =33
OFFICE AREA 3 + 1/200
960/200 = 4.8 THEREFORE 8
TOTAL REQUIRED = 28 + 33 + 8 = 69
PROVIDED PARKING
REGUALAR STALLS = 94
HDCP STALLS = 4
TOTAL 98
SEP 0 0 2003
N00°54 '52"E
Ely line Lot 7
NE Cor. Lot 9
4 ,1 0% 44:r
0.4.
enriching
communities
through
architecture
dabeeh • o rgMia • grand rapids •
tounadeguco.
NEW BUILDING FOR
CIRCLE - LEX
VFW
POST #6583
7868 LAKE DRIVE
LINO LAKES,
MINNESOTA
Prefect e
dare
03098
JULY 7, 2003
)e.... 03098 clrc lex vfw.dwg
droua by MJT
checked by MJT
nano MICHAEL J. THOMAS, AIA
ng. e 23592
sirs dote xxxxx xx, 2003
I hereby certtfy that this plan,
specification, report was
prepamd by one or under .y
direct supervision and that I
. a duly Gemmed Architect
ander the law of the State of
Minnesota
.art ree6taadeeue
13E516N REVISIONS
OE46N REVi4ONS
date
06/13/03
08/27/03
09/03/03
atwePLAN.
.beet
number
AO1
184' -0"
24' -0"
140' -0"
12' -0"
12' -0"
105• -9"
HALL
b ENTRANCE
o C
b
M
r
r-
SOFFIT 01o'r
•
(7 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
�- / 1/16" = 1' -0'
(2) 150 CAP. ROOMS OR (1) 300 CAP. ROOM
1
MECH. d
ELEC.
J
5
B.
KITCHEN
TELI:TE
R
T
BINGO
BOOTH
11 rig
II= r r r
JAN.
SHARED HALLWA 8 POST DISPLAY
KITCHEN
OFFICE
SOFFIT 6 9'-0•
779 010
TABLE
&
CHAIR
STOR.
CUSTO
FACILITY
COMMANDER
8 QURTR
MSTR
OFFICE
()
STOR.
FACILITY
MNGR
OFFICE
TYP. EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY - 12" WYDTH
CMU (SEE ELEV. FOR PATTERNS), 2 LAYERS OF 1
1/2" RIGID INSUL. W/ MTL. "Z" FURRING Q 24"
O.C. (ONE LAYER HOR., THE OTHER VERT.), AND
5/8" GYP BD.
BAR -,uy. ACCOUST. CS,
95 CAP. a 11-4'
L
PULL
TABS
PULL
TAB
STORAGE
DANCE FLOOR
AMING
MNGR
OFFICE
STAGE
11,525 SF
NOTES:
1. SUSPENDED ACCOUST. CLG
e 9' -0" THROUGHOUT
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
2. PROVIDE Q.T. FLOORING
AT RESTROOMS, KITCHEN,
BAR, AND KED KOOLER.
PROVIDE VCr EVERYWHERE
ELSE.
3. INT. WALLS TO BE 3 5/8"
STL STUDS W/ 5/8" GYP BD
EA. SIDE.
BAR
ENTRANCE
DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUC
DWI LINO
I SEP 0
2003
enriching
communities
through
architecture
duluth • oirginia • grand rapid, • poi'.
"nao.dgm.mm
NEW BUILDING FOR
CIRCLE - LEX
VFW
POST #6583
7868 LAKE DRIVE
LINO LAKES,
MINNESOTA
p•fret9 03098
dr JULY 7, 2003
f9. a.aae 03098 cart lex vfw.dwg
drawn by MJT
ch.ck d 6y MJT
name MICHAEL J. THOMAS, AIA
reg. 9 23592^ __^
.rgn data xxxxx xx, 2003
1 hereby certify that tht. plan,
spectfloston, or report W.
prepared by ne or under ny
direct supnobton sad that 1
e duly Licensed Architect
ander the law of the Sort. of
Minnesota.
nark ..optanN.a. data
_ esiyn 9sMShas Auy.st 27, I0o3
Design Revisions 09/03/03
'may PLAN
sheet
number
Al
•
ALUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS
SURFACE APPLIED AWM LETTERS
12
12
1
0
1=.:
• • NE muumuu
■
1
•
•
hDO NOT USE FORC
'O'OV - LINO LAXS�R�
ES9
• it " •"�7.,Nam■n
".■11111111 ■1111
PREFIN MTL PARAPET CAP FLAS
STEM MOUNTED, SURFACE LISP
FIXTURE - TYP.
ROOF PROFILE BEHIND PARAPET
SHOWN DASHED
✓ ✓ ✓✓ 3 COLOR BURNLSHED MASONRY
UNIT - 12 "XB"X16" RUNNING
BOND
11 =11 =11 =11=
a ® ■III
.
liallaill
tom....
I1
�m.xx w�.a ear e e COLORED ROCK FACE CMU -
12 "X8 "X16" RUNNING BOND
------- - - -�-• - -------▪ -- - - - - -- ti • ± - - - - --
CONTINUE PATTERN AROUND AND
ONTO EAST ELEVATION
NORTH
COLORED ROCK FACE CMU - AWM. DOOR AND ENTRY
12"X8 "X16" PATTERN AS SHOWN ASSEMBLY
COLORED BURNISHED MASONRY
UNIT PILASTERS - 4" PROJECTION
FROM FACE 16"X8"X16"
COLOR'D BURNISHED MASONRY
UNIT - 12"X8"X16" STACK BOND
SOUTH
PRE - ENGINEER' D STANDING SE
METAL. ROOF SYSTEM W/ STEEL
TRUSS ASSEMBLY, VENTED ATT
AND BATT INSUL.
�'� �i ■.�� •■ �1.12•19111.11 �.�•ea•� pro■
■"a.& ,o routine_ ■02§;1 ■:2.B�fi.1111®...n•
..1, S 9P. 111111=11111. •C•.dM =1•11 11••. =96•a.•==••x•97$ ®•a481/t4e.■
PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
1/16" 2 1' -17'
WEST
■■■■fsl■■■■ :■■■1 :■■r>i■■■■ii�j �■� !!■.1 ■ ■�
■ ■7f1 ■ ■5���5� ■■ Jl ■ ■�Rfl ■�'r11�l.t�t��rta��
I PA MI
MI Ell
■ _■ B.A2•B•....•. ■..•∎=1.1•• =.�...• •Mn■�•• •••MME• ••■•• ∎ •••.• ■ ∎ ∎••.•••••�
PAINTED 511- CANOPY ASSEMBL
2 THUS
enriching
communities
through
architecture
dtdutit • otrgink • grand rapids • tet.
"nme.bgto.can
NEW BUILDING FOR
CIRCLE - LEX
VFW
POST #6583
7868 LAKE DRIVE
LINO LAKES,
MINNESOTA
pt.*: s 03098
data JULY 7, 2003
ttt.. 03098 circ lex vrw.dwg
drain k3 MJT
checked Iv MJT
ea.. MICHAEL J. THOMAS, AIA
rg. s 23592
.ign date xxxta xx, 2003
I hereby certify that this plan, wee
ereeykatioe, or proposed by one orhider •y
direct supervision and that I
am a duty Gemmed Architect
under the kw of the state of
Mke.ot..
SEP 0 z) 2003
i l,oS a tJ Y�.l e" .a Ew
.ark reoi.knA•ue date
Design Revi.iau August 27, 2003
Design Revisions 09/09/0.9,
Beset
PLAN
tide
skeet
number
A2
1
•
•
AGENDA ITEM VI . D
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
P & Z MEETING DATE: September 10, 2003
TOPIC: Discussion: Banners and Temporary Signs
BACKGROUND
As discussed at the June meeting, many businesses use banners and other types of temporary
signs and we have seen an increase in these signs of late in Lino Lakes.
The goal tonight is for the P & Z to recommend some specific requirements. Staff will take
those recommendations and prepare an ordinance for a public hearing at the October meeting. (It
will be an amendment of the sign ordinance.) The following matrix is presented to help with the
discussion. Each row presents some options for an issue. Each "option" column is not intended
to form a related set of requirements —we can mix up options from the different columns, or
create new ones.
ISSUE:
OPTION 1:
OPTION 2:
OPTION 3:
ALLOWABLE
SQUARE
FOOTAGE
32 SQ. FT.
MUST CONFORM
TO, OR BE
INCLUDED IN,
EXISTING LIMITS
FOR BUSINESS
(OR
INSTITUTIONAL)
SIGNAGE
NO
LIMIT/RESTRICTI
ON
ALLOWABLE
LOCATION
ONLY
ATTACHED TO
BUILDING
ONLY
ATTACHED TO A
"PERMANENT"
STRUCTURE
NO
LIMIT/RESTRICTI
ON
ALLOWABLE
TIME LIMIT
NO
LIMIT/RESTRICTI
ON
MUST MEET
EXISTING LIMITS
FOR PORTABLE
SIGNS (SEE P. 15)
1 MONTH
DEFINITION OF
TEMPORARY
SIGNAGE
ANYTHING NOT
"PERMANENTLY
AFFIXED" TO
THE BUILDING
OR GROUND
ANYTHING NOT
QUALIFYING AS
A WALL,
GROUND, OR
PYLON SIGN
ALLOWABLE
TEMPORARY
SIGNAGE
NO
RESTRICTIONS
•
•
Memorandum
To: Jeff Smyser
From: Mary Divine
Date: 9/4/03
Re: EDAC discussion of banner ordinance
cc:
At its September 4, 2003 meeting, EDAC members reviewed the materials and matrix
you developed regarding the temporary sign and banner issues. They did not make any
specific recommendations, but the following is a summary of their comments:
• Businesses should be allowed to hang banners on the face of their buildings, as
long as it does not exceed the maximum allowable signage area under the sign
ordinance.
• Temporary sign/banner permits should not be required because it would be
difficult to enforce. If temporary permits are required, it should be for at least a
month.
• Banners should only be attached to the building face. They should not be affixed
to posts in the ground, or attached to light poles or other objects.
• Temporary signs should not jeopardize public safety by blocking visibility at
intersections.
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM VI. E
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
P & Z MEETING DATE: September 10, 2003
TOPIC: Discussion: Temporary Fabric Structures
BACKGROUND
As discussed at the June meeting, a number of residents are constructing temporary fabric
structures, primarily for storage of vehicles. This is a relatively new product that
typically consists of aluminum poles with plastic fabric stretched over the poles. The P &
Z indicated it wants to pursue adding language to the zoning ordinance to address this
type of structure.
The goal tonight is for the P & Z to recommend some specific requirements. Staff will
take those recommendations and prepare an ordinance for a public hearing at the October
meeting. (It will be an amendment of the zoning ordinance.)
The following matrix is presented to help with the discussion. Each row presents some
options for an issue. Each "option" column is not intended to form a related set of
requirements —we can mix up options from the different columns, or create new ones.
•
ISSUE
OPTION 1
OPTION 2
OPTION 3
Allow them in what
zones?
All zones
Rural zone only
Properties of a
particular size or
zone only (similar to
pole buildings)
Class them as
accessory structures
or not?
If yes, then all
applicable existing
regulations apply
(setback, size,
placement, etc.)
If no, then must
create a
classification for
them
Specify them as
temporary or
permanent
structures?
Existing ordinance
makes no distinction
between permanent
or temporary
accessory structures
Create a
classification for
"temporary
structures"
What setbacks to
require?
If classed as an
accessory building,
apply existing
requirements
If classed as a
"temporary
structures," create
new requirements
What yard
placement to allow?
If classed as an
accessory building,
existing zoning says
it "cannot be closer
to front lot line than
principle structure
or its attached
garage" (p.3 -15)
If classed as a
temporary structure,
create new
requirements
How many to
allow?
If classed as an
accessory building,
must conform to
existing
requirements
If classed as a
temporary structure,
create new
requirements
What size to allow?
If classed as an
accessory building,
must conform to
existing
requirements
If classed as a
temporary structure,
create new
requirements
•