Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/14/2004 P&Z Packet• CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, April 14, 2004 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: March 10, 2004. IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development/Preliminary Plat for Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition, south of 79th Street and Nancy Lane intersection — Jeff Smyser B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat/PUD for Oakwood View, 125 Ash Street (Rice Creek Covenant Church) — Jeff Smyser C. Variance for St. Paul Water Services, Peltier Lake dam site — Jeff Smyser D. Variance for 1612 Birch Street, Martha Houle /DeHaven — Jeff Smyser E. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, Preliminary Plat and MUSA Reserve Allocation for Fox Den Acres, Royal Oaks Realty, land east of Fox Road (dead end) — Jeff Smyser F. Elect EDAC liaison VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Set up special meeting to discuss signage B. Joint Meeting: all advisory boards and City Council regarding Master Planning process for 360 acres W. of 35E and N. of Main St. — tentative date Thursday, April 29, 6:00 p.m. VII. ADJOURN • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Vice Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:46 p.m., March 10, 2004. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 11, 2004 Ms. Lane made a MOTION approve the February 11, 2004 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. OPEN MIKE Vice Chair Rafferty declared open mike open at 6:47 p.m. Dan Kvinge, 201 Woodridge Lane, asked if anyone had any knowledge regarding the 49 Club. Mr. Smyser replied it was closed and that was all the City knew. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:49 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 4 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. Final Plat for Century Farm North 2°d Addition Chair Schaps arrived at 7:52 p.m. Vice Chair Rafferty turned the meeting over to him. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 2 Staff stated the preliminary plat for Century Farm North was approved by the City Council on April 28, 2003. The approval included a phasing plan as required by the growth management ordinance. The final plat for phase 1 (56 units) was approved in July. The developer has submitted the final plat for phase 2. Staff stated the submitted final plat included individual lots for units in phase two of the approved phasing plan. This included 65 units: 22 single family detached townhomes, 42 single family lots, and one single family lot for an existing house. This existing home was not expected to remain when the phasing plan was approved. In order to comply with the approved phasing plan, this lot must be counted as a new unit. Staff presented their analysis and noted the P &Z included as a condition of approval that the building exteriors should be reviewed when the final plat for these townhomes is considered. Building materials on townhomes is an important issue, and was discussed during the consideration of the preliminary plat last year. The zoning ordinance was adopted March 10, 2003. The preliminary plat was approved on April 20, 2003. Additional attention to building exteriors is needed regarding the materials. Staff indicated the title commitment must be approved by the City Attorney; the homeowners association declarations must include city enforcement authority; development agreement; and power line easement issues must be resolved, including the park trail. Staff recommended tabling this item and return it to staff with direction. Mr. Tralle asked what was resolved with respect to the dedicated parkland. Mr. Smyser replied that was a long negotiation and discussion. He stated the land dedication was sufficient and they met the requirements. He noted the land that was shown previously was 10 percent for land dedication on the project, with no cash dedication being made. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. John Johnson, on behalf of Mr. Uhde, stated it was their intent to meet the exterior requirement. He stated the title document would be resolved. The homeowners association had no problem making the change. With respect to the power line, he had a letter from the power company, Great River Energy, approving a partial release and the improvements as proposed. He stated the document from the power company would be finalized in a few days. He handed the Board a copy of the letter. Mr. Smyser replied this would need to be reviewed by the City Attorney. Mr. Johnson stated in the original plans, they had not included the existing homestead on the property, assuming it would become part of some park usage and after discussion with the Parks Board, it was determined it was not feasible. He stated the existing homestead would be improved and sold and as a result they had another unit. He noted taking one of the townhomes and adding it to the next phase would resolve the phasing issue. He indicated they would end up with 250 units, rather than 249 units. He asked the Zoning Board which phase they wanted that unit to be placed in. DRAFT MINUTES • • • 1 • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 3 Chair Schaps asked if staff had discussed this and what was their opinion. Mr. Smyser replied this was a tricky issue and it came up in process along the line and if applicant really wanted to put this into this phase, this might be a reason to table this, but it could also be deferred to the next phase, which might be preferable to applicant. He stated he was not comfortable adding it to this phase and he was not prepared to make a recommendation on this at this time. Mr. Johnson stated they were prepared to show the exterior materials used on the building tonight. Trudi Breuninger, Avalon Homes, Inc., stated they did not have a problem adding brick to the sides of the buildings. She stated the brick would meet the requirements. She showed samples of the siding they were proposing to use. Mr. Johnson stated they wanted to be in the fall preview and therefore, they needed plat approval in order to accomplish this. He stated if this would be continued for another month, it would be difficult to make the fall preview. Chair Schaps asked if Avalon Homes had any other developments with the same exterior materials and colors. Ms. Breuninger replied there was a development in Hugo that was similar, but not the exactly the same. Mr. Tralle asked if all of the townhomes would be identical to the one next to it. Ms. Breuninger replied that was up to the association and associations usually wanted the same materials used for maintenance purposes. Mr. Tralle expressed concern that all of the townhomes would look the same. Ms. Breuninger replied she would like to keep the colors neutral. Mr. Tralle stated he did not want to see 50 homes that looked identical to each other. Ms. Breuninger replied within the different phases, they would have different colors. Chair Schaps asked for the approximate square footage of these units. He asked if they were all three- bedroom units. Ms. Breuninger replied there were both two and three bedroom units, but she did not have the information on square footage at this time. Mr. Root asked what was the intent of mixing up the colors of the buildings. Mr. Johnson replied the issue was that the Board did not want it too look unattractive, but at the same time, they wanted them to be aesthetically acceptable. Mr. Root stated he wanted them to break up the colors so it was not so uniform and he was hoping for a more definitive, stronger answer. Ms. Breuninger replied they could change the color every other building and they would do whatever the Board recommended. Mr. Johnson stated they could make each building a different color. Mr. Root replied he would like to see a variety of colors, so it was broken up. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 4 Mr. Tralle stated he would also like to see a variety of colors. Mr. Johnson stated they were trying to use texture to differentiate the colors. Ms. Breuninger stated they wanted to give each unit an identity. Mr. Johnson stated he did not know if they could come up with 8 separate colors within the same color scheme. Mr. Tralle asked if they could put some other color into the buildings. Ms. Breuninger replied the developer wanted to keep the colors neutral. Mr. Tralle stated there was a lot of products and colors in the market, and not everything needed to be neutral. He stated he did not want to see them all look alike. He noted they were nice buildings and he did not see why they could not have multiple colors. Ms. Breuninger replied she agreed with Mr. Tralle and that they could mix in some other colors. Chair Schaps suggested they alternate between a couple of different colors. Mr. Johnson replied that was a possibility. Mr. Pogalz asked if they used more color, would the brick also be changed. Ms. Breuninger replied she would change the brick color also. Mr. Johnson stated the Board wanted two colors, varying the shake, siding, and brick and then varying those between the 8 buildings. Chair Schaps asked if staff wanted to review this. Mr. Schaps replied they did want to see it and he requested color drawings be presented to Council at their meeting. Ms. Lane stated she liked the original proposal and she believed adding more colors would just make it too "dizzy ". Mr. Rafferty stated he believed the developer threw things on the buildings to meet the minimums and he was not for this development at all. He objected to the full brick on the front and that it was "overkill" and would look atrocious. He believed there was a way this could be done better. He stated the colors and tones could be used as accent. He noted he was not intrigued by what was being imposed, and he agreed with Mr. Tralle that two -color selection was what they wanted. He stated he wanted to see more colors, with more variety of brick and shingles. He stated he did not want everything to look the same. He asked them for some creativity beyond what was being presented. He stated he was not for or against the lap siding. He stated he wanted to see this proposed development in a color rendering. He indicated color was extremely important in his opinion in order to move this development through. He expressed concern that this development would have a 1950's look if they did not mix up the colors. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 5 Mr. Johnson asked if they were objecting to having brick on the front facade. Mr. Rafferty replied he wanted to see some creativity. He believed they could use the brick to an advantage, and right now the proposal was too boring and straightforward. He requested they to go back to the drawing board and be more creative. Mr. Johnson stated he would like to go forward with criteria that they could agree they could address, rather than coming back and still not presenting what the Board wanted. Mr. Root asked for a summary of the four staff items in the recommendation. He asked what yet has to be dealt with. Mr. Smyser replied the building elevation fulfilled the requirements and the color recommendations made tonight were fine. With respect to the title commitment, and townhome association, these were standard items to be resolved with the City Attorney. He stated the power line easement and development agreement would also need to be reviewed by the City Attorney. He stated if P &Z wanted to approve this, he was okay with this, but the title documents would have to submitted to the City Attorney in sufficient time for his review to give staff a report to make recommendation to Council. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend tabling this item to allow color diagrams to be presented and allow staff sufficient time to obtain further information. There was no second. Motion failed. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to approve the Final Plat, Century Farm North, with the following conditions: 1. Developer shall use 2 shake colors, 2 siding colors, 2 shingle colors, and 2 brick colors. 2. Developer shall add additional architectural changes. 3. Developer shall alternate the use of color. 4. The unit in Outlot C will be in a later phase 5. Developer to comply and resolve all other issues in staff's March 10, 2004 report 12 business days prior to a City Council meeting. and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4 -1 (Mr. Rafferty). B. PUBLIC HEARING for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat/PUD for Oakwood View, 125 Ash Street (Rice Creek Covenant Church) Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Staff stated applicant had submitted an application to further develop its current site at 125 Ash Street. The application includes several elements. The goal is to create ten single - family detached home lots on the north part of the property as well as a lot for a duplex on the southern part of the property. The duplex is intended for a group home for people with disabilities. Staff noted this project includes an odd mix of actions because of the existing land use category and zoning. He indicated certain approval were necessary to accommodate the proposal including amending the comprehensive plan to change the site from Public Semi - Public to Low Density Sewered Residential; rezoning DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 6 of the southern portion from R -1X to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for mixed uses; the existing church and the group home; and PUD development stage plan/preliminary plat. Staff stated a conditional use permit (CU) was approved by the City in 1996 to provide for building the church. That CUP approval included a three -phase plan. Each new building must undergo a site plan review, but would not require a CUP amendment review. However, the CUP did not include a residential facility, as is being proposed now. Therefore, the CUP is not relevant here inasmuch as no additions to the church building itself are being proposed. Staff noted the zoning ordinance provides for two different types of PUD. If only residential uses were included in the project, the PUD would require only a conditional use permit. However, the church and the group residence is a mix of uses. A mixed g p ed use PUD requires a rezoning to PUD. q g Staff presented its analysis and recommended approval based on the following conditions: 1. The comprehensive plan amendment must obtain the approval of the Metropolitan Council prior to any further City project approvals. 2. The project shall be final platted in two phases. The group residence duplex may be final platted in 2004. The ten single- family lots shall not be final platted until 2005. 3. The relocation of sanitary sewer and water services may occur with the 2004, phase one final plat because these utilities already existed. However, the construction of the Oakwood Lane street extension shall not occur until final plat approval of the single family lots in phase two in 2005. All lots and units shall connect to city sanitary sewer and water. 4. Park dedication of $1,665 per unit shall be paid. Park dedication for the group residence, two units, shall be paid when that lot is final platted. Park dedication for the ten single - family lots shall be paid with that final plat. 5. The new plat must obtain approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to final plat approval by the City Council. 6. Drainage and utility easements around all wetlands must be large enough to include at a minimum a ten (10) foot buffer extending outward from the delineated wetland boundary. 7. The applicant must submit geotechnical information on existing groundwater levels and soils in adequate time for review prior to City Council consideration of the application. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 7 8. Prior to consideration by the City Council, the applicant must demonstrate the adequacy of the driveway to the group residence duplex in regard to emergency vehicle access, visibility, and other safety and practical issues. 9. Information on the grading plan is unclear in the area of the south end of the property. This must be clarified prior to City Council consideration of the application. 10. The adequacy of the water service must be determined prior to City Council consideration of the application. 11. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review memo of February 26, 2004 must be addressed to his satisfaction. 12. Lots shall be adjusted to ensure they have sufficient area without the wetland easement. 13. The preliminary plat shall be revised to provide for a future street connection to the west. 14. A revised preliminary plat showing the required changes shall be submitted for review prior to City Council consideration of the application. 15. The City seeding mix must be used for ponds and wetland areas. This must be noted on the plans. 16. The property owner must obtain approval from the City Council to vacate the existing ponding and flowage easements. 17. The applicant must submit a tree preservation plan showing the grading plan superimposed on the tree inventory prior to a City Council consideration of the application. 18. Site plan information for a group residence duplex shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. This shall include architectural elevations, floor plan, landscaping, and site lighting. 19. There must be a shared driveway easement to allow the new lot to use the existing driveway on Ash St. This easement must be submitted for review and be in order prior to final plat review by the City Council. Chair Schaps inquired about the parking stalls. Mr. Smyser replied he had not spoken with the applicant about this, but they were in attendance tonight for the Board's questions. Mr. Root stated traffic flow through neighborhood was very important and a 1000' cul- de -sac in a heavily populated area was not appropriate. He stated he would like to see an extension to the west, but he wanted to see how this would look. He indicated he would not approve this with a 1000' cul -de -sac. He expressed concern about the number of DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 8 conditions, and believed it was not realistic to have the issues resolved prior to the Council meeting. He asked why the PUD portion could not be zoned as two separate parcels and zoned accordingly. Mr. Smyser stated what they were proposing was a separate lot for the group residence, but what they have run into was that they were creating a flag lot, which was not allowed under normal zoning and because of the narrowness of the property on the road, there was no way they could create a separate lot that would have the minimum road frontage. He noted this was an institutional use and would not have the normal traffic going in and out of it. He indicated because the uses were so different, the potential conflict was minimal. He noted the church did not know if they would own and operate the group home, but these were not conflicting uses and the PUD was the only option to make this work. Mr. Root asked why does the western most line run north/south, why is it so narrow, and why could it not be shifted over. He asked if there were any other features of the lot that would not fit into an R -2 zoning. Mr. Smyser replied there was nothing that would not fit into an R -2, or even an R -1 zoning. With respect to the line, they were trying to minimize tearing up their parking lot, but potentially they could move the driveway over. However, they did not need a 90 -foot width, which was what the minimum requirement was in that zoning. Mr. Root asked how many residences would the group home accommodate. Mr. Smyser replied there were four on each side, which would be a total of 8 residents, along with 2 live -in counselors. Mr. Tralle inquired about the two -stall garage. He asked why was it not a four -stall garage. Mr. Smyser replied he had not picked up on that and applicant should answer this question. Chair Schaps recessed the meeting at 8:30 and reconvened the meeting at 8:46 p.m. Mr. Smyser stated it was pointed out to him at the break that the reason they did not expand the lot line to the west was because that was where the future expansion was to go. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Tim Yantos, member of the Rice Creek Church and Chair of Development Task Force for the church, stated they were looking at the possibility of expanding their sanctuary and building additional classrooms. He stated in order to afford to do this, they needed to sell some of the land. He stated it was also the mission of the church to aid residents in the area who had light to moderate disabilities. Chair Schaps asked what light to moderate disabilities meant. Sharon Penner, member of the Church and Chair of the Committee looking at developing the residence, replied the residents would be adults and would have people who needed support to live independently. She stated there would be live in staff on site. The residents could have varying levels of physical disabilities, in addition to possibly autism and other forms of DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 9 mental retardation. She stated some residents would hold daytime jobs. She did not anticipate they would need significant medical care, but it was a possibility. Chair Schaps asked if the residents would drive vehicles. Ms. Penner replied they would not be driving vehicles. Chair Schaps asked about their parking needs. Ms. Penner replied they were flexible on this, and the existing parking would be used for visitors, staff meetings, etc. Mr. Tralle asked if the group home would be maintained by the church. Ms. Penner replied their church had a ministry that had group homes in other states called Covenant Ministries and that ministry would provide the support. She stated the home would be run by a Committee that were members of their Church. She stated the only issue they had right now was if the land was to be turned over to Covenant Ministries, or if it would be a lease proposition, but it would still be connected to the Church. Mr. Tralle asked where were the residents coming from. Ms. Penner replied they would be coming from the Anoka County area through the Social Services program. She noted the County was very excited about this project. She indicated they already had residents they were interested in living at the home. William McCully, stated the driveway location was chosen where it was because if they moved it over, they would be impacting an existing retainage pond even more than they already were. He stated the area they currently had the driveway in, was the best area for it to be located. Chair Schaps asked if there had been a neighborhood meeting and had it been well attended. Mr. Yantos replied there had been a meeting and he believed it was well attended. Ms. Meilke, lives in middle lot, asked how far away was the parking lot from her land. Chair Schaps asked if she had attended the neighborhood meeting and had she got her questioned answered. Ms. Meilke replied she had attended the neighborhood meeting and her questions were not answered. She stated she was concerned about the closeness of the wetland. She asked if trees would be removed and noted trees were already marked on the property. Mr. McCully replied the building was 85 feet from her property line. Ms. Meilke asked if the trees would be left, or would they be leveled. Mr. McCully stated it was their intent to save as many trees as they could realizing that trees would need to be removed for the driveway and parking lot. Chair Schaps stated there would be a survey of the property to determine the species of the trees and that could be why the trees were marked. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 10 Mr. VanDeWerken, 156 Woodridge Lane, expressed reservations about the expansion. He stated they purchased their home because it was a private area with a lot of trees and wildlife. He expressed losing that privacy with this development. He expressed concern about an increase in traffic and the safety of the children in the area. Chair Schaps pointed out that unless he owned the land, there was always the possibility that adjoining land would get developed. Mr. VanDeWerken replied he understood that. Chair Schaps asked if he had attended the neighborhood meeting. Mr. VanDeWerken replied he was not aware there was a neighborhood meeting. Chair Schaps asked if the area at the farthest northwestern portion would remain as it currently was and not be developed. Mr. McCully replied that was intended to remain as an open space area and would not be developed. Mr. Tralle inquired about the 1000' cul -de -sac and asked if that was feasible. Mr. McCully replied it was feasible. Mary Ann McDougal, lives northwest of the proposed development. She asked about the group home and if that development would put this land back on the tax roles. Mr. Smyser replied he understood it would be owned by a nonprofit entity and therefore, there would be no taxes paid. Ms. McDougal asked about the open space to the north of the group home and inquired if that would at some point connect the landlocked piece of land. Mr. McCully replied there was no intention of connecting this. Mr. Smyser stated there was no proposal to connect this and they had not even thought about it. Ms. McDougal asked if they could make larger lots with fewer homes and still make the same amount of money. She asked the developer to consider this. Ms. McDougal expressed concern about the 1000' cul -de -sac and stated she believed it was too long. Dan Kvinge, stated he was a neighbor, but this was not in his back yard. He thanked the Board for watching for future development to the west. He asked if there was anyway that the group home would turn into some other kind of group home. He stated he did not have any major issues with this development. Mr. Smyser replied the City had some control over a group home, but he did not have the knowledge to say if a different type of group home would be controlled by the City. He stated he would research this and obtain information from the City Attorney. Allan Payne expressed concern about moving this to the west and the increase of traffic. He asked what would happen to the value of their homes if the group home was built in the area. He expressed concern about the group home changing from a mental health home to a criminal rehabilitation facility. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 11 Mr. Yantos replied the type of facility that they were proposing was the type of facility Covenant Ministries ran and he did not see this changing at anytime in the future. He stated he understood that the City might impose restrictions on the type of group home. He stated they were in the midst of researching how a group home would impact property values. Richard Olen, member of Rice Creek Church and resident of Shoreview, stated Covenant Ministries currently operated four group homes with the oldest one operating since 1996. He stated the residents in the homes had a criminal background check performed before they were accepted into the home. He noted Covenant Ministries also operated hospitals and other facilities and had an excellent record. Mr. Yantos stated the church hoped the lots would sell for between $100,000.00 to $125,000.00 and therefore, any loss of a lot was a great impact, but they were open to looking at options. Chair Schaps asked if a garage was attached to the duplex. Mr. McCully replied there was no attached garage because there would be no drivers. Sue Bomgard, 165 Ash, stated she wanted the group home only used for the types of disabilities as outlined at tonight's meeting. She expressed concern about the parking and the lights from headlights coming into her home at night. She asked if there were any plans for additional group homes at anytime in the future. Mr. Yantos stated they were not looking at any additional facilities at this point in time. He pointed out that their other group homes were not located within the same area. He stated they were negotiable with respect to parking. Jan Darrow, 175 Ash, asked if the rezoning was approved, would it be open to any other type of development within those parameters, unless restrictions were put on it per the City Attorney. Mr. Smyser replied the southern portion would be a Planned Unit Development and what would be allowed there would be what was allowed for this project only, and any changes would need to be approved by the City. Ms. Darrow asked why the duplex could not be moved into other areas of the property. She asked why the City chose that particular location. Mr. Smyser stated he did not believe the City told them where they could put it, but there he believed there were possible concerns about the driveway access. Ms. Darrow asked if the land would have to be raised to put the duplex on it. Chair Schaps replied that would not be a factor, and they had chosen one of the higher spots to put the duplex on. Mr. Smyser pointed out that the area Ms. Darrow was referring to was the future parking area for the future expansion. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 12 Ms. Darrow asked if the only barrier would be trees. She suggested fencing or other type of a barrier be put in. Chair Schaps asked her to keep in mind that they were not referring to a corporation, but a church. Mr. Pogalz suggested maybe putting in a berm, but noted trees would need to be removed if a berm was put in. He asked her if she would prefer to looking at the duplex instead of the parking lot. Ms. Darrow stated she would like the entire project moved to the north. Chair Schaps asked if they really needed a buffer if there were significant trees there. Ms. Darrow replied they did not know which trees would be removed. Chair Schaps pointed out that 60 feet of trees at the back of the lot would remain and this was a very heavily wooded area. Mr. Smyser stated they could look at the parking lot and see if they could point the southern most spaces pointing in the other direction. Mr. Olen stated if they moved the property or parking lot further up, there were two lots there that would be impacted. He indicated they wanted to accommodate the concerns, but they were also restricted as to how many trees they could be removed. He pointed out that the church might not receive the $100,000 to $125,000 per lot because of the development costs involved. Mr. McCully stated he believed the parking lot could be angled in such a way to eliminate lights being directed into the residential area. Chair Schaps noted they would need to provide sufficient handicapped parking and possibly larger stalls to accommodate larger vehicles. Sherry Gibson, RN, stated she worked with developmentally disabled children as well as being the parent of a developmentally disabled adult. She pointed out that disabled adults make excellent neighbors; they do not have parties; they are not loud; they do not drive; they are pleasant and happy adults who love life very much. She stated her property value had not decreased because a disabled adult lived in the home. She indicated disabled adults lived into old age and there was a shortage of homes for adults with developmental disabilities. She pointed out it was important to have good, nice places for developmentally disabled adults to live. Chair Schaps stated he believed they needed to continue the public hearing until the next meeting for further information from the developer. Mr. Smyser asked for feedback regarding the connection of Oakwood Lane to the property to the west. Mr. Root stated he does not like the 1000' cul -de -sac and the traffic flow in the neighborhood, but he did support connecting to the west. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 13 Ms. Lane stated the extra connection was not to increase traffic, but it was a safety issue for allowing emergency vehicles into the area. Mr. Tralle stated he was in favor of connecting. Mr. Pogalz stated he understood the concerns of connecting the road, but he was in favor of it for the same reasons as the other Boardmembers had mentioned. He believed this would not be as intrusive as it seemed. He stated the connection could work and the benefit would outweigh the negatives. He noted there was no guarantee that it would develop to the west, but they needed to plan for it. Mr. Rafferty stated in this situation it was important for the City to look to the future and he agreed the road would be best suited by continuing on. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the April meeting for further information and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. C. PUBLIC HEARING for Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development/Preliminary Plat for Highland Meadows East 2" Addition, south of 79th Street and Nancy Lane intersection Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Staff stated applicant has requested approval of a preliminary plat for Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition. The project involves developing Outlot A of the Highland Meadows East development, approved in 1999. Staff noted the comprehensive plan guides the site for medium density residential use. The applicant requests a rezoning to R -3 Medium Density. The request also includes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to allow for a private road and other departures from standard zoning requirements. The project also requires a site plan review for the townhomes. This typically is an administrative review. However, it is an inherent part of the PUD, so it will be discussed here. To accommodate the proposal, staff indicated it would be necessary to have a rezoning from R -1 single family residential to R -3 medium density residential; Conditional Use Permit for a residential Planned Unit Development; and development stage plan/preliminary plat. Staff presented its analysis of the proposal and indicated approval of the project should include the following conditions: 1. The project shall not be final platted until 2005, as dictated by the growth management policy. • 2. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. Drainage and utility easements shall cover the ponds and stormwater facilities. Easements also shall be platted along the external property lines. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 14 4. The applicant must submit geotechnical information on existing groundwater levels and soils in adequate time for review prior to City Council consideration of the application. 5. Sanitary sewer and water utilities in the private drive shall be City facilities, just as they would if it were a public street right of way. 6. Park dedication of $1,665 per unit shall be paid: 20 units for a total of $33,300. 7. A revised landscaping plan shall include: screening on the north and south property lines and specific sod or grass seeded areas. City wetland seeding shall be included and noted on the revised landscaping plan. 8. The project must obtain approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to preliminary plat review by the City Council. 9. New building elevations shall be submitted to demonstrate an exterior finish of brick, stucco and/or natural or artificial stone to meet the requirements in the ordinance. Staff recommended continuing the public hearing and return to staff with direction because there is so little room provided for buffering and screening on the periphery of the site, that it may not be possible to provide it with the existing layout. On the south, additional drainage work is needed as well, and this will affect the screening options. Additional addition to building exteriors is needed as well regarding the materials. The retention of trees is a good goal, and the proposal probably retains some additional open space compared to normal standards. However, the proposal does not clearly justify the planned unit development flexibility. Ms. Lane expressed concern about emergency vehicle access. Mr. Studenski replied they had spoken with the Police Department and Fire Department and the cul -de -sac was of appropriate width for them to turn around in. Chair Schaps stated he was seeing a lot of big buildings in a small space. He indicated he was not opposed to large building, but he was opposed to having them up against lot lines. He asked if they shortened up the cul -de -sac would that solve the lot line problems, or reduce the amount of buildings. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Steve Schmitt, President of TSM Development, stated they were currently building this same development in Coon Rapids. He stated he took the plan and added a three -car garage, which was very well received. He indicated they had the same issues with exterior design with the City of Coon Rapids. He stated all of the building he was proposing to build would have a different front on them. He noted he was having a difficult time with the 25% brick on the front though because of the third garage. He stated it was his intent to bring in color pictures at the next meeting. DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 15 Chair Schaps stated he believed there were too many building on the property, or they were too big. Mr. Schmitt replied they were attempting to save some of the trees on the property. Chair Schaps pointed out the buildings may not need to be this large. He noted instead of a variance for exterior, they might need a variance in size. Mr. Schmitt pointed out that the Environmental Board was concerned about the impervious surface and the amount of parking available. He noted there would be no parking on the street. He stated he was not opposed to making a couple of the buildings double units, instead of triples, which would shorten the cul -de -sac. He stated he was also not opposed to taking out one or two units if he had to. He stated he wanted to leave the trees in place. He indicated he was more concerned with moving this forward so he could start building in 2005. Mr. Root stated it was more than just taking out a unit or two to make him happy, it was what he needed to do to make it comply with the R -3 zone. He asked for the number of trees and the significance of them. Troy Livgard, stated there was a tree preservation plan in their packet with this information in it. Mr. Livgard stated they could make this fit, but they would be losing all of the three -car garages. • Ms. Lane believed this would look nice to have seven sets of duplexes with three -car • garages. Chair Schaps asked approximately how much would the units sell for. Mr. Schmitt replied from $179,000 to $229,900. He indicated it appeared these units sold well for newly married and people 55 and older. Mr. Rafferty asked what were the issues with Met Council if this stayed R -1. Mr. Smyser replied they would have to go through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Mr. Rafferty stated he liked Ms. Lane's suggestion about putting in duplexes. He stated he liked the three -car garage and additional parking. He asked this development look nice in the end. He asked for more creativity in the architectural design. Mr. Pogalz stated there were positives and negatives to this plan. He expressed concern about the lot lines. He stated he wanted to see guest parking. Architecturally, he did not mind it. He stated he would like everything to fit in a little better, even if it means taking out a unit or two. Chair Schaps invited those in attendance to make comment. Mr. Smyser noted they had received a letter from Arlene and Gary Averbeck, 7855 Lake Drive, who were in opposition to this proposal they did not want a multi - family development at this site. They expressed concern about the pond, wildlife, and the soil. Eric Engelbretson, Lot 3 on 79th Street, stated they have been in their location for three years and expressed concern about the wildlife in the area. He stated they did not know DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 16 there would be a development in the area. He stated he had built a nice deck on his home, which would now be facing a large building. He expressed concern about emergency vehicle access. Chair Schaps stated he was guessing the building would be no larger than Mr. Engelbretson's home. Mr. Engelbretson asked if there could be trees placed between the building and his home for a natural barrier. He expressed concern about the lights from the parking lot. Joe Lacroix, 720 79th Street, asked for clarification on the property line. Mr. Smyser stated the side lot line setback was normally 10 feet and the rear setback was 30 feet, but what was a rear or a side lot line on this property was difficult to determine because of the odd shape of the property. He stated they tried to maintain a 20 -foot setback. Mr. Lacroix expressed concern about the number of buildings on the site. He asked for an explanation as to why this needed to be rezoned. Mr. Smyser explained why it was necessary to rezone this from R -1 to R -2. Mr. LaCroix asked if this was approved, the building have a variety of architectural style, materials, and colors. Amy Brandl, 706 79th, stated there was already a traffic issue on 79th Street and expressed concern about having more traffic on their street with this development. She stated they were told when they bought their property that this area was intended for single - family homes. She expressed concern when they were digging up the property that she would have another problem with mice and garner snakes. She asked they limit the amount of residents in this area because of the increase of traffic. Kirk Nelson, 7010 79th Street, stated there were too many buildings and they were too close to the lots. He stated he was told the drainage easement would not be developed and he was told this by the developer. Mr. Smyser stated what was being proposed was to reconfigure the drainage easement throughout the lot. Mr. Nelson expressed concern about a building being too close to his lot line. He expressed concern about the loss of trees to the side of the development. He stated he would put his house up for sale if this development went in. He indicated he was not opposed to some type of a development on this property, but he did not want this development. Chair Schaps stated as much as everyone wanted to have open space around their backyards, it did not happen unless they owned the property. Mr. Nelson stated he would like to see the trees remain; unit 15 not be so close to his property line; and the drainage easement retained. He stated if they did not impose on the drainage easement, he would not object to the development. He noted the developer had not done the best at maintaining the pond they created either. Teri O'Connell, 1000 Main Street, stated she was on the Environmental Board. She indicated the Environmental Board's biggest concern was the cul -de -sac. She stated they DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board March 10, 2004 Page 17 were surprised to find out that this was considered open space. She stated they did not have an issue with the parking spots, but recommended they put in net lawn. She noted Mr. Schmitt's people had dug the large hole while he was out of town. She asked if they could do this in a more gradual process. Mr. Smyser stated he would reexamine the open space calculation. Mr. Schmitt stated the hole that was dug was done when he was out of town and he was initially told that only three feet would be removed, but more dirt was taken out than he anticipated and they had the proper grading permit to do this. He stated they were working on getting the dirt to fill this. With respect to the easement issue, the plat was done by North Suburban Development and the drainage easement was never graded. He noted they had dug this out many times to allow for drainage. He anticipated they would lose two units (possibly units 16 and 19), which would allow them to deal with the guest parking areas and move some of the buildings away from the lot lines. Mr. Rafferty stated he was not in favor of only removing two buildings and he wanted the density to be less. Mr. Schmitt stated they were under the moderate density requirements and this was an economic issue. Chair Schaps asked them to consider removing unit 4 and the two units when they first drove in. Mr. Nelson asked them to consider rezoning this to R -2 instead of R -3. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend continuing the public hearing to the April meeting to allow applicant the opportunity to revise the plans and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 5 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Process to Address Temporary Signs/Banners Ms. Lane asked if they should address this at a special meeting. Chair Schaps agreed they should address this at a special meeting during the later part of the in May or June. VII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:31 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5 -0. • Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT MINUTES STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. A Jeff Smyser April 14, 2004 Continued Public Hearing: Rezoning From R -1 to R -3 Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition The P & Z opened the public hearing for this project at the March 10th meeting and continued the hearing to the April meeting. Outstanding issues were the open buffer areas around the periphery, landscaping /screening, and the external building materials on the townhomes. TSM Development has requested approval to develop Outlot A of the Highland Meadows East development, approved in 1999. The comprehensive plan guides the site for medium density residential use. The applicant requests rezoning to R -3 Medium Density. The request also includes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in order to allow for a private road and other departures from standard zoning requirements. A preliminary plat also is required with the PUD. The project also requires a site plan review for the townhomes. This typically is an administrative review. However, it is an inherent part of the PUD, so it will be discussed here. Therefore, to accommodate the proposal, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Rezoning from R -1 Single Family Residential to R -3 Medium Density Residential 2. Conditional Use Permit for a residential Planned Unit Development 3. Development stage plan/preliminary plat ANALYSIS The following is a summary of the of the proposal: Gross Site Area 3.47 acres Upland Area 3.47 acres Total Units 18 Gross Density 5.19 units /acre Net Density 5.19 units /acre The previous plan included 20 units for 5.76 units /acre. Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition page 2 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning R -1 Site vacant Medium Density Residential North single family residential Medium Density Residential R -1 South single family residential & commerc. greenhouse Medium Density Residential R -1 East vacant Medium Density Residential R -1 & R -2 West residential, townhomes Medium Density Residential R -3 PDO The site is guided for Medium Density Residential land use. This accommodates 3 -6 units per acre. Growth Management: MUSA Reserve: The comprehensive plan and the growth management policy establish a specific number of MUSA acres for residential growth for stage one (prior to year 2010). The site is within the current MUSA, so no reserve allocation is needed. Growth Management, Units /Year: The comprehensive plan and the growth management policy establish a specific number of dwelling units of residential growth for stage one (prior to year 2010). The goal is 147 per year. The City Council has the flexibility to exceed the limit by 20% (29 units) in a year without amending the comprehensive plan. The goal for 2004 has been exceeded and the additional 20% also has been used. This means that new development cannot be final platted until 2005. This applies to this project. As seen in the table at the end of this report, year 2005 can accommodate this project without exceeding the annual goal. Planned Unit Development: Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat Section 2, Subd. 10 of the zoning ordinance discusses the purpose of a planned unit development (PUD). The application should be compared to these purposes in order to justify the flexibility allowed by a PUD. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section of the Zoning Ordinance is to provide for the grouping of lots or buildings for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, or sporadic approach to development. This section is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering • Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition • • page 3 of lots, buildings and activities, which promote the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan or serve another public purpose. It is further intended that planned unit developments are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint and common use and maintenance of parking, open space and other similar facilities, and harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. A residential conditional use peg uit PUD may include a variety of residential units, including single family and multifamily units as long as it complies with the density requirements. A non - residential conditional use permit PUD may include a variety of commercial and/or industrial uses. A PUD that includes a mix of residential and commercial/industrial uses must utilize the PUD zoning district as described in Sec. 9 Subd. 3 of this ordinance. The PUD, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Ordinance related to setbacks, heights, lot area, width and depths, yards, etc., by conditional use permit or a mixture of uses by rezoning to a PUD District, is intended to encourage: 1. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Innovations in development that address growing demands for all styles of economic expansion, greater variety in type, design, architectural standards, and siting of structures through the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. 3. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as existing vegetation, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 4. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly transition of varying land uses in close proximity to each other. 5. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering development costs and public investments. 6. Promotion of a desirable and creative environment that might be prevented through the strict application of City zoning and subdivision regulations. Lots: There are no minimum unit lot sizes for multifamily dwellings. The ordinance requires that unit lots "shall be the minimum area necessary to include the living area, garages, decks, patios, or porches of the individual dwelling units." The table below compares the application to the minimum lot standards. • • Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition page 4 The 1999 report on the approval of the Highland Meadows East preliminary plat included the following statement: For future consideration, there will be 108t feet remaining between the rear lot line of Lot 1 and the Outlot A boundary directly to the south. This does not allow for the minimum lot widths or depths of the existing two- or multi family residential zoning districts. How Outlot A will be developed in the future has yet to be seen, but approval of the present plat application should not be considered implied approval of any future plan in Outlot A. The proposal includes a narrowed access road as well as reduced setbacks around the periphery of the site. The 26' private drive is narrower than a public street, which would be a minimum 28' (measured back of curb to back of curb.). The setbacks from this private drive are 22' for several units, less than the normally required 25'. The PUD requirements state that "front and side yard restrictions at the periphery of the Planned Unit Development site at a minimum shall be the same as imposed in the respective base districts. The PUD standards do not specify a rear setback minimum. Typically, a 30' rear setback is required in an R -3 zone. The goal is to maintain adequate buffering around the site while allowing flexibility inside the site. Changes to the plan include the removal of two structures from the north central area. This created extra space to move other units in order to keep a 30' setback from the site boundary lines. Unit 2 is 21' from the north property line, but this is on the side of the unt. There is ample space behind the unit to the east. The patios would be 20± feet from the property lines, other than unit 2. Landscaping has been added. As noted below, a 20' landscape buffer is required on sides abutting single family zones. The City Engineer's previous review noted that a swale or storm sewer is needed along the south property line, which has been added. R -3 zone PUD proposed unit lot width 24' 24' 46' setbacks from street side yard rear yard 30' 10' 30' 25' same as zoning same as zoning 22' from private drive 20' 20' impervious surface 65% max 39% building separation 10' The 1999 report on the approval of the Highland Meadows East preliminary plat included the following statement: For future consideration, there will be 108t feet remaining between the rear lot line of Lot 1 and the Outlot A boundary directly to the south. This does not allow for the minimum lot widths or depths of the existing two- or multi family residential zoning districts. How Outlot A will be developed in the future has yet to be seen, but approval of the present plat application should not be considered implied approval of any future plan in Outlot A. The proposal includes a narrowed access road as well as reduced setbacks around the periphery of the site. The 26' private drive is narrower than a public street, which would be a minimum 28' (measured back of curb to back of curb.). The setbacks from this private drive are 22' for several units, less than the normally required 25'. The PUD requirements state that "front and side yard restrictions at the periphery of the Planned Unit Development site at a minimum shall be the same as imposed in the respective base districts. The PUD standards do not specify a rear setback minimum. Typically, a 30' rear setback is required in an R -3 zone. The goal is to maintain adequate buffering around the site while allowing flexibility inside the site. Changes to the plan include the removal of two structures from the north central area. This created extra space to move other units in order to keep a 30' setback from the site boundary lines. Unit 2 is 21' from the north property line, but this is on the side of the unt. There is ample space behind the unit to the east. The patios would be 20± feet from the property lines, other than unit 2. Landscaping has been added. As noted below, a 20' landscape buffer is required on sides abutting single family zones. The City Engineer's previous review noted that a swale or storm sewer is needed along the south property line, which has been added. • Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition page 5 As required by the ordinance, the applicant submitted a "yield plan" to show what could be done on the site by adhering to the standard zoning requirements. The yield plan is reasonable, and 20 units. The current plan of 18 provides ample open area with 18 lots. Landscaping: Where a side or rear lot line in an R -3 District abuts an R, R -X, R -1, R- 1X, R -EC, or R -2 District, or public road right -of -way, a landscape buffer area not less than twenty (20) feet in depth shall be provided along such side or rear lot line and shall contain landscaping, planting, berming or other screening suitable to provide an effective visual screen. Property on three sides of the site is zoned R -1. Though future zoning likely will change, the site should include screening for the benefit of residents both around the site and within the site. Screening landscaping has been added to the plan on the north and south sides of the site. Existing trees provide additional screening on the east and west sides. Because some existing trees will be lost due to the installation of the storm sewer, additional spruce should be added in the extreme southwest corner, behind units 9, 10, and 11. The plan must include the City's seed mixture around the ponds. Streets, Access, Parking: The proposal includes a private drive of 26'. A PUD allows private streets with a minimum 26' width. The access drive will align with Nancy Drive on the north side of 79th St. The reduced pavement width will reduce impervious surface. When Highland Meadows East was platted, a 60' gap was created to allow for a public street right of way. The additional width would become part of the landscaped open space. There is no street light at this intersection. One should be added with this development. The plan provides for guest parking stalls. This is a good idea because there is so little curb space that is not broken up by driveways. The minimum amount of offstreet parking is 21/4 spaces per unit. The garages and driveways provide this, but guest parking is a smart feature. The private drive exceeds the normal 500' maximum for a cul de sac. A private drive is allowable as part of a PUD, as is the additional length. Parks: The subdivision ordinance includes park dedication requirements. Park dedication is $1665 per residential unit, less any land dedication. There is no land dedication needed, so the park dedication will be $1665 x the number of unitsfor 18 units, this would total $ 29,970. Open Space: A PUD requires that a minimum of 50% of land subdivided for development shall be reserved as common open space. We have been examining the PUD requirements over the last year. Urban developments differ from rural developments in that "open space" just isn't as "open" in an urban development, especially the smaller ones. We have been using pervious surface for urban developments to calculate the "open space ". This admittedly is imperfect, but provides a workable method for now as we gain experience with the • • Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition page 6 new ordinance provisions and learn what needs to be revised. The project provides the following: Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water service will connect to existing facilities in 79th St. and follow the private drive into the site. Individual units must have individual connections. The sanitary sewer and water utilities in the private drive should be City facilities, just as they would if it were a public street right of way. All of Lot 21 is to be covered by a drainage and utility easement, which provides access to the utilties. Grading and Stormwater Management: Stormwater ponds will be created in the northern portion of the site and in the southwest area. Drainage and utility easements will cover the ponds and stormwater facilities. Easements also will be platted along all the external property lines. The project requires the approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District. That review is pending. The City has not received geotechnical information on existing groundwater levels and soils. This must be determined in order to compare lowest floor elevations and soil suitability for construction. This must be ascertained prior to City Council consideration of the application. The project also will require the vacation of an existing ponding easement. The original Highland Meadows East plat included a drainage and utility easement in the northwest corner of the site. The 2nd Addn. application includes a reconfiguration of the easement and pond. The "pond" existed for several years as a borrow pit for fill for Highland Meadows West areas. The development of the site will correct this. The easement vacation is not a P & Z item. Rather, the City Council holds a public hearing on it. Site Plan, Townhomes Buildings: Architectural drawings inlcude vinyl siding with "optional shakes" and a note: "Exterior to be a combination of brick & vinyl siding at builders option." This is not acceptable. The City's building material standards in the zoning ordinance state: Exterior Building Finish: The exterior of townhome dwelling units shall include a variation in building materials which are to be distributed throughout the building facades and coordinated into the architectural design of the structure to create an architecturally balanced appearance. In addition, townhome dwelling structures shall comply with the following requirements: square feet percentage total Area of Site 151,150 total impervious 58,561 39% total pervious 92,589 61% Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water service will connect to existing facilities in 79th St. and follow the private drive into the site. Individual units must have individual connections. The sanitary sewer and water utilities in the private drive should be City facilities, just as they would if it were a public street right of way. All of Lot 21 is to be covered by a drainage and utility easement, which provides access to the utilties. Grading and Stormwater Management: Stormwater ponds will be created in the northern portion of the site and in the southwest area. Drainage and utility easements will cover the ponds and stormwater facilities. Easements also will be platted along all the external property lines. The project requires the approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District. That review is pending. The City has not received geotechnical information on existing groundwater levels and soils. This must be determined in order to compare lowest floor elevations and soil suitability for construction. This must be ascertained prior to City Council consideration of the application. The project also will require the vacation of an existing ponding easement. The original Highland Meadows East plat included a drainage and utility easement in the northwest corner of the site. The 2nd Addn. application includes a reconfiguration of the easement and pond. The "pond" existed for several years as a borrow pit for fill for Highland Meadows West areas. The development of the site will correct this. The easement vacation is not a P & Z item. Rather, the City Council holds a public hearing on it. Site Plan, Townhomes Buildings: Architectural drawings inlcude vinyl siding with "optional shakes" and a note: "Exterior to be a combination of brick & vinyl siding at builders option." This is not acceptable. The City's building material standards in the zoning ordinance state: Exterior Building Finish: The exterior of townhome dwelling units shall include a variation in building materials which are to be distributed throughout the building facades and coordinated into the architectural design of the structure to create an architecturally balanced appearance. In addition, townhome dwelling structures shall comply with the following requirements: • Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition • page 7 a) A minimum of twenty -five (25) percent of the combined area of all building facades of a structure shall have an exterior finish of brick, stucco and/or natural or artificial stone. b) Except for brick, stucco, and/or natural or artificial stone, no single building facade shall have more than seventy -five (75) percent of one type of exterior finish. c) For the purpose of this section, the area of the building facade shall not include area devoted to windows, entrance doors, garage doors, or roof areas. The applicant's engineer sent a letter with the revised plan submittal. It states that they "would like to discuss this with the planning commission. It is our feeling that this requirement for building materials will not have the desired appearance on the sides and rear of these buildings, but are willing to discuss this and come to a solution that is acceptable to all." As of Friday morning, April 9, staff has received no new elevations. We cannot make a recommendation on this element without this information. A condition of approval requires new elevations prior to City Council consideration of the project. The maximum allowable height in an R -3 zone is 36'. The proposed structure heights are 22' The minimum floor area is 920 sf for a two - bedroom unit. The proposed units have two floors. The upper level is approximately 1100 to 1200 sf. The lower level is approximately 500 sf. The proposed units meet the height and floor area requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD The Environmental Board reviewed this application on February 25th• Recommendations are attached. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Approval of the project should include the following conditions: 1. The project shall not be final platted until 2005, as dictated by the growth management policy. 2. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. Drainage and utility easements shall cover the ponds and stormwater facilities. Easements also shall be platted along all the external property lines. 4. The applicant must submit geotechnical information on existing groundwater levels and soils in adequate time for review prior to City Council consideration of the application. • Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition page 8 5. Sanitary sewer and water utilities in the private drive shall be City facilities, just as they would if it were a public street right of way. 6. Park dedication of $1,665 per unit shall be paid: 18 units for a total of $29,970. 7. A revised landscaping plan shall include additional spruce added in the extreme southwest corner, behind units 9, 10, and 11.and specified sod or grass seeded areas. City wetland seeding shall be included and noted on the revised landscaping plan. 8. The project must obtain approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to consideration of the preliminary plat by the City Council. 9. A street light shall be added at the access to 79th St., at the developer's cost. 10. New building elevations shall be submitted to demonstrate an exterior finish of brick, stucco, and/or natural or artificial stone to meet the requirements in the ordinance. These shall be submitted three weeks prior to consideration of the preliminary plat by the City Council. 411 OPTIONS. 1. Approve the project, including the three elements, with the listed conditions: a. Rezoning From R -1 to R -3 b. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development c. Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat 2. Deny the application. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 1- z Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be final Matted) C) J E CA O Q N ' E O O p . N i_ as E O N (0 0) ct N r r CO L() O r C) N LC) r N T T T N O r O r O T O O CO C'J (p 0) co O N O co O O N O ti O 0 N CO CO co O O N co CN7 0 0 T L j) 0 O N N L!i T LO 0 T CO T 0 r d' (, N 176 et O O N L0 r 0 561 O O 47 r N 176 N VD (0 LC) T O O T (0 N N N T r OD Cr T year er 20021 T LC) T Lo E ro N !1 LL 103 O 249 r 0 0 LL) 0 T CO N LC) r N O T r 7r N 0 T 0 T 0 r d co W N Development Name approved prelim. plats [Stoneybrook Addn Century Farms North Keefe: preliminary plat Morton (minor subdiv) Ravens Hollow [Haley Manor (10 new lots) Crystal Cove 'Millers Crossroads Lakeview Estates (2 new) Snell minor subdivision) Pheasant Hills Pres. 13th proposed 'JustJustin's Preserve in's Estates Rice Creek Church duplex Rice Church: Oakwood View Highland Meadows East 2nd Pheasant Hills 12th island Rick Carlson /Rehbein lot Royal Oaks Fox Road 0 73 Q 0) C c = 7 01 *+ O — N O N Q) N c0 z c0 O CA C 0 E 2 CD N o CA Memorandum DATE: April 9, 2004 TO Jeff Smyser FROM James E. Studenski, City Engineer 1 4 RE: Highland Meadows East 21 Addition Attached is the TKDA review dated April 8, 2004, of the submitted documents for the proposed development. The following comments must be addressed prior to final approval given for this project. Please contact me with any questions. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Phone: 651 - 982 -2400 • Fax: 651 -982 -2499 • TDD: 651 -982 -2410 • TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292 -4400 (651) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com James Studenski, City Engineer Reference: Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition Copies To: City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Comm. No. 12976 -002 From Scott A. Brink, P.E. Routing: Date: April 8, 2004 A review for this proposed development was previously provided in a Memorandum dated February 26, 2004. The City of Lino Lakes has since received revised documents providing for Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition as follows: 1. Cover Letter from James R. Hill dated March 24, 2004. 2. Preliminary Plat Exhibits (8 sheets) dated March 22, 2004 ( full size and 1/2 size). 3. Proposed 1, 10, and 100 year drainage calculations dated March 24, 2004. The proposed Plans provide for the construction of Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition, located south of the intersection of 79th Avenue at Nancy Drive. The project essentially will include the extension of a private drive (cul -de -sac) extending south and westerly from the intersection into,the property and serving an area of 3.5 acres with 18 proposed residential dwelling units (revised from 20 units). This property was originally included within the bounds of a larger Highland Meadows East grading and drainage plan (encompassing 4.9 acres), reviewed and approved in 1999. This 2nd Addition portion was previously described as Outlot A (future multi - family) under the original approval. General Drainage and Drainage Calculation Comments 1. At the time of the initial approval, 4 new single family residential properties were constructed along the south side of 79th Avenue. A drainage pond was also constructed within the Outlot A area to serve the entire 4.9 acres of property, including Outlot A. This pond was originally designed to discharge to the adjacent property to the west (Highland Meadows). The original Highland Meadows site was designed to accept this drainage, and both plans (Highland Meadows and Highland Meadows East) were approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District. However, as a result of modifications to the original grading plan, a permit application to RCWD has been re- submitted. For example, the configuration and discharge of the pond have both changed. Rather than discharging into the wetland immediately to the west, it is proposed to construct a system of 2 ponds and a storm sewer to discharge to an existing 21 -inch RCP located at the southwest comer of the property. Discharge to the 21 -inch pipe is feasible. However, discharge to the wetland as previously approved may be preferred. Further comments and conditions of the RCWD shall be considered and adhered to as required. All requirements of the RCWD shall be adhered to, and copies of all correspondence with RCWD must be provided. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition Page 2 April 8, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 2. As described in the previous review, the majority of the property's drainage is directed to the street (private drive) and the stormwater pond along the north side of the property. However, stormwater not directed to the pond must not flow to adjacent properties. A storm sewer pipe and swale have been added to the south side of the property to better intercept and direct drainage to the 21 -inch RCP. The Contractor shall adhere to NPDES Phase 11 requirements prior to engaging in any grading activities. The Contractor shall also submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City prior to engaging in grading activities. 4. 1 -year, 10 -year, and 100 year computations have been submitted, and are acceptable. 5 Outlet control structure details are required. Skimming must be provided for at least the 1 -year, storm event. 6. Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan for both ponds. Pipe outlet and inlet elevations at the ponds must also be shown, including pipe sizes and slopes. All catch basin and manhole structures must be furnished and provided per the standard requirements of the City of Lino Lakes. 7. No geotechnical report has been submitted. Groundwater levels are therefore unknown. Low floor elevations must be a minimum of 4 feet above the high groundwater and pond normal water elevations. According to the Anoka County Soil Survey, all existing soils are type Soderville Type A, and no wetlands exist on the site. All dwelling units must meet the City's minimum requirements for building elevations (low floor) with relation to groundwater and detention basin high water elevations. This would include 4 feet above normal water levels (including groundwater and detention basins), 2 feet above design flood elevations, and 1 foot above emergency overflows. The emergency overflow location and elevation must be shown on the plan for all ponds. Groundwater levels must be verified to adjust any elevations as may be needed. Additional Comments: The proposed street serving the property is designated as a private drive. However, the utilities (sanitary sewer and water) shall be maintained by the City of Lino Lakes. Therefore, the property owners or local association shall be responsible for maintaining the street, including snowplowing, street repairs, and other needs. The public utilities shall be constructed per the standards and requirements of the City of Lino Lakes. Ownership and maintenance responsibilities must be spelled out very clearly in the City/Developer Agreement, and a written agreement designating responsibility to the homeowners or local association as appropriate must be provided and recorded with each property. The private drive is included as part of Lot 19, and all of Lot 19 is designated as drainage and utility easement to cover the City utilities. Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition Page 3 April 8, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 2. The City's standard width (minimum) for a residential street is 28 feet (back of curb to back of curb). The street as shown is 26 feet. In addition, the City's maximum length for a cul -de -sac (500 feet) also is exceeded by roughly 75 feet. However, if the street is to be private and maintained by others, the City may choose to waive the above standards as appropriate. The roadway sub -base must also be an acceptable compacted granular as approved by the City Engineer. 3 The utility plan provides for connecting water and sewer to existing facilities at 79th Street. The street and utilities must be constructed to the standards of the City of Lino Lakes. The utility plans provided show a general layout for the sanitary sewer and water and are not considered final plans for construction, as additional information is required such as pipe grades and standard utility details and standard plates of the City of Lino Lakes. Upon submittal of final detailed construction plans, further review and comments will be provided. 4. A gate valve must be provided at the watermain connection at 79th Street. 5 Services shall be shown on the plans. If the housing units are intended to be townhomes, individual services to each unit must be provided. 6. The Plan shall be subject to the review of the City Fire Chief, including the number and location of hydrants. 7. The amount of fill/cover over all sewer and water service pipes shall be a minimum bury depth of 8 feet, and shall be insulated per City of Lino Lakes standards if the minimum cover cannot be attained. 8. All trenches (including services) shall be backfilled and compacted and meet 100% maximum Standard Proctor Density in the upper 3 -feet from finished road elevation, and 95% maximum Standard Proctor Density below the upper 3 -feet. A minimum of two feet of cover over storm sewer pipe is desired. 10. A final landscaping plan shall eventually be submitted. Sight corner visibilities shall be maintained per City requirements. Removal of existing trees should be minimized as much as possible. 11. Any existing well and septic locations on both the subject property and adjoining properties shall be confirmed to assure compliance with the Minnesota Department Health. This shall mean that any existing facilities on the subject property shall be removed or capped in accordance with regulations, and that sewer separation distances from any remaining facilities in close proximity shall be attained. The separation distance shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health. 12. The plan provides notes regarding seeding, mulching and turf establishment for disturbed areas. However, the City of Lino Lakes has a specific seed specification for ponding areas and a note referring to City of Lino Lakes seeding specifications shall also be provided on the plan. • Memo Environmental To: Jeff Smyser CC: Michael Grochala From: Marty Asleson Date: January 30, 2004 Re: Recommendations of the February 25, 2004 Environmental Board Meeting The Environmental Board met on February 24, 2004 and made the following recommendations: Rice Creek Covenant Church Land Cover • The developer needs to submit a tree preservation plan, and follow the subdivision ordinance for tree preservation plans. • We have identified a few rare -plant conditions on the southern part of the site. Environmental would like time to verify the presence or absence of rare plants. If found, the Environmental Board would like some flexibility in design. ▪ Northern residential site grade plan indicates most of the aspen vegetation on the East Side proposed for removal (Attachment 1). Properties to the West also have rare plant indicators. Since nitrogen (lawn fertilizer runoff) has been shown to remove biodiversity, and Aspen buffers act as good filters for runoff, the Environmental Board would like the developer to look at ways to maintain more of this Aspen edge. The water from this area flows to the East. The Environmental Board would like to see a 50 foot buffer in this area. The Environmental Board would like to see signage at wetlands and drainage areas informing "no- dumping, cutting or filling." Lighting No -spill lighting should be. used. Lights should be turned off after activities are done. • Page 1 • Soils • There should be no importing or exporting of soils without City approval. The developer should include a plan for soil compaction prevention outside of construction limits. Surface Water • Would like RCWD input on wetland delineation, particularly on the developer delineation line on the northern part of the Plat. NWI shows quite a larger area surrounding the delineated area with facultative wetland. • Developer should submit the required NPDES control measures and best management practices. Additional rock stockpile should be on hand for when rock entrance fills in. • Depressional area in the parking lot should be graded so water flows to it. Landscaping • The City native seed specification should be used in all rain pond areas, or potted plants installed with sufficient mulch to attenuate weed growth. Parking • Look at reducing parking as much as possible since proposed parking is at more than the minimum. Motion by O'Dea, 2 "d Bor to approve Marshan Estates with Environmental Board comments and recommendations. Motion was approved with all in favor. Highland Meadows East 2"d Addition Tree Preservation The Environmental Board would like the developer to make final determination of some of the trees marked for removal only after further discussion /field meeting with City Environmental and Engineer. • Page 2 • • Soils • Importing or exporting of soils without City permission should be prohibited. Soils should be of similar nature to what was removed. • A plan should be submitted on methods to be used to prevent compaction to soil areas outside of the construction limits. This includes the remaining tree areas. Parking • Reduce overflow parking if possible. Landscaping • The developer should show more landscape materials to buffer neighboring areas. • More oaks should be used. • Colorado spruce and Austrian pine should be eliminated. If evergreens are necessary, than white pine, Red pine or White spruce should be used. • City native seed specs should be used in drainage and pond areas. If ground vegetation is changed in the remaining tree areas, native seed mix should be used here as well. Sod will not grow in this heavy -shade type of a situation. A contractor experienced in establishment of native seed needs to be employed to manage these areas for the first 3 years. The City should approve this contractor. Open Space • The Environmental Board wants the developer to demonstrate the project meets the 50% pervious requirement for PUD. Motion to approve with staff and Environmental Board recommendations and comments made by O'dea, 2nd by Grundhoffer. All were in favor, motion approved. • Page 3 .1( JAMES R. HILL, INC. PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 2500 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42, SUITE 120 BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337 (952) 890 -6044 Fax (952) 890 -6244 March 24, 2004 Mr. Jeff Smyser City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182 RE: Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition Dear Mr. Smyser: Enclosed please fmd four full size sets and four reductions of the preliminary plat package for Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition. Also, proposed drainage maps and hydrocad calculations have been revised and included for engineering review. 1523 94TH LANE NE, SUITE B BLAINE, MINNESOTA 55449 (763) 792 -1136 FAx (763) 792 -1743 Some of the items that were needed to be addressed based on planning commission comments on March 10, 2004 were: 1. Density was too high for the site. -We have eliminated 2 units from the site, leaving a total of 18, this lowered the density to 5.2 units per acre. 2. Building setbacks were too small to provide adequate buffering and drainage. -We have moved all buildings to at least 30' from any exterior property line, with the exception of the south side of lot 2, which is being considered a side setback, we have 21' to the property line. Minimum side setback for the zoning is 10' so we have provided much more than is, required in the side areas. Also, the rear yards are now 30' to allow for a drainage swale and landscape buffering, as shown on the enclosed landscape plan, on the north and south sides of the site 3. Buildings should be 25' from the curb, -We now have at least 25' from any part of the building to the curb line of the private street. 4. The building exteriors need to meet the townhome ordinance -We would like to discuss this with the planning commission. It is our feeling that this requirement for building materials will not have the desired appearance on the sides and rear of these buildings, but are willing to discuss this and come to a solution that is acceptable to all Another item that I would like to point out is that the PUD ordinance allows for 10' separation between buildings. We are proposing to have 20' to aid in breaking up the appearance of continuous buildings along the street. Please review this information and if you have any questions, or need anything else from us or the developer, please do not hesitate to call me at (763) 792 -1136. Sincerely, JAMES R. HILL, INC. Troy D. Livgard, P.E. Project Engineer Enclosure Cc: Mr. Steve Schmitt — TSM Development, Inc. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 7JTIAT C ' 5 BAREARA LANE Proposed Land Use Plan Comprehensive Plan NMUSA Brie. Low Density Sewered Resid. Cot tmriiercial biSemi -Pu. Iviediutn Density Resid. 'rtblic ?Seiii Zoning ap �Jr °/ ':/ Ail Haaraes:= 4'18.111 Sitatal a ION • HIGHLAND MEADOWS EAST 2ND ADDITION LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA MAIN STREET —C.R. 14 1. 79Th STREET 2. MARILYN DRIVE 4 3. ARLO LANE 4. HIGHLAND TRAIL 5. HIGHLAND DRIVE SITE LAC Sf. SITE MAP (NO SCALE) PRELIMINARY PLAT EXHIBITS FOR TSM DEVELOPMENT, INC. 222 MONROE STREET, ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE: (763) 576 -9121 FAX: (763) 576 -9122 LJ cn 0 Li L / 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 1 inch = 50 feet 150 SHEET INDEX 1. TITLE SHEET 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT 4. PRELIMINARY GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN 5. PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN 6. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 7. LANDSCAPE PLAN 8. DETAILS & NOTES MAR 2 =; 2004 CITY OF LINO FAKES BENCHMARKC 1.) TNH SW QUADRANT 79TH ST. & NANCY DR., ELEV. = 909.01 2.) TNH ACROSS STREET FROM 665 ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 914.76 3.) TNH CORNER OF HIGHLAND DRIVE & ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 918.17 4.) TNH CORNER OF HIGHLAND TRAIL & MARILYN DRIVE, ELEV. = 914.06 *-> z 0 E_ Aq Qi z z� C1 H � F Zw W w Eo 0 2 H W W o E N A N DRAWN BY RWD DATE 1/12/2004 REVISIONS 43/22/04 REV. POI NT! CAD FILE 21381TS PROJECT NO. 21381 FILE NO. 2 -03 -039 SHEET 1 OF 8 T 1 1 v I �� �TL)r -r-T T1A /II I /\1 1T 1 VVIL.I \7r1I RIM =905.62 INV •901.64 RIM =905.43 INV =901.32 EX. CB RIM =90 .4_ INV=901.47 A i\�)r EX. SSMH 69. =905.60 E.W INV =889.49 N.5 INV =890.00 X. 15" RC F INV =901.01 A r• r1 /-1 Li Li . X. CB R16 =905.18 190= 901.15 v 1 1-1 �TL.)r_-r_ -T : iI \L_L_I ..,,,,..�,a..�....__ 1 inch = 30 feet 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 I (i) - / -7 EXISTING WETLAND 1 \ } 1 NWL =903.0 (A , -t } 1 100 YR 1 YR HWL- 903.1 HWL =903.5 1 I (PER INMAN, RUMORS WEST / I , ` GRADING PLAN BY MQNtA k ASA. i Q 1 MAST REV 07- 26 -00) EXISTI80 HOUSE LF 906.89 905.7 /EX 906.4 I II \I; II A NIr\ rll \7r�L_l1INLJ 0205790 HOUSE LF 907,04 905.3 E% 904.9 6 EXISTING HOUSE LF 906,59 t EX 904.5 EX C 904.9 Ex I O } EX ! _404 - -- _ -_ Q 7 906.. 1 (V1 1 Q ▪ - '08.4 ai6.3 [ rs• - E %. HYDRANT TNH =909.01 A A r - A �n1A /"� IVI L_i-1LJ\J VV EXIS090 HOUSE EX. 8" PVC PLUG INV =890.17 Q EX. Cl R16 =905.27 INV =901.39 09..8" DIP PLUG r- A (' T L_r"' )I LEGEND +800.00 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION / / WETLAND DELINEATION 1000 EXISTING CONTOURS e TREE LINE OOrn6C (L` o EXISTING SANITARY SEWER \ HaSE F_ > '- > EXISTING STORM SEWER 7--, ` 0 EXISTING WATER MAIN t C, EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE 90 - I�'"�p \ - - - - / EX. 15' RC F15 ( ■ } \../ Q '_ � - ...� I ! ! ! - - = .� /'\ ) { "off C)/01 Q/ Q 0 INV 902.65 I / S\ / / % '^_ ..- - -. ,. J ! I I / - " 1 / \ ! / °- i i / /// - / \ \i / \\I, s c'='; -�� t1 �'1 -il _ -_ - // ' ^r I I i f -/ t«�t 1` :'11 "�/ OOQ �t�1 mQ ti� ij1 } \'�- 0 6�x / 111 \ \ \� ; / I 1 { 1 s. `$ t/ \ _T. .." * ' I I / i 1 i i \ Obi _ _ _ Q • ) /� N � 9\ p -Q bO \1111 �I 1 i/! / / . ji f tf \ Q if i /11, m� N I I 1 ' i/ / /rr I ~1 IQ 1 { {\`i1 it II flfl / /� ///1 N ; Q 1 \',i�l 1 I, 1 1 1 iii 1/ Q l i ``J11 /I `I I ////! 1 1 if /(1 I I 1 1 1 (lr/ -1 /1.1.,// I 1 } I i If } Q I' 1 ire 1; t /I I'. 1 , 1 1 ,111k\ l i 11 / i 1 Q ; e i ) ;L_ __ _,,_72 '-__875:8_9,____ _ i __- , 1 / i ,, / -' � - - _ L -- -- '� / i / ' 2 / 0 H$ • E %6T1NG Zl. ____[.0,0, � .. SCK-•. -- - -- ■ _ - - .�.- / � _/_._ - f CP.P STS1 E( C OE aEE Vs' C 107::. YEP fat i/ EX 904,5 EXISTING 21' RCP STUB INV=901.34 E% 9905.1 9055 905.5 EX 905.6 EX x904.9 X9047 905.0 EX x904.5 [le "\ 904 - f 903.8x 905.3 905.7 9 907.0 X '� Ex 9Q6.1 Q EXISTING TREES NOTES: 1. ALL EXISTING SOILS ARE SODERVILLE (SoA), TYPE 'A' PER ANOKA COUNTY SOIL SURVEY. 2. THERE ARE NO WETLANDS ON THE SITE. t MAR 4. 2004 BENCHMARKS) • 1.) TNH SW QUADRANT 79TH ST. & NANCY DR., ELEV. = 909.01 2.) TNH ACROSS STREET FROM 665 ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 914.76 3.) TNH CORNER OF HIGHLAND DRIVE & ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 918.17 4.) TNH CORNER OF HIGHLAND TRAIL & MARILYN DRIVE, ELEV. - 914.06 DRAWN BY RWD DATE 1/12/2004 REVISIONS 002v6.. PER Ott CAD FILE 21381 EX PROJECT NO. 21381 FILE NO. 2 -03 -039 SHEET 2 OF 8 • • PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OUTLOT A, HIGHLAND MEADOWS EAST, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. NOTES ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM ASSUMES THE WEST LINE OF THE E 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22, TO BEAR N 00 °37'02" E. THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A TITLE COMMITMENT OR TITLE OPINION. A TITLE SEARCH FOR RECORDED OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS WHICH MAY BENEFIT OR ENCUMBER THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED BY THE SURVEYOR. TIA /II 1 /ThI 1T 1 O M STREET WIDTH= 26' BACK -BACK CUL -DE -SAC RADIUS= 45' A / L-7_) r-- 1 \ Cr. " II I 11 I I II II I I U 11 H Z I j It - N 1 1) - -- ======= _.___I it Q Q II L.._. 1 v v ____ _________ _ __ 79TH _____________________ - - -- \\ - �____________________ _ _ _========= - — - -_ - STREET = _____ - - -- I58457'08'E PLAT 5°11'20" �— ====== -- �/ r� l I I n n l r� C H L _/-\ I V L i I I I I SITE DATA DWELLING UNITS. 18 TOTAL AREA 3.470 ACRES DENSITY 5.187 D.U. /ACRE EXISTING ZONING R -1 PROPOSED ZONING PUD OVERALL GROSS AREA = 151,150 SQUARE FEET OR 3.470 ACRES AREA OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 18 = 56,300 SQUARE FEET OR 1.292 ACRES AREA OF LOT 19 = 94,850 SQUARE FEET OR 2.178 ACRES AREA OF STREET & PARKING = 20,984 SQUARE FEET OR 0.482 ACRES AREA OF BUILDINGS = 23,225 SQUARE FEET OR 0.533 ACRES AREA OF' DRIVES = 14,352 SQUARE FEET OR 0.330 ACRES TOTAL SITE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE = 58,561 SQUARE FEET OR 1.344 ACRES TOTAL SITE IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGE = 38.742 TOTAL SITE PERVIOUS SURFACE = 92,589 SQUARE FEET OR 2.126 ACRES TOTAL SITE PERVIOUS PERCENTAGE = 61.262 AREA OF LOT 19 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE = 25,400 SQUARE FEET OR 0.583 ACRES AREA OF LOT 19 PERVIOUS SURFACE = 69,450 SQUARE FEET OR 1.595 ACRES LOT 19 CONTAINS 26.82 OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LOT 19 CONTAINS 73.22 OF PERVIOUS SURFACE A r- rN \ LJ Ll . 1_2_06 000506 HOUSE / (784 °57'08 -W PLAT) N85 °11'20 "W 82.10 A Ar -A nr IA /^ IVILr- Ivvvv" r- n -'T / EXISTING HOUSE / 4 EXISTING 0095E ,0 bJS ; • eh (9: / s�y� SAO VP 42c. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY '.v EASEMENT TO BE VACATED-=- -______ 9 1 vso�Ji \ \ 11 / \ 1 50H0U55 15099 / / / EXISTING HOUSE (718457'o8 -1V PLAT) I 240.00 N85 °11'20 "W 19 94.900 S.F. OR 2.176 AC. DRAINAGE AND UTUTY EASEMENT OVER ALL OF LOT 19 - - - - - -- _151.49 3736 SF '03425 SF 20_14 36.00 (1,18457'oe-w PLAT) N85 °11'20"W 83.37 155.98 S89 °43'05 "E (589728'53 "E PLAT) PRIVATE DRIIVE 2024 SF 45.97 44 00 00 00 44.00 26.00 44.00 434.99 S87 °55'16 "E (Ser41'04'E PLAT) SETBACKS REAR OF BUILDING TO EXTERIOR PROP. LINE- 30' FRONT OF BUILDING TO CURB- 25' • MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS- 10' MINIMUM DECK SETBACK TO EXTERIOR PROP. LINE- 10' MAP 2 2004 LAkE5 LEGEND O IRON SET • IRON FOUND SCALE IN FEET 30 60 1 inch = 30 feet 90 • *b> 2ND ADDITION DRAWN BY SPH,KTB DATE 1/12/2004 REVISIONS MAIM KV V. PO OTT BOOK /PAGE NONE CONTROL NO. 21381 CAD FILE 21381PP PROJECT NO. 21381 FILE NO. DRAWER SHEET 3 OF 8 EX. SSW RIM =905.80 E,W INV=889.49 N,S INV =890.00 .�. 1 i_ T ^)1" f T FXISTING WATFR LEVEL DATA DAZE SHOT T FVAPON 3/23/04 (ICE) 897.8 11 EXISTING WETLAND \ NWL =903.0 I 1 1 L. 100 YRWHWLO903.5 l ) I ICE ELEV =9DO.B ON 12/23)03 Lo t (PER HRRNA mason WEST m4D0W E I ( PLAN BY )RICA ! ASSOC. LABT REV/ m -2E-m1 r ■ I 1 .i EX. 15" RC FES t INV 902.65 / ) NOTF• TO MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE, CONTRACTOR SHALL AVOID COMPACTION IN THE INFILTRATION BASIN TO MAXIMIZE INFILTRATION CAPABIUTIES. OVERHEAD POWER LINE FENCE TREE LINE /TREES PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROPOSED SILT FENCE TREE PROTECTION FENCE PROPOSED WOOD STAKED BALES INLET PROTECTION (TO BE INSTALLED BY UTILITY CONTRACTOR) PROPOSED BALE CHECK (DITCH) CHECK DAM (TO BE INSTALLED AFTER COMPLETION OF GRADING) pENCHMARK(S) 1.) TNH SW QUADRANT 79TH ST. & NANCY DR., ELEV. = 909.01 2.) TNH ACROSS STREET FROM 665 ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 914.76 3.) TNH CORNER OF HIGHLAND DRIVE & ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 918.17 4.) TNH CORNER OF HIGHLAND TRAIL & MARILYN DRIVE, ELEV. = 914.06 E %. CB 919=90543 190 =901.32 EX. 09 RIM= 905.45 1NV= 901.47 EX. 5569 RIM = 905.80 E.W I90= 889.49 9,5 INV = 590.00 7 I �1 ^T E.)!'_r_T FX. CB 916 =905.62 INV = 901.64 E%. 15" RC FES 901.01 EX. CB 19V= 901.15 916= 905.1 -7 TI 1 7 v -= 1 I \LLI / EX. HYDRANT TNH =909.01 EX. 8" DIP PLUG EX. 8" PVC PLUG NV= 890.17 EX. CB RIM =905.27 1N0= 901.39 R- 905.59 1- 890.17 2.4' LT 4I 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 1 inch = 30 feet 90 LEGEND • • EXISTING SANITARY SEWER -�D-I EXISTING WATER MAIN > > EXISTING STORM SEWER • - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER �I I 1 PROPOSED WATER MAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER 4" PVC SDR 26 TYP. PROPOSED SANITARY SERVICE 1" COPPER TYPE K PROPOSED WATER SERVICE R= 908.58 - =94. 19 • 19 19 R= 905.28 1 =895.00 1- 895.80 N 19 • • p19x 5HG G FA 4/ 5� 0'� tO 11° 19 E%ISTNG 21' RCP 0189 INV =901.34 DELINEATED WETLAND MAR 2 LI 2004 CP- v OF LIDO LAKES BENCHMARK(S) 1.) TNH SW QUADRANT 79TH ST. & NANCY DR., ELEV. = 909.01 2.) TNH ACROSS STREET FROM 665 ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 914.76 3.) TNH CORNER OF HIGHLAND DRIVE & ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 918.17 4.) TNH CORNER OF HIGHLAND TRAIL & MARILYN DRIVE, ELEV. = 914.06 2ND ADDITION DRAWN BY RWD DATE 1/12/2004 REVISIONS 03/12/04 REV. KR car CAD FILE 21381PU PROJECT NO. 21381 FILE NO. 2 -03 -039 SHEET 5 OF 8 t t LEGEND N EXISTING ASPHALT SURFACE Trw No. Elevatlon 'rypa Dia. Dia Save Remove 1000 909.00 709908" POPLAR 8 X ^ I 7007 CHERRY B x 1002 909.70 CHERRY 6 9 X 1003 909.60 OAK 129 % 1004 909.60 OAK 16 % 1005 90920 OAK 10 X op ¢ ar 1006 909.30 MAPLE X �..- EXISTING FENCE EXISTING TREE LINE /TREES i I '� ` i 0 EXISTING TREE TO BE SAVED j j ■ j 1007 909.40 POPLAR % 1009 907.60 COTTONWOOD - 21114769: X 1070 905.00 BIRCH % 1012 905.00 POPLAR X 1014 9os2o POPLAR x 1075 904.60 POPLAR x - O EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED j 1076 905.30 POPLAR 6 x OOOOOOO 001D000O00. PROPOSED SILT FENCE j , 1 - 1 _, -_ Y j 1020 904.80 OAK 8 X 7022 906.00 POPLAR 6 x 1024 904.90 POPLAR 8 X 1 _ - , _ i _ - -_ j m- m- 7P- m- m -m -7P- TREE PROTECTION FENCE - j I I ., 1 904.90 POPLAR 8 x 1025 1025 904.70 POPLAR 9 X _ - - __,. L 1000 PROPOSED CONTOUR < - 1 -1- t -" j j it . a • SCALE IN FEET ` - ! 11- L. 1000 EXISTING CONTOUR _ �•• _ _ . L.rr_-i-'�-- „� I I\ L_ �- 1 j ,jj ` �A•• 0 30 60 90 - - - - _ _ < ® < PROPOSED STORM SEWER �r • .- ��� - - - _ 1 inch = 30 feet _ - - -� _ „N ;� �• - - - - - . % # J '-- ---. -. -�_�' --{{ -- - - -?' ._ ` 'e'-° \\ \"H -'�--- - ,,„_ �.,_.. �^. �° 1 r I T _ �.----- / m. 5 \ Y - - L _ ".`.'.'^'= ' -er �- �,,_ t ♦ § R.d�'�.d E s h? ',' t- �� s w- 1026 904.90 POPLAR 14 - X 1027 90.1.90 POPLAR 8 X 1029 905.00 POPLAR 6 X 1030 904.60 POPLAR 7 X 7047 9osso POPLAR e x 1032 904.60 POPLAR 8 X 1034 905.10 OAK 20 X 1035 904.80 OAK 14 X 1036 904.70 OAK 7 X 1043 964.70 POPLAR 6 % 1044 904.40 POPLAR 6 X 1045 904.40 POPLAR 6 X 1047 904.60 POPLAR 6 X 1049 904.70 ELM 6 X 1050 904.30 ELM 16 X 1051 904.20 POPLAR 9 X _ I _�i -.._' , ` I %' a:. �` ._- - ri 1 I - -'� \ IA _, 1052 904.30 POPLAR 6 % POPLAR 1056 904.80 P OPLAR 7 X 1 ( - t / �.r 1 1 SILT FENCE 1 \ 1 _ ,! _ -- tt , ii --- '-'-•- �-,_- I. ! I 1057 904.80 POPLAR 6 X 1061 904.40 POPLAR 7 X 1063 904.40 POPLAR 2 X 1063 904.40 POPLAR 12 X .- 1064 904.00 MAPLE 6 X 1 •1 1 I �`i 1065 904.10 ELM 6 X 1066 90420 PINE 6 X r( 1167 ' ( I I I I j / 1067 904.60 MAPLE 6 X 1068 904.50 POPLAR 8 X ' --- -�. 1 1 1 t j 1 1 / 111 / , I .1 I 1 I I i /, '''jjj !_ I I ! j ....... / j I ) ---` O / r -,�� L I .\ / r t LT FENCE '1' °` / ! / !1"T 8 / / -� o° �p j- J 1071 904.30 POPLAR 8 X 1072 90420 POPLAR 6 X 1078 904.50 OAK 8 X 1079 904.50 POPLAR 11 X 1081 904.40 POPLAR 7 X 1083 904.80 PINE 8 X 1088 804.40 POPLAR 10 X 1087 804.80 POPLAR 9 X - T v \ ,\ I % `.i ^ !� j I / / J % „7 1 ,- I - 1088 904.80 POPLAR 6 X e I N IN • i 1 I I _ // / / k SILT FENCE 1 -- 17:< // / / I 1087 1099 I 1 1 SILT FENCE �! ih /! j / �(•� • 517 J ` 105- T i 6 j !/ SLIT FENCE `- 1089 904.90 POPLAR 6 X 1091 904.80 POPLAR 10 X 1092 904.60 POPLAR 8 X 0 I 10 3 �•- I 1 1 I SILT FENCE A L- T1107• QZ� Q __ 1 - -- I 1 '/ \� j l t x .4) 10974/ :. --�-; co-__ -•,o� -c �o aocas �' f 061 109 0y 09 0404 - _ .. -�... /66 / J / / 1 7079 1072 109 Hr 01096 ` ,, ,�2 ..^.- __ _ -..�.. ,- a °c 1p i `"� / - 1094 904.50 POPLAR 8 X 1095 804.40 POPLAR 6 X 1086 804.80 ELM X 1097 905.00 ELM 6 6 X 1100 904.80 ELM 7 X 1071 �: 1095' '- '+.i., -- -_ "'' -- "� / /- / 111254 1729 117816 1 -� 'VE ! ty0 r __ - 1t� / ._� �/ _...� -�-�` ...--- _ gm* L`� / L§ee. F. ,._ • @@@ a -^- p 3r ��� 004 {q MIA Lam. le �e °L a \ �?+ 1 j �g ' OF I ���� j 1101 904.40 PINE 6 X 1702 904.70 PINE 9 x 1718 904.20 BIRCH 8 X 1723! ' \- 4174 11 -i 9� C2 ` -r { :4� i \ > 1175 118 . gOil 1128 �/ 7722 / \ f f ti . )p 0/0 0 / 1 1132 11590 0/1.1 1 O° �, 121 04 1Zf �{� _ \ ^ r v � O / . _ ,^ -- �� ` 7 / I ! 1184 18 �' � 7190 ��O 115 F.; • �^ -.__ ` �j lt!} „,„,,1190 411150 `� ! '� �/ _ _ ` ''pT , / 1191 - _ -� - 4'4. 1153 • 1. / t'�• // 1 7 1717 804.30 POPLAR 8 X 1114 804.40 POPLAR B X 1179 904.50 ELM 8 X 1120 904.40 PINE 12 X 1721 805.10 ELM 16 X 1122 904.70 ELM 8 X 1123 903.80 POPLAR 7 X 1124 904.00 POPLAR 10 X 1 3 11 / ♦ - / ,/���t/ 1725 904.70 POPLAR 9 X I 1 , i 1 \ \ ✓ . 1 '` 11{J 11451 _ �� 1 r , \, .� _ .� S 1/1'92• i. tO 1128 803.80 POPLAR B I I� �1t9� 179�� /Q` / fjjj,,,///��� 4 / ' /1196- ��.j202 r r I \ 1200 < •6ri 1132 904.00 POPLAR 7 X 1143 904.40 POPLAR 6 72 X 1144 903.70 POPLAR 10 X 1145 904.30 POPLAR 8 X 1 - * ` y� at�� ^� 106 5. p 4 �� \ s /" i ••' ' } 'tOf<3 a�. � jf C.1 I 1 \ \ ,. \k \ \^ I' • te" -V' ` i \ \ \jjj X 8 e 20V / ��P t 1229 / 18 1 120Y / ! \ ! ( h L'! 1 1211 ! 7203 ( I I / 1 •.:. .OS 7�7 4 `r / •R 7 {V1 2120 'i - AAA j�jo �' o '> j 1 rx1 ,,. 72 1217 ^^7213 7270 1748 904.70 POPLAR 8 X 1750 804.80 ELM 9 X 1751 804.80 POPLAR 7 X 1152 904.80 POPLAR 7 X 1153 901.60 POPLAR 7 X 1155 804.60 POPLAR 8 X \ /I t t • = ' 1275 1222 4 (7% 11 1216 I • 1151 804.80 POPLAR 6 X 1158 904.80 POPLAR 8 \ / • � \\ , ,' i __ 1227 \ j j PINE 20 1180 9 PINE 28 r+ [ i\ } i 7. 1t� \ i / li i. \\ ELM 1II 12 f 1.' Ji 104 Q.. C� >:..f I , , 1 j -.. _ / 1 / / (r ELM 6 8 MAPLE 71 \ \ //, iG\14, • I `• r } \Y, j I �- -- -_. l " " "�.� j r �j / ) Lll 4 7✓ k • l _ NOTE: OAK 6 X 1188 905.30 OAK B X 1189 905.40 OAK 12 % 4 1170 905.20 MAPLE 20 X • 1} jfj 1 ll , _ 1 _ I ) ) I / J 1 •" 1 I I�`1 I 1174 904.50 ELM 9 X 0 ! I 1 �3(- 1175 905.60 OAK 9 X •' I7 b r/ I P j I ` !/ j I } 1 ' J/ I ! 1177 908.30 OAK 14 X mB 807.50 CHERRY 8 X 1 '7 L. I I I SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED APPROX. 50' APART ALONG TREE PROTECTION FENCE INDICATING IT IS A TREE PRESERVATION AREA, NO GRADING ALLOWED. CHERRY 8 • 0" CHERRY 7 / 'JI! OAK 9 1 ^ I EM 12 FENCE s 10 1 .r 1 I / / OAK 10 14 EM 9 CHERRY 8 E7 •.., .�. I } / I I ! 1 r �� / -•"' J ! I / l t j 1 ""� '� -�r / 911.90 ELM 6 X 1194 910.90 OAK 15 X -03/22/134 . OTI ss. \ _ { a 7195 910.10 ELM 8 X yy tOTa -- -� S} { 1012 `� �\ "'-�- ` �- ' -- 1198 809.80 ELM 9 X --^ "+ _ m 3' - - ,� / 80$ �- ✓ 1197 908.90 CHERRY 7 X .--- ( ' I'. �'� 146 1070 ` ,^ 1198 908.80 ELM 10 X - `_ - 4 _- -- - _ - .- - _ ' --- ! i vo• / 70098 a<...n.... o ..:.._., cc,....... „ -^^ - ft -� -IP .� ._.. ,,, �,.. 1189 910.80 CHERRY 8 X 1200 811. ELM 1201 91200 CHERRY 8 X 7202 81200 ELM 6 X / '/ %. //' .... -. 1203 972.70 ELM 10 X SILT FENCE i SILT FENCE 7 \ BENCHMARK(S) 1210 81200 CHERRY e X 1211 917.30 CHERRY 8 X 1212 911.40 CHERRY 8 X \ \ - I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIF1CATON OR REPORT // 1.) TNH SW QUADRANT 79TH ST. & WAS PREPARED BT ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION / NANCY DR., ELEV. = 909.01 7213 911.30 CHERRY 6 X CAO FILE 21381TP 1215 911.30 CHERRY 6 X 1216 911.20 ELM 10 X 1217 910.90 ELM 7 X PROJECT NO. 21381 FILE NO. 2 -03 -039 \ AND THAT 1 AM A DULY REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER ma LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DATED THIS 2.) TNH ACROSS STREET FROM 665 ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 914.76 1218 909.90 ELM 9 X 1220 910.20 ELM 8 X 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2004. /� � 0 3.) TNH CORNER OF HIGHLAND DRIVE & ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 918.17 JAM 11161.4, ASIA REGISTRATION NUMBER 18380 4.) MARILYN CORNER E, HIGHLAND = D 4RAIL & MA DRIVE, ELEV. = 914.06 7221 910.70 ELM 9 10 X 1222 970.10 OAK 10 X 1224 910.10 CHERRY 5 8 X 1225 909.00 ELM 7 X 1227 909.10 ELM 9 X SHEET 6 OF 8 1228 908.80 OAK 11 x 1229 908.70 ELM 10 X ■ • • 5 PO 5 BHS fj LF 906.89 LF 906.59 E %. HYDRANT ` S:T FEME -'" t EX. B" PVC PLUG 16V= 890.17 I i7 1 7.. I x35.62 • TNH= 909.01 EX. 8" DIP PLUG EX. CB RIM = 905.27 INV= 901.39 TEMPORARY R006 00N6080011014 ENTRANCE 1.1 FENCE i) 3 RP 005 FENCE 11 EX 905.3 EX LT FENCE 904.9 904.6 EX 904.3 904.5 2/23 0 RE, O 1904.9 EX NV 603.$ .7c % SILT FENCE / / .• r 0 8 RSC 2 PA 3 BHS / 1 PO 06 1 905.5 905.5 905.6 / EX. EOF t `-SiT 6614OE X905.1 i 901. 21" 604 5708 8f5 IMV-901.34 %904.7 90.0 y 905 _/ 2 BHS PLANT SCHEDULE X904.5 5 BHS T FL 2 PO 1 907.0 X 1 PA , 996.1 4 BHS \` KEY QTY. COMMON NAME LATIN NAME SIZE/ROOT NOTES 885 21 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE Pkv giaaev Donald 6' HT. BB FULL FORM TO GRADE RP 3 RED PINE Pdm raft= 6' HT. BB FULL FORM TO GRADE PA 4 PATMORE ASH "aimsp=ou9*84eo 9imwa' 2 1 /Z" 88 STRAIGHT LEADER PO 8 PIN OAK Qa=onpaLm4 2 I/O" 88 STRAIGHT LEADER RSC 10 RED SPLENDOR CRABAPPLE Maim Ted Womb" 1 1/2" BB STRAIGHT LEADER NOTES - / 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS ON PROPERTY 99818 THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND BY CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE CALL (454 -0002) PRIOR TO STAKING PLANT LOCATIONS. 2. WHERE D051160 TREES AND/OR SIGNIFICANT SHRUBS MASSINGS ARE FOUND ON SITE, WHETHER SHOWN ON 114E DRAWING OR NOT. THEY SHALL BE PROTECTED AND SAVED UNLESS NOTED TO BE REMOVED AND /0R ARE IN AN AREA TO BE GRADED. ANY QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD REMAIN OR NOT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO REMOVAL 3. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY NTH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. • 4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONGOING MMNTENANCE OF ALL NEWLY INSTALLED MATERIALS UNTIL LIME OF OYMER ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDAUSM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE 114E RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE CALENDAR YEAR FROM 111E DATE OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE WITH ALL REPLACEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 6. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PERCEIVES ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT SELECTIONS, SOIL 006010ON5. OR ANY OTHER SITE CONDITION WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT MATERIAL ESTABLISHMENT. SURVIVAL, OR GUARANTEE. 114EY SHALL BRING THESE DEFICIENCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO IN5941141109. MULCH MATERIAL AS SPECIFIED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. MASS MULCH ALL PLANTING BEDS 'MTH FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER. ALL EVERGREEN AND DECIDUOUS TREES TO RECEIVE 4" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD SPECIFIED PER PUN. 8. PLANTING PLAN: ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED CAREFULLY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PUNT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES EXIST. S 09511CATION i TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES. 9. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED OR SODDED AS INDICATED ON THE PLAN. 10. POND AREAS SHALL BE 5EEDE0 WITIi CITY SPECIFIED WETLAND SEED MIX. SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 1 inch = 30 feet WEAR 2 2004 cirr Alits BENCHMARK(S) 1.) TNH SW QUADRANT 79TH ST. & NANCY DR., ELEV. = 909.01 2.) 16IH ACROSS STREET FROM 665 ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 914.76 3.) TNH CORNER OF HIGHLAND DRIVE & ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 918.17 4.) TNH CORNER OF HIGHLAND TRAIL & MARILYN DRIVE, ELEV. = 914.06 90 z O A z CV zo aa Wg-1=15g J QVI r i 0 rn AN E $ i DRAWN BY RWD DATE 1/12/2004 REVISIONS 03N/04 Rel. PM 07X CAD FILE 21381L PROJECT NO. 21381 SHEET 7 OF 8 • gEdgmLsatimajaagaggisam, OL NOTE 1. SPECF1CATONS WHICH APPLY ARE THE MOST RECENT EDITIONS T OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION UNLESS MODIFIED HEREIN ON THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 2 IT IS THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO UT1UZE 111E "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" EXCAVATION NOTICE SYSTEM AS REWIRED UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE CHAPTER 2160. 48 HOURS PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY EXCAVATION (PHONE 851 -454 -0002 IN THE TWIN 01105 METRO AREA OR TOLL FREE 1 -800 - 252 - 1168). 3. GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITH THE RESPECTIVE U11UTY COMPANIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 4. ALL CONSTRUCTION AS CALLED FOR ON THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WTIR ALL OSHA REQUIREMENTS 5. ALL LOT AND EASEMENT DIMENSIONS ARE SUBJECT TO FINAL PLAT. 6. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES CALLED FOR ON THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. WHICH MAY INCLUDE FILTER FENCE,SEDMENTATION BASINS OR TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAPS, 514ALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND SERVICEABLE IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER. AS REWIRED. a. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. b. FILTER FENCE 9. TEMPORARY CULVERTS d. TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS AND OUTFALL FACILITIES. 1, STORM WATER POND CONSTRUCTION. L COMMON EXCAVATOR AND EMBANKMENT (GRADING CONSTRUCTION). g. SEED AND MULCH (SEE NOTE 14). h. STRAW BALE BARRIERS IN FINISHED GRADED AREAS. I. INLET AND OUTLET FACILITIES SUBSEQUENT TO STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION. 7. GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS SHOWN ON MESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IMPLEMENT ANY ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTY. 8. ALL EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE GRADING CONTRACTOR DURING GRADING OPERATIONS ANY TEMPORARY FACILITIES %MICH ARE TO BE REMOVED AS CALLED FOR ON THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE GRADING CONTRACTOR WHEN DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL THEN RESTORE 1HE SUBSEQUENTLY DISTURBED AREA IN ACCORDANCE MTH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 9. IT 15 THE RESPONSBIUTY OF THE GRADING CONTRACTOR TO DISPOSE OFF -STE ALL TREES, STUMPS, BRUSH. OR OTHER DEBRIS THAT EXISTS WTHIN THE CONSTRUCTION AREAS TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE ENGINEER 10. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE THE SOILS ENGINEER 50 THAT CERTIFICATION OF ALL CONTROLLED FILLS CAN BE FURNISHED TO THE OWNER DURING AND UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. 11. DENSITY TESTS SHALL BE TAKEN TO EVALUATE THE COMPACTION 1611118 THE STREETS TRAVEL WAYS OR PARKING LOTS WITHIN THE UPPER 3 FEET OF STREET SUB GRADE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT ALL SOILS BE NOT MORE THAN ONE PERCENTAGE POINT OVER THE SOIL'S STANDARD PROCTOR OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, AND THAT COMPACTION TO A MINIMUM OF 1001 OF STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY BE PROVIDED. IN AREAS BELOW THE UPPER THREE FEET OF SUBGRADE OF THE STREETS TRAVEL WAYS OR PARKING LOTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT ALL SOILS BE NOT MORE THAN THREE PERCENTAGE POINTS OVER THE SOIL'S STANDARD PROCTOR OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, AND THAT COMPACTION TO A MINIMUM OF 9551 OF STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY BE PROVIDED. 114E GRADING TOLERANCE FOR THESE AREAS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.1'1. 12. LOT GRADING AND /CR THE PREPARATION OF BUILDING PADS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THE GRADING TOLERANCE SHALL BE 0.25'1. ALL EARTHWORK OPERATIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HUD -FHA DATA SHEET 79G "LAND DEVELOPMENT WITH CONTROLLED EARTHWORK ", PROVIDING FOR A MINIMUM OF 9551 STANDARD DENSITY, OR AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED BY THE GEO- TECHNICAL ENGINEER. 13. BUILDING PADS SHOWN ON EACH LOT ARE TYPICAL ONLY. THE DEPTH OF THE PAD FROM FRONT TO BACK SHALL BE GRADED THROUGHOUT THE FULL WIDTH OF THE LOT OR AS NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING 87 THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS (REFER TO THE PLANS FOR SPECIFIC SETBACK DISTANCES.) IF UNSUITABLE SOIL CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED 81114IN A PROPOSED BUILDING PAD THAT CANNOT BE CORRECTED OR REMOVED. IT IS THE RESPSONSBIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE ENGINEER O THE 0060111085 A140 TO LOCATE THE OMITS OF THE UNSUITABLE AREAS 14. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY N01E0, THE FOLLOWING SITE RE- VEGETATION TECHNIQUES SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED. ALL DISTURBED AREAS, EXCEPT STREETS. SHALL BE COVERED WITH A MINIMUM GF 6" TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SEEDED 7611 MnDOT /500 MIX AT 100LBS. /ACRE SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH MOOT TYPE 1 AT 2 TONS/ACRE AND DISC ANCHORED. SEEDING AND MULCHING SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 2 WEEKS AFTER EARTH MOVING OPERATORS ARE COMPLETED. ALL SLOPES THAT EXCEED 3(1):1(V) SHALL BE SEEDED WITH A WOOD FIBER BLANKET. FERMMZER SHALL BE 20 -0-10 OR EQUIVALENT AND APPLIED AT 400 POUNDS PER ACRE FERTUZER I5 TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE TOP 3 TO 4 INCHES BY DISCING OR SOME OTHER SUITABLE MEANS WHEN SEEDING AFTER NOVEMBER 1, OR MIEN TEMPERATURES DO NOT EXCEED 40 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DORMANT SEED ALONG ALL DISTURBED AREAS. DORMANT SEED BED PREPARATION, SEEDING RATES. AND MULCH, REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE THE SAME AS THOSE DESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION EXCEPT THAT NO SEED SHALL BE PLACED W SNOW OR ICE WHICH IS GREATER THAN 2 INCHES IN DEPTH. ANY SEEDED AREAS WHICH DO NOT BECOME ESTABLISHED SHALL BE RE -SEEDED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE 15. IT 15 THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO KEEP PUBLIC STREETS, TRAVEL WAYS, PARKING LOTS AND TRAILS FREE OF DIRT AND OTHER DEBRIS WHICH RESULTS FROM SAD GRADING CONSTRUCTION. SPECIFIC GRADING NOTES: 1. THE E10511NG TOPOGRAPHY AND CONTOUR ELEVATIONS ON THE PLANS WERE PROVIDED BY JAMES R. HILL INC. THE DEGREE OF ACCURACY OF THE EXI55NG CONTOURS SHORN W THE PLAN IS EQUAL TO 1 ONE HALF THE CONTOUR INTERVAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES TOPSOIL ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL PLACED. FERT1UZER: APPLY 400 POUNDS PER ACRE OF 20 -0 -10 OR EQUIVALENT FERTILIZER. INCORPORATE IT INTO THE TOP THREE (3) TO FOUR (4) INCHES OF SURFACE BY DISKING OR SOME OTHER SUITABLE MEANS. SEEDING: SEED MIX SHALL BE MnDOT MIX NO. 508. ALL SLOPES THAT EXCEED 3:1 SHALL BE SEEDED WITH A WOOD FIBER BLANKET. ULCHING: STRAW SHOULD BE SPREAD UNIFORMLY AT A RATE OF TWO TONS PER ACRE AND ANCHORED WITH EITHER NETTING OR A STRAIGHT DISC. ALL SEEDING AND MULCHING SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN TWO (2) WEEKS OF THE COMPLETED GRADING OPERATION OR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT SEEDING PERIOD PER CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. GENERAL UTIUTY CONSTRUCTOR NOTES: 1. SPECIFICATIONS THE WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE 61TH THE CITY OF UNO LAKES. MINNESOTA 2. 1X85560 FACT li TIES IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIRIUTY TO DETERMINE THE LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE STARTING CONSTRUCTION. MIS INCLUDES, BUT 15 NOT OMITED TO SANITARY AND STORM SEWER, WATERMAN, NATURAL GAS, ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND CABLE IELE500N SERVICES THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY 114E ENGINEER OF ANY CO1FUCT BETWEEN THE EXISTING UTUTES AND THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THE ENGINEER IN COOPERATION 'MTH THE U11UTY COMPANIES, SHALL DETERMINE THE NECESSITY FOR ANY RELOCATION OF THESE FACTURES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AND FACIUT1E5 SO THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO FUNCTION IN THEIR PROPER MANNER BOTH DURING CONSTRUCTION AND IN THE FUTURE ANY SUPPORTING STRUCTURE THAT MAY BE REWIRED BECAUSE OF THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATOR SHALL BE PRONGED BY HIM. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING 10 THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER ANY CONDITIONS SUCH AS SAND IN MANHOLES OR VALVE BOXES EXISTING PRIOR TO THE CONTRACTOR'S EXCAVATION. ONCE EXCAVATOR HAS COMMENCED, IT WILL BE ASSUMED THAT ALL DAMAGE 10 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAS BEEN CAUSED BY 114E CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS AND IT CULL BE HIS RESPONSBIUTY TO MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS 3. CONTRACTOR RFT SRO 111FS 111E CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE HIS OMR ARRANGEMENTS FOR RECEIVING WATER FROM PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SOURCES AND SECURE NECESSARY PERMITS AND PAY REGULAR CHARGES. ALL CITY WATER SHALL SE METERED. DISPOSAL OF ANY WASTE WATER OR ANY TEST WATER INTO THE CITY SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IS SUBJECT TO CITY CHARGE CONTRACTORS ARE NOT TO OPERATE GATE VALVES OR IITDRANTS ON OTT WATER SUPPLY. THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED 48 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. CONTRACTORS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SHUT DOWN IF PROPER N0117CA110N IS NOT GIVEN 10 THE ENGINEER. CITY STREETS THAT ARE UTIUZED FOR INGRESS TO OR EGRESS FROM THE CONSTRUCTOR SITE SHALL BE KEPT FREE OF DIRT AND OTHER DEBRIS RESULTING FROM SAID CONSTRUCTOR. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE STORM DRAINAGE PROTECTION OF THE SITE IN ORDER TO PREVENT EROSION AND SUNG OF ON -5TE AND OFF -511E AREAS. THIS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PLACEMENT OF HAY BALES OR FILTER FABRIC FENCE AROUND THE DRAINAGE INLETS A140 OUTLETS AND 8Y CONSTRUCTION OF DITCHES. BERMS, DEBRIS BASINS, FILTER FABRIC FENCING AND BY ANY OTHER ON-SITE PROTECTION AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT AS A BD ITEM ON THE 810 FORM, ANY TEMPORARY DITCHING, CULVERTS, HAY BALES. AND FILTER FABRIC FENCE NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH MN SHALL BE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. IT IS THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT AND LEAVE UNDISTURBED THOSE MARKERS OR MONUMENTS SET FOR 114E SUBDIVISION OF LAND. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONOBIUTY O THE CONTRACTOR TO UTILIZE THE "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" EXCAVATION NOTICE SYSTEM AS REWIRED UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE CHAPTER 216D, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY EXCAVATION (PHONE 851 - 454-0002 IN THE TWIN CITES METRO AREA OR TOLL FREE 1 -600- 252 - 1106). 4. COMPACTOR: DENSITY TESTS SHALL BE TAKEN W ALL TRENCHES TO EVALUATE THE COMPACTION ACHIEVED DURING UTUTY CONSTRUCTION. AND 10 EVALUATE THE COMPACTOR WINS! THE STREET CROSS SECTION. WITHIN THE UPPER 3 FEET OF STREET SUBGRADE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT ALL SOILS BE NOT MORE THAN ONE PERCENTAGE POINT OVER THE SOUS STANDARD PROCTOR OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, AND THAT COMPACTION TO A MINIMUM OF 1007. OF STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY (AA5HT0 T -99) BE PROVIDED. WITHIN UT1UTY TRENCHES IN OPEN SPACE AREAS AND AREAS BELOW THE UPPER 3 FEET OF STREET SUBGRADE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT ALL SOILS BE NOT MORE THAN THREE PERCENTAGE POINTS OVER THE SOIL'S STANDARD PROCTOR OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, AND THAT COMPACTION TO A MINIMUM OF 9551 OF STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY BE PROVIDED. THE SURFACE OF ALL UTIUTY TRENCHES SHALL BE FINISHED GRADED TO THE ELEVATIONS AS STAKED BY THE ENGINEER TO WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF 13" IN WEN SPACE AREAS AND 10.1' WITHIN STREET RIGHT OF WAYS. THE DENSITY WILL BE IRS Thu BY AN APPROVED TESTING LABORATORY. AN APPROVED 1E5TNG ME1110D WHICH UTILIZES A NUCLEAR DENSITY METER MAY BE USED FOR THE DENSITY TESTS. THE LOCATION OF THE TESTS HALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER. THE OWNER SHALL BFAR ALL COSTS OF THE TESTING ANY AREAS YMICH FAIL TO MFFT THE COMPACTION FOR ANY RE-TESTING ASSINIATFII WITH ANY CIXRRFC1VF WORD( SHALL BE AT 111E FXPFNSE OF THE CONTRACTOR, 5. REMOVAL OF ALL EXISTING WATER AND SEWER SERVICES TO BE COORDINATED WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. INSTALLATION OF ALL PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER SERVICES TO BE COORDINATED NTH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 6. ALL WATERMAN TO BE INSTALLED WITH 7.5' MINIMUM COVER. NOTE: 1. THERE SHALL BE NO SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 SETBACKS REAR OF BUILDING- 20' FRONT OF BUILDING TO CURB - MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS - MINIMUM DECK SETBACK- BENCHMARKS) PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPERTY UNE /T SURFACE DRAINAGE LONEST FL00R 0,15. (IF SPECIFIED) WIE LOT 1NMBER 8 -/ SUGGCSRU GARAGE 900 ATILOT CORNS ON CENTERLINE 920.5 EXIS11NG CONTOUR ��- 669HED GRADE ELEVATOR LF 920.5 RW0 G 926.5 RECOMMENDED HOUSE TYPE TYPICAL FRONT TARO wa SETBACK (HOUSE) 926.50 3 +00 FINISHED 11 GRADE - 100'S STATION TYPICAL LOT 6' MINIMUM DEPTH 1" - Y WASHED ROCK 18" MINIMUM CUT OFF BERM TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM SITE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCK TO STOP MUD MIGRATION THROUGH ROCK. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (RAY BALES END TO END Pack Loose Straw SPACING FOR ALL DITCH BLOCKS: DITCH GRADE SPACING (51) (FT) 2 100 4 75 6 8 50 40 10 25 10+ 25 1.) TNH ACROSS STREET FROM 20' 665 ARLO LANE, ELEV. - 914.76 2.) TNH CORNER OF HIGHLAND DRIVE & 20' ARLO LANE, ELEV. = 918.17 2.) 114H CORNER OF HIGHLAND TRAIL & 10' MARILYN DRIVE, ELEV. = 914.06 PROPOSED BUILDING SITE O Lenoth Varies "02" Wood Stake 2 per Bale point "B PLAN VIEW PLAN VIEW 2'X2" wood stake or reinforcing bars 2 per bale. Graded Earth 1 FLAW Bales to be placed 'n 4' deep trench point "A' \Bales placed on edge and butted tight NOTE Point "A" shall be higher than point "B ". RAI1 DFTAII DITCH BLOCKING BOTTOM OF UNSUITABLE MATEMML (10 BE VERIFIED BY PALS ENG.. PRIOR MY RACEWAY OF SELECT MATERIAL) BUILDING SITE & STREET SUB -GRADE CORRECTION DETAIL -SEE STREET SECTION--- VARIES DIMMED GRAD DRAMS 50' PAD ELE5 10' it SPLIT ENTRY SECTION (SE) -4- SEE STREET SECTION _,"7171- 15 P. GEV. _P U 0W TIN. !ONG sr- FAR PAD FIEY. (LOWEST FLOOR CET.) SPLIT ENTRY WALKOUT SECTION (SEWO) 5E GRA.E acw.11w ASSxc AT ENTRY NOME INFEST FI.DOR aEVATM SHALL DE IS BELOW RUSHED GRADE ELEVATOR FM9FD GRADE ELEVATION FOR REM BASEMENT Nom s >r LONER THAN moue GRIM. D.E4DURCN SINNIN FRONT Or ROUSE BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATOR ra [Ls ABIDE RE4R MIN. MORN MESSES. SHOWN NOM RN ALL =MOOED MUSE TPES, raRAa new atVAaMI a as ANNE FINNED IROURO EuvAllw 00,470 11x�dk9�C NOUSE eSnATITx1NN9 R AT f EON OF HOUSE RECOMMENDED HOUSE TYPES MAR 2 2004 LTA' Or= UUNO LAKES Boo '/ SILT FENCE INSTALLED AS 0:%14 ...1.09 PER DETAIL HAYBALE BARRIERS WITH SILT FENCE • 1/2"r GEOTENI1LE BACKING • A 11 3/4 slope " ep r ft A 12' 12' 1/2"r D -412 CURB & GUTTER •MUM 5' METAL OR 2 7x211000 FENCE POST 000108TILE TO OVERLAP THROUGH TRENCH. NOTE : -SILT FENCE SHALL CONFORM TO MNDOT 3888, TYPE B. - FENCING SHALL BE PLACED ALONG CONTOURS OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. SILT FENCE TWO 2" X 2" WOOD STAKES OR REINFORCING BARS IN EACH BALE AND IMBEDDED IN THE GROUND 10' MINIMUM STORM SEWER CATCHOASIN R/W LOT BENCHING DETAIL NOTE: ODE 02 BIG YARD IS PLACE - RAP AND OVER P IF E LS. ROES NO SCALE RIP RAP REWIRED 029_81 PPE .GL A2,- - z• o° 27• To 00 55-15 2e AIE39 e FETES FABRIC 1:12 WIRED 5D°Rn O-U lwRAn HAND 1 ROOT DEEP 11112 SIGNAL STONES SHALL PE. LESS THAN 50 POUNDS ®r THOSE USED FOR au(11C. FLARED END SECTION WITH RIP RAP 6 6/W 4' TOPSOIL 0412 CONC. CURB • GUTTER 1S" -2350 TYPE LV 4 BIT. WEARING COURSE TACK COAT 2" -2350 TYPE LV 2 OR 3 BIT. NON- WEARING COURSE 6" AGGREGATE BASE, CL 5 (PLACED ON APPROVED SUBGRADE) TYPICAL PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION • CC • W CC W 54 U co'P I x CID cr) en C m V E W Urn . M4 w o g �7a�aW DRAWN BY RWD DATE 1/12/2004 REVISIONS 119/22 /OF EV. IRS ale CAD FILE 21381D PROJECT NO. 21381 FILE NO. 2 -03 -039 SHEET 8 OF 8 STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. B Jeff Smyser April 14, 2004 Continued Public Hearing: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Low Density Resid. • Rezoning to Planned Unit Development • PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat Oakwood View Rice Creek Covenant Church The P & Z opened the public hearing on this project at the March meeting. The hearing was continued to April. Issues included designing the extension of Oakwood Lane to provide future connection, parking in the duplex lot, and use of the group residence. The Rice Creek Covenant Church has submitted an application to further develop its current site at 125 Ash Street. The application includes several elements. The goal is to create ten single family detached home lots on the north part of the property as well as a lot for a duplex on the southern part of the property. The duplex is intended for a group residence for people with disabilities. This project includes an odd mixture of actions because of the existing land use category and zoning. The following approvals are necessary to accommodate the proposal: 1. Amend the comprehensive plan to change the site from Public Semi- Public to Low Density Sewered Residential. 2. Rezoning of the southern portion from R -1X to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for mixed uses: the existing church and the group residence. (The existing R1 -X zoning already accommodates the single family lots on the north.) 3. PUD development stage plan/preliminary plat A conditional use penult (CUP) was approved by the City in 1996 to provide for building the church. That CUP approval included a three -phase plan. Each new building must undergo a site plan review, but would not require a CUP amendment review. However, the CUP did not include a residential facility, as is being proposed now. Therefore, the CUP is not relevant here inasmuch as no additions to the church building itself are being proposed. The zoning ordinance provides for two different types of PUD. If only residential uses were included in the project, the PUD would require only a conditional use peiniit. However, the church and the group residence is a mix of uses. A mixed use PUD requires a rezoning to PUD. • • Oakwood View page 2 ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning The table below identifies the existing land uses, guided and uses, and zoning for the area. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site church Public /Semi- Public R -1X North residential Low Density Sewered Residential R -1X South residential City of Shoreview 23,006 East residential Low Density Sewered Residential R -1X West residential, vacant Medium Density Sewered Resid. R -1X The following table summarizes the project as shown on the revised plans: Lot single family area church lot group home new ROW total Gross Area of Lots (acres) 6.24 7.26 2.23 0.97 16.70 Gross Area with ROW 7.21 17,037 23,006 4 Upland Area of Lots (acres) 4.06 474 5 Upland including new ROW 5.03 6 Total Units 1 10 2 Gross Densiy: units /acre 1.39 0.90 Net Density: units /acre 1.99 L2 B2 Lot gross sf net sf (upland) wetland 1 55,383 20,283 35,100 2 52,502 16,212 36,290 3 40,043 17,037 23,006 4 26,449 25,975 474 5 15,565 15,565 6 13,488 13,488 7 14,563 14,563 L1 B2 16,143 16,143 L2 B2 14,320 14,320 L3 B3 23,197 23,197 total 271,653 176,783 94,870 acres 6.24 4.06 2.18 church lot 316,137 acres 7.26 duplex 97,226 acres 2.23 • • Oakwood View page 3 The comprehensive plan currently guides the site for Public /Semi- Public (PSP) land use. This was done because of the existence of the church. The PSP category is not specifically for churches: the plan does not have a specific category for churches, nor are churches discussed in the plan. The zoning ordinance allow churches by conditional use peimit in all residential zones. Because of the residential uses proposed for the site, the Low Density Sewered Residential classification is appropriate. This would allow for all uses proposed in the application. The plan shows single family detached lots in the northern area at a density of 2.37 units /acres. This falls within the 3 -6 u/a range allowed by the Low Density Sewered Residential land use category. The group residence duplex also falls within this range. The amendment to the comprehensive plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review. Because of the small size of the project, we expect the Met Council review to be brief. Growth Management: MUSA Reserve: The comprehensive plan and the growth management policy establish a specific number of MUSA reserve acres to be allocated for residential growth for stage one (prior to year 2010). The site is within the existing MUSA, so no MUSA reserve is required. Growth Management, Units /Year: The comprehensive plan and the growth management policy establish a specific number of dwelling units of residential growth for stage one (prior to year 2010). The goal is 147 per year. The City Council has the flexibility to exceed the limit by 20% (29 units) in a year without amending the comprehensive plan. The table at the end of this report shows the status of the staging plans for final platting new residential units. Approvals for year 2004 have exceeded the goal by 18.4 %. An additional two units will raise that to 19.7 %. This is within the allowable discretionary range. At the discretion of the City Council, the duplex could be final platted in 2004. However, ten more lots would go beyond the 20% limit. Therefore, final platting of the ten single family lots on the north side of the property will have to wait until 2005. In other words, if this project is to proceed, it must be phased over two years. Rezoning The PUD zoning is intended for the southern portion of the site. The northern portion is to retain its current R -1X zoning. As stated in the zoning ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Board shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed zoning amendment. Its judgement shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. • Oakwood View page 4 Amending the comprehensive plan as requested would address the land use issue. 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. The church exists, and is surrounded by residential uses. Additional residential use on the site would be compatible with the area. 3. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein (in the zoning ordinance). Adjustment of the lot widths will address that issue. Providing for a future street connection will address the cul de sac length issue. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. The creation of ten single family homes and two units for a group residence will not overburden city services. . 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. • The creation of ten single family homes and two units for a group residence will not generate enough traffic to overburden the road system. Planned Unit Development: Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat Section 2, Subd. 10 of the zoning ordinance discusses the purpose of a planned unit development (PUD). The application should be compared to these purposes in order to justify the flexibility allowed by a PUD. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section of the Zoning Ordinance is to provide for the grouping of lots or buildings for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, or sporadic approach to development. This section is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of lots, buildings and activities, which promote the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan or serve another public purpose. It is further intended that planned unit developments are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and architecture, joint and common use and maintenance of parking, open space and other similar facilities, and harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. A residential conditional use permit PUD may include a variety of residential units, including single family and multifamily units as long as it complies with the density • • Oakwood View page 5 requirements. A non - residential conditional use permit PUD may include a variety of commercial and/or industrial uses. A PUD that includes a mix of residential and commercial/industrial uses must utilize the PUD zoning district as described in Sec. 9 Subd. 3 of this ordinance. The PUD, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Ordinance related to setbacks, heights, lot area, width and depths, yards, etc., by conditional use permit or a mixture of uses by rezoning to a PUD District, is intended to encourage: 1. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Innovations in development that address growing demands for all styles of economic expansion, greater variety in type, design, architectural standards, and siting of structures through the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. 3. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as existing vegetation, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 4. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly transition of varying land uses in close proximity to each other. 5. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering development costs and public investments. 6. Promotion of a desirable and creative environment that might be prevented through the strict application of City zoning and subdivision regulations. Lots: The minimum lot size in the R -1X zone is 12,825 sf of upland. As listed above, all lots meet this minimum. The minimum lot width in the R -1X zone is 90 feet. All meet this requirement. Parks: The subdivision ordinance includes park dedication requirements. Park dedication is $1665 per residential unit, less any land dedication. There is no land dedication needed. Park dedication will be collected as each phase is final platted. Utilities: The church currently has sanitary sewer and water service. The existing services come in from Oakwood Lane an run along the western edge of the property. These will be relocated within the Oakwood Lane extension. The existing pipes will be completely replaced. The new lines will provide service for the group residence as well. Drainage and utility easements will cover all utilities. • • • Oakwood View page 6 The subdivision ordinance requires that final plat approval be obtained before utilities can be constructed. However, utility service already exists, serving the existing church. Because of this, the relocation can occur without final platting the entire site. The City Engineer's report is attached. Grading and Stormwater Management: Four wetlands exist on the site. The plans include no filling of wetlands. Several stormwater ponds will be constructed. Drainage and utility easements will cover all wetlands and ponds. The subdivision ordinance requires that water courses must be protected by easement that will include at a minimum a ten (10) foot buffer extending outward from the delineated wetland boundary or the water course ordinary high water level. Lots with easements protecting water courses shall have sufficient dimensions and area outside the water course easement to meet or exceed the minimum lot area and width specified in the zoning chapter for the district in which the lots are located. Two "ponding and flowage" easements exist on the site. The plan proposes to vacate both. An easement vacation requires a public hearing at the City Council and two readings of an ordinance. The vacation hearing will occur when the project goes to the City Council for consideration. These are not P & Z action issues. The Rice Creek Watershed District granted conditional approval to the project. Because the plan was revised, we will require RCWD approval of the revised plan prior to City approval of the final plat. The City has not received geotechnical information on existing groundwater levels and soils. This must be determined in order to compare lowest floor elevations and soil suitability for construction. This must be ascertained prior to City Council consideration of the application. Streets, Access: The Anoka County Highway Dept. has informed us that no additional right of way is necessary for Ash St. (CSAH 32). Typically, the County's policy is to require dedication of additional right of way to total 60' from centerline. The road is 100' wide (50' from centerline). Anoka and Ramsey Counties have agreed to a 100' right of way on this road to minimize impacts on existing homes. Driveway to Group Residence: On the south, the plan proposes a driveway off the church entry drive to serve the group residence. This driveway is five feet from the property line, the minimum required distance, and it must be paved with curb. There also must be a shared driveway easement to allow the new lot to use the existing driveway. This will be a condition of approval. The driveway was revised since the initial plan to address access concerns. Oakwood Lane Extension: On the north, the proposal includes extending Oakwood Lane to provide access to the ten residential lots. This will exceed the 500' maximum cul de sac length allowed by the street standards, Sec. 302 of the City Code. • Oakwood View page 7 Staff recommended that the preliminary plat be revised to provide for a street connection to the west. The P & Z Board supported this recommendation and the plat has been revised. Oakwood Lane was created as part of the Woodridge Estates plat in 1988 -89. Oakwood Lane runs from White Pine Road on the north to the north property line of the church site. A sketch by the City Engineer in July 1988 envisions the road to continue south to Ash Street with connections both east and west. However, Woodridge Estates did not provide for the eastern connection and the church was approved in 1996, which blocks a southern connection. It still is possible to plan for a connection of Oakwood Lane to a future neighborhood road to the west. Oakwood Lane could provide a temporary cul de sac with a connection to the western property line. Land to the west is guided for residential development (medium density) and itt is very likely that it will develop in the future. The 20 acres immediately west of the church site definitely could support development. Land further to the west likely will be able to as well, though to a lesser extent due to wetlands. Oakwood Lane could provide circulation and neighborhood connections, running south to Ash St. or west to Baldwin Lake Road. This would avoid the creation of new, long cul de sacs and may be the last opportunity to create any circulation route to connect neighborhoods in this part of the community. The comprehensive plan includes a policy and a recommendation for such connections: 6. Provide complete street systems to eliminate isilated neighborhoods and dead -end streets and allow for interaction between neighborhoods. Transportation policies, page 36, comprehensive plan 6. Integrate low density sewered residential land uses within existing residential neighborhoods with local street connections, density transitions, and park planning. Recommendation for Planning District 4, page 135, comprehensive plan We recognize that many residents like cul de sacs because they minimize traffic on their streets. However, the lack of inter - neighborhood connections creates bottlenecks at points of access to collector and arterial roadways. Roads accessing Birch St. provide a clear example. Once the cul de sacs are built, the future problem is created. Creating connections creates options and distributes traffic, preventing the bottlenecks. Neighborhood street connections also provide for neighborhood social connections and allow for a greater sense of community. The subdivision ordinance requires that final plat approval be obtained before roads can be constructed. The Oakwood Lane extension into the project cannot be constructed until the ten single family lots are constructed with phase two in 2005. The grading can occur earlier, and the utilities can be relocated as explained above. Group Residence Structure: Typically, we require architectural elevations and specific site plan information for a PUD. Since this project only includes one duplex (two units), it is not so critical. It is more similar to a house being built than a commercial structure. However, site • • Oakwood View page 8 plan information such as architectural elevations, floor plan, lot lighting, and the like will be required prior to a building permit being granted. The parking lot for the enabling residence was revised since the initial plan. No parking stalls are pointed toward homes to the south, eliminating the concern over headlights shining there. Group Residence Uses: At the March meeting, a question arose regarding the type of use for the group residence. The church is proposing a residence for developmentally disabled adults. Neighbors asked if the facility could be used for other types of residents, such as criminal offenders. There are several licenses for a facility for developmentally disabled people. One is by the State of Minnesota. Another is issued by Anoka County as an agent of the State. The Anoka County license requires several reviews. These licenses do not apply to other types of residential facilities, such as for criminal halfway houses or treatment facilities. These would require different licenses from the State of Minnesota Dept. of Human Services. The DHS requires a review by the local government that such a facility meets local zoning code requirements. This planned unit development is intended to provide for use of the duplex group residential facility for foster care for developmentally disabled persons. Condition of approval #2 states that other use must be reviewed by the City and may require an amendment of the PUD. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD The Environmental Board reviewed this application on February 25. Recommendations are attached. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Approval of the project should include the following conditions: 1. The comprehensive plan amendment must obtain the approval of the Metropolitan Council prior to any further City project approvals. The rezoning and preliminary plat are contingent upon the comprehensive plan amendment approval. 2. This approval provides for use of the duplex group residential facility for foster care for developmentally disabled persons. Alternative uses under different county and/or state licenses shall be subject to City review and state statutory requirements, and at the City's discretion may require an amendment of the planned unit development. 3. The project shall be final platted in two phases. The group residence duplex may be final platted in 2004. The ten single family lots shall not be final platted until 2005. • • Oakwood View page 9 4. The conditional use permit approved in 1996 to allow the construction of the church is still in effect. Future expansion of the church shall be as approved with the conditional use permit. 5. The duplex residential facility shall be constructed as depicted on the plans included as part of this approval. 6. The relocation of sanitary sewer and water services may occur with the 2004, phase one final plat because these utilities already existed. However, the construction of the Oakwood Lane street extension shall not occur until final plat approval of the single family lots in phase two, in 2005. All lots and units shall connect to city sanitary sewer and water. 7. Park dedication of $1,665 per unit shall be paid. Park dedication for the group residence, two units, shall be paid when that lot is final platted. Park dedication for the ten single family lots shall be paid with that final plat. 8. The new plat must obtain approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to final plat approval by the City Council. 9. Drainage and utility easements around all wetlands must be large enough to include at a minimum a ten (10) foot buffer extending outward from the delineated wetland boundary. 10. The applicant must submit geotechnical information on existing groundwater levels and soils in adequate time for review prior to City Council consideration of the application. 11. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review must be addressed to his satisfaction. 12. The City seeding mix must be used for ponds and wetland areas. This must be noted on the plans. 13. The property owner must obtain approval from the City Council to vacate the existing ponding and flowage easements. 14. Site plan information for the group residence duplex shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. This shall include architectural elevations, floor plan, landscaping, and site lighting. Any lighting in the parking area must City requirements. 15. There must be a shared driveway easement to allow the new lot to use the existing driveway on Ash St. This easement must be recorded with the final plat. • • • OPTIONS. 1. Approve the application, including the following, with the conditions listed: a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Low Density Resid. (entire site) b. Rezoning to Planned Unit Development (southern portion of site) c. Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat (entire site) with conditions 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 This review is based on the following plans and information: Preliminary Plat, 3/24/04 Preliminary Grading Plan, 3/24/04 Preliminary Utility Plan, 3/24/04 Certificate of Survey and Tree Inventory, 3/24/04 Oakwood View page 10 • • • u) ✓ Z V! 1- 0 J Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be final platted) O J E O) O < N M l' O O N O R E 0 N LO 0) N r T 561 0 r CO N Ln r N r T T.71- N 0 r CO r CO r 'cl' CO 0 co CO CO O 2008 1 O co co co co CD O 0 N co OO co r LO O 0 N N LO r in O T CO T CO T Co N CO f- T et 0 0 N LC) (0 T 0 56 0 0 47 *— N c o N- T N LO CO LO r 0 0 r CO N N N T r CD year er 20021 I-- LO r LC1 E 0- 1031 O 2491 r 0 561 O r co N L( T N 0 T r c7 N O r 0 r 0 r "Zr CO N Development Name approved prelim. plats 1Stoneybrook 12nd Addn 'Century Farms North 'Keefe: preliminary plat Morton (minor subdiv) 'Ravens Hollow 'Haley Manor (10 new lots) 'Crystal Cove lers Crossroads (Lakeview Estates (2 new) 'Snell (minor subdivision) 'Pheasant Hills Pres. 13th 'proposed 'Justin's Preserve 'Marshan Estates 'Rice Creek Church duplex_ 'Rice Church: Oakwood View land Meadows East 2nd 'Pheasant Hills 12th island 'Rick Carlson /Rehbein lot Oaks Fox Road Junes Addn O N Q) N CS) N O M O O) ° N ° CA T N 0 Memorandum DATE: April 9, 2004 TO Jeff Smyser FROM James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Oakwood View wW Attached is the TKDA review dated April 7, 2004, of the submitted documents for the proposed development. The following comments must be addressed prior to final approval given for this project. Please contact me with any questions. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Phone: 651- 982 -2400 • Fax: 651 -982 -2499 • TDD: 651- 982 -2410 TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: James Studenski, City Engineer Reference: Oakwood View 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com Copies To: City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota From: Scott A. Brink, P.E. Comm. No. 12976 -002 Routing: Date: April 7, 2004 A Preliminary has been submitted by Glenn Rehbein Companies for Oakwood View. The proposed plat is located on 17 acres of property north of Ash Street (County Road J) and west of Hodgson Road (County Road 49). Reviews dated March 8, 2004 and February 26, 2004 were previously submitted, and were based upon the following documents provided by the applicant: 1 Wetland Delineation Report, hydrology calculations, hydrology summary and NPDES Phase II permit form, provided by Glenn Rehbein Companies (William A.T. McCully ) dated January 23, 2004 and received by the City of Lino Lakes January 30, 2004. 2. Preliminary Plat, Certificate of Survey and Tree Inventory, Preliminary Grading Plan, and Preliminary Utility Plan (Sheets 1 -4), received by the City of Lino Lakes February 6, 2004. 3. HydroCad model and supporting data dated January 13, 2004 by Glenn Rehbein Companies. 4. Wetland Delineation Report, Rice Creek Covenant Church Site, prepared by Polaris Group, dated May, 2003. 5. Rice Creek Watershed District Report (Application No (4 -014), dated February 20, 2004, providing conditions for Conditional Approval Pending Receipt of Changes (CAPROC). 6. Revised Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, by Glenn Rehbein Companies (William A.T. McCully) dated February 16, 2004 and received by the City of Lino Lakes March 1, 2004. Since that time, the following additional documents have been received: 1. Full size and 11X17 size plan sets (4 sheets) as follows: 1. Preliminary Plat dated March 24, 2004. 2. Certificate of Survey and Tree Inventory Plan dated March 24, 2004. 3. Preliminary Grading Plan, dated March 24, 2004. 4. Preliminary Utility Plan, dated March 24, 2004. 2. Cover letters dated January 28, 2004, February 16, 2004, March 3, 2004, and March 24, 2004 from Glenn Rehbein Companies regarding an RCWD Perna Application. 3. Drainage Calculations dated March 24, 2004, and Drainage Diagram dated March 23, 2004. 4. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan dated September 5, 2003. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Oakwood View Page 2 April 7, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 5. Hydrology Summary dated March 24, 2004. 6. Existing and Proposed Subwatershed Maps. Modifications as a result of the revised documents received are presented herein. Portions of the previous reviews are repeated in this revised review as necessary. Introduction The proposed Oakwood View plans provide for essentially two different improvements on different sides of the property. For the north 1/2 of the site, it is proposed to extend existing Oakwood Lane southerly into the northwest corner of the site a distance of over 500 feet. The previous submittal proposed a permanent cul- de -sac within the property. The most recent plan has revised the street extension to curve toward the west and terminate as a temporary dead -end at the west property line. It would then be intended to eventually extend the street at a later date to provide future access and eventual elimination of the long dead end cul-de- sac. The Oakwood Lane extension would serve the construction of 10 new single family residential properties. The sizes of the single family lots would range between 0.3 acres and 1.3 acres. The larger lots would include significant amounts of wetland areas. All lots must meet the City Code requirements for sufficient size without wetland easements. At the southwest corner of the property is an existing church and parking lot. Proposed is to extend a driveway easterly from the existing church property and constructing an enabling residence (duplex) and parking area. Remaining portions of the entire 17 acre property not proposed for grading or improvements are essentially wetland and/or wooded areas. According to the information provided, it is the applicant's intent to Final Plat the property in two stages as follows: The Enabling (Duplex) Facility in 2004 and the 10 -lot single family properties in 2005. The proposed grading and utility construction must therefore consider staging requirements and scheduling needs accordingly. The following additional comments are provided: Drainage and Drainage Calculations Revised drainage calculations, including a HydroCad model dated March 23, 2004 have been provided and have been reviewed. The following comments are provided: 1. The anticipated high ground water level must be known. 2. The calculations must account for future building and parking lot expansions for the church and/or enabling facility. 3. Details are needed for the pond outlets. Oakwood View Page 3 April 7, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Other general comments regarding drainage are as follows: 1 The applicant has indicated that an NPDES Phase II permit has been forwarded to the MPCA. All requirements of the Permit shall be completed prior to engaging in grading activities. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been provided in accordance with NPDES requirements: The Plan must be signed by the applicant. 2. The storm drainage plan requires further information regarding emergency overflows and outlets. For example, the proposed pond at the northwest comer of the property does not show an outlet or overflow location on the grading plan. Existing topography suggests that at least some of the existing drainage for the Oakwood property flows to the west. Therefore, the impact of excess drainage to properties located adjacent to the Oakwood property (both east and west sides) must be investigated further. Ponds as labeled on the Hydro -Cad model do not appear to correspond to the ponds as shown on the grading plan, and must be clarified. 4. Stormwater routing at the south end of the property (Ponds 2 and 5) proposes the eventual routing of stormwater to the north to Woodridge Estates by way of a ditch along the east side of the property. It is not known for certain the condition or capacity of the ditch, and the potential impacts of the 100 year HWL beyond the Oakwood View property. It is recommended that this be investigated further. 5 Review and approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is required. Per the previous review, the City received a copy of the Watershed's response to the developer's application, and a copy of a Conditional Approval Pending Receipt of Changes (CAPROC). The following conditions of note are required by RCWD as a result of the CAPROC: A. Geotechnical soil borings must be conducted and provided to determine depth to the water table and substrate materials. This is particularly needed to ascertain if the proposed rain gardens will function as infiltration basins. B. Vegetation specifications must be provided, including deep rooted native vegetation for proposed . rain gardens. A note must be provided on the grading plan providing for the establishment of vegetation, including incorporation of the City's seed specification as provided. C. Pond outlet details must be provided on the Grading Plan and provide skimming capability for up to the 1 -year event. D. The wetland boundaries must be field verified by RCWD staff. E. The 100 -year flood elevation and emergency overflow and location must be provided for each pond and wetland basin. This information is provided on some but not all basins on the grading plan. It also appears from the plan that some proposed low floor elevations do not meet the City's Oakwood View Page 4 April 7, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota minimum 2 feet above the 100 year flood level and District freeboard requirements over the onsite wetland basins. H. A letter from the City must be provided that addresses responsibility for the management of stormwater management facilities on the property. I. A copy of receipt from the County Recorder must be provided, along with signed notarized copies of legal documents. J. An electronic or reduced (11X17) copy of the approved grading plan must be provided. K. A cash surety in the amount of $3500 must be provided. Utilities It is proposed to utilize the existing sanitary sewer and water lines prior to construction of the 10 unit residential units. An extension of the existing lines to the Enabling Facility would be required. The existing sanitary sewer and water lines are intended to remain in service for the existing church and enabling facility until they are replaced by new lines to be constructed for the Oakwood Lane extension. The existing lines running along the west side of the property would then be abandoned accordingly. 2. The existing watermain appears to be a very long dead end line. With the extension to the enabling facility, the long length raises at least some concern with regards to adequate pressures and circulation. It is suggested that any options to loop the pipe by way of County Road J be explored with the City. Additional utility easements for the extensions would be required. In addition, the sewer and water extensions to the enabling facility as shown cross beneath existing and proposed wetland and detention areas where minimum cover (8 feet) over the pipes will be compromised. Insulation over the pipes will be required in such instances. Also, infiltration into the sanitary sewer under the wetland/pond areas may be of concern, and it is suggested that the sewer be constructed to watermain tightness standards at that location. 3 The Plan shall be subject to the review of the City Fire Chief, including the number and location of hydrants. It is recommended that additional hydrants be added near the church and enabling facility. 4. A detail sheet shall be provided showing the Standard plates and details of the City of Lino Lakes. This would include manhole structures, utilities (hydrants, valves, services, etc.), and storm drain and erosion control details. . As previously stated the amount of fill /cover over all sewer and water service pipes shall be a minimum bury depth of 8 feet, and shall be insulated per City of Lino Lakes standards if the minimum cover cannot be attained. Oakwood View Page 5 April 7, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 6. All trenches (including services) shall be backfilled and compacted and meet 100% maximum Standard Proctor Density in the upper 3 -feet from finished road elevation, and 95% maximum Standard Proctor Density below the upper 3- feet. 7. A minimum of two feet of cover over storm sewer pipe is desired. Other Comments . A final landscaping plan shall eventually be submitted. Sight corner visibilities shall be maintained per City requirements as applicable. 2. Any existing well and septic locations on both the subject property and adjoining properties shall be confirmed to assure compliance with the Minnesota Department Health. This shall mean that any existing facilities on the subject property shall be removed or capped in accordance with regulations, and that sewer separation distances from any remaining facilities in close proximity shall be attained. The separation distance shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health. . Approval of the plat, including access from County Road J will be subject to the review and approval of Anoka County. 4. As previously mentioned, a geotechnical report has not been provided. Therefore, the existing soils and groundwater levels are not known. All building pad foundations, streets, and utilities shall be constructed on approved materials as required by the City of Lino Lakes, and groundwater levels shall be known in order to ascertain building elevation requirements (low floors) with regards to ground and surface water elevations. Many of the proposed units are walk outs adjacent to wetlands, and the high water elevations of the wetlands are not shown on the plan. Building elevations will therefore be subject to further review. 5. The wetland delineation report must be approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District. 6. The existing church and proposed enabling facility will utilize the same driveway access. A cross access agreement or appropriate legal covenant is recommended. The driveway to the enabling facility has been widened to approximately 20 feet to provide added safety and capacity. Adequate access and mobility for emergency vehicles shall be provided, and the plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Fire Chief. 7. A tree inventory plan has been prepared. It is suggested that existing trees be preserved as much as possible and practical. 8. With the extension of the existing Oakwood Lane dead end, a cul -de -sac of nearly 1000 feet in length will result. This far exceeds the City's maximum standard length of 500 feet. However, this condition may be considered temporary pending future extension to the west, and the City would be required to waive from its current standard to allow this construction. 1 Memo Environmental To: Jeff Smyser CC: Michael Grochala From: Marty Asleson Date: January 30, 2004 Re: Recommendations of the February 25, 2004 Environmental Board Meeting The Environmental Board met on February 24, 2004 and made the following recommendations: Rice Creek Covenant Church Land Cover • The developer needs to submit a tree preservation plan, and follow the subdivision ordinance for tree preservation plans. ▪ We have identified a few rare -plant conditions on the southern part of the site. Environmental would like time to verify the presence or absence of rare plants. If found, the Environmental Board would like some flexibility in design. ▪ Northern residential site grade plan indicates most of the aspen vegetation on the East Side proposed for removal (Attachment 1). Properties to the West also have rare plant indicators. Since nitrogen (lawn fertilizer runoff) has been shown to remove biodiversity, and Aspen buffers act as good filters for runoff, the Environmental Board would like the developer to look at ways to maintain more of this Aspen edge. The water from this area flows to the East. The Environmental Board would like to see a 50 foot buffer in this area. The Environmental Board would like to see signage at wetlands and drainage areas informing "no- dumping, cutting or filling." Lighting • No -spill lighting should be. used. Lights should be turned off after activities are done. • Soils • There should be no importing or exporting of soils without City approval. The developer should include a plan for soil compaction prevention outside of construction limits. Surface Water • Would like RCWD input on wetland delineation, particularly on the developer delineation line on the northern part of the Plat. NWI shows quite a larger area surrounding the delineated area with facultative wetland. • Developer should submit the required NPDES control measures and best management practices. Additional rock stockpile should be on hand for when rock entrance fills in. • Depressional area in the parking lot should be graded so water flows to it. Landscaping • The City native seed specification should be used in all rain pond areas, or potted plants installed with sufficient mulch to attenuate weed growth. Parking • Look at reducing parking as much as possible since proposed parking is at more than the minimum. Motion by O'Dea, 2nd Bor to approve Marshan Estates with Environmental Board comments and recommendations. Motion was approved with all in favor. Highland Meadows East 2nd Addition Tree Preservation The Environmental Board would like the developer to make final determination of some of the trees marked for removal only after further discussion /field meeting with City Environmental and Engineer. • 0 0 *ARE •••• 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 _ 7 W REE 2 3 4 5 14 15 IE 17 IE I'. 21 21 29 32 0 °c c 0 0 0 0 zo 2 Op WM= cmoknoas SOW* -maim 6 II In Mho VIO 12 T 6 ©© ��© BALOI� /N 9 LAXE1 I0 15 I� © © 1.6= otto% 8 NO. II 107 18 1 20 19 ST. 17 HIGHWAY R/W PLAT NO 48 ASH 21 32 Proposed Land Use Plan Comprehensive Plan MUSA line Medium Density Residential Public /Semi - Public SITE EX 1ES INN. 788.8 North Ilne of SE _ 1/4 of SW 1/4. .90.9 Section 31, TWP. 31, RNG. 22 98 EX CB 15 -2A 518:895.17 NN 889.24 45 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF: OAKWOOD VIEW Woodridge gal % I Ee;a;a5 POGO totems EX SUN 10 -4. R es5.40 -88525- 49,.• 413.-tT` 112.00 Aorta/ e a �e91,888'53926 "E 628:74 ,00., 1g9� 1 ,41.1 929 510%90.9 loos it 9 Mo 55,383 SF 10...1.. e I Total Lot NWT M9e9 90.9 COOL 476 \<- /Ditch '9921 / •" `/ Rod 69xI 9t9 1690.5 520 SF 2 11 " 17,037 Uplanc 52,502 Wetland Total Lot,, 07 0- a. , . \\ ry 40,043 SF''''._ 3 , , \ {. cTotal Lot oX \\ 1 75 SF 126,449 red 4 Total I..ot \ aims rr1porar� - / « 1 die -s'o \eto M93.4 ~'-696 k.56 Wad M /l.A tV x99.` /x. 0.N \ Wetland I / ♦'Moil /. op 1694.9 J -594 Inks '0} o 1691.] Or CO M9as \ 8 \ m Z m B 896 , Mtn`; J �� 98\ Mn.o 1.0. m X69$ Mns \ 7 I, 16vi1 x999.2 / 5 0 9 0M � 629.4. o 63A3suNIn- (/1 98.5 V •92560 19 Rim NE: 892.9 m ro A 40x1 i el,: 1 - / 1099 1 '697.1 998 x 7 ,0 8 4.5 / 409.1 \ Mean / / Mn.s 1 -896- -\ \ 316,137 SF 2 7.26 acres (Church Lot) 192 / cp\ / 444". 99I / ''4.6 erg, I 45961 Wetland I _._ Utility Easement ta4.1 w Rice Creek Covenant Church 125 Ash Steet Lino Lakes, MN 55126 Phone: (651) 486 -0692 SWIM al TRW 41. w1atl VICINITY MAP 699 T. kale LEGAL DESCRIPTION The East 620.72 feet of the West 1120 feet as measured at right angles to the West line thereof, of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 31, Range 22, Except the East 340 feet of the West 1120 feet of the South 223 feet of sold Southeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter, Anoka County, Minnesota Subject To Easements. Contains 16.98 Acres AREA BREAKDOWN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS - 10 ENABUNG RESIDENCE (DUPLEX) LOT EXISTING CHURCH LOT PROPOSED ZONING FOR NORTH PART •• R -1X (Low Density SFR) PROPOSED ZONING FOR SOUTH PART - P.U.D. LEGEND 000 DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR X 000.0 DENOTES 22561190 ELEVATION -� DENOTES FLOW DIRECTION *no 6922 ® DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION 1-'U 1, DENOTES TREE UNE -X---- DENOTES FENCE 0 DENOTES FOUND MONUMENT 1690.1 i 8917 / '9914 1 I Drainage and Mv. 210 Moat w. - 896/ M95s rroposed e i _---- Steil Dorege 4.r, / x 624.8 / i( \\ - ' . �M9a5 Vietland \ 4.o \` \V g9A A., Droina�,e and Utility Ea9ement-' R posed °E�abUng 9 \ RIAlIdence qt -.1- / It \ 97,226 SF N , \\ 2 3 0,05 8.4, \ 21 AC Lot)1/ 1 t O' I EX FES 8919 RIFFLED WEIR INV:89541 09x.9 --OW-- 'Pm e9e.i Existing Parking -696^ \en.s age. (County Road J ) Pau; ; ,'o. 48 280.74 N8838'13 "W ASH STREET Mono (CSAII 32) �- -� r -(88x9''6 062x/ - 699.9 IY 340.03 58818'13 "E r-\/rtr�JT I/lh1 L- /tVL_i I IVIV Existing House 10. 1391.2 ) North line of South 223 Existing House South Tina of Section 31, TWP. 31, RNG. 22 RE C E,y MAR 2 2004 C9'TY 0 h .MID LACE N.C.V.D. VERTICAL DATUM WERAND DEUNEATED BY POLARIS GROUP TYPNYL eNa5 8 .Y 102 NO1E PROPOSED ZONING, FOLLOW THE CHAPTER 1000. SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING GUIDELINES. GRAPHIC SCALE b >m 10 fm (IN P22? 1 bleb - 80 ff. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the law. of the State of Minnesota Date Reglstratlon No. 18213 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND TREE INVENTORY OF: OAKWOOD VIEW (showing Proposed Grading IEstates CONS T.'n` 112 .00 ENTRANC North line of SE 1/4 of SW 1/4, . Section 31, TWP. 31, RNG. 22 691p4' 202 " Y251 OBI *212 \ 6A 251 2e 0:80 µµµ��• 4 1241 °b46 0200 �'MMMMff *241 P1,0 ::MIL0114.69 88'53'26 "E 829:74 92� 369 r* \ 14a 10140200 12•' 01201 •676 176 Y itch '690.0 ttk 'Coos 1602.7 1602., Wetland \ / dl. r„ a 0025 • e id 021 '- -.`.. �a0e 32 Val a, / \6 C3.111 �' 0‘... 0010 Rice Creek Covenant Church 125 Ash Steet Lino Lakes, MN 55126 Phone: (651) 486 -0692 5E4T01 31. M. 71. 1006 1S VICINITY MAP N01 T5 Scabs \7010b 1P, Dole `� 00060'l°OT/ e\ '041014 00 tit B OFeeu 0110 C:av 0902 x *13 1 a��9Bn.� OM 'ate • "_.896--- •-_.1 L 7e �ibea h0e5u p uW1 �2e ..; \ IFe ..�i�e -g9 i O Me98 Vm9 t ^ ' / o r' �4aa Y,5� T� 1 Yon\ 42 01H 111 .0.5rygy� e 2s. /016,,, a4 111 I ^ Z 6N0 084, 000 �� e`1. °6'''•u tenet r Wetland 540.2 4� 0724 896 0nt �41°J 896 - X14 \ *tp *1B as 0 . TB 6 Wetland 756 6717., 1011.5 0,n '0e /Wa 0' e4e \ ` \\ eel / faV �`)>wu 1 lI + 80.6 \ I'ea e \ ¥Bl498�. ,/n JeL$\ en eeej 16057 T 7.4 ig9g 1656.2 ON�IB,e' co au 0.1 mat • itgiben411so `sic 702.703 01 a°`[ ♦� Yd 0 / e71 a g96ze.\ r 780 dliilTg t . ° Due �: ems +l. Ilia W/ / II 0057 / - L 61 / Sloe 001.4 e�pe 014.1 a / 00 8050 11091,0,4/324._00°' If10 017° 80 °14.8 e 1jt�12e0a/ 0,02 Pi Y, *e 898.4 �1ae e°a 588'38'13 'E Existing Parking 1617., r( --. (County Road J) R/71 Plat No. 48 4 280.74 N88'38'13 "W ASH1 Sr Rr r-r 7-. r1 1 ELL. I (CSAH 140. 32) {'ViNr4)r1r11.1 L_ / \VL-1 11V101 Existing - House eS�. x 4 xIM79T r2. North line of South 223' Existing House South Inc of Section 31, TAP. 31. RNG. 22 Ir L LEGAL DESCRIPTION The East 620.72 feet of the West 1120 feet as measured at right angles to the West line thereof, of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 31, Range 220 Except the East 340 feet of the West 1120 feet of the South 223 feet of sold Southeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter. Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject To Easements. Contains 16.98 Acres LEGEND .- -400 -- DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION DENOTES TREE LINE DENOTES SIGNIFICANT TREE DENOTES FENCE O DENOTES FOUND MONUMENT -Q DENOTES LIGHT POLE NO DENOTES TELEPHONE 00X DENOTES HYDRANT DENOTES PROPOSED SILTFENCE DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR x 000.0 • -X- -SE -SF -® N.G.V.D. VERTICAL DATUM WETLAND DELINEATED BY POLARIS GROUP SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR TREE TYPE /SIZE TABLE (19��q!• �.x r MAR 2: 2004 1, CITY Oa= lLIN() LAKES GRAPHIC SCALE so Vim- 4 20 7 AR (Di FEET ) 1 Inch - 50 ft. 1 hereby certify that thle survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Date Regletratlon No. 18213 2 or 4 SHEETS 014500 414/ 5044: 457:4 rr n(75ti i Job No, 03505 • a 9r 6631 NAPLES 6r 1.1. DIANE. MN 55449 -0724 J 7EI4 (612) 784 -0657 F.441 (612) 764 -6001 OAKWI,D VIEW PRELI 5101 NPR 10 ppwa *40OT 30338 PS5 NH: 8960 18,5593.0 (5)(N) 181891.0 (SOAP) I271F 84.m2 51084 9 NM:8960 181892.0 (5) 895.8 EMER. 0 98.1 BANK 691.1 ENTRANCE 94 89� v MARY GRADINS PLAN Voodr idgo Estates Pa9 150430969 ▪ 11..9 POND 31. 1491.7. E*1800407 041911.08 4421. 990.00 eCoND1 1001.5 (NSfL•091.02 ImYR 9 691.89 8920 91.2 87.� t J80.2 9.0.3 I.0.. 16927 \< /Ditch GRAPHIC SCALE 2. >o tog *91.3 W/124412 41CY CIA RIPRAP 04V:893.4 82 1690.1 W/ORA1E 10Pp1QN 041593.4 *02.4 1`4127 Wetland /\ 11904 90.8 �4 0, *4/597.3 I 5953 --896 --- -�. / 69 •692.7 924 ( Wetland 9942 .."--6:;,,, -- 3923 O \ / $911 / ✓ - -.29A 1694.9 1694.4 803 FENCE\ 898. Y tM m MMU H 11 P9H s 82338400 .W4M9 1 / J/ 1191. 09H aN. 0.3,9899. 1,11 -Ho e b,1, a In4W.ga Lay 141101, the 108*000 804 94 44 X 199.4 0904 9' 01.2 /e \ \ \ 1697.1 02 I Futy r re le9e� Pg(king 101.4/ / 1698.... O 90 991.9 J 1699.. 1 1697.1 �96 x7 6947 \ -896= -1 /610 6 ----"16ea0 - '691.2 \ // 995\ 11 Wetland \ 2P ( \945 EMERGENCY 47 OVERFLOW 1121895.05 9. Ex -100111 NW/ 896.11 PROP -00008 HYe: 896.19 a+.406 el nine R NNW to / $99.0 8 07 R 7 t 1119:2 t $07.3 16967 -�9 t94.8 1.1 901.7 .896 . 994.9 t 01.4 699.9 $001.5 4900.2 e91.o r- 898.''• 16992 \897.5 Existing Parking 119.0 / e99.9/ 1197.1 X5.1 41' 119 9 •.0 99.0 599.9 9.. Et'y 9 04..- pm NS 6'PA EME ANO4 EO . 698"•- �9.e 11 9np"m*x 0.10.16749 5E. 23' Slam Run.11.3.900 CY. R. 2 1114001 C.P9H1Y'703 m. RW0 3 Nuns CGDa0l7.I,719 RWO 4 Rawl) po.ft>lp1.785 CT. N. Runoff CapoolN■3A55 CY. POND 16 D900 51 30196.12703 (RCVS 69 M 99 -90) b 5 pa Existing House Z7 190.0 - 1 R,'W Rat No. 48 ui 049 (County Road J) EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHr)wN IN _A,LAPPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE OR SHE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. e9L9 ROW /4.07, X896/ 1695.5 VVtl a n d 10511001 0 • 1.396 1 YR X2.19.02 X --- 8942 es.s Y r 18�{{96 198.60 (994) f) r 30' -1' ( IN FEET ) 1 Inch - 50 ft. LEGEND 1 CLPT- PROP. FINISHED CENTERLINE LP - LOW POINT HP - HIGH POINT FL - FLOW LINE QD - STORM STRUCTURE 8( - PROPOSED ELEV. - PROPOSED STOP SIGN. - SF- SF- (1 895.69 GRADING NOTES - RAINWATER GARDEN SILT FENCE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR SPOT ELEVATION WETLAND TUFFTURF PRE - VEGETATED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 1.INSTALL AND MAINTAIN SILT FENCE AS NECESSARY 2.INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 3.PLANT RAINWATER GARDENS WITH SUGGESTED PLANTS. SEE RAINWATER, GARDEN GARDEN INFORMATION 4.SOLID HATCH AREA DELINEATES RAINWATER GARDENS 5.PROVIDE GRANULAR -FILL WITH A INFILTRATION RATE OF 0.5 " /HR WHERE SHOWN 6.RAINWATER GARDENS TO BE CONSTRUCTED A•TER STREET CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE 7.SEED AND MULCH SHALL BE FURNISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES 8.MAJORITY OF SITE DRAINS TO NW CORNER 9.NO WETLAND FILL SHOWN 10.WETLAND DELINEATION PREPARED BY POLARIS GROUP 11.MPCA PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO WORK ON SITE 12.CITY ENGINEER TO APPROVE TIME FOR THE REMOVAL OF EROSION CONTROL MEASURES 13.SURMOUNTABLE CURBS SHALL BE USED ON CITY STREET 14.CONCTRACTOR TO CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO ANY WORK 1- 800 - 252 -1166 15.CONTACT WILLIAM McCULLY, P.E. AT GLENN REHBEIN COMPANIES ® 763 - 784 -0657 STORM NOTES - 1.DRAINTILE (IF REQUIRED) SHALL BE 6" ADS N -12 - PERFORATED WITHOUT SOCK 2.SEWER PIPES, STRUCTURES AND APPURTENANCES SHALL ADHERE TO CITY OF LINO LAKES STANDARDS 3.SEE SHEET 3/4 FOR PS5 DETAIL ENABLING RESIDENCE STREET PAVEMENT DESIGN 1 Y29 BIT. WEAR TYPE 41 2" BIT. BASE TYPE 31 6 ".CLV RECYCLED OR CRUSHED 94.9 8009 '14,e N RECEIVED MAR 2 4 2004 ITY OF LINO LAKES e' MINIMUM DEPTH I" - 2" WASHED ROCK OF ROAD 18' MINIMUM CUT OFF BERM TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM SITE MAINTAIN ROCK ENTRANCE IF TRACKING BEGINS ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 16' 30' .> - 14' ROW (C All NO. 32) • WORK 1MTHIN THE CSAH 32 (COUNTY) RICHT -OF -WAY WILL BE SUBJECT-TD -THE CONDRIONS or ANOKA COUNTY, INCLUDING ANY PERMITS AND RESTORATION REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ADHERE TO ANY REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND WORKING HOURS AS ESTABUSHED BY THE CITY OF LINO LAKES GOPHER STATE ONE CALL TWIN CITY AREA (651) 454 -0002 MN TOLL FREE 1- 800- 252 -1166 1 1/2 2341 Bituminous Wear, Placed after one winter 2. 2331 Bituminous Base, Tack Coal 5•• Aggregate Base 100% Crushed Recycled Class 24" Select Granular Borrow, 5% Mod. D412 W/9612 At Catahbasins and Radii's 4" of native topsoil and turf establishment. Seed, mulch and disc anchor remaining R/W 5 I 1 TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL STREET SECTION FL- 30' -FL BOC- 32' -80C 4" PVC/ADS dralntlls w /sock as shown on plans between CBs and along bottom of select * * *Recyled aggregate for base must meet class 5 specification A ok (n. ?IF PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN OAKWOOD VIEW RICE CREEK COVENANT CHURCH LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA 0 • 2 F 289m89 Qm I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED 8Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER 1FIE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA W.A.T. McCULLY ATE; REG. N0.2213.} Q Lig 0 kJ"� ■ OAKWOOD VIEW PRELI vIINARY UTILITY PLAN WORK WITHIN THE CSAH 32 (COUNTY) RIGHT -OF -WAY WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF ANOKA COUNTY, INCLUDING ANY PERMITS AND RESTORATION REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ADHERE TO ANY REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND WORKING HOURS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY OF LINO LAKES 03,62' OMBJ t'Z06 tl CL52 DIP WM DA.I.H !1 Lit 3Ad AI SS Ip A 8� aid! 1/!1,1!--- « -« it - = =__ate „o ida < 359A71 SDR 35 LFO • � -. 8 B CL52 DIP rc 3 I Aft PS -5 NW Pond Outlet Skimmer Structure GRAPHIC SCALE n m 3 EE (W FEET ) 1 inch - 50 ft. UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE 8” PVC SDR 26 2. ALL SANITARY SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE 8" PVC SCH 40 3. ALL WATERMAIN SHALL BE 8" DIP CL52 - 4. WATERMAIN TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8' OF COVER 5. SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN CROSSINGS TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION 6 LINO LAKE UTILITY SUPT. MUST BE CONTACTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO UTILITY WORK, WORK IN ROW OR UTILITY CONNECTIONS 7. SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN SHALL BE INSTALLED AND TESTED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF LINO LAKES, CEAM, MDH AND MPCA 8 CITY TO PAY FOR OVERSIZING AND EXTRA DEPTH OF THE WM AND SANITARY SEWER TRUNK SYSTEMS SERVING THE CITY 9 ALL WATERMAIN AND SEWER APPURTENCES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED WITH THE CITY OF LINO LAKES STANDARDS 10. GATE VALVES SHALL BE MUELLNER A- 2370 -20 WITH MECHANICAL JOINTS MEETING AWWA SPEC. C500 -61 11. LAKE DRIVE MUST BE RESTORED TO ANOKA COUNTY'S SATISFACTION 12. TRAFFIC CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION MUST BE PROVIDED PER MUTCD AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF ANOKA COUNTY 13. ALL STORM PIPES IN ROW SHALL BE CLV RCP 14. ALL STORM PIPES IN GREEN AREAS SHALL BE N12 HDPE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 15. RIP /RAP SHALL ALL BE CLIII 16. ® -® ABONDON EXISTING UTILITIES WHEN APPROPRIATE WHILE STILL PROVIDING SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICE TO THE CHURCH EXISTING UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE OR SHE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL TWIN CITY AREA (651) 454 -0002 MN TOLL FREE 1- 800 - 252 -1166 GRC FIELD #03505 % WATM CHECKED WATM DATE 02/01/04 VERDCAL SCALE HORIZ. 50' JOB N0. 03505 BOOK PAGE SHEET 4 4 SHEETS • AGENDA ITEM V. C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: April 14, 2004 TOPIC: Variance Request Lot Area, Lot Width, Road Frontage St. Paul Regional Water Services BACKGROUND St. Paul Regional Water Services owns numerous pieces of property on and near lakes in Lino Lakes and Centerville. One of these parcels includes the dam between Peltier Lake and George Watch Lake. St. Paul Water wishes to divide this parcel, keep the part with the dam, and sell the rest to Anoka County to include in the regional park. Because the parcel has no road frontage and is shaped very oddly, several variances are needed. • No development will occur on the site. ANALYSIS The site is on the west side of Lake Peltier, between the lake and Main St. (CSAH 14) as it goes through the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve. The parcel snakes along the lake shore, includes the dam, and has no road frontage. The parcel is zoned PSP Public Semi- Public. Minimum requirements in this zone are: minimum lot area (unsewered lot) minimum lot width 10 acres 150 feet In addition, the subdivision ordinance requires that "all lots shall have frontage on an improved public street that provides the required lot width at the minimum front yard setback ". The proposed minor subdivision will create two lots out of one, both of which will not meet the above three requirements. In considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: • a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The site is completely surrounded by the lake and the regional park reserve. It cannot be developed as a usable parcel. The dam on the site regulates the water level of Peltier Lake. The • • site cannot be used for anything else other than fishing and the like. It has no road frontage now. Of the two lots being created, one will include the dam. The second will be attached to an adjacent parcel owned by Anoka County as part of the park reserve. b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The physical shape, location, and isolated nature of the parcel prevent use for anything other than the dam and the park reserve. c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Economic considerations are not part of the situation. The intent is to convey the broken off land to Anoka County for park use. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. There are very few other situations that can be compared to this one. Land locked parcels owned and operated exclusively for public purposes would receive the same consideration. e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. As stated in the zoning ordinance, the PSP zoning district "is designed and intended to aid in guiding development towards fulfillment of the Comprehensive Plan and to serve the following functions: 1. To provide the community with properly located schools, colleges, and health institutions. 2. To provide the community with properly located public services, public utilities, and public or private communication antennas. 3. To provide the community with properly located open green space, parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities. 4. To relate public and semi- public locations with thoroughfare system." This proposed minor subdivision provides for public services and utilities by serving the regulation of the lake water level for the St. Paul Regional Water Services. It also provides for additional public open space by adding land to the park reserve. Anoka County has agreed to combine the new piece that does not include the dam with another existing parcel to avoid creating a new isolated parcel. The County also will grant an access easement to the dam parcel. • • • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL If the variances are approved, the following conditions should apply: 1. Anoka County shall grant an access easement to the dam parcel from CSAH 14. 2. Anoka County shall combine the land that does not include the dam with an existing parcel to avoid creating a completely new parcel. OPTIONS 1. Approve the requested variances for lot area, lot width, and lack of road frontage. 2. Deny the variances. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 John K. VonDeLinde Director March 3, 2004 Anoka County Department of Parks and Recreation 550 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW • Andover, Minnesota 55304 Telephone (763) 757 -3920 • FAX (763) 755 -0230 Jeff Smyser Community Development City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 Dear Jeff: RECEIVED MAR 1 1 2004 CITY OF LIDO LAKES As we discussed, this letter is to inform you that Anoka County agrees to the lot split on parcels • identified by the St. Paul Regional Water Services, known as, Lot 6 & 8, of Auditor's Subdivision Number 46 revised, in the City of Lino Lakes. This parcel is also identified by the survey provided to you from Woodrow A. Brown, RLS, dated May 29, 2003. • In discussions with the County Recorder's Office, they would be willing to combine the new parcels with the existing adjacent property owned by Anoka .County. Anoka County has drafted an Easement Agreement with St. Paul Regional Water Services providing for ingress and egress, which, upon transfer will be recorded. A copy of the agreement i attached. As alway , I ap 'reciate your consideration of this matter. If you have any questions, please do no hesi 'ate to ontact me at 763- 767 -2864. incer -ly, i Eoloff P rk Planner /RLA c lc: John VonDeLinde Jerry Strauss Timi Bailey Enclosure COUNTY OF ANOKA • OFFICE OF ANOKA COUNTY SURVEYOR LARRY D. HOIUM Anoka County Surveyor GOVERNMENT CENTER 2100 3rd Avenue Room 224 Anoka, MN 44303 -2265 Phone: 763-323-5510 Fax: 763 - 323 -5418 INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT ACCESS TO PARCEL NO. 20 ST. PAUL WATERWORKS LAND TRANSFER June 12, 2003 A 30 foot permanent easement for ingress and egress purposes to maintain the Anoka Dam site located on Peltier Lake in Section 15, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota. The centerline of said easement being described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 15; thence South 00 degrees 42 minutes 52 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the west line of said Northeast Quarter of Section 15 a distance of 2077.78 feet to the point of beginning of said centerline; thence South 49 degrees 26 minutes 06 seconds East 399.49 feet; thence South 42 degrees 36 minutes 01 seconds East 152.45 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point "A" and said centerline there terminating. Said Point "A" being described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of Government Lot 2 of said Section 15; thence North 89 degrees 14 minutes 03 seconds East along the south line of said Government Lot 2 a distance of 600.38 feet; thence North 48 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 270.00 feet to said Point "A ". . . The northeasterly and southwesterly sidelines of said easement are to be prolonged or shortened to terminate on said west line of the Northeast Quarter and the northeasterly sideline is to be prolonged or shortened to terminate at a line having a bearing of North 47 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East from said Point "A" TOGETHER WITH a permanent easement for ingress and egress purposes being 15 feet in width and lying southwesterly of and adjoining the following described line: Beginning at the above described Point "A "; thence South 48 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds • East 235.00 feet and said easement there terminating. The southwesterly lines of both- above described easements are to be prolonged or shortened to intersect with each other. • RECEIVED MAR 1 1 Z004 CITY OF LINO LAKES RC�NDEAU 11211111111111311E1 Ell 1.1.1 roinikinvoura �er�l � izartiummonanisrAllill `ter «�-� ►' j • § c i�aoe p1 ��RQ@:ik LLui± e ACO.. ® O 600 ° KE ��� �© CR£EK o } ©l� QQOm Dui AA ao J o� km. T. � _ O�� �p ®� ae o PN .� lir �_ � �,. �o s,= .\ a gvo : ©�v o s ©oeoo�n�a® las I� � ,,.� T.I. • • PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN (DETAIL) LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • • • ZONING MAP DETAIL i"\ See. 15. T. 15, R. 22 Fd. Anoka / \ County Monument O STATE AND HIGHWAY NO. 14 z O U to N N 0 cV 1 \ ,' N ADMINISTRATIVE SURDIVISIOS FOR: ST. PAUL RRGIONAL WATER SERVICES Parcel One All that part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at a point on the south line of Government Lot 2, in said Section 15 distant 600 feet east of the southwest corner of said Government Lot 2; thence North 48 degrees West 350 feet; thence North 47 degrees East 460 feet; thence South 74 degrees East 1050 feet; thence North 21 degrees Eost 1130 feet to a point on the north fine of soid Government Lot 2 distant 772 feet east of the southwest corner of Government Lot 1 in said Section 15; thence east olong soid north line to the meander line of Peltier Lake; thence southerly along soid meander line to its intersection with said south line of Government Lot 2; thence west along said south line to the point of beginning. Said above described land being now known as Lot 8, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 46, REVISED EXCEPT that part of the Southwest Quarter of said Northeast Ouarter of Section 15 described os follows: Commencing at said southwest corner of Government Lot 2 in Section 15; thence North 89 degrees 14 minutes 03 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Government Lot 2 a distance of 600.38 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 48 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 270.00 feet; thence North 47 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds Eost 460.00 feet; thence South 74 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 97.52 feet; thence South 26 degrees 08 minutes 55 seconds West 520.81 feet to the point of beginning. Said exception containing 1.99 acres. AND All that port of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of Government Lot 2 in Section 15 distant 772 feet east of the southwest corner of Government Lot 1 in said Section 15; thence North 21 degrees East 540 feet; thence due North 532 feet to the south line of the land in said Government Lot 1 conveyed by • Stanislaus K. Copistrant and Angelique, his wife to Phelios and Desire Deguire by deed doted June 16, 1876 and recorded in Book 'N' of Deeds, Page 111 in the office of the Anoka County Recorder; thence east to the meander line of Peltier Lake; thence southerly along said meander line to its intersection with the south line to the point of beginning. Said last described land being now known as Lot 6, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 46, REVISED. ( \ /)T \7\J V I I ^T L_\J I S740000ir 9742 Pcrcel 2 That port of the Southwest Quarter of said Northeast Quarter o' Section 15 described as follows: Commencing at southwest corner of Government Lot 2 said Section 15; thence North 89 degrees 14 minutes 03 seccnds Eost, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Government Lot 2 a distance of 600.38 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be cescribed; thence North 48 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West 270.00 feet; thence North 47 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 460.00 feet; thence South 74 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 97.52 feet; thence South 26 degrees 08 minutes 55 seconds West for 520.81 feet to the point of beginning. Said containing 1.99 acres. Ingress and Egress Easement A 30 foot permanent easement for ingress and egress purposes to maintain the Anoka Dam site located on Peltier Lake in Section 15. Township 31, Range 22. The centerline of said easement described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter cf Section 15, Township 31, Ronge 22 West, An.3ka County, Minnesota; thence South 00 degrees t2 minutes 52 seconds East assumed bearing o'ong the west line of the Northeast Quarter cf said Section 15 a distance of 2,077.78 feet tc the point of beginning; thence South 49 degrees ''6 minutes 06 seconds East 399.49 feet; thence South 42 degrees 36 minutes 01 seconds East 132.45 feet to a point olso known as point "A" and there terminating. The northeasterly and sDuthwesterly lines of said easement ore to bn prolonged or shortened to terminote on said test line of the Northeast Ouorter and the no-heasterly sidelines to be prolonged or shortened to terminate at a line having a bearing or North 47 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East fram said point "A ". TOGETHER WITH a permanent easement for ingress and egress purposes being 15 feet in width and lying southwesterly 31 and adjoining the following described line: Beginning at the above described point "A "; thence South 48 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds Eost 235.00 feet and said easement there terminating. The southwesterly tiles of both above described easements are to Le prolonged or shortened to intersect with eoch other. ✓Y rk Point A' 1.99 Acres Sw Comer 2. \l/ Cov't Lol Fd. 2' Iron Pipe Up 4 Ft. 600.38 N89'14'03 "E Fd. 2 Iron Pipe Up 3 Ft. 1• A 1 1f11T'(1L)1--. /—\ LJ LJ I I \_11 \ 574.0O,00 E. 1050 Legend • Denotes Iron Monument Found O Denotes Iron Monument Set sw Comer Gov't Lot 1 See. 15, Twp. 31, Roe. 22 NORTH Scale 1 Inch = 100 Ft. 772 /I ^1r1t\ I L-:VI v I.;I�/I `North Pee Gov't Lot 2 O0' N I /1 I \I . tt If If ff ff If if ff ff ff If ff If ff Sr f Meander Tine of Jt Peltier Lake tt J1 PELTIER f5 ff ft tf J1 .t ft tJ • ft tt tt tt t tt ft ttt fi South line Gov't Lot 2 If W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC. tt LAKE t f t I hereby certify that this survey, plan. t t or report was prepared by me or t under my direct supervision and that f 1 am a duly registered Land Surveyor t under the lows of the State of Minnesoto. MAR 0 a 2004 CITY OF LINO LAKES Woodrow A. Brown, R.L.S. MN REG 15230 Dated: August 6. 2003 • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. D Jeff Smyser April 14, 2004 Variance Request Lot Area, Lot Width 1612 Birch St. Martha Houle and John DeHaven have submitted a request for variances from requirements for minimum lot area and lot width. Their property at 1612 Birch St. comprises 15 acres. They wish to divide the property into two parcels. This would be a minor subdivision and does not require public review: it is done administratively. However, the subdivision proposal does not meet lot dimension requirements. The property owners have requested the variances from those requirements. A variance requires the review of the P & Z and the City Council. ANALYSIS Land Use and Zoning: The following table lists land uses and zoning for the site. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site rural residential Medium Density Resid., stage 2 (post 2010) Rural North agricultural Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1X South rural residential Low Density Unsewered Resid. Rural East rural resid. and vacant Public Semi - Public and Low Density Unsewered Resid. Rural West urban residential Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1X The site is in a stage 2 growth area, which is intended for development after year 2010. The site is not in the current MUSA. The site is zoned Rural. In the Rural zoning district the following requirements apply: minimum lot area (unsewered lot) minimum lot width 10 acres 330 feet The intent of the staged growth areas is to guide land for future development, but to prevent it from being subdivided so as to interfere with future development. The comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance require the ten acres for rural areas. A rural clustering alternative is offered for areas outside of the staged growth areas, but is specifically prohibited within staged growth • • areas. The other Rural zone option, a one -acre lot, applies only where a habitable single family home existed prior to 1992. The building permit for the existing house was issued in 1998. The property was 40 acres at that time. In 2000, the City Council approved a minor subdivision to split the 40 acres into the present two parcels of 15 and 25 acres. Growth Management: As shown on the attached table, the City has reached its quota for new lots for year 2004. Other applications listed for year 2005 all are within the staged 1 growth area (pre- 2010). Several are within the existing MUSA. Creating another lot would exceed even the 20% flexibility for 2004. Variance In considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The site is being used for a single family home. Under the current comprehensive plan, the site will be eligible for development and MUSA year 2010. b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The lot was created in year 2000, the result of splitting 40 acres into 15 acres and 25 acres. The site is rectangular and developable in the time frame laid out by the comprehensive plan. c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. It appears that economic considerations are the driving force behind the application. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Granting this variance would be granting special privilege that is not available to others. e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The Rural district purposes include the following: • This district is designed and intended to aid in guiding development toward fulfillment of the Comprehensive Plan and to serve the following functions: 1. To preserve productive land for agricultural use and maintain "open space" within and near to urban areas. • • 2. To help guide development of urban and rural areas along an orderly design to preserve continuity and efficiency of service. 3. To provide a method by which the urban farm can be guided so as to control urban sprawl and still conserve land in an economic status until such time as the need is present for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 4. To reduce the possibilities of rural -urban conflicts in establishing types and levels of service, methods of financing the services and needs. To maintain an acceptable per capita cost for such services as sanitary sewer, water, police, fire, road maintenance, school transportation, and other necessary services. The comprehensive plan establishes a growth strategy which includes prohibiting new lots less than 10 acres in staged growth areas. Departing from this would interfere with the orderly design intended to preserve continuity and efficiency of service. Future development will be reviewed based on complete information for the proposed development. OPTIONS 1. Approve the requested variances for lot area and lot width. 2. Deny the variances. RECOMMENDATION Option 2 • The proposed variances would provide for a minor subdivision that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan strategy. • A new lot would exceed the allowable growth under the growth management policy. • The variance request is based on economic considerations. • • RECEIVE MAR 2 2004 CITY OF- L • CENTERVILLE LAKE ritigniet � a•. 2op���a , a,ri trim +AO 11,916:1 01:XII= -- rtherg22 v©oc00000aoommmmmm ©ePiftwn ►i eiglou Atromotr..., Aar, „ill ix 3.1) two* eorwomerinL_Alinr■UP 1;141 gsablinareglitEllgfiRIMMFAeadlin lir d . zi Op . P1 corz Pi? 41 (1. e WPM mip rridtQci ' mm-ri mm;o aIrnn HUM v1,44 , �c cI. Q mov ITT OF L$ 0 uKEe ff onacOgLVE. le wzr MIMED Ntp,I 11111111kal. IIIupiuij p 14 sue, Vlslo 111111111 . C •' " MAP 0. roe OF 1 II\ 10% I A I# :I 1 • PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN (DETAIL) LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • • ZONING MAP DETAIL SITE • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. E Jeff Smyser April 14, 2004 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Preliminary Plat Allocation of MUSA Reserve Fox Den Acres Royal Oaks Realty has requested approval of single family residential development called Fox Den Acres. The comprehensive plan guides the site for low density residential use and it is zoned R -1. The request also includes an amendment of the comprehensive plan and MUSA reserve allocation. This would allow the development to extend beyond the boundary of the area currently guided for development to provide for an additional eight lots. There are several challenging design issues including a "ponding and flowage" easement, single access point due to past development designs, the growth management policies, and wetlands. The City must consider these issues in the project design while acknowledging that the property is guided and zoned for development, and has been for some years. The public hearing is for the comprehensive plan amendment and the preliminary plat. The allocation of MUSA reserve does not require a public hearing because such allocation must be in areas already designed for it under the comprehensive plan. The site is in the existing MUSA. To accommodate the proposal, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2. Allocation of MUSA Reserve 3. Preliminary Plat ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. • Fox Den Acres page 2 Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site * vacant 40 acres: Low Density Sewered Resid. 40 acres: R- 1 North radio tower and other communication facilities Low Density Unsewered and Sewered Residential R -1 South wetland Low Density Unsewered Resid. Rural East wetland Low Density Unsewered Resid. Rural West single family residential Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1 *The majority of the site, a 40 -acre square, is guided for Low Density Sewered Residential land use (up to three units per acre), and is within the stage 1 growth area (pre2010). However, the proposed plat extends beyond the growth area, MUSA, LDSR area, and R -1 zone. The following is a summary of the of the proposal's density: Gross Site Area 50 acres Upland Area 38 acres Total Lots 64 Gross Density 1.28 units /acre Net Density 1.68 units /acre Growth Management: MUSA Reserve: The comprehensive plan and the growth management policy establish a specific number of MUSA acres for residential growth for stage one (prior to year 2010). Most of the site is within the current MUSA. However, the plat extends beyond the existing MUSA on the east and south edges, so MUSA reserve allocation is needed for those areas. On the southwest edge, approximately two acres of the house lots are outside the MUSA and growth area (parts of Lots 9 -13, Block 4). On the eastern edge, about two acres of lots are outside the MUSA and growth area (Lots 23 -27, Block 4). Therefore, about 4 -5 acres of MUSA reserve would be needed. As shown in the table at the end of the report, MUSA allocation is possible in 2005 without exceeding the annual goal. Growth Management, Units /Year: The comprehensive plan and the growth management policy establish a specific number of dwelling units of residential growth for stage one (prior to year 2010). The goal is 147 per year. The City Council has the flexibility to exceed the limit by 20% (29 units) in a year without amending the comprehensive plan. The goal for 2004 has been exceeded and the additional 20% also has been used. This means that additional new development cannot be final platted until 2005. This applies to this project. • Fox Den Acres page 3 As seen in the table at the end of this report, no more than 34 lots could be allowed for year 2005 if other applications proceed. This is about half of the project. Lots: The minimum lot size in an R -1 zone is 10,800 sf. Minimum lot width is 80', minimum lot depth is 135'. All lots meet these requirements. As noted above, several lots are outside the growth area and MUSA. Landscaping: Streets, Access, Parking: Fox Road is the only access point for this site. Extending Fox Rd. as proposed would exceed the maximum cul de sac length of 500' unless a future outlet/connection is included. Wetland extends for over 1000' to the east and south. There is no possible additional connection on the west because the existing homes of Reshanau Lake Estates South 4th Addn. Hindsight shows that Deerwood Lane should have been designed to provide a connection to the east at its southern end instead of curving west into a cul de sac. This is no longer an option, however. The 500' radio tower on the north is likely to stay. The proposed road stub avoids that property. Land to the north of the stub does have on it several communication facilities such as satellite dishes and the like, but nothing so imposing as the tall tower. It seems possible that a road could extend to the north where pictured. That area includes upland, though it is impossible to know how much. It will necessary to have a "ghost plat" of the area to see if there is at least the possibility of fitting in a road and some lots. Fox Road leads to Deerwood Lane and West Shadow Lake Drive. Both lead to Birch St. Deerwood is a local street, West Shadow Lake Drive is a collector which runs from Birch St. to 62nd St., both of which are collectors. The City typically does not allow islands in cul de sacs due to maintenance and plowing issues. In addition, the northern road stub must accommodate a temporary cul de sac. These must be revised. Traffic: The developer submitted a traffic study. However, the study does not recognize the completion of West Shadow Lake Drive through to 62nd. St. The study assumes all traffic from the new development will follow Deerwood Lane to Birch St. Ignoring the W. Shadow Lake Drive road connection to 62nd St., the only way out of the neighborhood is Deerwood to Birch St. The submitted analysis states that the northbound approach on Deerwood currently operates at a level of service (LOS) of C. The project would reduce that to D. Our subdivision ordinance states that "If the existing LOS outside of the proposed subdivision is C, traffic generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service below C." (Sec. 1002- 1. 3.b.) Based on the submitted study, the project is premature. The developer should submit another study that takes into account the current roadways. Parks, Open Space: The proposal includes the dedication of 6.79 acres of parkland. The current (1992) park plan does not anticipate a park in this location. The plan does envision a • Fox Den Acres page 4 trail corridor from the neighborhood on the west, across the northern part of the site, and leading to Birch Park to the east. This trail was envisioned to be within what we currently refer to as a "greenway ". A greenway is a corridor of protected open space managed for conservation and recreational purposes. The comprehensive plan includes a greenway map (see attached detail). The City has no automatic ownership rights within areas envisioned as greenways. Greenway corridors on the map are conceptual and are to be refined through the development review process. The greenway map includes the entire site within a conceptual greenway. The City has begun the process to update the parks and trails plan. The new planning effort will address open space that is not part of active use parks. The planning process will include discussion on the different types of open space— active recreation parkland and passive space with natural resource preservation goals —and how they do or don't fit into the community's future. The goal is to complete that plan in 2004. The 1992 trail plan has not been implemented as envisioned, largely due to the lack of consensus on how to accomplish its goals. The lack of consensus on how to achieve the greenway vision laid out in the comprehensive plan is further manifestation of the need to address these concepts. The intent of the new parks and open space planning effort is to resolve these issues. The subdivision ordinance includes park dedication requirements. Park dedication is $1665 per residential unit, less any land dedication. If a significant amount of land is dedicated, no additional cash dedication would be required. Utilities: Sanitary sewer and water service will connect to existing facilities in Fox Road. The City Engineer is still analyzing the water system to determine if pressure and circulation are adequate for this development. Grading and Stormwater Management: Stormwater ponds will be created in several locations on the site. There are unresolved questions regarding if the ponds will function as proposed due to high water elevations relative to surrounding wetlands. Other stormwater facilities design elements will need revision, too. Drainage and utility easements will need to cover the ponds and stormwater facilities. Easements also will be platted along all the external property lines. The project requires the approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District. Existing City Easement: The project also proposes the partial vacation of an existing ponding and flowage easement held by the City. This easement covers most of the land to the east and south of the site, which comprises a large wetland area. A 100' strip (approx. one acre) of the easement would need to be vacated on the eastern side of the plat. A triangle on the south (about 0.8) acre also would need vacating. • Fox Den Acres page 5 Though this easement vacation technically is not a P & Z item (the City Council holds a public hearing on vacations), it is an issue now because of the additional area proposed for development outside the existing MUSA and growth area. The vacation of the flowage easement would be necessary if the additional growth area is approved. The City looks carefully at requests to vacate such easements. We require that the applicant prove that the easement is not necessary and that the vacation will have no negative effect. The only reason to vacate the portion of the easement on the east edge of the project would be to provide for the additional lots outside the growth area and MUSA. On the south, the lots within the growth area can be created with the easement. It does not appear that the vacation is justified. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD The Environmental Board reviewed this application on March 31St. Recommendations are attached. OPTIONS. 1. Approve the project, including the three elements: a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment b. Allocation of MUSA Reserve c. Preliminary Plat 2. Continue public hearing and return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 2 • The proposed plat extends beyond the stage 1 (pre -2010) growth area, the MUSA, the Low Density Sewered Residential land use area, and the R -1 zone. It also would require the vacation of a ponding and flowage easement. The proposer requests amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning map to accommodate the extra 3 -4 acres of development. There is no clear justification other than to increase developable area. • We do not yet know if water service is adequate. • The traffic study is based on outdated road information and should be revised. • A ghost plat must be created for property north of the proposed northern road stub. • 1— z 1- 0 Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be final platted) 0) J E O 0 a N O O r N 0 RI E O N If) 0) d N T r (O In O T CO N LO r N T T r d N 0 T CO T Cb r �Y CO 0 co CO CO O 0 O N 0 CO 0 0 N 0 O 0 N CO 1 CO CO CO O O N CO CO 1 0 r LO O 0 N LO � 0 18' r CO N n r- d' O 0 N 65 T O CD 0 0 471 T N CO r N L0 CO 10 r 0 0 r CO N N N r r CO Cf r year et 2002 r 10 r LO E _ /� L 0 103 O 249 r 0 CO LC) O T CO N L() N O T r- N 0 T CO T 10 r 64 N Development Name approved prelim. plats IStoneybrook 2nd Addn Century Farms North Keefe: preliminary plat Morton (minor subdiv) Ravens Hollow Haley Manor (10 new Tots) Crystal Cove 'Millers Crossroads Lakeview Estates (2 new) Snell (minor subdivision) Pheasant Hills Pres. 13th proposed Justin's Preserve Marshan Estates 'Rice Creek Church duplex Rice Church: Oakwood View land Meadows East 2nd 'Pheasant Hills 12th island 'Rick Carlson /Rehbein lot Royal Oaks Fox Road 1 uppy sound O a•+ N Cn N O) N Cn CO • • TOTAL O N Lc) N IN: O O) N- t"- Ln O CO N Ln N 107.31 •:t -t r RESIDENTIAL MUSA 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ALLOCATION O (0 co O O remaining -7.0 0.0 22.5 30.6 26.6 36.0 36.0 O CO co O O O O c) O) et C) O CO (o V in "' L() O CO CO Lc) 00 r Ln CI r O CO Co -:h r r O O N N co O O M O (0 CO N''. I` N C7 LC) r 0 C7 annual target IStoneybrook Century Farms North Ravens Hollow Justin's Preserve 4- O 4- O) r A 0 CU Q) c0 I) CV U X N Memorandum DATE: April 9, 2004 TO Jeff Smyser FROM James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Fox Den Acres 77" Attached is the TKDA review dated April 8, 2004, of the submitted documents for the proposed development. The following comments must be addressed prior to final approval given for this project. Please contact me with any questions. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651 - 982 -2400 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 • TDD: 651- 982 -2410 TKDA iENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: Copies To: James E. Studenski, P.E. From: Scott A. Brink, P.E. Date: April 8, 2004 1500 Piper Jaffrey Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com Reference: Engineering Review of Fox Den Acres City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Owner/Developer: Royal Oaks Realty Comm. No. 12976 -002 A review for the above proposed development has been conducted, based upon the following: 1. Full -size and half -size Plan sets (six sheets) that include the following: a. Certificate of Survey dated March 10, 2004 (E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc.). b. Resource Inventory Survey dated March 10, 2004 (E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc.). c. Preliminary Plat dated March 10, 2004 (E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc.), d. Grading Plan dated March 10, 2004 (E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc and Plowe Engineering, Inc. e. Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan dated March 10, 2004 (E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc.). f. Preliminary Utility Plan dated March 10, 2004 (Plowe Engineering, Inc.). 2. Storm Sewer Design Worksheet dated March 10, 2004. 3. Pipe Calculation Worksheet dated March 10, 2004. 4. Proposed Storm Drainage Area Map received March 11, 2004. 5. Wetland Delineation Report dated October, 2003 (Earth Science Associates, Inc.). 6. 2 -year, 10- year, and 100 -year Drainage Calculations dated March 4, 2003 (Plowe Engineering, In 7. Proposed Site Drainage Area Map received March 11, 2004. 8. Existing Site Drainage Area Map received March 11, 2004. 9. Traffic Input Report for Fox Den Acres prepared by TDI (March 2004). General 1. The proposed project area is located south of Birch Street and east of Deerwood Lane, at the east termination point of Fox Road. The total property area is 50 acres. It is proposed to install streets, sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer to serve 64 single family residential units. 2. Of the 50 acres, approximately 75% is upland or developable, while the remainder is pockets of wetlands scattered throughout the property or portions of DNR Wetland No. 565P, which borders the south and east edge of the properties. According to the information provided, the Ordinary High Water Level of the wetland is 893.0, and the Flood Zone limits have been indicated on the survey in An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Engineering Review Page 2 April 8, 2004 Fox Den Acres • City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota accordance with the local Flood Insurance Rate Map. A ponding and flowage easement in favor of the City of Lino Lakes, corresponding roughly to the Flood Zone limits, is also indicated on the Plan. A Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) will ultimately be required to perform the improvements as proposed. 3. Ordinary and High Water Elevations for the remaining wetlands on the site have been provided. The wetland sizes and water elevations vary throughout the site. The wetland boundaries were performed by Earth Sciences in September 2003. 4. A Resource Inventory Survey has also been prepared for this site. The site is generally undulating with mixtures of wooded areas, pasture, and wetlands. Soils are generally fine sands and fine sandy loams with the exception of areas of muck in the vicinity of the lower flood plain areas. The soils indicated are from the Soil Survey by the USDA Soil Conservation service. However, actual soil borings, including groundwater elevations have not been provided. 5. MUSA Boundaries: A majority of the proposed subdivision is within the MUSA Boundaries. However, Parcel B along with Lots 23, 24, 25, and 27 in Block 4 on the easterly side of the subdivision are not within the MUSA service area. Thus, utility services can not be provided to these four lots at this time based on current MUSA Boundaries. The Developer will need to discuss with City Staff the implications of the MUSA restrictions. For example, the location of a temporary cul- de -sac and/or other utility placement may be necessary. Also, Parcel C along with portions of Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 18 are outside the current MUSA service area The MCES staff will need to be consulted to determine if there are service restrictions in these circumstances. Grading and Drainage 1. A General Stormwater Discharge Permit, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), will be required in accordance with the most current requirements of NPDES Phase II and State of Minnesota regulations. All NPDES regulations and requirements in accordance with the MPCA shall be adhered to, including submittal to the City of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 2. Sedimentation and Erosion Control must be enforced at all times during the course of all grading and utility work. This includes the establishment of silt fence around all graded and disturbed areas, and the sweeping of streets on a regular basis, and as directed by the City. In the event the Contractor does not maintain erosion control as required, any costs incurred by the City as a result will be withheld from escrows or other monies due. It is strongly suggested that a note be added to all construction Plan sheets (including grading, streets, and utilities) reminding the Contractor to address erosion control requirements be added to all grading and erosion control sheets. 3. The Grading Plan indicates that wetlands shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio per requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. At this time, it does not appear that any filling into the Flood Plain is proposed. The Plans also must be approved by the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). A permit application has been submitted to RCWD (Permit No. 04 -039, dated March 12, 2004). RCWD has determined the application to be Incomplete, pending the receipt of several additional items. All requirements of the RCWD must be met. Engineering Review Page 3 April 8, 2004 Fox Den Acres • City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota • 4. Minimum grades and slopes must be provided and shown on the Plans as follows: 0.5% for streets (including curb and gutter), and 2.0% for turfed/non -paved areas including all swales and slopes. 5. Proposed house pad information, including floor elevations are provided on the Plans, including the City's requirements for floor elevations. The minimum lowest floor must be the greater of 2 feet above the HWL, 4 feet above the NWL, 4 feet above the groundwater elevation, and 1 -foot above the emergency overflow. The emergency overflow elevation and location is shown on some but not all ponds. In addition, it appears that at least some of the units do not meet the minimum 4 feet separation from the NWL. The emergency overflow information must be provided at all locations on the Plan, and the proposed floor elevations shall be reviewed and adjusted as needed. The Grading Plans shall specify that all house pads on filled areas shall be designed by a registered Professional Engineer (per geotechnical recommendations) and approved by the City of Lino Lakes. 6. The submittal of a geotechnical and groundwater investigation and report is essential for determining pond capacities and minimum low floor elevations. For example, the Ordinary High Water Elevations of many of the existing wetlands are higher than the lower elevations of some of the proposed NURP /detention ponds. This must be investigated further to assure that drainage will function as required. 7. At Lot 17, Block 4, it is indicated that a future retaining wall will be needed. A wall location and additional information to clarify must be provided. . On the Preliminary Plat, drainage and utility easements along all property lines shall be provided per typical detail provided. In addition, drainage easements shall be provided around all wetland and detention areas to cover the 100 -year levels and provide access for maintenance vehicles /equipment. 9. At least three of the lots are indicated as "custom graded ". Additional grading information shall be submitted.. 10. A Certified As -built Survey shall be provided by the Developer's Engineer upon completion of grading, certifying that all grading complies with the Grading Plan. This Certification shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permits. Final certification that the grading meets City requirements for adequate drainage and minimum slopes will be required prior to the issuing of building permits. Percent grades shall be shown on the Plan. 11. Storm Sewer System and Drainage Calculations: a Existing condition computations are acceptable. Proposed condition curve numbers and time of concentration are acceptable. However, the discharge rates from the proposed 2 -, 10 -, and 100 - year design rainfall events cannot exceed the existing conditions discharge rates. It is helpful to provide a discharge rate comparison table with the revised discharge rate calculations. b. The City Standard for storm sewer systems is the 5 -year rainfall event for this type of residential development. However, a 10 -year design storm system will also be accepted. c. Minimum storm sewer pipe full velocity is 3 feet per second; 2.5 feet per second was used on the submitted Plans and calculations. Engineering Review Page 4 April 8, 2004 Fox Den Acres • City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota d. The following storm sewer structures do not have enough cover: 3, 4, 22, and 23. Streets and Trails 1. Access to this property is proposed from only one location, from Fox Road just east of its intersection with Deerwood Lane. This essentially results in a very large "cul -de -sac" or single point access for the entire Development. The extension of Fox Road through the property considers further extension to the north in the future. However, it is unknown at this time when and if such a second access into the site would happen. Traffic levels of service, safety, and impacts to existing streets and intersections shall be addressed to the City's satisfaction. Comments regarding the Traffic Study are provided further in this report. 2. A park and trail loop are proposed in the northeast corner of the property (Parcel B). The City's Comprehensive Plan provides for a regional trail linkage between Reshanau Lake Estates and Birch Park in this area It is recommended that provisions for the trail link be investigated further as part of this Development. 3 The street layout as proposed on the Preliminary Plat appears to attempt to limit impacts to existing wetlands. However, some filling of wetlands is proposed, and mitigation will be required. As previously mentioned, the Plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act. 4. Further details regarding the streets and trails shall be provided on the Plans, including a typical street section, pavement section required, street widths, radii, type of curb, etc., all in accordance with City of Lino Lakes standards. As mentioned in comments under Utilities, a Detail Sheet that includes all applicable City standard plates and additional requirements of the City must be provided. 5. "Islands" are shown in the center of the proposed cul -de -sacs. Such islands shall be permitted only if allowed by the City. Construction details (turf, landscaping, etc.), and long term maintenance responsibilities shall be addressed by the Developer with the City. 6. The cul -de -sac at the north end of the subdivision on Fox Road is not drawn per City engineering standards (92' diameter). However, it is recognized that this cul -de -sac may be considered temporary, pending extension of Fox Road to the north at a later date. The cul -de -sac as proposed may therefore be considered acceptable. In addition, as previously mentioned, a temporary cul -de- sac at the end of Fox Hollow may be appropriate since the properties (Lots 23 -27) are outside of the MUSA boundary. Utility Plan 1. It is proposed to connect sanitary sewer to an existing 10 -inch sanitary sewer stub that extends easterly from the intersection of Fox Road and Deerwood Drive. The rim elevation for MH 18 appears to be incorrect. Engineering Review Page 5 April 8, 2004 Fox Den Acres • City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 2. It is proposed to connect 8 -inch watermain pipe from an existing stub extending from the intersection of Deerwood Drive and Fox Road. However, records indicate that this stub may be 6- inch. The size of the existing stub must therefore be confirmed. Adequate water pressure and circulation into the proposed Development shall be verified by the Developer, as there is no loop or secondary feed available to serve the Development. 3 Notes addressing private utilities, and erosion and sedimentation control must be provided on the Utility Plan. 4: A note shall be provided on the Utility Plan stating that utility installations shall meet the requirements of the Standard Specifications of the City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM) and the City of Lino Lakes. 5. The Developer shall provide to the City of Lino Lakes a copy of the completed Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Permit for watermain installation and MPCA/MCES Sanitary Sewer Permit, upon completion of the Utility Plans and prior to construction. 6. Information shall be provided on the Plans showing the location of individual services for sanitary sewer and water, including stationing and elevations. 7. The Developer shall provide a televised inspection tape of all sanitary sewer pipes upon completion of the roadway and utilities. Any subsequent cleaning of the sewer pipes after construction shall be the responsibility of the Developer. The number and location of all hydrants and gate valves shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Fire Chief. 9. Trench and roadway compaction shall meet the requirements of the City of Lino Lakes, including 100% of Standard Proctor Density for the upper three feet directly beneath the roadway, and 95% of Standard Proctor from utility encasement zone to three feet below the surface. As stated in previous reviews, it is critical that geotechnical information and direction be followed as construction activities progresses. It is recommended that a geotechnical investigation be conducted, and that a geotechnical consultant be utilized throughout construction. 10. The Utility Plan is incomplete with regards to storm sewer information, including pipe sizes, materials, slopes, structure elevations and inverts, etc. Details A Detail Sheet must be provided that includes all applicable City of Lino Lakes standard plates. Additional information shall also be included on the Utility Plans and/or the Detail Sheet as follows: Gate Valves shall be Mueller A- 2370 -20 with mechanical joints, meeting AWWA Specifications C500 -61. Valve Boxes shall be Mueller H -10357 with H -10361 drop lid, and extensions shall be Mueller H- 10363. Hydrants shall be iWaterous Pacer WB -67 with a bury depth of 8' - 6 ". Services shall be Type "K" copper with Mueller H- 15000 corp stop. Curb stop and curb box shall be Mueller H -15154 Mark 2 oraseal, and Mueller H -1300 w/Mpls. Top. Storm sewer details and standard plates (including structures and outlets) shall also be provided. Engineering Review Page 6 April 8, 2004 Ak Fox Den Acres IP City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Traffic A Traffic Report for Fox Den Acres has been prepared by TDI, March 2004. Because the majority of generated traffic is expected to access to and from County Road 10 (Birch Street), the report essentially addresses expected impacts to Deerwood Lane, and the intersection of Deerwood Lane with County Road 10. However, the report does not address the impact of the smaller percentage of traffic that will utilize other routes, particularly Fox Road to the newly completed West Shadow Lake Drive and soon to be completed 62nd Street. Although the traffic volumes in this direction are expected to be relatively minor, it is recommended that the report still address potential impacts. Regarding the intersection of County Road 10 and Deerwood Lane, the report states that the Level of Service (LOS) of the Deerwood Lane northbound approach will ultimately (year 2009) operate at a LOS D under the build scenario. Table 2 in the report states that the same approach lane currently operates at LOS C and will continue to operate at LOS C under the year 2009 no -build scenario. As a result, it is recommended that additional work on the Traffic Report be conducted to address the following: 1. Impact resulting from generated traffic utilizing access to and from the southwest. 2. Level of Service changes at the intersection of Deerwood Lane and Birch Street resulting from Fox Den Acres, and assessment of any specific improvements that may be needed as a result. Other Issues In accordance with City requirements, a Landscaping Plan shall be submitted. The Tree Preservation Plan shall be subject to further review and approval of the City. Memo To: Jeff Smyser CC: Michael Grochala From Marty Asleson Date: April 7, 2004 Re: Recommendations of the March 28, 2004 Environmental Board Environmental The Environmental Board met on March 28, 2004 and made the following recommendations: Junes Subdivision The North and West Edge of the property abutting the wetland should be planted with a native City Specification Native plant mix. • There should be no importing or exporting of soils without City approval. • Applicant should demonstrate there is an adequate separation between the bottom of the proposed pond and the seasonally high water table. • RCWD issues should be resolved. • Request the applicant plat as park or provide a conservation easement for the remaining wetland areas on the plat. (This is in a proposed greenway area and adjacent to City owned parkland): Motion by O'Connell, 2nd by Bauman. Motion to recommend approval with staff and Environmental Board suggestions, otherwise recommend denial. All approved. West Shadow Ponds 2 "° Addition Parcel developer Mr. Richard Carlson tabled this item for having more time to set up a conservation easement with Rice Creek watershed. • Page 1 Fox Den Acres The Environmental Board recommended that this plat be denied under the current zoning, that this would be an excellent property to develop with a greenway corridor. (If approved than other considerations of Environmental Board and Staff should be looked at). The following recommendations were made: Recommend this development be considered as a PUD and /or Conservation Development that would allow for variability in lot sizes and street widths. • Suggest that the developer work with the Saddle Club site, or look at purchasing the Saddle Club site, for developing together with the Fox Den Acres site, so that the two sites could be planned concurrently. • That the proposed NURP ponds and infiltration ponds be evaluated for adequate separation and filtration to the seasonally high water table. • That the developer works with staff to identify trees that can be saved in buffer areas and designated clear areas. That the development should allow for the creation of a greenway corridor from the South West corner to the South East corner, and up along the East side of the property. No soils should be imported or exported without City approval. Soil protection areas should be designated and fenced off. Rock entrances should have additional stockpile of rock on hand to top dress entrances when initial rock entrance fills up. Storm water from roofs and back yards should follow some sort of a designed treatment train before water flows into existing wetlands. The developer should be required to use the City native seed mix, in NURP and infiltration pond restoration- work. That the seeding of these areas be accomplished with the services of an approved contractor that is knowledgeable in native plant restoration. That the developer be required to hire such a native plant contractor to manage the restoration areas for a minimum of three years. • page 2 IIM-I1111111111111�allo©13 tom -� EE*JE4lill1'1I mmo'W manna ®e Et ► '413 PIRER156E' OQ,©D!1I fi MIIIMCC':. 111111,4 mOt�IG�QIQ!'�0��.�' d�P WW1 mi�1 '`la 000m3�gm l�G�1 °l0 6birt•1e� °°' REVISED JAN. 1987 REV. MAY 1988 REV. AUG. 1989 REV. FEB. 1991 REV. FEB. 1992 REV. FEB. 1993 REV. MAY 1994 RCA! F 1R= 15001 REVISED REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. NOV. 1994 JAN. 1996 JULY 1997 JULY 1998 AUG. 1999 SEPT. 2000. MAY 2001 JULY 2002 SHADED AREA DENOTES PARK' LOCATION MAP CITIES OF an I. ■IMMIM alb s • PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN (DETAIL) LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • MUSA Low Density Sewered Residential Stage 1 (pre -2010) SITE Low Density Unsewered Residential • ZONING MAP DETAIL • • 1 U =I ME11=1 11=E1=73 • PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN WITH GREENWAYS (DETAIL) LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SKETCH B DESCRIPTION NORTH N00°16'18 "W �- 47.30 West 1/4 Corner Sec. 26, T31, R22 Anoka County, C.I.M. // Elev. Mon.= 909.72 / N For N Martha Houle 707 Harriet Avenue Shoreview, MN 55126 Tel: 482-8973 • Of Part of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 Sec. 26, T 31, R 22 Anoka County, MN AREAS – Parcel A: Total Area = 12.5 Acres Right –of –Way= 0.30 Acres – Parcel B: Total Area = 2.5 Acres Right –of –Way= 0.54 Acres PARCEL A The West 494.50 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, Except the North 341 feet of the West 320 feet thereof. Subject to easements of record. N 0 a) 0 (I) 4— 0 24.751 0 0 0 r • North Line of the NW1 /4 of SW1 /4 of Sec.26 492.14. BIRCH STREET 8 °42'351.W 320.06 ANOKA RIGH' —320.08 Q�\G i EXISTING °'QQc i - HOUSE , 7~ / / / //l I c,C ,."? o EXISTING 00 BARN Gc)' 320.00 T / 494.57 ,-\ COUNTY —OF —WAY N88°42' 35"W C.S.A.H. 10 174.51 Ff.HIGHWAY / PLAT NO 11 320.06 , �/– SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 341 FEET OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 26 PARCEL B The North 341 feet of the West 320 feet of the West 494.50 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to easements of record. LEGEND O DENOTES ANOKA COUNTY R/W MONUMENT FOUND DENOTES ANOKA COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET X 1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION. DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE, AIL DENOTES LOWLAND (NO WETLAND DELINEATION COMPLETED OR APPROVED BY ANY GOV'T AGENCIES) Scale 1"= 100' JOB# 98.640 DIV. 24.71 169.13 7, OW �Zo Lt. _ w pUj �1 w o 0- \ F 1-' W wLI—VI 24.75 494.50 CITY 0= L,,, S88 °50'02 "E 494.60 South Line of the NW1 /4 of SW1 /4 of Sec.26 0 N a) O ▪ c0 w,..(NI 01 0 to 41 ch 46 m Nt, a� \ 3 a) to -c ,-. 4— 0 a� c 4-. a 4-- 0 z I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that l am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 7`4 day of rcb,uary , 2002. • License No. /57.8 E.G.RUD 4 SONS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS 9180 LEXINGTON AVE. NO. CIRCLE PINES, MINNESOTA 55014-3625 TEL. T63 -'186 -5556 FAX 163- 186 -1 • • A was.. emu ;coos ‘13 ,/ • 1 0 a 0 • , 439 61 0 N8 9.t5-E • 21" W •. it.. ..:1--- • 4:::::t - . .- '. " i ■•-:, -;-/ • Ill'. ;-,I ___,:,--''''' • . - . ., ,..• Ite\ 'ir"-,--. - 0 ,haa,'• • 4r• ' ' - • ' \ : ,- ' vvv* '. ". - 0- ... -. - • -,:::-". -/ . . ----sr swe saw.... 1 ,Iew. , jt ' ' • . •• .. 'W -..... 7 ' ...,•'. • / .14.7 /. 1 ''' ' • . 7 r" ..:-, '',.., X t- ,-...4.2,-i.> .9--> :Ir 'SL:.• • - -•.• - -;rel"-- '--0---li'Al \-,-.e.,...0...-it- .3;-,-:/.. 4.-_-...-.•,,ii , q • - 4 ./ ' 1 l'-' i'., P''-'.. • ' r:‘: / ''t 44. - . - •t"'(' [ ) I 1-65. . • ' 4'Z'r.'..k: \ l's ■ , 1.0" • -■ , '1. i 1 • r'''..s tel.' 0.% - 4 \ ''......" ...,. . Ilt‘ irvrv'''....''-i- i? . , I • ..."..f • #$ ,-----..,') e C. I 1 ( -1 r ' if'?°..;6 .-7.-• ...., •.-.., 1.,,-.1. crq Le s! 1 ''',..., . ,-..(- r' r / . ,....--"k.•)--,,,-.' ;.- . -,- /-- - - A ... ...- ----s'::"--'. - _....." 1 ( • - • • ;;,C; \ le Lo° O, ',1.. ; , ,::,../ A. ' •,'" - vfx'‘• • 1 ,', . V . . -' - .• i --` , • \-, ' • - ' 2 I) 0 a PARCEL A ZONED R-1 ,...r:121*"•0 • 1,725,308 sq. Ft. 39.61 acres -' 1::•; keo. rom -I -.1001:bTr nevet S8952' 21"E 450.00 CERTIFICATE OP eURVE`t' ,) 0 ▪ 00 *. ....-- ......-- r PARCEL 1:3"*4' ..-' • 0 :-.-C -- ..,...- -- • •• r__ 295Z08N5E0DsRi. rt__Ir....77,,,-... J ,-,--- ,--, - ---, .......;;„.• ....1:'.>. 6.79 acres . b -r;••3 0 ii. R."0 • . .. - .---.:----'.-'..., in .- ,„:.te.s?"-Vr--•._ w ow (Ite,',.. AO'. BOIS 0 '.......'1:).. , ,,, 1 , 3 i oi •- fi,...bit 0" ' ',-c-J \ 5 . ..904-o`A • -•"".-7-.f 43,-.. r, , la ci / -‘ . . • as .c • 1 - - - - '' I „,...„ 4446 ' • • gir \ '. .,•••,„..- ' ...' • ,i- -1., ' . O I J. GRAPHIC SCALE Z r• - -'i--, i:tmtcr.-, • - '.07.71„:- . 7.,‘ . s '1. OF: FOX DEN ACRES FOR ROYAL OAKS REALTY (OWNER & DEVELOPER) 1000 COUNTY ROAD E. WEST SUITE 150 .••• S HO REVTeir MN 55126 PHONE: (651)-483-55/8 .• - 727C, 415.170 N8954652:026rW "."40,..4141,•••':/rX NOON VC or niE or+ "tar 4 • • • 1 0:0111 =MN 33 -* •,te• */er . • 0 \es :'•-)\ - .•. 4..tali '• ' • 014!;,.:(• 40a *VII"' .. / ''' • • ‘. i - TO:. ' • • -. - a- - )ef ,,-'-f \: - - j / , ,-) , --ai • - .t`.." -4-rr;" - 7' ; )-) ,_,-, - - - .-c5, 4.- - •••?-. - - - . Y. I \A=.--- 02.- 7' -3- • i „,,,,... .--, r ....-' • 44. I. • • - - • • • *. • ..' - ...,...r. -' „..77.,,,...71'.... ---je--41e.- .• •.e.--- 4.. 47:" • - )' -„Ar• .., . - - ...- -s* • „ :_,._,_,!._-,-,4,77,-.,.:.-cs . , .._. _ie.-. - ,'4-3? 1.1. . ic ar • ' / :-.-7,2*-7!.7;?;„ . .,.....-:.:;.,,?, .: : ." -;,,::::*.l.cl..- .* - .- :40t." - . - ... ... I 1.--7.:::---•.:74- 0_ 40,0 ..r 4..'-' g '..1 ...IMO, _, ' -W, , • . .. )51" • . • 2-,---..... ' - • 4 .:".7,,. 7, ,.-I( . • • • . .. . ., , ,_, • ilt ''-; 1 •''ile---Tr.t_ILit,'-'• / , LL- 0 ,seXIMAt• (;) (41 6.• .; „eGr-• -,,sec;;;;;Ite %1A'1,k • •\•*" /- • . \ • •i r. - , •-■-c • • • cetro,,,, 0 `1.• & 0 414-••••" ,14.7711' sr e e V40.5.3, 1,i1 .191:1 '1ST IletL7:7% 2‘.---1:`,.y. • • . 17 ; • • - • d' ii:'4 )3 'tit ' . ' . - ).• 1.4/ ,,,,' 1,..n..4-/ .? Airfil Y it71 :f ,.• I p i" .• , 1;‘,/j 7.' I . ) ,-•• r...4r..*.ik7 •-)-' . '::-.45.Y. 1, • •,07 s) ise.....d • ' • 1 -,..••••/ s: 1 (-`,/ 41 , A, .,.. ,..,-;• .: f ...:" el!' ! ''; .vsv.f-' i. - ,i' • •,. / , •„C. ; .. , 4.- Az, ..' ..: tol' • ') /4•7":',1:/ ; i' '. •.• 7 ' : • .. -' o .? k , , t \ ,-: X e r--',- ,..f.....7-t,_,... '•"..).'' 1 • , -; 1. • ?ilk** I •-• , .- I ''''''",--. . ..... Vc -', - er ) , : ' ck■va-:',A100 ' ' il ›-r-e( e".• 0.00 - lah''',_otal • ;,..",2r1f: • ' • • - •E" cp\-"s• Iv,. \-9'4 • - ' \kof2", • ••• . • , • • L * • *.-.1 • • 3, ' \.•,: • - • U•)*q• \ • 4. „ .1. • . ‘• • \ ff." j • • • • • • ...)\ '10.• • • • • re • : • L2-:. • nl• 3 1- .1- • - £3 .• • selite,.„ 1.. • • • • "'''11Y.>....,),AW• • " ..... ,.. ••• I. Qty.to., 4.. , ,,-:=""1.:,-,:7;173 , •"'• 1 . ‘..) t. . 0. 0 0 , 7. _r_Lz._., , wo.,589°57•257E 214 ___, ° .sr.„ Jr. ii• • .1*.. 1- 6 • 40-1g,•‘..._- - ) PARCEL C-1:- - 1 ,kr ;.• 4.. az • =-, -, ,_ -.. _.,„..-. .,•-4-_..'t ..,..---..-:----.. --- . z• . 1 s ‘ ZONED R '60*- . •... ' •;,;:.• e..„;.,,..ri,:_&._:".".1- " ' •••-•-'.'"‘ '-103,063 sqc ft. \., `,4*•," . . ‘--.--e:..4 --• 2.37 , • -icr, ....... \. • ,tc.i:., --,....:.: - rt ‘,631A - ... • „..........--,-7--7.- IR SAW. 02 Tolt N. 7' 07 11„ • t . „ • • • / • • . : '.._ • . • • • .-.....--.7.., 11. .1 I. .., /f.!.:tlt.' s6 A .....,...„,....1.;:t .., :i:.3,2...il...,...ce-_,..t,.. 1,..':.•:::i'zi,_-.40.1_•,_,..„.::::::c-t...1:14t1,-.0:::f.t...f.,;".it4,:;.:4:12:9'.1„ik...e....1..i..5..4-.;.......\‘....*1.....4. ‘ r • ,...-1 - , . ',\.. .16.1*``. 1.... -. " 7 f"...... . • . • i • ,•:-`,.• ...;-•"....1.- o•k*-1- .' . • oost,E,,ef .' .- - . . ..- .-: - ...,1 - • s I. 4.. , • ,- s'-', .‘,. :‘ ....... . . . . ., . . • t . ''1i. .. ' )1 (- -' -, . • ' ' '''' UJ • 33.474 - . 8'4 1.9•v.. t•ti9"57'29"W • Wer57' t28"-Tr• .S1 307.00 -r-•./ .411 A, 1-.• 1," • C 1,23:cres • ' -.7-.g3,725 sq. ft. 4'11 / N't 4-SON, INC. fa, TON AVENUE NE. CIRCLE PINES, MN. 55014-3625 7.1 1As...e..6640. leas "63--E4rv6tla1 PL,!;;. • qTi- • - • - - • -• • . • • qv-, . • • 2§64.84 -r 369'69'33W BENCHMARK: L.7. Tromat Hydrant of the Northwest e Elevattrj 971170 ond HeUy Drive. --J • • ••••• „.... • • • (we./ 1 Yak 4 N. ANOKA ccurvrr. Ash/07A OCT TO SCALE) AredtlIrr--MM PARTS OP SEG 33. TINP, 31. ONG. 22 eNfaig_EMEERIELQES233= 1113? 60421.11L 0CAGO 1u, 0.1RAI•CG COMPAP1f COWMAN' NO. twos Parcel A: The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 33• Township 31. Ran. 22, Anoka County, Minneeota. Parcel 8: That part 01 11,. Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 33. Townehtl 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota described as beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 33: thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 21 seconds East. assumed bearing. along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter o distance of 450.00 feet: thence South 15 degrees 58 minutes 24 s.onds West 1008.32 feet: thence North 89 degr.s 52 minutes 21 second. Wet. 160.00 feet to the west line of said Northeast Quote' of the Northwest Quarter: thence North 00 degree. 44 minute. 23 seconds West along sold west line a distance of 970.11 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 1: That port of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Ouarter of Section 33, Township 31, Range 22. Anoka County, Minnesota deecrhuid 0 beginning at the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Cluarter of Section 33; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 28 seconds East. assumed bearing. along the north line of said Southwest , Quarter of the Northwest Ouorter a distance of 1304.74 feet to the Northeast comer of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter: thence South 25 degrees 18 minutes 53 seconds Weld 387.05 feet thence North 22 degrees 00 minutes 26 second. West a distance of 377.62 feet to said north line; thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 28 second. West along sold north line o distance of 3.32.74 feet: thence South 64 dears. 53 minutes 35 seconds West a distance of 729.37 feet to the weet We of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter: thence North 00 degrees 50 minutes 22 seconds West 'long said west lino 310.00 feet to the point of beginning. t-o DenEGtesENS°e; 1/2 inch by 18 inch kon ° Pipe Marked by R.L.S. number 25341 • Denotes found monument 41). Denotes County Cost Iron Monument Denotes Fence Lane per Aerial Photo, Denotes Existing Trees per Aerial Photo; see .° Resource Inventory for actual tree locations. Denote. Wetland located by Earth Science Inc. Denotes Edge af Wetland by Earth Science Inc. Denotes 100 Year Flood Boundary from FEMA Maps. A proposed LOMA to be submitted to FEMA at time of mass grodMg Denotes 100 Year Flood Area from FEMA Maps Denotes Paneling and Flowage Easement per document no. 595478 in favor of the City of Lino Lakes. This -evserrnert-cov,ts sum. existing-hIgh-ground-ond-ts- proposed to be vacated within the FOX DEN ACRES plat boundary Easements for drainage and utility purposes to be rededicated over pending and flowage oreas on the final plat. a X 1 AREAS, Total Boundary Area 2.177.946 (50.0 Acres) Total Upland .• 1,662427 (38.16 Acres) rotof Wetland 515,519 (11.8 Acres) - Parcel A guiding Low Density Single Forney. - Parcel 8- and C guided Rural - Regulded B and C to Low Density Single Farley. zczuNg.! - Parcel A is Zoned R-1 - Parcel B and Come Zoned R. Rezoning proposed for Parcel IS and C to 9-1. musli - Parcel A fell within the MUSA. - Parcel B and C proposed to be brought into MUSA. NOTES. - Ordinary High Water Lewd of wetlands shall be determined upon Finot Design. - Boundary area not Shodad 1, the approximate location of Flood Zone C . (area of minimal firsoffing) as Me/mined by F.I.R.M. Map Pend 270015 0100 doted May 17, 1982. - Fleoring's shorn are on 1440 83 datum. - Wetland located by ES Rd 4 Sons Inc. (763)-780-5555 on 11-24-03. - Wetland completed by Earth Science Ina (6517-674-6210 en 9-24-03. - This survey was prepored with Mkt Commitment by Chicago R. Neuron. Company Commitment No. 231913. NO. OFJE OFSONINICN 1 al" 1 ........ C52TF1CATION. ..... I hereby certify Mot Ws survey, pion iff'Zi x\ ft.....NPr, or rport was ensnad by 10y• or i g my drect swayson and that a5 1. - a duy frylsteryl Land Survor under the km of 19. State of nnesota. - CAMEL 4 OBERMILLER Date: 47,s4,4,4._eiC. license Na 25341 ••••„, 42-ov-ew cummr 0.111_ raw 7, I 894 N897'21"W .N' /•-896 -. r • S • r' ,SAN'1 FINE . sq DV LOAM .(l w) N" h &1 f r1 < 1 lJ ,,rte' ...- � /r'1 4/ P14R• CE 5 \ ZE]NED /• /) • . ?.95,850 sq. ft, 6.79 rest% /• •'e9i i \ •0.4.- `r • -WALLS hilg SAND' !rte e.0%,49:-.SLOPES, x(Ala) . -r�x GEL ZO ED - ii i '`/25,318 s R •' / 39.61 •c s (( r 1l r r' OF: FOX DEN ACRES FOR: ROYAL OARS REALTY (OWNER & DEVELOPER) 1000 COUNTY ROAD E. WEST SUITE 150 SHOREVIEW MN 55126 PHONE: (651)- 483 - 5518" 546.06 PINE • i Z21W..- 'MARKEY IAUCK•(MO) -_� nt j 'i. SO2 - 03; 1 o▪ . J m . PAr'ZCEL ZONED R 163,063 sq. Ft. 2.37 gores ; 33,2 • . • 1ir89.57 i2 rte. •� .•_• . N '28 °W*\ 4307,00 V w :, ARCEL C' ZbNED'R / !/ 5,31725 sq -ft,� `23 acres 9B ! r 4 .�- RFARKiY.jWCk (Ma) . • • i MLLE.FlNE` AHD ' 45 SLO?ES'(M'th `•-' -� • • m Prepared By: , G• RUD 4 --ORS, INC. yid $ldrv.ycr. 9180 LExJNGTON AVENUE NE. _.GIRGL_E PINES, MN. 56014-3625 Tat 163 -786 -5556 Pax 163 - 106 -6001 / _ # ya • is . ;`. • / • i•i✓ ISANl1f)t ri!..• SAND LOAM D — —�- — �—='- i f• — .._:t o4.84 .c. S89'59'33" tS 11 / • / • • 3- N89'49'34'E 311.00/ / -se 'w•2 VICQv1TY MAP PARTS OP Star. 33. TWP. 3t RNG. 22 GRAPHIC SCALE ta rest l I W e- to 0. o Denotes { Fr a 1/2 Inch by 18 inch Iron Pipe Marked by R.L.S. number 41578 • Denotes found monument Denotes County Cost Iran Monument �— Denotes Fence Line per Aerial Photo Denotes Wetland as Delineated by Earth Science Denotes Soil Tjpe from 509 Survey by USDA Sob Conservation Service. See Sand Sod Survey for description of sod types. AREAS, Total Boundary Area - 2.177,946 (50.0 Acres) Total Upland - 1,662.427 (38.16 Acres) Tot Wetlond - .515.519 (11.8 Acres) ANOKA COWL r, A/1443507A MT TO SCALEI RECEIVED MAR 1 1 2004 CITY OF LINO LAKES DENCWMARK, Top Nu( Hydrant of the Northwest corner of 01.,ppro Crossing and Holly Drive. Elevotten - 913.54 • NOTES - Bearings sheen OM n NAD 83 datum. - Trees togged by Runde Company (651)- 484 -0114 an Feb. 9 -19 of 2004. - Trees located by E.G. Rud & Sons Inc- - This survey set prepared with TRIe Commitment by Chicago Rtle Insurance Company. Commitment No. 231914 - See Grading Plan end Certificate of Survey /or Hydrologic characteristics. ocsoenna. es CE2T °: {\ � FICAnO N, }: I hereby certify that this survey, pion report vat prepared nar edd by me e my erect supeninn and that / cm — — — a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the roes of the State of Minnesota. DANIEL W. OBERMILL:R Date: l9M4a .041 License No. 15]41 .,s az -v -or aavm££ rw 1 N83.!'52. 21"W .-.307.07 \ / AT 1 - ' ----894,,,, FREI- frIINAR`r • \ • • OF FOX DEN ACRES ‘,! (T)1 .71 S8952' 21'E /450.00' ▪ ••_..,‹)...). • • " • 2 f' •-••''' • ru.0 \---•••• •. • • • - - - • '- 0- • ' • . - / • e7 / ''.. • - ; 139 / -' '-'7" FOR: ROYAL OARS REALTY (OWNER & DEVELOPER) I 1000 COUNTY ROAD E. WEST SUITE 150 SHOREVIEW MN 55126 PHONE: (651)-483-5518 F • / • i 1-- • •• - .)1O ,- • 1 .17 • N6952'21"W _ _ -1 _ ...tfo. _ 1 9894934-r 311.00/ ••• .-589423.11 546.06 1 ......- .., 4'..) NOM . 4. n. Pm no "..... ------' ) ....-••,-' -•••• 0 i mesa mom: at ,- ...--- ..., ....- .....- ..••••- ../ „i• 1, • , • ‘.-1 7 ,Z„lej • • • I .02=--; • / 4.• • - I- .. ' `', ---, -t.-7z.--, y-.- -::\I •.41 - - -- . i ' .0.00 •.r.21"-nr- • " . - • 3 \ • , 5 a 0 0 , 3 - I 28 • WO:9°57''. - • • • W. • r•••77.-•.•-• • • " • • • No two4 boat re;t1:6= • / • t 7)41, 1,3 r-11 2 I • • ‘,. • 1 / ..„. ..„„ N.. a'-•15:-• .' *--\'c', ..\\ ' 1 - "••••• • •:- ).-. • - . -; - :‘, \\ „.....-._:i."'•• - . '• . . -.... . ,. 17,... ) . - -; i - - \ 1 • \ i ,- ' 1 • -- - 2, • .....1 \, ) il..11. -...,. -...":"; - - ‘, - 1 1,..1.1 .1 :: ....---,... / / 1- -‘• 4 • ,.. -, .... . ::•:•2604.84 -' 58933"W . . • • 1..f7 7A•-•;.. • ' • • " ' • A/ - " • • -7 , 07 (-1 , ,..- / 1 / - --, - 1. \vz....121, • \ • /, repareci 15g: t. 1 / \ 0.. „/,.. ; E. G. FEUD 14. 60s*1, NIG. - - Land Su-N/4,40171s ; r."4‘7241 9184, 1-Exib.aTON AVENUE NE. \I 4 -0 MN. 55014-362S / Ted. 13-1-t Pax 163-156-6001 • - - I • • -.C.-.4 ---<•-• \-)-1-1-ri- tit 27- ev ..,...: ■•••‘7'..t. \ 1 EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRPTIONS: 0517 SCHBOLSOL OP 04CM:011115 1451.254.4YECCthrOW COOtheT14513 23193; Pal* 34 The horthwoot Quarto of the Nertinwet Won. of !action 33. Township 31. flen. Matta County, Nthnthetth - Parcel 11: That port of 9. North.. Deaner of the Northwest throne, of SecWon 33, Ithotho 31, Paned 22, Anoka county, thnoosele oeserthed es beatetthe et 3.4 Tthno`Nth 000. S09 Northeast Owner al the Northwest (mow 0? Section .31 theme South 09 chorine 52 rnthutos 21 womb East. othornoor Dunn along the north Ithe of sale Nottneost !worth/ .4 31. Northeen Ouster a anon. or 460.00 feet thaw. South 15 dearth. 55 mem.* 24 ethanol then 1000.32 feet thorn North 50 themes 52 minute. 21 wanes Neel 16100 Net to the west the of WO Northeast Quartet et tha Northwest Warm: Wm. North DO there. 44 *Worths 23 ethos. Nest thong ao40 oast M. a dietoece of 970.11 ten to LIN pont of beginning. Parest C: 16o4 port of th• Souther. Cowl., of the Nrrflothoi Worker af Section 33. Township 31. Range 21 Moire County. Wm.. domino) ee Nohow, .4 29, North* comer of aohl Southwest Iluert•f of th• Nerthwed Meaner af Sectthn 33; Owed Soon AG *therm 57 mouths 2B sewed Seth, asoonerl WNW,. alono the rorth *4. 44 mod Southwest Coon. al Ow Nonftwat thereter 4 potence al 1304.74 feet les the Nonhont owner of aid Sauthweet Currier .3 31. Iforththat Wader; thence South thareor 15 mewl. 53 scones Nest 357.05 Net thence North 22 there. 00 menthe 26 seethes 10et a thew. al 377.62 fen *9 .40 north Itho thence North 49 therm 57 1,..44 25 seventh Nast ate, •oid mem the a *tones of 31274 feet thence south 04 depress 53 Nemo. 35 ethane* Neat • dietorthe of 729.37 the 421. lina of wad Southeast Ouorter of Northerest Woe.; Owns. North 00 aaarthe 50 minutes 22 seconds Nest lame wad toot le. 310.00 Inn to th• point of oespeony. 2(1 - Parcel A is Zoned R-1 - Parcel 8 and C Zoned R. Rezoning proposed for Parcel 8 and C to R-1. mum! - Parcel A fell Mink: the MUSA. - Parcel B and C proposed to be brought into MUSA. DEVELOPMENT DATA, - Total Plat area - 50 Acres - Upland withk: plat .38.76 Acres (76X) - 64 Proposed Single Family Lots - Single Family Lots - 36.81 Acres (73.61z) - Pork 5.14 Acres (10.28X) - Streets - 8.05 Acres (16.10X) - Average Lot Size - 0.57 Acres - Density 1.28 Lots / Acre - Park to be Publicly Dedicated LOT ARFAS/ MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS, Front - 30.00 feet Rear = 30.00 feet Side .• 10.00 feet (house) Side 5.00 feet (gorage) Lot Area - 10,800 sa fr. (..Pinnd.) ted Depth 135.00 feet Lot Width - 80.00 feet Lot VildUt re 100.00 feet (comer) LEGEND, _ Denotes Set 1/2 Inch by 18 inch Iron • Pipe Marked by R.LS. number 25341 • Denotes found monument it. Denotes County Cost iron Monument Denotes Fence Line per Aerial Photo. Denotes Existing Trees per Aerial Photo; see • Tree Inventory fors actual tree locations 1:-:.‘•:-1 Denotes Wetland located by Earth Science Inc - -J. -•_ • • - Denotes Edge of Wetland by Earth Science Mc. Denotes Existing 2 foot contour interval completed by Alarkhurd Denotes Setback Line Denotes Water Course Easement 411,04 Denotes Wetland Fa Area Denotes Pending and Flowage Easement per document no. 595478 in favor of the City of Lino Lokes. This easement covers some existing high ground and is proposed to be vacated within the FOX DEN ACRES plat boundarK Easements for drainage ond purposes to be rededicated over ponding and flowage areas on the Mal plat. NOTES: - Hearing's shown am an NAD 83 datum. - Contours are at 2 foot intervals. - Wetland located by E.G. Rod Sons Mc (763)-786-5556 on 11-24-03. - Wetland delineation completed by Earth Science inc. (651)-674-6210 on 9-24-03. - Topography provided by Morkhurd (763)-420-9606 on 12-17-03. - This survey was prepared with Title Commitment by Chicago Tftle .insuronee Company. Commitment No. 231913. -.fl(WtfltTHtft4fleg.fl 101LcktIMA__ Top Nut Hydront of the Northwest comer of Trapper s Crossing and Holly Drive. Elevation v. 913.54 DA,r DESCRIPTNN BY MONTY MAP P5575 09. SEC. 33. TWP. ONG. 22 • GRAPHIC SCALE ( ) 1 In.. 44 TYPICAL MANAGE E UTILFY EASEMENTS; Being 5 feet in width, unless otherwise indicated and adjoining side lot lines, end near /at lines and 70 feet in width and adjoining street Ones, as shown on the plat. Drainage ond Utility easements to be dedicated over, EOrs, wettands and pending :areas, and 10 feet on either side of all storm, sanitary, or notermon not letthin public R/Ws. • To be determined upon find site design. GUIONG: - Parcel A guiding Low Density Single Family. - Parcel and C guided Rural - Reguided B and C to Lon Density Single Family. • ''' ;■4'.;;'", CERTFCATION. 0441.4.4144 I hereby certify that this Survey. se report was armored Dy nth or under my deed supervision ono that 1 ant a duly Registor.0 Land Surveyor tower the lows of the Stole or Minnesoto. ZI) DANK], OSCRIAILLER Doter •1/21Lte.e 04 License No ...25,10_ 140? 4* 03 tr") 0 O e‘t tfl • 0.0 0e D2-09-04 • ofee..leo., DIESUPP MAR 112004 COSY OF LOW t ,KES GRAI'HIC SCALE _ .a.. NW'S;8'21 "W \. ( x;1307.07 S89 °52'Z1 "E 450.00 0 00 01 0 Q oy1 O • • Q9•/ • . O;lam- r. • it* t ✓1 ; mot' Q b. i �3 r 812 cat y ^' • c jt r fir_ 1 Denotes Set 1/2 inch by 18 inch Iron • 7 a Pipe Marked by R.LS. number 41578 _ _ Denotes found monument Qf) - �: Denotes County Cost iron Monument • °$�':2T[W-~.' • - • — Denotes Fence Line �• - F �_ Denotes Wetland located by Earth • , t • " bg3� ' • • -j . ' '") Science Inc. a• V • • - '. - r _ .N •g35, C. I • .j, K. W .IS 6• ;DSO. w..d [.x. ;t "•�- :.[�l'1• !. .'T • �. fY� SM... "off tn 332.74• '!' - �1J89 °57 x8 N'f;' Ut4t �pNR %, _ Denotes Edge of Wetland boated 1•- • •' - — by Earth Science Inc \ - _ •/• - __,. Denotes Existing 2 foot contour • -^ - • /e. / Menai completed by MarkHurd Denotes Setback Line Denotes tree lines per aerial photography Denotes Existing Trees per Air Photo Denotes proposed custom graded lot Denotes moss grading limits • ��_• - - - IL es■- -" yOt \r1 • '1 a > P.. • DRANAGE E UTLITY EASEMENTS $— tree removal, and sR fence Denotes Proposed Storm Line Denotes Water Course Easement Denotes Emergency Ousr6ow (EDF) Denotes Direction of Drainage =•\. .•., eait•wur edges or,- F _ • • / • 9_t.,`. -/ ' Vin• ,,,; XS( •, I >i 1 t , (/ O A- t ; .>. "- 11"--i F64 r Rllu 4 $oils, INC. '\ t OW ;•, 919© LER1N�sTON AVENUE NE. ---_.SIRCL-E"PINES, MN. Tv 5b I4 -3628 T. 163 - 186-be &b Pax 103- 106 -6pG7T • ti• ioe a h.[ n. n. a .[1101 ere BENCI- B'AARK Top Nut Hydrant at the Northwest comer El of Trapper • s Cron ng and Holy Drive. J Being 5 feet in width, unless otherwise indicated, and adjoining side lot lines and rear lot Ines and 10 feet in width and adjoining street lines as shown on the plat. Drainage and Utility easements to be dedicated over. EOF., wetlands and pondng areas, and 10 feet on either side of all storm, sanitary, or wotermoin not within public R/Ws. To be determined upon find site design. VICINITY MAP ANOKA COUITT. M'peSOTA \ NOT TO SCALE/ REVISIONS OATS I DESCR09003 Col fI< 4441.0) I IIC.X OF: FOX DEN ACRES FOR ROYAL OAKS REALTY (OWNER & DEVELOPER) SUITE COUNTY ROAD E. WEST SHOREVIEW MN 55126 PHONE: (651) - 483 - 55187. PROPOSED NOUSE PAD INFORMATION. �Deneles Mapesod f isn grade 0 front of garage. Soo, Garage No It 0.3' soave the elev. ,,,./..-%.-00enes house style. (W3ewoeaul)(F.ATxLO-.00,out) (Assumed 0' osent depth proposed) 1 \ Denotes suggeslea amount to Map garage Denotes finish grade a rear of home. fineh°3 bsmt 0001 0 0.: above Nis efev. or walkout homes 17010 10Oerun Lowest Freer to be 7• fee'. above HM. or 4' feel obove NM of od'pce t pones, one 1• loot Wove 0 controlling Ed PROPOSED WETLAND FILL, - 32,694 of of wetland 671 - Wetland fill due to rood and driveway construction Ala ANA ILL. ATI• q P -V,p11 - 2:1 replacement required (653884 Minn. rule 8420.0546 PROPOSED WR'(LAND M11GATION , s,‘ - 211 replacement required (65,366sf) - New Wetland Credit proposed (NWC) - 40,946.1 Minn. rule 8420.0541, Subp. 11 - Public Vold* Credit proposed (PVC) • 38,270.1 Minn. rule 8420.0541, Subp. 6 - total replacement proposed • 79,216.! mitigation - DENOTES WETLAND FILL AREAS - DENOTES WETLAND 1.4I110A710N (NWC) - DENOTES WETLAND BUFFER AREAS (PVC) - SEE WEILAND REPLACEMENT PLAN BY EARTH SCIENCE ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED. Tab 651- 674 -6210. v3/ T4 10 FTr 104 SLOPE POND DETAIL MORON CONTROL NOTR6 era w° =.r .°.-.w w...m nun MP. 'tea w It err w era oc sap mesons vs woo ewew. :SW S r■■••■ e1LT R114CI LOT AREAS/ MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS. Front = 30.00 feet Rear - 30.00 feet Side • 10.00 feet (house) Side • 5.00 feel (garage) Lot Area = 10,800 s . ft. (upland) Lot Depth - 135.00 feet Lot Width • 80.00 feel Lot Width - 100.00 fee) (comer) NOTES - Bearing's shown are on NAD 83 datum. - Contours ore al 2 foot lnlervols. - Wetland located by E.G. Rud & Sons Inc. (763) - 786 -5556 on 11- 24-03. - WeOond delineation completed by Earth Science Inc (651) -674 -6210 on 9- 24 -03. - Topogrphy provided by Markhurd (763) - 420 -9606 on 12- 17 -03. - This survey was prepared with Title Commitment by Chicago Title Insurance Company. Commitment No 231913. - Wetland Conservation Easement to allow for meant. of ponds and pipes CERTP'ICATION _ 1 heresy certify that this survey. pion 0, y 1 repo)) ems prepred 3e me or under suprdsien and that I ern a duly Registered Lend 6,0.00)0, under ne laws of the State of Memesota SDE PtAhWiN• Dlrr4tESING PLOWE ENGINEERING, INC. FAA., (763) 789 -6007 9180 LEX)W,70N Alf NE 99103E 930E5 M( 55714 -3623 (752) 785 -1045 (STORM SENEP a P000 D'SIGN) I hereby urOty Mot rife pion was prepared by me r antler my direct supervision and the) I oat dug, Lie aed Fre- lusiona/ Engineer under the rows _s!:_the State of Minnesota ozG` o,'ri1`u 041E 31/5M1 [C NO •1295 DANIEL w. 00ERL11LL.Ek Dote.' M P,40. P01 Licmee No _2531L_ MAA a; -12-04 I. pro 01005°9 eal ire, er 009300 Isar 1 w 1 • ft e 4":. " . n i" N89 °52'21 "W 1307.07 r -r <=1- X714- 7 Tom' 1=1REbERVAT I ON 1=1- 10! � 1 • \ S89 °52'21rE , 450.00`• -mod • ",ef° • 1; r't .;.,« yes, e t :'4 OF: FOX DEN ACRES FOR: ROYAL OAKS REALTY (OWNER at DEVELOPER) 1000 COUNTY ROAD E. WEST SUITE 150 SHOREVI W MN 55126 PHONE: (651)- 483 -5518 N99'52'21 "W r Mf (` .+yf • AD Ri rI see w 9'52'21"W lea MAR 1 1 2004 art co. ;J 4O LAKES 546.06 , GRAPHIC SCALE • t .MM 7 -lee r es r H89.49'34 "E 511.0✓? Ze \s <. VICNTY MAP PARTS OF SEGG. 39. TNP. 31. RAs. •2 1 -.Jt zfey,- ANOKA C0&NTT, MMEEO A NOT TO SCALE) TREE PRESERVATION MEASLA2ES. Tree Preservation Measures Denotes orange silt fence /tree protection fence placed at edge of mass grading. Ali trees within this fence are to be removed for moss grading. Signs to be pos indicating tree protection zone. Implementation: 1) Install all slit fence /tree protection fence M locations shown. 2) Remove trees within the sat fence area as shown (dear zone). Developer and future builders reserve the right to dear any trees not cleared within the dear zone as it becomes neaessory. There shall be no replacement required for chess trees. All trees outside the dear zone shall be preserved and replaced If disturbed per Section 1009, this is to be known as the (save zone). 3) Site to be graded. Any oaks damaged during construction to be treated per Section 1009. 4) Custom groded lots to be reviewed by forester at time of survey for building permit No tree clearing or mass grading to be done with grading permit. 5) Post grading procedures to follow Section 1009. a Denotes Set 1/2 Inch by 18 Inch Iron Pipe Marked by R.L.S. number 41578 • Denotes found monument Denotes•County Cast Iron Monument –�— Denotes Fence the per Aerial Photo - - -- Denotes Wetland as Delineated by Earth Science Denotes Tree Clearing Zone D00 2 6 .2 / ••< /• e rw A<'n. / PA. Lary ty. TREE DETAIL h •fnen Denotes Tree Number as togged. See Attachment for Description or trees by Kunde Company. 902 332,74 89 °57;28 "W Hsd� x ‹53 —,.- + t & i/. rp / (.•";s l.. • \,`'�� � \ , 1 1 % t` i r ; \� may.°" Ott • / -11 \ •\ / i t' :11 1, 1 7-� . •• f.1 • .. I 1 . 1 ( \. I Prepared'�o: t j \ \ 1 `'' .� R,yID ; 4' -4N5, N . �' t wweA,AerelprIA 9!8m LEX!NGTOK! OvE!:JE L152GLE pIN85, MN. 5504-3625 7.1.163-1116-5P66 Paz 163- 186 -6001 r • ./2.84. 'i J S89'59'33 "W C' sir • s i, 1 – vtiYwr 1 AREAS' Total Boundary Area a 2,777,946 (50.0 Acres) Total Upland ,= 1,662,427 (38.16 Acres) Total Wetland = 575,519 (17.8 Acres) T056 DETAL 2' (SPECIMEN TREES) 7P -`— boost., The. Sts. In Inches Denotes Tree Type _ SPE.C4Mt?' T6 TYPES: et GREEN 2611 et NORTHERN Pat OAK te soffit 0AK is RED 'WIZ BENCUMARKt Top Nut Hydrant of the Northwest corner EI wtppn er.:9 osNng and Holly Drive. NOTES' – Bearing's shown We on NAD 83 datum. – Trees tagged by Kunde Company (651) - 484 -01ln on Fab. 9 -19 of 2004. – Tree. located by E.G. Rod & Sons Inc.. – This survey was prepared with Nee Commitment oy Chicago Title Insurance Colrpony. Commitment No. 213. – 5.a Grading Plan and Certificate of Survey for Hydrologic characteristics. NC DA,I ,XSCRIP,ON 1e-1 CERTIF CA i ION, 1 hereby certify that this survey. pion •- 'aeg �: or report was prepared by me a under my direct supervision end Mal 1 am o duty Registered Lone Surveyor under the 1 w of the Stole of uinnesolo. 11214161. w: OB681.61R Date: /4 Me /I. 44/ License No. 253)• ,. NH alga 1.w w •• 0.re93'+P m-n -a I _ = 0J119y,74T I.°. 1 I Hse y� PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN FOX DEN ACRES LINO LAKES, MN 1 2 .< • ••10'1 7.` 7 '—. -l' l � .( r 1• - . (• - i"' �'�°,'►:POND 3 Drava WOW. ▪ r hag .\ 1 . 2 Hse ..a • • - • • • • - • • 445 A.J. MIS IS..YYAi ASMm.n'C PLOWEENCdMEERNO,, BVC. IAID 0073010* 434* NE CARO[E Nnu Wx MOM (743) 76s -100.7 / hoer, ea., No rna AM- .se peeavd bt nu or amp, m• 0.0* eurnhi a mad Fro - .n /eAVrw [nadHU ear N.• rah of Ins Sane el 11 rNta emerge GRAPHIC SCALE wen GO O REcFIt,1r MAR 1 1 2004 CITY OF LING LAKES VICINITY MAP EXISTING U511001 S 1) 16. Iniormetlan shown an ate. *Conn*o miw.minv tone and Ncalbe el •i lnq utallw. 6 not guaranteed to b. (Karat. Or e inn6Am0. Tn. ceWwlor Y e.goouwe for mating his awn d.w.nnetian as to the typ. od Motion of NIR1N. a may M eaw.eary to oar domo.e m M.w .1191*. 2) The COfVaclo Ne 6. moons * tan .Ye16y Witty ..olio. Cat G.pSo Stole One el 463:) 454-0002 101 lonet.6. 5AN0ARY SEDER 1) Sadtm, Saver .6e M 6' cod 1C• PVC SDR 35 u.d.e NINNON nave. 6ATERMA0 1) Odom. Non IN 6' 0P. Hydrant Ned. Nor be 6' OP Mona o16wuN. noted 2) Pare 6yia.. 5. from bock el orb. 3)) Nankin 60' mM6mim owe to lop at Noe. SERVICES 1) sanitary wear .e1M.. Nell be 1' PVC 109 26 and Not Pe nal.. from M. de n.Iremo maMW* B) Warr service .6e 6. 1. copse. Tyat x. st°T,t'sloMn "s... Mngme nd:$T e:'.NS"4.dm'mmm o.NN.rI•n °ikupro ol'PW�9m . ap•ane WEBS Book IIOJ 006. Nth en—eN. met.kd N ncidesIN v Curb SW�2))T505aao20 owls dwi t.rm1ON .NIS a tae toot Boor 1e notion. WH pNLNo Beumlw1. and Goer.. Oub re pm.. 2) b. emlWel'w Pnig tdtinv .VU1 mot*. 0e reW6.d CONTRACTOR 5055. FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND LEEVATI01I of E1151.G U1diSE5 AND NOTirY ENGRt.t0, Of ANT DISCREPANCIES PRIy5 TO NNE START aF CONSTNU6110N. A ROC. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS Roo MAL. BE 9IS1A:LEC NRT MAINTAINED AT ENTRANCES TO EXISTING MOW 5099610 ROADS. NOCE ENTRANCE SHN1 BE NO LESS 11Wt 50 FEET IN LOOTS AND AS WOE AS NECESSARY roc 141110 USE t• TO 2' WASHED ROCK. LEGEND: 1)— — Denotes Existing Sanitary Sewer 2)— 1 — Denotes Existing Watermain 3)-2,-- Denotes Existing Storm 4) —>— Denotes Proposed Sanitary Sewer 5)— 1 — Denotes Proposed Watermoin 6) —»— Denotes Proposed Storm 7) ® Denotes Sanitary Sewer Manhole 8) AC Denotes Hydrant 9) ljQ Denotes Water Sh Off Valve 10) ❑ Denotes Catch Basin ut 11) Q Denotes Storrs Sewer Apron 12) Denotes Rip –Rap 13) m Denotes Storm Sewer Structure PREPARED PM ROYAL OAKS REALTY, INC. 7000 COUNTY R✓ E WES1, SUITE 150 5HORE14ER MN 55116 PHONE: (651) 483-5518 • • AGENDA ITEM V. F STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: April 14, 2004 TOPIC: Liaison to Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) BACKGROUND The Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) is an advisory body appointed by the City Council to advise the Council on economic development matters. In the past, there have been liaisons among the different advisory boards, but this has not been a particularly formal system. EDAC has requested the P & Z to consider if any P & Z member would like to act as a liaison to EDAC. This would involve attending occasional EDAC meetings to exchange information on the status of development policies, projects, and other issues. There is no formal minimum commitment, and the liaison could arrange his or her own schedule for attending meetings or otherwise communicating on these topics. EDAC meets the first Thursday of the month at 7:00 a.m. unless there is no issue to put on the agenda. I suggest the possibility that the P & Z as a whole or the liaison may want to propose to EDAC that alternating attendance of a P & Z meeting by an EDAC member may be a good means of mutual support (in effect, an EDAC liaison to P & Z). RECOMMENDATION If any member of the P & Z is interested, P & Z can appoint a liaison to EDAC. • Zoning Map .111* 1111:111.11111F WilINIP 11111111 1116®11 SITE