Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/2004 P&Z Packet• • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, September 8, 2004 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers (scheduled to be televised on Ch. 16) AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Swearing in of new board member II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 16, 2004 and August 11, 2004 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING for Rezoning to PUD and a Preliminary Plat for Fox Den Acres, Royal Oaks Realty, a 50 -acre development south of Birch Street and east of Deerwood Lane, at the east end of Fox Road — Jeff Smyser B. PUBLIC HEARING for Preliminary Plat for Speiser Acres, Jeff & Marni Sawyer, the combination and subdivision of three existing lots to result in three lots, 453 Birch Street — Paul Bengtson VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Temporary Signage update — Jeff Smyser B. Master Plan — Hodgson Rd. (49) and County Road J — Jeff Smyser VII. ADJOURN • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT : June 16, 2004 approximately 6:46 P.M. : approximately 9:14 P.M. : Hyden, Pogalz, Rafferty, Root, and Tralle. : Lane. : Jeff Smyser. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at approximately 6:46 p.m. II. DISCUSSION ITEMS Jeff Smyser, City Planner, stated the purpose of this meeting is to discuss temporary signage, including banners and other foams of temporary signs used for advertising. He reiterated that this meeting is for discussion only, and no decisions will be made or regulations adopted as a result of this meeting. Mr. Smyser gave a short history of the discussion of signage over the past year. He noted that signage has always been an extremely difficult issue at the city. Staff reviewed the city's existing ordinance regulating signage, as well as regulations of other cities. Kathy Hansmann, representative of Fast Break Express, stated that signs are important, especially during grand openings or special sales. Erna Olman, representative of Taco Palace, agreed that banners and other temporary signs are very effective. Ron Mikolai, realtor, pointed out that there are many types of temporary signs, for community events, etc., that regulations will affect. Mr. Mikolai stated that his business gets better results with signs than with other forms of advertising. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board June 9, 2004 Page 2 Brian Strube, representative of North Metro Realtors Association, supports the fact that the current city ordinance exempts real estate signs from regulations. He agreed that signs should be restricted from the right of way. Staff concluded that this issue would be further discussed at the next Planning & Zoning Board Meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:14 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT August 11, 2004 . 6:33 P.M. . 9:21 P.M. : Hyden, Pogalz, Rafferty, Root (arrived at 6:50 p.m.), and Tralle. : Lane. Jeff Smyser; Michael Grochala; and James Studenski I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:33 p.m., August 11, 2004. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Pogalz requested item 5C be moved to item 5A. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 14, 2004 Chair Rafferty requested his statement on page 9, third paragraph be deleted and replaced with the following: Chair Rafferty stated staff had done an excellent job in trying to help the City along with the comprehensive plan, which was approved and now staff was asking to look at things that needed to be adjusted. He noted he felt there was confusion at the City Council level and the City Council needed to come to the conclusion that they should work with staff on any comprehensive plan changes or amendments. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION approve the July 14, 2004 Minutes as amended and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 3 -0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open mike open at 6:38 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:39 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 3 -0. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2004 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development /Preliminary Plat for Marshan Townhomes 2" Addition, a 23 -unit medium density residential development, NE corner of Lake Drive and Aqua Lane Staff stated Hokanson Development had submitted a request for a conditional use permit for a residential planned unit development (PUD), and development stage plan (preliminary plat). The subject site is four acres of property at the northeast corner of Lake Drive and Aqua Lane, adjacent to the existing Marshan Lake Condominiums. A PUD is required for multi - family development in a shoreland area. The site was rezoned to R -3 earlier this year, making it consistent with the comprehensive plan. The P &Z opened the public hearing at the June 9 meeting, continued it to July and then closed the hearing. The application was then tabled to the August meeting to allow the applicant to make design changes. Staff presented their analysis. Staff was recommending approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Additional right -of -way shall be dedicated to Anoka County to total 60 feet from centerline for Lake Drive (CSAH 23). 2. The right of access shall be dedicated to Anoka County along CSAH 23 on the final plat. 3. A new landscaping plan shall be submitted with the following changes three weeks prior to City Council consideration of the application: -change Colorado spruce to white spruce 4. The final plat must include larger individual unit lots to ensure that the eaves and any building projection meets the property line separation to meet fire protection requirements in the building code. 5. A revised preliminary utility plan and preliminary grading must be prepared and submitted three weeks prior to City Council consideration of the application. The previous submittals are void due to the revised layout of the project. The City Engineer's comments in the July 9, 2004 memo and the August 6 memo must be met to his satisfaction. 6. Park dedication shall be $28,170. 7. Existing buildings on the site shall be removed. 8. The existing well and onsite septic system shall be properly abandoned. 9. Brick or stone veneer base shall be included on all four sides of the buildings. 10. The project shall not be final platted until 2005 to comply with the growth management policy. 11. Approval from the Rice Creek Watershed district for this new layout shall be obtained. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2004 Page 3 Mr. Pogalz asked if there had been any further progress regarding the park dedication fee. Mr. Smyser replied he had not discussed this with applicant, but staff was continuing to recommend the park dedication of $28,170.00. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Ron Fuchs, 9174 Isanti Street NE, Blaine, stated they would like to move forward and they had done everything they had asked to do and were willing to work with staff on the color scheme. With respect to the conditions of approval, he stated they were working with the Rice Creek Watershed and the changed plans submitted to the City would be reviewed by the Rice Creek Watershed District in the near future. He stated he believed they would get the approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated they were still working on the park dedication with staff. With respect to condition number 9, they were in agreement with a stone or brick veneer face. Chair Rafferty stated he had been in contact with staff and Mr. Hokanson regarding the color scheme and believed this size of a development would not warrant a variety of colors. He suggested they attempt to do the north and south edge of a darker color with a lighter accent with the interior units being the opposite. Mr. Root arrived at 6:50 p.m. Mr. Tralle stated he did not have a problem if they changed the color scheme as long as there was a variety of colors and not just one color. He thanked applicant for addressing his concerns. He stated he liked what he saw in this development now. Mr. Pogalz thanked applicant for working through this difficult process with them. He asked what the price range of the units would be. Mr. Fuchs replied the price range had not been set as of yet. Mr. Root also thanked applicant for working with the P & Z Board. He appreciated the improved landscaping and had no objection to this development. Chair Rafferty agreed the development had evolved for the better and this was a nicer development for the existing neighborhood and the City. Chair Rafferty requested a condition number twelve to read: 12. Review of the color and schemes to be approved by staff. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit /Planned Unit Development /Preliminary Plat for Marshan Townhomes 2nd Addition, a 23 -unit medium density residential development, NE corner of Lake Drive and Aqua Lane subject to the 12 conditions as outlined and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4 -0. B. Final Plat for Marshan Estates, 5 Lot Residential Subdivision located adjacent to Marshan Lane DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2004 Page 4 Staff stated Marshan Estates is a 5 -lot residential subdivision located adjacent to the existing Marshan Lane. The project also includes six outlots which are intended to be deeded to adjacent property owners to correct ambiguities in existing property descriptions. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on March 8, 2004. On July 26, 2004, the City Council approved the development agreement for the subdivision and ordered the extension of sanitary sewer and water infrastructure to service the development. The final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat. The title commitment for the property has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review. As required under the conditions of preliminary plat approval, the developer has provided a 10 -foot pedestrian/bicycle easement along Lot 1, Block 1, adjacent to Lake Drive as well as a 20 -foot conservation easement adjacent to County Ditch No. 10. All park dedication, securities and fees have been submitted. All other conditions of approval will be met with building permit review of the new houses. Staff was recommending approval of the Final Plat for Elm Street Estates. Mr. Rafferty asked if the large pine trees in the main drive were going to be removed. Mr. Grochala replied there would be some pine removal along Lake Drive, but they were trying to preserve the pines on Marshan Lane. Mr. Studenski stated there would be some tree loss as the services and driveways get put in, but it would be minimal. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Final plat for Marshan Estates, 5 -lot residential subdivision located adjacent to Marshan Lane and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4 -0. C. Final Plat for Crystal Cove, North Suburban Development, SW corner of Lake Drive and 79th Street Staff stated the City Council approved the preliminary plat for Crystal Cove with Resolution 03 -141 on September 8, 2003. This project involves developing Outlot B of Highland Meadows East, which is on the south side of 79th St. just west of Lake Drive. He indicated the final plat confomis to the approved preliminary plat. The development agreement is in progress and will be completed prior to City Council review. The City Attorney's review of the title commitment is underway and will be fully resolved prior to City Council consideration of the final plat. Conditions of approval will be addressed within the development agreement. He noted one additional issue requires resolution. An easement is needed on property to the south for a utility connection. This easement must be obtained with a deed from the adjacent property owner. This deed must be submitted for review prior to City Council review. He indicated they would normally require completion of this prior to P &Z review, but this can be dealt with before approval by the City Council. Staff was recommending approval of the Final Plat for Crystal Cove. DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2004 Page 5 Chair Rafferty inquired about the twin home located on the property. Mr. Smyser replied there would be a zero lot line with the middle of the twin home being located on the lot line. He indicated each twin home would then have a piece of property. Chair Rafferty stated he did not mind common property, but he was not in favor of a 40- foot lot. However, this did conform to the preliminary plat. Mr. Smyser noted this was an unusual situation. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Crystal Cove, North Suburban Development, SW corner of Lake Drive and 79th Street and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0. D. Recommendation on Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail System Plan Staff stated Brauer and Associates has prepared the City's new Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail Plan. This plan lays out an important new direction by establishing goals in open space planning, which require some new approaches to development review. Staff requested a recommendation from the P &Z that the City Council approve the new plan. Jeff Schoenbauer, Brauer and Associates, presented the proposed Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail Plan. He discussed how the plan could be implemented and what it would look like. He stated the City was at a threshold point and it was important to set aside the open space /greenways and trail systems now. Mr. Root stated he liked the concept, but it was important to also look at the maintenance cost for the City. He stated he liked the concept of a park dedication fee, but asked how would a trail system plan work. He indicated he would like to see something firm and defined like the park dedication fee requirement. He stated they needed to figure out how to do this when staff already had their hands full. He asked for something concrete that developers would clearly understand. Mr. Schoenbauer stated it had been his experience the best way to illustrate how this happened would be to go through a prototype process. He believed the most creative development plans came out of the creative process and not a regulatory process. He noted the unique thing about a conservation development was the City laid out proactively what they wanted to achieve on a piece of property and then staff applied those concepts to the plan. He stated there was only so many hours staff could put into a development proposal, and if staff could be much more in the forefront and proactive with the developer, the developer can actually be influenced right from the beginning to achieve what the City was looking for, which made the approval process easier and quicker. He stated he was confident this type of a process would work, but he respected Mr. Root's concerns. Mr. Grochala stated from staffs standpoint, they wanted to go this way on new developments. He indicated there was a window of opportunity here and they wanted to DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2004 Page 6 preserve the amenities the City had to offer. He noted this was a complete change on how the City and developers approached development. Mr. Schoenbauer noted traditional approaches had not resulted in preservation of green space and the City needed to look at different concepts to preserve open space. Mr. Tralle expressed concern about the City budget for the preservation of green space being one of the first budgets to be cut in economic hard times. Mr. Schoenbauer stated this was an economic consideration and he suggested the City have some type of an endowment set up to ensure there would be funds to maintain the green space. Mr. Tralle asked who would maintain the open space. Mr. Schoenbauer replied it depended how the developer and City wanted to deal with it, but the most common way was the developer setting aside funds into an endowment fund and the interest earned from that fund would manage the resources. He noted a homeowners association could also pay through their monthly dues for the maintenance of these areas. He acknowledged these were difficult concepts to regulate into a process, but it was his experience that these types of concepts worked well. He noted staff needed the latitude to negotiate with the developer and the City needed to realize that they might have to give up some things to get a good development. Mr. Tralle asked what were the plans for bike trails on already established areas. Mr. Schoenbauer replied there were multiple layers proposed through the City, even for established areas. However, he acknowledged there were economic considerations to be looked at also. Mr. Root asked what was the City's leverage on these developments. Mr. Schoenbauer replied there were a lot of tools the City had to get the developments where they wanted them and he was working with staff and the City Attorney to look at these various options. Chair Rafferty asked if the City needed to be proactive in preserving open space. Mr. Schoenbauer replied that was correct and it was important these areas be preserved now as the developments were coming forward. He noted it was important staff had the ability to work with the developers to obtain the green space. Mr. Tralle expressed concern that the Rice Creek Watershed District was working with old maps and data. He asked what were they doing to be looking at current data. Mr. Schoenbauer replied the Rice Creek Watershed District realized this and they had contacted a consultant to work with them on obtaining current information. Mr. Grochala stated it was the intent of Rice Creek Watershed District to look at the entire City and have a plan that made sense for water quality, water flow, and wildlife preservation. He noted it did not make sense to have pockets of wetlands. Mr. Hyden asked what happened when they filled in a wetland. Mr. Schoenbauer replied it depended on the soil condition and the drainage, but they intended on working with DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2004 Page 7 developers on grading to ensure property drainage. He noted a lot of developments were based on an engineered approach instead of an ecological approach. Mr. Grochala stated if the poor soils were removed and replaced with good soils, there should not be an issue with drainage or wet basements. Mr. Pogalz stated they had the option of getting the money per lot and disburse it throughout the City, or the tradeoff was to negotiate with the developer and possibly relax some of their requirements to create the open space. Mr. Schoenbauer stated he encouraged them to look at this as the City going to the table in good faith and indicating what they wanted to achieve with each development. He noted the developer would go back and look at the City's proposals and hopefully and state they would do it, but they needed X, Y, and Z in exchange. He stated the City needed to remain flexible instead of having a major dollar exchange. He stated each development proposal should be judged by the value the City got out of it and if it achieved the City's mission. Mr. Grochala stated staff would recommend the P & Z Board recommend approval of the plan to move forward to the City Council. He stated the park plan would be going to the Council sometime in the near future. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail System Plan and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Mr. Tralle stated he was not sure what they were approving. Mr. Grochala replied this was one element of the comprehensive plan and it would set up the framework for the Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail System Plan. Chair Rafferty noted staff had indicated they believed this was a good and solid solution to grasp the realities of development and without this type of a plan they risked the ability to find these answers each time a development came forward. He stated this was a framework for the City and it should be used as a tool to assist them in dealing with developments and the open space. Mr. Pogalz stated he did not have any issues with approving this on staff's recommendation, but he did have some concern that they had not been able to cover everything in the plan. Mr. Grochala indicated the Park and Environmental Boards had also been heavily involved in this process and had thoroughly reviewed the Plan. He stated this plan incorporated what was already in the comprehensive plan and consolidated everything into one document. Chair Rafferty stated he was comfortable going forward with staff s recommendation. He noted if they did not make an attempt to preserve the open space now, they could not get the land back at a later date. Motion carried 4 -0. E. Preliminary Plat for Fox Den Acres, Royal Oaks Realty, a 50 -acre development south of Birch Street and east of Deerwood Lane, at the east end of Fox Road DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2004 Page 8 Staff stated applicant had requested approval of a single - family residential development called Fox Den Acres. This is a new submittal of a plan that is different from the previous design reviewed several months ago. The comprehensive plan guides the site for low - density residential use and it is zoned R -l. The site is in the existing MUSA. A public hearing is required for a preliminary plat. Unfortunately, staff neglected to publish a public hearing notice for this meeting and it will publish this for the September meeting. Staff noted they typically do not recommend approval until they receive the preliminary approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District and they had not received approval by the Watershed for this project. In addition, there are some design issues that must be addressed. Therefore, staff would be recommending continuing the project to the September meeting. Mr. Hyden asked about the negative impact of vacating the easement on Block 4. Mr. Smyser replied they did not fully know what all of the implications would be, but this would be one of the things they looked at under the conservation approach. Mr. Pogalz expressed concern about getting the same set of plans back that they had looked at previously and being expected to feel differently about the project. He stated his concerns were still there, including traffic, and had not been addressed in this new proposal. He asked if they were doing the right thing by developing this land and making the traffic worse. Mr. Grochala replied there were a number of issues on the previous proposal for denial, with traffic being only one of those issues and quite a few of those issues had been addressed in this new proposal. Bob Schack, 763 Fox Road, stated he found out about this meeting two days ago. He stated the association was not trying to stop this development, but they wanted to minimize the impact to their development. He noted they had concerns about waterflow into their basements on the east side. He expressed concern about the impact of this development on their existing ponds. He expressed concern about the increase of traffic and requested they address the one access into and out of the development. Mr. Grochala replied staff had been working on the waterflow of the site. He stated they were trying to minimize large holding ponds and get water flowing through the site. Mike Black, applicant, stated developers were used to the regulatory process and the more that was regulated would make it easier to work through the process. He indicated developers needed to look at their process, investment and what they were trying to accomplish also. He noted developers also liked plans that did not require variances. He stated this development was a very low- density development they were proposing. He indicated they were not requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment with this new plan as they had in the past and he believed that had been a major concern of the City. He stated they had 8 less lots, the wetland impact was about the same, and the grading plan had been addressed. He stated they had met with staff and they had another meeting set up for next week to discuss the open space. He stated as a developer he liked the regulatory process and the give and take process being proposed in the open space plan DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2004 Page 9 was something that was hard to get a hold of and give the City what they wanted. He noted time was important for them on this development. He stated this development met the City's requirements and requested it be looked at as presented, but he was willing to talk with staff about the possibility of an open space corridor and a trailway. Mr. Root thanked the applicant for their willingness to work with staff on this. He stated he supported the open space concept, but they had to figure out how to do this effectively. He encouraged applicant to be as flexible as they could be. Mr. Black replied it would assist developers if the City put in the regulations and ordinances what the open space requirements were going to be, so the developers had something concrete to work with and knew what was required prior to starting work on developments plans. Mr. Tralle asked if they had spoken with the owner of the property where the tower was located. Mr. Black replied they had not spoken with that property owner, who he believed was Comcast, and while they could plan for a second access, he was not the owner of the property. Mr. Tralle suggested Mr. Black contact Comcast to see if there was any possibility in the future of purchasing that property. Mr. Black replied he was not sure he wanted to purchase that land. Mr. Grochala noted having an access off the Comcast property would only bring another traffic issue at Old Birch. He indicated a second access would not alleviate the traffic concerns. Mr. Black noted they had an expert consultant prepare a traffic study and he recommended the City have their consultant look at their report and determine if it was accurate or not. Mr. Tralle noted every new development in this area created a domino effect with respect to traffic. He indicated the next development to go in would have the same traffic issues as this development was having. Chair Rafferty thanked applicant for working with the City, but expressed concern about the impact of the development to the west. He also expressed concern about the traffic and the access. He asked Mr. Black to look at the possibility of adding an access to the north. He stated the residential homes immediately to the west of this development he believed would be impacted by this development. He stated he believed the open space plan as presented by Mr. Schoenbauer was a good one with respect to the western edge of this development. He asked applicant to look at the western lot issue and the access concerns for the next meeting. Mr. Root made a MOTION to table Preliminary Plat for Fox Den Acres, Royal Oaks Realty, a 50 -acre development south of Birch Street and east of Deerwood Lane, at the east end of Fox Road to the September P & Z meeting and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Temporary Signage update DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 11, 2004 Page 10 Mr. Smyser stated one of the issues they were attempting to pursue was the contracts with cigarette and liquor wholesalers requiring certain signage. He stated they had attempted to contact the wholesalers to find out more about this with little success. Chair Rafferty requested staff continue their attempt to obtain further information regarding those contract requirements. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:21 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 4 -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 September 8, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING Rezone to PUD and Preliminary Plat Fox Den Acres Royal Oaks Realty Royal Oaks Realty has requested approval of single family residential development called Fox Den Acres. This is a new submittal of a plan that is different from the previous design reviewed several months ago. The comprehensive plan guides the site for low density residential use and it is zoned R -1. The site is in the existing MUSA. A PUD is not allowed in a single family zone, so a rezone to PUD would be needed. The Fox Den Acres project, with some revisions, could be a good example of conservation development . This will require the cooperation of the City, the developer, and the Rice Creek Watershed District. Staff has met with the Watershed District and Royal Oaks representatives to discuss how best to pursuit a conservation development on this project. This likely will include such things as moving wetlands and preserving and increasing higher quality wetland and upland areas. The design has not yet been determined. Because of this, we are recommending continuing the public hearing to October. At that time, we hope to present a design that will further the greenway goals of the community. 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. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site vacant 40 acres: Low Density Sewered Resid. 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 • Fox Den Acres page 2 This site has been guided and zoned for development for many years, even previous to the current comprehensive plan adopted in 2002. The site is in the MUSA and utilities and a public street are stubbed to it. The design of the project is undergoing change. We anticipate there will be 50+ lots, which will fit within the Low Density range of up to three units per acre. It is possible that we can retain a significant buffer along the existing homes on the west side if the city is willing to grant lot size flexibility elsewhere on the site. 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 area of the site to be built on is within the current MUSA. No MUSA reserve is needed as long as lots are kept within the 40 -acres currently within the MUSA. 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 in 2004. As seen in the table at the end of this report, 133 lots have been approved for year 2005. No more than 43 lots could be allowed for year 2005 if other applications proceed. Approval of the Marshan Townhomes project is on the City Council agenda for September 13, which would account for 23 units. The lot restriction may or may not create an major obstacle for this project to proceed as a conservation development. As the conservation design proceeds, we will examine if the preferred design can be implemented with a limited number of lots being created in 2005. Streets, Access, Parking: Fox Road is the only current access point for this site. Extending Fox Rd. as proposed would result in a long cul de sac unless a future outlet /connection is included in the design. Wetland extends to the east and south for more than 1000', so a road cannot go in those directions. 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. • • Fox Den Acres page 3 We are left with a badly planned location. The comprehensive plan for the community includes this as an area to be developed. One road is stubbed to it in a previous development project, as are water and sewer. In the past, many neighborhoods were created with only one access, but now we want to provide more than one . Therefore, we must look for another access option if the comprehensive plan is to be implemented here. The 500' radio tower on the north is likely to stay. The proposed road stub to the north of the plat avoids the tower 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 is possible that a road could extend to the north where pictured if these facilities were removed in the future. That area includes upland, though it is impossible to know how much without a delineation of that property. A "ghost plat" of the area shows it will be possible to fit in a road and some lots. In the future, when land to the north develops, this new road can be connected. This would provide not only a second access for this site, but an addition access alternative for the neighborhoods that exist now. Traffic: The developer submitted a traffic study with the previous application for 64 lots. The original study did not recognize the completion of West Shadow Lake Drive through to 62nd. St. or the reconstruction of 62nd St. Staff made the developer's consultant aware of this, and an amended study takes into account the current and planned roadways. The result is that the Birch St. approach and intersection will continue to operate at a level of service C. Existing residents have voiced the concern that they do not want additional traffic on the roads. Utilities: City water and sanitary sewer service will connect to existing facilities in Fox Road. Both are adequate to serve the project. Grading and Stormwater Management: Stormwater ponds likely will be created in several locations on the site. We anticipate that the redesign will include relocating smaller wetland areas of lesser quality and mitigating (recreating) them in areas that will increase the higher quality wetlands. The design also may include infiltration swales that will help filter water prior to running into ponds or wetlands. Existing residents have expressed concern about stormwater ponds that serve their neighborhoods. Parks, Open Space: The comprehensive plan envisions a conceptual greenway on part of this site. In addition, the City soon will approve a new "Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trails System Plan." Creating greenways to implement the concept presented in the comprehensive plan is the first priority of the new parks and open space plan. This will require the use of a variety of strategies, the most important of which is greater reliance on a conservation development approach to land development. • • Fox Den Acres page 4 As noted in the introduction of this report, staff is working with the developer and the Rice Creek Watershed District to determine the best way to implement the greenway plan on this site. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD The Environmental Board reviewed the project on July 28. The recommendations include pursuing a conservation development, with design flexibility, to facilitate a greenway corridor. RECOMMENDATION Open public hearing, take comments, continue public hearing. • Fox Den Acres, page 5 • CO R >C 0) O r.a cc N C„) w E O O O N C ) N LO C A C}' N r r CO LO O r CO N L() r N r r r N O r N CO r O Co CO r CO N CD LO CO O CO Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be final platted) O 2008 O M CO M CO CO O O N 43 N CO 45' 120 O O O N N LO 51 O r N 18 CO r CO N r r CO I` r Tr O O N 65 r CD 561 O O 47 r N CO R r M O O N N Ln CD Lf) r O O r CO N N N r r CO "Zr T..- year end 2002 r Lf) 51 E i s L d co O r O C A N r 0 C O IC) O r CO N LC) r N O r r N O r N CO r CO r co N co LO Development Name approved prelim. plats 1Stoneybrook C Q C N (Century Farms North Keefe: prel plat, not final 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 Justin's Preserve Marshan Estates Rice Creek Church duplex Rice Church: Oakwood View Junes Addn Highland Meadows East 2nd -cs O 2 Q [Pheasant Hills 12th island West Shadow Ponds 2nd Add Marshan Townhomes 2nd Fox Den Acres (resubmittal) 'total CD N- o') ti N O N 67 N CA RESHANAU i 1.1 N •M• BIRCH STREET RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAT NO. II 12 13 II am OLD 0 L. 0 BIRCH CT. Io�11 -RAIL I 3 Alva itp gar Qu aL.• 0 1511 r 3 2 33 �2 PG WHITE 3 Q IIrr6 1 1 817 I al �� 2 , 6(S,I 4 3 11 ©Qna= mush ' WW1" o 3 -.941 � 2 5 _ _ STREET _ PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN (DETAIL) LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • Low Density Sewered Residential Low Density Unsewered Residential ZONING MAP DETAIL • • • AGENDA I'T'EM 5.B. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: September 8, 2004 TOPIC: BACKGROUND Preliminary Plat Allocation of MUSA Reserve Acres Speiser Acres Jeff and Marni Sawyer have requested approval of a single family residential development called Speiser Acres. The property within the new subdivision consists of three existing lots, one with an existing single - family dwelling, and two lots of vacant land. The lot for the existing single - family dwelling will be enlarged to include the land on which some accessory buildings have been constructed. Another single - family residential lot with frontage onto Birch Street will be created, and the remaining acreage will be combined into one large lot. This application highlights an unusual situation that should be corrected. There are five existing homes on the north side of Birch Street that are outside of the MUSA boundary. Two of the five are on city sewer, and one of the five is on city water. As part of building a new single family dwelling on the single - family residential lot created by this plat, city utility connection will be required for the new lot. To prepare for the possibility of future utility connections along Birch Street, the city should allocate MUSA reserve to all of the lots fronting on Birch Street, with the exception of the large `outlot' being created as part of this plat. That lot should not have MUSA allocation until such time as further development occurs. To accommodate the development proposal, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Preliminary Plat 2. Allocation of 6.5 acres of MUSA reserve • • • Speiser Acres Page 2 ANALYSIS The following is a summary of the proposal: Gross Site Area 30.476 Acres Upland Area 17.159 Acres Total Lots 3 Gross Density 0.1 units per acre Net Density 0.18 units per acre 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 Site Single Family Dwellings, Vacant Low Density, Sewered Residential R -1 North County Park Public / Semi - Public PSP South Single Family Dwellings Low Density, Sewered Residential R -1 East County Park & Single Family Dwellings Public / Semi - Public & Low Density, Sewered Residential PSP & R -1 West Single Family Dwellings Low Density, Sewered Residential R -1 Growth Management, MUSA Reserve: Growth Management, Units/Year: The proposed plat will not result in a net increase in the number of buildable lots within the city, and as such does not create any issue with the Growth Management Policy or the Comprehensive Plan regarding the number of lots created. MUSA Reserve: The table on the next page shows the status of the staging plans for allocating MUSA reserve acreage for new /existing residential units that will connect to city utilities. The proposed plat will result in the potential for the five existing lots to fully connect to city utilities at the discretion of the property owners. Though the annual target of 36 acres has been reached, the acreage needed for the proposed preliminary plat will not exceed the 20% flexibility allowance. The `new' single - family residential lot will be required to connect to city utilities as part of the platting process. Speiser Acres Page 3 RESIDENTIAL : `2003 =..2004 . ,2005. 2006 X00.7. ?2008 .:2009 TOTAL Annual Target I 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 252 Approved= Plats: Stoneybrook Century Farms North Ravens Hollow Justin's Preserve Junes Addition 27.7 27.7 15.3 11.4 13.5 5.4 9.4 55 20.9 20.9 3.7 3.7 1.4 1.4 ProposedkPlats. West Shadow Ponds 2nd Pheasant Hills 12th Addn Speiser Acres 0.7 0.7 4.5 43 40.5 15.6 5.4 9.4 4.5 0 6.5 119% 113% 43% 15% 26% 6.5 All Plats Total Allocation Percentage of Target Remaining Allocation 43 40.5 15.6 5.4 9.4 0 0 113.9 119% 113% 43% 15% 26% 0% 0% 45% -7 -4.5 20.4 30.6 26.6 36 36 138.1 Preliminary Plat Lots: The minimum lot size in the R -1 (Single Family Residential) zoning district is 10,800 square feet of upland. The three lots being created by the proposed plat will consist of 677,192 square feet, 22,002 square feet, and 48,252 square feet respectively. Streets: No new streets are needed or proposed as a part of the proposed preliminary plat. A new driveway from Birch Street will be needed for Lot 2, which is required to be a minimum of five feet from a side property line. No additional right -of -way is necessary on Birch Street, as it already has the complete 60 feet of right of way needed from centerline. Wetlands: Wetlands are delineated within Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed preliminary plat. Drainage and utility easements cover those wetland areas. The project does not include any wetland impacts. Park Dedication: The current subdivision ordinance includes park dedication requirements, as adopted in 2001. Park dedication is $1665 per residential unit, less any land dedication. There is no land dedication needed, so the park dedication will be $1665. An existing trail on the north side of Birch Street adjacent to lots 2 and 3 of the proposed • preliminary plat will not be affect by the proposed preliminary plat as it lies within the Birch Street right -of -way. • Speiser Acres Page 4 Utilities: The new dwelling proposed to be built on Lot 2 will be required to connect to city sewer and water as a part of this request. The existing house included in Lot 3 of the proposed plat is not connected to city utilities, however it will be required to connect when the on -site septic system fails. Grading and Drainage: Easements are required adjacent to property lines (5 feet side -yard and 10 feet front and rear - yards). The plan is also subject to review and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD The Environmental Board reviewed the project at the August 25, 2004 meeting. Recommendations are attached. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Lot 2 shall connect to city sanitary sewer and water. 2. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. Park dedication of $1,665 shall be paid. 41 4. Permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to City Council approval of a final plat. • OPTIONS. 1. Approve the application, including the following: a. Allocation of 6.5 acres of 2004 MUSA reserve b. Preliminary Plat, with conditions. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 This review is based on the following plans and information: City Engineer Comments dated September 3, 2004 Environmental Board Comments, August 25, 2004 Certificate of Survey, received August 27, 2004 Preliminary Plat, received August 27, 2004 Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan, received August 27, 2004 TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: James Studenski, City Engineer Reference: Speiser Acres 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 551 01 -21 40 (651) 292 -4400 (651) 292-0083 Fax www.tkda.com Copies To: City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota From: Scott A. Brink, P.E. Date: September 3, 2004 Comm. No. 12976 -002 Routing: A review of this proposed plat was previously provided in a Memorandum dated August 27, 2004. Since that date, an updated copy of the Preliminary Plat has been received. This review is therefore essentially a repeat of the August 27 memo with some adjustments as appropriate. The proposed Preliminary Plat of Speiser Acres consists of an unplatted area of property approximately 32 acres in size. The property is located along the north side of Birch Street (County Road 10) just east of Hokah Drive, or .30 mi. west of Hodgson Road (County Road 23). The proposed plat essentially provides for the re- sizing of 3 lots; 2 smaller lots along Birch Street (Lots 2 and 3) and a larger lot (Lot 1) that . encompasses the majority of the property and extending to the north limits bordering the Anoka County Chain of Lakes Regional Park. Much of this larger northerly area of the property is covered by wetland. • This review is abased upon the following: A Preliminary Plat prepared by Advance Surveying and Engineering Company received by the City of Lino Lakes August 27, 2004. The following review comments are provided: 1. The proposed subdivision will require the review and approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD). Rules indicate that any subdivision of property over 5 acres in size requires a permit from RCWD. 2. A new dwelling unit is proposed for Lot 2, and an existing dwelling is to remain on Lot 3. For the new dwelling unit, the lowest floor elevation is proposed at 891.7. The rear wetland area is listed as having a 100 year flood elevation of 886.0. The applicant shall be reminded that in accordance with the requirements of the City of Lino Lakes, the City's minimum building elevation floor elevation (including basement), must be the greatest of the following: 2 feet above the Design Flood Elevation, or 4 feet above the water table. The lowest building opening must be at least 1 foot higher than the emergency overflow elevation. As proposed, the building would appear to meet at least part of the above criteria, but would need to be verified further with regards to groundwater and emergency overflow requirements. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Speiser Acres Page 2 September 3, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 3. The Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining an NPDES Permit and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with State of Minnesota Law if grading will amount to 1 acre or greater. This would also require providing to the City a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), required as part of the NPDES submittal. If the actual area of property to be disturbed is less than 1 -acre, an NPDES permit will not be required. For any side grading, regardless of the acreage, sedimentation and erosion control measures shall be required in accordance with the City of Lino Lakes. 4. Platted drainage and utility easements (standard requirement of the City of Lino Lakes) must be provided adjacent to property lines (5 ft. sideyard and 10 ft. front and rear). A drainage and utility easement has been provided on the plat to encompass the wetland area. 5. Lot 1 is accessible (potentially /future) from Hokah Drive /Sioux Lane located 0.3 mi. north of Birch Street. Lot 1 (with the exception of the wetland area) would appear to be generally higher ground with potential for future development. However, any future intent is not shown or indicated per the information submitted. It is therefore recommended that access and utility provisions for Lot 1 be addressed at this time. 6. Any new or upgraded access to Birch Street shall require the review and approval of Anoka County. 7. Proposed sewer and water utility connection services have been added to the plan. The sizes of the mains and services must be provided, and the specific locations of the mains verified and shown. As shown, it would appear that the location shown for the existing watermain is incorrect. The exact location of the sanitary sewer main should also be further verified. Notes and details must be included with plans providing for adherence to the standards and requirements of the City of Lino Lakes. This shall include standard details for watermain and sanitary sewer services and appurtenances, and notes referring to utility construction requirements of the City of Lino Lakes and Utility Specifications of the City Engineer's Association of Minnesota (CEAM) as applicable. Any work within the right of way of Birch Street shall require the review and approval of Anoka County along with a permit from the County. 8. The proposed plat subdivision and construction must adhere to Floodplain and Shoreline Management requirements of the City of Lino Lakes as applicable. • • Memo To: Paul Bengtson CC: Michael Grochala From: Marty Asleson Date: August 31, 2004 Re: Recommendations of the August 25, 2004 Environmental Board Environmental The Environmental Board met on August 25, 2004 and made the following recommendations: • Speiser Acres • 1. A native plant buffer should be planted on the North side of the property 2. No soils should be imported or exported with out City approval. 3. Additional surface water from the site should be directed as much as possible to the existing depression and swale area existing on the site. The suggestion was made to connect the depression area with the swale area if possible. 4. Save as much of the existing aspen stands as possible. These aspen stands act as excellent wetland filters for surface water. Motion made to approve with above recommendations. Motion by O'Dea, 2nd by Bor. All were in favor. Motion passed. • Page 1 2 3 4 12 5 6 MARSHAN LAKE RESHANAU .1 f�4t ° : ea ©m: _ ( �� 0 ©� : ,,,,,. 6E 5 ©Hoe eallnalE !1! al�l ��umO ter,. T i o' i!' tl p,�a ©- v 0 PF .rte 'O'��.A�.pGE Ir! `Lti#1 C 3 tffi 6 a.amr e� .i;'d'7160"Lii� A�t�'7YY Homo ©penes eeep ® 0p ima 10 NO. 11 107 T 11411933 2931.2 .S'I WI'L• %i. A- /IRA'! All <ANCE SURIOEI!/VC Ri ENCIATE RINC CO sim15: Hvvr. Ain 1(11 Minnetonka. MN .5.51'45 Phouc• (612)474 7964 Fax (612) 474 5267 S•Imrr1 FOR: ALARM SO172 ? SDK 1-7,17,71: August 2004 DRAFTED.. Auuust'/21X14 KEA(SF!)- Angus 1 26. 7004 per August /9. 2084 letter from Lino Lakes (peonnurkedAugust 25. 2004 ,cent Ped.4ngus! 26. 2(84) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That Ivan of Government Lot 6 !vine Easterly of.Shenuuluah 3rd Addition and hint Southerly of Un• 1b/lmrine described line: Kcpimunr nt Nnnhca.,•i comer of Nock 5 .Shenandoah 3rd Additinu. Maur .Southeasterly ry to Southeast corner of said Government Lot 6 and there terminating subject to easement of rccunl and The .South 229.74 as ofthe East 164.35 titt ofthe West 744 leer of Mc Mrnhwea quarter of the Sbutlnvest gainer of Seetinn 29, Township 31. Rants 22. Anoka Comnn'. Minnesota. stud distance icing measured parallel to the Smith and West lines ofamid Northwest quarks' ul'the Southwest quancr. (S'nbje et no an casement lirrnad purposes over the Southerly 33 km tenol)(! ceptpanplattedasAnokaCountyHig wavkitht- Of-- WayP /atWeather11) and The Northwest quarter u /Southwest quarter Simian 2'). Towns /nip 3/. Range ?2. Anoka (Minty. Minnesota. E:rcept the South 229.74 feet of East 104.35 /let of (Few 744 feet thereof also camp' East 208..7 km of West 952.7Iic t of the South 2057 /ix't olnnid grunter quarter. a /.so except that part of sahl quarter quarter dcsc riled as hollowing Beginn:nsi at a point on South kw of aid quarter quarter 1145 feet East olSOuthwest C Omer thereof thence North parallel with Wet line of said quarter quaver 615 feet. thence East parallel with said South line 1697 5 tier phis or minus to has! line of mud quarter quarter, thence South alone said East line 615 firs p /us OF MOIL'S to Southeast carver of said quarter quarter. thence West alone said South line /69.65 feet plus or minus to point of beginning also except that pier ol'suid quarter quarter described as hollowing: Regaining at Southeast mime of Shenandoah 3rd Addiniar. thence South 89 degrees /7 mine. 25 sunnily East. assumed bean*. along South line of raid quanta quarter 140.82 nee!. thence Ninth 00 decrees 43 minutes 14 seconds East 314.73 lief. thence North 03 degrees 2(I minutes (Al second H. i'.st 134.5S km, thence North 89 degrees /7 minute, 3?s cords Ursa 1 31.09 fret m Gast line of tad Addition. thence South along said East hat' to point al'/eginnin$. also except that part planet/ as Shenandoah 3rd Addioil, except rasd subject to easements o1iecord LIMITATIONS NnTl:s /. Sh0147i1g the length and direction af/wuadary lines of the a/snr /egad decctiption. The scope ol'our service./ does not include detem» ring wlrr you okra which isa legal matter. P/easr check the kcal description with vourrecords or consult with competent legal counsel ifnecessary. to make sure that it is correct. and that any matters ofrec onl such as easements. that you wish shown on the survew. have been shown. 2. Shoti'thg the location o/c'sis'thj," in,prrn'cnients Ire deemed important. 3. Seeing new monuments or vurifyih {_ oh! monuments to mark the cameo: oftht' property. 4.Showing the topography of the site /n spot elev anOns, the elevations slx neat relate only to the benchmark provided on this. sure,:,: Use that benchmark and cheek at least one other /eaturc shown on the map n hen determining other elevations litr use on this site. ...Showing a proposed division of the propene liar your review and tier the review ofsuch gorrnuncntal agencies as may ha ,'c.juds heron avxrsuch a propssed. ST.l NU.•l KD 5)'AIROLS t4 (r)N47ENT/ON.S :: ". "Denote, 12" L 0 pine with plastic plug /eating State License Number 923.5 set. unless otherwise noted. C FR77E1C•A77O.N: (batty c env i • 16.11 this p /an. specilicatian or repun was prepared by are and that / ant a licensed Pr teswioua /Land .S'ur, ryorand l'ro /i'sm' Ona/ Engineer under the laws of the .State o /'Minnesota. /007284, X Utz James 1/. Parker P.L.S. A CE: No. 9235. 14LSident PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SPEISER ACRES h 4PLA^EO ®fl N moth!'£ 12• PLATT= utP,A TED E X C E P T I O N PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT I. t) BLOCK .tae AGES tool' LLmr AGES IC flA E M/D !7.159 A016 NOT r WAND StiENA w AH 7 —ex�a s marls' • THIRD Ate: SHEET 1 OF 3 SHEETS 040933 39'?!22 SA 1.1' }77f. AL4RN7 /ID I;INCE in?'IZ 7.NC d E'NC./NEER/NC CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. /0/ Minnctnnka. A/N 55.34■ Phone (6/1) 474 7'10-/ SIRVE} pole: MIRNI S,1 11'7ER Fax (6/1) 474 8167 VF }'FD: August 2004 DRA17TD ::locust 9. 1(104 REVISED: August 16. 1004 per August I9. 1004 letter atom Linn Lakes (postmarked August °+. 2104. received August 10. 2004) LEGAL DPI!7?1P77( That pan of Government Lot 6 lying Easterly of Shenandoah .3rd Additions and IVmg Southerly of the Ibl/owin_ described line: Beginning :n Northeast corner of-block 5. Shenandoah .+rd Addition. thence Southeasterly to Southeast comer of :said Government Lot G and there lenninating: suhjed to easement of record and 771c• South 229.74 feet of the Ewa 104.35 feet of the West 741 lest of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of SettiOn 29. Township 3/. Range 22. Anoka (ount: Minnesota. .said distant being measured parallel to the South and West lines ofsaid Northwest gunner oftlm• Southwest quarter. (Suhfect to an easement fin mad purposes over the Samba-11'33 fist t/wrc'oDq'P vccpa part plaited as Anoka County Hiphwav Rig/t/ -O /= W iv Plat Number 11) and The Northwest quarter of Southwest quarter of Section 29. Township 31. Range O° Anoka County: Minnesota. Except the South 229.74 her ofEas! 104.351)-n art Rest 744 feet thereof, also except East 108.7 feet of West 952.7 feet of the South 108.7 feet of said quarter quarter. also except that part of said quarter quarter described as fcdlowrog: Beginning at a point on Saudi line of said quarter quarter 1145 feel East of-Southwest Corner thereof thence North parallel with West line of said quarter quarter 615 feet. thence East parallel with said South line 169.75 feet plus or minus to East fine of said quarter quarter, thence South along said East line 615 feet p /us or minus to Southeast corner of said quarter quarter. thence West along said South line 169.65 feet plus or minus to point of Beginning- also except that part of said quarter quarter described as following: Beginning al Southeast corner ofSluenandoah 3rd Addition, thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 25 seconds East, assumed bearing along South line of said quarter quarter 140.82 feet. thence North 00 degrees 43 minutes 14 seconds East 314.7? feet. thence North 03 degrees 20 minutes 01 second West 134.58 /eeL thence North 89 degrees 17 minutes 35 ,seconds West 131.09 feet to East line of said Addition. thence South along said East line to point ofbeginning. also except that part platted as Shenandoah 3rd Addition except road subject to easements ofrecord LIMITATIONS d NOTES: 1 Showing the length and direction ofhnundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include deeermning what you own, which is a leg'a! matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consuh with competent legal counsel, i/'ncectssary, to make sure that it IS correct and that any manors of =turd .such as casements. that you wish shown on the. survey: have been shown. 2..Showing the location of-existing improvements we deemed intponant. 3. .S'ening new monuments or verifj'ine old monuments to mark the comers of the properly. 4. Showing the topography ofthe site by spot elevations; the elevations shown re /ate only to the benchmark provided on this .survey. Use that benchmark and cheek at least one other feature shown an the map when determining other elevations liir rise on this site 5. Showing a proposed division of the propene fhryour review and fits the review ol'such governmental agencies as may have juriselndiOn over such a proposal STANDARD SYMBOLS& CONVENTIONS: "• " Denotes 1,2" ID pipe with plastic plug hearing State License Number 9235. set, unless otherwise noted C:ERTII•'IC AT /ON I hereby certify that this plan specification or report was prepared he me and that / am a licence/ Professional Land Surveyor and Professional Engineer under the taws of the Stair of- Minnesota. Awned, X .13 ti James H. ParkerRL.S & PE No. 92./f President PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SPEISER ACRES SURVEY INFORMATION ONLY ;:PLATTE"++ w:PLATTEO N aeOrter - resas- sP.PLATTED E X C E P T I O N S worm- I' PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT .11SOIS AORS IOLIC war At7ES MAP= MUM 77.11• A06S MOT EMIMO Al 1 S OOrT•le • SiENAIWOAH - a7aro-- SmW1P• THIN -- 'ISf.F -74 E�^ M LOT�1�er Ls SttOWYP•.st 134 Wt - �rtasr -- P T I O /DD,r,w: I N I UG 272004 ! 1 CITY OF .. u p� ��6C1E V SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS • PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SPEISER ACRES DETAIL PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: Top of Foundation 599.4 Top of Lowest Floor 591.7 Top of Garage Floor 898.9 X a a x � - X 200.02v S 00•00' E EXISTING SEWER AND WATER MAINS--r" 1 AL JY� APPROXIMATE 886, 100 YEAR FLOOD CONTOUR AL X OA oX X GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 (E IlIIT) 5 or 0 D mm d x d ^ V S a 5 o 7. a` d i i Z d , /i i S 00•00 00 E 200.02 at- PROP ED RETAINING WALL 4 FEET R LESS TALL PROPOSED SEWER AND WATER SERVICE UNES x W -y�S V S m -------- m r" 4" 40 AL WETLAND AS DELINEATED BY OTHERS r4 4" OJT" - GJv SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEETS • • • • AGENDA ITEM VI. A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: September 8, 2004 TOPIC: Discussion: Temporary Signage BACKGROUND We have been discussing the temporary signage issue for some time. The extensive use of signage such as banners, cardboard signs, and other temporary signage by some businesses has created concern over the unsightly appearance of the businesses. We have invited business owners to two meetings to discuss the issue, including a special P & Z meeting on June 16. The meeting attendance was disappointingly sparse, but the people who did attend took the opportunity to raise some important points. Ultimately, the goal is to prepare amendments to the existing sign ordinance . We are not considering a total revamp of the sign ordinance: a fare more extensive project. For now, we are looking at issues relevant to temporary signage. Staff has no specific ordinance recommendations at this time. Drafting ordinance changes will progress as the discussion continues. Regulating signage is always an extremely difficult issue. As with any regulation, there will be those who will not agree with a signage requirement. The goal of signage regulation, like any government regulation, is to balance the private interest and the larger public interest. ANALYSIS Some of the issues raised include the need for temporary signage, the need for good definitions of sign types, real estate "for sale" signs, and requirements of tobacco and liquor companies to display their signs. There is no doubt that temporary signage is important for retail business owners. Signage advertises a business, which is good for the business. Successful business is good for the greater public. However, unlimited signage can become an eyesore and a nuisance, which detracts from the good of the community. Definitions are important for any ordinance. We will need to consider such terms as "temporary" and "portable ", as well as "banners" versus other types of non - permanent signage. • • • For sale signs for individual residential properties typically are small and are present for very limited lengths of time. Occasionally, a cluster of them will be an unsightly mess. Currently, Lino Lakes prohibits any sign in a street right of way, but does not require a permit for "for sale" real estate signs. We should determine if these signs constitute a situation that should be regulated. On August 24th, 2004 city staff had an opportunity to informally poll some of the local businesses, specifically those who would typically engage in the sale of retail alcohol and tobacco products. The managers on duty or business owners where first asked if they had received the letter sent by city staff in regards to the special meeting held June 16th, 2004. A vast majority of the people contacted had received the letter, but where unable to attend the meeting due to scheduling conflicts. All of the business owners were interested to learn if the meeting had led to any proposed changes to the temporary signage code. Specifically, the businesses were asked if they used any temporary signs to advertise their businesses. The vast majority, as would be suspected, did use some form of temporary signage, whether it be banners advertising specials or small signs attached to utility poles or other on site fixtures. The businesses were also asked if their distributors required them to put that signage up, to which no one answered affirmatively. Those who did receive their signage from their distributors did so only at the businesses request or as promotional items to be used at the businesses discretion. One of the businesses did state that the signage they used to advertise tobacco products was posted by the distributor on a regular basis, though whether the distributor 'required' the signage could not be confirmed or denied. Overall the reaction to the telephone inquiry was one of interest in working with the city to get a procedure /policy in place that would allow businesses to advertise their products and gain more visibility while still enforcing some aesthetic control. Some even offered potential compromises such as requiring all temporary signage to be professionally lettered. The vast majority reinforced their belief that the temporary signage was necessary to gain the attention of consumers and build their customer base. Based on this, staff can not provide definitive information to support or deny the contention that the cigarette and liquor manufacturers or distributors require the retailer to display the temporary signs. If business owners have evidence of such a requirement, they should provide it. I have attached the following tables to help with the discussion. The options offered are in no way intended to be the only possibilities. length of time Portable signs shall be used a maximum of four (4) times a year for a total of fifteen (15) days per time. Portable signs shall be limited to special events or promotion. (Section IV. X) Each building (not each tenant) is allowed a banner for two weeks at a time, for a total four such permits per year. Up to four banners per property per year, maximum 60 consecutive days per banner, 120 days max per year for all banners. Shopping centers: each tenant allowed three banners per year, max 60 days per banner or 90 days total per year Maximum 60 days per year, maximum 12 occasions per year. Banners, balloons and stringers are prohibited unless approved in conjunction with a portable sign permit. (Section IV. E.) Banners, balloons and stringers are prohibited unless approved in conjunction with an administrative permit. Allows a building to have one banner, 32 sf maximum or 5% of the wall, whichever is greater. The banner must be firmly secured to the building wall. Sign permit required, but banners don't count toward the max signage area. Banner can be up to 32 sf and must be attached to the building. Sign permit required. One temporary sign per street frontage, maximum 100 sf. Current Lino Lakes sign ordinance (Ord. 12 -97): a) C ED Woodbury White Bear Lake Bloomington • • w CD Q Z 0 Cl) } re Q ce O a 5 w i- ce O u- m co w cc 0 0 a 0 I- co U) P & Z discussion should be restriction /regulation anything not permanently affixed banners should be attached to building but what about other temporary signage? no signs of any type in road right of way 32 sf for banners, but what about other temporary signage? 1 month each time, with limit on number of times per year POSSIBLE OPTIONS NO RESTRICTIONS REGULATED AS TO SIZE, LENGTH OF TIME ANYTHING NOT "PERMANENTLY AFFIXED" TO THE BUILDING OR GROUND ANYTHING NOT QUALIFYING AS A WALL, GROUND, OR PYLON SIGN SHOULD WE ADDRESS WINDOW SIGNS? NO LIMIT /RESTRICTION ONLY ATTACHED TO BUILDING ONLY ATTACHED TO A "PERMANENT" STRUCTURE NOT IN ROAD RIGHT OF WAY NO LIMIT /RESTRICTION 32 SQ. FT. FOR BANNERS MUST CONFORM TO, OR BE INCLUDED IN, LIMITS FOR PERMANENT SIGNAGE NO LIMIT /RESTRICTION 1 MONTH EXISTING LIMITS FOR PORTABLE SIGNS: four times per year, 15 days each time w m U) U) ALLOWABLE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE should they be allowed? DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY SIGNAGE, OR TYPE OF SIGNS TO BE ADDRESSED ALLOWABLE LOCATION ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWABLE TIME LIMIT • • • AGENDA ITEM VI. B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: September 8, 2004 TOPIC: Discussion: Master Plan Study for Hodgson/Co Rd J Area BACKGROUND This agenda item is an informational item to let the P & Z know about an important planning project. We have begun a study of the area near the intersection of Hodgson Road and Ash Street (CSAH 49 and County Road J). The study will examine current land use as well as infrastructure, including roads, water, and sanitary sewer. The goal is to have a master plan that will guide development in the area. The area is guided and zoned for commercial or mixed use development. However, the current infrastructure cannot support such development. This is one of several areas where the comprehensive plan did not sufficiently consider the infrastructure capacities. The master plan will examine such issues and will serve as basis for possible recommendations for any amendments to the comprehensive plan, utility plans, or other documents or policies. The attached map shows the study area. The study will consider the immediate surroundings for such issues as road connections, access point conflicts, and physical constraints such as wetland complexes. • • MIXED -USE REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN Co. Rd. J and HODGSON ROAD, LINO LAKES COUNTY ROAD J Landform Proposal No. P4173