Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/13/2004 P&Z PacketA • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, October 13, 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: September 8, 2004 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUED 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 amending Ordinance No. 01 -03, Growth Management Policy, to provide residential development phasing flexibility for conservation development projects — Jeff Smyser C. Final 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 D. AUAR Study for the I -35E Corridor, Consideration of Advisory Panel — Jeff Smyser VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Temporary Signage update — Jeff Smyser f k • • • B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, David McDonald (Bodyworks Gym property) — Paul Bengtson C. Update on Legacy at Woods Edge — Jeff Smyser D. Resignation of P &Z Board Member Sharon Lane VII. ADJOURN • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : September 8, 2004 TIME STARTED : 6:32 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:27 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Laden, Rafferty, Root, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT : Lane and Pogalz. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff Smyser; James Studenski; and Paul Bengtson I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:32 p.m., September 8, 2004. Mayor Bergeson swore in Mr. Laden to the Planning and Zoning Board. • II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JUNE 16, 2004 and AUGUST 11, 2004 Mr. Tralle made a MOTION approve the June 16, 2004 and August 11, 2004 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open mike open at 6:35 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Chair Rafferty closed the open mike at 6:37 p.m. 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 Chair Rafferty opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 2004 Page 2 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 -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 necessary. He stated the Fox Den Acres Project, with some revisions, could be a good example of a 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 pursue a conservation development 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. Staff presented their analysis and recommended opening the public hearing, taking comments, and continuing the public hearing to next month's meeting. Mr. Root asked what exactly was the public hearing for tonight. Mr. Smyser replied the purpose was to hear public comment and some of the comments heard tonight could possibly be incorporated into the final plan. Mr. Laden asked how many acres of greenway were being proposed. Mr. Smyser replied he did not have that information yet. He noted this was a conceptual plan. He indicated most of the greenway area was along the southern and eastern side of the property. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or against the application to make comment. Bill Ojile, 6420 Deerwood Lane, stated he was not against development, but wanted to know how this development would affect his neighborhood. He expressed concern about the increase in traffic through his neighborhood. He asked what the other acreage around this development was zoned as. Chair Rafferty replied he believed there could be some development in the future, but it was not a part of this development. Mr. Ojile asked what was a traffic study and how did they arrive at their numbers. Mr. Smyser replied traffic studies made certain assumptions. He stated the engineers looked at the existing roads and made educated guesses as to the traffic and flow on them. He stated the City Engineer had looked at this traffic study to see if it made sense for the City and in this case, the traffic study did make sense. Mr. Ojile stated in general the traffic study assumed approximately 50 -60 trips in both the morning and evening. Mr. Smyser replied he did not have the data in front of him, but it was assumed that half of the traffic would go north and half of the traffic would go south. He noted right now all of the traffic went to Birch Street. Mr. Ojile suggested they have these numbers for the next meeting. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 2004 Page 3 • Chair Rafferty asked if Mr. Ojile was speaking for the neighborhood group. Mr. Ojile • • replied he was only speaking for himself. Mr. Tralle stated he understood it was swamp in the area and the road to the north would be a stub street and there would be no road going to the south. Mr. Ojile stated the association had spent a lot of money on their ponds and requested when this development was laid out that the development did not affect their ponds. He asked their ponds be buffered from this development. Chair Rafferty stated the developer and the Board were aware of the traffic and pond issues. Debbie Heider, 748 Fox Road, expressed concern regarding traffic. She stated their road was busy the way it was and she did not want to see it increase. She indicated it was not reasonable to add 60 homes with no access to major roadways, other than through existing developments. She noted she had spoken with a lot of her neighbors and there was a lot of concern about the possible increase of traffic. Tim Abraham, 767 Fox Road, also expressed concern about the one access into the development and the increase of traffic on Deerwood Lane and Fox Road. He noted Deerwood Lane and Fox Road were not collector roads. He expressed concern for the safety of the children in the area. He encouraged the developer to investigate purchasing the property to the north to put in another access. Dawn Kenny, 6299 Red Maple Lane, asked who would be taking care of the existing swamp. She expressed concern about the increase of mosquitoes. She expressed concern that additional water would be added to this swamp creating more problems. She inquired about emergency vehicle access and expressed concern there would not be adequate access for the emergency vehicles. Resident, Deerwood Lane, expressed concern about the traffic increase on Deerwood Lane. He expressed concern for the safety of the children in the area. He noted he had contacted the City about speeding on Deerwood Lane and adding additional cars to this area was a concern. Rick Kamrath, 779 Deerwood Circle, expressed concern about the drainage system and the ponds. Mr. Studenski replied the design was currently underway for the new development and noted City regulations did not allow additional drainage onto the existing properties. He stated the City was aware of the pond concerns. Mr. Kamrath asked what was the timeline of this development. Mr. Smyser replied the development would not be started this year, but there may be some activity going on at some point next year. He stated the growth management policy did not allow any further development this year and there was very little growth allowed next year. He noted they were not even sure they would be approving this development so it was premature to state when the development would begin. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 2004 Page 4 Jim Sievert, 770 Deerwood Circle, asked how was this property being rezoned. Mr. Smyser stated the rezoning was necessary if they were going to do a conservation development because some lot sizes would need to be adjusted in order to achieve the environmental pluses they were attempting. Mr. Sievert asked if there was a plan in place when the current zoning was put into effect. Mr. Smyser replied this was zoned R -1, which was single - family development. He noted this was the same type of zoning as the developments around it. Mr. Sievert asked why they needed to change the original plan. Mr. Smyser replied they were not changing the original use of the site or what would be built on the site. He indicated they were hoping to change how it would be configured on the site, which would be more environmentally friendly. He stated the current zoning on the site would not allow a conservation development and that was the reason for the rezoning. Mr. Sievert asked why the City was not changing all of the R -1 zonings so all future developments were environmentally friendly. Mr. Smyser replied developments already developed could not be changed. The City was considering a rezoning to a PUD, which could change some lot sizes. Mr. Sievert expressed concern that the existing streets were very narrow and the increase of traffic in the existing developments. Al Stender, 6379 Deerwood Lane, expressed concern about the increase in traffic in general and the increase in construction trucks, etc. during development. He asked if the developer was responsible for any repairs to Deerwood due to the construction trucks. Mr. Studenski replied the City took pictures of the existing roads prior to any development and the developer was responsible to repair any damage to those roads. Mark Pederson, 6307 Deerwood Lane, asked if Deerwood Lane was considered a collector road. Mr. Studenski replied Deerwood Lane was not a collector road. Mr. Pederson asked who prepared the traffic study. Mr. Studenski replied the developer hired for the traffic study and that traffic study was then reviewed by the City. Mr. Pederson asked how did the City know the traffic study was accurate. Mr. Studenski replied the City had their engineering firm, TKDA, review the study for accuracy. Mr. Pederson expressed concern about the children walking to school and the lack of sidewalks in the area. Mr. Studenski stated these roads were designed to handle the additional traffic. Mr. Pederson inquired about the access onto Birch Street. Chair Rafferty noted Birch Street did not have anything to do with this discussion and he suggested Mr. Pederson contact Anoka County regarding traffic concerns on Birch Street. Mr. Studenski noted the traffic study did address traffic on Birch Street. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 2004 Page 5 Resident, Deerwood Lane, expressed concern about the increase of traffic during the day in his neighborhood. He stated adding an additional 50 -60 homes would add additional traffic and he requested the traffic study address the traffic during off peak hours. Mr. Studenski explained how the traffic study was prepared. He noted while the traffic study made generalizations, there were design standard projections that were followed through on a traffic study. Heather Parony (sp ?), 745 Fox Road, expressed concern regarding traffic and the safety of children in the area. She encouraged the Board to have a second access in this development. She stated she was a new resident in the neighborhood and chose this neighborhood because she did not want to live on a busy street. Bill Ojile, asked the City to get actual trip counts today and determine what this development would add to the traffic. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, stated he could understand the anxiety of the residents in the area. He stated they had been working with the Board and City staff for some months on this development. He stated they were not able to submit a plan at this meeting was because Rice Creek Watershed District was still working on a MnRAM study. He indicated this type of study took a lot of time. He stated he hoped they would have a plan at the October meeting. He noted the application to the City was for a preliminary plat and did not ask for any variances. He indicated they were aware of the traffic concern. He stated he could have the traffic engineer at the next meeting to answer any questions. He stated the study showed the increase of traffic would not have a significant impact to the existing neighborhoods. He noted they would be working closely with the City Engineer on the drainage concerns. He stated they would provide stormwater quality and rate control. He noted impacts to the wetlands would lead to mitigation and there would be areas that were upland today that would need to be used as mitigation areas for this development. He indicated they would do their best to address the concerns brought up at tonight's meeting. Mr. Hyden asked if there had been any neighborhood meetings. Mr. Black stated early on they had a neighborhood meeting. He believed the meeting was held in March, 2003. Mr. Laden asked what kind of market would these homes be marketed to and the price range of the homes. Mr. Black replied they were looking for single - family lots comparable to Pheasant Hills. He stated by the time the lots were valued, he believed the homes would be at $500,000.00. Mr. Root stated that he wanted to see traffic and drainage issues addressed thoroughly at the next meeting. He asked for specific, technical details and recommended the traffic engineer be present at that meeting. Chair Rafferty stated while traffic was a concern, the developer had the right to develop the property. He noted the hearing would be continued until next month. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend continuing the public hearing to the October P &Z meeting and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4 -0. 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 Chair Rafferty opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Staff stated applicants were requesting approval of a single - family residential development called Speiser Acres. The property within the 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. Staff noted 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 the 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. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approving the application, including the allocation of 6.5 acres of 2004 MUSA reserve and the preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 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. 4. Permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to City Council approval of a final plat. Mr. Laden asked if they had used any of the 2004 MUSA reserve yet. Mr. Bengtson replied there was some MUSA still available. Mr. Hyden asked if there was wetland on Lot 2. Mr. Bengtson replied there was wetland on Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Root asked about the eventual development of the outlot. He asked if there was anyway to make a connection if this outlot was developed in the future. Mr. Bengtson DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 2004 Page 7 replied the majority of the buildable land would be on the west side of the parcel, so there would not be a way to have an access where the new lot was being created. Mr. Root expressed concern about the access and suggested an easement be recorded for a future road. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Root inquired about an existing home being constructed. Jeff Speiser, 453 Birch Street, applicant, stated the home Mr. Root was referring to was owned by his son -in -law, who was reconstructing it and it was not a part of this application. He stated his daughter and son -in -law would be living in the new home and he would continue to live in the existing home. Mr. Tralle asked if they planned on doing anything with the large lot in the future. Mr. Speiser replied they were not planning on doing anything with that lot. Mr. Speiser stated they were in agreement with the conditions as noted in staff s report. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or against the application to make comment. Ms. Robinson, Hokah Drive, expressed concern about access to the area if it would be developed. She asked how would construction traffic access this lot if it would be developed. Resident, 6501 Hokah Drive, expressed concern about construction traffic coming down his street and the repair of the road damage. Chair Rafferty closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend approving the preliminary plat for Speiser Acres, Jeff & Marni Sawyer, subject to the conditions as noted in staffs September 8, 2004 report and allocation of 6.5 acres of MUSA reserve and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4 -0. Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 8:28 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Temporary Signage Mr. Smyser stated they have been discussing temporary signage issues 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. He indicated staff had invited business owners to two meetings to discuss the issue, including a special P &Z meeting on June 16. The meeting attendance was DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 2004 Page 8 disappointingly sparse, but the people who did attend took the opportunity to raise some important points. Staff presented its analysis and noted they had conducted an informal poll of some of the local businesses. He noted overall the reaction to the poll 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. He noted when asked if the businesses had requirements from their distributors to put signage up, 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. Based on this, staff cannot 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. Mr. Hyden stated he wanted to take two or three options at a time and discuss them. He stated he noticed the other Cities did not address real estate signs and that appeared to be a concern with the real estate agents in the area. He stated he did not see this as a concern. Chair Rafferty also agreed that real estate signs were not of a concern and this did not need to be addressed further. Mr. Laden asked if the current Ordinance addressed signs in the right -of -way. Mr. Smyser replied the Ordinance did address this and signs were not permitted in the right - of -way. He noted, however, the problem was that there was insufficient staff time to monitor these types of signs. Mr. Tralle stated it has been his observation that since this sign issue had been discussed, the signage in the City has gotten worse. He stated temporary signs were an eyesore and he did not want them allowed in the City. Mr. Root stated there were other ways to categorize signs as well. He noted there were individual and business signs being put up and they needed to address these differences. Mr. Laden asked if it was legal to remove signs out of a right -of -way. Mr. Smyser replied the City did remove the signs. Mr. Hyden asked if they were banning all temporary signs or not. He noted if they banned all temporary signs, there would be no need for a further discussion. DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 2004 Page 9 • Chair Rafferty stated he was in favor of temporary signage. Mr. Hyden replied he agreed • there was a place for temporary signage. Mr. Root agreed there was a place for temporary signage depending on what was considered temporary. Mr. Laden agreed. Mr. Tralle stated if they allowed temporary signage, how would it be regulated. He stated as long as the signs were very short-term, one or two days, he might agree to temporary signage. He indicated he understood churches and schools would want to advertise their special events. Mr. Hyden asked if they could agree they would have temporary signs with restrictions. The remainder of the Board agreed to this. Chair Rafferty asked staff to come up with a list of restrictions within the next couple of months. Mr. Tralle said he did not want to discuss this issue if there would not be any enforcement of it. Mr. Root suggested they discuss enforcement process at their next meeting. Chair Rafferty stated they needed to discuss signs in the right -of -way. Mr. Tralle noted they did not need to discuss signs in the right -of -way because signs in the right -of -way were already not allowed. Mr. Smyser stated enforcement was a staffing responsibility and it was up to staff to determine how this would be enforced. Chair Rafferty stated the topic of discussion would be wasteful if there was no enforcement. Mr. Bengston suggested they break down the signs into categories and discuss each type of sign individually at the next meeting. Mr. Tralle asked if staff would inform the City Council that the P &Z wanted to clean up the right -of -ways and wanted the temporary signs removed. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend staff enforce the existing right -of -way Ordinance and if staff needs City Council approval that the Board recommend to the City Council to enforce the current right -of -way Ordinance and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 4 -0. B. Master Plan — Hodgson Road (49) and County Road J Staff stated this was an informal item to let the P &Z know about an important planning project. He noted they had 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 road, water, and sanitary sewer. The goal is DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 2004 Page 10 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 plan, or other documents or policies. Mr. Laden asked if the City knew what was going in place of the 49 Club. Mr. Smyser replied he believed a larger bar /restaurant establishment would be proposed. However, he noted there was not existing water on the site and it would be a difficult process to run water lines to this site. Mr. Laden asked if there was any discussion about a traffic light in the area. Mr. Smyser replied the development would not be large enough to justify a traffic light at that intersection. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:27 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT MINUTES • • • AGENDA ITEM V. A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: October 13, 2004 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING (continued) •Rezone to Residential Planned Unit Development •Preliminary Plat Fox Den Acres Royal Oaks Realty BACKGROUND 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 site is within the existing MUSA. The Fox Den Acres project offers a good opportunity to implement the new parks and open space plan through the use of a conservation development. Staff have worked with the Watershed District and Royal Oaks to pursuit these goals. The redesign includes such things as filling and moving lower quality wetlands in order to preserve and increase higher quality wetlands and upland areas. The overall gain in public value will be positive. This conservation development approach, while often discussed in Lino Lakes, has not previously been pursued to the extent we are doing so here. Standard zoning requirements often do not accommodate natural features in this way, and this is an example of that shortcoming. Therefore, a planned unit development is being used. A PUD is not allowed in a single family zone, so a rezone to PUD would be needed. Staff acknowledges that there are a number of details and specifics that normally are resolved by this point in the process. However, staff is comfortable that there is ample time fore these details be addressed. Additional design parameters will be reached before City Council approval. This project has been and will continue to be a learning process for players in several organizations and agencies. Though the design is not at the normal level of detail, there has been more design communication among the players than on any previous project. The discussions have centered not on asking "does this meet the requirements ?" Rather, we have been working to determine what is the best design? The importance of this opportunity to create a first step toward achieving the overall greenway vision for the community warrants the needed flexibility. • Fox Den Acres page 2 We have utilized the review extension allowed by law, and we are facing a deadline of November 19th for City Council action on the rezoning and preliminary plat. Therefore, a recommendation by the P & Z is necessary. Jeff Schoenbauer of Brauer and Associates has provided invaluable assistance on this project . Mr. Schoenbauer has been intimately involved in working directly with the developer on behalf of the City. His project memo is attached. 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 R -1 Site vacant 40 acres: Low Density Sewered Resid. 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 following is a summary of the of.the proposal's density: Gross Site Area 50 acres Upland Area 38 acres Total Lots 57 Gross Density 1.14 units /acre Net Density 1.50 units /acre The comprehensive plan guides the site for Low Density Sewered Residential land use. The site is within the stage 1 (pre -2010) growth area and within the existing MUSA. Public water, sanitary sewer, and a public street are stubbed to the site. This site has been guided and zoned for development for many years, even previous to the current comprehensive plan adopted in 2002. The design fits within the Low Density range of up to three units per acre. If the areas outside the MUSA, about ten acres, are subtracted from the upland, the density would be about two units per acre (57/28 = 2.04). • Growth Management: • • • Fox Den Acres page 3 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. Growth Management, Units /Year: There are no lots available for 2004. As seen in the table at the end of this report, 164 lots have been approved for year 2005. No more than 12 more lots could be allowed for year 2005 to bring the total to 176, which includes the 20% discretionary flexibility. This lot restriction creates an obstacle for this project to proceed as a conservation development. It will be vital for the developer to be able to final plat enough units to make the project financially viable. This issue is not a surprise. It has been part of the growth management discussion for some time. Proactive planning must accommodate the long term as well as the short term. Viewing the future in one -year increments should not be the main method for planning the future of the community. Just as mother nature is not easily described by arithmetic lot size dimensions, growth over time cannot be planned and managed primarily with annual lot totals. Such a method acts as an obstacle to sound planning when considering longer term goals. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT Lots: In order to preserve as much open space as possible, lot dimensions have been adjusted. A handful of lots have less area than the R -1 minimum. Many lots are less deep than normal zoning requires. However, the additional area behind these lots is greater than a normal lot would include. In much of the plat, the open space behind the lots extends for several hundred feet. The feeling of openness is greater, though the actual lot line depth is less than normal. Another means of increasing the common open space is the use of decreased setbacks from the street. The setbacks in this project will be 25 feet from the right of way rather than the normal 30 feet. (Remember that the right of way included more land than the actual paved street.) This 25' setback is allowed by the PUD standards. Streets, Access, Parking: The rights of way for the internal streets is 50 feet. This is less than the normal 60 feet. The pavement width, back of curb to back of curb, is 28 feet rather than the normal 32. These are two more ways of increasing the open space in the project: narrowing the rights of way allows for more open space behind the lots. The narrower pavement reduces impervious surface. The PUD standards specifically allow the pavement to be reduced in this way. 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. • • Fox Den Acres page 4 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 it would not require major physical effort to remove the existing facilities. 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. (see attached) Fox Road is the only current access point for this site. An extension of Fox Rd. to a future outlet/connection to the north is included in the design. Wetland extends to the east and south of the project 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. We will prohibit parking on the stretch of Fox Road between the existing Deerwood Lane and the new internal circular street in the plat. This will allow for clearer passage between the intersections. 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 additional 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: The redesign includes relocating smaller wetland areas of lesser quality and mitigating (recreating) them in areas that will increase the higher quality wetlands. The design also includes infiltration methods that will help filter water prior to running into ponds or wetlands. We did not have a completed grading plan for this report due to the recent redesign (October 5) that resulted from consultation among the developer, Rice Creek Watershed District, and the City staff. • Fox Den Acres page 5 Existing residents have expressed concern about stormwater ponds that serve their neighborhoods. The existing, natural drainage of the site includes a relatively small area that drains to the northwest. The remainder of the site currently drains to the north, east, and south. Drainage patterns will not change to any significant degree. No increase in runoff rate is allowed. This is a standard requirement for all development which is enforced both the Watershed District and the City. Parks, Open Space: The comprehensive plan envisions a conceptual greenway on part of this site. In addition, the City approved 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. There are 40 acres within existing MUSA and growth area. About 18 acres of this, or 45 %, will be permanent open space. All 10 acres of the plat that are outside of the MUSA will be part of the permanent open space. The total site is 50 acres and the permanent open space will include 28 acres, about 56 %. A PUD requires at least 50 %. The preservation of open space on this site will be an important step in the implementation of the greenway vision. This is along the edge of a high value natural feature area that includes a major drainage through the southern part of Lino Lakes. A • city trail would be created as part of the plat. The land around the trail likely would be owned by the homeowners association and maintained as perpetual open space through a conservation easement over the area . The specifics, including the easement holder and the terms of the management plan will require more detailed legal documents, which will be worked out prior to City Council approval. REZONING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Rezoning: As stated in Section 2, Subdivision 1 of the zoning ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Board shall consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Its judgment shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan guides the site for Low Density Sewered Residential land use. The site is within the Stage 1 (pre -2010) growth area. The project implements the Parks, Trails and Open Space plan through conservation development to provide an important greenway. • 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. • Fox Den Acres page 6 Single family residential development exists to the west. It is unlikely that development can occur to the east or south due to extensive wetlands. 3. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. With the conditions of approval, the project will conform to the requirements of a planned unit development as stated in the zoning ordinance. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Municipal water and sanitary sewer are available to the site and sufficient capacity exists. 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. The existing roads have the capacity for the additional development. PUD: Section 2, Subd. 10.A. of the zoning ordinance discusses the purpose of a planned • unit development (PUD). In addition, Subd. 10.D. lists the purposes of an urban PUD. The application should be compared to these purposes in order to justify any flexibility requested by the applicant. • 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. 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. • • Fox Den Acres page 7 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. Urban PUD Purposes: a. Preservation of wildlife habitat and unique natural resources. b. Reduction of negative impacts on the environment. c. Creation of common open space that provides a unified landscape for the use and enjoyment of the neighborhood community and /or the general public. d. A variety of urban residential lot sizes, configurations, and neighborhoods. 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. OPTIONS 1. Approve the project including: •Rezoning to residential planned unit development, and •Preliminary plat, with conditions as listed below. • 2. Deny the project. Fox Den Acres page 8 RECOMMENDATION Option 1, with the following conditions of approval to apply: 1. Grading and utility plans must obtain approval by the City Engineer prior to City Council approval of the final plat. 2. A permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District must be obtained prior to City Council approval of the final plat. 3. The entire project can be final platted in 2005, subject to City Council approval of amendments to Ordinance 01 -03. 4. Park dedication shall be cash with credit for construction of trails. 5. A homeowners association shall be created. The association shall maintain a stewardship fund to manage the open space areas of Outlots A, B, and C, according to a stewardship plan to be approved by the City. Association documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. 6. A conservation easement shall be created over all of Outlots A, B, and C to make • them permanent open space. 7. A temporary cul de sac must be constructed on the northern stub street. 8. The project as redesigned must obtain a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to final approval by the City Council. • Fox Den Acres, page 9 • • • O LOTS /UNITS 0) O O CO O O N ti O O O O N E (B 1 d (n 0. E 0 d O 0. 0. (O M ti ti N CA N (A N C)) N O N N- O N LC) 2491 r r 561 10� M 1521 N r r r d- N 101 N 181 CO N CO r CO LC) Cl LO CO 0 0 co co M M co "Sr N CO Lt) Ct O N LN r L() O r N CO r CO N CO r r r CO ti CO CO r CO L() I� Cf r •Y N CO N N CO r 0 CO CV N r r- CO r r LO r Ln 103 2491 r (O 0 0 r CO 1521 N O r r Ct N O r N 181 CO r CO 1) Stoneybrook 12nd Addn Century Farms North Keefe: prel plat, not final 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 Justin's Preserve Marshan Estates 1Rice Creek Church duplex Rice Church: Oakwood View uppv saunr Highland Meadows East 2nd Marshan Townhomes 2nd (Pheasant Hills 12th island a) V) O O. O a West Shadow Ponds 2nd Add 1Fox Den Acres (resubmittal) total (O M ti ti N CA N (A N C)) N O N N- O Conservation Development Planning City of Lino Lakes • Conservation Development Public Value Statement and • • General Agreement Parameters for the Fox Den Development (A Royal Oaks Realty, Inc. Development Project) Date: October 7, 2004 From: Jeff Schoenbauer, Vice President Brauer & Associates, Ltd. Planning Consultant to the City of Lino Lakes To: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Jeff Smyser, City Planner Overview The following summarizes the key development parameters associated with the Fox Den development proposal. Each of these is in keeping with the conservation development planning principles that have been discussed in recent months with the Environmental Board, Park Board, Planning and Zoning Board, and City Council. Context Using the conservation development approach for this project is an outgrowth of the recently completed Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenway and Trail System Plan. As part of that project, Fox Den was identified as private development of significant importance to achieving the goals of the system plan. With consent of the Developer, the project serves as a prototype for a collaborative approach to development, with a specific focus on maximizing public values within the context of an economically viable and marketable development. Opportunities for Increased Public Values Under the new Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenway and Trail System Plan, a number of specific public values are being sought from the Fox Den development. These include: • Preserving more natural open space (through a conservation easement) • Reducing the extent of impervious surfaces and size of the development footprint • Restore /enhance ecological systems on the site as part of the development process • Protect off -site ecological systems through increased buffering • Ensure long -term natural resource stewardship through an endowment program sponsored by the Developer • Provide public park and trail opportunities consistent with the System Plan • Manage stormwater (flow rates and quality) using natural infiltration approaches • Preserve the open space aesthetic to which community residences have become accustomed. • Maintain natural buffer between established and new developments As defined in this statement and the development package, the collaboration between the City, Developer, and other public agencies has resulted in a development plan that achieves these public values to a much higher degree than would be achievable under a conventional development approach. Brauer & Associates, Ltd. 1 Conservation Development Planning City of Lino Lakes Developer and Public Agencies Commitment to the Project All prototype processes require a good faith working relationship between all parties to be successful. In this instance, the representatives from Royal Oaks Realty, Inc. have participated at the highest collaborative level. This is especially noteworthy in that their previously submitted plan did meet (or would have with minor modifications) the various requirements of the City and other regulatory agencies and would likely have been approved. Without their involvement, the proposal now being considered would not have been possible. It is also noteworthy that various regulatory agencies have played an active and important role in shaping the development proposal to be consistent with their and the City's larger goals. This is especially the case with Rice Creek Watershed District, whose representatives are assisting in key aspects of the natural resources and storm water management planning. Agreement Parameters The following establishes the agreement parameters for each key aspect of the development package. A number of exhibits are also included to illustrate the evolution of the plan. (Each of the headings relate to the previously defined public values.) Preserving Natural Open Space (Conservation Easement) The overall development site consists of 50 acres. The final development proposal (Exhibit C) sets aside 28.47 acres, or about 57% of the site, in a conservation easement that will be perpetually preserved as natural open space. Currently, City staff and the City Attorney are considering if outright ownership of the easement is in the best interest of the City, or if it should be held by some third party. However that is resolved, the conservation easement would, at the very least, be legally protected through a Developer's agreement between the Developer and City of Lino Lakes. The proposal also includes approximately 4,400 lineal feet of trail, which is approximately 0.80 miles. The following graphic illustrates the conservation areas and trail corridor that are part of the final development proposal. General Information: Total Lots: 57 Total Acres: Developed Acres`: Conservation Area Acres': 50.0 21.53 28.47 Percent of Property Protected as a Natural Area: 57% Total Miles of Public Trail: 0.80 • Refers to land under private ownership. •* Refers to land that is permanently protected and falls under the stewardship Program- EXHIBIT C - FINAL PROPOSAL Fox DEN DEVELOPMENT Brauer & Associates, Ltd. Conservation Development Planning l City of Lino Lakes For comparison, the proposal that the Developer already submitted following a conventional approach (Exhibit A) sets aside •10.98 acres for open space, which is 22% of the site. An initial proposal under the conservation development approach (Exhibit B) resulted in 27.18 acres of open space, which is 54% of the site. The key difference between the two conservation development proposals is that the cul -de -sac in the southwest corner of Exhibit B has been removed to preserve more high quality natural areas as shown under Exhibit C. Although one lot has been added under the final proposal (to cover the lost value of the higher priced cul -de -sac lots that were removed), it still resulted in more open space due to the elimination of the cul -de- sac itself. The following graphics illustrate the conservation areas and trail corridors that are part of these two development proposals. i4t hl� a~ r.[•:Jv r � lli 491;;`,7 ""', General Information: Total Lots: 56 Total Acres: Developed Acres*: Conservation Area Acres**: 50.0 39.02 10.98 Percent of Property Protected as a Natural Area: 22% Total Miles of Public Trail: 0.80 • Refers to lend under private ownership. •' Refers to land that is permanently protected_ Note: There is no stewardship program under this proposal. EXHIBIT A - CONVENTIONAL PROPOSAL Fox Dei DEVELOPMENT o General Information: Total Lots: 56 Total Acres: 50.0 Developed Acres': 22.82 Conservation Area Acres**: 27.18 Percent of Property Protected as a Natural Area: 54% Total Miles of Public Trait 0.55 • Refers to land under private ownership. •• Refers to land that is permanently protected. Note: There is no stewardship program under this proposal. EXHIBIT B - INITIAL PROPOSAL Fax DEN DEVELOPMENT Brauer & Associates, Ltd. 3 Conservation Development Planning City of Lino Lakes Reducing the Extent of Impervious Surfaces and Size of the Development Footprint To preserve as much natural open space as possible, the development size and scale was reduced to the smallest possible footprint while still meeting the Developer's marketability and economic requirements. This includes reducing the roadway widths from 32' to 28' to minimize the extent of hard surfaced areas. The roadway right -of -way is also reduced to 50' Flexibility on the front yard setback is also proposed to reduce the overall size of lots and increase the size of the conservation area. Currently, a 30' setback is required. The plan allows this to be reduced to 25', although the Developer will often be at or near the 30' mark on many lots. The flexibility is provided for instances where it is mutually beneficial to do so and where the setback does not interfere with parking in driveways. Restore /Enhance On -Site Ecological Systems The development proposal includes restoring and enhancing on -site ecological systems in a couple of ways: • Through the use of natural infiltration systems to manage stormwater (as defined below). This ensures that contaminants associated with hard surface stormwater runoff are trapped before they reach on and off -site surface and groundwater systems. • Through restoration of degraded ecological systems both during development and as part of the long -term stewardship program (as defined below). Note that the City staff and Rice Creek Watershed District representatives have taken the lead role in working with the Developer to prepare a natural resources plan for the site. This approach was used to ensure that natural resource restoration and management efforts that occur on the site are in sync with long -range City and watershed district practices in this regard. Protect Off -Site Ecological Systems Through Increased Buffering / Maintain Natural Buffer Between Established and New Developments As the previous illustrations define, the extent of buffering proposed under the final conservation development plan (Exhibit C) is significantly greater than the other plans. From an ecological perspective, the increased size of the buffers on the north, west, and east sides offer greater protection of high quality off -site ecological systems. From an adjacent property perspective, the buffers on the west side provide a substantial separation between existing homes and the new ones in this development. Ensure Long -Term Natural Resource Stewardship The development proposal includes a stewardship program and fund agreement that will ensure that all lands within the conservation easement will be perpetually managed and maintained as natural areas. The program will be funded through an endowment established by the Developer, along with annual fees paid by homeowners. The following outlines estimated* funding levels over a 20 year time horizon: Endowment Fund: Initial desired investment *: $100,000 (investment made by the Developer.) Estimated interest per year *: $4,000 at 4% and $8,000 at 8% Yearly Homeowner's Assoc. Fees* $5,700 ($100 /year per lot) Total available each year (approx.) *: $9,700 to $13,700, depending on interest rates. Value of fund over 20 year horizon: $194,000 to $274,000 ** ** Note: Funding levels are estimates and subject to some adjustments as the project is finalized. * Does not include a built -in reinvestment factor that stipulates reinvesting 10% of the interest earned each year and 5% of the yearly association fees. Over 20 years, the total value would go up considerably if this reinvestment was factored in. Brauer & Associates, Ltd. Additional value: $40,000 budget for initial restoration work in the conservation easement during development. (The extent of this work will be defined as part of final development package. It will include work associated with natural infiltration systems, restoring native plant communities to disturbed areas during construction, and ecological restoration work on select natural areas within the easement as defined by City staff and Developer as part of development agreement.) Total value of endowment fund and related ecological stewardship: $234,000 to $314,000 (over 20 year horizon) 4 • Conservation Development Planning City of Lino Lakes The stewardship program will also include a general covenant that ensures that all homeowners are accountable for protecting the conservation easement. Activities within the conservation easement will be strictly limited to natural resource stewardship. The easements will also have signs placed along its perimeter at each property to control encroachment. The sign locations will be recorded and periodically checked using GPS technology. Provide Public Park and Trail Opportunities Consistent with the System Plan The final conservation development proposal as defined under Exhibit C meets or exceeds the goals established for parks, trails, and open space in this area. The proposed trail is a significant part of the overall trail corridor through this area of the city, ultimately linking the development to neighborhood parks and the regional park system. As the previous graphic illustrates, the total length of public trail under the final development proposal is approximately 0.80 miles. Manage Stormwater Using Natural Infiltration Approach Through an unprecedented collaborative effort, the City, Rice Creek Watershed District, and development are working collaboratively on using natural infiltration techniques to manage stormwater from the development. The basic approach is to emulate some of the practices used for the City Hall campus, which includes rain gardens and a variety of other systems to control stormwater flow rates and quality. Importantly, stormwater flows will be managed to avoid any increased flows onto or through nearby developments to the west. Preserve the Open Space Aesthetic By setting aside more land for natural open space than previously envisioned and implementing a long -term stewardship plan that ensures that this land is cared for, the open space aesthetic qualities to which community residences have become accustomed will be preserved to a much higher degree than would typically be the case following a conventional approach to development. A comparison of Exhibits A and C illustrates this point. Additional Agreement Parameters: Commitments to the Developer Inherently, realizing the public values associated with the final development proposal affects the economics of the development. Throughout the process, a good faith effort has been made to balance the interests of the City with those of the Developer. To be successful for all parties, the project has to be economically viable. It must also be recognized that the proposal is a package deal, meaning that each aspect of it is intricately related to everything else. Changing one thing inherently affects another. The agreement parameters defined above, along with the development proposal package, have addressed most aspects of the physical development plan and establishing funding for the stewardship program. There are, however, a number of additional agreement parameters that are very important to the development proposal that have not been covered thus far. The following defines each of these. Amendment of the City's Growth Management Policy Under current policy, yearly growth limits preclude the Developer from getting approval to build the entire development in one year under a single proposal. This significantly affects development costs due to the loss of economies of scale, additional remobilization costs, longer marketing and build -out period, etc. For the Developer to provide the public values as previously defined, it will be necessary to give them approval for the entire project in order to make the economics of the project feasible. This will require an amendment to the growth management policy of the City. Note that without this approval, the development proposal will become invalid in its current form. This is especially the case with the endowment fund, which, in a large part, is funded through the economic savings associated with approval for developing the entire project under one proposal. This would entail a direct economic loss to the City of $194,000 to $274,000 over a twenty year period. Brauer & Associates, Ltd. Conservation Development Planning City of Lino Lakes Reduction of Infrastructure Costs As previously stated, the reduction in roadway widths (from 32' to 28') and the use of natural infiltration systems are motivated by trying to preserve more open space and reduce ecological impacts due to runoff from hard surfaces. On the Developer's side, this also results in less development costs. As part of the agreement, much of these savings have been relocated to fund the endowment fund and other public values. As with the growth management issue, the economies of the project rely on the City approving these aspects of the development package. Park Dedication and Storm Sewer Related Fees As with all developments, park dedication and storm sewer - related fees apply to the development. In this case, the total charge for park dedication is approximately 594,000. For storm sewer, the charge is approximately 5125,000. As part of the development proposal, City staff is recommending that the development costs for the new trail be credited against park dedication fees. This amounts to approximately 562,000. With respect to the storm sewer tees, City staff is recommending a credit of 558,000 due to the additional costs associated with using a natural infiltration approach to storm water management. This approach is also expected to reduce the City's long -term maintenance cost since their will he fewer storm sewers to maintain, thus providing additional justification for providing a credit to the Developer. As with the other items listed above, the economies of the project rely on the City approving the fee credits as part of the development package. Gaining Unified Consensus One of the goals of the collaboration is to gain strong consensus and approval from all of the boards and agencies that review and approve development projects. Every attempt was made to understand and address the best interests of the following public entities: • Environmental Board • Park Board • Planning and Zoning Board • City Council • TEP Committee • Rice Creek Watershed District It is the belief of all participants that the development package as proposed achieves the highest expectations for the project and will result in superior development to which both the Developer and citizens of Lino Lakes can take pride. Sincerely, Jeff Schoenbauer Brauer & Associates, Ltd. BIRCH STREET SHADOW L ^' "KA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT- OF-WAY PLAT NO. II NC t J 0 • PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN (DETAIL) LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • MC SA PUNT Low Density Sewered Residential Stage 1 (pre- 2010) • • • • • • Low Density tinsewered Residential ZONING MAP DETAIL • PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN WITH GREENWAYS (DETAIL) LINO LAKES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • 'VP / *MINNEST CCM. SWIM 33 - WW1. =elf se3101011) • r NB 21"Rr 67.07 r". ,STK S8ij52'1'E if 50.00\ / Sane CEL - \ ' 2' I,t9,=, • tie CORM Cf 1113 PRE1-11411N4IR P16 OF: FOX DEN ACRES FOR ROYAL OAKS REALTY (OWNER & DEVELOPER) 1000 COUNTY ROAD E. WEST SUITE 150 SHOREVIFW MN 55126 PHONE: (651)-483-5518 N895221"W i -- NE19,1934E 311.00/ , -S.9......-, • 1 546.06 _,....., 1 i' i , .... ....- 1 Kann UK OF Ins101 /14 OF sEcTata 33 --- ...." 0 1 1301•W0 54000 133 - ...--' i I - - 1 i - ....-- - EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS, .1 1 maz SCHEDLLE A Cfs CHCAGO TITLE 618.19ANCE 00,11.A.NT COMMITNENIT NO. 23013/ Port* At (39,61 Acres) The Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter 01 Section 33, Toms* 31. Range 22. Anoka County, Minnesota. Pored 0: (6.79 Acres) Thot port of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Wetter of Section 33. Township 31. Range 22. Smoke County, Minnesota described as beginning at the Northwest corner of oeld Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 35 thence South 89 degrees 1.... ‘., 52 minute, 21 seconds Eost. assumed beating, along the north One of sold Northeast Ouorter of the Northwest Quarter o Mstanee of 450130 fest; thence South 15 degrees 58 13011tes 24 seconds West 1008.32 feet, thence North 59 degrees 52 minutes 21 •econds West 16090 feet to the west line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter thence North 00 degrees 44 minutes 23 seconds West along sold west the a ditdonow of 97011 feet to the paint a beginning. \ >cy \ / ) ". • / °at) °5r21" 1 - \ CE) 33474- / tN 9°57 2B"f Sy4/■ Of OF NW 1/1--TT' \ Tt1 PONIVIG Aso ROM. EASEMENT PER 000.N1ENT NO. SPEA78 Ei FAVOR CE TME CEEt Or WO ile.WS, \ . t te, rtN t LJ ‘,7) b # tn Prepared By:1 G. RU1, / Land Surveil,* t Los= a tube= two* wets eple • \ \ 6•;N, 11%14. 9180 LEXI,NG AVENUE NE. \I ---____CIRCLE-PINIES, 56c2)14-362, Tel. 189-186-5856 9a9 163-1E6-6001 , / 4.64 S8959'33W Parcel 10 (3.60 Acres) That port of the Southwest Warted 51 10. Northwest Ouorter of Section 33, Township 31. Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota described ae beginning at the Northwest eorner of sold Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 33; thence South 139 degrees 57 minutes 28 seam. Feet. assumed hearing, alma the north line of sold Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 1304.74 Net to the Northeast corner of eald Southwest Quarter 31 /4. Northwest Ouorter, thence South 25 /Mgr.. 18 InMutee 53 seconds West 387.05 feet; thence North 22 degrees 00 minutes 26 seconds West a distance of 377.62 feet to saki north Unm thence North 8g degrees 57 minutes 28 seconds West along saki north 01e 0 distance of 332.74 fee; thence South 64 degrees 53 minutes 35 meant. West o destonce of 729.37 feet to the west Me of sold Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter/ thence North 00 degrees 50 IhMutett 22 seconds West along said west line 310,00 feet le the point of 0095359. - Parcel A is Zoned R-1 - Porcel B and C ore Zoned R. - Rezoned to 0 Phoned Unit Development (PUD) MUSA, - Parcel A fell within the MUSA. - Porcel 8 and C ore outside of MUSA - No MUSA amendment proposed DEVELOPMENT DATA. - Total Plat area = 50 Acres - Upland within plot = 38.16 Acres (76X) - 57 Proposed Single Family Lots - Single Family Lots = 16.54 Acres (33.08X) - Streets .. 4.99 Acres (9.98X) - Outlet A = 20.73 Acres (41.46X) - Outlet 8 = 4.52 Acres (9.04X) - Outlet C - 3.22 Acres (6.442) - All Outlots to be covered by Wetland Conservation Easement - Average Lot Size = 0.29 Acres - Density = 1.14 Lots / Acre LOT AREAS/ MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS. Piet/and = 10 feet (decks allowed in this setback) Front 25.00 feet Rear = 20.00 feet Side = 10.00 feet (house) Side = 5.00 feet (garage) Lot Area = N/A Lot Depth w. N/A Lot Width = 60.00 feet Lot Width 100.00 feet (corner) LEGEND, Denotes Set 1/2 inch by 18 inch Iron ° Pipe Marked by R.LS. number 25341 • Denotes found monument 41} Denotes County Cost Iron Monument --,- Denotes Fence Line per Aerial Photo. Denotes Existing Trees per Aerial Photo; see - "'" Tree Inventory for actual tree locotions. ■•••1 Denotes Wetland located by Earth Science Inc. ----- Denotes Edge of Wetland by Earth Science Inc. . Denotes Existing 2 foot contour interval completed by Aforkhurd - - - Denotes Setback Line A9,T64 Denotes Wetland Fill Area Denotes Ponding and Flowage Easement per document . - no. 595478 in favor of the City of Lino Lakes. This easement covers some existing high ground. NOTES' - Bearing's shown ore 0,, NAD 83 datum. - Contours are at 2 foot interval. - Wetland located by E.G. Rud & Sons Inc. (763)-786-5555 on 11-24-03. - Wetland delineation completed by Earth Science Inc. (651)-674-6210 on 9-24-03. - Topography 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. - No bunt:flogs allowed in wetland setbacks or drainage & 009iiy easements. CERTIFICATIONk VICINITY MAP PARTS OF SEC. 33, TWP. 3 0150, 22 ^T°t11 23 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 9837 70 SC/ALE/ GRAPHIC SCALE ( PUT ) ism SO TYPICAL t $ e $ ' S. 1 J Being 5 feet in width, unless otherwise Indicated, and 4/joining side /01 lines, and rear lot lines and 10 feet in width and adjoining street lines, as shown on the plat. Drainage and Utility easements to be dedicated over, EOrs, wetlands and pending areas, and 10 feet on either side of all stonn, sanitary, or wotermain not within public R/Ws. To be determined upon final site design. GUIDING, - Parcel A guiding Low Density Single Family. - Parcel 8 and C guided Rural PENCI-mARK, 70 Nut Hydrant at the Northwest. comer 955751.9 and Holly Dnve. NO. DATE DESCRIPTION I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision ond that orn - O duly Registered Land Surverpr under the lors of the State al Minnesota. DANIEL W OBERMILLER Dee: 5 Oa, 04 License No. 25341 - lep 0; PK) 000 • oN1 tn NAA 40-07-Of mower. 0.36SOPP., 0,FekIPP • • Fox Den Acres and Surrounding Properties t4. L1Z4 �L _ Fox Den Development Legend stormpnts stormline • • • C'-.' yp'ri• ',re/ 43A • vv v • 1...; t Oen isrP• -46. ',> v VZ % A #/ t .. 7Ir41, -,0 M Ci N. 4,. o / I' kil 4 1 ',/ Ikcil/61.4. N . 2 F' •,Ir.,* • ♦j. Wawa , J J .; six it - C\r•_ • P_/Y .of .Gl rrrr...... t • 1 try \ 2 4 c()'b' QC' i 5 I / .x,;•1' f•.�9r i•a,' rig_ I, ca • • is • • • AGENDA ITEM V. B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: October 13, 2004 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING Amending Growth Management Policy BACKGROUND The City adopted Ordinance 01 -03 in January 2003. This ordinance lists the specifics of the growth management policy, including the annual limits on the number of MUSA acres to be allocated and the number of units /lots to be platted. The policy requires a phasing plan for projects of 50 units or more. We maintain the inventory required in Section 2, paragraph 11 using tables tracking the allocation of MUSA and the approval of units /lots in preliminary plats. These tables are attached at the end of the report. The general approach to amending the ordinance is to add a section that gives the City Council more discretion in approving housing units in any given year above the stipulated growth limits as defined in Section 2 — Growth Management Policy. This discretion would only be applied in cases where the developer of property successfully collaborates with the City and submits a conservation development proposal that includes public values that exceed those achievable under a conventional development approach. The determination as to whether this threshold is reached will be at the sole discretion of the City Council. In this context, "conventional development" is defined as a development proposal that meets the minimum requirements of the City's ordinances regulating subdivision and platting, zoning, street standards, and other pertinent requirements. "Conservation development" refers to a collaborative process in which certain stipulated public values are sought in exchange for greater flexibility on general development requirements and the growth limits defined under this policy. OPTIONS FOR AMENDING THE POLICY The adopted ordinance is attached, with amendment options added. Language amending the ordinance is shown in underlined text. We have added a finding recognizing the importance of the public values and allowing flexibility to achieve them. After that, we have presented two options. Both are presented in a new Section 3 of the ordinance. • Amending Growth Management Policy page 2 • Option 1 would exempt conservation development from the growth restrictions. That is, a conservation development would be subject to neither the MUSA allocation limit (36 acres per year) nor the units restriction (147 per year). • Option 2 allows a conservation development to final plat lots /units two years in advance of its approved phasing plan. That is, it would still have a phasing plan but the number of lots /units in the phasing plans could be moved ahead by two years. In effect, the first three years of units could be final platted in year one. OPTIONS 1. Amend the ordinance Option 1, which exempts conservation developments from growth limits. 2. Amend the ordinance with Option 2, which allows conservation developments to advance the phasing plan but does not exempt them from growth limits. 3. Do not amend the ordinance. • RECOMMENDATION Open public hearing, take comments, close hearing. Make a recommendation on ordinance amendment. • • • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 3 CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 01 -03 ORDINANCE CREATING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY The City Council of Lino Lakes hereby ordains: Section 1 Findings The Lino Lakes City Council makes the following findings: 1. The City of Lino Lakes adopted a comprehensive plan that includes goals and policies to guide planning and the growth of the city. 2. Managing growth through the orderly provision of infrastructure and other means promotes the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. It is in the best interests of the public to create rational, cost effective means of managing growth so that it will be orderly, efficient, and environmentally sound. 3. Unplanned growth does not meet community needs and is injurious to the public health, safety, and welfare. Inadequately planned growth has created and may create or aggravate negative conditions such as: a. overburdened public facilities b. underutilized public facilities resulting in wasteful investment of public resources c. an inadequate variety of housing choices that does not meet community needs d. environmentally detrimental development projects and patterns 4. The comprehensive plan establishes future land uses, staged growth areas, growth goals, and a Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) reserve for the city. 5. The Stage 1 growth area is the geographic limit for growth prior to year 2010. The Stage 2 area is for growth from 2010 to 2020. 6. The MUSA reserve obtained with the comprehensive plan includes 359 acres for Stage 1, and 909 acres for Stage 2. The MUSA reserve also includes a balance of 15.7 acres designated for residential use left over from the 1995 MUSA reserve. The total Stage 1 MUSA reserve therefore is 374.7 acres. 7. There is undeveloped land within the existing MUSA. 8. A growth management policy is necessary, in addition to official controls such as the zoning and subdivision ordinances, to implement the comprehensive plan and promote the public health, safety, and welfare. • • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 4 9. The comprehensive plan designates the area in the southeast quadrant of the I- 35W /Lake Drive interchange as "The Village." The intent of the Village is to create a focus for community and civic identity through the integration of a mix of land uses. In doing so, the Village will provide for intense land use, for compact and efficient development, and increase the range of housing opportunities. The Village has received funding under the Livable Communities program, established by MN Statute 473.25 — 473.255, because of its intent to fulfill numerous goals of that program. 10. The growth management policy should allow the City Council reasonable discretion to approve housing units in any given year above the stipulated growth limits in cases where the development proposal results in significant and discernable public values above and beyond those achievable under conventional development. Section 2 Growth Management Policy The Lino Lakes City Council hereby establishes a growth management policy with the following provisions: 1. Promoting development within the existing MUSA is preferable to expanding the developing area of the City by granting MUSA reserve acres. This preference is intended to promote the cost - effective use of public investment by maximizing the utilization of existing infrastructure. 2. New growth prior to year 2010 shall occur only in a Stage 1 growth area. However, a Stage 1 growth area does not grant rights to MUSA reserve acres and development approval. 3. Premature development shall not be allowed. This applies to all development proposals, inside the existing MUSA as well as those needing MUSA reserve. The development is premature if it does not meet the conditions established in Section 1002 -6 of the Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 1000 of the City Code). 4. The 374.7 acres of MUSA reserve for Stage 1 (pre -2010) shall be designated for new residential, commercial and industrial development as follows and as shown in Attachment A: a. Residential: A total of 300.7 MUSA reserve acres is designated for residential development. The annual target is to allocate no more than 36 acres annually in the years 2003 through 2009. While this is the target, it is an annual average. At the discretion of the City Council, the MUSA reserve acres allocated for any one year may vary by 20% over or below the target. Exceeding the MUSA reserve target will necessitate reducing MUSA allocation for future years. • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 5 b. Commercial /Industrial: A total of 74 MUSA reserve acres is designated for C/I development. These C/I MUSA acres can be granted at any time prior to year 2010. There is no annual limit for C/I MUSA. 5. The goal is to limit new growth in the city to an average of 147 new housing units per year: 1029 units in the seven years including 2003 -2009, inclusive. This includes all residential growth: both within the existing MUSA and in areas that would need MUSA reserve. While this is the target, it is an annual average. At the discretion of the City Council, the number of lots approved for any one year may vary by 20% over or below the target. Exceeding the new growth target will necessitate reducing the number of lots available for future years. This 147 growth target refers to units in future plats, not to units on lots in final plats approved prior to 2003. 6. No single development project should be awarded an entire year's number of new housing units. This requirement is intended to: a. avoid or minimize potential monopoly price effects b. promote timely development: one project often will not be able to build all 147 in one year c. promote housing diversity d. avoid inefficient concentration of infrastructure expansion that could impede financial return on investments elsewhere in the city e. distribute and minimize potential negative impacts of development f. promote fairness by distributing growth among several projects while observing the goal for new growth 7. An amendment of the comprehensive plan shall be required if, in order to accommodate a specific development project, the annual target for new growth (units /year) or residential MUSA reserve allocation (acres /year) would be exceeded by more than 20 %. The City Council shall consider such an amendment only if the specific development project will promote a clearly identified public purpose. The public purpose may include but is not limited to: a) provision of housing unit variety that contributes toward meeting housing goals, such as medium density, high- density, and mixed -use developments in locations designated for them in the comprehensive plan b) provision of infrastructure that will provide benefits beyond the project site, in accordance with City transportation, sewer, or water plans, that is not financially feasible without exceeding the target c) preservation of environmental features that would not occur without exceeding the target • d) provision of economic benefits to the City that would not occur without exceeding the target • • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 6 8. Use of Stage 2 MUSA reserve acres prior to year 2010 shall require amendment of the comprehensive plan. 9. All preliminary plats and residential development greater than 50 lots /units must have, as condition of approval, a phasing plan that establishes: a. a schedule for final platting a specified number of lots /units on an annual basis b. specifies the location of and number of lots /units in each phase (final plat). 10. The target for the maximum number of lots in each phase is 50. 11. The City will maintain an inventory of approved phasing plans indicating the number of units /lots scheduled for final plat approval in future years. 12. The City will not approve a new project's preliminary plat if, according to the phasing plan inventory (final platting schedule), a new project could not final plat its first phase within one year of preliminary plat approval without exceeding the MUSA or new growth goals. 13. An approved phasing plan is a commitment by the City to approve final plats and grant MUSA reserve acres according to the phasing plan. MUSA reserve is actually granted at the same time as final plat approval. The phasing plan does not in any way eliminate the requirements of the subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, and other official controls, as may be amended. 14. MUSA reserve acreage to be granted shall be the acres of buildable area only. 15. Allocating or granting MUSA reserve within the Stage 1 growth area in accordance with a phasing plan for the project is an action that implements the comprehensive plan: it is not an amendment of the comprehensive plan. Allocating MUSA reserve shall require the same majority vote by the City Council as is required for a rezoning. 16. This growth management policy shall not apply to the area of "The Village," in the southeast quadrant of the 1-35W/Lake Drive interchange. 17. The City shall review this growth management policy on an annual basis. Section 3 — Growth Management Policy for Conservation Development The Lino Lakes City Council hereby establishes a policy to promote the use of conservation development as a means to achieve the goals of the Growth Management Policy; Comprehensive Plan, Parks, Natural Open Space /Greenways and Trail System Plan; and the Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development. The provisions of this policy include: • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 7 1. For the purposes of this ordinance, "conventional development" is defined as a development proposal that meets the minimum requirements of the City's ordinances regulating development including but not limited to subdivision and platting (Ordinance No. 04 -03), zoning (Ordinance No. 08 -03), street construction standards (City Code Chapter 302), and other pertinent requirements. 2. For the purposes of this ordinance, "conservation development" is defined as a collaborative process which results in a development plan, typically a planned unit development, in which certain stipulated public values are achieved in exchange for greater flexibility on general development requirements and the growth limits defined under Section 2 of this policy. Amendment Option 1: 3. The growth management policy allows the City Council reasonable discretion to approve housing units in any given year in excess of the stipulated growth limits of Section 2, paragraphs 4, 5, and 7 of this ordinance in cases where a conservation development proposal results in significant and discernable public values above and beyond those achievable under conventional development. These public values include, but are not limited to: • Preserving more natural open space than required under current ordinances and development policies • Reducing the extent of impervious surfaces and size of the development footprint • Restoring /enhancing ecological systems on the site as part of the development process • Protecting off -site ecological systems through increased buffering • Ensuring long -term natural resource stewardship through an endowment program sponsored by the Developer • Providing public park and trail opportunities consistent with or in excess of the System Plan • Managing stormwater (flow rates and quality) using natural infiltration and ecologically -based approaches • Preserving the open space aesthetic to which community residences have become accustomed • Maintaining natural buffer between established and new developments • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 8 4. If, at the discretion of the City Council, a development proposal does not demonstrate that significant public values are being realized above and beyond those achievable under a conventional development approach, then the provisions of Section 2 apply. 5. Recommendations to approve a development proposal by the Environmental Board, Park Board, and Planning and Zoning Board will be part of demonstrating that significant public values are being realized. Amendment Option 2: 3. The growth management policy allows the City Council reasonable discretion to approve housing units in any given year in excess of the stipulated growth limits of Section 2, paragraphs 4, 5, and 7 of this ordinance in cases where a conservation development proposal results in significant and discernable public values above and beyond those achievable under conventional development. The project must still have a phasing plan, but the final platting of lots /units can be advanced by two years so that phases one, two and three could be final platted in year one, phase four units then could be final platted in year two, and so on. The maximum number of lots /units in the City for Stage 1 shall still apply. The public values include, but are not limited to: • Preserving more natural open space than required under current ordinances and development policies • Reducing the extent of impervious surfaces and size of the development footprint • Restoring /enhancing ecological systems on the site as part of the development process • Protecting off -site ecological systems through increased buffering • Ensuring long -term natural resource stewardship through an endowment program sponsored by the Developer • Providing public park and trail opportunities consistent with or in excess of the System Plan • Managing stormwater (flow rates and quality) using natural infiltration and ecologically -based approaches • Preserving the open space aesthetic to which community residences have become accustomed • • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 9 • Maintaining natural buffer between established and new developments 4. If, at the discretion of the City Council, a development proposal does not demonstrate that significant public values are being realized above and beyond those achievable under a conventional development approach, then the provisions of Section 2 apply. 5. Recommendations to approve a development proposal by the Environmental Board, Park Board, and Planning and Zoning Board will be part of demonstrating that significant public values are being realized. Section 4 Every section, provision, or part of this Ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision, or part thereof to the extent that if any section, provision, or part of this Ordinance shall be held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not invalidate any other section, provision, or part thereof. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall judge invalid the application of any provision of this Ordinance to a particular property, building, or structure, such judgment shall not affect other properties, buildings or structures. This ordinance shall be in force and effect upon its adoption and publication according to the Lino Lakes City Charter. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 27th day of January, 2003. ATTEST: Ann Blair, City Clerk John J. Bergeson, Mayor • • • Amending Growth Management Policy page 10 ATTACHMENT A CITY OF LINO LAKES GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY The following tables describe how the annual MUSA reserve target was derived and indicate the result for year 2003. MUSA reserve need, as calulated for the comprehensive plan residential commercial /industrial unmet demand existing need 635 350 285 274 200 74 909 550 359 residential MUSA reserve total acres resid. Cll remaining balance pre -2002 new for Stage 1 15.7 15.7 359.0 285.0 74.0 total 374.7 300.7 74.0 Clearwater Creek 5th Addn 20.8 -20.8 Stoneybrook 54.7 Stoneybrook 2002 27.0 -27.0 Stoneybrook 2003 27.7 balance annual residential MUSA (2003 to 2009 is 7 years) 252.9 74.0 36.1 2003 allocation Stoneybrook 2003 36.1 -27.7 available for 2003 8.4 J F- 0 H O 0 N CO 0 O N ti O O N CG O O N L[) O O N CF O O N Co) O O N Z 0 V 0 J nt O Q Q CA N L ) 2 a E Q a) I- Qz a) w 9- o 0 cn w co cc 252.0 f: O O N-. 'cr. 1 I- LC) 0 CO r 0 N LC) N in r N r Lf) 0 CY) r 0 co c+') O O remaining of annual 36 -7.0 -7.1 15.4 30.6 26.6 36.0 36.0 O co M O O CC) M 't' O) O) O O M d' in d' LC) O CO M LC) co r d' r O LC) I� c5 O O N O CO CO d' r r O O N ti CO C) LC) LO r M O CO M I,- N- N M LC) r O CO d' annual target 1Stoneybrook Century Farms North Ravens Hollow Justin's Preserve Junes Addition easant Hills Preserve 12th eiser Addition Birch St.: 441, 461, 473, 495 'proposed West Shadow Ponds 2nd ca 0 co w x ') E O O N LOTS/UNITS O) O 0 N 00 O 0 N co O O O O N M 0 O N @ -0 >, N N O O N ti ti N `N 0) CS) N T r 561 O CO 1521 N r r r rp N 101 N CO CO N CO r CO LC) C) to in O O M M 43 N co LC) 120 N LC) r LC) O r N CO T CO N CO r r r CO f� e- CO r L0 r N CD T N LC) CO LCD r 0 r CO N N N T r CO NI- .l.' T LC, r lL, co r 249 r— 56 10 CO 152 N 0 r r 'd' N O N 18 CO r CO LC) Stoneybrook 12nd Addn Century Farms North Keefe: prel plat, not final flat 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 arshan Estates !Rice Creek Church duplex Church: Oakwood View Ines Addn 1Highland Meadows East 2nd ;han Townhomes 2nd ieasant Hills 12th island a) co O ca. O L Q (West Shadow Ponds 2nd Add Fox Den Acres (resubmittai) total ti ti N • • • AGENDA ITEM V.0 STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: October 13, 2004 TOPIC: BACKGROUND Final Plat 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. The final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat layout as approved by the City Council on September 27, 2004. 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 applicant has submitted a Rice Creek Watershed permit. All other conditions of approval will be met with building permit review of the new home. A development contract between the applicant and the city is being developed and will address many of the conditions of approval at that time. MUSA was allotted to lots 2 and 3 of the proposed final plat as part of the preliminary plat process. OPTIONS. 1. Approve the final plat for Speiser Acres. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location Map 2. Final Plat II 1 2 3+ 4 3 6 2 3 4 5 6 o•„[ 12 C5441 MARSHAN LAKE MI= MIMI EMI ©m __ 01E10 MIMI MI NM= OD MIEN MUM aaaU o am 51M11m no•1131 OMEN MEM NM Min MUM ee MIEN NISMEN WHEN REM E1111 IMU1111111 "'°� tea n 1.;_arqrsr.--21, Ems RESHANAU em norm _e inn ml rim'V�S Q i 0 �� Zi v 133 a'0 O >� .sue �ra� n m� kii a wra e0 :1414 �E�. magr mu nna7Io 'b Q. �II t s ® ® ©j +° p'INEFI`D6E j \`O�QE:O�C� �"80°, i��m0 v.,, • .t �1 iris, : X00 614zragry4�� 74-In D -min.-:•4's -1 4414031gfir n1a woo; InULu!L. RatanD vosmod� d� �aa mm0o�ooaia ���� F p © -Bati .riEA m ,,,m • �i1i�� � a'a Q P��aanao ©�=� Of 117: Eir 4� �}T 1I 'Yo mow... ��oi its 10 6 • SPIH KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS' That James tl. Speiser and Lois M. Speiser. hu.sband and wife. owners and proprietors and U.S. Bank, N.A., mortgagee if the following described property situated in the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, to wit: That part of Ciovemment Lot 6 lying Easterly of Shenandoah 3rd Addition and lying Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at Northeast comer of Block 5, Shenandoah 3n1 Addition, thence Southeasterly to Southeast comer of said (iovcmment Lot 6 and there terminating; AND The South 229.74 feet of the East 114.35 fen of the West 744 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 29. Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, said distance being measured parallel to the South and West lines of said Northwest quaver of the Southwest quarter, AND The Northwest quarter of Southwest quarter of Section 29. Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County. Minnesota. Except the South 229.74 feet of East 104.35 feet of Watt 744 feet thereof. also except East 205.7 feet of West 952.7 feet of the South 21)8.7 feet of said quarter quarter. also except that pan of said quarter quarter described as following: Beginning at a point on South line of said quarter quarter 1145 feet Let of - Southwest Comer thereof, thence North parallel with West line of said quarter quarter 615 feet, thence Last parallel with said South lino 169.75 feet plus or minus to East line of said quarter quarter. thence South along said East line 615 feet plus or minus to Southeast comer 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 quaver described as following: Beginning at Southeast corner of Shenandoah 3rd Addition, thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 25 seconds Last. assumcl hcmring, along South line of said quarter quarter 140.52 feet, thence North 00 degrees 43 minutes 14 seconds List 314.73 feet. thence North 03 degrees 20) minutes 01 second West 134.55 teen, thence North 59 degrees 17 minutes 35 seconds West 131.0') feet to East line of said Addition, thence South along said East line to point of beginning, also except that part platted as Shenandoah 3rd Addition. except road. according to the United States (iovemment Survey thereof and situate in Anoka County. Minnesota. Have caused the same to be surveyed and platted m SPEISEI( ACRES and do hereby donate and dedicate 10 the public for public use forever the street and the easements for drainage and utility purposes only as shown on this plat. In witness whereof said James H. Speiser and Lois M. Speiser, husband and wife, have hereunto set their hands this day of 2004. lames H. Speiser Lois M. Speiser STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20 04. by lames I1. Speiser and Lois M. Speiser. husband and wife. Notary Public, County. Minnesota My Commission Expires In witness whereof U. S. Hank National Association, bus caned these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _ day of 2004. U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: By: its STATE OF COUNTY Of The tiuegoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of . 2004 by of U. S. Bank National Association, on behalf oldie a.+socatioa. Notary Public County. My Commission Expires SEF ACFES CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA SEC. 29, T. 31, R. 22 I hereby certify that I have surveyed and planed the property described on this plat as SPEISER ACRES; that this plat is a correct rcprcsentation of said survey; that all distances are correctly shown in feet and hundredths of a foot; that all monuments have been correctly placed in the ground as shown; and that the outside boundary lines are correctly designated on the plat and that there are no wet lands as designated in MS505.02. Subd. 1 other than as shown on this plat or public highways to be designated. James It. Parker, Land Surveyor Minnesota License Number 9235 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing surveyors certificate was acknowledged before me this day of , 2004, by James H. Parker, Land Surveyor. Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission Expires LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA The foregoing plat of SPEISER ACRES was approved and accepted by the City Council of Lino Lakes, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof, held this day of , 2004. If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer, have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommentdations, as provided by Minnesota Statute, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. CITY COUNCIL OF LINO LAKES. MINNESOTA Approved by the Council of the ('ity of Lino Lakes, this _ day of . 2004. By Mayor By Clerk Checked and approved this day of , 2004. Anoka County Surveyor 1 R E C E. !s_ D OCT 0 5 2004 CITY OF LIR'9 LAKES ADVANCE' SURVEYING - ENGINEERING CO. SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS • • • Ic4g406ED GRAPHIC SCALE (Nm) 86E8ct AREA LOT 1: 1,327,513 8q. Ft 30.476 Ae LOT 2: 22,002 Sq. 71. 0.503 Ac. LOT3: 48,255 Sq. FL 1.108A . TOTAL BUILDABLE AREA (No WcUmdk LOT 1: 721,074 Sq. F7. 16354 Ac. LOTS: 16,704 Sq. Ft 0383 AA LOT 3: 48,255 8q. Ft 1.108 Ac. TOTAL AREA BLOCK 1: 1,397,770 20 FL 32088 As. d:54 P uI u4 I A nlP�n11 TT n UMW MO %'xINDW COL NI 7O KC SPEISER ACRES s 03. 07oft tar / / « I r00�1 -�y.�. / / t1_� — .21�7rj /4;7 fil p 14, .k.,...J.,,...,.....17. R0100r0't I ; .sp Nanwee,4- \to 0760840.0 .,, /�_ -A s wow' 1 X NI I Vimm TT f's ri�L.n1 t V 0007'011. 0 CITY CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA SEC. 29, T. 31, R. 22 5 00'43'13' W SHE-Ain':uvni'i MONO WO - -•a,z, BLOCK 1 1 • 700711 • 017.00 MK .. sawtr -.�. . —...y 40.37 EpTioN id 00van4', -sue %i 1., 2 PiOAtr / ' 4� /706- .. i ` ... ,LL 10.00 ` \` 0 25.7 ` ' 0: LK v AK s RV g r p 14 SW 1" 1 t 1 1 /' , �\ i N 1 I MK I —Li .� .4// - lOU711e __ *wort ` I / 1 (-Po iptirrivArt — t0 J rA i F- a I a a.a IS I A POW 1140 RV W► 5 01/4 v Or 1//44 L o 001087 1/2 NOI BY 14 NOI PM rtrc 15d4511P4T 4ET AID MARKED BY I11/41030TA R01S1RA1101 MADE t 0233 1074.40 4 THIRD REc.E. 211433 134.08 314.73 tram, WNW 4032001 I 400'43'14 W a E X C E P T I O N 20 cot R o - _ -J.•�� 11070!17 U E 0►,__� 01017 -17-4VAY KAT N0. 11 AA n yr%TIO 1 � 11V-1 L- J a 6 AI1O1NCE SURVEYING et ENC./EER/NO CO. SEP 2 7 2004 CITY OF LINO LAKES SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS • • • AGENDA ITEM V. D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: October 13, 2004 TOPIC: Appointments to AUAR Advisory Panel BACKGROUND The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the I -35E corridor area for a variety of land uses including low, medium and high density residential, commercial, industrial and rural land uses. The City Council goals, adopted in June of 2004, included the direction to begin Master Planning of the I -35E corridor. These goals are also supported by the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) Action Plan identifying the need to master plan the corridor. City staff has received a proposal from Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. (DSU), a leading planning and landscape architecture firm in the state, to complete an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the proposed area along the eastern side of the city encompassing approximately 4,000 acres. The AUAR process gives the City the opportunity to assess the impact of potential development on the area's natural resources prior to receiving and considering development proposals for approval. By examining multiple development scenarios throughout the AUAR process, the City is able to evaluate how much development can be accommodated in an area without significant environmental impacts. An AUAR is a very proactive planning process. A key element of the process is the establishment of an Advisory Panel consisting of representatives from the Planning & Zoning Board, Environmental Board, EDAC, Rice Creek Watershed District, Anoka County, property owners, surrounding communities, and representatives from other identified key groups and agencies. The process is designed to empower and support the City Council in making informed decisions at every key stage of the project. Please note that the attached schedule shows nine Advisory Panel meetings. The AUAR process is proposed to be completed within nine months of the authorization to proceed. I have attached Michael Grochala's staff report to the City Council on the project. RECOMMENDATION • Select three members of the P & Z to serve on the AUAR Advisory Panel. • • • LANDUSEPLAN PROPOSED LAND USE RURAL MED. DENSITY RESID LOW DENSITY RESID INDUSTRIAL HIGH DENSITY RESID COMMERCIAL LOW DENSITY UNSEWERED RESID MED. DENSITY RESID LOW DENSITY RESID • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: TOPIC: ACTION REQUIRED: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM 6G Michael Grochala October 12, 2004 Consideration of Resolution No. 04 -147 Authorizing Commencement of Environmental Review Study for the I -35E Corridor Simple Majority The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the I -35E corridor area for a variety of land uses including low, medium and high density residential, commercial, industrial and rural land uses. Recently approved, as well as proposed, development projects along this corridor have initiated discussions regarding transportation, stormwater management, land use compatibility and other development related impacts. It is anticipated that development interests along the corridor will continue to increase as transportation infrastructure is improved and surrounding communities continue to grow at their current pace. The proposed Hardwood Creek development, located northwest of the Main Street/I- 35E interchange is one example. While this proposed 360 acre development provides an opportunity to master plan a large area, the site is relatively small when compared to the long term development potential of the I -35E corridor. While the proposal will likely require some level of environmental review, it is staff's opinion that the City would benefit from a more comprehensive examination of the surrounding area. The City Council goals, adopted in June of 2004, included the direction to begin Master Planning of the I -35E corridor. These goals are also supported by the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) Action Plan identifying the need to master plan the corridor. In conjunction with these, staff has viewed the Hardwood Creek development as an opportunity to leverage public and private dollars to complete a more comprehensive study of the corridor area. City staff has received a proposal from Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. (DSU), a leading planning and landscape architecture firm in the state, to complete an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the proposed area along the eastern side of the city encompassing approximately 4,000 acres. The geographic area was based on identified growth areas, rural land uses, Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park, and the I -35E, I -35W and County Road 14 transportation corridors. The AUAR process gives the City the opportunity to assess the impact of potential • • City Council I -35E Corridor AUAR Study October 12, 2004 development on the area's natural resources prior to receiving and considering development proposals for approval. A single AUAR process can address both public infrastructure construction scheduled for the near future as well as the ensuing residential, commercial and Tight industrial development slated for later years. By examining multiple development scenarios throughout the AUAR process, the City is able to evaluate how much development can be accommodated in an area without significant environmental impacts. The DSU proposal includes the assistance of subconsultants for specific areas of expertise including the following: 1. Applied Ecological Services, Inc. (AES). AES was the co- author with Brauer and Associates of the City's Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development. They will be responsible for the natural resources, ecological and stormwater management review. 2. URS Corp. URS is currently developing the Anoka County transportation model. URS will be handling the traffic modeling for the review. 3. TKDA. TKDA is the city's engineering consultant and will be handling sanitary sewer and water components of the study. 4. 106 Group. The 106 Group will be performing the Cultural Resources component. The AUAR process is proposed to be completed within nine months of the authorization to proceed. A key element of the process is the establishment of an Advisory Panel consisting of representatives from the Planning & Zoning Board, Environmental Board, EDAC, Rice Creek Watershed District, Anoka County, property owners, surrounding communities, and representatives from other identified key groups and agencies. The process is designed to empower and support the City Council in making informed decisions at every key stage of the project. The estimated contract price for the AUAR is $296,400 plus $8,000 to $10,000 in expenses mostly attributable to printing costs associated with the final document. The project is proposed to be funded by a yet to be established environmental review area charge collected in conjunction with development. Interim financing will be provided through the City's Trunk Utility Fund and Stormwater Management Fund. The City is requesting a no interest loan from Metropolitan Council in the amount $75,000 to assist with the interim financing. We are also expecting a contribution from Anoka County as well as the Hardwood Creek developer. RECOMMENDATION From a planning perspective, the AUAR process is an excellent opportunity to evaluate cumulative development impacts. It is a very proactive approach to development, which • provides the community with a better opportunity, to plan for development rather than react to it. 2 • • City Council I -35E Corridor AUAR Study October 12, 2004 Staff is recommending approval of Resolution No. 04 -147 ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 04 -147 2. Project Area Map 3. Project Timeline • City Council I -35E Corridor AUAR Study October 12, 2004 CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 04 -147 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STUDY FOR THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES WHEREAS, A. The northeast portion of the City of Lino Lakes ( "Subject Property ") includes identified growth areas, rural land uses, Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Regional Park Reserve, and the 1 -35 E, 1 -35 W, and County Road 14 transportation corridors. The Subject Property area is depicted on the attached Exhibit A; and, B. The development of the Subject Property will require environmental review in accordance with the Minnesota Environmental Review Program; and, C. The Minnesota Environmental Review Program rules provide for an Alternative Urban Areawide Review ( "AUAR "); and, • D. The AUAR process give the City the opportunity to assess the impact of potential development on the area's natural resources prior to receiving and considering development proposals for approval. A single AUAR process can address both public infrastructure construction scheduled for the near future as well as the ensuing residential, commercial, and light industrial development slated for later years. By examining multiple development scenarios through the AUAR process, the City is able to evaluate how much development can be accommodated in an area without significant environmental impacts; and, E. An Advisory Panel consisting of representatives from the Planning & Zoning Board, Environmental Board, Park Board, Economic Development Advisory Committee, Rice Creek Watershed District, Anoka County, property owners, surrounding communities, and representatives from other identified key groups and agencies will review background studies and development scenario alternatives and make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will therefore have input from these groups before completing its formal review and making decisions. • F. The anticipated nature and intensity of development shall be determined by the City Council after background studies are completed and a preferred development scenario is identified; and, G. In accordance with Minnesota Rules, the City Council shall order the preparation of the AUAR document at such time as the anticipated nature and intensity of development is determined; and, 4 • • • City Council I -35E Corridor AUAR Study October 12, 2004 H. DSU, Inc. and its agents have submitted a proposal and contract to provide services to assist the City of Lino Lakes in determining a preferred development scenario and preparing an AUAR document. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, 1. That the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the proposal and contract with DSU and its agents to provide professional services for determining a preferred development scenario and preparing an AUAR document. Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 12th day of October 2004. Ann Blair, City Clerk 5 John J. Bergeson, Mayor Project Initiation, Geographic Scope, Research, Inventory, Analysis, Mapping Define Development Scenarios Project Coordination Project Initiation Meetings - AUAR Team & City Staff -AUAR Team Et Advisory Panel Determine Geographic Scope (AUAR Boundary) Research: T. Natural Resource Systems 2. Transportation System 3. Municipal Services 4. Cultural Resources 5. land Use & Zoning 6. Demographics/MarketAnalysis Communications I . WORK PROGRAM AND SCHEDULE City of Lino Lakes Northeast AUAR Scope of Services • Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Advisory Panel Workshops 1. Community Planning 2. Natural Resource Systems 3. Transportation 4. Municipal Services 5. Demogn.iphkasMtarket Analysis Prepare Development Scenario Alternatives Advisory Panel Workshop - Present Development Scenario ABernott es •.Select Preferred Attemallve Cliy Count i Meeting - Select Development Scenario(s) - Order the Preparation of the AUAR Prepare Draft AUAR & Draft Mitigation Plan Advisory Panet Meeting Review Draft AUAR & Draft Mitigation Plan City Council Meeting -Authorize Distribution of the Draft Document to Commenting Agencies Distribute Draft AUAR & Draft Mitigation Plan to Commenting Agencies 30-day Draft AUAR Comment Period Respond to Substantive Comments on the Draft AUAR As necessary, Revise AUAR & Prepare Final Mliigution Plan Advisory Panet Meeting - Review Final Mitigation Plan & Any Changes to the AUAR Document City Council Meeting - Review Final .Mitigation Plan & Any Changes to the AUAR Document - Authorize Distribution of Final Document to Cornxnentors Twa-Week final AUAR & Mitigation: Plan Review Period City Council Meeting - Adopt Final AUAR & Mitigation Plan • • SEPTEMBER 2004 Staff/ AUAR Team Advisory yr Panel el City Council Comment Period DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, & UBAN, INC. APPLIED ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC; URS, CORP. TKDA, INC. THE 106 GROUP,LTD. • • • • AGENDA ITEM VI. A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: October 13, 2004 TOPIC: Discussion: Temporary Signage BACKGROUND The discussion at the September meeting resulted in progress in answering several questions. These are shown on the attached matrix. The matrix also lists questions raised at that meeting. As a review, the ultimate 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. • • w Q Z 0 Eh } ce Q W 0 a 5 w i- ce 0 u_ cn cn w ce 0 0 a 0 N cn P & Z discussion to date • Yes, temporary signage should be allowed. • Yes, they should be regulated. The specific preferred regulations are yet to be determined. • Banners should be attached to building. • Other temporary signage needs further discussion. • No signs of any type to be allowed in road right of way: this would keep them off of utility poles, stop signs, etc. • What about real estate signs, garage sale, etc.? Further discussion needed. • 32 sf for banners. • Other temporary signage needs further discussion. • Banners: one month each time, with limit on number of times per year. • The number of times per year needs further discussion. • Temporary signage is anything not permanently affixed: does this mean POSSIBLE OPTIONS NO RESTRICTIONS REGULATED AS TO SIZE, LENGTH OF TIME 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 ANYTHING NOT "PERMANENTLY AFFIXED" TO THE BUILDING OR GROUND w ALLOWABLE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE should they be allowed? w m Z <0 0< U QO ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWABLE TIME LIMIT DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY affixed to a building? Or could it be affixed to a permanent sign such as a pylon sign? • Further discussion needed on window signs: maybe if it's inside the building, leave it unregulated. • Further discussion on several definitions is needed, including types of temporary signs such as banners, misc., ... • P & Z believes enforcement of the sign ordinance should be supported by the City Council. Exactly how to ensure this may involve staffing discussions. ANYTHING NOT QUALIFYING AS A WALL, GROUND, OR PYLON SIGN SHOULD WE ADDRESS WINDOW SIGNS? W O O� w 0 Z CO 2 � CO _LLO C/)0< ENFORCEMENT • Temporary Signs • • • • Portable Sign g Definition: A sign designed to be movable from one location to another. Photograph /Examples: IVY i S $JJ1iC a ;Min NUT otEE�t� 9i Current Code Restrictions: Portable Sign: A sign designed to be movable from one location to another. 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. A sign permit fee may be established by the City Council that will reflect the cost of administration of this permit. Possible Regulation: Might want to expand definition to include any sign which is not permanently attached to the ground or to another permanent structure; including, but not limited to, temporarily placed signs designed to be transported by means of wheels; signs converted to A or T frames; movable menu and sandwich board signs; tethered balloons used as signs; and signs attached to or painted on a vehicle or trailer which is parked and visible from the public right -of -way, unless the vehicle is used in the normal day -to -day operations of the business. Notes: • • Miscellaneous Definition: These signs are the type that the board has looked at being aesthetically distracting. This might include most banners, at the discretion of the board. Photograph /Examples: Current Code Restrictions: Not within right -of -way Possible Regulation: Need to specifically define other temporary signs to make sure the `problem' types of signs are prohibited. Notes: • • • Construction Sign Definition: A sign advertising a construction project and the parties involved in its development, proposed to be located on the lot or parcel of land on which the sign is located. Photograph /Examples: Current Code Restrictions: Real estate development signs or construction site signs may be erected providing they do not exceed one hundred (100) square feet of area, are not more than fifteen (15) feet above grade, and not within one hundred (100) feet of an existing residential structure. Possible Regulation: Limit the number of signs, the timing of placement to coincide with an approval of a project. No permit is required currently. Notes: • • • Real Estate Advertising Sign Definition: A sign to advertise a commercial or residential property for sale, lease, or rent. Photograph /Examples: Current Code Restrictions: Temporary real estate signs advertising the sale of individual residences shall not require a permit if they are under six (6) square feet. Temporary signs advertising buildings or land for rent or for sale in all districts may be placed on such property providing such signs are not closer than (10) feet to any property line and do not exceed forty (40) square feet in industrial areas and fifteen (15) square feet in other areas. Possible Regulation: No permit is required currently. Notes: • Subdivision Sign Development Sale Si p g • • Definition: A sign located within the subject residential subdivision that advertises the availability of lots or dwellings for sale. Photograph/Examples: 1.11-10ME: 170's 763 -783 2175 HOMES COTTAGE ROW TOWNKONES From the '.. Upper 51006 Current Code Restrictions: Real estate development signs or construction site signs may be erected providing they do not exceed one hundred (100) square feet of area, are not more than fifteen (15) feet above grade, and not within one hundred (100) feet of an existing residential structure. Possible Regulation: Permit is not currently required. Notes: • Subdivision Sign Development Directional Si p g • Definition: A sign not located within the subject residential subdivision that advertises the availability of lots or dwellings for sale. Photograph/Examples: Current Code Restrictions: Directional signs up to four (4) square feet are allowed up to ten (10) feet above grade provided they are not erected adjacent to any residential streets. Possible Regulation: Number of signs per development, distance from the development, size, construction, setbacks, and possibly a plan that shows the placement of all such signs for a development. Parade of Homes signs could fall in this category as well. Notes: • Sign Open House Si P g • • Definition: A sign serving only as a short-term, directional sign leading potential homebuyers to an open house of a residential dwelling unit. Photograph/Examples: Current Code Restrictions: None Possible Regulation: Size of sign, timing and placement of sign. Typically these signs are property of realtors and are subsequently removed and taken care of by the realtor as it is a business asset to them not to lose these signs. Notes: • Special Event Sign • • Definition: Any sign or attention gaining device used as a means of publicizing special events such as grand openings. Photograph/Examples: Current Code Restrictions: There shall be no use of revolving beacons, flashing signs, zip flashers or similar lighted devices. (this applies to all signs in the city, not just temps) Possible Regulation: Size of sign, types of sign (materials, construction, mounting hardware, professional lettering), duration of display, and the allowable special events (grand openings, anniversaries, etc) Banners would certainly fit in this category Notes: • • • Garage and Yard Sale Sign Definition: A sign to advertise the sale of personal property which is conducted on premises within a residential district upon which is located a dwelling. Photograph /Examples: GARAGE SALE! Current Code Restrictions: Only covered under the `not in right -of -way' portion of the code. Possible Regulation: Size of sign and timing of placement /removal. Notes: � Incidental Sign • • Definition: A sign, generally informational, that has a purpose secondary to the use of the lot on which it is located, such as "no parking" "entrance ", "loading only ", "warning ", "no trespassing" and "telephone /restroom" signs; directory signs and drive - through menu boards; and other similar directive or identifying messages. Photograph/Examples: Current Code Restrictions: State statutes regulate the placement of "No Trespassing" Signs, but they can be included in this category as long as they are allowed in accordance with State Statute 97B.001. Possible Regulation: Make sure the `incidental' nature of these signs is protected by limiting the use of logos as part of the signs in commercial and industrial zones or even institutional uses such as churches. Notes: • • • AGENDA ITEM VI.B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: October 13, 2004 TOPIC: BACKGROUND Discussion: Redevelopment of property located adjacent to the southwest and southeast corner of Lois Lane and the Della Lane alignment. The owner of the properties located at 780 Lois Lane, 790 Lois Lane, and the vacant property located adjacent to the southeast corner of Lois Lane and the Della Lane alignment has approached the city in order to gauge the feasibility of redeveloping the properties with an attached residential product. City staff assembled some information and sent it to the property owner, that letter is attached to this report. Upon receipt of that information the property owner retained a professional consultant and since then staff has met with the property owner and the consultant to discuss the letter and the potential development of the site. Considering the expense in proceeding with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Development Plan Review, and Plat; the property owner has requested city staff to discuss the potential of this site with the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. This is not a formal submittal, nor does it even include a site plan. Rather, this is an attempt by the property owner to get some feedback from the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council prior to formalizing any arrangements and paying for any working drawings. ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location Map 2. Background Information, letter dated August 5, 2004 3. Developer's Request NAME eCDONALD KATHERINE A & DAVID A SEH Data View ADDRESS 780 LOIS LN PIN 083122140010 10/6/20 wpm • • • Land Use Plan — Proposed Land Use City of Lino Lakes — Zoning District M R -1 • • • August 5, 2004 David McDonald 780 Lois Lane Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55104 Dear Mr. McDonald, In reply to your inquiry about the redevelopment of your property to a residential /townhome use our staff has assembled some general information for you that will get you started. Map #1 shows the general area as well as designates each property with a number for easier identification throughout this letter. General Plan Designation First and foremost is the comprehensive plan's land use plan designation of the properties in question. The land use plan currently designates the properties as follows: Property one Property two Property three Public / Semi - Public Public / Semi - Public Low Density, Unsewered Residential The townhome /residential use you are discussing would need a M (Medium Density Residential) designation. This would allow residential development (including townhomes) from 3.0 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre. Map #2 shows the land use designations for the area. Zoning Designation The current zoning of the subject properties are as follows: Property one Property two Property three GB (General Business) GB (General Business) R -X (Rural Executive) 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Phone: 651 -982 -2400 • Fax: 651 -982 -2499 ® TDD: 651 - 982 -2410 • Townhomes, as you have discussed, would require either a R -2 (Two Family Residential) or R -3 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district depending on the final layout of the site. Map #3 shows the zoning designations for the area. Setbacks The setbacks for development in either of the above zoning districts are: Front: 30 feet Side: 10 feet Rear: 30 feet However, like I stated earlier, the zoning district you will need to request will depend solely on the layout you determine. Utilities As was relayed to you over the phone, all new development would require the hook up of both municipal water and sewer. The nearest sewer connection point for the properties in question is located at the intersection of Lois Lane and Lake Drive. Municipal water lines are stubbed into Lois Lane, but the exact length of that line is not verifiable at this time. As part • of redeveloping this site the sewer and water lines will need to be extended to the far property line on Lois Lane at the developer's expense. Map #4 attached to this letter shows the location of the water and sewer lines. Stormwater Management Some on -site ponding will be required as a part of this development, based on the impervious surface coverage proposed as a part of the final layout. Your engineering consultant would calculate this as a part of your project. Vacation of unnamed street During our phone conversation you brought up the issue of the unimproved right -of -way adjacent to your properties. This issue will take further investigation prior to giving you a staff level recommendation on whether this street should be vacated or reserved for future improvement. We as staff will meet with Parks and Recreation Staff and the City Engineer to discuss this right -of -way. Lois Lane The right -of -way width for Lois Lane is currently 50 feet. The typical width. • of improved right -of -ways is 66 feet. As a part of your redevelopment it may become necessary to dedicate the additional right of way for future • • improvements. This would depend on your final project layout, but take it into account as you have the site designed. As you can see, you would need to do a General Plan Amendment, a Rezoning, possibly a Vacation, a Site Development Plan Review, and a Preliminary and Final Plat on this site as a minimum. These applications will all require the submittal of different materials and significant fees based on the zoning code. If you wish to proceed with the redevelopment of your property I would strongly suggest at least discussing the site and your desires with a consulting professional before proceeding any further. It is also important for you to understand that a great deal of the information that you have requested, and we have provided you with, is all dependant on the type of housing product and the final layout of the site you or your representatives design. Plea e feel free to contact me with any further questions you might have. Paul F. Bengtson Associate Planner SEP 2 v 200 CITY OF LINO LAKES j • September 10, 2004 Paul Bengston, Associate Planner City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 METRO LAND SURVEYING & ENGINEERING Re: Potential McDonald Development — Lois Lane LINO LAKES, MN Dear Mr. Bengston, Thank you very much for meeting with David McDonald and myself recently regarding the above referenced Project. Your comments were very helpful. Attached to this letter, please find the following: • Reduced half section maps with the parcels highlighted • Aerial Photo of the Project Area • Preliminary Concept Plan drawing for the McDonald Development (10 — executive single family detached townhomes — Final Plan may include up to 15 lots) • Preliminary description of the proposed townhomes As we discussed in our meeting, we are interested in receiving some general feedback from the Council regarding the potential development (we are in receipt of staffs preliminary review). A few of the basic points that we are interested in receiving Council feedback are listed as follows: • We understand that the Project as proposed will require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning (to R -3). How does the Council feel about these two items? • We are familiar with the Growth Management Policy. Additionally, we understand that the new lots for 2004 are already pledged and 2005 is close. When should Mr. McDonald begin the process for Amending the Comprehensive Plan, Rezoning and Platting. It is Mr. McDonald's preference to develop the property in 2005. • • Please contact either David or myself if you have any questions or comments regarding the above information or any other Project related issues. Sincerely, Brian J. Bour ssa, P.E. CC: David McDonald Little Canada Office: 412 East County Road D Little Canada, MN 55117 Phone (651) 766 -0112 Fax (651) 766 -0612 Burnsville Office: 3200 Corporate Center Drive - Suite 117 Burnsville, MN 55306 Phone (952) 707 -9299 Fax (952) 707 -0036 Pine City Office: 1639 Main Street North - Suite 7 Pine City, MN 55063 Phone (320) 629 -3267 Fax (320) 629 -0176 Rogers Office: 12510 Fletcher Lane North - Unit B Rogers, MN 55374 Phone (763) 428 -5130 Fax (763) 428 -5172 E -mail survey @metrols.com Website: www.metrols.com M! N w Gra CITY OF LINO LAKES • • • Pile imam lostiflior BP till attip filawrigiet iimasi 1111:11 !fill t ;minim Ili lin 1:1:1 allidera ormgreat swill NEE EVIIMENsi Illialsgal MMMM etittEtt2- .1 ZIZE 17111:11114111 Rim ittrrti lump out ;1411141C.41111.14■1111111:11111:1! Er 11104.4.11111411,1 onownmat litmilm gildliffill