HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/08/2004 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES
• PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
•
•
Wednesday, December 8, 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: November 10, 2004
IV. OPEN MIKE
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. Final Plat for Miller's Crossroads 2nd Addition, Bruggeman Properties, SE corner
of Birch St. and Hodgson Rd. — Jeff Smyser
B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan
Review for construction of a church, Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses,
69XX Lake Drive — Paul Bengtson (Open and continue hearing)
C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for a Preliminary Plat for a 5 -lot residential
development named Vaughan Addition, Michael Vaughan, 600 Birch Street —
Paul Bengtson
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. None
VII. ADJOURN
•
•
•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF PRESENT
November 10, 2004
6:34 P.M.
9:40 P.M.
Hyden, Laden, Rafferty, Root, and Tralle
Pogalz
Paul Bengtson and James Studenski
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:34
p.m., November 10, 2004.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Rafferty stated one additional item would be added to the agenda, item VI.B.,
regarding 2005 meeting dates. The amended agenda was approved.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 13, 2004
Mr. Root requested that the October 13, 2004 minutes be amended on page 16 to reflect
that Mr. Tralle made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:41 p.m., and was supported
by Mr. Root.
Mr. Root made a MOTION to approve the October 13, 2004 Minutes, as amended, and
was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0.
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Rafferty declared Open Mike open at 6:36 p.m.
There was no one present for Open Mike.
Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:36 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Laden. Motion carried 5 -0.
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. Variance Request for Lot Area, Lot Width, and Road Frontage for St. Paul
Regional Water Services, Anoka County Regional Park
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
November 10, 2004
Page 2
Staff stated applicant has requested approval of variances for required road frontage,
minimum lot area, and minimum lot width to allow the division of the subject sites by an
administrative minor subdivision. The comprehensive plan guides both sites for Public/
Semi - Public uses and is zoned PSP (Public /Semi- Public). The City granted similar
variances for parcel 20 in April of this year.
Staff explained that Parcel 3 is located on the west side of Lake Peltier, running parallel
but not adjacent to Main Street. This parcel has approximately 2,650 feet of lake
frontage, but does not have any road frontage. The proposed subdivision will result in the
creation of two new parcels, Parcel A will be 3.702 acres and Parcel B will be .614 acres.
Parcel A will be sold to Anoka County for parkland and Parcel B will be offered to
adjacent private property owners. Parcel 21 is located on the west side of Centerville
Lake and has approximately 1,850 feet of lake frontage, but does not have any road
frontage. This proposed subdivision will result in the creation of two new parcels, Parcel
A will be 10.014 acres and Parcel B will be 1.206 acres. Parcel A will be sold to Anoka
County for inclusion into the regional park and Parcel B will be sold to Anoka County for
roadway purposes.
Staff noted the minimum requirements within the PSP zoning district are 10 acres
minimum lot area (unsewered) and 150 feet minimum lot width. In addition, the
subdivision ordinance requires that "all lots shall have frontage on an improved public
street that provides the required lot width at the minimum front yard setback." The
proposed minor subdivision will divide both lots into two, of which neither will meet
these requirements.
Staff indicated that in considering all requests for variance, the City shall make a finding
of fact that:
a. both sites are almost completely surrounded by the lake and the regional park reserve,
and would not be able to be developed as usable parcels due to the lack of road
frontage;
b. the physical shape, location, and isolated nature of the parcels prevent use for
anything other than park reserve or private lake access for adjacent property owners;
c. economic considerations is not a major factor in this proposal, the intent is to
minimize the applicant's lakeshore holdings for the future;
d. there are very few other situations that can be compared to this one. Land - locked
parcels owned and operated almost exclusively for public purposes would receive the
same consideration; and
e. the proposed minor subdivisions and variances provide additional public open space
by adding land to the park reserve.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
November 10, 2004
Page 3
Staff recommended approval of the project including a variance to the minimum road
frontage requirements, a variance to the minimum lot size requirements, and a minor
subdivision, subject to the condition that when ownership of these properties changes
hands, the new owner(s) is required to combine them with adjacent parcels to avoid
creating a new parcel.
Mr. Tralle asked if it is the intent of St. Paul Regional Water Services to sell the 10 acre
parcel for future construction of homes and requested clarification regarding Parcel 21.
Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment.
Bill Tschida, St. Paul Regional Water Services, stated Parcel 21 is currently being
operated within the park system and a Purchase Agreement has been executed whereby
the County will now purchase this parcel. He stated both splits are being driven by what
the County wants to buy and operate as a park.
Mr. Tschida added that Parcel B of Parcel 3 is directly in front of private property and
represents a similar strip of land surrounding Centerville Lake and would be made
available for purchase to the adjacent private property owners. He stated he has had some
conversations with Mr. Smyser about how to do future lot splits all around the lake and
indicated they would prefer to obtain blanket approval.
Staff indicated if it is the intention to further divide the property in the future and to sell it
to individual property owners, it could be addressed in the Board's action so the
individual property owners do not have to come back for a variance.
Mr. Tschida stated he intended the blanket approval would be in anticipation of property
owners wanting to subdivide in the future.
Chair Rafferty stated that because Mr. Smyser is not in attendance this evening, the
Planning & Zoning Board should approve the variance based on staffs recommendation.
Staff noted the minor subdivision would be accomplished administratively.
Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend Option 1 to approve the project, including a
variance to the minimum road frontage requirements, a variance to the minimum lot size
requirements, and a variance for minimum lot width to allow the division of the subject
sites by an administrative minor subdivision, subject to the condition that when
ownership of these properties change hands, the new owner(s) are required to combine
them with adjacent parcels to avoid creating a new parcel, and was supported by Mr.
Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0.
B. PUBLIC HEARING for a Preliminary Plat for a 5 -lot Residential
Development named Vaughan Addition, Michael Vaughan, 600 Birch Street
Chair Rafferty opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
November 10, 2004
Page 4
Staff explained the applicant has requested approval of a five lot single family residential
subdivision entitled Vaughan Addition located on the south side of Birch Street
approximately 2,180 feet east of Ware Road. The comprehensive plan guides the site for
low density sewered residential use and it is zoned R -1. The site is also within the
existing MUSA boundary. The approximate area of the site is 2.99 acres, with 2.91 acres
of upland area, and a net density of 1.72 units /acre. The proposed subdivision will consist
of five lots ranging in size from 11,654 square feet to 19,665 square feet; the upland lot
area of all five lots exceed 11,654 square feet and therefore conform to ordinance.
Staff stated that 165 lots have been approved for year 2005, leaving no more than 11
more lots for year 2005 to bring the total to 176, which includes the 20% discretionary
flexibility. Fox Den Acres is scheduled for consideration by the City Council, and the
pending growth management policy regarding Conservation Developments makes the
availability of the last 11 discretionary lots unknown.
Staff explained that access from Birch Street is proposed in the form of a cul -de -sac, with
an offset bulb. Staff is concerned with access to not only this site, but the adjacent site to
the west.
Staff stated that city water and sanitary sewer will connect to existing facilities already on
site; both are adequate to serve the project. The City Engineer has completed a thorough
review of the submitted plans and the applicant will be required to satisfy all of the
comments made by the City Engineer prior to approval of any building permits for the
site. The proposal does not include any land dedication for park land; a cash dedication of
$1,665 per residential unit will be required.
Staff noted the Environmental Board reviewed the project on October 27, 2004. One of
their major concerns was an alternative access to eliminate traffic concerns on Birch
Street. The majority of comments can be addressed by the development agreement
between the applicant and the City; others will be included as conditions of approval
when this project is acted upon by the Planning & Zoning Board.
Staff is recommending that this item be continued to a future meeting so the access issues
can be further examined and because of the questions surrounding the availability of
discretionary lots for 2005 pursuant to the growth management policy.
Mr. Root thanked staff for addressing the Birch Street access issues and encouraged staff
to review all future access points surrounding this area in order to gain a better
understanding of where other possible access points may impact future projects.
Chair Rafferty stated it will be important to determine what the property owner to the
west of the proposed development intends to do and address access in conjunction with
that. He added the goal would be to eliminate the need for another street off of Birch
Street.
Jodi Hystead, 593 Chippewa Trail, expressed concern about the drainage easement that
runs behind their property and also expressed concern about the removal of trees on the
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
November 10, 2004
Page 5
south end of the development. She stated that she is concerned about increased traffic in
the area.
Wade Olson, 593 Chippewa Trail, stated their property is not currently served by city
sewer and water and expressed concern about contamination or pollution from the
proposed development.
Mr. Studenski stated the proposed project will be serviced by city sewer and water with
ponds intended to deal with drainage run -off; as a result, this should not affect any wells
in the area.
Mr. Olson expressed concern about increased traffic on Birch Street, and asked about the
planned square footage of the proposed homes.
Dave Boyce, 616 Prairie Flower Road, stated there is a small strip of land to the east of
the proposed development that is not buildable and asked if that property could be
preserved so that no building occurs on that property.
Mr. Bengtson replied staff is currently attempting to contact the property owner
mentioned by Mr. Boyce to determine what their intention is for that property and to
potentially see if that will help provide an access point to the east.
Mr. Boyce stated that none of the adjoining property owners thought there would ever be
an access point next to an environmental pond and this represents a big concern to him.
Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment.
John Donovan, Loucks Associates, stated they are the engineer of the project. He
indicated it is their intention to attempt to save as many trees as possible. He added the
project calls for all custom built homes with full basement walkouts. He stated the reason
they put access off of Birch Street is that there is already a road there, which minimizes
tree removal.
Chair Rafferty stated the intent of a public hearing is to address issues that are important
to the public and encouraged the developer to hold a meeting with the adjacent property
owners to address some of their concerns. He stated this type of meeting could prove very
beneficial to both the developer and the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Donovan stated they have received staff's comments and agree with the majority of
them. He indicated the key issue appears to be access to the site and they are willing to
look at all available options that might be more acceptable to the adjacent property
owners.
Mike Vaughan, 600 Birch Street, stated he plans to build homes with an approximate
square footage of 3,000 square feet, ranging in price from $350,000- $400,000. He added
that saving as many trees as possible will add to the value to the property.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
November 10, 2004
Page 6
Chair Rafferty requested Mr. Vaughan work with staff to address all outstanding issues
and reiterated his request to hold a meeting with the adjacent property owners to address
their concerns. He stated this matter will then come back to the Planning & Zoning Board
in December for action.
Chair Rafferty closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to continue item 5B to a future meeting so that access
issues can be examined and because of the questions surrounding the availability of
discretionary lots for 2005 pursuant to the growth management policy, and was supported
by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5 -0.
C. PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for
Construction of a Church, Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, 69XX
Lake Drive
Chair Rafferty opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m.
Staff explained the New Brighton Congregation of the Jehovah's Witnesses has requested
approval of a conditional use permit to allow a church on a 4.07 acre lot located on the
east side of Lake Drive. The comprehensive plan guides the site for low - density
unsewered residential use and is zoned R -1 (Single Family Residential). Site plan review
will be completed administratively.
He stated the site is located within the existing MUSA boundary even though public
water and sanitary sewer are not available within approximately 700 feet of the site. The
proposed building clearly meets all of the minimum setback requirements for the R -1
zoning district. The parking lot standards have been taken from the commercial design
guidelines since the R -1 zoning district does not specifically address parking lot setbacks.
He stated the building materials are brick veneer with brick exterior with brick soldier
course at a 3' height, with a composite shingle roof. A minimal amount of facade
articulation is proposed and the only entrances consist of the main door on the south side
and a service entrance on the north side. All proposed materials are in accordance with
the zoning ordinance. In addition, the building height complies with the ordinance.
Staff explained the screening requirements of the zoning ordinance required along the
boundary of the residential property adjacent to this institutional use, noting that either a
green belt with 80% opacity, six feet in height must be provided, or alternatively a solid
screening fence six feet in height. He stated the plans as submitted depict a four foot
fence and landscaping does not provide the needed opacity beyond the four feet. Staff has
advised the applicant to speak with the neighbors about the screening to determine which
option they might prefer. He indicated the potential relocation of the septic system on the
site will require some changes to the landscaping plan. Staff and the Environmental
Board have expressed concern that the lake side of the property be effectively screened to
minimize the visual impact of the building.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
November 10, 2004
Page 7
Staff stated the plans currently show the property at approximately 18% impervious
surface coverage; the R -1 zoning district requires that impervious surface coverage not
exceed 65 %. He stated that access to the site is via an entry /exit driveway directly from
Lake Drive and approval for this access must be obtained from Anoka County. He stated
staff review of the access and circulation will depend greatly on the comments from
Anoka County; those comments have not yet been received. He indicated that a minimum
of 57 parking spaces will need to be maintained and the applicant is proposing 59 parking
spaces. The plans show a minimal amount of sidewalk running from the parking lot to the
front entry. An additional point of entry on the rear of the building does not have a
sidewalk and a condition has been added requiring the provision of such a walkway. The
applicant is proposing shoebox style lighting with downcast, in conformance to City
standards. All signage would be subject to permit and approval based on the City's sign
ordinance. The location of trash equipment is not shown on the submitted plans and the
applicant will be required to indicate how trash will be stored and screened on site. The
mechanical plans show multiple configurations for the air conditioning units on the north
side of the building, making them visible to the street. A condition will be included that
requires effective screening of these units.
Staff explained that water and sanitary sewer service are not immediately available and
the submitted plans depict a well and septic system. Staff and the Environmental Board
have asked the applicant to examine the feasibility of moving the septic system from the
rear of the property to the front of the property to maximize the separation from the
shoreline. The City Engineer has reviewed the utility plan and the grading and drainage
plan; several issues will need to be addressed by the applicant. In addition, the grading
and drainage plan is subject to review and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed
District.
Staff advised the Environmental Board reviewed the project on October 27, 2004 and
their recommendations include several limitations which will be incorporated into site
plan review and will be conditioned or added to the development agreement when
appropriate.
Staff recommended continuing the public hearing for the project to allow the applicant to
address the comments of the City Engineer, to allow receipt of comments from Anoka
County with respect to access and circulation, and to allow the applicant to submit a
revised landscaping plan.
Chair Rafferty requested clarification of the comment by the Environmental Board for
"adequate screening of shoreland and adjacent residences." Mr. Bengtson stated he felt
their intention was to require applicant to provide some sort of visual barrier from the
building to the actual shore, to minimize the impact that the building would have on the
visual experience on the lake.
Chair Rafferty asked if a split rail fence could be utilized by the applicant. Staff replied
the type of fence is left up to the developer, as long as it meets all screening
requirements.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
November 10, 2004
Page 8
Mr. Root stated this is another situation where traffic is a concern and requested
information from the applicant with respect to church schedule, service times, when
vehicles will be accessing the property, how often the building will be used, etc. in order
to obtain a better understanding of expected traffic patterns in and out of the property. He
added Lake Drive is a busy road and traffic is traveling at a high rate of speed.
Mr. Laden stated the calculation with respect to impervious surface is intended to deal
with run -off from the site and requested clarification of this calculation. Staff agreed to
confirm the calculation.
Mr. Tralle mentioned when Eaglebrook Church went through, they were required to hook
up sanitary sewer and water and asked if the Jehovah's Witnesses will be required to do
the same. Mr. Bengtson replied the Environmental Board expressed its desire to see this
project hooked up when sanitary sewer and water is run to that part of the street and
stated this is at the discretion of the P &Z Board. Mr. Studenski added the overall plan is
to have sanitary sewer and water in this area, but nothing is scheduled yet.
Bob and Carol Stanek, 6970 Lake Drive, stated approximately 40% of this land is
watershed land, which means only 500' off of Lake Drive is actually developable land,
and asked about the square footage of the building and whether it will be a single level
structure. Chair Rafferty provided Mr. and Mrs. Stanek with a copy of the proposed site
plan for their review. Mr. Stanek also asked if the property would be surveyed because
the property lines are not clear. Chair Rafferty replied the project will require a
certificate of survey that meets City standards.
Mr. Stanek requested information regarding the proposed fence along their property line.
He stated this area is open land and they would prefer an open picket -type fence;
however, if there will be large volumes of people at the church, a solid screening fence
would be more desirable. He also expressed concern about the parking lot size and
traffic. Mr. Stanek asked how this development will impact property taxes and resale of
their property. He also asked about the light level from the shoebox lights and if the
property would be lit 24 hours /day, and asked about the proposed signage.
Mrs. Stanek questioned the placement of a church in the middle of a residential area
when there appears to be property available 400 feet further down the road that would be
more suitable for a church.
Mr. Stanek asked about sanitary sewer and water for their property. Mr. Studenski
replied the current City policy states if your septic system fails and sanitary sewer and
water is available, then you cannot replace your septic system or well and must connect
to city sewer and water.
Mr. Tralle asked Mr. and Mrs. Stanek what they would consider "adequate screening of
shoreland and adjacent residences," as noted by the Environmental Board. Mr. Stanek
replied the lake is primarily used by seaplanes and there is little motorized boat traffic on
the lake.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
November 10, 2004
Page 9
Chair Rafferty stated several valid concerns have been raised by adjacent property
owners that should be addressed by the applicant.
Rob Storberg, 6978 Lake Drive, stated he is appearing on behalf of his parents and they
have expressed concerns regarding the outside lighting at the church and increased
traffic. He added his parents are concerned about isolating this lot with a church when
the rest of the area consists of single family homes, and asked how this lot can be zoned
for a church that surrounds a residential area. He questioned the value that this type of
building brings to the community.
Chair Rafferty stated that the applicant desires to purchase the subject property for the
purpose of developing a new worship site, and they have an opportunity to do that
through a Conditional Use Permit. He indicated there are restrictions in the commercial
zoning district that may not allow church activity. He stated that because several concerns
have been raised, including traffic, site lighting, and signage, it will be appropriate to
continue this public hearing. In addition, the comments from Anoka County will need to
be reviewed and addressed.
Staff confirmed a church is a conditional use allowed within the R -1 district and they are
not permitted in the commercial district.
Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment.
Rodney Gordon, 3552 Brookdale Drive, Brooklyn Park, appeared representing the
engineer of the project.
Chair Rafferty stated that it would be advantageous to both the church and adjacent
property owners if they met to discuss the concerns raised this evening and would
provide the church with an opportunity to talk to the adjacent property owners about their
plans for the property.
Mr. Gordon agreed that such a meeting would be beneficial. He stated that they have
previously built a Kingdom Hall on 694 and Silver Lake Road in New Brighton and the
neighbors were happy to see the church come into their neighborhood. He indicated they
plan to install a 6' fence to screen the parking lot area. Mr. Gordon stated the church will
typically hold meetings two nights per week. During the remainder of the week, people
will be coming into and leaving the church at different times. He stated the parking lot
will rarely be full. He added the services on Sundays are held between 9:30 a.m. and
10:00 a.m. and services are finished at 12:00 noon. He stated the shoebox lights will be lit
only when there is a meeting being held at the church.
Chair Rafferty asked staff what the City requires for lighting at this type of facility. Mr.
Studenski replied there are no specific requirements for lighting and from the City's
perspective, lighting should be minimized to reduce light glare.
Mr. Gordon stated their building on Silver Lake Road is similar to the proposed structure,
and showed pictures of the Silver Lake Road site. He stated the signage will be brick with
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
November 10, 2004
Page 10
lettering inside the brick and will be approximately 4' high and 10' wide; the sign may be
lit at night.
Chair Rafferty asked for information regarding the church's desire to purchase this
particular lot in the middle of a residential area, particularly given the traffic concerns
and other issues raised by staff and adjacent property owners.
Dave Knutson, 38 West Golden Lake Road, Circle Pines, appeared representing the
Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. He stated they have been looking for property to
build a church for awhile and this parcel was attractive because the price was reasonable.
Chair Rafferty asked Mr. Knutson how he feels about putting a church in the middle of a
residential area. Mr. Knutson replied one of the things they were looking for is a traffic
flow, and Lake Drive provides that. He recognized there has been a lot of concern
expressed about increased traffic on Lake Drive, but felt the traffic generated by the
church would be spread out evenly and their congregations are typically less than 100
people.
Mr. Laden asked if the building would have windows. Mr. Knutson replied the Kingdom
Hall has five standard designs to choose from and the plan provided to staff represents a
stripped down plan and they intend to add windows.
Mr. Tralle asked if a double front door and a single service door provided sufficient
egress in case of fire. Mr. Bengtson stated this issue will be addressed by the building
department to ensure compliance with city code.
Chair Rafferty reiterated his suggestion to the applicant to meet with the adjacent
property owners.
Mr. Knutson agreed to meet with the neighbors before the next P &Z meeting. He stated
that all other issues noted in the plans are being worked on.
Mr. Root requested that staff consider an access lane off of Lake Drive as a way of
addressing some of the traffic and safety concerns raised.
Chair Rafferty stated the access issue will be reviewed once comments are received from
Anoka County. He asked if the applicant has received approval from Rice Creek
Watershed District. Mr. Knutson replied they have submitted their plans to the
Watershed District and a meeting is scheduled for November 22.
Chair Rafferty closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m.
Mr. Root made a MOTION to continue the public hearing for the project, and was
supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 -0.
Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 8:27 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
November 10, 2004
Page 11
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Temporary Signage Update
Staff presented its analysis and recommendations regarding temporary signage, banners,
and portable signs. He reviewed the suggested definitions for temporary signage, banner,
and portable sign, and noted that staff is suggesting that banners and portable signs be
distinct subcategories of temporary signage. He stated that banners and other flimsy,
cardboard, and plastic signage are most common and are the cause of most concern. He
added that signage regulation should be content neutral.
Mr. Root commended staff for their work on the sign ordinance. He stated he felt it will
be important to build enforcement into the cost of the permits and there should be a fine
associated with violating the sign ordinance. He stated that another consideration should
be signs with changeable messages and outlining what the time limit requirements are
with these types of signs.
Mr. Tralle felt that when a permit is taken out for 15 days, the permit holder should be
allowed to change the message on the sign any time they want, but after the 15 days, they
would be required to remove the sign.
Chair Rafferty stated that part of the problem with signage regulations is going to be
enforcement. He suggested a permit cost of $25, the permit would be issued on a Friday,
and the permit would be valid for 17 days (rather than 15), which allows the sign to be
displayed for three entire weekends, and then the signage would be required to be
removed the following Monday (after the third weekend). He felt this would make it
easier for staff to enforce the ordinance. He added a permit could not be taken out on a
continuous basis.
Mr. Tralle asked who will enforce the ordinance. Mr. Bengtson replied it will be a joint
effort between the building department and community development department.
Mr. Tralle asked if staff is currently enforcing the regulations with respect to banners and
enforcement of signage in right -of -way. Mr. Bengtson replied he did not know where the
process currently stands. Chair Rafferty asked staff to follow up on this and report to the
Board.
Mr. Hyden stated he agreed with Chair Rafferty's suggestion of having 17 day permits
and asked about maximum number of times per year.
Chair Rafferty suggested that a minimum of 17 days between permits would be
appropriate.
• Mr. Laden asked if there is a problem with renting portable signs for an extended period
and /or having portable signs on a consecutive basis.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
November 10, 2004
Page 12
Chair Rafferty stated he is looking for an avenue that will allow City staff to easily
enforce the regulations and felt the best way to accomplish that is to not allow permits to
be issued on a consecutive basis.
Mr. Tralle suggested allowing permits no more than once a quarter for 17 days duration.
Chair Rafferty asked about permit fees and fines.
Mr. Laden suggested a permit fee of $25 and a fine of double the fee, or $50.
Mr. Hyden asked about the appropriate means of communicating the ordinance changes
to residents and business owners. Chair Rafferty suggested publishing something that
highlights "rule changes for 2005" in the city newspaper and city newsletter. In addition,
the city has the ability to send notice to all business owners.
Chair Rafferty stated there should be some limitations placed on the size of a portable
sign and agreed to research this further.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board that the definition of temporary
signage as "any sign not permanently mounted or affixed to a building or to a permanent
sign" is acceptable.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board that a peuuit is required for a
temporary sign and the fee will be $25, with a fine of $50 for not obtaining a permit, and
if the sign is not removed prior to expiration of the permit, there will be a fine of $50 plus
expenses to reimburse the City for removal of the sign (the City shall have the option of
taking the sign down).
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board that a permit may be taken out once
every quarter, for a period of 17 days. The permit period cannot be consecutive.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board that the regulations shall state no
temporary signs are allowed in road right -of -way.
The P &Z Board discussed whether the regulations should state signage is limited to
special events or promotions. The Planning & Zoning Board voted 3 -2 to delete the
language "limited to special events or promotions."
Mr. Laden asked about setback requirements. Mr. Bengtson stated the standard setback
for signs is 5' and is consistent with other city regulations.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board to add language to the regulations
stating signs shall be setback five feet from the property line.
Mr. Root stated the regulation of banners will be similar to portable signs. He asked if the
regulations should state that a banner must be attached to a building. Chair Rafferty felt
they should be required to be attached to a building.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
November 10, 2004
Page 13
Mr. Tralle asked if consideration should be given to not allowing banners of any type in
the city. Chair Rafferty concurred.
The Planning & Zoning Board voted 3 -2 to provide for regulation of banners.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board to require banners to be attached on
all four corners to a building.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board to allow one banner, to allow a
maximum size of 32 square feet, to require a permit for a banner, to require a permit fee
of $25, with a fine of $50 for not obtaining a permit, and if the sign is not removed prior
to expiration of the permit, there will be a fine of $50 plus expenses to reimburse the City
for removal of the sign (the City shall have the option of taking the sign down). The
regulations do not need to reference the road right -of -way because the banner will be
attached to a building.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board that a permit may be taken out once
every quarter, for a period of 17 days. The permit period cannot be consecutive.
Mr. Laden asked if the regulations would allow a permit to be taken out for a banner and
• a permit to be taken out for a portable sign at the same time.
Mr. Hyden stated it should be either /or, not both.
•
Chair Rafferty asked if the Board members would prefer to wait until January's meeting
to discuss temporary signage and skip this item at the December meeting. It was the
consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board to skip the discussion regarding signage at the
December meeting and to discuss construction signs at the January 2005 meeting.
B. 2005 Meeting Dates
Staff presented a proposed schedule of 2005 meeting dates.
Mr. Laden made a MOTION to approve the 2005 Schedule of Meeting Dates, and was
supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m., and was supported by
Mr. Ryden. Motion carried 5 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Hughes, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
STAFF ORIGINATOR:
P & Z MEETING DATE:
TOPIC:
BACKGROUND
AGENDA ITEM V. A.
Jeff Smyser
December 1,3, 2004
Final Plat: Millers Crossroads 2nd Addition
The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Miller's Crossroads with Resolution 03 -142
in September 2003. The final plat for the first phase was approved by the City Council in
February 2004.
The final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat. The City Attorney reviewed the title
commitment with the first final plat. The City Engineer is preparing a development agreement
for the second addition. Conditions of approval have been addressed.
This project includes a phasing plan in four phases, 2003 through 2006. Since the first phase did
not occur in 2003, the first two phases were combined in the first final plat. This final plat for
the second addition complies with the phasing plan as shown:
A trail easement is necessary to include the trails constructed along Birch St. and Hodgson Rd.
The trail easement document must be submitted to the City prior to City Council approval of this
final plat for the 2" Addition.
OPTIONS
1. Approve the final plat for Miller's Crossroads 2nd Addition.
2. Return to staff with direction.
RECOMMENDATION
Option 1
first final plat
2nd
Addn.
year
2003
2004
2005
2006
total
number of units to
22
47
50
32
151
be final platted
A trail easement is necessary to include the trails constructed along Birch St. and Hodgson Rd.
The trail easement document must be submitted to the City prior to City Council approval of this
final plat for the 2" Addition.
OPTIONS
1. Approve the final plat for Miller's Crossroads 2nd Addition.
2. Return to staff with direction.
RECOMMENDATION
Option 1
MILLERS CROSSROADS 2ND ADDITION
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That Bruggeman Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company, owner, of the following described property situated in the County of Anoka,
State of Minnesota, to wit:
Outlot B, and D, MILLERS CROSSROADS, according to the recorded plat on file and of record
in the Office of the County Recorders Office, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as MILLERS CROSSROADS 2ND ADDITION
and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use forever the easements as shown on
the plat for drainage and utility purposes only.
In witness whereof said Bruggeman Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this day of
200 .
Paul Bruggeman, as President of Bruggeman Properties, LLC
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this doy of
200._ by Paul Bruggeman, as President of Bruggeman
Properties, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
CITY OF LINO LAKES
COUNTY OF ANOKA
SECTION 30, T31, R22
I hereby certify that I have surveyed and platted the property described on this plat as
MILLERS CROSSROADS 2ND ADDITION and that this plat is a correct representation of said
survey, that all distances are correctly shown on the plat in feet and hundredths of a foot;
that all monuments have been or will be correctly placed in the ground as shown; that the
outside boundary lines are correctly designated on said plat and that there are no wet lands
as defined in MS 505.02, Sub. 1, or public highways to be designated other than as shown
on said plat.
Ronald P. Alwin, Land Surveyor
Minnesota Registration No. 17765
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing Surveyor's Certificate was acknowledged before me this day of
200_ by Ronald P. Alwin, Land Surveyor.
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
This plat of MILLERS CROSSROADS 2ND ADDITION was approved by the City Council of the
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota this day of 200 ,
and 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
recommendations, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.
By Mayor
By Clerk
This plat has been checked and approved this day of
200—
Larry Hoium
Anoka County Surveyor
SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS
MILLERS CROSSROADS 2ND ADDITION
SO
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 b 60 120
Zee
( IN FEET )
1 inch - 80 ft.
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
OUTLOTS A, 6, C, 0, E, F, G, H, AND I HAVE
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER, UNDER
AND ACROSS ENTIRE OUTLOTS. ALL OTHER
EASEMENTS ARE AS SHOWN ON PLAT.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PLAT
THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT
6, SECTION 30, T. 31, R. 22 IS
ASSUMED TO BEAR N89 °09'00 "E
O DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPE
MARKED BY A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED RLS
17765.
• DENOTES 1/2" MONUMENT FOUND
DENOTES RESTRICTED ACCESS
DEDICATED TO COUNTY OF ANOKA
BY PLAT OF MILLERS CROSSROADS
ALL MONUMENTS REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA
STATUTE, WHETHER SHOWN ON THIS PLAT OR
NOT, (MLL BE SET WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE
RECORDING DATE OF THIS PLAT AND SHALL BE
EVIDENCED BY A 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON
MONUMENT MARKED BY RLS 17765.
METRO
LAND SURVEYING
• 'Plc East County Road D. Little Canada. UN 65117
& ENGINEERING
•
Telephone:(651)760 -0112 Fax: (656)766 -0612
E -mail 6vrve•metrola.com
Pine City Office: (320) 829 -3267
Rogers Office: (763) 026 -5130
66
1
I
tai
-t-
A
•
I
I
33
1 I
I I
7/
1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L
-r
R
- -North line of GOVT LOT 6
543 & 1 b 3A
.iDRAPNA';E UTILITY EASEMENT '�
0) . _ PER Ml E S CF08800A0: -- - --
O O
O �
v
1-
0
-J
0
0
589°56'46 "E 86.00
8
00
z
00
43.00
1
S89°58'
43.00
0 2
" S8956'
43.00
$ $
8 a
46 "E
00 43.00 0
0
ti 7
46-E
0 43.00 P
0 3
"' 43.00
43.00 0
0 6 0 N
43.00
58958'
X34
43.00
46 "E
88 5 8
� a
43.00
N89 °5846 W 86.00
117.67
L =48.50 N89 °58'23 "W
t -10°17'29"
R.-330. 0 59.96 "24,41 " 589°58'23"E
S89 °58'23 "E 476.27
133.33
58958'46 "E 86.00 °j
00
43.00
1
08958'
43.00.,
00 00
8
46"E
0 43.00
0 2p+
S89 °58'
00 43.00
ri 7 0
46 "E "'
0 43.00 P
0
38
43.00 4
043.000
6 °
43.00
58958'
p4 4
43.00
46'E
6 5 8
43.00
CITY OF LINO LAKES
COUNTY OF ANOKA
SECTION 30, T31, R22
NORTHEAST CORNER
GOVT LOT 6- -- --- - --
j
▪ A °168.66 13374
'- -North line of OUTLOT B,
MILLERS CROSSROADS
00
'3 W $
0 N
• 3 1-
'. =O
ss
n oo ?
•,='r' 86.00 d�i55g•
� >197.52N89.58'46 "W L °36.28
.l
215.19 R_ 130.0
215.19
='t =27.79
1 - 0 =1'43'50"
N
-- DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT
OUTLOT J
V /
/
OUTLOT/J
X2E`9cS
2 .29 "y,
58958'46 "E 86.00
43.00
$
g 1
58958'
43.00
O $
8
46"E •
0 43.00
° 2
S8958'
$ 43.008
Pi 7
46 "E
043.00p
0
3 8
'' 43.00
0 43.00 0
0
" 463.00"'
S89'58'
°5 4
43.00
46 "E
5 $
43.00
N89 •58'46 W 86.05,'
Y? 0 `.S. /h aSy4.
1I,‘... i .5 .... n °
°°, N8919'02 "E 127.03`'- .
,N54'29'35'E : -. I --
..- :•23.66 OUTLOT .;y Ft--,,,,:k0,.
1,0'5'
L =25 35
0.3 °37.0
ItW1
of GOVT LOT 6
-t0o
1-z
0
76.90
N8919 02"E 0
8
N89'19'02"E
76.00
00 2 0
0a
3089'19'02 "E
76.00
3 00,
m 308919'02 "E a
76.00
N8919'02'E
116.33
0'.
o'7
1-
ro
76.90
689'1 9 02 "E
$ g
9
30891902 E
76.00
00 2
N891 9.02T
76.00
0 3 $
0 N8919'02 "E a
76.00
to
03`.0
0i 7z,
to d'
w O
O
t7
69.00
0 N8919'02"E 11, 20
1W
N8919'02 "E
69.00
$ 2
s
N8919'02'E
69.00
V
N8919'02"E •x
129.00 Ld
111'
4 NP
0: l
8 I
/ 7011
69.40 ,
N8919 02"E
$ 1 7`
N8919'02 "E a
69.00
$• 2
N8919'92"E
69.00
X129.00
S89 °19,0
»W
116.33
r S8919'02 'W
29.00
589°1
0
ow
104.33
IS89 °191'02 "W I o�
I p
9'02 "WI 1
33
to -co
co!"'
O
estO
O
33
•
•
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
AGENDA ITEM V.B.
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson
P & Z MEETING DATE: December 8, 2004
TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit
New Brighton Congregation of the Jehovah's Witness
BACKGROUND
This item is being continued from the November 10, 2004 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Staff is
working with the applicant to address the concerns raised by the Environmental Board, city staff, and those
brought up during the public hearing during the last meeting. At this time staff has not received revised plans
from the applicant and it is recommended that this application be continued to the January 12, 2004 meeting to
allow enough time for the submittal and review of revised plans.
OPTIONS
1. Continue the public hearing for the project.
2. Deny the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Option 1
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM V.C.
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson
P & Z MEETING DATE: December 8, 2004
TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING
Preliminary Plat - Vaughan Addition
BACKGROUND
Mike Vaughan has requested approval of a five lot single- family residential subdivision
entitled Vaughan Addition. As shown on the attached location map, the subject property
is located on the south side of Birch Street approximately 2,180 feet east of Ware Road.
The comprehensive plan guides the site for low density sewered residential use and it is
zoned R -1. The site is also within the existing MUSA.
This item was continued from the November 10, 2004 Planning and Zoning meeting to
allow the applicant time to meet with the neighbors and for them to work with staff to
examine the possibility of providing a road stub for the future development of the
property to the west.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning: The table below identifies the
existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area.
Location
Existing Land Use
Guided Land Use
Existing
Zoning
Site
Vacant
Low Density Sewered Residential
R -1
North
School
Public / Semi - Public
PSP
South
Single Family Residential
Low Density Sewered Residential
R -1
East
Single Family Residential
Low Density Sewered Residential
R -1
West
Vacant
Low Density Sewered Residential
R -1
The following is a summary of the of the proposal's density:
Gross Site Area 2.99 acres
Upland Area 2.91 acres
Total Lots 5
Gross Density 1.67 units /acre
Net Density 1.72 units /acre
•
•
•
Vaughan Addition
page 2
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
boundary. Municipal water and sanitary sewer are stubbed to the site from the Birch
Street right -of -way. The proposed design fits within the Low Density range of up to
three units per acre.
Growth Management:
MUSA Reserve: The comprehensive plan and the growth management policy
establish a specific number of MUSA acres for residential growth for stage one (prior to
year 2010). The subject site is already within the current MUSA boundary.
Growth Management, Units /Year: There are no lots available for 2004. As seen in the
table at the end of this report, 165 lots have been approved for year 2005. No more than
11 more lots could be allowed for year 2005 to bring the total to 176, which includes the
20% discretionary flexibility. Fox Den Acres, a proposed preliminary plat for 56 lots,
will be considered by the City Council on December 20, 2004. The second reading of an
amendment to the growth management policy regarding Conservation Developments will
be considered by the City Council on December 13, 2004. Fox Den Acres could possibly
still take the last 11 discretionary lots and leave this project with no choice but to be
platted in 2006.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Lots: The proposed subdivision will consist of five lots, ranging in size from 11,654
square feet to 19,665 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R -1 (Single Family
Residential) zoning district is 10,800 square feet of upland area. The upland lot area of
all lots exceed 11,654 square feet and therefore conform to the ordinance.
Access and Circulation: Access from Birch Street is proposed in the form of a cul-
de -sac, with an offset bulb. Staff previously was concerned that this property and the
property to the west would both be developed with separate street accesses to Birch
Street. Staff met with the applicant to examine the possibility of providing some link to
the property to the west to try and consolidate access for the two sites. Several layouts
were considered, however after much discussion it was determined that one consolidated
access would make for a less desirable subdivision layout. The factors that work against
the joint access include the existing grade separation between the subject site and Birch
Street, the number of preservation worthy trees on the site, the location of the existing
house on the property to the west, and the depth of the subject site.
Utilities: City water and sanitary sewer service will connect to existing facilities
already on site. Both are adequate to serve the project.
Grading and Stormwater Management: The city engineer has completed a thorough
review of the submitted plans and his comments are attached. The applicant will be
required to satisfy all of these comments prior to approval of any building permits for the
•
•
•
Vaughan Addition
page 3
site. The existence of wells on adjacent property must be confiired and the required 50
foot separation between the wells and any drainage ponds must be confirmed prior to
approval of the final plat.
Parks, Open Space: The proposal does not include any land dedication for parkland,
only a cash dedication will be required. Park dedication fees will be calculated as
required by city policy.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
The Environmental Board reviewed the project on October 27, 2004. The
recommendations are attached. The comments that are still relevant will be addressed by
the development agreement between the applicant and the city.
OPTIONS
1. Approve the project.
2. Deny the project.
3. Return to staff with direction.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that this item be approved subject to the following conditions of
approval:
1. Right of access shall be dedicated to Anoka County along Birch Street on the final plat.
2. The project must obtain a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to
final approval by the City Council.
3. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review memo must be addressed to his
satisfaction.
4. The project must obtain a permit from Anoka County for any work in the Birch
Street right -of -way.
5. Prior to approval of the final plat documentation must be submitted depicting
conformance to the minimum 50 -foot setback of drainage ponds to existing wells.
6. Park dedication fee shall be paid according to city policy.
7. Existing buildings on the site shall be removed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Vaughan Addition Preliminary Plat packet submitted October 26, 2004
3. Environmental Board comments dated November 2, 2004
4. City Engineers comments dated November 4, 2004
Vaughan Addition, page 4
•
•
O
O
N
1.
a)
0
E
a)
O
Z
4-
O
ca
a
a)
co
0
3
C
"_-
a)
O
(n
C
0)
O
'fa
Q)
T
T
c cn
co I—
g Z
a) �
C
c w
co
CL O
0) , . Q)
0 w, N
CO w O
r. O
O
N
O
N
LC)
6)
V
N
T
T
CO
LO
C
T
M
1521
N
T
T,—
d
N
O
T
N
CO
T
CO
N
CO
T
O
O
CO
LO
O
O
CO
to
CO
ans by year (lots /units to be final platted)
O
O
O
N
O
CO
0
0
N
O
0
O
O
N
CO
M
CO
CO
O
O
0
N
CO
d
N
CO
10
•.:4-
O
N
r
0
0
N
N
T
C)
N
181
CO
00
-
•
LC)
181
0
O
O
N
10
T
O
CO
0
0
T
N
CO
r
CO
0
O
N
N
Lo
CO
LC)
T
O
0
T
CO
N
N
N
T
T
CO
r
year end
2002
T
Cn
51
Cc
a)
C
CO
IL
E IT5
O
L
^
LL
1031
O
2491
T
O
CD
LC)
O
T
M
152
N
O
T
T
N
101
N
18
CO
T
CO
10
LC)
Development Name
approved prelim. plats
IStoneybrook
2nd Addn
Century Farms North
Keefe: prel plat, not final plat
Morton (minor subdiv)
Ravens Hollow
Haley Manor (10 new lots)
a)
>
o
U
co
>,
U
'Millers Crossroads
Lakeview Estates (2 new)
Snell (minor subdivision)
Pheasant Hills Pres. 13th
Justin's Preserve
Marshan Estates
Rice Creek Church duplex
Rice Church: Oakwood View
c
-o
Q
O
c
=
—)
[Highland Meadows East 2nd
Marshan Townhomes 2nd
Pheasant Hills 12th island
West Shadow Ponds 2nd Add
proposed
Fox Den Acres (resubmittal)
Vaughan Addition
CO
N
O) O)
N N
CA
h
O
O
O
T L N-
O 'ct
‘-
7 CA
C N 0
CO .,...
Co T U
O O N
Q) 0)
C C y C
.E •_ c
.0 ,„
E E x r'
•
•
•
Memorandum
DATE: November 4, 2004
TO: Paul Bengtson
FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer
RE: Vaughan Addition
Attached is the TKDA review dated November 4, 2004, of the submitted documents
for the Vaughan Addition site. The following comments must be addressed prior to
final approval given for this project.
Please contact me with any questions.
600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182
Phone: 651 - 982 -2400 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 • TDD: 651 - 982 -2410
TKDA
•NGINEERS. ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS
MEMORANDUM
To: James Studenski, City Engineer Reference: Vaughan Addition
1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140
(651) 292 -4400
(651) 292 -0083 Fax
www.tkda.com
Copies To: City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
From: Scott A. Brink, P.E.
Date: November 4, 2004
Comm. No. 12976 -002
Routing:
Plans have been submitted that provide for a single family residential development titled Vaughan Addition.
The proposed development essentially provides for the construction of 5 single family homes on 3 acres of
property. The property is located along the south side of Birch Street between Tomahawk Trail and West
Shadow Drive, or directly across Birch Street from Rice Lake Elementary School. Access to the 5 units
would be provided by the construction of a short cul -de -sac that would extend from Birch Street.
The following documents have been received for review:
•
Full size and half size plan sheets prepared by Loucks Associates received by the City of Lino Lakes
October 7, 2004 as follows: Boundary and Topographic Survey, Preliminary Plat, Cover Sheet (CO -1),
Existing Conditions (C1 -1), Site Plan (C2 -1), Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control (C3 -1),
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (C3 -2), Overall Utility Plan (C4 -0), Grading, Drainage, and
Erosion Details (C8 -1), and Utility Details (C9 -1)
2. Hydrologic Calculations, submitted by Loucks Associates and received by the City of Lino Lakes
October 7, 2004.
3. Revised copies of Sheets C1 -1, C2 -1, C3 -1, C3 -2, C4 -0 and the Preliminary Plat were also received by
the City of Lino Lakes on October 26, 2004.
The following comments are provided:
Grading, Drainage, and Drainage Calculations
1. The drainage calculations are acceptable based on the information provided. However, the calculations
are based on the assumption that all hard surface areas (including houses, driveways, and streets), will all
be directed to Pond 7P. This is possible only if all roof drains are discharged directly to the driveways at
the front of every house. If this is not possible, any drainage to the rear can be directed toward the pond
and/or the rain gardens which is acceptable. The only exception would be Lot 5 which does not directly
border a detention area. The amount of runoff to the rear of this property should be minimal and
• negligible. However, the developer shall be made aware that any grading and changes to the property as
it now exists will be noticed by adjoining properties. In particular, the property owner directly to the west
may be very sensitive with regards to grading and drainage adjacent to his property, and may request
An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity
Vaughan Addition Page 2 November 4, 2004
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
further assurances that there will be no negative impacts. It is therefore recommended that grading
activity be kept as far away from the property line as possible (including preservation of trees), and that
grading limits be confined as close to the house footprint as possible. In addition the routing of runoff
from the house fronts to the rear along the side boundary between Lots 4 and 5 is discouraged.
2. Flood elevations for the adjacent wetlands must be shown on the grading plan.
3. The types of housing units and floor elevations are not identified and this information must be provided
on the grading plan. First floor and basement floor elevations are provided. However, it must be assured
that housing units meet the City's minimum requirements as follows: The lowest floor is a minimum of
2 feet above the adjacent 100 -year pond/flood levels, 4 feet above normal pond and ground water levels,
and the lowest opening must be at least 1 foot above the nearest emergency overflow elevation. The
ground water levels must therefore be known, and it is recommended that a geotechnical report with
groundwater information be provided. In addition, the emergency overflow location and elevation must
be provided on the grading plan.
4. A copy of the NPDES Application and permit shall be provided to the City.
4,5
The site area is less than 5 acres. Review and approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District is therefore
not required.
Utilities
Existing sewer (8 -inch diameter) and water (6 -inch diameter) currently extend to the site from the north side
of Birch Street and are adequate to serve the site. Further extension of the main in order to serve the
properties must be 8 -inch main in accordance with City standards.
•
1. The Plan shall be subject to the review of the City Fire Chief.
2. Individual services are shown on the plan. Both water and sewer lines appear to have adequate cover
within the street area. Individual services however, will require insulation wherever the minimum
amount of cover (8 feet) cannot be attained.
3. Standard plates and details of the City of Lino Lakes are provided. In addition to the requirements of
the City of Lino Lakes, all sewer and water facilities must be furnished and installed per the
requirements of the City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM), Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, and the Minnesota Department of Health.
4. All trenches (including services) shall be backfilled and compacted and meet 100% maximum
Standard Proctor Density in the upper 3 -feet from finished road elevation, and 95% maximum
Standard Proctor Density below the upper 3 -feet.
5. A minimum of two feet of cover over storm sewer pipe is desired.
Vaughan Addition Page 3 November 4, 2004
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
•
Other Comments
•
1. A tree preservation plan has been submitted. A final landscaping plan shall eventually be submitted.
Sight corner visibilities shall be maintained per City requirements as applicable.
2. Any existing well and septic locations on both the subject property and adjoining properties shall be
confirmed to assure compliance with the Minnesota Department Health. This shall mean that any
existing facilities on the subject property shall be removed or capped in accordance with regulations,
and that sewer separation distances from any remaining facilities in close proximity shall be attained.
The separation distance shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota
Department of Health.
3. The plan provides notes regarding seeding, mulching and turf establishment for disturbed areas.
However, the City of Lino Lakes has a specific seed specification for ponding areas and a note
referring to City of Lino Lakes seeding specifications shall also be provided on the plan.
4. Approval of the plat, including street access from County Road 10 (Birch Street) will be subject to
the review and approval of Anoka County. Construction of the street entryway must also meet
County requirements for matching of the bicycle path with the new street/curb, including the
construction of concrete pedestrian ramps as required by the County.
5. The property is located directly across County Road 10 from Rice Lake School which carries
significant amounts of bus and vehicular traffic during brief AM and PM periods. Ideally, alignment
of the new street (Vaughan Court) directly opposite of an existing school driveway would be desired,
and may be desired by the Anoka County . However, this could only be accomplished if the property
directly to the west (Lot 4, Weber Addition) were willing to engage or participate with the proposed
development. This may be worth the developer's consideration.
6. A geotechnical report has not been provided. Therefore, the existing soils and groundwater levels are
not known. All building pad foundations, streets, and utilities shall be constructed on approved
materials as required by the City of Lino Lakes, and groundwater levels shall be known in order to
ascertain building elevation requirements (low floors) with regards to ground and surface water
elevations. At this time, the type of housing unit and floor elevations have not been provided.
7. Wetlands shall be delineated prior to any site grading.
8. Standard drainage and utility easements along all property lines (5 feet and 10 feet) are shown in
addition to other easements required for utility lines, stormwater detention areas, wetlands, etc.
However, some rear property line easements need to be adjusted from 5 feet to 10 feet.
Environmental
Memo
To: Mike Grochala
From: Marty Asleson
CC: Paul Bengtson
Jeff Smyser
Date: November 2, 2004
Re: Environmental Board Recommendations /October 27, 2004
The Environmental Board made the following recommendations at the October 27,
2004 Environmental Board meeting:
Fox Den Acres
Environmental Board recommended approval of Fox Den Conservation
Development including:
• Rezoning to residential planned unit development
• Preliminary Plat with conditions listed in the P & Z Report
• The development of an approved Stewardship Plan
• Use of standard Best Management Practices for site development and Natural
Resources.
Motion by O'Dea to approve, second by Bor. All were in favor. Motion passed.
•
• Amendment to the Growth Management Ordinance
•
•
Motion to approve the changes to the Growth Management Ordinance by
Smith, second by O'Dea. All were in favor. Motion passed.
Mike Vaughan Subdivision
The Environmental Board recommended the approval of the Mike Vaughan
Subdivision proposal with the following comments and recommendations:
• Save as many trees as possible
• Mitigate any oak wilt started on the site
• The rain gardens should use the City Native Seed Mix, and the developer should
hire a nurseryman experienced in native plant establishment to plant and manage
this area for at least 3 years.
• Under the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan Notes of the proposal,
Item 2 should say that 4 inches of topsoil will be thoroughly tilled into the soil
• The notes should include a statement that "no soil shall be imported or exported
from the site with out City approval
• Under the Stomiwater Prevention Plan Notes of the proposed plan, their should
include a statement that the City will be notified when storm water must be
treated with alternative BMPs and agree to them
• Under the notes section of the proposed plan, the note on external washing of
construction vehicles should include the washing of internal components of
cement trucks and be limited to a defined area
• An additional stockpiling of rock should be on hand, on the site to top dress rock
entrances should existing rock entrances become filled up
• The ponds should be dug with minimum compaction equipment and fenced off to
further traffic during construction.
• The notes should indicate that the site soils will be restored to pre - construction
densities and that this would be accomplished by tilling, plowing, disking, or
ripping.
• The Developer should provide adequate landscape screening to adjacent
residences. This screening if in rain garden and treatment pond areas should be
appropriate for these areas. The screening and recommended 1 boulevard tree
per house frontage should be approved by the City.
• Have Staff look at the feasibility of an alternative to a cul -de -sac design
• Page 2
•
• Establish a mechanism for a no -mow buffer around wet areas that can be
enforceable. Post signage for these areas.
Motion to approve with comments and recommendations by Grundhoffer,
second by O'Connel. All were in favor. Motion passed.
Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses
The Environmental Board recommended that this project be referred back to staff for
further review, and come back to the Environmental Board at a later time. Issues
include:
• Submittal of a lighting fixture plan to include any sign monuments. Demonstrate
that light glare would not be seen from the lake.
• Discuss a lighting and sound time limit for the site use
• Septic system feasibility and possible relocation to the front of the building and
away from the lake and water treatment areas and agreement to hook up to
sewer and water when available. Have a recommendation from County
Environmental on the proposed system
• Discussion of a way to protect a significant area on the lake side of the project
• through a conservation easement or other mechanism
•
• Adequately address screening needs of shoreland and adjacent residences.
Establish proposed changes to species and discuss save areas with City.
Redesign to ensure adequate screening in sight lines to adjacent houses. Show
ground story cover on site to include a plan to irrigate sod areas. Agree to use of
native plants in drainage and water treatment areas. Use City Seed Specs.
• Look at altemative design to NURP. Design to a more appropriate rain garden.
Include rain garden areas for water coming off parking Tots and other treatment
features like grassy swales, to larger rain pond treatment area. Include pervious
parking if possible.
Motion by O'Dea, second by Bauman, to refer back to staff for further review.
All were in favor. Motion passed.
Friends of the Mississippi Storm Water Management Ordinance Review
Recommendation to move forward with this project Motion by O'dea, second
by Bor. All approved. Motion passed.
Friends of the Mississippi River Water Quality Workshop
Recommend moving forward with the workshop. Motion by Smith, second by
Grundhoffer. All were in favor. Motion passed.
• Page 3
• Appointments to the AUAR Advisory Panel
•
•
The Environmental Board elected to have the following Environmental Board
members on the Advisory Panel:
1. Terri O'Connell /alternative
2. Dennis Smith
3. Barbara Bor
4. Barbara Bauman
Motion to Approve by O'Dea, second by Grundhoffer. All were in favor.
Motion passed.
Hardwood Creek Rehabilitation Project
The Environmental Board was in favor of a Council Resolution supporting the best
environmental option for the rehabilitation of Judicial Ditch 2 /Hardwood Creek.
• Page 4