HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/2005 P&Z Packet•
•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
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: April 13, 2005
IV. OPEN MIKE
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. Final Plat for Legacy at Woods Edge, Village No. 3, located at the SE intersection
of Lake Drive and I -35W — Paul Bengtson
B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to
allow for an awning at Rehbein Transit, 6298 Hodgson Road — Paul Bengtson
C. PUBLIC HEARING for a PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat
approval for Settings of Woods Edge, located in the Legacy at Woods Edge, at the
SE intersection of Lake Drive and I -35W — Item to be tabled - Paul Bengtson
D. PUBLIC HEARING for an Amendment to Planned Unit Development and
Preliminary Plat for Marketplace Third Addition, located at the NE corner of
Lake Drive and Apollo Drive — Paul Bengtson
E. PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit for Northern Lights Car Wash,
located at 7990 Lake Drive — Application to be tabled indefinitely per applicant —
Paul Bengtson
F. Final Plat for Angie's Acres, Al Powers, 290 Elm Street — Paul Bengtson
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. AUAR Update
B. Temporary Signs
C. CSAH 49 /County Rd J Study
VII. ADJOURN
•
•
•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
ME STARTI
'IME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT . ° "; Ryden;
MEMBERS ABSE
F PRESENT ;'
Laden, Nelson;
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:35
p.m., April 13, 2005.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 9, 2005
Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION approve the March 9, 2005 Minutes and was supported by
Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6 -0.
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Rafferty declared open mike open at 6:36 p.m.
There was no one present for Open Mike
Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:37 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Tralle. Motion carried 6 -0.
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, for a Rezone to GB — General Business,
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, Development Stage
Plan /Preliminary Plat, and Allocation of Commercial MUSA for a five -lot
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 2
commercial development named Apollo Landing, Equinox Development LLP,
540 Lilac Street
Chair Rafferty turned the chair over to Mr. Tralle and excused himself from this item.
Staff stated applicant was proposing a 5 lot commercial subdivision on property located
at 540 Lilac Drive. The application submitted includes a Rezoning to GB (General
Business), a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development, a
Development Stage/Preliminary Plat, and allocation of commercial MUSA reserve.
The main occupant of the site will be an 80 -room hotel proposed for Lot 1 of the Plat.
The development also includes a restaurant pad on lot 5, and retail/commercial pads on
lots 2, 3, and 4.
At the March 9, 2005 meeting the Planning and Zoning board voted to continue this item
so staff could work with the applicant to address outstanding issues.
Staff presented their analysis and recommend approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. By -Laws for the developments association must be submitted for review and
approval by City staff prior to the final plat being reviewed by the City Council.
These By -Laws must include a joint access /shared parking agreement for the
entire site.
2. The architectural design standards approved as part of this application must be
supplied to each incoming tenant upon signature of a lease.
3. The architectural design standards required to be approved by the City Council as
part of any Planned Unit Development cannot be modified unless reviewed and
approved by the City Council.
4. A development agreement must be executed between the developer and the City
prior to the execution of a final plat for the site.
5. Appropriate drainage and utility easements must be shown on the final plat.
6. The proposed development is subject to Anoka County Highway Department
requirements, review, and approval.
7. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each building City staff must review
and approve a photometric lighting plan of the entire site including all previous
construction on the site.
8. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each building, City staff must review
and approve a landscaping plan of the entire site including all previous
construction on the site.
Mr. Laden asked how many parking spots there were. Mr. Smyser replied the site plan
drawing listed 100 spaces for the hotel, 186 for the retail office /commercial and another
54 for the restaurant. However, they are considering 17 spaces of the 54 by borrowing
from the retail for a total of 323 parking spots on the site.
Mr. Laden asked if there was a possibility of getting the parking number down further.
He asked if they could consider part of the development be made as future parking to be
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 3
developed at a later date if needed. Mr. Bengtson replied if they put in the number
required at this time and this developed out, it would be reaching its capacity and if they
then figured in a couple more restaurants, that would increase the parking requirements to
the point where they might not be able to meet that demand. He stated there was also the
issue of tying this into the other parcels on the west and the possibility of losing some
parking spots there as well. He noted minimal parking might not be a good idea at this
time not knowing who the tenants were going to be and what the usage was going to be.
He noted, however, the Board could make minimal parking as a recommendation.
Mr. Laden asked why a future secondary access was not marked on the plat. Mr.
Bengtson replied the properties to the west were not designated as commercial
development and to show some kind of a connection would be planning for the future
that this would be commercial and staff did not have that authority. He indicated this was
not something they wanted to insinuate.
Mr. Laden stated he believed they should show a secondary access because of the size of
the development and they should plan for a second access now. Mr. Bengtson replied
that could be explored and added in the future.
Mr. Laden asked if it was not shown on the plat, could it be on the Development
Agreement. Mr. Bengtson replied they could do that or put it on the site design
standards.
Mr. Smyser pointed out that Anoka County would have to approve any access points
also.
Mr. Root asked if the pylon sign was accurate. Mr. Bengtson replied the sign was what
they were proposing to do.
Mr. Root asked if the landscape lighting was downcast lighting. Mr. Bengtson replied
the applicant was proposing some upward landscape lighting, which has been allowed in
the past, but there would not be upward lighting on the building.
Mr. Root asked how bright the lights would be. Mr. Bengtson responded the lights would
not be that bright.
Mr. Root asked if the building itself was 45 feet with architectural features of 10 feet.
Mr. Smyser suggested they put aside design questions right now and he would give a
presentation of the design features.
Mr. Root agreed with Mr. Laden that they needed to have an additional access to this
property.
Mr. Pogalz asked if the treated wood fence was a requirement, or was it the developer's
suggestions. Mr. Bengtson replied the City required screening either through landscaping
with 80 percent opacity, or a 6 -foot solid fence. He indicated the applicant requested the
solid fence, which met the zoning requirements.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 4
Mr. Pogalz stated he was not in favor of a continuous wood fence along the entire
property, and if there were a fence, he would like to see it broken up with landscaping or
have a maintenance free fence installed. With respect to access to the site on the west,
whoever developed that property, he assumed Anoka County would grant some type of
access. Mr. Bengtson replied that was correct and he believed Anoka County would
allow some sort of an access.
Mr. Pogalz stated he did not believe they needed to specifically design an additional
access, but suggested they add wording that when the property to the west developed,
they had to connect.
Mr. Smyser gave a summary of the design characteristics of the development.
Mr. Hyden asked at what point would they see the actual plans. Mr. Smyser replied they
would not see the plans. The site plan reviews would be approved administratively. This
was done as a way to make things more efficient and as long as all of the City's
Ordinances and standards were met, the approval would be done administratively.
Mr. Hyden requested they not end up with just a plain brick building and asked that
something be added to the building to make it attractive and architecturally appealing.
Mr. Smyser replied there were design standards that took care of those types of issues.
Mr. Laden asked why flat roofs were required on buildings over two stories or more. Mr.
Smyser replied applicant had suggested that so there was consistency in the development.
He noted this would fit into the other developments within the City.
Vice Chair Tralle requested the parking lot islands and planters have better landscaping
than the Target development. Mr. Smyser replied the Target development was
experimental and probably would have worked if the proper maintenance had been done.
Mr. Smyser replied the landscaping would be more groomed in this development, but
there would be natural landscaping down by the pond.
Vice Chair Tralle re- opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Vice Chair Tralle invited applicant to make comment.
Craig Piette, 425 Arrowhead Drive, representing Equinox Development, stated with
respect to parking, they were not opposed to minimize the parking and what they did to
bring in more landscaping was to put the planter islands into the parking lot. He noted
the parking lots would be built as they were used.
•
•
Mr. Laden asked because this was a PUD, were they allowed to reduce the amount of
parking. He noted he did not want to see empty parking lots. Mr. Smyser replied they
could do that, but it was difficult to determine what parking spaces should not be built.
•
He stated they could put the parking into the design agreement to indicate if possible, the
parking would be reduced.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 5
Mr. Laden stated his concern was when would they know how much parking would be
necessary. Mr. Smyser replied they would know when the building site plan came in and
the parking needs were determined.
Vice Chair Tralle asked if they were proposing putting in sidewalks from the hotel to the
restaurant, or would the pedestrians need to walk through the parking lot. Mr. Piette
replied along the main road there would be a sidewalk and a natural pedestrian path in the
front and back of the site, as well as a public area in the front of the site.
Mr. Laden noted the sidewalk was a good addition, but suggested there also be more
pedestrian connections from the buildings. Mr. Piette replied they were open to all
possibilities, including bridges and benches. He stated they wanted this to be a nice
development.
Mr. Laden encouraged him to have his landscape designers make this pedestrian friendly.
Mr. Piette stated with respect to the fence, they would be putting in clusters of vegetation
that would break up the fence line. He stated there would be a maximum of 40 feet of
fence with landscaping features.
Mr. Pogalz asked if the screening had to be six feet when planted or did it have to reach
the height of six feet when mature.
Mr. Piette noted they intended to add the landscaping to the inside of the fence and not in
between the fence sections.
Mr. Smyser responded it was up to the City to determine if the landscaping should be six
feet when put in or six feet when mature. He noted it was difficult to put in a solid six -
foot height of landscaping because it would grow.
Vice Chair Tralle invited anyone for or against this application to make comment.
Rob Rafferty, 1573 Merganser Court, stated he was on the P &Z Board, but he was
speaking as a resident and not as a Board member. He thanked the Board for their work
on this development and agreed with Mr. Pogalz comments regarding the screening, but
expressed concern that although this was in written form, there were no visual plans and
the Board needed to leave themselves open to the unknown.
Rick Partridge, 540 77th Street, stated they had set their home back from the road and into
the woods for privacy when they built and he believed that all of the lots were the same
depth as his, but realized when the saw the survey stake that they were not as deep, so the
development would be almost in his back yard. He expressed concern about the noise,
lighting, and loss of privacy.
Lynn Partridge, 540 77th Street, pointed out where their home was located on the plan.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 6
Mr. Nelson noted their property was quite a ways away from the hotel. Mr. Partridge
agreed it was going to be under 700 feet, but expressed concern about the lighting and the
removal of trees.
Mr. Nelson asked if the tallest building was the hotel and if there were any security lights
on the building.
Mr. Root asked if Mr. Partridge had any opinion regarding the fencing. Mr. Partridge
replied he would prefer a continuous fence so people could not easily access the
residential area.
Vice Chair Tralle stated he believed the fence behind and on the sides of the hotel should
probably be a continuous fence for security as well as containing the pedestrian traffic to
the site and not into the residential area.
Vice Chair Tralle suggested the association documents should define how the fence
would be maintained.
Vice Chair Tralle stated the lighting standards were that they could not encroach on the
residential area.
Ms. Partridge expressed concern about open spaces on the fence and she wanted a
continuous solid fence. She expressed concern about lighting. She stated she could see
the stake from her kitchen window, which take was approximately 30 feet away. She
expressed concern about the noise.
Mr. Piette stated he understood Mr. and Mrs. Partridge's concern and they would meet all
City standards with respect to lighting and the lighting would not encroach upon their
property. He noted there would be 20 feet from the property line before the building
began and there would be no parking along their side.
Mr. Root made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. and was supported by
Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 -0.
Mr. Laden asked what the timeline was for acting on this. Mr. Bengtson replied this had
a preliminary plat attached, so it was 120 days from submission, but he was not certain of
the exact date of completion, but he would guess it would be 120 days from January 10.
He indicated some action needed to be taken on this at tonight's meeting, unless the
applicant agreed to a continuation.
Mr. Pogalz asked if staff was comfortable going forward with this. Mr. Bengtson replied
staff has worked well with the developer and the developer has been willing to work with
staff. He recommended they add the following conditions: 9. Examine the potential for
future access to the property to the southwest along Lilac Street and if possible, include
provision for access between the two properties. 10. City is willing to allow for a
reduction in the number of parking stalls with the goal being to having the appropriate
amount of parking. 11. Pedestrian access in addition to the sidewalk depicted along the
entry drive would be added to the site. 12. The fence must be maintained by the
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 7
association. 13. The maximum building height of 45 feet, will be added to the design
standards. 14. City staff to continue to work with the developer on the treatment on the
perimeter of the property.
Mr. Pogalz stated he did not have a problem with the fence being continuous as long as it
was maintained, it was maintenance free and not wood, and there was landscaping to both
the front and back of the fence. Mr. Bengtson suggested that the screening wall along the
residential properties be solid and beyond the residential properties, they could entertain
breaks in between.
Vice Chair Tralle stated the neighbors wanted a solid fence in their area and they had to
live with this and he believed they needed to accommodate what the neighbors wanted.
Mr. Hyden stated for security reasons, a solid fence was a prudent thing to do along the
residential area. He agreed that the fence should be broken up beyond the residential
properties with landscaping.
Mr. Pogalz stated he wanted to see the materials of the fence upgraded with landscaping
on both sides.
Mr. Laden asked if the fence was on the property line or was it on a 10 -foot setback.
Mr. Nelson suggested they have an aesthetic pleasing fence, so it was not a solid wall
with no architectural features.
Mr. Laden asked if the fence was a part of the design standard. Mr. Bengtson replied it
was mentioned, but it was not a design standard.
Mr. Laden suggested staff work with the developer on the fence and add it to the design
standards. He expressed concern about a long fence along Apollo Drive.
Mr. Bengtson stated he was concerned about the maintenance of the landscaping on the
backside of the fence because this could be a burden to the applicant to get onto
residential property to maintain the landscaping.
Vice Chair Tralle asked if the developer would be willing to work with the neighbors
about concerns regarding the fencing and come up with a solution that both parties could
live with. Mr. Piette replied he would be willing to do this.
Mr. Laden asked how they should address not seeing the buildings. He suggested that
one or more Board members look at this with staff. He asked if the design standards
were good enough.
Mr. Rafferty approached the podium and stated the only thing he saw as a burden was
because this was a review process, he saw no reason that each pad as it was developed
should not come back to the Board for review.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 8
Mr. Laden asked if they could require that. Mr. Bengtson replied because this was PUD,
they could include an approval process which would require them to come back to the
Board for approval. He asked if they wanted this to be only Board approval or if it
should also go to the Council.
Mr. Laden stated he liked this idea.
Mr. Root agreed.
Mr. Hyden asked if each piece then had to go through the process and if so, how much
would this delay the development of this site. He expressed concern that they were going
to greatly delay the site development by making it go through each step of the process.
Mr. Bengtson stated even administrative reviews were still held to the 60 -day rule, so the
timeline was not that different. He noted there might be some timesavings by doing this
administratively.
Mr. Hyden stated if the time line was similar, then he would agree to this, but he did not
want to "handcuff' the developer either.
Mr. Pogalz noted when the buildings came up for review, they should only discuss the
buildings and not the pedestrian access, landscaping, fence, parking, etc.
Mr. Root stated landscaping along the perimeter he would agree with, but he wanted to
discuss the landscaping along the buildings if necessary. Mr. Laden noted the
landscaping would need to meet the design requirements.
Mr. Bengtson replied staff would need to examine everything and a full application
would be required, so they would be able to see everything and if the approval has
already been in place for the fence, pedestrian access, etc. there would be no need to
discuss these.
Vice Chair Tralle stated he was in agreement with both Mr. Pogalz and Mr. Root.
Mr. Piette stated they have spent many, many hours to meet the design standards required
by the City and it would not pass City staff inspection if they did not meet the design
standards. He stated they had done this because there was not a picture of the
development. With respect to the hotel, there were prototypes, but he could not show
them because it was proprietary information at this time. He stated the hotel building
would be a beautiful building and would meet all of the design standards. He indicated
all other buildings built would also have to meet the design standards and there was "no
wiggle" room in the design standards. He noted there were already conditions added and
they were willing to fulfill numbers one through eight of staff's recommendations. He
expressed concern that there was a timeline and they could not build something that
would not meet the stringent design standards. He indicated he was very dedicated to this
development and they were willing to work with the City and the neighbors, but adding
time to the development process was redundant and that was why they had taken the
extra time and effort to work with the design standards and with staff. He stated the
development would be top notch and felt it would work out with staff.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 9
Vice Chair Tralle asked if they were in agreement with conditions 9 through 14 as added
by staff. Mr. Piette replied they agreed to all of the conditions, except condition number
9 where they were being required to obtaining an easement. He noted this was designed
as a PUD and it would work together. He stated if it made sense to have an access in the
future, an access would be added. Mr. Bengtson replied the only thing they could show
on the plat was an easement, but on the site plan it could be shown as a future access,
which held less weight in the long -term, but if the property to the southwest wanted
access, they would need to go through a review process and be required to work with the
current property owner to obtain an access, but the only way to guarantee an access
would be to have an easement. He indicated an access would need to be part of a
Development Agreement.
Mr. Piette noted an easement would cut into the green space. Mr. Laden stated he would
like to see an easement.
Vice Chair Tralle stated he agreed with the developer because the developer did not own
the land and he was developing this piece of land. He stated this was different than a
residential area because this was zoned industrial and asked how could they hold him
responsible to an unknown.
Mr. Root noted they were not forcing the developer to do anything, only reserving the
space for a future access.
Mr. Nelson agreed.
Mr. Hyden understood the developer was frustrated, but hoped he understood that as a
Board they wanted to see what was going in to know that this development would be
something the City could be proud of and part of the reason this had gone on like this was
because the Board was detailed oriented. However, he did believe that this developer
was truly interested in working with staff and that was a nice thing to see and that gave
him confidence that this development would be a good development and he was excited
about this type of a development in the City because the City had for a long time
discouraged business and he was happy to see business come into this community and he
wanted to see a nice development like this in the City.
Mr. Pogalz stated he was comfortable with the recommendations as long as condition 9
indicated examine future access.
Mr. Bengtson asked if the Board was comfortable with staff reviewing the site plans for
each lot as they came in and if so, a condition should be added stating that, but if not, and
this is to come back to the P &Z Board and City Council then the Board should add this
type of a condition.
Mr. Nelson suggested the Board wanted to review this to ensure that new developments
• continue to meet the previously stated requirements.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 10
Mr. Laden stated he did not like this wording and as planning members he wanted the
opportunity to review the elevations.
Mr. Piette stated the whole idea was that it was impossible to do this process half way
and he believed this would delay the development and he encouraged the Board to let
them work with the staff on this and not have it come back to the P &Z Board and
Council.
Mr. Laden stated if these were nice building, it would only take a short time to review
and approve it. Mr. Piette stated he would agree with whatever the P &Z Board required,
but noted this could delay the development of the site. He reiterated they would meet all
of the design standards required whether the Board reviewed each building or not. He
noted they had taken into consideration everything that had and will go on within the City
and wanted to work with the City to make this a nice development.
Mr. Piette stated he would be willing to have one or more Board members be on a
committee with staff to work with them on the development as a compromise.
Vice Chair Tralle asked if Mr. Laden would be willing to be on this committee. Mr.
Laden stated he would but strongly recommended there be two or three members.
Vice Chair Tralle asked if the Board would review it or should City staff. Mr. Hyden
replied at some point the Board needed to let go and trust City staff will make the right
decisions.
Mr. Laden asked did staff have the authority to reject the development if it met all of the
standards, but it was an "ugly" building. Mr. Bengtson replied if it did not meet the
design standards, it could be denied for not meeting those requirements in which case the
applicant could go through an appeal process.
Mr. Laden stated even if it met the minimum standards, it could not be denied by staff.
Mr. Bengtson replied that was correct and if it was not in the standards, they could not
enforce something that was not written.
Mr. Laden stated he would be open to going either way, either as a Board or as a
committee.
Vice Chair Tralle noted a committee would not have any more authority than staff. Mr.
Laden hoped the developer would be open to suggestions and was willing to work with
the City.
Mr. Laden suggested this would come before the P &Z Board, but not before City Council
and this be done within the timeframe.
Vice Chair Tralle noted there have been buildings in the City that have been approved by
staff and they were beautiful buildings and asked why this development was different.
He indicated he did not believe staff would allow an "ugly" building.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 11
Mr. Smyser stated legally if an applicant met all of the City's requirements, it must be
approved. He noted this applied to staff, the P &Z Board and the City Council. He
strongly recommended against a recommendation that a committee be set up due to
administrative issues.
Mr. Laden suggested the developer invite members of the P &Z Board to the architectural
committee. Mr. Smyser replied this could be done, but he was not sure this was the
City's authority and legally, he believed they were "walking on thin ice" with this
suggestion and he was not comfortable recommending this.
Mr. Smyser stated they needed to decide if they wanted staff to review this, or if the P &Z
Board and the City Council review this. He stated it was not a good idea to only have the
P &Z Board review this because they were only a recommending body and the City
Council had the authority to approve or deny it.
Mr. Laden stated if this was an either or decision, then he trusted the staff to review it.
Mr. Bengtson added the following condition: 15. Each building site plan and elevation
shall be reviewed administratively by staff.
Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, and Allocation of
Commercial MUSA for a five -lot commercial development named Apollo Landings,
Equinox Development LLP, 540 Lilac Street, subject to the 8 conditions as noted in
staff's April 13, 2005 report and the 7 conditions added at tonight's meeting and was
supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5 -0.
Vice Chair Tralle recessed the meeting at 8:54 p.m.
Vice Chair Tralle turned the meeting over to Chair Rafferty.
Chair Rafferty reconvened the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
B. PUBLIC HEARING, for a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow for an
awning at Rehbein Transit, 6298 Hodgson Road
Chair Rafferty opened the public hearing at 9:07 p.m.
Staff stated applicant had requested an 8 -foot x 100 -foot awning addition to the north side
of the existing facilities at 6298 Hodgson Road. The Rehbein property is covered by a
conditional use permit for the existing bus transit center. Building additions such as
those proposed in the application require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
Construction of the addition was begun prior to the issuance of the appropriate building
permits or this application and was stopped by the City of Lino Lakes Building
Department. No further construction has taken place after the first warning was issued by
a building inspector.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 12
Under the new zoning ordinance, the site plan review is done administratively. However,
a Conditional Use Permit amendment is necessary, and a site plan review is part of the
CUP review.
Because this application involves the CUP amendment, it is also appropriate to review
the conditions placed on the site through the last CUP amendment in 1999.
Staff was recommending approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction must comply with the requirements of the Centennial Fire
Department, including the connection of the existing buildings to municipal water
for fire sprinkling.
2. A performance agreement between the City and the developer must be executed
prior to the issuance of any building permits for the subject site.
3. A lighting plan in conformance with the zoning code must be submitted for
review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of building permits.
4. The proposed addition is subject to double permit fees as construction was begun
to the issuance of any building permits.
Mr. Laden asked if there was an existing awning. Mr. Bengtson replied there was not an
awning, but there might have been an overhang at some point in the past.
Mr. Nelson stated he lived in this neighborhood and he has had several people speak to
him about the lighting. He asked if they could review the lighting for the entire site under
this PUD. He expressed concern that this was not up to lighting code. Mr. Bengtson
replied the application before them was for the awning, but they could recommend that
staff investigate the lighting on site to ensure it is in compliance with the previous
approvals, but to change what was approved in the past, was probably not something they
wanted to undertake with this request.
Mr. Nelson stated he understood the business had been in existence for a long time and in
many cases, before the housing was there, but he believed the lighting did not meet Code
and it should be looked at.
Mr. Laden asked what was the use of the awning. Mr. Bengtson replied he was not sure
what the awning use was for, but it might be to cover the fuel tank.
Chair Rafferty asked if this was for storage, was that an appropriate area for storage. He
asked if this was a negative to the neighbors to the north. Mr. Bengtson replied storage
would be more imposing than what was there now.
Mr. Laden stated he believed the Comprehensive Plan addressed this site as possibly
relocating. He asked if this was accurate and had there been any action on this. Mr.
Bengtson replied he was not familiar with that part of the Comprehensive Plan, but
because this was in a residential area, that was a possibility.
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 13
Mr. Smyser replied this was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan as a possible
relocation in the future, but indicated the City did not actively do redevelopment such as
this.
Mr. Laden noted if this was in the Comprehensive Plan, shouldn't the City be looking at
this. Mr. Smyser replied this was a policy question the City Council would have to
decide.
Mr. Pogalz stated he assumed this would be used for storage and expressed concern that
at some point it would be enclosed, which would not meet Code. He asked what the
Building Code said with respect to this type of a structure. Mr. Bengtson replied the City
Building Inspector has looked at this and they had not raised any issues with respect to
the awning being attached to the building.
Mr. Nelson asked what else could be done about the spotlights on the top of the building
and not have them facing into the neighborhood. He asked what leverage did they have
with respect to this.
Chair Rafferty asked how long has this business been at this location. Mr. Smyser
replied he was not sure when it was first established, but it has been a long time.
Mr. Nelson asked when were the lights directed toward the neighborhood. He suggested
they be faced east instead. He stated he was not inclined to approve this without the
lighting issue being addressed. Mr. Bengtson replied he had spoken with the applicant
who indicated he would possibly be putting in parking lot lights in the future. He
suggested this be continued until applicant could be present to answer some of the
Board's concerns.
Chair Rafferty stated as far as the neighborhood directly to the south, he was concerned
that the business was there before the residents and the residents knew the business was
there and this could be an issue with attempting to force the applicant to do anything. He
agreed they should table this until applicant could be in attendance. He also expressed
concern that this would be used as storage.
Mr. Hyden agreed this should be continued until applicant to be in attendance.
Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to a time when applicant
could be in attendance and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6 -0.
C. PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development,
Development Stage Plan /Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat for expansion of Fairview
Lino Lakes Clinic, 7455 Village Drive
Staff stated applicant had requested a 10,455 square foot addition to their existing 9,610
square foot clinic building located at 7455 Village Drive. The application submitted
includes a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development, a Development
Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 14
The Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development is being requested to allow
the clinic to locate a portion of the addition closer to the right -of -way than would be
allowed in the Limited Business zoning district. This will be more in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the development standards for the Legacy at Wood's Edge project that
will be constructed on the other side of the street from the subject property.
The City of Lino Lakes has worked out an agreement to sell a portion of the property to
the north to the applicant to allow this expansion. The rest of that City owned parcel
(Outlot A) will then be used as right -of -way for the realignment of the on -ramp of
northbound Interstate 35W. Therefore, the City is acting as a co- applicant on the
preliminary and final plat portions of the project.
Staff was recommending approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Conformance with the requirements of the S.E.H. memorandum.
2. The landscape plan shall be revised to depict irrigation in all seeded areas; red
maples in place of the sugar maples proposed along Lake Drive; and two
woodbine plants at the base of all three trellises shown on the architectural
elevation.
3. Additional handicapped parking must be provided along the southwest side of the
building just west of the main entry of the clinic.
4. All sidewalks directly abutting parking stalls within the new construction portion
of the project shall be increased to a minimum of six feet in width.
5. At least one connection between the clinics internal sidewalk system and the City
trail planned for the Lake Drive frontage should be included.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant must submit a
photometric lighting plan for staff review and approval.
7. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the site the applicant must submit a
revised site plan depicting 24 -foot wide drive aisles in the new construction
portion of the parking lot and a realignment of the drive aisle at the northwest
corner of the building to staff's satisfaction. The number of parking spaces
provided shall at no time drop below the requirements of the Zoning Code.
8. A development agreement between the City and the developer must be executed
prior to the execution of the final plat by the City.
9. The brick used for new construction must match that of the existing building, if
staff feels the difference is significant enough the Lake Drive elevation must have
an architectural feature or embellishment to hide the transition from new brick to
old brick as much as possible.
10. The applicant shall dedicate a 10 -foot wide trail easement parallel to Lake Drive.
11. The proposed addition is subject to MnDOT and Anoka County Highway
Department requirements, review, and approval.
12. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the site and applicant must submit a
full revised set of drawings depicting conformance with all of the above
requirements.
Mr. Root asked what the impervious surface cover was. Mr. Bengtson replied it was 75
percent, which was in keeping with the intent of Woods Edge.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 15
Chair Rafferty opened the public hearing at 9:42 p.m.
Chair Rafferty invited the applicant to make comment.
Jim Bermel, 400 Stinson Boulevard, NE, Minneapolis 55413, Fairview Health Services,
Corporate Real Estate Department, introduced himself and asked if they had any
questions.
Chair Rafferty asked for the architect to come forward.
John Harris, Principal Harris Architects, 331 Second Avenue North, Minneapolis,
architect.
Chair Rafferty asked if he did the first plan. Mr. Harris replied he had not.
Chair Rafferty expressed concern that this was a large building and there was not enough
architectural design element to this. Mr. Harris responded Fairview wanted this to blend
into the existing building as much as possible. He stated they were adding a trellis, a bay
window and well as other elements, and he did not feel this would look like a plain brick
box. He stated they had worked with City staff on this and staff appeared satisfied they
were doing the appropriate thing.
Chair Rafferty asked if Mr. Harris believed this was a good plan architecturally. Mr.
Harris replied he would not have put his name on this if he did not believe this was not a
good project.
Chair Rafferty asked if Mr. Harris believed more architectural elements should be added.
Mr. Harris replied he believed the elements they added were appropriate and they had
worked with City staff on this.
Chair Rafferty stated he believed this proposal was "extremely boring" and he did not see
any strong elements in the design, except the trellises, but expressed concern that the
trellises were too few and too small.
Mr. Tralle agreed there were insufficient architectural design elements in this proposal.
Mr. Harris replied he believed this existing building was a strong statement and he
believed the new addition would maintain and enhance the original expression.
Mr. Tralle asked if they could add another gable end on the east side to give it some
symmetry. He expressed concern that this was a long building with no break. Mr. Harris
noted the original design concept of the building was an austere building with a strong
gable element that ran the length of the building. The gable was intended to be the one
major design element of the building and it was their intention of keeping this as a strong
element and not repeating it just to repeat it.
Mr. Laden noted by making the building longer, the proportions did not match up and
now the gable was no longer a major design element, but he did not think they should
simply add another gable either. Mr. Harris stated they had worked with staff and did the
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 16
things they believed were appropriate and the reality was that they needed to stay within
a budget. He stated they matched all of the existing details and added architectural
elements and believed this was the right thing to do.
Mr. Pogalz asked would new mechanical structures be added to the roof on the new
addition. Mr. Harris replied the mechanical structures would stay on the existing
building.
Mr. Pogalz stated he understood why they did not want to add another gable due to the
cost, but he believed the gable should be the focal point of the building. Mr. Harris
indicated clinics were extremely expensive to build, so they needed to keep the existing
space renovation to a minimum, if possible.
Mr. Pogalz stated he would like to see more architectural designs, but he understood it
was cost prohibitive and he believed because they were putting in an entire brick
building, this was a very nice and expense proposal and in his opinion he believed they
could work with this.
Mr. Nelson stated on the existing building the gable was one -third of the building and
now it would be one -sixth of the building and he did not believe it made the strong
statement it once did.
Chair Rafferty pointed out that the strongest things designed could be the simplest. He
stated he did not believe the simplicity had been pulled off properly in this proposal. He
stated he was not in favor of this project going forward until he saw something visually
friendly.
Mr. Tralle suggested on the east side adding an additional trellises and larger windows.
Mr. Harris noted they could do this and he would not be opposed to this, but noted the
reason there were smaller windows was because of privacy issues for the exam rooms,
but because this area was the training room, larger windows could be added.
Mr. Tralle believed this would break up the long wall if they added larger windows where
the training area was located. Mr. Harris stated he would need to redesign this end of the
building.
Mr. Nelson asked if there was anything they could to with the roofline to break it up. Mr.
Harris replied changing the roofline would probably be more distracting rather than
beneficial, but he did like the suggestion.
Mr. Pogalz suggested they go perpendicular with some type of steel design outline
similar to the gable to tie everything in, which would not cost as much as another gable.
Mr. Harris noted they had to determine if a steel structure would fit into the character of
the area.
Mr. Laden asked if Mr. Pogalz suggestion would compete with the existing gable. Mr.
Harris responded a perpendicular gable over 100 feet long was extraordinarily expensive.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 17
Mr. Laden noted they went though the expense on the original building. Mr. Harris
acknowledged this was true, but at that time they were hiding the mechanical structures
and this was the first building in this area so they wanted to go above and beyond what
was expected.
Mr. Laden noted it was difficult to add onto someone else's design. Mr. Harris stated he
believed this was a high quality development and the materials were of very high quality
and he did not believe this would be an eyesore, but acknowledged it might be
understated. He believed they should look at the elevation and attempt to work within the
parameters established, even if they were simple.
Mr. Harris stated he was against adding another gable, but if they were going to add
another gable, they should replicate what was there, which was very expensive. He asked
if they could come to a total agreement with respect to the design elements.
Mr. Bengtson stated the issue staff had was the limitations of the existing building as well
as the transition from an older style of architecture to what the architecture was going to
be for The Woods Edge project. He indicated staff was concerned about adding a gable
or false roofs because the building across the street was going to be a multi -story
building, which would mean those residents would be looking down at the false roof. He
indicated the original plan did show an "L" shaped building with an additional gable and
a metal roof, but staff requested the building be changed in order to eliminate false
facades along the roofline to meet the spirit and intent of The Woods Edge project.
Mr. Harris noted they were intending on adding additional landscaping. Mr. Tralle asked
if the landscaping on the east side of the building would be sodded and treed.
Mr. Harris responded it would have sod, trees, and be irrigated.
Chair Rafferty asked if they could make a bay window in the training area with a trellis.
Mr. Harris replied they could do that.
Mr. Laden stated he liked the simplicity of the brick, windows along the exam rooms, and
trellis, but he did not like the long, flat roof. He noted he was even more concerned about
a flat roof with people looking down on the roof. He asked him if he would be willing to
look at other design possibilities with respect to the roof. Mr. Harris replied he looked at
a design element in terms of a lot of different things and if there was unlimited funds, he
could do a lot with this, but there was not unlimited funds. He indicated he would be
willing to look at different things as well as the other suggestions made, but he was not
sure if he would be able to do much.
Mr. Pogalz stated there would be a definite line on the brick as to what is new and
existing brick. He asked what they could do to disguise the connection if the brick did
not match of exactly. Mr. Harris replied it would be difficult, but he believed the most
appropriate thing would be to add an additional trellis to cover up the joint. He noted
because this was in the exam area, larger windows were probably not an option.
Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or against this application to make comment.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 18
Dan Cooke, 7290 Stagecoach Trail, suggested they put a pergola along the north and west
side, which would break up the building. He stated the wheelchair access on the north
side of the building was insufficient and it should be moved to the front of the building
where the doors were wide enough for wheelchairs. Mr. Harris stated they could add
pergolas, but they would need to remove trees to do this. He agreed to move the
wheelchair access to the front of the building.
Mr. Bengtson replied there was a condition to add handicapped parking to the south side
of the building.
Mr. Tralle asked if there would be a drive through canopy to drop off patients so they did
not get wet in inclement weather. Mr. Harris replied there was a drive -up canopy, but not
a drive- through canopy and the only way to do a drive - through canopy was to have an
access off of Village Drive.
Mr. Tralle recommended in the future as they designed clinics they take this into account
for patients who were wheelchair bound.
Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to close the pubic hearing at 10:45 p.m. and was supported
by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6 -0.
Mr. Bengtson asked if they wanted a condition with respect to the window suggestion as
a part of the approval. Chair Rafferty suggested this be added to the recommendations.
Mr. Pogalz believed applicant had heard their concerns and believed they would take
their recommendations seriously.
Mr. Nelson suggested applicant work with staff on the window issue.
Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for
Planned Unit Development for expansion of Fairview Lino Lakes Clinic, 7455 Village
Drive, subject to the conditions as noted in staff's April 13, 2005 report and adding a
recommendation that they look into the feasibility of changing the windows and adding
trellises and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6 -0.
Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approval of a Development Stage
Plan/Preliminary Plat for expansion of Fairview Lino Lakes Clinic, 7455 Village Drive,
and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6 -0.
Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approval of a Final Plat for expansion of
Fairview Lino Lakes Clinic, 7455 Village Drive, and was supported by Mr. Nelson.
Motion carried 6 -0.
D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, for a Preliminary Plat for an 18 -lot single -
family residential development named Marshan Meadows, 7364 Lake Drive,
Brug eman Properties
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 19
Staff stated applicant had requested approval of a preliminary plat for a residential
development called Marshan Meadows. The site is north of the Gethesemene Church,
between Lake Drive and Marshan Lake. The proposal includes a creation of 20 single -
family lots. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the zoning for
the site. Review of the submittal has resulted in the need for a variance for the dimension
of one lot.
Design of this plat is completed by the location of an existing road, location of an
existing road easement, and the shoreland requirements for larger lot sizes along the lake
and a large setback from the lake.
Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. A variance for the lot depth of Lot 2, Block 1 is approved.
2. The existing well must be properly capped and the existing septic system must be
properly abandoned per all applicable requirements.
3. The new plan revised April 2005 must receive a permit from RWCD prior to City
Council approval of a final plat.
4. Park dedication shall be cash in the amount of $41,500 shall be paid (20 lots @
$2075).
5. Issues discussed in the March 28, 2005 TKDA memo must be addressed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6. The Stage Coach Trail and the water line shall be constructed to the south
property line as shown in the April 4, 2005 plans.
7. A temporary cul -de -sac shall be constructed on the north end of the property.
8. Lot line easements shall be shown on the final plat.
9. Right of entry along Lake Drive shall be dedicated to Anoka County on the final
plat.
10. Anoka County permit requirements shall be met for the new road access to Lake
Drive, including improvements to Lake Drive.
11. A conservation easement shall be granted over the drainage and utility easement
along the wetlands bordering the lake. Easement restrictions shall be defined
prior to City Council approval of the final plat.
12. The entry monument sign must comply with the sign ordinance. The developer
must submit information regarding ownership and maintenance responsibilities
for the monument sign. This must be provided prior to City Council review of the
final plat.
13. Reexamine the tree species near the ponds to ensure viable species are planted.
Chair Rafferty continued the public hearing at 11:04 p.m.
Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or against this application to make comment.
J.P. Houchins, 7284 Stagecoach Trail, asked what would happen to the trail around the
lake. Mr. Smyser replied there was a trail running through the existing neighborhood.
He stated the trail plan for the City has the trail going along the shoulder of the roadway,
but the trail would not be required to go along the lakeshore.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 20
Dan Cookee, 7290 Stagecoach Trail, asked if the trail had been abandoned by the City.
Mr. Smyser replied there never was an easement.
Mr. Houchins responded there was an exiting City easement.
Mr. Cooke stated it was his understanding the trail was behind their home was the City's
and some had put down Class 5. He asked if the City had an easement behind their
property. Mr. Smyser replied documents showed that the City had chosen not to run the
trail there, but he was unsure if the City had an easement behind his property, but he
would look into that possibility.
Mr. Cooke asked if he could remove the Class 5. Mr. Smyser replied he did not realize
there was Class 5 there and he would need to look into this.
Mr. Cooke noted this Class 5 was put in at the same time as the asphalt path was put in
behind Lots 3 and 4. He stated he was on Lot 1 and Mr. Houchins was on Lot 2 and the
Class 5 ran behind Lots 1 and 2.
Mr. Cooke stated he hoped the trail would go through and it made sense for the trail to
continue around the lake. He proposed the trail continue through this development, and
an easement be put in place as properties were sold, so the easement could be continued
completely around the lake. He stated it was not his intent to take land away from the
existing homeowners, but when the homes were sold, the City should take an easement at
that time.
Mr. Laden asked if Mr. Cooke was in agreement to having a trail in his backyard. Mr.
Cooke replied it was his understanding that the City had an easement for this trail
because they were the ones who surveyed it and put in the Class 5, so he was not
objecting to having the trail in his backyard, as long as the trail continued entirely around
the lake at some point in the future.
Mr. Cooke believed this development was being rushed through until the Church sold its
property and if they waited, they would have a nicer development.
Mr. Houchins stated he also had the trail running through his backyard and it was his
preference the City maintain the vision of having the trail go around the lake rather than
running along the street. Mr. Tralle noted this was a very generous offer and most people
did not want a trail in their backyard.
Chair Rafferty asked what did the resident on Lot 3 think about the trail. Mr. Houchins
replied he was not sure, but he did not believe it bothered him either. He indicated they
had lived with this for 12 years and it did not bother him.
Chair Rafferty asked if they had a concern about people going on the private dock and
boardwalk. Mr. Houchins responded he was concerned about liability issues and when
he saw someone on the dock, he informed them it was a private dock.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 21
Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment.
Greg Schlink, applicant, 3564 Rollingview Road, White Bear Lake, stated they had met
with the neighbors and some of them expressed concern about continuing the trail, but
from the developers standpoint, they had found a lot of homeowners did not like trails in
their backyard. He noted the plan for the City showed the trail along Stagecoach Lane
and they supported the City's plan.
Mr. Pogalz stated he agreed they might want to wait for the Church to sell their property
and asked for an update on those negotiations. Mr. Schlink replied they had made an
offer to purchase the property, but the offer was rejected. He indicated they had also
made an offer to realign Stagecoach, but the Church did not like that proposal either. He
stated after working with the Church for many months, they had not made any progress
and he wanted to continue with this process and not wait for the Church.
Chair Rafferty asked if the Church wanted to sell. Mr. Schlink stated the Church was not
looking to sell their property, but they had looked at his proposal.
Chair Rafferty believed the Church was moving in this direction. Mr. Schlink stated he
knew the Church was looking at an expansion of their facility, but he did not want to
speak for the Church.
Mr. Laden asked if there was any discussion about doing this project as a conservation
development. Mr. Smyser responded every development possibility that came in was
looked at as a possible conservation development. He noted the part to be conserved was
along the lakeshore with much of that area being wetland. He indicated much of that area
was already being required to be conserved. He noted the conservation area was not
public land and the conversation easement the City took on a conservation development
was only to ensure the area was conserved, but it was not public land.
Mr. Nelson asked if the City would need to get permission from all of the properties
north to put in a trail. Mr. Smyser responded he did not have the specifics as to why the
City had decided to abandon the trail, but the plan now was to have the trail run along the
road.
Mr. Houchins stated at the time the Comprehensive Plan was discussed there was a
concept of the trail running along the lake, but the homeowners north of the property
were opposed to this, so they were going to run the trail where it was and then connect it
to Lake Drive.
Mr. Nelson asked if the road could be replatted to where it should be for when the Church
sold its property. Mr. Smyser replied there was nothing to connect to, so they did not
know if the road would ever go through and the road easement they had now was already
owned by the City and unless something changed they had to plan where the existing
easement was. He indicated they could not require this developer to replat property they
had no control over.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 22
Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 11:33 p.m. and was supported
by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6 -0.
Mr. Laden asked for further clarification on the easement being requested. He stated he
was not sure they met all of the conditions for a variance. Mr. Smyser replied this was a
difficult question to answer. He stated they could not use economic considerations as the
sole reason, but they could consider this as a factor. He noted the number of lots on this
property could be significantly higher so the existing physical constraints merited a small
variance.
Mr. Pogalz noted this was a huge storm sewer system. Mr. Smyser replied the drainage
had to be taken care of up on Lake Drive in order to have the lots fit along the lakeshore.
Chair Rafferty asked if there would be any additional paths along Lake Drive. Mr.
Smyser replied the long -range trail plan would include a trail along Lake Drive.
Mr. Tralle asked as a developer what happened to sidewalks. Mr. Schlink replied he did
not know what happened to sidewalks, but it was the City standard to not have sidewalks,
with the trail serving as this function.
Chair Rafferty asked if the City was attempting to bring sidewalks back by the trail being
along the street. Mr. Smyser replied it was possible an asphalt trail could be constructed
outside of the paved street if that was what they wanted to do and the City did not have a
policy either way as to whether sidewalks should be on or off road. He suggested they
talk with the developer and see if one would fit in there. He noted if sidewalks were put
in, the applicant would be credited for park dedication. He stated the issue with
sidewalks was suburbs, which were built for cars and cul -de -sac. He noted nothing
connected and there was nowhere for sidewalks to go, so sidewalks were not necessary,
but now that they were learning these concepts caused serious traffic and congestion
problems things were changing again.
Mr. Laden asked if the trail was on Stagecoach Trail. Mr. Smyser replied the trail was
intended to run along the shoulder of Stagecoach Trail and it was a good idea to think
about putting a trail outside of the roadway in this development.
Mr. Laden asked if the applicant had any objection to this. Mr. Schlink replied he would
discuss this with staff.
Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for an 18-
lot single - family residential development named Marshan Meadows, 7364 Lake Drive,
subject to the 12 conditions as noted in staff's April 13, 2005 report adding condition 13
as noted by staff at tonight's meeting and adding a condition 14 to read: Examine the
possibility of constructing a trail in the right -of -way outside of the paved road and was
supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 6 -0.
Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 11:54 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:01
a.m., April 14, 2005.
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 23
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. AUAR Update
Item skipped due to the lateness of the hour.
B. Temporary Signs
Mr. Smyser stated a number of business owners attended the March 9 meeting and
expressed concerns regarding the regulation of signage. The P & Z asked that the
business owners get together and present their preferences for the regulation of temporary
signs.
He noted they had received two sets of proposals. The P & Z had reached agreement on
requirements for banners and portable signs. The two proposals received from separate
business owners differ from these requirements. The P & Z will need to decide if it
wants to reconsider the requirements for banners and portable signs.
The P & Z agreed to recommend no regulation of window signs. There are other forms
of temporary signage to address. These include pennants and the miscellaneous
inexpensive cardboard and plastic signs often seen at retail businesses in the City.
With respect to signs in County right -of -way, staff contacted the Anoka County Highway
Department to discuss the possibility of metal sign advertising several businesses, like the
ones seen on freeways. Anoka County does not have such a sign program. The topic has
come up and the County specifically decided not to pursue such a program. Even if the
City were to request this type of signs, it is the County's policy not to allow them in
County rights of way. The County does allow signs for public uses such as parks and
public buildings, but not for advertising for private businesses.
The only exception has been when access to a business is cut off by a County road
project. Then, a sign might be put up giving directions to the new access such as a
frontage road.
Chair Rafferty requested the discussion be contained to banners only.
Mr. Laden stated having reviewed the two different proposals, he believed the first one
dealt strictly with banners, he was in favor of keeping what they had set already decided
for banners.
Mr. Hyden replied he was in agreement with that.
Mr. Nelson stated he believed this was too restrictive. He noted he was more aware of
banners in other Cities since he was made aware of this issue. He asked if there were any
other policies they had looked at from other Cities. Mr. Hyden replied staff had prepared
such an analysis and the Board had reviewed those policies. He reviewed some of other
City policies.
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 24
Mr. Pogalz stated he had read through the proposals and basically the first one they
wanted unlimited banners for a year with a fee. With respect to the second proposal, it
did not address banners directly, but rather a recommendation for several different types
of signage. He stated a one -year permit was not temporary signage and the whole idea
behind this was to limit signage. He asked why they could not come up with one
proposal.
Katie Allen, 6511 Ware Road, stated the reason the second proposal was sent in was
because her needs were different than the other proposal. She noted she did not put up
banners and she was asking the City to get behind some of the new businesses to succeed
for one year and once the year was up, the businesses were on their own, but they needed
help for one year. She indicated she needed temporary signage to advertise her business.
She noted the other businesses had been established for a long time and she was
struggling trying to make her business work.
Chad Wagner, 7630 Appaloosa Lane, 818 Lois Lane, Millers on Main — Lake Drive,
stated the business owners had worked together and had a proposal and he did not realize
there was a second proposal, but agreed that Ms. Allen's needs were different. He stated
the one -time fee was mentioned to reduce administrative work for the City staff and that
was the only reason that was put that way. He stated he understood the policies of other
Cities, but he believed Lino Lakes should not follow other City policies. He stated the
bottom line was that this would hurt the small business owner.
Mr. Nelson asked if it was three banners simultaneously, or would they be three different
banners at different times. Mr. Wagner replied they wanted 2 or 3 banners per month.
He noted he did not have the option of adding a nice sign like Trappers had because he
had a nonconforming business and he was already in the right -of -way and therefore he
had no options for advertising his specials. He stated he could not afford extensive media
advertising.
Chair Rafferty asked if Mr. Wagner could have a permanent sign, even because he had a
nonconforming building. Mr. Smyser replied he could have a wall sign that advertised
his specials and a non - conforming building was not an issue.
Mr. Wagner stated it seemed like any issue he had, the non - conforming building was an
issue. He stated he also understood that because he had an awning with the name on it,
that would be his one sign and he would not be allowed another sign.
Ms. Allen noted Bank of the West had three signs and asked what was the difference
between her business and the bank. She noted other businesses also had more than one
sign in the City. She indicated she was told she could only have one sign on the front of
her building. Mr. Bengtson replied the sign plan for Spirit Hills set out which buildings
could have more than one sign on them.
Mr. Smyser stated Spirit Hills had a sign plan that was prepared and approved by the
City.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 25
Ms. Allen asked why was this allowed if it did not follow the Ordinance. Mr. Smyser
replied the buildings not governed by the multi -tenant development, had to follow the
sign ordinance, but for this multi -tenant development, a separate sign plan was submitted.
He noted this plan was prepared by the developer and approved by the City and this was
why this area was different.
Mr. Hyden asked if permanent signage should be addressed first because this affected the
businesses directly. Mr. Smyser replied this was a long process, which would be at least
a two -year process.
Chair Rafferty stated they were trying to find a way and means to contain things so the
City was not so cluttered. Ms. Allen stated that was the reason she had a different
proposal for new businesses in the City. She noted there was a time crunch to some of
this because her business was struggling. She stated if she had to continually get permits,
she would do that, but it was not convenient for her. She noted what the City would end
up with was corporate business who could afford to not make a profit for a couple of
years until they were established, but the small business owner could not stay in business
if they could not advertise.
Mr. Nelson stated he had a difficult time differentiating new and old businesses because
he believed signage was important for all businesses. He stated they cared about the
issue and they wanted to resolve this.
Mr. Root asked why was temporary signage and banners so important as an advertising
medium in the City. Ms. Allen stated advertising through the newspapers in Lino Lakes
for some reason did not work. She noted in order to keep her prices affordable, she
needed volume and she needed to advertise in order to get the volume.
Mr. Wagner stated as far as the other Cities, they did not enforced their Ordinances and
there were banners in those Cities. He indicated without being allowed to have banners,
he could not advertise.
Mr. Hyden asked if he could put a nice sign outside of his business or affixed to his
building to advertise his specials, would he need banners. Mr. Wagner replied he had not
researched these type of signs, but it was an option he could look at depending on cost.
He noted if he knew the future of his building, he might be willing to put more money
into a sign, but if his building was going to get torn down in a couple of years to widen
the road, he could not afford to put in a nice sign.
Mr. Nelson stated he had seen one establishment that had six temporary signs in the City
and they needed to do something that would have a happy balance. He noted there was
always someone who would abuse the system. Mr. Wagner noted businesses usually ran
monthly business specials and he thought the Board had talked about allowing the
businesses to advertise their specials.
Jim Szyplinski, Mansetti's, 6511 Ware Road, stated for different businesses, different
signs worked. In his mall, they faced backwards and cannot advertise by permanent
signage, so one of the proposals was to put out professional, temporary signage. He
DRAFT MINUTES
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 26
indicated he was losing business by not facing the road. He noted he was not a fan of
banners, but they were necessary for businesses. He stated if developers could have
numerous signs, so why couldn't he have one temporary sign, which was taken down at
the end of the day that advertised his specials.
Chair Rafferty asked Mr. Szyplinski where his advertising dollars went. Mr. Szyplinski
replied he advertised on TV and the newspapers, as well as paying an advertising fee
through his franchise.
Chair Rafferty stated businesses could advertise in moderation at the right time. Mr.
Szyplinski asked if they could put a permanent sign on private property if they have the
private property owner's permission. He asked how could they get help from the City.
Chair Rafferty asked the businesses look into what a sign like Community National Bank
had cost.
Mr. Tralle asked if City Council directed the P &Z Board to look at this, or should the
business owners go directly to the Council to express their concerns.
Mr. Hyden noted they kept getting off of topic and all signage would eventually come
before them. He asked if they should move on with banners or address permanent signs.
He noted they were only a recommending body anyway and had no approval power.
Chair Rafferty asked if this would go to Council as an entire package once everything
had been decided. Mr. Smyser responded it would and this all started because a couple of
times a year the building official picked up temporary signage and wrote letters. He
indicated a group of people received the letters and contacted the City upset about
receiving the letters and their signs being taken down. Staff directed them to the Council
and Council directed P &Z come up with a recommendation.
Mr. Wagner stated if they did not allow banners and did not get to permanent signage for
two or three years, he would be unable to advertise for two or three years. Mr. Smyser
suggested they take this information and look at banners next month.
Mr. Nelson stated if they made a decision on banners tonight, would it go into effect
tonight. Mr. Hyden replied this did not take effect until the entire package went to the
City Council.
Chair Rafferty asked if they were ready to make a recommendation on banners.
Mr. Nelson stated he was not.
Mr. Pogalz stated he could go either way.
Mr. Laden stated they had already reached as a group a banner decision and they needed
to move on.
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 13, 2005
Page 27
• Mr. Hyden stated they were not addressing portable signs and only banners. Mr. Root
asked what decision did they need to make.
Chair Rafferty stated they needed to make a recommendation to continue forward and
accept what they had previously discussed with respect to banners.
A consensus was reached to accept what they had previously decided with respect to
banners.
The Board decided to discuss developer and builder signs at the next meeting.
Mr. Wagner requested the business owners be notified when they discuss temporary
signage.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 1:12 a.m., April 14, 2005 and was
supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•
DRAFT MINUTES
•
•
AGENDA ITEM V.A.
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson
P & Z MEETING DATE: May 11, 2005
TOPIC: Final Plat - Village No. 3
Hartford Development, Inc.
BACKGROUND
Hartford Development, Inc. has submitted the final plat for Village No. 3, which encompasses
the Legacy at Wood's Edge project area. The submitted plat depicts three lots and five outlots.
The final plat conforms to the preliminary plat layout approved with Resolution 04 -33 by the
City Council on March 8, 2004. The title commitment for the property and final plat has been
forwarded to the City Attorney for review.
As required by the Development Agreement the village green is being dedicated as public park,
and outlot C which includes the wetland area will be deeded over to the city. A trail easement is
required on the south side of Lots 1 and 2, but the exact location and size has not yet been
determined by the city's consulting engineer for this project, S.E.H.
Staff is recommending that the street names be altered prior to the plat being scheduled for the
City Council. Particularly, the use of the eastern most segment of Town Center Parkway should
be changed to Woods Edge Boulevard, and the existing Woods Edge Boulevard should be
changed to Village Drive. Village Green should be eliminated as that section is not a full street
but rather the south half of what will be Village Drive divided by the Village Green park which
is essentially an enlarged boulevard between the two lanes of traffic.
OPTIONS.
1. Approve the final plat for The Village No.3
2. Return to staff with direction.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The eastern most segment of Town Center Parkway must be renamed Woods Edge
Boulevard prior to this item being scheduled for the City Council.
2. Woods Edge Boulevard must be renamed as an extension of Village Drive prior to this
item being scheduled for the City Council.
3. Village Green must be renamed as an extension of Village Drive prior to this item being
scheduled for the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
• 1. Final Plat submitted May 4, 2005.
•
•
•
T!-4� vIU_AE NO. 3
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the City of Lino Lakes, a municipal corporation, fee owner, and Legacy Holdings
Lino Lakes, LLC, a Minnesota corporation, fee owner, and Marshall Investment Group, a Delaware Corporation, mortgagee
of the following described property situated in the City of Lino Lakes, State of Minnesota, County of Anoka, to wit:
That part of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County.
Minnesota, lying southeasterly of 135W; EXCEPT the East 920.00 feet thereof and EXCEPT the South 180.00 feet of
the West 1210.00 feet of said North Half of the Northeast Quarter. Subject to any easements or valid restrictions of
record.
and
That part of Government Lot 2, lying with the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka
County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the following described "Line A" and north of o line described as commencing at
the center of Section 17; thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 22 minutes 54 seconds East along the
west line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 17 a distance of 833.02 feet to the point of beginning of the line
to be described; thence South 89 degrees 19 minutes 28 seconds East 336.61 feet to below described "Line A" and
there terminating.
"Line A" is described as commencing at a point on the north line of said Section 17 distant 850.00 feet east of
the north quarter corner of said Section 17; thence southwesterly to a point on the east and west quarter line
of said Section 17 distant 100.00 feet east of the center of said Section 17 and there terminating.
and
That part of Government Lot 2 lying within the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 31, Range 22 Anoka
County, Minnesota, described as commencing at the center of said Section 17; thence on an assumed bearing of
North 00 degrees 22 minutes 54 seconds East along the west line of said Northeast Quarter a distance of 583.02
feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 0 degrees 22 minutes 51 seconds East
along said west line a distance of 250.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 19 minutes 28 seconds East 336.31 feet to
a line hereinafter referred to as "Line A "; thence southwesterly along said "Line A" to its intersection with a line
bearing South 65 degrees 57 minutes 53 seconds East from the point of beginning; thence North 65 degrees 57
minutes 53 seconds West 258.02 feet to the point of beginning.
"Line A" is described as commencing at a point on the north line of said Section 17 distant 850.00 feet east of
the north quarter corner of said Section 17; thence southwesterly to a point on the east and west quarter line
of said Section 17 distant 100.00 feet east of the center of said Section 17 and there terminating.
and
That part of Government Lot 2, within the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County,
Minnesota lying northerly of the south 280 feet of said Northeast Quarter, and lying easterly of the following
described line:
Commencing at a point on the north line of said Section 17 distant 850.00 feet east from the north quarter
corner of said Section 17; thence southwesterly to a point on the east and west quarter line of said Section 17
distant 100.00 feet east from the center of said Section 17 and there terminating.
EXCEPT that part of the above parcel of land which is described as beginning at the southeost corner of said parcel;
thence on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 13 minutes 58 seconds East along the east line of said
Government Lot 2, a distance of 593.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 46 minutes West 223.00 feet; thence North
0 degrees 13 minutes 58 seconds East 93.34 feet; thence North 36 degrees 27 r,i,:utes West 89.48 feet; thence
North 76 degrees 14 minutes West 90.74 feet; thence South 88 degrees 04 minutes West 152.81 feet; thence South
79 degrees 48 minutes West 132.97 feet; thence South 59 degrees 05 minutes West 128.48 feet; thence South 32
degrees 40 minutes West 59.62 feet; thence South 04 degrees 52 minutes East 37.00 feet; thence South 32
degrees 23 minutes Eost 35.61 feet; thence South 69 degrees 59 minutes East 129.79 fret; thence South 49
degrees 06 minutes East 132.65 feet; thence South 71 degrees 19 minutes East 91.82 feet; thence South 00
degrees 33 minutes 08 seconds West 403.87 feet to the north line of the South 280 feet of said Northeast Quarter;
thence South 89 degrees 26 minutes 52 seconds Eost along said north line of the South 280 feet a distance of
460.00 feet to the point of beginning.
and
Outlots A, and B, THE VILLAGE NO. 1, Anoka County, Minnesota.
and
The North 60.00 feet of the South 180.00 feel the East 100.00 feet of the West 1210.00 feet of the North Half
of the Northeast Quarter of Section 17, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesoto.
Have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as THE VILLAGE NO. 3 and do hereby dedicate to the public for public
use forever the Parkway's, Drive, Boulevard, Green, Interstate Highway, Park, and drainage and utility easements and way
as shown on this plat. Also dedicating to the County of Anoka the right of access to the State Trunk Highway 49 and
dedicating to the State of Minnesota the right of access to Interstate Highway No. 35W.
In witness whereof said City of Lino Lakes, a municipal corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its
proper officers this day of • 200_
The City of Lino Lakes
City Mayor , City Clerk
John Bergeson Gordon Heitke
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 200 _, by John Bergeson,
Mayor of the City of Lino Lakes, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
City of Lino Lakee
County of Anoka
Part of Section 17, Ti, 3 R22
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 200__, by Gordon Heitke,
City Clerk of the City of Lino Lakes, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
LEGACY HOLDINGS LINO LAKES, LLC
In witness whereof said Legacy Holdings Lino Lakes, LLC, a Minnesota corporation, has caused these presents to be
signed by its proper officer this day of 200___.
President
John C. Brandt
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of . 200_ by John C. Brant,
president of Legacy Holdings Lino Lakes, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
MARSHALL INVESTMENT GROUP
In witness whereof said Marshall Investment Group, o Delaware corporation, has caused these presents to be
signed by its proper officer this day of 200_
its
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 200__, by
its of Marshall Investment Group, a Delaware
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
I hereby certify that I have surveyed and platted the property described on this plot as THE VILLAGE NO. 3;
that this plat is a correct representation of sold survey, that all distances ore correctly shown on the plat in feet and
hundredths of a foot; that all monuments 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 Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 505.02
Subd. 1 or public highways to be designated other than os shown on said plat.
Jason E. Rud, Land Surveyor
Minnesota Registration No. 41578.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing Surveyor's Certificate was acknowledged before me this day of , 200_ by Jason E.
Rud, Land Surveyor.
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
This plat of 71-IE VILLAGE NO. 3 was approved by the City Council of Lino Lakes, Minnesota at a regular
meeting thereof held 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 D. Hoium
Anoka County Surveyor
•
•
is
?A 2005
E. a. RUD 4 SONS, NC.
Land Surveyors
�,..-,;.c 7npp'.n- i,7n- rttdA1 -P1 AT- .rl.vn 5/4; ?005 11,0 2'32 Alt CDT
Si-4=T 1 Orz 3 SHEETS:
N1/4 cor.
Twp. 31. Rng. 22. i
(Cast Iron Monument) /
TI•IS vIAE NO. 3
/ /
/ //
/ //
/ /
/ /
/ /
/
/ / -- - /
/ / /
/ / ��- /
/ /
-North Inc of the NE1 /4 of Sec. 17, Twp. 31, Rng. 22.
- 850.00 - -� -�-
...---- 4I - - - -t - -- --
/ /
/ 1 /
/
/
1
/
1/
/ /
/ / / N
/ / di
/ / re
/ / - / / MNDOT 0.1.
' -e0 / 3 / / / Q+� ///
// / N /� -°--,-6..' ?,' Q.
/ . / o a-• ; / ,':, �/
/ ` / -
// ' / z X //
/ / c (� -„ MNDOT Cast Iron Monument
r / /
/ j / 7 Q // t6hb •////"I‘:.;):-51.--;;1";":::://
�; / / 'I�, ,// V 1:c ��~�l?
• / ,i-` 1 N+ /.
/ :;F: F;. / Z/. 7
/ .- -j'Ci /
/ f.,: f / ,I/} 9,'N. 6
// / // y,16�tii j
/ / 1- %/ Found 1/2' Iron Pipe -_ t3'
/ f.,` +// R.L.S. 19608 �. rycf
/ 1 ' f Right ofabn9 se In iavor of Stale -�
sty tine of 1 -35W 1 i ,
/ // ct MIJ _ _ _ _ i
/ SA.92`:
/ r�
''N / 130
/ / - - ` Fount 1/ I1B08 /
/ PIPa. R4 / �y .
// / / r %h Yi
/ / / �'4``�.VILLAGE DRIVE-7-/---0-$.
/ / �-
1 1 ?ill u:'r
.1•111 ,.':..In I !..(11 111. L -�: u,..al'y 1. 1. 1 fIL: LI!UIi� I ,: %(.0 •111'41111 Ib1. ..1..11'ia' 1:1111 JLVT.� 1 ^..• r IILIII �R0O� .
/4,,,_ / / \ \ rj,
Jj / "� / / nN
I
Oo / .9,.
7-1`
/
' D°
e `00
.R C�
/ 'e d e0'
1 J ?on.
m
Cit(� of Lino Lakes
County of 1Glnok4
Section 1 -, T31, rR22
3g`N a _
to N1q'WC x/ IEosement /i - -- /I/
'''''S661' r5 �O and OJUtY t/ q !
LSp1 \Y `ee a - -----;=-D'°'''''' I i h
:-5 m d Ii \_,I u
g812/ c` -1..„.1-
,.. t :::7 5.7r'4 y0'W 443-1-: 8 i\ Utz
S\I
'omo % E 1, 9hc
Ory D.7Fr- f -- 'y
•.I, /, spa
a
1
toldtoge
` ra.,eme0
/ 1� .0eete0 rd Ot
.9404
/
SP'
m 5q5'� "gyp
516 'AI, 0 'j Vs
o m.
M1
tiyb 0
ooef
C. g l 1160,y��ZN .lo°
t 32�` N�m��. f
486
n1 Im
�/�]
b N ' B °1°. t`i
§.0_00
p ma`�p, /
C f
/ . ,(m t•N L - _� 00�ry�1g ry6 m
(y4SC 2 66.00 �-
o '51:1'2; 0.00 � A -
�1y@ `y AOHS23S.W
�. a S as S9 tS e^ ry° • N I $81 dOr'U -oN h,n
.B Dry - 1 3 96.13 eet A
'�.� 6a0� 4. ;p tiro Pe 2 hhm k.00 peseln 59.93 r 90 co q a:.ro¢ 1 aY R =47A00< mo 7S8 S452'W o k,4 C� V �ih iv °01 d t 'I��03b S0- 4. � - -�4o r. p 1 p - � 9.11 452.80 r" 1 gl nl - +W - - _22046 90 193 - 6DD�II 1 SB93J'45'E 485.39 `� _ 3 '1t/ e�'� ty � *- t � � �, e � / 9 O' ,y? � p o YL' L.✓ 0 D VI $ o� L G D. o� °:011 I sSOy. A- -North line of the South 150 feettof the 01/2 of the NIE1 /4I I I 0 -Jt�s d' ' 3� t 152.98 N89f 5' 311.929.73 100s "•'•�0 i,4 $j/S 1ij 55 54
PARK 152 W j .[ •B��t rY� S16 g m�� 0
'' -... a45 �• ��� I �.kt 1 .. ....,yi J1,,1 58 £ 'tI f i
SJ4.212 E a .34 0 .. . _.....,......_........ - - - •. 7B
V '•. �ip5 _ ......
L.i ry 3 w �^ ' 2
_ ,0a 4\a`i
,. y�.. .. _.�.._ Dr ....a 'and. UtPIfY-_ '0 /v N •3/ � J i
.. .;o .. , 05
e E ¢N{ > a �
874 �• F �'� J .N84'14•49'w �OjQ 46,�JO0pliJ• •Y'JJ,S�Nr lY 2- 200.01-1 - n N/ ��,00 I n y/ H,e�edF,O'
4. IffJ * TSB D0.. r63.s7 4 I P G -% riry A �^
11 11 ,£ 'r•:111411:.1 - "111'!1/11! IIIIIIII`1!In1!II111111111 i1r11r1 111 :11 1 Mil lili1i.l1s J 1. 1111101611iliI1. 1111llh'. f11 11111111111lHIII 11111Ln1LdOIIIli II ° tS94 ?7 '
'I l' -I 1 1 n III,. Ll l llllflll Il!I ! 1.n Il'l
I' I.1' I.I' .r:l IrI 1,'Irl'1.1111116i1 .I::J ri „
I IIII,'I % 1111111[ I: I 1 !11.1 ! II.
bd 51/.3 652160! III'I /III'711I';In,llllllllll'I 'lilillllllll!II:' -.III III .I. I II 1 -_ �.10 I l
6 -37 t the E1 of the West 1210.03 feet of-- 7JE NOl 2665.r-
y the NEf /4 of Sac 17, Twp. 31, Rng. 22 186.69 E. •
?'Y MNDOT C.08
/ 47°1
a¢;6
6600
Rag poJ'4s.
1 f
CD
z
.111. r Q I t
A 1
1
4 ° J
r "
�-
1-
0 NJ6'49 36
W
o4
AIL
0`0
N8933'45 W L403.32
DENOTES ANOKA COUNTY MONUMENT
• DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT MARKED AS MARKED
-.a- DENOTES RIGHT- 0F1ACCESS. DEDICATED TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
a DENOTES RIGHT -OF- ACCESS DEDICATED TO ANOKA COUNTY
All monuments required by Minnesota Statute, and not shown
on this plat, will be set within one year of the recording date
of this plot, and shall be evidenced by a 1/2 inch by 10 inch
iron pipe marked by RLS 41578.
For the purposes of this plat the East line of the S101 /4 of the
NE1 /4 of Section 17, Township 31, Rogge 22, Anoka County,
Minnesota, is assumed to hove a bearing of SDO"OD'19 "E.
` -North line of Govt Lot 2, Sec. 17, Twp. 31, Rng. 22
me
GRAPHIC SCALE
t00 200
400
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 100 ft.
atPr
1.2g06
c?,`; 5. 116
1
f0 &94 -
58933'45'0
NORTH
�Ilic
ATCHUNE, SEE
II:II!Ilnlld I I'lll I: •I!ilnl.!'It.! 111.11
212.2
1T
05
N00 °09' 18 "W
•
se' 27' i
NE cat. µnq•
920.00 - j }-- -a+
z
0
920.00
SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEETS
' I' 1,:11x1 11,11111.1.1' 111I'1111:r ll 1111 '!11,1111 IIII III
N89 °33'45 "W 398.91 Ano Cuvnty170e Pe,
South line of 81/2 of 801/4
Sec. 17, Twp. 31, Rng. 22.
E. G. MUD 4 SONS, INC.
Land Surveyors
II.141111111111111
1:\ ruU ,CAD••,03proj \03170FP'.- 03;70- FINAL- PLAT- 3.clwg 5/4 /0005 1100.30 Id CDT
5! -irE1 2 Cr 3 3H`c1:T:
/
TI IE vUJAE NO. 3
' / / < f �'' VILLAGE DRIVE--,)
�y
/ /
/ / / / zb
1
II
/ / / /
4� / / /
ea_ / / /
o-' / , / /1
°` / / // /
/.:
-9^, / I /
At,-
// .1- ,.?
/ // \' - , -, / .
°w °v // - -- /f. 1 • 4' / .;0-
0 0" /1
/ '4-,-// / .a --•
0 f // :J / / f..- 2
r
te,
ti
NJ4y2• 4 .N84'74r4 2 : n�Is q5• ,Po
` N
5=1017237 4) e[!0.
`iVd %3 411,iil: llli 5700I,,,,ir, l 1i ;. 11.1,14,4 .III , .'..I!I' I .r.: 4..11,
G 37 /
'"-North inc I of
2
6
k00_ /'9
Pe .a
F i , 2 �1% •1g
Sr R 1 e
W
oy
1
6
6,
z
Drohn
T
21D of
1
East line of the West 1210.00 teat aF - -k-
City of Lino Lakes
CoLrtc� of 14noks
Section I�, 731, ,'�22
gel "and „Ulllity - - --0 r
Easement........ ; m o °tiT Nry '/ o o : °eov .4 7
.AL
L/
m n n
a�
or' 04 s .°°'
ts
ob °
h ° o h
c
n v � 1
,5 94
��y�___Iv,D E ATCHUNE, SEE SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS
.111 I. 1, III a.., I. lei, ,. I. 1.. .. ..I :I. 11:.1 .JI. ..
I� 1.11.1, I.. I, III II VIII i 1,43 I, /. ,fJ ..1 N°'/-)46;1.5-,-,- I �tlt l II,I .I ..111:II,I II II.I .II ..
yI the NE1 /4 of Sec. 17, Twp. 31, Rng. 22 .i i ,
^ 186.69 F ` 212.22 �_
22 iron pipe' 58933'.5'E� 1” N89 °33'45 "W 398 91 oaks County Iron Pipt� -
ndA /5', South line of N1/2 of 14E1/4- of--1-'' poe 5• f9 Sec. 17, Twp. 31, Rng. 22.
R�'
•
Gov't Lot 2, Sec. 17. Twp. 31, Rng.
1
1
97 -•.� N89.07'35E _ _27O29 _' j w
lea. � 1\
N7y31'3YE. � ___________
_................. -+yqw
c- 534'og'03£pgetnentf S87'4B'43'W °
N8493 "E e1os , 8
tgit9 — ,
°n - .._ 13q 43rr ..- 17 "W -/ ------
0104 , N79° — — — — bg,
i AAeA 1� � p3 , i ^-Wetland per dellneatlon done 1996 �$
,55$%tlj by Arlig Environmental ��`��,]/�\\
A, . 1
s - -- '59,62 4" Z Ac X36 b.N - Aiy.
1
o a„ '''''..x.,-5 pU x"43 E ,,IL Q- ,IL , - 1
° - ---'41,-°061.71v A, As �u
- -35. I
'-/7/47 S3»7171 s'1 N
sryea•cyy. Z `r /
--------- _ - -�/
X0e,
•
/{
•
-�d4,57Ci 4 -lo
ISO 92,5 -. WOOw
N8957 47 E 30.3.25- - - �4 5. _ _ _ 6
F-- l0 �..tl 58931'47'W , 336.J7 -7 Si y
A• N8933'45'W 9 6 '�
- Ag a1p- (336.67 -tlead} µP }
�t5;,TOWNI o �� CENTER
• 56957'471 W 348.01
Rs5 334
2q5 ;?°
„y
- - 0,'119e9 :K
�Ta
/ `119,
•
766
123.70
100.00
•
•
S89 °41'09 "E
3
DENOTES ANOKA COUNTY. MONUMENT
DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT MARKED AS MARKED
DENOTES RIGHT -OF- ACCESS DEDICATED TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
DENOTES RIGHT -OF- ACCESS DEDICATED TO ANOKA COUNTY
All monuments_ required by Minnesota Statute; and not shown
on this plat, wit be set within one year of the recording dote
of this plat. and shall be evidenced by a 1/2 inch by 18 inch
iron pipe marked by RLS 41578.
For the purposes of this plot the East line of the SW1 /4 of the
NE1 /4 of Section 17, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County,
Minnesota, is assumed to hove a bearing of S00°001 9••E.
oo
00
0
682.15 f
North line of South 250 feet of Government Lot 2— '
Sec. 17, Twp. 31, Rng. 22
L'
o a
o'
rn `- 223.00
N89d59'43 "E
O,
O
rn
Q
V
LC/
480.00
Mouth line of NE1 /4 of Sac 17, Twp. 31, Rng. 22.
_Lt
GRAPHIC SCALE
so 100 200
IN FEET )
1 inch = 100 It
i
E. G. RUD 4 SONS, INC.
Land Surveyors
a, \rud \.CAD'. 03pro,1o.03170PP" -'.03170- F1NAL- PLAT-3:dwg 5/ 4/8005 11,00 :32 AI.1 CDT
SHrET 3 OP
•
•
AGENDA ITEM V.B.
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson
P & Z MEETING DATE: May 11, 2005
TOPIC: Conditional Use Permit Amendment
Rehbein Transit
BACKGROUND
Rehbein Transportation is proposing an 8 foot x 100 foot awning addition to the north side of the
existing facilities at 6298 Hodgson Road. The Rehbein property is covered by a conditional use
permit for the existing bus transit center. Building additions such as those proposed in this
application require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.
Construction of the addition was begun prior to the issuance of the appropriate building permits
or this application and was stopped by the City of Lino Lakes Building Department. No further
construction has taken place after the first warning was issued by a building inspector.
Under the new zoning ordinance, the site plan review is done administratively. However, a
Conditional Use Pen-nit amendment is necessary, and a site plan review is part of the CUP
review. Therefore the comments for the Site Plan Review will be included in this report.
Because this application involves the CUP amendment, it is also appropriate to review the
conditions placed on the site through the last CUP amendment in 1999.
This application was continued at the April 13, 2005 regular meeting so the applicant could be
present to answer questions in regards to future plans for the site as well as the intended use of
the canopy addition.
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
Bus Transit Facility
Commercial
GB (General Business)
North
Single Family Dwellings
Low Density Unsewered
Residential
R -1 (Single Family Residential)
South
Single Family Dwellings
Low Density Sewered
Residential
R -1 (Single Family Residential)
East
Single Family Dwellings
Low Density Unsewered
Residential
R -1 (Single Family Residential)
West
Manufactured Homes
Low Density Unsewered
Residential &
Manufactured Home Park
R -1 (Single Family Residential) &
R -6 (Manufactured Home Park)
Rehbein Amendment
• Page 2 of 3
SITE PLAN
•
Buildings: Site plans have been submitted for the addition which will be attached to the north
side of the western most building (Office and Shop building). This addition will be 53.4 feet
from the north property line and therefore meets setback requirements.
Lighting: The applicant did not submit a lighting plan with the application; staff is
recommending a condition of approval that an appropriate lighting plan be submitted for staff
review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits for the site.
Traffic: As this area will not be enclosed it is not believed that this addition would create any
additional traffic to or from the site.
Grading/Drainage, Utilities: As this addition is very minor in nature, no grading plans were
required with the Conditional Use Permit Amendment application. The City Engineer will
require that the necessary plans be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits for the
site.
Landscaping: No landscaping plan was submitted with the application.
PREVIOUS ACTION
The City Council approved an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the site July 26,
1999. The conditions for that approval are as follows:
1. Proper building permits including the entire building to be sprinkled be obtained prior
to any construction and 1% escrow deposit be provided to insure completion of site
improvements.
2. The proposed construction blend with the existing building exterior.
3. A lighting plan be provided for staff review and comment — all lighting shall be
shielded and directed downward.
4. The trash handling area shall be screened from the street right -of -way and adjoining
properties.
5. Drainage and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.
During the review of the current request the Fire Department has been very vocal in the fact that
the previous addition, which was supposed to include a fire sprinkler system, was never
completed. The fire sprinkler system was installed but never connected to the water source. As
such, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that the fire sprinkler system be
connected with this addition. To further insure that this is completed staff is recommending that
a performance agreement with appropriate financial sureties be entered into between the
developer and the city prior to the issuance of any building permits for this site.
Rehbein Amendment
• Page 3 of 3
OPTIONS.
•
a. Approve the Conditional Use Permit Amendment subject to conditions.
b. Deny the Conditional Use Permit Amendment subject to conditions.
c. Return to staff with direction.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction must comply with the requirements of the Centennial Fire Department,
including the connection of the existing buildings to municipal water for fire sprinkling.
2. A performance agreement between the city and the developer must be executed prior to
the issuance of any building permits for the subject site.
3. A lighting plan in conformance with the zoning code must be submitted for review and
approval by staff prior to the issuance of building permits.
4. The proposed addition is subject to double permit fees as construction was begun prior to
the issuance of any building permits.
5. No outdoor storage of materials shall be allowed under the canopy.
This review is based on the following plans and information:
1. Rehbein Plan Set received March 14, 2005
•
PROPERTY LINE
T
0
w
3NI7J.Ld3dOdd
NI i
BUS PARKING
PROPERTY LINE
3ON31)4N11-NIVHO
EMPLOYEE PARKING
>- tea) 2000v)OZ n O
RECEW v ED
MAR 1 4 2005
CITY OF LINO LAKES
15'
•
CORREGATED
STEEL ROOF
8'
REHBEIN TRANSIT INC
6298 HODGSON RD
LINO LAKES, MN 55014
651-484-1809
10'
l .
r —
13/4" X 16' WI
6X6PRESSLTR
SATED POS.
6X6 POST BR/
12" X 4' PIER
RECEIVED
MAR 1 4 2005
errY La, (E
NEW AWNING TO REPLACE OLD ONE
EXISTING BUILDING
0
0
8'
REHBEIN TRANSIT INC.
6298 HODGSON RD.
LINO LAKES, MN. 55014
0
0
0
"I
0
9- 12" PIERS, 10'
ON CENTER
RECEVED
MAR 1 4 2005
CITY OF IMO O LAKES
•
AGENDA ITEM V.C.
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson
P & Z MEETING DATE: May 11, 2005
TOPIC: PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat
Settings of Wood's Edge
Town and Country Homes
STATUS
The Community Development Department received an application for a Development Stage Plan/Preliminary
Plat for 157 unit condominium (townhome) development in the Legacy of Wood's Edge master plan area south
of 35W and east of Lake Drive. This application was added to this agenda at that time so that the appropriate
public notices could be made in the newspaper as well as to the surrounding property owners.
In the time following the notifications, city staff has had more time to review the application materials and it
aivas determined that not only is the application incomplete, there are also significant issues in regards to
eeting the development standards for the site.
Staff has sent a letter outlining the information that is still needed to complete the application, as well as the
large number of issues that still need to be worked out prior to scheduling this item for another Planning and
Zoning Board meeting. Therefore the 120 day review period has not begun and will not be an issue in the
ongoing review of the project.
As soon as the application is complete and ready for review it will be added to the next available Planning and
Zoning Board meeting agenda. Staff is therefore recommending that this item be tabled without opening the
public hearing or any discussion before the board.
RECOMMENDATION
•taff recommends tabling this application indefinitely.
•
AGENDA ITEM V.D.
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson
P & Z MEETING DATE: May 11, 2005
TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING
Amendment to the existing PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Development Stage Plan / Preliminary Plat
Marketplace 3rd Addition
BACKGROUND
Ryan Companies is proposing to amend the existing Planned Unit Development (Planned Development
Overlay) for the Marketplace to combine what was originally planned and platted (The Marketplace) as four
lots with individual commercial buildings into two lots. Lot 1 would then be developed with a 14,000 square
foot commercial building and Lot 2 would be reserved for two future users.
This request requires amending the existing Planned Unit Development to allow different building types and
•site layouts to be used. The request also requires a new Development Stage Plan / Preliminary Plat and
eventually Final Plat to change the lot configuration.
The focus of the application will be the building for Lot 1, however periodically references will be made to the
buildings on Lot 2 since they will need to be appropriately addressed in the design standards for their future
development.
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
Mixed Use
SC (Shopping Center)*
North
Vacant
Mixed Use
SC (Shopping Center)*
South
Commercial
Mixed Use
SC (Shopping Center)*
East
Commercial
Mixed Use
SC (Shopping Center)*
West
Restaurant and Vacant
Mixed Use
SC (Shopping Center)*
*The Shoppping Center zoning district has been removed from the zoning ordinance, and all property zoned Shopping Center is
hereby bound to the requirements of the GB (General Business) zoning district.
40 The comprehensive plan guides the site for Mixed Use land use. The site is within the stage 1 (pre -2010)
growth area and a portion is within the existing MUSA boundary. Public water and sanitary sewer are available
within the surrounding street network..
Marketplace 3rd Addition, page 2
•Planned Unit Development
The revised layout for the site would essentially combine Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Block 1 (Marketplace) to create
two larger lots. The northern lot would then be developed with a 14,400 square foot multi -tenant retail building
on the west side with an 87 stall parking lot on the east. Lot 2 of the proposed plat has a couple of buildings and
uses indicated, but is shown mostly for the purpose of assuring that proper circulation can be achieved with the
new layout of Lot 1.
Specifically, the Design Guidelines established for the entire Marketplace development as a part of Ordinance
16 -01 will need to be slightly modified.
Setback Standards
The multi -tenant building will be no closer than 26.5 feet to any property line and the parking area will be no
closer than 25 feet to any property line. Within a Planned Unit Development (or Planned Development
Overlay) the setbacks are approved as a part of the final development plans. The setbacks proposed are both
appropriate for this type of development and in keeping with the rest of the Marketplace development.
Lot Sizes
Within a Planned Unit Development (or Planned Development Overlay) each lot is designed to accommodate a
building pad and sufficient parking to serve the intended use of the lot. The proposed lot areas and widths are in
Oconformance with the GB (General Business) zoning district, and are therefore appropriate.
Architectural Design Standards
Ordinance 16 -01 which rezoned this site to SC (Shopping Center) with a Planned Development Overlay, also
established the design standards for the buildings on site. As such, the minimal changes will need to be made to
the text attached to Ordinance 16 -01. None of the changes will be substantive changes, rather just correcting
portions that refer to the old building designations (A -F) and then designating which sections will apply to each
of the new building lots. Staff has not prepared all of the changes necessary at the time of this report however
they should be completed and ready for review by the Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
Building Materials/ Elevations
The elevations attached to this report are a result of ongoing discussions between staff and the applicant. Staff
still has concerns in regards to the treatment of the tower elements on the ends and in the middle of the building.
Staff would like to further define the materials used and try to create a more prominent center to the building by
stepping the middle tower element out towards the sidewalk.
Building Height
The scale of the submitted elevations is not known; however it is a single story building and therefore would not
exceed the maximum height allowed within the zoning district.
•
Marketplace 3`d Addition, page 3
andsca in
Staff is recommending a condition that all lawn areas be sodded, and all plantings be irrigated. Staff is also
including a recommendation based on the comments from the Environmental Board that a minimum of six
shade trees be planted on the west side of the building along the street and that a landscaping /pedestrian access
island be added to the middle of the double row of parking to allow for additional landscaping as well as an
established pedestrian route from the parking on the far east side of the parking lot.
Green Area
The submitted plans currently show the property at approximately 72% impervious surface coverage, which is a
6% reduction from the previously approved site layout.
Parking
•
Parking Factor
Parking Requirement
Spaces Required
14,400 square feet
Five and one -half (5 -1/2) spaces
per each one thousand (1,000)
square feet of gross leasable floor
area (exclusive of common areas).
82.5
Parking Provided
87
Parking Surplus
4.5
Some of the excess parking will be partially taken up with the condition requiring that another
landscape /pedestrian access island be added to the center of the parking lot.
Access /Circulation
Access to the entire site is provided via two shared driveways and one additional dedicated access for the retail
building from the internal street system of the larger Marketplace development. The proposed layout of the
entire site allows traffic to circulate quite effectively.
Lighting
As the site is surrounded by similar commercial uses and the streets are private, the photometric lighting plan
submitted with the application meets all of the city requirements.
The lighting fixtures will be conditioned to match the existing fixtures within the Marketplace development.
Additionally, decorative street lighting required as part of the original approval for Marketplace must be
for this site and all other developed sites within the project. As the applicant for this property is the
• installed
master developer for the entire site, a condition is being added requiring the installation of the necessary
lighting.
Marketplace 3rd Addition, page 4
inae
The signage for the multi- tenant building will still be the same as was previously required. The two building
proposed for lot 2 will need to follow the single user signage criteria. The ordinance will need to be edited to
remove references to the old building designations (A,B,C,D, and E) however the standards will not change.
Trash / Mechanical Equipment
The applicant is proposing a single trash enclosure for lot 1 on the north side of the proposed building. The
location of trash handling for Lot 2 will be determined when final building plans are submitted. The
Environmental Board voiced concern over the size of the trash enclosure and the ability to store not only the
appropriate trash receptacles, but also recycling bins. A recommended condition below addresses that concern.
Staff would also recommend that the trash enclosure be integrated into the building itself. The applicant has
shown reluctance to this in previous discussions, however it should be considered as a condition of approval by
the Planning and Zoning Board.
All mechanical equipment will need to screened architecturally or with appropriate landscape materials.
Utilities
Later and Sanitary sewer service are available within the Marketplace's existing internal street system.
Stormwater management
The City Engineer has reviewed the submitted grading and drainage plan, and his memorandum is attached to
this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
The Environmental Board reviewed this application at the April 2005 regular meeting. There recommendations
were numerous and are attached to this report.
•
Marketplace 3rd Addition, page 5
1. Approve the project subject to conditions.
2. Deny the project.
3. Return to Staff with direction.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The site plan must be revised to include a landscape /pedestrian circulation island in the middle of the
double parking aisle for Lot 1.
2. A minimum of six shade trees must be added to the west side of the building along the street.
3. The architectural design standards approved as a part of this application must be supplied to each
incoming tenant upon signature of a lease.
4. A development agreement must be executed between the developer and the city prior to the
execution of a final plat for the site.
5. Appropriate drainage and utility easements must be shown on the final plat.
• 6. All lighting fixtures used on the site must be in conformance with the design standards.
7. The trash enclosure must be large enough to house both trash receptacles and recycling receptacles.
8. The trash enclosure must be constructed with the same materials as the proposed building.
9. The decorative lighting for this site and all other developed sites within the Marketplace must be
installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the multi- tenant building on Lot 1.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Engineer's memorandum dated April 26, 2005.
2. Environmental Board memorandum from the April 2005 meeting.
3. Marketplace 3rd Addition Plan Set received April 12, 2005.
4. Revised Cover Sheet received April 25, 2005
5. Revised Elevation Drawings received April 29, 2005
• IINC)LKES
•
Memorandum
DATE: April 26, 2005
TO: Paul Bengtson
FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer
RE: Marketplace 3rd Addition ti
Attached is the TKDA review dated April 22, 2005, of the submitted documents for the
Marketplace 3rd Addition. The following comments must be addressed prior to final
approval for this project.
Please contact me with any questions.
600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182
Phone: 651 -982 -2400 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499 • TDD: 651- 982 -2410
TKDA
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS
MEMORANDUM
1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140
(651) 292 -4400
(651) 292-0083 Fax
www.tkda.com
To: James Studenski, City Engineer Reference: Marketplace 3rd Addition
Copies To: City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
From: Scott A. Brink
Date: April 22, 2005
Comm. No. 12701 -002
Routing:
Plans have been received providing for a proposed multi -tenant building to be located at the NW corner of
Lake Drive and Apollo Drive. Preliminary Site Plan Review sheets (full size and half size), prepared by
Ryan Companies, US, Inc., dated April 11, 2005 have been received as follows:
1. Cover Sheet
2. Preliminary Plat (S1.1)
3. Existing Conditions (C1.1)
4. Preliminary Site Plan (C2.1)
5. Grading and Erosion Control Plan (C3.1)
6. Preliminary Utility Plan (C4.1)
7. Landscape Plan and Details (L1.1 & L2.1)
8. Site Lighting Plan (E1.1)
Summary
1. The Location Map on the Cover Sheet is not accurate.
2. The existing site use is consistent with the overall comprehensive development plan for the
Marketplace area. Access and utilities are generally consistent with the overall plan. In place
sanitary sewer and water, and services may be utilized. However, it is recommended that the existing
service stub sizes and locations be verified.
3. The proposed drainage and storm sewer does differ from the in -place system that also serves property
beyond the site proposed herein. Existing detention areas are proposed to be eliminated and new
detention areas created. It would appear that all existing drainage intercepted outside and inside of
the site will continue to be intercepted and eventually discharge from the site at the same location and
volumes. However, drainage calculations must be submitted to demonstrate that the changes made
internally on the site do not change or adversely effect runoff and drainage for the greater overall
Marketplace drainage plan.
4. An elimination of an existing driveway access point will be required as shown per the plans.
However, this is acceptable since the proposed site would utilize two other existing access points that
will continue to allow adequate circulation.
An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity
Marketplace 3rd Additional Page 2 April 22, 2005
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
•
5. The plans at this time are considered preliminary. It is expected that further final construction plans
will be submitted that include additional construction notes, standard plates, and standard details and
requirements of the City of Lino Lakes. This is also expected to include pipe sizes, grades, materials,
etc.
6. The proposed Preliminary Plat dos not provide revised drainage and utility easements that accurately
reflect the proposed storm sewer and drainage changes. It is recommended that new easements be
shown on the plat.
•
•
Marketplace 3rd Additional Page 3 April 22, 2005
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
•
1. A note must be added that all sanitary sewer and watermain installed as part of this Project shall be
installed, tested, and accepted per the requirements of the City of Lino Lakes, Specifications of the
City Engineers Association of Minnesota, the Minnesota Department of Health, and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency as required. Sanitary sewer service pipe shall be SDR 26 or SCH 40 and
ductile iron water pipe shall be CL 52. A gate valve must be provided for the 4 -inch service. In
addition, it is recommended that the adequacy of water service size (4 -inch) be verified for both
domestic and fire purposes. Gate valves shall be Mueller A- 2370 -20 with mechanical joints, meeting
AWWA Specifications C500 -61. Valve Boxes shall be Mueller H -10357 with H -10361 drop lid and
extensions shall be Mueller H- 10363.
Landscaping
The Landscape Plan provides for several deciduous trees to be planted between the west property line and
the parking lot and drive - through. According to the plans submitted, this space is also dedicated as a trail
easement. It is recommended that this area be further reviewed.
No landscaping shall be planted over existing or proposed utilities. In particular, a proposed tree at the site
entrance appears to be located directly over, or very close to, the proposed storm sewer.
•
•
•
•
Recommendations
Of the April, 2005 Environmental Board
Settings of Woods Edge
The Environmental Board made the following recommendations concerning the
Settings of Woods Edge:
• Back side building lighting should have shielded and recessed light
fixtures.
• Security lighting should be shielded.
• For all native planting areas, agree to have a contractor that is approved
by the City for the establishment and maintenance of natives. This
contract should be for a minimum of three years. This should also be
included in the Construction Notes.
• There should be signs delineating the wetland boundaries with no-
encroachment/filling /cutting language.
• Under the Erosion Control Notes of the plan, language should include that
all NPDES requirements will be met. In relationship to this, a detailed
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be on site, as well as
inspection reports for weekly, and post rainfall events. Location of this
report and the inspection reports should be indicated on the Construction
Plans. The notes should also indicate methodology for storm sewer inlet
protection. Their Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan should indicate
that when silt fences are 1/3 full, that they would be cleaned out or
reinstalled.
• Grading Notes should include deep tilling on all sodded areas with applied
topsoils incorporated into the subsoils.
• All sodded areas must be irrigated. All seeded areas with sod -type seed
must be irrigated. All areas on the East side and in the buffer and pond
areas should be seeded with the City Native Seed mix.
• Substitutions should be made for Greenspire Linden and White Fringetree.
• Before Ground Breaking occurs, tree preservation measures must be
implemented.
Motion by Bor, second by O'Connell, to approve with above
recommendations. All were in favor. Motion passed.
• Lino Lakes Market Place 3rd Addition
•
The Environmental Board made the following recommendations:
• Minimum parking stalls per ordinance should be designed.
Recommend additional desirable parking to be pervious type.
• Plant shade trees on the West side of the building along the street.
• Trash and Recycling enclosures should be accessible by industry
standards and adequate enough to include both trash and recycling
needs.
• There should be no importing of soils without City approval.
• Exterior safety signing should be shielded.
• All soils on sodded areas should be tilled as deeply as possible. All
top soils should be incorporated into the sub soils.
• Under the Erosion Control Notes of the plan, language should include
that all NPDES requirements will be met. In relationship to this, a
detailed Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be on site, as
well as inspection reports for weekly, and post rainfall events. Location
of this report and the inspection reports should be indicated on the
Construction Plans. The notes should also indicate methodology for
storm sewer inlet protection. Their Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan should indicate that when silt fences are 1/3 full, that they would
be cleaned out or reinstalled. Entrance points to the site should be
designated and designed with a 50 foot rock entrance.
• As with Kohl's and Target, a written BMP statement and plan of action
should be submitted and approved by the City. This plan should at
least include a schedule for periodic impervious sweeping, trash and
litter pick -up, replacement of dead or dying landscape materials,
deicing salt storage on site. This should be a part of the development
agreement. This area should be encouraged to participate with Kohl's
and target on future site maintenance.
•
L_
LINO LAKES MARKETPLACE 3RD ADDITION
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW
PROJECT CONTACTS
OWNER
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
50 SOUTH TENTH STREET SUITE 300
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
MARK KAMPMEYER
812- 492 -4297
612- 492 -3297 (FAX)
me .kampmeyer�ryenmmpmrz.mm
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
50 SOUTH TENTH STREET SUITE 300
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
JIM MERCHLEWITZ
612492.4345
612492 -3345 (FAX)
Ikn.me, W evdu @mrmmpenksoom
ARCHITECT
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
50 SOUTH TENTH STREET SUITE 300
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
JEFF CUPKA
612. 492 -4238
Altcupke4Btvammmpanks.oan
NATE ENGER
612.4924245
nate.enRetloaacompan.s.com
CIVIL ENGINEER
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
50 SOUTH TENTH STREET SUITE 300
MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403
LEE KOPPY
61241924498
612-492-3498 (FAX)
♦e...ruMn manpaaesmm
EVS
10200 VALLEY VIEW RD. SUITE 151
EDEN PRAIRE, MN 554344
DARYL ZUELKE / ROB KACK
952 - 646 -0236
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
RYAN COMPANIES US. INC.
50 SOUTH TENTH STREET SUITE 300
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
PETER MC ENERY
612 - 492 -4488
612- 492- 3488(FAX)
peMnmceneryeryencompeniee.mm
SURVEYOR
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
7599 ANAGRAM DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
SCOTT GYLLEN
952- 937 -5150
smtLBNIen4Paestemapa.mm
LOCATION MAP
SHEET INDEX
•
4/11/2005
COVER SHEET
•
4/11/2005
S1.1 PRELIMINARY PLAT
•
4/11/2005
C1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN
•
4/11/2005
C2.1 SITE PLAN
•
4/11/2005
C3.1 GRADING PLAN
•
4/11/2005
C4.1 UTILITY PLAN
•
4/11/2005
L1.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
•
4/11/2005
L2.1 LANDSCAPE DETAILS
•
4/11/2005
E1.1 LIGHTING PLAN
•
4/11/2005
A201 CONCEPT FLOOR PLAN
•
4/11/2005
A301 CONCEPT ELEVATIONS
DRAWING INDEX LEGEND
FILLED CIRCLE INDICATES DRAWING INCLUDED WITHIN THIS ISSUE
MOST RECENT REVISION NUMBER
rMOST RECENT ISSUE OR REVISION DATE
a
-
IX /XX /200XI
CX SHEET TITLE
YAH'
BUILDING LASTING RELATIONSHIPS
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
50 South Tenn, Street, 5ui1e 300
Minneapolis, MN 55403 -2012
612 -492 -4000 tel
612 -492 -3000 fax
W lV W.RYANCOMPANIES.COM
PROJECT \ 01E LINO LAKES
MARKETPLACE
THIRD ADDITION
LOCATION
LINO LAKES,
MINNESOTA
SHEET TITLE
COVER SHEET
REVISIONS
JOB NUMBER HISTORY
JOB NUMBER DATE
2005 -011 4 / 11 12005
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 3, LOT 4, LOT 5, AND LOT 6, BLOCK 1, LINO LAKES
MARKETPLACE, AND LOT 3, BLOCK 1, LINO LAKES
MARKETPLACE 2nd ADDITION, ACCORDING' TO THE
RECORDED PLATS THEREOF, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
•
/
/
/
h \
/ \ \ `.••' 7 `" S22°39'4819
, r,r 24.90 /
/
/ \
/ ,;,\ C ` / J1
/ /
// O �� / ///
// `` / // /
t --
/ _` 1 / `<:5
r
// / ..) C'S `'. //1 \ \ \
A / i \ /
/ C / `'
/ 7 C� // / `-7K, 4 /
/ .0 it /// = . //
a :1- / r \ 7 1 sr /
/ `^ t, / 1 <: 1 , /
/ `'^ `M /// k//
BLOCK ONE
LOT T
LOT 7
N89°12121Y
15322
/ rc tf,
J
1
I R /
J ",1 Rkk /
,i. p.f 0 /
/ D '
i TO
r,
/ ' ' LOT! t `; �- 1
/ / DRAINAGE & " "., 1 � L I- L -
1 / UTILITY �--� __I \'� t
1' / EASEMENT PER i i r- + T
LINO LAKES i-
I MARKET PLACE i
/ / i – 1 T'- 9
/
1 _A
— 1
1 5-
T
rf At I nn
YV
'Y.c_.
LOT 4
/
/ I .' A - - - -1,71----
,), (`V / I !�, / DRAINAGE , _ __--I 30 '`T -�
/ Si / o7y� / caseiENr PERT 1 / T
/ \j -C,� / (j i'`''..
`� / MAR LAKES - 1101 /
/ r MARKET PLACE I
1' / I
/ S S / \ \ /3.l ,/ LOT 2 I :'
/ °C ()C / \ \ / / LTiNCE &..G'7
11 I
/ 1 3 `.. \ ` I - CASEMENT PER 70 —�-I
�• ENO LAKES _
/ '� 16 I , ' -- MARKET PLACE -` DRAINAGE & 70
/ \ -- _ - }, b -1 2ND ADD/noN C7 L EASEMENT
�1 :I I j EASEMENT PER I
- -_.i 3 -33 t C-; A,. LINO LAKES h
b MARKET PLACE
/ _ L - -- f't i 111
0
/ \ \ GB. =SG 123.24'52' 47'-_ $77°3328 E. 301.15
/ \ 6 -66333 N89 °12.02 "W
\ 1=7212
F.
U
CT 5
AREA SUMMARY
LOT 1 59,0531 S.F. = 2274.* ACRES
LOT 2 73.7353 S.F. = 1.6931 ACRES
TOTAL = 172,7701 S.F = 3.967.* ACRES
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT NOTE:
�J 2
^i 39.52
5 v1
1
l
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENT PER LINO - I
LAKES MARKETPLACE
',IT
All drainage and utility easements shown in Lot 1 and Lot 2, of this
preliminary plat, will be vacated and and new drainage and utility
easements will be composed for final locations of drainage and
utility features.
•
1 n
CRI V E
LAKES COMM/AL. DLVLL. V?MEV'T
OVSIER Jr DEVELOPER
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC
50 South .10th Street,
Suite 300
Minneapolis. MN 55403
PLANNER - ENGINEER
EVS, Inc.
10200 Valley View Rd., Suite 151
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-J531
952 - 646 -0254
SURVEYOR.
WESTMOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
3701 12th Street North
Suite 206
St. Cloud, MN 56303
320- 253 -9495
DEVELOPMENT INFORMA770N
CURRENT ZONING. Shopping Center District
BUILDABLE LOTS • 2
OULOTS • 0
TOTAL SITE AREA • 3967 ACRES
PROPOSED - STREET RIGHT OF WAY AREA - 0 ACRES
TOTAL LOT AREA • 3.967 ACRES
SETBACKS
Building: Front 50 feet
Side 10 feet
Rear 30 feet
Street 50 feet
Parking: Side 5 feet
Rear 5 feet
Street 15 feet
50
0
50
100
750
5co /e
feet
1�. Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
3755 11th Wee, No, h. 5W1e 200
St. 0000, MN 5603
MOM: N0.253-96115 Faso 120.25341737
YAH'
BUILDING LASTING. RELATIONSHIPS
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
SO South Tenth Saem, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 00403-2012
612492-4000 tci
612492 -3000 fax
W WW.RYANCOMPJSIIEBCOM
?WEE ME
LINO LAKES
MARKETP LACE
3RD ADDITION
LOCATION
LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
SHEET 1'1'i7E
PRELIMINARY PLAT
REVISIONS
I hereby certify that this plan, spc tiatio5
or reporr was prepared by me or under my
direct super ision and that I am a duly
I3ce 0.d Land Sunvy'or under the sans Of
the State of Minnesota.
Scott A. GyOo
REGISTRATION NO. WYE
0E05.023002 04108/2005
2w5 RYAN COMPAMss us. uc.
10B NUMBER HISTORY
SHEETNUMRER
51.1
DRAKN 130
JWO
705 NUMBER
20005E5101.0
CHECKEDBY
SAG
DATE
04/08105
APR 1 2 2005
•
MEET AND MATCH EXISTING CURB
AND GUTTER. REMOVE EXISTING
CURBING BEYOND.
®C®! -ILS
,.1........'■
110.....1111..11110•101=10•00■11,nM
1111111111COaM11101111010111011p0 ■0,010
1,610 CF
IDEWALK D
006500TION5
DETERMINED I
SUBMISSIONS
R3�
C\
J
//�
REMOVE EXISTING CUR8 �rI
�� CUT. EXTEND NEW M
TO MATCH EXISTING. .
� / �!� // t ..
/ / YI
/ /
/ /
/
/' BANK
f
1 4,500 SO. FT.
FFE:914.50
1/ t
• ▪ ew •
1/
5812 CURB
AND GUTTER
TYP.
09
5'
-
03.6'
/
PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE
N
30.7'
o LL
n In
( f
LL
26 uL O
00 0'
AUTO
SERVICE'
52'
L
R3.5'
I I
I I
I I 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I h)1
36' .f' 25' -36'w ,�•
•
I(1i I I I 11
•--- 1 "I I I I I Y
L_L= —LJ__.j
25' sYL
I
- x.69 AC - -T-
-6,62 --
STALLSt --
�R3
LOT 2
-x'9'1`
!� I
R5'- -R / /
I I I I I I I I I I I I ro
L
J
1—
z
gLL
< 0
co O
VJ
W
35.3'
FFE 909.00
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
REMOVE EXISTING CURB
)T EXTEND WV CURBING
TO MATCH EXISTING.
EET 440 MATCH EXISTING
URB AND CUTTER. TIP.
NOTE
I. O1IL'I LOT 1 BUILDING AND 6164(NNG 10 PROPOSED AT THIS WE.
1.00 _ BUILDINGS AND 0A0r.IN0 15 CONCEPPVAL ri11LY.
2. SEE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOP BCNJFIDAR'i INFORMATION.
0 MANDIC40 0401:140 Ax4D SIGMA c 000`IDED PEP ADA CODES.
4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE Or 0000 AHD E0TE0IOR BUILDING
WALL 04415335 IOTE0 OTHERWISE.
5. ALL CURBING 000POSED 10 9412 CURE AND GUTTER
SITE PLAN SUMMARY
L019 1 AN0 C
COMBINE[ 0994450,
PREVIOUSL7
APPROVED
PROPOSED
BUILDINGS (SF)
30,000
21,600
'(PEEN RACE I,SF)
33.052 (222)
40.860 (283)
INFILTRATION ImLUME(CF)
3.100
1460
FORKING
172 (5.7/1900)
139 (5.8/1000)
APR 1 2 2005
∎iN
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
YAM
BUILDING LASTING RELATIONSHIP
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
50 509th Tenth Street, Suite 300
Mitmeepolia, 2.114 55403 -2012
612492 -4050 eel
612-492 -3000 fax
W W W.R.YANCOMPANIESCOM
PROJECT NAME
LINO LAKES
MARKETPLACE
THIRD ADDITION
LOCATION
LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
SHEET TITLE
PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN
REVISIONS
4 -11 -05 PRELIM. STIR PLAN SUBMITTAL
E V S`
102CORMI0N 59151
169160,1 SKIS
Raa5BN500
Fee 8456480
5 ee
s 285992
I hereby certify that this plan, speci &cntion,
of report was prepared by me of under my
direct supervision and that 1 ern a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the Smx of Minnesota.
ROBERT J. KACK
REGISTRATION NO. DATE
41320 4111 / 08
62855 RYAN COMPANIES YS. MC
JOBNOMBER HISTORY
SHEET NUMBER
C2.1
DRAWN BY
SWP
CHECKED BY
RJK
JOB NUMBER DATE
2005 -0 11 4/1112005
-SILT FENCE STAKE
TEMPORAP, SILT FENCE
/ (SEE SILT FENCE 0 9110)
SILT FENCE TO REMAIN 10 PLACE
UNTIL LA.11C5T,'APUIG uVO SEEDED
AREAS HAVE SEEN ESTABLISHED.
CURB CUT
O4' DROP CURB SECTION DETAIL
CONCP.ETE CURB
/ / /
I
LOT
OCK
1 \
tzs ",0
SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS &
SPECS FOR GRASS 101I9
BEEHIVE CATCHBASIN TO BE PROJECTING
8" ABOVE LOWEST GRADE ELEVATION
OF ISLAND
KOHLS
(MIN.)
I--
/
T'7
45. / �.
441 I
7
BA
4,500 SO. F
FFE :914.5
G /
//
r,
tea.
ti7
g0
6' ROCK MULCH
LANDSCAPE FABRIC - SEE SPEC.
INFILTRATION AREA CROSS SECTION
GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES
NTS
1. 0ON1940705 SHALL FIELD VERIF) THE LCCATNJNS AND ELE`/?1l01•0 OF
0/11 1140 UTIUTIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES, SUCH AS EXISTING 01/1100
GRADES AT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS, PRIOR TO -TART OF SITE GRADING.
THE 0911704070R SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFi THE ENGINEER OF 4111'
DISCREPANCIES 00 VARIATIONS FROM 50410.
2. CONTRACTOR IS TO CONTACT 'GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" FOR UTILIT1
LOCATIONS - (651)454 -0002 46 HOURS FP.100 TO EXCAVATION COIIST9UCTIDII.
3. REFER TO FATE PUN FOR MOST CURPEIIT HORIZONTAL SITE DIMENSIONS
AND LAYOUT.
4. THE 517E 09..AD11(7 OPERATIONS, WHEN COMPLETED SHALL RESULT 141 ALL
AREAS BEING GRADED TO "PLATT SU9GRADE ELEVATION ". THIS "PLAIT
3UBGR.40E ELEVATION" SHALL BE 061099II1ED BY C41001(150 SLAB THICKNESS
ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAITS. THE PLAN 7462040E ELEVATION" 111
THE 59001117 107 AND 091(E4A.Y AREAS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY
CHECH1IIG THE PAVEMENT SECTION DETAILS. INC 0EFEPRIIG TO PAVING
91..4I1 FOR LOCATION AND LIMITS OF VARIOUS PAVEMENT SECTIONS.
5. 111074(1 SILT SACKS IN ALL CATCH B451N5 LOCATED WITHIN DISTURBED
AREAS 011LESS NOTED OTHERWISE
6. 11E401' DLIT'T 66110E TO BE INSTALLED 011 SLOPES OF 3:I 09 STEEPER, AND NEAR
AREAS WHEP..E MATERIAL L TO BE 5TOCF. PILED. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
7. ALL SILT FENCE TO BE ORANGE 10 COLOR.
E. RICE OREEI: WATERSHED DISTRICT INSPECTOR TO BE CONTACTED FOR
PRECOIISTP,UCTION MEETING PRIOR TO GRADING.
9. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED 99(00 TO
COMMENCEMEH7 OF GRADING 000547ONS AND BE M4IRAINED UNTIL ALL
AREAS ALTERED 011 THE SITE HAVE 8EEII PESTORED.
10. ALL CONSTRUCTION 0(1194NCES SHALL BE SURFACED WITH CRUSHED
ROCK ACROSS FULL WIDTH FROM 011004110E 901147 TO 50 FEET INTO
CONSTRUCTION 2011E. REFER TO DETAIL.
11. CONTRACTOR -HALL STRIP. STOCKPILE AND RE- SPREAD SUFF101610 TOPSOIL
TO PROVIDE MINIMUM a DEPTH (COMPACTED1 TO ALL AREAS DISTURBED,
TO BE SODDED 09 SEEDED.
12. CATCH E451F10 AND MANHOLES III PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SOAPED
0.04 FEET. ALL CATCH BASINS IN CUTTER SHALL SE SUM9ED 0.15 FEET.
RIM ELEV40010 SHOWN REFLECT SOAPED ELEVATIONS.
13. ALL ROOF DRAIN LDC41ON5 TO BE VERIFIED WITH MECHANICAL.
14. 99(09 TO GRADING. PLACE ORANGE CONSTRUCTION 5AFET1 FENCE ALONG THE
609144ETER OF THE INFALT5417100 AREA TO PREVENT COMPACTION OF THE SOILS.
15. IF PRELIMINARY GRADING OF THE INFILTRATION AREA IS 490010TEL'i 7102077AP.'l,
GRADE THE INFILTRATION PRACTICE TO WITHIN 3-:z FEET OF FILIAL GRADE TO
PREVENT COMPACTION OP CLOGGING OF ME UNDERLYING SOILS.
19. 00 1409 OVER- EXCAVATE INFILTRATION AREAS FOR BOPEOW (44TERL0L.
17. FILIAL GRADING OF INFILTRATION AREAS SHOULD NOT OCCUR (111711 THE
COMRI6LITING 0RA111AGE AREA IS CONSTRUCTED AND STABILIZED.
18. SEEDING /RE0OP.ATIOH /PUNTING -F 11'FILIPATION AREAS TO BE COMPLETED
WITHIN 24 -46 HOURS OF FINAL 0PA71115.
19. ADJUST ALL EXISTING STP.UCTUF.ES TO REMAIN TO PROPOSED ELEVATIONS.
20. INFILTRATION AREAS 5HOW41 ARE 0071541E0 WITH 6" DEAD STORAGE BELOW
OUTLET ELEVATIONS. THIS PLAN 097977ES 3.460 CUBIC FEET OF STORAGE
FOR INFILTRATION. THE 99E0(0US1.3 AFPP0VE0 PLAINS DESIGNATED 3.100
CUBIC FEET F00 THIS PARCEL
STORM SEWER STRUCTURE SCHEDULE
CE 91 - BUILD OVER EXISTING 1E" PCP STORM SEWER
RIM - 912.10
III`✓ = 900.50
NEENAH 0 -4342 CASTING
MN 92
RIM - 911.20
1140 - 9022.53
/1001140 0 -1642 045111/0
OE 93
PIM - 909.00
INV - 90231
GE 94 - INFILTRATION AREA OUTLET
P.IM a 908.07 (E" ABOVE POND BOTTOM)
IFIV - 905,67
NEEI149 5 -4342 CASTING
CE 96 - INFILTRA110N AREA OUTLET
RIM = 906.07 (0 ABOVE POND BOTTOM)
1410 = 903.67
NEEIIAH R -4343 CASTING
KEY NOTES
+ 1116L.4CE 09 /914 GRATES 4 REPLACE W /50LID
STORM MH CASTINGS
CONTRACTOR TO KEEP HEAVY EQUIPMENT OUT OF
INFILTRATION AREAS AS MUCH AS PRACTICAL
YAM®
BUILDING LASTING RELATIONSHIPS
•
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
50 South '00nth Street, Suite 300
Minneapolis, s, MN 55403 -2012
612-492-4000 tel
612.492 -3000 fax
W W W.RYANCOMPANIES.COM
PROJECT NAME
LINO LAKES
MARKETPLACE
THIRD ADDITION
LOCATION
LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
SHEET TITLE
GRADING & EROSION
CONTROL PLAN
REVISIONS
4-11 -05 PRELIM. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL
APR 1 2 2005
5!),5r,,
98NEEM I 3010
HMV 1N
T hereby certify that this plan, specification,
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and War I are a duly
1.16229211 Professional lingineer under the
lams 00 the State Of Minnesota
ROBERT J.K�
REGISTRATION NO. DATE
41320 4 (11 105
ASV mu RYAN 620(PANIe9 U9, IHc
JOB NUMBER HISTORY
aessmessemmonmanossanweseA0
SHEET NUMBER
C3.1
DRAWN BY CHECRED BY
0 30 60 SVVP RUK
JOB
SCALE IN FEET NUMBER DATE
2005-011 4/ 11 ( 2005
•
•
•
c,
At
KOHLS
■1111•1111111111111111161mm■■■■■■■■■
rt / /
d/ I /
s //Si
r // ° °i d l
i'
i
BANK
' 4,500 SO. FT. ;" /
FFE914.50 , „' ,d
/,'
INPLACE WATER SERVICE
CONNECT FOR BUILDING
SERVICE, SEE NOTE 2
N902.58
INPLACE SANITARY SEWER
SERVICE B6' -6 "02.00
CONNECT FOR BUILDING
SERVICE, SEE NOTE 2
•
•
•
•
• i�I
hlh _ `7w••■•••
-
LL ,4 -- T --I.sg AC -j-LL
p AUTO = -- -62 STALLSi -- - - -1
v SERVICE A I, __ j _ � �I __
LOT 2 °,,,
, -
1 1 1 1 I I I 5 1 1 1 I 1 -� '.
_, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1( °
\ 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 If1' ..
\
L 1 L 5 Lr.� I I °.
I 'I
•
>
v
I I
7/
APR 1 2 2005
NOTE
1. ADJUST CASTING OF 91551LD TOF 20111559']
SEWER NH FOP FINAL (ikADE
_. 101195 I15PLACE 52555 509510E AS NEEDED
TO GONPIECT TS 5 5 110 51 5. 915 01 911?
N
►i�
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
YAH'
BUILDING LASTING RELATIONSHIP
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300
Minn polio, MN 55403-2012
612492.4000 tel
612- 492-3000 fax
W W W.RYANCOMPANIES.COM
PROJECT NAME
LINO LAKES
MARKETPLACE
THIRD ADDITION
LOCATION
LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
SHEET TITLE
PRELIMINARY UTILITY
PLAN
REVISIONS
4-11 -05 PRELIM. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL
au
EVS
a15N1rhIK1 MI,
ILA
•
102Wittliksti0051
SiskmsYaS330401
Pae9Mi48Mi
Fs. 0801090
1ae4as
1 hereby certify that this plan, specification,
ar report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
licensed Professional 'Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota
ROBERTJ. KACK
REGISTRATION NO. DATE
41320 4111101
a 20e5RYAN WNPARES LW INe
JOB NUMBER HISTORY
•
SHEET NUMBER
0401
DRAWN NY CHELSED BY
SWP RJR
JOB NUMBER DATE
2005-011 4111 12005
•
•
•
•
DECIDNOUS TREES / SHRUBS / EVERGREENS
CODE
QTY
COMMON NAME/LATIN NAME
SIZE
ROOT
REMARKS
AB
9
AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE
2"
B &B
STRAIGHT LEADER
ACER FREEMANNI X AUTUMN BLAZE
CAL.
AND FULL CROWN
BN
9
RIVER BIRCH
10'
B &B
CLUMP FORM
BETULA NIGRA
HT.
CC
10
THORNLESS COCKSPUR HAWTHORN
1.5"
B &B
STRAIGHT LEADER
CRATAECUS CRUS —CALLI VAR. INERMIS
CAL.
AND FULL CROWN
CO
3
COMMON HACKBERRY
2"
B &B
STRAIGHT LEADER
CELTIS OCCIDENTALLIS
CAL.
AND FULL CROWN
FP
13
GREEN ASH
2"
B &B
STRAIGHT LEADER
FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA
CAL.
AND FULL CROWN
FP2
3
MARSHALL'S SEEDLESS ASH
2"
B &B
STRAIGHT LEADER
FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA 'MARSHALL'S SEEDLESS'
CAL.
AND FULL CROWN
GT
12
SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST
V
B &B
STRAIGHT LEADER
GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 'SKYLINE'
CAL
AND FULL CROWN
MR
72
RED BARRON CRAB
2"
B &B
FUIL FORM
MALUS 'RED BARRON CRAB'
CAL.
QB
12
SWAMP WHITE OAK
2"
B &B
STRAIGHT LEADER
OUERCUS BICOLOR
CAL.
AND FULL CROWN
TA
4
REDMOND LINDEN
2"
B &B
STRAIGHT LEADER
TILLIA AMERICANA 'REDMOND'
CAL.
AND FULL CROWN
JS
79
SEA GREEN JUNIPER
#5
POT
FULL FORM
JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS SEA GREEN
CONT.
LANDSCAPE NOTES
REFER TO "LIMITS OF IRRIGATION" FOR SOD AND SEED AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED.
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL. SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OF IRRIGATION
PLAN TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL
ALL TREES REMOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE CHIPPED AND STOCKPILED
ON SITE FOR USE WHERE SPECIFIED. REMAINING WOOD CHIPS SHALL BE DISPOSED
OF OFF SITE.
ALL DISTURBED LAWN AREAS ISLANDS TO BE SODDED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
• IF CONSTRUCTION OF DEPRESSED ISLAND OCCURS DURING A WET SEASON, EROSION
CONTROL BLANKET SHOULD BE USED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
• REFER TO SITE INFILTRATION PLAN SHEET #13 FOR DEPRESSED ISLAND TREATMENT.
• ALL EXISTING ASPENS AND COTTONWOODS TO BE CLEARED AND GRUBBED.
• ALL OVERSTORY AND UNDERSTORY TREES PLANTED IN SOD AREAS SHALL BE
MULCHED W/ A 4' DIA. MULCH CIRCLE TO A DEPTH OF 4" MINIMUM.
• ALL SHRUB BEDS TO BE MULCHED AND EDGED WITH POLY EDGER
UNLESS LOCATED ADJACENT TO A CURB OR SIDEWALK.
• PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT SCHEDULE WHERE DISCREPANCIES EXIST.
• PROVIDE TRANSITIONAL AREA FROM SODED EDGE TO NATURAL AREAS; A TRANSMON
DISTANCE OF 5' TO 10' WILL VARIES WITH SIZE OF ISLAND AND OUTER EDGE.
,
APR
2 2005
CITY Illy Oc Li 4O
0 30 60
SCALE IN FEET
7
YAH'
BUILDING LASTING RELATIONSHIPS
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
50 South Tenth Sweet, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 5.5403-2012
612 -492 -4000 Tel
612 -492 -3000 fox
W'0 W.RYANCOMPANIES.COM
PROJECT NAME
LINO LAKES
MARKETPLACE
THIRD ADDITION
LOCATION
LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
SHEET TITLE
LANDSCAPE PLAN
REVISIONS
4 -11 -2005 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
I hereby certify that this plan, speriecadon,
or report was prepared by me or under any
direct supervision and than 1 am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under the
laws of the Stare of Minnesota.
PETER W. MC EMERY
REGISTRATION NO. DATE
42932 4111105
02005 RYAN COWAN. US, INC.
JOB NUMBER HISTORY
SHEET NUMBER
L1.1
DRAWN BY
HMM
JOB NUMBER
CHECKED BY
PWM
DATE
41 11 1 2005
•
•
•
L J
•
•
•
GENERAL NOTES
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS ON PROPERTY WITH THE
GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND BY CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE CALL (651- 454 -0002) PRIOR TO
STAKING PLANT LOCATIONS.
2. COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING INSTALLATIONS WITH OTHER
CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE.
3. WHERE EXISTING TREES AND /OR SIGNIFICANT SHRUB MASSINGS ARE FOUND ON SfTE,
WHETHER SHOWN ON THE DRAWING OR NOT, THEY SHALL BE PROTECTED AND SAVED
UNLESS NOTED TO BE REMOVED AND /OR ARE IN AN AREA TO BE GRADED, ANY QUESTION
REGARDING WHETHER PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD REMAIN OR NOT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO REMOVAL
4. ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN TO BE FERTIUZED AND PRUNED TO REMOVE DEAD WOOD
AND DAMAGED OR RUBBING BRANCHES.
5. BB TREES AND SHRUBS ARE BALLED AND BURLAPED.
6. NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTED
OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE
SUBMISSION OF A BID AND /OR QUOTATION.
7. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN
STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN.
8. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ON -GOING MAINTENANCE OF ALL NEWLY INSTALLED
MATERIALS UNTIL TIME OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE
WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
CONTRACTOR.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE
INSPECTION.
10. WARRANTY FOR LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BEGIN ON THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF PLANTING OF ALL LANDSCAPE
MATERIALS. NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED.
11. CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE CALENDAR YEAR
FROM THE DATE OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE WITH ALL REPLACEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT NO
ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
® DECIDUOUS TREE
NOTE:
TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF
TREE STAKING ARE ILLUSTRATED
IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION
TO STAKE TREES; HOWEVER, THE
CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR
MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB
POSITION THROUGHOUT THE
GUARANTEE PERIOD.
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF
HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING
ABOVE FlNITHELM AE OR JUST
VAPIES
24"
M
8, -0"
STEEL STAKE
12"
UIIIII n IIIII
III -III. �► r�O
EMIR ismuwpallir
III ICI Wwmm umm OMIT O a n1 n
NOTE
THE HOLE FOR PLANTING MUST BE AT LEAST
TWICE THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL
DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA WIRE -
3' 0 120- INTERVALS (TYP.)
16" POLYPROPYLENE OR
POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL, 1 -1/2"
WIDE STRAP TYP.)
TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH
FLAGGING - ONE PER WIRE
ROOTBALL TO SIT ON SUBGRADE
MULCH - " DEEP SHREDDED BARK
(UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPEC.
TOPSOIL
SUBGRADE
2" X 2" X 24" WOOD STAKE SET
AT ANGLE
SOD
ALL TREES TO BE PLANTED WITH THE ROOT COLLAR
LEVEL OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE GRADE.
IIIIII PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS
1. PLANTING BED PREPARATION: ALL MASS PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE TILLED TO A MINIMUM
DEPTH OF 10 ". AMENDMENTS SHALL BE APPLIED AFTER CULTIVATION.
2. BACKFILL SOIL: USE SOIL EXCAVATED FROM PLANTING HOLES AND PROVIDE AMENDMENTS.
REMOVE ALL DEBRIS INCLUDING ROCKS LARGER THAN 3" DIAMETER.
3. FERTIUZATION: ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE FERTIUZED UPON INSTALLATION WITH
DRIED BONE MEAL OR OTHER SPECIFIED FERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING SOIL PER
THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
4. MULCH MATERIAL AS SPECIFIED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS. MASS MULCH ALL PLANTING
BEDS TO 3" DEPTH OVER FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER. ALL PERENNIAL PLAN1NG BEDS TO
RECEIVE 3" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH WITH NO FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER. ALL
EVERGREEN AND DECIDUOUS TREES TO RECEIVE 4" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH
WITH NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK.
5. TREE STAKING; IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO STAKE AND /OR GUY
THE TREES ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE
EVERY STEP NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE TREES AND SHRUBS IN AN UPRIGHT AND PLUMB
CONINTION AT ALL TIMES UN111 THE END OF THE PLANT GUARANTEE PERIOD ESPECIALLY
WHERE VANDAUSM, SOIL OR WIND CONDITIONS ARE A PROBLEM.
6. TREE WRAPPING: WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE QUALITY, HEAVY WATERPROOF CREPE
PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE
FALL PRIOR TO 12 -1 AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER 5 -1.
7. RODENT PROTECTION: PROVIDE ON ALL TREES, EXCEPT SPRUCE UNLESS OTHERWISE
SPECIFIED.
8. PLANTING PLAN: ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED CAREFULLY AS SHOWN ON 1115
PLANS. PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES
EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES. RESPECT STATED DIMENSIONS.
DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.
9. EDGING: EDGING SHALL BE 4" P.V.C. COMMERCIAL GRADE EDGING WITH THREE (3) METAL
ANCHOR STAKES PER 20 FOOT SECTION. ALL MASS PLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE EDGING
PLACED BETWEEN MULCH AREA AND ANY ADJACENT TURF AREA.
10. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE THOROUGHLY WATERED TWICE DURING THE FIRST 24 -HOUR
PERIOD AFTER INSTALLATION. ALL PLANTING SHALL BE THEN WATERED WEEKLY, OR MORE IF
NECESSARY, DURING THE FIRST GROWING SEASON.
I= CONIFEROUS TREE
NOTES:
CONIFER TO HAVE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
NO MULCH TO BE IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK.
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING.
TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE ILLUSTRATED.
IT I5 THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES; HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSmON THROUGHOUT THE
GUARANTEE PERIOD.
PLACE ROOT COLLAR AT OR JUST ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.
TOIL
PFARt
JAMS
aFARNMgr
dlII= IIIIIL
NOTE:
THE HOLE FOR PLANTING MUST BE AT LEAST
TWICE THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL
ALL TREES TO BE PLANTED WITH THE ROOT COLLAR
LEVEL OR SUGHTLY ABOVE GRADE.
- PLANTING NOTES
1. NO PLANTING TO BE INSTALLED UNTIL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED
IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL LOCATIONS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ANY AND ALL DIGGING.
3. 9 THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PERCEIVES ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT SELECTIONS,
SOIL CONDITIONS, OR ANY OTHER SITE CONDITION WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT
PLANT MATERIAL ESTABUSHMENT, SURVIVAL OR GUARANTEE, THEY SHALL BRING THESE
DEFICIENCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
4. ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED IN FIELD.
SHOULD AN ADJUSTMENT BE ADVISED, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED.
5. ALL PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER PLANTING DETAILS.
6. ONE SHRUB PER TYPE AND SIZE IN EACH PLANTING BED AND EVERY TREE SHALL BE CLEARLY
IDENTIFIED (COMMON OR LATIN NOMENCLATURE) WITH A PLASTIC TAG WHICH SHALL NOT BE
REMOVED PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE.
7. WHERE SOD /SEED ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD /SEED SHALL BE HELD
1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURB, ETC.
8. SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON
SLOPES SIttPER THAN 3:1 OR IN DRAINAGE SWALES, THE SOD SHALL BE STAKED TO THE
GROUND.
9. SEED ALL AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING OTHER THAN THOSE AREAS NOTED TO
RECEIVE SOD.
10. REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT NO COST TO THE
OWNER.
NE IRRIGATION NOTES
1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A SHOP DRAWING
ILLUSTRATING AN IRRIGATION PLAN AND SPECIFICATION AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK
WHEN BIDDING. THESE SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE OWNER PRIOR TO ORDERING.
2.. VERIFY EXISTING /PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM LOCATION.
3. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL SOD AND PLANTING AREAS INDICATED ON PLAN SHALL
BE 1005 IRRIGATED. THE IRRIGATION SHALL INCLUDE THE PUBUC RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN
PROPERTY UNE AND BACK OF CURB WHERE NEW LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS ARE
PROPOSED.
4. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THAT ALL
SOD AND PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREAS
DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION.
5. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A WATERING /LAWN
IRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANT
MATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS.
6. AREAS THAT ARE SEED SHALL NOT BE IRRIGATED
SHRUB
DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA WIRE,
3' 0 120' INTERVALS (TYP.)
16" POLYPROPYLENE OR
POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL,
1 -1/2" WIDE STRAP'TYP.)
8' 0" STEEL STAKE
FLAGGING - ONE PER WIRE
ROOTBAU. TO SIT ON
SUBGRADE
MULCH - 4- DEEP
SHREDDED BARK (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
PLANTING SOIL - SE SPEC.
TOPSOIL
SUBGRADE
2" X 2" X 24" WOOD STAKE
SET AT ANGLE
SOD
/
f�14
-!lIII -1111. = 11161 =,..
t1111�111i11
- IIIIII_Illh._ ��� inw_nnn
111111 =11111- 11111 - 111111 - 11111- IIIIILIII III=1
NOTE:
THE HOLE FOR PLANTING MUST BE AT LEAST
TWICE THE WIDTH OF THE ROOT BALL
NOTE:
HAND LOOSEN ROOTS OF
CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL (TYP.)
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF
HOLE �PRIOR TO PLANTING
ABOVE FINISHEDD GRADE
OR JUST
SHRUBS TO SIT ON SUBGRADE
MULCH - 3" DEEP SHREDDED BARK
(UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
LANDSCAPE FABRIC - SEE SPEC.
PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPEC
4" P.V.C. EDGING
REFER TO PLAN FOR GROUND
COVER
SUBGRADE
CENTERING OF SHRUB IN BED
TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER
DIMENSION FROM EDGE.
ALL SHRUBS TO BE PLANTED WITH THE ROOT COLLAR
LEVEL OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE GRADE.
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT
ALL PUBUC URURES FOR LOCATIONS
OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIREe_, CABLES,
CDNDURS, PIPES, MANHOLES. VALVES,
OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. HE SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE
THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING
•
APR 1 2 2005
YAN'
BUILDING LASTING RELATIONSHIPS
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
50 South Tenth Street, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55403-2012
612 - 492 -4000 te1
612-492 -3000 fax
W W W.RYANCOMPANIES.COM
PROJECT NAME
LINO LAKES
MARKETPLACE
THIRD ADDITION
LOCATION
LINO LAKES
MINNESOTA
SHEET TITLE
LANDSCAPE PLAN
REVISIONS
4- 11.2005 PRELIMINARY SITE PUN
1 hereby amfr that this plan, specification,
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that 1 am a duly
Licensed Landscape Architect under the
laws of the Sm¢ of I.linnesoea.
PETER W. MC ENERY
REGISTRATION NO. DATE
42932 4111 105
C tat Reau COMPANIES MAC.
JOB NUMBER HISTORY
SHEET NUMBER
L2.1
DRAWN BY
HMM
JOB NUMBER
CHECKED BY
MAIM
DATE
4/11/2005
•
•
0
0
• �Slh -. 3.4 i9 i.0 i.e ° °�`1 o Iy1 .11" \ • •
49 7.0 6.2 30 9-0 \9.8' \3.3
1 I.I 0.5 g 7.7 4.0"'4°62 641
92 7.5',,..` S `9.7\
LUMINAIRE LOCATION SUMMARY
Septic
Label
X
Y
Z
Orient
3
02
10668
10305.2
33
0
4
E2
10660
9879,2
33
0
1
E
10652.9
10176.7
33
180
2
E
10850.2
10027.6
33
180
7
C
10438.7
9929.1
33
0
B
B
10375.9
9928
33
180
9
B
10377.9
10058.7
33
243.435
10
B
10249.3
9981.5
33
0
13
B
10543.1
10051.6
33
268.444
14
C
10462.6
10097.8
33
334.125
15
C
10525.6
10226.8
33
336.847
STATISTICAL AREA SUMMARY
Lobe
Avg
Moo
Min
Avg /Min
Max /Min
Description
Auto Pork
6.31
22.5
1.3
4.85
17.31
Hoorn FC at grade for auto service parking oreo
Retail CD
6.77
22.9
1,1
6.15
20.82
Nora FC at grade for retail CD parking area
1.3 12 i
.7 12 1.2 � _1.1
LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE
Symbol
Oty
Label
Arrangement
Lumens
LLF
Description
2 (EX)
E
SINGLE
110000
0.700
McGraw Edison Gallerio Existing
4
0
SINGLE
110000
0.700
McGraw Edison Goeerie GSL -XX- 1000- 141H -3F -FG 1000W Mil Type ill 33ft
�--�
2 (EX)
E2
BACK -BACK
110000
0.700
McGraw Edison GoSerio Existing
EI-E
3
C
BACK -BACK
110000
0.700
McGraw Edison Gallerio GSL -XX- 1000- MH -3F -F0 10001V MH Type al 3370
.3 °10
(04 99 30 20
.9 .0°3.8 OA
3.6 72 78
7.5 �r1212..11 6.7 7
OA ay. -sap 0.2
BA
(0o 1oe 7.eO,TM
2fi d.7 021 -4:i t3
1.5 3.1 32 9.1 8.0
11.T 40 : 0.1 OA OA 16.7 �.9 °IBA 0.1 9.3 1.7 % 1
��°1.7 44 •.6' 82 7b 10.8 'Y. -34 17 0.1 3.3 f
19 9.1 iS 7.7 0.2 BS i6.9 19A 162 T3 91 17. /
r 0- 231 918 1•: .¢ `rA.3 1 8.0 P `72. �72 112.0 6.1,._.:09 1.9
I I I I I I I I I I ° 0 9.9 °
1.e G 3 e ell 6 042 I °s 4 e2 I 21 Is °ne I 7Q1 3.o .0 12A A 6s T
I.I�1.fi 32 4.6 4.1 A.7 9.2 1A 5 12;0 n9 OA
-, I /�7�7BBBB�77AO77� Ai
'e4111111111111 111111111111111111111
Luninsin
KEY NOTES
E> INTERNAL STREET LIGHTING WILL ALSO BE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF
PROJECT - SUPPLEMENTAL PH0TOMETRICS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR FINAL
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND DESIGN
r-•
(JIULSE
6130 Blue Circle Dr Ste. 100, Minnetonka, MN 55343
Ph 952- 217 -0400 - Fax 952- 908 -6000
www.pulseproducts.com
°.r luxe.
APR 1 2 2005
C
CYAN
BUILDING LASTING RELATIONSHIPS
•
RYAN COMPANIES US, INC
50 South Tenth Street, Suite 301
Minneapolis, MN 55403 -2012
612-492-4000 ti
612-492.3000 fro
W W W.RYANCOMPANIP.S.0 8N
PROJECT NAME
LINO LAKES
MARKETPLACE
THIRD ADDITION
LOCATION
LINO LAD'S
MINNESOTA
SHEET TITLE
SITE LIGHTING PLAN
REVISIONS
4 -11 -05 PRELIM. SITE PLAN SUBMITTA3
NESWVraM.S*
E enParo, 89147
0800080018
Fax 0256031
80A810CIwnfl85 ism 81111 SOUK BNA.I410,
I horcby ccni0y that this plan, spccificanot
or report was prepared by ms or under m2
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State ofMmnesors.
ROBERT J. KACK
REGISTRATION NO. DATE
41320 4111/15
� a a0p5 WAN COMPANIES US, INC.
JOB NUMBER HISTORY
SHEET NDAmRR
►i� E 1
DRAWNSY CHECREDE
0 30 60 6wP 12.06
SCALE IN FEET 308 NUMBER DATE
2055 .011 4111 12005
1
2 3
4 5
240' — 0"
6 7
40' — 0"
40' — 0"
40' — 0"
40' — 0"
40' — 0"
40' — 0"
1 PLAN
TENANT 1
TENANT 2
TENANT 3
MECH
TENANT 4
A200 1" = 20'-0"
TENANT 5
TENANT 6
TENANT 7
TENANT 8
11
TRASH
YAH®
BUILDING LASTING RELATIONSHIPS
RYAN COMPANIES US, IN
C111050 South Tenth Street, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55403-2012
612-492-4000 tel
612-492-3000 fax
WWW.RYANCOMPANIES.COM
PROJECT NAME
LINO LAKES
MARKF,"i'PLACE
LOCATION
LINO LAKFS
MINNESOTA
REVISIONS
fA.
%Its ■.;
APR 3. 2 2005
I hereby certify that this plan, specification,
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Registered Architect under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
REGISTRATION NO. DATE
(s) 2005 RYAN COMPANIES US, INC.
JOB NUMBER HISTORY
SHEET TITLE
CONCEPT PLAN
SHEET NUMBER
A200
DRAWN BY CHECKED BY
NPE sp.
JOB NO.
902-695
DATE
4.11.05
•
•
uut
wtr
f3{C:d i dk' stun IL W-^Fk ESS
4O Ox
mew E {EyiCi9,'j4
LL
240' -0°
APR 2 2005
P Y OF LINO L
• RYAN® •
LINO LAKES RETAIL �.y=005
BUILDING LASTING RELATIONSHIPS
•
AGENDA ITEM V.E.
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson
P & Z MEETING DATE: May 11, 2005
TOPIC: Conditional Use Permit — Car Wash
Northern Lights Car Wash
Kevin Irlbeck
STATUS
The Community Development Department received an application for a Conditional Use Permit for an
automated car wash on the southeast corner of Lake Drive and Main Street. This application was deemed to be
complete and was added to this agenda at that time. The public hearing notice was printed in the appropriate
newspaper outlet and mailings were sent to surrounding property owners.
The applicant, Kevin Irlbeck, has now requested that this application be tabled indefinitely to do further study
On the feasibility of the project. He has granted the city an indefinite extension of time on the application, so
staff is in agreement with the request of the applicant.
The applicant will need to inform the city in writing of his decision to either continue with this application or
withdraw it from consideration. If he chooses to continue with the request it will then be added to the next
available Planning and Zoning Board agenda.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends tabling this application indefinitely.
AGENDA ITEM V.F.
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson
P & Z MEETING DATE: May 11, 2005
TOPIC: Angie's Acres
A J Properties
BACKGROUND
A and J Properties have requested approval of a single - family residential development entitled
Angie's Acres. The subject property is located adjacent to the southeast corner of Elm Street and
Rice Lake Lane and is currently developed with one single - family dwelling which will remain.
The final plat conforms to the preliminary plat layout approved with Resolution 05 -29 by the
City Council on March 14, 2005. The title commitment for the property and final plat has been
forwarded to the City Attorney for review and are acceptable.
. All conditions of approval from the preliminary plat will be met through the development
agreement and building permit review processes.
OPTIONS.
1. Approve the final plat for Angie's Acres
2. Return to staff with direction.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Final Plat submitted April 22, 2005.
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: Thot A & J Properties, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company,
owner and proprietor and Centro' Bonk Incorporated. o Minnesota corporation, mortgagee of the following
described property situated in the County of Anoka, Stole of Minnesota, to —wit:
Lot 15, Block I, ULMER'S RICE LAKE ADDITION, occording to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Hove caused the same to be surveyed and platted os ANGIE'S ACRES and do hereby donate and dedicate to the public
for public use forever the drainage and utility easements os shown on the plot. In witness whereof said A & J
Properties. LLC has coused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this day of
. 20 Also in witness whereof said Central Bank, Inc., has coused these presents to be signed by its proper
officers this _ day of 20 .
A & J PROPERTIES, LLC
Allen Powen, Chid Financial Manager
CENTRAL BANK, INC.:
OS
as
STATE OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this cloy of
COUNTY OF ) 20 , by Allen Powers as Chief Financial Manager of A & J Properties, LLC, a Minnesota
Limited Liability Cornpony, on behalf of the Company.
Notary Public County, Minnesota
My Commission expires
STATE OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
COUNTY OF ) 20_� by Os and
GS of Central Bonk, Inc on behalf of the company.
Notary Public, County, Minnesota
My Commission expires
I hereby certify that I have surveyed and platted the land described In the dedication an this plat as ANGIE'S ACRES;
that this plot N a correct representation of said survey, that oil distances are correctly shown on said plat in feel and
hundredths of a foot; that dl monuments have been correctly placed in the ground as shown, or shall be correctly
placed in the ground within one year after the recording date of this plat: that the outside boundaries are correctly
designated on soil plat: and that there ore no wetlands, in accordance with M.S. 505.02 Subdivision 1. or public
highways to be designated on said plat other than as shown thereon.
Jeffrey N. Caine Registered Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 12251
STATE OF MINNESOTA) The surveyors certificate was ocknowledged before me a Notary Public. this
COUNTY OF ANOKA ) day of 20 . by Jeffrey N. Caine. Land Surveyor.
Notary Public, Anoka County, Minnesota
My Commission expires
CTY OF UNO LAKES -
W. hereby certify that the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes. Anoka County. Minnesota, duly accepted
and approved the plat of ANGIE'S ACRES at o regular meeting held this day of
20 . If applicable. the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner Of Transportation and
the County Highway Engineer hove been received by the city or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without
receipt of such comments and recommendations. as provided by Min. Statutes. Section 505.03. Subd. 2.
By
Mayor By Clerk
Checked and approved this day of
8y
Anoka County Surveyor
SCALE
0
•
30
SCALE — 1 INCH - 30 FEET
ANGIE'S ACRES
CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHOWN THUS:
55
0
0
BEING 10 FEET WIDE AND ADJOINING ALL STREET
RIGHT -OF -WAY LINES AND REAR LOT LINES
ANNA' 5 FEET WIDE AND ADJOINING ALL SIDE LOT
LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLAT.
30
•
30
b
a1
30
N. Line of Lot 15, 1, ULMER'S RICE LAKE ADDITION
r---
N 89'344' '4 40 "E
189.980
109.98
1
n
N
2
eh
2
80.00
z
S89'M'52 -E
6.65
2
10
g •
•
,
10
1 82.71
N8914'40 "E
„ •
• D`_NOTES FOUND MONUMENT.
0 ALL MONUMENTS REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA STATUTE, WHETHER
SHOWN ON THIS PLAT OR NOT, WILL 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 PIPE MARKED BY RLS 12251.
rrr'
1 'N.
NOTE: FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PLAT, THE EAST
LINE OF LOT 15, BLOCK 1, ULMER'S RICE LAKE
ADDITION IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N0015'08 "E.
City of Lino Lakes
County of Anoka
Sec. 19, Twp. 31, Rge. 22
Ls—)
C.)
p7Z
0
C�
RLK - Kuuslsto, Ltd.
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM VI. B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
P & Z MEETING DATE: May 11, 2005
TOPIC: Temporary Signage
BACKGROUND
Signage is a difficult topic because it involves so many things. We are trying to deal with
temporary signage. Even the topic of temporary signage includes many types of signs.
To clarify a discussion that occurred last month, the plan is to prepare an draft ordinance
amendment to address temporary signage. We hope to address all the temporary signage
issues with the amendment. This was not intended to include or address permanent
signage. We would not delay the temporary signage amendments in order to address
permanent signage.
It is important to remember that the Board has made progress on several issues. The
Board agreed on how to regulate banners, portable signs, and window signs. Several
other temporary signage issues still remain. These include stringers, miscellaneous
cardboard/plastic signs, real estate signs, and development signs. The discussion below
begins with the discussion from the staff report for the March 2005 meeting.
At the April meeting, the Board expressed a desire to discuss real estate and development
signs. Attachments include excerpts from sign ordinances of other cities.
DISCUSSION
Portable Signs and Banners: The P & Z agreed on requirements for portable
signs and banners. Those requirements will be incorporated into a sign ordinance
amendment.
Window Signs: The P & Z agreed that window signs inside the building will not be
regulated except that flashing window signs are not to be allowed.
Pennants /Stringers: At the January meeting, we discussed "stringers ", also known as
pennants or other names. These are the small flags or garland type devices in long
strings. The most common location for these is car lots. I suggest the following
definition:
•
Temporary Signage
page 2
Pennants or Stringers: Any lightweight plastic, fabric, or other material, whether
or not containing a message of any kind, suspended from a rope, wire, or string,
usually in series, designed to move in the wind.
The P & Z considered how to regulate these, with three options being offered:
1. Pennants are to be regulated with a temporary permit with the same requirements
as banners and portable signs for duration and number of occurrences.
(Measuring the square footage would be impossible for some strings.)
2. Pennants are to be allowed without regulation: they are not significant enough to
worry about.
3. Pennants are to be prohibited altogether. Rows of flapping pennants contribute to
streetscape clutter and do not communicate any essential message other than
"look at me ".
We need to come to an agreement on pennants.
Miscellaneous Cardboard and Other Non - permanent Signs: Several businesses
use non - permanent signs made of cardboard and other inexpensive material. These signs
commonly advertise prices of goods such as cigarettes, soft drinks, and the like. The
signs often are attached to permanent fixtures such as pylon signs, or to temporary stakes
or posts. These signs often are left on the property for lengthy periods of time. When
multiple signs are used, the property looks cluttered and unsightly.
There are several options for addressing these non - permanent signs:
1. Prohibit them completely.
The reasoning here would be that these inexpensive signs often are used in such
number as to create an eyesore. There are options for posting temporary prices,
sales, etc., in the form of temporary sign permits for banners or portable signs.
2. Allow them without regulation.
The reasoning here would be that these signs, while there may be many of them
on a site, are small and do not constitute enough of a visual blight to worry about.
3. Regulate the amount of such signage on a property.
Theoretically, this could done be by total square footage or by the number of such
signs. However, the difficulty in enforcing such requirements is obvious —
imagine measuring the size of all such signs on a property and calculating the
total. The next day, three of the six cardboard signs may change. Counting the
number of them is the other option, but the same difficulties arise.
Temporary Signage
page 3
We need to come to an agreement on these miscellaneous signs. Staff recommends
prohibiting these signs altogether.
Real Estate and Development Signs: The attachments are sign ordinance excerpts
dealing with real estate and development signs. Different municipalities deal with them
differently. Staff is not making any recommendations at this time regarding these signs.
RECOMMENDATION
We can check off banners, portable signs, and window signs. Staff can prepare the text
for these types of temporary signage.
Staff recommends coming to agreement on pennants and the miscellaneous signage.
Next meeting, we could schedule a decision on real estate and development signs. This
would allow for discussion and a list of questions to be answered before the next meeting.
•
•
,10/0-A
4/0 /643
M. All signs shall be maintained in good condition and the areas around them kept free
from debris, bushes, high weeds, and from anything else which would be an eyesore or
nuisance. The surface of all signs must be repainted at least once every two (2) years or
whenever necessary as determined by inspection by Zoning Official to prevent the sign
surface from becoming unkempt in appearance. When any sign is removed, the Zoning
Official shall be notified and the entire surrounding area shall be cleared of all debris and
unsightly projections and protrusions.
N. Signs which become unsafe or unkempt in appearance shall be repaired or removed by
the licensee upon notification by the Zoning Official.
O. The source of light for any sign must be indirect or diffused and shall not be directed
into any adjoining residential district.
P. 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. •
Q. 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.
R. Temporary real estate signs advertising the sale of individual residences shall not
require a permit if they are under six (6) square feet.
S. 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 then (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.
T. Projecting signs which extend over public property are prohibited.
U. Roof signs are prohibited.
V. The exposed uprights, superstructure or back side of all signs must be painted a neutral
color such as light blues; grays, greens or browns, unless such part of the sign is integral
to the overall design of the sign.
W. All signs including temporary and portable over six (6) square feet in size shall
require a sign permit. Permit fees shall be in accordance with a fee schedule as adopted
by the City Council.
X. 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
15
034.05 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR PERMITTED SIGNS (Entire Section Amended
6 -5 -86. Ord. 86 -934)
(a) Where a sign is illuminated, the beam of light shall not shine directly upon any part of a residence or into
the street.
(b) No part of any permanent freestanding sign shall be closer than ten (10) feet from any lot line, or from the
public right -of -way.
(c) Freestanding signs located within twenty -five (25) feet of intersecting streets shall have a minimum vertical
clearance of ten (10) feet above the center line grade of the intersecting streets.
(d) When electrical signs are installed, their installation shall be subject to inspection by the State Board of
Electricity.
(e) It shall be the responsibility of the lessee, licensee, owner, or agent of the owner of the property to keep the
ground under and adjacent to the sign free of weeds and litter.
(f) The construction of all permitted signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of the Uniform Sign
Code published by the International Conference of Building Officials, which hereby is adopted by reference
and made a part of this Chapter.
(g) A sign and/or its structural components shall not move as a result of wind pressure.
(h) Freestanding signs shall have a length to height ratio of not greater than four to one (4:1).
4(i) All structural steel used in the construction of, or to support, anchor or brace any sign or billboard, shall be
of a minimum thickness of one - fourth (1/4) inch when such steel is exposed to the weather.
(j)
Where wood is used in the construction of any sign or billboard, such wood shall be given two coats of
exterior paint or preservative before, or at the time of erection, and shall be painted at least every two (2)
years thereafter.
(k) The design and color of all signs shall be compatible with the design and color of the building.
(I) The sign height shall be measured from the normal grade of the lot as approved by the Zoning
Administrator. (Amended 2- 17 -94. Ord. 94 -1502)
(m) The owner of a freestanding sign, who intends to sell portions or otherwise condominiumize a freestanding
sign, shall first notify the City of the owner's intent to do so and secondly, receive written verification from
the City (Zoning Administrator) that the sign conforms to current sign standards prior to conveying or
__ condominiumizing said sign. (A mended 6 0 Ord. 9646.09_)________
7 3
• ....r
4.06 PERMITTED SIGNS vO R
PEMIT REQUIRED (Amended 6 -5 -86. Ord. 86 -934) ill
(a) Identification signs for one (1) and two (2) family dwellings, provided that such signs are less than two (2)
square feet in area, address numbers exempted. (Amended 6 -5 -86. Ord. 86 -934)
(b) Pedestrian, vehicular - traffic, and parking directional signs in parking lots, provided such signs are less
than eight (8) square feet in area and less than five (5) feet in height, unless located on the building,
provided such sign does not constitute traffic hazard and no more than 25 % of the area of the sign is used
for the business logo. (Amended 6 -5 -86. Ord. 86 -934)
0(c) Traffic control signs, non - commercial governmental signs, local notices, railroad crossing signs, and
temporary non - advertising safety or emergency signs.
34.00 -5
01/04/01
•
•
Signs denoting the architect, engineer, contractor, or owner when placed upon a work site, which do not
exceed an aggregate of thirty -two (32) square feet in area. Such signs must be removed ten (10) days after ND
completion of construction. (Amended 6 -5 -86. Ord. 86 -934)
(e) Copy of message changing on permitted changeable copy signs including billboards. (Amended 6 -5 -86.
Ord. 86 -934)
(f) Political campaign signs. Signs designating candidates seeking public political office and other data
pertinent thereto shall be permitted on private property only, provided that the property owner's
permission has been obtained. Such signs are subject to the requirements contained in Section 2 -10 of the
Code of Ordinances. (Amended 6 -5 -86. Ord. 86 -934) (Amended 5 -1 -97. Ord. 97 -1656)
(g)
Signs or posters painted on or attached to the inside of a display window occupying less than 25 percent of
the display window area. This shall include illuminated signs, but not flashing signs. (Amended 6 -5 -86.
Ord. 86 -934)
(h) (1) Flags, badges, or insignia of any governmental or governmental agency, or of any civic, religious,
fraternal or similar organizations.
(2) Corporate flags carrying the corporate logo, business name or business image of any commercial, office
or industrial use provided the flag meets the following criteria:
(a) Flags must be mounted or flown from a ground or roof mounted pole and not affixed to the
building wall surface.
(b) Flagpoles must be located on the lot occupied by the business for which the flag identifies.
(c) Flagpoles shall be placed with a minimum setback of 15 feet from any property line.
(d) Flag heights shall not exceed 40 feet in height to the highest point of the flag.
(e) Flags shall not exceed 32 square feet in area and shall display only the business name, corporate
logo or business image of the business wishing to display the flag.
(f) Multiple flagpoles may be located on a lot with each pole supporting one (1) corporate flag. The
number of flagpoles allowed on each site is based on front footage of the lot (address side)
divided by 50 -feet.
(Added 12- 21 -00. Ord. 00 -1884)
(i) Temporary displays which are erected to celebrate, commemorate or observe a civil or religious holiday,
provided such displays are removed within 30 days after the event or holiday. (Amended 6 -5 -86. Ord. 86-
934)
(j)
Wall graphics are allowed provided they are not used for advertising & provided the approval of the
Zoning Administrator has been granted. (Amended 6 -5 -86. Ord. 86 -934)
Real estate signs as follows:
Hp MIN/
(1) Temporary signs for the purpose of selling or leasing individual lots or buildings provided that such
signs are less than ten (10) square feet for residential property and thirty -two (32) square feet for
other property, have a maximum height of 10 feet, unless located on the building, and provided that
only one (1) sign is permitted for each property. The signs must be removed within ten (10) days
following the lease or sale. (Amended 6 -5 -86. Ord. 86 -934)
(2) One (1) sign per building for the purpose of leasing dwelling units or office space in building
containing two (2) or more units, provided such signs are limited to five (5) square feet in area.
(Amended 6 -5 -86. Ord. 86 -934)
(3) One sign for the purpose of announcing or promoting a residential, commercial, or industrial
development shall be allowed subject to the following conditions. Each residential project must
contain at least six (6) dwellings or lots. The sign must be located at least one hundred thirty (130)
feet from any pre - existing home. The sign must be removed within two (2) years of issuance of a first
34.00 -6
01/04/01
(;)
•
,1,1,71•ete
building permit in the development or when the particular development is ninety percent (90 %) sold
or rented, whichever is sooner. Each sign shall not exceed the following size limitations; project area
under ten (10) acres - 32 square feet; project area over ten (10) acres - 140 square feet. (Amended 6-
5-86. Ord. 86 -934)
(1) Anoka County Airport Signs. (Entire Section Amended 6 -5 -86. Ord. 86 -934)
(1) Wall Signs:
(a) The total area of all wall signs on any wall of a commercial licensed building shall not exceed
15% of the wall area of that wall when said wall area does not exceed 500 square feet. When
said surface area exceeds 500 square feet, then the total area of such wall sign shall not exceed
75 square feet plus 5% of the wall area in excess of 500 square feet, provided that the
maximum sign area for any wall sign shall be 200 square feet. Wall area shall be computed
individually for each tenant in a multi- tenant building based on the exterior wall area of the
space that tenant occupies.
(b) A commercial licensed building having a wall which faces a runway of the airport shall be
permitted a wall sign not to exceed 30% of the wall area facing the runway with a maximum of
300 square feet. Only one such sign shall be allowed per commercial licensed building.
(c) The total area of all wall signs on any wall of a hangar building, not possessing a commercial
license shall not exceed 5% of the wall area of that wall. Such signs shall contain identification
information and may not contain advertising information.
(2) Freestanding Signs:
(a) Only one freestanding accessory sign for each commercial licensed building site per public
street frontage shall be permitted. One freestanding accessory sign located along the runway
side shall also be permitted for each commercial licensed building. The total area of each
freestanding sign shall not exceed 80 square feet. The maximum height of freestanding signs
shall be 20 feet subject to Part 77 of Federal Air Regulations (to provide for air space
requirements). The sign shall be set back 10 feet from the lot line.
(3) Gate Identification Signs:
(a) One sign per gate provided the total area of any sign shall not exceed 32 square feet and a
maximum height of 10 feet.
(4) Area Directional Signs:
(a) One sign listing locations of all commercial licensed businesses per street frontage is allowed,
provided the total area of any sign shall not exceed 80 square feet and a maximum height of 10
feet. And further provided that only commercial licensed businesses are listed.
(5) Review Process:
(a) A sign request will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department after review by and
approval of the Metropolitan Airports Commission is received.
(6) Non - conforming or Illegal Signs:
• (a) Existing as of the date of adoption shall be required to comply with these regulations 3 years
from the date of adoption.
34.00 -7
01/04/01
zol
" ARTICLE VI
•
Page 1 of 5
1195 -660.1 SIGNS: It is unlawful for any person to construct, erect, install, or maintain any sign in
the City of Hugo, except in conformance with this ordinance.
Subd. 1 Signs that meet the standards contained in this ordinance may be allowed as an
accessory use in the appropriate zoning district of the City with a permit issued by the Building
Official. Site plan approval of the location, type, style, and dimensions of all signs is required
before issuance of the sign permit by the Building Official. Any Conditional Use Permit
required shall be acquired by the applicant prior to the Building Official issuing any permit for
the sign.
Subd. 2 The Building Official shall issue a numbered permit for every sign approved.
Every sign erected shall have the permit number issued by the Building Official permanently
displayed at a conspicuous place on the sign.
Subd. 3 The following signs located outside of a Shoreland Impact Zone are exempt from
any permitting requirement found in this section for the period of time required to meet their
purpose:
(A) Traffic control signs erected by government authority.
(B) Traffic flow informational signs on public and private property.
(C) Election signs erected in accordance with Minnesota Statues 211.B. Election
signs must be removed within forty -eight (48) hours following the closing of the polls to
• which they are related.
(D) Real estate for -sale signs of eight (8) square feet or less located on the property
.eing advertised for sale.
•
(E) The flags of any nation, state, municipality, U.S. military service, or veterans
organization chartered by Congress.
(F) Safety notices and warnings.
(G) Temporary signs advertising garage sales or similar limited activities, of six (6)
square feet or less, located on the property where the event or activity the sign is
advertising is located.
(H)
Signs identifying buildings listed on a state or national historic buildings register.
One contractor's sign, not exceeding sixty -four (64) square feet, located on the
site of construction of a new building or facility. The sign may identify the project
architects, engineers, or similar professionals with responsibility for the project, as well
as the contractors working on the site, project financing institutions, and building owners.
(J) Holiday decorations in their season.
(K) Temporary banners announcing an activity or event.
(L) No hunting, no trapping, no fishing, no trespassing, and similar signs erected in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes 97B.001.
http: / /www.ci. hugo.mn.us /Zoning_Ord / SECTION _1195_ %20PERFORMANCE_STANDA... 5/2/2005
1202.130
e I7&/- L
cyfcee•,`1-7 2
BUILDING REGULATIONS 7-4Me §1202.130
Subd. 6. Project Signs. Other than individual single family or two - family
residential tots, each property is permitted one (1) project sign just prior to or during
construction. For properties of two (2) or more acres, the sign may be a maximum of sixty -four
(64) square feet in area. For properties of less than two (2) acres, up to a thirty -two (32) square
foot sign is permitted. The sign shall be a maximum of ten (10) feet in height, and shall be set
back at least ten (10) feet from all property lines. The sign shall be removed upon issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy or within two (2) years, whichever is sooner. Extension(s) of up to six (6)
months may be granted by the Zoning Administrator. No project signs are permitted on individual
single family or two - family residential lots. Project signs may be utilized to advertise property for
lease or sale just prior to or during construction, but must be used in lieu of a separate real estate
sign and must conform with all other requirements for project signs.
Subd. 7. • struction Signs. onstruction signs are permitted just prior to or
during construction. Fo • OS- y o two ) or more acres, one (1) sign of up to thirty -two (32)
square feet is permitted. For property of less than two (2) acres, one (1) sign is permitted of up
to twelve (12) square feet. The sign shall be a maximum of ten (10) feet in height and shall be
set back at least ten (10) feet from all property lines. The sign shall be removed upon issuance of
the last Certificate of Occupancy or within two (2) years of issuance of the first building permit,
whichever is sooner. Extension(s) of up to six (6) months may be granted by the Zoning
Administrator. Individual single family and two - family residential lots are permitted one
construction sign of up to six (6) square feet in area and six (6) feet in height only, subject to the
requirements outlined above. Construction signs for single family and two - family lots shalt not
require a sign permit.
•
Subd. . The ollowing signs shall be allowed without a sign permit in the 0 and R -I
throu•h R -7 zoning distric
a) Construction Signs for Individual Single Family and Two Family Lots. One
temporary construction sign for individual single family and two - family residential lots is allowed
per property. Said sign may be up to six (6) square feet in area and six (6) feet in height, and
shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from all property lines. Said sign shall be removed upon
completion of the project or issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
b) Directional Signs and General Information Signs. For property other than
single family and two - family, directional signs and general information signs not to exceed six (6)
square feet per side, to be placed on the property.
c) Garage and Estate Sale Signs. Garage and estate sale signs are allowed c
private property only (commonly 10 feet from street edge), provided that permission from tr
property owner has been obtained. Said signs shall not exceed three (3) square feet per side
four (4) in number. The signs may be erected one (1) day prior to the sale only, and must t
removed at the end of the sale.
d) Political Campaign Signs.
State and national elections: Political campaign signs are allowed in al
yard area in an election year beginning on August 1 and must be removed within ten (10) da
following the state or national election.
1202.130
BUILDING REGULATIONS 51202.140
Local Elections: Political campaign signs for local elections are allowed in
•
rig
any yard area and can be put up fourteen (14) days prior to a primary election and must be
removed no later than five (5) days following the general election. A candidate who is defeated
in the primary election must remove his or her signs five (5) days following said election. If there
is no primary election, the signs may be put up twenty (20) days prior to the general election and
must be removed no later than five (5) days following said election.
In the year of a state or national election, political campaign signs for local
elections shall be regulated by the guidelines for state and national campaign signs.
Political campaign signs are limited to twelve (12) square feet per side in all
residential districts. All signs must be placed on private property only; no signs shall be allowed
on public right -of -way.
e) Professional Occupational Signs. Such signs shall be non - illuminated, shall
number not more than one (1) per residence, and shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area.
The sign(s) shall pertain to a permitted use, shall indicate no more than the name of the
occupant, the street address and permitted occupation, and shalt be fixed flat to the surface of
the building and be no higher than the first story of the building.
•
•
Real Estate Signs.
Individual single family and two - family residential tots are allowed one real
estate sign per property, not to exceed six (6) square feet per side nor six (6) feet in height.
Mufti-family residential property of three (3) or more units and non - residential property shall be
allowed one real estate sign. If freestanding, the sign may be a maximum of six (6) square feet
per side and six (6) feet in height. If the sign is attached to the building, it shall be a maximum of
twelve (12) square feet in area.
Unimproved property of two (2) or more acres shall be allowed one (1) real
estate sign, not to exceed thirty -two (32) square feet per side, and shall be set back at least ten
(10) feet from all property lines. Unimproved property shall follow the requirements for real
estate signs above according to the property's zoning.
All real estate signs shall pertain to the sale, lease, or rent of the property
only and must be removed at the time of closing or within 24 hours of rent or lease of the
property. Said sign shall be placed only on the private property which is for sale (i.e. off -site
and /or signs in the public right -of -way, including directional arrows /signs, are prohibited).
Open House signs. Open House signs are allowed on private property
(commonly 10 feet from the street edge), provided permission from the property owner has been
obtained. Said signs shall not exceed three (3) square feet per side or more than four (4) in
number. Open house signs are permitted between the hours of 12:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on
weekdays and from 6:00 a.m. Saturday and 8:00 p.m. on the last day of the weekend (this does
not include signs for model homes that are open for numerous, consecutive days).
2C-°7r-- q7-e
G9444 ,vier��� //
/a • gars& 5-
Subd. 11. Auto Dealerships. The City finds that the advertising needs of auto dealerships
are unique, given the highly competitive nature of the business. Therefore, the following
regulations shall apply only to auto dealerships:
a) Wall Signs. Wall signs for auto dealerships shalt comply with the regulations above.
• b) Freestanding Signs. Auto dealerships may have one (1) freestanding sign identifying
the dealership, not to exceed forty (40) feet in height, plus one (1) freestanding sign advertising
each car franchise. The maximum sign area for the main identification sign shall be two hundred
(200) square feet per side, and the maximum sign area for all other freestanding signs shall be one
hundred (100) square feet per side.
c) Sign Area Maximum. The overall sign area maximum for each auto dealership shall
be one thousand (1,000)square feet, including wall signs and freestanding signs.
d) Auto dealerships shall adhere to all other sign requirements for commercial zoning
districts, and all other applicable sign regulations in this Sign Code.
Subd. 12. Project Signs. One project sign is permitted per property just prior to or during
construction. For properties of two (2) or more acres, the sign may be a maximum of sixty -four
(64) square feet in area. For properties of less than two (2) acres, up to a thirty -two (32) square
foot sign is permitted. The sign shall be a maximum of ten (10) feet in height, and shall be se,
back at least ten (10) feet from all property lines. The sign shall be removed upon full occupant!
or within two (2) years of issuance of the first building permit, whichever is sooner. Extension(s)
of up to six (6) months may be granted by the Zoning Administrator. Project signs may be utilized
to advertise property for lease or sale just prior to or during construction, but must be used in lieu
of a separate real estate.sign__and, must conform with all other requirements for project signs.
Subd. 1 Construction Signs Construction signs are permitted just prior to or during
construction. Fo :: -lty of t ) acres, one (1) sign is permitted of up to twelve (12) square
feet. The sign shall be a maximum of ten (10 feet in height and shalt be set back at least ten (10)
feet from all property lines. The sign shall be removed upon full occupancy or within two (2)
years of issuance of the first building permit, whichever is sooner. Extension(s) of up to six (6)
months may be granted by the Zoning Administrator.
Subd. 14. Signs Which Require No Permit. The following signs are permitted in all
commercial and in • : - .. gn permit:
a) Directional Signs and General Information Signs. Such signs shall not exceed six (6)
square feet per side, and shall be placed on the property. Signs with commercial messages legible
from a position off the property shall not be considered a directional or general information sign.
b) Listing of Business Associates. Each separate business shall be allowed lettering on
or behind windows facing the public view indicating their owners, operators or business associates
exercising the use, provided that such letters shall be enclosed within a single area and shall not
exceed a total area of four (4) square feet. Such lettering shalt not be counted as a wall sign or
be
1202.140 BUILDING REGULATIONS §1202.140
counted towards the maximum sign area for wall signs.
c) Name Plate. One name plate, not exceeding four (4) square feet in area,
containing the name, address, hours of operation and license number of an occupant shall be
)4. he 1. _
allowed at every entrance to a building. Such name plate shall not count towards a business'
maximum area for wall signs or be counted as a wall sign.
d) Political Campaign Signs.
State and national elections: Political campaign signs are permitted in any yard
area in an election year beginning on August 1 and must be removed within ten (10) days following
the state or national election.
Local elections: Political signs for local elections are permitted in any yard area.
Such signs may be put up fourteen (14) days prior to a primary election and must be removed no
later than five (5) days following the general election. A candidate who is defeated in the
primary election must remove his or her signs five (5) days following said election. If there is no
primary election, the signs may be put up twenty (20) days prior to the general election and must
be removed no later than five (5) days following said election.
In the year of a state or national election, political campaign signs for local
elections shalt follow the guidelines for state and national campaign signs.
Political campaign signs are limited to thirty -two (32) square feet per side. All
signs must be placed on private property, and shall be set back a distance from all property lines
equal to the installed height of the sign, but shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height. (Ref.
§309.150, Code 1966; Ord. Nos. 512, 3/16/71; 547, 12/12/72; 581, 2/10/76; 772, 10/25/88; 961,
7/14/98).
Real Estate Signs.
For improved or developed property, one (1) real estate sign is permitted per
4 / property. Said sign may be either freestanding or attached to the main building or permanent
sign. If freestanding, the sign shall be a maximum of six (6) square feet per side and six (6) feet
high maximum. If attached to a building or permanent sign, the sign may be up to sixteen (16)
square feet. Project signs may be used to advertise property for sale or lease, but only just prior
to or during construction, and shall be utilized in lieu of a real estate sign. No property shall
display a real estate sign and a project sign at the same time.
•
square feet.
Unimproved property is permitted one (1) freestanding sign of up to thirty -two (32)
All real estate signs shall pertain to the sale, lease or rent of the property only and
must be removed at the time of closing or within 24 hours of rent or lease of the property. Said
sign shall be placed on private property only.
•
•
City of Golden Valley - City Code - Sections 4.01 - 4.30 Page 8 of 15
i-
D
proil
1801
streets or at any location that, because of its position, shape, or color,
interferes with, obstructs the view of, or may be confused with, any authorized
traffic sign, signal, or device. No sign other than Public or Construction signs,
shall be visible from a public street which makes use of the words "STOP ",
"LOOK ", "DANGER ", or any other word, phrase, symbol or character which
may interfere with, mislead, or confuse persons using the public streets.
H. Any sign upon which is stated or depicted any immoral, offensive,
indecent, lascivious, or obscene words, conduct, or other matter.
[back to top] [back to Construction. Signs etc] [back to City Code]
Subdivision 5. Permit Exceptions.
It is unlawful for any person to erect, construct, repair, resurface, alter or
maintain a sign without first obtaining the applicable permit, except for the
following signs:
A. A nameplate not exceeding one (1) square foot in area, and containing
only the name of the resident, or title of person practicing a profession, in the
Residential, Residential R -2 and Multiple Dwelling Zoning District.
Real Estate signs pertaining to the lease or sale of real estate containing 6
or less square feet.
Construction signs advertising the development or improvement of a
property by builder, owner, contractor or other persons furnishing service,
materials or labor, provided such sign is removed when the work is completed
or upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or completion, whichever
occurs first.
f
D. Garage sale signs.
[back to too] [back to Construction. Signs etc] [back to City Cedel
Subdivision 6. Administration.
The Building Official or his or her designee shall administer this Section of the
City Code.
Subdivision 7. Fees.
Sign permit fees shall be set by the City Council, adopted by resolution, and
amended from time -to -time.
Subdivision 8. General Regulations.
A. Calculation of Sign Area. All signs are included in the calculation of sign
area, except for the following: Address Signs, Construction Signs, Menu
Signs not visible from a right of way, Neighborhood Identification Signs,
Private Directional Signs, Real Estate Signs, and Temporary Signs.
B. Free Standing Signs. If there is pedestrian or vehicular traffic that passes
under a free standing sign, eight (8) feet of clearance from basic grade to the
lowest element of the sign shall be required. At the discretion of the Building
Official or his or her designee, a property survey and an engineered plan for
foundations and /or soil tests may be required for freestanding signs.
C. Illumination. Direct rays or glare of light from an illuminated sign shall not
be visible from public rights -of -way or property other than that on which the
illuminated sign is located. Any external source of illumination must be
provided with shields or lenses that concentrate the light onto the sign.
http://www.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/citycodel/chapter4text.htm 4/4/2005
City of Golden Valley - City Code - Sections 4.01 - 4.30 Page 10 of 15
prohibited.
B. F�sislential Zoning District -,No freestanding sign in the Residential district
shall exceed six feet in height. The following signs are permitted within the
Residential Zoning district.
1. Temporary signs.
a. Real estate sign. Not to exceed 6 square feet
per street frontage, nor 50 square feet if more than
6 Tots or more than 2 acres.
b. Construction sign. Not to exceed 32 square feet.
c. Garage sale sign. One sign not exceeding 6
square feet and located on the property where the
sales of household goods are sold. No property
can display a sign for more than three days at a
time, and no more than two times in one year.
2. Permanent signs:
a. Nameplate sign. Not to exceed 1 square foot.
b. Neighborhood Identification sign. A sign with a
sign area of 32 square feet at each street opening
provided the development contains at least 6
lots /dwellings.
C. Two Family (R -2L id - t�aLZoning District. No freestanding sign in the
Two Family Residential district shall exceed six feet in height. The following
signs are permitted within the Two Family (R -2) Residential Zoning District:
1. Temporary signs.
eal estate sign. Not to exceed 6 square feet,
nor 50 square feet if more than 6 Tots or 2 acres.
Construction sign. Not to exceed 32 square feet.
c. Garage sale sign. One sign not exceeding 6
square feet and located on the property where the
sales of household goods are sold. No property
can display a sign for more than three days at a
time, and no more than two times in one year.
2. Permanent signs:
a. Nameplate sign. Not to exceed 1 square foot.
b. Neighborhood Identification sign. Not to exceed
a height of 6 feet and a sign area of 32 square feet
provided the development contains at least 6
Tots /dwellings.
http://www.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/citycode1/chanter4text.htm 4/4/2005
•
!City of Golden Valley - City Code - Sections 4.01 - 4.30 Page 11 of 15
D. Multi
•
le Dwelling Zonin• District. No freestanding sign in the Multiple
we ling Ris ric s all excee• eig ee in height. The following signs are
permitted within the Multiple Dwelling Zoning District.
1. Temporary sign.
eal estate sign. Not to exceed 32 square feet,
nor 50 square feet if more than 6 lots or 2 acres.
b. onstruction sign. Not to exceed 64 square
eet.
c. Garage sale sign. One sign not exceeding 6
square feet and located on the property where the
sales of household goods are sold. No property
can display a sign for more than three days at a
time, and no more than two times in one year.
2. Permanent sign:
a. Nameplate sign. Not to exceed 1 square foot.
b. Neighborhood Identification sign or Wall sign. Is
allowed at a maximum of 50 square feet of total
signs if there are at least 6 Tots /dwellings.
. Institutional Zoning District. The following signs are permitted within the
Institutional Zoning District.
1. Temporary signs. The size shall not exceed 100 percent
of the permanent sign area allowed. Additional size requirements
are as follows:
a. Real estate sign. Not to exceed 50 square feet.
b. Construction sign. Not to exceed 64 square feet in
area.
2. Permanent signs. The total sign area shall not exceed 64
square feet. The height requirements for permanent signs are as
follows:
a. Monument sign. Shall not be higher than 12 feet.
b. Pylon sign. Shall not be higher than 25 feet.
F. Business and Professional Offices Zoning District. The following signs are
permitted within the Business and Professional Offices Zoning District.
1. Temporary signs. The size shall not exceed 75 percent of the
permanent sign area allowed.
a. Real estate sign. Not to exceed 32 square feet.
b. Construction sign. Not to exceed 64 square
http://www.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/citycodel/chapter4text.htm 4/4/2005
t_oto/fro4/670A,
SIGN REGULATIONS
Division C. General Regulations.
SEC. 19.105. REGULATED SIGNS EXEMPT FROM OBTAINING A SIGN PERMIT AND SIGN
LICENSE.
(a) City Council Findings. The City Council finds that allocating public funds and staff resources to
those signs that present the most public safety and aesthetic problems will better achieve the overall
purpose of this Article. Requiring a permit or license for every type of sign in the City would unduly tax
staff resources, thus diluting the overall enforcement of this Article. Therefore, the City Council finds
that the following signs shall be regulated pursuant to this Article, but shall be exempt from the
requirement of obtaining a sign permit, sign license, and from the payment of a license or permit fee.
(b) Regulations. No sign permit or license shall be required for the signs listed in subpart (c) of this
Section, provided:
(1) the sign is permitted in the zoning district in which the sign is placed;
(2) the requirements for each sign listed in subpart (c) of this Section are satisfied; and
(3) the sign does not violate the following provisions of this Article, which apply to all signage
in the City:
(A) Section 19.106 ( "Signs Prohibited in All Districts");
(6) Section 19.107 ( "Computations"); and
(C) Section 19.108 ("General Provisions, Including Basic Design Elements").
Re. ulated Si • ns Exem•t From Permit and License Re • uirements .
a oons ess an twenty -four (24) inches in diameter are exempt from obtaining a permit
Boutique sale signs are exempt from obtaining a permit and license, provided:
(A) Each sign is a maximum of six (6) square feet in total surface area and three (3) feet
(B) There is a maximum of four (4) signs per boutique sale.
(C) If a sign is installed on property other than the property having the sale, the property
owner having the boutique sale must have the permission of the property owner where the sign is
installed.
(i) No signs shall be allowed in the public rights -of -way or on utility poles pursuant
to Section (b) of this Section.
(ii) There shall be a maximum of two (2) signs on any street frontage of any site for
the following signs:
(aa) off -site signs for temporary special events for places of worship, schools,
parks and public buildings.
(bb) off -site signs for garage sales;
(cc) off -site signs for realtor directional /open housing signs; and
(dd) off -site signs for boutique sales.
(D) The boutique sale signs are allowed only twice each calendar year per site and the
signs are permitted for a maximum of four (4) days each occurrence.
ing markers are exempt from obtaining a permit and license.
4 o iruction Si ns One (1) temporary freestanding construction sign or wall sign per
project construction site is exempt from obtaining a permit and license on each street frontage of the
project (commercial, industrial, and single - family residential projects of six (6) or more lots or multiple -
family projects), subject to the following conditions:
(A) The construction sign shall not exceed thirty -two (32) square feet in area in
residential districts or sixty -four (64) square feet in area in all other districts.
(B) The construction sign shall be a .maximum of six (6) feet in height with a minimum
setback of ten (10) feet from any public street right -of -way line for residential districts or fifteen (15) feet
in height with a minimum setback of twenty (20) feet from any public street right -of -way line for other
districts.
(C) The construction sign of a project approved by the City may be erected at the time of
approval and shall be confined to the site of construction; and
and license.
(2)
in height.
13
Excerpt from the BLOOMINGTON CITY CODE
(D) The construction sign shall be removed ten (10) days after issuance of the ti
temporary certificate of occupancy permit and prior to occupancy, or in the case of a residential
subdivision, be removed when seventy -five percent (75 %) of the Tots are sold.
(5) Flags, noncommercial - Noncommercial flags are exempt from obtaining a permit and
license, provided that if the flags are placed on flagpoles, such poles shall be no taller than twelve (12)
feet above the highest outside wall and the side yard setback shall be not Tess than the height of the
pole. Flagpoles shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the public right -of -way.
(6) Garage sale signs are exempt from obtaining a permit and license, provided:
(A) Each sign is a maximum of six (6) square feet in total surface area and three (3) feet
in height.
(B) There is a maximum of four (4) signs per garage sale.
(C) If a sign is installed on property other than the property having the sale, the property
owner having the garage sale must have the permission of the property owner where the sign is installed.
() No signs shall be allowed in the public rights -of -way or on utility poles pursuant
to Section (b) of this Section;
(i) There shall be a maximum of two (2) signs on any street frontage of any site for
the following signs:
(aa) off -site signs for temporary special events for places of worship, schools,
parks and public buildings;
(bb) off -site signs for garage sales;
(cc) off -site signs for realtor directional /open housing signs; and
(dd) off -site signs for boutique sales.
(D) The garage sale signs are allowed only twice each calendar year per site and the
signs are permitted for a maximum of four (4) days each occurrence.
(7) Home improvement/home construction /home remodeling signs are exempt from obtaining
a permit and license, provided:
(A) There shall be only one (1) such sign not exceeding six (6) square feet in total
surface area and four (4) feet in height for each lot.
(B) Such sign shall be located on the lot the described activity is occurring and shall be a
minimum of ten (10) feet from the property line.
(C) The sign shall be displayed only until approval of the final inspection or the project is
substantially completed, but in no event longer than thirty (30) days.
(8) Home security signs are exempt from obtaining a permit and license, provided that such
signs do not exceed one (1) square foot in total sign surface area.
(9) Interior signs are exempt from obtaining a permit and license.
(10) Murals are exempt from obtaining a permit and license.
(11) Official signs and notices are exempt from obtaining a permit and license.
(12) Political signs are exempt from obtaining a permit and license.
(13) Public notices are exempt from obtaining a permit and license.
(14) Public utility signs are exempt from obtaining a permit and license.
(15) Real estate signs are exempt from obtaining a permit and license, provided:
A Real Estate Si • ns for Sin s le or Tw• - ntial Dwellings or Lots
() There shall be one (1) sign per street frontage up to a maxim o (2) signs
per lot.
(i) Such sign shall be located on the lot for sale or lease and shall be a minimum of
ten (10) feet from any public street right -of -way.
(ii) Such sign shall not exceed ten (10) square feet in total surface area and six (6)
(iv) Real estate signs shall not be directly illuminated and shall be removed within
seven (7) days after closing has occurred.
(v) If a temporary directional or open house real estate sign is installed on property
other than the property having the sale, the person placing the sign must have the permission of the
property owner where the sign is installed. The temporary directional or open house sign shall be
allowed only when a sales agent is present on the property which is for sale.
(aa) No sign shall be allowed in the public street right -of -way. Also see Section
19.106(b);
feet in height.
14
•
SIGN REGULATIONS
(bb) There shall be a maximum of two (2) signs on any street frontage of any
site for the following signs:
(AA) off -site signs for temporary special events for places of worship,
schools, parks, and public buildings.
(BB) off -site signs for garage sales;
(CC) off -site signs for realtor directional /open house signs; and
(DD) off -site signs for boutique sales
(B} Real Estate Sians for All Other Uses.
(i) General Provision. The real estate sign shall be located on the site for sale or
for lease and shall not be directly illuminated unless incorporated into the site's identification sign.
(ii) For real estate signs adiacent to I -35W, 1 -494 and TH -77. The site may elect
one (1) of the following options, subject to the provisions of the clear view triangle area as defined in
Section 19.108(e) and subject to the provisions of Section 19.108(c), 'Sign Characteristics - Grade
Mounding ".
(aa) Incorporate the real estate sign into the permanent identification sign and
increase the total allowed sign surface area by a maximum of thirty -two (32) square feet. The thirty -two
(32) square feet addition to the identification sign can be used at the discretion of the property owner, so
long as the identification sign is utilized for any real estate information. No other real estate sign shall be
allowed; OR
(bb) One real estate sign, not exceeding thirty -two (32) square feet, shall be
permitted per street frontage up to a maximum of two (2) signs per site. The maximum height shall be
eight (8) feet, and the sign setback shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from any public street right -of-
way line.
(iii) For skins on other street frontages. The site may elect one (1) of the following
options, subject to provisions of the clear view triangle area as defined in Section 19.108(e) and subject
to the provisions of Section 19.108(c), "Sign Characteristics - Grade Mounding'.
(aa) Incorporate the real estate sign into the permanent identification sign and
increase the total allowed sign surface area by a maximum of sixteen (16) square feet. The sixteen (16)
square foot addition to the identification sign can be used at the discretion of the property owner, so long
as the identification sign is utilized for any real estate information. No other real estate sign shall be
allowed; OR
(bb) One real estate sign, not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet, shall be
permitted per street frontage up to a maximum of two (2) signs per site. The maximum height shall be
six (6) feet, and the sign setback shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet from any public street right -of -way
line.
(iv) If a site is allowed two (2) real estate signs due to two (2) street frontages, both
frontages shall use the same style option, either incorporating the real estate sign into the permanent
identification signs or utilizing separate real estate sign. In addition, if one (1) frontage is adjacent to I-
35W, 1-494, or TH -77, the regulations in Section 19.105(c)(15)(B)(ii) apply; for other street frontages, the
regulations in Sections 19.105(c)(15)(B)iii) apply.
(16) Residential name plates are exempt from obtaining a permit and license, provided:
(A) There may be one (1) sign not exceeding one and one -half (1 -1/2) square feet in area
permitted for each residential building. Home occupation information may be placed on the residential
name plate.
(B) The name plate shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line or
public street right -of -way line.
(17) Tombstones are exempt from obtaining a permit .and license when located in approved
cemeteries.
(18) Traffic control signs, public or private, are exempt from obtaining a permit and license.
(19) Special Temporary Signs to Announce Employment Opportunities at
Commercial /Industrial Uses.
(A) General Provision. Special temporary signs to announce employment opportunities
shall be allowed only in the Class 11, Ill, IV, and V Sign Districts.
(B) On -Site Temporary Signs.
15