Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/2006 P&Z Packet• • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, January 11, 2006 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: October 12, 2005, November 9, 2005 & December 14, 2005 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUED: Planned Unit Development Final Plan for the Chain of Lakes YMCA, 7690 Village Drive — Paul Bengtson B. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING to Amend the Planned Unit Development for Legacy at Woods Edge to include signage criteria — Paul Bengtson VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. P &Z Annual Review for 2005 B. Administrative Reviews for 2005 C. Extension of Deadline for Board Applicants D. Requiring sidewalks in subdivisions E. Meeting Rules VII. ADJOURN • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : October 12, 2005 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 10:16 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Laden, Nelson, Pogalz, Rafferty, Root, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT : None. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff Smyser; Michael Grochala; and James Studenski; Paul Bengtson I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., October 12, 2005. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 14, 2005 and September 27, 2005 Mr. Root requested the following change: Page 19, third paragraph change congueze to congruent. Mr. Root made a MOTION approve the September 14, 2005 and September 27, 2005 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6 -0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open mike open at 6:43 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:43 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, to Amend the Planned Unit Development for Legacy at Woods Edge to include signage criteria Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 2 Chair Rafferty continued the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Staff stated staff is working with the developer to come up with acceptable signage criteria for the Legacy at Wood's Edge project. Staff had intended on presenting a draft at this meeting, however, it has proven to be more difficult and time consuming than originally anticipated. At this time a draft is not ready for review by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff is recommending that the public hearing be continued to the November 9, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend continuing the public hearing to the November 9, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board Meting and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6 -0. B. CONTINUED: Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Legacy at Woods Edge 1. CONTINUED: Site Plan Review for Legacy Hotel Staff stated the Hartford Group has applied for a Planned Unit Development final plan for a hotel within the Legacy at Wood's Edge project located on the southeast quadrant of Interstate 35W and Lake Drive. The final plan consists of the building plans for the hotel as well as the final plat for the lot (Village No. 4). Though a hotel is not currently listed as a permissible use in Chapter 3 of the Lino Lakes Town Center Design and Development Guide, included in this meting is a staff initiated amendment to the Planned Unit Development to allow a hotel as a permissible use in the commercial and mixed use districts. The Planning and Zoning Board continued this item at the September 14th regular meeting and offered up comments to both staff and the developer about the proposal. Numerous revisions have been made to the plans and are addressed throughout this report. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A site performance agreement between the city and the developer must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Issues discussed in the S.E.H. engineering review memo must be addressed to the satisfaction of city staff. 3. Operation and maintenance agreements for the site, including provisions for stormwater facilities, must be submitted for review by city staff prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The `gull wing' fixture (type EE and EE1 as shown on sheet C4.1) shall be changed to a shoebox fixture. This fixture type will need to be approved by staff and used throughout the rest of the parking area on this block, if not the rest of the project site. • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 3 5. A revised lighting plan indicating the above required fixture changes, and the relocation of the luminaire near the south entrance drive further west must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. 6. The final plat for the project (Village No. 4) must be approved prior to City Council approval of this building. 7. The developer must work with staff to identify the most appropriate location for bicycle parking within this block of the development. 8. A minimum 2 inch deep window trim must be provided in accordance with the development standards for the site. 9. All hotel room windows are required to be supplied with uniform internal window treatments that will complement the architecture of the building. 10. The first floor windows shall be accentuated with additional trim features. 11. The brick base shall be raised to lessen the gap between the cap and the second story windows. 12. The hotel building shall be moved closer to the Town Center Parkway right -of -way, meeting a maximum setback of 15 feet. 13. The developer is encouraged to add an additional architectural element to the central portion of the building to further strengthen the presence of the corner. 14. The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate four shrubs per tree within the north planter island (adjacent to the Interstate 35W right -of -way). Mr. Hyden inquired about the trash enclosure. He asked if cars were parked in the parking lot, how would the garbage trucks get to the trash. Mr. Bengtson responded the service vehicle would come in either direction and would need to pull the dumpster out into the drive area and load the dumpster there. Mr. Hyden asked if the trash could be kept inside the building. Mr. Bengtson responded they could ask the developer. Mr. Hyden noted the location seemed out of place where it was at. Mr. Root asked why the five -foot maximum setback was there and should something be changed. Mr. Bengtson responded that the reason the build -to line was in place was to bring the buildings up to the street to create the downtown, main street feel. What was being proposed is almost a residential use of the property and therefore having windows directly on the sidewalk was not an advantageous situation. He noted this met the intent and they had worked with the developer to address this issue. Mr. Rafferty noted this was a Planned Unit Development that was recommended by the Planning & Zoning Board in 2005 and asked why where they looking at the spirit of it instead of looking at what the guidelines were. He stated it appeared they were jumping ship and this was the first thing. He noted two months ago, there was no hotel and now they had a hotel and they were being asked to look at the spirit. Mr. Bengtson responded that these guidelines were approved in 2004, which was a long time ago and a lot of things had changed in those guidelines. They had recommended approval of an amendment as a use and at the time it was written, it was not taken into account where it was located as well as how it would be implemented in a commercial area. This directly lead to why it was not meeting the exact letter of the guidelines, but it was meeting the Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 4 intent. It should also be noted that this would keep the streetscape balanced with the residential project that would be developed across Town Center Parkway. Mr. Root stated when they did these types of changes, it was precedent setting so they wanted to be clear if they were varying from what the guidelines were saying they had a good reason. He stated it was important to know what the downstream effects were going to be. Mr. Root inquired about the architectural feature on the one corner of the building and asked what would be appropriate there. Mr. Bengtson responded this was one of the comments at the last P &Z meeting. As staff, we feel that the masonry materials, which drew the attention to the center of the building, as well as the porch provided a fairly substantial architectural feature. He stated that they encouraged the developer to do more, as the board's comments from the September meeting had asked. He stated this was up to the Board to decide, but as staff they felt the proposal met the standards. Mr. Tralle asked why they wanted the front facing the freeway and to have the back door into the City. He noted this was the same thing they did with Ryan where they wanted to put the strip mall in and the entire back of the building faced the main part of town and he did not like this. He indicated the front of the building should be facing into the City. He believed this was backwards. Mr. Laden stated it was important to stick to the original intent of the project. He asked what was on the east side of the hotel. Mr. Bengtson responded that the property east of this site was within a commercial district and early indications are that it would be best suited for an office type use. Mr. Laden asked if the office buildings were within the build -to portion of the development. Mr. Bengtson responded there was a 50 percent build to line required on the property east of the proposed hotel site. Mr. Laden stated he believed he could accept the 1 5-foot mark, but nothing greater than that, but he was concerned that even though it was a commercial use, it was a very residential strip in an area that was intended to be commercial and stated it made sense that the hotel have commercial on the first floor with hotel on the remainder. He stated this proposal fell short. Chair Rafferty stated he appreciated the developer going back to the drawing board, but he was looking at this as the first phase of a project trying to be approved. He stated the strength in the idea and concept of what the City was proposing and in a hotel going forward was clearly indicated by the Board. It was was something that should be allowed and that was the reason they gave their recommendation that this move forward to Council. He stated he did not like the shingled roof and the trash enclosure. He stated there was no strength in the porches at the end of the building. He agreed the building was facing backwards. He stated he was not impressed with this development. Mr. Bengtson responded that the way the staff report was laid out so the board would not have to necessarily look at the design standards as they were going through the report. • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 5 He indicated it was not the intention of staff to calling out deficiencies, but rather verbally explain what was what was shown graphically in the plan. Chair Rafferty stated the report and information by staff was excellent and he realized they were not pointing out a deficiency, but there were no strengths in the project and in what was being proposed. Mr. Nelson stated he had a concern regarding the back of the hotel facing the front of the project and the trash enclosure also. Chair Rafferty invited the developer to make comments. Patrick Sarver, Hartford Development Group, stated they felt strongly that the architectural feature that they had on the building effectively focused attention on the corner of the building. He noted the evolution of the building has come a long way in where it was at and what it has to offer the site currently. He noted there was a significant difference in the architectural feature and in order to have it provide a strong architectural feature in the center of the building, it needed some articulation in the face of the building which provided some jut out and have it move forward. What they have done was to add additional architectural features along the top of the feature. In his opinion there was a good job in articulating the building and in having the opportunity to move the building closer to the street and adding the porches added to the articulation of the building. He indicated there was a serious traffic circulation issue as they came to the round- about. He noted if the front door was at the location of the round - about, traffic would be complicated because they would not be able to do a U -turn, or they would be required to have a sign at the round about to indicate all hotel guests would need to turn right in order not to complicate the traffic pattern. Chair Rafferty suggested they put the drive up canopy on the side instead. Chair Rafferty asked why could not have the driver's side facing the hotel instead of the passenger side. Mr. Sarver responded they would need to cross traffic if they did that. He noted the site was also of a narrow configuration and the building would need to be moved back far enough that parking be allowed in the front of the building. He noted if the building would be turned around, the parking area would also need to go with it. He noted people going to the hotel were coming by car and they hoped they could get the people out of their car to walking into the development to other commercial uses. Mr. Root asked if there were some features that could be added to the back so it would look more like the front of the building to make it look more impressive. Mr. Sarver stated they needed a strong architectural feature to the center of the building and he believed this was a fantastic corner. Mr. Root stated his question was for the Board and clearly there was a concern from the Board that this was not as strong of a feature as what was facing the freeway. Mr. Tralle stated he would like to see some brick to the right to "dress" it up a bit more and maybe add some brick detail in other areas a well. He noted this was going to face the downtown and just the center brick face wasn't enough. He stated if they could put some brick on the other end this would help. He noted he was not impressed with the Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 6 porches either and suggested they put more brick on the building. He indicated he would not support this as it was being proposed. Chair Rafferty asked if the surfaces were all on the same plane. Mr. Sarver responded that they were not. He indicated there was a tremendous amount of articulation in the building. He agreed that the idea of adding brick to the other side was a good one to put some depth into the building. Chair Rafferty asked if there was benefit to using a darker band at the top to make it look like there was a cap. He asked if this would be too much. Mr. Hyden responded in his option, this would give the building more of a sport look. Mr. Root noted there was clear definition in the other buildings and he liked Mr. Tralle's suggestion. Mr. Sarver noted when they had an opportunity to create a focal point, they did their best to create the focal point and if they added additional features, it would pull away from the focal point. Chair Rafferty indicated he understood their concern, but he did not believe Mr. Tralle's suggestion would take away from the focal point. He stated they were not only looking at the focal points, but also at the strength the building had to offer and they wanted a strong statement into the entrance of the complex. He stated they were looking for avenues that would allow them to live with a good development. Mr. Sarver stated that on the street side of the building by adding the brick to the gabled end the building, the gables would not be balanced and by having the brick element centered, this was an asymmetrical form. Wanda Kraemer, representative of GCI Builders and the ownership group of the hotel, presented the background of the hotel proposal. She noted porches were a part of the Country Inn and Suites attempt to have two fronts to the building and yet work with the streetscape also. She stated they believed this looked good and was what they wanted and she was surprised that they did not want the building positioned this way. She stated they believed they were trying to work with the City and staff to have a development that was what the City wanted. She indicated they were open to ideas, but they have been trying to work within the City's guidelines. Mr. Laden asked if Country Inn & Suites had ever had a commercial development in their hotels. Ms. Kraemer responded they partner with TGI Fridays, but the building was attached and it was not a part of the hotel specifically. Mr. Laden asked if that was ruled out for any reason in this project. Ms. Kraemer responded it was not ruled out, but they knew the City had other restaurants coming in. However, they were open to this suggestion. Mr. Laden noted this was a pedestrian oriented development and if he was staying in the hotel, he would not like to go through the pool area. Ms. Kraemer stated she did not know how many people would go through the pool area of the hotel, and she believed a lot of people would use the side doors. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Laden asked if the hotel had elevators. Ms. Kraemer responded it did. Mr. Laden stated it would not sit well with him to go through the pool to get to the main part of town. Mr. Tralle stated he did not like the shutters that had been previously proposed and he did not care what Country Inn and Suites had to have as a corporate image. He stated the citizens had to look at what was built and they knew what they wanted. He stated they wanted more brick on the building and while he did not like the way the building sits, he was not going to ask them to turn the building around as long as they were willing to put some changes in, specifically along the gabled in and the porches also. He stated the porches needed some "tweaking ". He stated just because corporate American wanted something, did not mean they had to have it. He stated they were not going to skimp at this point. He stated if they heard what the Board was saying and made the proposed changes, this would go a long way in getting this approved. Ms. Kraemer stated they did hear the recommendations and they would take this back and evaluate the suggestions. Chair Rafferty stated he did not like the shingled roof and he wanted a standing seam roof to match the rest of the buildings in the area. Mr. Laden agreed the standing seam roof would fit nicely on the building and while the rest of the building had come up on quality from last month, the roof had not. • Mr. Tralle stated the standing seam roof would fit better in the area. • Chair Rafferty noted they had looked hard at what was going on in the City and he also wanted the trash enclosure to be attached to the building. He stated he would not agree with a trash enclosure sitting in the middle of the parking lot. Mr. Tralle stated he agreed and noted the Betty's Pies had their trash enclosure inside. Frank Janes, General Counsel Hartford Group, stated a couple of the ideas could be put into the development, specifically adding more brick. However, with respect to the roof and trash enclosure, one of the issues was the design standard as to what was allowed and not allowed. Chair Rafferty noted they have design standards that were functioning and that he could not see that they would drop the idea of a standing seam roof. He stated a standing seam roof and the trash enclosure did fall within the design standards. Mr. Janes asked for guidance from the Board as to whether this would get approved with recommendations or give them criteria as to what they wanted as part of the project. Chair Rafferty asked if they were able to work with the fourteen recommendations by staff. Mr. Janes responded he believed they could and believed these were commonplace recommendations. He noted one of the concerns was the setback and in order to move the building closer, the porch would have to go away. He asked what other conditions might be added to move forward. Chair Rafferty inquired about landscaping and asked if this was part of the recommendations. Mr. Bengtson stated the landscaping would need to be sprinkled and they could add that as a condition of approval. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Laden asked if they would be able to accomplish the 15 -foot setback. Mr. Janes stated it was their point that moving the building up to the street, the porch had to be removed; otherwise the porch would go out into the sidewalk. Mr. Laden stated only a certain percentage had to be moved closer to the street and not the entire building. Mr. Bengtson responded rather than the way it was currently configured, stepping back from the right -a -way; staff had discussed having it step toward the street frontage, which would come into compliance with the 50 percent build -to line. He noted the builder had indicated they would work with staff on this. He stated it was not their intention that the entire building be moved forward. Mr. Laden encouraged staff to work with the developer to bring portions of the building toward the street. Chair Rafferty stated he did not want to see everything on the same plane however. Mr. Tralle stated since this was a hotel and the patrons of the hotel did not want to be on street level. Mr. Laden noted the apartments were required to meet the 15 foot build to and he believed this development should also have to meet this too. Mr. Tralle stated when they made some of the standards, they did not take into account that this would be a hotel at some point and he agreed if this was going to take away from the front being staggered, that was not appropriate. Chair Rafferty asked if there was something staff could do to meet the criteria that was set forth by the standards, and if that meant the degree of the building's angle was to be changed, then to do it. Mr. Bengtson responded staff understood this and they also wanted to go more in that direction as well and they would ensure that was done. Mr. Janes indicated they were willing to work with staff to meet those criteria. Chair Rafferty stated as condition number 15, all landscaped and sodded areas must be sprinkled. Mr. Janes noted the plans detailed that all landscaped areas would be irrigated and they intended to comply with it, but if they wanted this as a recommendation that was fine, but it was in the plans. Mr. Pogalz asked if they were looking to send them away with a list of recommendation tonight, or to bring this back at the next meeting. Mr. Bengtson responded staff had worked well with the developer and he did not see any problem with conditions requiring that staff work with the developer prior to this being brought to the City Council. Mr. Pogalz stated in the past the Board had wanted to see things and he asked if they wanted staff to work directly with the developer on this without seeing this again, or did they want this brought back for another review. Mr. Nelson stated he wanted a condition for the roof and the trash, and that would be enough for him. • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 9 Chair Rafferty stated he was a firm believer that he wanted to see things before they were approved, but he had no problem with this going forward if the remainder of the Board believed staff could work directly with the developer without further review. He noted the plans still had to change before this went to Council. Mr. Bengtson responded staff was comfortable working with the developer with recommendations given by the Board. He noted everything they had asked the developer to look at they had addressed. Mr. Laden stated personally he preferred to look at this again, but he was willing to move forward on this. However, given what they were presented last month compared to what they have this month, he believed they were working well with staff. Mr. Pogalz asked if they were willing to move the trash enclosure. Mr. Janes stated they could not make a promise on this at tonight's meeting, but they would work with staff on this to see if that recommendation could be implemented. He noted the architect and owner needed to look at this to determine how it would change the design of the building and the cost as well. Mr. Pogalz stated that concerned him because if they determined that this was not going to work, the trash enclosure would be left in the parking lot. Mr. Nelson asked if this was a condition, didn't it have to be met. Mr. Pogalz stated the first time the board would find out it wouldn't work was when it was built in the parking lot. Mr. Janes noted the City Council would also have to take this into consideration and that was the process they had to work under. He noted they wanted to work well with the City because of future developments being proposed. Mr. Hyden stated he liked what he saw overall and it was a strong change over last time. He stated he did not understand why the pool was located where it was at, but he realized he was not the expert and if the hotel deemed this was a good location, he agreed with it. However, he did not like their response to the trash enclosure. He stated in order to get what they wanted, they were required to say no and he did not want to say no to this, but he wanted to know where it would go. Mr. Bengtson stated integrating the trash enclosure in the building was not specifically written in any ordinance or guidelines. Mr. Hyden stated overall he was not unhappy with the recommendations, but he was not happy with the trash enclosure staying where it was at. Mr. Tralle stated there was no reason they could not put a one story trash area on the east end. He noted with the trash enclosure located at that point, they would only be using two parking stalls. Chair Rafferty noted this was the closest, easiest route; unless they wanted to put it on the other wing. He noted either way they would have to go down a long corridor and he liked this recommendation. Mr. Tralle stated if they met the trash enclosure suggestion, he could approve this project with the recommendations. He noted everyone felt strongly about getting the trash enclosure out of the parking lot, and that they had to meet that recommendation or this would not get approved and they would have to come back to the Board. He thanked Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 10 them for taking off the shutters on the building and noted it had come a long way from the previous proposal. Mr. Root stated every effort should be made with respect to the trash enclosure, but he did not see anything being so critical that they needed to stop action and he believed the developer could work with staff and staff knew what the Board's feelings were with respect to everything. He stated he was comfortable letting staff handle the issues. Mr. Nelson stated he was comfortable that they could move ahead with conditions. He stated if the Board felt strongly with all of the conditions, they needed to add the words must be, or shall be. Chair Rafferty stated that was a great point and stated he would like to add that wording to the recommendations. Mr. Laden stated they could word the conditions as strongly as they wanted, but they were only recommendations and could they be legally enforced. Chair Rafferty stated condition 15 would read: All landscaped and sodded areas must be irrigated. Chair Rafferty stated condition 16 would read: The developer is encouraged to use a standing seam metal roof. Chair Rafferty stated condition 17 would read: Trash enclosure must be enclosed and attached to building. Chair Rafferty stated condition 18 would read: The gable end visible from Town Center Parkway, on the east wing of the building, shall be clad in brick. Mr. Janes stated they understood the conditions as noted by the Board. Ms. Kraemer asked if there was a concern with snow coming down the metal roof in the winter. Chair Rafferty indicated there might be some sidewalk issues, but he wanted to leave the condition as noted. Mr. Pogalz noted there were retail areas in the Cities that had metal roofs and snow was a big problem and he knew there were accessories they could put up that would assist with the snow coming off the roof, but it was a good point because they were talking about pushing this building as close to the sidewalk as possible and the slope of the roof might allow some of the snow to slide off of onto the sidewalks and he was glad this was brought up. Mr. Nelson stated he was willing to change the condition to work with staff to look at the safety issue. Mr. Pogalz stated they could use another material also and there many options other than metal or shingles, but he did want an upgraded roof. Mr. Janes noted the townhomes across this proposal would probably have shingled buildings and he did not want to set a precedent that all of the buildings in this area would • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 11 be metal. Chair Rafferty stated all of the buildings currently in the area were metal and metal roofs were everywhere including places where there were sidewalks. He stated he did not know what other alternatives there were. He stated he was hearing a metal roof should be strongly considered and working with staff rather than it being a must. Chair Rafferty stated if this needed to be a shingled roof to have it a 50 -year roof so there was some depth to it. Phil Carlson, stated he had 30 years experience in commercial roofing on both flat and pitched and there were metal roofs on buildings and there was a lot of materials that are called snow guards which stopped an avalanche from happening. He stated what they were worried about was a 12 inch snow fall and a snow guard would stop any avalanche that might occur. He stated the snow guards were about $5.00 a piece. Chair Rafferty stated the wording as it stands would change from must that the Board wanted "strong" consideration to get a metal, standing seam roof on the building and define the proper components that would give them safeguards in the winter time. Mr. Bengtson noted they also needed amended condition number 4 in their recommendations to read as follow: All parking lot lighting fixtures and poles shall be painted to complement the city's decorative street lighting; shall be mounted to round lighting poles measuring no more than twenty feet in height; shall be mounted to a concrete base no higher than twenty -four inches above the surrounding grade; and shall be located within landscape planter islands. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend Site Plan Review for Legacy Hotel subject to the conditions 1 through 14 as noted in staffs October 12, 2005 report, adding conditions 15 through 18, and amending condition 4 and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6 -0. Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 8:33 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:41 p.m. 2. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for outdoor dining, and a Site Plan Review, for Betty's Pies Restaurant Staff stated the Hartford Group has applied for a Planned Unit Development final plan for a single tenant restaurant within the Legacy at Wood's Edge project located on the southeast quadrant of Interstate 35W and Lake Drive. The final plan consists of the building plans for the restaurant building as well as the final plat for the lot (Village No. 4). Betty's Pies is a full service restaurant that meets the intent of the City's vision for a family oriented, neighborhood gathering place in the new mixed use development. Owners Marti Sieber and Carol Ehlenz run the Two Harbors, Minnesota, destination restaurant and this will be their first expansion into the metro area. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 12 The overall area of the building will be 7,935 square feet. The majority of the building itself is single story, with the exception of an office area which is located over the center section of the building. The Planning and Zoning Board continued this item at the September 14th regular meeting, and offered up comments to both staff and the developer about the proposal. Numerous revisions have been made to the plans and are addressed throughout this report. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A site performance agreement between the City and the developer must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Issues discussed in the S.E.H. engineering review memo must be addressed to the satisfaction of City staff. 3. Operation and maintenance agreements for the site, including provisions for stormwater facilities, must be submitted for review by City staff prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The `gull wing' fixture type shall be changed to a shoebox fixture. This fixture type will need to be approved by staff and used throughout the rest of the parking area on this block, if not the rest of the project site. 5. The final plat for the project (Village No. 4) must be approved prior to City Council approval of this building. 6. The developer must work with staff to identify the most appropriate location for bicycle parking within this block of the development. Mr. Pogalz asked if the applicant owned the building and the land, or just the building. Mr. Bengtson responded they would be dividing a lot that would encompass the building as well as some of the parking area. The rest of the parking lot and drives would be within an outlot that would be maintained in part by each lot owner. The area of outdoor seating would be owned by Betty's Pies. Mr. Pogalz noted in this climate, pavers could be a maintenance headache and while he liked pavers, he would recommend a colored concrete or stamped concrete in lieu of the pavers. Mr. Root stated this was a terrific looking plan. He inquired about the west entry access. He noted it appeared to be close to the street radius and he asked if it was possible to move it farther to the west to the end of the lot. Mr. Grochala responded the driveway access was already set and the curb and radius had been poured already. He noted there was probably more room there than was indicating on the plan. He stated it met the line of sight standards. Chair Rafferty inquired about the circular structure on the plans. Mr. Pogalz responded that was the decorative pavement band. Chair Rafferty inquired about the fencing on the trash enclosure area on the west side of the building. He asked the developer to come forward. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 13 Patrick Sarver, Hartford Group, responded because of the grade of the driveway it sloped down substantially and because of that they had a delivery access, so that was a graphic illustration of a safety rail. He noted there would be a slight ramp there. Chair Rafferty inquired if the roof structure was flat. Mr. Sarver responded it was, but there were portions that had roof structure. Mr. Sarver presented the color scheme of the building for the Board. Mr. Pogalz noted to pay a little bit more up front for colored concrete, rather than putting in pavers, would be worth the cost in the long run. Chair Rafferty asked the developer if they were okay with the conditions. Mr. Sarver responded they were in agreement with the conditions. Chair Rafferty opened the public hearing at 9:20 p.m. There were no comments made. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6 -0. Chair Rafferty inquired about condition number 4. Mr. Bengtson responded number 4 should be amended to read as follows: All parking lot lighting fixtures and poles shall be painted to complement the city's decorative street lighting; shall be mounted to round lighting poles measuring no more than twenty feet in height; shall be mounted to a concrete base no higher than twenty -four inches above the surrounding grade; and shall be located within landscape planter islands. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for outdoor dining and a Site Plan Review, for Betty's Pies Restaurant subject to the conditions as noted in staff's October 12, 2005 report and amending condition four as noted and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 6 -0. 3. CONTINUED: Site Plan Review for Lakewood Apartments Staff stated the Hartford Group has applied for a Planned Unit Development final plan for an apartment building with first floor multi -tenant retail within the Legacy at Wood's Edge project located on the southeast quadrant of Interstate 35W and Lake Drive. The final plan consists of the building plans for the apartment building as well as the final plat for the lot (Village No. 4). One of the goals of the mixed use downtown is to provide a variety of housing types and costs to meet life cycle housing needs that are not currently available in Lino Lakes. The development agreement between the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority (EDA) and Hartford Group, the developer of the workforce housing, includes housing covenants. Those housing covenants include an affordability clause that requires that 20 percent of the housing units built on the development property as a whole must meet Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 14 affordability requirement. Of that 20 percent, 67 percent must be rental units that meet the income and rent requirements for federal low income tax credits. This 60 -unit workforce rental housing meets the 67 percent requirement. In addition, affordable rental housing must meet the following requirements: 1. The developer must retain an experienced, professional property manager, approved in writing by the EDA. 2. The management agreement must require that the manager will use resident selection criteria that include evidence that tenants have income to support their rental rate, rental history showing timely payment of rent, and criminal background checks. 3. The management agreement must include a plan for long -term maintenance and repair of the property. The Planning and Zoning Board continued this item at the September 14th regular meeting, and offered up comments to both staff and the developer about the proposal. Numerous revisions have been made to the plans and are addressed throughout this project. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A site performance agreement between the City and the developer must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits 2. Issues discussed in the S.E.H. engineering review memo must be addressed to the satisfaction of City staff. 3. Operation and maintenance agreements for the site, including provisions for stormwater facilities, must be submitted for review by City staff prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The `gull wing' fixture shall be changed to a shoebox fixture. This fixture type will need to be approved by staff and used throughout the rest of the parking area on this block, if not the rest of the project site. 5. A revised lighting plan indicating the above required fixture changes, and the relocation of the luminaire near the north entrance drive further east to avoid a conflict with the garage opening must be submitted prior to the issuance of the building permits for the site. 6. The final plat for the project (Village No. 4) must be approved prior to City Council approval of this building. 7. The developer must work with staff to identify the most appropriate location for bicycle parking within this block of the development. 8. A full recycling plan must be submitted for staff review prior to this item being heard by the City Council. 9. A minimum 2 inch deep window trim must be provided in accordance with the development standards for the site. 10. The developer is required to add an additional architecture element to the central portion of the building to further strengthen the presence of the corner. 11. All units within that will complement the architecture of the building. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 15 12. The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate four shrubs per tree within the north planter island (adjacent to Interstate 35W right -of -way). Mr. Laden inquired about the enforcement of the residential build -to line. Mr. Bengtson explained the details of the plaza feature or pocket park that allowed the proposed building to meet the spirit and intent of the build -to line requirements. Mr. Pogalz asked about the treatment of the grade change for the plaza. Shawn Knoth, Hartford Group, responded the treatment would be a combination of grade and retaining wall. Chair Rafferty inquired about the type of windows being used. Frank Janes, Hartford Group, responded this was the first this had come up when they received the report. He stated because this was going to be a rental project, there would be a standard blind and the rental agreement would state that certain types of window treatments would and would not be allowed. Chair Rafferty asked if they had considered the blinds "sandwiched" between glass. Mr. Knoth responded that was a substantial upgrade. Chair Rafferty noted the Eagle product was similar to Pella and this would be a good solution to look at. He strongly suggested the developers look at that avenue. Mr. Pogalz asked if they were proposing to use Hardy Board around the perimeter of the building. Mr. Knoth responded that was correct. Mr. Pogalz asked if they had considered other type of siding. Mr. Knoth responded they had looked at other materials, but had chosen the Hardy Board as the siding. Mr. Knoth reviewed for the Board all of the materials being proposed to be used on the building. Mr. Tralle asked what the balconies would be constructed of. Mr. Knoth responded they were aluminum, but management would not allow grilling on the balconies. Chair Rafferty appreciated what they had done with the balconies with respect to enclosing them as much as possible. He noted this added a lot of character. Chair Rafferty asked what type of air conditioning units would they building have. Mr. Knoth responded there would be a central air conditioning unit and there would be no wall hung units. Chair Rafferty inquired about the elevations. Mr. Knoth explained the building elevations for the Board. Mr. Pogalz asked how Hartford would get this building built, i.e. a hard bid environment, through the builder's exchange, etc. Mr. Janes responded the building was being constructed through tax credits and they were taking it out to bid with a minimum of three contractors. He noted in order to qualify for the financing; the rent had to be affordable. Mr. Pogalz asked if the contractor list was a select list, or if it was open. Mr. Sarver replied they were not putting it out for a public bid and they were using contractors they Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 16 had used in the past or had been referred to them, but they had to be an approved MHFA contractor. He noted each project would be bid independently also. Mr. Pogalz asked what would happen if they received bids over the anticipated cost. Mr. Janes responded they would need to revise their plans and come back for approval. Mr. Knoth noted there would probably be minor revisions in size, but the interior materials would probably stay the same. He noted with MHFA financing and the financing constraints, this had been thoroughly reviewed. Mr. Pogalz asked how soon they would be looking to construct for any of these projects. Mr. Janes responded the hotel group wanted to break dirt immediately after closing after City Council approval and he anticipated they would be starting construction in the beginning of November, as well as Betty's Pies. With the financing hoops to be jumped through on this project, they hoped to start construction the beginning of the year. Chair Rafferty asked if they agreed with all of the conditions. Mr. Janes responded they agreed with all of the conditions. Chair Rafferty suggested landscaping and sodded areas must be irrigated as a condition. Chair Rafferty inquired about condition number 4. Mr. Bengtson responded number 4 should be amended to read as follows: All parking lot lighting fixtures and poles shall be painted to complement the city's decorative street lighting; shall be mounted to round lighting poles measuring no more than twenty feet in height; shall be mounted to a concrete base no higher than twenty -four inches above the surrounding grade; and shall be located within landscape planter islands. Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Site Plan for Lakewood Apartments subject to the conditions as noted in staff's report, amending number 4 as stated by staff, and adding condition 13 that all landscaping and sodded areas must be irrigated and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6 -0. 4. CONTINUED: Final Plat for Village No. 4 Staff stated Hartford Development, Inc. has submitted the final plat for Village No. 4, which encompasses Outlots A, and E of Village No. 3. The submitted plat depicts 7 lots and three outlots. Block 1 will consist of four lots. Lot 1 is intended for the apartment /retail building, and Lot 4 is intended for the hotel (both buildings are a part of the meeting). Lot 2 and 3 (and Outlot A) are intended for future buildings. Block 2 will consist of three lots. Lot 1 is intended for the shared parking area, Lot 2 is intended for Betty's pies, and Lot 3 is intended for a future user. Two outlots are included that will also be for future uses. The title commitment for the property and final plat has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 17 Staff was recommending approval of the Final Plat, Village No. 4, Hartford Development, Inc. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Final Plat, Village No. 4, Hartford Development, Inc. and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. AUAR Update Mr. Grochala stated that the final AUAR was scheduled to go to the City Council for formal adoption at the October 24th regular meeting. B. Meeting Rules Postponed to a future meeting. C. Requiring sidewalks in subdivisions Postponed to a future meeting. • VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:16 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6 -0. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 18 Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : November 9, 2005 TIME STARTED : 6:37 P.M. TIME ENDED : 7:20 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Laden, Nelson, Rafferty, and Root. MEMBERS ABSENT : Tralle, Hyden, and Pogalz. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff Smyser; Michael Grochala; and Paul Bengtson I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:37 p.m., November 9, 2005. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 12, 2005 — Postponed to next meeting. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open mike open at 6:37 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 3 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING for Preliminary Plat, SMW Federal Credit Union, JADT Second Addition, 700 Apollo Drive • Staff noted this application has been withdrawn by the applicant and will be removed from the agenda. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board November 9, 2005 Page 2 B. Planned Unit Development Final Plan for the Chain of Lakes YMCA, 7690 Village Drive Staff stated Rice Creek Chain of Lakes YMCA has applied for a Planned Unit Development final plan for a single tenant health club within the Legacy of Wood's Edge project located on the southeast quadrant of Interstate 35W and Lake Drive. The final plan consists only of the building plans for the YMCA, as the lot on which it is proposed to be built was already platted as part of the Village No. 3final plat. The City of Lino Lakes formed a partnership with the Greater Saint Paul YMCA in 1998 to assist in the construction of a YMCA in Lino Lakes. In 2005 a contract was approved whereby the city agreed to provide 6.7 acres of land, $1.5 million for construction, plus utilities to the site in exchange for the YMCA of approximately 50,000 square feet that includes a teen center, gym, indoor pools, cardiovascular /strength training area, aerobic studio, family program space and a child care area. In return, the YMCA agreed in part, to adhere to the principles of the Town Center Design Guidelines. The plans submitted indicate a first phase of development that will include 39,252 square feet of area spread over two floors. Future phases are proposed to include a gymnasium expansion of approximately 4,200 square feet and a swimming pool (natatorium) expansion of approximately 5,400 square feet. The office and meeting rooms located on the parking lot side of the building are single story, the gymnasium and swimming pool areas are open to the second floor, while the rest of the structure has the locker room facilities on the first floor and the cardiovascular and studio areas above. Staff was recommending this application be tabled until the following issues can be completely addressed through the submittal of revised plans: 1. The concrete panels must be corduroyed and be colored darker than the rest of the structure to minimize the visual impact. 2. A brick veneer base must be added to the concrete panels at a higher roughly equivalent to a single story. 3. An architectural element must be added to the concrete panels to define the `top' of the structure. 4. The developer is encouraged to provide a contrasting yet complimentary metal paneling element to the base of the structure that is proposed to be sheathed in metal paneling. 5. A cornice must be added to the brick veneer and metal panel sheathed portions of the structure. 6. The windows staggered throughout the concrete panel portion of the building must be enlarged and aligned or stacked in a more logical and pleasing pattern. 7. A minimum 2 -inch deep window trim or two -inch recess must be provided in accordance with the development standards for the site. 8. The overhang element proposed for the building entry needs to be strengthened to properly accentuate the main public entrances for the facility. • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 9, 2005 Page 3 9. All lighting fixtures must be submitted and prove to be in conformance with the requirements of the LLTCDDG. 10. The shrubbery provided on the north side of the north parking lot must be revised to provide a salt - tolerant hedgerow that will provide a year round screen measuring a minimum of 2 feet high at time of planting and a minimum of 4 feet high at maturity. 11. The landscape materials must be substituted as outlined in the Environmental Board's Comments. 12. The landscape planters over the location of the infiltration tanks should be planted in a rain - garden type landscaping. This planting plan will be developed by staff prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. 13. A tree preservation plan must be submitted by the applicant. 14. The fixtures proposed for the site must be submitted for review. The parking lot fixtures should be consistent with the lighting already approved in other portions of the development. Once these recommendations have been addressed the following standard conditions will then be included as part of staffs recommendation (additional conditions may arise due to revisions): 1. A site performance agreement between the city and the developer must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Issues discussed in the S.E.H. engineering review memo must be addressed to the satisfaction of city staff. 3. Operation and maintenance agreements for the site, including provision for stormwater facilities, must be submitted for review by city staff prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. All parking lot lighting fixtures and poles shall be painted to complement the city's decorative street lighting; shall be mounted to round lighting poles measuring no more than twenty feet in height; shall be mounted to a concrete base no higher than twenty -four inches above the surrounding grade; and shall be located within landscape planter islands. 5. The applicant shall provide a bicycle parking area sufficient in size to accommodate a minimum of five bicycles. The type of fixture provided and the location of this parking area must be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. 6. All landscaped and sodded areas must be irrigated. Mr. Laden stated he had reviewed the packet and staff did a good job at pointing out all of the things that he had found and he appreciated the thoroughness. He indicated he agreed with all of the suggestions. He asked if the sidewalks through the parking lot should be a different color as one of the conditions because it was mentioned in staff s report. Mr. Bengston responded this could be a suggestion, but they did not list it as a requirement because of the size of the parking lot. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Tim Staley, Vice President Property Management, YMCA, stated it has been a long road and they wanted to continue to figure out what will work with the City campus. He noted they had a tight budget and they were working hard to put most of their resources inside Planning & Zoning Board November 9, 2005 Page 4 the building. He indicated their budget was 6.2 million. He indicated they would be willing to work with staff to look at the design of the building. He noted they were still fundraising. Mr. Laden asked if there would be any problem in accomplishing what staff was recommending. Mr. Staley responded until they had the opportunity to price out what the requirements would be, they would need to look at possibly reducing the square footage. Mr. Nelson stated he appreciated the financial constraints they were under, but noted this was a signature building in a signature development and he agreed with the staff's recommendation and he hoped they could have a balance. Mr. Root stated he agreed with staff's recommendations also. Chair Rafferty stated he was extremely excited about this project. He indicated this was a tremendous opportunity for both the City of Lino Lakes and the YMCA. He stated he also agreed with staff's recommendations and he believed they had a very talented architectural firm who could work with staff to get what the City wanted and yet being sensitive to their budget. Mr. Staley stated they wanted to live up to the City's expectations and the volunteers had worked hard raising money, but even with the hard work, they came up short in their fundraising and that was why they had to make choices, which was to make as much space possible for the kids and residents inside the building. He indicated he would check with his architects to see what they could do and bring this back to them for approval. Chair Rafferty asked if all YMCA's are paid for before they are built. Mr. Staley stated the process today was different than what it used to be. He stated the YMCA has leveraged 2.5 million dollars. He indicated there was debt financing going on with this facility as with others. He noted however, if they have to pay off debt, it restricted them from doing what they wanted to do in the community. Chair Rafferty strongly suggested they continue to work with staff. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend tabling Final Plan, YMCA, to the December Planning and Zoning Board Meeting and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 3- 0. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO amend the Planned Unit Development for Legacy at Woods Edge to include signage criteria Staff stated city staff is working with the developer to come up with acceptable signage criteria for the Legacy at Wood's Edge project. Staff intended on presenting a draft at this meting, however it has proven more difficult and time consuming then originally anticipated. At this time a draft is not ready for review by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff is recommending the Public Hearing be continued to the December 14, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 9, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend continue the public hearing to the December 14, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board meeting and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 3 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. AUAR Update Staff updated the Board on the AUAR. B. Architectural Review Committee for Legacy at Woods Edge Staff stated they would like to establish an Architectural Review Committee for projects within the Legacy at Woods Edge development. He indicated staff would like a couple members of the Planning and Zoning Board on this Committee. Chair Rafferty expressed concern that they needed to make sure the applicant realized that just because there were a couple of members of the Planning and Zoning Board on this Committee, this did not mean the application would get approved by the entire Board. Mr. Smyser concurred. Chair Rafferty indicated he would be interested in being on this Committee. Mr. Laden responded he would be interested also. Mr. Root stated he would also like to participate. Mr. Nelson indicated it would be difficult for him to attend because of his schedule. Chair Rafferty requested staff send an email to the members who were not in attendance at tonight's meeting to see if any of them wanted to be on this Committee also. C. Meeting Rules Mr. Root stated he would like to see what the proposal is. Chair Rafferty stated considering this was Mr. Hyden's request, he recommended continuing this to the next meeting. Mr. Laden requested the discussion of sidewalks also be placed back on the agenda. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 3 -0. Respectfully submitted, Planning & Zoning Board November 9, 2005 Page 6 Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : December 14, 2005 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:33 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Laden, Nelson, Pogalz, Rafferty (arrived at 6:46 p.m.), and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT : Root. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff Smyser; James Studenski; and Paul Bengtson I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Vice Chair Tralle called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., December 14, 2005. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Pogalz requested a discussion on Rehbein Transit CUP Amendment Application. The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 9, 2005 Postponed due to lack of quorum. IV. OPEN MIKE Vice Chair Tralle declared open mike on at 6:33 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:34 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 4 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS • A. CONTINUED: Planned Unit Development Final Plan for the Chain of Lakes YMCA, 7690 Village Drive Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 2 Staff stated the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes YMCA has applied for a Planned Unit Development final plan for a single tenant health club within the Legacy at Wood's Edge project located on the southeast quadrant of Interstate 35W and Lake Drive. The final plan consists only of the building plans for the YMCA, as the lot on which it is proposed to be built was already platted as part of the Village No. 3 final plat. The City of Lino Lakes formed a partnership with the Greater Saint Paul YMCA in 1998 to assist in the construction of the YMCA in Lino Lakes. In 2005 a contract was approved whereby the City agreed to provide 6.7 acres of land, $1.5 million for construction, plus utilities to the site in exchange for a YMCA of approximately 50,000 square feet that includes a teen center, gym, indoor pools, cardiovascular /strength training area, aerobic studio, family program space and a child care center. In return, the YMCA agreed in part to adhere to the principles of the Town Center Design Guidelines. This item was continued at the November 9th regular meeting and since this time the applicant has submitted some revised drawings for staff review. These drawings did not encompass a complete submittal and therefore a complete review could not be completed by the staff. The staff also held the inaugural meeting of the Legacy Architectural Review Committee. Boardmembers Laden, Root, and Tralle attended and through a discussion with City staff, compiled a list of comments for the applicant. Staff is recommending this item be continued to the January 22, 2006 meeting so that the applicant has time to address all of the comments they have received. The applicant was mailed a notice of extension for the review period, which would now expire on February 8, 2006. This means that barring the applicant granting the City an extension the Board would have to make a recommendation at the January 11th meeting and the City Council would have to act on the item at the January 23rd meeting. Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to continue the YMCA Legacy at Woods Edge to the January 11, 2006 Planning and Zoning meeting and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 4 -0. B. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING, to Amend the Planned Unit Development for Legacy at Woods Edge to include signage criteria Staff stated the original signage criteria for the Legacy at Wood's Edge were removed prior to approval of the master plan. This was done so that the developer and City could create signage criteria that would address the advertising needs of the master development and future tenants; and be enforceable by City staff. Staff's approach of involving the developer throughout the crafting of these criteria has lengthened the process, but should remain in a more comprehensive product. As such, staff is recommending that the Public Hearing to continued to the January 12, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the January 12, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board meeting and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 4- 0. • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 3 C. PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an automobile and truck repair facility, Pomp's Tire, to be located at 7385 Apollo Court Staff stated applicant had requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an Auto Repair Facility and Site and Building Plan Review for a 30,870 square foot tire warehouse /installation facility at 7385 Apollo Court. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A performance agreement must be executed between the developer and the City prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. All lighting fixtures must be shoebox, downcast fixtures in accordance with the requirements of Subdivision 4, Section F of the zoning ordinance. 4. The trash enclosure must be relocated, properly screened, and constructed of complementary materials as required by Section 8, Subdivision 1. 5. A revised landscape plan must be submitted by the applicant depicting conformance with the buffer requirements of Section 8, Subdivision 1. This revised landscape plan must also address all of the comments of the environmental board and must be submitted prior to the City Council review of the project. 6. A revised site plan depicting the full right -of -way width for Apollo Drive must be submitted by the applicant. This must be submitted prior to the City Council review of the project. 7. The entire length of Apollo Court must be completed to full City standards prior to the project receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. 8. A revised building elevation depicting a cornice element of appropriate scale and constructed of durable materials must be submitted by the applicant prior to the City Council review of the project. 9. All landscaped and planted areas, including any bean plantings, must be irrigated. Mr. Rafferty arrived at 6:46 p.m. Chair Rafferty expressed concern with the elevation of the building. He noted the neighboring properties had more in their elevations and he was looking for more elevation on this building as well. He stated he wanted something put in that would fit into the area. He indicated this was a nice building, but he believed it could go farther than what they had so far. Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 4 Vice Chair Tralle opened the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. Vice Chair Tralle invited applicant to make comment. Mike Cashman, 1772 Midway Road, Wisconsin, representing Keller, stated originally they followed the specs from the City of Lino Lakes and then in August the City changed its specs and they changed their plan. He noted they met all of the criteria that the City was looking for. He indicated they were on a cul -de -sac and not on a main street as their neighbors were. He noted they would not see a lot of the building from the main road. Mr. Rafferty stated he agreed with the cul -de -sac observation. He asked if he believed they were putting in something comparable as the existing neighbors. He asked if Summit had seen their plans. Mr. Cashman responded Summit had seen their plans. He noted the back of Summit's building was facing the front of theirs. Mr. Hyden inquired about the location of the trash enclosure. Mr. Bengston stated the location could be worked out as a later time, but they wanted it closer to the building and not open to the cul -de -sac. Mr. Cashman responded he did not have any problem with that. Mr. Hyden asked where the tires would be stored. Mr. Cashman responded all tires would be stored inside the building. Mr. Pogalz asked if tractor trailers would be parked at any one time outside of the building. Mr. Cashman responded that would vary depending on the day, but in most instances, the vehicles would be serviced the same day and would be gone by night fall. He noted there might be a few instances once in awhile where a vehicle would be on the lot overnight to be serviced the next day. Mr. Tralle asked if all old tire storage would also be inside. Mr. Cashman responded they would be. Mr. Rafferty asked if they would move their trash enclosure to the north side of the building. Mr. Cashman responded they could move it there. Mr. Rafferty asked what would happen to the trash enclosure if they put on their addition. Mr. Cashman responded they would either have to consider moving it, or putting it inside. Mr. Laden asked if they would want to strengthen their entrance for easier public access. He indicated the front of this building lacked this. He requested the applicant think about this. Mr. Nelson agreed and noted an entrance more inviting would go a long way. Mr. Hyden asked if they agreed to all of the conditions. Mr. Cashman responded they were agreeable with the conditions. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 5 Vice Chair Tralle invited anyone for or against this proposal to make comment. John Freimeth, 7381 John Ave, stated he had a concern with respect to the berm and screening. He requested those be constructed all of the way to Apollo before the building was constructed and the berm and screening be located 20 feet off of the street. Vice Chair Tralle asked if Summit had completed their berm. Mr. Bengston responded Summit was deficient on the height of their berm and was also deficient on their landscaping. He indicated staff would contact Summit regarding this. Mr. Freimeth asked if there would be large doors facing Jon Avenue. Mr. Cashman responded doors would be located on the east and west side of the building and that was why they were putting in the berming. Mr. Freimeth stated he wanted the screening that went in there to be adequate and noted it was very noisy in the area and he has had to put up with the noise for five years. Mr. Cashman noted the berm would be built when they were grading, but it would not be totally built until they were done with their construction. He indicated they wanted to build the berm with the materials on site. Mr. Freimeth asked if the doors could be kept closed during the day to reduce some of the noise and only be open when a vehicle was entering or exiting. Vice Chair Tralle asked if they would have the berm completed before they received their Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Cashman replied they would have no problem with that. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Nelson requested adding a condition 10 stating that the berm must be completed before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Mr. Cashman stated they would like some flexibility with completing the landscaping in the event of inclement weather, which would preclude the landscaping being completed at the same time as the berm. Mr. Rafferty stated he wanted the trash enclosure to be attached on the north side of the building and requested staff work with the applicant regarding this. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend a Conditional User Permit to allow an automobile and truck repair facility, Pomp's Tire, to be located at 7385 Apollo Court subject to the conditions as noted in staff's December 14, 2005 report and adding condition 10 that the berm must be completed before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued and revising condition 4 to have the trash enclosure on the north side of the building and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Vice Chair Tralle turned the meeting over to Chair Rafferty. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 49/J Draft Report Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 6 Staff stated they had been working the past year on a study of the land and infrastructure around the intersection of Hodgson Road (CSAH 49) and County Road J (Ash Street). The goal is a planning document that will be adopted by the City Council as the guide for development of the area. Staff indicated they held a neighborhood meeting in March and discussed an initial concept plan. Staff received good information and comments from the land owners and residents in the area. This input was very important and helped guide revisions to the concept plan, which is not to be considered the final version. Staff is not making recommendations for a final plan at this time. That will come after more discussions with developers, land owners, the P & Z, and City Council. Ultimately, the City will need to make decisions on alignments of and the means of providing water, sanitary sewer, and the internal roads needed for proper access and circulation. Municipal water and sanitary sewer are Lino Lakes' issues exclusively. However, the roadway system is not. While it is up to the City to provide internal roads, Hodgson and CR J are County roads. Because CR J is the boarder of Anoka and Ramsey Counties, it is managed jointly by the two Counties. Staff is working with the Counties and the City of Shoreview for solutions to the transportation infrastructure issues. Staff has prepared a traffic study for the area but have not yet discussed it with the other players. The draft 49/J report is written in a straightforward format intended to provide the important information efficiently. Additional information will be added and revisions made as needed. This is a work in progress. Additional information is coming in daily. Throughout the process new information often has required serious rethinking of what seemed earlier to be the best course of action on a particular issue. Staff noted Lino Lakes has a growth management policy that limits the number of new housing units to be platted each year. We have nine units left unclaimed for year 2006 and 82 for 2007. Staff indicated if the City needs infrastructure and development would provide it, we would need the development to occur. One question the City has not faced is how to count assisted living units, which generates little traffic, wastewater, and other infrastructure impacts. Several landowners in the area want to develop their properties. Staff have had several discussions with both of these developers throughout the planning process for the 49/J study project. Because the infrastructure issues are not yet resolved, these developers have not submitted development applications. Staff has met with other landowners as well to discuss the potential for planning future development on their properties. Two developments in particular are ripe. The Jensen family owns the 17 acres north of the northwest corner of Hodgson and CR J. They are working with a developer to create a senior complex that would include several types of senior housing such as independent living townhomes and cottages as well as a larger building with assisted living units. • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 7 The property owners of the northwest corner of Ware Rd. and CR J are interested in creating a new townhome neighborhood. He requested comments from the Planning and Zoning Board members. Mr. Nelson stated if the intersection was widened, what would happen with the existing businesses. Mr. Smyser responded additional right -of -way would be needed, but exactly how much or where, they did not have any of that information yet. Mr. Laden inquired about the liquor store and the insurance company. Wendy Fritz, representing the developer and the Jensen family, responded they have spoken with everyone who was affected by this who have both indicated they would be interested in going into the new retail buildings. The developers should have a purchase agreement with the insurance company next week. Mr. Laden stated he did not want a retail development go in that did not face Hodgson and he believed the City made a mistake with the Spirit Hills development by not facing it on Birch. Mr. Laden stated it would be nice to have the retail development buildings up close to the street. Mr. Nelson asked if the entire development would be for seniors. Wendy Fritz replied that was correct. Mr. Nelson stated this was an exciting proposal and he liked the proposal. Mr. Tralle stated he liked this a lot and he believed they would offer a service that was needed in the area. Mr. Hyden thought this was great and he was excited to see it completed. Mr. Pogalz stated a lot of things needed to get "ironed out ". He stated he believed they could work with this, but they needed to see the next step. Mr. Laden stated he was excited to see this both for the retail aspect and the residential aspect. He liked the concept plan and wanted to see something going in on that corner. Chair Rafferty stated the idea of moving forward with something was good and it was time to do that. The road improvements would need to worked on with the City. He stated he did not want to see a "big box" on the corner. Mr. Laden thanked City Staff for being proactive on this corner and indicated it was good to see this type of proactivity. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, representing Brunn Construction, who owns the northwest corner of Ware Road and County Road J, stated Mr. Brunn bought the property in summer 2004 and they approached the City in fall 2004. He noted this property was Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 8 outside of the MUSA. Their intention was to put up some townhomes on the property. He noted the log home would stay on the property and they wanted the development to fit into the theme of the log home. He indicated they understood the need to work together and plan for the orderly expansion of the utilities, as well as the access point onto County Road J. He noted they were getting close to coming in with an application. He noted they would continue to work with staff. Mr. Laden noted there was a lot of green space the City has guided for greenway. He asked if this would be handled as a conservation development. Mr. Black responded it would not, but it lended itself toward natural open space. Mr. Laden stated the trail plan looked like there was a trail going through this property. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Black replied the trail went north of the property. Wayne Brunn, Brunn Construction, stated when they purchased the property it was the intention that his brother would live in the log home that was currently on the property. Mr. Tralle expressed concern that they were adding additional townhomes in the area. He asked when would they reach their saturation point. Mr. Black responded the area was guided for medium density residential, so they were following the comprehensive plan. He noted it was also a matter of affordability and townhouse living offered an affordable alternative for a number of people. Mr. Brunn stated he believed what was driving the townhome market nationwide was the lifestyle changes and people wanting the carefree living, as well as the convenience of living in a townhome. He stated they did not envision these townhomes as being a starter home. Mr. Tralle stated he was concerned about the ability of his children being able to live in the community because it was not affordable. Chair Rafferty noted this was a conceptual study only and until specifics are detailed and this was brought forward to them, they needed to realize this was only an idea. He indicated they needed to have additional direction from staff. Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 9:22 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:28 p.m. B. Rehbein Transit Addition Mr. Pogalz stated the intent of the structure was to keep snow and ice off of equipment, but he noticed that had not been completed and he asked for an update. Mr. Bengston stated this has not gone to the City Council yet because they were waiting for a lighting plan. He noted he would obtain a status from Rehbein and give an update at the next meeting. C. Requiring sidewalk in subdivisions Postponed to a future meeting. • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 9 D. Meeting Rules Postponed to a future meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:33 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • AGENDA ITEM V.A. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: January 11, 2006 TOPIC: Final Plan YMCA Legacy at Woods Edge BACKGROUND The Rice Creek Chain of Lakes YMCA has applied for a Planned Unit Development final plan for a single tenant health club within the Legacy at Wood's Edge project located on the southeast quadrant of Interstate 35W and Lake Drive. The final plan consists only of the building plans for the YMCA, as the lot on which it is proposed to be built was already platted as part of the Village No. 3 final plat. The City of Lino Lakes formed a partnership with the Greater Saint Paul YMCA in 1998 to assist in the construction of a YMCA in Lino Lakes. In 2005 a contract was approved whereby the city agreed to provide 6.7 .acres of land, $1.5 million for construction, plus utilities to the site in exchange for a YMCA of approximately 50,000 square feet that includes a teen center, gym, indoor pools, cardiovascular /strength training area, aerobic studio, family program space and a child care area. In return, the YMCA agreed in part, to adhere to the principles of the Town Center Design Guidelines. The plans submitted indicate a first phase of development that will include 37,304 square feet of area spread over two floors. Future phases are proposed to include a gymnasium expansion of approximately 4,200 square feet; a swimming pool (natatorium) expansion of approximately 5,400 square feet; and an approximately 1,200 square foot multi - purpose room. The office and meeting rooms located on the parking lot side of the building are single story, the gymnasium and swimming pool areas are open to the second floor, while the rest of the structure has the locker room facilities on the first floor and the cardiovascular and studio areas above. Revisions have been made to the floor plans and elevations to better comply with the comments made by staff and the Planning and Zoning Board. The building footprint, grading, landscaping and utilities have not changed as a result of the proposed revisions, therefore the previous plans are still included as part of this packet. ANALYSIS Governing Plans This site is located within the Legacy at Woods Edge project and is therefore subject to the Lino Lakes Town Center Design & Development Guide that was adopted by Ordinance 04 -04 as part of the original Planned Unit oDevelopment for the site. { YMCA, page 2 The proposed layout is significantly conforming to the original Legacy at Wood's Edge layout that is included n the Development Guide. Though atypical to an `urban' development, the development's layout has always acknowledged that this building was intended to take advantage of the surrounding natural environment as well as have minimal impact on the adjacent residential property by being setback from the street. These designs have always indicated a connecting walkway through the parking lot of this site to link the YMCA facility with the streetscape; this is further discussed in the landscaping section of the staff report. The proposed YMCA building is located in a Civic Land Use Area and will be located on Lot 18 in Block C (according to the land use plan of the Lino Lakes Town Center Design & Development Guide). Acceptable Building Type is community facilities, such as libraries, City Hall, and community recreation such as the YMCA. The Regulating plan of the development guide includes the required street framework, which is currently under construction as part of the city's improvements in the area. This will include the pedestrian streetscape as part of a future phase of construction. The plan also indicates that there is no build -to line requirement for this portion of that block, nor is there any `Required Building Entries', nor any `Gateways' indicated for this site. Allowable Uses The proposed use for this site is a YMCA facility. The Lino Lakes Town Center Development & Design Guide classifies this use as `Indoor Recreation Facilities' and considers it a permissible use within the Civic District. The applicable section is included below: � ECTION 3.1 ALLOWABLE USES Table 1. Allowable Land Uses in Mixed -Use Commercial, Commercial /Residential and Civic Districts Allowable Land Use Comm ercial Mixed Use Civic Public and Quasi - Public Uses Indoor recreation facilities P TABLE 1 NOTES: P = permitted use. Building Massing & Placement The proposed building is not required to meet any build -to lines, therefore the placement of the building is being dictated more by the desire to take advantage of the natural environment surrounding the south and east sides of the site. The building is set back approximately 148 feet from the Village Drive right -of -way, 60 feet from the south property line, and 65 feet from the east property line. Again, because this building is not required to meet any build -to lines, the height of the structure is only dictated by the overall height limitation of 45 feet. The height of the building never exceeds 31.5 feet; therefore it is in conformance with the height standard. Architectural Standards The Lino Lakes Town Center Design and Development Guidelines (LLTCDDG) typically require a base, lddle, and top approach to the architecture within the Legacy at Woods Edge project. During the master planning process for the Legacy at Woods Edge project the feasibility of the YMCA meeting the architectural YMCA, page 3 design standards was a major issue. Considering the nature of the structure (large gymnasium / pool areas) as *ell as the funding mechanisms used for construction, staff understood that meeting the specifications of the architectural design standards would be difficult. This led to the site being moved from a more prominent location directly on the streetscape, to the currently proposed location. This allowed not only interaction with the county park land, but also for the large wall expanses to be built away from the public eye. This approach was continued as staff worked with the applicant in addressing the comments made by the Planning and Zoning Board. The single story elements of the building received the utmost attention, as did the north elevation since it was highly visible from Village Drive. Revisions to the elevations have brought an improvement to the architectural appearance of the building. The base of the single story structure is differentiated clearly by color and material finishes. The top is also defined with a crowning element in the form of either a metal cornice or cast stone coping. While the Architectural Review Committee had specifically stated that their preference was for the elimination of the metal siding, the architect has explained that the building requires a tertiary architectural finish that will provide a greater contrast to the concrete panels. Using EIFS or stucco adjacent to the panels would be detrimental to the architect's attempts to clearly differentiate between the two -story and single -story portions of the structure. The architect has proposed an alternative metal product that staff feels provides a higher degree of surface texture and a finish will eventually weather to a more organic appearance than that of a painted metal product. (A photograph of the weathered appearance of the product is included in the attachments.) The applicant has also taken steps to improve the visual appeal of the concrete tilt -up panels proposed for the two -story elements of the building. The swimming pool portions of the panels are adorned with columns &windows, and the north elevation embraces an adaptation on that columnar element with decorative metal panels capped by a large window (a theme repeated else where on the elevations). Random vertical expansion joints help deconstruct the rigid appearance of the panels. The applicant has also supplied to color options as was requested, and will be brining samples to assist in the determination of a preferred color. Due to the setback from the right -of -way for the building, the primary entry is being placed on the parking lot side of the building. While this is atypical for an urban development like Legacy at Woods Edge, the location of the building was always intended to be setback further from the street to take advantage of the natural amenities of the site. The main entrance is connected to both Town Center Drive and Village Drive via pedestrian walkways through the parking areas. Previous comments regarding the strength of the entry canopy have been addressed by the architect with the provision of a vertically enlarged entry structure, an entry canopy with greater mass, and a screen wall to provide shelter from the elements. Larger windows were added throughout the elevations to provide both more daylighting opportunities and also to break up the monotony of the wall planes. The design standards require a reveal of at least 2 inches from the exterior trim to create shadow for visual interest rather than windows and trim flush with the building. A condition is included with staff s recommendations to require a minimum two inch thick exterior trim be applied to all windows of this building or a two inch recess be provided. The proposed structure has integrated a number of climatic response devices that meet the design guidelines. Daylighting of the interior space is being provided by the additional windows provided and a substantial shelter for patrons is offered by the new entry canopy and screen wall. 41/Staff has included a recommended condition requiring the screening of all ground level and roof mounted equipment; and a condition regarding the trash enclosure. YMCA, page 4 "parking Requirements Single Use Peak Hour Demand Net Floor Area (90% of G.F.A.) Parking Required Parking Provided Surplus 4 spaces per 1,000 s.f. 43,967 s.f. 176 176 0 e above calculation is based on the full build out (approximate total of 48,852 square feet gross floor area). Per Chapter 3.5 of the guidelines, the City is maintaining a shared parking analysis for the entire development. This analysis identifies peak parking demands at key times throughout the day. In the case of a health club, the peak period is identified as 5 PM on both weekdays. YMCA Single Use Peak Hour Demand Parking Peak (5 PM Weekdays) Parking Provided Surplus 4 spaces per 1,000 s.f. 176 176 0 The proposed use is clearly being provided enough parking within the parking lot layout that the applicant has proposed with this application. Entire Block Single Use Peak Hour Demand Parking Peak (5 PM Weekdays) Parking Provided (street & off - street) Surplus Varies 270 281 11 The shared parking spreadsheet is based on the Urban Land Institute's Shared Parking Standards and as is required by the Development and Design Guidelines. As always, staff will continue to review each project to maintain the parking standards within this block as well as the entire development. With a building of this size, the standards only require 5 bicycle parking spaces. Staff has included a condition requiring that the YMCA to provide a bicycle parking areas sufficient in size to accommodate at least 5 bicycles. Considering the recreational use of the building though, staff is encouraging the YMCA to provide capacity for closer to fifteen bicycles. Landscaping Requirements As previously mentioned in the Parking section of the report, the site plan indicates a total of 176 parking spaces for this phase of the development. This means that the 23 trees provided throughout the lot exceeds the requirement of 1 tree for every 10 parking spaces. The parking lot on the north side of the building abuts Village Drive and therefore must provide additional screening. The applicant is proposing to meet the requirements of the design standards with a hedgerow of trees spaces 30 feet on center, with additional shrubbery. Staff is concerned that the shrubs chosen will not effectively screen the cars from view or the intrusion of headlight beams across the street into the residential portion of the site. Therefore staff is recommending that the shrub type be revised to a salt - tolerant shrub that will provide a year round screen measuring a minimum of 2 feet high at time of planting and a minimum of 4 feet high at maturity. &Though the parking lot does not exceed the 300 space threshold to require a `connecting walkway' through the parking lot, a `connecting walkway' has always been indicated on the development plan for this site. The YMCA, page 5 proposed connection meets the requirement for width, but it does not meet the requirements that the paving be iecorative or that there be shade trees planted 25 feet on center. Additionally, the lighting fixtures are not properly identified so they must be reviewed for conformance. The YMCA site is proposing to use some innovative stormwater infiltration tanks as part of the on -site drainage plan. The location of these infiltration tanks is the south end of the parking lot; therefore the landscaping islands that are over these tanks cannot have trees in them as they would cause potential damage to the tanks. As such the Environmental Board has requested that these islands be integrated into the infiltration plan by being depressed with a rain garden -type landscape. The City's engineering consultant (S.E.H.) is evaluating this proposal to determine if it is feasible. Since this is a very `urban' development the implementation of a rain garden -type landscape will need to be heavily scrutinized. Staff is currently researching and developing a seed mix /planting pattern that will excel in both form and function. The south side of the site adjoins the County Park area and since some tree removal was necessary to complete grading and the construction of the retaining wall to allow eventual construction on this portion of the site; additional landscaping in the form of mixed Oak, Hackberry, Green Ash, Cherry and Red Maple trees should be added. As part of the land exchange to the YMCA the city is requiring the dedication of a conservation easement. The location of this easement has not been finalized. A tree preservation plan must be submitted by the YMCA to assist in the definition of this easement and to verify that significant specimens are properly protected throughout construction. •The following landscape material changes are being requested by the Environmental Board: • • Substitute Northern Pin Oak for Autumn Blaze Maples in some but not all locations. • Substitute White and /or Bur Oak for the Fall Gold Ash. • Substitute Red and White Pine for the Scotch and Austrian Pines. • Substitute Oaks for the Willows. The planting and maintenance of the restoration areas south of the trail shall be coordinated with the city's improvements on the site. As always, all landscaped and sodded areas must be irrigated. Lighting The photometric lighting plan submitted with the application is in conformance with the minimum standards of Chapter 3.7 of the guidelines. A condition has been added that specifies the use of parking lot lighting in conformance with what has been required on all of the other sites within the development. Additionally, the lighting fixtures themselves must be submitted for review prior to this item being approved. The building itself will include some architectural and building entry lights mounted directly to the building. These fixtures will be used to highlight the building massing and will enhance the pedestrian environment. Additionally, as was discussed in the landscape section of the report, lighting fixtures are indicated within the `connecting walkway' area that is planned to connect the YMCA to the future building along the Town Center Drive street frontage; however, the design of these fixtures needs to be confirmed. YMCA, page 6 •ngineering The city's consulting engineer on the Legacy project is Short Elliot Hendrickson (S.E.H.), and a memorandum including all of their comments is attached to the report. Any outstanding issues will be addressed through the site performance agreement and building permit process prior to construction. Final Plat Typical Planned Unit Development - Final Plan applications include a final plat for the site; however, since this property is currently owned by the City of Lino Lakes and not the master developer or the final occupant, the lot was platted as part of the Village No. 3 plat that was previously approved by the City Council. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD The Environmental Board reviewed this application at the October 26th regular meeting. Their comments are attached and are addressed in the landscaping portion of this report. OPTIONS 1. Recommend approval of the Final Plan for the YMCA. 2. Recommend denial of the Final Plan for the YMCA. •RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval based on the following conditions: 1. A minimum 2 inch deep window trim or two inch recess must be provided in accordance with the development standards for the site. 2. All lighting fixtures must be submitted and prove to be in conformance with the requirements of the LLTCDDG. 3. The shrubbery provided on the north side of the north parking lot must be revised to provide a salt - tolerant hedgerow that will provide a year round screen measuring a minimum of 2 feet high at time of planting and a minimum of 4 feet high at maturity. 4. The landscape materials must be substituted as outlined in the Environmental Board's Comments. 5. The landscape planters located over the infiltration tanks should be planted in a rain - garden type landscaping. This planting plan will be developed by staff prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. 6. A tree preservation plan must be submitted by the applicant. 7. All parking lot lighting fixtures and poles shall be painted to complement the city's decorative street lighting; shall be mounted to round lighting poles measuring no more than twenty feet in height; shall be mounted to a concrete base no higher than twenty -four inches above the surrounding grade; and shall be located within landscape planter islands. 8. A site performance agreement between the city and the developer must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. Issues discussed in the S.E.H. engineering review memo must be addressed to the satisfaction of city staff. • • • YMCA, page 7 10. Operation and maintenance agreements for the site, including provisions for stormwater facilities, must be submitted for review by city staff prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The applicant shall provide a bicycle parking area sufficient in size to accommodate a minimum of five bicycles. The type of fixture provided and the location of this parking area must be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. 12. All landscaped and sodded areas must be irrigated. 13. The trash enclosure shall be constructed of materials consistent to that of the main building, shall be located to minimize the visibility of the openings, and shall be screened with landscaping materials. 14. All ground mounted utility equipment shall be completely screened from view with appropriate landscaping materials. 15. All roof mounted equipment shall be completely screened from view. This screening shall be constructed of materials consistent with those used for the main building. ATTACHMENTS 1. S.E.H. memorandum dated November 3, 2005. 2. Environmental Board memorandum from the October 26, 2005 meeting. 3. Photograph of the proposed metal siding product. 4. Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Lighting Plan received October 10, 2005. 5. Revised Elevations and Floor Plans received January 5, 2005. 6. Revised Architectural Renderings received January 5, 2005. � SEH • November 3, 2005 Mr. Michael Grochala Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182 Dear Mr. Grochala: RE: Lino Lakes, Minnesota YMCA Site Plan Review SEH No. A- LINOL0305.11 SPCV Identified below are our review comments for the proposed YMCA site at Legacy at Woods Edge, prepared by Glenn Rehbein Companies. Plans for the proposed building were submitted to the City of Lino Lakes for review on October 10, 2005. Plat 1. The updated drainage and utility easement needs to be shown. Preliminary Site Plan (Sheet C1.0) 1. The trash enclosure area is not shown as on the Ankeny Kell site plan. 2. The phased parking boundary line in the southwest corner, at the entrance drive, is not reflective of what will be built as a part of the public improvements. As shown, it will not match up with the public improvements construction. Coordinate with SEH to get the correct information. 3. Coordinate with SEH to get the correct retaining wall locations. 4. Dimensioning should be provided for the typical parking stalls and drive aisles. 5. The southern end of the drop -off zone in front of the building has a rather abrupt transition from the main drive aisle. It may function better with a more gradual transition similar to the north side of the drop -off zone. 6. There is no indication given as to what the surfacing and section of the service road will be. Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C1.01) 1. Spot elevations should be placed at each end of the curb cut north of CBMH 4. 2. Coordinate with SEH to verify proper elevations in the southwest entrance drive. 3. Coordinate with SEH on proper wall location and elevations. 4. There are no details shown for the curb cuts in the median islands. A detail should be shown dimensioning the size of the curb cuts. 5. The spot elevations at the north entrance off of Village Drive should be revised to snatch the elevations shown on the Village Drive plans in the Legacy at Woods Edge — Phase 1 plan set. 6. The grading plan shows the grading for the entire parking lot. If the lot is only being built to the phase line, it appears that in the southwest area of the Phase 1 parking lot will have the existing ground higher than the parking lot surface. It is suggested that the plan show the necessary grading Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 1701 West Knapp Street, Suite B, Rice Lake, WI 54868 -1350 SEH is an equal opportunity employer I www.sehinc.com 1 715.236.4000 1 715.234.4069 fax • Mr. Michael Grochala November 2, 2005 Page 2 actions to match the existing ground along with the required seeding and erosion control measures. The future phase plans will then show the earthwork required to match the Phase 1 parking. 7. What provisions are being made for temporary curbing where the future underground parking entrance is at the building near the north entrance off of Village Drive? Some sort of curb will be required to contain the runoff that will already be traveling in the gutter flow line. 8. It is recommended that spot elevations be revised on the curb at the parking entrance drive aisle just south of Catch Basin 3 to demonstrate a high point or ridge to contain runoff flowing from the parking area into the main drive aisle, then north to Village Drive. 9. Are any trees being impacted by the grading operations on the south and southeast sides if the project? Impacted trees should be shown on the plans. 10. According to the submitted calculations, there is a very large amount of runoff being directed to CB 10 and CBMH 4 (9.65 cfs). Utilizing Neenah orifice flow calculations, these two Neenah catch basin grates will not be able to handle this flow, resulting in ponding at this location. It appears a significant amount of flooding of the main drive aisle would result in a 10 -year storm event. Additional storm sewer catch basins should be utilized in the parking lot to collect some of this runoff before reaching the southern end. 11. Coordinate with SEH on the exact location of the storm sewer chamber system. This will affect the location of STMH 5 in the median. 12. Roof drain locations for the YMCA building should be shown on this plan. 13. The amount of runoff flowing into the basin at FES 11 is not shown. It is recommended that rip rap, or some other acceptable method of erosion control, be placed from FES 12 all the way to the base of the slope at the wetland to prevent erosion from the discharge out of FES 12. 14. Show pipe sizes on the plan for the storm sewer run from CB 3 to the existing manhole on the north end of the site. 15. Spot elevations should be shown at all major building corners. 16. Storm Manhole 5 should have a 2' sump in it to aid in sediment collection before runoff enters the stonn chamber system. 17. Pond 3 has a normal water line (NWL) of 888.4 and a high water line (HWL) of 889.7 after final design of the public improvements. Please change Pond 3 information to reflect this. 18. When changing pipe sizes across a manhole or catch basin, match crown elevations, if at all possible, to preserve hydraulic grade line instead of snatching invert elevations. Preliminary Utility Plan (C1.02) 1. Coordinate with SEH to show the revised water main through the YMCA site. 2. Note that the sanitary sewer near SSMH 1 will need to be installed under existing water main. 3. The 6" and 8" water main services should have 45° bends near the building rather than the 90° bends shown. 4. Coordinate the water main connections on Village Drive with SEH to ensure they are completed before bituminous surfacing is placed. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 1701 West Knapp Street, Suite B, Rice Lake, WI 54868 -1350 SEH is an equal opportunity employer 1 www.sehinc.com 1 715.236.4000 1 715.234.4069 fax Mr. Michael Grochala November 2, 2005 Page 3 5. Dimension, or call out with notes, the horizontal separation between the water main and sanitary sewer lines. Preliminary Detail Sheet (C1.04) 1. All manhole and catch basin details need to call out the usage of Infi- Shield or equal neoprene sealing sleeves around the rings and casting. 2. The typical sidewalk section detail has a typo calling out sidewalk to be 6" wide. Landscaping Plan 1. Trees cannot be planted in medians that are located above the StormTech storm sewer chambers. Site Plan by Ankeny Kell 1. It is suggested that a walk be placed from each of the accessible parking loading aisles to the main walk through the median area. This will provide an accessible route that will not force people out into the parking lot and drive aisles to access the crosswalk to the main entrance. Please call me at 651.765.2912 if you have questions. Sincerely, SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. Stefan T. Higgins, PE Project Engineer x:\ko \inol\030503 \ymca review \ymca review.doc Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 1701 West Knapp Street, Suite 8, Rice Lake, WI 54868 -1350 SEH is an equal opportunity employer 1 www.sehinc.com 1 715.236.4000 1 715.234.4069 fax Reco mmendations Lino Lakes Environmental Board October 26, 2005 • The following recommendations were made at the October 26. 2005 Environmental Board Meeting • • Preliminary Site Plan Review/YMCA /The Village #3 • Remove trees from the parking lot islands that are over the infiltration tanks. Make these islands depress ional and a part of the infiltration plan. Slope the parking lot to these islands. Plant a Rain Garden- type of landscape in the two depressional islands. • Landscape areas: Infiltration areas should be constructed with low - compaction equipment. All turf areas should be thoroughly tilled after top soil is spread. Verification of this practice should be done by the Environmental Division of the City. It is suggested that escrow dollars be applied form this work. • Change some of the Autumn Blaze maples to Northern Pin Oak. The Pin oaks give the same fall color effects as the Autumn Blaze Maples and are not as sensitive to lack of timely pruning. Short term losses to the Autumn Blaze Maples can be expected if timely pruning is not applied. Substitute White or /and Bur oak for the Fall Gold Ash. Fall Gold Ash has been removed from the City planting list because of massive tree failure. One of the original intents of The Village was to meld development into the existing natural (Regional Park) landscape. Therefore the same tree substitutions of Oaks for Willows should be made. The proposed Scotch and Austrian Pine should be changed to Red pine and White Pine. More trees should be designed along the area to the South bordering the wetlands where trees were lost due to project clearing. These trees could be any combination of native Oak, Hackberry, Green Ash, Cherry and Red Maple. • Under the Planting Notes of the Project Design Sheets, loamy backfill into the planting holes should be avoided. Trees should be backfilled with existing soils. • Turf areas should be tilled as deep as possible into the subsoil after topsoil is spread. Verification of this cultural practice should be done by the Environmental Division of the City. It is suggested that some escrow applied for this work. • The City Native Seed mix should be used in pond and restoration areas south of the trail. Sod areas should be shown on the plan as irrigated. Seed labels must be verified before seeding begins. The developer should hire a landscape contractor knowledgeable in the in installation and maintenance of native plants. A contract with such a company should be submitted to the City for approval. The company should be hired for a minimum of 3 to 5 years. • The YMCA should submit a Tree preservation Plan that identifies all significant trees within 50 feet of the construction area. Significant trees on the perimeter of the project must be protected with a 4 -foot orange snow fence. This fence must be installed before construction begins. • • • • Somewhere on the Erosion Control Plan it must be indicated the location on the site where the erosion control plan will be located, along with required weekly and post rainfall event inspection reports. A contact and phone number should also be listed for the responsible site NPDES Supervisor. The plan should note that additional rock will be stockpiled or brought in should the rock entrance become dysfunctional due to rock -pore filling. All storm sewer catch basins should be protected with an approved device such as the Royal Infrasafe Collection Device. • No soils should be imported or exported without City approval. • A post development BMP plan should be written and be part of an over all BMP /Maintenance for the Woods Edge Development. • The proposed Conservation Easement for the site should be written to minimize tree and plant loss. Signs should be placed at the Easement. Motion to approve by Bor, Second by Bauman. All were in favor. Fuwn Mpsnd Chain of Lakes YMCA Futun L.._ Chain of Lakes YMCA YMCA of Greater St. Paul 2125 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 65413 -2720 Ankeny Kell Architects 821 Raymond Ave., Suite 400 St. Paul, MN 55114 Chain of Lakes YMCA Parking Summary Phase I 176 spaces Phase 11 263 spaces PARKING SUMMARY By Function (Assumes maximum occupancy of building) Spaces Gymnasium • 1 occupant/1 car Natatorium - 2.5 occupants/1 car Fitness Center - 1 occupant/tear Aerobics - 1.5 occupants/1 car Multipurpose - 2 occupants /1 car Teen /Senior Center • 2 occupants /1 car Staff -1 occupant/1 car 20 (full capacity) 60 (full capacity) 60 (100sf /person) 20 (30 people /Gass) 15 (30 people) 15 (30 people) 20 Total 210 By Lino Lakes Town Center Design & Development Guide Section 3.5 Table 4 Health Club -4 spaces/1,000 sf Of0ce - 3 spaces /1,000 sf 107 3 Total 110 .2005 Westwood Professional Servkee, Inc. Evergreen Tree Detail Tree Detail Shrub Detail Plant List 000E OTT. *OIMON/BOTANOO. NAME MM 19 ABM 21 IN 20 rod 07 RB 07 NW 05 Armstrong Maple / Am • kw.. '40..93' Au40. Blaze Mahe / Am • free..'JMlemed' near. rl a/ B w Impede' * ,01 Nee Ben / 00b• mars Mate Wegl,a WMo. / Sale Mb AP OP Ambion P0. / Plow rare SP 13 Scan P0. / Phis ej..ld. SSC 01 Spring Seas C*Obap4e / Mxw 'SPrN9 Sraw' AC 31 SS 24 Ann. Curtest / esw Some Summand SpOoa / Sebago almanbs 'Sree n,na' ST.I 26 Sonde i, / .00.4. Minn. �. cum' NOTE 25• BB 2.S• BB 25• BB 25• BB as' as 04111113 110 Cent. 6' BB 111/3 LS' BB 15 Ctn. 33 Cwt. 15 Cont. IS um., a3APlD119S 41 PUN SUPERSEDE UST 013A91415E9 N INC EVa1T OF A aSCREPANCT.. OEOOUOUS 0945TU41 TOTAL: CO4EEA0U5 081151031 TOT/: 0154.1 N144. TREE TOTAL SWUM TOT/: 500 MCA Planting Notes Contractor nal pin.. m0 year pram.. 91 all plonk meta. me v=4014. of Na dA the In. gm 433 0abasment Mak Mate.. iAM oleo have a one ysr perm.. rawnasbq upon plahl03 N plan. to be 8eakna made Ilinneestemmen em /20 Mary. 50..nm mode Meal Wham to. but b not 15Mted O. 4m Iail0Mn9 Monne. AM Monb Bal *s b.. den dense pa. n mm. 204. etc M plc. Merl b. h. from nonaau. lops G ols5 deform... AM Mm. nod b. h. hen .Km r A. Al Mrs Meal hoe ha+y. heat. emine9 end 1.09. Conlin,. bees stead boa an *Wined men leader and • Might to 904 ratio of blur 4n 83 Mars to met Amub0e Stan.. for Plummy Stock (040 601 -1950) Nw1e.14 f8 elm and fps periled elms 4 b Installed as pr send. AN9 go-ma pr0011m Use minimum 12• loon 984019 son on Imo and 6• on Wub. (skim and MM. 01 ha1.). mom *v9 le 0* 3Met.9 tag 0e1 hen Ma Mee 01 10e4. rode km, Ikon ens 08. subsea dbrl. and Irae m.d. Cw0eata Sal wily boat.. M4 al MM. prior *0 Instal Lan 01 pion. Con :MMa Meal 0on4e1 0op*r Slate •M. Cc' (051 -451 -0002 or BOO - 252.1400) 4 wiry locations of dl rremwnd *56.0. SM/. al bee mamas repo... plumb eel ma. Il net Mime 04420 m. inn al oroe4 -Ooh. Ina - beta top eel better. Renew by bra L Ope tap of tram on BB maids meat. pot on Fatted hon. MAT and ..k *9544 amt Po. Prune qw ea rimy - per mamma ne , prodder eon . anal pear eewa.p 4 Pion. M,al be deer.., hailed upon sew el rte Prwaly bed-In mated. R ne 0.051 *po ry only. IA disturbed oleos to be sodded urea e4ewle.note. Mal be e standard 4• al tom. and Tab. l. none. dens and rune hoe.. Slopes of kl a 9ravla 8dl b staked Fen.* of Wend. badmen bat wA8 0140 b used aroma all trees MOM .r1 and. AE dub planting M. NM. sodded cress) Plea haw weed bower .brit e f .Nedded harm.. mach end Vtl1. -Wev r... Obnad (r Bped) oar 040ke4 T o rang Nail be plomd 014 mac. ,raga onn at .a/ 3' from cons of mermen beam Ulkhe cabs m skein. for Tana noon posh. Palma lot .ands to be *odd. linden. mulch. Mulch to mat. an. =meshes (9000. Appecobl.} AI pare.. es. and onanae03 ewe beds shad hem wan been labrk, 2• of slim.ed hemmed moss and VWey -N.e Bock m4 es owmwu for pus) poly B be 04eep. Ile ee na all ho omen su 4¢. mm. and Magid. for •999 nee P.M. so-mead hod.em null s• am a e. b. madden n al M*n44 beet adjacent to slm.d.. and 311..1. Adur .84101 of Melt motel 4 subpar 4 fins and Me mon.m he go-ono .I be 0MM04 at. e5 magna and mebua4n dew bona do -Ohl. In 4* 4nne404 r.. commie Ball woade memory merino of plant mate .2 onU 4e pint Is ANY a4NM04 or .IynU01 system 4 8eabn8 0 . 54 5 2 4 0 2 0 4 4 0 4 0 0. M Contractor. Panda krgalnn to 8 pMlS areas an Oche. hl3at.n *9 by daiw/ou0n by lmdrepe 08lract20. Al information Men Indd4lion and *8044449 en . oh... limn Gene. Canlraatr. Ra•Ir, r.Mm a ar*044* sad /seed 01 .abed 120 any money b0Aea04 20.01 .)r.w . 40* 1310 mbrrb04 3.009 mw0ue0m. Rep* 09 damage 4 Pune. Bum e5640 40.4... al w veal 4 0.20. No pint m0.4* wbs4ltut.r .W b omen.. urm approval I raaumt0 of IN 04.4.08• Arnie. by the landscape Centrmtr nor ..N..len at the bk a.4 /r aatoN.. 1t.k .._e L @ asp 'wog, hems L.J OCT 1 0 7nn5 0' 30' 50' BO' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Rci Ankeny Kell Architects wain. .u. 11pB 1d 651 - 615 -5905 4420 651- 61.5 -90]9 - I hereby certify this plan, specification or raped ma /repoad by . o N under my direct truprxalon had that I ode der Lassa of(ihameed edged MINNESOTA_ Delo Beg. Na Q 00 >LU >-z Z coz gW LLY 0 Z QO Z UJ 6 g 1114 Sheet 1 OF 1 enemy NM Mann* P.A. 2001 i 1 , „- 9. 1. ^ ++`••'-y,• 4 1. 1. 9. h. . 4 .. 9. 9. L 4 a Uo 9. 1. Y Y 4 L L 1: •.4t i„ y 9.l ul 5. 1. y L' 4 4 L L 4 4 4i 4 9.0.1.9. 4 L L L L ti 9. 14 1 . 9 . 9. 1 1. x 5. 4 u 1j U 1. u 6 1. le a 4 L L L L 9. w L ..l. 9. L 4 `4. 9. 1. 1. 9. L L 4 4 a L 4 L 4 4 4. 1. • 1. L 4 1.••'4..`} b "tea L 4 a "•'L- u 4!f .� a 4 +w L L 1 4 .Ikr y fe a b L u- a a L 1.1 9.' L L L Li 54 U U U U U U U 1. 6 9. 9. 1. 9. 4 4 9. 9. S1. "•�.•• 1.J, 5 41 �L Y • E 4 +i 4 4 1 4 4 L 1. 4 4 4 9. 4 b 'B. 9. 4 9. 1. 0. 1. 0. 9. 9. 9. 1. 14 1 . L \� L 1 i I I + 9. L ",. L 9. 1. a 1. a ill/ 4 a 14 a, 9. 4 9. L 11 a 9. a N ^ra"I. 1. L 4.1 4 4 1. 1. 9. 5. 1. !L L j1. 4 4 L 1. 4 a I. 1. a 4 4 1. 14 a 9. a a 1. 4 1 0 1. a 4 4 1. 5. 5. 9. U U U U U Y Je -T a y 1 { L L w r L 6 L L b la 9.t L w w L L la Y U U U U U U U U L L a 4 • `x•1-. la 9.i 9. a 110 M 4 4 16 1 4 w 41 p I le 4 9. / I ti ie 9. Y 9. w L 1,r? 9.; L M L IL 4 a Y 9. y 41 1. L 9.1 1. to w i. 9. 9. w 4 1.1 1j 4' a 5.9.9.9.1.9.9.1.1.1.9.1.9.9.9.9.9.9.1.1.5.9.9. U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U a a a b a L .l•'__ 4 4'•_ _ a •- a. 9. -sr b L a L L L a 9.144 4 Sr 9. L 1. w 4 y 4 w 5. 11X-0. -jC -b-.1.. 9. L A9M Lumnaire Schedule Protect. All Protects Oty Symbol AA Cl BB 0099 DD R Lobel Arromement LS100897 SINGLE Lumens -40000 LLF Descrbtbn 0800 CTN- FT- 400- SN14-F-NSS 1919 BACK -BACK 40000 0.800 CTN- A- 400- SM1-F- double SP1GR5 SINGLE 5500 0.800 SP1 ANG G85 Numeric Summary Protect. All Protects Lobel C,lcPts C,lcrype Dlu.inonce Units 11.53 17.9 10.1 1 137 NM I 9x /M4 •t. NLi 90 �•-. f 6' IN`• stosy7:[`•• `��..,`- 1NV 889s"o20o ..." --•._ ^U!+B- 4 :.-aa5 3 1I 1, 0 SITE PLAN SCALE, 1'= 30' -0' PremclOYMCP OneL....ENcMcale,01.,WO1041 WJ6651i2.S8P9 Project YMCA LINO LAKES LINO LAKES MINNESOTA ID PARSONS SOW MVP MOT 6.0 NE1PMli 1.144416074 06433 r- 70/07-0400 PVI Ml/5 , OMSCORP.COM Project Information 04..d Nle 10-07 -05 Dam By K 100'UOf 0®gn.J By. 1 MNIAI Uwe* B7: R. IDW Revisions 10 -07-05 ISSUED FOR COY RMV r.- F. 4 4A114 OCT 1 0 2005 Sheet Name -' SITE PLAN LIGHTING Sc POWER Sheet Number 110/ E101 �r FUTURE 0,MNA9UM FUTURE NATATORIUM J C cur --1 GYMNASIUM STQRAGE (935 STUFF OFRCE STORAGE AOMINS1RA11LE OFFICES CONFERENCE ROOM INTER NEW ROOM L FUTURE MULTIPURPOSE ROOM -J JAN 1);,200S L;.! :17 SQUARE FOOTAGE SUMMARY FIRST FLOOR Gymnasium 456354 Gymnasium Storage 15251 Natatorium 512011 Women's Locker Room 1316x1 Men's Laker Room 127651 Family Locker ROM 897s( Aquatic Desoto/ 11721 Lifeguard/Storage 9854 Sauna 5454 Kid's 51u8 146011 Adminslration 129751 Admire Storage 22251 Conference Room 24281 Breakroom 208,1 Workroom 17984 Interview Room 1585? Reception Doak 24054 Multipurpose Room 147881 Mukipurpose Storage 31358 Kitchen 14251 Public Toilets 5430? LobbyISeatingNeMtg 202011 Mechanical/Elev. Equip. 73351 Pool Mochenical 98051 Laundry 7101 Janitor 735( SECOND FLOOR Filne55 523358 Aerobics 188851 Aerobics Storage 3805? GROSS SQUARE FEET 37,304SF O1Y" • Site and Building Review Community Development Department City of Lino Lakes. Minnesota January 11, 2008 • IF First Floor Plan 1/8"=1-0" Politely K,8 Architects Clr rr GYMNASIUM BELOW "11111111 L r DOWN • FITNESS • ROOF BELOW OPEN TO BELOW OPEN BO BELOW `CPNOPY BELOW ROOF BELOW JJ U 2 0 1.� O c U Lino Lakes, Minnesota Site and Building Review Community Development Department Cily of Lino Lakes, Minnesota January 11,2006 � J Second Floor Plan 1/8 " =1' -0" • • !(�: • Ankeny Kall AnJIteOIi PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS �-- PRECAST CONCRETE PREL.S ALLMIARN VINDOV WAD North Elevation South Elevation METAL VINGLE META, CANOPY METAL SHINGLE COLOR t METAL TRELLIS PR6MIS ER METH. CORNICE METAL SHINGLE COUR1 METAL SHINGLE COLDM 2 BRIO( 11RIOf COLOR 2 COLOR 2 METAL TRELLIS PRECAST IaCiTE PANELS West Elevation IS/ED METAL IREFMISMED METAL RASE METAL SHUELE COLOR I PREPMIRED METAL CORNICE METAL TRELLIS �\ METAL SHINGLE COLOR 1 BMOC COLOR 1 CAST STONE C1P/G METAL CANOPY META. SHINGLE MAR l METH. SNMfiS cam 2 *L0<22 VMDOV PRECAST HEAD CONCRETE PANELS `PREFINISHED METAL BASE PREPw1STED METAL BRICK BRICK COLOR 2 COSIIR 2 PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS <ETOL 942 ZETA. COIF METAL SHINGLE WLOt X CAST STONE CWMG ALUMINUM VMOOV HEAD METAL CANOPY CAST STONE COPING PREFMISMED METAL COMIQ / PREFINIRED METAL METAL SIm10.E fAOt 1 PRFFINISHED METAL MSE PRECAST ALUMINUM *MIN CONCRETE PANELS HEAD BRICK CELOH I BRIM C0.0R 2 �PREFMISIEI METAL RECAST CONCRETE PNELS MACK COLOR 1 BRICK CIAAR 2 M EFMISHED METAL METAL SHINGLE 00.08 1 !REFINISHED METAL BASE RECAST CONCRETE PNELS METAL TREIIIS East Elevation JAN 0 :5 2006 C0 0 r� co W _ccE J 4■ Ca 0 c •� U Site and Building Review Community Development Department City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota January 11.2008 Exterior Elevations Phase I 1/8 " =1M -0" Ankenhier. • • • PRECAST CONCRETE PAELS PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS ALLMIMa VIMOw HEAD .METAL SHINGLE COLOR /PREPNISIED PETAL CORNICE PETAL TREWS METAL 9110.0 /COLOt TRICK CO OR I R CAST STONE coma North Elevation South Elevation ICTAL SHINGLE COLOR I PETAL 0000? METAL 904E COLOR l METAL TRELLIS PRETDIISNED METAL COIN= METAL S12NOLE COLOR l METAL SHINGLE COLOR 2 ALUMINUM VD100V ICAO METAL 9104E COLOR 1 METAL SHINGLE COLOR 2 PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS `- PREFINOSIED OCTAL RASE PREPDODED PETAL PETAL CAMPY I BRIG COLOR 2 PRECAST COPCRETE PANELS (` L ` C COLOR 2 BRIO( COLOR BRICK COLOR 2 IETN. TRELLIS PRECAST LTRLTETE PNELS \ ■-- •PRETWSIED PETAL _ PRETIIQS/ED PIETA. BASE PRETINISPED PIETA. CORNICE PETAL SI@/OLE COLOP CAST SILIC CLIP DIG ALLMDNO( VIMDOV MEAD METAL CAMPY CAST STOIC CIPDAN PREP-IRIS/CO PETAL CORNICE PR6pISKD PETAL METAL TRELLIS West Elevation PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS METAL SHINGLE / NICK CO CO I COLOR I PRETDNI*ED METAL SASE MICl( COLOR 2 ALUMINUM UNTOV hEAO PRETINIS HED PETAL PRECAST CONCRETE PAELS INTO( COLOR I TRIO( COLOR 2 PETAL SHED PETAL 90NOLE COLOR I PREF NISNED METAL BASE PRECAST COMPETE PANELS r East Elevation JAN 0 ;3 7T.36 Lino Lakes, Minnesota SOl. and Builtlinq Ranier Community Development Department City of Lino Lakes, M'meso8 January 11. 2006 Exterior Elevations Phase II 118 " =1' -0" Ankery V renlecRs • • • Ra,EIVED • A • Lk: 7-14 *11'. I I 1 allows. • 7 vekte,4 clj 44z. REC JAN 0 5 2006 C TY OF LINO LAKES • • =1111011.141•1=..... '.11111 mg■ligmlINIM.M.1111•■■■■•■•■err or..• Or' ".; • • 11111111111111mrs fail vim YMCA == ' ARCHITECTS • -e- • 11 IVe/taiPt 444:1 JAN 0 6, 2006 CITY OF LINO LAKES E. - - '40 • • L. • 1- - 4 "kr 'CI ti YMCA ANKENY KELL ARCHITECTS ANKENY KELL ARCHITECTS AGENDA ITEM V.B. • STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: January 11, 2006 TOPIC: PUD Amendment — Signage Criteria City of Lino Lakes BACKGROUND The original signage criteria for the Legacy at Wood's Edge were removed prior to approval of the master plan. This was done so that the developer and city could create signage criteria that would address the advertising needs of the master developer and future tenants; and be enforceable by city staff. Staff's approach of involving the developer throughout the crafting of these criteria has lengthened the process, but should result in a more comprehensive product. As such, staff is recommending that the Public Hearing be continued to the February 8, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. • • OPTIONS. 1. Continue the public hearing to the February 8, 2005 regular meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends continuing the public hearing. 2005 Planning & Zoning Board Year End Review Council Action' : z Q z Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously (Carlson abstained) Approved unanimously Date Withdrawn by applicant Withdrawn by applicant 3/14/2005 2/28/2005 3/14/2005 7/25/2005 3/14/2005 3/14/2005 4/11/2005 4/11/2005 in 0 o N T T 4/11/2005 5/9/2005 Rezone 2nd Reading 5/23/2005 in 0 0 ("N 0) tf) 5/9/2005 Recommendation 1 No Recommendation (tied 3 -3) Denial 5 -0 O (13 O 0_ < O CD O a < O i To O a_ < Approval 5 -0 Approval 5 -0 Approval 5 -0 Approval 6 -0 w/ conditions Approval 6 -0 w/ conditions Approval 5 -1 0 O To 2> a_ Q < Approval 5-0 Approval 6 -0 w/ conditions Approval 6 -0 w/ conditions 1/12/2005 1/12/2005 2/9/2005 2/9/2005 2/9/2005 I.0 O O N N O O N N 2/9/2005 in o O N CO in O O N () 1 O o N CO 3/9/2005 O O T 4 V = I0 O o co T 4/13/2005 Conditional Use Permit & Site Plan Review Variance Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Permit to allow additions to bldg. & Site Plan Review (0 C LL Final Plat Final Plat CO @ C LL Preliminary Plat Registered Land Survey Final Plat TO C LL Rezone, CUP for PUD, Develop. Stage Plan /Prelim. Plat & Allocation of MUSA CUP for PUD, Develop. Stage Plan /Prelim. Plat & Final Plat Preliminary Plat Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses Kenneth Muehlstedt 1:. U Q N N Q C Q Molin Concrete Highland Meadows East 2nd Addn. Oakwood View Century Farm N. 3rd Addn. Turnberry Crossing Marshan Lakeview Circle Pines Registered Land Survey (Vaughan Addition W. Shadow Ponds 2nd Addn. Apollo Landing Fairview Lino Lakes Clinic Marshan Meadows Approved unanimously 0 C Q) Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Denied 4 -1 Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously C o Approved unanimously 6/13/2005 a) C 'a C Lf) p O N M 7/11/2005 7/11/2005 7/25/2005 Rezone 2nd Reading 8/8/2005 Prelim. Plat I 8/22/2005 Final Plat 9/26/2005 8/22/2005 8/22/2005 10 O O N O O 9/13/2005 p 0 N co 11/28/2005 Rezone 2nd Reading 12/12/2005 10/24/2005 C_ -o C 10/24/2005 Approval 6 -0 w/ conditions O C O 0 - j 6 a) 0o U Q Q Approval 6-0 co (D > a Q Approval 6 -0 w/ conditions Approval 6 -0 w/ conditions - Approval 5 -0 w/ conditions 9 Approval 6 -0 O O fa 2 a Q Approval 5 -1 Approval 6 -0 w/ conditions Approval 6 -0 w/ conditions O O ca 2 a < O as To 2 a < Approval 6 -0 w/ conditions 5/11/2005 5/11/2005 LO p 0 tj O O 6/8/2005 7/13/2005 = 8/10/2005 c 8/10/2005 8/10/2005 8/10/2005 8/10/2005 10 O O N -cr. O 9/14/2005 _ 9/14/2005 in O 0 N N N O 10/12/2005 I d (6 Ll Conditional Use Permit to allow for an awning a_ f6 C IL Amend Sec. 7 - Rezone from SC to GB Amendment to Planned Unit Development/ PDO Rezone, Preliminary Plat & MUSA Allocation Preliminary Plat & Final Plat Variance to rear setback from OHWL Final Plat Amendment to Sign Ordinance to address temporary signage & additional wall signs Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to address exterior building materials on commercial buildings Planned Unit Development Final Plan Rezone, Preliminary Plat & MUSA Allocation Amend Planned Unit Development to include a hotel as a permitted use Comprehensive Plan Amendment Site Plan Review /Final Plan Legacy at Woods Edge, Village No.3 Rehbein Transit Angie's Acres Amend Zoning Ordinance Market Place (Marketplace 3rd Addn.) Cavegn Subdivision E.G.Rud & Sons, Inc. (Rice Lake Professional Center) Benton Erickson L a) C 2 0 L L Ordinance Amend. Zoning Ordinance Amend. Q) C_ 'p C c3 _1 0 O Q Q Pine Glen Legacy at Woods Edge e of Hardwood Creek Legacy at Woods Edge - Legacy Hotel (Country Inn & Suites) Approved unanimously Approved unanimously Approved unanimously co c c a) d 10/24/2005 10/24/2005 10/24/2005 Pending Approval 6 -0 w/ conditions Approval 6 -0 w/ conditions 0 6 To > 0 o_ a Q Approval 5 -0 w/ conditions 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 10/12/2005 12/14/2005 CUP to allow for outdoor dining & Site Plan Review /Final Plan Site Plan Review /Final Plan Final Plat CUP to allow an automobile & truck repair facility Legacy at Woods Edge - Betty's Pies Legacy at Woods Edge - Lakewood Apts Legacy at Woods Edge - Village No. 4 Pomp's Tire • • 2005 Administrative Actions Year End Review Project Name Project Description Date of Approval Wells Fargo 5,200 square foot financial institution with drive through at 640 Apollo Drive. 8/9/2005 UDOR Addition 3,600 square foot addition to the existing 8,442 square foot building located at 500 Apollo Drive 8/15/2005 Schwan's Facility 11,500 square foot cold storage facility at 420 Park Court 1/31/2005 EG Rud & Sons Surveying 25,872 square foot multi- tenant office building at the northeast Corner of Lake Drive and Hodgson 7/18/2005 Metro Land Surveying 30,000 square foot multi- tenant, contractor's office building at 248 Apollo Drive 3/15/2005 Wessel Minor Subdivison Minor Subdivision to subdivide a portion of County land for the purpose of merging with an existing parcel of land at 8300 East Rondeau Lake Road 11/28/2005 • • • Memorandum To: Planning and Zoning Board Cc: Project File From: Paul F. Bengtson, Associate Planner Date: January 6, 2006 Re: Rehbein Transit CUP Amendment The Board asked staff to contact the applicant in regards to the proposed addition at Rehbein Transit, 6298 Hodgson Road. I personally spoke with the applicant January 4, 2006 and got the following status update. The applicant is still interested in pursuing the application and completing the addition. Some extenuating circumstances have caused this delay, but he is working on a revised lighting plan that will meet city standards as was required by the conditions of the Planning and Zoning Board. Once staff receives this plan the application will be forwarded to the City Council for review.