Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/2006 P&Z Packet• CITY OF LINO LAKES • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, February 8, 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: January 11, 2006 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. Final Plat for Cavegn Estates — Paul Bengtson B. Final Plat for Marshan Meadows — Jeff Smyser C. Final Plat for Miller's Crossroads 3rd Addition — Jeff Smyser D. PUBLIC HEARING for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit to allow for construction of an additional overhead crane bay at Molin Concrete, located at 415 Lilac Street — Paul Bengtson E. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING to Amend the Planned Unit Development for Legacy at Woods Edge to include signage criteria — Paul Bengtson VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Meeting Rules VII. ADJOURN • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : January 11, 2006 TIME STARTED : 6:35 P.M. TIME ENDED : 10:38 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Laden, Nelson, Pogalz, Rafferty, Root and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT : None. STAFF PRESENT : Paul Bengtson, Jeff Smyser and Michael Grochala I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:35 p.m., January 11, 2006. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 12, 2005 Chair Rafferty requested the following changes: Page 3, last paragraph, change text from "...and asked why where they looking at the spirit of it.." to "...and asked why we are looking at the spirit of it..." Page 5, paragraph 6, change text from "... Chair Rafferty asked why could not have the driver's side..." to "Chair Rafferty asked why we couldn't enter with the driver's side..." Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to approve the October 12, 2005 Minutes as amended and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 7 -0. November 9, 2005 Mr. Root made a MOTION to approve the November 9, 2005 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Tralle, Mr. Hyden and Mr. Pogalz abstained. December 14, 2005 Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to approve the December 14, 2005 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Root abstained. • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 2 IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared Open Mike at 6:40 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:41 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 7 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUED: Planned Unit Development Final Plan for the Chain of Lakes YMCA, 7690 Village Drive This item was continued from the December 14, 2005 meeting. Mr. Bengtson presented the staff report. Mr. Rafferty questioned an area of a dark band around the bottom in the color elevation. Mr. Bengtson clarified that the area was a representation of a color change and a different material. Mr. Bengtson explained that a different product would need to be used on the penthouse area for ventilation purposes. Mr. Rafferty asked about the height of the penthouse. Mr. Bengtson replied that, although the penthouse elevations were not called out, the building height is within the guidelines and allows plenty of room to screen equipment effectively. Mr. Tralle asked if the rendering shown was a true representation of colors for the precast areas. Mr. Bengtson replied that colors where not yet locked in. Options are shown and the architect would present examples of color options, as well as the product itself. Mr. Nelson asked if the proposed parking is for the first phase only, or did it include the second phase. Mr. Bengtson replied that the proposed parking is based on full buildout based on an estimate of the second phase, however this may change with construction. 176 parking spots are required and provided for at this time. Mr. Hyden asked for an explanation of the proposed innovative stormwater infiltration tanks. Mr. Grochala explained that these are part of the city's public improvement project for this area and have already been constructed. Mr. Grochala explained the stormwater system located under the parking lot includes a PVC chamber which increases infiltration & stormwater holding capacity. Mr. Root inquired about maintenance of this system. Mr. Grochala replied that city would provide maintenance for this system, and described how maintenance will work. He added that maintenance will include street sweeping twice a year. Mr. Pogalz commented that, although this may be expensive, the tradeoff is less ponding areas and more available square footage. Mr. Grochala concurred. • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Rafferty strongly recommended that the freestanding exterior trash area be attached to the building, as the board has always recommended. Mr. Rafferty pointed out that it would not be fair to others who have complied with this design element. Staff replied that the board could amend condition No. 13 to address this issue. The Board welcomed representatives of the YMCA. In attendance were Tim Staley, Vice President of the YMCA of Greater St. Paul, and Maria Manion of Ankeny Kell Architects. Mr. Rafferty acknowledged that the YMCA had made progress in the last few months. Mr. Laden asked what the process was when determining what goes inside a YMCA. He acknowledged that normally the P &Z Board would not get involved in this area, but because this is a civic bldg, he would like to comment. Mr. Staley explained that each YMCA has a local management board. That board has been working with city since 1998 to determine what the city would like to see and the necessary funding. They determined how much money there is, and the local board made the final decision of what would be included. These decisions are based on core components of what drives a YMCA. Mr. Staley clarified that the board is made up of local members of the community. Mr. Laden asked why a lap pool was chosen versus a leisure pool in the first phase. Mr. Staley replied that it is difficult to run a full program with only a zero depth/leisure pool without offering lap swimming. He also noted that it would be easier to raise money for a leisure pool in the future. Mr. Laden commented that the community has a greater need for a recreational pool than a lap pool. Mr. Tralle asked why every city resident hadn't been asked for a donation. Mr. Staley shared that the local board has worked on that, and a new initiative is starting in January. The board will be asking individuals for a donation of $100 from each household during this campaign. Mr. Tralle stated that he believes the community needs this, but that the YMCA has not done their homework with fundraising. Because of this, things are being taken away from citizens. Mr. Tralle asked that they please take these comments back to local board. He asked when the leisure pool is projected. Mr. Staley replied that in the past, the first expansion usually takes place within two years. Mr. Tralle asked what is planned for pre- teens, noting that the city census indicates there are more pre -teens than teens. Mr. Staley pointed out that the teen/senior center will not just encompass a teen area, but will be used as a youth room in general. The area will include ping pong and pool tables, along with other activities that encompass all age groups. Mr. Tralle asked who will own the building once it is built. Mr. Staley responded the YMCA of Greater St. Paul will own the building, but a local organization will operate and govern all of its programs. • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Rafferty invited Mr. Grochala to make comment. Grochala clarified that the city's contributions included 1.5 million dollars, donation of land for the project and infrastructure. He noted that land and infrastructure costs were covered through the overall development of the Legacy at Woods Edge project. The development agreement with the YMCA includes provisions to protect the long term interests of the City. He also explained that the City Council has expressed concern over the proposed building footprint and is looking for opportunities to expand the facility. However, both the City and YMCA would like to keep the proposed construction on track and get the building going. Staff is currently evaluating financial options to create a larger building up front. Mr. Rafferty asked why timing is tight. Grochala replied that the City, the YMCA and the local YMCA Board have been working on planning & funding this project for around eight years now. There is a lot of interest to get this going. Increased costs, especially construction costs, will continue to raise the necessary funding levels. The City would like to see construction begin in the spring, and are determining what can be done between now and then. The YMCA is kicking off the final round of donation, with a goal of $800,000, to bring in the expanded footprint. Mr. Root pointed out that the board has been consistent at all meetings in their opposition to metal siding. He asked for an explanation of why other materials are not being used. He expressed that metal seems out of place, not just for this building but for this development in general. Ms. Manion stated that the siding issue was addressed, and that they had met with staff and considered other materials. They felt that design -wise, the building needed a level of detail /contrast. They suggested a metal shingle versus a corrugated panel for a more finished product. She reinforced that as the material weathers, it becomes richer in appearance. She clarified to the board elevations and exact locations of where the product would be used. They had considered brick and EIFS, but found problems in conjunction with the other existing materials. They wanted to liven the look with a material that would work well with the other materials being used. Mr. Rafferty asked if Mr. Pogalz had seen this product used in the construction field. Mr. Pogalz replied that metal panel is widely used in construction. Although people do not always like it up front, it is a great product. He stated that the proposed metal product is a good product, and will fade over time. He continued that the product can be fairly cheap, and provides a good seal, is weatherproof and durable. He cautioned that the material may possibly dent and show signs of abuse. He has used the product on several projects and it works really well. He added that there are many color options. Ms. Manion described that panels used would be 36" section long and 12 - 14" wide. She showed a sample of the proposed material to the board. She pointed out that the galvanized look is what it will look like at installation. The sheen disappears, and becomes duller and darker. She clarified that this product will not be used all the way to the ground on the base portion of the building. She pointed out that the product is strong in texture for weather purposes. Mr. Nelson requested adding a condition that more trees be added to the landscape plan. He also recommended increasing the number of bicycle slots. • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Pogalz pointed out that he is not a fan of a metal product being used on the base near ground level. He stated this area can be damaged by lawn trimmers, snow blowers, etc. Brick is much better for maintenance. Metal will damage if abused. He would like to see at least a four -foot base of brick, stone or precast. He asked if there was a minimum requirement. Mr. Smyser stated there is not a definite size requirement. Mr. Pogalz commented that the color rendering is a nice scheme. He added that in the area where tan brick is on top of darker brick, he has never seen different color brick without a ledge or bumpout between colors to tie them together. Mr. Pogalz went on to say that for six years there has been talk within the city that the YMCA is coming. He understands and agrees that they need to start. He understands that we will not get everything we want, but believes if we build it they will come. Residents aren't willing to give money until they see something happen. What he's seeing is really good, with the exception of metal panel to ground. Mr. Laden requested that striping be added to both parking lot entrances in pedestrian crossing areas, so that drivers could look out for pedestrians. Mr. Staley responded that could absolutely be done. Mr. Laden also requested that staff, the board and the committee work to create a clearly defined cap and base. The cornice metal panel portion will be defined when light, but will lose definition as it darkens. He does not agree that the level of architecture has met the standards for this project. Ms. Manion explained that with a metal cornice there is a reveal which will create a deep shadow line. She explained there will be a stone cap above the brick, similar to that on the Fairview Clinic building. She understands the board is looking to create a greater profile. Mr. Laden stated that this is what they've required on other projects, and the board does not want to set precedence on future buildings. Ms. Manion explained that tall windows were added to break up the large mass of wall. Mr. Rafferty wondered if there could be more windows in the aquatic area to bring in more natural light. Ms. Manion pointed out that the south side of the building holds the aquatic center, where there is glass along much of wall. Mr. Rafferty referred to the consistency of vertical and horizontal striping on the precast material of the Andover building. He suggested that our building have horizontal banding to break up the monotony, and thought that consistent gridding could work quite well. He asked if they could look at that in order to break up lines. Mr. Rafferty reinforced that they need to adhere to town center guidelines. Mr. Staley noted that the YMCA is diligently trying to figure out ways to drive dollars to expand construction of the facility. He stated that they have raised the number of dollars the feasibility study thought they would raise. They will need 2400 membership units to pay off their local debt. • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Rafferty asked what the cost of membership will be. Mr. Staley gave a breakdown of membership costs, noting that the average cost is $60 to $63 per unit. He continued that there is a joiner's fee, which is waived three times during the year. He added that Lino Lakes' residents will receive a ten percent discount, which is the only discount that is offered in the twin cities metro area because of their partnership with our city. Mr. Rafferty said he took a tour of the new YMCA in Andover. He noted that the building is an award winning building, and is an 18 million dollar complex. He compared that the proposed facility is about 7 million. He went on to state that the Andover YMCA has many features, and was developed with the help of the Minneapolis chapter of the YMCA. He is not sure what the program differences are. He pointed out many positive features of the Andover YMCA and wondered why we couldn't get the same type of building in Lino Lakes. He wondered how the Lino Lakes project as presented today fits the goals of taxpayers. Mr. Staley responded that, with all due respect, the Andover and the Lino Lakes projects are completely different. The Lino Lakes YMCA will be a first -rate run facility that he is proud to bring forward today. Though it does not meet size expectations right now, it is a good start, which is similar to what has been done in other cities. Other cities have started without a full buildout, as well. He noted that full buildout in other cities have been completed in a reasonable period of time. Mr. Rafferty stated that he sees a project that the city & the YMCA have worked hard on, but is not sure the shoe fits. He remarked that the proposed program is short of expectations. His concern is for the people who have worked very hard on this, and can't understand how it's coming up short. With only one gym and a lap pool, he wondered what a child would get out of this facility. He expressed that an additional gym should be included, along with a recreational pool with slides, etc. He reiterated that the Andover YMCA has these features. Mr. Staley responded that the Andover YMCA and the Lino Lake YMCA are apples & oranges. He explained that the City of Andover paid for their entire project through a lease agreement with the YMCA, and the YMCA will not be paying any rent for the first seven years. They came to an understanding and the City was willing to bond it all. Lino Lakes simply moved forward with the YMCA in a partnership with the city. Mr. Rafferty questioned the amount of property that will be given to the YMCA. Grochala specified the area of land that will be YMCA property, noting that some of the land will include a conservation easement and a trail easement. He reminded the board that the City Council will ultimately decide if this is the right facility for the city. Mr. Grochala agreed that the Andover YMCA is completely different from the Lino Lakes facility „ and it is unfair to compare the two projects. The Andover YMCA is being financed in a different manner. Staff is working with the YMCA to evaluate alternative financial options that would allow for a larger facility. Mr. Rafferty stated it would have been great if the YMCA had begun five or six years ago. Mr. Grochala pointed out that funding was not available five or six years ago. The financing is dependant on fundraising from the community. • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Rafferty wondered if it is necessary to give them all of the proposed land. Mr. Grochala remarked that the city is encumbering some of the land for conservation easements in order to avoid taking down all of the trees. The city has preserved some existing park for a park/playground area, and would like that maintained. Typically, a YMCA facility would like a nine to ten acre area, and we have limited them to 6.7 acres, which includes a shared parking lot. There is no excess land that could be used elsewhere. Mr. Root asked staff if the use of metal conflicted with the requirements of the Town Center Design Standards. He pointed out that the guide does not specifically refer to the use of metal. He asked if metal siding was an appropriate use, as it is not one of the materials listed. Mr. Bengtson replied that it is not specifically stated that metal is prohibited in the town center area. Staffs interpretation is that metal is not prohibited, and that the product they are proposing does provide a contrasting material to appropriately move from concrete panel to brick facade. The board could interpret the standards otherwise if they so choose. With no further comments, Mr. Rafferty thanked Mr. Staley and Ms. Manion for attending the meeting. The board requested that Condition No. 11 be amended to require fifteen bicycles instead of five. The board requested that Condition No. 13 be amended to state that trash enclosures be attached to the main building. The board requested that a condition be added to include striping the pavement in the pedestrian walk areas of the parking lot, with a preference of a material change to designate the walk areas. Mr. Laden pointed out that if a parking lot is over a certain size, there is a requirement to change material. Though this does not meet size requirements, he would like to see consistency. Mr. Pogalz asked if striping the parking lot would be part of the YMCA's responsibility. Mr. Bengtson replied that the parking lot is part of the YMCA's improvements, so it would be appropriate for the board to add this condition. Mr. Tralle asked about the stone cap on the brick face, and what was the material on the cap over the galvanized area. Ms. Manion replied that was a metal cornice. She described that there will be a relief to create a deep shadow line to create dimension. She noted it is of a sizeable depth that will be visible. Mr. Rafferty referred to the paving requirements on Page 33 of the Design Standards guidelines. Mr. Bengtson stated that he believes those standards are for specifically designated connecting walkways. This area is not specifically designated as such. The board pointed out the two areas that they consider to be designated walkways by nature of their being. • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 8 The board added Condition No. 16, requiring striping in designated pedestrian walkways. The board added Condition No. 17, referring to horizontal banding on the precast area, and allowing the architect and staff to come up with an appropriate use. Mr. Laden requested feedback on whether the base metal on the building needed to be strengthened. Mr. Hyden referred to page 24 of the guidelines, which specifies a base with thicker walls, some specific material mentioned, but no mention of metal. Mr. Rafferty asked the architect to describe the samples that were brought. Ms. Manion displayed some of the color options. She noted that the precast metal samples are in the range of colors offered, that these were a first attempt at color, but changes need to be made. They are still working on creating color samples. The board preferred the colors that were a deeper reddish brown, and those not quite so yellow. They agreed that the samples are the right approach, but would like to see more earthy tones. They asked if one color would be used on all precast. Ms. Manion replied yes. She said they are in favor of a lighter colored building as opposed to a darker colored building. She noted that the board should rely on samples versus renderings when looking at color. The board asked what the awnings are made of. Ms. Manion replied they are an aluminum piece that will project from the face of the brick. Mr. Rafferty questioned if the trellis design should be continued, as used near the kids area. Ms. Manion described that the openings in the kids area are larger. Mr. Tralle requested that the yellow sample be eliminated from the options. Ms. Manion pointed out that the colors will look very different outdoors, and that they will continue to work with staff to agree on exact colors. The board summarized the conditions of approval from the staff report, amending Numbers 11 and 13, and adding Numbers 16 — 23, based on the board and staff's recommendations. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Final Plan of the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes YMCA subject to the following 23 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. • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 9 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. 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 fifteen 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. Trash enclosure shall be attached to the main building, shall be constructed of materials consistent to that of the main building, and should be appropriately screened with landscaping. 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. 16. Pedestrian walkways through parking areas shall be indicated by either pavement striping or a change in paving material. 17. The concrete panels shall include a horizontal detail as well as a vertical detail. 18. The base of the structure clad with the metal siding product shall consist of a stronger material per Town Center Guidelines. 19. Additional depth shall be added to the cap element of the structure clad with brick to create more definition per Town Center Guidelines. 20. The landscape shall be revised to indicate evergreen trees on the northwest corner of the structure as shown on the architectural renderings. 21. The future gymnasium, natatorium, and multi - purpose room shown on the floor plan shall be approved administratively, if the elevation and materials are consistent with the rest of the structure. 22. The landscape plan shall be revised to include shade trees within the connecting walkway 23. Staff will work with the developer to provide additional landscaping on the south side of the site Motion was supported by Mr. Nelson. • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 10 Mr. Tralle commented that he is thrilled that the YMCA is going to happen. He clarified that the comments he has made are consistent with those of the Lino residents. He is all in favor of the YMCA, and that the board must uphold the guidelines of the Town Center. Mr. Laden noted that he was disappointed that the board was not consulted more on the programs of the building. He added that the plans being proposed tonight do not meet the standards. Therefore, he is not prepared to approve this project as presented. Mr. Nelson appreciated the explanation of funding our YMCA versus that of the city of Andover. He stated that he will trust that the City Council will make the best decision based on our financial options. He agrees that the building needs to begin construction. Mr. Rafferty stated that the strength of this project is only as strong as the program that drives the project. He believes it does not meet the needs of the taxpayers. He believes the majority agree that they are thankful that the YMCA is here and is working hard, but that the strength of the programs will determine the income of the project. Motion to recommend approval of the Final Plan of the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes YMCA carried 5 -2, Mr. Rafferty and Mr. Hyden voting nay. B. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING, to Amend the Planned Unit Development for Legacy at Woods Edge to include signage criteria Staff stated that they are still working on signage criteria for the Legacy at Woods Edge. Staff noted that a good solid draft is in place, but is requesting more working time. Staff recommended continuing the Public Hearing to the February 8, 2006 P &Z Board meeting. Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the February 8, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. P &Z Annual Review for 2005 Staff referred to the summary for 2005 meetings as included in the packets. This was a summary of projects that were voted on in 2005. Mr. Laden clarified that the Benton Erickson project was approved, not denied, at City Council. B. Administrative Reviews for 2005 Staff referred to the summary for 2005 administrative reviews by city staff as included in the packets, which included site plan reviews & minor subdivisions. • C. Extension Deadline for Board Applicants • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 11 Staff explained that the deadline for board applications for 2006 has been extended to January 31, 2006 to accommodate sufficient candidates for city boards. Applications are available to interested residents in the administration department. D. Requiring sidewalk in subdivisions Staff requested this discussion be limited to board members. The board took a 5 minute recess at 9:45 p.m. The board reconvened at 9:50 p.m. Mr. Root distributed some information regarding sidewalks. One article stated that sidewalks are beneficial to not only connect destinations, but are pedestrian friendly. Sidewalks contribute to a community as a place where people can meet and talk. A second handout included a table showing levels of neighborhood accessibility. High accessibility provided communication within a neighborhood. Mr. Root stated it is wrong to expect people and children to share the same space as cars in areas without sidewalks. He noted this is not in any way intended to address existing neighborhoods, but for future neighborhoods. He would like to propose, if the board agrees, to request that city staff begin to research and gather data from other communities in the area, as to how they handle sidewalks. Mr. Laden agreed with Mr. Root's comments. He added that sidewalks are important for safety issues, especially for children, the elderly, and people with less mobility. He stated that sidewalks encourage exercise for those who want to walk, and even shovel in the winter; they promote neighborhood interaction and strengthen communities; they bring a level of higher security; they provide connections between neighborhoods; and they are good for the environment. Sidewalks can increase property value, which is a benefit to the community. If the option of sidewalks is left to the developer, the city will end up with a patchwork and not a connection. In order to be effective, they would need to be required in all new developments. He recognizes the fact that not everyone wants a sidewalk in their front yard. Therefore, he proposed that sidewalks be placed on one side of every street, not both. With that approach, not less than 50 percent would be without sidewalks. He has been told that they really don't affect home sales, but in general help sales when selling homes to families. Mr. Nelson stated he is opposed to a sidewalk ordinance and to staff spending time on research. He surveyed his neighborhood of approximately 50 homes, and all were strongly opposed to sidewalks. They told him that the reason they moved to the suburbs is because there are no sidewalks. They run and ride bikes, and have not had a problem. Sidewalks would make small lots smaller. That's why they've invested in a trail system, which is conducive to walking & biking. Mr. Pogalz echoed Mr. Nelson's comments. He agreed that a lot of people don't want people on their property, and that maintenance is a concern if not kept up with. Overall, he doesn't think they are used. When placed in residential areas, driveways may become shorter, which may cause people to park into the sidewalk area. He pointed out that the Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 12 • amount of impervious surface goes up with sidewalks. He is not for sidewalks. He understands safety issues, but does not see the need to pursue the issue. • • Mr. Rafferty remarked that he thinks sidewalks would be beneficial in the new development near city hall. But overall, he echoed Mr. Nelson's comments. He likes his yard the way it is, with grass to the curb. He is not in favor of making a recommendation to move forward with this issue. He thinks it is a personal opinion. He did agree that it could be more beneficial to get more people's opinions. But until there is more time to gather more information, he is not inclined to go forward. Mr. Hyden expressed that he moved out here to get away from city. He like his yard, but is not closed minded to sidewalks. He agrees they are okay in some settings. He would, however, be the person who would not want the sidewalk in front of his house. His opinion may not match those of other citizens, though, so he would like to poll others. Mr. Tralle was in favor of sidewalks in new additions. He lives on the north side where there are no bike trails. He sees elderly people walking in street, which is a safety issue. He not only likes them for safety, but because they join communities together. He stated that if one kid is saved by them, they are worth every penny. He is a proponent of sidewalks. Mr. Root clarified again that this issue is being addressed for new subdivisions only, therefore people would have the choice to move in or not. Mr. Rafferty suggested it may be a good idea to continue to look at this issue. He suggested they poll neighbors as to new developments with sidewalks, in order to get a feeling for what people think. He thinks there is merit in the question as well as further discussion, regardless of the outcome. He asked if the issue could be put on a council agenda as a topic of conversation. Mr. Grochala addressed the issue by saying that there are many good reasons to put in sidewalks, and there are currently stretches of sidewalk within the city. However, the major concern is that the city is not in a financial condition to deal with sidewalks. The city is having trouble replacing streets. He does not see how they would reasonably be replaced in the future. While he thinks there are positives in bringing this to the table, they need to deal with existing maintenance problems. As a city with the current charter requirements, he cannot ensure that maintenance could take place. Mr. Laden commented that he does not think that sidewalks degrade at the same rate as streets do, and they do not cost as much to repair. He thinks residents would be more inclined to pay for sidewalk repair over street repair. Mr. Rafferty wondered if the question would merit being on the city survey going out to residents. Mr. Grochala replied that he can certainly forward that on to the city administrator to pose to the council. He noted, however, that they are trying to get the survey out the door as soon as possible. • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 13 Mr. Rafferty stated that a great deal of money is being put into survey, and this was a way to get a reading of what people thought. The question would need to be clearly identified as future developments. Mr. Tralle agreed it would be a better idea to put the question on the survey than to ask neighbors individually. A question on a survey would remain the same and hold the same tone than when asked by different individuals. Mr. Laden asked if there are current standards in place if a developer wants them. Mr. Grochala replied that there are standards for the physical structure. He added that the Environmental Board may look at a hard surface area and comment. He noted that in areas of the city where there are sidewalks, public works is maintaining them. Mr. Laden stated that the city currently allows sidewalks, but does not require citizens to shovel them. He is not sure they need to. He believes they are still a benefit to the community without requiring them to be shoveled. Mr. Grochala commented that there is an expectation by residents that the city maintain sidewalks. Mr. Laden said he is continually hearing from citizens complaining about busier roads with more developments, but no sidewalks. Mr. Laden specified that pedestrian connections vary from community to community, and each depends on the community. He stated that trail systems and sidewalk systems have different functions. Mr. Grochala expressed that if a trail connection is not being proposed in a development, they sometimes look for a sidewalk. Implementation of sidewalks would have to be part of a much more comprehensive package involving funding, maintenance, etc. Mr. Pogalz stated he does not see it necessary in any of the remaining pre -2010 land, as it would be unable to connect those areas to existing developments. Maybe they could try and create a network for development 2010 and beyond. Mr. Rafferty requested that Mr. Grochala look into the possibility of adding a question to the city survey on this issue. If people suggest something, they could go with the majority opinion. E. Meeting Rules Mr. Hyden suggested creating a handout for board meetings so that those attending know the process and protocol of time limits, etc. Mr. Rafferty stated that the Council states the limitations of time, etc. at meetings. Mr. Laden asked if the City Council has a set of rules they work by, Mr. Smyser replied he is not sure if anything is formally adopted. There was a pamphlet done in 1990, which he believes addressed these issues. He noted the City Council has a retreat coming up in which these items will be discussed. • • Planning & Zoning Board December 14, 2005 Page 14 Mr. Laden suggested that if the Council has a set of rules, then the Planning & Zoning Board rules should be similar Mr. Rafferty agreed that one set of rules should apply for all. He made a recommendation that Mr. Hyden jot down key aspects at a course he attended on this issue, along with ideas and comments. The board can then look at them and decide if they warrant incorporating into city meetings. Mr. Smyser suggested that Mr. Hyden forward the list to staff, to include in next month's meeting packets. Mr. Nelson commented he agreed on setting time limits. Mr. Rafferty added that the board should ensure that meeting attendees direct their questions to the board, not to staff. He noted the board has been working on that in the past. The board agreed to continue this discussion at the February 8, 2006 meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Dawn Bugge Community Development Assistant • AGENDA ITEM V.A. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: February 8, 2006 TOPIC: Cavegn Estates Anthony and Kimberly Cavegn BACKGROUND Anthony and Kimberly Cavegn have requested approval of a single- family residential development entitled Cavegn Estates. The subject property is located adjacent to the southeast corner of Lois Lane and Country Lane and is currently developed with one single - family dwelling. The applicant is proposing to divide the 1.38 acre lot into two buildable lots of 23,560 square feet and 36,564 square feet. The existing single - family dwelling will remain on the smaller lot, and the larger lot will be used for new construction. The final plat conforms to the preliminary plat layout approved with Resolution 05 -108 by the City Council on July 25, 2005. The title commitment for the property and final plat has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review. A condition of approval required a street vacation for the unused portion of the cul -de -sac that previously ended Lois Lane. The first reading of that vacation will be accomplished at the February 13, 2006 City Council meeting; and the second reading will be scheduled for the same City Council meeting as this plat request. All other conditions of approval from the preliminary plat will be met through the development agreement and building permit review processes. OPTIONS. 1. Approve the final plat for Cavegn Estates 2. Return to staff with direction. II RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Final Plat submitted January 6, 2006. cAVEGN ESTATES County. Llinnosoto Kimberly J. Couegn husbonO one Mk. \ ! u LID CD O FILE COPY • t.0 x < 0 . Z ZL 0 . 0 03 )— Z 01— 0 Z = O1..) 00 V. oa............1•101.010001. 17' La 0 g. .tt :It 09 09 01 8 :310V NO0 .• ; / 1 • _1 m.,SZSE.00S 00'S a • 8 01 r L _J co or co • r 00'SLZ 3..00N t FILE COPY 1— 14.1 LJ C•1 • AGENDA ITEM V. B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: February 8, 2006 TOPIC: Final Plat, Marshan Meadows BACKGROUND The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Marshan Meadows on May 9, 2005 with Resolution 05 -61. Marshan Meadows is a 20 -lot residential development on Lake Drive. The approval of the preliminary plat included a condition for a conservation easement along the lake. The proximity of a nesting area for a rare species, the Forsters' tern, makes it important to protect the wetlands and the lake. This bird has been documented as nesting in wetlands in the Marshan Lake area. The conservation easement coincides with our standard drainage and utility easement over wetlands. We are working with the developer on the terms of the easement. These will include such things as signs along the easement edge and prohibiting mowing and dumping of grass clippings or fill. The final plat itself is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The City Attorney is reviewing the title commitment. The City Engineer has prepared the development agreement. These and the conservation easement will be completed prior to city council consideration. OPTIONS 1. Approve the final plat for Marshan Meadows. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 • • • Site Location Marshan Meadows • SIALE IN FEET 1 INCH - 60 FEET FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PLAT, THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST OUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST OUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22 15 ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING Cr NORTH 89 DECREES 55 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST. • DENOTES IRON PIPE MONUMENT FOUND MARSHAN MEADOWS / EAST LINE Or NE NW X. SW I/1 .// SEC 17, Jr, T .0721;4( / / - - NEST LINE Or CO`{RNNENT LOT J • AC 14 T.Jl.R 17 • SOWN UNE a THE NORM 350 1053 Or COK9NAENT LOr J SEC 17. T. J7. R 22 [ASICRLr RR711 Or tar LAW Or MINNESOTA TRIWN IRO'w1YAr NO 8 / - . - (NOr NNONN AS COCNTr STATE NO NOIN•r NO 7J) -' ,. 4"IO1YZ123" r0 6 �J, • /�.� ;� 47 �'L„A. ,r -�� EXCEPTION / ft49 a� `� 1O S70•'T�:J1 J ♦ /ry4e 'T�(p/ `�'j r`` 4d.a ' gIJ •6'019 ALL MONUMENTS REOUMfO BY uINNfSOTA STATUTE F yY _ LNJ£ YEAR OFO 1HE RECORONG DAtNLL�BE� SET PLMTHIN ` . / ST :5.1 7TC 1\ 1 , /// 1 , taro • AND SHALL BE ENDENC£D BY A 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH / F' �` A./ / 1 s0 I IRON PIPE MARKED BY R.L.S. Na. 25287 ' • ' ' • • J ti .`0/ / J ^. / /\ - • - n - DENOTES RIGHT OF ACCESS DEDICATED TO / y I dP .r4�;? ... .,\ . / / I ` I 0' .�a!Ili DRAINAGE AND UTILITY rAseurivrs ARE 9low nius. RUxu�sn[AMOi+ A. 1 el uvc r i so85r7eT ` �` = = _ X17_ _ _ - I N£DCT�iA°r SIi7)3i7 N� 'I INC COUNTY OF ANOKA. ---76,,r �� ' ` 1 ! NjOItt.o.-0,-, C NJ I �q uR ITV / 1 ,'$ [„9001;° •sa31,11;15.5 z // / .� 1 < ' Io -1 I I • -i0 / '- O /' /Z�' 1 I '4::,::::, CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA SEC 1Z 1: 3Z R 22 Jay `ooe7T issenitisT 3 i i / 4, �▪ . / • I J/� d/ � D '' I ` 7f a �_ 3 I:\ BEING 5 FEET IN WIN AND ADJOINING A O A LOT • / (' ° _ • rr $TbPr y /r/ /•� / .� I o9 0 1 LINES, ALSO BEING TO FEET IN LOOM AND ADJOINING / ..‘1: p d�D'' -- / �' I °o`vu (n °o , "t' le RIGHT -OF -WAY AND REAR LOT LINES, UNLESS OTHfRWr55 SHOWN ON INC PLAT. ',,,:1, s7p7,ri , / '� I 6O / }' 'i � "$7. . -Ian -- t O \� v NQNa it�C'•Z• / 0.7e .11.2.12.E.„ •r � �)' .--- 1/053 ---- SEGT I/. CORNER O. -/ '-.4r V . `b `- i:;� _ 348431 z 21u 1. YG 17, T. JI, R. 77 •- ` 7 I ANOKA COUNTY CAST IRON uaWAL[Nr ..- ,�7v :p 'L 'jii +i_'' �' '^ , 1 "--0):,.. �,'r- ---- - - -- - -- l g jr ell / i•t ryy ��' dta3°r1 X576• ''-�seA•Ti71 W iJr5 ='I� ' 1 • I kl 1' SLIRWL.EY -. gg¢ r69 io / 1 is's7:4N----/ ! l `'-2=Ji�t�r- ITii3- _ - rir= ---- -� -- \ I iL w 19.51. ' , - .J•�.'t 243± NI j' 7Y 5Ga 1 � w° 1 7N710 \ 1111712.29ii r �_ \� g\ //.'' = _�,-u.7a _ -iJ .«1 ?� � z.J)-11 ea IY- a.17v1pw \ /T.`7• .� M ,. -1,R.i 83.00 'J6' $ ' , /.7.3.77• L.67.77 76 :raoo 00 / �? H a- 75nr,$ i -J7.7s DOUB -' suNl7rz -I5. 1. £ ,R�IS. SJ 595.5131 A'.S�'', - 17.60 \ - • 1E5'P LINE 5.r 11R' NW 1 1 OF TIE SW 7 1 .� I tTJO. 00 ' _ 00' 1"; \ el \ • /71. 3i R. 77 / / /, +.I {`; .,�, i�Ey�° ;r'''I :Li., eaa T - R.7.3. L- ,�. p \ / . i e 'A�t ,I `3271 s- - *� I- °��.6j.t o .' o r t \ \ ,O , N755177w. -� 1�� • l . ''� i 236' A.Otl3'17'L• ' 7E31 �� 1� 1 I^ I� L -911 C suN� z \ oy •$off \ 17.▪ 18 , \, `�Is- N:s5177w i to f� r_ / /.3".. / s�OA`,e h \ 7En kI R II 12 ^ \ S'�°, s'wirv� r • ,i! .. 2 . 13 r y� ` , ,, SaTroa777 <:�' I /. t(t.\ N89553lw 1 iii h I'► \• -.13.4............e...) 0.57 ., I! 17r I I $ ' \ Saes .` i 1 SOWN LAZE Or OIlE NW 7/1 Or we 3W 7/4 / r ' ' , i / 1 . �i 4X ` SEG 17, T. 31, N 72., ■oT sl - - - \ �eENAw L y 7234 . DRAINAGE ATV U7Wh' EASEMENT. -2 - L J L J ,1 J L ° � 4 \ SJe71b27 -' \ �- �- ,,- 91.6 R L 1999 Nea5339 W 9.34.31 I / 40 / ' 'MARSHAN LAcfr MARSHAN LAKE ▪ ORANIAO[ MARSHAN LANE OA TA `AND u*KITT \ \EASEMENT BENCH YARN: TOP NUT Of NE'O MANI LOCATED ON INC \ SOON SEE Of FORMIA7 LAKE OWL[ 200 FEET NEST Or STAGECOACH IRAS. ;41 \ ELEVATION . 90477 (N.031.0.-19(N.031.0.-1929) 4-1979) \ PRISM ELEVATION: 330fY9ER a 200 17936 rEEL \� (N.AVA -1979) w'\ \ 19c/EST KNOWN 1W IER ELEVA7779j 89259 FEET (NOVO -1929J ACCORDING ro RECORDS Or INC \ \ IINNES07A OEPARIM[NT CF NA 4•AL RESOURCES - SNLIWELINC LOT 64 v 259.09 - TRACT .4 7939 958 78 M591539 IV 1022; 81.59 64 03 16155 - _�l - LTA `- SOWN LAW Or 1016RNRENT La. T 5[G 77. T. 31. R 22 I JAN 0 9 2006 u \ CITY c i u o LAKE j ITV PASSE ENQINEE'IN !NCL REGLSTERED PROPfSSTONAL ENGINEERS LICENSED LAND SURVEYORS SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS • • • AGENDA ITEM V . C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: February 8, 2006 TOPIC: Final Plat: Millers Crossroads 3rd Addition BACKGROUND The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Miller's Crossroads in September 2003 with Resolution 03 -142. The final plat for the first phase was approved by the City Council in February 2004, and the 2nd Addition was approved in January 2005. The project approval included a phasing plan in four phases, 2003 through 2006. Since the first phase did not occur in 2003, the first two phases were combined in the first final plat. This final plat for the third addition complies with the phasing plan as shown: The final plat for the 3rd Addn. conforms to the approved preliminary plat. The City Attorney is reviewing the title commitment and the City Engineer is preparing a development agreement for the third addition. These will be completed before the project is brought to the city council for approval. Conditions of approval relevant to platting have been addressed. OPTIONS 1. Approve the final plat for Miller's Crossroads 3rd Addition. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 first final plat 2nd 3rd 2004 Addn. Addn. approved phasing plan year 2003 2004 2005 2006 total number of units to be final 22 47 50 32 151 platted The final plat for the 3rd Addn. conforms to the approved preliminary plat. The City Attorney is reviewing the title commitment and the City Engineer is preparing a development agreement for the third addition. These will be completed before the project is brought to the city council for approval. Conditions of approval relevant to platting have been addressed. OPTIONS 1. Approve the final plat for Miller's Crossroads 3rd Addition. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 m.awu MA; • 31mroa m.va u.0 _ BIRCH STREET N69'09'OOi 1019_44 1177.60 68910'44`W /ittiffrq b -N y »/:7 1/4 I • • MILLERS CROSSROADS 3RD ADDITION _ 60 i F= I R,„06 r I�� Syc2yAo, c, I - 589'59054 "B li, I 583'0512 "B w64.44 ' ^' •' " 'ZI.e.,:.'".- 0 j 1 L �- I .., w g n 0 0 b GRAPHIC SCALE 6° 0 3o eo 123 Sonic 1 Inch - 00 Feet DRAINAGE AND UTIUTY EASEMENTS OUTLOTS A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, AND I HAVE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS ENTIRE OUTLOTS. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PLAT THE WEST LINE OF OUTLOT C. MILLERS CROSSROADS IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N07°17'56 "E O DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPE MARKED BY A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBED RLS 17765. • DENOTES 1/2" MONUMENT FOUND — o — DENOTES RESTRICTED ACCESS DEDICATED TO COUNTY OF ANOKA — BY PLAT OF MILLERS CROSSROADS ALL MONUMENTS REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA STATUTE, WHETHER SHOWN ON THIS PLAT OR NOT WILL BE SET WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE RECORDING DATE OF THIS PLAT AND SHALL BE EVIDENCED BY A 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT MARKED BY RLS 17765. I 'ry Le59.96 Re330.00 ° oi�pyh d °!0'24'41" .. .., •. ,. T`U'a CBeS84'46'03 "B 589'58'23 "B 215.19 •. .. 00.99 1K CITY OF LINO LAKES COUNTY OF ANOKA SECTION 30, T31, R22 6_ OUTLOT G • - .-,DRAINAGE 8: VTUTY EASEMFNTF= 11 DUTLDT 589'19'02 "W :r- 33 2 01 ' ae. 5: RR o N.' OUTLOT E ,--DRAINAGE k UMW EASEMENT-- N a • '0 9. t\ 4 .9 CCK `rs 017 r M / 4 vy sa/ / \ C 60 .._:... 5 a •62 s8•19 02 if 104.99 :TUTU)? T FT II Eir 33 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS JAN 9 Zoos Cf " Of s AGENDA ITEM V.D. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: February 8, 2006 TOPIC: Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit Amendment • • Molin Concrete BACKGROUND Molin Concrete is proposing an overhead crane bay addition to their existing facilities at 415 Lilac Street. The Molin property is covered by a conditional use permit for the concrete plant. The northern 20 acres is covered by an interim use permit for outdoor storage. This new application does not involve the storage area. The Conditional Use Permit covers the entire site. Building additions such as those proposed in this application require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Because this application involves the CUP amendment, it is appropriate to review the conditions placed on the site through the last CUP amendment in 2003. The City amended the CUP in 2003 with Resolution 03 -73, and then again in February 2005 with Resolution 05 -13. Molin Concrete has sent a notice to the surrounding home owners to inform them of the proposed expansion and invited anyone interested to provide comment. These same homeowners were also noticed by the city of the public hearing in regards to this request. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning: The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Industrial Industrial LI (Light Industrial) GI (General Industrial) North Single Family Dwellings Low Density Residential R (Rural) South Industrial Industrial GI (General Industrial) East Single Family Dwellings Industrial Commercial Low Density Residential R (Rural) West Single Family Dwellings Low Density Residential R (Rural) R -1 (Single Family Residential) • • Molin Amendment Page 2 of 2 SITE PLAN Buildings: Site plans have been submitted for the addition. One is an outdoor storage bay with an overhead crane. This will attached to the north side of the existing storage bays, north of the existing extruded pre -cast manufacturing building. Lighting: There will be no additional lighting necessary beyond what is currently used on the site as this is simply a request to add an additional bay to the existing storage system. Traffic: The building additions are being made to accommodate current manufacturing activities on site. The additions will not increase the number of employees or the amount of traffic generated by the concrete plant. The City has not received any recent calls about traffic concerns. Grading/Drainage, Utilities: A grading and utility plan was submitted with this application, and was thoroughly reviewed by the City Engineer. A memorandum is attached to this report that outlines all of the City Engineer's comments. The applicant is also required to submit their plans to the Rice Creek Watershed District for review and to obtain any necessary permits. Landscaping: With last year's amendment the board's largest concern was the landscaping. Again, no landscaping is proposed for this addition; nor does staff recommend any. This addition is quite minor in nature compared to the existing facilities on site, and screening in the form of landscaping and walls is already provided in ample quantity. City staff has already scheduled an inspection for the beginning of May to confirm ongoing conformance with the landscaping requirements. OPTIONS. a. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Amendment subject to conditions. b. Recommend denial of the Condition Use Permit Amendment. c. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 2. All conditions in Resolution 05 -13 continue to apply. 3. The applicant shall have the proposal reviewed by the Rice Creek Watershed District, and if necessary obtain a permit from them. This review is based on the following plans and information: 1. City Engineer Comments dated February 1, 2006. 2. Molin Plan Set received January 9, 2006. • • • ;;may 4 (: I T YY� ` :0F LLNQLKES Memorandum DATE: February 1, 2006 TO: Paul Bengtson FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Molin Concrete (Overhead Crane Bay Construction) We have reviewed the submitted items for the construction of an overhead crane bay on the existing Molin Concrete building. There are no engineering items of concern for this project. Please contact me with any questions. 600 Thwn (enter Rtrl<w,iv, Line Lakes, linnesot.i S014 -1182 Phone: h3 -982 -3400 • FON: 651- 983 -'-499 • SITE PLAN SCALE r - teCt -v RE corf RECEIVED JAN 0 9 2006 CITY OF UNO LAW 0 Professional Design Group Architects / Engineers 105 East Fourth Street Suite 200 Bus. (507) 545 -2298 PO Box 641 Fox. (507) 645 -2393 Northfield, MN 55057 www.profdesign.com Project Title: CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY Yarding Crane Addition Lino Lakes, Minnesota Key Plan: Revisions: o 1 -6 -06 For City Approval DFB Rev .1 I Date Approved By Description Note: Drawings are not to be scaled to obtain dimensions. Contact Professional Design Group for omitted or additional dimensions, or those in conflict with actual field measurements. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report s prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I arn a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the stole of Minnesota. Signature' Typed or Printed Nome David Lyon Dale: - Reg No 24696 Project Number 97121.10 Dote. 1 -3 -06 Drawn By RAM Checked By DRL Copyright Professional Design Grnt:n• 2005 Sheet Title: Site Plan Sheet 0 • • • AA a-_— r7.1 � - -- -- r , 0 L J C J 1 ly 1 ©M. 1 1 }-- L,T.,, m - - - -_ _—L 1- - - -- C J b 1 I \ is T rt- -r - 1 I T4.--. -J b p r r r --1 Ell QOM. bi rd �_ I l r -1 -+-, T T T 37 r APL 106E • 10Cf-0' I r-1-, + )— - - l - -- -- -7�-- -- -"Ei--11-- -I -T r �-2 1 V3 I I I ` r I 1 r 1 1 1� Q - - - -- L }�---- --E"®J - L J ¥ v O—'L_ ; ; - - - - -- J b1 . I 1 ti [ _ i -- -- -- 1 4.-- -- --+ J-- b :1II II 1 -9 r ±" T T "l- k I— LJ - - - - -- Li +— _ — ° - - +J - is r r 1 1 l N. 13 I �M T I C/ LtJ YARDING CRANE FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE r • 3E-CE KEYNOTES: 0 PRECAST =RN - SEI SOO = MT 62 - COL 0-3 M. O COMC FDONS - SEE soma si37 12- ___ C-3 M. 3 @e,dl R/ CISe.131 EN( RAZE 808807 BEAN 1.03 - 1D' -7 3/f O2 -BRACE 115 BAY - SEE DUAL 7/SI O1010 10NISPORT 1I1001 MOM PLAIT UAL cone RAL BID MAW l0-1• 6r -I' WOO 7T -• 118731181) 75-0' 0 0 0 O 0 10 GI 12 0 14 -4-------- 15 16 17 18 19 0 b 1N YARDING CRANE FRAMING PLAN © SC80 1' - bd CRANE RUNWAY BEAM DESCH LOAD (CNE 20 TON CRANE PER RAY) %HEEL LOAD - 39.6 MPS (INCLUDES 1570 INPACT FACTOR) LOAD DIAGRAM 0, PRECAST c«UN - RT PIAM NROtr1 POCKET /SIR SERAWIxN %RI BA6S - NE SEM P90 6aw iTIE VP 1 VP 0 t0 IIB 1 I/Y S AL A BOLT 3/E 7CP RATE 4s4s3//' a 12' MIC IIME SE6 - 1400 N10 MAN Y SHY • NWT SPADE COC. WING - $ PLAN 1 1/Y' con M. COLUMN /PIER DETAIL T. s0ns. Y PAM SCARE I/Y - 0-0r BEAM/COL CONNECT. DTL. SCAM 1/r. r-o' 31 5 BEAM /COL. CONNECT. DTL. O EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL S1 SCALE 1/1' - 0-1' --11=:11=11=11=11=11-- G 11TYPICAL X7—"BRACED BAY 8 X —BRACE CONNECT. DTL. SOME' 1/r - r-0' 31 SCAM I/O' - r-If RAILYAREI tY CMG SIN R/ rr. •we 66 EMI MY - R111 11 StA• Y-0' 10-1' CRANE/AM 7 3/r PK RHINOS Professional Design Group Architects / Engineers 105 East Fourth Street Suite 200 Bus. (507) 645 -2298 PO Box 641 Fax. (507) 645 -2393 Northfield, MN 55057 www.profdesign.com CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY Yarding Crane Addition Lino Lakes, Minnesota Key Plon: RECEIVED JAN 0 9 2006 CITY OF LINO LAMS Revisions: 1 1 0 I 1 -6 -06 Dill For City Approval Rev.# Dale I Approved By Description Note: Drawings are not to be scaled to obtain dimensions. Contact Professional Design Group for omitted or additional dimensions, or those in conflict with actual field measurements. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report aas prepared by me or under my direct supervision nd that I am is duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the lows of the state 01 Minnesota. Signature Typed or Printed No Darin Burekhord Date. - Reg No 22477 Project Number• 97121.10 Date. 1 -3 -06 Drawn 8y RAM Checked By DEB Copyright Professional Design Gm ip• 2006 Sheet Title: Yarding Crane Foundation Plc Yarding Crane Framing Plan Details TRANSPORT WAGON ANCHOR PLATES Sr -r. 1/1' - 1' -Y PC COL !TRANSPORT WAGON ANCHOR PLATES SCALE I/O • r-0' I -, la .l -1 1 rr -� usans 9%-C IM. MOO 1_31 1.., L r L -•J L La PER 1L ICIE -0' L J J L J J C/ LtJ YARDING CRANE FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE r • 3E-CE KEYNOTES: 0 PRECAST =RN - SEI SOO = MT 62 - COL 0-3 M. O COMC FDONS - SEE soma si37 12- ___ C-3 M. 3 @e,dl R/ CISe.131 EN( RAZE 808807 BEAN 1.03 - 1D' -7 3/f O2 -BRACE 115 BAY - SEE DUAL 7/SI O1010 10NISPORT 1I1001 MOM PLAIT UAL cone RAL BID MAW l0-1• 6r -I' WOO 7T -• 118731181) 75-0' 0 0 0 O 0 10 GI 12 0 14 -4-------- 15 16 17 18 19 0 b 1N YARDING CRANE FRAMING PLAN © SC80 1' - bd CRANE RUNWAY BEAM DESCH LOAD (CNE 20 TON CRANE PER RAY) %HEEL LOAD - 39.6 MPS (INCLUDES 1570 INPACT FACTOR) LOAD DIAGRAM 0, PRECAST c«UN - RT PIAM NROtr1 POCKET /SIR SERAWIxN %RI BA6S - NE SEM P90 6aw iTIE VP 1 VP 0 t0 IIB 1 I/Y S AL A BOLT 3/E 7CP RATE 4s4s3//' a 12' MIC IIME SE6 - 1400 N10 MAN Y SHY • NWT SPADE COC. WING - $ PLAN 1 1/Y' con M. COLUMN /PIER DETAIL T. s0ns. Y PAM SCARE I/Y - 0-0r BEAM/COL CONNECT. DTL. SCAM 1/r. r-o' 31 5 BEAM /COL. CONNECT. DTL. O EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL S1 SCALE 1/1' - 0-1' --11=:11=11=11=11=11-- G 11TYPICAL X7—"BRACED BAY 8 X —BRACE CONNECT. DTL. SOME' 1/r - r-0' 31 SCAM I/O' - r-If RAILYAREI tY CMG SIN R/ rr. •we 66 EMI MY - R111 11 StA• Y-0' 10-1' CRANE/AM 7 3/r PK RHINOS Professional Design Group Architects / Engineers 105 East Fourth Street Suite 200 Bus. (507) 645 -2298 PO Box 641 Fax. (507) 645 -2393 Northfield, MN 55057 www.profdesign.com CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY Yarding Crane Addition Lino Lakes, Minnesota Key Plon: RECEIVED JAN 0 9 2006 CITY OF LINO LAMS Revisions: 1 1 0 I 1 -6 -06 Dill For City Approval Rev.# Dale I Approved By Description Note: Drawings are not to be scaled to obtain dimensions. Contact Professional Design Group for omitted or additional dimensions, or those in conflict with actual field measurements. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report aas prepared by me or under my direct supervision nd that I am is duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the lows of the state 01 Minnesota. Signature Typed or Printed No Darin Burekhord Date. - Reg No 22477 Project Number• 97121.10 Date. 1 -3 -06 Drawn 8y RAM Checked By DEB Copyright Professional Design Gm ip• 2006 Sheet Title: Yarding Crane Foundation Plc Yarding Crane Framing Plan Details TRANSPORT WAGON ANCHOR PLATES Sr -r. 1/1' - 1' -Y PC COL !TRANSPORT WAGON ANCHOR PLATES SCALE I/O • r-0' • • • STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES DEmLO S - All CODES LATEST EWEN WIG mead 1LL810 COD WSACJNESOTA STATE BUBD•IO CODE ALSO AMERICAN 1681.1E OF STEEL 106110101)01 AC. 0110000 CONCRETE 06TITUIE P.CE PRECAST 1004.1E 1611E CLSI COICEE 104* 011 STEM 167111!1( YAM 10 STANDARD PRACCE All MADMAN ME10N4 SCUT' SIAIDAWS FOR MONO AS HOPED BI AEC SPECF1 01111 SO. STEM AST 1611111E SPEC11 411016 SOL 5021 DECK 1601177E SPECf1CATIOS 1M.A CANAL CONCRETE RAMAT ASSOAAlON AM. AMMAN 001 NO STEM HMI( 100111A104 FOR DE DEMI 0 1lD- 0101ED SEEL STRUCTURAL 801010' DEmLICE_L0400 11E 5MICI RN 10104 MIND 114104 6 BASED MI TIE MONK CE901 UVE LOADS APE0POSEE OM TIE C011(11 B MUM 80 (1011 - 75 PSF (Pus CHUG PO INIMO1A HUNG COD BID - 8 IHL EIPC6LPE B RAE - LOOS TOM NCH 140 MI Roo MOM PAR MR LOW COMM MONO CANE . 1 -2D MN CRAZE PER BAT BffHALS /108 RFYDO011 BM AS111 4113 GRADE Ba 1111fSS NOES WEED 04. FANOG ASSN 016, RACE 6 COMETE 404 P9 FOR COINCS IR P9 FOR MOON NM NO PCPS (AR-011LN6 F (POSED} 100 P9 FOR DI16-01-fAADE (440 -011RNm E CO00D} 1600 P9 FR ODOIRUCTOI 1011010 D1110ERJL 51172.: fy. 50 11. IMO mod. EIFVAT06 IOCSIED BY 10 0 MOTOR. NE10 TWTIK STEPS 104411. E CCAIFD 01101111. 810E IOG7ER 8T0040 PREPARE All 5110P DRAMICS 4W01000. 110 0 716E CMIR/CT DOEIINS AS 9/1' RANKS 6 PMOMK10 M ORT SHOP (008115 10 M ARO1EC1/EMREDR (ASE) FOR N. CONCRETE MD NAS0I1RT RE EOEAAC, PRECAST COIREE STRUCTURAL STEEL STEM BAR ,D61S AND (DOS NO S1M MK. All COLLINS 10 BE CENTERED R 4111) LEES, U16S COED O16RSE AU. 0008 FOOTINGS 10 E MITERED MIIR COMM IOM CEDED ONEDISE Nl 0(18006 FROMM NM BE CHEMED 000 HILL MESS MMES SDI NO 1OCA11R 0 ALL isn.a,..0 AID BMW& TURF. WA. AID NOR 0410E W BE MOVED REM MONICA( MO mein& DMRAMRS 1K STRUCTURAL RCM 6 BASED 014 CO 140 MONO 8 TS C011LEIED STATE COIRACI06 NO 1161 9RCINTIMIR5 94411 THE LINIEW PE04U116 ARE 401SSOT 19 1116TN0 ALL N81001TN AID MOM. LOOMS TNT W4 BE DICLM1010 DM16 11E 006RLE101 PRIM 10 CPLEM OF M CAM& RESE MAIMS DO NOT 80.10E M3EEMT CEAP00013 FOR C061RLICTION SAfEIY. E!@!!STS 905 MDRU101 a SR [08011115 LTa ROUT B IIM7 DAM 12 -3-187 SNOOD AM' MBOOARI CONDOS BE EMCd10108 OEM DCAVA104 MOTET 4/1 81010.4. 70011K DLVATO6 AN 110ELf 10 041110 CPD0110 R 110006 DEARIGFD. 0709141 MM HE POEM ID POD(10006 =AMOK IUP MARANO ERE FNIUE W DO SO ILL BE 6415E FOR E0EO6 0311RACTC11 19 ROM ND REPLACE SOL *11461810870440084.146 Nan R180 SEANCE PARR TO 1010 RN 14103011 O MIMICS M.. CO 016 1068111E OIER =RAM AID ill. 14.6188 SEAM OM WPM NO MOM 516RNE5 NO MI WON DUCH TURNER 1611K10L OM 6 PEEDE6 710818. PRINCE A 148848 I' Cr MIMIC 111 BEM AU (1®M FLOOR SUM R MADE 1EET O H PICE111010A1106 016E 6EOTEDNI0L ROCK 111 EDIFOBCAL 481 9Yt1 SUBMIT A REPORT 10 M AMMO OF ALL 0600100E NO 1451S CO8c10 R D6 PMaEM BON SCES OF /08400101 VALS SO N1 E BA1OM1D 911100019.E SO AS 10 7100(T 0101184810 R LATERAL 10,OEME 0 M41S ALL /TOMS 9W01 BEAR R ET618C S0S WAKE OF 1PPRIIC 2003 PST. R DOMED M. 14741E 0 SMELT 9PPRIMC A 01008 IOW OF 710 PO8OS PO SWAN MT. MINT RANCH SETD0I11317. BM10 0 1201C1OR AMMO 000711 1 901 E AT LEAST 3-r BELOW TIM 0190E RARE MESS 10172 RIM ',MEAL FALL 101OR06 TO FOUDAT004 11R186. AID 1081)() RAS ON BARS 0 SAE OM PROLIX 014410 O 1I71C AT BOTTOM FROM. CLASS IC W MI MIL B ALL REII0014 BAR LAPS DULL RE CUSS lr NUM NOTED. PLACE R 9PPORI 4L ROHM= BARS AM 8E 14.91 10 PRONE DE FOIO0C MCEE COMB r COMTE CAST AGAINST 44140 PA1Wi)1RE MOOD TO 101011 r C11OE1E E1OMED 10 TARN R 11ADIlt 1 1/7 000HIE NDT E1P09D 11) 40014.E R (COTACT ON R01M ALL e4. FAMC LAPS 9401 E C AT DM 111 SOMi RFKOI010 STEM TOE 1n NICE ALL BASS CULL E a8WE1D PRONE AM NOS STEEL FR 1DDA6LE E014C1104 8415 R0F0(10 8 BALLS 10 B011 I'-1 AR11D 411 COMERS R USE r-0' CORM EMI MCKIE SWING 100118(4011 RR COMM DM E N 4001410 MINI CLOE111 AO 117. P1148E10 1TAL1 C06)RVC101 MOM SPACED NOT UM MR 541 -0' MC. PINC MOD 0611461 1 .RID (DC.g 84 OARS R GRADE Al 100,7106 MO10 ON TIE PAW IX r MOO COERCE DICAMDrf AN DO STEER. WS AID STEM BASE PATES EXMOOR MOO 41868 .SE 9117 006 Dm04 10 111 W WlECT 7 DAK MICR 1a RACE COMT ffid4.OFIC8E)E MIN N1 TANK TOR LAO CAD USED AM 011E LOAD MUTED e1 DRAI15 NO DETAAS Nr111p10 N. CADS PISA( PUS 441E MECHANICAL MT LOADS (SEE 1EONICX). PRECAST 1EC10R 9NLL PROLIX Of IMETAR0 BRACH T01 STRUCTURE SEMITE 0BC 1404.01 AND 010 ALL PRECAST 110.104 6 71101 MD 10010 RECAST COMEIE FIONA 01 TO 91048 ALL FELD MEMO RECEMITf15 CO 010 0.1005 PRECAST CONCRETE 7408A10R TO ORM NE OADER, NO IOCA701 OF AU. 0848M DOCUGH PAW OM IEAlllCAL ELECTRIC/1. NO NNRECRIRAL PALS. PR SIES4D COMM COMM* TO PRONE 114410 AT NA MOMS NO WWI ADJACENT PLANE 0 9PPRT EXTRA LASE AT 001ANDL OPUMLS NO 211404 LOG106 MOW M 1C PANS FELD 01T 1015 5041 BE CUT R CRUEL MM OPTED, ND ARMED 80 MUST 90(10 PRECAST NOES TM PNEIS BALL 01 100 10 MOST 8D LOWS SNOW CORE RANKS • 0401 NORM BATS 10 E ASIA AO8 R AS( ATM. TOP OF STEM TI M10 6 BERATED R RANI BY (_ j USE S /r' CANCER 1010 IN MEMO HATS AT ALL CONECONS. 00 MM PANT SMOLItAL SUMACS A BE A 011011 <II PERMED MOM ROCS MOMS TO ROM 116 STEM ERECTOR BALL 11010E 1E WOMAN MOM MR 411067UE STI81n NON RE OM AND Aril NL STEM 6 NM NO SECURED. IODIC A BE PEEWEE BY A6 RATED 0Ea1RS NL KWIC 10 BE KROMER A ADMODNICE RIM A6 011. ED 0- /OMP111F11L RBW4 MAD SOH INN AEOW4AL IRMO SPACED AT rd aG W OO& 510 ENDS 98. BE AT1A0m 10 711.ACI 10/48/0115 AT TO AND BMW 0 114.1 ASS ITLY. 57(0 E0D6 1061 BE SEATED MILE 4110 REAR R TRIOS 160 110 SIMMS AT MHO MATINS 0 MTS, W M. NO 1111503. Ui 11 G BIOCOO AT 00S Cr MHOS TO PRESENT IMA70L BEFALL 01AL MT -WRC AT Nl ASR NO 841104 SPACED AI I'-5' MOM 100011. 1335HHIGIMILIGION BOON FAM1010M MO M%C100 0 MY WORMS, FM MCI All DEAR 0!0104 (010806, AID 000106 AS 9CW R THE CRAMS ND REMIT ANf 060PINELS 10 DE 404011 AT 010 0nR/CRM 6 500.4 4.9068E FOR PROTECT O1 0 MOO BOOK ORND IL PHASES OF OOSIRC1CL IOIDIC SOL 001260E POORER NI SNOOK BRACCO. ETC., AS EUIHD 10 1EIPORAR7 SLPP011 le MMS SIRO:MIE 1.0. Ca A C1A1E RAl .AFFIL 010 MOO 24'*3I' PRECAST arc 01884 L a PER ih MANE M SEE DAL ONG RR SEE 4041 CMC MWMS- 00 PAR 73 MOM SEE PAM BB AA -4' D.-i• 77 75 -0' Professional Design Group Architects / Engineers 105 East Fourth Street Suite 200 PO Box 641 Northfield, MN 55057 Bus. (507) 645 -2298 Fox. (507) 645 -2393 www.profdesign.com Project Title: (DYARMNG CRANE SECTION SCAM 1/4. w r-e* COL. / FOOTING SCHED. CWAI110 R 104101 10-1 _ 21/4 Mao( 93 Fear PRECAST - - RASE 1 TYPE A _ - DOE BASE IM SEE PLO - - PIR SIX TCed - - 1DA EAR. 12- /7 - - 110 es sir aC - - TR OF PG D. SEE LAN - - MONO sx We', f'-C - - 0004 24' - - 141r. /F 48 12. QC. ER - - 10 0 Flo EL SEE CLAD - - SWAM BASE PLATE TYPES 21/4 /�2 IX S, T l I CI 1 4 A- 1 112.1 As I OIOR BAR N III Li TYPE 'A' STEEL RAE MODEM M P.C. SUPPLER T.S. rd.5/C.e. LIMO CAST NC =AN 1'i" NOR TYP. ANCHOR BOLT 0 sz 2 PIER DETAIL fu1D 3/4'. 11-4? A .c 0 1 1 SEE 1ON RA1/51 ERIC PO SEE PLAT /3 110.13' D.G. 0 16 P 1r CM N.7 07/160* DD EA LATER 404. ERE SEE SOUL 1/10 COER BEAM /COL. CONNECT. DTL. SCALE: I/O' - r_0' LOADOUT CART RAIL DETAIL ma 3 /r- r-s CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY Yarding Crane Addition Lino Lakes, Minnesota Key Plan: RECEIVED JAN 0 9 2006 CITY OF UNO LANES Revisions: 1 1 -6 -06 DFB For City Approval Rev./ Dale Approved By Description Note: Drawings are not to be scaled to obtain dimensions. Contact Professional Design Group for omitted or additional dimensions, or those in conflict with actual field measurements. I hereby certify that this pion, specificolion, or report as prepared by rne or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Signature Typed or Printed Name Dote: Darin Burckhard Reg No 22477 Project Number. 97121.10 Dote. 1 -3 -06 Drown By RAM Checked By DFB Copyright Professional Design Croorp• 2006 Sheet Title: Yarding Crane Section Structural General Notes Sheet: S2 • AGENDA ITEM V.E. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: February 8, 2006 TOPIC: Public Hearing PUD Amendment — Legacy at Woods Edge Signage Criteria City of Lino Lakes BACKGROUND Staff has crafted a final draft of the Signage Criteria for the Legacy at Woods Edge project (Lino Lakes Town Center). This criterion is intended to be added to the existing Lino Lakes Town Center Design and Development Guide as Chapter 5. The majority of the elements of these signage criteria were adapted from the original proposal for Chapter 5, which was eliminated prior to the approval of the guide (Ordinance 04 -04) in 2004. This was augmented by researching other similar mixed -use types of communities, other signage ordinances, and the recently amending city signage ordinance (Ordinance 05 -05). Chapter 5 is broken into 7 sections, as listed below: • 5.1 Free Standing Signs Intended to minimize the free standing signs allowed within the development to those identifying the entire development, those for public and quasi - public single tenants setback substantially from rights -of -ways, and directional signage to lead the public through the development. 5.2 Building Signs Intended to control the size of signage while still allowing businesses to be clearly identified. Some flexibility in the design and style of building signage is built in to encourage businesses to augment building elevations and create a visually interesting building facade. 5.3 Temporary Signs Requirements are very similar to those adopted by the city during the recent revision of the sign code. Some changes were made to keep the Legacy at Woods Edge area at a slightly higher standard. Specifically, banners are prohibited. 5.4 Illumination Intended to allow both identifying illumination as well as accentuation of buildings /businesses. Prohibits the use of electronic message /reader boards. • Legacy Signage Criteria Page 2 5.5 General Regulations Elements from the standards requirements of the city sign code augmented with some additional needs of the Legacy project area, specifically the materials of construction. 5.6 Maintenance Requires the maintenance of signage; and the timely removal of signage for businesses that are no longer in operation. 5.7 Violation This language is taken directly from the city sign ordinance. RECOMMENDATION • Staff is recommending approval of this Planned Unit Development Amendment, to add this language as Chapter Five of the Lino Lakes Town Center Design and Development Guide. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Chapter Five — Lino Lakes Town Center Sign Criteria • CHAPTER 5. • • SIGNAGE STANDARDS 5.1. FREE STANDING SIGNS Project Identity Signs Definition. Signs designed to advertise the entire development and up to three major tenants. Permits must be obtained for the placement of any project identity signage. Placement. Project Identity Signs shall be located in accordance with the 'project identity features' as shown on the Regulating Plan (Figure 4). Design. Up to three major tenants within the project may also have individual signage on the project identity signs for identification purposes; but shall be clearly secondary in size and scope to the advertisement of the entire development, and shall be limited to the name and /or logo of the tenant only. All project identity signage is encouraged to take the form of monument signage integrated into a 'gateway' type feature such as walls or trellises. The final design of the project identity signage must include only materials allowed within the Commercial, Mixed -Use, & Civic District Architectural Standards (Chapter 3.4) and shall be subject to the approval of the City Council. Setback. Project Identity Signage should be setback a minimum of five feet from property lines. If a setback of less than five feet is proposed the City Community Development Department may establish administrative standards based on the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. At no time shall the placement of free standing signage be allowed to impede the visibility of vehicular or pedestrian traffic at intersections. Directional Signs Definition. 'Way- finding' signage intended to direct patrons to businesses and buildings with no commercial messages beyond the names and /or logos of businesses or buildings located within the site. Permits must be obtained for the placement of directional signage. Placement, Design, and Setback. The developer shall submit a directional signage plan for administrative review and approval by city staff. This signage plan must include the location and design of all directional signage for the project. Once the directional signage plan is approved, any subsequent revisions will require an additional administrative review. Single User Signs Definition. Any free standing sign advertising an individual user within the project. Permits are required for the placement of any single user signage. • Placement. Single User Signs shall only be allowed for the Lino Lakes City Hall and the YMCA. Design. Single User signage shall be limited to a single monument sign designed in accordance with the main building on the site. All Single User signage is limited to a single monument sign with a maximum height of eight feet and not to exceed 75 square feet in area. All monument signs shall include a base of masonry materials measuring a minimum of twelve inches above adjacent grades. The design of Single User signage must include only materials allowed within the Commercial, Mixed -Use, & Civic District Architectural Standards (Chapter 3.4). Setback. Single User signage shall be setback a minimum of five feet from property lines. At no time shall the placement of free standing signage be allowed to impede the visibility of vehicular or pedestrian traffic at intersections. Incidental Signs Definition. A sign, generally informational, that has a purpose secondary to the use of the lot on which it is located, such as 'no parking', 'entrance', 'loading only', directory signs, drive - through menu boards, and similar directive or identifying messages. In order to qualify as an incidental sign, a sign may contain the logo or name of the business that is on the same parcel as the sign but shall not contain any other commercial message legible from a position off the lot on which the sign is located. No permit is necessary if the permit is less than four square feet in size. Placement. Incidental signs may be attached to a building or be free - standing with a maximum • height of five feet. • Design. Any incidental sign measuring a maximum of four square feet in size can be placed without a permit. Any incidental sign exceeding four square feet in size must be approved by the City Council. Setback. Incidental signs must be setback a minimum of ten feet from any property line. Prohibited Signs All other free standing signage not listed within Section 5.1 shall be prohibited. All private signage is prohibited from being located within public right of ways or being attached to any public structure, utility pole or utility box. 5.2. BUILDING SIGNS Wall Signs Definition. A permanent sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building or structure with the exposed face to the sign in plane approximately parallel to the face of said wall and extending not more than fifteen inches from the building wall face. All wall signage shall require a permit. Placement. Wall signage shall be placed in accordance with the following requirements: • Multiple Tenant Buildings • Individual tenants with an exclusive exterior entrance are allowed up to two wall signs, with no more than one sign placed on any elevation. Each sign is limited to a maximum average sign height of 30 inches and a maximum width equal to 80% of the lease width. Capital letters and corporate logos shall not exceed 36 inches in height. • In no case shall any wall sign exceed 75 square feet in area. • All wall signage must maintain a minimum six inch margin from the edge of any wall face. • Signs announcing the building, either with a street address name (for example, 100 Town Center Drive) or a building name (for example, The Birch Building), typically placed at the top of the building or over major entrances shall also be allowed. Building Signs shall have a maximum average sign height of 36 inches with Capital letters not to exceed 48 inches. • Awning /Canopy signage shall only be permitted on the vertical plane of the awning or canopy element and shall be included in the calculation of the total sign area, per ground floor business. Single Tenant Buildings • Up to two wall signs per building, with no more than one sign placed on any elevation. Each sign is limited to a maximum average sign height of 30 inches and a maximum width equal to 80% of the elevation width. Capital letters and corporate logos shall not exceed 36 inches. • In no case shall the signage on any elevation exceed 100 square feet. • All wall signage must maintain a minimum six inch margin from the edge of any wall face. • Awning /Canopy signage shall only be permitted on the horizontal plane of the awning or canopy element and shall be included in the calculation of the total sign area, per ground floor business. Projecting Signs Definition. Any permanent business sign affixed to an exterior wall of a building which is perpendicular to the building. Projecting signs require the issuance of a permit. Placement. Projecting signs shall be located only on a wall that is part of the advertisers lease space or building; and shall be located within 10 feet of that tenant or business's main entrance. Placement will be reviewed by the City of Lino Lakes Community Development Department to confirm that it will not interfere with site visibility or create a public health, safety or general welfare hazard. Clearance. Minimum 8 foot clearance from grade, minimum 13 foot clearance from street and /or parking grade. Additional setbacks may be required by the City of Lino Lakes Community Development Department based on the protection of public health, safety or general welfare. • Design. Each business with lease space on the ground floor of a building is allowed up to one 'blade sign' (A non - illuminated projecting sign measuring twelve square feet or less with a maximum dimension of four feet in any direction, which includes the name or corporate logo of a business only). A business may propose to replace one of its allotted wall signs (per Section 5.2 above) with a projecting sign. The City of Lino Lakes Community Development Department will review such a proposal and if necessary forward it to the City Council for approval. Encroachment Agreement. Prior to the issuance of a permit for a projecting sign that will encroach into any public right of way; the City of Lino Lakes must authorize an encroachment agreement for said improvement. The issuance of an encroachment agreement is based on the protection of public safety, health and general welfare. Prohibited Signs All other Building Signs not listed within Section 5.2 are prohibited within the Lino Lakes Town Center; this specifically includes roof signage. Signs shall not be painted directly to any exterior building surface, but shall be on a separate frame except for temporary display windows. Temporary Signs 5.3. TEMPORARY SIGNS • Definition. Any sign that is erected for a limited period of time is required to meet the following: • Political Campaign Signs. Signs or posters announcing the candidate(s) seeking political office and /or political issues, and /or dates pertinent thereto; shall be allowed in accordance with the current standards of the City of Lino Lakes. Real Estate Signs. A temporary sign advertising the sale or lease of property or buildings are allowed as follows: Commercial /Mixed- Use /Civic Districts. Properties within this district may have one sign per street frontage measuring a maximum area of thirty -two square feet. Signs must be attached to the building for which it advertises. If no building exists, it may be a free standing sign with a maximum overall height of eight feet, located a minimum of ten feet from property lines. The sign(s) must be removed upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the final tenant space on the site. Residential Subdivisions. All residential subdivisions are allowed one sign per street frontage measuring a maximum of thirty -two square feet. The sign(s) must be removed upon the sale of the last unit within the subdivision. Additionally, directional signs measuring no larger than four square shall be allowed only during the operating hours of the model homes /sales offices for the project. Individual Residential Properties. Maximum of six square feet, located a minimum of ten feet from property lines. This sign must be removed a maximum of 30 days from the date of sale. • No permit is required for any real estate signs. • Sandwich Boards. A temporary sign constructed to form an 'A; or a tent -like shape, placed in front of a business to advertise its services or goods. Sandwich boards must be constructed of durable materials and be resistant to weather. Each ground floor business may have one sandwich board measuring up to six square feet in area. Such sign must be located no further than fifteen feet from the main entrance of the advertising business and must maintain a minimum of four feet of clear pedestrian passage at all times. Sandwich Boards may include hand written messages as part of the advertising message, but the name of the business as well as any constant logos must be professionally painted, lettered, or adhered. The tenant /business must obtain a permit from the City of Lino Lakes for any sandwich board sign. Construction Signs. A temporary sign located on the site of an approved construction project which identifies the project and its architect, engineer, contractor or supplier. Each site is allowed up to one sign per street frontage, such signs must not exceed thirty -two square feet in area and must be located a minimum of ten feet from any property line. All Construction Signs must be removed 30 days from the certificate of occupancy for any portion of a commercial structure or the final unit of a residential project. No permit is required. Window Signs. Signs that are displayed on the interior face of window panes are limited to the first floor level of buildings; shall not exceed 10% coverage of the window(s) on which they are affixed. Window signs do not require a building permit. Prohibited Signs All other Temporary Signs not listed within Section 5.3 are prohibited within the Lino Lakes Town Center; this specifically includes all types of banners and any hand - written signage unless specifically allowed above. All private signage is prohibited from being located within public right of ways or being attached to any public structure, utility pole or utility box. 5.4. SIGN ILLUMINATION Illumination Illumination of signage is permitted, however all illumination is limited to use during that tenant's hours of operation. The source of light for any sign must be indirect or diffused and shall not be directed into any adjoining residential district. Sign illumination is also prohibited from exceeding the light intensity standards of Section 3, Subdivision 4.F of the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. Neon Accenting The use of neon as an architectural accent requires an administrative approval by the City of Lino Lakes Community Development Department. The use of neon accents is limited to the lesser of the tenant's hours of operations or the hours between sunrise and 10:00 a.m. • Residential Adjacency • In the case of 24 hour businesses, such as a hotel, the exterior lighting, including sign illumination, of the business shall be reviewed at time of building permits to guarantee that it will not be detrimental to any of the adjacent residential uses. Prohibited There shall be no use of revolving beacons, flashing signs, zip flashers, or similar lighting devices. Electronic Reader /Message Boards are also prohibited within the Lino Lakes Town Center. 5.5. GENERAL REGULATIONS All permanent signage within the town center shall be constructed in accordance with the building material requirements of Section 3.2. All signs shall be constructed in conformance with the provisions of the State Building Code. No sign shall be installed, which by reason of position, shape or color would conflict with proper function or interpretation of any traffic sign or signal. No sign shall be permitted to obstruct any window, door, fire escape, stairway or opening of any building or structure. The uprights, structure or back side of all signs must be completely enclosed, unless such part of 41) the sign is integral to the overall design of the sign. • For the purpose of this Ordinance, maximum square footage of a sign shall be computed on the basis of one (1) face of any multi -faced sign. 5.6. SIGN MAINTENANCE Signs which become unsafe or unkempt in appearance shall be repaired or removed by the licensee upon notification by the City of Lino Lakes. The permit owner shall be liable for the expense of removal and maintenance incurred by the City of Lino Lakes. Within 60 days of the cease of operations the signage for said business shall be removed and the signage band shall be repainted and /or repaired as needed. If this is not completed the permit owner shall be liable for the expense of removal incurred by the City of Lino Lakes. 5.7. VIOLATION Any violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor. Each day of such violation shall constitute a separate offense. Punishment therefore may involve a fine of up to Seven Hundred ($700) dollars or a jail sentence of ninety (90) days, or both; this shall not, however, allow the continued existence of a violation and removal thereof may be undertaken by the City upon a ten (10) day notice of such proposed removal to the violator.