The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/09/2008 P&Z Packet• • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, January 9, 2008 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers (Scheduled to be televised on Ch. 16) Please be courteous and turn off all electronic devices during the meeting. AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 12, 2007 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for a Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Variance for a one lot residential subdivision to be called Vaughan's 1St Addition, located at the north end of Ruffed Grouse Road on Outlot D, Pheasant Hills Preserve, PIN 27- 31 -22 -23 -0010 — Paul Bengtson B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Planned Unit Development; a PUD Preliminary Development Plan/Preliminary Plat; a Conditional Use Permits for a motor fuel station; a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash; and two Conditional Use Permits for outdoor dining, for a four lot commercial development to be called Main Street Village located at the SE Corner of I -35E and Main Street, PIN 24- 31 -22 -13 -0005 and 24- 31 -22 -13 -0002 — Jeff Smyser C. Variance to allow an existing detached accessory structure to encroach into the side setback, 2221 Reiling Road — Paul Bengtson — tabled from December mtg. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 2007 Year -End Board Review VII. ADJOURN Meeting guidelines on reverse side. City of Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board MEETING GUIDELINES Open Mike — The purpose of a Board Meeting is to accomplish the business of the city. When presenting at a meeting please remember to be respectful, and follow these guidelines: • Please address the meeting chair. • State your name and address for the record. • Please observe a 4- minute limit. • The topic must relate to city business. • Open Mike is for items not on the agenda. • A spokesperson must represent a group of five or more — groups will have 8 minutes. • The Presiding Officer may limit duplicative presentations. • Remember, the meeting is to discuss city business only. Public Hearing - Held as a separate item of business on the agenda. The public hearing segment is your opportunity to tell the Board how you feel about issues scheduled to be heard. Typically, a hearing follows these steps: • The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice - Chair) will announce the proposal to be reviewed and ask for the staff report. The presiding Officer shall maintain strict order and etiquette at all meetings. • Staff will present their report on the proposal. • Board members will then ask City Staff questions about the proposal. • The Presiding Officer will then open up the public hearing for anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Comments should be limited to four (4) minutes unless further time is granted by the Presiding Officer. All comments should be directed to the Board as a body and not to any individual Board Member or City Staff Member unless permission is granted by the Presiding Officer. No person shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Board without the permission of the Presiding Officer. • After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his /her comments, the Presiding Officer shall close the public hearing. • The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. • The Board will then make a recommendation(s) and /or a decision. When you are called upon for your comments, please step to the microphone at the podium and state your name and address for the record. Occasionally, the Board may continue a hearing to another meeting before taking action. Meeting Etiquette The Planning & Zoning Board must preserve order and decorum while the meeting is in session. A resident shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the business of the Board, nor disturb any resident or Board Member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the Board. • • • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT, : December 12, 2007 6.32 P.M. 8.25 P.M. : Michael Hyden, Perry Laden, Robert Nelson, Brian Pogalz (Vice Chair), Michael Root, Paul Tralle (Chair) : Rob Rafferty • Jeff Smyser, Paul Bengtson, Michael Grochala, Jim Studenski I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Tralle called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. on December 12, 2007. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 10, 2007 & November 14, 2007 Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to approve the October 10, 2007 and November 14, 2007 Minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 4 - 0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Tralle declared Open Mike at 6:34 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:35 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 - 0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING for a Preliminary Plat for a two lot residential subdivision to be called Marshan Meadows 2nd Addition, located at 7332 Stagecoach Trail DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2007 Page 2 Paul Bengtson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Root arrived at 6:39 p.m. Staff recommended approval subject to the eight conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Tralle opened the Public Hearing at 6:42 p.m. Steve Gaffney, Bruggeman Properties, was in attendance for questions. Mr. Pogalz made a Motion to close the Public Hearing at 6:43 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend APPROVAL of the Preliminary Plat for Marshan Meadows 2nd Addition subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 2. A development agreement between the city and the developer must be executed prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site. 3. Park dedication must be paid in accordance with the city's fee schedule. 4. A conservation easement shall be granted over the drainage and utility easement within the lots fronting Marshan Lake. Easement restrictions shall be defined prior to city council approval of the final plat. 5. The Rice Creek Watershed District must review the project prior to building permits being issued by the city for any new construction. 6. A boulevard tree shall be provided for each lot frontage. 7. The drainage and utility easement shown on the south property line of Lot 2, Block 1 shall be reduced to 5 feet in width prior to the final plat mylar being signed and released by the city. 8. The signs for the conservation easement must be in place prior to the issuance of building permits for either of the newly created lots. Motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 - 0. B. PUBLIC HEARING for a Preliminary Plat for a one lot residential subdivision to be called Vaughan's 1st Addition, located at the north end of Ruffed Grouse Road on Outlot D, Pheasant Hills Preserve Paul Bengtson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Bengtson stated that DRAFT MINUTES • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2007 Page 3 upon review of the application, staff determined a need for a rezoning of the property and the potential need for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance. Staff recommended that the board continue this item to the next meeting to allow for the necessary revisions to be made. Mr. Bengtson noted that city staff is working with the project engineer on corrections to the submitted documents. Staff encouraged the board to open the Public Hearing in order to address any concerns of the public. Chair Tralle opened the Public Hearing at 6:48 p.m. Larry Leibel, 1281 Birch St., Lino Lakes, stated that Mr. Vaughan has been an excellent neighbor, however was concerned that any fill may cause water to flow onto his property. Kirk Corson, 6662 Ruffed Grouse Road, stated that the previous Comprehensive Plan showed a trail on this property. He wondered if this had been addressed as he would like access to a trail as previously proposed. Mr. Studenski stated that no earthwork will occur near Birch Street, therefore drainage will not affect Mr. Leibel's property. Mr. Smyser stated that the previous trail plan showed a trail going through the property, however the latest trail plan does not include a trail in this area. He stated that there is no interest for the city to place a trail in that location, and that staff cannot put a trail on someone's property just because someone wants it there. Mr. Ed Vaughan, applicant, was present to address the board. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to CONTINUE the Public Hearing for the Preliminary Plat for Vaughan's 1st Addition to the January meeting. Motion was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 5 - 0. C. Variance to allow an existing detached accessory structure to encroach into the side setback, 2221 Reiling Road Paul Bengtson, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He noted that staff still needs to review the revised survey with the city attorney. Therefore staff recommended tabling the item to the January meeting as discussion at this time would be premature. Mr. Tralle suggested that the item be tabled without opening the item for discussion. Mr. Root made a MOTION to TABLE the Variance to allow an existing detached accessory structure to encroach into the side setback at 2221 Reiling Road to the January meeting. Motion was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 5 - 0. Chair Tralle called a five minute recess at 7:02 p.m. Chair Tralle reconvened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2007 Page 4 D. PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Planned Unit Development; a PUD Preliminary Development Plan/Preliminary Plat; a Conditional Use Permit for a motor fuel station; a Conditional Use Permit for a car wash; and two Conditional Use Permits for outdoor dining, for a four lot commercial development to be called Main Street Village located at the SE Corner of I -35E and Main Street Jeff Smyser, City Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Smyser noted that some of the data received in the traffic report was incorrect. He stated that revisions are necessary and should resolve a number of issues that staff had with the submittal. Staff recommended that the board open the public hearing for comment and continue the hearing to the January meeting. Board Members wondered if outdoor seating could be allowed as part of the PUD without requiring a CUP. Mr. Smyser stated that there is flexibility with a PUD that could allow for outdoor seating as part of the approval depending on the conditions of the seating area. Mr. Laden asked if the car wash meets the guidelines for a stand alone building. He suggested more detail be added to the car wash building. Mr. Smyser stated that a three foot wide canopy over the gas pumps is not unique. Mr. Hyden was concerned about traffic flow and exiting onto a busy road in traffic. Mr. Smyser responded that circulation and access points are primary concerns. Mr. Tralle opened the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. Kathy Anderson, Architectural Consortium, encouraged approval of the outdoor amenities that are similar to those in the Blaine Village. She stated that the likelihood of a large restaurant is remote. She explained that a sidewalk will connect the entire development from Otter Lake Road to ensure a safe circulation. She pointed out that the McDonald's includes the updated EIFS. Representatives of Azure Properties, Suntide Realty, QuikTrip & McDonald's were present. Mr. Laden commended the applicants on the changes made since the last submittal. Mr. Pogalz questioned why a Kwik Trip would be located so close to another Kwik Trip store. Scott Tygen, chief national officer for Kwik Trip, stated they believe they will be able to sustain stores on each side of the road. He explained that Kwik Trip originated from the grocery side and since added gas to their facilities. There are currently 3080 stores. Mr. Tygen noted that they are a strong Christian- based, family owned, profit - sharing company, voted best community store in the United States. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2007 Page 5 • Mr. Hyden complimented the use of simulated rock. Mr. Tralle commented that this project should be a very nice presence on the corner and the applicant has listened well and resolved issues. Mr. Tom Schuette, Azure Properties, Little Canada stated that they are working to meet AUAR requirements for drainage and infiltration. He added that they originally thought the requirements could not be met, but Pioneer Engineering has done a great job. Mr. Schuette explained that a great deal of effort was involved to make the traffic circulation work. He said they struggled with the suggestion by the city that traffic be one -way southbound to the entrance, but tenants insist that northbound travelers need access to the west. He said this is critical to the development, and is convinced that the proposed plan is safe and workable and provides good traffic flow. Mr. Schuette stated that they prefer to rough grade the road to the south by the water tower, and possibly pave with the second phase of the development. He said they would like to keep flexibility of future possibilities for this development. He stated Mr. Milbauer, Lino Lake State Bank, suggests moving the access approximately 20 - 30 feet eastward to keep the two entrances to the bank. Mr. Smyser stated that staff will examine the changes in the traffic study and work with • the county to address access details. • Mr. Laden requested a plan showing pedestrian circulation areas for the next meeting. Mr. Schuette stated they would like to begin building in the spring. Mr. Tygen said it is imperative for Kwik Trip that both access points be maintained for both customers and delivery trucks. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to TABLE the recommendation for the Main Street Village project to the January meeting. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 - 0. E. PUBLIC HEARING for an amendment to the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, Subd. 4. related to the completion of permitted exterior work on buildings Jeff Smyser, City Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Smyser noted that this amendment is proposed because the city building official and building inspectors have had issues with the delay of work being completed in a reasonable amount of time. Pete Kluegel, Building Official, explained that the city has received a lot of complaints in this area. He noted that finishing the exterior does not provide any undue hardship and that this amendment is necessary to improve the city. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2007 Page 6 Mr. Laden asked what type of enforcement mechanism the city would have. Mr. Smyser replied that staff would charge offenders with violation of the zoning ordinance and could take them to court. Mr. Tralle opened the Public Hearing at 8:22 p.m. Mr. Pogalz made a Motion to close the Public Hearing at 8:23 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0 Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to recommend APPROVAL of the Amendment to the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, Subd. 4, related to the completion of permitted exterior work on buildings. Motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 - O. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Update on Comp Plan Process — Open House Mr. Tralle stated that the board accepts that the Comprehensive Plan process is progressive. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Dawn Bugge Community Development Assistant DRAFT MINUTES • • • • AGENDA ITEM 5.A. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P &Z MEETING DATE: January 9, 2008 TOPIC: Public Hearing: Vaughan's 1st Addition Rezoning to R -1X (Single Family Executive) Variance to Shoreland Ordinance's OHWL setback Preliminary Plat BACKGROUND Ed Vaughan has requested approval of a 1 lot residential subdivision to be known as Vaughan's 1St Addition. The subject site was previously approved for the Pheasant Hills Preserve No. 12 project which was not constructed and the approval has expired. The project was on the December 12, 2007 regular meeting agenda, and the public hearing was opened and continued to this meeting. The developer has submitted revised plans which are the basis for this review. The comments received by staff at the public hearing and previously by direct contact with neighbors have mostly focused on the possibility that two lots would be built at the end of Ruffed Grouse Road. Other concerns have included the use of the property adjacent to Birch Street immediately and in the future. ANALYSIS The following is a summary of the proposal: Site Area 30.66 acres Lot 1 3.38 acres Outlot A 27.29 acres Upland Area Lot 1 20,127 s.f. upland Outlot A 20,447 s.f. upland (direct access to ruffed grouse) Total Lots 1 Density 2.17 units per acre Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning: The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Vacant Low Density Sewered Residential Planned Unit Development North Vacant Public / Semi - Public Public / Semi - Public South Single Family Low Density Sewered Residential R -1X (Single Family Executive) East Outlot A Low Density Sewered Residential R -1X (Single Family Executive) West Single Family Low Density Sewered Residential R -1X (Single Family Executive) Growth Management, MUSA Reserve: MUSA boundary area. Growth Management, Units/Year: The table attached to this report shows the status of the staging plans for final platting of new residential units. The new unit of Vaughn's 1st Addition will not be platted until 2008 and will fit within that year's allotment. Preliminary Plat The Preliminary Plat depicts one buildable lot, labeled as Lot 1, and one outlot which is labeled as Outlot A. It is not unusual for plats to include outlots for future development; however a review of the future use of that outlot is certainly appropriate. Lot 1: The developer is proposing a single residential lot at the end of Ruffed Grouse Road, and a large outlot that would be available for future development. Lot 1 is the residential lot proposed for the end of Ruffed Grouse Road, and it meets all minimum lot requirements of the zoning ordinance. However, due to the shape and the close proximity to the Ordinary High Water Line, the lot can not provide enough land for all of the necessary improvements on the site. Specifically, the infiltration basin that is needed for the site is currently located in the flood plain area, and does not currently meet city standards for separation from the groundwater level. Vaughan's 1St Addition Page 2 of 5 The subject site is currently located within the Outlot A: The upland for this outlot is concentrated in three areas, at the end of Ruffed Grouse Road, on the `Island', and along the Birch Street frontage. It is not believed that any of these three upland pieces could be developed without the granting of variances to the Shoreland Ordinance for the OHWL setback (150 feet). Birch Street Upland: The upland at Birch Street would probably be best used in conjunction with the development of the adjacent properties; however, the Preliminary Plat does indicate a small buildable area that could be developed with a small single family home. The `Island': The Developer is hoping to retain access to the `Island' for potential future development. This application does not in anyway address development of the `Island' itself, but access to the `Island' is the developer's reasoning behind the upland area at the end of Ruffed Grouse being a part of the Outlot. Ruffed Grouse Upland: The upland area at the end of Ruffed Grouse is 20,447 square feet in size, but because of the Shore Impact Zone (75 feet, half of the OHWL setback) the lot can not provide enough buildable area to meet the zoning ordinance requirements for a single family dwelling. For the purposes of addressing the infiltration basin issue and addressing the concern that a 2 °d home would be built at the end of Ruffed Grouse Road; staff is recommending that Lot 1 be enlarged to encompass all of the upland lot area at the end of Ruffed Grouse. Access to the `Island' can still be maintained with a private access easement. • • • Vaughan's 1st Addition Page 3 of 5 Shoreland Ordinance: The subject site is adjacent to Wards Lake, which is considered a Natural Environment Lake and therefore is subject to the more restrictive Shoreland Ordinance Requirements for Lot Dimensions, Impervious Surface Coverage, and Setbacks. The lot depicted on the submitted plats meets the minimum upland lot size of 20,000 square feet, but the required setback from the Ordinary High Water Level of Wards Lake is not being met. A Variance is being requested to allow the OHWL setback to be reduced to approximately 80 feet as shown on the preliminary plat. Staff is supportive of the residential development of the upland at the end of Ruffed Grouse Road and therefore is recommending that the Variance be granted for the construction of one single family home. Floodplain Ordinance: A portion of the subject site is located within the floodplain as defined by the Rice Creek Watershed at an elevation of 887.6. The revised plans have removed the building pad from the flood plain area, and the grading work within the flood plain is below the amount which requires a Conditional Use Permit. Staff notes that the infiltration area proposed by the developer is within the floodplain area, which is not the preferred option. Staff would like to see as minimal an impact on the floodplain area as possible. Setbacks: The submitted plans depict all required setbacks, except the 150 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Line as required by the Shoreland Ordinance. The Variance that is being requested and recommended for approval is for the building pad as currently depicted on the plans (roughly 80 feet of setback provided). This setback is measured to any improvement attached to the single family dwelling, including decks and/or patios. This would mean that any and all improvements would be required to stay within the building pad shown on the submitted plans. Staff is also requesting that the developer revise the plans to clearly indicate the setback of the building pad from the OHWL at its minimum distance. Impervious Surface Coverage: The lot will be required to comply with the 30% Impervious Surface Coverage requirement of the Shoreland Ordinance as they develop, the current building pad and drive would put the site at approximately 14.73 %. Streets & Utilities: Ruffed Grouse is already in place and Lot 1 will have a drive way cut added to allow access to the site. Sanitary sewer and water are located within the right of way. The drainage and utility easement will need to cover the typical 5 feet on the side property lines, and 10 feet on the front. Additionally, the flood plain elevation level will need to be covered with an easement. Grading: The grading plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer and his comments will need to be addressed to his satisfaction prior to the site being developed. The largest concern for the site is the infiltration basin and the need to maintain a three foot separation from the seasonally high groundwater level. The submitted plans do not currently meet the requirements, and this supports staffs recommendation that the entire upland lot area at the end of Ruffed Grouse Road should be included in the buildable lot area for Lot 1 of the plat. Park Dedication: There is no land dedication needed, as Quail Ridge Park is nearby, so the typical park dedication fee will be collected with the Development Agreement. Environmental Board: The Environmental Board reviewed the project on November 28, 2007. Their comments are attached. The most important of those being that they suggest increasing the lot to include a portion of Outlot A so the structure can be removed from the floodplain and the shore impact zone disturbance can be minimized. RECOMMENDATION Vaughan's 1st Addition Page 4 of 5 Staff is recommending approval of the Rezoning, Variance to the OHWL setback, and Preliminary Plat for Vaughan's 1St Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot 1 must be enlarged to encompass the entire upland area at the north end of Ruffed Grouse Road. 2. Issues discussed in the City Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. A development agreement between the city and the developer must be executed prior to the issuance of any building permits for the site. 4. The final plat must clearly depict all required easements. 5. The Rice Creek Watershed District must review the project prior to building permits being issued by the city for any new construction. 6. A boulevard tree shall be provided for each lot frontage. 7. Park dedication must be paid in accordance with the city's fee schedule. 8. Any development of the land contained in Outlot A will first require replatting that land as a developable lot. This review is based on the following plans and information: City Engineer Comments dated January 2, 2008 Environmental Board Comments from November 28, 2007 Marshan Meadows 2nd Plan Packet received December 14, 2007 LOTS /UNITS as of 12/13/07 Vaughan's 1St Addition Page 5 of 5 Development Name approved prelim. plats Prelim Plat Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be final platted) 2003 - 2009 total max. 1029 year end 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Stoneybrook 103 51 0 2nd Addn 0 52 52 Century Farms North 249 56 65 52 43 33 249 Keefe: prel plat, not final plat 1 1 1 Morton (minor subdiv) 0 1 0 1 Ravens Hollow 56 0 56 56 Haley Manor (10 new lots) 10 10 0 10 Crystal Cove 3 3 0 3 Millers Crossroads 152 22 47 51 32 152 Lakeview Estates (2 new) 2 2 2 Snell (minor subdivision) 0 1 1 Pheasant Hills Pres. 13th 1 1 1 Justin's Preserve 1 1 1 Marshan Estates 4 4 4 Rice Creek Church duplex 2 2 2 Rice Church: Oakwood View 10 10 10 Junes Addn 2 2 2 I Highland Meadows East 2nd 18 18 18 Marshan Townhomes 2nd 23 23 Pheasant Hills 12th island 8 8 8 West Shadow Ponds 2nd Add 1 1 1 Vaughan Addition 5 5 5 Angie's Acres (1 new) 1 1 1 Marshan Lakeview (2 new) 2 2 2 Marshan Meadows 20 20 20 Pine Glen 72 40 32 72 Cavegn (1 new lot) 1 1 1 Golden Acre (3 new lots) 3 3 3 Fran's Estate (1 new lot) 1 1 1 Cox Estate (1 new lot) 1 1 1 Grandview 7 7 7 Moon Marsh 3 new 3 3 Marshan Meadows 2nd Addn 1 new 1 1 Vaughn's 1st Addn 1 1 1 0 total 51 148 176 171 141 77 2 715 remaining of annual 147 -1 -29 -24 6 70 145 147 remaining of 1029 units for pre -2010 • 314 Memorandum DATE: January 2, 2008 TO: Paul Bengston FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Vaughan's First Addition Attached please find a TKDA Review dated January 2, 2008, of the submitted documents for the Vaughan's First Addition Project. Please note that incomplete item no. 1 on the drainage review still exists and must be addressed prior to preliminary plat approval. The remaining items must be addressed prior to final approval. Contact me with any questions, thank you. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651 - 982 -2400 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499 • TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292-0083 fax www.tkda.com To: James E. Studenski, P.E. Reference: Vaughan's 1st Addition Copies To: Connie J. Taillon, P.E Preliminary Plat Review City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Proj. No.: 13810.000 From: Matt Woodruff, P.E. Routing: Date: January 2, 2008 The following review is based on these submittals: 1. Vaughan's 1st Addition Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan, submitted by Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, dated December 14, 2007. 2. Vaughan's 1st Addition Stormwater Report, submitted by Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, dated December 14, 2007. General Comments: 1. All General Comments have been addressed. 2. Refer to the attached drainage review comments, dated December 26, 2007. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS MEMORANDUM 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292 -4400 (651) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com To: Matthew Woodruff, P.E. Reference: Vaughan's 1st Addition Copies To: James E. Studenski, P.E. Preliminary Drainage Review City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota From: Connie J. Taillon, P.E. Proj. No.: 13810.000 Date: December 26, 2007 Routing: • The following drainage review is based on these submittals: 1. Vaughan's 1st Addition Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan, submitted by Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, dated December 14, 2007. 2. Vaughan's 1st Addition Stormwater Report, submitted by Metro Land Surveying & Engineering, dated December 14, 2007. New comments are in bold and identify additional items that need to be addressed. The following are significant issues that must be addressed prior to preliminary plat approval: 1. Submit stormwater calculations for review. Verify that the existing storm sewer system has the capacity to convey additional runoff from the proposed site. In addition, verify if downstream detention ponds receiving additional runoff from the site are sized appropriately. 12/26/07 The proposed conditions drainage map and drainage calculations are not consistent with the current Grading Plan. Submit a revised proposed conditions drainage map and drainage calculations that identify the most current proposed drainage areas and infiltration basin volume. 2. Wards Lake is classified as a natural environment lake in the City of Lino Lakes Shoreland Management Overlay Ordinance. The City requires a 150 foot structure setback and a 75 foot shore impact zone for a natural environmental lake, both measured from the OHW. Show the 150 foot structure setback and 75 foot shore impact zone on the plan. In addition, label the percent impervious cover on the plans. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. Additional Items (12/03/07): 3. Section 1102.07 of the City Shoreland Management Ordinance states that, "at least 70% of the shore impact zone of a new development shall be preserved in its natural or existing state." Provide. calculations showing that at least 70% of the shore impact zone on Lot 1 is not being disturbed by grading activities. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity • • • Vaughan's 1st Addition Page 2 December 26, 2007 Drainage Calculation Review City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 12/11/07 Since the 75 foot shore impact zone line is offset from the wetland delineation line and not from the OHW on the Grading Plan (see comment 6 below), clarify how the shore impact zone area of 17,065 square feet was calculated. 12/26/07 Clarify if the calculated shore impact zone area of 32, 226 square feet includes Outlot A. 4. A three foot (3') minimum separation is required from the bottom of the infiltration basin to the seasonally high groundwater. Based on the submitted soil borings, the seasonal high groundwater was observed at approximately two feet (2') below existing grade. 5. The City may require the Applicant to submit an alternative design for this site. The final development plan alternative will need to demonstrate that floodplain fill, disturbance within the 75 foot shoreland impact zone, and encroachment of the building structure in the 150 structure setback is minimized. 6. The wetland delineation line is incorrectly labeled as the Ordinary High Water Elevation. Revise the wetland delineation call -out on the Plans. In addition, include the Ordinary High Water Elevation (drawn at an elevation of 883.7) on the Plan and label. Revise the 75 foot shoreland impact zone to be measured from the ordinary high water elevation instead of the wetland delineation as currently drawn. As stated in comment 2 above, the 150 foot structure must also be shown on the Plans. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. The following are minor plan, calculations, and drafting corrections that must be addressed prior to final approval: 1. Label Rough Grouse Street on the plan. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. 2. Show the location of the rock construction entrance and inlet protection on the Grading Plan. 12/11/07 The erosion control notes on Sheet 3 indicate that temporary erosion control is to be placed around storm drain structures during construction. Show the location of the inlet protection on the plan. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. 3. Include a silt fence detail and inlet protection detail on the Plan. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. 4. Include a note on the Plans indicating that all adjacent streets must be inspected daily and swept clean of sediment tracked from the site. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. Vaughan's 1st Addition Drainage Calculation Review City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Page 3 December 26, 2007 5. If an NPDES permit is required for this site, submit a copy of the permit for the City's records when available. 6. Contact Rice Creek Watershed District to determine if a permit is required for this project. If required, submit a copy of the RCWD permit for the City's records when available. 7. Show the soil boring locations on the Plans. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. 8. Label the wetland buffer on the Plan. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. 9. Any disturbance within the wetland buffer area shall be restored with native vegetation. 12/26/07 Specify the type of native vegetation used to restore the disturbed wetland buffer areas on the plan. 10. The silt fence encroaches on the wetland delineation boundary at the northeast corner of the lot. Revise the drawing to show the silt fence outside of the wetland delineation boundary. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. 11. Label the infiltration basin on the Plan. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. 12. Clarify the design criteria for the infiltration basin and submit design calculations for review. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. 13. Provide a cross - section detail of the infiltration basin on the Plans that includes information such as the depth and type of soil mixture. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. 14. Include notes on the Grading Plan incorporating the following: 1) the proposed infiltration basin should be staked off and marked during construction to prevent heavy equipment from compacting the soil, 2) the infiltration basin should not be excavated to final grade until the contributing drainage areas have been constructed and fully stabilized, and 3) final excavation of the infiltration basin should be completed using light tracked equipment to avoid compacting the basin floor. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. 15. To provide a well aerated, highly porous surface, the soils of the infiltration basin floor should be loosened to a depth of at least twelve inches (12 ") prior to planting. • • Vaughan' s 1st Addition Page 4 December 26, 2007 Drainage Calculation Review City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 16. It is highly recommended that temporary erosion control blanket be used in the infiltration basin to help prevent the seeds from floating and being transported downstream. 12/26/07 This item has been addressed. Additional Item (12/26/07) 17. The concrete washout area labeled on the Grading Plan will need to be moved out of the 75 foot shore impact zone and located in an area that will minimize the potential for concrete and rinse water to impact the wetland and adjacent buffer areas. Provide a detail of a concrete washout area on the plan. The detail should show how the rinse water and concrete will be contained in the washout area. A note should also be included on the plan that requires proper off -site disposal of the waste concrete and rinse water. Memo Environmental To: Paul Bengtson From: Marty Asleson Date: 11/29/07 Re: Environmental Board Recommendations of November 28, 2007 Environmental Board Recommendations for Vaughn First Addition The following recommendations were made by the Environmental Board at the November 28th Environmental Board meeting: 1. Location and elevations of the treatment pond must built to the verified OHW and seasonally high ground water indicators with adequate (3 feet) separation between the bottom of the pond and the seasonally high ground water. 2. This site should be designed in a treatment train approach. 3. The bottom of the treatment pond proposed must be at least three feet above stained soil layers. 4. Follow the Shoreland Overlay District requirements. 5. A tree preservation plan has not been submitted and must be submitted before any allowed soil disturbance. 6. The following pollution prevention measures should be taken: • A concrete truck wash -out area must be indicated on the plan, and marked in the field with a sign. • Page 1 • • A method of keeping lot sediments on the site must be indicated in the plan, through either daily street sweeping or 5/8 "- clear, rock entrances. (Detail on Sheet 5). • Silt fence must be properly installed and maintained when the fence becomes 1/3 full. 7. Infiltration basin and restoration of natural vegetation areas that are disturbed out of confirmed need for construction must be seeded with the city native seed mix. 8. No importing or exporting of soils may be allowed without city approval. All soils brought into the site must not be substantially different from soils that were used to calculate storm water volumes. 9. The footprint of the house should meet the standards of the shoreland overlay district. Suggest moving the house pad to include part of Lot A. 10. Forward to Planning and Zoning with the feeling that this application is incomplete without a tree preservation plan. Motion: To approve recommendations and forward on to Planning and Zoning by DeHaven, second by Andrzejewski. All were in favor. Motion passed. • •1 Dry = 0 It ( t - Do cra bo N •O 589°59'42 "E 1314.91 VA UGI-IAN'S 1ST ADDITION 9r h N89'34'47 "E 719.26 i (; • . LOT 1 lr 7-1g 147,236 s4 ft ue /m __._ -< 1 ' seers euem 3.38 aces - ,..e.W"isow.! Bret �� i . Edge Of Wetland As Delineated By *bade Associate* • T • •1 Co October 243007 • 1 - l &5-ft lifetime' Suffer j • 670.02 . 11.. . -The Southwest comer of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4, Sec 28, Twp. 31, Rge. 22 N89'57'53 150 -ft Setback from MIL 644.89 pIXeary High NOM EAwtkn 8817 - - i eadalm6 EFewlfbr Be7.8 • /7'. ,OG/TLOTA 1,188.683 . ft.. 2789 Vie, 7S-ft Shan Melee! Zane • 1/ 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY CASE #242520) Outlot D, Pheasant Hills Preserve, Anoka County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that part of Outlot D, Pheasant Hills Preserve, being in the West One -half of the Northwest One - Quarter, Section 27, Township3l, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast comer of the West One -half of soid Northwest One- quarter, Section 27; thence North 01 degrees 00 minutes 55 seconds West along the East line of soid West One -half, Northwest One - quarter, Section 27, a distance of 57.73 feet to the Southeast comer of said Outlot D for a point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence North 01 degree 00 minutes 55 seconds West, along the East line of said Outlot 0, a distance of 910.02 feet; thence South 89 degrees 22 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance of 580.47 feet; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 55 seconds East, parallel with the East line of said Outlot D, a distance of 548.90 feet; thence North 89 degrees 22 minutes 49 seconds East, parallel with the South line of said Northwest One- quarter, Section 27, a distance of 416.00 feet; thence South 01 degree 00 minutes 55 seconds East, parallel with the East line of said Outlot D a distance of 370.14 feet to the Northerly right -of -way line of C.SA.H. No. 10 (Anoka County Right -of -Way Plat No. 11); thence North 85 degrees 24 minutes 36 seconds East along soid right -of -way line a distance of 28.66 feet; thence continuing along said right -of -way line along a curve concave to the North (which hos a radius of 2879.72 feet, a delta angle of 02 degrees 00 minutes 31 seconds, and on arc length of 136.02) a chord bearing and distance of North 86 degrees 24 minutes 53 seconds East, 136.01 feet to the point of beginning. And EXCEPT the North 1100 feet of Outlot D, Pheasant Hills Preserve, Anoka County, Minnesota. And EXCEPT the South 400 feet of the North 1500 feet of the East 600 feet of Outlot D, Pheasant Hills Preserve, Anoka County, Minnesota. LINO LAKES FEMA ZONES -per FEMA PANEL NO. 270015 0010 B, effective date: Noy 17, 1982 ZONE A -Areas of 100 -year flood; base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined. ZONE C -Areas of minimal flooding TOTAL ACREAGE 1,335,920 Sq. Ft. = 30.66 Acres OWNER/DEVELOPER Edward E. Vaughan & Dolores E. Vaughan 1432 Pheasant HMIs Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55038 SURVEYOR Metro Land Surveying & Engineering 248 Apollo Drive Suite 100 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 645.51 - LEGEND • = DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND 0 = DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET -- -•992 = DENOTES 2 FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL DENOTES DITCH LINE as - DENOTES OVER HEAD UNE = DENOTES POWER POLE = DENOTES TREE UNE = DENOTES SHORE IMPACT ZONE The Southeast comer of the NE 1/4--.' - 56 the NE 1/4, Sec. 28, Twp. 31, Roe -22 0) The Southwest comer of the NW 1/4--' of Sec. 27, Twp. 31, Rge. 22 • ZONE' �A Edpe.Ol Wetland - OUTLOTA • . 1,188,683 sq. ft 27.28 acres- - - zbIyiE .. - LOCATION MAP Norm SCALE 4-1 cc, 41. fr � ►" I CSA.H. Nato ti� • 4'Gth L cr SECTIONS 27, & 28, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. N89'34'47 ”.11 600.01 EDGE 1F WETLAND= -. 0 00 SC W FEET • • ..,...-Ordinary High Maur Breeden 8817 75-ft Shun anpmr ZaOe � • : JD- If;5aE6otk pain tYlIII - - _ —� 1LLee�4; 1 / L- 129.33 R =5669.58 - -The South Me f the NW 1/4 of - ".. r` 15. f1' 4=1'18'25' — Sec. 27, Twp. 31, Rge. 22 R AP C. 21I NOS 1 0 The Southeast com- e- r of the —' W 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Sec 27, Twp. 31, Rg . 22 RECEIVED DEC 1 4 2007 CITY OF LINO LAKES 0 z 0 0 0z Q � N Y N o zz Q J 0 PREUMINARY PLAT CRAM ar0= JMA w10.ECr e 2003.001 12/14/07 0501 1 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AND SETBACKS ARE SHOWN AS THUS: I I 10.00- ---+.1 III 30.00 II 1 __ 10.00- f �— 5.00 EASEMENTS BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH ON ADJOINING SIDE LOT UNES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH ON FRONT LOT LINES. SETBACKS BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH ON ADJOINING SIDE LOT LINES, AND BEING 30 FEET IN WIDTH ON FRONT LOT LINES. VA UGIHAN'S 1ST ADDITION LOT 1 INFORMATION Total Area of Shore Impact Zone: 32,226 sq. ft. Area Above OHWL: 41,081 sq. ft. Area Above Wetland Edge: 20,127 sq. ft. Compensatory Storage Area: 1,985 sq. ft. 4t—i cc, 1 5 t" LOCATION MAP or l0 SCALE FSA.H. NF70 r' A g r c3" ,1" ciq'G ,t" 1 4� L__ _J SECTIONS 27, & 2a, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 0 00 I fEEf LOT >9� 17,236 sq. ft. 3.38 acres Edgg Of Wetland As Delineated By Wenck Associates On October 23, '2007 atlu- 16.5 —ft Wetland duffer >N� AIL } Ordinary High Water Elevation: 883.7 RCWD Flaodp /ain Elevation: 887.6 D&TWTA 1 —890— 150 —ft Setback from OHWL ■ 0 1,188,683 aq. ft. 27.'`29 acres } — I , /' � 'r t I t L 1 75 —ft Shgre Impact Zone aN> RECEIVED NEC 1 4 2007 CITY OF UNO LAKES rn W PRELIMINARY PLAT DP.1W OCECKED JMA PROJECT / 2003.001 12/14/07 SNOT 2 VAUGHAN'S 1ST ADDITION RESOURCE INV_ENTORY- JO- / • LOT 1 >W. \ \ \ FEMA FLOOD ZCIINE 'A' ' BOIL TYPE Rf) Edgg Of Wetland As Delineated By Wenck Associates On October 23, 2007 41, 16.5—ft Weiland Elcuffer SOIL TYPE Du HdC2 Rf 150—ft Setback from JO- • CC) / AL, • — • . .•-••"" • - - - - — s - e*7; • BO Bro. ju BI 0 I .41‘ Sk , l• J. — I-''' 6' ill,'" -9' Br • 131 '0', • ‘'''' ...,.. - 7' 8' 30..„'-'.7--i7I B1 CS',..?_,.. 12"11: ‘1, -.,Z:fsific..:. 13_1 1 ., 8, 8/ , 5". RD ..• BI 18" BI \ '''' "i::-"II' 31 -.,...; - 7--1. -13P- 7e-i.-:-.. 'A- 1‘1',..0,' F,L. , ,,''' , ;,-. eili in '' -••• ---,'''7, 31 `''' - 14' co-0-ca' lo' cri,,,,- c -.a ,,"' .-''s. ,,a, •-, . '',7' BI te iti_. .„.., u• al ,.._,6 ...,...„p-4.,,,,4-z.g,p ... 8' 31,-", '• , Cfi7' BI „•" 1 .. -i(?„.Ct'' ' I- 'L'„,5r,`„1-, ' 4(--;' 30 / /' CO1 II / ,i :,, . 0/131.-- iLli _.,....41,..7..,,t.„ 1-,4•1,,r8r.,, /.22,. 7' C18 1i'1 Ai PLAJ4171 AREA ',-.1fiqp -ct72, sf--.B.I 6 ,i( OIL/ TYPR D . _ ft-'-'..PB Q r) __y• ........ ,..• le . 1 ' I . ..., Ordinary - , 6High Water Elevation: 883.7 12' BO RCWD Flekodplaii; EleVdtion: 887.6 7 ' / / U UPEAN:AREAs - 1 SOIL TYPR Hp) IcoB i L,_, s. 7' 6' Bt \ vm '-- ‘‘.. c.„,.., ..., as ,6 ,,,`vv-, ,,,,,j\i, s, 2A,,0„ co . _ . e. ' \ ,s.' - ..-13 ...--- - -1 i.' . \ lited:3 \ 17, qq1/4,- :::, \ , -....1 „p ....,.. 2' CO --, Er co 0 5' BL,,, ''-‘, _..) co . \ - - 8, 73*-6r-: 3o• co .....0.-- -,,7c..B1 ..z., '-- -- .----4-% ,P ----- , t/-1.6•.t13i \ .011-7-"LOT A FEMA FLOOD ZONE 'A' (SOIL TYPR ju• 4v10' BO 0 3D 60 75—ft She Impact Zone PA\ 1"/ OH WL ELME DEPTH TO SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE DUNDAS LOAM 2-3 FEET HAYDEN FINE SANDY LOAM 2-6 FEET RIFLE MUCKY PEAT 0-1 FEET LOCATION MAP NOT 10 SCALE SECTIONS 27, de 28, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. RECEIVED DEC 1 4 2007 CITY OF LINO LAKES FEET VAUGHAN'S 1ST ADDITION LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA VA UGHAN'S 1ST ADDITION GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN 0 30 60 SCALE IN ,IN ASA LOT ASA ASA ,1a I NOTE: AU.413ISTURBANCE WITHIN .e. THE WETLAND BUFFER AREA _ SHALL BE RESTORED WITH NATIVE VEGETATION. 5U6O0PLAINs, 1 ' iItL = 200 CY _� —884- - wL� \\ m.2" Z —A`' ae1 Ordinary High Water Elevation: 883.7 ,(100 -YEAR HIGH WATER ELEVATION) RCWD Flaodplain Elevation: 887.6 / Edgg Of Wetland As Delineated By Wenck Associates On October 23, '2007 COMPENSATORY, \ { >� STORAGE = 204 CY''`AN 76.5 —ft We>land Huffer ■ ■ !JLJTLOTA Total Lot Area: 147,236 sq. ft. Total Impervious Area: 2,964 sq. ft. Impervious Surface Coverage: 2.O1% Upland Lot Area: 20,127 sq. ft. Upland Impervious Area: 2,527 eq. ft. Upland Impervious Coverage: 12.55% NOTE ALL ROOF,IDRAINS FOR PROPOSED HOUSE SHALL BE WRECTED INTO THE INFILTRATION BASIN. Shore Impact Zone Area 32,226 sq. ft. Grading Area Within Zone: 8,849 eq. ft. (27.5%) GRADING NOTES7 50— f t Setback from OHWL k • pr 41 'OCK.CONSiRUCTIQN ENTRANCE THE EXISTING WELL SHALL BE REMOVED IN ACCORDANCE VATH ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS. PROPOSED CONTOURS REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATIONS. SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG EXISTING CURB DENOTE TOP OF CURB. EXISTING UTIUTIES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON RECORD DRAWINGS AND, WHERE POSSIBLE. MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION, TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RELOCATING ALL EXISTING UTIUIIES WHICH CONFUCT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE ONE CALL (1- 800 -252 - 1166) 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION FOR LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE TREES TO BE SAVED. SHOULD ANY PORTION OF THE TREE BRANCHES REQUIRE REMOVAL TO PERMIT OPERATION OF THE CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF A PROFESSIONAL TRIMMING SERVICE TO TRIM THE TREES. SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS RESULT IN THE BREAKING OF ANY UMBS, THE BROKEN UMBS SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND CUTS SHALL BE PROPERLY PROTECTED TO MINIMIZE ANY LASTING DAMAGE. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION BY THE ENGINEER. COSTS FOR TRIMMING SERVICES SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR SHALL STRIP, STOCKPILE AND RE- SPREAD SUFFICIENT TOPSOIL TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM FOUR INCH DEPTH TO ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED. THE PROPOSED GRADING PLAN INDICATES FINAL GRADING AFTER THE HOUSES ARE CONSTRUCTED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY A HOLDDOWN OF 2.25' ACROSS THE BUILD PAD LOCATIONS DURING THE GENERAL GRADING OF THE SITE THE FINISHED BUILDING SUBGRADE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.10 FEET ABOVE OR BELOW THE PROPOSED ELEVATION. STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FEET ABOVE OR BELOW THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION. AREAS TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.10 FEET OF THE REQUIRED ELEVATION UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER. TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 14 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY VAN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY - NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE A CO- APPLICANT WITH THE OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE REQUIRED INSPECTION REPORTS AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NPDES PERMIT AND THE SWPPP FOR THIS PROJECT. RUFFED GROUSE ROAD - EROSION CONTROL NO 1 ES INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE CATCH BASINS ON RIFFED GROUSE ROAD THAT ARE NEAREST TO THE CUL -DE -SAC f THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME COMPLETE RESPONSIBIUTI FOR CONTROLLING ALL SILTATION AND EROSION OF THE PROJECT AREA. ALL EROSION CONTROL AND SILTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA'S BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY TO CONTROL EROSION AND SILTATION INCLUDING, BUT NOT UNITED 1O, STAKED STRAW BALES, ROCK ENTRANCES AND /OR SILT FENCES. CONTROL SHALL COMMENCE WITH GRADING AND CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT UNTIL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK BY THE OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY INCLUDES: ALL DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION AS REQUIRED TO PREVENT EROSION AND THE DEPOSITING OF SILT. THE OWNER MAY, AT HIS/HER OPTION, DIRECT THE CONTRACTOR IN HIS/HER METHODS AS DEEMED FIT TO PROTECT PROPERTY AND IMPROVEMENTS. ANY DEPOSITING OF SILT OR MUD ON NEW OR EXISTING PAVEMENT OR IN EXISTING STORM SEVERS OR SWALES SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAIN AND AFFECTED AREAS CLEANED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER, ALL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING OPERATIONS AND BE MAINTAINED UNTIL AU. DISTURBED AREAS ON THE SITE HAVE BEEN RESTORED. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL TO BE PLACED AROUND STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES DURING CONSTRUCTION. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ALL SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES AS NECESSARY AND MUST BE REMOVED IF DESIGN CAPACITY HAS BEEN REDUCED BY FIFTY PERCENT. A STABIUZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED FOR DURATION OF PROJECT. ALL SLOPES 3:1 OR STEEPER, NOT TO BE SODDED AND GREATER THAN EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT, SHALL HAVE EROSION CONTROL FABRIC INSTALLED WHEN THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SEED AND MULCH THOSE AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER WITHIN 48 HOURS OF GRADING COMPLETION. THE SEEDING SHALL COMPLY WLTH MN/DOT SPECIFICATION NO. 3876, AT A RATE OF 50 LBS /ACRE THE SEEDED AREA SHALL BE MULCHED. THE MULCH SHALL APPLY WITH MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 3882, TYPE 1. THE MULCH SHALL BE APPUED AND ANCHORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN /DOT SPECIFICATION NO. 2575.3, F1. MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AT THE RATE OF 2 TONS PER ACRE. THE MULCH SHALL BE ANCHORED WITH A DISC, CLODBUSTER OR OTHER APPROVED EQUIPMENT. ALL ADJACENT STREETS SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY AND SWEPT CLEAN OF SEDIMENT TRACKED FROM THE SITE ,s. .6 Ju RECEIVED DEC 14 2007 CITY OF LINO LAKES 75— ft Shcre /mr"act Zone GRADING LEGEND SF - 1.3x EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS SILT FENCE DRIVEWAY SLOPE SOIL BORING 4)-.-1 45"f LOCATION MAP NOT 10 SCALE SECTIONS 27, & 28, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. INFILTRATION NOTES A. WHEN THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SEED AND MULCH THOSE AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER WITHIN 48 HOURS OF GRADING COMPLETION. THE SEEDING SHALL COMPLY WITH MN /DOT SPECIFICATION N0. 3876 , AT A RATE OF 50 LBS /ACRE THE INFILTRATION BASIN BOTTOM SHALL BE SEEDED WITH NDOT SEEDING MIX 350. THE SEEDED AREA SHALL BE MULCHED. THE MULCH SHALL APPLY WITH MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 3882, TYPE 1. THE MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AND ANCHORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN/DOT SPECIFICATION N0. 2575.3, F1. MULCH SHALL BE APPUED AT THE RATE OF 2 TONS PER ACRE. THE MULCH SHALL BE ANCHORED WITH A DISC, CLODBUSTER OR OTHER APPROVED EQUIPMENT. ALL FILTRATION AREAS SHALL BE KEPT OFFUNE UNTIL FINAL STABIUZATIDN IS COMPLETE B. THE INFILTRATION BASIN SHALL BE STAKED OFF AND MARKED. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHALL BE KEPT OUT OF INFILTRATION AREAS TO PREVENT COMPACTION OF SOILS. C. THE INFILTRATION BASIN SHALL BE GRADED FIRST, AFTER THE EROSION CONTROL IS INSTALLED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY MEASURES TO ENSURE THE INFILTRATION CAPACITY IS MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION. D. THE INFILTRATION BASIN SHALL NOT BE EXCAVATED TO FINAL GRADE UNTL THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREAS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND FULLY STABILIZED. E. FINAL EXCAVATION OF THE INFILTRATION BASIN SHALL BE COMPLL ItU USING UGHT TRACKED EQUIPMENT TO AVOID COMPACTION OF THE BASIN FLOOR. F. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR USE IN THE INFILTRATION BASIN TO PREVENT SEED LOSS AND TRANSPORTATION. PFDECI 2003.001 DATE 12/14/07 SHEET r 5 0' a . --- ' --- • r --- . / 1 .. \ ..,. 1 1 .,. , I Lo T I\ ill „„, \I \ c. ._ Ai 1 A, A, A,N 1 `, . .••'''' /. ••••.' „,, / v . .,,,. / \ du- A., ) / VAUGHAN'S 1ST ADDITION UTILITY PLAN- Ordinary High Water Elevation: 883.7 RCWD EleVation: 887.6 Edg Of Wetland As Delineated By Wenck Associates On October 23, 2007 16.5—ft Wetland Suffer 150—ft Setback from OHWL UTILITY NOTES ,20”' s>11:1• SEW° GAR:895.0 LFE B91.0 FFE: 895.7 4/ —.890 - 1.1 , SAMMY SEFNICE:t 421F-4 SDP-24 PVC / EX. r .1-3&:(36-P 0 G:InaL - / 6 ' i 1 po,wr 0 -No • \ 1 OUTLOT A ALL r SWART PM Wt. 8137.01± \ 11, N • N 0 30 60 AIL 75—ft She Impact Zone — SI — REE1 UGNI I ---- CONTRACTOR SHALL. FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTIUTIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS. ALL EXISTING U11UTY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL (651-454-0002) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE UNE INSTALLATION AND SANITARY SEER AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA AND ALL STANDARD DETAILS FOR THE CITY OF UNO LAKES. ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPE TO BE POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE (P.V.C.) SDR 35 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SANITARY SEWER WYES SHALL BE 8 INCH BY 4 INCH SCHEDULE 40. SANITARY SERVICES SHALL BE 4–INCH SDR-28 P.V.C. ALL WATERMAIN PIPE TO BE DUCTILE IRON PIPE (D.I.P.) CLASS 52 UNI FS'S OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL WATER SERVICES SHALL BE I –INCH, TYPE "K. COPPER. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS–BUILT PLANS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMIT THESE PLANS TO ENGINEER UPON COMPLE110N OF WORK. AS–BUILT INFORMATION SHALL INCLUDE ELEVATIONS OF ALL SANITARY SERVICE ENDS. FM SAMMY 1.01 VOW 893.51 NV. teems / , • , „,/ A / • • ..--- / / \ • I, / .\,. –./... 7 1 ■ ' ,:.•- l' / / / /'. / ,7 ,/ UTILITY LEGEND — COSTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATERMAIN 0 EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE (jr) EXISTING HYDRANT • • • • • PROPOSED SANITARY SERVICE • • PROPOSED WATER SERVICE • PROPOSED CURB STOP LOCATION MAP 801 10 SCALE ,-- - 4. 4* I -A 60.10 q, •\ ( 9, .C.r Cr ay 4, 4,,18 I___ 4' — SECTIONS 27, & 28, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 22 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. RECEIVED DEC 1 4 2007 CITY OF LINO LAKES • VAUGHAN'S 1ST ADDITION LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA UTILITY PLAN DE-OGNED KTG KTG 180,ECT 2003.001 0±10 12/14/07 9E001 6 AGENDA ITEM VI B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: January 9, 2008 TOPIC: Public Hearing (Continued): Conditional Use Permit: Planned Unit Development Preliminary Development Plan/Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Permit: Motor Fuel Station Conditional Use Permit: Car Wash Conditional Use Permit: Outdoor Dining (Coffee Shop) Main Street Village, Azure Properties BACKGROUND The proposal by Azure Properties is a planned unit development (PUD) called Main Street Village. The proposal includes creating four commercial lots on a portion of 28 acres of property at the southeast quadrant of the I -35E interchange at Main Street. Development on the remaining 19 acres has not been designed. However, because of stormwater and transportation planning needs, the use of the entire site must be considered. The zoning ordinance defines two types of PUD: rezoning and conditional use permit. A commercial PUD can be approved as a conditional use permit. The site is within the area analyzed by the I -35E Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The AUAR's mitigation plan requires some information and review criteria that typically are not applied to development projects elsewhere in the community. Issues From December 12, 2007 Report The P & Z opened the public hearing on the project at the December 12, 2007 meeting and continued it. The staff report for that meeting listed a number of unresolved issues. City staff had instructed the applicant not to submit new plan sheets with the revised layout of parking and circulation until staff had met with county highway department staff. However, a number of other items could have been addressed in the interim. On January 2 staff contacted the applicant about these issues. We then received some new information late afternoon on Thursday, January 3. The new report for the January 9 meeting had to be assembled, printed, and distributed to the Board on January 4. This did not allow time for City staff to review the new information completely. Depending on the information submitted, it may be possible to resolve some of the items on the list. However, it is unlikely that staff will be able to recommend approval of the project on January 9. We are facing statutory deadline pressure. The February P & Z meeting is February 13. This leaves only one City Council meeting, February 25, before the deadline of March 1. The Main Street Village page 2 applicants would not have time to resolve any issues after the February P & Z meeting before the City Council must vote on the project. Because of this, staff has recommended to the applicants that they grant a 30 -day written extension to allow unresolved issues to be addressed. The City Council could then act in March. The following list is taken from the December report, with comments added describing the current status of each item. (The body of the report that follows has been updated as well.) 1. The complete data and analysis included in the peak parking analysis must be submitted to ensure that the peak demand is less than the normally required number of parking stalls. Square footages of retail area also must be submitted for the gas station. The submitted shared parking analysis did not include all data used in its analysis. Staff has requested clarification of the data and methodology. 2. Stormwater management must be consistent with the goals and requirements of the AUAR mitigation plan. The proposed plan does not comply with the 6.1 slope requirement for stormwater management areas in the wetland mitigation area on the southern part of the site. This will need to be revised to comply with one of the important water quality requirements of the A UAR. It appears that this would not be difficult to accomplish. 3. A permit must be obtained from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to site work and the project must comply with all permit conditions. The project received a conditional approval. This satisfies the City's typical requirement for preliminary plat approval. The actual permit will be required prior to site work commencing on the site. 4. Landscaping plan revisions should address the recommendations of the City Forester and Environmental Board. The Environmental Board recommended changes to several plantings and methods of ensuring successful infiltration. These should be addressed. 5. Several site access and circulation issues must be resolved. Vehicle and truck access and circulation must be demonstrated to be adequate for the site and the project overall. We received new truck circulation plans on Jan. 3rd. Staff will review them. An earlier diagram showed that trucks on the McDonald's site must drive through the parking stalls closest to the west side of the building. This is acceptable if the trucks do not arrive during business hours, but we have no information on hours of operation. An earlier drawing for the Kwik Trip site had numerous truck paths overlaying one another and was confusing. • • Main Street Village page 3 • 6. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the site and circulation within the site must be included and shown on plans. We understand that the new plans include pedestrian routes. Staff will review. 7. An easement for access to the water tower via the southern access to the development must be granted to the City to allow the elimination of the existing water tower access on Otter Lake Road. The access deed must be submitted prior to site work commencing. This must be part of the approval but can be accomplished before City Council approval. Staff will determine the appropriate size and location for the driveway access. 8. The southern road must be constructed with phase one of the project. The applicants had stated in a meeting with staff that they would construct the road with phase one. That was the basis of this recommendation. However, the applicants stated at the December P & Z meeting they want to wait. Staff is comfortable that the road can wait until future development occurs. However, we will recommend that the timing of the road relative to phased development be determined prior to City Council consideration and included as a condition of approval. • 9. Snow must be removed from the site or adequate storage area created. • This can be included in the conditions of approval. 10. The commercial building architectural standards in the zoning ordinance prohibit EIFS from being closer than three feet to the ground. This must be corrected on the McDonald's building. 11. The south facade of McDonald's should be re- examined for the possibility of incorporating a base - middle -top appearance. At the December P & Z meeting, the applicants exhibited a picture of a revision to this building that appeared to comply with City requirements. However, we had not received actual elevations or the description of building materials to ensure compliance. The January 3 information includes nothing relating to items 10 & 11. 12. Any comments from the Anoka County Highway Department should be addressed. The staging of improvements within County rights of way must be determined. This can be a condition of approval. The County will require improvements before work can begin in County right of way. 13. The motor fuel station canopy fascia cannot be more than three feet in vertical height. A new design must be submitted for review prior to approval by the P & Z Board. Main Street Village page 4 14. The motor fuel station canopy may have contrasting color bands not to exceed an accumulative width of four inches. A new design must be submitted for review prior to approval by the P & Z Board. 15. The motor fuel station canopy lighting must be recessed. Details or fixture cut sheets for the canopy lights must be submitted prior to approval by the P & Z Board. 16. Data must be submitted indicating the landscaped area of Lot 1, Block 2. 17. Information on the number of vehicles that the car wash can service in 30 minutes must be submitted. We will review the January 3 information to determine how items 13 -17 are addressed. In addition, discussion at the December P & Z meeting noted that the car wash building lacks distinctive bottom - middle -top features. A quick view of the new plans show that the car wash site has been redesigned for a single bay wash instead of two bays. Parking has been added as well. 18. Information on the location, area, and set up of the outdoor seating on Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2 must be submitted for review. As recommended by the P & Z in December, we will not include the need for a Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor seating for McDonald's or the coffee shop as long as no waiter /waitress service occurs. Any use on the site that includes wait staff service will require a CUP. 19. The submitted signage plan ( "Signage Specifications ") must be amended to comply with the sign ordinance and monument signs must be located on plans. A revised signage plan must be submitted for review prior to approval by the P & Z Board. 20. The submitted "Architectural Design Criteria" must be revised to ensure that the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, Subd. 4.B.4., are fulfilled. The January 3 information includes nothing that addresses items 19 & 20. 21. City Engineer review comments must be addressed to his satisfaction prior to approval by the P & Z Board. A new review dated January 2 is attached to this report. We will review the January 3 information to determine how issues are addressed. • • • • • Main Street Village page 5 ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan, Land Use, Zoning Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use (Comp. Plan) Zoning Site vacant Commercial GB General Business North vacant Commercial GB General Business South vacant, industrial, and City's water tower Industrial LI Light Industrial East Patriot Bank and Ad Graphics Commercial and Industrial GB General Business & LI Light Industrial West I -35E Commerc. (across I -35E) GB (across I -35E) Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan guides the project site for Commercial land use. The site is within a Stage 1 (pre -2010) growth area and is within the existing Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Zoning: The site is zoned GB General Business. A PUD allows for flexibility from standard zoning requirements. The following table compares the project to standard zoning requirements. With a shopping center, normal setbacks are difficult to measure because some lots do not front on public roads, and it is difficult to determine which lot borders are the side and rear lots. Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR): This site is within the area analyzed by the I -35E Corridor AUAR. Development within the area is subject to the mitigation plan adopted with the AUAR. The mitigation includes some specific, quantified requirements, but GB Zone Proposed PUD lot size minimum 20,000 sf 35,000 sf to 130,000 sf lot width 100' 170'+ on private roads 200'+ on public roads building setbacks from local street from collector rear lot line side lot line between buildings 30' 40' 30' 10' avg. height of the two bldgs. 30'+ from private road 40' 20' -30' 20'+ 45' bldg. height 45' less than 25' with 31' peaks impervious max. 75% 60% (excluding Outlots B & D) Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR): This site is within the area analyzed by the I -35E Corridor AUAR. Development within the area is subject to the mitigation plan adopted with the AUAR. The mitigation includes some specific, quantified requirements, but Main Street Village page 6 many of the requirements are means of achieving the best results possible, depending on the site. Conservation Development Framework: The Conservation Development Framework provides the foundation for most of the conservation objectives within the AUAR area. Implementation of the Framework will: conserve the most ecologically significant natural resources within the AUAR area (in particular, the "core" and "outlier" habitats); protect ecologically significant natural resources from adjacent land uses by implementing buffering; and connect ecologically significant natural resources via multi - functional greenway corridors. The goals of the Conservation Development Framework will be pursued through a variety of methods. The maps in the AUAR provide summary information and guidance. For example, the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System map (AUAR Fig. 10 -1) shows artificial surfaces and associated areas on the sites of the bank and the old farmhouse; planted or cultivated vegetation across most of the site; and herbaceous over the larger wetland areas. The Wetland/Aquatic and Upland Habitats map (AUAR Fig. 10 -2) does not show any core or outlier habitat areas that we want to preserve. Water quality, stormwater management, erosion and sedimentation: The AUAR includes analyses of surface water runoff issues which lead to requirements for including infiltration elements and other techniques. It also includes estimated stormwater management recommendations for specific development areas. These estimates in the AUAR cannot be considered strict requirements. However, they do provide guidance for mitigation. The mitigation plan establishes sizing criteria for stormwater management areas that are designed to support wetland complexes or large infiltrating surfaces with native plant populations. The approach is that these areas would be designed consistent with strict criteria for maximum filtration and/or infiltration of stormwater. The site is labeled development area Y -TD in the AUAR. The most general estimate suggests that 16 % -20% of the developable area would be needed for stormwater management (AUAR Fig. 17 -3). A somewhat more refined estimate suggests a need of 5 acres for stormwater management (AUAR Table 17 -5). These estimates are calculated for the entire 28 -acre site and are high compared to standard development practices. The submitted project only includes about a third of the total site (less than 9 of the 28 acres), so it is difficult to compare against the AUAR. Nonetheless, we can see that stormwater treatment is a challenging issues and it is important to consider the entire site rather than individual pieces. While those stormwater management areas are estimates and not mandatory, the AUAR does include specific requirements. Runoff rates must be at or below pre - development conditions. This is a standard requirement everywhere in the city, enforced on all projects. The AUAR also requires that runoff volume must be no more that 150% of pre - development runoff. The AUAR also requires that stormwater management areas have a 6:1 slope rather than the normal, steeper slope. • • • Main Street Village page 7 • The rate and volume requirements are met for the first phase of the development. Future development (phase two) will require review to ensure it meets these requirements as well. • The proposed plan does not comply with the 6:1 slope requirement for stormwater management areas in the wetland mitigation area on the southern part of the site. This will need to be revised to comply with one of the important water quality requirements of the AUAR. It appears that this would not be difficult to accomplish Archaeological Survey: A Phase 1 cultural resources survey was completed for the site and submitted with the project, as required by the AUAR. The farmstead site was found to be not eligible for historic listing. The survey investigators recommend that no further cultural resources work is necessary. AUAR Fee and Environmental Review: The City Council adopted a fee for new development within the AUAR area. This fee was based on the cost of the AUAR and calculated by anticipating that growth will occur first in the Stage 1 and 2 growth areas. The fee is $269 per acre, and 28.3 acres x $269 results in a fee of $7612. The fee goes toward the costs of preparing the AUAR and is justified because no environmental review is needed for projects within the AUAR area as long as the projects are consistent with the development assumptions in the AUAR. The AUAR fee of $269 per acre must be paid prior to site work commencing. If the AUAR had not been prepared, the standard environmental review rules would apply. The submittal includes about 37,000 sf. A retail commercial project of 200,000 sf or more would require an EAW. It is possible though unlikely that development of the full site would cross that threshold. However, the City would have the ability to require an EAW if there may be the potential for significant environmental effect. Planned Unit Development Section 2, Subd. 10. of the zoning ordinance includes the PUD standards. The zoning ordinance provides for two types of PUD. We have used a rezoning PUD on mixed use projects and others with exceptional design issues such as conservation developments in urbanized areas (with city utilities). We also have a provision for a conditional use permit for a PUD. A commercial residential PUD is allowable under this option. It is important to review the purpose and intent of a PUD. Subd. 10. PUD, Planned Unit Development. A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section of the Zoning Ordinance is to provide for the grouping of lots or buildings for development as an integrated, coordinated unit as opposed to traditional parcel by parcel, piecemeal, or sporadic approach to development. This section is intended to introduce flexibility of site design and architecture for the conservation of land and open space through clustering of Tots, buildings and activities, which promote the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan or serve another public purpose. It is further intended that planned unit developments are to be characterized by central management, integrated planning and Main Street Village page 8 architecture, joint and common use and maintenance of parking, open space and other similar facilities, and harmonious selection and efficient distribution of uses. ... The PUD, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Ordinance related to setbacks, heights, lot area, width and depths, yards, etc., by conditional use permit or a mixture of uses by rezoning to a PUD District, is intended to encourage: 1. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Innovations in development that address growing demands for all styles of economic expansion, greater variety in type, design, architectural standards, and siting of structures through the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. 3. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as existing vegetation, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. 4. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly transition of varying land uses in close proximity to each other. 5. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering development costs and public investments. 6. Promotion of a desirable and creative environment that might be prevented through the strict application of City zoning and subdivision regulations. E. Commercial or Industrial Planned Unit Development, CUP Requirements. 1. Purpose. It is the intent of this section to further the directives of Section 2, Subd. 2 and establish special requirements for the granting of a conditional use permit to allow flexibility from the strict provisions of this Ordinance in regard to multiple buildings, shared access/ parking, parking supply reductions, internal setbacks, etc. Lots: The table lists the submitted data. • • • gross sf gross acres upland sf upland acres Lot 1, Block 1 35,175 0.8 35,175 0.8 Lot 2, Block 1 55,831 1.3 55,831 1.3 Lot 1, Block 2 66,196 1.5 61,169 1.4 Lot 2, Block 2 130,031 3.0 130,031 3.0 Outlot A (private road) 96,058 2.2 96,058 2.2 subtotal 383,291 8.8 378,264 8.7 Outlot B 677,301 15.5 588,452 13.5 Otter Lake Road ROW to be dedicated 4,393 0.1 4,393 0.1 Outlot C 55,779 1.3 7,238 0.2 Outlot D 113,302 2.6 67,896 1.6 total 1,234,066 28.3 1,046,243 24.0 • • • Main Street Village page 9 • The following summarizes the project proposal: • Gross Site Area 28.3 acres Upland Area 24.0 acres Wetland 4.3 acres Currently Proposed Development Area including Outlot A 8.7 acres Water and Sanitary Sewer: The project will be served by municipal utilities. Ample capacity exists in the systems. Water looping through the development ultimately will be needed for proper flow. Wetlands and Stormwater Management: The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) approved the delineation of the wetlands and the mitigation plan in 2006. However, that mitigation plan application did not include wetland fill and mitigation necessary for the future access route (with the southern driveway). Since this will be the main access to the retail center in the future, it is vital to know if this `road' can be constructed. The wetland impacts and mitigation are an integral part of this question. A new wetland delineation was submitted to, reviewed, and approved by the RCWD. This included an amendment to the delineation of the large, southern wetland. Drainage and utility easements must be established that cover and extend 10' beyond the wetlands, in accordance with City requirements. There will be an easement over the incidental wetlands in Outlot C because they will become stormwater ponds. There is no designated floodplain on the site as shown on the FEMA map. The plans show little space for snow storage after plowing. A snow storage area must be designated or snow must be completely removed from the site. This report discusses the AUAR requirements for stormwater management in a previous section. Roads, Access, Traffic, Circulation: A traffic study was prepared for the development. The study analyzes the current proposal (phase one), full development of the site (phase 2), and year 2030. The study assumes the existing bank road will be a full access point with phase one of the development, but be converted to right- in/right -out only with phase two. As to the southern access, it will function properly with a stop sign with full development but will require a traffic signal by 2030 because of the increasing background traffic. The intersection of Otter Lake Road and Main St. will function well until 2030. The AUAR's S traffic analysis also recognized that this intersection will fail at that time. That is, this will occur without the proposed Main St. Village project. This is an important transportation Main Street Village page 10 planning issue that will require the attention of both County and City. It likely will require further improvements such as additional lanes on Main St. The plan includes an additional five feet of right of way dedicated for Otter Lake Road as well as a triangle for future needs at the Main St. intersection. This is shown on the plans. The site ultimately will have four access points: a right -in only slip ramp from Main St.; the existing access on Otter Lake Road north of the bank; a new access on Otter Lake Road north of the water tower; and the service road along I -35E. The internal circulation design has changed significantly since the concept plan discussion in early 2007. • The "slip ramp" into the site from Main St. was negotiated with the Anoka County Highway Dept. as part of the CSAH 14/8 improvement project and the I -35E interchange project. This access will allow vehicles to leave Main St. to enter the site, but not exit the site onto Main St. It will not pose a safety problem on Main St. The slip ramp route continues south and intersects with the existing bank access road. The plan shows the bank road ending in a "T" except for a driveway entrance to the larger retail building lot, L2 B2. The intersection has a stop in all four directions. Most of the traffic flows north and south. • Circulation in this area of the site has been the topic of extensive discussion. After meeting with the applicants, we received a sketched revision to the October plans. This shows a reconfiguration to the access to the large retail site (Lot 2, Block 2). Access to the coffee shop drive through windows would be through the lot's parking lot exclusively. That is, vehicles could not turn west out of the southern gas station driveway to go to the drive through window. This is an improvement to circulation in this location. It corrects a situation where coffee window patrons would be held up by vehicles leaving the gas station, which in turn would need to wait for vehicles stacked at the southbound stop sign. The revision eliminates concern with severe congestion at this point. Though its impact on the project is significant, the actual revision is a minor change to the plans. Staff instructed the applicant not to submit a full set of revised plan sheets until City and County staff could confer about the staging of roadway improvements. Unfortunately, County staff has not been able to meet with us yet. (We did receive new plans on January 3rd, as noted in the introduction to this report. The January 3 information includes the new layout.) • The May 2007 traffic study included vehicle movement counts. We learned later that two numbers at the CR 84 access (the bank road) were transposed in the submitted study. This data correction eliminated staffs concern for severe congestion for vehicles entering the site on the slip ramp from CSAH 14. • The existing access road along the north side of the bank will become right - in/right -out in the foreseeable future. Otter Lake Road will be reconstructed in this area in order to accommodate future traffic, and at that time a median will be created. It is possible that Anoka County could require that the existing access be converted to right - in/out with this • • • Main Street Village page 11 initial portion (phase one) of the project. Either way, the second, southern access on Otter Lake Road is a key element as it will be the primary access to the development area. This means we must know that the second access can be constructed. We received the geotechnical information (soil borings) for this, and it is possible to build the new access route. The specific timing of the construction of the second access in relation to the phasing of development on the site is important because this route is important for the overall circulation of the site. This must be determined and described in the development agreement for the site. • Lino Lakes has a joint powers agreement with Anoka County that limits the number of accesses that will be allowed on Otter Lake Road (Co. Rd. 84) between Main Street. and Cedar Street. We can have a total of six driveways and three roads. There are five driveways now and two roads. We would prefer to use the allocation wisely. We have suggested that the new southern access on this development site be planned to allow for access to the City's water tower. This would allow the elimination of the existing water tower driveway onto Otter Lake Road: the water tower driveway would be on the new access `road'. An easement to allow City access to the private road is needed. Parking: The site plans show the lot layouts and parking. The zoning ordinance does allow for a reduction in the number of required parking stalls in a shared parking situation if the applicant demonstrates through a peak parking analysis that the peak demand is less than the normally required number of stalls. A peak parking analysis submitted with the October submittal seems to support the reduced number of parking stalls. However, there seems to be some inconsistencies in the data or methodology. In addition, there is some reduction of parking on L2 B2 if it is revised as shown in the plan revision. The analysis does not address the gas station/car wash lot as that lot stands alone for parking. Buildings: The proposal includes four buildings on four separate lots. All the buildings are attractive with brick, rock face block, stucco, EIFS, and metal peaks. A variety of colors and design elements are proposed. The original submittal in May included "Architectural Design Criteria." These are a very good basis for the project. There are a few revisions that would be needed to comply with the City's architectural requirements for commercial buildings. •Lot 1, Block 1, Retail (sheet A2): The proposed 6500 sf retail building includes rock face block and precolored 4" block along with EIFS. We have no colors for this building, which must be supplied. The tallest parapet on this building is 22' high. The building was revised since the first submittal to include glass on the north elevation and we have colors now. The colors and materials establish a visual base - middle -top. The trash location is connected to the building. •Lot 2, Block 1, McDonald's (sheets A2.0, A2.1): The proposed McDonald's building has face brick and EIFS. The brick colors are a typical brick red with dark forest • green setting off the drive- through windows. The EIFS will be white. Modernized golden arch elements rest over the entrances and large windows. The majority of the building is 18' 3" high. The "tower" element rises up to 21' 4" with an arch that rises another 2'. The Main Street Village page 12 restaurant building footprint is 4590 sf with the trash area and cold storage connected to the south end of the building. A drive through window is a permitted use in the GB zone. Plan revisions on the north end of the building show a patio providing access to the door and an outdoor seating area. The drive- through lane is immediately next to the door location and we will want to ensure there is an adequate barrier for safety reasons. The P & Z decided in December that in its view the City should not require Conditional Use Permits for the outdoor seating at McDonald's because it does not include waiter /waitress service. The commercial building architectural standards in the zoning ordinance prohibit EIFS from being closer than three feet to the ground, and EIFS must not comprise more than 30% of the front of a building. Changing the lower 3' would reduce the percentage of EIFS on the north (front) facade. In addition, the south wall does not include any differentiation of base- middle- top other than the cornice along the top of the cold storage and trash areas, which only extend across part of the building on that side. A few minor revisions would ensure the attractive features apply on the entire building. At the December P & Z meeting, the applicants exhibited a picture of a revision to this building that appeared to comply with City requirements. However, we had not received actual elevations or the description of building materials to ensure compliance. •Lot 1, Block 2, Kwik Trip With Car Wash (sheet A5 and others): Both buildings have red brick walls with tan brick courses for visual variety. The store has a wide stucco band as well. The metal peaks are green. The store is 21' high with 31' peaks. The trash enclosure is attached to the car wash. The store has base - middle -top features in varying degrees on different walls. However, discussion at the December P & Z meeting noted that the car wash building lacks such features. A motor fuel station requires a CUP, which includes standards for the canopy. A car wash also requires a CUP. These are discussed below. •Lot 2, Block 2, Retail (sheet Al): The large retail building has 4" precolored block, rock face block in two colors, and EIFS of several colors. It includes the base - middle -top design elements, though the west elevation color scheme was not submitted. This building is 22' high with arched features several feet higher. The trash enclosure is attached to the building. There is a drive- through window on the north elevation intended for a coffee shop. A drive through window is a permitted use in a GB zone. A patio behind this building shown on a previous plan has been removed. Our understanding is that table seating for a coffee shop would be on the sidewalk on the east side. The P & Z decided in December that in its view the City should not require Conditional Use Permits for the outdoor seating for a coffee shop that does not include waiter /waitress service. Signage: The submittal included signage specifications. We commend the early consideration of signage as part of the project design. There are several elements of this • • Main Street Village page 13 • signage plan that will need to be amended to comply with the City's sign ordinance, including the gas station canopy, among others. Staff will confer with the applicants on these items. • • We also will need to establish the locations of monument and/or pylon signs, and show them on the revised plans. Park Plan and Park Dedication: The parks plan shows Natural Resource Protection Areas corresponding to the locations of wetlands as revealed by the wetland delineation. These are wetland areas that will be protected by existing wetland law. As noted above, the wetland mitigation plan has been reviewed by the Rice Creek Watershed District. The protected wetlands will be covered by a drainage and utility easement. In August, the P & Z expressed the desire to see pedestrian and bike access to and through the project. This is worth examining because of the trails existing and planned on the abutting roads. The Park, Greenway, and Trail System plan shows a trail along Otter Lake Road and a bikeway and linking trail along Main Street. There is an existing trail on the east side of Otter Lake Road. There is an existing trail on the north side of Main St. starting at Otter Lake Road and going east. There is no trail currently abutting the project site. The Main Street/Otter Lake Road intersection is a good crossing point because it is signalized. However, getting to the project site should be addressed. Pedestrian and bicycle access to and circulation within the project was not indicated on the submitted plans. This must be addressed on new plans. Park dedication for commercial development is $2175 per acre. For development that includes 24 acres of upland, this would be over $52,000. Dedication cash can be credited for trail construction that is part of a development project. Conditional Use Permits Several CUPs are needed for the project: a motor fuel station and a car wash. The actual requirements in the Zoning Ordinance are attached to this report or reference. Motor Fuel Station: Section 7, Subd. 3.H.7. lists the requirements for a motor fuel station conditional use permit. The submittal complies with many of the CUP requirements, but some require attention. Unresolved issues are discussed below. The building meets the architectural standards. However, the submitted canopy design does not comply with our requirements on the following points: • The fascia cannot be more than three feet in vertical height and the submittal is almost four. • The canopy may have contrasting color bands not to exceed an accumulative width of four inches. The submittal shows two bands of about six inches each, totaling approximately twelve inches. • The canopy lighting must be recessed. We do not have details or fixture cut sheets for the canopy lights. Main Street Village page 14 The ordinance requires that at least 25% of the lot used exclusively for the gas sales facility shall be landscaped. The car wash is on the same parcel, so some judgment will be needed. However, we do not have landscaped area percentages for each lot, so we will need this data for Lot 1, Block 2. The CUP standards for a motor fuel station include several access and circulation requirements. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement. The site design must accommodate adequate turning radius and vertical clearance for a semi - trailer truck. The P & Z noted during the concept review discussion that truck circulation requires attention. Truck circulation on the site is still unresolved. This must be addressed. Car Wash: The CUP requirements for a commercial car wash are listed in Section 7, Subd. 3.H.3. To summarize: a. The site will be served by sanitary sewer. b. The architecture is consistent with the surrounding buildings. c. Stacking space must accommodate the number of cars that can be washed in 30 minutes. We will need to ascertain this information. d. Landscaping along residential property is not an issue on this site. e. Screening of stacked cars from residential property is not an issue on this site. f The site will be paved according to typical City requirements. g. The drainage of the area must meet City requirements, including the AUAR mitigation plan. h. Lighting effects on abutting residential properties is not an issue on this site, but lighting fixtures must meet City requirements. i. Vehicular access to the car wash is through the gas station site. As long as that is resolved, there are no car wash access problems. j. The site is next to an interstate freeway and an interchange with county state aid highway. Car wash noise is not an issue. Note: The January 3 submittal shows a redesign of the car wash site. Additional parking has been added on the west side of the car wash and the new plan shows a single bay wash rather than a double bay. Outdoor Seating, Lot 2, Block 1 ( McDonald's) and Lot 2, Block 2 (retail building): The Zoning Ordinance requires a CUP for "restaurants with accessory outdoor dining facilities" in Section 7, Subd. 3.H.12. The ordinance does not distinguish between outdoor seating areas where full service is provided at the tables and outdoor seating where the patrons purchase food inside and bring it outside and eat. The report for the December P & Z meeting included this issue and recommended that the P & Z discuss the CUP requirements just to ensure the issues are formally considered and addressed. The Board decided that in its view the City should not require Conditional Use Permits for the outdoor seating at McDonald's or a coffee shop that does not include waiter /waitress service. This is allowable under a Planned Unit Development, whose is intended to promote "a desirable and creative environment that might be prevented through the strict application of City zoning and subdivision regulations." • • • • Main Street Village page 15 In the future, the City should specifically exclude outdoor tables without service from the need for a CUP. This is a clarification that should be made in the ordinance, and we can address that when we do some major ordinance revisions in the near future. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION Stormwater management was the focus of the Environmental Board discussion on July 25. This included the importance of the design of the stormwater facilities, such as infiltration and filtration features. In addition, the AUAR requirement for volume control must be addressed in the project design. There also was consideration of revising the landscape plan to substitute some tree species and ensure plantings in infiltration areas are appropriate. The project was reviewed again on November 28. The comments are attached. RECOMMENDATION Re -open public hearing, take comment, continue public hearing to the P & Z Board meeting on February 13, 2008. Staff also recommends that the applicant agrees in writing to a 30 -day extension to the review • period to allow for revisions that will bring the project into compliance with City standards. • This review is based on the following submittals: 1. Existing Conditions & Resource Inventory, recd October 26, 2007 2. Preliminary Plat, rec'd October 26, 2007 3. Preliminary Site Plan (two sheets), rec'd October 26, 2007 4. Preliminary Utility Plan (two sheets), rec'd October 26, 2007 5. Preliminary Grading & Erosion Control Plan (three sheets), rec'd October 26, 2007 6. Details, rec'd October 26, 2007 7. Preliminary Landscape Plan and Details (two sheets), rec'd October 26, 2007 8. Preliminary Infiltration Details, rec'd October 26, 2007 9. Preliminary Lighting Plan, rec'd October 26, 2007 10. Building Elevations, Sheets Al, A2, A1.0, A1.1, A2.0, A2.1, A5, and two more unnumbered sheets, and color renderings received October 26, 2007 11. Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey, April 12, 2007, rec'd May 8, 2007 12. Traffic Analysis, May 4, 2007, rec'd July 10, 2007 13. Traffic Circulation and Shared Parking Analysis, received October 26, 2007 14. Wetland Permit Application, June 2006 and June 2007, rec'd July 10, 2007, Notice of Wetland Boundary Modification Request, rec'd July 23, 2007 and revised wetland boundary approval, received October 30, 2007 15. Revised Preliminary Site Plan, Truck Circulation diagrams, and Turning Movements, received via e -mail November 19, 2007. Excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance regarding the Conditional Use Permits for this project. SECTION 7. BUSINESS DISTRICTS Subd. 3. GB, General Business District H. Conditional Uses. Subject to applicable provisions of the Ordinance, the following are conditional uses in the GB District: These uses require a conditional use permit based upon the criteria and procedures outlined in Section 2, Subd. 2. of this Ordinance. 3. Commercial car washes (drive- through, mechanical and self- service) provided that: a. The site is serviced by municipal sanitary sewer. b. The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or areas as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence. c. Magazining or stacking space is constructed to accommodate that number of vehicles which can be washed during a maximum thirty (30) minute period and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. d. At the boundaries of a residential district, a strip of not less than five (5) feet shall be landscaped and screened in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.Q of this Ordinance. e. Parking or car magazine storage space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.Q of this Ordinance. f. The entire area other than occupied by the building or plantings shall be surfaced with material which will control dust and drainage which is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. g. The entire area shall have a drainage system which is subject to the approval of the City. h. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right -of -way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.F of this Ordinance. i. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. J. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise 7. Motor fuel stations provided that: a. Motor Fuel Facilities. Motor fuel facilities shall be installed in accordance with State and City standards. Additionally, adequate space shall be provided to access fuel pumps and allow maneuverability around the pumps. Underground fuel storage tanks are to be positioned to allow adequate access by motor fuel transports and unloading operations which do not conflict with circulation, access and other activities on the site. Fuel pumps shall be installed on pump islands. b. Architectural Standards. 1) As a part of the conditional use permit application, a color illustration of all building elevations shall be submitted. • • • • Zoning Ordinance Excerpts for CUPs page 2 2) The architectural appearance, scale, and functional plan of the building(s) and canopy shall be complementary and compatible with each other and the existing buildings in the neighborhood setting. 3) All sides of the principal and accessory structures are to have essentially the same or a coordinated harmonious finish treatment pursuant to Section 3, Subd. 4.B of this Ordinance. 4) Exterior wall treatments like brick, stone (natural or artificial), decorative concrete block and stucco shall be used. 5) Earth tone colors of exterior materials including the canopy columns shall be required. "Earth tone colors" shall be defined as any various soft colors like those found in nature in soil, vegetation, etc., such colors are limited to brown, black, gray, tan, beige, brick red, soft green, soft blue, or white. 6) Ten (10) percent of the building facade may contain contrasting colors. Contrasting colors shall be those colors not defined as earth tones. The canopy may have contrasting color bands or accent lines not to exceed an accumulative width of four (4) inches. The color bands shall not be illuminated. c. Canopy. A protective canopy structure may be located over the pump island(s), as an accessory structure. The canopy shall meet the following performance standards: 1) The edge of the canopy shall be thirty (30) feet or more from the front and /or side lot line, provided that adequate visibility both on -site and off -site is maintained. 2) The canopy shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height and must provide fourteen (14) feet of clearance to accommodate a semi- trailer truck passing underneath. 3) The canopy fascia shall not exceed three (3) feet in vertical height. 4) Canopy lighting shall consist of canister spotlights recessed into the canopy. No portion of the Tight source or fixture may extend below the ceiling of the canopy. Total canopy illumination may not exceed one hundred fifteen (115) foot candles below the canopy at ground level. 5) The architectural design, colors, and character of the canopy shall be consistent with the principal building on the site. 6) Signage may be allowed on a detached canopy in lieu of wall signage on the principal structure, provided that: a) The individual canopy sign does not exceed more than twenty (20) percent of the canopy facade facing a public right -of -way. 7) Canopy posts /sign posts shall not obstruct traffic or the safe operation of the gas pumps. d. Pump Islands. Pump islands shall comply with the following performance standards: 1) Pump islands shall be elevated six (6) inches above the traveled surface of the site. 2) All pump islands shall be set at least thirty (30) feet back from any property line. Additionally, the setback between the pump islands curb face must be at least twenty - four (24) feet. Zoning Ordinance Excerpts for CUPs page 3 e. Dust Control and Drainage. The entire site other than taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete, cobblestone, or paving brick. Plans for surfacing and drainage shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. Drainage from all fueling areas shall be directed to an oil /grit separator. Minimum design standards for the oil /grit separator shall include the following: 1) A minimum of four hundred (400) cubic feet of permanent pool storage capacity per acre of drainage area. 2) A minimum pool depth of four (4) feet. 3) A minimum oil containment capacity of eight hundred (800) gallons. 4) Minimum maintenance /inspection of two (2) times per year and /or after measurable spill events. A measurable spill shall be defined by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Any measurable spill event must be reported to the MPCA. f. Landscaping. g. 1) At least twenty -five (25) percent of the lot, parcel or tract of and used exclusively for the gas sales facility shall remain as a grass plot, including trees, shrubbery, plantings or fencing and shall be landscaped. Required minimum green area should be emphasized in the front and side yards abutting streets or residential property. 2) At the boundaries of the lot, the following landscape area shall be required: a) From side and rear property lines, an area of not Tess than ten (10) feet wide shall be landscaped in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.Q of this Ordinance. b) From all road rights -of -way, an area of not less than fifteen (15) feet wide shall be landscaped in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.0 of this Ordinance. c) Where lots abut residentially zoned property, a buffer yard of not less than twenty (20) feet wide shall be landscaped and screened in accordance with Section 3, Subd. 4.Q of this Ordinance. d) The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance of all landscaping, including within the boulevard. Exterior Lighting. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right -of -way and shall be in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.F of this Ordinance. A comprehensive lighting plan shall be submitted as part of the conditional use permit application, and shall be subject to the following performance standards: 1) Canopy Lighting. Canopy lighting shall only be permitted under the canopy structure, and shall consist of canister spotlights recessed into the canopy. No portion of the light source or fixture may extend below the ceiling of the canopy. Total canopy illumination below the canopy may not exceed one hundred fifteen (115) foot candles at ground level. 2) Perimeter Lighting. Lighting at the periphery of the site and building shall be directed downward, and individual lights shall not exceed fifteen (15) foot candles at ground level. • • • • • • Zoning Ordinance Excerpts for CUPs page 4 3) Illumination. Maximum site illumination shall not exceed four - tenths (.4) foot candle at ground level when measured at any boundary line with an adjoining residential property or any public property. 4) Access. Vehicular access points shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movement and shall comply with Section 3, Subd. 5 of this Ordinance. h. Circulation and Loading. The site design must accommodate adequate turning radius and vertical clearance for a semi- trailer truck. Designated loading areas must be exclusive of off- street parking stalls and drive aisles. A site plan must be provided to illustrate adequate turning radius, using appropriate engineering templates. i. Parking. J. 1) Parking spaces shall be calculated solely based upon the use(s) and the square footage of the principal building(s). 2) Parking spaces shall be screened from abutting residential properties in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.Q of this Ordinance. Noise. Public address system shall not be audible at any property line. Play of music or advertisement from the public address system is prohibited. Noise control shall be required as regulated in Section 3, Subd. 4.J of this Ordinance. k. Outside Storage, Sales and Service. No outside storage or sales shall be allowed, except as follows: 1) Public phones may be located on site as long as they do not interrupt on -site traffic circulation, and are not located in a yard abutting residentially zoned property. 2) Propane sales of twenty (20) pound capacity tanks may be located outside provided the propane tanks are secured in a locker and meets all State Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Large, bulk sale propane tanks must meet all applicable building and fire code requirements. 3) A compressed air service area may be located on site as long as it does not interrupt on -site traffic circulation. 4) Accessory outdoor services, sales, or rental as regulated by Section 7, Subd. 3.G.6 of this Ordinance. I. Litter Control. The operation shall be responsible for litter control on the subject property, which is to occur on a daily basis. Trash receptacles shall be provided at a convenient location on site to facilitate litter control. m. Additional Stipulations. All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying or expanding the conditions set forth herein. SITE LOCATION, AUAR BORDER, AND FUTURE ROADS (I-35E Corridor AUAR Figure 6-2: Scenario 1) Scenario 1 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 1-35E Corridor AUAR 0 Megreh.....M.I.re QM, 440■■••••■■ 5.1,ft Boundary tainty Boundary AUAR Boundary Fund Land Us Low Denary Lammed Raukienta Low Bennet( Mused Readenta MMus Density Basidenisl MN DMIN ROSE1PAINI Cameron Industriel NZ ann.', Ets PublicruenwFabic (Parks; Vat. Urban Reserve (Hugo) Rural Rendanknadmillura (Gamins) im Density Bessuenhal ata (Hada Low Op WM. Density Rewards' (Cantsviial Mr Blued Use penman Maga IM( Garmarrynandusaisi (Gentannlis nt MG Men Dawn:mein (Hugo, Waal& POrCeIS inn Future Gay Rona - Gm* Damp Intrametwe --- Stream gag so..., ma fl B, ww.w. Nang Ts( Fttposad Ina a False Beigharhood Pat (Gelder of Service Ansa Figure 6-2 Iby 31.201X • • • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE, (detail) SITE J ZONING MAP (detail) • • • TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: James E. Studenski, P.E. 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292-0083 Fax www.tkda.com Reference: Main Street Village Copies To: Connie J. Taillon, P.E Preliminary Plat Review Proj. No.: From: Matt Woodruff, P.E. Routing: Date: January 2, 2008 The following review is based on these submittals: City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 13810.011 1. Main Street Village Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan, and Utility Plan, submitted by Pioneer Engineering, dated September 26, 2007. 2. Main Street Village Stormwater Management Plan submitted by Pioneer Engineering, dated September 25, 2007. 3. Geotechnical Report submitted by Braun Intertec, dated April 7, 2006. • 4. Main Street Village Forecasted Internal Intersection Volumes and Truck Turning Templates received via e -mail on November 19, 2007. Preliminary Plan Comments: 1. The entire plat is serviced by one 8 inch watermain. A redundant connection to the City's existing water supply system must be provided. This could be established by extending a watermain to the west along Main Street and providing a looped connection to the plat; or extending a watermain to the south through the plat along the "future" access road and provide another connection to County Road 84. 2. Internal looping of the watermain system must also be provided. Currently, there is an approximately 1,200 -foot dead end watermain. 3. All of the water service connections to proposed buildings must have a 6 inch gate valve installed. 4. Due to the shallow storm sewer pipes, reinforced concrete pipe material should be considered in lieu of the proposed high density polyethylene pipes to achieve additional strength. 5. Containment for the car wash runoff must be shown on the plans. 6. In conjunction with the recommendations from the soil boring report, the parking lot typical sections must include a 2 -foot granular sub -base material. Draintile must also be provided within the parking lot areas to drain the granular sub -base. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Main Street Village Page 2 January 2, 2008 Preliminary Plat Review City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 7. In conjunction with the City's CUP requirements for a gas station, the following items must be met for the Kwik Trip oil -water separator: a. A minimum of 400 cubic feet of permanent dead pool storage capacity must be provided for each acre of drainage area. b. The minimum pool depth must be 4 feet. c. The minimum oil containment capacity must be 800 gallons. 8. The limits of ownership for the sanitary sewer and watermain utilities are being further reviewed by the City of Lino Lakes. 9. As requested by the Anoka County Highway Department in a letter dated December 10, 2007, an additional 10 feet of right -of -way will be required along County Road 84 for future construction purposes (60 feet total from centerline). Please provide the additional right -of -way within future submittals. 10. At the "future" access road connection to County Road 84, the City of Lino Lakes is requiring additional right -of -way. The additional right -of -way must be configured as a 30 -foot by 30 -foot triangle on the north side of the right -of -way at the connection to County Road 84. The right -of -way triangle is to facilitate the installation of a future traffic signal. 11. The Fire Department has reviewed the hydrant locations and they are recommending that the proposed • hydrant locations be adjusted. In addition, the Fire Department is recommending that two additional hydrants be installed in the parcel north of the existing bank. A map will be provided to the Applicant for incorporation into the proposed plans. 12. The attached drainage comments, dated January 2, 2008 must be addressed. Traffic Analysis Comments: 1. An intersection capacity analysis must be performed for the year 2030 at the Slip Ramp /Main Entrance intersection. 2. The traffic volume shown entering the site via the slip ramp is the same (189) for Phase 1, Phase 2, and 2030 and the traffic volume shown entering the site via the southern entrance is the same (154) for Phase 2 and 2030. Please verify if these volumes are correct and, if they are correct, explain why the volumes for these various periods are the same. TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: Matthew Woodruff, P.E. Reference: Main Street Village 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292-0083 Fax www.tkda.com Copies To: James E. Studenski, P.E. Drainage Review Proj. No.: From: Connie J. TailIon, P.E. Routing: Date: January 2, 2008 The following drainage review is based on these submittals: City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 13810.011 1. Main Street Village Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan, and Utility Plan, submitted by Pioneer Engineering, dated September 26, 2007. 2. Main Street Village Stormwater Management Plan submitted by Pioneer Engineering, dated September 25, 2007. New comments are in bold and identify items that need to be addressed. 410 The following are significant issues that must be addressed prior to Preliminary Plat approval: 1. The Geotechnical Report does not indicate the seasonal high ground water elevations for the site, which is identified as the mottled soils or highest anticipated ground table. Provide documentation indicating the highest anticipated groundwater elevation. The lowest floor elevations are required to be 4 feet above the seasonal high groundwater elevation. 2. Clarify if the first floor elevations labeled on the Plans are also the lowest floor elevations. 11/19/07 This item has been addressed. The following are minor plan, calculations, and drafting corrections that must be addressed prior to final approval: 1. The pond outlet pipes are required to be a minimum of 15 inches in diameter. 11/19/07 This item has been addressed. 2. Indicate the overland overflow elevations for all infiltration basins, ponds, and low points in the parking areas on the Grading Plan. Low openings are required to be 1 foot above the overflow elevations. 11/19/07 Label the overflow location and elevation of biofiltration basin I7 and the wetland mitigation area on the Grading Plan. 3. Many of the infiltration basins have multiple overflows (storm sewer inlets) as shown on the Plans; however, the infiltration basins are modeled as having only one primary outlet. For example, infiltration basin IA5 appears to have two overflows (catch basins), yet the infiltration basin is modeled as having only 1 primary outlet (1.50'x1' horizontal orifice /grate). Please clarify. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Main Street Village Page 2 January 2, 2008 Drainage Review City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota • 11/19/07 This item has been addressed. 4. Indicate the high water level for all infiltration basins on the Grading Plan. 11/19/07 Label the high water elevation of the existing south wetland and wetland mitigation area on the plan. In addition, revise the high water elevation for biofiltration basin 8 and the south wetland to be consistent with the peak elevations in the proposed conditions model. 5. To provide a well aerated, highly porous surface, it is recommended that the soils of the infiltration basin floor be loosened to a depth of at least 12 inches prior to planting. 6. Provide a cross - section detail of the infiltration areas on the Plan that includes type and depth of engineered soil. 11/19/07 This item has been addressed. 7. Show the location of all inlet protection, along with a detail of the inlet protection, on the Erosion Control Plan. In addition to the locations shown on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, inlet protection should be placed in existing catch basins located near the construction entrance to the site. 11/19/07 Include a detail of the inlet protection on the plan. 8. It is recommended that the stormwater pond bench area be seeded with native vegetation to enhance soil stabilization, nutrient uptake, and wildlife habitat within the pond. 11/19/07 This item has been addressed. 9. Submit storm sewer calculations for review when available. 10. Submit a copy of the NPDES permit for the City's records when available. 11. Approval from Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is required. Submit a copy of the RCWD approved permit when available. 12. Clarify why the total existing area defined in the model is approximately 4 acres less than the total existing area defined in the model dated May 3, 2007. Revise the current existing conditions model so that the total area is equal to the area in the model dated May 3, 2007. 11/19/07 This item has been addressed. 13. Existing rates may change due to modifications of the model based on comment 16 above. Rate control requirements will be reviewed when the revised model is submitted. 11/19/07 This item has been addressed. Additional Comments (11/19/07) 14. Label the low floor and low opening elevation of the existing bank building on the Grading Plan. 15. Provide pretreatment of runoff prior to discharging into biofiltration basin 9. 16. It is recommended that trees native to wetlands of the region be planted in the wetland mitigation area. • • Main Street Village Page 3 January 2, 2008 Drainage Review City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota 17. Include a detail of the Enekamat overflow for biofiltration basin 9 on the plan. 18. It is highly recommended that the curb cut openings be a minimum of five feet. Past experience has shown that water flowing in the curb line may bypass a curb cut opening that is less than five feet. 19. Include a note on the plan stating that the sod filter strip at each curb cut needs to be lower than the back of the curb cut. Additional Comments (01/02/08) 20. Stormwater management areas within the AUAR are required have side slopes that are less than or equal to 6:1. Revise the side slopes on the plan and section view of the wetland mitigation area on Sheet 10 to a maximum of 6:1. 21. The AUAR indicates that drain tile exists in the vicinity of the site. Confirm that drain tile does not exist at the proposed project location. • • Memo Environmental To: Paul Bengtson From: Marty Asleson Date: 11/29/07 Re: Environmental Board Recommendations of November 28, 2007 Environmental Board Recommendations for Main Street Village The following recommendations were made by the Environmental Board at the November 28th Environmental Board meeting: 1. All stormwater volume and flow designs must be evaluated for conformance to RCWD and AUAR standards. 2. Site access for surface water treatment areas must be shown on the map. 3. Slopes of wetland mitigation areas be changed to conform to the AUAR. 4. Recommend 1 -2 inch scrapping the wetland soils in the freeze /thaw situation to control reed canary grass. Also recommend the scraped soils in wetland fill areas be salvaged and stockpiled for use in the wetland mitigation area. 5. In general, there should be a narrative to the Boards and the City Council addressing all of the mitigation strategies presented in the AUAR that effect this development. 6. All infiltration areas and wetland mitigation areas should be seeded with the city native seed mix. The city transitional mix is shown on the plan and this is a good mix between cultural areas and wetland /pond areas. The BWSR U8 mix is shown on the wetland mitigation slopes. A better mix selection from the BWSR choices would be the WI mix. However, I would again recommend the city native pond seed mix for this area, supplemented with flowering native plugs every 10 feet. All biofiltration areas should also be supplemented with flowering plugs. Biofiltration areas planted • Page 1 • • • • with the transitional seed mix should have a low- profile height associated with the forbes. All native seed mix areas should be planted by a contractor on the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources list of contractors. The native areas should be maintained for a minimum of 3 years by the approved contractor and if possible burned at the end of 3 years. 7. More trees should be planted particularly in type C and D soils. The C type soils intersect biofiltration pond number 9 and wetland mitigation area 10 on the north side, east side, south side and south west corner. Salix 'Golden Curls' is a marginally hardy plant and non - native. The AUAR recommends that water infiltration areas be augmented with large herbaceous woody plant materials such as Aspen and Cottonwoods. Therefore substituting more of these types of species and more abundantly in the type C soil areas is in accordance with the AUAR recommendations. Cottonwoods must be of the non - seeding types. Recommend one tree per 25' O.C. in these type C soil areas. 8. Side slope of the wetland mitigation area be no steeper than 6:1 horizontal to vertical. 9. Site access for maintenance reasons must be shown on the plan for stormwater treatment areas. 10. A letter be written to the City Engineering adding issues to the project Storm • Water Pollution Prevention Plan • 11. Keep parking stalls down to the minimum allowed by zoning code. Add pervious paving if additional parking stalls are necessary. 12. Lighting should not exceed the city minimum lighting allowed by city code. Canopy lights of the gas station must be flush mounted bulbs that present no glare issues and downward directed. Monuments should be kept to a minimum and minimize light spill. 13. Request planning staff review trash and recycling accessibility as they relate to truck movements. 14. No soils may be imported or exported to the site without city approval. Soils hauled in should not be substantially different from soils that were inputted into the stormwater model. Motion: Motion was made by Bor, seconded by Andrzejewski to approve the recommendations and forward to Planning & Zoning. • Page 2 • • • • 100 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 110 203 MN IM IN Ell all ( 10 PI) = 1 Mob 110 It PI eNEERengtneenng u■scommesai ume■umneface utaulsammala u+1121,-*ffikucHInVe, Z.INPL A T TED 0411030 Richard .1. Sohn. ..-----" L - - -1 \----,--,var-e = MI': R-21-W FLA': A. E5.-..... ,...:743'. A 1 Af surzzS T.05.R E..r. T) \ , 15 I irarrip.... : ...., Se. 24. 731N. R2211 Nap.,..,6.80 t_Senth Rey of CoiMy Stoke .44. 7.4141 tlighwov /4o. 14 , I-- ---------------- - 202a0 _- ' !! '‘ 543.14 _ 1 : -..'+2,!-- sa : so I .^......1 ' 7 ,,........,...,.. S.35,175 unit 1 --"--Z, 0 .8:?,-, !: !r-r7.47-77 • ..,.;1: ,Oe .00 OO ....., 6o, ; 4):'.. 36 - 4 r ;',.111 t, -, i -LT iitt I cz, esi; 7k- A.! I .5.531 S: fil 7. 10) 'V 7 i711 *•-• 7-'1 1 - 1 , ,24 1 Ate / '-'v IQ 54.7.312%, '(' 4+. • ‘‘ I kj 0 I ..- 010410e Rionore Senniar - 2 - • .7.7 1 7 • seittes sp.tt.n, 444.004451.150 / I al itYg I /147 I/ I 411 I $ ■%, ' 4';;ttfi VEILAND Mo.. 0 r 40410 Wt.) 3130.55.54.4 2625.05 4/ 4•‘;' 6./ ••••-- -VTLANDz /.1.1 4,g 8.4 1/4 Come- te 13111. RIM L (Co. iron 14mornnt) S..■°"1 •••• 7=.30gr.7 • Lino perolle with elo .; Stele 018 0.enne2 as 1•N :7771: ■ .1313.031 4 ' r 11.- L.A , • ' it- I Bur !f; 3 00 L 110 10 ' 'E. 1'' V LI" ir, . --.' - L. 1 • wan m:2_ 262 OUTLOT A i-96.55e .q.ft. OUTLOT B 0477.301 sr 0. (00.6-n3110.432 11.) TRA 4. 4,-1 'IL/. / k"/' 1 4 e. , r' ,..../ .-----" 7- MOO , 1ml a' ow, MIN It _1 .„.„,............I Iew. = at, lawl. ira• , I-' "----:.--= et I 00 Ci? 1•18 250.00 S813.58•53-1V L-/-1 1-/ COVNE.-4 . 1.• Leas - o T R A -r-i S88•56'53•11' 250.00 DUTLOT D 1-113.302 141.11.. (Upend-551A10 en It) ^- 00 rip 84) 53 Soutil 1/4 Cern. 4' 14. 1311, 4210 11 avalves7) 1110. of Ir., RS Of. MO 942.75 ler55'54T OMER Pouf 0. Ma, UNPL T TEr.7. - IL. A I1:) • 001 R't I„pp • we, Ever*Il 757 zsor 300.00 536.55'54'W so OVICEIn Oltv of Urte. Lot. T 50 meat Tines Coos SITE DATA TOTAL BOUNDARY AREA 28.33 AC. TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA 0.10 AC. NUMBER OF LOTS 8 SMALLEST LOT 35,175 SO.FT. LARGEST LOT 677,301 SO.FT. EXISTING ZONING GENERAL BUSINESS PROPOSED ZONING GENERAL BUSINESS PUBUC UTIUTIES AVAILABLE LEGAL. DESCRIPTION Tract A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NG. 240. MO110 County, Minnesota. (Torrent) AND Description Per Doc. No. 1375258 (Abstrct) That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Townehlp 31. Range 22 described as fanner Beginning at the point 0) intersection of the South line of County State Aid Highway 14 and the Easterly rigtri-of-way line of Interstate No. 35E. thence East along said South ane of County State Aid Highway 110 14. o distance of 200 feet; thence at a night ongie South 25D feet thence at a right angie West 25113-22 fest to the easterly right of way 1the of interstate Highway No 35L thence Northeely along soid Easterly right-of-way Wu 275.62 feet to the point of beginning, occording to the United States Government Survey thereof. 2422Emermsenn. M*0400.44510, 16311641-1414 ho1.61.44116 1.11:5,11a. OM rope.. ae,..7Awor. Cam Rapids Office . moue ine ceneweioannla nersuese./nonsa...1....ow I .4.4 (761)143.4110 60417.1151 owerga.not.Soneof blismon Reetin See Dm MEM 6n-vimat: L'SVIST4:= 06462/6, new. 110 PRELIMINARY PLAT AZURE PROPERTIES PA. HOZ 17/00 ST. PAUL_ 40111403013. 35117 1 MAIN STREET VILLAGE LINO LAKES, MllinatSDTA • • CSAH 14 MAIN STREET e MOIL • e 5,4 , ...........a,„,......„„,,„„,...... OTTER-E&AKE-RI OAD . , . 7. : - - -L- i i-- L I • — — —: . ,. , 1 — , I IT PAIDONO MIDAS% UNE DRIVE THRU NY BUIL SEIRMX LEE P' I DROP MIND AT CAJON EMS SEE EFFAL tI P85155 pa 2 4557 SF 711It Mc:DONALD'S 0 TYPICAL SIMPER IMES SMALL BE SCUD *ME 5 -■=1*--4111111C 15 Xs BO GRAPHIC SCALE DI FEES in 2e Sr t I ), I DRIP WM M" A CATON BANN RETAIL 6500 SF RN/ PRIMED SRN TRASH DROP OURS SEE WEAL PELOCNIE DIMS MEOW NO NWT RAM DROP CURB Al IOW PONT SEE ORM. Yi I SEE DETAIL 1111WOUNTAINE CURB (32 la SNP SIMI (4444) ARCM NAT 951 4R5-D) SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA - 10.08 AC (EXCUJDING OUTLOTS TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA - 6.06 AC (60.1% OF TOTAL) OIF NAT NMI (RIS-ISO 00 NOT D(55 SNN (RS-1) ND PARKING SUMMARY FOR McDONALDS/RETAIL 69 PARKING STALLS 4 HANDICAP PARKING STALLS 73 TOTAL STALLS PitNEERengineerilig 1040IMMO4 SAMM07045 N0 3472SeemeDnas Weeps NNEENAMMID, 1515514411 NNINIANIS Coon Rapids Office & D AND R.O.W.) MEE SHEET 5 1 CURE Fr UM REIT CURB TYPES DENOTES 8612 TIP OUT CURB & GUTTER DENOTES 19612 CURB & GUTTER (SEE SITE PLAN FOR SURMOUNTABLE CURB AREAS) NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BACK OF CURB. 5,51kmearilk unaltpiEREINSEI37 e5114. Itrals.10011alboodolm■Ps...1 .....0L4444N Pei* Eqpreu. Arp_Ny CEDON-1344 BIc7F-Nr. eMeRneer Nam. 1 E4 MCP care AlmallayraBv15611,15 CITY leYsAss • 7/1 STEP SCR (0-1) 13.4.55, PARKING LOT PAVEMENT SECTION 13512 055 44 MAIER IPs SOAP 100 SAC 110sme lji *DO SIRED CONSTRICTON RN RIME OUTLDT D WILAND MIAS ACC.S DROP CURB 47410 Donlan= 110A0 =NM 401€450355 DIMINCAS 7A0/ ETIA7 —r TYPE Mil.saMOUS COUI5 uyl4el1555 cuss 5 ACCREGATE BASE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN OUTLOT B DROP CURB AT CATCH BASIN AZURE PROPERTIES P.O. BOX 174070 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 33117 MAIN STREET VILLAGE UNOLAFERBEINNBSOTA 4 oo 16 0 'if 17 11(1-1 • • • IIRMIG WAY 4135-49 • DROP BARI AT IDIA PONT IES DEP& 1 OUTLOT A (01-1) LE STCP SRN (O-1) SM. SIGN (G—I) ORE EAT (RS-SR) DO MDT elm se6 (Fec-7) 660 6077 SERI (R1-2) t STOP SSD (01-1) f DRIP CILME AT LOW PONT SEE DETAIL DROP CURE AT MN PENT SEE DETM- DEEP DURO AT 1.04 PORT SEE DEW- DROP CURD AT CATCH SAW SZE OEM& AT GAIIGN DASSi SEE PETAL OVERHEAD CANOPY • IS B C 0 B D g GAS PUMPS g D ROP CM AT MON EMIR WE OEM San reSTISer u GBP nmst..ssione---- _./ures 111401J. SOLDLIDE • • • RAMP PARKINS SOH (TSP.) fc.r I; c t` lc KVAK TRIP 5255 SF END STREEr GONSTPSIGT FUR PHASE I 0606 004 AT ESP PONT SEE OCTAL DROP CURD AT DAMN SASS SEE DETAIL SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA — 10.08 ALL (EXCLUDES OUTLOTS 8 & D AND R.O.W.) TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA — 6.06 AC (80.1% OF TOTAL) PARKING SUMMARY FOR KWIK TRIP 13 PARKING STALLS 2 HANDICAP PARKING STALLS 15 TOTAL STALLS GRAPHIC SCALE Di PIES CURB TYPES DENOTES B612 TIP OUT CURB & GUTTER DENOTES 6612 CURB & GU I itN NOTE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BACK OF CURB. • PARKING SUMMARY FOR RETAIL BUILDING 125 PARKING STALLS 4 HANDICAP PARKING STALLS 129 TOTAL STALLS CAR WASH 21305 SF I ‘.1 -------- ---------- PSANIE MIN (111.4 "7„ PARKING LOT PAVEMENT SECTION NPNISI Potaamz 2 6363 7(70,.) RETAIL 18,200 SF DROP CURB WETLAND OUTLOT C ;;;••• 2.crrr vocal...rams-me. 7- PICNEERengineering 101Notessas Owe NeadersNGSGLAINIVIZ 16SINS6I731 Coon Rapids Off= LCTTTREVISOZa OUTLOT B DROP CURB AT CATCH BASIN 2111 /SINNNseN.II Gam IING.,.1509 as:9 710-GOVI I=773-I00 INsehyssiN Bite Nis slannaseeposa sew oN.-.7111RNIsepairkiesmelike s duly Liaad 17346I Das 3107 order. Ins sISInSesser .1bassat. oh iateri12' SSW — WS Drawn W.G PRELIMINARY S;..I 6. PLAN AZURE PROPER I ItS P.O. BOX 17E10 ST. PAUL MINNESOTA 33117 MAIN STREET VILLAGE LINO LAKES, ATINSEBOTA 5 I 16 I AGENDA ITEM 5.C. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: January 9, 2008 TOPIC: Variance to allow a 4.29 foot side yard setback for an existing detached accessory structure (garage) where 5.0 feet is required. Kenneth Muehlstedt 2221 Reiling Road Section 5, Subdivision 2 of the City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance requires that a 5- foot side setback be provided for all accessory structures in the Rural Executive zoning district. The property owner was notified that a portion of the structure was encroaching on the setback. He requested a Variance in 2005, was recommended for denial by staff and the Planning and Zoning Board, and subsequently withdrew the application before it went to City Council. He then removed what was thought to be the offending portion of the structure, the west five feet of the shed addition. In the fall of 2007 the neighboring property owner again brought up the issue of the setback and it was reviewed by staff. It was at this time that the property owner was informed that the setback of the garage itself was believed to be deficient and this application came about. The applicant has since obtained a certificate of survey which depicts a 4.29 foot setback where 5.0 feet is required, a deviation of 14 %. This is the only request that is being made by the property owner at this time. The other zoning violations on both this property and the neighboring property will be corrected when weather permits. When the building was proposed the city did not require the submission of a survey. Simple line drawings indicating the required setback are acceptable, as long as the property owner can demonstrate to the building department that they do know the location of property lines. This is done by finding property monuments that are placed in the ground when the subdivision is platted by the developer. The rear property line is placed on a great slope that makes identifying the position of that pin very difficult. As such, the property owner believed to be meeting the appropriate setback, and represented enough evidence to the building official to lead them to believe that as well. Since the neighboring property at 2215 Reiling Road was vacant at the time, it wasn't until the lot was developed that anyone noticed the discrepancy. • • • Muehlstedt Variance January 9, 2008 page 2 BACKGROUND 4/21/1987 A building permit was issued for a 26 -foot by 30 -foot (780 square foot) detached accessory structure (garage) for the subject property. ? / ? ? / ? ? ?? At some point the property owner built a 10 -foot by 30 -foot (300 square foot) addition to the rear of the garage without obtaining the proper building permits from the city. (Permit was eventually obtained) 1/24/2003 The city received, as part of a building permit application for the adjacent property to the west, a certificate of survey from Kurth Surveying, that depicted the properly permitted structure and the attachment both within the five foot setback area as required in the R -X (Rural Executive) zoning district. 4/23/2004 The City of Lino Lake's Building Department contacted the resident at 2221 Reiling Road in regards to the certificate of survey submitted for the construction of a single family dwelling at 2215 Reiling Road. This survey depicted a portion of the existing detached accessory structure (garage) setback 1.2 feet from the side property line. The resident was informed that the structure would either need to be made to meet the 5.0 feet setback, and if it were to remain in any way, the resident would need to obtain a building permit. 9/17/2004 The City of Lino Lake's Building Department again contacted the resident at 2221 Reiling Road on September 17, 2004 to reiterate the options for the existing detached accessory structure (garage). 11/24/2004 The Community Development Department received an application for this Variance request to allow a 1.2 -foot side setback for a detached accessory structure (garage) where 5.0 feet is the minimum required by the zoning ordinance. 1/12/2005 The Planning and Zoning Board voted to recommend denial of the Variance request. 3/22/2005 Mr. Muehlstedt had a property sketch completed by Hult & Associates. This document is attached, and clearly states that the existing property line monuments do not match the corresponding recorded distances shown on the plat for the Otter Lake Hills subdivision. 3/24/2005 Mr. Muehlstedt withdrew the Variance request prior to it continuing to City Council. 3/30/2005 Mr. Muehlstedt obtained a demolition permit to remove a portion of the shed addition to bring it into conformance with the five foot setback requirement, and obtained a building permit for the addition. Staff and the property owner both believed that this completed enforcement on the issue and closed the case. After this was completed the neighboring property owner requested that the city review the structural integrity of the shed addition. It was determined that the shed addition was not structurally sound and would need to be corrected. 8/30/2007 Structural repairs proposed by Mr. Muehlstedt were reviewed by both the City's Building Official and a Structural Engineer and determined to be adequate. • • • Muehlstedt Variance January 9, 2008 page 3 BACKGROUND (Continued) 8/31/2007 The neighboring property owner raised the issue of the setback for the original garage, which was not believed to be encroaching into the setback area and requested that the city enforce its ordinance. 9/05/2007 The City's Building Official inspected the structural repairs to the shed addition and determined that they were completed in accordance with the previously reviewed plans. Therefore the shed addition to the garage meets all of the city's ordinances and is no longer an issue. 10/01/2007 The Community Development Department informed Mr. Muehlstedt that the existing garage was believed to be closer than five feet to the property line and that a Variance would be required to allow it to remain in its current state. 10/17/2007 Mr. Muehlstedt submitted an application for a Variance to allow the existing structure to remain. 10/17/2007 The neighboring property owner raised the issue that Mr. Muehlstedt's fence was actually sited over the property line. 10/23/2007 Staff requested that Mr. Muehlstedt obtain an updated survey so that the extent of the encroachment could be clearly identified. 10/26/2007 The city's Building Official informed the City Council and City Attorney of the review process of Mr. Muehlstedt's shed addition. This memorandum is attached, and staff considers this issue to be closed. 10/29/2007 Kurth Surveying issued an update to the 2004 survey of the neighboring property. This update is hand written and states that the location of Mr. Muehlstedt's fence was known to be encroaching when the survey was completed, but no information as to this fact was shown on the survey at the time. This survey indicated that the fence encroaches as much as 0.3 feet onto the neighboring property. 11/14/2007 The neighboring property owner attended the Planning and Zoning Board meeting to speak at open mike. They expressed concern over the delay in having the action heard, and over the structural repairs to the shed addition that were completed by Mr. Muehlstedt. Staff explained that an updated survey would be the best avenue to define the Variance requests. As of September 5, 2007 the shed addition was considered to be completely in compliance with the city's ordinances and is therefore not an issue. 12/10/2007 Mr. Muehlstedt submitted a new certificate of survey which is the basis of this application and review. • • Muehlstedt Variance January 9, 2008 page 4 VARIANCE FINDINGS In considering all requests for Variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Reasonable use of the garage, which was peimitted, constructed, and inspected at what was believed to be the appropriate setback; would be eliminated if the setback was strictly enforced in this case. b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Due to the topography of the lot, the location of the rear property corner is extremely difficult to ascertain and verify. At the time of the building permit for the structure, no survey was required and the property owner believed he was meeting the setback requirement. c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The structure was permitted, constructed, and inspected approximately twenty years ago and was believed to meet all ordinances at the time. Since then more thorough information has identified that the structure is encroaching approximately 8.5 inches into the setback. While the structure could be removed and reconstructed to meet the ordinance, the cost would be extreme in comparison to the minor nature of the variance being requested. d. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. A 0.71 foot reduction to the side yard setback is a minor deviation from the ordinance, and is not dissimilar to previous variances granted to existing structures that encroached upon setbacks. e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. A 0.71 foot reduction to the side yard setback is a minor deviation and will not contravene the spirit and intent of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the Variance request based on the certificate of survey and the above findings. S ATTACHMENTS Location Map Applicant's justification letter Certificate of Survey submitted December 10, 2007 • • • Location Map — 2221 Reding Road • • • Kenneth Muehlstedt 2221 Reiling Road Lino Lakes, MN 55110 612- 240 -5178 October 15, 2007 RE: Variance Application To whom it may concern: In 1984 the City of Lino Lakes through TKDA & Associates (TKDA) contracted out the installation of Reiling Road to Northern Asphalt. Northern Asphalt sub- contracted the removal of trees and the grading of the road to Dell Contracting; while bulldozing the road, Dell Contracting removed all the front survey pins up and down Reiling Road. I informed John Davidson of TKDA that the survey pins had been removed and Mr. Davidson sent out a survey crew to replace the pins. At the time, Reiling Road dead -ended at my property and only my survey pins were replaced. In 1987 I applied for a permit to build a 26 x 30 garage; I based the placement of the garage on TKDA's survey which at the time was well within the five -foot setback. In 1992 Reiling Road was extended west beyond my property. In 2002, Sally Bachmeier and Lloyd Chalupsky purchased lot 10 adjacent to the west of my property. Ms. Bachmeier and Mr. Chalupsky informed me that the northwest corner of my garage was 6 to 8 inches off the setback; they said they didn't have a problem with it but wanted me to be aware of it. There have been numerous disagreements between us which resulted in Ms. Bachmeier and Mr. Chalupsky bringing legal action against me and in turn the courts found that "the Plaintiffs' testimony lacking in credibility ". After losing two trials and an appeal, the setback and other issues became a problem to Ms. Bachmeier and Mr. Chalupsky. A permit was issued for my garage and was inspected and approved by the City of Lino Lakes building official Mr. Pete Kluegel; Mr. Kluegel based his inspections on the same survey done by TKDA. A recent survey done by Hult & Associates (see - attached survey) states "the plat of Otter Lake Hills does not meet the standards set by Minnesota Statue 505 ... ". I am asking for a variance on a very small portion of my garage that was constructed over 20 years ago (see enclosed digital photographs). Also enclosed you will find photos of my driveway which has also been questioned as to the setback requirements. See enclosed survey that shows the driveway setback at 7'1"; the radius on the west side is closer to the property line but is in the 15' right of way. Respectfu y, Kenneth Muehlstedt Enc. 0 tedt \dwg \S7\ O 0 0 0 tfl 0 0 0 0 • CER TIFICA TE OF SURVEY FOR KEN MUEIILS TFD T PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2221 REILING ROAD LINO LAKES, MN 55014 A / L _ 1 EX BLDG of PP.� - - -- SET IRON / 1.42 — 0.49 — n• S89 °09'37 "W 100.00 OT 11 66 PP 8.31 O OE SET IRON 11.17 I SO °09'54 "E ¢W a PP V.) W 9.70 1 w z WZ W 1 L" (±) C Z II vv 3 g W 1 I W z cn II Well j / W 1--E 0 II° au 0 c III . / /S�� RAN 11 1 .' I 1 w I 24 �' SET IRON b; 2954. 00 0� z Zm w SW I Q �Z I U� \ N \ \\■ END IROM Scale: 1 " -30' FILE COPY , -- EX BLDG i \1 Ln VI 0 0 0 FP o— - I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws ofh� stat_ of Minn _ota. Ronald P. Alwin DATE ,2- I 0 LIC. NO 17765 REILIN DESCRIPTION: LOT 11, OTTER LAKE HILLS, ANOKA • COUNTY, MN Subject to easements of record, if any. DRAWN BY MLSE Metro Land Surveying &EngineerIng Measure-el . ° . forma,m - Recordable Respells 9325 Upland Lane North #350, Maple Grove, MN 55369 -4585 Telephone:(763)398 -6830 Fax:(763)398 -2466 Web: www.metrols.com E -mail: survey@metrols.com Lino Lakes Pine City DSO PROJECT NUMBER 2099.0010 BOOK PAGE 2007 Planning & Zoning Board Year End Review Council Action' Approved Approved Approved Withdrawn on 2/20/07 Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Denied Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved 2/12/2007 3/12/2007 3/12/2007 (6 RI C 3/12/2007 4/23/07 & 5/14/07 5/29/2007 5/14/2007 5/29/2007 5/29/2007 N O O N N M r. 8/27/2007 8/13/2007 r--- O O N 0 O 1 10/22/2007 N O O O N V- Recommendation I Approval Approval > O Q Q 06 '_ 0 Approval Approval Approval Approval Approval (0 C 0 > Q Approval Approval Approval Approval (0 0 Approval Date N 0 O N O N 2/14/2007 0 O N d N 0 O N V N 2/14/2007 4/11/2007 O O N LO 4/11/2007 5/9/2007 5/9/2007 5/9/2007 6/13/2007 0 00 T- r 8/8/2007 0 0 N O O r 11/14/2007 0 0 N N \ N .l- Comp Plan Amendment CL (Q C_ LL Variance to arterial street setback for garage addition Rezone Conditional Use Permit for motor fuel station with car wash Rezone, Preliminary Plat & Final Plat Conditional Use Permit Amendment for building addition a- (Q Variance to local street setback for covered porch addition Conditional Use Permit for earth material storage Conditional Use Permit for earth material excavation and storage Final Plat Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Permit Final Plat Amendment to address the subdivision of unsewered lots Preliminary Plat Hodgson Road /County Road J Master Plan Pine Glen 2nd Addition Goepfert Variance Comforts of Home Holiday Stationstore Cox Estates Molin Concrete Holiday Stationstore Schally Variance Royal Oaks Excavating LaMotte Grading CUP Golden Acre Grandview Moon Marsh Grandview Zoning Ordinance Amendment Marshan Meadows 2nd Addition 2007 Planning and Zoning Board Summary 2007 Administrative Review L