HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/2000 P&Z Packet•
•
•
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
AGENDA
Wednesday, May 10, 2000
6:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 12, 2000
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
IV. OPEN MIKE:
V. ACTION ITEMS:
A. Carl Johnson, 310 Carl Street, Variance
B. Rehbein Companies & Independent School District #12, Minor
Subdivision
C. Bluebill Ponds, Preliminary Plat, Main Street
D. PUBLIC HEARING, Town Center Development Standards
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Tree Preservation Ordinance - Public Hearing Scheduled for 6/14
VII. ADJOURNMENT
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning RA ning Board meeting to order at 6:35
p.m., April 12, 2000.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Ma
Mr. Rafferty requested a correction e" t paragraph of Page 8 to indicate: "Mr.
Rafferty commented that tree �� c e weed beds, and the low luster paint on the
grates does become chipper'' ' .q : hed."
Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to approve the corrected minutes of the March 8, 2000,
meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr.
Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Schaps informed those in attendance that while the Town Center Development
Standards will be discussed, it will be continued to the next meeting to allow an
opportunity for additional input.
The agenda was approved as presented.
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:35 p.m. No one was present for open mike.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 2
Mr. Johnson moved to close open mike at 6:36 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Schilling.
Motion carried 6 -0.
V. ACTION ITEMS
A. David Pearson, 6280 Ware Road, Variance
Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 6:37 p.m.
Staff advised that the applicant, David Pearson, has submitted an application for a
variance to allow a single family home at 6280 Ware Road to be located closer than the
required 40 feet from the property line on a collector roadway. The Ordinance requires a
minimum setback of 40 feet. The applicant has redesigned the proposed dwelling to
minimize the setback required which will be 30 feet at the north/west corner and 37.6 at
the south/west corner. The variance requested ranges from 2.4 feet to ten feet. This is the
only vacant lot in the area and contains wetlands which restrict the lot as well as the steep
grade on the easterly side.
Staff noted the criteria required for variance consi
fact. Staff advised this development has coven
value range and the applicant maintains the p
but would not meet that value criteria if th-, size
of the variance as requested.
and recommended findings of
whic `'' quire all homes within a
home meets that value as proposed
duced. Staff recommends approval
Chair Schaps asked if comments w d u v� from neighboring property owners. Ms.
Wyland stated notices were not se � o ��rrounding property owners. The
Metropolitan Council owns t > north and a single family residence is on the
east side of the wetland.
Mr. Johnson suggested more care e given to grading plans to assure a sufficient building
site. He stated he is unsure what occurred on this site. Ms. Wyland concurred with the
need for care and to take a closer look at that aspect.
Mr. Rafferty asked about the actual elevations of the site. He noted it appears the garage
entrance is from the Coyote Trail side. Ms. Wyland stated that is correct and noted the
grading plan which indicates the elevations of the site.
Mr. Rafferty inquired regarding the mention of a setback of 7.5 feet from the back of the
house. Ms. Wyland stated that measures the distance from the drainage easement, there is
no required setback..
Mr. Rafferty asked if this particular plan had been before the Planning and Zoning Board
previously. Ms. Wyland stated it has not been.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 3
Mr. Rafferty noted the question of the value which Staff bases their hardship
consideration upon and asked about the style of the house. Ms. Wyland stated a walkout
style of house is proposed and the hardship is the wetland, not the value.
David Pearson, applicant, stated the house is a 1,360 square foot walkout home. He
stated they originally had the walkout toward the wetland but, due to elevations on the
site, have changed the walkout to the north side. Mr. Pearson stated they have modified
the plan to take the elevations and grading issues into consideration.
Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Pearson if he will be the owner of the house. Mr. Pearson stated
he is building the house to sell it. Mr. Rafferty noted the surrounding homes are much
larger than the proposed house. Mr. Pearson stated the size of this house accommodates
the required setbacks, elevation, and grading issues. He advised of the location of other
homes he has constructed and reviewed the proposed exterior building materials. He
assured the Planning and Zoning Board that this house will have good curb appeal.
Mr. Rafferty noted the lot has been vacant for six years and asked if there is a concern
that this may not be a good location for a house. Mr arson stated he believes it will be
attractive to buyers due to the changes in elevatio timated the value of the home
will be $250,000.
Chair Schaps commented on a house in an her unity that was constructed close to
a wetland and has now had to be shored u son stated this house will be 7.5 feet
from the wetland and the grade can b- tai .. s it is today.
Mr. Powell stated the survey is tw
on the existing grades. He no
the City will need to receiv
floor elevation. This informat
survey.
nal without indicating how the house will fit
ce does not include approval of the survey and
on on the elevations, citing of the house, and lowest
be required to be submitted as well as a certified
Mr. Pearson stated this is his final certificate of survey and is the second survey
conducted. He explained that by angling the house, they have been able to reduce the
variance request.
Mr. Powell reiterated that another certificate of survey will be required prior to issuance
of the building permit.
Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve a variance ranging from 2.4 feet to 10 feet to
David Pearson, 6280 Ware Road, to allow a single family home to be located closer than
the required 40 foot setback from the property line on a collector roadway based on the
rational that the findings of fact for variance consideration have been met and was
supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -1 (Rafferty).
B. Lyndal Nelson, 87 Lilac Street, Variance
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 4
Staff advised that the applicant, Lyndal Nelson, has submitted an application for a
variance to allow a 422 square foot addition to his existing attached garage. The
Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 30 feet from a local street. The south/east
corner of the garage would be 26.5 feet from the property line. The north/east corner of
the garage would be 32 feet from the property line. Therefore, the setback encroachment
applies only to the south/east corner of the garage. Although Mr. Nelson has a very large
lot, 1.6 acres, there is a low area behind the home and a large mound septic system. The
applicant prefers to construct a three -car attached garage because a detached garage
would need to be quite some distance from the house and would require the removal of an
existing storage building on the property to meet ordinance requirements. Staff noted the
criteria required for variance consideration and recommended findings of fact. In
reviewing the variance criteria, Staff noted that a large Maple tree exists directly behind
the north/east corner of the proposed addition creating a physical circumstance unique to
the property. The City's Environmental Specialist has inspected the site and determined
that locating the garage ten feet or more from the tree will minimize impact to the root
system so Staff suggests moving the proposed addition to within ten feet of the Maple
tree in an effort to minimize the requested variance. ff recommends approval of the
variance with two conditions.
Chair Schaps asked if the applicant is in agree' "ith the suggested conditions of
approval.
Lyndal Nelson, applicant, stated he h tion.
Mr. Rafferty noted the mound syst
Wyland stated that is correct.
aesthetic appeal of the exte
will provide enough space for
site.
no ithin the location of the garage. Ms.
y noted the comment about keeping the
need to maintain a buffer. He asked if the garage
e vehicles and recreational items that are on the
Mr. Nelson stated the dog pen will be reduced in size if the garage is ten feet away from
the tree. He explained they wanted a little buffer and an offset of the house front.
Mr. Rafferty stated he thinks the addition of the garage will help. He encouraged the
need to consider a buffer for Mustang Lane and to keep items within the garage.
Mr. Johnson asked how much of a variance is needed with the garage being relocated ten
feet from the Maple tree. Ms. Wyland stated the garage can be moved back by only four
feet.
Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve a 3.5 foot variance to Lyndal Nelson, 87 Lilac
Street, to allow a 442 square foot addition to the existing attached garage to be located
closer than the required 30 feet from a local street based on the rational that the findings
of fact for variance consideration have been met and subject to the following conditions:
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 5
1. The proposed addition be located ten feet south of the existing Maple tree to
minimize the variance required on the south/east corner.
2. The proposed addition be sided to match the existing house and garage.
The motion was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0.
C. Rick Carlson, 62nd Street, Minor Subdivision
Staff advised that the property owners at 599 and 607 62nd Street are requesting a minor
subdivision to allow their homes to be split from the balance of their property which has
been purchased by Mr. Carlson and is intended for future development. The property is
currently zoned Rural and guided for low density sewer residential in the draft
Comprehensive Plan. Staff reviewed the past action to approve a minor subdivision for
the Junes property that split the parcel into three pieces. Parcel A was dedicated to the
City for park as a part of the Miller's South Glen Plat with some park dedication credit
for future development. This park land was added to Birchwood Acres Park. Parcel B
was retained by the Junes and contains their existing estead. Parcel C was retained
by Mr. Carlson for future development. Followin tion, Mr. Carlson secured a
purchase agreement with the Rehbeins at 607 6
to plat that property and the Junes Parcel C in
was approved by the Planning and Zoning
1998 City Council meeting. Mr. Carlson
action which is still pending.
Staff advised of the size of each p
City Engineer is recommendi
centerline. This will requir
dedicating an additional 23.5
cels E and F) and proceeded
Shadow Ponds. That development
continued at the November 23,
y requested a delay in Council
quirement for at least 20% of upland. The
40 foot of right -of -way north of the 62nd Street
of a new survey document prior to Council action
g Parcels B, E, and F for future reconstruction of
62nd Street. This new survey sho d provide one acre exclusive of right -of -way for
Parcel E. Staff recommends approval of this minor subdivision as provided for within the
Zoning Ordinance with two conditions.
Chair Schaps asked if you can combine two parcels to get above the ten acre limit. He
noted you can reduce the size of a lot to one acre as long as the remaining lot is ten acres
or served by public water and sewer. He asked if each parcel will comply under this 10
acre limit. Ms. Wyland stated they will not.
Mr. Smyser explained each of the two existing houses can be on a lot smaller than the ten
acres according to an exception stated in the Code.
Chair Schaps asked if Parcels B and C could request to split off Parcel C. Ms. Wyland
stated in that case, Staff would recommend Parcel C be combined with the parcel to the
north. She explained the intention is to hold the property until public water and sewer is
available.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 6
Chair Schaps asked if this is approved, does it require use of the sewer system in the
future. Ms. Wyland stated that any parcel smaller than ten acres would be required to
connect.
With regard to a lot being less than ten acres, Mr. Smyser explained it is alleviated since
the lot would be combined, at the same time, with another parcel.
Rick Carlson, applicant, stated he has nothing to add to Staff's report.
Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision request of Rick Carlson
as provided for within the Zoning Ordinance with the following conditions:
1. The newly created Parcels C and F be combined into one tax parcel with the
previously approved (1997) Parcel C.
2. Additional right -of -way is dedicated to 62nd Street to provide 40 feet from the
centerline along Parcels B, E, and F. Parcel E is adjusted to provide one (1) acre
in area exclusive of right -of -way.
The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Motio{ arrie
D. PUBLIC HEARING, SSR & W A evelo gent, 7920 Lake Drive, Rezone and
Minor Subdivision
Chair Schaps declared the public
Staff advised that the applica
of property at 7930 Lake D
immediately to the east which
split the westerly four acres from
Development is the owner of a .68 acre parcel
CB, Central Business and the 80+ acres
d RX, Rural Executive. The applicant would like to
e 80+ acres and rezone it to CB, Central Business (or
some commercial designation) and add it to the .68 acre parcel having frontage on Lake
Drive. The current Comprehensive Plan guides the westerly 40 acres of this 80+ acre
parcel as single family residential. The draft plan guides the entire 80+ acres as low
density sewered residential in the Phase 1 growth area (1998 - 2010). Both parcels of
property are outside the current MUSA boundary, however, sewer and water are available
on Lake Drive.
Staff reviewed the existing zoning of surrounding property and noted the property owner
does not currently have a specific development for this parcel of property but believes
that a larger site would be better suited to commercial development and enhances the
developability of the .68 acre parcel. The applicant is anticipating a future platting of the
area that would provide access from Lake Drive, subject to Anoka County review, should
the rezone request be approved. Utilities are currently available on Lake Drive to serve
this development, however, until adoption of a Comprehensive Plan, no.MUSA
designation is available for this site. It was noted that any future development of the site
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 7
• will be contingent upon City approval of MUSA, a preliminary/final plat, access /roadway
•
•
configuration, and site and building plan review.
Staff noted the City's EDAC had reviewed this request and unanimously recommended
approval. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with two conditions and approval
of the minor subdivision with the combination of two parcels. If denial is considered
Staff has identified two reasons for denial.
Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he had anything to add to Staff's presentation.
Willard Morton, applicant indicated he had nothing to add to the Staff report which he
found to be very thorough.
Chair Schaps asked for further public input. There being none, he entertained a motion to
close the public hearing.
Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:21 p.m., and was
supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0.
Upon inquiry, Ms. Wyland reviewed the uses s +undin s site and explained that
property owners within 600 feet were notified � `al telephone calls were received, but
no comments received from the VFW.
Mr. Rafferty asked if there were conc
Wyland stated the questions asked
parcel but no concerns were expre
Mr. Rafferty asked why the
ssed by the residents on Lois Lane. Ms.
pplicant intended to rezone the entire
ing the four (4) acre parcel..
of parallel to Lake Drive rather than a larger
rectangular shaped piece that g ough a residential area.
Mr. Morton explained they have had a number of people familiar with commercial
development study the site and it was viewed as being more versatile in this
configuration. He advised that a sketch plan of five lots had been developed based on
this configuration.
Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Morton if he owns any additional property on Lake Drive. Mr.
Morton stated he owns a sliver of land currently zoned commercial but it is too small to
be functional. Thus their request for a combination.
Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Morton if he has heard any concerns expressed by residents. Mr.
Morton stated he has personally visited ten to twelve home owners along Lois Lane and
their concern is that they do not want 80 acres of commercial but had no objection to this
proposal.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 8
Chair Schaps stated he spoke with Mr. Evenson who had expressed that same comment
but no concern as long as the access is on Lake Drive.
Mr. Schilling asked if there is concern about the burden on the utilities of commercial
versus residential. Mr. Powell stated there is no concern with utilities but there is concern
about the impact to the roadways and the need to orient most of the traffic on Lake Drive.
Mr. Johnson stated he attended the Economic Development Board meeting and it was felt
this was such a small parcel for commercial it would not be effectively developed but
adding this portion would result in more flexibility for development, access can be placed
on Lake Drive, and it would provide a benefit to the City's tax base.
Ms. Lane concurred and indicated support for gaining additional commercial land when
adjacent to major roadways such as Lake Drive.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the rezoning to CB, Central Business, and was
supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minor ion subject to the following
conditions:
1. The draft comprehensive land use ended to reflect a commercial
�p y
designation for the newly created 1 prior to adoption of the Plan.
2. A minor subdivision is appro fo newly created 4 acre parcel and that
Y � 4s��a a
parcel is legally combined ��� . � .ere parcel fronting on Lake Drive.
3. Development of the site is gFll` g upon adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
and allocation of MU
4. Access shall be limi
vely to Lake Drive
The motion was supported by Mr. ' chilling. Motion carried 6 -0.
E. PUBLIC HEARING, Lino Lakes State Bank, Otter Lake Road & New
Service Road, Conditional Use, Site Plan Review, Minor Subdivision
Chair Schaps stated that since he has a financial interest in the Lino Lakes State Bank, he
will not participate in the discussion or vote and will only open the public hearing and
call for the motion and vote.
Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 7:30 p.m.
Staff advised that the applicant, Lino Lakes State Bank, has submitted an application for a
conditional use permit, site plan review, and minor subdivision to allow the construction
of a branch bank at Otter Lake Road and a "to be constructed" new roadway. The
property is zoned GB, General Business, and guided for commercial development in the
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 9
current and draft Comprehensive Plan. A bank building with drive - through capacity
requires a conditional use permit.
Staff noted the submittal complies with the requirements of the GB zoning district and
reviewed the proposed building appearance which is similar to the existing structure at
Lake Drive and Town Center Parking. Staff reviewed their analysis of the project aspects
including lighting, signage, landscaping, utilities, road, access and circulation, and
parking. With regard to the minor subdivision needed to facilitate the necessary minor
subdivision, the proposed lot will be 150' x 250' for 62,500 square feet. The current
survey document indicates no structures so Staff would require a survey document
containing the building placement prior to issuance of the building permits. Staff
recommends approval with minor revision to the site plan and subject to eleven
conditions.
Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he had anything to add to Staff's presentation.
John Milbauer, applicant and president of the Lino Lakes State Bank, stated he had
nothing to add.
Mr. Rafferty inquired regarding the shingles.
significant cost savings by shifting to shingle
Chair Schaps asked for further public inp
close the public hearing.
stated there will be a
eing none, he entertained a motion to
Mr. Zych made a MOTION to clo :"'p .` c hearing at 7:39 p.m., and was supported
by Mr. Johnson. Motion carr
M. Schilling inquired regardin gnificant drainage and elevation issues. Mr. Powell
stated a regional water quality pon is located south/east of the site and the concern is to
control the rate of drainage from this site. He stated this is commonly done in developed
areas and Staff is comfortable they can revise the site to accommodate Staff's concerns.
Mr. Rafferty asked if the road will be directly behind this. Mr. Millbauer stated the road is
380 feet south of the County Road centerline. Mr. Powell stated that is correct and the
recommended conditions allowed additional right -of -way dedication on Otter Lake Road.
Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision for Lino Lakes State Bank,
to allow the construction of a branch bank at Otter Lake Road and a to be constructed
service road and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 5 -0 -1 (Chair Schaps
abstained).
Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the conditional use permit, and site plan review
for Lino Lakes State Bank, to allow the construction of a branch bank at Otter Lake Drive
and a to be constructed service road subject to the following conditions:
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 10
1. A survey document indicating building placement is provided prior to issuance of
building permits.
2. A cash park dedication fee, based on City Ordinance, is submitted with the
building permit.
3. The western parking area is shifted to within 10 feet of the side property line
providing a 40 foot setback on the eastern side of the site. The site plan and
landscaping plan shall be modified to reflect this revision.
4. Proper building permits are obtained and include a 1% escrow deposit to insure
completion of site improvements. Building plans will be subject to the review
and comment of the City's CPTED Officer.
5. A photometric lighting plan is submitted prior to issuance of any building permits
and approved by City Staff.
6. Sign permits are obtained prior to installation.
7. Utility, grading, and drainage plans are subject to the review and approval of the
City Engineer.
8. Permits are obtained from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to any site
work.
9. Concerns addressed by the City Engineer i
addressed prior to any site work.
10. The trash handling areas are screened
11. A shared driveway agreement is pr vide
emo of April 6, 2000 are
oved by City Staff.
r to issuance of building permits.
The motion was supported by Mr. Sc .tion carried 5 -0 -1 (Chair Schaps
abstained).
F. PUBLIC HEARING l e,, en, Northern Lights Boulevard, Conditional
Use Permit and Site Plan
Chair Schaps declared the public ` earing open at 7:41 p.m.
Staff advised that the applicant, Dairy Queen, has submitted an application for a site plan
and conditional use permit to construct a new Dairy Queen on 21st Avenue at Northern
Lights Boulevard. The site is zoned GB General Business. Restaurants with a drive -
through facility require a conditional use permit in the GB district. The site is part of a
preliminary plat that was approved by the City in December of 1997. However, no final
plat was approved. Staff recommended it is best to clean up this situation by requiring
that a final plat be approved as a condition of approval for the Dairy Queen. Staff
indicated they would address the site plan, conditional use permit and platting issues.
Staff advised that the applicant for the Dairy Queen project is not the landowner who is
responsible for the platting requirements. However, the plat issues must be resolved
before additional development occurs.
Staff advised the submittal complies with the GB zoning standards. Staff presented their
analysis of the building footprint and architecture, trash enclosure, lighting, and signage.
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 11
It was emphasized that sign permits are required for all signs and the consideration
tonight would imply no approval with regard to the signage. With regard to the landscape
plan, Staff advised that a revised landscaping plan was received on April 4, 2000 and
Staff will work with the applicant to improve that plan.
Staff next addressed plat issues and read the conditions of approval as declared for the
preliminary plat in 1997. It was noted that sewer and water does exist on the site but the
utilities have not yet been turned over to the City so that will be addressed at the time of
final plat considerations. Staff reviewed the parking space requirements as well as road,
access, and circulation around the site. It was noted there will be one driveway access
from Northern Lights Boulevard. That roadway will need to be dedicated to the City and
addressed as part of the final plat review.
Staff recommended the conditional use permit findings, including the list of conditions,
and indicated they believe the application meet those findings. Staff recommends
approval of the site plan and conditional use permit subject to ten conditions of approval
and the project complying with these required findings.
Chair Schaps asked why this did not go to final
that all the issues did not come together to the s
noted it could take several months to complet
it could take five months to get the PEMA
Mr. Rafferty noted the reading that a
plat, approval is a technicality. He
Mr. Smyser identified the loc
location of the requested sp
would not be considering appr
pl
Smyser stated his understanding
all parties. Chair Schaps
al plat approval process, estimating
ved.
factio
sue
e final plat conforms with the preliminary
difference is the split into two lots.
ubject site of the preliminary plat and the
the Dairy Queen site. He explained the City
anything that increases the use of the site. He
stated it is not uncommon for dev opment projects to include outlots in the final plat if
they have not yet identified users. Mr. Smyser stated if the final plat proposal included a
larger number of lots than the preliminary plat, Staff would require a new preliminary
plat.
Mr. Rafferty stated his understanding that the rules for residential and commercial plats
are the same. Mr. Smyser stated that is correct and explained the types of changes that
can be made to the final plat while still remaining within substantial conformance of the
preliminary plat.
With regard to the road width, the past meeting minutes indicate that the Council
discussed the width of the street and the City Engineer, at that time, indicated a width of
60 feet would be adequate and it was approved by the Council.
Mr. Johnson inquired how the Amoco project was approved without final plat approval.
Mr. Smyser concurred that should not have been possible.
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 12
Chair Schaps asked for further public input. There being none, he entertained a motion to
close the public hearing.
Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:05 p.m., and was
supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0.
Archie Lessard stated he is applying for the permit for the Dairy Queen but is not the
developer and is unable to answer the platting questions. He stated he has no objection to
the recommended conditions of approval and is aware there may be a delay in the process
due to the need to address the final plat issues.
Mr. Rafferty referenced the approval for the Amoco application and asked, in
consideration of that issue, if there is anything that can be done to speed this process for
Dairy Queen.
Mr. Smyser stated that consideration would not follow the rules and he would not
recommend the City make the same mistake twice. stated Staff supports the Dairy
Queen application but believes this is the proper ti orrect the final plat approval.
Mr. Rafferty encouraged Staff to do whatever able to speed this process.
Mr. Powell advised of road construction
determine the boundaries of the proje
could take up to 1.5 years which i
the 1-EMA consideration is unde
is area and Staff's work to
ted the FEMA map revision process
tial work which has been completed and
Ms. Lane asked if this will b''ta nth facility. Mr. Lessard stated it will be a 12
month, 12 hour a day, facility.
Ms. Lane inquired about the number of parking spaces to be provided. Mr. Lessard stated
this is a Dairy Queen standard and has been working well in other locations.
Ms. Lane asked if five to six spaces could be added to the north/east comer of the site if
parking became an issue. Mr. Lessard stated he would consider that in an effort to gain
more customers.
Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the site plan and conditional use permit to
construct a Dairy Queen on 21st Avenue at Northern Lights Boulevard, subject to the
findings of fact as identified in the Staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat must obtain approval from the City before a building permit is
issued for the Dairy Queen. The conditions of approval for the preliminary plat
must be met before final plat approval.
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 13
2. Building material shall be as shown on revised exterior elevations received April
4, 2000, showing EFIS as the primary materials, rather than corrugated metal.
The fence around the cooler and the trash enclosure shall be painted cedar wood,
not corrugated metal. These materials shall be reflected on building permit
submittals.
3. A lighting plan for the Dairy Queen site must be submitted and must meet City
lighting requirements before a building permit is issued. Lighting information
shall include a photometric plan as well as figures of any lot and exterior building
fixtures. Lighting shall be directed downward and not up into the night sky.
4. Approval of the site plan and conditional use permit is not an implied approval of
signage. All signs require a sign permit and must comply with the sign ordinance.
5. Proper building permits must be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the
construction costs must be put in escrow to insure completion of all site
improvements. Prior to issuance of building permits, building plans must be
reviewed by the City CSO for compliance with CPTED recommendations.
6. All permits required by the Rice Creek Watershed District shall be obtained prior
to additional grading on the Dairy Queen site. In addition, failure to comply with
Watershed District permit requirements will .. y final plat approval by the City.
7. Final utility, grading, and drainage plans in approval from the City
Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed Di
8. The City Engineer's concerns, include
addressed to his satisfaction.
9. A landscaping plan must meet wit val of the City Environmental
Specialist
10. Park dedication shall be pa • licy.
memo of April 6, 2000, must be
The motion was supported by E€ �` otion carried 6 -0.
G. PUBLIC HEARING, " .• Center Development Standards
Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 8:13 p.m.
Staff advised of the work undertaken by City Staff on the Town Center Development
Standards, meetings held, and consultant hired to assist in that process. Staff noted the
design standards have been developed and the recommendation is to create a new zoning
district with the design standards becoming the standards of that zoning district to assure
the development of an orderly, high quality downtown Town Center. Staff presented a
colored site plan identifying roadways, land use categories, open space /park, boulevard
design creating a linear park, and natural environment areas. Staff commented on the
effort that will be made to create environmentally - friendly developments with regard to
grading and ponding.
Staff noted the area identified for highway commercial (gas stations and fast food
restaurants) and mixed use areas that would be more pedestrian oriented and include
standards and concepts that are pedestrian friendly through setbacks being on the roadway
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 14
to create an "old town" environment. Parking would be on- street or behind the buildings
and wide sidewalks would abut the storefronts. Staff pointed out the area identified for
housing types including high density.
Staff stated that architectural standards will be included that require diversity and
articulation of the facade, as opposed to large expanses of concrete block. The parking
requirements will allow shared parking between compatible uses where possible in an
attempt to reduce the amount of impervious surface. Staff presented a diagram of street
alignment and noted that on- street parking would also be allowed. Another consideration
will be floor area ratio as opposed to considering a maximum amount of impervious
surface. He noted this is possible because of the large expanses of green space within the
district.
Staff presented the residential component, noting the areas allowed for ground floor retail
with residential units on the upper floors. The types of residential uses are not defined
but the minimum and maximum densities have been identified. Staff noted areas
anticipated for higher density that will support the retail areas, provide for life -cycle
housing, and work toward livable community goals. °`e open space areas and
requirements within the residential areas were not f stated the residential buildings
�R
will be placed close to the street with parking b. d the e ldings for multi - density and
garages set back from the street for other resi• °�'ypes. This is being considered in an
attempt to avoid a streetscape comprised ' 1 stly .. ages.
Mr. Smyser noted the Planning an
document and provide input.
as met five times to review this
Chair Schaps restated that the ng will not be closed tonight to allow
additional comment at the 00 meeting. He invited public comments to be
made.
Tim Baylor, representing JADT Development Group, stated one of his clients is
McDonalds Restaurant. He stated he has specific concerns as the plan relates to their site
as well as general comments. Mr. Baylor stated he is a Planning Commissioner in the
City of Minneapolis and shares the sentiments about the proliferation of development and
appreciates the amount of work involved in the redrafting of such a document. He
suggested a lack of a macrovision in looking at a plan of this size and its impact and, on
the other hand, having no mention of any zoning or planning on the other side of Lake
Drive.
Mr. Baylor stated he has talked with the consultant and learned they used no local
comparable and all were from different parts of the country such as Florida and other
areas which are vastly different from Lino Lakes. He noted their comparable contained
nothing from the Midwest which is a concern to him. Mr. Baylor stated this is a detailed
plan and appears it should be market driven rather than municipality driven. He
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 15
suggested that some of the property owners may indicate they want to be compensated for
the taking of their land due to over regulation.
Mr. Baylor stated the highway commercial/shopping district currently is one of the most
intense zoning designations the City has. It is along the freeway and appropriately zoned
because of its access and location. He stated that to put that intense zoning next to open
space and a park seems somewhat contradictory especially since north of Apollo Drive is
more intense development. He stated they are ready to proceed with the McDonalds
Restaurant and have been before the City for over two years. He stated they do not have
the luxury of waiting to see what happens and they want to move forward with a certainty
as to what will be happening. In April of 1999, the Planning and Zoning Board and
Council approved the PDO. Mr. Baylor stated it is his understanding that the design
standard incorporated the vision of the document being discussed tonight. About three
weeks ago, the Mayor signed the final plat, reconfirming the PDO so they can commence
with the project.
Mr. Baylor read a portion of the City's Zoning Ordinance as it defines the purpose of the
PDO, noting the PDO has already been approved ggested that through the PDO
process, most of the City's objectives can be reac e is concerned that changing
the Land Use Plan and zoning designations wil erely -ct the marketability and
economics of his project and, thus, jeopardiz ey have been working on several
years to develop. Mr. Baylor asked the Pl . ning Zoning Board to consider his
comments and to assure the ability for his ����. proceed.
Peter Coyle stated he is speaking o
south and east of 35W and Highw
Staff's effort to reach out to t
an important part of the Cit
proposed plan goes too far 11 it is intended to assure compatibility of land uses
but without the hard edge of sayin- that is how it must be. He respectfully suggested the
document goes too far and will have an unintended consequence of making it more
difficult, more expensive, and thus less likely for the desirable development to occur. Mr.
Coyle stated a document is difficult to create that includes a collective vision and he fears
the current document does not reflect the community's vision for Lino Lakes but, rather,
the visions that have worked in other regions of the United States. He noted there is no
indication if the design criteria is economically feasible or desirable by developers to
pursue. He stated they want the Town Center to be a successful part of the City and
development of the Tagg property to occur.
el and Elise Tagg who own property
choed Mr. Baylor's comments regarding
obtain their input. He noted this area will be
ment but stated he also shares concerns that the
Mr. Coyle noted the road configuration identified on the land use map was indicated to be
a "must do" road configuration which means if a large developer came forward, they
would be handed a grid of how the roads must be, regardless of their idea or cost
effectiveness. He asserted this would "close doors" that do not, at this time, need to be
closed since the City's ordinances allow the ability to make those site specific
considerations once a viable site plan is before the Planning and Zoning Board and /or
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 16
City Council. Also, it will be cost prohibitive for a small family -owned enterprise to
comply with the required design elements, monuments, etc. He explained that if the land
has a certain market value, and the business has a certain economic proforma, the costs
reflected by the document need to fit within the developer's budget including the cost of
the property itself. He encouraged the City to retain the good elements and to look at how
the document can be "softened" or included in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Coyle noted the
proposed zoning classifications identified on the land use map for the Tagg property and
commented on the restriction it imposes in that a developer may have a different proposal
in mind. He suggested an overlay district be considered which would allow that not to
occur. He stated another concern is the extent to which the City will commit itself to
providing financial resources to accomplish this plan. He suggested the City will have to
demonstrate it is willing to place some "money on the table" to assure the architectural
requirements of the plan becomes a reality.
Mr. Coyle commented on the substantial development occurring in Maple Grove along
the freeway, noting it is the "hottest" development area in the metro, alongside two major
freeways, and Maple Grove has financed the infrastructure and made other
considerations. He stated he was part of that process d knows how difficult it was for
the developer to commit prior to the City c omin g with financial assistance of
some kind. Mr. Coyle stated he thinks the Lino has done a terrific job in
drafting a credible plan but there is a delicate . between a plan that shows credible
visions and plans and one that goes too far He a urged the City to soften the
requirements to assure it is feasible to occ
Chair Schaps asked if there is an a
absorbing financial costs to make
discussion with the City abou
he thinks the City should lo
intervention of the Legislature,
City should become involved in
active. Mr. Coyle stated he has had some
derstands the restrictions placed on TIF use but
to adopt a TIF district, possibly with the
litate future development. He stated he is not
presuming to say what the City should spend its dollars on since the developers may be
willing to cover some of them. However, there may be some good projects that are
marginal and unable to "clear the bar" especially with the desired housing projects. Mr.
Coyle commented on a Chanhassen project where the Metropolitan Council contributed
$700,000 toward the streetscape. He suggested that may be the type of commitment that
needs to be present to assure the developer that the City wants these design criteria met.
Chair Schaps stated it has been mentioned this plan includes "San Diego" type features
and asked if that is a viable type of development for Lino Lakes. Mr. Coyle stated the
Maple Grove plan, which is a new urbanist plan, would not have happened but for the
City's involvement in a substantial way. He stated it is his personal view that you need a
fairly significant population density potential to warrant that type of development and for
it to work. He noted the metropolitan area is more accustomed to low density designs and
he does not know if the Maple Grove type of development is feasible everywhere else.
He urged caution in this consideration and suggested further discussion with the City's
consultants.
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 17
Mike Winge, Marshan Lane, stated he is a minority property owner with Glen Rehbein.
He stated he shares the comments made by the first two speakers. Mr. Winge stated that
while visiting Florida he saw a development that was the same concept as being
suggested in this plan. He stated that it was enjoyed by all, some even driving their golf
carts to the businesses. However, when the whether turned cold, he noticed that the
businesses were not patronized. Mr. Winge noted the winter weather in Minnesota will
be a negative impact for this type of design. Also, they are being taxed for 40 acres of
commercial land and the plan proposes a lot of residential.
Tom Vacha, 7702 Lake Drive, stated his concern with the plan that shows an access point
to Lake Drive but no provision for any berm or trees for residents on Carolyn Drive or
77th Street. He noted that Lake Drive is also heavily traveled and access is difficult.
Greda Jacott, 719 77th Street, pointed out the location of her house and stated her concern
about the roadway. She stated they have the youngest children in the neighborhood and
the proposed plan results in their having to back out into the roadway. Ms. Achott stated
this will be a concern for other homes in the neighbo od as well She advised that
neighborhood children use the roadway to practic 'r skateboard so she is
concerned for their safety.
Darrel Silverness, YMCA Director, stated .e wo ike to offer preliminary comments.
He explained they are working with an ar is reviewing design standards and
preparing some site plan drawings. ot� e of the requirement results in the need
for a second access point and if th e ' e cost, they would need to raise more
money. He explained that on thei t ai • s - . site, two sides will be considered street sides
and require street facade. Ho of their users will be entering from the parking
lot side, meaning they will decorative sides. Mr. Silverness stated if the
s�.
YMCA is built and this plan is ped within three years, they will be thrilled. But, if
development is delayed, their me . ership will be negatively impacted. He stated they
believe they have a fabulous site for the YMCA.
James Kauth, West 77`h Street, noted the location of his house and asked if the site plan
depicts the existing structures or new buildings at the corner of 77`h Street. Mr. Smyser
stated it depicts the long term vision that the site will be redeveloped.
Mr. Kauth asked about the price of housing in the residential area and if it includes public
housing. Chair Schaps explained there has been no discussion of price or type of housing
that would be included. Mr. Smyser stated that is correct.
Mr. Kauth asked about the density for the residential. Mr. Smyser stated that is not yet
known, but there is a possibility for townhomes.
Mr. Coyle noted the Tagg quadrant has two commercial operations in existence and asked
how those facilities measure up to the proposed Town Center standards. Mr. Smyser
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 18
responded that some aspects do comply but some do not. The location of the building on
the lot and large parking areas do not comply. He stated the buildings are quite nice and
were negotiated designs. Since that time, Staff found the investment in the structures
could have been more in the street level. With the new standards, the parking areas
would have been combined. Mr. Smyser stated the design and placement of those two
commercial uses are more compatible with the highway district as opposed to the mixed
use area.
Mr. Smyser stated that good comments have been received tonight and at next month's
hearing additional information will be provided on the roadway issues that were raised
tonight. He thanked all in attendance for their comments.
Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the May 10, 2000
Planning and Zoning Board meeting., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried
6 -0.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. DNR Smart Growth Greenways Pla
Mr. Smyser advised that Lino Lakes and the 1 '? a ' 1 be cooperating in a DNR initiated
program called the Wildland Urban Interf Prot . The DNR's goal is to assist local
governments with preserving habitat and * ater quality, and other natural
resources. The DNR has asked Lino es ' ugo to be the two cities to participate in
this program to work with urbaniz . ties to attempt to minimize the impact on
natural resources. Mr. Smyser rev t ree parts to this program and the indication
from the DNR that they woul refinements of the natural resource inventory
and will make suggestions • ow t= mprove the City's method. The City of Hugo will
work with a landowner on a de t ent project to create a model for subdivisions that
have less negative impact on the e vironment. The City of Lino Lakes is under no
obligation to follow any recommendations from the DNR. Mr. Smyser noted that Staff
has considered developing a guidebook to assist small acreage landowners in resource
management and the DNR program gives the City an opportunity to have the DNR do a
large amount of that work. Mr. Smyser stated this is being provided as informational
since it may result in the need for ordinance amendments.
Chair Schaps inquired regarding "smart growth" initiatives. Mr. Smyser explained it is a
combination of using less land to accommodate development (more density) and to be
more environmentally friendly with fewer natural impacts. He stated in the City's Town
Center, clustering, the preservation program, and sustainable development all addresses
smart growth initiatives.
Chair Schaps asked if the DNR is asking for the opportunity to become involved, review
projects, site plans, etc., and then offer suggestions on how it could be done in a more
environmentally friendly or smarter manner but the City has no obligation to follow their
•
•
•
•
•
Planning & Zoning Board
April 12, 2000
Page 19
suggestions. Mr. Smyser stated they do not want to be involved in the City's design
review process. He explained how an open space management plan could be useful to the
City in development considerations.
Mr. Johnson stated he sees this program as working with certain DNR staff people who
have expertise in areas of nature and who will provide an additional prospective on
different approaches, similar to the City's Environmental Board.
Mr. Smyser stated that is his impression as well and he thinks the DNR will benefit by
learning what is being done in Lino Lakes.
Ms. Lane stated she saw a presentation on Smart Growth and noted it is a way to prevent
urban sprawl.
Mr. Schilling asked if the City will receive the full attention of the DNR if Lino Lakes
does not participate in their entire program. Mr. Smyser explained this program is
entirely new and being created and he sees nothing to lose by participating.
Chair Schaps noted the consensus of the Planning .: ing Board to proceed with
caution to participate in the DNR collaborative d gram ed "Integrating natural
resource guidance to enhance smart growth in d -urban interface communities."
B. Bluebill Ponds, Preliminary Pla
Mr. Smyser advised that negotiatio
facilitator. Staff expects to have a
which works toward the adv
occurring with Mr. Powell being the lead
liminary plat at the May 10, 2000 meeting
City, property owner, and developer.
Mr. Powell addressed question 'a'T members relating to the negotiations.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m., and was supported
by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0.
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM V A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland
DATE:
TOPIC:
DESCRIPTION:
May 10, 2000
Carl Johnson, 310 Carl Street, Variance
This case involves a request for a Variance from the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 3,
Subd. 4.D. Accessory Buildings and Structures, 1. General Provision. c. No detached
accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line then the principal building or its
attached garage.
Carl Johnson is the owner of Lot 11, Block 1, Lino Air Park North, and has been since
October of 1996. The property is Zoned Rural and is approximately 1.4 acres in size.
When Mr. Johnson purchased this lot, the City's Zoning Ordinance did not contain the
provision outlined above and, in fact, allowed accessory buildings and structures
anywhere on the lot provided required setbacks were maintained. Special provisions
allowed Air Park lots 3200 square foot hangers. The section of the ordinance referenced
above was added to the Zoning Ordinance when it was amended in July of 1997. Mr.
Johnson is, therefore, asking for a Variance from this section of the ordinance to allow
construction of a hanger in front of the principal building.
A review of the file on the Lino Air Park North reveals the following:
• The Lino Air Park was originally platted in 1976, at that time, Carl Street did
not extend past Lot 9 due to a large ditch.
• The Developer, Roger Kolstad, requested information concerning extending
Carl Street to serve lots 10 —14 in July of 1993 at which time a development
agreement was drafted by the City Engineer, Darrell Schneider.
• The final Development Contract for Lino Air Park North, Lots 10 -14, was
signed and financial guarantees posted in May /June of 1996.
• A Rice Creek Watershed District permit was amended and approved in
August of 1996, this permit provided ponding and flowage easements over
Lots 10 -14 with specified areas for septic systems, hangers and house pads.
The development plan indicated all hangers on the runway side of the lots.
• The roadway and ponding work was completed in September of 1996.
• On October 14, 1996, Mr. Carl Johnson requested a revision to the ponding
and flowage easements over Lot 11. This revision was approved by the
RCWD and the City Council. The Certificate of Survey presented at that time
showed the proposed dwelling on the runway side of the lot and the hanger on
the Carl Street side of the lot. There was no discussion, at that time,
concerning the hanger location as the Zoning Ordinance did not address the
location of accessory structures outside of setback restrictions, nor did it
prohibit accessory structures in front of the principal building.
On October 14, 1996 the City Council also discussed ponding & grading
issues on the Air Park property that were completed without permission, or
easements, from the Air Park Association. The Council ordered that no
further building permits be issued for the Lino Air Park North until resolution
of the easement situation (building permits were issued for Lots 13 & 14
September and October of 1996, therefore, the moratorium applied only to
Lots 10, 11, & 12). On October 23, 1996, the City Engineer (Dave Ahrens)
sent a memo to the Building Official advising him that no permits were to be
issued for the Lino Air Park North until further notice. On April 23, 1998 the
Building Official was notified, by the City Engineer, that permits could now
be issued for the remaining lots.
Mr. Johnson has submitted a letter outlining his reasons for the variance request. To
summarize, he believes the moratorium on construction of his lot was beyond his control.
He further states that, in his opinion, the runway is the predominant feature of the
property and he would like his home oriented south toward the runway with the hanger
adjacent to Carl Street. Mr. Johnson has also submitted a letter signed by the owners of
Lots 12 & 13 and from the Vice President of the Air Park Association indicating no
objection to the variance request.
There are 19 developed lots within the Air Park. Three (3) have hangers in front of the
dwelling, one (1) has an attached hanger, eight (8) have hangers on the side or behind the
principal building, and seven (7) have no hanger.
In considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City
shall make a finding of fact:
1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls.
2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his
property not created by the land owner.
3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable
use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
4. 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.
5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
Staff would comment that the current Zoning Ordinance prohibits the construction of an
accessory building in front of the principal structure. The development plan for the lots
in Lino Air Park North initially indicated that the hanger location would be toward the
runway. The unique nature of the drainage easement on the lot does not constitute a
•
•
hardship because the home and accessory building could be constructed to meet the
requirements of the Ordinance by locating the hanger to the rear of the lot. We would,
therefore, recommend denial of the requested variance.
OPTIONS:
1. Deny Variance Request
2. Approve Variance Request
3. Return to staff for further consideration
RECOMMENDATION:
Option 1
The Lino Airpark is a most unique property in the city of Lino Lakes. In fact there are only three
such airpark properties in the entire Twin Cities metro area. The most important aspect of this
property is the grass runway used for private aircraft operations. The sights and sounds of aircraft
operations are the focus of the resident's interest in their property. It is the reason most homes
are constructed with a broad view to the runway. Only on the airpark is an owner allowed to
construct an aircraft hanger of up to 3200 sq feet. No other residential area, in this city or any
other, allows a secondary structure of that size.
In its present condition, only 19,200 sq feet of lot 11, blockl, lino airpark north, is excluded from
the pondage easement that covers the entire property. The excluded area is approximately 90 feet
wide. The southern most 40 feet of the excluded area has been staked and tested for the mound
septic system. The remaining portion of the excluded area has already been excavated and back -
filled to provide the construction pad for the residence and hanger. None of that back - filled area
can be used for the construction of a mound septic system.
If the ordinance in question is strictly enforced on this property, in its present condition, the
hanger, at a width of 76 feet and height of 22 feet, would completely block and obscure all view
from the residence to the south and the runway. In addition the residence would be grossly out of
position with respect to all neighboring homes. This situation would result in a significant loss of
usability and enjoyment of the property.
The proposed arrangement of house and hanger location is not special to lotl 1, blockl, alone.
350 feet to the east, on Carl st., lot 9 has the identical house and hanger orientation as that
proposed for lot11. The buildings on lot 9 were constructed prior to the passage of the ordinance
restricting the location of a utility building.
The proposed house and hanger location for lot 11 was discussed with the Lino Lakes city
engineer in the summer of 1996. Following the city engineers' instructions, the present watershed
easement exclusion boundary was submitted to the Rice Creek watershed district and the Lino
Lakes city council for approval. The city council gave it's approval in the fall of 1996, prior to
the passage of the ordinance restricting the location of a utility building.
The proposed house plans and building locations for lot 11 have been presented to and discussed
with the immediate neighbors and the air park officers. Those persons have found the present
layout acceptable.
Page 1
•
•
I respectfully request that the Lino Lakes City Council grant to lot 1, block 1, lino airpark north,
•
a variance to the terms of the ordinance restricting the placement of a utility building between the
residence and the roadway.
Failing that:
I respectfully request that the Lino Lakes City Council find that the proposed house and hanger
locations for lot 11 were established prior to the passage of the ordinance restricting the location
of a utility building, and therefore said ordinance does not apply in this case.
Failing that:
I respectfully request that the Lino Lakes City Council properly identify the "Aircraft Hanger" as
a unique structure, not burdened by the ordinance restricting the placement of a utility building.
•
Page 2
•
We , the under signed,
have reviewed the house plans and building locations proposed for lot 11, block 1 , lino airpark
north. We find the proposed plans and building locations proper and acceptable.
Name
Address Signed
if- (01,5 a) 3.0& ddAt- sr
Air Park Offical (s)
vP
•
•
•
I J
EIfYEWT Y
10.04.
R`w
wrrorrir -/r.r wo 00
YMN •MEET
nee. -r, —
1
NORTH
2
30
4
LINO LAKES
R EHABILITATION CENTER
101. te44110
11.1 11•0110
..10900000^.
/41.,459plergriVer
f s�0�d
re M
i p "'_
MARSHAN LAKE
Ee
h, ,ti :. .
��iip '.
' 4'
U
\.
1
°
• 5w 4.0 •, 1
Ler II
CARL STREET
/ (45 vVATTl:D )
wT tt
1.t, L\'4 Lo'�
C AC"*,Vi
N 88 °45'51 "E--174.49�
.gs.o3 -
-1J i
. 0
0 S
9 do
2
,, 1
., ,'_ •
CLyv a`
t3 °1-i S145•1"e:
P •
•s" � �n
Lrz�
c
NJ
t4
- I+1'.0% -
53f° !-{>' s%" W
el
r
V
g 18�o•t48 Y,a,;c. vet A.�f
N 87 °30'39 "E -173.71-'
CO
CO
rn
N
fl
N
0
N
°
O
(i)
)
k)
L N AI+,YAE d1ov. 4
PO(ol.Ps Couts,a`ii N,
ToTAL -o F. 0,14L-
;
MC IsT A ct=∎
\a.1,00 Q. Pc".
F S�CG�S
k E T 2 Focz, pe- ono5e"0 GAAsc P.CT •
—SG-G ‘Re CZ 3 FoQ tjccS-c {HC- �...i4ND:_?9 posLIII • or-kotiv,C,
Arvo rL:vw/kc=, nc�clizA PTtn M ...
CERTIFICATE OF
?osc.7
LAW
-w P c -
.006421. Ftoa
FOR L002_L. )° \-\W,oN
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
THAWS OF THE STATE OF D(INNE OTA.
MINNESOTA 'LICENSE NO.ZoV
6M.' 5P \fit 'N ZN" COTTo kA.)
$D` t \4L`1 v(= W.; Co (- '( -t.&T ),i
Cu:V�T1rJNt 943.c'z. I‘o,v1Z0) 0104.\z(uLTa.UJ
too`/ C=Ag, -Lcz J = gg4.3
�Nw c.oV- t.AcSZ--) _ors\^ I �,
14. S7 L\ `:.
SURVEY
(a z-, 1� LATT L 7�
E.
I_ 1;7; BB °14 Sl "{E. 471i,`Ft
KURTH SURVEYING, INC.
4002 JEFFERSON ST. N.E.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS. MN. 55421
(612) 786-0760 FAX (612) 788 -7602
DATE
0 • IRON MQNUMENT Poo.
0 50
SCALE IN FEET
N.C. h ? v t- A-r
CA 12. vl Z ? CLO Qo 5(5'O
✓'►�(= • t,S LT (€1 -ND Kr 1
e_o941.4r:Vqot-kp wk-r4
gLA-N
7'R.Lc 4o Cb-'(
icy1 Nu' RtN.c#
---mogv- _
4\0.00
2)58°i-15'51'W .ten
co "T- ,}cIwI,`I c I, \G N
aussallagnisatallaMeneek
Loi- \' Ibl_Oc-410
Lgo a,��\?A�xa� I
0.+.1t 4: Coo v4r-1 TAN,
TOTAL o F Kos -
•
•
NOIIVAarla hinos
•
1
11111111(111111111
1 I
III
IB' x 48' 47 1100
I I
r
1
J
J
Fm1IlG LENIN 40'
•
EAST ELEIVON
•
r�
11
11
1111111111111
1„01111
111111111
Trf T<< <
.8- .9Z
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM V B
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland
DATE: May 10, 2000
TOPIC: Rehbein Companies & Independent School District #12
Minor Subdivision
DESCRIPTION:
This item involves a joint application by Rehbein Companies and Independent School
District #12 for two minor subdivisions that will formalize a land exchange made when
the Centennial Middle School was constructed.
The first parcel is immediately north of the school and was originally a part of a
triangular piece of property sold by Rehbein to the School District. The request is to split
off the easterly 7.54 acres of this parcel of property with ownership retained by Rehbein
Companies. When the School District property was rezoned to PSP, this parcel remained
Zoned Industrial at the City's recommendation. This parcel will remain a part of the
Rehbein Industrial area to the north and east.
The second parcel of property is approximately 5.04 acres between vacated 4th Avenue
and Lake Drive just north of Don's Circle Service. The request is to split this parcel into
a 1.56 acre piece with frontage on Lake Drive and a 3.48 acre piece adjacent to the school
property. The 3.48 acre parcel contains a large drainage /ponding easement for the School
District site. The property is currently owned by Rehbein but will be transferred to the
School District upon approval of the subdivision.
Both parcels are Zoned Light Industrial and meet the minimum requirements for a LI
Zoning District. Sewer and water could be extended to Parcel A on Lake Drive and will
be available to the larger triangular piece of property upon development of the Rehbein
industrial area.
Staff would recommend approval of this minor subdivision as requested. We have
submitted this information to Anoka County to determine if additional right -of -way will
be required along Lake Drive and are awaiting their response. Should additional right -of-
way be required by the County a revised Certificate of Survey showing the roadway
dedication will be necessary prior to Council action and a deed transferring title prior to
document recording.
OPTIONS:
1. Approve minor subdivision as requested.
2. Return to staff for further consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
Option 1
•
•
•
3
Ell GROAT
IC GOO-
_'III
r
iiHi'
n.
lap
plTWT _ 1 sacao
PARK
NORTH
ha0111111_ 1101111
oi��� ■• / � Ro�c €;'RY�,
2 � �%+ :c' N7 gm FA:
° fY7y �rJg Nt; RYA �� •
f /�� Ilibilkfthali . T Oda Vii:.,
vO�,�a
rega
r stt'L moo
1121118101111 �V� m
III
LINO LAKES
REHABILITATIOI1 CENTER
MARSHAN LAKE
;. rs 1 ✓sss
ii�m�OQo 1oc as°
iPars awl
MUM om
�O�Om
Jam am
TAM a iIom
MUM an!
MEM
MEM
WHIMS
_°
as
0�
MIES
MIMI
AN
MUM
00
Aer- 327-oa
Scale
Bork
Lb�¢
ToNo.—
t
11,ereby cerl,(y flurl Ibis plon,surve or repor•/ was pr'»Ciec:d
by r»e or undir my dirtc/ superv/1-1'cu? and /hr/ 1 am 0 duly
Pelistered Land Surveyor u, der /he laws o/' /he '/ate or
Minnesota • Ogled this day . •
Rejis/r ulion tilo. / *Ai% .
GLENN REIE3EIN CENPANIES
8651 Naples St. N.E.
Blaine, Mn. 55449
Tel. 784- 0657
•
•
That part of the Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka
County, Minnesota lying southerly of Highway 35W and northeasterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of Southeast Quarter; thence South 88'
degrees, 14 minutes, 06 seconds West, assumed bearing along the south line thereof 440 feet to the
point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 44 degrees, 06 seconds, West 392.15 feet
to the southerly line of said Highway 35W and said line there terminating. Subject to easements.
•
VENUE" :
• •
if/ •
• "
• iNt
k ,
4 . 017.6114# • X
,e .
it&
• if ' ..y1!"
t
•
• ..
•
•STA GE ▪ ".
. •
-
^
Zt...FICti
▪ Ok
•
AGENDA ITEM V. C
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser
P & Z MEETING DATE: May 10, 2000
TOPIC: Preliminary Plat, Bluebill Ponds
BACKGROUND
Heritage Development has submitted revised plans that include a four -way intersection
and an extended Wood Duck Trail. We are pleased at the success of the negotiations
between the developer and the House of Praise Church that allows the Wood Duck Trail
extension.
Unfortunately, numerous engineering issues remain unresolved. The issues are
significant enough that staff cannot recommend approval.
The developer has agreed to an extension of the review of the project for an additional 60
days to allow the developer's team to resolve the issues. The new deadline would be
• August 9. We hope to bring the project back to the P & Z on June 14. The City Council
could act on the project July 24 at the latest.
This report is based on the most current submittal consisting of the following:
Preliminary Plat 4/28/00 submitted 4/28/00
Preliminary Utility Plan 4/28/00 submitted 4/28/00
Preliminary Grading Plan 4/26/00 submitted 4/28/00
Infiltration & Erosion Control Plan 4/26/00 submitted 4/28/00
Hydrology Map and calculations submitted 4/28/00
OPTIONS
1. Continue this item to allow the applicant to redesign the plat and supply additional
information to address unresolved issues.
2. Deny the preliminary plat as submitted.
RECOMMENDATION
Option 1.
•
Memorandum
DATE: May 2, 2000
TO: Jeff Smyser, City Planner
FROM: John Powell, City Engineer 11
RE: Bluebill Ponds
Preliminary Plan Review Comments
A new submittal package for the referenced project was received by the City in the afternoon
on April 28, 2000. While the submittal addresses key concerns regarding access to the site,
the following deficiencies were noted during our initial review of the documents:
1. Most of the routing diagrams for the HydroCad model are illegible.
2. No pond outlet details are provided.
3. No pond, pond access, or wetland easements are shown.
4. The size of the storm sewer pipes is not shown on the utility plan or contained in a
schedule of segments.
5. The staging of the water elevations in the infiltration ponds behind the lots in Block 4 is not
provided. Emergency overflows for these areas are not shown. Effectiveness of the
infiltration areas will be minimal during periodic raising of the groundwater levels.
6. Lowest opening elevations have not been provided. These must take into consideration
normal and 100 -year pond levels and emergency overflow elevations.
7. The RCWD permit for this project has been tabled pending receipt of additional submittals.
8. Cul -de -sacs are not shown for the southeast and west roadways terminations. Temporary
cul -de -sacs, which meet City standards, could be considered in these locations.
9. Written documentation from House of Praise church indicating they have agreed to
purchase terms is not provided.
10. No landscape plan is included.
11. No tree preservation plan is included for the forested areas on the west and east edges of
the site.
12.The engineer's registration number on sheets 2 -5 must be verified.
13. Wood Duck Trail is a minor collector in the City's Transportation Plan. 40 foot setbacks
are needed along collector roads.
14. If the developer controls abutting properties, a concept plan should be provided.
15.The minimum watermain size is 8 inch, the east cul -de -sac shows 6 inch.
16. The engineer is proposing 12 inch sanitary sewer throughout the project. The diameter
must be reduced to 8 inch where projected flows do not justify 12 inch.
17. It is not clear whether or not the proposed 28 foot street width has been incorporated into
the hydraulic and hydrologic design.
The above comments were noted during a cursory review of the submittal, there may be
additional deficiencies. The information as submitted is insufficient for the City's preparation of
an engineering recommendation on this project. Please advise regarding our further review of
the documents as submitted.
•
•
H 5 71115H "
•
twormarmi„.
VIA1411111A
;MK
/2
21
Ou/
1/
— IOC ET
7
8
op$
3 OD.
12
1 0 L
e •
-OGUIVFY HWK—R1611-T-IOF WA-F M6WOEI?-2.5
-
17 8 AUD. SUB.
itt IL.)
Ifita Lagging
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
scHoo
SUB IVISIO
5
4
3
H
4
54
01/71.37
3 2
1-01 L NE
1
.481.
SH2ERWO
D
1
io
I
A Ri
0117LOT
a
PARK
NORTH
E
12
4
3
2
1. 13
4
7
—STRE ET
17
4
7
LINO I LAKES
L
a 500'30'44'W
33.00-n
—T'
27.00-
a BLUEBILL LANE
C.S.A.N. NO.
Io
C. +fit NO, 14 N89'28'331V NAN ST T)
932.03
14
N89'28'33'1'1
932.02 (MAIN
-WAY PLAT NO:25
STREET)
932.01 N89'28'33'W PARCEL
69 84
14201 sE -
13
82
4 125
110
500'31'27'N
T-33.00
2
-- T - - -= 3913 - -= --j.-
I I
Nd 31 I S
27.00 __ i -t--- -
N I64 sl I
FAr- i
lc( II I
LH1R0 1B S89'25'33*E
L- J 1 390.92
18 _
11200
110
R
R
97
3o SETaA= (, 4 ■11
1425555 5P n 0 1/ 1200 W' 157011 1
I 2 If '"
VMS W
0
125
OUTLOTA
•2550 s
• .' 1
15
1037 3r
b4
21
5040 57
as
a°
n70
00
83
17
13211 !
303
2149 r
:ONSULT1NG ENGINEERS.
PLANNERS and LAND SURVEYORS
VC.
80
4,18
n 1000 s
1-8 0
80
30' SETBACK
12.352 9
80 --
L1c
8 =
10K0 Sr
80
7
10008
E0
-
100080 5r
100
9
15001 5'
80
m
14 13
10009 100 r:1
SETa+n1`uNE
e0 00
m
12
1000 Y^
e0
ao
11
100 57_
MO
100
13212.10
1 589127124 "E
1 1
1 1
MAR DON ACES
STREET A
30 30
30
7
20205 IF
B
119016
142
2 s 32
113057
4 e.
11301 5P
0 142
3 2
4.
$ ,,i3...1423,
W
C 142
W$ 11x5.
30
142
14127 n 8
142
1 HERM' WOW( NAT TNq IRAN WAS
PREPARED 50 MR DR UNDER 00 DETER
4N[RM90N AND NAT 1 AU A DULY
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE
OF WH6OTA.
"ET, BURNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337 PH 4.32-3000
DATE - NEO. NO_
11.
REVISIONS
•
•
.-
PREPARED FOR:
Heritage Development
450 E. COUNTY ROAD D
ST. PAUL, MN 55117
•
y
7
128
6
10101 S
142
5. 3 0
MY
I4
142
1104E a
142
3
glum s
142
113443 u
142
1
14217 W
142
W
03 14
N
27
2g
Z
PREPARED FOR:
Heritage Development
450 E. COUNTY ROAD D
ST. PAUL, MN 55117
J
N 1/4 CORNER SEC. 2.
I — 1WP. 3t, ROE 22.
ANOKA COUNTY (CM)
100
0
100
200
300
Scale: 1 - 100
PRELIMINARY PLAT SITE DATA
OWNER / DEVELOPER HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT
450E COUNTY ROAD D
ST. PAUL, MN 55117
CONSULTANT:
PHONE 851.481.0017
FAX: 851-481 -1518
PROBE ENGINEERING CO., INC.
100E 146TH STREET
SUITE 240
BURNSVILLE, MN 55337
PHONE 612-4323000
FAX 812-4323723
ENGINEER RALPH D. WAGNER PE NO.7100
SURVEYOR RUSS P. DAMLO RLS NO. 18088
DESIGNER WILLIAM J. MAURER
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 8, Township 91, Range 22, Anoka County,
Minnesota, excepting therefrom that part of the North 313.50 feet of mild Northeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter lying east of a line drawn In • southerly direction perpendicular to the North One of
said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter from • pone on the North One thereof distant 381.10
feet west from to Northeast comer of said Northeast Quertsr of the Northwest Quarter.
Also excepting therefrom PARCEL 30 and that part of the above described parcel lying within PARCEL
31, ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO.25,
Subject to existing roadway easement for C. S. A. H. No. 14 (Maki Street).
TOTAL SITE AREA = 36.76 Ac
TOTAL WETLAND AREA = 93,713 SF
n lots 2.09 Lots / Acre
LOT AREAS SHOWN FOR BLOCKS 1, 2, AND 3,
DO NOT INCLUDE PROPOSED PONDS
LOT AREAS SHOWN FOR BLOCKS 1 AND 5,
DO NOT INCLUDE DELINEATED WETLANDS
•
APR 2 8 2000
1
OE0CNE0 CHECKED
WJN
DRAWN DATE
PAN 4/28/00
SCALE
t' -t07
J08 N0.
0150.00
Lino Lakes
PRELIMINARY PLA T
Bluebill Ponds
SHEET
1
Of
REV.
MINNESOTA 6
•
•
•
STAFF ORIGINATOR:
P & Z MEETING DATE:
TOPIC:
BACKGROUND
AGENDA ITEM V. D
Jeff Smyser
May 10, 2000
PUBLIC HEARING (continued)
Town Center Design Standards
The P & Z opened the public hearing on the draft standards for the Town Center. Several
speakers offered comments.
The public hearing was continued to allow for additional discussion and comment.
The primary concerns of the landowners revolved around the extent of the requirements
for development in the Town Center. The landowners who spoke indicated they believe
the standards are too restrictive.
Residents who spoke expressed concern about the impact on 77th St. and the Caroles
Estates neighborhood.
Staff is discussing the standards and development in the Town Center with numerous
potential developers as well as the landowners. The results of these discussions may
influence staff's
RECOMMENDATION
Take comments, discuss, and continue the public hearing to the June 14 meeting.
•
•
AGENDA ITEM VI. A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser, Julie Farnham of TKDA
P & Z MEETING DATE: May 10, 2000
TOPIC: Draft Tree Preservation Ordinance Discussion
BACKGROUND
Staff has been working with a consultant to prepare a new tree preservation ordinance.
The draft is attached. Julie Farnham of TKDA will present the ordinance and lead the
discussion.
The new ordinance will do several things, including:
• Codify and clarify tree preservation requirements for private development in one
ordinance.
• Require a tree preservation plan and clearly describe the elements of such a plan,
including a tree inventory, tree replacement, protection for remaining trees, and
financial securities to ensure performance in compliance with the plan.
• Establish a clearly defined tree replacement ratio. As the amount of tree loss
increases, the required percentage of replacement increases. This is an incentive to
minimize tree loss. For example, if 10% to 20% of the significant trees on the site are
removed, the replacement requirement is 40% of the lost tree diameter inches. If 90%
of the significant trees are lost, 120% of the diameter inches must be replaced.
These ratios differ for the type of development. Single family, which uses more land,
has the highest rate of replacement.
We discussed the ordinance at two meetings of the Environmental Board. That board
approved this draft with one remaining question about the requirement for building on
single family lots. The ordinance focus is development projects, but does address home
building to a lesser degree.
Staff plans to hold a public hearing on this ordinance at the June 14 P & Z meeting. The
discussion at the May 10 meeting will allow us to address any questions from the P & Z
before the hearing. Ultimately, the ordinance must be approved by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION
No action is needed tonight. Staff is requesting direction on amending the draft
ordinance.
MI-IT-64-6666 11;61
REVIEW DRAFT
05/04/00
LINO LAKES — TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT ORDINANCE
L INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
Preservation of trees, woodlands, and the other significant natural resources within the
City of Lino Lakes is a stated priority of the community. The City Council finds it in the
best interest of the City to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural resources and
environment of Lino Lakes and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to
development of land. In the interest of achieving these objectives, the City of Lino Lakes
has established the tree preservation regulations herein to promote the furtherance of the
following:
■ Natural Environment: Recognize and protect the natural environment consistent
with the City's mission statement and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and
Handbook for Environmental Planning and Conservation Development through
preservation and protection of significant trees and woodlands.
■ Protect Benefits: Maintain and enhance the benefits provided by trees and
woodlands including beauty, protection against wind and water erosion, enhancement
of property values, air quality improvement, energy conservation, buffering of
cultural and natural resources, and protection of natural habitats.
• Enhance Quality of Development: Encourage creative land use and environmentally
compatible site design which preserves trees and minimizes tree removal and damage
during development and enhances the natural aesthetics of the community.
■ Control Loss: Define standards to control cutting, removal, destruction, and
protection of existing trees on private property, particularly significant trees and
woodlands, as a result of land alteration or development.
■ Require Replacement: Establish reasonable requirements for replacement of
significant trees and woodlands lost on private property as a result of land alteration
or development.
• Administration: Provide for administration and enforcement of the tree preservation
regulations herein to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare of the
community.
II. DEFINITIONS
Applicant means any person or entity who is required to submit and implement a city -
approved tree preservation plan under this section.
Builder means any person or entity to whom a building permit is issued for the
construction of a single - family residence.
1
•
•
•
.1. 1 • YJl
REVIEW DRAFT
05/04/00
Caliper inch (Replacement Tree) means the diameter of a tree measured at twelve (12)
inches above the ground.
Caliper inch (Significant Tree) means the diameter of a tree measured at breast height
(DBH). For multi - stemmed trees, the diameter shall be measured at the widest point of
the largest trunk stem between one foot and 4.5 feet above ground.
Canopy means the extension of a tree's branches in all directions from its trunk.
Canopy coverage means the area on a horizontal plane that is located under the crowns of
all the trees on the site.
Coniferous (evergreen) tree means a cone - bearing woody plant which, at maturity, is at
least 12 feet or more in height, having foliage on the outermost portion of its branches
year- round.
Construction area means any area in which movement of earth, alteration in topography,
soil compaction, disruption of vegetation, change in soil chemistry, or any other change
in the natural character of the land occurs as a result of the site preparation, grading,
building construction or any other land disturbing activity.
Critical damage means injury that results in tree removal or significant alteration of the
natural form of the tree due to inappropriate pruning or other actions.
Critical root zone (CRZ) means the circular area surrounding a tree trunk with a radius
distance of one and one -half (1 1/2) foot per inch of tree diameter, measured at DBH (e.g.
a 20 -inch diameter tree has a CRZ with a radius of thirty (30) feet). The minimum CRZ
for any tree shall be six (6) feet.
Deciduous tree (Large) means a woody plant which, at maturity, is more than 30 feet in
height, having a defined crown, and which sheds its leaves annually.
Deciduous tree (Medium) means a woody plant which, at maturity, is between 15 and 30
feet in height, having a defined crown, and which sheds its leaves annually.
Deciduous tree (Small) means a woody plant which, at maturity, is between 12 and 15
feet in height, having a defined crown, and which sheds its leaves annually.
Developer means any person or entity other than a builder, as defined herein, who
undertakes to improve a parcel of land, by platting, grading, installing utilities, or
constructing or improving any building thereon.
Diameter means the length of a straight line measured through the trunk of a tree. For
multi- stemmed trees, the diameter is measured through the widest point of the largest
trunk stem.
hIHT-164-e016 6 11;61
REVIEW DRAFT
05/04/00
Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) means the length of a straight line measured through
the trunk of a tree 54 inches (4.5 feet) above ground.
Forester means a person designated by the City with specialized knowledge of forestry
and aboriculture.
Hardwood deciduous tree includes, but is not limited to: ironwood, oak, maple (hard)
walnut, ash, hickory, black cherry, hackberry, honey- locust, and basswood.
Land disturbing activity means any excavating, grading, clearing, filling, or other earth
moving and land reclamation which may result in movement of:
• Five thousand (5000) cubic yards anywhere in the City;
• One hundred (100) cubic yards per acre, or more, anywhere in the City;
• Within a Shoreland Overlay District, ten (10) cubic yards on steep slopes or within
Shore Impact Zones; or
• Within a Shoreland Overlay District, fifty (50) cubic years per acre.
Landscape architect means a person licensed by the state as a registered landscape
architect.
Pine Plantation means an area of low plant diversity consisting of a pine canopy with
little or no ground story or shrub layer vegetation.
Significant tree (coniferous /evergreen) means a healthy evergreen tree measuring a
minimum of twelve (12) feet in height.
Significant tree (hardwood deciduous) means a healthy hardwood deciduous tree
measuring a minimum of six (6) inches in diameter DBH, as defined herein.
Significant tree (softwood deciduous) means a healthy softwood deciduous tree
measuring a minimum of eight (8) inches in diameter DBH, as defined herein.
Significant woodland means a grouping or cluster of coniferous and/or deciduous trees
providing contiguous canopy cover over 1000 or more square feet of the property, which
includes hardwood deciduous trees over four (4) inches in diameter, softwood deciduous
trees over six (6) inches in diameter, and/or coniferous trees over six (6) feet in height,
and associated ground story vegetation. A woodland covering less than 1000 s.f. on a
property may also be considered significant if it is a continuation of a larger woodland on
an adjacent property, with a cumulative area of at least 1000 s.f., or if it is part of an
identified buffer area.
Softwood deciduous tree includes, but is not limited to: cottonwood, poplars /aspen, birch,
boxelder, catalpa, willow, silver maple and elm.
Tree removal means the loss of a significant healthy tree as a result of:
3
•
•
I• h T — U4 —GUUU 11 • eye
REVIEW DRAFT
05/04/00
• Land disturbing activity, whether temporary or permanent, affecting thirty (30)
percent or more of a significant tree's critical root zone;
• Utility construction (i.e. sewer, water, storm sewer, gas, electirc, telephone and cable
TV and trenching) resulting in the cutting of thirty (30) percent or more of a
significant tree's roots within its critical root zone;
• Mechanical injury to the trunk of a significant tree causing wounds or loss of bark,
which may result in tree decline;
• Compaction of thirty (30) percent or more of the surface of the soil within a
significant tree's critical root zone. This includes compaction caused by vehicle
movement, material storage, or similar actions;
• Chemical pollution from leaking or spilling of liquids (e.g. paint, fuels, concrete
rinsewater) that alters the soil chemistry;
• The complete removal of a tree.
III. APPLICABILITY
A. Tree Preservation Plan Required:
1. On individual single - family lots with existing significant trees or woodlands as
identified by the City, a Tree Preservation Plan, as described in Section N.A. herein,
shall be submitted for review by City staff in conjunction with a building permit
application.
2. A Tree Preservation Plan as described in Section N.B. herein, shall be reviewed and
approved by the City in conjunction with all applications for:
• Preliminary Plat
• Planned Development Overlay (PDO)
• Site and Building Plan Review
• Earth moving and land reclamation or other land disturbing activity.
B. Plan Review Process:
1. The applicant is encouraged to meet with City staff prior to submission of a Tree
Preservation Plan to determine the most feasible and practical placement of buildings,
parking, driveways, streets, storage and other physical features, in order to minimize
loss and damage to significant trees and woodlands.
2. Upon submittal, City staff will review the Tree Preservation Plan to evaluate
compliance with the regulations and standards herein. City staff will notify the
applicant of any deficiencies with the plan or if additional information is needed to
complete the evaluation.
MIRY -04 -2000 11:kU
bD1 e e ebbs r. eb /11
REVIEW DRAFT
05/04/00
3. For any project that requires a Tree Preservation Plan, the City will make a
determination that the Tree Preservation Plan is acceptable prior to issuance of any
permits.
C. Relationship to Other Ordinances: The requirements of this ordinance are separate
from the City's Shade Tree Ordinance and Aboriculture Specifications and Standards
of Practice. Required replacement tree plantings may be used to satisfy other
landscaping requirements on private property, as defined elsewhere in the City
Zoning Code, however, they cannot be used to fulfill boulevard street tree planting
requirements.
W. TREE PRESERVATION SUBNIISSION REQUIREMENTS
A. Plan Submission Requirements (Individual Single Family Lots): Applicant's for
building permits on single family lots shall submit the following information in
addition to plans required for a building permit:
1. A certificate of survey that accurately identifies the location and types of all existing
significant trees and woodlands to be removed and those to be preserved on the lot.
The drawing shall illustrate where protection devices will be placed and areas to be
used for material and equipment storage.
2. A description of the measures to be used to protect the trees and woodlands to be
preserved on the property. These measures shall be consistent with the measures
outlined in Section IV.B.3. unless otherwise approved by the City.
B. Plan Submission Requirements (General Development): For applications outlined
in Section I11.A.2., a Tree Preservation Plan shall include the following components.
However, the City can use its discretion to waive submittal of some of this
information, or to require additional information, if appropriate to the specific
situation.
1. Tree Inventory: A tree inventory shall be prepared by a landscape architect, forester
or certified registered land surveyor knowledgeable in identification of tree species
and shall include:
a) The name(s), telephone number(s), and address(s) of applicants, property owners,
developers and/or builders.
b) The size, species, condition and location of all existing significant trees and
significant woodlands on the property.
c) The estimated size, species, condition and location of significant trees and
significant woodlands within one hundred (100) feet of the property boundary.
d) Table summarizing the size, species, condition, and number of existing significant
trees and significant woodlands on the property. Table should list plants
individually and provide summary of total caliper inches.
5
I`IHi- k�4-GYJI!JI� 1-1;u
REVIEW DRAFT
05/04/00
e) Delineation of existing buildings, structures, and/or impervious surfaces on the
property.
f) Signature of person(s) preparing the plan and date inventory completed.
2. Tree Preservation and Replacement Plan: A tree preservation and replacement
plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect, forester, or certified registered land
surveyor knowledgeable in identification of tree species and shall include:
a) The name(s), telephone number(s), and address(s) of applicants, property owners,
developers and/or builders.
b) Delineation of all buildings, structures, utilities, irrigation systems, or impervious
surfaces to remain or be built on the property.
c) Delineation of all existing and proposed grade changes and limits of land
disturbance.
d) The size, species, and location of all existing significant trees and significant
woodlands to be removed from the property.
e) The size, species, and location of all existing significant trees and significant
woodlands to be protected on the property.
f) The estimated size, species, and location of all existing significant trees and
significant woodlands within one hundred (100) feet of the property boundary.
g) The size, species, and location of all replacement trees proposed to be planted on
the property in accordance with the tree replacement schedule.
h) Table summarizing total caliper inches of existing significant trees and woodlands
to be removed, percent ( %) of total caliper inches to be removed, and total inches
of replacement trees to be planted.
i) Itemized estimate of costs of replacement trees, protection devices (e.g. fencing),
labor, and other elements necessary to implement plan.
j) Signature of the person(s) preparing the plan and date plan prepared.
3. Tree Protection: The Tree Preservation Plan shall identify the measures that will be
used to protect significant trees and woodlands on the property or on abutting
property. A.11 tree protection measures shall be installed prior to and maintained
throughout any grading or land disturbing activity and should not be removed until all
new planting is installed. These measures may be identified directly on the Tree
Preservation and Replacement Plan drawing and/or included in a companion
document. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the following protection measures
shall be required:
a) Trees and woodlands designated for preservation shall be identified and/or
enclosed with brightly colored protective fencing (minimum four (4) feet high) or
other means acceptable to the City. The protective measures must encompass the
entire Critical Root Zone of the trees or woodlands, unless less protection is
necessary due to the proximity of a structure, road or similar obstruction to be a
part of the development, in which case, at least seventy percent (70 %) of the
Critical Root Zone of the tree must be protected. No grade change, construction
activity, or storage of materials shall occur within this protected area.
6
I Ir I - U. -t -Gt -J J 11 C1J
REVIEW DRAFT
05/04/00
b) Where possible, a two (2) foot deep trench shall be cut around the edge of the
tree /woodland protection area to sever the roots between the trees to be saved and
those to be removed.
c) Identification of any oak trees requiring pruning as part of proposed land
disturbance activity. Any oak trees pruned between May 1 and July 1 shall be
required to have any cut areas sealed with an appropriate nontoxic tree wound
sealant immediately after the wound is made.
d) Identification of areas on property where soil chemistry may be altered due to
concrete truck rinsing and leakage or spillage of toxic materials, such as fuels or
paints.
e) Identification of areas on the property where tree debris will be stockpiled.
f) Identification of areas on the property used to burn tree debris.
g) Identification of areas on the property to be used for building material and
equipment storage andlor staging.
h) Identification of vehicle access points to the property.
i) Additional information, as requested by the City, to demonstrate adequate
measures will be taken to protect against spread of tree diseases. For example,
providing information to confirm felling of trees to be removed will not result in
injury or wounds to trees to be protected.
C. Performance Security Required: The applicant shall provide security for the
performance of its obligations pursuant to this section following City approval of the
Tree Preservation Plan and prior to commencement of any grading or land disturbing
activity as follows:
1. Amount of security:
a) Letter of Credit — A letter of credit equal to one - hundred fifty percent (150%) of
the estimated cost of the required replacement trees and other elements of the
approved Tree Preservation Plan. The applicant shall submit a schedule of costs
associated with implementation of the approved Tree Preservation Plan. In the
event of any disagreement, the City will use the current Bachman's Wholesale
Catalog (published annually), or equivalent regionally -based wholesale nursery
catalog, to estimate the cost of replacement trees proposed in accordance with the
approved Tree Preservation Plan.
b) Cash Escrow - A cash escrow equal to one hundred percent (100 %) of the cost of
staff time associated with monitoring and enforcement of the Tree Preservation
Plan as estimated by the City.
c) Single Family — On single family lot development, a one thousand dollar ($1,000)
cash escrow shall be submitted to the City with the building permit application as
performance security. [OPTION — No performance security shall be required
for applicants of building permits for single- family units.]
2. Release of security - The applicant shall notify the City when the planting has been
completed so the City can verify that tree planting is completed, identify any
7
•
•
•
MKT 04 d0107 11 bS
REVIEW DRAFT
05/04/00
discrepancies with the approved Tree Preservation Plan, and establish the planting
completion date.
a) The security shall be retained for at least one year after the date that the last
replacement tree has been planted.
b) Prior to release of the security, the City shall inspect the site to verify compliance
with the approved Tree Preservation Plan as described in Section VI -
Compliance and Enforcement. If non - compliance is found, the City may retain
security to cover the cost of bringing the project into compliance.
c) In no event shall the performance security be released before expiration of the
one -year plant warranty period.
V. GENERAL STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
A. Required Tree Replacement: The following table identifies the required amount of
tree replacement based on type of development.
Percent of Total
Significant Tree*
Caliper Inches
Removed
Required Replacement Tree Caliper Inches Per Inch Removed
Single family &
large lot residential
Multi- family
(medium -high
density)
Commercial,
industrial,
institutional
0 -9.9
--
-
--
10 -19.9
.4
--
--
20 -29.9
.5
.4
--
30 -39.9
.6
.5
.4
40 -49.9
.7
.6
.5
50 -59.9
.8
.7
.6
60 -69.9
.9
.8
.7
70 -79.9
1.0
.9
.8
80 -89.9
1.1
1.0
.9
90 -100
1.2
1.1
1.0
NOTE: The amount of replacement is to be measured in "Replacement Tree" caliper inches (measured 1
inches above normal grade) and the amount removed is measured in "Significant Tree" caliper inches
(measured 4.5 feet above normal grade).
* Caliper inches of significant woodlands shall be based on the cumulative total inches of all trees within
the significant woodland.
1. Pine Plantation Management: Pine plantations, as defined herein, are exempt from
replacement requirements when thinning of the tree stand would improve tree health.
The applicant shall submit information as necessary to adequately describe how the
plantation will be managed (i.e. amount and location of thinning).
B. Location of Replacement Trees: Replacement trees shall be planted on the subject
property described in the application.
8
riHr-e,‘4-eu616 11 • kJJ
OJL G7G UJOJ i.1U,11
REVIEW DRAFT
05/04/00
C. Size, Type, and Quality of Replacement Trees
1. No more than one -third (1/3) of the replacement trees on a property shall be of the
same species, unless approved by the City.
2. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed
or of a species similar to the indicator species of the Ecological Prototype of the
property as defined in the City's Handbook for Environmental Planning and
Conservation Development, unless otherwise approved by the City.
3. Large to medium sized deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two and one -half (21 /2)
caliper inches at time of planting.
4. Small deciduous trees shall be a minimum of one and one -half (1 1/2) caliper inches at
time of planting.
5. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height at time of planting.
6. Replacement trees shall be healthy stock, free of insects and disease, and meet the
guidelines set by the American Standards of Nursery Stock and/or blspection and
Contract Administration Guidelines for MnDOT Landscape Projects. The City can
reject trees if found to not meet these standards.
7. The following shall not be used as replacement trees:
• Siberian Elm
• Norway Maple
• Amur Maple (A. ginnala)
• Cottonwood, Silver Maple, or Boxelder (unless specifically approved by City)
• Black Locust
VI. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
A. Compliance with Approved Plan:
1. Protection Measures: The applicant shall implement the tree protection measures
indicated on the approved Tree Preservation Plan prior to commencement of any land
disturbance activity on the property. The tree protection measures shall remain in
place until all grading and construction activity is terminated, or until a request is
made to and approved by the City.
2. Plan Implementation: Replacement trees shall be planted within six (6) months after
completion of site construction activities, unless otherwise approved by the City.
Failure to implement the plan within this time frame shall constitute non - compliance,
subject to the actions outlined in Section VI.B.
9
i
•
•
•
-04 ebb 11:04
OJl 474 UUOJ r.ii /11
REVIEW DRAFT
05/04/00
3. Unauthorized Removal: If a significant tree(s) or woodland that was intended to be
preserved in accordance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan is removed without
permission of the City or sustains critical damage resulting in tree removal as defined
herein, the applicant shall replace each tree so removed or destroyed at a rate of three
(3) caliper inches (replacement tree) for each caliper inch (significant tree) removed.
Replacement trees shall be of the same, or similar species as the lost tree. The size
and quality of replacement trees shall meet the requirements of Section V.C.
B. Inspection and Enforcement: The City shall have the tight to inspect the
development and/or building site in order to determine compliance with the approved
Tree Preservation Plan.
1. Compliance Inspection: One year after all replacement trees have been planted the
applicant shall make a request in writing to the City for an inspection to determine
compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan. Upon inspection, the City shall
determine whether compliance has been achieved and, if so, release the performance
guarantee.
2. Non - compliance: If the City finds that the property is not in compliance with the
approved Tree Preservation Plan, it shall inform the applicant regarding the non-
compliance and describe, in writing, the steps needed to bring the property into
compliance within a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days.
3. Dead Trees: Any replacement tree that is not alive or healthy one year after planting
in accordance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan, shall be removed and
replaced, by the applicant, with a new, healthy tree of the same size and species.
4. Use of Performance Security: If after notification of non- compliance, the applicant
fails to achieve compliance within sixty (60) calendar days, the City may exercise its
authority to use the performance security to complete the planting in accordance with
the approved Tree Preservation Plan.
10
TOTAL P.11