Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/12/2000 P&Z Packet
• CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, July 12, 2000 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June14, 2000 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. OPEN MIKE: V. ACTION ITEMS: A. PUBLIC HEARING, Gary Uhde, Apollo Business Center, Conditional Use Permit - Dirt Stockpile • B. PUBLIC HEARING, Twin City Fabrication, 295 Apollo Drive, Site • Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit C. PUBLIC HEARING, Marmon Keystone, 265 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit D. PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation), Town Center Development Standards E. PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation), Ordinance 09 -00, Tree Preservation Ordinance VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS VII. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: The Public Hearing for Outlot A, Highland Meadows East Rezone and Preliminary Plat, has been withdrawn. Property owners will be notified when this hearing is rescheduled. Jeff Smyser • From: Jeff Smyser Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 9:03 AM To: Mary Kay Wyland Subject: RE: Delete the Highland Meadows East application from the P & Z agenda. The application was incomplete and the applicant was notified according to state law. There is no reason to have it on the agenda, and putting it on the agenda contradicts the notification of an incomplete application. We can tell Chair Schaps to inform the public in the room that the application was incomplete and was deleted from the agenda. We will re- notify surrounding property owners of the new meeting date after we get a complete application. - - -- Original Message- - From: Mary Kay Wyland Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 3:22 PM To: Jeff Smyser Subject: « File: pz071200.doc » Jeff, here is the P & Z Agenda, let me know if you have any additions, corrections, amendments, changes, etc. MK 1 • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES WE :START 4EENDED -MD ERS PRESE EMBERS. ABSENT STAFF' PRESENT. arson, J o id Schaps ch� ity Planner Smyser;. Planning Coordinator 'gland; City Engineer Powell xan fit:. -Y I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Vice Chair Lane called the Lino Lakes Planni' ; Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., June 14, 2000. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Ma Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to a ®.. e e minutes of the May 10, 2000, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and, : o : d, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Lane). III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Smyser requested the addition of Item VI. B., State Planning Conference. The agenda was approved as amended. IV. OPEN MIKE Vice Chair Lane declared open mike open at 6:34 p.m. Dave Baumbeck, 626 Main Street, asked if there have been any changes to the Highland Meadows project. Mr. Smyser stated the project will be developed as approved and he is not aware of any changes. No one else was present for open mike. Vice Chair Lane closed open mike at 6:36 p.m. Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. David Snell, 600 62nd Street, Minor Subdivision Staff presented the application by Dave Snell for a minor subdivision and variance to split 10 acres from the 37.48 -acre parcel at 600 62" Street. The site is zoned Rural and guided for rural development through 2020 in the draft comprehensive plan. The proposed parcel would have 230' of width on 62"d Street. According to the Zoning Ordinance, parcels in the Rural zoning district must have a minimum of 330' of lot width. Therefore, a variance for 120' in lot width is being requested. The Ordinance also provides language indicating that 20% of the lot area must be upland. The survey document indicates that 2.35 acres are wetland leaving 7.65 acres of upland. Staff presented the findings of fact that must be made for consideration of a variance. It was noted that Mr. Snell believes a hardship exists since there is a septic system and drainfield for the dwelling at 600 62nd Street between the home and the new parcel that limits the available width of the new parcel. The property west of the existing home contains considerable wetland which limits usability aff advised of the future plans to extend West Shadow Lake Drive and described th Wised alignment. Staff believes a hardship to the land does exis and location of the septic system and drai e on 62" Street that are less than 330' in lo proposed subdivision does meet the 1 Board agrees that the variance crit approval of the minor subdivision is c configuration of the wetland area There are eleven (11) existing lots less than 10 acres in size. The requirement. If the Planning & Zoning et in this case, staff would recommend e with the following conditions: 1. Additional right -of- e dedicated for the future reconstruction of 62nd Street. Currently there of right -of -way from the centerline, the City would require an additional 23.5 the entire frontage of both parcels to provide 40' of right -of -way as 62nd Street is classified as a State Aid Route with an 80' required right -of -way. 2 Any construction on the 10 acre parcel shall be so located to avoid the future extension of West Shadow Lake Drive as determined by the City Engineer. 3. Park dedication shall be collected as required in the Subdivision Ordinance. In response to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Powell advised of the future plans for the extension of County Road J and desire to not create an off - aligned intersection at 62nd Street and West Shadow Lake Drive. Mr. Johnson stated he does not want to commit the City to construction of that particular alignment due to locations of wetlands. Mr. Powell explained how the road alignment could be shifted somewhat. Mr. Corson recommended Condition 2 be reworded to state: 2. "Any construction on the 10 acre parcel shall be so located at least 100 feet from the west property line to avoid the future extension of West Shadow Lake Drive as determined by the City Engineer." • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 3 Staff and the Board agreed to this amendment. Mr. Smyser recommended Condition 1 be amended to state: 1. "The new survey showing that additional right -of -way dedication be submitted prior to Council consideration." The Board agreed to this amendment. Mark Kemper, land surveyor representing the applicant, stated he has been employed to create this map and offered to answer questions. He stated they are aware of the recommended conditions of approval as amended. David Snell, applicant, stated his only concern is that the City wants to locate the future road on the west side of the property but that is the most preferred location to construct the house. He stated he can move the house 100 feet from the west side but prefers a location closer to the west property line. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the Snell to split 10 acres from the 37.48 acre par conditions contained in the staff report, as Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. B. Gary Uhde, 265 Apollo D sub`: sion and variance for David 0 62nd Street subject to the bove, and was supported by Mr. Subdivision Staff presented the applicatio Business Center that would development proposal is in the however, the land sale is schedule de for a minor subdivision in the Apollo ight (8) acre parcel for future development. A and may be available for review in July or August, sooner. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements are provided according to City Ordinance and subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. An access agreement shall be provided for the easterly driveway. 3. Park dedication shall be required subject to the Park Dedication Ordinance. In response to Mr. Rafferty, Ms. Wyland advised how the park dedication fee is calculated. Mr. Johnson asked if this use will need access from Apollo Court. Ms. Wyland answered affirmatively. Mr. Johnson asked if there is a drainage easement on Parcel E. Ms. Wyland stated the drawing being displayed identifies existing contours. Mr. Powell stated the drawing shows a drainage area that would be incorporated into the site improvements of Parcel E and additional detail will be available when the site plan is considered. Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision for Gary Uhde that would create an eight (8) acre parcel in the Apollo Business Center for future development subject to the conditions contained in the staff report and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 5 -0. C. Gary Uhde, 295 Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision Staff presented the application by Gary Uhde for a minor subdivision in the Apollo Business Center that would create a four (4) acre parcel (Parcel D) just west of the proposed H & L Mesabi site. A site plan review is anticipated for review in July or August, however, the anticipated closing on the property is scheduled prior to that time. Thus, the minor subdivision request. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility easements are provided subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 2. A shared driveway agreement shall be provided subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 3. Park dedication shall be required based on Dedication Ordinance. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the sl. subdivision for Gary Uhde that would create a four (4) acre parcel (Parcel t in pollo Business Center just west of the proposed H & L Mesabi site subject t. soi ions contained in the staff report and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion an. D. PUBLIC HEARING, (Op `d tinue to July 12, 2000) Gary Uhde, Apollo Business Center, Co a e Permit — Dirt Stockpile Staff recommended the public _ ' on the Gary Uhde conditional use permit for stockpiling dirt be opened and con inued to the July 12, 2000 meeting. Vice Chair Lane declared the public hearing opened at 7:02 p.m. Mr. Powell stated the CUP is to accommodate the importing of material for future site development via grading activities. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to the July 12, 2000 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. E. Bluebill Ponds, Main Street, Preliminary Plat Staff presented the application by Bluebill Ponds for preliminary plat approval. The site is on the south side of Main Street across from Wood Duck Trail and Bluebill Lane. Staff advised the outstanding issue was the access to Main Street, however Heritage Development has reached an agreement with the House of Praise Church to allow Wood Duck Trail to extend south of Main Street, creating a full access intersection. • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 5 Staff reviewed the proposed lot configuration of this 36.76 acre parcel to create 77 single family lots. The location of cul -de -sacs was pointed out and a review provided of the transportation and access issues, utilities, parks, and trails. Chair Schaps arrived at 7:13 p.m. Staff also noted the recommendation of the Environmental Board for a 50 -foot buffer around the forest on the east edge of the site, infiltration and overland runoff design where possible, open spaces to be incorporated into the design, use of native vegetation, a buffer around the wetland, and deep tilling of topsoil. Staff explained that while some of these recommendations were included in the preliminary plat consideration, some were found impractical and not included. Staff recommended approval of the Bluebill Ponds Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. All permits required by the Rice Creek Watershe istrict shall be obtained prior to any site grading. 2. Utility, grading, and drainage plans must ob appr 1 from the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District prior to sit g. 3. The City Engineer's comments in his mo w ne 1, 2000 must be addressed to his satisfaction prior to site grading. 4. The tree preservation plan shall b e 1 according to the City Environmental Specialist memo of 6/1/00 prio • •r. ng. 5. Plantings around wetlands an. s ' 1 be as recommended by the City � Y Y Environmental Specialist � included in the development agreement. 6. The developer must obt - - . approvals from Anoka County for access to Main Street and work in the righ y. 7. Park dedication in the form o cash payment shall be required as recommended by the Park Board. Mr. Corson noted one lot to the south has no street access and the other has the road extended only one -half way through. He asked if it would be difficult to extend it in the future. Mr. Smyser stated the property owner to the southwest of that area was not interested in extending the road and the adjacent property owner to the east indicated interest to have the road extended only one -half way through their lot. Mr. Corson asked if trails will be constructed in this project. Mr. Smyser stated there has been extensive discussions held on that matter and staff does not believe it is appropriate to create trails since there are no scenic amenities. Pedestrian and bicycle access can be accommodated in the roadway on this project. Mr. Schilling asked if discussion occurred about isolating the church property from this development. Mr. Smyser stated the church has not indicated interest in that option. If it becomes an issue in the future, it can be addressed. Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 6 Ms. Lane stated she is more supportive of this design, noting the number of units has also been reduced. Chair Schaps asked if staff is confident this project will be done satisfactorily. Mr. Powell noted the detailed comments made by staff and stated staff is satisfied they can be met with a plan revision. Chair Schaps requested public input. Dave Bombeck, 626 Main Street, stated the last proposal that was presented raised a lot of residential concerns about this layout including concern for the wetlands, areas of standing water, drainage, access to Main Street, and need for park space. He pointed out the location of his property and stated he wants to be assured he will not be impacted and the road will stay a dead end forever. Mr. Powell stated it is probably not the Council's desire to initiate condemnation to extend the road to the east but it is expected the road will be extended to the east at some point in the future. Mr. Bombeck asked if that decision remains wiNim Powell stated only the City Council can initiate a project or eminent dom e does not think that will occur unless the residents initiate the request. Ms. Lane asked about the accommod •n • will Lane to continue south in the future. Mr. Powell explained why t anticipate s ate that Bluebill Lane will be a full intersection. Ms. Lane noted my probably wants to limit access to Main Street as well. Mr. Powell st;•rrect. Mr. Bombeck asked if there wi four way stop at Wood Duck Trail. Mr. Powell stated in the future the median wi ' be broken at that point and it will be a signalized intersection. Mr. Bombeck asked if the speed limit of Main Street can be lowered. Mr. Powell explained the process to follow if the residents want a traffic study conducted by the County and cautioned that the study can also result in an increase to the speed limit. Mr. Bombeck stated when this project was first presented, many concerned residents were present at the meeting. He stated he is not aware of any other meetings being held and tonight there is no one in attendance. He restated the importance of a park which has now been removed from the project. Mr. Bombeck stated he would appreciate it if this consideration is tabled so more residents can attend. Mr. Powell advised of the Rice Creek Watershed District review. Mr. Smyser stated Mr. Bombeck was invited to the meeting on the roadway along Mar Don Acres where the park issue was addressed and it was indicated at that meeting that if • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 7 • the road was included, the park land would be lost. He noted the location of the school where the speed limit is reduced when children are present. • • Mr. Baumbeck asked what size of property was sold to the City for park and what it cost. Ms. Wyland stated the Highland Meadows West park dedication was based on the developable amount of land and was the maximum amount the City could take. She stated the Bluebill Ponds park dedication is a 10% cash dedication based on what they paid for the land. Mr. Smyser estimated the Bluebill Ponds park dedication will be $89,000 which will be used to develop the Highland Meadows West park. Timothy Anderson, resident, stated he finds it hard to believe a project of this magnitude has no location for a park and suggested the City has made an exception for this developer. He stated he would support land dedication over a cash payment. Mr. Anderson stated he has been told by staff that his fence and double row of trees would be relocated if the road is constructed. He requested assurance that will occur if the development moves forward. Mr. Anderson asked if all the proper procedure proper procedures have been followed. Mr. documents so he can be better informed. ed. Chair Schaps stated the n requested copies of all of those Mr. Anderson noted this is a differen t with cul -de -sacs. He suggested this layout is to maximize the number Mr. Rafferty stated he apprec Board since January but has City's guidelines. However, h dedication fee will be used. Mr. rhood involvement and has only served on the the developers have worked hard to be within the ns concerned about parks and asked where the park yser displayed a map identifying the location of the park in Highlands Meadows West and advised there is no funding to develop that park. Thus, the recommendation of the Park Board to use the Bluebill Ponds park dedication fee to develop this park. Mr. Rafferty asked if the City would value the cash fee as being more than if the land would be dedicated. Mr. Smyser noted there are other parks that have been dedicated but since the City does not have funding to develop them, they remain undeveloped. In this case, the park dedication fee from Bluebill Ponds can be used to develop this 4 plus acre Highland Meadows West park. Mr. Anderson stated it has been his experience that developers have to dedicate land and pay cash. He asked why both are not required in Lino Lakes and suggested that land can be found in Bluebill Ponds to "piggy back" with the Highland Meadows West park. He asked what the value of land would be when compared to a park dedication fee of $89,000. Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 8 Chair Schaps stated he thinks in Lino Lakes it has always been a land dedication or dedication fee and he is unaware of other communities that charge both. He explained the Park Board is charged with evaluating this question and that group of volunteers is satisfied that this plan is appropriate. He emphasized that there is no City funding to develop the park property in Highland Meadows West. Mr. Anderson asked if Lois Lane will never be extended or if it will circumvent that park land. Mr. Powell reviewed the alignment of Street A, noting the south side would catch the extreme north 30 feet of the park so that would have to be considered if development to the east were to occur. Mr. Anderson stated the company he works for provides for land and cash park dedication and he knows the Centennial Little League contributes funds for park field development. He suggested the City work with athletic community organizations such as that to obtain funding. Chair Schaps thanked Mr. Anderson for his comments and encouraged his involvement in the upcoming bond referendum for the development community sports complex and fields. Ms. Lane stated her impression that Lino Lak without getting to the point of discouragin: deve court finding that a 10% park dedication the City's standard. ting all they can for park dedication ent. Mr. Smyser reviewed a past is reasonable, which is the basis for Ms. Lane made a MOTION to app eliminary plat of Bluebill Ponds subject to the conditions contained in t , and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0. F. PUBLIC HEARING (Co ` tinuation), Town Center Development Standards Chair Schaps declared the continued public hearing reopened at 8:05 p.m. and requested public input. Mr. Smyser reviewed staff's efforts to discuss the standard with the public and developers and requested the public hearing be continued to July 12, 2000. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing to be continued to the July 12, 2000 Planning & Zoning Board meeting. G. PUBLIC HEARING, Ordinance 09 - 00, Tree Preservation Ordinance Staff presented the draft Tree Preservation Plan and draft Ordinance 09 - 00 and explained it will 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, and establish a clearly defined tree replacement ratio which will act as an incentive to minimize tree loss. • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 9 Julie Farnham, TKDA, noted the revisions since the last discussion and offered to answer questions. Chair Schaps requested comment on Richard Carlson's letter of June 7, 2000. Ms. Farnham stated they reviewed the letter and noted this plan only applies to private property. Chair Schaps inquired regarding the situation should a trail be required and result in the loss of a tree. Ms. Farnham stated if the trail is within the private development, any significant tree that would be lost should be counted. She explained the intent is that the applicant would work with staff to minimize tree loss and if a trail is required by the City, she expects the City would work to minimize tree loss as well. She stated any tree loss within a private development would be included as part of the sum total of loss. However, the City would have the ability to waive those mitigation requirements. Mr. Smyser explained the only activity of the develo is with infrastructure such as roads, trails, and wetland mitigation, noting the de does not build the actual houses. Thus, if those infrastructure activities of co ered there would be no need for a tree preservation ordinance. Mr. Powell stated for any contractor insta "' ements, a letter of credit is required and advised of the percentages requir Mr. Schilling asked about the issu that the City's attorney has in City to implement than a pe q ` ng a performance bond. Mr. Powell advised al times that a letter of credit is easier for the bond to assure the work is completed. Mr. Smyser noted this proposed o dinance is simply placing into writing the City's policies that are already in effect regarding financial securities. Mr. Corson raised a scenario of a project impacting different varieties of trees and noted that poplar trees cannot be replaced by poplar trees, or cottonwood trees with cottonwood trees. Ms. Farnham noted the ordinance language identifying trees to avoid as well as the alternative allowed for the City to wave that requirement and allow flexibility. In response to Mr. Corson, Ms. Farnham noted that off site mitigation has been discussed. However, the City Attorney was uncomfortable with requiring off -site mitigation so the language was revised to require that replacement trees must be placed on the same site. She stated that perhaps language should be considered to address such a unique situation where there is not a location for replacement trees. Mr. Corson asked if the City has considered allowing a 28 foot wide road in some situations. Mr. Powell stated Bluebill Ponds, as proposed, has a 28 foot back -to -back roadway and the City standard is 32 feet. He explained that was considered to reduce Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 10 impervious surface, runoff, impact, and to satisfy the Watershed District issues. Mr. Powell noted that custom grading is also considered to lessen impact. Ms. Lane asked how this tree preservation plan originated. Mr. Smyser explained there is nothing on the books to address tree loss or replacement so it is being handled somewhat arbitrarily. Since there was no set standard, developers raised some concerns and staff felt there was a need to have a clearly written policy. Mr. Rafferty stated his support for this initiative and belief that a house should be sited considering placement of the trees to minimize impact. Ms. Lane asked if just developers or all individuals are required to comply with these requirements. Ms. Farnham reviewed the process that would be followed. Ms. Lane noted that sometimes buildings are placed in a less desirable location to save trees and then a storm occurs which removes those trees, leaving the building in the less desirable location. She stated she is concerned this will encroach on a property owner's rights and finds it to be cumbersome in being placed an additional requirement. She stated she does not support clear cutting but behev his .. to preserve trees whenever possible. Ms. Lane expressed concern with ove y the City. Mr. Smyser noted the language on Page 5, 4A any indicating this ordinances addressed single family lots and general developme 1�. g there are two completely different approaches. Chair Schaps noted that staff alrea authority to not issue a building permit if they do not support the locate 'Wing or impact to trees. Mr. Smyser stated there is no language in this t or. ance providing staff with that authority. He noted the language also does not req e replacement for single family homes. Chair Schaps suggested the ordinance be amended to state what staff has indicated, that they cannot and will not prevent a single family home permit from being issued on that basis. Ms. Farnham reviewed the process available for the property owner to appeal staff's decision. Mr. Rafferty commented on the importance of assuring the ordinance addresses the spirit of tree preservation without creating loopholes. Mr. Johnson stated it sounds like there is some potential for misunderstanding of the ordinance requirements. He stated he supports the purpose but thinks it may be justifiable to expand Section 3A to clarify for the individual homeowners just what it involves and does not compel them to do. Mr. Corson stated his support for an appeal process and suggested that process be expedited. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 11 Ms. Lane stated the Board does not look favorably on variances without proven hardships. She suggested, perhaps, the term "modification" is more appropriate than the term "variance." Mr. Johnson noted there would not be any variance requests from individual home owners and the issues with developers should be addressed during their development process. Mr. Smyser stated it is correct that the single family property would not be brought into this process. However, the single family property owner would be asked what their plans are so the City Forester can advise them what will occur. He stated if the language is not clear, staff can modify it. Chair Schaps asked if there is also concern about barren lands with no trees. Ms. Farnham stated that issue will be addressed with the Landscape Ordinance. Mr. Rafferty reviewed a comment made in Mr. Carlson's letter addressing open acres that have been stripped of trees by property owners for f j'ng and other reasons prior to development and the option of requiring a minim .aber of trees to be planted on each residential lot. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing ..ene• '% 45 p.m. John Johnson, engineer and planning encouraged by the City undertakin needed. He stated their support to and submittal of written co a wooded area and wetland begin with and adding a tree p representing Mr. Uhde, stated they are t topic but believe more flexibility is co deration so they have time for further study ohnson stated they are developing a parcel with ing the options on what can be done are limited to ion requirement may reach a point that the property is no longer feasible for developm'"nt. He noted if the developer does not clear a building pad and it is done by the builder, tree replacement is not required. Mr. Smyser stated that is correct. Mr. Corson stated this is a good point to consider and asked how issues of drainage and balancing the project elevations will be addressed. Mr. Powell explained that a grading plan would still be part of the process and the house pads are required to be identified on the site plan Chair Schaps asked for further public input. There being none, he entertained a motion to continue the public hearing. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to July 12, 2000, and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0. Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 12 H. PUBLIC HEARING, Ordinance 10 — 00, PCS Tower Moratorium Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 8:52 p.m. Staff explained that on May 22, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution #00 - 67 directing staff to initiate the process for adopting a moratorium on new towers for personal wireless services. The resolution also set a public hearing for the meeting tonight. Staff presented the draft ordinance and explained staff is working with surrounding communities in an attempt to identify potential tower locations and minimize the number of towers. The intent is to include tower location planning in the larger land use planning of the City to ensure: 1. Consistency with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Compatibility with present and future land uses. 3. That official controls and performance standards are adequate. Staff recommended approval of the draft ordinance. Chair Schaps asked if consideration of a morat regulates the City's ability to act on towers. City Attorney who indicated the City has e ery keep proceeding and making progress. viol s the federal law which ser stated he discussed this with the to establish the moratorium but must Mr. Johnson asked if the current p explained the current ordinance es constructed but it has been fo would allow for the provisi ete and needs to be revised. Mr. Smyser oning districts where towers can be possibility the City is not providing sites that nal wireless service. Ms. Lane asked if there will be pr visions made for tower removal when it is abandoned and no longer needed. Ms. Smyser stated they have talked about that aspect and it will not be the City's responsibility to maintain or remove towers. He stated if there is no market to support the antennas, there will be no need for the towers and the land will be valuable for development of another use. However, if on City property, he would support lease language to address abandonment. 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 9:04 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve Ordinance 10 - 00, establishing a moratorium on new PCS towers and direct staff to forward it to City Council, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 14, 2000 Page 13 VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Planning & Zoning Representative to Community Service Award Nominating Committee Staff explained the Community Service Award is designed to recognize individuals who have made a significant contribution(s) to the community. The City Council has asked the Planning & Zoning Board to appoint a representative. Mr. Rafferty volunteered to serve as the representative and Ms. Lane volunteered to serve as the alternate. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to appoint Mr. Rafferty as the representative and Ms. Lane as the alternate to represent the Planning & Zoning Board on the Community Service Award Nominating Committee, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. B. State Planning Conference Mr. Smyser presented details of the upcoming �e Plan w _ Conference which will include the 2000 Upper Midwest Regional P1 �� onference to be held September 20- 22, 2000, in Duluth, Minnesota. He advise that °. ning Commissioners can attend and encouraged participation. C. EDAC Update Mr. Johnson advised the ED Development Standards, wi recommendation. VII. ADJOURNMENT close attention to the Town Center g another meeting, and will provide a Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 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: John Powell P & Z MEETING DATE: July 12, 2000 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Grading and Dirt Stockpile G. M. Development (Gary Uhde) Power outages at City Hall resulting from the storm on Friday affected computers and phone /fax communications. The City Engineer could not complete the report on this item at City Hall because of the computer problems. He went to his TKDA office to complete the report, but then the phones went down. This prevented him from faxing the report. The report will be delivered on Monday. • • AGENDA ITEM V. A STAFF ORIGINATOR: John Powell, City Engineer P & Z MEETING DATE: July 12, 2000 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING, G.M. Development, Apollo Business Center, Conditional Use Permit - Grading BACKGROUND: G.M. Development (Gary Uhde) is developing an area known as the Apollo Business Center located east of Jon Avenue, between the 74th Street alignment and I -35W. Maps showing this area are attached. Within this area; the Blue Heron and Contract Hardware sites have been developed, the H & L Mesabi site plan has been approved for development, and the Twin City Fab (parcel D) and Marmon /Keystone (parcel E) sites have submitted site plans for review. Trunk sanitary sewer and water provided service to this area of the City about 10 years ago. Construction of Apollo Drive through this site was completed in 1992/93. Apollo Drive was constructed through a Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County and was designed to comply with county and State Aid design standards. To accommodate proper design of the storm sewer system, the roadway had to be raised above the surrounding elevations. In order to provide fill to be sold to the Apollo Drive contractor, borrow pits were created in the Apollo Business Center. It was expected these pits would later be utilized as storm water pond sites. In order to modify the location of the excavations, and to provide fill for the proposed building sites on parcels D and E, the developer expects to move in excess of 80,000 cubic yards of material. Section 12.B of the City's Zoning Ordinance states 'When five thousand (5,000) or more cubic yards of material is to be removed or deposited on any lot or parcel, a conditional use permit shall be required ". The proposed grading plan includes fill, excavation, storm sewer construction, and wetland alteration. Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is the LGU in this part of the City and has the responsibility for reviewing the proposed wetland alterations. Any alterations to the proposed grading plan will affect existing building sites and the proposed Twin City Fab and Marmon /Keystone sites. The grading plan must mesh exactly with the proposed site plans for the proposed developments. Since the original application submittal, the City has received multiple plan revisions and additional information. Staff attempted to assemble sufficient information on the proposed grading plan, and the two site plans, to prepare a complete report. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful. We are therefore recommending continuing the public hearing to the August Planning and Zoning meeting. The following comments are based on the latest available information: 1. The Environmental Board considered this application at their May 31, 2000, meeting. A copy of the draft minutes of their meeting is attached. 2. The proposed discharge rates for the 1, 10, and 100 -year storms may not exceed the existing discharge rates for the 1, 10, and 100 -year storms. 3. The Rational Method was used to determine the runoff flow rates. The Rational Method is allowed for storm sewer design only. An SCS method should be used to determine runoff rates. 4. The Time of Concentration should be calculated using an SCS method, TR -55 is preferred. 5. The Stage- Discharge information is needed. To date only the Stage- Storage has been provided. 6. If a pond is landlocked, then a 10 -day runoff (7.2 inches) with a curve number of 100 (CN =100) must be used to determine the High Water Elevation. 7. A rock construction entrance must be included for erosion control. Locations and details are needed on the grading plan. 8. A rip -rap detail is needed on the grading plan. The amount of rip -rap at each location must also be shown. 9. In the letter to Rice Creek Watershed District, it is stated that an outlet control structure is proposed for the wetland located in the northwest corner of the site. There is a 24" CMP culvert that crosses Jon Avenue and empties into that wetland. What impact will this have on the properties located on the west side of Jon Avenue? 10. Proposed activity must conform to any and all requirements of the Rice Creek Watershed District. 11. Any grading activity, including any hauling of materials, is restricted to the City's allowed working hours as follows: Monday- Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Sundays /Holidays No working hours allowed 12. Provide a schedule, including completion dates, for proposed grading. Interim completion dates can be used for future development sites. 13. A Letter of Credit will be required running to the City equal to 150% of the construction cost. 14. An escrow deposit to reimburse the City for the cost of periodic site visits would be required. 15. Any work in the right -of -way requires approval from Anoka County. OPTIONS: 1. Continue the public hearing to allow applicant to prepare complete information and staff to prepare a complete report and recommendation. 2. Deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit for Grading. RECOMMENDATION: Option No. 1 • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING • APPROVAL OF AGENDA • MAY 31, 2000 In consideration of audience members, Asleson requested that Agenda Item 6A be considered following Item 4. The Board agreed. The following items were added to the meeting agenda: 8A. Tree Mitigation Negotiations 8B. Landscape Ordinance 8C. Lighting Ordinance The agenda was approved as amended above. CITIZEN COMMENTS Asleson noted the attendance of Nancy Klebba, interested reside ..wand Naturalist at Tamarack Nature Center. No other comments were made. PROJECT REVIEW A. GM Development / Apollo Drive CUP / Stockpi Business District is located on Apollo Dri and west of the Correctional Facility. He n consultant for G.M. Development; "r h de Development would like to stoc the northeast corner, fill an e a length of pipe and build a berm on the Asleson explained the Apollo ng area consideration is just south letter from John Johnson, engineering ribes the project request. G.M. e • . =' base material in an existing borrow pit on and drainage swale, build a new pond and swale ace elevations on the south side of the project, John Johnson, engineer forth- 'pplicant, presented an explanation of the background of the Apollo Business District and their attempt to develop the site. He explained that due to the low elevation, they believe they have lost several potential sales. Because of that, they are proposing a grading plan to import soils to bring the elevation up to a higher level. Mr. Johnson stated they would like to begin that process to import soils and also plan to undertake the drainage solutions necessary to serve this property, except for the far western edge. He stated they made application to the City to begin initial stockpiling which can be done up to 5,000 yards per parcel and then applied for a SUP to conduct the necessary grading and to exceed more than 5,000 yards. Mr. Johnson presented the proposed grading plan and explained the elevation changes that would occur. He requested the Environmental Board's review of this preliminary grading plan and to put into place drainage elements. Mr. Johnson reviewed the direction of drainage, existing storm sewer system, and NURP ponds. He stated they are attempting to install a good drainage system and understand staff has some different ideas 2 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 which they would like to discuss. Mr. Johnson noted the joint access points and advised of the County's restriction on access points and need to extend the culvert to get beyond the joint driveways. Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Udhe planted clover on the site several years ago and staff has indicated there are now areas of natural vegetation. Donlin requested an explanation of the location of this site in relationship to the proposed automobile site. Asleson pointed out the subject site. Donlin stated there is beautiful prairie bush clover on this site. Gary Udhe, representing G.M. Development, stated he planted the clover on the site. Asleson noted there are other plants as well on the site. Asleson stated this is a commercial/industrial area. He noted the location of the stockpile and stated there is nothing wrong with this request as long as the Rice Creek Watershed District engineers approve the request. Asleson explained that all the water from the subwatershed district ends up on this parcel before draining into Marshan Lake and noted the area that drainage will be captured prior to draining in � the lake. He used a map to identify the surrounding areas which drain to the subje ite. Mr. Johnson added further details regarding the very flat. Asleson stated from the landscape scale st from ending up on his site. He noted the N direct water toward the ponding ar may be more acceptable than a needed to direct drainage to t�,sah;ie expensive to construct. d noted the area that is applicant cannot stop the drainage being proposed and suggestion to n stated that, perhaps, a biodiverse screen noted the location of a pipe that would be Apollo Drive, which would be quite Discussion ensued regardin e of area to be buffered, sandy soil types, and need for mitigation. Asleson summarized the outstanding issues are the berm, biodiversity aspects, and the water surface treatment. Mr. Johnson reviewed the elevations of the site and Apollo Drive and stated he is not sure it is possible to place a pipe under Apollo Drive. Because of that, he is attempting to use what they have and create a pond to take care of what they need. He stated they cannot be the solution for the entire area which he estimated to be several hundred acres in size. Mr. Johnson stated he is willing to consider alternatives, if a feasible one is presented. Acting Chair Lanyon explained that sometimes ponds are designed with steep sides which do not add much to the community so if it is possible to develop a train of ponds to treat and retain water, it would be better. 3 • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 Mr. Johnson stated the culvert under Apollo Drive is lower than the culvert under the freeway by several feet and the pond is several feet under that. The outlet will then go to another pond with a submerged outlet that is slightly lower than the elevation of Apollo Drive which will force the water to leave the site at a different rate than exists today. Trehus asked how much water will leave the site. Mr. Johnson stated he has made that calculation but does not have that information available tonight. He estimated 34.5 acres will be incorporated into this plan and drain through a ponding system and out of the site. The rest of the acreage is kept in on -site ponds. Mr. Johnson advised of the Rice Creek Watershed District restriction to not allow a higher run -off rate than exists today. He estimated there will be 60% impervious surface. Donlin asked how rain events would be handled that are similar to what occurred several years ago where there were three back -to -back 100 -year events. Mr. Johnson reviewed the criteria the ponds can handle and how that criteria is established. March asked if staff's concern is the volume of water or explained the NURP ponds are designed to store a vol event but after large rain events, there is a peak of d' lity of water. Asleson of water for a certain rain Davidson noted the NURP ponds remove abou ' the n trients, whereas, it would . be ideal to remove a higher percentage. Mr. Johnson explained that the NURP pon from low rain events, such as a tw i 1 ra event impacts the NURP pond. sta d t rather than expecting the ind ce Donlin complimented od job of removing contaminants in . 1. He then explained how a larger rain he ``intention to address the drainage issues wners to do so. n his past work on these types of projects. March asked if there is potent' for reconstruction of some of the ponds to function to hold the flow and provide treatment. Asleson explained how the ponds have been designed to do both. Trehus stated he becomes concerned about any project that places more water into one of the City's lakes. Asleson asked if they can look at the feasibility of placing the pipe under Apollo Drive and possible methods of financing that cost. Acting Chair Lanyon asked if there is a way to have Pond 1 service more acreage to provide additional on -site infiltration, or if additional ponds can be placed. Donlin noted a lot of infiltration will occur since the ponds will have a sand bottom, at least until the pond silts up. Asleson commented on the importance of properly designing these ponds to assure infiltration. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 Mr. Johnson commented on the natural water table in this area and impact caused by the construction of the road, deep sanitary sewer, and other projects. He advised that all of the ponds are in nonhydric soils and are dry because of the low water table level. Trehus asked about the suggestion of staff to connect Pond 1 to the other side of Apollo Drive. Mr. Johnson stated Pond 2 is on the south side of Apollo Drive and the proposal is to divert water from the freeway culvert to the west into Pond 2 until it is at an elevation to outflow into the culvert under Apollo Drive. Staff's proposal is to connect Pond 1 with Pond 2 via a pipe under Apollo Drive. March asked if there is an opportunity to install a cattail wetland to act as a filter to Marshan Lake. Asleson stated he understands the desire for a vegetated filter strip but he does not think there is an opportunity to do so. Mr. Johnson stated this site is a long way (three - quarters to one mile) upstream from that point and he does not know what is available from Lake Drive to Marshan Lake to provide additional treatment. Also, the area is very flat. March advised of a different project that successfully b ered sediments via a vegetative filter. Acting Chair Lanyon asked the members to add w� .erm issue. Donlin suggested plantings that do not req ° tens watering such as prairie stock and oak trees. Davidson noted that residents plan can be presented to the buffer with a wooded typ trees planted in layers. isual year -round screen. Asleson stated a area including the option of a vegetation well as prairie vegetation. He suggested oak O'Connell asked if a berm or : getation would better block sounds. Mr. Johnson stated he does not know what the uses will be but the City has previously indicated the uses on that edge must be compatible with the residential homes to the west. He agreed that landscaping will provide a better visual buffer a story and a half off the ground than a berm would provide. Acting Chair Lanyon asked why there is a need to do anything on the berm at this point. Mr. Johnson stated they now have the opportunity to obtain fill material at a lower cost. Because of that, they would like the ability to accept that fill material and stockpile it until it is needed. Acting Chair Lanyon stated that depending on what is built, a berm may be better or a vegetative screen may be better. Until it is known what is being built, that decision can be delayed. 5 • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 Mr. Udhe stated at the site plan review the Board will have the opportunity to identify acceptable plantings for the user to put into place. However, if the berm is not identified until that point, it would be quite costly to import the soil needed for the berm. Kukonen asked if the residents want a berm. Mr. Udhe stated when the property was rezoned they were told a berm would be put into place. Another neighborhood meeting will be held next Tuesday and the issue will be raised again. Acting Chair Lanyon stated he thinks there will be support for a visual barrier but he would encourage them to consider options other than a berm. Mr. Johnson stated a berm is beneficial at ground level and may be more perceived than real. Mr. Johnson stated he thinks residents will perceive a need for a vertical component that is more than a row of trees. Donlin stated when the theater property was developed, a six -foot berm was created to buffer their property from night -time vehicle lights. She commented on the psychological benefit of having a visual screen and not being able to see , e use. Trehus asked if the Board needs to stipulate a buffer n a "given." Mr. Johnson stated they will listen to be required and then the applicant can assure i est side of the site, or if it is rehus suggested a berm ly de igned and appropriate. Mr. Johnson stated he would like to hear a can with the drainage plan or is there some nature of the buffer /screening on t•�_ st si March stated he thinks the B screening as opposed to pine. He stated his inte es: 1) have they done what they e they should evaluate; and, 2) the of the project. ise people of the benefits of vegetative d recommended a mix of red oaks and white vegetative screens as opposed to berms. Davidson stated her agreemen `: d suggestion that a woodland buffer, which is environmentally more sound and beautiful, be presented to the residents. Trehus asked if the ponds can be made deeper. Asleson stated that will not matter due to the level of the water table. Mr. Johnson advised of their monitoring well findings. Kukonen stated he believes the drainage issues have been satisfied but he would support further investigation of staff's proposal for a pipe under Apollo Drive. O'Connell asked if the applicant would object to a Board Member attending the neighborhood meeting next Tuesday to present the option of a vegetative berm. Mr. Johnson stated they would welcome that opportunity. O'Connell stated she will plan to attend that meeting. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING MAY 31, 2000 Trehus raised the issue of the short-term impact of stockpiling the soil on the site. Asleson stated they already have a storage permit up to 5,000 cubic feet. Mr. Udhe explained the CUP will allow additional storage and relocation of drainage ditch and berm. Donlin expressed concern with the stockpiling of road aggregate and possible leachate into the soil. She urged the developer to not lean heavily toward stockpiling that type of material. Mr. Johnson noted the material will be used under road pavements and parking lots and building pads. He pointed out the proposed stockpile location is centrally located so it will not have to be moved often until it is used. Mr. Johnson stated they already have a stockpiling permit but they are asking to stockpile additional material which will be needed to raise the elevation of the lots to match the criteria established by the County. Davidson moved to require a buffer on the west side of the project, that a vegetative woodland buffer is to be presented to the residents, to recommend a woodland and vegetative buffer rather than a berm for environmental and aesthetic reasons, and to direct staff to research the feasibility of connecting Pond 1 with ;�.e pond south of Apollo Drive. Donlin seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimo ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD BUSINESS A. New Members - The Environmental Board Memb introduced themselves. B. DNR Project - Asleson noted the May 25 Agenda, their April 20, 2000 mee 44I r. DNR. He presented an update &� =pry_ Use and inventory informati., s .n s requested information. Unit of Government Work Group and "Useful ... Guidelines" drafted by the d the DNR request for Lino Lakes Land ated his involvement is to provide the In response to Davidson, As tated the Anoka Conservation District submitted a Greenway Coalition grant app ation but it is not yet approved. Kukonen asked if the wildlife fieldwork is to include Lino Lakes and Hugo. Asleson stated it could include both. Acting Chair Lanyon asked if there is an opportunity for Lino Lakes to be more heavily involved to improve its inventory data of the areas involved. Asleson stated that is correct and data on rare and endangered species will also be identified. Donlin advised that a site along Elmcrest was viewed and an area with a beautiful wetland was found which contained three pairs of yellow- headed blackbirds. She stated this project is very exciting and she finds it to be a "golden opportunity" to fill in the missing pieces. 7 Neoevaeeeemmemo MEIIIIM milLIENES WIN= SILT FENCE DETAIL MOWN mmmmmmm NIB my im me am 1111.6111MMUINIEMMOMMII. FENCING BACKF I I- FENC I NO 5 COMPACTED BACKF 1 L11 FENCING BURIED STREET MARVY S I F I BAFFLED WEIR DETAI L POND 2B OUTLET ewe M. 199 • Mk Section A-A 1E ammipmam 24-0.43 SEDIMENT CONTROL STRUCTLFE DETAIL FCND 3 WILE!' --X------ X LINO LAKES CORRECTICNAL FACILITY X . 14 --------- ------1:72!";;;177;--71 _ _ ,r\ 24-AOP 6' • are SO- RCP FES 0 SO 100 200 Graphics Scale (in 1.401 REVISE) 626/00 PER RCM 6/23/00 CCAAENTS REMSED 6/23/00 ADDED REmsED MD 2A & 4 CONTOURS REMSED 6/113/00 ACCED HAL & HAL ELEVATICPS RE-MSED 6/15/00 ACCED REVISED KW CCNPX.RS REVISED 5/23/00 ADDED PEW LOTS & TOP* PONTS LEGEND WETLAND BOUNDARY SILT FENCE RIP RAP - CLASS 2 (per MnDot spec) stragenseent CONSTRUCTION LIMITS RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES 9471.41 Ala WEL- I Mr *by urnly that:rke...t. poon* or report th."416.7.7-1117E:»A4='... 1"'"--"471, C J C JOH4SON CONSULTANTS, NC, SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN 816 Maryland Ave. N. Brooklyn Park. MN 55445 Phora: (763) 391-0243 FAX: (763) 391-0245 5/5/020 allEc1-211" anr) R E: PRELIVINARY GRADING PLAN APOLLO BUS INESS CENTER LINO LAKES MINNESOTA . 34 .,, 1 1 6 Oat J BASE MAP IS COMPOSITE OF FIELD TOPO DATA. CITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. & BOUNDARY SURVEY (FIELD BOOK NUMBER • • N 00'01'09" E E3 SURVEY FOR: GARY UHDE -1(4 tonne 114 of 191 90 ,/9 Of 5CC500 109945.# 3■ RAMGL 22 • • /� 74TH 2277.92 s 88•22'57" w -7 STREET n1m 290 60 .253.00 SCOW 65000 \. UYwEMi -- .9. ‘,7,9 - - 2099.54- - - - 1849.84- - - - 1359.24- - -- 1106.24 -- 066 69 d62.55 PARCEL A 90\ 1 0.64 ACRES N N1 PARCEL B 14\ 2.50 ACRES PARCEL E 6.017 ACRES � l r.0 7. 0" E�. PARCEL D 4.00 4011E5 PARCEL 3.09 ACRES 0` tit 90.77 - / _ \ / HOSTS EAST C0600R 0050 i» c.51 i/. '661'17 5 66 p0 -`1 d7 q7 "n L I S.6'L O M1 h 1 L y1 / r p"0 • \ fig 50 - • 5 y y4 QRA\,E-� :.`rn• 5711;' l 60 1.1 .97 H N _ \ 0- --1"�� ‘c".. \ \ \nl \ V A 70.00 foot wide easement for ingress and egress purposes, over. under and across the following described property: That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 31. Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying North of the CITY OF LINO LAKILS RIGHT-OP -MAY PLAT NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE, according to the recorded plat thereof. The East line of said easement in described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 88 degrees 22 minutes 57 seconds Meat, assumed basis of bearing., along the North line of aid Southeast Quarter for e distance of 2099.84 feet; thence South 1 degree 37 minutes 03 seconds Bast, a distance of 648.37 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be herein described; thence continuing South 1 degree 37 minute. 03 second. East, a distance of 46.00 feet; thence southeasterly. a distance of 109.55 feet. along a tangential curve, concave to the Northeast, having a radius of 165.00 feet and a central angle of 38 degrees 02 minutes 28 seconds; thence South 39 degrees 39 minute• 31 seconds East, tangent to said curve, for a distance of 70.31 feet, more or les., and said line to terminate at the intersection thereof with .aid Northwesterly line of the CITY OF LINO LAKES RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAT NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE. s 0 120 240 360 SCALE: 1 INCH = 120 FEET PARCIE 0 That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 31, Range 22. Anoka County, Minnesota. lying North of the CITY OF L1NO LAKES RIGHT -OP -WAY PUT NO. 1. APOLLO DRIVE, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying westerly of a line to be hereafter known as Line C. for the purposes of this description; and lying easterly of • lin. to be hereafter known as .Line D• for the purposes of thin- description. Said Line C being described as1 Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 88 degrees. 22. minutes 57 seconds West, assumed basin of bearings, along the North line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 1359.24 feet to the actual point o£ beginning of said Line C to be hereby described; thence South 1 degree 37 minutes 03 ...ands Haat along said Line C. for a distance of 221.08 feet; thence South 19 degree. 24 minutes 42 seconds East along said Line C for a distance of 314.42 feet, more or less, to terminate said Line C at the intersection thereof with said Northwesterly line of the CITY OF LINO LAKES RIGHT -OF -MAY PLAT NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE. Said Line D being described as: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 88 degree■ 22 minutes 57 seconds West, assumed basin of bearing., along the North line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 164984 feet to the actual point of beginning of said Line D to be hereby described; thence South 1 degree 37 minutes 03 seconds Heat along said Line D for • distance of 320.25 feet; thence South 19 degrees 24 minutes 42 seconds East along said Lin. D for a distance of 308.62 feet, more or lens, to terminate said Line D at the iat.reection thereof with said Northwesterly line of the CITY OF LINO LAKES RIGHT -OF -MAY PLAT NO. 1. APOLLO DRIVE. PARCEL B That part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 31. Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying North of the CITY OF LINO LAKES RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAT NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying westerly of a line to be hereafter known as .Line D. for the purpose. of this description; and lying easterly of • line to be hereafter known as •Line 8• for the purposes of this description. Said Line D being described as: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence South 88 degree. 22 minutes 57 seconds West, a.eumed basis of bearing.. along the North line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 1649.84 feet to the actual point of beginning of said Line D to be hereby described; thence South 1 degree 37 minutes 03 seconds Bast along said Line D for 8 distance of 320.25 feet; thence South 19 degree. 24 minutes 42 seconds Eaet along said Line D for a distance of 308.62 feet, more or less, to terminate said Line D at the intersection thereof with said Northwesterly line of the CITY OF LINO LAKES RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAT NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE. Said Line 8 being described ass Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence South E8 degree. 22 minutes 57 seconds West,- assumed baei■ of bearing., along the North line of said Southeast Quarter for a distance of 2099.84 feet to the actual point of beginning of said Line-11 to be hereby described; thence South 1 degree 37 minutes 03 seconds Bast along .aid. Line 8 for a distance of 694.37 feet; thence southeasterly, along said Line R. a distance of 109.55 feet, along a tangential curve. concave to the Northeast, laving a radius of 165.00 feet and a central angle of 38 degree. 02 minute. 28 seconda; thence South 39 degree. 39 minutes 31 seconds East, tangent to .aid curve, along said Line a for a distance of 70.31 feet, more or less, to terminate said Line E at the intersection thereof with said Northwesterly line of the CITY OF LINO LAX85 RIGIHT-OF -NAY PLAT NO. 1, APOLLO DRIVE. ^u� I Cri z c F:- J • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. B Jeff Smyser July 12, 2000 Site & Building Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Twin City Fab, Inc., 295 Apollo Drive The application includes a site plan and conditional use permit for a metal fabricating business in the private Apollo Business Center. The site is zoned LI Light Industrial. Some outdoor storage on a limited basis will be needed, which requires a conditional use permit. The lot for this project was created by a minor subdivision that was approved by the P & Z on June 14 and approved by the City Council on June 26. This project, when completed, will be a desirable addition to the City and its tax base. However, the application submittal was incomplete. Staff worked with the applicants to attempt to get enough information to prepare a complete report. Unfortunately, the information did not come together enough that staff can recommend approval at this time. Because of this, we are recommending continuing the public hearing to the August meeting. This review is based on the following plan submittals: Site Plan Floor Plan Elevations Grading, Utility, and Erosion Control Plan Photometric lighting plan and fixture diagram • 6/27/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 6/27/00 6/28/00 Twin City Fab, Inc. July 12, 2000 page 2 • ANALYSIS The submittal complies with the LI Light Industrial zoning standards as follows: • Building The building footprint is approximately 19,200 sf, roughly 160' x 120'. The building will be 21' high except in the back (north side), where the ground elevation will be lower by seven feet to provide for loading three docks. Precast concrete panels will form the exterior walls. Most of the building will be fabricating /warehouse space. Offices in the southwest portion will comprise about 2040 sf. The trash area will be attached to the back of the building and enclosed by concrete block walls and prefinished metal panel gates. The two areas noted as "future expansion" are not part of this review. Any additions to the building will require a new site plan review and, possibly, an amendment to the storage CUP. • Lighting Light fixture locations are shown on submitted plans as shoebox fixtures on the building walls. The submitted photometric plan showing site lighting intensity indicates that the project complies with the maximum of one foot candle at the street centerline. The shoebox fixtures will ensure lighting is directed downward and not up into the night sky. • Signage The only signage shown on the submittals is on the front facade. Signage is governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits are required for all signs. All signs will be reviewed with the sign permit applications. Required Proposed Lot size minimum 1 acre 4 acres Lot width minimum 100 ft 307 ft Setbacks: buildings from street rear lot line side lot line parking from street rear lot line side lot line 50 ft 30 ft 10 ft 15 ft 5 ft 5 ft 85 ft 300 ft 10 ft 15 ft 400 ft 10 ft Bldg. height 45 ft 21 ft Green space 10% >10% • Building The building footprint is approximately 19,200 sf, roughly 160' x 120'. The building will be 21' high except in the back (north side), where the ground elevation will be lower by seven feet to provide for loading three docks. Precast concrete panels will form the exterior walls. Most of the building will be fabricating /warehouse space. Offices in the southwest portion will comprise about 2040 sf. The trash area will be attached to the back of the building and enclosed by concrete block walls and prefinished metal panel gates. The two areas noted as "future expansion" are not part of this review. Any additions to the building will require a new site plan review and, possibly, an amendment to the storage CUP. • Lighting Light fixture locations are shown on submitted plans as shoebox fixtures on the building walls. The submitted photometric plan showing site lighting intensity indicates that the project complies with the maximum of one foot candle at the street centerline. The shoebox fixtures will ensure lighting is directed downward and not up into the night sky. • Signage The only signage shown on the submittals is on the front facade. Signage is governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits are required for all signs. All signs will be reviewed with the sign permit applications. • • • Twin City Fab, Inc. July 12, 2000 page 3 • Landscaping Marmon Keystone and TC Fab to the east are coordinating their landscape plans. The landscaping plan was not finished in time to be reviewed for this report. We expect to have the landscaping plan in time for the P & Z meeting. • Utilities Sanitary sewer and water service exist on the north edge of the site. This site will connect to the existing facilities. (The City vacated the 74th St. right of way on May 22 but retained a drainage and utility easement.) Stormwater management on this site includes a pond shared by the property on the west. This common pond will serve both sites. Some of the stormwater facilities on the Twin City Fab site will be constructed by Twin City Fab's contractor, while some will be constructed by the current land owner as part of the ponding for the neighboring site and land to the west of that. Because of this, the design and review of these two sites requires coordination. Unfortunately, the design of each site and the coordination between them is not at a point where staff can recommend approval. (City Hall lost power on Friday, July 7, due to a storm. This interfered with finalizing the City Engineer's memo. The attached memo was preliminary, but gives some indication of the unresolved issues. We will send a final memo before the meeting.) • Parking For light manufacturing, our code requires at least one parking spaces per 2000 sf of gross floor area or one space per employee, whichever is greater. Currently, TC Fab has 12 full time employees and 5 part time. The office area requires 3 spaces plus one space per 200 sf. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use 90% of the gross building area. gross area 90% code requirement required spaces total footprint 19,200 sf office 2,040 sf 1836 3 plus one space per 200 sf 12 mfg /warehouse 17,160 sf 15,444 2000 g 17 one space per sf or one per employee TOTAL 29 Twin City Fab, Inc. July 12, 2000 page 4 The total requirement is 29 parking spaces. The plan shows 29, with an area provided for 9 more if additional employees are added. Even if 100% of the office area were used, it would add only one parking space, and the proof of parking accommodates that. • Roads, Access, Circulation Passenger vehicles will use the parking in the front of the building. Trucks will proceed to the back of the building to the loading docks. Curb and gutter will surround all parking and drive areas except that the applicant wishes to forego curbs on the back of the truck loading area. The applicant has not presented a justification for this. The City Engineer recommends curb around the entire drive area. A shared driveway provides access to the site. The driveway will be shared by TC Fab and the Marmon Keystone site on the west. The driveway is consistent with the joint powers agreement with Anoka County that covers the number and type of accesses on Apollo Drive. A shared driveway agreement between the two sites will be necessary and staff is recommending that one be submitted for City review as a condition of approval. In reviewing shared driveways, we must consider potential traffic conflicts in the driveway itself. Vehicles leaving the sites come from two directions and mix in the driveway before exiting onto Apollo. For example, a car leaving the TC Fab parking area to go west on Apollo crosses the path of a car leaving the other site and going east on Apollo. The potential problem is reduced as the mixing point is moved farther back from Apollo. Numerous site factors influence the location of the parking drive: the location of the pond in the rear of the site, the area needed for trucks, the resulting building location, and the needed parking. The applicants have moved the parking drive as far back as possible given the constraints. Moving it farther would reduce the ability to expand the building to accommodate growth in the business. • Park Dedication Park dedication will be subject to the City policy of $200 per 1000 sf of commercial building. For TC Fab, with 19,200 sf, the dedication would be $3840. • Outdoor Storage Conditional Use Permit Outdoor storage is allowed as a conditional use in the LI zone per Ordinance 02 -00, adopted this past February. Two sets of fmdings must be made. Findings for All Conditional Use Permits: As stated in Sec. 2 Subd. 2.B.7., the Planning and Zoning Board shall recommend a conditional use permit and the Council shall order the issuance of such permit only if it can make findings that the proposed use at the proposed location: a. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. • • • • • Twin City Fab, Inc. July 12, 2000 page 5 b. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the comprehensive plan of the City and this ordinance. c. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and/or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. e. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. f. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. g. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. h. Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. i. Will conform to specific standards of this ordinance applicable to the particular use. Findings Specific to Outdoor Storage: In addition to those findings, Ordinance 02 -00 (amending Section 8, Subd. I.1) states that outdoor storage in the LI zone must meet the following criteria: a. The storage area is landscaped and screened from view of neighboring uses, residential zoning districts and public rights -of -way per Sec. 3, Subd. 4.S of the Zoning Ordinance. The storage area shall be screened 100% from residential properties. b. Storage area is fenced in a manner approved by the City. c. Storage area is blacktopped or concrete surfaced unless specifically approved by the City Council. d. All lighting shall be in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.H. of this Ordinance or other lighting standards in place at the time of project approval. e. The storage area does not take up parking space or loading space as required for conformity to this Ordinance and not in front yards. f. The property shall not abut property zoned for residential, rural, or business use, including land in a neighboring city. "Abutting" includes across a street. "Abutting" does not include properties that touch only corner -to- corner. g. The property shall not abut I -35W or I -35E. h. The storage area shall not abut a school or a public park. i. The ratio of storage area to building footprint shall not exceed 3.5:1. j. Storage shall not include material considered hazardous under Federal or State Environmental Law. Twin City Fab, Inc. July 12, 2000 page 6 The plans comply with the conditions for outdoor storage. The site complies with the locational restrictions. The storage will be fenced with 8' chain link, and screened with ivy on the fence and other landscaping. The storage area will be partly paved, with class 5 aggregate in the remaining area. Staff recommends this is appropriate. The storage area could be up to 3.5 x 19,200 sf, or 67,000 sf. The shown area is much smaller, approximately 5205 sf. However, staff is not comfortable stating that all the criteria above are met. Specifically, it is not clear that the general CUP findings a, b, d, and e can be made. Therefore, staff cannot yet recommend approval. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION The Environmental Board reviewed the project on June 28. That Board did not have a complete landscape plan to review. Nonetheless, it made several recommendations, which are attached to this report. Some are difficult to implement because of the economic reasons. Others have been addressed. A complete landscape plan will be required. Coordination in grading, landscaping, and lighting between neighboring properties is a good idea and is being included in the overall review of the sites. However, as stated above, the plans are not yet at a stage where staff can recommend approval. OPTIONS 1. Continue public hearing to allow applicant to prepare complete information and staff to prepare a complete report and recommendation. 2. Deny application for site plan and conditional use permit. RECOMMENDATION Option 1. • • • oTKDA • TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 -2140 PHONE: 651/292 -4400 FAX: 651/292 -0083 To: John Powell Reference: Twin City Fab Copies To: From: Jason Wedel Date: July 5, 2000 Site Review Lino Lakes, Minnesota Commission No. 11985 -002 After reviewing the submitted plans for the above referenced project, we have the following comments: 1) The. 898 and 900 contours on the existing pond to the west are mislabeled. 2) The 902 contour does not tie into the proper existing 902 contour at the north end of the project. 3) The driveway grades do not match the grading plan from J.C. Johnson. 4) The storm sewer needs to list the length and class of pipe. 5) The sanitary sewer needs to list the length, slope and class of pipe. 6) The watermain needs to list the length and class of pipe. 7) The watermain tee should be labeled as an 8" x 6" tee. 8) Gate valve is misspelled. 9) The storm sewer schedule should include pipe grades, sizes, structures, etc. The current schedule only lists castings. 10) The wrong casting is listed for the storm sewer manholes. It should be a R -1642 B with "Storm Sewer" stamped on it. An Equal Opportunity Employer Twin City Fab Site Review July 5, 2000 Page 2 11) Details for all storm sewer and sanitary sewer structures need to be included in the plans. 12) All of the proposed inlets and outlets for the ponding area must be shown, including those being built by others. 13) The rim and invert elevations on the proposed storm sewer being done by others needs to be listed. 14) Polyethylene encasement of the watermain is not required. 15) The wrong casting is listed for the sanitary sewer manholes. It should be a R -1642 B with "Sanitary Sewer" stamped on it. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to give me a call. • • D Ar ELEMEMTA 5074074 - C0V/�rI�MMr17f0/7+t7f-WA ,PCar NO 10 {90Ni*- NMM. -R /Q WACIER- -l0 IT wo�000v oa►�°o oo er© o d� 111111 Ink OWN 1101°© II • 17 AUQ MIMIIf13��v0 ■000 ©��°a, o, ELM NORTH -E=rta II IIII �GEHTURY. p'd rill � n nT:�E . EFAR© t� o'nos� moo — so SU B. 1 134 T`HIP: -00 • 5 5 6 3 4 56 6 7 LINO LAKES REHABILITATION CENTER 9 2 Wi p INNY�' IM 3 8 4 5 MARSHAN LAKE MUM 112111:11 NEU NUM 0 , a KM= Ell NM= NM IBM* WAS mum mum im E. osa000acem FIB Lr' ¢icy OCII SID i Q is Atm Atj rso L'tL2 1- . S 1 „ , 71-- I ,- _1 1,, Y. I :9 !fi• 7 ' .2" . 4. 2 / s "1-1 'els Al' i t' 4 I ‘''' 1. • • 1- iL . LINO:-' • AIR PARK .;; • . NORTH • ' - - -1- BEilMS , • • I 6 1 • __J. I - CENTURY / 24.." 1:•,././ I cged V • • %"' CE FARM \ Ntt 2 /: ••`' • If-CI 1 -24 1-211 1 • ' I I I = 1 1;••17:MwebTIA. ■■•-r■:■;*-1,,T,:om..!:"`•• ••-.5 71:ii•-itin! 1 4 ---!• 4 1. .1 55 /0'P...... 05--:..,.., -4 PDO -risiu.owPoNos. i . r '. ° •;,-* - ! : ir •■■•-•:419s- -II • - • • /1 2!!...!4'• '1! , 5 - 4__ ; ,Lita 3). niit 12, iii -r , 2 7 :1J HE • ; Q I ,..117—= - 6 4 I 1, • AP•D"--. ---- • 1-* ; '244 3 1 1 1 F-.• n- 1 ;•Wg7424" • ‘21•11•••,•';9 171 A I 01.1-4LII5t....•` r—t-1 2 • 1;-- I 1 tk11!244::-/e° • -.: :1AKE-111 ' • ,.E1 —1 i ,--, -kg-i-i -- j(4V f. 7F-074:evati,,w4 i.=-1 • '_.1.01,:,.1.,'1:/iMi_a....__... ..11,4115,11f .1171 ----II , ,--■••••,— 1.......i: FilDrrf!--,--1 Tb7. "iiiis 1 z . . -', .----__,_._, iaArm... .7 ,,,,:,a,, . ,/...,,,..V.,,...4..„,.5 z.. __ - i • 1, .4 ".r. .-.,--7.--. '____1_1.." .1-=--H-'. EADO !----- , — • --z.-c_Avorri 71-170014, e .21--Itt? " * " i`7'e.',1 • , 1`174‘1k2'“,:- 1. ; ; _ ;1'73 • , .11;141642,AI4."..1. , . 1.; 24044 44 —173-7 / C ,. <1, • 64g. em / Memorandum To: Brian Wessel CC: Mary Kay Wyland, Jeff Smyser, John Powell, Mary Alice Divine From: Marty Asleson Date: 06/29/00 Re: Environmental Board Recommendations /Apollo Business District The following recommendations were made at the June 28 Environmental Board Meeting: Marmon Keystone z, t/ a � rm • All recommendations in staff report. Note item 3 conceming treated wood. This item was discussed and defined to mean creosote or penta- treated wood. • That the Environmental Board see a finished and complete landscape plan and have opportunity to make comment by telephone or email. • That the developer provide a landscape maintenance contract for native areas for a five -year period. • That a lighting plan be submitted with the landscape plan. • That the developer should work with 265 Apollo on a coordinated landscape plan and installation. • That future storage are 1st stage be relocated to 2nd stage area, and that the second stage area be planted with a vegetated buffer until the time ever comes that a second stage storage area be needed. Twin City Fab, Inc. Same as above except item 3 should say move the proposed future storage area to the East instead of West. 1 AGENDA ITEM STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: June 28, 2000 TOPIC: Twin City Fab. Inc. / Land Use Application Review BACKGROUND: Attached is a TIF Land Use Application and Site Plans for Twin City Fab. Inc. to construct a business building at 295 Apollo Drive. At the May Environmental Board Meeting, the Environmental Board reviewed and made recommendations on the over all site grading, and global landscape issues. The site for Marmon Keystone shows a building, parking lot, on -site water swailing, and a proposed future staging area. A generic and non - specific landscape detail is shown on landscape -plan submittal. Water from the site appears to be directed to a depressional swail area to the Northwest and then to pond 3. OPTIONS: vide a more detailed landscape plan, providing for plant materials appropriate to the site for both native and non - native landscape areas. All non - native area should show irrigation. 2. Provide for a site soils management and reconstruction plan. This plan should include measures to reconstruct landscape soils to an un- compacted state after construction. This plan should also show soil organic amendment incorporated into any sub -soil reconstruction process. 3. Move the proposed future storage area to the West and provide a buffer planting between the storage area and pond 3. 4. RECOMMENDATION: All of the above and any recommendations from the Environmental Board. r • • • FROM : SOUTH 5111E EEC MCGRAVv-EDISoN• CIIVIGALLERIA 2.01V-112.0411 Trots-ave. 111...a. 2.1.1C11172.C71212... Apt. 1,11221-2 £ ormattedunairsamiew.. svioNsornsed • hrtosieNssekkellassoWlor strocuesINNAANendis fin.. in oats.. powders's. • Bulleol trey SAAS mounted to NAM, Interior for motet epeontem • laglie core and opil • • RNA areNNANed eINAInum rshAlor ...Seel amp unite, of hydrofornseeseesilsed slurnirturn reflector is horisomal lamp unks • To, s. aluminum slooh hes besomshily hiAses. cspNve retshfing ssrows encl is (Welled In polyester powde•epet ISpids. mount unit has steel Soorl • C.Ve.427,P2. 0,222 FAX NO, 02{CR T ION The Seileria echlevss superior Nom thstriNteon hy tAilising • sesinless rellesloNryment Awkihst STOP Apiltriurn choice for slmost Nyman. sneslIont ANAINMSNAPpItstion.U.L SrtsocItonsel bask.. CSA NeAfiesi. • • c • 0 11 J fre I XI ye ee tor I, Iv MI* Slaw. oilmau Oao...n1 11.2or 07101...m) 29241.■ 22•31.1. 80.1.) 12.1.21S21 0 n• — Jun. 23 2000 10 4 1 P3 •N12111.11Nser•Sw.ANNIA • elmemmeemeemeseors 2,41.1 11.4W1 - 1-wo 211.42.9 2-CWA lel, ye .U.OW/ Wasogy•en Tyg 1,, Nabs, .1-sees 2-22eV Rwm, 4217V 2.424V ...1177V MO Vet 1200/IMATION 4 .....2 .,_ . . 4., Lorne 7,,,,...,...---,,w,,,,,..■r.22•_._, lAs..5. Sem Nhisseess, q,....... : tff,,42 .N.1.71,401eekrhot22.r. R.*. UP,10[9212XX 2. Mrs 0M132212.2% VS.V.1112.1 G rA50■22.2.2 Z = rd.119•1131.411e....2 • 1000■11-1:4120 parcel., GMC21”2...2 na NU ............,...... PC. .4., rj.„,..mang ONO2hr do.Cooln,es ▪ ....1 4 nalla - 0.2 14.K. Cfium•tpli.:111.1.1.1. OM< .• /in .400 ofs. • A.F...°V1:3;`,,':,1" 1.120.121rect SW. OW town V. 122.1007,,Nrnis■ Pour. Pole. 41.0..2 omn te. Pew.... srs Asissesows sos,,s sew 4 2141.10-2.0■•••■TononI441.1s, 2 UT 0.0. Town 2.21211.2* iefeTrort......1 um, i 122.1012-222 OW imam Minrow 7 Vr0.12. VAIrns.....22,tonanA.O. WSW' o.n.o.; 2.101.1• 120..1212,por ler 2 14.0.0. Nowt 212101.7.101111.2m...11.41spiw. 2 MT 0.0. Tanen 1.1212.2, br 212102111...wateraan win., A..*** .4 0.410104.2.211,...1.1 Tap 124122/-rboao......ei NO■ 41.2ms.W. gex" 13u t-lakJet &T. --5ES -'5Tre f-LANT_o re,Fs Lz,Cooki1e2LcAT _ --t1107tra-40114(..e _Nar: AVAILAP-t/E pi _pATB — -4u:Vettr. Avia,0-ar.A.Z ei.:=6-vp,-Tip pcsepti.e. -960 „.... E1)4C1.05u12-6: _ - 114.611;:r 01,--EVATI-ok) t0 it ts2 sT A7-n Co-i0pt 4 iA S r lr a I* f-ovo vJ •view oF.Ahteol•Fr ol4 S t tt _ lY : 4 ,4.i c& 2 . t, CUI2-12240JA4 r / • CLA-56 }.-.IVVER- I lOti "WA a , fat, l4 Arzelt E U PuicAL- 4 ok) W E AT M O - carttecta-- sT/P0Aca- 412P,Cniff4F:4: 41e. , 0 - -too wAtt HAW*. '=11 , 1 ' iIX F Lat O t , O , I ii 11.'o ' .Ltaltzo'.:co&v.--rAtio 0 I -Ito .•;:ir--ME---rA..-. *--; 0.4621 e 3H0a130X . FPI .... 1 • , I I , / / 40 „ r=4„, •c / o , ' / 2a . / - ./ l, uFi ;S l eS u cK TN, K c y - 1 '5 LI C C { i -1w (7) 0,11 is_ Ss 1 .- 1 ,. 16 5, II co xl MINIM 3o1 _ --DITU14 RAN2.11,4ti NoTE-eft-01341tjti op OUrFOall, 5TP04 4E. MU. rkutOm uttot,,, P.EVIEvu D A4,4AcisLit„ pa.opp*I 5c-01:514■1-ki • \,:,/ = , , • 19) •••• • ).; 1/14, cet 0 ■ Tp-ps.99 evaxsug-e. vg0.4 TICE. 1• 3 146.1-1.1:£ Shot Max. _ kt_ 11' „43&•,.:/E-H.E1:3r _r12-4./c "TizA,FF(4- 1 0c-to °c: Ot) SECrI_Og -Ar_AuTaklafart-Sz_TWE Ap,E4s ••••"-----ts-i-cz-_-:112:"..-,-r-= -a— - fre 130iLz311----1c, 1;ttNT/Ik. (19,i, .2001 0 5 4.- 4-) 1°r 4 UIL.IN (I�' 4A.Fr"" 1 frg.°14t-US11"'F.A42CTIC'ri 7:07r 75,-5t.4-1,F- I 4LI-0v-Af=4.,E fL,4PA 12, oozy 4- 12,coo i0o7= wcr2.134,,E 3 s/ cE).- 14000 1'4,000 X5 CALMI-10414- HI2t spr-it44/Ex,,94-e=4)=--7 rxx, 54•-Ct 2- SHEET 4 Fa # 0 0 0 0 t- 0 0 :0 0 "-; - 16 tv4"1" 1 Poci, 3.7. ft•ssut-; 21' Deg. /V I /* X lo PftT NSW.. TeMr ALUM p- Mh .12"-444E, A4-0 ilDEI.14141. THRESI4CLA • .......... Go-o lb r' • 0' ginTh.c. - - 5. _„.)4A4411, OVA12-1-(OUSS rrkCe-, Cotz.riNel (5-1, F occupANclE".) /4.32.-6", 7:71=r- ..z&stoOkOz-ia F VI'me4 -yr-A.404 0-f- ty , • — 4cor,r.c, c..,4-/.1117)* - 1 Lowsno...) oFv-ILE A.rzE.A. ve.51117tE F4N* 6,0•,../tittopm.1,5 stoE', a" or43rte.;,4' ItiSEF-S UT:p4F-•r Locn.rum 20; PVGI,NEAD ; tO " PaK A1307 •01..,suL lEmlo +,“1.4 woo, ri24.*.te *IF *Jr • 51 IDS WO h 3D mpo, 1/2!■ °U12-15 4v1r0— --Oitz.i.sHoz, IVO f—T 3 1NSvl N STaor 4-14.64 wtrJoou.., s T*1$.; i53/A110 ' Iste/RXM 0 5- Z 0_ 7 tLi Sic 2 u, ii 2 P a SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 0 SHEET OF 00 '145 TIAJIk —11,4 AP Top/ww: ritscl, sr 60,JC, ITAn 4-- zJ1. /NSW. ,iErZal— 0..0 . 3° 1 4 r.P.Eritcasioxf HS _ PP-GHNJI,A4P1::, _r1,0rHOISHpy) st(0050 Dow u 1.414Hm s 4:E c.,F4667 1 • .• 3r 7. Dik,0[1.11 i qie4d 4.4.‘ lleTAL 0,4 _ • .1„tirr,,F44r •ReP1-.1 TE11%.71794 — ay. -1•24s, T-1220AW=.7.11177, KICII421r4.041:0SUS-- T.H./5 7:TA. t1,15L/LATE•0:14,E,CA"-r• GOV C., --.--,y,..1scru--qi;AssAzriwoott,S10 F'12,444.0-11-T/LEA4444... f3r-1;44,- SEE c-.01+EST 1 SliOE tzLI V0x.. JUL4 t M.; _ F.A.1.3eLS • PW..451" V.1,14.15.O&E,k.s• -=_PPF.T1141.0az wFnI"-- EL-5 kijdst r- 0 P11-114•14 PO METAL. 1.d 074 EL NSU.c.....7E,41" 41,955 .440 AU) H. .1:40.g.;_FiLAI-4E. AND SlIDE114HT siL.6A44.- •C' - 1-14-ti'muNiey, 4 rA sc, tA 1_14.21.4" -Sun. j1,Q " _ 1IOSCHATE*0 PS-Ez.ne,r c. t3AN.,EL.5 REcEssFo po0S- LEVELS!. _ VES-IS,f 4tt:£ it.DVIAILS .-0444-VF NOT- VR4P1 AAA- J51- - 506. Sex Dexur,..n..(LI*TDgi- 5 mus 4,,PP t-ST 3° 7,, wsk, na,f, F1E - o i TOWF-Tit -1W.ST11.• Jr4-.4.1.01142..ED -,414.111.4 -FM tS sufh1R204A6 11.1SAIDHlf.? 'Ss ANw),AAt.4.1 -:_prOIL.-ifl4A.ME.AVa 0 SID b1.14, 14 r -15-11432‘1,- UTH SHEET OF Fs* 00. tatb e sr i "4- _. el • PW..451" V.1,14.15.O&E,k.s• -=_PPF.T1141.0az wFnI"-- EL-5 kijdst r- 0 P11-114•14 PO METAL. 1.d 074 EL NSU.c.....7E,41" 41,955 .440 AU) H. .1:40.g.;_FiLAI-4E. AND SlIDE114HT siL.6A44.- •C' - 1-14-ti'muNiey, 4 rA sc, tA 1_14.21.4" -Sun. j1,Q " _ 1IOSCHATE*0 PS-Ez.ne,r c. t3AN.,EL.5 REcEssFo po0S- LEVELS!. _ VES-IS,f 4tt:£ it.DVIAILS .-0444-VF NOT- VR4P1 AAA- J51- - 506. Sex Dexur,..n..(LI*TDgi- 5 mus 4,,PP t-ST 3° 7,, wsk, na,f, F1E - o i TOWF-Tit -1W.ST11.• Jr4-.4.1.01142..ED -,414.111.4 -FM tS sufh1R204A6 11.1SAIDHlf.? 'Ss ANw),AAt.4.1 -:_prOIL.-ifl4A.ME.AVa 0 SID b1.14, 14 r -15-11432‘1,- UTH SHEET OF Fs* 00. tatb ViPtatt.-.7...Tpoor-.:1407"67.: 61) et"tS) .Lcuicx:-.71I1F49'1-0114. 4 41%.A va. 0/2,1-MMONFV612.0:-)inok.) u(-41 TN-- tot 1.1 12. Go l3tEra t., pcoF • NY ILWAN■IIIIIIIIINNOMMW,":01‘,2%. EL, dt NE, $ 41....1D baxxgteo Flts• 67c1, c." Nc...TE0 Z•02•ANU LAP- • =•=ttP ov Fooklat,„Ttow putts) roll-- e7lz 1,JF 1 S PIO/ l-rgAsPikgi .56.414'. roic ‘..a.0 1147.tAN.0-, ' • r 0 • ; • • _PL4ZLE,.. -01::&160'-egr ItItlt Maim 1-02/Flz , -01 0 15E.C77.11)3,..),/ f)LJITH WAL.L3 --70? - I •• MI7WAYAKAIMEAP12; - FL.v4(212- 4TA(4131".- 471.5,1" 45E 4' -L IN",uLAITtrD r12-43-0A9r. INSUk COX54-rit., 14-10(544717.7A Ltd el HI,64.te $4A }E,f-E44 2' • r; 2AS t • (n 1 4o-tcl" 445E 5 -2.. sEe. s $4 1.1451,A, 1Wir eiLA choo- *.(1 4 • l'f/K4t 71.-- cokir ,g-c--17 to N.V.V.E:a7 cow _ 5 5P=ots.)/VIE57 V.AteL,719+.71=AW.C.E, y2-' =1' 4 ) •e•A L•e. r. (.50tIni LEIL,PL41.0E6 --Er-rp/..2k.sr:744u.)n-yE,sr St.A 1 ^ 0.-• • I INt PAUL. MINN SHEET OF- ?Ai FEI 0 sms:,).va -ficoTINal ---51.-314/Pr-ErAFr 0 cp- 0 0 0 0 T I LANG ebt;ocii. Q4.J 1.,,•ox d Pc9701.64 9/2. N co511 TPFE Y-F11 -m" k , c>. v -- -;NloiE!. Vatiri Foart.sy r7s1=s -- raw-.15C: .tcv 64. 1 51-C/ 7- r_ _ le Do±2- _41?;:loc_V- _ _ _ 2fr" Do, _r_c lo- _____P .4_, _ _v_ - - 91 r. 41 4,7 1 . J' e 4- -- -- -- --- - - -4- - - ...(-- ---- _I- -- - -... - __ _ _ - -_ - I - 1 11Z \J 1 y\ I (--`-iTTP, F-2z: T'Er• ri, I I 1 pressorommoommarl I I 0 ,Izors-.1-tr-o" 1- ..793411?..A441.41-.141149 90.'f 11144410N' `*/1/0c-ACI-' -7- \ ; LJ I„ -4424-44- 4"? 0/0X 0 46.4v.4 Ai _J FLA• 54-41 es .W/4, 4to lo/10 1M,8,1,46 Pt LW Ct!' 4.914PAC1 ED FHA- 1..).‘gp 540,4 40' 51,4W Gor4-1-oi., -401T41-5 Ga.,W44 T1p(e.,4 23LZIOP1 '\ - .rtti12-ou4Nour _ Pteeof- AI LAP- rope= -11-0" r-OorIWC( Ca. Thci,$) 0'-,e1', 4 6c„ /A*1 • - 1.s.rP.IcAL-fevrit44. tiv_Est STRICILHAL 1431ES, 1117 1. '0313S: 14111ESCITA LNIFCRI BUILDING CCOE 15 ADCPTED. 2. ALL FOOTINGS SHALL ON A SAFE Antrim F FFARTNR CAPACITY CF 3. PSF.' FEFER TO SOIL REPCFIT. DATED 1 , FOI 00113611134 • 410 BACKFIU_ 1606130ATI00S. SOIL EE4041041 OPACITY TO BE VERIFIED BY A • RICFESSIONN_ SOILS 650131151. 3. ALL COTE SHALL BE NM& lEIEHT 013CFETE CF TI-E F01J3111511 8151101 CCAFFESSIVE meant AT 28 DAYS. A. ECIERIOR DOMED CCICFETEI 4,0110 PSI AIR ENIRAINED. 8. ALL me COCFETE, 3,200 PSI. - 3130* co.c. vc,t4o 2$.0 P31 4. ALL REINFCRCIN3 6416 SHALL BE 40 FILLET STEEL BARS 00FC011/13 TO WV A-615 GRADE 80. 0043183023 WAS SHALL LAP 30 DIME-TEAS WOO SPLICED IN ANY cnE ODECTICH. ALL VERTICAL BARS 994.1_ EE DOVELED TO F30TIN3 AN) PRIECT 40 DIATETERS UtESS 014311153 WO CP MM. 5. CONCFETE WOO! LNITS TO LE OF SIZES MO SHAPES AS SHOIN Ct4 . . 6001ITEC1IPAL DRAWINGS. PROVIDE 4101301914_ FERMIUM EVERY SEC= COURSE. MO EMS. PILASTERS MO TERTICALLY FILLED MOO< aFES TO BE FILLED 0110 3,020 P51 010E1E. SEE AFICHTTECTUIN_ NO STROMLO& FOR FEDFCRCIPO. ALL WASOPOY LNITS TO BE LAID IP 111111 TYPE S 10.RT60. -rite AT aeLo., qRAPC 6. ALL SillICILIOL WEB_ LPLESS 00-300ISE TOTED 9411L CORM TO ASTII - A35 IFYI 36, WO PSI. ALL 11613211551 STEEI_ FCIR TIEE COLLITIS SHAU_ 05FC01 TO ASV 5-5111 GRADE 8 (FY, ALMS PSI). BEIM CONECTIONS SHALL BE MUTED 131 IELDED AN) WALL OCtECF11 70 PM3T 4 OF ThE AISC WW1 CF SlE5_ £28 ,no‘crg C10STFUCTION. 551_TS SHILL BE ' A5114 A-325 EXEPT AS MORTISE 913134. PROVIDE 1E0 STIFFENS% AT ALL BEAUS F045IN3 OVER 03_106. PROVIDE ECM BEARING RATES AT ALL E016 8360119 C14 10131133. PrOVIDE ..DIST MO DEO( 830441340 MOIS AS 9-015 CV RAN. ALL 516131I841. STEEL to FECEM 06 SHCP COAT CF AUST 14111EITIVE FRI101. 7. ADDITICNAL SLPPOTT CR .101S11 ILO HAVE TO FE AC1051 AT NECHANICAL UNITS. VERIFY VITH ENGINEER. 8. *RIFT LL 0105106 WIN MEHLTE139. orkErn. 9. NISH ST9E361H 101.10 SHALL BE SOAK-OFF 156104 00411111. TIFE. 01000' 10' 132‘-4.■ 3* C..4,616.. 1- 5,1C - F-17 TOFE+. ai rouw5AT OKI- 4'- .1' 4 4, CO 117144. ree'ilt,41 1,102-TH ScuTH A 13 3 0- • 1 SHEET OF F8 CO 145 1K) ' 0 0- 0 0 c)- 0 0 /TA 1 Ger'• cr" 0 '• o 1' — 4•0 1-1 14. 11-4 • Ln u_ A N J 1 E.: X I.E g (-) VO 10 Mel 1"OcEZ WIC la-41,s-.IP FIZZ.4c knrz-Ark.C,,,e,, 424'‘I V7 ,4,1k ,kk w zA,cato 4PIACA kl. ice I v.,2.1n•14 1 eSE :- ti•IL.5,, .. 11j-22_1.1A* _TirE M 11E141. 1.2.00 DEC,I‘. r-r4F• I OA,-1— . w44g5S WAti-1:9:1,N6L .154 Spikg IfsTacAsr sk,fri-itsK__ wz•TxGe• '....N>, • III 2 0./24)(5•3 i IF 1 r 1 cswarm. 40',T TYriraL 24 s ./' / V•M•r, PegITS,I144 '34/ 3. 5 le 4 PO otr.6 v., Or,tro, NO ...,,rrov L•041,' FASItisatLis , . W 2. I x A.; TOSS•119Cid -Cass.; it9,1 io• ___._-, 3 ,o te 9 tr) 1 a -- . ToSer,r11'-1,; , el- 6 -- ---!-,-----1- -----, -1- —i 1,., lc 1 ,- 1 4" 4' il■ m cr r 1 "---- --r— , , A c_ct-W-1, ■512.4 FM 0TION., r- 0., fa•4•,-1-3-..1 ii,-,-. 1 101'. 2 i ' WI • -ii- '. rEr-O 6" v. 1' — 4•0 1-1 14. 11-4 • • Marmon Keystone July 12, 2000 page 5 c. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and/or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. e. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. f. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. g. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. h. Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. i. Will conform to specific standards of this ordinance applicable to the particular use. Findings Specific to Outdoor Storage: In addition to those findings, Ordinance 02 -00 (amending Section 8, Subd. I.1) states that outdoor storage in the LI zone must meet the following criteria: a. The storage area is landscaped and screened from view of neighboring uses, residential zoning districts and public rights -of -way per Sec. 3, Subd. 4.S of the Zoning Ordinance. The storage area shall be screened 100% from residential properties. b. Storage area is fenced in a manner approved by the City. c. Storage area is blacktopped or concrete surfaced unless specifically approved by the City Council. d. All lighting shall be in compliance with Section 3, Subd. 4.H. of this Ordinance or other lighting standards in place at the time of project approval. e. The storage area does not take up parking space or loading space as required for conformity to this Ordinance and not in front Y ards. f. The property shall not abut property zoned for residential, rural, or business use, including land in a neighboring city. "Abutting" includes across a street. "Abutting" does not include properties that touch only comer-to-comer. g. The property shall not abut I -35W or I -35E. h. The storage area shall not abut a school or a public park. i. The ratio of storage area to building footprint shall not exceed 3.5:1. j. Storage shall not include material considered hazardous under Federal or State Environmental Law. Marmon Keystone July 12, 2000 page 6 The site complies with the locational restrictions. The plan states that the storage area will be fenced with 6' chain link, and screened with ivy on the fence and other landscaping. Staff recommends an 8' fence. The storage area will be class 5 aggregate rather than paved. Staff recommends this is appropriate. The ordinance would allow the storage area to be up to 3.5 x 83,050 sf, or 290,675 sf. The shown area is much smaller, approximately 20,000 sf. However, staff is not comfortable stating that all the criteria above are met. Specifically, it is not clear that the general CUP findings a, b, d, and e can be made. Therefore, staff cannot yet recommend approval. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD ACTION The Environmental Board reviewed the project on June 28. That Board did not have a complete landscape plan to review. Nonetheless, it made several recommendations, which are attached to this report. Some are difficult to implement because of the economic reasons. Others have been addressed. A complete landscape plan will be required. Coordination in grading, landscaping, and lighting between neighboring properties is a good idea and is being included in the overall review of the sites. However, as stated above, the plans are not yet at a stage where staff can recommend approval. OPTIONS 1. Continue public hearing to allow applicant to prepare complete information and staff to prepare a complete report and recommendation. 2. Deny application for site plan and conditional use permit. RECOMMENDATION Option 1. • • •TKDA • • TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-2140 PHONE: 651/292 -4400 FAX: 651/292 -0083 To: John Powell Reference: Marmon Keystone Copies To: From: Jason Wedel Date: July 5, 2000 Site Review Lino Lakes, Minnesota Commission No. 11985 -002 After reviewing the submitted plans for the above referenced project, we have the following comments: 1) The proposed watermain can not connect to the existing watermain located within Apollo Drive. The watermain connection must be to the existing 10" watermain located along the north end of the site. 2) The rim elevation for manhole 20 is mislabeled as 800.5 and should be 900.5. 3) The class of pipe for all utilities must be listed on each pipe segment. 4) Details for the storm and sanitary sewer structures need to be included on the plans. 5) Flow arrows must be shown on all pipe segments. 6) All the watermain fittings must be labeled. 7) The area where curb & gutter is proposed is not clearly delineated. A curb detail is needed. 8) The miscellaneous spot elevations need to be turned off on the grading plan. An Equal Opportunity Employer Twin City Fab Site Review July 5, 2000 Page 2 9) Only the storm sewer that is being constructed as part of this site should be shown in bold. The storm sewer that is being constructed as part of the overall CUP should be shown as a screened line type. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to give me a call. • • • • • sky roe rites J4-d, d‘c?"-a, Memorandum To: Brian Wessel CC: Mary Kay Wyland, Jeff Smyser, John Powell, Mary Alice Divine From: Marty Asleson Date: 06/29/00 Re: Environmental Board Recommendations /Apollo Business District The following recommendations were made at the June 28 Environmental Board Meeting: Marmon Keystone 6/00.10 '15,Zo) • All recommendations in staff report. Note item 3 conceming treated wood. This item was discussed and defined to mean creosote or penta- treated wood. • That the Environmental Board see a finished and complete landscape plan and have opportunity to make comment by telephone or email. • That the developer provide a landscape maintenance contract for native areas for a five -year period. • That a lighting plan be submitted with the landscape plan. • That the developer should work with 265 Apollo on a coordinated landscape plan and installation. • That future storage are 1st stage be relocated to 2nd stage area, and that the second stage area be planted with a vegetated buffer until the time ever comes that a second stage storage area be needed. Twin City Fab, Inc. Same as above except item 3 should say move the proposed future storage area to the East instead of West. 1 N vI.`+►sf ti/1 PN / ozl • dtZ- AGENDA ITEM STAFF ORIGINATOR: Marty Asleson DATE: June 28, 2000 TOPIC: Marmon Keystone Site /Apollo Meadows BACKGROUND: Attached is a TIF Application and Site Plans for Marmon Keystone to construct a business building at 265 Apollo Drive. At the May Environmental Board Meeting, the Environmental Board reviewed and made recommendations on the over all site grading, and global landscape issues. The site for Marmon Keystone shows a building, parking lot, on -site water storage, and a proposed future storage area. The proposed storage area is not needed at this time, and the storage area is being shown for possible future needs. A landscape plan has not been submitted in time for the packet. I have included the infiltration checklist and calculations for infiltration rates. Water from the building appears to be directed to depressional areas and pond 3. Water from the parking lot appears to be directed to depressional area on the East Side of the building. OPTIONS: 1. Provide a more detailed landscape plan, providing for plant materials appropriate to the site for both native and non - native landscape areas. All non - native area should show irrigation. 2. Provide for a site soils management and reconstruction plan. This plan should include measures to reconstruct landscape soils to an un- compacted state after construction. This plan should also show soil organic amendment incorporated into any sub -soil reconstruction process. 3. Move the proposed future storage area to the West and provide a buffer planting between the storage area and pond 3. Eliminate treated wood to stockpile materials on. RECOMMENDATION: All of the above and any recommendations from the Environmental Board. • - -1 - -COONT -- NWY.'-MGMT,OFWII -I[tT NO 50 AI K.- y416Mf+0i PL.li FLUE. UMW AUQ GinA1l11ui ■ ©- O��� _ �� M CENT URY .mp 0 0 _ cE.. KM Y = FARM tA4f�V ©,..�v =MIME 1:1t11 1 aau � J.1 2 _ . FIsi�e _I 1 MM 0000 o •. 0 IS ©5. LINO LAKES FM MI in VI MI, ... ��R�'a ®L� REHABILITATIO CENTER g 2 I Di�0icl 3 B s' -000Q 3 41 . l�� ©! cl. 11111.' ' To —1—YIPP- Al• I , 11 1 2 3 4 5 V:I II Z 3 I ooa � � d� si esvitm li. SUB. 10 = 134 ID' 30 4 U mm!W 0 k II Pr in awaauounoc Oo� d WI KM sem E EOM WIN C: sum maaa:� • agFb-F Mm OPSLIVadicadt Tigg _ IIu��I� omnp um colas o maaio �� •�� ©I �o coo 0 -I coo El Cain rn In1111101,2111 FR grijellUMLIIIII ZZIONEM NI 001 Z!. ©o.la, b�; ©v IM itll pow X121 MARSHAN LAKE tY i .111111 .- 7 t PARK may__ BEHMS CENT(!RY I Y • FARIN/ `,4 1.e.-: iY s ti A (�''' : ' S FAR1N at ilial. ,1.0, -, FA 'ir v a -7-1--,-, . a ! 1 " (" i2ND-.ADd.' F : e�x, =•�• L— 1. lid ;i ;—� 1 A , R -2 y y 35��. ice. j 4 PDO ►NLLOWAONDS .0FUNOLAKES� ,t -" ti =- 7 z I Y , D ' J Ul ptFR ] r w . �M1 RCE LAKE I .. 7 IacINGTON u rs s^- k ?sle! ' I I K , 3 r a -� - -'1 4 - I f L K d> - . . ; z a 5 ' �- '-Yi - L r - s I .` D N H Z N i .Afi Y pA 1 y i 4 `R4 i ce _ - : _ •• L { ' T .D 4 rt I � c � f � 9 H L4.--i7 j �i .. .l AA , c`- +d .i r c - ' 1 I � Y -- - � R 1 I S L` E _ __y �i , fZli 1. 1.i77;::7.: ADDI , r_ -T;0:7151fir _ _ H � a 1 :. , Ee — a t - J y. _K : y. -u. - C 0 / i. f" ' . w • -o z - <C rTl 17 <-1 m m0 -1 r r °?N --4 C Z p ° e N> C L C D 1m m 0 via m �-4 0 D• 0 z zz n - co rm N Z My %n N > E_ .T 0 -4 0 0 W m Y: 7 • m!^ 0 m Zn - Zz 1 ° z rn - ° G m O tP 'S 140.00 N 01 3rt.WW.. li 12 5' CO 75 _ipyq -i5- to 75' tl 1 c: • N 83°22.57.. Mat" .... riz cz\c'— j r / / Ik / / s '' AP IS COMPOSITE OF FIELD TOPO DATA. CITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS, & BOUNDARY SURVEY SHEET 5° DATE: 6/23/00 manual 200oosa CARD FLE: a+R55:r PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN MARMON KEYSTONE SITE LINO LAKES. MINNESOTA 1 hereby eerti(y that this Oft speoifeetion or. reort 4h t�o • db. list 1A0 Prole 'end supermen sale° the Ian ;{ the State of Minnesota. 'Res No 11546 • I C AD –I-17 ;coin 1— 171 m - -07 A Z O< 0 — A 00 —m >Z o O "77c)nm • cn C —m > 1 NAO mO�L� r ;o cm- r A CI) ACo L,` > rm rr� t T. O \. • • 0 `: V "il .t m 0 i) - •J� -r� T) D � 7 r r % r 2 6/27/00 ADD CURB 6 - '•TTER "� JCJ-1 di r• 1 6/27/00 REV OUTDOOR STORAGE JCJ r4.1 t NO DATE j DESCRIPTION a BY O r J J C -JOHNSON CONSULTANTS, 11 , ° t C SITE PLANNING AND `DESIGN Q8618 Maryland Ave, N. Brooklyn Pork. MN 55445 Q \``' j Phone: (763) 391 -0243 FAX: (763) 391 -0245 • 89310 24'CMP 893.31 FES 07 ___ _ _ - -- _' INV 895.30 _ — _ -- —899.0 -9900 - = =- TG 897.7 __- -I NV 895.5 (N INV 891.9 (S) CONTROL IAN _ FES *5 MY 892.0 32 LF RCP a 0.32% POND 3 NWL 895.5 HWL 898.4 ................. - // % / 90A / �V (07,-- / / /// 0, /'/ /// /. .,• 7/7 9 • POND 2B. , / 9 ■ / / \1 \�•\ \\ -' • \\ \c' \\ gym „�/ �lY)11\j ;i/ / : / //,' j : I r I 1 \ \\ /- / ?. 6S�_ • /i' /1/ - /// -. / / , l / i.Jfi /� / / ., . /. \\ C\o°p \\ / / \ \)III 11 \ \� \\ \ \ \ -_- :1;7 )Hl' 11,\ \ \ \\ / 11�IIr\ \�_� _ -j AP IS COMPOSITE OF FIELD TOPO DATA. CITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. 6 BOUNDARY SURVEY I hereby terrify that fhb don. xpec if lea tion a report t6M pIarn m a oa r b y roe 'a a e P . dect epavblon IM S Mim.oeo.00d Egee under Z 0 sQ f) N -I 2.(A AfJ 1f— f oo ' E z- y-t oo =� sn co r- IrnrnOflr�rZAtn= •• r y.yA 00D -4p ND m omz`Ectozr —Zm s 2 00-1 -1 fNH oRmm"t*omzm zmsovz- m,fi NSflp Aa rsEm -ir 1, -E°Glr Apr - -Im rr'rr -o lrfllm z mm - t5_emw A -0rmr1 (m(nM zO N0 - Dt 5.,D D -te? -I r > a°vD El> zcsr mr-. M 0M- -mm o M ° S O - - >00 1.1 — rEOE-0 -- r p M r r -1 m A m Co O 0 0 0 0'0 0 01 - 2 r---.-.m A o -ro , m ANflo o o ° a z E r T0i- r Z -10= ZC op Z DATE: 6/12/OO PRO.ECT NO: 20000501 CARD FLE: v,ARSGR0 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN MARMON KEYSTONE SITE LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA Reg Ne yy J C 11V134 33N3d 1119 0 — m z r —f Cis -I 1 -n z c m o '1 — 0 m 0 Z 0 r n 70 -i 3 6/26/00 REV PER RCMD COMMENTS JCJ 2 6/23/00 ADDED PARKING 6 STORAGE JCJ 6/15/00 ADDED 600 REQUIREMENTS JCJ N0. DATE DESCRIPTION BY J C JOHNSON CONSULTANTS, INC. SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN 8618 Maryland Ave. N. Brooklyn Park. MN 55445 Phone: (763) 391 -0243 FAX: (763) 391 -0245 • • N y 14000 • 450.00 893.10 - - -.41011 893.31 24 "CMP 2277.92 290.60 88 °22.57'• E_ 1I*a • ICI i I' - '11 I 407: 1- S D 1 PAR_I- 40Z ACRES _Pf RI 8.011 ACRES_ IN\ / REeEIVED JUL 0 6 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES ■ HEET , A EXHIBIT IS PREPARED FROM DATA FURNISHED BY THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR MAP IS COMPOSITE OF FIELD TOPO DATA. CITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. & BOUNDARY SURVEY DATE: • 6/23/00 PROJECT N0: 20000501 DADD FLE: an'I5U IE PRELIMINARY LIGHTING PLAN MARMON KEYSTONE SITE LINO LAKES. MINNESOTA i J C J 0 20 40 80 Graphics Scala (in feat) N0. DATE DESCRIPT1ON BY J C JOHNSON CONSULTANTS, INC. SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN 8618 Maryland Ave. N. Brooklyn Park. MN 55445 Phone: (763) 391 -0243 FAX: (763) 391 -0245 MH *30 TG 899.9 INV 887.79 260 LF 8' PVC • 0.4" II I� 893.10 1 L 10' WATERMAIN 45m.00 see.ss 10 SAN SEWER —411 893.31 24 "CMP T FES *7 INV 895.30 290.60 92 t'T n 'P FF Q k 95.0 DMH *6 TG 897.7 INV 895.5 (N) INV 891.9 (S) CONTROL MH FES *5 INV 892.0 32 LF RCP • 0.32% POND 3 NWL 895.5 HWL 898.4 *12 TG 899.2 V 895.8 (.0 (U (Y) .74 25' 33' PARCE L_ ES *4 V 89 N , ES NV 25' - i .IJ I 140.00 8' WATERMAIN 340 LF 6' PVC 0 1.80% H *33 G 903.8 0 INV 896.7 s / N 0 N N ta? co cak POND 2B / ngAi4.1 >1 IS COMPOSITE OF FIELD TOPO DATA. CITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. & BOUNDARY SURVEY DATF: 6/23/00 PROJECT N0. 20000501 CAW Fes_ M4a5uT 1� PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN MARMON KEYSTONE SITE LINO LAKES. MINNESOTA 1 kr.by certify that thin ekn. p*nricotion or wort ea prpored by a or ander a direct sup■rri.ioe and the ke. ed duly Sea tof IIiMrto. Engineer ender Rog No 1 1546 Dot. NO 6/16/00 DATE 0 20 40 80 Graphics Scale fin feet) REVISED PER RCYD COI&ENTS DESCRIPTION JCJ BY J C JOHNSON CONSULTANTS, INC. SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN 8618 Maryland Ave. N. Brooklyn Park. MN 55445 Phone: (763) 391 -0243 FAX: (763) 391 -0245 • • • I I 24-CM 89110 893.31 ---- ----- -900 ------------------------------- -------- 4— ••■••■•■• 4,, s, '4 'A A • PAR L c ............/ ....05/.. / I .0 ....'.. C61 . / / ...., ';'?".•;•;• ' ''''' ;1*. C.‘ "I \ : , , ' ' 4,:,....•,.. -:,..> , , \ , '7, /,'; ' 1 /,.. i/: /, '•",/ '.-1." \ /,„.,,, / , , , - I •..„ ../: ,,, . . ,. / ‘... ,•• / , ....-/,,,,, • ,116, / /".•• ,-, , ,9'-',. ,;(2,,-."-" 9 // ,,„, 1; 9 , --- ,/ /..,, '1,-, ,,,' ....„ „ ,.' ..,/, , -.:. . -, ‘J 1 ...-:\ '\'..1 \1\'''\' / . - - .- ...• ,,„:„ .., \ \\ 0 .u• ), „.,-,d-'", \ ,,,'„,.\\\ \ "I\\ \ir-1,‘ \ r/,,:-,,-;%::::::':..;''' \\ i: )1; :1-1 \\i': \\ \\ : :.:7.::::-- • ;••''' l\)1111111r \\I's,'.--"--"::.--1---•:•-...1.--. , ;:7,r•I-D/ OND . - ..:AW i '') -...„.„„ .„.,-......,-;„......„,..,:,......„-,... ..• ,,,:. .,,,.............„,....„......,,,.-„,..< ...„, :„.....„., ::...„„,..........„...5.:__ '',..,fej.'., ,„,...,, f • -/-!..•• " . ' POND 2B / / 6/27/00 PRO.ECT NO CAD FTF: MURANO PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN MARMON KEYSTONE SITE. 1 I NO LAKES. MI NNESOTA ••• >AA"' S3MV1 ONfl JO A1I0 1111■11•1111.1111M111 NO DATE DESCR I PT I ON TO. PRECAST PANEL 'EL 132' -0" (PROPOSED) CML. �ET L. R6' -0" (PROPOSED) FINISH FLOOR ' EL 100' -0• DRIVE -IN BAY / ',EL. 96' -0" T. PRECAST PANEL `FEL. 132' -0" (PROPOSED) $TO. CN.0 EL. 46'- 0•(PROPOSED) $PN15N FLOOR VE L. 'A70' -0' DRIVE -IN BAY �EL. 96' -0° • PFEPNISNED ALUMINUM PARAPET FLASHING, TYP. RAILED INSULATED PRECAST CONCRETE WALL PANL:LS, TYP. erlocr-1 ACCENT BAND ANODIZED ALUMINUM ENTRY SYSTEM W/ 1" INSULATED GLAZING, OFRONT ELEVATION ANODIZED ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAME IW P INSULATED GLAZING ROCKFACE CM UL INSULATED OVERHEAD DOOR TYP. STEEL PIPE BOLLARD INBILALATED NM. DOOR . FRAME. PTO, TY. METAL STAIR, LANDING 4 HANDRAIL, P(D, TYP. OREAR ELEVATION INSULATED OVERHEAD DOOR TYP. STEEL PIPE BOLLARD PTD, TYP. TO. PRECAST PANEL WEL. 132' -0' (PROPOSED) O. CMU. �EL. IYr' -0° (PROPOSED) FNISN FLOOR 'EL. 100' -0" �DRIVE -IN BAY / EL. 96' -011 PREFINISNED ALUMINUM PARAPET FLASHING, TTP. RAND INSULATED PRECAST CONCRETE WALL PANELS, TYP. OSIDE ELEVATION ANODIZED ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAME W'/ I" INSULATED GLAZING TYP. ROCKFACE CJ11 NBUALATED N11t DOOR 4 FRAME, T. TY. R ju 'b M800 Y •F LINO LAKES RECEIVED JUL 0 6 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES PREFINISLIED ALUMINUM PARAPET FLASHING, TYP. RAKED INSULATED PRECAST CONCRETE WALL PANELS, TYP. EL. 132' -0 (PROPOSED) TO.CMLL -___________ r S • i -13y I = .it -„ 1 I(( ! !t �t €1 „,itit[g I o) • I • ill PAO' IIPjI ! }1(I I . ! .. iii i I i :1 ! 4 3.f i F ! i ;Mi 1 1 If i ! :.. 1 J1 i 1 $ .; k11 { k j .M 9,�y i 1 t '.: •.:. ' r ; ; ..:, I ... _____________M ,. _ S tii �' i11 .. Ik ( ;.ir 1 t = 'v 1il 4,11 ( .' Il e. .. I il,. 11Ijt it' .1,I.{. Illj'I; 31 . ! �€ aa�iiA I th 71I • j it 41. IgII _. _.. ��______ - Sc�y ))€t.`ZlI�S 17 1cl a rt :(1: '. .a, �EL. IW' -0” (PROPOSED) �FNISN FLOOR Fl! (1 #3€ •V� -A: kil .. i___-____ = - .... 'FEL 100' -0" DRIVE -IN BAY / WEL. 96' -0" OSIDEt ELEVATION ANODIZED ALUMINUM WINDOW FRAME U/ 1" INSULATED GLAZING TYP. ROCKFACE C1111. DJR Architecture, Inc, An equal opportunity ®ploy. St. Anthony Main 212 Second Street SE Suite 314 Minneapolis, MN 55414 Ph. (812} 362 -0431 2 A Registration Number 0 W Z O 1— N z Wo Y F; O^ 0 U <3 M z LINO LAKES, MN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS REVISIONS DRAWN BY CHECKED BY - DATE ISSUED - SCALE 1 /16 " =1' -0" JOB NO. 00121 A2 • • • Memorandum Date: July 10, 2000 To: Jeff Smyser From: John Powell, City Engineer Re: Marmon Keystone Site Plan eview We have reviewed the proposed Site Plan for the referenced project. In addition to the July 5, 2000, memo from TKDA, our comments are as follows: 1. The coordination of the proposed grading and drainage improvements between the Apollo Business Center CUP and this project is critical. Our specific concern has to do with considering a Site Plan that has key site work that is not the applicant's responsibility. The successful completion of the proposed improvements on schedule depends on work to be completed under a separate approval. As the applicant already knows, the construction of their improvements may be delayed because of work by others. 2. Easements must be provided for all storm water pond areas. 3. Record drawings must be provided for all improvements constructed within the 74th Street easement. The City will require full time City inspection for any improvements in 74th Street. 4. The Fire Marshall must review the plan and provide comment on the hydrant locations. 5. The plan shows an "alternate" sewer service alignment. The applicant must decide which route the sanitary sewer will take before the building permit is issued. 6. The applicant must adhere to any terms and conditions contained in the Rice Creek Watershed District Permit. 7. A permit will be required from Anoka County for any work within the Apollo Drive right -of -way. 8. The plan should clearly indicate what work is to be done by others. 9. 74th Street should be shown as a drainage and utility easement on all drawings. 10. An escrow deposit will be required to cover the cost of periodic site visits by City staff. 11. Various surface material types should be clearly indicated on the Site Plan. Based on the information currently available for this project and the Apollo Business Center grading CUP, we cannot determine whether or not significant plan revisions will be required on this project. We therefore cannot recommend approval at this time. If you have any questions, please let me know. 4 TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • • TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 -2140 PHONE: 651/292 -4400 FAX: 651/292 -0083 To: John Powell Reference: Marmon Keystone Copies To: From: Jason Wedel Date: July 5, 2000 Site Review Lino Lakes, Minnesota Commission No. 11985 -002 After reviewing the submitted plans for the above referenced project, we have the following comments: 1) The proposed watermain can not connect to the existing watermain located within Apollo Drive. The watermain connection must be to the existing 10" watermain located along the north end of the site. 2) The rim elevation for manhole 20 is mislabeled as 800.5 and should be 900.5. 3) The class of pipe for all utilities must be listed on each pipe segment. 4) Details for the storm and sanitary sewer structures need to be included on the plans. 5) Flow arrows must be shown on all pipe segments. 6) All the watermain fittings must be labeled. 7) The area where curb & gutter is proposed is not clearly delineated. A curb detail is needed. 8) The miscellaneous spot elevations need to be turned off on the grading plan. An Equal Opportunity Employer • • • Twin City Fab Site Review July 5, 2000 Page 2 9) Only the storm sewer that is being constructed as part of this site should be shown in bold. The storm sewer that is being constructed as part of the overall CUP should be shown as a screened line type. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to give me a call. • • • AGENDA ITEM V. D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: July 12, 2000 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Town Center Development Standards BACKGROUND We expect to hear additional input from potential developers in the Town Center tonight. The Economic Development Advisory Committee will be discussing the standards at its July i9 meeting. OPTIONS 1. Close the public hearing and table the issue to the next P & Z meeting. 2. Continue the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION Option 2 • • AGENDA ITEM V. E STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: July 12, 2000 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING (continued): Ordinance 09 -00 Tree Preservation Ordinance BACKGROUND At the June 14 meeting, the P & Z opened and continued the public hearing on the new tree preservation ordinance. The hearing was continued for two reasons. One, there was some concern about requirements for residents building on individual single family lots. Two, we hoped to receive additional input from the developers we asked for comment. It may be helpful to bring your copy of the draft ordinance from the last meeting if you have notes on it. Another copy is attached. We have not altered it yet. 1) Rather than rewrite the draft ordinance, we decided to ask our Environmental Specialist to attend the P & Z meeting tonight. Marty Aslesen will be present to explain how he currently addresses tree preservation on single family lots. The requirements in the draft ordinance reflect current practice. Specifically, section III.A.1. on page 4, and IV.A. on page 5, and IV.B.3. apply to single family home building lots. 2) We have received one additional letter with comments from a developer, Heritage Development. Recall that we discussed a letter from Carlson & Associates at the June meeting. To review, the Environmental Board discussed the new tree preservation requirements twice. The P & Z can close the hearing or continue it if additional information is needed. The ordinance will require a first and second reading by the City Council. OPTIONS 1. Approve Ordinance 09 -00 and forward to City Council. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION 1411 Option 1 MAY -26 -2000 16:31 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.02/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 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. IL 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 MAY -26 -2000 16:31 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.03/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 Caliper inch (Replacement Tree) means the diameter of a tree measured at twelve (12) inchcs 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 stern between one foot and 4.5 feet above ground. Canopy mcans 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 mcans 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 'h) 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 (Mediwn) 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 stern. 2 MAY -26 -2000 16:32 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.04/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 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 arca 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 ] 000 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, boxeider, catalpa, willow, silver maple and elm. Tree removal means the loss of a significant healthy tree as a result of: 3 MAY -26 -2000 16:32 TKDR 651 292 0083 P.05/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 • 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 Seel ion IV.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 IV.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. 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. 4 • • MAY -26 -2000 16 :32 TKDR b1 eJd 00d.S P.06/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 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. IV. TREE PRESERVATION SUBMISSION 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 TV.B.3. unless otherwise approved by the. City. B. Plan Submission Requirements (General Development): For applications outlined in Section III.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.nutnber(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 MAY -26 -2000 16:33 e) 0 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.07/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 Delineation of existing buildings, structures, and /or impervious surfaces on the property. 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. This should not include any trees listed in Section V.C.7. nor should it include diseased trees. c) 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. All 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 6 • • • MAY -26 -2000 16:33 TKDA 651 292 0093 P.09/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 Critical Root Zone of the tree must be protected. No grade change, construction activity, or storage of materials shall occur within this protected area. 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 area 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 and/or 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: X. 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. 1'n 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. 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 MAY -26 -2000 16:34 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.09/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 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 rcquired_amount_of tree replacement based on type of development. Percent of Total Significant Tree* Caliper Inches Removed Required Replacement Tree Caliper Inches Multi - family (medium -high density) -- Per Inch Removed Commercial, industrial, institutional -- Single family & large lot residential 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 12 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 he 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 MAY -26 -2000 16:34 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.10/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 • 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 (2 1) Caliper inches at time of planting. 4. Small_deciduous trees shall be a minimum of one and one -half (1 1) 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 Inspection 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 MAY -26 -2000 16:34 TKDA 651 292 0083 P.11/11 REVIEW DRAFT 05/26/00 3. Unauthorized Removal: If a significant tree(~) 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 right 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 ye.ar 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. C. Variance: The applicant has the right to apply for a variance to the requirements herein. [need to work with Attorney on language] 10 TOTAL P.11 OS/23/00 09:44 HERITAGE DEUELOPMENT,INC. -4 651 982 2499 NO.484 P201/002 • 11111 DEVELOPMENT FAX • Number of pages: 2 To: City Council Lino Lakes y99 Fax Number. 651- 9824004 Voice Number 651 — 982 -2400 cc: Jeff Smyser From: Thomas Von Bische Date: June 22, 2000 If you do not receive all pages, please contact: SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Ordinance Heritage Development of MN, Inc. 450 East County Road D Little Canada, MN 55117 651- 481-0017/ FAX 651- 481 -1518 Having a degree in Landscape Architecture and previously been through the Hennipen County Master Gardner program as well as having worked in three other cities which have this type of policy, 1 think I several valid questions and concerns about your proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. 1. Why are these types of policies always punitive, and not incentive based? Also these types of policies are often offered up as environmental concern, but really these policies are anti - growth policies. How about smaller setbacks, lot size, changes in ROW, grading limits, street widths, etc. 2. Inventorying and surveying of trees is extremely expensive, perhaps a walk through of the property to determine what trees or woodlands need to be saved would serve the same purpose. 3. Why does your ordinance ever consider the natural life cycle of trees and related vegetation, the age, maturity, condition and the natural ecological evolution of the eco-system? i.e. The protection of forest which later burns because human intervention has not allowed for the natural death, decay and burning of these eco-systems. 06/23/00 09:44 HERITAGE DEUELOPMENT,INC. 4 651 982 2499 NO.484 P002/002 4. Why does SECTION C paragraph (2) call for the replacement of similar trees removed; however paragraph (7) does not allow certain species to be replanted? If a tree is not worth replacing it is also not worth saving. i.e. Box elder is a pioneer and invasive species and should be treated more as a weed than a tree to be saved. 5. Trees located within a delineated wetland are already protected; why require additional inventorying and preservation? 6. Why would boulevard trees added to the project not count as part of the replacement? This seems punitive. • AGENDA ITEM V. C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: July 12, 2000 TOPIC: Site & Building Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Marmon Keystone, 265 Apollo Drive BACKGROUND The application includes a site plan and conditional use permit for a metal pipe and tubing processing business in the private Apollo Business Center. The site is zoned LI Light Industrial. Some outdoor storage of pipe, tubing, and other material will be needed, which requires a conditional use permit. The lot for this project was created by a minor subdivision that was approved by the P & Z on June 14 and approved by the City Council on June 26. Like the TC Fab project, this project, when completed, will be a desirable addition to the City and its tax base. However, the application submittal was incomplete. Staff worked with the applicants to attempt to get enough information to prepare a complete report. Unfortunately, the information did not come together enough that staff can recommend approval at this time. Because of this, we are recommending continuing the public hearing to the August meeting. This review is based on the following plan submittals: Preliminary Site Plan 6/23/00 Preliminary Grading Plan 6/23/00 Preliminary Lighting Plan 6/23/00 Preliminary Utility Plan 6/23/00 Exterior Elevations rec'd 6/12/00 (The 11" x 17" reduced plans included in this report were submitted after and include revisions to the full size plans. This report is based on the full size plans dated as listed above.) • Marmon Keystone July 12, 2000 page 2 ANALYSIS The submittal complies with the LI Light Industrial zoning standards as follows: • Building The footprint is approximately 83,050 sf. The main building is about 200' x 405', and the office area is 32' x 64'. The building will be 32' high except for the loading dock locations on the west and east sides, where the ground elevation will be lower by four feet. Precast concrete panels will form the exterior walls of the main building. The office portion will be rock -faced concrete block. The trash area is not indicated on the plans. The trash area must be shown on the plan and must be screened. • Lighting Light fixtures will be shoebox fixtures on the building walls and in the parking and drive areas. The submitted preliminary lighting plan showing site lighting intensity indicates that the project complies with the maximum of one foot candle at the street centerline. The shoebox fixtures will ensure lighting is directed downward and not up into the night sky. A revised lighting photometric plan must be submitted. • Signage Signage is governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits are required for all signs. All signs will be reviewed with the sign permit applications. • • Required Proposed Lot size minimum 1 acre 8 acres Lot width minimum 100 ft 500+ ft Setbacks: buildings from street rear lot line side lot line parking from street rear lot line side lot line 50 ft 30 ft 10 ft 15 ft 5 ft 5 ft 50 ft 205 ft 110 ft 15 ft 470 ft 25 ft Bldg. height 45 ft 32 ft Green space 10% >10% • Building The footprint is approximately 83,050 sf. The main building is about 200' x 405', and the office area is 32' x 64'. The building will be 32' high except for the loading dock locations on the west and east sides, where the ground elevation will be lower by four feet. Precast concrete panels will form the exterior walls of the main building. The office portion will be rock -faced concrete block. The trash area is not indicated on the plans. The trash area must be shown on the plan and must be screened. • Lighting Light fixtures will be shoebox fixtures on the building walls and in the parking and drive areas. The submitted preliminary lighting plan showing site lighting intensity indicates that the project complies with the maximum of one foot candle at the street centerline. The shoebox fixtures will ensure lighting is directed downward and not up into the night sky. A revised lighting photometric plan must be submitted. • Signage Signage is governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits are required for all signs. All signs will be reviewed with the sign permit applications. • • • Marmon Keystone July 12, 2000 page 3 • Landscaping Marmon Keystone and TC Fab to the east are coordinating their landscape plans. The landscaping plan was not finished in time to be reviewed for this report. We expect to have the landscaping plan in time for the P & Z meeting. • Utilities Sanitary sewer and water service exist on the north edge of the site. This site should connect to the existing facilities there. (The City vacated the 74th St. right of way on May 22 but retained a drainage and utility easement.) Stormwater management on this site includes a pond shared by the property on the east. This common pond will serve both sites. Grading on this site, the TC Fab site to the east, and the unsold property to the west is interrelated. Because of this, the design and review of these two sites requires coordination. Unfortunately, the design of each site and the coordination between them is not at a point where staff can recommend approval. (City Hall lost power on Friday, July 7, due to a storm. This interfered with finalizing the City Engineer's memo. The attached memo was preliminary, but gives some indication of the unresolved issues. We will send a final memo before the meeting.) • Parking For light manufacturing, our code requires at least one parking spaces per 2000 sf of gross floor area or one space per employee, whichever is greater. The office area requires 3 spaces plus one space per 200 sf. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use 90% of the gross building area. The total requirement is 48 parking spaces. The plan shows 29, with an area provided for 24 more if additional parking is needed. This totals 53. The applicant has stated that previous experience has shown that 29 will be enough. In the interest of reducing unnecessary impervious surface, the "proof of parking" approach is a good alternative. If parking becomes a problem, additional parking will be constructed. gross area 90% code requirement required spaces total footprint 19,200 sf office 2,048 sf 1843 3 plus one space per 200 sf 12 mfg /warehouse 81,000 sf 72,900 one space per 2000 sf 36 TOTAL 48 The total requirement is 48 parking spaces. The plan shows 29, with an area provided for 24 more if additional parking is needed. This totals 53. The applicant has stated that previous experience has shown that 29 will be enough. In the interest of reducing unnecessary impervious surface, the "proof of parking" approach is a good alternative. If parking becomes a problem, additional parking will be constructed. Marmon Keystone July 12, 2000 page 4 • Roads., Access, Circulation Passenger vehicles will use the parking on the east side of the building. A shared driveway provides access to the site on the east side of the site. The driveway will be shared by TC Fab and the Marmon Keystone. A shared driveway agreement between the two sites will be necessary and staff is recommending that one be submitted for City review as a condition of approval. In reviewing shared driveways, we must consider potential traffic conflicts in the driveway itself. Vehicles leaving the sites come from two directions and mix in the driveway before exiting onto Apollo. The parking drive is 100+ feet back from Apollo Drive. This is quite adequate to minimize conflicts. A public roadway segment is proposed on the west side of the site. This would be about 230 ft. of road with a cul de sac. This road provides for trucks to circulate around the site. In addition, the road will provide access to future parcels in the undeveloped area on the west of the Marmon Keystone site. This road will be constructed to City standards and will require a developer's agreement like other development projects involving public roads. Both the shared driveway and the public roadway are consistent with the joint powers agreement with Anoka County that covers the number and type of accesses on Apollo Drive. • Park Dedication Park dedication will be subject to the City policy. For low -labor intensity businesses (one employee or fewer per 1000 sf), the requirement is $133 per 1000 sf of commercial building. Marmon Keystone, with the potential for 11 employees in 83,050 sf, qualifies for this. Therefore, the park dedication would be $11,045. • Outdoor Storage Conditional Use Permit Outdoor storage is allowed as a conditional use in the LI zone per Ordinance 02 -00, adopted this past February. Two sets of findings must be made. Findings for All Conditional Use Permits: As stated in Sec. 2 Subd. 2.B.7., the Planning and Zoning Board shall recommend a conditional use permit and the Council shall order the issuance of such permit only if it can make fmdings that the proposed use at the proposed location: a. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City. b. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the comprehensive plan of the City and this ordinance. • •