Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/2000 P&Z Packet• CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, September 13, 2000 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 9, 2000 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. OPEN MIKE: V. ACTION ITEMS: A. Mark Pariseau, 6101 Centerville Road, Variance B. PUBLIC HEARING, (Continue to October 11, 2000) Oasis Market, 7509 Lake Drive, Amended Conditional Use Permit C. PUBLIC HEARING, Central Suburban Inc., 416 Lilac Street, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review D. Deer Meadows, Dan Robinson, 407 Main Street, Site Plan Review E. City of Lino Lakes, Otter Lake Road, Minor Subdivision F. PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation), Ordinance 09 -00, Tree Preservation Ordinance VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Schedule of meetings, report packets VII. ADJOURNMENT • • Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES L CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning ping Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., August 9, 2000. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Jul Mr. Rafferty requested a correction discussion on the Tree Prese then maybe it is just not sup e his comment during the conclusion of the ce to indicate that if all of that is required, Mr. Zych made a MOTION to approve the revised minutes of the July 12, 2000, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 5 -0. Ms. Lane arrived at 6:32 p.m. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps advised that due to staff involvement in a Council workshop, the first item for consideration will be Item F, Public Hearing (Continuation),Ordinance 09 -00, Tree Preservation Ordinance. The agenda was approved. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared Open Mike open at 6:33 p.m. Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 2 No one was present for Open Mike. Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:34 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. Due to staff involvement at a Council worksession, Chair Schaps explained that Items F and G would be considered first. Once staff was available, Item A would be considered. V. ACTION ITEMS F. PUBLIC HEARING (Continuation), Town Center Development Standards Chair Schaps declared the public hearing reopened at 7:35 p.m. Staff noted the Planning & Zoning Board opened the public hearing on the new standards at the April meeting and kept it open to allow extensive discussion and public input. No additional developers have expressed an interest in presenting information. The Economic Development Advisory Committee met o gust 3, 2000 for further discussion of the proposed standards and voted on ommendation. Staff advised that their recommended revisions have been inc orate was explained that due to the application for grant funds, it is now nece further the Town Center project. Staff recommended the Board adopt the a dorse M w t statement as outlined in the staff report. Staff explained that once the stan e dorsed, the Metropolitan Council will be so advised and the grant funds qu . taff noted the revisions have been identified in the standards by strike u rlined wording as well as the inclusion of an index of revisions made. . Mr. Corson asked if the are Smyser stated that is correct, t changed. have not changed from the initial discussion. Mr. boundaries of the Town Center have not been Mr. Corson noted a previous presentation related to integration of housing densities and asked if that would be implemented on the north side as well. Mr. Smyser presented a map of the Town Center and noted the language revision from a restrictive statement on the Land Use Plan to indicate the boundaries shown on the land use plan are approximate and that as long as the development conforms to the regulating plan, boundaries may change based on detailed site analysis. Mr. Smyser identified the land area that was included in the concept submitted for the Livable Communities Grant. He noted the overall residential densities will need to be maintained, however, the boundaries of those densities are flexible. Mr. Corson asked if the grant would apply to the entire area. Mr. Smyser pointed out the southern area where the grant would be focused and stated he is unsure if those funds could be transferred to the northern area. Mr. Zych reviewed the language revision on Page 12 and asked if the bank and clinic were included in the Highway Commercial zone. Mr. Smyser pointed out the location of • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 3 those uses and stated they would be changed to Highway Commercial on the map since those uses were similar to the uses designed for vehicle access rather than pedestrian access. Mr. Zych asked about the Rehbein property which is also identified to be added to the Highway Commercial District. Mr. Smyser pointed out the Rehbein property located to the south of the bank and clinic which would be changed to Highway Commercial since it abuts the highway and would likely be designed primarily for vehicle access.. Mr. Zych asked if the County wants additional access for the highway. Mr. Smyser stated the County will not allow another access to Lake Drive. Mr. Zych asked if the plan indicates there will be limited access to these Highway Commercial parcels. Mr. Smyser pointed out the access locations from Lake Drive, noting this is under County jurisdiction. However, access from City Streets is a City decision. Mr. Schilling asked what the next step is if the standards are endorsed. Mr. Smyser stated it would be presented to the City Council with a recommendation that they approve the same endorsement statement. Public hearings woul scheduled with the Board in September and then returned with a recommenda p e City Council. He stated the commercial areas were highlighted by most as residential areas would be easier to revise sin Mr. Smyser stated they will still need to re there are not too many restrictions or unre� rezoning process would then follow. Ms. Lane asked if Mr. Fefercorn the Town Center. Mr. Smyse the Town Center idea of re exit ramp with a double purpo Town Center. Mr. Smyser stated negotiations have not concluded. co rns and he believed the are less design and access issues. ublic streetscape issues to assure ctations. He stated the official o ging direct access from the interstate into hat Mr. Fefercorn had suggested "stretching" freeway entry ramp to align with the northbound g served to either enter the freeway or enter the aff has debated that option with MnDOT but those Mr. Rafferty commented on the need to assure, as the City grows and the needs of the citizens are met, that the correct foundations are laid so a mistake is not made. He stated staff and the consultants deserve a lot of credit for the documents they drafted. However, while staff is comfortable with the standards and funding is being requested from the Metropolitan Council, he thinks the City is trying to put a stamp of approval on a document that is not, as yet, complete. Mr. Rafferty stated it may cost some dollars to assure the document is properly completed but he would support a continuation until all issues are "wrapped up." He stated he still has questions and does not believe he has been given enough time to raise those questions or debate the issues involved. Mr. Smyser stated staff's concern is funding of $1.5 million and if the opportunity is lost, it would be a large impact. He stated staff is not requesting formal adoption but, rather, an endorsement. Mr. Smyser stated it is very clear this is in no way a final stamp of approval but the indication would be support for this direction and concept. He asked if the Board would like to revise the language of the suggested endorsement. Mr. Smyser Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 4 reported that Lino Lakes' grant was highly ranked by the Metropolitan Council and the • final funding decision will be made next month. Mr. Rafferty suggested that continuing the public hearing would not result in a formal approval but would show support of endorsement. He asked if the Metropolitan Council requires the document to be finalized and stated the Board met for two and one -half months several times to discuss these issues and held public hearings on the town center but made no major changes were made. Mr. Rafferty stated he felt the presentation by Mr. Fefercorn took the project intention in another direction. Mr. Wessel clarified nothing improper is being done and staff is not suggesting adoption but, rather, endorsement. He explained this is the public input portion of the process and the City has been following a very public process with the grant application. However, the work is behind schedule and this issue needs to be moved forward. Mr. Wessel stated the planning funds to develop these standards makes it possible to be eligible for the implementation funds. The review for the implementation grant is currently underway and would totally fund the implementation of the livable communities regulations. Mr. Wessel stated in early September, the next cut will b ade in the grant funding, advising that the Lino Lakes grant is currently ranked num. E .. He stated he believes the Town Center is vital and the staff request is for an ind' ion o ection which can be presented to the City Council. He noted that ents can continue to occur to the standards, even following the Council's e Chair Schaps agreed the consideratio �a fo�`•orsement only, noting the zoning ordinance will be presented before •:_ 'or to adoption which will provide another forum to raise the valid concerns t e en expressed tonight. He suggested the endorsement statement be rev s; ate the endorsement is of the "preliminary and draft" Town Center standar the City may revise specific "language and" requirements. Staff indicated the suggested language would be acceptable. Chair Schaps stated while he is comfortable with the basic framework of the standards, there are issues that remain unresolved, such as the sign regulations. In response to Mr. Zych, Mr. Wessel explained that the Comprehensive Plan was to have been adopted by December of 1998, however that has not occurred. He stated that while it would be best to have the Comprehensive Plan in place prior to ordinance amendments, that may not occur and this process needs to move forward. Ms. Lane indicated her support to endorse the standards. She asked if the normal process would be followed for these considerations, to assure the Board is included in that process. Mr. Smyser stated the Board will be included in that process. Ms. Lane asked that the Board receive updates as that process is followed. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 5 Mr. Schilling stated he does not believe an endorsement will "tie the hands" of the Board but, rather, this is in the schematic and design phase for the final document. He indicated support for endorsement. Mr. Rafferty stated he would like to clarify that there was nothing in his statements to indicate something improper was being done. He stated he fully endorses what the staff has done but Page 3, the summary of recommended changes to the Town Center Standards, was not received until the meeting packet arrived and he would have appreciated receiving the information ahead of time so there was enough time for review and to ask questions. Based on that and rewording of the endorsement, he indicated he would support endorsement. Chair Schaps asked if anyone would like to make comment. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:17 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to endorse the prelim as recommended by staff with the understanding t language and requirements in the standards. (T temporarily pulled from the standards for furt of the process for amending the City's zo Town Center zoning district, and was sup and draft Town Center standards City may revise specific a andards [Section 3.8] will be ew.) Revisions would occur as part ce to include standards for a new s. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. G. PUBLIC HEARING, (Co .;j.„ 'o , rdinance 09 -00, Tree Preservation Ordinance Chair Schaps declared the p reopened at 7:20 p.m. Staff reviewed the Board's past c sideration of the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. He reported that after the last meeting, staff analyzed a hypothetical development with regard to the requirements of the draft Tree Preservation Ordinance. The site analyzed is about 7.7 acres including road right -of -way and 17 lots. Staff presented their findings and recommended the public hearing be continued to allow staff to pursue this analysis further for presentation at the September meeting. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to September 13, 2000 to allow the staff to complete its analysis and recommendation, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Smyser thanked the audience for their patience, noting staff is now available to present the staff reports for Items A -E. A. Steve Benesch, 8251 Lake Drive, Minor Subdivision Staff presented the application by Steve Benesch for a minor subdivision at 8251 Lake Drive that would add a 1,777 square foot triangle (24' x 144') to his existing parcel of property in order to correct an encroachment onto the neighbor's property created when a Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 6 garage slab was placed over the property line. The property owner at 8255 Lake Drive has a "flag lot" with 2.35 acres and has agreed to sell this triangular parcel to the applicant. The applicant's parcel is .72 acres in size and the driveway is located on the northerly side of the 50 -foot strip of property. Staff noted the location of the mature trees and septic system and recommended approval of the minor subdivision with the four conditions outlined in the staff report. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment. Steve Benesch, applicant, stated his neighbor is in full support of this request. It was noted that Dave Stoppelman was present in the audience to comment, if needed. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the request of Steve Benesch for a minor subdivision at 8251 Lake Drive that would add a 1,777 square foot triangle (24' x 144') to his existing parcel of property in order to correct an encroachment onto the neighbor's property, with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits are issued prior to 2. The minor subdivision shall be recorded wi any building permits. 3. Additional right -of -way shall be deed reconstruction of Lake Drive if re • _ 'red way shall be dedicated from Mr. building permits. 4. No park dedication shall b dditional construction. ka County prior to issuance of oka County for the future e County. This additional right -of- operty prior to issuance of any h this minor subdivision. The motion was supported by .,_��` °. y. Motion carried 6 -0. B. Steve Kraus, 8025 W ck Trail, Variance Staff presented the application by Steve Kraus for a variance to allow the construction of a 40' x 40' (1,600 sq. ft.) detached garage in front of his home at 8025 Wood Duck Trail. The property is zoned Rural and guided for low- density unsewered residential development in the draft Comprehensive Plan. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Kraus is allowed a total of 3,600 square feet of accessory building space on his 3.25 acres. Construction of this proposed structure will bring his total accessory building space to 2,384 square feet which is well within the requirements of the Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance also provides that "No detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal building or its attached garage." Thus, the variance requested is to allow the accessory building in front of the principal building. Staff pointed out the location of the trees on this lot and presented the rationale required to be found when considering a variance. Staff advised that Wood Duck Trail was added to the MSA system so if reconstructed to those standards, an additional ten feet of right -of -way would be needed at that time. Thus, the request for the garage to be relocated an additional ten feet towards the west. Staff recommended approval subject to the two conditions outlined in the staff report. • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 7 • Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment. • • Steve Krause, applicant, stated he did not know the right -of -way was an issue until he received the staff report. He stated he understands the reason for this request in case the roadway is improved but he is not necessarily in agreement due to the location of his well and low drainage area. Mr. Krause stated the proposed location is higher in elevation so he would prefer that it not be relocated. Chair Schaps explained the concern of the City to assure the garage meets the required setbacks should the roadway be improved and widened. He asked if meeting this requirement will be a problem. Mr. Krause stated he has placed 32 dump loads of dirt in his proposed location and more fill would be needed to relocate the garage. Also, trees would have to be removed to assure proper drainage is maintained. Mr. Krause stated the driveway area has also been filled. Ms. Lane asked if it is feasible to drive over the area a well. Ms. Wyland stated a distance needs to be maintained from the location ell. Mr. Schilling asked if this size of garage is ne heated, and used for his wood working ho been completed in preparation for the con r. Krause stated it is, it would be ted all of the fill and grading have Mr. Krause reviewed his work wit _ + learn the setback requirements prior to purchasing the property in Janu. ,`I s. s. Wyland stated the general information was provided over the teleph� s``s a plan was not provided and Mr. Krause was not told that the accessory build ;., of be placed in front of the house. Mr. Rafferty asked if a concern is e establishment of a precedent for future similar requests. Chair Schaps stated that is a concern. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the request of Steve Kraus for a variance to allow the construction of a 40' x 40' (1,600 sq. ft.) detached garage in front of his home at 8025 Wood Duck Trail, with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits are obtained prior to any construction. 2. The accessory building is located 50' from the current front property line on Wood Duck Trail. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. Since City Engineer Powell was not available, staff requested that Item D be considered next. Item C will be considered when Mr. Powell is available. Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 8 D. PUBLIC HEARING, (Continuation), Twin City Fabrication, 295 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps declared the public hearing reopened at 7:47 p.m. Staff presented the application by Twin City Fab, Inc. for Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for construction of a metal fabricating business in the private Apollo Business Center. Some outdoor storage on a limited basis will be needed which requires a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning & Zoning Board considered the project at the July 12, 2000 meeting and continued the public hearing for the CUP. The applicant has submitted a revised grading and utility plan. Staff reviewed their analysis of the building and site issues and noted the requirements that must be met to consider a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends approval subject to the 11 conditions as outlined in the staff report. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he or his engineer would like to make comment. Gary Nordness, representing the applicant, stated the gree with staff's recommendations and the engineering plan submi includes curb and gutter. He stated they would like to discuss the Environme i Bo recommendation for prairie grass in the natural areas. He stated they are esting this recommendation but would like consideration of what they sub r +'tte• .q explained this company is growing at about 20% a year and it is expected an . ill be needed in the future. Since the City does not have a formal ordin ing prairie grass in the industrial areas, the applicant is requesting manicu i`:;; ront of the building. He stated the applicant is environmentally consc as dedicated the entire rear area as prairie grass. Mr. Nordness stated st .: z very cooperative in working through this process, which they greatly Mr. Smyser stated existing buildins along Apollo Drive currently have manicured lawns but the Environmental Board has recommended some native prairie plantings on these two sites. He advised that staff is recommending approval of the plan as submitted. Mr. Nordness estimated the area of manicured lawn to be approximately 15 feet in width. Upon inquiry, he reviewed the status of the surrounding properties. Mr. Corson asked why prairie grass is being recommended rather than flowering species. Mr. Smyser stated the Environmental Specialist and Environmental Board have considered this plan and that is their recommendation. Mr. Corson reviewed the problems experienced with a Vadnais Heights property due to the need to burn off the plantings every several years. Cliff Reeder stated the first time he came to City Hall, he questioned when the landscaping would be completed. He stated he is spending a lot of money on this building and many of their customers come to the site on a daily basis so he would prefer to have a manicured appearing front lawn. Mr. Reeder stated his concern with the • • Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 9 • management of native prairie plantings since the City has not presented a clear plan in that regard. • • Mr. Nordness stated the front lawn area will be irrigated and the landscape architect and Environmental Specialist have recommended that the area of natural plantings not be irrigated. Ms. Lane noted staff's recommendation does not refer to a requirement for prairie grass. Mr. Smyser advised that the planting schedule is listed on the landscape plan. Ms. Lane stated her agreement that a native front lawn would not fit well with an industrial area. Mr. Schilling asked if galvanizing will occur on this site. Mr. Reeder stated they do no finishing in their building. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:05 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve application b win City Fab, Inc. for Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for constructs u metal fabricating business in the private Apollo Business Center, based on the r ' al e c • ` ``:a 'ned in the staff report and with the following conditions: 1. A shared driveway agreement for 7o Apollo Drive must be submitted for review and approval by th . , sty neer and recorded with the County. 2. An 8' chain link fence shal d storage area and ivy planted on the east and west sides of the fence g ea. 3. Approval of the site p , itional use permit is not an implied approval of signage. All signs r n permit and must comply with the sign ordinance. 4. Twenty -nine (29) parks ' s shall be constructed as shown on the site plan, with additional area availa► e as shown as "proof of parking" on the site plan. If the City determines parking is a problem, the property owner shall construct additional parking. 5. The paved truck maneuvering area shall have curb around the perimeter. 6. All permits required by the Rice Creek Watershed District shall be obtained prior to grading. 7. Final utility, grading, and drainage plans must obtain approval from the City Engineer. 8. The City Engineer's concerns, included in the TKDA memo of July 29, 2000, must be addressed to his satisfaction. 9. Park dedication shall be paid per City policy. 10. Any additions to the building will require a new site plan review and, possibly, an amendment to the storage CUP. 11. Proper building permits must be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the construction costs must be put in escrow to insure completion of all site improvements. Fire suppression sprinklers are required. 12. Removal of the requirement for native plantings on the Apollo Drive frontage. Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 10 The motion was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. C. PUBLIC HEARING, (Continued) Gary Uhde, Apollo Business Center, Conditional Use Permit — Dirt Stockpile Chair Schaps declared the public hearing reopened at 8:09 p.m. Staff explained the project was originally considered by the Planning and Zoning Board on July 12, 2000, but the Public Hearing was continued. Since that time, the applicant has submitted additional detail and revised plans for the City's consideration. Staff presented the request of G.M. Development (Gary Uhde) for a Conditional Use Permit to develop an area known as the Apollo Business Center located east of Jon Avenue, between the 74th Street alignment and I -35W. It was noted that 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 be later 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 12B of the City's Z•a `' g Ordinance states "When five thousand (5,000) or more cubic yards of material i _ °' .s,, emoved or deposited on any lot or parcel, a Conditional Use Permit shall be re d " presented their analysis of the request and recommended approval subje seven conditions outlined in the staff report. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if h hi to er would like to make comment. John Johnson, representing the ap. - _. ained that Mr. Uhde is out of town and not able to attend. He thanked st ork on this application and advised that requirement for rock or wo •> 'ps _ r now included on their plans. He reported that three more people have expres rest in this development so he expects to be returning with those requests in th`- near future. Robert King, 198 Marvey Street, stated he lives adjacent to this site, on the west side. He stated his concern to maintain the berm strip that was discussed years ago when this was first zoned and that trees be planted on either side of the berm, not just on top of the berm, and that it be maintained. Mr. Johnson stated they were required to berm and screen the single family homes to the west and landscaping would be implemented as part of the site plan as the parcels develop, not at this time. However, they would put the earthen berm in place at this time. He reported that the Environmental Board recommended, after much discussion, that landscaping would be a better solution than a berm. However, the applicant does not think that would adequately screen headlights. Mr. King stated his main issue is to assure the berm is installed to prevent vehicle headlights from shining onto his property. • Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 11 Mr. Powell stated the trees and landscaping of the berm is beyond the scope of the Conditional Use Permit under consideration. However, that can be addressed during consideration of the individual site plans. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:19 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. Ms. Lane asked about the comment of Mr. Johnson pertaining to rock and woodchips. Mr. Powell stated the City received a submittal after the meeting information had been sent so that condition may have been satisfied. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the request of G.M. Development (Gary Uhde) for a Conditional Use Permit to develop an area known as the Apollo Business Center located east of Jon Avenue, between the 74th Street alignment and I -35W, with the following conditions: 1. A rock construction entrance must be included for erosion control. Location and a detail are needed. 2. The permit must be acquired from the Ric y' Watershed District. 3. Any grading activity, including any hau of m ials, is restricted to the City's . allowed working hours as follows: Monday- Friday 7:0 . to 7:00 p.m. Saturday ? .. . to 5:00 p.m. Sundays/Holidays e working hours allowed 4. Provide a schedule, include n dates, for proposed grading. Interim completion dates can be us 1` ° e development sites. 5. A Letter of Credit wil running to the City equal to 150% of the construction cost. 6. An escrow deposit to r "Y e the City for the cost of periodic site visits would be required. 7. Any work in the right -of -way requires approval from Anoka County. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. D. PUBLIC HEARING, (Continuation), Twin City Fabrication, 295 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit This item was considered earlier in the meeting. E. PUBLIC HEARING, (Continuation) Marmon Keystone, 265 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit Chair Schaps declared the public hearing reopened at 8:23 p.m. Staff presented the application by Marmon Keystone for Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit. The Planning & Zoning Board considered the project at the.July 12, 2000 meeting and continued the public hearing for the CUP. The business processes Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 12 metal pipe and tubing. Some outdoor storage of pipe, tubing and other material will be needed, which requires a conditional use permit. Staff presented their analysis of the application and findings required for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommended approval subject to the 12 conditions as outlined in the staff report. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he or his engineer would like to make comment. John Johnson, representing the applicant, stated they have one issue related to the requirement for prairie grass. He presented the site plan, noting there is less impervious surface on this site but it is used for infiltration basins on either side of the buildings. Mr. Johnson stated the applicant's concern is how to maintain prairie grass alongside of the building since it cannot be burned off. However, the applicant is willing to maintain prairie grass in the rear ponding area. Paul Nolan, construction manager for the project, reviewed the area alongside the building and abutting Apollo Drive which will be sodded and maintained. He stated a landscape plan was submitted which identifies significant plantings along the roadways, that will be truck irrigated the first year. Chair Schaps asked what this applicant does. ow stated Marmon Keystone is a pipe distributor and is currently located in Lit da in 30,000 square feet. Mr. Rafferty inquired regarding the propo *s •.�� storage and how it will be screened. Mr. Johnson stated the storage area w be .a.3 +t 0,000 square feet, considerably less than would be allowed, and would d ` 'th chain link and planted with ivy to provide screening. Ms. Lane asked where the n ings would be located. Mr. Johnson pointed out areas behind the driveway and = ; ' ` the erosion control along the pond bank. Mr. Rafferty stated his concern is that a smaller manicured area is being proposed for irrigation but the larger manicured area is not being proposed for irrigation. He stated his concern that the un- irrigated area will not be properly maintained if irrigation is not being installed. In this case, he suggested that prairie plantings may be a better option since it is not being irrigated. Mr. Nolan asked about the difference in appearance of native prairie grass and a manicured lawn area He stated they would use a grass mix that is conducive to the soils. present. Chair Schaps asked if the proposal is to use a thick bladed grass. Mr. Nolan stated they are working with City staff to assure the right grass type is selected and will till and incorporate black dirt into the top soil. Mr. Johnson stated they will be looking for a drought tolerant grass seed which may go dormant but not die. He stated the applicant's concern is how to maintain a prairie grass planting if it cannot be properly burned off. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 13 Chair Schaps noted the great variety and number of trees being proposed, which are expensive varieties. Mr. Schilling concurred and noted this plan proposes more extensive plantings which may offset the concern of aesthetics. Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:39 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 6 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the application by Marmon Keystone for Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, with the following conditions: 1. A shared driveway agreement for the access to Apollo Drive must be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer and recorded with the County. 2. Approval of the site plan and Conditional Use Permit is not an implied approval of signage. All signs require a sign permit and must comply with the sign ordinance. 3. Twenty -nine (29) parking stalls shall be co d as shown on the site plan, with additional area available as shown futur king if required" on the site plan. If the City determines parking i em, the property owner shall construct additional parking. 4. The recycling bin must be screen ``' y g � �; � n of screening must be submitted for staff review before City Coun ap 5. Shoebox lighting fixtures s' e ' An additional fixture shall be added to light the western portion o e area 6. The paved truck mane < shall have curb around the perimeter. 7. Outdoor storage rac be railroad ties or creosote- treated or penta - treated wood. 8. The City Engineer's conce s, included in the TKDA memo of July 28, 2000, must be addressed to his satisfaction. 9. All permits required by the Rice Creek Watershed District shall be obtained prior to grading. 10. Final utility, grading, and drainage plans must obtain approval from the City Engineer. 11. Park dedication shall be paid per City policy. 12. Proper building permits must be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the construction costs must be put in escrow to insure completion of all site improvements. Fire suppression sprinklers are required. 13. Removal of the native planting requirements except for the north and east portions of the site. The motion was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 5 -1 (Corson). Mr. Corson stated his support for requiring irrigation along Apollo Drive. Planning & Zoning Board August 9, 2000 Page 14 F. PUBLIC HEARING, (Continuation) Town Center Development Standards G. PUBLIC HEARING, (Continuation) Ordinance 09 -00, Tree Preservation Ordinance These items were considered earlier in the meeting. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • • AGENDA ITEM V A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland MEETING DATE: September 13, 2000 TOPIC: Mark Pariseau, 6101 Centerville Road, Variance DESCRIPTION: This case involves a request to construct a 24 x 24 detached garage 21.5 feet from the front property line, 2.5' behind the existing home. The property has an address of 6101 Centerville Road with the home facing Co. Rd. J. /Ash Street and being located 19.5 feet from the front property line. The property is Zoned Rural and located on a collector roadway requiring a front setback of 40'. The lot is considered to be a pre - existing non- conforming lot of record due to the front setback and the lot size which is approximately 150 x 227 (10 acre minimum required). There are four other properties west of this site that are also less than 10 acres in size with varied front setbacks. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 3, Subd. 3.D.2.a. "Front Setbacks. Where principal buildings or adjoining lots existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance have a lesser setback from that required, the required front yard setback of a new structure shall not be less than the average front yard of the adjacent buildings on each side lot for four hundred (400) feet and in no case shall be less than twenty (20) feet. This would allow the applicant to construct the proposed garage 68' from the centerline of Co. Rd. J. or 35 feet from the front property line. The applicant is asking to construct the garage 21.5' from the front property line for a variance of 13.5', according to Sec. 3, Subd. 3.D.2.a. Findings of Fact. In considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff has reviewed this request and would comment that there are some hardships involved in this case. The applicant has a mound type septic system behind the home with a slight drainage swale in front of the system. Locating the garage according to the setback requirement may hamper this drainage swale and place the building too close to the septic system. The setback for a building from a septic system is 20', the garage, if constructed at the 40' setback line, would be approximately 6' feet from the base of the system. There is also an existing 8 x 10 storage building, on a slab, that would be located 1' from the garage, if constructed according to the applicants request. The State Uniform Building Code requires a 3' setback between buildings. Staff has received a letter from the adjoining property owner indicating no objection to the Variance requested. In review of this request Staff would suggest locating the proposed garage 5' from the storage shed thus maintaining a setback of 32.5' from the front property line. This would require approval of a variance for 2.5' from the 35' distance established by Sec. 3. Subd. 3.D.2.a. This would locate the garage approximately 12' behind the front of the home allowing additional parking space in front of the garage. OPTIONS: 1. Approve variance with following conditions: 1. Locate proposed garage 32.5 feet from the front property line or 65.5 feet from the centerline of Co. Rd. J. thus requiring a Variance of 2.5' according to Sec. 3. Subd. 3.D.2.a. 2. Provide verification that the septic system is a minimum of 20' from the proposed garage. 3. Proper building permits are obtained prior to construction. 2. Return to staff for further consideration. 3. Deny variance request. RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 • • C R LAKES. s • 1 E 1 • ■ LEN.- 1,k\° 1) CA RA AsliN • • iv) • -----T ---- | 1 111-f- 4- • Alb • i 1 1 1 f-- 7-1- _,.,,k 1 t , h 1. T 1 . 1 ' 1 i , , 1 i --"- , ----+ A , 1 i Gi 1 11. -----r _____i____.1_---i4_4- 7 1 /A 14 ki` , rrir ^�i 1 0 I CIMTsiR'IkdW ' tri0 e PER. t:DDE FROM :MAIL BOXES ETC #3299 5S1 407 1278 2000.08 -31 08:53 1055 P.01/01 :1 • k; :1 afie-D&D eeA4' i /6/3 04 jJ —x ._65/ 124/45 - ids czt/ifto k4tit i4 Isi 4.240„-e;-0-/—(40 r t; ■Liec.4_ 1R �a • lr' &O41. 4y2.6.eleVe 82,4 aopt Z /e0Vt4.) ‘-"irlee"4/ e‘414)A. 1C2414M Val4y-g? •4:12t° /1 ca441-21 • , atf4 A d ._eatza., 73 a-6 XegAi. Cd.,Adelfw÷a2e0 catirtCia-zt r‘ f.firztele/4471/464P21. 6/471-t4.40 6 /0/ • • AGENDA ITEM V B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland MEETING DATE: September 13, 2000 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING, Oasis Market, 7509 Lake Drive, Amended Conditional Use Permit /Site Plan Review DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting an Amended Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review to allow construction of a car wash at the Amoco /Oasis Market at 7509 Lake Drive. Staff has met with the applicant and requested revisions to the plan based on several issues including the future reconstruction of CSAH 23 /Lake Drive, future extension of Town Center Parkway and other concerns. We have advised the applicant that this item will be continued to the October 11, 2000 meeting to allow time for these revised plans to be drafted and reviewed. OPTIONS: 1. Open and Continue Public Hearing to October 11, 2000 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 • AGENDA ITEM V C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: September 13, 2000 TOPIC: Site & Building Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Central Suburban, Inc., 416 Lilac Drive BACKGROUND The application includes a site plan and conditional use permit. The applicant, Central Suburban, Inc., proposes to build an addition on the existing building and use the site for its land development and construction business. All site and building plans for industrial uses requires a site plan review. The existing building is a pole barn. The expansion of a pole barn in an industrial district requires a conditional use permit. Central Suburban will use the fenced yard for storage of trucks, equipment, and material such as pipe, manholes, culverts, lumber, sand, gravel, and the like. Under the current zoning ordinance, outdoor storage also requires a CUP in the GI zone. However, the site has been used for outdoor storage of equipment and material until recently. When an existing use that was in place when the ordinance was adopted would require a CUP under the ordinance, the City policy has been to consider that use as having a " grandfathered" CUP. Even so, for the protection of both the property owner and the City, it is a good idea to define the conditions of the grandfathered conditional use to avoid confusion in the future. The conditional use then will be recorded and there will be no question about the right to conduct the specified activites. Staff recommends that the City takes the opportunity to do this now. Therefore, the CUP will cover both the building expansion and an amendment to the grandfathered outdoor storage CUP. This review is based on the following submittals: Letter describing the application received 8/1/00 Survey, July 6, 2000 received 8/4/00 Elevations received 7/20/00 Floor plan received 7/20/00 Letter with detail information received 8/28/00 Central Suburban September 13, 2000 page 2 ANALYSIS The site is zoned GI General Industrial. The submittal complies with the GI Light Industrial zoning standards as follows: • Building The existing building is 36' x 64' = 2304 sf. The addition is 20' x 44 ` = 880 sf. The total new foot print will be 3184 sf. The existing building is a pole barn and the expansion of a pole barn in an industrial district requires a conditional use permit per Sec. 3 Subd. 4.B.2.b.2. of the zoning ordinance. The expansion shall not be more than 50% the area of the existing building. Fifty percent of 2304 sf is 1152 sf, so the addition of 880 sf is allowable. The applicant will install new exterior siding on the front (north) side of the building. A horizontal cedar siding will be added, with cedar shingles on the gable areas. The new siding will be on the existing and added portions of the building. The new siding will be a welcome visual improvement to this building in the General Industrial district. The trash dumpster will be stored inside the building and wheeled outside only when the trash is to be collected. • Lighting No additional lighting will be added as part of the project. • 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 1.07 acre Lot width minimum 100 ft 155 ft Setbacks: buildings from street rear lot line side lot line parking from street rear lot line side lot line 50 15 10 15 5 10 67+ 150+ 10 existing existing existing Bldg. height 45 21 Impervious max. 90% 90 %± • Building The existing building is 36' x 64' = 2304 sf. The addition is 20' x 44 ` = 880 sf. The total new foot print will be 3184 sf. The existing building is a pole barn and the expansion of a pole barn in an industrial district requires a conditional use permit per Sec. 3 Subd. 4.B.2.b.2. of the zoning ordinance. The expansion shall not be more than 50% the area of the existing building. Fifty percent of 2304 sf is 1152 sf, so the addition of 880 sf is allowable. The applicant will install new exterior siding on the front (north) side of the building. A horizontal cedar siding will be added, with cedar shingles on the gable areas. The new siding will be on the existing and added portions of the building. The new siding will be a welcome visual improvement to this building in the General Industrial district. The trash dumpster will be stored inside the building and wheeled outside only when the trash is to be collected. • Lighting No additional lighting will be added as part of the project. • 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. • • • • Central Suburban September 13, 2000 page 3 • Landscaping Some landscape improvements will be added in the form of replacing existing, scraggly shrubs. This industrial area of the City is not heavily landscaped. • Utilities The applicant will hook up to City sewer and water as part of this project. The existing septic system must be properly abandoned. The well may be retained for irrigation at the discretion of the landowner. A drainage and utility easement 67 feet wide exists across the front of the property. The City acquired this easement in anticipation of needs for utility installation in Lilac Drive. The easement was not all needed, and no work will occur in it on this project. • Parking, Roads, Access, Circulation The applicant will pave a parking area as part of the project. For contractors' offices, shops and yards, our code requires two parking stalls per employee. The applicant states there are three office employees who will be in the building daily. This requires six parking stalls. Other employees will be at the site only sporadically. The area to be paved will accommodate five to seven cars. If parking becomes a problem, the City will require additional parking. There is ample area to enlarge the parking lot if needed. Access to Lilac Drive shall remain. If work is required in the County right of way, the County requires permits. (As a point of information, Lilac Drive is no longer State Trunk Highway 49. It was turned back to the County.) • Park Dedication No park dedication is needed for an addition to an existing building. • Conditional Use Permit The addition to the existing pole barn building requires a conditional use permit under Sec. 3 Subd. 4.B.2.b.2. Outdoor storage is allowed as a conditional use in the GI district. Though the storage on this site is grandfathered, staff recommends defining the conditions of the CUP to clarify the property owner's rights to the planned activities. This will ensure that the use can continue and that future owners can engage in the same activities. Therefore, the CUP will cover both the building expansion and an amendment to the grandfathered outdoor storage CUP. Two sets of findings must then be made. Central Suburban September 13, 2000 page 4 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. 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: Section 8 Subd. 2.I.7 lists conditional uses in the General Industrial district, including: Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided that: a. The storage area is landscaped, fenced, and screened from view of neighboring uses and abutting residential districts. b. Storage is landscaped and screened from view from the public right -of -way. c. Storage area is blacktopped or concrete surfaced unless specifically approved by the City Council. d. The storage area does not take up parking space or loading space as required for conformity to this Ordinance. • • • • Central Suburban September 13, 2000 page 5 Recent screening of outdoor storage on light industrial sites has included ivy planted along chain link fence. A fence exists on the site already. Staff recommends ivy will be appropriate for the west property line fence to screen from the right of way (4th Ave.) and residential uses to the northwest. A bituminous surface is not necessary and could be damaged with the equipment movement and material storage. Staff recommends no paving is necessary. Parking is in front of the building, storage to the side and rear. With the conditions of approval listed below, staff recommends that the general and specific findings apply. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. An addition to the existing pole barn building shall be allowed that is 20' x 44'. The addition shall be constructed as shown on the submitted certificate of survey, building elevations, and floor plan. 2. The exterior of the north side of the existing building and addition shall be cedar siding and cedar shingle, details as described in the August 28, 2000 letter. 3. Open outdoor storage shall be allowed, including semi - trucks, trailers, construction trucks and equipment, materials such as pipe, concrete manholes and culverts, casting, form lumber, sand, gravel, pumps, fuel & tool trailers, fiberglass pools and spas, and other items and materials used with excavation and trucking operations. 4. Open outdoor storage on the site shall not include construction rubble or debris or demolition debris. The intent is that material that is stored on this site is intended to be installed on other sites. 5. The fence along the north side of the storage yard may be moved to be flush with the front of the building. 6. The fence shall be repaired and ivy shall be planted along the entire west fence for screening. 7. The site landscaping shall be, at a minimum, as shown on the submitted survey. 8. The applicant must obtain permits from the County for any work in the right of way. 9. The parking lot shall be paved as shown on the submitted survey. If parking becomes an issue of concern for the public safety, the paved parking lot shall be enlarged. 10. The site shall connect to City sewer and water and all assessments paid. Central Suburban September 13, 2000 page 6 11. The existing septic system must be properly abandoned. 12. The well may be retained for irrigation only, at the discretion of the landowner. If the well is not to be maintained for irrigation, it must be properly abandoned. 13. Proper building permits must be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the construction costs must be put in escrow to insure completion of all site improvements. OPTIONS 1. Approve the site plan and conditional use permit for expanding the pole building and outdoor storage based on the listed findings and with the conditions listed above. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1. • • • kel r I 1 11° a ri- ll NA1 oP Ir• V B �J .O`, 116111 116111 8 �g(hyi�M- //WY. -R /6MH OF OW PMT NNMB£R -P3 -{-- ilaa • II ipso 111111121111111111 liplars ouTwr aPARK NORTH Ina k p • 9�Fp �W 111�11�1111010 t°gio a0 c ,Alt Illarlit15127, sulAM1111 111 .5U8. le I - 134 ELDAEN SCHC 'MCNr7- "NM'7"X/CNrMl'M%YTOOr NO 50 -1MHN - 9-4REEE --- - a - - - - -- • Tw AU, 8 IW /11111. APOUO RK.A.1}lit'": tea Y / N.W. CORNER SEC. 17 22 STATE TRUNK—HIGHWAY-1a— 49 „•,„„,-. 44.77 vr.f."/..2•P ••,71. /0 .40., 111.....40-041r•--Aco.00 (-4) OUTLOT Id :14 A • Z — 1 f,„547..ti 4.6 t‘C) *s. (5') A (0) 010 v. ' 51'1 • 7? 05‘1 _PI,/ 5 pri 54./O S461 . S : im , or. .- - ' ; \ v• 10° o° tii)":"' 3 \\ . al ,, o \ 6e) \.4 r) -1 • J. ec •- •so • • 2 1,1 9 00 141 t` f- • 17%1 1)1h, q p 78.1" . 24. A.A (56" 419:.. _ ...... — Central Suburban, Inc. 1333 Osborne Road Spring Lake Park, Minnesota 55432 (763) 786 -8642 fax (763) 780 -2746 • August 1, 2000 City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 RE: Use of 416 Lilac Drive We are a land development company and will have exterior storage of semi - trucks, trailers, gravel trucks, off road trucks, backhoes, bulldozers, and other construction equipment; materials including pipe, concrete manholes & culverts, castings, form lumber, sand, gravel, pumps, fuel £3 tool trailers, fiberglass pools & spas and other misc. items used with excavation and trucking operations. The proposed addition to the existing building will be used for the storage of smaller equipment and misc. supplies. In conjunction with the construction of the addition, we will be installing a new facade on the existing building and installing a parking area at the front of the building. We will be hooking up to the city utilities, abandoning the septic system and will re -shape and sod the front area. A sketch is attached showing fencing, parking and green areas. Sincerely, CENTRAL SUBURBAN, INC. A. Menkveld President/C.E.O. RECEIVED AUG 0 4 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES AUG. -28' 00 (MON) 10 :53 PREFERRED BUILDERS TEL:612 780 -2746 P. 001 Central Suburban, Inc. 1333 Osborne Road Spring Lake Park, Minnesota 55432 (763) 786 -8642 fax (763) 780-2746 August 28, 2000 Jeff Smizer City of Lino Lakes VIA FAX: 651 -982 -2499 RE: 416 Lilac Drive, Lino Lakes Siding type and color: Horizontal Siding • Cedar - natural finish • 2x6 cedar corner & trim boards - cream Siding on gable area • Cedar shingle, stained burgundy Ivy will be planted on West fence for screening. We have 3 office staff with o her employees in field only. Sincerely, CENTRAL SUBURBAN, INC. A. Menkveld esident/C.E.O. CAINE & ASSOCIATES LAND SURVEYORS, INC. !7720 Highway 66 N.E. – Ham Lake, Minnesota 55304 434 -7646 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: Central Suburban, Inc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 1, LINO INDUSTRIAL PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. n (STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY No. 49) Fence on line W N 0 a- O o° O Z 0.7± E. to fence LILAC STREET S 89°00'00 'E 155.00 1 T, 1 t -x T i' e i 7 Drainage and Utility „, Easement –t. ` n � m I I Ii iJ — — — — — L -x -x -x -x -x -x -x 5 30.8 -' d' —x —x —x �I0 O 0 .1,) O O Wc 7 +Drainage and Utility Easement Fence on line —+^ 155.00 N 89 °00'00 "W I PF(`FIVED 1 V) e 0 c I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY, PLAN, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER a MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF 1HE STATE OF MINNESOTA. N M (STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY No. 49) M LILAC STREET S 89 °00'00 "E 155.00 Fence on line ..,` I RAVV � r.\'�` Drainage and �o t 11 1 II 1 _1A___ x• —X —x x ---4. M Sort 1 Utility ,,, Easement —w Fi r, -4. - x�X_._x- Y- •m.x_—$.• Ret.ocPr D FBAX€ • EWda � ro - 30.8 36 0.7t Etta fence 5 N ,s Drainage and Utility Easement — = __ _ • -pc.eGA`T . 1F'74 "c --ic— sN Fence on line 155.00 N 89 °00'00 "W u 2 • r MIA a fi 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1HIS SURVEY, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME CR MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I I THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESO i j ./yf r_ r/t J 1 • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V D Jeff Smyser September 13, 2000 Site & Building Plan Review Deer Meadows Golf Range 407 Main St. The application includes a site and building plan review for a small addition to the existing building at the Deer Meadows Golf Range. This review is based on the following submittals, all received 8/21/00: Letter describing project Existing Floor Plan West View Elevation ANALYSIS '/2 section detail Proposed Floor Plan North View Elevation The site is in the Rural zoning district. The building addition will not extend the building any closer to any lot lines where setbacks would be an issue. Minimum lot dimensions are not issues with this project because the lot is over 60 acres. • Building The addition will be 12' x 30', built on the north side of the building. The existing building footprint is approximately 720 sf. The addition will add 360 sf for a total of 1080 sf. The addition will be slightly higher than the existing building, but well below the 35 ft. maximum height. The exterior of the main building is masonite siding and the addition will match it. • Lighting No additional exterior lighting will be added as part of this project. • Signage Signage is governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits are required for all signs. Any signs will be reviewed with sign permit applications. Deer Meadows Site Plan September 13, 2000 page 2 • Landscaping No additional landscaping is planned. • Parking For golf driving ranges, our code requires 10 spaces plus 1 space per 100 sf of building. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use 90% of the gross building area. The total requirement is 20 parking spaces. Though the parking area is not striped, there is sufficient area for the required parking. total footprint 90% required spaces 1080 sf 972 10 + 10 = 20 • Roads, Access, Circulation No change to the driveway access or parking area is planned. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: SITE PLAN Staff recommends the following conditions apply: 1. Approval of the site plan and conditional use permit is not an implied approval of signage. Any signs require a sign permit and must comply with the sign ordinance. 2. No additional exterior lighting shall be installed. 3. Proper building permits must be obtained prior to any construction and 1% of the construction costs must be put in escrow to insure completion of all site improvements. OPTIONS 1. Approve site plan and conditional use permit based on findings in this report and with the conditions of approval listed above. 2. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 • r • • • Deer Meadows Golf Range 407 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651 -7848338 August 21, 2000 City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 RE: Addition to Existing Building, Building Permit This request is in regards to a proposed addition to the existing building of Deer Meadows Golf Range, at 407 Main Street, Lino Lakes. Construction is to begin as soon as possible and is to last for a period of no more than three weeks from the date proposed permit would be issued. This is a simple enclosure, adding an office and floor space to the existing sales area on the north side of the existing building. The proposed project will measure 12 feet x 30 feet. Sewer, water, gas will not be affected by this project and will remain as is. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. Sincerely, Dan Robinson Vice President, Deer Meadows, Inc. DR/rs RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES �1) !Nth St, RECEIVED AA , 21 2000 cr(OF LINO LAKES Tin • 'moo (3) .C/1 • i'l. h S.»ifif .!a •• /00 /17 s 0, alit ✓ :': `a M K7' ‘07/51E ssr.-mi.-or �-- .r4st� - -- •& II tre40"0"1" (.1.4.x 4 ANOKA COUNTY 133 . ,.,..� •-, , 1 Al ni AT A /1) 9 I 55155 sdaz7a SE'1 ccoRNER SEC. 6 • GiTY OF LINO LAKES • • C4- c. 0. 0 C) • o S n0 L c5 L d L o t • 0 cry Od } 7 ` ...-4 ' ; \ MIRE a J1I O t .4 Ir. • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM V E STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: September 13, 2000 TOPIC: Minor Subdivision, City of Lino Lakes BACKGROUND The City has purchased land for ponding and wetland mitigation in the Clearwater Creek light industrial area. The purchased land must be divided from the larger parcel. The attached sketch and description indicates the parcel to be created by the minor subdivision. The NSP power line strip is a parcel in itself, not just an easement. If this were a private action we would be concerned about creating a parcel that is bisected this way by another parcel. After discussion with the City Attorney, we have resolved the concern. Since this is to be City land for ponding, there is no danger of a claim to a buildable lot on either side of the NSP land. The attached letter from Mr. Hawkins supports this. OPTIONS 1. Approve the minor subdivision. 2. Return to staff with direction RECOMMENDATION Option 1. LAW OFFICES OF William G. Hawkins and Associates Legal Assistant WILLIAM G. HAWKINS TAMMI J. UVEGES BARRY A. SULLIVAN August 17, 2000 Mr. Jeff Smyser Lino Lakes City Hall 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Dear Jeff: 2140 FOURTH AVENUE NORTH ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE (763) 427 -8877 FAX (763) 421 -4213 E -MAIL Haw1cLawl@aol.com Pursuant to your request I am writing this letter concerning the proposed lot split that will be processed as a result of the City's acquiring the property from Lino Lakes, LLC for storm water ponding. I have reviewed this matter with you and John Powell and • am writing to indicate that I have no legal problems with the approval of this lot split. This property will be used only for public storm water holding purposes and there is no reason why any further combination of the lots would be necessary. Accordingly, I would recommend its approval. Sinc: rely, illiam G. Hawkins WGH /tju • 9 CITY OF LINO LAKES CITIY WILLOW,// GLEN .2hlt r"-TrOVI- Cit43 LAN° ENTERVILLE 80°5) stiPvEY z 13 -COUNTY-67)17e- AID - HIGHWAY- I 1 1 I 7 INDUSTRIAL LP 4 I 5 I 6 8 -4: PARK 9 --------- -^.� -- - -- EZUS.3.NL 30 6/l3N 3111 30 3M73 . 3.LY.9S.00N --- -"�-__�'- _-- _ - - - -__ - - - - - -- t CVOs - oo£er -- l�l NiSrAratett M U o� Nit LLi • _1 • • W /ii /13S 3111 30 /132/ 3111 3D 3M L661.2V20N Vatl! i Si914190£t '02/'000 10.1..203 120011< 00'09£ - - -oo N �\ Si (aye vas u0 s yJ "l.or,sr,'OOS '-f /13S 3HL 30 i /lMN 3H1 !D 3/13 3111 !O 3M73 S (4b1 411 W 0 1 d 3 0 X 3-�- 001 09 ,tr &begs 4 Dy • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V. F Jeff Smyser September 13, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING (continued): Ordinance 09 -00 Tree Preservation Ordinance We continued the public hearing from last meeting to allow staff to analyze a sample development project using the draft tree ordinance. We also needed to address the requirements for individual home builders. Staff is asking P & Z to consider and discuss the issues raised below and provide direction for revising the draft ordinance. ANALYSIS Sample Development Project Analysis The example analysis resulted in the following data: total land 7.7 acres number of lots 17 total tree cover 4,000 caliper inches tree loss 1,000 caliper inches 25% of the total tree cover replacement requirement 50% of lost trees 500 caliper inches estimated replacement cost $38,000 total per lot cost $2235 per lot one boulevard tree per lot would add approx. $200 per acre cost $4935 $5377 with boulevard trees Two questions must be answered. 1. Does this exercise represent a typical development scenario in Lino Lakes? 2. Does the study result represent an acceptable cost to add on the cost of development? 1. Does this exercise represent a typical development scenario in Lino Lakes? If this level of tree loss and replacement cost is not typical, we would be examining an exceptional piece of land and should not be making policy based solely on such an example. We could write into the ordinance some level of exception to account for • • • Tree Preservation Ordinance September 11, 2000 page 2 unusual situations. (Writing the exception into the ordinance would avoid the need for a variance.) For example, we could state that if the developer can demonstrate that there is not enough land on the site to accommodate all the replacement trees, the City may allow less replacement than is normally required by the ordinance. Another means would be to put a cap on the per lot or per acre replacement cost. If the exercise represents what we can expect to be a typical scenario, we must address the second question regarding if the cost is too much. To see if the study site is typical, staff compared the forested lands from the environmental inventory to the draft future land use map. The analysis was by necessity a manual, visual comparison of two maps. Nonetheless, it did show that there are numerous areas that could run into a high cost of tree replacement. This would not be the majority of sites, however. We expect that the preservation development approach offers the opportunity to reduce tree loss and other environmental impacts. Even so, there will be some sites on which tree loss and replacement could be significant. 2. Does the study result represent an acceptable cost to add on the cost of development? The exercise resulted in a cost of approximately $2400 per lot, or $5400 per acre. Is this too much? It is important to remember that developers will rarely simply absorb development costs: the costs are passed on to the property buyer through the cost of the land. Any increase in development cost increases the price of a lot and thus reduces affordability. At the same time, preserving or replacing trees is an important goal in the community. The hope is that the City can work with the developers to reduce tree loss through sensitive design. This will require adjusting lot sizes and other methods available through use of a planned development. This should not mean simply reducing the number of lots, which will only serve as a disincentive to cooperation. To reduce the cost of tree replacement, we have several options: a. Count required boulevard trees toward the replacement requirement. The draft ordinance does not allow this. City policy under a separate ordinance is one boulevard tree per lot. b. Put a cap on the replacement cost, as mentioned above. This could be a maximum cost per lot or per acre. c. As stated above, allow the developer the chance to demonstrate that the replacement is not possible within the area of the project. Tree Preservation Ordinance September 11, 2000 page 3 d. Adjust the replacement percentages in the table in section V.A. of the draft ordinance. We could shift the replacement requirements down, for example. For a 20% removal situation, the replacement would be 0.4 instead of 0.5. Individual Single Family Home Builders The draft ordinance has extensive requirements for developers of plats. For individual lot home builders, the ordinance requires only that they show which trees they plan to remove and how they will protect the others. The P & Z expressed concern about clarifying the requirements for a family building a home on a single family lot. We will add the following language, as underlined: IV. TREE PRESERVATION SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS A. Plan Submission Requirements (Individual Single Family Lots): The City's intent for tree preservation plans for individual single family lots is to provide guidance to the prospective resident on the best ways to protect the trees the lot owner wants to protect. The City will not mandate which trees to cut or save, but will make suggestions on this and how to preserve the selected trees. The City shall not withhold a building permit simply because of the selection of which trees the home builder wants to save or remove. Applicants for building permits on single family lots shall submit the following information in addition to plans required for a building permit: 1. A certificate of survey that accurately identifies the location and types of all existing significant trees and woodlands to be removed and those to be preserved on the lot. The drawing shall illustrate where protection devices will be placed and areas to be used for material and equipment storage. 2. A description of the measures to be used to protect the trees and woodlands to be preserved on the property. These measures shall be consistent with the measures outlined in Section IV.B.3. unless otherwise approved by the City. Staff is asking for any further revisions that the P & Z recommends on this. RECOMMENDATION Consider and discuss questions and suggested changes. Direct staff to make preferred revisions in the draft ordinance for the next meeting. Continue the public hearing to October 11. AGENDA ITEM VI A • STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: September 13, 2000 TOPIC: Discussion Item: Meeting Schedule, Project Review Process, Reports BACKGROUND It is a good idea to periodically revisit the City's process for reviewing development proposals. A member of the P & Z has asked about the schedule for staff reports and delivery to the P & Z. This is a good opportunity to review the whole process. I've attached the Application Deadline and Meeting Schedule. Several things influenced this schedule. It must accommodate the meetings of citizen advisory boards, each of which have different schedules. It also must accommodate the state law governing the timeframe allowed to the City for reviewing applications. The schedule also must allow enough time to research, negotiate changes, and write a complete report on the project. The deadlines are keyed to the P & Z meetings. Previous to 1999, the application deadlines were only three weeks before the P & Z meetings. We found that this often did not allow enough time to prepare even minimal information or analysis for the Environmental Board. We did two things to address this. One, we moved the deadline back to four weeks before the P & Z meeting. Two, we changed the Environmental Board meeting schedule from the fourth Wednesday to the last Wednesday of the month. We also decided to stretch the time between the P & Z recommendation meeting and the City Council meeting. Instead of going to the very next City Council meeting, we skip one. This allows the applicant the opportunity to resolve outstanding issues that P & Z may include as conditions of approval. Often, there are engineering issues that should be resolved before Council approval but can be addressed between the P & Z meeting and the Council meeting. This is particularly relevant to commercial /industrial site plans. In the interest of meeting economic development goals, we like to keep projects moving along if possible. However, you have seen that if there is a serious unresolved issue, staff will recommend delaying the P & Z approval. State law allows the City 60 days to approve a project. This means between the date of a complete application submittal and approval by City Council. With proper notice, we can extend this an additional 60 days. We automatically add this 60 -day extension to accommodate our meeting schedule. Our new application form notifies the applicant that we are doing so. • 0 • • Meeting Schedule, Review Process, Reports September 13, 2000 page 2 Many projects require extensive research and review. This involves looking into past records of the property, environmental features, and comparing the proposal to City policies and ordinances. It requires information from several City departments. It often requires communicating with other jurisdictions such as: Anoka County Highway Dept., Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, and possibly others. We avoid making staff recommendations until we hear from these agencies. This all requires time. It is not unusual to receive necessary information the day before the report must go to the P & Z. City staff pulls together the recommendations from different City boards and other agencies, as well as the information from researching the site. We combine all this information into our reports and our recommendations to the P & Z. We assemble the reports into the P & Z packets. The Police Dept. delivers the packets to P & Z members on the Friday before the meeting. There have been glitches in deliveries, but they are the exception. I have discussed this with the Chief of Police and he assures me the packets will be delivered in a timely manner. I have served on a planning commission and I appreciate the amount of time it requires to read the packets. City Council Meeting (2nd & 4th Monday) January 10, 2000 January 24, 2000 February 14, 2000 February 28 March 13 March 27 1 0 r. a. Q April 24 May 8 May 22 June 12 June 26 July 10 July 24 August 14 August 28 — - September 11 September 25 October 9 October 23 November 13 November 27 December 11 December 18 January 8, 2001 January 22, 2001 February 12, 2001 City Council Work Session (Wednesday before Council mtg.) January 5, 2000 January 19, 2000 February 9, 2000 February 23 March 8 March 22 < — < May 3 May 17 June 7 June 21 kn -, ti July 19 August 9 August 23 September 6 September 20 October 4 October 18 November 8 November 22 December 6 December 13 January 3, 2001 January 17, 2001 - l February 7, 2001 Planning & Zoning Board (2nd Wednesday) December 8, 1999 January 12, 2000 February 9 March 8 April 12 May 10 June 14 N_ T ti August 9 September 13 October 11 November 8 December 13 January 10, 2001 Park Board (1st Monday, except Jan., July and Sept.) December 6, 1999 January 4, 2000 EDAC Jan. 6 February 7 March 6 April 3 EDAC Apr. 6 May 1 EDAC May 4 June 5 July 11 August 7 September 5 EDAC Sep. 7 October 2 EDAC Oct. 5 November 6 December 4 EDAC Dec. 7 January 2, 2001 ( ? ?) Environmental Board (Last Wednesday) December 1, 1999 EDAC Dec 2 December 29, 1999 January 26 EDAC Feb. 3 February 23 EDAC Mar. 2 March 29 N CI. Q May 31 EDAC June 1 June 28 EDAC July 6 July 26 EDAC Aug. 3 August 30 September 27 October 25 EDAC Nov. 2 November 29 December 27 Application Deadline (Monday four weeks before P & Z mtg.) November 8, 1999 li December 13, 1999 January 10, 2000 February 7 March 13 O CI. Q May 15 June 12 July 10 August 14 September 11 October 9 November 13 December 11 1