Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/08/2000 P&Z Packet• CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, November 8, 2000 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 11, 2000 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. OPEN MIKE: V. ACTION ITEMS: A. PUBLIC HEARING, TSM Development, Highland Meadows West 2 °d Addition • B. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued), Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 09 -00 VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Northwest Saddle Club - Sketch Plan VII. ADJOURNMENT • Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 1 • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Acting Chair Lane called the Lino Lakes Plan i d Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., October 11, 2000. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Septa a 2000 Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to meeting of the Lino Lakes P1 Corson. Motion carried 4- Mr. Rafferty arrived at 6:31 p.m. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. IV. OPEN MIKE Acting Chair Lane declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. No one was present for open mike. e minutes of the September 13, 2000, oning Board, and was supported by Mr. chilling abstaining. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:33 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. • Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. Nancy Anderson, 352 Carl Street, Variance Staff advised this case involves a request for a Variance from the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 3, Subd. 4.D. Accessory Buildings and Structures, 1. General Provision. c. No detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line then the principal buildings or its attached garage. Ms. Anderson has an existing home w /attached garage at 352 Carl Street. The property is Zoned Rural and located within the Lino Air Park. There are 23 lots within the Air Park. Four (4) have hangers in front of the dwelling (one of these four is not constructed yet but a Variance was granted in May of 2000), one has an attached hanger, eight (8) have hangers on the side or behind the principal building, eight (8) have no hanger, and three (3) lots remain undeveloped. Staff reviewed the findings of fact the City must consider for all variance requests. Staff advised the proposed hanger will be located approxi ely 125' from the front property line and 5.5' from the side property line. The exis se & garage is approximately 190' from the front property line. The Ordinan °e s uir 30' front and 5' side setback requirement. Staff has received a letter from +ining property owners indicating no objection to the proposed hanger location. tar . lso received comments from the Air Park Association indicating this propose. `optimum for several reasons outlined in their letter. The main con a era is he 7/1- transition airspace required from the runway, which could not 'f the structure were located behind the home as required by the Ordinanc t : reason staff believes there is a hardship and q Y P would recommend approval • _ e request. For P & Z and Council inform z taff is considering an Ordinance Amendment that would allow accessory structures be constructed in front of the principal structure in the Rural Zoning District. However, this proposal will not be initiated until the Zoning Ordinance is updated some time next year. Mr. Johnson asked for clarification regarding the proposed residence and what is west of the residence. Staff referred to a map noting the survey was done awhile back. There is an existing residence. Staff advised it is unclear as to what the lines west of the house area. Mrs. Anderson, applicant, stated the survey was done prior to building the house. The lines west of the house are measurements of lot lines. The lines were not intended to be a hanger. Mr. Johnson inquired where the aircraft will go after coming out of the hanger. Mrs. Anderson advised there will be a door and referred to its location on the map. She indicated she is unsure if the area will be grass. • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Corson stated there are houses out there that do not meet the 7/1 requirement. He asked if this is going to continue to be an issue. Staff advised the City assumes that one of the covenants would include a review by the Air Park. Staff stated it is assumed that the Air Park reviewed this issue before the houses were built. Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification regarding the 7/1 requirement of the Air Park. Staff advised the 7/1 requirement is a FAA requirement that applies to certain slopes at different parts of the runway. Mr. Rafferty stated that on the Thomas Street side there are hangers that go up to the houses. He expressed concern regarding the City having ordinances in place and creating variances for the homes there. The City needs to address these issues up front. He stated it may be time to review the current ordinance. Staff advised the City will be reviewing the ordinance next year. He suggested the Board approve the variance with the added condition that the 7 /1- transition air space be verified. Mr. Rafferty inquired about guidelines the City may e in place regarding hanger structures. Mrs. Anderson advised the hanger will be 1/2 match the house. Mr. Schilling inquired about how often th updated regarding FAA �� 9N m e City ordinances that addresses this to have a consultant come before the his issue. requirements. Staff advised there is issue. FAA and State Law apply. Board and inform Board members Mr. Schilling stated there is the hanger. He stated it woul regulations. wo -story structure that is closer to the airstrip than eficial for the Board to learn more about FAA Mr. Rafferty asked what the City would do if there is a conflict with the 7/1 requirement. Staff advised they will verify the 7 /1- transition air space. If the hanger can go in between the house and runway, staff will not recommend approval. Mr. Rafferty stated the City has guidelines in place that it needs to follow. There are other hardships that at times need to be considered. He stated he wants to make sure the City is doing the right thing with adjusting variances. The City needs to look at hardships when the house is going in. The City can do a better job of addressing these issues ahead of time. Staff advised a lot of the houses were already built before the ordinance was revised. Acting Chair Lane stated she would like information regarding how long the 7/1 requirement has been in effect with the FAA. She stated that she assumes other houses were grandfathered in. Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 4 Staff advised it is a good idea to ask a Lino Air Park representative to come before the Board and address these issues. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the Variance Request contingent upon verification that the existing location of the hanger is outside the FAA 7/1 slope requirements for runways. The motion supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. This item will appear on the October 23, 2000, Council meeting agenda. B. Mueller -Beis Funeral Home, 7050 Lake Drive, Site Plan Review and Minor Subdivision Staff presented their analysis of the site plan review for the Mueller -Beis Funeral Home, 7050 Lake Drive. Staff advised the Environmental Board reviewed the project on September 27, 2000 and recommended approval of the project. Staff referred to a copy of their comments. One of the Board's concerns related to the OHW level on Rice Lake. For P & Z and Council information, the proposed co 'x ' ctions meets the setback requirement from the OHW according to the City' land Ordinance. The DNR has reviewed the plans and expressed no additional � cerns h the proposed development. The RCWD tabled the site plan review at thei pis 0 meeting with authorization for administrative action (this is an approval 'th co 'ons). Staff advised the property in questio proposed to be split into two parce size and Parcel B will be 3.1 acres Anoka County. re parcel of land that is the Mueller -Beis site, will be 4.5 acres in ss right -of -way dedication required by The Zoning Ordinance provide imum lot area of 20,000 -sq. ft. for the General Business Zoning District with a nimum frontage of 100'. Both proposed parcels exceed the Ordinance requirements. Parcel A is 500' in length and Parcel B is 446.5. Staff recommended approval of the Minor Subdivision with the dedication of 20 additional feet of right -of -way to Anoka County for the reconstruction of Lake Drive. A revised survey will be required prior to Council review indicating this land dedication, not easement dedication as indicated on the current site plan. Staff reviewed recommended conditions of approval of the minor subdivision and site plan review. Staff noted the applicant would like this item to appear on the October 23, 2000, regular Council agenda. Staff advised the City will not have time to review the revised plans. Therefore, the Council will review this item at the November 13, 2000, regular Council meeting. Acting Chair Lane stated Parcel A is the site for the funeral home. She asked what Parcel B will be used for. Staff advised the use for that site is unknown at this time. • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 5 • Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification regarding the location of the parcels. Staff referred to a map indicating each parcel. • • Mr. Rafferty asked how the development works with the current Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Comprehensive Plan. Staff advised the area is currently guided for commercial but is zoned general business. There are some places in the City that the current Comprehensive Plan does not match up with the zoning map. Those areas need to be reviewed and cleared up. Mr. Rafferty stated the plan is a good plan. He expressed concern regarding the City making errors in spot development. There are townhomes, the Air Park, and a lot of residential in this area. He stated he is uncomfortable with the location of the building. He noted the area north of Elm is all commercial. Mr. Johnson stated the site backs up to Outlot B that is part of the Sea Plane. He asked what effect this development may have on the development of the outlot. Staff advised the outlot contains drainage and utility easements. Mr. Johnson clarified that a portion of Outlot B is happen to the remainder if it is ever developed. down that area. The property cannot be devel south. He asked what will d part of the runway goes The City Engineer added he also believes not be developed. Mr. Johnson asked if the 7/1 stand fairly tall. e in this case. He noted the building is The City Engineer advised t ommonly used for take off and landing. The land is not adjacent to this building. Mr. Schilling asked if someone will be living in the building on the second floor. Mr. Craig Miller, representative for Muller -Beis Funeral Home, came forward and stated in the course of this type of business, it is common to have an apprentice that lives on site. The apartment will be utilized for a person in training. Mr. Corson stated the primary concern is health and safety of the runway. He asked if the building will be on the side of the taxiway going uphill. Mr. Miller advised the owners are comfortable with the location. An extensive land search was done. He asked how much time is needed for the City to review a shared driveway agreement. The City Engineer advised conditions of approval include revisions of several plans. The report would have to be completed by next Wednesday to appear on the October 23, 2000 Council agenda. There is not enough time to review all the revisions. Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Miller stated the owners are trying to get ahead of the winter weather that may delay construction. Acting Chair Lane advised this item will not go before Council until the November 13, 2000, meeting. Mr. Zych asked for clarification regarding the approval of the RCWD and the conditions of approval. The City Engineer explained the process used by the RCWD when approving a request with authorization for administrative action. Staff advised this practice is commonly used by the RCWD. The City Planner requested the following phrase be added to condition #6: and to provide sanitary sewer service to Parcel B. Staff advised the phrase will make it clear that sewer service will be provided for that parcel also. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve minor subdivision and site plan review, based on the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits are obtained and i 1% escrow deposit to insure completion of site improvements. 2. The revised landscaping plan shall inc � v - ditional screening along Lake Drive and is subject to review and approv by staff. This plan shall be submitted and obtain the approval of the Cit ental Specialists prior to City Council review. 3. Park Dedication shall be re r City's Subdivision Ordinance. 4. An additional 20 feet of ri • a w . shall be dedicated to Anoka County by Deed, prior to issuance �� ding Permits. 5. A revised survey do the right -of -way dedication, shall be provided prior to Coun � ew. 6. Engineering: plans shall b`=` revised as indicated in the Engineer's report dated October 5, 2000 and to provide sanitary sewer service to Parcel B. 7. All lighting shall be directed downward and produce no glare on the roadway. 8. Approval of the site plan is not an implied approval of signage. An signs require a sign permit and must comply with the City's Sign Ordinance. 9. A shared driveway agreement shall be provided for the entrance drive. 10. Access permits shall be obtained from Anoka County Highway Department prior to construction on the site. A revised plan with a shared driveway will be submitted along with a shared driveway agreement. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -1 with Mr. Rafferty voting no. C. North American Composites Co., (Inter - Plastic) 300 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review & Minor Subdivision Staff advised the application includes a minor subdivision and a site and building plan review. North American Composites Company proposes to construct a new distribution • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 7 facility on the site. The company will also conduct repackaging of the product into different size containers on site as well as distribution. The product is polyester resins, fiberglass, and related products. Staff presented their analysis of the site and building plan review. Staff advised the Environmental Board reviewed the project on September 27, 2000. Recommendations included attention to infiltration in stormwater design, use of native species in the landscaping plan, assurance that lighting will be directed downward, and attention to soil compaction when possible. Infiltration will be designed in to the extent possible. Native seeds are included. Lighting will be directed downwards. The issues will be addressed with a revised landscaping plan to be reviewed by the Environmental Specialist. Staff recommended approval of the site plan based on conditions listed in the report and adding the following: 10. Park dedication per City policy. 11. Minor subdivision shall be as shown on sub including easements. d sketch and description Acting Chair Lane inquired about trash ands . Staff referred to the landscaping plan indicating the trash container. Mr. Johnson referred to elevation. least interesting. The City of Lino backs along the freeway. The plai He asked if something more H ate most visual part of the building is the doing itself a service with the building acks give a negative impression of the City. be done. Staff advised that is one of the the City is recognizing more and more. It is always difficult to require more decoratio when the City does not have standards in place and there are already buildings there. In parts of the City, the City will be pushing for more aesthetically pleasing architecture in the future. Currently the City is trying to address that issue with landscaping. Mr. Corson stated the previous application required more park dedication. He inquired about the process used for park dedication. Staff advised park dedication depends on a ratio in the ordinance. There are two different types of commercial dedication based on the ratio of employees to square footage. Mr. Corson advised the City of Woodbury uses a park dedication fee of $3,000 per acre. He asked if the City has looked at what other cities use for park dedication. Staff advised the City is looking at revisions of the current park dedication ordinance. Acting Chair Lane asked if the applicant is comfortable with the two additional conditions of approval. The applicant indicated he is comfortable with the additional conditions. Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 8 Mr. Schilling asked if the applicant is open to some aesthetic issues on the south side of the building. Mr. Ivan Levy, Vice - President of North American Composites, came forward and stated he is open to adding to the building to dress it up. He noted the facility does not sell to the public. Acting Chair Lane asked the applicant to work with staff on the aesthetics of the back building. She directed staff to relay the Board's concerns to the City Council. Mr. Levy stated company engineers have indicated the City of Lino Lakes is a good city to work with. He stated his company only has two competitors, one that is right across the street from this location. Mr. John Johnson, engineer for the project, requested the following clarification on conditions #11: per RCWD requirements and the City Engineer's report. He noted the survey will be revised and resubmitted. Mr. Johnson inquired about the use of hazardous Mr. Levy commented on the products that are Staff advised condition #8 covers flamma ted noting one is flammable. Mr. Levy stated fire codes require e stated his company goes much further to protect flammable materials. Mr. Rafferty stated he agre south side of the building. He appreciated. Johnson's comments regarding aesthetics on the hat anything that can be done will be greatly Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to approve the site plan based on the following conditions: 1. Lighting fixtures shall be shielded and not direct light up or horizontally. The Lumark Nite -Watch fixture (F -4 on lighting plan) is not acceptable. A substitute shall be submitted for approval before City Council approval of the project. 2. Twenty -nine parking spaces shall be striped. 3. The decorative concrete block on the office portion of the building shall be identified for the building permit application to the satisfaction of the building official. 4. Another landscaping plan must be submitted and obtain the Environmental Specialist's approval before City Council approval. 5. The City Engineer's issues listed in the October 5, 2000 memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. The revisions to the utility and grading plans must be submitted and obtain the City Engineer's approval before City Council approval. • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 9 6. Final utility, grading, and drainage plans must obtain approval from the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District. 7. All permits required by the Rice Creek Watershed District shall be obtained prior to any site grading. 8. 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. 9. Site plan approval does not imply approval of signage. Any signage shall conform to the sign ordinance and proper permits obtained. 10. Park dedication applies per City policy. 11. Minor subdivision shall be as shown on submitted sketch and description including easements per RCWD requirements and the City Engineer's report. The motion was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Zych excused himself from the meeting at 7:45 p.m. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Town Center Standards Staff advised the Town Center Committee • f Lin es citizens recommended special design standards for the Town Center bac•� he draft standards prepared by Calthorpe and Associates builds on t o ee's framework. The standards will put into effect the vision for a Town C � °- s formulated several years ago. The City Council endorsed the draft standari A st 28, 2000. Final approval will include rezoning the land as well as a' a zoning ordinance to create a new zoning district and adopt the devel • dards for it. As the discussion continues, it is c ear that confusion still exists over the need for development standards. The draft standards include more detail than the City is accustomed to seeing. The City is accustomed to seeing standards for minimum setbacks and maximum building heights: but maximum setbacks and minimum building heights is a switch. Though many cities have architectural standards regarding building materials, we are not accustomed to this in Lino Lakes. Additional architectural standards are even more disconcerting for some people here. A public hearing will be held for the zoning amendment action, but it has not been scheduled to date. Before the City does that, it is a good idea to revisit the Town Center vision. Mary Divine, the City's Economic Development Assistant, has prepared a presentation to demonstrate the need for the design standards. Ms. Divine presented a slide show relating to traditional neighborhood developments and • the need for design standards. Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 10 Mr. Corson inquired about the Wal-Mart project in the City of Blaine. Staff advised the project includes a Wal -Mart, Home Depot, and Cub. The status of the project is unknown. Mr. Corson asked if there are developers who are ready to go ahead with this when approval is received. Staff advised there are developers who are interested. The City has been seeking developers out. Most cities don't have zoning ordinances that provide for this type of development. Mr. Corson stated he had been to the Metropolitan Council and viewed a list of applicants. He stated the idea of this type of development is catching on. Staff advised there were 46 applicants this year. This type of development is the way cities want to go. Mr. Corson advised staff he will provide them with the publication he received from the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Rafferty inquired about the City's chances of receiving the grant. Staff advised there were 46 applicants and 28 made it to the second pha he City of Lino Lakes scored high in the first round. The second round will be P petitive. The Metropolitan Council wants to show that this type of develo • "nt can rk in the suburbs. The Metropolitan Council has $6.9 million dollars Mr. Schilling inquired about updates fro submitted. Staff advised they have b ough several concerns and revisions that will allow more flexibility. le for funding. since the original plan was Mr. Rafferty stated staff has hard on this project. He stated it was disappointing that staff eli itectural elements. The City Planner advised a tower ement was eliminated from the requirements, not the need for a visual focus. Staff advised they do not believe the tower element will be a significant loss. The Economic Development Assistant advised Board Members will receive revisions to the design standards. The changes will be noted. Acting Chair Lane asked if the City is making the property owners happy with the revisions. Staff advised the property owners have not seen the revisions. The City has not yet seen a development proposal for the whole parcel of land. The property owners want to sell the whole parcel. The City's best effort to date is trying to obtain a proposal for the whole parcel. Mr. Rafferty stated the City has a gold mine here. If the City starts watering things down, the City will be like every other city. The City has guidelines and staff has worked hard. The challenge is to keep the guidelines rigid and sooner or later development will occur. The development won't be done well if the guidelines are not rigid. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 11 Staff advised the land value over time will be much greater if this development is successful. Mr. Johnson stated housing densities have been an issue. The Council is divided regarding this issue. Higher density will bring a greater value to the property and more residents for customers of the businesses. The density number is a crucial one. He encouraged a high number of units per acre to increase the viability of the project. He stated there is also a concern regarding the mix of senior housing and townhomes. Mr. Rafferty stated he feels very comfortable that people who own something will protect it. He expressed concern regarding rental property. Mr. Johnson stated there is a pressing need for rental property in this area. There are a lot of people who work in Lino Lakes that can't afford to buy a home. Employers are concerned about that issue. Mr. Rafferty stated his business doesn't care where he lives. Businesses care about good employees. Staff advised prospective employers are lookin r a co unity that their employees can live it. The City has committed to certain elating to a housing mix. Most of the apartments would be market rate. The esig dards will create unconventional types of buildings. B. Temporary Fabric Stora Staff advised some Board M ave seen a few temporary fabric structures around Lino Lakes. They a metal pole frame with fabric stretched over it. People are using these structur • nexpensive storage of vehicles or other items. City staff have received some calls abo t these structures regarding placement and size. Most people just put them up without contacting the City. In discussions with the Building Official, staff decided it would be a good idea to inform the P & Z about how staff is addressing these structures. These structures are not addressed in the building code. No building permit is required. Staff has some concern about snow loading, but snow likely will slide off the fabric. Citizens who put up such a structure do so at their own risk, however. The placement of the structure and its size are two other issues. Staff will consider these fabric structures as accessory structures. As such, they must: 1) meet setback requirements for the zoning district, and; 2) the maximum accessory building square footage for the lot size will apply. The aesthetics of these structures may be questioned, but the City has no ordinance to address that. Acting Chair Lane stated a good wind storm will take this type of structure down. Planning & Zoning Board October 11, 2000 Page 12 Mr. Schilling stated that if the City looks at these structures as an exterior storage issue, the City has provisions for screening. Staff advised the City will monitor this issue and determine how flexible the City should be. Mr. Johnson asked if there have been any complaints regarding the structures. Staff advised the City has not received any complaints. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m., and was supported by Schilling. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kim Points, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM V. A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: November 8, 2000 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat Highland Meadows West 211d Addn. BACKGROUND Highland Meadows West is a planned development overlay (PDO) which received final plat approval in April 2000. Highland Meadows West 2°d Addition includes land within the northern portion of Highland Meadows West. The 2nd Addn. will create four lots: two new single family lots and two lots which contain existing houses. It will also create a 50 ft. extension of Marilyn Drive. This report refers to the following plans, all received by the City October 10, 2000: Preliminary Plat 9/29/00 Preliminary Grading, Drainage & 10/9/00 Erosion Control Plan Utility Plan 10/9/00 Details 10/9/00 ANALYSIS Project Data: Total site (lots and new street) 1.47 acres 4 single family lots (2 new sites, 2 existing houses) Gross density 2.7 units per acre. Land Use and Zoning: The site is completely within the existing MUSA and is zoned for residential development. This small area of additional development is completely within the plat approved earlier this year. The current application will create four lots out of what is now Outlot E, Highland Meadows West. The purpose of platting this small area is to create separate lots for the two existing houses. In addition, the road labeled Arlo Lane was platted with Comprehensive Plan (existing) Comprehensive Plan (1998 draft) Zoning site SF Residential Low Density Sewered Resid. Resid. PDO north SF Residential Low Density Sewered Resid. Resid. PDO east SF Residential Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1 Resid. west SF Residential Low Density Sewered Resid. R -1 Resid. south SF Residential Low Density Sewered Resid. Resid. PDO and R -1 This small area of additional development is completely within the plat approved earlier this year. The current application will create four lots out of what is now Outlot E, Highland Meadows West. The purpose of platting this small area is to create separate lots for the two existing houses. In addition, the road labeled Arlo Lane was platted with Highland Meadows West 2nd Addn. November 8, 2000 page 2 a different name as part of the first plat. This 2nd Addn. plat will change it to Arlo Lane to coincide with the street on the southern border of Bluebill Ponds. Lots, Blocks The required minimum lot area is 10,800 sf of buildable land per lot in the R -1 zone. Three of the four lots meet this requirement. Lot 1 Block 1 is large enough to have the required buildable area even though part of the lot includes a pond. However, Lot 3 Block 1 may not have enough land above the pond elevation. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that this lot be increased in size to meet the minimum lot area. This can be done on an amended plat drawing before going to City Council for approval. All lots meet the minimum width and depth requirements, of 80 ft. and 135 ft., respectively. The blocks being created are small and are well within the maximum length of 1500 ft. Future development will be reviewed to ensure compliance. This 2nd Addn. plat is being created from Outlot E, Highland Meadows West. The remainder of that outlot will be renamed Outlot A, Highland Meadows West 2nd Addn. The submitted plans show a small Outlot B. There is nothing gained by creating this separate lot. It should be part of the larger Outlot A. Transportation, Roads, Access, Circulation The existing roads were created with the Highland Meadows West plat. Marilyn Drive will be extended about 50 feet to provide full frontage for the new lots in the 2nd Addn. The road shown as Arlo Lane was named Elizabeth Lane in the previous plat. It will be renamed Arlo Lane with the new plat. This renaming results from the new east -west street along the south edge of Bluebill Ponds. In the future, that street will connect to this plat. The street in Bluebill Ponds was named Arlo Lane, and the developer of Highland Meadows West has agreed to rename Elizabeth Lane for consistency. This small, four -lot plat does not create any concern about additional traffic and circulation as it is only adding two house lots. However, before any additional development can occur in the large outlot, circulation in the area, including access to Main St. and the Bluebill Ponds neighborhood, must be resolved. This will be a condition of approval for this preliminary plat of the 2nd Addn. Utilities Stormwater Management and Wetlands: No wetlands exist on this location. A pond is proposed that will cover a portion of Lot 1 and Lot 3 of Block 1, as noted above. As can be seen by the City Engineer memo (attached), several pieces of information are lacking. This information will be required, with revised plans, before City Council approval. The relevant condition of approval is intended to provide enough time for staff to review the revised plans. • • • A • • • Highland Meadows West 2nd Addn. November 8, 2000 page 3 Sewer and Water: The lots will be served with sewer and water service in the streets, which will extend services from the south. The existing houses must connect to City utilities and the existing septic systems must be properly abandoned. Any existing wells' may be retained only for irrigation. Parks and Trails Park dedication was addressed through the platting of Highland Meadows West. The 4+ acre park land (Outlot C) and the trail (Outlot A) in the powerline area fulfilled the park dedication. Those outlots were to be deeded to the City as park dedication. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS The Environmental Board considered the original application on October 25, 2000. The Board recommended avoiding piecemeal development. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Lot 3 Block 1 shall be adjusted to meet the minimum requirement for buildable area above the pond elevation. Revised plans shall show this change and submitted by November 22 to allow review time before City Council approval. 2. The area shown as Outlot B of this 2nd Addn. shall be part of Outlot A, Highland Meadows West 2nd Addn., it shall not be a separate parcel. Revised plans shall show this change and submitted by November 22 to allow review time before City Council approval. 3. The comments of the City Engineer in the November 3, 2000 TKDA memo shall be addressed to his satisfaction. The required information and revised plans shall be submitted by November 22 to allow review time before City Council approval. 4. No additional development shall occur in Outlot A, Highland Meadows West 2nd Addition until safe and efficient circulation in the area including Main St. access is addressed to the satisfaction of the City and Anoka County. 5. Existing septic systems on Lot 1 Block 2 and Lot 1 Block 1 shall be properly abandoned. Both properties shall connect to City utilities. Existing wells may be retained only for irrigation. 6. All permits required by the Rice Creek Watershed District shall be obtained prior to any site grading. Previous permits must be adhered to. Highland Meadows West 2nd Addn. November 8, 2000 page 4 7. Final utility, grading, and drainage plans must obtain approval from the City Engineer prior to site grading. OPTIONS 1. Approve the preliminary plat with the conditions listed. 2. Return to staff with direction. 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: Jeff Smyser — City of Lino Lakes Reference: Highland Meadows West 2nd Copies To: John Powell From: Jason Wedel Lino Lakes, Minnesota Date: November 3, 2800 Commission No. 11985 -002 I have reviewed the preliminary plans for Highland Meadows West 2nd Addition received by the City on October 10, 2000. My comments are as follows: 1. Calculations need to be provided for the proposed pond. 2. The proposed pond needs to be located entirely within the drainage and utility easement. 3. The Normal Water Elevation and the High Water Elevation need to be provided for the proposed pond. 4. The proposed grading contours do not tie into the existing contours. The 908 contour that runs along the west side of the proposed pond just ends at the property line between Lots 1 & 2, Block 1. 5. There needs to be 10 feet of drainage and utility easement on either side of the proposed storm sewer. 6. The existing septic system for the house on Lot 1, Block 1, is located in Lot 2, Block 1, and needs to be properly abandoned. An Equal Opportunity Employer 41 •©©II IIIi. '1001„malgin- ritistfriM i6 � .1 ITh1��Y ARE 6 ACR S PA'K ' Iti)Rt: Y1 VA,Sik 5 m ali.;ci ■1 2 N JJ�0 // 12 Vial *MG ' �im10�0 ABEWOran 1111155' massaithijiala i WAVE=1 - 4— COUNTY — STATE— AID —HIGH OV oQIL'. $UB. m 1e rte 0k€ .I©l.■g .Wdoiarit gilin !9 a ©,v© ©gym ©ono i1'alIPP RW.• ©0: N mow Eirs 1 2 I � �►7 aIIA�� 2 2 1�I Oil.. A cy ���1 Oum.l B • v IF4 6 y Na SUB. 14 134 1'14" E 270.03 765 0 ob N 8.0243. r 4270 10 110.00 70 5' au 51 v7 DU 10 1^ c: a 18,078 P FT-1✓7f; ` ' I' "c DU -- 2_ _ DU; J' f+ .30 =4 11=11:5550_ 8'.46 MARIL YN d =23'x57'06" 200 66 ~ so _.. -- ...5'"` ou- -_ &1 o (» a )4, 088`•SQ FT 3� i '- h1 1 NI 1 r\ 1 •°r'1 -9O8.,,_ 3 OI E4 QJ^ a In 1 80.00 2'� I 123..200 1 Q, 51 --- - - -•DU- 15 I 1 l _ — --1 — — —DU-1 -1 - 10 , I �0 10 — — — -Du- N 0'47'15" E 20 y0 O II 4=1.4706" 102.91 un 30 1 R =480.00 30 v 0 r=-- DU-- -"-•' 30 I c 15,856 SQ FT 1\ --- ' HICq:(A li"\\t ,, � \`� 1 VD' \ \ \ \\� \\ MEAD [4/ \, i 2 6 ol �I 16, 253 SQ FT 1 i 101 -- -u -DU -- - - -DU- - --- o `•- --... • ` aN 047'15" E 20372.91 `iOUT(0T , B 16,253 S4 FT v 0 Z I 30 7 f . 1 £x r. 61.0G t) O O i` 1 o I J/ T r iQ O 60.00 t1- 03 908 M.H. 135' TOP 908.49 INK 892.96 \ H. 1 �Qfj , TOP 907.74 INV. 890\61 2 1 MEADO M.H. 136 \ TOP 901.46 INL. 892.24 (W) INV. 892.14 (S & Ny Duo J. , q0 $ •+ 41.H. 102 P 90707 /NL\ 891.32 ( N V.\ \ 91.31 (N, m NS\ —A- ---•' 1111I1616. C.B. t38 ..��..� ..k Mak- 1 EXT. BLDG -DU -1 -- -91 '- NOUTLOT B ri"-H M. TOP /INK 891.80 2 70 • 3 • • • • • (C.S A.H. NO. COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF g o: ,! '°Gt } h. 1 8 in' —;;; •. b'7 ' 6' E 204.00 • N 0011'14• E NANCY 1 3 4 i DRIVE 1 4 1 N..06114. E 204.00 1— J / 1 c� JUT;, OT f; N 0047:76• E •600.00 7 1• y ` 1i N 003174• E 66.3:77 OUTLOT A J9.104J SO FT H 14 1 • d � d C:•TLOT E ..HIGH: HIGHLAND ` •1 • EAUf j.G S 43". - 912 3 5 6 O N 1 N 0051'14' E 2700J Wt ST •1 a • ;7) J 2 ! Y •d•N 61 $0.0.411 > MARILYN �/tt = r~ -•_M' _ -- �•9! ~9y:�f,.��•�,, •► . • � d�7J'�7 C9- ?04.6 1•, } I �.: t raR 01 ff1iI :11. r _- ._. w - .9pyae a i.i�aod jp 'F '9 4.. �.. 1 .. 2 i J_ 1 1 a CCi- -- .ON -.M--Y_ {eI.j ri 423 s3 Ft 1 ^s `` ;elm -- z (• J its • • r s Jn ter. N 00 476• E 60305 4461 �� got 1 I; Norris - r' Zto9IJ DUILDF..,B 1a25J SO F1 coh • RECEIVED OCT 10 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES SCALE: 1 INCH • t30FEET SUBONIDER owMER: - ENOOE6t SURVEYOR DESIGNER 120 Sd.1. In Nut 110 TVA DmItemed.sb V2 64.ee SI Profs, AW 06]01 Rene 0 171 5794121 Aerie s Peeael,i. he. 60I • 211•• 51.03 boolyn PM, kW 66429 Ile» Q201 SUR= 5isIng Zann9 R.10e141►Feney Rwdenly Rooted Zang Rnw2• 0.114ry►FUn eReidNdy 4Le6 b nqe len*hum 90.063 Sane MI RAN 2 *rum LelSee : WennWldh . 'M em SeMM • 90 M11es mn•wed done he tutseibd to MN yard Roe red 91de yeN.hbler sae yeseenMweel ids yedyeice•Mmet • • • • • 31 bol 2261 • MI 32 MI 9 MI Met Ebert 9n09.99. n Man MMen he she ritevtegM M bWdrq I.I.�. hen M iebckh* Y el bi.tsrded22 deph Doh etRspeMal : INP•444r21•2006 Renege end 0119 Easements shot be founded se *mitre he Nord setback Ines Oaring sawl nydobu yAnn,6 WIN •Sts and eldeir9 al obit lelMs 'MN *arumtepded epNt>mrpbn: O 9.I E HOILFFA *MOWS REST. cadre b 6.r neede4ld lnnuL Anoba County. 1...o9 end bit pert ot9itebah lens, a Vend eddedatsd R sod tO3H.440 bE/OQYSWEST. Iry waist* et he na0ndys.knnel et IN .N1. Ire et Lett Block 10. said HatM21.0001 •STW3T. Me Summery Leh • 0121S Spin bet Ouioh • 400260 Span M1 Rghl of Way 19.171 spice Ml Teld Me • 499J D Spin Nei es 112431 Pan LOBO CONTCLOV INDEX - -�--- XITERHEDLAIE ..• 90oT ELEVATION air_ DIRECTION OF FLOO MANlIDIE WORM VALVE CATCH DAM IIMTARY sEW91 WATERMAN STORM SEWER! DRAINAGE & MUTT EAIiBAB4T r- R • 1 1 1 ce • • r-1 COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF MAIN STREET 0, NANCY DRIVE I I 1 3 I I 4 5 I I I I 1 li .;) .. • %IL I 1 41` ourt. T E. 4 / / / •fr 3 .,„...--------....... -...----_...._.---- --- -"\......„......... *\ . .s. OUTLOT A Ns.........._....-- HIGHLAND C.3 0 908-- . OUTLOT E / MEAD ,9•111 S -972 1 A 0 / / 0 N J. 6 5 *777. t0( • ,JV ID° 907.74 Ot, INV 8M6I 3 r DU E S T 0 \ 1 1 11 \ 2 \ I \ \ MEADOWS\9 *7.97 1.16 X ... '• 208 907.48 \ . 66. 802.24 049 \ NY. 892.74 (S 8. N)..).., ' 87.14. 702 MP 907.07 17t\ 891. ( 184/SS `...<197.31 ( 1 M.N. UV A I. 708 908.49 , • • ‹_-............:-.7.....-..:" - -.7.=.17-7,7 . , .... #77 882 • 1 .- - 1"11 oil'..-1....., .""' il.,.1 \ • ' ........-• • ::::.....9t42-..-_-_"-::::::::::::::: .. --' .."--' 1 ..----'91...L..‹.... - ... _ .,•-• •- .... - CA • *I' / /LW ...448. 891.80 2 10 .99 89 9061,-r- 909- -7 7. /0 --,,OU7LOT Ismo.••••• 1- IM•404•401 VIM EAS MI MN FS n.6. . 0•• tanlIo5T4 TYPICAL LOT •••••• 56689 no.4•11 ammo .1.12121l/11■01 70110011 ••••■••••• loNuORRonef••••1 Kleart52•1401 luommorol• 201•••521•2114 YVON ILlt4431M4not MADAM 100----.1•A*LAYA 15•0-----,noomo 0 SCALE: 1 INCH 60 FEET 70 720 180 I Scale in feet RECEDIED 001 'I 0 z0 CITY Of ocao tAces NMI I. Conlocke s.do.s Ind ot•olOw.1441.6 911.70 Ih•it man*. 117 *Nye been lokoo Own Inloaranon suocnoli M 7.. CA .4 Una 1.0•. d*047*.,*0..5110769* •olwot. lh• *nohow orb. no porwOo Ng the UN., **mg •en.no• ankt.111.• wino am roe ow tow, no lbw... Into• letoPen Cent*. WWI votIO, olOy IncOono le econ.ontomonl alootnalion An, theno•ncloosholl 770•••14.• b000ft l• off•nOon of Mo onglime. 2. MI ohooliono ow in Weft.. In ro onOnuol onorilkel 77 oont Woo oi ofelowIsok 3. AO gamin*, oaldwo doll own* wet 1* onikureo end Ca, Wood. SoottOoonon• 4. llIon•lorml plo•o Nat be mo* or youNd al Ina inohl. II AA new 2 n114p43q .7.0 11* it.00la Conanio • baolno NO be roinlofood .11111/5"prob a• boom tea of Ilnalwoo 16.01 novo • ••••■•••of One. • 11...1•4700••••• ...en Iho Ito.. dela %M.P. orol, 144 bi404011• lam end I.14 Ind 1111* rpm Uounto. Ho•oy *Ay prow•111130 b• 1.7.5loo Mon.! sp5ogolo ••• 24491 tols.nmoo nose 31, 24non Mutt.. vox own. P ftlognonl *Mon lo pee M.U. Mono. 1110•105 CONTROL 7. ••• ,••••91•nonl 'rodeo Ina by ollItna far o• oto•bn CenInVer sholl niks PnAtlino WoIolCuo012 I, Urban Amu ...M. Irf Y. AMMO* FAA. c•n•ol Moon, •na Ito 144^^48., EnistuaLlkqftEd_S&ON_ Mod: 5 II oho4 kw 9..l...1M misonrauo alved arl en11,4.1n al o r* _Aug no Ina 4un•Issol•• 3. geNroder Ohl WAN WO lo no. limenolt • 750 orbs., thol m.o., ad or• sod.. Iroe•o• or 54~3*1014110 lorom•ol arm 1101n700044•4 aexonpilln•• by Vona.; •• 5•101:44 Oa • do4o rane•I onnI4no *41 not to olovonl. • Prow Woo arm In I.... ••••••• .7 0414.1 Mo. Inn tho ale 7.97.3* LEGEND Elafilln3 EBLEMED CONTOURS: INOEX INTERMEDIATE SPOT ELEVATION 62970 oAre DIRECTION OF FLOW aro* MANHOLE 0 • WORM VALVE 1 1 CATCH BASIN 0 • SANITARY SEWER WATF.RMAIN STORM SEWER DRANAGESUTIUTY EASEMENT ENGINEERING SURVEY 0 A a an L1 • (C. S.A.N. NO. MAIN STREET NANCY • NI DRIVE (• L N 5 •'. L OLI TL OT E, /n < OUTLOT A \ HIGHLAND • • • -906 ••'••9492'_'._ / / / / T Pi I / 3 � CR .912 \ a.f . ao OU7LOT E A p a / -912 5 6 .49 W E S T 0 AI Id ,O► 901.7. 4 wY u91sr 3 7. H/GH ANL 2 41.44 ICI MP 90007 M\ 89832 ( 104/9f e 841Ar F N, \ 11 , \\ MEADOW/5\A MN 136 MP 901.49 ‘ at. 992.24 (41 MY. 102.74 (S aN MP r35 1 90909 IN V. 99294, ( ea 3 a • VIII ._ 07 3 . 2 1- -a1�df 1 J 3 00 \• RECEIVED OCT 1 0 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES ill SCALE: 1 INCH ■ 00 FEET o SUBDIVIDER OWNER ENGINEER SURVEYOR DESIGNER: t20 Seal. in reef ISO TWA D5550opm4A Yet. 222 Mn.a e< Anoka, MN 56793 PIarIK )612) 5769121 M58f. i AmodM98Inn 6101. T31d Ave 611. 67 211 Manz T763) 6.13.7595 Manz Nom 5. C.4.M444580M.44a9Webs. throb 1904 94.584M 2424 4.4 NN Men MM..M a44n.0 4,044 ti M Cry M W41a.58•.a 44449 a,4/w, 4.14 5844 44. TM .,pw.I ..5. M/44..1M944494 5.5 .4p1M 4.ve. MIM. In 14 x5841 N91Try M eaa1 F9W 44414414. 24,.1.Ya 44144 M 44.aaan x44 4444449941914440944. 4. Aq 114.44044.4 444444 M 94444 M 4414 M Me WAN, 2. M 458494.4 M 444n58499 4444 94..44 444414 whelp .1/aN14444 1. M584drudl.n1444 MO amply TM Wel a44W 49 C.9 914444444444. a. 9Mn0.40 9••.114 M 4444 sr .944•194 a44 n Nw.ea458wr#*4*81M 1114444 Cana. pips. 0841984444. M 494 458...4aM94Y.y5849.58. bp of 44444WMv.. 8444. 8(14 Mob 9 Mr. 44,4458444W 411444 44.../..4. w41.112.,4 M.*89. 5858941.01b4 bbabftway -.. M..p 049444444 M 1404 0449 4 244 W9 991/424444 May 4r4 244 Mw4aw4aw58. ./44/./..144 1..4.414.... 11121410111021201 1. U.S ...818.8..* .,W.4,44 44.1 r M* x944 eaa..w4W 4M Y•h.bdY,. YN4,OlPM«UMn Ann 4•1.4•>79. M4a414 94.44 Centel A/r414099 1441.4.2404,4Y48*94 T4+n 049.411411441 Most 21. 944Mh 449414. 4.4411 87 4 444 ant 9441214 44..4.1 W M 4u44494 /.14. 1. ,M 4*944 44 44.. 4 244 /4.41458..04..1.. 4 The 584,4.,.1W 18.8.84 WI/04441941414 88944M0.944W48j aM 8 (98.1. M914 ••ewM*OM M 4844 9M.. M14 AM by 84.442.u10 4 44 9.44 4111194 49.44 LEGEND E: CONTOURS: INDEX INTERMEDIATE SPOT ELEVATION c5:• 5 on DIRECTION OF FLOW MANHOLE 0 HYDRANT VALVE 2 CATCH BASIN 0 SANTARY SEWER -•n- -- WATERMAIN -.- STORM SEWER - > -- DRAINAGE S UTILITY EASEMENT 2 0e s z 4 44 -.11 3i sod.. \� 50 iM=Q- Mlrtl,rw 1 0LT90 3.P0.I1.00N _ :4 trssi NOWcar \ aNt S z 00'009 = .61411.00N [J tr i • 1 i_! Iii- 3 1 '3:F. .C1,. : :. 1 w xI 11 A 0090[ 3.10.13.00 N auto 3JUTAK W O • •l, •Ir.*" W • ,91 0 /4‘/5/120t--?-41 ryfirf.,•496(1 Ge',5-7-- 0-g-Q7444,17;p1) W4r7 oo 0 I Nq ..-0i • O t, 12 ... 013231 i a LIMOS )1110 N • u 1 OMpIIYN ..'..t •• • J Y O ' Co as a • R01 0 • F A el R` R.1 0 S i `� 096f'•�/ --+ \ i W W00p5 900 / Sc.t7T iiA16. ELACE -4- 6 896 i? 598 6 -UGH CH AINLINK FENCE / ?t. 50 ▪ 1:0 150 5CAEE FEET / / loos 7,59 a .588'50'f0'E 896 1307.62 - Ma APPROX. FL00DPLAIN BOUNDARY ZmB pun0.q (20.2• 12.2') ZmB 1108S CO AL) ors woo Anwar E.■stm9 DY nGnq (24.4' 24.1•) 1 / I / + I I A / 1 ▪ 891 / WOODS W kt CO I:N / I/ SoA Is946. \ \ r C ANDS LI 898 �. r /!189p t V + i / ... + r r y, 898 / ZmB r r 005 894 WE TL ANDS r r TOTAL 4814- 1.712:124.l TOTAL ACRES -89.77 TOTAL WET LAND ARt4- d41.O81.9 TOTAL IBT LAND ACRES -t4.72 / LEGEND - TREE UNE A - NETLANDS - BORINGS o - UGHT POLE •v. - PONER POLE SOILS 2.8 : ZIMMERMAN FIE SAND LnA LINO LOAMY ENE SAND SoA : SODERNLLE FREE SAND Ir : ISANR FINE SANDY LOAM Mo : MARKEY MUCK iikA4ARK: UT HYDRANT ?. ?. CORNER ELEAIION3+. SoA r iJ L A A + FEN (HORSE CO AL) L1 / r r +� % I LANDS r r . / / if/ ' / mB / / / NOCO FENCE E.btln9 \ \ D. (16.6' 6' . ifi.•') \ APPROX.,Pl.00DP LBOUN ARY a� i LnA 591' Dungnq / (16/ , 10.• / y ♦ w / %\ *0005 / r \ , r t r INLAND �+ r • 910005 r r AC RANDS + r Y ' 96 WOODS / 4- r D`tA / St r p;1.. a1 / acv y r / r M • A. 0 h 1 WETLANDS r r r \ \ I w 1 i - \ B92 r \ Ln A \ \ - r Wp00S \ r r r LnA 1< Wp0 / r w /� / < --> / / r / / 1 // / \ r • / \ ▪ Pu:e , h H1 �ESY NINNY nau, nq . . SPEonGn011 a REPON, a■S PNEPMEO 6! 14 ON 400E0 W coma SUPERNSION ENGINE LOW DIE 6 OE ,,4 r STATEG OE 0,,4: ,_ _ KO. 74 . (WIND a1: OAR ✓ \ r r ■ Y ATLANDS • SoA /// / Iw / ZmB i- \ / / / WETLANDS e92 -'. \ '/ ` — — W0005 \ / + / / 0( \ \-_ / / / / r / / SoA SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PEANNKIO SOIL TESIINO • ENNRORLILNTAL SERVICE! 10540 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUDS 1 MINNEIONEA 119 05300 (072) 5441-7901 FAA: 544-0069 rrr.WlDMMnodeemeDm / / / / iw 1306.98 ! N88'44 'or w NETLANOS r \ \ ■ Iw — I r / ' 892 r A. /....'" . & + 0. i / r /' / / r / / / A. / , r AL r • 692 /r r/ i I NA / WETLANDS i r i 892 ..892 r_ L CLIENT HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 450 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST. PAUL, MN 651- 481 -0017 GATE: ? 1997 as r r RE• OCT C /r. off, `. 2 EIVED 19 2000 O LAKES c LOCATION NORTHWEST SADDLE CLUB LINO LAKES, MN EXISTING CONDITIONS S.M.I. PROJECT NO. SHEET OF SHEETS • • • AGENDA ITEM V B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: November 8, 2000 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING (continued): Ordinance 09 -00 Tree Preservation Ordinance BACKGROUND At the September 13 meeting, the P & Z continued the public hearing to the November meeting. The Board recommended that staff hold a meeting with interested developers to discuss the tree ordinance. We sent letters to eight development firms inviting them to the meeting on October 24. Representatives of four firms attended. Mary Aslesen and I also attended. The discussion ranged widely, but focused primarily on increasing the costs of development with new tree survey and replacement requirements. The developers present unanimously oppose the new ordinance. The attachments to this report include a list of the invited firms and a sample letter. DISCUSSION Recall that the draft ordinance requires three basic steps. One, count and measure the healthy trees on the site and calculate the total diameter inches. Two, calculate what will be lost because of the development plan. Three, calculate what percentage of the loss must be replaced. Certain less desirable trees do not need to be counted or replaced. The purpose of this somewhat complex method is to create a disincentive for tree loss. That is, as the tree loss increases, the replacement costs increase at an increasingly higher rate. Minimizing tree loss reduces the required replacement and its costs. Overall, the goal of the ordinance is not only to reduce tree loss, but to clearly describe the requirements. Right now, the City's tree preservation requirements are not clearly described in one ordinance. This has left us with a project -by- project method that is inefficient, takes up an inordinate amount of staff time, causes delays and misunderstanding, and results in uncertain documentation of tree preservation requirements for each project. It is also a somewhat arbitrary process, which brings up fairness issues. This is not a negative reflection on staff. Simply stated, there is too much to do under the current method for one staff member to handle. Better documentation, submitted by the • • Tree Preservation November 8, 2000 page 2 developer at the developer's cost, will provide staff with better information and more certainty for both parties regarding expectations. Tree preservation should not be used as a veiled method of reducing development. Our approach to conservation development, which we have been calling "preservation development," is not based on reducing the number of houses. Rather, we recognize that a developer needs a certain profit to make a project viable. As long as the project if financially viable, there is incentive to cooperate with the City in reducing the impacts on the natural environment. Simply reducing the number of lots reduces the incentive to cooperate, and this creates a "lose- lose" situation. The following points summarize the developers' concerns expressed at the meeting: • The ordinance tries to do too much. • The ordinance is too complicated. • Land owners will cut trees prior to development plans to avoid the extra cost. • Tree surveys are very costly. • The high water table requires much fill in Lino for house pads: this leads to tree loss. • If Lino wants higher value homes, this requires basements, which requires fill, which leads to tree loss. • The tree replacement will cost more, thus reducing the ability to have more affordable homes if desired. When asked for suggestions for better methods, the developers offered the following: • The City should have a more comprehensive approach to conservation: a tree ordinance puts on restrictions but doesn't offer alternatives. Need balance. • Give credit for other conservation elements in a project, e.g., saving more trees than expected. That is, some incentives for special conservation design. • Maybe the ordinance should apply only when the existing tree density exceeds a specific threshold. • Use a minimum number of trees per finished lot — simple is better. • One tree lost, one tree planted, up to a maximum of seven per lot, for example. This is better than the caliper inch method. • Allow a planned unit development approach, which allows the same density of development with smaller lots to save trees. It shouldn't penalize the developer. • Need more flexibility. • A tree survey is unnecessary: use a walk - through method, selecting the trees to be saved. • It is true that the ordinance as drafted will increase development costs over current costs in Lino Lakes. This in turn will increase the cost of home ownership in the City. This is Tree Preservation November 8, 2000 page 3 • true of any and all requirements or restrictions on development. The goal is to find a satisfactory balance point. If the P & Z is not comfortable with the approach of the draft ordinance, we have several options. We can revise the draft. We can take a whole new approach. We can terminate the project and continue with the current method. RECOMMENDATION Continue discussion and provide direction to staff. No action necessary. • • N • • • ATTACHMENT TO NOVEMBER 8, 2000 P & Z REPORT ON TREE PRESERVATION The following firms were invited to the October 24 meeting: Steve Schmitt TSM Development, Inc. Tom Von Bische Heritage Development Mike Quigley Gor -Em Builders Rick Carlson Richard S. Carlson & Associates Gary Uhde G. M. Development Craig Rapp Contractor Property Developers Co John Duffy Duffy Development Company Ross Fefercorn Country Home Builders, Inc. attended X X X X All eight firms received a letter like the attached example. Tree Preservation November 8, 2000 page 4 • • • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM VI. A Jeff Smyser November 8, 2000 Discussion Item: Saddle Club Concept Plan Heritage Development has submitted a concept design for developing the Saddle Club site on Old Birch St. We are working the project through our conservation development review process. Recall that the first steps involve informal discussions with the advisory boards before preparing a formal plat submittal. The Environmental Board has discussed two concept plans at two meetings. The Park Board will discuss the attached concept plan at its November 6 meeting. Staff will bring Park Board discussion items to the P & Z meeting. The next step after tonight's meeting is for the developer to consider P & Z comments in the preparation of a formal submittal. The application will include: a planned development overlay; preliminary plat; amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allocate MUSA bank acres to the southern portion of the site; and rezoning of that portion. Project Data: site total wetlands upland number of lots gross density net density (upland only) Land Use and Zoning acres 39.77 14.72 25.05 64 1.6 units /acre 2.55 units /acre The site currently is split in half by the MUSA and by a zoning line. The north half is in the MUSA and zoned R -1. The south half is not in the MUSA and is zoned Rural. The draft Comprehensive Plan future land use map shows this same situation. The site is one parcel. It is clumsy and inadvisable to have a single property split by a zoning boundary. Staff is recommending that the City Council amend the land use map to include the entire parcel in the future Phase 1 growth area. Then the southern portion can be included in the MUSA and rezoned. Saddle Club November 8, 2000 page 2 Even if it the entire site can be developed, the City likely will require a phasing plan for the site. This would describe how many lots could be developed the first year, with remaining lots developed in a following year. This would be mandated with conditions of approval and the development agreement, and controlled with building permits. Planned Development The developer is proposing a planned development overlay to accommodate several design features that would not be allowed under standard zoning. Standard zoning does place restrictions on land that can prevent desirable design elements from being included. From the City's perspective, we need to examine the proposed variations from standard zoning to determine if they result in a net gain. This examination should include environmental impacts. The goal of our conservation subdivision program is to minimize negative impacts on the environment. This should not decrease the developer's ability to have a financially successful project. If it does, the incentive to preserve natural features is reduced. Lot Sizes The concept plan design includes 64 lots with most having a 55' width and 130' depth. This is smaller than the typical R -1 zone requirement of 80 ` and 135'., The proposal would be a planned development, which would require a planned development overlay approval. Standard R -1 zoning would allow approximately 50 lots. If the City is to allow a higher density, there should be clear benefits that can not be had with standard zoning. Transportation Old Birch St. provides the only existing access to the site, although the access is a driveway easement. The property doesn't touch Old Birch St. New road access will require additional land from neighboring property. One access off Old Birch for as many lots as this site will include is undesirable. This is not only a safety issue but a wider circulation issue. To create a connection, the developer is investigating acquiring additional land on the east side of the site. As shown, this provides an access to Kildeer Drive. With a planned development, narrower pavement is possible. We also will examine the possibility of narrowing the pavement on cul de sac roads to reduce impervious surface. • • • • • • Saddle Club November 8, 2000 page 3 Utilities The connection to Kildeer Drive also allows for connection to utilities there. Utilities do not exist in Old Birch St. To bring them down Old Birch would add cost that cannot be supported by the project, according to the developer. As with all developments, the City will prepare a feasibility study for utility service. Parks and Trails The City park plan does not envision a park on this site. However, the plan includes a trail across the site. A trail could be accommodated within a wooded corridor between the wetlands and the southern borders of the lots. Such a trail could connect to the D Erickson or Oaks of Lino neighborhoods, either along the roadway or an existing trail segment. Natural Features Of the 39+ acres, about 15 acres is wetland. Most of the wetlands are on the southwestern portion, with more along the east side and some in the north central area. The wetlands include and are surrounded by heavy forestation. It is probable that some of the area shown as wetland is actually upland, but it is inaccessible except if crossing wetlands. A site visit discovered an area of historic oak savannah in the south and south eastern portion of the site, near lots 22 -25. Open Space The developer proposes to keep a large proportion of the property in common open space. In discussions to date, the open space would be owned by a homeowners' association and protected by a conservation easement. The details of this arrangement would need to be worked out. Environmental Board At its October 25 meeting, the Environmental Board indicated a desire for fewer lots and more upland preservation. RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting direction from the Board to guide further discussion of the project design with the developer. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 The agenda was approved as amended above. CITIZEN COMMENTS No other comments were made. PROJECT REVIEW A. Highland Meadows West/Second Addition — Asleson noted that the Environmental Board reviewed subdivision proposals for Highland Meadows and Bluebill Ponds in September of 1999. The area to the north of Highland Meadows was reviewed as future expansion. At this time, the developer has submitted a plan to develop the second addition of Highland Meadows West. The area includes a proposal to build two lots around three existing lots and road expansion to access these lots. According to staff inventory, there are no significant vegetation types in this area. Surface water issues have not yet been addressed with the watershed. However, staff has some concerns with the greenway issues in the area. Asleson presented a map of site and suggested the Board address the issue that this should not be phased in for • 'elopment without a comprehensive plan for the entire area. Vice Chair Davidson asked how this fits with stated Bluebill Ponds is located to the west. Po ds development. Asleson Asleson advised of the concern of Parks ab wetland mitigation was done on greenway corridor was discuss into the plans. Kukonen moved to rec not support continued road e area to the north is completed. voting against. 1 and greenway areas. He noted the of Main Street and, at that time, a lineal ted on how that greenway could be worked dance of piecemeal development as the Board does on or development until a comprehensive plan for the onlin seconded the motion. Motion carried with Trehus B. Saddle Club — Asleson explained the Saddle Club project was reviewed at the September 27, 2000 meeting. The developer has submitted a new sketch plan. He noted the colored map provided by the developer indicating the total site area, total upland, wetland, trees to remain, and those to be removed. He stated he reviewed this information in comparison to the GIS map and the developer has determined the number of lots he needs to make it work. Asleson reviewed the greenway alignment and mentioned the types of soils and vegetation found on this site. He stated this is a good area to consider for conservation development. Asleson pointed out the areas of wetland delineation and wetland vegetation. He also noted the areas of historic oak savanna and potential for trail locations. He advised this property is just outside the identified greenway expansion area, however, those 2 • • • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 characteristics are present on this site. Asleson explained this site is half in MUSA and half out of MUSA and there have been two sketch plans to date. He stated it appears the DNR wants to take a different approach on how they look at developments, resources, and conservation development so, perhaps, this can be used as a model project. Vice Chair Davidson asked if this is a viable greenway corridor area. Asleson stated he believes it is although it may not follow the same alignment indicated on the map. Also, it would create the desired buffers. Ross Fairbrother, representing the applicant, presented the revised site plan which depicts small lot development rather than extending the property lines into the wetland areas. He stated this smaller compact lot design promotes conservation development. Mr. Fairbrother noted this plan works around the existing wetlands and, tree stands to strike a balance between what is appropriate to develop and what is reasonable to conserve. He stated they have maintained a maximum avoidance of the wetlands. Mr. Fairbrother presented a plan identifying wetlands, upl,v; ds, and areas to be developed for housing, noting the acreage and percentages of are. •_ ;o be developed and those to be conserved. He noted the smaller lots increase the or o °t = servation. He pointed out areas of viewsheds, potential trail alignment, and 'y c -ss poit:. Mr. Fairbrother addressed their intent to soften the hard surfac< ::. r sta d all areas not platted for housing would be deeded for a conservation ease Vice Chair Davidson asked how wide the r d be. Mr. Fairbrother stated the road width is negotiable, depending on the ty wants. Mach stated this plan is well habituate, suffers with th be continued, diversity wildlife is present. he has found upland, which provides stated if a conservation easement program is to ypes needs to be considered to assure a diversity of Asleson explained the blue areas depicted on the map do not identify areas of open water. Mach stated he would be willing to see some trees removed if it would save some upland and provide diverse nesting habituate and animals. Asleson stated the GIS data for this site would be useful in identifying the upland and wetland elevations. Asleson asked about the number of lots and how it relates to the project. Mr. Fairbrother stated it would be a more appropriate to ask John Hill to address whether it is economically feasible. Ken Adolph, representing the applicant, explained that John Hill was unable to attend the meeting tonight. He stated they feel that 64 lots are needed to make this project financially feasible and if the lot number were to be reduced, they may return with a request for higher density, such as townhomes. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 Trehus stated he is disappointed in this proposal and it being represented as a conservation development. He stated he believes a conservation development results in tradeoffs with a lower density. He noted that 25 acres of upland would equal about 50 homes and he would not support more than 50 homes on this site. Trehus commented on the amount of impervious surface and stated he believes the entire concept of conservation development is being shifted, which he does not support. Kukonen asked about Option A for 49 lots. Mr. Fairbrother stated that is the large lot option which they proposed at an earlier meeting. However, that is now off the table at this point based on the comments made at the last meeting indicating a desire for smaller sized lots. Kukonen asked when the property will all be included in the MUSA. Asleson stated he is not aware of when MUSA will be expanded. Mr. Adolph stated at the last meeting, it was discussed th drawn through the middle of this property. He advised indicated they will develop the property in two phas redrawn, possibly with tradeoffs in other areas. the MUSA was arbitrarily eritage Development has quest the MUSA line be Mr. Adolph stated the single family area uses mor =" a the upland area and the intent of the conservation development is to cluster `k�_ *: velo r ent with smaller lots. However, in the economic analysis, one larger sized 1 t equate to a smaller sized cluster lot. Asleson inquired regarding t 'c ge f these homes. Mr. Adolph stated $160,000 to $180,000 is the base p which could increase the price to $200,000. Trehus asked how a conside ` ;;. R of townhomes was raised. Mr. Adolph stated more of the upland acreage could be re ned and placed in the conservation easement with a higher density such as townhomes. He reviewed the applicant's conversation from the last meeting indicating they did not want the conservation easement line to run through private homes which this revised site plan addresses. Trehus noted the number of lots also increased from 49 to 63. Mr. Adolph stated that is correct because one large lot does not equal one small lot. Mr. Fairbrother stated they propose 50 -foot buffers from all wetlands. Trehus asked if they are aware of the typical road right -of -way width in Lino Lakes. Mr. Adolph stated they are proposing a 50 -foot right -of -way. Trehus stated the requirement is for 60 feet and asked what the impact would be. Mr. Fairbrother noted this is a PUD so there would be some consideration for flexibility about road width and lot sizes. 4 • • • • ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 Mr. Adolph explained that providing a 60 -foot right -of -way would push the homes closer to the roadway. He suggested that a 50 -foot right -of -way is adequate for streets in this development. Donlin stated she does not necessarily agree that smaller sized cluster lots with a conservation easement are of less value than a larger sized lot. She suggested less value would result in placing an additional 15 homes in this area due to added congestion. Donlin stated the quality of life would be better and the desired value could still be achieved if those additional 15 homes were removed. Mr. Adolph stated in this case, they are not considering a small sized lot to be of equal value to a larger sized lot. Donlin stated she realizes this is a PUD so consideration of higher density, etc. is given but she is not sure this high number of homes is a necessity. Mr. Adolph stated with this development, there will be a meowners association to address outdoor maintenance. He stated it would prov. the benefits of townhomes without having a partywall. Mr. Fairbrother stated the home size would be `_�_ "'� hich'meets a market demand and need for those who are downsizing or empty neste Vice Chair Davidson agreed with Donlin re _y e desirability for smaller lots if it contains the same amenities, view and '.-wer houses. Asleson asked if lots of that �� w �,s�': se in the marketplace. Mr. Adolph stated Mr. Hill would be able to ans n. Donlin stated she appreciate etter viewsheds with this plan but she does not think it is fair to then add 15 units whip" creates more congestion. Mr. Fairbrother asked when the point of economics of the development and the conservation issues balance out. Vice Chair Davidson noted that Option C was discussed at the last meeting, not Option A. She asked if there is an option somewhere between Option A and Option C, to create fewer lots and more open spaces. Mach stated the role of the Board is to address the environmental aspects and while he agrees not much has been gained environmentally, he is sensitive to the economic issues. Asleson stated they bought the land to develop into houses and the question being asked is how few homes can be built and the project still work. He noted the developer has addressed issues of buffering and greenway. Asleson stated the developer will have to ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2000 address the density and financial economics. He explained that 2.5 -acre lots are not part of a conservation development, as they can be subdivided in the future. Vice Chair Davidson agreed and noted that large lots are also not conducive to wildlife corridors or contiguous areas. Trehus noted that with this plan the number of lots has been increased and the road right - of -way reduced, which is a win -win situation for the developer but not the City. He suggested there should be some tradeoffs for the City to benefit and asked if a formal application has been made. Mr. Adolph stated a formal application has not yet been made. Mach agreed that this type of development would be attractive to older couples and empty nesters so there would be a lower population. To increase viewsheds, Donlin suggested Lots 7, 34, 35, 4 51, and 52 be removed. Trehus stated he would like to see the calculations o oa m'= __ ious surfaces. Mach asked if it is up to the association to ad several tree preservation/protection options used b on the importance of assuring City input i The Environmental Board indicat preservation. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD rese ation. Asleson reviewed er communities and commented s. r a fewer number of lots and more upland A. Landscape Ordinance Rev , RP Asleson presented the draft Landscape Ordinance and requested Board comment. During discussion, the following revisions were made: II. DEFINITIONS Page 2: "Developer means any person or entity other than a builder, as defined herein, who undertakes to improve change a parcel of land, by platting, grading, installing utilities, or constructing or improving any building thereon." Page 3: "Native vegetation means vegetation, composed of native plants, that has-been ecies- are indigenous to the area." III. APPLICABILITY 6 • • ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY A. • • est .....,f.ffe...., , • • • Lt L5 (,L L Le -T. 31 i� ss 0 5-3 3.5 4T- l 141 40 L 31 L 138 (3L 1 G o 1•16.-Per. SIN41 -E- SC1A'LL Lti - Lor wivTH : SS'+ — Lar DEPTH '. Ij& + - F33a.1- sETE <4- 251 �. �EK. PL.M 1 IL 21 L 17 50 18 r-- ('+ Lois 4or L WCT-,+ (DF1JN&A,w) DE r3 -non f&W ri Nyfyyyv� 102Er3A.4+I TFesS ExIS-nme-races r 55' 25 ZA SOV1 O � 4T 000Z 6 0 100 CISA1333 BENCHMARK: TOP NLR HYDRANT 1. ?. CORNER ? ELEVATION A. 1 - - -7 • i / TYP14AL yoT o so b +oa so SCM.E FEET