Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2000 P&Z Packet• • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, December 13, 2000 6:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 8, 2000 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. OPEN MIKE: V. ACTION ITEMS: A. Chris Lyden, 6275 Holly Drive, Variance B. Marvin Emly, 590 62nd Street, Variance C. Udor, 375 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Saddle Club - revised concept plan B. Dellwood LLC, Concept Plan C. Town Center Update VII. ADJOURNMENT • • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, December 13, 2000 6:30 P.M. / X 1 I. CALL TO ORDER AND /ROLL CALL: v hf� Qi II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 8, 2000 "U\ III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: h IV. OPEN MIKE: - �) ,.` V. ACTION ITEMS: A. Chris Lyden, 6275 Holly Drive, Variance `jib -- B. Marvin Emly, 590 62nd Street, Variance C. Udor, 375 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Saddle Club - revised concept plan B. Dellwood LLC, Concept Plan C. Town Center Update VII. ADJOURNMENT - Ar6e I Tf3 1 • Planning & Zoning Board November 8, 2000 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES Ice': I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning ping Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., November 8, 2000. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Oct_ 1100 Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to ve °` e minutes of the October 11, 2000, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning ard, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 7 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. Rich Matzke, 482 Main Street, indicated he has been a resident of Lino Lakes since 1962. He explained he was concerned with the development near Blue Bill Ponds and stated a neighborhood meeting was never held to discuss this issue, as suggested by the Planning Commission. Mr. Matzke indicated numerous trucks of dirt are being brought into the Blue Bill Ponds property and he is concerned with water runoff in his basement. He indicated a retention pond is being built within the new development but noted he feels additional runoff will reach his property. Planning & Zoning Board November 8, 2000 Page 2 Chair Schaps suggested Mr. Matzke meet with the City Engineer John Paul to discuss this item in further detail. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:39 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 7 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, TSM Development, Highland Meadows West 2nd Addition Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:40 p.m. Staff presented the application for Highland Meadows West, a planned development overlay (PDO) which received final plat approval in April 2000. Highland Meadows West 2nd Addition includes land within the northern portion of Highland Meadows. The 2nd Addition will create four lots: 2 new single family lots and 2 lots, which contain existing houses. He indicated the lots would meet th:, 1,800 square foot lot size minimum along with adequate lot widths and dep . ill also create a 50 -foot extension of Marilyn Drive. Staff presented its e project and recommended approval of the preliminary plat with the seve • ons detailed in the staff report. Staff explained he wished to add a senten must have proof that the Rice Creek W . ter submitted to the City by November on number six stating the applicant approved the project and shall be Chair Schaps asked the applic , is engineer would like to make comment. Steve Schmidt, 222 Monroe oka, stated he had nothing to add at this time. Mr. Schmidt indicated he would be w `" ing to meet the Rice Creek Watershed deadline by November 22, 2000. He explained he felt the proposed development would clean up the surrounding property, streets, and make good use of the property. Mr. Schmidt stated he was in no hurry at this time but would appreciate approval from the Planning Commission. Ms. Lane asked why Outlot E was referred to on this plat. Staff indicated the original plat was called Outlot E but should have been renamed to Outlot A on the revised plat map. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 6:52 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 7 -0. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the Highland Meadows West 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat based on the following conditions: 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 be submitted by November 22 to allow review and time before City Council approval. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 8, 2000 Page 3 2. The area shown as Outlot B of this 2nd Addition shall be part of Outlot A, Highland Meadows West 2nd Addition, it shall not be a separate parcel. Revised plans shall show this change and be submitted by November 22 to allow review time before City Council approval. 3. This 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 Street 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. Proof that the Rice Creek Watershed has approved the project and shall be submitted to the City by November 22, 2000. 7. Final utility, grading, and drainage plans must ob approval from the City Engineer prior to site grading. The motion was supported by Mr. Johnson. .'carried 6 -0 -1 (Rafferty abstained). B. PUBLIC HEARING (Continue • � `` servation Ordinance No. 09 -00 Chair Schaps declared the continu . x h; ing reopened at 6:54 p.m. Staff reviewed that at the Sep 000 meeting, the Planning & Zoning Board continued the public hearin. ; vember meeting and recommended that staff hold a meeting with interested develo discuss the tree ordinance. Staff indicated they sent letters to eight development firms nviting them to a meeting on October 24 and representatives of four firms attended. The discussion focused primarily on increasing the costs of development with new tree survey and replacement requirements and the developers present unanimously opposed the new ordinance. Staff explained that the draft ordinance requires three basic steps: 1.) Count and measure the healthy trees on the site and calculate the total diameter inches; 2.) Calculate what will be lost because of the development plan; and, 3.) Calculate what percentage of the loss must be replaced. Certain less desirable trees to not need to be counted or replaced. Staff indicated tree preservation could be maintained by reducing the development density throughout the City. He indicated this would not prove to be favorable for developers and thus not favorable for the City. Staff reviewed several other methods with the Commission and asked for their comments and suggestions. • Chair Schaps invited those in the audience to make comment. Planning & Zoning Board November 8, 2000 Page 4 Rick Carlson, 935 130th Avenue, Ham Lake, noted he owns approximately 100 acres of wooded property within the City. He stated the tree ordinance as proposed concerns him as a property owner. Mr. Carlson indicated the analysis done by staff was adequate but stated it may be unrealistic due to the heavy grading required within the City. He noted approximately 75 % -90% of each lot is graded with new developments, which does not allow for great tree preservation. Mr. Carlson indicated the tree ordinance would bring about additional work on the part of the residents and City Staff. He stated the figures suggested by the planning specialist may be too low, as he sees it could cost up to $20,000 per acre. Mr. Carlson suggested that the City reduce the developable density before approving this tree preservation ordinance. He indicated this would be the most cost effective method for staff, developers, and the public. Mr. Carlson noted the City of Blaine and the City of Fridley have tree ordinances that could be reviewed by staff. He indicated these ordinances are not as stringent but set a maximum number of trees per zoning district. Mr. Carlson noted the problem he has with this ordinance is passing the cost of the assessment f .= e trees unto his clientele. Mr. Rafferty asked for the defining point on w developed. Mr. Carlson stated for those prop in place. He noted the City must rememb Steve Schmitt, 222 Monroe Street, ordinance for tree protection and r Commission at this time. He indi Brooklyn Park and noted this City of Brooklyn Park requi rope'' s could and could not be question that PUD and PDO be put the ":aka rty owner does have rights. A. a,s� "d e would agree on some form of ut not the ordinance before the Planning scaping escrow is required by the City of o be an effective system. Mr. Schmitt noted the es per lot with a fully sodded lot. Mr. Schmitt noted he feels a lands ape ordinance may be more effective for the City in conjunction with a tree replacement ordinance. He indicated this assists the developer while continuing to meet the tree preservation needs of the City. Mr. Rafferty indicated he feels the developers are not trying to wipe out the entire tree population. He stated he doesn't feel it is up to the Commission to stick it to the developers either. Mr. Rafferty asked that the Commission members be notified of future meetings held with developers on this issue. He suggested Staff review neighboring communities' tree preservation ordinances and report back to the Commission. Tom Wallrich, Attorney Representative for TSM Development, noted he is familiar with the City of Blaine's tree preservation ordinance. He suggested the City review this in part with a landscaping plan for future developments within Lino Lakes. Chair Schaps stated he felt an ordinance was needed for future development but stated additional information should be gained before a recommendation was made to the Council. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 8, 2000 Page 5 Mr. Johnson asked what the Commission was trying to solve at this point in time. He noted he doesn't feel developers have clear cut land throughout the City. Chair Schaps agreed but stated he feels the City should be proactive in an effort to preserve trees. Mr. Corson suggested that Staff evaluate trees by location on lots and create a system for tree preservation. He noted this would create an incentive for preservation if possible. Mr. Schmitt cautioned the Commission as to the preservation and requirements of trees because the more trees required per lot the higher the price of the lot becomes. Chair Schaps recommended Staff research additional city ordinances and continue the public hearing to the next meeting. Ms. Lane suggested a landscaping plan be sought after as well. Chair Schaps asked that this be discussed with the developers at a work session meeting after information has been received in January of 2001. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue the public h g at 7:28 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 7 -0. Mr. Zych excused himself from the meeting. • VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS • A. Northwest Saddle Club — Staff presented the applicatio y Heritage Development for a concept design to develop the Saddle Club Birch Street. The project is being reviewed through the City's conservatio °F``opment process. The first steps in that review involve informal discussion with t e advisory boards before preparing a formal plat submittal. Staff advised that the Environmental Board discussed two concept plans at two meetings and the Park Board discussed this concept plan at its November 6 meeting. Staff advised the next step after tonight's meeting is for the developer to consider Planning & Zoning board 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. Staff presented its analysis and requested direction to guide further discussion of the project design with the developer. Chair Schaps asked for the trade offs for this PUD. Staff asked that the developer address this issue with the Commission. Mr. Corson suggested the City of Shoreview be contacted regarding the dangers of icicles from large towers reaching neighboring properties. Staff indicated he would investigate this item. Planning & Zoning Board November 8, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Corson asked if a lift station would be possible for the proposed development. Staff indicated this would be a possibility but noted the lift station would require additional maintenance on the part of the City. Mr. Johnson noted Old Birch Street may require maintenance before this development could be completed. Chair Schaps concurred. John Hill, Heritage Development, reviewed his concept plan with the Commission for the Saddle Club property. He noted out of the 40 acres on this site approximately 26 acres would be built on. Mr. Hill indicated he felt a trail through this development would be difficult if sought around the exterior of the development. He stated trails could be placed on this site but not at the rear lot lines. Chair Schaps asked for the trade offs provided by the developer to the City for a PUD development status. Mr. Hill indicated there would be a significant amount of open space and common space for all residents within the devel •, ' ent. Chair Schaps indicated concern for the impact would be in favor of this development if deer concurred. Id Birch Street. He stated he 25% in density. Mr. Johnson Mr. Hill stated by decreasing the den th r "price would be increased. He noted this may be risky due to the fact the m warrant lot prices over $80,000 in this area. Mr. Hill indicated as propos o F should draw roughly $40,000 per lot. Mr. Rafferty stated concern sity at this time. Mr. Hill noted he feels the PUD common space was the best w dress this lot with the large number of wetlands. Chair Schaps stated he is concerned with the price level at this time. Staff added that the City needs to see some flexibility with the density and trail options. He asked that the developer come up with a more fair trade off by either preserving more open space or by decreasing the density to roughly 50 lots. Chair Schaps concurred and asked if the developer would be flexible in reducing the density of this development. Mr. Johnson noted he doesn't want to see the prices increased too greatly. He indicated this would be the case if the density were to be decreased. Mr. Rafferty raised concern for the lack of a park in this development for children. Mr. Hill noted a change could be made to lots 33 and 35 to allow for a tot lot. Mr. Corson indicated he was not in favor of the development as proposed due to the density and lack of trade offs. Mr. Rafferty concurred. • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 8, 2000 Page 7 Staff asked for the concerns from the Commission at this time on this development. Mr. Rafferty suggested this plan go back to square one and eliminate request for the PUD and increased density. Ms. Lane noted she was not in favor of moving the MUSA line as it would not allow other properties to be granted MUSA. Staff stated the MUSA allocation was only allocated to uplands. He indicated less than 10 acres would be needed for MUSA allocation with the development as proposed. Mr. Schilling noted Old Birch Road would need to be resurfaced before this development could be started. He added that he would like to see lower densities on the end cul -de- sacs to reduce to overall density. Mr. Johnson stated he was in favor of the development as is. He noted concern for Old Birch Road and stated he would like to see a trail through this development with connections to Birch Park. Chair Schaps indicated he is sensitive to Old Birch indicated there has been several serious accidents in the area could increase the danger. as he lives near the area. He elieved that increased density Mr. Hill thanked the Commission for their o He stated he would review his • plan and report back to Staff. • Mr. Rafferty stated he would like t � � e . ckets delivered sooner for review of the items. Staff indicated they are m r ; e ® as soon as possible for the Commission's review. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 1 • AGENDA ITEM V A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland MEETING DATE: December 13, 2000 TOPIC: Chris Lyden, 6275 Holly Drive, Variance DESCRIPTION: Mr. Chris Lyden owns 4.07 acres of property, zoned rural, at 6275 Holly Drive. This property is a pre- existing non - conforming lot of record as the ordinance requires a minimum of 10 acres in the rural zoning district. Mr. Lyden would like to construct a 34' x 64' pole barn on the property using metal siding and roofing material. The Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits metal siding and roofing material on properties less than five (5) acres in size. The proposed construction will meet the square footage requirement (total of 3,600 square feet allow) and the setback requirements (5' on the side, 40' on the front). The Variance requested is from the City's Zoning Ordinance, Section 3. General Provisions, Subd. 4. General Building and Use Provisions, D. Accessory Buildings & Structures, 8. Rural & Residential Zoning District Accessory Buildings, d. Two and One- Half (2 'h) Acres to less than Five (5) Acres (R, R -X, R -BR, and PSP Districts), Section 5) No metal corrugated siding or roof, except upon tool sheds less than four hundred (400) square feet in area. And, a variance to allow pole barn construction because this section of the Ordinance does not specifically allow pole barns as do those sections pertaining to parcels over 5 acres in size. Mr. Lyden has described his hardship as follows (detailed letter attached for your information): 1. Pole bam type construction is preferable for this property due to questionable soils. 2. Pole barn type construction, without a cement floor is necessary to preserve 1958 mid- engine all wood day cruiser due to moisture factors. 3. Pole barn type construction will reduce threat of loss from grass fires. Findings of Fact. In considering all requests for variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a fording 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 does not believe the Variance criteria can be meet in this case. Mr. Lyden can construct a wood frame building, on footings without a slab, that would have a similar effect to a post frame building although it may be more costly. Pole buildings are not permitted on less than five acres. Over the years City Staff has received numerous requests for such construction and has always discourage the Variance procedure because in most cases the requests were based on the additional construction costs. Additionally, in the 1997 Zoning Ordinance update the 5 acre requirement was maintained. For these reasons we would recommend denial of the variance requested. For P & Z and Council information, the adjoining property owners have indicated no objections to the variance request. OPTIONS: 1. Deny Variance as requested because the required findings are not satisfied. 2. Return to staff for further consideration RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 • • • • • • City of Lino Lakes - ZONING ORDINANCE 5) Each detached accessory building must be separate and not physically attached to another. b. Ten (10) to Less than Twenty (20) Acres. (R, R -X, R -BR, and PSP Districts) 1) The combination of accessory building(s) and garage(s) shall not exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet, whichever is least. 2) Total allowable accessory building space shall be limited to the following: a. One (1) attached garage and b. Two (2) detached accessory structures. 3) Metal buildings and pole barns acceptable. 4) Attached garages shall not exceed one thousand one hundred (1,120) square feet or equal to the size of the house foundation, whichever is greater. 5) Building height shall not exceed base district requirement. 6) Each detached accessory building shall be separate and not physically attached to another. c. Five (5) to Less than Ten (10) Acres. (R, R -X, and PSP Districts) 1) The combination of accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed four thousand two hundred (4,200) square feet, whichever is least. 2) Total allowable accessory building space shall be limited to the following: a) One (1) attached garage and b) Two (2) detached accessory structures. 3) Metal buildings and pole barns acceptable. 3 -19 City of Lino Lakes - ZONING ORDINANCE 4) Attached garages shall not exceed one thousand one hundred (1,120) square feet or the size of the house foundation, whichever is greater. 5) Building height shall not exceed base district requirement. 6) Each detached accessory building shall be separate and not physically attached to another. Two and One -Half (2 1/2) Acres to Less Than Five (5) Acres. (R., R -X, R -BR, and PSP Districts) 1) The combination of accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed three thousand six hundred (3,600) square feet. 2) Total allowable accessory building space shall be limited to the following: a) One (1) attached garage and b) Two (2) detached accessory structures. 3) Attached garages shall not exceed one thousand one hundred (1,120) square feet or equal to ninety (90) percent of the size of the house foundation, whichever is greater. 4) Each detached accessory building shall be separate and not physically attached to another. 5) No metal corrugated siding or roof, except upon tool sheds less than four hundred (400) square feet in area. 6) Twenty -four (24) feet maximum height. 7) Roof and exterior color and material compatible with home (except manufactured metal tool shed). e. One and One - Quarter (1 1/4) Acres to Two and One -Half (2 1/2 Acres (R and R -X Districts) 3 -20 • • CENTERVILLE T -- SHADED AREA DENOTES PARK LOCATION MAP trIPS- 74.` OF t1►IC 1 MIEN If 1 Of PART • 1 / 1 .074 7.? Si • • • • r 1 (31 1 Rr • (0002) Robert 6. 8 Sondra De Molls �. i ! 1 Pondoge 81 1 F /owope Eose/nent:1 to City of Lino Loki 1 Doe. is 595478 1 1 t_ (0003) A /r /r K. 8 8.J. De Molts 1 r i 1 ' t f.. - - }ter 47. Al ii t -wry 1 1 i L0 to / B' k'It I % 1 fl' 2?d -.7 =r. 1 I I tit rF t 1 1 <I *1^ ■ `11 1 1 �, 'I I/ �7. 1 1 1 A/et3B-ds �tv '-1 1 t ` t J M �� • 448 . O Np- 24 r P / G6 • 300 Aft xe 89000?-----'S% 0' ire • HOLLY- " (4) 6 Z. 4 OI CENTER SEC. 33 81. Z4 9 Ll 9L 5L bl el ZL LL 1 ■l !I! ■■■■■■■ f ■■1NS ■■ ■■ ! ■ Nn ■EE ■■ ■w ■IN M■■ OMEN • 11 MEMOMMER am_ mminummilm II '■G6iRiii�i�EN�i�CC. OL 8 L 9 9 Z ■ EE ■ N■ ■■ /■■ ■/■■ ■Qm� n■ ■ C■■ ■■ @■ ■ ■n o■ ! ! 1uC�up ` ui■i °CC[si■:■■w■.l ■ ■C., CCa sN■■ n1 ■11■ uu■u■u L�I�■■il,i■::n :� INIINISSC■Q�• ■■ millEMINNOSIWpren mum l_. S i� ■ s Emr sEM n�NWA Earn !! i s C.: C'C/■C °ArnJC °a i m■ CHmm./■j■rw.:■■■ / CCU ! ! ' ■ C:i'■■ ■ m••••sainr 1■n ua�a/�q■■■■■ ■ ili C■ T1 ' - I u wr M EN ommulta V mum ■ ■gy�pp\it ■1■ rl ■n ?_ ' + ■■ �p - ' •u■EE:�•■N■r ■■ ■ ■ /■// ! ■■ ! ■1w ' i ' ' ! ■ ■■i1N■ s■ ■•NU•■■ + ' I , I i 1 �; ; ' ! 1 1 I ■e 1 ININ / Ernimmillil .;j1 Iliii __ — . ■ i T- �mT? 1 Il . /■m/■1■■ ▪ ! I 1 -! I ! ■ pp 1 - .ii. nn.0 I I i 1 . ■CH.-� I+ ■■ ■ n■■■ r . -' = m , ! n■MCC. iun ___I I u I I 1_ ' � ! -1 1' • H ■CCC.Ow/p/ i■1 ! 1-1 . -I I i 1 .r ! ■ ■.. ■..H �� y w. .■ ■ OZ I I _ I I L I I _T i i_.J I I l i ■ _ _ i ' ■ I I t_ I I _J...1 � 7' 1 • -�'� N 1 t IT-illi -+-1-1-7- I 1-1_TT L. ...! . - _T 1 • ' I t ! I 1; e■ • 7111 11 p I 1 I w■ I : '"-:TAT? i 1 1 I i a ■■■■�■ : I ,_ME■■ ■■■ •%CC 1 ■ ■EMENIE■m■ : ' p:� ! ■�■ - ■!■■H■■ ■HH■■ ■� ■u ■ ■H mom ■■■■■■■■CCC� C! CCI■■ICCCMI ■■n■ ■H m■ ■■m ■C ■M• Or4CCC Ci°si ■■N■ uwu ■'so■ ■■■H ■ ■■C■ ■NO■ ■ HH■p ■N■■•■• ■ ■••IN ■. ■■ ■■ ■pm■■ ■N■■u■■•■HHE!■■■ ■■namomp■nsam ■■H■nW__�■■�■■�■■■■■■■■■HCCn■ ■■■■I,H■■s ■■wm■■ ■■■IN ■■ ■ ■•H ■ maim ■i. ■ ■m•■ 1!■ ■N ■NI ■ ■■ CCm.:C %.C° ::w °CCCs° ; , ! ; ! :1 I ; I ■s�HH ■:�1'CCCCCCqq'.: ■IN uIN••■C■limmE MCCCCM■CCCC1'C -I ; ■1n■ C1EE . ■■ ■ ■ ■■ 6J7A ..,■■H... •MUUICw■nUC■�■H ■M IGi■■■H■■mHCH■ ! I �'i■i� I- i- I- �■■BiC ■p■■ =i. �MC■■"iiNECFC.:■p ■C■° �: =fie'°eeeuee "CCC° :.'■..C�� i CM R C'� ' e.. . C'■M ' C � •• ■ e■ M HC ■� Cs■.∎ ■■■EM MEIF . ■CC :■..■■....a.� C■...... um■ ■■■■■■■n■ ■n .■■. ■■ %i■■ ..\■swn ■ 1�Wa. IuNi ■•H■■■C■■■■sp�■■■ ■F(■■■u■H■■■ ■ t ■■H ■ ■ ■H■ �H�� ■ ■Cs ■■ I ■■ U■ 1 H� ,,A��11s:7■• ■ ■■■■sss■■■■■1/■■■w n ■ ■••eeueuee ueae.■■e•eri�'CC�1:'- - aiis■`t i ' C °uUue••MU IIMC■CCCC••••• ■ ■ ■N•■ ■■/■ ■■ ■M/ ■■M ■IN■ 1N :.{/■► h`rll■17•mH■m■■m■■■1lHC■■■ ■H■■■ m ■■M■■■ ■■■■ ■IN■ ■■m■■■NA •■ ■NO •■■ ■m ■I MM■ 1i. i'.■•m■ ■• ■H■■MH■s ■`/M ■■■M■ ■•IN■■ EE■■N•INC■w■NRUmu■■• C■■■■■ •■■m ®■•t 1iML il• ■■■1 ■■ ■ ■■ ■■■s■ ■■•■■ ■ ■■ ■n ■H■■ w■■■■■■••e..• C■ �pp....M,•.•U�.1.. I• . .. '•!ail.'in■HiICM•Iin iii ■■CCCCC■ss■CUC° •••NU■M•ee M•1ppnCn■.:■H n■■ ■■.li■■■■ILMICCC�•■ ! 1 i1•■ ■RM1!s. ■ ■■■■■H ■s■ ■I,■ ■C■■ ■nn■■■ • ■■■■up■puS■ ■• m1■■■i•1■■s•.uee• NNEIUM• + ' ! ■■1sY■■■■•■m■■■Hn■■ ■ ■1■1■■ ■N ■NS■ N ■NCC■1�p ■■C■■■n'/t■���t7•�[■rri■■w L l■�n■�H■■■■■0■■�IHCtiMHwM■ �...■..i11•■ ■I• m■ •■ IN ■ ■!_�7N■EE pram■■•• ■ H■H■■: .H■■es ■ ■r1 w ■■H■C ■C uu•ee■� ■p•N� s•e ae ■ ■•H■ Gnil:: u I � w■■•■il■•■ ■■ MAMENEEMEN I••••••• H•■ ■• •■■■■.■•■■■■ H ■F =RHUU•H i• I ■ pi iueeeue iC ' + ■ .e....■..■■ �i■■■■■■■■_ e•••C■■■ ■■■...■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■H ■1t Ti�TI `. ■■1 / ■■ 1■ sw ' I - NaBS■■■ /■ ■ /w =G• • ■■■NOMINEE t TL Emil■■ ■ 'I ■ ' J 11u•EES■ EE ■■.1■■ ■■■ ■pp EN mH m i 1 L. ! t 1 ■HIIH■�NH� •M • I 1 1 ■w ■pE■Hm■HS■■C■..■ ■EE•■ MEN EE ■ ■ ■ ■ ■N ■N / ■•w ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ Irmo 1 ■ �ANIM ■ ■■sEE■s■ ■■sue_'_ ■ ■• ■ ■sCl{ n__ mamma= B EE■�muj■■mC.mmasuU .C■eReee ■/■■■pn■■ NNOC�1■� ■ ■ ■•sam•_,i_w__marmu. .�. m•F ■■lu■s �c VNOIN■■■ ►`!•■■EE•EE ssww■■ s ■ I.■■■■• N■sl -MIN IIAMEM■Aoi.l M■•H ■ ■•Wi■■ ■IN■■■ MEM ■ _ -•' Mom C.•e•... ■m I I 1 . ! I I ■pC♦C■ ■ ■ ■•riia■�■� /R• C MINN IMEMENEMIE , I H•EES■ pp I 1 I ! I{ N4� ■■ /7NO■WC ■ ■ ■Cs� p ! ■ 1 I ' "1- ! ■■C•/IN■EE I 1 N ■■■MENEAgENIC ■snNEMEm•giHEEEE■ �p� ■■ ■•e•N ■EE - - -- .. e_�_ ■IN■ ! i 1 MUM H■■ ■NEE■ i ' p■M■M/EE ■ININ■�.�_ ! 1 N■■ ■�1■�•N•H■w■u ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ =EEm■■ •per j 1 1 1 - ■ ■ : l 1 1 wa ■■■uip■O{MENE■ �.. IC.___ ,. n n ■■■ MEMO !t ■ ■•ut ■C EMEMEMEMENEhquENUMME pnwp■■■■■■wEE'•Hp ■• ■ m■.■■p■■■■Hm■■•QH ■e. ■ 1 I ■ EE■■■■mM •■■■■' i ■CCu •■... ■�1 ■ ■_I ■■■NO■C�■■■CC■EM ! -!. i 1 ■1■ I i ! p■m■: n■ ■ ! ! M■ 1 7�--z i ■ ■�NSO_ OMEN 171-1-1-11 7— iii -. i 1'7 ; 1 1 I I I' 1tPThtH ' -, vZ t 8 6 0L 4L Z{ EL bl 91. 9L LL Bl 6L OZ L ZZ C'T' OF LINO LAKES /7- R E C Cr) NOV 1 3 7000 CAIN OF LN LAKES ,e<7 / j/d.(------G (.-_-- GZ.,.. --e/X--2 _/---.7 / j / 7 4, / ,Zcet7-1,-ey , ‚& 4of deo • • 3 61ez /ee /49 , ,j;021‘,61' —4 75. 4 zo 4-d-e /;"3,ee,e s5z SU& x v 6p, 7 11 ,044 • z.‘Za.-7 ‘7 ce, D ij • NOV 1 3 2000 CITY OF LINO LAKES • • • NOV 1 3 2.000 r :TY C LAKES To Whom It May Concern: Walters Buildings Is a Manufacturer and Builder of Several Building Lines Utilizing Different Construction Techniques, Including; Steel Frame, Post Frame, Stud Wall, Masonry, And Grade Beam . We Recommend the Use of Post Frame Construction For Building at The Residence Of Chris Lyden in Lino Lakes MN. Slab On Grade Stud Built Construction Is Not Conducive to The Lot Due To Deep Fill and Variable Water Conditions Which are Likely To Cause Frost Heave and Thickened Slab Edge Footing Deteriation Post Frame Buildings Have The Unique Ability To Support Themselves On Unstable Soil Due To Their Horizontal 2" x 6" Wall Girts and Roof Purlins Spanning 16' — 24'. This Horizontal Construction Ties The Building End For End Minimizing the Effects Of Frost Heave On The Structure. If You Have Further Questions About The Usage Of Post Frame Buildings Please Contact Me at 651/ 982- 9352. Curtis Miers Construction Management Walters Buildings rl Nov 1 3 2000 C. fv OF LUNG LAKES • untitlea • 11 -9 -2000 CHRIS AND LONA LYDEN HAVE MY PERMISSION TO BUILD A 36X64 POLE BARN OF METAL CONSTRUTION AT 6275 HOLLY DRIVE WEST IN LINO LAKES. Page 1 NOV 1 3 2000 CIFY OF @..% `c'• LAKES LASE 4.-4- 77 (-"7.77:j_, ..., • .L..;..3 ...I ..._....4...-.4 ...-.7---!-!--;•- i ' I • I ..._....H-.i t-4.• ' ....-t-..-- • • • w r RAMIelmemal REEMffa0 11+EMONNIII gssessat RISUMMENII ---1 6 CD (17 RECEMED1 NOV 13 2000. COY OF LINO LAKES '/ r.- (1 E 0 0 cn 0 (1) (1) • 0 • I I (fl NOV 1 3 200 GIN OF LNO LAKES • E 0 U) 0 0 RECEM-7.0 NOV 1 3 2000 C:TY OF LINO LAKES • AGENDA ITEM V B • STAFF ORIGINATOR: Mary Kay Wyland MEETING DATE: December 13, 2000 TOPIC: Marvin Emly, 590 62nd Street, Variance DESCRIPTION: Mr. Marvin Emly is requesting permission to construct a 28 x 32 accessory building on his property at 590 62nd Street. The property is Zoned Rural and consists of 10 acres on the south side of 62nd Street containing his home and four (4) accessory buildings. One of these buildings was damaged in a storm this past summer and must be removed. Mr. Emly would like to replace it with the 28 x 32 building, however, the Zoning Ordinance allows only three accessory buildings on a parcel of property between 10 and 20 acres in size. Property exceeding 20 acres in size has no maximum size requirement or limit on number of buildings. Mr. Emly also owns 10 acres on the north side of 62nd Street. This property is a separate tax parcel and staff has determined it can not be added to his 10 acres on the south side to equal 20 and qualify for unlimited number of accessory buildings under that section of the ordinance. Additionally, Section 3, Sub. 2. B. 4 provides "Whenever a non - conforming structure shall have been damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot, or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as before if it be reconstructed within twelve (12) months after such calamity, unless the damage to the structure is seventy-five percent (75 %) or more of its fair market value in which case the reconstruction shall be for a use in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance." Mr. Emly would be well within the total square footage allowed by the Ordinance of 5,000 square feet as his accessory buildings would total only 2,960. However, he will need two variances for the proposed construction to be approved. One variance from the number of buildings and one from the section of the Ordinance pertaining to nonconforming structures. 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 the request and can not justify a hardship other than financial. Mr. Emly could remove two accessory buildings and build one larger building that would be within the requirements of the Ordinance. We would, therefore, recommend denial of the variance requested. OPTIONS: 1. Deny Variance as requested because the required fmdings of fact do not apply. 2. Return to staff for further consideration RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 • • 3 ,84:7 ral WINIIIIIMII ICI 1W - 1111•1•11111 MEM= an :,-----.3:.•:::::.';4111€1 Mar$46 i INIIFFNIN ! 1 le lip =M, MEMNON 11111MTMNI 411" :10 44% 111•83=1- /1M1:21= MED= ioicSEIMrroMME=Bliell3:41 " Orrr'101,11:0 AMEZ# IMMMAMEMIMM. , WEINIE1211710=1 ;Pi LP himmAINEEmm■rmom immitICV,,y0 Of IOU fa. ilIMEMINIMMEMIIII amroo47„ Ammir nummorm. mktftwilp i EISMIN toff , .., ANNII imimmourviona 17034,„..zA, ii$4,,,,47----1 RoVE immormaimillailillmiliMimillinilisn FIA"" ir EtEgabliti‘G ,a.men OE 7: IR DRAWN SEP. 1974 REVISED JAN. 1987 REVISED NOV.1978 REV. MAY 1988 REV. MAR.1980 REV. AUG. 1989 REV. SEP. 1981 REV. FEB. 1991 REV. DEC .1982 REV. FEB. 1992 REV. JULYI985 REV. FEB. 1993 REV. DEC. 1985 REV. MAY 1994 SCALE I il . 1500' REVISED REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. REV. NOV. 1994 JAN. 1996 JULY 1997 JULY 1998 AUG. 1999 SHADED AREA DENOTES PARK LOCATION CITIE CFNTERV 1 ALR AL MAP 16 , T: IC '5 . 1 5 3 '53 154.75 OF • NW1/4 /4 1 i i 1 . • IV kl - . . 1 i.. ; .7. . . • • • e , . • . 7 , . ... . . ' . ... • " . . , . ■ . i • 1 i I . . •• . ■ 1 1 5 1 (16) : . (1 r ) .■ ( 6 ) 1 i SI P.. t I 1 1).......... _ti. . i (20) Ir. cA. 0' Z 79 A C 0' •. : I 9Ac ,T.... : 2 e la AC ; 1 63 , 2 66 Ac Is 2 7•1 Ac s, 2 92 Ac. P. t. • :, ! ! At t . ..... i • i ; .• I ..••• .• 1 i •. • • .. . • • - 1 1 66 • ;•',..-: , ..•• :l 120 RuElEfer 8 ATR,CF. WALLS I.: 1.1 Ac. L. 154.54 CENTER SEC. 32 330 to • I) MARVIN 8 LOP414A 0 (2) MICHAEL 8 KATIIL GRIER 5 Ac. 330 • 22U (a) 69.1 0 t 00 ..... . 70 CD rn ° 0 'Pi i O in z CD. � r O E 4 ! ? o r ce, , C( e_0 3_S tC t3h3 `c■ , 3 3 0 m n `o. 0 C �U O my N O 0 ma .0 c 3 t 0 (0 c .LL N c O a 0 0 r�rT1� M+� I) •- ry o 0 x z Sui =; o. zfa 1 J W 0 0 0 0 z W 1 BUILDING WIDTH • rl W 0 ILDING LENG 2 W 0 O W 0 ti z 0 H 0 w O o,t o UO O c- al 0 H 44 It% at O o w 0 0 ci 0 O O +^r Q � ,4 acv o y bD Q 44 B o' 0a' �a Customer Signature w 0 1 3 z 0 3 =1p 0 z W • z U Customer Signature 0. 0 0 0 0 U a. a o. 0 0 Uo. 0 0 0 0 a City of Lino Lakes - ZONING ORDINANCE • SECTION 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS • • Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section of the Zoning Ordinance is to establish general development performance standards. These standards are intended and designed to assure compatibility of uses; to prevent urban blight, deterioration and decay; and to enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the community. Subd. 2. Non- Conforming Uses and Structures. A. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to provide for the regulation of non- conforming buildings, structures and uses and to specify those requirements, circumstances, and conditions under which non - conforming buildings, structures and uses will be operated and maintained. The Zoning Ordinance establishes separate districts, each of which is an appropriate area for the location of uses which are permitted in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that non - conforming buildings, structures and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this section that all non - conforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity. B. Provisions. 1. Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Ordinance may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date except as hereinafter specified. 2. No structural alterations shall be made, except in compliance with items (7) and (9) below. 3. When any lawful non - conforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any non - conforming use. 4. Whenever a non - conforming structure shall have been damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot, or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as before if it be reconstructed within twelve (12) months after such calamity, unless the damage to the structure is seventy -five percent (75 %) or more of its fair market value (as estimated by city council or its representatives), in which case the reconstruction shall be for a use in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. 3 -1 City of Lino Lakes - ZONING ORDINANCE 5. Whenever a lawful, non - conforming use of a building or structure or land is discontinued for a period of one (1) year, any future use of said building or structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance. 6. Any non - conforming use of open land, that is use of and without buildings, lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Ordinance may be continued for a period of three (3) years after the effective date of this Ordinance, whereupon such non - conforming use shall cease. 7. Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a non - conforming use is permitted, including necessary repairs and incidental alterations which do not extend or intensify the non - conforming use. 8. A lawful non- conforming use may be changed only to a use that decreases its non - conformity. • 9. Alterations may be made to a structure containing non - conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they Elp will not increase the number of dwelling units or expand size of existing building or structure. • 3 -2 City of Lino Lakes - ZONING ORDINANCE d. No houseboat shall be used as a permanent residence and further, that utilities including sanitary sewer, water, electricity, and phone shall not be extended to the houseboat. 5. Ice Fishing Houses. Ice fishing houses stored on parcels of land during summer months shall be considered an accessory building. All ice fishing houses stored on site shall be licensed in accordance with State law. 6. Docks and Boat Launches. Private docks and boat launches may be stored upon riparian lots provided such structures lie upon the same lot as the principal structure to which they serve. Roadside Stands. Seasonal, temporary roadside stands for the sale of agricultural products shall be permitted if: a. They are located in a zoning district which makes a specific allowance for such use; and b. They are located upon the lot on which the produce is grown. • c. They are erected at least sixty (60) feet back from the nearest edge of the roadway surface; and • d. Adequate parking space is provided off the road right -of -way and safe vehicular access and movements are assured. 8. Rural and Residential Zoning District Accessory Buildings. The following summarizes the maximum number, size, and height of accessory buildings allowed in an individual parcel according to lot size and residential district. a. Twenty (20) Acres or Greater. (R, R -X, RBR, and PSP Districts) 1) No maximum size requirement. 2) Metal buildings and pole barns acceptable. 3) No maximum height requirement. 4) One (1) attached garage not to exceed one thousand one hundred (1,120) square feet or equal to the size of the house foundation, whichever is greater. 3 -18 City of Lino Lakes - ZONING ORDINANCE 5) Each detached accessory building must be separate and not physically attached to another. b. Ten (10) to Less than Twenty (20) Acres. (R, R -X, R -BR, and PSP Districts) 1) The combination of accessory building(s) and garage(s) shall not exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet, whichever is least. 2) Total allowable accessory building space shall be limited to the following: a. One (1) attached garage and b. Two (2) detached accessory structures. 3) Metal buildings and pole barns acceptable. 4) Attached garages shall not exceed one thousand one hundred (1,120) square feet or equal to the size of the house foundation, whichever is greater. 5) Building height shall not exceed base district requirement. 6) Each detached accessory building shall be separate and not physically attached to another. c. Five (5) to Less than Ten (10) Acres. (R, R -X, and PSP Districts) 1) The combination of accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed four thousand two hundred (4,200) square feet, whichever is least. 2) Total allowable accessory building space shall be limited to the following: a) One (1) attached garage and b) Two (2) detached accessory structures. 3) Metal buildings and pole barns acceptable. 3 -19 • • • AGENDA ITEM V. C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: December 13, 2000 TOPIC: Site and Building Plan Review for Accessory Building UDOR, 500 Apollo Drive BACKGROUND We have received an application for an accessory storage building on the UDOR site. The principal building approved in 1994 was originally 6000 sf. The City approved an addition of 2400 sf in July 1999. One of the conditions of approval was that two existing accessory buildings be removed prior to construction of the new addition. That did not occur. The accessory building were built without a building permit. Mr. Gordy Johnson of UDOR wants to replace one of the accessory buildings with a new one. The site is in the GI General Industrial zoning district. The distribution business, the principal use of the site, clearly is a listed permitted use in the district. However, accessory buildings such as this are not listed as an allowable accessory use. Before a site plan can be approved, the proposed use must be allowable under the ordinance. This review is based on the following plan submittals: site plan drawing building elevations ANALYSIS • Building rec'd 10/31/00 rec'd 10/31/00 The proposed structure includes an storage building as well as a un- roofed walled area to screen the business' trash dumpster. The building footprint is 14' x 26', or 364 sf. The trash area would be 8' x 14'. The building will be about 10' high. The walls would be concrete block on a concrete slab. The submitted information does not show the location of the building on the site. Proper setbacks from property lines would be required. • Uses Allowed By Zoning Ordinance The zoning ordinance lists uses allowed in each zoning district, which are classified as permitted, accessory, interim, or conditional uses. • UDOR Site Plan December 13, 2000 page 2 The two rural zoning districts include the following under accessory uses: Tool houses, sheds and similar buildings for storage of domestic and farm supplies, and non - commercial recreational equipment. All seven residential zoning districts include the following under accessory uses: Tool houses, sheds and similar buildings for storage of domestic supplies and equipment. The General Industrial district does not include accessory buildings in the list of accessory uses. That is, accessory buildings are not listed in the GI district whereas accessory buildings are specifically listed in several other zoning districts. In the past, City staff have informed businesses that accessory buildings are not allowed in the business park in the GI district. Storage should be within the principal building. Section 1 Subd. 1.E. of the zoning ordinance states: Uses Not Provided for Within Zoning Districts. Whenever in any zoning district a use is neither specifically permitted nor denied, the use shall be considered prohibited. .... Staff concludes that accessory buildings are not allowed in the General Industrial zoning district. We acknowledge that at first glance, a different conclusion could be reached because the list of permitted uses in the GI zone includes: Accessory uses on the same lot with and customarily incidental to any of the above permitted uses or of the same general character. However, the City has not allowed accessory buildings in the GI district in the past. Therefore, accessory buildings are not customary there. While it may be customary in other cities to have accessory storage buildings in industrial zones, this has not been the case in Lino Lakes. Several years ago, the landowner constructed two accessory storage buildings. He did not get building permits for either of them. When the City approved a building addition to the principal building in 1999, one of the conditions of approval was that two • • • UDOR Site Plan December 13, 2000 page 3 accessory buildings be removed prior to construction of the addition. One of the accessory buildings remains, though the approved addition to the larger building was constructed. Over the past year, staff has been discussing the removal of the remaining building with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson proposed replacing it with a better building, and staff informed him that would require another site plan review. Those instructions in no way guaranteed approval of the application. Staff cannot recommend approval of a use not allowed by the zoning ordinance. Therefore, we recommend denial of the application. An alternative to denial would be for the applicant to agree in writing to an extension of the approval deadline until a zoning amendment is processed. This would allow the applicant to prepare an application for amending the ordinance and to process it through the normal procedure. There is no guarantee of approval of such an amendment. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS Staff concludes that accessory buildings are not allowed in the GI district under the current zoning ordinance. Under Minnesota Statutes 15.99, if the City denies an application it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the application. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the application for a site plan for an accessory building based on the following findings: 1. The General Industrial zoning district does not include accessory buildings in the list of accessory uses. 2. Accessory buildings are specifically listed in other zoning districts. 3. The General Industrial zoning district does list, as a permitted use, accessory uses on the same lot with and customarily incidental to any of the listed permitted uses or of the same general character. However, the City customarily has held that accessory buildings are not allowed in the GI district. 4. Therefore, accessory buildings are not allowed in the General Industrial zoning district. 5. An amendment to the zoning ordinance would be necessary to allow accessory buildings in the General Industrial zoning district. UDOR Site Plan December 13, 2000 page 4 • OPTIONS 1. Deny the submitted application for a site plan approval for an accessory building at 500 Apollo Drive based on the findings listed above. 2. Obtain written agreement from applicant to extend the review period to allow for a separate application for an amendment to the zoning ordinance to be processed. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 • • 7— ' a AUO SUB. LJ ::: LINO minor PARK NORTH ;Ate IN MI LINO LAKES REHABILITATION CENTER MARSHAN LAKE '» ..,aoanoonJ usNim e a H; IS • It SKI .. dui 1,014 N • Lbe.poliira Pizt4R4PN • l •1 XIglflM rcr .. fp* Tr- NeW ..d4'" Gvr►c-ReTE A te' 4u 4 UAW- VO4.4,6 Id H1404 v ✓� w P� L'r4w �Kl�frke K IZ h %pta0 T nlJtirgf t Rte -on o tr.fsMD►W Vommor - iwa T- OII •■ 2b' - 1"1'4' 5LE'4A(IO4. - • yL" LONc. bLOG , loS ...L- GQkaE pours LoM4 :.. P maLtio d Noy Wow ?twits), uAF-. cur,- _;04064 To ta` -i l C'ci4r. 61,as. $'Uh ER. gaoF- pLziviccuLtilSEdlirte4 - ZK0 1POKW oiu. R. • • • • • • 12: LOW. ttiL244,- • • • • AGENDA ITEM VI. A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: December 13, 2000 TOPIC: Discussion Item: Saddle Club Concept Plan BACKGROUND The Board discussed a concept for developing the Saddle Club at the last meeting. The developer, Heritage Development, presented a sketch of a planned development that included the possibility of some common or public open space. The Board expressed a number of concerns regarding that sketch. The Board did not believe that the plan justified the additional density on the site compared to standard R -1 zoning. The developer has submitted a new concept for discussion. While the new plan corresponds with standard zoning, several elements have been removed that could be considered desirable. The following table offers a summary comparison of the two concept drawings: previous concept plan new concept plan received 11/21/00 number of lots 64 40 net density on 25.05 upland acres 2.6 lots per acre 1.6 lots per acre lot widths 50' 80' lot depths 130 130 roadways Connection between Old Birch and Kildeer, offering circulation between neighborhoods. 50' right of way. Access on Old Birch, 1/4 mile long cul de sac, no circulation. 50' right of way. open space Large wetlands and some forested areas in common or public open space, which matches greenway vision for the area. Potential for trail through site in greenway. Potential for connecting to existing trail to north. No open space — entire site platted within house lots. No trail potential except in street right of way. No potential for connection to existing trail to north. • • • Saddle Club December 13, 2000 page 2 Land Use and Zoning: To review some information, the site currently is split in half by the MUSA and by a zoning line. Staff is recommending that the City Council amend the land use map to resolve this, which would allow for rezoning the southern portion. The new concept would not require a planned development. The lots are intended to meet current R -1 zoning standards. This new plan is a good contrast to the previous plan, and offers the opportunity to look at the potential trade -offs. There are no special features in return for smaller lots, higher density, or both. Fewer lots means less economic incentive for offering amenities beyond the norm. The previous plan offered the potential for variety in home styles. The new plan would provide for lot cost and home style common to recent suburban developments. Without road and utility connections to the east, the property to the east will remain undeveloped. There is upland there, and Kildeer Drive could serve the area. Like the Saddle Club site, the north part of the 1A 1/ section to the east is within the current MUSA. The previous concept plan opens the potential for developing some of that area — utilizing some existing MUSA land. The existing MUSA land may develop without the Saddle Club connection, but it will be more difficult to do so. The P & Z suggested investigating how Shoreview addresses the potential for falling ice from the guy wires of large towers. I expect information soon from Shoreview staff. Open Space, Trails: The smaller lots of the old plan offered potential open space and trails through the site. No public or common open space is seen on the new plan. The entire site is within individual house lots on the new plan. (The fate of the southwest corner of the site is undefined.) Without development of the northeast corner of the site, there is no connection to the existing trail in the Oaks of Lino. In addition, the land on the east of the site where the road ends is largely wetland and floodplain. This seriously reduces the possibility of a trail connection to Birch Park. Transportation: The previous plan included a road that provided circulation through the site, connecting Old Birch with Kildeer Drive. The new plan does not provide this circulation. It includes Old Birch access and a long, dead -end road. Utilities: Without the road connection to Kildeer, utilities would have to follow Old Birch from Birch St. The economic feasibility of this will need to be determined. RECOMMENDATION Discussion and direction to the developer for assembling a plat submittal. ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT NW/ • *II-!f -17 of • • 1 3 � L • • a r J h rr\ \ t)ti Vim • 0 • ..... sp• fete— . .# so, j OLD B1I ■ 3fl T -1-7 35 3 3z 3 • 30 • I I 24 ILLS BENCHMARK: TOP NUT N1'ORANT ?. ?. CORNER ELEVATION _ ? 1 13 l .) _.v r • COt c P1 SI NCILa FATT`M11-Y •• STPeN — Ler WIDTii : 130'4- - LorT)ET1'+i : 1301a _ Flebt rserSA1- _: 3o' PLM•i : 4'0 L. oTS >vn • Lar LA me WE -ruaxo (pItilµarget. DE':r!lieno+16AANi RGi/Er yNEI r es& .alt IitM4 o So 100 150 SUIF IN FEET 900[ r P ? Om tag$ �=3 a 0 N O W o d• l W nog 3 0. d ▪ s U W o ~o o a J 2 - LL Cri op> apt c i4 59 J ) • 31 1 -1 I 1- 1 I I ,11„,, 4i. 41 40 L__ 38 137 34 t3 1.� 5.3 MIMO 1 V • .' • 3S N. Co SIN I— E. FA-MULY Lor - Lar wi17f'H : Ss`} - LOT- DEPTH : 1'So' - fzr4T SHTFaPrCI. 251 • 15 9 33 131. • 14. 7L,414 : G+ LOTS Lags. K.07. LOT L%me — . —.. —.— WCr M00 (1)E1asEA>w) VET6NT LA SAWS M/YY•■•••■ R003-1,6AsiN T sS Ex 1 STS NCI�'Y -6E5 17 s5' Z9 S330/1 ONI) 40 Apo 0002 0 0 100 Q AI 39 HENCHMAN; TOP NUT HYDRANT 7. ?. CORNER ANON - ? A A.,. �•�.i 'sJ n 3. 2 • • • • • N. . TYr(cA• j.or SCALE 71 S so /co /so M1 FEET Z W F" ARK: HYDRANT ?.?. CORNER 11 1 : j•,,� — —' I W wo00 900 / \ 1.' } 8�� \ 4' / r .588'60'1a' E 896 1307.62 ay / r ma r �r � /♦/ / r r V // APPROX. FLOODPLAIN &6.E ILANc \ BOUNDARY i 11 6 -8;H CH AINLINK FENCE / / / / / 91 so • ':a :50 '4CKE N FEET EA0 9 Owl 9 (2 �Dr Y► ,�p05 •,I ✓ I \ r ANDS ZmB — '�!`: 898 -- +r�_- r 896 ✓ 1 / r a r r /r ° / /r '4 r r ,WOOS NE TLANOS • r ▪ r WETLANDS 4rr� TOTAL AR1L1- 1,73&124.1 TOTAL ACRS4 -89.77 TOTAL WET LAND ARd4- 441.081.6 TOTAL IST LAND 4CR 27.11.71 / LEGEND - TREE LYE r - WETLANDS - BORINGS o LK:1T POLE • POMER POLE 5011.9 Zm8 : ZIMMERMAN FIE SAND USA : LINO LOAMY FNE SAND SoA : SOOERNLLE FIE SAND Ir : ISAN11 FINE SAVOY LOAM Ma : MARKEY 1N10L woos 1 I W AL nut 'OS 1/ / / SoA 8000 PAGE 01?) SoA 1 1 LANDS r LnA OoS / W / i / <-. 4. — / / / a % / 1 ,/ r J / \ '/ I ‘ \ / yY4 / r/ ANh AL C7 • r ^ h WETLANDS ✓ ► r LnA \\ WOOpS \ r Iw 892'4 r r r AL \ r /� Y ' `\ TLANDS �// ill'IAERYIY cum-. 1444? OH Ptak SPConc.A.N. Cr REPORT RAS PREPARED W 4E OR UNOR IN Or= uul[ w a DK *.8 aT. RECOVERED a l 0 Th. OAR: 4 -10 -10 RED. N0. \ WEERm 9r: OAR / r r • ZmB \6 AL OS WETLANDS / / / / \ '\ ` r,/ 892 + WETLANDS ✓ r /r. "A---\-. N. r / ( a \\ r _?— r 1 I IW �� �-- SoA I / 1306.98 l % A 1 / � I N8E•44.0T'I r r / I �T 4— / -7— —' / ---.NOODS SCHOELL & MADSON, INC:\ ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PWIMINO SOIL TESTING • DAARONE[NTK SERVICE! 102x0 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 1 MINNETONNq MN 66706 (642) 841 -7101 FAX: 546 -9065 WOYDS r f }p.. /r r °91 /r r I A / r I A r r r j r /' r 89? r / / A r �� . r r • eq1 r ,-- W / , / r i r L a a WETLANDS r , CLIENT HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT 450 EAST COUNTY ROAD D ST. PAUL. MN 651 -481 -0017 PATE: ? 1997 C r 892 .892 r r LOCATION NORTHWEST SADDLE CLUB LINO LAKES. MN EXISTING CONDITIONS S.M.I. PROJECT NO. SHEET OF SHEETS • • • AGENDA ITEM VI. B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: December 13, 2000 TOPIC: Discussion Item: Dellwood LLC/Target Project Concept Plan BACKGROUND Staff have been working with Dellwood LLC on a proposed retail development in the northeast quadrant of the Lake Drive/I -35W interchange. The project consists of a Target Superstore and six additional retail buildings. The project is still in the conceptual stage and we are bringing it through the Preservation Development informal review process. The Environmental Board discussed the project at its last meeting. We expect to keep both boards informed of the progress of this project on an ongoing basis. The project layout follows a standard, suburban retail development model with a "big box" retail anchor and a number of "satellite" retail locations. Other than the location of the extended Apollo Drive east of Lake Drive, the project bears little relation to the Town Center design of Calthorpe that has been the focus of discussion for some time. Because this represents a departure from the Town Center vision, staff has discussed the project with the City Council to ask direction as to how we should proceed. The City Council directed staff to work with the developer to incorporate desirable architectural elements while acknowledging and accepting that the project departs from the overall vision represented by the Calthorpe design for a traditional neighborhood development. Staff and the developer are working to incorporate some special pedestrian- oriented design features as well as some special architectural elements. The goal is an above - average shopping development. Preliminary Project Summary: site area Target Superstore additional retail approx. 40 acres 174,000 sf 120,000 sf parking 1200 to 1500 spaces Existing comprehensive plan: Shopping Center Draft new comprehensive plan: Commercial Existing Zoning: SC Shopping Center. • • • Dellwood/LLC December 13, 2000 page 2 Because of several design issues, we expect the project will be a planned development. Transportation: Apollo Drive would be extended east of Lake Drive, connecting to 77th St. The developer is seeking an additional Lake Drive access between Apollo and 77th St. A traffic study by the City's engineers is underway. Preliminary results indicate that the additional access may be possible with specified improvements to Lake Drive such as road widening, turn lanes, and traffic signals. The City will examine ways to prevent retail traffic from using 77th St. and Carole Drive through the existing neighborhood. Utilities: Public sewer and water available in Lake Drive. The large amount of impervious surface means stormwater management for water quality is an important issue on the site. Staff is discussing options for infiltration and other creative measures of addressing the issue. Natural Features: An existing wetland would be impacted on the eastern portion of the site to allow for the Target building and parking. As noted above, stormwater management for water quality is an important issue on the site. Most of the high quality oak forest area is along the freeway south of this site, though some oaks are on this property. Pedestrian Elements: Staff is working with the design team to incorporate internal pedestrian circulation elements. That is, the possibility of a landscaped pedestrian route along the fronts of the buildings, around the edges of the internal parking lots. This could include landscaping and possibly "streetscape" elements such as special pavement. Staff has made it clear that connections to future trails along Lake Drive are also important. Green Space: Staff has urged the designers to include green islands in the large parking lots, especially the Target lot. This could include trees along a walkway leading to the two entries. It could include stormwater infiltration elements with landscaping. The design of the entries to the site could accommodate larger green areas, though the Apollo Drive/Lake Drive area is owned by a different developer. Environmental Assessment Worksheet: The size of the project will require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). This is a study of the potential for environmental impacts. The EAW process is defined by state law. Typically, the developer prepares the EAW and submits it to the City. The City is responsible for the content of the document, so staff will examine the document carefully. The City Council will approve it for distribution. There will be a 30 -day comment period, after which the City Council decides if the project warrants a larger Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is a very large study which is rarely needed. • • DellwoodfLLC December 13, 2000 page 3 The City cannot make any final approvals of the project until the EAW process is completed. RECOMMENDATION Discuss concept plan and direct staff regarding design of project. 77th. Street ■ Preliminary Site Plan ri scaly: 1"=100'-0" Architectural / Building Element Green Space / Landscape Pedestrian Path Pedestrian / Site Node 0' 50' 100' 200' • • YAN Lino Lakes Retail Center Lino Latins, Minnesota r • • • AGENDA ITEM VI. C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: December 13, 2000 TOPIC: Discussion Item: Town Center Update BACKGROUND Development in the Town Center and the draft new standards have been discussed in many meetings over the past year. As discussed in the previous agenda item, we are working with a developer on the design of a large project in the northeast quadrant of the Town Center. That project is not being designed as a traditional neighborhood development with mixed uses. In fact, the underlying model of the project is a standard suburban retail development. Because this represents a departure from the Town Center vision, staff has discussed the project with the City Council at several work sessions. Staff asked direction from the City Council as to how we should proceed. The City Council directed staff to work with the developer to incorporate desirable architectural elements while accepting that the project departs from the overall vision represented by the Calthorpe design for a traditional neighborhood development. Staff and the developer are working to incorporate some special pedestrian- oriented design features as well as some special architectural elements. The goal is an above - average shopping development. Staff has asked the City Council for direction on the Village, or southeast quadrant. The preliminary recommendation of the Livable Communities committee does not give Lino Lakes the $1.5 million we requested for implementing the Village plan. The recommendation is for $425,000 with the money designated for specific uses. Whether this recommendation stands remains to be seen. The City Council will discuss the situation at a special work session after the regular City Council meeting on Monday, December 10. Staff will have more information from that meeting for the December 13 P & Z meeting. • • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Council Member Reinert stated he would like to see other options from the County. He stated if the current options are the only options, he is ready to take a vote. He stated he would like to have a collected effort from the two (2) Counties and cities to improve the roadway. Council Member Dahl stated she is in support of a vote. She stated she also supports the Council Members in Shoreview. She stated this issue is a symptom of a larger problem. The major highways need to add lanes. The Metropolitan Council and the State need to work together. Everyone needs to think beyond today. She noted County Road J to Blaine is a four (4) lane highway because it had to be done that way. The roadway is now a ghost lane. More traffic at 50 m.p.h. does not equal more safety. The project may aleviate some problems on other roads. She stated that she believes there is a compromise. She stated putting off the vote will not be beneficial. A vote should be taken so the City can move forward. Mayor Bergeson stated it is clear the majority of the Council wants to deal with this issue. He stated he believes it may be premature. He stated he applaudsk e suggestion of the Counties and cities working together, however, does not be' ieveetha - -pan happen before November 27, 2000. This item will appear on the regular Council agen "day, November 27, 2000, 6:30 p.m. Mayor Bergeson called for a short bre gat Mayor Bergeson reconvened the mee4irrg 45 p.m. TOWN CENTER UPDATKNIA tY ALICE DIVINE The Community Developmenirector advised Dellwood, LLC, is putting together a development proposal'fO t1,e ehbein site in the Town Center. He noted the proposal is very preliminary. Staff] s met with the developer and a video presentation will be made at the next Council worksession. He referred to a map indicating the location of the site and reviewed a timeline regarding the project. He noted the critical issue is the road. The City Engineer advised a traffic impact study will be conducted from 77th Street down to Lake Drive. The developer is sharing in the cost of the study. The Economic Development Assistant advised direction is needed from Council. She referred to the Calthorpe Plan noting that the proposed development is a conventional suburban development and has nothing to do with the design standards. The main street character will be lost. The question is if the Council wants to hold to the same direction it has been going for years, or go with the Conventional development with staff using the design standards as a guide. Staff noted the Calthorpe plan will take longer to develop than the conventional type development. 4 • • • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Council Member Carlson inquired about any impact on the grant application. Staff advised they do not believe the conventional development on the north side will have any impact on the grant application, which was for The Village site Mayor Bergeson advised he called the chair of the committee regarding the clarification letter sent to the Metropolitan Council. He advised the committee that the letter is not an indication of the City moving away from the project. Mayor Bergeson continued stating the conventional development may be an opportunity to get a particular retailer into the community. That opportunity does not come around very often. He stated he feels the City should try to work with them. Council Member Dahl asked if the developer will comply to some of the design standards. Staff advised the design standards create something totally different from this proposed concept plan. The design standards do not fit the project..The core of a Traditional Neighborhood Development will be gone. Council Member O'Donnell inquired about the opportunity toot `o riply with the design standards in the southern quadrant. The City Engineer advised the City does not have' aipprroved design standards. Staff needs specific direction that the design standards w� �' apply t b the northern quadrant. The Economic Development Assistant adde ordinance will resolve that issue. making the design standards a zoning Mayor Bergeson stated there are two (2) things that are different in the southern quadrant: if the grant is received and tiefac 't the City owns most of the land. Council Member D asked if4the developer has requested the use of TIF. The Community Developmen`�Director r stated the developer has not yet requested TIF. He suggested the City look' into the possibility of utilizing TIF. Council Member Reinert stated the City should pursue this developer. The standards can be kept in place in the southern quadrant. Council Member Carlson expressed concern regarding residents, truck traffic and accesses. The Community Development Director advised a neighborhood meeting should be held. A buffer would have to be provided. Those issues will have to be addressed. The City Engineer advised staff is exploring the possibility of closing 77th Street and making it a cul -de -sac. That issue will be reviewed after the traffic study is completed. • • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Council Member Carlson stated the user would be a business that will be an asset to the community. She expressed concern regarding moving away from the standards entirely. She stated the 20/20 Vision indicated the residents don't want a conventional shopping center. She stated she does not want the project to cost citizens money. The developer should be doing something because they will not have to abide by the standards. She also expressed concern regarding the type of businesses that will go in. Council Member O'Donnell indicated he is in favor of moving forward with the project and stick with the architectural standards as much as possible. He asked if the City should be proactive with the property owners to the south and let them know what direction the City is taking. Staff advised they have talked to Ehlers about redevelopment and TIF. Council Member Carlson expressed concern regarding the City buying out properties. Council Member Dahl stated she would like to keep negotiations, en She asked "is it possible to get the same look with the design standards ?" She statedshe would like staff to move forward with the project. Mayor Bergeson stated the City would still have somib e rage so it can ask them for part of the design standards that are applicable. He'slated he would like to move forward also Staff noted the user is looking at an alternatelacatioi Therefore, timing will be an issue. Council directed staff to proceed with vision of the site in mind. conceptual development plans keeping the WEST SHADOW PONDS,.- T'RA LOCATION, JEFF SMYSER Staff distributed a meri o - a ding the Council discussion of the West Shadow ponds project at the September5 work session. The City Council agreed that the extension of West Shadow Lake Drive-should be extended to the 62nd Street right -of -way with a barricade constructed. Removing the barricade to allow the new road connection to 62nd Street will be determined in the future. Several of the Council Members expressed concern over the trail location and preferred that it be moved into the drainage easement. At the time, it seemed feasible. Staff received a letter from the developer stating that further analysis reveals that moving the trail to the easement would require additional wetland fill. This is undesirable from both an environmental and a regulatory perspective. The trail as proposed does provide for connection to a longer trail. It creates a nice loop using Fox Road. The developer proposes screening and landscaping options to provide privacy for existing lots in Birchwood Acres. This was anticipated in the creation of the • • • 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 P ring Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., October 11, 2000. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — S , -.w , 2000 Mr. Johnson made a MOTI meeting of the Lino Lake Corson. Motion carri the minutes of the September 13, 2000, and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. . Schilling abstaining. Mr. Rafferty arri • III. APPROVAL OF A NDA The agenda was approved. W. OPEN MIKE Acting Chair Lane declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. No one was present for open mike. 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 consid or . ce requests. Staff advised the proposed hanger will be located approxi 5' "om the front property line and 5.5' from the side property line. The exist h ��_ garage is approximately 190' from the front property line. The Ordin es . 0' front and 5' side setback requirement. Staff has received a letter fro r; .a a• _. g property owners indicating no objection to the proposed hanger location `• taf E?= s also received comments from the Air Park Association indicating this prop • • E ati • is optimum for several reasons outlined in their letter. The main c e ti `` s the 7 /1- transition airspace required from the runway, which could n • . °' °• if the structure were located behind the home as required by the Or • ` s reason staff believes there is a hardship and would recommend approv. . ariance request. For P & Z and Counci would allow acc the Rural Zoning Ordinance is update ation, staff is considering an Ordinance Amendment that es to be constructed in front of the principal structure in owever, this proposal will not be initiated until the Zoning ome 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 y suggested the Board approve the variance with the added condition that the 7/1- z sitio 'r space be verified. Mr. Rafferty inquired about guidelines the City may structures. regarding hanger Mrs. Anderson advised the hanger will be '4 y ' ch the house. Mr. Schilling inquired about how ofte requirements. Staff advised there issue. FAA and State Law appl Board and inform Board me s updated regarding FAA e City ordinances that addresses this e to have a consultant come before the ng this issue. Mr. Schilling stated th re a two -story structure that is closer to the airstrip than the hanger. He stated 1 d be . eneficial for the Board to learn more about FAA regulations. Mr. Rafferty asked at the City would do if there is a conflict with the 7/1 requirement. Staff advised they wi 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 probe <+ f referred to a copy of their comments. One of the Board's concerns related to th el on Rice Lake. For P & Z and Council information, the proposed co a _,u; +n . ' "�` ets the setback requirement from the OHW according to the City's +o "ordinance. The DNR has reviewed the plans and expressed no addition the proposed development. The RCWD tabled the site plan review at t. `` eeting with authorization for administrative action (this is an approval e §` itions). Staff advised the property in ques :``.'`'e unplatted parcel of land that is proposed to be split into two p c:' , the Mueller -Beis site, will be 4.5 acres in size and Parcel B will be 3.1 ;, — less right -of -way dedication required by Anoka County. The Zoning Ordinance Business Zoning exceed the Ordin es a minimum lot area of 20,000 -sq. ft. for the General a minimum frontage of 100'. Both proposed parcels ements. 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 R a Plane. He asked what effect this development may have on the developmen lot. Staff advised the outlot contains drainage and utility easements. Mr. Johnson clarified that a portion of Outlot B is h . He asked what will happen to the remainder if it is ever developed l� •vis part of the runway goes down that area. The property cannot be de • The City Engineer added he also beli cannot be developed. • Mr. Johnson asked if the 7/1 staff ue in this case. He noted the building is fairly tall. The City Engineer adv . s commonly used for take off and landing. The land is not adjacent to this b Mr. Schilling aske one will be living in the building on the second floor. Mr. Craig Miller, rep esentative 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 subdivisi • _ d s 1 N plan review, based on the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits are obtained and in d scrow deposit to insure completion of site improvements. 2. The revised landscaping plan shall • �� �� �e .. =•nal screening along Lake Drive and is subject to review and appro staff. This plan shall be submitted and obtain the approval of the ental Specialists prior to City Council review. 3. Park Dedication shall be he City's Subdivision Ordinance. 4. An additional 20 feet t- • ` _ • ay shall be dedicated to Anoka County by Deed, prior to issu.. y Building Permits. 5. A revised sury •• indicating the right -of -way dedication, shall be provided prior °:!3 . ncil review. 6. Engineers an all be revised as indicated in the Engineer's report dated October 5, to provide sanitary sewer service to Parcel B. 7. All lighting 1 be directed downward and produce no glare on the roadway. 8. Approval of t e 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 description Acting Chair Lane inquired about trash an m :., ` taff referred to the landscaping plan indicating the trash container. Mr. Johnson referred to elevation. least interesting. The City of Li backs along the freeway. Th He asked if something mo most visual part of the building is the t doing itself a service with the building ng backs give a negative impression of the City. tive can be done. Staff advised that is on difficult to requir there are already b aesthetically pleasi e issues the City is recognizing more and more. It is always ation when the City does not have standards in place and here. In parts of the City, the City will be pushing for more chitecture in the future. Currently the City is trying to address that issue with lands ping. 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 foll conditions #11: per RCWD requirements and the City En survey will be revised and resubmitted. clarification on ort. He noted the Mr. Johnson inquired about the use of hazardous m Mr. Levy commented on the products that Staff advised condition #8 covers fl noting one is flammable. Mr. Levy stated fire codes requite >_ e ° He stated his company goes much further to protect flammable maters Mr. Rafferty stated he i . Johnson's comments regarding aesthetics on the south side of the builds e stated that anything that can be done will be greatly appreciated. Mr. Schilling made OTION 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 Committe ;yf Li A akes citizens recommended special design standards for the Town Center 19 • . The draft standards prepared by Calthorpe and Associates builds o s s . ee s framework. The standards will put into effect the vision for a Tow �_ .' as formulated several years ago. The City Council endorsed the draft s ugust 28, 2000. Final approval will include rezoning the land as well , �'. ng the zoning ordinance to create a new zoning district and adopt the d;,�.� tandards for it. As the discussion = u ;'t is clear that confusion still exists over the need for development stan • •� e draft standards include more detail than the City is accustomed to seem City is accustomed to seeing standards for minimum setbacks and maximum buildi 'g 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 recei were 46 applicants and 28 made it to the second pha high in the first round. The second round will be v Council wants to show that this type of develo Metropolitan Council has $6.9 million doll Mr. Schilling inquired about updates submitted. Staff advised they hav that will allow more flexibility. Staff advised there f Lino Lakes scored ive. The Metropolitan k in the suburbs. The or funding. e since the original plan was through several concerns and revisions Mr. Rafferty stated staff h. very hard on this project. He stated it was disappointing that staf , at'u, chitectural elements. The City Planner need for a visual f significant loss. wer element was eliminated from the requirements, not the f advised they do not believe the tower element will be a 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. • or • 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 a A{ ses care about good employees. Staff advised prospective employers are lookin can live it. The City has committed to cert the apartments would be market rate. Th types of buildings. B. Temporary Fabric Sto nity that their employees ing to a housing mix. Most of andards will create unconventional Staff advised some Board ► '=' '' may have seen a few temporary fabric structures around Lino Lakes. T m. ,r" of a metal pole frame with fabric stretched over it. People are using these + es for inexpensive storage of vehicles or other items. City staff have receiv about these structures regarding placement and size. Most people just put the out contacting the City. In discussions with the Building Official, staff decid j t would be a good idea to inform the P & Z about how staff is addressing these stru ures. 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. • •