Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/2004 P&Z Packet• • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, November 10, 2004 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers (scheduled to be televised on Ch. 16) AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 13, 2004 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. Variances for road frontage, lot size, and lot width, St. Paul Regional Water Services, Anoka County Regional Park — Paul Bengtson B. PUBLIC HEARING for a Preliminary Plat for a 5 -lot residential development named Vaughan Addition, Michael Vaughan, 600 Birch Street — Paul Bengtson C. PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for construction of a church, Kingdom Hall of Jehovah' s Witnesses, 69XX Lake Drive — Paul Bengtson VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Temporary Signage update — Jeff Smyser VII. ADJOURN • • CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT . STAFF PRESENT October 13, 2004 6:38 P.M. 10:41 P.M. Hyden, Laden, Pogalz, Rafferty, Root (arrived at 6:43 p.m.), and Tralle. Lane. Jeff Smyser; Michael Grochala; James Studenski; and Paul Bengtson I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:38 p.m., October 13, 2004. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 8, 2004 Mr. Hyden made a MOTION approve the September 8, 2004 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 3 -0 -1 (Pogalz abstained). IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open mike open at 6:40 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:41 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, for Rezoning to PUD and a Preliminary Plat for Fox Den Acres, Royal Oaks Realty, a 50 -acre development south of Birch Street and east of Deerwood Lane, at the east end of Fox Road DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 2 Chair Rafferty opened the public hearing at 6:41 p.m. Staff stated applicant had requested approval of a single family residential development called Fox Den Acres. The comprehensive plan guides the site for low- density residential use and it is zoned R -1. The site is within the existing MUSA. Mr. Root arrived at 6:43 p.m. Staff noted Fox Den Acres project offers a good opportunity to implement the new parks and open space plan through the use of a conservation development. Staff has worked with the Watershed District and Royal Oaks to pursue these goals. The redesign includes such things as filling and moving lower quality wetlands in order to preserve and increase higher quality wetlands and upland area. The overall gain in public value will be positive. This conservation development approach, while often discussed in the City, has not previously been pursued to the extent they are doing so here. Staff stated standard zoning requirements often do not accommodate natural features in this way, and this is an example of that shortcoming. Therefore, a planned unit development is being used. A PUD is not allowed in a single - family zone, so a rezone to PUD would be needed. Staff acknowledges there are a number of details and specifics that normally are resolved by this point in the process. However, staff is comfortable that there is ample time for these details to be addressed. Additional design parameters will be reached before City Council approval. This project has been and will continue to be a learning process for players in several organizations and agencies. Though the design is not the normal level of detail, there has been more design communication among the players than on any previous project. He noted they have utilized the review extension allowed by law and are facing a deadline of November 19 for City Council action on the rezoning and preliminary plat. Therefore, a recommendation by the P &Z is necessary. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval of the project including Rezoning to residential planned unit development and preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading and utility plans must obtain approval by the City Engineer prior to City Council approval of the final plat. 2. A permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District must be obtained prior to City Council approval of the final plat. 3. The entire project can be final platted in 2005, subject to City Council approval of amendments to Ordinance 01 -03. 4. Park dedication shall be cash with credit for construction of trails. 5. A homeowners association shall be created. The association shall maintain a stewardship fund to manage the open space areas of Outlots A, B, and C, DRAFT MINUTES • • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 3 according to a stewardship plan to be approved by the City. Association documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. 6. A conservation easement shall be created over all of Outlots A, B, and C to make them permanent open space. 7. A temporary cul -de -sac must be constructed on the northern stub street. 8. The project as redesigned must obtain a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to final approval by the City Council. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Jeff Schoenbauer, Brauer and Associates, summarized the project for the Board. He reiterated the public values they tried to achieve were: preserving more natural open space (through a conservation easement); reducing the extent of impervious surfaces and size of the development footprint; restore /enhance ecological systems on the site as part of the development process; protect off -site ecological systems through increased buffering; ensure long -term natural resource stewardship through an endowment program sponsored by the Developer; provide public park and trail opportunities consistent with the System Plan; manage stormwater (flow rates and quality) using natural infiltration approaches; preserve the open space aesthetic to which community residences have become accustomed; and to maintain a natural buffer between established and new developments. Mr. Laden asked who would be in charge of the endowment. Mr. Schoenbauer replied the endowment fund would be part of the Development Agreement, which would be held by the City, but administered by the homeowner association. He stated these funds would be to preserve the natural areas and were monitored very closely. Mr. Hyden asked what the ramification was if a homeowner did not pay the yearly $100.00 conservation fee. Mr. Schoenbauer replied the City could enforce payment by a legal means. Mr. Hyden asked who would maintain the trail system. Mr. Smyser replied the City would maintain the trail corridor, but not the open space area. Mr. Schoenbauer stated who would own the easement was currently being looked at by the City Attorney. Mr. Laden asked if the City wanted to do improvements in the open areas, did they have authority to do that. Mr. Schoenbauer replied as long as the improvements kept with the spirit and intent of the area, the City could make improvements. He noted he was comfortable with the amount of money set aside for natural resource maintenance. Chair Rafferty asked if this was the first time that the City would have the burden of being the administrator of the funds. Mr. Schoenbauer replied the developer had the burden and the City was only the watchdog to make sure the procedures were being DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 4 followed. He noted the only obligation the City had was for a staff member to meet with the homeowners association yearly to see where the association intended to spend the money for that year in natural resource maintenance. Chair Rafferty asked once this was turned over to the association, who would force the association to administer the funds for the particular areas. Mr. Schoenbauer stated the City would have the legal authority to step in and say they were not using the funds appropriately and the City could take legal action against the association. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, stated this had been a process, which was not easy. He noted they had hoped to have this proposal approved by this time. He stated City staff and the consultants were doing a good job and they both had the interests of the City in mind. He noted this was "new waters" for them and they had to go outside of their shell for this development. He stated the ideas being presented were new to them, but they had gone along with the proposals. He believed this development met with the letter and intent of the zoning, including a trail corridor and significant open space with a large buffer along the west side of the development. He stated once this was done, he believed everyone would be proud of the development. He stated there had been a lot of give and take on this development and asked the Board to look at the development as an entire package. He stated all of the elements needed to be looked at as a package. He stated he did not want to negotiate with staff and then find out that the Planning & Zoning Board or Council wanted something different. He indicated they were asking for a flexibility of a 20 -foot rear yard setback and a 25 -foot front yard setback, if necessary in order to allow more open space in the back of the homes. Chair Rafferty asked how far the home would be located with a 25 -foot front yard setback. Mr. Smyser replied the homes would be 34 feet from the curb. He noted the side yard setback would remain at 5 feet. Mr. Black stated the average width of the lots were 95 feet wide. Chair Rafferty stated he was concerned that the development would look "boxy" if the homes were located too close together. Mr. Root inquired about the stormwater run off into the existing neighborhoods and the traffic issue which had been concerns at the last meeting. Mr. Schoenbauer replied with respect to the stormwater runoff, no water would leave the site and go into the adjoining developments. He stated they would manage all water they could on site and if water left the site, the flow rates would be no more than they were currently and the water quality would the same, if not better, than it was currently. He stated one of the objectives of this development would be to improve the water quality. Mr. Tralle asked if any water from the existing neighborhood flow into this development. Mr. Schoenbauer replied if it did, the water would be handled by this development. Steve Helmer, TKDA, replied with respect to traffic, the PM peak hour conditions the project impact would equal 3.4 seconds /vehicle added delay for northbound approach of Deerwood Lane /Birch Road intersection. He stated the AM peak hour conditions the DRAFT MINUTES • • • • 1 Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 5 project impact would be less than 0.5 seconds /vehicle added delay for northbound approach of Deerwood Lane /Birch Road. He noted the project will increase the average daily traffic on Deerwood Lane by 348 vehicles per day north of Fox Road. The project will increase average daily traffic on Fox Road by 188 vehicles per day west of Deerwood Lane. He noted the past studies have suggested that "livability" may begin to deteriorate upwards of 1,500 average daily traffic. Mr. Hyden asked if the peak PM was a slight increase over the AM peak. Mr. Helmer replied that was correct. Mr. Tralle asked what generated the improvement of an existing road. Mr. Helmer replied new development, new additional traffic, or deterioration of the road due to existing traffic. Mr. Tralle stated he understood they did not build the road ahead of time, but only after the traffic on the road justified an improvement. Mr. Helmer replied that was a standard practice in the State of Minnesota. Chair Rafferty invited those for or against the project to make comment. Al Stender, 6379 Deerwood Lane, commended the City Engineers and the developer for working on this development. He noted the development was much improved from the original proposal. He expressed concern about the increase in traffic in this area. He stated he had a seven minute wait today on County Road J and Birch and two minutes to take a left turn from Deerwood onto Birch. He noted all of these new development only added to the traffic. He asked if the traffic engineer had taken into consideration all of the other developments being added to this area also in his analysis. He requested they think about the infrastructure before approving the developments. Rick Kamrath, Deerwood Circle, expressed concern about traffic and asked if any options had been identified to alleviate some of the neighborhoods concerns with respect to increase in traffic. Mr. Studenski replied this was an issue with all of the projects in the City at the present time, and prior to the start of the project they videotaped it to see if there were any additional traffic or deterioration due to the construction and if there was, the developer was responsible to repair the road. He stated if necessary, they would have flag people directing traffic in and out of the area. He stated he did not know of any other options other than monitoring the traffic. He stated if there were issues with safety, the residents should call the police. He noted the roadway was designed to handle this amount of traffic. Mr. Kamrath asked for additional clarification in regards to the drainage on the site. Mr. Schoenbauer replied the drainage plans were being developed right now and if the neighbors wanted to look at the plans as they were completed, he would be willing to discuss this with them. He stated he could ensure that the stormwater drainage would remain on site. Mr. Tralle asked why there were no sidewalks in this development. Mr. Smyser replied in the past the residents did not want sidewalks in their development, but this was slowly DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 6 changing. However, in this particular development, they were trying to make the impervious surfaces as small as possible in an effort to preserve as much of the nonpaved area as they could. He indicated they had not considered putting in sidewalks in this development, but noted if they did, the right -of -way would need to be widened. He stated a sidewalk would be nice in this development, but there was a tradeoff also in order to preserve the open space. Chair Rafferty stated the developer had done a good job on this development and commended him for that. He stated he liked the idea of a give and take and to work through the process to get this done, but asked why was there 57 homes, instead of 56. Mr. Schoenbauer replied the extra lot came in because the lots along the cul -de -sac were the most expensive lots and when the cul -de -sac was taken out, the developer lost an economic benefit, so therefore he, not the developer, recommended this lot be added to make up for those lost dollars and to preserve more open space. Mr. Laden asked if the temporary cul -de -sac would be constructed to the standard cul -de- sac requirements. Mr. Studenski replied it would. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Root noted this was to be approved as a package and yet they were approving the Growth Management Policy Ordinance 01 -03 in the next item. Mr. Smyser stated Mr. Root was correct and he proposed this project would be subject to whether the Council approved the amendments to Ordinance 01 -03. Chair Rafferty asked if they should have had that discussion first before they had the public hearing. Mr. Rafferty replied that was a possibility. Chair Rafferty asked if the Board wanted to address the Growth Management Plan issue now to help in the decision making process. Mr. Root suggested they table this item and discuss the next item and then come back to this item. Mr. Root made a MOTION to table item 5A until after discussion and recommendation of item 5B and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5 -0. B. PUBLIC HEARING for Amending Ordinance No. 01 -03, Growth Management Policy to provide residential development phasing flexibility for conservation development projects Chair Rafferty opened the pubic hearing at 8:10 p.m. Staff explained the City adopted Ordinance 01 -03 in January 2003. This ordinance lists the specifics of the growth management policy, including the annual limits on the number of MUSA acres to be allocated and the number of units /lots to be platted. The policy DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 7 requires a phasing plan for projects of 50 units or more. He stated they maintained an inventory required in Section 2, paragraph 11 using tables tracking the allocation of MUSA and the approval of units /lots in preliminary plats. He noted the general approach to amending the ordinance is to add a section that gives the City Council more discretion in approving housing units in any given year above the stipulated growth limits as defined in Section 2 — Growth Management Policy. This discretion would only be applied in cases where the developer of property successfully collaborates with the City and submits a conservation development proposal that includes public values that exceed those achievable under a conventional development approach. The determination as to whether this threshold is reached will be at the sole discretion of the City Council. He stated in this context, "conventional development" is defined as a development proposal that meets the minimum requirements of the City's ordinances regulating subdivision and platting, zoning, street standards, and other pertinent requirements. "Conservation development" refers to the collaborative process in which certain stipulated public values are sought in exchange for greater flexibility on general development requirements and the growth limits defined under this policy. He reviewed the options for amending the policy and requested the Board open the public hearing, take comments, close the public hearing and make a recommendation on ordinance amendment. Mr. Schoenbauer noted the intent was the get developers to do conservation development, while still maintaining the ability to do conservation development if a conservation development would not work. Chair Rafferty asked what were the negative things they would experience by recommending this. Mr. Schoenbauer replied he did not see a downside because at the end of the day the City held the final decision and if a development could not make a conservation development, the developer had no choice but to go back into the conventional approach. Chair Rafferty asked if the City would have to hire consultants each time to analyze the developments as they came in. Mr. Schoenbauer replied his services were intended to get the City started, but it was the goal to have City staff would take over the analysis with the objective being to actually decrease the staffs time. Mr. Grochala stated he believed there would be a savings in time and effort in getting to a final product in going through this process. He noted most developments would not take as much time as the Royal Oaks Development because staff was still learning the process, but once staff has gone though the process, it should not take any more time than a conventional development process. Chair Rafferty stated he was getting the impression from the various Boards, it appeared everyone was very much in favor of this conservative effort to produce developments in this fashion. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 8 Mr. Root stated there was also a third option, which was to keep things the same, but he believed the City did get some valuable things with this conservation development and he believed they needed to be flexible. He noted his concern with option 1 was that they would have a land rush with no way to limit the lots. He stated his concern with option 2 was that the developers would want to move the lots ahead and there would be no lots left in the near future because they shifted everything up. He suggested maybe something in between these two options might be more favorable. Mr. Grochala stated staff had thought of these concerns. He indicated however, if the City was getting what they wanted and if things were being taken care of at a higher level, there would be no negatives. However, he believed they needed to develop a couple of these developments to see how they were working. He stated with option 2, they were moving lots ahead on paper and the developer had to fit into the existing phasing plan as required. Chair Rafferty asked how long for the infrastructure and what was the time for the build out. He asked if there was a need for the development if they allowed for the infrastructure to be completed. Mr. Grochala replied he saw getting infrastructure in was important, but there was also a cost for the infrastructure. Mr. Root stated the only thing they could do was to have some sort of say over the number of lots and when the lots could be developed. He stated he could only go on the number of lots available for development. Mr. Grochala noted no matter how many controls they put in place, they could not control the market or economic factors and he agreed they only had control of the number of lots. Mr. Root noted as the options were written, there were no limits. Mr. Schoenbauer replied it was the Board's discretion to use the alternative process and if they did not want to approve anymore, they did not have to. He stated they could stick with conventional development when they wanted. Mr. Root stated the whole reason this was taking place was because of the value to the City and therefore it would be hard to turn down these developments. Mr. Schoenbauer asked why would the City want to turn down a development if it met the highest standards the City wanted. Mr. Root expressed concern that the City would develop too fast and there would be not lots left for future development. Mr. Schoenbauer suggested they go with the second option, which would give some control and see how the next couple of conservation developments progressed. Mr. Root stated he was more worried about the larger developments. Mr. Schoenbauer replied they might want to consider limiting acreage. Mr. Tralle stated he was in favor of option 1 because he did not believe they should be "handcuffing" themselves. He noted there was MUSA and other regulations in place that DRAFT MINUTES • • • Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 9 would control some of this. He stated he did not believe there would be an influx of development proposals. He noted the City did not move that fast. He stated he wanted the ability to use their discretion. Mr. Tralle noted no matter how this was worded, it would be a give and take and paper shuffle. Mr. Schoenbauer stated these growth controls could be used to the City's advantage and they needed to trust themselves. He noted they were the decisions makers and they had the option of which way they wanted to progress. He stated there was no downside in giving themselves this discretion. Mr. Laden asked what was the main purpose of the 147 figure other than to slow growth. Mr. Grochala replied the 147 number was the midpoint between the slower growth movement and maintain the existing growth movement. Mr. Schoenbauer noted there was no developer that could force them to do anything and it was up to them as to what type of a development they wanted. Chair Rafferty thanked staff for working hard on this project and noted he was excited to see what was happening at Fox Den. However, he asked if they were possibly being too critical of something that might not happen. He stated he was in favor of option 1. Chair Rafferty invited those for or against this proposal to make comment. There were no comments made. Mr. Root made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to recommend Option 1 exempt conservation development from the growth restrictions. That is, a conservation development would be subject to neither the MUSA allocation limit (36 acres per year) nor the unit restriction (147 per year) and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4 -1 (Nay — Root). Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:14 p.m. A. CONTINUATION of Rezoning to PUD and a Preliminary Plat for Fox Den Acres, Royal Oaks Realty, a 50 -acre development south of Birch Street and east of Deerwood Lane, at the east end of Fox Road Chair Rafferty noted they were taking item 5A off of the table continue where they left off. Mr. Smyser stated he recommended deleting Condition 2 on page 8 of his staff report and inserting the following: "No parking is to be allowed on fox Road between Deerwood Lane and the first intersection in this project ". DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 10 Mr. Smyser stated in Condition 8 he requested the word "plat" be inserted between final and approval. Mr. Smyser noted a sign would be placed on the stub road indicating a road would go through in the future. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend rezoning to residential planned unit development and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions as noted in staff s October 13, 2004 report and with the amended changes made to Conditions number 2 and 8 as requested by staff and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Rafferty thanked Mr. Black for his cooperation with the City staff on this development and wished him luck. C. Final Plat for Speiser Acres, Jeff and Marni Sawyer, the combination and subdivision of three existing lots to result in three lots, 453 Birch Street Staff stated applicants have requested approval of a single - family residential development called Speiser Acres. The property within the new subdivision consists of three existing lots, one with an existing single - family dwelling, and two lots of vacant land. The lot for the existing single - family dwelling will be enlarged to include the land on which some accessory buildings have been constructed. Another single- family residential lot with frontage onto Birch Street will be created, and the remaining acreage will be combined into one large lot. Staff explained the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat layout as approved by the City Council on September 27, 2004. The title commitment for the property has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review. As required under the conditions of preliminary plat approval, the applicant has submitted a Rice Creek Watershed permit. All other conditions of approval will be met with building permit review of the new home. A development contract between the applicant and the City is being developed and will address many of the conditions of approval at that time. MUSA was allotted to lots 2 and 3 of the proposed final plat as part of the preliminary plat process. Staff recommended the approval of the final plat for Speiser Acres. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approving the final plat for Speiser Acres and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5 -0. D. AUAR Study for the I -35E Corridor, Consideration of Advisory Panel Staff explained the City's Comprehensive Plan guides the I -35E corridor area for the variety of land uses including low, medium, and high density residential, commercial, industrial and rural land uses. The City council goals, adopted in June, 2004, included DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 11 the direction to being Master Planning of the I -35E corridor. These goals are also supported by the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) Action Plan identifying the need to master plan the corridor. Staff stated they had received a proposal from Dahlgren, Shardlow & Urban, Inc. (DSU), a leading planning and landscape architecture firm in the state, to complete an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the proposed area along the easterly side of the city encompassing approximately 4,000 acres. The AUAR process give the City the opportunity to assess the impact of potential development on the area's natural resources prior to receiving and considering development proposals for approval. By examining multiple development scenarios throughout the AUAR process, the City is able to evaluate how much development can be accommodated in an area without significant environmental impacts. An AUAR is a very proactive planning process. Staff noted a key element of the process is the establishment of an Advisory Panel consisting of representatives from the Planning & Zoning board, Environmental Board, EDAC, Rice Creek Watershed District, Anoka County, property owners, surrounding communities, and representatives from other identified key groups and agencies. The process is designed to empower the support the City Council in making informed decisions at every key stage of the project. He stated the AUAR process is proposed to be completed within nine months of the authorization to proceed. Staff recommended the Board appoint three members of the P &Z to serve on the AUAR Advisory Panel. Mr. Hyden asked what day and times the meetings would be held. Mr. Grochala replied he did not have this information for tonight's meeting, but he suggested they have a special meeting in the next week or so to discuss who would be on the panel. He noted the meetings would probably be on a Tuesday or Thursday evening either at 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. Mr. Tralle, Mr. Root, and Mr. Laden stated they would be interested in being on the Advisory Panel if the meetings were in the evening. Mr. Grochala noted all Board members were invited to show up at the meeting if they wanted. He stated the meetings would be public meetings. Chair Rafferty recommended appointing Mr. Tralle, Mr. Root, and Mr. Laden to the Advisory Panel and if staff needed further members, they would come back to the Board. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Chair Rafferty recommended they discuss item VI.A. last. B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, David McDonald (Bodyworks Gym property) DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 12 Staff stated the owner of the property located at 780 Lois Lane, 790 Lois Lane, and the vacant property located adjacent to the southeast corner of Lois Lane and the Della Lane alignment has approached the City in order to gauge the feasibility of redeveloping the properties with an attached residential product. He stated staff had assembled some information and sent it to the property owner. Upon receipt of that information the property owner retained a professional consultant and since then staff has met with the property owner and the consultant to discuss the letter and the potential development of the site. Staff explained considering the expense in proceeding with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Development Plan Review, and Plat; the property owner has requested City staff to discuss the potential of this site with the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. He noted this is not a formal submittal, nor does it even include a site plan. Rather, this is an attempt by the property owner to get some feedback from the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council prior to formalizing any arrangements and paying for any working drawings. Mr. Pogalz asked if they had vacant lots adjacent to their existing lot that they wanted to create townhomes on. Mr. Bengtson replied that was correct, but they did not have any definite plans. Mr. Tralle asked how wide was the vacant lot. Mr. Bengtson replied he was not sure, but he did not believe it would be sufficient depth for a lot to be created and it would be necessary to request a variance. Mr. Tralle asked who owned the road. Mr. Bengtson replied that road was an actual platted right -of -way, which led down to the park. He noted he had spoken with Mr. DeGardner, Director of Public Services, about this and he did not have any issues with the road being vacated as long as there was an access to the park. Mr. Bengtson stated they wanted to find out if doing a townhome project in this area would be supported. He stated applicant was hoping to build in 2005. Mr. Pogalz asked what was the precedent in creating something in Stage 2. Mr. Smyser replied they had not advanced into Stage 2 yet. Mr. Pogalz noted if the City followed their staging plan, applicant would need to come back in 2010. Mr. Tralle stated he did not believe townhomes belonged there. Chair Rafferty stated townhomes might not be a good solution or direction at this time because it was a Stage 2 development. Mr. Hyden stated if they started going into Stage 2, this would open the doors to more Stage 2 development and he did not believe they should allow this to happen. DRAFT MINUTES • • Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 13 C. Update on Legacy at Wood Edge Staff updated the Board on the Legacy at Wood Edge project. He stated last night Council took final action on redevelopment and they were moving forward and they anticipated breaking ground in spring, 2005. He stated the YMCA was anticipating ground breaking in mid - summer, 2005. D. Resignation of P &Z Board Member Sharon Lane Staff stated P &Z Board Member Sharon Lane had resigned and noted they would have a new board member on the Board in January, 2005. Chair Rafferty thanked Ms. Lane for her work on the Board and wished her and her husband good luck in the future. A. Temporary Signage Update Staff presented the issues to address for temporary signage and the P &Z discussion to date. He noted the ultimate goal is to prepare amendments to the existing sign ordinance. He indicated they were not proposing a total revamp of the sign ordinance. Mr. Bengtson stated he had broken down signage into 10 categories for review by the Board including portable signs, miscellaneous signs, construction signs, real estate advertising signs, subdivision development sale signs, subdivision development directional signs, open house signs, special event signs, garage and yard sale signs, and incidental signs. He asked if his categories covered the signs the Board had seen and if they wanted to add any other types of signs, or take some types of signs off of the discussion. Chair Rafferty stated staff had done a good job, but he had not had time to review the definitions. Mr. Bengtson noted they could adjust the definitions to be more or less inclusive or restrictive as the Board saw fit. Mr. Root thanked staff for their work. He asked if there would be different standards for each different type of sign, or was the purpose to give them a scope of what temporary signage was. Mr. Bengtson replied it was his intention to give the Board a broad look at the different types of temporary signs there were and it would be up to the Board as to what type of standards they wanted to apply. He stated they could take one or two type of signs at the end of each meeting and look at them individually if the Board wanted. Mr. Laden stated he had been doing some research on sign regulations and free speech and some Cities had been sued on their sign ordinances, which had gone all of the way to the Supreme Court. He stated he understood cities could not restrict the content of the sign and if it was a temporary sign, they could restrict size, time, etc., but they could not restrict content. He suggested they look at all temporary signage as one and restrict them by size, time, etc. and not review each sign type individually. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 14 Mr. Hyden stated Mr. Laden's point was a good one and he believed the simpler the better. Mr. Bengtson stated the Board could go with this type of restriction, but many Cities had temporary sign ordinances. Mr. Laden stated they could still restrict banners. Mr. Pogalz believed this needed to be more refined and there needed to be a few more layers. He stated he did not believe a temporary sign was a temporary sign and there were different levels to it which they needed to look at. Mr. Hyden asked how should they approach this. Mr. Tralle noted if they took two signs a meeting, it would take them 5 months to get through this. Mr. Pogalz indicated the Cities they had looked at previously, appeared to have layers to their sign ordinance. Mr. Bengtson stated a lot of City codes had signage broken down. Mr. Root stated if they broke it down too much, it would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Pogalz believed this would be difficult to enforce anyway. Mr. Tralle asked if City staff had started enforcing the sign ordinance. Mr. Bengtson replied City staff would be working on this, but they were short staffed last month due to vacations. Mr. Tralle noted political signs superceded anything the City put up because the State Statutes regulated them. Mr. Bengtson replied that was correct and the Board would not need to deal with political signs. Mr. Tralle asked if those Statutes would give them any guidelines for temporary signage. Mr. Bengtson replied the Statutes were not very specific and therefore would probably not be useful for them to look at. However, he would gather the Statute information for the Board meeting next month for the Boardmembers to review. Chair Rafferty asked if there was one thing they could look at tonight and make a determination. Mr. Tralle suggested the look at five signs this month and five signs next month. Chair Rafferty stated they needed to find a way to move forward, but he recommended they only go to 10:30 p.m. for this meeting. He also recommended they only discuss the sign issue until 10:30 p.m. for future meetings. Mr. Laden asked if they should make any distinction between commercial and residential property. Mr. Bengston replied depending on the type of sign, it could be used on either DRAFT MINUTES • Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 15 commercial or residential property and the Board could make the determination if certain signs should be banned from certain properties. Mr. Root asked if there was a reason they could not limit total temporary signage to no more than 32 square feet and have a timeline for the sign to be out. Chair Rafferty stated Mr. Root's suggestion was fine, except when it came to construction signs. He stated this issue would come up soon with the development by City Hall. Mr. Laden asked how long could a sign be up before it was considered a permanent sign. Mr. Pogalz stated at a previous meeting a business had indicated they needed the temporary signage for their profitability and he was concerned if the City cut into the profitability of a business, a lawsuit could be the result. Mr. Tralle pointed out staff had not been able to verify that these temporary signs cut into the profitability of a business. Chair Rafferty suggested for next month they take three signs out of this packet and discuss those, starting with the construction signs, subdivision signs, and subdivision directional development signs. Mr. Laden stated he believed these three types of signs were the same. Mr. Pogalz stated until it as brought up on this Board, he never paid much attention to the fact that there were so many signs in the City and he was not sure how to approach this yet. Mr. Hyden stated he wanted to nail down a goal each time so they were moving forward. He stated he did not want to discuss this at every meeting with no conclusions being reached. Chair Rafferty stated he did not know what was the best direction to go, but he would like to get this behind them. He stated he wanted to get to the root of the problem and make this easy to regulate. Mr. Hyden stated he understood what brought this on was the use of banners in the City and the City was looking for direction on how to enforce use of banners, but now they needed to look at all temporary signage. Mr. Tralle stated he wanted to tackle the banners and not construction signs because these were already defined. He stated banners and signs on posts were the biggest problems for him. Mr. Root stated he wanted to pick a sign and discuss it and take this in small chunks, but he agreed they should begin with a discussion on banner signs first. Chair Rafferty asked if they could agree to discuss banners at the next meeting. Mr. Bengston suggested the Board members look at the sign definitions over the next month and if they were defined and the members agreed with the definition, then they did not DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 13, 2004 Page 16 need to discuss that type of signage, which would get those types of signs out of the way and they could then discuss the signs that were creating problems. The Board agreed to discuss banners at the next meeting and the other signs that had definitions, unless the Board had questions about them, would not be discussed. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:41 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. DRAFT MINUTES • r • AGENDA ITEM V.A. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: November 10, 2004 TOPIC: Variance Request Lot Area, Lot Width, Road Frontage St. Paul Regional Water Services BACKGROUND St. Paul Regional Water Services has requested approval of variances for required road frontage, minimum lot area, and minimum lot width to allow the division of the subject sites by an administrative minor subdivision. The comprehensive plan guides both sites for Public / Semi - Public uses and it is zoned PSP (Public / Semi - Public). The attached location map designates the sites as Parcels 3 and 21, and these designations will be used throughout this report to differentiate the two sites. The city granted similar variances for parcel 20 (as shown on the location map) in April of this year. ANALYSIS • Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning: The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Parcel 3 : Centerville Lake Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Vacant Public / Semi - Public PSP North Vacant City of Centerville N/A South Vacant Public / Semi - Public PSP East Lake N/A N/A West Anoka County Park Single Family Residential Public / Semi - Public City of Centerville PSP N/A Parcel 3 is located on the west side of Lake Peltier, running parallel but not adjacent to Main Street. This parcel has approximately 2,650 feet of lake frontage, but does not have any road frontage. The proposed subdivision will result in the creation of 2 new parcels, Parcel A will be 3.702 acres and Parcel B will be .614 acres. Parcel A will be sold to Anoka County for parkland and Parcel B will be offered to adjacent private property owners. • St. Paul Regional Water Services, page 2 •arcel 21 : Peltier Lake Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Vacant Public / Semi - Public PSP North Vacant Public / Semi - Public PSP South Vacant Public / Semi - Public PSP East Lake N/A N/A West Vacant Public / Semi - Public PSP Parcel 21 is located on the west side of Centerville Lake and has approximately 1,850 feet of lake frontage, but again does not have any road frontage. The proposed subdivision will result in the creation of 2 new parcels, Parcel. A will be 10.014 acres and Parcel B will be 1.206 acres. Parcel A will be sold to Anoka County for inclusion into the regional park and Parcel. B will be sold to Anoka County for roadway. The minimum requirements within the PSP zoning district are as follows: Minimum Lot Area (Unsewered) 10 Acres Minimum Lot Width 150 Feet In addition, the subdivision ordinance requires that `all lots shall have frontage on an improved public street that provides the required lot width at the minimum front yard setback'. The proposed minor subdivision will divide both lots into two, of which none will not meet the above requirements. FINDINGS In considering all requests for Variance or appeal and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: • a. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Both sites are almost completely surrounded by the lake and the regional park reserve, and would not be able to be developed as usable parcels due to the lack of road frontage. b. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The physical shape, location and isolated nature of the parcels prevent use for anything other than park reserve or private lake access for adjacent property owners. c. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. St. Paul Regional Water Services, page 3 • Economic considerations is not a major factor in this proposal, the intent is to minimize the applicant's lakeshore holdings for the future. d. 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. There are very few other situations that can be compared to this one. Land locked parcels owned and operated almost exclusively for public purposes would receive the same consideration. e. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. As stated in the zoning ordinance, the PSP zoning district is `designed and intended to aid in guiding development towards fulfillment of the Comprehensive Plan and to serve the following functions: 1. To provide the community with properly located schools, colleges, and health institutions. 2. To provide the community with properly located public services, public utilities, and public or private communication antennas. 3. To provide the community with properly located open green space, parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities. 4. To relate public and semi - public locations with thoroughfare systems.' The proposed minor subdivisions and variances provide additional public open space by adding land • to the park reserve. OPTIONS 1. Approve the project, including: a. Varaince to the minimum road frontage requirements b. Variance to the minimum lot size requirements c. Minor Subdivision 2. Deny the project. 3. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Option 1, subject to the following condition: 1. When ownership of these properties change hands the new owner(s) are required to combine them with adjacent parcels to avoid creating a new parcel. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Administrative Survey of Parcel 21 received October 29, 2004 3. Administrative Survey of Parcel 3 received September, 27, 2004 • • BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS ANOKA COUNTY PARK LANDS PELTIER Subject Property Subject. .0 l� l 1■ .v : • rPro P rti , X111.■. to 41" V. 1FORMS ®M mi CENTERVILLE �11111ty. .■1- s i....I %ABM 111111.1111111111. -� Lir: V \11r��■ .- 111 lll/ /�::.: ni i ►::► � r 10 -4-99 • ADMINISTRATIVE LOT SPLIT FOR: ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES Northwest corner of Government Lot 3 Section 15. Township 31, Range 22. 510 EAST Legal Desodpdon NI that part of Government tat 3. Section 15, Township 31, Range 22. Anoka County, Minnesota described as follow.; Commencing at the northwest corner of said Government lot 3, then easterly along the north line of said Government Lot 3 on an assumed bearing of East a distances of 610 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 12 degrees, 15 minutes East 389 feet thence South 15 degrees, 48 minutes West 200 feet thence South 5 degrees, 46 minute. West 150 feet thence South 8 degrees, 15 minutes Eat 250 feet; thence South 25 degrees, 31 minutes East 105 test; thence South 15 degrees, 15 minutes Eat 600 feet thence South 28 degrees, 15 minutes East 150 feet; thence South 43 degrees, 15 minutes East 141 feet to a point on the right- of-way of the St. Paul Water Works oonol; thence North 43 degrees 48 minutes East along sold right- of-way a distance of 81.09 feet to the low water line of Pettier Lake; thence northeasterly along said low water .Ike to said north gn..of - Government Lot 3; thence west along said. north Ike to the point beginning. s Sold above described property Iles easterly of Lot 7 Auc9lar's Subdivision Number 46 Revised, Anoka Parcel A MI that port of Government Lot 3, Seaton 15, Township 31. Rang. 22, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the northwest ccrosr of said Government Lot 3. thence easterly along the north One of said Government Lot 3 an an assumed bearing of East a distance of 610 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 12 degrees. 15 minutes East 369 fest thence South 15 degrees, 45 minutes West 200 feet thence South 5 degree., 45 minutes Weet 150 feet thence South 8 degrees, 15 minutes East 250 feet thence South 26 degrees, 31 minutes East 106 feet thence South 15 degrees, 15 minute. East 600 feet throe South 28 degrees. 15 minutes East 150 feet thence South 43 degrees, 15 minutes Eat 141 fest to a poled an the right -of -way of the St. Paul Water Wore canal; thence North 43 degrees 45 minutes East along sole right- of-way a distance of 81.09 feet to the low water line of Pettier Lake; thence northeasterly along said low water line to said north One of Government Lot 3; thence west said north line to the poiM of inning. EXCEPT that part of the above deecr6ed properly ykg southeasterly of the described One: Beginning of a ppdd on the east line of Government lot 5 01 sae - Section 15 distant 233.17 rest of the northeast corner of said GcvsrtuneM Lot 5, said east line of Government Lot 5 bean South 0 degrees. 21 minutes, 37 seconds East for the purposes of this description; thence North 70 degrees. 43 minute*, 30 seconds East to said low water One of Polder Lake and said Ore then terminating. Iq • Parcel B I' All that part of Government Lot 3, Sec8on 15, Township 31, Rarq. 22, Anoka County. Minnesota described as follows: Conwnenai g at the northwest comer of said Goverment tat 3. tlena easterly along the north One of said Government Lot 3 on an assumed bearing of East a ddta ce of 610 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 12 degrees, 15 minutes East 369 feet thence South 15 degrees. 45 minutes West 200 feet thanes South 5 degrees, 45 minutes West 150 feet thence South 8 degrees. 15 minutes East 250 foot thence South 26 degrees. 31 minutes East 105 feet thence South 15 degrees. 15 minutes East 800 foot thence South 28 degrees. 15 minutes East 150 feet thence South 43 degree, 15 minutes East 41 feet to a point on the right -of -way 01 the St. Paul Water Works canal; thence North 43 degrees 48 Tong said right-of-way a distance of 81.09 feet to the low water line of Pettier Lis: thence northeasterly Wong said low water line to said north One of Government Lot 3; thence wort along said north One to the of beginning, EXCEPT that part of the above described ofproperty lying northwesterly of the following deeortbed lino comer Beginning said Gossmm.nt Lot 5, sob sast Ono 01 Govermnent Lot 5 15 South degrees, 21st minutes seconds East for the purposes of tier description; thence North 70 degrees. 43 minutes, 30 seconds East to said low water Inc of Peltier Lek. and said line there terminating. NE Car. Gov't Lot 5- \ - I rs % lr V I1_ • 141 -04 462 N88"W I NORTH Scale 1 inch = 100 Ft. 1 hereby certify that this survey. plan, or report was prepared by me or under Ire direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Land Surveyor under the law of the State of Minnesota. W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC. Woodrow A. Brown, R.LS. MN REG 15230 mod. August 11, 2004 October 25, 2004 • �Section 22, Township 31, R01190 22. /—Wort Inn of oon Lot 2. 197' — to 892.0 \Nem M,rd ca,t Lai 2. 39.71— S39'00'W Q 1 1 1 South Irr der north 1/2 d aaet La 2. Wool 1/4 Como. Swoon 22, Towel* 31, MN. 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A n ete, =7, aw� 1W 2. co LOW WATER LINE CENTERVILLE LAKE ADMINISTRATIVE PROPERTY DIVISION FOR: • ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER SERVICES Property Description Ml that part of the North Half of Government Lot 2, Section 22, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north fine of sold Government Lot 2 distant 692 feet east of the northwest corner thereof; thence South 39 degrees West 400 feet; thence South 29 degrees West 200 feet; thence South 24 degrees 40 minutes West 725 feet; thence South 18 degrees 40 minutes West 174 feet to a point on the south line of said North Half of Government Lot 2 distant 197 feet eaat of the west line thereof; thence east along said south line to the low water line of Centerville Lake; thence northeasterly along said low water line to said north line of Government Lot 2; thence west along said north line to point of beginning. Parcel A M that part of the North Half of Government Lot 2, Section 22, Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a point on the north fine of sold Government Lot 2 distant 892 feet east from the northwest corner thereof; thence South 39 degrees West 360.29 feet to the point of beginning; said point being herein after described as point A "; thence continuing south 39 degrees West 39.71 feet thence South 29 degrees West 200 feet thence South 24 degrees 40 minutes West 725 feet thence South 16 ragrees 40 minutes West 174 feet to a point on the south tine of said North Hall of Govemment Lot 2 di:rtant 197 feet east from the west fine thereof; thence east along said south line to the low water line of Centerville Lake; thence northeasterly along said low water line to its intersection with a tine running easterly from said point "A" parallel with said north fine of Government Lot 2; thence westerly along said last described line to the point of beginning. Parcel B M that part of the North Half of Government Lot 2. Section 22. Township 31, Range 22, Anoka County. Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Government Lot 2 distant 892 feet east from the northwest corner thereof; thence South 39 degrees West 380.29 feet; thence East parallel with said north line of Government Lot 2 to the low water line of Centerville Lake; thence northeasterly along said low water line to its intersection with said north line of Government Lot 2; thence west along said north lge to the point of beginning. Legend NORTH Scale 1 Inch = 100 Ft. 100 0 100 200 �1111� MI M NOTE No Search Was Made For Any Easements I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepares me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly rag Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC. _‘741// Woodrow A. Brown, R:LS. MN REG 15230 Dated: September 17. 2004 September 23, 2004 E ce 364' fz-n • W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, • 8030 Cedar Avenue So., Suite 228. Bloomington, MN 55425 Butt: (952) 854 -4055 Fax: (952) 854 -4268 Prawlnq; 185 -04 Pate, 9 -17 -04 5cale: 1 Inch - 100 Ft_ 1 • • AGENDA ITEM V.B. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: November 10, 2004 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING Preliminary Plat - Vaughan Addition BACKGROUND Mike Vaughan has requested approval of a five lot single- family residential subdivision entitled Vaughan Addition. As shown on the attached location map, the subject property is located on the south side of Birch Street approximately 2,180 feet east of Ware Road. The comprehensive plan guides the site for low density sewered residential use and it is zoned R -1. The site is also within the existing MUSA. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning: The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Vacant Low Density Sewered Residential R -1 North School Public / Semi - Public PSP South Single Family Residential Low Density Sewered Residential R -1 East Single Family Residential Low Density Sewered Residential R -1 West Vacant Low Density Sewered Residential R -1 The following is a summary of the of the proposal's density: Gross Site Area 2.99 acres Upland Area 2.91 acres Total Lots 5 Gross Density 1.67 units /acre Net Density 1.72 units /acre The comprehensive plan guides the site for Low Density Sewered Residential land use. The site is within the stage 1 (pre -2010) growth area and within the existing MUSA boundary. Municipal water and sanitary sewer are stubbed to the site from the Birch Street right -of -way. The proposed design fits within the Low Density range of up to three units per acre. • • • Vaughan Addition page 2 Growth Management: MUSA Reserve: The comprehensive plan and the growth management policy establish a specific number of MUSA acres for residential growth for stage one (prior to year 2010). The subject site is already within the current MUSA boundary. Growth Management, Units /Year: There are no lots available for 2004. As seen in the table at the end of this report, 165 lots have been approved for year 2005. No more than 11 more lots could be allowed for year 2005 to bring the total to 176, which includes the 20% discretionary flexibility. Fox Den Acres is scheduled for consideration by the City Council, and the pending growth management policy regarding Conservation Developments makes the availability of the last 11 discretionary lots unknown. PRELIMINARY PLAT Lots: The proposed subdivision will consist of five lots, ranging in size from 11,654 square feet to 19,665 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R -1 (Single Family Residential) zoning district is 10,800 square feet of upland area. The upland lot area of all five lots exceed 11,654 square feet and therefore conform to the ordinance. Access and Circulation: Access from Birch Street is proposed in the form of a cul- de -sac, with an offset bulb. Staff is concerned with access to not only this site, but the adjacent site to the west. It is in the best interest of the city to continue this item so that the feasibility of a shared access with the two properties can be explored. Utilities: City water and sanitary sewer service will connect to existing facilities already on site. Both are adequate to serve the project. Grading and Stormwater Management: The city engineer has completed a thorough review of the submitted plans and his comments are attached. The applicant will be required to satisfy all of these comments prior to approval of any building permits for the site. Parks, Open Space: The proposal does not include any land dedication for parkland, only a cash dedication will be required. Park dedication fees are $1,665 per residential unit. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD The Environmental Board reviewed the project on October 27, 2004. The recommendations are attached. The comment requesting staff to examine the feasibility of an alternative access is the major reason behind staff s desire to continue this item at a future meeting. The majority of the comments can be addressed by the development agreement between the applicant and the city, others will be included as conditions of approval when this project is heard again before the Planning and Zoning Board. Vaughan Addition page 3 • OPTIONS 1. Continue the project to a future meeting. 2. Deny the project. 3. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this item be continued to a future meeting so the access issues can be examined and because of the questions surrounding the availability of discretionary lots for 2005 under the growth management policy. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Vaughan Addition Preliminary Plat packet submitted October 26, 2004 3. Environmental Board comments dated November 2, 2004 4. City Engineers comments dated November 4, 2004 • • Vaughan Addition, page 4 • • • N H Z U) H 0 J O) T X Cr) O �, N ,Q E O 6 0 N 0 N (n 2491 ,- N- (O in 0 r CO 1521 N r r,- cr N O N 181 CO N CO - 0 0 CO ((3 O O co If! tG Phasing plans by year (lots /units to be final platted) Q) O 0 N 0 CO 0 0 N 0 1-- O 0 N M M co) co O 0 N M rY N r N O 0 N N (f) 511 0 r N CO e- CO N CO ,- t- (n 181) O 0 N LO (0 r- 0 (0 0 0 0 47 N- N (D ti M O 0 N Lt") N ((0 0 0 CO N N A- CO year end 2002 51 T I0 E - d .1 2 a 103 0 249 — 0 (O L() 0 N- CO 1521 N 0 - - N 10 N CO N- CO 1- CO 10 00 Development Name approved prelim. plats 1Stoneybrook 2nd Addn !Century Farms North 'Keefe: prel plat, not final plat Morton (minor subdiv) Ravens Hollow 1Haley Manor (10 new lots) Crystal Cove 1Millers Crossroads 'Lakeview Estates (2 new) 'Snell (minor subdivision) !Pheasant Hilis Pres. 13th !Justin's Preserve 1Marshan Estates 'Rice Creek Church duplex 'Rice Church: Oakwood View C Q N 0 C D Highland Meadows East 2nd (Marshan Townhomes 2nd 'Pheasant Hilis 12th island 'West Shadow Ponds 2nd Add! U) to 0 C' o Q 1 Fox Den Acres (resubmittal) 'Vaughan Addition (total ti N CO 0 M Cr) N N O) NAME VAUGHAN MICHAEL E SEH DataView ADDRESS 600 BIRCH ST PIN 293122340002 I��i�� •11111■iiu■11.'J; SHEET INDEX CO-1 COVER SHEET 0 -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C2 -1 SITE PLAN C3 -1 GRADING, DRAINAGE, & EROSION CONTROL C3 -2 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN C4 -0 OVERALL UTILITY PLAN C6 -1 PRELIMINARY PLAT C8-1 GRADING & EROSION DETAILS C9 -1 UTILITY DETAILS L1 -1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1. These Construction Plans were prepared by a field survey prepared by Loucks Associates and record utility drawings from the City of Lino Lakes. 2. We have shown buried structures and utilities on and /or serving the site to the best of our ability, subject to the following restrictions: a. Utility operators do not consistently respond to locate requests through the Gopher State One Call service for boundary purposes such as this. b. Those utility operators that do respond, often will not locate services from their main line to the customer's structure or facility - they consider those segments private installations that are outside their jurisdiction. If a private service to an adjoiner's site crosses this site or a service to this site crosses an adjoiner, it may not be located since most operators will not mark such "private" services. c. Snow and ice conditions during winter months may obscure otherwise visible evidence of a buried structure or utility. d. Maps provided by operators, either along with a field location or in lieu of such a location, are very often inaccurate or inconclusive. e. The surface features and elevations shown on this drawing were located by Loucks Associates. f. All of the underground utility information and location shown on this plan were prepared from record drawings obtained from the client and the City of Lino Lakes records. g. EXTREME CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED BEFORE AN EXCAVATION TAKES PLACE ON OR NEAR THIS SITE. BEFORE DIGGING, YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE AT 651/454 -0002. • VAUGHAN ADDITION LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA PROPOSED SITE LOCATION PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR: SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN, STORM SEWER, AND STREET VICINITY MAP WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OE LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651- 454 -0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! Gopher State One CaII TWIN CITY AREA: 651 -454 -0002 TOLL FREE: I- 800 - 252 -1155 LEGEND EXISTING CIVIL LEGEND PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE STORM MANHOLE CATCH BASIN CULVERT �• HYDRANT GATEVALVE 44'.' POST INDICATOR VALVE LIGHT POLE 0 POWER POLE SIGN BENCHMARK ▪ SOIL BORINGS 4A– WATER MANHOLE ,., TELEPHONE MANHOLE UTILITY MANHOLE ELECTRIC MANHOLE WATER SERVICE SANITARY SERVICE HANDICAP PARKING DIRECTION OF FLOW SPOT ELEVATION CONTOURS SANITARY SEWER 4 4 STORM SEWER 41 44 WATERMAIN FORCER AIN GRAIN TILE SILT FENCE CURB & GUTTER RETAINING WALL TREELINE EASEMENT LINE SETBACK LINE ...............— .._. —... FENCE LINE ----• • 0 • N p)'IV • • I,r ORLIOnt UNDERGROUND GAS DEVELOPER COMPANY NAME 600 BIRCH STREET LINO LAKES, MN 55038 APPROVED MIKE VAUGHN TEL: 651 -483 -8734 JIM STUDENSKI, P.E. LINO LAKES CITY ENGINEER DATE: RECEIVED OCT 2 6 2004 CITY OFLINGLES Vt1UUflt'IN ADDITION Minnesota 1 Owner /Developer Name: MIKE VAUGHAN • 600 Birch Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota 1 Professional Services: Plat nin8 • Civil Engineering • Land Srvey g andscape MChilmme• EMkmnK,wl • 7200 Hemlock Laos -Suite 3D■ MenneapoIS, Minesna 55369 Telephone: 1763424-5505 Fast 1763)424-5822 sww.kwcksmcloganrnn S004 CADD Qua! iiical ion: CADO fa snen a,. rosponaLa CO -1 ,h,,t 1 SuI,m,llaI: MOOR Y IWWUyG7,VEvnd 1 Professional Signature: I hereby s4ry thMV $ pen. sowwon v rewn.ss na 6r .r une.,m7 men ewe nnew a,el lama wyE onlE,p.,e.r unaer pre me olne Sus NRrvWSOM. kifrey A. Sle4el - PE 19624 lkense -No. DaN• Quality Control: LID Uaer by. KVR e Os 1 Sheet Index: Olt (1.1 C2 -I Cll C3a Cw C6-) BI C9-1 ll -1 COVER SHEET EXSISTINGCONDITIONSPI, N MTE PLAN GRADING. DRAINAGE l EROSION CONTROL STORM WATER POLLUTIONPREVENDON RAN OVERALL UTILIIT PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT GRADING 8 EROSION DETAILS UTILITY DUMB TREF PRESERVATION PLAN I Sheet Title: COVER SHEET et 1 Project No.: 04002 Sheet No.: co -1 • • /1111=0" ov," n■444) An, ALS, PEna460W.Er 1 EW.."/ R.:WP PVT: .OWSPEP-O, wt.,' 2,44" $44? L / • 1 , 1 OY• 46 / SI 4fT — ? O0an Ea, ey ir ery6,24? .T., Af:,, 7; :Pa OLT Eati ••• , 5t •;, • 4 1.... ; hi, '• S:, 22 % 4:4 Ye N89.58'28"W 71 377.07 / / 4,2)2(04. 1."4:$ „4.4":7 , • 2,094? rafT.hurst L w. 4. 1 i i 4-;• ,„ C, SP / C .; •;.• 1, PI: C.,•‘; 4, A.:1,, - ......20,k, .,,,,. P{C; , • . ,' : PV7.6 :NTT E`. d• 6 I % 6, ....VY- ; . \ 4 OP , .. 4- __...2..,,,,. .........L..... no. cs" ( 444.. AWN - • _ • • • • - a I," ae,“ SIPPITOTOf — - ii-r/r4fo,,' 2 6 • •;" -••„. I • .4" 5 TW( 242:04,2 ; • V L.,,y \ G;" tf.4:44- w14:44".6" ' • 24, 1(04)402: .."4.4:22404 Y4'.4‘?, .589.58',213tri.;• 376.36 le 7, • •,„ 8 ' •• r‘. , '• \ ‘; 2 i '', \ ,•,;•" I il 'lrilr, 1 i• I •••••■••"' 0 • -4:, ,,, RECEIVED OCT 2 6 2004 CITY OF LAN° LAKES • Lam, illowalE • ELECTRIC woonTlE --Ty-w. NARA %Rola -MriT.LMITYYTI. SuaTTELT SEena LIANDICAP PAR.. MOOT. Or ELOw SPOT LIONNEwe aelones apnea SENO VC. SEWN kW-Inoue Panailux DouNTWE nil Flea CURS • art. Mlle. wALL 'REEL. EsSeseN7 Ler SETS. UNE KNEE UNE UNXISGROLNED TELE UNDERGROUND GAS OvERNEND &LEGER. NORTH i.•Rz *o.®• Os- ■•••■■■•• „e•V•Yel.••••••Vn. 0 30 60 NMI SCALE IN EXISTING CONDITIONS GENERAL NOTES FEET 1. The information shown on this Existing Conditions Plan was prepared from o BoOndory and Topographic Survey prepared by Loucks Associoles/Loucks Mclagan and 001ed April 1, 2004. Utility information shown on this plan, such os Sanitary Sewer, WatermoM. Storer, Sewer. Forcemoin. Etc. was provided by the City of Lino LON. Record Plans Utility information shown on this pion, such as Natural Gas. Electric line, Telephone Lines. Fiberoptic Lines, Coble Television Lines, Underground Pipelines, etc. was supplied or faceted by Gopher State One Call. TIrrat Number 2147 and the foltowing UlititieS and Municipolits were notified: XCEL ENERGY CITY OF LINO LAKES METRO WASTE COMMISON MINNEGASCO AT&T BROADBAND ANOKA COUNTY OWEST 651-224-0413 65t-982-2400 651-602-4511 651-224-0413 651-224-0413 763-862-4234 651-773-5680 2. The wetlands Mformotion shown on this pion was provided and delineated by K jolhaug EnWronmentol Services Compony. doted March 17, 2004. 3. We have shown buried structures and utilities on ond/or serving the site to the best of our ability. subject lo the following restrictions: o. 0,94 Operators do not consistently respond to locate requests through Inc Gopher Slate One Ca seriice for boundary and location purposes such os this. b. Those utility operators Mot do respond. often will not locate services tram the moin title to the customer's structure or facility - they consider those segments private installotions knot ore outside of (heir jurisdiction. tf 0 Pivot. service to an adenine site crosses this site or a serce to this site crosses on ocljoiner, it may not be Iodated since most operators Mil not mark such -private services_ , Snow and is conditions during winter months May obscure otherwise visible eWdence of o buried structure or uniny. d Paps provided by utitily operators, either along with a field location or in lieu of such o location, ore very often inoccurote or inconclusive. Mops prOWded by utility operators ore very often at a very Veal Salle. or no Seale • Extreme caution must be eiterched before 00 excavatn takes elope on or nem" the site. Before digging, you are required by low to notify GOPHER STATE ONE CALL at leost 48 hours M advance 01 651-454-0002. VAUGHAN ADDITION CITY `'.1!1 0 F IN KE Minnesota I Owner/Developer Name: MIKE VAUGHAN • 600 Birch Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota Professionat Services: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES Planning • Civil Pneineerine • Lind Surveying 001044)0 200600000 • En...n.19 • Hwnlork Lew -Amite Phl Ntinneapols.ntinnwcaa 05169 Telephohc1713434.35o3 fee 171,11424-3822 www.lourkinwlecen.rom 6300.1 CADD Qualification: [ADD 77==pLurrn"= cnIX, Stihmi 1 la I 11212.01 162014 llevifedCuniermi 1 Professional Signature: I Ileroby may IOW M. Pan. SpeCifiCIMan Or mom. Prawn. by cc under n, .ect 21.1,031.01.10 1 ern a duty LlunserIPIViessiOnal Ensewer undeliwnon of. Smoot Menessa lefiwy Shou0*.11 PALO loonse No. 40,0, I Quality Control: 110 onwee, KVR 1 Shed Index: 109 LOVIRSHLFT C1.1 EASISTINGCONDRIOPISPIAN C2.I 0119 11101 C3.1 00)0140, 00010001 !ROWAN COMMIX C3.2 SICIPAWAIIRPOILUIKANMVINIIONPLAN 040 OVERALL UWE PLAN PREIPAINARI PEAT CPI GRADING&EROSIONDETAILS C5.1 UTILITY DETAILS TRILPRBERVAIIONNAN 1 Sheol Tille: EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 Protect No.: 04002 I Shed No.: C1-1 N89 °58'28 "W 377.07 BIRCH STREET (C.SAH. NO. 10) / - .._.3EDE$IL21AN PATH RAMP R =15 x ya^ RE). 0V1 EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVL AND RTIORE='AER CITY STANDARDS •:4a L;r�v I 30' Is\ 5 or* ,7.62P Y FFE=9055 6FE-897.5 904 LOT *ON V ti 04 �3QP 902 600 1 �Z-99 esek B _ Bs6z 9sec FFE =905.5 BFE =897.5 EES ET LI -I LOT 16:306 SF 1""t 1 FRC,C,_FC` / ■ - YLViul4 i,1Fi / SAVE TREE / w6 SEE SHEET LI -1,0 SCA 894 RAIN GARDE L 85. 589 °58'28,.- 376.36 30' .._ •P/ a0a , last, / NORTH 30 60 SCALE IN FEET exams 04 CIVIL LEGEND SN.OVkraAr. NROn vENrr PosT Irmt.ROR R.LNE L.7 POLE POWER POLE SIGN SOIL BOEINGS w.TER mANNOLE TELEPHONE N.NN.E EIUI. uANHOLE ELECT. MANHOLE &AM SIMACE SANTARI SERVICE HANDICAP PARKING DIRECTION OF saw SPOT ELEVA7.7 0.rows SAMS7C. SINES DRANDLE .7 FENCE CLRSI a OATS IREELNE LINDENGNpND TELE UNDEREAOIND GAS OVEN.AD ELECTRIC SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES • 0 • 0 • •r -4- 1. SF TRACKS' Front building setback = 30' Side building setback = 10' Rear building setback - 30' 2. 7(NING Existing zoning = 0 -1 Proposed zoning - R -I 4. AREA/DENSITY Total Plat Area = 2.99 Ac. - 1000 Total Wetlond Area = 0.08 A< = 2.70 Total Net Plot Area = 2.91 At = 97.37. Total Housing Units ve 5 Gross Density = 167 Units /Awe Net Density - 1.72 Units /Acre Impervious Surface Area - .526 Ac. - 17.60 Building Sorfoce Areo = .054 At. = 1.80 Pervious Surface Area = 2.41 Ac = 80.60 5. All poving, concrete curb. gutter and sidewalk shot! be furnished and instolled cordonce wit& the details shown per sheet C9 -I and the requirements of the City. See Londstope and Architectural Pions for ony additional hordscope applications. 6. The City Department of Engineering and Building Inspections Dept. and the c nstruclion engineer shall be notified of least 48 hours prior to ony work within the street right of woy (sidewalk. street or driveways) 7. Minnesolo State statute requires notification per "Gopher State One Coll" prior to commencing any groding, excavation or underground work. 8. See contract specifcotions for ony removol details. 9. Any sign or fixtures removed with in the right of way or as port of the site work shop be replaced by the contractor in occordonce with the City requirements. The contractor shall preserve and maintain any existing street lights and traffic signs per the requirements of the City. 10. Clear and grub ono remove an trees. vegetation and site debris prior to grading. All removed mplerial shall be hauled from the site daily. All cleorMg and grubbing and removals shall be performed per the contract specifications. Erosion control measures shoo be immediately established upon removal. (See Sheet C3 -I) II. The contractor shoe be required to obtoin 011 permits from the City os required for 511 work with the street and public right of way. 12. A significont portion of site improvements not shown on this sheet ore described ond provided in further detail on the Architectural and Landscape Pions. This includes landscaping, lighting and other fixtures. 13. Surmountable concrete curb and gutter shall be instolled at the edge of all damns drives and parking Ions. The curb shall be tapered and dropped to across 4 41016 0 01 driveway entrances. 14. Construction Notes: ePedestrian ramps 511011 be provided of the locations shown and as shown per the landscape site plans. The contractor shall sow -cut bituminous and concrete pavements os required per the specifications. Remove existing curb and gutter and install 8618 concrete curb and gutter. 15. See Sheets C3 -I ond C4 -I for grading and utilities. 16. All concrete curb and gutter Surmountable, Oty's Standard Plates. (See Detail She 17. The intent of the proposed construction is to preserve os much of the existing street pavement as possible, and to mill and overloy. Removed pavement oreo and patching shall be installed per pavement section provided per Detail Sheet. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! Gopher State One Call TWIN CITY AREA: 651 -454 -0002 TOLL FREE: 1- 800 - 252 -1166 1 Project Name: VAUGHAN ADDITION Minnesota Owner /Developer Name: MIKE VAUGHAN 600 Birch Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota Professional Services: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES Pk-arming • Civil Engineering • Land Surveying Landscape Anhilerllne • Environmental i,2uM 7IOU Hemlock Lane - Suite llkl Minm'aprlis. Minn.,. 59:18'9 Telephone: 1701444 -5505 fax: 178:11474 -Stir www.bLwkundsg vurn 1 CADD Qualification: CAW 1 Suhmin.11: lU .4ininary CAN p..1 ppn_ Ia HN R waIPel Cxy Comp. I Professional Signature: I Mw.ylrenly oa INe qen, .earn<alon Iv wxwl=55 sore Lym.w,Mwmyel«Is.=r weer0 lm I.m.O,y Licensed PStaSlwwErena.rwawuwRM Jeffrey A.Sh.lwk -I'L License No I ee 1 Quality Control: LID a..Lwrw: KVR 1 Sheet Index: (0.1 COVER SLEET CI.1 LW5111,OCONINIIUVSLRAN (22.1 80 PUN 0-1 GRADING. ..1.M. & 601AON CAIN ROL C4., STORM W'.ATERPOttUTIDN PREVENTION PLAN C4-0 MR. URIIIY H AN C61 PREIIMLY 11' HAT C5.1 GRADING A EROSION MINIS C9 -I U11LI1YI%TAILS Lt -1 TREE PRESERVATION PIN. 1 Sheet Title: SITE PLAN 1 Project No.: 04002 1 Sheet No.: C2 -1 500'33'33 "E ,, OW Ca: XpeT SE v< 109 reo- wes, es...„..e ' ''''''' :7'2% .77 1■1,, .-. ......- . .... — ... -- .....— —..... — ......... ..... / - --;;;;;;-;•01:,--4.6,--.743i,,T-r,--i;707•4,.-4,V171' 77447"'"""------1:'-----------''''"'------ n'''''--'-----'"---------"-"7------- :c 1 • / N89,58'28"W .ar 377.07 / 0 APPROkusA c0Cers919 ries-sway,: PCR AMPPItiC &Fsee:48.:2 kasfiAar: BIRCH STREET LaTuSWAga,=.2 PAN t'jra .4.Nt2K A ;YAW 1, .>i WAY 4, , Ri5J f r - C.,/ - WAY PO, ka 4' ,.. i —--7 — 1— 0 k•-• e r \ • SILT FENCE \ (C.S.AH. NO. 10 ) 90, &NCH MAIO. 5 /01:0 )7.619 sr C/A/Cr 40E4905.5 BFEw=897.5 _904 900 97.50 0100 ooso 909i .904.00 4,4 4440.41440491", ' OF f.ak 4440 04aiE400414 AZAPAWL. St V' Pet N 65010 ENTRANCE PAD tait...^T,Vc- i=40,= .—..... ...,,,,,T {',.. ,' irE., 1 c,,,, tt■ta, (41' 05 50 460.905,5 SFEw897.5 905.50 9043' 1*.T.`t: 904—.-. 900 898 ff: la' 4 ," -e "e • /• = CA.? 660.897,5 es ■ cxemeo CIvlL 100060 ":"ro.79: Ege 4.. POST INDIlTOR VALVE Ms- LIGNI POLE POWER POLE RENCWONs SC, WRINGS WATER MANHOLE TELEPHONE MANHOLE SlwilLAI:=1.,EANNOLE ELECTRIC MANHOLE sANITARY SERVICE HANDICAP PAW.. DIRECTION Of FL. SPOT SLEW. CORTOLMS SAWIA. SEwER STORD SEWER °RCM. ON.TILE 5,7 FENCE Die & WIEN RUMS. wALL !RM. USEmENT UNC ...Cs Mal LINE litiaRGROIA0 Tot UNDERGROUND GAS OVERHEAD moose GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES The coMroctor shoe refer to the architectural plons for exact locations and dimensions of buildings, vestibules, sloped paving. exit porches, rornps, truck docks, entry locations and locations of downspouts. 2. All disturbed unpovecl oreos ore to receive minimum of 4 inches of top soil and sod or seed. These oreos shall be watered by the contractor until the sod or seed is growing in o healthy manner. 3. The contractor sholl take all precoutions necessary to ovoid property domage to adjocent properties during the construction phase of this project. The contractor *RI be held responsible for any don-loges to adjocent properties occurring during the construction phase of this project. 4. The controctor will be responsible for providing and rnointaining trolfic control devices such os barricades, worMng signs, directional signs, flogrnen and lights to control the movement of traffic where necessary. Placement of Mese devices shall be approved by the engineer prior to placement. Traffic control devices shall conform to the appropriate Minnesota deportment of Tronsportatian standards. 5. In accordance with generally accepted construction proctices, the contractor will be solely ond completely responsible for conditions on the job site. including safety of on persons and property durklg the performance of the work. This requiremmt will apply continuously and not be limited lo normal working hours. 6. The duty of the engineer or the developer to conduct construction reWew of the contractors perforrnonce M not intended to include review of the adequacy of the contractors safety measures M, or near the construction site. 7. Before beginning construction the contractor sholl install o Temporary Rock Entrance pod at all points of vehicle exit from the project site. Said Rock Entronce pad shall be mointoined by the contractor for the durotion of the project. See detoils shown on Sheet C8-I of the project plans. 8. Erosion ond Sedimentation control measures shalt be established around Inc entire site perimeter and 91 occordance with NPDES permit requirements. Best Management Practices, City requirements and the details shown on Sheet C8-1 01 the Project Pions. 9. All entrances and connections to city streets shoe be performed per the requirements of the city. The controctor shall be responsible for all permits and notificotions as required by the city. 10. See utility don and storm sewer profiles for further detail regarding the storm sewer. SAVE TREE SEE SHEET Lt-I r-- CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. 89 RAN GARDEN L, !. ENE 444* .T,4 FEW ==e TA ,Y-4 ija Stt, 589°58'266, 376.36 .3 Gopher State One Call TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 TOLL MEE: 1-800-252-1166 NORTH 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 1 rrOjeCt Name: VAUGHAN ADDITION Minnesota 1 Owner/Developer Name: MIKE VAUGHAN 600 Birch Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota 1 Professional Services: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES Plximing • Civil Engineering • land Surveying landscape Archilechwe • Environmenvil • 7200 Hemlock Lune- 5010 300 Minneapolis. minnesota 59169 Tele4l00ne=17631424-5505 Fax= 17631424-5102 www.lourkworiagon.co• =2004 1 CADD Qualification: ....Cf. , :so . se was on wsw w owns isc wow. swAss Mssclo■Tfloin:s tw saw= or mat ▪ samersw wowass mal pens srai sm.. 1 Submittal= 10107100 PnikeinevCiis Approval IORSAM keviselPerCie Commis 1 Professional Sienature: I Dewey may MN. pl. or onpared try rne uncle ...swamis* and. lain•eityLicomest ProlesWonal Eneswerwww,hewes &Me W. of Afirms.. leikey Shopek -PE 19624 latenseNo. Osle Quality Control: ‚ID KVR 1 Sheet Index: C0-1 COVERNIEET C1-1 lICIDTINGCONDINONSPIAN C2-I 514( 4044 C3-1 GRADING, 01tANAGE. ER05105 CONIROT C1-2 STORM WATER POLDMON PREVENTION PLAN 04-0 ChISAll. UTILITY /IAN C6-1 PRCLIMINARYPLAT C8-1 0104094 0(800103 DETAILS U111.11YDETAILS 1.1-1 TREF FRESERVATIONPtAN I Sheet Title: GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL 1 Project No.: 04002 1 55001 60.: C1-1 • N89 °58.28 °W .377.07 r% r. z�°•= 88 c\ \STILT FENCE '•. /" ?Ai' SA 997 so LO'9 F7,01t''SF • FFEM905.5 BFE7897.5 904 -S 0 R9] 5, 897.50 BIRCH STREET (C•SAH• NO. 10 ) 901.0 ROCK ENTRANCE PAD 9 01.00 FFE6905.5 'BFE -897.5 90550 r .LAP ACE 904-- 902 900-► 898 1927110 18 AAi, 89751 4 W9 -sg .0 O8, TALim A4a7;MI1 ma 3• 897. 7 895 RAIN GARDEN 95.0 589 °5878'x..` 376.36 h STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) GENERAL NOTES: 1. 1HE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF CONSTRUCTING: FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH WATERMAIN, STORM AND SANITARY SEWER CONNECTIONS. 2. THE INTENDED SEQUENCE OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. INSTALL STABILIZED ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PAD. 2. INSTALL SILT FENCE. 3. CLEAR AND GRUB FOR SEDIMENT BASIN. 4. CONSTRUCT SEDIMENTATION BASIN. 5. CLEAR AND GR118 REMAINDER OF SITE. 6. STRIP AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL. 7 ROUGH GRADING OF SITE. B. STABILIZE DENUDED AREAS AND STOCKPILES WITHIN 14 DAYS OF LAST CONSTRUCTION IN THAT AREA. 9. INSTALL SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN, STORM SEWER. AND SERVICES. 0. SUB-CUT STREETS, INSTALL STREET SECTION. I. INSTALL CURB AND GUTTER. 2. BITUMINOUS ON STREETS 3. FINAL GRADE SITE INSTALL SEED AND MULCH. 4. REMOVE ACCULXATED SEDIMENT FROM BA51N. 5. WHEN ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY 15 COMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED. REMOVE SILT FENCE AND RESEED ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL. 3. SITE DATA: AREA TO BE DISTURBED 3.00 oc. PRIOR TO POST CONSTRUCTION (005350511ON r ' IMPFRVIOUS AREA 080 or 058 nr SOIL TYPES A POST CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF COEFFICIENT C9.50 4. THE LOCATION OF AREAS NOT TO BE DISTURBED MUST BE IDENTIFIED WITH FLAGS, STAKES. SIGNS, SILT FENCE. ETC. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. 5 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY - EROSION PREVENTION PRACTICES TINE AN AREA CAN REMAIN OPEN WHEN NOT TYPE OF 5111PF ACTIVLY BEING 009060: STEEPER THAN 3:1 7 DAYS 10:1 TO 3:I 14 DAYS FLATTER THAN 10:1 21 DAYS DENOTES SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 6. ON SLOPES 3: 1 OR GREATER MAINTAIN SHEET FLOW AND MINIMIZE RILLS AND /0R GULLIES SLOPE LENGTHS CAN NOT BE GREATER THAN 75 FEET. 7_ ALL STORM DRAINS AND INLETS MUST BE PROTECTED UNTIL ALL SOURCES OF POTENTIAL DISCHARGE ARE STABILIZED. 8. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROL AND CAN NOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS OR STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. TEMPORARY STOCKPILES WITHOUT 51GNIF1CANT AMOUNT OF SILT, CLAY. OR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ARE EXEMPT (EX: CLEAN AGGREGATE STOCK PILES. DEMOLITION CONCRETE STOCKPILES. SAND STOCKPILES). 9. SEDIMENT LADEN WATER MUST BE DISCHARGED TO A SEDIMENTATION BASIN WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF NOT POSSIBLE, IT MUST BE TREATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE SNP'S. IO. SOLID WASTE MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REOUREMENTS II. EXTERNAL WASHING OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES 14057 BE UNITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE. 12. NO ENGINE DEGREASING 15 ALLOWED ON SITE 13. THE OWNER WHO SIGNS THE NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION IS A PERMITTEE AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT. THE OPERATOR (CONTRACTOR) WHO SIGNS THE NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION IS A PERMITTEE FOR PARTS 11.6.. PART R.C. AND PART IV. OF THE NPDES PERMIT AND IS JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE WITH THE OWNER FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PERMIT. 14. [RANGE OF (OVERACT -UPON COMPLETION OF GRADING. UTILITIES. AND STREET CONSTRUCTION THE NEW OWNER (HOME BUILDER) MUST SUBMIT A SUBDIVISION REGISTRATION WITHIN 7 DAY5 OF: ASSUMING OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE SITE. COMMENCING WORK ON THEIR PORTION OF THE 51TE. OR OF THE LEGAL TRANSFER, SALE OR CLOSING 06 THE PROPERTY. NOTF, THE NEW OWNER CAN IMPLEMENT THE ORIGINAL SWPPP CREATED FOR THE PROJECT OR DEVELOP AND IMPLAMENT THEIR OWN SWPPP. 15. TERMINATION OF FOVFRAGE- PERMITTEE($) 9159196 TO TERMINATE COVERAGE MST SUBMIT A NOTICE 06 TERMINATION (NOT) TO THE MPCA. ALL PERMITTEE(S) MUST SUBMIT A NOT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET: A. FINAL STABILIZATION. PER NPDES PERMIT PART 19.6. AND DEFINITION IN APPENDIX B HAS BEEN ACHIEVED ON ALL PORTIONS OF THE SITE FOR WHICH THE PERMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE. FINALLY ST08111360, PERIMETER CONTROL FOR INDIVIDUAL LOTS HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE RESIDENCE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE HOMEOWNER. ADDITIONALLY. THE PERMITTEE MUST DISTRIBUTE THE MPCA'S BENEFITS OF, FINAL STABILIZATION. 16. INSPECTIONS A. INITIAL INSPECTION FOLLOWING SILT FENCE INSTALLATION BY CITY REPRESENTATIVE 15 REQUIRED. B. EXPOSED SOIL AREAS: ONCE EVERY 7 DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING A 0.5. OVER 24 H0485 RAIN EVENT. C. STABILIZED AREAS ONCE EVERY 30 DAYS 0. FROZEN GROUND: AS SOON AS RUNOFF OCCURS OR PRIOR TO RESUMING CONSTRUCTION. 17. OWNER MUST KEEP RECORDS OF ALL PERMITS REOURED FOR THE PROJECT. ALL INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE. PERMANENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS. AND REOURED CALCULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. THESE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED FOR THREE YEARS. 18. SWPPP MUST BE AMENDED WHEN: A. THERE IS A CHANGE IN DESIGN. OPERATION. MAINTENANCE, WEATHER OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON DISCHARGE B. INSPECTIONS INDICATE THAT THE SWPPP IS NOT EFFECTIVE AND DISCHARGE 15 EXCEEDING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. C. THE BMP'S IN THE SWPPP ARE NOT CONTROLLING POLLUTANTS IN DISCHARGES OR 15 NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT. SILT FENCE REQUIRED MAINTENANCE: 1 WHEN SEDIMENT REACHES I/3 THE HEIGHT OF SILT FENCE IT MUST BE REMOVED WITHIN 24 HOURS. 2. REPAIR OR REPLACE DISFLNCTIONAL SILT FENCE WITHIN 24 HOURS. CIVIL LEGEND I COLVERT POST INDICATOR VALVE LIGHT PALE POWER POLE SION BERCIPAARA SCA DORPOS WATER UAW. TELEPHONE MANHOLE UTILITY MANHOLE ELECTRIC WARM. RATER SERPICC SANITARY SE.. PANOICAP PARKING DRECT. a PLOW SPOT .vAly. SAWTyRT SEWER STO. SOWER falf Faux Cu. G.TER EASE.41 LNG MICE LW LNOERCROWO TELE OKmI D ELECTRIC ts- NORTH 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET REED I, t OCT 2,02004 OF LANO LAKES SEE SHEET C8 -I FOR GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL DETAILS VAUGHAN ADDITION Minnesota I Owner /Developer Name: MIKE VAUGHAN 600 Birch Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota Professional Services: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES PM nmg • CiPil Engineer61R • Land Surveying landuape Nc1110918. • Environme,a41 • 7200 Hemlock fare -5uile 3W Minneapolis, A,090039 55189 Telephone: 17531424 -5505 Fax: (763874 -5803 .Vww.Iwrksm0limv,.Cmn 0 200 1 CADD Qualification: GOD 011 COMAry0yelyeallInel SOME.. WwWnm, W.Papn forma 5.15 nirsyyti mM.W H..b a. �xxwc pyy pre, 1 hotyy.COWs MYR lo y041 Urn 1,114. GADO OEN, na to Mess .171.111...0.110 enzgl wN%.wdH w.WS.hW caa.gaumm m PC.ara. dams. and l bildos .g 1 Submittal: IDADA14 IhRlmiwrT CiV APPwaI IW4WM_ R,,,.1 Per City CummN4s 1 Professional Signature: 1 hereby n4Py BIM u,U Nn. POLY.. W rePOnvWs P8O1N me or un my Oren...sun and IIw I am • My A.me P48 esronal Engineer uderPW Wes • Wale of Mmes. Iellrey A. shr'I08 - PE 14624 Lkenm Nu. 1 Quality Control: 110 KVK 1 Sheet Index: 0141 COVER SHEET C1 -1 WISINGCONDI110415 PUN C2 -1 SIT1 PLAN C3-I GRADING. DRAINAGE .A EROSION CONTROL C3 -2 STORM WATER POLOIIION PREVEN110N PLAN C4-0 OVERAN UTI157 PI AN C6 -1 PRELIMINARY PLAT C8-1 00(09000 EROSION DETAILS C9-1 011,150 MAILS 11 -1 TREE PRESERVASION RAN I Sheet Title: STORM WATER POLLUTION. PREVENTION PLAN 1 Project No.: 04002 1 Sheet No.: C1 -2 'r N89'58.28"W 37707 / BIRCH STREET ____••____•____•••_•••• •-__ ----••-•------ • - I 0, r L-- r (C.SAH. NO. 10) rar- CORE 0/NVECT TO EXISTING SANIISIFti'-iEVER MH INVERT =89289 23' 18" RCP„00.25% 3 12" CMP LOT 5 0.629 sr FFE4905.5 8FEA897.5 902 900 ..-GB FES 2 RIM= INV=899,..9- / r ayPvc 0 0.40% •-". I 1'3 8' 18" RCP 0 025 FES 3 INV=89p.8' 904 902 900 898 WATER SERVI NIT ARY SERV 16.. SF L00r l „,/ / A , ---=-- :--4,/ 1 Al i ''r FFE.905.5 8E0.897.5 12" CMP 0 1.5i t • - I 11 FES 4 ..••-; 1NV=8917: • A. 41:/S0 ,s EES ET LI-1 LOT §,rX, oar Fsp.E4P 0 SEE SHEET LI- le> s )6.506 sr L 55 0 dze's 895 al 89 RI z RAIN GARDEN 9.581rE 376.36 4 ! pa ReC5N oc 2 6 2.0104 L51-14%&Es\ „ 0 CIVIL LEGEND PRCPOSEIT ..."Tetv-Trtetet"... SwROutT ost.CCE sTORP ..CLE cATCP CULVERT .11.0 CATNALTS POST SOICATOR VALVE L.T POLE POWER POLE • P.C.* SOL 130.. WATER 14.10LE IELEPSOPE SANTOLE UTILITY IPANKEE ELECTRIC LOSHOLE .7ER SER.S CAWS.. SERV. 10181. PARKING OPECI. Or PLOP SPOT ELEv.i. COSOLSS SAN OEM • 0 M • 1 OvERPEPIC ELECT. UTILITY PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1. 811 sanitary sewer. storm sewer and watermain utilities shall be furnished O. installed per the requirements of the specifications, the City and the slondard utilities specification of the City Engineers Associotion of Minnesota (CEAM), 1999 edition. All HDPE connections to concrete manholes shall be connected with on internal rubber gasket or by using ADS woterstop gasket 48 sonitory sewer main line shot! be SDR 35 49 sanitary sewer services shall be SDR 26. 2 See Sheet C9-I ond Inc contract specificotions for specific utility details and utility service details. 3. All utility pipe bedding shall be composted sand or tine granule materiol per Inc requirements al the City. All compaction sholl be performed per Inc requirements at the CEAM Specificotion. All connections to existing utilities 58011 be performed per Inc requirements of the City. The City Deportment of Engineering and Building Inspections Deportment and the construction engineer must be notified at leost 48 hours prior to any work within the public right of "toy, or work impacting public utilities. 5 All sanitary sewer ond water services shot! terminate at the property line unless otherwise noted. 6. The controctor *holt notify GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 01 651-454-0002 at le0s1 48 hours prior to performing any excavation or underground work. 7. The contractor shaft 1140 adjust watermoin to ovoid conflicts with sanitary sewer, storm sewer. and services as required. Insulation of water oncl sanitary sewer lines *holt be proWded where 7.5 feet minimum depth con ROT he olloined. B. All street repairs and patching shall be performed per the requirements of Inc City. All troffic control shall be provided by the contractor and shall be established per the requirements of Inc Minnesoto Monuol 01 Uniform Trolltc Control Devices (AILITCD) and the City This shall include oil signaqe. barricades. flashers ond floggers as needed. All public streets shalt be open to Iroffic 01 oil times. No road closures shall be permitted without the expressed authority of of the City. 9, All new wotermoin must have o minimum of 7.5 feet of cover. 10. Adjust 011 existing structures, both public and privote to Inc proposed grades where disturbed and comply with all requirements of the utility owners. Structures being reset to paved areas must meet owners requirements for traffic tooding. II. Proposed Pipe Moterials: Wotermoin DIP Class 52 No Inc than 7.5' deep. Water Service COPPER TYPE 0.1" Service to property line. Sonitory Sewer PVC SDR 35 No more than 20' 0.817 SONIOry Sewer PVC 50826 20' - 25' deep. Sanitary Sewer PVC 4" Service to property line. Storm Sewer RCP CLASS 5 12" to 18" diameter. Drointile POLYETHYLENE Back of curb. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! Gopher State One Call TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 NORTH 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET 01015(1 NaMe.. VAUGHAN ADDITION C I T 0 F • IN •r'r4KE • Minnesota Owner/Developer Name: MIKE VAUGHAN 600 Birch Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota 1 Professional Services: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES Planning • Civil Engineering • Land Surveying Landsiape Parbiierture • Environmental • 7200 Renilosk lane. Suile 300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 1511■9 Teisphonis 0631424.5505 Fax: 17631024.5822 www.linuksmrlaisinmin I CARD Qualification: uav ,NeLy la,c1 ■nm* al Inv Ina■my r.....,,=,,nr...1m.......r.,- • Cittl.ttwo I Submittal: 1097,11.1 Preliroin.nCly 4/01 1409402 Ilevieolf.CitiCanfishis Professional Signature: 14.reny cen40.111is pan. sp.*. or naval was 1.810.0 by me or on. my tlima supervision end Net I emit duly Licensed Enp.ear ulderine of Me Sloe ol Morn. 414810. Shopek 'P0 19424 License No. Hee 1 Quality Control: ID KVR 1 Sheet Index: 00.1 COVEICSKIT CI.1 051511110 COND11101411.41 122.0 911t C3.1_ (19/011.1G, DitnetACE.611tOSIONCONTIUX C1.2 STORMWATER POIAUTIONPPIVINITION PLAN C4.0 OVRAI IffIlln MAN AtHISYSAIIS FLAT 011 GRADING 6 EROSION IXTAILS 09.1 011111110010100 1.1.1 TREF PRESIRVATION PIM 1 Sheet Title: OVERALL UTILITY PLAN 1 Project NO 04002 [Sheet No C4-0 J PRELIMINARY PLAT OF.- VAUGHAN ADDITION I 1 ' : h \i Or 77;1 / / • 7 (/: Or 77:7 sl" r OF SA:. 23 Rai 2t" .NP70M'IAIAT L {2.ATICN Q'" U "' FC1LCr.1NiV FEET^ rt N89.58'28 "W f i l 377.07 1 ,V'An ^i1.4Y1.0777 LOCATION 7cZEPNGNE LINE PER MAPPING EIn.rr!Nets SIVFAC_ BIRCH STREET 4t) ) b2A Yp 49a4 vq• t I - C. — u 90 l4o t .0 . f if fAf rA 0 - A F/ L fIJOLIS A1711 y S'LY iii,;; 1:' ( I41 LINE AS .9/0(PN {B-" ,1,0 --f.. 77750 1� =,.,f 3 G' =CLIJ76 HIGHWAY 10 bop ,„.„,§21,•0 y0 04 ti. F opI I *P d 7' PMT 170. it - -y. r `` 2 r ---tf 'v`'b,�? -,i I �; +''c o N ota op J�k o a� v..._9:77.46— 127 a' N. tie:. tiPP •• Sl'/7 '0, 1:.'4 N. n.... (C.S. 4.H. NO. 10 ) 400' -..'i°'._., ' 5 LO.P7. 3 /7,629 SF y, Ap naLar d_• '4 DUL I NON en neihri 9p L9 0 �d .... .,.. of to' 0' 4, oh s:te1`M1 :IP;pM1 s 'r I 8586 ,1' 904 902 900 LOT 1 16,014 SF NM. LOT 2 22.834 5F 4.- N 4414 PI i!it b4; 4° d W'- �I ) ) li 9' i c LINE OF ME N. 341.3 FEET OF ,11E SE 1/4 OF n;E SI% / /•F OF SEC 29 185.8 589°56'28S.7 376.36 O DENOTES I/2 INCH x 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT SET, MARKED 'RLS 26724" • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND NOT TO SCALE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: -.l 10 I I to B EING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED AND ADJOINING LOT SNOT, AND BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING RIGHT—OF—W4.1 L• 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT GENERAL NOTES SURVEYOR: Loucks Associates, Inc. 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55330 763 - 424 -5505 OWNER /DEVELOPER: Mike Vaughan 600 Birch Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55038 651- 483 -8734 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the North 345.8 feet of the Southeast 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, Township 31 North, Range 22 West, lying East of the West 879.46 feet, except the East 60 feet thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota. DATE OF PREPARATION: 07/02/ 2004 BENCHMARK: TOP NUT HYDRANT LOCATED ON SOUTH SIDE BIRCH STREET AT HOUSE NUMBER 600 ELEVATION = 905.71 (PER ANOKA COUNTY SURVEYOR OFFICE) EXISTING ZONING: Zone (R -1) single family residential PROPOSED ZONING: Zone (R -1) single family residential TOTAL AREA: 130,269 sq.ft. 2.99 91- acres LOT AREAS: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 UPLAND LOT AREAS: Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 16,014. sq.ft. 22,834. sq.ft. 16,506. sq.ft. 20,719. sq.ft. 17,629. sq.ft. 14,010 sq.ft. 11,654 sq.ft. 12,894 sq.ft. 19,665 sq.ft. 17,629 sq.ft. ROW DEDICATION: Existing R -0 -W 22,620. sq.ft. New R -O -W 13,943. sq.ft. BUILDABLE AREA: 88,383 sq.ft. PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACKS: Front Side (Corner) Side (Interior) Rear Arterials and collectors = 35 Feet = 30 Feet = 5 Feet = 30 Feet = 40 Feet CE VE OCT 2 6 2004 C9 T Y OF UK/ LAKES FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION: This property is contained in Zone C (area of minimal flooding) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 270150010 B, effective date of May 17, 1982. SURVEY LEGEND CATCH BASIN STORM MANHOLE O SANITARY MANHOLE WATER MANHOLE I'D TELEPHONE PEDESTAL /;I LIGHT POLE 0 POWER POLE 01 GATE VALVE U HYDRANT SIGN 0,40 SPOT ELEVATION C " 4,u+ i TREE OA OAK TREE CO COTTON WOOD TREE NORTH FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PLAT THE EAST LINE OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 SEC. 29 HAS AN ASSUMED BEARING OF SOOe26'48"E — EXISTING CONDITIONS SEWER >- -- SANITARY SEWER I —WATER MAIN - 1' -- UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE el SANITARY FORCE MAIN - -c•s UNDERGROUND GAS - -rev — ' OVERHEAD UTILITIES —=- -•r —CHAIN LINK FENCE --o—oWOOD FENCE - — CONCRETE CURB (•_ _,;_JCONCRETE CONTOUR MA MA MAPLE TREE GUY WIRE —BBL—BUILDING SETBACK BOUNDARY LINE 0 30 00 SCALE IN FEET Project Name: VAUGHAN ADDITION Minnesota Owner /Developer Name: MIKE VAUGHAN 600 Birch Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota Professional Services: Planning • Civil Engineering • Land Surveying Landscnpc Architecture • Environmxml ©2004 • 7200 Hemlock Lane • Suite 300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 30349 Telephone: 1763)4245503 Fax: (763)424 -5822 www.loucksmclagan.com I CADD Qualification: CAW Ws Ad or euom row. swm papa. ec Tn.a.°In aro Dap. m.. em.."mwm et" �n Pea M N Ro 504002 -MASTE !Submittal: 08/06/04 Rice Creel W•mhcd Pena 99/13/04 cviscd general notes Ild areal (09604 revised adjacent driveways I Professional Signature: J 1 hareey svalty Inn/ 9:h Oen, Specification a.9.Awa p.a. by ma or under my alma suardslml and 8/a ern y Ldpp NOed Lllaat Minnesota. %nderlhe laws r cwn.C4o/x, E. ab /'.-/0 (1A Glades E. Web p. -LS 41226 License No. Date I Quality Control: Fmkxlead: CEW CEW RLS ISheet Index: CO -I COVER SHEET CI.1 RS/STING 704011ION5 PLAN C2.1 SITE PLAN C3., GRADIN'G,ORINAGE. E EROSION CONTROL C3.2 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN C4-0 OVERALL 1116177 PUN C6 -1 PRELIMINARY PLAT Ce_I GRADING d EROSION DETAILS C9.1 UTILITY DETAI$ 11.1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 1 Sheet Title: PRELIMINARY PLAT • 1 Project No.: 04002 1 Sheet No.: • • ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 3/16/04 STANDARD DRAWING NO. $05 .• - • RAs•N401 .• .• .• .• .• .• .• .• V METAL OR 2x2•WOOD FENCE POST i .• • .• .• .• .• .• .• .• .• GEOTESTILE WITH NET BACIONG BACNFILL •-\ .• GEOTEXTILE TO i•• OVERLAP THROUGH TRENCH. .• .• .• i NOTE • -SILT FENCE SHALL CONFORM TO leNDOT 3886. TYPE B. .• -FENCING SHALL BE PLACED ALONG CONTOURS .• OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. .• .• S/..T FENCE.. i 3/16/04 • ' —1-3TAHDARD DRAVONG I .. . . .- : NO. • . , f30 1 i IN i i . mIN IrfZeLgirais`lolg&t=Ii.eic. ems CCHIRACTOR TO SET POSTS A. GAHM ROUND THE BAS1N DURTN4 BACKF1LLING OPEN VON. SIM AND SMAPE OF INC BARRIER SMALL BE NOW. TO PT STRUCTURE. SR7 TO BE PtACDD AROUND ENTRE PLR.. TOP OF SILT rENCE TO MAW 17- INN GISMO. 70 EXISTING SRAM. NORIMNIAL MENDERS CONTRA/MS AROUND TOP. r4siorto TO LA. POST USN. 2-200 COLN. NA115 reggr`V.W. 6- Or ABM 70 1M CATCH BASIN SILT PROTECTION DETAIL RIPRAP THICK 4' RIPRAP BEDDING SEC. B—B FILTER FABRIC 1' 07—RIPRAP SEC. A—A RIPRAP AT OUTLETS GRADING & EROSION CONTROL NOTES: I. Where soil corrections and/or filling occur within the street right-of -woy. the bockfill material shall be compacted to 950 of the standard moisture density relotionship of soRs (ostrn d-698-70) except the top three feet (3') of the bocklill which shall be compacted to 1000 density. An independent testing firm shall test the street section in fill orecis and provide the results of these tests to the city, engineer and the client. 2. The contractor shod Mstoll silt fence prior to commencing grading activities one shall rnointoin said fence for the duration of construction °divines. 3. The contractor shall lirnit his activities to the eroding limits shown on the grading plan. All construction activities shoe comply with the local ordinance. 4. The contractor shioll install snow fence, as directed by the engineer. to protect tree roots. 8 The contractor shall schedule his operations to minimize the disturbed ores of any given time. 6. All disturbed non-street 0,005 511011 be restored with a minimum of 4" top soil ond seed or sod as tVected by the engineer. within 72 hours of completion of the grading activity 0 that particular areo. a. All seed, sod. mulch and fertilizer shall conform with the following mn/dot specifications, as modified below: Itern Specification Number Sod 3878 Seed 3876 Mulch (type I.disc onchored) 3882 Fertilizer 3881 General placement 2575 b. SOd shall be placed behind curb immediately following the bockfilling under city street and utility project. c. The seed mixture shall consist of a MnDOT type 500 unless noted otherwise on the plan. 7. Following street construction, Inc developer shall clean the streets on on 0n-90.9 basis os required by the city. 8. Unless otherwise noted, the siltation ponds are ternporory, and shall be removed one restored to Inc original contour by the developer following the permanent establishment of turf on 7501 of the drainage area. The ponds on* pond outlets shall be constructed under the grading contract. 9. Rip-rap sholl be placed at oll storm sewer outlets under the utility contract and sholl conform with applicable City and watershed district standards and specifications. 10. Verticol grading tolerance shall be within 0.2 feet of the city approved grading plon. RECE OCT 2 6 2004 clre OF LINO LAKES 1 Protect Name: VAUGHAN ADDITION Minnesota 1 Owner/Developer Name: MIKE VAUGHAN • 600 Birch Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota I Professional Services: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES Planning • Civil Engineering • Land Sone ing Lanthrape Archsenure • Envimninerea ..?;200•1 • 7200 Umiak Lane • Suite TOO 11.1in00ap0liS. Atinnenta 5530g Telephone: 17631424.5505 015: 1701622.5022 www.lonclomtLy,,xrren 1 CADD Qualification: CAM Ow p.a. by Irle pemburnents Consul4+M *sons, sm,a. lor ton sdNy oN1nr•spoKltneN.P.Pa el. nal us. iszne,o,cra Alien !eine ;217Ner may p.m...xi o,arn copn GOO en., Nos lo olormanon Ana Woo. anly vu.ni.m1m/ ma...5 Wantons. r. tiolobane hem CAM.% anal b. made A1 No lurk Ink o1 Owl piny malanrucluimmerns 1,01p Consul.. llom Any :Amp:INN...Ms INN11.11.11Nes 11107/15 11/Iii000n City ,Eseval 1 Professional Signature: thereby fedi, mein. pen. space. orison wss wowed Or ree or weer, de. ligenvision Ihe 1 aril duly ,enseelProlessm.Enpme mg. Nes of the Siete of Namesake Ieikey A. Shope/ .P1'. 14s24 (.001.0 50, Irate 1 Quality Control: .11D KVR 01557155 I Sheet Index: COWRSHEET CI.1 0.561INGCO7400ION5PL64 C2.I StTERAN 63.1 GRADING. ORAINAGF. IROSION Ff PsTtre 01.1 STOW WATER POI.LUTICA !AMNION PLAN 00.0 OVER111 UnIllY II AN Clot PR05ININARYI/A1 Cel GRADING R EROSION IXTAILS CS-I GlIDIV !TOWS 11-1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 1 Sheet Title: GRADING, DRAINAGE lip, & EROSION DETAILS 1 Project No.: 04002 Sheet No.: C8-1 W66661 GRANULAR MATERIAL ENCASEMENT -r CONCRETE CRADLE Pi -E E %0D)NG DE.TAiL.S STANDARD 05291NG N0. 1 3/4' GALVANIZED STEEL TIE ROpS RREETA1rrCR aD5 /OaSi WW1 x16" EOUNALANT) AT JOINTS CONCRETE BLOCK SE[ STD. DwG. 203 T't%iC00.L ELAN LAYOUT (VALVE IN A BOULEVARD) ! ElA RNSCi CURB G000TE%n10 FABRIC DOT 3733 3 CONCRETE BLOCK 3/15/04 REACION BACwxL 1/2" WASHED ROCK ALL AROLIND wiPEmrouS IN SOILS.) 514NDARD DRAM. x0. I e. 1/3- u0R1AR ON OUTLOC. BETWEEN RW45. CASTING et ( CATCH BASIN. FINISH NO SMOOTH NOR T O INSIDE. N51 . N iNseE REUOAE CURB BOx BOLTS MOS (10' MAX OF RINGS h OR- 5wEL0" SEAL [OWL (4 NI 1N.) USE OTTOU MINT EAL PRECAST COVER SLAB (Tr, 2) SE�ALE00 SLOBSJOIixiS. 510 /-.004[01 400140 PRECAST BASE DV.. THSUBI ME1. �YI111•11111Er311111WI NO 1.00 SNIAL OE IK20 FOR 04431•C CAVAN. 4.1 .RTIR 0.1 .61 NW MAK • CAKE CASINOS IMP siwcintAnom PRECAST RINFORCIO CONCRETE SASE SIAS h .8 KR KA2 CAM aRFN947NRL 9R..4 R n1; Tt;4::rT °FI�'919`.... c'A o) BASIN/MANHOLE, TYPE. 406 N0. 406 PIPE INSTALLAION W ACCORDANCE WTH ASTI. 0 2321. TABLE 2. Eu0EDI.EN1 MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO 451. 02321. TABLE 1. GRANULAR IAA1ERAL 8000110 0071400 (FOR PVC PIPE) STANDARD mA1Al1iF ND. 103 6 30... A.I 7/2/97 STANDARD DM0NG NO. 207 MT A. 4. 212. MAK MKS GUNK KR SPECMGMONS COWED PIPE CR. R. 1ORNAJLAR .3CW MD ORAT CATCH BASIN, 1660 402 N0. 402 GRANULAR MATERIAL BEDDING 3/15/00 2 O.D. EARTH FOUNDATION f>iPE (00601 €DN 0'11/:12 STANDANX 01eAlaRK 0. 301 45 BEND 4a4 ERMlA (CB04DPI AC4 1E0) WITHOUT RISE 6' uELAL FENE: r POST 4ARKER P PAINTED GREEN *ARKER w /57010 DEPTHS 4REp1ER THAN 14 CHG REEK 1$ER APPROvED VENICE LAIC WITH RISER RTIGHT PLUG OR CAP 45' RENO GRANULAR REDDNA: TERIAL (COUPACTED) SERVICE wrE TO BE ...BEDDED IN CONCRETE NOTE: 55EMCp (IAPSETU 08}6600. i 3/16/04 SAEIS£T:ARY SEWE11 SERVICE. STANMRD DRAWING NO. 3115 PLAN DUCTILE IRON PIPE BLOCKING 0021111 (60N 6161 €116260 (0001 00N05) 56E0V11 110060/1306 606 ST.ASit. €1£NG OR :nETIAT:RIN. or TRENCH 3/15/04 10- SHIELD"+ SEAL OR EOUAL. 1/2" NORTAR ON 0UT50E. BETWEEN RIwGS. MAN a AND 4ANHOL HOLE. FRO. SNOOTH ON THE INSIOC. 40R1M ON WSIOE MANHOLE1 SLEEVE SEE DETAIL • STANOWO dM91NG �, 05 5 N0 i3i3i3j 5T NLE STEEL STRAP 4B" SLEEVE[ SECTION A -A MANHOLE SLEEVE e MO .00 LIE: MA .21Sr. =NS CLIRENT uoiruai 0.11 A 121 OP 181 BAKE;61 WC/106 NSA.. UNIXR NA CONE ..22117 6211 CONKC1.S. YAWNS SW. SC YAK WO. 1.1 ST 4S1 IMA.C2 RvENE. 60. Ax5 CE11027 WOOLS INSIK SURFACE SPAN SE IKKNED 4.0121 2100)) /6i 4011 .vi>L (PIPES 27' OR LESS) ;.._51,000000 pUWING • 3/16/04 STANOAR 05291114 NO. IN 703 owl NOTE. 4 0/0 CROSSING 00717 30 1.1i1giAN STREET 1)111)17 _ 01 3/16/04 IN STANDARD pU*W0 702 0 01 5)0(Iv 20`00:.% :iii EIV'E'C ARD q MD <t) g 7' RAID MAIN DRIVES B TRUCK AREAS PAGAN PKPARANIN AUTOMOBILE AREAS MOOT P. 21 AKAR ON. PIK BITUMINOUS PATHWAYS B612 17.5• 28• SURMOUNTABLE 2.J B618 1+• RAD BITUMINOUS SURrACE BITUMINOUS BERM DRIVEWAY CURB CUT 0618 NOTES' I. AT ALL TRENCHES 2- 14 REINFORCING RODS SHALL BE PLACED IN THE LOVER PORTION OF THE CURB 20 FEET IN LENGTH. 2 2 -14 REINFORCING ROOS AT CATCH BASINS NO LESS THAN 10 FEET IN LENGTH. 3. 8518 CURB TO BE USED AT RADIUS. STANDARD CURB DETAILS BITUMINOUS PAVING SECTION RFCENED OCT 2,62004 V/1UUf1/11N ADDITION Minnesota 1 Owner /Developer Name: MIKE VAUGHAN • 600 Birch Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota 1 Professional Services: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES Planning • Civil Engineering• Land Surveying; Landscape Architecnrce• Enyinrinenta) !21)0 7203 Hemlock Lane - Suite 300 Minneapolis, (Minn.SOla 55369 Telephone:1743024.5505 Pax: 1741324 -5822 www.loucksindagan<Nn CADD Qualification: 22.2.2 to 222 :WAN 1 Submittal: 17017111 19245144331) 1v1o..3 1 Professional Signature: o1h9ra1 spec nn P4K. iramn w Is,. was rwby me or under my area wanner. and met am9 ary Gun »a PWnwlat Engmer utter w bn W me Sate dNww.° olio A. 941x1.1'[ 19624 (keine NM Dale 1 Quality Control: LID KVR 1 Sheet Index: 00.1 COVER SHFT C1 -I 155810!6 CONO30)5 PLAN C2.1 SITE PLAN 0.1 GRADING.OWVNACA, F EROSION CON1R01 0.2 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION 71.414 C40 r1VLRAI okay PLAN Ctrl PR[UINARY RAT 0.1 GRAOING6 DEMON DETAILS C9.1 U1(110 DETAILS LI -1 TREE PRESERVATION RAN 1 Sheen Title: UTILITY DETAILS 1 Project No.: 04002 1 Sheet No.: • 2406 0„,, 900. 40 I SAN MH .C.Cr-•• 2405 /s- SAN MH / YNY 4, 0' ./, if,. .• BIRCH STREET „ 4/0 •,. , crkra0gi..• 4 or, a.! (C.S761.H. NO. 10) (' 'f! ... / 5.•5!... . , \ '', 4-.,/ ' „ _ ,‘„ % ,, : s '' ci ,,■, .:/ 1. „. • ,• FFE4905.5 BFEW097.5 FiE=905.5 .BFE.,897.5 / 1 . / I ‘ „ • „ ,, , .... t ' A TREE PRESER V A,Ou N LINE ,;.,..m..,,i .1 , .. .. \a, . ... ? 4 1 .,' •=` -..', ,...., - l -=' • - r it 0 VE T E SH EES ET LI-I to ag)•;-' ft' 4.; • BMW GARDEN 1 , • „, ... \ ..... , .,,.., l-:.._-:.2': '''-cwr-....,"a;"....-...-..,......-- ..-a....,- - ■ -,.. ps' • sw.....- - "'!,-/ .!----- -- os. -iv ot ,/ \ , , „...... teI , — .,..............— '''' ,. . 0."" '''' '''' .• c 0 0 TREE PRESERVATION LIST 1. ,SIGNIFICANT TRFFS' PRESERVED = 45 REMOVED = 70 TREE PRESERVATION LINE TREE DRIPLINES SYMR01 1, 0 / DRIPLINES FOR TREES ALONG THE PRESERVATION LINE ARE SHOWN ON PLAN. DRIPLiNE RADIUS WAS ESTIMATED BY TAKING THE CALIPER OF THE TREE AND MULTIPLYING IT BY 4 5. EXAMPLE: 12" OAK TIMES 1.5 EOUALS 18' RADIUS FOR THE DRIP LINE OF THE OAK TREE. A FEW TREES WITH UNITED GRADING WITHIN THE DRIPLINES ARE MARKED TO BE SAVED. 1. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY 15 TERmiNATED, 2. NO SOIL DISTURBANCE SHALL OCCUR WITHIN THE LOT UNTIL THE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN IS APPROVED AND THE TREE PROTECTION MEASURES ARE IN PLACE. 3 TREES ALONG AND WITHIN PRESERVATION LINE MARKED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE FELLED AWAY FROM TREES TO REMAIN AND ROOTS SEPARATED VOTH TRENCHES FROM PRESERVED TREES PRIOR TO BULLDOZING TREES OR STUMPS TREE LEGEND AS ASH CO COTTONWOOD MA MAPLE AP APPLE DT DEAD TREE OA OAK BA BASSWOOD EL ELM PA PALM Elt BIRCH FR MISC FRUIT PI PINE BO BOXELDER Fl FIR PO POPULAR BU BUCKEYE HA HACKBERRY SP SPRUCE BS BUSH HI HICKORY TR TREE (GEN) CA CATALPA IR IRONWOOD WA WALNUT CE CEDAR LO LOCUST WI WILLOW CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! 1 OCT 2 2004 CITY OF Li--a0 fwv Gopher State One Call TWIN CITY AREA, 651-454-5002 TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 ..famrawsz NORTH 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET VAUGHAN ADDITION Minnesota 1 Owner/Developer Name: MIKE VAUGHAN • 600 Birch Street Lino Lakes, Minnesota Professional Services: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES Planning • Civil Engineer•g • Land Surveying Landscape Architecture • Environmental • 72011111nle14, Lane • Suite RV rainneannlia, Minnerma 55369 194344644,44 17631434.5409 Fain 17431424-5821 wwwinucksmclaganrvim CADD Qualification: n==:=4"ervIEP loruse anialy min In* io pm, nei re mime Aims A on P., mein • mImmalmn imp relmno an, NI insmnonal cm um. we..., ...lions. of <■•■••■knos thes..017 Yes von b. mob the 1.1.1. min yerly lc I 1 Submittal: 1007Ale Prciin•yy,LWAyetival Professional Signature: haleby may UM IN,. emaraianowortwes MM.., me or under my arect sane* end um I mita eve Lemma Lanes.* Amin. unnentervem dine Dine ef lainnesoW Paul Kangas • ASIA 2E017 License Nu. Dale 1 Qualify Control: 11D KVR 1 Sheet Index: 01-1 COWIE &WET Cra EXSBTING CONDITIONS Pl. C2.: SITEKLAN C31_ GRADING. DRAINAGE, & EROSION alt41101. C3.2 STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN C40 OVERALL MITT PLAN C6.1 PRDIONDASY PLAT CB-I GRADING & 15031044 061003 • 0111.1110(7011S LI, TREE PRESOIVATION DAN 1 Sheet Tide: PRESERVATION TREE PLAN Project No.: 04002 1 Sheet No.: • IN L KES Memorandum DATE: November 4, 2004 TO: Paul Bengtson FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Vaughan Addition Attached is the TKDA review dated November 4, 2004, of the submitted documents for the Vaughan Addition site. The following comments must be addressed prior to final approval given for this project. Please contact me with any questions. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 -1182 Phone: 651- 982 -2400 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 • TDD: 651 - 982 -2410 • TKDA ENGINEERS -ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: James Studenski, City Engineer Reference: Vaughan Addition 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292-0083 Fax www.tkda.com Copies To: City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota From: Scott A. Brink, P.E. Date: November 4, 2004 Comm. No. 12976 -002 Routing: Plans have been submitted that provide for a single family residential development titled Vaughan Addition. The proposed development essentially provides for the construction of 5 single family homes on 3 acres of property. The property is located along the south side of Birch Street between Tomahawk Trail and West Shadow Drive, or directly across Birch Street from Rice Lake Elementary School. Access to the 5 units would be provided by the construction of a short cul -de -sac that would extend from Birch Street. The following documents have been received for review: 1. Full size and half size plan sheets prepared by Loucks Associates received by the City of Lino Lakes October 7, 2004 as follows: Boundary and Topographic Survey, Preliminary Plat, Cover Sheet (CO -1), Existing Conditions (C1 -1), Site Plan (C2 -1), Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control (C3 -1), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (C3 -2), Overall Utility Plan (C4 -0), Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Details (C8 -1), and Utility Details (C9 -1) 2. Hydrologic Calculations, submitted by Loucks Associates and received by the City of Lino Lakes October 7, 2004. 3. Revised copies of Sheets C1 -1, C2 -1, C3 -1, C3 -2, C4 -0 and the Preliminary Plat were also received by the City of Lino Lakes on October 26, 2004. The following comments are provided: Grading, Drainage, and Drainage Calculations 1. The drainage calculations are acceptable based on the information provided. However, the calculations are based on the assumption that all hard surface areas (including houses, driveways, and streets), will all be directed to Pond 7P. This is possible only if all roof drains are discharged directly to the driveways at the front of every house. If this is not possible, any drainage to the rear can be directed toward the pond and/or the rain gardens which is acceptable. The only exception would be Lot 5 which does not directly border a detention area. The amount of runoff to the rear of this property should be minimal and negligible. However, the developer shall be made aware that any grading and changes to the property as it now exists will be noticed by adjoining properties. In particular, the property owner directly to the west may be very sensitive with regards to grading and drainage adjacent to his property, and may request An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity • • Utilities Vaughan Addition Page 2 November 4, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota further assurances that there will be no negative impacts. It is therefore recommended that grading activity be kept as far away from the property line as possible (including preservation of trees), and that grading limits be confined as close to the house footprint as possible. In addition the routing of runoff from the house fronts to the rear along the side boundary between Lots 4 and 5 is discouraged. 2. Flood elevations for the adjacent wetlands must be shown on the grading plan. 3. The types of housing units and floor elevations are not identified and this information must be provided on the grading plan. First floor and basement floor elevations are provided. However, it must be assured that housing units meet the City's minimum requirements as follows: The lowest floor is a minimum of 2 feet above the adjacent 100 -year pond/flood levels, 4 feet above normal pond and ground water levels, and the lowest opening must be at least 1 foot above the nearest emergency overflow elevation. The ground water levels must therefore be known, and it is recommended that a geotechnical report with groundwater information be provided. In addition, the emergency overflow location and elevation must be provided on the grading plan. 4. A copy of the NPDES Application and permit shall be provided to the City. 5. The site area is less than 5 acres. Review and approval of the Rice Creek Watershed District is therefore not required. Existing sewer (8 -inch diameter) and water (6 -inch diameter) currently extend to the site from the north side of Birch Street and are adequate to serve the site. Further extension of the main in order to serve the properties must be 8 -inch main in accordance with City standards. 1. The Plan shall be subject to the review of the City Fire Chief. 2. Individual services are shown on the plan. Both water and sewer lines appear to have adequate cover within the street area. Individual services however, will require insulation wherever the minimum amount of cover (8 feet) cannot be attained. 3. Standard plates and details of the City of Lino Lakes are provided. In addition to the requirements of the City of Lino Lakes, all sewer and water facilities must be furnished and installed per the requirements of the City Engineers Association of Minnesota (CEAM), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Department of Health. 4. All trenches (including services) shall be backfilled and compacted and meet 100% maximum Standard Proctor Density in the upper 3 -feet from finished road elevation, and 95% maximum Standard Proctor Density below the upper 3 -feet. • 5. A minimum of two feet of cover over storm sewer pipe is desired. Vaughan Addition Page 3 November 4, 2004 City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota • Other Comments 1. A tree preservation plan has been submitted. A final landscaping plan shall eventually be submitted. Sight corner visibilities shall be maintained per City requirements as applicable. 2. Any existing well and septic locations on both the subject property and adjoining properties shall be confirmed to assure compliance with the Minnesota Department Health. This shall mean that any existing facilities on the subject property shall be removed or capped in accordance with regulations, and that sewer separation distances from any remaining facilities in close proximity shall be attained. The separation distance shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health. 3. The plan provides notes regarding seeding, mulching and turf establishment for disturbed areas. However, the City of Lino Lakes has a specific seed specification for ponding areas and a note referring to City of Lino Lakes seeding specifications shall also be provided on the plan. 4. Approval of the plat, including street access from County Road 10 (Birch Street) will be subject to the review and approval of Anoka County. Construction of the street entryway must also meet County requirements for matching of the bicycle path with the new street/curb, including the construction of concrete pedestrian ramps as required by the County. 5. The property is located directly across County Road 10 from Rice Lake School which carries significant amounts of bus and vehicular traffic during brief AM and PM periods. Ideally, alignment of the new street (Vaughan Court) directly opposite of an existing school driveway would be desired, and may be desired by the Anoka County . However, this could only be accomplished if the property directly to the west (Lot 4, Weber Addition) were willing to engage or participate with the proposed development. This may be worth the developer's consideration. 6. A geotechnical report has not been provided. Therefore, the existing soils and groundwater levels are not known. All building pad foundations, streets, and utilities shall be constructed on approved materials as required by the City of Lino Lakes, and groundwater levels shall be known in order to ascertain building elevation requirements (low floors) with regards to ground and surface water elevations. At this time, the type of housing unit and floor elevations have not been provided. 7. Wetlands shall be delineated prior to any site grading. 8. Standard drainage and utility easements along all property lines (5 feet and 10 feet) are shown in addition to other easements required for utility lines, stormwater detention areas, wetlands, etc. However, some rear property line easements need to be adjusted from 5 feet to 10 feet. • Environmental Memo To: Mike Grochala From: Marty Asleson CC: Paul Bengtson Jeff Smyser Date: November 2, 2004 Re: Environmental Board Recommendations /October 27, 2004 The Environmental Board made the following recommendations at the October 27, 2004 Environmental Board meeting: Fox Den Acres Environmental Board recommended approval of Fox Den Conservation Development including: • Rezoning to residential planned unit development • Preliminary Plat with conditions listed in the P & Z Report • The development of an approved Stewardship Plan • Use of standard Best Management Practices for site development and Natural Resources. Motion by O'Dea to approve, second by Bor. All were in favor. Motion passed. • Page 1 • • Amendment to the Growth Management Ordinance Motion to approve the changes to the Growth Management Ordinance by Smith, second by O'Dea. All were in favor. Motion passed. Mike Vaughan Subdivision The Environmental Board recommended the approval of the Mike Vaughan Subdivision proposal with the following comments and recommendations: • Save as many trees as possible • Mitigate any oak wilt started on the site • The rain gardens should use the City Native Seed Mix, and the developer should hire a nurseryman experienced in native plant establishment to plant and manage this area for at least 3 years. • Under the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan Notes of the proposal, Item 2 should say that 4 inches of topsoil will be thoroughly tilled into the soil • The notes should include a statement that "no soil shall be imported or exported from the site with out City approval • Under the Stormwater Prevention Plan Notes of the proposed plan, their should include a statement that the City will be notified when storm water must be treated with altemative BMPs and agree to them • Under the notes section of the proposed plan, the note on external washing of construction vehicles should include the washing of internal components of cement trucks and be limited to a defined area • An additional stockpiling of rock should be on hand, on the site to top dress rock entrances should existing rock entrances become filled up • The ponds should be dug with minimum compaction equipment and fenced off to further traffic during construction. • The notes should indicate that the site soils will be restored to pre - construction densities and that this would be accomplished by tilling, plowing, disking, or ripping. • The Developer should provide adequate landscape screening to adjacent residences. This screening if in rain garden and treatment pond areas should be appropriate for these areas. The screening and recommended 1 boulevard tree per house frontage should be approved by the City. • • Have Staff look at the feasibility of an alternative to a cul- de-sac design • Page 2 • • • • Establish a mechanism for a no -mow buffer around wet areas that can be enforceable. Post signage for these areas. Motion to approve with comments and recommendations by Grundhoffer, second by O'Connel. All were in favor. Motion passed. Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses The Environmental Board recommended that this project be referred back to staff for further review, and come back to the Environmental Board at a later time. Issues include: • Submittal of a lighting fixture plan to include any sign monuments. Demonstrate that light glare would not be seen from the lake. • Discuss a lighting and sound time limit for the site use • Septic system feasibility and possible relocation to the front of the building and away from the lake and water treatment areas and agreement to hook up to sewer and water when available. Have a recommendation from County Environmental on the proposed system • Discussion of a way to protect a significant area on the lake side of the project through a conservation easement or other mechanism • Adequately address screening needs of shoreland and adjacent residences. Establish proposed changes to species and discuss save areas with City. Redesign to ensure adequate screening in sight lines to adjacent houses. Show ground story cover on site to include a plan to irrigate sod areas. Agree to use of native plants in drainage and water treatment areas. Use City Seed Specs. • Look at altemative design to NURP. Design to a more appropriate rain garden. Include rain garden areas for water coming off parking lots and other treatment features like grassy swales, to larger rain pond treatment area. Include pervious parking if possible. Motion by O'Dea, second by Bauman, to refer back to staff for further review. All were in favor. Motion passed. Friends of the Mississippi Storm Water Management Ordinance Review Recommendation to move forward with this project Motion by O'dea, second by Bor. All approved. Motion passed. Friends of the Mississippi River Water Quality Workshop Recommend moving forward with the workshop. Motion by Smith, second by Grundhoffer. All were in favor. Motion passed. • Page 3 Appointments to the AUAR Advisory Panel • The Environmental Board elected to have the following Environmental Board members on the Advisory Panel: 1. Terri O'Connell/alternative 2. Dennis Smith 3. Barbara Bor 4. Barbara Bauman Motion to Approve by O'Dea, second by Grundhoffer. All were in favor. Motion passed. Hardwood Creek Rehabilitation Project The Environmental Board was in favor of a Council Resolution supporting the best environmental option for the rehabilitation of Judicial Ditch 2/Hardwood Creek. • • • Page 4 • AGENDA ITEM V.C. STAFF ORIGINATOR: Paul Bengtson P & Z MEETING DATE: November 10, 2004 TOPIC: PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit New Brighton Congregation of the Jehovah's Witness BACKGROUND The New Brighton Congregation of the Jehovah's Witness has requested approval of a conditional use permit to allow a church (Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witness) on a 4.07 acre lot located on the east side of Lake Drive. The comprehensive plan guides the site for low- density unsewered residential use and it is zoned R -1 (Single Family Residential). A site plan review will be completed administratively, but considering its relation to the Conditional Use Permit request, those review comments are addressed in this report. ANALYSIS comprehensive Plan, Land Use and Zoning: The table below identifies the existing land use and zoning as well as guided land uses for the area. Location Existing Land Use Guided Land Use Existing Zoning Site Vacant Low Density Unsewered Residential R -1 North Single Family Residential Low Density Unsewered Residential R -1 South Single Family Residential Low Density Unsewered Residential R -1 East Lake N/A N/A West Lake Drive Single Family Residential Right of Way Low Density Unsewered Residential N/A R -1 The comprehensive plan guides the site for Low Density Unsewered Residential land use. The site is within the stage 1 (pre -2010) growth area and within the existing MUSA boundary. Public water and sanitary sewer are not available within approximately 700 feet of the subject site. Setback Requirements Principle Building Parking Lot Required Proposed Required Proposed Arterial Street 40 feet 52.98 feet 15 feet 15 feet Side Yard 10 feet 52 feet 10 feet 19.82 feet Rear Yard 30 feet 340 feet 10 feet 142 feet Kingdom Hall, page 2 he proposed building clearly meets all of the minimum setback standards for the R -1 (Single Family esidential) zoning district. The parking lot standards listed above are taken from the commercial design guidelines since the R -1 zoning district does not specifically address parking lot setbacks. Building Materials The building elevations depict a brick veneer exterior with brick soldier course at a 3' -0" height, with a composite shingle roof. A minimal amount of facade articulation is proposed and the only entrances consist of the main door on the south side and a service entrance on the north side. All of the proposed materials are in accordance with the zoning ordinance. Building Height According to the Zoning Ordinance, no building within a R -1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District may exceed 35 feet in height. At approximately 22 feet in height, the proposed church complies with the Ordinance. Landscaping In accordance with the Screening requirements of the zoning ordinance screening is required along the boundary of the residential property adjacent to this institutional use. Either a green belt with 80% opacity, six feet in height must be provided, or alternatively a solid screening fence six feet in height. The plans as submitted provide a four -foot fence and landscaping that does not provide the needed opacity beyond the four Beet. Staff advised the applicant to speak with the neighbors about the screening to determine which option they ould prefer. At this time staff believes the applicant intends on revising the plans to provide a six foot fence, but revised plans have not been submitted. The potential relocation of the septic system will also allow /require some changes to the landscaping plan. Staff recommends that the lake side of the property be more effectively screened to minimize the visual impact of the building. Green Area Plans currently show the property at approximately 18% impervious surface coverage. The R -1 (Single Family Residential) zoning district requires that impervious surface coverage not exceed 65 %. Access /Circulation Access to the site is via an entry /exit driveway directly from Lake Drive (C.S.AH. 23). As indicated in the City Engineer's memorandum, approval for this access must be obtained from Anoka County. Staff review of the access and circulation will depend greatly on the comments from Anoka County, which have not been received at this time. This again is another reason to continue this item to a future meeting. • Kingdom Hall, page 3 narking Churches are required to provide parking at a rate of one off - street parking space for every three seats. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement is to use the design capacity of the main assembly hall Gross Area Design Capacity Code Requirement Spaces Required Spaces Provided 4,928 s.f. 170 seats 1 per every 3 seats 57 59 As a part of the redesign of the site, the minimum 57 spaces will need to be maintained, but until a revised site plan is submitted this can not be confirmed. Pedestrian Circulation Plans show a minimal amount of sidewalk running from the parking lot to the front entry. An additional point of entry on the rear of the building does not have a sidewalk, a condition has been added requiring the provision of such a walkway. Lighting Lighting fixtures are shoebox style with downcast lighting, in conformance to City standards. The Abinvironmental board did not receive the cut sheets as are included in this packet, thus their comment on ighting. Signage There was not signage indicated on the submitted plan, all signage would be subject to permit and approval based on the City of Lino Lakes sign ordinance. Trash / Mechanical Equipment The location of trash equipment is not shown on the submitted plans. The applicant should include in revised . plans an indication of how trash will be stored and screened on site. The mechanical plans show multiple configurations for the air conditioning units, however they are always indicated on the north side of the building, which would make them most visible to the street. A condition will be included below that requires effective screening of these units. • Kingdom Hall, page 4 tilities Water and Sanitary sewer service are not immediately available. The submitted plans depict a well and septic system. City staff and the environmental board have both asked the applicant to examine the feasibility of moving the septic system from the rear of the property to the front of the property to maximize the separation from the shoreline. The applicant seemed open and willing to examine that possibility, but new plans have not been submitted for review. A utility plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer, and as can be seen in the attached memorandum there are some outstanding issues. Due to these outstanding issues staff would recommend continuing the public hearing to allow for new plans to be prepared, submitted, and reviewed. Stormwater management A grading and drainage plan has been submitted for review by the City Engineer. As a condition of plan approval, the grading and drainage related modifications and comments as set forth in the City Engineer's memo should to be incorporated into the plans. The plan is subject to review and approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. City staff has not received anything from the Watershed District on this application. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD The Environmental Board reviewed the project on October 27, 2004. The recommendations include limitations on site lighting and associated noise; potential relocation of the septic system; conservation easement on the e side of the property; adequate screening of shoreland and adjacent residences; and instituting a rain garden ea for water treatment. A memorandum of the Board's recommendations is attached to this report. These comments are incorporated into this review and will be conditioned or added to the development agreement when appropriate. The board also requested to see the application and staff report again at a future meeting to clarify some of their outstanding issues. OPTIONS 1. Continue the public hearing for the project. 2. Deny the project. RECOMMENDATION Option 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Kingdom Hall plan packet received October 26, 2004 3. Environmental Board memorandum dated November 2, 2004 4. City Engineer memorandum dated November 4, 2004 • NAME •ETENDRE LEONARD J & ALMA A SEH DataView ADDRESS PIN 193122410006 S*te Develop ent Plans for NEW H/!>ICIITON KINGI)OM HALL JEIIO VAII'S i I! I 1 VICINITY MAP NO SCALE Drawing Index No. Discription 1 Title Sheet 2 Survey 3 Site Plan 4 Landscape Plan 5 Grading Plan 6 Erosion Control Plan I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECI- PROFESSIONAL LAWS OF THE STATE FICATION, OR 2 < W Z g g 0 _ w 0 Z 0 m 0 z° ¢o TITLE SHEET SHEET NO. 1 OF 5 4, • L 0 T 5 L 0 5- CONCRETE 0' OF 8o/DOT -CUSS 5' AGGREGATE BASE — APPROVED SUBGRAOE • REFER TO Mn/DOT SPECIFICATIONS CONCRETE PAVEMENT 4 SS/ 3 00 T Approvimote Waters Edge' Water Elevation = 880.7 (85 or 8/08/04) KINGDOM HALL DEVELOPMENT NOTES: Areas: Total Site Area Told Building Floor Area City Parking Required City Parking Req. — 1/3 Seats in Auditorium Parking Provided: 177.110 5o Ft (Approximately 4.07 Ac) 4,200 59 728 Sq FF1 Mi' n PB *04) 170 Seals in Mein Auditorium 57 Spaces (10790 degree) 56 Vehicles (13' N.C. stone) 2 Vehicles (16' Von occessible N.C. atoll) t Vehicles TOTAL 59 VehrJes 1. ALL 118001E5500. AS SPEORED. ARE TO BE CON90ERED MINIMUM DEPTHS AFTER COMPACTION. 2. ALL MATERIALS ARE 90(650D USING Me/DOT DE9GNA00N5. 3. 710 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT MKTITRE SHALL BEN ACCORDANCE N17H AN- ENTRAINED CCOONNSTRUCR011. PAVEMENT E SECTION 2301 OF THE SMALL BE DESIGNED STANDARD LDEVELOPE AA MIM4VM FOR CpMRE59VE STRENGTH OF 3800 P9 AT 28 DAYS 801N • 4 INCH SLUMP AND 4 TO 7S ENTRAINED AIR. 4. AGtEGAIE BASE SHALL CONFORM 10 Mn/DOT 9PEOFICARp1 2211 (CLASS 5). 5. (LIGHT E CONCRETE PAVEMENT SHALL NAVE 150LA1NN (EE(EIPAN90N) MINT5 AROU4D ALL PENETRA170N PORTS FORMD EVERY 8/001100 FOUNDATIONS. 0(004 OF ¢AB).. THE CURBS, ETC.) SHALL AL50 KEY ALL SAVED OR AND OEINTRACTION SHALL OM9AII1 910P DRA'NN05 WRING PROPOSED NE LAYOUT Off PAVEMENT. ME CONTRACTOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS NO SCALE GRAPHIC SCALE 40 0 20 40 80 ( IN FEET ) L inch = 40 IL ERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECI- I- LJ Q w a m 0 ZO 0 0 Q (n = Er Z W H Q 0 u_ > U 0 Cr E1 Cr EL V7 In o 0 Q • N U LC U 0 I- 0 U_ O 0 J CC w - w } J } W Q K CO Z 0 P M z w Q Q Pi U _ Z _ LT o W OF MINNESOTA. 00 0 0/10/2004 z in 0i 0 z PROJECT NAME: NEW BRIGHTON KINGDOM HALL SITE PLAN W W T ( ) z J 0 O z BUILDING RHGIONAL MINNESOTA Sheet No. 3 OF 6 ) Off` P9. qtr % L 0 T 45, REISMIN L 0 T 5 CONCRETE 6" OF 1.1n/001 "CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE - APPROVED SUBGRADE • REFER TO 1.11/DOT SPECIFICATIONS CONCRETE PAVEMENT T. ALL THICKNESSES. AS SPECIFIED. ARE TO BE CON5DERED MINIMUM DEPTHS AFTER COMPACT.. 2. ALL MATERIALS ARE SPECNIEO USING Mn/DOT 005040110NS J. NE PORTLAND CEMENT 012NCRETE PAVEMENT IXXTME SHALL BE N ACCORDANCE MM PAKMENT SE5991 2301 OF THE STANDARD AR- ENTRAINED_ CONCRETE FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE MIXTURE SHALL BE DESIGNED TO D LOPEOA MINIMUM COMPRE 9VE STRENGTH OF E 3000 P9 AT 35 DAYS INN A 4 INCH AUNT AND 4 TO TS ENMANEO AIR. 4. 40000410 BASE SHALL CONFORM TO Me/DOT SPECIFICATION 2211 (CLASS 5). 5. THE CONCRETE PAVEMENT SHALL HAVE ISOLATION (EXPANSION) J01415 AROUND ALL PENETRATION POETS (LIGHT POE FOUNDATIONS, vALVE BOXES. MANHOLES. CURBS. ETC) AND CONTRACTION JOINTS RASED . FORMED. EVERY 8 TO 10 FEET (T /3 DEPTH OF SLAB THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO 0EY ALL JDNY ME CONSTRUCTION JOINTS AND TIE THE SHALL SORT SHOP IRAMNGS SHOMNGT PROPOSED JOINT LAYOUT. O THE PAVEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS NO SCALE R 4f Appro.imole WolerS Edge Water Elevction • 880.7 too of 5 /08/0*) (001 ON NOTE' t. CONMACLG LS S4ECSKALLV CAUTON1 TUT ME LOCATIONS AND/OR ELEVATIONS 6 DO .MOH MITES AS 94015 ON NEE PLANS ARE BASED ON RECORDS TILE/ CMPAMES Afro. MERE POSSIBLE. MEASIMIENT5 TANEN IN THE FELL. E iNVDRMATON E NOT 10 BE RELIED ON AS BEINS EXACT OR 6 COUPLET, THE CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT ALL ME APPROPRAE ROUTE COMPARES AT LEAST 48 HELMS BEFORE ANY ERDAN•TM M REQUEST EXACT PEED LaATON V UTUTES. I IRE . THE LOCATI P r SMALL U111.3 SHALL RELOCATE E OBTAINED Br MTNIE CONNTR.. Br CALLER MONESDTAA PROPOSED AM .EMd3 AT pN�-1168 PLANS. OWNER SEAM .E CALL AT e.- 2m -Ilce . es.:s: -5oi � GENERAL NOTES: I. CMNAONS MALL ROWER UDUn dCTARAL PLAN•SpK PUMdK LOOTER OF ODSIMS OrS ST.LE SLOPED PAVING. MR PORCHES PRECISE WILDING ME GENERAL [.TRACTOR SHALL ME ALL PRECAUTIONS RECESS., M AVM PROPERTY PARADE TO ADJACENT PROPER,. OI.0 ME CONFMUCTION PHASES 2. PHASES 0, .S m4 PRIMLY. TME CENTRAL. WU BE WELD MLLE RESPONSIBLE POR ANT OWADE DURING OCCUR.. TO ME ADJACENT PROPERTIES DUNG T CONSTRUCT. 1 SALEM NOME TO CONTRACTORS IN .CO DANCE WIN GENERALLY ACCEPTED [SMUG,. PRACTICES ME C.TUCNR VALI BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE TOR [[HORS ON ME J. ME. INCLUDING SAFETY Or 4L PERSONS AND PROPERTY OU1ams PERFORMANCE OF ME WC. 5 RECIORD ENI MLA APPLY [.ONUS, AND NOT BE CANTED M NORMAL WARMING .4AS. ME DUDE OF ME MORE. DEVCLORER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION RESEW OF ME C.TRACTRS PERFORM/. R NOT INTENDED 70 WCLWE REVIEW O 4110 AEOLACY OF TE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN... NEAR ME CONSTRUCTION ME .. CONSTRUCIRN MULL COMPLY MM ALL APPLICABLE GO EREHL CODES AM BE CONSTRUCTED ME SAME. 5. ACCESS ROADS MALL BE ES1ABU5EL AND LOANTA2 D DURO* CONSTRUCTION 0 ACCORDANCE MM 4245508010 INFORM FIRE CONE 5RADIN0 NOTES: 1. E BO.DAM, TOPOGRAPH, 'MUM ARO ROAD NE.MATION TAKEN ER. MEET 2 Or May SET Or PLANS. 2. TCONTRACTOR 9MA. RESTRICT 4L .•ONO AND CONSTRUCT. ACTIMIEAS TO AREAS DESMATEU . ME PLANS ACTIVITIES PROMOTED 00,90E O ERE ANY VEwAt. LEOMA a SnOULDDE INCLUDE. BUT DOI B p 3710 To. so, A AND OTHER MATTI4 51aRRNG EGNPMd1 . MAOnNERT S1.AGL OR ME a 3. ME 9E HAS NOT NECESSARILY BEEN DESIGNED f0 BALANCE ME . -SIT: I/AERIALS ff. 1010 910 CAVE 15 OMPLETEO. R EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL EM515. ME CONTRACTOR MALL DISPOSE OF ALL EXCESS 50L MAIER14 Orr -9E 0 • MANNER ACCEPTABLE TO THE ONYX AND TE PECULATING AOE1OE6 NWLSD. TE .MACTOR SNAt1 BE RESP.SIBIL F. =ET, AHO re="88T MAmC WJ79-115SCES SUM AS BARRCNES wARMNO 9.5. DRECT.4 9.. n•Md AND u.rs To cONmaL ME uovEUER1 ar MAmc WORE NEassARY. AFnc cMTRG DEMCES sH4L c.r.0 ro APPnoPROAE RwNESOu DERARIMENT OF TRANSPORTER NON STANDARDS S- .OPOS D CO RS1 OAR O .11.1NLE55 FACE ORR MJ NOTED. ANO PROPOSED CORM. ARC MIOWN AY 2 TOOT INTERVALS ALL ENEKD CUT . FILL SLOPES I SPOT ELEVATIONS 91MN MOCAE FIRMED PAVEMENT ELEVATION UNLESS °TERM E NOTED. nEVAT.S SWOON AT CURET AND wTTS ARE GUTTER GRADES MUSS aMdrASE NOTED. 2 ME CO M.. MALL ASSURE realm DRAINAGE AWAY FROM MNpING FOR ALL NATURAL AND PALED AREAS 50 THE CONTRACTOR SMALL ADJUST AND/. CUT MEMO PAVEMENT AS NECESSARY TO ASSURE A 91041 RI AND CONTNU005 GRADE. ME AGGREGAE BASE Vg: ROIL WLL DE RE001REDR4 ME 5Ma1 2NN0 020500 AEA MUBGRAOE INE ENG /T. 91MUEL.0LYS nONM R 00 5 r0xECM 001 MUG1 W 50 A AS SS WE100 T ZS TINS ESI RCLLMC P INSPECT. ATE .ECTM . MF ES SMALL AE CETEMANESN . SECTIONS 0, MEASTREET OR RNOG MU ME.5 *ABLE MCORRECT. SE SRGRAOE SNDMdS u Sr BE REINREV OAR SUB.ADE AND RE AY..AT.SERAL MAY BE REOUROD. BLE MATERIAL SNAIL BE REMOVED OR STABLIEED 0 PLACE ANO MIEN CMP.EU PER THE MONEER'S I TR °, UNDATED AREAS ARE TO RECEDE A ANN. OF OF 1D05DIL SEED MULM OR SOO AND BE WATERED UNTIL A HEAL. STAND Or CRASS IS .TAXED UNLESS NOTED OIER... GRAPHIC SCALE 410 0 20 40 ( IN PEES ) I inch •• 40 fL CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPEC! OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME m z 0 H U OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT PROFESSIONAL 014 O 10/10/2004 z 3 Q cu 0 z 4-- U W 0 Cl_ PROJECT NAME: NEW BRIGHTON KINGDOM HALL SHEET: GRADING PLAN z IZ BUILDING R IH:GIO AL Cr] T Sheet N 5 OF 6 43\ MINN 41111111111111 111111411 . ill ma Ill PRAM TION TIME SCHEDULE NOTE:GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE TABLE WITH THEIR SPECIFIC PROJECT SCHEDULE SEQUENCE_ JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC CONSTRUCTION ROUGH GRADING /SEDIMENT CONTROL TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURES STRIP & STOCKPILE TOPSOIL STORM FACILITIES TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ROADS FOUNDATION / BUILDING CONSIUCTION SITE CONSTRUCTION PERMANENT CONTROL STRUCTURES FINISH GRADING /SEED/FINAL STABILIZATION LANDSCAPING SED9dENTATION/9LT FENCE INN HIRE SUPPORT GENERAL EROSION NOTES: T. CONSTRUCT. SHALL COMPLY MM ALL APPLICABLE COVERANI CODES AND BE CONSTRUCTED 10 SAME [Ox1NACTON IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED MAT ME LOCATORS AND/CR ELEVATIONS OF [MST. UnunFs AS MOAN ON T.SE MANS ARE B• NDG CN RECORDS COMPLETE • VARIOUS UTILITY C.P•NES AND. WERE POSSIBLE. MEASUREMENTS TAKER I ME TOLD. THE INfORMATION IS NOT m BE RELIED W AS ETA. ME CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT ALL ME APPROMMIE unsay MOWER Al LEAST . MOMS BEFORE ANY DONATE. TO NEWEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION 6 UMIMS. TT MALL BE MC RESPON59M1lY OF ME CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL THE [n51G UTILITIES VAN. SOLING NM ME GENES PROPOSED IMPROVE EALL AT 600-252-1166 CR ME PLANS BSI EE5•OCAWTO ON SMALL UMIAM MALL BE OBTAINED BY ME CONTRACTOR BY CAWNO MINNESOTA ]. PHASES ALT. 5.75.45 MAY TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS RECTA.. m ARCO PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES PAM ME CONSTRUCT. W PROJECT ME CONTRACTOR NLL BE HELD SOOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OCWRIWG TO ME AwACERT PROPERTIES WRING ME CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROECT. ME 5TGOAWATER POLLUT. PREV.n. RAN (MUFF) B C.PI5m M MS GRANNG (EROSI. t BEOMERTATBO C.TROL PLAN - ESC LAN). ME 57•x0000 a. BED RELATED MOMENTSRLE. •rtM.uExiS 548.00(40 T1rt 91EAOnK SPECElUn.S 5[CtEA *0470 (0*401), PUS ME PERMIT ANp ALL AB 040047 REPORTS AC 101598 1 CO1IRKTORRESPONSIBLE D BONTACTORS INVOLVED TH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION SMALL COMA A COPT OF THEE SIM* AND ME STATE FOR MNRESOTA, NATOLLL POLLUTION OSENARBE ELIMINATION Ai SYSTEM GENERAL PERI. (RPM PEWIT) AND BECOME FAMILIAR NTH DOR CONTENTS ME SWAP MUST ARO ALL OTHER 0. CONTRACT. NSHALL O E BLIPS ANDEER09ON PREVENTION HMI( MOANING 0 CONWAY.. AND UNTIL CONSTRUCTOR n000RCPIETEO SHALL OVERSEE PP ROVED BY ALL TINATES ADOn• oIE4AWVS SHALL BE NLEUENRD AS ROTATED RV CONOTONS MR..OUT ALL PHASES Or CONSTRUCTOR. 7. DP'SI AND CONMJ REFS Ss LL CONFORM TO OM AGENCY STATE. OORR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS OR MANUALS OF PRACTICE. AS APPLICABLE CONTRACTOR MALL NPLEMENT • MALL u90310 GAMINS TO ME MAMMUM EXTENT PR49CAL OR AS REWIRED BY ME GENERAL PERRT. ME MADAMES OF ME CLEIOONS UAT5 S MIOwACON WS RAN MALL BE CLEARLY DEIINEAED (E.4 LATH RAGS. 5744 SONS 917 FENCE ETC) . ME DEVELOPMENT ATE BEFORE AMR BEGINS NE STORAGE AREA ANIMI SHA.L 4S0 BE 1.03 AS THE B. GENERAL RO CLEANING AREA EON.. PARKING AREA. M O AREA FOR LOUMRG PORTABLE TABLE F•WIES. o nCF TRAILERS AND TOILET FACNTES MUSKRAT u•NIExANCE AND ON THE PLAN THE TEMPORARY 10. •ALHLLL WASH WATERRRG1f0 14 IOJOIS. VE410.1 CLEANING. EO.G B 1ALORED . SITE. 11.) MU57 BE WITED TO A DEMwFD •MA OF ME ATE AND MALL BE CONTAINED NO I_ N6 OR CHEMICAL NDD SE SORB. MATEIRAS AK ROTATION BOOMS SHALL BE MAINTAINED CN BETE M READY AVAILABLE m CONTMM AND CLEAN -UP SUFFIOENT 12 DUST CN ME ATE SHALL BE CONTROLLED. TIC USE OF MOTOR OILS AND OTHER PETROLEUM BASED OR TOMS UGLIER OM DUST S PPRESMON OPERATIONS N PRORATED. IS SGE EMTUS BE pmCTOD SE SEK N NRtOR. AfRSPLV t T OU SCT O CNCORMERTZr MMLIxM LU n111. DEETS PREAUPETSLASTIC 'ADAM COSTRDMN k DEMOLITION DEBRIS A OMER 14. HAZARDOUS LLAMA.: 0, GASOLINE. PANT • ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MUST BE PROPERLY STORED. NGUOxG SECONDARY CONTAINMENT. TO PREANT SPILLS LEMS OR BE N OTHER DISCRARGE. NM TWA REGULATIONS TO STORKS AREAS MUST BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. VOA. A DISPOSAL OE HAZARDOUS 15. AU. MSTORM WATER POLLUTION D 100 LEN /005 MEASURES PRESENTED TAL) MO PLAN. AND N HE STAMP. 004 MALL BBEOROEURES'NY SEEDED. SEEDING ANAL BE N ACCORDANCE M. STEEPER MAN kI 7 DAIS r6; /I A l SS' si,00 A`iE Bea LATTER 0.i11,W mI NAM RIM AN AREA CAA REMAIN OPEN WHEN ME AREA Is NOT ACTIVELY BENS WORKED IB. IN ACCORDANCE CE NM ME TIME TARE DESCRIBED ADV. REFER HAS E GRADING OR SUNDSCAPE PLAN FOR VEGETATIVE COVERD. TIARA ARE. SHALL BE SEEDED WERE CONSMUCTON ACTIVITY CONTRACTORS A AL OR SUBCONTRACTORS AWL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FEMORAL SEdMENi FRO, CONVEYANCES t FROM EMPROARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS THAT ARE 10 BE USED . PERMANENT WATER WALITY MANAGEMENT BASINS. MOMENT MUST BE STADIUM TO PREVENT IT FROM BENG WASHED B RIO THE RASA CONVEYMxGES OR AINAMWAYS MSMARDNG OFF -TOTE CO m SURFACE WATERS. ME ELEANw PERMANENT BASINS MUST BE SUFFICIENT m BACK TNE BASIN TO GA. CAPACITY. ID AND TE OFFRESTER OL SSRIxPLE AND GOROW AREAS SHALL uE PROTECTED wW EMCCOSION A EfDMBRAITICN PERT U. I LEMENTATM Or HMS. STOCKPILE BE 19.A TEMPORARY SOL STDUPRES MUST HAVE NSILT FENCE OR ODER EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS R CANNOT BE ALAMO M SURFACE WATERS MC RYNC STONWATER CONVEYANCES SU. AS CURB At GUTTER SYSTEMS OR CONDUIT A PICAS. 20. SLOPES SNAIL BE LETT IN • ROUGHENED CONDI.. DURING M GRADING WARE TO REDUCE RuNOF &LDOnfs AND EROAO. ZI. WET 140660 STCHRAW B•LEDS Ett.) 10 0 4*1050 FRDADxME PRO.ECT. ME CONOCTOR SHALL BE RESHWSRE FOR ADJUSTING ME EROSION CONTROL MEASURES 22 ALL CpORHNVF5L7A1KDR7aH ti, KE ITE ST.UZED ME ND OF EACH WRONG DAY. MS INCLUDES OK RnuNG OF TRENCMS FOR U1UTY CMSTRuCD. NO PLACEMENT MAINTENANCE: M:4=4= . TMN5 O ER N OSE.W . FlWTE POUN RONnON R�N0••uu E AIA A2 O PERSON ILLIVEST ROJ I ME CONSTRUCTION SITE SEVEN DAYS N AND MR HURS FTER RAIFALL EVENT MAN 0.5 INCHES IN ]HOUrti AM. EROSION MO ADMENTMN CW CONTROL MEASURES MALL REARED AND REPAIRED ACCORDANCE NM THE FOLLOW. T. ALL STORM ORAN INLETS MADE OPERABLE DURAL CONSTRUCT. MUST BE PROTECTED BY APPROPRIATE RIMS uNTW ALL WORMS NM POTENTIAL FOR OSGI•RGNG TO THE INLET HALE BEEN STARLIZED 2. SEEDED MEAT MALL BE MEOW REGULARLY ID SEE MAT A ST MMNTA . AREAS SHOULD DE FERTILIZED. WATERED. MD RESEEDED AS REEVED. ALL FENCE SHALL BE REPAIRED. REPLACED OR SFMEMENTED ID CONDITION E DAMAGED. SEDIMENT WAL BE REMOVED FROM DE SILT FENCES OM IT ORE -TORO ME ,Elfin OF ME SILT FENCE THESE REPAIRS MUST BE MME *MIN ZK HOSES OF DISCOVERY. OR AS SOW AS MG CC..mous Ox ACCESS. B. WHOLE MACRAE Cr SEGMENT FROM ME CONSTRUED. SE MUST BE MINI= BY BMWS SUM AS 570H[ PADS CONCRETE OR STEEL WASH RAC aOR UNIVALENT SYSTEMS, BE REMOVED SWEEP. MUST USED •Vm SURFACES ACELS NMwRE Z O HOURS ICI TO PREVENT NT SCORER. FROM BEING HASPED .TO ME STREET ED SEDIMENT MUST STORAGE AREA SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD COODON (SUITABLE FOR PARKING AND STORAGE), 005 MAY 150ARE PERIWIG TOP S. TRESS. OF ME TTEEIH,PORARY NARKING AS MORONS DEMAND. MIST STRUCTURES IN THE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEDN.TAT. BRANS SHALL BE MAINTAMED N MERAT.AL EMOTIONS AT ALL MMES. SEOwENE B. BE COALERD MINN 74 HOURS BORE BASINS OR G •ETAS WEI NC RmSOROITEN4 AALLLOW ACs ONE-HALF TIE sFORALE VOLUME. •wACf M REMOVAL MUST SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION PHARF 1 I. INSTALL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTOR ERTR•NCES 2 PREPARE TEMPORARY R•NNE AND STAKE AREA C.STRACT TA SLT FENCES •AMP VIE. TRAP 8.9x5. ME S. MM WAD MB T E ALE. . IS W ME BAUM° PAD AND STRUCTURES Z. MGM GRADING ME ATE PHASE 2: I. TEMPORARILY SEED DENUDED AREAS. MTN, WRITES. xORGROAT. STORM TAMERS. CUM AND CUTTERS 0 OUTLET STRUCTURES. MET PATRIOT). 4. INSTALL ATE FOR PAVING AROUND ALL STOP SEAR STRNCTRLS. S PRE PAVE h � NUT PROTECT. MACES _ AND ORE •LL TEMPORARY EROSION MO SEDMMT CONTROL DEMUR Y 9 (OILY R ALE R STADIUM). B" MIIMW r -S CLAM STONE CEOTEITLE UNDERLNER CONSTRUCTION EXIT NTS 6 GRAPHIC SCALE 40 0 20 40 BO ( IN PEEL' ) 1 inch 4D EL DEVELLOPER /OWNER NET OR lON C.GREUTEN OF JEHOMMS *TRESSES ACORESM 9E OPERATOR /GENERA CONTRACTOR: SUPERNENDERT: ACREAGE SUMMARY ACRES PACMENT AREA BUILDING AREA SEEDED AREA 1.111 AC. TOTAL DISTURBED AMA IDS K. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECI- PREPARED BY ME SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENCED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE MINNESOTA. 0 40 40 W Z Z Z 00 W Q 0 10/10/2004 ^VI W 0 z U W 2 O CC 0 J J 2 PROJECT NAME: NEW BRIGHTON KINGDOM SHEET: EROSION CONTROL PLAN z J 0 z BUILDING G f HGIONAL MINN KSOTA Sheet No. 6 OF 6 • FOR DRIVE THRU DETAILS SEE A3.3 12 5 0 d 0 dat TOP OF SLR i• EL 0.0' FOR DRIVE THRU DETAILS SEE A3.3 1111111111 i�11111111 nnmunnnmum ummunnmmnoo 91111111111111 CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENTS COMPOST i ION SHINGLE ROOF r — TRIM (DENTIL FASCIA OR OTHER) 11■111_1■11i■110111111NORM R� IWO 111111 UIn111111pr 11nnlmmmn111n1ni11nnnlnlnmmnnnlnljnnl ■nnnlnnn nn■ lmnnn111111111111111111111111nlllllllnlnll UUN immnnnnnmmnmmmnummumml minim:muum lu 11111111111111111111111111111 Um111111111111mmInnnlnlnnnnnnnnnnnnlnmmIInnnnnlllllllillililllllnnillllllllnillllnllnllnllllllllin11111111111 DECORATIVE UGHP.NG DECORATIVE ENTRY DOOR TRIM 0 ENTRANCE FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /8 " =1' -0" BRICK VENEER COMPQSfTION SHINGLE ROOF 12 5 DRIVE THRU 1.•• 1 1 • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 • ■ ■ • ■ 1 11■■1111M71■ .. . 7.1110■ 717i‘■■70 ■7■71■1�17�illi■17■■■77■ 71101 111.17711INNIVI117� ■1�1T17■■\71S Illnllinllllllnllllllllnllllllllllllnlunum11111n111111nn11111nIm1111111n111111numunn11111n11111Ulnnlllllllllmunlnlllllnlnnllllllllllmll mum um IIn1111111u1111nI1111n1111111ummu11n umunIn11111111n111nn111mummumm nlllilinl um B 1 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION A3.1 1 SCALE: 1 /8 " =1 -0" BRICK SOLDIER COURSE z 0 W a 0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET TITLE PROJECT TITLE DWN BY: CKD BY: SCALE: 1 /8"— 11 DATE: CAD #: 05 -A31 H 1 SHEET No. A3.1 SECURITY LIGHT +� d 0 obL TOP OF SLAB L i7 EL 0.0' CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENTS COMPOSmON SHINGLE ROOF TRIM (DENTIL FASCIA OR OTHER) qq, nn ■i■g~1111,i1.0irriru7q1.11111*ririi ggi,iftn■0,0iri,,- rriy�i lWiT , ■ ■ ■ ■ � ill■zrai■ ElratINVIN nnnnmmammnnm�mimumxmnnnnmranmuumnnnanmmmnnmmmnmmmnnnnnnmm�mmmunnxinmmmmmnnnnmuumixnnmrnnmtnmunnnnmmmmmmm�xnmmmmm�mmnnmunnmuwnmmm�m unnumnmmnnnnnnnumnumu 12 A3.2 BRICK VENEER BRICK SOLDIER COURSE REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/81'-O" COMPOSmON SHINGLE ROOF FOR DRIVE THRU DETAILS SEE A3.3 ■allbAgi■gallggqqu44x■xq■h7g llas •s■q,■ggll■MinM,N•■a■hxiuq■, 11010•11211i ■wUq■'■,7•■UIW,■11■iiia gIIi■,7i■giiPNq nnxmm11nnnmMmmnnmmmmIxmmmummmmmmxnxmmnxmmunmmnmnxmmOnnmumnumm11munnmmnmm11mnmumnmummm■ nn■ nnnunmanumxImmummiummmm11numnnnnnxmunnnnummnxnm nmmmmrnmumnmmnnunnmmmmmixmunnxmmnnnmmmmmmmuunnnnnnxnunnnnnwnnnnnnnmuimnnxunuunnnunnnunnmmn mnmmmxnxnmmmuuumumunmmmxnnnumnnmIUunnunnxnnnmmui 12111.11111 B A3.2 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" z 0 w a 0 0 SCALE: 1 /U" =1 DATE: CAD #: 05 -A32H1 SHEET No. A3.2 / / / / / / / 6' x 30' PRIVACY \ \FENCE 3 �Y t-=A`If) r7,� /SO L \ 01 i 6' x 30' PRIVACY FENCE \ QO \ \ / q5y� £ / / / // / / / / / / i 4. . % / � // / / / / // N / / / \ \ W E T L A N D / e/ / /091 / / LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE KEY COMMON NAME /SCIENTIFIC NAME ROOT QUANTITY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OVERSTORY TREES AB AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE /ACER X FREEMANII 2.5• BBB 4 SO SWAMP WHITE OAK /OUERCUS BICOLOR 2.5• B&B 6 EVERGREEN TREES BS BLACK HILLS SPRUCE/PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA 6' BaB 18 SP SCOTCH PINE/PINUS SYLVESTRIS 6' BBB 4 ORNAMENTAL TREES PF PRAIRIFIRE CRAB /MALUS PRAIRIFIRE' 1.5 B&B 8 DECIDUOUS SHRUBS CD CARDINAL D0GW00D /CORNUS SERICEA 'CARDINAL' g5 CONT. 6 / / / — \\ / ,ti / / /— . - -. \ / / / / / / —\ / / ��0 / / / /% �\ \8 85 / / / ro /i // / �1 // / `/ // /01 / I( // \J L. n \ 7— / ./ 7 -7 / / // 0 15 30 60 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET * ** * PIONEER A' engineering ens aw �I o fuli eN_I: • r.a=m •mw wen a epee xea 1I sha0el sesneee rn. yet -Meru / / / % / % / // t( / / / \/J/ / /// / / / % / 7 /// / / / // // 696/ / // / /// / �/ // ,•/ / / 7 / / ,60 i/ / // / // 7 7 69ti / // / / // /7 /e9D/ // // // /// /7 /60 / /// // / / i // /'''''' /// / / / / / / 0/ / / / , /TO 6E SA Ur \ \ \\ / / / / / / //� / / / /// / // /D / / / / � /%/ / / // O �/ i / %; / / // /// / ; // , , / // / /// / // / / ,/,/ // // / / / / / / / / i // / /// // / / // / / I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am 0 duly registered Landscape Architect under the lows of the State of Minnesota Nome R g N 500 6.0.10ns Date 10 8 04 0o..red .om Drown pan, SHEET TITLE LANDSCAPE PLAN 854 zz / / ROCK MULCH Y DEPTH LAID OVER 6mm POLY SHEETING LANDSCAPE NOTES • submil0 10 faerri Irpin (00 0 (09 the p pit pia to eeDmillnp a Dip, e1 oil • The Lonaeeape Contractor Map very all oteilies an the Weigel site pia to eammen*ng work. • eh rough one Avwh gracing to be preformed by others. • N0 pent muterbl Me11 be installed 0011 gn Ego and con tructl00 n has been competed the immediate Inc ppont material *hall m the . ennaa. Iona • the an Aaociytian of ssynen- American Steneaa Far Nursery Stock • All canton mister. to be grown n the contain of Mx (6) months pqr to paring an tile. • Deciduous and ifer trees need not be stoked. but Ile Landscape Conntracta roust guarantees aDlily • Toe o Lern andse cmape oConel v6oD eta Y.PMH. m a 0000(00 new a pent time of wli tnaccep one (01 -tlen0 yece het err. line of (ten acceptance 1 M horn •If there is a elescrepancy Delem, IM number of Plant* shoed the anon and the number Moen 00 Inc pant t, ine number shown an the pan wit tote ar.aeeence. • Caammertlal grade Ptly l0en e09n Mal be restated rid all Plonking DeOS n saddM a • Thee inches of *000 muich Mall be Metalled undo dl trees 00d 00 40t that or isdiala0 tram the louneat:m wants. Mulch m rub bed* 1 be c modus. etch under ealolO trees rl emend fi Depn1 the trees canopy. Mulch under deciduous trees oil extend 2.5 feet from the tree' traac •ine Ile eeufedecIft pmMlIsi tit tire dit to the paler. CONTAINER SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL Prune out Coed arse 010.090 a nos rat0000 t *00(09 (rode fear IT= N r�� —I �4 V Ana Wit« II am.d w M 1 I 1 -1I Ttli 2 -3 tier am 111 le ••• �•• •°0*: OWNERNEW BRIGHTON CONGRETATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL dame *0 m BQI 8M 0am Rest cal a all be obb.e� n Vlw ,:rt . dn9 roe a 0 .lrogntmeo 001 trantr• reg. After b�oree1 :0W OM bb 1 Ekteldit "lf n tr Ir_V 2 -3 tenor bell acme Untasturbed sea r r�i Weti CONIFER TREE PLANTING DETAIL PROJECT NEW BRIGHTON CONGRETATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES SHEET L1 OF 1 SHEETS • • • / / / / / / vE / / / TREE P805005ON FENCE I— 1. C L -1 2004- 1 TREE PROTECTION FENCE HEAVY DUTY SILT FENCE USED FOR TREE PROTECTION FENCE / / / / / / E MNDOT 3886 21 a Y woad .W � Foxe part. 4' s apaawAl mean roinlarcement. Std. lield I 30" lean. an MroC:n0 orb nix, A 16 g•We Deafest. Ion, _moot 000 !deice Formic ar eawl Iie•. Provo 42127. oohed 0051 6' ream Overlap Id nc 6• 1. at 2' :Merv. 10 10000 a,0 Ind trench Fabric anchorage Hence Backfili irx h sod renc �a0Vm n ms / Support oast osenonsos mortar os 'pep; wd / PROTECTION FENCE you; Moen Tome to Wife Been one mown oast' wnn ee' or woe w PROTECTED ROOT ZONE 15 30 60 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET TREE PRESERVATION NOTES 1 - BEFORE LAND CLEARING BEGINS. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MEET WITH THE CONSULTANT ON 517E TO REVIEW ALL WORK PROCEDURES, ACCESS ROUTES, STORAGE AREAS. AND TREE PROTECTION MEASURES. 2 - TREE PROTECTION FENCE IS TO BE PLACED OUTSIDE OF THE DRIPLINE OF ALL SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE SAVED. FENCE TO REMAIN UNTIL ALL SITE WORK IS COMPLETED. FENCE SHOULD NOT BE MOVED OR RELOCATED WITHOUT VERBAL OR WRITTEN COMMUNICATION WITH THE CONSULTANT. 3 - NO FILL SHOULD BE PLACED AGAINST THE TRUNK. ON THE ROOT CROWN. OR WITHIN THE DRIP UNE AREA OF ANT TREES THAT ARE TO BE SAVED. 4 - CARE MUST BE TAKEN TO PREVENT CHANGE IN THE SOIL CHEMISTRY DUE TO CONCRETE WASHOUT AND LEAKAGE OR SPILLAGE OF TOXIC MATERIALS SUCH AS PAINTS OR FUELS 5 - ALL CONSTRUCTION EOUIPMENT, VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND STORAGE AREAS MUST BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF ANY TREE PROTECTION AREA. 6 - PRUNING OF OAK TREES MUST NOT TAKE PLACE FROM APRIL 15 TO JULY 1. 7 - IF WOUNDING OF OAK TREES OCCUR, A NON-TOXIC WOUND DRESSING MUST BE APPLIED IMMEDIATELY. (EXCAVATORS *1055 HAVE A NON-TOXIC TREE WOUND DRESSING WITH THEM ON DEVELOPMENT SITES. �* PIONEER * engineering fie]) ie�i --,`e o rsu f�v -neu X / / HAZARD TREE STATEMENT / / / / / / / / / ,/ // / // / / / / / / / W E T L A N D • HAZARD TREE EVALUATION BASED ON : • HAZARD TREES WAN EASY TO USE FIELD GUIDE' BY ED HAYES, MINNESOTA DNR, 1996 • HAZARD TREE - ANY DEFECTIVE TREE WITH A TARGET. • TARGET - ANY AREA WHERE PEOPLE MOVE THROUGH, LINGER, OR STAY. INCLUDES FACILITIES AND PERSONAL PROPERTY. • TREES LISTED AS HAZARD WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE OVERALL TREE TOTALS. I hereby certify thol this pion was prepored by me or under my direct supervision and that I am 0 duly registered Landscape Architect under the 1005 01 the Stole of Minnesota Name Reg . No. Date I Revisions SHEET TITLE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN M AREA OF ROOTS FdPI TO 1' -13 FOR EVERY 1• N 1RINt OINEIEN (0M7 PROTECTED ROOT ZONE NOTES • 90 -950 OF A TREES ROOT SYSTEM 5 LOCATED w11010 THE TOP 3' OF SOIL. • 500 OF A TREES ROOT SYSTEM 6 LOCATED w11HIN THE TOP 1 OF THE 501L. •0051 FINE ROOTS ARE WPM 151E TOP le' OF THE SOIL SURFACE, IT IS THESE ROOTS THAT NNCIION PRIYNeLY IN 001EF AHD NUTRIENT UPTAKE • 55PPEECCIES ARE EXTREMELY 5EN51STNE 9000 R001 5EVERANLE� OTHER TREE •SOIL 500(0 rON MD FILL OVER 0001 SYSTEMS ARE JUST AS DAMAGING AS ROOT SEVERANCE AND SHOULD BE MINIMIZED FOR PROPER SOIL OXYGEN LENEU5. •TREE PROTECTION FENCE OR SILT FENCE I5 TO BE PLACED OUT5100 THE PROTECTED ROOT ZONE OF THE TREE. # of Trees % of Total# Caliper ! in. % of Caliper in. Save 60 54.55 517 51.75 Remove 50 45.45 482 48.25 Total 110 100 999 100 Hazard 3 na 85 na owNERNEW BRIGHTON CONGRETATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES :Mod ...Size(n) Tme Type Notes.. Status 5738 10.8,8,6 Siberian Elm _,__, ............_ 'Save ,5738 _...... 6 Siberian EIm ..... _ . 'Saw , ��.__.........__ 9 Siberian Elm ...... .._. Sam .. __._ _ ...... _._. ...._. Save 5741 ..... 0 SlbenanElm _... ... .. ... 5742 1210 SthoOan Elm Sale .Save ,...5743 7 7 Siberian E1 ..._..... _.. 57a/ 73 Sberen EI �� 5745 6 Sibanan EI `�� ,5746 .. 16 6 Siberian EI ... ... .Remo e ...574 8,8 Red Oak Remaa 5748 6 Siberian Elm decay at root flair .. Sava 5749 6 Siberian Elm 5750 18 Red Oak _ 575 7 Red Oak Bev* 5752 7 Chevy Inc haul et lot branch umOn 5R Remove 5753 6 Siberian Elm Inc bark at base Remoe 5754 6 Siberian Elm 5755 10 6 Siberian Elm nc mrkixcey .. Ramos 5756 7 Siberian Elm Ramose 5757 6 Siberian Elm RemoM: 5758 6 Siberian Elm Ramona 5759 31 Siberian Elm :no bark 0-108 decay at base Haze* 5760 7 Siberian Elm inc bark at 40 _ Remae 5761 13 Siberian Elm inc bark at 4R Remus ,..5762 14 Cottonwood .. ._..... .,. Remove 5763 6 Siberian Elm _ - _.:Ramos ..... __. _..._. ... . _.. 160115.0 5766:. 6 Siberian EIm ......... ........ ........ ......... . Remoe ,..576.5 .......... 6. Siberian Elm .. _._............ 57516. .... .._ .Slbenan Elm :Ramose ...5767 :............. 66 Slbermn Elm ...... ...... ......._..�� i 579775-M56772:6: 6 Siberian Elm i�m0.e .sews.. .... ... _... 57� 7 Siberian Elm inc bark at 516 RemXAe 13 Jack Pi 110Rlpe Imo ManclNa/ 55055000hlle R mad 10 Siberian Elm Rerilae - 126 Siberian Elm Inc bark at base Sava ( 8. Siberlen Elm Saw . 885xeltler :leaning __. .._...... Sale, ........... 7Bozelrler _... ... _...... Bove .. ........_13,10,8 S lbenan Elm Inc bark 04R ..... RornXne 7 Siberian Elm - Ramose _........._ .sews c_.... .... .... ..... 7 Siberian Elm Inc bark 0 -211 7 BSXeltler Remoe 5780 ...... 6 S benan Elm me bark at base .... Ramose 5767 9 Siberian EIm Inc bark et 361 ... Remo+ 5782 11 5 bed' Elm Save 1 5783 14,6 BoxelSBr Inc bark at base Bove 5784 6 Siberian Elm rilae 5785 6,6 Siberian Elm Inc bark 0-20 „__... _..._. .Ramos 5786 7,7,6,6 Siberian Elm Inc bark 0-45 5787 2Si Siberian Etm 70%stl ino bane 0616 ..... .... Hazard Ra ::::'::k 5788 ..... 14 Sher Maine 1 ............... .. ......... .... 57 ®- ........ 16 Silver Maple ._.. ...... ... r e 5790'. 12SIl rMe � ! .... Pte .... ........ 5791 1894 rMaple INC bark 3-5R ;Remove 5790 10 8 8 Silver Maple bark 0.38 a5793 18 Siberia Elm e5794 25 Siberian Elm 50%sd4cay az 5795 23 Siberia Elm Inc bark 3611 Ra 5786 .... 7 6,6,6 Siberia Elm Inc bark 0-20 ... mos 5797 .... 13 Siher Maple .... _ ... Ramose 5798 .. 9,9 Red Oak IDobirk 025 ReXlw.e 5799 12 CobmdO Spruce _ Brie 5600 50,10,8,7 S her Maple inc bark 0-30 ... - Save 5801 2014 14 Siberia Elm Inc bark 04R Remove 5802 8 Blbenan Elm Ramose 5803 10 Colorado Spuce Ramos 5800 _.... 10 Colorado Spruce .... ..... .Remove 5805 11 7 Siberian Elm _ Raise 5806 - 13 Siberian Elm Q0fne`e , r . ... 5807 11 10 10,9,8 Siberian Elm Inc e bark 0-216 __,,,. ............ Rama' 5808 9 Siberian Elm RenIe 5808 6 6 Siberian Elm 5810' 7 Siberian Elm 7'SaseS'e 5811t0 Red Pme 58129 Retl Pine e 5813 4 Red Pale 5814'. 10 Red Plro Sieve .... .. .. Save 5815 7 Red Pine 5816 7 Rod Pme 5817 .... 9 Red Plre ._ . _. ... 'Save 5818 .._ 6 Red Pme ._ _.. ....... nSa1e 5819 ..... .. 7 Red Pine -. .... Save 5820 .... 10 Red Plre ...... 'Santa .... 5850 5821 9 Red Pine .... 5872 109,7SIbena Elm Save 5823 .._._ 11 107 Red Pine .._ inc bark 0-Z1[ ._.. ... Save 5(124. 10 Red Pale Se's 5825 � 4 RedPme Save _ 5826 11 Red Piro Rave 5627 ........ 7 Red Pine Bove 5878 5 Red Pine . ,. See ...... Owes ... ...... ... 5879 5830 5 Red Pine 80`0 5835800:583413596 12- 1-Mn stems White Ceder Ramos 5832 17 Siberian Elm S ! 12 5100511 Elm Save ......... _ .... ........ ......... .: .:......................... 6 Red P .. ...... .. _ _ ........... ........._ _ Save . 10: Red Pine .Bove ................_...__. RedP......... ............_.................. .. ....... ....... . 10 Red Pine ............._ ..... .... Ba`e._....... ...._.......... .. 3 Red Pine Save.........., B:Red Pine .........: ......... ....... ....... ...... .... ...... Save 8 Red Piro ........ ..... ......... ...... Saw 5840 ..._... 10 Red Piro .... 5841 ....._ 4 Red Pale ..... ..... Sieve _.... ..__ Seve 5842 ...._. 3 Red Pire - _... 5843 11 Siberian Elm ..___... ..._...._. Sava 5844 _.. 3 Red Pala ...... Save 5645 � 6 Red Plre Sieve __. ....._ ......... 8r1ve 11 Red Plre ... 5sve 5847: _........ t6 Sib Pme ' ........... ..... ...... 5848 6 Siberian EIm ..... ,., .. Bove ... ... sate 5849 11 Siberian Elm 5850 10 10 Siberian EIm -Inc bark 0-30 Save . .TREES LISTED AS HAZARD WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN SIGNIFICANT TREE TOTALS PROJECTNEW BRIGHTON CONGRETATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES SHEET TR1 OF 1 SHEETS • RUUD LIGHTING 150 150 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 EXIST. BITUMINOUS ORMEWAY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 00 a" ' Dicey 9 0.2 EXIST. BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY 0A 0A 04 0A 0.0 0.0 0D 0A 0.0482.86 S51 °33'43 "E OD 0.0 00 0.0 0D 0D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DA 0D 0.0 OA 0.0 0A 0.0 0.0 0.0 04 00 ADDITIONAL EOUIPMENT (2) PS4S22042 22 04 0. 125 00UAPE STEEL POLE (1) PS4522E1E12 22 04 0. 120 SOUARE STEEL POLE POLE AND FIXTURE MEETS 100 MPH SUSTAINED WINDS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0D 0.0 0D 0 0.o PAN.0 AMA OMY wo1FU Am P .280 m .0.).60 WalMin PR2640 -M N 11 I sonar n °xm IPuuurn.uwssw1 RUUD LIGHTING 800214.TYOn SSA ...,.rMx, Ninx.wn, 90.01 1971 CAN Woo svOn Iau 1w. 1°.. Iww. Irwn (n■ I.. In., ,..� ny�Ft-7f 6' EXTENDED POLE MOUNT (4 05 mm) PARKING/ROADWAY LIGHT F' ;'- l.> I .3 EPA RATING Isofootcandle plots show initial footcandles at grade7-(footcandtes - x0:0929 - =- Lux) EPA 0.95 for single fixture with 0° tilt (Consult factory for EPA rating on multiple units). 150° .. 150° • 120 .1■4...,1 1 estest olt -wog 000'' . .20004 30 Lighting Sciences Inc. Certified Test Report No. LSI 10473 Candlepower distribution curve of 400W MH Parking /Roadway Light Lighting Sciences Inc. Certified Test Report No. LSI 4941 Candlepower distribution curve of 400W HPS Parking /Roadway Light Pole - spacing Example Data 100' 80' 60' 40' 20' 100 80' 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 30.5 24.4 18.3 122 6.1 Om 6.1 122 18.3 24.4 30.5 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 30.5 24.4 18.3 12.2 6.1 Om 6.1 12.2 18.3 24.4 30 5 Isofootcandle plot of 250W MH Parking /Roadway Light at 25' (7.6 m) mounting height and 0° vertical tilt (Plan view) 100' 80' 60' 100' 80' 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 30.5 • 24.4 18.3 12.2 6.1 Om 6.1 12.2 18.3 24.4 30.5 30.5 24.4 183 122 6.1 Om 6.1 122 183 24.4 30.5 Catalog # Lamp Type Lamp Lumens PR2417 -M 175W MH 12,000 PR2425 -M 250W MH 20,000 PR2440 -M 400W MH 32,000 25 -M 250W HPS 28,500 540 -M 400W HPS 50,000 Isofootcandle plot of 250W HPS Parking/Roadway Light at 25' (7.6 m) mounting height and 00 vertical tilt (Plan view) I - -x --I ♦i_ Y /TEST/ /E/ 100' 80 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 100' 80' _.._ . _. 24.4 60' '1 - - 18.3 40, s 12.2 20' 6.1 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 30.5 24.4 183 12.2 Om 6.1 12.2 18.3 24.4 30 5 6.1 Om 6.1 12.2 18.3 24.4 30.5 Isofootcandle plot of 400W MH Parking/Roadway Light at 30' (9.1 m) mounting height and 0° vertical tilt (Plan view) 100' 80' 60 100' 80' 60' 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' -- 40' 20' 0' 20' 40' 60' 80' 100' 30.5 24.4 .1 183 - 122 61 Om 6.1 12.2 _.._ 18.3 80' - - - - - - - - - - - - =- . 24.4 1 100' 30 5 30.5 24.4 18.3 12.2 6.1 0 m 6.1 122 183 24.4 30.5 Isofootcandle plot of 400W HPS Parking /Roadway Light at 30' (9.1 m) mounting height and 0° vertical tilt (Plan view) Test area is centered within a (16) pole layout. Max. Recommended Pole- spacing Mounting Height X x Y Footcandles Lux 15' (4.6 m) 90' (27.4 m) x 60' (18.3 m) 3.97 43 20' (6.1 m) 120' (36.6 m) x 80' (24.4 m) 2.15 23 20' (6.1 m) 120' (36.6 m) x 80' (24.4 m) 3.60 39 25' (7.6 m) 150' (45.7 m) x 100' (30.5 m) 2.22 24 25' (7.6 m) 150' (45.7 m) x 100' (30.5 m) 3.56 38 30' (9.1 m) 180' (54.9 m) x 120' (36.6 m) 2.41 26 20' (6.1 m) 120' (35.6 m) x 80' (24.4 m) 4.94 53 25' (7.6 m) 180' (54.9 m) x 120' (36.6 m) 3.08 33 25' (7.6 m) 150' (45.7 m) x 100' (30.5 m) 5.41 58 30' (9.1 m) 180' (54.9 m) x 120' (36.6 m) 3.67 40 Average Initial Light Levels at Grade 2 Fixtures per pole @U0° (Footcandles + 0.0929 = Lux) RUUD LIGHTING 9201 Washington Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53406 -3772 USA © Ruud Lighting Inc. Printed in USA PHONE (262) 886 -1900 FAX (262) 884 -3309 www.ruudlighting.com 12/11/03 6" EXTENDED POLE MOUNT 15" (4 J€ mm) AWAY Ballast Capacitor Ignitor (Where -6" (152 mm) required) Cord 24° (610 mm) long Housing Seamless, die -cast aluminum Finish color: bronze 016" (406 mm) Reflector Hydroformed aluminum with brightened and anodized finish Extended Pole Mount Finish color: bronze Ballast Compartment Cover Patented Hinge Assembly 6.50 (165 mm) Lamp (Included) Lampholder Lens Frame Die -cast aluminum door frame secures lens; sealed with silicone gasket Finish color. black PULSE START METAL HALIDE sPEC# 200W PSMH PR2620- (a)(b) ED SPEC# 250W PSMH PR2625- (a)(b) ® SPEC # 320W PSMH PR2632- (a)(b) SPEC# 350W PSMH PR2635- (a)(b) SPEC 400W PSMH PR2640- (a)(b) METAL HALIDE 0 SPEC# 175W MH PR2417- (a)(b) SPEC # 250W MH PR2425-(a)(b) 0 SPEC # 400W MH PR2440- (a)(b) HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM SPEC# 250W HPS PR2525- (a)(b) SPEC # 400W HPS PR2540- (a)(b) Speedy (a) Voltage & (b) Options. NERAdiliMTION Parking lot and roadway luminaire for HID lamp, totally enclosed. Supplied with IES Type III (250W MH is field adjustable to Type I1) optical system. Housing is seamless, die -cast alumi- num. Mounting consists of a 1.8" (44 mm) wide by 4.5" (114 mm) high by 6" -(152 mm) long extruded aluminum arm. The arm is held in place with two 3/8" (9 mm) mounting rods fastened to a steel backing plate inside the pole, and by two nuts inside the fixture housing. Mounting rods are provided with sealing washers to prevent water leakage. Lens assembly consists of rigid aluminum frame and high- impact, clear- tempered glass. 120/208/240/277V (Standard) T 120/277/347V (Canada Only) (Standard) 1 120V 2 277V 27 277V Reactor (PSMH Only) 3 208V 4 240V 5 480V 6 347V (Canada Only) For voltage availability outside the US and Canada, see Bulletin TD-9 or contact your Ruud Lighting authorized International Distributor. Fixture includes clear, mogul -base lamp. Pulse -rated porcelain enclosed, 4kv -rated screw - shell -type lampholder with spring - loaded center contact. Lamp ignitor included where required. All ballast assemblies are high -power factor and use the following circuit type: Reactor (277V PSMH) 200 - 400W PSMH CWA - Constant Wattage Autotransformer 200 - 400W PSMH; 175 - 400W MH; 250 - 400W HPS ANSI lamp wattage label supplied, visible during relamping. UL Listed in US and Canada for wet locations and enclosure classified IP65 per IEC 529 and IEC 598. 9201 Washington Avenue Racine, Wisconsin 53406 -3772 USA © Ruud Lighting Inc. Printed in USA PHONE (262) 886 -1900 www.ruudlighting.com Notes -(a)F Fusing -(a)P Button Photocell -5P External Photocell (for 480V) 0 Quartz Standby (includes 100W quartz lamp) (N/A on 277V Reactor) Specify (a) Single Voltage - See Voltage Suffix Key Exclusive DeltaGuard® finish features an E -coat epoxy primer with medium bronze ultra - durable powder topcoat, providing excellent resistance to corrosion, ultraviolet degradation and abrasion. The finish is covered by our seven - year limited warranty. - PATENMS US 4,689,729 CCESSOB1ES FWG -16 Wire Guard SBL -16 Backlight Shield FAX (262) 884 -3309 12/11/03 RUUD LIGHTING Environmental Memo To: Mike Grochala From: Marty Asleson CC: Paul Bengtson Jeff Smyser Date: November 2, 2004 Re: Environmental Board Recommendations /October 27, 2004 • The Environmental Board made the following recommendations at the October 27, 2004 Environmental Board meeting: Fox Den Acres Environmental Board recommended approval of Fox Den Conservation Development including: • Rezoning to residential planned unit development • Preliminary Plat with conditions listed in the P & Z Report • The development of an approved Stewardship Plan • Use of standard Best Management Practices for site development and Natural Resources. Motion by O'Dea to approve, second by Bor. All were in favor. Motion passed. • • Amendment to the Growth Management Ordinance • Motion to approve the changes to the Growth Management Ordinance by Smith, second by O'Dea. All were in favor. Motion passed. Mike Vaughan Subdivision The Environmental Board recommended the approval of the Mike Vaughan Subdivision proposal with the following comments and recommendations: • Save as many trees as possible • Mitigate any oak wilt started on the site • The rain gardens should use the City Native Seed Mix, and the developer should hire a nurseryman experienced in native plant establishment to plant and manage this area for at least 3 years. • Under the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan Notes of the proposal, Item 2 should say that 4 inches of topsoil will be thoroughly tilled into the soil • The notes should include a statement that "no soil shall be imported or exported from the site with out City approval • Under the Stomiwater Prevention Plan Notes of the proposed plan, their should include a statement that the City will be notified when storm water must be treated with altemative BMPs and agree to them • Under the notes section of the proposed plan, the note on external washing of construction vehicles should include the washing of intemal components of cement trucks and be limited to a defined area • An additional stockpiling of rock should be on hand, on the site to top dress rock entrances should existing rock entrances become filled up • The ponds should be dug with minimum compaction equipment and fenced off to further traffic during construction. • The notes should indicate that the site soils will be restored to pre- construction densities and that this would be accomplished by tilling, plowing, disking, or ripping. • The Developer should provide adequate landscape screening to adjacent residences. This screening if in rain garden and treatment pond areas should be appropriate for these areas. The screening and recommended 1 boulevard tree per house frontage should be approved by the City. • Have Staff look at the feasibility of an alternative to a cul- de-sac design • Page 2 • Establish a mechanism for a no -mow buffer around wet areas that can be enforceable. Post signage for these areas. Motion to approve with comments and recommendations by Grundhoffer, second by O'Connel. All were in favor. Motion passed. Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses The Environmental Board recommended that this project be referred back to staff for further review, and come back to the Environmental Board at a later time. Issues include: • Submittal of a lighting fixture plan to include any sign monuments. Demonstrate that light glare would not be seen from the lake. • Discuss a lighting and sound time limit for the site use • Septic system feasibility and possible relocation to the front of the building and away from the lake and water treatment areas and agreement to hook up to sewer and water when available. Have a recommendation from County Environmental on the proposed system • Discussion of a way to protect a significant area on the lake side of the project through a conservation easement or other mechanism • Adequately address screening needs of shoreland and adjacent residences. Establish proposed changes to species and discuss save areas with City. Redesign to ensure adequate screening in sight lines to adjacent houses. Show ground story cover on site to include a plan to irrigate sod areas. Agree to use of native plants in drainage and water treatment areas. Use City Seed Specs. • Look at altemative design to NURP. Design to a more appropriate rain garden. Include rain garden areas for water coming off parking lots and other treatment features like grassy swales, to larger rain pond treatment area. Include pervious parking if possible. Motion by O'Dea, second by Bauman, to refer back to staff for further review.. All were in favor. Motion passed. Friends of the Mississippi Storm Water Management Ordinance Review Recommendation to move forward with this project. Motion by O'dea, second by Bor. All approved. Motion passed. Friends of the Mississippi River Water Quality Workshop Recommend moving forward with the workshop. Motion by Smith, second by Grundhoffer. All were in favor. Motion passed. • Page 3 • Appointments to the AUAR Advisory Panel • • The Environmental Board elected to have the following Environmental Board members on the Advisory Panel: 1. Terri O'Connell /alternative 2. Dennis Smith 3. Barbara Bor 4. Barbara Bauman Motion to Approve by O'Dea, second by Grundhoffer. All were in favor. Motion passed. Hardwood Creek Rehabilitation Project The Environmental Board was in favor of a Council Resolution supporting the best environmental option for the rehabilitation of Judicial Ditch 2/Hardwood Creek. • Page 4 • • • Memorandum DATE: November 4, 2004 TO: Paul Bengtson FROM: James E. Studenski, City Engineer RE: Kingdom Hall Jehovah's Witnesses Attached is the TKDA review dated November 4, 2004, of the submitted documents for the Kingdom Hall Jehovah's Witnesses site. The following comments must be addressed prior to final approval given for this project. Please contact me with any questions. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651 - 982 -2400 • Fax: 651 - 982 -2499 • TDD: 651 - 982 -2410 TKDA ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292-4400 (651) 292 -0083 Fax www.tkda.com To: James E. Studenski, P.E. Reference: Engineering Review of City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota New Brighton Kingdom Hall Copies To: Jehovah's Witnesses Comm. No. 12976 -002 From: Patrick M. Windler, P.E. Routing: Date: November 4, 2004 The church members of the New Brighton Kingdom Hall Jehovah's Witnesses are proposing to construct a new worship and meeting facility along the southeast side of Lake Drive (Anoka CSAH 23) and to the north of Second Avenue. The following engineering review is based on a submitted three ring binder presented by the Developer's /Owners consulting company's for City of Lino Lakes comment. The following civil engineering documents from the submitted three ring binder were used for the below engineering review comments: 1. Boundary and Topography Survey of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 151 in Section 19, Township 31, Range 22 of Anoka County /Lino Lakes, Minnesota, dated September 15, 2004, by Terrence E. Rothenbucher, L.S., of Pioneer Engineering. 2. New Brighton Kingdom Hall, Plan Sheet: Site Plan, Minnesota Regional Building No. 1 with no date or signature (labeled Sheet No. 3 of 6). 3. New Brighton Kingdom Hall, Plan Sheet: Erosion Control, Minnesota Regional Building No. 1 with no date or signature (labeled Sheet No. 6 of 6). 4. New Brighton Kingdom Hall, Plan Sheet: Grading Plan, Minnesota Regional Building No. 1 with no date or signature (labeled Sheet No. 5 of 6). 5. Wastewater Treatment System design (layout only) by Daniel Weaver of Earth Science Testing, dated October 8, 2004. 6. Drainage Calculations (21 pages) using HydroCAD stormwater routing and ponding modeling for 2 -year, 10 -year, and 100 -year design rainfall events as submitted by Rodney Gordon (no company or credentials listed on documents.) • The above documents are all stamped received at the City of Lino Lakes offices on October 11, 2004. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Engineering Review of New Brighton Page 2 November 4, 2004 Kingdom Hall Jehovah's Witnesses Engineering Review Comments: 1. Provide to Lino Lakes City Engineer a copy of the report and mapping delineating wetlands on the parcel. Delineator must be Minnesota State certified. 2. Provide Lino Lakes City Engineer with a copy of the Anoka County Highway Access Permit with driveway requirement onto a County road. The City will need to review the Anoka County requirements and may have further requirements. 3. Plat: Easements are required along all property lines and over stormwater ponding areas including access provisions. As a minimum, a ten (10) foot easement along Lake Drive will be required. Side lot easements are generally five (5) feet wide and will be required. These easements may be expanded/modified based on potential modifications to the site plan(s). 4. Sanitary Sewer System: It is recommended that a minimum 6 -inch sanitary sewer service pipe or longer(if flows warrant it) into the building to prepare for future connection to a public regional system. It is unknown when (or if) a public sanitary sewer collection system will be installed in this area. • 5. • Proposed entrance driveway and parking lot are to be paved with plant -mixed bituminous pavement and delineated with concrete curb and gutter. Provide plan detail of these infrastructures that shall follow City standards. 6. Storm Sewer System: a. Strongly recommend that a catch basin(s) with storm piping system be used in the curbed parking lot prior to the proposed stormwater pond on the east side of the property and consequent to discharge into the Rice Lake Watershed complex. b. Stormwater calculations: A complete engineering review is included in the attached memo. 7. Erosion Control Issues: Erosion control fencing will be needed around the perimeter of the proposed church site. Erosion control is part of the RCWD permit process. 8. The Developer's Engineer needs to acquire a copy of the City of Lino Lakes Design Standards and Details. This can be obtained at City Hall offices through the City Engineer. TKDA • ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS MEMORANDUM To: James E. Studenski Copies To: Pat Windier From: Date: Stephen W. Hartley November 4, 2004 Document Reviewed: HydroCAD model dated October 4, 2004 Grading Plan undated Comments: 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292 -4400 (651) 292-0083 Fax www.tkda.com Reference: New Brighton Kingdom Hall Drainage Review Lino Lakes, Minnesota Comm. No. 12976.002 Routing: • 1. The minimum pipe outlet size is 15" RC pipe, the HydroCAD model shows a 12" RC pipe. 2. An infiltration rate of 0.0083 ft/min corresponds to an infiltration rate of 5.98 in/hr. Rice Creek Watershed District's design standard for NRCS type "A" soils is 0.50 in/hr, unless a percolation test has been preformed. If so, supporting documentation is needed. 3. When existing condition soil type are NRCS type "A" soils, NRCS type "B" soils need to be used in disturbed areas under proposed conditions. 4. A drainage area map needs to be submitted for both existing and proposed conditions. 5. The submitted computations, according the HydroCAD header, is for developed conditions. Please submit the existing condition computations. 6. A differentiation is needed between existing and proposed contours on the grading plan. 7. The location of the proposed pond outlet is needed on the grading plan. 8. Approval from Rice Creek Watershed District is needed. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity • • • AGENDA ITEM VI A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: November 10 , 2004 TOPIC: Temporary Signage BACKGROUND Last month we discussed the various types of temporary signage. It will be useful to categorize them and set priorities for further discussions. We have done so here and present suggestions regarding whether or not existing regulation is adequate. ANALYSIS Definitions The main topic is "temporary signage ". This covers a wide variety of signs. We can categorize the different types as follows. temporary sign portable sign: a sign designed to be moved from one location to another banner miscellaneous sign such as cardboard signs on frames stuck in the ground or attached to poles or other structures other types: construction sign subdivision development sign real estate sign garage, yard sale sign We suggest the following definitions: temporary sign Any sign not permanently mounted or affixed to a building or to a permanent sign. portable sign A sign designed to be moved from one location to another. banner A sign made of cloth, flexible plastic, or other fabric. • • Temporary Signage page 2 We can assemble definitions for the other types of signs, the purposes of which are pretty clear. Regulations The P & Z agreed that temporary signs should be regulated. Staff suggests that banners and portable signs should be distinct subcategories of temporary signs. Currently, most temporary signs are regulated as "portable signs" in our ordinance. The ordinance allows a maximum of four times a year for a total of fifteen days per time. They are to be limited to special events or promotions. A portable sign permit is needed for each time. The permit cost is $25. This seems adequate for the real portable signs that are on wheels or frames, intended for special sales or events. However, the banners and the more flimsy, cardboard and plastic signage are more common and are the cause of most concern. The P & Z suggested the following for banners: 32 sf maximum size must be attached to a building (or should we allow them attached to permanent signs ?) one month duration each time maximum number of times per year, to be determined should we require a permit? We need regulations for the miscellaneous temporary signs: the cardboard, flat plastic, and other temporary signs seen at retail businesses. These are more difficult to get a handle on. Staff will work on creating draft requirements for those types and bring it to the next meeting. Regarding some of the other types of temporary signage, several already are addressed in our ordinance: Section IV, par. P.: Real estate development signs or construction site signs may be erected providing they do not exceed one hundred square feet of area, are not more than fifteen feet above grade, and not within one hundred feet of an existing residential structure. Section IV, par. R.: Temporary real estate signs advertising the sale of individual residences shall not require a permit if they are under six square feet. Section IV, par. S: Temporary signs advertising building or land for rent or for sale in all districts may be placed on such property providing such signs are not closer than ten feet to any property line and do not exceed forty square feet in industrial areas and fifteen square feet in other areas. • • Temporary Signage page 3 As noted at last month's meeting, signage regulation should be content neutral. Staff will re- examine the ordinance in this light. It may be better simply to allow each residential property one free standing sign, which could be a "for sale" sign, a home occupation sign (which must be a permitted activity), or a "yard sale" sign. These should be on the property itself. For commercial properties, we may want to consider allowing signage on a commercial property before a building is constructed. Then, the signage area allowed on the property can be used for the construction or for sale sign before a building is there. Signs in the right of way would always be prohibited, except for traffic and other public safety signs. The attached table summarizes this discussion. RECOMMENDATION Provide recommendation to staff on banners and portable signs. Next meeting: Staff will bring draft requirements for other types of temporary signs, as discussed above. • • • Temporary Signage page 4 TEMPORARY SIGNAGE should be allowed and regulated. defined as: Any sign not permanently mounted or affixed to a building or to a permanent sign. BANNER defined as: A temporary sign made of cloth, flexible plastic, or other fabric. • 32 sf maximum size ?? is /is not included in normal sign area maximum ?? • must be attached to a building ?? or a permanent sign ?? • one month duration each time • maximum number of times per year, to be determined • permit required ?? cost ?? • not in road right of way PORTABLE SIGN defined as: A temporary sign designed to be moved from one location to another. • permit required: $25 • maximum of four times a year for a total of fifteen days per time • permit is needed for each time • limited to special events or promotions • not in road right of way Further discussion on several definitions is needed. Revisions possible for residential signs and commercial construction and real estate signs. Further discussion needed on window signs: should we address it or leave it unregulated? Maybe if it's inside the building, leave it unregulated. Enforcement and staffing must be addressed.