HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/29/2003 Env Bd PacketCity of Lino Lakes
Environmental Board Meeting
October 29, 2003
6:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. OPEN MIKE
ACTION ITEMS
A. Eagle Brook Church, 7709 20th Ave. N., Site Plan Review and Conditional
Use Permit
B. Circle -Lex VFW Post, 7868 Lake Drive, Site Plan Review and CUP
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. 2004 Goals
7. OTHER DEPARTMENT REPORTS
A. Forestry
B. Solid Waste Recycling /Recycling Day
C. Environmental /Heron Issues
8. ADJOURN
AGENDA ITEM 5A
Staff Originator: Marty Asleson
Environmental Board
Meeting Date: October 29, 2003
Topic:
Background:
Eagle Brook Church, 7709 20th Ave
North, Site Plan Review and Conditional
Use Permit.
Eagle Brook Church is proposing to build a new church on a 91 Acre site located
on County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 21(20th Avenue), 1.25 miles north of CSAH
14 (Main Street.) The Church will be approximately 88,000 square feet, and
provide seating for 2,100 people, with a potential for 700 additional seats.
Parking is planned for 1,100 vehicles with potential to add 350 spaces.
Construction is planned to begin in April 2003.
Eagle Brook Church previously prepared an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project. The Lino Lakes City Council
rendered a negative declaration on the EAW in May of 2003.
This review is based on the following submittals:
Project Narrative received October 13, 2003
Certificate of Survey, dated October 10, 2003, prepared by SRF
Consulting Group.
Site Plan, dated October 13, 2003, prepared by SRF Consulting Group
and BWBR Architects.
Grading Plan, dated October 13, 2003, prepared by SRF Consulting
Group and BWBR Architects.
Utility Plan, dated October 13, 2003, prepared by SRF Consulting Group
and BWBR Architects.
Landscaping Plan, dated October 13, 2003, prepared by SRF Consulting
Group and BWBR Architects.
Tree Preservation Plan, dated October 13, 2003, prepared by SRF
Consulting Group and BWBR Architects.
Photometric Plan, dated October 14, 2003, prepared by BWBR Architects.
Building Floor Plans, dated October 13, 2003, BWBR Architects.
Building Elevations, dated October 13, 2003, prepared by BWBR
Architects.
ANALYSIS
Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD)
The RCWD reviewed the proposal on October 8, 2003 and issued a CAPROC
(Conditional Approval Pending Receipt of Changes). Findings of the Rice Creek
Watershed include the proposal to relocate the mainline of Anoka County Ditch
#72, and reconstruction of Branch 1, within the project's parcel boundary.
Findings show no increase in the runoff rates from the site onto adjacent
properties. The ditch relocation will remain in a piped condition. RCWD will
maintain a 50 -foot easement on either side of the pipe. There are no proposed
wetland impacts associated with this project. There is no proposed flood plane fill
for the site. An acceptable erosion control plan has been submitted.
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control
Many bioretention /raingarden areas are incorporated into a stormwater treatment
train. The treatment train is designed to capture at least a % inch rainfall event.
Stormwater from proposed parking /impervious areas is channeled through curb
cuts into these depressional areas.
A P8 phosphorous load model was run for the site. The model demonstrates a
19% reduction of phosphorous outflow for phase 1, and a 16% outflow reduction
for phase 2. The P8 model shows an increase in site phosphorous inflows. This
is because of atmospheric dust particles attached to phosphorous particles
settling on impervious surfaces. The rain garden design directly captures these
additional phosphorous accumulations from the impervious surfaces (for a 3/ inch
rain event).
Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS)
MLCCS data shows nothing significant on the site. The site however, is
immediately adjacent to a natural resources lake. The lake boundary next to the
church site is indicated as cattail marsh, with sedge meadow inclusions, lake
sedge and tussock sedge. In addition, water willow (unique plant) is found along
the shoreline of the island and in cattail inclusion areas along the shorelines in
this area.
Proposed best management surface water practices should help to attenuate
effects of nutrient loading into the lake, and the effects on vegetation present
immediately off site. The church is proposing to use native plants in vegetative
swale, bio- retention, infiltration, and ponding areas. This is another
recommended BMP.
Zone 1 and 2 protection areas are mapped just east of the lake in the seasonally
flooded areas of the MLCCS. This area is also mapped in the city
Comprehensive Land Use Plan as greenway. It is my understanding that the
church is proposing to create a conservation easement in this area and write a
management plan that is suitable to Anoka County and the City of Lino Lakes.
Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS)
The projects proposes to utilize an on -site sewage treatment system to treat
wastewater. Anoka County is currently reviewing the proposed on -site
wastewater treatment system. Effluent treatment levels (with the proposed
system) for CBOD and TSS appear to be on the lower range of limits for effluents
before reaching the soil treatment area
There appears to be an existing well and septic system at the existing residence.
If this residence is abandoned as part of the project, than the septic system
needs to be appropriately removed and the well sealed.
Wildlife Habitat
Construction of the church is proposed to commence in April. This is about the
time the Great Blue Herons are returning to nest. Eagle Brook Church has
established an environmental sub - committee that would be willing to act as a
communication group between the church and the public agencies. Since the
construction area of the church is outside the theoretical nesting buffer of the
birds, we should be ok. However, should observations indicate otherwise, we will
have the quick link with the church. Buffering standards for nesting herons were
tested for highway construction activities. There is always the possibility that
something in the church construction process could disturb the nesting herons.
Landscaping
A landscape plan has been submitted that includes substantial areas restored to
native grasses, as well as combinations of cultured grass, rain garden plantings,
perennials, ground covers, shrubs and trees. City specifications for native seed
and forbs should be used.
A substantial portion of the site is proposed to be planted to Autumn blaze maple.
Autumn blaze is a new cross between silver and red maple that has a nice fall
color, rapid growth rate, and stronger wood structure than the silver maple. A bit
of caution should be used to over planting any one species. Northern pin oak
also has a nice fall color. I would prefer a native screening material on the north
side. White pine would most likely do better in the long run, rather than Austrian
pine.
Eagle Brook Church environmental subcommittee has indicated that it will also
assume responsibilities for native plant restoration and maintenance.
Tree Preservation
A tree preservation plan has been submitted. There are no impacted trees
indicated in the plan. All tree preservation measures must be taken before any
soil disturbance.
Lighting
The Photometric Plan submitted for review indicates that the proposed site
lighting is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements. Pole
mounted lights are proposed to be 22 feet in height. All light fixtures are
proposed to be hooded with a ninety degree cutoff angle.
Impervious Surface Coverage
The City's Zoning Ordinance does not specify a standard for impervious surface
coverage in R, Rural Zoning Districts, The PSP, Public /Semi - Public Zoning
District which provides for similar institutional uses, ( i.e.; schools, governmental
buildings,) establishes a maximum impervious percentage of 65 %.
Approximately 19% of the site is proposed to be impervious.
OPTIONS
1. Recommend approval of the Eagle Brook application with recommendations
and Environmental Board comments.
2. Recommend no approval.
RECOMMENDATION
This staff person cannot ; address the cultural, economic, or traffic issues
concerning the proposal. These elements always play a role, as modeled in the
Lino Lakes Handbook for Conservation Development In saying this, staff
recommendation is
1. Approve the project with Environmental Board and Staff comments and
recommendations.
2. Recommend not approving.
Environmental Board Comments:
ATTACHMENTS
1. General Location Map
2. Lino Lakes Environmental Board EAW comments
3. Rice Creek Watershed Report
4. Project Narrative /Phosphorous Model
5. Eagle Brook Church Planning Information
6. Site Plan
7. Grading Plan
8. Utility Plan
9. Landscaping Plan
10. Tree Preservation Plan
11. Floor Plans
12. Building Elevations
TIER LAKE
Iii■ A
imwmpurAimi Era Et
s'IQra me s� pal
R:; aaaal`Y:lJ IRIS =i layar�i�
'a M tnrrOR' S
It'll
l
RrmStPSM .
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING
OCTOBER 30, 2002
Chair Kukonen inquired about the depth of the sand. Mr. McCully responded that
the site was very low, so it would be about two to three feet deep.
Grundhofer asked for an example of a site that was very low and the system
worked.' Mr. McCully answered that the bank on 35E was a good example. The
water leaving the system into the sewer was clear and only a trickle.
Mr. McCully stated that pervious paving areas would be vacuum cleaned once a
year. He had used them in Minneapolis, Saint Paul, and in Wisconsin.
Asleson stated that it was a well - designed treatment train, however his only
question was the final destination of the water above the groundwater. Mr.
McCully stated that another soil boring could be done on the west side and that it
would not be a problem. The system needed to be verified. The species of trees
needed to be changed such as the honeysuckle. The only other concern was
lighting issues.
Chair Kukonen requested that the new copies of the lighting codes be sent to the
developer. He called for a motion per the approval of the City Engineer, a
redesigning of the lighting plan, and the noted species changed.
Halen made a motion to approve with the recommendations of staff and Board.
O'Dea seconded the motion.
Donlin reiterated her concern over the use of pesticides. Asleson indicated that
the Best Management Practices were encouraged for storage and maintenance.
He indicated that the site was on a sanitary sewer. There was filtration at the
doors where any spills would occur.
Halen accepted the friendly amendment. Schneider seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously.
B. Eagle Brook Church, EAW Comments
Asleson introduced the topic by reviewing the background material. A citizen
petition was submitted to the Environmental Quality Board to perform an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the development proposal.
When the application was received, the project developer was required to supply
all data to the Responsible Government Unit, which prepared the EAW using a
standard form supplied by the Environmental Quality Board. The Responsible
Government Unit was the City of Lino Lakes, with Jeff Smyser as the Lead
Person in the review. The EAW was prepared by the information supplied, and
was approved by the City Council for distribution. Copies had been sent to
several review agencies for a comment period of 30 days. After the comment
period, the Responsible Government Unit would respond to comments and
APPROVED MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2002
determine whether an Environmental Impact Study would be required. The
comments made by other review agencies might require modifications to the
project to mitigate environmental impacts.
The Board received several copies of letters by residents concerning the site. Art
Hawkins submitted on October 16, 2002 to the Members of Lino Lakes City
Council. He discussed the need for protection for the birds, consultation of Joan
Galli, Jeff Perry and himself, and an adherence to the Comprehensive Plan. A
letter from Art Hawkins to Joan Galli, MN DNR and Jeff Perry, Anoka County
Parks dated October 24, 2002, on challenging the assumption that the birds would
not be disturbed by the proposed site. A letter and attachment from Wayne
LeBlanc to the Lino Lakes Environmental Board dated October 29, 2002. He
urged the No Wake Zone Ordinance to be continued beyond September 1, 2004,
and that an Environmental Impact Study be performed.
The following comments were made by the Board and citizens present on a page-
by -page basis.
• Page 2, Section 5: Asleson recommended adding National Wetlands Inventory
and MLCC maps.
Section 6B: Asleson indicated the need for detailed description of construction
methods, operational features and project closure actions. In addition, Saint Paul
Public Works proximity should be stated in last paragraph. Other issues needed
to be addressed, including surface water information, the compaction of soils
prevention, and sequencing under construction to prevent compaction.
Page 3, Section 6B: Ms. Bor submitted that "two consecutive seasons of
nesting of herons would be affected."
O'Connell added that no construction should take place during that time (the
nesting seasons). O'Dea disagreed. She believed the statement should stay to
show the reason for needing an EIS.
Asleson noted that a 500 -foot buffer was based on one paper written in relation to
road building and logging, and stated that the model cannot be automatically
applied to nesting herons. He urged the monitoring of the birds' behavior, and
cease and desist if the birds were negatively impacted (if constructing in the
nesting period)
Chair Kukonen indicated that this would be the first year the No Wake Zone
Ordinance would be in effect during the nesting period. Asleson answered that
they did not know if it would impact the birds. He further stated the birds were
used to a certain amount of background and freeway noise and that no one knows
APPROVED MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2002
what the impacts to nesting herons would or could be for this type if activity at
this range — particularly being a "new" type of disturbance.
Donlin stated that the point was that the birds could be impacted.
Page 4, Section 6D: Donlin mentioned that the site should require more
environmental review. Ms. Bor indicated under the statute they needed to submit
all stages and allow plans for an environmental review. She stated that the
Church probably had plans for summer camps that could impact the lake. There
was also a barn and a farmhouse existing on the lot and it was unclear if those
would be utilized and under what circumstances.
O'Dea addressed "describing future stages," indicated that the expansion should
have been included in that section.
Section 7: ' Donlin stated that an 80 -foot spire would be offensive, in light of the
building requirement of under 36 -feet. Even though churches were exempt, the
conditional use permit required the building be similar height to surrounding
buildings in the neighborhood. O'Dea added that the spire could be 60 -80 feet
high, and wanted the height clearly defined.
Grundhofer recommended there be no lights on at the site at night, especially
pointed upward at the spire.
Donlin stated that a variance must meet nine criteria, and that it would not be
required. There was precedence with a church.
Rod Kukonen requested that site compatibility be further addressed.
Page 5, Section 8: Grundhofer noted that the table appeared incomplete.
O'Dea indicated none of the permits were discussed, but merely identified.
Ms. Bor stated that if the Environmental Assessment Worksheet did not go well,
they might not use the plan. She believed that the project should be addressed in
concept. If they asked the correct questions, the environment could be protected.
Grundhofer requested to see the permits and approvals from Table I, and to
postpone comments until the next meeting. Donlin questioned if by getting the
permits, had they not gone beyond the approval process.
Asleson clarified that they were listing the permits and agencies. Those agencies
would be receiving a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
Donlin stated that a Shoreline Management Review should take place.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2002
Grundhofer indicated that at the November 20, 2002 meeting she would like to
the comments from Table I.
• Page 5, Section 9: Donlin stated that they had not discussed project
compatibility with adjacent homeowners and nearby land uses. It was further
stated that within a %2 mile there are 38 residents not directly on the property line
as well as public utility property, and that the paragraph is not accurate.
• Page 6, Section 9: O'Connell noted that on 20th Avenue there were nine
homes adjacent to the site.
Ms. Bor indicated that 20th Avenue was zoned light industrial. She stated that her
family had lived there for six generations. She found that in the text that the first
paragraph was not accurate in the number of homesteads. In the third paragraph,
the reference to the Comprehensive Plan was incorrect. In the fourth paragraph
the Pig's Eye Wastewater Treatment Facility was used. In addition, the tile
system from 1910 was inadequate and there was ponding in the Rehbein addition.
O'Dea indicated that land use concerning Environment did not address the
Minnesota Land Cover Classification. Chair Kukonen agreed the Environmental
Assessment Worksheet was lacking in many areas. He asked for clarification in
Section 10 where the numbers changed from 7.2 to 48.6 for brush/grassland
classification.
O'Connell stated that the concept of rainwater guards was good. She referred to
page 12, and noted that all impervious needed to be addressed. Kukonen added
that the number given was 15 acres, when on page 12 the number given was 50
acres.
Page 7, Section 11: Asleson noted that he had given the developers the cover
type natural features map and information on the aquatic survey. These were
absent from the discussion section.
Grundhofer stated that she would like to see a MLCC map included in the
document, and more detail in the Natural Features section.
O'Dea indicated that they were unable to assess the impact because there was not
enough data available. Asleson answered that the information and maps were
available. He also mentioned that there were no construction limits indicated. He
recommended that they add the City of Lino Lakes, and the Peltier Lake
Association in the fifth paragraph. They should not state their assumption that the
birds would not be impacted, if other experts could not. He urged a monitoring
standard and a plan to stop contractors, should observers indicate it necessary.
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2002
Donlin noted that in the first paragraph, wild turkeys and the Sandhill Cranes
were omitted.
O'Dea stated that a sequencing and a staging plan needed to be submitted. ` They
had not described the measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts.
Asleson answered that they ran out of time. He had spoken to them and gave
them information and contacts that were not used.
In the last paragraph - developer should define which habitat on the western
portion of the northeast property. So should the word "substantial" in substantial
buffer be defined.
Grundhofer posed the question concerning a substantial buffer.
Schneider stated there was no mitigation plan for the protection of existing
wildlife.
Mr. Ron Marier of HERON, noted that they were supposed to identify the habitats
near the site. It was stated that Peltier Lake would not be affected, however they
initially had proposed trails. They had not addressed any potential trails and their
impacts.
Donlin stated that the easement was about 20 -feet wide, but they spoke as if it was
a substantial open space.
Page 8, Section 11B: O'Dea questioned the amount needed for a natural
buffer, and were the woodlands sufficient.
Mr. Marier mentioned that the land was low, and because of that, the runoff and
backup could possibly flood the soil and destroy the woodlands. The area had a
tradition of flooding. In addition instead of the figure 500 acres, the area was
closer to 1000 acres. The number of acres needs to be researched and restated if
different.
Chair Kukonen indicated that they had not addressed any adverse impacts to the
wetland.
Asleson stated there were eight rare species near that location. Additionally, in
Section 12 the answer "no," was incorrect, because there would be changes in the
hydrology of the site.
APPROVED MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2002
Mr. Marier noted that for Wetland B the ponds would not hold the water that was
only three feet deep and drains into an open ditch and into the lake. He predicted
erosion problems. This needs to be addressed in the EAW.
• Page 10, Section 12 under the Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland
Impacts: O'Connell stated that it was inadequately addressed. Grundhofer added
the area was degraded, and that it should be made better.
Asleson indicated that the soil had clay so the soil structure and any infiltration
presently on the site could be easily destroyed. To prevent that, it helps to pull a
ripper behind the equipment that is grading. It would take 100 years or more to
restore the soil if restoration practices or preservation practices were not used. It
would not cost any more money. A sequencing plan should be added as stated
with the Best Management Practices.
Schneider noted in the County Ditch System section that the tile system was very
important to the adjacent owners.
Asleson indicated that a surface water systems train should be better addressed for
the impervious parking. They needed to analyze the hydrological changes that
could occur. Chair Kukonen added that they needed staff comments.
Asleson stated that there was no description of the surface water volumes before
and after, or where the volume was going.
Mr. Kevin Lawrence noted that there would be an overflow from the impervious
to the mitigation pond, because the distance between them was not large enough.
Asleson stated that the design of the Surface Water Management appeared
confusing, and that the statement concerning discussions with the watershed
district about drain tiles is inaccurate. In particular, that the existing drain tile
alignment will remain in place or be replaced with new tile, and that this
procedure is endorsed by the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Mr. Marier cited a utility ditch to the drainfield location would be three feet over
the high water level, and needed to clarify plans for mitigation. The water could
rush over the berm into the lake.
Donlin referred to Section 13, that at peak times, there could be 4,200 gallons
released for 4,000 people. The project would need MUSA, not a septic system.
Ms. Bor added that it would not only be on Sunday morning but there would
probably be other programs and other uses.
APPROVED MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2002
Donlin stated that the potential numbers were inappropriate for septic use. If the
site was not sewered, it probably should not be at that location.
Ms. Bor indicated that the MPCA would be contacted for review. Donlin added
that septics had a thirty-year life, and expressed concern over the possible failure
of that system.
Asleson noted that the soils on this site infiltrate, but the speed was slow. They
were proposing a mound system with sand.
Mr. LeBlanc stated that the proposed well needed further review, because it could
cause drainage of 500 acres. Asleson answered that, in the report, they should
address the proposed well and how it could affect the other wells.
Donlin expressed concern for adequate water in case of fire, because they did not
have city water.
• Page 11, Section 14: Donlin noted that if Peltier Lake was a natural
environment lake, the setback cited in the 6th paragraph was inaccurate. It should
be 200 feet for non - sewered land. If the woodlands flooded, there would be no
buffer for the heron colony.
Page 12, Section 14: Asleson stated that a floodplain map should be overlaid
on their existing map.
Donlin indicated the lake access needed to be addressed in Section 15. Asleson
answered that they should be able to use the lake, but that they needed to be more
descriptive about their intentions on use, such as types of water craft.
Asleson stated for Section 16, that the soils and compaction needed to be
addressed. Somewhere in the document protection measures and remedial
measures to be taken to restore compacted soils should be addressed.
Grundhofer asked for clarification if 50 acres was the amount disturbed included
15 acres of impervious. (See also page 6.) This clarification should address where
the 50 acres is, and how it will be disturbed. The report should address the soils
budget.
• Page 13, Section 16: O'Dea indicated that more information was needed for
slopes between 0 -12 %. Asleson answered that infiltration and filtration was under
Section 17, but agreed that more detail was necessary in the areas of how, what
and why there was no planned pervious overflow and pervious paving. The
technology was available. Systems can be designed to trap and store the water, to
give it time to go into the soil.
10
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2002
• Page 14, Section 6: The last two sentences are blank statements. EAW
guidelines indicate this has to be more specific.
• Page 14, Section 17B: Chair Kukonen stated it would be necessary to cite
details concerning treatment systems.
O'Dea noted in the guidelines they were required to cite any water bodies that
would be affected. For this item, more detailed information and analysis is
necessary.
Mr. LeBlanc questioned in Section 18A the assumptions used for the numbers
averaging 2,800 gallons per day and 4,200 gallons per day at peak times. What
method are they using to evaluate this and how did they come up with these
numbers?
• Page 15, Section 18B: Grundhofer stated that they did not indicate a mound
system in the third paragraph. In addition, the proximity of the septic system to
the woodland and the lake should be defined.
Asleson referred to the Sandplane Model that takes the physical structure and
gives the site a rating. This site was decades to a century for surface water to get
into the groundwater, but that did not apply to the lake. If the soils were
compacted, the infiltration rate changed, resulting in runoff. He recommended
that they adequately address the soil density infiltration systems. He added that in
Lake Protection Zones, development should not take place. Extraordinary
measures should be taken to minimize impact if development does occur in Lake
Protection Zones.
Donlin inquired about the acreage of the red zone. Mr. LeBlanc answered that he
had roughly estimated 600 acres.
Donlin questioned the amount the church was paying for the land. Ms. Bor
answered that they had paid 1.2 million dollars.
Grundhofer inquired about details of the sub - grade correction and the need for the
City to approve imported soils.
• Page 18, Section 20: O'Dea posed a question concerning the location on the
map and size of the diesel fuel tank. (That it is not shown on the map.)
Halen inquired in Section 21, about at what point the Carbon Monoxide levels
became significant.
11 APPROVED MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2002
Mr. LeBlanc questioned the regulations for the Carbon Monoxide emission levels.
Ms. Bor answered that the levels for cows were lower than the standards, and
should have been noted for that section.
• Page 23, Section 22: Asleson asked for clarification on how the numbers
related to people and animals.
Page 28, Section 24: O'Dea noted there were no receptors (testing devices)
placed near the herons, and therefore were unable to address the heron issue.
Grundhofer stated that the level of noise disturbance was unknown for the birds,
and that monitoring is needed by a trained observer.
• Page 30, Section 24: O'Connell stated that the projected traffic with noise
levels were one to three decibels higher than the state standards in the four
receptor sites. Ms. Bor answered that Doug Fisher was a county road, and even
though the standards were exceeded, it did not affect the road.
• Page 31: Grundhofer inquired if comments were available from Rice Creek
Watershed District.
• Page 32, Section 25C: Grundhofer inquired about plans for a trail. Asleson
answered that they had discussed a trail down to the lake. They may be willing to
have a conservation easement, land trust, or have the area turned over to the
county with a buffer, due to the heron habitat in the Southwest corner. This
question should be addressed and answered in the report.
Mr. LeBlanc submitted that the tree line could be extended across to form the
buffer. Grundhofer added that there would be a need for signage.
Grundhofer indicated that Section 25E needed to change the answer to yes and to
explain their plans to minimize adverse impacts.
Donlin inquired about the height of the Centerville water tower. Asleson
answered about 100 feet high.
• Page 33, Section 26: Grundhofer suggested night -time lighting in the building
only, and no lights in the parking lot because of the lake when the building was
unoccupied. Chair Kukonen indicated it would be helpful to have more
information on lighting.
Schneider questioned the basis for the statement in Section 27, third paragraph
that the growth areas were not relevant.
12 APPROVED MINUTES
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2002
O'Connell inquired about which aquifer they would be using. Schneider
indicated that it was necessary to answer the questions how and why, to assure no
impact.
O'Connell noted a conditional use permit was necessary. Donlin stated that it was
not a small matter.
• Page 35, Section 27: Asleson stated that the Surface Water treatment train
(management plan) was incomplete.
Chair Kukonen inquired about the measures to be taken and plans for maintaining
the buffer.
Ms. Bor stated it would be helpful to address plans to compensate for he turn
agricultural ditches that would be redone.
Donlin indicated that it was necessary to add the word "known" to no foreseeable
future projects, because it addresses adjacent property.
Chair Kukonen called for a motion to pass on the recommendations from the
Board, staff, and citizens.
Schneider made a motion to pass on the recommendations from the Board, staff,
and citizens in the attendance. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
. Metro Greenways Focus Areas
Asleson noted that according to the Metropolitan Wildlife Corridors Project, the
entire Rice Creek area was identified as a focus area. He also indicated that to the
North of Lino Lakes Elementary there were 21 rare species identified including a
unique wild orchid that was still in bloom as recent as yesterday. He stated that
the Department of Natural Resources had grant money available, and that he had
submitted an application concerning the area. He was able to apply for the grant
because the special areas were now designated. He contacted groups such as the
Soil Conservation District and others to work together on the project.
Zoning Task Force Update
Chair Kukonen discussed the recent developments on the zoning ordinances.
There were no new open space requirements. There could be no more than 65%
OCT- 20- 2111.5 12:35
KILL CKttK WH I LKbI1tU bbl Ybb 41`Jb t'. bWWUY
1ti 5
At their meeting held October 8, 2003 the Board of Managers of the Rice Creek
Watershed District took action on your Permit Application as shown on the attached
document. The following definitions may be helpful to acquaint you with our procedure
and effect timely permit issuance:
CAPROC (Conditional Approval Bending Receipt Of Changes) = The District has nearly
all exhibits required for adequate review and issuance of a permit; you have 90 days to
submit the required non - administrative item(s) and six months to submit the required
administrative items. After this time, the application reverts to a denial and a new
application will need to be submitted. Please submit additional exhibits with your
application number affixed in duplicate and one copy in an electronic .pdf format.
Failure to identify your exhibits by Permit Application number could mean a delay
in issuing your permit
ut.
Cash surety: If your project requires a cash surety, the surety will be kept through final
inspection to assure erosion control measures remain current as shown in plan and also
for compliance with other permit requirements. Up to the first $5,000 must be cash — a
check from the applicant is acceptable. Amounts over $5,000 are accepted in the form of
an irrevocable letter of credit or an insurance company bond. The format for the letter of
credit and bond can be found on the RCWD web page listed in the next paragraph.
Your project requires an easement and an Operation and Maintenance agreement. The
easement needs to be submitted either on a final plat with language legally conveying the
easement on the final plat, or as a separate legal document. The Operation and
Maintenance Agreement needs to be submitted as a separate legal document. Guidelines
for separate legal documents are available on the RCWD website
www.ricecreekwd.com. Forward two draft documents (unsigned), or copies of the plat
language, including the legal description in the body of the document or language for
review by the District's Attorney and Engineer. Following their comments, you must
submit an acceptable original document to the County Recorder's Office and provide
RCWD with a photocopy exhibiting the Document Number. PERMIT WILL BE
ISSUED AFTER WE RECEIVE FINAL COPY AND PROOF OF RECEIPT BY
COUNTY RECORDER. When you receive the final recorded document, you must send a
copy to RCWD. No surety refund will be made by RCWD until official proof of
recording is provided.
After receipt and review of additional exhibits, more information may be required for
clarification to ensure that District's requirements have been met. If you have any
questions, please call Karl Hammers, Rice Creek Watershed District Permit Coordinator,
at 763 - 398 -3072.
C: City of Lino Lakes
Applicant's Consultant: Walter Eshenaur, SRF Consulting
Correspondence
RCWD File # 03 -073
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc, i 10/9/03
Utr 1: GCJ- -GUCJJ - 1G• JJ
Permit Annlication N073 Eagle Brook Church
R1 LC.
I..RGGR w1-1 1 GRJfICL
Rice Creek Watershed District Permit Application Number
Applicant: Scott Anderson
Eagle Brook Church
5212130'h Street North
White Bear Lake, MN 55110
Ph: 651 -429 -9927
Fx: 651 -429 -7663
scott .anderson ®caglebrookchurch.com
Purpose:
Location:
oi (00 4+17b
03 -073
Consultant: Walter Eshenaur
SRF Consulting Group
One Carlson Parkway N
Suite 140
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Ph: 763 -475 -0010
Fx: 763 -475 -2429
weshenaur®srfconsulting.com
Final Site Drainage Plan for the Eagle Brook Church and a Public Ditch
System Plan for a partial abandonment and realignment of Anoka County
Ditch 72, 54,000± SF, 91± acres.
North of 771 Street and west of 20`n Avenue, Lino Lakes.
T -R -S: 31 -22 -11 d
AIM
Recommendation: Conditional approval pending receipt of changes and outstanding
items related to:
• Stormwater Management
Verification of the datum conversion provided for the 1922
plan profile.
Proposed construction sequencing plan ensuring that ditch
capacity is maintained during all phases of construction.
Incorporation of additional Grading Plan Notes specific to the
infiltration features including; use of topsoil/sand mix for top
dressing instead of topsoil, revegetation specifications (deep
rooted native vegetation), and other measures necessary to
protect these features from siltation during construction (i.e.,
silt fence and use of infiltration basins as temporary sediment
basins during construction and excavation to final grade (final
3 feet) after stabilization of upstream areas, etc.).
Floodplain
Specification of the low floor elevation on the grading plan to
be a least two-feet above the 100 -year flood elevation of the
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
10/9/03
vv. v..v iG'J�J - 1 \i \..L. \..t \LLI\ wl 1 LI\ II IL✓
Permit Anplicat_ ion N
Eagle Brook Church
001 100 4170 17'.U4/07
onsite ponds and 1 -foot above the emergency overflow
elevations for the onsite ponds.
Administrative
Draft "legal document with satisfactory form and description
granting ponding and flowage easements over all onsite ponds,
wetlands and 100 -year floodplain (below 887.0).
Letter from the City indicating which stormwater management
features will be maintained by the City and a Draft Declaration
for Maintenance of Stormwater Management Facilities
acceptable to District engineer and attorney for proposed onsite
stormwater management features that will not be maintained by
the City.
7. Copy of receipt from County Recorder and signed/notarized
legal document(s). Note that legal docurnent(s) are to be
submitted by Applicant to County for recording only after
approval by District.
. Finalized plan set signed by a professional engineer.
Cash surety in the amount of $20,000.
The final grade of the realigned Anoka County
Ditch 72 open ditch section may require minor
revisions per surveyed field location
(horizontal and vertical) of the existing tile-
line at the point of diversion from existing to
proposed alignment.
Permit Application dated June 5, 2003, received June 5, 2003.
Project Narrative prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., undated,
received June 5, 2003.
Eagle Brook Church Campus Plan Set (31 Sheets), dated November
7, 2003, received June 5, 2003.
MPCA NPDES permit application, received June 5, 2003.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared by SRF Consulting
Group, Inc., dated October 28, 2002, received October 28, 2002.
Certificate of Survey prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., June
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc..
10/9/03
Ul. l - GU"-GYJYJJ
K l Lt LKttK WH I tKbrItU
Permit Application Nnr -073 Eagle Brook Church
651 766 4196 P.05/07
3, 2003, received June 5, 2003.
Hydrologic Calculations prepared by SRF Consulting Group, inc.,
dated June 4, 2003, received June 5, 2003.
Response' to- .Draft Engineers Report prepared. by SRF Consulting
Group, Inc., dated June 16, 2003, received June 17, 2003.
9. 1922 Anoka County Ditch 72 Plans, received June 17, 2003.
10. Pipe Capacity Calculations prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc.,
dated June 16, 2003, received June 17, 2003.
11. Petition for Partial Abandonment and Reestablishment of County
Ditch 72, prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc., dated August 11,
2003, received August 13, 2003.
12. Copy of 1922 Anoka County Ditch 72 Plan and Profile.
13. Copy of Anoka County Ditch 72 Statement of Auditor Showing
Assessments Made on Lands dated March 29, 1923.
14. Engineer's Memo regarding partial ditch abandonment prepared by
FOR Inc., dated September 19, 2003.
15. P8 model and supporting documentation prepared by SRF
Consulting Group, Inc., dated September 30, 2003, received October
1, 2003.
16. Tile Line Capacity Calculations prepared by SRF Consulting Group,
Inc., dated September 30, 2003, received October 1, 2003.
Findings: 1 This project entails construction of a 54,000± SF church to be known
as Eagle Brook Church on 91± acres. The project also entails a
partial abandonment and reestablishment of the mainline of Anoka
County Ditch 72 and reconstruction of Branch 1 within the project's
parcel boundary.
The proposed stormwater management plan includes two NURP
ponds and 14 bioretention/infiltration features. These features meet
District water quality treatment, rate control, and infiltration
requirements. The submitted hydrologic calculations and grading
plan demonstrate that there will be no increase in runoff rates from
the site onto adjacent properties.
The main line of Anoka County Ditch 72 (ACD 72) and Branch 1 of
.— �+•+•+ +� • .Ju �\ a \..L L.I�LLr\ WPl 1 LI \ 'l ILL
Permit Application No 073 Eagle Brook Church
Anoka County Ditch 72 pass through the site. The ditch consists
mainly of tile lines which daylight onsite and then flow via open
ditch to Peltier Lake. The proposed plan is to remove the most
downstream 1,4001 linear feet of the main line tile line onsite and
abandon the existing alignment.
Conveyance for this abandoned section of tile line was previously
proposed to be reestablished via an open ditch along the south
property boundary and discharge to the existing open ditch section.
At the September 24th Board Meeting it was proposed that the
reestablished ditch section should be a piped system instead of a
ditched system. The Applicant has since submitted plans and
hydrologic calculations for a piped system along the same
realignment. This system is proposed as a 14 -inch pipe that ties into
the main branch (existing 10 -inch at the tie-in location), and at the
location of Branch 1 the pipe system is proposed to be upsized to an
18 -inch pipe to handle both the flows from the main branch tile line
and Branch 1 (also a 10 -inch pipe).
The Applicant has indicated the willingness to construct the
reestablished ditch section as either a piped or ditched system. The
Applicant will convey a perpetual easement over the realigned
section of the ditch to the District and the ditch will be maintained by
the District.
Based on the submitted hydrologic calculations the proposed
reestablished ditch section OR piped system will not reduce the
capacity of the ditch system. Design of the proposed realigned
section is based on a datum conversion (100 -feet = 904- feet), per
survey of the invert of the exiting tile outlet. Minor plan revisions
may be required if this datum conversion is not exact at the diversion
point and if the existing tile line is at a lower elevation than
expected.
All lateral connections to the proposed realigned/reconstructed
sections of Anoka County Ditch 72 will be maintained.
A wetland delineation report has been received and accepted during
earlier planning efforts for this site. There are no proposed wetland
impacts associated with this project.
The RCWD regulatory flood elevation for this site is 887.0. There is
no proposed floodplain fill.
The submitted plans do not specify a low floor elevation for the
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
WV. (-V GVfJJ
1G• Ju 1\ l VG l.f\GGI� WI 1 LI \JI lLL
Permit Application N.. -073
church. A revised grading plan specifying the low floor elevation to
be at least 2 -feet above the 100 -year flood elevations for the onsite
ponds and 1 -foot above the emergency overflow elevations for the
onsite ponds is required.
An acceptable erosion control plan has been submitted.
On August 27`h,' the RCWD Board tabled this permit application
until the September 24th Public Hearing regarding the realignment of
the Anoka County Ditch 72. See Engineer's Memo dated September
19, 2003 regarding partial abandonment of ACD -72.
Due to public concerns regarding water quality and drainage in the
ACD 72 system this permit was not acted upon at the September 24,
2003 board meeting. See the Engineer's Memo dated October 3,
2003 which outlines the review of additional information submitted
by the Applicant to address these concerns. On October 8, 2003 the
board acted to approve the abandonment and realignment of the
ditch with the condition that the signed finalized plan set will be
reviewed and approved by the District Engineer.
Knit 4 4144 '
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
City of Lino Lakes Conditional Use Permit Narrative
Eagle Brook Church — Lino Lakes Campus Development
0
OF'
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. in coordination with BWBR Architects is submitting the
following Plans and computations in support of the conditional use permit application for
the Eagle Brook Church Campus Development. Eagle Brook Church proposes a new
church on a 91.2 -acre site located in Lino Lakes on County State Aid Highway (CSAH)
21, 11/4 miles north of CSAH 14, south of the intersection of I -35W and I -35E. The
project is located within Section 11 in T 31N, R 22W in Anoka County.
Existing Conditions
The project site currently contains a farmstead consisting of a two -story single - family -
house, a garage, a barn, and silo located on the south portion of the property.
Approximately 60 acres of the property is cultivated for crop production that includes
coin, soybeans, and a tree farm. The remainder of the property consists of natural
wetlands and woodlands. Existing land uses on adjacent properties include rural,
agricultural and large -lot residential uses. To the north and south are privately owned
agricultural and rural residential properties. Peltier Lake is _ located to the west of the
proposed project and is adjacent to a small comer of the parcel on the southwest. Based
on data provided on the DNR website, Peltier Lake normal water level (NWL) is
estimated at 884.50 feet, the ordinary high water (OHW) level is 884.70 feet, and the
highest flood elevation recorded is measured at 886.63 feet.
County Ditch 72 passes through the property from southeast to northwest. The ditch is
shown on the Anoka County 1/2 section maps but a drainage easement of record has not
been discovered that covers this ditch within the proposed development area Two lines
comprise County Ditch 72 - Main and Branch 1. Both Main and Branch 1 consist of
drain tile buried below ground. The Main drain tile line begins approximately 4,300 feet
southeast of the property and Branch 1 begins approximately 2,500 feet south of the
property line. County Ditch 72 drains between 590 and 650 acres. A number of short
drain tile laterals are also connected to the Main and Branch 1 within the property. The
Main drain tile daylights into a shallow open channel which discharges into a wetland
attached to Peltier Lake. There are no distinguishing surface characteristics demarcating
the County Ditch 72 drain tile and its laterals until it surfaces near the wetland.
Agricultural cultivation currently occurs directly over the majority of drain tile within the
property. County Ditch 72 is regulated by the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Storm water runoff from County Road 21 is currently routed through a system of road -
side vegetated swales to a wetland system to the north and to a vegetated swale system to
the south of the property. No pretreatment of the storm water occurs prior to discharge
from the swales to the wetlands.
H: \Civil \047 \4443\sent\BWBR \10 -17 -03 \City submittal narrative.doc
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Proposed Conditions
Storm Water Discharge Rates
The existing discharge rates will be reduced under the proposed conditions utilizing Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Existing cropland will be replaced with building
development, parking areas, grass meadows, storm water ponding areas, wetland swales,
and bioretention areas. Based on drainage patterns, the rate control analysis has been
split between two areas, County Road 21 and the primary development site. The existing
County Road 21 runoff routes will be maintained in the proposed condition. The
roadway runoff will be routed to the wetland located to the north of the project site and to
a swale outlet south of the property. Due to space constraints, no rate control devices
area proposed for this portion of the project.
The runoff from the proposed building and parking portion of the site, as well as the areas
to the east of the proposed parking lot are routed through bioretention and swale systems -'`
to the proposed detention ponds. The ponds are sized to provide water quality treatment
for the 2.5" storm event per watershed district requirements, while also providing 1 -year
storm event skimming per watershed district requirements. As can be seen by the table
below, significant rate control from the site is also demonstrated. Overall, the proposed
development will significantly decrease the runoff rates from the property relative to
existing conditions.
Table 1: Storm Water Runoff Rates
At outlet of Lower Pond.
H: \Civil \047 \4443\sent\BWBR \10 -17 -03 \City submittal narrative.doc
2 - YR Storm Event
Discharge (cfs)
10 — YR Storm
Event
Discharge (cfs)
100 - YR Storm
Event Discharge
(cfs)
Existing Site
52.9
113.9
192.5
Proposed Site*
3.7
13.4
18.6
Existing CSAH 21
5.8
10.1
14.5
Proposed CSAH 21
7.4
13.0
18.4
TOTAL RUNOFF
RATE CHANGE
33.2 cfs decrease
97.6 cfs decrease
170 cfs decrease
At outlet of Lower Pond.
H: \Civil \047 \4443\sent\BWBR \10 -17 -03 \City submittal narrative.doc
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Storm Water Treatment BMP Utilization
The proposed development project will exceed Rice Creek Watershed infiltration
guidelines through the implementation of depressed storage areas, bioretention areas, and
vegetated swale systems, see Drainage Area Figure (attached). Infiltration areas will
reduce runoff discharge rates while also providing storm water treatment by infiltrating
runoff through the soil. The bioretention areas in the proposed parking lots are designed
to capture and infiltrate, at a minimum, the 0.34" rain event for the directly connected
impervious areas. Storm water runoff is routed into the rain gardens through curb cuts in
the parking areas. The slopes of the rain gardens are stabilized with erosion control mats
to prevent soil erosion as the vegetation establishes. Larger storm events will be routed
into the storm sewer system through overflow drop inlet structures located in each rain
garden.
The runoff from two north parking areas not connected to rain gardens is routed to the
upper pond for treatment and rate control. The upper pond is designed to outlet either - 7.
through a skimmer outlet structure during small storm events, or over a reinforced berm
during larger events to a swale system that leads to the lower pond. The swale system
will provide conveyance of water away from structures and parking areas to the lower
pond during larger storm events. The lower pond is designed with enough active storage
capacity to ensure controlled release through the designed outlet up through the 100 -year
storm event.
County Ditch 72
County Ditch 72, which comprises a drain tile line system, passes through the Eagle
Brook development site Per the watershed district resolution, the system will be
rerouted around the proposed development area and will continue to function as it does
currently. The Rice Creek Watershed District has completed the necessary procedures
(petition for abandonment and reestablishment, a public hearing and passage of a
resolution) to allow the church to move the ditch to a new location. The church will
continue to benefit from the ditch. The watershed district board of managers requested
that the rerouted drain tile line remain as an underground system, which the church has
incorporated into the construction plans (see submitted grading and utility plan sheets).
Computations associated with the Stormwater Management Plan are attached to this
permit application.
Erosion Control
Some potential for erosion during construction will exist as soils are disturbed by
excavation. To minimize the potential, all exposed soils will be reseeded or sodded as
soon as possible following construction. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
temporary and permanent erosion/sedimentation control are incorporated into
construction plans in conformance with MPCA's requirements for the NPDES (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Phase II permit for construction sites. BMPs
H:\ Civil \047\4443\sent\BWBR \10 -17 -03 \City submittal narrative.doc
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
for erosion prevention and sediment control during construction include silt fences,
temporary seeding and mulching, use of erosion control blankets on 'slopes and coir logs
in swales. Permanent ponds will be constructed as early in the project as possible in
order to trap sediment during construction. Excess fill material will not be deposited in
wetlands or other environmentally - sensitive areas.
Construction Implementation Schedule
Construction implementation is expected to conform to the following schedule:
Table 2: Anticipated Construction Implementation Schedule
Date
Activity
March 2004
Rough grading, pond construction, County
Ditch 72 realignment, well drilling
March — September 2004
Site grading, parking lot construction,
landscaping and permanent vegetation
establishment, building shell construction,
sanitary system construction, CSAH 21
improvements, utility installation
June 2005 — September 2005
Building construction, final landscaping
September 2005
Owner Occupancy
Responsible Party for Erosion Control Measures
Blair Juliar
Sheehy Construction Company
360 W. Larpenteur Ave
St. Paul, MN 55113
Ph. 651- 488 -6691
Certificate of Survey
An existing property Certificate of Survey is attached. Please note that County Ditch 72
actual alignment has not been defined on the certificate because field location has not
been possible and a record of easement has not been found. The ditch will be physically
located during construction. A final certificate of survey granting an easement over the
realigned County Ditch 72 to the Rice Creek Watershed District will be issued once
construction is complete and actual tile line and ditch alignments are surveyed.
H :\ Civil \047 \4443\sent\BWBR \10 -17 -03 \City submittal narrative.doc
EAGLE BROOK CHURCH
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Comm. #4443
POND STORAGE VOLUMES
Upper Pond
Lower Pond
NW
HWL
Contour
Elevation (ft)
Area (ac)
Ave. Area
(ac)
Volume (ac.
ft)
Cumulative
Volume (ac -ft)
Comments
887
0.31
0.3
0.3
0.33
888
0.35
0.4
0.4
0.70
889
0.39
0.5
0.5
1"15.`
890.0
0.52
NWL = 888.00 ft
0.5
0.5
1.69
NWL = 890.25 ft
891.0
0.56
1 YR HWL = 891.17 ft
0.6
0.6
228
Weir = 891.25 ft
892.0
0.61
100YR HWL = 892.16 ft
0.6
0.6
2.92
Overflow Spillway = 892.00 ft
893
0.66
Contour
Elevation (ft)
Area ac
Ave. Area
(ac)
Volume (ac
ft)
Cumulative
Volume (ac-ft�
Comments
884
1.30
1.3
1.3
1.34
885
1.38
1.4
1.4
1.42
886
1.46
1.5
1.5
2.91'
887.0
1.54
NWL = 888.00 ft
1.6
1.6
r: 9 t
1 YR HWL = 888.35 ft
888.0
1.62
Weir = 888.75 ft
1.7
1.7
6.15
100YR HWL = 890.31 ft
889.0
1.70
Overflow Spillway = 890.75 ft
1.8
1.8
7.90
890
1.81
(TOTAL POND DEADPOOL = 5.64 ac -ft
H: \Civil \047 \4443 \DRAINAGE \EXCEL \pond volumes.xls Page 1 of 1 10/13/2003
SRF Consulting Group, Inc. 09/30/03
Eagle Brook Church Water Quality Modeling Assumptions and Results
At the request of Rice Creek Watershed District, a water quality model of the proposed
Eagle Brook Church site was developed to determine total phosphorus loading from the
existing conditions, Phase I and Phase II development on the site on Lake Peltier. The
P -8 Model software was utilized to analyze the efficiency and potential phosphorus
removal rates of infiltration basins, swales, and ponding areas proposed in the project.
The modeling includes the following assumptions.
Input Data for all models
1. NURP 50 particle distribution
2. Actual temp data files utilized for all model scenarios. Air temperature and data
recorded at MSP airport between January 1949 and December 1997.
3. Rainfall scenarios modeled include:
a. Actual 49 -year rainfall data from MSP Airport, recorded between January 1949
and December 1998
b. One -year storm event (Minnesota Zone 1)
c. Ten -year storm event (Minnesota Zone 1)
Existing Model
1. The model includes all areas within the property lines as well as a minor drainage
area at the north side of the property that drains into the proposed church property
under existing conditions. Model separates the area outside of the construction
limits. The area outside of the construction limits is for informational purposes only,
and was not included in the summary results.
2. Assumed B Soils based on NRCS soils mapping.
3. The existing land use is primarily row crops, with the exception of the farmsteads
and the tree farm.
4. The wetland /swale device does not contribute to infiltration for the site as the soils
are likely saturated as a result of the current lake levels.
5. Low infiltration rates (0.1 in /hr) are assumed for the depression area
6. Swales and ponds are assumed to have no infiltration.
Phase I Model
1. Parking lot and building construction per the DD plan set have been modeled.
2. Associated infiltration areas and ponding devices included in the DD design are
included in the model.
3. All row crop areas are converted to native prairie meadows.
4. Swales and ponds are assumed to have no infiltration.
5. Infiltration within the infiltration basin devices is assumed to be low (0.1 in /hr), to
match Existing condition infiltration assumptions.
6. Flow routing - in general: infiltration basins to swales to ponds to Lake Peltier
H:\ Civi1'O47\4443\sent\BWBR11O- 17 -03\P8 Narrative - Eaglebrook.doc
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Phase II Model
1. Additional parking lot area (350 cars), building expansion area (3,750 square feet),
and associated infiltration basins are incorporated into the model. The proposed
impervious areas are assumed to replace (reduce) restored meadow areas within the
project area
2. Infiltration within the infiltration basin devices is assumed to be low (0.1 in /hr), to
match Existing condition and Phase I infiltration assumptions.
3. All water from the proposed infiltration devices is routed to the lower pond.
4. The proposed elevation of the infiltration devices is assumed to be 810 ft, two feet
above the NWL of the Lower Pond.
Results are shown in the following table. The project generally shows a reduction in
overall phosphorus loading, resulting from the inclusion of both ponding and infiltration
measures. The additional parking and building areas in Phase II show a slight increase
over that in Phase I as the land converted to parking was no longer considered row
crops but rather prairie. Phase II continues to show a decrease in loading compared to-- ,
the existing condition.
H: \Civi1'047\4443 \sent \BWBR\10- 17 -03\P8 Narrative - Eaglebrook.doc
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
09/30/03
Table 1 — Phosphorus Loading
Eaglebrook Church
Notes:
1. Only Areas within grading limits were modeled
2. Summary percentages and loading values do not include changes in phosphorus loading from areas
outside of grading limits
3. Infiltration rate of 0.1 in /hr utilized for infiltration areas in existing and proposed conditions.
4. Models located at H: \Civil \047 \4443 \DRAINAGE \MODELING \P8
H;\ CiviP047 \4443\sent\BWBR\10- 17 -03\P8 Narrative - Eaglebrookdoc
Total Phosphorus
Load
Inflow
(Ibs)
Load
Outflow
(Ibs)
o�
Removal
Scenario
48 year Actual Data (1949 - 1997)
Existing Condition
711
581
18%
Average Annual
14.8
121
Phase I Proposed Condition
2,022
472
77%
Average Annual
42.1
9.8
Phase 11 Proposed Condition
2,226
488
78%
Average Annual
46.4
10.2
1 -yr 124hr Storm Event
Existing Condition
0.2
0.1
22%
Phase I Proposed Condition
1.8
0.3
86%
Phase!! Proposed Condition
2.0
0.3
84%
10 -yr / 24 hr Storm Event
Existing Condition
2.2
1.6
26%
Phase! Proposed Condition
2.7
0.8
73%
Phase!! Proposed Condition
3.1
0.9
70%
Loading Increase / Decrease
(Between Existing and Phase I)
Based on 48 Year Data5
1,311
-109
-19%
Loading Increase / Decrease
(Between Existing and Phase II)
Based on 48 Year Data5
1,515
-93
-16%
Notes:
1. Only Areas within grading limits were modeled
2. Summary percentages and loading values do not include changes in phosphorus loading from areas
outside of grading limits
3. Infiltration rate of 0.1 in /hr utilized for infiltration areas in existing and proposed conditions.
4. Models located at H: \Civil \047 \4443 \DRAINAGE \MODELING \P8
H;\ CiviP047 \4443\sent\BWBR\10- 17 -03\P8 Narrative - Eaglebrookdoc
21:1111101111111111 MS MIME
C 1381918Si3919, i 91933 IEEE
� 1::: ME I
III EI �9�E lIIf: � 9ME
iim aii�� IEEE �� SISEMEMIllffill11111 11111111111111
M SIMMESSIISEMIGESI EMS:
133311993337111EI37E 9E2 i6P9ii
IIIIIIIIIIIIII
I l i�i�II9I�IAIIIII
m 111 2010 010:003111M1111111111111 SM ME MN IN: �iii Illliin IIuNI II ��um � IC �E�1un i11i.0 � �
e�onnm
0 0 0
W2
Eagle Brook Build (Phase I) P8 Model Inputs (OFFSITE MODEL)
4 1
. 1 (9 't / 0 j I ,
Model Limits 1
Minor Watershed Boundaries /4 L- //% : '
1/ �� 11 1
.. _,, ,..I I
''''‘ ., ,vir....;---40r,,, .„44 1,4110,1_11,12 1
40•1.
iJ ,,, ,
____,_.:____ ‘,,./.1,,,,,,."...._____,>___,..2.2-;...:4)(0?..-
.. _
v
, , , .,„, , ___,-- , ,( 4 __,......1,11111.. ,
11W1:1‘5 7 ' 0: 4 Alii. ACIII 44*111,17All. In I II I
„ ....k\ - ' . a I . I 41 I I 0 1/ f X
`� APV ,WA -SHE' I11111111 `�, ' WI , 41,
1 ' f
y 1r
W1
(OFFSITE MODEL) 4 ,_ J (� �� R\
\ ____.,
.,,
---\ ..------j 1
1
WATERSHED WP2 \ \ 1
�
--
r
he \ CIVIL. \047 \4443\8ase \4443P8build.dgn _ - '
II • 0
1
iI
Eagle Brook Existing P8 Model Inputs
,jqiii11 �_,,11,111:1
_4.,,, A!
....-9.0 -
Model Limits 1 ' rii,„
Mino r Watershed Boundaries � \ �� I OF SITE = ! � , : • - ..► '
X er OF �,� - INFB A/ C (II,
:, . „ ER A ERS D C ilov.
-41111N-Z4-,<Ar 4011111 '1.14 .
1,-: ‘e ( 4
10,F Y 4411.itr,..51001 41.i...., A 0
.(iii
oil OFFSITE MODEL �� MOD' �
EBEXOFSTCAS �� EEXS .� A,
WATERSHED . j E'•H:D 1
I 1 ,
)1'
1 ,..,.at.y/791111, . ••'-..iim-44,ar711 .11,1 I I r 1 I : : \ *-- - 1 a 1 4 \ 1 1 o_ a . .. ///__CVI r9 1 Pl . . . _ Litle I Kik .kk i A r - mil v_,, -- ,,,iti'
,
. \CIVIL \047 \4443 \Base \4443PB.dgn
1
- - -
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Comm. # _4443
Designed by: _JJK Date _10 /17/03
Checked by Date
Pond Volume Computation -- English Units
SCS Methodology
Pond Location Eaglebrook Church
Rainfall event =
Initial Abstraction
2_5 inches
0.2
(typically use 2.5 inches if sediment loading is included here)
ically 0.2 Type B Soils
)
Dead ueaa
Sub- Pool Pool
Drainage Sub -Area Area Area Runoff Runoff Volume Volume
Area Description (acres) (hectares) CN (inches) (mm) (ac -ft) (m3)
upper Parking Lot 4.56 1.84 98 2.27 57.68 0.86 1063
upper Grass 0.79 0.32 58 0.13 3.39 0.01 11
Totals 5.349881 2.17 0.87 1074
Sediment Loading
(25 design life is the typical critieria
Area
(acres)
Avg.
Erosion
Rate
(tons /ac/yr)
Erosion
Time
Period
(years)
Erosion
(tons)
Area of Construction
50
1
Turf Establishment
2
1
Tributary Developments
1
2
Total Drainage Area
1
23
Gross Erosion
Predominant soil type (sandy, silt, silty clay, or clay) silty clay
Sediment delivery ratio for watershed ( %) (See worksheet labeled Fig. 1)
Basin trap efficiency (%) -- typically use 90% 90 (See worksheet labeled Fig. 2)
Estimated sediment density in basin (pcf) 90 (See worksheet labeled Table 2)
Volume required for sediment storage acre -feet cubic- meters
Sediment Loading
(25 design life is the typical critieria
Total Required Permanent Pool Volume
As calculated on this sheet:
Or user input (if not calculated above):
0.87
acre -feet
acre -feet
cubic- meters
cubic- meters
H: \Civi1\047 \4443 \DRAINAGE \EXCEL \Dead Pool Size_t }t itIs
Area
(acres)
Avg.
Erosion
Rate
(tons /ac/yr)
Erosion
Time
Period
(years)
Erosion
(tons)
Area of Construction
50
1
Turf Establishment
2
1
Tributary Developments
1
2
Total Drainage Area
1
23
Gross Erosion
Predominant soil type (sandy, silt, silty clay, or clay) silty clay
Sediment delivery ratio for watershed ( %) (See worksheet labeled Fig. 1)
Basin trap efficiency (%) -- typically use 90% 90 (See worksheet labeled Fig. 2)
Estimated sediment density in basin (pcf) 90 (See worksheet labeled Table 2)
Volume required for sediment storage acre -feet cubic- meters
Total Required Permanent Pool Volume
As calculated on this sheet:
Or user input (if not calculated above):
0.87
acre -feet
acre -feet
cubic- meters
cubic- meters
H: \Civi1\047 \4443 \DRAINAGE \EXCEL \Dead Pool Size_t }t itIs
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Comm. # _4443__
Designed by: _JJK_ Date _10 /17/03__
Checked by: _ Date
Pond Volume Computation -- English Units
SCS Methodology
Pond Location
Rainfall event
Initial Abstraction
Eaglebrook Church Phase
2.5 inches (typically use 2.5 inches if sediment loading is included here)
0.2 (typically 0.2 Type B Soils
)
Dead ueaa
Sub- Pool Pool
Drainage Sub -Area Area Area Runoff ' Runoff Volume Volume
Area Description (acres) (hectares) CN (inches) (mm) (ac -ft) (m3)
lower Parking Lot 10.73 4.34 98 2.27 57.68 2.03 2504
lower Meadow 38.90 15.74 58 0.13 3.39 0.43 533
Totals 49.63 20.09 2.46 3038
Sediment Loading
(25 design life is the typical critieria)
Area
(acres)
Avg.
Erosion
Rate
(tons /ac/yr)
Erosion
Time
Period
(years)
Erosion
(tons)
Area of Construction
50
1
Turf Establishment
2
1
Tributary Developments
1
2
Total Drainage Area
1
23
Gross Erosion
Predominant soil type (sandy, silt, silty clay, or clay) silty clay
Sediment delivery ratio for watershed ( %) (See worksheet labeled Fig. 1)
Basin trap efficiency ( %) -- typically use 90% 90 (See worksheet labeled Fig. 2)
Estimated sediment density in basin (pcf) 90 (See worksheet labeled Table 2)
Volume required for sediment storage acre -feet cubic- meters
Sediment Loading
(25 design life is the typical critieria)
Total Required Permanent Pool Volume
As calculated on this sheet:
Or user input (if not calculated above):
2.46 acre -feet
acre -feet
3038 cubic- meters
cubic- meters
H: \Civil \047\4443 \DRAINAGE \EXCEL \Dead Pool Size_IblargexIls
Area
(acres)
Avg.
Erosion
Rate
(tons /ac/yr)
Erosion
Time
Period
(years)
Erosion
(tons)
Area of Construction
50
1
Turf Establishment
2
1
Tributary Developments
1
2
Total Drainage Area
1
23
Gross Erosion
Predominant soil type (sandy, silt, silty clay, or clay) silty clay
Sediment delivery ratio for watershed ( %) (See worksheet labeled Fig. 1)
Basin trap efficiency ( %) -- typically use 90% 90 (See worksheet labeled Fig. 2)
Estimated sediment density in basin (pcf) 90 (See worksheet labeled Table 2)
Volume required for sediment storage acre -feet cubic- meters
Total Required Permanent Pool Volume
As calculated on this sheet:
Or user input (if not calculated above):
2.46 acre -feet
acre -feet
3038 cubic- meters
cubic- meters
H: \Civil \047\4443 \DRAINAGE \EXCEL \Dead Pool Size_IblargexIls
PERMIT NAME:
RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
INFILTRATION WORKSHEET
Eaglebrook Church PERMIT NO.
STEP 1: Determine impervious and pervious areas.
Note: Include all pervious and impervious areas located in any rights of way.
(a) Total Site Area
(b) Impervious Area
91.2
15.7
ac
ac
(examples: roads, roofs, parking lots,
gravel drives)
(c) *Effective Pervious Area 14.1 ac [not (a) - (b)]
* Only use horizontal component of surface area which is subject to intermittent
prolonged wetting. Do not include area of permanent pools of ponds or
wetlands (See Stormwater Infiltration Guidance Design Parameters).
Note: The effective area available for infiltration must be capable of receiving
the runoff from impervious surfaces. Pervious "islands" located above
adjacent parking lot surfaces, for example, will not be credited.
STEP 2: Demonstrate % imperviousness for the site.
[(b) _ (a)] x 100 = 17 % (d) (d) MUST BE = 80%
STEP 3: Determine runoff volume from impervious surfaces generated by median storm
of 034 inches.
15.7 (b) x 0.9 x 0.34 inches
1ft
12 inches
0.40 (e)
Impervious Coefficient Mpls. -St. Paul Volume
Area (ac) Median Storm Needed to be
Rainfall Infiltrated (ac-ft)
STEP 4: Calculate volume capable of being infiltrated on site within 72 hours. Use
infiltration rates listed on page 2 of Stormwater Infiltration Guidance Design
Parameters.
Saturated infiltration rate (if multiple on -site soil types, use most restrictive) for
Type B soils = 0.25 (f)
in /hr
Effective
Pervious
Area (ac)
0.25 (f), x 72
Infiltration Hours
Rate
Corresponding
to Soil Type
(in/hr)
1ft
12 inches
STEP 5: Compare volume generated to volume infiltrated.
21.15 (g) MUST BE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.40 (e)
21.15 (g)
Volume
Infiltrated
in 72 Hours
(ac-ft)
EAGLE BROOK CHURCH:
PLANNING INFORMATION
Parking Requirements: Ordinance requires "at least 1 parking stall for each three seats,
based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall." Eagle Brook is providing 760
stalls (9' X 18'). In talking with the architect of the project, it appears a number of
different things were used to generated the 760 figure: the number of seats in the main
hall, stalls for nurseries (2 stalls per nursery), stalls for classrooms (1 stall per), stalls for
additional staff at the church during services, and a general estimate of parking needs
based on attendance at the current church.
Minimum Requirements per Ordinance
Proposed for the Site
•
"Church, Theater, Auditorium: 1 stall
•
760 seats
candles at street R.O.W., and 0.4 on
for each 3 seats"
•
size: 9' X 18'
•
(2100 seats /3 = 700 stalls)
Fixtures: source of light "shall be
Pervious/Impervious Coverage: Ordinance does not address pervious /impervious
surface coverage for the Rural District. The Eagle Brook site has 73.1 acres in pervious
surface, with 17.0 acres impervious.
(For comparison, the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance controls pervious /impervious in
other Districts in the following ways:
Residential: 65% impervious, 35% pervious
Neighborhood & Limited Business: 65% impervious, 35% pervious
General Business: 75% impervious, 25% pervious
Light & General Industrial: 85% impervious, 15% pervious)
Lighting Requirements: Ordinance controls lighting in the following ways:
Minimum Requirements per Ordinance
Proposed for the Site
•
Light Intensity: is limited to 1.0 foot
•
Light Intensity: meets ordinance
candles at street R.O.W., and 0.4 on
requirements.
any adjacent residential property.
•
Fixtures: meet ordinance requirements.
Fixtures: source of light "shall be
•
Pole Height: 22' pole on a 36" concrete
hooded or controlled in some manner
so as not to light adjacent property."
base.
•
Pole Height: is not addressed for the
Rural District (is limited to 30' in
Business/Industrial Districts)
EAGLE BROOK
CHURCH
-rr
PELTIER LAKE �.
rr
WETLAND
DELINEATION
BOUNDRY
WETLAND
DELINEATION
BOUNDRY
PROPERTY .LINE
-
T1T1h *`..
25' WETLAND b ML. ' -
SET— BACK1l11
(VOLUNTARY) ` I � �I`.7
j 'I
SECTION QUARTER LINE-.... I ///' e& 4 erlll '�
1
iI 6 1 a, t% ;
f i 255' A iF $ �' � �‘ 17,T' f, \ �:
!-7 i,.a. -�i, ).
/ r y if !: P"
'ii- // I. `4 _ n '�ab
a a ! i1 Tre J i I -aa 1,e ti• `:D - _S j C _ --
LOWER s
Pa1�0 } Iii/ � �` �I.11 v q'.
q, �1 %
�' aJ / ! i (9e
1A 1111+ db qY s //
1 I r ,f jl
GENERAL. AREA IDENTIFIED FOR PRIMARY DRAIN FIELD SITE � 11 1t1 r
111I71
CONSULTING CROUP, INC.
Suite 150
One Carlson Parkway
Minneapolis, MN 55447
CarlInestion
Maby can y « e. • plan.
or nowt prop M
or .aw.y sr.A rye
WqL I•rdanbNl
a1R' w oz. Ow Ion .r rha &UN.
of ItamOtO.
«. Welter C. Resnais ..
CUP Bah.IltUl 10/Bh93
< J K
PROPERTY LINE
4 TOTAL PARKING STALLS — 160 (10 +-LAND IGAP STALLS)
s‘TYPICAL PARKING STAL1_ DIMENSIONS — 9'x18'
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANG FOR FIRE'
SUPRESSION SYSTEM, SEE ARCHITECTURAL
AND MECHANICAL PLANS FOR DETAILS
STORAGE OF WASTE, GARBAGE AND R ECYCLABLES
LOCATED INSIDE BUILD/NCs, SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
FOR DETAILS
L. 1-.1-.P,•"
PROPOSED COLINTT DITCH
REAL IGNME
�.rZDo zoo
—
scale - feet
EGL,LE SPOOK
C IRCFI
oau aom
100/03 J. 61LLIK5C N
Dal* . 1.:qua By
0/11,53 J ?YKE°.r.'N
sah (Iced By
17/15/077 11 ESFEteLIR
WO TO
SITE
PLAN
- —` — `-- --- °— — — — — — — - -RIGHT _OF WAYS—
NA,IE w.i 1., 047 . 4443,Cn CONY or, D«Ti Oi' 22. .71.,;a
LEG =_FID:
AFPF❑k'MATE
DPDI'NAFY HIGH
WATEP ' LINE
:IMATE
OHVL ELDG
BAC1
APFF❑ > :P'1ATE
3 \ERAL NOTES:
• SEE CRO55 SECTIO 15 FOR
GRADP. k3 ALO' IG C5d1-1 .1.
• REFER TO SHEETS C230.5 4 C230.6 FOR 5P••OT
ELEvATIONb AND EUR`.EY CONTROL
PELT ER L ^KE
100' u'ETLAINID
MITIGATION `=.
EUFFEF ZONE
PRCPCSEC tUILDING, 5EE ARCHITECTUR =._"
PL N5 FOR DET,;'LS
WETLAN:
DELINEATION'
BOUNDRY
WETLAND
DELINEATION
BOUNDRY
25' WETLAND
SET —BACK
RECEIVED
OCT13 1003
CITY OF LINO L AK6'�
BWBR
ARCHITECTS
Iaw,on Commons
360 St. Peter Street, Site 600
Stint Peal, MN 551024996
651.22 3701
25' WETLAND
S
CVO NTA
SILT FENCE. TYPE MACHINE SLICED
CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
Suite 150
One Carlson Parkway
Minneapolis. MN 55447
Tel. :763 -475 -0010
F. 763- 475 -2429
C.orwatan
1 hereby ritzy Mb. tha p4a
,pscabatior or report was rept. by
wYobs, ^o eher *Mr AIM and
1 .n an a duly Cheney erwwewkl .
erpw. bx}e W hurt or yn state
or ra.e,eu.
Nw■ IN5.r C. Browse
4yaya.t�,ior. c
,% a an..tcSTE -..
ClP 5,67wtta 10/13/03
50' :ET -PACs
i_ 2°
soak
E.4:aLE BROC8(
CAURC4
Dote
n3!3
Lae
10413/05
faa
1043/03
Wet ,roe
GRADING
PLAN
ilr; h; H •Ci
047 44.4: = a,greclir,g- pI:I,,..:w L'4 -TE' OCT T :/4E.. _24 .At
PELTIER LAKE
WETLAND
DELINEATION
BOUNDRY
25' WETLAND
SET -BACK
TURE SAN! ART SELLER
CONNE TION ROUT
FUTURE WA EIc1AIN
CONNECTI
WETLAND
DELINEATION
BOUNDRY
25' WETLAND
s
CVO NTARY)
CONSULTING CROUP, INC.
Suite 150
One Carlson Parkway.
Minneapolis, MN 55447
Tel. 703 - 475 -0010
Fax. 783- 475 -2429
Crua..om
I Ns., e.. "y Nat L W. plan.
mirtos.w �....po.. ws p yu.a q
no or .e.. y e...0 .w... a:«, ..a
N. 1.100.01 1.100.01 ner.wwi
a^ew a y 1.100.01 wr a. w..r m. sta.
vmseu.
nose Waller C. Eshxav
I
om 10/13/03 Rey Np 40035
.,.•s,11.411,
CLP Summa. 1043.03
�CT.¢:L b5'u"`Sirn
•aL
CONNECT TO EXISTING
TILE L
• SEE 51-IEET 230.1 FOR PIPE LOCATION
INFORMATION AND STORM SEWER
TA6ULATIONS
COUNTY PITCH 12
REALIGNMENT
1S" RCP
soots feat
EAGLE ER0.71G
C l+
on. u,..
0243/03 J. GILLIKS 4
Nure4 By
1043/03 J. T7K!00N
R1. tt.4A 05
0233/03 W ES4ENCUR
55.4 T01
UTILITY
PLAN
!LAME: H 037'..444_ Cti'.. t ty- ptr•�dw LAT- -. 0 :T 2u, �UU2 TIr 2'22 PM
PROPERTY LINE
•
NEW •
POND •
EXISTING
WETLAND
(31
oslund.and.assoc.
MWfXMAMNN IMIE
NNI�MNMM.
MMNMMMMITOIAM
IuNNVIMMMANI.
s
MMINLNIq
I NM; ..l Od•L PTO*.. mot 1 row. M
w sage*
Map.. odoo.O. uroJr tlx la.: A ti Mae N Won.
LEGEND;
eGC€e .�
.LANM M.A96MIN+IIMq
. MAIM OMYMMM6..MNMe
COM.LVW171101V WO :AMMO .6NN00,
-MN MMN.&
•PIIMMILIMIVAIANI..IMOg011191.441
NOTES.
IAiCNIAN. i6UY0N®1M!N111
I. Of NMT NMMI N TE N/MT WIPMH
gOOM ILANDTNANILMNN.NMLL
MINIM
L MLO61111 MNTMMM.INO1asNt M 111AM MN
NNNMENNIIIIOAMOAIIW M1MlMMMNN000
NNILNMOMMMMM6MWLMLM11476. IMMI /
OMIM OIMMION IINMN IMOIIE tlMO COPIA1 .
a
MOM OMOMMMNMNlOPo.OTIMMO
MOM IM IWOMIL
NMIWIMMW M1917910 N9QNMLMMNMION
NNMMIOMIIMNM MGM.
O NINMLTNC.OMMNMW INI MM -
IIM MINTIN10MNtlCMMOLKAMIIMM
ooNO
1� �pMMOIIIM
SCALE: V.W -r
Inb
10/13/2003
corn IA
2001.113.01
art UM
LANDSCAPING
PLAN
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE STAND ON
NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.-'
LINE OF
EXISTING
DES TREES
EXISTING DECIDUOUS
TREE STAND TO BE
PRESERVED
oslund.and.assoc.
MS= M laaalaNUa.
amlalraaw
anwauanLara
S MMNM0IWMNM
alwaaN
la. Ma 4NWaa1
RaaawaN
araa]rait
alrylol t0 On t... a �wl.a rpm h
NeS+W'b an Ix 1 a a M; aloha
4.Y4..10 a4n WW1 a M Slam w I4unm
Ob 10H3/2006 6aa Ma 1!!62
LEGEND;
rr� - malaaarawaTOaaNaO
`t34 � . - 0arrormmaawa
LS •Loavaa eakamouants maravowno w..sq
>TIMPLN11®TNa RMIfOtNMLOaalaaw
Ica TMaa1a(!a m ML IaaNalla ®WAICN a: an
ONIar C ONaryCapN Iamm111luE nI ®IML Ta
MIPM4mON W Tr Zia IOG10ar a O0ra61m NO
aa01H0aTLNarNalllla
MIES;
I. PKIIICTIDIMISTIIMMII Tl6aTMpmY rLNIaOar
1aNICNaIaYalO11 WIN1W11.00N010alYNlfaaTlN OMNI
naaaamaLamrma
a
1.11[11117IIIIMAND PAWS
NNIUlsaalNOliL.1rT.
a NTMLaawaaMLnrw10rC1aaaaaallw MnxelawNlmr.
4 arrYLC�aNWrapINAICMIOR61 (IOaTQrOprplapaaRpLmrL
a AMY aomanwtamawm TIMILIWOSIM onaEN.
an ratalwaamuateawvtwmiulaan amlaivana
MSR!auMIXIII S!u!a®.
a fN101r11 raTrrSNNLL0ara76KtMama.Ymahmaurn
aTIAVI. HILL Tanwaraimn. m My.lnaa
aaTMUnN*. T11a012Mnaaa10I1a1.1. am1111H1 Nt
GlIEMINI111.11110‘1110FIVIS Ta®ma UMW
0a0aNlaraNL
a MLaa\nW IrRMOBB?af1MMalL aawTNISwuaarMlrl
n11161...10.01.6.110.111= wIlrlmllrrNNIRMYWTaIwa.t
00aaa1011aw sKMYpa m.ScTNLT151Bw r®ma!
IROOMmTIr IAAO W M[ MlNalma.
t W111OOfaR *WLNONMLO40MCaarmlIarINAYNa1a1
IwaorNwnsroaWLw .NSaNnollallwllrre'rala
SCALE: 1• • 100' -0'
10/13/4003
Caw Na
4001.11101
Na l rua
TREE PRESERVATION
PLAN
wa+rC� .
t
U11W1[p
2
Eagle Brook Church
CODE SUMMARY- NEW BUILDING
441.5114 40:VIOTIP411
1. OC,..VPMCV cu5srtsso4s,
_
I ■-!, Par4OUS RONt.. N; te,11
r'r-N
NCol 4APLIG.LBLE
4,.. 4.
UNLMEC.
+
75;
UNLAVED
. .5.
.. • ..tjr•4-41is
..........
g 3 - Samilen OA*
21,V3
MIL
ViK
41(XX
4444
DIM10.01....1
4 gr.]. <PIA
oft.
5T
5 BUILRIC H4011
MIL W.,
F€ET 1,40
itn-IESSINI KM a
BALM apart
57,43
1 1F.D
$ECOND
21,V3
MIL
ViK
41(XX
4444
DIM10.01....1
IV
45
5T
5 BUILRIC H4011
MIL W.,
F€ET 1,40
itn-IESSINI KM a
BALM apart
4411% (WI
1555
.1,031MAla
2
',XV
remotrA. ao '.
2
414
DIM10.01....1
IV
45
2
444.4
2
XXxi
mem - 4.41-
VAIIIE1
!EE f.P114(41 TIM
WI MAW a
D.
2
leoa
ikiNA
mom um 44.4.44
1711
144
(1)
1.111MMiNf
pouttuggli
Co541a11;
WAIF'
GATHEFM40 SPA
'1*
II* mg, ra.1.■
on ar.
at tt. vett troaogsso
Dole Reg.
Wulf F1,
0..m
CUP SUBMIT& 10/13/03
'
ut.
°MOSER 134 2003 ISAL
444 551444
2001.113.06 g.
Shen Tak
8E-COND FLOOR PLAN
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A 4
• k
1'
TOP e.F ; ALL
El 3 -0
/�...P.Y,F DECK
EL. I _. -0
Ar, _SECOND FLOOR
`J EL. 11.T-0
ID
ALUMINUM WINDOW
T fC:P STEM. TYPICAL
FIR
PCC I f /ALL CAP. PC'y� WALL: CAP PCC#2 WALL CAP, pin
TYPI zC
FREFN'irED METAL �_�_ -- ��® ��
111111111111 __111....111.1MIIIIMILIMENNINIMEmil FEE- EE METAL I - Iii;E: :TEL
-...mr--;... .._. _ IIIIIMMEINVE111
.. ■__•■rS_._ ■i_i "Cry_.
I_ �.!_iuu ®� mar s
luuluuuuuu�u, = _ .�... -- .__.�___ME
luul�u : lull E��uI®EuM■I®�ral- ■..:':: _:_:_......� -
■ ■ . s��A�UI��s
-- . ■. .- .- T .- aMI .1s__ r
■Ali lam - .�■- 1�ri1��i�����C��� �I ■�Iri:y 1�.— r na =s.-
. -_- —��.� �8.. ®3.�lS - �MM.= iC �Gi ��: ���_ �■� ■n , . jij MEMO
!.. _ ® ® =■ 1 !!11 � 1 , I ���!l�����1"raae:..'era mmoll N ■ �� ®�+ss�II�'� • 1!n u lu
PC(: #_ WALL CAP. T■PSAL
Li''UTUUOUS HIPI:ONTAL
REVEAL. FiWAL
F X31 CA iFi,AL
PREF NI H [ At FASCIA
- VLLI' U1I CUP mil WALL S YTEM
SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION
•
ALUMINUM CURTAIN --
WALL SYSTEM.
PAINTED INSULATED
C;' OR: AND FRAME
510.1
3: X'•t• -D' 015- 1161 -417
'- ALUMINL0 I URTAIN ALUMINUM CURTAIN —'
WALL S STEM WALL . SYSTEM
PPEFIN LHED METAL COP, IG. TYPICAL
PCC =3 WALL CAF. T1Pf:AL —CC #2 WALL CAP, TYPICAL ,1
All IP II OW —.
PREFINISHED METAL COPING. JM WINDOW
TYPICAL _ --
PCC#j2 WALL CAP, TYPICAL
R OF DECK ��
ALUMINUM WINDOW SrSTEM. TYPICAL
ALUMINUM CUJ, -roll li'AIRSYSTEM
51 5t —St�� 141G{ FF'Li�199
1H
FIRST FLOOR
100 -0
®111Wom=0u
■=EC 4
l�il�� p
�!
MEE
EAST BUILDING ELEVATION
510.1
PREFINISHED METAL ALUM NUM
'OLUMN DC OR /WINDOW
PREFINISHED METAL SYSTEM
FASCIA
PCC #1 WALL CAP, TYPICAL
PCC#3 WALL CAP, TTICAL --
ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM. —
TfFiCAL
PCC#2 WALL CAP, TYPICAL
1' CONTINUOUS HORIZONTAL REVEAL, TYPE:AL
FR REFINISHED METAL FASCIA. TYPICAL
11111111111111rn
®u®„I®I_11111111
mimmounommin
PREFINISHED METAL
FASIJIA
TOP OF 5AL
EL: '.c0 -v -v
WORSHIP 5 ENTER ROOF
rLldi._4
ROCIF DE
ELIi -Q
E- O ID FLOOR
L- t,�'rJr
=';Cid ,ALL 500. T:FICAL-
EHONE'P 50 :1IE COURSE
-1
1 MMMBMel1•11111______
-===1._ 911■ ___I_1 MN____. —
...mg ; ;9 iramm;tr.,.._,Tain_......ii.__ ..:.:1:17.unimmen
PCC;N4 WALL CAP, TYPICAL
HONED STONE �COURSt
uuuu 11111111111111.111111111
uuuu 111111111111®ill_
•111111111111E
-
111111•111111M
- -ALUMINUM CURTAJN WALL SYSTEM
PC C #_ WALL .CAP. TYPICAL —'
ALL "..IW1J`•I WINCCW SYSTEM, T W- :AL
TOP
EL 111 -4
FIRST FLOOR
EL ICID -O
- -PCC #i :TALL CAP, TYPICAL
WORSHIP CENTER Rir1F
EL. 147 -4
•— PREFINISHED METAL COPING TYPIY
ROOF DECT.
EL 128 0
ROOF DECK
L
124 -
ROOF DECK
t2-
120 -0
- PREFINISHED METAL fASCIA
SECOND FLOOR
EL 114 -0
FIRST FLOOR.
p i
.. �. U�JIM1uCv;K
- PWIJTEC INSULATED HM 0000 AND FRAME
PC4 1 WALL CAP. 11PIC.AL -'-
RECEIVED
OCT 1 3 2003
CITY OF LINO LAKES
EL 06 -0
agle Brook Church
LINO LAKES
CAMPUS
B R
ARCHITECTS
Limon Common.
380 St Parr Street, Suite 600
S.Im P.•1. MN 55102-1996
6513223701
.■a,nan,
miry enh M.e.,aa v.. fin•
ar';AyWN
....loaf on was el State et Meow
Name
Dm.
0ma. r„
Nrn Duce
CUP SUBMITTAL 10113/03
D... [.■w
OCTOBER 13, 2003 DOH /S113
. x• <nxa.
Crate 2001.113.00 10.
%.A Tint
SOUTH AID EAST
BLDG. ELEVATIONS
510.1
P( t2' WALL CAF, TYPICAL.
1' C IQIIIUOU`. HORIZONTAL REA kL TYPICAL
P(CII 'NALL CAF, TYPICAL -
PCC#2 WALL C. T'.PIYAL
PPEFINIS,E1 METAL OWING. TYPICAL �.
— PC'C #1 W LL .AP, TiP1CAL
Fi'C #4 WALL LAP, TYPICAL
HONED STONE COURSE
RO(IF DECK PREFIFIISHED METAL COPING, TYPICAL
EL 124- b—\_ •
,- F:OC�F DECK PCC #2 WALL CAP. TYPICAL
t-' EL 12U -0 ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALL S'rSTEM
ECONt FLOOR PCC #4 WALL CAP. TYPICAL
EL. 14 -0
ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM:, TYPI,a
PAINTED INSULATED HM DOOR AND FRAME
INSULATED OVERHEAD OOR--' -PR'CAST t ONCPETE COLUMN.
PAINTED INSULATED HM DOOR
— PfiEFIFIr3HED METAL FASCIA. TYPICAL
,'— PAINTED. STEEL STAIR AND RAILING
PCC #2 WALL CAP, TYPICAL
—PAINTED INSULATED HL DOOR AND FRAME-/
NORTH BUILDING ELEVATION
us- B.01-ar
PCC 1 WALL CAP, TYPICAL—,..„,
WORSHIP CENTER ROOF
EL 147 -4
PREFIN:SHED METAL COPING, TYPICAL
ALUMINUM C 11RTAIN
WALL SYSTEM
—P C#4 WALL CAP, TYPICAL
—HONED STONE COURSE
PCC#2 WALL CAP, TYPICAL
PAINTED INSULATED HM MOP
`— ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM, TPICAL
FC7#2 WALL CAP. TYPICAL
ALUM1I JM WINDOW /DOOR SYSTEM -1
ALLIMINJM CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM
-ALUM NUM WINLOW/DOOP. SYSTEM:
ALUMNA! WINDOW SYSTEM. T1 PL.AL - - --
FnEFINIEIEE- METAL COPING, TYPIC
PREFINILIHED METAL FASCIA
ROOF
EL. 128 -U
ALUMII'UM CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM
ALUMINUM WINDOW :.,STEM, TYPIC
SECTIID FLD)R
EL 114 -�) "'iv
INSULATED PAINTED HM DOOR AND
■ FIRST FLT:,
EL 100 -4 J
— ALUMINUM CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM
boOCICOER 13, 2003 OOH/SIB
,Fmm. 1.. CM:IM
2001.113.00 EL
WEST BUILDING ELEVATION
Agenda Item 5B
Environmental Board Meeting Date: October 29, 2003
Topic: Circle -Lex VFW, Post 6583, 7868 Lake Drive, Site Plan Review and
Conditional Use Permit
Background: On September 19, 2003, the Environmental Board reviewed
a sketch plan for the proposed new VFW. The following recommendations were
made at the September 19th meeting:
On October 10, 2003, the VFW made formal application to build the new facility.
Analysis:
Application information is included as Attachment 1
Site map and designated resource protection zones are depicted on Attachment
2. There are no designated resource protection zones on this site
There are no impacted wetlands on the site. There are no soil /water relationships
on this site that would support rare plant communities.
There are no significant vegetation types on the site. See MLCCS (Attachment
3).
There are several large trees on the site. There was no Tree Preservation plan
submitted for the site Although it appears that all trees will be removed from the
site, adjacent property trees may need protection.
The zoning code specifies screening to 80% opacity. The applicant needs to
demonstrate how this will be accomplished. (Attachment 4) Larger shade trees
should be planted on south lot lines to screen flag pole lighting from the adjacent
residence. The parking lot, % impervious, lighting, and buffering requirements
are also in (Attachment 4).
Lighting requirements are in non- conformance with City standards. VFW is in the
limits for % pervious /impervious.
Required parking stalls 69. Actual parking stalls is indicated as 89. This is down
10 from the August sketch plan. Planting islands have been provided in the new
plan. It appears the developer has rounded up the figures for parking.
The VFW is proposing a combination of sod and seed for ground cover. All sod
areas appear to be indicated as irrigated. There are no seed specifications
included. City native -seed specifications should be used for surface water
treatment areas. Several shade trees have been added to the site plan,
including the use of disease resistant elms. The site plan does not seem to show
the total number of trees indicated on their plant list.
There is no information from Rice Creek Watershed concerning surface water.
Our City engineer has indicated that the proposed ponds on the County right-of-
way will not be acceptable.
Options:
1. Approve site plan with recommendations.
2. Recommend not approving.
Recommendation:
Approve with the following comments /recommendations:
Environmental Board Comments:
Attachments:
1. Application information.
2. Resource protection zones.
3. MLCCS
4. Planning Department information sheet.
E
AFF. 0 A POMOFW. CPT. 0 F. !IEC.
AML Amos VW CRC Cams - EC
AP. Moms P., E.I. Cab Emil EWA
AC.T. AmmI Elb C.CA. Carauck,C I p EL
AM MORENA Mahmlalm HER
AD4 '. CFA CWimuabnChWp Ma.
Man LP.
AC AS Cendllaft 0t Calm EC.
ALT. LUM. A1mMr CC .L ▪ ComM. r. ES..
Awl. Amt Br CT. E
N0. M AAA EOW - Ca. MOP ore CM.
ARRCN AAprml ma MR. CMriWnb
AAL AmAS Y BImRWmnri C0. CrnW •
W
AWN. MWWa
MOEN
AUTO. A..Yp
e
.a ▪ . Baapet
LP. Ram Mob
B REL MAME
LPL - PAY
AY
BM Bad
Kw. Baas
SIM Bt Omba
B M BIBS
BO. Bond
ELT. BensasaUBM
RA BM Skis
COMP. Cmda.d. FA
COMC. User*
CALM. Ono. Moony RR
CONT. CabaS.
COMA CONN. Com meNce F.
CLL Ca* et LANI ne
CJL C.W.Afe
60 Mawr G M
CORR. Cadmr
CTR CLAM*
CSC Cub l libr
0 ▪ EftlErg
O� EM6 Oundllo 1
Ui&a
DULL
• Bkte Mawr MM.
9A MOOSE Assassin DM
WA DO DRmee D0.
B.0. Ny 0a. DM
Dam
OW R
DA
Dimly
OEM..
e .• °ne`
O wn
D amped
Otowr
&MFp Fautla
Fpse.Lq�
6MN0Ws* al. 1Om
!Swam W.WCmM MO.
EM . MM.
PIN IOC
EnNawr BRFROY 1R.
E rprra R
OMAN NO&
E xpErelen
m Ja" NYC
Fa.ENO LIT.
Flew Dr,. NM.
BMA MT.
Me • GmOMr
FM BMmWr COMM
FM Rd
Fl. FM ROA .YIN
FA FNMA '
FetT. Fb.NO .O-
EL& MON Merarm RAN
PAUL Fe0ary 10 a
FANCIER
FT Po
�
rO. Emma KR
FR F0666 MW KOA0..
FELL Fare
MIER
G
IA&
GL Gaga TAB
GALV. Bents!
Mc Soong Ca,a,ae, uv.
LT.
0..M.V.. Blued Mowry UM u_ .
BEL 016` „u
GYP. CEP= 0.110 OM= bed
ABBREVIATIONS
L (goal
N.dmppea L1I. MAN
11•r LEM L WW
N"1:° LPT. Ir1 Pr.
IMMANDO
Hmaa
HANNERMAIMNI
AFC
Nam Cara ma.B.
Holm MOO um.
WE NER ILL
Mow* UT.
MAE
M.hY
MOAN
WYK. Aft
Matr
Vrar
JAM
MUM Bablm
Klemm
Mock Darr
Knack 04
Lm.
LNKIINOW
tae
Lbws m lag OPO.
Lang Lang g6NMM
OA.•
NECK
M.C.
MBR
MET.
AU▪ L
MK
MULL
NNAA
NL0.
NTa
N0.
P.6P. T A P66 • .q T n0.6600. m CtlM
ip6 RM MW Raa ‘ WO
.
U RN
P R tlRrMtln V
Nod
PER. 00000 BNA. S.dry MWhM CeIaN VAR bas
WRY Pw. BNA BENNO bee AME VNR YMa ROOM P�. PUKE LENNY VER. bmYb
PL PPmMaraYG BIIfB BMraa VET. VWWfyy
0.Ba P0006 ENT. BMY VEST. 100/YY
Pad • Mon„ s tee..
P RV. Parr Rap VwaletrV. ; - vAT "'°"`
Ml P.�lat P.daeM. Bpi Mrl.m v.W.G. VMMWr ca.vm
PR P.pa.1p� eprw On FMeaeeNG
Pl P.paU IM.
LL 6. Bee WCSi Wrrr
o son 16 WA WaMeb.n
an. 8p�6r6�1 6001. ...dB". 006 WeMpsd
0.T. Oimryl'1a SUMP.
SA0.T. &6000 Agl60Callm wpRW.
Tlis
VCIL noes
REEL RAD. Reba Manic* SYa Bt.a Ta W&
RnMr.etaaar - 0 0 WOW
TM man W
REC. lices0s0 Manic*
T - Warr. WOe P.r
ROW
gRqeeaYMrVPV.rgpriie.a�d TEL Timbre 10
ReMa.paCan+MS TTLLM. T m ■ 1111
60
v
✓ Yea
Of NEON
DAME NOW ah .
MMr
MINS*
AMMEMLENN
W PA a..
lAmmy
Macaw °maim
MOM Una
MEM
Maria
MWW. PENNON
a
MEW
Mrwam
LANs
MMM.a.
W ESEL
MAW
NaMpMeabia
Noll CAMEO
EMU Bele
10
RFL
ROE
00- , - 0b RFAt
0C. On6aa. R680.
0.F.C1 gaiWF.Yla6Careeb, RMV.
Mr0.6 REB
0.PAL 060F.M.aOarm REV.
M.bEN a
DD RY RD.
pt
Oarat
0.F. prim Fes
6aeame Await TOG Tmwa
Raaatl TA. Tat Refire
Rmon(Ma) MK Wbgmml
amount Throb*
OWEN T.P. TaMParm
Nolo TAO T
MAR TR. Trs� f &
a ear
Real Gtr T.O. TEAO.
MATERIALS LEGEND
SYMBOLS
PNGIIWOOD
Nome ewe
0
Lm rat
0
ROOM oBxrmxwTmN
�MmiMWr
mr1MnAMmemO.
GTeOabenre
.i .I: FAR1N /CDYMCTFLL .'■_�\\
•r••r••r•
0Gahm 0.....
i [ POROUS FNL1 AVL. '
'MA 6ac110M
®
NOR EME MILTON
16>1.11a.
�
0.-
MRTn1O11TYPE
WbatlB
swwwwaft
ii... .. .....i..:::.......:7: BAND /MORTAR /PIASTER [ \
WOOD swoon
RYWO
GYPSUM NoRO
mini / Loonnu.SEULAO
""Mi OAMNKLUIDN
BmlalaOW
�r Bain
aWFama
�/'� FACE WICK
A�, ELEVATIONS
CAM INE
DOOR MYB9R
Om Tad
ow Swam
as Sant
t:16 :i CONCRETE
M.•
N barn maw
w•Fa•°
o.raMC.rre
�(��I�•/
Rim 0 r
EEVAfON IMAM
WNDOM TYPE
WYaw Mama
ALIDUAL
MC& wan ors ULar / //44474
maw
MOW
MrI
BYwrarMNNW
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ROONNIIATION
SHEET
MK CODE
A2-1
SOLID LINE
M Yea aealYNNW
or papa ones mesas
. trorn
A0.1
A0.2
A1.1
A2.1
A5.1
A6.1
SHEET INDEX:
ARCHITECTURAL
COVER SHEET
BOUNDRY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (NO SHEET NUMBER)
CODE DATA
SITE PLAN
FLOOR PLAN
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS
BUILDING SECTION AND STAIR SECTIONS
CIVIL
U1 UTILITY PLAN
G1 GRADING PLAN
LANDSCAPE
L1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN
L2.0 LANDSCAPE DETAILS
ELECTRICAL
EP SITE PHOTOMETRICS
OWNER:
DESIGN TEAM:
Circle -Lex VFW Post 86568.
7885 Lek* Dine
Lino lakes, MN 55014
XICOC
XXXX
CONTRACTOR:
Kraus Anderson COnStVU ion Company
5825 Rendova Skeet N.E
P.O. B6s 158
Lino LBkse, Minnesota 55014
Contact Brett Bvidy
(783)788.7711 (phone)
(783)788.2850
ARCHITECT:
DSGW ARCHITECTS INC..
548 Apollo Drive, Suite 10
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 551314
(851) 784-7924 (phone)
(551)784-7925 (let)
mtlomasedepw.son (e+ur9
Contact Mkiwl J. Thomas
CIVIL
Metro Land Surveying 8 Engineering
412 East County Road D
LAtle Canada, MN 55117
(851)7850112 (p8000)
(851)788.0812 (et)
Contact Brian Baaassa
MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL:
Design Build
enriching'
communities
through
architecture
&kith • virgin& • grand rapid+• Rod elfin
mmmdegte.wm
CIRCLE -LEX
VFW
POST #6583
7868 LAKE DRIVE
LINO LAKES, MN
03098
dab July 07,2003
file Mme
drama 69 NLR
0he0ked85 MJT
neM
.6.8
eign dab
MICHAEL J. THOMAS
23592
XXXXX )0(, 2003
f hereby miff thatthbplan,
spulfiallon, r report ma
prepared by re or nap "g
diremnlperobion anti that 7
r a duly Licensed &Alba
ander the ban of the Stab of
MMnrnte.
meek rpbbm&wa dab
Sn6 B !Mimes Pus Rimy 10/05/03
COVER
SHEET
A0.1
Circle —Lex VI FW Post 6583
7868 Lake Drive
Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014
EXISTING PROPERTY
Ag of Lot 8 and that part of Lot 7, AuanreS 5CWW. h V Na 104 oecordb+0 to the mw. or
plot :thereof on 8e and of record In the office of the County Recorder h on for Anoka P-tert;
Minnesota gJIng southerly of Me following dsscribed liner the southeast comer of said
Lot Tehthence norlhwesMAy to of point on the w westerly /he of sold 7, said paint being 150 feet
northeasterly from the southwesterly caner of sold Lot 7 (as measured along sold westerly /he)
and them tamnhothg EXCEPTING therefrom any part /}rig within the Plat of Anoka County
Highway Plat No. 17.
And
That pat of Lot bC Auditor's .Subdivision Nor 104 Anako County Minnesota described
as bilown: Canmenchg of a point on the Southerly /kw of sold lot a distance of 234 feet
Wsstaly of the Southeast corner thereat thence Northerly on a lha (If projected would Intersect
the Northerly /he of said lot of o point 200 feet Water& of Me Northeast comer thereo4 for o
dewy* of 101.6 feet to point of beginning* thence continuing Northerly an last described line
134.3 feet maw or lee; to the Northerly line of sold lot thence Westerly on Me Northerly line of
sold Lot 151.28 4,4 more or lees, to the Northwest caner thereof, thence Southwestsgy on the
Westerly /he Mereog also being Me Easterly right- of-way the of State Trunk Highway Nor 8
for a distance of 100 feet Men Southeasterly 18467 lost more err les; to point of beginning.
And
Mat pat of Lot 9. Auditor's Subdivision Na 104 Anako Combs Minnesota i6ng
Westerly and Southerty of the'agowhg described line: Beginang of a point on the Southerly
the of said Lot 9 o distance of 234 feet westerly of the Southeast corner thereof Mane Northerly
an a the (if projected would Intersect the Northerly line of sold rot at a point 200 het Westerly of
the Northeast caner thereof) her a datarce of 101.6 feat then Northwesterly to paint ce Ma
Westerly line of said lot a distance of 100 feet (as measured on sold westerly /he) Southwesterly
of the Northwest corner thereof, and there term/noting Together with that pat of vacated Lols
And
Together with that part of vacated Lon Lan; also bang described as that part of the north 8
Met of Lot 14 Audtcr'$ Subd/Nskw Na 100. Anoka Count; Mhnssota acauhg thwarter by
reason of the vacation thereof (Document Na. 510484).
An4 the westerly 10 feet of the Northerly 134.31 Net of that part of Lot 9, Auditor's SL6th ision
No. 104 Anoka Capft/t Mkaeseta, described as Moor Bsg/nnhg at a point on the Southerly
line of sold Lot 9 o distance of 120 feet Westerly of the Southeast comer of saki lot thence
westerly an saki Southerly /Ins a defence of 114 feet then Northerly to a point an the
Northerly line of said let o o/staice of 200 feet westerly of the Northeast corner thereat thence
Easterly on said Northerly fine a dstanoe of 90 hat thence Southerly to profit of beginning.
I hereby certify that this survey, plan
or report was prepared by me or under
my direct supervision and that 1 am
a duly Registered Land Surveyor under
the Imes of the State of Minnesota.
Date: 9- 4.f• ems Ucense No. Moe
WV lino lot 7
awe C. let 7
>maw
Note Existing Old House &
Garage on Lot 8 Not Located or
shown (as Regulated by Client)
wl7 wen of lot 9-..
200.00
189.89
x5017
t@ am lot a
REVISIONS
09-05-0.3 Add parking revisions & new utilities
GRAPHIC SCAM
le A M
NORTH
Prepared j:
E. G. RUD 4 507.18, INC.
Lan e.r.i.ijOrs
CIRCLE i8 XINNGET5ON AVENUE NE 2
TeL 185 -5556 Pax 186 -6001
(09 rat)
1 mein a so ft.
1/4.00
Kai
9E Cor. lot 9
7 T -T' a lT
,1 v, , 1 9
l..tl� -Mww.,
WW onv.w
flUiI111IIDHHIHHMflhII
1 un
..I .._-1,1-1L-10., b l .. X , T jkk S re�,i
1 r wn w. v w vm .w v 1 t I
■ Len 1 W
pa. , 1 um(j f ^7 Rao1 111 •W sic • m1 L1� 1 I�'q::
rxIi I 1
11a 1 W
L "v '' wI ° 1 w
I w
pr+n. sa.r■•••
tIOULIERLDifIO
awl I+..+n■vl
=MRZT]:1tA'7
I.,.I.I.I
31334.33433n 34.3 463.4.43143333 3,33.34.3.443
I xaml wll+wer., I
'N
"iii 7.-2�.-• -1•. '-]a_�.-� ^>•-
ter_-=— r— r�:.1•� =T-7_1L
ME
I_ L':
W OIAE AttESS TO NORINEON
NEIGHBORING WERE/ .....
enriching
communities
through
architecture
duloth • otrginia • grand ropida • tack drier
eurdgmm.
CIRCLE -LEX
VFW
POST #6583
7868 LAKEDRiE
LINO LAKES, MN
project B 03098
dies July 07, 2003
jik, nose
dram by NLR
dmdad by MIT
sense MICHAEL J. THOMAS
r.g.e 23592
dgaJae )0000( )0(, 2003
79TH STRE
NMI
zaro6'orr
hereby rnNfy dmtddeAm,
rpsdfiaedse, or report met
pngeradby mew under ley
divot wpmoabn mu the I
lea duly LJnard Arddteet .
under the Um of the St hl of
SITE SUMMARY
WISER ,7J555)ORib1ACR S
NMI0U55URIAQ. AMOR 81.11I)
PERVIOUS SUNFME.55AO5E(15A1D
mar* reoabnAme - date
SITE & eunoiNG Putt Rom 10/09/03
PROVIDED PARKING
BBROJARSTAUS =IS
MRCP RDAS.
IOTAIS
LOTS LANE
SITE
PLAN
()SITE, PLAN
S' 0 -ff
LINO
24 '
1404•
1r?
law
r
MAKE•
NUM
EMIPACE
r
VESTIBULE
J1
/_
reiiii = iiii = /iii = iiii = r iii.
Alf
SO1m.104K —.
OP MI6.
1OWtOT
♦ 1ROSS)
;CI 1111 11
Coolie
iii -
got"
• a •
W W W W
MMMM
g - --
i I _ i
• - - -
MMM_ or
101.11110114 ---
1- MM
a a a
00 AA
MMM MM
-- --
to Irma
MMMMM
rata --
MMMM
;AAAaaa-
MM_IMM
i a a 1
MMi S,z
M
i .. it
MMMi N
WWWit
J
11
11
11
%I.
01'
i'
4$150 CAP.
mors a W
300 CAP. ROO•
ASSEMBLY
HALL
000
r i r rrt
MM_ i a
W W W W
MMM—
W i
- - --
aaaa
MM_
W W W W
- i - G
AAA;
W
MMAM
- - --
MMMM
W W W W
a _ i i
- - --
MMMM
Walla
- W - W
11011110111
-i i
l
MECH. &
ELEC.
SA
000
MEN
KITCHEN
000
CI
BINGO
BOOTH
•e•
MAO
KMLWAY4, POST
MAY
HALLWAY
•J •66+x;
TABLE
STORAGE
000
WOMEN
°oo
e I
STORAGE
Cl
LET
.um
KITCHEN
STORAGE
Cl
JAN.
000
STAFF
BREAK ROOM
CI
KEG
COOLER
BAR
STORAGE
KITCHEN
OFFICE
(S ;Mg
ULL
TABS
PULL
STORAGE
= E,
000
♦ ti
- - W W
111
M7MANDER & QURTR
MSTR OFFICE
® FACILITY MANAGER ; ING MANAGER
OFFICE OFFICE
DANCE ROOK
Wt•W W
MMMMM
caCIOR PLAN
r r iii —tole _tura --iii---r r
MEGRIM! WALL ASSEMBLE
-
ITMMN COW (SH ELEV. ION
MUMMA 21AYUSOFII/2•
1160 WIK.•/ ml.•r KI K ME
• W QC IOREIMU KOE.TIEi
ORB VOQ,LAI trOKRA
A
i '
1ARITIIRAE1
N ODE
1. 0tl�0POWE0*c ONT. QS #9'-CTO 0U4KouiDRESS NOM
021 0lKd •EQ.T.ROOMI6AT RESTAJ OMEN, BAR AND ®
� o
PROYOEYREYOIIRWIE$s�
tallif UST0u15/rmsn.J./sir6nRO EA. SEE.
O 1 2003
C;TYO CT LINOLf� 0 �S
enriching
communities
through
architecture
dulath • oirginis • grand sapid/ • twin aim
nwod•moow
CIRCLE -LEX
VFW
POST #6583
7868 LAKE DRIVE
LINO LAKES, MN •
pope R 03098
dote July 07, 2003
flo moo
drown y NLR
dwcbdby MIT
11..11 MICHAEL J. THOMAS
ng.It 23592
/g11 dm X1000( )0, 2003
1 hereby certify that tAtepko,
tion, or report ion
prepared by me or 11eder my
diva w,pwobive sod that
ate s duly UvnedArchWa
ander doe law of the State of
on* r.ddoaA..w
time
Sol& Rotuma PAN Wow
FLOOR
PLAN
A2.1
enriching
communities s
through
architecture
dulNek • oirgtNia • grand roptdr • twin cilia
u nw.drgu cou
CIRCLE -LEX
VFW
POST #6583
I_ I II
- _- _ -_.=-
7868 LAKE DRIVE
LINO LAKES, MN
project* 03098
duo July 07, 2003
file wow
drams tog NLR
eh.egdby MIT
nom MICHAEL J.THOMAS
..g. s 23592
sign dm X00( XX, 2003
II hereby are due Wolin,
aped». Man. ., ffpalC NMf
prepsrad by ms or under ms
Areasupnobbn sad d • /
an • duly Wamddraheat
Radar As law of the Seats of
Yinansta.
❑UTH ELEVATI ❑N
P11-11161111121 =11011165111M
MERL R0AF5751EN WEER
1RUSSASSENRET,UERIDATRE,
ANENT
Mfg revision/ism
dam
Sits • swWu.G PLAN Rainer 10/09/03
oXES,To. ELEVATI ❑N
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
abest
d.
sheet
number
A5.1
PREEREDIEEED SWIOWBSEAM METAL
ION SYSTEM W /SEEELM USS
ASSEMBLY, MIRED ARK, AND DAR
IXSUL
enriching
communities
through
architecture
doluth • otrginle • greed rapids • pots cida
weuw.d gw.cow
VCBBI..BR/�B�CLE -LEX
i■ ■■
POST #6583
saw
sir WAN OVER
MEW.SIUDS ®24.OZ.
7868 LAKE DRnE
LINO LAKES, MN
12' EMU OVER
0) LAYERS 1112' MID ROIL W/
METAL NUM 624' OLDIE[AYER
IIORO.IHE OBIFRVERT.) DYER
Sir GYP Ba
giUILDING SECTI ❑N
project a 03098
dots July 07, 2003
file nem
drams by NLR
Arcked iv MIT
mine MICHAEL J. THOMAS
rg.• 23592
sign dote )0(X)0( )X, 2003
I hereby certify that thkplln,
specipeetiec, or report we
prgwrd by ow or under 'ay
&net nprobbn.ndtha
. • duly UesnndArehiteet
order the hew of the Step of
Miasmata.
PIIWIRIMEEED O REM SEAM MEW.
ROOF SYS1IMW /SIEtTRUSS
ASSEMBLY, KNEED ARK, AND BAR
RLSUL
PREEIIWREEED MINN SWA METAL
ROOF EISENWI MERINO
ASSEMBLY. YEMFD ARK, ARI BAR
IRSUL
work reoldobAnse
des
Sac • BuILOIns Puy Rmay 10/09/03
lr OMIIOVER
01 LAYEM 11/2' WWDINsuLW/ METAL
FORMS R24. 0.C. PE LAYER NOEL
VIE ORO VERD OVER
sir GYP BO.
BUILDING
SECTION
UILDING
1 8• 1'-D•
shat
tide
deed
nuwbw
A6.1
CORE DRILL!
Ex. s mi
RSI 977.4
INV. 902.110
V. 903.5
CONCRETE
SPILLWAY
26L15 RCP CUII 0 1.0%
15 "RCP FES
INV. 903.80
70LF- 15"RCR CUII 0 0.00 %1
76LF- 15 "RC1,1 CUII 0 0.00 %I
15 "RCP FE (2)
INV. 904.0 \
15 "RCP FES (2)
INV. 904.0
REMOVE EXIST.
CULVERT
CONCRETE
SPILLWAY
+-•E1y In Lot 7
CONCRETE
PED RAMP
REMOVE
CULVERT
�/ A
/ STMH
�� RIM 90 .0
�" /INV. • ■2.25
10LF -15 "RCP CUII 0 0.32%
/ i CORE £'
INV. .1111
? •••' a EX .
T
INV/902.05
%
152LF -15 "RCP CUII 0 0.32, /
CB 5
RIM 9 .0
INV. '•2.50
I /
N89•05'08"W
• - .DENOTES FOUND MONUMENT
o - DENOTES MANHOLE
® - DENOTES CATCHBASIN
IP - DENOTES UGNT POLE
SS'" — DENOTES STREET SON..
ew —e— - DENOTES SIGN
xm DENOTES HYDRANT
Ty O - DENOTES TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
tt 0 — DENOTES ELECTRIC PEDESTAL
TV O - DENOTES CABLE TV PEDESTAL
990 - DENOTES MAILBOX
0 - DENOTES WOODEN PST
-• -- DENOTES FENCE
-•• -- DENOTES UG ELECTRIC UNE
-." DENOTES UG GAS UNE
DENOTES UG TELEPHONE UNE
--en DENOTES OVERHEAD POWER UNE
o - DENOTES BUSH
x-na 8 - DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE.
9etw9 * - DENOTES CONIFEROUS TREE.
BB - DENOTES ELECTRIC HAND HOLE
- DENOTES GAS MARKER
O - DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE
- DENOTES WATER VALVE
DENOTES SPOT ELEVATION
<�. - DENOTES PROPOSED STORM SEWER
0 N - DENOTES PROPOSED CATCHBASW
• - DENOTES PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE
- DENOTES PROPOSED WATERMAN
DENOTES PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
30LF -8 DIP
WATERMAIN
(7.5' MIN.
0
ERVE
OVER)
7OLF -6 "PVC SDR26 SANITARY
ERVICE 0 1.0% MIN
\� FFST "PVC CLE: • T
90.) °e�.�i11
VACATED LOIS LANK DOC. NO.
S. gin of tat 9
1. EXISTING WATER PRESSURE (FROM OTT OF LINO LAKES)
919 GPM - 2. ORIFACE
60 PSI STADCE PRESSURE
53 PSI RESIDUAL PRESSURE
30 PSI PT
N
0
2. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE EXISITNG GRAVED. PARKING AREA
AFTER PROPOSEDC PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION I5 COMPLETED.
3. CONTRACTOR TO BEAVERTA9. PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER AT
DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES TO LAKE DRIVE AND LOIS LANE
4. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE PAVEMENT MARKINGS AS SHOWN
8
U1
a
N89 05 08 "1P
ONE FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL
• - DENOTES FOUND MONUMENT
O DENOTES MANHOLE
• - DENOTES CATCHBA9N
" DENOTES UGHT POLE
+ — DENOTES STREET SIGN
-. -- DENOTES SIGN.
Nyy{1-- DENOTES HYDRANT
,EL p - DENOTES TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
a p - DENOTES ELECTRIC PEDESTAL
iv0 - DENOTES CABLE TV PEDESTAL
LBO — DENOTES MAILBOX
• — DENOTES WOODEN POST
—e -- DENOTES FENCE
—. -- DENOTES UG ELECTRIC LINE.
—w -- DENOTES UG GAS UNE
—n -- DENOTES UG TELEPHONE UNE
-- --..�- DENOTES OVERHEAD POWER UNE
o - DENOTES BUM
M-e- DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE
sPeNI112111 + — DENOTES CONIFEROUS TREE
- DENOTES ELECTRIC HAND HOLE
® - DENOTES CAS MARKER
O - DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE
ND - MOTES WATER VALVE
too.o DENOTES SPOT ELEVATION
• S - DENOTES PROPOSED CATCHBASIN
• - DENOTES PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE.
- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR
- DENOTES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE
111 II 111- - DENOTES EROSION CONTROL 9LT FENCE
-. DENOTES ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
a
ID
CO
S. 6u et Lot 1
LOIS LANE
G1
ddNd, • of gLdo • grand r.pid. • *ohs elan
•
SEED
5EE&DITCH AREA
SEED DITCH AREA
N28 °80'07 "E
/UU N1
EXGEPT1
CIRCLE -LEX
VFW
POST #6583
SHOWN GRAPHICALLY
TO AREAS TO BE
WATERED (IYP.)
7868 LAKE DRIVE
LINO LAKES, MN
pr.jme• 03098
d... July 07, 2003
Ake .a.. 03098- LAND- SITE-CL -VFW
damn TS
clinked! MMA
.... MICHAEL J. THOMAS
reg. • 23592
.1•. door X7000( )0X, 2003
IRRIGATION LOOP
SHOWN GRAPHICALLY
TO AREAS TO BE
WATERED DTP.)
SITE &Bynu mm PLAN 1U171131110/09/03
PLANT LIST !
QUAN. CODF BOTANICAL NAMF COMMON NAME SIZE !CONDITION
2 FRPE FRAXINUS PENNSYLVANICA'SUMMIT' SUMMIT ASH 3" CAL. IB &B
4 GLTR GLEDISTSIA TRIACANTHOS 'IMPCOLE' IMPERIAL HONEYLOCUST 3" CAL. IB &B
8 ULCA ULMUS 'CATHEDRAL' CATHEDRAL ELM 3" CAL. B&B
3 MAHO MALUS 'HOPA' HOPA CRABAPPLE 7' HT, B &B
18- ARMS ARONIA MELONOCARPA GLOSSY BLACK CHOKEBERRY 36 B &B 1
5 VIPR. VIBURNUM PRUNIFOLIUM BLACKHAW VIBURNUM 4' HT. B &B
62 JUPO )UNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS 'PRINCE OF WALES' PRINCE OF WALES JUNIPER 5 GAL, 1
20 SPGF SPIREA X BUMALDA 'GOLDFLAME' GOLDFLAME SPIREA 5 GAL.
136 CETO CERASTIUM TOMENTOSUM SNOW IN SUMMER QTS. 12" O.C.;
72 HEMO HEMEROCALLIS 'STELLA DE ORO' STELLA DE ORO DAYLILIES 1 GAL. 124" O.C.,
STMU STONE MULCH WITH WEED BARRIER I j
@LANDSCAPE PLAN CIRCLE -LEX -VFW •-
1 Ia
SCALE: =20'
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
CIRCLE -LEX
RUNE CROSSING OR INJURED LIMBS IN CROWN
EMOVE BINDING FROM TRUNK OF TREE
EEP MULCH 1e AWAY FROM TRUNK
SHREDDED BARK MULCH
SLOPE FOR DRAINAGE
BARRIER ENTIRE ISLAND
ROOTBALL 2' -3e ABOVE GRADE
/2TOPSOIL/ 1/2 PLANTING MIXRURE
tEPTH OF SOIL TO BE 1 1/2
THE DEPTH OF THE ROOTBALL
re CRETE CURB AND GUTTER
NISHED GRADE
/3 PULVERIZED EXISTING CLAY AND 1/3
PUNTING MIXTURE. TAMP UGHTLY
ETAIN BURLAP & TWINE AROUND ROOT BALL
�0 NOT OVERDIG DEPTH OF HOLE
EXISTING GRAVEL
RUNE CROSSNG OR INJURED UMBS IN CROWN
()PLANTING DETAILS -SHADE TREE IN ISLAND
2 LTS
SPACING /LAYOUT PLAN
Varies
(SEE PUWTUST)
CUT REDLINE WHERE ADJACENT
D LA#1
/2- SHREDDED HARDBM8C MULCH TO COYER
PLANTING DETAILS - PERRENIALS
ON.TS
MOVE BINDING FROM TRUNK OF TREE
EEP MULCH 1e AWAY FROM TRUNK
SHREDDED BARK MULCH SAUCER
OOTBALL 2e -3- ABOVE GRADE
NISHED GRADE
/2 TOPSOIL/ 1/2 PLANTING MIXTURE
SHAPED TO CREATE SAUCER
OLE DIAMETER TO BE TWICE BALL VADTH
/3 PULVERIZED EXISTING CLAY AND TOPSOIL
MIXTURE THEN TAMP UGHTLY
AIN BURLAP & TWINE AROUND ROOT BALL
to NOT OVERDIG DEPTH OF HOLE
DISTURBED SOIL
()PLANTING DETAILS -SHADE TREE
N.TS.
ROOT COLLAR AT RIMED GRADE
»• MULCH r AWAY FROM BASE OF SHRUB
SHREDDED BARK MULCH,
MOUND 10 FORM SAUCER
GRADE
/2 TOPM/ 1/2 PLANTING
SHAPED MATE SAUCER M""JRE:
2/3 PULVERIZED EXISTING CLAY AND TOPS() .
L unAIE, TAMP UGHTLY
• STRING AT BASE OF SHRUB ONLY,
RETAIN BURLAP AROUND BALL
2 PLANTING DETAILS-DECIDUOUS SHRUB
()N.TS...
STAKE TREES W./3 STAMFBR0X 1/2 UP TREE
KEEP MULCH 1e AWAY FROM TRUNK OF TREE
Y SHREDDED BARK MULCH, MOUND TO FORM SAUCER
FINISHED GRADE
TO CREATE SAUCER
1
PULVERIZE EDSTNG CLAY, TAMP LIGHTLY
CAIN BU� AND 1WME�AROUPD PUNT BBALI.
DO NOT OVERDO DEPTH OF HOLE
()PLANTING DETAILS - STAKED EVERGREEN TREE
()PLANTING
enriching
communities
through
architecture
dulath • of g nta • grand rapt• • Gain dh.
weeroo.drgnum
CIRCLE -LEX
VFW
POST #6583
7868 LAKE DRIVE
LINO LAKES, MN
03098
July 07, 2003
03098-LAND-SITE-CL-VFW
TS
MMA
MICHAEL I. THOMAS
23592
MO= X04 2003
I hereby certify that adapine,
apsri imtYe, or sport roa
praporedbywor radar my
dboetaoperuhbn Jed that 1
an a doty Gamed Architect
radar the Taw alas Smsof
NGneob.
wrA roYoaAme
dare
SrrE & Buxom PLAN Ream 10/09/03
LANDSCAPE
DETAILS
CIRCLE -LEX
LUMIMIRE SCHEDULE
SNnEar L..68 ab. C.W.g Number L09.l. OF Weds
1rSOI APESECURDY/
0 e"
3 069007 PERINEIERGlLGF 17a WATT 81 SE94171• 14000 1.00 200
10° PARMHGROADWAY
0 A
3 PRMO / TYPE N 400WA1TMN PR440k 31056 1.00
p IrPARIONGROADWAY
p • p 1 PRNO / TYPE N MO WATT AO1 PR110Jp 96000. 1.00 1820
.8 1.
0.3 . 1. ..
rows
CTY or. i.utio
r=
•
•
•
0
co
0
cT
Cn
N N
O
®®
O
ix.
CD N
in in
• o •
".D
1
O
rt
CD
_rt
O�
0
CD
0
iii
Attachment 2
0
CD
5Ti
CD
0
0
cD
0
FD1'
o
.•
0
N
0
CD
•
•
•
E ;uewq a ;;
grna�Piene.4*— -1
CIRCLE — LEX VFW POST #6583
PLANNING INFORMATION
Parking Requirements: there are a number of different ways to figure parking area for
the site, based on which category one chooses. Total net building square footage is
10,954 sq.ft.:
Requirements per Ordinance
Proposed for Site
•
"Private clubs serving food and/or
drinks ": 10 spaces for each 1,000 sq.ft.
of dining room, plus 1 for each
•
Totals were figured based on a more
specific breakdown of uses, as
described on Plan Sheet A1.1:
employee."
Bar: 28
Dance Hall: 33
Office Area 8
Total: ` 69 stalls
Actual stalls to be constructed is 89.
This is down somewhat from what was
shown on the concept plan back in
August (98 stalls). In addition, more
islands have been provided.
Pervious/Impervious Coverage: Ordinance controls impervious coverage in the General
Business District in the following way:
Requirements per Ordinance
Proposed for Site
•
Impervious is limited to 75 %, with
pervious at 25%
•
Impervious at 64.1 %, with pervious at
35.9%
Lighting Requirements: Ordinance controls lighting in the following ways:
Requirements per Ordinance
Proposed for the Site
•
Light Intensity: is limited to 1.0 foot
•
Light Intensity: intensity does not
candles at street R.O.W., and 0.4 on
any adjacent residential property
conform to requirements, as there are
readings over 1.0 and 0.4
•
Fixtures: "shall contain a cutoff which
•
Fixtures: there is no information on
directs and cuts off the light at an angle
fixtures at this time
more that 3 feet of the required screen
of 90 degrees or less."
•
Pole Height: there is no information on
•
Pole Height: maximum height of the
pole height at this time
fixture and pole above the ground grade
is 30 feet.
Buffering Requirement: Ordinance notes that "where any business or industrial use
abuts property zoned for residential use, that business or industry shall provide screening
along the boundary of the residential property." (NOTE: this clause may or may not
apply, as the abutting property is zoned Rural, not Residential. That is, its use is
residential, but it is not zoned residential).
Requirements per Ordinance
Proposed for Site
Buffering is required in one of the
There appears to be a fence proposed, or
following ways:
existing, for the property boundary abutting
• Green Belt: "shall be designed to
neighboring residential areas.
provide 80% opacity to a minimum
height of 6 feet"
• Fence: "shall provide a solid screening
effect 6 feet in height"
• Berm: "shall not be used to achieve
more that 3 feet of the required screen
(6 feet total is req.)
.r
•
•
Agenda Item 6A
Environmental Board Meeting Date: October 29, 2003
Topic: 2004 Environmental Board Goals
Summary: Environmental Board Chair Kukonen requested that board goals
for 2004 be placed on this agenda. The 2003 Environmental Board Goals are
included as Attachment 1. If there is any additional information you think you
might need before the discussion of goals, please give me (Marty) a call.
Comments:
Attachments:
1. 2003 Environmental Board Goals
2003 ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD GOALS
Promote public education and provide handouts available at city hall
on such subjects as invasive non - native species, where to buy native plants, .
environmental landscaping, composting, organic gardening, promoting and
protecting wildlife habitat..:: :..:
Seek funding and agencies to help with land acquisition for open space,
wildlife habitats, greenvway corridors, and to protect high ecological value
areas.::
Seek funding and agencies for staff help.
Research ways to obtain dedication fees from developments and/or the
to preserve open space.
GOING GOALS
ontinueworldng with the Anoka Conservation District Metro
reenways Program.
ontinue to monitor Peltier Lake.
ontinue.to contribute to each. City News Letter.
ontinue to work with our .Elementa
Elementary and Middle schools.