The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-27-2006 Planning Commission PacketSIT LACE* City of Lake Elmo ELMO 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615 Www.LakeElmo.Orq NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, March 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Agenda Approval 2. Minutes a. February 27, 2006 b. March 13, 2006 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat, Development Stage Plan, Conditional Use Permit -HIDDEN MEADOWS OF LAKE ELMO (Formerly Deer Glen) 4. 520 Site Plan: Rockpoint Church (Formerly Lakewood Evangelical Free Church) 5. Fences: Review Fencing as Buffer Between Incompatible Land Uses 6. City Council Update 7. Adjourn The public is invited to attend. DRAFT City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2006 Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Lyzenga, Van Zandt, Deziel, Ptacek, Fliflet, Armstrong, Pelletier, and Park (7:12 p.m.). STAFF PRESENT: Planner Dillerud, Administrator Rafferty, and Recording Secretary Schaffel. ALSO PRESENT: Mayor Johnston. Agenda M/S/P, Ptacek/Armstrong to accept the Agenda as presented. Vote: 8:0. Minutes of February 13, 2006 Commissioner Ptacek, Page 3, the motion made by Armstrong/Fliflet, Ptacek should replace Pelletier under the Nay votes. Commissioner Pelletier, The vote that was 8:1 Nay — Fliflet, for the drive -up window, should be 7:2 Nay — Fliflet and Pelletier- Commissioner Fliflet stated that her nay vote was because the restaurant owner requesting this amendment had inferred his disinterest in anything other than a message board and intercom. The Commission voted against those so she sees no need to add verbiage relating to a drive up window since there is no need and no applicant. M/S/P, Ptacek/Van Zandt to accept the Minutes of February 13, 2006 as amended. Vote: 8:0. Home Occupations The Planner said he published a hearing notice for March 13, 2006. Discussion will take place this evening. He said he was discomfited with some wording in the example code. He phoned the City Attorney to ask if there had been challenges to that wording ("... adverse affect on adjacent properties." "... adequate off-street parking must be provided...") in Shoreview. There have been no challenges. Commissioner Fliflet suggested a change under Prohibited Businesses "... due to traffic." Maybe traffic should be removed because it is covered in other boxes. The Planner suggested "as may be defined elsewhere by applicable city codes." as potential language . Commissioner Lyzenga asked for clarification about how Home Occupation is defined now. The Planner said what is in Section 150 of the City Code is inadequate and that is prompting this change. He referred the Commission to the Section 150 Home Occupation which was attached to the staff memo in their agenda packets. Commissioner Lyzenga said that the present Home Occupati9on definition seems to cover what needs to be covered. The Planner said "stock in trade" stored on the premises seems to have been the primary issue prompting this review by the Commission, but that the concept of regulating land use by definition only is inappropriate practice. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2006 1 DRAFT Mayor Johnston reported to the Commission that the Home Occupation issue has been discussed at Council meetings. Commissioner Armstrong asked if the staffs intent is to replace Section 150 Definitions. The Planner said he planned to divide the Home Occupation definition into two new definitions: "Home Office" and "Home Based Business" . Commissioner Armstrong said he does not want to completely eliminate some of the clauses in the current Home Occupation definition that do work well. Set up a permitting process but what will the difference be in permitting between home offices and home based businesses.? Commissioner Ptacek said that for him the distinction was between goods and services. The storage of stock in trade seemed to be the problem at the Council but with no exterior evidence of the storage or use , he did not see a concern. Commissioner Deziel said the approach under consideration could result in the need for a permit for a Tupperware Party. Commissioner Fliflet considered a Home Occupation as a person working from home at their computer. No customers, delivery, parking, etc. Everything else could be a home -based business regardless of the size. The Planner said Home Offices could be permitted in all zones, Home -based Businesses could be limited to AG and RR Zones, since larger properties presented less concern for impact on adjacent property owners. Chairman Helwig said he agreed with Commissioner Armstrong about the value of the present Home Occupation definition. He suggested using the definition, taking out objectionable items. Commissioner Armstrong asked about a home office sales rep where the principal location for a business in the home. He said we are dealing with a situation where a home is the only primary location for a business, and the homeowners is deducting a portion of the home for taxes, etc. He suggested treating all zones treated equally, and maintaining some of the Home Occupation definition. Chairman Helwig asked about service companies, lawn care, plumber, snow plowing. Need to fit that into the scheme. Equipment and stock in trade are the concerns. Commissioner Ptacek said customers coming and going and stock in trade are the concerns. The Planner said if nobody can see stock -in -trade, and we are controlling deliveries, what is the problem? Mayor Johnston said the Council discussed this and three members provided written input and a fourth gave a verbal statement. Over the counter retail sales and warehousing were undesirable. A reasonable control of over the counter sales may be a dollar minimum or 100 square feet. If you don't put in some restrictions you are ignoring the requests of 4/5 of Council. That was a strong desire from the Council. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2006 2 DRAFT Commissioner Ptacek said he does not understand the negative impact of warehousing if a neighbor cannot see it, touch it, or smell it. Commissioner Pelletier said it would be crazy to try to regulate that. Mayor Johnston said we are talking about an exchange of payment for goods on hand. A retail sporting goods business operated in this city. The philosophy is if we allow large square footages for storage of stock in trade, eventually neighborhoods change because we are providing incentive. Commissioner Van Zandt said there are two major holiday boutiques in the city where more than half the house is used to display stock. Those events are assets to the community. There should be a distinction between ongoing versus seasonal or sporadic. Parking is a problem during those times. Commissioner Lyzenga said there could be dollar threshold, the generation of revenue. It is simply an enforcement tool. A business owner could be asked to produce a tax return. Chairman Helwig pointed out that gemstones have high value but little pieces that could fit into one drawer in the home. Commissioner Fliflet said if a neighbor is not bothered, we should not regulate it? If a basement is completely full of stuff it does not affect anyone. Deliveries and traffic affect neighbors. Commissioner Deziel asked the difference between step -vans and vehicles with customers. Commissioner Fliflet said nothing larger than a step -van to make deliveries of product. Number of trips and traffic are the concern. Commissioner Deziel said he has six customers per year. We should have safe harbors of storage volume, over the counter sales, customers and deliveries, and anything in excess of those safe harbors requires a permit. Commissioner Lyzenga questioned whether it would be enforceable. Who is going to make the judgment and do the investigation? Keep it generic and put in some measurements. The tool triggers a complaint going to court. Keep it simple. Commissioner Deziel agreed that a tax return would be subpoenable along with other business records. There should be reasonably low thresholds. The Planner said if it is structured to be enforced by the next door neighbor then that is not a good ordinance. M/S, Ptacek/Van Zandt to move forward with table as presented and redefine Home Occupation as stated with elimination of "no stock in trade to be stored on the premises" and "no over the counter retail sales" without eliminating the ability to have a home party. MOTION WITHDRAWN Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2006 3 DRAFT M/S/P, Ptacek/Fliflet to redefine Section 150 - Home Occupation striking two phrases "no stock in trade to be stored on the premises" and "no over the counter retail sales." Vote: 9:0. M/S/P Armstrong/Fliflet to combine the two columns for Home Occupations into one. Vote: 9:0. M/S/P, Armstrong/Deziel to establish safe harbor criteria for a Home Office as home -based, no sales, stock, or customers, and it will need no permit. Vote: 9:0. M/S/P Armstrong/Fliflet any Home -based Business not qualifying for the safe harbor needs a one time Administrative Permit registering the business with the City of Lake Elmo. Vote: 9:0. The Planner will draft text accordingly and present it to the Commission for the Public Hearing of March 13, 2006. Commissioner Fliflet said that parking should be no more than three spaces like in the existing definition. Wedding Ceremonies in AG Zoning District The Planner said he has been trying to get a handle on this use since the interested Lake Elmo party has reported that a similar use is regulated in Stillwater. Commissioner Ptacek said the concern is alcohol for money. The Planner said that liquor licensing is a separate issue granted by City Council on a case by case basis. Chairman Helwig's concerns were for parking, sanitary, and noise. He asked if they wanted a bad weather shelter. Commissioner Deziel suggested that an event or two special occasions could be permitted but a regular establishment with permanent or semi -permanent structures would be more restricted. Commissioner Armstrong suggested adding Weddings to the CUP list under AG. H, Outdoor social events limited from May to October no more than twice per week, no excessive noise, no more than 200 people, all off street parking, no permanent structures, adequate portable sanitation, no more than six hours per each event, no later than midnight, and maybe screening or proximity to neighbors. Commissioner Training Dates Bob Van Zandt and Nicole Park have had no Planning training. They can choose April 12 or June 15 for an entire day session at the Extension Service at St. Paul Campus. Staff will advise Laurie McGinnis too. 9 am to 4:30 pm. City Council Updates No planning items were on the last agenda. Employee and Volunteer Recognition Dinner is planned for March 10, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at Tartan Park Clubhouse. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2006 4 DRAFT Adjourned 8:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Schaffel Recording Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2006 5 DRAFT City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 13, 2006 Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fliflet, Ptacek, Roth, Van Zandt, Deziel, Lyzenga, Schneider. STAFF PRESENT: Administrator Rafferty, Planner Dillerud, and Recording Secretary Anez. Agenda M/S/P, Fliflet/Ptacek to add Public Hearing: Consider Code Amendment for Drive -up Service Windows Adjacent to Restaurant in GB Zone as publicly noticed and include as Item 6, and to accept the Agenda as amended. VOTE: 8:0. Minutes of February 27, 2006 M/S/P, Fliflet/Roth to table minutes of February 27, 2006 until next meeting. VOTE: 8:0. Public Hearing: Variance — Septic within house setback The Planner said the home at 7949 Hill Trail North was constructed in 1976, and there is no record of improvements to the original septic system. The septic designer concludes there is only one location for the drainfield. In order for that system to be installed, it has to be fifteen feet from the house. The Planner looked at whether another location can be found or whether a mound system could be used. The Planner said the applicant says this location is the only one. He noted that mounds are generally looked at in Lake Elmo as a system of last resort because there have been problems with them here. The Applicant, Mr. Scharrer, said he received a call from city staff to see if the drainfield could be placed elsewhere on the lot. He said the design submitted did not show the additional constraints of the deck or gazebo. He distributed a new design. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:15 P.M. Nobody spoke. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:16 P.M. M/S/P, Van Zandt/Deziel, to recommend approval of the variance from the house setback for a septic system at 7949 Hill Trail North based on the findings in the Planner's Staff Report - points 1, 2, and 3, and the unknowns for an alternative system,. VOTE: 7:1 Nay: Ptacek-Staff should provide Planning Commission with the negatives of mound systems once and for all. Public Hearing: Consider Code Amendment — Home Occupations The Planner said he reduced the three columns to one in his Staff Report. Under Number 6 on second page, it should read, "... there should be NO employees on -site." Seven paragraphs would be added to the zoning ordinance under the various zoning districts where there are home occupations currently addressed. Commissioners Roth and Deziel said to strike gains. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:32 P.M. Jeannie Schnell Ms. Schnell said she saw the article about Home Occupations in the Pioneer Press. She wrote a letter Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 13, 2006 1 DRAFT to the mayor and she distributed it and read it. She said she has lived in her house 30 years. She is concerned about so many restrictions, especially signs in yards. She thinks it is time to loosen restrictions not tighten them. She thinks some signs should be allowed. Stock in trade should be allowed. Code Enforcement should not include peeping in garage windows. With reductions in pensions and job losses, etc., people need opportunities to make extra money. The Planner said there are many people who agree and also many people concerned about their neighborhoods. A Man From the Audience The man asked how will you measure adverse impact on adjacent properties? The Planner said there are standards for odors, lumens of light, decibels, etc. That clause is also a concern to the Planner. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:38 P.M. M/S/P, Fliflet/Roth to quantify the Code to limit the number of customers to a site to no more than 10 customer visits per day and add that clause to Number 8. VOTE: 7:1 Nay---Lyzenga-Micromanaging; leaving it up to a license is sufficient. M/S/P, Ptacek/Schneider to amend Code definitions adding Section 1115 to licensing and amending zoning districts as presented in the Planner's Staff Report. VOTE: 8:0. Public Hearing: Consider Code Amendment Outdoor Social Events in AG Zoning District The Planner said the draft Code amendment is generic for all AG properties. The City of Stillwater said they have a CUP or SUP for musical events only. The Planners said he took Commissioner Armstrong's factors into consideration and drafted for Municipal Code 300.07, 4.A.2. to add another Conditional Use to those already there. He said that is a more contemporary way to draft an ordinance. The Planner distributed a letter from Carol Palmquist received on March 1, 2006. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:05 P.M. Nobody spoke. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:06 P.M. M/S/F, Deziel/Roth To limit No. 4 for Outdoor Social Events to ten guests per acre. VOTE: 1:7 Failed. (Yea-Deziel) M/S/P, Ptacek/Roth to limit Number 4 in the standards for Outdoor Social Events that attendance at events should be no more than 20 persons per acre, with a maximum of 500 persons, including event staff. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 13, 2006 2 DRAFT VOIE: 8:0. M/S/P, Roth/Fliflet to limit sound to comply with the City Noise Ordinance. The Planner read from the noise ordinance and said no sound above certain measurable thresholds should be discernible beyond the property line. VOTE: 7:1 Ptacek-The intention was for no amplified sound. M/S/P, Fliflet/Deziel to remove Number 6 from the standards for Outdoor Social Events because there is no reason to limit the hours. 7:1 Nay -Schneider -Can picture this being a hassle. M/S/P, Ptacek/Fliflet to move forward with the text amendment for Outdoor Social Events subject to Conditions 1-9, eliminating Number six and to include the other amendments already made. VOTE: 8:0. Public Hearing: Consider Code Amendment — Drive -up Service Window Adjacent to a Restaurant in the GB Zoning District The Planner provided three separate text amendments. The first could make drive up windows a conditional use permit, second would be a permitted use, and third would be an accessory use. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:25 P.M. Ed Gorman Mr. Gorman said he would like to be clear of the differences between restaurants and cafes. Some of those differences are: utensils and plates that are washed, table service versus counter service, menus versus menu board, in fast food there are no tips, in restaurants you tip the server. His requested outdoor menu board would be a marketing tool with less than 10% of his food items on the board. He solicited support from 100's of customers, many of them local, and from fellow businesses on Main Street on a petition. He presented the petition where the signers supported the drive -up service window with intercom and menu board. There is a health and safety issue with the window ordering option. Mr. Gorman said that Minnesota food code says that all openings to the outside be closed as much as possible to keep out insects, etc. Flies are an issue in summer. Without the intercom system and menu board, he cannot envision doing this completely and safely for his customers. Lake Elmo Bank has five speakers. The City could add the provisions for a limited menu board limited to ice creams and coffees. Commissioner Deziel asked when does the sit down become secondary to the drive -up window? If you sell the restaurant, that future owner may have a different idea. Mr. Gorman said a CUP could make the difference. This window does not make it fast food. He will still be classified as a table service restaurant.. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. M/S/P, Ptacek/Schneider to move forward with the definition of drive -up window for cafes and restaurants in the GB zone with adequate stacking of automobiles and an intercom and menu board prohibited. VOTE: 6:2 - Van Zandt and Roth -Feels that maybe there was more that could be done to make this a possibility. City Council Update Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 13, 2006 3 DRAFT The Planner said that on March 6, the Council adopted a recommendation to update the 1990 Park Plan through the hiring of a consultant in order to expedite the work. The zoning variance for Haire for a large home on DeMontreville and Olson Lakes, was denied 4:0. The Administrator said the Planning Commission is invited to participate in the Village Area Master Plan being presented tomorrow at the Council Workshop. Adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Anez Recording Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 13, 2006 4 LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: March 24, 2006 for the Meeting of March 27, 2006 Applicant: Hidden Meadows Development, LLC (Pat Kinney)/Lakewood Evangelical Church Location: Southeast Quadrant of State Highway 36 and Keats Avenue Requested Action: OP Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat and CUP — "Hidden Meadows of Lake Elmo" Land Use Plan Guiding: RAD Existing Zoning: RR Site History and Existing Conditions: A Preliminary Plat of Deer Glen was approved by the City Council on April 28, 2005 concurrently with several other related applications for 108 acre site. That Preliminary Plat specified a partial street right-of-way extending into the site from Keats Avenue and a 20 acre Lot 1, Block 1 — the site reguided and rezoned PF to accommodate the (now) Rock Point Church. The balance of the 108 acres was "outlotted" in the Deer Glen plat pending a revised OP Concept Plan for the residential portion of the project. The 2005 approval of the Deer Glen Preliminary Plat did specify that the portion of the lands adjacent to State Highway 36 and north of the public street could be excluded from the OP project, and remain an outlot with no designated use. On September 20, 2005 the City Council approved an amended OP Concept Plan for the residential portion of the project south of the public street. It is this area (and the original homestead site north of the public street) that is the subject of the OP Development Stage Plan. The Preliminary Plat covers the actual OP development and the remaining Outlots north of the public street. Discussion and Analysis: City review of OP Development Stage Plans and accompanying Preliminary Plats includes findings of both compliance with the approved OP Concept Plan and compliance of the preliminary infrastructure plans with City engineering standards and OP design standards. The City Engineer's review of those infrastructure plans is the critical component of this development review stage since the general neighborhood design/lot count/required amenities are established at the Concept Plan Stage. OP Development Stage Plan/CUP 1. The proposed lot count and lot configuration (including OP buffer areas) are responsive to the approved Concept Plan (September 20, 2005). 2. The Landscape Plan proposes 470 trees to be introduced to the site with deciduous trees partly 2.5 inch and partly 1.5 inch caliper (depending on species), and coniferous trees 6 feet and 8 feet in planted height (dependent on species). This count and quality of trees will respond to both OP and Section 400 standards for landscape — particularly considering significant existing tree population on some of the proposed lots that will be retained. 3. We do not find a Landscape Plan response to Condition #5 of the OP Concept Plan approval resolution, "5. The Development Stage Plan shall demonstrate the year-round effectiveness of screening measures that support the 100 foot OP buffer on the east side of site." While the Landscape Plan notes existing tree groupings along the east side of the plat, we find no indication of the species, spacing and sizes of the trees in that grouping that would demonstrate that this would be effective year-round screening of the homes within the plat. Together with a listing of the trees proposed as effective year-round screening, the preferred method to demonstrate that effectiveness is providing cross sections from house through screen to adjacent land. 4. With the exception of #3 above we find that the applicable conditions of the Concept Plan approval resolution are complied with. Preliminary Plat The City Engineer has presented a March 23, 2006 Email outlining a number of infrastructure related review comments, including a finding that certain information required to complete his review has not been submitted by the applicant. Findings and Recommendations: Where City Engineer or Watershed review comments address minor plat modifications we usually recommend the plat go forward to the City Council with a condition requiring compliance by the applicant with those comments and recommendations. In this case the City Engineer's review recommends more substantial modifications than we have seen previously, and the need for additional information to complete his review. This concern coupled with the lack of a plan demonstration screening effectiveness leads staff to recommend that this Preliminary Plat be tabled by the Commission pending applicant's plan adjustments and submission of the information we do not as yet have. The Noticed Public Hearing regarding the plat and CUP should be conducted by the Commission on March 27, as scheduled. Based on the above comments the City does not have a "completed application" as of this date. We suggest, however, that the meeting at which the Commission should next consider this matter is April 24, and the meeting at which the City Council should act is May 2, 2006. Planning Commission Actions Requested: Motion to table the OP Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat/CUP of "Hidden Meadows of Lake Elmo" until such time as completed application documentation is submitted and modcation�8- o pe infras c re design recommended by the City Engineer are completed. 0.(02_,QAAAP Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner Attachments: 1. City Council Resolution #2005-102 Approving the OP Concept Plan 2. Approved OP Concept Plan 3. City Engineer's Email 4. Applicant's Documentation CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2005-102 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AMENDED OP CONCEPT PLAN OF DEER GLEN WHEREAS, on July 25th, 2005, the Lake Elmo Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the amended OP Concept Plan of Deer Glen subject to certain conditions. WHEREAS, on August 16, 2005, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed the recommendations of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission, and a Concept Plan revised from that recommended by the Planning Commission that was presented to the Council by the applicant. WHEREAS, on September 6, 2005, the Lake Elmo City Council reviewed OP Concept Plans for Deer Glen again revised by the applicant from those recommended by the Planning Commission and that which the Council reviewed on August 16. WHEREAS, on September 6, 2005, the Lake Elmo City Council accepted the applicants' request for a two week extension (September 20th) for submittal requirements on the revised OP Concept Plan for Deer Glen reviewed at this meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Lake Elmo City Council approved the amended OP Concept Plan of Deer Glen, per plans staff -dated September 6, 2005, and subject to the following conditions. 1. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer and City Attorney except with respect to Road B as shown on plans. 2. Compliance with the recommendations and Permit conditions of the Valley Branch Watershed District as found to be applicable and practical by the City Engineer. 3. Development Stage plans shall address the incorporation of single -source water supply and lateral pipe installation for all OP lots. 4. Keats Avenue/State Highway 36 improvements required of the property owners as conditions of prior City Council approvals shall be conditions to this OP project as well. 5. The Development Stage Plan shall demonstrate the year-round effectiveness of screening measures that support the 100 foot OP buffer on the east side of the site. 6. Amendment of the Conditional Use Permit previously approved by Council Resolution No. 2005-029 to reflect the amended OP Concept Plan approved hereby. 7. Amendment of Preliminary Plat approved by Resolution No. 2005-030 to reflect the amended OP Concept Plan layout as approved hereby. ADOPTED by the Lake Elmo City Council. on the 20th day of September, 2005. Dean Johnston, Mayor F p 1 ff A i arm. 1H'S5•E 21,.11_, STATE HIGHWAY 36 mow. T3 ifi I T iI P '� C PARCEL 1ll ' I Ty I� 19.04 AD 1 i ------ II °€— eIr k 1 --_god_► us; I:e L Tgg 6E name., 100.04 I; II II �ryI H' 100E ROADWAY-\ Sr PIMA. PARCEL B 62.61 AC M 1, .10ivi 1 24 — — — — �---- 1 _J �p . ..�.�n /,1C..=— 111 1 54Af. E i L__-_. B 1--:::..- 1 °VIER 21 PR a.61 .. I1 1 1 S ..—W1Yj �i I- ---/./ T 12 2 BL I _J 1,I I /i/ Illm12 ;fir = —� -• /: 13 IA II y --79 1--�� 1 �!//awvllL_Jl 6 b.1RM vl t ( l/ — 18 ' /-"1 In 15 11 ...Oak `�4v1 a.:1.4r1I1 ]Ssm5PIL /// 1 ®III II. / i I I : I 1 SAN51Sr L: PARCEL A 10.97 AD IOOOLAMS ARkA O01L0 , 10• 100E 1RAL� i —1 321,112 Sf 611040911/ Noma e18 IRMA I 4- 11001.104 AREA is i l (la 4IV 100E TRAP 49p1= _ . SYL LEGEND LEDANO AREAS 00M06.RG TRAIL m1AR DE 01.1.5 PROPERTY LINE SETE. LINE 500-0E-01r LK 1331233.7333,31 I 1 ROAD AM TM WO. 104010AT ROAD A ROAD B ROAD RILO ¢NRNI[ 1DIDm (LI) 100 675 1.1110 DE SITE 11411149121.4 TM 9OPADD 10011E 066.0100 P N THREE MCOLNUWM EALL ]DOS. 300 PLAN NM f YMEn 1741700171101011. 12DE 71000 PLAN W 0.1 MO LOTS 17-25 N 2005 Ym WNS231,O15H or LOTS 1-5 A.11110110111 N 2001. LOA 11-16 ARE M9OPAIEO TO BE 0011001.1 EO W 30011 OR Mt AREA S.BLCT TD a(Pp DEMELOP12ERT PARCELREQUMIBENTS !4 St�DPE�YEOAM AMA MS 05 OPEN () (50 (50 (50 r D111.6E SRAM NEP IDI) 5-11 603 15R. 36 AAA 0 251551 LOTS 12-10 131 ICA. 4025 0 00133 LOTS 1,23 1131 537.455 1.50B 0 559.H7 MT A 105 1117011171 1.1178 110. 00110TA >b 521501 73]0 AM 203.210 CDROT B 1.34 P5/0j..315 505 7.10 �I. 01LOT D QH 3H.5t0 15111 61.580 511151 00007 E SA I W 11050 111dn 106735 101AL 651 10311701 0131 10357 1Y5.053 I I.eH.. PROVIDED OPEN SPACE AMA AREA AREA >25% SIDPE 110010 4.116..5 (AO an (0) (Sn RwD 10E ODOOI A 7.3B 17100 ].30 III 20320 ONLOT B lb 710 a 17 ODRUT C 110 701 0 OUDOT 0 BN 151.00 513 51. 113.317 OU OT E 025 1 20035 Isms 11673 05 705 1l TOTAL ]C 1.50015 50.051 11711 1.00.152 Mra OPEN SPACE PROWTO 00E505 OPEN SPACE RE0rmLOCI TOTAL LOTS Cr PARCEL. B 061 AO - (110s )-11531 AD • 10 LOIS PER 10 AO- 2031 LOTS TOTAL LOIS PROPOSED - 25 LOA Ctl tl Ili' k Bag] Kimberly Anez From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Plat H. i, 1i,11111 II, 11. i1i1 I YIiIWIYalle I400 11WIY1111 II II1.1I. 1111.1111 111111111I II.I,iI1Y111YI.,I/I,!s I1III I11.111. 111 il, 1, 111I WWI I IL Thomas D. Prew [prew.td@tkda.com] Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:33 PM Chuck Dillerud Kimberly Anez Hidden Meadows Phase II Preliminary Plat Review 1. It is difficult to tell from the drawings where the boundaries of Phase II are. Streets 1. The landscaped island at the intersection of Roads A and B is not recommended. It does not meet the requirements for a roundabout, and I would view it has a hazard. Either remove the island and plan a curve in the street for this intersection or plan a different sort of median island. 2. The two cul-de-sacs do not meet City standards. They shall be revised. 2. The City needs a minimum of 16 feet for each lane of the island south of the church driveway. 3. Cross sections of the street at the various retaining walls are needed. Fencing or guard rails may required. Drainage. 1. The plan has changed since the previous submittal for grading and ponding. A VBWD permit is required. 2. Drainage calculations for the catch basins are required. 3. Plan and profile sheets of the streets and storm sewer were not included. They are required to complete this review. Sanitary Sewer 1. 2. 3. to 4. Tracer wire is required for the pressure sewer system. Plan and profile is required to complete this review. The septic system is joint with the Church. The City would like review how the operation and management of the system will be handled. Watermain 1. Watermain on Road C shall be 8-inch. 2. 16" watermain is planned to extend across the site. The City will share in the oversizing costs. 3. City water should be available this summer. Trail 1. Minimum trail width is 8-feet 2. The trail system should extend previous submittals. 3. The trail should be graded and line along the alignment for Road B. for this future extension.. to Keats Avenue, as shown in graveled to the east property Easements should also be provided 1 March 22, 2006 Mr. Chuck Dillerud City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Re: Hidden Meadows (Deer Glen) and Rockpoint Church (Lakewood Evangelical Free Church) Dear Mr. Dillenid: Thank you for submitting the materials regarding the proposed Hidden Meadows (formerly known as Deer Glen) and the Rockpoint Church (formerly known as Lakewood Evangelical Free Church). The Rockpoint Church information is for the wastewater treatment system. The Valley Branch Watershed District does not regulate nor have standards for waterwater treatment systems, so my comments within this letter are regarding the Hidden Meadows materials. The Valley Branch Watershed District Managers approved a permit for the Deer Glen subdivision and the Lakewood Evangelical Free Church on November 11, 2004. Construction of the church began last fall. The plans that you provided appear consistent with the plans that were approved by the Valley Branch Watershed District for the church, but not for the subdivision. Therefore, a new Valley Branch Watershed District Permit will be required. The current plans show substantial grade changes, additional residential lots, and longer, realigned roads. These changes will add more impervious surfaces than that of the previous plans and could affect the hydrology to the wetlands and the flood levels of the low areas. The developer will need to provide the necessary stormwater management features to handle the additional runoff produced from the additional impervious surfaces, show that wetlands will not be negatively impacted, and ensure that the proposed homes will be protected from flooding. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-832-2622. Sincerely, n P. Hanson, P.E. BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Engineers for the Valley Branch Watershed District c: Lincoln Fetcher, VBWD President Paul Danielson, Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. LINCOLN FETCHER DAVID BUCHECK DONALD SCHEEL DALE BORASH DUANE JOHNSON VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O.. BOX 838 LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042-0538 www.vbwd..org 1/4 CORNER G. \RockPoinl\PLAN SHEETS \Developmt—Pion\ROCK—DEVELOP—DEV01.DWG March 02. 2006 — 3:10pm sEC CORNER R71 / NIN LINE Ur 1w1/4 O, `1C. 2 N89'42' 45"E 2639.19 STATE HIGHWAY 36 a BOON 275 DEEDS. PACE 497� P of NI 33 \NEST 1/4 CORNER SEC. 2. T.29, R.21 OUTLOT B L 324,487 SF — --- T--- �— 1 w.� I1 7N 7 L'L'21 d L i 26 E= I 107,320 SF 1 I ;IME,...9.,.N I J r7 JJ _1 I 1 I4'� ' I 1. 1, -LJI.e ,I1 II -ROAD_A 1 ---__; I 1F-1 Lm_J N89'45' 25"E 2605 62 I 24' WIDE BITUMINOUS ROADWAY WITH CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER (TYP) SECONDARY CONSERVATION AREA 100 �04 S89'49' 49"W 1067.04 NORTH LINE 0r SOUTH 1550 FEET a NWI/4 \Npi1H LINE or SOUTH 1125 FEET OF NWI/4 NORTH INCLOF SOUTH 825 FEET OF HWI/4 6' WIDE BITUMINOUS PATH \H0R1H NNE Or s0u1H 400 FEET or NYO/4 ` WASTEWATER TREATMENT SITE OUTLOT A 811,50E1 SF OUTLOT C 655,599 St, I LANDSCAPED 'ISLAND BUFFER I 25 I 42,009 SF I 1 24 44,929 SF I— 23 46,450 SF — — Irz-1 22 RETAINING WALL .1um 714- N I RETAINING WALL / ,Nnuwj RETAINING WALL j /—SEDIMENT / ` POND ! '1 I I—_ — WOODLANDS AREA -- F-7- ROAD B 6' PATHI -- _ rly+r�,SI� Ij I L 6. 97 SL�1 1 1 I I 4 100' �I I BUFFER M ---- BUFFER j I 1 '33,018 SF 137, 91 SFI 44,785 SF Jff I� I'( / I ��\�� 1 `I I--- T \ SEDIMENT -- POND 4\/ E \ \ \ 'i 1 56,962 SF III 1 JII-4 1 51,347 SF 1 I i 48,9663 SF 1 U 1 1 s 1 ` SECONDARY _ 1 1 1 21 31I 11— — 1 CONSERVATION _— = 1 — o — — -I- —I _ _� AREA ; =N !� IL — I — 1 _ __ -J 1 z 20 I --I I 33,938 SF i t rr 1 1 49,748 SF I I L� ___ 1 1 I l I l 7 111 //v3,,D781 5F I oL — — 1r J 1 r---_� Ip/ 6 1I135.232/SF>111 l 11 t — 1 14 I 11 40.548 SF 1 1 1jJ �w� /�I / 1 32 991 SF 24' WIDE BITUMINOUS 1 \vI 2 1 1` 51,003 05E I 1 LANDSCAPEDI CURB ROADWAY& GUTTER)CONCRETE! I J 1 L �_ t� % �1 ISLAND (TYP - - - - - 1 L — e \ 133,305A SF / /� r I PONSEDIMENT - ROA I 6' PATF� ` `I 18 I VVV / -I 1 11 I III lII \\\� II 82,929 SF L_ _/.__! I m 1 I SECONDARY —11 L 13� 11 J \— — � 100' -j / 17 111 t6 t CONSAREA TION I 13 1 12 11 \ 108UFFRI 37,915 SF 1 41,462 SF Ij OUTLOT F 1 41.296 SF 40,493 SF 45,708 Sf 56,839 5F r WOODLANDS \ AREA --- \ 6' PATH OUTLOT E 361,280 SF / I O4 157,008 SF \ _—' -- — --- i� L. _1_. L _L.t i —1 _ 1533.82 _ t S89"49 49"W \ S0021 LINE OF xxT/• or SEC. ] q[h]. i 29 8.2I 2600 86 LEGEND — — — — RIGHT OF WAY LINE — — • — BLOCK LINE — LOT LINE — — — — SETBACK LINE UTILITY EASEMENT LINE — WETLAND DELINEATION TYPICAL BUILDING SETBACKS DIMENSIONS. 0 50 TOO 200 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET O • Z 0- 4 -J J CDw2- O Z CD o CL < > 51 LLI O • 51 0 N 0 S SHEET 4 OF 10 SHEET NO. 10 N / NDN1N LINE Of NN,/4 OF SEE 2 SEC '2' 29`. 8.21, /5 N89'42 45"E 2639.19 \ `_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-+9)2-T- \ \ T -----9i0.9'r -.i70 2- -•-960. 3L -i r / ` 7 STATE HIGHWA 6 - - - r 57L-968- O - r r jBOOK 27 DEDS. . 971.2 . 970.1 • 976.4 / .975 5 . 9Tt.1 • 972,4 / BOOK i75 DEEDS. PAD[ 497 / - y 1 ' 967 B 'a 9Gg_ - - - _ - -- - -. 974- _972- I- \ I J / 1 a1 II I.7�1 / I 1 §t'6-'-� 1 I/ /�d- -•-f• Ai� \\ 1� \-�•9L -�9Ts7 > - _ N89.45' 25\E_ I 3 / Im ( // / / s � \�7 f'T7`i ^ \26D56z 9 \ ` /1 •1,, // / i \ ( �( r1n / \ / / -9661 986, G:\RockPolnt\PLAN SHEETS\Developr t—Pion\ROCK—DEVELOP—GDOI.DWG March 02. 2006 — 3:1Dpm II r`i -- - _ \\ \ �95I� 589.49. 49"W 1M6i-04 i - - / G I i960, 1 1 ` \ \ \\94�95 _ JwE or Sou h .5so 9EE1992-., \ / - - - II / \ 9/ / ' .9� :��\ `- 1 1 1 am I�l I \ 1 \ / m�988.2 ��" 'g99gb/ /� �j 9 w \990 \ I I // / I „III li9 /D\ I�p / /1_/ I /I r 9gy / i •.,\ I��1I\` \ AKA r / _ 1 '� \ \ m •' / / ✓ WETLAND ' 962.5 t \'\ \ \ J y eixc.« n L, / ( / (dd/ ,.1t L u l 1 n t i:Wr \ I \ � I,1� � Ill/ l�� . 'III-1 \� 74 \� �('�•/i ww:-� 1 V'�//91N169�// -Ifp/, I 960@ ( \ ! \ 985.A - / 1 9°\ \II l la .w .v�woourt \ `` q'IN l 1 \ I I\ 1 1 II •I85 5 >� / \ \ \ I I / �..T• \ 64 b9/�1/,,� 1 1 % \ \ s � ODTLOT � ' • //j/;;;74.'1414e:27:7:7--'\- / // //% -\rt \ 9�6.7`\�9r.� j�/ Il ,,j 11Ii 1 1 I/ /( - J///n 1 i/!(,d\I1 ,=1,1 Ngjl 2p✓ I / j_- 974?'41c 11/1;;;;;;;:l'"7-tf,. 3--\89\.4 r 115 �9638-_- _ / - - - . - - - g 6 s g ' \ • 967.2 �. 1v // / 11 / - --=- II/ 1 / ' 965.9 / / 11 .9fi2.7 if'''. _ / �"�� -` )ram i �; NA 1 I WETLAND I ( ! 1 \ PARCElL C 1 \ ,I \ \ 18.97 AC / I\/ •960.6 ^,` . 97I.0 \ \ow -LOT k I / \\ , •�.- , 'y �__-! 1 \ J�, �' 1 \ \ r 9 ,N� W g I 1 / N P„� 4-N W N.- - \ \ t. // / m 9667 ` / /- "•• �99t`+� 9z -11 -- 4 ° 594- �u.b `` El. 1 / �� 989.2\ 98s5 \�1\\r1000` ) / / J 0\0 �J16 > I,(// /- .991.0\ \a \ \\\��-/ /---/ // / -- 43 / - - -a /,- - �_ 3��_ I/'�{\\ I r c 1(-� \=22"3.2 33 \NgiTH LME Of SOUTH 1125 FEET Of NWI/. ."'''''N01711-1 LINE Of SOU79 825 FEET Of NW/4 \09T;/4:a " SEc . 7 . 8 .I9769 \ -- __ 97 J \ 11 \ ' 9 ,, / \ 1/kll6J1� •• /2,260 t .�I1 } /q/q I /L�ryl• 965- /r- \ s ▪ \ PARCEL _A- - - -- - T9.91- AC 1 • 9 3. .973.1 / / 1 I 0/ / I(IP / •977.7 l IT}/ 1 a \ \\\ \\IIr ' 3 \ \ .-974. \ \11 „, \ \ \\ \ \ ( 7.0 Mi o -9 _ lI 1 �/ 1 H \\\ Ili �J / }}l]l� 70 Ali' i�.3) ; I t( - %� 6A 96 "�'v_ � \ / 4j � {i �960 92� /�I 1 � ire \ \\ • s\s '9es� x 968 - 1 '- 70 (,__,, \ .\I �I 11 ., j 1 1 J E }73 \,\1\ f1, G974 /I E /11q, \///J I' +„`\l -rya-�•\\\ \\\ \\ os•, ,Fy1� _ _ / - am\ \1 \ \ <c • ` / /// / \•J�''6 90 � 1 m!'\a878'(ws r "� x l i i'9803 /�9 DOM \1 \\ \(\I l rry 7 1LAN _` y WETL�. IJ �y / \1�! 1; T,�� 976�\ �; f 1 y\\\\,\ a WETLAND AREAS WETLAND BUFFER WOODLANDS PARCEL LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR EROSION CONTROL FENCE -o ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 0 50 100 200 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET LEGEND RIP -RAP YN'.✓'wl-/'lam.^vv'l'� NOTES: 1. SITE GRADING, UTILITY INSTALLATION AND ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SCHEDULED 50 THAT THE GENERAL SITE CAN BE SEEDED AND EROSION BLANKETED SOON AFTER DISTURBANCE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND BLANKETED WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING OR AFTER 14 DAYS OF GRADING INACTIVITY. 2. ALL PROPOSED SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE COVERED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET. 3. SILT FENCE AROUND WETLANDS SHALL BE INSTALLED 16.5 FT. FROM DELINEATED EDGES. 4. ADDITIONAL SILT FENCE MAY BE NEEDED DURING CHURCH CONSTRUCTION. 5 TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. 6. STREET SWEEPING SHALL BE PREFORMED IF SEDIMENT COLLECTS ON STREETS. 7. AT CATCH BASIN INLETS, MnDOT STANDARD SHALL BE USED. HARD SURFACE so 8" MIN. M4 NOTES: A GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL BE USED UNDER THE ROCK TO PREVENT MIGRATION OF THE UNDERLYING SOIL INTO THE STONE. TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE OVERLAP GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 6" AND FASTEN STEEL FENCE POSTS 7•-7•' O.C. EXISTING GROUND I{{I )L _ ENGINEERING FABRIC (MIRAFI ENVIRO-FENCE OR APPROVED EQUAL) WIRE MESH REINFORCEMENT BURY BOTTOM 6" OF FABRIC CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL OF ALL EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS FOLLOWING TURF ESTABLISHMENT EROSION CONTROL FENCE 0 W z < UJQa -J 0_ z J 5 �� o z 0- V J z p > w o0 z �_ z_ Lu 57 Q 0 0 2 Nsz a n N a 0 \ � o Y Z Wmw � Y W U U U y K 2 Q K N O O U O R SHEET 5 OF 10 SHEET NO. 5 10 es of Lake Elmo\5D Set \cad\dwg\05-128_L10.DWG March 02, Mss ATCH WA • PPE, I masE=1:oNAH EA/i rfr ,5 r$S„+v % °?iii +S +i?• riii4rNF �`?r `4,,�Fi <S � . `� F 4r+ s�i •?+ S rrSr +F,ice Y r? � r + + + +`%`Fi�4 � r '4�"•r+r� r"i, 'i Y � rF n'� >"�/ %f +f ;j%�•. frryS +� ,s r +�%rri •+J�+'+`+�•`�a , � Y `+...`• Ssi'1F- r `, "�+, •• ;'J•UY „ r'•' rr , s ju.i'rr "+` vfA,Cr*' 5r t� + ,SL� u f 7-7 INN LANDSCAPE PLAN - AREA 3 TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE ILLUSTRATE!, IT 15 THE CONTRACTORS OPTION ON NOW TO STAKE TREES. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE WARRANTY PERIO, CONIFER TO HAVE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. AC rv. 5 ITH TRUNK. TO BE IN PLACE THAT IA E SURROUNDING GRADE • DOUBLE 2EGREE INTTERVALS �) 16' POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL, 1,2. WIDE STRAP TYP) B.-OF STEEL STAKE FLAGGING - ONE PER WIRE ROOT BALL TO 51T ON MOUN2E0 ROC REMOVE OP IOF ROOT BALL �SGSEP - NO MOUNDING PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPEC. TOPSOIL SUBGRADE — 22. X2' X 24- WOOD STAKE SET AT ANGLE 50p DRAIN SYSTEM AS REOUIRED- PER SPEC. 4 DIAMETER AUSERED HOLE, 42. MM OEFTH. FILLED HI/ 3/4' DIAMETER DRAIN ROOK COVER EV 6- FILTER FABRIC. CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL E—e'-/-TEEL 'N'.E ONOM TWO ALTERNATE METH0125 OF TREE STAKING ARE ILLUSTRATED, T 15 THE CONTRACTORS OPTION TO STAKE TREES: HOWEVER. ME CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR POSTIONITHRolMoTREEU N A TIHEL B GUARANTEE PERIOD SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA. WIRE - 3' a 120 DEGREE INTERVALS (TYP) 16 POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL, 1-1/2" WIDE STRAP TYP) TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH FLAGGING - ONE PER WIRE ROOTBAREMOVE TOP I/O OPN&IW.AP FRmn° R0O75ALL. ORGANIC MULCH - 4' DEEP - NO MOUNDING SEE SPEC PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPEC. TOPSOIL SUBG1ADE 2' X 2' X 24- WOOD STAKE SET AT ANGLE EDGE CONDITION VARIES - SEE PLAN — DRAIN SYSTEM A5 REWIRED - PER SPEC 4' DNA. PERF. PVC PIPE WITH SOCK- PLACED IN 42- MIN. DEPTH AWERED HOLE FILLED L .. WITH 3/4' DIAMETER DRAIN ROCK LOCATE AT EDGE OF ROOT BALL A5 SHOHNN. DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NM LANDSCAPE DETAILS: _f8°49;+9 W 2'60Q.86 NOTE: HAND LOOSEN ROOT OF CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL, TYP. VARIES SEE PLAN 1,111111111JIIJ IilIhlIUJ,Il11411 11W 11,. SHRUB PLANTING SALE 9N'°So. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OP PLANTING PIT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION SUMS TO SIT ON SLEGRAOE HALM 4" DEPTN, REFER TO SPECS. LANDSCAPE FABRIC, REFER TO SPECS. PLANTING SOIL, REFER TO SPECS. EDGING MATERIAL. REFER TO SPECS. TOPSOIL EDGE CONDITION VARIES, REFER TO FLAN SUB*RARE CENTERING OF SHRUB IN BED TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIMENSION PROM EDGE AL PLANE. IAICH - 5FE S4G5.9' DEPTH (271 FAGS CONDITION VARIES SEE PLAIT RNIT9G 501 NEE SPEC) ID' DEEM MIN. SIEGRPDE Ib0 HA ND LOOSEN POOR CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL hYPI PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL °%ALE, SW ° PO' IS' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED MAINTENANCE STRIP AT CURB 5441.E, I V2' ° I"0" 411,111111,n 11111, 111 56 Dr, EDGE CONDITION VARIES - REFER TO PLAN I/O" RYERSON STEEL EDGER -BLACK. I/4--3/8" DRESSER TRAP ROCK MULCH LANDSCAPE HEED BARRIER FABRIC - REFER TO SPECS CONTRACTOR PREPARED SUBGRADE REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR CURB INFORMATION (--DRIP LINE 4' SNOW FENCE WITH POSTS 6' O.G. AT DRIP LINE OF OUTER MOST BRANCHES - ELEVATION PLAN NOTE: TREE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR AS REQUIRED TO ENSURE SURVIVABILITY OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. NO HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHALL BE STORED WITHIN THE TREE DRIP LINE AS DESIGNATED ABOVE. TREE PROTECTION DETAIL SLICE: V4' ° 50: ISYMI OTT I COMMON NAME IDEGIDUOUS TREES I it I 2 ADMAN BLAZE MAPLE 1 3_J. iH0Rl�� Z r13 =0 54YA Fl IM AK SPEN 41 ICONIFER0U5 TREES 1 P 1 19A NM171rcLPINP �'PR,V.P 1l5RCIDU 0 SHRUBS COMPACT AM. CRANBERRY 1 5 45 rpVARF OL4'yI HMrXIICK LP 1)1 T 45 IKON F 4AC. 1 45 GIRD -Lori SUMAC. ICONIFERO US SHRUBS I A 174 1 k N°IM,x— (PERENNIALS IFF 62 I BLACK-EYED SU5AN I GG 12 PURPLE CONEFLOWER I HH IT SWITCH GRASS SCIENTIFIC NAME _lnk Gus Aeer X e e l'nbffersretl 1,11,/lAn ni:ro yU 1,1 P9�ull+s !"remololdeeriff 1/re, PrIIIme•. 0 25 50 100 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET =611II 1!i 1 1. FIELD VERIFY BUILT CONDITIONS AS PRESERVED, EXISTING TREES MAY INHIBIT THE GROWTH OR PLACEMENT OF STREET TREE(S) PROPOSED. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILL FIELD -TAG SPECIMEN TREES TO BE PRESERVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH CIVIL ENGINEER. 2. LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL HOME SITES TO BE SUBMIITED WITH THEIR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING PERMIT SETS. 3. COORDINATE TREE PLANTING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH UTILITY INSTALLATION AND NEW HOME/DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION. 4. REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR GRADING EXTENTS AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. 5. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS TO TREE LOCATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED BASED ON ACTUAL LOCATIONS OF DRIVEWAYS, UTILITIES. ETC. 6. REFER TO THE SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL FOR SEED TYPES AND RATES. INN GENERAL NOTES: 1,1 IPM„ aH.nH,I..rzn.n VIterrem krllobum 6Bo1bu Comoock' Rhos cremate* been Flash' Rhos emmm::B��klcn 'G.-G-low' 5340 sElo Moldo'Goldskrxn' Peel e rnm R�ur r. VTfnokum ea INSTALLED HST. / CAL. SPECIFIED ROOT I ROOT BALL / CORD CONT. SIZE BBill5 4' N IA Sat y+P,,�� MM \\ IA P6R K 4114.DA ICOMMENTS B 22' MIN QUA. NG6.5 LIzs P°P /4" MIN DIA PPR NG ITIG —I/� I-� ►�-�ypIT�1 A' ::: - Iq.w-I2B"MIN. p10. M-A ldpLINIpN{ IS" HGT IS" HOT IS" NGT 24" 5PR — POT N2 GALLON ?l)A- N N K b� GA n •PDT F2 GALLON P7T 43 GALLON P r 42 GALLON I PLANT 4. 0 C. I PLANT S. OD PLANT 3- G. O LAM 4. DC_ I 71 1 FAN DIVISION POT I W 00 i ON I PLANT 3' DC INN PLANTING SCHEDULE: III, 1 m., ,I1111. Id,iW icluNa laNNma,u. 1L,IdI1,N o11,,11111111 I 0 Z W < J 1 J d J d H F 0 O WOr Q O J W W 0 0 VI 0 W Z Z Q 0 (/ O_ mI N N N N m } Z r m 1' W r W N K I Q K O O U O R SHEET OF SHEET N0. 10 10 Elmo \SD Set \ cad \dwg\06-128_LB.DWG March 02, 2006 — 3: 24pm _1 { PIN m = �n..�•1�—tam _ .._ j %.:•1J_li,a_ 77—E7Y rye=• — 1 ,1 )1 I I 1 ti I1 L 1¢11 1�1 1g"1 1Qi F 1 :) I 1.. I.EI IN•1 c tiwtlal 111 1 I ! (1 L.1 L11 L t _ 1 OUTLOT D 374,763 SF NP.9'42•45"E 763i '9 STATE HIGHWAY 36 N83'46'09"F 2605.63 II 1 l' ; \� I •. 126 i[;n.,.i,1 1 °`-17,360 sd la.-.4, °.R 1, AREA 1 SB9'n9'49"W 1067,04 0 50 100 200 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET NOTE' SEE SHEET SIU FOR TREE PLANTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY ISLAND. NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY ENLARGEMENT: -1 Ga 1 PARCEL C 18.97 AC J ' __- f `aA...`-�� 21 _ 76.963 S —2Q 49.748 sF 10}I 51,003 SF / 1:J • f 09EA — R OUTLOT A 361,280 SF PARCEL A 19.97 AC , 36.8 r i .� / I 1 _ ,.,I 11 -- ••••8.SF i�/, 11 40.'4 SF 11,135.2 1 1 1 i / /i'1: /' Jt I.J _ . 11I - L , p ICI J// ,� jQ O S11 31 :34 • 1 18 •/ I 1- 1 75,620 Sr /i r'_'}�.� 7Ign : 1 I,1 �4•cF I I 1.11� AR_t>aLO3E II I( 26Oq,86 NM OVERALL DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT PLAN i Imm 16111E11.601, 0.i1R 1533.82 Te011.011.10110 Rom. .I WOODLANDS AREA 6I JVII VLEwII 191. 2,,lI IO1115L11I EL Ii1111611tid Nulls • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK AND MATO.,5 SUPPLIED • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTEC t EXISTING ROADS. QMOSIGUTTERS, TRAILS, TREES. LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. DAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE. • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLAN LAYOUT AND DIMENSIONSSIIOWN AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN OR INTENT OF THE LAYOUT • NO PLANTS WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL FINAL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA • WHERE S00 ABUTS PAVED SURFACES. FINISHED GRADE OF SOO/SEED SHALL BE HELD 1' BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SUB, CURB. ETC. • SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL RAVE STAGGERED JOINTS ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR IN DRAINAGE %VALES. SOD SHALL BE STAKED SECURELY. • PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, ANSI ZW.T. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 5 CANES AT THE SPECIFIED HEIGHT. ORNAMENTAL TREES SHALL HAVE NO V CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN T FEET ABOVE THE ROOT HALL STREET AND BOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN B' ABOVE PAVED SURFACE. • WI GRAPHIC TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES • PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL SMALL BE LOCATED AND STAKED AS SHOWN ON PUN. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE STAKING OF PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO OIGGINO • NO PLANT ',UTERI', SUBSTITUTIONS BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS GRANTED BY THE ANDSGLPE ARCHITECT TO THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF BID • ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED IN FIELD. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO ADJUSTMENT OF PLANTS. • PLANT MATERIAL SINLL BE FERTILIZED UPON INSTALLATION WITH DRIED BONE MEAL, OTHER APPROVED FERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING SOB PER THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS OR MAYBE TREATED FOR SUMMER AND FALL INSTALLATION WITH AN APPLICATION OF GRANULAR 10n5 OF 12 OZ. PER 25. CALIPER TREE AND 60L PER SHRUB WITH AND k fORIONAL APPLICATION OF 1041•10 THE FOLLOWING SPRING IN THE TREE SAUCER • PUNT MATERIALS TO BE INSTALLED PER PLANT W G DETAILS. • PUNTING AREAS RECEIVING GROUND COVER, PERENNO LS. ANNUALS OR VINES SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 12. DEPTH OF PLANTING SOIL CONSISTING OF 45 PARTS TOPSOK. 45 PARTS SCREENED COMPOST AND 10 PARTS SAND. • WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE PIPING 1• GREATER IN CALIPER THAN THE TREE BEING PROTECTED OR OUAT'. HEAVY. WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAP DECIDUOUS TREES PUNTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO DECEMBER 1 AND REMOVE WRAPPING AFTER MAY I. • ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL PUNTING BEDS TD RECEIVE 3. DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH WITH NO WEED BARRIER. • VB' STEEL EDGER TO BE USED TO CONTAIN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS AND ANNUALS WHERE PUNTING BED MEETS SOD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. • SHRUB BED MASSINGS TO RECEIVE 4• DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH WITH FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER. • CONIFEROUS TREES ARE TO RECEIVE 4• DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH AND SHALL HAVE NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE TREE TRUNK. • MAINTENANCE STRIPS, WHERE ILLUSTRATED. TO HAVE EDGER AND STONE MULCH AS INDICATED ON DRAWINGS OR IN SPECFICATONS. • THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY PLANT MATERIALS WHICH DO NOT MEET THE SPECIFIED SIZE OR APPEAR TO BE OF POOR DUALITY, BY VIRTUE OF STRESS, DISEASE, ETC. SUCH MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE PROJECT. IT IS THE LANDSPI.PE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO INSPECT THEW MATERIALS FOR QUALITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. • UNDERGROUND URLGIES SHALL BE INSTALLED 5O THAT TRENCHES DO NOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. • EXISTING CONTOURS. TRAILS, VEGETATION, CURBIGUTTER AND OTHER ELEMENTS ARE BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME. • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT SOIL CONDITIONS AND COMPACTION ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AROUND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE NOSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE PROPER SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE W PLANTING AREAS. • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE SITE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN SITE CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT. SURVIVAL OR WARRANTY. UNDESIRABLE SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND SUBMIT A WRITTEN REOUEST FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION INSPECTION OF LANDSCAPE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING FINAL PAY REQUEST. • LANDSCLPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND SUBMIT REPRODUCIBLE As -BUILT GM051 OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION, IRRIGATION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION AND PRIOR TO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF NEWLY INSTALLED MATERIALS UNTIL TIME OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL WARRANTY NEW PUNT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED. • UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, THE APPROPRIATE DATES FOR SPRING PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION AND SEED/SOD PLACEMENT B FROM THE TIME GROUND HAS THAWED TO JUNE 15. • FALL SODDING B GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 TO NOVEMBER 1. FALL SEEDING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 TO SEPTEMBER 15. ADJUSTMENTS TO SOD/SEED PLANTING DATES MUST BE APPROVED W WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT • CONIFEROUS PLANTING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 TO OCTOBER I. FALL DECIDUOUS PLANTING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM THE FIRST FROST UNTIL NOVEMBER 15. ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANTWO DATES MUST BE APPROVE° IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. • EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE FERTILIZED AND PRUNED TO REMOVE DEAD WOOD, DAMAGED AND RUBBING BRANCHES. IF ANY. • EXISTING TREES OR SIGNIFICANT SHRUB MASSWGS FOUND ON SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED AND SAVED UNLESS NOTED TO BE REMOVED OR ARE LOCATED WAN AREA TO BE GRADED. QUESTIONS REGARDING EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO REMOVAL • ROUGH GRADING AND FINISHED GRADING TO BE DONE BY OTHERS EXCEPT WHERE NOTED. • FKIJOI1 AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A I, MINIMUM GRADE AWAY FROM BUILDINGS WITHIN LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION, • SALVAGE TOPSOIL FROM THE EARTHWORK AREAS AS APPROPRIATE OR AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND STOCKPILE FOR REUSE IN LOCATION APPROVED BY OWNER. • ADD EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IF GRADES GREATER THAN S T OR IF CONDITIONS WARRANT. REFER TO MNDOT SPECIE 'CATIONS FOR EROSION CONTROL • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND W DUES. CABLES, CONDORS, PIPES. MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE F DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO ADDITIONAL C05T TO THE OWNER. • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROPER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AS REOUWED TO INSURE THAT EROSION IS KEPT TO AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM • WITHIN IWO WEEKS OF FINISHED SITE GRADING, DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH SEED. SOD OR ROCK BASE • CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF ACCUMULATED SILT IN FRONT OF SILT FENCES AND EXCESS SEDIMENT IN PROPOSED CATCH BASINS FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION • LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AFTER VEGETATION 5 ESTABLISHED AND DISPOSE OF OFF.SIIE IN A STATE APPROVED LOCAL!. il. LANDSCAPE NOTES:®E111uhsllu'ill ICI OF LAKE ELMO U Z 0_ D_ TA-10 _J of • W O > 0 w W 0 • 0 U) W 0 Z Z ci V) J 0 x O O Z O m m w J zz � U 3 a w o' VU iIU p d SHEET OF SHEET N0. 10 2006 - 3.20pm Lake Elmo\SD Set \cod\dwg\06-128_l9.DW0 Mor 6: \2006 Protects\06-128 Hidden Mead I 't1 j/� /j— I1//,;/ •/�/ j% //.v/�/! fi?//!/ s /,;// / IO• j/, /. ,✓ //y/ . , // / // /'/ y/ r/ // ■r /// / /2 /f / "/ f/ /2 / /y/i / /I. 6/fI j / j// //j j /7-• frA "4 Rs/ // 1 /i y /// // /j ///// j/// /j/ / //i //! /;, %✓ // // / %,/ /✓ /i j// / / / • / / / // / // / //I ///� n u �- 7 // ,. /,_ ,f ', , jj/ %/// Pry/ // /, %/i //% /%-/"i//T/ ✓. ////. ! /, / .-, 2i /i //✓ // /// 4./ / //-///, /// rj% II // %<" ✓ ■o ��•/// / ///"-/✓///i 'j/ // /// j� • //.,, j// // jJ j ',/ i i?j 1 /. i/ // ' , r i// I I ii'"/ /// //,;/ ///-j//'. / //� j//: j// / / �// ✓ //I Y .; a jj� //1�•F; S89°4949"VV 1067,04 1 a) II N LANDSCAPE PLAN - AREA 1 • '7,, - 47 - -I. MI LANDSCAPE PLAN - AREA 2 MATCH LINE AREA 2 �A NO Y it 111 01IF ,1y , I �� A ICH LI AREA ' �'� ._ . 0 25 50 100 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET W TI-AND :�'�-M� --9"" /// j ; �._ TMA PER Ch.B. PUNS. 4 Iil 11111IIH 11 1 lu 1. 111. 111..lalal 1,1 ;R AIF.WAY°;Y. I.n 111 .1.111YII ilnr ill n • I•� 01M cll020a02 ENT BY°THEBES___. 0 25 50 100 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET a. I dill I„ N111111,. 1,L6LnVBly, I u 1 In Z Z < Q J J 0_ EL H zo wr ¢ d J 0 w 0 0 Z v.)J L m 3 \ M w:B w 3 Y w a ina k' o N rc i ao z SHEET or SHEET N0. 9 10 LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: March 23, 2006 for the Meeting of March 27, 2006 Applicant: Lakewood Evangelical Free Church Location: Southeast Quadrant of Keats Avenue and State Highway 36 Requested Action: Section 520 Site Plan Land Use Plan Guiding: PF Existing Zoning: PF Site History and Existing Conditions: On April 28, 2005 the City Council approved several concurrent applications related to the 20 acre site for which this Site Plan is here presented. Regarding this site, the City approved a Preliminary Plat creating the site and the public road that would serve the site; a Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the classification of the site from RAD to PF, a rezoning of the site from RR to PF; and a Conditional Use Permit for a church facility on the 20 acre site. No Section 520 Site Plan was approved at that time, however. An OP Concept Plan was also approved for the balance of the overall 108 acres owned by the applicant by a separate action. The Preliminary Plat responsive to that Concept Plan appears elsewhere on this agenda. No Final Plat or Development Agreement has been approved for any of the overall 108 acre site. Subsequent to the 2005 approvals Valley Branch Watershed District issued a grading permit for the north portion of the 108 acres site (including the subject 20 acres and public street). The City Engineer also reviewed and approved the installation of water main in the public street. That installation was inspected during construction by City consultants, and includes trunk water main needed by the City for system looping purposes The City Engineer is now preparing plans and specifications to extend City water main from the Sanctuary neighborhood to the Discover Crossing neighborhoods and then to this site during 2006. Discussion and Analysis: This Staff Report addresses only the compliance with PF standards for "Places of Worship" and other applicable City Codes for the Section 520 Site Plan submitted for the 200 acre parcel. Staff findings regarding compliance are as follows: 1. All PF zoning structure set backs appear to be complied with. 2. While there are no parking set back standards specific to the PF zone, Section 300.13, Subdivision 6 specifies that there shall be no off-street parking within 20 feet of a public street right-of-way. The applicant proposes 15 off-street parking spaces closer than 20 feet from the public street right-of-way at the northwest corner of the parking lot. A site redesign or variance will be necessary. 3. Sufficient parking lot interior landscape islands are provided. 4. The exterior materials performance standards for the PF zoning district were not amended in 2002 as were those of the commercial zoning districts. A copy of those PF standards is attached. We note that the only allowable exterior surfacing materials in the PF zone are "brick, stone, and glass". This site plan submission depicts approximately 20% of the exterior surface proposed to be "pre -finished architectural metal". Either a plan revision or a variance would be required. All sloped roofing is proposed to be "standing seam metal" which is permitted by PF performance standards. 5. PF standards provide for a maximum building height of 50 feet., but no structure side wall exceeding 35 feet in height. With measurement of building height on a pitched roof taken from the mid point of the pitch slope it appears that the roof height of the structure complies with the 50 foot standard. However, it also appears that that structure side walls exceed the 35 foot maximum height at several locations — in some places nearly 50 feet. Either s redesign or a variance would be required. 6. Section 300.12 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that no building shall exceed 35 feet in height, including "...church spires...". It would appear that the PF standards as to building height may supersede that standard (one more internal conflict of the Zoning Ordinance), but inclusion of church spires in that limitation would seem to imply that if the PF height standard is 50 feet, church spires must be included in the maximum height calculation. Either the church spire needs to be reduced in height or a variance applied for. 7. The exterior lighting plan appears to potentially comply with Section 1350 standards for nonresidential sites. The levels of illumination forecasted are within the limits specified by the ordinance (except with 20 feet of the light source — now permissible). We do not find "cut sheets" of the light fixtures specified (by model number only) so we can not ascertain the degree of cut-off angle for those fixtures. That fixture information will be required to enable a determination as to whether a 20 foot of 30 foot fixture height must be used. The site plan specifies a 23 foot fixture height (including the 3 foot base — which must be included). 8. The site landscape plan is extensive and should comply with the Section 520 standards for value as a percentage of project costs. The only outside reviews requested for this site plan have been to the City Engineer and Valley Branch. Both have recently responded and their review continents are attached. Staff does not detect any major issues raised by those reviews, but recommends the usual conditions of approval to include compliance with Engineer and Watershed recommendations. Findings and Recommendations: The Commission should be aware that staff had previously advised the applicant's consultants that there would be a height compliance issue with the plan they had brought to a pre -application meeting with staff. The project architects (BWBR) have submitted a letter dated March 1, 2006 addressing the building height issue. It appears that the architects are arguing that height should be measured only from the "primary entrance" building elevation. I see no such reference in the City Code definition of building height. Staff was not at the time of that pre -application meeting aware that the PF zone was excluded (but should not have been) from the amended Performance Standards adopted for all commercial zones in 2002. Based on the foregoing staff review it appears that this site plan proposes at least three design features that are non -compliant with City Code standards. If it is the applicant' s intention to continue to pursue those non -compliant design features (height, exterior surfacing materials and parking set back) it will be necessary to publish Legal Notice and conduct a hearing on the resulting variance applications. That Hearing can not take place until at least the April 10 Planning Commission meeting. The modifications required to the site plan (structure) that would be required should the applicant decide to redesign for Code compliance (or should applied -for variances be denied) are significant. We do not recommend this site plan review processing move beyond the Planning Commission until the non-compliance issues are resolved in some manner. Planning Commission Actions Requested: Staff recommends the Rock Point Church Section 520 Site Plan be tabled pending either redesign of the project for City Code compliance or consideration of an application for variances to those Code standards. The completed application date is March 5, 2006 . For compliance with the State 60 day w\review requirement the last meeting at which the Commission can consider this matter is April 24, and the last meeting at which the City Council can act is May 2, 2006. Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. City Engineer's Memo 3. Valley Branch Review 4. Applicant's Documentation and Graphics Chuck Dillerud From: Thomas D. Prew [prew.td@tkda.com] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:42 PM To: Chuck Dillerud Cc: Kimberly Anez Subject: Rock Point Church Rockpoint Church Site Plan Review Septic 1. The project requires a State Permit. They have submitted this plan for review to the MPCA. The final permit will not be done for a few months. 2. The developer will build the entire septic system at one time. The church is not scheduled to open until April 2007. 3. A monitoring plan, mitigation plan and operating plan and emergency response plan is required for City Approval. 4. Sewage could back-up into the church basement should the lift station lose power. A Emergency response plan is necessary. Drinking Water. 1. The City is currently designing a watermain to provide water to this subdivision. Water should be available this summer. 2. The Fire Chief should review hydrant placement around the building. 3. The watermain through the residential portion of the subdivision will need to be completed in order for this building to have water service. 4. Watermain within the site will be private. However the City will need to witness all testing of it. Drainage 1. A VBWD permit is required. 2. Developer shall submit a copy of their NPDES permit and SWPP. 3. Final acceptance of the project by the City cannot occur until all disturbed have turf established and no erosion is present. Streets 1. A temporary turn -around is required on the end of the street unless the residential portion of the project is completed this summer. 2. Catch basin castings shown on the plan are correct, however those that have been delivered in the field are not. 3. Construction of the public street should be part of a Developer's Agreement. Tom Thomas D. Prew, P.E. Senior Registered Engineer Municipal Services Division phone: 651/292-4463 fax: 651/292-0083 e-mail: prew.td@tkda.com TKDA 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2140 www.tkda.com 1 March 22, 2006 Mr. Chuck Dillerud City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Re: Hidden Meadows (Deer Glen) and Rockpoint Church (Lakewood Evangelical Free Church) Dear Mr. Dillerud: Thank you for submitting the materials regarding the proposed Hidden Meadows (formerly known as Deer Glen) and the Rockpoint Church (formerly known as Lakewood Evangelical Free Church). The Rockpoint Church information is for the wastewater treatment system. The Valley Branch Watershed District does not regulate nor have standards for waterwater treatment systems, so my comments within this letter are regarding the Hidden Meadows materials. The Valley Branch Watershed District Managers approved a permit for the Deer Glen subdivision and the Lakewood Evangelical Free Church on November 11, 2004. Construction of the church began last fall. The plans that you provided appear consistent with the plans that were approved by the Valley Branch Watershed District for the church, but not for the subdivision. Therefore, a new Valley Branch Watershed District Permit will be required. The current plans show substantial grade changes, additional residential lots, and longer, realigned roads. These changes will add more impervious surfaces than that of the previous plans and could affect the hydrology to the wetlands and the flood levels of the low areas. The developer will need to provide the necessary stormwater management features to handle the additional runoff produced from the additional impervious surfaces, show that wetlands will not be negatively impacted, and ensure that the proposed homes will be protected from flooding. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-832-2622. Sincerely, T74-- J • ' n P. Hanson, P.E. BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Engineers for the Valley Branch Watershed District c: Lincoln Fetcher, VBWD President Paul Danielson, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. UNCOLN FETCHER DAVID BUCHECK DONALD SCHEEL DALE BORASH DUANE JOHNSON VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT www.vbwd.org P.O. BOX 838 LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA 55042-0538 ®® — r' Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. March 3, 2006 Mr. Chuck Dillerud City of Lake Elmo Planning Department 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RECEIVED MAR 0 5 2006 Re: Rockpoint Church (formerly known as Lakewood Evangelical Free Church) Final Site Plan Submittal Dear Mr. Dillerud: On behalf of the Lakewood Evangelical Free Church (LEFC), Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) is submitting a Final Site Plan for your review and approval. As you are aware, LEFC received several approvals (with several conditions) for their 108 acres of property within the City of Lake Elmo. The property is "L-shaped" bounded by Trunk Highway (TH) 36 on the north, Keats Avenue on the west, and rural residential (but largely undeveloped) on the east and south. A portion of the west property abuts rural residential developed lots. The approved OP Development/Concept Plan shows the entire 108.62 acres and was divided into the same three parcels as previously shown. Parcel A is the 20 acre parcel that was reguided and rezoned along with a conditional use permit (CUP) to public facility (PF). The LEFC building would be constructed on this parcel. Parcel B is a 69.37 acre parcel that we are requesting a CUP for an OP development within the current RR zoning. Parcel C is an 18.97 acre parcel that we are requesting be maintained at the current RR zoning. LEFC has decided that as part of the move to Lake Elmo the church will be renamed to Rockpoint Church. In addition, shortly the developer of the OP residential development will be submitting a preliminary plat. The name of the development will be Hidden Meadows of Lake Elmo. Therefore, it was determined that the final plat for Rockpoint Church should be called Hidden Meadows of Lake Elmo. We do not intend to use the previous name of "Deer Glen". Other Issues Wastewater System ■ Suite 345N 2550 University Avenue West St Paul, Minnesota 55114 The previous submittals have indicated that Parcel A and B will be served by a community wastewater system. North American Wetland Engineering, P.A. (NAWE) has reviewed their previous work and has made minor changes to the layout to confirm that the development proposed by Parcels A and B can be adequately accommodated in the ■ TEL 651 645 4197 FAX 651 645 5116 pIPTIMIrlKimley-Horn 1I11111111 1 and Associates, Inc. Mr. Chuck Dillerud March 3, 2006 Page 2 of 3 are identified as "constructed wetlands treatment area". We have included the fmal plans for the wastewater treatment and disposal plans for your approval. Water System It is our understanding that the City will extend public water to the site from the east. Our design includes the construction of the trunk water main through the site. Storm Sewer Storm sewer for the site has previously approved and permitted by the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) with several conditions. The church area and roadway does not need to be modified at this time. A revised submittal will be made to VBWD as part of the OP preliminary plat process. Final Plat LEFC will be submitting the final plat in the next week or so. It is our intention to have the final plat ready to go to City Council at the same time the fmal site plan is ready for City Council approval. Submittal Information The following information is enclosed as part of this submittal package: • Final Site Plan drawings (4 copies of full-size plans and one reduced 11x17 copy) of the following drawings: • Existing Conditions and Removals Plan (sheet 200.CD) • Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plans (Sheets 200.1CG and 200.2CG) • Roadway, Watermain Plan and Profile (Sheet 200.1.CR) • Church Driveway Plan and Profile (Sheet 200.2CR) • Site Plan (Sheet 200.1CS) • Site Plan Spot Elevations (Sheet 200.2CS) • Utility Plan (Sheet 200.CU) • Paving Plan (Sheet 200.CP) • Civil Details (Sheet 210-212) • Landscape Plan (Sheets L1.1 through L1.4) • Site Lighting Plan (Sheet 900.0T) • Site Photometric Plan • Building Elevations (Sheets 510-514) • Wastewater Treatment System Plans (11x17 only) • Development Application Form including clarification of code issues • Check for $1,150 r7! ,1Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr. Chuck Dillerud March 3, 2006 Page 3 of 3 Thank you for the opportunity to submit this plan for your review and we look forward to working with you, other City staff, and elected officials. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 651-643-0407. Very truly yours, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Paul B. Danielson, P.E. Project Manager C: Chuck Palmer, LEFC Grant Nelson, LEFC Tom Dornack, BWBR Architects Gary Ehret, Kimley-Horn and Associates File No. 160502006.2.001 BWBR ARCHITECTS Architecture • Interior Design March 1, 2006 Mr. Chuck Dillarud Planning Department City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 Re: Rockpoint Church Lake Elmo, Minnesota BWBR Commission No.: 2005.091.00 Dear Chuck: There are two concerns you raised in our January 17, 2006, meeting. We offer these clarifications regarding building height and exterior building materials as they relate to ordinance compliance in Chapter 3, Subd. 4., minimum District Requirements. 1. With regard to building height: The primary entrance floor elevation, on the north elevation that faces Highway 36, is noted as floor elevation 114'-0". The secondary entrance floor elevation, the south elevation that fares the woods, is noted as elevation 100'-0". The principal structure height, the Sanctuary roof, is sloped from elevation 140'-3- 1/2" up to elevation 149'-4". The top of the Cross Tower, an unoccupied structure, is noted as elevation 158'-0", 8'-8" above the highest roof elevation of the Sanctuary, and 24'-8" above the lower roof elevation of the Fellowship Room roof of 133'-4" — the portion of the building which the Cross Tower is most adjacent. 2. With regard to building materials: The primary exterior building wall materials are brick and glass, about 80% of all wall material. The other 20% of exterior building wall material is architectural metal wall paneling, either flat or ribbed. These types of architectural grade metal panel are used commonly on corporate, public, and institutional facilities. BWBR can provide samples upon request. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please call Richard Stuerman at 651/290-1894, or Tom Dornack at 651/290-1997. Sincerely, BWBR ARCHITECTS, INC. 144D71-14444(-- Lawson Commons Tom Dornack 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Project Manager Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 c: Chuck Palmer, Building Committee Chair, Lakewood Evangelical Free Church Peter G. Smith, Principal -In -Charge, BWBR Architects 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 /ce www.bwbr.com G:\0509100\Admin\Letter\2006-03-01 Dillarud.doc LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, Township 29, Range 21, excepting therefrom the following described parcels: 1. The Westerly 660 feet of the Southerly 825 feet of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4. 2. The South 1,125 feet of the West 1,100 feet of the Northwest 1/4, except the West 660 feet of the South 825 feet, except the South 400 feet of the West 1,100 feet. 3. The North 425 feet of the South 1,550 feet of the West 1,100 feet of the Northwest 1/4. 4. The South 400 feet of the East 440 feet of the West 1,100 feet of the Northwest 1/4. All in Washington County, MN. A PREFINISNED METAL NMI DA T.6,11Air_ArRAPET FRANK AIT,ELWARM• 2' ' 'T'' =MI RS% F1/21 tragrairle FACE OREN ALUMINUM TIMOR MIDI SU ALUMINUM SRL 10 Mr WEN TX FRAME 3 r• 111-0- i 110-R 1VSE/r c 4011100* 0 PARTIAL SOUTHWEST ELEVATION LIMIT OMR< SEE 1 IOBUOUE. SEX ROCR RAN PARTIAL NORTHWEST ELEVATION MELTS RR IS GROS- PRE. METAL CAP r FACE GRCK VENEER PURI ARCTIRECTURAL V IC * METAL SOIND "N11ITRO HRHI.-0 NEU s, . y...PMMITIANING MULDFORPOSE 131 BRIT Re!?_u_f31,5,.._JEF MELE MULTIPURPOSE FOREGROUND. SKIWN WNW = o Er,',10,2044 n 29 z - Fres=5 9 tir= PPM/1191M URAL WU CAP FACE BRICK SECO. ROMs, ALUM WON STS ALUIF StLL M 4000404 WON FTUME EL7nr-7,9 VSEn"---n SOUTHEAST ELEVATION — ALONG GRIDLINE TB LESEL15 ' 1 0 "--are7f1-c%, z ' °°%`.;,E,77,7%E,°/7 2 PRETINISIED METAL WN.I. CA. ET) ( 0 TO P 0404450 - OAR ="Jf L.`;!°-Aird, _ JEFATAI4.G - AWN FACE LIFIT. RAIDING EXPANSION JONI ,7 „ FIRS6F1f21,1] PARTIAL -ELEVATION-- BRIX MEER SHEIF AT FRE SEPARATION WALL 1/5,e-0• MEW FACE MICR STANOINC SEAM METAL ROOF OVER RCM. FELT OEN 3/4. PLIWO SEE 15/351 A AD2 ® OUTBUILDING NORTH ELEVATION 514 Tpl. • 1.-0. 01/1131000EV 1ST ERG dr, EL • 130-5 •-• PM TS CROSS. SEE STRUC 65) 0 FACE OREN STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF OYER ROOFING FELT OVER 3/4• PLY. STUD FRAJANG BEHIND 'TRANSLUCENT FIBERGLASS PANa 11 II II II TN T.0 GRAVEL STOP Mt. A_11,11117409 SONG OVER 5/4. MID SNEATIONG 67—FROFT WING A OUTBUILDING WEST ELEVATION 1/4. • 1,3* OUIRDC_RIV c = 16 7— FROST MORE ' A AD2 OUTBUILDING SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4- 1-0. 0111HOGJ3D/ SIGN ELEVATION 3/4• EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN %LP ;! 911 oint CHURCH-, ' 00114044050401304 a " °E`1`47Z MT -a TIEMSFIRMILEI5 —/ TO PZIFRF7M0. LL • -trtf% ,,,,r1r1e \ TO GRAVEL STOP MANDE, FREER INCHITECMFOL METAL SDK BCE BRIO, Rockpomt Lake Elmo, Minnesota BWBR ARCHITECTS .. _ Lawson Commons SigAnti'VO 380 St. Pewr Street, Suite 600 Saint Pool, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 WA/1 MEM ..--GRALE VARIES, SEE CIAL OUTBUILDING EAST LA-0Wmmm ,AD2, MAL SIGN EL425100 Comullods SRO FRAMING 6E,R1D TRANSLUCEM FIBI•DLASS PANEL ROOF FACE ORM 3.-04 0 T.' ooll:PE 1111 DOOR 2" FAT HM FRAME MEN METAL 5/0111 OVER 3/4' POW SITFAIHNG 0000 2-10. FROST 1001041 !mod Far v.. ten. gm. by No lan .d the 31. al gale OWNER ff),EW A DD PRICING ELEVATION A, MEW SET OUTEXIX_ELEV CO 81D ISSUE Peter G. snail 1110 No. 2095 0013 09/30/05 10/14/05 01/23/06 02/10/06 02/10/06 was. CP/JLW/4913 006.1 2005.091.00 KF 5.1 559 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 514 CROSS ELEVATION 1E1E114 051540404 Cop voght 004011. Archiwas A PARTIAL EXTERIOR SOUTHWEST ELEVATION I/5••I'-0• IE41RP PN1 13 GRO99, SEE SINIIC 091WE, SEE ROAR RAN lUr FRE WIMY0 MEAL WALL 0'» PREEINIERO ALKMRCIURAL ELK-, SMOG PARTIAL NORTHWEST ELEVATION or-r-cr MAN TA. GRAVEL STOP RW11M I r-5 1 4 EL . IID'41 Fs. AWMNUM LANAOW SY51111 ERNISN0 ALUMINUM 911E ID 1AA1CN MOOR RULE =OM RAW 1..114 W9 BROIX RELEF .ANGLE AT FLOOR SUB. SEE 60/560 FACE BRICK MOUE SEE ROCK RAN Z2 — �VSE RJR.X-1 L 4- J REINNWG WALL SYSTEM 110E-4ISE/T PARTIAL NORTHWEST ELEVATION 4/1E-I•-0' 16IlI0 (Z6) T I Iwo L tt— _ rrv..r in, �r crt. II W� Off -BRESECULT At FRO. SEE /5E0 PR61R191E0 IROVEGM4L WEILL SONG ERICA RELIEF M1 n. I -4 4 4 J i OR10,5EF ROM RAN *NI 05 14 AT WORSHIP E(RI ROOF T. 77; u I-) PREi1M91m MEAL WALL FAP / FACE_BRCA( _ FOUROSUED xx� AROIIIECMIAL METAL T.O. MEET MUMRGIq. 1 u 0104 mm[R Ronr_{Qc511 Mt1 CL - 9 -4 y 1 0 OECNNLGROMR RO14OF0 -10LANE n=<9 1 0 OECN, OPFFA; WF C0LE Ia J NIN EL = I G'-0 a- A - 5EC4A RWR� a— 114-a",r 1 "I" UPPFR ROOF E58t YAX EL=149-1 1 0 * LOAER ROW EDGEII �0.i r n = 1�5-1A-1A 1 ` MOUE SEE ROAR PUB EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN NAI@Nu MACAW SYSTEM, TIP ,I.UMNUM SRL TO M.A1CA MOOR S,SIQI, TIP 9174u=lsa uWR-s1z I 0 DECll. ROVER ROOT EDGE 9 EL = I -2 J// TA. RANEE( RErtri IIET� ARSE ROCRAT W 4ti it Rock 1)011lt, Lake Elmo, Minnesota BWBR ARCI-IITECTS Lawson Commons 380 5t. Peter Sweet, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.2223701 .. • w'.• •r a n rom.-..a wI l ... wry.gx-w ...A For (em od. OWNER REVIEW 09/30/05 CO PRICING 10/14/05 REVIEW SET 01/23/06 CO EL61 ISSUE QZ/0 OI E 511E '1N1 St/METAL 3-2-06 It om. 02/10/08 Ihvm CP/JLW/MRO Go..a xo omit 2005.091.00 KF Swat He EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SO. No. 513 Cn54„g61 9IXRIR Architects A plumfunNED META1 WALL CAP PR61N1511ED MCMIECIUP/L METAL SUNG TR10•�1w-u 6J) 45 0 0. = 101'-s (K /�W,.1fATIL/1 EWCK (I/O') FACE ORIOK 125 NICK R11EF AN0E AT.� FL0O* SAIL SEE 65/500 (9-0114. ALUMINUM mow 0SRN PREEM SNED MUMMA mu To MAILN WI1IOUW MAC D,E5... EECLT.. fsCREEN 4gostr: Q u `p ae e M 15.-A• SOUTHEAST E_EVATION 1/6•-r-0• LIMN 10 0 o awrn Moog E6GE �f 0 MCP. IOWER ROOF 5=10 PRFM@ED META. WALL CAP 1 0 5C0t0 OEU7PPED NOOF Ek MM� 0. • II0-J 1/2- T.MEL 510P FRAla.O 9 EL- ❑I-2 1/7l E 7 Now 01101 RELEF ANGLE AT MOON SUB, SEE 60/500 1RASN ENCLOSURE CR— NORTHEAST EL NATION I/6••l•-0• UMW MOSS NM 111113? BEYOND CIF A IV5E1 an-B '� X5) WALL R110 Mt OEY0110 1PA9 pl ORIo we .MI Duo an C t T 1 0 E1KLrsu6E r.0 SNP FRUNNC u• ,9 WNL AT MO KO Fl MI AT M0 1U.6 I.0 rxTr� 121 Fk1056KE. WALL WAT MO FA RELIEF OOIl01E. SEE Moll PLAN TT 4 XH XJ T nndl sus, FE no s00 MOUE. SEE FLOUR PMWE 1 IF 1 T CA DI 1 0 OFCK YLPEPEL r, L g-`,`'s 1 0 OCL,u^WF�E�OE� 1 O OEN„�WP�P POOF cE 3 1 0 OECK N0A1N R00F E00L t\ W WOE, SEE FLOOR PUN EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN w r EEKEIPLAN R.ockpoint: Lake Elmo, Minnesota ARCHITECTS Lawson Commons 300 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 v c. Smnn Data 2-10-2006 Re4 Ma LZOOM awed Fa. horn Fg g�a�w as/30/05 0o PRICIk to/14/05 REVIEW SET 01/23/06 0 Ba �jQIF 02/10/06 E STtE PT,W SU8NTT9AL 3-2-06 Dale Drew 02/10/06 cP/JLW/MRB caaa. xa Osaka! 2005.091.0D KF 5Se.1 00. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Ant Wu 512 Copyright 111E10R /trdumcu PlEFINISN01 METAL WALL G^ PREMISED ARCHOECIUR METAL 90N0 P0R1N011E0 AR0IIIECNPI' METAL PANEL 7.O�AN1Nc, UAL C FT1137 9: /� i.0. tlM.Vfl SOP �+' 61• IRA-6 I Q WS 9O. YALI R• 0, 11 ICNL 1P'-m'(MGII W W, (1/2 1 HNGf RL1F/L (I/O] ALUMINUM MRCP/ 51RI01. 111. PREMISED ALUMINA/ 9LL 10 k1101 11111041,1 FIORE. TEP RETAINMO WALL 0E11711D— , "NSELOND-FLOOR- = 1H-0 BM( RELIEF AMIE AT _y R001 50B, SEE 60/560 FACE 000L RR. FLOm 11•-IGF= 1c SOUTH ELEVATI �511 1/N•.I•-0• In (1 pE[N, LOWER RODE EOGE �� -z ((��i.0.6tTS10P RIFF. A+Il•1]D-5 I/1 II5• 111 03 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION 1/5••1'-0• 1FSEIM 03 J OBUCUE. SEE FLOOR PIM V,-0TcP 4XGXF 1[4, IN ® - SECTOR AT CROSS TOWER SWAM SEW META. ROOF I PREF1NENED METAL EASCM MO SORB METAL SI011 SEWER NRAI METAL 90NG SOFFlf 1 -PREEWEE° METAL WALL 1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN 1 0 0505 L4PEP Rlbf mLC� WY [L= I 0 OENpI�(1l4PfAI AOpF F➢ZE 1 0 0E01 LOMR RODE LOGE NIN EL • IJJ-1 i 0 0E[N MOt ELPWELI 1 D DELI LNK0 ROOF EUGC M0I 11 = Its -10 e Q CIP.�I 0-J I lE u5,$ EL jBD EL . OFFS 9N CR RELIEF ANGLE AT RPM SLAB. SEE W/SD0 'L0NNUII WINDOW 515TEM. 71P PR0005NED A/MIINIM SILL 10 MATCH LAN00W FAME 11P —Er= t D"c m- 1VREI RW-9' 1 3 Lake Elmo, Minnesota BWBR ARCILITECTS Lawson Commons 390 St. Parrs Sttc01 Soile 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.2223701 Cod Wile Deb 2-10-5006 —R Peck G. Smlt0 Na 20D15 Ne, pole (1MFR REVIEW 09/30/05 00 PRICING 10/14/05 REVIEW SET 01/23/06 CD BID ISSUE 02/10/06 E 501E PLAN SURMRTAL 3-2-06 Del. 02/10/06 Ulnw CP/JLW/MRR COAT. N. 0 Soo 2005.091.00 KF Shed Rh EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9e1 No. EEKElPIN1 511 Copvoighl LIWBR Architects ammo At KAMM WW1 KANO CAMPY 4-2) IRoc:kpoint 440 1 NORTH ELEVATION &-TwALF-5,16`1"1-m--- ?,--,7%721 mt 1"1-1Wff 0100 LIMELDI IJL OBUOUE SEE EGXH ;VA WEST ELEVATION & Ito?(020 MAKK ts+H41, PARA:rFMAWW, FIREDNISHED MU. WAAL CAP FACE ARM 5aVk.NE"1-0 Fle;t7IL.LiuT --- MUM PRETINISHED ARCHITECIVRAL METAL SIGHS PREGAGNED METH. FAD. MO SORT MOUE, SEE FLOOR RAN ED ULF MEGA MEM. FASCIA PTO IS ARO DPOSEI) MEM 00 CM% &IMAM FREE-STMOINE CANOPY CIF 1O -Jr vrips CAP r W. WARM DRIM REVEAL (I/O'). TIFICAL FACE ORM( ALIMINUll WINDOW SISTER ±.._ PREFIRHSHED ALUMINUM SILL TO MUCH WM MAKS LI .Q°111 MALL IJADSCAPE BEYOND BEIDHO 700113. CANOPY MOM' I- --1 r._ KTERINIE4 INIOSCIIE WALL FREE-STANDING Darr :: cr-4- ! EAU 1.1 AT DR fr CORM PREMISED AROIAECIURAL ,--- LEK SONG PM -FINISHED ALUM LAI DLL tO MUM MAME FACE ma - <04C) 54D5T , =77- 0000130840 somrs PREPRIISIED KENtrECIURAL METAL 90114C PREGAME° IAETAL WAL. CAP —FACE ARICA ADM LO. MCA PARAPLAIIC KAM ED. MANI MARC = -4 00100 126 -123Er a 4'41515)14 EL= 127.-10. (804) •-)::-:- '\ JOCK 0010704101.81 FLOOR SINE SEE MAN `o,....oropow MOM MEM, 10? !NED AMMAN KATCH_MAtwm FRAME DP CANOPY IN FOREGROUND. SHOWN DADE° MURMURED KRAL WAIL GP T 0 KU 10E1R ROOF MEE Ai, LON EL M. FRAM PRERNISHED METAL PANEL USER ALINKIN VANDEN STEM FACE BRIEN EL. 111'4711P MST FUER -tt, Ow MA 00401E. SEE ROOR GAN EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN 1 1 mr19 c Lake Elmo, Minnesota BWBR ARCHITECTS E-7 Lawson Commons 3110 St. Pater Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 Conwilmth 14* to,. At pm. mil.. v nem tat Am* tt 1.1 I • ..Ia1 undo Po loos of 1.• SIGs or Gomoolo 401. Ode 2-10-2006 — Fcr PIGIr 11. Drolth AM No. 20095 00 pow nicr 09/30/05 tomm REVIEW SET 01/23/06 _;.•• P'n.M2 I 9 CD BID LSSUE 02/90/06 E 5n2 PLAN SUBMITTAL 3-2-06 KARI LE PARKET FRAURIG, 129 -4 70.00 Tic°4',1110 .nron'S' 000, 02/10/06 um. CP/JLW/MRB Dram No ott.ctte 2005.091.00 KF Duel 000 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Sheet 110. 510 PARTIAL EXTERIOR ELEVATION MUM PARTIAL EXTERIOR ELEVICION 1E5E103 PARTIAL EXTERIOR ELEVATION usam EMETPLAN Copyright MAR Architects wp /; j / j \ sap F/.R-ON1'BACK OF CURB TO RIG NTRI?'•{i0A0PER CIVIL PLANS /�. IT S TRAIL PER C] �iO4.4s°-' �i♦e♦iI "�s4vss 4-4 04.4. Y Ytif ♦,'4.+4� I`4�40 f .' T j y4,i ♦O♦O4'j♦O1 rOi,I �•�'�1f 'Iw��I1i Os 4 +-.40 Ness 41,♦i•44) e4*44sss♦ss#ses s,-,4 ♦ .o � ssssssssss'4i sv s4t' ,s♦ - s,4s4,si„si$si, s, � t 40s4B,sis,ss4 ei s,4 4'44 seiss +.4"1T.4444 >i sssss4vm. 41s ;.*- � ♦isssse sssssis Osss�%��' 44 4•4sirs♦ssss♦74414 :4,*�ss.�'i ltr 01< \ i WETLAND / CHURCH SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN C) CURB ANO GUTTER SHOPIN FOR REFERENCE. SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR LAYOUT e DETAILING. Y.ONGRETE SIDEWALK PER CIVIL DETAILS. HARP -TOOL JOINTS A5 SHOWN. 6'-5' DIAME letc LIMESTONE N11Lrhl, HAND PLACED. FILL 511RFACE VOIDS YNTH S/4'-13. DIAMETER CRUSHED LIMESTONE MULCH. 5ff DETAIL ID/LI9 1/6'X5' BLACK RYERSON STEEL EDGER TT?. SEE SPECIFICATIONS. ® PLAN NOTE TAGS � l /' "Of imet • �..1�Iwii Iw♦♦♦I♦O, i�,iOltl'4.45-._,,G[M � aw" use ��e s+i�%'�sei• !�!�°♦s%ssse44,s4;441471 sir,s4v+04•$+s,sss, .+4•4• sisUi sssi ss s s,si„s 441'4'4$ ssss!e%!�:ins+ees $44 44-$44 i+14. •e:,�344..444ssi,!�ssi,!�ssiss ♦ si s si 4 s si t -il�yiO4.iI� I,IiOI�jOI�j4• pij♦O�'4�j4•IEjiOI�jO1OI�,�`j♦iy,jy Ii 144'44�',4144M`s �.iji0�.iji0i4�jiOF�jiOIN�� e / / / //, / / j /f� j: ///, j // //7-/ 7 % /// / L gtr E\{ i9 , ST4N - _ S - TQRENTATN s?i s sir +4s.44 ' %s♦si,•ss♦e• s4.�ss sf te▪ ,: 9_74�_ ,,4 a,Y i e,nNNAX r ATRT hAT NAE N I : ImJId`® y sD M't' gEZ. aD /'' / / L z h7 y / , a7 tl9id9l fit„ j / /- 5..,. ' ,nw Rea .r Roo F4DASS tart. / / �/ PLANT SCHEDULE //'//'/ /// // /// ' / './ .///// //�/2'///////// //// // /' j ''/ 4 s144//—'/ / / / 0i♦"o/4/ / / - //- ' // / ',/sijE`�s♦��4O////////////// / / /—/ ///—//j//// // ,//�j/✓�` �°tiiPN�♦°►?�vrp♦�6////�///i / / NO/ / /' AG/ CJY/LJRA/LAF�V' A/FI LDBYT/. R' •;.04_4,,, tIt4t; ,/ S /' /' / / Tillftt//Z''7' y ;,#_ Ei 6!Alit:♦♦4`s 4; 2141:4 �s�i // /• / /INia�r +'//�0 ia�IOii�' , 4'/- +49+4'®_ //. ♦si4' #91 ♦„ssi, si, si, •s Irz1:.,g / rizz Nil D▪ D. nN D • For, • MIN DJA MT !• l�Ilc� 111 I � 4)J' I:1E4 I F4 Gee, i Damon Farber Associates 923 Nicdflet Ma0 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 phone 612.332.7522 611332.0936 x+vlt•,damonfarber.com , Fa / / // /: // //�////r / /f // , // / i // /// / / / • /l ; j Rockpont Lake Elmo Campus Lake Ekno,Ailneaota BWBR ARCHITECTS Lawson Commons 300 St.Perez Street, Sane 600 Seiat Pau1,1,IN 55102-1996 651 2223701 Cmsalmis mascot Mn, eelere // /'' j/'/// �f.'/ /— f/ % yam // /// j/// / // / // // / /// %// /// //i // " �/, ,/ % r2- % /�// ///� / / // /X // //' // / / / / ///. /// /// / / / / / / / // / ///:. //', //• j /' 1 ' ////.. /// , ,//-, ///', 19006 TURF SOD PER SPECIFICATIONS. 5TEEL TRAFFIC BOLLARD. 5� DETAIL SHIM LI.4. TYP. (5). PLACE 5'-0' ON -CENTER. MONUMENT 516N PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. MAINTAIN SO' CLEAR 516HT TRIANGLE. POMER FEED PER ELECTRICAL PLANS. CONFORM TO CITY OF LAKE ELMO 516NA6E REGULATIONS. TRAFFIC SIGNS PER CIVIL FANS. 10 LANDSCAPE FORMS 6' METAL BENCH PER DETAIL SHEET LI9. LA.DSGAPE FORMS FETAL LISARETIE ASH URN PER DETAIL SHEET LI9. BITUMINOUS TRAIL OVER CONTRACTOR PREPARED SIIB-GRADE 5EE CIVIL FLANS, DETAILS AND SPECIFICTONS. SEED DISTURBED AREAS WITH NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX PER SFECIFICAITONS. 12 4' DEPTH 5/4'-15' CRUJHF-D LIMESTONE FILCH OVER WEED BARRIER PROPOSED SAND VOLLEYBALL COURTS PER DETAIL SNIT LI.4. REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR 6RADIN6 AND FACE DRAINAGE PIPING. PROPOS5 MEDIUM NEISHT NATIVE PRAIRIE 6RA55ES. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS. PROPOSED A6RICLLILRAL ALFALFA OVER BALANCE OF ExISTINS CROPLANDS. FIELD PREP. 9500196 AND NARVESTDK, MAINTENANCE PER AHARV- M BEFYE£N UURCH AID LEAS5. 5TA6E' PLATFORM CONSTRUCTED OF MODULAR BLOCK AND UNR PAVHRS. 5EE DETAIL SHEET LI9 ANDSPELIFIGATIONS. MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL Sff CIVIL PLAN FOR WALL ELEVATIONS. CEIRTIFI0, EN5IN�RED WALL DRAW, WALL MANIFACM2SPECIFICATIONS. ANCHOR NI6MAND' SERIES. SEE SPECIFICATIOIO. 18 10 42. ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE, TYPICAL 5EE DETAIL SMEET LI9 AND SPECIFICATIONS. P..AYWORLD SYSTEMS PLAY EQUIPMENT IN SAID TOT LOT AREA, WITH CONCRETE CURB CONTAINMENT EDGE. SEE DETAIL NOTE SHEET LI.4 AND SPECIFICATONS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIJTIIP.E ROCK MONIMENT LOORDMATE IRRIGATION SLEEVM6 QUARRY Pa AATED ORE55�e REOUIRSeITS WITH THE 651®RAL TRAP BOULDER OR SIMILAR.CONTRKTOR PRIOR 00 PAYMENT INSTALLATION REFER TO SHMP- LIJ, L.15 . LI.4 AND 5PELIFICATION5 POR ADO!TONAL CONTRACTOR REGUIPJEMENT5. 1 8 _�"� NSP EASEMENT (V J f M LOCATOR MAP 7005.091-00 Sett 1He Fin xa 12530 Dale 50 Decked CHURCH SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL Meet Na. L1.2 C.,4106 st BO7BRAs6titects ETS\8W8R\200-1CS.dwg Idorch 02. 2006 — 8:41om G. \RockPoint\PLAN S 115. \ ,S � X • • i i 1 ra ♦ +♦♦ ` .I.i ,_' IO ♦ R20' /— B618 R15 R1-1 B612 /R1-1 R7-8A R3' (TYP) '410(TYP) SPECIAL R7-83 —R7 =8A --------------- -------- - + � 7.0. � (1:,...- 1r� (TBLDG GRID 1,F STA 2+90.35 0 67.19' RT. '''- 4' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK I� R10' 42" ORDAMENTAL FENCE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN / —, STA 2+36.56 •V ' _ _ ;. ` -1 0 89' RT. �` `• MODULAR BLOCK '` ` RETAINING WALL ' '` ISEE LANDSCAPE PLAN ,' 1 1 1 i :1 ® S 0 I' '! WETLAND s 10.1' SEE SHEET 200 2CR FOR ALIGNMENT DATA —17— 17 38' 155. — R25' (TYP) D412 CURB 90 UPPER LEVEL ELEV: 989.90 LOWER LEVEL ELEV: 975.90 4' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK STAGE, SEE 8' WIDE CONCRETE LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK PLAN 8' WIDE BITUMINOUS PATH TO FOLLOW CONTOUR 4" SOLID WHITE STRIPE (TYP) 9+48.17 /-- @ 31.94' RTaP R7—BA R7-86 MODULAR BLOCK / ' N °�` RETAINING WALL J /l • ♦ %'--, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN / e 1 1 )-.,1 �1• /' - I 1 • / I / d-, 1 ` , 1 '\ / • WETLAND j 1 I I I • 1 / �� i` 1 1 e• 1♦, �P �— - _ _ , 8J LEGEND WETLAND AREAS WETLAND BUFFER WOODLANDS PARCEL LINE PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE CURB & GUTTER (8612) TIP GUTTER OUT CURB CUT SECTION 0 15 30 60 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET SIGN TABULATION OTY. SIGN NO. SIZE DESCRIPTION 2 R1-1 24"z24" STOP 9 R7-8A 12"z18" ACCESSIBLE PARKING 5 R7-8B 6"x12" VAN ACCESSIBLE 1 SPECIAL 24"z30 MOTORCYCLE PARKING ONLY LOCATE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNS 2.5' BEHIND CURB AND CENTERED ON PARKING STALL, SEE DETAIL Vir I GRID 11.F 4•F BUILDING GRID COORDINATES NORTHING EASTING 1 204566 41 483592.911 204566 41 483683.831 SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN FOR BUILDING GRID LAYOUT PARKING STALL TABULATION 279 PARKING STALLS 9 ADA ACCESSIBLE STALLS Rockpoint Lake Elmo Campus Lake Elmo, Minnesota 1 ♦ • E R - ARCHITECTS Lawson Common, 380 Sc. Pctcr Strccy Sunc 6011 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651 222.3701 Cmmllmle c _ n Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1.041510511). n w.sr. surr. seem si'n 111 o '(6511 645 4193 1 rnx n0 (551) 645-5116 I481MillBddopvl m0Im110gad N me gunk m140444 0b, od6d I aoa MIImp pd®rd 0(0100�ink IM 191s dBr 9dl' d Yims919. Dole 02/10/06 11_9 No 13191 Item Dale OD SET 10/14/05 OA 5E1 01/20/06 FINAL 02/10/06 Ode On. NOV. 15, 2005 RSP Ceram No Cheated POD Sheet line SITE PLAN 200.1CS G: \RockPoinl\PLAN SHEETS\BWBR\200— 2CG dwg March / \ •1n1A � I•111N1 91 tit I' / / ♦ ♦ 1w.1.1.1NBIWIN, 172 97 — ROVIDE 1 AREA F()R 44" DRAFN TIC S TO SURF . 'LANDSCAPE,,EHE SPfLLWAY SEE DETAIL B2 }fl1 \ \ \ \ UPPER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL � »� DRAIN TILE SYSTEM aNNECT TO SEWER PIPE, •',^/ SEE LANDSCAPE ,$3'I TS— ,,i I — CDR. PIPE`.DETAIL \ v /,- ,y / I 980— v \ \ DIFFUSER BASIN \ SEE DETAI 4" DRAIN TILE SYSTEM Mq \ \ Jq—— JV - / / I \ \ TO AS SHOJGIITWN 7 LANDSCCE SL- 7 8 / 1= / / / SEETS FOR PIPE DETAIL SLOPE / \ I I 1 — _91¢--7 \ \ \ \ \ \ / I / — \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ItY / — •4. ) O1 . / LEGEND WETLAND AREAS WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER R.O.W. LINE PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED CATCH BASIN 0 25 50 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN • FIRE HYDRANT & GATE VALVE MANHOLE PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER EXISTING CONTOUR — —976_ — - — —Ran_ PROPOSED CONTOUR EROSION CONTROL FENCE —o o— ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE RIP -RAP STORM STRUCTURE N0. WsMI CB 100 ul FEET NOTES: 1 SITE GRADING, UTILITY INSTALLATION AND ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SCHEDULED SO THAT THE GENERAL SITE CAN BE SEEDED AND EROSION BLANKETED SOON AFTER DISTURBANCE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND BLANKETED WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING OR AFTER 14 DAYS OF GRADING INACTIVITY. 2 ALL PROPOSED SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE COVERED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET. 3. SILT FENCE AROUND WETLANDS SHALL BE INSTALLED 16.5 FT. FROM DELINEATED EDGES. 4. ADDITIONAL SILT FENCE MAY BE NEEDED DURING CHURCH CONSTRUCTION. 5. TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. 6. STREET SWEEPING SHALL BE PREFORMED IF SEDIMENT COLLECTS ON STREETS. 7. AT CATCH BASIN INLETS, MnDOT STANDARD SHALL BE USED. B. CURB DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB. TREATMENT PONDS POND TPR1A TPR1B BOTTOM ELEV. 967.00 967.00 SPILL ELEV. 970.50 970.00 TYPICAL SECTION FOR ROAD "A" STA 0+50 TO STA. 20+10 R/W 25' ----- 12' LANE R/W 26— —2 OM 25' LANE12' _1 2.05— —2.0% � 47 OPE MAk. SL �8612 CONC. CURB en .. 2" OF MNDOT SPEC 2350 (MVWE350358) o m u BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE j u Z U — 3" OF MNDOT SPEC 2350 (MVNW250358) 0 w 4 = a BITUMINOUS NON —WEARING COURSE to/ o o u o SI-EL N ). AGGREGATE BASE — APPROVED SUBCRADE. 3 COMPACT FOR UNIFORMITY `8612 CONC. CURB 45L� E —8" OF MNDOT SPEC 2211 CLASS 5, NOTE: 22"x34" SHEET SIZE REOUIRED FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. \ o z Rockpo t Lake Elmo Campus Lake Elmo, Minnesota Lawson comm.-. 380 5t. Putt 530 cc, Suit, 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651 222.3701 Cmw.onls CLirl Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. vF ncslq wneon siv n�ncsor• r5.-4197 AT 11-1 NO1lss1l7 O4 ., 5116 I Wml mlil Pd 6 PO3 ominlm a Ignl m pond ly mF m mi3 31 thsd Takla 071 ll4 100 9 ill [wad pole�ed ss64.s *la We D13 as Re Dole al Ram* xame W .G+X� Dote 02/10/0fi Rog No 23197 D.N FM Dole 1DO SET 10/14/05 0A SET 1/20/05 FINAL 02/10/05 Dole Drown NOV. 15, 2005 RSP Cunm R°. GaYea PRO Feel Lille GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL 200e2GG MEMO (March 22, 2006 for the Meeting of March 27, 2006) To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission From: Chu Subject: Fence Ordinance Modification At the March 14 City Council Workshop meeting a Council Member advised that a residential property neighboring the Carriage Station Professional Park had recently requested a permit for a fence along their common property line with the Professional Center. That fence was to screen the residence from the Professional Center parking facility. The fence desired to result in the necessary screening would not be compliant with the residential fence regulations of the City — 72 inches, but all areas above 42 inches must be 75% open to air and light. Section 1345 of the City Code provides that, "Where any business or industrial use (structure, parking or storage) is adjacent to property zoned or developed for residential use, that business or industry shall be screened along the boundary of the residential property." Section 1345 goes on to define screening as, "...as fences at least 5 feet high or earthen beans at least three feet high with compact evergreens or deciduous hedges which extend at least three feet beyond the object to be screened, or vegetative or landscaping materials sufficient to provide a complete screen to the same height, to block visual access." In the case of the Carriage Station, the developer of the office park and the residential neighborhood was the same; and, the 2000-2001 applications, reviews and approvals by the City were essentially concurrent - using the PUD provisions of the zoning ordinance. A sizable portion of the pre -development Carriage Station site was planted with mature coniferous trees. A significant feature of the project(s) design was the retention and transplanting of many of the coniferous trees as project screening along 55th Street North and elsewhere — including the commercial/residential screening between the office complex and the homes adjacent to the west in Carriage Station. It was the City's position at that time (2001) that this transplanting of mature coniferous trees along the residential/commercial property line was a more aesthetically pleasing response to Section 1345 provisions than would be a wood fence. The last clause of the Section 1345 definition of "screening" appeared to anticipate this approach as well. Provisions such as Section 1345 are common in most City Codes. Any residential/commercial conflicts due to adjacency are mitigated by the commercial site. There are always, however, pre-existing (to the Code provisions) circumstances where no such mitigative requirements have been placed on the commercial site. Lake Elmo is not immune to that situation as one thinks about the Old Village and even the commercial sites along Hudson Blvd. (even though no residential use adjoins — yet). That being the case, it does appear reasonable to broaden the general fence regulations somewhat to allow the residential property owner the right to screen from adjacent commercial uses where those commercial uses were not required to themselves screen, or where the passage of time has demonstrated that the screening that was provided in inadequate or has failed to be effective in some other manner. It appears that this situation could be addressed by some minor changes to the language of Section 302.06 "Fences as Screening and Security as Required by This Code". Numbered sub -Paragraph #1 of that section could be expanded as follows: 1. Required fences for screening and security purposes in Agricultural and Residential zoning districts shall be set back from all property lines equal to the required structure set back of the zoning district in which they are located, except where residential uses share a common property line with commercial uses or commercial zoning districts. Should the Co9mmission agree with this suggested amendment, or itself determine another solution would better address the situation the Council Workshop has identified, we will publish a formal Hearing Notice to consider such an amendment on April 10 or April 24. CITY OF LAKE ELMO ORDINANCE NO. 97-137 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 302 RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF FENCES AND SCREENING AND REPEALING SECTION 1360 AND THE FENCE MORATORIUM Section 1. Amendment: Section 302 Fence Regulations is hereby added to the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, to wit: 302 — Regulation of Fences 302.01 Fence Height Subd. 1- Fence Height in Street Setbacks No fence shall be constructed exceeding 42 inches in height measured from grade within any front, side, or rear street setback. Fences constructed within the prescribed street set back areas shall be at least 50% open to air and light. (See Figure 302.1) Subd. 2 — Fence Height in Interior Yards No fence shall be constricted exceeding 72 inches in height measured from grade in interior yards; and, any portion of such fence above 42 inches measured from grade shall be open to light and air over 75% of the surface area. (See Figure 302.1). Subd. 3 — Grade Defined The grade from which fence height measurements are calculated shall only be from either natural grade or grade modified responsive to a grading plan approved by the City; and, shall not include the height of beams or introduced increases in ground elevation that would raise the effective fence height over that which would be otherwise permitted by this Section, except that a combination of raised grade and fence that would exceed in sum the fence height permitted by this section may be specifically approved by the City Council as an element of a subdivision plat or commercial site plan approval establishing specific property grading and topography. 302.02 Fence Materials Subd. 1— Permitted Fence Materials Permitted fence materials shall be limited to brick, stone, wood planks, split rail, wrought iron, and as regulated by Section 302.04. Vinyl or composite material fences shall also be permitted. Subd. 2 — Finished Face of Fence That side of the fence considered to be the face (fmished side as opposed to structural supports and frame) shall face abutting property and Public Streets. Subd. 3 — Chain Link or Cyclone Fences Chain Link, and wire mesh fences are permitted to a maximum height of 72 inches measured from grade. No chain link, cyclone or wire mesh fence shall be petnuitted in any front, side, or rear setback. (See Figure 302.2) 302.03 — Fences in the Shoreland Overlay District No fence shall be permitted in the OHW setback of any parcel located in Shoreland, as defined by Section 150 of the City -Code except where the principal structure is entirely located within said OHW setback. 302.04 Temporary Fences Subd. 1— Defined For the purposes of this ordinance Temporary Fences are those that are installed and removed on a seasonal basis, such as snow fences and garden fences. Temporary Fences shall be open to light and air over not less than 40% of the fence surface area. Subd. 2 — Duration and Limitation No snow fence shall or posts therefore shall be installed prior to November 1, and must be removed prior to April 15. Subd. 3 — Height and Location Temporary Fences shall comply with the fence and fence location standards of Section 302.01, except that snow fences shall be set back at least 50 feet from any south or east property line, or such additional distance as may be required to prevent the accumulation of snow on public streets or adjoining property, as determined by the Building Official. 302.05 Aericultural Exemption Fences constructed on parcels in excess of 5 acres for the keeping of horses; and fences constructed on parcels in excess of 10 acres for the keeping of other livestock, as defined by Section 150 the City Code, are specifically exempted from the provisions of this section. Any such agricultural fencing shall be at least 75 % open to air and light. 302.06 Fences as Screeninm and Security as Required by This Code The Lake Elmo City Code and Zoning Ordinance include prescribed physical circumstances of a site where screening of uses, equipment, and outside storage is required. In those prescribed circumstances, fence not to exceed 72 inches in height measured from grade may be installed, subject to the following standards: 1. Required fences for screening and security purposes in Agricultural and Residential zoning districts shall be set back from all property lines equal to the required structure set back of the zoning district in which they are located. 2. The provisions of Section 302.01, Subd. 3 of this Chapter regarding fence height measurement from grade shall apply. No combination of earthen berm and fence may exceed the 72 inch maximum height for screening. 3. Materials used for screening shall be limited to those specified by Section 302.02 4. No such screening shall be roofed or covered in any manner. 302.07 Fence Permits Required Except as noted herein, installation of all fences require a fence permit issued by the City of Lake Elmo. Said permit shall be applied for on such forms, include such documentation, and include such fees to the City for processing as may be prescribed from time -to -time by the City Council. Fences exempt from requiring an installation permit are limited to the following: 1. Fences of any type installed for the sole purpose of the keeping of Domestic Farm Animals, as defined by Section 150 of the City Code, and regulated by Section 300.13, Subdivision 15E of the City Code. All such fences shall be removed by the property owner within 6 months of the termination of the keeping of Domestic Farm animals, unless an extension is specifically authorized by City Council action. 2. Fences of any type installed by Municipal, County or State governments and Public Utilities for facility security or the delineation and/or protection of Public Rights -of -Way. Failure to obtain a City Fence Penult prior to the installation of any fence subject to this regulation shall result in an automatic double permit fee, in addition to any corrective measures to bring said fence into compliance with the standards for fences prescribed by the Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance. 302.08 - Fences as Non-conformineliazardous Structures Fences shall be considered to be structures for the purposes of applying the terms of the Non -conforming structure provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, and the Hazardous Structures provisions of City Code and State Statute. 302.09 — Other Provisions of Code To the extent that provisions of this Section may conflict with other provisions of the City Code regarding the regulation of fences and screening, the provisions of this Section only shall apply. Section 2 — Amending Section 150 Definition of Fence The Section 150 definition of "Fence" is hereby amended to add the following: "...not to include any roof or covering." Section 3. Repealer Section 1360, of the City Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 4. Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon its passage and publication according to law. ADOPTED by the Lake Elmo City Council this 4th day of August, 2004. Lee Hunt, Mayor in J. Rafferty, C PUBLISHED IN THE AUGUST 13, 2004 STILLWATER GAZETTE Curb Line Property Line 42" 72' 72" Figure 302.1 HEIGHT OF FENCING STREET SIDE YARD 42 In. Maximum-50% Open to Air & Light 72 In. With 75% Open Above 42 In, 42 In. Solid & 75% Open to 72 Inches 72" H 0 E 72" . . _Y . 42" I 42" S T R E E T F R 0 T Y N Figure 302.2 CYCLONE/CHAIN LINK FENCING STREET SIDE YARD Curb Line Property Line 1— • • — • — • • — • . . Chain Link Permitted Chain Link to 72" Permitted H 0 S E • • a•••••• 0 Chain Linlc Permitted Chain Link in Black or Green Only R 0 T T R E E T Y N CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 97-155 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 302.06, SUBD. 1, AND SUBD. 2. RELATING TO FENCES AS SCREENING AND SECURITY Section 1. Amendment: Section 302.06, Subd 1, (5), Fences as Screening and Security as Required by this Code is hereby added to the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, to wit: Section 302.06, Subd, 1.,(5) General Screening Solid fence not to exceed 72 inches in height measured from grade may be installed, subject to the following standards: The total area of any parcel enclosed by solid fencing shall not exceed the maximum allowable area for an accessory structure in the zoning district in which the parcel is located, less the sum of the area of any accessory structures located on the same tax parcel. The area enclosed by screen fencing shall maintain a ratio of width to length of no greater than 2:1. (See Section 300.13 Subd. 4). Section 2 . Amendment: Section 302.06, Subd. 2, (1),(2),(3), Fences as Screening and Security as Required by this Code is hereby added to the Lake Elmo Municipal Code, to wit: Section 302.06, Subd, 2,(1),(2),(3) Outdoor Living Area Extensions Solid fencing to a maximum height of 72 inches may be used to enclose outdoor ex- tended living areas of a principal structure, subject to the following standards: The area enclosed by outdoor extended living area fencing shall not exceed an en- closed area of 500 square feet. Fence utilized to enclose an outdoor extended living area shall be extended to a point not more than 6 inches from the principal structure at one fence termination point. Fence utilized to enclose an outdoor extended living area shall not extend into side yard of a lot beyond the existing building line of the existing principal structure, nor shall such fences be located in any side or front street yard. (See Figure 302.3) Section 2. Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon its passage and pub- lication according to law. ADOPTED by the Lake Elmo City Council this 19th day of April, 2005. Dean Johnston, Mayor ATTEST: Martin J. Rafferty, City Administrator Curb Line Property Line —r 42" 72" Figure 302.1 HEIGHT OF FENCING STREET SIDE YARD 42 In. Maximum-50% Open to Air & Light I 72 In. With 75% Open Above 42 In. 42 In. Solid & 75% Open to 72 Inches 72" H 0 U S E S R E E T F : R 0 N 1 42 T Y A 72" [ R D 42" Curb Line Property Line —► Figure 302.2 CYCLONE/CHAIN LINK FENCING STREET SIDE YARD Chain Link Permitted Chain Link to 72" Permitted Chain Link Permitted H 0 U S E 0- � R O N T S I T R { E E I T Y A R D Curb Line Figure 302.3 FENCING FOR OUTDOOR LIVING AREA STREET SIDE YARD Property Line —• • — • • — • —••—••®..—..--- F Fence to enclose outdoor living area shall not extend into side yard of lot beyond existing building line, nor shall such fences be located in any side of front street 1 Solid fencing tomaximum height of 72 inches. , NIMMEMINEN Building Line Distance from principal structure not to exceed 6 inches. L_ H 0 U S E S T R E T F R ® I 0 N I T e Y A R D The area enclosed by outdoor extended living area fencing shall not exceed an enclosed are of 500 square feet. Fence utilized to enclose an outdoor extended living area shall be extended to a point not more than 6 inches from the principal structure at one fence termina- tion point.