HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-2006 Planning Commission PacketMeeting on the
VILLAGEAREA MASTER PLAN
The Lake Elmo City Council invites you � d=_
public forum being held to review Lakel participate in a
Village Area Master Plan.Elmo s new
Lake Elmo Elementary School • CAFETERIA • 11030 Stillwater Blvd
d
6:30 April 19, 2006
7:30 p.m.— Formal Presentation
p.m.— Informal
Questions/Answers
With City Council
Consultants and City Staff
For more information call City Hall: 6
( SI) 777-55/0
arr
LAKE
ELAil 0
an IF
LA E
EL r1i 0
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
(651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615
Www.LakeElmo.Ora
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday, April 10, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Agenda Approval
2. Minutes
a. March 27, 2006
3. Preliminary Plat Continued: HIDDEN MEADOWS OF LAKE ELMO
4. Site Plan Continued: Rockpoint Church
5. Minutes and Structure
6. City Council Update
7. Adjourn
The public is invited to attend.
Draft
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of March 27, 2006
Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00
p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Park, Van Zandt, Deziel, Roth, Schneider, Armstrong,
Pelletier. STAFF PRESENT: Planner Dillerud, Administrator Rafferty, and Recording
Secretary Anez.
Agenda
M/S/P, Pelletier/Van Zandt to accept the agenda as presented. Vote: 9:0.
Minutes of February 27, 2006
Commissioner Fliflet page two halfway down the page, it should say Home Office.
Commissioner Pelletier page one nay vote last sentence only Pelletier stated... Page three crazy
to try to regulate Avon and those types of home parties -delete it.
M/S/P, Fliflet/Van Zandt to approve as amended. Vote: 7:0:2, Abstain: Roth and Schneider:
Absent.
Minutes of March 13, 2006
Commissioner Fliflet page three motion to remove number six. Limit the number of hours not
lateness of hours.
M/S/P, Roth/Fliflet to approve the Minutes of March 13, 2006 as amended. Vote: 7:0:2,
Abstain: Armstrong and Pelletier: Absent.
M/S/P, Fliflet/Schneider to ask Council for clarification about why they would not want to read
commentary and discussion points on planning issues.
Administrator Rafferty said staff will bring guidelines for the agenda to the next meeting.
Vote: 9:0.
Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat, Development Stage Plan and Conditional Use Permit
for HIDDEN MEADOWS OF LAKE ELMO (Formerly known as Deer Glen)
The Planner said the applicant has submitted two related applications on a 108.62 acre site at
Keats and Highway 36. The preliminary plat is for a 68 acre portion of the 108 acres. The
balance of the site has been previously preliminarily platted including the church site, the
homestead site, and the roadway.
Staff observed the preliminary plat essentially responds to the Concept Plan layout as approved.
The Landscape Plan for the project is responsive to the OP Ordinance and Section 400
Subdivision requirements. Condition Number 5 for the east property line appears to have an
existing tree line substituting for the 200 feet buffer. The City is looking for cross -sections to
demonstrate the effectiveness of that buffer. The City Engineer indicates a number of items in
an e-mail memo dated March 23, 2006, where there was not enough information provided by the
applicant for him to finish a review. Staff recommends waiting for that supplemental
information because of their number.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2006 1
Draft
Paul Danielson, Engineer, Kimley-Horn and Associates
A change was made for the residential portion of the site and it was his intent to wait for a
favorable response from the Planning Commission before submitting all of the engineering
plans. He asked for a recommendation of removing some box elders in order to plant evergreens
within that tree line. He said the conditions of the City Engineer are not a deal breaker and they
could comply with submission requirements in time for the City Council Meeting. The cul-de-
sac on the southwest corner was an issue. That was what was proposed at Concept Stage and the
purpose is to slow down traffic and provide more green spaces. City standards for cul-de-sacs
need to be provided. Cross sections for retaining walls were submitted. Those that require guard
rails based on State standards will receive them. He is not sure it is necessary to get VBWD
approval in order to get City approval. Storm sewer profiles were included in the submittal but
he will provide as necessary. Septic system was provided in package for the church. Watermain
sizing is not a huge issue. Trail widths and locations are not part of the City system so they were
changed to loop within the neighborhood. Stubbing the trail to the east was discouraged by the
Council. Conifers require a certain amount of light and the box elder canopy is too dense for
them to survive. Roundabout was to calm traffic and to add nodes of common green space and
broke up asphalt.
THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:35 P.M.
Jim Dyer, 5435 Keats Avenue
The Keats/Highway 36 intersection is going to fail and something needs to be done. It may not
be the developer's fault or fully their responsibility. Pockets of development are all that are
being created and you can't drive through neighborhoods anymore like you can in the Tri-lakes
Area. Another parcel of land south of Outlot E or Outlot F of 20 acres will be further landlocked
to the north by this development. The developers are not interested in providing access to the
south property line. That outlot would be a nice driveway for the landlocked parcel to the south.
Maybe residents could drive down this street instead of Keats Ave.
Steven Ziertman, 5761 Keats Avenue
Owner to west of the church location. The trail changed from the original design. He would like
to be sure the trail maintains the appropriate setback from his property line. The road is already
in going into the church in the development. The city is putting the horse before the cart. The
road should not have gone in until this application was approved.
THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:41 P.M.
Pat Kinney, Developer
Mr. Dyer contacted the church asking the question about right of way. At this point we are too
far into the plans to change them now. The Council did not want the road going through to the
east, why would they put one in to the south. The southeast corner is hilly. They would have to
redesign the whole plat two years into it.
M/S/P, Armstrong/Schneider to table the preliminary plat, OP Development Stage Plan, and
Conditional Use Permit of HIDDEN MEADOWS OF LAKE ELMO to the April 24, 2006
Meeting. Vote: 9:0.
M/S/P, Armstrong/Schneider to amend the previous motion, and table the preliminary plat until
such time as the Planner can return it to the Planning Commission. Vote: 8:01: Abstain:
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2006 2
Draft
Deziel-.Would like an opportunity to comment before tabling. He would prefer not to table as a
first motion.
520 Site Plan: Rockpoint Church (Formerly Lakewood Evangelical Free Church)
The Planner explained that this application deals only with twenty acres of the 108 acres. The
preliminary plat approved in the past creates this site. This site will have to be final platted
before commencement of construction of the church. He referred to the Planning Staff Report
and three variance issues that have been identified therein.
Richard Stuhlman, BWBR Architects
He reported that this is virtually the same building as the commission has looked at for two
years. When approval was received for the Preliminary Plat in May, they developed drawings
seen now by the Planning Commission. The exterior building materials were discussed in a
meeting with the City Planner. Building and steeple height were also discussed. The highest
point of the building is 49.5 feet to the peak of the roof at the front. The steeple and the cross
tower is 58 feet tall. He noted that Lake Elmo zoning ordinance standards height standards said
unoccupied spaces can be 25 feet higher than occupied adjoining spaces.
Paul Danielson, Kimley-Horn
They can comply with 20 feet setback by moving the parking lot west eight feet and keep same
amount of parking.
Tom Durag, BWBR Architects
The highest point of the building is just over 49 feet. There are a number of planes that can
make heights unclear. The church is about two football fields from the east property line. The
southeast wall seems to be the one with the issue now and that side is a walkout. Classrooms
under the sanctuary caused them to add windows and change the overall height of the church.
They could abandon the windows and add soil or change the roof but would prefer a variance.
The elevation at the top of the spire tower is 58 feet and the cross is higher to around 70 feet
high. The square footage of the building is about 25,000 square feet of footprint and 54,000
square feet of space over two stories.
The Planner said he might have misunderstood the drawings but he will discuss it with them.
Unoccupied structure additional height of 25 feet does conflict with other areas of the code. The
Planner will ask the City Attorney which controls in this case.
M/S/P, Roth/Schneider to table the application for the Rockpoint Church pending redesign or
variance applications by the applicant. Vote: 9:0.
The meeting recessed at 8:24 p.m. and reconvened at 8:34 p.m.
Fences: Review Fencing as a Buffer Between Incompatible Land Uses
The Planner explained that the Council at the last Council Workshop has asked for a review of
the Fence Ordinance with regard to fencing as screening between commercial and residential
uses. There are several ways to allow fencing to be used as screening. Carriage Station was a
PUD and Council allowed the evergreens to provide screening between the residential and
commercial portions of that development. There are many areas in the City where this would
apply. Perhaps screening can be done by the residential user when the commercial user does not.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2006 3
Draft
M/S/P, Roth/Deziel to publish a hearing notice to consider an amendment to the fencing
ordinance as indicated in the Staff Report of March 22, 2006. Vote: 9:0.
City Council Updates
Text amendments to the Code for drive -up windows, outdoor social events, and home
occupations were all referred to the Council Workshop of April 11 for discussion. They will
reconsider the Haire Variance because their normal meeting date was changed. The Village
Area Master Plan was presented at the Council Workshop and they directed a public open house
on April 19, 2006 at the Elementary School at 6:30 p.m. Commissioners should try to attend.
They may then submit it to the Planning Commission for public hearing. The Met Council Staff
has recommended our 2030 Comprehensive Plan be approved without further modifications and
that is expected to be heard and endorsed on April 12, 2006 by the full Met Council Board. The
City Council suggested direction for review of the Zoning Ordinance. Lane Kendig will be
contacted for another presentation. At that point, the Council will direct the Commission on the
form of the new Zoning Ordinance.
Adjourn at 8:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberly Anez
Recording Secretary
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 27, 2006 4
AMENDED/APPROVED: MAR 27, 2006
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of March 13, 2006
Chainnan 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
AMENDED/APPROVED: MAR 27, 2006
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
AMENDED/APPROVED: MAR 27. 2006
VOTE: 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 limit the
number of hours, not the lateness of 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
AMENDED/APPROVED: MAR 27, 2006
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 An
Recording Secretary
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 13, 2006 4
AMENDED/APPROVED: MAR. 27, 2006
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. Commissioner Pelletier -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 Horne 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
AMENDED/APPROVED: MAR. 27, 2006
Mayor Johnston reported to the Commission that the Home Occupation issue has been discussed
at Council meetings.
Commissioner Armstrong asked if the staff's 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 Office 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
AMENDED/APPROVED: MAR. 27, 2006
Commissioner Ptacek said he does not understand the negative impact of warehousing if a
neighbor cannot see it, touch it, or smell it.
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
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.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2006 3
AMENDED/APPROVED: MAR. 27, 2006
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.
MIS/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 repoited 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.
Adjourned 8:21 p.m.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2006 4
AMENDED/APPROVED: MAR. 27, 2006
Respectfully submitte
Kimberly Schaffel
Recording Secretary
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2006 5
MEMO
(April 6, 2006 for the Meeting of April 10, 2006)
To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission
From: Chi`, le d
Subject: OP Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat/CUP — "Hidden Meadows of
Lake Elmo"
As of the agenda closing time for the meeting of April 10 the City Engineer had not
received plans from the applicant's engineer that reflect the required infrastructure design
modifications or previously incomplete plan sheets. The two engineers have been
conversing regarding these matters and I understand from both parties that most of the
issues raised by the City Engineer regarding the plans (or lack thereof) can and will be
resolved by April 10. I have requested (and will receive) a memo from the City Engineer
to that effect by Monday's meeting.
I have also conversed with the applicant's engineer regarding the buffer screening plans
that are required to demonstrate the year-round effectiveness of screening in lieu of the
full 200 foot OP buffer. As of the agenda publication time those plans are not completed,
but I am assured they will be by Monday's meeting. Since "effectiveness" is clearly a
judgment call, I have advised the applicant's engineer that I will place the applications on
the April 10 Planning Commission agenda without staff review of the buffer plans. Those
plans may be available prior to the meeting — allowing a brief staff review — but, will for
certain be available at the meeting for Commission review.
I have attached all of the agenda materials regarding these applications that the
Commission first received for the March 27 Hearing.
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
modiation o he infras c re design recommended by the City Engineer are completed.
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.
acc&„
Dean Johnston, Mayor
16616_6646Wa•
66.:.. ai■Ia6.-
WART
6
II
I
---= Ilan=.
I j �111 Nitro `I $:•tea
1; 111
Gomm o l
f II
I I
6• WOE 16NL
I 21• WOE 95402A.
STATE HIOHWAY 36
PARCEL B
CC �AC
1 .701 SE
—
6' WE
250
_ I
01A P10TP
1e I1
/)�s1 III 15 II
// 17 PAwi l I NA01.
%ii
I,I 11 , .
.117111.16111
PARCEL C
10.06 AC
I
,•/ II 314.
—yr—L_=-:—�—
— — - �_: I I
10' MO010 _r
PARCEL A
10.07 AC
• TO. 16IDE I Aa • • :•: liZaL �J•a �-9A E/e�
\�v r•R.Mi6r<T I11T16.
J FGEND
ILEILANO AREAS
ER
123,246 STOP.
MSS SLOPES
matoTTAL
AC. X NIT
PROPE2IY uO
SERUM 1.1.
Awrt-M-WAY UM ----
CO1.6011.2 EPIC MOO w4STR COu1 6l1 R R000 PI.W u0fi101 ASO
µ15110P71f5 20011P011.511.1 2001. LO SSF 14 ARE ld•Al LILTS CC 1TOa
ILE COSIPoIctD PI 2006 OR 2006
AREA SUBJECT 7D Oj/PP DEVELOPLENT
ROIURELENTSFARM .w tSY IIAR EEL AREA MSS 60% OPW
(AO (.7 1.1 (.1 LRWaDA&E Woke& REO
LOTS 1-S
LOIS 6-11
LOTS 12-11
LOTS 16-21
COROT .
wear 6
u11L0T 0
wn0r (1
0116011
ROB
• 67.122
/Jy. /031 0
iM 11 )01 1.071 1.376 113.
; : E07�irAi1 1� z :m
'LT it: a1.566 0..
a21 pfl).616 1Y.M2 11.631 1O1.7 60
a61 �111 M 3.31P 0 317.CW TOTAL N.61 Ia011.270 .211 66147 2116aess
PAKII
PRONGED OPEN 'SPACE
�173
M. APCA av c MI..M.LESS
(A (SO ' .) On uRmanAaE
136
13.43
all
a2s
T;2 :, Zit 7
sm 7.M7 sfsa
22.:11 11.CA1 161�66
Y2s 1.170.6E1 .062 0E711 1.4.1.
MOTE OF. SPACE PROMISED Emms OPEN SPACE 611216ROPEHT
1.446.126
TOTAL LOTS OF PARCEL w 6.e 61 AC - (EIS . 1.11) 6rs.11 A 1 A0 - SIC. LOTS
TOTALl PROPOS. �26 LOTS
Kimberly Anez
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Plat
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
2
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,
J.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.
LINCOLN 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
2006 — 3:10pm
C:\RockPoini\PLAN SHEETS \Developml—Pion\ROCK—DEVELOP—DEVOI.DWG March 02,
5
/ / NORTN 1N6 Of 2941/4 OF AC 2
N89'42' 45"E 2639.19
STATE HIGHWAY 36 \
- - _ _ _ .. L_._._. ._ N89'45'25"E
-- 1 - -`_ .r _- - - - - T-I— - _ 2605.62
1.
I I ...WO t l �1 26 L_ I ,,,,� .-. `
i _ I'� 107.320 SF I co.o..:w.n .rn.o Y., 1
II f % /
I 324,487 SF '�._.-'� tL J� I I OUTLDT A `
ii I III
L_J _ 811,508 SF _
n i- -- . ,nor - p ..a .61.99°° ._ =-a = n
ifs a� 1�-�1
a IN - L __--L t ro �. r -\ e.,MAP 9.:» N vt I BUFFER
rT \ zlili
SET $EDIMEN7 \CN
PONDf
24' WIDE BITUMINOUS-'--'--'--'--'
N -I
-L.--..--.-_.--.-�.�-.I
ROADWAY WITH CONCRETE WASTEWATER
I CURB &GUTTER (TYP) ( TREATMENT SIIE
HIGHWAY E25E11ENT
BOOR 275 DEEDS PAGE 497
0
SECONDARY
CONSERVATION
AREA
6' WIDE
BITUMINOUS PATH
OUTLOT C
655,599 SF
Im
S89'49' 49'W 1067.04
NORM EIHE OF SOUTH 1550 FEET OF NM/4
L
\NORTH LINE OF SOUTH 1125 FEET OF 441111/4
\ WORM LINE OF SOUTH 925 FEET OF 44140/4
1
I
I C
1 'y
b
1
1
I
331
VLSI 1/4 CORNER
SEC. 2. 1.29, R.21
-
IF▪ ---- 200' ---1
BUFFER I
I I
�\ 1
25 I,
II 42,009 SF
I-..-••-._ ▪ ..
\NORTH LINE Or SO- UT- H 400 RV or NM/4
I LANDSCAPED
I ISLAND
24
44,929 SF
23
46,450 SF
i RETAINING WALL
i r*4mi
59,3105TSF RETAINING WALL l_ ,.( ROAD B
I4�/
RETAINING WALL
6' PATH11 --^
I36,B97 S
I1
133,0181
0
SEDIMENT I / •
C I -j POND / 1 I L_— 2
8 I 1, _._,i - I 37,191 SF
44,788 SF 1 i �' WOODLANDS AREA _ - - 1 e / I
b I �T--� 1 1 OUTLOT F \ \\ I✓� \ I 1
.. _ .. - .. I 361,280 Sf SEDIMENT 4 \ l
C3 I \ �� POND 56,962 SF III 3 1 �1
21 (�1 1 �_1 I I•I � SF
3 i 48,963 SF i( } 1 11 I 6' PATH CONSERVATION I I
?a I- - .. _.• !i - _-.- AREA ! i J • L---
1 0 --]
NI 49.7244BSF i I I I �� 33,938 SF I ; / I I — -j I I 7 (I I 1 OS SF
m11._ .. - .. -- 1_r _ - - - 1 r / 1140.5 88 SF III 35.232 ^SF II I IIf I / 1
I I 1 1$ I 24' WIDE B17UMINOUS I I I V J'` I
1 19 32,991 SF I /rROADWAY WITH CONCRETE! I �'`� I I I / I- \„ % /I
51,003 SF I IFI•-j 111 LANDSCAPED CURB k CUTTER (TYP) I,fLJ L �/
ISLAND(TA II
9
si
1.
I 18 I^y--1 I I POND J r I I I' I 6' PATHS �/\j/,��'
1 62,929 SF I LI I I ISECONDARY_ IL Oa _[_^_\ i ` " III 1
�� — —+ 1 � �� I --=`I L�- _ J BU�pER�
17 16 CONSERVATION -I 13 1 12 r" 11 \ , 10 I
/ 37.915 SF 41,462 SF AREA 41,296 SF 40,493 SF 45,708 SF 56,639 SF
I I OurLOT F WOODLANDS AREA
/ I z 157,008 SF I I 1 r�'� ` 1
I
T
S89'49' 49'W
2600.86
•
--
` 1533.82 _ _ _ _ 1
--
\ EOM LINE OF NM/4 or EEC 2 CENTER OF V.
SEG 2. 1.29. 11.21
LEGEND
— - - — RIGHT OF WAY LINE
— - • — BLOCK LINE
- - - - SETBACK LINE
UTILITY EASEMENT LINE
- WETLAND DELINEATION
TYPICAL BUILDING
SETBACKS DIMENSIONS.
0 50 too 200
5mi
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
2
Pk,
4-
m
W m
g
0
SHEET 4 OF 10
SHEET NO.
10
e /
LN LINE OF NOV4 a SEC J
NORTH 1/4 CORNER
rv89'42' 45'E 2639.19
''.----"f
- �g68.9.- 963.8
r
974
.9]2.a •97,.2 / •970.1 1 ' 967.8 N - �`�98}.0 �� _
y'976:Z\ I /� -- - _ - - -9T4 e _-972_�__ _ -_- -7....-------...'-_,__.____ , - - _ 91.2 ` _ \ - - _. - - �96
q,e` III I 1 /�I� './ /1/1/ 1 1�'` _�"4 s `86g \ `� TN � _'��%__'�r/� - _ \ N2605 62 `_ _ 96e.a' / / - - f / - _ _ -\ �- _ _ ` 7- .4
h011 r \ `9]5.1t\\Y//////////�I \ ^ \\\\ /:\ ��/^\ \ 1 I \,.9 6 / 1 ' �_ _ - _ I/mil
./ 1"II r\ ^I 1� f II //// I �. 1\ �1 lr�(�� f-lll � 1 \ / \ + P\1 / / I / �. .V./
i��/ IIY I� I 1-, �R' / . / . / // 4/ 1 � / WETLAND • 962.5 1 1 1 \ 1 /( r1m1�� I r "^ \L., 1 (/ L8J0-•1 I / / / • 962.71 ' / ‘,..„,",....,.---7:-.,,„
� �_•-. -,� ? �`� /1
CCC Q / �1 ) L. - III ai 4Y / . 965.9 1 / 1 II
ry/II In\�-//9�8 et'
m`O Al m �\ I-tl ,11 �/5 I1� \\ 11 I I 1Q �I i!/(m.
I \ \ /i9 �a/ < < c hi / \ 11 1 1 l/ / \ \ 1 \ PARQE`L C 1 WETLAND 1�1z
`` 79:$/ /9 \ \ I a'- 65 b / �\y \ \ I / 1 • 960.6 a
..0a I 111 .9�5. \ / / /.// "°`-- \\ n.�( -fir 1 /9061IIIII��h/�///i\\�OI�TLb19T \` �[ /�'/ 1/ A%m�0°�-tr/, /.980.@\ \\•971.0 18.97 AC
\\ \0\°TL°T k\/, , ''ir•I#.i', 81�9m/// \_�_I\ \- ///um111�����m^/ry/qOa�L��J�2.11..„5/1
\�\\\ ~ �'7T }- I /\`'T____i� t j0iV-� \ /-\"r am ////-1: ..a a, \ \ .��, .9 `-) _� _ - �N�►� �i. '" .r‘_................11
�.n 'STRZ�4a.� ` \III-
/ Ivii
i�6// \ \ �--� t"'o..�Ei \\., \ 1
//
// /...�\\\ �% �/
1 / "\ 1 \ ✓9 / L 1 1 1 1 1
I / - / // / n I I .9�e 7 / / / -ILA\LI � I '1, I
Irl �dcT I1/ I ` -J///\ / \\\\��oo \1-I1111\I11j/I
R /n
Y I I \ 1 I / // &TA,/ / / m • 986 7 1 m a� / "". \ L9 C9? p
,/ / std 1 1tt / 9 90a.2 ..p� /� /// / f ��\ \\ - ?6 �/ I
I fi _/ � - - / 9� i ey- '�- .°yam-1-'� f-
-
9]6�-1 I` l _ 0- 76- -
ry • 976.4 / .976.5
N.R. CORNER
/ SEC. 2. 1.29. R.21
1
NI '1 11)0,\ / /l � // / 1 / 1 // ,Doos� � \
1.6 > - 1 / / / /�/
I // / I . 989 2\ W9 \5 \ t t \` ' l OD I
\ IS. �9C . 589'49 49 - W 4U6i-04
\ \'i960� - \ \\ \ \99'yS.�00444 c.c.., 9DNN tss01F£T OF N0/
\III aY
3
nN
z
(/� - \
_ /-__ fl/ t� J
331
WEST I/4 CORNIER
SEC. 2. 1.29. R01
•9Tt.t
/ STATE HIGHWAY6
/ 9 III-
oU714Y°////
�986- 4C 4:', /'4 n
- \11 3 1 ( \ Li /
T
`NdiTl LINE Of SEAM N25 PEE/ OF NWI/4
NCRW, LINE Of SOON 1126 FEET or NV/1/4
\NOR. LINE Of SOWN 400 FEET OF RAT..
~980/
`976^
16966.1
\s 8
21 \ \
-89 \
•• 0 \
\ I Ct
r
, \ 0.0
• 985.4
/
XIGNRAT EASEMENT
ROOK 210 DEEDS. PAGE 497
- n -
\ I 6A/
t / J�
l'a
_/
(( 1 66
•967.2 y /1 6
1 b 970'
/ 4I) *-/
4.7
. .--.-7 .
\\\
\
- - - - -
PARCEL A----L-
T5.99-
% 4.,r,
•973.1 / i \ft/ft. /9rydJ
o
aer - \
( i.T. ..!
^\�...\ // // /\1 \ \ \999 \ \ \ \ \II 'C-
'^r D-g 9 {'- � 37 (/-/ I �• /�/// �/1 h 97236 -9Ja� \ \ 9 4 \ \ \ �9
I I� / �A Zi 1 , "�,.i...,",.gn�7a f � �_i I / 1 1� 9e°�
11
sip
1111E 911/
IY
/ �/ /�0j/1/Ai.,
� I�960-Z::
lt1 \ -9 \111% - //�f \�/ III
9. 1/� II B2 \ �/)II11111IIl1 r' ,� D \� 1 //1/ / t
-960,/6//// 1)1\ ‘ //jam ////.tr �9 ,.e1 - \9t%
Illki ''2Vi: ' . , I /\ _ / /,, / 7 ‘ >1/4/ -7//7/ 0 gli_ ks .
4,,.....e.:. _:rfc*Ali,11*ultr,--. '
"AmiwilkOLITIAIV
,,,,......i.;411.Th.,........\ , -ate. '';;/
7°\
`_}6
\�\/iiC. i�9 I \\\i \ IlY_�►�„ �I',�: 11f /J(g,`9�
•• 974 1J / .44s, ( ^ \. \\ _ - - ' ` \ \ I •�fi�� I ( f i1 �i41� , � `\ / //� I / _9 9^
��.>\ �I 1. -985., ' _ / 1 1 ,rim � � \`• � , � �>> _ / rn � \�� -
/ / / ` .�� ��\_ '� ������✓'!�\\\\11111,,,�WETL eN �\ �+-t�t+�~,`\\\t\�\\� MS i
/ 1 I I 1 . , - _^ -/vOM \I\11"`i1tWT ��`` ✓/ 11_,it[JMJQJ�1 `�\1\\\\c'aa�'�
/ I \ •..:tp 1:
e6-� � �- o _---� L �1 :d2'L / I //I1 1 � `�,7/�I 9781\\ "✓� f 1 \�\�\\\\\\
-\ ..Ns
r''U�1
gyp, `\
A-1-q�-'p�.��.�� - i•ti+.)^8<7E- Gq.B , , / - _ / ///,/ ` I �' c/ � =./
-Al
\-
WETLAND AREAS
WETLAND BUFFER
WOODLANDS
PARCEL UNE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
EXISTING CONTOUR - -97g_ - - - -
PROPOSED CONTOUR
EROSION CONTROL FENCE __
ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
0 50 100 200
I '1•�
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
RIP -RAP
Y'NW "YIY+.'Yn�
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.
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 • 21 4
L_
ENGINEERING FABRIC
(MIRAFI ENVIRO-FENCE
OR APPROVED EQUAL)
WIRE MESH REINFORCEMENT
BACKFILL
BURY BOTTOM
6" OF FABRIC
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL OF ALL EROSION
CONTROL MATERIALS FOLLOWING TURF ESTABLISHMENT
EROSION CONTROL FENCE
co-
Mcry
•V 55
= y:
03 Q
a
Y ECC ,
® YW
o 8.
O �
I'" °
0
0
0
m m
O m Z
89 W K =I¢ K
5/ I
Cc 0 U I0 O.
SHEET 5 OF 10
SHEET NO.
10
0J,
0
E
•
Im
1r ROCK
MAINTENANCE
STRIP PER
DETAIL
I ,4
1489'42'45"E 2639.19
NB9.46'09"E
-
-------L-�=~;---� T - - —jam_ —_-- 2605.63
/ ) I IKNNP 4.,\I I \ >//1444.
/ 26 1 L' _ 4
'10.7,380 SIB I I Ptl .., •..ww'N`t
STATE HIGHWAY 36
3
Donor D ./I
324.763, SF ti:°K-1I F" Trap
rrFI
— — —WRPLi
Onnrlmwt PUMIIi'OYDIC
0 50 IOD 200
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
— RETAINING
WALL PER
CIVIL PLANS
NOTE: SEE SHEET 6/4 FOR TREE PLANTING
N THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY ISLAND.
0 10 20
40
HORIZONTAL
SCALE IN FEET
MI NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY ENLARGEMENT:
I
lit'
191 IgY ft._
///
OUTLOT B
'59.31 SF -.
}
PARCEL C
18.97 AC
•
1
w�¢tr—v w
1
f
PARCEL A
19.97 AC
•1 '
}
-( f.r.vY�,._r-.'ti.^..-.-v11 . ..vl'l�vr-."�• : �1..rwT'�'y�.' ,�
1 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT LAYOUT PLAN
ST1 11.:L I1/2 < I
III -. 1I AREA
OUTLDi' E'.
I 177,407 SF.
I--.�
509'49'p9"Y4
26aq.E16.
72.
IJlNCO' oor , \Doo AREA
_ \.L.
• LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES
MO REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK AND MATERIALS SUPPLIED.
• LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING ROADS, CUR05/GUTTERS,
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 COOR0NATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND
PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE.
• UN05CAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLAN LAYOUT AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN AND
BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DISCREPANCIES WHICH
MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN OR INTENT OF THE LAYOUT.
• O PLANTS WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL FINAL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN
COMPLETED IN THE SAMFDIATE AREA.
• WHERE SOD ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD/SEED
SHALL BE HELD 1• BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SUB, CURB.
ETC.
• SOD SHALL 0E LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED
JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 4,1 OR IN DRAINAGE 6WALES, SOO SHALL BE
STAKED SECURELY.
• PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE
AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, ANSI Z80.1, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE,
DECIOUOF3 SHRUBS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 6 CANES AT THE SPECIFIED HEIGHT,
ORNAMENTAL TREES SMALL HAVE NO V CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO
LOWER THAN S FEET ABOVE THE ROOT BALL. STREET AND BOULEVARD TREES SHALL
BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6' ABOVE PAVED SURFACE.
PLAN GRAPHIC TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES IN
WANTRIESE%ISt. SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES.
PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE LOCATED AND STAKED AS SHOWN ON PLAN
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE STAKING OF PUNT MATERIAL PRIOR TO
DOMING.
NO PUNT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS
GRANTED BY IRE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR
TO THE SUBMISSION OF BID.
ADJUSTMENTS W LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLAN' MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED W
FIELD. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO ADJUSTMENT OF
PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON NSTAILATON WITH OREL/ BONE MEAL,
OTHER APPROVED FERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING BOIL PER THE
MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS OR MAY BE TREATED FOR SUMMER AND FALL
INSTALLATION WITH AN APPLICATION OF GRANULAR 10850F 120Z PER25' CALIPER
TREE AND S OZ. PER SHRUB WITH AND ADDITIONAL APPLICATION OF 10010 THE
FOLLOWING SPRINT: IN THE TREE WOOER
• PLANT MATERIALS TO BE INSTALLED PER PLANTING DETAILS.
• PLANTING AREAS RECEIVING GROUND COVER, PERENNIALS. ANNUALS OR VINES
SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 12• DEPTH OF PLANTING SOIL CONSISTING OF 45 PARTS
TOPSOIL, 45 PARTS SCREENED COMPOST AND 10 PARTS BAND.
• WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE PIPING 1• GREATER IN CALIPER THAN THE TREE SEING PROTECTED OR WALT', HEAVY, WATERPROOF
CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAP DECIDUOUS TREES
PLANTED W THE FALL PRIOR TO DECEMBER 1 AND REMOVE WRAPPING AFTER MAY 1.
• ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 3• DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD
MULCH WITH NO WEED BARREN.
• 1B• STEEL EDGER TO BE USED TO CONTAIN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS AND
ANNUALS WHERE PLANTING BED MEETS SOD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
• SHRUB BED MASSING. TO RECEIVE 4• DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD
MULCH WITH FIRER MAT WEED BARRIER.
• CONIFER°. TREES ARE TO RECEIVE 4• DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH AND
SHALL HAVE NO MULCH N O WELT CONTACT WITH THE TREE TRUNK
• MAINTENANCE STRIPS, WHERE ILLUSTRATED, TO HAVE EDGER AND STONE MULCH AS
INDICATED ON DRAWINGS OR IN SPECIFICATIONS.
• THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY PUNT MATERIALS
WHICH DO NOT MEET THE SPECIFIED SIZE OR APPEAR TO BE OF POOR QUALITY. EY
VIRTUE OF STRESS. DISEASE, ETC. SUCH MATER., C SHALL BE REMOVED AND
REPLACED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE PROJECT. IT IS THE LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO INSPECT THEIR MATERIALS FOR QUALITY PRIOR
TO INSTALLATION.
• UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT TRENCHES DO NOT CUT
THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTS. TREES TO REMAIN
• EXISTING CONTOURS. MILS, VEGETATION, WRWOUTTER AND OTHER ELEMENTS
ARE BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLED 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 CONDDIONS AND COMPACTION
ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AROUND THE CONSTRUCTION
SITE. UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. R SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE
CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE PROPER SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE
DRAINAGE IN PLANTING AREAS.
• UNDBCAPE °NTRPLTOR SHALL REVIEW THE SITE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN SITE
CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL
OR WARRANTY. UNDESIRABLE SITE CONDITIONS SHALL SE BROUGHT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK.
• LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND SUBMIT WRITTEN REQUEST FOR
THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION INSPECTION OF LANDSCAPE AND SITE
IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING FINAL PAY REQUEST.
• LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND SUBMIT REPRODUCIBLE AS•BUILT
DRAWING(S) 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 PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE
CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE GTE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION, NO PARTIAL
ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED.
• UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, THE APPROPRIATE DATES FOR 9PRNG PLANT MATERIAL
INSTALLATION ANO 5EEN5OD PLACEMENT B FROM THE TIME GROUND HAS THAWED
TO JUNE 15.
• FALL SODDING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST IS TO NOVEMBER 1. FALL
SEEDING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 TO SEPTEMBER 15.
ADJUSTMENTS TO 600/SEED PUNTING DATES MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT,
• CONIFEROUS PLANTING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 1S TO OCTOBER 1.
FALL DECIDUOUS POURING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM THE FIRST FROST
UNTIL NOVEMBER 15. ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANTING DATES MUST SE APPROVED N
WRITING BY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
• EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE FERTILIZED AND PRUNED TO REMOVE DEAD
WOOD, DAMAGED AND RUBBING BRANCHES, IF ANY.
• EXISTING TREES OR 61ONFICANT SHRUB MASSNGS FOUND ON SITE SHALL BE
PROTECTED AND SAVED UNLESS NOTED TO BE REMOVED OR ARE LOCATED IN AN
AREA TO BE GRADED. OVESTIONS REGARDING EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE
BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO REMOVAL
• R°OM GRADING AND FINISHED GRADING TO BE DONE BY OTHERS EXCEPT WHERE
NOTED.
• FTLI/CUTAS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A I%MNNUM GRADE AWAY FROM 9UILDNGS
WORN LIMITS DE CONSTRUCTION
• SALVAGE TOP501LFROM THE EARTHWORK AREAS AS APPROPRIATE OR AS DIRECTED
BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND STOCKPILE FOR REUSE N LOCATION APPROVED BY
OWNER.
• ADD EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IF GRADES GREATER THAN S:1 OR F CONDITIONS
WARRANT. REFER TO MNDOT SPECIFCATONS FOR EROSION CONTROL
• LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR LOCATION OF
UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES. CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES. VALVES OR OTHER
BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR
REPLACE THE ABOVE IF DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO ADDITIONAL COST
TO THE OWNER.
• LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROPER EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
AS REGU RED TO INSURETHAT EROSION IS KEPT TO AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM.
• WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF FINISHED SITEGMDING, DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE
STABILIZED WITH SEED SOD OR ROCK SASE
• CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. INCLUDING THE
REMOVAL OF ACWMUUTED SILT IN FRONT OF SILT FENCES AND EXCESS SEDIMENT
W PROPOSED CATCH BASBLS, FOR THE DURATION O CONSTRUCTION.
• LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AFTER
VEGETATION LS ESTABLISHED AND DBPDSE OF OFF.SITE IN A STATE APPROVED
LOCATION.
O
€ac
�nz
HIDDEN MEADOWS OF LAKE ELMO
e. m
O S
\
Z m
m }
wD
clj 14
N D
SHEET OF
SHEET N0.
m
U
i LANDSCAPE NOTES:MMEMMI
10
5:\2006 Projects\06-120 Hidden Meadows or Lake Elmo\50 Set \cod\dwg\06-128_L9.DWG March 02. 2006 - 3.20pm
V V
np ^r{ SCALE:
z
DESIGNED BY:
DRAWN BY:
o CHECKED BY:
0 DATE:
TW/BH/OF
BH
TW
3/1/06
PROJECT NO. 160502006.2.001
HIDDEN MEADOWS OF LAKE ELMO
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS
LANDSCAPE LAYOUT PLAN
\\\\s\\\\ \\\.'
as \\\\„ .�
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN. SPECIFICATION I
OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY
DIRECT SUPERNI9IXl AND THAT I AM A DILLY I
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
I
TNOMAS WHIIl004. AAA
DATE; 09-05-2005 MN LIC. N0. 20292 I No. Date I Revisions
APP.
cm
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
=SO aMV5115111 AVE. 11£51. SATE 345N
51. PAOL MMNESOTA 55111
TEL. NO. (551) 545-1197
FAX. NO. (GM) 515-5115
Damon FmderAunelmn ICI
923 Mce/1er.Tlell
Aflm*upalf,. UN J5J02
phone .1123J2.7522
x 512332.036
�
.,damn 1 rlm,mm
2006 — 3:16pm
S: \2006 Projects\06-128 Hidden Meadows of lake Elmo\SD Set\cad\dwg\06—
—970-_
18
AOWST TREE SPACING wHEPE N
IMNEWAYS NME coNs1RUCTES.
',,�" ,.fi'Jf� t ;a/.f/y�, Wrr�A*rr"`,'W
i LANDSCAPE PLAN - AREA 3
TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE
ILLUSTRATF-D. IT 15 THE CONTRACTORS OPTION ON
NOW TO STAKE TREES. HOW= -' THE CONTRACTOR
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
MAINTAINING TREES IN A
PLUMB POSITION TNR000IOUT
THE WARRANTY PERIOD.
N
G4'
-? \
/� ( �89'49' 9' W
SI MTO HAVE SHREDDED
HARDWOOD MULCH 1114LE55 NOTED
CONTACT 115E.WITHTRU K ro Be IN
T BASAL
FLARE IPLACE S P AOOTBOVE SUIRROO.01015G
DOUBLE STRAND 14 bA WIRE - 5'
• 120 DEGREE INTERVALS RYPJ
1POLYELTNYLENE (40 MOI-I/2- WIDE
STRAP TYPO
8,0" STEEL STAKE
FLAGGING - ONE PER WIRE
ROOT BALL TO SIT ON MOUNDED
BGOE'DBA PROM VD ROOT BALL
M0LCH5 4`DEEP - NO MOUND/NS
PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPEC.
TOPSOIL
51A6RADE
2" X 2" X 24- WOOD STAKE SET
AT ANGLE
SOD
DRAIN SYSTEM AS REOUIRED-
PER SPEC.
A. DIAMETER AUSERED HOLE,
42' MIN. DEPTH. FILLED W/5/4-
DIAMETER DRAIN ROO,. COVER
W/ 6' FILTER FABRIC.
CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL
SCML VD . I'ND
STEEL
STAKE
TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF
TREE STAKING ARE CONTRACTORSILLUSTRATED:0ON
IT E TIE 055,HOEER OPTION TO
STAKE TREES. S REVCR THE
MAINTAINING
ACONTRACTORNGFEES PUPASESPOIYSIBLE R
POSITION THROUGHOUT THE
6VARANTS PERIOD
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND 511,E5 OF
HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING
DOUBLE STRAND 14 6A. WIRE - 5'
• 120 DEGREE INTERVALS (TYPO
I6 POLYPROPPLENE OR
POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL, 1-I/2- FODE
STRAP TYPO
TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH
FLAGGING - 01E PER WIRE
ROOTBALL TO 51T ON MOUNDED SL5GRADE,
REMOVE TOP 1/5 OF BURLAP FROM ROOTBALL.
SEE ORGANIC5PEC MUCH - 4• DEEP - NO MOUNDING
PLANTING SOIL - 500E SPEC.
TOPSOIL
5UB6RADE
2' X 2' X 24' WOOD STAKE SET
AT ANGLE
EDGE CONDITION VARIES - 5E5 PLAN
DRAIN SYSTEM A5 REOUIRED-
PER SPEC,
4 DIA. PERF, PVC PIPE WITH SOCK_ PLACED IN
42- MIN, DEPTH AVGEEED HOLE PILLED
YOTH 5/4' DIAMETER DRAIN ROOK
LOCATE AT EDGE OP ROOT BALL A5 SHOWN.
DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL
SCALE. IO' . 1,0.
Ell LANDSCAPE DETAILS:
J
NOTE:
NAND LOOSEN ROOTS OF
CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL, TYP,
I5•
MIN,
VARIES
SEE PLAN
RUB
SHPLANTING
VALE ON • IOU
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF
PLANTING PIT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION
SHRUBS TO 51T ON S0GRADE
MULCH 4' DEPTH, REFER TO SPECS.
LANDSCAPE FABRIC, REFER TO SPECS.
PLANTING SOIL, REFER TO SPECS.
EDGING MATERIAL REFER TO SPECS.
TOPSOIL
EDGE CONDITION VARIES, REFER TO PLAN
SUBGRADE
CENTERING OF SHRUB IN EEO TO TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER DIMENSION FROM EDGE
PBIBMIAL PW11AG
M MACH - SEE SPECS. S' DB'(TT/
ELSE C01OITION VARIES SEE PL...
RAND. SOIL BEE SPFL116-
OPAx MN.
•J1E6RN0E
KEEJ
NANO LOOSEN ROOD OF
(0NTN1®USEDIM7BIIAL (7T'P)
PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL
5C/iL.94-. I00'
IB' UNLESS
OTHER/115E NOTED
MAINTENANCE STRIP AT CURB
SCAB 111YW.I
,
5�3 8'2'
— - ,-.�y 4 ) 1 , i ! T"7,7 , \. ',*\
EDGE CONDITION VARIES -
REFER TO PLAN
I/O' RYERSON STEEL
EDGER -PI er,K.
1/4"-5/5" DRESSER TRAP
ROCK MULCH
LAN050APE WEED BARRIER
FABRIC - REFER TO SPECS
CONTRACTOR PREPARED
SUBCRADE
REFER TO CIVIL
DRAWINGS FOR CURB
INFORMATION
252-11 1
.I
I'\(.
�,g• \ \ \ `\',
S(�1dTH LIFE de t
•
/ 1 /• 1
gL,PVATION
-
(—DRIP LINE
—4' SNOW FENCE WITH
POSTS 0' 0.C, AT DRIP
LINE OF OUTER MOST
BRANCHES
PLAN
Tauen LNI-a
c.
WQQD BLFIER TO REMAIN 4,
b.•AN AREA /,g ;/�
‘
.-""1.
7i•
\/ I
- .--.ib0-�.
NOTE: TREE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR AS REQUIRED
TO ENSURE SURVIVABILITY OP EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. NO HEAVY EQUIPMENT
SHALL BE STORED WITHIN THE TREE DRIP LINE AS DESIGNATED ABOVE.
TREE PROTECTION DETAIL
50N8 VD• • 1,0'
ISYMI OTY I c0MM5 NM-IE
APLE
5MJ�NA CHOWRINNOP/EiJ
roaRAPPI
CONIFEROUS TREES
ISCIENTIFIC NAME
rInnelllatr
P��wwwt ngr•mubIneee4 a„mn
I r Wad F APR F a0.: QID-1..'T ' ,n
DECIDUOUS SHRUBS
I (Rfia O /BAAIILLEY COMPACT AM CRANBERRY Isternum Vllelxm 'Ballet/ CemoOct'
7 45 I( {per - y Ir-KI FIrn^i ladeli��Ns jr eeH'
45 I GRO-I A )))ornoN•o "Ern -I N'
(CONIFEROUS SHRUBS
RR n IlYl ue. -
(PERENNIALS
kia
1SWITCH
2 5W[ E SW^--.—. _I PBeir744 vY0051 01Vldetnm'
I
MI PLANTING SCHEDULE:
G
\,•11 i I
�CEALTER _OF ) \1 1. Ii
SEC,). T.29,/R!21\ j \ \ 1 +'
. bt 'I I I1
6 I l it
0 25 50 100
HORIZONTAL
SCALE M FEET
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-0E-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.
I• GENERAL NOTES:
(1cAL5PECIF ED LED / IROOT COlOI CONT. 51 EROOT L / I c0H4ENT5
ii
IBEB 1%;ON tit
IRa! la ,!` �Iq s
IS[9.
n 4UT I :3 28 MIN DIA
l� RR 2B' MIIN. 0D,NIA,
15- HST f/ i IOU AI.I_�N
IB" HGT IINNN
24. B§§PR�� Pg�OnnTIF q1- I DN
I'T4• WA I V,i •2 GALLON
SINGLE LEADER
Al 1
"INGLENGLE LEADER
SPRING DIM
•
F111 PMRM to GRADF 1 MATCHED SPECIMENS I
PLANT 4' CLL.
14T 5'
PLANT O
PLANT 4' OL.
I !I Q' ;r'::
I FAN DIVISION I POT •1 GALLON 1 PLANT S. 0 C_
0
2
Ij VI Z
W 2J
J Q.
J EL
O w»
Q
LA
O J
O JLU
LIA
O Q
W Z
a VJ J
O_
SHEET OF
SHEET N0.
10
10
MEMO
(April 5, 2006)
Subject: Variances — Rockpoint Church
As promised, staff has published a Notice of Hearing to consider variances for the subject
Site Plan as a result of the Commission's March 27 meeting. Due to the lengthy
publication time line for the City's Official Newspaper the consideration of these
variances can not be until the meeting of April 24.
While the variances are not on the April 10 Agenda, we have attached the applicant's
March 29, 2006 letter which addresses those variances to give the Commission some
extra time to consider the applicant's positions. Another copy of this letter and
attachments will accompany the Planning Staff Report with the April 24 Agenda packet.
BWBR
ARCHITECTS
1,1
Architecture • Interior Design
Lawson Commons
380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600
Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996
651.222.3701
fax 651.222.8961
www.bwbr.com
March 29, 2006
Mr. Chuck Dillarud
Planning Department
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
Re: Variance Request Rockpoint Church
Lake Elmo, Minnesota
BWBR Commission No.: 2005.091.00
Dear Chuck and Members of the Planning Commission:
RECEIVED
0 5 2O0
As a result of the Commission's action to table the final site plan submittal at last
night's meeting (March 27, 2006), I am writing to request variances for the items
noted in the Lake Elmo Planning Commission Staff Report dated "March 23,
2006, for the meeting of March 27, 2006".
In regard to the "Discussion and Analysis" section, we have the following
comments:
• Item No. 1: No comment.
• Item No. 2: Submittal documents and construction drawings will be
modified to correct parking setback.
• Item No. 3: No comment.
• Item No. 4: It is our understanding that it is the Planning Commission's
intent to amend the PF Zoning requirements to match exterior materials
performance standards of the commercial zoning district, which would
allow approximately 20% of the exterior surface, proposed to be pre -
finished architectural grade metal. In the interest of time and uncertainty
as to when this amendment would be considered, we hereby request that
a variance be accepted and approved to allow the exterior walls of the
proposed church building be clad and trimmed with approximately 20%
architectural metal. The project scope and scale is very much of a
commercial nature, and in keeping with those types of material usage.
The hardship is only that it was only an oversight by the City that the PF
ordinance was not amended along with the business/commercial zone
ordinance when that was modified.
• Item No. 5: The structural side wall on the southeast exterior wall of the
church exceeds 35' in height. The wall in question has a sloping roof
edge varying from 40' to 49' above grade (see elevation 1C/513, Partial
Exterior Elevation). We hereby request a variance to allow this condition
to exceed the 35' maximum in this location considering the following
reasons:
G:\0509100\Admin\Letter\2006-03-28 Dillarud Variance Requestdoc
Mr. Chuck Dillarud
Planning Department
City of Lake Elmo
March 29, 2006
Page 2
❑ The site surrounding the church and neighborhood is made up of
rolling hills, a mature, heavily forested area to the south of the
building. The east property line is over 600' — two football fields,
from the building's east wall. All other walls of the building are
under the 35' height maximum, again the exception being the
east/southeast wall of the Sanctuary.
❑ To be sensitive to the site, the church chose to place program
space under the Sanctuary to minimize the footprint of the
building. The position of the church on the side of a hill, gave us
the opportunity to open both floors of the church on the south
and east sides to the views and day -lighting, allowing a walkout
condition from the lower level and windows into the classrooms
below the Sanctuary on the upper floor. This planning and
design is favorable to the general use of the lower level spaces.
❑ The views of this southeast wall from the neighboring, proposed
housing development, the adjacent eastern property owner, and
the general public is very limited from view due to the nature
woods and the distances (see sheets C-1 and 200.2CR).
❑ If forced to comply with the 35' height restriction, one solution
would be to maintain the higher grades and retaining walls
around to the east/southeast against the building, artificially
covering the lower wall and the opportunity for views and day -
lighting into the lower level. Another solution would be to
construct a mansard -type false roof appendage to the southeast
wall that would drop the effective sidewall to 35' above grade.
Clearly these two options are poorer solutions to the design of
the building.
❑ The hardship of this variance request, to allow the building side
wall in this one area of the building to exceed 35', is in fitting the
building to the site in good design practice to accommodate
classroom space with day -lighting and views. We ask for your
consideration and approval of this request.
■ Item No. 6: In response, and in clarification of the "District
Requirements in PF Zoning District", ordinance regarding "Unoccupied
Structure Above the Highest Point of the Roof", out interpretation is as
follows:
❑ The building height is governed by the "Principal Structure
Height — Maximum — with Structure", and is established as 50
feet...
❑ In the next category down, unoccupied structure above the
highest roof is established at 25'. Our building's highest roof
point (Sanctuary) is 49'-4" above grade, suggesting that the
highest point of the cross be established at 74'-4" above grade.
29 March, 2006 BWBR Architects, Inc. 2006-03-28 Dillarud Variance Request.doc
Mr. Chuck Dillarud
Planning Department
City of Lake Elmo
March 29, 2006
Page 3
The masonry "pier" structure, to which the cross is attached, is
also unoccupied and the established height is 60'-0" above grade
on the drawings.
❑ In your response letter of March 23, 2006, you indicate that there
is a conflict between sections of your ordinance. Our design is
based on the District Requirements noted above.
❑ So as not to delay the review and approval of this submittal, we
will request a variance to overcome the conflict and establish the
cross height maximum as 75' above grade and the supporting
masonry pier height maximums at 60' above grade.
■ Item No. 7: Exterior site lighting manufacturer cut sheet is attached for
the fixture in question. This fixture head allows a 20' height pole on a 3'
high concrete base with a 90 degree cut off angle.
Item No. 8: No comment.
Please call with questions in any of this regard. We hope for a speedy and
successful outcome. We are positive the built outcome will be a great addition to
the neighborhood and the Lake Elmo Community. Thank you for your
cooperation.
Respectfully,
If you have any questions, or require additional information, please call me at
651/290-1997.
Sincerely,
BWBR ARCHITECTS, INC.
Tom Dornack
Project Manager
Attachment
c: Chuck Palmer, Building Committee Chair, Lakewood Evangelical Free Church
Paul Danielson, Project Manager, Kimley Horn
Peter G. Smith, Principal -In -Charge, BWBR Architects
/ce
29 March, 2006 BWBR Architects, Inc. 2006-03-28 Dillarud Variance Request.doc
Notes:
Job:
Type:
FORM 10 SQUARE
EH/H/HT ARM MOUNT
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The Gardco arm mounted Square Form 10 products are sharp cutoff luminaires for high intensity discharge lamps up to 1000
watts. The EH units are manufactured from mitered extruded aluminum and finished in an Architectural Class 1 anodizing. The H and HT style luminaires
are dieformed aluminum with a thermoset polyester finish. Both products can accept one of eight (8) interchangeable and rotatable precision segmented
optical systems.
ORDERING
PREFIX
CONFIGURATION
DISTRIBUTION
H H H
WATTAGE
VOLTAGE
H H
FINISH
Enter the order code into the appropriate box above, Note: Gardco reserves the right to refuse a configuration. Not all combinations and configurations are valid.
Refer to notes below for exclusions and limitations. For questions or concerns, please consult the factory.
PREFIX
EH14 14" Square Extruded Luminaire
EH19 19" Square Extruded Luminaire
H14 14" Square Fabricated Luminaire
H19 19" Square Fabricated Luminaire
HT19 19" Tall Square Fabricated Luminaire
H26 18" Square Fabricated Luminaire
DISTRIBUTION
Horizontal Lamo
1
3
4X
FM
Q
Type I
Type III
Type IV (197T19"only)
Type IV
Type V
Type 4X optics supplied with sag glass
lens standard.
Vertical Lamo
VS Type V
14" and 19" supplied with acrylic
sag lens. 26" supplied with sag glass
lens. Medium base, 200w max on 14"
units.
OPTIONS
CONFIGURATION
1
2
2@90
3
Single Assembly
Twin Assembly
Twin Assembly at 902
Triple at 902
3@120 Triple at 1202
4 Quad Assembly
WATTAGE
14"
100MH'
150MH'
175MH
200MH
250MH°
FC3V* Full Cutoff Type III 175PSMH2A
FCVS* Full Cutoff Type V
'19"320PSMH only. Supplied
w/MS320/BU/E028,LLC/PS lamp
VOLTAGE
120
240
347
208 277 480
QUAD
19"
250MH 1000MH"°" 1000MH
400MH
T19" 26"
750PSMH" 750PSMH"
250PSMH' 1000PSMH1p" 1000PSMH'
320PSMH'
350PSMH 750HPS 750HPS
400PSMH' 1000HPS
450PSMH'
100HPS
150HPS' 250HPS
400HPS
MH
PSMH
120/208/240/277, Factory tied to 277V. HPS
FINISH
EH and H26
BLA Black Anodized
BRA Bronze Anodized
NA Natural Aluminum Anodized
OC Optional Color Paint
Specify RAL designation as shown in
Color Selection Guide. ex: OC-RAL7024
SC Special Color Paint
Specify. Must supply color chip.
H/HT Style
BRP Bronze Paint
BLP Black Paint
OC Optional Color Paint
Specify RAL designation as shown in
Color Selection Guide. ex: 0C-RAL7024
SC Special Color Paint
Specify. Must supply color chip.
Metal Halide
Pulse Start Metal Halide
High Pressure Sodium
1. Medium base lamp
2. Available with vertical lamp optics only.
3. Operates 55V lamp.
4. M138 or M153.
5. Uses BT37 lamps only.
6. M132 or M154
7. M135 or M155
8. M137 or M152
9. Available with Horizontal optics only.
10. Available with 4X and VS optics only.
11. M149 only. Horizontal optics require
MS750/PS/BU/HORBT371amp
12. For 1000w HT19 w/4X optics, see warning below:
For 1000 Metal Halide, use:
Brand Product Code Cataloa Number
Venture 53702 MS1000W/HOR/BT37/3K
G.E. 18205 MVR1000/U/BT37
Venture 15332 MH1000W/U/BT37
For 1000 Pulse Start, use:
Brand Product Code Catalog Number
G.E. 10389 MVR7000/U/BT37/PA
Venture 49111 MS1000W/HOR/T25/PS
WARNING: Use of other lamps voids warranty
OPTIONS
Fusing In Head
In-Line/In-Pole Fusing
Photocontrol and Receptacle
N/A with 480V.
PCR Photocontrol Receptacle only
POLY Polycarbonate Sag Lens
In lieu of flat glass. N/A with 4X optics.
450w maximum.
HS Internal Houseside Shield
Supplied standard with FM optics.
QS Quartz Standby
SG Sag Glass Lens In lieu of flat glass
Supplied standard with 4X optics and 26" VS
F
LF
PC
Gardco Lighting reserves the right to change materials or modify the design of its product without
notification as part of the company's continuing product improvement program. The 4X optical system
is protected by U.S. patent number 5690422.
C Copyright Gardco Lighting 2001-2004. All Rights Reserved. International Copyright Secured.
A Genlyte Company
CD
MF
MU
UB
AP
AT
PTF2
PTF3
PTF4
Gardco Lighting
2661 Alvarado Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
Clear Drop Diffuser EH Style only
Mast Arm Fitter
10° Uptilt Bracket
Quick Disconnect for Ballast Tray
Adjustable Knuckle - Pole Mount
Only available with 1 way and 2 Cap 180° mounting
Adjustable Knuckle - Tenon Mount
Fits 2 3/8" tenon. N/A with 14" units
Pole Top Fitter - 2 3/8" Dia. Tenon
Pole Top Fitter - 3-3 1/2" Dia. Tenon
Pole Top Fitter - 3 1/2-4" Dia. Tenon
800/227-0758
510/357-6900 in California
Fax: 510/357-3088
www.sitelighting.com
01
GARDCO
LIGHTING
79115-43/1104
FORM 10 SQUARE
EH/H/HT ARM MOUNT
SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL: Each Gardco Square Form Ten arm mount is a sharp
cutoff luminaire for high intensity discharge lamps. Units are designed
with half -cube proportions. Internal components are totally enclosed,
rain -tight, dust -tight and corrosion resistant. No venting of optical
system or electrical components is required or permitted. Luminaires
are completely assembled with no disassembly required for installation.
Lamping requires no lifting or hinging of the luminaire housing,
disturbing wiring or exposing uninsulated live parts.
HOUSING: Extruded housings (EH style) are offered in 14" and 19"
sizes and are composed of precisely mitered anodized aluminum
extrusions. Fabricated (H style) units are available in 14", 19", T19" and
26" sizes and are one piece, multi -formed aluminum with an integral
reinforcing spline and a single concealed joint. All units feature a press
formed aluminum top which is welded to the housing sides. Pressure
injected silicone provides a continuous weathertight seal at all miters
and points of material transition.
ARM: Extruded aluminum arm is prewired and secured to fixture by
contractor. Assembly is suitable for mounting to pole without requiring
access to luminaire.
LENS: Mitered, extruded anodized aluminum door frame retains the
optically clear, heat and impact resistant tempered flat glass in a
sealed manner using hollow section, high compliance, memory
retentive extruded silicone rubber. Luminaires with Type 4X optics and
26" VS units feature a sag glass lens and VS unit employs sag acrylic
lens. Concealed stainless steel latch and hinge permit easy toolless
access to the luminaire.
OPTICAL SYSTEMS: The segmented Form Ten optical system is
homogeneous sheet aluminum, electrochemically brightened, anodized
and sealed. The segmented reflectors are set in faceted arc tube
image duplicator patterns to achieve IES Types I (1), III (3), IV (FM),
and V (Q - horizontal lamp and VS - vertical lamp) distributions. The
mogul lampholder is glazed porcelain with a nickel plated screw shell
with lamp grip - all securely attached to the reflector assembly. 100MH
units have medium base lampholder. All Metal Halide units in the 19"
and 26" housings have lamp stabilizers ensuring precise arc tube
positioning.
ELECTRICAL: Each high power factor ballast is the separate
component type, capable of providing reliable lamp starting down to -
20° F. The ballast is mounted on a unitized tray and secured within the
luminaire, above the reflector system. Component -to -component wiring
within the luminaire will carry no more than 80% of rated current and is
listed by UL for use at 600 VAC at 150°C or higher. Plug disconnects
are listed by UL for use at 6U0 VAU, 1 bA or nigher.
FINISH: Extruded housings (EH style) are standard with natural,
bronze, or black Aluminum Association Architectural Class I anodized
finish. Special color polyester finishes are available.
Formed housings (H style) are standard with a chromatic acid
pretreatment and an epoxy undercoat. The finish coat is a
thermosetting polyester baked at 450° F to achieve an H-2H hardness
measure. 26" H style units are also offered with optional Architectural
Class I anodized finish.
LABELS: All fixtures bear UL or CUL (where applicable) Wet Location
labels.
DIMENSIONS
Gardco Lighting reserves the right to change materials or modify the design of its product without
notification as part of the company's continuing product improvement program. The 4X optical system Is
protected by U.S. patent number 5690422.
® Copyright Gardco Lighting 2001-2004. All Rights Reserved. International Copyright Secured.
A Genlyte Company
c c
Size Width B 1.2way 3-4way D
14 14" 7° 2" 6" 5"
35.56 cm 17.78 cm 5.08 cm 15.24 cm 12.70 cm
19 19" 10" 2" 9" 5"
48.26 cm 25.40 cm 5.08 cm 22.86 cm 12.70 cm
T19 19" 12' 2" 9" 5"
48.26 cm 30.48 cm 5.08 cm 22.86 cm 12.70 cm
26 26" 12" 12" 12" 8"
66.04 cm 30.48 cm 30.48 cm 30.48 cm 20.32 cm
EPA's (ft") Approximate Weight (Ibs)
Size Single Twin 3/4 Single Twin Quad
14 1.1 2.3 2.9 30 60 120
19 2.1 4.0 5.5 55 110 220
T19 2.2 4.3 6.4 65 130 260
26 3.5 7.0 8.9 95 190 380
Gardco Lighting
2661 Alvarado Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
800/227-0758
510/357-6900 in California
Fax: 510/357-3088
www.sitelighting.com
(35
GARDCO
LIGHTING
79115-43/1104
O
. - �� �• - oil I III:
A p� V 1/1:
P10080 W METAL
WAIL CM
REFINISHED
00880 LNNI 1EDI.
SONG
0 re - I]68-
ADt11 MS
e W. WHICH. BMOC
REVEAL (1/11
ENE BACK
BRICK REUEF N00E /J
ROHR see, SHE 00/500-
-
gmlm
O L.
NADHUR
NINOOY SYSIER
PREMIERED
BLL m
40104
MATCH MKIDOR FMK
SCREEN FNOOBfe
€fliSt NR
C1reaO. a
CH, —
SOUTHEAST E_EVATION
O 4.
pI O O, UPPED ROw
(� 0 O rECOXLR ROOF f E
EL •• K L-
RAU. GP
2 0 BECK BPPW ROw
V MB EL = 140 =.Il/2
B601 RFlli NAME
AT /FwLOO�R SLAB, SF/
W/WO
11U81 ENCNBIRE
i ELN 1n auR
w-0
NORTHEAST ELEVATION
I/A•-I'-0•
IMI1 [inn IIWEI nUdIllln I861 mu al dlIt..
WO REMO MALL DEMO
ON WO 103 DR GRID MI
t
rAd
l ,
BK2E �� a
5 =Q • + II '-ot" OVW' ar4irtah
I,AO.IIIMil ail III a Ilia initIJJIiIIIIII1,I
N.Ei 9i
- fly.
AT CND NB
11t �ATT ORO KA8
q MN
MAW ENCtO88E
WALL AT CRS 1LA
Ily�yVlllllUIIII16► 11.0
NAV
lljell4j, ILIIIv;1416
'a
„miI11yA,LyuFuiylil6�,p,ul.Iy1y611IIJI.AIM II
OBmUE SEE FLOM MAN
XE XF XG XH X1 XK
1 I I I I I
IIdV1Vll((IIIid Yui 1
L111111,14 dd IV II I111
OBIOUE SEE FLOOR MAN
1---,fir
_ABFOED
AAON:SRBMLSONG
IECL
1r--`1---
of 11111110111. lei I1
OBIBE, SEE 11001 RAI
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN
�I� i
m®m®a
10(10 uyrEeRp�r SQCEn
MAK L = I49 -4
1 mcKto a00 Ii0145-18
NAX 0 - 14145 1�01&
1 a oEcic u_ __
"DE" LMOA'E0 XWF E00E
EM L-1.11'-2'
Jaw
5 i5
0Kl n 4ifica
Rockpoint
A Lake Ono, Minnesota
B W B R
ARCHITECTS
Lawson Commons
380 St Peter Street Suite 600
Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996
651.2223701
Combats
Rem
O0M 2-10-2006
lewd Es
1148 Ne 20095
Nn Oele
MeREVD QB/30/05
00 PRICNIC 10/14/05
REVIEW SET 01/23/06
CD BID ISSUE 112/10/06
E SITE PUN SOBYR/L 3-2-06
0▪ 2/10/06
C No
2025.091.00
Sheet i0A4
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ftyvArkm
•
Sheol No.
512
t
Copyright B WBR Architeos
PREFRfl9R➢ YEiI'
NNL CA°
PiiINR1RD
MONTF1' UR& SETAC
SEEING
FACE ERICK
ORRELIEF GMNE AT
FLOOR suo. SS W/SW�
GE tli
CK
Nd1HNN
RIRFaBEO
amoral sro 1 I
iN1IN NIKO0FRWRE
SOEE11 EM U:S IRE I _•—
orMOO _I I
re SOUTHEAST ELEVATION
`512 1/1M11• 0'
E uT_alnat
b
OF MOOR,
POCK Rfl1FF MIME
AT FLOOR 8AN. SEE
W/s00
RLWI ENaOLIRE
F
�F�'tll/6
NORTHEAST EL NATION
ROLL BMW wRI
ON CAD N0 ON GOO 006
CROSS ARO TORRA
0Y01N
L
TD. ORANPI. SNP FRANK '
j �7
WALL NT LTd0 12
alionamoll
------------------------
.N...L�R_ ---+—�
2
00
S &OR PUN
TT s XH XJ XK
I I I I I
MOS% SEE MDR PUN --��
• 4:1"-iiv.egF
E rr
0 wihdoKr4 ! ' vi'leV&
a00
°MOUE SEE ROW PUN
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN
IDJ Ell Ell 121
t0tECN UPR RER WP__i42
W EE�140'-3 1,`�
i 0 6CLLCI00 5QQ
1
Rackpoint
A Lake B100, kimeeote
BWB
Lawson Commons
380 St Pesos Sorest, Suitt 600
Stint Paul, MN 55102-1996
651.2223701
caansals
raxd...,...,
.. .. row*Int wig... w A..a
Nam
ado 1-10-2[06 No Mo. 100/5
!nod For
rum Doh
10/1/05
10/14/05
'iI 000 01/23/06
iE y l� 02/16/06
rPN1 su6lmK 3-2-06
O
02/10/06 CPO- LWAIRe
Comm Na Daaad
2305.091.00 07
slat At,
EXTERIOR ELEVAT)ONS
rr bra ® "P
Rost No
512
Copyrigbl BWBA Architects
PREFWASSED DER/
WALL CA'
PfilalfFSISED
NICIIRECIURg MET&
0 IL \ A"tah Ao
DAS
g 50444111*goot
C
11, VERTICAL _-__
PRIM OM
FACE BRIM
SRAM DEW MU AT
11-006 RAS. SEE DO/SOOM
AMOR*
SRAM STEW
PRFERISSIED
=MINN Sal RS
RUCH WIDOW RUNE
SCREEN DICLOSURE
CR-A
tr-4L 6.r
-
141
SOUTHEAST ELEVATION
Ve.V-a•
10:71OF WORDY
ROW RELIEF MOLE
AT MOO SCAR SRO
60/500
1RS10 ONCOSURE
®45.
NORTH EL NATION
ljets1,0*
MOM
CROSS MO 1111:li
BEYOND
&WrnmAkr!
•-1.El
CO+
---- --------- ---- -
is
DORY° WALL BEYOND 16
ON cm SR Ott ORO SA6
EXCLISODE
AT ORD E3
RR/ AT 22FAD
*ASH DRUMM,
SIMI AT ONO %A
406 @ 4 cp 4
MI lb. 10. I
Ir
F FMK
4
,-
- --e-- --V- -',
1.
imam
CJ
'V)
to
ut
,1 I u1 rLAI ii jj.iLti), it,11111
0
(IMO' VovK.
-
.
0(4_141F, %R.COR PUN
COMM. SCE 94731 PIM
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN
4.
--L2STF.C.CE_ORAWIRA,9
A
FIFSD7JA
Rockpoint
Lake no, linn050ii
BWBR
ARCHITECTS
Loomon Common,
3/10 St Pam Smoot, Soho 600
SaMt Paul, MN 55102-1996
651.2223701
Cosulltab
tAs.4 4•Aros. 4.4 4. 44.44
4,44e. sevo, ma • 4.101•444.4
.4nat 4. P.. u 0.• sto. el mos
Nam
Deo 2-10-964
laRAI10
Deo No tilD1S
11144
OVER RCM 07.30/05
DO PRITSIG 10/14/05
REVIEW SET 01 /23/06
Gp BO EWE 02/10/06
E CIF' PI 60 SORIITTAL _
Dole P.m
02/10/06 CDPINieD
CDR.
KF
9.":TERIOR:im ELEVATIONS
intivwd ror't
512
5646
!gal
3
4
7
Copyright FIRMA Acclaimers
Lake Elmo
City Council
March 21, 2006
Agenda Section: CONSENT AGENDA No 4B.
Agenda Item: Minutes and Structure
Background Information for March 21 , 2006:
At its March 14th workshop, the City Council asked staff to prepare a written standard for documenting the
city's minutes for council and commission meetings in accordance with the law and guided by the League of
Minnesota Cities. After reviewing the State Statutes, the City Attorney's advice and League of Minnesota
Cities guidance, the following minute structure has been prepared for your consideration.
Minute Structure For City Council and Commissions
Minutes for meetings in the City of Lake Elmo are structured to provide accurate knowledge of official activities. Minutes serve
to record the actions at a meeting and serve as the legal record of decisions.
Required contents (G.;ided by state statute and Robert's Rules of Order)
Members of the Public Body who are present, Date, Time, Place and Type of Meeting, Establishment of Quorum.
Numbered Agenda Items
Exact wording of Motion, Members who Make or Second Motions
Roll call votes on Motions,
Dissenting vote and reason (Limited to 1-2 sentences)
Summary of subject matter related to proposed Motions, Resolutions or Ordinances.
Other items to be included in the minutes as required
Findings of Fact (Land Use decisions and some personnel decisions)
Council's Conclusions (same reasons above related to subject matter)
Signature of Clerk
Not Included
Opinions/Interpretations of Recording Secretary
Judgmental Commentary (heated debate, valuable comment)
Discussion
Motions Withdrawn
Detailed Reports
Transcripts of the Meeting
Action Items:
M/S to adopt the Minute documentation process as presented
to record all City Council and Commission Meetings.
Attachments: LMC Guide
Person responsible:
S. Lumby
Minn. Stat. § 202A.19, subd. I.
Minn. Stat. § 204C.03, subd. 1.
Minn. Stat. § 645,44, subd. 5.
Minn. Stat. § 15.17.
Minn. Stat. § 412.151, subd. 1.
Whalen v. Minneapolis Special
Sch. Dist. No. 1, 309 Minn. 292,
245 N.W.2d 440 (1976).
Minn. Stat. §§ 13D.01, subd. 4;
331A.01, subd. 6; 15.17, subd. 1.
Minn. Stat. §§ 412.151, subd. 1;
412.191, subd. 3; 33IA.01, subd.
6.
Minn. Stat. §§ 331A.01, subd. 6;
412,151, subd. 1; 412.191, subd. 3.
B. When meetings may not be scheduled
City council meetings may not be held at any of the following times:
• After 6 p.m. on the evening of a major political party precinct caucus.
• Between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. on a day when there is an election being held
within the city's boundaries.
• On any legal holiday. (Note: "Legal holidays" include: New Year's Day,
Martin Luther King's Birthday, President's Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day,
Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. However, political subdivisions
have the option of determining whether Columbus Day and the Friday
after Thanksgiving are holidays. If it is determined that Columbus Day
and the day after Thanksgiving are not holidays, a meeting may be
scheduled on these days.)
Home rule charter cities may have additional prohibitions in their charters as
to when meetings may be scheduled.
Part V. Minutes
Municipal officers must keep all records necessary to provide a full and
accurate knowledge of their official activities.
A. Responsibility for taking minutes
A statutory city clerk must keep a minute book. Generally, he or she has wide
discretion as to how to keep the minutes. A verbatim record of everything that
was said is not normally required. However, in any case where the law or
charter requires a verbatim record, the use of a tape recorder instead of a court
reporter to accomplish that objective is probably valid.
B. Required contents
The following items must be included in the minutes:
• The members of the public body who are present.
• The members who make or second motions.
• Roll call vote on motions.
24 League of Minnesota Cities
Minn. Stat. §§ 331A.01, subd. 6;
412.151, subd. 1.
Minn. Stat. §§ 331A.01, subd. 6;
412.191, subd. 3.
Minn. Stat. §§ I3D.01, subd. 4;
331A.0I, subd. 6; 412.151, subd.
I; 412.191, subd. 3.
Swanson v. City of Bloomington,
421 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 1988).
Dietz v. Dodge County, 487
N.W.2d 237 (Minn. 1992).
Minn. Stat. § 412.151, subd. 1.
• Subject matter of proposed resolutions or ordinances.
• Whether the resolutions or ordinances are defeated or adopted.
• The votes of each member, including the mayor.
Home rule charter cities may have additional requirements in their charters.
C. Other items that should be in the
minutes
Although not generally required by statute, several court decisions suggest that
including certain information in the minutes can help to defend a city's action
should a lawsuit occur. The following types of data are examples of
information that should be included in the minutes:
• Findings offact. Case law requires them for land use decisions and some
personnel decisions.
• The council's conclusions. Case law requires them for land use decisions
and some personnel decisions.
• The specific reasons behind the council's conclusions. Examples would
include such things as the economical, social, political or safety factors
that were considered when the council made a particular decision.
• Signature of clerk and mayor. Because minutes would likely be
considered to be official papers of the city, they should be signed by the
clerk. And although the law does not require it, in many cities the mayor
also signs the minutes after they are approved by the council.
D. Approval of minutes by council
thou h it is not statutorily requirehe council generally approves the
minutes at the next council meeting. After the minutes have been approved,
they become the official permanent record of the council meeting.
Problems sometime arise when someone requests a copy of the minutes before
they have been approved by the council. The clerk must give out such
information if someone requests it, but should make it clear that the minutes
will not be officially approved until the next meeting.
Meetings of City Councils 25