Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-24-2006 Planning Commission Packetaim LAKE City of Lake Elmo jitEL M O 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 24, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Agenda Approval 2. Minutes a. April 10, 2006 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance-8009 Hill Trail 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance-Rockpoint Church 5. Site Plan Continued: Rockpoint Church 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Text Amendment -Fences as Screening and Security 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Text Amendment - Performance Standards in PF Zoning District 8. Outdoor Social Events 9. Metro Transit Park and Ride 10. Review: Setbacks in RR Zoning 11. City Council Update 12. Adjourn The public is invited to attend. DRAFT City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2006 Vice Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. in COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Deziel, Schneider, Lyzenga, Armstrong, Roth, Fliflet, Pelletier. STAFF PRESENT: Administrator Rafferty, Planner Dillerud, and Recording Secretary Anez. Agenda M/S/P, Armstrong/Roth, To accept the Agenda as presented. Vote: 8:0. Minutes Commissioner Fliflet was present at the last meeting. M/S/P, Roth/Pelletier, To accept the Minutes of March 27, 2006 as amended. Vote: 8:0. Preliminary Plat Continued: HIDDEN MEADOWS OF LAKE ELMO The Planner explained this application was tabled after the Public Hearing was conducted on March 27, 2006. The City Engineer's Memo reflects a few items of concern and there remains the issue of increasing the vegetative screening buffer on the easterly boundary because it is reduced from 200 to 100 feet with the neighboring parcel being eligible for OP development in the future. An e-mail received from the Engineer this afternoon was distributed. M/S/P, Deziel/Lyzenga, to remove from the Table the preliminary plat of HIDDEN MEADOWS OF LAKE ELMO. Vote: 8:0. Paul Danielson, Kimley-Horn Associates Mr. Danielson presented a slide show with photographs of the site and the church site. He presented his plans for landscaping within the buffer zones that showed the planting of six foot spruce trees at the edge of the tree line within the new backyards. He said the site is gently rolling and the area of the buffer is at the toe of a slope where it would be impractical to try to build a berm where there are already concerns for drainage due to the topography of the site. Mr. Dyer Mr. Dyer asked about access for his neighbor who is landlocked. He said that neighbor has an ingress and egress easement across his property. He said he has approached the applicants several times since 2004. He said he was hoping that as a good neighbor, the applicants would provide access for the landlocked parcel as well as for him to subdivide in the future. He suggested it would increase tax revenue and might help with density issues. He also suggested that the developer would be better served by doing it. He asked if it is incumbent upon the developer to think about the effect on neighboring parcels, and that he is not a fan of pocket developments. He observed that the Church members have no other options to get out of the site toward Lake Elmo Avenue. He asked if Minnetonka has had issues with that type of development and whether it is successful. The Planner said: • The City can and often has established street stubs. • To what extent it is done is relative to policy. • Minnetonka had few if any through streets in the 1960's and 1970's. It was successful in some cases and in others it created public safety problems. The City of Minnetonka corrected some of the problems at considerable expense. • The Lake Elmo City Council's desires have been, during his tenure, to maintain pocket neighborhood communities with a tight grid of thoroughfares. The Planner said his concern was whether or not the existing tree line would be year round effective, and he has not been to the site to make that determination. He noted that evergreen trees and the planting Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2006 1 DRAFT scheme would be fine under normal circumstances. He suggested that another option would be not to build two-story houses on those lots along the east property line. The Planner said the original preliminary plat had a street stub to the east boundary but the City Council ordered it removed. M/S/P, Armstrong/Deziel to recommend approval of the preliminary plat, development stage plan and conditional use permit for HIDDEN MEADOWS OF LAKE ELMO conditional upon implementation of the landscape plan presented tonight and conditional upon compliance with the City Engineer's comments and recommendations and the conditions and recommendations of the Valley Branch Watershed District Permit. Vote: 8:0. Site Plan Continued: Rockpoint Church The Planner said the hearing for variances for the church site have been scheduled for April 24, 2006. The site plan remains on the table. Commissioner Deziel requested a legal opinion on the constitutionality of city regulation of .religious symbols like the proposed steeple. Mr. Danielson said the site plan has changed slightly from the computer animation shown last year. Minutes and Structure Administrator Rafferty said the City needed to organize better because minutes were becoming unwieldy. He reported that Staff researched the League and received an opinion from the City Attorney for presentation to the City Council. He noted that the idea is not to limit comment but to put it into the appropriate context such as in the form of a motion. The Administrator said a policy still needs to be created for retention of tapes and DVD's. Commissioner Fliflet asked for clarification as to how to present information to the Council. The Planner said information is presented to Council in the form of motions and he explains to the Council why votes are split. He said motions should always include Findings. City Council Update The Planner said a variance for a large home on both Lakes DeMontreville and Olson was denied by Council on a split vote because of concerns for the number of future bedrooms. A Public Information Forum on the Village Area Master Plan will be held on April 19 at the Elementary School, presentation at 6:30 p.m. and at 7:30 p.m. a set of story boards with time for questions, answers and comments. The Council will then decide whether to move forward at their first meeting in May. The Met Council Board meets tomorrow on the Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. Council has directed another workshop be established with Lane Kendig for the Zoning Ordinance. Home Occupations will be addressed at the Council Workshop April 19. Adjourned 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Anez Recording Secretary Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2006 2 Amended/Approved: 4/10/06 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: Fliflet, 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 Amended/Approved: 4/10/06 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. Waterrnain 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 Amended/Approved: 4/10/06 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 Amended/Approved: 4/10/06 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 LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: April 19, 2006 for the Meeting of April 24, 2006 Applicant: Jason & Shannon Tacheny Location: 8009 Hill Trail Requested Action: Zoning Variances - Lot Area and Street Setback Land Use Plan Guiding: SRD Existing Zoning: R-1 (Shoreland Overlay) Site History and Existing Conditions: Washington County Assessor records indicate that this home was constructed in 1945 and today contains a total of 1,148 square feet of living area. There have been numerous building permits issued for replacements, remodels, porch and new detached garage since City records have been kept on this address. A single user 201 septic system was installed on the site in the mid-1980's along with several other sites in the Tri-Lakes and Old Village areas. County records reveal the site area to be 17,629 square feet. Discussion and Analysis: The applicants propose construction of a 2 story addition to the east end of house of approximately 1100 square feet which we understand will be utilized for a family room (ground level and 3 additional bedrooms (second story). The applicant states that the existing house floor plan only includes one legal bedroom. The applicant's plan for the addition is not compliant with R-1 or Shoreland standards as follows: 1. The site area is substantially non -conforming with the "pre-existing parcel" area standard of both R-1 and Shoreland — 39,204 square feet required, and 17, 629 square feet existing. 2. The addition would be located 27.5 feet from the street property line on Hill Trail. R-1 standards require a minimum 30 foot street set back. The applicants have suggested that the "hardship" here relates to the size of their family and the lack of sufficient bedrooms to properly house a family of that size. While that does not constitute a hardship alone (except a self-imposed hardship), a single family detached home with only a single legal bedroom (which likely was 2 legal bedrooms under 1945 codes — if any applied) could be considered a hardship for any property owner. The street setback proposed (27.5 feet where 30 feet is required) exactly matches the existing setback of the 1945 house footprint. No additional encroachment to Hill Trail will result. As is often the case with properties in the Hill Trail neighborhood, site area is seriously below current R-1 and Shoreland standards — even by applying the "pre-existing" parcel clause of the Zoning Ordinance. Seldom is there a reasonable option available to increase the parcel area — as is the case here. Where this has been the case in recent variance applications (most of which have been riparian to one lake or another) the City has generally looked to a Finding of whether the house addition, or new house, would be in keeping with the area of the site and other homes in the immediate neighborhood as to scale — a reasonable use. A second factor that must be considered is the impervious coverage of the site that will result from the home addition or new home. Within the Shoreland overlay this is limited to 15% or 6,000 square feet — whichever is greater. The septic system design capacity should be a factor as well where an increase in the bedroom count is proposed — as it the case here. From City records it appears that the 201 system serving this residence was designed for 2 bedrooms. Should these variances be approved, the system must be enlarged to a 3 or 4 bedroom capacity. Findings and Recommendations: Based on the foregoing staff suggests that the following mandatory Findings are appropriate: 1. The property can not be put to reasonable use without the granting of the variance requested. The subject residence was designed/constructed 60 years ago — well before public health/safety standards existed. Application of those standards today limits the existing residence a 1 bedroom, which is neither in character with the balance of the neighborhood nor is a reasonable use of the property. 2. The variance requested does result from circumstances unique to properties where principal structures were constructed prior to adoption of City Zoning and Shoreland Regulations; and, the circumstances of the variance were not solely created by the applicant in that context. 3. Granting of the variance will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. The foregoing Findings support a recommendation for approval of the variances requested. Planning Commission Actions Requested Motion to recommend approval of variances for lot area and street setback at 8009 Hill Trail based on Findings of the Planning Staff Report of April 19, 2006, and plans staff dated April 19, 2006 subject to a condition that the septic system be upgraded to a 3 or 4 bedroom capacity concurrently with the house addition. Charles' . Dillerud, City Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Documentation >„‘ LAKE DEMONTREVILL LAKE DEMONTR OLSON LAKE Location Map LAKE DEMONTREVILLE OLSON LAKE DEMONTF (-&\ LAKE T32N T3I R2IW ROW RI9W T32N T31N T3ON T3ON T29N T2SN T27N N T2RN T27N 222v, R2IW R2OW Vicinity Map 0 600 _ . . Scale in Feet Thi s drawing is the 101110)8 compliahon and el7 lhoreproduction of land records as Y ravenous Washington County offices . The ePPedrraTiring should be used for Inference purposes oriy. I Washington County is not responsible for any inac Some: Washington County Surveyor's Office. Phone (651) 430-6675 Parcel data based on AS400 Infomiation Kimberly Anez To: Subject: Jim Mcnamara FW: 8009 Hill Trail Original Message From: Thomas D. Prew [mailto:prew.td@tkda.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:34 PM To: Kimberly Anez Cc: Jim Mcnamara Subject: RE: 8009 Hill Trail Kim The septic was designed for 3 bedrooms in 1988. Additional bedrooms and other fixtures will require expanding the drainfield and possibly the septic tank. this. Soil shows high mottling. Tom From: Kimberly Anez [mailto:kim.anez@lakeelmo.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:15 PM To: Thomas D. Prew Subject: 8009 Hill Trail Hi, Tom! Jim should review We have another remodel request on Hill Trail at 8009. This time, the guy wants to add three bedrooms and "convert" an "existing bedroom" to a den area. He says the electric panel closet and the size of the window to outside means it cannot be counted as a bedroom, however, the county assessor web site says there are two bedrooms. In either case, he wants to add three bedrooms. His address file shows part of the 201 system. Number 7277, sheet 38 of 107 sheets, commission number 8064, signed by Larry Bohrer. Notes say: Connected to Orangeberg Building Sewerl 12 feet from septic tank. Installed 1250 gal. septic tank. 500 gal. pump station with 1/3 h.p. pum. 2 inch thick insulation under driveway. Constructed 661 s.f. of 3 feet wide trenches with 2 feet of rock under pipes. Can he add on any bedrooms? Would we consider him as adding three or only two bedrooms (assuming what he is telling me about Code being true)? Pumping records show pretty good maintenance, pumping every two to three years. Whether he needs a variance or not, we still need to know he has the capacity to add this many (how many?) bedrooms, right? :) Kim Kimberly Anez City of Lake Elmo kim.anez@lakeelmo.org 1 City of Lake Elmo Planning Department 3800 Laverne Ave. N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Jason and Shannon Tacheny 8009 Hill Trail North Lake Elmo, lvfN 55042 Re: Development Application Form Property Location (address and complete (long) legal description): 8009 Hill Trail North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Lots 300-309 Lanes Demontreville County Club Property Id Number: 0502921440036 Property ID#: 0502921440036 Detailed Reason for Request: Existing front of structure is 27 ! " feet +or-5" from lot line We would like to put an addition on our home so that we can have more bedrooms. Variance Request: Our house currently has only 1 bedroom; we have three children that don't have rooms of their own. This is a hardship for us, not only having no room to put our children, but not enough space in our house to accommodate for a family of five. The zoning was changed after the house was built; we only have one bedroom that is up to code. Contemporary standards are 3 — 4 bedrooms, the second bedroom isn't even a bedroom or considered a bedroom, there is a circuit breaker box in the room, a and the windows aren't large enough for egress. disc �U� a� fs}4hc S.tip� L ilftSol-L.3/L4 / �xc- Fa& Ge BEDROOM. / n c 3'0" fC,C, TL: aN /R /}2« I.'!�®i«..\.«...y\.. \ . a . . e. ,? \ a( : d »S' / \: g &E 4,:> . 2 . : . .2 ><. ,y. »a : ©ddd/y«2,\»\�2/< y... \,' : 2. y §� g ». « : . : /'y�/ y., { »« 1 ~~:\\\\ 2 » ® s \—w»\ \ \� , « \ \ <\\ � �--....} S� --- \/ .:,. ae%ROOM «x »ad° 3E f%/1 12' <40' &":\ FAO E OFr'115FAMi .•I. z74a,,TE: 10/211 L. 11 10410 11 125/05 • IP,T I PELL VT'EEi HHITE 2CNla. L J.E, L.IhI d''rrC .2951 L. 771 / \\ ƒON\ d< ROOF 2R • :S > s s y» 4 x ° LA, 1,t ?5 Eri S co SET P•K• NAIL c4, I c9, 0 es / < 11 `S ,/ ./ / es 5 /, r_ VS“ FUND 1/2" IRON PIPE AT LOT CORNER I t AREA SUMMARY: 6,632 SQ. FT. TOTAL AREA / )S Y\ /, r- / I )� 1 CERTIFICATION' by me plan or report was prepared a duly licensed land I hereby certify that this survey, P direct supervision ande oft Minnesota. or under «w of the Surveyor under the laws DANIEL V R ES Z57 8 License. No• 7-5-05 ate --- e0 BITUMINOUS STREET �q). F-fiLL TRAIL NORTH Dugs no ,^Jl' of SUR"1 CERTIFICATE. NY ES JASON TACHE FOR PROTECT LOCATION: HILL TRAIL NORTH g009 ��1NNESOTA LAKE ELMO, (51 BITUMINOUS 882'04 20 "E 203.01 BITUMINOUS I1 r 7 .— 7' XI I es e5 / L— r— x 20.I0 x PLAT. x x 1 20.30 MEAS. oa a BITUMINOUS 20.05 MEAS. 20.00 PLAT. Jq .A I I NOTES: OR SHOWN. UTILITIES NOT LOCATED WAS NO EFFORT UNDERGROUND EASEMENTS, ANY, MAY EXIST. EARCH RECORDED OR UNRECORDED MADE TO RES EASEMENTS' ARE ASSUMED. COUNTY BEARINGS SHOWN ARE FROM CONTOURS SHOWN ORTHO PHOTO DATE APRIL, 2000. REV. 7-12-05 ADD PROP. ADDITION. {,;/ 200k51 N90o0000„ E / s/ ♦/ I I /, /, / �A ' /s /s /, J, /, < 1 1 / 4.' E ISTINC H'USE I 1 BITUMINOUS I i I 1 • co N 'FOUND 3 cif 7▪ '(_i I cr:kt 1� 1 I1 \ I\ to eofk 1- - c — 20:00__ _ 2q.3'' n" __ 1 , „ „ M c_D, 7. c)._ a 4s 2P11:•:-N----17 '.. r� .� 2O.Off?^� i- \I / to { I 678 I i --FOUND 3 AT \ Q�� 1/ I IRON P1 Iqj LOT CORNER /, /, r - / f4 / / to '-\ EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION the owners LANE'County' S DEMONTREVILLE ota• (as provided by inclusive, Minne Lots 300 thru 309, Washington COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION' 40 r 0 20 SCALE; 1 INCH 20 FEET / SA Y 1 L— . / CATCH BASIN HYDRANT SIGN WATER VALVE UTILITY POLE LIGHT POLE TELEIELEC BOX GAS VALVE WIRES OVERHEAD WELL MANHOLE GULVERT ASCETER FEN CONCRETE • DENOTES °PED 1 2" IRON DENOTES SET 1 / 2 PIPE MARKED RLS 25718 Suite #S'100 200 East Chestnut Street 55082 Stillwater, WIN Phone 651275•8969 Fax 651.275.8976 dlt-csls© rncleodusa .net ERSTOt LAND SURVEYING, LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: April , 2006 for the Meeting of April 24, 2006 Applicant: Lakewood Evangelical Free Church Location: Southeast Quadrant of Keats Avenue and State Highway 36 Requested Action: Zoning Variance — Sidewall Height Land Use Plan Guiding: PF Existing Zoning: PF Site History and Existing Conditions: On April 28, 2005 the City Council approved several concurrent applications related to the 20 acre site for which this Site Plan is here presented. Regarding this site, the City approved a Preliminary Plat creating the site and the public road that would serve the site; a Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the classification of the site from RAD to PF, a rezoning of the site from RR to PF; and a Conditional Use Permit for a church facility on the 20 acre site. No Section 520 Site Plan was approved at that time, however. An OP Concept Plan was also approved for the balance of the overall 108 acres owned by the applicant by a separate action. Subsequent to the 2005 approvals Valley Branch Watershed District issued a grading permit for the north portion of the 108 acres site (including the subject 20 acres and public street). The City Engineer also reviewed and approved the installation of water main in the public street. That installation was inspected during construction by City consultants, and includes trunk water main needed by the City for system looping purposes The City Engineer is now preparing plans and specifications to extend City water main from the Sanctuary neighborhood to the Discover Crossing neighborhoods and then to this site during 2006. The Planning Commission first considered a site plan for the 50,000+ square foot Rockpoint Church facility on April 10, 2006. That application was tabled pending proper variance hearing Notice when it was discovered by staff that there were four implied variances from PF or other zoning standards — exterior materials, sidewall height, steeple height, and parking setback. Discussion and Analysis: Since the April 10 Planning Commission meeting two of the four variances noted have ceased to be required and/or requested. The applicant has submitted revised site plan eliminating the parking setback issue; and, the staff has conferred with the City Attorney and secured his opinion regarding the internal Zoning Ordinance standards conflict related to the steeple height. The fourth variance — exterior materials — is also addressed by another Hearing on the April 24 Planning Commission agenda that, if adopted, would amend the PF district standards to incorporate the same architectural performance standards as were adopted for the commercial zones in 2002. The City Attorney has advised that the apparent conflict between the general height limitation found in Section 300.12 of the ordinance (likely a 1980 vintage standard), and those that were adopted specifically for the PF district in 2000 should be viewed in terms of both intent and timing. It was clearly the City's intent in the 2000 PF standards to address places of worship (and their special architectural needs related to symbolism). Since those special standards also clearly post date the general standard of 300.12 it is the PF standard that is applicable. No variance is required for the steeple/cross proposed by the Rockpoint site plan. Staff has previously advised the Commission that the 2002 application of the amended architectural performance standards should have been extended to the PF zone as well as the commercial zones — and we thought it had been when during earlier advice the applicants. The Rockpoint site plan is responsive to those 2002 standards. If the Code amendment to extend those standards to PF is recommended by the Planning Commission on April 24 and adopted by the City Council on May 2, no variance or modification of . exterior surfacing will be required on the Rockpoint site plan. Assuming the foregoing, the only remaining variance is that for sidewall height. The PF standard for sidewall height is 35 feet. The Rockpoint site plan proposes a widely varying sidewall height (depending on where and which side of the building is measured). There are locations where the sidewall height ranges up to 49 feet. By a March 29, 2006 letter from the Rockpoint architects (BWBR) the applicant has presented its case for hardship based primarily on the physical characteristics of the site. Findings and Recommendations: The Commission should be aware that staff had previously advised the applicant's consultants/architects that there would be a height compliance issue with the plan they had brought to a pre -application meeting with staff. The applicant argues (by the March 29, 2006 letter) that the efficient site utilization dictates the "extra" finished level of the building, and that dictates the sidewall height proposed. Clearly, the actual site chosen (from an initial 108 acres of "choices") would suggest the "walkout" design proposed. Clear also is the applicant's argument that, by adding the extra level to the building, impervious coverage of the site is reduced from what it would be should the building's "program" be built without the extra level. The single question that results appears to be whether that argument constitutes a hardship in terms of the reasonable use of the property. Given this is a unique structure to Lake Elmo by any measure, and the overall characteristics of the site and its relationship to surrounding lands, staff suggests that the sidewall height proposed does constitute a reasonable use of the property, and the following findings are suggested: 1. The property can not be put to reasonable use without the granting of the variance requested. The proposed sidewall height variance applies to only a portion of the building and relates to both utilizing the site contours as they appear naturally and minimizing the impervious coverage of the site by creating floor area vertically rather than horizontally. 2. The variance requested does result from circumstances unique to this Place of Worship use and the physical characteristics of the site. 3. Granting of the variance will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. These Findings and recommendation assume that the amendment to the PF performance standards will be recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by the City Council thereby removing the variance action for exterior surfacing. Planning Commission Actions Requested: Motion to recommend approval of a variance for the Rockpoint Church to allow sidewalls of the structure to extend to a maximum of 49 feet based on the Findings of the Planning Staff Report of April 20, 2006,nd per plans st f dated April 20, 2006. Opp Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner Attachments: 1. Applicant's Documentation and Graphics BWBR ARCIiITECTS 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 RECEIVED 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: 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 snatch 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. Chut. 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. Chu,.., 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 H CONFIGURATION DISTRIBUTION WATTAGE VOLTAGE FINISH H H H H H 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 (19%T19"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 2 2@90 3 Single Assembly Twin Assembly Twin Assembly at 90° Triple at 902 3@120 Triple at 120° 4 Quad Assembly WATTAGE 14" 100MH' 150MH' 175MH 200MH 250MHs FC3V* Full Cutoff Type III 175PSMH1B FCVS' Full Cutoff Type V '19"320PSMH only. Supplied w/MS320/BU/ED28/LLC/PS lamp VOLTAGE 120 208 240 347 277 480 QUAD 19" 250MH 1000MH51 1000MH 400MH T19" 26" 750PSMH" 250PSMH' 1000PSMHtp' 320PSMH6 350PSMH 750HPS 400PSMH7 450PSMH' 100HPS 150HPS' 250HPS MH PSMH 120/208/240/277, Factory tied to 277V. HPS FINISH EH andH26 BLA BRA Bronze Anodized NA Natural Aluminum Anodized 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. HMT Style BRP Bronze Paint BLP Black Paint OC Optional Color Paint Specify HAL designation as shown in Color Selection Guide. ex: 0C-RAL7024 SC Special Color Paint Specify. Must supply color chip. Black Anodized 400HPS Metal Halide Pulse Start Metal Halide High Pressure Sodium 1000HPS 1000PSMH' 1. Medium base lamp 2. Available with vertical lamp optics only. 3. Operates 55V lamp. 4. M136 or M153. 750PSMH" 5. Uses BT37lamps only. 6. M132 or M154 7. M135 or M155 6. M137 or M152 750HPS 9. Available with Horizontal optics only. 10. Available with 4X and VS optics only. 11. M149 only. Horizontal optics require MS750/PS/BU/HOR/BT37 lamp 12. For 1000w Hr19 w/4X optics, see warning below: For 1000 Metal Halide, use: Brand Product Code Cataloa Number Venture 53702 MS1000W/HORBT37/3K G.E. 18205 MVR1000/U/BT37 Venture 15332 MH1000W/UBT37 For 1000 Pulse Start, use: Brand Product Code Catalog Number G,E. 10389 MVR1000/UBT37/PA Venture 49111 MS1000W/HOR/T25/PS WARNING: Use of other lamps voids warranty OPTIONS F LF PC PCR POLY HS QS SG Fusing In Head In-Line/In-Pole Fusing Photocontrol and Receptacle N/A with 480V. Photocontrol Receptacle only Polycarbonate Sag Lens In lieu of flat glass. N/A with 4X optics. 450w maximum. Internal Houseside Shield Supplied standard with FM optics. Quartz Standby Sag Glass Lens In lieu of flat glass Supplied standard with 4X optics and 26" VS 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 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 ® 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 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 (0 - 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 VAL, 1 bA or nlgner. 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 c Size Width B 1-2way 3-4 way D 14 14" 7" 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 GARDCO LIGHTING 79115-43/1104 41',47 j I P PRESM1p1E0 hm MALL UP P• IfTECIURIL REIHSKED METAL SOK ... 1r4r"�► � X3 L 1 E 4 111110111101111MOS \ es —I 0n11. 129-I mat I — 4' M. SSMMCIL 6RICII %-Y L t5-4 4' 6' MACE FRS( 81131 MUFF NM3E AT FLOOR Sue. SEE e0/eeo NIMM Y WWI SEEM PREi1NE0 AL)MMW 9¢ m 141101 WW2 PRIME SCEEN FMCO>B MST W q CM— cu— luT— a SOUTHEAST T6oEcx wPFA6 a. M9-1' o cA PERISHED KW AMLL COP 9rO— °E r SW Met: 9 AaA�Q_Epr- E +9 7A-e ATION Sm0 XA�sr iff 9S`1Tf� e 9a IELEr NAaE Al BAR 9.A6. SEE 60/500 1MM1 ENCLOSURE - a,, —T— o►r►• l � A6W = unlit _/Hdla -..a ,- 0 7,. K .� a.�- 1 II r4i -1— - _._. rna trA NORTHER EL VATION 1 Y 1/61.I'-0' 1mm 2 yt L44 ✓° a✓eot ,2 5: p,+ /S5_b" ova'ar4iii4fl u-1 MILL A? GRP X13 tau. AT tat VDU AT Ww It. TT 'TT XJ XK I I I I I OBLIQUE SIX EOMI PLIS 1—: ------ i COW SEE FLOOR PINT EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN A 0 A I WP(�uPuAxPEP Hoof EOLC u=r�sa� T o 9[OcITL x xI+aar uA r o ax OFFER Ivor r a 5r oEc1L toMER_�1z'" WN Azve -VA; 5 15 oKl s affect Rockpoint; Lake Elmo, Kfmnesota B TECTS Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Street. Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.2223701 he, ea, led to pee. eeeeleeMer PP. re. enle7 lee dentwa .. On on el IN ail a Y• ew,. Nam DOE 2-10-2006 M. Na 200/5 Faw! Far On▪ 0R MEW OS/30/05 10/14/05 �(�[/qlg��,,,, 01/23/06 E11IW �IRAAl11N.1� halo 02/10/0 Caron Ma 2005.091.00 511.41 Ma 512 NOW CP/Aw/NR0 oadad T Copyright BWBR A*chitr ss PRFIMENED MEW,. MOLL CAP PIE19MS ED AACHTICIUM. IRK 5uNC AL A' W. 0ER/ 1 hhIRCX IEr0MTy� EFOM A00E PEW NW AT Fure saea, a Tlr`1n-WNW - \ MOM 00000 STEM 1KFM 5HED Nll1AM 19LL TO YA1CH "NOON mwE A 15-f art— err-- 00 =EDI MUSK Tc SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 1.512 1/6'-r-o' Us106 X2 errors AND Win 2E1.010 4Y WALL MONO WALL KT= ON 0M0 MB ON MO ME6 i 0 OECN. �UPPER R YA0 E1�169- Tip 001-145-1R000 PIEF1Nb1O1 EIETN. W1 CAP T 0 0E0 0PPER R1101 olV'Eir 1 E00f REL6 NMAE +XI Ai FLOOR MSEE A,200 ,RASH ETILT09DF£ IleZ NORTHEAST 2 ATION ve+.v-r UlIDF T XB 4 poi C-------'----'---r--------�--,'' AAl V, E 3 TL. 91F-R1- 91DP 6WY0 EC AT EiO J® e •lik_ r i rehu f- 220302. EEE1100E PUM -- --- r • XF XG 4 XH XJ XK 1 I I TO r --'=�--'�--- 4 J Ui 141., (i(ei'&( 1 r--_ _�-a--- 0EUM SEE NM PIAN M EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN 1 0 ETx. WPER � 0 R00F [OCEM YA% El = A9 -1 i 0 Rtlt ROOD IYAX L• 5- T 0 OEC6 uP aix'1L� = 1w-D 1 T 0 ND( LDYEA R00E jn Y1N Rocxpoint, Lake EMo, NirrleaOta BA'�HBE R ]nation Common, 380 St. Pete Street, Suite 600 Stine Paul, MN 55102-1996 651 117 1701 -Wwtuh.mite. Tb e ,. y I* weew ea of Mu. of M. Maw Deb I-10-1006 1114110 ONIS SE1 94 i,1 ESUE SITE ' SUBHTUL wb CORM M. 2005.091.00 Deb 09/30/05 10 14 05 01/23/08 02/10/08 3-2-06 Art_ 11M. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS earf-14 be rvv► Copyright_ BWBR Architects P1EMITSE0 META_ YELL CAP PREKIESTED TASHRECINVI IMAL SONG e t 04,,,,l. i>e'-I A• E, WIITO . MO(_ IEVFK TI/11 FACE ORICII ERICK BEEF NAOE AT FUCK SU& SEE to/O10 N1MAN MOON SYSIOI PREMISHEO IMAM OIL TO KOCH E EM/ FNAE =E I IMMURE el? MST TV)Oli 15-A SOUTHEAST ELEVATION I 0 OECK LPPEfl floor V MAY R. A9=A i 0 K O'REM fl00F a A4Y L - 1A -a PREFEIG1IE0 METAL xL1 w I 0 0. IRPE3 1/5 LOGE n ,W Or %MORF `11$ ORM RELIEF MOLE AT FLOOR AN1, SEE S2/900 KKR EMLOS FE X3 m 8 x( YtAu aTcla RNL Erolo' OR MO El ON aO NI MEt6 MO MR ODOM J. w L. 1 eft_ X6 4 EICOSURE NLL A! 0A0 Mt IMSH DC OSURE. E91LAT MO EA 96 to '91t6z • , , - (to; ivn* MOUE 09ROM PM 4 TT �QXE XH XJ XK ID - — -I CM. cn.. CO I Y-"---- ftAOR sFa SFE w 900 --t TICE MO( J ----- —•�— — i -- 1 , - I —LAi h NORTHEAST ELVATION 1/P•1'd 1136.07 S A 50 NEW IEn* /C - MINE tQ FLOOR FM EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN i 0 OECILLPP MA% IA9-A T 0 MO( l(.OAE0 01 9M L. I TaoEa use ON El 1A0-, 1 2 0 0 M"LiOAER fl00F IDLE W EL. ill-1S rt1 Lamson Cott �-'-- 380 St. Peter S10=t, Suite 600 SaintPaol, MN 55102-1996 651.222-3701 A Lake Elmo, Minnesota ARCHITECTS EF%EYANI Rem OM 1-10-SO4 wed Fe R•0 11a DECO Om ow, ORIER REVEM• e9/30/05 &P90ECt01 10 14 0 Inn SET 01/23/06 CD EC 691E 02/10/06 E WE PLAN Su911171u 3-2-06 oav 02/10/C6 CP/.LM/I4140 farm k awed 2005.091.00 KF EXTEI OR ELEVATIONS oo-t &fti614. 02.1K0 512 J 2 Copyright BWBR Architects LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: March 23, 2006 for the Meeting of March 27, 2006 Applicant: Lakewood Evangelical Free Church Location: Southeast Quadrant of Keats Avenue and State Highway 36 Requested Action: Section 520 Site Plan Land Use Plan Guiding: PF Existing Zoning: PF Site History and Existing Conditions: On April 28, 2005 the City Council approved several concurrent applications related to the 20 acre site for which this Site Plan is here presented. Regarding this site, the City approved a Preliminary Plat creating the site and the public road that would serve the site; a Comprehensive Plan Amendment changing the classification of the site from RAD to PF, a rezoning of the site from RR to PF; and a Conditional Use Permit for a church facility on the 20 acre site. No Section 520 Site Plan was approved at that time, however. An OP Concept Plan was also approved for the balance of the overall 108 acres owned by the applicant by a separate action. The Preliminary Plat responsive to that Concept Plan appears elsewhere on this agenda. No Final Plat or Development Agreement has been approved for any of the overall 108 acre site. Subsequent to the 2005 approvals Valley Branch Watershed District issued a grading permit for the north portion of the 108 acres site (including the subject 20 acres and public street). The City Engineer also reviewed and approved the installation of water main in the public street. That installation was inspected during construction by City consultants, and includes trunk water main needed by the City for system looping purposes The City Engineer is now preparing plans and specifications to extend City water main from the Sanctuary neighborhood to the Discover Crossing neighborhoods and then to this site during 2006. Discussion and Analysis: This Staff Report addresses only the compliance with PF standards for "Places of Worship" and other applicable City Codes for the Section 520 Site Plan submitted for the 200 acre parcel. Staff findings regarding compliance are as follows: 1. All PF zoning structure set backs appear to be complied with. 2. While there are no parking set back standards specific to the PF zone, Section 300.13, Subdivision 6 specifies that there shall be no off-street parking within 20 feet of a public street right-of-way. The applicant proposes 15 off-street parking spaces closer than 20 feet from the public street right-of-way at the northwest corner of the parking lot. A site redesign or variance will be necessary. 3. Sufficient parking lot interior landscape islands are provided. 4. The exterior materials performance standards for the PF zoning district were not amended in 2002 as were those of the commercial zoning districts. A copy of those PF standards is attached. We note that the only allowable exterior surfacing materials in the PF zone are "brick, stone, and glass". This site plan submission depicts approximately 20% of the exterior surface proposed to be "pre -finished architectural metal". Either a plan revision or a variance would be required. All sloped roofing is proposed to be "standing seam metal" which is permitted by PF performance standards. 5. PF standards provide for a maximum building height of 50 feet., but no structure side wall exceeding 35 feet in height. With measurement of building height on a pitched roof taken from the mid point of the pitch slope it appears that the roof height of the structure complies with the 50 foot standard. However, it also appears that that structure side walls exceed the 35 foot maximum height at several locations — in some places nearly 50 feet. Either s redesign or a variance would be required. 6. Section 300.12 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that no building shall exceed 35 feet in height, including "...church spires...". It would appear that the PF standards as to building height may supersede that standard (one more internal conflict of the Zoning Ordinance), but inclusion of church spires in that limitation would seem to imply that if the PF height standard is 50 feet, church spires must be included in the maximum height calculation. Either the church spire needs to be reduced in height or a variance applied for. 7. The exterior lighting plan appears to potentially comply with Section 1350 standards for nonresidential sites. The levels of illumination forecasted are within the limits specified by the ordinance (except with 20 feet of the light source — now permissible). We do not find "cut sheets" of the light fixtures specified (by model number only) so we can not ascertain the degree of cut-off angle for those fixtures. That fixture information will be required to enable a determination as to whether a 20 foot of 30 foot fixture height must be used. The site plan specifies a 23 foot fixture height (including the 3 foot base — which must be included). 8. The site landscape plan is extensive and should comply with the Section 520 standards for value as a percentage of project costs. The only outside reviews requested for this site plan have been to the City Engineer and Valley Branch. Both have recently responded and their review comments are attached. Staff does not detect any major issues raised by those reviews, but recommends the usual conditions of approval to include compliance with Engineer and Watershed recommendations. Findings and Recommendations: The Commission should be aware that staff had previously advised the applicant's consultants that there would be a height compliance issue with the plan they had brought to a pre -application meeting with staff. The project architects (BWBR) have submitted a letter dated March 1, 2006 addressing the building height issue. It appears that the architects are arguing that height should be measured only from the "primary entrance" building elevation. I see no such reference in the City Code definition of building height. Staff was not at the time of that pre -application meeting aware that the PF zone was excluded (but should not have been) from the amended Performance Standards adopted for all commercial zones in 2002. Based on the foregoing staff review it appears that this site plan proposes at least three design features that are non -compliant with City Code standards. If it is the applicant's intention to continue to pursue those non -compliant design features (height, exterior surfacing materials and parking set back) it will be necessary to publish Legal Notice and conduct a hearing on the resulting variance applications. That Hearing can not take place until at least the April 10 Planning Commission meeting. The modifications required to the site plan (structure) that would be required should the applicant decide to redesign for Code compliance (or should applied -for variances be denied) are significant. We do not recommend this site plan review processing move beyond the Planning Commission until the non-compliance issues are resolved in some manner. Planning Commission Actions Requested: Staff recommends the Rock Point Church Section 520 Site Plan be tabled pending either redesign of the project for City Code compliance or consideration of an application for variances to those Code standards. The completed application date is March 5, 2006 . For compliance with the State 60 day w\review requirement the last meeting at which the Commission can consider this matter is April 24, and the last meeting at which the City Council can act is May 2, 2006. Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. City Engineer's Memo 3. Valley Branch Review 4. Applicant's Documentation and Graphics Chuck Dillerud From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thomas D. Prew [prew.td@tkda.com] Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:42 PM Chuck Dillerud Kimberly Anez Rock Point Church Rockpoint Church Site Plan Review Septic 1. The project requires a State Permit. They have submitted this plan for review to the MPCA. The final permit will not be done for a few months. 2. The developer will build the entire septic system at one time. The church is not scheduled to open until April 2007. 3. A monitoring plan, mitigation plan and operating plan and emergency response plan is required for City Approval. 4. Sewage could back-up into the church basement should the lift station lose power. A Emergency response plan is necessary. Drinking Water. 1. The City is currently designing a watermain to provide water to this subdivision. Water should be available this summer. 2. The Fire Chief should review hydrant placement around the building. 3. The watermain through the residential portion of the subdivision will need to be completed in order for this building to have water service. 4. Watermain within the site will be private. However the City will need to witness all testing of it. Drainage 1. A VBWD permit is required. 2. Developer shall submit a copy of their NPDES permit and SWPP. 3. Final acceptance of the project by the City cannot occur until turf established and no erosion is present. Streets 1. A temporary turn -around is required on the portion of the project is completed this summer. 2. Catch basin castings shown on the plan are delivered in the field are not. 3. Construction of the public street should be Tom Thomas D. Prew, P.E. Senior Registered Engineer Municipal Services Division phone: 651/292-4463 fax: 651/292-0083 e-mail: prew.td@tkda.com TKDA 1500 Piper Jaffray Plaza 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2140 www.tkda.com all disturbed have end of the street unless the residential correct, however those that have been part of a Developer's Agreement. 1 March 22, 2006 Mr. Chuck Dillerud City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Re: Hidden Meadows (Deer Glen) and Rockpoint Church (Lakewood Evangelical Free Church) Dear Mr. Dillerud: Thank you for submitting the materials regarding the proposed Hidden Meadows (formerly known as Deer Glen) and the Rockpoint Church (formerly known as Lakewood Evangelical Free Church). The Rockpoint Church information is for the wastewater treatment system. The Valley Branch Watershed District does not regulate nor have standards for waterwater treatment systems, so my comments within this letter are regarding the Hidden Meadows materials. The Valley Branch Watershed District Managers approved a permit for the Deer Glen subdivision and the Lakewood Evangelical Free Church on November 11, 2004. Construction of the church began last fall. The plans that you provided appear consistent with the plans that were approved by the Valley Branch Watershed District for the church, but not for the subdivision. Therefore, a new Valley Branch Watershed District Permit will be required. The current plans show substantial grade changes, additional residential lots, and longer, realigned roads. These changes will add more impervious surfaces than that of the previous plans and could affect the hydrology to the wetlands and the flood levels of the low areas. The developer will need to provide the necessary stormwater management features to handle the additional runoff produced from the additional impervious surfaces, show that wetlands will not be negatively impacted, and ensure that the proposed homes will be protected from flooding. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-832-2622. Sincerely, C? J.i' 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 rKimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. NS March 3, 2006 Mr. Chuck Dillerud City of Lake Elmo Planning Department 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RECEIVED Re: Rockpoint Church (formerly known as Lakewood Evangelical Free Church) Final Site Plan Submittal Dear Mr. Dillerud: On behalf of the Lakewood Evangelical Free Church (LEFC), Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) is submitting a Final Site Plan for your review and approval. As you are aware, LEFC received several approvals (with several conditions) for their 108 acres of property within the City of Lake Elmo. The property is "L-shaped" bounded by Trunk Highway (TH) 36 on the north, Keats Avenue on the west, and rural residential (but largely undeveloped) on the east and south. A portion of the west property abuts rural residential developed lots. The approved OP Development/Concept Plan shows the entire 108.62 acres and was divided into the same three parcels as previously shown. Parcel A is the 20 acre parcel that was reguided and rezoned along with a conditional use permit (CUP) to public facility (PF). The LEFC building would be constructed on this parcel. Parcel B is a 69.37 acre parcel that we are requesting a CUP for an OP development within the current RR zoning. Parcel C is an 18.97 acre parcel that we are requesting be maintained at the current RR zoning. LEFC has decided that as part of the move to Lake Elmo the church will be renamed to Rockpoint Church. In addition, shortly the developer of the OP residential development will be submitting a preliminary plat. The name of the development will be Hidden Meadows of Lake Elmo. Therefore, it was determined that the fmal plat for Rockpoint Church should be called Hidden Meadows of Lake Elmo. We do not intend to use the previous name of "Deer Glen". Other Issues Wastewater System .110101 ■ Suite 345N 2550 University Avenue West St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 The previous submittals have indicated that Parcel A and B will be served by a community wastewater system. North American Wetland Engineering, P.A. (NAWE) has reviewed their previous work and has made minor changes to the layout to confirm that the development proposed by Parcels A and B can be adequately accommodated in the ■ TEL 651 645 4197 FAX 651 645 5116 ri Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr. Chuck Dillerud March 3, 2006 Page 2 of 3 are identified as "constructed wetlands treatment area". We have included the final plans for the wastewater treatment and disposal plans for your approval. Water System It is our understanding that the City will extend public water to the site from the east. Our design includes the construction of the trunk water main through the site. Storm Sewer Storm sewer for the site has previously approved and permitted by the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) with several conditions. The church area and roadway does not need to be modified at this time. A revised submittal will be made to VBWD as part of the OP preliminary plat process. Final Plat LEFC will be submitting the fmal plat in the next week or so. It is our intention to have the final plat ready to go to City Council at the same time the final site plan is ready for City Council approval. Submittal Information The following information is enclosed as part of this submittal package: • Final Site Plan drawings (4 copies of full-size plans and one reduced 1 1x17 copy) of the following drawings: • Existing Conditions and Removals Plan (sheet 200.CD) • Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plans (Sheets 200.ICG and 200.2CG) • Roadway, Watermain Plan and Profile (Sheet 200.1.CR) • Church Driveway Plan and Profile (Sheet 200.2CR) • Site Plan (Sheet 200.1CS) • Site Plan Spot Elevations (Sheet 200.2CS) • Utility Plan (Sheet 200.CU) • Paving Plan (Sheet 200.CP) • Civil Details (Sheet 210-212) • Landscape Plan (Sheets L1.1 through L1.4) • Site Lighting Plan (Sheet 900.0T) • Site Photometric Plan • Building Elevations (Sheets 510-514) • Wastewater Treatment System Plans (11x17 only) • Development Application Form including clarification of code issues • Check for $1,150 ❑� Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr. Chuck Dillerud March 3, 2006 Page 3 of 3 Thank you for the opportunity to submit this plan for your review and we look forward to working with you, other City staff, and elected officials. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 651-643-0407. Very truly yours, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. „‘:91,8 Paul B. Danielson, P.E. Project Manager C: Chuck Palmer, LEFC Grant Nelson, LEFC Tom Domack, BWBR Architects Gary Ehret, Kimley-Horn and Associates File No. 160502006.2.001 BWBR ARCHITECTS Architecture • Interior Design March 1, 2006 Mr. Chuck Dillarud Planning Department City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Avenue Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 Re: Rockpoint Church Lake Elmo, Minnesota BWBR Commission No.: 2005.091.00 Dear Chuck: There are two concerns you raised in our January 17, 2006, meeting. We offer these clarifications regarding building height and exterior building materials as they relate to ordinance compliance in Chapter 3, Subd. 4., minimum District Requirements. 1. With regard to building height: The primary entrance floor elevation, on the north elevation that faces Highway 36, is noted as floor elevation 114'-0". The secondary entrance floor elevation, the south elevation that fares the woods, is noted as elevation 100'-0". The principal structure height, the Sanctuary roof, is sloped from elevation 140'-3- 1/2" up to elevation 149'-4". The top of the Cross Tower, an unoccupied structure, is noted as elevation 158'-0", 8'-8" above the highest roof elevation of the Sanctuary, and 24'-8" above the lower roof elevation of the Fellowship Room roof of 133'-4" — the portion of the building which the Cross Tower is most adjacent. 2. With regard to building materials: The primary exterior building wall materials are brick and glass, about 80% of all wall material. The other 20% of exterior building wall material is architectural metal wall paneling, either flat or ribbed. These types of architectural grade metal panel are used commonly on corporate, public, and institutional facilities. BWBR can provide samples upon request. If you have any questions, or require additional information, please call Richard Stuerman at 651/290-1894, or Tom Dornack at 651/290-1997. Sincerely, BWBR ARCHITECTS, INC. Es-14441/1( Lawson Commons Tom Dornack 380 St. Peter Street, Suite 600 Project Manager Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 c: Chuck Palmer, Building Committee Chair, Lakewood Evangelical Free Church Peter G. Smith, Principal -In -Charge, BWBR Architects 651.222.3701 fax 651.222.8961 /ce www.bwbr.com G:\0509100\Admin\Letter\2006-03-01 Dill rud.doc LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, Township 29, Range 21, excepting therefrom the following described parcels: 1. The Westerly 660 feet of the Southerly 825 feet of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4. 2. The South 1,125 feet of the West 1,100 feet of the Northwest 1/4, except the West 660 feet of the South 825 feet, except the South 400 feet of the West 1,100 feet. 3. The North 425 feet of the South 1,550 feet of the West 1,100 feet of the Northwest 1/4. 4. The South 400 feet of the East 440 feet of the West 1,100 feet of the Northwest 1/4. All in Washington County, MN. W 5G FaW6T5/ too'-0' PARTIAL SOUTHWEST ELEVATION OW I O PARTIAL NORTHWEST ELEVATION fro•=1'-0' IffiIS RR 15 CROSS PREEN META GP FACE BR. 101FOR PREFIX MCKIECMRA/ METAL SING %":" REllET Aw%£ 0911011E SEE FLOOR PINI PREFINISHED MERL WALL GAY FILE BRCS SEECCO.ND 114-0R00R LEAN "ANON STS ALUM SILL 10 MATCH WOW FAME CRP/FL STOP FRYING - WES TL O s F \ L0. PAR/PFT fPAM10 - 11U1.1111 0 RIN AXGIE — T— ,TIT pR1 _ IIA.PB MIA1PURPOSE TN FOREGROUND, SNOAII DASHED G.N.`mT BOAR Mdtl( VENEER SHELF_} SOUTHEAST ELEVATION — ALONG GRIDUNE TB 1/8'4-0• IE50.,B T a 1004 44EPD = 1RODE49 -e EDGE VA% 1 0 LEGLI, LONER RODE EDGE FNS EL•145-10'0 i 0 DECK UPPER R00T EDGE NN EL = 140-3 I/2" PA61NI5HED METAL WAL CAP ,Q� T.O. PARAPET M111NG - A4NN' I 0 OEIX. .0n1 FN R00F NGE� r.0. CGlf1 SNP MINE - DEEM 17P air. AZ4 J_EmbirrTer jam Tn—I 2 FACE BREI WONG EXPANSION ERR SFLONO 400R FL. 11E-p FFS1 4.50 BRICK VENEER SHELF PARTIAL-ELEVAT AT FIRE S PARATION WALL 1ro•4-0• 1E31.12 1r-0• ', ACE BDGLI Er FROST FOOTING SEE 15/35I K)FT STANDING SUM META R00F OVER ROGnNG PEU OVER 3/4' PLYA9 FACE BRICK STINGING SEAM META. ROOF OVER ROOFING FELT OVER 3/4• PITB0 5040 MAING BEHIND TRAAADCEIN FIBERGLASS PANEL r ARCH META SING F OVER 3/4' REM SWARM H II H WET FOOTING OUTBUILDING NORTH ELEVATION D2 OUTBUILDING WEST ELEVATION u2 514 op- 1'4 OUTOLOG�*EV C PREP!! METAL CAP 514 1/4• . ,•-c I11B10C1aV RR T5 GA04._ , SEE SHRUG 514 ii CROSS ELEVATION 1/e•.1•-0• TO. DRAWL STOP RIME - MOW 131 -I VT • BETNE 0BMOOE SCE TUTOR PUN ___ Sc PAHIIAL NUN IHEASI ELEVATICN IElEL13 51U0 FPILNG BEHIND IWNSLUCENI FIBERGLASS PAWL NEN META SONG OVER 3/4• POND SHEARING —I FROST EOM OUTBUILDING SOUTH ELEVATION u2 IX - 1•-0• SIGN ELEVATION 3/4• EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN • 1 0 CECR OPNR N/00 EDGE A%FL=1A9-N i 0 Cfp(, LOMER ROOF EDGE NAM EL .145-10 1 0 DECK 1:PER R00F3 1 EO/2CE MN fL I10 (Pt IH SIM / r�Eic. e l Tn. PIM•aET.. c 0, t a.F a T.O. PTV FRN�� FLU lut -d'✓ \TD. WAMFL STY M"M''� Lt. ITT -I 1A4 • PRFFN ARIDECTURC METAL SING FIFE 9VPI Rockpoint Lake Elmo, Minnesota BWBR ARCHITECTS 'cwo� Lawson Commons ¢T a: frsVe? 380 St Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul,MN 55102-1996 651 777 3701 RETAKING WALL STELA VAaE3, SEE GAR ma9 CWSAIants SNOLFPAMINGWCEM BE MD PANEFI�A4 M110 ROOF FILE BRKN 3-0• N 5-0• 61I1PPE w DOOR 2' FA, M FRMAE ARCM NET& SDIF. OVER 3/4• PLTWE SHEERING FROST MORE Mod For n OUTBUILDING EAST ELEVATION "' —E 2 4• . IRaDG11EN oint ;I CHURCH- !.! ADD2 MIL SIGN 0FH0P0AN Cep OWNER RENEW DO PRICING REVIEW SET CO BID ISSUE 02/10/06 Dole 09/30/05 10/14/05 01/23/08 02/10/08 Dram CP/JLW/MRB Com. Na aeaea 2005.091.00 KF Snee, 040 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Neel Na 514 Copyright BWBR Architects 4 PARTIAL EXTERIOR SOUTHWEST ELEVATION 1/1MW-0' IESEOY PM IS CROSS, SEE STRUC Z2 Z3 Z4 4 ZS Z6 I I I I I r _ � 09p11E SEE RD00 PUN 4 PREEA451ED METAL NML rap- PREFMSNm ARCIMECNRIL IETAI� ACING F 0 m. _ __ � 1]0 -s 1 4 o EL = I20-17 6740 E1M15NE0 MAMMY SILL 50 MICR MOON FR.ME 111-LI 9 BRICK IENEE ANGLE AT FLOOR SUSS SEE 6D/560 -'10E saw PARTIAL NORTHWST ELEVATION k °M101 SEE ROOK PUN 1/1Nr-0' USDOS RETNN5IC WALL SYSTEM PARTIAL NORTHWEST ELEVATION t C7 15i L-.-� Sri Ja� L— 4 WAi1 OE19N0 4r WORD. NMJI ROOF PRENN15HED IAp91ECBRYI MEIN. SDK ®AC9t 71FU'CIE. 1 -ENEMREUEF NMI M NFICa SEE IB/5B0 WV WIDOW MIDI PRDI I111C1 IIMM.,ENNLAI AIL T ``----` OBIM. SFE FLOOR PLNI OaI00E SEE FLOOR PUN EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN Ryfl SNP Frif FCC PRDNASNED METAL wNL B0*44 PRFE AS ED RECRAIAL NEDL MK- MLMMAM MNW4 5251EM. TM ALUMINUM 031 TO M1TCN %MOON SSID1. m r 0 OEcx,_u IiaPc xwf EOCEt? Mlx E - 4P—a r 0 CfC% LOWER ROOF CODE 74xD �1 0 Pm —ft 1/P TO. MAB01WI, fl . IX'-IO- • Rockport Lake Elmo, Minnesota Wins T 0 OECR u44 =u LOMF ROOF EDGE o f 0 OECN� "Ilex OOF l/2 INfl=tw-012 1 0 OE[R IEM " r= I sDIGF EE= s-� T.O. MUM MIMIIC VAI 9 TD. PNOR NIAANIC. 1N II11gH�✓i SECOMO F400A� a. n4-0 ,Ql'il9 B ARCHITEA Lawson Commons 380 St. Peter Socct, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MIS 55102-1996 651.222.3701 .,. w.�4...A*.=... ton. r.11.4eN pate 5-10-2036 hod For P0t0 0. 32n1t0 Am Na MOSS Nan OWNER REVIEW DO KWIC REVIEW SET CD BID 6511E E STE PLAN SUBMITTAL C Oote 02/10/06 Comm RN 2005.091.00 99/30/05 10/14/05 01/23/06 02/10/06 3-2-06 Dram cP/JLw/MRB Mocked KE Shut Ma EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 3,e1 no 2 4 513 Copyright BWBR Architects X1 X2 X3 Dx 5z PREFWIS400 NKr, WALL CAP 090Nl<0E0 AFKNRECIIWOL METAL SKIING a If - "1 FL 1>6•-0' 41 W, VERTU. MEN. (1R1 FACE BRAN BRICK FEW AIM AT ROM FLOP SI1B. SEE 60/5600 QWORD FLOP FL • 114-0' MAIM! M ON SYSIEN Pik0Rt0WL M1AMAlN ALL 1 NARK WINOOR FRAME S RIN ENCLOSLRE _ w-I4 / SOUTHEAST ELEVATION / 1/6•-11-0• I5'-4• CROSS AND RAO BEYOND 1 -I--I __-_4 XA 4 XR w EOI n I0A11 WCN UPPER ROOF EWE i 0 LOWEfl R00F =19 TG— PREFINI9W0 YENS WILL CAP 0 0 OECN. I10•-.1UPPER l/1 R00F DRAWL SDP E 7 u N,few-n 10P Oi WORM' BRICK RELIEF M E AT FLOOR AJEL SEE 1/5W RO51 EMIOACC 9 MOD -0 \ I I NORTHEAST EL_VATION I/6-F-O• 1ESE OF L VelE �a. `T- smr -s I ER.uWIc ll � /ems R BP 7 T 1 'ice i OBWBE, BEE BOOR PLAN TT 4XH XJ T O F1Rx REEF ANAE • J -4- MaGt OR ARb, SEE 6 Mkt FLO ij 0911011E SEE FIOOR PIAN 1 if 0001011E SEE FLOOR PI.W • EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN „II LU „I, D DECK . a ROOF EWE IAA% R • 14 -ID i0 DECN 1. NIN�L i 0 OECN LOWER a0a EDCE NI LI - Rockpoinnt. Lake Elmo, kfRmesota BWBR ARCHITECTS Lawson Commons 380 St Pau Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 Ca64IMRe M sWr er tY Nn wu.+r. male r+-Yh Yryngw a Peter G. Smith Dole 2-10-2006 —RN, Na 20015 beef For Nan Gets OWNER REVIEW 09/30/05 OD PRIME 10/14/05 RE\9EW SET 01/23/06 CO BID ISSUE 02/10/06 E SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL 3-2-06 0 Ou Oran 02/10/06 CP/JLW/AIRB Dann. Na Pebk 2005.091.00 KF 5.0 1Me EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 30 EE<EIPLw 512 Copyright BWBR Architects PREFINRHEO META. NAl CAP REFINISHED ARGHREGIIIPII META. SIDING REFINISHED MCHNECTUF META. PANE t.a�wrlwFFxc, MAX `� T.v� a EL IRI-51 4 6NT BG Y• ' - A BRICK 4- EW.A MUM BRICK REVEAL (1/2j 6MNIW IMAM MIEN. TIP PR6NR9IE00WIIW SILL 0 MAPCH MOW FAME, TIP REDWING 'WI 9EYOND �tg1�D11(iI BRIM RELIEF 16101E AT FLOOR S M. SEE 80/S60 FACE BACK SOUTH ELEVATION 0'-F-r My W EL - E ,L0117 33' ROOF EDGE 336_ -0 ou I I C C C SOUTHWEST ELEVATION 1/8'-I'-0' Lf5F16S I/�ra. mMEE slop -� TLIdD—s 1I4 4 IJ COMM SEE F1001 1D XK T XH' TT NA D AT NaR9�P 1 1 1 �— OBII011[ SEE FLOE PLW -� 1 RETURN /111Y SILL BAM TO FAME STANDING SEAM META. ROOF S15IDI PIEFNI6RIFD MEIN. FASCN AND SAW PR0M61IED IAETRIECIURA. META. SONG SUM PRERISHED META. 1,161 U EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN GT+ 4'-8' Y 4' 1 C� 1 0 jF01 UwER RWF EOGEt\ uqx E O 0 DECN LUKR R0001 EDGE uAl o -- 145'-10"& TO G RP YIN FI=ILO-]I2 FILE BRIO( . 4- N. MOD/ BRICK RESE9. (l/R) 1 SED]0 ,r19 0. 1,.--..-BICN RELIEF ANGLE AT MAW FLOOR SUB. SEE 80/560 IS1664 0250NiON I @I, TIP -PR6MISNED &WNW SILL TO W MATCH NWN FAME TIP �S4I Re'-B- I Rockpont; Lake Elmo, Minnesota BWBR ARCHITECTS Lawson Commons 380 S5. Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.2223701 Meter M. SmIM Bole 8-10-M01 Rom. N. 2015 Wtl For Am MA EMBER REVIEW 0a/3Q/05 00 PRIMING 10/14/05 REVIEW SET O1 23 08 CD BID ISSUE 02/10/06 E SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL 3-2-06 Dab Pmm 02/10/06 CP/JLW/MRB Gann No 0.aM 2005.091.00 KF Sleet 1M EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Street No I 511 Copyright BWBR Architects A L 0 OECK EL Tn_ O.pEnc, LOWER R00 V�10.Y11�+"f-10' 1wo DECK , V N ELN EL 1,714, NORTH ELEVATION T 0 0ECK. UPPER ROOF EDGE YAM ¢ _ IA9 =1 T 0 OECK 10AER ROOF EDGE 14 -a i10 0001 4RPER ROOF EDGE 140'-J I/O. 1 0 C ONER ROOF WC' 1E OM P4BH@ffD ARGWELTURII MEIN SONG P0OWS/ED METAL FASCIA IAND SOME [11E 1H MR BEYg10 M WOW WIIWE. SEE ELDOR PLAN i BROOM SEE 6DOR PUN WEST ELEVATION 1/e•.r-D• PARTIAL EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/8•-1•-0• 115E141 0 4� 1 BEYOND WWI LIST 4 4 WALL IIRDSEAPE BEIDRD REML MOM -[ 4-ram MO ALTERNATE, FIRE-STMAP4G DIATOM lOYI laiDSCAPE 5M1 7�= I I I I mw VAT PREFWBSIR,D RU1D UM SAL 10 RATER 5INODNIFRAME FADE T PARTIAL EXTERIOR ELEVA 10N 1/e• I'-0• MELDS WALL BEHIND CANOPY ( PREBN METAL TAAA1 PM TS MD EXPOSED METAL DECK 3 � 2 T.D. MXWI-SHIP i0.WINFAY I 131-21/4'J BRG f-� Y��AOO ILIEPROM FREE -STRONG EAMON E0. sR01T ;TPp e 'OtT �' �STANpNC SEW YEDL .„BF sTs1EM II / I f PARTIAL EXTERIOR ELEVATION 1/e•-r-0• IESE DJ PRFSI5SN0 METAL EASCM NO WPM PIRTINWIEO A0CNIIECRWL Yak SIDING PREFIN0N5 METAL WALL CAP FACE BRICK _BMP4 REUSE ANGLE AT FLOOR 9A8, SEE BO/5500 1 ALIMNUM WIDOW SS1D4 TEF CANOPY M FOREGROUND, SHOWN DASHED NR0W5HED METAL WILL CAP i 0 MEN. LOWER ROOF EDGE WAN TA. 'OF NG aIM . IDA-R PROMOTED METAL P4XD. SYSTEM MDMWUM WINDOW SYSTEM BRICK SOIL FL- 11aRmK1R �VSE 11 J -B'1 F06T FLOM. ry EL IDS D. I.-PREMIXED METAL MALL CAP 4• W. NFIIIXML BRICK IRV191 (1/I1. TWA ACE BRIM MARRA/ WNDOW SYSTEM PREFMl1MLMW WSILL 10 WI04CW wow FRAMES NAM T.O. HOT P - 1RANINC FLOOR RAH EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYPLAN '`" iD. Ff 784 W4 ¢t2jY4 LOCI ¢- 12T-10 (HIGH) SEC;dG ¢OOR� ..aa L. PARTEi WRING. MAX, • u-M mom TD. PWPiT fRM4NG,1 lID � Imo FAST RDOR, a-u - Rockpoznt; Lake Ekno, IXfanesota BWBR ARCHITECTS Lawson Commons 380 St Peter Street, Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.2223701 ^a.gaheafe dn.-a-e`.. Ansmr mb AaAn u.. wwas 31 .a n,..-1 maw Pater Li. Sloth Date 2-10-tees Rq Xa MGM Mad FLA Xan Bate OWNER REVIEW 00/30/05 DD PRICING 10/14/05 REVIEW SET 01/23/06 CD BID 6511E 02/10/06 E SITE Phil SUTURAL 3-2-06 02/10/06 Came W 2005.091.00 Dram CP/JLW/MRB 0,ed*N KF SANGwW EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Sluff Na 510 Copyright BWBR Architects ♦'4� 41,._ mod'''%.. .4.4.40044 OYt�ttl0i'444*O. O� 4•t♦ •• 44 F .4 ♦A♦ A'to. V 4:♦4,♦A. II`+ i,!4.#4:444. t4.t�t4.O:1;1:$4:4,tt 1:1374;4;14 ♦♦,t♦tart,♦ie,tt �i♦♦itr♦i;�f,�`����''`� ,♦t,Agt♦♦t .♦♦Ft,'♦♦Ftt♦F t�4'♦sir•-•.lik 4. y♦♦itis i'!♦sti?♦tit,'♦♦i♦4�4��♦c'!'��', ;t♦t♦t e*Aeee��e...9t♦♦F♦4•♦♦♦I. ♦♦tiP4 .,. 4." a 4%. 1 e%+ti`++++ 4.44#4.444 �� ��` ✓i�♦�'`�'oi♦t ii�s'`♦ii♦♦:� `ill 4� Lt✓I♦I ♦I N'4i;i • ♦,:; 4.4tetI�jttI01�`'�`'Itt•4, Al`A♦EI♦I.'ti f?)� O1%s+ e'4vtte; +++4,, 444,+! a ft` � �ljttl`jttt♦t�♦t♦tlt ++44. Itt,1�`I�I�II4� ♦N t♦N t♦t1 ♦♦N ♦♦N t ♦ I011,1t(LtOI�� ,+♦,'♦,�`t,,tltt,t♦I j'♦Itj�It 44;4 l/VI ♦D♦♦++++♦s♦♦ts♦♦t, * ♦IOC t l� �) rf y ,j!t /y//J/ ,///_1 //////%/ '// .// // / /// I// 411111.111111111111111111111 a12� \ CHURCH SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN CIlR6 AND GUTTER SHOP BN FOR REFERENCE SEE CIVIL FLANS POR LATOUT DETAILING. CONCRFIE SIDEWALK PER CIVIL DETAILS. HAND -TOOL .DINTS AS SNOW C 6•-6• DIAMETER LIM MTOALe M1LCH, HAND PLACED. FILL SURFACE VOIDS AITH 9/4•-IB• DIAMETER ERUS ED LIMESTONE MULCS. SEE DETAIL 12/LIB 1/6•x5• BLACK RYER'ON 5TESE. CENSER TT. SEE SPECIFICATIONS. E) / • ,y ///' // /-_// // / ..���E0i \\ G 'ztm"u,.•ra\ '% i / /1/<// /// ,//.///.//, ///// / 2/./>*<'";6?6;"'//7/. "///'-'f://'7.7—/,//</2;.' '/;///i7////;// N. MA sw %sPw_l6�- _i♦%fes^o�gt.o♦�oi�NF::�M?:3g=�aId���A;�tLri���4elf:;I,4OY�N:::;4n�llF.//T////� �//////7// 1117I»n:�«cvF �="._.:. MU. .:._. 4: ;ifi�I.�a6�LI�sApj2s�4tiNt / ♦I.♦..♦ ...j� *♦ ,�O4�ii��,j,t.i:4a�!i; I4 +sis '�400ViI4'/.// t • 4•4 C - A 0 �' S'� �•� be'a3 \` ��A. �a�:, !��i�: ee, {�/// i, / / yeaasu Ras .a -r y�.I.�� .: �! ff� i7►��� lYw.el�eueMR�L►i.Vww s!I / .u+lrse 19 / / ' / =0nfvn.44��_K FC,,UR�T•?"RI •Ap�ER•C,tV1L PCAi1S ♦ a♦<,t i aVlwi!Qlt414.1 jt♦`Itt Vtj♦Nt j♦N♦`mri 41 �i'%t';.��♦i,$4+%ite++,i♦41+,♦'I'+'♦ 4'++ 4.41+,i♦i♦iiy'ss4.4* ei♦+444++400 ia'�!`;:i��4* it,♦4*++'♦♦4.44 4.4.4..ii 4.4.4.?sti♦44;+tit s♦•4•6i♦ ,4Git,tti4.A• 4t,414••�"' 4'♦Itj♦tlp,s♦♦t,tNt,tNt,♦♦♦4404♦4I� 4*$4♦s�.4*44+♦ , 4.4.*♦It,tOI♦I♦tq♦I♦♦It,t♦It,♦♦It,t♦IFI♦4��ci 0 1 9 ////' /. //' IIJ PfkAAI/.AMhf ...a I55fP°NA.a H'T., IIw�TL. a ii1F® I rA�rrol cart. Tt ala I ranaNre I."e:t.= pLAHr .ITfy1 Rom:° IAui2 Faker it n n.M. I r I����♦i♦s♦tiosn♦s♦I J�+rtI,y'II�yh`•y,.04�ljAjFoN+It�NiVt�/js 1`t/"��''7 tNi�//F:/// /. :/iy, se :1:1/1://:///:'././/////////,'".,//////1/:///1/1/.////////'/I / // /7/ /�//P/L/�'/r/T7S/ C/H�E/DTU/L/E/ / //'/% // ✓/ />//// :1/7/7. / ///,�//./ji�t'//,/// /////`44*// ///////'./ / ' ' / /// // �°ik 1ft r ,?�s�♦I.,;♦%$♦♦/////�/� ////////////,/;////, //// ,VloFN,4 .>:/4 .. ...a�,/AG ,ELo 0/6THERs'/////// ' .ig!/ j/////,// / / //i /. //♦♦♦p�♦♦/' // .//////////////�////_ ////!pe/////// / // . // // IfI►♦e♦t /// / / / / Ft+ zFr 4* / /////. /// ////// /// / 4.RY,♦♦I.4+;'/7'�//�/�. /G////%////// ///////z/////// �et�LL4f#1♦5:!�///// /////2//%/i/ / , 4Af..+!ei:ite'ieiOtj/ /%/ ///' / ///-/ / /;�'eF♦eee,,// ti/:/ //,///////////�;;, ��t♦♦t;♦;//F`, / // // //,/,. //// //:/ ///// i f ; , / / / / / / i'♦♦s``,/4ItI./// ///. •/ / /// /// // { . / •♦♦tt♦It, / / // // ////// // //: rt,♦CIc $4, s'`I�i_ #1wi �e o-mATN -968- /T///!//// /// ' // 4 /: //// /!; ////// ///////// %/ MI Im% y " iUM °r / //////////////////////// j / 0 15' 3Ay/4P//7�///j////// j y// //////.///,/////// TURF SOD PER SPECIFICATIONS. STEEL TRAFFIC BOLLARD. SEE DETAIL WEE LI.4. TP. (B). PLACE 5'-0• ON -CENTER MONRENT 516N PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. MAINTAINSO' CLEAR SIGHT TRIANGLE. POWER FEED PER ELECTRICAL PLANS. CAIIFORM TO CITY OF LAKE ELMO 51A RE6IMTIOI6. TRAFFIC SIGHS PER CIVIL PLANS. 10 LANDSCAPE FORMb' 2 NS METAL BENCH PER DETAIL SHEET L13. LAMIDSCAPE FORMS METAL CIGARETTE ASH URN PER DETAIL SHEET LIB. &TUMNOUS TRAIL OVER CONTRACTOR PREPARES SW -SRAM SEE CIVIL PANS, DETAILS AND srearitTIONS. SEED DISTURBED AREAS WITH NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED Mix PER SPECIFICAITONS. 13 4. OEM 9/4 -13• 0RU51E0 LimesTOME MLCH OVER Y® BARRIER PROPOSED SAND VOLLEYBALL COURTS PER DETAIL SWEET LI.4. REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR GRADING AMID 5118 ACE DRAINAGE PIPING. PROPOSED PEDWM HEIGHT NATIVE PRAIRIE RRAC 5. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS. IS PROPOSED A6RILULTURAL ALFALFA OVER BALANCE OF E3I5TIN6 CROPLANDS. FELD PREP. SEEMS, AND HARVE5TIN6, MAINTENANCE PER A6REETENT BETWEEN CAMELS AND I FACFF ) STAGE' PLATFORM CONSTRICTED OF MOOY AR BL.O4K AND U4IT PAVERS sEc DETAIL SHEET LIB AND SPECIFICATIONS. MOOI.LAR ry Va'K RETAINIMS WALL. SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR WALL ELEVATIONS. CERTIFIED, ENG118RED WALL DRAWIN65 OT WALL MAMLFACiURER. ANCHOR NISH/AND. SERIES. SEE SPECFICATIONS. 18 19 42. ORNAMENTAL METAL MICE, TTICAL. SEE DETAIL SHEET LIB AND OIFICATIONS. PLAYWORLD SYSTEMS FLAY Etl11PMENT M SAND TOT LOT AREA, WITH CONCRETE CUM CONTAINMENT EDGE. SEE DETAIL SIFT LI.4 AND SPECIFICATIONS. FUPARE ROCK MD14A-ENT. QUARRY -I ACTED DRY TRAP BOULDER OR SIMILAR 53 LANp50APE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE JRRI6ATION SLEEVIW REO.IIRElENTS WITH TIE 6EERAL CANTRALTOR PRIOR TO PAYMENT INSTALLATION. REFER TO SHEETS LI.I, LISLI.4 AND SPECIFICATIONS POR ADDITIONAL CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS. NSP EASEMENT i 5 Rock oint Lake Elmo Campus Lake Ekno, Minnesota B W B R ARCHITECTS Lemon Commons 350 St. Pas Street, Suitt 600 Stint Paul, niN 55102-1996 651 222.3701 Consume3 Landscape 1(9113clae Damon Farber Associates 923 MoMedia Mall Min he Minnesota 55402 phone 612.331.7522 wlax 612.332.0936 .aamafarbe..com w k....•-.._.,..N Nam Dote 7110106 1'a Nap Del' 2A0/06 Cam, No. 1005-09:-00 Sheet idle ere Nu 12536 Dole Drew BH E.4W CHURCH SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL Sheet Na L1.2 PLAN NOTE TAGS LOCATOR MAP C'°yrieht B'SBR Architects o O , —r— '910 (TYP) SPECIAL R20' R10 rn 42" ORDAMENTAL FENCE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN I / I — `` STA 2+36.56 ® 89' RT. MODULAR BLOCK �' �'' ♦ RETAINING WALL ( , ,` - % I SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN '(i t P � ' 1 1 WETLAND 1 / ' I 153 •'�,� ��� '4 CD sag , _ O ♦ • — • _ _ _ — — _ 10.1 STA 2+90.35 ® 67.19 RT. — 4' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK LSTAGE, SEE LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK PLAN 8' WIDE BITUMINOUS PATH TO FOLLOW CONTOUR R25' (TYP) D412 CURB �0 UPPER LEVEL ELEV: 989.90 LOWER LEVEL ELEV: 975.90 4' WIDE CONCRETE SIDEWALK I/ 1 I i• 1 i 1 ,,_,_,,. • 8' WIDE CONCRETE MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN SEE SHEET 2D0.2CR FOR ALIGNMENT DATA IP e�40. 1 I / WETLAND j 1 / / 4" SOLID WHITE STRIPE (TYP) 5 R44' R25 �� 9++48.17 / � ® 31.94'RTB 1 • �• ♦ � y� �� 4' i I ♦ 8 LEGEND WETLAND AREAS WETLAND BUFFER WOODLANDS PARCEL LINE PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE CURB & GUTTER (B612) TIP GUTTER OUT CURB CUT SECTION OTY. 12 19 5 SIGN NO. R1-1 R7-8A R7-8B SPECIAL 0 15 30 60 100111 HORIZONTAL SCALE 1N FEET SIGN TABULATION 1 SIZE DESCRIPTION I 24"x24" STOP 1 12"x18" ACCESSIBLE PARKING I 6"812" VAN ACCESSIBLE 1 24"x30" MOTORCYCLE PARKING ONLY LOCATE ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNS 2.5' BEHIND CURB AND CENTERED ON PARKING STALL. SEE DETAIL BUILDING GRID COORDINATES I GRID NORTHING EASTING I I 1.F 204566.41 483592.91 1 I 4.F 204566.41 483683.831 I I SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN FOR BUILDING GRID LAYOUT PARKING STALL TABULATION 279 PARKING STALLS 9 ADA ACCESSIBLE STALLS ckpom1, Lake Elmo Campus Lake Elmo, Minnesota BWBR ARCHITECTS Lawson Commons 380 5t Poser Snoc1, 5mcc GOO Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 Conmmis ❑_n Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ssP rsir+esme ssii suns }sN 0NO. (650 645-4197 *x. No. (es11 645-5116 I tee 14 Wig 001, ycbn60 a [tool tm pried I7 me a 5176 AI! ATI simian el hi I an o ill fond Pdts'd'mita ink the logs ofSt Solt of lit A Dole 02/10/06 Issued For Den DD c OAFS FINAL Dote NOV. 15, 2005 [cam No Reel line SITE PLAN Sheet No. 066 No. 23197 tote 10/14/05 01/20/06 02/10/06 aom RSP area PI3D 200.1CS G: \RockPoint\PLAN SHEETS\BWBR\200-2CG.dwg March 02, G: \RockPoinl\PLAN SHEETS \BWBR\200-2CG.dwg March 02, / / / \ T y l / / ' \ / h / N / TO 9URFA' S YL SHkNF' L L—i ANDSCAPE,SSHE PyRDE AAIL (/ e ' /1 Aej4 4.I 1. 1•IMI INi \ SPILLWAY SEE DETAIL e 0 UPPER LEVEL ELEV: /989.9d LOWER LEVEL ELEV:/ 975.9¢II AIM / 9761/ DRAIN TILE SYSTEM /, /iNNECT TO SEWER PIPE. j SEE LANDSCAPE . I#E{2,TS - _ \ \ \ \ \ v (, /1 . A 1 ( \ \ 1 1 /^('�q„-t/ii- 1 1_ mi \ 1 / , \\\\ \\1\ \\\It,►//- 1 \—�/ / .cal ,- \\. \ 1 I^x oir�a 1� ./ 9)B 9a 99\\ \ \ DIFFUSER BASIN N. SEE DETAIL 4" DRAIN TILE SYSTEM '.I Mq TO DAYLIGHT TO SURFACE SCOPfk / / / \ AS SHOWN SEE PE $MEETS FOR PIPEADETAILA' p9E 1 / — _ \ \ �n ctn., R/W POND TP*1A TP*1B 2.05 LEGEN D WETLAND AREAS WETLAND BUFFER PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER R.O.W LINE PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED CATCH BASIN FIRE HYDRANT & GATE VALVE MANHOLE PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER ---- EXISTING CONTOUR — —978_ — - — —Rao_ — PROPOSED CONTOUR EROSION CONTROL FENCE —o 0 25 50 100 HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE • M • • PSNMN RIP —RAP v STORM STRUCTURE NO. AEI NOTES: 1. SITE GRADING, UTILITY INSTALLATION AND ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE SCHEDULED SO THAT THE GENERAL SITE CAN BE SEEDED AND EROSION BLANKETED SOON AFTER DISTURBANCE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND BLANKETED WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING OR AFTER 14 DAYS OF GRADING INACTIVITY. 2. ALL PROPOSED SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE COVERED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET. 3. SILT FENCE AROUND WETLANDS SHALL BE INSTALLED 16.5 FT. FROM DELINEATED EDGES. 4. ADDITIONAL SILT FENCE MAY BE NEEDED DURING CHURCH CONSTRUCTION. 5. TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. 6. STREET SWEEPING SHALL BE PREFORMED IF SEDIMENT COLLECTS ON STREETS. 7. AT CATCH BASIN INLETS, MnDOT STANDARD SHALL BE USED. 8. CURB DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB. TREATMENT PONDS BOTTOM SPILL 1 ELEV. ELEV. 967.00 970.50 I 967.00 970.00 l TYPICAL SECTION FOR ROAD STA 0+50 TO STA. 20+10 — 25' 12' LANE —2 0% Q 12' LANE 2.0%— B612 CONC. CURB 25' R/W —2.0% -- 8612 CONC. CURB — 2" OF MNDOT SPEC 2350 (MVWE35035B) BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE —3" OF MNDOT SPEC 2350 (MVNW250350) BITUMINOUS NON —WEARING COURSE — 8" OF MODOT SPEC 2211 CLASS 5, AGGREGATE BASE —APPROVED SUBGRADE, COMPACT FOR UNIFORMITY U NOTE: 22"x34" SHEET SIZE REQUIRED FOR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. Rockpomt Lake Elmo Campus Lake Elmo, Minnesota B W B R ARCHITECTS Lawson Commons 380 Sc. Pace Soca , Suite 600 Saint Paul, MN 55102-1996 651.222.3701 CaIVNmI4 Ersrl Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2550UNiHRSITY AVE. NEST, SUITE 245N SCp6 U, MINNESOTA 5511e N FAX. 0. (651) 6e9-516 I bm)ai091 Gs 9993b 1931 Ns 99nI9 me9•k ml died 99eumod 84 In aWIGmtad Pdc9uld emts] ode Ye drs 4 9,1 Aall d Ymola Dole 02/10/06 Issued la Nam DO SET OA SET FINAL Reg. Na 23197 Dale 10/14/05 1/20/06 02/10/06 Dole Dens NOV. 15, 2005 RSP Comm. No. EMQed PBC Sheet rNe GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Suet No.. 200e2CG MEMO (April 20, 2006 for the Meeting of April 24, 2006) To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission {{�l From: C cld6li rud Subject: Fences as Screening On March 27, 2006 we advised the Commission that the City Council had requested the Commission to review the fence provisions of the City Code regarding screening of residential properties from adjacent commercial buildings and uses. The March 22 Staff Memo on the subject is attached. As directed by the Commission staff has published a Notice of Public Hearing to consider the amendments suggested by that March 22 memo. A Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposed amendment is requested — foliowing the Public Hearing. MEMO (March 22, 2006 for the Meeting of March 27, 2006) To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission From: Chuck Dillerud Subject: Fence Ordinance Modification At the March 14 City Council Workshop meeting a Council Member advised that a residential property neighboring the Carriage Station Professional Park had recently requested a permit for a fence along their common property line with the Professional Center. That fence was to screen the residence from the Professional Center parking facility. The fence desired to result in the necessary screening would not be compliant with the residential fence regulations of the City — 72 inches, but all areas above 42 inches must be 75% open to air and light. Section 1345 of the City Code provides that, "Where any business or industrial use (structure, parking or storage) is adjacent to property zoned or developed for residential use, that business or industry shall be screened along the boundary of the residential property." Section 1345 goes on to define screening as, "...as fences at least 5 feet high or earthen berms at least three feet high with compact evergreens or deciduous hedges which extend at least three feet beyond the object to be screened, or vegetative or landscaping materials sufficient to provide a complete screen to the same height, to block visual access." In the case of the Carriage Station, the developer of the office park and the residential neighborhood was the same; and, the 2000-2001 applications, reviews and approvals by the City were essentially concurrent - using the PUD provisions of the zoning ordinance. A sizable portion of the pre -development Carriage Station site was planted with mature coniferous trees. A significant feature of the project(s) design was the retention and transplanting of many of the coniferous trees as project screening along 55th Street North and elsewhere — including the commercial/residential screening between the office complex and the homes adjacent to the west in Carriage Station. It was the City's position at that time (2001) that this transplanting of mature coniferous trees along the residential/commercial property line was a more aesthetically pleasing response to Section 1345 provisions than would be a wood fence. The last clause of the Section 1345 definition of "screening" appeared to anticipate this approach as well. Provisions such as Section 1345 are common in most City Codes. Any residential/commercial conflicts due to adjacency are mitigated by the commercial site. There are always, however, pre-existing (to the Code provisions) circumstances where no such mitigative requirements have been placed on the commercial site. Lake Elmo is not immune to that situation as one thinks about the Old Village and even the commercial sites along Hudson Blvd. (even though no residential use adjoins — yet). That being the case, it does appear reasonable to broaden the general fence regulations somewhat to allow the residential property owner the right to screen from adjacent commercial uses where those commercial uses were not required to themselves screen, or where the passage of time has demonstrated that the screening that was provided in inadequate or has failed to be effective in some other manner. It appears that this situation could be addressed by some minor changes to the language of Section 302.06 "Fences as Screening and Security as Required by This Code". Numbered sub -Paragraph #1 of that section could be expanded as follows: 1. Required fences for screening and security purposes in Agricultural and Residential zoning districts shall be set back from all property lines equal to the required structure set back of the zoning district in which they are located, except where residential uses share a common property line with commercial uses or commercial zoning districts. Should the Co9mmission agree with this suggested amendment, or itself determine another solution would better address the situation the Council Workshop has identified, we will publish a formal Hearing Notice to consider such an amendment on April 10 or April 24. MEMO (April 20, 2006 for the Meeting of April 24, 2006) To: Lake Elmo Pning Commission From: C d Subject: Architectural Performance Standards — PF Zoning District In 2002 the Planning Commission and City Council invested several meetings/drafts into amending the architectural performance standards for all commercial zones. The intent of planning staff (and, I believe, the Commission and Council) was that those same performance standards would apply to the PF zone. That is logical in that any structures most likely to be proposed in the PF district will be of the scale and character of commercial structures in most cases. I have attached the proposed amendment to the PF standards which is the subject of this Public Hearing. This amendment reads exactly as the current standards in the LB. GB and BP zoning districts, and would replace the current PF standards — which read exactly like the prior commercial zone standards. I do not recommend that these PF standards be modified or customized further. Consistency in standards for like zoning districts is a desirable attribute in a zoning ordinance. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the PF zoning district standards be amended to delete all existing performance standards and that the standards staff dated April 20, 2006 be adopted. CITY OF LAKE ELMO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 97• AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 300.07 SUBD. 4. %ul . AND ITS SUBDIVISIONS RELATING TO ARCHITECTURAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN THE LIMITED BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT Section 1. Amendm.ent: Section 300.07, Subd, 4., .c. and its subdivisions are hereby amended to read as follows: 4. Performance Standards. a. Pumose and Intent It is the purpose and intent of the City, by the adoption of the performance standards of this subdivision, to ensure commercial buildings constructed within the City are of a high quality of exterior appearance, consistent with the terms of Non -Residential Development Policy #5 of the 2000-2020 Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan. It is the Finding of the City that a limited selection of primary exterior surfacing materials meets this standard of quality. It is the further Finding of the City that several speHRc exterior surfacing materials are appropriate, and of sufficient quality, to be utilized only as accent materials in varying percentages. The variations of percentage of specific accent materials relates to a Finding by the City as to the relative quality and rural character of those respective accent materials. b. Architectural and Site Plan Submittals. New building proposals shall include architectural and site plans prepared by registered architect and shall show the following as a minimum: i. Elevations of all sides of the buildings, ii. Type and color of exterior building materils, iii. Typical general floor plans, iv. Dimensions of all structures, v. Location of trash containers, heating, cooling and ventilation equipment and systems, Resolution 97-108 Adopted 5/7/02 c, Arplicabiiity — Structure Additions and Renovation Additions to existing structuresresulting in an increase of gross floor area of the structure of less than 100%; and/or installation of replacement exterior surfacing of any portion of an existing structure shall be exempt from the standards of this subdivision where it is found that the new or replacement exterior surfacing proposed is identical to that of the existing structure. Where additions to an existing structure result in an increase in the gross floor area of the existing structure of 100% or greater, the entire structure (existing structure and structure addition) shall be subject to the standards of this subdivision. d. Performance Standards — Primary Exterior Surfacing The Primary Exterior Surfacing of structures shall be limited to natural brick, stone, or glass. Artificial or veneer brick or stone shall not qualify as complying with this performance standard. Primary Exterior Surface shall be defined as not less than 70% of the sum of the area of all exterior walls of a structure nominally perpendicular to the ground. All parapet or mansard surfaces extending above the ceiling height of the structure shall be considered exterior surface for the purposes of this subdivision. Windows and glass doors shall be considered a primary surface, but the sn7rn area of such glass shall be deducted from the wall area for purposes of the 70% Primary/30% Accent formulas of this section. Doors of any type or material, except glass, shall not be considered a primary exterior surface. Each wall of the structure shall be calculated separately; and, individually comply with the 70/30 formula. e. Performance Standard — Exterior Surfacing Accents Not more than 30% of the exterior wall sur&ring, as defined by paragraph D. above, map be of the following listed Accent Materials, but no single Accent Material, except natural wood, may comprise more than 20% of the total of all Accent Materials; and, no combustible materials shall be used: i Wood Siding ii Cement Fiber Board iii. Standing Seam Metal iv. Architectural Metal v. Stucco vi. Poured in Place Concrete (Excluding "tilt -up" panels) vii. Architect Metal Panels or Sheets viii. Porcelain or Ceramic Tile Resolution 97-108 Adopted 5/7/02 f. Performance Standard — Accessory Structures All Accessory Structures shall comply with the Exterior Surfacing regnirements specified by this subdivision. b. Performance Standard — HVAC Units and Exterior Appurtenances All exterior equipment, HVAC and trash/recycling and dock areas shall be screened from view of the Public with the primary exterior materials used on the principal structure. h. Performance Standard — Visible Roof sr Materials, Any roofing materials that are visible from ground level shall be standing seam metal, fire -treated cedar shakes, ceramic tile, clay tile, concrete or slate, i. Aprrlicability — New Construction The standards of this subdivision shall be applicable to all structures. and buildings constructed in the City, on and after the effective date of this subdivision, The performance standards of this subdivision small not be in any manner minimized by subsequent Planned Unit Development Plans or Agreement Section 2. Effective Date: This orrlinance shall become effective upon its passage and publication according to law. MEMO (April 20, 2006 for the Meeting of April 24, 2006) To: Lake Elms P nning Commission From: Ch ck le d Subject: Outdoor Social Events in the AG Zone The City Council considered the Commission's recommendation regarding the subject at its April 18, 2006 Regular Meeting. The Council decided to table the matter and refer it back to the Planning Commission for further work. While as of April 20 we do not have the draft City Council Minutes from April 18 yet, my notes indicate that the two major issues the Council desires the Commission to further review and address in the ordinance were traffic forecasting/control and the maximum scale of the events (now 500 persons — if the site is large enough. The Council addressed other concerns that would best be addressed case -by -case with the individual Conditional Use Permit conditions. We will have the draft Council Minutes from April 18 available at the April 24 Planning Commission meeting. MEMO (March 9, 2006 for the Meeting of March 13, 2006) To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission From: Chuck Dillerud Subject: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment — Commercial Outdoor Social Events As directed by the Commission on February 27, 2006, staff has published an Official Notice of a Public Hearing to consider amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text to allow issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in the AG zoning district for commercial outdoor social events as requested by a Lake Elmo property owner. We have attached a HEARING DRAFT of how such an amendment could appear — using the content suggestions of Commissioner Armstrong from the February 27, 2006 Commission Minutes (and a couple of additional restrictions). Please note that this addition to the list of AG Conditional Uses is structured differently than the other CUP uses on the list with "Required Conditions". This is preferred zoning practice to provide the Public and applicants advance notice of minimal CUP conditions that are expected. That does not, however, preclude the staff from recommending and the Commission and/or City Council from including additional conditions found to be necessary to preserve the Public health, safety and general welfare — or, denying a CUP on the basis that those same concerns can not be reasonably assured. An applicant simply meeting those required conditions does not mean automatic CUP approval, nor if the CUP is approved, additional conditions. Following the public Hearing Commission action is requested to either recommend a disposition (approve or not) of the proposed amendment to the City Council, or; refer the proposed amendment back to the staff for further work. March 9, 2006 Draft ZO Amendment — Commercial Outdoor Social Events Amend Section 300.07 Subdivision 4A2 (Conditional Uses) by adding: h. Commercial Outdoor Social Events, subject to the following required conditions: i. A site tax parcel area not less than 10 acres. ii. No existing permanent or newly constructed structures may be used. iii. Events limited to twice weekly during the months of May to October. iv. Attendance at events shall be limited to 20 persons per site to a maximum of 500 persons. v. Compliance with City Code Ambient Noise standards. vi. All parking shall be off-street, and shall be set back and/or adequately screened from adjoining properties. vii. No event shall continue later than 10:00 PM. viii. On -site portable sanitation adequately sized for the events. 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. 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 because there is no reason to limit the hours. 7:1 Nay —Schneider -Can picture this being a hassle. M/S/P, Ptacek/Fliflet to move forward with the text amendment for Outdoor Social Events subject to Conditions 1-9, eliminating Number six and to include the other amendments already made. VOTE: 8:0 March 9, 2006 Draft ZO Amendment - Commercial Outdoor Social Events Amend Section 300.07 Subdivision 4A2 (Conditional Uses) by adding: h. Commercial Outdoor Social Events, subject to the following required conditions: i. A site tax parcel area not less than 10 acres. ii. No existing permanent or newly constructed structures may be used. iii. Events limited to twice weekly during the months of May to October. iv. Attendance at events shall be limited to 20 persons per site to a maximum of 500 persons. v. Compliance with City Code Ambient Noise standards. vi. All parking shall be off-street, and shall be set back and/or adequately screened from adjoining properties. vii. No event shall continue later than 10:00 PM. viii. On -site portable sanitation adequately sized for the events. MEMO (April 20, 2006 for the Meeting of April 24, 2006) To: Lake Elmo Planning Commission From: Chu 3 Subject: Metro Transit Park/Ride — I-94 The new Director of Transportation Services at the Metropolitan Council has approached the City Administrator regarding a potential permanent park/ride facility in Lake Elmo to replace the temporary facility now operated by Metro Transit at Guardian Angels Church. The City Council briefly reviewed the Director's letter and attached map at its April 11 Workshop, and reierred the matter to the Planning Commission for advice and recommendations. I believe the City Council is requesting the Planning Commission's comments as to: 1. Should the City support a Park/Ride facility in Lake Elmo — regardless of location; and, if so, 2. Which of the three locations suggested by Metro Transit would be preferred for such a facility. Ms. McCarthy has not, by her March 20 letter, provided specifics regarding the proposed facility. Most of what City staff knows of the proposal is based on information provided the City in 2004 related to a Metro Transit federal grant proposal to construct such a facility, as follows: 1. The facility would have a 500 car capacity. 2. The facility is designed to serve a dedicated bus route from Lake Elmo to Minneapolis — now operating out of Guardian Angels. 3. The buses utilizing this facility will be of special design utilizing alternative fuel to diesel. 4. The original federal grant application specified $4 million to construct the facility, and another $4 million to purchase the special buses. Ms. McCarthy has indicated in her letter that enhanced transit service to the Cimarron neighborhood from this new facility could be a significant advantage to Lake Elmo residents. She also suggests that a Metro Transit Park/Ride site in Lake Elmo could also be utilized as a water tower site by the City. There is no question that a water tower site will be required south of 10`h Street and remotely located from the Eagle Point Well #3. We requested advice from the City Engineer as to which of the 3 sites Ms. McCarthy has suggested would be suitable (from a topographic perspective) as a City water tower site. Metropolitan Council 44 Buildings un commies that work March 20, 2006 Martin Rafferty; City Administrator City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laveme Ave North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Dear Mr. Rafferty, RECEIVED MAR 2 1 ,o6 As you may know, Nacho Diaz recently retired as the Metropolitan Council's Director of Metropolitan Transportation Services. 1 would like to introduce myself as the new Director. I am a registered professional engineer with a civil engineering, construction management and transportation background. My transportation experience includes both roads and transit in the private and public sectors. I would like to talk with you about the potential permanent park -and -ride in the I-94 East corridor. My understanding is that there has been some previous discussion between City of Lake Elmo and Metropolitan Council staff regarding a park -and -ride including possible sites. I also understand that the City of Lake Elmo is interested in constructing a water tower on a potential park -and -ride site and would like to learn more about that concept. A meeting would also offer the opportunity for me to share with you some possible enhanced bus service concepts in conjunction with start-up of operations at a new par - and -ride — specifically service for Lake Elmo's Cimarron neighborhood. I hope you agree that the potential joint use of a water tower and park -and -ride facility plus enhanced bus service could be a starting place for us to discuss our needs and possible solutions. Please give me a call at (651) 602-1754 to arrange a meeting. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Arlene McCarthy Director, Metropolitan Transportation Services cc: Tom Weaver, Regional Administrator www . metrocouncil. org Metro Info Line 6C 230 East Fifth Street • St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 • (651) 602-1000 • Fax 602-1550 • TTY 291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer Legend Parcels Eg Keats Rue Site ®Lake Eirru Ave Site ElManning Rue Site Grronan Moble Horne Carrirunity -2 parcelst2 owners - Combined Acreage: 6.8 acres -Combined Estimated Market Value: Difficult to Discern Larger (5.87 acres) parcel on the east side ofthe site is owned by CM Properties 94 Ltd Partnership (Eagan) and valued at $182,000 (2006) " Smaller (0..93 acres) panel onthe wed side ofthe site is owned by Water Ebert (Hastings) along vath the larger (12.11 acres) parcel to the northwest. His combined property isvalued d $233,000 (2006). 0.25 0.5 1 Mil Potential Site Locations 1-94 East Corridor Park -and -Ride Facility Capacity Expansion ®li&eJmTrensit Elics rap- - 2 parceisl2 owners -Combined Acreage: 3.95 acres -Combined Estimated Market Value: Difficult to Discern *Lager (3.2 acres) parcel on the wed side of the site is owned by Gene & Anne Peltier (original owners who now live in Al) along oath the larger (18.59 acres) parcel to the north. Their combined property is valued at $351,000 (2006). Smaller (0.75 acres) parcel on the east side of site is owned by MruDOT and is valued et $100 (2006). -2percelsM owner - Combined Acreage: 6.09 acres - Combined Estimated Market Value: Difficult to Discern *These 2 parcels es well as the larger (57.64 ores) parcel to the nortlw,ed (including the structure) is valued d $1,549,800 (2006). EN Properties, LLC (located In Lake Elmo) purchased the property for $450,000 in 1995. DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only Figure_ Arch 47,2000 (ke,hef; MEMO (April 20, 2006 for the Meeting of April 24, 2006) To: Lake Elmo P1ping Commission From: Ch Subject: Setbacks in the RR Zoning District At its April 11, 2006 Workshop the City Council was asked to consider amending the RR district standards to substitute setback standards equivalent to those now found in the RE district. Council members observed both that the RE standards are more current than the RR standards and that it seemed logical that the 10 acre parcels of RR should have setback standards at least as great as those of the 2.5 acre parcels of the RE zone. A comparison of the current standards follows: Standard Lot Width Front (Street) Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Arterial Street Setback RR RE 300 feet 150 feet 30 feet 100 feet 10 feet 50 feet 40 feet 100 feet 50 feet 150 feet In both cases the setbacks for accessory structures are the same as for principal structures. Staff requests the Commission's direction regarding proceeding with any amendments to RR district standards; and, if so, which standards should be considered for amendment. A Notice of Hearing will be required. This will not be able to be heard by the Commission until the meeting of May15, if so directed.