HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-10-2006 Planning Commission Packet1 ik
cum
LAKE
jikELMO
City of Lake Elmo
3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
(651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615
Www.LakeElmo.Orq
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on
Monday, July 10, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Agenda Approval
2. Minutes of June 26, 2006
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance: Lake Elmo Event Center, 3712 Layton Ave.
a. Site Plan: Lake Elmo Event Center
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Comp Plan Amendment & Rezoning, Apostolic Church Site
5. Zoning Ordinance
6. Zoning Ordinance: Extra Meeting Schedule
7. City Council Update
8. Adjourn
DRAFT
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of June 26, 2006
Chairman Helwig called the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission to order at 7:00
p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Van Zandt, Roth, Schneider, Lyzenga, Armstrong 7:03
p.m., Deziel 7:06 p.m., McGinnis 7:10 p.m. Pelletier, 7:29 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Planner
Dillerud and Recording Secretary Anez.
1. Agenda Approval
M/S/P, Roth/Lyzenga to approve the Agenda as presented. Vote: 5:0.
2. Minutes of June 12, 2006
M/S/P, Van Zandt/Roth to approve the Minutes of June 12, 2006 as presented. Vote: 5:0.
3. Zoning Text Interpretation — Accessory Structures
M/S/P Lyzenga/Van Zandt to recommend that staff should have the liberty to interpret the
passage in the section of code relating to Maximum Number and Size of Accessory Buildings in
the Agricultural Zone as relating to individual buildings based on the absence of the word,
"Combined." Armstrong prefers more liberal interpretation. Vote: 6:2, Nay: Schneider,
Abstain: Deziel cannot support it because it is not correct, it fails to be consistent, yet he can't
go against it because it indicates proper use of the property.
4. Zoning Ordinance
The Planner suggested that signs, lighting, site plan review, landscaping, and some parking now
found elsewhere in the City Code should be included in the new Zoning Ordinance. He
suggested that the Commission could include subdivision code to make the new ordinance a
"Development Code" rather than simply a zoning ordinance.
M/S/P, Roth/McGinnis to include in the new zoning ordinance all pertinent development
regulations now found elsewhere in the City Code except the subdivision ordinance. Vote: 9:0.
The Planner said the next meeting will begin the process of suggested text additions to the new
ordinance. He asked the commissioners if they would like to split into two committees to do the
work.
M/S/P, Armstrong/Deziel To tackle the new zoning ordinance as a whole commission and to
proceed with extra meetings if necessary. Vote: 9:0.
Commissioner Armstrong asked about the non-confoiiiuties issue, and eliminating some
variances in the future.
The Planner said that NC land use guiding is designed for structuring district zoning standards to
better reflect what exists today.
Commissioner Armstrong said that in other cities, the purpose of non -conformities is for
redevelopment. He said our philosophy is different from other cities because they want to do
away with non -conformities, and our city does not in most cases.
DRAFT
5. City Council Update
The City Planner reported that the Hamerly Variance on Hill Trail was approved exactly as
recommended along with the modification suggested by the Planning Commission; the
Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review HOA 2nd Addition/Rasmussen College were both
approved as recommended; He also reported that the Council approved Phase II of the Village
Master Planning Contract that includes the Plan detail and execution elements. The Council also
approved the minor Zoning Text Amendments -Architectural Performance Standards..
6. Adjourned at 8:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberly Anez
Recording Secretary
APPROVED: JUNE 26, 2006
City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of June 12, 2006
Chairman Helwig called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00
p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Lyzenga, Van Zandt, Armstrong, Ptacek, Roth,
Schneider, Deziel, Pelletier, Fliflet, and McGinnis. STAFF PRESENT: Planner Dillerud and
Administrator Rafferty.
Agenda
M/S/P, Ptacek/Van Zandt to approve the Agenda as presented. Vote: 9:0.
Minutes
M/S/P, Ptacek/Armstrong to approve the Minutes of May 22, 2006 as amended to reverse the
order of the mover and seconder for the motion on page 2 from Roth/Deziel to Deziel/Roth.
Vote: 9:0.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variances at 9429 Jane Road
The Planner explained that the orientation of the existing garage on this parcel forces residents to
back out onto Jane Road. The home is setback far enough from the lake but is situated very
close to Jane Road. The proposed new garage will be side loading.
M/S/P, Ptacek/Van Zandt to recommend approval of the variance to side yard setback and front
setback at 9429 Jane Road North to demolish an existing garage and construct a small home
addition and new garage based upon the following Findings:
1. The property cannot be put to reasonable use without the granting of the variances
requested. Reasonable use must be defined in the context of the reasonable availability
of locations that comply with R-1 setbacks to construct a garage of the dimensions
proposed in a manner that will improve the safety for motorists on Jane Road North.
2. The variance requested results from physical circumstances unique to this property
relative to elevations/drainage created by others from reconstructed Jane Road to the
existing garage, and the extensive setback of the house/septic system location that results
in no other locational alternative for a reconstructed garage.
3. Granting of the variances will not change the essential character of the neighborhood.
And especially because it will improve safety for motorists on Jane Road, subject to the
condition that any structure, including eaves, roof overhang, gutters, etc., not encroach closer
than the minimum existing distance between the existing garage to the side property line, and
subject to the condition that gutters must be installed along the entire south eave line to direct
roof water away from the neighboring property to the south precluding roof drainage from
encroaching upon that neighboring property. Vote: 9:0.
PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of HOA 2"d Addition
And Section 520 Site Plan Review of Rasmussen College
The Planner explained that the preliminary plat submission is another phase of the Eagle
Point Business Park project that began in 1999. The site is at Inwood and Hudson
Boulevard. The process has been to create a lot to suit the building proposed and to leave the
remaining land as outlots, and such is the case now.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2006 1
APPROVED: JUNE 26, 2006
M/S/P, Ptacek/Armstrong to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of HOA 2ND
ADDITION subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer, City Attorney, and those
of the South Washington Watershed District as found to be reasonable and practical by the
City Engineer. Vote: 9:0.
M/S/P, Ptacek/Armstrong to recommend approval of the Section 520 Site Plan for
Rasmussen College, subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the recommendations (if any) of the City Engineer, City Attorney and
those of the South Washington Watershed found to be reasonable and practical by the City
Engineer.
2. Modification of the site plan parking arrangement to eliminate the park setback
encroachments at both the south and north street frontages.
3. Modification of the luminaire plan to reduce the foot candle illumination to 3 foot candles
or less beyond a 20 foot arc from the light sources.
4. Elimination of all exterior lighting within the public street right-of-way unless specifically
approved by the City Council.
5. Payment of Public Use Dedication fees in the amount of $9,852 prior to issuance of a
building permit.
6. Submission of a landscape architect's certification of the value of the landscape plan in
compliance with the formula provided by Section 520 of the Lake Elmo Municipal Code,
and provision by the applicant of a Letter of Credit in that amount securing the plan prior to
issuance of a Building Permit.
Vote: 9:0
M/S/P, Deziel/Roth to recommend the City Council consider extra circumstances within the
lighting plan to allow lighting the public street and cul de sac because of the nature of the
school but that lighting must be turned off between 11 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. Vote: 8:1 Nay -
Schneider, We don't need the lights.
PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Amendment, RR Setbacks
M/S/P, Armstrong/Schneider to table consideration of changes to RR setbacks until the
Planning Commission addresses the new Zoning Ordinance where the issue can be reviewed
comprehensively at that time because we are being asked to compare RR setbacks to those in
RE and they have different guiding in our Comprehensive Plan. RR and AG are the same
guiding; RE is a separate guiding. The RE Zoning District was created for uniformity in new
RE neighborhoods and to keep homes equidistant from each other in those neighborhoods.
There are different philosophies in those two zoning districts and review is unnecessary at
this time. Vote: 9:0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Zoning Text Amendments —Architectural Performance Standards
M/S/P, Roth/Ptacek to recommend modification of the Architectural Performance Standards
in the commercial zoning districts to exclude artificial or thin veneer brick or stone less than
nominal 4 inches thick as a primary exterior surfacing material, to include cedar or redwood
wood siding and architectural metal panels as an exterior surface accent material. Vote: 8:1,
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2006 2
APPROVED: JUNE 26, 2006
Nay-Deziel, For numerous reasons he was opposed to the creation of these standards from
the beginning.
The Planner noted that extra meetings will probably be necessary to get the Zoning
Ordinance work finished to send to the City Council by October. He proposed an additional
meeting the first Monday of every month beginning in August.
City Council Update
An Assistant Planner, Kelli Matzek has been hired and will begin work on July 3.
Home Occupations were returned to City Council Workshop for further consideration.
Adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Charles Dillerud, City Planner
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2006 3
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Date: July 5, 2006 for the Meeting of July 10, 2006
Applicant: John Schiltz (Lake Elmo Inn)
Location: 3712 Layton Avenue
Requested Action: Section 520 Site Plan and Zoning Variances
Land Use Plan Guiding: C (Commercial)
Existing Zoning: GB (General Business)
Site History and Existing Conditions:
City Building Inspection records reveal that a 7,731 square foot structure was permitted and
erected on this site of 51,000 square feet in 1966 as VFW Post 5725. Thereafter a number of City
permits were issued for various replacements, minor remodeling and mechanical work. A new
"201" waste treatment system and drain field was installed in 1987/88.
Although the exact date is not apparent from City records, it appears that the site was sold by the
VFW in the late 1990's, and converted (as to use) into an "event center", hosting wedding
receptions and similar special purpose social events.
A some point in 2001 the event center owner paved/repaved extensive areas of the site without
obtaining the required City peiuiit. Since the formal parking area was enlarged substantially by
this action, a Section 520 Site Plan should also have been processed, and landscape islands
installed. The (then) owner refused to correct some 5 specific City Code infractions (in addition to
not securing the necessary permits) that resulted from the paving project. The most significant
concern related to the additional surface run-off that resulted from the increased impervious
surfacing in an area of the City where surface water drainage was already an issue for downstream
property owners.
After the City was contacted by the property owner's attorney regarding the legality of the City's
Violation Notice, the City Attorney advised staff in mid 2002 that the infractions should be
prosecuted as a civil proceeding rather than as a criminal proceeding. Internal City staffing issues
during the balance of 2002 and on into 2004 prevented further actions on the infractions. It is the
understanding of staff that the event center ceased business and was sold in late 2005 or early
2006. No 2006 liquor license was issued to the event center.
Discussion and Analysis:
The applicant proposes a 1,800 square foot addition to the west side of the existing building and
an extensive exterior and site renovation. It is proposed that the exterior/site renovations be
completed in 6 phases. While no schedule of the phasing has been provided, it does not appear that
at least Phase V (new parking south of the building over the current septic drain field site) can be
completed until the site is served by municipal sewer — 2008 or later.
The proposed site renovation design will result in a dynamic and contemporary change to the site
and a small addition to the building — and non -conformity with circa 1980 (or before) GB setback
standards as well. This project proposal becomes the first property owner response to the latest
Village Area planning efforts. As such, the proposal reflects the New Urbanism concepts that are
the foundation for the Village Area Plan. Those concepts include bringing structures in close
proximity to streets (think of any "classic" downtown) to create a more human -centered (as
opposed to vehicle -centered) living environment.
As it exists today, this site is essentially the antithesis of New Urbanist site design. The structure is
set well back on the site, with parking between the structure and both street frontages. When the
facility is hosting an "event" of any scale, the site looks like a parking lot from both streets rather
than an architectural feature with character. The applicant's proposal for site renovation represents
an effort to bring the structure (and use) to the streets by way of the covered walkways to both
Highway 5 and Layton Avenue. This is probably the only way (short of a massive building
addition) to renovate the site in keeping with the New Urbanist theme of the Village Plan.
There appears to be a hint at New Urbanist thinking (or maybe simply non -conformity avoidance)
in the present GB setback standards reflected in the front setback (Highway 5 in this case)
standard of 10 feet, rather than the 30+ feet found in other zoning districts. That standard appears
to be contradicted in some respects by a "comer" side yard setback (Layton Avenue in this case)
standard of 50 feet. Both standards conflict in large measure with New Urbanist design principals
- and the Village Area Plan by reference, and variance to those standards would be necessary to
accomplish the site plan as proposed.
The proposed 15 foot addition to the west side of the structure "fronts" on a dedicated alley
running from Highway 5, south along the rear yards of the homes/businesses on Laverne Avenue
and Layton Avenue. In common zoning practice a dedicated alley is treated (for setback purposes)
as a street frontage. In this case, it becomes a corner side yard setback as well — hence a
(somewhat illogical) 50 foot standard — a third variance proposed by the site plan.
As noted previously, impervious site coverage has been an issue with this site for several years.
The GB impervious site coverage standard for a parcel of this size is 45%. From communications
related to the 2002 issues with illegal site paving by the prior owner of the site, it is clear that the
impervious site coverage pre -dating the 2000 paving work exceeded 45%, and even further
exceeded 45% after the illegal paving activity by the prior owner. From 2006 surveyor's
calculations submitted with the current site plan it appears that the existing impervious site
coverage is 76%. While no site impervious area calculations have been submitted reflecting the
site renovations proposed, it appears that "Phase III" site landscaping plus "Phase IV" landscape
islands will more than off -set the additional impervious surface the Phase V parking south of the
building would create.
The applicant proposes an innovative site improvement to at least partially mitigate what is now
and upon completion of proposed site improvements will continue to be, a significant departure
from the GB district maximum impervious standard of 45%. The greatest historic concern with
drainage from this site has been that which runs off to the west (to the alley), and then south along
the alley. That run-off crosses a residential yard further south and moves southeast thereafter. Not
only has the alley repeatedly been damaged (to the point of becoming impassable), but rear yards
(and probably septic drain fields) on properties across the alley from the site have become
inundated as well. Most of the run-off causing the problems has been from the event center roof.
The applicant proposes installation of a storm water infiltration basin immediately west of the
building to collect at least a portion of the surface water now flowing to the alley and the adjoining
rear yards. Staff has requested an opinion of the City Engineer as to approximately how much this
impacts the site in terms of impervious coverage percentage related to surface water. As of this
writing that estimate is not available, but we suspect that several percentage points of impervious
coverage are mitigated by this proposed feature. The resulting impervious site coverage will still
be in excess of the 45% GB standard.
Staff has also reviewed the Section 520 Site Plan for compliance with applicable City Code
provisions including general zoning standards, resulting in the following observations:
1. Off street parking along the Highway 5 and Layton Avenue frontages has historically been
non -compliant as to setback, and would continue to be after the proposed site renovation.
The parking setback to right-of-way standard in all zoning districts is at least 20 feet.
Parking setback along the Layton Avenue frontage is and has been 0 feet. It appears that
the Site Plan proposes to increase that parking setback to a minimum of 5 feet. Parking
setback to the Highway 5 right-of-way has been and is about 11 feet, and the Site Plan
proposes that setback remain unchanged.
2. Historically there has been informal parallel parking along the west side of the building
adjacent to the alley. The applicant proposes to change that parking to diagonal and
increase the number of parking spaces at that location., with direct access to the spaces
from the dedicated alley. Since only 14+ feet would remain between the west structure
addition and the structure addition, these diagonal spaces would appear to extend in to the
alley right-of-way. Not only would there be a setback compliance issue with this design,
public right-of-way can not be used for private parking.
3. The applicant proposes new parking along the south side of the structure as Phase V
improvements. Since the existing septic drain field is located in this area, this improvement
must await the arrival of municipal sewer to the site — not before (and maybe after) 2008.
4. Section 1345.01 of the Code requires any business structure or parking to be screened
when the business parcel "is adjacent to property zoned or developed for residential use".
The property adjacent to this site to the south, and a portion of the property adjacent to this
property to the west (across the alley) are both zoned and used as residential. There is/has
been some measure of landscape screening to the south and west of the existing building
responsive to this standard. No screening is proposed by the Site Plan following the Phase
II and Phase V site modifications. The required screening — as specified by Section
1345.02 — should be required as a feature of the Site Plan.
5. No plans for exterior lighting or signage have been presented. Therefore, any such
improvements will require formal Site Plan amendment if and when proposed.
6. No parking area landscape islands exist today. The Code standard responsive to the
proposed 115 parking stalls requires 3,450 square feet of non -perimeter landscape island
area. It appears that the proposed Site Plan provides sufficient landscape island to assure
compliance with Code requirements.
Findings and Recommendations:
The circumstances related to this Site Plan and the several requested variances are unique. The
City Council has endorsed the latest Village Area Plan, and authorized the City's consultant
planning team to proceed with detailed plans and zoning ordinance modifications that will
implement the Plan. Those ordinance revisions will reflect, encourage and accommodate the New
Urbanist design features of the Village Area Plan, and those same features (primarily as to street
setbacks) that appear on the applicant's Site Plan. Said another way, the structure and parking
setback variances here applied for (to Highway 5, Layton Avenue, and the alley) maybe matters
of zoning ordinance non-compliance in 1980 GB zoning terms, but will be in conformity with the
2006 plans and forthcoming zoning ordinance modifications for the Village Area. As such staff
suggests the following Findings regarding the structure and parking setback variances applied for
(and described above):
1. The property can not be put to a reasonable use or a use in the best overall interest of the
City as reflected by City plans for this neighborhood under the conditions allowed by the
zoning code as now appearing.
2. The City has endorsed a Village Area Plan that geographically includes this site. That plan
advocates and endorses design principals contrary to the current zoning ordinance setback
standards, but consistent with the applicant's proposed site design. The plight of the land
owner is due to this unique circumstance, and not created by the land owner.
3. The variances for parking and setback will not change the essential character of the
neighborhood.
Staff recommends that the variances for structure and parking setback be approved based on the
forgoing Findings.
With regard to the variance for impervious site coverage, staff suggests the following Findings:
1. The property can not be put to a reasonable use under the conditions allowed by the zoning
code as now appearing. The proposed impervious site coverage will be no greater than that
currently existing on the site, and will be mitigated at the point of most significant surface
run-off concern by an on -site infiltration system.
2. The plight of the land owner is due to historic site impervious coverage actions by prior
site owners, and is not created by the land owner.
3. The variance for impervious site coverage will not change the essential character of the
neighborhood.
Staff recommends approval of the variance for impervious site coverage.
With respect to the additional City Code matters observed on the Site Plan, staff recommends as
follows:
1. No signage or exterior lighting of any description should be considered to be approved by
this Site Plan action.
2. The portion of the site adjacent to residential properties to the south and west must be
screened in accordance with Section 1345.02. This is not a zoning provision, and there is
no variance procedure available to the applicant.
3. The Site Plan should be revised to preclude the diagonal parking from encroaching in to
the Public alley Right -of -Way to the west.
Subject to the foregoing as conditions, Staff recommends approval of the Section 520 Site Plan.
Planning Commission Actions Requested:
1. Motion to recommend approval zoning variances for structure and parking setback as
described by, and based on the Findings of, the Planning Staff Report of July 5, 2006 per
applicant plans staff -dated July 5, 2006
2. Motion to recommend approval the variance for impervious site coverage based on the
Findings of the Planning Staff Report of July 5, 2006 per the applicant plans Staff dated
July 5, 2006.
3. Motion to recommend approval of the Section 520 Site Plan per applicant plans Staff -dated
July 5, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
a. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
b. Compliance with the recommendations of the Valley Branch Watershed District as
found by the City Engineer to be practical and in the best interests of the City.
c. The portion of the site adjacent to residential properties to the south and west must
be screened in accordance with Section 1345.02.
d. The Site Plan should be revised to preclude the diagonal parking from encroaching
in to the Public alley Right -of -Way to the west.
Charles E Dillerud, City Planner
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Applicant's Documentation and Graphics
I�
39TH STREET
2
1
IW
— t -
w i
5 � t
_
3ROOKM N ADDITION
L
e
z gr-
a
i
g D.Tr.. 6
n !
t
ON ELEMENT
CIC 167
VIM GABLE OFFICE CONI
s
Lm13ap0,.,m
y 0344a291
}Ile rMrtOfbx ro
1
item
16.0
�♦D
a a 9
9 a
a
a
E s
ff L 0.
I! A
az11t a
10 ebb R
1 A Z' Fz
¢ A P P21
I
fl a a B A 8_ Jo.
W " A in i 0 I
9. A w1 9 1�
Iee Y)
a m AA 1AnS 5I tJT
a'U$ tTORS
gAas A9n R�rv`.. • e$a
g:
w u A I oa i'. I
"" pT a [*"..p A •I-
R�• aem a9 P
STREET= NORTH
04.11 A�pICORS YET �O -
coT
PART Or LOT40
A
a race
A b �
A 1
pc, . S .
a
o "1 1p 210
11 a1 �•20
61.0
36
0 /vrtej!a.rVP, I 25 NE°�
II::
t �eyfpp�
R21W R20W R19W
T32N
T3IN
R22W R21 W R20W
Vcinity Map
0 278
Scale in Feet
This drawing is the result of a oompliatlan
and reproduction of land reoon0 as they
appear in vedous Washington County offices.
The dra0Ang should be used tor reference
purposes only. Washington County is not
responsible for any Inaccuracies.
Source- Washington County Surveyors Off.
Phone (651) 430B875
parcel date Basso on AS400 information
•„,
h_a) RAI analitoli
110-
CON10EPT ILIZTRATIOW
• .,
: • .
CON10EPT AERIAL ILLVTRATIONI
LAKE ELMO
INJNJ
10=t..01—t
LAKE
ELMO
I NI NI
EVEI\JTCEN1 TER
SITE PLAN! RE\/IE\Y
& '/ARIArJCE
REOLIKT COVER
im •
I lereby ogenify that 1141. plan was porpand M goo or
and. direct superviston •ed that I aro a duly
Dammed Poulos...owl Loom, Mime. vivicrl.
laws el rho Stara ol
Simarvic
Name: Warr Pew.
Doc:
beware: AO,
MD
DESIGNED June 20. 2006
CHECKED
DRAWN
TRANSMITTED
..4141141111"1414111"1"- 2706. PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN
ammo, tiro ortrall low arreopeAcor
"ra647 (.41Dri.;:etrirpt:t4glIrc61.14:Drit
Sr: L. 111 arr;s:zd.
PPEADDDI or Arm simorc
so_ 3AT
. '
From: Marc Putman<marc@putmanplanninganddesign.com>
Subject: Lake Elmo Inn Event Center Variances and Site Plan
Date: June 20, 2006 3:15:55 PM CDT
To: The City Council of Lake Elmo
DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST: John Shiltz, Owner of Lake Elmo Inn has purchased the former VFW
building, 3712 Layton Ave. N. and grounds/paved parking lots. This, for the purpose of providing area
residents, institutions, businesses, governments and organizations a location for gatherings, weddings,
meetings, celebrations and other significant events.
Seen as the first of many contributing improvements to help bring the Old Village's Master Plan & Vision to
life for Lake Elmo residents, to become The Lake Elmo Event Center, extensive refinements to building
interior, exterior, and site will be required. On the building interior, complete kitchen revisions are needed, as
are bath, dividers, ceiling, lighting, wall covering and trim detail. Full sprinkler facilities and complete
replacement of HVAC is needed. The critically important corridor addition is described below in Variance
Requests.
On the building exterior, to be able to offer an appropriate, up -scale setting for life's significant events, and
accommodate the phased evolution of improvements to dovetail with the Old Village improvements,
numerous refinements are necessary: Entry shelters and connecting vine -covered trellis -sheltered walkways
are envisioned. Trellis features are thematically employed on both walkway trellis elements and on the
building surfaces. Entry shelter shapes are employed to visually obscure the room -mounted vents and
equipment.
Exterior settings are planned for outdoor gatherings and historic photography opportunities. Parking
configurations are refined, employing one way travel to calm traffic speeds and enable island planting
opportunities. Runoff is to be partially attenuated by the use of a french drain at the alley low point. As storm
and sanitary sewer mains become available via the Old Village Vision "coming to life", added parking is
proposed to be added to the south end of the property. Cooperative parking agreements with other
businesses will augment parking for events utilizing full Event Center capacities.
The Phasing Plan, Sheet AS 1.0 shows perhaps six potential phases. Phase I, as required by staff, limits work
to only interior work and exterior paint and flashings. Phase II. will begin immediately should approval be
granted for the addition variance and shelter -trellis elements. Phase III & IV will deal with the discussed
exterior settings and parking area traffic calming/beautification and planting. Phase V & VI will depend on
Old Village regional storm ponding and storm sewer installations, as well as in -theme street improvements.
Other changes may ensue as the Old Village Vision is evolved with Stillwater Blvd. planning and design
refinements considered and approved.
VARIANCE REQUESTS:
Context: Typical of many infill/historic sites now and in the Old Village's soon to -be -future existing lots are
platted in limited widths. Further, typical of most "rural -center" businesses, such historic lots were virtually
covered with building and sidewalk... a 100% impermeable coverage. This is the stuff of a highly desirable,
walkable, vibrant "Old Village". And parking was, and will be... dependent and intertwined with on -street
parking and pedestrian activity. To the degree that suburban -based rules and regulations have made historic
patterns of building and site use "non conforming", the Old Village will usher in needs for an older way of
looking at set backs and site coverage.
Setback Variance on West Side, from 20' required„ to 13.5': For a modern, "future -proofed" event facility to
function, storage for alternate table and chair combinations and isolated corridors (for service and staging to
separated events and event rooms) must be provided. The current facility does not and can not accommodate
this without decreasing the useable floor areas to below the sizes needed for events planned and projected for
the Old Village and greater Lake Elmo Citizen use. Thus, an addition is needed to provide both this storage
and access. The width of this functionally vital corridor is determined by the storage needs, food cart staging
widths and the safe & efficient passage widths for numerous staff personnel serving one large or divided
multiple event rooms. Additionally, the folding thick, sound -insulated divider walls require enclosures for
storage. These practical demands for function impose the physical space need of a 15' wide corridor addition
on the west side of the existing building. A variance of 6.5 feet is needed.
To deny the variance and thus prevent putting this critical, functionally necessary corridor in place will
indeed impose a hardship... on numerous parties. There will be those who would have had well coordinated
events that were compromised by the service difficulties imposed. Key to success in such business is the ability
to offer the top level of food, service and setting that has become the hallmark of the Lake Elmo Inn. To begin
with a compromise to both the facility and to the Old Village levels of planning and design expectation is a
hardship as well... and not just to the owner.
Impermeable Variance: Surface Percentage, from 45% to the existing 76%: While phased refinements may vary
this percentage, if the pre-existing and current condition as purchased is seen as non -conforming, and not
provided a variance, then the hardship is potential insurance coverage denial issues, as well as the continued
threat of legal action against the non-conformance. This can affect loan qualification. Again, a hardship for the
owner and indirectly upon all those future citizens who would have gained by the Event Center's presence,
but incurred the hardship and opportunity cost/loss... of it not being there, or presented in a compromised
state.
We respectfully request the endorsement of the site plan as proposed in the phasing plan as described above,
and the variances be granted as the necessary forerunner to the updates of the Lake Elmo ordinances that will
enable, encourage and allow the Old Village Vision to take root and bloom.
for John Shiltz, the Lake Elmo Inn and Lake Elmo Inn Event Center
Marc Putman, Principal, Putman Planning and Design
Registered Landscape Architect
PROJECT
DESIGN CONSULTANT
PUTMAN PLANNING 4 Dr
-SIGN
124 RIVERSIDE DRIVE N.
HUDSON, WI. 54016
CONTACT: MARL PUTMAN
PHONE: 1I5-561-6291
ARCHITECT
THE ARCHITECTURAL NETWORK, INC.
12445 55TH ST, SUITE A
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
GONTAAT: MICHAEL DIEM
PHONE: 651-450-0606
FAX 651-450-OI60
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
THE ARCHITECTURAL NETWORK, INC.
12445 55TH ST., SUITE A
LAKE ELMO, MN 55042
CONTACT: ANDY 5TRUCK
PHONE: 651-450-0606
FAX 651-450-0180
ISSUE
D I RECTORY
CONTRACTOR
J.P. BUSH HOMS
5551 Lake Elmo Ave
PO Sox DIE
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
CONTACT: JOE 9U5H
PHONE: 651-TI1-6162
ISSUE RECORD
DATE
REV.
0 REV. THIS 5+ T
DESCRIPTION
SHEET NO.
LOC,4T ION MAP
DEVELOPMENT PPL I Ct4T I ON FOR: VAtR I AtNCE
SITE 4 EBUILDING REVIEW
E
i
,b, 3BREV I AT IONS
NAM BOLT
AT, ABOVE
AC WAANIGA1
AD AIR CON0TIONET
ACT ACOUSTICAL TILE
ADJ. ADJSTABLE
AR ABOVE PNI9IED ROAR
A66 ASORWATE
ALT ALTINTATE
AWN AARON
ANA MGAAR NOWNA4E
N ACCESS PANEL
AMP APPROVCV
APPROxAFPROAMATE
ARCH sums mNNJ
MAO AUTOMAT.
NM. AVRMSE
!ID BOARD
BM TWAT
DEW ECTNEEN
RV EEVD.m
NOG. OILCANS
BM MAN
BCR s rra..
NAS EEARN6
AM DOA
BAIT DAWNED
BS BORN SOWS
BN WOW TORML UNIT
GM GOOIER
LIP &NWT'
GEM GAIN/
GEt ARAM.
CAW W YNN
ODD CMAL12OAlm
AN CAGY
ARG 1ARa6TEER2
GJ WORM JOINT
CAC CAgN6)
A. CLO0111E
Oa. CALMS
CLo CLAW
CLJL 3LEMWMIGE
as CLOSLIE
OB CONCRETE MAOIRY UNIT
CO CLEANGT?
Goa GT
COL COLUMN
COW DOMINATION
COW CAWRISNEWAONDO'O
GONG. CONCRETE
GONE• WINNER=
CAN GOIIIGTION
COLST CONSTRDTON
CON/. LAWN 05 OR CATTLE
CORRt1OMRAGTO )
Gast COMIDOR
AT AWARD)
CS COLWERSER
GAIT 0AM1OO
CT CRAM. TILE
art CLING POOR
cu YD CLING TWAIN
CPI COLD GAT N
OWN
CM DEC 3MM
ON- LORE
DES DE00019
DER. APARTMENT
PET ORAL
OF W.W.I. POUTAN
DIA DIANETEN
DIA6 1NA60NAL
DIM D11191ON
DIP DIOMAINE
ON. DIVISION
AL BAN
OR DOOR
OS DAWSPOUT
AO DRAWS
E eAsr
EA WA
EXP. DOLT ESANSIO 1 BOLT
5. ELEVATION
ELEC. ELECTRICAL/
ELEV. ELEVATOR
ORR E17016EGT
EGL 5105ENNO
ON. E611®R
Da OWN.
BDNF ELEAMOIT
EST G TIMT5
ETC OZARK. W,IEc GOOIER
AN. oaosts
NM DNILMOT
ENO OAT.
RIP. IPMEAON
ptT. WITAIOR
rD MOOR DIO N
FM P O/PATON
FE PNE EXT►IUNER
RC PNE EIRNe1NNet GNAW
PPE Plelm FLOOR ELEVATION
PG WE 4000 GANNET
MN /*NOISED)
192X R ANALa
R.6 NASINN6
PLR 19.00R0N61
MICR PLUOE0GENT
W . WAWA). 01W
FT Pa7TREET
FM FCOTAN
MR R46421P. WANE
PT. NAPE
EFLVG PIE VALVE GANNET
M AWE, WOE
6ALV 6ALVANP0
6G 6ENNAL CaITRAGTON
617 MADE 6RAN.
CAT 6A5/21EW
61 6L606. WAWA
67! SANIN UM BOARD
W NOSE ABB
N: 10L.LON ARE
IDF 1A10GM 1197
10 WAD
4014 WAPPORE
12X 1Px AI
W N0110w METAL
HONE 14ORDOrr7AL
HP. 1416N PONT
1R NOR
M MOW
N M MAMA
WAG NATIIO/ MATILATIOW
AIR 00 907)0 6
IW NOT WATER
NN+ TD DR01IO
10 POPE DIMEIER
N PIOMES)
PILL NCLJOO). moo
AN'D NPO-MA.TIGN
ANL I140.1ATEEN. OCR
NT PROEM
J JAW
JAN JANITOR
JT .ANT
ED WADI
KO 100GICO T
1
N LEWIN
LAB LAWNATORT
LAM LMMNATE9)
LAT. LATERAL
LAN LAVATORY
Lb NAACO
LN LET NMI
LIB LORAN
UN UNAPT
U. LAT LOAD
LP. LOW PONT
LT. LI6NT
LTA LAWNS
LTL LINTEL
LW LAIR
IN TONAL
MAS MASART
MAX MMOMAI
PEAL 059N AU
MD. MA
MEMO MQSRNE
/NOT MOANS
MFR MMINACTUERO. O)
MN MAW
MIEC. 01000 OP D
Mb MASONRY OPERAS
MTD 1L1MT®
MIL META.
MU MALT.
NORM
NAG Nor w GONIRAGT
NO MAROr
NOM NOMINAL
_�
KS Nor TO SCALE
�'/
dA OVERALL
OG ON CSRERNN
OD CUID= DIAMETER
OW WINCE
ON OVER19M
O1AS WEANS
OT COWAN
02 01114.05)
P • PARM.LR
Pm PARTICLE BONO
PG PRECAST GOMGEIE
PEP PERPORATEW
FERN MANITTEt
R PLATE
PL PROPERTY UN
RAM FLAW. LAMINATE
PLA6 PLANYW
RA6 PLANS
PIP PON06 PER LINEAR POW
RL PAIn
P0. POLON:AEA
PR PAR
REND PROWERIGATE9
PRIES AWARE
PROD PRO.IG+ION
PEP V A606 PER SNARE POOR
PSI POIOA PER SOWN IA
FT PAN7W)
Pm PAPER TOM. DISFEEER
FBI PARTnON
PAIR PAPER TOME. P WIT=
Pw FOLVNYL CEORDE
PL Po PLTwoo0
Qi AWRY TILE
OTT QUANTITY
R ROAR
RAD RADIO
RGF REPLEG*ED GOAN PLAN
RD ROOF CRANK
REV MOWN)REVIEW
NEW RECSTACLE
NW. ROWEK2
REAL RSLECT®T. THE
020.
NEW POG0047050EW. MO)
RN RIAD NAND
MA RDOM!
RPM RNOLRg6 PER MADE
RO ROAN ATMW
5 WAN
SARI SAITARY
SWAP AGOWLE
SD SOAP DISPE®R
SECT SECTION
A WORE FOOT (rem
SSA. SNELE
NNT SKEET
SM SNS1IR
SW SANITARY NAPKIN DISPENSER
SW SANITARY NAPKIN RPOEFTAC2
N PEC SPFLRIV.TION
6O. SOOARE
M STANLB6 STILL
STD STANDARD
SIL 6T7$
SIOR SWINE
STROTSTRA:TURE STINCTYRAL
BOP SIOPE D, SEPINC D
} NEAP
T0. TOP OP
TEL 15.8101E
TEMP T@TEIA7IE
TEA TERR no
T46 TOWN a SWAM
M. 1114IGK656)
TM AROMA
IMP TOILET PAPER DISPE NOR
TN T'PIGM.
I07BONTRS LABORATORY
NOW 1.111EW AVATEJ
U0 ALAI WAD 47T1eRweE
LR YOWL
LE VAPOREWBER
VS VINYL EASE
SOT ANT. CAPOSTION TILE
VOW VERTICAL
TOT NOTIL0E
VT VN7L TILE
VWWG VIOL rAL.L GCMOW
It PST
M MOTH
N NW
WD /COP
MON MOW
ITC WNW*
VP rATATEMOORN6
7
yPer
PAWNS WANTPONT
NEWS, IRE FABRIC
TEAR
DRAW INIG INDEX
TO COVER SHEET
01.0 SURVEY (FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
ASI PHASING PLAN
A52 SITE PLAN
A55 PLAZA PLAN
AI.O DEMOLITION PLAN
AI.1 FLOOR PLAN
Al2 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN
A13 ROOF PLAN
A5.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A4.0 BUILDING SECTIONS
A5.0 ROOM AND DOOR 50$DULES
AbD DETAILS
SOD STRUCTURAL NOTES
51.0 FOUNDATION PLAN
52.0 ROOF FRAMING PLAN
55.0 DETAILS
54.0 DETAILS
KI FOODSERVICE FIXTURE PLAN
CODE DATA
CODE ANALYSIS
Project: Lake Elmo Event Center
Project No., 06-118
Code: 2005 IBC
Existing Eu11ding is Type 11 8 Ursprknkled
Approximately 1500 5F NerFy)
CAstrvction Is 12" concrete block approximately 15' high lvlth steel bar joists
approxtnately 4' 00.
Roof cum not observed, assumed to be older built-up
Drainage to south side by means of scuppers and dormspouts
Proposed Use Section 303
Assembly Group A-2 Banquet Halls 4250 SF
Table 503 Allowable Area
I8C allows for non -sprinkler
City of take Elmo may require sprinklers for commercial bu118519s over 5000 SF
No Rating between rooms
No Rating betmoan kitchen and rooms
Occupant Load Table 1004. 1-2
Assembly tables and chain, 15 net
Kitchen, commercial 200 gross
Assume:
1000 5F Kitchen 5 Occupants
6000 Banquet 400 Occupants
Table I018.1
Occupant toad I - 500 2 Exits required
Ind0ldual room over 50 occupants will require 2 exits (fable 1014.1)
Exit Width required Table 1005.1
Occupant Load (02) inches
403(02) . BI inches
Propose 7 exit doors WIN a 54" each
Table 1015J
Exit access travel d6tace 200' or 250'
Overall 6Nldit9 is less than 200'
Table 1016.1
Corridor Fire resistance ra+Nlg
Not required In sprh1Jed buildings. 1 hour I rlorrop0n41od buildings.
Chapter 29
Plumbing Systems
A-2 Banquet Hall
1 per 15 Male
'per 15 P0Nlale
5 required each sex
Can subst+ute 1 NC for urinal
Toilets Provided.
4 WC Female (verify accessible)
5 PIC Male 2 LF1Ials NAHfy occess121e)
5truchrral
Roof Joists appear to be light
Joists need to be evaluated to occom odate
NON RTU sand folding wall supports
Energy
Existing Insulation Is I V2' furring With Batt.
Recommend full 5 5/8' WRh stud insulated Wall
LAKE ELMO
EvENT CENTER
COVER GHC�T
I Nor., wetly Not Ns Pa..p05090 er
Awl Ns Arwood 10 re or Nur w Moot
WNW N:aP W Nw MWNW M
MAW NAN
WAWA
Q al.� oN-ao
MARE r. DSa4
lY A IseaA
v/H.L TIE(: 1_
'IHE ARCHITILMIALNTB_W_ _. _ANC
L'B01B @LURK PAS *OHIO
DP0T�
DESIGNED MQ_-,_..___„____
TRANSMITTED 0.4-21-0b.
0 2006 PUTMAN PLANNING & DESIGN
• TEN 00406, the small j.s. N01..• .d
b'rolls s( e..N .Rd theolm N +k 4, Ike
eninn i Dm ej Des. (ODD. & DmpnTDD3D)
Sim Cp.Ru L.
Al In I.,. TsP.eNd M tMiRd
Stun 1ron�iR61 I... All aNSu .. mina.
DPED ▪ DDI a, del. les.. .NLRn Psis
•
STU'\N,� AT ,
•,\ 05,0 ,06.'_OYfffR.IZkl991pN5_ ____
ice` 06-05-006 VIE SKYEY ADJ+T.
06-09-06 MUMS PeRET SET
TO
J.P. LUSH
CLI�NT1
JOHN SCHILTZ
LAKE ELMO INN
•LAN7TL.ANNING
•fe.k_J11D1niTIHL AL L
• ARCHITELIJRAL ILTLUJ i1CT7Y0N:.
'^RAP7-11CIlEJiG!.1
r
C)
0
i
Lake Elmo Municipal Code
Chapter 3 - Zoning
Section 300 - Zoning Ordinance
Minlmvm District Requirements
Lot Site
Lot hildth
General Business
III
I I/2 Acre (except as required by Interstate Corridor
Overlay District S00.01, SubdA(L) II
ISO Feet Mhtwlm
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY pO NDARYared Cron TOPOGRAPHIC SUF-- h
LOTS II THROUGH 15, BLOCK 2, BUSCH'S FIRST ADDITION TO J.P. Bush Homes, Inc.
3537 Lake Elmo Avenue North
P.D. Box 893
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Building Setback Iron property Ihe661so see Section 90011)
Existing conditions and praoused addition are shown hereon,
tut for any other proposals, changes, deletions or Mproveraent.
I see the Site Plan prepared by Putman Planing and Design
I dated 4-2/-06.
Bu11d9g Height/Alec see Section 900.12) 99 Feet MO, tnum I Traveled Wave/ strfoce favor! the easterly
half of the platted alley.
Worn. area to be covered by buildhgeprkhg lots, driveways and other hard surfaces,
CLOVERDALE
WASHINGTON
ELMO, CITY OF LAKE ELMO,
COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Front,
Side (Interior)
91de (Corner)
Rehr
11p to 4 acres
10 Feet HFtrem,
20 Feet Minimum
50 Peet NA,tmm
50 Feet Minimum
Lot Slay Covered Area
45% at lot size
Lot Gentlgurotion
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
Ma0Fvm lot depth to width emersion rotten shall W
no more than 9,1
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 29 NORTH
RANGE 21 WEST, CITY OF LAKE E-M0,
WA9HINSTON COUNTY, MINNE50Tn
7
i
7
i
i
� \/ c2
z
7
1 y QQer.�
e •F-
alb
2 II
3 w
z
x..r
w OX.ww — a..
7
J 7777 Thomas Miller I ,
—1-1-1 — e / [� x e,r Sarah Bohr a>�
8 Lew X---{(s(
( V I
q Xa X^' e .
___ V
-- L/.ter. a
ee
I' ,1PP Z d• es Josephs Geraldine Ede(
Ir
-+-f I0 'tl' ^ Q X ar
O II
• 12
13 . awl
I I
(),
D•
\ CV1
,044-
X s•
14
LAKE ELMO IN
VENT CENTER
3712 Layton Ave N. \\
13
7.791 sq. It. \
15 i;
n� ail n>� X•••p p X
12 m� •jeS 91
\. pit Xas» K e
0-6
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\gyp ikeine
.aw,llYc. e. 1.
•
of !nem endetc napbear
a91e•
20
14.4 i
Xa.
X n..e
zw SEPTIC AREA 15 SOMEWHERE
y� or THE BUILDING ACCORD NGSOUTH
...an ® .Te TO CITY ENGINEER TOM PREW
• N&1°!1'25"E 148.a2
I RECeiSO
SURVEY PREPARED BY.
Landmark 5vrveying, Inc.
21130 Chant Avenue Nx6h - PA. Box e7
Sandia, Wneeseta MOB
X nl
a 1 —
Crab mire', eS-4.e349
Fen weer. 6S�99-4181
Leaf sateen. Mahal seaearlea
X •"a•
Notes:
10
X •ran
VIcky Cantlnenza
LEGEND
Denotes a 7/6 Fah outside diameter by
• ID Inch ran pipe monument, with a
plastic cop Inscribed ANEZ RLS 19T1S,
set arhg previous survey dated 9-ID-2001.
• Denotes a monument described ate Pound.
Denotes edsttg boundary.
pQ Denotes water valve.
', Denotes We hydrant.
v, Denotes Witty pole.
— our Denotes overhead utllltlee.
— tsaDenotes u,dergraund gas.
— lour Denotes tnderground utilities.
Denotes fence as described
w
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DESCRIPTION PER WARRANTY DEED 00C. NO. 929457
Lots II through 15, Inclusive, Block 2, Bunch's
Flrat Addition to Cloverdale Elmo, Washington
County, Minnesota
W -BENCHMARK.
Xatr Elevation of top not of 'Fe hydrant
1 Is R26.95 NeVD 1429.
Z
X ere
60
X see
0
1.(4ten
REG. Refers to recorded vote per plat e'
BUSGHS FIRST ADDITION TO
CLOVERDALE ELMO.
i� j�e•�
•
�i•!e
•
Denotes a bituminous surloce.
Denotes a gravel surface.
Denotes a grass surface.
Denotes a concrete surface.
Denotes landeecped areas.
Denotes shrub.
60
X
41.12.
^
•
Buildhg dimensions shown
ore ovtslde dimensions and
square footage Is based on
these dimensons.
SURFACE AREAS
Area Surface
(square feet)
91,460 Bituminous
7,T31..... Existing Bullding
457 Generate
1542 .. Landscape
I0,61D eras.
91,066 Total Parcel
1.609 Addition
16% Impervious Surface Coverage
Beartgs are asswned.
SCALE
0 o x
X ass Denise spot elevation. 1 'tech • 20 lest
Spot elevations are shown rather than contour
because the land is so Plat and they were
requested by Tom Pren, City Engineer.
Of Idol copies of this mop are crimp e actsealed.
1 hereby certat 9ss saver fan cr report was prepee ee by me or
arta my erect aa way Licensee tad rxrveyar
user the fare el Ow State of Wrestle. u
5-19-2006
Joel T. Mee HFnsseta Lteeae He. I9TIS Dots
.11
JOB NUMBER 2006- 9
Vl omr rA0
AuctiP1xf] IP•Vjh Mil Oil
IA�TIE
Nokia
ii1PHASING PLAN
LAYTON AVENUE NORTH
PHASE ONE (I)
PHASE TY40 (II)
PHASE THREE (III)
• PHASE THREE A (IIIA )
n;R:Qq:Ri PHASE FOUR ( IV )
N\\\\\\\\\1 PHASE FIVE ( V )
PHASE SIX (VI 7
LAKE ELMO
EVENT CENTER
JHtL.TTITLL-
PHASING PLAN
�CERTFC/CTION-m.Y...,3',
O DlAJAN 1Y
"..: ,n+,ec+....
Dh
0 ly•! �
tkUNW
1Mu�cpyrt NE�wwwi
MOOatia
Miirw«
wulik w 4�.•+.4y
of /HI -LT
J.P. BU6H
!J�J.=:ii+2,�..,..,..y_
JOHN SCHILTZ
LAKE ELMO INN
4.A,
1 • G :.7J.'._`N
CT
•••.-.•-: • t•-• •itf•
NEW ADDITION n45. S.
1. 20,00. 15,124.,,B,
. .
. .
OPRO'POSED SITE PLAN
.5W I' • 20,0'
ALLEY
2,171`
LLLLL •
Ilv 4ff, 11Y IA, *1;•,
. . . "
FUTURE
TRELLIS
1777,k0:i
2--T(51 \Dr.
ONE WAY
LAYTON AVENUE NORTH
40.-0.
0
NORTH
A
SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES:
t. Piwow PROPERTY UNE T SD.
PARKINS CRITERIA
649 STALLS ON SITE
17 NE M STREET PARKINS STALLS
21 EXISTING ADJACENT STALLS
115 TOTAL PARKING
L. i---
•
.)
1 1
,1 - ..,....,,.. ,1
TOOLED CONTROL
JOINT PROVIDE II2'
RA17123 • .10110
TrP
4WIC SLABry
bg6A0.10 WV-
52E PLAN PO R LOC
..• • . .• •. • ,
I ewat.AR
-_.. PILL AS REM,
-111—n 11-111-71-111-1 t 1-11
SIDEWALK CONTROL JOINT
L
1/2' PRE-MOLD
COME-55412.LE
PILLER EXPANSION
JOINT - PROVIDE
I/2' RADIUS • JOINT
....--LREEPORLING MESH-
. STOP EA rSIDE OF
ILER
C)51DF-PIALK EXPANSION JOINT
NOTE: SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL
NOOES, DIMENSIONS MD INFORMATION
.03612 CURB AND GUTTER
.524' OW • 1,0'
'' CONCRETE S..AB
WIN 6X6 PPM
• COWALTEP
APWO AR FILL
PE. RECO
B62 ORE WREN
CONC. 5..4* OR
LAND•f..APP16-SEE
SITE PLAN
DIIUMINDLIS PAWNS
LAKE ELMO
EVENT CEN7FER
.:r:fi.:1FrP.VPVP7F4i-ft,,TPP,77.:t4,P5,rrrr.
SITE PLAN
hare Aar a a a. *arra, re
rep. a apirra ear gyp ebra
arra', eng 11. I en of My aria
aka{ aer ier• wase
Mars..
Prra
Duro IED
eatii157-- 1.45
AF6..WB—
ltioCitTi4K
Lawat. 4 .••••41 asnomons rad
'Wilt'
.u.ka
=be.. cs., • aliwalT6/".,"!......,*
RP&Dia
011:X5d)61.-KCE.SPZXtA0XML—;
ono
6
..)0;-;1\1 SCI-IILTZ
E1..1"10 INN
• I-1,10
• r rlife.f\L_ L-.LL.77W IC
•MW.WPT-11COE-JIGN
1- »00E-CT:
/ / / / / / / / ' / / / / / / / / / / ///////G////////////////////////////////////////////7//1
9
m
0
COLUMNS FOR TR81-15
ARE PACT OF PHASE 2
CONSTRUCTION
'0
s
mmnm
1111111111E
WIll11W-'
'LI54N5 FOR TIRE-L15
An PART OF ?HALE 2
OONETRU T1ON
OFLOOR PLAN
AL 5/16' • 1-0'
94'-91/0'
ED
in
TA'
0
5' 6'
W
11
0'-2 9/4'
H
iu
u
NEW
POURED
GONG CURD
WRAPWA
STONE EASE
'o
•
OND
A
BUILDING/ ADDITION
f 0051
(P1-1AF9 1 CONSTRUCTION/
FI
NEW ODERNFOLDOPERABLEORABLE PARTITION
GRAPWIC
GLASS
WATERFALL
FEATURE
Al! O
I
IQD.,
ova,,.
a o�
0®
COLMNS FOR TR•1L15
ARE PART OF PHA•,E 2
CONSTRUCTION
ID'-D'
®®
NEW
URINAL
PARTITIONS
A
MEWS — —
4
F
h�.
1V
m
0026
NEW
GOT. EXIS
44
WALK-IN
COOLER
(SEE SNT.
ICU
//////_/////////✓
/
DISMWASH
L Oil
UTILITY RM
015
11'-11 112' 2'.5 I/O' , 5' 5'-0'
SEE KI KITC11N PLAN
-412
AO
T
012
(SEE KITCHEN
PLAN KI FOR
EQUIPMENT)
UNISEX
016
WALL TYP1:5
WALL TT?E p
b?\A/Slm by
WALLTPEO
WALL TPPE O
WALL TYPE O
1
147
5/0' TYPE 'X' 6YP54/1 WALL BOARD EACH SIDE
OF 5-5/D' METAL STUD PRAWNS AT 16' OC.
TERMINATE STUDS 4 6YP511M WALLBOARD TO
4' ABOVE PROPOSED CEILING/ AND EXTEND
VERTICAL 5TUD5 A5 REQUIRED TO STIRLETURE
ABOVE - BRACE ACCORDINGLY.
PROVIDE A000IISTGA. BATT INSULATION
WITHIN CAVITY TO 6' ABOVE G9U-INS.
NOTE: PROVIDE LONE, LB& DEFLECTION TRACK
AT ALL T9CMINATIOP Ytel- STUDS MEET
STRUCTURE
PROVIDE MOISTURE RESISTANT 6YP5U4
WALLBOARD AT ALL TOILET ROOMS, LAUNDRY,
4 OTHER PET wes.
TOTAL WALL THICKNESS - 4-1V0' ACTUAL (5'
NOMINAL)
5/0' TYPE '%" 6YP5UM WALLBOARD Ore SIDE OF
I UY METAL STUD PURRING ®Ib' 0L.
TERMINATE 51505 AV 6YP/M WALLBOARD TO
6' ABOVE PROPOSED CELIN6,
ATTACH STUDS OVER EXISTING WALL
TOTAL THICKNESS • 2-US' ACTUAL.
NET CML
5/0' TYPE 'X' GYPSUM WALLBOARD CIE SIDE OF
11/2` PETAL STUD FURRING 4 16' OL.
TERMINATE STUDS AND GYPSUM WALLBOARD TO
6' ABOVE PROPOSED CEILING.
ATTACH STUDS OVER EXISTING WAIL
TOTAL WAIL T UC/05E5 - I'-2 Ire'
5/0' TYPE 'X' 6YP'5I4 WALL BOARD EACH SIDE
OF 5-5/6' FETAL STD FRAMING/ AT 16' OZ.
TERMINATE 571.05 4 6TPSUM WALLBOARD TO
6' ABOVE PROPOSED CEILN4 AND EXTEND
VERTICAL STUDS AS REQUIRED TO STRUCTURE
ABOVE - BRACE ACCORDINGLY.
NOTE PROVIDE LONG LES DEFLECTION TRACK
AT ALL TERMINATIONS WHERE ST OS MEET
STRUCTURE
TOTAL WALL THICKNESS - 4-1/0' ACTUAL (5'
NOMINAL)
5/5' TYPE 'X' GYPSUM WALL BOARD EACH SIDE
OF 5-5/0' METAL 51/2 PRAMIN6 AT 16' D.C.
TERMINATE STUDS d NYPSUM WALLBOARD TO
6' ABOVE PROPOSED GENUINE, AND EXTEND
VERTICAL 517117S A5 REiUIIED TO STRUCTURE
ABOVE - BRACE ACCORDINGLY.
NOTE PROVIDE LONG LEE, DELETION TRACK
AT ALL TERMINATIONS WERE STUDS MEET
STRUCTIIIE.
TOTAL WALL THICKNESS - 9-1/4'
• ;LAKE Y2.1-1-10
EVENT G!NTER
FLOOR PLAN
•••er. ,enpropcna by wow wisrq<Nod
Md*.4 sd heIan o-Liu.
I.rl..ct w1r 11. Ion M W am M
DEBiGNfD_ �L
CQ1— RI 1T
0Y •1_
-Wii1•.d/. fie ma Mm, ..nwm:
?I+.wa< m4N. Wyman ti d.,I�
Pam
5)o644 uB..EPa9ryey 6.4)Ni a IPUBLV •
INN/it lS..Mo L.n EDU. Pm•••er Uwed
wI ANlNr A117wwrl�d filly/ YI•WAN• k+.
PPAP'DN'N mdUm i1.w.
JP. 3USH
(i.ltv'r
JOHN SCHILTZ
LAKE ELMO INN
C
6
5T ELEVATION
en6•.r-c
NORTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
OA9D
SOJTH ELEVATION
516, 1'-0"
I'
I -II RI7•I 'I 'I
i L-c)
A ffl rr
I��
'
—
=
III_lII-
IEI
— = O _
=_
__I=
—
M
c_
'IIjj'��IINIIIII
J__�
— _ 1135
F -
Fp.,t
ICO'-O—"•P
- - J9
113'-T
100'-0" Y
113'-2-Y-
_
IOD'-O"
EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES
OEXISTING BRICK
$KALWALL TRELLIS
PARALAM WOOD THE-LI5
t+) NEW BLOCK WALL (PAINT)
SQUARES WITH ART 6LASS
6 NEW HOLLOW MTL DOOR . FRAME (PAINT)
7-0' H16 1 METAL STIUP WALL WITH !IFS FINISH
OMETAL C•OLLMN COVERS
OWOOD TRELLIS MERITS HOLD 2• FROM WALL
0 EXISTING BLOCK WALL (PAINT)
ONOW 2-O'x7_0' NIRDON5
OALL TRELLIS )9 RK 5 PART OF
PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION
100'-0F.FE.
LAKE ELMO
EVENT CENTER
la
EXTERIOR
ELEYATION3 :T
Cf_RTIF-ICATI ON
I S*9 co., Ott w p6t own.. or
..port o p.worwy me. odor sro
as Wow..
r.wl.ct moo qo Wm of we Mato of
Ponied Maw •
n.. O.-Oro 1.r.1.. 4. Ob.
11E.it6NEU _ MD
CO1="1-K.IQt-iT;
G'20064`Tit AND At$IpiIG'6
mr6n dank. 6. omJl h..
nPFhe�.l d➢.r. 6Wq 6A.:p 4DY
�oo r won...`"rd y ww!
i... Adahe mm:.P+:
Dom* asp. olar..wra -" w... (�
a6-s. c_etteswer.AD.ust.__j
Ob09 P6'_PI—0.*Tplit`..>r.L.
J.P. US�I
JOHN SCH ILTZ
LAKE ELMO INN.
•REJcD=hTItiCEJ LI: ..
0
(SEE AREA DRAIN DETAIL)
AASHTO M2BB CLASS 2
NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
12" OF 1 - 2-INCH WASHED
CRUSHED, ANGULAR
STONE.
iect
00°30'3311E
WELL GRADED GRANULAR BACKFILL WHICH CONTAIN AN
EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICLE SIZES WITH NO MORE
THAN 12% PASSING THE #200 SIEVE COMPACTED TO A
MINIMUM OF 95% OF THE STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY.
SEE THE TABLE OF ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS IN
STORMTECH'S DESIGN MANUAL, INSTALLATION MANUAL,
OR WWW.STORMTECH.COM.
FINISHED GRADE
SC-740 CHAMBER
14'
STORMTECH t j4G CH eBER SYSTEM
NOT TO SCALE
51" WIDE CHAMBER
SC-740 END CAP
PLACE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE 1
DOWN OVER TOP OF WASHED ROCK PRIOR TO
PLACEMENT OF CHAMBER (FABRIC SHALL OVERLAPPED
TO OUTSIDE OF CHAMBER TO BE HELD BY CHAMBER)
STORMTECH UNDERGROUND DETENTION DETAIL
NO SCALE
�2ti45CL__
ENTRANCE
0
120
t
r
s
n
• n
z
+rx
m
z
—I
5-FT BREAK.1N CIAB FOR
ELEV. 9261.85 -�- -
14-FT STORM TECH CHAMBER
100-'R HWL6.927.2E
1
D
A
P1
\rc'lle \
styes
•%levatibn ,.y�y�y}( ,�' _ �(,, a�-+may_{_ [yam
I��j�'y+S-rY'.'..I'1''�?2'•-a�\e�-yr'�.i:'f.3'Y.Cµ �-U'1-�'at..�``1Y 9�-'���.{3.'r.:
MN/DOT GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE 1 OVER
1/4" WIRE MESH (GALVANIZED)
EXTEND FABRIC UP SIDES OF STRUCTURE
INSTALL-Bk. CURBING(D4TYPE)
MILL EDGE AND APPLYTAkPX COAT,
F'RI9TO INSTALLING CURB x \,
q5-.83 R ------
REMOVE EXISTING Px1VEMENT IN
AREA BETWEEN ADOT,ION AND EXISTING
ALLY---TO-WEST-AND DRAIN TO
PROPOSED INLET.
A V
•
00 - 40
` e
z E N .0
(PLATTED\ AS
•
E � 1\ y 0 T o H
HICAGO A\(E
12"
RIM ELEV. 926.50
18"
J
ADS 18-INCH PEDESTRIAN
CAST IRON GRATE
MODEL H-10
6" 1/2" WASHED ROCK FILTER
ADS 2718AG6N STRUCTURE
6" PVC RISER
PLACE MORTAR AROUND PIPE
TO HOLD INLET STRUCTURE
IN PLACE
EXTEND PIPE S" MIN.
INTO STORAGE CHAMBER
AREA DRAIN DETAIL
NO SCALE
0 10 20 40
ORIGINAL SCALE: I IN = 20 FT
LEGEND
® Denotes o 7 /8 Inr-h outs.lde diornekor by
16 ncii iron pipe monunent, with a
plastic cop inscribed AHEE BLS 15775,
set during preunous survey dated 9-18--2001.
ODenotes 0 monument described ors inand.
p_rntes _ i-tir,a baundar',
Denotes wafer Volvo.
Depot=,s fire hnvirnnt.
Gerrhe; ur,ir•y p:,l.
--eau— Denotes overhead utititles
--000-- Denotes underground 400
--uau— Denotes underground utilities.
Der Gt., f,nce. a,' O..:ril:.d
NEC= Refers to recorded value per plat o1
BUSCH'S FIRST ADDITION TO
CLOVERDALE ELMO.
•
Denotes a rnncrele surface.
Denotes !andscoped oreas.
Denotes shrub
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DESCRIPTION PER WARRANTY DEED DOC. NO, 929457
Lots 11 through 15, inclusive. Black 2. Busch's
First Addition to Clo-erdni0 Elmo. Washington
County, Minnesota
SORVEY PREPARED BY:
Landmark Surveying, Inc.
21150 Ozark Avenue North - P.O. Box 65
Scandia, Minnesota 55073
0
z
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED Br
ME 0R UNDER Mr DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM
A DM( LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL EHORIEER
UNDER. THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
TODD A ERICKSON
4041E
LICENSE NO.
6/20/06
DATE
war . TAE
IIAW)E; TAE
DIP VN
',mum 06/07/06
51SP 06-167
J.P. BUSH HOMES, INC.
PROPOSED GRADING PLAN
3537 LAKE ELMO AVENUE NORTH
LAKE ELMO, MINNESOTA
Cl
SHEET t 0,1
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Date: July 7, 2006 for the Meeting of July 10, 2006
Applicant: City of Lake Elmo by It's City Council
Location: 8890 10th Street North
Requested Action: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning
Land Use Plan Guiding: PF
Existing Zoning: PF
Site History and Existing Conditions:
City records regarding this 38 acre (overall) site date back to 1988. The site owner (Apostolic
Bible Church) applied to the City to rezone the entire 38 acres from RR (Rural Residential) to PF
(Public/Semi-Public Facilities) with the specific intent to build a church. There were also
indications that the applicant may include a seminary facility on the site.
No application or discussion of a corresponding Comprehensive Plan amendment appears in the
1988/1989 records of this proceeding, except reference to a clause in the City Zoning Ordinance
(that remains to this day as 301.060 E.8) stating that a rezoning action automatically amends the
Comprehensive Plan to conform with the zoning. While that may have been the understanding of
the City at that time (Comp Plan responds to zoning), Minnesota court decisions (and Statute
amendments) that may have taken place subsequent to 1988/1989 clearly prescribe that zoning
must respond to the Comp Plan. Hence (at least today) there can be no rezoning that is
inconsistent with the Land Use Plan. Today, the Plan must be amended first.
Following initial review, Public Hearing and discussion at the Planning Commission level the
applicant amended the rezoning application to reduce the area of the requested action to the
westerly 13 + acres (net of road right-of-way) of the 38+ acre site. Although the Planning
Commission recommended denial of the application, the City Council did eventually approve it
and a related land division. That land division is not, however, of record with Washington County.
In 1991 the property owner (Apostolic Church) was asked by the City if they intended to proceed
with the church project to which they responded in the affirmative, but that construction would not
start until at least 1994. This inquiry by the City was initiated responsive to a suggestion that the
land be rezoned back to RR since no church construction had taken place.
In 1998 the church advised the City that it planned to move forward with church construction
during 1998. This may have been responsive to concurrent work by the City to amend the PF
zoning district standards in a manner that was viewed by this church (and others) as constraining.
Those PF amendments were eventually adopted by the City. There has been no contact of the City
by the church regarding building plans since at least 2000.
Discussion and Analysis:
The City Council has recently directed Staff to process a City Council -initiated Comprehensive
Plan amendment for the subject 13+ acres to reclassify the Plan land use from PF to RAD —
consistent with the surrounding lands. The Council also initiated a complimentary rezoning
process for the site to reclassify zoning from PF to RR — again consistent with surrounding
properties. The property owner (and property owners within 350 feet of the site) have been
notified of the proposed actions.
Comprehensive Plan amendments are generally based on one or both of the following:
1. A change of conditions regarding the subject site, or the surrounding area.
2. An error in the existing Plan classification.
Staff review of the substantial records regarding the 1988/1989 proceedings that lead to the
rezoning of this site from RR to PF reveal (as noted above) that there was no discussion of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment except the reference to the "zoning equals Plan" clause of the
Zoning Ordinance. No findings regarding either change of conditions or error supported that Plan
amendment — rather, a basic determination of whether it was the "right" or "wrong" action by the
City based on a substantially different understanding of the importance of comprehensive plans
that cities are required by Statute to adopt in 2006.
Staff concedes the advantages of 20/20 hindsight as we address the land use guiding and zoning of
this site today — 17 years after the action. There were no specific findings (reflected in Minutes) in
support of the 1989 action to assist in determining the reasons for the actions — beyond the
applicant' s ownership of the site — no error claimed, nor any change of conditions claimed (other
than site ownership). Today, that alone could easily be construed as an error in the 1989 action,
and the basis to return the site to RAD land use classification and RR zoning that the site held
prior to the 1989 action to rezone (and automatically reclassify in the Comp Plan).
As the City has witnessed during the recent consideration of the Lakewood Church Comp Plan
Amendment and rezoning applications, PF land use guiding and zoning tends to be a special case
that is not easily addressed by planning theory or practice. Predeterming the need for and
geographic placement of the PF-type uses as Comprehensive Plans are prepared is seldom
accomplished, except in the case of large PUD projects (often hundreds of acres). In those cases
the project alone may suggest PF needs (such as schools) and even church sites by mere project
scale. Beyond that, PF land use decisions (other than accommodating existing PF uses) becomes
an ad hoc practice based as much on judgment by planners and policy makers as on factual
circumstances.
Findings and Recommendations:
Staff suggests the following Findings be considered regarding the City Council initiated
application for amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to reclassify this site from PF to RAD:
1. The subject site is a 13 acre "island" of PF surrounded by RAD land use guiding —
essentially "spot guiding" with no factual basis to support the existing PF classification,
and RAD land use guiding continues to surround the site on 3 sides.
2. The record of the 1989 City action to reclassify the site from RAD to PF fails to provide
Findings to support that reclassification beyond the interests of the property owner leading
to the conclusion that an error may have resulted by the action.
3. There has been no evidence that the property owner intends to execute development of the
site as a church during the past 7+ years. Conditions appear to have changed from those
existing at the time of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan amendment classifying the site as PF.
The property owner has been officially notified of this pending amendment, and has not
responded.
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends the Comprehensive Plan be amended for this site to
reclassify the site in the Land Use Plan from PF to RAD, subject to the Metropolitan Council
concurrence mandated by State Statute.
Staff further recommends that the subject site be rezoned form PF to RR on the condition that the
recommended Comprehensive Plan amendment is adopted by the City Council and concurred in
by the Metropolitan Council.
Planning Commission Actions Requested:
Motion to recommend the Comprehensive Plan be amended for the site known as the Apostolic
Bible Church site to reclassify the site in the Land Use Plan from PF to RAD, subject to the
Metropolitan Council concurrence mandated by State Statute.
Motion to recommend that the subject site be rezoned form PF to RR on the condition that the
recommended Comprehensive Plan amendment is adopted by the City Council and concurred in
by the Metropolitan Council.
Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner
Attachments:
1. Location Map
RkG
Location Map
Inwood Avenue
RAD
RAD
10th Street North t
4—
Ste
PF
RAD
RAD
rt.
R2IW R2OW R19W
2N
T31N
T3ON
T29N
T2BN
T27N
Vicinity Map
o 800
Scale in Feet
This drawing is the result of a compilation
and reproduction of land records as they
appear in various Washington County offices.
The Mewing should be Used for reference
purposes only. Washington County is not
responsible for any inaccuracies.
Sou.: Washington County Surveyors Office,
Phone (851) d30-6875
gamer dela based 8866408 intorynahon
Kimberly Anez
From: Kimberly Anez
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 4:15 PM
To: Chuck Dillerud
Subject: Extra Meetings
I have tentatively scheduled the following extra meeting dates for extra Zoning Ordinance
meetings.
Mon., Jul. 31
Mon., Aug. 7
Wed., Sep. 6
Mon., Oct. 2
Mon., Oct. 30
Are thirteen meetings going to be enough to draft the ordinance?
:) Kim
Kimberly Anez
City of Lake Elmo
kim.anez@lakeelmo.org
1