Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-10-2002 Planning Commission Packet4 CITY OF LAKE iiikELMO City of Lake Elmo Phone: 651-777-5510 Fax: 651-777-9615 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 Planning Commission Meeting AGENDA June 10, 2002, 7:00 p.m. 1. AGENDA 2. MINUTES — May 29, 2002 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT Lake Elmo Business Park — RECO Realty 4. 520 SITE PLAN Gorman's Restaurant — Ed Gorman 5. OTHER BUSINESS 6. JOINT MEETING City Council/Old Village Special Project Planning Commission Sidewalks and Streetscapes in the Old Village 10. ADJOURN tj printed on recycled paper Minutes Approved: May 29, 2002 CITY OF LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 13, 2002 Planning Commission Chairman Tom Armstrong called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Armstrong, Taylor, Deziel, Bunn, Berg, Sessing, Sedro, and Helwig. Also present: City Planner, Charles Dillerud and Administrative Secretary, Kimberly Schaffel. Mr. Dillerud introduced and welcomed Kimberly Schaffel, the new Recording Secretary for the Planning Commission. AGENDA M/S/P Helwig/Sedro To accept the Agenda as presented. VO l E: 8-0. MINUTES Commissioner Bunn amended the Minutes of April 22, 2002. Page 3, Paragraph 5: Commissioner Bunn stated that she can't imagine that the outcome of Village Scale Housing the study would go against buildings on lots such as this in this area unless there is a technical issue for septic systems. M/S/P Helwig/Sedro to accept the Minutes of April 22, 2002 as amended. VOTE: 8-0. PUBLIC HEARING: EN PROPERTIES/LAIDLAW TRANSIT A Public Hearing was called to consider the application of EN Properties/Laidlaw Transit to Amend a Conditional Use Permit for Non -Agricultural Low Impact to allow a bus terminal to operate from the property generally described as the northwest quadrant of Manning Avenue and Hudson Boulevard. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette and affected property owners were notified. Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud The City Planner presented his report for an application for new use of land that came before the Commission over one year ago for a CUP that was inconsistent with Code at the time. The approved plan allowed for outside storage on the east side of the parcel and a building with an office and shop/repair facility. That contractor storage yard is no longer feasible for the owner. The site owner, Terry Emerson, has found a potential user, Stillwater School District. They have awarded a two-year contract to Laidlaw Transit for bus service. They wish to use the Emerson property as a bus terminal. The proposed use doesn't differ greatly from previous use. The same amount of storage will be utilized, and the area is screened well. The shop will be used for general maintenance. The contractor used the site primarily in summer; the bus company would use it primarily during the school year. The Municipal Code requires traffic on a daily basis not to exceed 3 individual trips per day per acre. The parcel is 70 acres which calculates to 210 vehicle trips per day. The application exceeds that maximum. No storage or parking has been approved on the west side of the building. No exterior lighting has been approved. The probability for fueling on this property would be another major concern. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2002 Minutes Approved: May 29, 2002 The "Further Resolved" clause in the previous approval said Mr. Emerson's 10`h Avenue & Manning operation must be cleaned up by March 2002. He recommended that the cleanup be a condition added by the Commission should it approve this application. He is uncomfortable with parking availability, and the possibility that cars will park on Hudson Rd., or that the applicant will return with problems and amendment requests. No recommendations were made by staff. He suggested the Commission begin with the existing resolution. He noted that the City Attorney recommended a new resolution. Terry Emerson, Owner Buses would be only on the east side. They would like six lights in the parking lot. Laidlaw Transit will stay within the Code. They will speak to the Fire Marshall about fueling. He has a fueling system that is up to date and meets federal and state regulations should Laidlaw choose to fuel on site. There will be no parking on the street. He thought cleanup of his other property was to be within one year after he moved from that site. The building and trailer will be removed. He will try to finish by July 1. The Code says average trips. Bus travel will be busiest 175 days per year but the remainder of the year will have very few trips. The State and Metropolitan Council Plans average trips per day over the entire year. The Gazette reported that Laidlaw's contract saves the school district a little over $250,000 per year for two years which would potentially pay the salaries of 10-13 staff members who are active throughout the year. The only change to the site plan is to extend one berm on the east side further north, and plant more trees. There will be fence all the way around, and the site will be hidden from the roads. There will be a locked gate for security. Commissioner Deziel The Commissioner investigated the site this afternoon. He said the view from the highway is screened but the other two sides are not; many trees are dead, and the berms are bare. Terry Emerson When it is dry enough, the trees will be planted, and he will seed after the trees are planted. Commissioner Deziel Why should the Commission feel comfortable this will get done? The City Planner said we still have $7,000 of Mr. Emerson's money as guaranty. Commissioner Helwig The Commissioner asked how many buses and what sizes will be parked on the property. Don Dilks, Area Manager of Maintenance for Laidlaw Transit, Inc. The fleet will be 81 vehicles, from cut -away vans to 78-passenger buses. There will be 81 bus drivers plus office/shop staff. 81 vehicles will be housed all summer for maintenance. Less than fifty buses would be parked on site during the school year. If there are more than 50, they'll use satellite parking and shuttle the drivers to the buses. They will stay under the maximum number of trips per day. Piannin €�'c Minutes Approved: May 29, 2002 City Planner Many buses go in and out more than once per day. Some drivers go home between trips, raising the numbers. There are extracurricular activities in summer, on nights, and weekends. Don Dilks Laidlaw has addressed that issue. The intent is that 14-16 vehicles would never come south of Hwy 36, some will go east, some south to Afton and farther. They will disperse. The Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 p.m. There were no speakers. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Commissioners Deziel and Bunn The application makes sense, as the use would benefit the school district and the education of our own students. Commissioner Deziel He thinks the Commission should rezone this area as GB or HB without extending the Low Impact CUP. Also, he would like Mr. Emerson to do the work expected of him by last March. City Planner He is concerned about parking. He fears he will have an enforcement problem if this CUP is approved. He could accept a weekly average of trips but not an annual one. Chairman Armstrong The language in the Code is loose; an annual average does not adequately reflect heavy traffic periods. Commissioner Sedro She remembered creating the ordinance for the 210 trips per day. She said the point was to limit traffic impact on neighbors. Commissioner Bunn The application is incomplete to the satisfaction of the Commission. They were not supplied with the numbers or sizes of buses, a Parking Plan, a Lighting Plan, and a Fueling Plan. This is on the highway; perhaps the ordinance should be amended. Traffic will be dispersed by the time they reach the neighbors two miles away. Commissioner Helwig He remembered a previous problem with traffic on that road. Neighboring residents and the City Council did have problems with potential traffic due to a proposed truck stop. Making it a business zone would be bad news, and create new problems. Mr. Emerson The applicant requested they table the application to a future date. M/S/P Helwig/Deziel To table the application until a future meeting at the request of the applicant. Chairman Armstrong There would be much higher impact with the bus facility than intended by the Low Impact CUP. Mr. Emerson is presenting 6 to 8 trips per acre per day. Based on rough calculations, the Chair is suggesting a maximum of 35 buses there, in order to keep Low Impact standards. He asked if there is commercial zoning specifically for buses. Pianninsz Commission Minutes May 43, 2002 Minutes Approved: May 29, 2002 Commissioner Bunn She asked staff to see if the number of buses could be constrained or if they could change the Code along freeways. Commissioner Helwig He agreed with Commissioner Bunn. City Planner Recommended that after tabling this application for two weeks, he could publish a Public Hearing Notice for a change in the Code. He said he needs proof this concept will work. Mr. Dilks He said he can lay it out on a diagram. There are 82 parking places. The longest bus is 38.5 feet. Two cars can park where a bus was parked. He would like two lights each at the north, middle, and south on the east side. City Planner A Lighting Engineer needs to design it to be sure it conforms to Code. He asked the applicants to provide drawings in advance of the next meeting. Commissioner Sedro Would it be possible to have information for the next meeting regarding the number of trips at various hours of the day? Mr. Dilks New routing will not be done until July or August. Noontimes are published on the school district web site. However, he can do the calculations using last year's routes. Jim Johanson, Area General Manager for Laidlaw His office is in Champlin where 80 buses travel out of a terminal next to City Hall. They have staggered start and departure times; it is not a sea of yellow leaving the terminal at one time. He suggested the Commission ask Champlin about his credentials and those of Laidlaw. VOTE: 8-0. M/S/P Bunn/Deziel To instruct staff to post a Notice of Public Hearing in order to alter traffic requirements along freeways and frontage roads to amend the Code. VOTE: 5-3 (Taylor/Sedro/Berg). 520 SITE PLAN: MARQUESS DEVELOPMENT CORP. State Highway 5 and 55th Street North Staff Renort, Citv Planner. Charles Dillerud This hearing is dealing only with exterior surfacing because the layout was approved last year. The application was made before the adoption of new exterior surfacing standards. There are three existing buildings with similar architecture. They are nice looking buildings. Asphalt shingles already exist on three buildings. The four buildings should look alike. He showed a display of the building materials of cedar, stone, brick in caps, and asphalt shingles. He recommended approval. M/S/P Deziel/Helwig To approve the application with one condition, to comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer. VOTE: 8-0. }iris2 C."ommmis Minutes Approved: May 29, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, HB TO GB A Public Hearing was called to consider an Amendment to the Zoning Map from HB (Highway Business) to LB (Limited Business). Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette and affected property owners were notified. Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud The City Planner said the City Council reviewed zoning text repeal at their last meeting. The Council decided to wait for a new Zoning Map. By repealing the zoning of HB District, three businesses will be impacted. One site is not Guided for GB but for Limited Business. The first business is Cenex. A small parcel of land adjacent to Cenex is owned by the Washington County Agricultural Society. This area should be rezoned to GB. The second site to be rezoned from HB to GB is Lake Elmo Oil. They have two parcels. The third site is not as simple. Dale Properties owns two large pieces side by side. 200 X 600 got chopped out and somehow zoned differently. The business is related to HB; a motorized hang glider facility. He suggests they bypass the third site tonight. He recommends that the first two sites go from HB to GB. If rezoned properly to LB, the motorized hang glider business would be allowed to continue but couldn't expand because you cannot have a same or similar business there - but does not put it out of business. Commissioner Deziel He asked if the rezoning further restricted business uses. City Planner Auto service for Cenex and Lake Elmo Oil is a permitted GB use. The City Planner said rezoning would not further restrict the sites, except in the hang glider site. Chairman Armstrong The hang glider business is probably non -conforming already since they do more than simply sell the machines. The Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. There were no speakers. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:51 p.m. M/S/P Deziel/Sedro Based upon the recommendation of the City Planner, to recommend that the City Council rezone HB to GB the Cenex and LEO sites. VOTE: 8-0. OTHER BUSINESS City Planner, Charles Dillerud In February, the Met Council declared our Comprehensive Plan complete, and began a 60-day review period. Before it expired in April, they declared a 60-day extension. Met Council received letters from Lake Elmo property owners because the City did not propose to extend sewer service to their properties. The Met Council sponsored a forum to allow concerns to be voiced. The City Planner attended the meeting and explained Lake Elmo's Plan. No action was taken. Planning Con fission Minutes May 13, 2002 Minutes Approved: May 29, 2002 Commissioner Berg He directed the City Planner to try to get minutes from that meeting. City Planner Met Council has a new review deadline of June 8. The Regional Administrator said there may not be a Met Council Staff recommendation. The City Planner said he is willing to consider another extension and bring it to the City Council. Our plan is going to do a good job of meeting the 2030 Rural Area Draft. A letter arrived today asking for extension until August. 60 days may give us an opportunity to prove we are right. The City may be inconsistent with the 1996 Regional Blueprint but consistent with the 2030 Regional Blueprint. Commissioner Deziel Which area wanted to be in MUSA? City Planner The 94 corridor and north on Inwood. Those areas had representatives who spoke. Commissioner Deziel departed at 8:36 p.m. Commissioner Bunn She asked about the Old Village Neighborhood Design Study. City Planner It will not start until June. CALENDAR EVENTS June 20, may be a busy day in Lake Elmo. The Union Pacific Railroad is bringing a classic train from Eau Claire to St. Paul, pulled by a Challenger Steam Engine. The Mississippi River Cleanup and Oakdale Parade Days are scheduled for the same day. Chairman Armstrong Thanked the City Planner for representing the City to the Met Council. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly Schaffel Planning Secretary 2ftJ CITY OF LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 29, 2002 Planning Commission Chairman Tom Armstrong called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Armstrong, Taylor, Deziel, Bunn, Sedro, Helwig, AND Ptacek. Also present: City Planner, Charles Dillerud and Administrative Secretary, Kimberly Schaffel. AGENDA M/S Ptacek/Sedro To accept the Agenda as presented. VOTE: 7:0 PASSED. MINUTES Commissioner Berg phoned with a message to amend the Minutes of May 13, 2002 to reflect that he voted AGAINST the Motion to instruct staff to post a Notice of Public Hearing in order to alter traffic requirements along freeways and frontage roads to amend the Code. The Recording Secretary received a message from Terry Emerson clarifying a statement he made in his presentation. She suggested the following change to his statement, "The Gazette reported that Laidlaw's contract saves the school district a little over $250,000 per year for two years which would potentially pay the salaries of 10-13 staff members who are active throughout the year." M/S Helwig/Sedro To accept the Minutes of May 13 2002 as amended. VOTE: 6:0:1 (Abstain: Ptacek) PASSED. VARIANCE: PJK REALTY/PATRICK KINNEY (CONTINUED) A Public Hearing was called April 8, 2002 to consider the application of PJK Realty/Patrick Kinney for a Variance from Minimum Lot Size in order to build a home on a parcel generally described as Lot 7s, Beau Haven and Outlot G, Eagle Point Creek Estates. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette for the April meeting. Affected property owners were notified again that this application is on tonight' Agenda, and is still under consideration. Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud The City Planner reminded the Commission that this Variance application was tabled twice at the request of the applicant. The City Council extended the review period. Nothing has substantially changed in regard to this application. Chairman Armstrong The applicant was asked to speak. Public comment will be allowed because this matter was originally a Public Hearing, and it has been a long time since it came before the Commission. Patrick Kinney, Owner The applicant distributed an aerial of the subject parcel and surrounding properties. He said the original lot was buildable before the Code was changed. Building a home would not change the character of the neighborhood. He spent a lot of time on the design to make its appearance fit into the neighborhood. Everyone else in that neighborhood had the right to build a home there. He said the septic system will fit and meet setback requirements for the OHW. One of the last properties where a house was built five years ago is at 8268 Stillwater Boulevard. The entire property lies below the 940 feet contour. The applicant asked the City Planner if a Variance was granted for that property. C on miss on ?riit:;tires v;ay 29, 2002 City Planner He did not know if a Variance was granted five years ago to build the home at 8268 Stillwater Boulevard. Patrick Kinney There are five lots in Tablyn Park that are 30 — 32,000 square feet. All of those Tablyn Park residents got Variances to build there. There are 31,000 square feet on his lot. The average lot size is consistent with the other eight in Beau Haven. On May 9, he met with neighbors who are in the floodplain, and they said his proposed home looks great. A petition was circulated by other neighbors who do not want to see a house on that lot. He believes the site should be grandfathered in because it has been a tax parcel just as long as the others. It is the same width and depth as the others. While it is not a substantial lot, he will build within the setbacks. The Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. Julia Raleigh She is the author of a letter that was sent to the Commission. She said that Minnesota Statutes say a Variance is necessary when a zoning law is passed and there is any non -conforming use. A 1976 Minnesota Law (Dedering v. Johnson) states that when two adjoining parcels are owned by one taxpayer, they become one lot for zoning purposes. In another case (Graham v. Itasca), 100 feet lots were platted. The zoning changed to 200 feet of frontage on the lake. Two owners sold their lots to the same builder who wanted to build two houses. The ruling said that once the two adjoining parcels were owned by a single owner, they could not be divided. Originally, two lots were owned by the Beavers. Mr. Kinney bought one of them. Now Mr. Kinney wants to have his lot viewed separately for zoning purposes. She believes that his burden to show "undue hardship" has not been met. One of the standards to be met for a Variance is a problem unique to the parcel. Small size is not unique. The Chair closed the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Deziel The Commissioner asked Ms. Raleigh why Mr. Kinney should be deprived of rights other owners have enjoyed; all of them have had homes constructed. Julia Raleigh The applicant is not in the same position those neighbors were in when they built their homes. Chairman Armstrong The entire neighborhood is non -conforming. Commissioner Helwig He asked the speaker where she lived and who she represented. Julia Raleigh She lives in Newport and represents Marie Rau of 8394 Stillwater Blvd. n Mi. tes a 29. 2002 Scott Beaver He was the previous landowner who sold the lot to Mr. Kinney. The county told him to keep his two parcels separate because it may become buildable in the future. The empty lot is an eyesore. It is one of the bigger lots in the neighborhood. He owned the two largest lots in Beau Haven. Mr. Kinney He distributed copies of an aerial showing that the vacant lot was larger than the others in Beau Haven. He said the lot has always been separate, and is consistent with others in the neighborhood. Commissioner Deziel He asked the Planner why the approach on this Variance application was different than the approach for five Variances on smaller lots five years ago. City Planner Every case is different; that case was very different from this one. In that case eleven lots were combined then divided again. A case closer in terms of circumstances is one denied by the City Council one month ago. Chairman Armstrong He said that case involved land purchased before the R-1 Zone was created. The city changed the standards while the owner still possessed it. In this case there were changes in ownership. Prospective owners are obliged to learn zoning and suitability for building purposes prior to buying land. Commissioner Bunn Based upon the legal criteria, the applicant does not appear to have a case. City law does not support his application. Policy should be revisited for properties of 1.5 acres or less in historic neighborhoods. She expressed concern that misinformation was disseminated with the sale of this land. An Ordinance should be drafted for disclosure that clearly states zoning of land at the time of sale. Commissioner Taylor She agreed that the empty lot is an eyesore, and thought its size was adequate because it is the biggest lot in the area. She asked Mr. Beaver when he bought the land. Scott Beaver He bought the land ten years ago. Chairman Armstrong The R-1 Zoning District Commissioner Ptacek He said he thought similar to Commissioners Bunn and Taylor with regard to policy; however the Commission is in place to interpret the Code. as created in 979. M/S Deziel/Taylor To deny the Variance application submitted by Patrick Kinney and PJK Realty based upon the Staff Report of April 3, 2002. VOTE: 4:3 (Sedro/Ptacek/Armstrong) PASSED. M/S Deziel/Taylor To instruct staff to prepare Findings and pass them directly to the City Council. VOTE: 4:3 (Sedro/Ptacek/Armstrong) PASSED. P(anniu2 Commission Minutes May 29, 2002 AMENDMENT TO CUP: EN PROPERTIES/LAIDLAW TRANSIT (CONTINUED) A Public Hearing was called May 13, 2002 to consider the application of EN Properties/Laidlaw Transit for an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for Non-agricultural Low Impact to allow a bus terminal to operate from the property generally described as the northwest quadrant of Manning Avenue and Hudson Boulevard. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette for the last meeting. Affected property owners were notified again that this application is on tonight's Agenda, and is still under consideration. Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud This application was tabled at the applicants' request at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, May 13, 2002. The applicants have prepared substantial information since the last meeting. The Revised Site Plan has two stages. 1.) During the 175 day school year, 56 buses will operate from and occupy the site. With 81 available parking spaces, the rationale is that there is sufficient parking for buses, drivers, and staff. 2.) During the non -school year, all 81 buses will remain on -site with staff limited to the office and shop. The new Site Plan appears to be able to accommodate this two stage approach. The applicants have entered into a two year lease for a property in Afton for the 25 remaining buses (and drivers). The Revised Site Plan shows a parking area on the west side of the building; consequently the doors on the west side of the building would no longer function. Chain link security fence will surround the site. Refueling will be performed at the extreme east end of the site. Lighting will be as indicated on the diagram attached to the Staff Report. The light manufacturer indicates the luminary plan will meet our City standards. Trip generation was a major concern, and the applicants' approach to the problem seems valid. During the school year there will be 328 trips per day or an average of 4.7 per acre. Should the Commission choose to approve this application; the City Attorney recommends repealing the original CUP and creating a new one for this use. All Code conditions should be listed, along with specifics to this case. The applicants have provided a complex answer to this situation, and one difficult to enforce. The new lease in Afton allows them to break the lease with sixty days' notice. We should have the same option but that could present a problem in the middle of the school year. The Fire Chief brought in a large book of standards, some of which may be applicable to fueling on this site. The City Engineer sent an e-mail expressing concern about the size of the septic system relative to the number of drivers and staff. Commissioner Sedro It appears from the time schedule provided by Laidlaw that more buses and cars arrive than leave. Don MacFeely. Laidlaw Transit Twenty midday routes do not make a round trip. Commissioner Deziel If the trips are annualized, the result is 2.6 trips per day. Nothing in the Code says it is not an annual average. g C`ommission ,'Iia: es May 29, 2002 4 Commissioner Taylor She agrees with the City Engineer that the size of the septic system must be adequate to accommodate bus washing and bathrooms. Terry Emerson, Owner He spoke to Dale Eckland who did not think there would be a problem with accommodating bus washing using the existing system. He said it would not be hard to enlarge the system if necessary. City Planner One condition that could be added to this CUP is that the septic system must be acceptable to the City Engineer for bus washing and bathrooms. Commissioner Taylor She noted that 8,100 students would travel on these buses. Don MacFeely He said Laidlaw is 100 percent committed to doing whatever is required to make this site to conform to the Commission's specifications. They will make sure that Mr. Emerson has all the certifications that are necessary. Commissioner Bunn The Ordinance does not refer to an annual average of trips. "Daily trips" is the wording in the Ordinance. She said that standards designed for a neighborhood with homes should not apply to a road adjacent to an interstate highway. With 328 trips per day, her concern is that portion over the limit that will travel on other roads. If buses are disbursing, then only the frontage road will experience more trips per day than the Ordinance allows. Don MacFeelv He showed a map with numbers of buses traveling on various roads based upon last year's school bus routes. Commissioner Bunn She would be in favor as long as there are fewer than 210 trips per day on the residential neighborhood streets. Commissioner Taylor She phoned Stillwater School District; of the 9,237 Stillwater Area students, only 357 (a small percentage) come from the Lake Elmo zip code. We pay a much greater percentage of tax dollars for those schools. One mile away from this site is Stonegate, a residential development. Those citizens are concerned with the smell of diesel and the noise of traffic. She said that CUP enforcement is unstructured, and she is concerned Mr. Emerson did not keep his agreement with his last CUP. Terry Emerson The berm was fixed last week. Diesel fumes are greater on the highway. Noise is not a big concern. Commissioner Deziel It would be difficult to find a better location for this bus terminal. Few non-residential properties fit this use. Commissioner Sedro Where did the trip generation figures come from? Planning Commission Minutes 2002 Don MacFeely Those figures were calculated using the minimum number of buses and staff to satisfy the City while still performing the work for the school district. He padded the numbers up somewhat in order to protect the contract. Variables such as refueling the fuel tanks had to be considered. The first column in the report represents annual workdays and the second column represents school days. Commissioner Deziel A maximum number of trips per day could be established as a condition. Terry Emerson If he were to develop the property into 28 lots, then there would be an average of 10 trips per day per household in a 70 acre development. M/S Armstrong/Ptacek To repeal the old Conditional Use Permit and approve a new Conditional Use Permit in compliance with Ordinance standards and City Engineer's recommendations for septic and fuel tanks, with the condition that an amendment to the Traffic Generation Standards will be adopted as well. VOTE: 5:1 (Taylor) :1 (Abstain: Deziel) PASSED. AMENDMENT TO TRIP GENERATION STANDARD IN LOW IMPACT AG ZONE A Public Hearing was called to consider an Amendment to Trip Generation Standard of Non-agricultural Low Impact, Section 300.07, Subd. 4A6d of the Municipal Code. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette. Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud The standard is 3 trips per day per acre in the Low Impact AG Zone. Residential Open Space Density generates 280 trips per day. It is less in the RED Zone: If the standard for trips per day should be changed, it could be related to geographic location. The Chair opened the Public Hearing at 8:45 p.m. No speakers came forward. The Chair closed the Public Hearing at 8:46•p.m. Chairman Armstrong Low Impact AG Zoning assumes residences on all four sides of a property. He questions whether properties adjacent to Interstate 94 should use this zoning. Terry Emerson's property utilizes 4 percent leaving 96 percent as Open Space. That is an amazing amount of Open Space, especially adjacent to the interstate. He thinks five trips per day per acre would be better for Hudson Boulevard fronting on Interstate 94. The residential portion of Carriage Station has 110 households on 90 acres, and generates 12 trips per day per household plus there is a commercial section. Commissioner Deziel Six trips per day per acre would meet the true average basis of the last case. If there is concern over grand scale activities such as Edge Fest, double the daily as it stands now. Commissioner Sedro Trips per day were the standard used because of the daily impact on residential neighbors. Commissioner Bunn She would like the change to be specific to service roads such as Hudson Boulevard, not on roads such as Manning Avenue. Planning Coninussio lvlin:txtcs May 29.. 2i '7 City Planner He would like the portion of that portion of the Code to say, "Direct access to the Interstate 94 Service Road (Hudson Boulevard)." Chairman Armstrong He would like to remove the phrase, "On average," from the wording as it stands now. Enforcement would be difficult. City Planner Enforcement of Conditional Use Permits is nearly impossible for staff Commissioner Taylor Buses are significantly different from automobiles. Commissioner Helwig The number of trips should be an even number such as four or six. Chairman Armstrong There are no distinctions between types of vehicles. Laidlaw Transit did a good job with the statistics, and proof MIS Armstrong/Ptacek To amend Section 300.07 Subd. 4A6d of the Municipal Code to read, "Non- agricultural low impact uses shall not generate more than three trips per day per acre of contiguous agriculturally zoned area, with the exception of lands with sole access to Hudson Boulevard that shall not generate more than six trips per day per acre." VOTE: 6:0:1 (Abstain: Taylor) PASSED. ADJOURN FROM 9:00 P.M. UNTIL 9:10 P.M. VARIANCE TO SHORELAND: 8242 HIDDEN BAY TRAIL A Public Hearing was called to consider the application of a Variance to Shoreland on a parcel generally described as 8242 Hidden Bay Trail. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette. Affected property owners were notified. Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud The subject property is 27,500 square feet in area. The applicants propose to expand their existing house with two additions. The problem is that the entire existing home lies within the 100 feet setback to the Ordinary High Water. The entire lot, except for the far southwest corner, lies within that setback. The two additions create additional non-compliance to the Shoreland Ordinance. One addition would add three feet to the kitchen, filling in an existing jog on the outside of the house facing away from the lake. It would also add a three feet porch on the garage side. The second addition would add a 12' X 22' garage and another entrance driveway. The proposed addition is in scale with the neighbors, and represents a small percentage of the existing structure. The ordinance recommends looking for other options to avoid violations. In this area a three -car garage is standard but a four or five car garage and second driveway are not. The second driveway suggests the use of the garage by automobiles instead of storage. Notice was sent to the DNR without reply. Our database indicates the septic system has not been pumped since 1996. ij Commission Minutes May 29. 2002 He recommends approval with two conditions. Eliminate the second driveway from the plan, and upon recommendation by the City Engineer, inspect the septic system - at minimum have it pumped, and move it to the other side of the structure away from the lake if the system is unsound. Commissioner Bunn Are there distinctions between homes in the Shoreland District and those that are not? City Planner Yes, one of the standards is for impervious surface. The standards are met in that regard. Staff would not recommend approval if the addition was for additional automobile storage and not for general storage. Commissioner Helwig He thought one of the ordinances dealt with prohibiting more than a single driveway from an existing dwelling. City Planner That might be within the RE Zone; there are special standards for driveways in that zoning district. The Chair opened the Public Hearing. Danette Jahnke, Homeowner She showed receipts from Pinky's Septic Service showing that the septic system had been pumped on October 27, 1997 and May 1, 2002. Gordy Grundeen, Neighbor He purchased his land and built his home in the 1970's, at the same approximate time as the original owners of the subject parcel. The owners placed protective covenants on that land. That was prior to incorporation of the city. The parcel is only .63 acres. This home is one of the more conspicuous from the lake, and it is very close to the lake. That is of immense concern to him. Policy and law set by the City Council says 100 feet of setback from Ordinary High Water. He does not believe there is precedent to allow these types of changes to substandard lots on public waters. The lot is very small, and the septic system' or drainfield must be within twenty feet of the lake. There is a weir under that property. He believes these conditions are a significant problem. He asked for the drainfield be moved to the rear of the property away from the lake. The garage addition is a problem because another neighbor built one then converted it to a mother-in-law addition. Now that home has four or five bedrooms. The garage was not used as planned and pollution to the lake is accelerated. He would like the Public Notices worded more carefully so neighbors understand the impact to them. The Chair closed the Public Hearing at 9:40 p.m. City Planner The Planning Commission would only make a recommendation in this case. The City Council would hear it on June 18, 2002. He read the policy on septic systems from the Code with regard to permitting or Variance requirements to upgrade. It should be inspected by Pinky's or another contractor. Mann in Minutes May 29, 2002 Commissioner Deziel He recommends eliminating the second driveway from the plan. An aerial of the property indicates a second driveway. Danette Jahnke The material is an apron off the garage, and the roadway is tar and gravel. They currently store dock boards on this driveway. She would prefer not to store toys on the lake. Boats would be housed in the garage addition in winter. Commissioner Bunn There must be strict enforcement of Code and penalties for non -compliant Lakeshore properties. Shoreland homeowners have a special obligation of awareness and attentiveness to the Code. The Code specifies pumping the septic system every two years. Danette Jahnke Only two people live in the home and they both work. Commissioner Taylor She is concerned with the OHW Setback and with the septic system. However, the City cannot require homeowners to move those systems to correct mistakes made in the 1970's. Homeowners of shoreland have heightened responsibility. M/S Deziel/Bunn To approve the Shoreland Variance with Findings as any addition to the existing house would require and OHW Variance, and as all other setbacks are met; this is the minimum Variance necessary to alleviate the hardship. Expansion of a non -conforming structure with the exception of the garage driveway, and with the condition that the septic system be inspected, upgraded, and moved if not sound, prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. VOTE: 7:0 PASSED. SITE PLAN: BREMER FINANCIAL Staff Report, City Planner. Charles Dillerud The applicant proposes to add a big generator to the southeast corner of the property adjacent to the loading dock. The generator in its container is 36'X12'X15' high. It is much larger than what one normally considers to be an emergency generator. He wondered if this unit would be considered a customary and usual accessory structure. Should exterior surfacing meet that code? Are dumpsters similar? He proposed landscape screening. The Code does not address this type of case. The applicant provided the materials used to learn more about this proposal. He was under the impression the generator was for emergencies only but the manufacturer said Bremer will be on the Interruptible Power Program with Xcel Energy. The noise level is addressed in decibel readings indicates that sound at the property line would be comparable to two people conversing. Dale Glowa, United Properties This type of generator is common in business parks. Loss of power would be catastrophic. During the design and build process, this generator was added to the list of what Bremer wanted. They are sensitive to the aesthetics and sound, and are enclosing it in a container. The sound coefficient is up to 65 db. The hours of operation would be during emergency power outages and during peak energy periods in summer. It would sit on a pad at an elevation of 1001.2 plus fifteen feet tall resulting at 1002.7 elevation. The berms rise as high as 1002.6, and there will be plantings on top of that berm to include five ten feet tall spruce trees. Neighboring residents will not see the generator. Planning Conn fission %'[.inures Loren Balls, Ziegler Equipment The container for this unit has sound attenuating banks at each end at the direction of Bremer, and six inches of insulation with a perforated liner to help filter sound. The business park sits in a sort of bowl which also filters sound. The unit meets H3 Code, wind and snow load, and all regulatory state codes. He compared it to a similar unit at Lakeview Hospital which is also on the Xcel program, and a similar one at Woodwinds Hospital. Andersen Windows has two of similar size. This unit offers full backup power for the 100,000+ square feet building, with a very sophisticated switching system allowing seamless transition of power. If there were an addition to the building in the future, they will not need more power. Commissioner Deziel He asked if the sound produced was 65 db or less at 23 feet away after shielding. Commissioner Sedro She wondered if the noise produced by a generator was controlled by Code. City Planner He said nothing in the Code addresses this unit. Chairman Armstrong He asked if there could be an upper decibel limit. City Planner 60 db are referenced in the applicant's report, and 52 db was referenced in their letter. We could make a recommendation for the sound level at the property line. Loren Balls The City of Minneapolis has a decibel limit of 60. Commissioner Deziel He would like to be able to relate those decibel levels to sounds. 70 db is a freight train at 100 feet. Would this be less than a lawnmower? City Planner The engine is a V-16, 4210 cubic inches in a 3516 engine. When an engine that size air -starts, it can be very loud. Commissioner Bunn She asked if it could be put inside. Loren Balls It would be difficult for fueling, air circulation, and cooling. He would like to keep enough space between the unit and permanent walls. An electric start allows a quiet start. Commissioner Sedro She asked if it could have a brick wall around it to match the building. Loren Balls It could be painted to match the building. Dale Glowa They do not want to enclose it or put a wall around it. P1anninf2: Cor mnission i 9f 1.0 Commissioner Deziel The size is a concern. Commissioner Taylor She asked how similar this unit is to the one at Lakeview Hospital. Loren Balls This one is bigger but quieter. It was designed to more rigid standards. M/S Ptacek/Armstrong To approve the Site Plan Amendment with the condition that noise will not exceed 60 db at the property line. Loren Balls He would prefer that the noise cannot exceed 65 db at the property line. VOTE: 7:0 PASSED. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING AMENDMENT FROM HB (HIGHWAY BUSINESS) TO LB (LIMITED BUSINESS) A Public Hearing was called to consider an Amendment to Code changing the zoning designation of HB (Highway Business) to LB (Limited Business) for a portion of a parcel generally described as PID Number 34-029-21-34-0001, 9450 Hudson Road. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Stillwater Gazette. Affected property owners were notified. Staff Report, City Planner, Charles Dillerud The basis for this proposed reclassification is to make the zoning at the site consistent with the 1997 and 2000 Land Use Plans, and as part of the repeal of the HB Zoning District recommended by the Planning Commission. Only a very limited area of this 32-acre tax parcel ispresently zoned HB. This area is operated by a hang glider business. The balance of the parcel is zoned RR. The Land Use Plans designate the south 1,250 feet of the parcel as LB and the remainder as RAD. A letter from the City Attorney indicates that this parcel is non -conforming with either of the present zoning designations, and to rezone the entire parcel as LB. Staff suggests the entire parcel be rezoned to LB. Chairman Armstrong He received a call from the leader of an ultralight group. They are unopposed to this action as long as their activities can continue. The Chair opened the Public Hearing at 10:20 p.m. No speakers came forward. The Chair closed the Public Hearing at 10:21 p.m. Commissioner Deziel Ultralights are motorized, hang gliders are not. He wondered if the rezoning would make the hang glider business's position more tenuous. Commissioner Helwi2 He said the business is non -conforming now. Planning Commission. May 29, 2002 City Planner By rezoning in accordance with Land Use Plans, eventually non -conforming uses are intended to go away. Chairman Armstrong The hang glider business only has a lease. M/S Helwig/Armstrong To recommend to the City Council to rezone the south 1250 square feet of Parcel I.D. Number 34-029-21-34-0001 from HB and RR to LB, and the northern portion to remain RR. VOTE: 6:0:1 (Abstain: Deziel) PASSED. OTHER BUSINESS On June 3, 2002, Facilities consultants will meet with the Maintenance Advisory Commission and the Planning Commission. On June 10, 2002, there will be a long agenda. That meeting will include the Old Village Commission, and will be held jointly with City Council. The City Planner is unsure whether the Old Village Consultants will be in attendance. The Commissioners requested staff make a list of substandard lots less than 1.5 acres in the City that are not yet improved or buildable. THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:42 P.M. Respectfully submitted, i./t'lLigd Kimberly Schaffel Planning Secretary Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2002 12 MAC/Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes June 3, 2002 Chairman Armstrong called the Special Meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Planner Dillerud introduced Paul Steinman and Mikaela Huot of Springsted, Inc. and Terry Olsen of TKDA to present updates and additional information regarding the Community Facilities Forecast Project. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Armstrong, Berg, Sedro, Sessing, Bunn, Deziel, Stanley, Dege, Talcott, and Gustafson. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Helwig, Herber, Ptacek, and Taylor. Also present were Fire Chief, Greg Malmquist and City Planner, Charles Dillerud Ms. Olsen She presented a revised population forecast graphic which, based on building permit data of recent years, slightly accelerated projected City growth in the earlier years of the 20 year planning period over earlier forecast models but retained the 2020 total population forecast unchanged from earlier forecast models. She explained that this forecast model was potentially more precise than earlier straight line forecasts but was not as weighted to earlier years of the forecast period as the logarithmic forecast methodology that had been suggested by Commissioner Deziel at the last meeting. She then presented a graphic that revealed that all City community facilities (Public Works, Parks, Fire and Administration) are deficient in size today based on the facility needs methodology utilized by the consultants and Planning Commission. She observed that each operating department would view its space needs to be the most critical but it would be unrealistic to assume that all facilities would be replaced or enlarged simultaneously. Ms. Olsen then presented a second graphic of the consultantsrecommended strategy for staging and prioritizing the replacement/enlargement of Lake Elmo community facilities for operating departments. She noted that the following assumptions/strategies were. incorporated in the staging and prioritizing recommendations: 1. By focusing on Public Works and Parks first, the needs of two operating departments can be addressed concurrently. 2. The City had completed site acquisition and basic designs for a Public Works/Parks facility in the recent past, so the lead time to get a revised/new project underway would potentially be less than with the other operating departments. 3. The assumption is that Parks/Public Works would be a new facility at a different location than the two existing sites — either the 14 acre site acquired some years ago or another similar site. Upon completion of the new facility, the total existing Public Works facility could be available to the Fire Department as, at least, an interim solution to its space needs. 4. Since current Administration/City Hall space needs are for offices, conference, and records storage, short term solutions (such as temporary mobile annexes) appear feasible and preferable to structural additions to the current City Hall on a site that is too small to accommodate the ultimate building space needs. Annex options for City Hall could be initiated immediately without inordinate cost. 5. At least the site size for a new City Hall should consider the possibility of accommodating municipal (as opposed to contract) Public Safety (policing) in the future. 6. The existing City Hall appears to be considered a local icon — the product of citizen labors. As such, the existing City Hall is a fitting candidate to retain as a Community Center once a new City Hall is constructed. Chairman Armstrong He asked whether the City operating department heads had seen and commented on this facilities prioritization and strategy. Ms. Olsen She responded that the department heads had each been interviewed regarding their perceived departmental space needs and priorities. She also reminded the Commission that she had personally inspected each facility carefully, and had previously reported her findings to the Commission. She advised the Commission that the department heads had not been asked to review and comment on the prioritization and strategy that she had just presented to the Commission, however. Ms. Huot She presented updated data regarding forecasted staffing and City budget based on the growth forecasts from the forecasting model that was presented earlier. She noted that she had again contacted Orono to determine the budgetary impact of the contract Public Safety services they provide surrounding communities. She reported that the $ l million annual revenues from those contracts had not been accounted for in earlier budget work. That omission had incorrectly skewed the graphic relationship between Lake Elmo and the sum the communities utilized for modeling purposes. City Planner He asked the consulting team whether they were satisfied with the relationship between the facilities needs forecasts and the staffing/budget forecasts. Mr. Steinman He responded that they had tested for that relationship, and found the relationship to be sufficiently positive, given the 20 year forecasting window. City Planner He noted for the Commission that the "bottom line" on the staffing/budget forecast had been to maintain the annual budget per capita relationship existing between Lake Elmo and the model communities over the forecast period. This would reflect the efficient Lake Elmo municipal operations that are evidenced today — vis-a-vis other cities. He observed that while the annual budget amount per capita for Lake Elmo would increase, Lake Elmo per capita expenditures for municipal operations would remain lower than the group of model cities selected by the Commission over the entire forecast period. Commissioner Deziel He observed that the per capita Lake Elmo expenditure actually goes down in "2005" versus "2000." He suggested that the difference could be banked by the City, with the excess revenues (over forecasted expenses) by 2002 used to either smooth out future increases or be applied to capital reserves to reduce future bonding requirements. Commissioner Bunn She suggested that prior to submission of the draft report to the Commission, the operating department heads of the City be requested to review the prioritization and strategy for community facilities expansion/replacement that has been recommended by the consultants, and to submit their written comments to the Commission — not to exceed a single page in length. She further suggested that those department head comments should accompany the draft report when the report is mailed to the Commission for review. City Planner He advised the Commission that this would be the final working session. The consultants will now prepare a draft final report for consideration, and Commission recommendation to the City Council. Those Commission recommendations could include both Findings and Conditions that could address any further issues, concerns, assumptions, or elaborations the Commission may wish to convey to the City Council regarding this work. The consulting team concurred with Chairman Armstrong's suggestion that the final draft be prepared and sent to the Commission for consideration at its June 24, 2002 regular meeting — to include the single page commentary of the operating department heads. Chairman Armstrong adjourned the MAC Planning Commission Special Projects meeting at 8:45 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charles iJ. Dillerud City Planner L CITY OF LAKEIiii, ELMO City of Lake Elmo Phone: 651-777-5510 Fax: 651-777-9615 3800 Laverne Avenue North / Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 CITY OF LAKE ELMO NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC NOTICE The Lake Elmo City Council will hold a special meeting on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the City's response to the Metropolitan Council's staff review of Lake Elmo's 2000 Comprehensive Plan and to discuss internal planning with Sand Creek. POSTED: June 6, 2002 Mary KiMffner City Administrator %s printed on recycled paper MINUTES APPROVED: JUNE 4, 2002 LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 21, 2002 1. AGENDA 2. MINUTES: April 16, 2002 May 7, 2002 3. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL: 4. FINANCE: A. Claims 5. NEW BUSINESS: 6. CONSENT AGENDA: 7. MAINTENANCE/PARK/FIREBUILDING: A. Fire Dept: Roof and Wall Repair B. Update on Building Dept. Activities: Jim McNamara 8. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: A. VBWD Downs Lake Flood Reduction Project B. Award Bid for Electrical Upgrades & Electrical Generator C. Fire Station Re -roofing D. Well No. 3, Partial Payment No. 2 E. Well House No. 2, Partial Payment No. 1 F. Award Bid for Eagle Point Blvd. St. Construction — Phase II 9. PLANNING, LAND USE & ZONING: A. Sunfish Ponds Open Space Concept Plan B. Carriage Station Site Plan C. Washington County CDBG Contract 10. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: 11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A. Environmental Committee Update 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: Vice -Mayor Dunn called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council chambers. PRESENT: Siedow, Dunn, Armstrong, DeLapp, Building Official Jim McNamara, City Attorney Filla, City Engineer Prew, City Planner Dillerud and Administrator Kueffner. ABSENT: Mayor Hunt 1. AGENDA M/S/P Siedow/DeLapp — to approve the May 21, 2002 City Council Agenda, as amended. (Motion passed 4-0). 2. MINUTES: April 16, 2002 M/S/P Armstrong/Siedow — to approve the April 16, 2002 City Council Minutes, as amended. (Motion passed 4-0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 21, 2002 1 MINUTES: May 7, 2002 M/S/P Siedow/DeLapp — to approve the May 7, 2002 City Council Minutes, as amended. (Motion passed 4-0). 3. PUBLIC INOUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL: 4. FINANCE: A. Claims M/S/P DeLapp/Armstrong - to adopt Resolution No. 2002-040, A Resolution approving Claim Numbers 21633 through 21644 were used for the May 16, 2002 payroll and Claim Numbers 21645 through 21682 in the amount of $122,906.13. (Motion passed 4-0). 5. NEW BUSINESS: None 6. CONSENT AGENDA: None 7. MAINTENANCE/PARK/FIREBUILDING: A. Fire Dent: Roof and Wall Repair: Discussed under City Engineer's Report B. Update on Building Dept. Activities: Jim McNamara Building Official, Jim McNamara reported there were 12 new residential house permits and 2 new commercial building permits in April, 2002. Jim advised the Council that he reminds contractors that silt fencing, and other erosion control regulations must be followed. Hidden Bay Complaint : Jim McNamara advised the Council of a problem he has with the check issued for the building permit by the contractor. If the problem is not resolved by Friday, May 24, 2002, he will "red tag" the job. 8. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT: A. VBWD Downs Lake Flood Reduction City Engineer Tom Prew recommended approval of the Downs Lake Flood Reduction Project, which earlier in the year had been reviewed by the Council in a meeting with the Watershed's Board of Managers. Prew reported this project will stabilize, not lower the levels of the lake. The project will be paid for through an advalorem tax throughout the entire watershed district. M/S/P DeLapp/Siedow - to adopt Resolution No. 2002-041, Approving the Downs Lake Flood Reduction Project pursuant to the favorable recommendation of the City Engineer in his April 15, 2002 memo. (Motion passed 4-0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 21, 2002 2 B. Electrical Upgrades and Electrical Generator City Engineer Tom Prew recommended the Council award the electrical upgrades to Collins Electric in the amount of $28,700. He further recommended that the contract for a 150 KW portable electrical generator be awarded to Ziegler Power Systems in the amount of $52,448.06. M/S/P Armstrong/DeLapp - to adopt Resolution No. 2002-042, Awarding the bid for the electrical upgrades for Well House No. 1 and the lift stations to Collins Electric in the amount of $28,700.00, based on a favorable recommendation of the City Engineer. (Motion passed 4-0). M/S/P Armstrong/DeLapp - to adopt Resolution No. 2002-043, Awarding the bid for the 150KW portable electric generator to Ziegler Power System in the amount of $52,448.06, based on a favorable recommendation of the City Engineer. (Motion passed 4-0). C. Plans and Specifications for the Re -roofing of two Fire Stations/Maintenance Building, and authorizing the advertisement for bids Tom Prew reported in his memo dated May 15, 2002, the plans and specifications are ready for the re -roofing of our two fire stations and maintenance facility. The total estimate for the two roofs is $100,000, but will be bid separately. Prew stated the expected life on the roofs is 20 years. Also noted in the Engineer's memo is the availability of the plans for review at City Hall. M/S/P DeLapp/Armstrong - to adopt Resolution No. 2002-044, Approving the plans and specifications for the re -roofing of Fire Station No. 1 and the Maintenance Facility/Fire Station No. 2 and authorizing the advertisement for bids. (Motion passed 4-0). D. Partial Payment No.2 to Keys Well Drilling for Well No. 3 Tom Prew noted in his April 15, 2002 memo that Keys Well Drilling has completed drilling, is now setting casing, and will soon begin development of the well. Prew recommended Partial Payment No. 2 in the amount of $33,022.00. M/S/P Armstrong/Siedow - to adopt Resolution No. 2002-045, Authorizing Partial Payment No. 2 in the amount of $33,022.00 to Key's Well Drilling, based on a favorable recommendation by the City Engineer. (Motion passed 4-0). E. Partial Payment No. 1 to EnComm Midwest for Well House No. 2 Tom Prew noted in his April 15, 2002 memo that EnComm Midwest has mobilized, completed water main work, had the building footings poured, and block work completed for Well House No. 2. He recommended Partial Payment No. 1 in the amount of $60,723.05. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 21, 2002 3 M/S/P DeLapp/Siedow - to adopt Resolution No. 2002-046, Authorizing Partial Payment No. 1 in the amount of $60,723.05 to EnComm Midwest based on a favorable recommendation by the City Engineer. (Motion passed 4-0). F. Award Bid for Eagle Point Boulevard — Phase II Bids for the completion of Eagle Point Boulevard were received and opened on May 15, 2002. Two bids were received: Tower Asphalt $169,320.35 T.A. Schifsky, Inc. $201,080.90 Tom Prew recommended awarding the bid to Tower Asphalt. M/S/P Armstrong/DeLapp - to adopt Resolution No. 2002-047, Awarding the bid for the completion of Eagle Point Boulevard — Phase II, to Tower Asphalt in the amount of $169,320.35. (Motion passed 4-0). Tom Prew reported that the sodding on 50th Street is near completion. 9. PLANNING, LAND USE & ZONING: A. Sunfish Ponds Open Space Concept Plan Planner Dillerud reported at its May 7th meeting, the City Council held a public hearing regarding this application for OP Concept approval to develop a 40-acre site with 16 single family homes sites of at least 3 acre each. Tim Freeman, representation for St.Croix Land Development, indicated that it was the intention of the applicant to redesign the project responsive to the design conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, no new graphics were presented to the Staff or Council reflecting that redesign. At its May 7th meeting, the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the concept plan based on findings related to the Council discussion. A draft resolution was provided. Tim Freeman provided a revised graphic for the site that he felt responded to the design conditions that the Planning Commission had recommended. Planner Dillerud explained the City Attorney advised the City would be best served legally by moving forward with the denial of the Concept Plan presented on May 7. The city planner added that Mayor Hunt asked that the public hearing be at the Council level rather than the Planning Commission level. Attorney Filla stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval so the Council could call a public hearing on the revised concept plan for June 4th Council meeting. M/S/P Armstrong/DeLapp - to adopt Resolution No. 2002-048, Denying the original application of St.CroixLand/Wier for an OP Concept Plan (plan dated April 2, 2002,) based on the findings in said resolution. (Motion passed 4-0). LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 21, 2002 4 Roger Hofineister stated he cannot attend the June 4th Public Hearing so he voiced his concerns, such as, removal of trees, that there was no variance request for 3/4 acre for septic, the lots are long and narrow and will make it look close together. Mr. Hofmeister was asked to put his concerns in a letter or e-mail for the meeting. B. Carriage Station Site Plan Planner Dillerud reported the Council approved a series of applications for Carriage Station Professional Park on June 19, 2001, including PUD Development Stage Plan, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and PUD Final Stage Plan, and one of the four buildings. John Arkell, developer, suggested the remaining three buildings would be architecturally similar to the one approved on June, 2001. Mr. Arkell has applied for Site Plan and PUD Final Plan approval for two of the three remaining (after June, 2001) buildings; and now has applied for approval of the fourth building. All of the four buildings are of similar architectural appearance and exterior surfacing. At its May 13, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this Section 520 Site Plan for the 4,800 sq.ft. structure. The planner pointed out that the Limited Business exterior surfacing standards have been amended (as of May 14, 2002), the Commission determined that this grouping of structures was approved as to architectural concept and exterior surfacing and roofing before the new standards. This fourth building is surfaced and roofed in keeping with those earlier approvals. Council member Dunn stated the dead trees will be replaced and the pond functioning as originally designed. M/S/P DeLapp/Armstrong - to approve the Section 520 Site Plan and PUD Final Plan for the structure on Lot 3, Block 1, Carriage Station Professional Park, per architectural elevations staff dated May 9, 2002, subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with all applicable conditions of City Council Resolution No. 2000- 040 approving the PUD Plan and Master Site Plan for Carriage Station Professional Park. (Motion passed 4-0). C. Washington County CDBG Contract The city planner reported the Council approved Lake Elmo's participation in the Washington County/HUD Community Development Block Grant Program by adoption of a Cooperation Agreement with the County. Approximately $90,000 of CDBG grant funds were approved by Washington County and HUD for use by Lake Elmo to complete the Community Facilities Forecast; the Old Village Neighborhood Design Study; preparation of a new Zoning Ordinance; and to develop a City strategy to assure the continued viability of the Cimarron neighborhood. Attorney Filla had reviewed the contract. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 21, 2002 5 M/S/P DeLapp/Siedow - to adopt Resolution No. 2002-049, Approving the Subgrantee Agreement between Washington County and the City, and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the Agreement. (Motion passed 3-1:Armstrong stated this is a continuation of what the Council had already approved. She had voted against participation in this CDBG contract before and wanted to be consistent in her vote.) 10. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: None 11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: A. Environmental Commission Meetine Update Administrator Kueffner provided an update on the Environmental Commission activities in a memo dated May 21, 2002. The Council endorsed the Commission's goal of developing a Surface Water Management Plan, and setting a 90 day deadline for having the plan completed. 12. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS: Council member Dunn suggested the City needs to define the correct side of the road to drive on when there are islands at the entrance of developments because she saw a woman driving on the wrong side of the road on Eagle Point Blvd. Council member Armstrong thought we should eliminate islands going into the different developments. Council member Dunn stated there is an Open House on June 8th at High Point Clinic, and hopes the contractor's working on the CR13/Hudson Boulevard is cognizant of the need for access to the site, and asked the City Engineer to advise the County. Council member Siedow expressed a concern he has with the procedures for notifying the Fire Department members of meetings; he would like staff to check into the procedures. Siedow brought up his concern on right hand turn lanes off of Hwy 5. He felt them to be extremely dangerous because of cars passing on the right. Kueffner will talk to the State Patrol and to Washington County on further educating drivers about turning lanes. Council member DeLapp suggested the Council hold a meeting with Woodbury and have joint communication. The Council Adjourned meeting at 7:45 p.m. Resolution No. 2002-040 approving claim numbers 21633-21644 used for the May 16, 2002 payroll and claim numbers 21645-21682 in the amount of $122,906.13 Resolution No. 2002-041 approving the Down Lake Flood Reduction Project Resolution No. 2002-042 awarding the bid for the electrical upgrades for Well House No. 1 and lift stations to Collins Electric in the amount of $28,700 Resolution No. 2002-043 awarding the bid for the 150KW portable electric generator to Ziegler Power System in the amount of $52,448.06 Resolution No. 2002-044 approving plans and specs for the re -roofing of Fire Station No. 1 & the Maintenance Facility/Fire Station No. 2 and authorize advertisement for bids Resolution No. 2002-045 authorizing Partial Payment No. 2 to Key's Well Drilling LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 21, 2002 6 Resolution No. 2002-046 authorizing Partial Payment No. 1 to EnComm Midwest Resolution No. 2002-047 awarding the bid for completion of Eagle Point Blvd -Phase II to Tower Asphalt Resolution No. 2002-048 denying the original application for St.Croix Land /Wier for an OP Concept Plan Resolution No. 2002-049 approving the CDBG subgrantee agreement between Washington County and City of Lake Elmo LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 21, 2002 7 LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: June 4, 2002 for the Meeting of June 10, 2002 Applicant: RECO, Inc. Location: Northeast Quadrant of Hudson Blvd. and Lake Elmo Avenue Requested Action: Preliminary Plat Land Use Plan Guiding: LB (1990/1997 PIan)/RAD (2000 Plan) Existing Zoning: GB (General Business) Site History and Existing Conditions: In 1968, when this site was located in East Oakdale Township, the township adopted the Washington County model zoning ordinance and zoning map (this was prior to the date that the Legislature determined that Metro zoning must be based on a Comprehensive Plan). This site was zoned Highway Business (HB). After the 1969 merger of East Oakdale Township and the City of Lake Elmo, the City of Lake Elmo also adopted the county zoning regulations and made some modifications, with this site remaining zoned HB. In 1979, the City replaced the county zoning regulations with its first local zoning map and regulations. This site was zoned General Business (GB). The 1990 Comprehensive Plan land use guided this site Limited Business (LB), but the zoning remained GB — not an uncommon occurrence in the City. City records reveal a grading application approved in 1983. That permit was to grade and install drainage infrastructure on a 3.5 acre portion of this 28 acre site, at the extreme southeast corner. The stated purpose of the grading/infrastructure was to accommodate a "future building" and bus storage area. The 3.5 acre site was never platted, and it does not appear that the owner completed the grading and infrastructure authorized by the permit. In any case, the portion of the site that was the subject of the grading permit is overgrown and not used. The City Attorney has since advised staff that the 1983 grading permit has expired. The applicant submitted extensive testimony, by its attorney, during the City Comp Plan Update Hearing process in 2000. They objected to the Comp Plan proposal to reclassify the land use of the site from LB to RAD. Not withstanding that testimony and objection the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council approved the reclassification to RAD — subject only to Metro Council review of the overall City Plan — still pending. The zoning of the site remains GB, but would be changed to RR or AG within 9 months of Metro Council action on the Comp Plan. The applicant has been active in lobbying the Metro Council to overturn the adopted Lake Elmo Comp Plan, and establish commercial land use guiding for this site. (see the attached letter to Metropolitan Council Chair Ted Mondale, dated January 23, 2002) On September 24, 2001 the applicant presented a "Pre -application Sketch Plan" to the Planning Commission, responsive to Section 400.07, Subd. 2 of the City Code. This unnecessary platting step has been largely by-passed in recent years, with the addition of planning staff at the City. The applicant insisted on this step — probably to establish some manner of Record of actions and expense reliant on the GB zoning before the 2000 Comp Plan became "in effect". The Commission heard the applicant's "Pre -application Sketch" presentation and took no action. Discussion and Analysis: The applicant has applied for a Preliminary Plat to plat the subject 28.64 acre site into 7 building lots and two common ownership outlots. An 1,100 foot cul-de-sac public street would be constructed, accessing Hudson Blvd. The applicant has also provided grading, drainage and utility plans for the site. Wastewater from all seven lots is proposed to be conveyed to a single private septic treatment facility facility, located on the outlot. The applicant has not specified the potable water sources, but since no public water is available in this area, it is assumed that the sources would be individual wells. The applicant's preliminary plat suggests site layouts for each of the 7 lots. This level of detail is not required with a Preliminary Plat, but the subject of Section 520 Site Plan review by separate application. Planning staff has not reviewed the details of site layout suggested by the Preliminary Plat, and will not be here addressing those details in any manner. We advise the Planning Commission to also refrain from any discussion of, or reference to, the specific site layout details to avoid any inference that those site layout details have, in some manner, been approved with the Preliminary Plat. They should not be. Since the zoning of this site today is GB, we have reviewed the plat design based on GB standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and the platting standards of Section 400 of the City Code — generally, and as such standards may specifically relate to platting of commercial sites. The proposed plat complies with GB standards regarding lot area, lot width at front setback and lot aspect ratio. Proposed front and interior side yard setbacks also appear to comply with GB standards. At least Lots 1, and 7 would be considered "corner" lots (bounded by two intersecting streets). GB setback standards provide for a 50 foot side yard setback on "corner' lots. The applicant has depicted a 40 foot side setback line for those two lots. GB standards provide for a 50 foot rear yard setback. It appears that the applicant has depicted Lots 2 and 3 with a 40 foot rear setback line; and, has not designated the dimension of the rear setback line on Lot 4. The plat has also been submitted to the City Engineer, Washington County (due to the frontage on CSAH 17/Lake Elmo Avenue), MnDOT (due to frontage on and access to Hudson Blvd. — a MnDOT roadway as of today), and Valley Branch Watershed District. Notice of the Public Hearing has been Published; property owners within 350 feet Noticed by mail; and, the City of Woodbury has been Noticed by mail. The City of Woodbury has also been faxed a copy of this Planning Staff Report. As of this writing, Washington County has responded to the plat with no objections or recommendations for modifications; and, we have not received correspondence from MnDOT, Valley Branch (although we have spoken with Valley Branch regarding the drainage design) or Woodbury. The review comments and recommendations of the City Engineer are attached by Mr. Prew's June 4, 2002 letter. While many of the City Engineer's recommendations go to infrastructure design details that are addressed with the Final Plat drawings and construction details, the following appear to directly relate to the Preliminary Plat Stage: 1. The applicant has not identified the source(s) of potable water. Those sources should be identified at the Preliminary Plat Stage. Mr. Prew's comments regarding fire protection of any structures within the plat should as\also be addressed. 2. An erosion control plan should be submitted for review at the Preliminary Plat Stage. 3. The City Engineer has recommended that a trip generation and traffic study be performed. We concur in that recommendation. Since the data that such a study would generate may dictate modifications to the plat design, the study should be completed prior to City action on the Preliminary Plat. 4. The City Engineer's street cross section and cul-de-sac design recommendations may impact the plat configuration — additional right-of-way may be required to accommodate both recommendations. The Preliminary Plat application submission requirements include both mandatory information that applicant is to submit with the application; and, Supplementary Information that must be submitted "...when deemed necessary by the Planning Commission". Our initial review of the application documentation submitted by the applicant revealed that the mandatory information was submitted (with the exception of the erosion control). Hence we proceeded with the Hearing Notices, and submission to the other reviewing agencies. As those reviews (both by planning staff and the other agencies) have progressed, it has become apparent that "Supplemental Information" is required. Findings and Recommendations: The Preliminary Plat application submission requirements include both mandatory information that applicant is to submit with the application; and, Supplementary Information that must be submitted "...when deemed necessary by the Planning Commission". Our initial review of the application documentation submitted by the applicant revealed that the mandatory information was submitted (with the exception of the erosion control). Hence we proceeded with the Hearing Notices, and submission to the other reviewing agencies. As those reviews (both by planning staff and the other agencies) have progressed, it has become apparent that "Supplemental Information" is required to enable complete staff Findings and Recommendations regarding the proposed plat, as follow: 1. The Trip Generation and Traffic Study recommended by the City Engineer. 2. Draft Declarations and Covenants, since the wastewater treatment and storm ponding will be "common elements" of the plat. 3. A landscape plan responsive to the requirements of Section 400.08, Subd.6H. 4. The erosion control plan. 5. A statement describing the proposed business uses for the lots (consistent with GB zoning standards). This supplemental information is necessary for the completion of the traffic study. The traffic generation outcomes of the site could be quite different based on which of the wide range of GB uses that are permitted on the site. The City Code provides for the Planning Commission to determine the need for such supplemental submissions. We recommend the Planning Commission conduct the Public Hearing; table further consideration of the plat; and, direct submission by the applicant of the listed supplemental application documentation. We further recommend the applicant revise the plat to reflect the GB standard setback lines on all proposed lots. The initial 60 day review period for this plat will not conclude until July 22, 2002 — 60 days following the date of the applicant's check for the plat application fee. The City Council will be requested to extend that review period, if necessary. Planning Commission Actions Requested: Motion to table consideration of the Preliminary Plat of "Lake Elmo Business Park" until such time as the applicant has submitted the supplemental application documentation recommended by City Staff by the June 4, 20 Planning Staff Report. Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. City Engineer's Memo of June 4, 2002 3. Page 400-8 of the City Code 4. Applicant's Documentation and Graphics Location Map Vicinity Map 0 2400 Scale in Feet v resell ae.emeeeee" we reproduction of ,le:aWanes onlyr. "wm"e Cowie dikes. `ow.ste .h $ reference County Isnot responerele Or any Ineccurecles. Wearing. ceueM Ouneeers ounce. Phone (051)43Wfl13o-0015 Pamela,. Wed on AS100 Inlerrnelito wearer...0e Apra 30, mu Mao PIeeW: dune 0, 3002 TKDA_LetterHead Page 1 of 2 Chuck Dillerud From: Thomas D. Prew [prew.td@tkda.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 11:46 AM To: Chuck Dillerud Subject: reco review 6-4-02 RECO review call me with any questions Lake Elmo 11979-021 June 4, 2002 Planning Commission Members City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Re: RECO Business Park Preliminary Site Plan Review City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota TKDA Commission No. 11979-021 Dear Planning Commission Members: I have reviewed the preliminary Site plan date May 21, 2002, and have the following comments: Water Service A water system was not identified. The size of the buildings and the zoning dictate that fire sprinklers are required. Sanitary Sewer A wetland treatment system is planned. The size would be below that required for a State permit. Wetland treatment systems are used in other areas of Lake Elmo, and are a permitted system under our waste water code. Drainage Drainage calculations have been submitted, and appear to meet the City code. Both City and VBWD regulations will need to be met. An erosion control plan is required. Traffic A trip generation and traffic study should be performed. Because Hudson Boulevard and Lake Elmo Avenue are scheduled to be turned back to the City, any improvements to this intersection will be at the City's expense. The level of service at that intersection should be studied. Any improvements should be born by the applicant. This might be a good location and application for a roundabout. 6/5/2002 TKDA_LetterHead Page 2 of 2 Turn lanes and a by-pass lane, or possibly a roundabout should be constructed on Hudson Boulevard at the entrance to the park. The interior street should be designed as a collector route. We recommend a 9-ton design, four lane undivided street with concrete curb and gutter. This design will best accommodate the level of traffic and number of turning movements The cul-de sac should have an island center similar to residential ones. However it should be designed to accommodate tractor -trailer vehicles Sincerely, Thomas D. Prew, P.E. City Engineer 6/5/2002 Lake Elmo Municipal Code Chapter 4 Section 400 - Subdivision The increased runoff volume from new development shall be calculated at 0.35 acre feet for each acre of impervious surface proposed in the development. Impervious surface shall be all streets, parking lots, roofs, walks, driveways or other hard surface materials proposed in any development. Fore residential developments, each lot shall be assumed to contain 3,000 square feet of impervious surface for the house, garage and driveway Existing ponds or other facilities may be used for runoff volume control. Any storage ponds shall be designed to retain the volume of runoff calculated under this provision below its outlet or overflow point and above the water table. The Soil Conservation Service method of analysis shall be used to calculate the runoff rate prior to development. The pre -development land use shall be considered permanent meadow with a soil conservation curve number of 58. The 100 year, 24 hour storm of 5.9 inches of precipitation shall serve as the basis of any such analysis. This section shall apply to all areas of the City exclusive of that portion for the Cite within the Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District. L. A plan for soil erosion and sediment control both during construction and after development has been completed. The plan shall include gradients of waterways. design of velocity and erosion control measures, and landscaping of the erosion and sediment control system. Subd. 6 Supplementary Information The following supplementary information shall be submitted when deemed necessary by the Planning Commission. A. Proposed protective covenants. B. An accurate soil survey of the subdivision prepared by a qualified person. In areas of questionable soil conditions, percolation tests may be required on a lot -by -lot basis to determine the suitability of any particular site for building. C. A statement prepared by a qualified person identifying tree coverage in the proposed subdivision in terms of type, weakness, maturity, potential hazard, infestation, vigor, density, and spacing. D. Statement of the proposed use of lots stating type of residential buildings with number of proposed dwelling units and type of business or industry, so as to reveal the effect of the development on traffic, fire hazards, and congestion of population. E. If any zoning changes are contemplated, the proposed zoning plat for the areas. including dimensions, shall be shown. F. Where the subdivider owns property adjacent to that which is being proposed for the subdivision, the Planning Commission may require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan of the remainder of the property so as to show the possible relationships between the proposed subdivision and the future subdivision. All subdivisions shall be shown to relate well with existing or potential adjacent subdivisions. 400-8 2/18/97 Lake Elmo Municipal Code Chapter 4 Section 400 - Subdivision G. Where structures are to be placed on large or excessively deep lots which are subject to potential replat, the subdivider shall provide in the preliminary plat, a sketch plan which indicates minimum building setback lines and future roadway alignments which would not interfere with structural placement at the time of future subdivision. H. A vegetation preservation and protection plat that shows those trees proposed to be removed, those to remain, the types and locations of trees and other vegetation that are to be planted. 1. Developer shall provide a landscape plan which shows how a subdivision will assume a rural character through the placement of ponding, berms, trees, and tree seedlings. shrubs, and shrub seedlings and native grasses. 2. Developer shall plant a minimum of six one (1) inch caliper deciduous, or coniferous trees; three (3) feet in hei t per acrei.nless a lot within the subdivision is determined by the Zoning Administrato aturaIly wooded which would. at a minimum, consist of the caliper and height of trees required by this Section. 3. Developer shall provide spaced or clustered plantings of one and one-half (1-1/2) inch caliper deciduous trees at a rate of two (2) per 100 lineal feet on both sides of the street, between 0' and 5' to the inside of the right-of-way for rural sections and between 5' and 10' to the inside of right-of-way for urban sections. Four (4) foot conifers may be substituted. Subd. 7 Other Information Other information shall be provided as may be reasonably requested by the City staff, Planning Commission. or Council. Subd. 8 Review by Staff and Other Commissions or Jurisdictions. The City shall refer copies of the preliminary plat to the City Engineer, Planner and Attorney, the Park Commission, and the appropriate County, State or other public agencies for their review and comment. Comment must be received within thirty (30) days or it will be assumed there are no objections. Subd. 9 Hearing The Planning Commission, upon receipt of the application shall instruct Administrator to set a public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat no later than forty-five (45) days from the date of filing of the application. The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and recommendations to the Council. The Administrator shall give notice of the hearing. The notice shall consist of a property description and a description of the request. The notice shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing and written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior to all owners of land within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the boundary of the property in question. The Planning Commission, at its discretion, may direct that notification be sent to property owners at distances of greater than three hundred fifty (350) feet. The failure of any property owner to receive notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. 400-9 2/18/97 Folz, Freeman, Liu David L. Dupay, LS President v)J2, W > E Dupay & Associates, Inc. LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING 5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 (651) 439-8833 • Fax (651) 430-9331 Timothy J. Freeman, LS Vice President LAKE ELMO BUSINESS PARK PRELIMINARY PLAT NARRATIVE May 21, 2002 Bruce A. Folz, LS 1939 —2001 IC' 01P The project consists of 28.64 acres of property currently zoned General Business. The subdivision proposal encompasses the entire site for general business uses as outlined in the zoning ordinance. No rezoning is requested. The lots range in size from 2.94 acres to 3.99 acres. There are seven lots for development. Two outlots are included. Outlot A is the area to be owned by the lot owners association and will serve as the area for the constructed wetlands treatment system. Outlot B will also be owned by the lot owners association, and will serve as the joint use water quality and storm water holding pond. There are also various ponds planned around the development for storm water retention. A full drainage report has been submitted along with the Preliminary Plat. The public street proposed is approximately 1100 lineal feet with a standard cul-de-sac at the end of it. The street will be built to standard City of Lake Elmo urban street section. The utilities serving the lots will include private wells located on each lot. Sanitary facilities are handled by individual septic holding tanks on each lot for the solids, and the effluent piped via standard sanitary sewer type pipes to a lift station into the constructed wetland treatment facility being designed by North American Wetland Engineering. It is proposed to be a re -circulating gravel filter system with final treatment in gravel -less style drainfield areas... similar to the system installed for Fields of St. Croix II and Tana Ridge. The utilities will all be privately owned and maintained by the lot owners association. The exact layout and details of the buildings and parking areas will be subject to review and revision as the individual business owners purchase the lots. The uses and performance specifications are to be within the existing ordinance requirements. They will be reviewed at the time of each individual site plan review is submitted. An analysis of wetlands on the property has been performed by Graham Environmental Services in May, 2002. There are no existing wetlands on the site. VICINITY MAP SEC. 36, T29N, R21W NE1/4 )� I 5E1/4 ..��' _—� — Ifutlson eowe.a.d /-94 SCE: 1 Inch = 100 Feet _ �[L PRELIMINARY PLAT ORIGINAL CONDITION PLAN Part of the SW1/4-SW1/4, Sec. 36, T29N, R21W City Of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota Washington County CLM. At Me WI/4 Cor. Sec 36, 129N. R2IW Iv. / • HUDSUN C.S.A. H Washington County CI.M. At The SW Co, Sea. 36, T29N, R21W 264 �y �W n, ,5 P A. 41- \ City Of Loke Elmo City Of Woodbury .�.52-15 1-94 (F.K.A. 'v AI f` t t�VV Dated: May 21, 2002 Lino /4-SWl,{4..5ea 264 an l — 'L1 n 1321.57 N BIND I-94 (F.K.A. TIl—�-----------hL----- + t-94 4- 1 C-\N 1/ ^Y (STING OUTLET _Jjpeh/ngton County atm. At ",e 5I/4 Cos. Sea 36, 722N, R21W Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc. ■ LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING .-y- 5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 (651) 439.8833 • Fax (651) 430-9331 Owner/Developer RECO, Inc. Patrick 0. Regan 425 East 31 st Street Hastings, MN55033 (651) 437-9648 Land Planner/Surveyor. Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Assoc., Inc. 5620 Memorial Avenue North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 439-8833 Legal Description: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota lying northerly and easterly of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right -of -Way Plat 82-52, on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. Except small parcels of record Present Zoning: General Business Proposed Zoning: General Business DENOTES DRAINAGE DIRECTION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION -------- DENOTES DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARIES PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION • DENOTES SOIL TYPE BOUNDARY AS REPRODUCED FROM SOIL SURVEY MAP OF WASHINGTON COUNTY 342C DENOTES SOIL TYPE AND SLOPE Map No. 00-Il6D PLANC 1OF VICINITY MAPI SEC. 36, T29N, R21W NWI/4 NE1/4 No Scale 1-94 SE1/4 SCALE: 1 Inch 100 Feet mmmms 50 100 Gilman D. Peltier G. Peltier • C. S.A. H. NO Washington County GAM. At the SW Cor. Sec J6, T29N, R21W Washington County CAM. At The W1/4 Cor. Sec. J6. T29N, R21W Anderson 1.\ a T. 50 352 PRELIMINARY PLAT UTILITY PLAN Part of the SW1/4-SW1/4, Sec. 36, T29N, R21W City Of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota Dated: May 21, 2002 \NV^t//~Y PHASE 2 Septic WOUTLOTA MH 1 RIM 933.2 INV. 910.22 352 ;rt.i117!1IIL�Tii 'l Ij i'jl; if ;!l s !i! ••'8''STUB ;INY, ;920,0 PROPOSED ? BUILDING 0 HUDSON BLVD 3 ■ ." ... 1 c a ® i o= 1 LC DOT NO. 82-15 PLAT City Of Lake Elmo City 0f Woodbury 1e: 20T R/WA P,AT 82-16 North L»>,/4, Sec 36, T29N, R21W PROPOSED j BUILDING I ti Iii. LJ tiJ 1-94 1321.57 (F.K. 326 0LTLOTB I I � I N IS 41, MH 4 RIM 924.9 INV. 913.32 lli il;'1I.MR'.5iii-i! ilki RIM 922.5 �+ INV: 1913:86 {430E9'' 4143( 316 PROPOSED BUILDING 1 INV. 916.5 'tit l!(II!(lti- 1'Il1'ili111111ill 91f 747 A.-- ^t t 'ity Investments Trans. �18'C EXISTING 18' OUTLET Cr_ ^t/ -r O'Neil Jr. HUDSON 9L D .,•,.,.�, .ne SW1/4, Sec. J6, 729N, R21W N8953'10'E leoehN9ton County atie. Al The SI/4 Cu. Sea 36, I-94 (F.K.A. III. ---- --rz9N R21w MN DOT R,'W PL..1 —2643.13- 1-94 ---tz'o —O—ir0 - Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc. lbw LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING ,A . 5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 a (651) 439-8833 • Fax (651) 430-9331 Erickson Engineering & Design Group, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES 5620 Memorial Avenue North Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.439.0588 Fax 651.439.0588 Email infoefeedg-inc.com Owner/Developer: RECO, Inc. Patrick O. Regan 425 East 31st Street Hastings, MN55033 (651) 437-9648 Land Planner/Surveyor, Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Assoc., Inc. 5620 Memorial Avenue North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 439-8833 Legal Description: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota lying northerly and easterly of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right -of -Way Plat 82-52, on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. Except small parcels of record Present Zoning: General Business Proposed Zoning: General Business LEGEND PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER W/ M.H. PROPOSED STORM SEWER W/ M.H., C.B. & F.E.S. EXISTING STORM SEWER W/ M.H., C.B. & F.E.S. Map No. 00-116D PLAN C 3 OF 4 VICINITY MAP SEC. 36, T29N, R21W NE1/4 lman ). Peltier SCALE: 1 Inch = 100 Feet wa G. Peltier Washington County CI.N. At The SW Con. Sec 36, T29N. R21W tt Washington County CLOT At The W7/4 Coo Sec 36. T29N. R2IW PRELIMINARY PLAT LOT & ROADWAY LAYOUT PLAN Part of the SW1/4-SW1/4, Sec. 36, T29N, R21W City Of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota Dated: May 21, 2002 1 EVl 0p 0 � ° r r 20 Andn') 0 n nn 1p DO 0 00 ONe North Line SWI/4-SWI/4, Sec 36 729N, R21W 1-— , Cr-3 --\ `^ c PHASE 2 - - t—i Septic _ 2.58 Act a= �--- 1" Act: BUILDING ol 411'— r. D I / _ ^_ E. C /'.lA'. :` T� r � / 352 120 O I �j i I!ru ii it`!iill { k, i 11 1 . Hi i i I �1�n ._L._�I-inli1!,Ii((i'Tj,_j i 1 i--- --- 1�1II)it iH,'' g I d r r^ o I �k9, eOIImm A a • IV DDT RAV PLAT ra. a2-52 alt- ! City of Lake Elmo City Of Woodbury WI 7 RAT PLAT NO. 62-16 1321.57 / / / L 0 326 OL TLCT,B 0.88 Act' 1r I N y i x; 5 50 1111 316 R C 0 I I Q CP—_4_J ►L i1a I HUDSON BL\nl I-94 H In 0.4 nlr-„% kaki Investments Trans. O'Neil Jr. �L ........fie SW1/4. Sec. 36, 729N. R21W I-94 (F.K.A. — 2643.13 — N8953'10-E Washington County CLN. At The SI/4 Car. See. 36, T29N. R2IW Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc. ' �,il LAND SURVEYING • LAND PLANNING "� ` 5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 (651) 439-8833 • Fax (651) 430.9331 Owner/Developer: RECO, Inc. Patrick O. Regan 425 East 31st Street Hastings, MN55033 (651) 437-9648 Land Planner/Surveyor. Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Assoc., Inc. 5620 Memorial Avenue North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 439-8833 Legal Description: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota lying northerly and easterly of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right -of -Way Plat 82-52, on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. Except small parcels of record. Present Zoning: General Business Proposed Zoning: General Business PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREAS OVERALL ACREAGE = 28.64 ACRES* LOT 1 2.94 Acres LOT 2 3.02 Acres LOT 3 3.99 Acres LOT 4 3.41 Acres LOT 5 3.46 Acres LOT 6 3.39 Acres LOT 7 3.25 Acres OUTLOT A — 2.58 Acres OUTLOT B — 0.88 Acres TOTAL AREA OF LOTS = 26.92 ACRES* TOTAL AREA RIGHT-OF-WAY =1.72 ACRES DENSITY TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS = 7 & 2 Outlot 33 Denotes Soil Boring Test Location And Number Borings Taken By North American Wetland Engineering, P.A.. (May 2001) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ORAWNG IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF THIS SURVEY AND ALL MONUMENTS HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE (ROUND AS SHOWN. THIS SURVEY OR PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME 0R UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT 1 AM A DULY UCENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DAMD L DUPAY MINNESOTA REa57RAT10N N0. 17252 DATE: TIMOTHY 1 FREEMAN MINNESOTA REGISTRATION N0. 16989 Map No. 00-116D PLAN C 2 OF 4 NOTE: OFFICIAL COPIES OFT IS MAP ARE CRIMP SEALED 0 2002 — Fol,, Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc. — A11 Rights Reserved VICINITY MAP SEC. 36, T29N, R21W NE1/4 er No Scale SE1/4 SCALE: t Inch = 100 Feet o r�"a abo n n Pel tie G. Peltier C. S.A.H. Washington County C0.M. At The SW Cor. Sec. 36, T29N, 1421W PRELIMINARY PLAT GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN Part of the SW l /4-SW l /4, Sec. 36, T29N, R21W City Of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota Dated: May 21, 2002 Weehhgton County CTN. At The Wf/4 Cor. Sec 36, T29N. R2IW c 92A' HUDSON ASE 2 eptle X 9112 TH 007 RJ1: PLAT NO. 82-52 City Of Lake Elmo City Of Woodbury t:0. 02-15 1321.57 \V A ^ I/t y� zat I- 94 (F.K.A. MN DOT R/W- PLAT X 912.7 x 917.2 PROPOSED BUILDING FL. EL 925.00 D FOG HUD N BL MI` I-94 x 9111 - Investments ^41 / r 1 " Investments Trans. Jr x 910.5 x 910.5 x 910.8 D I x- 917.6 ne 9Wi/4, Sec. 36. 729M R2IW 1y .8'pshin9ton County C.I.M. At n1 N. R251/4 IW Cox. Sec. 36. 39 1 X 909.9 Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Associates, Inc. LAND SURVEYING - LAND PLANNING 'e-y-x 5620 MEMORIAL AVENUE NORTH • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 (651) 439-8833 • Fax (651) 430-9331 FFD Owner/Developer: RECO, Inc. Patrick O. Regan 425 East 31 st Street Hastings, MN 55033 (651) 437-9648 Land Planner/Surveyor: Folz, Freeman, Dupay & Assoc., Inc. 5620 Memorial Avenue North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (651) 439-8833 Legal Description: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 29 North, Range 21 West; City of Lake Ehno, Washington County, Minnesota lying northerly and easterly of Minnesota Department of Transportation Right -of -Way Plat 82-52, on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Washington County, Minnesota. Except small parcels of record Present Zoning: General Business Proposed Zoning: General Business LEGEND DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR DENOTES EROSION CONTROL SILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION OF SILT FENCE Fitter Fabric d Securely to �- the ioh Bock9i Over Top of Fabric C Compact / Steel or Wood Post 30 Minimum Height 24 Mhinum Depth (,/c10) oJ2 Map No. 00.I 16D PLAN C 3 OF 4 LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Date: June 5, 2002 for the Meeting of June 10, 2002 Applicant: Ed Gorman Location: 11011 Stillwater Blvd. Requested Action: Section 520 Site Plan Land Use Plan Guiding: C (Commercial) Existing Zoning: GB (General Business) Site History and Existing Conditions: The City records regarding this 4.4 acre site are extensive — dating back to 1982. Included in the file is a plan set dated 1973. It appears this plan set is for the original structure of 1,120 square feet (referred to as an "office" by the minimal permit records, but as a "restaurant" on the building plans). The also file reveals numerous later proposals and issues with the City, including (roughly in the order of the events taking place) the 201 System immediately south of the site; setback variance applications and site plans for a 1983 expansion of the structure and parking; a 1987 proposal to again expand the structure and parking; issues regarding allowable use related to the 1987 plan; and, 1989 issues regarding fill that the applicant had stockpiled on the site (which appears to have become somewhat contentious, based on the number of letters from attorneys. The issue was raised again in 1992). It also appears that a 1982 proposal to expand the structure and parking was eventually reduced in scale (eliminating the need for a street setback variance); and, constructed in 1983 to become the structure as it exists today. It does not appear that the parking south of the structure that appears on the 1983 sketches was ever formallv constructed. We note that the Valley Branch Permit related to the 1983 expansion specifically excluded the parking lot expansion, which may be the reason it was not constructed — formally. The latest file entries include relocation and updating of the wastewater treatment system in 1991; and, adding handicap access and interior remodeling in 1995. Discussion and Analysis: The applicant proposes an addition of approximately 1800 square feet (basement + main level) to the existing restaurant structure of approximately 3,200 square feet (basement + main level). The south/west sides of the structure would have 900 square feet of deck added in addition to the structure enlargement.. The applicant also proposes substantial exterior improvements to the existing structure; improved site drainage; enhanced site landscaping; and enlarged/improved parking areas. The addition to the structure would be based on the "coal house" that has been moved onto the site recently. The City Council recently amended the exterior surfacing standards of the GB zoning district, consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation. The applicability of those new exterior surfacing requirements to this Site Plan is questionable. The Code specifies that any addition to an existing structure of a floor area less than doubling of the existing structure floor may utilize the exterior materials of the existing structure — which is both vertical and horizontal wood lap siding. It appears, however, that the applicant also intends to replace a portion of the existing wood lap siding on the existing structure with stone; and, utilize the lap siding that is removed as the siding on the new addition. With exterior surfacing modifications accomplished in that manner there is little question that the addition will have exactly the same exterior surface as much of the existing structure. The proposed replacement surfacing on the existing structure (simulated stone) would not technically be a qualifying "primary" surfacing material. The existing off street parking on the site is partly paved, and partly gravel/dirt. The paved portion was likely installed prior to the present zoning regulations; and extends almost to the north site property line/State Highway 5 Right -of -Way line. Current City Code standards require a 20 foot setback of parking from any street Right -of -Way. The applicant proposes to continue the parking at this location, with a resurfacing of the asphalt. The front (north) portion of the parking area would lose 7-9 spaces by application of the 20 foot parking setback standard. By that modification, however, the City's goal of better streetscaping of the Highway 5 corridor would be addressed. The applicant has proposed - by the latest version of the site plan — to install landscaping in the State Hi2hwav 5 right-of-wav to both provide some measure of screening to the front parking; and, introduce some measure of streetscape to this Highway 5 frontage. Details of that landscaping arrangement are subject to MnDOT approval. The Site Plan also proposes an enlargement of the off street parking from the 30 spaces now designated, to a total of 74 spaces. The applicant has indicated that the enlarged facility will seat 110 indoors; and, would have 8 employees on site per shift. Using GB off-street parking ratios for "Eating and Drinking Establishments", the required off-street parking would be 59 spaces. The "extra" 15 spaces the applicant proposes by this Site Plan would accommodate 30 additional seats on the outdoor deck. The City Code requires that all off street parking for over 15 vehicles include landscape islands equal in area to 10% of the off street parking surface. Further provisions of the Code define a parking space as equal to 300 square feet. Therefore, this site (at 74 spaces) would require 2,220 square feet of landscape parking islands. On the latest version of the Site Plan the applicant has proposed an area of 1,760 square feet as a singular landscape island. No specific landscape plans for the island have been presented. Surface water drainage within the Old Village - downstream from this site - is a major problem. The additional structure, decking and asphalt (as opposed to gravel/dirt) parking lot surfacing proposed by this Site Plan could aggravate that downstream surface water problem without properly designed surface water retention on the site (an option not usually available in the Old Village areas south of State Highway 5; but, available here) The Site Plan depicts a new surface water retention pond of considerable size, but no drainage calculations have been provided, to date, that provide evidence that the 1% rate/volume retention surface water policy of Lake Elmo is complied with. Findings and Recommendations: Planning Staff has discussed the issue of continued parking within the 20 foot State Highway 5 parking setback (Section 300.13, Subd. 6A.10d of the City Code) with the applicant. After that discussion the applicant submitted a revised Site Plan (Staff dated June 4, 2002) that suggests the ROW landscaping in lieu of providing the 20 foot setback for the parking. Parking setback non -conformity is not addressed by the Zoning Ordinance in the same manner as structure setback non -conformity or use non -conformity. In fact, parking setback non -conformity is not addressed by the Zoning Ordinance in any manner. In past Site Plan reviews, where long - existing narking setback non -conformity has been proposed to be continued (such as the Twin Points in 1999), no zoning variance process was required for the continuance of that non- conforming parking setback. While the aesthetics of the Highway 5 corridor would certainly be enhanced by removal of the 7-9 parking spaces that would result from enforcing the 20 foot parking setback to State Highway 5 (and room does exist in the rear of this site to replace the "lost" spaces), it does not appear that this has been required in other similar Old Village situations. Staff has also addressed the issue of landscape islands with the applicant — resulting in the singular 1,760 square foot island (but no landscaping details) depicted on the latest version of the proposed Site Plan. We suggest that this standard of the Zoning Ordinance should be complied with by this Site Plan. An additional 310 feet of landscape island should be required, together with landscape plans for the parking island area(s). The City Engineer's June 4, 2002 Letter regarding this Site Plan is attached. Mr. Prew has withheld recommendations regarding drainage and septic capacity pending receipt of engineering data from the applicant. While technical data and related reviews are incomplete at this writing, the Commission does not generally address those technical issues. Therefore, Staff recommends a Planning Commission approval motion on a Finding that the Site Plan complies with applicable GB site design standards, subject to the following conditions and modifications: 1. The applicant provide drainage calculations; and, the City Engineers confirms compliance of the drainage plan with the 1 % rate/volume policy - prior to submission of the Site Plan to the City Council. 2. Confirmation by a qualified septic system designer that the existing septic tanks and drain field are sufficient in size and design to accommodate the facility expansion - prior to submission of the Site Plan to the City Council. 3. Submission by the applicant of a landscape plan that includes treatment of the State Highway 5 ROW, and landscape island(s) — prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 4. Revision of the Site Plan to include an additional 460 square feet of parking landscape island. The foregoing recommendation does not address the parking setback to State Highway 5. Should the Commission believe that non -conformity of the existing site requires action with this Site Plan, the applicant must either modify the Site Plan to provide the required 20 foot setback; or, apply for a variance to continue the parking without the setback. Should a variance be determined by the applicant and Commission to be the preferred approach, the Commission should table this application to allow proper variance Notice and Heating. Planning Commission Actions Requested: Motion to recommend approval of the Site Plan for modifications to the Gormans Restaurant site at 11011 Stillwater Blvd. per plans staff dated June 4, 2002; and subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Staff Report of June 5, 2002. Charles E. Dillerud, City Planner Attachments: 1. Engineer's Memo of June 4, 2002 2. Location Map 3. Applicant's Graphics R21W R2OW R19W 132N T3IN1 4131N DON - ,..I DON 129N 12ON 128N R22W R21W R20W Vicinity Map 0 600 Scale in Feet Ttio t]raw. Mina mu. as conM...on n„,e, Wang. Comity Mama Tne drawing one, aIna teat] Mr femme. one W.P.M. county M na numronMele tor any Masturamas. Baumalw*Von Cann* Bun,. Omca. none 03,0 12600/5 Partt0 Pate I* on 0.0400 through' ADM It 2002ImmMlon currant . Map printed: June 5, 2002 TKDA ENGINEERS •,ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS June 4, 2002' Planning Commission Members City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota Re: Gorman's Restaurant Preliminary Site Plan Review City of Lake Elmo, Minnesota TKDA Commission No. 11979-021 TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED 1500 PIPER JAFFRAY PLAZA 444 CEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-2140 PHONE: 651/292-4400 FAX: 651/292-0083 yutu 1V D 5 00 CITY OF LAKE ELMO Dear Planning Commission Members: I have reviewed the preliminary Site plan received June 4, 2002, and have the following comments: Water Service The building is served by City water. It does not appear that the addition will be large enough to require sprinkling. This should be verified when final building plans are submitted. Sanitary Sewer The existing septic system was designed to accommodate expansion. The number of septic tanks and drainfield size should be reviewed to see if it still meets code with the additional seating capacity of the restaurant. Enough ground area for a back-up site should also be shown on the plan. Drainage Drainage calculations will need to be submitted. Both City and VBWD regulations will need to be met. Off -site drainage, which flows through this site, will need to be accounted for. An erosion control plan is required. Thomas D. Prew, P.E. City Engineer TDP:cmr An Equal Opportunity Employer Number linder's Landscape Design Name 1 Bailey Compact Amur Maple 2 Rose Glow Barberry 3 River Birch 4 Regent Serviceberry 5 Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle 6 Isanti Redosier Dogwood 7 Spring Snow Crabapple 8 lhunderchild Crabapple 9 Hughes Juniper 10 Sea Green Juniper 11 Globe Arborvitae 12 Anfhoney Waterer Spirea 13 fairy Queen Spirea 14 Annabelle Hydrangea 15 Bailey Compact American Viburnum Designed By: Alexander R. Moore Dale: 3/18/02 Scientific name Acer ginnala'Bailey Compact' Berberis fhunbergii 'Rose Glow' Befula nigra Amelanchier alnifolia'Regent' Diervilla Ionicera Cornus sericea 'Isanti' Malus 'Spring Snow' Malus 'lhunderchild' Juniperus horizonfalis'Hughes' Juniperus chinensis'Mint Julep' Thuja occidenfalis'Woodwardi' Spiraea x bumalba 'Anthony Waterer' Spiraea trilobata'fairy Queen' Hydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle' Viburnum frilobum'Bailey Compact' #1107-1 Heigh} Spread 4uanfily Size 8 8 1 #5 3 4 3 #3 60 45 1 #10 6 6 12 #5 4 4 9 #3 6 8 3 #3 25 15 1 #1 o 20 15 7 #1 o 1 6 8 #3 6 6 5 #3 6 8 3 #3 3 3 11 #3 3 3 8 #3 5 6 3 #3 6 6 6 #3 N'S RESTAURANT ! lAi i - • - 21•1 SVIIAi'ER BL.Vd. LAKE ELMO, MN. » DAPPING LOT. tA W PPditary LINT SEcrtaw LINE -1 W. 114 eerNER sec. is. r&No+ CAST sao.ao CAST muN MON. Tt9aAY nutimscl 98,.,y} i 11_015-11 I T —1� 3f3R37 lYS I c I I- I 4/1 recent" ti • 9.013 ORATMAgt EASEAi NT 0.401104 BIN - —, pl I /E I :rigs J vAtRIIaB I.aT I e v rJ ! - 46, 233TIDIG cell F11.L sr0e211,e i- I.-1-.. J IlI 1 Ii1 { I 1j} 1 r / .„..w....' —'I —► Ty LINE ExsANg1ON PROPESTr \` } { 9s- Alo CO CS m .-u DRAINAGE AND WALKWAY EASEMENT Nam: SITE PLAN BASED ON SURVEY DONE BY DAYID F, MATTISON, RE:ISTERED LAND SURVEYOR, DATED MAY 26, 1989 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION, Lots 1E oral 16, County Aud+tor: Plat #8, subject to the wristlet reservations of easements for street purposes over the Northerly 30 ft. and over the Southerly 30 ft. thereof; Lot 1, County Auditors Plat #8. errcepthg therefrom the following described tract: Cammenc1ng of the NE corner of said Lot 1; thence South clog the East line thereof a distance of 261.6 ft.: thence South 72 degrees 48 minutes West 225 ft. to a point; thence North along a line parallel in the Wit line of said Lot 1 to a point in the Northerly line said Lot 2; thence North 65 degrees 16 1/2 mitartes t along the Northerly Ilne of said Lot 1 to the pass beginning; and also except a tract described as oUows: Beginning et o point on the Sarthwly line of said hat 1, 367 feet Northerly from the SE canner of said Lot 1; thence continue Northeasterly on said South line 110 feet to the SE corner of Lot 1; thence North an the East line of said Lot 134 feet: thence Southwesterly Parallel to said South line 110 feet; thence South parallel to said East line 134 feet to the point of beginning, subject to rights acquired by the State of Mkmesota for Trunk Highway purposes art subject to a walkway easement to the City of Lake Elmo, Washington County, Minnesota. DR. EXISTING SITE PLAN DTE 12-12-01 O 50 100 150 200 DWG. NO. i11{1111111II111111i111111111f111111111i1 P-1 REY - EXISTING PROPERTY DETAILS AREA - 4,509 AM•MES HARD SURFACE AREA - .802 ACRES HOLDING POND - 111,910 SAL. z 7 10'-0" i 1 ONE NEW CONC. WALKWAY 101.5 (/ tea►/ 1t12 EW FOYER 1 D_ ON 1 NEW DECK• EXISTING FLAG POLE — TO REMAIN ONE WAY EXIST. RAM STAIRS TO RE RS (4) HC NEW STAIR -►- 24' -0" 102 9s.// EXISTING PARKING LOT AND DRIVEWAYS TO BE RESURFACED WITH A BITUMINOUS SURFACE. 101.5 ONE -- WAY EXISTING WALKWAY EXIST. WA AND B • :. EXIST. DRAINA CULVERTS 100 MIN +44 f 1F b- .1:,:91 I ID 0 EXIST. DRAINFIELD a, 1 t O G V w{// PARTIA SITE PL 0 10 ,-22 30 40 50 100 NEIN RUBBISH ANb RECYCLING ENCLOSURE. 8" REINF. CONC. WALLS ROUGH SAWN CEbAR DOORS. 98 DR. WWS DATE 1-11-02 DWG. NO. A-2 REV A NO. NAME STATUS I FLOOR 1 PARTY ROOM EXIST. 2 STAIR EXX�.r''T. 3 CORRIDOR ECST. GROUND FLOOR ROOM MUM SC LE BASE WAILS CElfaNc SUB FL MESH MT'L FII I MT'L FINISH MT'L FiRNLSH RF.AMIARS - - - - - N0 WORK THIS ROOM - - - - - ND WORK TPMS ROOM NO WOW TARS ROOM 4 STORAGE MIST. 5 CORRIDOR E}asT. 6 OFFICE MST. 7 MECHANICAL RIB. EXIST. - 8 STORAGE 9 STAIR 10 S1aRA6E 11 STORAGE 12 STORAGE EXIST. EXIST. NEW NEW PAW CONC. CONC. CONC. RASP SEAM..1 SEALER - TYPICAL F001945 24 X 12 RENF. CONC. 10111 CONTINUOUS BARS aiaraimasom CONC. BLOCK CONC. BLOCK CONC. KOCK PAfl1t GYP. O. PAINT PANT GYP. Ob. PANT PAINT GYP. BD_ PAINT PAM" ROC* NO WW812 MS ROOM l40 WORK TABS ROOM NO WORK THIS ROOM NO WORK TARS ROOM PATCH TO MATCH AT NEW DOOR OPENLY* NO WORK THIS ROOM ®� OMEMANICA.e t• CD CD waft* combat rn STAIR 0 4,_ro. �- — — --I— —— .I 14'-7" 5' 4' 4" CUT NEW OINNR4C IN EXISTING CONC. BLOCK WALL NEW HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRA1RE GROUND FLOOR PLAN REINFORCED CONCRETE WALE:.. WITH / 4 REBAR. AT 12` O.C. E.W CONCRETE SLAB GRADE. 4' T NICK re.N WITH w. 4 REINF 30'-11' STORAGE TYPICAL FOOTING 24 X 12 REINF. CONC, MTh 3 #5 REINF. BARS CONTINUOUS 11'-6" 0 NEW 3'-0 ; 8'-8" HOLLOW METAL 000R AND FRAME T tNEW 3'-0"z B -8- Houow METAL DOOR ANDj FRAME i 4�( ,� F-- LIJ • L�J L�� 2X12 1 OVER 0 12' 0_C. 21'-r }� LLTL 1 :'`'-- 8' 0' I • 0 1 16 • f-5' L J 10'-8' 10'-8' 10'-8- 1o'-8' ti TYPICAL POST FOOTING 24" x24'x12 CONC. FOOTING MTh EACH WA BOTTOM 2'-O" 17-5' NORTH DR. WWS DATE 1-11-02 DWG. NO. A-3 REV - NO. NAME 101 VESTIBULE 102 VESTIBULE 103 I KITCHEN 104 SERVERY 105 I106 107 105 109 110 111 112 113 1114 DINING ROOM STAIR DINING ROOM M. TOILET W. TOILET STAIR STORAGE DINING ROOM DWWG ROOM UNISEX HAND.TLT STATUS FLOOR SUB FL. FISH EMT. NEW OQST. EXIST. EXIST. EMT. EXIST. EXIST. MST. EXIST. NEW NEW NEW NEW EXIST. CONC. Q. TILE Q.17LE EXIST. N. END N. END Q. TILE Q. TILE FIRST FLOOR ROOM FThIISH SCHEDULE RASE WALLS MrL FIP $H MT'L FINISH CEOZNG MrL FINISH REMARKS W• Wes- W WALL EXIST. TO MATCH E]QST. dQ3'1. env. GYP_ BD. WI)PNL �''� AT NEW DOOR GYP. 8D. WO PM. GYP. BD. TESL_ PT N. END_I i'A C9k. E, • EXIST. EXIST. EXi T. I EXI r. EiiST. EXIST. EXIST. EXIST. I WOOD WOOD WOOD WOOD VINYL VINYL CARET VINYL CARPET VIIRYL Cat. T. 1 CER. T. EXISTING RAMP VESTIBULE 101 REMOVE EXIST. PARTITION. PATCH WALL AND FLOOR TO MATCII COST. VESTIBULE 8'-0" 28'-6" NEW ENRANCE VEST }RJLEr 6" II II II II PAINT E asr. GYP. 8$. PAINT GYP. BD. PAINT WOOD STAIN EXP. STAIN PNLG SEALER STRUCT. SEALER WOOD STAIN EXP. STAIN PNL& SEALER STRLICT, SEALER GYP. BD. GER. T. GYP. BD. PAINT NEW :'-o" SOLID CORE WOOL QOOR AND FRAME. I I REMOVE EXIST PARTITION, 11PATCH WALLS, CLG AND II ,FL00R TO MATCH EXIST. LI KITCHEN REMOVE EXIST. DOOR O AND FRAME, INSTALL SIX NEW DISPLAY CABT. CUT OPENING G IN EXISTING FRAME WALL REINSTALL EXIST. 3-0" ENTRANCE DOOR AND FRAME. DINING ROOM SERVERY 104 PATCH TO MATCH AT REMOVED PARTITION NO WOW THIS ROOM NO Wes( THIS ROOM NO WORK THIS ROOM PATCH tAATCH NO WORK THIS ROOM NO WORK THIS ROOM NO WORK THIS ROOM STAIR 5s'-0" COSTING STRUCTURE M. TLT 108 C- NEW WOOD FRAME WINDOW IN EXISTING OPENING. EXISTING SUDING DOORS TO REMAIN NEW WOOD FRAME WINDOW IN EXISTING OPENING. AC. COMPRESSORS (4) BY MECH. CONTRACTOR. u NEW OPENING IN EXIST, WALL PATCH WALLS, CLG AND FLOOR TO MATCH EXISTING. DXNThIG ROOM 10 wl STAIR CD f DO ;11 R WYY. LL Lu L LI._ ..1. A I4EW 3'-0' X 7-0" H0 0W METAL DOOR AND AME WITH W.S. / EXISTING STRUCTURE RELOCATED NEW 4'-0' X 7'-D` OPENING IN EXIST. WALL FIRST FLOOR PLAN 4' 0" / X7'4 Wo06 DOECR AND FRAME 2'-0' 60" W00g \AND FRAME NEW 3'-0" X 7'-0" HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME, WITH W.S. 24" X 60' INSUL TEMP. GLASS IN DOOR. 16'-3" NEW WOOD DECK 2 X 5 TREATED NEW ADDITION 10 0' .1 ).YLII :OW. 7IND0W E5 1NS (F`NIJ'.. EXISTING SUDINC DOOR TO REM Alt \NEW WOOD FRAME 11NDOW IN EXISTING OPENII 3. NEW SLIDING DOI 2 /-T0 MATCH EXIST IG NEW WINDOW 13'-6" W 10 sn 32'-4" 17.-5' NORTH I, i !: ti tt-t itto Tr iIiI DR. WINS DATE 1-11-02 DWG. NO. A-4 REV - NEW LOCATION OF 1908 STRUCTURE NEW TREATED WOOD DECK i I I NEW LOCATION OF 1908 STRUCTURE NEW TREATED WOOD DECK it I I L_J I I I I 11-1 L__J L__J r�1-- J_1 NEW CONSTRUCTION r L r L NEW CONCRETE FOUNDATION i<f iCi? I a �i4u i:::a.<• L ^ r-: EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING FLAGPOLE I I i I I ri L I L J I } 1 r L iFzzi NEW CULTURED STONE FACING NEW ENTRANCE TOWER c.. C 1 J -J EAST ELEVATION NEW DORMERS NEW CULTURED STONE FACING NORTH ELEVATION r 0 • i 5 ri y W w m o <et `�, z via v) s g t 0 H DR. WWS DATE 1-11-02 DWG. NO. A-5 REV A • L_ NEW CULTURED STONE FACING. lir NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES EXIST VERT WOOD SIDING TO REMAIN ti L II { I NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES NEW WOOD DDRMER --------------- u u I I [ I 1 I I I I I r� 1� r' I� L _ _ J L _ _ J r.L L I R WOOD DOPIER NEW HORIZONTAL SLIDING DOOR TO MATCH EXIST. EXIST VERT TO REMAIN T SIMILAR NEW ASPHALT SHINGLES NEW WOOD DORMER u EXIST HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING REINSTALLED ON NEW ADDN. NEW TREATED WOOD HANDRAIL. L__J d...a. 4.1 NEW WOOD DORMER WEST ELEVATION NEW WOOD DORMER NEW INSULATED GLASS WINDOW IN DORMER. NEW INSULATED GLASS WINDOW IN EXIST. OPENING. VERIFY WINDOW OPENING. EXIST HORIZONTAL SUDING DOORS (2) TO REMAIN. EXIST. HORIZONTAL SIDING TO BE REINSTALLED I I I I I F — rL�� L.J � 1J SOUTH ELEVATION o �• �Y W a" o �2°C 13 0 et DR. WWS DATE 1-11-02 DWG. NO. A-6 REV A NEW DORMER 13EYOND \ / z' o• s'-0* 4'-0" M. \ I / 1 / • . '-10" NEW STRUCTURE \ NEW 2 X 6 STUDS AT 16' G.C. DINING ROOM NEW FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION TO MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION STORAGE E'-9'+- MATCH EXIST. 14'-7' NEW 10' THICK REINFORCED CONCRETE FOUNDATION. NEW FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION TO MATCH EXISTING ELEVATION BUILDING SECTION AT EXIST. STRUCTURE rlasT. STRUCTURE SPACED NEW ROOF SLOPES TO MATCH EXISTING, MIDWAY 28ETWEEN EI4STSRAFTERS /- -�EX1ST STUD END WALL TO REMAIN `EXIST W000 TRUS'S1.5 EXIST MASONRY FOUNDATION EXIST CONC FOOTING I NEW CONCRETE FOOTING TD BE CENItKtU ON NEW FOUNDATION AND UNDERPIN EXUST AS NECESSARY. EXIST 2 X 6 RAFTERS SPACED AT 24" 0.C. NEW FOAM 04SULATION NEW 5/8" GYP BD. CLG NEW 2 X 6 CLG. JOISTS SPACED MID WAY BETWEEN EXISTING TIE RAFTERS. EXIST 2 X 6 CLG. JOIST AT 48" 0.C. 5/8' GYP BOARD NEW VAPOR BARRIER EXIST 2 X 6 STUDS AT 24' O.C. NEW FOAM INSULATION I NEW 5/8' PLWD SHEATHING -DaST WOOD SIDING REAPPUED /-30/ ASPHALT FELT i 64 11 O NEW 10' "NICK REINFORCED CONCRETE FOUNDATION.` MATCH EXIST. SIMILAR / \ • 1-- 1 DR. 1 I -- O / \ / EAST END WAU. OF RELOCATED STRUCTURE WWS BATE 1-11-02 DWG. NO. A-7 REV - NEW RECESSED LIGHT 30# FELT l NEW 5/8" v PLYWOOD SHEATHING EXIST. WOOD FRAMING AT 24" O.C. NEW WOOD FRAMING SPACED MIDWAY BETWEEN EXIST. FRAMING. 'siii111� NEW 5/8" GYP. BD. ON EXIST. WOOD FRAMING. NEW FOAM INSULATION SOUTH SIDE SAYE DETAIL CO "- 2 X 6 TOP RAIL 1 X 4 BALISTERS - AT 7" 0.C. 3'-6" GAL. T ANCHORS 2'-0" OS DECK DETAIL EXIST CEDAR SIDING REAPPLIED. NEW 5/8" PLYWOOD SHEATHING 2 X 6 TREATED DECKING 2 X 12 TREATED JOISTS AT 12" 0. C. 1 X 8 CEDAR B SE BOARD GAL. JOTS HANGER 2 X 12 TREATED BLOCKING 2 X 6 TREATED BLOCKING 6 X 6 TREATED POST 8'-0" NEW 2 X 6 TRAFTER TIE RIDGE DETAIL =J. p 11. ' • 14; • 4 J EXIST CLG JOISTS SPACED AT 48" 0.C. NEW CLG JOISTS SPACED MIDWAY BETWEEN EXIST JOISTS NEW FOAM INSULATION NEW 5/8" GYP. BD. ON EXIST. WOOD FRAMING. FOAM INSULATION 5/8" GYP BD. 5/8" GYP BD. 1'-a" I SILL tern. AT D EXIST 2 X 6 STUDS FIN. FL. EL. 105'-6" / 5/8" PLYWOOD SUB FLOOR AND 5/8" UNDERLAYMENT.-\ I I JOIST BLOCKING 14" 1 J01$`TS AT 12" 0.C. TOP / WALL EL. 103'-10" 14'-7" EXIST 2 X 6 RAFTERS SPACED AT 24" 0.C. NEW RAFTERS SPACED MIDWAY BETWEEN EXIST RAFTERS EXIST ROOF SHEATHING fAND ASPHALT SHINGLES TO REMAIN. NORTH SIDE EAVE DETAIL 10" NEW RECESSED UGHTING •30# ASPHALT FELT NEW 5/8" PLWD SHEATHING NEW 5/8" PLYWOOD SHEATHING 30# ASPHALT FELT 24X12C FOOTING 3 NO. 5 RE. B CONTINU9 /, TYPICAL STZ L bETAXL \/ TWO 5/8" AT 24" 0.C. ail of a In ii 3<0 3M 14 s I� M'O' 'hp )1itoti 60 tkibf .ip III 10" / 12" SEE PLAN 5/8" RE BARS AT 8" 0.C. EACH DIRECTION 4" CONC. SLAB ON GRADE WITH WWM o� 4 0 g000 °0 d . o0°0 %/' . 6" PERF. PVC FOOTING DRAIN GRAVEL FILL TYPICAL FOUNDATION DETAIL erN 0 0 t w a 3 DR. WWS DATE 1-11-02 DWG. NO. A-8 REV - 2 -0" 2.-0" EXIST EST JOIST JOIST 2X4RArTE AT16"O.0 11147AAAr,Fb`AIlA'A3 fA A.A,-1'I.f 4.•'�. JVO -fit RI '� EACH a Sf 7-0" 2'-0' EXIST EAST JOIST ,SST DORMER SECTION A9 � I � I IIli 4 / _rT I � � I 6 1 'N ` RISERS 0 7.15" 1 fir' l 1 7 4 DINING ROOM s-ORAGE ROOM BUILDING SECTION =IVY- 12 NEW SIMULATED STONE FACING COST. CONST. EXIST. CONST. EXIST. CONST. 12 EV-0" REMOVE END TRUSS, EXTEND EXIST. WALL `1NTH 2 X 4 STUDS AT 16' O.C. VESTIBULE SOFFIT VENT AT EACH RAFTER SPACE 5 t Z O 2 0/.0.1 Cs /I i l IPI 'EP 2 X 6 STUDS r r AT 16" O.C. (j02) 1 8" COMPACTED SAND Pa COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL 6.-10" NEW CONST. IT-8" 4 SLAB 014 GRADE VAIN MN RE1NF. 4`-0" MINIMUM 02 BUILDING SECTION AT VESTIBULE A9 a 6 gi5 E _Jan g CO E S 415 DR. WWS DATE 1-11-02 DWG. NO. A-9 REV - CAULKING NEW CEDAR TRIM NEW 5/8" PLWD SHEATHING 30# FELT EXIST CEDAR SIDING BOARDS REINSTALLED 1 X 6 FASCIA7 5/8" PLWD ROOF 2 X 4 DORMER /SHEAIHING RAFTE0 \_16. O.C. X 71 3X8'PLO )SOFIT-I/ 5/8' CEDAR_Z PLYW000 SONG MET FLASHING 5 1 THREE 2 X 6 /-HEADDER CEDAR TRIM '--/ \--WOOD VANDOW FRAME DETAIL. AT DORMER RIDGE " INSUL GL 5/8" CEDAR r� 1 PLYWOOD SIDING'" 5/8" SHEATHING J 30# FELT - METAL FLASHING- -WOOD WINDOW FRAME NEW 2X6 EXIST PLATES 1/2" GYP BD. 2 X 8 Fi£AODER, (THREE) CEDAR TRIM WALL DETAIL AT DORMER WINDOW STL1. 5/8' INSUL CL -'� WOOD WINDOW FRAME --1_14 '-NEW CEDAR TRIM EAST. SILL PLATES EAST. 2 X 6 STUDS FOAM INSULATION �� r Vllt BARRIER 1�^ .-5/8' GYP BOARD WINDOW SILL NAIL AT HIGH WINDOW A10 4 ROOF RAFTER EXIST. CLG. JOIST 2'-0' 5/8" PLWD ROOF SHEATHING 2 X 4 DORMER RAF Itti 0 16' O.C. FEAST RIDGE BD. RIDGE DETAIL AT DORMER 12 12 NEW DOUBLE 2 X 6 RAFTER EXIST. ROOF RAFTER TO REMAIN. NEW 2 X 8 ��CLG JOIST EXIST. CLG. JOIST 2.-0" NEW 2 X 8 RAF ILH TIES AT 24" O.C. NEW DORMER RIDGE LINE 7TO MATCH EXIST RIDGE NEW DOUBLE 2 X 6 RAF NY ASPHALT SHINGLES 30# FELT 5/8" PLWD SHEATHING 5/8' PLWD SHEATHING sir PLWA SING 30# FELT GAL MET FLASHING EXIST. EXIST.," ROOF RAFTER ROOT RAFTER 2'-0' DORMER CROSS SECTION A10 NEW 2 X 8 CLG JOIST EXIST. f CLG. JOIST 2 -0" FOAM INSUL. N 5/8' GYP BOARD-_N VAPOR BARRIER CEDAR TRIM EAST CEDAR SIDING REINSTALLED NEW 5/8' PLWD SHEATHING 301 FELT THREE 2 X 6 HEADDER -FLASHING \ HEAD DETAIL AT LOW WINDOW A©10 5/8' PLWD UNDERLAYMENT 5/8" PLWA SUBFLOOR-\ I I 14' I JOIST__..." 0 12' 0.C. I JOIST BLOC GNG - R NEW CEDAR TRIM I )7SIDING REINSTALLED EXIST CEDAR 1- - - NEW 2 X BASE PLATES NEW 2 X 8' SILL PLATE 1/2" ANCHOR BOLTS Al 48' 0.C. SILL DETAIL AT LOW WINDOW G S so DR, WWS DATE 1-11-02 DWG. NO. A-10 REV - - NYld 1001.J ONflMie 1VOINVH3W1 0 r•) "rik r) •11 Fri-1,71 LJ 11 rp 0 4. 4, 11.1_ to _u_ rffI14V lir u) Tr I I , IR II I - - - - GROUND FLOOR PLAN MECHANICAL 0 oc 1 ri LJ ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO GORMAN'S RESTAURANT 11011 STILLWATER BLVD. LAKE ELMO MN. G NEW FLOOR DRAIN IQTCMEN 103 DIKING ROOM srr 1 i EAST. A.C. COMP. D NEW AIR COND. COMP.-1 EAST. A.C. COMP. RELOCATED FROM-\\ WEST WAU_ n r DINING ROOM j STAIR CD r^ +T� �I i--NEW WATER CLOSET j NEW HANDICAPPED - I, LAYITORY. ,E J ,I NEW CEIUNG �, EXHAUST FAN Y fY �J MECHANICAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0 5 10 15 21 Z 2 o p z z w O Ci cn CO <t Q LLI z � Q 0 co Q yr FIRST FLOOR PLAN MECHANICAL 2-22-02 DWG. NO. M-2 NORTH REV NEW WOO AUP UNDERGROUND UNE TO POWER POLE-1 EXISTING 200 AMP BREAKER PANEL i P-1 Utet / P-3 NEW 700 AMP BREAKER PANEL FAWN ROOM NEW DOD AMP OUTDOCR CT PANEL NEW 200 AM P DISCcesEci PANEL FOR NEW ADDITION .........r.44••••••••44•41r 0 GEcHAALEQ. VOA. 0 OFFICE Cf) co conansok 0 0 L r 1 ' • ------ . • 44t. • '4 FURNACE DISOCNNECT PANEL STAIR 0 TO PANEL P-4 sronAte STORAGE/ / - --- TO PANE% P-4 4 TO PANEL P-4 C.. ✓ " 51SAGE \ ..:N...s_NEW 200 AWF k BREAKER PANa • ..• •.! _ - \-TO PANEL P.,3 STORASE ELECTRICAL GROUND FLOOR PLAN 5 15 45 20 a ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO GROUND FLOOR PLAN GORMAN'S RESTAURANT 0 uJ LLJ 5 U.1 ELECTRICAL 2-22-02 DWG. NO. E-1 NORTH rf 1 11 C1 I! I/� -Li TO PANEL P-4 n II 11 or i 120' , 120' II - - — 1 \-TC! PANEL P-2 TO PAN1 P-4 1 ,--RECIMEO INCANDMENT SOFFIT LOITS l04 TO PANEL P-2 r 1 RECESSED MAW:MEW i ' SOFFIT LIGHTS / To PJ NtL P-4 TO PANEL - - - - - `_ v P-4u``-/ - r-' -o \.. WI 1 1 1 1 tit ` 1 1 i �.w 11 A 5 RECES5ED II ;ANENT SOFFIT uGM' i 1 1 1 r it NL/ 96' VIP I I 1t lfl I r it f �iF TO PA t_ •j 1 1 ''i i IC f i t -4i! ! II, \ Y `` / ziI / j Ni ,1 jLe: 1 ly /: i 96' i WP , f l TO PANEL/ /.- P-4 - 7 TO PANEL 1 P-4. TO PANEL Y----- 36' P-4 WP � •i \ 1D6 NEW RECESSED -INCANDESCENT SOFFIT uGHTs ELECTRICAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN 6 la 15 20 NORTH Z 0 I- 2 Z Z o W 5 f/) �C -J CI CO m <Qw oo 0 CO Q FIRST FLOOR PLAN r ELECTRICAL 2-22-02 DWG. NO. E-2 REV - 11011 NO RAISED BED PLANTERS, LA TO BE SUBMITTED AFTER HIGHWAY DEPT. AND LA WATER COVER 100.000' 45) EXISTING BITUMINOUS PARKING LOT TO BE RESURFACED WITH NEW BITUMINOUS PAVING. DASHED ARROWS INDICATE FORMER DRAINAGE PATTERN ci co N PROPERTY LINE SECTION LINE EXISTING GRAVEL PARKING LOT TO BE SURFACED WITH NEW BITUMINOUS PAVING. W. 1/4 CORNER SEC. 13. CAST IRON MON. SOLID ARROWS INDICATE NEW DRAINAGE PAIIERN PROPERTY tSN R 5 A ,H STILLWATER BLVD. LAKE ELMO, MN. 98 -- 11 9.00 DRAINAGE EASEMENT I f -102, \ HC HC1 HC HC /- ////////� 102 101 / NEW RUBBISH AND RECYCLING �rrp 1 88" X 20' NTIN6 ISLAND WITH TW POLE MOUNTED / I DOWN FOC SED FLOOD LIGHTS. \ \\1\\\\\\\\ io2 100 1 11 EXIST. HOLDING POND TO BE FILLED I1� I I —98-- PRr PERTY LINE 96 NEW RUB - WITH H•' .. •' L SIDING TO MATC1 ci N "COAL NOV �• •N. o 90 PROPERTY LINE EL 95 —mac PROPERTY LINE RECYCLING ENSURE. FU I FIE1D EXPA A. • EXLSTING DRAINFIELD PROPERTY LINE i NENTIRE FILL STOCKPILE TO BE USED IN NEW BERM AREAS NEW HOLDING POND AND TO RAT44 PARKING AREA. J / 98 PROPERTY LINE -N .0.p pp 00 Cr) 30'-0" DRAINAGE AND WALKWAY EASEMENT 30.00 NORTH DRAWING SCHEDULE P1 EXISTING SITE PLAN OPOSED SITE PLAN E PLAN DETAIL ROUND FLOOR PLAN 4 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5 ONS A7 BUILDING SECTION A8 BADIVINETAILS A9 etaING SECTIONS UILDING DETAILS iir NOTE: SITE PLAN BASED 0 BY DAVID F. LAND SURV RVEY DONE , REGISTERED , DATED MAY 26, 1989 TY DETAILS AREA - - 4.509 ACRES PROPOSED HARD SURFACE AREA - - .964 ACRES PROPOSED HOLDING POND VOLUME - - 172,526 GAL. PROPOSED PARKING - - 74 SPACES PROPOSED SITE PLAN 0 50 100 150 200 ii i �IIII'llllillfllllill111111f111 Ills NEW SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING AND PROPOSED DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE FORMER DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE EXISTING CONTOUR LINE NEW CONTOUR LINE 102 98 98 TITLE SHEET AND PROPOSED SITE PLAN 0 O Q co ex e DR. WW5 DATE 1-11-02 DWG,. NO. A-1 REV B