Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Packet 09-10-12 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 777-5510 www.lakeelmo.org NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, September 10, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. July 23, 2012 b. August 13, 2012 c. August 27, 2012 4. Public Hearing a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT – GATSBY INVESTORS, LLC: Gatsby Investors, LLC, 595 Lake Ridge Drive, Shoreview, Minnesota, has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment related to a grading plan that would result in the moving of over 400 cubic yards of material per acre at 9242 Hudson Boulevard North. The proposed grading project would allow the expansion of the ski and snowboard demonstration area currently used by Summit Ski and Board Shop for outfitting customers, training, demonstrations, and marking and promotional events. 5. Updates a. City Council Updates i. Zoning Text Amendment – Shoreland Standards ii. Malmquist RAD-2 development proposal extension was approved b. Staff Updates i. Upcoming Meetings: 1. September 24, 2012 c. Commission Concerns 6. Adjourn  City of Lake Elmo  Planning Commission Meeting  Minutes of July 23, 2012    Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at  7:00pm.      COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Bloyer, Hall, Obermueller, Haggard, and Fliflet.   COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Ziertman and Pelletier.  STAFF PRESENT: City Administrator Zuleger, Planning Director Klatt, and City Planner  Johnson.     Approve Agenda:    There were no objections to the agenda as presented.    Approve Minutes:      July 9, 2012 – M/S/P: Hall/Obermueller, move to approve the minutes, Vote: 3‐0,  Commissioner Williams, Fliflet, and Haggard abstained.    Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment    Administrator Zuleger welcomed the Planning Commission and residents in attendance.   He addressed the complicated issue of buffering and the challenging issues before the  Planning Commission.     Planning Director Klatt presented the Comprehensive Plan amendment.  He outlined the  overall process for submitting a Comprehensive Plan amendment and noted that a land  use update for the Village Area will follow later this summer into the fall.    Planning Director Klatt also highlighted the current status of the Memorandum of  Understanding with the Metropolitan Council, as well as the Staging Plan.  Both of these  items are important components of the land use plan.    Planning Director Klatt explained the housing chapter of the Comp Plan Update, which is  required to be updated along with the update land use plan.    Commissioner Bloyer asked if density examples can be placed on the City website.    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7‐23‐12    2    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7‐23‐12  Commissioner Fliflet asked about a parcel that is a shown as park in the existing land use  map that is shown as a residential use in the planned land use map.    Planning Director Klatt noted that this most likely reflects a previous mistake that can be  remedied in the next update.    Chairman Williams opened the public hearing at 7:41pm    Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave. N., noted that many residents who have lived in the I‐94  area for many years are concerned that the new development will be far too dense  compared to the existing development.  These residents are most concerned about  buffering new development.  Mr. Prowse explained that there was a buffer in the  previous Comprehensive Plan that was taken off the table.  He also asked if he could  read a letter from Tom Kreimer.    Chairman Williams noted that there may be many residents who wish to speak.   Therefore, the public hearing should continue forward.    Commissioner Bloyer asked about the demand of 1 unit per acre residential  development.    Administrator Zuleger noted that the City has received some interest in this type of  development.      Commissioner Bloyer asked if the City would be inconsistent with the MOU if we  approve these changes allowing one acre lots in the Comprehensive Plan.    Todd Ptacek, 812 Julep Ave. N., wanted to thank the Planning Commission and Staff for  their hard work.  He also asked if both sewer interceptors are available and ready to  serve the I‐94 Corridor.    Planning Director Klatt noted that they are available.     Mr. Ptacek asked about serving the Village Area from the Cottage Grove interceptor due  to the need in that area.    Administrator Zuleger explained that the plans for the extension of sewer to the Village  Area are ongoing.  The survey completed by the City highlighted the fact that there is a  need to serve the exiting residents and businesses within the Village area.     Mr. Ptacek wanted to clarify that both the I‐94 and Village areas are going to experience  growth.     3    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7‐23‐12  Ben Roth, 10819 3rd St. Place, is the President of the Forest neighborhood. Mr. Roth  wanted to reiterate that the density of the I‐94 Corridor far outweighs the entire city.  In  addition, he wanted to note that the High Density residential area is right across the  street from the Forrest neighborhood.  He and his neighbors are concerned about this  density.    Tom Schuette, Azure Properties, is here to speak in opposition to the additional  buffering that is being proposed.  He noted that it will be extremely difficult to develop  the area at the density of 2.5 units/acre if large buffer areas are put forth at Stonegate.   In addition, he does not see a reason to buffer residential areas from residential areas.       Dave Carland, Dale Properties, noted that the growth proposed in the I‐94 Corridor is  not dense by the standards of other cities in the Metro area.  In addition, buffering can  be much more effective through plantings and topographical methods.  An arbitrary  number is not good planning.    Curt Monteith, 331 Julep Ave., wanted to make sure that there is sufficient areas for  recreation in the I‐94 Corridor.  The land use maps do not show any recreation areas.   He would like this issue to be addressed.    Planning Director Klatt noted that the City does have a park plan.  In addition, parkland  dedication is part of the development process for future development.    Chairman Williams noted the letters submitted to the Planning Commission are entered  into the public record.    Chairman Williams closed the Public Hearing closed at 8:17pm.    Commissioner Haggard asked about the 25 units per acre    Planning Director Klatt explained that the range was created for the purpose of creating  more open space.  If the commission is more comfortable with 15 units per acre, then  we can pursue that.    Chairman Williams noted that the density calculation includes the whole parcel.    Commissioner Fliflet felt that better buffering must occur for the Forrest.   This could be  accomplished by switching land uses across from the Forrest with the areas just South of  Oakland Jr. High School on Manning Ave.    Chairman Williams noted his concern about buffering the Forrest from the BP land use  to the South.    4    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7‐23‐12  Mr. Roth noted that there are beautiful business parks and not attractive business  parks.  The City will have to ensure that whatever is developed south of the Forest will  not be a nuisance.     Chairman Williams asked how the Lake Elmo Fire Department has been consulted in  regards to building height.    Administrator Zuleger noted that the City is looking at purchasing a new fire truck with a  100’ ladder.  This size truck would be able to serve up to 5 stories.  The City should allow  for review from the Fire Department.     Planning Director Klatt noted that the Eagle Point Business Park does allow for 50’ tall  buildings.    Commissioner Fliflet asked if partnering with our neighboring communities would be  more financially sounds that purchasing a new truck.    Administrator Zuleger noted that we are exploring all avenues to meet the needs of the  community.  We are exploring relationships with our neighboring communities to install  automatic aid.      Chairman Williams asked if “big‐box” retail stores will be allowed in the current zoning  proposal.    Planning Director Klatt noted that these uses, club sales, are allowed as conditional uses,  allowing the City to further review the development proposals.     Commissioner Haggard asked about the mixed use areas.  How are these areas  determined?    Planning Director Klatt noted that property owners would have 3 options.  The property  could be developed with the underlying zoning.  The property could be rezoned the for a  different allowed use.  Or a master plan could be submitted that would allow a mix of  uses.      Commissioner Haggard noted that a rezoning would require the support of 4 members  of the Council. Rezoning actions require a super‐majority vote.    Planning Director Klatt noted that this is correct.    Chairman Williams noted that everything to the South of the future 5th St. will be at  least medium density, if not higher density.    5    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7‐23‐12  Commissioner Fliflet proposed making some of the land in south of 5th street higher  density so that area near Stonegate can be lower density.    Planning Director Klatt noted that the plan must meet an average of 3.5 units/acre.   However, if the City continues to accept projects at 2.5 units per acre, eventually this  will conflict with the understanding with the Met Council.  In addition, the work group  has attempted to build market realities into the plan.     Chairman Williams noted that platting a small strip of low density housing is uncommon.    Commissioner Fliflet wanted it made clear she was proposing to make the whole low  density area less dense and the higher density area denser.    Commissioner Bloyer noted that he would not support this proposal.     Commissioner Hall noted that the benefit of Commissioner Fliflet’s idea allows for  people to know what they are getting into North of 5th St. vs. South of 5th St.     Commissioner Obermueller noted that it is less than a quarter mile from Stonegate to  5th St.    Chairman Williams went through the options regarding a possible motion.    Commissioner Fliflet asked how the Planning Commission could receive all the public  comment necessary to make a good decision.    Administrator Zuleger noted that we have some specific proposed changes.  The  Stonegate issue and Forrest issue could be tabled while still accepting the remainder of  the Comp Plan.    Planning Director Klatt explained that there are elements of the zoning code that may  address buffering.    Commissioner Haggard commented that parks could be used as a part of buffering.    Administrator Zuleger noted that Mr. Carland stated that there are other ways to buffer  development than low density development nearby or distance.  The concept plan of  development proposals and preliminary plat process is important.    Chairman Williams noted that the City should allow clustering to try and get at this  buffering issue.    Commissioner Hall asked if the density swap would affect the cost of extending public  utilities.  6    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7‐23‐12    Planning Director Klatt noted that less density means greater cost for extending public  services.    Chairman Williams noted that it would be beneficial to understand the current market  as it relates to 1 acre a unit housing development.    Administrator Zuleger noted that development folks have explained that 2.5 units per  acre is the sweet spot for single family housing.    Chairman Williams proposes postponing the look at the Comprehensive Plan  Amendment until more research about the housing market is completed.      Administrator Zuleger likes this idea because it brings more economic reality into the  Comprehensive Plan.    Commissioner Haggard noted that the language about the REC units should state that  we are shooting for the associated number, but that we are not going to greatly exceed  it.    Commissioner Hall stated that it is important that we show good faith efforts to the Met  Council so that we keep a good working relationship.    Administrator Zuleger noted that the MOU demands that the minimum REC number is  our goal.     Chairman Williams noted that the development landscape isn’t going to change so  quickly in the next 5 years as to make the REC count increase above the minimum  expectation.     Commissioner Bloyer feels that growth should occur now because we have a good  opportunity to develop low density housing.    Chairman Williams make a formal motion to postpone action on the Comprehensive  Plan until further information is gathered about additional density and REC calculation  and the housing market.    M/S/P, Williams/Fliflet, motion to postpone consideration of the Comprehensive Plan  until the next Planning Commission meeting, Vote: 6‐0.    Commissioner Obermueller noted that she is concerned about the process not moving  forward.    7    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7‐23‐12  Planning Director Klatt notes that this material should be addressed at the next Planning  Commission.    M/S/P, Haggard/Williams, motion to reopen the discussion to discuss the Housing Plan,  Vote: 6‐0.    Chairman Williams asked what the percentage of the housing stock in Washington  County is considered affordable.  In addition, Chairman Williams noted a discrepancy in  the amount of households in the housing chart.    Commissioner Haggard asked about the targets regarding affordable housing, as well as  the amount of affordable housing in the surrounding communities.    Planner Johnson noted that he can conduct some research regarding the home prices of  the surrounding areas.    Commissioner Haggard also felt that the City should not reduce its fees for senior or  affordable housing.    M/S/P, Williams/Fliflet, restate the motion to postpone consideration of the  Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Vote: 6‐0.      Public Hearing: Zoning Code Updates    Planning Director Klatt presented the new Zoning Ordinance.  The ordinance  includes a new introduction and use classification sections that define the uses.   lanning Director Klatt went on to describe the new zoning districts that are being P proposed with the Zoning Ordinance update.     Regarding the new residential districts, Staff is aiming to incorporate some element  f clustering of development in order to provide more open space within the o residential development.    Planning Director Klatt explained that the commercial districts include a provision  to replace the City’s current General Business district with a new commercial  district.  He also notes that design standards will follow and be incorporated into the  oning code at a later date.  In addition, Staff is recommending that changes to the z zoning code occur in phases.    Moving forward, Planning Director Klatt explained the current provisions in the  Code related to buffering.  He went on to explain some proposed changes to the  buffering provisions that would provide a greater buffer than the previous  provision.   It includes a 200’ standard that may be reduced to 100’ through the use  additional screening above and beyond the normal standard.  Another proposal  8  Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7‐23‐12    includes a provision to reduce the setback to 150’ if the buffer area is platted as a  communally owned outlot of open space.  Finally, another buffering option would  llow for the platting of 1 acre lots abutting existing rural development to serve as a a transition between the rural and sewered residential development.    Chairman Williams asked if design standards would be included in each district.    lanning Director Klatt noted that the preference would be to adopt standards for P residential development and commercial development.    hairman Williams asked if we can approve the proposed zoning code updates C without the design standards.    lanning Director Klatt noted that we can adopt the proposed updates and keep P moving forward with design standards and adopt in a phased approach.    ommissioner Fliflet noted that the current design standards are not up to the C necessary standard.    lanning Director Klatt explained that the current standards are a placeholder for P future design standards.    Commissioner Fliflet noted that General Retail does not cover all types of retail.  She  oted a lack of specificity may be problematic in terms of uses that the City is not n interested in promoting.    Planning Director Klatt explained that the uses that create greater impacts are not  ncluded in the general retail category for the reason to protect the community from i a nuisance situation.    ommissioner Hall asked about the case when one part of the business is listed as a C conditional use.  Would the entire business be listed as a conditional use?    lanning Director Klatt noted that the whole use would be listed as a conditional P use.  how up in a section    Commissioner Fliflet asked what if the use does not s   Klatt noted that if is not listed than it is not allowed.    hairman Williams noted that the Planning Director has the authority to determine C what uses belong where.      Commissioner Haggard asked if the zoning code should be changed for the high  density residential section to reflect the lower allowed density discussed in the  Comprehensive Plan Amendment.  9  Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7‐23‐12      lanning Director Klatt noted that any development proposal must be consistent P with the Comp Plan.    hairman Williams suggested that a change to the PUD requirement must reflect C any proposal over 15 units/acre vs. 25 units/acre.    Commissioner Obermueller asked about the OP‐A zoning district.    lanning Director Klatt noted that this district may include additional flexibility and  ould replace the old RAD‐2 district.  P w   Chairman Williams opened the Public Hearing at 10:24pm.    Bill Roettger, 568 Julep Ave., noted that there is no language regarding the intended  average density of development in the zoning districts.  In addition, completing  buffer requirements based upon lineal feet will not produce enough vegetation.  A  etter standards could be arrived at through sq. footage (number of trees dependent b on sq. footage of lots platted.)    odd Ptacek, 812 Julep Ave., noted that some good compromises have been made in T the Staff’s proposal.    Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave., noted that year‐long plantings will not suffice as an  ffective buffer.  He wanted to reiterate that the original language of the buffering e should be remembered.    om Shuette, Azure Properties, asked that there should be an allowance for higher T densities if some of the property is used in low‐density buffering.    lanning Director Klatt explained that the density figures are an average over the P entire parcels.     Mr. Shuette explained that his previous proposals did not work because there was  ot enough allowable density.  He would prefer that some density be made available n to ensure that a development can go forward.     lanning Director Klatt noted that the minimum standards for lots in that zoning P district would allow for some spread of densities over the overall parcel.    r. Shuette explained he is concerned about getting to the minimum REC units in M his property.    dministrator Zuleger noted that the City should gather some information from a  nowledgeable group that would draft a report to solve the buffering issue.  A k   10    hairman Williams noted that he supports this idea, and he would also like to keep  Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 7‐23‐12  C the public hearing open until next meeting.    Planning Director Klatt shared the views of Tom Kreimer, who was unable to attend.   hese comments included that he does not support any buffer smaller than 200’ and T also does not support any possible reductions.    /S/P, Williams/Hall, move to recess the public hearing until our next meeting,  ote: 6‐0.  M V   City Council Updates ‐ None    Staff Updates    ext Meeting is scheduled for August 13.   We may want to postpone the next  lanned public hearing until we are further along in the process.  N p   Commission Concerns    Commissioner Fliflet noted that emails or letters that arrive the day of the meeting  hould either be read into the record, or the Commission should be given a recess to s read the materials.    Planning Director Klatt explained that the City has not accepted materials after noon  n the day of the meeting, but we can address how this should be handled in the o future.    ommissioner Haggard commented that Staff did a great job in compiling all this  aterial.  C m     eeting Adjourned at 10:46pm.    M   espectfully submitted,    R   ick Johnson    N    City of Lake Elmo  Planning Commission Meeting  Minutes of August 13, 2012    Vice Chairman Fliflet called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission  at 7:00pm.      COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:  Bloyer, Pelletier, Hall, Obermueller, Haggard, and Fliflet.   COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Williams.  STAFF PRESENT: City Administrator Zuleger, Planning Director Klatt, and City Planner  Johnson.     Approve Agenda:    There were no objections to the agenda as presented.    Approve Minutes ‐ None    Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment    Planning Director Klatt began his presentation by noting that this item is a continuation  from the previous meeting on 7/23/12.  He continued by explaining the revisions that  Staff undertook to reflect the discussion and review completed at the previous meeting.   Most of these revisions are grammatical in nature, ensuring that the plan is consistent.   Some additional changes include the swapping of future land use near Oakland Jr. High  School from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, with the land near  the Forrest neighborhood changing conversely.  Also, representative from Trans‐City  Investments have made a formal request to keep their property guided as Business Park  as opposed to the current High Density Residential zoning in the Future Land Use Map.   Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments and  proceed to the Zoning Code discussion.    Commissioner Haggard asked if the buffering requirements in the Comp Plan are  intended to buffer different zoning districts or buffer developments within the same  districts.    Planning Director Klatt explained that the buffering requirements are intended to buffer  rural development from the new sewered zoning districts.    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12    Commissioner Pelletier requested an explanation about the land change near Oakland  Jr. High.  2    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12    Planning Director Klatt explained that this change was made to provide relief to the  forest neighborhood from high density residential development in close proximity.    Commissioner Fliflet asked about why the growth projections include some numbers for  2015 that seem so unrealistic.  In addition, does inclusion of these figures make it more  difficult to reduce growth figures with the Metropolitan Council.    Planning Director Klatt explained that these figures are targets.  In addition, this  Comprehensive Plan is a first step to show the Met Council positive momentum towards  growth.  The City could also petition to push back the 2030 figures.    Commissioner Hall noted that back‐loading the numbers may not be the best strategy  because it might not follow the natural flow of development.    Planning Director Klatt explained that if we weren’t showing these figures, we would not  be in compliance with the revised MOU with the Met Council.  If the Planning  Commission were interested in changing these numbers, the discussion would move  towards revising the MOU, which is a different course of action entirely.    Commissioner Bloyer said that he supports Mr. Klatt and Commissioner Hall that we  should move forward in good faith and work on reducing the overall REC figures in the  future.  In addition, is there any reason that we should not honor the request by Trans‐ City Investments?    Planning Director Klatt explained that there is already an existing industrial use on that  property now.  It should be noted that if we change the property from high density  housing to Business Park, the household numbers must be adjusted accordingly.    Commissioner Hall asked if changing this parcel to BP would dilute the demand for other  parcels with this zoning designation.    Planning Director Klatt noted that it is possible that this parcel could be incorporated in  a future Business Park.    Commissioner Fliflet asked why it may not be appropriate to allow for a mixed‐use  designation in all of the land planned for commercial use along Hudson Blvd.    Planning Director Klatt explained that the proposed Zoning Ordinance allows for multi‐ family residential land uses in parcels zoned as commercial through a Conditional Use  Permit.  Changes to the Zoning Ordinance can work through these proposals.  In  addition, developers do have the tool of Planned Unit Development at their disposal.   Overall, there are mechanisms in place that will provide for more flexibility.  However,  3    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12  when placing residential uses near commercial uses, it is important for the City to have  additional review as to prevent nuisance situation.     Vice Chairman Fliflet welcomed members of the audience who wished to speak a  chance to address the Planning Commission.    Todd Ptacek, 812 Julep Ave. N., wanted to highlight how the plans have changed since  the 2005 Comprehensive Plan.  In addition, Mr. Ptacek asked about the number of REQ  units associated with Commercial Use in the 2005 Plan and the current proposed Land  Use Plan.  Mr. Ptacek wanted it made clear that the commercial land use has a much  lower REC count.    Jay Morreale, 785 Jasmine Ave. N., wanted to know what the density is in the Urban  Low Density area.      Planning Director Klatt explained the base density of this district is 2.5 units/acre.     Mr. Morreale felt that none of the changes that were discussed to buffer the Stonegate  neighborhood at the previous Planning Commission were shown in the current  revisions.    Planning Director Klatt explained that these changes would not be shown in the land use  map, but in the zoning regulations.  These changes    Mr. Morreale asked about the area designated High Density Residential near the  Stonegate Park.  He believes that this area should remain Low Density Residential.    Administrator Zuleger noted that a developer would be able to do acre lots in the LDR  district to buffer rural development if they so wished as long as the average met the 2.5  unit/acre minimum.    Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave., explained that the current proposals do not reflect the  buffering proposals of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan.  He noted that the residents of  Stonegate are opposed to the ability of developers to forego the 1‐acre lots mechanism  in favor of buffering. In addition, the language of the 2005 Comp Plan notes that there  will be a 1000’ buffer.    Planning Director Klatt explained that the language regarding the 1000’ buffer relates to  the instance of wastewater inefficiency fees.   He also noted that there will always be  differences of opinion regarding what is reasonable vs. unreasonable in terms of  buffering.       Commissioner Fliflet wanted it known that the buffering provisions will be addressed in  the zoning discussion.  4    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12    Tim Hood, Trans‐City Investments), asked that the property owned by Trans‐City  Investment either be zoned Commercial or Business Park    Curt Monteith, 331 Julep Ave. N., showed some slides regarding what the proposed land  use plan would look like around the southern boundary of Stonegate.  He asked that the  Planning Commission be thoughtful of these residents.    Ifran Ali, 2390 Golf Drive, Woodbury, asked that places of worship be allowed in  residential zones as conditional uses.  He noted that places of worship in residential  zones adds positive benefits such as balanced growth and economic activity.    Commissioner Obermueller asked what the REC counts are related to places of worship.    Planning Director Klatt explained that the REC counts associated with Churches are  difficult to calculate due to the many different uses that occur at a place of worship.    Gary Rieder asked that the City be considerate of the future traffic that the future land  uses may generate.    Commissioner Bloyer asked how long the Trans‐City Investment had been at its current  location.    Commissioner Fliflet noted that the company could continue to operate in that location  as a non‐conforming use regardless of the zoning.    Commissioner Bloyer asked why Trans‐City Investment would like to change the zoning.    Tim Hood of Trans‐City Investments explained that they currently operate under a CUP,  but would someday like to expand.    Commissioner Fliflet noted that the map does not show how adequate public facilities  will be addressed in the land use map, and that may be ok.    Planning Director Klatt explained that there are allowances for different uses in the  zoning code of the commercial zoning district.    Commissioner Pelletier noted that she would like to see more flexibility in the zoning.   She stated that she feels uncomfortable with the plan as it currently exists in regard to  the amount of land zoned as Commercial.    Planning Director Klatt noted that there are many zones that allow public facilities,  including community facilities and schools.    5    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12  Commissioner Pelletier asked about the wastewater inefficiency fees.    Planning Director Klatt explained that Staff removed this element from the  Comprehensive Plan Amendment so that these penalties were not a major factor in the  document.    Commissioner Pelletier noted that the Planning Commission may not be ready to vote  on this matter.    Planning Director Klatt suggested that this item may be tabled until the buffering  discussion can take place.      Commissioner Pelletier asked if the current plan hit the targets in the MOU.    Planning Director Klatt noted that is does, with residential units and commercial units.  He then recommended that a motion be made to table the Comprehensive Plan  discussion until after the zoning discussion.    M/S/P, Fliflet/Pelletier, motion to table the discussion on the Comprehensive Plan until  after the zoning discussion, Vote: 6‐0.    Planning Director Klatt began the presentation on the proposed Zoning Ordinance.  He  noted the proposed articles that would be added to the current Zoning Ordinance.  Klatt  began working through the changes and refinements that have been made since the last  meeting and discussions on 7/23/12.  Regarding Article 6, a new standard for buffering  includes calculations for landscaping and screening known as opacity.  In addition some  changes have been made to the residential districts to encourage clustering of lots in  order encourage open space.   Klatt continued on through several other refinements.    After these notes, Planning Director Klatt moved on to the new buffering requirements  in Article 6 and Article 10.  The first buffer standard is based on opacity, including  plantings and other screening mechanisms. These may include plantings, berms, and  fences, which are allocated based upon a point system including distance. Klatt also  explained that these buffer requirements are mandatory and reviewed at the time of  subdivision/preliminary plat.   This technique allows for transition techniques between  rural and sewered development.  Klatt also noted that in place of the opacity system, a  developer would be able to plat one‐acre lots instead.  Moving on, Klatt went through  the opacity system for buffering.  Finally, Klatt explained that the purpose of this  addition to the Zoning Ordinance is to clearly spell out the buffering requirements to the  development community.  In addition, the new ordinance does not allow the Council to  waive the buffer requirements simply based on discretion.  However, this proposed  ordinance requires the developer to proceed through the opacity exercise.    6    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12  Commissioner Haggard noted that through this system, with a 5’ berm, there would only  be 4 trees every 100 feet near the Stonegate neighborhood. She felt that this amount of  landscaping is not adequate.    Commissioner Fliflet suggested that the developer should not have as much flexibility  simply planting shrubs.  These would not provide an adequate buffer.    Planning Director Klatt explained that the ordinance can be refined to require a certain  amount of taller plantings.    Administrator Zuleger suggested removing plants that are less than three ft. tall from  the allowed types of plantings.   This would ensure greater buffering.      Commissioner Obermueller questioned how this system might conflict with our current  fence code.  In addition, she asked if the City has an existing ordinance pertaining to  berms.    Planning Director Klatt noted that Staff can check on the fence ordinance.  Regarding  the berm question, he noted that the City does not have a related ordinance.     Commissioner Fliflet noted that new sewered development should not need to be  buffered from other new sewered development.  On the contrary, rural development is  not buffered enough.    Planning Director Klatt noted that is depends on what the purpose of the buffering is,  being complete screening or providing a transition area.      Commissioner Fliflet noted that the medium density residential should not be buffered  from low density residential when those plantings can be used to buffer the Stonegate  neighborhood.    Commissioner Obermueller asked if the development community will perceive Lake  Elmo as difficult to work with.    Administrator Zuleger commented on the market study.    Commissioner Haggard noted that we could raise the standards for the RE district.    Planning Director Klatt noted that we will not have many instances of this situation.    Commissioner Bloyer explained that it would take enormous amounts of very tall  plantings to make an effective visual buffer. The elevation of the Stonegate  neighborhood makes it extremely difficult to shield it from a visual impact of  development in the I‐94 Corridor.  7    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12    Planning Director Klatt explained that the buffering provision was always the most  difficult topic in discussing the I‐94 Corridor.    Commissioner Haggard felt that screening in the existing districts are important as well.    Vice Chair Fliflet opened the Public Hearing at 9:44pm.    Greg Milnar, 9073 9th St., noted that he is concerned that there is a provision in the  Code that does not allow for more than 50% of the same species in the opacity buffer  requirements.  Some trees provide better visual buffers.  In addition, he noted that  protection for existing trees is just as important as other provisions.    Tom Kreimer, 772 Jewel Ave N., noted that he worked on the I‐94 Corridor Project.  He  noted that while the landscaping requirements are nice, but distance of the buffer area  reduced.  In addition, he would like to see a 1‐acre lot requirement as opposed to an  alternative.  This would allow a graduation of density.    Todd Ptacek, 812 Julep Ave., noted that the setback for the RE backyard is 100’.  It  should be reasonable to expect a similar standard.  In addition, berming can be  effective, but it has to be quite significant.  In addition, all of the provisions from the  2005 Comp Plan have not been followed.  Finally, large commercial properties do not  include high REC counts.  These commercial developments should be evaluated based  on REC counts.    David Carland, Stonehenge USA, noted that Dale Properties has owned property in the I‐ 94 Corridor for 40 years. Mr. Carland noted that it is the charge of the City to deliver a  development plan that is economically feasible.  In addition, the development  community market is not moving towards 1‐acre lots.    Ifran Ali, 2390 Golf Dr., Woodbury, asked that places of worship be considered as  conditional uses in the commercial and residential districts.    Curt Monteith, 331 Julep Ave., showed a demonstration of what berming would look  like in the rear of his property.  He noted that the buffering issue is an extremely  challenging topic and he hopes that we can work it out.    Wayne Prowse, 697 Julep Ave., noted that the opacity requirements will not work.  In  addition, he is disappointed that the distance requirement has been reduced.  He would  like it to be considered that 1‐acre lots be platted near the sewered residential  development.  Again, he noted that the transition methods from 2005 Comp Plan be  considered.    8    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12  Jay Morreale, 785 Jasmine Ave., noted that there is a market for one‐acre lots in the  Twin Cities.  He added that he felt like the new proposals are not very considerate of the  existing residences.    Vice Chair Fliflet closed the Public Hearing closed at 10:30pm.     Commissioner Fliflet suggested beginning with the request to include religious  institutions in commercial and residential districts.    Commissioner Hall noted that the City has allowed enough opportunity for churches to  be located in Lake Elmo.  Therefore, he would not support this proposal.    Commissioner Fliflet asked where these institutions are currently allowed in the City.    Planning Director Klatt noted that they are only allowed in PF zones, and current  churches had properties rezoned to this designation.  Staff would recommend that we  should revisit this topic at another time.    Administrator Zuleger noted that Staff is trying to provide a fair and equitable policy to  meet development requirements while preserving quality of life for existing residences.  Administrator Zuleger had 5 overall points.  He noted that Staff is trying to work with  buffering requirements while avoiding a land taking.  The second point is that the  market study has shown that there is market feasibility for one‐acre lots, but we have to  explore this.  Administrator Zuleger’s 3rd point is that we need to know our land use to  complete our financial analysis of extending infrastructure.  The 4th point is that the  MOU supercedes the 2005 Comp Plan.  Also, moving the density from 3.5 units per acre  to 2.5 units per acre was a major victory.  Finally, regarding Mr. Monteith’s comments  about a good faith effort, the Planning Commission needs to understand that they have  discretion at the Preliminary Plat stage to address buffering needs.    Commissioner Fliflet moved on to the Trans‐City Investment request.    Commissioner Hall noted that he is concerned about removing that much high density  residential because it would not be consistent with REC needs.    Administrator Zuleger asked if the Trans‐City Investments would be able to expand  under the CUP.    Planning Director Klatt noted that they would not be able to expand.    Commissioner Fliflet thinks it makes no sense to have the Trans‐City Investment parcel  zoned high density residential if they have no intention of halting the current industrial  use of the property.    9    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12  M/S/P, Bloyer/Fliflet, motion to make the Trans‐City Investment parcel BP and swap two  other parcels to High Density Residential, Vote: 6‐0.    Commissioner Obermueller noted that she felt these swaps were not disciplined.    Commissioner Fliflet decided to move the discussion towards the one‐acre buffer idea  for buffering.    Commissioner Haggard asked about whether the current trail plan calls for a greenway  area.    Planning Director Klatt noticed that there is a provision for a greenbelt near the  southern border of the Stonegate neighborhood in the trail plan.    Commissioner Bloyer said that he is opposed to mandating a one‐acre lot solution.    Commissioner Fliflet said that she agrees with the residents that old buffering  requirements have not been honored.  The current proposal does not go far enough to  protect the existing residents.  Regarding the Met Council, Fliflet wants to know what  would be required to make this one‐acre lot scenario work with our MOU numbers.    Mr. Carland noted the market drives the single‐family product line, and the notion that  density can be made up somewhere else is not as simple as moving the border around.    Commissioner Fliflet does not agree that there is no market for one‐acre lots.    Commissioner Haggard asked if there are any other solutions available.    Obermueller noted that design standards can make sure that the development is  attractive.    Mr. Ptacek asked for a distance buffer.    Mr. Carland said that the developer is willing to work for a trail as a buffer solution.    Commissioner Fliflet moved on to opacity.  She does not think the requirements should  include buffering within new residential areas.    Commissioner Hall noted that he believed that the opacity work was done in good faith  to try and satisfy all parties.  He believes that this is a good faith effort by Planning Staff.   In addition, some compromises must be made on both sides.    Planning Director Klatt noted that there are 4 options to resolve this issue.    10    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12  1. Work with the opacity mechanism;  2. Create new zoning district of lower density residential;  3. Create a greenbelt; or  4. Review this at preliminary plat.    Commissioner Fliflet noted that only working through preliminary plat does not provide  the existing residents the appropriate protection.     Administrator Zuleger asked if a greenbelt would work through parkland dedication.    Mr. Carland noted that if you use a greenbelt to buffer, it must have a public trail.    Mr. Prowse noted that he was not happy with a greenbelt solution.     Planning Director Klatt explained the parkland dedication scenario.    Commissioner Obermueller asked who maintains the greenbelt.    M/S/P‐ Fliflet/Pelletier, motion to add a greenbelt area around the Stonegate  neighborhood that would be credited to the developer’s parkland dedication, Vote: 6‐0.    Commissioner Hall amended the motion so that the greenbelt be done in place of  parkland dedication and that it is a desirable amenity.    Klatt explained that the Planning Commission is directing Staff to incorporate the  greenbelt into the Comprehensive Plan. The buffer yard provisions in the code will be  removed.    Administrator Zuleger implored the Commission to consider approving the  Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code with the proposed changes.    Commissioner Haggard felt that LDR should have larger side‐yard setbacks than MDR.    M/S/P – Hall/Bloyer, motion to pass the Comp Plan Amendment with the Greenbelt  provision for the Stonegate neighborhood and zoning change for the parcel owned by  Trans‐City Investments, Vote: 6‐0.    M/S/P – Bloyer/Hall, move to approve the Zoning Code update with Article 6 struck  rom the proposed changes, Vote: 6‐0. f     City Council Updates ‐ None    Staff Updates ‐ None  11  Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐13‐12      C   ommission Concerns ‐ None    Meeting adjourned at 11:46pm.    espectfully submitted,    R   ick Johnson    N    City of Lake Elmo  Planning Commission Meeting  Minutes of August 27, 2012    Chairman Williams called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at  7:00pm.      COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Williams, Bloyer, Obermueller, Haggard, and Fliflet.   COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Hall and Pelletier.  STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Johnson.     Approve Agenda:    There were no objections to the agenda as presented.    Approve Minutes:  None    Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendment, Shoreland Standards (§150.255)    Planner Johnson explained the background information behind the request made by Mr.  Jim Leonard, 3012 Lake Elmo Ave. N., to amend the Lake Elmo City Code to allow for  water‐oriented accessory structures used solely for watercraft storage to occupy up to  400 square feet.  This standard would be consistent with the state statute regarding the  standards for water‐oriented accessory structures.  In addition to the allowance for  structures used for watercraft storage to occupy 400 square feet, the state statute also  recommends a setback of 10’ from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) Mark for water‐ oriented accessory structures.  The Lake Elmo Shoreland Ordinance currently has a 20’  setback from the OHW.    Planner Johnson noted that the DNR did respond for comment regarding the proposed  zoning text amendment.  The DNR Area Hydrologist, Molly Shodeen, noted that the DNR  would not object to such an amendment since it is consistent with the State Statute.  In  addition, Planner Johnson noted that the allowance for structures used for watercraft  storage to occupy 400 square feet only applies to general and recreational development  waterbodies.  In Lake Elmo, the waterbodies that are classified as recreational  development waterbodies are Lake Elmo, Jane, Olson, and DeMontreville.    Commissioner Fliflet asked if water‐oriented accessory structures are allowed on natural  environment lakes.    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐27‐12    2    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐27‐12  Johnson noted that Staff should clarify this fact, but he believes that water‐oriented  structures up to 250 square feet are allowed on natural environment waterbodies.    Providing more background, Planner Johnson noted that research regarding the  adoption of the original Shoreland Ordinance did not reveal why the allowance for 400  square feet structures used for boat storage was not included. IN addition, Staff did  some research regarding the standards of other communities in the Metro Area and  found that some cities are more restrictive, whereas others follow the Model DNR  Shoreland Ordinance to the letter.    Commissioner Fliflet asked whether other types of water‐oriented accessory structures  would be allowed up to 400 square feet.  In addition, what about water‐oriented  structures that serve dual purposes.    Planner Johnson noted that other types of structures would not be allowed up to the  400 square foot size.  In addition, the Planning and Building Department would be  responsible to review building permits related to water‐oriented accessory structures to  ensure that the intent of the Shoreland Ordinance is followed.    Commissioner Bloyer noted that an allowance for better boathouses would beautify the  shoreland areas of the recreational development waterbodies.    Commissioner Haggard asked if there are any standards that govern the design of  water‐oriented accessory structures.      Planner Johnson noted that these structures would be governed by the City Code as it  relates to accessory structures, which requires that the structures match the design of  the primary structure.      Chairman Williams opened the Public Hearing at 7:14pm.     Jim Leonard, 3012 Lake Elmo Ave., spoke about the reasons for his request.  He noted  that his boat is of typical size and could not be stored in a structure of only 250 square  feet.    Chairman Williams closed the Public Hearing at 7:17pm.    Chairman Williams noted that water‐oriented accessory structures are allowed up to 13  feet in height.  In addition, Chairman Williams noted that the Commission should not  address the setback from the OHW mark if notice was not published for a public hearing  regarding this matter.    Commissioner Obermueller noted that a structure height of 13 feet may be too limited  in terms of matching the structure to the primary.   3    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐27‐12  Regarding the pursuing the 10 foot setback standard from the DNR Model Ordinance,  Chairman Williams recommends publishing a new public hearing notice for the Planning  Commission meeting on September 24th at no expense to the applicant.    M/S/P: Fliflet/Haggard, motion to approve the zoning text amendment to come into  conformance with the DNR’s Model Shoreland Ordinance and allow water‐oriented  accessory structures used for boat storage and other accessory boat equipment up to  400 square feet. Vote: 4‐0, Commissioner Bloyer abstained.    Chairman Williams asked the applicant if he would like the City to pursue a zoning text  amendment related to the setback from the OHW mark.    Mr. Leonard confirmed that he would be interested in such a zoning text amendment.    M/S/P: Obermueller/Fliflet, motion to direct Staff to prepare a zoning text amendment  and hold a public hearing for a change of the Shoreland Ordinance from a setback of 20  feet from the OHW mark to 10 feet.  Vote: 4‐0, Commissioner Bloyer abstained.    Business Item: Design Standards Case Studies and Discussion    Planner Johnson presented the basics of design guidelines and standards, as well as  what attributes are commonly found in effective design standards.  He also noted that it  is important that the design standards reflect an agreed upon set of community goals  that pertain to site and building design.    Planner Johnson went on to describe how design standards are generally applied.  These  standards typically applied to specific geographic areas, or specific types of land uses,  such as commercial or high density residential development.  In addition, design  guidelines are written in two forms: manuals or straight into the City Code.    Chairman Williams asked about the advantages of creating a design guideline manual vs.  writing these standards directly into the code.    Planner Johnson noted that manuals allow the city to use pictures and visual examples  of the types of development the City would like to pursue.  Regarding codified  standards, there may be some advantage in terms of simplicity of inserting the  guidelines directly into the Zoning Ordinance.    Moving on, Planner Johnson described the four case studies included in the  presentation: Eden Prairie Town Center Design Guidelines, Oak Park Design Guidelines,  City of Wayzata Design Standards, and Camp Phillips Business Campus Design  Guidelines.  Finally, Planner Johnson noted that Staff is looking for direction in terms of  defining priorities as they relate to design standards.    4    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐27‐12  Chairman Williams noted that it may be helpful for the Planning Commission to view  some videos by Randall Arendt regarding design and site planning.  He also noted that  we should consider design standards in the context of open field or “blank slate”  development.    Commissioner Haggard wanted to ensure that the design standards applied to  redevelopment in addition to Greenfield development.  Also, she noted that she liked  how the Eden Prairie Design Guidelines always began each standard with a goal, thereby  communicating the purpose to the development community.    Commissioner Obermueller asked how complete streets programs can be incorporated  into design guidelines.    Planner Johnson noted that complete streets programs are intended to be a policy  decision for public bodies to incorporate more pedestrian amenities and multi‐modal  transportation infrastructure into public streets.    Commissioner Haggard asked about the difference between using the terms mandatory  and encouraged within design guidelines.    Planner Johnson noted that mandatory elements are those which are not negotiable  and have more teeth.  Typically, the encouraged elements are more architectural and  subjective in nature.    Chairman Williams suggested that standards for consistent signage for commercial  development in the I‐94 Corridor should be implemented.  This would prevent negative  effects of piecemeal commercial development.  In addition, the City should require that  larger sites are developed contiguously with a uniformity of building design.    Commissioner Haggard noted that shared parking sounds like a good idea, as well as  keeping parking to the rear of structures when possible.         Planner Johnson reiterated that Staff is looking for direction regarding priorities for  design guidelines, as well as whether they should be in code or manual form.     Commissioner Bloyer suggested that the priorities for instituting design guidelines  should be commercial and high density residential development.    Commissioner Haggard noted that however the design guidelines are constructed, they  should be layered so that these different development types relate to one another.    Chairman Williams noted that the City of Lake should concentrate on commercial and  high density residential development.  He does not see any utility in applying detailed  5    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐27‐12  design guidelines to single family residential development.  There is enough work to be  done with the higher impact uses than single family residential.    Commissioner Haggard noted that standards for streets may be helpful.    Planner Johnson noted that the City of Eden Prairie had guidelines for public utilities,  such as storm water management systems.  This may be an approach that the City  should pursue further down the road.     Business Item: Village Planning Update    Planner Johnson made a brief presentation highlighting two updates regarding the  Village Area planning process.  First, the Village Work Group officially endorsed a land  use plan to move forward in the planning process.  Second, Staff is considering including  an amendment to the City’s Municipal Urban Service (MUSA) boundary.  This boundary  indicates where the City intends to provide sewer and water service.    Regarding the Village Land Use Map, there are four major features.  First, there is a  greenbelt surrounding the Village Area.  Staff is working with the Minnesota Land Trust  on furthering this project.  Second, there is a Village Center‐ Mixed Use area, intended  to serve as the downtown development area.  Third, the areas surrounding downtown  have been guided for medium and low density residential development.  Fourth, the  plan shows the City’s intention to provide a regional recreation facility in the Village  Area to the East of downtown.    Chairman Williams asked about storm water management for the Village Area, as well  as working with the railroad.    Planner Johnson noted that it would benefit the Village Area to work with developers  who are interested in developing on a larger scale because it is easier to construct a  regional retention system with one or two partners as opposed to many different  developers.  Regarding the railroad, the City needs to complete further engagement to  work with them on the Village Pkwy crossing.     Commissioner Fliflet noted that this plan needs to incorporate strategies related to safe  pedestrian crossings of HWY 5.    Planner Johnson noted that such strategies should be included as a priority in the  Comprehensive Plan.    Commissioner Haggard asked what the City needs to do to ensure that the downtown  village green concept is accomplished in the best location possible.    6    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐27‐12  Planner Johnson noted that if the City Council decides that this downtown concept is a  priority, that it would be wise to acquire the property that would make it a reality.    Moving on, Planner Johnson made an update regarding a potential MUSA boundary  amendment.  This amendment will proceed with the Village Land Use Comp Plan  Amendment process.    Commissioner Bloyer noted that some residents south of 30th St. are interested in  connecting to sewer.    Chairman Williams noted that if some new parcels are added to MUSA area, the zoning  of these properties should not change.      City Council Updates    Authorization of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Adjacent Community Review  –  City Council authorized the distribution of the proposed Comprehensive Plan  Amendment related to the I‐94 Land Use plan and Housing sections for our adjacent  communities and jurisdictions to officially review the City’s proposed plans.    Zoning Ordinance Updates Approved ‐ The City Council did pass the proposed Zoning  Ordinance updates for the zoning districts related to the I‐94 Corridor.  However, the  City Council still has to approve a formal ordinance to adopt the proposed changes to  the Zoning Code.    Farm School Concept Plan Extension ‐ Finally, Tammy Malmquist submitted a request for  an extension on the review of the concept plan for her development proposal.    Commissioner Obermueller noted that this project is currently listed as a City project on  the City’s website.  She believes that this should not be listed as a City project.    Staff Updates    Commissioner Joan Ziertman Resignation – Commissioner Ziertman submitted a letter of  resignation from the Planning Commission.  She served for 3.5 years and the City would  like to thank her for her service.    Planning Commission Meetings 9/10 and 9/24 – Upcoming meetings for the Planning  Commission will include updates to the construction of design standards, as well as the  Village Comprehensive Plan Amendment.  In addition, the Planning Commission will  hold another public hearing related to a zoning text amendment for Shoreland  Standards.    7    Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 8‐27‐12  Commission Concerns ‐ None     Adjournment at 9:16pm      Respectfully submitted,      Nick Johnson  City Planner                                          Planning Commission Date: 9/10/12 Item: 4a Public Hearing ITEM: Grading Permit and Conditional Use Permit – Gatsby Investors, LLC for 9242 Hudson Boulevard North SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Nick Johnson, City Planner Ryan Stempski, City Engineer _________________________________________ SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to review a land use application from Joe Heinen, Gatsby Investors I, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit to conduct a substantial grading project at 9242 Hudson Boulevard North. The proposed grading project would allow the expansion of the ski and snowboard demonstration area currently used by Summit Ski and Board Shop for outfitting customers, training, demonstrations, and marketing and promotional events. A conditional use permit is required for the grading because it would involve the moving of over 400 cubic yards of material per acre on this site. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached Staff report includes a more detailed summary of the request, a brief review of the site, along with a set of initial review comments. Staff has determined that there are certain aspects of the proposed grading plans that will not conform to the City’s requirements and that will require further revisions to the plans. In order to give the applicant some additional time to address these comments, Staff is recommending that the Commission table taking action on this item and that it come back before the Commission once the identified issues have been addressed. RECCOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table the request from Gatsby Investors I, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit to conduct a substantial grading project at 9242 Hudson Boulevard North until such time that the plans are revised to address the Staff comments that require resubmittal. PULIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM 2 PULIC HEARING ITEM 4a – ACTION ITEM ATTACHMENTS: 1. Detailed Staff Report 2. Land Use Application 3. Applicant Response to Initial City Comments 4. City Engineer Review 5. South Washington Watershed District Comments 6. Location Map 7. Grading and Erosion Control Plans ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ...................................................................................Planning Staff - Report by Staff ..............................................................................Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ....................... Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing ............................................................................. Chair - Close the Public Hearing ............................................................................ Chair - Discussion by the Commission ......................... Chair & Commission Members - Action by the Commission................................ Chair & Commission Members City of Lake Elmo Planning Department Conditional Use Permit Request To: Planning Commission From: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Meeting Date: September 10, 2012 Applicant: Joe Heinen, Gatsby Investors I, LLC (Alan Dale, Dale Properties, LLC as co- applicant) Owner: Gatsby Investors I, LLC and Dale Properties, LLC Location: 9242 Hudson Boulevard North Zoning: HD-GB-SRD and HD-RR-SRD Introductory Information Application Summary: The City of Lake Elmo has received a request from Joe Heinen, Gatsby Investors I, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit to conduct a substantial grading project at 9242 Hudson Boulevard North. The proposed grading project would allow the expansion of the ski and snowboard demonstration area currently used by Summit Ski and Board Shop for outfitting customers, training, demonstrations, and marketing and promotional events. A conditional use permit is required for the grading because it would involve the moving of over 400 cubic yards of material per acre on this site. The proposed grading project would extend across the northern portion of the Gatsby Investors I, LLC property; therefore, the adjacent property owner has been required to co-sign the application and has furthermore expressed their support for this project as proposed. Property Information: The project site is located roughly midway between Keats and Inwood Avenue along Hudson Boulevard North. There are three properties in this location that are zoned General Business, with the applicant’s property situated at the far eastern edge of the commercial-zoned area. According to City records, the building that is presently on the site was initially constructed in the early 1970’s, with a series of additions and remodels in the subsequent period of time that have resulted in the present facility. There are five tenants currently in this building, including Hot Springs Portable Spas, Heritage Hous beauty salon, Home Essentials seasonal boutique, the Skills Sports Training facility, and the Summit Boardshop. As part of its business, the Summit Boardshop operates an indoor skate park and demonstration area in addition to a small outdoor ski hill in the rear portion of the lot for equipment testing and demonstrations. The proposed grading project would expand this existing ski hill substantially in size, both in terms of the area used for the hill and the height of the hill. The current hill is approximately 25 feet higher than the CUP Request; 9242 Hudson Blvd. N Planning Commission Report; 9/10/12 grade at which the building has been built, while the proposed grading would allow the construction of a hill that is 60 feet higher than the base of the building. The adjacent property to the west and north is presently owned by Dale Properties, and is vacant except for narrow strips of land that are used the motorized hang gliders stored in a building on the next parcel over. All of this property is presently guided for sewered residential use in the Comprehensive Plan; however, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of a revised land use plan that would change the future land use for most of this property to Commercial. In the interim, the City has adopted a holding district designation for all properties to be served by public sanitary sewer, and these holding districts allow for the continued use and development of property in accordance with the current zoning (which in this case is either General Business or Rural Residential). The area that will be impacted by the proposed grading project is currently vacant with the exception of some larger trees along and near the western property line and a gas line easement that cuts diagonally across the Dale Properties land. The attached existing conditions, site, and grading plans illustrate the location of this easement, and the limits of the grading project will extend to this line. In reviewing the City’s past approval of projects associated with the applicant’s site, there are a few issues that warrant further investigation but that are not directly related to the present request. These issues include the following: • At the time of the last major expansion of the building at 9242 Hudson Boulevard North, the City allowed the construction of fewer parking stalls required by the code and as shown on the approved site plan. 51 parking spaces were deemed to be the minimum number required, 40 were authorized to be constructed, and 48 were reserved for future use. Sometime since the 1986 expansion, the parking lot has been expanded with the addition of a crushed rock area so that there are now roughly 49 paved stalls and 48 unpaved stalls on the property. The City code requires all commercial parking lots to be paved, which means the crushed rock area should either be removed or paved in accordance with the approved site plan. • The building is situated with a non-conforming setback of only 4.2 feet from the eastern property line. There is an area that appears to now be used for loading and unloading, parking, and general access over the property line in this area. Because this area is not part of the business site and there is no allowance for additional parking or access on the approved site plan, the continued use of this area by the businesses at 9242 Hudson Boulevard North should cease. • There are review comments in the City’s files from the South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) related to a 2005 project that do not appear to have ever been implemented. Any future parking lot work should either address these comments or will need to be handled as part of a new permit from the Watershed District. Please note that the current CUP/Grading request does require permit from SWWD and will be noted as a condition of approval. S:\City Council\Planning Commission\Packets\2012\9-10-12\Rep PZ Summit Boord Shop Grading CUP 9-10-12.docx Page 2 CUP Request; 9242 Hudson Blvd. N Planning Commission Report; 9/10/12 Applicable Codes: Section 154.018 Administration. Conditional Use Permits. Outlines the general requirements for all conditionally permitted uses in Lake Elmo. Section 151.017 Excavating and Grading Permits. States that “no person shall undertake, authorize, or permit any of the following actions without first having obtained a grading and excavating permit from the city”, which list the following among these actions: “Grading and excavating plans that result in the moving of 400 cubic yards of material per acre require a public hearing and approval of the City Council”. Staff has recommended that the permit be reviewed as a Conditional Use and follow the hearing procedures for a CUP. Findings & General Site Overview Site Data: Lot Size: 5.16 acres plus approximately 4 acres of the Dale Properties parcel Existing Use: General Commercial and Retail Existing Zoning: GB – General Business and RR – Rural Residential (Dale Properties) Property Identification Numbers (PID): 34.029.21.34.0004 and 34.029.21.34.0003 (Dale Properties) Application Review: CUP/Grading Review: The applicant has submitted a series of plans intended to comply with the City’s grading and erosion control standards. Due to the more technical nature of this review, the City’s Engineer has spent a fair amount of time reviewing these plans, which ultimately led to several revisions and updates in order to bring the plans into conformance with the City’s application requirements. Given the scope of this project, Staff has broken down its review into two parts: comments that are more general in nature and those that are specific to the City’s grading and excavation requirements. Please note that based on the information submitted to date, Staff is not recommending approval of the project, and instead is recommending that the Planning Commission table taking action on this request in order to give the applicant time to address those comments that will very likely require revisions to the plans. Other comments and concerns that will not require any plan revisions may be addresses as conditions approval when this item comes back before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission could also consider taking action to recommend approval or denial of the request at its meeting as long as it adopts findings of fact to support its decision. Generally, Staff would like to note the following concerns with the project as proposed: • The proposed grading would result in a large hill that is 35 feet higher than the one presently on the property. The final grades and hill will be visible from S:\City Council\Planning Commission\Packets\2012\9-10-12\Rep PZ Summit Boord Shop Grading CUP 9-10-12.docx Page 3 CUP Request; 9242 Hudson Blvd. N Planning Commission Report; 9/10/12 not only immediately adjacent parcels, but those that are further away as well. • There is an existing gas line than crosses the Dale Properties parcel, and the applicant is proposing to grade within the easement for this pipeline. Written approval from the easement holder must be provided to the City before any grading will be allowed in this location. • There are a number of trees that will be removed due to the grading. The applicant has submitted a Tree Inventory Plan that indicates 22.7% of the trees will be saved. Staff is recommending that some of the trees lost be replaced in order to better bring the project into conformance with the City’s grading permit standards. • Because the ski hill is considered accessory to the permitted retail uses on the property, all access to the hill and demonstration area should be through the existing building. Staff is not recommending that direct access from the exterior of the building be allowed as a condition of approval. • The watershed district has not yet received plans for review, and the proposed grading project will require a permit from the South Washington Watershed District. The City Engineer has asked that the applicant provide documentation that this permit has been secured before any construction is allowed on the site, and any changes to the site plan approved by the City as a result of the watershed district review will need to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. In addition to the general comments noted above, the City Engineer has submitted his detailed review in the form of the attached letter. The two most significant issued identified in this letter are as follows: • The proposed grading would extend into the current drain field for the property. The applicant either needs to remove any grading from this portion of the site or develop an alternative that provides for a treatment area on the site that meets current County requirements. • Access to the proposed ponding area has been requested by the City Engineer but is not shown on the attached plans. This access is critical in order to properly maintain the storm water pond. Other comments concerning these issues in particular may be found in the Engineer’s report under the heading “Engineering review comments requiring resubmittal”. The other portion of the Engineer’s review includes additional comments that could be addressed as conditions of approval once revised plans have been submitted. This list includes requirements specific to the storm water pond and maintenance of this pond, permit approvals from SWWD, Pollution Control Agency permits, tree preservation and replacement plans, and the gas pipeline. Once a revised plan is submitted, Staff will provide the Planning Commission with a more throughout review of the project’s conformance with the City’s grading and excavating standards. These standards were ultimately used by the City Engineer in S:\City Council\Planning Commission\Packets\2012\9-10-12\Rep PZ Summit Boord Shop Grading CUP 9-10-12.docx Page 4 CUP Request; 9242 Hudson Blvd. N Planning Commission Report; 9/10/12 conducting his review. Conditional Use Permit Conclusions: Based on the above analysis and Staff review, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table taking action on the request by Gatsby Investors I, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit to conduct a substantial grading project at 9242 Hudson Boulevard North, based on the following: 1. The plans as submitted require revisions in order to address concerns that: a. The grading as proposed would impact the current subsurface treatment system on the property; and b. The applicant has not provided access for maintenance purposes to the proposed storm water pond. Resident Concerns: A public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property. Staff has not received any feedback from any surrounding property owners. Additional Information: The attached letter from the South Washington Watershed District indicates that a watershed district permit is required for the prokect. Conclusion: The applicant is seeking approval to conduct a substantial grading project at 9242 Hudson Boulevard North. Commission Options: The Planning Commission has the following options: A) Table taking action on this request until revisions to the plans area completed in accordance with the City’s review comments.. B) Recommend approval of the request with findings of fact to support this motion. C) Recommend denial of the request with findings of fact to support this motion The 60-day review period for this application expires on 10/21/12, but can be extended an additional 60 days if more time is needed. Staff Rec: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table the request from Joe Heinen, Gatsby Investors I, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit to conduct a substantial grading project at 9242 Hudson Boulevard North S:\City Council\Planning Commission\Packets\2012\9-10-12\Rep PZ Summit Boord Shop Grading CUP 9-10-12.docx Page 5 CUP Request; 9242 Hudson Blvd. N Planning Commission Report; 9/10/12 S:\City Council\Planning Commission\Packets\2012\9-10-12\Rep PZ Summit Boord Shop Grading CUP 9-10-12.docx Page 6 cc: Joe Heinen, Gatsby Investors I, LLC Alan Dale, Dale Properties, LLC LAKE ELMO SITE TREE INVENTORY PT. NO.TREE TYPEELEV.SIZESIZESIZESIZESIZETOTALSAVEREMOVE 19846BOXELDER1018.1699X 19847BOXELDER1018.371010X 19848APPLE1018.1988X 19849APPLE1018.1266X 19850BOXELDER1017.8299X 19851BOXELDER1017.7677X 19852ELM1017.741414X 19853BOXELDER1017.6966X 19854BOXELDER1020.881010X 19855BOXELDER1016.521111X 19856POPLAR1016.2588X 19857BOXELDER1017.3766X 19858POPLAR1017.1366X 19859BOXELDER1017.2066X 19860BOXELDER1017.291010X 19861POPLAR1018.0966X 19862BOXELDER1017.6566X 19863POPLAR1017.3466X 19864POPLAR1017.3166X 19865BOXELDER1018.1599X 19866BOXELDER1018.4866X 19867POPLAR1017.1866X 19868POPLAR1017.0966X 19869POPLAR1016.4788X 19870POPLAR1016.5366X 19871POPLAR1016.3788X 19872POPLAR1016.5077X 19873BOXELDER1017.16101020X 19874POPLAR1018.3977X 19875POPLAR1017.6977X 19876POPLAR1018.0266X 19877POPLAR1018.1266X 19878POPLAR1018.2966X 19879POPLAR1017.7277X 19880POPLAR1018.2199X 19881POPLAR1017.9877X 19882POPLAR1017.8977X 19883CHERRY1020.5199X 19884CHERRY1020.5388X 19893OAK1019.0388X 19894BOXELDER1019.1766X 19895BOXELDER 1/2 DEAD1019.421010X 19896POPLAR1019.1566X 19897POPLAR1019.2199X 19898POPLAR1019.1788X 19899POPLAR1019.3666X 19900POPLAR1019.2688X 19901POPLAR1019.6888X 19902POPLAR1019.4266X 19903POPLAR1019.5066X 19904OAK1019.6166X 19905POPLAR1019.5188X 19906POPLAR1019.8166X 19907POPLAR1019.7277X 19908POPLAR1019.6866X 19909POPLAR1020.2688X 19910POPLAR1020.3477X 19913OAK1019.681515X 19914OAK1019.39151631X 19915OAK1019.421515X 19916OAK1019.60181533X 19917OAK1020.181010X 19918OAK1020.1388X 19919OAK1020.2088X 19920CHERRY1019.7188X 19921BOXELDER1019.64171027X 19922BOXELDER1018.6977X 19925BOXELDER1019.481010X 19926OAK1019.501010X 19927BOXELDER1018.4277X 19928OAK1018.8919191856X 19930CHERRY1019.259817X 19931OAK1018.811616X 19934OAK1018.992020X 19935OAK1019.32141327X 19936OAK1019.943333X 19938OAK1022.61171027X 19939BOXELDER1022.0266X 19940CHERRY1022.411111X 19941OAK1021.2688X 19942COTTONWOOD1021.081111X 19943OAK1022.5766X 19944OAK1023.0988X 19945BOXELDER1022.501313X 19946OAK1022.681717X 19947BOXELDER1023.10171431X 19948OAK1023.4966X 19950BOXELDER1024.916511X 19951OAK1025.1266X 19952BOXELDER1025.3177X 19953BOXELDER1026.258877636X 19954BOXELDER1026.171313X 19955BOXELDER1026.3511718X 19956MAPLE1005.572323X TOTAL CALIPER INCHES1050 TOTAL CALIPER INCHES SAVED238 TOTAL CALIPER INCHES REMOVED812 PERCENTAGE OF TREES SAVED22.7%6/20/2012 We hereby certify that this is a true and correct survey of the above described property and that it was performed by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. That this survey does not purport to show all improvements, easements or encroachments to the property except as shown thereon. Signed this 16th day of March, 2012 For: James R. Hill, Inc. By: _________________________________________________ Harold C. Peterson, Land Surveyor, MN License No. 12294 NOT ES ORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTE M ASSUM ES THE SOUT H LINE O F THE E 1/2 OF T HE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 34, T. 29, R. 21 TO BEAR S 89°53 '5 7" W . THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT BE NEF IT OF A T IT LE COM M ITM E NT OR T IT LE OPINION. A T ITLE SEARCH FOR RECORDED OR UNRECOR DED E ASEM ENT S W HICH M AY BENEFIT OR ENCUMBER THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED BY THE SURVEYOR . THE LOCATION AND INFORMATION SHOWN REGARDING UTILITIES, SERVING THIS PROPERTY OR EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY AS SHOWN AS A PART OF THIS SURVE Y, HAVE B E EN LOCATED BY ON-SITE OBSER VAT ION OR T AKEN FR OM PLANS PR OVIDE D B Y OT HE RS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONC ER NING T HE SE UT IL IT IES PLE ASE C ONTAC T THE C IT Y OF LA KE E LMO ENG INE E R IN G DE PART ME NT AND/OR GOPHE R STAT E ONE CA LL. C ONTOUR INTE RVA L IS 1 FEE T. AL L E LE V AT IONS AR E BASE D ON T HE C ITY OF LAK E E LM O DATUM. (NG VD 29) PARCEL A: GROSS ARE A = 224,776 SQUARE FE ET OR 5.1601 AC RE S PAR CE L A: R IGHT OF WAY ARE A = 24,975 SQUARE FEE T OR 0.5733 AC RE S PARCEL A: NET AREA = 199,801 SQUARE FE ET OR 4.5868 AC RE S PARCEL B: GROSS ARE A = 174,771 SQUARE FE ET OR 4.0122 AC RE S T OTA L OVE RA LL GR OSS AR EA = 399,547 SQUAR E FE ET OR 9.1723 ACR ES TOTA L NE T ARE A = 3 74,572 SQUARE FEE T OR 8.5990 AC RE S ADDRESS OF PARC E L A IS 9242 HUDSON B OULE VARD, LAKE E L MO, M INNE SOTA 550 42 PARCEL A PID NUMBER = 34.029.21.34.0004 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The South 675 feet of the W est 333 feet of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter o f Section 34, Township 29, Range 21, W ashington County, Minnesota. TOGETHER W ITH That part of Southeast Q uarter of th e Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 29, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Be ginnin g at the southwe st corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; then ce No rth 00 degrees 02 minutes 55 se conds East, assumed be aring along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1318.69 feet to the northwest corn er of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; t hence No rth 89 de grees 5 5 minutes 22 seconds East, along the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 173.46 fe et; thence South 16 degre es 08 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 750.83 feet; thence North 89 d egre es 57 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 49.90 feet t o the east line of the West 333 feet of the East Half of the Southwest Quart er of said Section 34; thence South 00 degrees 02 minutes 55 seconds W est, alon g said east line, a distanc e of 597.17 feet to the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Qu arter; then ce South 89 degrees 53 minutes 57 se conds, alon g said south line, a distance o f 333.00 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT the South 675 feet of the West 333 fe et of the East Half o f the Southwest Quarter of Secti on 34, Township 29, Range 21, W ashington County, Minnesota. NOTES ORIENT AT ION OF TH IS BEAR ING SYST EM ASSUMES THE SOUT H LINE OF T HE E 1/2 OF T HE SW 1/4 OF SEC. 34, T. 29, R. 21 TO BEAR S 89°53'57" W. THIS SURVE Y HAS BE EN PRE PARED WIT HOUT BE NEF IT OF A T IT LE C OMM IT ME NT OR T IT LE OPINION. A TIT LE SE ARC H FOR REC ORDE D OR UNRE COR DED E ASE ME NTS WH ICH M AY BENEFIT OR ENCUMBER THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT BEE N COM P LET ED BY TH E SUR VEYOR . THE LOCATION AND INFORM AT ION SHOW N RE GAR DING UT ILIT IES, SE RV ING THIS PROPE RT Y OR EXIST ING ON TH IS PROPE RT Y AS SHOWN AS A PAR T OF THIS SUR VEY, HA VE B E EN LOCATED BY ON-S IT E OBSER VATIO N OR TAKE N FR OM PLANS PROV IDE D BY OTHE RS. FOR FUR THE R IN FOR MAT ION CONC ERN ING T H ESE UT IL IT IES PLE ASE CONT ACT T HE C IT Y OF LAKE E LM O E NG INE E R IN G DE PAR TM ENT AND/OR GOPHE R STATE ONE C AL L. PARC EL A: GR OSS ARE A = 224,776 SQUAR E FEE T OR 5.1601 AC RE S PARC EL A: R IGHT OF WAY ARE A = 24,975 SQUARE FEE T OR 0.5733 ACR ES PARC EL A: NE T AR E A = 199,801 SQUAR E FEE T OR 4.5868 AC RE S PARC EL B: GR OSS ARE A = 174,771 SQUAR E FEE T OR 4.0122 AC RE S TOT AL OVER AL L GR OSS AR EA = 399,547 SQUARE FE ET OR 9.1723 AC RE S TOT AL NET AR EA = 3 74,572 SQUAR E FE ET OR 8.5990 AC RE S ADDRE SS OF PARC E L A IS 9242 HUDSON BOU LEVARD, LAKE E L MO, M INNESOT A 550 42 PARC EL A P ID NUM BE R = 34.029.21.34.0004 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The South 675 feet of the W est 333 feet of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter o f Section 34, Township 29, Range 21, W ashington County, Minnesota. TOGETHER W ITH That part of Southeast Q uarter of th e Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 29, Range 21, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Be ginnin g at the southwe st corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; then ce No rth 00 degrees 02 minutes 55 se conds East, assumed be aring along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1318.69 feet to the northwest corn er of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; t hence No rth 89 de grees 5 5 minutes 22 seconds East, along the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 173.46 fe et; thence South 16 degre es 08 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 750.83 feet; thence North 89 d egre es 57 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 49.90 feet t o the east line of the West 333 feet of the East Half of the Southwest Quart er of said Section 34; thence South 00 degrees 02 minutes 55 seconds W est, alon g said east line, a distanc e of 597.17 feet to the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Qu arter; then ce South 89 degrees 53 minutes 57 se conds, alon g said south line, a distance o f 333.00 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT the South 675 feet of the West 333 fe et of the East Half o f the Southwest Quarter of Secti on 34, Township 29, Range 21, W ashington County, Minnesota. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signed this 2nd day of August, 2012 For: James R. Hill, Inc. By: _________________________________________________ Harold C. Peterson, Land Surveyor, MN License No. 12294 PONDING EASE MEN T A ponding easement ove r, under and across th at part of Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarte r of Section 34, Township 29, Range 21, W ashington C ounty, Mi nnesota, described as follows: C ommencing at the northwest corne r of said South east Quart er of the South west Quarte r; thence Sou th 46 degrees 49 minutes 11 seconds East, assum ing the north line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter bears North 89 degre es 55 minutes 22 seconds East, a di stance of 58.64 feet to the point of beginnin g of the easement to be de scribed; thence North 85 degree s 14 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 12.48 feet; t hence South 85 de gre es 13 minutes 19 seconds Ea st a distance of 30.68 feet; thence South 78 degre es 37 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 32.56 fe et; thence South 88 degre es 51 minutes 01 second East a distance of 7.38 feet; thence South 12 de gree s 54 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 79.09 feet; t hence South 17 de gre es 13 minutes 49 seconds Ea st a distance of 64.21 feet ; thence South 33 degre es 54 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 22.50 fe et; thence South 29 degre es 01 minute 31 seconds East a distance of 52.72 feet ; thence South 21 degre es 06 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 64.08 feet; t hence South 34 de gre es 18 minutes 16 seconds Ea st a distance of 29.56 feet; thence South 27 degre es 25 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 22.32 fe et; thence South 31 degre es 17 minutes 57 seconds East a distance of 25.5 6 fe et; thence South 27 degre es 43 minutes 36 seconds East a distance o f 13.52 feet; thence South 23 de grees 09 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 24.38 feet; thenc e South 05 degrees 22 minutes 15 se conds East a distance of 12.97 feet; thence South 18 degrees 25 minutes 12 se conds West a distanc e of 7.20 feet; thence South 49 degrees 42 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 7.76 feet; then ce N ort h 88 degrees 51 minutes 12 seconds W est a distance of 12.65 feet; thenc e North 50 degrees 31 minute s 48 seconds W est a distance of 52.58 feet; thence South 88 degrees 22 minutes 04 seconds West a distance of 107.92 feet; thence South 60 degrees 49 minutes 34 seconds W est a distance of 83.13 feet; thenc e South 30 degrees 38 minut es 07 seconds West a distance of 7.52 feet; thence South 00 degre es 45 minutes 24 seconds W est a distance of 61.08 feet ; thence South 81 degre es 09 minutes 19 seconds W est a distance of 6.40 feet; thence North 24 de grees 44 minutes 35 seconds W est a distance of 5.03 fe et; t hence No rth 05 de grees 2 9 minutes 04 seconds East a distance of 7.81 feet; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 50.56 feet; thence North 03 d egre es 47 minutes 58 seconds W est a distance of 11.11 feet; thence North 07 de grees 22 minutes 48 seconds West a distance of 17.4 4 feet; thence North 00 de grees 02 minutes 55 second s East a distance o f 135.55 feet; thenc e North 19 de grees 51 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 8.85 feet; thenc e North 00 degrees 02 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 115.75 feet; thence North 25 degrees 02 minutes 12 seconds East a distance of 10.94 feet; thence North 08 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East a distanc e o f 9.56 feet; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 35.91 feet; thenc e North 25 degrees 51 minute s 39 seconds East a distance of 13.50 feet; then ce No rth 00 degrees 22 minutes 03 seconds East a distanc e of 21.52 feet; thence North 07 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds East a distanc e o f 35.15 feet to the point of be ginning.