HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ 9.24.07 PacketLAK E City of Lake Elmo
A
EL rri ILI 3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042
(651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615
WwwlakeEl
LM0
NOTICE OF MEETING
The City of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission will conduct a meeting ®n
Monday, September 24, 2007, at 7.- 00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Minutes
a. August 13, 2007
4. Public Hearings:
a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Application from HAIRitage 'Hous to allow
therapeutic massage as a component of the full service salon currently located
at 9242 Hudson Boulevard, Suite 3; HD-GB-SRD zoning; PID 34-029-21-34-
0004.
b. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT: Application from the Carmelite
Monastery to amend the approved Master Plan for the site to add an accessory
structure; PF zoning; PID 09-029-21-12-0001.
c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Application from Common Grounds Church
to establish a CUP for the church and add the keeping of horses for operation
of the "Hoof Prints" ministry; PF zoning; PID 14-029-21-32-0024. —
Recommended for tabling
d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT and VARIANCE:
Application from E&E Properties LLC to allow enlargement of the existing
bus parking lot and the addition of a car parking lot for employee vehicles at
11530 Hudson Boulevard North. A variance is also requested to allow more
than 4% of the land to be utilized by the existing "non-agricultural low impact
use;" HD -A -BP zoning; PID 36-029-21-43-0001.
5. Business Items:
a. None.
6. Informational Items:
a. City Council Updates
i. September 18 — Pool Barrier ordinance
b. City website update
7. Adj ourn
DRAFT
It of Lake Elmo
Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes of August 13, 2007
Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at
7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ptacek, Schneider, Deziel, Roth, Lyzenga,
Van Zandt, Fliflet, Armstrong and Flelwig. STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Gozola
and Planner Matzek.
Agenda
M/S/P, Deziel/Lyzenga to accept the Agenda as presented. Vote: 9:0.
Minutes
None.
Public Hearing: Zoning Code Text Amendment; Sexually Oriented Businesses
Senior Planner Gozola introduced a draft sexually oriented uses ordinance. He explained
this ordinance is very similar to the one reviewed by the commission last fall. He said
cities are legally required to provide a space in the city for sexually oriented businesses,
with the exception of live performances if a city is within 50 miles of such a facility. The
proposed ordinance uses 1350 foot buffers around school property, church properties,
public spaces, and all residential areas to identify a proper location for sexually oriented
businesses. The buffers are intended to reduce the negative impacts. The 1350 foot
buffer reduces the potential location to two properties in the city. By adding the
requirement that the use be allowed only in the Business Park zoning district, the options
are reduced to one location in Lake Elmo.
Commissioner Fliflet asked if the city was required to provide a certain sized parcel.
Senior Planner Gozola said the city is only responsible for creating a location where it
would be permitted by city code and not for ensuring that the size or covenants, if there
are any, allow that use on site.
Commissioner Schneider asked if the parcel would be covered by the Eagle Point
Business Park Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Senior Planner Gozola said it would.
Commissioner Fliflet asked if there was anything precluding the city's ability to identify
a site that is already being used for another business.
Senior Planner Gozola said that if it can be done objectively, a parcel that already has a
use on it may be identified as an appropriate location.
Commissioner Armstrong asked if other cities had used the 1350 foot setback.
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes — August 13, 2007
Z�
MOMI
Senior Planner Gozola said that communities have to look at the land uses and identify
what is appropriate in each city.
No one spoke.
Commissioner Armstrong said the office park would need to come in and have their CUP
amended and. would need to want to sell their property to that type of business,
Commissioner Fliflet asked if this ordinance could be challenged.
M/S/P, Roth/Van Zandt, motion to recommend approval of the ordinance as presented.
Vote: 9:0.
City Council Updates
Planner Matzek said the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) submitted a draft
comprehensive plan amendment for the Lake Elmo Airport. At the August 7 Ih City
Council meeting a response was approved to be sent to MAC.
Senior Planner Gozola said that although it was not required, an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was done for the sewer line. At the August 7'h Council
meeting, the City Council approved that no further environmental review was needed as
identified in the results of the EAW. Senior Planner Gozola went on to identify
upcoming planning commission items: pool covers, Mencke variance, LCD billboards.
The city is looking to hire a full time planning director.
Adjourned at 7:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelli Matzek
Planner
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes — August 13, 2007
Planning Commissio
Date: 9/24/07
REGULAR
Item: 4a
ITEM: Hold apublic hearing and consider arequest toallow therapeutic massage ame
conditionally permitted use at HA|Ritage'Hous located at 9242 Hudson
Boulevard, Suite 3.
REQUESTED BY: Babette Cernohouseand Todd Cernohoua.Business Owner
SUBMITTED BY: KeUiMetzak'City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Susan HoACity Administrator
Ben Gozo|a.Senior Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The planning commission is being asked to hold apublic hearing, take comment and make a
recommendation Vnorequest for aconditional use permit for massage services etthe HA|Rbaoe
'Hous Salon. Unlike ewahanom.inthe case ofaonndNVna|use ponnd,�the app}�antproves
-
that heorshe meets the five criteria for granting aconditional use permit, the planning
commission must recommend approval ofthe CUP. The staff report describes how the five
criteria are met and the staff recommends approval ofthe CUP.
The five criteria include:
\ 1. Effects outhe health, safety, morals, convenience, o«general welfare o[surrounding lands.
2. Iruffio8cParking conditions.
I Effects ouutility and school capacities.
4. Effect ouproperty values ofsurrounding lands.
`
5. Effect ofthe proposed use oothe Comprehensive Plan.
Please see the attached full staff report for the conditional use permit criteria analysis.
• The multi -tenant building in which HA|Rkage 'House is located is used for general
business purposes.
w The property has previously been allowing nnaeoaQe therapists to perform therapeutic
massage on the property for the |aal year in the belief that it was a||ovvad with proof of
Professional Liability Insurance and/or National Certification as outlined inthe city code
definition of"Therapeutic K8aasege."
m The layout of the portion of the building used by HAIRitage 'Hous includes two treatment
rooms inthe floor plan dated April 1S,2OO6.
w The property is currently 5.16 acres in size, including a roadway easement.
• The DNR and the Watershed District had no concerns regarding the application.
m City staff was not contacted aboutthe CUP after notices were mailed and published.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit requested at 9242 Hudson
Boulevard, Suite 3 for the reasons as outlined in the full attached staff report.
\
�/
With the following condition:
The use be allowed as identified on the site plan submitted with the land use application. If such
use were proposed toexpand mrchange.anamondnnentwou|dberequired.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
/\) Recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit for therapeutic massage based
on the meeting of the five conditional use permit criteria as outlined in City Code.
B> Recommend denial of the requested conditional use permit based on the findings identified by
the planning commission as staff was unable to identify reasons to deny the application.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the conditional use permit for therapeutic massage as requested atQ242Hudson
Boulevard, Suite 3 with the following condition:
1. The use be allowed as identified on the site plan submitted with the land use application. If
such use were proposed tVexpand orchange, anamendment would barequired.
Suggested motion for consideration:
Move to recommend approval ofaconditional use permit for massage services at 9242 Hudson
Boulevard based upon the following
findings:
1.The use would not negatively affect the health, safety, morals, convenience, orgeneral welfare
ofsurrounding lands.
2. It would not affect traffic or parking conditions given the use has existed on the site for one
year and no complaints were received.
3. The use Would have little ornoeffect onutility orschool capacities.
4. The proposed use would have no effect on property values of surrounding lands.
5. The use would beconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
subject to the following condition recommended bvstaff.
1. Therapeutic massage tobeperformed only inconjunction vvithaforma|8u|onorSpa
m Introduction Ku|iK8atzek City Planner
w Report KeUiK8atzek.City Planner
* Questions tostaff Chair facilitates
• Comments from applicant Babette Cyrnohous'Co-applicant
Todd Cernohoua'Co-applicant
* Questions/comments from the
public, ifany (up to3minutes) Chair facilitates
* Discussion Chair facilitates
w Consider recommending appmval Commission
of application
ATTACHMENTS: Comprehensive Staff report
Site map
Applicant's Submittals
4
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Conditional Use Permit Request
TO: Planning Commission
From: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
Meeting Date: 9-24-07
Owner: Joe Heinen
Location: 9242 Hudson Blvd N., Suite 3
Zoning: HD -CSB -SRR
M
Requested The applicants are seeking to allow therapeutic massage at their establishment located
Conditional at 9242 Hudson Blvd N, Suite 3 within the HAIRitage 'Hous salon.
Use Permit:
Property I There is not an existing CUP for the site as to staff's knowledge; the uses within the
Information: I multi -tenant building are permitted.
wmatfa
Subd 4. Conditional Use Permits. Outlines the general requirements for all
conditionally permitted uses in Lake Elmo.
"Therapeutic Massage The process by which a practioner applies massage therapy
techniques, and may apply adjunctive therapies, with the intention of positively
affecting the health and well being of the client. The rubbing, stroking, kneading,
tapping, positioning, causing movement and applying Crouch and pressure to the
body. Adjunctive therapies may include (1) Application of heat, cold, water, mild
abrasives, ehliotherapy, topical preparations not classified as presectiption drugs;
(2) the use of mechanical devices and tools which mimic or enhance manural
actions; and, (3) instructed self-care and management. Massage therapy shall not
include techniques traditionally practiced by chiropractors. Therapeutic Massage
shall be performed only by a person who has provided the City with proof of
Professional Liability Insurance and/or National Certification." [sic]
U/1,11cque, HAIlRiteig(., lioiis
S,,
Planning (11 oinntission Report; �1-24-07
Site Data: I Lot Size: 5.16 acres including a roadway easement
Existing Use: Multi -tenant commercial building
Existing Zoning: HD-GB-SRD
Property Identification Number (PID): 34-029-21-34-0004
licalion eview:
Existing HAIRitage 'Hous moved into the existing multi -tenant building in 2006. Internal
Conditions: walls were built to provide service for 16 hair stations, two manicure/pedicure stations
and two treatment rooms as identified in a floor plan dated April 16, 2006.
CUP Review: The following review of the CUP application is for the therapeutic massage as
� proposed for the HAIRitage 'Hous business.
Reviewing this request requires that all general CUP criteria be examined. For these
types of applications, the burden is on the City to show why the use should not be
permitted due to impacts that cannot be controlled by reasonable conditions.
Impacts the City must review are as follows:
1. Effects on the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of
surrounding lands.
2. Traffic & Parking conditions.
3. Effects on utility and school capacities.
4. Effect on property values of surrounding lands.
S. Effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan.
1. Effects on the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of
surrounding lands.
The property at 9242 Hudson Boulevard North has an existing multi -tenant building
on the property and is utilized as a general business location. Other businesses at the
site are HotSpring Portable Spas, The Cabinet Store, and a future Summit Boardshop.
The property to the west is currently utilized as a lumber business. The property
immediately to the east is vacant.
The use of the property as a beauty shop is a permitted use within the General
Business zoning district. The proposed therapeutic massage could be considered an
extension of the services offered by the HAIRitage 'Hous salon.
Therapeutic massage as defined by the city code shall be performed only by a person
who has provided the city with proof of Professional Liability Insurance and/or
SN-dind 'HousWcp HAIRIlage Wores PZ., 9-2.4-01"doe
Page 2
�LU "Itage Hons
Phinriing (,ommission Report: 9-24-07
National Certification. This assists the city in ensuring qualified professionals are
employed.
2. Traffic & Parking conditions.
The use has been existing without a conditional use permit for over a year. City staff
is not aware of any complaints regarding traffic or parking in that time. The amount
of traffic and parking associated with the proposed use would continue to be consistent
with the existing shop.
Staff finds this criteria is met.
3. Effects on utility and school capacities.
A therapeutic massage use may have, minimal impacts on the existing utilities at the
site. The use of the utilities would be consistent with the permitted salon. The utilities
are already established for the site and would not be greatly impacted by this use.
The number of school age children would not be impacted by this use. There would
be no impact on the school capacities, therefore staff finds this criteria is met.
4. Effect on property values of surrounding lands.
The proposed therapeutic massage would be required as outlined in the definition, to
provide the city with proof of Professional Liability Insurance and/or National
Certification. These requirements assist the city in ensuring qualified professional
services on the site.
Given the small-scale service and the primary function of the business as a salon, the
surrounding land values would not be depreciated due to this use. Therefore, staff
would rind this criteria is met.
5. Effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan.
The property at 9242 Hudson Boulevard is currently utilized for general business
purposes. The Comprehensive Plan guides the property for residential use in the
future, but also provides for the continuation of existing uses until such time as the
parcel is redeveloped. The City Code allows for such a use to be conditionally
permitted on this site. Staff finds this criteria is met.
Conditional Based on the above analysis of the review criteria in City Code, staff would
Use Permit recommend approval of the conditional use permit request to allow therapeutic
Conclusions: massage at 9242 Hudson Boulevard N, Suite 3 based on the following:
SAI -and USACIJIMAIRiiage 'IJousV?eT)--HAII?iI.age 'Hoia-17-9-24-07.doc
Pag-e 3
(1'VJ'RcqueS,1: h1,AURva,ee Vloius
Planning 9-24-07
1. The use would not negatively affect the health., safety, morals, convenience, or
general welfare of surrounding lands.
2. It would not affect traffic or parking conditions given the use has existed on the site
for over one year and staff is not aware of any complaints.
3. The use would have no effect on utility or school capacities.
4. The proposed use would have no effect on property values of surrounding lands.
5. The use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Resident Staff is not aware of any concerns surrounding the requested conditional use permit.
Concerns® According to the applicant's submittals, the property owner and two of the
neighboring businesses within the same building are not opposed to the proposed use.
Additional Neither the watershed district nor the DNR provided comment in opposition to the
InfoaatlorzeI proposed conditional use permit.
rlrzni�
The applicants are seeking approval of the following conditional use permit
application:
To allow therapeutic massage at 9242 Hudson Boulevard N.
Commission The Planning Commission has the following options:
Options: A) Recommend approval of the conditional use permit request;
B) Recommend denial of the conditional use permit request.
The 60 -day review period for this application expires on 10-22-07, but can be
extended an additional 60 days if more time is needed.
Staff Rec: Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit request to allow
therapeutic massage at 9242 Hudson Boulevard N based on the following:
1. The use would not negatively affect the health, safety, morals, convenience, or
general welfare of surrounding lands.
2. It would not affect traffic or parking conditions given the use has existed on the site
for one year and no complaints were received.
3. The use would have little or no effect on utility or school capacities.
4. The proposed use would have no effect on property values of surrounding lands,
5. The use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
With the following condition:
Therapeutic massage to be performed only in conjunction with a formal Salon or
Spa.
S:V,and I.."SeV , 'UPVIAIRitage Vhms-117�9-24-071doc
Pae 4
ReC-/uel,:tl' HIAIRira�e Vloivs
Planni
I ,,ni,
Comniision Report: 9-24-07
Denial I To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Template: I move we recommend that Council deny the requested conditional use permit
for massage services at 9242 Hudson Boulevard based on the following
findings ... (please site reasons for the recommendation)
Approval
Motion
auaiatia
To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
I move we recommend that Council approves the requested conditional use
permit for massage services at 9242 Hudson Boulevard based on the following
findings ... (use staff's findings provided above or cite your own)
Therapeutic massage to be performed only in conjunction with a formal Salon or
Spa.
cc: Babette Cernohous, Co -applicant
Todd Cernohous, Co -applicant
SALand UseV UPWAIRitage Wous\Rep--HAIRilage 'Iii ns, -PZ -9--24 4
-O7'doc
Page 5
x z
1 � \ ._fib: J'i'r}.^.. � G2
�w.._ �`
;� 7 c Q�; �. a; G
H F" H F- f� f^
r1ug 1,5'. G? In c, � b i r,,, £'_ ,, o h i7 u s 65_1"15/&10275 P, -,
Fee
Ci4� of [..ake Eirno
DEVELOPMENT APPUGATION FORM ck
I Comprehcnsivt Plwi Amenfirnent FL, 1 variance ,, (See bolovi) L
Rlefidential Subdivision
D Zoning Distrio. Amendment
Minor Subdivision 0 01--I0Lots
Tent Amenfirnont Lot Line Adjustirtcn - t 0 11 — 20 Lots
0 21 Lots or More
Ll Flood P)am C.U.P, Residential Subdivision Exca%,ating & Offading Pev,)it
Conditional Use; Pfrrrxit Sketch/Concept Plan po I PUD
Ap_a
Conditional Use Permit (C.UY.) I Situ & Building Plan Review
APPLICANT.,
fNAMP-) Winfling Addreq-q) ("610
FEFE OWNM
fELEPHOWES
(Home)
`,f ?_ 3 q 761 1
(Horne) (Nark)
L C, Q 4re lt":d7e
(lip)
(Fax)
PROPERTY LOGAMN (Address and Complete (Long) Legal Desoription):
DETAILED REASON FOR REQUEST:
*NIARIANCE REQUESTSAs outlined in Section 301.060 C. of the L&a,, Ehno Municipal Code, the Applicant must
deracnistratea haTdship before avaiiance, can begrarited, The hardship related to ,his application is as follows;
In signing this application, I hereby acknowledge that I have read and fully understan the applicable provisionsaftlic
11 1
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and currant administrative procedures. I furt=qrcknowled. -T the Lee ex ;.Itiot,
L_ _xpjan
Date
112212004 City of Uke MmD- 3800 Uiverne Avenue North -Lake Einio - 5S,042- 651-777-' 5510 Fnx 651-777-9615
mw�
August `1 0, 2007
Council Members
City of Lake Elmo
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
I
HAIRitage 'Hous is a reputable salon that has been in business since January 1999 as
evidenced by the attached letters of support. After experiencing growing pains at our
Woodbury location, we expanded our square footage and rebuilt in Lake Elmo as a full-service
salon featuring 16 hair stations, two manicure/pedicure stations and two treatment rooms. After
our one-year anniversary in July at our new Lake Elmo location, it was brought to our attention
that offering massage needed a Conditional Use Permit; and this is our request for the permit.
This is frustrating to us, as we thought this was approved through the right channels with city
hall and built two rooms to service massage and call them treatment rooms. We would not havo
built and furnished these rooms and paid to advertise if we thought it wasn't approved.
Two years ago, we were told and sent a copy (attached) by the City of Lake Elmo saying it wa
permitted with a copy of Professional Liability Insurance and/ or a National Cercation. Sinc
that time, we have had five women apply to work as a Massage Therapist at our establishmen
and they all were told the same thing by the City of Lake Elmo. Kelly and Ben have now
clarified that it is permitted for the massage therapist to work at the business if the business h
a Condonal PI
In view of the misunderstanding, we are asking that you grant a Conditional Use Permit to
HAIRitage 'Hous to continue the Professional Services of massage in our salon. As noted, we
thought we were in compliance with all regulations and have obtained all the required
information requested by the City of Lake Elmo to rectify the situation, We appreciate your
consideration of this request for a C.U.P. and truly believe that we are a positive addition to the
City of Lake Elmo by bringing in hundreds of clients daily.
Sincerely
IL
HAIRitage'Hous Owners
Babette (Bobbi) Cemohous
Todd Cemohous
14111011
p...
U Y -R-1-S-B
a
Y 1 NO 04
� no r r. r AnoN
ran
i
e o ro roo NN ort
C2I N
13 0 efi D BCYOND
//
p...
U Y -R-1-S-B
a
MU"Idproj,=%; V'J/61, 1n11'1ifll ""K,
TK
i.
TH I
i.
[Ygla
p s
DATE: August 1,'.5, 2007
TD: City of Lake�, Elmo
FROM: Joe Ileirien, President, Gatsby Investors LIC, ee simple owaer, 924.2
Hudson BlvdI'4
RE � Hairitage Hous Request ibr CUP
I'm writing this letter in suppod-, of Hairitage Hous' request for a. CUP to provide
massage therapy set vieeq al. its 'loeffidon at 92,42 Hudson Blvd. I have found Hairhage
Hous to'be an outstanding business, w3. excellent resource to the con-ununity,,,-,,uid
organization that conducts itself with the utmost. in care for its custorners. Please contact
me at 612-347-0171 to discuss any aspect of my support that. ffie, CUP be granted.
9242 Hudson Blvd 4777 South Highway 101 2001 Locksin-Thompson Winner
Lake Elmo, Mn 55042 Minnetonka, Mn 55345 "International Dealer of the Year"
651-731-9745 952-933-9040
Hairitage Hous has been located next door to our business for the past year and we are pleased to say
that they have been very professional and business like at all times. Please feel free to contact me if
you have any questions or need additional information.
Dan Eppard
August 13, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Amy Fleming and I work at "The Cabinet Store" just a few feet away from
the "Hairitage Hous" in Lake Elmo, MN. I have been asked by Bobbi Cernohous to write
a "letter of opinion" to you regarding possible illicit business practices.
It seems that the City of Lake Elmo is concerned that the Hairitage Hous is running an
illegal massage parlor. I have no knowledge of this. I have not noticed any strange
activity for a hair salon. The clients, I have observed, seem to be mostly women with
about half of them being elderly. Appearance wise, nothing seems to be out of the
ordinary.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at 651-714-2227.
Sincerely,
61661
Amy Fleming
The Cabinet Store
9242 Hudson Blvd. N.
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Lake Elino Murde-ipul Code
chapter I
section 150 - Deflult
Subdivision A described tract or lmd which, it to be or has been divided into two or mora lots, or parcels fox tile
purpose of transfer of ownership, building development or for tax assessment purposes, The ter=j
includes msubdiviallon and, where it is appropriate to ffie context, relates either to the piocevv of
subdividin , to the land subdivided or to
Substandard Building Means any building or structure lawfully awfisting an the effective date of this Code or any arnendrnent to
thiR Code which bading or structure does not confo= with the regulatione, including dimensional
gtandaurdy.far the dis 'etin which itis located after the effective date of thus Code or the arrendriaent-
Substandard stmeture (See Substa.ndardpusIdnn
Supper flub A building with filcilides for the serving, of meals and where meals arc regularly served at tables to the
general public. The building must be of sufficient size and design to permit the serving of meals to slot
less than 9fry (50) guests at one time. lata'acitting liquors may be sold oli-sale and live rntertairamlelzr
qn'l /nr rlqtlr4"m 01011 lip
Surface Water Flooding The 100 year flood plain along rivers and strainis, as defined by the DNR, or in the absence of such dam
as detnzanined by the largest flood or record, on lakes, high war= levels as determined or recorded by the
DNR, or, in the =a of no DNR xmco-i I- local records of information.
Suspended Solids (SS) Solids that cither float on the surface of or =in suspension in water, sewage; or other liquids �,=d which
are re movable by laboratory filtexing in accordance with the late -at edition of Standard Methods fox the
Elimination of Water and Waste Water.
Svviramiag Pool Any perinanendy located pool, used for swimming and/or bathing whish is over twenty-four (24) inches in
dcod-4 or which as a surface area "cleadila one hundred fi15th) Square fret,
"ir�kate
Swirtuning Pool, Any pool which is used, or intended to be used, n a'swimming pool in connection with A single Barnily
or residence, and which is available on) todie farnil ofthe 1--m-1-1-1and —
SVAMMing P001, Public Of
Any swimuling pool other than 0, private swimming pool.
Semi -Public
T
An establishment for the retail ou-sale of non-intoidmting malt, liquors, and which in addition, pro -vides
dancing, singing, or vaudeville performances or antarairincent for its guests, or provides for thern the
privile of dancina.
Ten Year Flood
That food which can be expected to occur, on an average, of on= in ten years; or the level to wl-Ach flood
waters have a tan Dercent chance of tis' in ani haven ear.
The process by which a pm.cdoricr applies massage therapy tacirniques, and relay apply adjunctive thf--=ies,
with the intention of positively affecting -the health and well being of the client The rubbing, stroldrig,
kneading, tappin& positioning, causing movement and applying Crouch and pressure to the body,
Adjunctive therapies may include (1) Application of heat; cold, war=, mild abrasives, topical
preparations not classified as presectiption drugs; q the use of mechanical devices and tools -Which mimic
or enhance manural actions; and, (3) instructed self- care and aranligenlent Massage therapty shall not
/61q
include techniques traditionally practiced by chiropractors. Therapeutic Massage shall be performed only
by a person who has provided the City with proof of Professional Liability Insurance and/or National
Certification.
Toe of the Bluff
The point on a. bluff where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the slope, from
gantlet to steeper slope above, If no break in the slope is apparent, the toe of the bluff shall be determined
to be the lower end of a 50 -foot segmeiu, measured on the ground, with an average slope m%e'eeding 18
ne:rcent
Toilet Waste
Fecal matter, urine, toilet pa Der and any water used for flushimr,
Tap of the Bluff
The point on a bluff where there is, as visually observed, a clearly identifiable break in the elope, from
steeper to gantlet slope above. If no break in the slope is appaoent, the tope of the bluff shall be
determined to a the upper and of a 50 -foot segnim; measured cc the ground, with an zvezap slope
exceeding 18 percent
26 Added 97-89 on 12-19-01
2/18/97
MOO Updated
31191/02 Updated
Planning Commission
Date: 9/24/07
REGULAR
Item: 4b
ITEM: r Hold apublic hearing and consider a request for emaster plan amendment to
allow anadditional accessory building a1the Carmelite Monastery ofthe Blessed
Virgin Mary at 8249 i}ernontreviUeTod/.
REQUESTED BY: Father John Burns ofthe Carmelite Monastery
SUBMITTED BY: No||iK8atzek.City Planner
REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
Ben Gozo|a'Senior Planner
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED:
The planning commission is being asked to hold a public hearing, take comment and make a
recommendation on a request for a master plan amendment to allow an additional accessory
building at the Carmelite Monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Unlike a variance or conditional
use permit, the city code does not set out specific criteria when reviewing master plans. Instead,
it is intended to review the specific site and potential impacts to neighbors.
* The property has been used for religious purpoeemsinoeUle1Q50�.
/ * A master plan was approved for the Carmelite of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the 1990's.
* In 1991, the city approved by resolution a variance from the requirement for frontage on a
public roadway.
* The property im58.84acres insize,
* The proposed building ie1'512square feet (3G'by42').
w The DNR and the Watershed District had no concerns regarding the application,
w City staff was contacted about the application after notices were mailed and published,
but noconcern ornegative comments were received.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the master planamendment requested at824SDemVntreviUo
Trail with conditions for the reasons as outlined below and in the full attached staff report.
OPTIONS
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A)Recommend approval cdthe requested master plan amendment for onadditional accessory
building based onthe reasons outlined inthe staff report.
8) Recommend denial of the requested master plan amendment based on the findings identified
by the planning commission as staff was unable to identify reasons to deny the application.
RECOMMENDATION
Demontreville Trail with the following conditions:
�
/ 1. The proposed structure must meet applicable setback requirements.
2. The septic system for the proposed structure would need to meet all applicable requirements.
Suggested motion for consideration:
Move /orecommend approval ofamaster plan amendment for anaccessu(y a/8��/
Denx/ntreville Trail based upon the following
1. Given the size of the property and the distance to adjacent neighbors, the impacts to neighbors
would beminimal.
2. The request for an additional storage and work space may be reasonable given the use of the
subject 0othe following conditions recommended imobaff.'
1. The proposed structure must meet applicable setback requirements.
2. The septic system for the proposed structure would need to meet all applicable requirements.
• Introduction
* Report
• Questions tostaff
w Comments from applicant
m Questions/comments from the
public, ifany (up to3minutes)
" Discussion
m Consider recommending approval
of application
Ke|iMutzek.City Planner
KeUi K8atzok' City Planner
Chair facilitates
Father John Burns, Applicant
Chair facilitates
Chair facilitates
Commission
ATTACHMENTS: Comprehensive Staff report
Site map
Applicant's Submittals
K
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
Master Plan Amendment Request
To: Planning Commission
From: Kelli Matzek, City Planner
Meeting Date: 9-24-07
Applicant: Reverend John Burns
Owner: Carmelite Monastery
Fgi Igill 'I
Zoning: Public Facilities and Quasi -Public Uses (PF)
E
The applicant is seeking to amend an approved master plan for the site at 8249
Demontreville Trail to add a 36' by 42' (1,512 sq ft) garage,
A master plan was approved for the Carmelite of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the
1990's. The approved plan includes a court, entrance gate, public cloister, guest
house/library, basilica, sacristy, bell tower, monk's gate, garth, fountain, cloister,
hermitage, private garden, community building, and workshop. Portions of this plan
have been implemented while others are still planned as future additions.
A variance was approved for road frontage on a public road by resolution in 1991.
Existing Use: Religious Use — Carmelite of the Blessed Virgin Mary Monastery
Existing Zoning: PF
Property Identification Number (PID).- 09-029-21-12-0001
Master Plan A master plan for the property was previously reviewed and approved. The addition
Amendment of an accessory building to the site would need an amendment to the approved plan.
Review: The building would be intended to store equipment for the site, include a work area,
and provide bathroom facilities for two employees and visitors.
The proposed garage section would be used to store equipment used on the site. A
workbench is proposed for internal. work.
The proposed bathroom would be utilized for two employees on the property as well
as any potential visitors. Soil testing and septic design has been completed and
submitted. This will be reviewed by the building inspection department at the time a
building permit would be applied for to ensure compliance with regulations.
A work area is also identified within the building for the continuation of work taking
place on the property.
Staff would recommend approval of the master plan amendment request to allow the
addition of an accessory building for the site at 8249 Demontreville Trail based on the
following:
1. Given the size of the property and the distance to adjacent neighbors, the impacts to
neighbors would be minimal.
2. The request for an additional storage and work space may be reasonable given the
use of the property.
Staff would recommend the following conditions:
1. The proposed structure must meet applicable setback requirements.
2. The septic system for the proposed structure would need to meet all applicable
requirements.
Resident Staff is not aware of any concerns surrounding the requested master plan amendment,
Additional Neither the watershed district nor the DNR provided comment in opposition to the
Information I proposed master plan amendment.
The applicants are seeking approval of the following master plan amendment:
To allow an additional accessory building on the property at 8249 Demontreville Trail.
The Planning Commission has the following options:
A) Recommend approval of the master plan amendment request;
B) Recommend denial of the master plan amendment request.
The 60 -day review period for this application expires on 10-09-07, but can be
pa, r" '?
St�f'ec®
extended an additional 60 days if more time is needed.
Staff is recommending approval of the master plan amendment request to allow all
additional accessory building at 8249 Demontreville Trail based on the following:
1. Given the size of the property and the distance to adjacent neighbors, the impacts to
neighbors would be minimal.
2. The request for an additional storage and work space may be reasonable given the
use of the property.
With the following condition:
1. The proposed structure must meet applicable setback requirements.
2. The septic system for the proposed structure would need to meet all applicable
requirements,
Denial To deny the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Motion
Template: I move we recommend that Council deny the requested Master Plan Amendment
at 8249 Demontreville Trail based on the following findings ... (please site reasons
for the recommendation)
Approval To approve the request, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Motion
Template: I move we recommend that Council approves the requested Master Plan
Amendment at 8249 Demontreville Trail based on the following findings ... (use
staffsfindings provided above or cite your own)
...with the following condition:
1. The proposed structure must meet applicable setback requirements.
2. The septic system for the proposed structure would need to meet all applicable
requirements,
cc: Father John Burns, Applicant
'I PIC,'N'rm;,'h?e Aif"wasloe R",
P/ 24 "T 'Yo
Page,"
M A
ice wTe-rzz,
2, P AW D R! 0,
Tep
CZ r- LH TYP
C606. 'St -A&
eAH, f=AN
zz," x 4r—yw *H-T-�, A-r6ove A-BoVg - -----
cLce-
zx-4 VO -6. FA KT�I-, -rye
Ll
Ob
9w
-fVl r"A
L- &(-f T 7V 5EF Aea V a
Po P—cH
3 4: 3L4
+ W F2�Ao 1/0 no" vi coo t-4;,"
4, 1,
F
e
'A
MON, -EP
5T
-A� L 0 FT H , L A ELM 0 , m
m
la
I
i
I
J
31
u)
0
m
,INTRY DRivE.o: ■I
ILA WN .
mm��
mmaim
F0,
nrrrwvL-v rup%w
E
Meadow/ Garden
mz�m
A r -c h i t e c t s
Meyer, Scheyer & Rock -castle, Ltd.
325 Second Avenue North
Minneapolis, Iviinnesota 55ii.01-16ol
Proposed Carmel of the
° a ° T Y" tx` ' Blessed Virgin Mary
°gee .4w4•� g�4 .
• w ♦eta .ea m®
I
" .'¢ a ° eR � :a. e'Y°° Ft °� 9a ✓ab aA °� + +.aF °F4. ` .. Fa' ,.',. ., p��rem ,
;z property lin •
q_a
Axel of our
o;: pLady of Diving
.. Y;ProvidencePo
CARMEL
V- VIRGIN MARY
�'• ' ` °� , e 9
NORTH 0 200' 200` 400'
Jesuit Retrea use
p
Ar c: h i t e c.. i s
Meyer, Scherer & Rock-castle, Ltd.
;� /°� •. 325 Second :venue North
Minneapolis, aWnnesota 55401•160i
Lake
p onreville
• • ..gym � �
r
Planning
' —=
,
Date: 9/24/07
Public hearing
Item: 4c
ITEM: Application from Common Grounds Church to permit the keeping of horses
as a component of a CUP allowing a place of worship.
REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt' City Administrator
KeUiK8otzek Assistant City Planner
Jerry FiUa'City Attorney
Ryan 3tempsk|,City Engineer
Staff is requesting that the planning commission table this public hearing until the October 22nd
meeting hzallow staff additional time hmcomplete research nnthis request. VVeintended 0o
recommend denial of the proposal as the consensus amongst staff was that providing horse
riding, while an odnninub|e servine, was not required or necessary for the "place of worship."
Upon oonnnnun)oa1/ng this intent tothe applicant, we were told that the former planner
recommended the church combine their property and rezone the acreage to the restrictive PF
\ zuningdiatrio1. Prior to taking such action, the parcel allegedly was zoned Agricultural (which
does allow for horses).
Staff feels it is critical to sort out the history of this application prior to it being considered by the
planning commission or City Council. The request to delay until the 22 nd is due to upcoming
council agendas that will prevent it from being considered until the first meeting in November
regardless of when its reviewed by the commission.
Table the public hearing until the October o«" Planning Commission meeting.
Introduction ....... —........................................ .................. Ben Gozola'Senior Planner
Call for amotion
.......................... ....... ......... ...................................... Chair Facilitates
- DiscuesionofCommiseinnonthennotkon----.----------ChairFaoi|hsdnm
Planning Commission
Date: 9/24/07
Public hearing
Item: 4d
n -EM: Hold a public hearing to consider a conditional use permit
amendment and three variances to allow E&E Properties LLC to
expand the existing Laidlaw Bus transit facility on property at 11530
Hudson Boulevard
REV|EVVEDBY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator
KmUi K4atzek' Assistant City Planner
Jerry Fi|ia, City Attorney
Ryan Stempski, City Engineer
SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The planning commission is being asked to hold a
public hearing to consider a conditional use permit amendment and three variances to allow the
expansion of the school bus operation currently located at 11530 Hudson Boulevard. The
property is zoned agricultural and the Laidlaw bus operation is currently authorized by a low
impact non-agricultural use CUP approved in 2002. The proposed expansion would add
approximately 1.07 acres to the CUP site to accommodate 23 additional buses and employee
parking needs. The changes are desired to improve logistics of the operation.
lot, the addition of an employee parking lot, and the inclusion of 23 additional buses operating
from the site.
The amendment will require the following variances: (1)A2.G5acre expansion mfthe CUP site
over the maximum size allowed bvcode; (2)AO.Gtrips per acre increase for traffic over the
maximum trips allowed by code; and (3) a2.31 acre variance tnthe allowable amount of
hardcover allowed bycode. The variances for the CUP site area and hardcover are significant as
the approval in2002authorized nonoonfornnitieotocode.
The planning commission must approve aconditional use permit ifthe conditions inthe cUvcode
are dernonotrobymet. Howeve�the requested var�ncescan only baapproved �the 'ican(
can demonstrate that the hardship criteria are met.
After review, staff is recommending denial of the requests as the application does not satisfy the
hardship requirements for approval of the variances. However, the proposed changes do not
appear to be out of character with the operation, nor does staff anticipate any negative impacts to
nearby land uses or traffic levels if the proposal were approved. Additionally, land south of 1 Oth
Street is guided for future development far more intense than what is proposed. Because of this,
staff believes a far more appropriate way to address the request would be through an interim use
ordinance. Discussion of an interim use ordinance is a priority on the 2007 work plan.
BACKGROUND
* The existing bus facility is currently on approximately 4.38 acres of a 70'eore site.
m The existing CUP for the bus facility was approved in 2002, and authorized 56 buses to
operate from the site. The remaining fleet buses were lmoperate from useparate nearby lot
in Afton. Presumably site area limitations and traffic concerns limited the size of the
approved operation.
w The 2002 approval calculated both site area and impervious surfaces in an incorrect manor.
Landscaping and storm water improvements required by the use were excluded from the site
area, and gravel surfaces were excluded from impervious surface calculations, Aearesult,
staff finds the existing use is already nonconforming to both site area and impervious surface
requirements.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
w The following ksasummary o[the request and its relation tncode criteria.
CUP Criteria
-
Effemtonhaalth.aafeh/ &geneual w*Kun*---------�
Traffic and parking ..... ,.......... .................... ---- ...... .........
-Effect on utilities andarhon .......
-
Efhactonaunnundngprnpedymdue--.-------.-
-
-Compliance with the comp plan ....... ........ ....... .......... ........
-Zoning must beAgricultural ............ _........... -..........
-.
-CUP area shall not exceed 4Y6of parent lot ........... .....
.--
-Impervious surface shall not exceed 1.5Y6ofparent lot .....
.
-Parent lot shall beaminimum cf40arrea-.....................
'
-Vehicle <G1)trips/parent acre ... --...................
-
-Parking setbacks ............. -..................... ....... -...... ........
-Outside storage shall bescreened ........... ........ ...................
-Sewer use standards rneL~................... ... ........ ...................
-Parent land to be used for agricultural purposes ......... ..... ...
-
Lightngtucon)oly with city reQu}etions-'.......................
-
-Signs tocomply with city regulations .........................
---.
-RabaendvolumemhaUnotexneedUheonepancentnu|e--.
Future rezoning by landowner to cancel CUP ............. - ... ....
�.
Satisf led
-.Not satisfied without variance
�'Satis'�ed
-�Satisfied
�. Satis,ed
.... ----' led
... .Not satisfied without variance
-. Not satisfied without variance
... ' Satisfied
.... Not satisfied without variance
.... Satisfied
.... ----' led
.... Satisfied
-. Satisfied
�. Satisfied
-. SaUsf ied
�. Satisfied
-. Satisfied
Variance Criteria Amkg�t�
-Proposed use kyreasonable and nu
alternatives exist ........... --.................. .................................... Not Satisfied
(retaining the existing use is
-Hardship iscaused bvconditions unique
tothe land and are not generally applicable .......... ...... ............. Not Satisfied
(no hardship exists; future land use not unique hothis property)
-Hardship was not caused bvthe land owner ... .......................... Not Satisfied
(no hardship exists)
Interim Use Ordinance: Aointerim use ordinance allows auity to permit certain uses inareas
deemed appropriate for adesignated amount oftime (omaximum number ofyears) oruntil
some change occurs on a property such as redevelopment (i.e. urban development per the
comp plan). Since the expansion of parking on this site is not out of character with the area;
and seeing as the increased traffic onto the highway frontage road is not anticipated to create
any impact; the proposed changes seem reasonable on their own, but not as a non-
agricultural low impact use. The more appropriate avenue for this type nfchange would be
through an interim use permit that could authorize the use with conditions without the need
for variances. The city council and planning commission added Interim Use Permits tothe
2007 work plan, so the issue will be addressed in the near future and could perhaps be used
bythe applicant inanticipation ofthe following school year.
m
The planning commission will need to approve both the amendment to the CUP and thethree
variances for this project toproceed.Becaueetherequea1sanm|inked'thayehou|dedhe,aU
beapproved orall bedenied. Either decision will need tobesupported byfindings offact.
OPTIONS:
1. Approve the amended CUP and three variances because the applicant meets all related code
criteria. This will require findings supporting the hardship on the property.
2. Deny the amended CUP and three variances because the hardship criteria is not met. This
will require findings that no hardship exists for the variance(s).
3. Deny the request (per option number 2), and recommend that the city consider an interim use
ordinance for these types of businesses south of 1 oth Street that will only operate until such
time as sewer is available and the site is redeveloped.
10120101
- Introduction .................. ....................... —........... —....... ... Ben GVzola,Senior Planner
Report by staff ................... ................ ........ ............. ....... Ben Gnzola,Senior Planner
Questions from the Commission ............... ................... Chair & Commission Members
-
Applicant Comments ........................................... ...... .......................... Chair facilitates
Questions of the Applicant ................... ............. ... ..... Chair & Commission Members
- Open the Public Hearing ..... ...... .... —........ ................. —................ —......... ...... Chair
Close the Public Hearing ............ .......... ............................. ......... —....... ............. Chair
- Call for amotion .... ... .................................... --- ..... ...................... Chair Facilitates
- Discussion ofCommission onthe motion .... ............................ .......... Chair Facilitates
Action bvthe Planning Commission ......................... ... Chair & Commission Members
ATTACHMENTS (5):
1. Detailed staff report analyzing the CUP amendment and variance requests;
2. Applicants written narrative supporting the requested amendment and variances;
3. Existing conditions plan;
4. Layout Plan;
5. Grading Plan;
City of Lake Elmo Planning Department
C01,11itiolta"'d Use PQ -=,-j2= , �, e -'Jul
TO: Planning Commission
From: Ben Gozola, City Planner
Meeting Date: 9.24-07
Applicant: Terry Emerson
Owner: S ame
Location: 11530 Hudson Blvd N.
The applicant is seeking to expand the existing bus storage facility located at 11530
Hudson Boulevard North to accommodate an additional 23 buses. Changes proposed
include an expansion of the existing parking lot to add room for the proposed buses,
and the addition of a new parking lot for employee vehicles. The proposed changes
would allow Laidlaw to coordinate their business operations on the site in an effort to
create desired efficiencies. Attached you will find a narrative from the applicant fully
explaining the operational difficulties they are trying to address through this
application.
The existing CUP for the facility was originally approved in 2002. In reviewing this
existing CUP, staff discovered the following:
1. The original approval shows the City has honored this as a 70 acre site by giving
credit for roadway easements (ostensibly for 1-94 and possibly the frontage road).
Staff did not research these easements and instead reviewed this application using
the 70 acre figure to allow the Planning Commission and Council to compare
similar before and after numbers proposed by this application.
2. Ordinance 9777, approved on March 6, 2001, rezoned this property from Rural
Residential (RR) to Agricultural (A). This ordinance was not reflected on the
City's official zoning map, nor was the ordinance provided to staff during the
recent rezoning of land to the south of 10th Street. As this is primarily an
administrative problem, staff would suggest that the City continue administering
this application with the understanding that a correction to the zoning will need to
be addressed in the coming weeks.
3. By code, allon-Agricultural Low Impact Use "...shall not exceed 4% of the
property owner's contiguous agricultural zone area." Code does not specifically
define how to calculate what comprises the overall 4%. In 2002, the City defined
(.1'z�`I'Ai;iCi,,,,,.-i'ei�,�'.tit Rcqmcssr: E&E Properti�.�s
PlanninIg Commission Rep,,ort: 9-24-07
(cont.) the total site area as the surfaces covered by buildings, driveways, and parking
areas. Area devoted to landscaping and a storm water pond were not included in
the site calculation. Current staff disagrees with this calculation method as the
improvements, storm water facilities, and landscaping are all critical to the
function (or approval) of the use. With this application, we are recommending the
city examine the approximate before and after numbers inclusive of all
improvements. We will still use the 2002 site calculation of 70 acres to determine
the allowable 4% CUP area.
4. Also by code, overall impervious surfaces associated with a non-agricultural low
impact use are limited to 1.5% of the overall parcel area. As with the site area
calculation, areas that constitute "impervious surface" are up for interpretation as
they are not defined by code. Typically, gravel parking lots are considered
impervious as the tightly packed dirt does not allow for the infiltration of
rainwater. Based on a 70 acre overall site, the maximum amount of impervious
surfaces allowed with this use is 1.05 acres (70 * 0.015 = 1.05 acres). Given the
current site contains 2.73 acres of impervious surface as calculated by current
staff, we can only assume that gravel surfaces were not considered impervious
surfaces when reviewing this application. For the purposes of this amendment,
current staff would recommend correcting this apparent mistake and processing a
variance request for all hardcover over the allowed 1.05 acres.
Variance 1. The maximum size for a non-agricultural low impact use on a 70 -acre site is 2.8
Request(s): acres (70 acres * 4% = 2.8 acres). Based on the existing improvements on the land
(and not the 2002 calculation), the approximate existing site area is 4.38 acres.
Given proposed site improvements of 1.07 acres, the resulting overall site area
would be 5.45 acres. The resulting variance request for CUP site area would
be 2.65 acres. If calculated out using the 2002 methodology (excluding areas of
screening and storm water ponding), a 0.56 -acre variance would still be needed.
2. The current request would require a 0.6 trips per acre variance as the addition of
23 buses to the site will generate 46 more daily trips than is allowed by code.
3. The existing impervious surface (including the building, bituminous, and gravel
parking areas) is 2.73 acres, The proposed improvements would bring this total up
to 3.36 acres. As such, a 2.31 acre variance to allowable hardcover would also
be needed. If hardcover is calculated by excluding gravel parking areas, then a
variance would be unnecessary.
Applicable Section 300.06 Administration.
Codes: Subd 4. Conditional User Permits. Outlines the general requirements for all
conditionally permitted uses in Lake Elmo.
Section 300.07 Zoning Districts.
5Ebd. 4JA Agricultural. ricultural. Subd 6. Non Agricultural Low Impact Use Standards.
I- --
Outlines all requirements for this unique type of conditionally permitted use.
("ADoaunews 4
Sefting,fg'emporary haerner (;F\Rep--E&,E Bus
Parking.-PZ_9- 24-07_,,,_)j /j.doc Page 2
Rcque,5-t: Ed,�E Nopei-ties
j
g Commission Report: '. - �4_0'-'
Site Data: I Lot Size: 70 acres (based on past approvals and City findings)
%M�' =
Existing Use: Laidlaw Transit Inc. Facility and sod/tree farming
Existing Zoning: Al
Property Identification Number (PID): 36-029-21-43-0001
Reviewing this request requires that all general CUP criteria be examined in addition
to the specific criteria established for non-agricultural low impact agricultural uses.
For these types of applications, the burden is on the City to show why the use should
not be permitted due to impacts that cannot be controlled by reasonable conditions.
Impacts the City must review are as follows:
1. Effects on the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general welfare of
surrounding lands.
The proposed changes should not be readily apparent to surrounding properties as
the look of the bus operation will not drastically change. The intensification of the
use is not viewed as a threat to the health, safety, morals, convenience, or general
welfare of the surrounding area. We find this criteria is satisfied®
2. Traffic & Parking conditions.
The overall number of buses on the site was a major concern when this use was
approved back in 2002, and the applicant was required to provide a detailed
analysis to address traffic concerns. As a result of studying that data, the city
concluded the use would generate an average of 328 trips per day during the
school year (or an average of 4.7 trips per acre). Code currently allows for up to
6.0 trips per acre for this property.
A revised traffic analysis was not provided with this amendment request, so staff
must assume the worst case scenario for additional trips based on 23 additional
buses. Based on six trips per days, the 23 buses will generate an additional 138
trips per day on the site. Added to the already approved 328 trips per day, the end
result is 466 total trips per day (or 6.6 trips per acre). As such, the proposed
number of additional buses cannot be authorized without a variance.
Based on the traffic numbers approved with the existing CUP, the maximum
number of additional trips per day that could be allowed is 92. Based on 6 trips
per day per bus, that would equate to 15 additional buses maximum.
This criteria is not satisfied for the amendment without approval of
variance. I
I Zoning will need to be changed to HD -A -BP which will still allow for the proposed use.
2 Inbound and out bound employee = 2 trips; morning and afternoon bus routes = 4 trips;
(':\Documents and Sefim'ATenifloraly Jol Bus
Parkin 9 -OL),2[f].doc
Page 3
Ame 1a.lrP eur Reque,vi: Proper"ies
Plarmin CoanidYM'O
(eont.)
3. Effects on utility and school capacities.
The proposed use will not impact utility or school capacities in the area. We rind
this criteria is satisfied.
4. Effect on property values of surrounding lands.
Again, the proposed changes should not be readily apparent to surrounding
properties as the look of the bus operation will not drastically change. Values of
surrounding properties should not be impacted. We rind this criteria is satisfied.
5. I-�ffect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan.
This use was already deemed appropriate for this site back in 2002, so we have no
issue with its conformity to the comprehensive plan. We find this criteria is
satisfied.
The City must also review the following criteria specific to non-agricultural low
impact use CUPS:
1. Zoning must be agricultural.
The zoning is currently Agricultural so this requirement is satisfied.
2. The CUP area shall not exceed 4% of the property owner's contiguous lot area.
Based on the 2002 approval, staff is using a figure of 70 acres for the "contiguous
lot area" which allows for a 2.80 acre CUP site. As noted earlier in this report,
staff is of the opinion that all improvements associated with the use must be
calculated as being part of the "site area." Accordingly, the approximate existing
site area would be 4.38 acres. Given the proposed parking lot addition, lot
expansion, and necessary landscaping and stormwater improvements; the existing
site is expected to expand by approximately 1.07 acres. The resulting overall site
area of 5.45 acres is clearly well above the maximum area of 2.80 acres, and
therefore this criteria would not be satisfied without approval of an associated
variance.
3. The CUP impervious surface shall not exceed 1.5% of the property owner's
contiguous lot area.
Based on a 70 site, the maximum allowable impervious surface area is 1.05 acres.
The current CUP authorized well over this amount as 2.73 acres is currently
covered by the building, bituminous surfaces, or gravel surfaces. Typically gravel
surfaces are considered hardcover as the tightly packed dirt will not allow water to
penetrate the ground. A review of the past reports and minutes did not reveal any
specific calculations being done, but we did find that a condition of the CUP
approval required impervious surfaces to be limited to the 1.5% maximum.
CADocumenis and Stvin, 1 0 -
gs\k?na,zze4AI.oco,.I Internet h Bits
IIarking--PZ--9-24-07—v2I 11Jf,)c Page 4
C107P Ec E IYOJ.Iertias
Planning ("(Wrintission Report: 9-24-07
(con, t,
Given this seemingly gross nonconformity, it is reasonable to assume that past
staff considered the gravel surfaces as part of the "use," but excluded such areas
from the impervious surface calculation. If that methodology is used, the 0.59
acres of hardcover that currently exists would be conforming with code as it would
not change as a result of this proposed amendment.
As noted earlier in the report, staff is not inclined to recommend compounding
what we believe to be a calculation mistake. Instead, we are recommending the
City reexamine the overall site by including gravel surfaces as impervious, and
processing with any needed variance request. Following this process, the existing
impervious surface (including the building, bituminous, and gravel parking areas)
is 2.73 acres. The proposed improvements would bring this total up to 3.36 acres
which is well in excess of the allowed 1.05 acres. As such, this criteria would not
be satisfied without approval of an associated variance.
4. The contiguous lot area shall be in excess oJ'40 acres.
The total site area was deemed to be 70 acres in 2002. This criteria is satisfied.
5. No more than six vehicle trips per day per acre of contiguous lot area shall be
allowed for properties off of Hudson Boulevard..
This issue was previously addressed on pg 3 of the report. Based on all available
data, the addition of 23 buses to the site would generate trips in excess of the
allowable limit in code. This criteria is not satisfied for the amendment
without approval of an associated variance.
6. Parking areas shall be a minimum of 50feet, from 1-94, and 200feet from all other
public roadways.
The proposed amendment would not expand parking areas into any required
setback. This criteria is satisfied.
7. Outside storage shall be screened.
The existing condition requiring all outside storage would remain in place with
any amendment. This criteria is satisfied.
8. The use may not generate more than 3.0 SAC units per 3.5 acres or 235 gallons
per day per net acre of land based upon design capacity of facilities, whichever is
more restrictive.
The existing numbers will not change dramatically as a result of the proposed
parking lot expansion as workers are typically off site for a majority of the day.
No further analysis is needed, and we find this criteria is satisfied.
C':V)0rtwn11'1S an'd haernet VIA"D 1, 1- r3 G F\Rely- - 111-&-F Bus
Page 5
Ct,',lil'Ai-,riei'tt.-t"Ft2(�;,,-i'R4�,qti(.-,,t,�,,', M,upenries
Manninl�, Commission Repo4't:9-24'-07
(cont.) 9. Remaining property shall be used for Agricultural purposes.
The remaining property is either being farmed or used by a tree nursery operation
to plat trees. This criteria is satisfied.
10. Lighting to comply with all city regulations.
No changes to lighting are proposed by this application. This criteria is satisfied.
11. All signs to comply with all city regulations.
No new signage would be required by this application. This criteria is satisfied.
12. Rate and volume shall not exceed the one percent rule.
Rate and volume controls were reviewed by TKDA. While they would like to see
a number of minor revisions to be made to the plans, they find the proposed storm
water pond expansion will be sufficient to handle the additional runoff generated
by the proposed improvements. Please refer to their memo (attached) for a
detailed analysis. This criteria is satisfied.
13. Rezoning to a more intensive use shall require removal of the non-agricultural low
impact use.
The existing condition regarding future rezoning would remain in place with any
amendment. This criteria is satisfied.
Variance An applicant must establish and demonstrate compliance with the variance criteria set
Criteria: forth in Lake Elmo City Code Section 300.06 Subd. 3. before an exception or
modification to city code requirements can be granted. For ease of review, staff
provides a three-part breakdown of the definition of "hardship" in Lake Elmo City
code to ensure the requests are meeting the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
To review, the applicant is requesting the following variances with this application:
Site Area Variance: A 2.65 acre variance is requested to allow the applicant to exceed
the maximum size for a non-agricultural low impact use on a 70 acre site.
maximum Tri s Variance: A variance to allow 0.6 additional trips per acre is required
to allow the additional 23 buses to be located on site. A maximum of 15 additional
buses could be allowed without a variance.
Hardcover Variance: A 2.31 acre variance to the allowable impervious surface total is
needed for the entire site. The proposed improvements represent only 0.63 acres of
this needed variance.
CADo,cumems and Bus
I]Joc Page 6
Reqtitwi:
Plannin,Q ("11) innd�,sion Report: I')_ '1,,�_07
(cont)
1. The proposed use of the property and associated structures in question cannot be
established under the conditions allowed by the city's zoning regulations and no
other reasonable alternative use exists;
Applicant reWqnse: For each of the requests, the applicant believes the property
zoning for agricultural uses is reasonable at this time, and that the requested
amendment is for a temporary use until zoning is changed in the, future.
Site Area Variance: The established use is reasonable for the site based on past
approvals and existing zoning regulations. However, the proposed expansion is
not permissible by city code based on the existing nonconformity and the City's
desire to contain these types of CUPS with a maximum site area requirement.
Given that the current site is already nonconforming to the maximum, no further
expansion appears to be a reasonable option. Staff finds this criteria is not
satisfied for the site area variance®
Maximum Trigs Yariance: City code caps the maximum trips from the site to 6.0
trips per total parcel acreage. Based on a detailed traffic analysis conducted in
2002, the City established that the existing use generates approximately 4.7 trips
per acre and was therefore conforming with code. An updated traffic analysis was
not provided with this application, so staff must assume a worst-case scenario of
six trips per additional bus per day. 3 Using that methodology, the proposed
addition of 23 buses to the site will push the trips per acre threshold above 6.0
maximum. A reasonable option would be to cap the additional number of buses to
15 so as not to exceed the requirement. Alternatively, the applicant could choose
to supply an updated detailed traffic analysis factoring in the additional 23 buses to
show conformance to the requirement. Staff finds this criteria is not satisfied for
the maximum trips variance®
Hardcover Variance: The existing and proposed level of hardcover is not
permissible by code. However, the past approval for the CUP does provide the
existing hardcover legal nonconforming status as it was authorized by the city. A
reasonable alternative to expansion is to retain the existing nonconforming area
that arguably should not have been authorized. Staff finds this criteria is not
satisfied for the hardcover variance.
2® The plight of the landowner is due to the physical conditions unique to the land,
structure, or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures, or
buildings in the same zoning district;
Applicant response: "Due to current zoning, this property is in a holding pattern
until new zoning is adopted. "
Inbound and out bound employee = 2trips; morniD(T Zn and afternoon bus routes = 4 trips;
C':ADocuntons and st'llin "AA ze I
" Im,14- haerner Files\Conlcra, fl:,_'5\()..N'V) Ub,`3GFV?ep---E&E Bits
Parkin 9-
,q-I'Z- -24-07_v2[1].doc Page 7
CUP/livendment Ri'qu st I rt.a, PropeFUG'S
Mannino ,C,'wnmhoion Report: Q_14-07
(cont. )
All requests: All land to the south of 10"' Street is currently in a holding pattern
until guided for development in accordance with the comprehensive plan. We do
not find that this parcel is any different than any other parcel South of 101h Street in
that regard. As such, this criteria is not satisfied for any of the variance
requests.
3. The unique conditions of the site were not caused or accepted by the landowner
after the effective date of the city's zoning regulations.
All requests: Staff has not identified any conditions unique to this site to justify
granting the requested variances. We agree that changes to the comprehensive
plan and the timing of allowed future development were not caused or necessarily
accepted by the landowner. However, neither the future land use guidance nor the
timing for future development has any bearing on establishing a non-agricultural
low impact use. As such, this criteria is not satisfied for any of the variance
requests®
Resident(
Staff is not aware of any resident concerns surrounding the requested variances.
Col
Additional w The DNR did not provide comment for or against the application,
Information: . The Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) is seeking a number of additional
information submittals prior to processing a VBWD permit for the request, Staff
would suggest making any approval contingent upon also receiving approval of a
VBWD permit.
Interim Use The applicant's narrative makes it clear that the expansion should be acceptable
Option: based on the future land use change (to Business Park) that will generate far more
vehicle trips and have a far greater impact on the character of the area. While we
agree that changes are planned, the guided changes are not ample justification for a
variance and hence our recommendation of denial. If the planning commission or
council were receptive to considering temporary uses on properties to the south of
10th Street, staff would suggest exploring the adoption of an interim use ordinance
to accommodate such changes. This topic is already on the 2007 work plan.
An interim use ordinance allows a city to permit certain uses in areas deemed
appropriate for a designated amount of time (a maximum number of years) or until
some change occurs on a property such as redevelopment (i.e. urban development
per the comp plan). Since the expansion of parking on this site is not out of
character with the area; and seeing as the increased traffic onto the highway
frontage road is not anticipated to create any impact; the proposed changes seem
reasonable on their own, but not as a non-agricultural low impact use. The more
appropriate avenue for this type of change would be through an interim use permit
that could authorize the use with conditions without the need for variances.
C \Docutrjews aud Seuinq 5\(
haerno
Parking -17-9-24-(7-v-21 1].doc Iage 8
(J/P Anloulmem, RequeS1%, L"a'l� 101A l7kr's
Plannirtl- C'Mranissif.m R�,,purt: 9-24-07
The applicant is seeking approval of a CUP amendment to allow expansion of the
existing bus service facility at 11.530 Hudson Boulevard. The proposal will only
conform to the CUP review criteria if the following three variances are also approved
as part of the application:
a A 2.65 -acre variance to the maximum size for a non-agricultural low impact
use on a 70 -acre site.
0 A variance of 0.6 additional trips per acre based on the total number of buses
expected on the site and anticipated daily trips.
® A 2.31 -acre variance to the allowable impervious surface total in the CUP area.
Commission The Planning Commission has the following options:
Options: A) Recommend approval of the CUP & variance requests (with findings of fact);
B) Recommend denial of the CUP & variance requests (with findings of fact);
Q Table the item and request additional information.
The 60 -day review period for this application expires on 10-21-07, but can be
extended an additional 60 days if more time is needed.
Staff Rec: Staff is recommending denial of the CUP amendment and variance requests to allow
expansion of the Laidlaw bus service facility at 11530 Hudson Boulevard based on the
following:
® The CUP amendment requests to increase the trips per acre from the site in
excess of the 6.0 trips per acre allowed by code.
* The CUP amendment would expand the overall site to well beyond the allowed
4% site area;
® The CUP amendment requests impervious surface coverage that is grossly
nonconforming to code requirements;
* The use approved in 2002 is already nonconforming to code requirements, and
any expansion would increase those nonconformities.
® Allowing the use to continue as approved in 2002 is a reasonable alternative
available to the applicant,
* There are no physical conditions of the land or buildings that justify variances
to allow the requested expansion.
If the planning commission or council were interested in allowing these types of
expansions, staff would suggest exploring the adoption of an interim use ordinance
(which is a 2007 work plan item).
. i I
CADocumems and Sell ings'\Tempora. rY 11a.ernet F Phis
Parking—I'l 9-24-07 v2llldoc
CV11 Arnendinen! Request; E<.Q-,E P�'operries
PI
lanning COmmission Report; 9-24-07
Denial
Motion
Template:
To approve the requests, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Move to recommend that Council approve the requested CUP amendment and
variances based on the following findings of fact ... (please site reasons for the
recommendation)
To deny the requests, you may use the following motion as a guide:
Move to recommend that Council deny the requested CUP amendment and
variances based on the findings of fact cited by staff in the report (and others as
you deem appropriate),
cc: Terry Emerson, Applicant
(..'ADocuwemS and Seltinos'Ven7porary hacrner Bus
Page 10
X444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500
Saint Paul, MN 55101-2140
(651)292.4400
(651) 292-0083 Fax
www.tkda.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Ben Gozola, City Planner eference®
ESE Properties -
Copies To® Jack Griffin, City Engineer Parking Lot Expansion
Kelli Matzek, Assistant City Planner City of lake Elmo, Minnesota
IVZIMTLR,���
From: Ryan W. Sterapski, P.E. Routing:
Date: September 17, 2007
The following review summarizes the engineering comments and requirements for the above referenced
expansion. Approval should be contingent upon the applicant addressing these items to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. These comments and requirements are based upon submittal documents received through
September 6, 2007.
The increase in trips to Hudson Boulevard is minimal. At this time, we do not anticipate a need for an
independent traffic study for this expansion. If the LOS at Manning Avenue or Lake Elmo Avenue becomes
an issue in the future due to a direct condition of this site, a traffic study may be required to evaluate that
impact.
The curve number calculations for subcatchment E1 in the existing and proposed conditions model
should include a curve number of 100 to represent the normal water area of the existing pond.
The existing pond, labeled "Bl" in the existing conditions model and "Pond I" in the proposed
conditions model, will need to be modeled with a starting elevation of 896.5. The starting elevation of the
pond is currently modeled assuming an outlet elevation of 896.0.
According to the existing and proposed watershed maps, the total drainage area for subcatchments PI
through P4 should be equal to the area of existing subcatchment E3; however, the sum of the areas for
subcatchments P1 through P4 is approximately 12,900 square feet less than the area of subcatchment E3
as defined in the model. Revise the total drainage area of subcatchments P I through P4 in the proposed
conditions model to be consistent with the area of existing subcatchment E3.
The curve numbers for all undisturbed pervious areas in proposed subcatchments P1 through P4 should
be consistent with the pervious area curve number of 75 used in existing subcatchment E3. Revise the
undisturbed pervious area curve numbers for subcatchments Pl through P4 in the model for consistency.
The total impervious area for proposed subcatchments P3 and P4 should be equal to the impervious area
for existing subcatchment E3 in the model. Revise the impervious areas for proposed subcatchments P3
and P4 in the model for consistency.
An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity
CUP Amendment and Variance Page 2 9/18/2007
E&E Properties
0 Include a time of concentration value in the proposed conditions model for subcatchinent P4.
Ponds Pl31 through PB4 are modeled with invertelevations lower than what is shown on the Grading
Plan. Add the bottom contour elevation for all proposed ponding areas located south of the proposed
parking lot expansion on the Grading Plan. Ensure that the pond contour elevations on the Grading Plan
are consistent with the stage storage input values in the model.
Show the location and elevation of all culvert overland overflows on the Plan. In addition, label the 100 -
year elevation of all ponding areas upstream of the culverts on the Grading, Plan.
The upstream invert elevation, length, and slope of the proposed culvert located north of the existing
building are not consistent with the input values of the outlet structure of pond PB4 in the model. Update
for consistency.
e Label the 100 -year elevation of the proposed infiltration area on the Grading Plan.
Label the existing invert elevations of all culvert ends and the pipe size of all culverts on the Grading
Plan.
e Include a cross section detail of the infiltration area on the plan. The detail should include information
such as the depth and type of soil mixture.
Indicate the type of vegetation used in the infiltration area on the Plan. It is highly recommended that
mature plants be used over seed in the infiltration area. Fluctuating water levels following seeding can
cause seeds to float and be transported downstream. In addition, it may take up to two growing seasons to
establish the function and aesthetic value of mature vegetation using seeds.
If the infiltration area is to be seeded, it is recommended that a temporary erosion control blanket be used
to stabilize the seeded area.
Indicate on the Grading Plan that the proposed infiltration area shall be staked off and marked during
construction to prevent compaction and shall not be excavated to final grade until the contributing
drainage areas have been constructed and fully stabilized.
Approval from Valley Branch watershed District (VBWD) is required. Submit a copy of the VBWD
permit for the City's records when available.
Miscellaneous:
Hudson Boulevard shall be swept as necessary to eliminate excess gravel and silt from the site during
construction and continuing thereafter,
51
OV,
Proposal.
E & E Properties is requesting to expand its current parking area to better accommodate cars and
to extend 15' to the north end of the existing bus parking area. E & E is proposing the expansion
for Laidlaw Transit, Inc.
In order to facilitate the expansion, the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would need to be amended.
In addition, a variance would be needed for the "4% Rule" with regard to the amount of the
property that can be used for business purposes.
There are several reasons we are requesting a variance for expansion of the parking area in Lake
Elmo.
1.) Greater efficiency in bus maintenance, as buses currently need to be transported to the
facility from Afton, in order to perform scheduled maintenance. Also, if buses suffer
mechanical breakdowns at the remote facility, they have to be towed to the Lake Elmo
facility; buses breaking down at the Lake Elmo facility do not.
2.) The Afton site provides no electrical hook ups for Plugging in buses during cold winter
nights. As a result, buses must be started, hours before school routes, and left idling, to
ensure that they will start in the morning. Moving the buses to the Lake Elmo facility,
would eliminate the need to do this.
3.) The Afton site provides no facilities for drivers to stay warm, in the winter, and offers
only a satellite toilet. At the Lake Elmo facility, there is an employee lounge, coffee and
warm/sairitary restrooms.
4.) The remote Afton facility provides drivers with no means to punch in/out for their shifts,
causing payroll difficulties. It also offers no way to post messages for employees or to
provide updated routing information, as all employee information boxes are located at the
Lake Elmo facility.
5.) The Afton facility consists of only poor quality gravel. As a result, rain and melting snow
cause muddy conditions which cause buses to get stuck and cause buses to get dirtier,
resulting in more frequent washing and wasting of precious water resources.
6.) Buses need to be brought over to the Lake Elmo site for fueling.
7.) Afton site has no secure area for buses, while Lake Elmo site provides a security fence
around the entire parking area. This assures secure and safe storage of all buses.
Laidlaw would like to move 23 buses from its remote parking facility in Afton (along the south
frontage road) to this site, in order to centralize operations. Expanding the bus parking area, by
the requested 15', allows for better security of buses and allows easier movement of buses
through the lot area.
This expansion would also provide for additional parking of employee vehicles, enabling drivers
to park personal vehicles behind the facility (which is currently not possible). The ability to park
personal vehicles, behind the facility would enhance the aesthetics of the property as significantly
fewer vehicles would be visible to the public eye from the North Frontage Road,
This proposed car parking expansion would increase the number of private vehicles that currently
park at the facility by 23. The proposed car parking area. will be used only 175 days per year and
will be for cars only.
U=• RMIRM111121111111! I
The number of buses running along county roads will not change. The only change would be that
all buses would enter from the north frontage road, rather than from both the north AND south
frontage road.
Due to the property location (along Interstate 94) and the future zoning of the property, I feel that
this proposal would in no way cause harm to the city of Lake Elmo, its residents or businesses.
The trips per acre will increase dramatically when the property is developed in the future. While
the trips per acre would increase under the terms of this proposal, the increase would not be to a
level that would negatively impact the City of Lake Elmo, its residents or businesses. We all
know that this is a temporary use of the property.
MIMM
There will be no lighting changes at the Lake Elmo facility.
In the original CUP the building and bituminous were figured for the hard surface. The pond
sizing was calculated for the entire surface, using hard surface areas, gavel areas and green areas.
a.) A list of all current property owners, all general and limited partners, all managers and
directors, and any officers and directors involved as either applicants or owners.
Property Ownership: ENProperlies, LLC
Terry Emerson -Chief Manager
David Nelson -Secretary
Paul Emerson- Vice President
William Nelson- Treasurer
b.) A listing of the following site data: Legal description of the property, parcel identification
number, parcel size, existing use of land and current zoning.
See Attachment A
Parcel 44
Geo Code-,. 36-1129-21-43-0001
Total Area o utside RIW 63.73 7 Acres
Area of old AIW 6.4 71 Acres
Total Area 70.208 Acres
fxistinuse o land.
L*__
Bus terminal for Stillwater School District under existing CUP
Property north of CUP to north property line is being used. for tree nursery®
Remaining property is bcdngjarmed
Current tonin
._
. Agricultural
c.) State the provisions of the Lake Elmo City Code for which you seek a variance.
Section 3 M 0 7 Zoning Districts
Subd (46b) 4% Rule -Area not to exceed 4% of property®
d.) A specific written description of the proposal and how it varies from the applicable
provisions of the Lake Elmo Code.
e.) A narrative regarding any pre -application discussions with staff, and an explanation of
how the issue was addressed leading up to the application for a variance
7
what was required. I then met with City Planner with a draft of what I wanted to do, to
see if any changes should he made. Ben wanted more information with an updated trip
report and drainage runoff calculations.
f.) Explain why the property cannot be put to reasonable use if used under the conditions
allowed by the zoning.
The property is zoned agricultural which is a reasonable use at this time. Basically, it is
a temporary use, until zoning is changed in the future
g.) Explain why the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property
and not created by the landowner.
h) Justify that granting the variance would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
Granting a variance on This site would not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood There are no residences within a half -mile of the site. The only
businesses are the Valley -Hi Drive In and Howard Gelb's rental building, which are -to
the west of the property. To the immediate north and east of the property fad.
The closet business to the north is Oakland Jr. High, which & serviced by Laidlaw.
Interstate 94 is directly south of the property.
I have also inquired with the city regarding an complaints that may have beenfilled
regarding the current bus operations at the site. I have not been made aware of any
complaints.
Revised Trip Study:
Njultak- ""T
I
IEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR
--944--
PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE CONTOUR
EXISTING STORM SEWER
W/ M.W. & F.E.S.
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
W/ M.W., C.B. & F.E.S.
DRAINAGE ARROW
Xo0 b PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
PROPOSED 9" WOOD FIBER WATTLE
CPROPOSED GRAVEL AREA
ZM SEED MIXTURE MN/DOT TYPE 310 (82 LBS/ACRE)
(BOTTOM OF PONDS)
KmSEED MIXTURE MN/DOT TYPE 350 (86 LBS/ACRE)
( ABOVE WATER LEVEL OF PONDS)
NOTE: ALL SEED SHALL BE DRILLED AND NOT SPREAD,
ALI. SEEDING SHALL BE COVERED WITH WEED FREE
MN/DOT TYPE II MULCH APPLIED @ 2 TONS PER ACRE.
TYPE 270 ON BERMS & ALL OTHER DITURBED AREAS.
1) ALL CONSTRUCTION AS CALLED FOR ON THESE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL. BE
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL OSHA REQUIREMENTS.
2) REMOVAL OF WOOD FIBER WATTLE REQUIRED AFTER SITE IS STABILIZED
(AT DIRECTION OF ENGINEER).
3) ALL EXISTING COUNTY ROADS SHALL BE SWEPT AS REQUESTED BY ENGINEER.
4) MAINTAINAND REPAIR WOOD FIBER WATTLE (INCLUDING REMOVAL OF ACCUMULATED
SILT) UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.
5) PRIOR TO ROUGH GRADING, INSTALL WOOD FIBER WATTLE IN LOCATIONS SHOWN OR
AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER OR TOWNSHIP/COUNTY STAFF.
6) WHEN THE DEPTH OF THE SEDIMENT REACHES 1/2 THE HEIGHT OF THE STORAGE
VOLUME, THE BASIN SHALL BE DRAINED AND THE SEDIMENT REMOVED IN A MANNER AS
APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
7) AS EACH AREA OUTSIDE THE PARKING LOT IS GRADED, PROVIDE 4" OF NATIVE TOPSOIL,
SEED, AND MULCH ANCHORED WITH A STRAIGHT SET DISC WITHIN 48 HOURS OF
FINE GRADING.
CL.5, COMPACTED 1'0 100% STANDARD PROCTOR
SUBGRADE CORRECTION AS REQUIRED BY ENGINEER &
- "---MECHANICALLY COMPACT SUBGRADE OVER UTILITY TRENCHES
TO 95% PROCTOR (MnDOT FABRIC TYPE 5, MAY BE REQUIRED
�2" MAXWOOD FIBER WATTLE
AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER).
f(SEE PLAN FOR DIAMETER)
S(ROLUED UP WOOD FIBER BLANKET)LOPE1) TEST ROLLING OF SUBGRADE AND AGGREGATE BASE REQUIRED
tis. DISTANCE BETWEEN WATTLES VARIES,
SEE PLAN FOR LOCATION 2) FULLY LOADED HAUL TRUCK SHALL BE DRIVEN ENTIRE LENGTH OF ROAD.
12 MIN 3) ANY DEFLECTION IN THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE CAUSE FOR FAILURE.
1'X1" WOOD STAKE MIN.
MAX 3' SPACING 4} ENGINEER MUST BE PRESENT FOR TEST.
WOOD FIBER WATTLE
NOSCALE
2 GRAVEL PARKING_SECTION
.._..----
NO SCALE
Y
n
0
vi
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
PIAN, SP EDIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY
ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAI' I AM
A DUI..Y LIOEN SED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
UNDFR THE LAWS OF TIE
SI'AI'L OF MINNESOTA.
TODD A ERICRSON
40418
LICENSE NO.�
DATR
p+ppg TAE
MAN p JSR
992p p TJF
"MMS_ 08-23-97
mom, Oi 16a _
0
uj
0
z
Lu f5 Z
Q
w
sw� C3,
Os 6
N
s
ORIGINAL SCALE
11NCH=40 FEE]
0 20 40 00 FEET
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR
v __3 EXISTING STORM SEWER WITH CATCFI BASIN
W/ M.H. 8 F.E.S.
MU
1) 2005 AERIAL WASHINGTON COUNTY AERIAL PHOTO
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY
ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SU PE:RVISION AND IHAT I AM
A DULY LICENSED
PROEF'.SSIGNAL ENGINEER
UNOER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA.
TODD A. ERICKSON
40418
LICENSE NO. - -
DATE
9V: TAE
WNEBY: JSR
mo py VJy
pM 08-23-07
d7-163
5g
0 w
®
z
0
Q
F�T9
0_ d
»J
Lu
IAJ
Eu
t®
0
FFA
z
Sd9
da
cl„ s
CT®t3
EXISTING STORM SEWER
W/ M.H. & F.E.S.
12 PROPOSED STORM SEWER
W/ M.H., C.B. & F.E.S.
PROPOSED GRAVEL AREA
SURFACE ANALYSIS
EXISTING: GRAVELED AREA=92,973 SF
BULDING AREA = 16,915 Sr
BITUMINOUS AREA = 8,985 SF
PROPOSED: GRAVELED AREA = 120,445 SF
BUILDING AREA = 16,915 SF
BITUMINOUS AREA = 8,985 SF
PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY
MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM
A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA,
TODD A €RICKSON
40418
LICENSE NO.
DATE
DBOWW TAE
MAVAIP JSR
Qg2gjW TJF
&'AYIPd pATR08-23-07_
aw 07-163_
u
w ,rla
o •�