HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-91 PZMThe Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City
Council. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings
and make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes
all final decisions on these matters.
Lake Elmo Ordinances require that certain documents and
information be included in applications. The Planning Commission may
postpone consideration of an application that is incomplete and may
for other reasons postpone final action on an application.
For each item, the Commission will receive reports prepared by
the City Staff, open the hearing to the public, and discuss and act on
the application. If you are aware of information that hasn't been
discussed, please fill out a "Request to Appear Before the Planning
Commission" slip; or if you came late, raise your hand to be
recognized. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated.
AGENDA
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 14, 1991
7:30 p.m. MEETING CONVENES
1. AGENDA
2. MINUTES: December 17, 1990
3. ELECTION OI' OFFICERS
A. Chair
B. Vice Chair
C. Secretary
4. LIMITED BUSINESS (Continuation)
5. Other
6. ADJOURN
Date Approved: 1-14-91
Date Issued: 1-25-91
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 17, 1990
Chairman DeLapp called the Planning Commission meeting to order at.
7:35 p.m. in the council chambers. Present: DeLapp, John (left
10:30), Johnston, Dick Johnson, Thomas, Conlin, Stevens, Wilfong (left
10:00), Bucheck (arrived 7:45, left 10:15), Enos (arrived 9:00),
Administrator Kueffner, Planner Black. Absent: Arkell.
1. AGENDA
M/S/P Johnson/Thomas - to approve the December 17, 1990 Planning
Commission Agenda as presented. (Motion carried 8-0.)
2. MINUTES: November 26, 1990
M/S/P Johnson/Conlin - to accept the November 26, 1990 Planning
Commission minutes as amended. (Motion carried 7-0, abstain: DeLapp).
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Chairman DeLapp opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. The Public
Hearing was held to consider a request to amend the Lake Elmo 1990
Comprehensive Plan that the property, located in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 3, T29N, R21W, be amended from the future land use of RED to
the future land use of RAD. The Public Hearing Notice was published
in the St. Croix Valley Press, December 5, 1990, and all property
owners within 350 feet were notified.
Cletus Tauer, 5270 Keats Ave., stated he is the subject of the "dip"
and he has been working with the Planning Commission and City Council
for two years on zoning this area. Mr. Tauer did not agree that this
is "spot zoning" since this zoning is consistent with the surrounding
area. Also, Mr. Tauer mentioned that 53rd street was always
considered a temporary cul-de-sac and would someday be a through road
and that is why there is a road easement put through his property.
Mr. Tauer stated that there is no good reason to grant this amendment.
Steve Korhel, 5542 Keats Ave., stated the "dip" area came as a
complete surprise to area property owners and is an example of
favoritism toward one property owner. Mr. Korhel stated the Lake Elmo
Comprehensive Plan states the RE zone was created to decrease the
density of people on land. Presently the "dip" area is zoned RR - 1
house per 10 acres, the future land use of RE is 3 houses per 10
acres. Mr. Korhel mentioned the 1990 Comp. Plan has not yet been
approved by Met. Council, therefore the current zone of RR is still in
effect and it is not too late. The Comprehensive Plan states there
will be no more R1 zoning (1.5 acres per house) in the City, a new
ordinance will be drafted to implement standards for Rural Estate
Denisity (RE), this ordinance will implement the following policies -
two of the atributes are: to reduce demands on the soil as compared to
R1 density; to minimize population density. In other words take 1.5
acres per residence to 2.5, but it is defeating the principle to
minimize by increasing density on the land in this area.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 17, 1990 Page 2
Pete Eggen, 5250 Keats Ave., stated. he owns eleven acres in the "dip"
area, but the future land use zone of RE doesn't do him any good (need
20 acres) and sees this zone as favoring those that own large acreage.
Karin Schubert, 5222 Keats Ave., stated there is no good reason for
rezoning to smaller lots that are surrounded by land that is zoned
agricultural - this is not consistent with what the present zoning is.
Variances have already been granted for Tauer's property and it seems
that for every variance granted two more are required to perpetuate
that. Four property owners live in the "dip" area, but only one is in
favor of the RE zone. The RE zone in this area is not decreasing
density.
Keith Raleigh, 5435 Keats Ave., feels he'll be living with the City in
the Country and does not want the increased traffic, that will be
generated by this development, going past his house and property.
Steve Korhel stated that he sees three other possible "spot" zones of
RED and pointed them out on the Future Land Use Map. City Planner
Mike Black disputed this suggestion by stating the City has no plans
to consider any more changes to the land use map. Mr. Korhel rebutted
by suggesting the City has no plans, but the intentions of the current
land owners is different. Karin Schubert added that there were no
plans for a housing development in their area either, but look what
can happen.
George Dege, 5193 Keats Ave., asked why couldn't this have been
discussed, like it is being now, back before Tauer was granted this
new zone? If this had been done, most likely, Tauer would not have
been granted his request for RED zone based on the amount of
opposition.
Vanessa Thatcher, 9320 53rd St. N., offered that the City's
forebearer's wanted 1 house per 10 acre lots in this area to keep it
rural. Ms. Thatcher had a neighborhood meeting at her house and
residents in Fox Fire prefer 53rd Street remain a cul-de-sac. It
appears that one person has been shown favoritism.
Terri Lehman, 9355 53rd St. N., wants the cul-de-sac on 53rd Street to
remain the way it is for the safety and privacy. Ms. Lehman also
added that the road easement to Mr. Tauer's property was put in for
emergency access before Fire Station #2 was put in.
Cletus Tauer stated that the land to the north of his property is not
Ag anymore and to the west is Ri. People in Fox Fire are living in Ri
and want to take away his rights to RE zone. Mr. Tauer asked in what
way will 20 more homes have a negative impact on them? Also, there
isn't any farm land up there any more. The City has improved Keats
Avenue for traffic, not for tractors, this should have indicated to
people the City's intentions. This "dip" has been there for at least
10 years. Pete Eggen stated that his property was rezoned in 1984.
This is pretty often to be rezoning property.
Keith Raleigh accused that Mr. Tauer wanted to leave them with
expensive land that they couldn't do anything with.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 17, 1990 Page 3
Karin Schubert stated the little farmers are not going to be able to
stay where they are - they'll be taxed out of there. Neighbor's in the
new housing project will complain that the agricultural odor doesn't
appeal to them.
Roger Kolstad, developer for Northern Lakes Div., stated reason #2 on
the petition for amendment is erroneous, and that Keats Ave.
absolutely will not be blocked off at Hwy 36 due to the (proposed)
bridge across the St. Croix River according to MN/DOT's 20 year plan.
Steve Korhel stated that according to Mike Lewis, MN/DOT's project
manager, the decision to close off Keats or not is not a definite
decision.
There were no further comments from the public and Chairman DeLapp
closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Commissioner Stevens felt the area property owners were not notified
with enough to be well informed. Commissioner Thomas stated the
petitioners have to show that there's something wrong with the
Comprehensive Plan. City Planner Black asked the Commission if there
is reason to change the Comp. Plan? Commissioner John suggested the
Futue Land Use Map should show temporary cul-de-sacs that will turn
into through streets so property owners aren't misled. Commissioner
Bucheck stated the Future Land Use Map has other erroneous lines on
it, and agrees with Commissioner Stevens. Commissioner Johnson stated
there was a City wide mailing on the Comp. Plan and Future Land Use
Map public hearing, and can appreciate the public concerns, but all
the members on the Planning Commission put together the RED ordinance
and genrally feel good about it and comfortable about RED zoning along
Hwy 36 and appropriate about the property they zoned. Also, it is
very important for the safety and health of the City to have through
streets.
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Conlin - to recommend that the City Council deny
the Petitioners request to amend the 1990 Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan, specifically their request to change the future land use
designatin on the Future Land Use Map of that portion in the Southeast
quarter of Section 3 that is presently shown as RED (Residential
Estates Density) to RAD (Rural Agriculture Density) base on the
following findings of fact: 1. The Lake Elmo City Council has
previously granted the request of the property owner, Mr. Cletus
Tauer, to show his property as RED on the Future Land Use Map. 2. The
extension of 53rd Street, which is currently an illegal cul-de-sac,
but allowed as a "temporary" cul-de-sac has been viewed by the City
Council as an improvement to to health, safety, and welfare of the
City. 3. That RED zoning is not "spot zoning" in this area because
it is contiguous to the Fox Fire development to the west. 4. That the
designation of RED for Future Land Use of this area is indeed
consistent with proper planning for the City. 5. Proper notificaion
was provided for the Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan.
(Motion carried 6-3, against: Wilfong, Bucheck, Stevens.)
(
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 17, 1990 Page 4
4. ARABIAN HILLS: Rezoning (Continuation)
The City has been advised they cannot officially rezone any property
based on its conformity to our Comprehensive Plan until they receive
approval from Met. Council.
M/S/P Johnston/Conlin - to bring the rezoning application for Arabian
Hills to to the table. (Motion carried 9-0.)
M/S/P Thomas/Johnson - to grant the applicant's request to table the
application for rezoning for Arabian Hills until such time it is
brought back before the Planning Commission. (Motion carried 9-0.)
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Outdoor Advertising Sign
Chairman DeLapp opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. 3M/National
Advertising Co. applied for a variance from City Code, Section 505.260
(distance between signs, a variance from Section 505.320 C.2. (size of
sign - 672 sf. vs. 200 sf) and a Conditional Use permit for an outdoor
advertising billboard at 8910 Hudson Blvd. (Crossroads Collision).
The Public Hearing Notice was published in the St. Croix Valley Press
on December 5, 1990, and all property owners withing 350 feet were
notified. Chairman DeLapp stated he will be abstaining from
discussion due to he is presently doing some work for 3M/National.
Joe McCormick, 1422 W. Lake St., Mpls., of 3M/National Advertising,
presented himself and the Company, and restated reasons for the
requested variances, which are listed in his application letter. Mr.
McCormick feels the variance for distance between signs may not be
necessary due to the Crossroads Collission sign is an "on premise"
sign not an outdoor advertising sign.
Chairman DeLapp closed the Public Hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Commissioner Bucheck is not in favor of billboards, and feels the
reason for the City's strict codes is to keep the highway clean.
Commissioner Thomas stated the applicatan has not shown a hardship.
Commissioner Johnson read the code which states: "advertising signs
shall not be closer than 3,000 feet from any other sign on the same
side of a street or highway." This requirement is not met.
Commissioner Johnson also contacted the County Assessor who said no
tax revenue will be generated by this advertising sign. Commissioner
John stated the 672 sf. sign would be a quantum leap from the allowed
200 sf.
M/S/P Bucheck/Johnston - to recommend to the City Council that a
variance not be given regarding the distance between signs, and a
variance not be given regarding a variance from the size of the sign
based on the fact there is no hardship due to the land or structures
on the property and economic or financial considerations do not
constitute a hardship alone. (Motion carried 7-1-1, against: Enes,
abstain: DeLapp.)
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 17, 1990 Page 5
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Limited Business Zoning Ordinance
Chairman DeLapp opened the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. The public
hearing notice was published in the St. Croix Valley press December 5,
1990, and all property owners in the LB district on the Future Land
Use map were notified, as well as adjoining property owners, and
businesses in the "Old Village" business district. Chairmand DeLapp
acknowledged receipt of the City Planner's written report as well as
written comments from Jamie L. Olson, Federal Land Co., Countryside
Pools, Inc. and Mike Mazzara, made part of the minutes by reference.
Charles Bartholdi, attorney for Federal Land Co., verbally restated
his written comments submitted earlier to the Planning Commission.
Kelly Brookman, 3385 Lake Elmo Ave., stated his feelings are expressed
best by the second paragraph of a letter to Mary Kueffner from the
Lake Elmo Business Assoc. [We believe that, like the City of Woodbury,
the City of Lake Elmo should take a reasonable approach in planning
along the I-94 corridor in assuming that when economic conditions
require, urban services may be needed and available. This planning
approach is imperative to ensure that this section of land remains in
the Lake Elmo city limits, now and in the future.]
Mike Mazzara, 30th St., stated the Lake Elmo Business Assoc. is a
committee of the Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce. At their last
meeting there were approx. 14 people attending and there was
discussion on the proposed Limited Business District Zone. As a
result of this meeting some suggested changes were made to the
Planning Commission's version of this ordinance. These suggested
changes were copied to the Planning Commission.
Hugh Madson, 11060 32nd St., stated they compared Woodbury's existing
business ordinance and Lake Elmo's proposed Limited Business ordinance
and they appeared similar, with the exeption of the possibility of
urban services. The key is to leave the door open for the future in
order to keep property owners from annexing.
Dave Johnson, 11291 30th St., agrees with Mr. Bartholdi, our Comp.
Plan has not yet been approved by Met. Council. In addition, Mr.
Johnson is not satisfied with the map and feels it is premature to
deal with the uses. Considering the freeway, with high traffic, where
one would expect to see the highest type of commercial use in retail
or office, it is not appropriate to list this type of use under
Conditional Uses. Mr. Johnson would like to see, before this
commission considers this district any further, an Economic
Development Board made of business people, as well as lay citizens,
take a look at this area, as well as other areas in Lake Elmo, in
depth an tell us what they feel are the highest uses and give us their
rationale, and also consider timing and infrastructure.
Chairman DeLapp closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 17, 1990 Page 6
Commissioner Johnson stated the Planning Commission cannot take any
action due to the State Statute regarding Met. Council's review of the
Comp. Plan. City Planner Black felt the Planning Commission can
discuss this since it's only a recommending body not a governing body.
Commissioner John commented there is no proposal to "place into
effect" this ordinance simply discussing it. Mr. Black added that is
our job, to try to work with the local business community, with
property owners, and other interested citizens in adopting reasonable
Limited Business zoning regulations. Commissioner Thomas clarified
the City Attorney has decided the Planning Commission can conduct and
conclude this public hearing. Commissioner John stated they have
received some strong and relavent feedback in detail. Commissioner
John also stated citizens in general may get upset if they find out
we've adopted an ordinance directed solely to the condiderations of
the business people and not the general public, and at some stage
we'll have to establish what the whole City of Lake Elmo wants which
may require a City-wide publication of a public hearing to avoid
conflicts as in the past.
M/S/P Conlin/Thomas - to table the Limited Business Zoning Ordinance.
(Motion carried 5-4.)
M/S/P Johnson/Conlin - to discuss agenda item #8 before item #7 so the
applicant for Fox Fire Manor understands the interpretation of. the
City for lot size in the RE Zoning Ordinance. (Motion carried 9-0.)
7. RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ORDINANCE REVIEW
City Planner Black stated the RE Ordinance, as it exists right now,
clearly states we cannot use the park land set aside as part of the
density calculation.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the gross density
include park land dedication as part of the 20 acre minimum and still
have 6 lots per 20 acres with the 2.5 acre minimum per lot. Also park
dedication fee ordinance desperately needs to be looked at.
8. CONCEPT REVIEW: Fox Fire Mannor
Larry Liles and Scott Peterson, developers for Pacesetter Property
Management, Inc., presented a concept plan to be called "Fox Fire
Mannor", legally described in part as Section 3, Township 29N, Range
21W. A 40 acre parcel owned by Carl Brogren. Carl Brogren's homesite
is approx. eight acres of this parcel leaving 32 acres to develop.
Also, Chuck Nelson, Northern Lakes Diversified, is currently working
on another concept plan to the east of Brogren's property, and has
offered to work with Mr. Liles in order to create continuity between
the two developments. The Planning Commission and City Planner Black
offered comments to Mr. Liles and Mr. Peterson regarding streets,
lots, topography, etc.
M/S/P Johnston/Thomas - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at
11:00 p.m. (Motion carried 7-0.)
REQUEST FOR PLANNING CONL`?ISSION REVIEW
AGENDA TOPIC:
Election of Officers.
Meeting Date:
January 14, 1991
ITEM
NO. 3.
According to our municipal code, the Commission shall hold an annual
meeting the Second Monday of January in each year. The meeting shall
be devoted to the election of officers and other pot such business as
may be scheduled.
For those of you that don't know, the Council has not yet made
appointments to fill the term of Steve DeLapp, Ann Bucheck and Karen
Johnston, all of whose terms expired December 31, 1990. The Council
chose rather to accept applications for these seats until January 31,
1991.
The Council has not ruled out reappointing the members whose terms
expired, but wants to see if there was any other interest in the
community.
The Council did take action to promote Debra Wilfong from 1st
Alternate to fill out the unexpired term of Dick Johnson who was
elected to the Council. This term expires December 31, 1991.
Since the Council meeting, where all of this transpired, the City has
received a notice of resignation from Jim Arkell. Jim's term runs
thru December 31, 1992, and according to the code, Lonny Thomas will
move up to serve out this term.
The action required at this meeting is to elect a Chair, Vice Chair
and Secretary.
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Meeting Date:
AGENDA TOPIC: Limited Business (continuation)
January 14, 1991
ITEM
NO.
4.
At your December 17, 1990 public hearing on this proposed ordinance,
there was quite a bit of comment from the public, and the Commission
chose to table action until it could digest the testimony presented.
The concerns and comments provided by the public are included in your
minutes.
The concerns raised that our Comprehensive Plan has not been approved
by the Met Council are factual. 'However, there are no rules written
(or unwritten) that says the City cannot proceed in preparing the
ordinances that will implement our Comp. Plan. Where we must be
careful is in not rezoning anything to LB (or RE) until final approval
of the Met. Council.
I was asked to pass on the article tht is enclosed from the Corporate
Report, Minnesota regarding retail glut in the Twin Cities.
I was also asked to pass on the attached tax information on commercial
business. The tax information shows the tax capacity rate on business
that currently exists in Lake Elmo, and that are proposed in the LB
zoning district.
Also included is the tax capacity for Kangaroo storage (located on
Highway 36 in Stillwater) because there has been discussion about
allowing storage in the new district.
If anyone wants additional information, please feel free to call me.
fly or //-6 go
LB - Limited Business District
(A) Purpose
The purpose of the Limited Business District is to establish a
comprehensive planned framework for development along I-94.
The City has determined that it is in the best interest of the
City and the region to responsibly manage growth in this district.
It is the intent of this district to promote a high quality of
business design and development that produces a positive visual
image and minimizes adverse impacts from traffic congestion,
noise, odor, glare and similar problems. Specific development
goals within the district include the following:
(1) To encourage a high quality development standard for
structures within the district properties, which are
among the most visible in the City.
(2) To protect the natural environment, in accordance with
City Ordinances.
(3) To limit development to comply with the capacity of
regional and local road systems.
(4) To limit developmentby setting stringent requirements
for on -site sewer systems in order to avoid a need for
expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area line
and sanitary sewer facilities.
(5) To establish permitted, accessory and conditional uses
in order to stimulate local economic prosperity along the
interstate corridor and within the Metropolitan Rural
Service Area while closely monitoring the magnitude of
development so not to prematurely demand the expansion
of local governmental services.
(B) Permitted Uses Permitted uses are as follows:
(1) Clinics for human care including medical, dental,
osteopathic, chiropractic and optometric offices.
(2) Finance, insurance, real estates, investment offices
banks (with no drive -up windows).
(3) General offices including administrative, executive,
and corporate headquarters.
(4) Professional offices providing services such as legal,
engineering, architectural, accounting, auditing and
bookkeeping.
(5) Travel and empolyment agencies.
(C) Conditional Uses Conditional Uses are as follows:
(1) Banks and financial services with drive -up windows.
(2) Health clubs including tennis, racketball, aerobics,
weight lifting, swimming, weight loss clinics (all
facilities to be housed inside).
(3) Limited retail uses including:
(a) retail sales clearly accessory to the permitted
principal use of the land, for example: the
compounding, dispensing or sale of drugs,
prescription items, patient or proprietary
medicine, sick room supplies, prosthetic devices
or items relating to any of the foregoing when
conducted in the building occupied primarily by
medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic or
*��tamQ ric offices
(b) The retail sale of commodities marketed to the local
area such as:
(1) Greenhouses and nurseries, landscaping services,
flowers and floral accessories.
(2) Art sale and gallery.
(3) Furniture, home furnishings and related equipment.
(4) Vineyard and winery produce and sale.
(5) Sporting goods, skiing, bicycles, motorcycles,
snowmobiles, boats and fishing gear (all storage
restricted to inside).
(5) Full service restaurants where food is served to a customer
and consumed while seated at a counter or table.
(6) Golf courses, Club houses, Golf sales, Driving ranges.
(D) Permitted Accessory Uses
Permitted accessory uses shall include required off-street
parking, loading areas and signs as regulated in this ordinance.
Only accessory structures which are clearly incidental and
subordinate to the business will be permitted.
(E) Minimum District Requirements
(1) Lot Area: 3.5 acres
(2) Minimum Lot Width: 300 feet
(3) Minimum Lot Depth: 400 feet
(4) Building setback from property lines:
(a) Front 100 feet
(b) Side 50 feet
(c) Side (street) 100 feet
(d) Rear 50 feet
(e) any line adjacent to
a residential zone 150 feet
(5) Parking setback from property lines:
(a) Front 50 feet
(b) Side 50 feet
(c) Side (street) 50 feet
(d) Rear 50 feet
(e) any line adjacent to
a residential zone 100 feet
(6) Maximum Building Heights: 35 feet
(7) Maximum Lot Coverage by
all structures: 25%
(8) Maximum area to be covered by buildings, parking lots,
driveways and other hard surfaces:
Lot size
Up to 4 acres
Larger than 4 acres
to 8 acres
Larger than 8 acres
Covered Area
45% of lot size
35% of lot size
25% of lot size
(9) Sewer Discharge: No sewer discharge shall exceed a ratio
of 3.0 SAC units per 3.5 acres. SAC units shall be
determined according to Section 309 h. and i.
(10) Minimum Building Floor Size: 4,000 square feet
(F) Special District Requirements
Due to the high visibility of the Limited Business zone, the
following architectural, parking, landscaping, lighting and glare
standards shall be in addition to other existing standards in the
zoning code relating to the same:
(1) Architectural Standards
(a) It is not the intent of the City to restrict design
freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in
connection with a site and building plan. However, it
is in the best interest of the City to promote high
standards of architectural design and compatibility with
surrounding structures and neighborhoods. New building
proposals shall include architectural plans prepared by
a registered architect and shall show the following:
(1) Elevations of all sides of the buildings.
(2) Type and color of exterior building materials.
(3) Typical general floor plans.
(4) Dimensions of all structures.
(5) Location of trash containers and of heating,
cooling and ventilation equipment and systems.
T1nada ned_ re, tr_es_ser conre e panels, concrete black
and unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior
materials. The City may at its sole discretion allow
architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels.
(c) All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and
exterior trash storage areas shall be enclosed with
materials compatible with the principal structure.
(2) Parking
All drives and parking lots shall be constructed with
concrete or blacktop, and with concrete curb and gutters.
Where appropriate, sidewalks may be required.
Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands
shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot
area so as to break up expanses of paved areas.
(3) Landscaping
All yard area shall either be landscaped green areas or open
and left in a natural state. Yards to be landscaped shall
be landscaped attractively with lawn, trees and shrubs in
accordance with a plan prepared by a landscape architect.
Areas left in a natural state shall be kept free of litter,
debris and noxious weeds. Yards adjoining any residential
zone shall contain a buffer area consisting of berming,
landscaping and/or fencing for the purpose of screening
noise, sight, sound and glare. A reasonable attempt shall
be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practical
and to incorporate them into the site plan.
Where areas abut residential districts, a buffer area of a
minimum depth of 100 feet will be required. Such a buffer
area shall be completely constructed and approved by the
City prior to all final City inspections for construction
on site. Prior to the issuance of a builing permit or
commencement of any improvements on site, the owner shall
provide the City with a financial security for a minimum of
24 months, approved by the City Attorney, to assure
construction of to buffer area.
(4) Lighting and Glare
Plans for new developments shall include a lighting plan
denoting the location, type and height of lighting fixtures
and the illumination patterns shown on a site plan. Glare
whether direct or reflected, such as from floodlights or
high temperature processes, and as differentiated from
general illumination, shall not be visible at any property
line.
(5) Traffic
No use shall be allowed unless the property owner provides a
road plan acceptable to the City, which shall demonstrate,
at a minimum, that the proposed use and resulting traffic
will not adversely affect the then existing traffic of the
City. All private roads must comply with existing City
Ordinances, with construction and maintenance being the sole
responsibility of the property owner.
y/\
STILLWATER eAREA II
December 14, 1990
Ms. Mary Kueffner, Administrator
Lake Elmo Planning Commission
City of Lake Elmo
`3800 Laverne Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Dear Mary,
pte 1 7 1990
Cor-4a i
The Lake Elmo Business Association, a committee of the Stillwater Area
Chamber of Commerce, has spent considerable time reviewing the Planning
Commission's recommendation on the proposed Limited Business (LB)
Zoning district along the I-94 corridor.
We believe that, like the City of Woodbury, the City of Lake Elmo
should take a reasonable approach in planning along the 1-94 corridor
in assuming that when economic conditions require, urban services may
be needed and available. This planning approach is imperative to
ensure that this section of land remains in the Lake Elmo city limits,
now and in the future.
Enclosed is a revised copy of the proposed Limited Business (LB) Zoning
District. Changes are indicated by bold face type. We strongly
encourage the Planning Commission to review our input, and consider
adopting our recommendations.
Sincerely,
----
Mike Mazzara
Chair, Lake Elmo Business Association
State Bank of Lake Elmo
Brick Alley Building • 423 So. Main Street • Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-5127 • (612) 439-7700
DEC
(
,
(
Limited Business District
(A) Purpose
The purpose of the Limited Business District is to establish a
comprehensive planned framework for development along I-94' This
district may be used as a transitional district until such time as
urban services are needed and available. The City has determined
that it is in the best interest of the City and the region to
responsibly manage growth in this district. It is the intent of
this district to promote a high quality of businews design and
development that produces a positive visual image, and minimizes
adverse impacts from traffic congestion, noise/ odor, glare and
similar problems" Specific development goals within this district
include the following:
(1)
To encourage a high quality dovelopment standard for
structures within the district propertiesv which are among
the most risiblein the City"
(2) To protect the natural environment, in accordance with City
Ordinances"
�1 � - , ^^,o�/`Je5
'�Y
�xc/�(��,"/
(3) To WmAt development-�*.i) cc.nP-ly with the capacity of regional
and local road systems.
(4) °REMOVE
(5)
To establish psrmitted, accessory and conditional uses in
order to stimulate local economic prosperity along the
interstate corridor and within the Metropolitan Rural Service
Area while closely monitoring the magnitude of development so
not to prematurely demand the expansion of (remove: local)
governmental services"
(B> Fermitted Uses Permitted uses are as follows:
(1) Clinics for human care including medical, dental,
osteopathic, chiropractic and optometri: oFfices.
(as Finance, insurance, and real estate, investment officesv
ban|.s. (remove: with no drive -up windows.)
(3) General officem including administrative, executive, and
corporate headquarterc,
(4) ProFessional offices providing serviceE such as legal,
engineering, architectural, accounting, auditing and
bookkeeping.
(5) and cn p' 1'1 agencies.
7r f::a `{t.'l. c )1. la lull .i l,, f,.4'.i)t.. ul ll'r,. iL. a. �:..;.
Conditional Uses Conditional l.tse::s are as fcallr.'aJ's;,
(1) 1:;anl•:s ;aacl F'i i'l day l4"::tf'.l services with drive' -up windows.
(2) Health clubs including tennis, racquetball, aerobics, weight
lifting, swimming, weight loss clinics (all •Fac:1 l .i. '1: 7. G3a:> to be
housed inside.)
(3) Limited retail t.a;a;c;ss including:
(a) r'etail sales clearly accessory to the permitted
principal use of the land, for example; the
compounding, dispensing or sale of drugs, prescription
ttioln
items;, patient or proprietary medicine, slc:i( room
supplies, prosthetic devices or items relating to any of
the foregoing when conducted in the building primarily
occupied I::)y medical, dental, osteopathic:, chiropractic
or optometric offices.
(la) TIa retail sale of commiad:it.i.essi ttt:) Ina Marl ::c?t d to the
local area such a':34
(1) Greenhouses and 1"11..t1"'.i3 r:i'!ries, land.;c:: Fipinc) s i-vices,
flowers and floral accessories.
s.
(.:.) Art sale and gallery.
f'ur'nitur-e.1
(3) ttame. 'f't."na.=a'ra.r')c:G).=.: and rel.r:!equipment.
(4) Vineyard and winery producce and sale,.
(5)
Sporting goods, skiing, bicycles, ., rnctLoIc::y. E
snowmobile, boats anni FishLnc. gear (all storage
restricted to inside.)
c) Other retail sales marketed toward the automobile
traffic and of an impulse nature such as gasoline sales,
convenience store and deli foods may be allowed as
part o+ the overall larger development and where said
use is clearly subordinate to other permitted land uses,
:
Full service restaurants where food .L ii served to cl customer
r.'ill"1 'I iso!'t:..l..ned while seated at a counter or table,
,'c3l.-F C:ot.u^ ae,, club t')oa.tsa, golf sales, driving ranges.
f)) Pe:r'tn.i.t.t:. it b-lc
Par
park
Only a,
loading
:)ry t..ls:>eS
u:rsr+,a shall include requite off.._street
i am signs a5 regulated in t'.h:L'c (ard:Lnanc:'.7.
'i-which are clearly _i:k,)l and
|
(
(
subordinate to the business will be permitted.
(E) MzniMUM District Requirements
(1> Lot Ar(,a: 3 acres
(2) Minimum Lot Width: 200 feet
(3) Minzmum Lot Depth: 300 feet
(4) Building setback from property lines:
(a} Front 50 feet
(b) Side 20 feet
(c) Side (street) 50 feet
(d) Rear 30 feet
(REMOVE: (e) any line adjacent
to u residential zone 150 feet)
(5) REMOVE
(6) Maximum Building Height;::!: 60 feet
(7) REMOVE
iB> Maximum total lot coverage of all
impervious surface 50 percent
(9) Sewer Discharge: Must comply with city ordinances"
(10) REMOVE
(F) Special di�trict requirements
Dua to the hi�h visib�li�y of �he Limited Businecs zone, the
fol1owing architectural/ parking, landscapingv lighting and g1are
sLandards s�ali bs in addztion Lo the other exzst�ng standards in
the zoning code relating to the same:
(�> Hrchztectural Standards
(u) It ic not the of the City to restrict design
freedom unduly when reviewinq project architecture in
connec�iun w:Lth a a buildi-rg plan" However, it
is in the best of the City to promote high
standards oF architectural design and compatibility with
surrounding structures and neighborhoods. New building
prnpnszls sha011 include arc-hiplans prepared by
a registered arctitect and the following:
(1) Eleva��ars o�� al1 side* of the buildings.
<2) Type and co]or of exLerior building materials^
(3) Typica� general floor pla/�s.
/
`
(4) Dimensions of all structures"
(5) Lccation of Lrash containers and of heating,
cooling and ventilation equipment and systems.
(b) The exterior surfaces of all buildings shall be faced
with brick, stone, architectural concrete (blocks),
precast concrete, glass or equivalent.
(c) All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and
exterior trash storage areas shall be enclosed with
materials compatible with the principal structure"
(2) Parking
All drzvas and parking lots shall be constructed with
concrete or blacktop, and with concrete curb and gutters.
Where appropriate, sidewalks may be required"
Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands
shall be reasonable distributed throughout the parking lot
area so as to break up expanses of paved areas"
(3) Landscaping
All yard area shall either be landscaped green areas or open
and left in a natural state" Yards to be landscaped shall be
lands=aped attractively with lawn, trees and shrubs in
accordance with a plan prepared by a landscape architect.
Areas left in a natural state shall be kept free of litter,
debris and noxious weeds" Yards adjoining any residential
zone shall contain a buffer area consisting of berming,,
landscaping and/or fencing for the purpose of screening
noise, stght, sound and glare" A reasonable attempt shall be
made to prsser,e as many existing trees as is practical and
to incorporate thsm into the sight plan"
REMOVE next paragraph (i.e. Where areas abut residentiul
districts, a buffer area of a minimum depth of 100 feet will
te requi''wa., etc,)
(4) Lighting and Glare
Plans for new develcpments shall include a lighting plin
denoting the location, type and height of lighting fixtures
and the illumination patterns shown on a site plan" Glare
whether direct or reflected, such as from floodlights or high
te«perat'ure prccAsszc/ ans as diFferentKnted from general
illumination, shall not be visible at any property line,
(5, REMOVE K/afFic)
a /rLa--- e •j.t J
37oi9 Yo
703; •aS5,-)
37a34 - c.,(7ao
32o3y•2of7.=)
�Ld:rt� _G^�.t: 39 a 3,j - a"DSo
e� cd:• V 39a33• a.-5
3 r/rd . 3 ?a /3 -J.' 0
/ bG e ' i► 2.r /' /� .
LLerCr'
C %
j r /
/ 9 90
705, /av
Soo, fro
5,nGao
/qo 7a 9
/,2.5:3a0
2999av
/7G a 0
sa 7 Dn
/Sodaad
79oDoo
671000
ar ,Gc. ,.
,33 t/3 06
d3,7ya /ry
5)59 ;-Z_
/305 9'
-71.23ao
/U33/77
o7h/9aS6
J3 9yK o
�3 ayo
379/70o
9G: v
3 e/ rid)
L5;D6%1
3,0270 /4`/
/ 4n,
1/. 9 s d c�a
3/.7oSS'G.
,7 .7 3L.2»
025 a." ; 3 0
O%47,11
`/375/6d
.7975G.
/v aca 4v
-772Z GG
7j2 5S; c 9
2eof, /8
37523 a6
„/0v y D
/J0
crtr
/ CZ) sva
NAP— —'91 FPI 10:10 ID:JAt'E_ F HILL INC TEL NO:512 890-6244
4155 POE
$ThTE HIGHWAY 36
MUM
.FUT1AZI LAND _Lite.MAP
0wi
Mn
2050
aru w)
i040
2010
tom
__ 2770
RED
7780
1012
µ.me .
of 0
t08*
O 2100
2 i
ter*
Jr2006 W /
Y
:M
37011.30C
t 47th STRF
TEL HO:612 890-6244 4155 P07
•
sga
OAP-22—'91 FPI 10:10 ID:TAMES P HILL IHO
225^.
12
as. lw
f�w0,
tine
e&srti
R R r
n
{yr�
I.♦..
•
JY
•
2
p
•
• • O a'�
•
•
•
AP.
*000
r•
ur
2002
lnE
20E0
nw
1 if"
.IV
CO i CE P'T PLA4
RQLL\ W& OP l.._:AKZ E L M O
goo ,�4B—i�
"� s --''if
sm.>
I
SOIL
f
s
Xs_
7
1 , ,,..
17.1
iC..
IW.'
— I II.-•11111
M[111.0 I IY3t11l
0 ' —'//
1-t
Slat. horn .Y, I.a.
P..L. I. ol.r. I.w1Mt
43T leak 3••.0• Trot
tom... W.. NW)
teak San rib.. lot .
uN Mlloor
CY..WY 11•3 IY.. ....o >Ny
h... I.rtitirnH
in I612)T4-11Y1
I01 If lone .o
114441. 11•.rwu. > Y
Iho.. 41.2104-04
DATE OF FhOTOGRAPHY 5-07.89
11fe"191
l ptt\N Ml 11•.4A. lµtl4. tl.G• IfY. Vr R.LI
y(nt
09400. 16. W
L 0L WZIT100
,-
l Ifll, l/
4.uc4,ru..9yx:511,1..1...
/!loin 1
IN .l tY I+u Y!l .t W
✓ v tort Cirri..3.
lr.tl 21. Ip Moo
...La
W
▪ .11 .l 05.1) lot
u .r.d. r tie
..4 110 — M. N....
mummy
•I..1. _ W0 I0 w
.net 114:0 1r1 1uwl.
µl M Y.rYI^W W.11 M
euLL I loo
9 .09 tw 300 .�
` CYh C.ijfl h)IIY.t 1
' OUT LOTS,
RP I...,. into.* D.n.nJ
11 iln\I. tool 11 ..•Yootl.l Into
1..47 Yr.. In...l
1 Ih1113.1) }erne
Nye CS ta(1
PrP T int1 01 E V;• nr c.rf ', t,^"u P;1 A.
WASl.Io.ICC'ntl rc'l, 1,%j,
37012 -
3200
00-t
05
37012-
3100
50 th
0
37012-
C
t
N
.40
PRC1_1M1NaR`� PLAT
1464"Ol 15"E
Ibnto ut4, adL, NY1I'1, soc- il1,R•LI
tcco
�= `� y
99��\ %94, l.6 •���3��
0 y
•
N.
X
y1Ha, t4SDA a
sa9�0d t6'w \.3„
OF:
Sao j-
917
)11t., Nre1't, stc..3r-t-
990�\
ROLLING HILLS
OF LAKE ELMO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Part of the South Half of the
Northeast Quarter of Section 3,
Township 29, Range 21, lying
northerly of the south 655.93 feet
thereof, as measured at a right
angle to the South line of said
Northeast Quarter.
Subject to a roadway easement for
existing Keats Avenue over the
east 33.00 feet thereof.
All in Washington County, Mn.
OWNER
SURVEYOR
PROJECT ENGINEER
Nelson Properties, Inc.
Charles R. Nelson, President
6579 North Shore Trail
Forest Lake, Minnesota 55025
Kurth Surveying, Inc.
4002 Jefferson St. N.E.
Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421
Phone (612)788-9769
Fax (612)788-7602
Quentin K. Wood
270 Sylvan Lane
Fridley,\Mihnesota 55432
Phone (612)574-0454
1350 —•= •�
ry� 961.
qy�
•
ZONING
TOTAL LOTS
TOTAL BOUNDARY AREA
DENSITY
DATE
� 6i��� 11 9i5a.9 ^,
RED (Rural Estate Density)
12 Single Family residential lots
39.97 Acres (Gross)
1 Unit/3.33 Acres
Scaly 50,\400
SKETCH PLAN FOR THE JOHN M. DAY FARM ADDITION
Located in the W1/2 of the NW1/4 of Sec. 12, T29N, R21W, Wash. Co., MN.
Plan prepared for: The Estate of John Day c/o Margaret Juhl, Pers. Rep.
620 West Maple St., Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 tel (612)439-4251
Notes: Areas and distances shown are scaled from an aerial photo and are approximate.
Sketch plan prepared by Stack Land Surveying, 9090 No. Fairy Falls Rd.,. Stillwater, MN. 55082
Road r/w, drainage and utility easements to be dedicated on the final plat.
Overall Parcel contains 80 Acres±, subject to existing road r/w`s. Exist. Zoning RR.
I hereby certify that
this survey, plan or
report was prepared by
me or under my direct
supervision and that
I am a duly Registered
Land Surveyor under
the Laws of the State
of Minnesota.
Date: Feb. 21, 1991
Reg. No. 13774
11
D
VGA Tvft r
Lwvcli TIM'S
o.O1 u
15T•
oc 1
IIfliuii1.
2
ear or • rrg-rk
_-L a•M •-----L- - __
sec U/A4 ?of, Lou VLLmrCS
J.. 131 & 1- - .L
EAST EL NATION
1/0•ro` •
(21
I
II
Q 0
- s nUc..r1s ---- T"a
WEST ELE'/A T i or--.
vs . ro-
/p .bnr Cay
Y 04_ 957'•p"
(_
•
AAyI•yfi
f
/ I r \ 6011,2INIa 6F4 flo Ll (t mK»- titan!)
Ve `r�•- --' - -
2
a
0
•
( VV4• Wj f.oi.
To as. 9411•1'
Hfvnpu 7%ft.11
r1)124 {colfaN '
'ton IJi4V01-02r
31toU T I -1 ELEVATION
452 ve•I'#d'
NOW, ; VL21 Cf aAcr I.00A1fo14
oF wauV6,451 M4[N. t mad-.
ITEMS, ETc, WITN MEUI14
kl Fi lLJTRACTOR4.
WJVER TYf6 1
L
•
w rrar. Arno*.
COPP5.T Hom aH
Meal. 1 Tfit11,1 tact
ILG 4Lafl 4
ant
SM.
1111111 Ulwt
ries's
A
101.41I1•-nn
Louver mtg.
1_L.._wr or voIHl& al. 934-4
.-
tet TA A4 fox IOYV[R TYPU . AW EI.21
7Yp a 4 {.wToNS
HCAtI.-,
Gnmu•+'•4ttRW�
yI. town.
U S® medal.
Q
HIATN. 61STLrl
IHT...a. •..f<.. nwf
-w 1 w
tzar, V
NORTIPI ELE`JATIOt-I
,'e •i-o•
nEE 9Y/>Gf.-e &fr4 b4
1 H0•
•
A? •
bJ1VOt-'Y, x_cno-1
vs • Igo'
LLooKI1_ Nofcn-
�r.1. ran •L0114L11. RYTt1
r--
1
\ns
rl �T1
l
A
R
a
0
E
21
2174
t o a1Da
-rvR
13'-O" i d•o
TYP t'P
Exl991M4 4Dnoe
CrrAIN FIELD C205$ Seri-ler-1
No1E5: 932 71 00 429 VV. .
I. FTaoaer4 STw 1 1
Cr CON 15ZLdt/(1041. I . I. , 1
N0 p t.NLi OR
9QUIP AW:6.. IN1 I
}'NerD •RFLS.
5L1LIFi MONO 1 1 I . 0O ,
L/Xn110N, 1 r /1
y \\
Z.600-0 Ic4r. TOPE 1 ,p„ii.t . c'
i v
/n4AK 1T*ENT'LAC, \92 •
L9/A TOTAL UQJO I l
can' Of IFRO I' 1
.•cta, Ala eel y , \:
cb�RICOMR%OoIrfel�.J' ' 4M4rL. DRAM \ AWIISOLA firmiwiNS \\flw e
Cc NINN, ROWS, O
%060, INDIVIDUAL LM4 \\ / ...,
TRSIMENj' N.R44�n�,''' \ •...
tj�
3,PE.R;IATnD JNSTWyvlwn , dsrKl Sac
o4,A,aie rows of ft u omzt pre. gtbb
Yt" IN dAMETEIL of 5 ...N,-.
OPI4ED @34'a6 Z(a Ri5..1'aNf 15004AL
1.?, �� SEPTiG Tn++ice
, .-",......,Ur
/
'Pr //
r•
94D
•
•
2
SPI.,I TARP SSweR. SYSTEM DE61AN WT7j
I_ L 14 nnn
450 4A,- SEW4 6 PER 24 LWLS
j •Ir/ 60/EK (.'•%O4J'4 0n c NFb FRoM V AWM4TDM (O. P.f4U4 WU+K)
FILTFIC fADRIL I 2. YOr;!_ TANK .D4 i t'
L,YIXr- LA`(G /+Rt pipe f6Y MPLA °IA9IER.70S0. 0130, soap. 3., B.
iNv
9224-3
4•4, 0..ir1) Fos
Pies LONPOZMINL W/
A 7M D- ,O34 6OK 35
�r•4 UA\FN cr LLEAK wM uE.D
Rae (4' n 2.72 4) DaPr+PIPE
927
•
1,132,91 \ \
•
193251O1 `V.!4
\
•
\ 14A KI
\' -+ \•_
• ;93L,4�t t \932•
\ �\
\ 95L9
• ewe, ce2ba9
\ OJTf..nw \
NNVERIThie.5
12L0
MNIMJM LIQUID c.eAGTI', Q: 450 6Ai,c 67
24 W'S 364K
0.+ 675 G4.5
PItmJII.E 15004AL, 2 ormaororwer.r0 pit ea. VW,roo4113y
LCVNTY I euL WONLS We TANKgb be IRFITeeJI+TFO Wit
b&N1H FIELD
p9&COWT10N Rare. • 41 A 49 Mum/Ms PER. 1lLN (SEE REPORq
t6Y ENT450ENLE 441Fb Ocrbg6R L.O, 11,59 )
220 50.11. FPS 44L. Rfy°IREO 1.20. 450 • 990 SA.FT
tTh4- 34 INal wcETRENµ1:.
990 p ra 320 uN FL op TR$'4CM K�.11RM
t-'.i.5 TRENwtS®U.Fj = 33o LN.rr
IF SITE GRADING ? 4.1J
I'' 2c • o' FL Et vATla4 R32.5'
\ I
1 1'
1
•
1
/
/
/
\
•
•
b RCP \
•
•
•
I 1 I
1 1
I 1 /1
1 I I /
I / /
y\1 I // // / / // 7 /'
lice 1 I 1 / / 1 // - ./-1 /
/ / / / / / //� ~' -' /
/ / / ./' ./ / / / i //
145 , '134 •'133 132 13I 9be IYt 9tb 9211
I I /
R
ofzio
P\Jfi R)MP
tyWND, see.
•
•
•
•
•
•
\
•
x -
=T
1-22O ..(9'or\
i_ 0 i
9t5
YS"R
T°G1.RD J'T.`\ 35 Lab gOEWALC
/,4"rr•WI.4•ulh
0 01
' 0 SANo f544SE
s1D�WayK co%TWL.
iLb 946 929 92b 922 921
I.
\ I \ \ \ \
\\ \ \ \
\\ \ \
1 •
\ \ .\ WRAR &RJS II # C A6J15 A
\ \ \ 60I40.6''r4iR., P✓Ao5 AU JT,
I 1 1 9Rbv10E Tto.co J1 G� 10.0'VG,
I 1 '\ - T•R NILs 241"WJT.e 4d S-a.c.,
I 1 \ ' 5b CURB %GLJj•(3R.
I I \\ A2 r o 4 4 LE.
1 \
I \
1 \
1
Ye"R
LONG SICEWALIL Ira PICt•Mcl06a
1,s(e W1.4%W1.4� JT FILLER-
.
2— _i. L _o.1 fA ' e ,-I
rlo{9: PLACE EJTA W-o'a',.14° 1JEN4
o. Y4 &t WAU: BUM FlR1903
SSA 06 WAU.S, WAL146, LTt
SICE-k1ALk ExP, JOIti'f
162.' • IC b'
+d:I•p 3
slop•
•
•
4
\•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
112.4
NE09411•11014. pawl -we To
s rye Comorpos5 N.)
•
cl 6'1T )
i•
RCP
Decal
qECTION
MST pra.04925...
MAIL. Lir
fl.W\P 440PC II ID
FILL WI MY SANG/
8 se
pA.w4q sew.
4 4ax.
7:‘35.1.-1
ar-0 READER-
LIART-57/WDA&'
FtEL D16('>:NSFi..
15'-c
rr
atop
..I I • tern: ea-l/Mb FoSM11
11 AND yaq'wu+Tars
1929.5 f
0
14N i
6..4 a¢,%1J t
193or0(
24•0 1
PUMP ISLAtWi E1. 9545
FUEL PUMP ISLAND
NL>'I6t 47A, o (Naas F1eL)�
Ar Bw+++w, aF Ga+sr.
No 42ADPN%•Oi', EAJrF.
A.Law SE N 2.7sD AAE4.
%/Vary E#K.T LD04T14.4W/OYWIIEY.,
0
E
Sw
♦I
NO L.S
Y✓Jropr Marom !Seat CN L1L4T
Fgl-C.
2
•
'9r FIAMNWBL.E VAPORS CFFORE ENteaN4 uWLT'
• MOUNT ON ESOLLARO-
. 3414 46'ILI { 2. wr oWnita,
/
Sae
Cd.0140 APRON
ELEC. NOOK:VP
FoR VEHICLES
•
•
•
•
•
0 20
•
4
•
4
•
SEE
votrsoascret‘ MFR.. Cc. mac
mns.Asot:14114:sr -PC Nitta,
As SUIL011‘.1.1 pLooR-, FLAW
RA. Pa•Dg
el FoomoAlloki PLAN
SS FUEL 61-ORPGle, TANK.VAuLT
Mal MRCHAWICAl.-ELECTKIcAt- SITE ri_AN
MEZZAWINa PLAN yofRIR. DIAGRAM
VIC I-3 re MAP
under the Lea of thla.,Ejate at lanoacta.
•
Ix nano,. certify that We plan, apahcatio•tloni, or
a -apart wad proposed by no or Year ay dance
x I bounty entity that tan plan flea/tint/eft de
1 report vas ',rowed by b. or author ay direct
I I pin •z• valor the lava the Otani ad blnefieelta.
•
acronocuulamiut. Ai nt Iiim mien i ...lunar wet Nowak ..•• OM WA V.. le ...SOW 1.0 I
dra
tr
•
Z Cis
Al