Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-10 CPC PacketTHE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, July 10, 2006, at 7 p m in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street AGENDA 1 CALL TO ORDER 2 APPROVAL OF JUNE 12, 2006 MINUTES 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 01 Case No PUD/SUB/ZAM/06-16 A planned unit development for 50 lot development on 25 28 acres located at 12525 75th St N and,12620 and 12550 72nd St N in the AP, Agricultural Preservation District (Legacy on Long Lake), a subdivision of a 50 lot development of residential use and a zoning map amendment to rezone from AP, Agricultural Preservationnto RA, Single Family Residential Elite Development, applicant (Continued from the June 12, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting) 3 02 Case No V/06-21 A variance to the street yard setback (20 feet required, 0 feet requested) for the construction of a single car garage located at 923 West Maple Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District Roberta Pugsley, applicant (Continued from the June 12, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting) 3 03 Case No SUB/V/06-25 A resubdivision of two lots located at 1802 4th St N and 206 West Poplar and a variance to the lot size regulations to create a Lot in the RB, Two Family Residential District Scott Junker, applicant (Continued from the June 12, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting) 3 04 Case No V/06-28 A variance to allow twenty-eight percent (28%) of the lot area to be covered in buildings in excess of the allowable twenty-five percent (25%) and a variance to allow the total ground coverage of the accessory building to exceed the ground area coverage of the principal building located at 515 N Everett Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District John and Kim Brach, applicants CITY HALL 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET • STILLWATER MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE 651 430 8800 • WEBSITE www cl stillwater mn us 1 3 05 Case No V/06-29 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 15 feet requested) for the construction of a deck located at 1331 Macey Court in the CCR, Cottage Cove Residential District Scott and Jennifer Shutes, applicants 3 06 Case No V/06-30 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 18 feet requested) for the construction of a deck located at 1211 Macey Way in the CCR, Cottage Cove Residential District Eric and Amy Thole, applicants 3 07 Case No V/06-31 A variance to the fence regulations for a 54" fence (42" allowed) located at 907 W Willard Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District Gaye Lundstrom, applicant 3 08 Case No V/06-32 A variance to the side yard -corner setback (25 feet required, 10 feet requested) for the construction of a residence located at 735 Liberty Court in the LR, Lakeshore Residential District American Classic Homes, applicant 3 09 Case No V/06-33 A variance to the rear yard setback (25 feet required, 20 feet requested) for a pool located at 113 Myrtlewood Court in the RA, Single Family Residential District Troy Krammer, applicant 3 19 Case No SUP/06-34 A special use permit for the construction of a 265 space parking lot located at 14949 62"d Street North in the PA, Public Administration District Don Theisen, Washington County Government Center, applicant 3 11 Case No V/06-37 A variance to the Bluffland Shoreland Regulations for the replacement of an existing deck located at 114 Lakeside Drive in the RB, Two Family Residential District and the Bluffland Shoreland District Jon and Deanne Stratte, applicants 3 12 Case No SUP/V/SUB/06-38 A special use permit for a private parking facility for more than five cars, a variance to the parking regulations and a lot combination of two Tots, Lot 1 - 12,119 square feet and Lot 2 - 5,519 square foot into one lot of 17,638 square feet located at 227 North Main Street in the CBD, Central Business District Mainstream Development Partnership, LLC, applicant 4 OTHER BUSYNESS 4 01 Case No 06-35 Sketch discussion on a proposed 17 lot residential 1 r development located at 12205 McKusick Road North in the RR, Rural Residential District Krech Exteriors, applicant 4 02 / Case No 06-36 Sketch discussion on a proposed on a 22 lot residential development located at 8233, 8313, 8483 Marylane Ave N in the RR, Rural Residential District Classic Home Design, applicant City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12 2006 Present Robert Gag Chairman Suzanne Block Mike Dahlquist David Junker Brad Meinke, Dave Middleton David Peroceschi and Paul Teske Others Community Development Director Bill Turnblad and Planner Mike Pogge Absent Gregg Carlsen Mr Gag called the meeting to order at 7 p m Approval of minutes Mr Middleton, seconded by Ms Block moved approval of the minutes of May 8 2006 Motion passed unanimously Case No PUD/SUB/ZAM/06-16 This case was continued to the July meeting Mr Turnblad noted there are unresolved issues relating to DNR restrictions and the PUD worksheet that have yet to be completed Case No V/06-20 A variance to the slope setback (30 feet required) for construction of a residence to the south of 621 W Willard (Lots 7 and 8 Block 1 Holcombe s Addition) in the RB Two Family Residential District Scot Shely applicant Mr Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings that concluded with the recommendation of denial of the requested variance Mr Shely and his attorney Mark Vierling were present Mr Vierling responded to a number of the staff comments Mr Vierling first noted that Mr Shely sold lots 10-12, Block 2 in 2005 not 2003 as indicated in the staff report Regarding minimum lot frontage, Mr Vierling said Mr Shely had discussions with City staff in January of 2005 regarding possible other developments staff indicated that the slope easement was the major issue with no mention of road frontage If there had been any indication that there was a potential problem with frontage Mr Shely would not have sold the other property he said Mr Vierling suggested that the 35 frontage requirement pertains to subdivisions and is not pertinent to this request Regarding front yard setback Mr Vierling said that requirement can be met by reducing the size of the garage Regarding the potential detriment to adjacent properties Mr Vierling stated the applicant would comply with stormwater runoff rates — that post development runoff rates not exceed predevelopment rates Regarding the tree loss issue, Mr Vierling argued that is a building permit issue not a variance issue Mr Vierling also stated that while the location of the City storm sewer does not create a hardship it does determine the location of the potential building pad on the property Mr Vierling concluded that the property in question is capable of development and meets all codes except for the slope issue The best and highest use of the property, he said, is for a single-family dwelling not a private park" as suggested in the staff report He stated Mr Shely has worked extensively with City staff in the past and it would be a hardship not to be able to put the property to a reasonable use as a single-family dwelling Mr Junker asked about the number of yards of fill that would be required to make the property buildable Mr Vierling said that information could be supplied if need be 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12 2006 Mr Gag opened the public hearing Quinn Sullivan, 621 W Willard provided a petition with signatures of residents opposed to the proposal He expressed concern about stormwater and impact on vegetation saying studies indicate the basin level of the ravine would be enough to flood homes should development of the property be allowed He said the slumping of lot lines and the driveway would damage other Tots and he said fill would not be enough to solve the problem The highest and best use for the property is in open space he said and said he was unaware the property had been for sale suggesting he would be interested in purchasing the property if he had known that The resident of 716 S Harriet St who purchased the other property owned by Mr Shely expressed a concern about her property if the property in question doesn t have the required front footage The public hearing was closed Mr Peroceschi pointed out the entire property is steep and said he doesn t see any place where a house could be built Mr Junker agreed that the property in question is an unbuildable lot and the proposed use of fill would change the entire area Mr Junker moved to deny the variance Mr Peroceschi seconded the motion Mr Dahlquist stated the proposal doesn t meet the slope ordinance or work with the slopes and attempts to change the property Motion to deny passed unanimously Case No V/06-21 This case was continued Mr Turnblad explained that the applicant is waiting action by the County to vacate excess right-of-way Case No V/06-22 A variance to the side yard setback (10 feet required 5 feet requested) for construction of a deck at 227 Echo Lane in the RA Single Family District Daniel Feiner applicant Mr Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings that concluded with the recommendation of approval with conditions Mr Feiner said the variance will allow him to construct a safe deck and utilize windows that he is not able to with the current deck, one that is not up to code Mr Teske noted this is a unique situation and granting the variance would not impact neighbors in moving for approval as conditioned Mr Peroceschi seconded the motion, motion passed unanimously Case No SUP/06-23 A special use for a fuel center at 1801 Market Drive in the BP-C, Business Park Commercial District Linda Fisher Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren, representing SuperValu Mr Turnblad reviewed the request He said the action requested of the Commission is to make a determination whether the fuel station is of "the same general character as other permitted uses in the zoning district and if so, make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the issuance of the requested Special Use Permit Representing the applicant were Linda Fisher, several representatives of SuperValu and consultants from Westwood Professional Services Ms Fisher noted the Heritage Preservation Commission had reviewed and approved the design She reviewed the design images and site 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12 2006 plan She noted that the number of fueling stations had been reduced from six to five and a landscaped island added to separate the parking lot from the fuel center The fuel center columns are all masonry and of the same color and materials as the Cub Foods store she noted She noted customized filters would be installed for any spill containment Ms Fisher also viewed lighting and signage plans There would be no additional monument or pylon sign Lighting under the fuel center canopy would be recessed flat lenses, the Cub Fuel Express signage on the canopy would be externally lit Ms Fisher also spoke to the use issue and the same general character' issue Mr Middleton expressed a concern about the flow of traffic Allan Klugman traffic consultant from Westwood Professional Services addressed the traffic questions He said a transition island has been introduced to separate the fuel center from the parking lot He noted that most users would shop first and then use the fuel center and he stated that the fuel center would not dramatically impact traffic counts Mr Junker asked if the pharmacy dnve-thru had been included in the traffic flow studies Mr Klugman stated there would be no interaction between pharmacy dnve-thru and fuel center traffic Ms Block expressed a concern about fuel tankers exiting on Curve Crest The consultant stated traffic counts were conducted on both Curve Crest and Market Drive and counts are so low that tankers should be able to exit with about a half - minute delay, he also noted that only about one tanker a day would be needed to service the fuel center Mr Gag opened the public hearing Andy Kass owner of Sutler s the adjacent business to the east said the issue is whether this is an appropriate use He pointed out the Holiday Station on County Road 5 mentioned as relevant to the "same general character' issue was a gas station in the 1970s well before the Market Place PUD was established Michelle Allen 3155 Ilo Way expressed a concern about the Cub parking lot as a whole and said she was very concerned about the potential impact coming off Market Drive Mr Klugman said the proposed use is seen as a benefit to the City s traffic flow in general by integrating shopping and fuel trips and he said the use should have no impact on Market Drive traffic The public hearing was closed Ms Fisher addressed Mr Kass comments regarding the appropriateness of the use and noted that is a subjective determination She said the proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, the West Business Park guidelines and the Market Place PUD and said she believed the proposed use qualifies for a Special Use Permit Mr Junker stated he -appreciated Cub/SuperValu's willingness to revise their plans However he said aesthetically, the design is still a gas station with a canopy and changes the appearance of the area tremendously He also expressed concern about traffic patterns and traffic issues that are not planned for He suggested the key question is whether, in fact 80 percent of the fuel center users would be Cub Foods users, if not, the use is not allowed in the BP-C District Mr Peroceschi said the location of the fuel center is a portion of the parking lot that is not used a great deal and said he did not think it would have a significant impact 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12 2006 Mr Dahlquist said he thought the use is of the same general character as others in the PUD area The bigger question he said, is whether to recommend that the City Council grant the SUP He said the revised plans look better but it's still a gas station He also expressed concern about the traffic flow within the parking lot Mr Gag agreed that the use is of similar character as well as with the concern about the already existing traffic issues in the parking lot Ms Block expressed a concern about design aesthetics suggesting that the fuel center canopy adds two more stories to the appearance of the Cub Foods store as viewed from Market Drive She said she agreed the use is of the same general character but would not support granting the SUP Mr Middleton agreed that the proposal is of the same general character but said traffic within the parking lot is the issue Mr Middleton stated that if approved, the City should take a serious look at other uses such as the garden center and fireworks sales that currently take place in the parking lot Mr Meinke noted the gas station use is not a temporary one Mr Teske said he could see the advantage of coordinating uses which would necessitate fewer overall traffic trips by residents Mr Middleton seconded by Mr Dahlquist moved to find the use of similar character to other allowed uses in the zoning district Motion passed 6-2 with Mr Junker and Mr Meinke voting no Mr Dahlquist moved to recommend that the City Council not approve the Special Use Permit due to issues related to aesthetics and internal traffic flow in a parking lot not designed to accommodate this type of use Mr Junker seconded the motion Motion passed 6- 2 with Mr Middleton and Mr Peroceschi voting no Case No V/06-24 A variance to the rear yard ordinary high water setback (85 feet required 65 feet requested) for construction of a swimming pool at 3120 Ilo Way in the LR, Lakeshore Residential District Mark Lindeberg applicant Mr Pogge introduced the request and the staff findings and recommendations Representing the applicant were Mark and Susie Lindeberg Ms Lindeberg said there is some confusion as to whether they need a variance She said one of the key issues is whether a pool meets the definition of a structure according to the City's ordinance In addition she said the topography map provided by the Brown s Creek Watershed District would indicate a variance is not needed for the proposed location of the pool and she said Watershed District staff indicated the Watershed has no problem with the proposed location The Lindebergs also noted that moving the pool five feet closer to the garage as suggested in the staff report would caused structural issues for the home A pool in their proposed location would not be visible from Long Lake or the walking trail along the lake, they said and their neighbors are supportive of their request Mr Turnblad noted that state statute supercedes city ordinances and according to state statute, pools are clearly defined as accessory structures Mr Pogge also noted that the topography map provided by the Watershed Distnct was done by aerial photos less accurate than the City plat map done by on -ground survey 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Mr Gag opened the public hearing A neighboring property owner stated he agreed with what the Lindebergs are trying to do He noted their yard is elevated and there is no way a pool in the proposed location would be visible by people using the walking path And he said a pool would be no detriment to neighbors Dave Gackstetter 3135 Ilo Way noted that traffic flow is a concern of those living in the cul-de- sac and suggested a pool would help keep children out of the street he said he is not opposed to the proposal in any way Paul Dinzeo 3145 Ilo Way also spoke in support of the proposal and noted there is a pool in the yard of the first lot on the trailhead, he also referred to the legal ambiguities involved in this case Trevor Cronk 3290 E Stahloch Place reiterated that this pool would not be visible from the lake or trail Michelle Allen 3155 Ilo Way asked the Commission to look at the language of the City ordinance as well as the fact that the Watershed District is not opposed to the proposed location in making a decision No other comments were received and the hearing was closed Mr Meinke asked how the pool would be drained Mr Lindeberg responded that pools no longer have to be drained Mr Junker noted that the Lindeberg house is barely visible from the lake He also referred to the questions surrounding the mapping in making a motion for approval of the variance Mr Peroceschi seconded the motion Mr Teske noted City staff had provided the Commission with their interpretation of the questions regarding definition of accessory structures and mapping accuracy He stated that normally the Commission is very reluctant to grant variances in new subdivisions when no hardship is involved However after hearing from residents he said he did not see the pool as a detriment and said he thought it would work in practice Mr Dahlquist said he favored maintaining a hard line in new developments especially when there are alternatives to granting a variance Mr Teske called the question Motion to grant the variance passed 7-1 with Mr Dahlquist voting no Case No SUB/06-25 A resubdivision of two lots at 1802 Fourth St N and 206 W Poplar to create a 10 000 square foot lot in the RB Two Family Residential District Scott Junker, applicant Mr Turnblad explained the applicant has requested a continuance of this case Case No SUPN/06-26 a special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit and variance to be in front of the midpoint of the primary residence at 420 Linden St W in the RB, Two Family Residential District Kurt and Nance Sesemann-Klitke, applicants Mr Pogge reviewed the request and the staff findings and recommendations The applicants were present and stated they are willing to comply with any conditions necessary to get the structure built 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12, 2006 Ms Block expressed a concern about the height and width of the accessory structure as compared to the primary residence Mr Junker asked if the structure would be connected to City sewer and water to which the applicants responded in the affirmative Mr Gag opened the public hearing Mike McCarthy 410 W Linden St said the plans would substantially affect the appearance of the lot both in scale and drainage He said his primary concern is with drainage He noted that the height of the new structure would appear as three stories when viewed from his window The applicants stated the new building will not substantially change the flow of runoff and said they would be willing to stipulate they will ameliorate any drainage issue No other comments were received and the hearing was closed Mr Middleton moved to approve as conditioned with the additional condition that water runoff be retained on site Mr Junker seconded the motion Mr Turnblad suggested that rather than conditioning that water runoff be retained on site the language state that pre- and post - development runoff be unchanged Ms Block said she thought it was wrong for an accessory structure to be taller than the primary residence Mr Dahlquist also expressed a concern about what the structure will look like when completed Mr Teske said he thought the applicants had done a pretty good job of balancing their needs and demonstrating respect for the neighborhood Motion to approve as conditioned passed 6-2 with Ms Block and Mr Dahlquist voting no Other items CR District regulations related to driveway widths — Prior to this discussion Mr Pogge briefly introduced himself and gave a bnef resume of his professional background Mr Pogge asked for Commission direction on the CR driveway width regulations Currently, driveways are limited to a width of 12 feet at the front property line in the CR District Included in the staff report were photos that indicated property owners in that district are either driving over the lawn at the end of the drives damaging the landscaping in the process, or have installed paver/bricks for added radius at the end of the driveway After a brief discussion it was the consensus of the Commission to allow the installation of materials to provided an added radius at the end of the d nveways Continued discussion of Manning Station development — Marc Putnam Putnam Planning and Design, was present He said the major change from the last presentation was a reduction in the proposed number of units and increase in lot size The revised plan provides for a total of 57 lots with the potential for 11 of the lots (corner lots) to have two-family structures, for a total of 68 potential residential units The proposal represents a density of 3 4 units per acre a drop of over 2 units per acre from the previous plan it was noted Ms Block asked how many of the units would be single-family Mr Putnam said he couldn't say for sure as it depends on the market noting that two-family structures weren t successful in the Liberty development Mr Dahlquist said the proposal needs discussion with respect to the designation in the Comprehensive Plan and the Annexation Agreement, which provides for annexation of Phase 4 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12 2006 properties in 2015 Regarding the Annexation Agreement it was noted the City can approve a request for early annexation if a property is contiguous to the City and has City services sewer and water available to serve the development Mr Turnblad noted that sewer and water likely would be extended to this area regardless of this development proposal to serve the Millbrook development Mr Dahlquist said while he liked the proposed architectural styles he thought development at this time would preclude options for a variety of housing stock if everything is built now Ms Block said she did not think the timing was right for this development considering all the other development Millbrook the Carlson property the downtown housing projects going on at this time Mr Junker said he liked the concept the issue is when the property is annexed Mr Teske said he thought the concept plan was a thoughtful one and would favor moving ahead Mr Middleton also spoke in favor of the plan as did Mr Gag who said he would be comfortable in seeing the plan move to the next level Mr Middleton seconded by Mr Teske moved approval of the concept plan Motion passed 7-1 with Mr Dahlquist voting no Mr Middleton seconded by Mr Teske moved to approve early annexation of the property Motion passed 5-2-1 with Mr Gag Mr Meinke Mr Middleton, Mr Peroceschi and Mr Teske voting in favor Ms Block and Mr Dahlquist voting no and Mr Junker abstaining Continued discussion of St Croix Preparatory Academy — Marc Putnam Putnam Planning & Design briefly spoke of Providence as an example of the success of urban schools He suggested taking kids out of the mix of a community and putting them off to the side is a detriment to them He briefly addressed the number of buses and possible routes for accessing the school He also said the number of individuals transporting kids to and from school is about 50 He said the Academy is looking for a recommendation before proceeding with a potential purchase Mr Teske noted that some of the concerns raised during the last discussion had been addressed but said there are still some unanswered questions He said he would be in favor of the right plan, but could give no guarantee of support until actual traffic studies are provided and more design detail is submitted Mr Junker said his first reaction to the proposal was a negative one but the more it is discussed, the more he thinks it might work Mr Middleton said the appearance of the school structure from Main Street will be a concern further down the line Academy Principal Jon Gutierrez said as plans proceed they will be looking at the project as a joint development to meet the community needs as well as the school's needs Mr Teske, seconded by Mr Middleton, moved to support St Croix Preparatory Academy moving forward with plans to build a permanent school facility in the downtown district Mr Dahlquist said while he saw the prospect as exciting he cautioned that when details start coming in he would reserve the right to withdraw support Motion to support the Academy moving forward with plans passed unanimously 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission June 12 2006 Meeting was adjourned at 11 20 p m Respectfully submitted Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 8 r H B I R T H P L A E 0 M NNESOJA DATE APPLICANT Elite Development July 7, 2006 CASE NO 06-16 PUD/SUB/ZAM REQUEST 1) Rezoning to TR/PUD and LR/PUD 2) Preliminary Plat approval for a 50 lot Residential Subdivision 3) Concept Planned Unit Development approval, and 4) Vacation of excess 72nd Street right-of-way LOCATION Between Co Rd 12 and 72nd Street on north end of Long Lake COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SFSL, Single Family Small Lot PLANNING COMMISSION DATES May 8 and June 12, 2006 ZONING AP, Agricultural Preservation PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director A public hearing for the Legacy on Long Lake project was opened at the May 8, 2006 Planning Commission meeting The hearing was continued to the June 12 Planning Commission meeting in order to give the developer time to address a number of issues Most of the issues raised at the June 12 comnussion meeting have been addressed However, there is still a question as to whether the lakeshore property meets the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) standards for Planned Unit Developments (PUD) To resolve the issue a PUD Worksheet has been completed by the applicant and submitted to the DNR for review However, the developer and the DNR still disagree over details that would rather dramatically reduce the number of potential lots on the property Therefore, the developer has requested that the hearing be continued to the August 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting cc Bob Weigert Pastor Huebscher The Meisterinlg Family The McKenzie Family fllwater. N E BIR HP A E 0 MINNLCOIA Planning Commission DATE July 10, 2006 APPLICANT Roberta Pugsley CASE NO V\06-21 REQUEST A variance to allow up to a thirty (30) foot encroachment into the corner lot side yard (front yard) setback [31-1-12(5)6] LOCATION 923 Maple St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFLL - Single Family Large Lot ZONING RB - Two-family District PC DATE June 12, 2006 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner 0,41 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-1-12(5)6 of the Stillwater City Code to allow for a garage to encroach up to 30 feet into the required 30 foot corner lot side yard (front yard) setback The applicant is making this request in order to remove the existing shed and build a single car garage in its place EVALUATION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting consideration of a variance to Chapter 31-1-12(5)6 of the Stillwater City Code to allow for up to a zero (0) foot setback for the construction of a single -car garage At the request of the applicant, this item was continued from the Commission's June 12, 2006 meeting Since that meeting a site survey was completed showing the garage can fit on the property without encroaching into County right-of-way for County Road 64 and maintain a three (3) foot setback from all property lines A copy of the survey has been included in you packet A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found 923 Maple St W Page 2 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The property at 923 Maple St W is an irregular sized lot on the curve of County Road 64 The home sits on the far north side of the lot The current shed and location of the proposed garage is located in the southern portion of the lot near the ROW for County Road 64 According to the Washington County Assessor the home was constructed in 1876 and the home was purchased by the current owner in November of 1990 The location of the home and lot configuration was not a condition created by the current home owner 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors Without the approval of a variance the applicant would be denied the opportunity to construct a garage that others in the area enjoy Granting the variance does not convey a special privilege to the property owner 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan Ron and Wendy Neurer wrote a letter to the Commission expressing their concern and objections over the granting of the requested variance A copy of the letter has been included in your packet The Neurer's stated currently they have an unobstructed view of Lake McKusick and the garage would obstruct this view The Neurer property is the third home east of the intersection of the County Highway 64 and Maple Street Neurer unobstructed view relies on property owned by the applicant and the Oswell property, located between Pugley and Neurer remaining open Both property owners could install opaque fences that could obstruct this view Additionally, the Oswell's could in the future add an addition to their home which could potentially obstruct the view Not granting the variance does not guarantee an unobstructed view of Lake McKusick for the Neurer's Finally, the garage is proposed to be placed over the existing shed and over an existing row of tall (8+ feet) bushed that extend north from the northeast corner of the shed The garage will have a minimal impact over exists conditions The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan 923 Maple St W Page 3 FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan RECOMMENDATION Approval as conditioned CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1 All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director 2 The encroachment in to the front yard (side yard) setback shall be lirruted to twenty- seven (27) or fewer feet for the construction of a garage Attachments Applicant's Form and Site Plan ,,, /PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION 9123 Ho v V Assessor's Parcel No 2 2.0 Z-3b0 ((I PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED ecial/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdimsion Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance The fees for requested action are attached to this application `An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The applicant ►s responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting matenal submitted in connection with any application All supporting matenal e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required if application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting matenal is required A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process Address of Project nn Zoning District Description of Project Ct CICQ w (GEO Code) Cat gd.GSt IA. "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. 1 further certify 1 will comply with the permit if it is g and us pp Property OwnerOt.G tiocaertei Representative Mailing Address j2�j 114914VY City - State - Zip SAw t - I-) 1J SSO8 Z City - State - Zip Telephone No (oSI SS I O5 O Telephone No Signatu 4-1( (Signature is required) Lot Size (dimensions) 31 x 110 Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Fe t Principal Accessory 1 $ Mailing Address Signature (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area square feet Existing 112-(e square feet Proposed 12_144 square feet Paved Impervious Area 0 square feet No of off-street parking spaces 2 6 �5;ydef 923 W Maple St Stillwater Mn 55082 6513510520 5/15/2006 Planning Commission In reference to property located at 923 W Maple St Stillwater 55082 I am seeking a variance for above named property to put up a single car garage I need very little space as I have a 12 by 10 shed where the new garage will be placed It should add value not only to the neighborhood but to the property also I will need 24 additional inches to go out west and 120 inches right an front of the existing shed The back of the garage will sit where the back of the shed is now and we would come forward 120 an front of the existing shed I do not want to block Oswald s view of the lake as their patio is behind the shed As you should already know Oswald s and I share the driveway but the garage would be on my property There would be plenty of room to park as my late husband made 2 parking spots an front of the shed for us There is also plenty of on street parking in case of company My home is currently for sale and it is imperative that I sell as soon as possible The fact that there is no garage is impeding the process Please let me hear from you as soon as possible Thank you very much Sincerely Roberta Pugsley Home owner 0 in o 0 O Location Map L rA M Ch 1 2 3'- 4 5 (0081) (0082) (0083) (0084) IJU S11LLWAI4F LO i N 6 9 (0085) (0086) (0087) (0088) (008 49 5 40 40 ' 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 37 60 (0040) 60 50 10 o (0039) 60 + O 9 (0038) 50 13 (0043 50 50 8 7 (0037) 50 14 15 (0044) (0045) 0 O 50 50 50 6 3 16 (0046) T32N T31N T28N T27N R21 W R2OW R19W r YOU ARE HERET3ON T30N T29N T29N T28N R22W R21 W R2OW T32N T31N Vicinity Map N 0 50 Scale In Feet 100 This drawing is the result of a compilation and reproduction of land records as they appear in various Washington County offices The drawing should be used for reference purposes only Washington County is not responsible for any inaccuracies Source Washington County Surveyor's Office Phone (651) 430-6875 Parcel data based on AS400 information current through May 31 2001 Map printed July 9 2001 (ay of ( ommmnty Dt,,eloomcnt Den crnncnt Case No. V O6-21 SOte Map a THE B RIHPLACE OF MIHNCSOIA DATE July 3, 2006 APPLICANT Scott Junker REQUEST 1) Resubdivison 2) Lot Size Variance CASE NO SUB/06-25 LOCATION 206 West Poplar & 1802 North 4th COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SFLL, Single Family Large Lot PLANNING COMMISSION DATE July 10, 2006 ZONING RA, Single Family Residential REVIEWERS City Planner, Interim Public Works Director PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Mr Scott Junker owns the property at 1802 North 4th Street It is about a 17,300 square foot lot with a recently constructed home on it He is proposing to divide about 2,100 square feet from the property at 206 W Poplar Street, combine it with his property and then resubdivide his resulting property into two lots Mrs Dorothy Benson owns the property at 206 W Poplar Street and according to Mr Junker has agreed to sell him the needed portion of her property The result would be three lots where two now exist Lot A would continue be owned by Mrs Benson It would be about a 12,900 square foot lot Lot B would be about a 10,000 square foot lot owned by Mr Junker It would be a vacant lot Lot C would be about a 9,400 square foot lot owned by Mr Junker It would be the site of a residence constructed by Mr Junker Exhibit B shows the current and proposed lot lines All of the subject property is zoned RA, Single Family Residential Since the minimum lot size in the RA Zoning District is 10,000 square feet, and Lot C would only have about Junker Resubdivision & Vanance July 3, 2006 Page 2 9,400 square feet, about a 600 square foot lot size variance would be required to resubdivide the properties as proposed SPECIFIC REQUEST Mr Junker has made application for the following specific requests 1 Approval of a resubdivsion creating three lots where two now exist, and 2 Approval of a variance to allow the creation of about a 9,400 square foot lot whereas a 10,000 square foot rrurumum lot size is required EVALUATION OF REQUEST I RESUBDIVISION City Code Section 32-1, Subd 4(2) refers to a process whereby a new lot is being created from already platted lots as a "resubdivision" As long as no variances are required, the resubdivision request would go to the City Council for approval In this case, a variance is necessary, so the request must first be reviewed by the Planning Commission before the City Council may take action The required and proposed minimum dimensional standards for the resubdivided properties are summarized below Lot A Lot B Lot C Lot size proposed 12,900 10,000 9,400 Lot size required 10,000 10,000 10,000 Lot width proposed 90 75 75 Lot width required 75 75 75 Maximum buildable slope 24% 24% 24% Maximum slope used or proposed for building 17% 14% 19% As can be seen the three proposed lots satisfy all dimensional requirements except that Lot C requires a 6 4% variance from minimum lot size The Interim Public Works Director has noted that there are deferred utility hook-up fees to be paid for the Junker property Prior to issuance of a letter by the City approving the resubdivision and prior to filing the resolution of approval with Washington County, these fees must be submitted to the City Junker Resubdivision & Vanance July 3 2006 Page 3 II VARIANCE Proposed Lot C as seen in Exhibit B has a size of about 9,400 square feet The minimum required lot size is 10,000 square feet Therefore, a 600 square foot variance would be needed The requested 6 4% variance does not represent a substantial departure from the minimum size requirement Moreover, it is possible to resubdivide the two existing lots into three lots in a manner that would meet all of the City's standards The resubdivision alternative is shown as Exhibit C Though the alternative resubdision meets all minimum standards, it would result in a lot line arrangement that does not meet the "common sense test" Therefore, in order to create lot lines that are easier to identify and yard spaces that are more useable, the requested variance is reasonable The hardship and uniqueness review criteria are satisfied in this instance The combined square footage of both existing lots is sufficient to provide enough area for a third lot Moreover all three of the lots would satisfy all dimensional standards But, the current configuration of that square footage is such that maintaining all dimensional standards would result in lots that have a bizarre arrangement of lot lines ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives A Approval If the proposed variance and lot resubdivision is found to be acceptable to the Planning Commission, it should approve the variance and recommend that the City Council approve the resubdivision, subject to the following conditions 1 The resubdivision shall be substantially similar to Exhibit B in terms of lot line configuration and dimensions 2 The owner of property located at 206 W Poplar Street shall submit written approval of the resubdivision prior to issuance of a letter by the City approving the resubdivision and prior to filing the resolution of approval with Washington County 3 The Interim Public Works Director has noted that there are deferred utility hook-up fees to be paid for the Junker property Prior to issuance of a letter by the City approving the resubdivision and prior to filing the resolution of approval with Washington County, these fees must be submitted to the City Junker Resubdivision & Variance July 3 2006 Page 4 B Denial If the Planning Commission finds that the resubdivision and lot size variance are not advisable, it could deny the lot size variance and recommend denial of the resubdivision With a denial, the basis of the action should be given RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the requested resubdivision and variance to be reasonable and therefore recommends approval with the conditions identified in Alternative A above cc Scott Junker attachments Location & Zonmg Map Resubdivision Site Plan Alternative Resubdivision Site Plan ( n\ of • 'water Junker Resubdivision Location & Zoning Map ( mmunm Ik% loom tit I)Cn tiooLo1 Q Property lines Zoning Distncts AGRICULTURE BUSINESS PARK COMMERCIAL BUSINESS PARK INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK OFFICE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DWI ss PEI 101 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT CRD GENERAL HEAVY INDUSTRY ISLE PUBLIC ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICES ONE FAMILY RAI TWO FAMILY HIGH DENSITY FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY FAMILY POTENTIAL RIGHT OF WAY WATER COTTAGE RESIDENTIAL TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE COMMERCIAL TOWN HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY COVE TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL COVE COTTAGE RESIDENTIAL COVE TRADITIONAL RESIDENTIAL r.✓•ter—"�. 1 d ....1 CD ' -'... ,.. m 1 J raft x_ *—.. xhibit A ..k U • 14 Scott Junker Alternative Exhibit C I F B N l H P l A L E OF MINNCSOIA DATE APPLICANT John Brach July 5, 2006 CASE NO V/ 06-28 REQUEST 1) Building coverage variance 2) Accessory structure lot coverage variance 3) Variance to allow ground coverage of accessory structures to exceed that of house 4) Variance to allow second accessory structure to be greater than 120 square feet in size 5) Ravine setback variance LOCATION 515 North Everett Street COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SFSL, Single Family Small Lot PLANNING COMMISSION DATE July 10, 2006 ZONING RB, Two -Family Residential REVIEWERS City Planner, Interim Public Works Director PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director BACKGROUND Mr John Brach is renovating the property at 515 North Everett Street As part of the work he is planning two additions and a garage The garage would be built first At some undetermined time in the future, the two additions would be constructed The proposed improvements together with the footprint of the existing house would result in a building coverage of 31 6% In the subject RB Zorung District, only 25% building cover is permitted Therefore, a building coverage variance is being requested Also, in the RB Zoning District, the total ground coverage of accessory buildings is limited to 1,000 square feet or 10% of the lot area, whichever is less In this case, since the lot is only 5,856 square feet in area, the total coverage of accessory buildings is lirruted to Brach Variances July 5 2006 Page 2 of 6 586 square feet With the proposed 517 square foot coverage of the garage and the 200 square foot existing historic outbuilding, the maximum allowance is exceeded by 131 square feet A variance is being requested from this standard In the RB Zoning District the square footage for the ground cover of the accessory structure can not exceed the ground cover of the house The combined coverage of the proposed garage and the existing historic outbuilding is 717 square feet The ground cover of the house is 636 square feet Therefore an 81 square foot variance is being requested from this standard to avoid demolition of the historic outbuilding Finally, in the RB Zoning District two accessory buildings are allowed but one of them can not exceed a size of 120 square feet Since the historic outbuilding has a size of 200 square feet, an 80 square foot variance is being requested to allow the historic building to remain SPECIFIC REQUEST In order for Mr Brach to proceed with his project, the following specific actions would be needed 1) Approval of a variance from City Code Section 31-1, Subd 12(5)a 5, which limits total building coverage in the RB Zoning District to 25% The proposed building coverage is 31 6% 2) Approval of a variance from City Code Section 31-1, Subd 12(3)a, which limits the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings in the RB Zoning District to 1,000 square feet or 10% of the lot size, whichever is less The 10% rule applies here since the lot has an area of less than 10,000 square feet The lot's 5,856 square feet would allow a total accessory building coverage of 586 square feet The proposed accessory building coverage is 717 square feet Therefore a 131 square foot variance is being requested 3) Approval of a variance from City Code Section 31-1, Subd 12(3)b, which states that the total ground cover of the accessory structures in the RB Zoning District can not exceed the ground cover of the house The house has a ground cover of 636 square feet The 717 square feet of accessory building exceeds this standard by 81 square feet A variance of this amount is -being requested 4) Approval of a variance from City Code Section 31-1, Subd 12(3)c, which states that two accessory buildings are allowed in the RB Zoning District, but that the second accessory building can not exceed a size of 120 square feet Since the historic outbuilding has a size of 200 square feet, an 80 square foot variance is being requested 5) Approval of a variance from City Code Section 31-5, Subd 2(3)4, which prohibits any structure from being built within 30 feet of a 25% or greater Brach Variances July 5, 2006 Page 3 of 6 slope Since the garage is proposed to be constructed within about 24 feet of the edge of the Mulberry Street Ravine, a 6 foot variance is being requested EVALUATION OF REQUEST I Variances One of the City's policies is to preserve as much of its historical building stock as practically possible The Brach's agree with this policy and would like to keep the historic outbuilding on their lot The outbuilding is over 100 years old and is in good enough shape structurally to save and restore Not only does the building have potential historical value based on its age, but it also has unique architectural features that are worth saving However, the City's ordinances present conflicting public policy On the one hand the Demolition Ordinance discourages or prohibits demolition of the building On the other hand the Zoning Ordinance prohibits construction of a garage if the relatively small historical accessory building is saved Specifically, Variance Requests 2-4 as detailed above in this report would not be necessary if the Demolition Ordinance allowed the historic building to be removed Therefore, in order to support the historic preservation policies of the City, Variance Requests 2-4 are supported by City staff [Comment Variance Request 4 could be eliminated if the historical outbuilding were connected to the new garage The landowner has suggested that as an alternative he would do t1us However, staff would like to leave open the option of leaving the historical outbuilding as a freestanding structure ] Variance Request 1 - A lot in the RB District is limited to 25% building coverage The 5,856 lot could therefore have 1,464 square feet of building coverage With a 200 square foot variance to preserve the historical outbuilding, the property could support 1,664 square feet of coverage The proposed plans when all phases of construction are completed would result in 1,853 square feet of coverage Given the small size of the lot, staff believes that more than 1,664 square feet of coverage is excessive Consequently, staff only supports a variance allowing up to 1,664 square feet of building coverage Variance Request 5 - New structures are to be built at least 30 feet from the bluffline of the Mulberry Street Ravine Exhibit B shows the location of the bluffline (marked as "edge of 24% slope") and the location of the proposed garage As can be seen, the setback distance is about 24 feet The 6 foot variance is requested in order to place the garage at the 3 foot rear line setback This would allow the garage to be 22 feet deep and still have 25 feet between the house and the garage Given the grade change challenge Brach Variances July 5 2006 Page 4 of 6 and the turning maneuver necessary to get into the southerly garage stall, the variance request is reasonable II Miscellaneous If the City approves the various requested variances, or a combination of variances that would make construction of the garage possible, then the landowner will contract with the consultants to create building plans for the garage Therefore, there are very few garage details to review at this time What is known is that the garage would have dimensions of 22' by 23 5', which would yield a ground coverage of 517 square feet The garage space measured from inside wall to inside wall would be 472 5 square feet per level Staff offers the following comments to be incorporated into the building permit application for the garage • The garage may be no more than one story tall Therefore, care must be taken in drawing up the building plans to avoid turning either the basement or the attic into a story o The basement would become a story if more than 50% of the surface area of the basement walls are exposed o The attic would become a story if the maximum ceiling height exceeds 6' 6" [A space with a ceiling of 6' 6" or less is not considered habitable by building code ] • The garage may be no taller than 20 feet measured from the floor level of the garage to the midway point of the gable roof • The garage may be no taller than the house • A grading plan will need to be submitted with building permit application materials The grading plan will have to be found acceptable by the Public Works Director, or revised to his satisfaction • A driveway easement will be needed along the north property hne as far back as the rear of the existing house A bit of the driveway encroaches onto the neighboring lot For the moment this is acceptable because the owner, of that lot is Mrs Brach's mother But eventually all properties change hands, so an executed easement should be submitted and found satisfactory to the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit for the project • A support pole exists for the Excel power line at the front of the Brach's lot The support pole is located along the side lot hne near where the garage would be constructed Backfill for garage construction may impact the support pole It is unclear whether an easement exists for the support pole Therefore, either a retaining wall will have to be built to protect the pole, or permission from Excel Brach Variances July 5 2006 Page 5 of 6 should be submitted for any proposed pole impacts This should be submitted together with the building permit application materials ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives A Approve If the proposed variances are found to be acceptable to the Planning Commission, it should approve them subject to the following conditions 1 The garage shall be no more than one story tall Therefore, care must be taken in drawing up the building plans to avoid turning either the basement or the attic into a story • The basement would become a story if more than 50% of the surface area of the basement walls were exposed • The attic would become a story if the maximum ceiling height were to exceed 6' 6" 2 The garage shall be no taller than 20 feet measured from the floor level of the garage to the midway point of the gable roof 3 The garage shall be no taller than the house 4 A grading plan shall be submitted with building permit application materials The grading plan will have to be found acceptable by the Public Works Director, or revised to his satisfaction 5 An executed driveway easement shall be submitted and found satisfactory to the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building permit for the project 6 Either a retaining wall will have to be built to protect the Excel support pole on the northern property line, or permission from Excel should be submitted for any proposed pole impacts A decision on which alternative will have to be made by the landowner and support documents shall be submitted and found satisfactory by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit for the project B Approve in Part C Deny If the Planning Commission finds that the variances are not advisable, it could deny them With a denial, the basis of the action should be given D Table If the Planning Commission needs more information to make a decision, the requests could be tabled until that information is submitted Brach Vanances July 5 2006 Page 6 of 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that supporting the public policy to preserve historical structures outweighs the relatively minor potential impacts of this particular project We also find that the requested 6 foot ravine bluffline setback variance is reasonable in order to provide sufficient vehicle maneuvering space between the garage and the back of the home However, we do not find that a total lot coverage variance allowing any more than 1,664 square feet of building coverage on the lot is merited Therefore with the conditions detailed in Alternative A above, staff recommends • approval of Variance Requests 2-4, and • approval of the 6 foot ravine bluffline setback variance, and • approval of a building coverage variance to allow 1,664 total square feet of building coverage, but • denial of the building coverage variance to allow 1,853 total square feet of building coverage cc John Brach attachments Location Map Site Plan Application materials 1— CC 0 z 2 8 60 • 2 0 313 6 CP1 7 8 9 10 11 12 CC 0➢01 Bss CP.)CP. OP. 8 g 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 g 7 6 5 4 4285 2 37 38 g 39 40 41 w U6.7 l� 40 40 40 42 05 44 47 48 05I 25 0 4 as w „e 10 8 9 4825104 46a 3 60 ! ! 13 r•t 8 7 6 6. 4p.. 40 58 4 4F. „ 0" 0 z 60 80 60 40 4285 1 60 2 1 i 41"3501 ti 2 65 „ 15 '�• 8 4p'") 16 18 19 8 = 17 iipos � F 8 o � sE 8 7 6 5 0P041 4 s w w cc co 3 4 8 cp of 6 • :4145 • 5' CC 6 1 Z 7 8 9 i 10 11 12 B ® 4' 4 0 ® 8 8 4' so 50 50 so 50 5o 6 0 8l62) ! 7 8 9 11 8 4' 023 50 50 50 51 8 65 3265 12 11 10 �1 6.° as 285 285 •.+s ram+ 8 7 6 IP0 60 3 4 3 2 8 CPp dp of Cr 13 IF.' 14 15 004 as 2 2 18 !1.° 19 6. 20 m 21 22 23 052 15 85 2 65 r►� 0 13 12 14 4""' 4884) 20 65 2 Al 10 9 8 WOO EE O C )Y TER 4REj� 60 G, O0E 4 348,,, 8 g 8 9 9 44 44 5 4 3 3 W CHERRY STREET 8 7 w) • 4 I 3 2 d0'0 LINDEN co 2 a Q J m = a 0 ll z raw 20 5 - raw 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 come 00.5 0s 4 4o8 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 om ® ®02 0" 0a Location Map w w CC 0 z 60 8 10 6" 1 ire) 2 1 8 600 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 cf.,05 6 ) ) 1� O. ° 8 56 54 58 STREET 55 58 63 2 2 25 25 25 2 25 2 5 2 612 11 10 9 8 7 B 05 i 20 —...+. 5 4 3 2 1rJ 4Qw ®m 1113 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CA ea 2 2 25 25 25 25 2 MULBERRY STREET PART ST VAC BK 17 MISC PG 241 R_IW R2 W RI9W R_ 11 R_IW R20W Vicinity Map 0 176 Scale in Feet Ras ww ; �wns b. sy 88 ,.sins w „se .°gale County ma n.w4. wolf w44 Vol Cf. K. Sower W mienN 5NMyer 494113 NomnwYn sun* Neap° opl b DOS 4a4 pM4e suns 2003 t It\ +I 14 4 wAtec,, ('onununit% Development fknarmknt Brach Variance Site Plan Exhibit B Date May 26, 2006 To Stillwater Planning Commission Subj Variance Request I am planning to construct a 22 x 23 garage on my property at 515 N Everett There is an existing 10x20 shed on the property which will be attached to the new garage The total square footage of the detached building will be 717 square feet T am also proposmg an addition to the house which has an existmg footprint of 636 square feet The proposed addition area would be a maximum of 480 square feet including a covered porch (380 square feet not mcludmg the porch) My lot is a small irregular size of 5856 square feet The total square footage of buildings proposed is 28% of the lot size with the porch roof included A sketch of the property and area computations are attached Until the addition is constructed on the house, the footprint of the detached garage will slightly exceed the area of the existing home Once the addition is on the house, the garage will be smaller than the home which would conform to size Iinnt criteria for garages All foundations will be constructed at the same time The proposed garage and home footprints are similar to others m the area, but the irregular lot size puts the total building percentage slightly over the maximum I request a variance to exceed the maximum building size by 3% to allow this reasonable use of the property (exceed by 1 % if porch roof is not mcluded) There are no neighbors who would be adversely impacted by the proposed improvements Thank you for your consideration and Kim Brach 5 N Everett Stillwater MN 55082 439-9351 RECEIVED IJUN 1 9 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DP 'TET ilmia��w.".... :C ..... ■ .■.w■w .....Iwwwww■■w. w:iiw■■■::iC.i ...:;■;;:■;:;;■;■w;w'w'■■■■■w'T■w'�■�■www.w.■■■,. ■u..w'■�■■.■ �■■ ...w ■ ■ .w ■■w.■■.■� www_....■i:■■.■ .■ .■ ■.■■one . !sit ,�•w.ww.....w.■w.w.wwww.......■ s ��.mo.wW\ ----- nu_ •uu 'mj& m .a,. 14•r��w mu �■� owp!�!pl�i wmg■■\■ ifi W r." ii ®■ww■�■■■w■ww■■■■wwww■■•■■ '■i'�C■'�i■'■■'''i'iC ':� ': ;■■;; ' ;■; : 8:.-� ww■■.■■w■■ww�wwww■■w■ ■■■ �i ■ ■.■■ ■. ■ ■ .M • .. .■..;■■.■■w■ww■i■■■.ww�w■wwws.■w■ ■w■ .w■■w.wW■■.■■■■w w ■. .w •••u•_■ww■■•••••■w■wwww■■w■ ERMINE !li;i!r...i.:..;___.. :-'�:�:::: •• '�:::•••"7:1::-w'■: ■.C••C�"•••wYCw.wwww.■w■•■.•■■■■■&11■..w■■ wppm" BET'' ■`-.rm.waw ■wwwwwwwwww. ■ .iI!IjipJI.i■..■s-w:'w:EstHIE1:11001 �■w■w■arasw�www�.■w■ . ■i■ww.w•-•w•■■.■ wi.■■■....a w.ww.w■w■�Iww�.w. :...w ■i■■INIIIIIIILI! 1ilp':• ;:::•uu:M:: ::�i:.:C'11IamjAlmINNI ..■w■.. ••.■■■■■a■■w■ww.w■.wwwww■Y■ ■■ r■�lr ■.■c\■ww.w. w■:::i..C■■■rwwww■■www■Nm www■ww LA i''e;:Ci:.0ww..wwww_w.w.::%■ :iCiE.■■:: I-- i.. Nwiil••••�wwww.■N..wi.r■0■■.;m■. ■....■ ■ ■■■w ■ .■■..w:w_. u..w■wwww..■.■w _�wom.■.■.■■w•.wwiMC= :■■.■ :C:::M•i■ww■■■w■■wwUwwwww■.:�::w■ww■w.■w ■■ _I 1 I 1 I I --- ■ I ■■ Ma ILIA �■■■■: : ■ w■w■■w www■wii■ . ■w ■o 1 w�:�■i: .::::.:■�.. ii■.:■wiwwwi■w ■www■wwwiw� M.■ ■■w�■ wwlwwn■w■■MI■ w ■ ■ • ■.■ ■ ■ w■ ■. mammon w . �■ .■ iiir#iuj :.■■ ■w■ ■■■wwwMIMM i: •■■:■■'■:: I, 'w'■ :■w■ m.t.■o■w■■m■ ■wiw■.iww■ 11,■r■ZEIIMI A• ■ ■ IMMOOM i ■ lgw■w■■w I,.I■liww`.7.■ - Q• p" i i-1 ■■ ::: { N:E■■w wwww■w■ •NM OMMII•MMIMMOOM �MN ;■ ■wwI=fuI1i :�::.T'wwww" ■wi■w•• ••• ■ NMI ■ .w■■ w■■www■■w./�■■■ %I:'■�■.■■..■'=www■w.■�w■.-C ww■w■■ www■IMIUMMww■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ww■mwE� www■■�: t �� ( ■ .N w Al ■ mom. •■■wwr�.www■w■■'�■■ �- wi■ w■ ■■wnn�iw■ww■. ■w■ ■ 1JI_II 1 -11,171 tiL7 j-ii-IL 1 1 F ir1-71 -1-1 1 I _FL Lill i-, -: IT__ ill 7= • '-r JIIIII___L- % Ii -1-� --I-l�I f l h r �� 1 � 1 I I I ■ !Pj'1rIEEMJ! ■ww w w■■ ■ .w■.EI '■i'wuC • • V b 0 NI 30VH 00 N3E Z131❑ 3N30113 • H3NI ZJ3d 01 X ❑1 ?.17,iV,-1 Hr1E',4c-I N7'17I 710 fl I I bP flN • • NO 341 10 DIETZGEN GRAPH PAPER 1 ❑ X 1 ❑ PER INCH EUGENE DIETZGEN CO MADE IN U 5 A kbfry 1._LJ 1_ r,,, 2 1 n i 1U- -----Ell n■ n_1111=M!■ ME NO tar, 179 ■ �. L • I I L 14 C ■ ■■■ II ■■■ n■n I ■ ■■■-I1A11e�■niiii■ ME �- ■ T . ■■■i1n■■■i nnnNHOW. L.=•■n■n■'■■'i'n'Q�1111111 nwr�■n►. �- E n■n■n■ f:�.n■nEA■on _ [O■■n■n■ in■ • ■n■ n M■■■n■n■Ci■■i11in ■n�■■ ■�■■n■n C II l �T Ili 1 ��I l ' ■ ■ n iSrr■s■■EMMEMEnI IIMIUMIEM t ■poi■■N■■■■nAMIN 11-17. E111111E : '1 ■.■■.' n111 ■m1■■ems ■an.....n■■■■■ ln�...'1.■ '■�I'■' n. II ME •i7 MI IIIIIIIII 11. ■■■■■■■ • !■►* ■,PRI��UR �I\dp uSf EFLIMI �■I ■n■n•■_ •• 111111111111111111111 lI ■■■■ ■ Ifs' 11 111 I ■11 ■ 111111 111111 11 Illi 1 1 111111 1111111 11n ■■■■■ I: ■M■�� I' 1 mom. mom= ■ e' ■■■■■■■■■■n■■■■■■■■ ii11 " illiaidU111111111111111 e•1. fir - ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ��1111■ ■■M■■ ■ _■■IEIN..■•■■■■■ 11111/111 ■■ .o. m1 NO 341 10 DIETZGEN GRAPH PAPER 10 X 10 PER INCH EUGENE DIETZGEN CO MADE IN U S A ENC NN INNEN MEMO .CEINEM �� MIMI w■Nw■w■■■■w■■■■N■■■■■ ■N■■■■.NN ■■■.Nw■■ N■N w■NN■�■.N■■■■.■■■■■.■N■■�N■■■■ ��N M■■.■ MM ww■N■■■.N■■■■■■■■■ ■ w ■NN■ ■ ■ N ■ ■■■ ■ N■NN■N■■■■N■■.■.■■■■■�■■■■C■N� ■_ ■■■NI■.N M■■NE1 N■MIL NN■N■WN■■.■■N..■■N■■■■ .■N■■■■N.■ ■.■ ■ ■■■N ■i11m1111111Nr1NN1�11.11111u11111�11NM MMI 1■N■■ �! N■.!■■.W-7 .. 11111116 N■wN■N■..■N■JNNGfiAW ■■N■■■■■ WM ■■E ■ESC i.■t� �� �. ■ ■■■w\ TA' wN■r.T.►Ts'INZ ARGT!lG�� PWOM■■■N■ ■� r------ w■NN■YN■w■■■■■■.■■■■!1L■ ■ Nit.. N■NN■N■■■.N.■■■■■■.em IFIH1 MAm_lIM EMMMMN IIIII!I. • N■riN■�Ji:NNn■■■N■■N ■■n ■•■■Nr . 1i■NN■■■N■ N ■ ■ ■■N■ ��,/ ■ ■N■N■■■■N■■ N■■■m■■■■■.■�.■ 4 ■,■■ w■■■w■E■■■w■■N■EZ PRRIPME■■■ ■■■N■■■N� ■■■I'TnNCan . '�iFk l .1•■N■■■■N■■■.■:r111iidm■N■N!■■N1.L ■■N ElliMrallnal il ERMINE NNRlflrl� ■■. mmukumazi&J_!mw■Ni■■umga■. ■■mjn.iG.... N.NN.■N■iim . m■ moms ■■■N ■_N■NINWWE;MTIM■NM■■■■■N ■�1 __YNr.■.■N■...■■..■■■N.■■.■■N.■■■N.N■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■N 111NN NN N11111 NN■N■■.■N■■■■■■■n■■N■■ ...■..■ N...NN.�■■.N■■■■■■■■■NNN■N■■..■ ■N■N A��n���NNNIIINNNNINI� mummulli 1NN�■■..■N..... int...■■N air u�Nimmisil....um.= NNNNNNN■�■■■w■■■■■■.■■N■NN■N■■■■■N■■ -k NNE NNNw� NN■N■■■■N■■■.■■N■■■ ■■N■.■N■■■■■NNN ■N■NNNN■ ■ NNwN■N■■■■NN■■■■■■■■■ME i.■■■■■■■N■�NNNM■�■■■N■■■■■■■■■N■N■■■■■EMN .■■■■ ■ N■■■■■ NNN■■■N■■■■w■■■..■■■■■w. MMIIMMEMEMMEMMEMMIIMEMmmll ■ jummommom ■■■ ■IINN■EMM■.■N■■■■■■■.■.■NNw■ ■■■■N■■■■■..■YN■ MO EM ■momm■■N■N■■■N■■■N■■ ■■■■N■■■■iiNN . II ■N■ N■■■ 11 II ■■ 1T� ■N 41111111111111111111111111 III III _41111 11111\111N1111111111V9 - NNp 1■ Nw■N■■■■N■■■■■■■■■lii�gu■ ■•••••v■••■N" ■••■■■■■■m ■Y■■� N■N■■N■■■.■■.■Gr' 1[07_■!,.■■.■■..■■.n.■■■.■■■NN■.■w■ N■ ■.■.■■ in. NN■N■►.■N■■■■■■■■■■■N■■■■■■.■■■ ■NRM■■■ ■■■N■■■■■ NN■■■■■ ■■1�11111n111111nu1nN1Nmi�--•• w.w.. ww■w■■■■INIL\.■■■■■■■■■w■■■■■■■■■vw ■■■.NN■■NNN■n ■ ww■w■■■■wi\■.■■■■.■■w■N■N■..■■I.w■.■NNN■ ■.Nw■ w■MM■ NNN■wwN■■■■■.■;:■.■■■■■■■M■.. nN■■■EN■■■ .■■ MI W wN■ • �■11u1111111®nml___ y , •�11i111111■I uinunnNn P"H 1111111 i I i di 111111M.Purt 41m146"1"14-1Pl mN11N1111111N�IN NN ■.aiii■n■.NN ■ni H ■■ Ilmlm iunnuhm111u HHHHII_ v .N■ �I1I III II II • • 0 w w w 7 Z 0 - W 2 W w • iff-M lr>•UMM; X 0 • • 1 KI P ME to 1 l 0 Fr x Photos Existing Shed Proposed Garage Location (looking East) Looking North along East Property Line Looking West at proposed driveway Date May 26, 2006 To Stillwater Planning Commission Subj Variance Request I am planning to construct a garage on my property at 515 N Everett There is an existing 10x20 shed on the property that is more than 100 years old and exceeds the 120 square foot size limit for a second utility building once the garage is constructed This shed is part of the histonc character of the property and I would prefer to keep it I am requesting a variance to allow the existing shed to remain once the garage is constructed If the variance is granted I would eventually restore this shed This vanance request is consistent with the zoned use of the property and will preserve a 100 year old structure that is part of the histonc character of this Stillwater neighborhood Thank you for your consideration hn and Kim Brach 515 N Everett** Stillwater MN 55082 439-9351 ** We have not moved into this house yet because renovation is not complete Our current address is 911 Sixth Avenue South in Stillwater Existing Shed Si 1 !water If E BIRTHPLA IOF MINNECOIA Planning Commission DATE July 6, 2006 CASE NO V\06-29 APPLICANT Scott and Jennifer Shutes REQUEST A variance to allow up to an eleven (11) foot encroachment into into the required 25 foot rear yard setback [31-1 11 6(4)a 61 LOCATION 1331 Macey Court COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING CCR - Cottage Cove Residential PC DATE July 10, 2006 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner f/iS'P DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-1 11 6(4)a 6 of the Stillwater City Code to allow for a deck to encroach up to 11 feet into the required 25 foot rear yard setback The applicant is making this request in order to install a 16 foot by 18 foot deck in their rear yard EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The property at 1331 Macey Court is a regularly shaped single-family lot on the end of a cul-de-sac The property is located in the Settler's Glen development The zoning in this development is CCR and allows for lots as small as 7,000 square feet with an average lot size of 10,000 square feet The subject property is 10,756 square feet and meets the size requirements of the CCR district Other lots in the Macey Court cul-de-sac range in size between 10,218 and 20,906 square feet in size The back of the home is set on the rear property line, however, this is 1331 Macey Court Page 2 not the only home in the development that is set on the rear property line in such a way that installing a deck is difficult This hardship is not particular to this property 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors This property is zoned for a single-family home and is currently being used as a single-family home Without this variance the property owner will be able to continue to use the property as a single-family home Staff does not believe that approval of this variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right which has been denied Additionally, many of the lots in the Settler's Glen development tend to be smaller lots Many of the homes have been built near or at the rear building setback thus precluding a similar deck If the variance were granted this property owner would enjoy the benefit of building within the rear setback that others in the development can not do In fact, a similar variance request for a deck in the rear yard setback in the Settler's Glen development is scheduled to come before the Planning Commission for review on the same night as this request If the Comrrussion feels decks in the rear yard setback is appropriate in the Settler's Glen development then it may be more appropriate to proceed with a text amendment to the zoning code rather than granting a number of individual variances 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan The rear yard of this property is adjacent to open space, a pond, and the trail system in Settler's Glen The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is not peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district 1331 Macey Court Page 3 and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Deny the requested variance to allow a 11 foot encroachment into the required 25 foot rear yard setback for all structures in the CCR district [31- 1 11 6(4)a 6] since an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance could not be made by staff 2 Approve the requested variance to allow a 11 foot encroachment into the required 25 foot rear yard setback for all structures in the CCR district [31- 1 11 6(4)a 6] If the Commssion chooses to grant the variance the commission needs to make an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance Additionally, staff would suggest that the following conditions for approval a All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director b The deck be located no closer than 14 feet to the rear property line 3 Continue the public hearing until the August 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting The 60 day decision deadline for the request is August 15, 2006 RECOMMENDATION Since an affirmative finding could not be made for the three variance review criteria, staff recommends denial of the requested variance Attachments Applicant's Form and Site Plan Page 1 of 2 Michel Pogge From Bill Turnblad Sent Wednesday July 05 2006 4 18 PM To Michel Pogge Subject FW 1211 Macey Way / 1331 Macey Court From Jack Welch@Lennar com [mailto Jack Welch@Lennar com] Sent Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2 42 PM To Bill Turnblad Cc Jay Liberacki@lennar com, Kris Ronning@Lennar com, Tim Mathison@Lennar com, Bob Swanick@lennar com Subject 1211 Macey Way / 1331 Macey Court Mr Turnblad I received a notice for variance for the property at 1211 Macey Way, Settlers Glen This lot is adjacent to the entrance to the park and the location of the deck if on the south side of the house would only be seven feet from the park and prairie restoration area In the past I have had several conversations with sub contractors doing work on the basement of this property They have driven pick-ups with traders over the park entrance area causing the area to have to be regraded and reseeded on two different occasions I have spoken to the sub -contractors with regards to this issue and it has fallen on deaf ears They seem to think they have complete run and control off all the property around the residence At the same time the gypsum taping & painting contractor(s) had to be told on three different occasions that the storm sewer dram in the street was not to be used to clean their tools painting trays and etc out in These storm sewer lines collect in a holding pond to the southwest and from there goes directly into the Brown s Creek Watershed If this variance is granted I feel it should be conditional that if any further damage is done to the park area prairie restoration and the storm sewer catch basin that they (the residents of 1211 Macey Way will be held financially responsible I will have the work performed (if required) and the bill will be sent to the city for collection In addition the owners must be instructed to NOT MOW THE PRAIRIE RESTORATION AREA or use this area to throw grass clippings or have fires In reference to the property at 1331 Macey Court, Scott and Jennifer Shutes I have no objections to granting them the additional rear yard set back Their lot is a small lot to begin with The area that they are requesting the variance on to backs up against the holding pond area and there is a small narrow strip of prairie restoration between their property and the pond In the past they have been very considerate of the pondmg and restoration areas and have confined their mowing to the areas noted by the park identifiers posts This area does not require pedestrian traffic to access the park area or trail system Should you wish to discuss either of these issues I can be reached at the numbers listed below 7/6/2006 Page 2 of 2 Jack J Welch Project Manager Lennar Land Division Telephone # 952-249-3097 Cellular # 952-270 0875 7/6/2006 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed ac) Fee Paid Receipt No XK1 ? 2 / ACTION REQUESTED Al I'7 73 /d Special/Conditional Use Permit ___1Vanance Resubdivision Subdimsion* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance The fees for requested action we attached to this application *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attomey and engineering fees. The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (1 e , photos, sketches, etc ) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting matena/ is required if application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material Is required A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the applicatron process Address of Projec Zoning Distnct( 2 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION j /9 / // �-? j/ �6 /CaAssessor's Parcel No / 0 �3/�0/ / (GEO Code) Descnption of Protect DE'C� "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, Information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify 1 will comply with the permit if k is g and used " /7/2/ Property owner J('Dtf O fL PS , Mailing Address /% 9i /%'. 2('ey C City - State - Tip C%////,?1('te yV/175�V City - State - Zip Telephone No [� ��,� ���/ Telephone No Sign Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Feet Pnncipal Accessory Representative Mailing Address Signature (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces June 15, 2006 City of Stillwater This letter is to inform you of our intent for a vanance We are seeking an 11 foot variance for our deck proposal before you Without the variance we only have 5 feet 2 inches Our plans call for a total of 16 feet from the back of our home Scott and Jennifer Shutes 13,31 M EVE pUR� CERTIFICATE 4F 'SURVEY Tor Orrin Thom pson Homes (A Dawaion of USA Home Corporotion) L C 0�` Dc#1) • s (.r1 '0 z 0 0 '19649° 20 N 88°54' 23"E ��,�0'' 4 ); C ) --� Scale 1"=30' Page 2 of 2 James 0 i R Hill, Inc. TOTAL P f�3 i * * Take this sheet to the Budding Materials desk to purchase your materials * You selected a 1 level deck with Pressure Treated Framing Material 6 x 6 Framing Posts 514" x 6" Cedar Deck Boards Poured Footings 12" Tube 4' deep Premium Gold Combo Drive Screws Stainless Steel Framing Fasteners Handrail selections 36" Shaped Horizontal Handrail Railing 30" Petina Aluminum Spindles 4' Aluminum Spindle Spacer 4" x 4" x 48" Cedar Chamfered Railing Posts 2" x 4" x 8' Cedar Shaped Hand Rail You may buy all the materials or any pa a ow cas ancarry prices :ecause o e wi'e varia' e in co es Menards cannot guarantee that matenais listed will meet your code requirements Check with your local municipality for plan compliance and buildingot athecoml leteness suggested designsf and aTaxslaboyr and Some notancluded ry from tose pictured We do not guarantee the completeness pnces * * Below is a section of the railing style and options you have selected for your deck Spindle pia ng on style Illustration inten {,, o ow general deck size and shape. Some options selected may not be shown for picture clarity. Today's cost for materials estimated in this design with options: $2880.99 4x42x8 ois� and beams, galyti ixed framm 'The base price includes 40 PSF deck live load, AC2 treated horizontal 2x6 deck boards, posts, it �ASE rice J4o °vg_ fasteners, AC2 treated 36 Vertical handrail to joist without posts, and premium screws ' price): Design #: 39944 MENARDS 611312006 * * Take this sheet to the Building Materials desk to purchase your materials Level 1 16' x 18' 10' off the ground Horizontal Decking 2" x 10" Joists 2" x 10" Beams 40 PSF Deck Live Load Today's cost for materials estimated in this design with options: $2880.99 'The base price includes 40 PSF deck live Toad, AC2 treated horizontal 2x6 deck bords, 4x4 posts, 2xt oasts and beams lu nixed framin fasteners, AC2 treated 36° Vertical handrail to joist without posts, and premium screws BASE price): 1540.30 I p I � Layout dimension sheets are intended as a construction aid Not all ontions sptPrtard arp chnwn You may buy all the materials or any part at low cash and carry prices Because of the wide variable in codes Menards cannot guarantee that materials listed will meet your code requirements Check with your local municipality for plan compliance and budding permit These plans are suggested designs and material lists only Some items may vary from those pictured We do not guarantee the completeness or pnces of these structures Tax labor and delivery not included Layout dimension sheets are intended as a construction aid Not all options selected are shown Posts 2 16 11 2 ICI You may buy all the matenals or any part at low cash and carry pnces Because of the wide variable in codes Menards cannot guarantee that materials listed will meet your code requirements Check with your local municipality for plan compliance and building permit These plans are suggested designs and matenal lists only Some items may vary from those pictured We do not guarantee the completeness or paces of these structures Tax labor and delivery not included umUya CMG IJU3J Ua auUIjUU Ile {UN plc uUIpIaj'uUJ S SS pdpU04111 WU SR NS UOISU2WIp 1110AB1 - o o` Q -a CO r7 C1 41 C/1 5 Eno 0 cocc, OT CD CD N n CC 1 CD CD CDC7 O a= o-2 CO O =r Cr CD CS cD a CD O O a CD C/) O C/1 CD cn to Q'W` CD O cn N CD gCD CQ N 03 [1 CrJ EL CS CO a - d N 0- 6) CO C CD C) CD CD c CD ccta rn Ct] c_ 1 G)TmoC)oJa 0 0) 0 CD C7 CD CD _. N cn C7) -4 CT cc, CD O [.O CO N N N t? X X t X X X S+C O O O O O O O O G) G7 G) G) G7 G) C) G) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD O O O O > > O O —I -A —A —1 —I -A —1 -A CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C) C) C) 0) C) C) C1) CO CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CZ CZ a a L1 a 70 77 70 70 ZJ 17 a 2 3 3 3 co 0 0 0 0 o CD (/1 Cn C/) CD Cn 0 0 CD CN) O cD T1 You may buy all the matenals or any part at low cash and carry pnces Because of the wide vanable in codes Menards cannot guarantee that materials listed will meet your code requirements Check with your local municipality for plan compliance and budding permit These plans are suggested designs and material lists only Some items may vary from those pictured We do not guarantee the completeness or pnces of these structures Tax labor and delivery not included i 1r1r H E BIRTHP A F 0! MINNESOIA Planning Commission DATE APPLICANT Eric and Amy Thole July 6, 2006 CASE NO V\06-30 REQUEST A variance to allow up to a eight and one half (8 5) foot encroachment into the required 25 foot rear yard setback [31- 1 11 6(4)a 6] LOCATION 1211 Macey Way COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING CCR - Cottage Cove Residential PC DATE July 10, 2006 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner im9 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-1 11 6(4)a 6 of the Stillwater City Code to allow for a deck to encroach up to 8 5 feet into the required 25 foot rear yard setback The applicant is making this request in order to install a 16 foot by 18 foot deck in their rear yard EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The property at 1211 Macey Way is a irregularly shaped single-family lot on Macey Way The lot is a simi-pie shaped lot with the back corner of the lot cut diagonally across the rear City parkland adjoins the lot on rear and the southerly side yard of the lot The property is located in the Settler's Glen development The zoning in this development is CCR and allows for lots as small as 7,000 square feet with an average lot size of 10,000 square feet The 1211 Macey Way Page 2 subject property is 10,991 square feet and meets the size requirements of the CCR district Other lots in the along Macey Way within 5 lots on either side of the subject lot range in size between 8,915 and 12,293 square feet in size Macey Way in front of the home curves and the home is situated facing it substantially parallel to the street The rear property line of the lot cut diagonally on the lot and is problematic for the development of a deck where the sliding patio doors were installed This hardship is particular to this property 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors This property is zoned for a single-family home and is currently being used as a single-family home Without this variance the property owner will be able to continue to use the property as a single-family home Staff does not believe that approval of this variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right which has been denied Additionally, many of the lots in the Settler's Glen development tend to be smaller lots Many of the homes have been built near or at the rear building setback thus precluding a similar deck If the variance were granted this property owner would enjoy the benefit of building within the rear setback that others in the development can not do In fact, a similar variance request for a deck in the rear yard setback in the Settler's Glen development is scheduled to come before the Planning Commission for review on the same night as this request If the Commission feels decks in the rear yard setback is appropriate in the Settler's Glen development then it may be more appropriate to proceed with a text amendment to the zoning code rather than granting a number of individual variances 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan The rear yard of this property is adjacent to the park area in Settler's Glen The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance • 1211 Macey Way Page 3 2 That a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Deny the requested variance to allow a 8 5 foot encroachment into the required 25 foot rear yard setback for all structures in the CCR district [31- 1 11 6(4)a 6] since an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance could not be made by staff 2 Approve the requested variance to allow a 8 5 foot encroachment into the required 25 foot rear yard setback for all structures in the CCR district [31- 1 11 6(4)a 6] If the Comrrussion chooses to grant the variance the commission needs to make an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance Additionally, staff would suggest that the following conditions for approval a All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director b The deck be located no closer than 16 5 feet to the rear property line c That park area is not to be driven upon, used for storage, or otherwise utilized for the construction of the deck The property owner shall be responsible for any damage to the park site caused by the construction of the deck 3 Continue the public hearing until the August 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting The 60 day decision deadline for the request is August 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION Since an affirmative finding could not be made for the three variance review criteria, staff recommends denial of the requested variance Attachments Applicant's Form and Site Plan Page 1 of 2 Michel Pogge RE From Bill Turnblad Sent Wednesday July 05 2006 4 18 PM To Michel Pogge Subject FW 1211 Macey Way / 1331 Macey Court JUL 5 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT From Jack Welch@Lennar com [mailto Jack Welch@Lennar com] Sent Wednesday, July 05, 2006 2 42 PM To Bill Turnblad Cc Jay Liberacki@Iennar com, Kris Ronning@Lennar com, Tim Mathison@Lennar com, Bob Swanick@lennar com Subject 1211 Macey Way / 1331 Macey Court Mr Turnblad I received a notice for variance for the property at 1211 Macey Way, Settlers Glen This lot is adjacent to the entrance to the park and the location of the deck if on the south side of the house would only be seven feet from the park and prairie restoration area In the past I have had several conversations with sub contractors doing work on the basement of this property They have driven pick-ups with trailers over the park entrance area causing the area to have to be regraded and reseeded on two different occasions I have spoken to the sub contractors with regards to this issue and it has fallen on deaf ears They seem to think they have complete run and control off all the property around the residence At the same time the gypsum taping & painting contractor(s) had to be told on three different occasions that the storm sewer drain in the street was not to be used to clean their tools painting trays and etc out in These storm sewer lines collect in a holding pond to the southwest and from there goes directly into the Brown s Creek Watershed If this variance is granted I feel it should be conditional that if any further damage is done to the park area prairie restoration and the storm sewer catch basin that they (the residents of 1211 Macey Way will be held financially responsible I will have the work performed (if required) and the bill will be sent to the city for collection In addition the owners must be instructed to NOT MOW THE PRAIRIE RESTORATION AREA or use this area to throw grass clippings or have fires In reference to the property at 1331 Macey Court, Scott and Jennifer Shutes I have no objections to granting them the additional rear yard set back Their lot is a small lot to begin with The area that they are requesting the variance on to backs up against the holding pond area and there is a small narrow strip of prairie restoration between their property and the pond In the past they have been very considerate of the ponding and restoration areas and have confined their mowing to the areas noted by the park identifiers posts This area does not require pedestrian traffic to access the park area or trail system Should you wish to discuss either of these issues I can be reached at the numbers listed below 7/6/2006 Page 2 of 2 Jack J Welch Project Manager Lennar Land Division Telephone # 952-249-3097 Cellular # 952 270-0875 7/6/2006 Zoning District e.e_,( Description of Project PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED ISpecial/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision` Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and eng►neenng fees The fees for requested action are attached to this application The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (► e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with apphcahon becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If apphcatfon is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process After Planning Commission approvals there is a 10-day appeal period Once the 10 day appeal ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 1 2 1 t in ctc e l�J . Assessors Parcel No /91,3n)2e)SekliY9 (GEO Code) De-ck "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief to be true and correct 1 further certify ! will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner ram, L. AMy Thc k Mailing Address (2.1i leV1& cc cLy City - State - Zip 5+, \ 1 ,,..,.,+er, NIA/ Telephone No (o 5-( - q- 3 p- 37 Z 2 Signature (Signature is required) Representative n,1 4r A,x7 7o to Mailing Address CS4�e Telepho Signatu SITE AND PROJECT DESC Fr +' -1 3r, bc,ck bo 43 Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area 12, coo d�� ! 30 23 a ti Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal 2 "Lv Accessory ‘s5 Total Building floor area Existing Proposed Paved Impervious Area No of off street parking spaces square feet square feet square feet square feet H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM Apnl 20 2005 Eric C. Thole Attorney at Law 106 South Main Street, Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 651-439-1112 June 14, 2006 Planning Commission City of Stillwater 216 N 4th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Planning Commission My wife and I hope to build a 12' x 18' deck with 4' wide stairs, consistent with the other decks in our neighborhood Our rear lot line is on the park We have a neighbor on one side of us and the park entrance on the other side The park and its entrance skew our rear lot line, making this variance necessary Currently, the southeast corner of our house is 34' from the rear lot line 12' of deck and 4' of stairs would put us at 18' from the lot line, meaning we need a 7' variance Looking out our back window, we can see 11 neighbors that have 12' x 18' decks We live in a new neighborhood so I'm sure there will be many more decks on the way Please don't hesitate to call if you have questions You can call my office, cell(651-207-3500) or home (430-3722) if need be Thank you Sincere Eric C Thole Attorney at Law 1 1211 MACEY WAY CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For Orrin Thompson Homes u) U (A Division of US Home Corporation) K h \ i97s9) 33 w P���o, 908 2 �Q-P c., / ��� 5 N 398 89 N83°07'17"W90 7J_,,, To lok .� \I ITI (\ �Ju I L V LJ c)o'r Scale 1"=30' Page 2 of 2 n(908 885—A James R. Hill, Inc I The Home Depot # 2810 g334 TAMARACK VILLAGE WOODBURY MN 55125 (631) 714-8751 Thu May 04 11 47 49 2006 This Protect cannot be priced because not all materials are carved in stock See Store Associate for prices on non -stock items shown in Bill of Materials AMY THOLE DECK KINGSWOOD REVISED 198513 Deck Dimensions for Deck 5 18 rD oNtbk 4,v) b. - v ov-�2 u 13' 4' Joist Spacing = 16 in o b Baluster Spacing = 3 3/4" Toe Spacing = 3 3/4" Railing Height = 36" 18' The Home Depot # 2810 8334 TAMARACK VILLAGE WOODBURY MN 55125 (651) 714-8751 Mu May 04 11 47 49 2006 This Project cannot be priced because not all materials are carried in stock See Store Associate for prices on non -stock items shown in Bill of -Materials AMY THOLE DECK KINGSWOOD REVISED 198513 Deck Layout ( onnnttnm Ms/dolmen( Den trnncnt liwater HE BIMTHPLA or M I N N F C D 1 A Planning Commission DATE July 6, 2006 CASE NO V\06-31 APPLICANT Gaye Lundstrom REQUEST A variance to a allow 54-inch tall fence in excess of the allowed 42- inch tall fence in the front yard [31-1-24(16)d 5] LOCATION 907 Willard St W COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING RB - Two-family District PC DATE July 10, 2006 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner /Lt cp DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-1-24(16)d 5 of the Shllwater City Code to allow 54-inch tall fence in excess of the allowed 42-inch tall fence m the front yard The applicant is making this request so a fence installed in excess of the allowed height maybe kept without modifications EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The property at 907 Willard St W is a regular sized lot The fence was installed by the property owner in excess of the allowed height limits Financial justification for a variance is not sufficient grounds for granting a variance 907 Willard St W Page 2 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors Without the approval of a variance the applicant would be required to modify or remove the fence The applicant would still be allowed to construct a fence that dose not exceed the allowed maximum height of 42 inches 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to prevent obstructions that would impede clear vision along the roadway and in front yards The fence in question is an oriental rod iron fence This fence is open and does not obstruct vision The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is not peculiar to the property, was created by an act of the owner In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan 907 Willard St W Page 3 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Deny the requested variance to allow a 54-inch tall fence in excess of the allowed height of 42-inches in the front yard since an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance could not be made by staff 2 Approve the requested variance to allow a 54-inch tall fence in excess of the allowed height of 42-inches in the front yard If the Commission chooses to grant the variance the commission needs to make an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance Additionally, staff would suggest that the following conditions for approval a All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director b The variance is limited to the fence that currently exists and any new fence shall meet the requirements of the zoning code or a new variance must be obtained prior to the installation of a new fence 3 Continue the public hearing until the August 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting The 60 day decision deadline for the request is August 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION Since an affirmative finding could not be made for all three of the variance review criteria, staff recommends denial of the requested variance Attachments Applicant's Form, Applicant's Letter, Site Plan, and Photos -'LANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit )( Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The fees for requested action are attached to this application The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting matenal submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (i e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits Address of Project PROPERTY IPENTIIFICATION rat ` � $ +/ '_Assessor s Parcel No Zoning District Description of Project 3o' ooa7 (GEO Code) "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct 1 further certify I will comply with the permit if it is grantednd used " Property p Y Owner Qi 1,U1)d � � t rY\ Representative Mailing Address � �1 �)\iit iO .1 Mailing Address City - State - Zip ?-11-111V\I �/ ��,1,/ f i I �+r �? G City -State -Zip__� rr Telephone No W riy� `) D' Q 9;/ 0 Telephone No Signatures — v Ls t j �t i , Signature (Siignature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Principal Accessory Feet (Signature is required) Total Building floor area square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM May 25 2006 0 60 Scale in Feet `+3 bth tin ppum T16 11- tiP4-119 1-n— 1 briT ()(1- r P 71Q "K1-1- 7'1 `)/‘- 7m9A1 Pio A-1 '1'44 41 114" Llw )9--Th Pi" __rni -0 /xi) 9-)191 cito 1 puv at(24,1 _Q rurouLDTV, pram J\ Qvapo jqr)nnr3 flOOR itM) —0 _qp5 nr tal 109 l M St -F? "p u"11M rM I 1Tp ou � �c� ,� n_f_ Frnrv� � p-royuLw3 Si � FillThtl I sorn tir rup qY9 -mom rvuul -19M-U I 191)114PT 2�}�I '�i Ih�-- �L voYwq--P" �I I1vvi `J'YI�� � -WW1Two 'Yov��- riinuro (it }0 kivY) a %mid J �l'1 o'li U!D I b9 I 51 W 1n9+ city of ( ommuntty [hAelonment Denamncnt Cass No. V\Oo 6-31 Me Map HE BIRTHPLA F Of- MINNESOTA Planning Commission DATE APPLICANT American Classic Homes July 6, 2006 CASE NO V\06-32 REQUEST A variance to allow up to a fifteen (15) foot encroachment into the required twenty-five (25) foot corner lot side yard (front yard) setback [31-1-11 1(4)5] LOCATION 735 Liberty Court COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFLL - Single Family Large Lot ZONING LR - Lakeshore Residential Distirct PC DATE July 10, 2006 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner msp DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-1-11 1(4)5 of the Stillwater City Code to allow for a new home to encroach up to 15 feet into the required 25 foot corner lot side yard (front yard) setback In the northwest corner of the lot is one leg of the hammer hear turnaround for Liberty Court Since the turnaround is a public street in a city owned right-of-way the required front yard setback of 25 feet applies to all edges of the hammerhead EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found ' /5 Liberty Court Page 2 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance With the location of hammerhead in the northeast corner of the lot the property at 735 Liberty Court is potentially an irregular lot However, each lot along Liberty Court is approximately 100 feet wide with the exception of the two lots at the hammerhead with are each wider than 100 feet at the setback line The property in question is approximately 138 feet wide at the front setback line which compensates for the hammerhead in the lot The applicant also stated that with the flag shaped lot to the south it left only 5131 feet of frontage where a driveway can be placed which makes the lot irregular The applicant also stated that due to the location of an electrical transformer, telephone box and a light pole the lot was further restricted First, the way the lot to the south is configured does limit the design and layout of any potential garage and driveway, however, staff feels a home can still be accommodated within the setback The garage could be redesigned as a side loading garage, reduced to a two car garage, or the driveway could narrow down prior to the street This issue could be over come through redesign the home Additionally the existing utilities could be avoided or potentially be moved if need be The issue and hardship is one created by a choice of house plan and not necessarily a cause of the lot itself 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors Without the approval of a variance the applicant would need to redesign the home to fit on the lot, however, the applicant would not be denied the opportunity to construct a home that meet the requirements of the zoning district Granting the variance does convey a special privilege to the property owner that others in the area have not enjoyed ' 735 Liberty Court Page 3 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan Tom Pedersen and Mary Ann Gire wrote a letter to the Commission expressing their concern and objections over the granting of the requested variance They stated that currently they have an unobstructed view of Long Lake and the proposed home location would obstruct this view if a variance were to be granted The Pedersen/Gire property is located west of Liberty Court on Reunion Road and the property sits considerably higher in elevation then the applicant's property If the setback is maintained they would still have a limited view of the woods and lake area Additionally, due to the elevation of the Pedersen/Gire home a fence on the subject property would not obstruct their view of the woods and lake area Granting the variance would have an impact on this adjacent property owner FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is not peculiar to the property and is created by an act of the owner In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same viciruty, and that a variance, if granted, would constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest It would not necessarily adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan 735 Liberty Court Page 4 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Deny the requested variance to allow up to a fifteen (15) foot encroachment into the required twenty-five (25) foot corner lot side yard (front yard) setback [31-1-11 1(4)5] since an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance could not be made by staff 2 Approve the variance to allow up to a fifteen (15) foot encroachment into the required twenty-five (25) foot corner lot side yard (front yard) setback [31-1- 11 1(4)5] If the Commission chooses to grant the variance the commission needs to make an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance Additionally, staff would suggest that the following conditions for approval a All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director b The home be located no closer than 10 feet to the southeast property line corner of the hammerhead 3 Continue the public hearing until the August 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting The 60 day decision deadline for the request is August 14, 2006 RECOMMENDATION Since an affirmative finding could not be made for the three variance review criteria, staff recommends denial of the requested variance Attachments Applicant's Form, Applicant's Letter, and Site Plan PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance The fees for requested action are attached to this application *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (i e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required if application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting matenal is required A site plan is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting matenal will delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 1.2 LIMIT/ Gotntr Assessor's Parcel No 31032662 'Q0-30 (GEO Code) Zoning District1/14 Description of Project SII I.e f WitLE K(DEfJ"fl/ L... 1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify 1 will comply with the permit if it is grated and use " I ` Property Owner 1t; t,Mic, livell9 Representative Mailing Address 14 Nekil Ply- Mailing Address City - State - Zip SMIWATEKI1' Telephone No 't }-fit D9�r7 Signature (Signarequired) Lot Size (dimensions)1 3 x GGc.3 t Land Area 100 r°134- 5f Height of Buildings Siorie Feet Principal Wio rZ"!' hliA Accessory City - State - Zip Telephone No Signature (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area'Joi'''IN square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off-street parking spaces June 15, 2006 City of Stillwater Community Development Dept 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re Vanance request Lot 6, Block 3, Liberty on the Lake, The Woodlands We are requesting a redefinition of the side yard -corner -garage setback (25') along one of the side property lines (at the turnaround) that we feel should have been classified as a side yard-intenor-garage (5') We would like to locate the garage 10' from said lot line, which will still be 30' from the side lot line on the north side of the lot We feel that the current definition of this line creates an extraordinary circumstance that significantly reduces the buildable area and access to this lot This lot has several characteristics that are unusual to other lots in this community One is that 62 07' of the 113 38' front property line is inaccessible due to the neighbonng parcel to the south (lot 5), it has a flag element that abuts it leaving 51 31' of frontage Of that 51 31' remaining we have the current setback of 25', an electrical transformer, telephone box, cable tv, and the water curb stop, all further restncting access to this lot Another is a turnaround that consumes the north 20' of the property line and also creates the side yard - corner -garage setback condition for a distance of 32' (the garage front yard setback) Yet another of the characteristics is the amount of topography, the only access for the garage is on the low side of the front lot line and it drops off quite quickly toward the rear so the location of the garage is more or less predetermined and it is right in the middle of what is currently the setback It is our opinion that this vanance will not adversely affect the site lines looking down the street or at the turn around, and will help to preserve the site lines from the neighbonng homes as illustrated on the site plan exhibit submitted Respectfully, Timothy Jo • • n, AIA V P Architec - : Design Attachments anance exhibit # 1 & 2 dated 6/16/06 Libel() Village Mailing Address 145 Nems England Place Suite 200 Stillwater Minnesota 55082 Phone 651 351 0995 Fca 651 439 3417 Denotes proposed sewer invert Scale 1 "= 30 feet • Denotes iron monument found O Denotes iron monument set Bearings bosed on ossumed datum I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I om o duly Licensed Lond Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota aWz Craig W Morse LS Dote License No 23021 to t SPACE EMEN T ' IIa !t I` I 1 I ►I I f / '32'W 17237 *BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHOWN REFLECT FOUNDATION PLAN* x (900 00) Denotes proposed elevation x 900 00 Denotes existing elevation Denotes surface drainage LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 6, Block 3 LIBERTY ON THE LAKE THE WOODLANDS according to the recorded plot thereof Washington County Minnesota NOTE * All curb and gutter and utilities ore proposed * All contours shown ore proposed * Setbacks must be verified with the City of Stillwater SIDE YARD SETBACKS Corner loft House 15ft a 20ft Goroge 9 In terior House Gorage 1 \ co co \ 3 WETLAND REOUESTED BY { Edge of Wetland AmeKrot4•1 c446g.tc C.P.D.0 VA04/4 01040 Westwood Professional Services, Inc 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Proirie Mn 55344 (612) 937-5150 Drown by SRL I Dote 06/13/02 Job No 20011063 20011063803L 06 DWG opal co O Os. i \ )M111111 Setbock Line (923 5) too-i g; t. xxxx Denotes proposed sewer invert Scale 1-= 30 feet • Denotes iron monument found O Denotes iron monument set Bearings based on os'simr;d datum • LOT SKE / UI1 ,\ 44,• \\ • • • • • \ 'PEN S'"I CE E EMCN r ‘co\ \t WETLAND Edg • I • • 1 ___• —J 908 1�or 914' f 1 9/8 / j L/a 1 tO 0 sAN Drornow & Utrlrt\} Easemeh.( lond Droinoge Eosemen t / i 4*Lizeitkuw.44 (fit w gg4.o) / \i"—\ ttl,\ tr-\°-\v- l� 1 1 \ > 1 ! - 1 from 64izialo. 934- oo To ciSe1-(01 Lotvw Lit/ 924 Qo 1 -1 r i t N$9 ° 13'l2 "W 622 84 OPE I EA *BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHOWN REF' EC T f OUNDA TION x (900 00) Denotes proposed clevot:on x 900 00 Denotes exrstrng PfP Heron Denotes surfoce drornoje LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 5 Block 3 LIBERTY O,V THE L 4KE THE WOODLANDS according to the recorded (lint th,rpaf Wachrnoton C^)nty Minnesota PLA City of ( onmumrtv Dc.clonmcnt Ucn mmcnt Case No. VWW6-32 Sots Map Tom Pedersen Mary Ann Gire 775 Reunion Rd Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-0407 July 5, 2006 Mr Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re VARIANCE - Case No V/06-32 Dear Mr Turnblad We are opposed to the above -referenced vanance request as it will impose on the openness of the easement and the remaining view of the lake provided to adjacent properties Our lots were sold for a premium pnce based on their proximity to and view of Long Lake We respectfully request that development of any remaining lots be required to adhere to setbacks as originally established and (presumably) understood by buyers and sellers alike Thank you for your consideration of this matter Sincerely, Tom Pedersen and Mary Ann are ' RECEIVED J U L 5 2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 14. 1 lwa NE BIATHPIACE OF- M I N N I S O 1 A Planning Commission DATE APPLICANT Troy Krammer July 6, 2006 CASE NO V\06-33 REQUEST A variance to allow a 19 56 foot encroachment into the required 25 foot rear yard setback for all structures in the RA district [31- 1 11(4)4 6] and a variance to allow a 4 56 encroachment into the required 10 foot rear yard setback for all pools [31-1 24(14) and 33- 213] LOCATION 113 Myrtlewood Ct COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT SFLL - Single Family Large Lot ZONING RA - One -Family District PC DATE July 10, 2006 REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner ow DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 19 56 foot encroachment into the required 25 foot rear yard setback for all structures in the RA district [31-1 11(4)4 6] and a variance to allow a 4 56 encroachment into the required 10 foot rear yard setback for all pools [31-1 24(14) and 33-2 13] EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found libb 113 Myrtlewood Ct Page 2 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The property at 113 Myrtlewood Ct is a fairly regularly shaped single-family lot The applicant desires to install a pool for the therapy of his grandmother and for recreational use of his family Where the applicant may desire or chose to install a pool for personal needs these services are available within the community to serve the needs of the farruly A personal choice is not justification for a variance The applicant noted in his letter he has purchased the pool, remove trees in the rear yard, and constructed a fence in the rear yard all in anticipation of installing the pool Financial justification for a variance is not sufficient grounds for granting a variance 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors Tlus property is zoned for a single-family home and is currently being used as a single-family home Without this variance the property owner will be able to continue to use the property as a single-family home Staff does not believe that approval of this variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right which has been denied Additionally, if granted, this property owner would enjoy the benefit of building a pool within the required rear yard setback which is not currently available to other property owners in the community 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan The purpose for the setback is to establish a uniform appearance If the Commission would authorize this variance it could be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties and could materially impair the purpose and intent of this title, the public interest, and adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan 113 Myrtlewood Ct Page 3 FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is not peculiar to the property and is created by any act of the owner In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and materially impair the purpose and intent of this title, the public interest, and adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options 1 Deny the requested variance to allow a 19 56 foot encroachment into the required 25 foot rear yard setback for all structures in the RA district [31- 1 11(4)4 6] and a variance to allow a 4 56 encroachment into the required 10 foot rear yard setback for all pools [31-1 24(14) and 33-2 13] since an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance could not be made by staff 2 Approve the requested variance to allow a 19 56 foot encroachment into the required 25 foot rear yard setback for all structures in the RA district [31- 1 11(4)4 6] and a variance to allow a 4 56 encroachment into the required 10 foot rear yard setback for all pools [31-1 24(14) and 33-2 13] If the Commission chooses to grant the variance the commission needs to make an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance Additionally, staff would suggest that the following conditions for approval a All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director b The pool be located no closer than 5 44 feet to the rear property line 3 Continue the public hearing until the August 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting The 60 day decision deadline for the request is August 15, 2006 RECOMMENDATION Since an affirmative finding could not be made for the three variance review criteria, staff recommends derual of the requested variance Attachments Applicant's Form, Applicant's Letter, and Site Plan PLANNING ADMINISTRA, ION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineenng fees The fees for requested action are attached to this application The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (: e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If apphcat►on is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 11.3 1MA,_--teithz,S 4-4- <pwv -Assessor s Parcel No Zoning District Description of Project lv.s-TallcJ c,* Z1 >zowwD Agrsvg ,24t),,+R 1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct / further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " 0q&9a? aooi (GEO Code) Property Owner —I—Co 4--�( ,tiAAPA - Representative Mailing Address lk� 41,941 fw0DiD Co Mailing Address City - State - Zip-,Ik A-, ( tn4,? SSoSk City - State - Zip Telephone No (p (/3S( -6LS7 Signature 4,,, 4 Telephone No Signature (Si nature is required) (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Lot Size (dimensions) toe °x i23 cs- Land Area lZ 1304 Sq Pr Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal Accessory Total Building floor area Existing Proposed Paved Impervious Area No of off-street parking s aces square feet square feet square feet square feet Ii \mcnamara\sheda\PLANAPP FRM May 25 2006 Planning Commission City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 Dear Commission Members June 16 2006 In accordance with instructions included with the Planning Application I am forwarding a letter detailing our proposed project and the planned use if my variance request is approved by your commission It is our desire to construct a 27 round above ground pool in our backyard We purchased the pool from Watson s in Apple Valley and it was delivered in May The pool has 54 walls and will allow 48 water depth throughout the pool area requiring approximately 16 000 gallons of water It will be constructed with resin and stainless steel joining components and comes with a lifetime guarantee against corrosion or deterioration of all structural components We relocated to Stillwater in the summer of 2004 and still have two kids living at home Our neighborhood in North Carolina offered a pool to the residents and my kids spent seven summers enjoying that pool Stillwater does not offer a similar alternative thus my motivation to install our own pool My 81 year old grandmother lives in New Richmond WI She suffers from arthritis and relies on daily walks to help loosen stiff joints In recent years the walks have become much more difficult Her doctors have encouraged her to exercise in New Richmond s indoor pool facility but she has no intention of presenting herself in a bathing suit to the public at 81 years of age Our pool would provide her an opportunity to follow her doctor s advice at least during the summer months When we purchased the home in 2004 I verified that our association did not have restrictions against constructing a pool We were told by my realtor and the previous homeowner (an attorney) that we would not be able to install an in ground pool because of a drainage pipe running through our backyard They confirmed that we could construct an above ground pool without disturbing the pipe This seemed reasonable so I did not pursue further clarification from the city My mistake In preparation for this project I did a significant amount of research regarding above ground pools The quality of the components liners and filter systems vanes greatly I made every effort to choose a product that would reflect the quality of my home and those in our neighborhood The total cost of the pool was over $7,700 A moderate pnce when compared to in ground pools, but relatively high -end in the world of above ground pools We hired a professional tree trimming service to raise the trees sheltering the backyard to allow some additional sunlight and remove many dead branches that posed a risk to those using the pool and the structure itself Their services cost $1 500 Finally we hired Midwest Fence to construct a 6 cedar privacy fence around the perimeter of our backyard to protect against someone accidentally entering the pool and minimize any impact the pool would have on my neighbors Again we spent more to construct a fence consistent with the architectural elements of the neighborhood that provided a greater degree of privacy for the neighbors all at additional cost to us The total for the fence was more than $7 400 Our total investment for the pool project is almost $17 000 to date and it s not installed yet When I purchased the pool in May I was told I needed to apply for a building permit before construction I was surprised that I was applying for an actual building permit for an above ground pool vs a more specialized permit (i e the fence permit) I did not anticipate the above ground pool would be held to the same building restrictions as my home It is a much more temporary or removable structure than my house or even the fence When I requested the building permit application I was told that I d have to meet the 25 rear set back restriction on my property With a back yard that is 37 44 deep, the 25 set back requirement leaves no room for a pool As I was inquiring about variance applications I was told that I had a bigger problem to deal with a 20 drainage easement across my entire backyard that I could not encroach on effectively killing the entire project regardless of my investment up to this point I explained that the drainage easement was not for an above ground flow but for an underground pipe that that the pool would not interfere with 'No encroachment allowed was my answer I offered to sign an agreement with the city to remove the pool at my cost if/when the city needed to access the drainage pipe No was my answer I inquired about the possibility of relocating the pipe at my cost to reduce the size of the easement No (for multiple reasons) was my answer I talked to two City Council Members the Director of Planning and Development a City Engineer multiple city employees a structural engineer and a real-estate attorney looking for an answer other than NO regarding the drainage easement The attorney and a representative from the city both told me I should have simply installed the pool without requesting the building permit My frustration with this situation was quickly becoming exasperation Because I was told that the recommendation of the City Engineer regarding this issue would carry significant weight in any decisions made by the city I asked Shawn Sanders to look at my backyard before making any decisions Fortunately he agreed I pointed out that the drainage pipe was accessible from either side of my backyard even if the pool were in place And I did not have additional options regarding the location of the pool After talking to the City Attorney and City Administrator Shawn communicated that the city would allow the pool over the easement with two conditions First that I get documentation from a structural engineer that the above ground pool I am proposing does not create a load greater than the capacity of the drainage pipe and that I sign an agreement stating that I would remove the pool if necessary at my cost to provide the city access to the pipe The engineering documentation is not available at the time I am completing this application but will be by the July 10 Planning Commission meeting The agreement for me to sign would be written and signed after receiving approval for the variance requested Following the advice of Bill Turnblad I scheduled a pre -application conference with Mike Pogge to discuss filling out the variance application and review my project plan Mike was helpful in clarifying questions I had about the application but could add little to the planning effort due to the limitations in my backyard He explained that the city will provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding my request According to Mike the city looks at three criteria when considering a request hardship irregular lot issues and how they are impacted by zoning requirements adopted by the city and financial impact of the zoning requirements For the city to recommend approval of my request I need to meet one or more of those criteria I believe I meet all those criteria but according to Mike s definition of each I m not sure I meet any Regardless of his recommendation I m asking you to seriously consider the merits of this request based on the actual situation not just a black or white interpretation of zoning codes Criteria • Hardship — maybe a bit of a stretch but certainly there is significant disappointment The process I ve been through has been very negative and time consuming It will take 2 to 3 months to resolve even if you grant the vanence Only then can I move forward with the project hoping to complete it by the end of the summer I support zoning but believe in private property rights as well In this case I really feel the zoning requirements are stomping on my private property rights That sure feels like hardship There will also be hardship to my grandmother though she will not be the primary user • Irregular lot issues — my lot is not technically irregular but the current 25 rear set back renders my backyard useless for most projects I would consider As a private property owner I think the application of that code to this type of situation creates irregular circumstances for me • Financial impact — stopping me from constructing a pool does not render the property worthless (Mike s definition) but it does have a very negative impact on the $$$ invested up to this point Reality • This structure I am proposing is not the equivalent of my home It's not going to have a negative impact on the drainage easement and it does not seem reasonable to apply the same scrutiny to this request as you would if I were asking for the set back variance to add an addition to my home • No variance request for a pool could meet the definition Mike provided of each for criteria Obviously the Planning Commission has granted other set back variance requests for pools I m requesting equal treatment and consideration of my request • The existing privacy fence will reduce any feeling of encroachment neighbors may feel by granting this set back variance The pool is virtually hidden by the fence Thank you for considering this request I look forward to having an opportunity to meet with you on July 10 Sincerely C______ Troy r mer Lifetime Guaranteed Stainless Steel Service Panel Lifestyle Lifetime Non -Prorated Guaranty Artesian's unbeatable non --prorated guaranty gives you the ultimate in product protection, 100% Resin Base Assembly Your pool features a 100% resin integrated Base and Expanded Rim assembly to eliminate contact between soil and steel PressTekTM Pressure Hardened Resin PressTek resin frame has superior density and structure for solid feel and ultimate resilience The Ultimate Resin Frame 100% Resin provides the ultimate in corrosion protection unavailable in any steel -frame pool PermaSealTM Vinyl Coat Interior Wall Sealer Unmatched protection against condensation buildup between the pool wall and the liner DuraShieldTM Exterior Wall Sealer Our liquid -coated resin sealer locks out corrosion, discoloration 54" Wall Height-- Standard Massive Sculpted 2-piece Resin Seat Clamp Z-Bolt Double -Track Wall Bolt Pattern Staggered wall joint bolts for superior strength Page 1 of 1 ° Armor Coat Ultimate Protection f Copper r' Core Alkaline Cleaned f^ _ Hot Dipped Calvantzed ring Steel Alkaline Cleaned Acid etched Pre Bonding Agents Applied Cnrorrete Sealed Errerrel Boise ('oat Designer Pattern Application Armor Coat Protoctive Outer Cuattrt4 ``LrqutLok epoxy WaII Backer http //www swtmartesian com/images/pools/armoredcoat jpg 6/16/2006 Where -you'll save on-..: _ -- — — Watson's America's Family Fun Store! 15450 CEDAR AVENUE • APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 (952) 997 6000 SOLD TO TROY KRAMER 113 MERTLEWOOD CT STILLWATER MN 55082 SWIMMING POOLS SPAS i HOT TUBS TANNING BEDS CASUAL FURNITURE ACCESSORIES UNVENTED PRODUCTS HOME 651 PHONE BEST TIME TO CALL 351 9257 651 587 6462 SALESPERSON 25 TOM WORM LINE NO SKU NO #CTN STORE LOCATION APPLE VALLEY WAR 1 PRINT TIME / DATE 7 20 5/22/06 TAX ID NO CASHIER -IBECKMAN PICKUP/ DELIVERY DATE UNASSIGNED COPY NO 09 POOLTAILL GAS LOGS ... and much more! INVOICE DATE 4/09/06 DESCRIPTION UOM 1 2 7 1 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 1 7 2 8 > 9 3 5 6 7 r 9 10 11 11 1 11 2 11099 82207 1 211 1 17702 1 /350 17279 19526 1 521 19309 12390 17616 16411 14211 14411 17147 12602 19526 12 /10 1710 868281 68282 12801 vann7 3 17 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 n 27 X54 EMERALD ISLE R2000 SERIES W/PANEL ARTESIAN PC CAUTION NEVER DIVE INFO AN ABOVE GROUND POOL ABOVE GROUND FOR DIVING SERIOUS AND PERMANENT INJURY WILL LIKELY AN ABOVE GROUND POOL ULTRA VALUE PACKAGE ELEMENT SkIMPRO 200FT ELEMENT FILTER W/2 5HP MAT HAYWARD POC MARATHON MAINT KIT IN GRAY SWIM9INE 8 16 VAC POLE W/WHIr0 HANDLF SWIMIIINE AQUA BUG AUTO POOL CLEANER W/HOSE HAYWARD POC SWIMWAY NEW POOL START UP KIT 774143 HAVIUAND PF AUTO CHLORINATOR AQUASMART FEEDER 5720 KING TECHNC LOW CHLORINE PAC (AQUA SMARTE)01 04 5750 KING TECHNC DARK BUSTER LIGHT 98700000 PENTAIR WAI POOIEYE ALARM S?SfEM PC77 SMARTPOOL I 27 X52/54 BOULDER DAM OVRLP P30 LIN(TRU 7/ DLLUXL WINIIR COVER 828 CRYSTAL CRE 27 SIIVR DIAMOND SPACE AGE SOLAR BLANKT MIDWEST CAN 37 X1 25 VACUUM (HOSE W/SWIVEI CUFF PLASTIFLEX HAYWARD WIDEMOUIH THRU WALL SKIMMER HAYWARD POC SWIMWAY NEW POOL SIAPT IJP KIT 774143 HAVII AND PF NEW POOL START UP CHEMICAL KIT INCLUDES CONDITIONER 3 1BS PH PLUS 2 LBS PH MINUS 2 113S AND BLAST 2LBS 4 UNIVEPSAL FLEX POOL CIEANER HOSE 100K BTU GAS HEATER (ING) ABG1001 SMHPT STEP 24 ENTRY SYSTLM PACKAGE SI1APf STOP 24 SISIE11 TAUIE 508 SILUPIAN FILTER SAND 71 ARM 1 P1301RI 111 /11 I- lllgrAl 1f T1 h1 HAVIIiAND PF HA1 WHPD POC RECREATIONP I N OICL I S C 0 11 1 I N U r' D ON NE T IAGE I HAVE READ & UNDERSTAND THE BACK OF THIS INVOICE ITEMS LISTED ON FRONT OF THIS INVOICE ARE COMPLETE 0 EA POOLS AR RESULT L EA EA EA L EA O EA L EA L EA E FA N EA EA F EA ✓ EA EA L EA O EA O EA L EA L EA EA FA QUANTITY ORDERED 1 E NOT DESI FROM DIVING 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 QUANTITY TAKEN 0 GNED IN UNIT PRICE 28480 EXTENDED 7 199 99 Package 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Package 0 0 0 Insl;11 d KU KU <II 7 199 99 SALES TOTAL 00 0D 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 DELIVERY / INSTALLATION SALES TAX INVOICE TOTAL 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .00 00 Customer Signature uE l'. ern co e OECD', CM C cn0 nn n nr nr n nonce nrn -PAYMENTS BALANCE DUE • Watson's' America's Family Fun Store' 15450 CEDAR AVENUE APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 (952) 997 6000 SOLD TO TROY KRAMER 113 MERTLEWOOD CT STIILWATER MN 55082 iere ysu'II save on ... SWIMMING POOLS SPAS & HOT TUBS TANNING BEDS CASUAL FURNITURE ACCESSORIES UNVENTED PRODUCTS HOME PHONE 651 351 9257 651 587 6462 BEST TIME TO CALL POOL TAIL GAS LOGS anal much mom SALESPERSON STORE LOCATION PRINT TIME/ DATE TAXID D NO CASHIER PICKUP/ COPY INVOICE DATE 4/09/06 INVOICE NUMBER 28480 25 TOM WORM LINE APPLE VALLEY WAR 1 20 5/22/06 HBECKMAN DELIVERY DATE UNASSIGNED NO 09 NO SKU NO #CTN DESCRIPTION UOM QUANTITY ORDERED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE EXTENDEC 13 980010 1 ADDITIONAL MILEAGE CHARGES FOR DELIVERY OR INSTALL IS PAYABLE DIRECTLY TO THE INSTALLER AT $2 00 PEI l DOOR STEP DELIVERY (NO ASSEMBLY) ADDITIONAL MILEAGE CHARGES FOR DELIVERY OR INSTALIL IS PAYABLE DIRECTLY TO THE INSTALLER AT $2 00 PEI $100 HOLD 4/19 ICIT MF"'SA(L 5/10 LEFT MESSAGE TJW TO SCHEDULE INSTALLATION PLEASE (952) 997 6000 A 3 5 DAY NOTICE OVER MILE OVE8 MILE CPLL IS REQUIRED 40 MILES ONE WAY EA 40 MILES ONE WAY FROM WATSONS DVER 40 1 FROM WATSONS OVER 40 TAKEN Deliver EKU 50 00 50 00 1 St o ry 4/09/06 CARD 100 00 HBECKMAN HAVE READ & UNDERSTAND THE BACK OF THIS INVOICE EMS LISTED ON FRONT OF THIS INVOICE ARE COMPLETE SALES TOTAL DELIVERY / INSTALLATION SALES TAX INVOICE TOTAL -PAYMENTS 7 199 99 50 00 468 00 71 100 00 ustomer Signature Outstanding Appio‘ed Financing 7 617 99 BALANCE DUE 1E CUSTOMER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE OF ANY AND ALL CODES REGULATIONS ORDINANCES OR PERMITS NECESSARY PERTAINING TO THEIR PURCHASF ESTIMATE / ORDER 525 E Villaume Ave / South St Paul Minnestoa 55075 (651) 451 2221 — Fax (651) 451 6939 Gopher State (1) Call ID #464 Ticket # Nearest Intersecting Street Hudson Page # Township Hudson Grid # Range Corner Lot Section/Quarter Name Spouse Address 7740 krcgo, d,2. Date Job No pZ• Salesperson �7i City sr! LC_ Lj 'LS/t'. County�Q r11 i J Cr* State ('� 0 717 /Zip J �' P O Employer Home Phone ( C r/ r — 9 T 7 Picture No Job Site Address Work Phone ( ) /l3 1411//4:7-Cs wd� c Work Phone (Spouse) ( ) E mail Cell Phon( N/ 1 S. d, 6 y` 2 Terms 10% Down 50% Start Up Balance To Installer Completion Customer Ini QUANTITY DESCRIPTION 1 )_ 7z �LIWL di Ydd) _ ``'/ -- — 2// / 1 /CAA-Ki✓J%S„/ LC/V yam y �1� yl " � µ lam) i— E ;., W%� C C ! i L l.t 4l c.` �r 0 Col 0 "L. z1 .{ ( /d 6N9/C"s'/C-3. /(- siS — Cfy"d Tt, _ c� S I Z y 67/ru' (Ca ti✓ / y % ,S ^ ^'e•"{ --..:.. ...-, ,��..� ... .,m. �_ .. 3v—... ..,, Price 173/ }D Down Payment Check # Amt Date Z41 j /5— w -/)) 9 ) /) u / / y Credit Card # It// 7 / 2/0 9 LL. .5 "77xpiration Date/1�/7/ 0 (0 DP PS ❑ BC II ALL . 6) � � �/%�—r�� /a A SERVICE CHA E of 1 t/s% per month (18% Annually) will be applied on all past due balances The purchaser shall be responsible for any and all collection and legal costs incurred by Midwest Fence in the event of this bill becoming past due Midwest Fence reserves the right to lien the improved property if payment in full as agreed to in this contract is not received 2rd ) MATERIAL AND INSTALLATI THIS ESTIMATE VALID FOR 30 TAX DAYS FROM ABOVE DATE TOTAL 7477,1 0 d Owner responsible for establishing co rect property and fence I nes Any Permits required shall be the sole responsibility of the owner Owner responsible for removal of obstructions of every nature which will interfere w th the installation of the fence Th s cont act assumes normal nd condo ons Should rocky or excessive hard digging be encountered owner agrees to pay add tional costs of such wo k M dwest Fence 8 Mfg Co shall Turn sh only t einafenalandlabor s ecified in this contract Any changes mode from the above specifications will be billed at M dwest s cu rent retail pr ces This order will become binding only upon Midwest Fence Manager s approval (Z< sf Cust r Signatur.e .e_--__,„ Date Fnrm 9 — Row 9 nF Manannr alesper on s Signature a t0 30 RLS 12003 O /in 0 O O O O 'Cf 00 O WATER O SERVICE UNE Z 00 O1 Co tT 00 0 as 0 24 MAPLE 867 09 LO YARD LIGHT 30 00 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY S 891B Q9" E 123 03 6 DRAINAGE & UTIUTY CASEMENT , - 7- /I LOT AREA = 12,304 SQ FT I OR 0 282 ACRES co co 21 BUOCK / 7 �1 I;a COVERED 00 0 2-10 MAPLE 866 92 2 03 /N 2 37 O 1 98 CONCRETE WALK 2200 GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION 870 21 030 20 45 4 f / 1 8 N 0 29 / / / / 1 99 800 MAPLE 866 83 n ELECTRIC METER GAS METER 1b SIDE SETBACK / / / / 33 52 FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION 872 29 # 113 MYRTLEWOOD COURT 16 62 4 CEDAR 866 41 N 89 18 09 ' W 123 05 12 12 0 N z 0 W K Or 200 0 2 00 11 lI 48 MAPLE o I to 0 / I p 1 L 10 SIDE SETBACK LINE 6 DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT 12 RCP INVERT 862 68 28 PLE 864.56 4: MAPLE ::489 7 ELECTRICAL ROUGH -OUT :'M SE FOUND IRON P ,$, 12 to co e FOUI IRO1• 58 Cttyof ;er C ommtumv Development Den unncnt Casa No. V\OO 6-33 Me Map I City of Stillwater Shawn Sanders City Engineer 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater MN 55082 Dear Shawn July 7 2006 I am forwarding a copy of the engineering analysis requested by your department regarding the impact of the additional load of our proposed above ground pool on the SDR 35 PVC drainage pipe the city placed (underground) in my back yard After following up with several local engineering firms I was directed to the Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association for the information you requested Michael Glasgow a regional engineer for Uni-Bell provided the attached analysis In summary the additional load presented by the pool is well within ASTM and most municipalities guidelines for deflection standards Depending on the actual depth of the pipe we have a safety factor of five to ten times given the load capacity of the pipe versus the additional load represented by the pool I understand that if the installation of the above ground pool was responsible for damage to the drainage pipe I would be responsible for repairing the pipe In addition should the presence of the pool interfere with work the City of Stillwater may have to perform on the pipe I agree to have the pool removed at my cost until the work is completed In our discussions regarding my project's encroachment on the city s drainage easement in my back yard you communicated that the City Attorney and your department would allow the above ground pool over the underground pipe assuming the following conditions were met 1 I need to provide written documentation stating my willingness to accept responsibility for repair costs should the pipe experience damage during installation or due to the additional load of the pool 2 I need to provide written documentation stating my willingness to have the pool removed at my cost should the pool interfere with work the City of Stillwater may have to perform on the pipe until the work is completed 3 I need to provide an analysis of the additional Toad represented by the pool on the SDR 35 drainage pipe currently buried in my back yard I am hopeful this document and the accompanying engineering analysis effectively meet those conditions Thank you for your willingness to consider my request for assistance in identifying solutions that protect the interests of the City of Stillwater while allowing me to move forward with our proposed project Your help was instrumental in developing a win -win solution for both parties Sincere9l( , lt-• J ._ ,,,,,,, Try Kramer I Jul 06 06 09:06p Michael Glasgow 615 792-2318 p.1 THE UNI-BELL PVC PIPE ASSOCIATION 2655 VILLA CREEK DRIVE Sure 155 DALLAS, TExws 75234 (972) 243-3902 DATE: Thursday, July 06, 2006 To: Troy Cramer FROM: MICHAEI_ G. (MIKE) GIASGow P.B. SOUTHEAST REGIONAL ENGINEER P.Q. Box 06 Ashland City, TN 37015-0006 A1111111111.-r MESSAGE: Troy, FAX MESSAGE ! „ASE DELYuR TO ADDagm NUMBER OF PAGES: 2 (INCLUDING COVER PAGE) FAX NUMBER: (651) 351-3417 mgjasgow@uni-beIl.orq Phone & FAX: (615) 792-2319 Mobile: (615) 584-1384 These calculations were made by assuming a soil weight of 120 lbs/cu ft plus the weight of 4 feet of water (Total of 250 Ibs/cu ft). At a depth of 2 feet a DR 35 pipe will experience approximately 0.5% deflection of the outside diameter due these loading conditions. I don't know your city's allowable deflection but ASTM Standards allow up to 7.50/0 deflection in sewer/drainage pipe. Some municipalities limit deflection to 5%. In either case, I do not anticipate any damage to the pipe from the loading created by an above ground swimming pool. Jul Ofi 06 09 Ofip Michael Glasgow PIPE DEFLECTION, % 615 792-2319 p 2 DLF-100 - _ K=0100 P$z46 i__ E-1000psi Prism Load Wp Condition Back811 Weight 250 Lb / Ft A 3 Outside Diameter ins. (Note N Over' is printed, the calculated deflection exceeded the allowable deflection) Depth Ft 12 000 I 1 00 0.26 % I 200 051% 6- 300 077% I 4.00 102 % I 500 1.2$% I 600 I 154% I EXTERNAL LOAD Lb / Ft Prism Load Wp, Condition Outside Diameter, ins Depth, Ft I 12.000 1 00 1 250 0 2.00 1 500 0 300 1 7500 400 1 10000 500 1 12500 600 I 15000 SackflllWeight _250Lb/Ft^3 V I E 8 I R T H P A F OF M I N N 1 0 1 A Planning Commission DATE APPLICANT REQUEST LOCATION ZONING PC DATE REVIEWERS PREPARED BY July 6, 2006 Washington County Special Use Permit for Parking Lot Expansion 14949 62nd St N PA, Public Administrative Office District July 10, 2006 Community Dev Director Michel Pogge, City Planner /Jj..-/v CASE NO SUP\06-34 BACKGROUND Washington County is expanding their parking lot facihty at the Washington County Government Center in anticipation of the future building expansions The parking lot is proposed to be location west of Oxboro Avenue, north of Highway 36, and south of the existing government complex The plan will provide 265 parking spaces in six rows with two vehicular access points off Oxboro Ave As part of the project 60th Street north is proposed to be reahgned and rebuilt EVALUATION OF REQUEST In order to develop the proposed parking lot at the Washington County Government Center, Washington County has requested a Special Use Permit This parking lot is being proposed now in anticipation of the future expansion of the Government Center in the 2007/2008 timeframe Today there is a total of 890 on -site parking spaces at the Government Center with another 89 on -street space in the area and 55 overflow stalls in the adjacent Lutheran Church lot In total there is 1,034 parking spaces available both on and off site It is anticipated the future building expansion when completed will require a total of 1,500 to 1,700 The parking lot will accommodate future parking needs, help reduce site congestion, and help with construction staging during the building expansion project y " Washington County Parking Lot Expansion 14949 62nd St N Page 2 of 3 Description of proposed site improvements The proposed parking lot is intended to serve the needs for the Government Center s future building expansion A total of 265 parking spaces are proposed with this project Review Standards As noted above, the site is zoned PA, Public Administrative Office District Moreover, the property was developed under a PUD The PUD will need to be amended prior to the building expansion proceedmg forward PA Zoning District Standards Parking lots are accessory to the principal use SUP Review • Traffic circulation and traffic generation - The parking lot will have one vehicular access pomt on Oxboro Avenue, one point on realigned 60th Street N, and two points Panama Avenue Additionally, the new lot will have a connection to the existing lot 60th Street North and a portion of Panama Avenue are proposed to be realigned and reconstructed as part of the project and to allow logical connections to each of the roads from the new parking lot • Parking - The Washington County Government Center currently has 890 on -site parking spaces The proposed lot will contain 265 mcreasmg the number of on -site parking spaces 1,155 • Landscaping - No landscapmg plan was submitted with the apphcation Staff recommends that the Commission make it a condition of their approval that the applicant submit a landscaping plan for approval by the Community Development Director prior to grading the site Additionally a number of existing trees on the site will need to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed parking lot Staff recommends that the Commssion make it a condition of their approval that a tree protection plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director prior to removing any tree on the site • Stormwater treatment - The applicant is proposing two bioretention areas within the new parkmg lot area Storm water calculations have been submmtted to the City and have been found acceptable by the Public Works department The City has submitted the plans to the Middle St Croix Water Management Orgaruzatron for review and action As of the date of this staff report the City has not received comments back from the Middle St Croix Water Management Organization Staff recommends that the Commission make it any condition of their approval that any recommended changes made by the Middle St Croix Water Management Organization that are found to be warranted by the City of Strllwater's City Engineer be incorporated into the plans prior to the issuance of a grading pernut • Lighting - No lighting plan for the parking lot was not submitted with the Special Use Permit application Staff recommends that the Comnussion make it a condition of their approval that the applicant submit a hghtmg plan for the parking lot be and it be approved by the Community Development Director prior to grading the site r Washington County Parking Lot Expansion 14949 62nd St N Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION Approve the Special Use Permit for the Washington County Parking Lot Expansion at 14949 62nd St N subject to the following conditions for approval a) All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director b) A landscaping plan for the parking lot be subrrutted and approved by the Community Development Director prior to grading the site c) A tree protection plan shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director prior to removing any tree on the site The plan shall contain all of the elements of Chapter 31-5(5) of the Stillwater Zorung Code The plan also needs to discuss how trees remaining on the site will be protected during grading and other construction activities d) A lighting plan for the parking lot be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the grading the site e) Any recommended changes to the Stormwater Management Plan made by the Middle St Croix Water Management Organization that are found to be warranted by the City of Stillwater s City Engineer be incorporated into the plans prior to the issuance of a grading permit attachments Location Map Applicant's letter Preliminary Plans PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No W_ i% Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit Vanance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance The fees for requested action are attached to this application *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (I e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If application Is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan Is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project kq.'t (0^d `k4St Sik1\w c 5a 6� 1 i t- p Assessor s Parcel No saci3O ac. 44 OO l0 - ! 6 (GEO Code) Zoning Dtstnct PA Descnption of Project cm-Y-Art Lo} Co".1-tr-Atoun "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct 1 further certify 1 will comply with the permit If it is granted and used " Property Owner 6 li.)aSlnmr o0. Cou,,.1-( Mailing Address t'io (PO MYe_Cod\ Ra 11/411 City - State - Zip SANk -5o t MI\ SS OVA Telephone No 6S1- LAW- +t30b Signature (Signature is required) Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area 44 Ka o,cres Representative boe, -These" Mailing Address Soa•t City - State - Zip Telephone No Signature same SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area - square feet Existing - square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area ll®, 800 square feet No of off-street parking spaces oZ (o Height of Buildings Stories Feet Pnncipal Accessory - ignature is required) S Y.+r�ba_ ��ST"�'�TkLLGH.WY 36 '' A Connmmtty Dt elonment Denertmcnt Washington 00.00:County Department of Transportation and Physical Development Donald J Theisen P E Director/County Engineer Wayne H Sandberg P E Deputy Director/Ass t County Engineer June 13, 2006 RE Special Use Permit Request, Parking Lot at Washington County Government Center Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the Stillwater Planning Commission, Since the late 1980's, Washington County has been working on acquiring properties south of the existing Washington County Government Center campus to provide additional off-street parking areas for employees and the public The construction of this proposed lot is the first step in addressing the overall parking needs for the future expansion of the Campus Also, this parking lot has been part of the Washington County Capital Facilities Program since expansion of the campus approximately sixteen years ago For nearly a year, Washington County worked with Lhe cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater on a joint powers agreement for development on the campus of the Washington County Government Center A provision of the agreement was the detachment of the proposed parking lot area from Oak Park Heights and attachment to the City of Stillwater, the county seat of Washington County Vacation of an alley was also included in the agreement with ultimate ownership of the property to Washington County With the completion of the above mentioned items, Washington County is proposing to construct the parking lot in 2006/2007 The plan will provide 265 parking spaces in six rows with two vehicular access points off Oxboro Avenue (one access directly into the parking lot and one access to be used as a service road) Pedestnan access from this lot to the Government Center building is located in the center of the parking lot As part of the plan, a sidewalk will be located along the south side of the south access road and will eventually be a part of a sidewalk/trail around the entire campus to promote pedestnan activities The impacts to adjacent land uses are expected to be minimal South of the parking lot is State Highway 36 To The north is the exiting parking lot for the Government Center Campus East of the site is a ravine and west of the site is an existing senior housing complex Since the frontage road, west of Oxboro Avenue was terminated at the Walgreen's parking lot, Oxboro Avenue is pnmanly used by the government center and the senior housing complex Lighting will be installed throughout the parking lot The lighting standards will be a maximum of 25 feet in height with the lummares containing a cutoff which directs and cuts off the light at an angle (90) degrees or less All lighting requirements are a provision of the joint powers agreement which requires the lighting conditions to meet the requirements of the Oak Park Heights Zoning Ordinance A review of the ordinances shows that their regulations are more restrictive than the City of Stillwater's lighting regulations 11660 Myeron Road North Stillwater Minnesota 55082 9573 Phone 651 430 4300 Fax 651 430 4350 TTY 651 430 6246 www co washington mn us Equal Employment Opportunity / Affirmative Action Stormwater management will be a critical piece to the construction of this parking lot The proposed plan includes two large bio retention areas (ram gardens) located in the southwest and southeast corners of the lot and a 36 inch pipe connecting the two gardens to the existing stormwater system that runs north -south along Panama Avenue The proposed plan will meet the most stringent water quality and quantity requirements between the Middle St Croix Water Management Organization, the City of Stillwater, and the MPCA NPDES permit As part of the joint powers agreement, municipal water and sewer service for the Campus will be provided by the City of Oak Park Heights Washington County has been and will continue to work with Oak Park Heights to mitigate any impacts to the existing utilities that will be affected The proposed parking lot will remove some of the existing trees located in the area Every attempt will be made to not impact the existing row of trees along the north side of 60th St (Highway 36 frontage road) The proposed ram gardens will include species of plants that are expected to thrive in that type of environment Washington County is in the process of preparing expansion plans for the Washington County Government Center campus Plans include expansion of courts, law enforcement center, and offices Once these plans are complete, an application will be submitted for an amendment to the current Planned Unit Development Permit that was issued to the County on January 24, 1985 and amended on January 27, 1989 Thank you for consideration If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Ted Schoenecker, Transportation Engineer, at 651-430-4319 or Aim Pung-Terwedo, Senior Planner at 651-430-6715 We look forward to presenting our plans and working with the City of Stillwater Sincerely, I AZA4 Don Theisen, Director Washington County Department of Transportation and Physical Development Encl 2 copies— full size site plan (color) 16 copies — 1 1x17 site plan (color) 16 copies — 11 x 17 plan set (22 pages) 2 copies— stormwater computations 1 copy — layout of campus stormwater management PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED X Special/Conditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance The fees for requested action are attached to this application *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with any application All supporting material (I e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan is required with applications Any Incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project klA°ki"VI rid St Nm try �AssessoIS s Parcel No 3'so30ao 4400 to - 16 Zoning District ?A Description of Project Rkr\LA"'4 t--04t Co,nsrcw-4tMoin (GEO Code) 1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct 1 further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner 6 l,.)askrwr -VoIN Cov.,* ( Representative �o� Tlr Li Sev� Mailing Address llb (op myttoe\ Ra Qkt Marling Address saire•t City - State - Zip X i itv� SS OE(a City - State - Zip e Telephone No 6S1 - O- 1{301) Telephone No Saw,4 Signature (Signature is required) Lot Size (dimensions) x Land Area 44 Ka acres Signature I A41—_= SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area - square feet Existing - square feet Proposed - square feet - Paved Impervious Area 0101OO square feet No of off-street parking spaces of G S Height of Buildings Stories Feet Principal '- Accessory ignature is required) 1 LEGEND PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PAVEMENT CURB WALK LANDSCAPE AREAS BIORETENTION AREA RIBBON CURB OR CURB CUT FUTURE CONSTRUCTION (BY OTHERS) > PROPOSED STORM SEWER ■ PROPOSED CATCH BASIN • PROPOSED MANHOLE PROPOSED TRAFFIC FLOW DIRECTION REMOVE ROADWAY EXISTING PLANIMETRICS --- EXISTING ROW EXISTING UTILITY (AS NOTED) EXISTING UTILITY TO BE REMOVED FUTURE PAVEMENT EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION t\ °I 0I MATCH EXISTING 0( — 0) OH-PWR -SIG BUR »---14 F/0 WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT EXPANSION PRELIMINARY PLAN WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER CITY LIMITS IJe - "It _ --REALIGN 60TH ST. - : a - >. _ TO NORTH REMOVE CULVERT AND GRADE DITCH THROUGH EXISTING ROADWAY EMBANKMENT 30" RCP STORM SEWER (SIZED TO PROVIDE ACTIVE STORAGE TO MATCH EXISTING DISCHARGE RATES) FUTURE HWY 36 CONSTRUCTION EXISTING PARKING DESIGN DATA STALLS ACCESSIBLE 265 N0 ADDITIONAL EXISTING PARKING RAMP TOTAL 243 •503"* 635 -- *MEETS CURRENT --5 STALLS REMOVED ADA GUIDELINES FROM EXITING LOT WASHINGTON COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT CENTER 0 /7\ pb' • 0 \ \ (\0' in 0/ /�v0 0/I t 0 of ' 1'II I I I i r rJ I I i I i 1 i 1 1 1 i ASKING L T ._- !mil •I(I \ :�I '• I II i IIIII I 1 I 1IIII Ii'1 I t T+1t1�I 4 i'= / /1e 1IIIIIIII I?Y 1 1iii1 - 'el AIl60 0 0 * V —J � " -----.1*. -- " .C.:L \\\\ \\\ \ -. - © _ 0 0 0 *0 0 00 WASHINGTON COUNTYD o v o of I 0 esos 0 0 TH 36 WB T^ V-BUR PRELIMINARY SUBJECT TO CHANGE 6/14 /2006 ®CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 4,14,49 PM 6/14/2006 (H,\Projects\5542\HI-MU\LAYOUT\5542.1 y1 � X tear 50 0 50 scale ---- -- ON-1' _ PJroJecfs\559201-mu\LAYOUT\5542SIfeevervlev.Cgn LEGEND EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATERMAIN 6 X 100 0 100 i 4-RENOVATION OF COURTS 5-GOVMT CENTER REMnr;FL 1-LOT D 7-LOT F 3-COURTS ADDITION- 6-LOT E 2-LEC ADDITION POTENTIAL CAMPUS STORMWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM SRF WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER CAMPUS LAYOUT WITH PROPOSED FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND POTENTIAL CAMPUS STORMWATER TREATMENT Figure 1 Ceudtl.e Grw9, Le. 5542 5/17/2006 Washington County Governement Center Lot D Drainage Data XP SWMM Model Results SRF No 5542 Designed by JLN 5/15/06 Checked by RTJ 5/16/06 Peak Discharge Rates (cfs) Storm Event Pipe13/Ditch' 4x4 Box2 Existing Proposed Change Existing Proposed Change 1 year 35 1 33 2 1 9 43 7 42 5 1 2 2 year 453 456 03 572 580 08 10 year 66 5 66 5 0 0 95 6 96 0 0 4 50 year 68 2 68 3 0 1 109 2 109 4 0 2 100 year 73 7 70 3 3 4 117 7 117 8 0 1 1 First conduit in SWMM model conveying all Lot D runoff for both existing and proposed models Consists of both a 30 inch pipe and the TH 36 ditch 2 4x4 box culvert crossing under TH 36 approximately 600 east of Lot D H gh Water Elevation Storm Event West Basin' East Basing Elev Depth above DI Elev Depth above DI 1 year 885 09 0 09 883 12 0 12 2 year 885 19 0 19 883 23 0 23 10 year 885 47 0 47 883 85 0 85 50 year 885 6 0 6 884 30 1 30 100 year 885 68 0 68 884 49 1 49 1 Overflow DI at elevation 885 00 2 Overflow DI at elevation 883 00 SWMM Summary H \Projects\5542\WR\EXCEL\5542 LotD xls Washington County Governement Center Lot D Drainage Data Existing Drainage Areas Impervious (C=0 9) Pervious (C=0 3) Total Area Area Sq Ft Sq Ft Sq Ft Acre East 12600 58500 71100 1 63 West 2700 35100 37800 0 87 Total 15300 93600 108900 2 50 Proposed Drainage Areas Impervious (C=0 9) Pervious (C=0 3) Total Area Treament Volume Required Treatment Volume Provided Area Sq Ft Sq Ft Sq Ft Acre East 53600 18300 71900 1 65 2200 2900 West 61700 13500 75200 1 73 2600 4100 Total 115300 31800 147100 3 38 4800 7000 SRF No 5542 Designed by JLN 5/15/06 Checked by RTJ 5/16/06 Notes Treatment volume required is 0 5 of runoff from impervious per NPDES phase II Treatment volume provided is based on both basins at 1 0 depth Bio Retention Basin Volumes East Elev Area (sq ft) Inc Volume (cu ft) Inf (cu ft) Inches of runoff over Imp 882 2300 2900 0 65 883 3500 2900 884 5900 4700 884 6 9900 4740 West Elev Area (sq ft) Inc Volume (cu ft) Inf (cu ft) Inches of runoff over Imp 884 3100 4100 0 80 885 5100 4100 885 8 8000 5200 BOTTOM OVERFLOW DI BOTTOM OVERFLOW DI Lot D (gm1) FINAL H \Projects\5542\WR\EXCEL\5542 LotD xls H \Pr /e Is\5542\WR\5542E Dadg Consulting Group Inc 5542 5/17/2006 * © _--_', --� - J I,o-_`, �° *�i a� Ifl of i 1oI O o 1 o <�1'�; r-- ° ' WEST O 1 / * ** / --- WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER LOT D EXISTING DRAINAGE Figure 2 H \Projecls\5542\WR\5542PrDAdgn Consulting Group Inc 5542 5/17/2006 WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER LOT D PROPOSED DRAINAGE \* OiI \ I 1 \ \ \p O lp� I— en, i y I� T �Y✓ ���V � / N 1011 i� I11���,\\\ i0 ©, \ Figure 3 A Geotechnical Evaluation Report for SRF Consulting Group, Inc Proposed New Parking Lot D Washington County Government Center Northeast of 60th Street and Oxboro Avenue, Stillwater, Minnesota Professional Certification I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota lie-z_z,, Paol S Martin, PE Date January 25, 2005 Registration Number 40866 Project SP 04 04654 Braun Intertec Corporation BRAUN INTERTEC Braun Intertec Corporal on 245 Eosi Roselown Avenue Si Poul MN 55117 January 25 2005 Project SP 04 04654 Mr Kenneth Holte PE SRF Consulting Group Inc One Carlson Paikwa} North Suite 150 Minneapolis MN 55447 4443 Dear Mr Holte Phone 6514873245 Fox 651 4871812 Web biouninlertec com Re Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Parking Lot and Roadway Improvements, Washington County Government Center, 14949 N 62nd Street, Stillwater Minnesota We are pleased to present the attached Geotechnical report for the proposed parking lot and roadway improvements for the Washington County Government Center Our findings and recommendations are summarized below Moie detailed information is contained in the attached report Summary of Results We performed four penetration test borings to depths of 10 1/2 to 15 1/2 feet and five power auger borings to a depth of 5 feet at scattered locations in the proposed pavement impiovement area and near a wetland Off -pavement borings generally encountered 1/2 to 10 inches of black silty sand topsoil over filled and native sands Bituminous pavement was about 5 inches thick on 60th and 615t Streets and 4 inches thick in an existing paiking lot Oxboro Street had two layers of bituminous (4 and then 2 inches thick) separated by 3 inches of aggregate base The bituminous in all cases was underlain by approximately 4 to 8 inches of aggregate base Borings penetrating pavement materials also generally encountered filled and native silty sand, an exception was Boring B 2 which encountered sandy lean clay and silty clay below the 2-foot depth Other than wet soils, no evidence of groundwater was observed in the borings At two locations the soils were wet and became moist at depth Summary of Recommendations The filled and native sands generally appeared to be suitable for support of new parking lot pavement We first recommend the topsoil in the paiking lot area — about 1/2 to 10 inches be stripped prior to grading Since some of the existing fill appeared to be loose where Tess than 3 teet of new fill is required we recommend the stripped subgrade be scarified and recompacted to improve pavement support Excavations will likely encounter silty sand or poorly graded sand although they could also encounter lean clay _The soils encountered appeared suitable for_support of underground utilities and light poles though some moisture conditioning may be required to achieve the recommended compaction of backfill We recommend the on site sands be used as fill to raise grade in low areas Some moisture conditioning may be requned to achieve the recommended compaction • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 SRF Consulting Group Inc Project SP-04 04654 January 25, 2005 Page 2 Following completion of the recommended soil corrections, we recommend a new parking lot pavement section that includes at least 4 inches of bituminous over 8 inches of aggregate base This assumes the traffic will consist exclusively of automobiles and light trucks Remarks We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project If we can provide additional assistance, or observation and testing services during construction please call Paul Martin at (65 ]) 487 7084 Sincerely, BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Paul S Martin, PE Project Engineer arles D Hubbard, PE PG Associate Pnncipal/ Senior Technical Consultant Attachments Geotechnical Evaluation Report Sp0404654 1 1 1 I i Table of Contents Description Page A Introduction 1 A 1 Project 1 A 2 Purpose 1 A 3 Scope I A 4 Documents Provided 2 A 5 Bonng Locations and Elevations 2 A 6 Logs 2 B Results 2 B 1 Site Conditions 2 B 2 Matenals Encountered 3 B 3 Water Level Observations 3 B 4 Laboratory Tests 4 C Evaluation and Recommendations 4 C 1 Proposed Construction 4 C 2 Discussion 4 C 3 Excavation and Fill 5 C 4 Compaction of Fill and Testrolling 6 C 5 Pavement Design 6 C 6 Utilities 7 C 7 Light Poles 7 C 8 Rain Garden 8 C 9 Proposed Pond 8 D Procedures 9 D 1 Dnlling and Sampling 9 D 2 Soil Classification 9 D 3 Groundwater Observations 9 E General 9 E 1 Basis of Recommendations 9 E 2 Review of Design 10 E 3 Groundwater Fluctuations 10 E 4 Use of Report 10 E 5 Level of Care 10 Appendix Boring Location Sketch Descnptive Terminology Log of Bonng Sheets i 1 BRAUN INTERTEC A Introduction Braun Intertec Corporation 245 Eosi Roselown Avenue St Poul MN 55117 Phone 651 487 3245 Fax 651 4871812 Web brounmienec com A 1 Project Washington Count} (the County) is proposing to reconstruct portions of several road'`\ ays and a parking lot and construct a new parking lot, as shown on Figure 1, in the Appendix The reconstruction areas include portions of Oxboro Avenue, 60th Street and 6151 Street and an existing parking lot The new parking lot to be constructed will be located between 60th and 61" Streets as shown on Figure 1 A 2 Purpose The purpose of our work was to provide SRF Consulting Group, Inc (SRF) with factual information associated with Oxboro Avenue 6oth Street 6l Street and the existing parking lot and help them design the proposed new parking lot and associated structures A 3 Scope Our scope of services for this evaluation was outlined in a July 6 2004, proposal to Mr Kenneth Holte of SRF Our evaluation was authorized by Mr Holte on December 13, 2004 Our scope of services was performed under the terms of our March I, 2003 General Conditions Except for an adjustment to eliminate a piezometer our scope of services was limited to the tasks described below A 3 a Exploratory Borings As shown on Figure 1, eight borings were requested for this project The borings were generally to be drilled to nominal depths of 5 to 10 feet Ultimately, two borings were extended to depths of 12 1/2 and 15 feet to penetrate existing fill Penetration test borings are denoted with an "ST prefix, power auger borings are denoted with a B" prefix Where water was encountered in the bonngs, the depth to water was recorded on the boring logs A 3 b In -Situ Testing Penetration resistance tests were performed in 4 of the borings (the remaining four being power auger borings) as they were advanced The depths at which the tests were performed, and the results of the tests are shown on the attached Log of Boring sheets Penetration resistances, measured in blows per foot (BPF), provide an empirical means of estimating relative material density, consistency, strength and compaction A 3 c Laboratory Testing One water content test, one Atterberg limits test and one particle size analysis was performed to assist in classifying the soil • Providing engineering and environmental solutions since 1957 SRF Consulting Group Inc Project SP 04 04654 January 25 2005 Page 2 A 3 d Engineenng Evaluation and Analysis Data obtained from the borings was used to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions and prepare this report which includes • A sketch showing the boring locations • Log of Boring sheets descnbing the materials encountered • A discussion of the soil and groundwater conditions, • Analysis of the field and laboratory tests, and • Recommendations for construction of the new parking lot including suitability of the in place soils for fill and pavement support, required subgrade corrections, and a recommended parking lot pavement design A 4 Documents Pro' ided SRF provided us a sketch showing the desired soil bonng locations relative to existing structures and followed it up with drawings of the surveyed boreholes and topographic information, and the proposed parking lot, as shown on Figure 1 A 5 Boring Locations and Elevations The soil boring locations were selected by SRF and the surface elevations at the boreholes were surveyed by the County A 6 Logs Log of Boring sheets indicating the depths and identifications of the various soil strata, penetration resistances, laboratory test data and groundwater observations are attached The strata changes were inferred from the changes in the penetration test samples and auger cuttings The depths shown as changes between the strata are only approxunate The changes are likely transitions and the depths of the changes vary between the borings Geologic origins presented for each stratum on the Log of Boring sheets are based on the soil types, blows per foot, and available common knowledge of the depositional history of the site B Results B 1 Site Conditions We understand the proposed parking lot area previously supported houses Demolition and grading occurred prior to our visiting the site Surface grades on the parking lot site generally slope down to the south and east There is a slope along most of the south edge of the parking lot area SRF Consulting Group Inc Project SP 04 04654 January 25 2005 Page 3 B 2 Materials Encountered B 2 a Pay ement Pavement was penetrated by Borings B 1 through B 4 Bonng B 1 encountered 2 layers of bituminous separated by 3 inches of aggregate base The thicknesses of the existing pavement materials are shown in Table 1, below Table 1 Existing Pavements Boring Number Bituminous Thickness Aggregate Base Thickness B 1 4 inches 3 inches (upper layer) B 1 2 inches 4 inches (lower layer) B 2 4 inches 4 inches B 3 5 inches 8 inches B-4 5 inches 7 1/2 inches B 2 b Soils Topsoil was encountered by the off -pavement borings and generally consisted of black silty sand (SM) It was about 1/2 to 10 inches thick at the bonng locations and was generally underlain by filled and name sands, consisting of silty sand (SM) and poorly graded sand (SP) In Boring ST-8 (taken south of the pond area) the primarily silty sand fill contained sand and sandy lean clay with cinders and traces of fibers and wood, and extended 10 feet below the ground surface Pavement encountered by the roadway borings was underlain by soils generally consisting of brown and dark brown silty sand (SM) In Bonng B-2 about 1 1/2 feet of silty sand was underlain by about 1 foot of dark brown sandy lean clay and brown clay (CL) In borings ST-5 and ST 7 (taken m the proposed new parking lot area) silty sand and poorly graded sand fill extended 7 feet below the ground surface B 2 c Penetration Resistance Values Penetration resistances recorded in the native granular soils ranged from 5 to 25 blows per foot (BPF), indicating they were loose to medium dense Penetration resistances recorded in the existing fill ranged from 7 to 22 blows per foot (BPF), indicating its relative compaction was variable and locally rather poor B 3 Water Level Observations Groundwater was not observed as the bonngs nor after auger withdrawal I 1 i 1 NA SRF Consulting Group, Inc Project SP 04 04654 January-25, 2005 Page 4 B 4 Laboratory Tests In addition to a moisture content test, one particle size analysis and one Atterberg limits test was performed to assist our soil classification and help us estimate soil engineering properties The results of our laboratory tests are presented in Table 2 All tests were performed using applicable procedures outlined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Table 2 Laboratory Tests Summary Boring Number Sample Depth Soil Classification Test Result B 2 3 1/2 feet Lean Clay Atterberg Limits Liquid Limit = 40 Plastic Index = 20 ST 6 2 1/2 feet Silty Sand MC 12 percent P200 25 percent A sheet showing the Grain Size Accumulation Curve" for the sample taken from Boring ST 6 is attached C ]Evaluation and Recommendations C 1 Proposed Construction As mentioned the County is proposing to reconstruct portions of Oxboro Avenue, 60th Street and 6151 Street and an existing parking lot and construct a new parking lot located between 60th and 61° Streets, as shown on Figure 1 We are presenting factual data for the County's use in designing the reconstructions and providing recommendations for the design of the new parking lot Based on the preliminary grading plan provided by SRF, it appears the new parking lot pavement will be constructed near existing grades We have also assumed the traffic using the new parking lot will consist of cars and light trucks, exclusively If the location, grades or traffic will be different than our assumptions, we should be informed Additional analyses and revised recommendations may be necessary C 2 Discussion The filled and native sands encountered below the topsoil generally appear suitable for support of the proposed pavement and associated underground utilities Those soils also generally appear suitable for reuse as fill, but some moisture conditioning may be required to meet the recommended compaction We understand the County monitored the placement of the fill placed following demolition of the houses, which previously occupied the new parking lot area We assume, therefore, that there is little nsk the existing fill could contain unsuitable materials, such as wood or organic matenals SRF Consulting Group, Inc Project SP 04-04654 January 25, 2005 Page 5 Loose zones were encountered in the parking lot borings and clays were encountered nearby In order to use the recommended parking lot pavement design, the subgrade soils within 4 feet of final grade, should consist of well compacted poorly graded sand, poorly graded sand with silt or silty sand This will require localized corrections if silt or clay, or other unsuitable matenals, are encountered during earthwork Thus, we recommend the parking lot subgrade be closely observed by a geotechnical engineer after topsoil stnpping and during the recommended scanfication To reduce vanabihty in the support characteristics provided by the subgrade and improve the subgrade strength, we recommend new parking lot subgrade areas receiving less than 3 feet of fill be excavated to a depth of 1 foot and recompacted Water was not observed in the borings if surface water enters utility trench excavations the subgrade soils may become disturbed and a subcut on the order of 1 foot deep might be needed to provide stable support for the utility pipe If a subcut is necessary we recommend it be backfilled with sandy grave] or sand with less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing a 200 sieve and less than 40 percent by weight passing a 40 sieve C 3 Excavation and Fill We recommend surficial turf surficial topsoil, topsoil buned less than four feet below final grades and any silts or clays encountered in the proposed new parking lot area be removed and be replaced with suitable compacted granular fill On -site granular soils including Poorly Graded Sand (SP) and Silty Sand (SM) are acceptable To facilitate construction and provide for a higher quality subgrade, we recommend that any imported fill matenals meet the requirements of Mn/DOT Specification 3149 2B2, Select Granular Borrow Topsoil located more than 4 feet below final subgrade elevations may be left in place if the existing grades are flatter than 4 1 (horizontal vertical) and if it and the subsequent fill can be adequately compacted We recommend that all soils exposed after strapping and excavation be observed by a geotechnical technician to evaluate if the soils are similar to those encountered in the bonngs and suitable for support of the proposed construction In addition, that technician should check whether additional correction or surface compaction is needed pnor to filling SRF Consulting Group Inc Project SP-04 04654 January 25, 2005 Page 6 C 3 a Areas Requinng Greater Than 3 Feet of Fill Following topsoil stripping and prior to placing backfill and fill, we recommend scarifying the exposed subgrade soils to a depth of at least 6 inches moistening or drying them to withm percentage points above their optimum moisture contents, and re compacting them to at least 95 percent of the fill materials' maximum dry densities determined in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 698 (standard Proctor) C 3 b Areas Requiring Less Than Three Feet Of Fill or Are Cut to Grade In areas that are cut to grade or have shallow fills, we recommend subexcavatmg to a minimum depth of one foot and backfillmg with the mixed and blended soils removed from the subexcavation (a compaction subcut) Prior to backfillmg, we recommend the excavation bottom soils be closely observed as mentioned above Silt and clay soils should be subcut an additional 2 feet and replaced with granular fill as described above If there are subgrade materials that cannot be adequately compacted because they are too wet, unstable or appear to be organic we recommend removing them and replacing them with materials that can be adequately compacted C 4 Compaction of Fill and Testrolhng We recommend the compaction subcut and fill materials placed in the top 3 feet of the subgrade be compacted to at least 100 percent of the fill materials maximum dry densities determined in accordance with American Society for Testing and Matenals (ASTM) Test Method D 698 (standard Proctor) We recommend fill placed at greater depths or beyond the edge of the pavements be compacted to at least 95 percent Prior to placing pavement materials, we recommend that pavement subgrades be test -rolled with a loaded dump truck or other heavy vehicle in general accordance with Mn/DOT Specification 2111 The test roll will help detect areas of loose or soft subgrade matenals that require additional compactive effort or removal and replacement with compacted backfill C 5 Pavement Design C 5 a Design R-Value The soils encountered within the upper few feet of the existing subgrade consisted predominantly of silty sand However, silt; clay and -clayey sand (weaker soils) were also encountered m nearby bonngs Based on the borings and the results of our laboratory tests, and assummg the completion of the recommended soil corrections, we recommend using an estimated R-value of 20 for design of the lot D pavement on the existing silty sand and poorly graded sand subgrade soils SRF Consulting Group Inc Project SP 04-04654 January 25, 2005 Page 7 C 5 b Matenals and Compaction Assuming typical parking lot usage (automobiles and light trucks with only occasional garbage trucks or school buses) and completion of the recommended subgrade improvements, we recommend the new parking lot pavement include at least 4 inches of bituminous over 8 inches of crushed aggregate base We recommend specifying crushed gravel base meeting the requirements of Mn/DOT Specification 3138 for Class 5 We recommend the crushed gravel base be compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of its standard Proctor maximum dry density We recommend that the bituminous matenals be compacted to a minimum of 91 5 percent of their Maximum densities We recommend the bituminous mixtures meet the requirements of Mn/DOT Specification 2360, Plant Mixed Asphalt Pavement, ' and Specification 3139, ' Aggregate Gradation for Bituminous Mixtures C 6 Utilities We Judge the soils encountered in the borings to be suitable for support of the proposed utility pipes Except for some moisture -conditioning, we anticipate the soils excavated during utility mstallation will be suitable for reuse as compacted fill Wet clays similar to the lean clay encountered in Boring B-2 will require drying m order to meet the recommended compaction specifications Fill or backfill placed greater than 3 feet below the pavement should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the matenals' standard Proctor maximum dry densities Within three feet of the pavement, we recommend the fill and backfill soils be compacted to at least 100 percent of their standard Proctor maximum dry densities C 7 Light Poles The design of the light pole foundations are not known at this time To assist in their design, we provide the estimated soil parameters shown in Table 3, below Our estimates of the parameters are based on the visual soil classifications and penetration resistance values They are applicable to evaluating lateral load resistance and bearing capacity Reduction factors should be applied, however, if skin friction values are desired The values provided in the table represent our estimates of the average maximum available value for each soil type, i e , they have not been divided by a factor of safety The unit weights given in Table 3 are total (moist or saturated) unit weights Above the water table the effective unit weight will be equal to the total unit weight Below the water table, the unit weight of water should be subtracted from the total unit weight provided to obtain the effective unit weight SRF Consulting Group Inc Project SP-04 04654 January 25, 2005 Page 8 The drained strength friction angle (f), values are given in degrees Table 3 Recommended Soil Parameters for Pole Foundation and Retaining Wall Design Soil Type Typical N Value (BPF) Fnction Angle Cohesion Wet Unit Weight (Pei) Silty Sand 5 7 28 0 125 Silty Sand 8-11 30 0 125 Silty Sand 12-19 32 0 130 Poorly Graded Sand 7 9 30 0 125 The soils within the frost zone (the upper 5 feet) are variably frost susceptible We recommend using a friction angle of zero for the upper 5 feet (or 1 1/2 pier diameters if less) to account for the possibility of a gap forming between the upper portion of a light pole pier and the adjacent soil The unit weight of the upper 5 feet can be used for design purposes C 8 Ram Garden The location of the proposed ram garden had not been decided at the time of this wasting The soils within the upper 5 feet in the parking lot area include silty sand (SM), sand (SP) and silty sand fill containing sand and lean clay We recommend using the estimated Coefficient of Permeability values listed below for your design Fr a aorYV�� • Silty Sand (SM) - 2x10 2 to 2x10 3 feet per day (fpd)6O l ro 7YH�) • Poorly Graded Sand (SP) — 10 to 1 fpd Cs V a S �"'�Q� • Silt- 10'to 105fpd • Clay (CL) - 10 3 to 10 5 fpd C 9 Proposed Pond Our investigation indicated the soils in the proposed pond area consist of fill As such, the classifications of the soils will likely vary from point to point much more than natural soils Boring ST 8 encountered fill consisting of about 5 feet of silty sand over about 2 1/2 feet of poorly graded sand with silt underlain by sandy lean clay to a depth of about 9 feet The permeabilities of these soils vary substantially Based on the current data, it is not possible to estimate whether a pond excavated into the fill will be wet or dry SRF Consulting Group, Inc Project SP 04-04654 January 25 2005 Page 9 D Procedures D 1 Drilling and Sampling The penetration test borings were performed on December 15 2004, NA ith a truck -mounted core and auger drill equipped with 3 1/4 inch inside diameter hollow -stem augers Sampling for the bonngs was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D 1586, `Penetration Test and Split Barrel Sampling of Soils " Using this method, we advanced the borehole with the hollow stem auger to the desired test depth A 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches was then used to dnve the standard 2 inch split barrel sampler a total penetration of 1 1/2 feet below the tip of the hollow stem auger The blows for the last foot of penetration were recorded and are an index of soil strength charactenstics Samples were taken at the vertical mtervals shown on the boring logs A representative portion of each sample was then sealed in a glass jar D 2 Soil Classification Soils encountered in the bonngs were visually and manually classified m the field by the crew chief in general accordance with ASTM D 2488, Descnption and Identification of Soils (Visual - Manual Procedures) " A summary of the ASTM classification system is attached All samples were then returned to our laboratory for review of the field classifications by a geotechnical engineer Representative samples will remain in our office for a period of 60 days to be available for your examination D 3 Groundwater Observations Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottoms of the borings, the holes were probed through the hollow stem auger to check for the presence of groundwater Immediately after withdrawal of the auger, the holes were again probed and the depths to v, ater or cave ins were noted E General E 1 Basis of Recommendations The analyses and recommendations submitted m this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil bonngs performed at the locations mdicated on the attached sketch Often, vanations occur between these bormgs, the nature and extent of which do not become evident until additional exploration or construction is conducted A reevaluation of the recommendations in this report should be made after performing on -site observations during construction to note the charactenstics of any variations The vanations may result in additional earthwork costs, and it is suggested that a contingency be provided for this purpose SRF Consulting Group, Inc Project SP-04 04654 January 25 2005 Page 10 It is recommended that v<e be retained to perform the observation and testing program for the grading phase of this project This will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to the soil borings, and AN ill provide continuity of professional responsibility E 2 Review of Design This report is based on the design of the proposed new parking lot submitted to us for the preparation of this report Because of the limited amount of information available, a number of assumptions were necessary to permit us to make recommendations It is recommended that we be retained to review the final design and specifications to determine whether those assumptions were correct and whether any change in concept may have had an effect on the validity of our recommendations and whether our recommendations have been implemented in the design and specifications If we are not permitted an opportunity to make this recommended review, we will not be liable for losses ansuig out of incorrect assumptions design changes or misinterpretation or misapplication of our recommendations E 3 Groundwater Fluctuations We made water level observations in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated on the boring logs These data were interpreted in the text of this report The penod of observation was relatively short, and fluctuation in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall, flooding, imgation spring thaw, drainage and other seasonal and annual factors not evident at the time the observations were made Design drawings and specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations E 4 Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of Washington County and SRF Consulting Group, Inc to use in formulating utility and parking lot construction plans In the absence of our written approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report The data presented may not be appropriate for other purposes We reconunend that parties contemplating other purposes contact us E 5 Level of Care Services performed by Braun Intertec Corporation personnel for this project have been conducted with that level of care and skill ordinanly exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints No warranty; express or implied, is made Appendix 1 — yl — Y -- — -- ;l WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT EXPANSION 1 r :rf /T ry/—fir/I _//// / / / FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH w0 TCN EXIST 1NG ` -� ALGRCCN S DRIVC 7iil :'T^' )1' .s 4. j� [ONNEC ---,Li.:I5 —o I _ - 1-1 4- —i--'- 1 1 _ BXBON OAK PARK HEIGHTS APTS (72 UNITS) / ( 1 / V I< f I'1 I c OAK RIDGE PLACE APTS 11// d_ IC EXIST] / / / PERMANENT CONDITION PARKING DESIGN DST 1 L CCE 10 E 0 L EXIST] G 2E 16 2 0 1 TE 1 5 3 E 559 CO 01110 PER EN1 3 6 509 CO DI110 EETS CURRE D C IOU] E5 WASHINGTON COUITY GOVERNMENT CENTER CITY LI 1T5 1 LEGEND RU 0 E0 E E 1 PRO 0 ED CU 8 PRO 05(0 L 0 C PE RE P 0 05E0 L PROPOSED 001110 L PO 0 STOP GE RE » — PROPOSED S€NI R 5E ER >-- PROPO ED STD 5E E PROPO ED TERHAI PROPOSED C 1C O I • ROPOSED 5T0R 0 R0P05E0 ANHOLE PROPOSED N 0 Ala PROPOSED E R0P0SED EE PROPOSED REDUCER PROPOSED CCESSIBLC PRIG P 0P05ED FIC FL0 DIRECTIO — PROPOSED R0 PE 0E ROD EX151I C PL INETRICS — E 1ST1 G RO EX1511 G 7IL17 5 07E0 EX1S I C UII117 70 BE RE 0 ED — — FU RE P ENE l,r r • rP J 111 I — WASHINGTON COUNTY LAW —ENFORCEMENT CENTER 1 I, I �.I -, w {a 1 / TCN EXIST]/ >---I I elgi \ — / / POLE it L OJ.� 1 TCH EX1571 G \ /� CONTROL STRUC OOIFIC T 6 nd ST N i I PRELI IINAR /////77 r / / / / / PARKING RAMP / 7//' / / — ST-8 1 .n., Par r r •54. � Il g � 6r 51u,IS m>ti AS 1 alllit I�C� ?1 �tII� II1t B-3 �, 111� IiI I f�fl`II1 1�Iffl 1_ �t1 J�rok CO NECT TO [XIS IN6 E I I q 1 t /luT'la11111111-1irii111111(tI� ST-6 e 1ST 1NG -4 » - I� - Indicates approximate power auger boring location - Indicates approximate penetration test boring location = — —-vN.� — _ ---___ _— T_H 36 EB _ — or - _ 1_ / / / / // / I II ,1 / Q a / t d / 1 <, ///{ �` // t I Ili /j / I / 1 / ✓ — i Ii _V / / POTS TILL,/ Q CON ECT TO EXISTING TER I / THE5T0R TENT1ER RE ///////A// WASHINGTON COUNT T TH 36 WB - TT; 0- 0- > �s Figure 1, Soil Bot ing Location Sketch \\ Washington Count) Govel nment Center South Lot Stlllwltel Mtnnesot- FUTURE NNI 36 CONSTRUCTION 4 IA— =s T-l f — _ tzt Braun Intertec P)oject SP-04-0464 L— ] Descriptive Terminology Re 10 —raruTIOMAL Standard D 2487 00 Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) Cntena for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests a Soils Classification Group Symbol Group Name ° Coarse grained Soils 1 more than 50 / retained on ' No 200 sieve Gravels More than 50 / of coarse fraction retained on No 4 sieve Clean Gravels Less than 5 / fines C > 4 and 1 < C S 3 c GW Well graded gravel ° C < 4 and/or 1 > C > 3 c GP Poorly graded gravel ° Gravels with Fines More than 12 / fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel d 1g Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel d 1 a Sands 50 / or more o1 coarse fraction passes No 4 sieve Clean Sands Less than 5 / fines C >_ 6 and 1 < C < 3 c SW Well graded sand h C < 6 and/or 1 > Cc> 3 c SP Poorly graded sand h Sands with Fines More than 12 / ' Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand' 9 n Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand rg h Fine grained Sods 50°/ or more passed the No 200 sieve Silts and Clays Liquid tiro'' less than 50 InorganicPI > 7 and plots on or above A liner CL Lean clay k ' "' PI < 4 or plots below A line' ML Silt k i ' Organic Liquid limit oven dned < 0 75 OL OL Organic clay k ' `" Organic silt k ' ' Liquid limit not dried Silts and clays Liquid limit 50 or more Inorganic PI plots on or above A line CH Fat clay k' " PI plots below A line MH Elastic silt k' m Organic g Liquid limit oven dried OH OH Organic clay k ' ^ ° Organic silt k ' '" q Liquid limit not dried < 0 75 Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter dark in color and organic odor PT Peat a Based on the material passing the Sin (75mm) s e e b If feld sample contained cobbles or boulders or both add with cobbles o boulders or bosh to group name c C D6°/ D o C (D,0)2 D°xD. d If soil contains >15/ sand add with sand to group name e Gravels w 1 h 5 to 12 / lines equire dual symbols GW GM well -graded g avel with silt GW GC well -graded gravel with clay GP GM poorly graded gra el with silt GP GC poorly graded gravel with clay If fines classrfy as CL ML use dual symbol GC GM or SC SM g If fines are organic add with organ c lines to group name h If soil contains > 15 / gravel add w Ih gravel to group name Sands with 5 to 12 / lines require dual symbols SW SM well -graded sand with sill SW SC well graded sand with clay SP SM poorly graded sand w Ih sill SP SC poorly graded sand with clay i If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area so I is a CL ML silty clay 1 k 11 soil contains 15 to 299' plus No 200 add with sand or with gravel whichever is predominant I If soil contains > 30/ plus No 200 predom nantly sand add sandy to group name m I1 soil contains > 30/ plus No 200 predominantly gravel add gravelly" tog oup name n PI > 4 and plots on or above A line o PI < 4 or plots below A I ne p PI plots on or above A line q PI plots below A line Plasticity Index (PI) 60 50 40 30 10 7 4 0 vrD MC LL PL PI P2000 _ f • . . , v: i ess , to ,' . G • ' ON• ,' 6 G&' MH •r OH ; MH or OH cL"al: 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 Liquid Limit (LL) Dry density pcf Wet densrty pcf Natural moisture content Liquid limit % Plastic limit / Plasticity index / / passing 200 sieve qp Laboratory Tests OC s SG c 0 80 Organic content / Percent of saturation °/ Specific gravity Cohesion psf Angle of internal friction qu Unconfined compressrve strength psf Pocket penetrometer strength tsf 100 110 Particle Size Identification Boulders over 12 Cobbles 3 to 12 Gravel Coarse 3/4 to 3 Fine No 4 to 3/4 Sand Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay No 4 to No 10 No 10 to No 40 No 40 to No 200 < No 200 PI < 4 or below A line <No 200 PI>4ar on or above A line Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense Consistency Very soft Soft Rather soft Medium Rather stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard 0 to 4 BPF 5to10BPF 11to30BPF 31 to 50 BPF over 50 BPF of Cohesive Soils 0 to 1 BPF 2 to 3 BPF 4 to 5 BPF 6 to 8 BPF 9to12BPF 13to16BPF 17 to 30 BPF over 30 BPF Drilling Notes Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 30 or 60 ID hollow stem augers unless noted otherwise Jetting water was used to clean out auger pnor to sampling only where indicated on logs Standard penetration test bonngs are designated by the prefix ST" (Split Tube) All samples were taken with the standard 2 OD split tube sampler ex cept where noted Power auger borings were advanced by 4 or 6 diameter continuous flight solid stem augers Soil classrficatrons and strata depths were in ferred from disturbed samples augered to the surface and are therefore somewhat approximate Power auger borings are designated by the prefix B Hand auger bonngs were advanced manually with a 1 or 3D diam eter auger and were limited to the depth from which the auger could be manually withdrawn Hand auger bonngs are indicated by the prefix H BPF Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard penetration test also known as N value The sampler was set 6 into undisturbed soil below the hollow stem auger Dnving resistances were then counted for second and third 6 increments and added to get BPF Where they differed significantly they are reported in the following form 2/12 for the second and third 6 increments respectively WH WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of hammer and rods alone driving not required WR WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight of rods alone hammer weight and dnving not required TW indicates thin walled (undisturbed) tube sample Note All tests were run in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards B RAU I INTERTEI LOG OF BORING r — r- - z I `i to t f it Braun Project SP-04-04654 Geotechnicil Evaluation Proposed New Parking Lot Wlshington Count- Government Center Olk Pqrk Heights, Minnesota BORING B-1 LOCATION Oxboro Avenue See attached sketch DRILLER I Chermak METHOD 3 1/4 HSA Autohmr DATE 12/15/04 SCALE 1 = 4 Elev feet 881 7 Depth feet 0 0 ASTM Symbol Description of Materials (ASTM D2488 or D2487) BPF WL Tests or Notes _ 880 6 1 I PAV Approximately over 4 Bituminous over3 Aggregate Bise 2 Bituminous over 4 Aggregate Base yellow over _ moist X000a — 876 7 5 0 SM brown SILTY SAND mostly fine grained trace of Gravel — slighlty plastic brown moist END Water immediately Boring OF BORING not observed to c-ive in depth of 3 1/2 feet after withdrawal of auger immediately b-ickfilled _ — nix lnliri L C )1 rni n G I nil kUN BASIC LOG SI 04046.4 GI J 81.A1it4 GDT 1/17 0, 10 ''4 LOG OF BORING Brun Project SP-04-04654 Geotechnicil ENaluation Proposed New Parking Lot Washington County Government Center O'ik P-irk Heights, Minnesota BORING B-2 LOCATION Existing Lot A See attached sketch DRILLER I Chermrk METHOD _) I/4 EISA Autohmr DATE 12/15/04 SCALE 1 = 4 Elev feet 889 6 Depth feet 0 0 ASTM Symbol Description of Matei ials (ASTM D2488 or D2487) BPF WL Tests of Notes 888 9 0 7 PAV Approximately 4 Bituminous over 4 Aggregate crushed yellowish brown moist [ _ 887 6 0 SM \Limestone SILTY SAND trace of Gravel dad, blown moist 8866 30 CL SANDY LEAN CLAY dark brown moist 884 6 0 CL % A000a LEAN CLAY brown wet END OF BORING Water not observed wrth 4 feet of hollow stem auger the ground Boring immediately backfilled In _ — 4 t i in IN it i t it ii 11 n "i 1 ail It tE DT LOG OF BORING Braun Project SP-04-04654 GeotechnlciI Lvalu'ition Proposed New Pirking Lot W'ishington County Government Center OBI. Nil( Heights, Minnesota BORING B-3 LOCATION 61st Street See attached sketch DRILLER I Chermik METHOD 3 1/-1 HSA Autohmr DATE 12/15/04 SCALE 1 = 4 Elev feel 887 7 Depth feet 0 0 ASTM Symbol Description of Materials (ASTM D2488 or D2487) BPF WL Tests or Notes _ 886 6 1 I PAV Appioxnnately 5 Bituminous over 8 Aggreg1te Bnse brown moist >0000< — _ 8827 )0 SM SILTY SAND fine to medium grained trace of Gravel brown wet — — — — END Water Tfter Boring OF BORING not observed to c ve in depth of 4 feet immediately withdrawal of auger Immediately backfilled — — I3c n i In! n l )Itc cn it 'c f ui 13 I c— c 1 1 , LOG OF BORING II,►i Li 1�. Braun Project SP-04-04654 Geotechnic-11 Evlluation Proposed Nevi Parking Lot Wishington Count) Go%ernment Center O9k P'irlc Heights, Minnesot-i BORING B-4 LOCATION 60th Street See anached sketch DRILLER I Cheinnk METHOD , 1/4 HSA Autohmr DATE 12/14/04 SCALE 1 = 4 Elev feet 885 6 Depth feet 0 0 ASTM Symbol Desci iptlon of Materials (ASTM D2488 or D2487) BPF WL Tests or Notes 884 6 I 0 PAV Appioxunately 5 Bituminous over 7 1/2 Aggregate Base brown, moist XOOOOC — 880 6 D 0 SM SILTY SAND fine grained trace of Gravel brown moist — END OF BORING Water not observed to clve in depth of 4 feet immediately after withdrawnil of auger — 7- (See Desciion). relmii Cif' \L N 13 \SIC LOG SI 0404634 GPJ BRAUN GDT I/17/0, 10'3 r ion Inl i ( h 1 iu n it I i I BRAUqg>t sM LOG OF BORING 0 0 O z u 0 473 0 O v z n Braun Project SP-04-04654 Geotechnic'il Evaluation Proposed New Parking Lot Washington County Government Center Oil+ P irk Heights, Minnesota BORING ST-5 LOCATION Future Lot D See attached sketch DRILLER I Chermak METHOD 3 1/4 HSA Autohmr DATE 12/15/04 SCALE 1 = 4 Elev feet 890 ) Depth feet 0 0 ASTM Symbol Description of Materials (ASTM D2488 or D2487) BPF WL Tests or Notes 890 0 0 5 FILL Se •••• •••• FILL Silty Sand fine grained black wet \ (Topsoil) r � 10 22 '\ xxxxx _ 888 5 2 0 FILL FILL Silty Sind fine grained with a little Gravel dirk brown, — — 883 5 7 0 FILL st.:: •?•: .. i•i• •••• �•• •�• obi •• wet FILL Silty Sand mostly fine grimed mixed with Sand and Clay and Gravel dark brown and brown wet —V — — 880 0 10 SM SILTY SAND fine grained with Gravel brown rnoist medium dense (Glacial Till) y 12 / 19 — — END OF BORING Water not obseived with 9 feet of hollow stem auger in — the ground — Water not observed to cave in depth of 4 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger — Boring immediately backfilled — tun Im ii t apt i ui t1 Si I rid It RR \l V B SIC LOG SP04046)4 GPI BRAUN GDT I/17/0) 10 A LOG OF BORING Braun Project SP-04-04654 Geotechnicil Ev'iluation Proposed Neil Parking Lot W-ishtngton County Government Center Oik P-irk Heights, Minnesota BORING ST-6 LOCATION Future Lot D / 60th Street See attach sketch DRILLER 1 Chermak METHOD 3 1/41 HSA Autohmr DATE 12/15/04 SCALE 1 = 4 Elev feet 878 1 Depth feet 0 0 ASTM Symbol Description of Materials (ASTM D2488 of D2487) BPF WL Tests or Notes 877 2 0 8 SM SILTY SAND fine grained trace of Roots black wet (Topsoil) n 6 X5 12 18 P200 = 25 1 MC= 12% — — 10 5 SM V SILTY SAND fine grained trace of Gm el blown to 9 then moist loose to medium dense (Glace it Till) wet 867 6 — END OF BORING Water not observed with 9 feet of hollov. stem Luger the ground Water not observed to clue in depth of 7 feet immedi-itely after withdrawal of auger Boring immediately backfilled in — — •,I I J IJI 13 u, I I I l I p l II , 11 I u t — r- LOG OF BORING 0 c 0 r J O 0 0 t- 0 O 0 to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H T Z C Braun Project SP-04-04654 Geotechntcul Evaluation Proposed Nell Parking Lot W-tshington Count} Government Center OBI, Plrl, Heights Minnesoci BORING ST-7 LOCATION Future Lot D See attached sketch DRILLER 1 Chermak METHOD .1 1/4 HSA Atitohmr DATE 12/15/04 SCALE 1 = 4 Elev feet 887 6 Depth feet 0 0 ASTM S)mbol Description of Materials (ASTM D2488 or D2487) BPF WL Tests or Notes 887 I 0 D FILL •e•, FILL Silty Sand black wet V 9 /� X 7 /� 000a •••: •••• •�:•• •:••• ••❖.• • .❖ ••• .❖: •••• :.:• •••• ••• r \ (Topsoil) /— _ — — — 880 6 7 0 FILL FILL Poorly Giaded Sand fine to medium grained with Gravel brown moist — — 875 1 12 ) SM SILTY SAND fine grained with a little Gravel brown moist medium dense (Glacial Till) X 12 /� 17 16 _ — — END OF BORING Water not observed with 1 1 feet of hollow stem 1uger in _ the ground Water not observed to cave in depth of 4 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger — Boring immediately backfilled — HI run 1u1U1 ( 11111 1111 1 til 1 UI BR \l V BASIC LOG SPO4046 4 GP) BRAUN GOT 1/1 7/0) 10 7S 1 LOG OF BORING Briun Project SP-04-04654 Geotechnic-il Lvalugtton Proposed New P-irking Lot Wishtngton County GoNernment Center O'rk Pirk Heights, Minnesota BORING ST-8 LOCATION Potential Retention Pond See attache sketch DRILLER I Chermak METHOD 3 l/4 HSA Autohrnr DATE 12/15/04 SCALE 1 = 4 Elev teet 862 5 Depth feet 0 0 ASTM Symbol Description of Materials (ASTM D2488 or D2487) BPF WL Tests or Notes — _ 8575 50 FILL 4•• •••• • •gip• %i •••• •••• •• •••• FILL Silty Sand fine grimed trice of Gravel brown wet near the sulfate then moist 14 14 16 � I I� 9 I ' 15 1 14 / _ END OF BORING Water not observed with 14 feet of hollow stern auger the ground Water not observed to cave in depth of 7 1/2 feet immediately after withdrawal of auger Boring immediately backfilled in III I Inl Ill ( h rill n \ I nd GS \SI\I SIOJ046 4G11 1LkAL\GDT 1 GRAIN SIZE ACCUMULATION CURVE (ASTM) GRAVEL SAND FINES COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY 3 1 3/4 100 1/2 3/8 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 90 ism U S SIEVE SIZES 80 70 60 z cii 50 llI w c4 a 40 30 20 IIIIIIbII.tii. 10 0 10 01 001 0001 PARTICLE DIAMETER nun 1 sM Braun Project SP-04-04654 GRAVEL 10 7% CLASSIFICATION A U N Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed New Parking Lots and Roads SAND 64 2% SILT 14 5% SM Silty Sand trace gravel N T E RT E C Washington County Government Center Oak Park Heights, Minnesota BORING ST 6 SAMPLE 20 DEPTH 2 5 CLAY 10 6% D60=0 04 Cu=80 6 D30=0 104 Cc=8 0 D10=0 004 Moishne Content 12 2% N 01 Na 0 N F 0 61 0. 0 e 0 v 0 4 y f -.:1- 0 t 4 60 50 CL O P L A s 40 T 1 C T 30 Y 1 N 20 D E x 10 • CLML O O 0 • 0 20 Specimen Identification B 2 3 5' LL 40 PL 20 40 PI 20 Fines 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Classification Braun Project SP-04-04654 Geotechmcal Evaluation Proposed New Parking Lot Washington County Government Center Oak Park Heights, Minnesota ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS BRAUNsM INTFPTFC Braun lntertec Corporation St. Paul WASHINGTON COUNTY MINNESOTA — SHEET NUMBER 32 301E 454C (Joins sheet 28) R 20 W 120 5 000 Feet 0 co 0 v 76 0 N O O O 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 rh 0 O O V 2 310 000 FEET O O O i r?w rS A if 0 Z O co H 95 212 M 2 310 000 FEET 1029 (Joins heet 39) R 20 W 12 315 000 FEET „1: - f 4-1 ) re t ) WASHINGTON COUNTY MINNESOTA - SHEET NUMBER 35 Z 0 m 266 153B R 21W IR 20W 12 295 000 FEET 8 6C 266 266 342D 540 449153C Joins sheet 31) Ica®o�©mac cam--_z=rEA..r 449 153C 266 2 305 000 FEET 342C 1 38 (Joins sheet 38) Pros&-7- s 7 cu f 0 5 000 Feet 0 0� 6/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to \Pre ecrs\5542Ni muLLAY. 4 h. ery emdg LEGEND -�--m EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATERMAIN SRF 5 GO''1NI~ CENTER REi "OGEE WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER PCBTEgy T EAL CAI ',PUS STORML `TER Consulting Group, lot. CAMPUS LAYOUT WITH PROPOSED FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND POTENTIAL CAMPUS STORMWATER TREATMENT Figure 1 5542 5/17/2006 PLAN SYMBOLS WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS THE 2005 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL GOVERN 5T E LI E COU L E TOW S OR RANGE NE SECTO LNE QUARTER LNE SY EENT LNE R GHT OF W LNE RESENT RIGHT OF W L E CO TROL OF CCESS E RO ERT L E IE H L ) AC TED PL TTED PROPERTY CORPOR TE OR C LM TS TRU K HIGHW Y CENTER L E CONC RETAIN G WALL RAILROAD RAILROAD RG T OF W Y LNE R ER OR CREEK —0-0— //////// ///////// 4 w DRY R N DRAI GE 0 TC SIZE DR. T LE CU ERT DROP LET GUARD RAI BARBED W RE E CE WO E WREFECE CH. L E CE C— RAILROAD 5 OW FE CE p_p_p_p_p__p✓rb STONE WAIL OR FENCE `1QO�Otno EDGE ......... RAILROAD CROSS G S G yy1 RAI ROAD CR0551 G BELL E ECTRC WAR G 5GN CROSS NG G TE EANDER CORNER AIL BOX SPRI GS ARS T BER ORC ARD BRUS URSER 1 C TC BAS R DR0NT C TTLE GUARD OVERPASS ( g 0 ) U DER SS ( gh y U ) BR DGE BULO G (0 $ F m ) F FRAME C CONCRETE 5 STO E T LE B BRC ST STUCCO RO PIPE OR ROD 0 UMENT 5T0 E CO CRETE OR ETAL) wOODE HUB GR EL P17 SAND P T BORROW PT ROCK OUARRY UTILITY SYMBOLS POWER POLE L E TELEP ONE OR TELEGRAP POLE LNE JO T TELEPHONE AND OWER ON POWER PO E5 0 TELE HONE POLES ANCHOR STEEL TOWER STREET LIGHT PEDES AL TELEPHONE CABLE TERMI AL GAS MAI wAT ER MAI CONDUIT TELEPHO E CABLE IN CO DUI ELECTRIC CABLE CONDUIT TELEPHO E AN OLE E ECTRC MANHOLE BURIED TE E ONE CABLE BUR ED ELEC R C CABLE AER AL TELEPHONE CABLE SEWER (SAN TARP) SEWER ST OR ) SEWER MANHOLE HANDHOLE 19710 79 0 0 0 0 0 —GG— I— T P— 00 CF] — T BUR P BUR 1H WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANS FOR SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) RAMSEY 7 PINEHURST a a %, ST GI- m iJ '�- W iJ DRIVING o �� P 3 ,0 PARK PO TROTTER aj �j � SURP m CT LA =0 a z,-1.,HIGHLAND i DRIV\�ep , u ST m CT m ORLEANS ST ( 1 11 PADDOCK CIR ` 1 6 s CREST 12 OAKGREEN PL o R 54 th 9- ST N 54th ST N 0 53rd ST N RTH ST CE WN ABBOT AKE 0 ST WILLA RD ORLEANS N lV CK ST E ti EJERETT 'DDR 24 !i/ W ,~y O z 1. RP C7 zcc _ > . 0RAR1IE1 °\\ \\\62 ILL ARD ST N > CHU RCH ILL ST J N N > > DUB USA E COC K S BUR LIN TUP PE st ST 61 ST 60 ST 7 ST N -o Q _ W 59th ST 58th ST 21 z Jl r a w 58th/' W W i �y ST N N o> ST a O a z z 57ih ST N 5 z -v r z c c z 5lth ST Ncc > ", 2 -cc � rP 56th W ST N 56T t o 56th ST N a 1 6 -, °o• JQQrLPo ST s N ugh ST 1 N w 90 �2 a 0 / 28 c / y�r o o i o W W 5/ T^ Oth, 5 L .\\ N a 2 \\\ W 75U5PiphERsT a 1 PROJECT SITE La St AVE 8th SCALES INDEX MAP 1000 GENERAL LAYOUT 100 PLAN 30 PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY WASHINGTON DISTRICT METRO ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM AND BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MN MUTCD) AND PART VI FIELD MANUAL FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS CITY OF STILLWATER STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR UTILITY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR LIGHTING CONSTRUCTION INDEX SHEET NO SHEET DESCRIPTION 1 TITLE SHEET 2 GENERAL LAYOUT 3 CONSTRUCTION/SOILS NOTES 4 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS 5 IN PLACE TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITY PLANS 6 7 REMOVAL PLANS 8 SITE PLANS 9 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS 10 DRAINAGE NOTES AND TAB 11 EROSION CONTROL AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT PLANS 12 13 LANDSCAPING PLANS 14 17 LANDSCAPE PLANTING DETAILS 18 SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS 19 22 LIGHTING PLANS AND DETAILS THIS PLAN CONTAINS 22 SHEETS SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SIGNATURE DATE LIC NO 42375 PRINT NAME _ JACK D SULLIVAN RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 20 WASHINGTON COUNTY ENGINEER PLAN REVISIONS DATE SHEET NO APPROVED BY THIS PLAN AND/OR SPECIFICATION WAS PREPARED SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PROJECT AND ANY RE USE OF DETAILS OR SPECIFICATIONS ON OTHER PROJECTS IS NOT INTENDED OR AUTHORIZED BY THE DESIGNER LIABILITY FOR ANY RE USE ON OTHER PROJECTS 1S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON AGENCY OR CORPORATION USING PLAN OR SPECIFICATION DATA FROM THIS PROJECT SHEET NO 1 OF 22 SHEETS ti = I ^\ \\ Ir \\ 11 I 1 \1 II I I II II I I 11 ll —-----"'N II \.!/ \\ J �/ rll �L/ _— � r-J--i —r-df yl It L-- 11 r-fr-fIL_ II-11 -- II I--J J //- 1 rl II 11 I l II L ll II II 11 I1-J 11 II IQ L ` _ - r \ (I t r I': \\ I " 2 7 / -- I I lr 1-� - Is Il I0--I 1 IIr rill( I -=J —, ---1 1 r— I I �1 L_�-1 I �1 IJUJ I� r LJ L�L� l I1� l I ] 1 I I IIL�hll ) 1L 1 I 1 rL _J ti 1 1 j L ) 1 _ r �� 1 -�J C- - -1 I_ I 1 / � \ - - _ L L�J L1 I I 1 \ I Li II 0 IC �1 1__.IJ I 1 1 I I\ v/ -- / ,--� Lfii v n CLJ ���� -� 1 El E I—11 �- l l ▪ �� �I� 1 j 1 1 I I `�� ---LI I I I \_r f 1J�1 \\ �rJ�I r f- 1I 11 1 1— I I in r,- rlriy l �I I \����If� rl-�f -J� I 1 f-� I-J I- I L \ L__J� / r Irl I_1 LJI J L1 I 1 t-11 I / II L�r-1 1 I ---J L 1 LI 1_-_) (-- ---_J 1`---_ 1"-.__JL___ I UL_-_J L_-_1-1-_ 1 \_IL--J11_I.L — IDO O 100 GITY,QF, r r 62ND STREET N _ _ CITY OF OAK PARK H IG TS— — — --/ j l I I r , ^ \ \ r II Il �r1 -� 1 L1 1 r --_ j L \!, �\\-)- i I-r(tJ 7, n J� I / CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS \ \ L II 11 1 L r' I J I I I 1 C — — — I— — L CITY OF STILLWATER r l I -- I I LI I- \\\\ I I H1- 11-- �I 1 I I l I_r \\ i�� I ,y ----11 1--u----I_ \ L I ?\ =-=T� - r a �J-� - f--r �� JT 1 -LIThi L_1 WASHINGTON COUNTY II \�� 1 �\ I I \Il, \\\\\ -1,__r1r1 I I I JL Li lr ,- L_ L I L J i� 1 r l GOVERNMENT CENTER � 1 L 1 I'l \� I _-I� — _L1_ - J —�i � __ J I L± _1 1 1 I I 1 J 7 �I i-'� r 1i 1 1-L 1 1 I 1 _ �I�A I L_ f--- �1 z I_� l iJr ---- r 1 a 1 f�r --- I I -_ \ I I I\ 1— -1 \\ \\ �L�L _Li 1 1 I 7 1 J rj --I� �>1 \ L rrj1 // . 1 -� I \\ \\ /� 7 Z L J 1 \\ \ l _ J— I I 1 j I I ...1t `\ \ �t —I \ Q WASHINGTON COUNTY \ �— / �> I II \\ \\ _�L I I -- �_�� 1 rI \I 1 LAW ECENTERMENT L 1 1( %��� 11 nor— 1 I \\ \\ /// U I-1 LJ -J ,I I \ 1 -� �r1 I �I 1�1 I �\1\\J/ C=-_I i l- I§ ---�� i- I I JJ�//i/ // �Z I IL I I I I V 11 I- — - ' I PQ° I 1 O — — — — — — I 1 1 — — _1 1 / PARKINGD"'C J1* / J WASHINGTON COUNTY / % LJ '� I L b L� L 1 \ II 1 I I Z 'I —1, L--- —r 1/ PROPERTY i s L J im 1, �— 1 I I o :� ee "�Y� •N�C��� =�t R- p� T om— — ,a 1 I LLr--L I / 1� —�' epQ I I o a� ��hIlil�lI `'I`I1'{il,l►{Illo\\\, I _I L �. 1_ F /r [IC P I xa4��� �; r {-f n $ �I\ i I I/�/ / / L ` _ �—.J J— J i ��q11111111111f!ii9Anti°I11I I10" 1 - L Li- J ; L — ��JI � n,g t „ l �� L 1 1 J / / / / 1 I ( �1,�_�� ^ c s60TH STREE$TNO yam- ` ;' ��,/� CITY OF STILLWA /// / / /i / / / / :/.... 11 1 f 1 — — _ — CiTY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ///// �/ / \ — — i EXISTING OCCUPIED // // i i �i / II I \ — _ — — BUILDINGS �i��� ii 6OTH STREET NO — _ — o ��i��/� - �� �� — _ — — — — — — — — — — — — EXISTING BUILDING _ — - ��-®-� W B TH 36 ----------- i I- ------__� = =�_______�__= _�= �_—-------- _ --_ _�' E B TH 36 � ' / — — — scale feet J p \ 'I 1 \ /_. �� (--- ) 7_ I I _, � (i I,i,l 1�1 i[I I I I 11HJI 111 1 1lI11-) 1JL 1- IL`—_L_ 1_r VLII vJI /60TH STREET NORTH II l�1 I I I I r-\ II I `- II 1 �, NO DATE _ BY CND APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5 42 GLA I h by tify that thl pia p Ifl tl p t wp pa d by m nd my dl t up I I a 0 h t I m dly LI d P f I I EaI nd th I w f th St t f MI id Print Name JACK D SULLIVAN Date L Icense 42375 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J DAUER DESIGNED BY J DAUER CHECKED BY J SULLIVAN COMM NO 0055542 Fli CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY GENERAL LAYOUT GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 2 OF 22 114 CRAIITNR, RASE ANTI S11RFA(:F REM(IVA1 S TOP OF THE GRADING SUBGRADE IS DEFINED AS THE BOTTOM OF THE CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE SUITABLE GRADING MATERIAL ON THIS PROJECT WHETHER OBTAINED LOCALLY OR FROM BORROW SHALL CONSIST OF ALL SOILS EXCEPT TOPSOIL DEBRIS PEAT MUCK AND ORGANIC OR OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIAL UNSUITABLE MATERIALS ARE TOPSOILS DEBRIS PEAT MUCK AND ORGANIC OR OTHER UNSTABLE SOILS GRANULAR MATERIAL IS DEFINED AS MATERIAL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SPEC 3149 2B1 SELECT GRANULAR MATERIAL IS DEFINED AS MATERIAL MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SPEC 3149 2B2 STRIP SOD AND TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION AND REUSE AS SLOPE DRESSING FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES THE DEPTH OF TOPSOIL AVAILABLE IS CONSIDERED TO BE 6 ALL TOPSOIL STRIPPING WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE COMMON EXCAVATION IN ALL AREAS OF NEW ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION (PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY) PROVIDE FOR A MINIMUM 30 SUBCUT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BACKFILL WITH SELECT GRANULAR MATERIAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ANY UNCONTAMINATED GRANULAR MATERIAL REMOVED FROM EXISTING SUBGRADE AREA MAY BE USED IN OTHER AREAS DESIGNATED FOR GRANULAR MATERIAL EXCESS TOPSOIL AND MUCK MATERIAL SHALL BE USED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT AND AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN FILL SECTIONS TOPSOIL AND OTHER UNSUITABLE MATERIALS SHALL BE ELIMINATED FROM THE UPPER 4 FEET OF THE GRADING GRADE BENEATH THE ROADWAY WITHIN THE LIMITS SHOWN ON THE PLANS OBTAIN COMPACTION ON THE GRADING PORTIONS OF PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIED DENSITY METHOD REQUIREMENTS COMPACTION OF THE AGGREGATE BASE LAYER SHALL BE OBTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PENETRATION INDEX METHOD MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 2211 3C3 THIS WOULD INCLUDE ANY AREAS WHERE CRUSHED CONCRETE OR SALVAGED ASPHALT MAY BE USED FOR AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTION OF THE GRADING AND AGGREGATE ITEMS ON BYPASSES AND OTHER TEMPORARY WORK SHALL BE TESTED BY THE QUALITY COMPACTION METHOD MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 2105 3F2 TEST ROLLING SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED ON THIS PROJECT THE BOTTOM OF ALL SUBCUTS SHALL BE SHAPED AND COMPACTED BY THE QUALITY COMPACTION METHOD THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE A MINIMUM OF 4 PASSES OF AN APPROVED COMPACTION DEVICE AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE FROM A SOILS STANDPOINT TRAFFIC LANES TO BE USED DURING CONSTRUCTION MUST BE DELINEATED TO KEEP VEHICLES A SAFE DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT EXCAVATION THE DELINEATION SHOULD COINCIDE WITH POINTS ESTABLISHED BY PROJECTING A 1(V) 2(H) OR GREATER (FLATTER) SLOPE BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE TRAFFIC SURFACE AND THE BOTTOM OF THE EXCAVATION WHERE CONNECTING TO THE INPLACE ROADWAYS AT THE TERMINI OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION CUT VERTICALLY TO THE BOTTOM OF THE INPLACE SURFACING OR TO THE BOTTOM OF THE NEW SURFACING WHICHEVER IS DEEPER THEN 1V 20H TO THE BOTTOM OF THE RECOMMENDED SUBGRADE EXCAVATION UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED PROVIDE 1V 20H LONGITUDINAL TAPERS BETWEEN CHANGES IN SUBGRADE AND SUBCUT DEPTHS DITCH BOTTOMS TOE OF FILL CUT RUNOUTS AND THE TOP EDGE OF THE BACKSLOPES SHALL BE ROUNDED REGARDLESS OF THE SECTION USED IN THE PLANS PROVIDE FOR A UNIFORM BITUMINOUS TACK COAT BETWEEN ALL BITUMINOUS COURSES THE TACK COAT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 2357 WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS 1 THE TACK COAT SHALL CONSIST OF EMULSIFIED ASPHALT (CSS-1 OR CSS-1H) AND SHALL BE APPLIED BETWEEN ALL BITUMINOUS COURSES 2 THE TACK COAT SHALL BE APPLIED AT A UNIFORM RATE OF 0 03 TO 0 05 GAL/SY BETWEEN BITUMINOUS LAYERS AND 0 07 TO 0 10 GAL/SY ON MILLED BITUMINOUS SURFACES PRIOR TO BEING OVERLAID STABILIZING AGGREGATE SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SUBGRADE TO ACHIEVE SATISFACTORY SURFACE STABILITY AT LOCATIONS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE ENGINEER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SPEC 2105 3G GRANULAR MATERIAL WHICH IS FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE STABILIZED IF NECESSARY AT THE CONTRACTOR S EXPENSE WHERE STABILIZING AGGREGATE IS DEEMED NECESSARY IT SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE OF APPROXIMATELY 200 LBS/SY PROVIDE A SAWCUT WHERE PLACING NEW PAVEMENT ADJACENT TO INPLACE PAVEMENT TO ENSURE A UNIFORM JOINT PROVIDE FOR THE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF ANY INPLACE SURFACING GUARDRAIL OTHER STRUCTURES OR DEBRIS THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH CONSTRUCTION ALL SUCH MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL EITHER BE RECYCLED TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED OR DISPOSED OF OFF THE PROJECT LIMITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPEC 2104 3C3 PROVIDE FOR SAW CUTTING AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE ENGINEER EXISTING BITUMINOUS SURFACES TO BE REMOVED ARE PAID FOR AS REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AND REMOVE BITUMINOUS WALK REGARDLESS OF BITUMINOUS DEPTH THE EXISTING PAVEMENT THICKNESSES ARE ASSUMED TO BE AS FOLLOWS (INFORMATION TAKEN FROM THE PROJECT SOIL BORINGS AND AS-BUILTS) 61st STREET NORTH - 5 BITUMINOUS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INVESTIGATE AND MAKE OWN DETERMINATION OF ACTUAL PAVEMENT DEPTHS AND TYPES TFMP(IRARY FROSTON CONTROI TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE PERFORMED ACCORDING TO PLAN AND SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING METHODS METHOD 1 APPLY TYPE 1 MULCH AND ANCHOR WITH DISK ANCHORING METHOD 2 APPLY TYPE 1 MULCH AND TACK IT WITH TYPE 1 HYDRAULIC SOIL STABILIZER METHOD 3 HYDRO SPREAD OF SEED FERTILIZER AND HYDRAULIC SOIL STABILIZER METHOD 4 HAND INSTALL SEED FERTILIZER AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET METHOD 5 PLACE GEOTEXTILE AND ROCK IN VARIOUS CONFIGURATIONS TURF ESTABLISHMENT PLACE A MINIMUM OF 6 OF SLOPE DRESSING ON ALL AREAS SCHEDULED FOR PERMANENT TURF ESTABLISHMENT SOD ALL AREAS ADJACENT TO RESIDENCES CITY OWNED BUILDINGS BUSINESSES OR SCHOOLS AND AREAS OF HEAVY DRAINAGE RUNOFF AS INDICATED IN THE TURF ESTABLISHMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND DETAILS SEEDING REQUIREMENTS ON THIS PROJECT ARE AS FOLLOWS A ON PERMANENT SLOPES FLATTER THAN 1 3 USE SEED MIXTURE 250 AND TYPE 1 MULCH WITH DISK ANCHOR SEE EROSION CONTROL AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT PLANS FOR SEED TYPE LOCATIONS B ON PERMANENT SLOPES 1 3 OR STEEPER USE SEED MIXTURE 250 AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET CATEGORY 3 DO NOT DISK ANCHOR C ON DESIGNATED AREAS IN AND AROUND WET PONDS USE SEED MIXTURE 310 (10 EITHER SIDE OF NWL) AND SEED MIXTURE 350 (1 FOOT ABOVE NWL TO SEED MIXTURE 250) USE TYPE 3 MULCH WITH DISK ANCHOR D PROVIDE COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER ANALYSIS 22-5-10 SLOW RELEASE TYPE OR EQUIVALENT ON ALL AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED USING SEED MIXTURE 250 ANALYSIS 18-1-18 FOR ALL SEEDED AREAS USING SEED MIXTURE 350 AND 310 AND ANALYSIS 10-10-20 FOR ALL SEEDED AREAS USING SEED MIXTURE 150 E RATES FOR SEED MULCH AND COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER ARE AS FOLLOWS - SEED MIXTURE 250 - 70 LBS/ACRE - SEED MIXTURE 310 - 82 LBS/ACRE - SEED MIXTURE 350 - 84 5 LBS/ACRE - SEED MIXTURE 150 - 40 LBS/ACRE - MULCH TYPE 1 - 2 TONS/ACRE - MULCH TYPE 3 - 2 TONS/ACRE - COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER 22-5-10 - 350 LBS/ACRE - COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER 18-1-8 - 150 LBS/ACRE - COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER 10-10-20 - 200 LBS/ACRE MTSCF11 ANFOIIS WHERE SEDIMENT DEPOSITS IN WATERS OF THE STATE THE MATERIAL MUST BE REMOVED IN 7 DAYS ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM AND BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AND PART VI FIELD MANUAL FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS THE CONTRACTOR IS HEREBY REMINDED OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY UNDER STATE LAW TO CONTACT ALL UTILITIES THAT MAY HAVE FACILITIES IN THE AREA CONTACT MUST BE MADE THROUGH GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL WHENEVER THE WORD INCIDENTAL IS USED IN THIS PLAN IT SHALL MEAN THIS WORK WILL BE INCIDENTAL FOR WHICH NO DIRECT COMPENSATION WILL BE MADE NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI—MU\Plan\5542 MDB I h by tlfy ill t thl pl p Ifl tlp ep t p Pp d by m nd my dl t p I I d th t l m a d ly LI ns d P f I 1 E q1 de th I0w f th State f MI to Print Name JACK D SULLIVAN Dote L Icense 42375 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J DAUER DESIGNED BY J DAUER CHECKED BY J SULLIVAN COMM NO 0055542 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY CONSTRUCTION/SOILS NOTES GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 3 OF 22 lIN THE FOLLOWING STANDARD PLATES APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION SHALL APPLY ON THIS PROJECT STANDARD PLATES PLATE NO DESCRIPTION 3000 L REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE 3006 G GASKET JOINT FOR R C PIPE 3145 F CONCRETE PIPE TIES 4010 H CONCRETE SHORT CONE & ADJUSTING RING 4020 J MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN FOR USE WITH OR WITHOUT TRAFFIC LOADS 4143 E STOOL GRATE & CONCRETE FRAME 5010 A REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE ENERGY DISSIPATOR 7036 F PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP 7100 H CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 8120 L POLE FOUNDATION 8121 D TRANSFORMER BASE AND POLE BASE PLATE 8122 D PEDESTAL AND PEDESTAL BASE 8123 E POLE AND MAST ARM 8124 E MAST ARM SIGNAL HEAD MOUNTS 8126 G POLE FOUNDATION CITY OF STILLWATER STANDARD DETAILS STANDARD DETAIL NO DESCRIPTION HYDTL1-11 HYDRANT (& GATE VALVE) INSTALLATION CBDTL3-21 TYPE X CATCH BASIN (RECTANGULAR) CBDTL4-23 CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION MHDTL3-31 STORM SEWER M H TYPE B (8-I) THRU G (G-I) ECDTL1-41 EROSION CONTROL SFDTL1-42 SILT FENCE -HEAVY DUTY UTILITY CONTACTS XCEL ENERGY - ELECTRICAL MR JEFF LEAN 3000 MAXWELL AVE NEWPORT MN 55055 (651) 779-3181 XCEL ENERGY - GAS MS OMEEDA RAHIM 825 RICE STREET ST PAUL MN 55117 (651) 229-2567 COMCAST - CABLE TV MR SCOTT RUPPERT 1238 GREY FOX ROAD ARDEN HILLS MN 55112 651-493-5127 QWEST - TELEPHONE MR DAN BEHR 390 COMMERCEDRIVE WOODBURY MN 55125 651-730-1365 NOTE! PROVIDE TYPE V GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BENEATH STONE TO PREVENT MIGRATION OF SOIL INTO THE STONE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT 3 DIA STONE 6 THICK ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PLAN VIEW ACCESS COM - FIBER OPTIC MS SARAH PARR MR JUSTIN ROGGENKAMP 5005 CHESHIRE LANE N SUITE 1 PLYMOUTH MN 55446-3719 (763)545-9998 O TACK COAT Adi AC SPEC 2357) li=, ' 1 COMPACTED SUBGRADE 2 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MNDOT SPEC 2360 MVWEB5035E 2 BITUMINOUS NON -WEARING COURSE MNDOT SPEC 2360 MVNWB5035E 8 AGG BASE CLASS 5 100/ CRUSHED MNDOT SPEC 2211 DETAIL A PARKING LOT D 2 TACK COAT 411111111t,MNDOT SPEC 2357) AW mwt l•����� 1 COMPACTED SUBGRADE 2 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE MNDOT SPEC 2360 MVWEB5035E 2 BITUMINOUS NON -WEARING COURSE MNDOT SPEC 2360 MVNWB5035E 2 BITUMINOUS NON -WEARING COURSE MNDOT SPEC 2360 MVNWB5035E 12 AGG BASE CLASS 5 100/ CRUSHED MNDOT SPEC 2211 DETAIL B 60TH STREET N FLOW B618 t FLOW MATCH MEDIAN CROSS SLOPE B618 �-- FLOW MEDIAN CUT PLAN 2 6 B618 8618 5 MEDIAN CUT ELEVATION VARIABLE 5 B618 SEE PLANS LIP OF GUTTER FLOWLINE TOP BACK OF CURB TOP OF CURB FLOWLINE SUBGRADE TOP OF CURB B618 CURB CUT/RIBBON CURB ELEVATION SUBGRADE FLOWLINE NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5542 MDA 1 h by tlfy th t thl pi D Ifl tl D t r s p pa ea by m d my al t p I I a th 1 m a d ly LI n a P of I I E pin d h I v f th St t f Wm t Print Name JACK D SULLIVAN Date License 42375 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J DAUER DESIGNED BY J DAUER CHECKED BY J SULLIVAN COMM NO 0055542 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 4 OF 22 I� fi t as -f' 2� ���.. }T �� f I_ r -, � L ��"�.:+a'a� � ®-s "ll.=• -_ g � n c�-,,�� �.�:�:. ,•.LY. r �.^c, > r"•- i' ®®� _• 's,. w'hA '... .+r =r`�, .§'I�.^" cr ir.?.a: mil ro" div- i'''sgd4co�_� _ +r✓'�'4. �'� .---� arrm-�'i`.r..�3¢ • I »e:. �c.Tfi = `a_+ ._.Y — _ 1�— ��'d � . - � • ♦ _ �_ 1 y'"�,� J►� "�'��"" sw-�v, 4'a'^. ""`G ��-c �-crm ��. r��ti 'vtfi" r` "" Y: n' r'' � 1 EX. TI G�' ...` - y .t `` 3a r "^' .� ® / �,�� � ::,.'a�-w,. �..° ,c:�..a�� � � ,.� pia "6- r. s. �1'- ;. +f ... �,w=ram._ .,.. - -� � �, cr:- $ ,� ..x�, � �; •,���,�,,, r-' .r �•--� aTrt'- � �;.a._.-- � .F., ��.'=�:i:��.,�.'='~ ' � ,l .i: 9.A l� 'fir a�i��ZZ'-�'�����+®�Grc+l�����i:i�t�..®r�� _ �'�m._.•�_ � _®.��Z� TX ^ e3 1 Yr W C. 61 ST, ST Ems¢ '-r�� m `5 s ' u� x-a LEGEND LEGEND PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION EXISTING CABLE GUARDRAIL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER l = = = -I EXISTING CULVERT EXISTING WATER MAIN - T-BUR - EXISTING BURIED TELEPHONE LINE - TV -BUR - EXISTING BURIED TELEVISION LINE - OH -TV - EXISTING OVERHEAD TELEVISION LINE O H- P W R EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINE — F / 0 — EXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINE - OH -F 0 - EXISTING OVERHEAD FIBER OPTIC LINE EXISTING GAS LINE SOIL BORING NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5542 TPA I he by tlfy th t thls pl p Ifl atlo , t rh tpI am 00 ly LI 00P fe sll ItE al0 by m my n 1 I d th la f th S a e f MI to Pr Int Name JACK D SULL IVAN Date License 42375 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J DAUER DESIGNED BY J DAUER CHECKED BY J SULLIVAN COMM NO 0055542 0.11 CONSULTING GROUP, INC ,rug Oi 41° 411111_ 880 87 87 WASHINGTON COUNTY IN PLACE TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITY PLANS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 5 OF 22 1, a 2 5 a 2 mo0 m m�L wawa — tom x v 30 0 30 scale feet OH—p » 1) 0 0 L 0 0 0 Li 0 —BUR-0 » » 0 » WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER » » » LEGEND REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REMOVE CONCRETE SIDEWALK CLEAR AND GRUB ACRE XCLEAR AND GRUB TREE SI '.0.:1 , ,. 1* 1 , - t,A4._....... t ,t..; ., 4,.,, 1 AV 1 001 •.�� G it w—>:I #1V' $ lk AL » ATTEMPT TO SAVE TREES THROUGH ON -SITE GRADING 0 V 0 OH— T » » NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI—MU\Plan\5542 RPA 1 he by tlfy th t this pl p Ifl tlo po t wD 0 C by m c r y of t s p II a hot 1 m a ly LI n OP f I n I E pi o th I w f th St t f Nine t Print Name JACK D SULLIVAN Date License 42375 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J DAUER DESIGNED BY J DAUER CHECKED BY J SULLIVAN COMM NO 0055542 WTI CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY REMOVAL PLANS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 6 OF 22 LEGEND 2 000 NO-+ 0 L 01.00. 30 0 eoale 30 feet CL 0 LLJ 0 0 0 rx co x 0— rtC IC co C > CC 0 J 1— I 0 a 0 J OH-P -> OH V G-BUR-6AH • WR OH —TV 0 _J 0 0 0 T BURS) 0 0 * 0 0 4 U WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER B co Ei 0 0 T BUR 0 A PRFSSI J I `64 IOW (>41 0 ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING 2O REMOVE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 0 REMOVE STORM SEWER II » » 0 REMOVE WATER MAIN O RELOCATE HYDRANT © ADJUST GATE VALVE REMOVE STORM SEWER/WATERMAIN ® ® EXISTING CABLE GUARDRAIL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATER MAIN — T-BUR — EXISTING BURIED TELEPHONE LINE - TV -BUR EXISTING BURIED TELEVISION LINE — OH —TV — EXISTING OVERHEAD TELEVISION LINE O H— P W R EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINE — F / O — EXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINE — OH —F 0 — EXISTING OVERHEAD FIBER OPTIC LINE G EXISTING GAS LINE 1 L 0 0 0 771— T GENERAL NOTES: 1 EXISTING UTILITES SHOWN IN THIS PLAN SET ARE SHOWN AS QUALITY LEVEL D FROM ASCE GUIDELINE 38-2 2 CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL FOR UTILIITY LOCATES 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION 3 COORDINATE ALL PRIVATE UTILITY RELOCATIONS OR REMOVALS WITH UTILITY OWNER NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION I h by e tlfy th t thl pre p Ifl t1 p t p p o by m u 0 my 01 t p 1 1 d th t i m 0 0 ly LI 0 P f I 1 E pin o th I f th Si t f NI sot Print Nome JACK D SULLIVAN L Icense 42375 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J DAUER DESIGNED BY J DAUER CHECKED BY J SULLIVAN COMM NO 0055542 pli CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY REMOVAL PLANS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 7 OF 22 0' \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5542 RPB Dote X 30 0 30 eoale feet C -1 Z OXBORO AVE B618� 16 2 4 5,, RA < < \C 4 < < r f r n k 12 5 R t 4,5<4t, B1.6 < > > 5">.R \� \n Av Bf18 > >* Y WEST BIORETENT110N AREA 1 gin\ Y r B618 1 4 >/< Xt{^, n v~ < 2 14 { „ {\ 20, \<\1> 8, \<� 4 n < is -9> 'TYP �I ;< > <> > L 9 T '< < v < Z gj < / • </k Y r ��k� Y} <> \ »>� <'X<T\XX<> < > BE18 I �J 7 5 R rix / �xxT < <v, )\ < Y 9 ^ Y\ l <> �. 4 <�\c> < >. / / / //// ///� /, ��TT' it / 28' / // / 1- T nv" > ,\ 1' / 4 < X. < 4 / v '4 < r Xv\K> < 2-4,1 L v EXISTIN/ / G 13/W//// / / //l CONCRETE WALK 1 V L J WASHINGTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 11 J SOR J B618 20 8 12/1�2 � ' < < �x'�> �"s< X � A\\ lr 1 �� A/ txlY �9 T \ > hrY���Yr { 2 12 / 12 `,17t' r v ✓ "YIv 1\ >\ >/> x ^yam\�w/ l\ "K^9^ Y / /7 ^ k 2 2 T > 24 <5�Y�>,<y < �4x '` �✓ '4, " " / A < \\<>�xn v�<v^`/ i v /� 24' > 4. < <�> /'k> , 1" SD P j*h o ' 9 /, \/nkli:':C› )4::)i]'21 a. / 4' N V >J Z PANAMA AVE LEGEND F� DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC < — SANITARY SEWER — « — STORM SEWER WATER MAIN 111. PARKING LOT PAVEMENT V7/1 SERVICE DRIVE PAVEMENT PARKING TOTAL PARKING STALLS = 503 WHICH INCLUDES 228 EXISTING STALLS 15 EXISTING HANICAP STALLS 5 EXISTING STALL REMOVALS 258 PROPOSED STALLS 7 PROPOSED HANDICAP STALLS 9 B618 EAST BIORETENTION AREA GENERAL NOTES 1 ALL DIMENSIONS AT FACE OF CURB 2 SEE SHEET 4 FOR PAVEMENT INSETS NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5542 CPA 1 h by c illy that this PI p cltic tl ep t p p d by m nd my dl t s p 110 d th t 1 am d ly LI d P f ssl I E al 0 th law f th St t of MI t Print Name JACK D SULLIVAN Date License 42375 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J DAUER DESIGNED BY J DAUER CHECKED BY J SULLIVAN COMM NO 0055542 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY SITE PLANS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 8 OF 22 11 30 0 30 aoole feet / rI .% / u - 88 /i / r8B4 i( V j �2\-c;;;;; _______ ___ ,_,---, / �_/ / �v \ \ \ \� \ J I / - r - J' 7 cc - T @86 B8 / 8e8i `r )11 1 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT —7 - d COUNTY CENTER A �\/ l J 1 V —069------ —` _1 m. =$9 899 J ,3g- ` BBS 8g6 LEGEND DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE EXISTING STORM SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER — < PROPOSED 6 DRAINTILE — - - - EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY EXISTING CONTOURS PROPOSED CONTOURS CONSTRUCT MANHOLE OVER EXISTING STORM SEWER 6 PERFORATED SUBDRAIN WITH GEOTEXTILE SOCK AT 0 5/ MINIMUM SLOPE SEE BIORETENTION TYPICAL SECTION ON SHEET 17 FOR VERTICAL PLACEMENT OC CONSTRUCT BULKHEAD l i\ \\ I I I ' }\ \ \\\ \ �� / I I \ \ \\ \ \ �' I \ \ \ \\ \\\\\ \ } / 1 \ \ \ \ \ `,. I / / / r ! I I-- // / 4 i ::-=.17---------4,----i'-e , ro — -1 \ `\ \ L _ } L \ \ �` I ,(�Lf r. — } \ \\\ L ,nti 0� — \ / Lr 0,A \ I cO \ 1 cc' I f / \\\ ._._- " —B8J �� --- �- /1 \ \ _ — ___ .--- 887 885 88&8 f ' ' B Jf i ` i - 84 -- 88 `! 884 — r ` ! BB -� ti / �` / 7s79 0� \\ — 7IS�C— ABC— __ __ — _`�_ `- _f_:____fi=tl_:±--_:__:—r-7:__-E--I--_::t_:— -— _�— 8V _ —_-7 —___-- i r / r , / _ GENERAL NOTESa / / / i 77 C ` ; r 1 SPOT ELEVATIONS GIVEN AT CURB ARE FLOW LINE ELEVATIONS �— c1 �— -- — _ — ` _ � ` » _ 2 T C STANDS FOR TOP OF CASTING NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5542 DRA I he by tlfy th i this pi p Ifl tl n 0 p t WO p pa d by In d my dl t p I I d th t l m O d ly LI d P of I n I E of d th I w of th St t f MI to Print Name WALTER C ESHENAUR Date L Icense 40929 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J NIELSEN DESIGNED BY J NIELSEN CHECKED BY W ESHENAUR COMM NO 0055542 pll CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 9 OF 22 L, Water RAsnurces Construction Notes The following notes provide Information regarding critical Information for the water resources features proposed for this project Drainage systems shall be constructed according to the accompanying specifications construction plans the SWPPP and as directed by the engineer of record The design is based on right of way topography and utility information provided by Washington County Prior to construction the contractor shall verify elevations locations and potential utility conflicts and elevations of storm sewer connections Report discrepancies Immediately to the owner or engineer of record See SWPPP for additional environmental permit requirements 1 The proposed drainage systems are based on the following guiding documents MPCA NPDES Phase II General Storm Water Rules Middle St Croix Watershed Management Organization Rules City of Stillwater construction speclflcations and standard plates Mn/DOT drainage manual 2 Applicable construction permits MPCA NPDES Phase II General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activities City of Stillwater Mn/DOT Permit to Construct on Right of Way 3 Special features included In these plans a Bioretention Areas Bloretention areas function as both storm water quality and volume control Skimming is provided by the drop inlets See Sheet 17 for bioretention area construction details Compaction of in-sltu soils and engineered backf111 must follow specifications b MH 103 An energy dissipator will be installed Immediately upstream of MH 103 to provide rate control to meet city Mn/DOT and WMO requirements 4 During plant establishment in the Bloretention areas temporary erosion control measures (rock log or engineer approved equal) shall be placed along the full length of all curb cuts and ribbon curb draining to the Bloretention areas The Intent of these temporary control measures is to cause as much water as possible to pond up and bypass the bioretention areas by flowing to the CB In Oxboro on the west and MH 103 on the east Rock logs shall be placed on the pavement as close to the edge as possible In addition the casting on MH 103 shall have an open grate Ild during the plant establishment period All temporary erosion control devices shall be removed and a solid lid placed on MH 103 one year after final acceptance of plant materials or as directed by the engineer FLOWS FROM STRUCTURE LOCATION (A) COORDINATES FLOWS TO DRAINAGE TABULATION STR STR NEW STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION RC PIPE SEWER (DESIGN 3006) 30 CL IICASTING TOP OF UP STREAM PIPE INVERT DOWN STREAM PIPE INVERT LENGTH INCLUDES FOOTNOTES DESIGN (B) PAY HEIGHT CASTING ASSEMBLY (C) STEPS RE- QUIRED X Y POINT NO POINT NO LIN FT TYPE L F 100 507412 842 205960 554 101 C 5 0 M-11 Y 300 885 00 880 00 878 80 (E) 101 507712 797 205959 573 102 C 8 8 R-1733 Y 235 887 46 878 80 877 86 102 507957 777 205958 772 103 C 5 2 M-11 Y 30 883 00 877 86 877 74 (D) (E) 103 507987 529 205958 926 C 6 9 R-1733 Y 884 10 (F) (H) 104 507730 461 206159 972 X 4 7 R-3067 889 92 (G) TOTAL 19 0 565 (A) STRUCTURE LOCATION IS TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE HOLE IN TOP SLAB OF EACH STRUCTURE SHOULD BE ROTATED TO THE NORTH (B) STRUCTURE DESIGN IS PER CITY OF STILLWATER STANDARD DRAWINGS NO 21 CATCH BASIN DETAIL CBDTL3 AND NO 31 STORM SEWER MANHOLE DETAIL MHDTL3 (C) M-11 CASTING IS MN/DOT CASTING NO 731 AND CONCRETE FRAME PER MN/DOT STANDARD PLATE 4143 R-1733 AND R-3067 ARE NEENAH FOUNDRY COMPANY CASTINGS OR APPROVED EQUAL PER CITY OF STILLWATER STANDARD DRAWINGS NO 21 AND NO 31 (D) REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE ENERGY DISSIPATOR (TYPE II) PER MNDOT STANDARD PLATE 5010 SHALL BE INSTALLED AT DOWNSTREAM END OF PIPE OUTSIDE OF MH 103 PIPE SEGMENTS UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM OF ENERGY DISSIPATOR SHALL BE TIED PER STANDARD PLATE A 3 FOOT LENGTH OF PIPE SHALL BE USED DOWNSTREAM OF ENERGY DISSIPATOR WHICH SHALL BE CONNECTED TO MH 103 ENERGY DISSIPATOR IS INCIDENTAL TO PIPE INSTALLATION (E) CONNECT TO 6 PERFORATED PE DRAIN TILE FROM BIORETENTION AREA (F) BUILD STRUCTURE OVER EXISTING 36 RCP PIPE EXISTING INVERT = 877 32 (FIELD VERIFY) (G) CONNECT TO EXISTING 10 RCP PIPE EXISTING INVERT = 885 50 (FIELD VERIFY) (H) CASTING SHALL BE NEENAH FOUNDRY COMPANY R-2573 WITH TYPE C GRATE OR ENGINEER APPROVED EQUAL DURING PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD (SEE WATER RESOURCES NOTES) NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5542 DRB I h by Ify tho thl pl p (float! Po 1 r S p pa d by m o d my al t p I I d th t I m o d ly LI n d P f I of E gin d th I r of th Stot of MI n to Print Name WALTER C ESHENAUR Date L lcense 40929 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J NIELSEN DESIGNED BY J NIELSEN CHECKED BY W ESHENAUR COMM NO 0055542 VICONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY DRAINAGE NOTES AND TAB GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 10 OF 22 J 0- O D 884 j8 83--$82— / 84 \ \ 882• 881 • 88 NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI—MU\Plan\5542 TEA • • J > 887 88887-886 885 883 882 • •• 1 h by a Illy that thl pl p till I n po t w s p p d ay m d my dl act p I Io o d th 1 m d ly LI d P f I I E al d th I w f th Stot of MI n t Print Name JACK D SULLIVAN Date License 42375 884 881 HD COUNTY PROJECT NO 883 B82• 885 A 9091 88 884 B83 • HD DRAWN BY J DAUER DESIGNED BY J DAUER CHECKED BY J SULLIVAN COMM NO 0055542 SRF 88588 CONSULTING GROUP, INC v v v I - HD t----- G LEGEND HEAVY DUTY SILT FENCE DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE EXISTING STORM SEWER G PROPOSED STORM SEWER — < — PROPOSED 6 DRAINTILE - - - — EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY 0 o EXISTING CABLE GUARDRAIL SOD - TYPE SALT RESISTANT PER MN/DOT 3878 SCOURSTOP TURF EROSION CONTROL MAT ® ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE • • • • • FILTER LOG - TYPE COMPOST LOG ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ FILTER LOG - TYPE ROCK LOG O STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION v WASHINGTON COUNTY EROSION CONTROL AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT PLANS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 11 OF 22 4 Y1 NC O a N N m 4 0 NO m'L NWM - d o-' .ex PLANT SPECIES LEGENQ TREES AND SHRUBS AF Aoer freemmll x Autun Blaze AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE AM Aronla me/onooarpo Autumn AUTUMN MAGIC CHOKEBERRY BN Betulo n/Ora RIVER BIRCH CA Clet/ra a/n/follo Hurminoblyd HUMMINGBIRD SUMNERSWEET CF Corflus serloeo Bud s Ye//oe YELLOW TWIG DOGWOOD CG Crvtoepue onus pall lnermle THORNLESS COCKSPUR HAWTHORNE CI Cornue Barlow Iemtl ISANTI DOGWOOD COA Carpus olternafo/lo PAGODA DOGWOOD DL D/ervllla lmlcera DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE HA Hydrangea arborescens Annabelle ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA IL Ilex ertic//ote Sparkelberry ■INTERBERRY PT Populus tremuloldes QUAKING ASPEN RK Rosa Knockout KNOCKOUT ROSE TC TIllo cordata Redmond REDMOND LINDEN VD Viburnum dentatun Blue Muffin BLUE MUFFIN VIBURNUM VT Viburnum trllobum HIGHBUSH CRANBERRY HERBACEOUS PLANTS ANC Anemone ocnadens/s CANADA ANEMONE AQC Awlleplo cmodensls COLUMBINE AGF Adosto0Jme foes/culun FRAGRANT GIANT HYSSOP AI Asclep/as Incorndto MARSH MILKWEED CAK Calanogrostls acutlfloro Karl Foerster KARL FOERSTER REED GRASS EPE Eupotorlun perfollotus BONESET IV Irle erslcolor NORTHERN BLUE FLAG PO Physlteplo vIrolnldna OBEDIENT PLANT ST Splroeo tomentosd STEEPLEBUSH AN Aster novae-angllae Puple PURPLE DOME ASTER ECP Echlnoeea purpurea Klm s Knee KIM S KNEE HIGH PURPLE ELJ Elpatorlus purpu'eue Little LITTLE JOE EUPATORIUM HHR Hemsroco//ls Happy Returns HAPPY RETURNS DAYLILY HS Hemerooal/ls Stella 0 Oro STELLA D ORO DAYLILY IS Iris slblrlco Caesar s Brother SIBERIAN IRIS LS Cabello elphlllticd GREAT BLUE LOBELIA LSK L/otrls splcoto Kobold BLAZINGSTAR PA Perovskla otrlp/loollo Little LITTLE SPIRE RUSSIAN SAGE PO Physlteplo v/rolnlano OBEDIENT PLANT RG Rudbeokla Go/dstu-m GOLDSTURM BLACK EYED SUSAN x CD O A NJ 44 AGF \ %35 \ PO i 30 0 30 NM= MN scale feet 17 \ E L JJ PE 11 DL 35 �HHR NOTES' 1 CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE THE LAYOUT OF ALL PLANTS AND PERENNIAL BEDS AND HAVE SUCH STAKING APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION 2 REPORT ALL LAYOUT DISCREPENCIES IMMEDIATELY TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR DIRECTION PRIOR TO PROCEEDING 3 SEE SHEET NO 16 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULE 4 SEE SHEETS NO 14 -16 FOR PLANTING DETAILS LEGENQ O DECIDUOUS Op0 SHRUB MASSING CANOPY TREE 000 ORNAMENTAL GRASS CD NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5542 LSA 1 h by c tlfy th t thl pia D III atl p t th tp1 m D dd Y LI d L d y pl A Chlt ct II ad a th I s f th Stct f MI t Print Name JONI L GIESE Date L Icense 26993 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY S JERGENS DESIGNED BY S JERGENS CHECKED BY J GIESE COMM NO 0055542 plCONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDSCAPING PLANS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 12 OF 22 • PLANT SPECIES LEGENQ TREES AND SHRUBS AF Aoer freemdnll x Autumn Blase AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE AM Arcola melanocarpo Autumn AUTUMN MAGIC CHOKEBERRY BN Betula nlgra RIVER BIRCH CA C/et/ro alnlfollo Hummingbird HUMMINGBIRD SUMMERSWEET CF Corms serloea Bud s Yellow YELLOW TWIG DOGWOOD CG Crutoegue ores gall lnermis THORNLESS COCKSPUR HAWTHORNE CI Corpus series° Monti ISANTI DOGWOOD COA Cornus olternofollo PAGODA DOGWOOD DL Dlervllla lonlcera DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE HA Hydrangea arboresoens Annabelle ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA IL Ilex ertlatlet° Spa-ice/berry ■INTERBERRY PT Populus tremuloldes QUAKING ASPEN RK Rosa Knockout KNOCKOUT ROSE TC Till° cordate Redmond REDMOND LINDEN VD Viburnum dentotun Blue Muffin BLUE MUFFIN VIBURNUM VT Viburnum trllobum HIGHBUSH CRANBERRY HERBACEOUS PLANTS ANC Anemone canadene/s CANADA ANEMONE AOC Aaulleglo cenrodensis COLUMBINE AGF Agastache foeniculue FRAGRANT GIANT HYSSOP AI Asoleplas Incarnate MARSH MILKWEED CAK Calanogrost/s ocut/floro Karl Foerster KARL FOERSTER REED GRASS EPE Eupotorltm perfol lotus BONESET IV Iris erslcolor NORTHERN BLUE FLAG PO Pnyslteglo vlrglniona OBEDIENT PLANT ST Sp lroea tomentosa STEEPLEBUSH AN Aster novae enrollee Purple PURPLE DOME ASTER ECP Eon/pace° puprreo Kim s Knee KIM 5 KNEE HIGH PURPLE ELJ Eupotorlun pupu-eum Little LITTLE JOE EUPATORIUM HHR Hemerocallls Nappy Returns HAPPY RETURNS DAYLILY HS Hemerocellls Stella D Oro STELLA D ORO DAYLILY IS Iris slblr1C0 Caesar s Brother SIBERIAN IRIS LS Lobelia elphlllt/co GREAT BLUE LOBELIA LSK Llofrls select° Kobald BLAZ INGSTAR PA Pero skla °triplioollo L/Vtle LITTLE SPIRE RUSSIAN SAGE PO Physitegl0 vlrglnlana OBEDIENT PLANT RG Rudbecklo Goldstumm GOLOSTURM BLACK EYED SUSAN LEGEND 0 DECIDUOUS Coo SHRUB MASSING CANOPY TREE 4111 VAC ORNAMENTAL TREE ) PERENNIALS CLUMP MULTI -STEM TREE 00o ORNAMENTAL GRASS NOTES 1 ALL GENERAL NOTES FROM SHEET 14 SHALL APPLY 2 CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE THE LAYOUT OF ALL PLANTS AND PERENNIAL BEDS AND HAVE SUCH STAKING APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION 3 REPORT ALL LAYOUT DISCREPENCIES IMMEDIATELY TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR DIRECTION PRIOR TO PROCEEDING 4 SEE SHEET16 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULE 5 SEE SHEET14 FOR PLANTING DETAILS �CA (DAF 42 HHR / 1 � 30 0 scale X 30 feet NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\PIan\5542 LSB I h by If th t thl pl p CIfI otl p 1 w S p p d by me d my dirt p II 0 d h t l 0m 0 d ly LI n d L d p A hit 1 d th lows of 1h St 1 f MI t Print Name JONI L GIESE Date License 26993 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY S JERGENS DESIGNED BY S JERGENS CHECKED BY J GIESE COMM NO 0055542 RACONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDSCAPING PLANS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 13 OF 22 • • SUBSIDENCE OR DETERIORATION OF MULCH THROUGHOUT THE CONTRACT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE MULCH DEPTH IS MAINTAINED AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3 INCHES AT ALL TIMES AND UPON FINAL ACCEPTANCE REPLACEMENT MULCH SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM MULCH DEPTH SPECIFIED WHEN SUBSIDENCE OR LOSS IS EXCESSIVE OR WHEN THE CONTRACTOR S OPERATIONS HAVE CONTAMINATED THE MULCH WITH SOIL TYPE OF PLANT X CENTER OF PLANT TO MULCH LINE X1 EDGE OF BRANCHING TO MULCH LINE Y DEPTH OF MULCH MIN MAX Z DEPTH OF MULCH MIN MAX EVERGREEN TREES VARIES 3 MIN 4 6 4 6 DECIDUOUS TREES 3 MIN N/A 4 6 4 6 EVERGREEN SHRUBS VARIES 3 MIN 3 4 4 6 DECIDUOUS SHRUBS 3 MIN N/A 4 6 4 6 VINES 2 MIN N/A 4 6 4 6 GROUNDCOVERS AND PERENNIALS VARIES 2 MIN 3 4 3 4 MACHINE -TRANSPLANTED TREES 12 BEYOND EDGE OF HOLE 4 6 4 6 NOTE REMOVE MULCH PLACED TO A DEPTH GREATER THAN THAT SPECIFIED WHEN DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MULCH PLACEMENT DETAIL NOTES: ON CENTER SPACING AS SHOWN ON PLAN WIDTH OF HOLE EXCAVATION SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES BEYOND THE PLANTS ROOT SYSTEM PREPARED PLANTING BED AND BACKFILL SOIL (THOROUGHLY TILLED AND LOOSENED) 3 DEPTH WATERING BASIN 3 MNDOT TYPE 6 SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH FINISHED GRADE GEOTEXTILE WEED BARRIER FABRIC 1 REMOVE CONTAINER AND SCORE OR PRUNE OUTSIDE OF SOIL MASS TO REDIRECT CIRCLING FIBROUS ROOTS AS NECESSARY 2 SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL AT THE SAME DEPTH (IF PROPER) AS IT WAS GROWN IN THE NURSERY 3 APPLY WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS THEN CONSTRUCT 3 DEPTH WATERING BASIN 4 WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS 5 PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE PLANTING DETAIL FOR MASS PLANTING BEDS 3 X BALL DIAMETER ROOT FLARE BACKFILL SOIL MULCH PLANTING HOLE UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL BALLED & BURLAPPED STOCK 1 SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE 2 ONLY PRUNE BRANCHES IF BROKEN DURING INSTALLATION 3 SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL INSTALL PLANT SO THE BOTTOM OF THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE 4 PLACE PLANT IN PLANTING HOLE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET (IF USED) INTACT BACKFILL WITH THE BACKFILL SOIL SPECIFIED TO WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12 OF THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL THEN WATER PLANT REMOVE THE TOP 1/2 OF THE WIRE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS WHICHEVER IS GREATER ALSO REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM THE TOP 1/2 OF THE BALL REMOVE ALL TWINE 5 PLUMB TREE TRUNK AND BACKFILL WITH THE BACKFILL SOIL SPECIFIED 6 WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS 7 WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS 8 PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE CLEAR MULCH 3 FROM TREE TRUNK ROOT FLAR BOTTOM OF ROOT FLARE 3 X BALL DIAMETER FINISHED GRADE CONTAINER STOCK 1 MAINTAIN MOIST ROOTS UNTIL PLANTING 2 SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE 3 ONLY PRUNE BRANCHES IF BROKEN DURING INSTALLATION 4 SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL INSTALL PLANT SO THE BOTTOM OF THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE SPREAD ROOTS OUT EVENLY 5 PLUMB TRUNK AND IMMEDIATELY BACKFILL WITH THE BACKFILL SOIL SPECIFIED 6 WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS 7 WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS 8 PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE CLEAR MULCH 3 FROM TREE TRUNK PLANTING DETAILS FOR ISOLATED PLANTING LOCATIONS GRAFTED TREE TRUNK/STEM GRAFT UNION (T-BUD) SWELLING ADVENTITOUS ROOTS (MAY BE VISIBLE) FINISHED SOIL ELEVATION MAIN ORDER) LATERAL ROOTS FINE FEEDER ROOTS NOTES TREE 1 INSTALL PLANTS PLUMB AND SO AFTER BACKFILLING THE BOTTOM OF THE ROOT FLARE (TREES) IS OUT OF THE SOIL ELEVATION PLANTING DEPTH DETAIL ROOT FLARE GENERAL NOTES PLANTING HOLE AND BED CULTIVATION SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC PROJECT REQUIREMENTS THE PLANTING DETAILS REPRESENT ADEQUATELY DRAINED SOIL CONDITIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD EXERCISE DISCRETION IN SETTING PLANTS 1 -3 HIGHER IN POORLY DRAINED SOILS THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ADEQUATE DRAINAGE IN HEAVY POORLY DRAINED OR IMPERVIOUS SOILS LOOSEN ALL ISOLATED TREE PLANTING LOCATIONS AND PLANTING BEDS TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 8' SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE APPLIED DURING CULTIVATION BACKFILL SOIL USE CULTIVATED AND AMENDED SOIL EXCAVATED FROM PLANTING HOLES REMOVE ALL DEBRIS INCLUDING ROCKS LARGER THAN 3 DIA. FERTILIZER X NONE — MNDOT 3881 COMPOST NONE Mn'DOT 3890 - APPLIES TO TREES ONLY MULCH MATERIAL MASS PLANTING MrvDOT 3882 TYPE 6 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED MASS PREPARE PLANT SPACING OF 12 OR LESS PLANT IN STAGGERED ROWS ON THE PERIMETER FIRST THEN UNIFORMLY FILL IN WITH REMAINING QUANTITY USE TRIANGULAR SPACING UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE PROVIDE 5 RADIUS CLEAR OF SHRUBS AROUND EACH DECIDUOUS TREE AND 8' RADIUS AROUND EACH EVERGREEN TREE THIS RADIUS (CLEARANCE) SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE CENTER OF THE TREE TO THE CENTER OF THE SHRUB NOTIFY ENGINEER OF GROSS PLANT QUANTITIY SURPLUS OR DEFICIENCY IMMEDIATLEY MASS MULCH PLANT SPACINGS OF 10 OR LESS PLANTING RESPECT STATED DIMENSIONS BEFORE SCALING PLAN FROM PLAN WATERING GUIDEUNES PLANT TYPE BALLED & BURLAPPED TREES BARE ROOT OR CONTAINER SHRUBS PERENNIALS AND VINES AVERAGE AMOUNT OF WATER PER APPLICATION GALLONS 20 7 3 IT IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO MONITOR AND MAINTAIN SOIL MOISTURE AT ADEQUATE BUT NOT EXCESSIVE LEVELS THE ABOVE LISTED APPLICATION AMOUNTS ARE GUIDEUNES NOT REQUIREMENTS N0 DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5542 LDA I h by tlfy th t thI pl p If! I p t ra D p o by m o 0 my dl t p II 0 that 1 m 0 ly LI 0 L d p A hli ct 0 th I f th St t f MI to Print Name JONI L GIESE Date L Icense 26993 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY 5 JERGENS DESIGNED BY S JERGENS CHECKED BY J GIESE COMM NO 0055542 pli CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDSCAPE PLANTING DETAILS GOVERNMENT CENTER SHEET 14 OF 22 NOTES 1 BARE ROOT PERENNIALS MUST BE INSTALLED IN THE SPRING BY JUNE 1ST IF PLANTING IN FALL FOLLOW FALL DECIDUOUS PLANTING DATES 2 ACTUAL DATES MAY CHANGE DEPENDING UPON SEASONAL CONDITIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER 3 FALL PLANTING MAY NOT BE RECOMMENDED OR ALLOWED SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC PROJECT REQUIREMENTS THE FOLLOWING BARE ROOT PLANTS ARE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FALL INSTALLATION HAWTHORN RUSSIAN OUVE DOGWOOD POPLAR HACKBERRY LINDEN IRONWOOD HONEYLOCUST BIRCH MOUNTAIN ASH MAPLE WILLOW CRABAPPLE PLUMCHERRY OAKS AND SUMAC SPRING • INDICATES PROJECT LOCATION FALL PERENNIALS CONIFEROUS DECIDUOUS SEEDLINGS DECIDUOUS CONIFEROUS 1 1111 MAY 1 TO JUNE 15 APRIL 21 TO JUNE 1 APRIL 21 TO JUNE 1 APRIL 21 TO JUNE 1 OCT 1 TO NOV 1 AUG 25 TO SEPT 15 2 MAY 1 TO JUNE 15 APRIL 7 TO MAY 17 APRIL 7 TO JUNE 1 APRIL 7 TO MAY 17 OCT 10 TO NOV 15 AUG 25 TO SEPT 15 OPTIMUM PLANTING DATE ZONES IN MINNESOTA OUEOEC DEAD BRANCH B A BRANCH COLLAR HARDWOODS 1 CUT PART WAY THROUGH THE BRANCH AT POINT A 2. CUT COMPLETELY THROUGH BRANCH FROM POINT B TO A 3 CUT FROM POINT C TO D IF D IS HARD TO FIND DROP A PLUMB LINE VERTICALLY DOWN TO POINT X THE ANGLE X-C-0 SHOULD BE APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO X-C-E PRUNING NOTES 1 LEAVE BRANCH COLLAR IC TO D) 2 DO NOT FLUSH CUT IC TO X) 3 DO NOT LEAVE STUBS (B TO A) 4 BEST TIME TO PRUNE IS LATE DORMANT SEASON OR EARLY SPRING 5 AVOID PRUNING OAKS IN APRIL MAY JUNE OR JULY 6 IMMEDIATELY PAINT OAK WOUNDS MADE IN APRIL MAY JUNE OR JULY WITH LATEX PAINT OR SHELLAC ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4 I I I I I 1 V/////.I SOME CONIFERS A D DROP CROTCH OR CUTTING BACK DROP CROTCH PRUNING IS USED FOR REDUCING THE HEIGHT OR LENGTH OF MAIN STEMS OR BRANCHES BY CUTTING BACK TO A LARGE LATERAL BRANCH PRUNING DETAILS (Shigo Method) BELOW -50 F -50 to -40 -40 to -30 -30 to -20 ALL PLANT STOCK SHALL BE DEEMED ACCEPTABLE FOR HARDINESS IF IT IS HARDY TO THE MINNESOTA ZONE WHERE THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AND 1) PLANT STOCK CAN BE DOCUMENTED AS CONTINUOUSLY GROWN FOR AT LEAST THE LAST TWO YEARS WITHIN THE ACCEPTABLE UMITS SHOWN ON THE ACCEPTABLE PLANT STOCK GROWING RANGE LIMITS OR 2) PLANT STOCK, IF GROWN OUTSIDE THE ACCEPTABLE GROWING RANGE LIMITS CAN BE DOCUMENTED AS HAVING THE SEED SOURCE AND ROOT AND GRAFT STOCK ORIGINATING FROM WITHIN THE ACCEPTABLE GROWING RANGE UMITS ACCEPTABLE PLANT STOCK GROWING RANGE LIMITS SOURCE USDA PLANT HARDINESS ZONE MAP EDGE CONDITION VARIES INCORRECT CUT (TOO CLOSE) RESULTING IN DISCONTINUOUS CALLUS FORMATION AFTER ONE SEASON OF GROWTH CORRECT CUT (LEAVING BRANCH COLLAR BUT NO STUB) RESULTING IN CONTINUOUS DOUGHNUT SHAPED CALLUS FORMATION AFTER ONE SEASON OF GROWTH CORRECT TOO PRUNING CLOSE CUT TOO LONG TOO SLANTED PRUNING SMALL BRANCHES BRANCHES SMALLERTHEN 2' IN DIAMETER SHOULD BE CUT JUST BEYOND A LATERAL BUD OR ANOTHER SMALL LATERAL BRANCH THE IDEAL CUT SHOULD BE SHARP CLEAN AND MADE ON A SLIGHT ANGLE MULCH - 1 BELOW TOP OF ADJACENT CURB OR FINAL GRADE 8 PREMIUM TOPSOIL BORROW 4" LOOSENED BACKFILL SOIL OR EXISTING SUBGRADE BACKFILL SOIL OR EXISTING SUBGRADE NOTE APPLIES TO ISLANDS AT END OF PARKING LOT AISLES SEE DETAIL SHEET NO 17 FOR BIORETENTION BASIN SOIL PROFILE MASS PLANTING BED SOIL DETAIL NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION l h r Dy c tliy th t this pia D Ifl tlo p t asp p o Dy m O U oe my GI e t D II a th t 1 m a ly LI E L a Op A chit ct a th laws f th 5tat Of MI t Print Name JONI L GIESE L ICense 26993 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY S JERGENS DESIGNED BY 5 JERGENS CHECKED BY J GIESE COMM NO 0055542 RIR CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDSCAPE PLANTING DETAILS GOVERNMENT CENTER SHEET 15 OF 22 \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5542 LDB Date • TREE STAKING DETAIL 7 ROLLED STEEL POST (MnDOT 3403 OR APPROVED EQUAL 16 LONG POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE 40 MIL 15 WIDE STRAPS ATTACH WITH 10 go WIRE MULCH FINISHED GRADE NOTES 1 STEEL POSTS TO BE NOTCHED OR DRILLED TO RETAIN GUY WIRES PLACE OUTSIDE OF ROOT BALL DRIVE PLUMB REGARDLESS OF GROUND SLOPE 2 REQUESTS TO SUBSTITUTE RUBBER HOSE AND WIRE GUYING SYSTEMS WILL NOT BE APPROVED 3 TREE STAKING IS NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED OR NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN TREES IN A PLUMB CONDRION WHERE VANDALISM SOIL OR WIND CONDITIONS ARE A PROBLEM OR AS REQUESTED BY THE ENGINEER 4 REMOVE AFTER ONE YEAR NOTES 1 BREAK BOTTOM OF ROOT BALL TO LOOSEN ROOTS MULCH (INCIDENTAL) 2 ROOTBALL SURFACE SHOULD BE WITHIN 1/4 OF FINISH GRADE — 3 EXCAVATE HOLE 3x WIDTH OF ROOTBALL FINISH GRADE BACK FILL BIORETENTION BASIN SOIL MIX NATIVE PLUG PLANTING DETAIL KEY QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT REMARKS 2 5 DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES AF 13 Acer freeman!/ x Autumn Blaze AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLE 2 5 B&B SINGLE STRAIGHT LEADER PT 3 Populus tremolo Ides QUAKING ASPEN 10 B&B CLUMP MULTISTEM TC 6 T!I!o cordota Redmond REDMOND LINDEN 2 5 B&B SINGLE STRAIGHT LEADER BN 7 Betula nlpra RIVER BIRCH 10 B&B CLUMP MULTISTEM 2 5 DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREES CG g Crutaepus erus poll Inerm is THORNLESS COCKSPUR HAWTHORNE 6 B&B SINGLE STRAIGHT LEADER 42 CONT DECIDUOUS SHRUBS A4 85 Aronlo melanocarpa Autumn Maple AUTUMN MAGIC CHOKEBERRY •2 CONT AS SHOWN CA 13 Clethra alnlfollo Hummingbird HUMMINGBIRD SUMMERSWEET sp CONT AS SHOWN CF 35 Cornus serlcea Bud s Yellow YELLOW TWIG DOGWOOD •2 CONT AS SHOWN CI 37 Cornus serlcea Isantl ISANTI DOGWOOD •2 CONT AS SHOWN DL 98 Dlervllla Ion/taro DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE •2 CONT AS SHOWN HA 18 Hydrangea arborescens Annabelle ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA rZ CONT AS SHOWN RK 7 Rosa Knockout KNOCKOUT ROSE •2 CONT AS SHOWN VD 3 Viburnum dentotum Blue Muffin BLUE MUFFIN VIBURNUM •2 CONT AS SHOWN VT 3 Viburnum trllobum HIGHBUSH CRANBERRY •2 CONT AS SHOWN W5 CONT DECIDUOUS SHRUBS IL 4 Ilex vertic/ldta Red Sprite WINTERBERRY •5 CONT AS SHOWN IL 2 Ilex verticllata Jim Dandy WINTERBERRY .5 CONT PLANT 1 JIM DANDY PER GROUP OF 2 RED SPRITE COA 2 Cornus olfernofolla ,AGODA DOGWOOD .5 CONT AS SHOWN PERENNIALS AND OROIRIDCOVERS 4 CONT PERENNIALS ANC 90 Anemone canodensls CANADA ANEMONE 4 CONT PLANT 12 0 C AQC 72 Aqulleplo canodens is COLUMBINE 4 CONT PLANT 12 0 C AGF 263 Apastache foes !colon FRAGRANT GIANT HYSSOP 4 CONT PLANT 12 0 C AI 132 Asclep las Incarnate MARSH MILKWEED 4 CONT PLANT 12 0 C EPE 57 Eupoforlum perfollatum BONESET 4 CONT PLANT 12 0 C IV 91 Iris vers !color NORTHERN BLUE FLAG 4 CONT PLANT 12 0 C PO 63 Physlteglo v/rglnlana OBEDIENT PLANT 4 CONT PLANT 12 0 C ST BB Splraea tomentosd STEEPLEBUSH 4 CONT PLANT 18 0 C •1 CONT PERENNIALS AN 35 Aster novae angilae Purple Dome PURPLE DOME ASTER •1 CONT PLANT 24 0 C ECP 41 Echlnoceo purpureo Kim s Knee High KIM 5 KNEE HIGH PURPLE •1 CONT PLANT 24 0 C ELJ 71 £upotorlum purplreum Little Joe LITTLE JOE EUPATORIUM 1 CONT PLANT 24 0 C HHR 314 Hemerocall is Happy Returns HAPPY RETURNS DAYLILY 1 CONT PLANT 24 0 C HS 319 Hemerocallls Stella D Oro STELLA D ORO DAYLILY 1 CONT PLANT 24 0 C IS 15 Iris slblrlca Caesar s Brother SIBERIAN IRIS 01 CONT PLANT 24 0 C LS 29 Lobelia s/phlllt/ca GREAT BLUE LOBELIA .1 CONT PLANT 111 0 C LSK g5 L/otrle splcota Kobo/d BLAZINGSTAR 1 CONT PLANT 24 0 C PA 17 Perovskla atrlpllcolla Little Spire LITTLE SPIRE RUSSIAN SAGE 1 CONT PLANT 24 0 C RG 210 Rudbeak la Coldsturm GOLDSTURM BLACK EYED SUSAN 1 CONT PLANT 24 0 C ORNAMENTAL GRASSES CAK 56 Calamogrostls ocutlf/ora Karl Foerster KARL FOERSTER REED GRASS 01 CONT PLANT 24 0 C SH 34 Sporobolus heterolep/s PRAIRIE DROPSEED •1 CONT PLANT 18 0 C NATIVE PLUG MIX TYPE 1 - PLANT IN RANDOM MIX KEY QUANTITY BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT REMARKS BST US! EAST BASIN SP 901 SDortlno pectlnota PRAIRIE CORD GRASS 2 PLUG PLANT 12 0 C 461 440 PV 901 Pan lcun vlrpatum SWITCH GRASS 2 PLUG PLANT 12 0 C 461 440 EPE 126 £upofor lum Derfollotum BONESET 2 PLUG PLANT 12 0 C 66 60 EPU 126 Eupatorlum PurDureum JOE PYE WEED 2 PLUG PLANT 12 0 C 66 60 HH 126 Helloes is hellantholdes DX -EYE 2 PLUG PLANT 12 0 C 66 60 VH 126 Verbena hostata BLUE VERVAIN 2 PLUG PLANT 12 0 C 66 60 PO 126 Phys ltep/a vlrp In Iona OBEDIENT PLANT 2 PLUG PLANT 12 0 C 66 60 ZA 126 Zlz to aureo GOLDEN ALEXANDERS 2 PLUG PLANT 12 0 C 66 60 NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5542 LDC 1 h eby tIfy th t thl pl pepltl t1 o po t that p1 pm a0 ly LI d L nd y dl Op At bit p t I 1 tl 0 th I Of th 5 at f MI t0 Print Name JONI L GIESE Date L Icense 26993 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY 5 JERGENS DESIGNED BY S JERGENS CHECKED BY J GIESE COMM NO 0055542 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDSCAPE PLANTING DETAILS GOVERNMENT CENTER SHEET 16 OF 22 • • SCOURSTOP TRANSITION MAT OR PRODUCT EQUAL RIBBON CURB SEE RIBBON CURB DETAIL SHEET NO 4 II 4 TOPSOIL BORROW GRASS PRE-TREATMENT FILTER STRIP 1 20 MAX SLOPE 1 4 MAX SIDE SLOPE 1 1/2 SLOPE UNDISTURBED, UNCOMPACTED IN -SITU SOIL VARIES BIORETENTION BASIN TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION (NOT TO SCALE) BIORETENTION AREA ELEV OA ELEV O ELEV O ELEV OD WEST 884 50 883 00 882 25 880 25 EAST 882 50 881 00 880 25 878 25 WIDTH VARIES - SEE GRADING PLANS , r _ I I i II I -III -i 111 I 111I i-III- I II I I� I I II - I - I I 11 I IT 3 SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH MnDOT TYPE 6 50/ SAND AND 50/ COMPOST MIX (SEE SPECIFICATIONS) I I BASIN BOTTOM/ TOP OF ENGINEERED SOIL ®BOTTOM OF ENGINEERED SOIL/ TOP OF COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE CO INVERT OF SUBSURFACE DRAIN AT UPSTREAM END OF DRAIN LINE DO BOTTOM OF COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE GEOTEXTILE MnDOT TYPE V EXTEND 1' BEYOND COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE (MODIFIED) 6' DIAMETER PERFORATED SUBSURFACE DRAIN WITH GEOTEXTILE SOCK SEE SHEET 9 FOR LOCATION OF SUBSURFACE DRAINS NO DATE BY CND APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5542 LDD I h eby Hy th t thl pi P Ifl atlO p t t ha• tpp a by m de 1 o ly LI d L ay is 4tChlt ct"a a th laws m f th St i n f MI t Print Nome JONI L GIESE Date License 26993 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY S JERGENS DESIGNED BY S JERGENS CHECKED BY J GIESE COMM NO 0055542 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY LANDSCAPE PLANTING DETAILS GOVERNMENT CENTER SHEET 17 OF 22 30 0 30 cicala feet 12' 12 4t 4 It 211 5 / • 60TH ST N 29 29 24 20 SPAC SPACE S S 4 4- 4 SPACE 20 28 24 cPACE S S 5 • 5 • 9' Ttl 9 T 9 T FT 4- .9► T 1 1 1 1 0 24 0 It WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT d 12�1R21 12 ° 12 '/ 12' 12 5 18 1B It 9ITYP 9 COUNTY CENTER 5 ' 5 ~ 24 TYP 9 T TYP 1 1 4- 2 4- 24 2 4 r- 9' TYP SPACES SP ACES 24 SPACES 'PACES 24 tt HTYID 11151 1 2 SPACES 4- 147 F LEGEND E� DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC L_ GENERAL NOTES 1 STANDARD PARKING STALLS MEASURE 9 x 18 2 HANDICAP PARKING STALLS MEASURE 12 x 19 3 HANICAP PASSANGER LOADING ZONES MEASURE 5 X 19 4 DRIVING AISLES = 24 0 MINIMUM 5 ALL INTERNAL PARKING STALL STRIPING TO BE 4 WHITE PAINT 6 HANDICAP PARKING SYMBOL TO BE WHITE PAINT 7 DISTANCES MEASURED FROM THE FACE OF CURB WHERE APPLICABLE 8 INSTALL SIGNS PERMMUTCD NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\Plat\5542 SPA 1 n soy e tlfy thot thl pi p Ifl otl PO t P 0 d by m nd my dl t p 1 1 a that I m duly LI d P f sl 1 Enal 0 th 1 f th St t of MI t Print Name JACK D SULLIVAN Date License 42375 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J DAUER DESIGNED BY J DAUER CHECKED BY J SULLIVAN COMM NO 0055542 ITCONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 18 OF 22 NOTES ITEM NO ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY 2104 509 REMOVE LIGHT BASE EACH 1 2104 523 SALVAGE LIGHTING UNIT EACH 1 1 2545 511 LIGHTING UNIT SPECIAL TYPE 1 EACH 3 2 2545 511 LIGHTING UNIT SPECIAL TYPE 2 EACH 7 2545 515 LIGHT BASE EACH 10 2545 523 2 NON-METALLIC CONDUIT LIN FT 1406 2545 531 UNDERGROUND WIRE 1 COND NO 4 LIN FT 4316 2545 531 UNDERGROUND WIRE 1 COND NO 6 LIN FT 1576 NOTES' (BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS, SEE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPLETE DESCRIPTIONS) 1 23 POLE WITH 150 WATT HPS LUMINAIRE 2 23 POLE WITH BACK TO BACK 150 WATT HPS LUMINAIRE LEGEND PROPOSED CONDUIT LIGHTING UNIT TYPE Q2 & LIGHT BASE DESIGN HIGH LEVEL LIGHTING UNIT TYPE Q1 & LIGHT BASE DESIGN HIGH LEVEL NO DATE BY_ CKD APPR REVISION \5542\NI-MU\Plan\5542 LTAB I h by tify th t this DI 6D Ifl tl n O Do t D D 0 by m and my OI Ct s D I I n Ono th I m O ly LI OP f s l 1 EI t I of E al d th low, 1 th 5 t of MI of Print Name BRIAN D HOLT Dote License 21428 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J STRENK DESIGNED BY J STRENK CHECKED BY B HOLT COMM NO 0055542 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY LIGHTING DETAILS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 19 OF 22 SINGLE DOUBLE 6 GARDCO 150 WATT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM ROUND TAPERED ALUMINUM 23 1 POLE SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS 2 LIGHT BASE DESIGN E MODIFIED LIGHTING UNIT TYPE Q1 GRADE NOT TO SCALE NOTES 1) LUMINAIRE GARDCO #H1413208150WHPSBRP 2) LAMP 150W HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM 3) ARM 6 4) POLE MATERIAL ALUMINUM 5) POLE COLOR STD-SEALCOATED 6) POLE STYLE ROUND TAPERED 7) POLE Q1A92-9323-DM19-*DXX (OR APPROVED EQUAL) 8) LIGHT BASE DESIGN E MODIFIED (SEE DETAIL) „a, 6 150 WATT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM ROUND TAPERED ALUMINUM 23 1 POLE SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS LIGHT BASE DESIGN E MODIFIED LIGHTING UNIT TYPE Q2 NOT TO SCALE NOTES 1) LUMINAIRE GARDCO #H1422208150WHPSBRP 2) LAMP 150W HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM 3) ARM 6 4) POLE MATERIAL ALUMINUM 5) POLE COLOR STD-SEALCOATED 6) POLE STYLE ROUND TAPERED 7) POLE QA92-9323-DM28-*DDX (OR APPROVED EQUAL) 8) LIGHT BASE DESIGN E MODIFIED (SEE DETAIL) NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\Plan\5542 LTB I n by tlfy th t thl pl p If tl P P ed by m d my dl t D th t I m d ly LI d P f To I El t I d th law f th St t f Mln $ t Print Nome BRIAN D HOLT I a 1 E pl e Dote License 21428 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J STRENK DESIGNED BY J STRENK CHECKED BY B HOLT COMM NO 0055542 SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY LIGHTING DETAILS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 20 OF 22 ANCHOR ROD 15 BOLT CIRCLE 2 PVC 1/4 X 1/4 DRAIN GROVE (SOUTH SIDE OF BASE) 2 NOM DIA. PVC CONDUIT 4 MAX — 1 DIA P V C CONDUIT WITH 90 ELBOW PLACED Ir BELOW TOP OF FOUNDATION FOR GROUND MIRE WHEN GROUND ROD IS REQUIRED PLAN BOTTOM MIT FLUSH WITH CONCRETE II NO 13 BARS TO AVOID INTERFERENCE WITH LIGHT BASE PLACE ALL CONDUIT INSIDE AN B DIA CIRCLE 2' DIA PVC CONDUIT WITH 90 ELBOW 1 CONDUIT REQUIRED FOR EACH CABLE ENTERING THE LIGHT BASE PROVIDE 1 ADDITIONAL CONDUIT FOR FUTURE EXPANSION ICAP BOTH ENDS) ANCHOR ROD PLACEMENT 5/8 DIA (COPPER COATED) GROUND ROD WITH CLAMP AND NO 6 BARE COPPER MIRE SEE PLAN FOR G OUND ROD LOCATIONS 44 1 MAX 1/2 R 2 0 DIA ELEVATION 1 LIGHT BASE DESIGN E STANDARD PLATE 8127B SEE ANCHOR ROD DETAIL 2 NO 13 BARS 6 0 LONG TOTAL 4 BARS 3 YIN 3 HEAVY HEX NUTS PER ROD 3O ANCHOR ROD DETAIL 4 REQUIRED 0 NOTES CONCRETE SHALL BE MIX NO 3Y43 FOUNDATIONS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED IN AUGURED HOLES UNLESS THE NATURAL SOILS WILL NOT STAND OPEN IN WHICH CASE FORMING WILL BE REQUIRED P V C CONDUIT PER SPEC 3803 SHALL BE PROJECTED 1 ABOVE THE FOUNDATION BEFORE THE MORTAR IS PLACED AND SHALL BE THE SIZE AND NUMBER SHOWN IN THE PLAN A TEMPLATE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ANCHOR R00 PLACEMENT AND SHALL BE LEFT IN PLACE UNTIL THE CONCRETE HAS SET WHEN ROCK IS ENCOUNTERED SEE PLAN DETAILS AN ALTERNATE PRECAST BASE MAY BE USED WITH THE ENGINEERS APPROVAL p THE DEPTH OF THE FOUNDATION MAY BE CHANGED IN THE PLANS OR SPECIAL PROVISIONS O ANCHOR RODS PER SPEC 3365 TYPE B OR C SHALL BE PLACED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE DIRECTION OF THE MAST ARM GALVANIZE THE TOP 1 FT OF THE ANCHOR ROD AND NUTS PER SPEC.3392 p WRAP THREADS OF ANCHOR RODS BELOW BOTTOM NUT WITH 3 LAYERS OF PLASTIC ELECTRICAL TAPE. p PLACE GROUND ROD 3 TO 6 DEEP AND WITHIN 1 OF BASE LIGHT BASE DESIGN E MODIFIED LIGHT BASE TO BE MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS 1) LIGHT BASE SHALL BE MODIFIED TO 8 FEET WITH THE ADDITIONAL 2 FEET TO BE ABOVE 2) BOLT CIRCLE SHALL BE MODIFIED TO 12 IN ACCOMMODATE LIGHT STANDARD CONTRACTOR VERIFY BOLT CIRCLE PATTERN REQUIRED WI MANUFACTURER PRIOR TO POURING BASE 3) VERIFY ANCHOR ROD REQUIREMENTS WITH POLE MANUFACTURER BEFORE POURING BASE ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS 4) PROVIDE 15 FOOT GROUND ROD THROUGH THE FOUNDATION IN LENGTH GRADE CHES TO SHALL TH POLE CENTER OF NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION \5542\HI-MU\PIeT\5542 LTC I h by tlfy th01 thl5 DI SD9 Ifl 11 D t D DO d by m n0 my di t up I I d th t I m d ly LI 0 P Ye I nal El t lc I E 01 U d VI lows f ih 51 tW f MI Sot Print Name BRIAN D HOLT Dote License 21428 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J STRENK DESIGNED BY J STRENK CHECKED BY B HOLT COMM NO 0055542 WTICONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY LIGHTING DETAILS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 21 OF 22 NOTES 1) ALL CONDUIT ON THIS PLAN SHEET SHALL BE 2 INCH NMC WITH 3-1/C *4 AND 1-1/C *6 GND 2) ALL LIGHTING UNITS INSTALLED BEHIND CURB SHALL BE LOCATED 36 FROM BACK OF CURB TO CENTER OF FOUNDATION 3) CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO WORK 4) PROVIDE ELECTRICAL FEED WITHIN EXISTING BUILDING THAT INCLUDES (BY OTHERS) • LIGHTING CONTROL PANEL WITH 60A CONTACTOR AND PHOTO CELL CONTROL • LOAD ANALYSIS TO CONFIRM CAPACITY 1111 II 1 IIII CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY CON9UETORS TO THE EXISTING PANEL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDUIT ONLY TO THE EXTERIOR THE BUILDING AT THIS LOCATION /— �I , 1l iI ,my it-- V J1-T fi I I _ I F 1 I b� - - --�- i _; i- �,_ r �l ELECTRICAL j/r--ROOM \EXISTING ELECTRICAL \\\. PANEL P101 TERMINATION OF LIGHTING CIRCJITS IN PANEL P101, AND TIE-IN TO BUILDING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM SHALL BE BY OTHERS I � f L- i I I 1 I , r 24 f 1 T-� f-r------- i - - �__, rI I 11 1 J/ EXISITNG ELECTRICAL f' PANEL P101 120/208 VOLT L 30 0 30 scale eet WIRING DIAGRAM B R AND 0 DENOTE CURRENT CARRYING CONDUCTORS GROUND NOT SHOWN NO DATE BY CKD APPR REVISION 1 h by tlfy thot thl pl p Iflcotl Do t 0 D p a by m ono my of t D I I 0 th t l m o c ly Llc ns o P f I 1 EI t I of E pl e de th I r f th Stat of MI s0t0 Print Name BRIAN D HOLT L Icense 21428 COUNTY PROJECT NO DRAWN BY J STRENK DESIGNED BY J STRENK CHECKED BY B HOLT COMM NO 0055542 OACONSULTING GROUP, INC WASHINGTON COUNTY LIGHTING PLANS GOVERNMENT CENTER SOUTH PARKING LOT (LOT D) SHEET 22 OF 22 \5542\HI—MU\Plan\5542 LTA Dote i I Iwater NE 8 IRTHP A f Of MINNESOIA Planning Commission DATE APPLICANT REQUEST LOCATION COMPREHENSIVE ZONING PC DATE REVIEWERS PREPARED BY July 5, 2006 Jon and Deanne Stratte CASE NO V\06-37 A variance to the Bluffland Shoreland Regulations for the replacement of an existing deck [31-1-23(7)b 1 d and 31-1-23(10) g] 114 Lakeside Dr PLAN DISTRICT SFLL - Single Family Large Lot RB - Two-family District July 10, 2006 Community Dev Director Michel Pogge, City Planner try)1 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-1-23(7)b 1 d and 31-1-23(10) g of the Stillwater Zoning Code to allow for the replacement of a substandard deck that encroaches up to 58 feet into the required 100 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark This setback is required as part of the bluffland/shoreland overlay regulations The applicant is making this request in order to reconstruct the existing deck The deck will be the same size, shape and location of the existing desk EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found 1 A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance The home at 114 Lakeside Dr was constructed in 1964, according to the Washington County Tax Services department The City's bluffland/shoreland overlay regulations were developed in May of 1974 The condition on the lot existed prior to the adoption of the ordinance and was not a condition created by the current home owner 114 Lakeside Dr Page 2 2 A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights, and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors Without the approval of a variance the applicant would be denied the opportunity to reconstruct the existing deck improving safety concerns the property owners has with the existing deck The Minnesota DNR has reviewed this case and has no objection to the reconstruction of the decks as long as they are within the footprint of the existing 3 The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan By simply reconstructing the existing deck in the same location with the same size and shape there will be no impact on adjacent properties beyond what is currently present The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan FINDINGS 1 That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists In this context, personnel financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance 2 That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties m the same district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors 3 That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan 114 Lakeside Dr Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Approval as conditioned CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 1 All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director 2 The encroachment in to the ordinary high water mark setback shall be limited to fifty-eight (58) or fewer feet for the reconstruction of the existing deck 3 The reconstructed deck shall be in the same location and shall be the same size and shape as the exiting deck Attachments Applicant's Form and Site Plan Michel Pogge From Molly Shodeen [molly shodeen@dnr state mn us] Sent Thursday June 29 2006 1 45 PM To Michel Pogge Subject Stratte We have no objections to reconstruction of the decks as long as they are within the footprint of the existing They should submit a landscaping plan if some vegetative screening should be increased I haven't been out there for several years but I bet some screening trees (couple) and shrubs could be added 1 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No Date Filed Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit ✓ Variance Resubdivision Subdivision` Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees The fees for requested action are attached to this application The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting matenal submitted in connection with any appbcat►on All supporting matenal (0 e , photos sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen 16 copies of ( ) supporting matenal is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process After Planning Commission approvals there is a 10-day appeal period Once the 10-dayappeal ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits Address of Project / I La Zoning District g PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION S (c'e Dr Assessors Parcel No a,/ 2 /4/ Qa27 � � (GEO Code) �9,e Ccs? i .E 2/ ( sz-t0 _ (.vu "1 hereby state he orego►ng statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used " Property Owner r j ft4 / ) ea -ape, S+jrGi� � Representative Mailing Address / 14 lce sr e, cbri Y� Mailing Address City - State— Zip S` l L, / f G, ��r /7 37 City - State - Zip Telephone No (c S / — Lf 3 9- 6 57 3 03' ele hone No Signature s9�� p Signature (Signature is required) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Signature is required) Lot Size (dimensions Land Area Height of Buildings Principal Accessory �l 4 Stories Feet square feet Existing square feet Proposed square feet Paved Impervious Area square feet No of off street parking spaces Total Building floor area H \mcnamara\sheila\PLANAPP FRM April 20 2005 June 12 2006 Planning Commission City of Stillwater Stillwater MN Dear Planning Commission Members We are requesting a permit to replace our deck which has been part of our house for 42 years The first deck deteriorated and was replaced in 1980 This deck is now in a hazardous condition because of rotting supporting members and deck planking We simply want to replace the deck with the same footpnnt that has been in existence for 26 years but with conformance to the new codes for greater safety We plan to use a composite material that would last for a long time and be much more safe in many ways Since our house is a walk out style we can not get to our yard without the deck and stairway The building of this deck would not affect any surrounding neighbors any differently from the deck which has always been in existence As far as bemg viewed from the river we have been told over and over how nice our house looks from the river --these comments come from people who have their boats at Wolf Marine Otherwise we are NOT on the main channel and the house is not easily viewed from the channel We feel that this project needs to proceed as soon as possible because of the deteriorating condition of the deck and the resulting safety hazard Thank you for your consideration Jon and Deanne Stratte STILLWATER, M1NN 55082 MINNESOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR Tel No 439-5630 JOB NO SURVEY MADE EXCLUSIVELY FOR Jon and Deanne Stratte, 114 Lakeside DESCRIPTION Overall Parcel description Co ,Records NOTES Orientation of this bearing system is assumed o Indicates 1/2" ID iron pipe set marked RLS 13774 o Indicates iron pipe found inplace as noted Underground or overhead public or private utilities on or adjacent the site were located as marked by others on site Offsets shown to existing or future structures are measured to the outside building wall line, unless shown otherwise Certificate of Title No 13123 has references to utility and ingress and egress easements recited thereon Review these record easements with an Attorney to ascertain the status of same This Cert of Title has both metes and bounds and a proposed platted Lot desc I suspect the intent of the conveyance is for future deeds to utilize the Platted desc rci , -s nod c l� a-z-4-s — the or not the easements are ,to be carried forward also Note the conflict these easements have with the proposed future add'n. from the wily line of the gar "10' UE" Indicates a 10' wide utility easement graphically shown on the recorded plat of LAKEVIEW TERRACE These util k easements, as shown, were not k dedicated to the public in the owners certificate �" Review this matter with wok an attorney for an opinion 1M1 as to wether or not these k0 util esmnts encumber Lot 4, LAKEVIEW TERRACE See Sheet 2 for Detail o 13% grade line, inplace utilities and, proposed util and r/w esmnt vacation descrtp_tIon_ L. I fkk recorded on Dr , Stillwater.t. Certificate of Title No 11 1 `-sT i 'Y6 v / P is / 5, of i1'o E -yo I'5 Gy E10 k ki \.sue t: a ki M / 4f 1(1 11 I\N \V (04k .44 ok (ityof r ( ommtnity D(vclonment Den.uvncnt Case No. VW00 6-37 Me Mivap Y 1 E B I A H I A 0 M I N N 1 S 0 1 A DATE APPLICANT Mainstream Development Partnership, LLC REQUEST 1) Special Use Permit for CBD Parking Facility 2) Variance from Parking Standards July 6, 2006 CASE NO SUP,V/06-38 LOCATION 225 North Main Street PUBLIC HEARING DATE July 10, 2006 REVIEWERS City Administrator, Police Chief, Interim Public Works Director, City Council, Heritage Preservation Commission PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director lip BACKGROUND Mainstream Development Partnership, LLC is planning to develop a project referred to as 227 North Main Street This would represent the final development phase for the former Maple Island Dairy site This phase relates to the hardware store at 225 N Main and the surface parking lot just north of it The proposed project is to demolish the hardware store and build about a 39,000 square foot mixed use building as follows • 13,000 gross square feet of below grade parking for 21 vehicles • 13,000 gross square feet of commercial space on the ground floor • 13,000 gross square feet of office space on the second floor ABBREVIATED REVIEW CHRONOLOGY 1 On May 1 and June 5, 2006 the Heritage Preservation Comnssion reviewed and approved the design review perrrut for the first version of the project 2 On May 8, 2006 the Planning Commission considered the variances and special use permits necessary to develop the project as originally proposed The Planning Commission had concerns about the requested parking and height variances Consequently the commission demed the requests 3 Mainstream Development Partnership filed an appeal of the Planning Commission action In addition, the developer substantially down -sized the proposed building The first version of the building had approximately 62,000 square feet of space distributed amongst four stories (five levels with the basement garage) The size of the revised building as presented to the City Council on June 20, 2006 was reduced to about 46,000 square feet distributed amongst only three stories (four levels with the basement garage) The City 227 North Main Street July 6, 2006 Page 2 of 5 Council discussed the revised plans and was generally satisfied with the building and its proposed uses, but was uncomfortable with the height variance that was necessary The Council also acknowledged that parking needed additional consideration Consequently the proposed second version -was -denied without prejudice so the revised plans could be _- reviewed by the Planning Comrrussion 4 As a result of Council comments, the developer submitted a third version of the building On July 5, 2006 the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the third version The size of the third version was reduced to 39,000 square feet distributed over two stories (three levels with the basement garage) In this current version, another story has been removed, which means now there are no residential units This has eliminated the need for the 10% mfill height l nut variance necessary for the second version The HPC gave conceptual approval of the third version of the building Also at the July 5 2006 meeting the HPC approved the demolition perrrut for the hardware store 5 The third version of the proposed project is scheduled for a July 10, 2006 hearing before the Planning Commission SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to develop the property as now proposed, Mainstream Development still needs the following City approvals 1 Special Use Permit for a' private parking facility for more than five cars in the Central Business District, as allowed in City Code Section 31 1, Subd 17(3)c 2 Variance from the minimum number of parking spaces required by City Code Section 311, Subd 25(3) The total number of required parking spaces is 107 The total number of provided spaces in the underground garage is 21 Therefore a variance of 86 parking spaces would be required 3 Vacation of City's parking easement over parking lot north of hardware store It is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to consider the private parking facility SUP and the parking variance The City Council will need to take action on the easement vacation request EVALUATION OF REQUEST Land Use Classifications Base Zoning CBD, Central Business District Overlay Zoning 1) Historic Height Overlay District (3 Story/35') 2) Floodplain 3) Lower St Croix River Shoreland/Bluffland Comprehensive Plan CC, Community Commercial Downtown Plan Special Site #6 Other Downtown Historic District, Middle St Croix Water Management Orgaruzation 227 North Main Street July 6, 2006 Page 3 of 5 Review of Standards I Special Use Perrrut The proposed building includes retail space, office space and underground parking The retail and office uses are outright permitted uses in the CBD zoning district However, the private parking facility in the CBD is allowed only by Special Use Permit Based upon the Downtown Plan, staff believes that the basic purposes for requiring a special use permit for private downtown parking facilities are twofold 1) to create aesthetically pleasant and safe surface lots, and 2) to prevent parking structures from being constructed as unsightly bare concrete ramps The proposed parking facility will be completely underground, so neither the surface parking or parking ramp scenarios apply II Variances As the 227 North Main project has evolved, the number of required variances has been reduced to just one A variance is now only needed from the minimum parking space standards The table below specifies the number of required spaces for the proposed mix of uses Use Standard Minimum requirement 65 spaces General retail (13,000 gross sf) 1 space per 200 gross sf Office (12,600 gross sf) 1 space per 300 gross sf 42 spaces TOTAL 107 The total number of parking spaces provided in the underground garage is 21 Since 107 spaces are required, a variance of 86 parking spaces would be needed It is commonly believed that there is a shortage of parking in downtown Stillwater However, the shortage of space is experienced most acutely during non -business hours and on weekends And, the shortage of space during these peak periods is not as severe on the north end of the downtown as it is on the south end These factors both work together in favor of the proposed project The building would be located on the north end of town, and the peak parking demand for the office space and proposed retail tenants would not be during the times when parking demand in the downtown area is generally the greatest In addition, there is a considerable amount of parking available on Water Street and in the lots surrounding the Maple Island building There are 284 spots in Lots 5-8 (minus 227 North Main Street July 6, 2006 Page 4 of 5 the 50 spaces reserved for River Market customers (see the attached inventory) There are another 33 on -street spaces on Water Street north of Myrtle Since there seems to be ample business -hour parking in the immediate vicinity of the proposed building, and the greatest demand for parking from the building would be during business hours, staff finds the requested variance to be acceptable ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options A Approve the parking facility special use perrrut and parking variance with the following conditions 1 Prior to approval of a final design review permit by the HPC, colored rendering perspectives of the exterior elevations from the Pioneer Park blufflme and from Mulberry Point on the St Croix River must be submitted and approved by the HPC 2 Prior to approval of a final design review permit by the HPC, detailed full scale building floor plans and elevations showing all exterior materials and color choices shall be submitted to, reviewed by and approved by the HPC 3 Prior to approval of a final design review permit by the HPC, details of all roof penetrations must be subnutted to, reviewed by and approved by the HPC This is required in order to visualize all roof venting, roof stacks, etc 4 No rooftop venting or other penetrations are allowed except those specifically approved by the HPC and the City Council 5 All utilities and mechanical equipment shall either be internally located or completely screened from general pubhc views This includes the mechanical equipment on the ground at the southeast corner of the building This does not include utility venting, which is the subject of other conditions of approval, nor does it include transformers that must provide access for Xcel Energy employees 6 No mechanical equipment shall be allowed on the rooftop unless effectively screened 7 Prior to approval of a final design review permit by the HPC, a signage plan must be submitted to, reviewed by and approved by the HPC In addition, a sign permit apphcation must be submitted to and approved by City staff prior to installation of any signs on the project site 8 Prior to approval of a final design review permit by the HPC, an exterior hghting plan must be submitted to, reviewed by and approved by the HPC 9 Prior to approval of a final design review permit by the HPC, a drainage plan must be submitted to, reviewed by and approved by the City Engineer 10 All gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc shall be of a color that matches the adjacent surface 11 The street address of the building shall be displayed in a location conspicuous from Main Street 12 All required landscaping shall be installed prior to final project inspection 227 North Main Street July 6, 2006 Page 5 of 5 13 No trash enclosures are planned to be located outside Therefore, no trash enclosures or trash bins will be allowed without prior approval of the HPC 14 All construction activity shall conform to the City s noise ordinance Construction during dry periods shall mitigate dust problems 15 All minor modifications to the final design review permit shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Director All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC Determination of the distinction between ' major" and "minor" shall rest with the City Admuustrator B Deny the special use permit and variance C Table the design review request for more details RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the parking available in close proximity to the proposed building will be sufficient to satisfy the generally off-peak parking demand of the building's users Therefore, staff recommends approval of the special use permit and the parking space variance attachments Location Map Color rendering of building seen from Mam Street Applicant s letter Application drawings Parking inventory Community De loomem fk.n uvnenl Mainstream Development Location Map 114L1 try[. so'�allu II � I 1 1, rt r .It J.cP{ — ' i _ - - , , ,_,_-,..- , ,_,,,, ,E,,,_ — -;•.-- -II:Ir'—.1-1- I i Ilr 7-- —9-, --!, / II ( d fE I [ I� t— —_ i r 6 I 1 117 , , iI , , J I, 1.7-T ...z._ ...4. -- - , -i..,i , „, 1 , ,, 1,i_._,,, � � t R /' Y ,i / —a �. I'� yam-- /rr• , y ,I 26 June 2006 Pluming Comm Members, Mainstream Development Partnership LLC (MOP) Is intancirq to develop 227 North Mein Street (the hardware store and perking lot inenedlately North) MDP le proposing its tied and final phase of the redevelopment of the Maple nand Dairy btu Tina proposal is a mixed use development that conti urea to expand on the City of Stil water Corrprehansrve Man, Metropolitan Cozad Livable Communities Act and MDP oarrenabnent to ptovldrig a place for community oriented services that Impitee the fabric of down town Stillwater This development will complete an eight year process that transformed two blocks of unoccupied bbght into over 70 000 gel of community oriented mixed tree apace Projad Gods: The development was the Impetus for improvements to the river front City parting lots cheer 110 spews Mulbe ny Point Water Street Irr>Txoreamen s and development on North Main Street The completion of the Maple Island project provides an increase parcel valuation from $600,000 in 1997 to over $10M it wilt also provide over 120 new full time lobs thwntortm We feed this project exemplifies a prooess that incorporates Met Council incentives, City of Stillwater goals and private development arribibons that meatus to the future of Stillwater p►ei1 Stop. (REVISED) MDP Is proposing removing the Maple Island Harder bulking and surface panning lot Replacing It wire be 13 000 gsf of ground floor oorantmity oonvneroleVretafl space that is avoess+ble to strut level at Man Street with service and pedestrian access from Water Street The second floor provides 13 000 gaf of class A office space (committed tenant) with eocess from Main Street. The third floor has been eliminated The development is served by pnvate underground parking for 21 with enclosed tree aeenae Priem Design (REVISED) The arcNtectural design has been redesigned to reflect new height limitations The ma)onty of the inking tap of parapet Is 29' from Man Street Two stair towers to access the roof have a pipet height of 35 et' The burlrfing parapet is 1 taller then the neighbor to the south (29'-4") As a result of obi lions by the City Council, the previously designed third floor and sloped roof has been eliminated. The building massing and material use errs inspiratlon from neigttionng buildnga both historic and contemporary Bulldog massing is broken Into two masses on Main Street, separated by a recessed entry The north and south masses include cepper dada cylindrical tower, and lower squared tower element that reduce scale end provide pedestrian shelter Main Street pedestnen level uses storefront glaring with transom panels steel posts and lintels end detailed base panels Muriel y elevabon provides covered buildng acmes/agrees highlighted wdh copper midpoint dvtdng the bunking mass In half This elevation takes up a 6' grade dfferenoe that starts at the comer entrance at Mann to service access at Water Water Street elevation continues the pattern of sermce access that occurs on both south and north Wider Street Access to the underground padang and trash occur at grade level Tenant access occurs through a raised walkway and stairs Extensive planting low brick retaining wails and overhead oannprestavevngs are used to reduce the sale of the Water St. elevabon Roof design Includes grouping ventilation pipes end screened HVAC units The flat roof will have decking, gray trap rock ballast and gray aoceas pavers Petals incorporated M the design will be fish and water oriented Some of these datais indude copper 'ten scale' shingles fish embossed copper base panels fish and waves cast in the concrete base and wavy wrought eon fencing and balustrades BOOTANA [ALL 406 50.1.1112, FAA 4ik6 102 169D VINO 15045 Irlll (A4 oil 4D B6 EBAI AT 51111 apt, IASOIAIT.LtNB.J2$ B16N SETA .All BSI M12 _SIB rd(, 651 vts D61 S [ND 212 Y BAiN $1 4 f tL NAIEJLMN $5DA7 NAIL skSOIAA TN,JNI rrjt This fined phase requires rreaiueon of fair issues to metre It a aucoees, 1 Wedowent In the FEMA flood plain, MDP has Initlafed the MT 1 elatetion based on S I meq review application, meld% the FEMA eleno n cad** 2 MDP, !LC t0 requesting the city meta the paling easement on the poops* 3 Prelkttnery perking re4dtament tetra for the project ere a lot d sir, the project provides 21 4 Damon d the adding hardware slows duelers fees demolition application) Rafting Etheince MOP, moose the project credos a Urge demand for perk ng per city ardnence, as do the ova/interning Marty of prepense that orchids ootrrnetold woe et eta CEO MDP, LLC re suggesting the aly wets a Paling District that Moors properties to be dmelcped In the CDE by contributing to a O ty actrdnistered perking twat This oorrcept ants suooessfudly ackninniened Beyond years ago an the south end of Mein Street The dattlot, its boundaries to be defined by the City, rroutd wiled a fee (tar whole) tram the deeribcper end property wars fat Its perking sharlape This fee eralA®be ecptrad to the property aarncw of the entire debit Mewl* Masa Sumnt ry (par CBD CAy d tamer Ong ordnance) Zoning District Centel Business District Meodrnur► Height 3 ewe or 35 Minmum Lot 10,000 el &Omits Frord 15 Rear 20' Spa 20 total Lot Caere. SO% d lot eyes Landecape Urea 20% d tot area Exceptions, inn lots, the front side end rear setback may be a nder to the eat do for aa*aoent tailings Patric Requirerrte-rtbe Business Pot ionat 1/300 et tiny, Apartments 16 per unit,1 per 3 crib far pain Retail 11200 of t2T More Nein trateDetelopment Sumensey T is prvied Ia a 33,500 +1 el mixed uae binbuidna Wage* parting tar 21+ Ground floor tetra and dice 13 000 el on Matra Street Second floor angle latent Ohba (13,000 on Ruler to dsueioprrarnt piens for eped%Idorinabon and detail Ten Elden REM ASSOCIATES tor MOP, LLC Ambito* bal [Andrews Witte* 406 58G 1142 tesfanesid.com Inteitint pr3r nfrany r tsar dvalnp. mewl* Pile! a. V Su* TO File DATE June 20, 2006 RE Preliminary CBD Parking Inventory PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director A preliminary inventory of parking in the downtown Stillwater area has been completed The parking spots were pnmanly counted from aenal photography, though some field venfication also was conducted A Public parking lots* Lot Lot Name Spaces** HC Notes 1 South Main Street Lot 102 4 Pay lot - $5, all day 2 River Lot 106 4 Pay lot - $3, all day 3 Chestnut Street Lot 36 2 Free lot — 3 hr limit 4 Bndge Lot 47 2 Free lot — 4 hr limit 5 Mulberry Point Lot 40 2 Free lot — 4 hr limit 6 Maple Island Lot 69 2 Free lot — 3 hr limit 7 Water Street Lot 117 2 Free lot — 4 hr limit, 50 spaces reserved for River Market customers 8 Railroad Lot 50 2 Free lot — all day 9 North Main Street Lot 84 1 Free lot — all day 10 Mulberry/Second Street Lot 15 0 Free lot — all day 11 Lowell Inn Lot 32 1 Free lot (only dunng non - business hours) 12 Olive/Second Street Lot 45 2 Free lot — 4 hr limit 13 UBC lot 99 4 Free lot — 4 hr limit 14 Riverview Lot (Cub) 158 6 Free lot (only dunng non - business hours) 15 Mulberry Street Lot 28 0 Free lot (only dunng non - business hours) TOTALS 1,028 34 * Unvenfied info from www stillwaterparking corn ** Not including Handicapped (HC) spaces CBD Parking Inventory June 20, 2006 Page 2 of 5 B Marked on -street parking spaces (unmarked on -street parking spaces not included, i e Water St north of Myrtle, Third Street except between Chestnut and Myrtle, Olive between 3rd and 2"d, and Chestnut between 3ra and 2"d)— __ —_ __ Lot Lot Name Spaces** HC Notes 1 Water St , nose -in parking, between Chestnut & Nelson 38 2 Nelson St —east Main - - -- 8 of — 3 Main St between Nelson & Chestnut 25 4 Nelson St between Main and the river 11 5 Main St between Chestnut & Myrtle 8 6 Myrtle St between Main & Water 2 7 Water St between Myrtle & Chestnut 17 8 Main St between Commercial & Myrtle 3 9 Main St between Commercial & Mulberry 25 10 N Main St between Mulberry & Terra Spnngs 79 11 Chestnut St between Main & 2"d 15 12 Union Street between Chestnut & Myrtle 18 13 2"d St between Chestnut & Myrtle 12 14 2"d St between Myrtle & Commercial 8 15 Commercial St between 2nd & Main 11 16 South Main St between Nelson & Andiamo, west side 26 17 South Main St south of Nelson, east side 47 2 tour bus spots 18 2"d St between Commercial & Mulberry 33 19 Nelson St between Main & 2"d 8 20 Myrtle St between Main & 3rd 9 1 21 3rd St between Chestnut & Myrtle 12 22 2"d St between Chestnut & Ohve 12 23 2nd St between Olive & Nelson 16 24 Ohve St between 2"d & Main 17 25 Nelson Alley between 2"d & Main 7 TOTALS 467 1 CBD Parking Inventory June 20, 2006 Page 3 of 5 C Unmarked on -street parking This table represents an estimate of the number of possible parking spots based upon lineal footage of available space divided by 22 feet Location Spaces HC Notes Water St north of Myrtle, east side 23 Water St north of Myrtle, west side 10 3rd Street except between Chestnut and Myrtle, west side 37 3rd Street except between Chestnut and Myrtle, east side 45 Olive St between 3rd and 2nd north side 12 Olive St between 3rd and 2nd south side 6 Chestnut St between 3rd and 2nd north side 8 Chestnut St between 3rd and 2nd south side 7 TOTAL 148 CBD Parking Inventory June 20, 2006 Page 4 of 5 D Pnvate (non-residential) parking lots This category includes lots that are pnvate and either dedicated -to employees, clients, or _ members Some of these may be posted to exclude general public parking This category also includes both lots that are pnvate but allow their retail customers to park, and lots at government buildings Lot - -Spaces* HC notes Private lot - -- - 1 St Croix Preparatory Academy parking lot 111 9 Temp class room building uses 18 spaces 2 Post office rear lot 35 3 Lowell Inn 31 4 Associated Eye Care Block 66 5 Maple Island hardware store lot 23 Public allowed to use after business hours 6 Mills on Main retail parking (underground) 55 7 Desch Building south lot 27 Plus underground parking 8 Desch Building north lot 78 9 Minnesota Zephyr south lot 48 2 10 Minnesota Zephyr north lot 42 1 11 Stillwater Yacht Club 108 12 Old Post Office 8 13 Tnnity Lutheran Church, east lot 25 2 14 Water Board lot 6 15 City Hall parking lot (excluding squad car spots) 69 1 16 Post office front lot 8 1 17 Victonan Building, et al 21 18 Gazette Building lot 39 19 Washington Federal ramp 37 Not including lower level 20 Reeds Building 6 21 Freight House lot 32 2 22 Stone's Restaurant 10 23 - Cub Foods lot 56 2 24 Bnck Alley/Commander lot 47 1 25 Dock Cafe lot 30 1 26 Old public works building 26 27 Vacant lot adjacent to Marx Restaurant 6 28 Water Street Inn 60 29 Histonc Courthouse lot 31 2 30 Armory lots 12 TOTAL 1,153 24 * not including handicapped spaces CBD Parking Inventory June 20, 2006 Page 5 of 5 SUMMARY This preliminary inventory finds a total of 2,855 parking spaces in the Stillwater Central Business Distnct • 1,062 spaces are available in public parking lots (34 of these are handicapped spaces) • 468 marked on -street parking spaces are available (includes 1 handicapped space) • 148 un-marked on -street parking spaces are available • 1,177 spaces are available in pnvate/semi-pnvate parking lots (includes 24 handicapped spaces) SITE LOCATION - STLLWATER, MIN DRAWING UST C1-1-SURVEY C2- UTILITIES/DRAINAGE C3- STRUCTIRAL Si- STRUCTURAL S2- STRUCTURAL S3- STRUCTURAL S4- STRUCTURAL S5- STRUCTURAL S6- STRUCTURAL LANDSCAPE L1- PLANTING PLAN DEMOLMON D1- DEMO/FEMA FILL PLAN BUILDING SUN®NARY AR ECT SHEET Al - A2 - SITE PLAN A3 - FOUNDATION PLAN A4 - GARAGE PLAN A5 - GROUND FLOOR PLAN A6 - SECOND FLOOR PLAN A7 - THIRD FLOOR PLAN A8 - FOURTH FLOOR PLAN A9 - ROOF PLAN A10- EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS Al1- NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS Al2- E/W BUILDING SECTION A13- N/S BUILDING SECTION A14- WALL SECTIONS A15- STAIR A & B A16- ENTRY STAIR & ELEVATOR LOBBIES A17- DETAILS A18- DOOR/WINDOW TYPES/FINISHES ZONNO CBD ALLOWABLE HEIGHT 35 OR 3 STORES — 10% INFILL SETBACK REQ 0 MAIN MULBERRY & WATER PROVIDED- 2 0 MAIN 2 0 MULBERRY 18 PARKING REQUIREMENTS CONVENIENCE (1/200sf) OFFICE (1/300sf) HOUSING UNIT (1 5/1 UNIT + 1/3 UNITS) PARIWO VARIANCE REQUESTED 93 .�STALLS��CODE OCCUPANCY REQUIRED BULD G ODE OCCUPANCY S2 (PARKING OCCUPANT LOAD S2— 1 /2008f) M— 1/60sf & B— 1/100 R2— 1/2 0 WATER RETAIL (13000 sf) = 65 STALLS OFFICE (13000 sf) = 40 STALLS 4 UNITS = 9 STALLS TOTAL REQUIRED = 114 STALLS PROVIDED = 21 GARAGE) M (MERCHANIILE) B (OFFICE) R2 (MULTI —RESIDENTIAL) =1 OCC /300ss1) = 270 + 17= 287 OCC = 130 OCC = 65 OCC (3RD FIR ) CONSTRUC110N TYPE. IV THROUGH OUT AUTOMATIC FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM THROUGH OUT OCCUPANCY SEPERATION REQUIREMENTS S2—M = 2HRS M—B = 2HRS B—R2 = 2 HRS EXITING REQUIREMENTS. 4TH FLR.— 47 OCC x.2 = 9 4 3RD FIR — 65 0CC x 2 = 13 2ND FLR — 130 OCCx 2 = 26 STAIR EGRESS REQ = 49 STAIR EGRESS PROV = 72 1ST FLR-287OCC x15=43 GARAGE FLR — 65 0CC x 2= 13 STAIR EGRESS REQ = 49 TOTAL EGRESS REQ 0 EXIT = 105 TOTAL EGRESS POV 0 EXIT = 144 sR-2 MAX 2000sf 1 EXIT PLUMBING REQUIREMENTS. GARAGE NOT ALLOWED (FEMA) 1ST FIR (287 OCC = 1 PER SEX OR 1 UNISEX 2ND FLR (130 0CC = 3 PER SEX 3RD PER NIT DES i 1 .h H cc v/ RECEIVED I-Z JUN 2 6 Z�COMMUNITY DE116L M DEPAIj � V) i O I Q it E MULBERRY STREET I C PERM t>Ic rt 1 1 I 1 II I 1 1 I I I I III— I 1 1 i 1 I a ci It a 0 0 0 0 i L 4 1 !--I I I I I 1 a ii 1 a % 4 L Q e 133aLS 2131VM Shoot Ne. Protect A9 227ATER NORMNTH MAIN STREET STILLW nw ROOF PLAN Job No. 01-05 Doren by TS Revisions CITY REVEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Dote 26 JUNE 2006 s - q Moa -.ae•• r SO am aft, ....... re♦ -mar. a of On Wa ..eend one.. STEFAN LANDSCAPE ARaa1ECIURE ASSOCIATES 0 F 0 I c. W U i R a �9 i91 � G � MULBERRY STREET f'oo -o J3381S 2131VM Alm5 Pro}et 227 NORTH MAIN STREET STILLWATER MN no. GROUND FLOOR Job Nu 01-05 Drawn by TS R.�idm. Nhor ON8T TON Dab 28 JJNE 2008 I left at.`.r Sib lb — onp•din ON Oa I= AO tmar..�. ueMre�ir orie ar minim STEFAN LANDSCAPE ARCIDIEClURE ASSOCIATES Gi r. 'is iiBWiia. v 4.4 —1- 1 s y 41 11Illlllllllli::1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIhI- _.80.4.'� °�,�%�.sp.q 11- , ail rAvt. q 6 4I A11 227ATER MN NORTH MAN STREET STILLW Title BUILDING SECTION Job Na 01-05 orswl by 15 Date 28 JJNE 2008 1twirl e.RepOle rl+._ ._..tir.mid e.... dip MOWN babes =bad mar srdeb rMOM - Ebbw STEFAN TII r� tit is 11111111 111 111 ; 1111111111111111111111�ll- II11111111 1111IIIIIi1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi1111111111111==4> t Leum 1 1 11 111111111 1 1 1 LI 1 1 III `. 1 I l I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 14111 -++ 1 1 +. H-I 41-H-1. + 1-H-F -11-F 1-1++i--1 111 Ie I I 11 11 11 Pain -O —O 311eet Rs Prod Al2 2S1ILLW27 ATER MN NORTH MAIN STREET Ink BUILDING SECTION Jae Ha Re.Ykm 01-05 CITY t1 W Oraw1 by NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Ts Dabs 28 JUNE 2008 1WOr=ah rl Y n.w -- r1'w Yr al Ile .": O10 MOM 1.001011.111b.1 STEFAN MaintiURE ASSOCIATES V I ME I I 1=1 INE I I I ME I I MI IN MI Sh7 No. Profrt 1E111 I= • 0 itti3 227TEIN19RTH MAIN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Job 7 01 —OS Down by TS RogIolorto Data 26 JJNE 2006 c> I Waxy mar Si. an ea pima bp as mar Nip ant owasok ala I gm alp alba aflame alba war la a slap a Mal& apleaae mai= STEFAN ASSOCIATES Mu:.712IN SEL7iff MULBERRY STREET 1 1 ! It 11111! 11!' f ;' i R ;I; A A 1II N II s ■ r$ OR Ali Sheet No. Project L1 227 NORTH MAN STREET STILLWATER MN mu. PLANTING PLAN Job No. Drown by Ts Date 26 JUNE 06 Jte tebroCITY _ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I rot ono eet so On mu 318 1111111 z •• •— 1 • • • III III�� ctro • STEFAN 9 Short No Project A2 227 NORTH MAIN STREET STILLWATER MN SITE PLAN Joe No Dram by .Is 11; MULBERRY STREET CITY RRIEW NOT FOR OONBTRIJCflON Oats 28 JUNE 2008 INN \\\\\. mmriI I WON wee OM Ma On Penill l,_ 1amimp w gland kw Sod ,� odbat ned.s.MOM I Lit STEFAN A880QATEB t E B I R H P i A F OF MINNECOIA Planning Commission DATE July 6, 2006 APPLICANT Krech Exteriors REQUEST Sketch Plan and Annexation Discussion CASE NO 06-35 LOCATION 1100 feet east of McKusick Road & south of Manning Avenue (north and west of the Settlers Glen development) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RR, Rural Residential ZONING NA (In Township) PC DATE July 10, 2006 LANDOWNER William D Krech and Gregory J Wallace REVIEWERS Community Dev Director PREPARED BY Michel Pogge, City Planner mip BACKGROUND Background - Krech Exteriors has submitted a request to discuss a Sketch Plan for property owned by William D Krech and Gregory J Wallace The property is located south of Manning Avenue and approximately 1100 feet east of McKusick Road It is bounded on the east and south by the Settlers Glen development Project density - The Sketch Plan shows a total of 17 single family lots over 6 acres The resulting density is 2 83 units per acre Lot sizes range from approximately 10,010 square feet to approximately 17,750 square feet The rrurumum lot width is 77 feet The applicant has indicated that they desire to develop the property under the RA, One -Family District zoning regulations Potential rezoning - The sketch plan could be rezoned to any of several Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning districts They are TR, Traditional Residential, CR, Cottage Residential, or CCR, Cove Cottage Residential Each district has its advantages and disadvantages If the developers do not want to use a PUD approach, then the project could also be development under the RA, Single Family Zoning District classification If developed as ,Krech Exteriors Sketch Plan July 10, 2005 PC Meeting Page 2 of 4 a RA zoning without a PUD this development could lack many of the design elements and controls that are part of the Settler s Glen and proposed with the Manning Station Local street design - The local streets planned by the developer incorporate some basic requirements a connection between Settler s Glen to the east and the Classic Home Design sketch plan to the west Due to the railroad to the north, the complete development of Settler's Glen to the south, and since the areas to the east and west are not developed there is no street connection to this property currently available A street will need to be extended to this property from either the east or west sides prior to development of this site The concept plan for Settler's Glen shows the connection to this property on northern side of the development as opposed to the south side as shown on this sketch plan This layout may need to be modified Finally, the proposed street design fails to provide any of the character that is seen in other developments in the area Annexation - This subject parcel is not located within the City Therefore it would need to be annexed before the property could be developed The property is located within the Phase IV annexation area, which provides for annexation in 2015 There is however a provision that allows City Council the discretion to approve earlier annexation if several criteria are met Those criteria include that the property has to be contiguous with property already annexed into the City, that urban utilities must be available, and that no more than 120 building permits per year can be issued in the orderly annexation area All of the criteria can be met for this parcel, however, there are questions related to the extension of Sanitary Sewer to this property Water and Sanitary Sewer for this property was planned to be extended through the Settler's Glen development to the northeastern edge of the property Utihties are not currently available at this location since the portion of Settler s Glen adjacent to this development has yet to be developed Either the developer will need to work with the developer of Settler's Glen to have the utilities extended to them or the developer will need to explore alternative routes for Water and Sanitary Sewer mains One possibihty that could be explored is to extend these utihties through the Classic Home Design sketch plan to the west Without completing and engineering analysis staff is not certain if a pipe extended from the Classic Home Design sketch plan is deep enough to serve the entire development The Classic Home Design sketch plan is scheduled to come before the Planning Comrrussion for discussion on the same night as this project As was identified during discussions on Manning Station, the proper timing for annexation and urban development is still subject to debate The most critical issue identified in this regard was arterial transportation The City Council felt generally that until either a signal at McKusick Road and Manning Avenue is installed, or a plan for the extension of the Neal Avenue is developed, that adding more traffic to McKusick Road was probably not acceptable ,Krech Exteriors Sketch Plan July 10, 2005 PC Meeting Page 3 of 4 REVIEW PROCESS The Planning Commission is bemg requested to have an informal discussion of the Sketch Plan and annexation proposal When the developer is ready to begin the formal process, the following specific requests will need to be made of the City 1 Rezoning a Currently the property is located within Stillwater Township Consequently, once annexed, the property will be zoned AP, Agricultural Preservation So the property will have to be rezoned b A PUD rezoning to CR, Cottage Residential, TR, Traditional Residential or CCR, Cove Cottage Residential would be consistent with the proposed lot sizes However, the concept plan does not incorporate PUD elements, which would have to be revised if a PUD rezoning were to be proposed With CCR of Settler s Glen to the south and east and proposed Manning Station development and the CR zoning to the west the developer's proposed RA zoning classification may not be constant with development m the area Additionally, this development as RA zoning without a PUD will lack many of the design elements and controls that are part of the Settler s Glen and Manning Station developments c A rezoning to RA Single Family Residential could be requested 2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment a Currently the Comprehensive Plari s land use map designates the property for RR, Semi -Rural Residential development (See Exhibit A) When the property is annexed mto the City, this designation will need to be amended b The proposed density is 2 83 units per acre The Single Family Small Lot (SFSL) land use designation allows for up to 4 units per acre Since Settler's Glen on the east of the Sketch Plan site is already developed as an SFSL project, it would seem to be consistent to amend the Comp Plan map to the SFSL designation for this project 3 Prehmmary Plat Approval 4 Annexation a Since all of the properties are in Stillwater Township, annexation would be necessary b According to the orderly annexation agreement, the City and Township would be allowed the option to approve annexation earher than 2015 This is due to the "infill" status of the property However, if sufficient infrastructure is not available to support the proposal, it may be premature to approve an early annexation 5 Final Plat approval Krech Exteriors Sketch Plan ,Ju1y 10, 2005 PC Meeting Page 4 of 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the Sketch Plan and comment on as many of the issues as possible to give the development team a general sense of the Commission s view of the proposal attachments Comp Plan Land Use Map Sketch Plan vvr I I r L.vv V I v IV I fill 06/16/06 08 14 FAX 7634348001 RLH It`C0RPOR'J rl) c uu I/uvz Z1002 PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 550B2 Case No ✓ •S Date Filed (P//40700 Fee Paid Receipt No ACTION REQUESTED SpeclallConditional Use Permit Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development* Certificate of Compliance X Sketch Plan Discussion The fees for requested action are attached to thls application X Sketch Plan Annexation 'An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and eng�7ng fees The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted In connection with any application All supporting material (l e , photos, sketches, etc) submitted with application becomes the property of the City of Stillwater Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material Is required A site plan. Is required with applications Any Incomplete application or supporting material wl!! delay the application process PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Protect 12205 McKusick Road North Assessors Parcel No 190-302-031-0001 Zoning District Description of Project_ 6.-one Res ulenti al npvu1 npmPnt (GEO Code) "1 hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith In all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct I further certify 1 will comply with the permit if It Is granted and used Representative Greg Wallace Applicant Krech Exteriors __ Mailing Address 5858 Blackshire Path Mailing Address 5858 Blackshire Path City - State - Zip Inver Grove Heights. 11N 55076 Telephone No 651-6 368 Signature (Signature as required) Lot Size (dImensions) x Land Area Height of Buildings Stories Principal Accessory Feet City- State-ZipTnver GrnvP Neightg, MN 55076 Telephone No 651-688-6368 Signature Same (Signature is SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Total Building floor area Existing Proposed Paved Impervious Area No of off-street parking spaces required) square feet square feet square feet square feet Krech Exteriors Concept Sketch Plan June 16, 2006 Narrative Krech Extenors is proposing an 17 lot residential development on a parcel located adjacent to CR 64 (McKusick Road N ), west of Marylane Avenue N and east of Settlers Glen Outlot C The development will utilize standard RA -one zoning regulations Access through the development will be from CR 64 Marylane and from Settlers Glen in the future The parcel in the proposed development is currently in Stillwater Township Krech Extenors is requesting that the City of Stillwater consider annexation of this parcel The parcel is adjacent to the City and utilities are present in the area DL, lake, MN Ham Lke, MN �' DI Minnetonka., MN ( MOU11PUa.\i}'D\nD 1 Mon. 763 V FacRyB `ltinem434 ] 1321 Andover Boulevard • Suite 114 • Ham Lake, MN 55304 COUNTY ROAD 64 (SETTLERS GLEN\ I ,', f I KRECH EXTERIORS Concept Sketch Plan • i .j • 11 n R 8 n n 77 R )1 77 n '3 77 8 8 8 A 8 so 8 MCKUSICK I ROAD NORTH n 77 53 8 78 18 es 85 8 108 135 8 S 8 135 135 135 85 85 85 85 OUTLOT A OUTLOT F SETTLERS GLEN OUTLOT C OUTLOT 0 OUT E 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Date: 6/16/06 9 6 9 1 RLK C NO»PW1 hD ) Duluth. 6W Hon take, 61H Altnnetonia,, kW Phone 763 4347616 F.:7663 434 a007 1321 Andover Boulevard 5mm 114 Hero lak MN 55304 A 11 - - - -g22— COUNTY ROAD f2)4 9T17 -- - . C 9201 9157 \ \g 6\ \ — 1 _ _ MCKUSICK ROAl2_NORTH _; \ - -r _9iB5j15 (-___,=--,--:1---------_: _______--7.,_._--.7-11-,...---7:--7:-:::_ : 7 _ _ _} /1� f ! I I I I4\ "{ LI T ` R \I II II \1 C�I } i ---_\�1 \ \_______I \ \ \ \ I I I 1 \�\\\�`\�\90 ,8, / III ("\ \\ \ \ �\ i , 1 r\ �\ I`' / I \ \ 11 1\ I 1/1// i / I / /\ / } \ s \ I l I `—��� \ \ 111 C� 10 5 1 1 , \9r\ , a i �' \ — 0 C 9219 \ \� 1 91 \ \ i _ I (I 9''\LI -I 911E / \\\ 1 + / — `\ �\ J {\ KRECH EXTERIORS Sketch Plan With Topography LANE / i — J 90° I OUTLOT A } `I 1l LEI}') (TLF \i _ MACEY _ OtJTLOT F QUILT r' _., rr311RT OUTLOT B \\ , \\ / \ \ E 0 7 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Date: 6/16/06 Dula*MN Hom Lake, MN RT v kes& MN Mamma., w ( MCP NM ,,,a ) Paige 763 434 7646 V Pas 7b3 /34 BOP/ mew rIklareemn 1321 Andover Boakvud Smte 114 Nam lake MN 55304 I I — , -- , j -- — — I I / ',I I ' I I w w COUNTY ROAD 64 <13 4rvU / \ an I eT \ - ( op �FTZ LF RS GLEN' B'F _ / KRECH EXTERIORS Sketch Plan Annexation 1 l MCKUSICK ROAD NORTH r - - - PROPOSED 77-- ANNEXATION PARCEL` r I rEF 7 G1 ( T LIl1,11,\ /\ / / SIT\kGV,'', tltt / LANE \ \ • OUTL')T A _ MACEY OUTLOT F OLTLOT C WpV rn1IRT OUT,OT B // 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Date: 6/16/06 • 14gAt; onununm Ihnclonment Iknurtrnent Exhibit A Krech Exteriors Comp Plan Map n Property lines Railroad Future Land Use Designations RR, Semi -Rural Residential SFLL, Single Family Large Lot SFSL, Single Family Small Lot SFA, Single Family Attached MF, Multiple Family i NC, Neighborhood Commercial CC, Community Commercial _ BP, Business Park 7-1 NO 1 BP() 1I BPI [ 1 RDOP, Research & Development Office Park OS, Open Space Cemetery Wetland PF I_� l uLI (ommmmnv Development Denaruncnt HE SIFITHPIA I OF MINNICOIA DATE APPLICANT Steve May of Classic Home Design REQUEST Sketch Plan Discussion LOCATION Marylane Avenue North at McKusick Road COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RR, Serru-Rural Residential ZONING NA (In Township) PREPARED BY Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director July 6, 2006 CASE NO 06-36 DISCUSSION Background - Steve May of Classic Home Design has submitted a request to discuss a Sketch Plan for property located on Marylane Avenue North at McKusick Road The property consists of five parcels bounded on the west by Marylane Avenue North, on the north by McKusick Road, and on the south and east by Settler's Glen The project mcludes an exception parcel that impacts unified development m the area Project density - The properties have a combined area of 715 acres, which are conceptually shown to be divided into 22 single family lots The resulting development density is 3 units per acre Lot sizes range from 9,047 square feet to 11,895 square feet The average lot size is 10,220 square feet The lot widths range from 83 feet to 96 feet This density is consistent with the Comp Plan land use map designation of SFSL, Single Family Small Lot Potential rezoning - The sketch plan could be rezoned to any of several Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning districts They are TR, Traditional Residential, CR, Cottage Residenhal;-or CCR, Cove Cottage Residential Each district has its advantages and disadvantages If the developers do not want to use a PUD approach, then the project would have to be designed to fit within the RA, Single Family Zoning District Incidentally, if the RA zoning district is chosen, then five lots would need to be redesigned because they are less than the m,rumum size of 10,000 square feet Local street design - The local streets planned by the developer incorporate some basic requirements a connection between Marylane Avenue and Abercrombie Lane, and stubbed streets for the exception parcel as well as property to the east However, a connection between Classic Home Design Sketch Plan July 6, 2006 Page 2 of 3 Abercrombie Lane and Marylane Avenue will be required during the first phase of development As proposed, the connection would not occur until the exception parcel develops Annexation - None of the subject parcels are located within the City Therefore each would have to be annexed before the property could be developed The property is located within the Phase 1V annexation area, which provides for annexation m 2015 There is however a provision that allows the City Council the discretion to approve earlier annexation if several criteria are met Those criteria include that the property has to be contiguous with property already annexed into the City that urban utilities must be available, and that no more than 120 building permits per year can be issued m the orderly annexation area All of the criteria are met for the southern two parcels The northerly three parcels would be isolated from the City if the property to the east or west is not annexed at the same tune But this may in fact occur The property to the west has been before the City for conceptual development discussions (Manning Station) And the land to the east is scheduled to come before the Planning Commission for discussion on the same night as this project As was identified during discussions on Manning Station, the proper tmvng for annexation and urban development is still subject to debate The most critical issue identified in this regard was arterial transportation The City Council felt generally that until either a signal at McKusick Road and Manning Avenue is installed, or a plan for the extension of the Neal Avenue is developed, that adding more traffic to McKusick Road was probably not acceptable REVIEW PROCESS The Planning Commission is bemg requested to have an informal discussion of the Sketch Plan and annexation proposal When the developer is ready to begin the formal process, the following specific requests will need to be made of the City 1 Rezoning a Currently the property is located within Stillwater Township Consequently, when annexation is approved the property will have to be rezoned b A PUD rezoning to CR, Cottage Residential, TR, Traditional Residential, or CCR, Cove Cottage Residential would be consistent with the proposed lot sizes However, the concept plan does not incorporate PUD elements, which would have to be revised if a PUD rezoning were to be proposed c A rezoning to RA, Single Family Residential could be requested This would require five of the lots to be increased to a muumum of 10,000 square feet 2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment a Currently the Comprehensive Plans land use map designates the property for RR, Semi -Rural Residential development (See Exhibit B) When the property is annexed mto the City, this designation will need to be amended r Classic Home Design Sketch Plan July 6, 2006 Page 3 of 3 b The proposed density is 3 0 units per acre The Single Family Small Lot (SFSL) land use designation allows for up to 4 uruts per acre Smce Settler's Glen on the east of the Sketch Plan site is already developed as an SFSL project, it would seem to be consistent to amend the Comp Plan map to the SFSL designation for this project 3 Preliminary Plat Approval 4 Annexation a Since all of the properties are m Stillwater Township, annexation would be necessary b According to the orderly annexation agreement, the City and Township would be allowed the option to approve annexation earlier than 2015 This is due to the mfill' status of the property However, if sufficient infrastructure is not available to support the proposal, it may be premature to approve an early annexation 5 Final Plat approval RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the Sketch Plan and annexation timing and comment on as many of the issues as possible to give the development team a general sense of the comrrussion s view of the proposal attachments Zoning & Location Map Comp Plan Land Use Map Sketch Plan Exhibit A Classic Home Design Location & Zoning Map n Property lines Railroad Zoning Districts A-P, Agricultural Preservation RA, Single Family Residential ® RB, Two Family LR, Lakeshore Residential TR, Traditional Residential CTR, Cove Traditional Residential am CCR, Cove Cottage Residential CR, Cottage Residential TH, Townhouse NMI CTHR, Cove Townhouse Residential i J RCM, Medium Density Residential RCH, High Density Residential I� CBD, Central Business District CA - General Commercial CRD - Campus Research Developmen: VC, Village Commercial BP-C, Business Park - Commercial ® BP-O, Business Park - Office NIM BP -I, Business Park - Industrial IB, Heavy Industrial MEI PA, Public Administration Public Works Facility Island resPotential right-of-way Q Water 1 c*Igt; (lmmnuma Ih cL nnknt lkunnmru Exhibit B Classic Home Design Comp Plan Map r1 Property lines Railroad Future Land Use Designations r RR, Semi -Rural Residential I SFLL, Single Family Large Lot I SFSL, Single Family Small Lot I I SFA, Single Family Attached MF, Multiple Family NC, Neighborhood Commercial CC, Community Commercial ® BP, Business Park iim a0 BPO BPI RDOP, Research & Development Office Park OS, Open Space IM1 Cemetery Wetland PF ((gall r L__ Duluth, MN Hnm Lake, MN Hibbang, MN 31140onlo, N1N Phone, 763 434 7646 Fax, 763 434 ion erwsv.rlkinc.cnrn 1321 Andover Boulcvand • Suitc 114 . Ham [Ake, MN 55304 L i 1 COUNTY ROAD 64 1 r. OUTLOT E -fit? (SETTLERS GLEN \ / / I i t fi 1 I _ . ; \/ SICK IRON) NORTH I/ / OUTLOT A -•''''', ----„:""ix, ca\)1 ?V./ Ns, / , , i 1 ... ,.-... -,./i ; ,f., V Z ----,.. / / 7„I 44) I ! 1 • 1. CLASSIC HOME DESIGN SETTLERS GLEN OUTLOT C OUTLOT -• • OUTLOT F RECEIVED IJUN 1 6 2006 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ...** DEPARTMENT 0 1 00 200 SCALE IN FEET Concept Sketch Plan Date: 6/16/06 r 3 1 5 RLK 1 Fox.,. ,+n > Mail H nL4 AIN Hilabing. MN k mn1,00k . AIN Phone 763 434 7646 FRrr634348007 1321 tuadovra Bwlev.nd Saute 114 Ham Lakc MN 55304 1 —OLJNTY ROAD 64 971- 7 92_ 7 / 1 I' 1 { 1 9 15 7 il, 1'I I k- _=- ___I ' _a I$ , // /• * --'-_-c\--_T1I l JP ..1I \C05 i \\\1V N / \ — 922� � \�\ \\\ ,� �11 L'� ��L� \N\ OU OT E t / / �l P-- -/ � �� / / I / Q ��__-- / ( I OUTLOT F ,- 9 1 p* // \ c 1 I f - �92— = \ f \\ :11\' ! / \ i1 I F— I / _Q� / J Ou LET I� / ��'\ , G =-1 B� ,0 I f� . 1 J ,F FILERS GI ^�� `�\ '- i LANE `� , 1 / /9p6\ ✓ , \ I I \ - • Nam. \ 1-i / / �\ 1 N 1 I / \ \ \ / / \ \ I )i -, 920 , / \ _ I 1 —922— \ t- �9� — \ ) - -I _ j MCKUSICK ROAQ�.NORTH ` / 9185 —� ▪ \C__ dna 7 .7 /�� ~ --% \\�. `^� — ���% ice) /�--9 / -- / -906-, \ \� —I\ / / / �a, \�� \` /� /IJ // /'0 I/ \\\ �- _ I I (2 -- \ \,,I-----__,„- - -� / 9�� � /! \ 1 `\ \\ i - 4 /� \ \ \ 9 0 —/ l 9� \ ^z I / - j I 1 1 `' \ '-- , 9= \-2-- A ,•_" .7 • '.1 I 2 \ —1 \ --- (/ 0-c` 1\ 1 \\ \ \� _ 1 `� 11 ��M1 \'— \ ` — I I le N. \`o \\ ....-. -,.,, C.:" ",, I OJTt OT 1 I \� q'\ O \ L , \ \'\" I ;I] liLP') CLE\1 OU7LDT OUT,OT / I II fA'I )� 11 \� I� "\00` \9T\ CLASSIC HOME DESIGN Sketch Plan With Topography _ MACEY i / / / / rnl IRT O 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Date • 6/16/06 RLK ( NW PUL 11. Duluth. MN Hmn lake. MN Minn m ,111 Phone. 763 434 7646 Pes7663 0 •rIketeenut 1321 Andover Houkvmd Smte 114 Ham Lake MN 55300 1 I \ I li \ / ,I 1 I 11 III — I • 1 •)1 1(1,1• Rc, (TI H COUNTY ROAD 64 o0 21- \IN S I —I r MCKUSICK ROAD NORTH — _ / PROPOSED ANNEXATION PARCEL / ' PROPOSED ANNEXATION PARCEL / , a� \\\ SY r\10 k 't.0, 9;y ell OUTOTE� \ ,9„4/ LANE CLASSIC HOME DESIGN Sketch Plan Annexation / 0—'rLOT A L;r1rlLF t)]1-\ MACEY _ OUT' OT F OUT OT WpY 0 PLOT 6 ,/ j• \ / \\ \ / OUT CON \ 7 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Date: 6/ 16/06 SET /.e#N f0PE .9T STONE o'/ON. LOC. STGWE ,414..f VE0 By ,eawD LkAmr.. — — ,e. G¢ 8 CrY /'7/9P — ---- 31/f pa�� • • 1 \ li • %EST L/Nv /UGgTT0"D L/9d,e,g S7 1 1 .ST2/vE /Kew. Loc, w4 �sEc, za, 7-3 # ,eZp/e /T/L. Pow OLD ..9 /,h?'s OJ WA/:'i/ar/ // .4ND /ylr/ B,C, 3 I Arno OG WEST Md4 P2 E 57eEE7 DEED A475 r,, RY y .2 eP " E�r57'" /�'. 97' f '7 - — /7. /V8e°56 44-'E /mil. 97. DO - - — ,e . OAST � -c /e y7_ 4488 °S- :AfL'E 3Z DO - CONC. ' (, • • Ft.0. . �.1 «- • \- i'. �E.vTE.PIi/YE Loc. dS .s;Sbicyy OA/ C/TY 52cr/ONfiL /7'AP /14. /7 014a, /'7;1/ A/o. • /Z" Pi.YE- 8:7'fi >Z, 7'+ \�\\\\• •\\\\A( , ,. AA 9. r3 LPL :. .-/ETf/2 Zoc. /ovasz EY /y er-e Cd/VZ '/. ' 48'4' 3o66 F97 t I/vo. Md7-5/,9E \ acc/oe BGPec • �,//i L G. LN7a" L/A/,t' (TYvJ \ 3q - \\ •\\\ aec, Ism Z �Np. /37. 0 P/4/ Y/7 I t N I 11 /ar A /B 40- /YG c�Y 1' /S;OD z .� -r 1 00 As \ • sfr� •••\\\\ \ / L,9TTEI,� r CoNc; 3,3'± ' oar . /z " Locas,r N .LOT // W /.,gri2-,�z21/T 0 pv Ec, "// 7-1' - 52 00 - -- /!/88°S6/E /l/. 4A/E- 5415/4v 5 , pR M /VE T. // , N # /37741 /- P AVA9°;; oG . /;E Zac, Sk/ 2 y, L/iV4- Lo7_ // /eEC. "✓D )7 / C///E , ,e c. NE " Of-5Z•6V' L&S'.) ,eec. SOU �Lf6ASTE2L //NE (os-n/EJG /v DE5•) Dvc, / t 47594 7 (i�•/ae7. OF LO r //) 537/ Sp, /rT lc (SdWS, 7 P.74W Z-S4/7; : ti C /$ Gives- 5 ' 3-t Lo T /O Zar /2 ftni CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY SURVEY OF PART OF LOT 11, BLOCK 3, SABIN'S Addition THE CITY OF STILLWATER, WASHINGTON CO., MINN. Survey Made For: Roberta Pugsley 923 West Maple Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Allen and Mary Oswald 924 West Laurel Street Stillwater, MN 55082 TO Roberta Pugsley Parcel Description: As Supplied - Per Title Comm. 495576-LIST. All that part of Lot 11, Block 3 of Sabin's Addition to the City of Stillwater, described as follows: Beginning at a point 60 feet West of the Northeast corner of said Lot and running thence South 110 feet to the South line of said Lot, thence northerly along the West line of said Lot, to the Northwest corner thereof, and thence Easterly 37 feet to the place of beginning, Washington County, Minnesota. Allen and Mary Oswald Parcel Description: As Recorded: - Doc. No. 475947, Wash. Co., records. See copy of same transmitted with this survey. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY EASEMENT DESCRIPTION: (Oswald to Pugsley) An easement for driveway purposes only, with no parking permitted, over, under and across all that part of Lot 11, Block 3, Sabin's Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows, to wit: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 11; thence Westerly along the North line thereof for 52.00 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as "Point A"; thence South and parallel with the East line of said Lot 11, a distance of 44.00 feet to the point of beginning of the driveway easement being described; thence North and parallel with said East line of Lot 11, a distance of 44.00 feet to the before described "Point A"; thence West along said North line of Lot 11, a distance of 8.00 feet; thence South at right angles, 64.00 feet; thence east at right angles, 18.00 feet; thence North at right angles, 10.00 feet; thence northwesterly 14.14 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. The above described Driveway Easement contains 662 square feet, more or less. Notes: Orientation of this bearing system is an assumed datum. o Indicates 1/2" I. D. iron pipe in place marked with a plastic plug inscribed STACK RLS 13774. • Indicates monument found in place as noted. "M." Indicates field measured value. "R." Indicates plat record value. OU---- Indicates overhead utility lines inplace. " Q " Indicates tree in place, trunk size and type as noted. Offsets shown to existing structures are measured to the outside building wall line, unless shown or noted otherwise. Any projections from said building wall lines, such as eaves, sills, steps, etc., will impact existing or proposed offsets accordingly. Underground or overhead, public or private utilities, on or adjacent the parcels, were not located in conjunction with this survey, unless shown or noted otherwise hereon. Note concrete pavement (patio) and porch westerly and southwesterly of the westerly line of Lot 11, Block 3, Sabin's Addition to Stillwater. These improvements appear to be located, in part, in portions of platted Laurel Street, as shown and dedicated on said plat. The Proposed New Garage location shown hereon, is subject to the review and approval of the City of Stillwater. Access to the new garage is intended to be over and across the the above Proposed Driveway Easement Parcel Description. The present access to the existing shed and gravel drive southerly of the Pugsley residence, is over and across portions of the Oswald Parcel. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this use is not presently defined by recorded easement as to location and width. Survey Prepared By: Stack Land Surveying 9090 North Fairy Falls Road Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 tel: (651) 439-5630 June 30, 2006 I hereby certify that this survey plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Barrett M. Stack, Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 13774