Loading...
2005.06.13 PC Meeting PacketCRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SUMMARY June 13, 2005 7:00 p.m. Crystal City Hall - Council Chambers 4141 Douglas Dr N A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ■ May 9, 2005 regular meeting* C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consider Application 2005-04 for a Variance at 6118 39th Avenue North to allow a second curb cut for an existing driveway.* 2. Consider Application 2005-05 for a Variance at 3800 Yates Avenue North to allow a second curb cut for an existing driveway.* 3. Consider Application 2005-06 for Variances at 4031 Adair Avenue North to allow a second curb cut for an existing driveway and the other curb cut to be 26 feet wide.* 4. Consider Application 2005-07 for a Variance at 4955 Quail Avenue North to reduce the front and rear setback requirements to match the location of the existing house.* 5. Consider Application 2005-08 for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for renovation of the Crystal Aquatic Center at 4800 Douglas Drive North.* D. OLD BUSINESS E. NEW BUSINESS F. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. City Council actions on recent Planning Commission items.* 2. Staff preview of likely agenda items for July 11, 2005 meeting. G. OPEN FORUM H. ADJOURNMENT *Items for which supporting material will be included in the meeting packet. CRYSTAL PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 99 2005 A. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Crystal Planning Commission convened at 7:00 p.m. with the following present: Davis, Nystrom, Whitenack, VonRueden, Krueger, Hester, Atkinson, and Strand. Also present were the following: Planner Sutter, Zoning Administrator Zimmerman, Recording Secretary Van Krevelen, and Council Liaison Bowman. Absent was Sears. B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to approve the minutes of the April 11, 2005 regular meeting and work session. Motion carried. C. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consider Application 2005-02 for a Conditional Use Permit for Chipotle Mexican Grill to establish a patio seating area for outdoor food and beverage service at 5608 West Broadway (currently Schlotzky's Deli). Zoning Administrator Zimmermann summarized the staff report and stated that staff recommends approval including the findings of fact and conditions found in Section C of the staff report. He wanted to note number eight, and said that 5' of sidewalk must be maintained, and applicant indicated they will work with staff to maintain that distance. A concern was that cars would pull right up to the curb and the bumpers would overhang, therefore reducing the sidewalk space. Some possible suggestions for corrections include making those parking areas for compact cars only or putting in a parking bumper and extending the parking aisle a foot or two back. Commissioner Krueger questioned whether smoking would be allowed in the patio area and whether the restaurant would have a liquor license. Zoning Administrator Zimmermann answered that smoking would be allowed in the patio area and they do intend on serving alcohol. Planner Sutter stated that the restaurant plans to have full bar service. Brock Heinrich from Chipotle Mexican Grill also responded that they do generally apply for a full liquor license but usually only serve beer or margaritas, liquor sales are only a small part of overall sales, and customers must buy food in order to purchase liquor. Commissioner Nystrom questioned the hours of operation and whether alcohol would be served on Sundays. Mr. Heinrich stated they will be open 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week and alcohol can be served during those times, including Sunday. Because they have a full liquor license and are not off -sale, they are not restricted on Sundays. Moved by Commissioner Nystrom and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2005-02 for a Conditional Use Permit for Chipotle Mexican Grill to establish a patio seating area for outdoor food and beverage service at 5608 West Broadway (currently Schlotzky's Deli). Conditions of approval are as noted in staff memo. Motion carried. 2. Consider Application 2005-03 for a Conditional Use Permit for El Loro Mexican Restaurant to establish a patio seating area for outdoor food and beverage service at 99 Willow Bend. Zoning Administrator Zimmermann said that this is very similar to the previous application. He also explained that El Loro's current plan allows space for 36 seats along with a 4' sidewalk, and the patio would be surrounded with a 4' high fence. He also stated that staff recommends approval including the findings of fact and conditions found in Section C of the staff report. He wanted to again note number eight, stating that 5' of sidewalk must be maintained. Commissioner Krueger questioned whether 4' would be sufficient room for a wheelchair. Zoning Administrator Zimmermann said that after consulting with the building official and fire dept., it was determined that 4' was the maximum that would be required for wheelchair access. Planner Sutter clarified where the 5' sidewalk requirement came from. Based on the traffic and usage of this area, staff felt it was comparable to usage of a sidewalk located along a city street, and that they should use the same specs. He also stated the 5' exceeds any requirements for accessibility. Commissioner Whitenack mentioned that someone in a wheelchair would have difficulty opening the door because they would be unable to open the door past them, and thought reversing the opening of the door swing would be a viable option. Zoning Administrator Zimmermann said that one of the conditions is that the city building official and fire inspector must inspect the area prior to opening so all life/safety and code issues are addressed at that time. Commissioner Nystrom questioned whether there would be music on the patio. Ken Henk of Paster Enterprises said that Chipotle Mexican Grill did propose to put speakers on their patio, but was unsure whether El Loro was planning to also. Zoning Administrator Zimmermann stated that Chipotle's plan did include music, but El Loro did not mention music in their plan. Commission Nystrom also asked Mr. Henle if the 5' sidewalk requirement is acceptable to them. He said it was, that it would make the patio seating a little tighter, and they may have to adjust the size of the tables, but they would make it work. He also stated that per the ADA, 12" is required on the latch set and said that maybe the doors to the restaurant should be reversed. Commissioner Whitenack and Mr. Henk briefly discussed options and Commissioner Whitenack suggested that this be forwarded on to the inspector, but Mr. Henk said they as property owners will take care of it. Mr. Henk stated that they will be providing the fencing and lighting and the tenant will be providing the furnishings. Zoning Administrator Zimmermann mentioned that there is no parking adjacent to the sidewalk at El Loro, which is why that issue was not addressed in this case. Moved by Commissioner VonRueden and seconded by Commissioner Krueger to recommend to the City Council to approve Application 2005-03 for a Conditional Use Permit for El Loro Mexican Restaurant to establish a patio seating area for outdoor food and beverage service at 99 Willow Bend. Finding of facts and conditions of approval are as noted in staff memo. Motion carried. D. OLD BUSINESS None E. NEW BUSINESS None F. GENERAL INFORMATION Development Status Report for quarter ending March 31, 2005. Planner Sutter mentioned that this was distributed prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 2. Staff previews of likely agenda items for June 13, 2005 meeting. Planner Sutter stated that there will probably be three variance applications for second curb cuts in Phase 7 area. There are three properties with second curb cuts that are actually used and go to a second garage or parking space. Those three will probably be applying for a variance to allow the city to build a second curb cut. There may also be a variance application for an older house that was made non -conforming when the land around it was platted and made smaller. Planner Sutter also said staff may request a Public Hearing on looking at amending the Comprehensive Plan to address those marginal industrial properties that lay north of the railroad tracks west of Douglas where Mel -o Honey used to be. There has been a change in state law so the city may want to reconsider the strategy for dealing with that area. Council will probably be authorizing a Comprehensive Plan amendment at their May 17, 2005 meeting and if so would be on the agenda for the Planning Commission at the June meeting. Staff is also thinking about proposing an ordinance change to allow very small outside seating areas as a permitted accessory use for businesses not serving alcohol, such as a sidewalk cafe or ice cream shop. Planner Sutter also updated the commissioners on 4916 Bernard Ave. N., all parties are on board for Scenario B, which defines everyone's properties down to the water. We are now waiting for the Hennepin County Examiner to give the go- ahead to implement it. If that is received in the next couple days and everything falls in place, it will go before council next week. Commissioner Krueger asked if the pawn shop was going into the old Carpet King building, and said they were doing work on the parking lot. Planner Sutter said he wasn't aware of any work being done in the parking lot, and mentioned the pawn shop had invested a lot of money in the building to put sprinklers in. He said that the pawn shop has not submitted any plans to redo the parking lot and thought maybe they were just doing maintenance. He also mentioned that Carpet King plans on reducing the size of the parking lot at their new location by half and replacing it with native prairie and kind of a rain garden to provide some passive storm water treatment. G. OPEN FORUM None H. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Krueger and seconded by Commissioner Nystrom to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 7, 2005 TO: Pla ming Commission (June 13th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2005-04 for a variance to allow a second curb cut for an existing driveway at 6118 39th Avenue North. A. BACKGROUND The subject property includes a house with a south -facing two -car attached garage on the east side of the house. The house has a north -facing walkout basement including a workshop area located below the main garage. There is also a 752 sq. ft. detached garage located near the northwest corner of the rear yard. The original 20' x 22' portion (440 sq. ft.) was built in 1988, and a 12' x 26' (312 sq. ft.) addition was built in 1995. It is this detached garage which is the subject of this report, specifically the need for a second curb cut and the continuing lack of a hard surfaced driveway. The following is a synopsis of the history of the detached garage based on the records on file at City Hall: In 1988 the original 440 sq. ft. portion of the detached garage was built. Due to the topography of the site, the detached garage depends on access along the west side of the house, on the opposite side from the driveway serving the attached garage. At the time it was built, city code prohibited a second curb cut, just as it does today. However, the building permit and related notes does not include any mention of the second curb cut issue. No variance to allow a second curb cut was sought by the property owner or approved by the City Council. In 1995 a 312 sq. ft. addition was built onto the detached garage. At that time, city code required that a hard surfaced driveway be installed. Discussions about the hard surfacing requirement should have triggered consideration of the need for a variance to allow a second curb cut. The building permit and related notes are silent about the requirement that a hard surfaced driveway be installed, in addition to being silent on the second curb cut issue. During its review of existing driveways for the Phase 7 street reconstruction project, staff became aware of not only the need for a second curb cut but also the lack of a hard surfaced driveway required by city code. Both of these issues should have been dealt with in 1995, and, in the case of the second curb cut, in 1988. Because the city's policy is to construct the street project in compliance with city code, staff advised the property owner that the street project would not be installing a second curb cut unless a variance is granted by the City Council. The property owner has requested a variance from 515.17 Subd. 4 g) 7) to allow a second curb cut to be installed as part of the Phase 7 street reconstruction project. The requested curb cut would be 10' wide. This would match not only the approximate width of the crushed rock driveway, but also the hard surfaced driveway the property owner would install to bring the property into compliance. He has acknowledged the city's hard surfacing requirement but intends to ask the City Council to suspend enforcement of that requirement until he ceases to own or occupy the house. Notice of the June 13, 2005 public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property on May 26, 2005. The following Exhibits are attached: A. Aerial photo showing the location of the property. B. Sketch showing existing buildings and driveways on the site. C. Photos of the site taken June 6, 2005. D. Narrative submitted by the applicant. B. STAFF COMMENTS As discussed above, the second curb cut issue was not addressed, as it should have been, when the detached garage was constructed in 1988 and expanded in 1995. Staff believes that there are topographic hardships that may justify a variance allowing the property to have a second curb cut. In order for a variance to be granted, state law and city code require that all three of the following criteria be met: ■ The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by the code. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner. ■ The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. In addition, state law and city code specifically state that economic considerations alone do not constitute an undue hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under the code. C. RECOMMENDATION Approve the requested variance from 515.17 Subd. 4 g) 7) to allow installation of a second curb cut. Suggested findings of fact are as follows: Denial of the requested variance would constitute an undue hardship in this particular case because all of the three required criteria are met. Specifically: VARIANCE - 2ND CURB CUT - 6118 39TH 2 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. Reasonable use of the property includes the existing detached garage in the rear yard. But for the lack of a hard surfaced driveway, and the fact that it requires a second curb cut for access, the detached garage would otherwise be in compliance with city code. It is not unusually large relative to the size of the lot, the size of the rear yard, or the size of the house. The second curb cut and driveway across the boulevard are necessary for access to the existing lawfully nonconforming detached garage in the rear yard. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. Specifically, topographic conditions unique to the property require the driveway for the detached garage to be located on the opposite side of the house from the main driveway serving the detached garage. A driveway from the property's main curb cut to the rear yard would have to be located in the east side yard, which drops approximately 8 feet from front to rear. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The west curb cut would be separated from the primary (east) curb cut by approximately 67 feet, which would not be an unusual separation between curb cuts for two separate single family houses in Crystal. Planning Commission action is requested. Findings of fact addressing whether or not the three variance criteria are met should be included in the motion. The Planning Commission may choose to use staff's recommended findings of fact by reference in the motion. Two issues that may be addressed by the City Council that are not directly related to the suggested findings of fact: ■ Staff will ask the City Council to order a refund of the variance application fee in this case. The reason for the refund is that the immediate need for the variance is being triggered by the city's street project so it may construct a second curb cut serving the property. Because the lack of a hard surfaced driveway is an outstanding zoning violation on the property, the city staff will deal with it as a standard code enforcement matter. Our expectation would be for the property owner to install the required hard surfaced driveway by the end of this year. If the owner requests that the hard surfacing requirement be deferred, for example, until he ceases to own or occupy the house, the City Council may direct staff to suspend enforcement but may also require an escrow from the owner to guarantee that the hard surfacing will, in fact, be installed. VARIANCE - 2ND CURB CUT - 6118 39TH 3 `'DED MAP. IT INFORMATION !TY AND STATE tIR SOURCES. SCA f 4L $t? � itE-i li €XHCB1: Q 1C, EXHIBIT B . . ....... ilt i � f.4��C.� I � } P i — I } ! l— j i I —i a ,— { ��i I _ tu �4 ! I_ —� � j -_- _—_:-_ r__.-,_ _-_- ,- } !.__ � �11 2�, I � � i 1 f f to rvv ------1_' j i-' i- !-------- 1C, EXHIBIT B NOV- wr 171 A Ill a ��� .�'�"� ,PY, c, 1�`•y� 444' «. �C� :. :•� � � is �t gy144At r, 4 5 � x „ r� 3: + ami• f:.+ k_f" "jl 4 'fir . - R het •K EXHIBIT D co2 a - �tp ----- --------- EXHIBIT D M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 7, 2005 TO: gohn Hing Commission (June 13tH meeting) FROM: Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator -Consider Apllow a plication 2005-05 for nates Avenue riance to allorth. SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Cons driveway at 3800 Y second curb cut for an existing A BACKGROUND one -car attached garage, subject property includes a house with Yate AvenuenThere is alsoaa 6e76 sq.ssed ft. an The su 1 driveway fro ard, accessed via an existing located near the northeast corner of the rear detached garage from 38th Avenue. existing driveway was built in 1950. and driveway to Yates, to 38th, but the attached garage and driveway The house, including permit in the file for the detached garage is no building p e were in existence at that time. Second curb There s indicate they s detached our 1966 planimetric map . 1976, long after the property' rohibited beginning cuts were prohibited established. second driveway project, providing access to both driveways for the Phase 7 street reconstruction p 1 During its review of existing in staff bec nine aware of the need for a second to constructbthe street project et ro. ct would existing garages. Because the city's Policy CO ert owner that thetheCityCouncil. lg gar with city code, staff advised the p p Y ranted by comp 7 to allow a riance is not be installing a second curb cut invariance from 515g17 Subd. stgruct on project. The The property owner has requestedart of the Phase 7 street reconstruction measured along the second curb cut to be installed as p requested curb cut would be 13, wide, to match the driveway ithin 350 property line. property owners w publicJune 13, 2005 hearing was mailed to all prop Y Notice of the subject prop rty May 26, 2005. feet of the 1 The following Exhibits are attached: Aerial hoto showing the location a the property. on the site. A. Ae p existing buildings and driveway B. Sketch showing 2005. June 6 C. Photos of the mi d by the applicant. D. Narrative sub B. STAFF COMMENTS Since 1976, city code has not allowed more than one curb cut per single family house, or, by extension, additional garages if they require an additional curb cut for access. However, when the detached garage was built on the subject property there was no such prohibition. If the street project does not install the second curb cut, access to a lawful nonconforming structure would be denied. Staff believes this would constitute an undue hardship, and therefore a variance would be appropriate. In order for a variance to be granted, state law and city code require that all three of the following criteria be met: ■ The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by the code. ■ The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner. ■ The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. In addition, state law and city code specifically state that economic considerations alone do not constitute an undue hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under the code. C. RECOMMENDATION Approve the requested variance from 515.17 Subd. 4 g) 7) to allow installation of a second curb cut. Suggested findings of fact are as follows: Denial of the requested variance would constitute an undue hardship in this particular case because all of the three required criteria are met. Specifically: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. Reasonable use of the property includes continuing use of the existing lawfully nonconforming detached garage and driveway in the rear yard. The second curb cut and driveway across the boulevard are necessary for access to the existing lawfully nonconforming detached garage and driveway in the rear yard. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. Specifically, the detached garage became lawfully nonconforming in 1976 when the city amended its code to prohibit second curb cuts. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Each curb cuts would be on a different street, and would be located a sufficient distance from other properties' curb cuts to provide a visual separation on each street visually indistinguishable from what is typically found between curb cuts for two separate single family houses in Crystal. VARIANCE - 2ND CURB CUT - 3800 YATES 2 Planning Commission action is requested. Findings of fact addressing whether or not the three variance criteria are met should be included in the motion. The Planning Commission may choose to use staff's recommended findings of fact by reference in the motion. One additional issue that may be addressed by the City Council but is not directly related to the suggested findings of fact: ■ Staff will ask the City Council to order a refund of the variance application fee in this case. The reason for the refund is that the immediate need for the variance is being triggered by the city's street project so it may construct a second curb cut serving the property. VARIANCE - 2ND CURB CUT - 3800 YATES 3 EXCHIBIT A PL 4- 2- A .ZA 2AC,�d' OR74 �A�Ca Add, I} EXHIBIT B We have lived at this property for over 8 years now & are requesting a variance on a second curb cut. Our house was built back in 1950 with 2 driveways, (see sketch) they both lead to garages that are both used on a daily basis. We are looking to expand the second driveway to the maximum allowed 22' due to the fact that the garage is a 2 -car garage Highlighted section shows the variance asking for. Thanks, a yl T. Reuben 3800Yates Ave Crystal 55422 €%Hniaio v M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 7, 2005 TO: Plan ing Commission (June 13th meeting) FROM: .John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2005-06 for variances to allow a second curb cut for an existing driveway, and the other curb cut to be 26 feet wide, at 4031 Adair Avenue North. A. BACKGROUND The subject property includes a two-family dwelling built in 1959. Hennepin County tax records list the property address as 4031 Adair. ■ The south dwelling unit, rented out by the owner, is addressed as 4031 Adair. There is a curb cut and driveway along the south side of 4031 Adair leading to a one car wide, 64 foot long parking pad. The north dwelling unit, occupied by the owner, is addressed as 4033 Adair. There is a curb cut and driveway along the north side of 4033 Adair leading to a 1986 -built four -car attached garage. Our 1966 planimetric maps indicate both driveways were in existence at that time, each with its own curb cut. Second curb cuts were prohibited beginning in 1976, long after the separate driveways were established. During its review of existing driveways for the Phase 7 street reconstruction project, staff became aware of the need for a second curb to continue providing access to both the existing garage on the north side (4033 Adair) and the existing parking pad on the south side (4031 Adair). Because the city's policy is to construct the street project in compliance with city code, staff advised the property owner that the street project would not be installing a second curb cut unless a variance is granted by the City Council. In his narrative the property owner makes several requests. However, only two would not be allowed by city code, and therefore need to be considered as variance requests: The property owner has requested a variance from 515.17 Subd. 4 g) 7) to allow a second curb cut (the south one) to be installed as part of the Phase 7 street reconstruction project. The requested curb cut would be 10 feet wide, to match the driveway width measured along the property line. 2. The property owner has requested a variance from 515.17 Subd. 4 g) 5) to allow the north driveway to be up to 26 feet wide instead of the current maximum of 22 feet. The following items are already allowed and thus do not require a variance: The property owner has expressed interest in widening the south (4031 Adair) curb cut to 16 feet, and replacing the existing one car wide, 64 foot long parking pad with two side-by-side parking spaces tapering down to a new 16 foot wide driveway across the boulevard. The owner may apply for a driveway permit to do this work at any time. If the property owner wants the city's street project to install a 16 foot wide curb cut now in anticipation of his plans to build the side-by-side parking spaces, the city already has a procedure to accommodate him if the work will be completed within one year of the street project and if the property owner provides an escrow deposit to guarantee completion of the work. The property owner has expressed interest in developing a shared curb cut with the adjacent property to the south (4021 Adair). If the adjacent owner also wants to establish a shared curb cut, he may apply for a permit to widen his driveway to the property line at the same time the owner of the subject property applies for same, thus creating a continuous, shared driveway. If both property owners want the city's street project to install a shared curb cut now in anticipation of their plans to build shared driveways, the city already has a procedure to accommodate them if the work will be completed within one year of the street project and if the property owners provide an escrow deposit to guarantee completion of the work. Notice of the June 13, 2005 public hearing on the requested variances was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property on May 26, 2005. The following Exhibits are attached: A. Aerial photo showing the location of the property. B. Sketch showing existing buildings and driveways on the site. C. Photos of the site submitted by the applicant D. Narrative submitted by the applicant. B. STAFF COMMENTS 1. The property owner is seeking a variance for the second (south) curb cut to be re- installed by the street project. Since 1976, city code has not allowed more than one curb cut for properties with less than 125 feet of street frontage. The subject property has 100 feet of street frontage so under city code it may not have more than one curb cut. However, when the two driveways were established on each side of the two family dwelling, there was no such prohibition. If the street project does not install the second curb cut, access to a lawfully nonconforming structure (the parking spaces) would be denied. Staff believes this would constitute an undue hardship, and therefore a variance would be appropriate. 2. The property owner is also seeking a variance to allow the north driveway to be up to 26 feet wide. The existing driveway is 12 feet wide and the maximum allowed by city code is 22 feet wide. The 22 foot maximum has been in effect for decades and has not created undue hardship on other properties. No evidence has been provided showing that there is anything unique about the subject property that VARIANCE - 2ND CURB CUT & 26' CURB CUT - 4031 ADAIR 2 requires a variance from city code for the owner to enjoy reasonable use of the property. Staff believes there is no undue hardship in this case, and therefore a variance is not appropriate. In order for a variance to be granted, state law and city code require that all three of the following criteria be met: ■ The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by the code. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. In addition, state law and city code specifically state that economic considerations alone do not constitute an undue hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under the code. C. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the requested variance from 515.17 Subd. 4 g) 7) to allow installation of a second curb cut. Suggested findings of fact are as follows: Denial of the requested variance would constitute an undue hardship in this particular case because all of the three required criteria are met. Specifically: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. Reasonable use of the property includes continuing use of the existing lawfully nonconforming parking spaces along the south side of the property. The second curb cut and driveway across the boulevard are necessary for access to the existing lawfully nonconforming parking spaces o the south side of the property. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. Specifically, the parking spaces became lawfully nonconforming in 1976 when the city amended its code to prohibit second curb cuts. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Each of the property's two curb cuts will have a separation that is visually indistinguishable from what is typically found between curb cuts for two separate single family houses in Crystal. Planning Commission action is requested. Findings of fact addressing whether or not the three variance criteria are met should be included in the motion. The Planning Commission may choose to use staff's recommended findings of fact by reference in the motion. VARIANCE - 2ND CURB CUT & 26' CURB CUT - 4031 ADAIR 3 2. Deny the requested variance from 515.17 Subd. 4 g) 5) to allow the north driveway to be 26 feet wide instead of the 22 foot maximum established in city code. Suggested findings of fact are as follows: Denial of the requested variance would not constitute an undue hardship in this particular case because none of the three required criteria are met. Specifically: The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. Reasonable use of the property does not require anything more than the standard 22 foot wide curb cut and driveway across the boulevard already allowed by city code. The current 12 foot wide driveway across the boulevard demonstrably provides reasonable access tc the existing four -car garage, as it has for 19 years, but even so the property owner may receive a permit widen it to as much as 22 feet across the boulevard under the code. 2. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. There is nothing relevant to the driveway width issue that is unusual about the property so as to distinguish it from other properties in Crystal. Countless properties have garages that are wider than the 22 foot curb cut maximum, but they are accommodated by driveways that get wider on private property. 3. The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. A 26 foot wide curb cut and driveway in the boulevard would be highly unusual for low density residential uses and would have an appearance more typical for higher density residential, institutional, or commercial driveways in Crystal. Planning Commission action is requested. Findings of fact addressing whether or not the three variance criteria are met should be included in the motion. The Planning Commission may choose to use staff's recommended findings of fact by reference in the motion. One additional issue that may be addressed by the City Council but is not directly related to the suggested findings of fact: ■ Staff will ask the City Council to order a refund of the variance application fee in this case. The reason for the refund is that the immediate need for the variance is being triggered by the city's street project so it may construct a second curb cut serving the property. VARIANCE - 2ND CURB CUT & 26' CURB CUT - 4031 ADAIR 4 m 4031/4033 view from across Adair Ave 4031 Adair Avenue Property line is yellow flag and telephone pole rear A023 -and 4031 Adair Avenue Wai --N. 4033 Adair Avenue May 12, 2005 To: City of Crystal, City Counsel, RE: Variance report for second curb cut at '4031 Adair Avenue. The variance is for "a second curb cut" for my duplex, without the second driveway variance my tenants on that side would not be able to get to the house. The driveway has been there since 1959 when the duplex was built. I am requesting a continuance curb cut with the neighbors at 4029 Adair Avenue. This would make getting in and out of 4029 and 4031 Adair Avenue much safer. Also, that would allow me to put in a 16 -foot driveway and to have parking for two vehicles side by side for my tenants.(photos 1 & 2). Second part of Variance report: To allow 26 -foot curb cut at 4033 Adair Avenue, side with garage, currently 12 foot. This would allow better access to the garage and make it a lot safer getting in and out of driveway, especially in the winter (photo #3). I have been working with the city since last fall on this project (phase 7). Last month the day of the last meeting April 21St. I received a call from Dave from the planning department, which I was in attendance, he said all was good and they would get this resolved internally. Then on May 4, 2005 I received the attached letter to apply for this variance. I have been a citizen of Crystal since 2000 and plan to continue for many years to come. All I would like is to get this resolved favorably so I keep the property maintained and looking good for many years to come. Unfortunately I have a previous commitment and cannot make it to the council meeting on May20th to explain in person hopefully this will not be held against me. Sincerely James Rolsing 651-775-2379 EXHIBIT D M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 7, 2005 q TO: Plapi6ing Commission (June 13th meeting) FROW4K 1 John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2005-07 for a variance to reduce the front and rear setback requirements to match the existing house at 4955 Quail Avenue North. A. BACKGROUND The subject property includes a house built in 1900 or earlier, most likely as a farmhouse. The subject property and surrounding lots were platted in 1923 as Twin Lake Shores, which constituted the beginning of suburban -style development in that area. The subject property originally was 100 feet wide (along 50th) and 126 feet deep (along the platted service road now called Quail), but sometime prior to 1941 the rear half was split off for a new house lot which today is addressed as 4949 Quail. This means that, for the last 64+ years, the subject property has been 100 feet wide but only 63 feet deep. Because Quail was platted as a street, and because it is a secondary means of access to the property, it is not considered a street for the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance despite the house being addressed on Quail. The property's front yard is between the house and the north lot line (50th), its rear yard is between the house and the south lot line, and its side yards are between the house and east (Quail) and west lot lines. The ordinance's minimum setbacks are 30 feet front (north), 30 feet rear (south), and 5 feet on the sides (east and west). The existing house is not in compliance with the two of the four setbacks: It is 9 feet from the front (north) lot line and 25 feet from the rear (south) lot line. The house was built before these setbacks were in place, which makes it lawfully nonconforming. This means it can be maintained but not expanded. The property owner wishes to expand the second floor living space by adding a shed dormer across the west side of the house. A variance from the front and rear setback requirements is necessary for any expansion of the house to be permitted. The property owner is requesting a variance to reduce the front and rear setback requirements to match the location of the existing house. Notice of the June 13, 2005 public hearing on the requested variances was mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property on May 26, 2005. The following Exhibits are attached: A. Aerial photo showing the location of the property. B. Site plan showing existing structures and current setbacks requirements. C. Site plan showing existing structures and setback requirements with the variance. D. Photos of the site taken June 6, 2005. B. STAFF COMMENTS e The property is unusual in that the house was built before the land was platted; usually, the reverse is true. Because the house pre -dated the plat, and because the city approved the 1923 plat thus establishing the house's close proximity to the front (north) lot line, there are unique circumstances related to the nonconformity with the front setback. By 1941, the city allowed a subdivision of the subject property, splitting off the rear half of the property for construction of a new house at 4949 Quail, thus establishing the house's close proximity to the rear (south) lot line. In both cases the lot lines were established in ways that created today's nonconformity, presumably with city approval. Staff believes applying current setback requirements without a variance would constitute an undue hardship because reasonable use of the property includes expansion of the existing house within the setbacks presumably found acceptable by the city when it approved the 1923 plat and the 1941 lot split. It is true that, without the variance, the house may be maintained in its current configuration. However, staff believes this case is unique because the city approved two subdivisions around the pre -1900 house, which led to the property having lawfully nonconforming front and rear setbacks. By contrast, what usually happens is the land gets platted and then the houses are built. In order for a variance to be granted, state law and city code require that all three of the following criteria be met: ■ The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by the code. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner. ■ The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. In addition, state law and city code specifically state that economic considerations alone do not constitute an undue hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under the code. C. RECOMMENDATION Approve the requested variance from 515.33 Subd. 8 a) and b) to reduce the front setback from 30 feet to 9 feet, and to reduce the rear setback from 30 feet to 25 feet, so that the front and rear setbacks match the location of the existing house. Suggested findings of fact are as follows: Denial of the requested variance would constitute an undue hardship in this particular case because all of the three required criteria are met. Specifically: VARIANCE - FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS - 4955 QUAIL 2 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used as required by this Zoning Code. Reasonable use of the property includes construction within the front and rear setbacks presumably found acceptable by the city when it approved the Twin Lake Shores plat in 1923 and the subsequent subdivision of the subject property. 1. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property. Relative to the vast majority of houses in Crystal, it is highly unusual for a house to pre -date the plat which signifies the transition of the area from farmland to suburban -style development. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The reduced setback requirements would be consistent with the house's original location, most importantly since the 1923 plat and the 1941 lot split. While the variance would allow future expansion of the house's footprint as well as the currently proposed addition to the second story, such expansion would match the house's front and rear setbacks as they exist today. Planning Commission action is requested. Findings of fact addressing whether or not the three variance criteria are met should be included in the motion. The Planning Commission may choose to use staff's recommended findings of fact by reference in the motion. VARIANCE - FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS - 4955 QUAIL 3 GOVT LOT IffOR-Ma -------- E X H IN OB 11 -or A �lp moi Grp TH 30. 16, L" *lt�l ISO= W� fir P, tN, r 6 tv *30 I V EXHIBIT B View from the northeast (intersection of 501h and Quail). View from the west-northwest (along 501h) View from the west at the standard front setback line (30 feet south of 50`h right-of-way). EXHIBIT D M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 8, 2005 TO: Planing Commission (June 13th meeting) FROM: John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider Application 2005-08 for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for renovation of the Crystal Aquatic Center at 4800 Douglas Drive North. A. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 642,168 sq. ft. (14.74 acre) site owned by the City of Crystal. It comprises the Crystal Community Center, three Little League Baseball fields, and the Crystal Aquatic Center. The city is proposing a complete renovation of the aquatic center. The property is zoned R-1 Low Density Residential. Public recreational facilities such as the aquatic center require a conditional use permit in the R-1 district, and the proposed renovation project is significant enough to require site plan review. Notice of the June 13, 2005 public hearing was published in the Sun Post on June 2, 2005 and mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the property. The following Exhibits are attached: A. Narrative submitted by applicant. B. Aerial photo showing the subject property. C. Cover Sheet (G101). D. Existing Conditions (DC101). E. Grading Plan, North (C301). F. Grading Plan, South (C302). G. Utility Plan, North (C401). H. Utility Plan, South (C402). I. Landscape Plan (1-101). J. Landscape Planting Schedule and Details (1-801). K. Building Floor Plan (A101). L. Building Exterior Elevations (A201). M. Illumination Summary showing light levels at property boundary. B. STAFF COMMENTS Specific requirements for public recreational facilities in the R-1 district are listed under 515.33 Subd. 4 b): Side setbacks shall be double that required for the district. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8, SITE PLAN REVIEW - CRYSTAL AQUATIC CENTER (4800 DOUGLAS) PAGE 1 OF 3 ■ The side setback is measured from the north lot line. The minimum side setback in R-1 is 5 feet, so for this use the minimum side setback is 10 feet. The pool is set back 42 feet and the concrete deck is set back.20 feet. • The facility would also be in compliance with other setbacks: - The 30 foot minimum front setback is measured from the west lot line. No part of the aquatic center is at or near this setback. - The minimum 30 foot rear setback is measured from the east lot line. The pool is set back 58 feet from the east lot line and no part of the pool deck is within 30 feet of the east lot line. Just outside the pool enclosure fence, there are benches and a sidewalk as close as 18 feet to the rear lot line; however, these structures are allowed within 3 feet of the lot line. 2. The facility is served by arterial, collector or municipal state aid streets and such pedestrian facilities as are necessary to accommodate the traffic generated by the facility. • The facility is accessed from Douglas Drive, a county state aid highway classified as a minor arterial roadway in the city's Comprehensive Plan. ■ Pedestrian access is provided by the existing sidewalk and trail system on and adjacent to the Crystal Community Center, a sidewalk leading to Douglas Drive, sidewalks along Douglas Drive, and the public trails through and adjacent to the Parkside Acres townhouse development. 3. The city council determines that all applicable requirements of subsection 515.05, subdivision 3 a) and section 520 are considered and satisfactorily met. a. 515.05 Subd. 3 a): In addition to specific standards or criteria included in the applicable district regulations, the following criteria shall be applied in determining whether to approve a conditional use permit request: ■ The consistency of the proposed use with the comprehensive plan. STAFF COMMENTS: The comprehensive plan guides the area for Parks and Conservation, which includes recreational facilities such as the aquatic center. ■ The characteristics of the subject property as they relate to the proposed use. STAFF COMMENTS: The property is of sufficient size, with adequate street frontage and off-street parking to accommodate the proposed use. ■ The impact of the proposed use on the surrounding area. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW - CRYSTAL AQUATIC CENTER (4800 DOUGLAS) PAGE 2 OF 3 STAFF COMMENTS: There are no foreseeable negative impacts on adjacent properties or the surrounding area. The only property adjacent to the aquatic center is Glen Haven Memorial Gardens, and the proposed setbacks would adequately protect the adjacent property. b. 520: Site Plan Review. STAFF COMMENTS: ■ The building's exterior will basically be a freshened version of the existing materials. Some brick materials may be salvaged and re- used. ■ There is no specific parking requirement for the aquatic center. The existing parking lots on the property provide approximately 300 parking spaces, which is far above the approximately 160 spaces required for the Crystal Community Center. ■ Plantings would include a minimum of 7 shade trees, 6 evergreen trees, 3 ornamental trees, and dozens of shrubs and perennials. Additional trees may be added to the plan depending on availability of funds. The "sun turf' lawn on the north side of the site will be irrigated. ■ City code limits light levels to no more than 1.0 foot candle at any adjacent roadway center line and 0.4 foot candles at any adjacent residential property line. The plan would comply with the roadway centerline limit but far exceed the residential property line limit (avg. 1.84, max. 4.65) along the cemetery boundary. Staff opinion is that the property line along the cemetery is not a "residential property line" as the term is used in this requirement, even though the cemetery is zoned R-1. ■ Lighting to provide adequate security should be installed at any exterior door of the building. ■ A flow reducer valve should be added to the sanitary sewer line. C. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the submitted plans and requested conditional use permit for renovation of the Crystal Aquatic Center at 4800 Douglas Drive North. Planning Commission action is requested. The suggested findings of fact are that the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of city code. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW - CRYSTAL AQUATIC CENTER (4800 DOUGLAS) PAGE 3 OF 3 NARRATIVE: Crystal Municipal Pool Project The Crystal Pool opened in 1968 and serves residents of all ages. It is used for recreational swimming, youth and adult swim lessons, special events, and group rentals. The 37 year old pool's underground piping is failing. Other areas of the pool do not meet state code. In addition, the focus in aquatics has changed from 50 meter competitive swimming pools to leisure pools for recreational swimming. In November 2004, Crystal voters approved a 2.3 million dollar bond referendum to upgrade and renovate the Crystal Municipal Swimming Pool. The renovation of the Crystal Pool includes: • Removal of the existing wading pool • Demolishing of a portion of the existing pool shell. • Construction of a zero -depth entry shallow water pool with water play features for toddlers and young children. • Construction of a 25 yard lap pool — replaces the current 50 meter pool. • Installation of a water walk apparatus. • Installation of shade areas both on deck and in the shallow water pool • Installation of a turf area. • Upgrades in the bath house including 2 family changing rooms, improved first aid area, expanded staff area. • Removal of the 3 meter diving board and installation of a drop slide. • Upgraded mechanical system to meet state code for operation of the 2 pools. • Upgraded piping/gutter/filtration system to meet state code for operation of the 2 pools. • Replacement of the deck to meet state health code. • Replacement of the current lighting. • Updates in the concessions area including a new serving window. • The Jet Scream water slides remain. The total cost of these changes is estimated to be 3 million dollars. The remainder of the funds needed for the project has been allocated from the City Council. The Crystal Pool is a seasonal operation, opening in early June and closing in late August. Hours of operation are usually 9am — 8:30pm seven days per week; with occasional late evening special events and rentals. A staff of approximately 50 is hired each summer to serve as lifeguards, cashiers, concession, and daily maintenance workers. The Crystal Pool has been an integral part of the community for 37 years. The voters overwhelmingly approved the referendum 2 to 1, showing their support for this project. m DRAWING INDEX GENERAL G101 TITLE SHEET AND INDEX DEMOLITION DC101 CIVIL DEMOLITION PLAN DC102 POOL DEMOLITION PLAN AND SECTIONS DC103 POOL DEMOLITION PLAN (NORTH) DC104 POOL DEMOLITION PLAN (SOUTH) DA201 MAIN FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN DP201 POOL MECHANICAL ROOM BELOW FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN DP202 POOL MECHANICAL ROOM DEMOLITION PLAN DP301 POOL MECHANICAL ROOM DEMOLITION SECTION DP501 POOL DEMOLITION DETAILS DM204 PLUMBING DEMOLITION PLAN DM205 HVAC DEMOLITION PLAN CIVIL C101 OVERALL SITE PLAN C102 ENLARGED SITE PLAN (NORTH) C103 ENLARGED SITE PLAN (SOUTH) C1 D4 FENCE AND BARRIER PLAN C2D1 TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN C301 POOL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN (NORTH) C3D2 POOL AREA DRAINAGE PLAN (SOUTH) C4D1 POOL AREA DECK DRAIN AND DRAINTILE PLAN (NORTH) C402 POOL AREA DECK DRAIN AND DRAIN TILE PLAN (SOUTH) C501 CIVIL - SITE DETAILS C502 CIVIL - SITE DETAILS C503 CIVIL - SITE DETAILS C5D4 CIVIL - SITE DETAILS LANDSCAPE L101 LANDSCAPE PLAN ARCHITECTURAL A101 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION BUILDING MAIN FLOOR PLAN AND DETAILS A201 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AND BUILDING SECTIONS A401 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION BUILDING ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS A601 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION BUILDING SCHEDULES AND DETAILS STRUCTURAL S101 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION BUILDING FOUNDATION PLAN 5102 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION BUILDING FLOOR PLAN S201 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION BUILDING ROOF FRAMING PLAN S501 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION BUILDING DETAILS POOL P101 POOL LAYOUT PLAN (NORTH) P102 POOL LAYOUT PLAN (SOUTH) P102A POOL LAYOUT PLAN (SOUTH)(ALTERNATE 8) P103 POOL FINISH PLAN (NORTH) P104A POOL FINISH PLAN (SOUTH)(ALTERNATE 8) P104 POOL FINISH PLAN (SOUTH) P105 POOL MECHANICAL ROOM PLAN P106 SURGE TANK PLAN P107 POOL PIPING PLAN (NORTH) P108 POOL PIPING PLAN (SOUTH) P109 DROP SLIDE PUMP VAULT PLANS AND SECTIONS P109A DROP SLIDE PUMP VAULT PLANS AND SECTIONS (ALTERNATE 8) P110 FLUME SLIDE PUMP INTAKE VAULT PLAN AND SECTIONS P111 PLAY FEATURE PUMP VAULT PLAN AND SECTION P112 PLAY FEATURE VALVE VAULT PLAN AND SECTION P301 POOL MECHANICAL ROOM SECTIONS P302 SURGE TANK SECTIONS P303 POOL SECTIONS P501 SHALLOW POOL DETAILS P502 MAIN POOL DETAILS P503 MAIN POOL DETAILS P504 POOL DETAILS P505 POOL DETAILS P506 POOL DETAILS P507 POOL DETAILS P508 POOL DETAILS P601 POOL PIPING SCHEMATIC P602 POOL CHEMICAL AND HEATER PIPING SCHEMATICS MECHANICAL M001 MECHANICAL SITE PLAN M101 PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN M102 HVAC FLOOR PLAN M601 DETAILS AND SCHEDULES M801 SCHEDULES ELECTRICAL E001 ELECTRICAL SYMBOLS SHEET E101 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN E201 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION BUILDING LIGHTING PLAN E202 BATHHOUSEICONCESSION BUILDING LIGHTING Pi -;,14 E301 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION BUILDING POWER PLAN E302 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION BUILDING POWER PLAN E601 ELECTRICAL DETAILS E602 ELECTRICAL DETAILS E701 LINE DIAGRAM E801 ELECTRICAL SCHEDULES E802 CONDUIT AND WIRE SCHEDULE ? F h & :2 k _id ° t CRYSTAL AQUATIC CENTER 4848 DOUGLAS DRIVE NORTH CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA RECREATION DEPARTMENT 4800 DOUGLAS DRIVE NORTH CITY OFFICES 4141 DOUGLAS DRIVE NORTH ReNAE BOWMAN DAVE ANDERSON MARK HOFFMANN E. GARY JOSELYN LINDSAY KRANTZ GARRY GRIMES LAURIE ANN MOORE ANNE NORRIS GENE HACKETT TOM MATHISEN RICK RAUEN 2005 CITY OFFICIALS MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER CITY MANAGER CITY RECREATION DIRECTOR CITY ENGINEER CITY PARK FOREMAN o olalolal Q W I— in W w LLI U o Z Ll Z U o � z Q Q Ll J < Q J V) F= cn ~ CC 0(-) 6704 �02G101 Su�T uuuBER c� o� POOL DATA ZERO -DEPTH POOL MAIN POOL POOL VOLUME 50,400 GALLONS 347,532 GALLONS SURFACE AREA 5393 SQ. FT. 8,800 SQ. FT. PERIMETER 315 FT. 558 FT. BATHER CAPACITY 360 516 FILTER AREA REQUIRED 56.0 SQ. FT. 103.6 SQ. FT. 15 GPM/SQ. FT. ® 15 GPM/SQ. FT. PROVIDED 63.4 SO. FT. 126.8 SQ. FT. ® 13.2 GPM/SQ. FT. ® 12.3 GPM/SQ. FT. TOTAL FLOW RATE 840 GPM 1554 GPM SHALLOW WATER 50,400 GAL. (0'-3') 1 HR TURNOVER 840 GPM MEDIUM -DEPTH WATER 213,707 GAL (3'-5') 4 HR TURNOVER 890 GPM DEEP WATER 112,787 GAL. (5'-12') 6 HR TURNOVER 313 GPM PLUNGE POOL 21,038 GAL. (3.5') 1 HR TURNOVER 351 GPM ? F h & :2 k _id ° t CRYSTAL AQUATIC CENTER 4848 DOUGLAS DRIVE NORTH CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA RECREATION DEPARTMENT 4800 DOUGLAS DRIVE NORTH CITY OFFICES 4141 DOUGLAS DRIVE NORTH ReNAE BOWMAN DAVE ANDERSON MARK HOFFMANN E. GARY JOSELYN LINDSAY KRANTZ GARRY GRIMES LAURIE ANN MOORE ANNE NORRIS GENE HACKETT TOM MATHISEN RICK RAUEN 2005 CITY OFFICIALS MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER CITY MANAGER CITY RECREATION DIRECTOR CITY ENGINEER CITY PARK FOREMAN o olalolal Q W I— in W w LLI U o Z Ll Z U o � z Q Q Ll J < Q J V) F= cn ~ CC 0(-) 6704 �02G101 Su�T uuuBER c� o� L. x uj u, PROPERN UNE 8 0 4 ^6 1k y o a o -- �za \\ v II \ -------_—_ _— _ \ < �4tN �oZs �s'a� a � vi - i U) 1 ® 'Tm. m H 0 z.9M a°'mO� 3ao < W ! It 1n y pS I \ IL3 II I I I I II(D \ i Ip I :E aia�iv0 Id I I n.%lot a I I I j Ip 10 I I I-1 D7 I I BITUMINOUS PARKING AREA—,,"",,,rl Z g wcn `MAIN POOL Q I I 1 I/ l vl`: U I I z 0 I I I I I jp w I I III j I j I toI I of = 0 I L I 71- I pl i Q < m I pl N Z III I I W Z dl 1 o N I r I I I I I I CHAIN UNK FENCE Z Z U o E— w 1 � o J p l I26.6' CHAIN UNK FENCE Q J N Q W n N x11 \ II / i I \ ,, _ ytiw � C) loll-------- ---------------- —rr�I L 7BALLFIE�LD -- _ 0 10 20 6]Da102DC101 DC101 . ----- ^_ o, Scale in feet L. x uj 0216• 11 1'h I' P•� 60 6,. cl h lb h O 06 I j qG2 60` t" b 1601�O,O6'hy 16hh .�681•.,,•`j10 ...11'9 .111 11 ph :� `i69 110"}1 ��• 0, 19 �' �,� hh i 6,� �;�,. ,A,y 8 r1.6� %• 'r?6 16. 16. 16 16• n6• 6• �6•.. ; . x -.x 96 6B J. 96 *. A9..........__.._ _ ry -x X I"� , T ... 4/Yp 6g .*�6 .,,,.91• I II Oa A6 I h e 1 1 '7 ^0 �► 96- i g6 , i I '� h 4A b bh b(0 0 61 6^ - 65 09 *`16. �,ry9•�5 ..__..x'�.....: h• • K� __..z --. ......x`� Kh ..._ xh ,x'� x'I6'- 1 x 'I6. .- ._ _. .. *169 X633 69 i X�6g6 , _.x).... ... 3j _... > > ......�,) .... O 6 b a 96 6 'Rs 4s Rs oe 4s °e i. ,�C+ 9 •. 7 hh b : 6 1 : 1 6h A 1 69 R!>' 1h r �6' 16• 16 116 ,16• ,16 16. 16 16 69 689 1 36, s p b` b1 oA.,, o"' s� 16g9 g9 v s s s s s - . , 1h { hb 16' 10 16' 16 ,b ^b 16' 16 16 '•,, "\9 `F 16 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6• >�.''-x . - icr-._.__x .'—„ ^.-____.. x—x— --x —�•... ...x By by 8g 6y 69 6g ............ O +76.28 �- +76.50 SWALE .t�171 07 '�` i.'C� 1 KO' •CV' '�6 Dry 0h 9x 00 06�. v0 O'S O'h O'� O^u O"J 07 O'S Oh�"� W 6� 69 I I 70 q1 i o,` o,` '. w` 9•` 0, o,` ph y 0h i 9•y -------- -5 -, 43 i0 91 p` ^�Ohm p5 61 19 01 , O 03 -N.10i ,\ 16 e`6 16 16 6 6, I I II L .� O .1 i0�_. .69,.._.. �69 ��6^O 6^� `off-X10hxj ,x•03 �� d 3 7 I: i I h 1 , _ b•9 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION 0 3 BUILDING b e h6. xh _...x16 _. 1� ��69X03 °.. g •� 1 1 ;11� 07 ^10 �10�� Olt 03 6g9 h .I •0 3 •�3 'O3 11' I I h I. I 68 I, I p '> > > J -1 '.� IJ x_..09 I I 3 '__ •O3 '03 -03 -O3 'OJ 'O3 •OJ •OJ 'O,T 3 03 ... , 1 i I ° 7t B g NOTE Fo SPOT ELEVATIONS (ADD 800 TO NUMBER SHOWN) EXAMPLE 73.50 - 873.50 N jUN 2 ID ! y V .5 3 a n a x.. Ln ,o b iI o X u Oo co InQj I c y ooN•U cS cEn I �j vD J% 0 O n = r.I .) I W 0 .0 a. i LLQ O Z Oz w �. i , L rW U L L i 1 Z '>> j 'OS 'e3 'ei •sy < � 15,O� •'� I —J c� s� 4Q _ SIPQ Uj N : sss O x) -. �y •7) •0-t •93 •ej •sg t1 •oa 15 MAIN POOL N'>> 'OS 'B3l 'e! �j � S �e O 0 03. Bj ., II 5 10 s«Ec�ozc3ai «uMeck C301 .11... yj - ->k , 6 -- )6 '� ale in feet j o 9 e < -,- PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS I; I I; 76 76 V-66� -- .._ - _._ _ ....._. _ rg' ' .' '., 66•. 60� ba•. '1 h$� 6$� 6h•. 'l 66•. $� , '1 16' ,I68 77 6g-, +76.25 1 \ t ' �` 161b, - 169 • 169 x... 16"0'} x..._.._..._..x—:- IP 1h0 �'� +'--' 16�•b 169 i 9 g x ---_-•ice ._ ...I ph pb ph p5 i ph ph - ph ,,fib• ph i-�..*�ry6. m •, , 16.__. x�1.._.._.... ,11 .1'1• . r"I1� .�_. _.x�..�_1- 0b 10g 695 .x _ 191 1 05 -_..,a;� I., \ b, I O•� py ,1 ,,� �• ,� 11 '�• ,,� '� 11 '1�'_'1�• ,,� I i _ ._ x;11 0 m +7 . I I. �g `'16-.._x��-....-_ �� -__. �1• .. 999 I'11�„` r O : G ^ _1 A' 119 ,1 y Og ♦1 Y=. n. ' n I I I 16g�•-' 16�� 11 n n n w h Y p c m 116 lb +7 . _.._ I L• - _ n n., 16616 x11 I ',I 16� 111;' • ;' � y n .n^ '' Oh 1h. '`, •' , nn -�' Oy �1h••'"0� X'10_ ;' SHALLOW POOL lb-. cb I 1 0y 1� .Qh .._ ^Oh /� J` R• A6t 6 *ti h i `� ^ •` .-• 1106 11 ♦ ,\^O X11•1 _,•x 6 p' wo- 0216• 11 1'h I' P•� 60 6,. cl h lb h O 06 I j qG2 60` t" b 1601�O,O6'hy 16hh .�681•.,,•`j10 ...11'9 .111 11 ph :� `i69 110"}1 ��• 0, 19 �' �,� hh i 6,� �;�,. ,A,y 8 r1.6� %• 'r?6 16. 16. 16 16• n6• 6• �6•.. ; . x -.x 96 6B J. 96 *. A9..........__.._ _ ry -x X I"� , T ... 4/Yp 6g .*�6 .,,,.91• I II Oa A6 I h e 1 1 '7 ^0 �► 96- i g6 , i I '� h 4A b bh b(0 0 61 6^ - 65 09 *`16. �,ry9•�5 ..__..x'�.....: h• • K� __..z --. ......x`� Kh ..._ xh ,x'� x'I6'- 1 x 'I6. .- ._ _. .. *169 X633 69 i X�6g6 , _.x).... ... 3j _... > > ......�,) .... O 6 b a 96 6 'Rs 4s Rs oe 4s °e i. ,�C+ 9 •. 7 hh b : 6 1 : 1 6h A 1 69 R!>' 1h r �6' 16• 16 116 ,16• ,16 16. 16 16 69 689 1 36, s p b` b1 oA.,, o"' s� 16g9 g9 v s s s s s - . , 1h { hb 16' 10 16' 16 ,b ^b 16' 16 16 '•,, "\9 `F 16 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6• >�.''-x . - icr-._.__x .'—„ ^.-____.. x—x— --x —�•... ...x By by 8g 6y 69 6g ............ O +76.28 �- +76.50 SWALE .t�171 07 '�` i.'C� 1 KO' •CV' '�6 Dry 0h 9x 00 06�. v0 O'S O'h O'� O^u O"J 07 O'S Oh�"� W 6� 69 I I 70 q1 i o,` o,` '. w` 9•` 0, o,` ph y 0h i 9•y -------- -5 -, 43 i0 91 p` ^�Ohm p5 61 19 01 , O 03 -N.10i ,\ 16 e`6 16 16 6 6, I I II L .� O .1 i0�_. .69,.._.. �69 ��6^O 6^� `off-X10hxj ,x•03 �� d 3 7 I: i I h 1 , _ b•9 BATHHOUSE/CONCESSION 0 3 BUILDING b e h6. xh _...x16 _. 1� ��69X03 °.. g •� 1 1 ;11� 07 ^10 �10�� Olt 03 6g9 h .I •0 3 •�3 'O3 11' I I h I. I 68 I, I p '> > > J -1 '.� IJ x_..09 I I 3 '__ •O3 '03 -03 -O3 'OJ 'O3 •OJ •OJ 'O,T 3 03 ... , 1 i I ° 7t B g NOTE Fo SPOT ELEVATIONS (ADD 800 TO NUMBER SHOWN) EXAMPLE 73.50 - 873.50 N jUN 2 ID ! y V .5 3 a n a x.. Ln ,o b iI o X u Oo co InQj I c y ooN•U cS cEn I �j vD J% 0 O n = r.I .) I W 0 .0 a. i LLQ O Z Oz w �. i , L rW U L L i 1 Z '>> j 'OS 'e3 'ei •sy < � 15,O� •'� I —J c� s� 4Q _ SIPQ Uj N : sss O x) -. �y •7) •0-t •93 •ej •sg t1 •oa 15 MAIN POOL N'>> 'OS 'B3l 'e! �j � S �e O 0 03. Bj ., II 5 10 s«Ec�ozc3ai «uMeck C301 .11... yj - ->k , 6 -- )6 '� ale in feet j o 9 e u 4 , L� i�t MIX: 80 -GG 70 -FC 50-CAK 50 -SS 2-�' 1 -PP 35 -EP A2 -PG 2 -PP ALT. #6 ONLYAREA TO BE IRRIGATED BY ALTERNATE 116 ONLY T. #6 ONLY ,-=-------=---------- -r \`' / - - - LEGEND: i I \ I A %� , ' • ' ` - \ • • PROPOSED SODDED AREAS INCLUDED IN BASE BID 5tj t \�.�.�.��- _ ._._ ._. r .y_ - • ` \ \ PG G%6ONLY: \ ' ` 20-CAK I +� ` PROPOSED TREES INCLUDED IN BASE BID I Y - • • • • - MIX: `�♦ v \ — j 1 15 -SS 10 -HM j 0-17C MIX: BY ALTERNATE 1 — 20 -HM it. ,�'' \ - • .\4 . 1 ----- -- --/ \---- -------I 6 -GG I / I \ 20 -RG )� • �_ 1 , 1 1 fib 0 -- / 20-CAK ONLY ALTERNATE -RG1I 1 1 -AFH PROPOSED SHRUBS INCLUDED IN BASE BID 1 ONLY .r . ' . ' h , l 1 ALT. #6 ONLY ALLOW POOL `I 7 PROPOSED PERENNIAL BEDS INCLUDED IN BASE BID i... \ O RJI 41 / 2 -PG I \ FC WATER SE E 1 -CT 1 FOR IRRIG4TION. ` •I 1 I V I I I CAL -+_ ALT. #6 ONLY ; / E MECHANI 1' i ROCK MULCH AREAS INCLUDED IN BASE BID III / 1_G..,..._ ... I NI / tlI /- - \ 10 S ...., •' _ T_ �f� - --I _ _ _ 1 I PROPOSED TREES BY ALTERNATE #6 ONLY 1 / 8 -EP / _ �"-- o 7 -AF i \ / I V ; • , _ ;' , - �-„ MIX: 1 II \ / 3 -EA .._ Jl .._. , .� ..... j----{- 20 HH .F... .I 3 -AM iHB 2 -CT ._� .._. .Ir ... . . - 24 -HM— . r._.:. — . ALT. }6 ONLY 1 -CT ® ._ ✓ ,�. s ALT. #6 ONLY 7 -CAA ®']-- -..- 25-H PROPOSED PLANTING BEDS BY ALTERNATE #6 ONLY _ 7 -RG .. . _. _._... s I 1 -FN 30-H.. .. ' .. �—., I I ALT. #6 ONLY 2 -CP «- ---•--� • ' 8 -RG I \ I I ALT. #6 ONLY .. -... _ - NOTES: I I III I I 14 J 8-CAK 1. PLACE A MINIMUM OF 4' OF TOPSOIL ON ALL AREAS TO BE SODDED. PLACE A MINIMUM OF 12' TOPSOIL IN ALL SHRUB AND 1 -CT REMENNIAL BEDS. IN SODDED OVED, FILL DEPRESSIONS WITH AREAS AND FINISH GRADE II I Z I I r I WERE ALT. #6 11 III J ONLY TO BLEND INTO SURROUNDING AREA BEFORE SODDING. i r I m ®� I 2. SOD ALL AREAS INCLUDING DISTURBED AREAS DURING Z A 1 -FN CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WORK THAT ARE NOT O 6- DESIGNATED AS HARD SURFACE OR OTHER PLANTINGS. ..... _ 1 ALT. #6 ONLY Wt 3. RIP SOIL TO 12' DEPTH TO DECOMPACT IN ALL I 11 I I ® 12 -RG CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AREAS PRIOR TO PLACING TOPSOIL z 4 -SF O _..._...._. - I 12-CAK 4. PROVIDE STEEL EDGING AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE SHRUB W 16 -EP 1 -CP 36PLANTING BEDS MEET SODDED AREAS. cn O-" - 4 -SN 7 -SN ® - T ALT. #6 ONLY 5. PLACE 4` DEPTH OF ' TO 2' ROCK MULCH TO MATCH / = 48-CAK i _ I BUILDING COLOR AND TEXTURE AROUND ALL TREES, SHRUBS, GI'_.,: -- -- 10 -EP - I AND PERENNIAL BEDS. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS. VERIFY WITH III / I I m .._......__... j......q a 1-FNLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 9 1I I I �;^ """- • ' ALT. #6 ONLY 6. FINAL LAYOUT OF PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS WILL BE DONE `JBU Y THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN THE FIELD AFTER ALL PLANT 3aDtll I _ 4 -SF -- ._.I 1 -CP MATERIALS ARE ON SITE. M 1 I /11 11- ALT ONLY _ rI I I7.WILL BE THE COCTOR'S RESPONSLITY TO ANI IRR GATION LAYOUT PLANK AND WATERING 1 SC EDULES FOR LTHE SUN TURF AREA AS SHOWN PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. SEE 1 I 1 ' - SPECIFICATION 2810. I � r 1 / 9. SEE SHEET L801 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULE AND DETAILS. Irl/ �\ 1 V I i . � . _ /'••/ ------ —— _-- L ' ---------- is- -eas--@I-C\ P 2 -FN N ALT. #6 ONLY 2 -CT ALT. #6 ONLY _--_- \ ALT. #6 ONLY �.-- 0 10 20 -•> Scale in feet O 0 � u O41Y� u Ln c: Nal a10 a'2 C to'om d O O C v c 03Of<< r 8 v; s 6704102C101 SNEEi ....E. L101 N La I Ktt rLAN I INU b6NtiJULt QUANTITY SHRUB & PERENNIAL PLANTING SCHEDULE KEY PG PP BASE BID 4 2 ALTERNATE ADD 4 1 COMMON NAME BLACK HILLS SPRUCE COLORADO SPRUCE SCIENTIFIC NAME Picea glauca densate Picea pungens SIZE 6' BB 6' BB REMARKS ALT. SWITCH TO 8 BBB ALT. SW ITCH TO 8' BB KEY SHRUBS AM RA CAA EA SF BASE BID 3 14 7 3 8 QUANTITY ALTERNATE ADD 2 11 7 1 8 COMMON NAME CHOKEBERRY BLACK CURRANT ALPINE 'GREEN MOUND' DOGWOOD'ALLEMAN'S COMPACT EUONYMUS FIRE BALL SPIREA TIRE LIGHT SCIENTIFIC NAME Aronia melanocarpa elate Ribes alpinum "Green Mound' Comus alba'Alleman's Compact' Euonymus alatus'Select' Spiraea'Fire Light' SIZE #2 Cont. #2 Cont. #2 Cont. #2 Cont. #2 Cont. REMARKS ALT. SWITCH TO #5 CONT. ALT. SWITCH TO #5 CONT. ALT. SWITCH TO #5 CONT. ALT. SWITCH TO #5 CONT. CANOPY TREES FN 1 0 5 JASH 'NO TREASURE' Northern treasure' Fraxinus 2.5" BB AF 7 1 MAPLE 'AUTUMN N BLAZE' Acer x freemanii'Je6ersred' 2.5" BB ORNAMENTAL TREES SN 11 9 SPIREA NEON FLASH' Spiraea japonica 'Neon Flash' #2 Cont. CA 3 0 DOGWOOD, GRAY Icomus altemifolia 6'BB CLUMP PERENNIALS FC 17 106 BLUE FESCUE BLUE' Fetusca Cinerea 'Elijah Blue' #1 CP 0 5 CRABAPPLE 'PURPLE PRINCE' Malus Purple prince' 1.5" BB ALT. SWITCH TO 2" BB CT 0 7 CRABAPPLE 'THUNDERCHILD' Malus Thunderchild' 1.5" BB ALT. SWITCH TO 2" BB HB 45 75 DAYLILY'BAJA' Hemerocallis Baja' #1 HH 50 84 DAYLILY'HAPPY RETURNS' Hemerocallis'Happy Returns' #1 HM 24 60 DAYLILY'MARDI GRAS PARADE' Hemerocallis Mardi grass parade' #1 _UA K 88 195 FEATHER REED GRASS 'KARL FOERSTER' Calamagrostis x acutiflora Yad Foerstef #1 GG 6 89 GAILLARDIA 'GOBLIN' Gaillardis x grandiflora'Goblin' #1 SS 10 79 LITTLE BLUESTEM Schi2achryuim scoparium #1 EP 56 109 105 PURPLE CONEFLOWER Echi'Gnacea purFpurea #1 RG 37 RUDBECKIA'GOLDSTURM' RudbeckianlHsturm' V OEVERGREEN TREE N.I.C. NO SCALE r CONCRETE SIDEWALK 3" DIA CEDAR OR 2"X2" SO. OAK OR STEEL POST FLAT WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE ARBORTIE OR EQUAL, TYPICAL TIE OR NAIL TO POST. FLAGGING -ONE PER STRAP REMOVE BINDING AND BURLAP FROM TOP OF ROOTBALL AFTER PLANTING. BEND WIRE LOOPS DOWN INTO HOLE MULCH -4"DEEP -SEE SPEC PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPEC. TOPSOIL SUBGRADE 2" X 2"X 24" WOOD STAKE SET AT ANGLE REFER TO PLAN TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE ILLUSTRATED. IT IS AT THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION WHETHER OR NOT TO STAKE TREES. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. TYPICAL B & B TREE, SET LEVEL AND FACED TO PRIMARY VIEW 4" MIN. DEPTH ROCK MULCH RING, 30" MINIMUM DIAMETER. FORM DISH AROUND TRUNK WITH NO MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK. LOOSEN, UNWRAP AND REMOVE BALLING MATERIALS FROM TRUNK AND TOP OF BALL. SLASH SIDES OF BURLAP AND BEND WIRE LOOPS INTO HOLE. ROOT BALL, WRAPPED & LACED WITH NATURAL MATERIALS ONLY (NO PLASTIC). LOCATE ROOT FLARE AND SET BALL ON FIRM SOIL SO ROOT FLARE IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN SURROUNDING GRADE IN A HOLE 2-3 TIMES BALL WIDTH WITH ROUGH, SLOPED SIDES. BACKFILL WITH SOIL MIX AND FERTILIZER AS SPECIFIED. FIRMLY TAMP LOWER HALF TO STABILIZE BALL, WATER IN AS SPECIFIED. OBALLED AND BURLAPPE_D TREE NO SCALE y TRUNK WRAP AS SPECIFIED. SEE PLAN FOR ADJACENT SURFACES. —UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE. IT IS AT THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION WHETHER OR NOT TO STAKE TREES. 2X - 3X HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. CONCRETE SIDEWALK STEEL SOD -\ II—III—III III—III—III—_III— — III—II `4" MIN. ROCK MULCH LANDSCAPING FABRIC GRANULAR FILL GRANULAR FILL MIN. 12" TOPSOIL (PLANTING BEDS) O_TYPICAL PLANTING BED/ SIDEWALK NO SCALE OTYPICAL PLANTING BED/EDGING SECTION NO SCALE TYPICAL CONTAINER PLANT, SET LEVEL AND FACED TO PRIMARY VIEW -� 4- MIN. DEPTH ROCK MULCH THROUGHOUT BED, REMOVE EXISTING GRASS AND WEEDS BROAD SPECTRUM, GRANULAR, PRE—EMERGENT HERBICIDE (TREFLAN OR EQUAL) BENEATH MULCH ROTOTILLED BED OF ORGANIC MATERIAL, TOPSOIL AND 5-10-5 GRANULAR FERTILIZER MIXED INTO o PARENT SOIL, SEE SPECIFICATION �g ROOT BALL, REMOVE ALL CONTAINER _ MATERIAL AND DISENTANGLE ROOTS TOR ENSURE COMPLETE CONTACT WITH T BACK FILL MIX. SET FIRMLY INTO HOLE 2-3 X ROOT WIDTH WITH ROUGH, SLOPED SIDES AT A LEVEL SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN NURSERY GRADE — BACK FILL WITH PARENT SOIL AND ROTOTILLED MIX ABOVE OR 80% PARENT SOIL, 20% ORGANIC MATERIAL AND 5-10-5 GRANULAR FERTILIZER, SEE SPECIFICATION, WATER IN PER SPECIFICATION O_CONTAINER GROWN PLANT AND BED PREPARATION NO SCALE KEEP MULCH AWAY FROM STEMS/TRUNK SEE PLAN FOR ADJACENT SURFACES UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE NOTES: 1. SET ROOTBALL ON FIRM SOIL AT AN ELEVATION SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE ROOT FLARE MIN. ROCK MULCH 2. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING. FABRIC 'SOIL (PLANTING BEDS) 5. PLACE 4" DEPTH OF %" TO 2" ROCK MULCH TO MATCH ;OIL (SODDED AREAS) BUILDING COLOR AND TEXTURE AROUND ALL TREES AND IN ALL SHRUB AND PERENNIAL BEDS. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS. NO MULCH TO BE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TRUNK. J LJ 0i-Zo N Z p W w U a z LJ Z 0 0 z CY U J Q N Q J Z V) Z Lrd U 209051221807., sw ....EF L801 21'-4' 3 COMP SINK CONCESSIONS 707 EXISTING e..° STL F, COL EXISTING ROOF OVERHANG SHOWN DASHED B -NEW CMU INFILL FOUNTAINS AT OPENING I 7=l: LOCKERS �L! C A201 34 -0' i.'�°� OCCUPANCY GROUP POOL STORAGE ,o=y OCCUPANCY SEPARATION COLUMNS. GIRDERS- TRUSSES MERCANIIE - GROUP M SECTION 309 3 TABLE 302.1 1: STAFF RoOu EXTERIOR OR PROVIDE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM 4. SECTION 302.1 1: INCIDENTAL USE AREAS - THE BUILDING SHALL BE FLOOR CONSTRUCTION 3 ROOF CONSTRUCTION 4FIRST 11 SECTION 1003: GENERAL MEANS OF EGRESS MAIN OCCUPANCY OF THE PORTION OF THE BUILDNG Fp. FAM LY ° D 112 ER R SHOWER I I I CMI HAl10G91C REQUIRED BETWEEN USES, EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY MERCANTILE 30 S F /OCCUPANT B° -' F. D ; F D I I ' _..' MECwvn 8 -4' 1o7 c ll FROM ADJACENT AREAS BY FIRE BARRIER WALL OR 1 3 ~� 1 RESISTANCE RATING FOR USES BEING SEPARATED. CWVG �� ,� N ( i FAN LY _ 7O3 Y 6•CHANOIND 2 I 110 - ZI II'� -0. ; MIXED OCCUPANCY GROUPS U & M. 2 8' CMU WALL UP TO 112'-0' AT GLUE LAM 260 IIS l � m I +.. �.•--� IOi - 5 26 -B" 21 -4• I i 4 -4. 12'-E su1. C NEW r---------- - ----- A40I LOCKERS - - .1 8' 1_ jFtRE STORAGE •J �:�,tDI �tF.D. iMEN ELEV 5 93,_6"iPFF tz,( I ,iEXISTING /.iO COLF D POOL i __.._ _ NEW FLOOR DRAIN-' 4MENS AT LOCATION OFtREO 6NG EXISTI G �TNEW�fXTENRTWA COL MuRu�NI AL7EA ATE i I 5 - MOP SINK EYE WASH INTER FRONT I - - SEE AIECH,I - . SWIUF DWGS. ,2a - 7 - -• F.E. 0, - j IIDR r - -i. ,2< SEE B/ATOI F �— t - - T 4 -0` X 6 -O 'o I tO5 I CONC APRON -------I -------------- - -a - - - - - FOR LOBBY I 1 iV I I i t ALTERNATE I L J -i HR_ MOP SINK - I ----'� I ---- --1- OCCUPANCY SEE MECH DWGS I - - - - SEPARATION t EXISTING ROOF OVERHANG SHOWN 2 ` } _ _ _ J 5 RATE. I HR.FIRE 6 DASHED �1 �— — � B EXISTING ROOF OVERHANG A201 NEW LOBBY ALTERNATE #i A MAIN FLOOR PLAN A A201 EXISTING ENTRANCE 3UILDING CODE REVIEW 1 APPUCABLE CODE: 2000 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE 2 CHAPTER 3: OCCUPANCY GROUP STRUCTURAL FRAME UTILITY MISCELLANEOUS - GROUP U SECTION 312 COLUMNS. GIRDERS- TRUSSES MERCANIIE - GROUP M SECTION 309 3 TABLE 302.1 1: STORAGE ROOMS OVER 100 SOFT, - PROVIDE I -HR SEPARATION EXTERIOR OR PROVIDE AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM 4. SECTION 302.1 1: INCIDENTAL USE AREAS - THE BUILDING SHALL BE FLOOR CONSTRUCTION CLASSIFIED AS A MIXED OCCUPANCY AND COMPLY ROOF CONSTRUCTION WITH SECTION 302.3. AREAS THAT ARE INCIDENTAL TO 11 SECTION 1003: GENERAL MEANS OF EGRESS MAIN OCCUPANCY OF THE PORTION OF THE BUILDNG TABLE 1003.2.2.2 MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA IN WHICH THE INCIDENTAL USE AREAS IS LOCATED 5 SECTION 302 3 2: NONSEPARATED USES- FIRE SEPARATIONS ARE NOT LOCKER ROOMS 50 S_F/OCCUPANT REQUIRED BETWEEN USES, EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY MERCANTILE 30 S F /OCCUPANT OTHER PROVISIONS 6 SECTION 302 3 3: SEPARTED USES SHALL BE COMPLETI_Y SEPARATED MINIMUM NUMBER OF SANTTRY FIXTURES REQUIRED AT PUBLIC POOLS FROM ADJACENT AREAS BY FIRE BARRIER WALL OR BATHER LOAD NUMBER OF NUMBER OFNUMBER OF !lu cn R 1 pilo, Ir ten„ .-.r n, rn. , .. ..... - ,..._.._ HORIZONTAL ASSEMBLIES OR BOTH HAVING A FIRE - PILASTER SEE�o`o� RESISTANCE RATING FOR USES BEING SEPARATED. IN EACH STORY, THE BUILDING AREA SHALL BE SUCH STRUCT THAT THE SUM OF THE RATIOS OF THE FLOOR AREA 1 6" OR B' CMU WALL TO 108'-0" W/ W000 OF EACH USE DIVIDED BY THE ALLOWABLE AREA FOR 'o13 EACH USE SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE 7 TABLE 302.3.3: REQUIRED SEPARATION IN BUILDINGS OF v MIXED OCCUPANCY GROUPS U & M. 2 8' CMU WALL UP TO 112'-0' AT GLUE LAM 1 -HR SEPARATION 8 SECTION 312: UTILITIES & MISCELLANEOUS OCCUPANCIES - (OEFIMRON) BEAM OR TO 113-8' AT ROOF DECK. SEE BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES OF AN ACCESSORY CHARACTER ;. AND MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES NOT CLASSIFIED IN ANY C/A301 OR E/0.701 RESPECTIVELY FOR SPECIFIC OCCUPANCY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CODE 9. SECTION 602 5: TYPE V CONSTRUCTION IS THAT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION e I vl IN WHICH THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS, EXTERIOR WALLS, AND INTERIOR WALLS ARE OF ANY MATERIALS PERMITTED BY THIS CODE 10 TABLE 601: FIRE RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE STRUCTURAL FRAME 4 4 4 9 9 2 COLUMNS. GIRDERS- TRUSSES 0 -HRS BEARING WADS 3,576 S.F EXTERIOR 0 -HRS. INTERIOR 0 -HRS FLOOR CONSTRUCTION 0 -HRS, ROOF CONSTRUCTION 0 -HRS 11 SECTION 1003: GENERAL MEANS OF EGRESS 124 S F TABLE 1003.2.2.2 MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA 711 SF ALLOWANCES PER OCCUPANT 835 S F LOCKER ROOMS 50 S_F/OCCUPANT 6.244 S F MERCANTILE 30 S F /OCCUPANT 12 TABLE COMM. 90.16-1 ��, oy C MINIMUM NUMBER OF SANTTRY FIXTURES REQUIRED AT PUBLIC POOLS AND WATER ATTRACTIONS: BATHER LOAD NUMBER OF NUMBER OFNUMBER OF !lu cn R 1 pilo, Ir ten„ .-.r n, rn. , .. ..... - ,..._.._ NUMBER OF NUMBER OF PUBLIC FEMALE MALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE 900 8 4 4 4 4 9 9 2 1000 8 4 BUILDING AR AS 4 4 4 10 10 2 EXIS,IN - B I DIN - BATHHOUSE AREA 3,576 S.F CONCESSIONS BBO S F POOL EQUIPMENT 857 S.F MECHANICAL ROOM 96 SF TOTAL EXISTING ADDITIO 5.409 S F LOBBY ALTERNATE 171 124 S F POOL EOUIPMENT 711 SF TOTAL ADDITION 835 S F TOTAL EXISTING AND ADDITION 6.244 S F 1i -e a, NOTE: •a �� ARCHffECTURAL ELEVATION OF 100•-O' o CML ELEVATION OF 877 15' SG g W `u 13 - SLOPE FLOOR TO DRAIN - o F c _I COLAzot L N ��, oy C ON CONIC INTERIOR WALL TYPES X S k, PILASTER SEE�o`o� STRUCT 1 6" OR B' CMU WALL TO 108'-0" W/ W000 'o13 WALL CAP SEE F/A301 FOR CAP DETAIL i v E 2 8' CMU WALL UP TO 112'-0' AT GLUE LAM G c �1f as A20, BEAM OR TO 113-8' AT ROOF DECK. SEE goo 53 ;. C/A301 OR E/0.701 RESPECTIVELY FOR CONNECTION DETAIL e I vl I ADD WOOD STUD WALL FROM TOP OF CMU UP TO ROOF DECK. SEE D/A301. USE WOOD - \/ SIDING ON NON RATED WALLS AND 5/8" GYP o k - i G BOARD ON RATED WALLS U '' c A2O1 � 19 .I Q M !Et - 4 8 CMU WALL TO 104 -0" \i m ,p 0 mz a K }--{ D I REMOVE WOOD SIDING AND TRIM AT BOTH SIDES OF WOOD WALL AND REPLACE W/ 5/8" L w � In t n' 's a v ;? �j 4'-0' X 13'-0" V GYP BOARD BOTH SIDES. SEE G/A301 <.i �m ,� C m ar� CONIC APRON \ NOTE: SLOPE NEW CONCRETE FLOORS TO NEW N a `-- NEW ROOF FLOOR DRAINS AT NEW AND PATCHED OVERHANG CONCRETE FLOOR AREAS IN EXISTING U� BUILDING. MATCH SLOPE OF EXISTING FLOORS AT PERIMETER OF PATCHED AREAS FLOOR THICKNESS AT PATCHED AREAS TO MATCH EXISTINGTHICKNESS E! --.4- Y-EXISTING vm�0 3 oocv�l a m�QQ LOBBY m CDL AT LOCATION 1 0 Of EXISTING WOAD COL 12'-8" 10'-B" ,,"23'-4' GUARDRAIL LOBBY ALTERNATE 5'-0' COUNTER I - Cj1 24 A402 Aaox � � 1 N N N I 8' i / •� 8" �OUTLINE OF m L EXISTING .--1 -- .0,--- ------ T2_g------- ---6-a-------- --L ROOF NEW 6'-6' X IA2O\ t 4 24'-8" CONIC �./ 24'-B" APRON B A201 NEW LOBBY T ALTERNATE X71 ENLARGED ENTRY PLAN AT LOBBY ALTERNATE #1 N Q z, swan v! Z 50 Lij < G n �:30 < 00 Q�w� 2 ir U U mfl G u- 5701102AIO: -- . A101 I I I O T --� 7HVERTICAL0 SIDING TO I I EXISf1NG Tlii�'`a^II!l 11 I1 I ITrITT, T11 Tlifi iTf iT TTTRS`i1T r: !r-r7ttca.r;c::l r,arn:rii„'rh .. . II . II SALVAGED II ---------- - I BRICK ON I EST ELEVATION /a” 8' PRECOLORFO IiOCKFACE­ & U I %1 PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION AT NEW ENTRY ALTERNATE #1 Q6 5 4 H vErm w000 Q SIDING 0 MATCH EL 113'-8' m n CMU INFILL -- W/ SALVAGED BRICK VENEER AT EXISTING DOOR OPENING BUILDING SECTION 1/e - 1•-p 1 NEW CMU 36 1 7 H WALL Asot A3o1 riot DOOR , r EL 113-8' TOP OF J B in m o A A601 m 7� ABO1 - n D - - A601 I I LLj� FOOTING I_1 I I C�7 A\ sOt NEw FO AND I �/ CONIC. FL00 FOUN➢ATION do CMV WALL WALL r n1 BUILDING SECTION o ROOF NG 6 NEW % H .r -•a^-, i �:...... N i t ................. 8'-PRECOLOREp I i6'-0" 1 -10' TEXtSIING WILL 8E REPLACED UNDER ALTERNATE J9 BUILT-UP ggpl 8 - SEE A802 ROOF - --:__-.__ _ _____-__--_-_-_-_--- -- o- ft I ' - SIDE I'SALYAGEC r` EL Ila -Bl EL 100�-0" �-•�---..-� �. �- EL 1136-8" TOP OF SUB TOP OF WALL I A 12• I `n l o A3ot ROCKFACE - SLOPED TOP LOCATION OF EXISTING CMU mj as v !-8" CMU SEE MECH ➢WGS. I WALL t �.. EL 100 -0• EL 100'-0" "-iiL 'r TOP OF SLAB TOP OF SLAB EL. 96'-0" TOP OF SLAB EL 93•-0' CMU INFILL -- W/ SALVAGED BRICK VENEER AT EXISTING DOOR OPENING BUILDING SECTION 1/e - 1•-p 1 NEW CMU 36 1 7 H WALL Asot A3o1 riot DOOR , r EL 113-8' TOP OF J B in m o A A601 m 7� ABO1 - n D - - A601 I I LLj� FOOTING I_1 I I C�7 A\ sOt NEw FO AND I �/ CONIC. FL00 FOUN➢ATION do CMV WALL WALL r n1 BUILDING SECTION o II SALVAGED BRICK 1 ON --_ _—. _. .. .......�—.�i.:--.:. II NEW LOCKERS ON/ II 19 -0 II 8' I DUTCH L3 I -- _ 4" CONC. BASE W r DUORROCKFACI=CMU .r -•a^-, i �:...... N i t ................. 8'-PRECOLOREp I i6'-0" 1 -10' BRICK ETURN AT r EL 93--0' I1 8 CMU _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -------- 19----aCFprLOF_---I----------'--"---- ----- - - --:__-.__ _ _____-__--_-_-_-_--- -- o- ft I ' - SIDE I'SALYAGEC r` �--- EL 100�-0" _l .p TOP OF SLABa --1-- •'" �- NEW TOP OF SUB 4 CONC. BASE W/ FOUNTAINS AT NEW - SLOPED TOP LOCATION OF EXISTING OPENING AT SEE MECH ➢WGS. CONCESSIONS EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATON v 1/8 . 1 -0 ERT. WOOD IDING FASCIA - IATCH EXISTING m j SALVAGED 1 BRICK ON a- CMu I I -o"I ��II�ID�d►�i��l���ll�ll��8�lllil�l�ldl���IIIIIIIIU�II��lln�ll��� � ' • O ♦- - 1 at . o wnmua'aa.m �.s�rs>romm� �EL 100 O. OF SLAB SOUTH ELEVATON TOP OF SLAB EL 93 -0' TOP OF SLAB %BUILDING SECTION 1/6 - r -o EL 113.-8 TOP OF WALL, 8' PRECOLOREO °7 ROCKFACE CMU m B' PRECOLORED ;y I SMOOTFiFACE o- ft I ' CMU r` EXISTING EL 100�-0" CMU/BRICK .p TOP OF SLABa --1-- •'" WALL I I TOP OF FTG L _I_ - -_ _ EL -96-0 .. .. ..... _L - --I- BUILDING ELEVATION/SECTION AT ALTERNATE #1 1/a - t -p Ae �V u- a Y o E n.'a u a5x3 10 O C: 0 CLn MID E JO y MLn a3ei... a 1 Ul mj tnLLL In Z O H U FQ— w ? O F- 5 c� w L? m o W U Z o5 U GO �LL J OU Z \.O f - ? Q (n o 'wJ Uv mo Lu FW w A201 1 tt� ■ uj SCALE IN FEET 1:80 MLN ° 80' 160' C000 musco� GREEN GENERATION LIGHTING' GUARANTEED PERFORMANCE SPILL CRYSTAL AQUATIC CENTER CRYSTAL, MN SPILL Grid Spacing = 30.0' Values given at 3.0' above grade Luminaire Type: Green Generation Rated Lamp Life: 5000 hours Avg Lumens/Lamp: 134,000 CONSTANT ILLUMINATION HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES Statistical Area No. of Target Points: 22 Average: 1.843' Maximum: 4.65_= Minimum: 0.17 Average Lamp Tilt Factor: 1.000 Number of Luminaires: 14 Avg KWh Consumption over 5000 hours: 21.84 Guaranteed Performance: The CONSTANT ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed for the rated life of the lamp. Field Measurements: Averages shall be +/-10% in accordance with IESNA RP -6-01. Individual measurements may vary from computer predictions. Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. Installation Requirements: Results assume +/- 3% nominal voltage at line side of the ballast and structures located within 3 feet of design locations. By: mbelloma Date: 01 -Jun -05 Pole location(s) +dimensions are relative File #: 1152891sgv1.aim.des to 0,0 reference point(s) ® Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Lighting. ©1981, 2005 Musco Lighting Print Date (01/Jun/2005) & Time (09:58) k 996 )li■ Uj EQUIPMENT Pole L OR AREA5 SHOWN Luminaires OTYMOUNTING71---7 HEIGHT OTHER GR550' MZ 2 2 0 19K-:50 150OW MZ 4 4 0 6 S 14 14 0 SCALE IN FEET 1:80 MLN ° 80' 160' C000 musco� GREEN GENERATION LIGHTING' GUARANTEED PERFORMANCE SPILL CRYSTAL AQUATIC CENTER CRYSTAL, MN SPILL Grid Spacing = 30.0' Values given at 3.0' above grade Luminaire Type: Green Generation Rated Lamp Life: 5000 hours Avg Lumens/Lamp: 134,000 CONSTANT ILLUMINATION HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES Statistical Area No. of Target Points: 22 Average: 1.843' Maximum: 4.65_= Minimum: 0.17 Average Lamp Tilt Factor: 1.000 Number of Luminaires: 14 Avg KWh Consumption over 5000 hours: 21.84 Guaranteed Performance: The CONSTANT ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed for the rated life of the lamp. Field Measurements: Averages shall be +/-10% in accordance with IESNA RP -6-01. Individual measurements may vary from computer predictions. Electrical System Requirements: Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. Installation Requirements: Results assume +/- 3% nominal voltage at line side of the ballast and structures located within 3 feet of design locations. By: mbelloma Date: 01 -Jun -05 Pole location(s) +dimensions are relative File #: 1152891sgv1.aim.des to 0,0 reference point(s) ® Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Lighting. ©1981, 2005 Musco Lighting Print Date (01/Jun/2005) & Time (09:58) k 996 )li■ Uj CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS ON PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS May 17, 2005: Approved a conditional use permit for Chipotle Mexican Grill to establish a patio seating area for outdoor food and beverage service at 5608 West Broadway (currently Schlotzky's Deli). 2. Approved a conditional use permit for EI Loro Mexican Restaurant to establish a patio seating area for outdoor food and beverage service at 99 Willow Bend. The Council's actions on the items above were consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendations.