The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-09-26 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA September 26, 2017 – 7:00 p.m. Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Approval of August 22, 2017 Planning Commission (Regular Meeting) Minutes 5. Approval of August 23, 2017 Planning Commission (Special Meeting) Minutes 6. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2017-22: Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of a new 122 room WoodSpring Hotel, located at the SE corner of Northland Drive and Pilot Knob Road (Woodspring Hotels – Applicants) b. Case No. 2017-24: Wetlands Permit for property located at 1773 Sutton Lane (Tim Dyrhaug – Applicant) c. Case No. 2017-25: Wetlands Permit for property located at 1562 Wachtler Avenue (Jim Carlson – Applicant) 7. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update a. Discussion on Proposed Vision & Goals 8. Staff Announcements / Update on Developments 9. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 22 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 22, 2017 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 22, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. Call to Order Vice-Chair Doug Hennes called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Commissioners John Mazzitello, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, Brian Petschel, and Vice-Chair Doug Hennes were present. Chair Litton Field, Jr. was absent/excused. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of July 25, 2017 Minutes COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2017, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1 (Toth) ABSENT: 1 (Field) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2017-17 ALLTECH ENGINEERING, 2515 PILOT KNOB ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVER-HEIGHT FENCE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Alltech Engineering was seeking a conditional use permit to erect an eight-foot tall security fence on a portion of their industrial based property located at 2515 Pilot Knob Road. He also noted that a public hearing notice had been sent out on this application and no comments or objections have been received. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Pilot Knob and Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Benetti shared images of the property in relation to its location to surrounding streets and properties. The site is 4.34 acres, just under 190,000 square feet, contains an existing 32,106 square foot office/warehouse building, and is zoned and guided as I-Industrial. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 22 Alltech Engineering has experienced a rash of thefts and vandalism on the back of their property, in the storage areas. They are looking to erect something to keep out unwelcome guests and to provide for some type of security measures. Mr. Benetti shared an image showing the current driveway coming off of Pilot Knob Road, storage and parking area, and a curved entrance off of Mendota Heights Road. The access points would be blocked off with a horizontal rolling gate system, controlled by a keypad. The gates would be open throughout the day and closed at night. City Code requires that screening of approximately 90% or more opacity be installed; however, the fence design request is a classic style, 8-foot high, picket rail fence style with fleurs-de-lis on top. This style of fencing was chosen by the applicant not only for their need in protecting their property and added security measures, but more for the high quality finish and appearance. If the Planning Commission feels that a screen of 90% or more must be attained, then the applicant would have to adjust or offer to provide a new version or style of security fence that would meet this standard. However, because the current site has been without any vegetative or structural measures for a long time, due to the overall nice appearance and quality of the new fence, and the fact that the adjacent properties are not residential but similar industrial and/or office/warehouse uses with their own unscreened loading or storage areas, staff recommended support of the proposed security fence presented, without added measures or meeting the complete 90% opacity standard. Mr. Benetti explained the standards that must be met to approve a conditional use permit and how this request satisfies those standards. Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification that the site under consideration is currently not fenced, screened, or buffered; so the back of the property is open to the view to the extent that it is viewable from Mendota Heights Road or from Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan continued by noting that the request is not for a chain-link fence nor a wood fence, which would show the test of time. Again, Mr. Benetti confirmed. It was then asked if that wouldn’t offset the notion – the improved fence, is that a reason why the Commission could say that it enhances or addresses the screen situation because there is nothing there now. Mr. Benetti wholeheartedly agreed with that statement and said that the proposed fence would be a much better improvement than a chain-link fence with the slats or anything else, especially anything with a barbed-wire security arm on the top. A wood fence weathers over time and would not be as appealing, per staff, as this fence would be. Commissioner Noonan stated that it was represented to the Commission that the applicant was proposing this classic style of fence; however, when looking at the conditions – it’s not a condition. He expressed his concern that if the Commission gave the approval for the 8-foot but do not condition it to this fence, there could be a substitution. He then asked if it would be appropriate to include, as a condition, that the applicant install and staff can identify the appropriate type. Mr. Benetti replied that he would recommend that amendment. Commissioner Petschel noted that just a few months ago the Commission approved a fence just down the road at the Liquor Distributor, which the Commission required 90% opacity and with August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 22 barbed-wire at the top. He then asked that, if the Commissioner were to approve this, how would it not just throw this rule out the window. Mr. Benetti replied that the easiest way to do this is to consider, now that they Comprehensive Plan is under amendment consideration, tweaking or upgrading the zoning ordinance comprehensively as well. This could be something that staff could look at very closely. He would be willing to see what other communities do; he does not see an opacity rule of 90% as being really effective in an industrial zone as it is not really needed from a planning perspective. The screening measures really come into play when there are residential areas next door or when it is highly visible. The property under consideration is dead center in the industrial park so there would not be any negative connotations with having this fence. Commissioner Magnuson asked if Mr. Benetti had any conversations with the owner about using some vegetation to provide some sort of buffer. When out looking at the site she would agree that completely surrounding that fence in vegetative material would require a lot; however, it seemed to her that there are a few key places where a couple of nicely placed pine trees or something would really solve the problem. It probably would not get it to 90% - but may come close to the spirit and intent of the Code rather than just not dealing with it. Mr. Benetti agreed and said that when staff walked the site a suggestion was made to put the some trees within the open edge; however, putting trees in the berm area would be difficult. Hopefully the applicant would have the budget for a few trees if the Commission felt it was warranted. Vice Chair Hennes asked how hard and fast is the 90% rule and, if it is hard and fast, does the Commission need to consider a variance. Mr. Benetti replied that his past experience working with Conditional Use Permits, other city attorneys advised that if a condition under a Conditional Use Permit if being asked to be waived or reduced/limited, a variance does not really need to be applied in that case. In effect, the Commission could request a modification under the broad general category of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Toth, referencing the statement in the staff report that the pavilion would be removed, asked what the timeline would be for the removal – would it be removed prior to the installation of the fence if this were to be approved. Mr. Benetti replied that the applicant would like to remove the pavilion no matter the decision; the concrete pad would remain. He also noted that this would be inside the fence line. Commissioner Toth asked if the 8-foot fence would be installed on top of the already existing 4- foot berm, thus making that stretch of the fenced area 12 feet. Mr. Benetti replied that the plan calls for an 8-foot fence around the whole blue-lined area in the photograph provided, including the berm. Mr. Chris Lawrence, Operations Manager at Alltech Engineering Corp. shared images of the property in question, which had been included in the staff report. He then noted the location of the day-to-day operational parking lot, the loading area where they sometimes leave vehicles parked overnight – the area of most security concern – and the location of the berms or buffer areas. He also shared an image of the property from Pilot Knob Road indicating that the view from there would probably only be 4 feet of the installed fence. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 22 Commissioner Magnuson agreed that when going down Mendota Heights Road the neighbor’s loading dock is more visible than Alltech’s. She then asked if they would be open to putting in a few evergreens here and there. Mr. Lawrence stated that he would be open to that suggestion. The one concern he would have is as the back of the property is approached there are potential blind spots for their drivers; however, he would be open to it. Commissioner Noonan stated that the representation is that it was the classic fence that would be installed, so if a condition were added that it had to be this classic fence, would that be acceptable. Mr. Lawrence replied that this would be acceptable. Vice Chair Hennes asked, since this is the first time they would be installing a fence, would two feet make that much of a difference in terms of security. Mr. Lawrence replied that to him, as well as other management, it would be more of a deterrent. He recalled scaling four foot fences when he was younger to go to football games. Commissioner Toth asked if the fence was metal and would it be powder-coat paint or painted with an industrial black paint – what would be seen in the next five, ten, or fifteen years as far as peeling, rust, etc. Mr. Lawrence replied that he believed this to be a dipped product and of nice quality; made to stand the test of time. Vice Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-17 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OVER-HEIGHT FENCE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing non-conformity by screening the loading dock area on the subject property, while providing additional security for the property owner. 2. The proposed project is compliant with the standards for granting a conditional use permit and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The existing mature vegetation along Pilot Knob Road right-of-way increases the screening/buffering of the subject property from this adjacent roadway; and any visual impacts experienced form Northland Drive along the north side will be reduced by the physical screening offered by the existing building. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 22 1. A fence permit shall be issued prior to construction. 2. The fence shall be located entirely on private property. 3. The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. AND THE ADDED FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 4. The applicant agrees to install a Montage Commercial® classic fence on the property 5. The applicant work with the City Planner to site and install additional landscaping adjacent to the fence area AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) Vice Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5, 2017 meeting. B) PLANNING CASE #2017-18 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE INC. AND PETER & JEN EISENHUTH, 1275 KNOLLWOOD LANE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE CRITICAL AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this application was to help facilitate the removal of an existing single-family dwelling and replace it with a new one. As part of any properties that are within or partially within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area, any work, construction activity, grading work all has to be approved with a Critical Area Permit. This application was being presented as a public hearing and notices were published and mailed out to all residences within 350 feet. One comment was received by an adjacent neighbor and once he understood the scope and scale of the project he had no objections. Almost three-quarters of the subject property is located within the Critical Area. The property is a 1.73 acre parcel and contains a single-family dwelling of just over 4,000 square feet. There is currently an access point on the south corner of the lot which swings into a circular driveway. The property is zoned R-1 Residential and there are no plans to change that zoning. The plan is to remove the existing dwelling and construct a new one in the same place. The only difference is they would be going lower than the existing house. According to their grading and foundation plans, they will be a little lower than what is seen at this time. Grading would take place along Knollwood Lane and along the back side. They are tying in some of the grades into the existing contours in the bluff line. This has been reviewed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and they have determined that the plans are adequate. The owners plan to construct a new, modern style home. Mr. Benetti shared architectural images of the front and rear of the planned dwelling, with a rear walkout and gentle slopes to the backyard August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 22 areas. The reason for the grading work as shown on the plan would be to accommodate the walkout. Mr. Benetti shared the standards and provisions as noted under Title 12-Zoning, Chapter 3 – Critical Area Overlay District, which included the site planning requirements, development standards, setbacks, height limits, retaining wall, process for construction on property within the critical area, vegetation management, and surface water runoff management. The report indicated that there are some retaining walls on the site; however, they are not planning any new retaining walls; only natural graded berms. There is an old foundation on site, believed to be an old barn or outbuilding structure, believed to be constructed of a running brick pattern or concrete block; there are no plans to remove that foundation. The Conditional Use Permit is needed for any areas affected between 18% and 40% grades. In this case, it is almost the entire site. The grading plan as presented meets the identified and required standards that must be met in order to allow said grades and work in these areas. Commissioner Noonan noted, generally speaking, that the footprint where this new home is to be built is more or less identical to the footprint of the existing home. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was true. Commissioner Noonan observed that the height of the proposed home is more or less consistent with the height of the current residence. Again, Mr. Benetti confirmed. Commissioner Noonan observed then that there is no change in the structure’s impact on this area; it is just new and therefore it is triggered because of where it is. Mr. Benetti replied that the new structure would actually be lower than the existing structure; but is probably close to the 25-foot standard. Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the drainage map, noted that the site is draining in two halves; a portion goes down the slope and a portion goes down to Knollwood. He then asked if anyone knew the drainage pattern on the existing site. Mr. Benetti deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Mazzitello asked, if this home were not in the critical area, would there be any other planning reason for it to be before the Planning Commission. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative. Mr. Stephen Mastey of Landscape Architecture Inc. came forward representing the applicant asked to hear Commissioner Mazzitello’s question regarding drainage. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if there were any significant changes between the existing drainage pattern and the new planned drainage pattern. Mr. Mastey replied in the affirmative and explained that the only different is they would reduce the impervious surfaces on the site by approximately 30% so there would be less runoff, less storm water leaving the site, and more greenspace. Vice Chair Hennes asked if the homeowners would be comfortable with working with the City Planner a more reasonable tree replacement plan. Mr. Mastey agreed that they would be and as the site plan evolves and they start to site the house and discover what the critical screenings are, they have had some discussions already about wanting to add some additional screen trees, especially where some of the diseased trees are proposed to be removed and where the existing driveway is. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 22 Commissioner Magnuson noted that one of the conditions of constructing in the critical area is that the materials used have to be of natural quality and color and blend into the environment so it does not create some sort of eye-sore. In looking at the diagrams, the house appears to be stark white and she was sure that was for purposes of review. She asked if they had considered the color of the structure. Mr. Mastey replied that what they are proposing to do is to drop the structure a little bit and they would adjust the grade so the site would be lower. The second part regarding materials he deferred to Mr. Charles Simmons and Ms. Marcy Townsend of Charlie & Co. Design. Mr. Charles Simmons, 356 – 3rd Avenue N, Minneapolis, in reference to the color pallet, replied that at this point in the conceptual design it is intended to be white for diagram purposes. In all of the images that the homeowner has shared with them, all of the materials are incredibly warm, natural color pallets. There will be some stone on the outside for the chimney and the base. This would not be a white modern home by any stretch of the imagination. Vice Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. Mr. Ken Hayes, 1291 Knollwood Lane, stated that he called Mr. Benetti on August 14th but received no reply and his questions could have been answered that way. However, many of his questions were answered during the presentation. He is the neighbor where the circular driveways come together and from the vegetation diagrams it is hard tell what is going to be replaced or not in the green buffer between the properties. There is a lot of invasive species in there and he requested that they be removed and replaced by appropriate vegetation. He noted that the driveway is going to be moved; however, he would like the three USPS mailbox to stay where it is currently. If the owner would like to install his own mailbox near his own driveway, that would be fine. If the current mailbox straddles the property lines, he would like to see an easement put in place to keep it where it is. Mr. Stephen Mastey of Landscape Architecture Inc. returned and, in reference to the invasive species, stated that he is recommending the removal and doing some eco-system management to clean that area and create a clean slate for something better. Typically they try to plant trees that would be there for 100 years. There have also been discussions, once the driveway is moved, of adding some additional screening and other vegetation specifically in that area. He said he would be willing to work with Mr. Benetti and suggested Mr. Benetti keep Mr. Hayes updated. As for the mailbox, typically they are in the right-of-way so he does not believe an easement or anything like that is needed. Vice Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 22 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-18 CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1275 KNOLLWOOD LANE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed development of the property with two a new single-family residential structure meets the general purpose and intent of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District, including the additional conditional use permit standards. 3. The proposed development will make a concerted effort to reduce the removal of any significant trees on the subject property; the [professional] removal of invasive and harmful planting provides a benefit to helping restore the natural environment and native plant growth in this area; and provides a condition to help replace and replenish the loss of some significant trees. 4. The proximity of the new home from the bluff line, along with all new [proposed] grades for this site, will ensure that no stormwater drainage will negatively impact neighboring residents; and help lessen any erosion or future degradation of the nearby bluff and critical corridor area. 5. The work proposed involved is reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the Critical Area, if done carefully and professionally. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Building and grading permits shall be approved by the City prior to any demolition or removal of any existing structures, and before any construction of any new dwelling on each lot. 2. All grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 3. All new utility plans and connections will be required for review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. The Applicant shall provide an updated tree and/or vegetation replacement plan that provides a reasonable and equitable replacement of trees to be removed under this new development plan. 5. Removal of trees and vegetation, including any invasive trees or unsuitable vegetation must be performed by qualified tree and landscaping professional/firm. Removal of vegetation is primarily confined to the areas identified on the “Tree Removal Plan” as submitted under this joint application. 6. Full erosion and sedimentation measures will be put in place prior to and during grading and construction work activities. 7. All grading and landscape work shall be performed by a qualified, professional contractor and/or landscape company. 8. All work on site will only be performed between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. 9. The final design and location of the new (relocated) driveway must be approved by the City Engineer; and any portion of the existing driveway that is removed within the Knollwood Lane right-of-way and inside the subject property must repaired and restored accordingly. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 22 AND THE ADDED FOLLOWING CONDITION: 10. The exterior finishes of the dwelling shall incorporate natural and/or native type materials, subject to approval of the Community Dev. Director and City Engineer. Commissioner Magnuson noted that Findings of Fact #1 had a typographical error in it and suggested that the word ‘two’ be stricken. Commissioner Mazzitello accepted the edit as a friendly amendment to his motion as did the second, Commissioner Noonan. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) Vice Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5, 2017 meeting. C) PLANNING CASE #2017-19 MIKE SWENSON – MICHAEL DEVELOPMENT OF MN, LLC, 2160 & 2180 HWY 13 REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained this was a request from Mr. Michael Swenson – Michael Development of MN, LLC asking for a rezoning, preliminary plat, conditional use permit, and wetlands permit for the new Mendota Heights Apartments, PUD complex. The original plan was to build two 69-unit apartment complexes; however, the updated plan under consideration tonight is for two, 70-unit apartment complexes for a total of 140 units. This would entail the redevelopment of the Mendota Motel site and the former Larson Greenhouse Center site. The rezoning request would be from B-3 General Business to a new HR-PUD High Density Residential Planned Unit Development; a preliminary plat of “Mendota Heights Apartments”; a conditional use permit for the establishment of the PUD and the development of the proposed multi-family type buildings; and wetlands permit due to the proximity of work adjacent to Lemay Lake. As part of a PUD process, it starts off with a concept plan. As the staff report indicated, staff believes they have already presented the concept plan at the initial land use amendment stage a few months. The concept plan has not changed very much so staff requested the Planning Commission to consider both the Preliminary and Final Development plans at this time as one complete submittal. This item being be presented as a public hearing item, notices were mailed to residents within 1,500 feet or more of the development site and published in the local South-West Review newspaper. These same residents had been included in the notices for the public information meeting and the comprehensive plan review meeting. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 22 Mr. Benetti reviewed the background, site description and present use, surrounding properties and neighborhood, and project description; all included in the staff report to the Planning Commission. Mr. Benetti also presented staff’s analysis on the rezoning from B-3 General Business to HR-PUD High Density Residential PUD, preliminary/final development plan – site plan & specifics review, wetlands permit, aircraft noise attenuation, and preliminary plat. Mr. Benetti shared images of the concept plan for the development, no more than three stories; a single identification monument sign near the front entry; layout of the underground parking with 79 spaces; layouts of the units, conference rooms, office, open concept lobby, club room, and fitness room. Each building would have 37 one-bedroom apartments, 16 one-bedroom plus den apartments, and 17 two-bedroom apartments. The overall grading plan not only showed the overall grading, but the north and south, which is effective for review as this is being looked at in two phases. Phase 1 is on the Mendota Motel site in the south and Phase 2 will take place a little bit later on the north site. Mr. Benetti stated that the landscaping plans is probably one of the better ones he has ever seen with numerous and wide varieties of plantings; staff was very pleased to see this variety. They were also very happy to see that they are not planning on a lot of work in the rear setback area as it has existing screening with a great highway buffer screening view. During the rezoning analysis, Mr. Benetti indicated that the one of the key provisions of the purpose of a PUD is “…to encourage a flexibility in the design and development of land . . .” He then listed the basis a council may consider the reduction of the 10-acre requirement for a PUD, one of them being that it would not require any wetlands permit. This application does include a wetlands permit; however, this is only due to the proximity of Lemay Lake. Staff is very confident that they are not going to be affecting any part of Lemay Lake so they feel that the wetland permit provision should not really be a factor in the Commissions’ decision of making a recommendation. Mr. Benetti then shared the standards that need to be met for a PUD approval and explained how this request meets those standards. In terms of the density, Mr. Benetti explained that the High Density residential land use designation in the 2030 Land Use Plan only allows a maximum density of 8.5 units per acre, which is very low compared to many other suburban cities in the region. The trend in the local areas is towards higher density in appropriate locations; said locations would include good access and compatibility with surrounding land uses, which the subject property does. The Planning Commission determines the number of dwelling units which may be constructed within the PUD. Under the Preliminary/Final Development Plan – Site Plan & Specifics Review, Mr. Benetti reviewed the living area, unit size, levels, height, setback standards, floor area ratio, site data calculations, design, parking, sidewalk/trail, signage, landscape plan, and public safety review. While reviewing the setbacks standards, Mr. Benetti explained that the PUD can be used to provide flexibility to allowing or accepting the reduced setbacks in this development plan and why these reduced setbacks are no cause for concern and are acceptable by city staff. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 22 As for the wetland permit, as indicated earlier the proposed project includes grading and construction activities within 100 feet of a wetland/water resource-related area; however, staff is confident the developer will provide adequate protection and safeguards throughout the duration of the project, and will ensure these and all other environmental and habitat protection measures are maintained. Commissioner Mazzitello, referencing the protection of Lemay Lake, asked if the stormwater pollution prevention plan, erosion and sediment control plan, and stormwater model for the proposed condition are all yet to come. The only item under consideration this evening is simply the rezoning of the property to allow the PUD to progress. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was correct. The applicant has already submitted a stormwater report and their SWPPP, but Staff did not include them with the Planning Report due to technical language, overall volume and size. However, they are available at City Hall Planning Dept. should anyone wish to review. Commissioner Toth asked if there were any safety concerns with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) using Highway 13 coming out onto Highway 110 and the uses of Mendota Heights Road; would Highway 13 / Mendota Heights Road see any major impacts or how would that be mitigated if problems arise in the future. Mr. Benetti indicated that this was a good question. MnDOT has reviewed this and they have indicated that there would be the obvious spike in local traffic from what was before. It has been pretty quiet in the last few years with the shutting of the old garden center site and motel did not have a lot of traffic in and out. However, with the new development, yes there would be an increase in traffic seen. The benefit is they are eliminating access on one point and Highway 13 currently serves as more of a high collector frontage road system. He did not believe that MnDOT had any issues or concerns and did not see any need for a traffic study at this point. They believe the highway can handle this uptick in traffic. There was a concern raised by a resident about any decreasing in posted speeds along Highway 13; again, it’s a State Highway and the City cannot recommend or authorize any reduction in speed. Commissioner Petschel asked if the issues in MnDOT’s response been addressed as it appeared they were asking for a number of things to be addressed. Mr. Benetti replied that MnDOT still has the opportunity to review this as the project goes along; however, the applicant has been made aware of their comments as far any permitting and right-of-way work – all of that has to be approved beforehand. There are still some issues they have to address directly with MnDOT. If they would not be in support of it, they would have indicated that early on. Commissioner Magnuson indicated that on one of the designs there is a picture of Highway 13 and it looks substantially wider than what currently exists with the center turn lane and asked if this was part of the project. Mr. Benetti replied that there will be a proposed right-hand turn lane into the site, which a recommendation was made by MnDOT; so there will be some additional work at that right-of-way for that turn lane. Vice Chair Hennes, looking at the main map for the site plan, asked if the northern apartment building would be visible from the Augusta Shores property or, given the drop off and all of the trees if it would be invisible. Mr. Benetti replied that it was possible but indicated that with the heavy grove of woods and a variety of trees he did not believe much of the site would be visible. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 22 Commissioner Toth asked if the area would be disturbed – the large trees down the embankment area to protect those residents on the Augusta Shores side. Mr. Benetti replied that currently all of the work being done is within their own property limits and that is where it is desired to be kept. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that between the existing greenhouse property and the motel property there is a city right-of-way that is undeveloped. This would need to be vacated for the plat to move forward and he asked this to be addressed. Mr. Benetti answered that there is an old unused section called Hilltop and that would need to go through the official vacation process. The City Engineer and Mr. Benetti would be setting up a public hearing process for that as it would need to be vacated officially by the Council. Also, all drainage utility easements will also be dedicated as part of this new plat. Mr. Mike Swenson of Michael Development of MN, LLC, 1650 Four Oaks Road, Eagan stated this idea has been presented for the last 6 or 8 months and he hopes that it is accepted. He believes it to be an improvement to the area and he would build a livable, acceptable, and attractive building. He would also do his best to rent to qualified people. Michael Development screens all of their tenants as far as being good people and this is who would be invited to the community. Vice Chair Hennes asked if he had to guess as the typical age of tenants, would they be baby boomers, millennials, or gen X’s or what. Mr. Swenson replied that when a building like this is constructed, the rent is hefty so the people that could afford the rent are probably a little bit more established in life; usually 30 to 45 years in age. Mr. Ben Delwiche of Kass Wilson Architects located at 1301 American Boulevard E, Bloomington came forward to address the Commission and to answer questions. He stated that the front of the building would be heavily clad in brick and the color scheme would include four different colors, including the accent piece and would be pretty neutral. They would also use a hearty flat panel and lap siding combination. Vice Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. Mr. Harold Fotsch, 2126 Lake Augusta Drive, lives right next to this place. He expressed his appreciation to the developer for coming forward with a plan as they have been waiting for something for some time and are anxious for this to be developed. In regards to the underground parking, he asked where the exit would be from that area. His next question was in regards to the site lines on the exit from Augusta Shores on Highway 13. The only exit Augusta Shores has is onto Highway 13 and it is a challenge to do that safely, primarily due to the lack of a sight line coming from the south. He was also concerned about the amount of traffic that would be generated from the development to the extent that he wondered if Victoria could be used as an exit from the underground parking area. His next comment pertained to the northern border of this development. Apparently there is a platted street on the northern border of this property, between this and Augusta Shores. This has been a point of contention as Augusta Shores has not been able to make any improvements to the entrance to their development. He asked if this new development could remove that paving and put in foliage of some sort. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 22 His final comment was that the apartment buildings look like boxes. He suggested the addition of some kind of interesting roof line instead of plain old boxes to look at. Mr. Greg Langan, 2101 Lake Augusta Drive, had five points or questions: 1. He observed that he lives on the north side facing the pond. Everything that he sees from his deck is the Larson property. There is a huge swale between Augusta Shores property and Larson greenhouse. If the grading that he heard about happens they are most likely to lose some of that tree buffer that would potentially block his view of the new apartment complex. This is a concern to him. 2. It was mentioned that on the north side of the property the set back from Acacia Drive is proposed to be 30 feet, which would be less than what it is supposed to be. That would only be 1.5 cars away from the property line. 3. He agreed with Mr. Fotsch and stated that there are days they cannot get out of their development – and that is without the extra cars this development would add. 4. The lovely stonework was mentioned on the front with some siding materials. Augusta Shores would be looking at the backside of this complex. He asked if the developer or the architect could tell him what would be on the backside of the building that he gets to look at, especially if the trees are removed when they do the grading. 5. He was not sure if this was appropriate to ask but did anyway – He asked Mr. Swenson to provide the projected range of rents for the new complex. Vice Chair Hennes asked the applicant or architect to come forward and address some of the concerns raised. Mr. Ben Delwiche of Kass Wilson Architects replied as follows: • Access from the underground garage – both garages would be entered from Highway 13, residents would drive down the hill to the space between the two buildings to the entrances to the underground garages. • Sight line at the corner and the set back of the building – the building on the north side would be 30 feet away from the property line, the property line – especially at the far corner – is set back an additional 15 to 20 feet from Highway 13. Additionally, this phase 2 building is within the existing setbacks on the site – they are not requesting more setback on any of the buildings at any portion that currently exist on the site. • Tree removal plan – they plan to remove a heavy amount of trees from the area between the Phase 2 building and Highway 13, which would greatly increase the sight lines. They do plan on replacing two large trees and they would be happy to have the landscape designer remove those or any visual impediments on this portion of the site. • Traffic – looking at the MnDOT report the received initially, MnDOT deemed that the road could handle the amount of traffic. Within that they did request that they add the proposed right turn lane to help mitigate any slowing down along that route to Acacia Boulevard. • The platted street on the north - according to the survey, there is an existing paved area. They currently have plans to remove all of that paving. • Design on the outside – it is architectural style and they have worked on the renderings and what they have currently is not significantly different but it is making steady improvements to get where they want to be • Where this development is located is kind of a buffer between the small-scale residential community [Augusta Shores] and the depot facility [Restaurant Technologies]. Based on August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 22 the location and proximity to the highway, they are an intermediate buffer or transition. They did a flat roof design to be an intermediary between those two things. The flat roof also helps with the overall building height, which was a concern from residents who could view the building from Augusta Shores. • Grading and elimination of the buffer to the Augusta Shores neighborhood – he assured everyone that they are only removing a handful of very small trees along the whole area. They are also going through and giving more of an effort to preserve a number of trees in the area. The removal plans are available for anyone to review and he would be happy to talk to the residents after the meeting. He indicated on the plan the location of the two significant trees to be removed from the site. Overall, the area should be more guarded then it was previously. • Design on the rear of the building – there is a very heavy buffer of trees on the entire site. Strategically they placed brick on the ends on all visible spots that can be seen from Highway 13, along the interior side, and then switch on the rear side to the hearty board siding in a color to mimic the brick. Commissioner Magnuson asked if he had done much of an analysis of the buffer being mostly comprised of deciduous trees, which in the summer is great with the foliage; however, in the winter those types of trees are bare. She was able to see that there are some pine trees; however, the buffer may go away in the winter. Mr. Delwiche replied that he has not looked at the specific species of trees. He also clarified that just because they are removing the brick from the bottom two layers from the back of the building, they are not compromising the aesthetic. The look on the backside, even without any trees, would remain the same as the front of the building. Commissioner Toth asked if he was living on the east side of the complex would he be able to see the roof line of the apartment complex from his home at any given time. Mr. Delwiche replied that they have modeled this project and put it into Google Earth and their building came down within the three strands of trees, well below the top of the tree line. Although he could not say with certainty, his assumption would be that this development would have very limited visibility from the Augusta Shores neighborhood. Commissioner Toth asked what type of surveys had been done and could he guarantee that this building roof line would be below the top of the trees. Mr. Delwiche replied that he did not have that answer currently; however, he could get that answer and get very accurate drawings to depict what exactly those views would be down there. However, whether or not the roof line could be seen, a three story development, 70 apartment units is far less than what is typically asked for. Usually, the economy to scale numbers push it up to a four story building. Here, given the heights of the buildings at only three stories, plus the costly transition to a flat roof and the means to mitigate what that roof line might do, he would hope that would serve the neighbors well. Commissioner Toth noted that many times on apartments and commercial buildings air conditioning units and other mechanical elements are seen. He then asked if there would be a number of those units on top of this building. Mr. Delwiche replied that they would have a very limited amount of roof top units; basically one adjacent to elevator overrun, which goes above the roof by four or five feet. That unit would serve the corridor. One thing that they do as a strategy, to eliminate the look of those mechanical units on the outside of the building, is that they are August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 22 recessed them back into the deck area and are basically hidden from the main front face of the building. They also added roof line projections to break up the roof line. Commissioner Petschel suggested the developer provide a simulated drop street view onto Augusta Shores, which Mr. Delwiche agreed to do. The last item Mr. Delwiche addressed concerned the estimated rent dollars. He could not speak specifically; however, based on apartment buildings in the Twin Cities he would estimate approximately $1.60 per square foot. The smallest units in this building are 771 square feet; which would equate to approximately $1,400 for a one bedroom unit. Ms. Kathryn Haight, 2090 Acacia Drive, stated that she was confused. She and her husband have been very supportive of this project and have been to several meetings regarding it. She received the notice that this was regarding two 69-unit apartment buildings; however, at this meeting she is hearing about two 70-unit apartment buildings. She also commented that the schematics about Highway 13 are a little bit deceiving because there really is quite a curve as you drive around the motel site and come by Acacia Drive as it comes into Augusta Shores. Anyone exiting Augusta Shores onto Highway 13 and they look right, left, right and start to make the turn, there could be a car coming around that curve. Drivers do exceed the 40 MPH speed limit; in fact, the Mendota Heights Police sit in the paved area there and watch for speeders. She expressed her concerns about the safety on the corner, even if the trees were moved back. She suggested they be very cautious about the types of trees or plantings installed there. Mr. Greg Langan returned and referenced the 30-foot setback. He clarified his point that by the time a driver were to reach the northeast corner they would be deep into the swale with the large trees that are affecting providing blockage of the Larson property. He expressed his concern that if there were to be extensive grading and they lose those trees he would get an unobstructed view of the hearty siding rather than brick. Mr. Delwiche returned and shared an image of the removal plan with X’s showing the removal of trees and O’s showing the trees that would be protected or remain. Again, he noted that the two largest trees being removed are in the middle of the site, between the Larson greenhouse and the Mendota Heights Motel. He reiterated the landscape plan for the corner and that they would work with the landscapers adjust to create as much visual clearance as possible. In reference to the transition from 69 units to 70 units, Mr. Delwiche noted that what they had done on level three was to have an outdoor deck and a level three clubroom. Currently, they had two one-bedroom units, one was the clubroom and the other one was the outdoor deck. They realized that wasn’t really adequate for space and they did not want too many people out on the deck anyway; so they took a two bedroom unit, combined those two uses into the two bedroom unit and then added the two one-bedrooms back. So they have the same number of bedrooms in August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 22 the project, it just happened to switch the unit count based on a little bit further design investigation. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that the plan Mr. Delwiche shared showed the removal and the protection of the trees on the backside; however, the landscaping plan also showed some additional plantings. Mr. Delwiche confirmed. Vice Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-19 REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR NEW MENDOTA HEIGHTS APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed Planned Unit Development Plan, both preliminary and final plans, are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable City Code requirements for such a planned development in this area. 2. The proposed PUD should be approved the higher density, because: a. it will be an effective and unified treatment of the development; b. the development plan includes provisions for the preservation of unique natural amenities; c. financing is available to the applicant on conditions and in an amount which is sufficient to assure completion of the planned unit development and the PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and d. the PUD can be and will be planned and developed to harmonize with any existing or proposed development in the areas surrounding the project site. 3. The proposed project utilizes the planned unit development (PUD) zoning flexibility to enhance development of the property without negatively impacting surrounding land uses and natural resources. 4. The reduced setback and building separation does not pose any threat to the general health, safety and welfare of the surrounding properties or diminishes the usefulness of the planned development of this property. 5. The reduced parking ratio should be supported due to the strong desire to reserve or encourage more open space on this site; and help reduce any hard surface impacts that additional parking would require. 6. Construction of the proposed high-density residential development will contribute to a significant amount of the Metropolitan Council’s Year 2040 forecasted population and household increases. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 22 7. The proposed project is specifically designed to minimize impacts on the nearby wetland areas (Lemay Lake) and will meet all requirements of the Wetlands Overlay Ordinances. 8. The proposed trail and pedestrian connections included as part of the proposed project will facilitate recreational opportunities. 9. High Density Residential land use would be in character with other surrounding properties and the existing vegetation and adjacent commercial uses, due to the added setbacks and natural buffering between the proposed high-density housing and nearby low-density residential housing. 10. The proposed increased density is consistent with surrounding suburban communities and would allow for adequate open space as part of the proposed development. 11. The increased density provides for construction of a housing type that is lacking in the City and would help to reach the forecasted population projections. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Developer shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Mendota Heights. 2. Necessary drainage and utility easements shall be included on the Final Plat, as determined by the Engineering Department and Saint Paul Regional Water Services. 3. All new buildings shall be constructed only in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and engineers (as applicable); and in accordance with all architectural and building standards found under Title 12-1E-8, Subpart F “Architectural Controls” and Subpart G – Structural, Electrical and Mechanical Requirements. 4. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 5. The Landscape Plan shall be reviewed by Master Gardeners for compliance with city pollinator friendly ordinance policy. 6. Plant material shall be utilized as a screening element for any building utility areas, but shall not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants, to be reviewed by the Planning and Fire Departments and verified as part of the building permit review process. 7. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half (1 1/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be included as part of the Development Agreement. 8. The Developer and/or their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. 9. A MnDOT Right-of-Way Access Permit shall be obtained for the proposed access onto State Highway 13, as shown in the proposed plans prior to final approval. 10. Provide outlet velocity from underground infiltration area (energy dissipation) 11. Rainfall intensity shall be by Atlas 14. 12. Provide water quality model. August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 22 13. The proposed water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards, including written approval of the design layout prior to final City Council approval. 14. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 15. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 16. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 17. All new buildings must comply with the Aircraft Noise Attenuation standards as found under Title 12-4-1 of City Code. 18. The Developer with work with the fire department personnel in determining final design, location and specifications to the fire safety access road to the rear sections of the new buildings. Commissioner Mazzitello proposed adding Condition 19 as: 19. That a right-of-way vacation process is executed for Hilltop Avenue, formally known as Doughty Street, prior to the recording of the final plat. Commissioner Noonan accepted that as a friendly amendment to his motion. Community Development Director Tim Benetti proposed adding Condition 20 as: 20. The Developer will revise the planned five foot (5’) concrete walk along Highway 13 to an eight-foot (8’) bituminous trail with a minimum of a 5’ boulevard. This trail should extend south to Victory Avenue, with ADA compliant ramps and crosswalks including on Acacia Drive. This would also include any necessary easements or right-of-ways. Commissioner Noonan modified his motion to include Condition #20, Commissioner Mazzitello agreed. Commissioner Mazzitello also requested an edit to Condition #5 as “pollinator friendly” has not been codified in ordinance; it is a policy but not an ordinance. He suggested the word ‘ordinance’ be changed to ‘policy’. Commissioner Noonan agreed to this amendment of the motion. Commissioner Magnuson, with respect to the concerns raised by the residents of Augusta Shores for the ability to actually see to get onto Highway 13, asked if the City was in a position to do some sort of review prior to the time that Phase 2 goes into construction to ensure that everything is situated in a way that makes it so that the views are not obstructed coming down Highway 13. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative and believes that working with the City Engineers and with the MnDOT staff would be more than happy to provide a lot more of a site line space in there. Adjusting the landscaping is the easiest for staff to do that. They would look at all measures necessary to make sure that is accommodated. Commissioner Magnuson also asked if the MnDOT needs to be involved in that process in the event there needs to be some type of traffic signal or stop sign or something like that – or speed August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 19 of 22 bumps or whatever to reduce speed. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that any intersection improvements would be at the cost of Mendota Heights. If the City were to require a traffic study, that is something that would be requested at this time. MnDOT is not currently saying that this development would cause a problem on their highway; however, they are not looking at some of the side streets. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that any intersection improvements would involve the City of Mendota Heights and MnDOT. Mr. Ruzek replied that it would require a partnership; however, most likely the cost would fall back onto the City of Mendota Heights. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) Vice Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5, 2017 meeting. D) PLANNING CASE #2017-20 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS & IDEAL ENERGIES - 1101 VICTORIA CURVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE CITY’S NEW GROUND-MOUNTED SOLAR ARRAY FIELD Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that the City of Mendota Heights and Ideal Energies have requested a Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Wetlands Permit to install a new ground-mounted solar array field next to City Hall. City Hall consists of two parcels that equal approximately 17.4 acres, most of which is encumbered by right-of-way and some wetland prime areas. The developable site is just over 6 acres. The property is located in the R-1 Single-family Residential district. Under the City’s zoning code, any stand alone or above ground solar array field must approved under the conditional use permit process. In February 2017, the City Council authorized staff to work with Ideal Energies in seeking two separate solar energy grant applications offered by Made in Minnesota and Xcel Energy. The City has already installed rooftop panels on the Fire Station and the Public Works Building, and was initially intending to install panels on the City Hall roof; however, it was determined the current roof trusses are not structurally equipped to support the added weight load of the panels, and would require over 1,000 new penetrations (holes) into a roof that was just repaired – so the City elected to proceed with the ground mount system. The grants from Made in Minnesota (MiM) and Xcel Energy would help bring down the costs for the building. During the lifetime, typically a 25-30 year programming, there would no cost forwarded to the City. It would be fully funded by the grant. The field would be made up of three separate arrays; the first being approximately 13’ x 106.6’, the second being approximately 13’ x 130’, and the third being approximately 13’ x 80’. The August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 20 of 22 maximum height would be approximately 14’ and consist of blue and silver panels featuring anti- glare technology. All solar field arrays must be set back at least 15’ from all property lines and at least 30’ from all dwellings. The two arrays would be approximately 15’ from the building and, therefore would require a variance. The limitations in size of ground mounted systems is tempered by what is allowed under the accessory structures. It was believed that the intent of that was for a typical single-family residence to not have its entire backyard taken up by a solar array. The City is out of the ordinary in that they have the luxury of a lot of space and is more of an institutional use than residential. That being said, the City still needs to comply with certain rules and standards. Since the three solar arrays exceed the 1,000 square foot area standard, and exceed the 425 square foot single structure area standards, a variance is required. Under the ground mounted systems standards, staff felt that the site also does not need to include or indicate any screening measures because the site is separated enough from residential uses and other institutional uses. Any screen measures would be a waste of added resources and expense. Mr. Benetti explained that statements of understanding that had to be found when considering a variance request and how the application supports those statements. He also noted that because this project was within 100 feet of the wetland area a wetland permit was required. The good news was that there would be no impact or affect to the wetland area. Commissioner Petschel asked if the savings to be received from Xcel Energy apply to City Hall or to all city-related operations. Mr. Tyler Scott of Ideal Energy replied that the way the solar is integrated is directly with City Hall; so City Hall would use the solar power and would see the savings. Commissioner Magnuson asked how durable the panels were. Mr. Scott replied that, in terms of the baseball field being located nearby, the panels are tested against hail by taking a 1-inch ball bearing and shooting it at 55 MPH at a panel as a direct hit. The panels withstand that; however, he is unsure how that compares to a foul ball on a little league field but they are very durable. Councilmember Magnuson then asked about security seeing as there would be no fencing around the array. Mr. Scott answered that there have not been any security issues to date. Vice Chair Hennes opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Vice Chair Hennes asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 21 of 22 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-20, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND WETLANDS PERMIT FOR NEW ALTERNATIVE ENERGY (SOLAR) SYSTEM BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed Alternative Energy (Solar) System use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2. The proposed Alternative Energy (Solar) System conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owners. 3. The installation and implementation of this new Alternative Energy system at the City Hall will help reduce the overall energy consumed by the facility, and is in the best interests of the City’s residents and businesses (taxpayers) by helping to reduce annual operating costs of City Hall and other facilities. 4. The City intends to install and use the Alternative Energy System on the property in a reasonable manner; the plight of the landowner in selecting this area for its new Alternative Energy System was due to circumstances unique to the property; and the new Alternative Energy System will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 5. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The City’s contractor/consultant for this new Alternative Energy (Solar) System must provide proper utility connection and safety documentation to the City Building Official and Public Works Director. 2. The City’s contractor/consultant applies for any required building permits, including electrical permits. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) Vice Chair Hennes advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 5, 2017 meeting. Unfinished Business No items scheduled Staff Update on Approved or Pending Developments Community Development Director Tim Benetti stated that the Orchard Heights Development on the Olin Family was presented at the last Council meeting and was denied on a 5-0 vote. The same issues that were brought up at the Planning Commission meeting were addressed directly to the August 22, 2017 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 22 of 22 developer. For all intent and purposes, he was not willing to make some suggestions or lose some density or some lots. City Council did approve the Precision Homes Critical Area Permit at the last meeting. The Planning Commission should expect to see a second Critical Area Permit request for the new house they plan to build. Staff has not seen any demolition permits filed yet. Staff and Commission Announcements The Planning Commission would have a special meeting on Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. to consider an Interim Use Permit for Minnehaha Academy to use the Brown College site at 1340 Mendota Heights Road. Assuming that the application would be approved, the City Council is scheduled to convene immediately thereafter to consider the same resolution. Commissioner Magnuson, regarding the subdivided property on Hunter Lane and Culligan, asked if the City pays attention to the overgrown weeds, grass, and total unkempt look of the property. Mr. Benetti replied that staff received a complaint call today and it has been added to his growing list of things to look into. Commissioner Mazzitello gave a hearty welcome to Commissioner Toth to his first Planning Commission meeting. Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HENNES, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:24 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Field) August 23, 2017 Special Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 1 of 5 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES August 23, 2017 The special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Wednesday, August 23, 2017 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 6:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John Mazzitello, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: Commissioner Mary Magnuson (excused) Hearings A) PLANNING CASE #2017-21 MINNEHAHA ACADEMY, 1340 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD INTERIM USE PERMIT Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Minnehaha Academy was seeking an Interim Use Permit for the property located at 1340 Mendota Heights Road and a secondary property located at 1345 Northland Drive. This item was heard under a normal public hearing process and was officially published in the local newspaper and information letters were mailed to all property owners and tenants of buildings located within 350 feet of the site. No objections have been received from staff regarding this request. Mr. Benetti shared a location map showing the old Brown College site located in the heart of the industrial park, bounded by Mendota Heights Road on the north, Enterprise Drive to the east, and Northland Drive to the South. The area is surrounded by a variety of different commercial and office users. The property is actually split into two tax ID parcels, a 2.74 acre parcel and a 2.72 acre parcel for a total of approximately 5.5 acres. The building is uniquely shaped office building that is 56,650 square feet in size and is owned by Mendota Heights Road LLC (Mr. Dan Schadegg). The subject site contains 271 surface parking spaces. The property was leased by Brown College up until June of this year. The building was set up for a typical college or trade school with business school classrooms. However, currently it is being retrofitted under an approved building permit at this time. The previous school space included a library area, science lab, social spaces, student lounge, and various sized offices. Some of these areas are remaining and some are being retrofitted by the Academy. From the Minnehaha Academy’s website, Mr. Benetti discovered that the enrollment is Pre- kindergarten to 12th grade of approximately 825 students. For the purpose of the old Brown School site, they are looking at approximately 350 9-12th grade students plus 50 staff members. The August 23, 2017 Special Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 2 of 5 school hours are assumed to be from 8:35 a.m. to 2:55 p.m. and they are looking to lease the space for up to two years. Mr. Benetti then shared images of the building layout, parking plan, traffic flow (cars and buses), and access points, which had been included in the Commission’s meeting packet of information. Mr. Benetti shared the eight standards for consideration of an interim use permit (A-H) and staff’s responses to these standards and their recommendation of approval for this interim use permit. Commissioner Noonan, referencing the hours of operation, asked what the significance of that was. Mr. Benetti replied that it probably has no significance. The hours were included to give an indication of peak travel times in the morning and late afternoon; however, they would be off-peak hours as far as the industrial park is concerned. Commissioner Toth asked what the expected levels were for parking. Mr. Benetti replied that with over 350 students, they are providing 180 spaces. The actual use of spaces is anticipated to be lower than 180. Commissioner Noonan commented that one would suspect that when Brown Institute ran this facility and they used the entire 55,000 square feet, the students were more inclined to drive than one would think a grade nine would. Ms. Donna Harris, President of Minnehaha Academy, came forward and expressed her appreciation to the Commission for considering their application. Minnehaha Academy has been in existence for 104 years and if there were any concerns about the quality of student that would be occupying this space, they have wonderful students, high quality education integrating Christian faith in learning is their mission, and their students are bright, articulate, inquisitive, collaborative students that give back to the community in many, many ways. She foresees the students finding ways to give back to the Mendota Heights community as well. They did not anticipate the tragedy that occurred on August 2. They have heard very clearly from their community – a caring community is one of their core values – that the students and families wanted to be able to keep their students together, grades 9-12. They had other options where they could have sent the 11th and 12th graders elsewhere, but they wanted space where the students could be together and where the faculty could deliver a high quality education. The footprint of the Brown Institute is smaller than they are used to and they will not have the athletic facilities; however, the have friends in the community that they believe would allow them to use some of their space. Ms. Harris expressed her appreciation for Mortenson and to ATS&R for the work that they are doing to help carve some new spaces and collaborative spaces that the students will need. Commissioner Noonan, referencing an image that showed only three buses, asked what they do – do they come specifically in the morning or night, or are they shuttle buses taking kids back and forth to the main campus. Ms. Harris replied that the buses drop off the students in the morning and pick up in the evening. Principal Jason Wenschlag replied that they would have a few buses from their Minneapolis/St. Paul routes that would drop kids off, then they would also have a shuttle August 23, 2017 Special Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 3 of 5 in the morning and in the afternoon that pick up at the south campus and bring kids from there to the main school and take their faculty and staff that need to go to the south campus from the main school to there. That would happen in the morning and afternoon as well; they only have one shuttle bus. Commissioner Noonan asked, for physical education, if the students would be shuttled back to the main campus for that. Principal Wenschlag replied in the negative and stated that they will be leaning more on fitness and conditioning and the health aspects, more wellness. They would not be having team sports classes or out in the parking lot playing touch football. They would be installing a fitness center in the building and focusing more on that. Then the 9th and 10th graders who signed up for a physical education class will take one of the required health classes in one of the classrooms. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Mr. Randy Odegaard, the building and facilities manager for the property located 1333 Northland Drive, the property surrounded by Brown College came forward. He was representing the owners of the property and his tenants. He welcomed Minnehaha Academy to the area; however, his tenants have some concerns. He met with Principal Wenschlag at Minnehaha Academy last week and now has a little bit of an idea of what they are looking at. He stated that his tenants are mostly concerned about bus traffic and student traffic as they do share some common driveways, entrances, and exits. He then pointed out the areas he was referring to on Mr. Benetti’s traffic pattern diagram. He indicated that the main concern is for everyone’s safety, especially with the anticipated construction to take place on Pilot Knob Road and Northland Drive. Mendota Heights Road would be a much safer route due to the fact that there signal lights at major intersections. He urged the students, staff, and parents to use that route versus Northland Drive. Principal Jason Wenschlag returned and, replying to the traffic concerns raised, stated that they would be spending quite a bit of time training their students and parents on traffic flow and where they should be. They will be out with signs, have good signage, and they are hoping to put arrows on the pavement itself to direct people on where to go around the building. They do see it as a concern and have talked Mendota Heights Road to Highway 55 being the best route and the most probable route they will take. Mr. Richard Shattuck, property manager for the Brown College building, stated that despite the fact that the last couple of years there has been minimal occupancy in the building; at the time that they purchased the building six years they were operating at full capacity. All of the parking spaces were being used, the resulting traffic that went with that was in place without incident or any problems for the surrounding neighborhood at that time. He sees less traffic resulting from this; the only difference being a few buses a day. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. August 23, 2017 Special Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 4 of 5 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-21, INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY 9-12TH GRADE SCHOOL IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. The proposed temporary school use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2. The proposed interim school use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owners during the term of construction. 3. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. 4. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The interim use for this temporary school use is valid for up to two complete school year periods, starting from August 24, 2017 and terminating June 30, 2019. 2. Any extension of this interim use permit beyond the June 30, 2019 expiration date must be submitted to the City of Mendota Heights at least sixty (60) days prior to this date, and approved by the City Council. 3. All new remodeling or interior work (including building, electrical, plumbing, heating/cooling and other related work must be submitted for standard building permit review prior to any work being started. Commissioner Noonan commented that exhibit that shows the orientation of the traffic flow is a very thoughtful depiction of how traffic will flow. He believed that the comment the principal made that there is an education process that needs to take place with the students and parents is very true. Looking at other schools in the area he was sure that each year, with new freshmen coming in, there is an education process that takes place as to how parents drop off, how buses are circulated, etc. The fact that they are going in with their eyes open means that they will be respectful of their neighbor, and be a good neighbor as well. The tightness of the site really dictates that they need to work together. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application immediately following this meeting’s adjournment. August 23, 2017 Special Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 5 Adjournment COMMISSIONER TOTH MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:28 P.M. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 1 (Magnuson) Planning Staff Report DATE: September 26, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-22 Conditional Use Permit for Hotel in the Industrial Zone APPLICANT: WoodSpring Hotels (Wichita, KS) PROPERTY ADDRESS: SE Corner of Northland Drive and Pilot Knob Road ZONING/GUIDED: I-Industrial / I- Industrial ACTION DEADLINE: October 27, 2017 INTRODUCTION WoodSpring Suites Hotels (of Wichita, KS) is requesting a conditional use permit to develop and operate a new 122 room, 4-story hotel on the vacant site generally located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Northland Drive and Pilot Knob Road. The parcel is zoned and guided as I - Industrial District. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments/objections have been received. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Pursuant to Title 12-1L-6, any use allowed by a conditional use permit in the respective zoning district requires submittal of a complete development or site plan for full consideration by the planning commission and city council. The subject site consists of 3.76 acres, and is currently owned by Northland Land Company. The proposed project is a 122-room, 4-story extended stay WoodSpring Suites Hotel with total floor area of 48,657 square feet. Construction will consist of grading the subject site, installation of new stormwater management areas, utilities, parking lot, and the new hotel facility. The site is bounded by Pilot Knob Road to the west, Northland Drive to the north, and the I-494/Pilot Knob interchange ramp to the south. Lying directly east of the site is the existing Courtyard by Marriott hotel, with Fairfield Inn & Suites on the other side of Courtyard. The hotel site will be accessed by two drive openings off Northland Drive only. No direct access onto Pilot Knob Road is allowed.  Building Plan/Elevations As noted previously, the new hotel consists of 4-story, 122 room/unit extended stay hotel facility. This building is designed to be an executive, extended stay style suites hotel, with no restaurant, breakfast service or swimming pool space inside the facility. The front and rear elevations of the hotel match-up nicely in Planning Case 2017-22 (WoodSpring Hotel-CUP) Page 2 of 11 design; with a varied mixture of rough stone veneer; 4-in. brick materials; cement board siding; and 8-in lap board siding and windows. The front entryway will have sloped, pre-finished metal canopy feature. The two end-caps of the building are also designed to have the same stone veneer, brick and lap siding features on each end, giving the entire building 4-sided architecture in appearance. • Site Plan Pursuant to Title 12-1G-7 Site and Structure Requirements for Industrial District uses, the following standards are noted, with city staff responses (in italic print) following each: A. Not more than fifty percent (50%) of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings. • The proposed site is 3.76 acres, or 163,785 sf. The hotel’s footprint is approx. 12,165 sf. The percentage of building to land ratio is approx. 7.5%, which is well under the 50% threshold. B. Structure Height: No structure shall exceed forty five feet (45') in height. • Plans call for the overall highest ridge point of the building to be 46’-11” from the first floor elevation; however, building heights are measured form the lowest edge of a pitched roof line to the highest (ridge) point of the roof, which measures to 42 feet in height. C. Setbacks: Side Yards Abutting a Street on a Corner Lot: Side yard abutting a street on a corner lot shall be not less than forty feet (40') in width. • The hotel facility is setback approx. 175 feet from Pilot Knob Road ROW. F. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) is the numerical value obtained through dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. In this case the FAR is calculated as follows: • TOTAL BLDG. AREA = 48,657 sf. • LOT AREA = 163,785 sf. • FAR CALC: 48,657 / 163,785 = 29.7%, which is well under the 50% standard. G. Minimum Lot Requirements: Lot Area: 1 acre / Lot Width: 100 feet Front Yard Setback: 40-ft. Side Yard Setback: 30-ft. or 40-ft. abutting street Rear Yard 50-ft. Planning Case 2017-22 (WoodSpring Hotel-CUP) Page 3 of 11 • The lot is 3.76 acres and exceeds the 1 acre minimum. • The front lot width dimension of 541.43 feet and narrow width dimension of 303.5 feet, so both dimensions exceed the 100-ft. standard. • Front Yard setback (from Northland Dr.) is approx. 160-ft. • Side Yard (easterly line) is 123-ft.; and the Side Yard abutting Pilot Knob is 175-ft. • Rear Yard setback is 85-ft.  Parking Plan The main area of parking is located along the front yard section abutting Northland Drive, along with two smaller parking areas on the west and east sides of the hotel. Pursuant to City Code 12-1D-16 –Off Street Parking regulations, a hotel requires 1 space per guest room. The plans indicate 135 parking spaces will be provided, which is 13 more than required by code. Parking area must meet a 20-ft, setback from any public road right-of-way and 10-ft. from a lot line. The front parking lot is setback approx. 30-feet off Northland Drive ROW; and approx. 70-ft. from the easterly lot line and 118-ft. from the westerly line. The hotel site also included a 24-ft. wide access drive/emergency vehicle access from the side parking areas to the rear of the building. Fire Dept. has reviewed the plans and the proposed access road, and determined it to be acceptable. A trash enclosure, although not fully detailed on the plans, is identified in the southeast corner of the parking/access drive area of the site. The plans include a note: “Reference Architectural Plans for dumpster enclosure details” – which have not yet been finalized or provided to the city for review. City Code requires such trash enclosures must be made to match the exterior finishes of the principal building; and this will be made part of the conditions of approval.  Grading & Drainage Plan The grading plan shows some extensive grading will take place over the entire site. The easterly edge of the site will be regraded slightly downward coming off the Courtyard-Marriott site (from 858 to 851 elevation), thereby creating a narrow drainage swale in this area, which is then reshaped upward from 851 to 855 at the parking lot surface. The rear yard area will be re-shaped with a gentle slope from approx. 855 off the parking edge down to 846 +/- near the south edge of the site. A fairly large and new storm water pond will be installed on the west side of the subject property, with grades to match into this pond structure. The site has 11 new storm catch basins spaced accordingly throughout the site along the outer perimeter of the parking lot areas. All catch basins are connected and tie into the new stormwater pond to the west; which eventually tie directly into the city storm sewer system in Northland Drive.  Landscape Plan Pursuant to Title 12-1G-6, any new development in the Industrial District shall be landscaped with grass, trees, shrubs, or other planted ground cover, in accordance with detailed landscaping plans prepared and signed by a landscape architect. The landscape plan includes a number of new plantings around the open spaces of the hotel grounds, and around the outer areas of the hotel building. The plan calls for 27 new over story or deciduous type trees, such as Autumn blaze maples, river birch, hackberry, hawthorn, Kentucky coffee tree, oaks and elms; along with 19 new evergreen type trees, such as tamarack, Black Hills spruce and Austrian black pines; and 11 new ornamental trees, such as serviceberries and prairie fire crab-apples. The parking islands and entry- points will also contain a variety of new plantings consisting of shrubs and perennials. Planning Case 2017-22 (WoodSpring Hotel-CUP) Page 4 of 11 City staff would like to ensure that no plantings obstruct any vehicle sight-lines as they exit (or enter) the site from Northland Drive. There are no other comments or objection by city staff on the proposed landscape plans. This same Code provision also states that “the owner shall have a continuing responsibility to maintain such landscaping and any required screening in reasonable condition at all times.” The plans call for the all new planting areas and lawn areas to be irrigated, which should provide for the daily maintenance and care called for under this ordinance, along with the routine maintenance and care (mowing, weeding, fertilizing, etc.) of the ground by on-site hotel management. City Code also requires a bond in an amount not to exceed one and one-half (11/2) times the cost of landscaping and screening shall be required to guarantee the placement and construction thereof as required in this chapter.  Lighting Plan The lighting plan calls for a limited number of lights on the new hotel site, with 7 new pole lights located well within the parking lot and access drive areas. Three, 22-ft. high single-head lamps with LED lighting will be installed in the front location of the hotel; with one single (22-ft. high) pole lamp on each side of the hotel; and two (22-ft. high) pole lamps along the back side or off the rear access road. The three front lights will have higher lumen readings of 37,499; while the two side lamps decrease slightly to 18,176 lumens and even more for the rear yard lamps at 15,052 lumens. Pursuant to Title 12-1I-15, Lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes shall create a reading of no more than 0.2 foot-candle at the shared property line with a commercial or industrial use or public right of way, and shall create a reading of zero foot-candles at the shared property line with residentially zoned property. The photometric (light intensity) plan for the site indicates the new lighting meets these standards, and is approved.  Utility Plan The utility plan calls for a new 8-inch sanitary service line will be brought into the site from Northland Drive, with two new manholes – one near the west entry point off Northland, and the other located just west of the new hotel building. Domestic and fire service water lines will also be tied into the existing service lines under Northland Drive. Two new fire hydrants are being provided inside the front parking lot area (island separators), and the building should be equipped with a dedicated water standpipe for fire emergency purposes. Electric, gas and telephone service lines will be brought into the site from the existing services under Pilot Knob Road to the west.  Sign Plan The sign identified on the site plan in the southwest corner of the property is the “Mendota Heights Business Park” sign that was installed and maintained by United Properties many years ago as part of the overall development of this Business/Industrial Park area of the city (see image below). Planning Case 2017-22 (WoodSpring Hotel-CUP) Page 5 of 11 This sign is actually located within the large, triangular shaped easement, owned and controlled by United Properties; and staff is willing to forgo or exclude this identification sign as part of the hotel’s new signage requests made under this Site/Development plan application. The site plans include some markers or indications of new signs near the two entrances and the rear yard, but the plans were initially absent of any details. Staff received a separate comprehensive sign plan from the developer, which is included as part of this plan submittal review. The sign plan indicates four new wall signs, along with four new directional monument signs near the entry points, and one large freestanding/pylon sign near the back SE corner. The smaller entry monument signs are shown as 4-ft. (high) by 2’-10” wide. The sign face for each signs is 5 sq. ft. The freestanding sign to the rear is shown as a 25 foot high monopole; with a 96.45 sq. ft. sign cabinet. The wall sign on the front elevation is shown with a 213.61 sq. ft. area, while the rear elevation has a 120.16 sq. ft. area. The two end-cap signs are shown with 177.32 sq. ft. Per Sign Code 12-1D-15, any nameplate or business sign in the Industrial zone is allowed the sum of up to 2 sq. ft. of building frontage plus 1 sq. ft. of lot area not occupied by the building. Utilizing these standards, the sign sizes could “theoretically” be calculated as follows: Bldg. Length = 240-ft. Lot Area (width) not Occupied by Building: 541.43 ft. – 240-ft. = 301.43 ft. Total Sign Calc: [240 x 2 = 480 sq. ft.] + [301 x 1 = 301 sq. ft.] or 781 sq. ft. of sign area The Sign Code however, states that “No individual sign surface shall exceed 100 sq. ft. in area…” All of the wall signs exceed the 100 sq. ft. maximum, and the four directional signs near the entrances appear to not meet Code for size and numbering. Only the freestanding sign appears to meet City Code. Without a variance, none of these wall or entry monument signs would be approved. Once again however, Title 12-1D-15. I provides the following exceptions: 4. Comprehensive Sign Plan: A comprehensive sign plan shall be provided for industrial developments. Such plan, which shall include the location, size, height, lighting and orientation of all signs shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for preliminary plan approval regulations. Provided such a comprehensive plan is presented, exceptions to the sign performance standards of this chapter may be permitted if sign areas and densities for the plan as a whole are in conformity with the intent of this chapter and if such exception results in an improved relationship between the various parts of the plan. It is staff’s belief that the spirit and intent of this provision under Subpart I.4 above, may have been to allow new, large scale type developments within the Industrial zone to present such a sign plan for official review, and if the scale or scope of such a development warranted additional or larger sign allowances, such as the case presented by WoodSpring Hotels, then the Planning Commission could accept the sign plan as submitted; direct the Developer to adjust the signage; or direct the Applicants to seek a separate variance to the City Sign Code to approve the oversized signs. The Planning Commission is asked to review and consider the comprehensive sign plan accordingly, and make a determination and formulate a recommendation to the City Council. Planning Case 2017-22 (WoodSpring Hotel-CUP) Page 6 of 11  Traffic Analysis As part of this new hotel review, staff requested the Developer provide a simple traffic analysis (trip generation) regarding the new hotel use in this area. The Developer provided the following statement and information: “We compared the trip generation outlined in the 2014 SRF Traffic Study for the southeast corner or Pilot Knob Road and Northland Drive to the proposed WoodSpring Suites Hotel project. The table below provides a summary of trip generation based on the 2014 SRF study (gas station and hotel), and the current development plan of a 122 room hotel.” “Based on the trip generation analysis, the current development plan is anticipated to generate less traffic that the previous study (49 PM trips vs 211 PM trips). Therefore, the current development plan will not introduce any additional improvements along Pilot Knob Road than are currently being constructed.”  Aircraft Noise Attenuation Pursuant to Title 12-4-1, the City finds that development within certain areas of the city is impacted by aircraft noise; that said noise is beyond the regulatory authority of the city to control; that certain uses of land are inappropriate in areas of high aircraft noise; that some structures do not adequately attenuate aircraft noise resulting in negative impacts on the health, safety and welfare of the residents or inhabitants of the structures; that, through proper construction methods, the means exist to attenuate aircraft noise to interior levels which alleviate such negative impacts; and that the requirements of this chapter are necessary to promote and preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. Review of the Metropolitan Airport Commission’s Noise Contour Map – 2016 indicates the subject site appears to be inside the established “60 DNL” noise contour line. The DNL is defined as: “The day-night sound level, or the twenty four (24) hour equivalent continuous sound level (time averaged A-weighted sound level) from 12:00 midnight to 12:00 midnight, obtained after the addition of ten (10) dBA to sound levels measured from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.” Any application for a city building or occupancy permit pertaining to land located in an aircraft noise zone must demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this chapter prior to the issuance of such permit. In this particular case, any “Multiplex/apartment with a shared entrance” must attain a 25 lesser or more reading from the established Leq factor of 60-70. The Leq is defined as follows: “The equivalent continuous sound level which, over the period of one hour, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time varying sound.” What this means is that all plans and specification for new buildings in this aircraft noise zone must comply with the following [additional] standards: Planning Case 2017-22 (WoodSpring Hotel-CUP) Page 7 of 11 a. All applicants for a building or occupancy permit shall include with the application all plans, specifications or other information required by this chapter. The plans and specifications shall describe in sufficient detail all pertinent features of the building, building materials, heating and ventilation systems, including, but not limited to, the STC ratings of exterior roof/ceilings, walls, windows, and doors; and other pertinent data as may be requested by the city to indicate conformance with the applicable noise reduction level requirements as specified in the noise compatibility tables. To assure the elimination of sound leaks, the plans and specifications shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: (1) A mechanical ventilation system shall be installed that will provide the minimum air circulation and fresh air supply requirements as provided in the state and uniform building code for the proposed occupancy without the need to open any exterior doors or windows. (2) The perimeter of all exterior windows and doorframes shall be sealed airtight to the exterior wall construction. (3) Fireplaces shall be equipped with well fitted chimney closing devices. (4) All ventilation ducts, except range hoods, connecting interior space to outdoors shall be provided with a bend such that no direct line of sight exists from exterior to interior through the vent duct. (5) Doors and windows shall be constructed so that they are close fitting. Weather stripping seals shall be incorporated to eliminate all edge gaps. (6) All penetrations through exterior walls by pipes, ducts, conduits and the like shall be caulked airtight to the exterior construction. b. The city shall require that plans and specifications be certified by a recognized acoustical specialist for compliance with this chapter. (Ord. 420, 1-20-2009 These standards are typically reviewed for full compliance by the City’s Building Official, who is well- versed and experienced in working with architects, engineers, contractors, residents and developers in making sure their plans reflect or incorporate these additional noise standards if needed. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS Pursuant to Title 12-1L-6, any use allowed by a conditional use permit in a particular zoning district requires submittal of a complete development or site plan for full consideration by the planning commission and city council. The [city] council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the planning commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, and welfare of occupants or surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. The City may grant a conditional use provided the proposed use will: a) not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, b) nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, c) nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value, and d) that the same is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. Planning Case 2017-22 (WoodSpring Hotel-CUP) Page 8 of 11 A. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property value. Staff Response: The proposed interim hotel use should not be a detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, as the hotel use will be situated next to two other hotel uses in this area; and staff is unaware of any negative impacts or detriments to health, safety or general welfare these existing hotels may have created or imposed upon the community. The new hotel use should also reflect these same ideals. The new hotel should also be compatible with the existing adjacent office and high-end industrial uses in the area, and should provide additional guest rooms for the surrounding business park. The existing Marriott Hotel and Fairfield Inn seem to function quite well in this area and have been successful for a number of years. Although a market demand study or similar was not submitted by the Developer, it is assumed the developer did enough research on this site, the community and local (regional) area to proceed with the project, and determined this would be an acceptable and suitable site for a new hotel. The site has two access drives. The second access drive generally improves circulation and provides an alternate access point in times of peak use and during emergencies. It is projected the number of trips to and from the site would probably not result in any congestion problems at the two separated entry points into the site. It should also be important to point out, that Dakota County is completing a new traffic-separator improvement project at the intersection of C.S.A.H. 31 (Pilot Knob Road) and Northland Drive. The intersection will now have centralized raised median barriers, that only allow right hand or left hand movements in dedicated lane systems; but no longer allows left-handed turning movements from Northland Dr. back on to Pilot Knob Road (both southbound or northbound) – and no more cross- over/through movements across Pilot Knob (see image below). For those vehicles traveling westbound on Northland Drive and wishing to access the nearby I-494 system, they will be forced to turn right only, travel 1/8 mile up to Mendota Heights Road, turn left and re-enter Northland Drive to the west (between Alltech and Minn. Knitting Mills), travel southward, and come to the opposite side of the intersection of Northland and Pilot Knob, turn right and then gain Planning Case 2017-22 (WoodSpring Hotel-CUP) Page 9 of 11 access to the freeway. Vehicles may also end up performing U-turns at the intersection of Mendota Hts. Rd. and Pilot Knob (unless prohibited from doing so). In any event, it will be important that the new hotel use informs its own guests how to safely exit and re-enter the I-494 system as they depart from the site. With the close proximity to the I-494 interstate systems, the City anticipates traffic levels to and from the new hotel site should be minimal and nominal, with guests randomly leaving and arriving to the site at different times and intervals throughout a normal business day or weekend periods. Staff again is unaware of any traffic or vehicle conflicts, or history of accidents or incidents from vehicles entering or leaving the adjacent hotel sites. Staff does not believe this new hotel use will not add or cause any serious impacts to this area. The current roadway systems of Northland Drive and Pilot Knob Road should adequately accommodate any new or increased traffic demands in this area. B. The proposed use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan. Staff Response: City Code Title 12-1L-6 Conditional Use states: “The development and execution of this chapter is based upon the division of the city into districts within which the regulations are specified. It is recognized, however, that there are special or conditional uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any district or districts without consideration, in each case, of the impact of those uses on neighboring land or the public need for the particular location. To provide for these needs, the council may by resolution approve a conditional use for those uses and purposes, and may impose conditions and safeguards in such permits to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is carried out.” As indicated previously, the subject site is located in the Industrial Zone. Hotels are allowed as a conditional use permit, which is the intent of this comprehensive development plan for the city to adequately review and process. Other similar hotel uses have been allowed and appear to be successful and flourishing in this industrial zoned area of the community. A thorough review of site infrastructure improvements, utilities, stormwater management systems, building safety and other safeguards will be thoroughly vetted and reviewed by city staff prior to, during and after any new building is constructed. Therefore, it is Staff’s belief that proposed conditional use at this location, and specifically for the new WoodSpring Hotel use, conforms to the general purpose and intent of the city code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit request, based on the findings of fact that the proposed hotel use complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with conditions; or 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit request, based on the findings of fact that the proposed hotel use is not in compliance with the City Code and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; or 3. Table the request – and allow this item to be brought back for additional review at a designated (future) meeting. Planning Case 2017-22 (WoodSpring Hotel-CUP) Page 10 of 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request from WoodSpring Hotels at the subject location, based on the findings of fact that the proposed project complies with the policies and standards of the City Code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with the following conditions: 1. All new buildings shall be constructed in conformance to building and site plans certified by a registered architect and/or licensed engineer. 2. Trash enclosure must be made to match the exterior finishes of the principal building. 3. Rooftop mechanical units shall be of a low profile variety. All ground-level and rooftop mechanical utilities, other than low profile rooftop units, shall be completely screened with one or more of the materials used in the construction of the principal structure, to be reviewed by the Planning Department and verified as part of the building permit review process. 4. Plant material near the entry points shall not exceed 36-inches in height, and shall not obstruct fire department connections or hydrants 5. A performance bond or letter of credit shall be supplied by the applicant in an amount equal to at least one and one-half (11/2) times the value of such screening, landscaping, or other improvements, to be submitted at time of building permit approval. 6. The Developer shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan and which have died shall be replaced as soon as seasonal or weather conditions allow. All landscape areas must be irrigated. 7. Any connections to the city’s water system shall be designed and constructed to Saint Paul Regional Water Service (SPRWS) standards. 8. Building and grading permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction commencement. 9. All grading and construction activities as part of the proposed development shall be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations and codes, as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 10. All applicable fire and building codes, as adopted/amended by the City, shall apply and the buildings shall be fully-protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system. 11. All new buildings must comply with the Aircraft Noise Attenuation standards as found under Title 12-4-1 of City Code. 12. Any new signs proposed under this plan submittal must either be approved as part of an accepted comprehensive sign plan; or any sign that does not meet the standards of City Code Title 12-1D- 15 must be adjusted to comply with City Code, or the Developer must request separate variances to allow excess sign sizes. Planning Case 2017-22 (WoodSpring Hotel-CUP) Page 11 of 11 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit for WoodSpring Hotel SE Corner of Northland Drive & Pilot Knob Road The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The proposed hotel use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor depreciate surrounding property values. 2. The proposed hotel use conforms to the general purpose and intent of this code and comprehensive plan, including all applicable performance standards, provided all conditions are met and upheld by the property owners during the term of construction. 3. The property on which the use will be located is currently in compliance with all applicable city code standards. kimley-horn.com 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114 651 645 4197 1 To: Tim Benetti City of Mendota Heights – Community Development Director Planning Department From: Andy Berg, P.E. Kimley-Horn Date: August 28, 2017 Subject: WoodSpring Hotels CUP Submittal Lot 1, Block 6, Mendota Heights Industrial Park Mendota Heights, MN Project Overview WoodSpring Hotels is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a hotel for an approximately 3.76 acre Site located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Northland Drive and Pilot Knob Road. The parcel is zoned as I - Industrial District. The proposed project is a 4-story extended stay WoodSpring Suites Hotel with an approximate total floor area of 48,657 square feet. Construction will consist of grading the Site, construction of the stormwater management area, utilities, parking lot, and a 4-story hotel. The property is primarily vacant with a large monument sign in the southwest corner for the Mendota Heights Business Park. The Site is adjacent to Interstate 494 to the south, Pilot Knob Road to the west, Northland Drive along the north, and an existing hotel to the east. Two private driveways from Northland Drive are proposed to serve the hotel. The hotel meets the standard setbacks per the zoning code and does not exceed the maximum allowable building coverage. The Site exceeds the minimum number of parking spaces required. A Landscape Plan is provided, with plantings meeting the landscape standards of the zoning code. Stormwater Management Stormwater management will be provided onsite within a dedicated area on the northwest corner of the property and then discharge to the City system. The system will be designed to meet the City of Mendota Heights and the Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management District requirements. Utilities There are existing dry and wet utilities within the Pilot Knob Road and Northland Drive to serve the proposed project. It is anticipated that the water and sanitary sewer will be served via the existing mainlines within Northland Drive. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (651) 643-0480, or by email at andy.berg@kimley-horn.com. Thank you, Andy Berg, P.E. Project Manager Dakota County, MN Basemap Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, September 18, 2017 0 450 900225 ft 0 130 26065 m 1:4,800 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Woodspring Hotel Site Property Information September 12, 2017 0 150 30075 ft 0 40 8020 m 1:1,200 Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 28 AUGUST 2017 NOTE: FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY FINAL DESIGN TO BE DEVELOPED AT A FUTURE DATE WOODSPRING SUITES PERSPECTIVE 28 AUGUST 2017 NOTE: FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY FINAL DESIGN TO BE DEVELOPED AT A FUTURE DATE WOODSPRING SUITES COLORED ELEVATIONS 4” Utility Brick Stone Veneer 1”-1 1/4” thick 4/12 Pitched Roof Cement Board 8” Lap Siding Prefinished Metal Canopy Sloped Roof 8” Lap Siding Cement Board 4/12 Pitched Roof 8” Lap Siding 4” Utility Brick FRONT ELEVATION 4” Utility Brick 8” Lap Siding 4” Utility Brick RIGHT ELEVATION Stone Veneer 1”-1 1/4” thick 4” Utility Brick Stone Veneer 1”-1 1/4” thick 4” Utility Brick 4” Utility Brick Stone Veneer 1”-1 1/4” thick Stone Veneer 1”-1 1/4” thick Stone Veneer 1”-1 1/4” thick 28 AUGUST 2017 NOTE: FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY FINAL DESIGN TO BE DEVELOPED AT A FUTURE DATE WOODSPRING SUITES COLORED ELEVATIONS 4/12 Pitched Roof Cement Board 8” Lap Siding 4” Utility Brick Flat Roof 8” Lap Siding Cement Board 4” Utility Brick 4/12 Pitched Roof 8” Lap Siding 4” Utility Brick 8” Lap Siding Cement Board LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION Stone Veneer 1”-1 1/4” thick Stone Veneer 1”-1 1/4” thick 4” Utility Brick Stone Veneer 1”-1 1/4” thick Stone Veneer 1”-1 1/4” thick 4” Utility Brick 24.0'24.0'9.0'20.0'9.0'40.0'24.0'9.0'20.0'9.0'20.0' 24.0'9.0'20.0'24.0'40' BUILDING SETBACK 20' PARKING SETBACK 20' PARKING SETBACK 50' BUILDING SETBACK40' BUILDING SETBACK20' PARKING SETBACK30' BUILDING SETBACK10' PARKING SETBACK35' GAS PIPELINE EASEMENT SI G N A G E E A S E M E N T 10' DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PILOT KNOB ROADNORTHLAND DRIVE INTERSTATE 494 24.0' 24.0' WOODSPRING HOTELS 3.76 ACRES/ 48,657 SF 122 ROOMS FFE: 855.50 A E E EF FFF F GGGG A A CC CC CC C STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA EE HH I J PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY SETBACK PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER EXISTING EASEMENT BUILDING A DATA SUMMARY AREAS PROPOSED PROPERTY 3.76 AC BUILDING AREA 48,657 SF (29.70% OF TOTAL PROPERTY AREA) PARKING REQUIRED PARKING 129 SPACES PROPOSED PARKING 135 SPACES ADA STALLS REQUIRED/PROVIDED 5 SPACES / 5 SPACES PROPERTY SUMMARY WOODSPRING HOTEL - MENDOTA HEIGHTS TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 3.76 AC ZONING SUMMARY EXISTING ZONING INDUSTRIAL PROPOSED ZONING INDUSTRIAL PARKING SETBACKS PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY = 20' LOT LINE = 10' BUILDING SETBACKS REAR = 50' RIGHT SIDE = 30' FRONT/LEFT SIDE = 40' SITE PLAN NOTES 1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONS AND CODES AND O.S.H.A. STANDARDS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF VESTIBULES, SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, EXIT PORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. 3. ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 3' AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 10' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE 5'. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED, REMOVED OR RELOCATED AS NECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. 7. SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM A SURVEY BY EGAN, FIELD, AND NOWAK, INC., DATED 07/13/2017. 7.1. KIMLEY-HORN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OR OMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN. 8. TOTAL LAND AREA IS 3.76 ACRES. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL PLAN. 10. NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWISE. 11. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS. 12. REFER TO ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTY BOUNDARY DIMENSIONS. 13. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 14. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT. 15. ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 20' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. KEYNOTE LEGEND A B C D E F G ADA CURB RAMP. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE (TYP.) PER FEDERAL ADA STANDARDS AND MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE. 90 DEGREE 9'X20' PARKING SPACE CONNECT TO EXISTING CURB/MATCH EXISTING GRADE PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK. B612 CURB AND GUTTER. GUTTER SLOPE TO MATCH ADJACENT PAVEMENT, TRANSVERSE AND LONGITUDINAL. SHEET NUMBER 2017 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST, SUITE 238N, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM©NORTH MENDOTA HEIGHTSWOODSPRING HOTELSITE PLANC3.0 SITE LEGEND H MONUMENT SIGN I PYLON SIGN J TRASH ENCLOSURE WOODSPRING HOTELS 3.76 ACRES/ 48,657 SF 122 ROOMS FFE: 855.50 4. 9 0%3.66%4. 4 1 %3.42%1.57%1.74%4 . 4 6%4.22%4.94%5.91%2 .2 6%5.94%4.41%3.64%1 . 8 7% 2 . 8 3% 2.19%3.14%1.67%3.13% 2.11% 4.14% 3.87%13.63%21.34%12.49%16.17%18.63%17.69%23.1 6 % 9.98% 22.69% PROPOSED MANHOLE PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR925 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION100.00 LEGEND D X.XX%PROPOSED SLOPE ARROW PROPOSED RIP RAP SHEET NUMBER 2017 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST, SUITE 238N, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM©NORTH MENDOTA HEIGHTSWOODSPRING HOTELGRADING ANDDRAINAGE PLANC4.0 GRADING PLAN NOTES 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, SPECIFICATIONS AND BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR TO CALL GOPHER STATE CALL ONE @ 1-800-252-1166 AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. 3. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-76 HDPE: 0" - 10" PER AASHTO M-252 HDPE: 12" OR GREATER PER ASTM F-2306 PVC SCH. 40 PER ASTM D-3034 3.1. STORM SEWER FITTINGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: RCP PER ASTM C-76, JOINTS PER ASTM C-361, C-990, AND C-443 HDPE PER ASTM 3212 PVC PER ASTM D-3034, JOINTS PER ASTM D-3212 4. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OR EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS. 5. SUBGRADE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EXCAVATION TO HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBLEMS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEP SLOPES. WHEN PLACING NEW SURFACE MATERIAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING PAVEMENT, THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED PROMPTLY TO AVOID UNDERMINING OF EXISTING PAVEMENT. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROL. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DRAINAGE TRENCHES TO FOLLOW PROPOSED STORM SEWER ALIGNMENTS. 8. GRADES SHOWN ARE FINISHED GRADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ROUGH GRADE TO SUBGRADE ELEVATION AND LEAVE STREET READY FOR SUBBASE. 9. ALL EXCESS MATERIAL, BITUMINOUS SURFACING, CONCRETE ITEMS, ANY ABANDONED UTILITY ITEMS, AND OTHER UNSTABLE MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 10. REFER TO THE UTILITY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN, WATER MAIN SERVICE LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING / STRUCTURE NOTATION. 11. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PAVEMENTS AND CURB AND GUTTER WITH SMOOTH UNIFORM SLOPES TO PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE. 12. INSTALL A MINIMUM OF 4" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND GUTTER AND CONCRETE SIDEWALKS. 13. UPON COMPLETION OF EXCAVATION AND FILLING, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE ALL STREETS AND DISTURBED AREAS ON SITE. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RE-VEGETATED WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" OF TOPSOIL. 14. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS/CONTOURS ARE TO GUTTER / FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 15. GRADING FOR ALL SIDEWALKS AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES INCLUDING CROSSING DRIVEWAYS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT ADA STATE/NATIONAL STANDARDS. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP SLOPES EXCEED 1 VERTICAL TO 12 HORIZONTAL. IN NO CASE SHALL SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPES EXCEED 2% . IN NO CASE SHALL LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPES EXCEED 5%. IN NO CASE SHALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS OR AISLES EXCEED 2% (1.5% TARGET) IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SIDEWALK ACCESS TO EXTERNAL BUILDING DOORS AND GATES SHALL BE ADA COMPLIANT. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF ADA CRITERIA CANNOT BE MET IN ANY LOCATION PRIOR TO PAVING. NO CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR A.D.A COMPLIANCE ISSUES. 16. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 0.5% GUTTER SLOPE TOWARDS LOW POINTS. 17. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 3" INSULATION BY 5' WIDE CENTERED ON STORM PIPE IF LESS THAN 4' OF COVER IN PAVEMENT AREAS AND LESS THAN 3' OF COVER IN LANDSCAPE AREAS. 18. ROOF DRAIN INVERT CONNECTIONS AT THE BUILDING SHALL BE AT ELEVATION TBD OR LOWER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. REFERENCE MEP PLANS FOR ROOF DRAIN CONNECTION. 19. ALL STORM SEWER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASKETED AND WATER TIGHT INCLUDING MANHOLE CONNECTIONS. 20. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AIR TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT PLUMBING CODE. 21. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 1.25% SLOPE IN BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AREAS, 0.5% SLOPE IN CONCRETE PAVEMENT AREAS. 22. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT "INFALL CURB" WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS TOWARD GUTTER, AND "OUTFALL" CURB WHERE PAVEMENT DRAINS AWAY FROM GUTTER. GRADING LEGEND WOODSPRING HOTELS 3.76 ACRES/ 48,657 SF 122 ROOMS FFE: 855.50 C C C C C C E F G JI K C C A A B B CDD PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED GATE VALVE PROPOSED HYDRANT PROPOSED TEE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC PROPOSED TELEPHONE PROPOSED GAS MAIN S PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED BEND DRAINAGE SCHEDULE STRUCTURE NO. SS-1 SS-2 STRUCTURE/ CASTING TYPE MH DROP MH RIM/GRATE ELEVATION 854.36 850.16 INVERT ELEVATION IN E 845.81 S 841.61 PIPE SIZE IN 8" 8" PIPE SLOPE IN 2.00% 2.00% INVERT ELEVATION OUT N 845.71 N 833.20 PIPE SIZE OUT 8" 8" PIPE SLOPE OUT 2.00% 1.00% SHEET NUMBER 2017 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST, SUITE 238N, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM©NORTH MENDOTA HEIGHTSWOODSPRING HOTELUTILITY PLANC5.0 UTILITY PLAN NOTES 1. ALL FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE IN PLACE, AND COMPACTED BEFORE INSTALLATION OF PROPOSED UTILITIES. 2. SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 8" PVC SDR35 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES LESS THAN 12' DEEP 8" PVC SDR26 PER ASTM D-3034, FOR PIPES MORE THAN 12' DEEP 6" PVC SCHEDULE 40 PER ASTM D-3034 DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 3. WATER LINES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 6" AND LARGER, PVC C-900 PER ASTM D 2241 CLASS 200 UNDER COUNTY ROADS, OTHERWISE CLASS 150 4" AND LARGER DUCTILE IRON PIPE PER AWWA C150 SMALLER THAN 3" PIPING SHALL BE COPPER TUBE TYPE "K" PER ANSI 816.22 OR PVC, 200 P.S.I., PER ASTM D1784 AND D2241. 4. MINIMUM TRENCH WIDTH SHALL BE 2 FEET. 5. ALL WATER JOINTS ARE TO BE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH RESTRAINTS SUCH AS THRUST BLOCKING, WITH STAINLESS STEEL OR COBALT BLUE BOLTS, OR AS INDICATED IN THE CITY SPECIFICATIONS AND PROJECT DOCUMENTS. 6. ALL UTILITIES SHOULD BE KEPT TEN (10') APART (PARALLEL) OR WHEN CROSSING 18" VERTICAL CLEARANCE (OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF PIPE OR STRUCTURE). 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 7'-5" COVER ON ALL WATERLINES. +N THE EVENT OF A VERTICAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WATER LINES, SANITARY LINES, STORM LINES AND GAS LINES, OR ANY OBSTRUCTION (EXISTING AND PROPOSED), THE SANITARY LINE SHALL BE SCH. 40 OR C900 WITH MECHANICAL JOINTS AT LEAST 10 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE CROSSING. THE WATER LINE SHALL HAVE MECHANICAL JOINTS WITH APPROPRIATE FASTENERS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION. MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF ANSI A21.10 OR ANSI 21.11 (AWWA C-151) (CLASS 50). 9. LINES UNDERGROUND SHALL BE INSTALLED, INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE BACKFILLING. 10. TOPS OF MANHOLES SHALL BE RAISED AS NECESSARY TO BE FLUSH WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS, AND TO BE ONE FOOT ABOVE FINISHED GROUND ELEVATIONS, IN GREEN AREAS, WITH WATERTIGHT LIDS. 11. ALL CONCRETE FOR ENCASEMENTS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSION STRENGTH AT 3000 P.S.I. 12. EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW LINES. 13. REFER TO INTERIOR PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR TIE-IN OF ALL UTILITIES. 14. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS WITH REGARDS TO MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION OF THE WATER AND SEWER LINES. 15. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, AND WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 72 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 16. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL NECESSARY INSPECTIONS AND/OR CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY CODES AND/OR UTILITY SERVICE COMPANIES. 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 18. BACKFLOW DEVICES (DDCV AND PRZ ASSEMBLIES) AND METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. REF. ARCH / MEP PLANS. 19. ALL ONSITE WATERMAINS AND SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED. 20. ALL WATERMAIN STUBOUTS SHALL BE MECHANICALLY RESTRAINED WITH REACTION BLOCKING. KEYNOTE LEGEND FIRE HYDRANT GATE VALVE WATER BEND WATER TEE PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE. REF. MEP PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATION OF EXIT FROM BUILDING PROPOSED FIRE WATER SERVICE. REF. MEP PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATION OF EXIT FROM BUILDING PROPOSED 6" SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. REF. MEP PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATION OF EXIT FROM BUILDING UTILITY CROSSING. MAINTAIN 18" MINIMUM SEPARATION. PROPOSED GAS MAIN. COORDINATE WITH XCEL ENERGY. REF. MEP PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATION OF ENTRY TO BUILDING PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS. COORDINATE WITH CENTURY LINK. REF. MEP PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATION OF ENTRY TO BUILDING PROPOSED POWER. COORDINATE WITH XCEL ENERGY. REF. MEP PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATION OF ENTRY TO BUILDING PROPOSED GAS METER. REF. MEP PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATION OF ENTRY TO BUILDING PROPOSED TRANSFORMER CLEAN OUT UTILITY PLAN NOTES WOODSPRING HOTELS3.76 ACRES/ 48,657 SF122 ROOMSFFE: 855.50LIMIT OF DISTURBANCEEVERGREEN TREES BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMECONT CALTMKLARIX LARICINATAMARACKB & B6` HT,BHSPICEA GLAUCA `DENSATA`BLACK HILLS SPRUCEB & B6` HT,ABPPINUS NIGRAAUSTRIAN BLACK PINEB & B6` HT,OVERSTORY TREES BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMECONT CALABMACER FREEMANII `AUTUMN BLAZE`AUTUMN BLAZE MAPLEB & B 2.5" CAL.RBHBETULA NIGRARIVER BIRCHB & B 2.5" CAL.CHBCELTIS OCCIDENTALISCOMMON HACKBERRYB & B 2.5" CAL.TCHCRATAEGUS CRUS-GALLI INERMIS TMTHORNLESS COCKSPUR HAWTHORN B & B 2.5" CAL.KCTGYMNOCLADUS DIOICA `ESPRESSO`KENTUCKY COFFEETREEB & B 2.5" CAL.SWOQUERCUS BICOLORSWAMP WHITE OAKB & B 2.5" CAL.PEMULMUS X `PATRIOT`PATRIOT ELMB & B 2.5" CAL.UNDERSTORY TREES BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMECONT CALDSBAMELANCHIER ARBOREADOWNY SERVICEBERRYB & B 1.5" CAL.PCAMALUS X `PRAIRIFIRE`PRAIRIFIRE CRAB APPLEB & B 1.5" CAL.PLANT SCHEDULESHRUBSBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZE SPACINGMGDCORNUS RACEMOSA `MUSKINGHAM`MUSKINGHAM GRAY DOGWOOD #5 CONT. 60" O.C.DBHDIERVILLA LONICERADWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE #5 CONT. 48" O.C.LHAHYDRANGEA PANICULATA `LIMELIGHT` TMLIMELIGHT HYDRANGEA#5 CONT. 60" O.C.CJPJUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS `PLUMOSA COMPACTA` CREEPING JUNIPER#5 CONT. 48" O.C.FSCRHUS AROMATICA `GRO-LOW`GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC #5 CONT. 48" O.C.FPRROSA RUGOSA `FOXI PAVEMENT`FOXI PAVEMENT ROSE#3 CONT. 36" O.C.TTYTAXUS CUSPIDATA `TAUNTON`TAUNTON YEW#5 CONT. 36" O.C.BCVIBURNUM TRILOBUM `BAILEY COMPACT`BAILEY`S COMPACT AMERICANCRANBERRY BUSH#5 CONT. 48" O.C.PERENNIALSBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZE SPACINGKFGCALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA `KARL FOERSTER` KARL FOERSTER GRASS#2 CONT. 36" O.C.PCFECHINACEA PURPUREAPURPLE CONEFLOWER#1 CONT. 24" OCRRDHEMEROCALLIS X `ROSY RETURNS`ROSY RETURNS DAYLILY#1 CONT. 18" O.C.WLCNEPETA RACEMOSA `WALKER`S LOW`WALKER`S LOW CATMINT#1 CONT. 18" O.C.SHEET NUMBER 2017 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST, SUITE 238N, ST. PAUL, MN 55114 PHONE: 651-645-4197 WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM ©NORTHMENDOTA HEIGHTS WOODSPRING HOTEL LANDSCAPE PLANL1.02LANDSCAPE CODE REQUIREMENTSREQUIREDPROPOSEDNOT MORE THAN 50% OF RESIDENTIAL LOT TREES SHALL BE OF ONE SPECIES.REQUIREMENT ADDRESSED IN NEXT DESIGN PHASENOT LESS THAN 50% OF ALL OVERSTORY TREES AND 50% OF ALL SHRUBS SHALL BENATIVE TO MINNESOTA.REQUIREMENT ADDRESSED IN NEXT DESIGN PHASECANOPY TREE REPLACEMENTREMOVEDXX" CAL. TOTALREPLACEDXX" CAL. TOTALPROPERTY SUMMARY: LANDSCAPEPLANTYPEAREATOTAL SITE AREA137,430 SFBUILDING FOOTPRINT 44,382 SFPERVIOUS AREA30,297 SF SOD SHRUBS/PERENNIALSROCK MULCHMAINTENANCE STRIP27,672 SF2,062 SF563 SFLANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES1. VERIFY ALL LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WITH REMOVALS AND SITEWORK.2. ALL DISTURBED LANDSCAPED AREAS, NOT INDICATED AS PLANTING BEDS ORSTORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS, ARE TO BE SODDED. SOD IS TO BE PRIMARILYKENTUCKY BLUEGRASS, FREE OF WEEDS. REPLACE DAMAGED LAWN GRASS WITH SOD ASDIRECTED BY ON-SITE REPRESENTATIVE. MATCH ALL PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREASINTO EXISTING.3. SUBCONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PLANTS REQUIRED AS REFLECTED ON PLAN.4. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL HAVE TOPSOIL PLACED AT MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4" FOR SODAREAS, 18" FOR SHRUB/PERENNIAL/ANNUAL BEDS, AND 24" FOR TREE PITS.5. ALL PLANTING BEDS ABUTTING SOD/SEED AREAS TO BE EDGED WITH STEEL EDGER,ANCHORED 4'-0" O.C. WITH METAL SPIKES, COLOR BLACK.6. ROUND RIVER ROCK MULCH SHALL BE PLACE AT A MINIMUM OF 4" IN DEPTH, FREE OF ALLDELETERIOUS MATERIAL AND LOCATED IN ALL LANDSCAPE BEDS AND TREE RINGS UNLESSOTHERWISE INDICATED.7. SUBCONTRACTOR TO DISPOSE OF ALL REMOVALS OFF-SITE. SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS &REMOVALS PLAN FOR MORE INFORMATION.8. SUBCONTRACTOR TO WARRANTY NEW SOD FOR 60 DAYS AND NEW PLANTINGS FOR ONEYEAR UPON PROJECT COMPLETION.9. MAINTAIN, GUARANTEE, AND WATER ALL TREES, SHRUBS, AND PERENNIALS FOR ONEYEAR FROM PROJECT ACCEPTANCE. REMOVE WEEDS AND MAINTAIN MULCH IN ALLPLANTING AREAS, DURING THE ONE YEAR PERIOD. REPLACE ALL DEAD MATERIAL PERDIRECTION OF OWNER DURING THE ONE YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD.10. SUBSTITUTION REQUESTS FOR PLANT MATERIAL TYPE & SIZE SHALL BE SUBMITTED TOTHE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR CONSIDERATION PRIOR TO BIDDING. ALLSUBSTITUTIONS AFTER BIDDING MUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND ARESUBJECT TO CONTRACT ADJUSTMENTS.11. ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED BY AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM.12. IN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA, BROADCAST MNDOT SEED MIX 34-181 AT RATE OF 5LBS/ACRE.1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLAN ASPART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK. SUBMIT LAYOUT PLAN FOR APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDER AND/OR CONSTRUCTION. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'SRESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT SODDED/SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATEDPROPERLY AND ON SEPARATE ZONES.2. PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH AN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECTSITE CONDITIONS PRIOR AND TO PLANTED MATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS.IRRIGATION NOTESLEGEND PAGE 1 OF 1Drawn By: SANDYDate:8/23/2017Scale: AS NOTEDRevisions# Date CommentsGENERAL NOTES:A. PULSE PRODUCTS DOES NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITYFOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THIS CALCULATION ORCOMPLAINCE TO THE LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERALLIGHTNG CODES OR ORDINANCES.B. LIGHTING LAYOUT IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS BUT ONLY TO ILLUSTRATE THE PERFORMANCEOF THE PRODUCT.C. ALL READINGS/CALCULATIONS SHOWN ARE SHOWN ONOBJECTS/SURFACES.WOODSPRINGS HOTELMENDOTA HEIGHTSChecked By: TRENTLuminaire ScheduleCalculation SummaryLabelSymbolQtyLabelArrangementLLFDescriptionArr. WattsLum. LumensCalcTypeUnitsAvgMaxMinAvg/MinMax/MinEAST PROPERTY LINEIlluminance3AASINGLE0.900MCGRAW GLEON-AF-06-LED-E1-5WQ MOUNT ON 22FT POLE WITH 3FT BASE33337499Fc0.030.10.0N.A.N.A.2BBSINGLE0.900MCGRAW GLEON-AF-03-LED-E1-T3 MOUNT ON 22FT POLE WITH 3FT BASE16618176NORTH PROPERTY LINEIlluminanceFc0.150.20.0N.A.N.A.Luminaire Location SummaryLumNoLabelXYZSITE GROUNDIlluminanceFc2OrientTilt184469.62590026AA479246.8184469.32590027BB478939184381.5250028BB479299.718437925180031CC479048.4184316.92590032CC479184184316.82590033AA479123.7184468.1259000.974.10.0N.A.CCSINGLE0.900MCGRAW GLEON-AF-03-LED-E1-SL2-HSS MOUNT ON 22FT POLE WITH 3FT BASE1661505224AA478992.3N.A.SOUTH PROPERTY LINEIlluminanceFc0.000.00.0N.A.N.A.WEST PROPERTY LINEIlluminanceFc0.000.00.0N.A.N.A.PARKINGIlluminanceFc2.023.90.72.895.57Plan ViewScale: 1 inch= 30 Ft.WOODSPRING SUITES3.76 ACRES/ 48,657 SFWOODSPRING SUITES3.76 ACRES/ 48,657 SFCCBBBBCCAAAAAA0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.2 3.3 4.1 4.0 3.0 2.1 2.2 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.5 3.8 4.1 3.7 2.4 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.7 3.3 3.2 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.3 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.4 4.0 3.9 3.5 3.2 2.9 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4.1 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.0 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.3 1.8 0.81.2 1.3 1.7 2.3 2.6 2.5 2.8 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.4 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.5 1.4 1.00.3 1.0 1.6 2.5 3.0 2.6 2.5 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 2.1 2.8 2.9 3.3 2.5 1.5 1.10.9 1.5 2.7 3.4 2.9 3.0 2.1 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.9 2.4 3.3 3.1 3.5 2.7 1.6 1.01.0 1.7 2.7 3.5 3.0 3.1 2.2 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.8 2.7 2.9 3.2 2.7 1.7 1.21.2 1.8 2.7 3.2 2.8 2.7 1.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.5 3.2 2.9 3.1 2.7 1.9 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.80.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.7 3.0 2.9 3.2 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.3 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.1 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 1.3 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.5 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.2 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.0 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.1 2.6 2.1 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.7 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.5 3.0 3.3 3.6 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.4 3.2 2.7 2.0 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.9 2.7 3.2 3.6 3.9 3.3 3.0 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.9 3.3 3.1 2.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.4 3.0 3.3 3.9 3.6 3.1 2.7 1.9 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.5 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.3 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.5 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.5 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fc0.25 fcGLEON SERIES CUSTOMER APPROVAL:DATE:Rev. #1Rev. #2Rev. #3Rev. #4Rev. #5Rev. #6DATEBYDATEBYOFAAAJ9D-ORDER# 090620.00Detail SpecsCodes1 CUSTOMER APPROVAL:DATE:Rev. #1Rev. #2Rev. #3Rev. #4Rev. #5Rev. #6DATEBYDATEBYOFAAAJ9D-ORDER# 090620.00266887799’’’’55’33442211 CUSTOMER APPROVAL:DATE:Rev. #1Rev. #2Rev. #3Rev. #4Rev. #5Rev. #6DATEBYDATEBYOFAAAJ9D-ORDER# 090620.003230’-0”38’-0”1BOXED SQ. FT.24"7'-10 11/16"5'-8"1'-4 7/16"12'-7 3/16"27'-0 15/16"213.61 CUSTOMER APPROVAL:DATE:Rev. #1Rev. #2Rev. #3Rev. #4Rev. #5Rev. #6DATEBYDATEBYOFAAAJ9D-ORDER# 090620.002BOXED SQ. FT.18"5'-11"4'-3"1'-0 3/8"9'-5 3/8"20'-3 11/16"120.16230’-0”38’-0”4 CUSTOMER APPROVAL:DATE:Rev. #1Rev. #2Rev. #3Rev. #4Rev. #5Rev. #6DATEBYDATEBYOFAAAJ9D-ORDER# 090620.00GRAPHIC DETAILNOT TO SCALELOGO PROFILENOT TO SCALEBOXED SQ. FT.LETTER & UNDERSCORE PROFILENOT TO SCALEAB/FCDEG12"5"121314345678910111213101114267918ABCDEFG14" 4'-7 1/4" 3'-3 11/16" 9 5/8" 7'-4 3/16" 4'-7 1/4" 15'-9 9/16" 2.00 21.38 72.6916" 5'-3 1/8" 3'-9 5/16" 11" 8'-4 13/16" 5'-3 1/8" 18'-0 5/8" 1.70 27.92 94.9420" 6'-6 7/8" 4'-8 11/16" 1'-1 3/4" 10'-6" 6'-6 7/8" 22'-6 3/4" 1.70 43.63 148.3430" 9'-10 5/16" 7'-1" 1'-8 9/16" 15'-9" 9'-10 5/16" 33'-10 3/16" 2.90 98.17 333.76BOXEDSQUAREFOOTAGEWOODSPRING SUITES EXTENDED REMOTE CHANNEL LETTERS"W" HEIGHT LOGO HEIGHTLOGOLENGTHUNDERSCOREHEIGHTUNDERSCORELENGTHOVERALLHEIGHTOVERALLLENGTHAMP LOADACTUALSQUAREFOOTAGENO. PART/DESCRIPTION1 .040" X 5" ALUMINUM RETURNS PAINTED TO MATCH PANTONE® 3155 C TEAL2 1" TRIM CAP PAINTED TO MATCH PANTONE® 3155 C TEAL3 MILLEKEN MP-5 ALUMINUM EXTRUSION4 1" X 1" X 1/8" ALUMINUM TUBE5 .063" ALUMINUM SKIN PAINTED TO MATCH PANTONE® 3155 C TEAL6 .063" ALUMINUM BACK7 WHITE LED'S AS REQUIRED8 REMOTE POWER SUPPLIES AS REQUIRED9 ELECTRICAL OUT PROVISION: THROUGH BACK10 MOUNTING HARDWARE AS DETERMINED BY SITE CONDITIONS11 DRAIN HOLES AS REQUIRED12 3M PANAGRAPHICS III FLEXIBLE FACE13 DIGITALLY PRINTED DECORATION (1ST SURFACE)14 3/16" 7328 WHITE ACRYLIC FACENOTES:- CHANNEL LETTER INTERIORS TO BE PAINTED REFLECTIVE WHITE- CHANNEL LETTERS TO USE 120 VOLT STANDARD POWER- U.L. LISTEDWOODSPRING SUITES EXTENDED REMOTE CHANNEL LETTERS SPECIFICATIONS-WHITE18" 5'-11" 4'-3" 1'-0 3/8" 9'-5 3/8" 5'-11" 20'-3 11/16" 1.70 35.34 120.1624" 7'-10 11/16" 5'-8" 1'-4 7/16" 12'-7 3/16" 7'-10 11/16" 27'-0 15/16" 2.30 62.83 213.61125 CUSTOMER APPROVAL:DATE:Rev. #1Rev. #2Rev. #3Rev. #4Rev. #5Rev. #6DATEBYDATEBYOFAAAJ9D-ORDER# 090620.00647’-0”34GRAPHIC DETAILGRAPHIC DETAILNOT TO SCALENOT TO SCALEBOXED SQ. FT.BOXED SQ. FT.18"18"5'-11"5'-11"4'-3"4'-3"1'-0 3/8"1'-0 3/8"9'-5 3/8"9'-5 3/8"11'-4"11'-4"15'-7 11/16"15'-7 11/16"177.32177.32WOODSPRING SUITES STACKED REMOTE CHANNEL LETTERSWOODSPRING SUITES STACKED REMOTE CHANNEL LETTERS CUSTOMER APPROVAL:DATE:Rev. #1Rev. #2Rev. #3Rev. #4Rev. #5Rev. #6DATEBYDATEBYOFAAAJ9D-ORDER# 090620.007GRAPHIC DETAILNOT TO SCALEBOXED SQ. FT.LOGO PROFILENOT TO SCALELETTER & UNDERSCORE PROFILENOT TO SCALE12”ABCDEFG5"121314101114267918345678910111213ABCDEFG14" 4'-7 1/4" 3'-3 11/16" 9 5/8" 7'-4 3/16" 8'-9 13/16" 12'-2" 2.00 21.38 107.2716" 5'-3 1/8" 3'-9 5/16" 11" 8'-4 13/16" 10'-0 15/16" 13'-10 7/8" 1.70 27.92 140.1118" 5'-11" 4'-3" 1'-0 3/8" 9'-5 3/8" 11'-4" 15'-7 11/16" 1.70 35.34 177.3220" 6'-6 7/8" 4'-8 11/16" 1'-1 3/4" 10'-6" 12'-7 1/8" 17'-4 9/16" 1.70 43.63 218.9224" 7'-10 11/16" 5'-8" 1'-4 7/16" 12'-7 3/16" 15'-1 3/8" 20'-10 5/16" 2.30 62.83 315.2430" 9'-10 5/16" 7'-1" 1'-8 9/16" 15'-9" 18'-10 11/16" 26'-0 7/8" 2.90 98.17 492.56BOXEDSQUAREFOOTAGEWOODSPRING SUITES STACKED REMOTE CHANNEL LETTERS"W" HEIGHT LOGO HEIGHTLOGOLENGTHUNDERSCOREHEIGHTUNDERSCORELENGTHOVERALLHEIGHTOVERALLLENGTHAMP LOADACTUALSQUAREFOOTAGENO. PART/DESCRIPTION1 .040" X 5" ALUMINUM RETURNS PAINTED TO MATCH PANTONE® 3155 C TEAL2 1" TRIM CAP PAINTED TO MATCH PANTONE® 3155 C TEAL3 MILLIKEN MP-5 EXTRUSION4 1" X 1" X 1/8" ALUMINUM TUBE5 .063" ALUMINUM SKIN PAINTED TO MATCH PANTONE® 3155 C TEAL6 .063" ALUMINUM BACK7 WHITE LED'S AS REQUIRED8 REMOTE POWER SUPPLIES AS REQUIRED9 ELECTRICAL OUT PROVISION: THROUGH BACK10 MOUNTING HARDWARE AS DETERMINED BY SITE CONDITIONS11 DRAIN HOLES AS REQUIRED12 3M PANAGRAPHICS III FLEXIBLE FACE13 DIGITALLY PRINTED DECORATION (1ST SURFACE)14 3/16" 7328 WHITE ACRYLIC FACENOTES:- CHANNEL LETTER INTERIORS TO BE PAINTED REFLECTIVE WHITE- CHANNEL LETTERS TO USE 120 VOLT STANDARD POWER- U.L. LISTEDWOODSPRING SUITES STACKED REMOTE CHANNEL LETTERS SPECIFICATIONS-WHITE34 CUSTOMER APPROVAL:DATE:Rev. #1Rev. #2Rev. #3Rev. #4Rev. #5Rev. #6DATEBYDATEBYOFAAAJ9D-ORDER# 090620.00NO. PART/DESCRIPTION1 2 1/2" x 2 1/2" x 3/16" ANGLE IRON2 1 1/2" X 1 1/2" X 1/8" SQUARE TUBE3 1 1/2" X 1 1/2" X 3/16" ANGLE IRON4 1" X 1" X 1/8" ANGLE IRON5 1" X 1/8" STEEL STRAP6 5" X 5" X 3/16" SQUARE TUBE7 .063" ALUMINUM SKIN8 PLATE/MATCH PLATE (SEE PLATE DETAIL)9 GUSSET10 WEDGE CLAMP11 1/2" EYEBOLTS (QTY. 3)12 MAN-SIZED SERVICE DOORS (QTY. 2)13 WHITE LED'S AS REQUIRED14 LED POWER SUPPLIES AS REQUIRED15 DISCONNECT SWITCH16 ELECTRICAL OUT PROVISION: LEAVE IN ELECTRICAL BOX17 3M PANAGRAPHICS III FLEXIBLE FACE18 DIGITALLY PRINTED DECORATION (1ST SURFACE)NOTES:- DESIGN FACTOR: 20 PSF- 32" X 2 1/2" X 3/16" REVERSE ANGLE IRON FRAME- BLEED FACES- EXTERIOR FINISH: PAINT PANTONE® 3155 C TEAL- INTERIOR FINISH: PAINT REFLECTIVE WHITE- MAN-SIZED SERVICE DOOR (EACH END)-U.L.LISTED- ELECTRICAL: 5.50 AMPS/120 VOLTS- SQUARE FOOTAGE: 96.45WOODSPRING SUITES #200 DOUBLE FACE LED W/ EMC SPECIFICATIONSGRAPHIC DETAILSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"CROSS SECTION A-ASCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"AAFRAME & LAMP DETAILSCALE: A/A = 1'-0"5'-5 3/8"17'-8 7/16"2'-8"PLATE DETAILSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"21"16"18"10"1" X 21" X 16" PLATES7/8" HOLES3/4" BOLTSPLATE WILL ACCEPT:14" PIPE14" TUBESEE RETENTIONDETAILRETENTION DETAILNOT TO SCALE1718171817181310723591746168131123456891151213141645’-5 3/8”25’-0”17’-8 9/16”5’8 CUSTOMER APPROVAL:DATE:Rev. #1Rev. #2Rev. #3Rev. #4Rev. #5Rev. #6DATEBYDATEBYOFAAAJ9D-ORDER# 090620.00NO. PART/DESCRIPTION1 1" X 1" X 1/8" ALUMINUM ANGLE2 1 1/2" X 1/8" ALUMINUM STRAP3 ALUMINUM TENSION BAR4 1 1/4" X .080: ALUMINUM STRAP5 .080" ALUMINUM SKIN6 3" X 3" X 1/8" SQUARE TUBE (FOR DIRECT BURY INSTALLATION)7 PLATE (SEE PLATE DETAIL)8 3" X 1" X 1/8" ALUMINUM C-CHANNEL (REVEAL)9 .063" BENT-UP ALUMINUM POLE COVER10 WHITE LED'S AS REQUIRED11 LED POWER SUPPLIES AS REQUIRED12 DISCONNECT SWITCH13 ELECTRICAL OUT PROVISION: LEAVE IN ELECTRICAL BOX14 1/8" ROUTED ALUMINUM FACES15 .118" WHITE SOLAR GRADE POLYCARBONATE BACKER PANEL16DIGITALLY PRINTED TRANSLUCENT FILM TO MATCH PANTONE® 376CGREEN17 PAINT TO MATCH PANTONE® 3155 C TEALNOTES:- DESIGN FACTOR: TO BE DETERMINED- 14" X 1" X 1/8" ALUMINUM ANGLE FRAME- BLEED FACES- EXTERIOR FINISH: PAINT PANTONE ® 3155 C TEAL- INTERIOR FINISH: PAINT REFLECTIVE WHITE- SKINS REMOVABLE FOR SERVICE ACCESS- U.L. LISTED- ELECTRICAL: 1.10 AMPS/120 VOLTS- SQUARE FOOTAGE:BOXED = 5.00ACTUAL=4.82WOODSPRING SUITES 1 X 2 DIRECTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS2 3/8"1'-6 3/4"1'-9 1/8"3"1'-11 7/8"4'-0"2'-8 1/16"2'-10 1/16"AA1'-2"1'-0"2467891011121314151GRAPHIC DETAILSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"151716101415234567918FRAME & LAMP DETAILSCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"CROSS SECTION A-ASCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"PLATE DETAILSCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"6"8"6"4"1/2" X 6" X 8" PLATE9/16" HOLES1/2" BOLTSPLATE WILL ACCEPT:5" PIPE4" TUBEFACE OPTIONSSCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"WOOS-1X2DFLEDENSIGN4-SWOOS-1X2DFLEDEXSIGN4-SWOOS-1X2DFLEDENSIGN4-S1WOOS-1X2DFLEDEXSIGN4-S16879’’’’9 Planning Staff Report DATE: September 26, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-24 Wetlands Permit APPLICANT: Tim Dyrhaug PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1773 Sutton Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: October 27, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. Tim Dyrhaug is seeking approval of a new Wetlands Permit for his personal property located at 1773 Sutton Lane (see attached property map). This permit will facilitate the removal and replacement of retaining wall systems in the back of his home, along with select removal of dead or diseased trees and invasive/noxious vegetation in and around the area of work. The work will also include the replacement/repair of a concrete footing pier supporting a three-season porch off the back of the home. All new construction, related improvements, grading, and/or removals made within 100-ft. of a wetland or water resource-related area requires a wetlands permit. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments have been received by the city. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is 17,447 sq. ft., or 0.40 acres in size, and contains an existing 1-3/4 story single-family residential dwelling. The parcel is zoned R-1 and is guided LR-Low Density Residential development. The subject property is located adjacent to three parcels owned by the City of Mendota Heights; and abuts a parcel that contains an unnamed pond or water feature, which is also owned and maintained by the city. Mr. Dyrhaug first approached city staff on performing some work to the rear yard, especially with the three- tiered treated wood retaining wall systems, that are beginning to show impairment and impacts due to rot and water damage. Mr. Dyrhaug pointed out that the failure of these walls is beginning to cause a slight “tilt” or lean of one concrete footing pier that supports the upper 3-season room off the back of the home. The repair and replacement of these retaining walls are imperative in saving or maintaining the needed support pier system for the house. Planning Case 2017-24 (Dyrhaug) Page 2 of 5 Mr. Dyrhaug plans to replace the timber walls with a more decorative boulder wall system, which will be designed and installed by a professional landscape company. The concrete pier will either be straightened out or replaced if needed. ANALYSIS The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code Title 12-2-1 is to: • Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; • Maintain the natural drainage system; Planning Case 2017-24 (Dyrhaug) Page 3 of 5 • Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; • Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and • Ensure safety from floods. As shown on the attached site plan (prepared by the homeowner), the lower two walls will be removed and replaced with 4-ft. high, boulder style retaining walls. Since the walls are under 4-feet in height, there is no need to provide any structural engineering design or approvals (sign-off). The upper wall repair near the house is to remove the smaller wall system surrounding the air conditioning unit, and replace with a smaller (same sized) wall system as well. The aerial image below shows the work on the walls will take place approx. 110-115 feet from the pond edge. No major work associated with the wall replacements, including grading and vegetation removals, will take place near or next to the water feature. In order to provide adequate space to perform the necessary repair work, the homeowner intends to remove only a few dead or diseased trees and buckthorn located near the existing walls. Any mature tree of value or not in the way of the project will be saved and protected during construction. The homeowner indicated that after the new walls are installed, he will be planting some type of low ground cover along w/ a cedar mulch. At the suggestion of city staff, the owner stated that he would provide native plants or grasses in the disturbed area, provided they can actually grow in this rear-yard area due to the lack of sunlight. City staff will work with the homeowner in suggesting or providing suitable alternatives to ground cover that will work in this area. In order to gain access to the lower part of the homeowner’s property, the owner has requested the City grant temporary access through the city–owned parcel to the immediate south. A small construction roadway, large enough to accommodate a small skid-steer loader, will be cleared and installed down to the lower part of the site, which will assist in the removal of the old walls and vegetation; reshape/re-grade areas as needed; and assist in the transfer and safe placement of boulder materials for the new walls. After construction, all disturbed areas will be restored with new vegetation. All necessary erosion control measures will be required prior to start of any construction work, which will be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department as part of the building permit application. Planning Case 2017-24 (Dyrhaug) Page 4 of 5 The scope and scale of this proposed repair project is relatively minor, and will be contained in a small area of the rear yard. Due to this small scale of the project, the following statements are being presented for the Planning Commission to review and consider in your determination of this wetland permit: a) The work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent water feature; b) the Owner will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent water resource-related area by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per city staff direction; c) the natural drainage way systems will be maintained during and after the project is completed; and d) the Owner will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Recommend approval of the wetlands permit request, based on the attached findings of fact that, with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the wetlands permit request, based on the finding of fact that the proposed subdivision and associated construction activities are not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan. OR 3. Table the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Wetlands Permit request based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1), with the following conditions: 1. Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. 2. An updated plan must be submitted for review by the Planning Department showing vegetation to be re-planted within the disturbed areas of the project. This plan will include pollinator friendly and/or native plantings/grasses that will grow and thrive in the over-shaded area of the rear yard. 3. For the agreed upon temporary right-of-access to the city-owned land to the south, including all work to install, remove and restore said temporary access/construction road, the Owner/Applicant shall provide evidence or proof of insurance that the City of Mendota Heights is waived from any and all liability, and named as an added insurer to the homeowner’s insurance policy or contactor’s policy. 4. A cash bond, letter of credit or agreed upon surety in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted and held by the city for a period of at least one (1) year from completion of all work, to ensure all new landscaping has survived, and the access roadway has been properly restored. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial/Location Property Map 2. Site Plan Planning Case 2017-24 (Dyrhaug) Page 5 of 5 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Wetlands Permit for Planning Case No. 2017-24 1773 Sutton Lane (Dyrhaug Residence) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed construction activities to be allowed under this Wetlands Permit meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed construction work should have very little, if any impacts to the adjacent water feature. 3. The Owner will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent water resource-related area by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures. 4. The Owner will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. 5. Vegetation will be replanted, in accordance with City guidance and instructions in the disturbed areas after construction is completed. DODD RDMARIE AVE WTRAIL RDHIL L T O P R D WESLEY LN EVERGREEN KNL BACHELOR AVE CALLAHAN PL SOUTH LNSUTTON LNSTANWICH LN HIDDEN CREEK TRL WIL L O W L N FREEWAY RD NVALLEY CURVE RD ROUND HILL RD LINDEN ST WACHTLER AVEKNOB RDNATURE WAYHILLTOP C T WESLEY CTPAMELA LNARVIN DRMAGER CTGRYC CTPRIVATE ROADDEER T R AI L C T 1773 SUTTON LANETim Dyrhaug Res.)City of Mendota Heights0600 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 9/20/2017 Planning Case 2017-25 (Carlson) Page 1 of 5 Planning Staff Report DATE: September 26, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2017-25 Wetlands Permit [After-the-Fact] APPLICANT: Jim Carlson PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1562 Wachtler Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: October 27, 2017 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. Jim Carlson is seeking approval of a Wetlands Permit for his personal property located at 1562 Wachtler Avenue (see attached property map). This permit would approve some site grading work that has already taken place along the narrow creek (water feature) that traverses the owner’s rear yard; along with some vegetation removal and the installation of a new wooden foot-bridge across the creek. Since most of this work has been completed (almost 90%), this request is considered an “After-the-Fact” Wetlands Permit. All new construction, related improvements, grading, and/or removals made within 100-feet of a wetland or water resource-related area requires a wetlands permit. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the local South-West Review newspaper; and notice letters of this hearing were mailed to all owners within 350-feet of the affected parcel. No comments have been received by the city. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is 1.77 acres in size, and contains 5,345 sq. ft. single-family residential dwelling. The parcel is zoned R-1 and is guided LR-Low Density Residential development. On August 3, 2017, City Staff was notified by a concerned resident that an extensive grading or landscape project was taking place on the subject property. Upon investigation and on-site inspection by city staff, evidence of grading a removal work was documented; the property owner was issued a cease-and desist (stop-work) order; and was ordered to contact city staff to explain the recent grading activities and address future permitting issues. On August 22, 2017, city staff met with Mr. Carlson on the subject property, whereby he explained that he was new to the community and recently purchased the residence; and was completely unaware that he Planning Case 2017-25 (Carlson) Page 2 of 5 needed a permit for such work; and agreed to stop all work (which he has done) and apply for the wetland permit, per the direction of staff. Mr. Carlson was also instructed to install silt fence or erosion control measures until the city reviews or considers this permit. Coincidentally in 2013, the neighboring resident to the south, Mr. Edward Sweeney of 755 Wentworth Avenue, was cited for doing similar grading and landscape work on his property, which also included some work he had performed in this separated rear yard area now owned by Mr. Carlson The city approved a similar after-fact wetlands permit under Planning Cased 2013-20, which allowed the work to be completed and finished on both the 1562 Wachtler and 755 Wentworth properties (see attached site photos - 2013). ANALYSIS The purpose of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code Title 12-2-1 is to: • Provide for protection, preservation, maintenance, and use wetlands and water resource-related areas; • Maintain the natural drainage system; • Minimize disturbance which may result from alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the disturbance of the natural environment or from excessive sedimentation; • Provide for protection of potable fresh water supplies; and • Ensure safety from floods. Mr. Carlson indicated that most of the work was done to remove some buckthorn and other invasive weeds and plants along the edge of his rear yard and along the creek edge. When Mr. Carlson discovered he owned the small area of land on the other side of the creek, he had no way to get over that side of the creek to mow this yard space without going through neighboring property owners land (see aerial image below). Mr. Carlson began the process of grading a new access trail down to the creek edge, installed the small wooden foot bridge for purposes of gaining access for a riding mower to this rear portion of his property, and partially completed the access trail on the opposite side of the creek. Mr. Carlson has stated that most of the grading and removal work he intended to do has been completed. He now wants to finish the project by installing some Class-5 or similar angular rock roadway leading to and from the wooden foot-bridge (as seen in the site photos – below). Planning Case 2017-25 (Carlson) Page 3 of 5 Westerly Edge – along Wachtler Ave. Looing Easterly – Down to the Creek Looking Westerly – owards Wachlter Ave. Looking southerly – towards the creek Wooden Footbridge Looking southwesterly – towards the creek Among the many purposes of the Wetlands Systems Chapter of the City Code is to provide for the protection and preservation of wetland and water resource-related areas and to ensure earthwork within the buffer area does not negatively impact surface water quality or create erosion issues. Removal of vegetation and grading are allowed within the buffer area with a permit and compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. After the initial notification and installation of erosion and sediment control measures by the applicant, the city staff reviewed the projected improvements and recommended the establishment of a 25-wide (in even width) buffer area along the edge of the creek, which will be considered a no-mow/no- disturbance zone along this water way. The buffer will be planted with a variety of new plantings and vegetation that will help re-stabilize the creek embankments, and preserve and protect the water feature form any additional runoff form the main property. All work and plantings will be finished and performed Planning Case 2017-25 (Carlson) Page 4 of 5 in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. (Please note the Land Disturbance Document may be accessed on the city’s website at: http://www.mendota-heights.com/vertical/sites/%7BA0FB05B5-4CF8-4485-84AA- 0C48D0BC98D7%7D/uploads/%7B277D710D-E8FF-4DC3-B4A8-48A85B251B8E%7D.PDF The scope and scale of this proposed grading project is somewhat extensive; but is contained in a certain small section of the rear yard. The Owner is genuinely sincere in his apology and regrets starting the project without a permit, and is willing to comply with all city rules, directives and conditions to restoring and completing this disturbed area of the property. With that in mind, the Planning Commission is asked to review the following statements as part of your determination and consideration of this permit: a) The existing work – and any additional work to complete the project, should have little, if any impacts to the adjacent water feature; b) the Owner will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent water resource-related area by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures as per city staff direction; c) the natural drainage way systems will be maintained during and after the project is completed; and d) the Owner will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Recommend approval of the wetlands permit request, based on the attached findings of fact that, with conditions. OR 2. Recommend denial of the wetlands permit request, based on the finding of fact that the proposed subdivision and associated construction activities are not consistent with the City Code or Comprehensive Plan. OR 3. Table the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the “After-the-Fact” Wetlands Permit request based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative 1), with the following conditions: 1. Any land disturbance activities shall be in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance document. 2. Owner/Applicant must establish and maintain a wild growth buffer area at least 25 feet in width from the established creek edge 3. The 25-ft buffer area shall comprise of new vegetation cover consisting of wild-native mix seeding and pollinator friendly plantings within the buffer area, with plantings to be done by this fall. 4. Owner/Applicant shall install and maintain silt fence or approved erosion control measures along all disturbed areas and the edges of the creek until the vegetation is properly established, as determined by the City. 5. A cash bond, letter of credit or agreed upon surety in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted and held by the city for a period of at least one (1) year from completion of all work, to ensure all new landscaping has survived, and the access roadway to the new footbridge has been properly restored. Planning Case 2017-25 (Carlson) Page 5 of 5 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Wetlands Permit [After-the-Fact] for Planning Case No. 2017-25 1562 Wachtler Avenue (J. Carlson Residence) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed requests: 1. The proposed construction activities to be allowed under this Wetlands Permit meet the purpose and intent of the City Code and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The project includes erosion and sediment control measures in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. 3. The Owner will make a concerted effort to eliminate or reduce any impacts to the adjacent water feature by establishing a protective buffer area along the creek within the subject property. 4. The Owner will provide for the protection and preservation of the adjacent water resource-related area by installing silt fence and stormwater run-off protection measures. 5. The Owner will make every attempt to minimize disturbance of the area in order to protect and preserve the natural surroundings, avoid excess loss of vegetation, and avoid any impacts to wildlife and aquatic organisms. 6. Vegetation will be replanted, in accordance with City guidance and instructions in the disturbed areas after construction is completed. DODD RDI-35E1ST AVE WACHTLER AVE3RD AVE 2ND AVE WENTWORTH AVE W EVERGREEN KNL BACHELOR AVE LAURA STVANDALL STEMERSON AVE 4TH AVECHERRY H I L L RD FARMDALE RD KNOLLWOOD LN BROOKSIDE LNMEDORA RDUPPER COLONIA L D RIVY LN PARK PLACE DR CLEMENT STPARK CIR TRAIL RDHIDDEN CREEK TRLSUTTON LNPAMELA LNBLUFF CIR GRYC CTPRIVATE ROADSOMERSET CTDEER T R AI L C T I -35ECLEMENT ST1562 WACHTLER AVE.(Jim Carlson Res.)City of Mendota Heights0600 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. 9/20/2017 1562 Wachtler Ave03/13/2015 MEMORANDUM Date: September 26, 2017 To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner Re: Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Vision & Goals Last spring we updated the Planning Commission on the Comp Plan process and are now ready to get to the Goals & Vision phase of review and decisions on the Plan. Process The process for the next phases of the Comp Plan update is shown in the table on the next page, with specific dates where we know them. This September 26 meeting is outlined in bold. We anticipate three meetings with the Planning Commission to review Vision, Goals, and Policies: • Tuesday, September 26 (regular Planning Commission meeting) • Wednesday, October 11(special Planning Commission meeting) • Tuesday, October 24 (regular Planning Commission meeting) We have also tentatively set three Community Open House meetings to review the Background Report, Vision and Goals, and ask for input on the Plan at this phase: • Monday, October 30 • Thursday, November 2 • Monday, November 6 We have tentatively scheduled an update with the Parks Commission for October 10. The intent is that these community meetings would be in three different places around the community – perhaps north, central, and south – locations and dates to be confirmed soon. We also will develop outreach and communications materials to inform the community at large and allow for their comment on the elements of the Plan. This could take the form of materials on the City website, Facebook pages, interactive web tools or mailed information. After the Planning Commission meetings and community meetings we w ill review the information with the City Council in early to mid-November. We want to make sure the City Council understands what has been developed and discussed so far, and is on board as we begin to craft the Plan this winter and spring. Mendota Heights Planning Commission 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Vision & Goals September 26, 2017 2 Issues For the September 26 meeting, the first task will be an open-ended discussion of what the Planning Commission believes are the key issues facing Mendota Heights now and in coming years. I want the Commissioners to think about what is good and bad in the community and what the opportunities and threats are. We will then prioritize these issues in a simple, unscientific, but nevertheless informative process. Vision The current Comp Plan has a Vision Statement, attached, that was first adopted back in 1986. I want the Planning Commission to review and comment on this statement to see if it is still relevant or appropriate for the community. Goals & Policies We have also attached a set of Goals and Policies for your consideration. We will want to review these in detail to make sure they reflect the goals of the community. We may not get to these at the September 26 meeting, but we will at the next meetings. These Goals are based on a few goals in the City’s current Plan and augmented with typical goals from other communities. MENDOTA HEIGHTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS GOALS & VISION 2017 Prepare draft updated goals Sep-2017 Review goals w/ city staff 9/26/2017 PC meeting - Goals/vision Oct-2017 Revise goals/policies/vision 10/10/2017 Parks Commission review 10/11/2017 PC meeting - Goals/vision 10/24/2017 PC meeting - Final goals/vision Oct-2017 Prep for community meetings 10/30/2017 Community meeting - background/goals 11/2/2017 Community meeting - background/goals 11/6/2017 Community meeting - background/goals Nov-2017 City Council review - background/goals Nov-2017 Communications, web presence Nov-2017 Project administration ALTERNATIVES 2017 Prepare draft alternatives Nov-2017 Review alternatives w/City staff 2018 Prep for Alternatives meeting - PC 1/23/2018 Alternatives meeting - PC Feb-2018 Refine alteratives w/City staff Mar-2018 Prepare final alternatives Mar-2018 Communications, web presence Mar-2018 Project administration IMPLEMENTATION Mar-2018 Prepare draft implementation plan Mar-2018 Review draft implementation w/City staff Mar-2018 Prepare for draft implementation meeting 3/27/2018 Review draft implementation - PC Apr-2018 Refine draft implementation w/City staff Apr-2018 Communications, web presence Apr-2018 Project administration PLAN PREPARATION Apr-2018 Prepare draft plan May-2018 Review draft plan w/City staff May-2018 Prepare for draft plan meetings 5/22/2018 Review draft plan - PC Jun-2018 City Council review - draft plan 6/26/2018 Open House & PC hearing - draft plan Jul-2018 Refine draft plan w/City staff 8/7/2018 City Council meeting - final plan Aug-2018 Communications, web presence Aug-2018 Project administration Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Goals & Policies September 18, 2017 Page 1 of 12 LAND USE GOAL 1: THE LAND USE PLAN WILL SERVE AS THE FOUND ATION FOR LAND USE DECISIONS IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS. POLICIES • Develop in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for land use, housing, transportation, parks and other community facilities. • Review and amend the Comprehensive Plan as necessary to ensure consistent development policy in current and future development decisions. • Zoning and rezoning decisions shall conform to the Land Use Plan. • The Land Use Plan will be updated to reflect changing priorities and conditions or as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. • Balance land use designations to meet projected growth demand. GOAL 2. PRESERVE, PROTECT AND ENRICH THE MATURE, FULLY DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT AND CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. POLICIES • Subdivision and zoning standards will emphasize high quality site and architectural design. • Emphasize quality design, innovative solutions, and a high general aesthetic level in community development and building. • Parks, trails and open spaces will be planned within walking distance of all residential areas. • Encourage development and planning of land that provides for reasonable access to surrounding properties. • Public buildings and properties will be designed, constructed and maintained to be a source of civic pride and to set a standard for private property owners to follow. • Historic preservation will be considered in land use decisions. GOAL 3: SUPPORT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN DESIGNATED AREAS. POLICIES • The City will use available resources to meet redevelopment needs. This will include cooperation with the Dakota County and the Metropolitan Council to achieve redevelopment objectives. • Encourage appropriate transitions and buffering between potentially incompatible land uses. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Goals & Policies September 18, 2017 Page 2 of 12 GOAL 4. ENHANCE AND PROTECT THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. POLICIES • Provide for maintenance and further natural restoration of ecological systems including lakes, ponding areas, aquifers, and drainage areas • Encourage energy efficient design in all public and private construction. • Take in to account impacts on air quality in land use and infrastructure decisions. • Follow best practices in land use and infrastructure decisions that impact stormwater runoff. GOAL 5. REDUCE THE IMPACT OF AIRCRAFT NOISE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. POLICIES • Increase public participation and representation through the Noise Overs ight Committee (NOC) and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). • Achieve noise reduction through advocating modified takeoff procedures and corridor compliance. • Advocate an equitable distribution of aircraft traffic and a more equitable runway use system. • Monitor the continued implementation of the Minneapolis/St. Paul (MSP) airport Comprehensive Plan. • Advocate for specific noise control measures through operational changes and advance technology. • Establish a physical capacity for the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor and transfer general aviation use to other reliever airports. • Notify and work with MnDOT in the event that potential airspace obstructions are encountered. • Consider aircraft noise and safety issues in all land use and zoning decisions. GOAL 6: PROTECT REASONABLE ACCESS TO DIRECT SUNLIGHT FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS. POLICIES • Consider modification of existing ordinances to protect access of direct sunlight to rooftops of all principal structures. • Encourage developers to establish covenants that do not restrict the development and use of active and/or passive solar energy systems. • Encourage buildings and developers to offer solar energy system options, to the extent practical, for space heating and cooling and hot water heating in new residential, commercial and industrial developments. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Goals & Policies September 18, 2017 Page 3 of 12 HOUSING GOAL 1: PRESERVE AND IMPROVE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING UNITS. POLICIES • Continue to enforce housing maintenance and zoning codes. • Explore options for flexibility in Zoning Code standards to encourage and allow expansion and reinvestment in existing houses. • Partner with Dakota County, Metropolitan Council, the State of Minnesota and other agencies that provide housing rehabilitation programs and services. • Protect public safety by requiring owners to repair substandard housing or as a last resort, abate and demolish dangerous housing. • Develop a housing maintenance program that promotes and requires safe homes and attractive neighborhoods. GOAL 2: MEET FUTURE NEEDS WITH A VARIETY OF HOUSING PRODUCTS. POLICIES • Encourage life-cycle housing opportunities in Mendota Heights that allow residents to remain in the community throughout their lives. This includes: o Maintenance of existing entry level housing. o Construction of move-up single family housing. o Construction of various types of senior housing, including senior ownership units, senior rental units, memory care and assisted living units. o Providing a mix of affordable housing opportunities for all income levels, age groups, and special housing needs. • Encourage environmentally sustainable housing development and construction practices. • Provide for housing development that maintains the attractiveness and distinct neighborhood characteristics in the community. • Support the maintenance and rehabilitation of the community’s existing housing stock. • Periodically assess the housing needs in the community, including the elderly, disabled, active retirees, and other groups with special housing needs to determine development priorities and to formulate strategies to meet those needs and maintain an adequate and quality housing supply. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Goals & Policies September 18, 2017 Page 4 of 12 PARKS & OPEN SPACE GOAL 1: PROVIDE THE OPTIMUM AMOUNT OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OPEN SPACE FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF ALL MENDOTA HEIGHTS RESIDENTS. GOAL 2: PROVIDE A PARK SYSTEM THAT ASSURES THE QUALITY OF FACILITIES WILL MATCH RESIDENT’S DESIRES AND STANDARDS OF LIVING. GOAL 3: USE THE PARK SYSTEM AS A MEANS TO ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT OF EACH NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE. GOAL 4: SUPPORT THE DAKOTA COUNTY 2030 GREENWAY CORRIDORS PLAN/VISION. POLICIES • Encourage the preservation of open space by private property owners and the City. • Maximize the use of existing park facilities and consider establishment of additional facilities for all age groups when necessary, including facilities for the handicapped. • Explore new opportunities and continue to work cooperatively with School Distri ct #197, St. Thomas, Visitation, Fort Snelling State Park, and other entities to provide maximum recreational opportunities and avoid duplication. • Improve and expand bicycle and pedestrian connections to City parks and other community destinations. • Provide neighborhoods of the City with trails, open space, and quality park facilities and amenities. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Goals & Policies September 18, 2017 Page 5 of 12 TRANSPORTATION GOAL 1: PROVIDE A SAFE, HIGH-QUALITY, AND COST EFFECTIVE MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM POLICIES • Transportation improvements will be coordinated with the plans of MnDOT, Dakota County, Metropolitan Council, and adjoining communities. • The City will support regional improvements to major transportation facilities serving the city when feasible. • New construction techniques, technologies, and environmental sustainability will be considered in planning new transportation facilities. • A network of sidewalks and trails will be constructed in all new developments and redevelopments, where practical and feasible. • Developers will be required to provide the transportation facilities within and adjacent to new subdivisions, including rights-of-way, roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities necessary to support their development. • Existing transportation facilities will be maintained so as to preserve or improve service levels and minimize life-cycle costs. This includes an ongoing pavement management program for city streets. • Where practical and feasible, planning for roadway improvements will include landscaping, street lighting, and other aesthetic improvements. GOAL 2: EXPAND TRANSIT OPTIONS SERVING MENDOTA HEIGHTS POLICIES • The City will continue to support and participate in efforts to implement improved transit service in the City. • The City will seek county, regional, state or federal funding to expand transit services in and around the city. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Goals & Policies September 18, 2017 Page 6 of 12 WATER SUPPLY [Review for applicability given the system is operated by St. Paul Regional Water Services] GOAL 1: PROVIDE THE CITY’S RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES WITH HIGH QUALITY AND AFFORDABLE POTABLE WATER FOR DAILY CONSUMPTION AND FIRE DEMAND. POLICIES • Meet National Primary (health based) and State Drinking Water Standards. • Provide adequate water pressure for all residents and businesses. • Continue working with adjacent communities to provide a cooperative water system for emergency service. • Operate the water supply system so that it minimizes customer complaints due to National Secondary (aesthetic) Drinking Water Regulations. • Operate the water supply system efficiently so that water is affordable. GOAL 2: PROVIDE A LOW-MAINTENANCE, COST EFFECTIVE WATER SYSTEM THAT MEETS THE LONG-TERM NEEDS OF THE CITY’S RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES. POLICIES • Fund water system operation, maintenance, renewal and replacement through appropriate water usage charges. • Plan for future replacement of older water system facilities and associated costs. • Fund construction of new trunk and lateral water system facilities through area and connection charges. • Fund construction of lateral systems through assessments to the benefited properties. • During major street construction projects, assess the system in the project area and make improvements as needed. • Develop and regularly update the Water System Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). • When installing water main adjacent to properties on private wells, water services will be installed to allow for cost effective connection in the future. GOAL 3: DEVELOP THE CITY’S SOURCE WATER SUPPLY IN A MANNER THAT MINIMIZES DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES. POLICIES • Sustain the City’s water supply through conservation by reducing demand, improving efficiency of water use, and reducing loss and waste. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Goals & Policies September 18, 2017 Page 7 of 12 • Protect the groundwater source from contamination by implementing a groundwater protection program through the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan. • Work towards meeting the MN DNR per capita usage through implementation of the City’s water conservation plan. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Goals & Policies September 18, 2017 Page 8 of 12 SANITARY SEWER GOAL 1: EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CITY’S SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. POLICIES • Mendota Heights will construct its system to facilitate operation and maintenance and prevent inflow and infiltration. • Mendota Heights will maintain a detailed inventory of its sanitary sewer system including an up- to-date electronic map including location and specifications of all pipes, structures, and lift stations. • Mendota Heights will clean a portion of its sanitary sewer system every year. • Mendota Heights will regularly televise and clean its sanitary sewer system to determine whether it is performing adequately. • During major street reconstruction projects, Mendota Heights will assess the system within the project area and makes improvements as needed. • Mendota Heights is committed to training those responsible for managing its sanitary sewer system and ensures that staff has the equipment necessary to properly maintain the system. • Mendota Heights will maintain an organizational chart of its sewer maintenance department and ensure that each staff member has a job description. • Mendota Heights will rehabilitate sewers before their deterioration negatively affects residents, businesses, or the Metropolitan Disposal System. • Mendota Heights will maintain a general emergency response plan that pertains to sanitary sewer overflows. • The City will coordinate sanitary sewer utility services and development with surrounding communities, Washington County, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Metropolitan Council. GOAL 2: TO PROVIDE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE THAT IS ADEQUATE TO MEET CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS. POLICIES • The extension of sanitary sewers shall be programmed so as to achieve maximum benefit from the existing utilities. • The sanitary sewer system shall be constructed to accommodate the proposed land use densities and uses identified in the future land use plan. • Mendota Heights will provide a system reserve capacity in all trunk designs so that local occurrences of higher sewage generating uses or higher densities can be accommodated. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Goals & Policies September 18, 2017 Page 9 of 12 • When in-fill development or redevelopment occurs, Mendota Heights will evaluate existing sanitary sewer systems as to their capacity. • Mendota Heights develops and regularly updates its sanitary sewer system Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). • The City will encourage development densities that maximize the use of the existing sanitary system. Where existing facilities do not have capacities to accommodate the maximum allowable densities, the City reserves the right to restrict development to average density. • For properties not connected the sanitary sewer system, subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) shall be allowed provided such systems conform to all local, county, state and federal requirements. • When feasible, maintain sanitary sewer depth to provide maximum flexibility related to future development. • When installing new sanitary sewer adjacent to properties on private well and septic, sanitary sewer services will be installed to allow for cost effective connection it the future. GOAL 3: MENDOTA HEIGHTS PROVIDES A COST EFFECTIVE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM THAT IS EQUITABLY FINANCED. POLICIES • Mendota Heights finances new sanitary sewer trunks for new development through area and connection charges. • Mendota Heights finances its existing system operation and maintenance through utility billings. • Mendota Heights prepares for replacement of its sanitary sewer system by incorporating replacement costs into its utility billing rates. • The extension of sanitary sewers shall be programmed so as to achieve maximum benefit from the existing utilities. This staging program will result in the most efficient expenditure of publi c funds while maintaining the City’s growth pattern. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Goals & Policies September 18, 2017 Page 10 of 12 SURFACE WATER GOAL 1: MANAGE SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER RESOURCES USING APPROACHES THAT MEET OR EXCEED REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS BY FOLLOWING THE CITY’S LOCAL SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, THE LOCAL WATERSHED PLANS, AND PERMITS ADMINISTERED BY THE MPCA, BWSR, USACE, MNDNR, AND ANY OTHER GOVERNING AGENCIES THAT ARE APPLICABLE AND HAVE JURISDICTION AUTHORITY WITHIN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. POLICIES • Provide adequate flood protection for residents and structures and protect the integrity of conveyance channels and stormwater detention areas. • Pursue the reduction of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) loading to water bodies by compliance, municipal management activities, and public educat ion. • Classify and effectively manage water bodies in the community to achieve wat ershed management organization, state, and federal regulatory agency standards. • Classify, manage, and administer wetlands in the community. • Regulate new development and redevelopment activities within the community including erosion control at construction sites. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Goals & Policies September 18, 2017 Page 11 of 12 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL 1: PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO BUSINESS NEEDS. POLICIES • Manage growth and land resources to ensure an appropriate mix of development and an adequate land supply to secure new business investments. • Retain the present industrial and commercial base and assist companies with their expansion needs where appropriate. • Attract quality businesses consistent with the City’s target market to areas available for development. • Encourage an adequate supply of sites and buildings to meet the demand for commercial and industrial development. • Maintain an infrastructure system to meet the needs of current businesses and facilitate future growth. • Address unique development challenges including the reuse and redevelopment of vacant buildings. • Foster private investment and economic activity without compromising community objectives to maintain and enhance Mendota Heights’s environment. GOAL 2: PROMOTE BUSINESS ATTRACTION, RETENTION, AND EXPANSION IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS. POLICIES • Identify target markets and prepare and implement a marketing plan to attract businesses that fit this market. • Work with local businesses and industry to ensure needs for expansion and development are adequately met and maintain an open line of communication with the business sector through the Business Retention and Expansion Program. • Continue to actively market Mendota Heights to commercial brokers and retail businesses to expand retail opportunities in the City. • Work cooperatively with local business groups, the school district, and area colleges and universities to provide training for workers with the skills needed for existing and future Mendota Heights businesses. Mendota Heights 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Goals & Policies September 18, 2017 Page 12 of 12 GOAL 3: PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH PUBLIC FINANCING TOOLS. POLICIES • Periodically review economic development opportunities, such as incentive programs from the county, regional and state. • Review new and innovative economic development inc entives for application in Mendota Heights. • Pursue outside funding sources to develop or redevelop land for commercial and industrial uses, such as Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account and Tax Base Revitalization Account, Dakota County Community Development Agency (CDA), Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, and other applicable grants. GOAL 4: CONTINUE TO DEVELOP COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT SERVE THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. POLICIES • Provide and support commercial areas to supply convenience goods and services for residents of Mendota Heights. • To mitigate conflicts between commercial and residential development, require appropriate land use transitions at the edges of residential neighborhoods through the use of setbacks, screening, buffering and fencing. • Require sidewalk connections along major streets leading up to neighborhood commercial centers and direct connections from the public sidewalk to the storefronts. GOAL 5: CONTINUE TO DEVELOP BUSINESS PARK AREAS THAT PROVIDE JOBS AND SERVE THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMY. POLICIES • Provide opportunities for new industrial development and expanded employment opportunities to create livable-wage positions in Mendota Heights and the redevelopment of existing industrial uses to serve existing businesses in the community. • Provide attractive, planned environments as means to induce employers to locate within the City. • Continue to provide and enforce standards for industrial developments that improve the appearance and character of industrial properties. • Provide high quality public services and infrastructure in all commercial and industrial districts. Mendota Heights Vision VISION STATEMENT Mendota Heights is a high quality, family oriented residential community, with the feel of the country and the amenities of a city. While it is centrally located in the metropolitan area, the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers form a natural green belt around it, a llowing the community to maintain a quiet, private way of life, unique in the Twin Cities. Mendota Heights achieved its successful business community and exceptional residential neighborhoods by following the detailed comprehensive plans set forth by its forefathers over 48 years ago. Innovative and forward thinking on the part of community officials has resulted in a planned community, which affords a quiet lifestyle for its residents while providing a full array of services and employment opportunities. The community has preserved an abundance of parks and open spaces, encourages spacious residential development, and has planned for diversified, high technology offices and business areas. Excellent schools and a well-educated populace complement the traditional but progressive character of the City. Civic pride and aesthetic excellence are high priorities in Mendota Heights. The mission of the Mendota Heights city government is to preserve and enhance the quality of life in the community and to plan, direct, and implement orderly growth. This is achieved by encouraging and fostering:  Community identity, citizen participation, and open access to government decision-making.  High quality, cost-effective public service.  Conservative financial management and low tax rates.  Development and maintenance of parks, trails, and open spaces.  High standards of diversified housing stock.  A commitment to strengthen and maintain community heritage through preservation of older, well-established neighborhoods.  Further development of well-designed commercial and office projects. The Mayor and City Council, as the elected representatives of the people, supported by recommendations from the Parks and Recreation Commission, Airport Relations Commission, and Planning Commission, are responsible for establishing the policies necessary to carry out this mission. The staff of the City implements the policies established by the Council and provides direct services to the community, making the vision a reality. Adopted by the Mendota Heights City Council on June 3, 1986.