The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-10-04 Planning Comm Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2018 7:00 PM - Mendota Heights City Hall AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Adopt Agenda 4. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 2018-23: Variances to City Code Section 12-1D-3 for new Accessory Structures associated with a new Multi-Purpose Athletic Field project, along with a possible variance to City Code Section 12-1D-16.F for reduced on-site parking requirements needed for an athletic field, located at Henry Sibley High School, 1897 Delaware Avenue. - Independent School District No. 197 – Applicant & Owner b. Case No. 2018-24: Variance to Side-Yard Setback standard for new Driveway and Parking Pad expansion in the R-1 One Family Residential District, located at 1678 Lilac Lane. - Per & Sandra Moberg – Applicant/Owner 5. Staff Announcements 6. 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. Planning Report: Case #2018-23 (ISD-197/HSHS)) Page 1 DATE: October 4, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-23 Variances for Number of Accessory Structures, Accessory Structure Heights, and Number of Parking Spaces for Athletic Field APPLICANT: ISD #197 – Henry Sibley High School PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1897 Delaware Avenue ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential & R-1A One Family Residential / S-School (Institutional) ACTION DEADLINE: October 26, 2018 INTRODUCTION ISD #197 is requesting a number of variance approvals to construct new athletic field improvements to the Henry Sibley High School (HSHS) campus site, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. HSHS currently uses the football/athletic facility knows as Charles Matson Field, located next to Heritage/E-STEM Middle School in West St. Paul. In May of 2018, the voters in ISD #197 approved (with a 62% favorable vote) a $117 million building bond for structural and mechanical maintenance upgrades at all the district’s school buildings, which included modernizing outdated classroom and education spaces, improving fine arts and athletics spaces and addressing school parking lot safety and handicapped accessibility. As a result of this this bond approval, the school distrcit is now requesting the city approve their requests to make these improvements on their existing athletic facilities located on the high school campus, which are expected to be completed by next Fall 2019 in time for the HSHS Warrior football season. This public hearing was duly noticed by a legal publication in the Pioneer Press, the city’s official newspaper, and notice letters of this request and public hearing were mailed to all properties within ¼ mile (1,320-ft.) or more, including property owners in nearby West St. Paul and Sunfish Lake. The city has received a number of letters (emails) of support on this project, and letters or information of opposition to this project/request, all of which are appended to this report. BACKGROUND The school campus property consists of eight separate parcels, totaling 73.61 acres (according to Dakota County/GIS records). The applicant’s survey however, indicates the gross area of 67.6 acres and net area of 66.2 acres. According to school representatives, the high school facility contains up 60 classrooms, with enrollment of approximately 1,450 students. Records show the original 3-story high school building was approved and constructed in 1970-1971. The main school facility is centrally located on the campus, with three main access points off Delaware Avenue Planning Report: Case #2018-23 (ISD-197/HSHS)) Page 2 to the east, and a secondary access off Warrior Drive to the west. The campus contains 508 parking stalls, most of which are located on the north side of the school building, with added parking along the east and far southeast corner of the campus. Within the “North Parking Lot”, the site also provides 20-21 elongated striped spaces for temporary bus parking and the loading/unloading of students. The campus contains a number of different outdoor athletic fields, including 9 dedicated (asphalt) tennis courts; a variety of baseball, softball and soccer fields (4) on the north side, which includes an outdoor concession stand/storage building in the center. This north area also contains the existing 8-lane running track, surrounded by open areas for field events, such as shot put, discus, pole vault, and high/long/triple jump pits. The interior area of the running track appears to be striped or laid-out for full soccer field. On the south side of the school, this area is primarily open-space, with an upper, plateau like area near the south side of the school facility, which slopes or drops down considerably to another lower level of open- Planning Report: Case #2018-23 (ISD-197/HSHS)) Page 3 space that eventually ties-in or matches down to the grades coming off Delaware Avenue and Mendota Road/HWY 62 frontage road systems. This open-spaced area is reserved for 4 additional baseball/softball fields, and appears on aerial imagery to be striped/laid-out for soccer, football and other outdoor practice field areas. The school also contains a curvilinear walking trail along Warrior Drive to the west; and fairly straight/parallel trails located along Marie Avenue to the north, Delaware Ave. to the east, and Mendota Road/HWY 62 frontage road to the south. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The school is seeking to update and improve their existing outdoor track and field area located in the northwest area of the campus. The track is located approx. 80-ft. off Marie Avenue ROW to the north, and approx. 213-ft. off Callahan Place ROW to the west. The main part of this improvement plans includes a new full-sized football/soccer/lacrosse combination field with synthetic turf, and a new 9-lane all-weather running track (expanded from existing 8 lane track), along with some newly designed and located field event areas, including shot-put, long/triple jump pits, high jump area, and pole-vault. Planning Report: Case #2018-23 (ISD-197/HSHS)) Page 4 The site currently contains a small section of bleacher seating on the east side of the track, which will be removed. The original site plans submitted by the Applicant (and provided to the Commission a few weeks ago) included bleachers with up to 2,760 seats, but only 508 parking would be available for parking. The plans have been revised/updated by ISD-197 and now show new “Home” bleachers consisting of 1,500 seats, while “Visitor” bleachers consists of 500 seats. All new bleachers areas will be ADA/handicap accessible. A new 420-sf. press box (with a “crows’ nest” feature) will be installed or placed on the top level of the Home bleachers structure. The new athletic field area provides space for a “Plaza/Gathering” area near the south end of the field. Within this space, the school proposes to install a new 1,550 sf. “Concessions/Restroom/Storage” building near the southwest corner of the field. A new “Team Room/Storage” building of 1,500 sf. is planned for the east side of the track and north of the Visitor’s seating. Plans also include a new 160-sf. ticket/entry booth of near the southeast corner of the field entrance area, along with two separate “port-a-potty” enclosures near the southwest and southeast corners of the field. Four, 80-ft. tall light poles will be placed near the ends of the home/visitor bleacher areas. More information on these lights will be detailed later and appended to this report. A new scoreboard is planned on the north side of the field, which will face southward and away from the residential neighborhoods to the north. Virtually all of these new improvements described herein will be contained inside a new 6-foot high chain- linked fence enclosure. Setbacks from this fenced enclosure is shown at 68.37 ft. off the north property line and 138.65-ft. from the west property line. The closets point of the press box extension is shown with a 129.66-ft. setback from the west line as well. BACKGROUND INFORMATION to PREVIOUS “STADIUM” APPROVAL Some of this information contained under this sub-heading may or may not be entirely relevant to the case under review; however, city staff has elected to share some of this historical information and provide some insight to a previous and very similar “stadium” or athletic field improvement approved in the community, and how those results affected the processing of this specific application. In 1994, St. Thomas Academy (STA) requested approval to construct a new football “stadium” project on their campus. For some reason, the city’s consultant planner indicated that all schools and their related facilities – including athletic fields or stadiums, were only allowed by conditional use permit (CUP); and the city presented and processed STA’s new football field stadium project under a CUP hearing. During the Planning Commission meeting debate in 1994, some commissioners pointed out that “stadiums” were only allowed in certain business zones and not allowed in the R-1 (Single-Family) Zone, which is the same HSHS is located in. A few commissioners indicated that processing a CUP in that case was not valid; and STA needed to withdraw the request, or request a Zoning Code Amendment to allow “Athletic Stadiums” [in conjunction with a school] as either a permitted accessory use or conditional use, which was eventually presented to the city council for further consideration (said text noted below): Athletic stadiums in conjunction with public and parochial high schools provided that such a facility shall be accessory to the principal building and use (high school) and shall be one thousand (1000) feet or more from the nearest residential structure. Any lighting in conjunction with such a facility shall be appropriately shielded from surrounding land uses at the sole discretion of City Council. Planning Report: Case #2018-23 (ISD-197/HSHS)) Page 5 Ultimately, the PC looked past this issue and recommended favorably (7-0) of STA’s request to construct a new football/athletic field, with running track, bleachers, and lights, and the City Council later adopted a resolution (5-0) granting a new CUP to STA for its stadium and a variances for over-height (75-ft.) light poles; and elected to forgo consideration of any new zoning amendment at that time. When city staff began meetings with school’s design team on this project, we initially concluded that ISD 197 should also process their new football field project under a CUP - similar to what STA did (and was approved for) in 1994. However, staff immediately discovered that public and parochial schools are allowed as permitted uses in the single-family (R-1) districts, and not by CUP; and the processing of a CUP under this application request – similar to what the city did for STA in 1994, was not applicable; so the city requested ISD 197 request variances to the accessory structure standards. (Note: to the best of our knowledge, schools have always been and remain a permitted use since 1954, and more than likely were permitted uses in 1994). The City Attorney has opined the same, and supports staff’s direction to process/present this item under the variance application and review process. ANALYSIS  Zoning The high school property is currently zoned a combination of R-1 and R-1A One Family Residential District; and guided as “S-School” under the general Institutional land use category of the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Public and parochial schools are considered permitted uses under the R-1 zoning. As pointed out in 1994, “Armories, convention halls, sports arenas and stadiums” are conditional uses in the B-3 General Business District, and they remain to this day in City Code. Minutes from the previous 1994 meeting indicate there appears to have been some considerable discourse and arguments on the phrasing or applicability of “stadium” in that case. The term “stadium” may once again be stated or referenced by the applicant, general public or others during the public hearing process; and to avoid any repeat discussion or arguments made under the previous STA case, staff wants to assure the Planning Commission that this application request is not related to or meets the definition of a true “stadium” or sports arena use under current City Code. City Code does not contain any definition of stadium, arena, or even athletic field. Merriam-Webster however defines stadiums and arenas as follows: “Stadium: a large usually roofless building with tiers of seats for spectators at sports events.” “Arena: an enclosed area used for public entertainment; a building containing an arena.” Staff considers the improvements requested under this application as an “athletic field” use, which is strictly for the benefit of the schools’ and communities general outdoor athletic needs. For all intents and purposes, schools as a use– along with all associated facilities and improvements such as classroom buildings, gymnasium, auditorium, cafeteria, vehicle/bus parking areas, athletic fields, playgrounds, etc., tends to make them a very unique and specialized use within an established and dedicated “single-family” zoning district in many metro/suburban (and rural) communities. Most schools do not resemble or function anywhere close to a typical single-family dwelling or use. However, the fact remains that if a use is located or situated inside a specific zoning district, then those district standards must be applied to all uses, unless the City Code provides for different standards or specific rules related to such special uses. Planning Report: Case #2018-23 (ISD-197/HSHS)) Page 6  Accessory Structure Accessory structures (as listed under Section 12-1D-3C3 of the city’s Zoning Code) are allowed as permitted accessory uses. Because the school is located in the R-1/R-1A districts, all new structures must meet the general zoning standards established for the size, number and heights for allowed accessory structures, and requires variances from the height, number, area, and size requirements for such a structure in a residential zoning district. Title 12-1D-3-B and C of the City Code contain the following accessory structure standards for all residential districts: Standard Proposed Variance Required Setback (from all lot lines) 10 ft. 145 +/- ft. (west) NO Setback from principal building 5 ft. 400 +/- ft. NO Structure height 15 ft. 32 +/- ft. to 35.5 +/- ft. . YES Number of structures (4 acres or more) 3 6 (existing – w/ 1 removed) + 5 (new-proposed) 11 total YES Total area of structures (4 acres or more ) 425 sq. ft. 3,510 +/-sq. ft. (existing) 8,200 sf. new bleacher areas + 1,550 sf. for concession stand + 420 sf. press box + 1,500 sf. team/storage + 160 sf. ticket booth TOTAL: 15,182 sf. (new & existing) YES Individual size of structure (4 acres or more) 225 sq. ft. Bleachers/Press Box; Concession Stand; Team Storage Room YES The proposed accessory structures meet the applicable setback standards; as shown in the table above, but all new (proposed) buildings either exceed the height, numbers, and allowable areas – both individually or total, for any and all accessory building standards in the R-1 District.  Lighting New overhead (over-height) lighting is a key component of this new athletic field improvement project. As the site exists today, there does not appear to be any overhead lights on the existing athletic field or running track areas; nor any lights on the nearby baseball/softball diamonds to the east and south of the site, or even the tennis courts. As stated previously, the Applicants intend to install four (4) new, 80-foot tall light pole standards to light the new athletic field and track areas for night-time activities. These light poles are situated on the north and south sides of the home and visitor bleacher areas. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1I-7: Glare and Heat: “Any use requiring an operation producing an intense heat or light transmission shall be performed with the necessary shielding to prevent such heat or light from being detectable at the lot line of the site on which the use is located. Lighting in all instances shall be diffused or directed away from R districts and public streets.” The Applicants submitted a very detailed lighting and photometric plan for this project. All new fixtures will be energy-saving LED lights, with different wattage and lumen levels depending on their placement or specified direction of display. The interior athletic field itself is intended to receive the most (higher) amount of lighting levels, while the outer running track areas will have lesser lighting needs. The goal or widely acceptable standard is to have a zero (0) light level at the property line or street line, especially near residential zoned areas. The plans call for zero readings at these locations.  Noise As may be assumed or expected, the new athletic field is likely to generate some increased noise levels, due in part to the new and higher level on-site sporting events. Cheering fans, crowd noises, whistles, Planning Report: Case #2018-23 (ISD-197/HSHS)) Page 7 marching band/music shows and practices, and public address announcements (play-by-play) during these events will certainly be noticeable, especially since they have not been present or heard for some time on this school site. Per City Code Section 12-1I-2 Noise: “Any use producing noise shall be in conformance with the minimum standards as adopted and enforced by the Minnesota pollution control agency [MPCA] and shall be conducted in such a way as to avoid constituting a nuisance.” This report contains a print-out of Minnesota Rules Ch. 7030 MPCA’s Noise Pollution Control standards. The rules chapter provides a list of certain land use activities, which corresponds to an area classification number with each use. In this case, staff suggests using the “Public Assembly” use, which corresponds to the Noise Area Classification unit of No. 2. Noise Area Classification Daytime Nighttime L50 L10 L50 L10 1 60 65 50 55 2 65 70 65 70 3 75 80 75 80 • "L10" means the sound level, expressed in dB(A), which is exceeded ten percent of the time for a one hour survey, as measured by test procedures approved by the commissioner. • “L50" means the sound level, expressed in dB(A), which is exceeded 50 percent of the time for a one hour survey, as measured by test procedures approved by the commissioner. Projected noise levels are unknown or undetermined at this time. The Applicant did however, provide the following statements in their narrative addressing noise and sounds: As a commitment to character, partnership and solidarity to the neighbors of Henry Sibley High School, the following items will be included in the installation or operation of the proposed complex: • Adherence to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency guidelines (as adopted by City of Mendota Heights) in terms of sound levels and duration. • Additional trees, shrubs and landscaping surrounding the proposed project to provide additional sound buffering and visual screening. • Design of, and installation of, sound equipment to minimize sound impact. • Reduce lighting and sound system use immediately following any event to that required for cleaning and exiting of visitors. • Any use of sound or lighting equipment is monitored/operated by district staff for any event. The Planning Commission may wish to decide if further information or study is needed to address this noise issue.  Traffic & Parking As was stated previously, the school campus has three main access points off Delaware Avenue to the east, and a secondary access off Warrior Drive to the west, with no vehicle access points off Marie Avenue to the north or from the frontage road to the south. There are no plans to add to or modify these entry points. Per City Code, a high school is required to provide at least 1 space for each student; plus 1 space for each 3 classrooms. According to ISD-197 officials, student enrollment is approximately 1,450 students, with 60 classroom. Parking calculates as follows: [Students: 1450 @ 7= 208 spaces] + [60 rooms @ 3 = 20 spaces] or 228 spaces needed. Planning Report: Case #2018-23 (ISD-197/HSHS)) Page 8 The campus contains 508 parking stalls, most of which are located on the north side of the school building, with added parking along the east and far southeast corner of the campus. Within the “North Parking Lot”, the site also provides 20-21 elongated striped spaces for temporary bus parking and the loading/unloading of students. City Code requires “Athletic Fields” to have at least 1 space for each 3 seats of design capacity. With a capacity designed for 2,000 seats, the school needs to provide at least 667 spaces. The plans originally submitted (and provided a few weeks ago to the Commission) included bleachers with up to 2,760 seats. With only 508 spaces shown, this would have created a deficit of over 412 spaces. When preparing the legal notice for this hearing, Staff suggested ISD 197 either adjust their plans accordingly, or ask for a variance to this City Code parking standard on athletic fields. The Applicant adjusted their Site Plan to now show the 406 stalls on the north, plus 72 additional stalls under an “event striping” within the bus parking area (to the north); a re-striping of the “East Parking” lot from 50 to 43 spaces; plus the 52 stalls in the far southeast corner lot; and also plans for an additional 97 stall parking area labeled “New Southeast Parking Lot” - located or built as part of the new swimming pool facility (which is not part of this variance request or any related site plan approvals). Under this readjustment, the total number of spaces is now shown at 670 spaces, which technically meets the 667 spaces needed for the 2,000 seat bleachers, and a variance may no longer be needed. Prior to the official submittal of this variance application, staff met with ISD 197 officials and indicated we were either receiving (or expected to receive) a number of concerns from nearby residents worried about traffic and parking issues related to this project; and we wanted to make sure they addressed this issue adequately in their plan submittals. Pursuant to City Code Section 12-1D-17: TRAFFIC STUDIES: A. An applicant for any proposed development or redevelopment project that results in the change or intensification of the existing or planned land use may be required to conduct or submit a recently completed traffic study, at the cost of the applicant and prepared by a licensed engineer, analyzing existing and proposed traffic patterns of the surrounding area for review and comment as part of any permit application. B. The study shall be prepared in compliance with the most current version of the Dakota County traffic impact analysis guidelines. C. When potentially impacted roadways included in the traffic study are under county, state, or adjacent city jurisdiction, the city reserves the right to request additional review and comment from those jurisdictions for consideration in evaluating the permit application. (Ord. 467, 11-5-2014) Staff requested the school representative either prepare such a study - for both parking and possible traffic impacts which may result by the addition of these new field improvements, or prepare a statement that addresses these issues for the Planning Commission to consider. According to the Applicant, the improvements planned for this school site will not generate any negative issues or concerns for the site or surrounding residential uses; and the Applicant provided the following statements in their narrative: “There are two events in a typical school year that the draw the largest crowds, the Homecoming and Warrior Rally football games. In 2017 the attendance was 2,052 and 1,913 respectfully. In 2018, Warrior Rally brought 1,486 attendees to the field at Heritage Middle School. Homecoming in 2018 will not take place prior to this submittal. On average the football games have an attendance of 824 students, parents, staff and community members excluding the Homecoming and Warrior Rally games. With the average attendance at a football game being less than half that of the student, staff and visitor traffic twice a day during a typical instructional day at Henry Sibley, we feel confident the traffic impact on neighbors will be negligible if any impact at all. Please see attendance numbers.” The school has also stated in their narrative the following ways to address some traffic related issues: Planning Report: Case #2018-23 (ISD-197/HSHS)) Page 9 • Fence the complex to direct parking to the existing parking lot. • Fence the complex to direct visitors to a single entrance location located off the existing parking lot. • Monitor parking and traffic during and after any event for safety and security. As evident in some of the attached information from neighboring residents opposed to this project, there is large concern on their part of potential negative impacts due to the school not providing enough parking for the new athletic field improvements, along with supporting other school activity uses throughout the day or year. Concern was also raised on visitors parking in the adjacent single-family neighborhoods. School officials however, claim that special or extra-curricular activities are scheduled accordingly to ensure that parking for these events, such as a football games, basketball games, wrestling meets, musical/orchestra concerts, theater productions, student/teacher conferences, etc. do not overlap or held on the same evening together, in order to avoid any possible over-parking or overcrowding the school campus. City staff has also stated that should on-street parking (or parking in the neighborhoods) become an issue or problem related to this athletic field improvement and other school functions, the city’s Traffic Safety Committee can study and make certain findings or recommendations to the City Council, such as restrict parking, or provide temporary/prohibited parking signage during events or at certain times of the day, and will help ensure these residential neighborhoods are protected. The Planning Commission may wish to decide if further information or a more complete traffic study is needed to complete your review; or if the information provided herein by the Applicant is sufficient to complete your recommendation.  Variances Per City Code Section 12-1L-5, when reviewing and considering variances requests, the Planning Commission is tasked with the following: Before authorization of any variance, the request therefor shall be referred to the planning commission for study concerning the effect of the proposed variance upon the comprehensive plan and on the character and development of the neighborhood, and for its recommendation to the council for the granting of such variance from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter so as to relieve such difficulties or hardships to the degree considered reasonable without impairing the intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. The planning commission shall recommend such conditions related to the variance regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed building, structure, or use as it may deem advisable. Furthermore, the City is required to find or determine if certain standards or findings have been met or warranted to grant such approval. These standards are noted below: “The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” As part of this and other Variance application reviews, it is incumbent upon the Applicant to prove, demonstrate or defend their need for a variance in land use requests, and the city provides three questions for Applicants to respond or address in their application, which are noted below: 1. Is this request in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan; and are there any “practical difficulties” in connection with the variance; meaning does the property owner propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter? Planning Report: Case #2018-23 (ISD-197/HSHS)) Page 10 2. Due to the nature of this variance request, is the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner? 3. Would the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The Applicant has provide for the Commission’s review and consideration an updated narrative (dated Sept. 28, 2018) in response to these variance standard questions, which are provided in the document immediately following this report. The Planning Commission may wish to decide if further information is needed to complete your review of this land use request; or if the information provided herein by the Applicant is sufficient to complete your recommendation. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider one of the following actions: 1. Recommend DENIAL of the Variances needed to exceed the allowable Number of Accessory Structures, exceed the allowable height of Accessory Structures, and the over-height light poles. based on certain findings of facts for approval; or 2. Recommend APPROVAL Variances needed to exceed the allowable Number of Accessory Structures, exceed the allowable height of Accessory Structures, and the over-height light poles, based on attached findings of facts for approval with certain conditions; or 3. TABLE the request; direct city staff to explore other alternatives with the Applicant and provide follow-up information; and extend the review period an additional 60-days in compliance with Minnesota State Statute. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of the Variances to be considered under this new Athletic Field improvement project as requested by the Applicant; and if the Commission wishes to approve the Variances as presented herein or modify said request, the following conditions of approval may be considered: 1. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for each new structure identified herein, including any fence or electrical permits as necessary. 2. The Applicant shall not deviate from the amended site plan under this application review; nor increase any accessory structure numbers, area (footprint) or height without first seeking and receiving city approvals, unless City Code provides for certain or allowable improvements to be made without any special application review process. 3. 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. Planning Report: Case #2018-23 (ISD-197/HSHS)) Page 11 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL Variance Request for New Accessory Structures and Over-Height Light Poles As part of the Henry Sibley High School Athletic Field Improvements Project 1897 Delaware Avenue (Planning Case No. 2018-23) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request: 1. The scale and scope of the variances needed to approve the number, sizes and heights of the proposed accessory structures, including the new bleachers, concession stands, storage facilities, and over-height light poles, are hereby considered inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan for the community, and should be denied. 2. The Applicant has not proven or demonstrated a practical difficulty or reasonableness in this case for granting of a variance to allow oversized, over height and numbers to allowable accessory structures, including light poles, in the R-1 One Family Residential district 3. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property, and does not warrant the approval or granting of these variances. 4. The variances, if granted, may alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; therefore the city recommends these variance be denied. Planning Report: Case #2018-23 (ISD-197/HSHS)) Page 12 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Variance Request for New Accessory Structures and Over-Height Light Poles As part of the Henry Sibley High School Athletic Field Improvements Project 1897 Delaware Avenue (Planning Case No. 2018-23) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The scale and scope of the variances needed to approve the number, sizes and heights of the proposed accessory structures, including the new bleachers, concession stands, storage facilities, and over-height light poles on this very large high school campus, are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan for the community, and may be approved as presented herein. 2. The City Code’s accessory structure standards for residential districts causes a practical difficulty for a school use in this district, due to the overall size, scale and historical nature of the school use at the subject location. 3. The Applicant have proven or demonstrated a practical difficulty or reasonableness in this case for granting of a variance to allow oversized, over height and numbers to allowable accessory structures, including light poles, in the R-1 One Family Residential district 4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this school use is not a typical single-family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District, and therefore does warrant the approval or granting of these variances. 5. The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods; since the school is and has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general accepted expectation that this athletic field improvement and its related accessory structures can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community; and therefore the city recommends these variances may be approved. September 28, 2018 Mr. Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Height, MN 55118 Re: Variance Application – ISD 197 Henry Sibley High School, Mendota Heights, MN Mr. Benetti, West St. Paul-Mendota Heights-Eagan Area Schools (ISD 197) kindly submits the following Letter of Intent and Variance Application narratives for plans of a new multi-purpose athletic field complex located on the Henry Sibley High School property at 1897 Delaware Ave., Mendota Heights, MN 55118. The proposed project would finish design in the Fall of 2018 and start construction in the Spring of 2019 with occupancy in the Fall of 2019. We are excited to start this project and add value for and character to, not only our school district, but the communities and residents we serve. ISD 197 is confident that each of the requests listed are presented with diligent research and study of appropriateness as far as similar facilities, not only in the State of Minnesota, but those located in the City of Mendota Heights. The proposed project was overwhelmingly approved by the residents of ISD 197 in a showing of support for its schools and the proposed complex was a highlighted component among the projects proposed by the district. Staff of ISD 197, parents, students, community members and neighbors of Henry Sibley were all part of the final design concept, as presented. We are very appreciative of the work and commitment each of them provided to develop this wonderful asset to our district and community. ISD 197 is proud of its relationship and partnerships with the residents of all the cities within its borders. Thank you for your consideration of these items and if there are any questions or comments I can be reached at 651-403-7002. Regards, Peter Olson-Skog Superintendent, West St. Paul-Mendota Heights-Eagan Area Schools 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 P 651.403.7000 F 651.403.7010 www.isd197.org October 3, 2018 ISD 197 1 Letter of Intent All facilities owned and operated by ISD 197 in the City of Mendota Heights are located in R1 zoning areas and are an allowable use per city ordinance. A typical component to a high school facility is a complex designed to have varsity athletic and other curricular and non-curricular activities which are performed in an area viewable to the appropriate crowds (students, parents, staff, community members) outdoors and at different times of the day or night. After multiple meetings and discussions with city administration and a comprehensive review of current city codes there are accessory components to the proposed complex that require a variance in order to be included in the proposed project. Those components are: - Number of accessory structures - Size of accessory structures - Height of accessory structures Each of the components listed above have various contributing factors, use and meaning validating the reasonable inclusion in the complex and should be considered by the planning commission and city council. NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES City code is narrated in a conflicting manner between the amount of allowable accessory structures and the size of those structures in an R1 zone. For simplicity of review, ISD 197 will assume the amount of accessory structures permitted on a single property in an R1 district over 4 acres is four (4.) Currently, the 65-acre high school site has six (6) accessory buildings. The site also contains nine (9) bleacher seating areas. ISD 197 is seeking a variance to construct four (4) new accessory buildings broken down as follows: - Concessions/Restroom Building (1) - Team room/Storage Building (1) - Ticket Booth (1) - Press Box (with crows’ nest) (1) The proposed plan would eliminate: - Storage Building (1) In addition to these accessory buildings, the proposed plan also includes installation of: - New bleacher area (Home) – 1,500 seats - New bleacher area (Visitor) – 500 seats The proposed plan would eliminate: - Bleacher area – 154 seats October 3, 2018 ISD 197 2 SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES City code is narrated in a conflicting manner between the amount of allowable accessory structures and the size of those structures in an R1 zone. For simplicity of review, ISD 197 will assume the size of accessory structures permitted on a single property in an R1 district over 4 acres is 425 square feet. Currently, the 80-acre high school site has multiple accessory buildings, varying in size, covering approximately 2,500 total square feet. The site also contains bleacher seating areas covering approximately 2,000 total square feet. ISD 197 is seeking a variance to construct four (4) new accessory buildings totaling 3,630 additional square feet broken down as follows: - Concessions/Restroom Building – 1,550 SF - Team room/Storage Building – 1,500 SF - Ticket Booth – 160 SF - Press Box (with crows’ nest) – 420 SF The proposed plan would eliminate: - Storage Building – 158 SF In addition to these accessory buildings, the proposed plan also includes installation of: - New bleacher area (Home) – 6,200 SF - New bleacher area (Visitor) – 2,000 SF The proposed plan would eliminate: - Bleacher area – 616 SF HEIGHT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES City code requires that no accessory structure be taller than 15’ from the grade in which it is placed in an R1 zone. ISD 197 is seeking a variance for the following structures in terms of height: - Press Box (with crows’ nest) (1) – 36 Feet, top of handrail of crows’ nest (Placed on top of home bleacher section) from grade - Light Poles (4) – 80 Feet from grade In addition to these accessory buildings, height of bleacher sections would be: - (Home) bleacher area (1) – 26 (top of handrail) 15 (mid-point) feet from grade - (Visitor) bleacher area (1) – 19.5 (top of handrail) 10 (mid-point) feet from grade October 3, 2018 ISD 197 3 Application Requirements In your opinion does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Yes. A complex, as proposed, is a typical component to a high school site. There are hundreds of examples meeting or exceeding the proposed scope in the State of Minnesota, the Twin Cities metro area, as well as one within the City of Mendota Heights at St. Thomas Academy. ISD 197 along with LSE Architects and AJA, Inc., civil and landscape engineer, held multiple design input meetings with various stakeholders to achieve the final plan as proposed. All of the components within the proposal are included for specific reason and use. Staff of the district, parents, students, community members and neighbors to the site were all part of the design creation. The number of structures, the size of the structures and the height of all structures were discussed to ensure that they were appropriate for the complex, the overall school site and the neighborhoods adjoining the property. Extra-Curricular activities such as Football, Soccer and Lacrosse are offered at Henry Sibley High School and currently held off-site at Heritage Middle School. Henry Sibley does not have the appropriate facilities and/or accessory structures to accommodate these programs on site. Outside of curriculum and school sponsored athletics, Community Education programs serving the public from young children to senior citizens will also take advantage of the proposed complex to partake in organized sports, club team athletics and ‘open’ use for walking and running. The proposed complex, without the proposed accessory structures included for variance, would be difficult to maintain, operate and use. A multi-purpose complex as proposed without appropriate storage areas for materials and equipment would leave them exposed to weather, vandalism and theft. Providing enclosed and secure storage areas ensures that items such as grounds equipment (mowers, sweepers, plows, etc.), athletic equipment (hurdles, pads, netting, etc.) and audio/video equipment (sound boards, cameras, microphones, etc.) are kept out of view during the day to day use of the complex and secure from those not authorized to use it. Restroom facilities, a concession stand, and press box are all contributing factors to the utilization of the complex. Eliminating Reducing the quantity or not allowing the structures as proposed would lead to less control of food and beverage consumption, a greater number of ‘port a potties’ and inability to use camera and communications equipment to monitor the field and record/broadcast events. The size of each of the proposed buildings and structures are typical and reasonable with a complex as presented. There are numerous examples of similar structures around the metro area that prove appropriate to serve the visitors yet remain humble in overall square footage. With approval of the bond referendum in May of 2018, the proposed project is held to a strict construction budget as well. The size of all structures was carefully reviewed by the design team and participating stakeholders to validate the use would be appropriate for occupants and visitors of the complex yet remain within the guidelines of the budget previously established based on similar projects around the state. October 3, 2018 ISD 197 4 Similar to the quantity and size of the accessory structures, the height of the structures is typical with a complex of this use. The combination of the “Home” side bleachers and the press box which will sit on top of the bleachers, is a reasonable application for a complex not only with countless examples in the state, but also very comparable to that of the other complex located in Mendota Heights at St. Thomas Academy. The press box and bleacher section will be located in a manner to use existing and new tree foliage to cover them from the adjacent property line and neighbors. The height of the visitor side bleachers will be in line with the existing set of bleachers in that general location which has been on site for over a decade. In order to utilize the complex to its full potential, games and events will occur when natural daylight is no longer available. The installation of lights is a typical and reasonable component of a complex of this nature and the request for an 80 foot height of the light fixtures allows for a more precise and focused aiming of the light onto the field surface. ISD 197 is aware that the requirement in an R1 zone that the foot-candles allowed at the property line is 0. ISD 197 is not seeking a variance to adjust that requirement. Please refer to the photometric attachment to this submittal for verification that no light ‘bleed’ will come from the proposed lighting installations. There are multiple light fixture and pole combinations to choose from and the design team, staff, students, community members and neighbors to the site agreed that an 80- foot-tall pole with focused LED light fixtures was the best solution for this complex and it’s neighbors. Shorter poles, different fixtures and quantity of fixtures were all explored during the design process and agreed to be more restricting, obtrusive or out of date with the technology of today (LED fixtures). The amount of accessory structures, the size of the structures and the height of the structures all fall within the reasonable expectation of complex serving the enrollment of Henry Sibley High School and ISD 197. As a reference for reasonable use, listed below are high schools comparable to Henry Sibley that offer similar multi-purpose athletic fields. Each of the included examples contain: -Ticket Booth/Concessions building(s) -Storage building(s) -Larger “Home” bleacher, smaller “Visitor” bleacher -Light Poles -Press box located at the top of the “Home” bleacher as well as the other included components of the proposed project: -Track (excluding St. Anthony) -Football, Soccer, Lacrosse Field -Parking lot October 3, 2018 ISD 197 5 St. Thomas Academy St. Croix Lutheran October 3, 2018 ISD 197 6 Simley High School Eagan High School October 3, 2018 ISD 197 7 Richfield High School Academy of Holy Angels October 3, 2018 ISD 197 8 White Bear Lake Area High School Roseville Area High School October 3, 2018 ISD 197 9 St. Anthony High School Please describe circumstances unique to the property (not created by you). The property is unique due to a number of factors. Most importantly it contains a public-school facility. Everyday there are approximately 1,500 to 2,000 students, staff and visitors who enter and leave the site. The site is 65 acres of substantial elevation change and bordered by typical residential neighborhoods on the North, East and West and a highway to the South. The original building was built in 1970, prior to the vast majority of the surrounding homes and neighborhoods. The building is approximately 350,000 sf and there are seven (7) baseball and softball fields, three (3) soccer fields, twelve (12) tennis courts, a running track and over 500 hundred parking spots included in the 65-acre site. The building supports all 9th through 12th grade students of ISD 197 and the curricular and extra-curricular actives of those students. The property hosts physical education courses, school athletics, Community Education programs and community athletic programs and events. The property is owned and operated by an Independent School District of the State of Minnesota and heavily used by the residents of the District. October 3, 2018 ISD 197 10 In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the neighborhood? Yes. In harmony with a sentence from City of Mendota Heights’ own vision statement, “Excellent schools and a well-educated populace complement the traditional but progressive character of the City.” residents of Mendota Heights and of ISD 197 voted to approve a $117,000,000 bond referendum in May of 2018. The overwhelming approval indicates that the residents not only support the District and its initiatives but are proud to be part of what the District brings to the communities it serves. Henry Sibley High School has sat perched atop the rolling 65-acre site prior to the vast majority of the homes and neighborhoods that surround it, however development in the 1970s quickly progressed, as it typically does around school sites due to it being an attractive location for any residential property. Building on a long-standing tradition of success, the project the residents approved in May will allow the character of the School District and the City of Mendota Heights simultaneously to meet the vision of a traditional but progressive community. Improved building appearance, addition of major site amenities and overall updating of the facility will fit well with the character of the neighborhood and the middle to upper bracket homes surrounding the property. Additional Considerations ISD 197 is aware of the impact this project will have on the community and even more expressly aware of the impact on the direct neighbors. Every measure is being taken to ensure the performers and visitors to the property will receive the experience expected, but also keep that experience within the property limits. The District acknowledges the perceptions of neighbors that there will be an increase in sound, light and traffic from the property due to the proposed project. As a commitment to character, partnership and solidarity to the neighbors of Henry Sibley High School, the following items will be included in the installation or operation of the proposed complex: - Adherence to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency guidelines (as adopted by City of Mendota Heights) in terms of sound levels and duration. - Additional trees, shrubs and landscaping surrounding the proposed project to provide additional sound buffering and visual screening. - Design of, and installation of, sound equipment to minimize sound impact. - Fence the complex to direct parking to the existing parking lot. - Fence the complex to direct visitors to a single entrance location located off the existing parking lot. - Monitor parking and traffic during and after any event for safety and security. - Reduce lighting and sound system use immediately following any event to that required for cleaning and exiting of visitors. - Any use of sound or lighting equipment is monitored/operated by district staff for any event. October 3, 2018 ISD 197 11 Additional Resource Materials Real Estate Value There are seemingly countless articles and professional opinions on whether or not a school district itself has an impact on property values. However, a study on the effect of a complex with lights, bleachers and accessory buildings on a home’s values is not readily available. While the determination of impact of the proposed project on the neighboring homes can never be conclude prior to the actual implementation of the project, and possibly not even then, one very consistent theme found is that a good school district will increase a home’s value. ISD 197, with the support of the residents shown in May, feels the impact on character and value the West St Paul-Mendota Heights-Eagan area is a positive one. Please find the attached articles for reference: - Realtor.com, “How Much Do School Districts Affect Real Estate Prices?” - Publicschoolreview.com, “What is the Connection Between Home Values and School Performance?” - Globalpropertyguide.com, “Does school proximity and school quality affect residential property value?” -Time.com, “Your Home Might Be More Expensive If It’s Near A Good School.” Beyond the attached articles, please find a professional opinion of a Certified Real-estate Appraiser in the State of Minnesota, Sandy Hoff with F.I. Slater. His conclusion, in summary, he does not believe that the proposed project will not have a negative impact on the home values of the properties located around the high school site. Traffic There are two events in a typical school year that the draw the largest crowds, the Homecoming and Warrior Rally football games. In 2017 the attendance was 2,052 and 1,913 respectfully. In 2018, Warrior Rally brought 1,486 attendees to the field at Heritage Middle School. Homecoming in 2018 will not take place prior to this submittal. Over the last two years the average football game has an attendance of 1,230 students, parents, staff and community members including Homecoming and Warrior Rally. With the average attendance at a football game being approximately two-thirds that of the student, staff and visitor attendance during a typical instructional day at Henry Sibley, access and impact on surrounding roads will be minimal. This impact was also studied by Spack Consulting, a respected traffic study consultant in the state of Minnesota, their report is attached. Football game attendance numbers for 2017 9/15/17 – STA (Warrior Rally) 1,913 9/22/17 – SSP (Homecoming) 2,052 10/13/17 – Simley 884 10/18/17 – Apple Valley 772 10/24/17 – Hastings (Sect. Playoff) 816 Football game attendance numbers for 2018 8/30/18 – Hastings 821 9/7/18 – Tartan (Warrior Rally) 1,486 9/28/18 – Park 1,101 October 1, 2018 Mr. Ryan Hoffman Project Development ICS Consulting, Inc. 3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 180 Blane, MN 55449 Re: Henry Sibley High School Stadium Enhancement Plan Dear Mr. Hoffman: I am responding to your request for information regarding the potential influence on surround property values due to the proposed Henry Sibley High School Multipurpose Activities Complex enhancement project. Following are my thoughts and conclusions. Project Overview Summary: Henry Sibley High School is located on the southwest corner of Marie Avenue West and Delaware Avenue in Mendota Heights, MN. The school property comprises approximately 65 acres and is bounded on the north, east and west by single family residential development and on the south by Highway 110. The primary school building is situated in the central region of the site with a track and soccer field located at the northwest corner and a baseball field at the northeast corner. A pedestrian bike path and interspersed mature conifer and deciduous trees are located near the northwest property line providing a buffer from the residential development. A row of deciduous and conifer trees is located along the Marie Avenue right of way just north of the existing sports and track facility. Topographic features in the area include level or gently undulating terrain with an earth berm extending along the east side of Warrior Drive. Based on the stadium design data provided, the project scope includes significantly upgrading the existing sports and track field. Primary enhancement will include a new synthetic turf filed, “Home Bleachers” on the west side with a capacity of 1,500 people, “Visitor Bleachers” on the east side with a capacity of 500 people, a pole-vault and long triple jump area at the northwest corner, shot put at the northeast corner and enhance plaza/gathering area and concession stand. I also understand stadium lighting and sound systems will be added. While the footprint of the sports facilities will be expanded to the west, north and east, it does not appear the existing vegetation along the property lines will be impacted. October 1, 2018 Mr. Ryan Hoffman Page 2 of 2 Proposed Stadiums Influence On Market Value. The impetus for this analysis is concern about the potential negative influence on market value due to the proposed stadium enhancements. Having been involved in the valuation of numerous public improvement and condemnation projects over the past 31 years, I understand and respect the concerns of surrounding property owners. It is human nature to be comfortable with what is known about their property and concerned about the influence on value from a proposed project like those planned for the Henry Sibley Sports facilities. In this situation, I understand the primary concerns are related to stadium lighting and stadium sound. Advances in technology over the past 5+ years have greatly enhanced the ability to reduce or eliminate negative impacts on surrounding properties due to these factors. Advanced LED stadium lighting can be focused on the field and viewing stands thus reducing spillover into surrounding properties. Similarly, new sound system technology can focus speakers at the crowd and field, again reducing the spillover to surrounding properties. Despite these technology advances, some light and sound spillover may occur to surrounding properties. So, a determination must be made as to the impact, if any on property values. I have reviewed single-family residential home values surrounding high school stadiums and my analysis does not yield any discernable difference in market value as compared to comparable properties not located proximate to high school stadiums. Certainly, property owners located near proposed stadium improvements may have concern about the impact on property value and personally may not be supportive of the proposed improvements. However, in general, the data does not depict a long-term negative influence on residential home market values due to their proximity to high school stadiums. Please let me know if additional information is desired. Regards Sanford (Sandy) Hoff MN Certified General Real Property Appraiser How Much Do School Districts Affect Real Estate Prices? By Sam DeBord When people buy a home, a number of factors influence their decision. The look of the home, as well as its size, layout, age, and proximity to amenities are all important, depending on the buyer. The local school district is a factor with significant influence. We've always known that good schools attract families with school-age children, but recent statistics add concrete numbers and surprising trends to the storyline. Extreme school buyers When looking at trends, it's often entertaining to find the extremes. The best school districts near Seattle have recently seen a huge influx of buyers from China, paying premium cash prices for homes that many are purchasing for their future grandchildren. Neighborhoods on the east side are seeing large numbers of buyers who merely want to know where the best schools are, and are then buying remotely, without viewing the houses in person. These buyers greatly value education. The domestic home-buying population also clearly values the right school. A 2013 realtor.com® survey of nearly 1,000 prospective home buyers showed that 91 percent said school boundaries were important in their search. Dedication to Education I personally know the importance of school boundaries. When our first child reached school age, my wife and I went house hunting with school-boundary maps in hand. If a home was one block outside our favorite elementary school's boundaries, we didn't even go in. The look of the home, the neighborhood, and how it was laid out were all factors that could disqualify it from our list, but the primary hurdle for every home was that school boundary line. Consumers are willing to sacrifice certain things to live in the right school district. Some of the realtor.com survey results were surprising: One out of five buyers would give up a bedroom or a garage for a better school. One out of three would purchase a smaller home to wind up in the right district. Buyers are also willing to put their money where their mouths are. One out of five home buyers said they would pay six to 10 percent above their budget for the right school. One out of 10 would double that to 20 percent. Considering that premium could approach $100,000 in a lot of markets, it makes you wonder: How much investment in a school district is appropriate? Do School Districts Influence Home Prices or Vice Versa? Conversations about schools and their effect on a home's value are often of the "chicken or the egg" variety. Homes in the best school districts, on average, sell for higher prices than similar homes in less-popular school districts. A simple analysis might say that good schools are wholly responsible for this added value. At the same time, on average, more affluent home owners live in more sought-after school districts. Statistics often show that for large sample sizes, the more affluence there is in a community, the higher test scores will be in that same community. Test scores are just one measure of "good schools," but they're a highly quoted measure. There can be a self-reinforcing mechanism here that might overemphasize the effect of the school itself on the prices of those homes. One might even hypothesize that the high home prices make the schools better. Consumer Demand Shows Clear Connection In the end, though, it's hard to deny that there is strong consumer demand for good schools. Demand drives prices higher for a limited product like real estate. We probably can't pinpoint exactly how much that demand has on home prices, because the market is How Much Do School Districts Affect Real Estate Prices? https://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/the-right-school-district-how-much-... 1 of 2 9/28/2018, 2:57 PM so complex and every home buyer's decision weighs so many different factors. Clearly, though, consumer demand is large enough that we can conclude that good schools do increase home values in some measure. Half of the home-buying population is willing to pay more than their intended budget to get into the right school district, and more than half would give up other amenities. Making a decision on buying a home should definitely include an analysis of the school district, even for buyers who don't intend to send children to those schools. Good schools provide stability for a community, and that's good for the property values of everyone who lives nearby. Sam DeBord is a REALTOR® and Managing Broker of The Seattle Homes Group with Coldwell Banker Danforth. You can find his team at SeattleHome.com and SeattleCondo.com. How Much Do School Districts Affect Real Estate Prices? https://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/the-right-school-district-how-much-... 2 of 2 9/28/2018, 2:57 PM Does school proximity and school quality affect residential property value? Global Property Guide Enter your login email address and instructions for resetting your password will be sent. If you do not receive an email within 15 minutes, please check your spam folder or contact us for help. Email: This question kind of answers itself but not always for the reasons we think. Properties that are near to good schools and lie in close proximity to schools are in general more valuable than properties that aren’t. Are the properties more valuable because the schools are good or are good schools built in areas that are natural feeders? Private school attract higher income families and it makes sense to build these schools in areas that are more affluent. Good schools usually come bundled with other neighbourhood qualities-- such as proximity to employment, shopping and recreational amenities. Homebuyers who enjoy (and can afford) such amenities tend to congregate together. So how do you isolate the effect of schools from the effect of these other traits that accompany good schools and good neighbourhoods? It would seem intuitive that the closer a property is to a school; the more desirable the property would be to families with children served by these schools. The benefits which are valued by parents relate either directly or indirectly to accessibility to the school (most apparent in terms of the safety of and time spent by children commuting to school). This increase in desirability could result in increased value of the property relative to similar properties at greater distances to the school. Studies have shown significant relationship between a residential property’s proximity to public schools and the property’s value as predicted by sales prices. The further a property is away from the schools, the less value a property might have. Based on studies of neighbourhoods where a school was closed down and the before and after effects analysed, it has been shown that if a school closes down the negative impact is both based on the school closing and the perceived negative impact of disinvestment in a particular area. Further the impact of proximity was more consistent over time than school quality. The impact is consistently significant for all school levels and over time. So while the obvious benefits of good schools and proximity to them have been noted it’s also important to note that too many schools in an area, no matter how good the schools are, may actually serve as a disadvantage. Not everyone wants to live near schools and certainly not too many. The increase in traffic and noise may be off- putting to many, particular those not enjoying the advantage of these schools. Does school proximity and school quality affect residential property value? https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/news-Does-school-proximity-and-... 1 of 1 9/28/2018, 3:02 PM Your Home Might Be More Expensive If It's Near A Good School Kerry Close If you own a house in a good school district, it might pay off in more than the value to your child’s education. Homes within the boundaries of highly-rated public school districts are about 49% more expensive than the national median price of $269,000, according to a report released Wednesday from Realtor.com. They’re also 77% more expensive than homes located within lower-ranked school districts, which have a median price of $225,000. In its analysis, Realtor.com compared homes in districts with a 9 or 10 rating on GreatSchools.org to those in districts rated 6 or less. The researchers also looked at the premium good schools fetched in their local markets. Houses within the Beverly Hills United School District enjoyed the highest school premium relative to their neighbors: In this district, which has a 9 rating, homes sold for about 689% more—at a median price of $3.8 million—than other homes in Los Angeles County, at about $550,000. Beverly Hills is followed by homes in Texas’s Highland Park Independent School District, where prices are about 632% higher than in the rest of Dallas county. Homes within the borders of Kenilworth School District 38, in Cook County, Ill., are about 606% more expensive than those in the rest of the county. Read More: Why You Should Think About Refinancing Your Mortgage (Again) “It’s common knowledge that buyers are often willing to pay a premium for a home in a strong school district,” Javier Vivas, research analyst for realtor.com, said in a statement. “Our analysis quantifies just how good it is to be a seller in these areas.” Properties within above-average school districts also sell, on average, eight days faster than homes located in below-average school districts. They also sell about four days faster than the national average of 62 days. It’s no surprise that educational quality is an important consideration for many prospective homeowners. Indeed, the report shows that homes located in highly rated school districts are viewed an average of 26% more than the typical home—and about 42% more than homes in areas with below-average schools. Rocky River City School District in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, ranks as the district with the highest demand for homes. Listings in the suburban Cleveland school district get 2.8 times more views than other areas in the same county. The second-most popular school district is Clear Creek Independent School District in Harris County, Tex., which gets 2.2 times as many listing views as the rest of the county. “While highly ranked school districts in these markets have pushed home prices higher than their surrounding areas, the majority of these high demand markets are relatively affordable when compared to the national median, which is a big factor contributing to their popularity,” Vivas said. Your Home Might Be More Expensive If It's Near A Good School http://time.com/money/4446566/home-premium-school-district/ 1 of 2 9/28/2018, 3:04 PM What is the Connection Between Home Values and School Performance? Updated March 24, 2017 | by Grace Chen Is there a real relationship between expensive houses and better public schools? A new report sheds light on the connection between property value and school quality. Families often choose the location of their next home by where their children will go to school. As focus on school performance has become more astute thanks to a rising emphasis on test scores and completion rates, home shoppers have become more cautious in their selections as well. Do schools directly affect home values in a neighborhood? The answer may depend on where you are shopping for your next home. Home Values and School Spending According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, there is a definite correlation between school expenditures and home values in any given neighborhood. A report titled, “Using Market Valuation to Assess Public School Spending,” found that for every dollar spent on public schools in a community, home values increased $20. These findings indicate that additional school expenditures may benefit everyone in the community, whether or not those residents actually have children in the local public school system. While the findings of this national study are compelling, they do not paint a full picture of the link between school spending and home values. According to the website, some school districts may operate more efficiently, so while expenditures are lower, the quality of education is still high. In addition, the size of the district or proximity of schools from neighboring districts could impact the perception of a specific school’s value, beyond the simple expenditure formula. Researchers that published the report also found that wealthy school districts, where home values may tend to be higher, spend their funding more efficiently. The greatest spending was seen in school districts filled with low- income families, large districts and districts containing fewer homes – areas where home values may be lower overall. The results indicate that while home buyers may associate school quality with spending to some degree, this factor will not be the most significant one in influencing home values. Still, the trend has been noted on a national level, which offers some credibility to the association between the two. New Ratings Impact Housing Prices What is the Connection Between Home Values and School Performance? https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/what-is-the-connection-betwe... 1 of 2 9/28/2018, 2:59 PM In 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported on a higher correlation between school performance and home values, which fluctuates somewhat in different states and school districts. According to the report, the increased availability of school data has led to more families searching for homes based on the quality of schools in the neighborhood than ever before. Today, a family in the market for a new home in a different location need only look as far as the Internet to find information on standardized test scores, completion rates and student-teacher ratios to rank schools in the area where they are headed. According to the Wall Street Journal, when the state of Florida rolled out its new grading system for all the schools in the state, home values were directly impacted by the new system. In fact, homes in neighborhoods with A-rated schools increased their value by as much as $10,000 over a similar home in the vicinity of a B-rated school. As the grading system continued over a number of years, that gap has widened. Now, home values could vary by anywhere from $50,000 to $300,000 a home, based on the current rating of the school in that neighborhood. National Look at Home Values and Schools A more recent study by the Brookings Institution found that housing costs tend to be higher in areas where high- scoring schools are located. The study, which looked at the 100 largest metro areas in the country, found an average difference of $205,000 in home prices between houses near high-performing and low-performing schools. Homes around high-performing schools also tended to be larger, with 1.5 more rooms than homes near low- performing institutions. In addition, the number of rentals in areas near high-performing schools is around 30 percent lower. “We think of public education as being free, and we think of the main divide in education between public and private schools,” Jonathan Rothwell of the Brookings Institution was quoted as saying at the website for the National Association of Realtors. “But it turns out that it’s actually very expensive to enroll your children in a high- scoring public school.” Good for Home Values, Hard for Relocating Families While this news may be good for individuals concerned about the value of their current home, it can create challenges for families looking to relocate to a new neighborhood. The coveted school district in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, is filled with homes priced at the top of the housing market in the state, making for plenty of financial challenges for families that want their children to benefit from the top-rated schools in the area. Even families that can afford the higher home prices may find houses snatched up so fast, they have a hard time landing a contract on a home that meets their needs. In addition, the differences in home prices may contribute to the educational disparities that occur between low- and middle to high-income students. Those who can afford to move to a higher quality school district often do, leaving those who cannot afford the same luxury stuck in subpar institutions. In addition, the difference in home values often leads to more segregated schools, which also lead to further disparities in education and subsequent income levels. Still, the association between home values and quality education can be a boon to those living in a neighborhood with an in-demand public school. As data continues to be published about school performance nationwide, the expectation is that the trend with continue, and even increase, on a district, state and national level. What is the Connection Between Home Values and School Performance? https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/what-is-the-connection-betwe... 2 of 2 9/28/2018, 2:59 PM Henry Sibley High School 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 West St. Paul-Mendota Hts.-Eagan School District - ISD #197 Property is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and R-1A One Family Residential Dakota County Parcel ID Nos. 270250002010,270250001030, 270250001020, 270250001040, 270250001050, 270250001060, and 270250003010 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED The South 7 acres of the North 12 acres of the East one-half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty-three. AND The West 426 feet of the North one-half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section twenty-five, Township twenty-eight North, Range twenty-three West, except the North 40 feet thereof. AND The West One-Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty-three, Dakota County. AND The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty-three. AND The Southerly One Hundred feet of the Easterly Two Hundred Twenty feet of the North One half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty-three, subject to the rights of the Public Over the Easterly Thirty feet thereof for Roadway purposes. commonly known as "Delaware Avenue". AND The South One Hundred feet of the North One Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight, Range Twenty- three, except the West Four Hundred Twenty-Six feet, and also except the East Two Hundred Twenty feet thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. AND The South Eight Acres of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Twenty-five, Township Twenty-eight North, Range Twenty- three West. EXCEPT The West 40 feet of the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 25, T28N, R23W, excepting the North 40 feet for street. ALSO EXCEPT That portion of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 25, T28N, R23W. Commencing at the NW corner of said SE 1/4 NE 1/4 thence east 40 feet, thence South 262.50 feet, thence Southeasterly 221.97 feet along an arc of 1,106.28 feet radius concave Northeasterly, thence S11°30'E, 95.16 ft., thence Southerly 238.03 feet along an arc of 1,186.28 feet radius concave Southwesterly, thence South 384 feet more or less to the North right of way line of T.H. 110, thence Westerly 105.0 feet to the West line of said SE 1/4 NE 1/4, thence North l,l97.00 feet more or less, to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT All that part of the following described tract: The southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 25, township 28 north, range 23 west, except highways; which lies southerly of a line run parallel with and distant 75 feet northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the east line of said section 25, distant 364.03 feet north of the east quarter corner thereof; thence run westerly at an angle of 90°17'45" with said east section line (when measured from north to west) for 41.28 feet; thence deflect to the left on a 16°00' curve (delta angle 40°00') for 250 feet; thence on tangent to said curve for 101.75 feet; thence deflect to the right on an 8°00' curve (delta angle 40°00') for 500 feet thence on tangent to said curve for 600 feet and there terminating. ALSO EXCEPT The east 30.00 feet of the North 1/2 of Section 25, Township 28, Range 23, dedicated on the Plat of Delaware. Property is located in Dakota County, Minnesota. TITLE COMMITMENT This survey was prepared without the benefit of current title work. Easements, appurtenances, and encumbrances may exist in addition to those shown hereon. This survey is subject to revision upon receipt of a current title insurance commitment or attorney's title opinion. 1234567898765432112345678989764532112345678940302010403020105040302010 40 30 20 1050 HIGH JUMP(~50' x 120')129.66'SETBACK723.52'172.60'SETBACK68.37'SETBACK43.00'SETBACK138.65'SETBACKDROP OFF11BUS DROP OFF ARCH 100'-0"= CIVIL ~966.5'188259 1282410 1026 3417050100ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.com&RS\ULJKWE\/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYHenry Sibley High School1897 Delaware AvenueMendota Heights, MN 55118West St. Paul-Mendota Hts.-Eagan School District - ISD #197THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 One Family Residential and R-1A One Family ResidentialEXISTING PARKING COUNTS:508 PARKING STALLSPROPOSED PARKING (NEW PARKING, EVENT STRIPING):162 (NET ADD) PARKING STALLSTOTAL PARKING:670 PARKING STALLSPARKING REQUIREMENTS (STADIUM): - BLEACHER SEATING (1,500 (HOME) + 500 (VISITOR)) = 2,000 SEATS @ 3:1 = 667 SEATS REQUIRED670 PROVIDED (REQUIREMENT IS MET)SITE STATISTICS:C1.0SITE REFERENCE PLANC1.2 SITE LAYOUT PLANC1.4 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANC1.5 SITE UTILITY PLANC2.1 SITE DETAILSC2.1 SITE DETAILSB1.1 HOME GRANDSTAND PLAN, SECTION, DETAILS, NOTESB1.2 VISITOR BLEACHER PLAN, SECTION, DETAILS, NOTESB1.3 PRESS BOX PLAN, SECTION, DETAILS, NOTESA1.1CONCESSIONS AND TOILET BUILDING - PLAN AND SECTIONSEXH1BOUNDARY, LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHIC AND UTILITY SURVEY (1 of 9)DRAWING INDEX 19/27/2018CHANGE CUP-VARIANCE 129.66' SETBACK 723.52' 172.60' SETBACK 68.37'SETBACK43.00'SETBACK138.65' SETBACK 11 18 8 259 12 8 24 101026 34 17 EXISTING PARKING COUNTS:508 PARKING STALLS PROPOSED PARKING (NEW PARKING, EVENT STRIPING):162 (NET ADD) PARKING STALLS TOTAL PARKING:670 PARKING STALLS PARKING REQUIREMENTS: - BLEACHER SEATING 2,000 SEATS @ 3:1 = 667 SEATS REQUIRED 670 PROVIDED (REQUIREMENT IS MET) PROOF OF PARKING: 1234567898765432112345678989764532112345678940302010403020105040302010 40 30 20 1050 HIGH JUMP(~50' x 120')01530ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.com&RS\ULJKWE\/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYNOTES:LEGENDBASELINE FOR DIMENSIONSPOINT OF INTERSECTIONPOINT OF TANGENCYPOINT OF COMPOUND CURVATUREBUILDING STOOP - REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINE1.REFER TO SHEET C1.4- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN FOR GENERALNOTES.2.ALL APPLICABLE DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB, EDGE OFPAVEMENT, CENTERLINE OF FENCE, OR PROPERTY LINE UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.3. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFOREFIELD LAYOUT.4.SIGNAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED 18" BEHIND THE BACK OF CURB OR EDGEOF PAVEMENT.PIPTPCC 1234567898765432112345678989764532112345678940302010403020105040302010 40 30 20 1050 HIGH JUMP(~50' x 120')01530ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.com&RS\ULJKWE\/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYNOTES:LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)PROPOSED CONCRETE WALKPROPOSED CONCRETE SLABPROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTPROPOSED MEDIUM DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTPROPOSED AGLIMEPROPOSED TRACK AND EVENT PAVEMENT WITH RESILIENTSURFACINGPROPOSED TRACK AND EVENT PAVEMENT WITHOUT RESILIENTSURFACINGPROPOSED RETAINING WALLPROPOSED CHAIN LINK FENCINGPROPOSED CHAIN LINK FENCING WITH MAINTENANCE STRIPFENCING KEY NOTE (SEE BELOW)PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNSIGNAGE KEY NOTEPAINTED ACCESSIBLE SYMBOLPROPOSED MANHOLE (MH)PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB)PROPOSED GATE VALVE (GV)PROPOSED FLAGPOLEPROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TO ARCHITECTURALPLANSPROPOSED LIGHT POLE - REFER TO ELECTRICAL PLANSPROPERTY LINE1.REFER TO SHEET C1.4- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN FOR GENERALNOTES.2. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFOREFIELD LAYOUT.3.SIGNAGE SHALL GENERALLY BE INSTALLED 18" BEHIND THE BACK OFCURB.4.ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOTDESIGNATED TO BE PAVED SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST 6" OF TOPSOIL ANDSHALL BE SODDED OR SEEDED.5.WHERE NEW SOD MEETS EXISTING TURF, EXISTING TURF EDGE SHALL BECUT TO ALLOW FOR A CONSISTENT, UNIFORM STRAIGHT EDGE. JAGGED ORUNEVEN EDGES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE. REMOVE TOPSOIL AT JOINTBETWEEN EXISTING AND NEW AS REQUIRED TO ALLOW NEW SOD SURFACETO BE FLUSH WITH EXISTING.6. FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILSTO PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SOD ORRE-SEED ALL APPLICABLE AREAS, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THEOWNER, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.7.TREE PROTECTION - INSTALL ORANGE SNOW FENCE AT DRIP LINE.MAINTAIN FOR DURATION OF PROJECT.8.COMM BOXES IN TURF FIELD TO HAVE COVERS TO ACCEPT SYNTHETICTURF (BY ON-SITE TURF CONTRACTOR); BOXES IN PAVEMENT TO HAVESOLID COVERSA1C7.114'CLFFENCING KEY NOTESREFERENCE KEY TO FENCING FENCE HEIGHT (TOP) FENCE TYPE / GATE WIDTH OR TYPE (BOTTOM)EXAMPLES:CLF = CHAIN LINK FENCE4'W = 4' WIDE GATE12'S = 12' WIDE CANTILEVERED GATE4'CLF1. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELDLAYOUT.72/(5$1&(2)$///,1(66+$//%(3. THE CENTER FIELD LOGO SHALL BE OF INLAID GOLD, BLACK, GRAY ANDROYAL BLUE (VERIFY).4. STRIPING DIAGRAM(S) SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE WORK FORREVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE ENGINEER AND OWNER.5. DOMINANT COLORS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS (VERIFY): A. FOOTBALL FIELD LINES SHALL BE INLAID WHITE. B. SOCCER FIELD LINES SHALL BE INLAID YELLOW. C. MEN'S LACROSSE FIELD LINES SHALL BE INLAID BLACK. D. WOMEN'S LACROSSE LINES SHALL BE INLAID ROYAL BLUE.TURF FIELD STRIPING NOTES HIGH JUMP(~50' x 120')70.370.570.469.969.970.470.569.970.371.271.271.071.271.271.070.971.271.271.070.970.870.469.769.769.769.770.570.368.367.968.468.570.468.570.468.270.668.570.468.570.468.570.467.770.668.270.467.170.468.470.468.570.469.970.270.270.470.470.470.670.469.970.470.470.470.470.470.469.769.769.769.769.770.270.270.370.370.370.370.270.270.470.070.070.470.070.470.470.070.269.970.269.970.470.070.470.070.470.169.969.969.969.969.969.969.969.969.969.969.970.470.469.969.969.901530ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.com&RS\ULJKWE\/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYGENERAL NOTES1.ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCALORDINANCES.2.THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND SHALL PAY FOR ALLCONSTRUCTION STAKING / LAYOUT.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AND PAY FOR ALL RELATEDCONSTRUCTION PERMITS, INCLUDING THE NPDES PERMIT FROM THE MPCA.SUBMIT A COPY OF ALL PERMITS TO THE CITY.4.INSTALL CONTROL FENCING AND BARRICADING AS NECESSARY TOPROTECT THE PUBLIC.5.INSPECT SITE AND REVIEW SOIL BORINGS TO DETERMINE EXTENT OF WORKAND NATURE OF MATERIALS TO BE HANDLED.6.REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR DEWATERING REQUIREMENTS.7.CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELDLAYOUT.8.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR BUILDING AND STOOP DIMENSIONSAND LAYOUT.9.REFER TO THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP)NARRATIVE, PART OF SECTION 01 89 13, FOR EROSION CONTROLREQUIREMENTS. SECTION 31 00 00 SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FULLIMPLEMENTATION OF THE SWPPP.10.MAINTAIN ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PUBLIC STREETS CLEAN FROMCONSTRUCTION CAUSED DIRT AND DEBRIS ON A DAILY BASIS. PROTECTDRAINAGE SYSTEMS FROM SEDIMENTATION AS A RESULT OFCONSTRUCTION RELATED DIRT AND DEBRIS.11.MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL DURING GRADING OPERATIONS.12.ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS SHALL COMPLY WITH MPCA AND LOCALREGULATIONS.13.CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO SITE AND PROTECTEXISTING SITE FEATURES (INCLUDING TURF AND VEGETATION) WHICH ARETO REMAIN.14.PROPOSED CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN TO FINISHGRADE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.15.PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHOWN TYPICALLY AS 70.1 OR 70 SHALL BEUNDERSTOOD TO MEAN 970.1 OR 970.16.SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN IN PARKING LOTS, DRIVES AND ROADS INDICATEGUTTER GRADES, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SPOT ELEVATIONS WITHLABELS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PERIMETER INDICATE PROPOSED GRADESOUTSIDE THE BUILDING. SPOT ELEVATIONS WITH LABELS INSIDE THEBUILDING PERIMETER INDICATE PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS.17.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMININGQUANTITIES OF CUT, FILL AND WASTE MATERIALS TO BE HANDLED, AND FORAMOUNT OF GRADING TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO COMPLETELY PERFORM$//:25.,1',&$7('217+('5$:,1*6,0325768,7$%/(0$7(5,$/$1'(;32578168,7$%/((;&(66:$67(0$7(5,$/$65(48,5('$//COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPORTING AND EXPORTING MATERIALS SHALLBE INCIDENTAL TO THE CONTRACT.18.NO FINISHED SLOPES SHALL EXCEED 4' HORIZONTAL TO 1' VERTICAL (4:1),UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.19.ALL DISTURBED AREAS OUTSIDE THE BUILDING PAD WHICH ARE NOTDESIGNATED TO BE PAVED OR RECEIVE AGLIME, SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST6" OF TOPSOIL AND SHALL BE SEEDED. REFER TO SHEET C3.12 FINISHINGPLAN - CAMPUS PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS AND L1.11 LANDSCAPE ANDIRRIGATION PLAN, FOR SEED LOCATIONS.20.WHERE NEW SOD MEETS EXISTING SOD, EXISTING SOD EDGE SHALL BE CUTTO ALLOW FOR A CONSISTENT, UNIFORM STRAIGHT EDGE. JAGGED ORUNEVEN EDGES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE. REMOVE TOPSOIL AT JOINTBETWEEN EXISTING AND NEW AS REQUIRED TO ALLOW NEW SOD SURFACETO BE FLUSH WITH EXISTING.21.FAILURE OF TURF DEVELOPMENT: IN THE EVENT THE CONTRACTOR FAILSTO PROVIDE AN ACCEPTABLE TURF, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RE-SEED ORRE-SOD ALL APPLICABLE AREAS, AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER,TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENGINEER.22.ANY MANHOLE, CATCH BASIN, STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER, DRAINTILEOR OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCE FOR CONTAMINATION SHALL BE INSTALLEDAT LEAST 10 FEET HORIZONTALLY FROM ANY WATERMAIN PER MINNESOTAPLUMBING CODE. THIS ISOLATION DISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED FROMTHE OUTER EDGE OF THE PIPE TO THE OUTER EDGE OF THECONTAMINATION SOURCE (OUTER EDGE OF STRUCTURES OR PIPING ORSIMILAR).23.LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE AND INVERTELEVATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. VERIFY LOCATIONS, SIZES ANDELEVATIONS OF SAME BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONPROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONME = MATCH EXISTINGEOF = EMERGENCY OVERFLOWTW = TOP OF WALLBW = BOTTOM OF WALLPROPOSED GRADING LIMITSAPPROXIMATE SOIL BORING LOCATIONPROPOSED MANHOLE (MH)PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB)PROPOSED FLARED END SECTION (FES)PROPOSED HYDRANT (HYD)PROPOSED GATE VALVE (GV)PROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINE1C7.1197070.6 HIGH JUMP(~50' x 120')70.370.570.469.969.970.470.569.970.371.271.271.071.271.271.070.971.271.271.070.970.870.469.769.769.769.770.570.368.367.968.468.570.468.570.468.270.668.570.468.570.468.570.467.770.668.270.467.170.468.470.468.570.469.970.270.270.470.470.470.670.469.970.470.470.470.470.470.469.769.769.769.769.770.270.270.370.370.370.370.270.270.470.070.070.470.070.470.470.070.269.970.269.970.470.070.470.070.470.169.969.969.969.969.969.969.969.969.969.969.970.470.469.969.969.9137'-15" @ 3.14%MH101RIM= 963.0 (EXIST)INV= 954.3 (W-EXIST)INV= 954.4 (E-EXIST)INV= 957.4 (S-EXIST)INV= 957.0 (N)MH 102RIM = 969.4INV= 961.3 (E/W/S)48" IDR-1642CASTING TO BE BURIED 6"BELOW SYNTHETIC TURFMH 103RIM = 969.4INV= 963.9 (S/W/N)48" IDR-1642CASTING TO BE BURIED 6"BELOW SYNTHETIC TURFMH 104RIM = 969.4INV= 963.9 (S/E/N)48" IDR-1642CASTING TO BE BURIED 6"BELOW SYNTHETIC TURFTRENCH DRAIN (TYP)CB 3RIM = 970.0INV= 965.8648" IDR-2501CB 2RIM = 970.0INV= 965.2248" IDR-2501CB 1RIM = 970.0INV= 964.4648" IDR-2501CB 3RIM = 970.0INV= 964.5248" IDR-250164'- 12" PVC @ 1.00%76'- 12" PVC @ 1.00%56'- 12" PVC @ 1.00%62'- 12" PVC @ 1.00%517'- 12" PERF. PVC @ 0.50%518'- 12" PERF. PVC @ 0.50%6" WATERMAIN (TBD)4" SANITARY SEWER (TBD)01530ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.com&RS\ULJKWE\/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYNOTES1.REFER TO SHEET C1.4 - GRADING PLAN FOR GENERAL NOTES.2.ALL WATERMAIN SHALL BE AWWA C900, CAST IRON OD, DR 18, PVC PIPEINSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321. ALL WATERMAIN SHALL HAVEMINIMUM 8'-0" BURY (TOP OF PIPE TO FINISH GRADE).3.ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE PVC PIPE (ASTM D 3034, SDR 26),UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SANITARY SEWER INSTALLATION SHALL BE INACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321.4.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE RCP, CLASS III (MIN.), WITH FLEXIBLEWATERTIGHT JOINTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C-361 OR PVC PIPE (ASTMD3034, SDR 35) INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321, UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.5.FLEXIBLE JOINTS AT STORM SEWER PIPE CONNECTIONS TO STRUCTURES:a.IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, PROVIDEFLEXIBLE JOINTS AT ALL PIPE CONNECTIONS TO ALL STORM SEWERSTRUCTURES.b.ACCEPTABLE MANUFACTURERS / PRODUCTS:i.)(51&2³&21&5(7(0$1+2/($'$37256´25³/$5*(',$0(7(5:$7(567236´ii.35(666($/:$7(56723*5287,1*5,1*6´iii.OR APPROVED EQUAL.7.WATERMAIN AND WATER SERVICE PIPE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT LEAST 10FEET HORIZONTALLY FROM ANY MANHOLE, CATCH BASIN, STORM SEWER,SANITARY SEWER, DRAINTILE OR OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCE FORCONTAMINATION PER MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE. THIS ISOLATIONDISTANCE SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE OUTER EDGE OF THE PIPE TO THEOUTER EDGE OF THE CONTAMINATION SOURCE (OUTER EDGE OFSTRUCTURES OR PIPING OR SIMILAR).8.ANY MANHOLE, CATCH BASIN, STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER, DRAINTILEOR OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCE FOR CONTAMINATION SHALL BE INSTALLEDAT LEAST 10 FEET HORIZONTALLY FROM ANY WATERMAIN OR WATERSERVICE PIPE PER MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE. THIS ISOLATION DISTANCESHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE OUTER EDGE OF THE PIPE TO THE OUTEREDGE OF THE CONTAMINATION SOURCE (OUTER EDGE OF STRUCTURES ORPIPING OR SIMILAR).9.LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE AND INVERTELEVATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. VERIFY LOCATIONS, SIZES ANDELEVATIONS OF SAME BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.10.PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED BUILDING UTILITY SERVICES(STORM, SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN), VERIFY ALL PROPOSED BUILDINGUTILITY SERVICE PIPE SIZES, LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS WITH MECHANICALPLANS. COORDINATE CONSTRUCTION AND CONNECTIONS WITH MECHANICALCONTRACTOR.11.CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE LIMITS OF WALKS AND CURBING PRIOR TOINSTALLATION OF GATE VALVES, CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES. GATEVALVE AND MANHOLE LOCATIONS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO AVOIDPLACEMENT OF THESE STRUCTURES IN WALKS AND CURB AND GUTTER.CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE STAKED TO ALLOW CURB INLET TYPE CATCHBASINS TO BE PROPERLY LOCATED IN LINE WITH CURBING.LEGENDREFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM)EXISTING CONTOURPROPOSED CONTOURPROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONME = MATCH EXISTINGEOF = EMERGENCY OVERFLOWPROPOSED GRADING LIMITSPROPOSED SANITARY SEWERPROPOSED STORM SEWERPROPOSED WATERMAINPROPOSED DRAINTILE / FINGER DRAINPROPOSED MANHOLE (MH)PROPOSED CATCH BASIN (CB)PROPOSED TRENCH DRAIN CATCH BASIN (TD-CB)PROPOSED HYDRANT (HYD)PROPOSED GATE VALVE (GV)PROVIDE MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION AT CROSSING -PROVIDE VERTICAL BENDS IN WATERMAIN AS REQUIRED TOACCOMPLISHPROPOSED BUILDING STOOP - REFER TO ARCHITECTURALPLANSPROPERTY LINE1C7.1197070.61 ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.com&RS\ULJKWE\/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYROCK CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCEEXISTING PAVEMENT TO REMAIN2" TO 3" WASHED ROCKNOTE: PROVIDE WHERE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFICENTERS OR EXITS THE CONSTRUCTION SITE6" MINIMUM THICKNESSPIPE BEDDING - RCPNOTES:TRENCH SIDEWALLS TO MEET O.S.H.A REQUIREMENTS.UPPER 3 FT. OF BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 100%STANDARD PROCTOR DRY DENSITY. BELOW THIS ELEVATION, BACKFILLSHALL BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95% STANDARD PROCTOR DRY DENSITY.O.D. + 2' (MAX)FINAL SUBGRADELIGHTLYCOMPACTEDFILLCOMPACTED CRUSHED ROCKOR PEA GRAVEL - 100% PASSINGTHE 34" SIEVE AND A MAXIMUMOF 5% PASSING THE #10 SIEVE.SILT FENCEHEAVY DUTYNORMAL USEPOSTS:(IF USED WITHSUPPORT FENCE)POSTS:(IF USED WITHOUTSUPPORT FENCE) WOOD4" DIA. (MIN)@ 8' (MAX)SPACING2" SQ. (MIN)@ 4' (MAX)SPACING METAL1.3 lbs/lf (MIN.)@ 8' (MAX)SPACING1.0 lbs/lf (MIN.) "T" OR"U" SECTION @ 4'(MAX) SPACINGNOTE: DEPENDING UPON CONFIGURATION, ATTACH TO WIRE MESH WITHHOG RINGS, STEEL POSTS WITH TIE WIRES, OR WOOD POSTS WITH STAPLES5' MIN. LENGTH POSTENGINEERING FABRICOVERLAP FABRIC 6" ANDFASTEN @ 2' INTERVALSEXTEND WIRE MESH INTO TRENCHFABRIC ANCHORAGETRENCH BACKFILL WITHTAMPED NATURAL SOIL6" MIN.NATURAL SOILMETAL STAKE ORWOOD POSTOPTIONAL SUPPORTFENCE (WIRE MESH)CATCH BASINVARIES61"RIM ELEVATION"PRECAST COVER -8" THICKSTEPS - INSTALL ONDOWNSTREAM SIDE@ 16" O.C.RUBBER GASKET -TYP AT ALL JOINTSPRECAST CONCRETESECTIONGROUT SHELF ANDCHANNELSBASES SHALL BE 8"STANDARD PRECASTWITH 2" LEAN GROUT,OR POURED 8" SLABREINFORCED WITH6" x 6" 10/10 MESHPROVIDE FLEXIBLE JOINTAT CONNECTION -REFER TO SPECSSTORM SEWER PIPE - REFERTO PLAN FOR LOCATION,INVERT, AND SIZESMIN. 2 AND MAX. 5 ADJUSTINGRINGS. GROUT BETWEENRINGS, CASTING, AND ALONGOUTSIDE.METAL SEWER CASTING - REFERTO PLAN FOR TYPESTORM SEWER MANHOLEBASES SHALL BE 8" STANDARD PRECAST WITH 2" LEAN GROUT,OR POURED 8" SLAB REINFORCED WITH 6" x 6" 10/10 MESHVARIABLE27"5"MIN.COVER SHALL BE STAMPED"STORM SEWER"METAL SEWER CASTING - REFERTO PLAN FOR TYPEMIN. 2 AND MAX. 5 ADJUSTING RINGS.GROUT BETWEEN RINGS, CASTING, ANDALONG OUTSIDE.PRECAST CONCRETE CONE SECTIONSTEPS ON DOWNSTREAM SIDERUBBER GASKET, TYP ALL JOINTSGROUT SHELF AND CHANNELSPROVIDE FLEXIBLE JOINTAT CONNECTION - REFER TO SPECSRUNNING TRACK PAVEMENTNOTE:1. REFER TO FINISHING PLAN FOR RESILIENT SURFACING LIMITSAND EXTENTS2"2"VARIESEDGE TREATMENT WITHOUTCONCRETE CURBGRADING PLANELEVATION APPLIES TO TOPOF BINDER COURSE12" RESILIENT SURFACE112" BITUMINOUS WEARCOURSETACK COAT112" BITUMINOUS BINDERCOURSE6" AGGREGATE BASECOURSE48" SAND SUB-BASE ORTO POORLY GRADED'SP' SANDS112' OVERSIZETRENCH DRAIN CONNECTIONTO STORM SEWERSECTION VIEWPROFILE VIEW15" PERFORATED STORM SEWER15"PERFORATEDSTORM SEWERD-AREA PAVEMENTSLOTTED CHANNEL ORTRENCH DRAINSLOTTED CHANNEL ORTRENCH DRAIN CATCH BASIN6" PVC RISER PIPE6" PVC RISER PIPESLOTTED CHANNEL ORTRENCH DRAIN CATCH BASIN%(1'%(1'527$7('15" x 6" WYE (ROTATED)%(1'%(1'527$7('15" x 6" WYE (ROTATED)TRACKPAVEMENTCONCRETEENCASEMENT (4" MIN.)CONCRETEENCASEMENT (4" MIN.)C1.41C2.11812156.10"0.50"4.30"TRENCH DRAINSLOTTED CHANNEL ORTRENCH DRAIN4" MIN.4" MIN.PLACE CONCRETE ONPREPARED / APPROVED SAND SUB-BASESANDSUB-BASENEW 12" RESILIENTSURFACECONCRETE BEDDINGLEVELING BRICK18C2.1CHAIN LINK FENCENOTES:1. END, CORNER, GATE, AND PULL POSTS SHALLBE 3". LINE POSTS SHALL BE 2 1/2".2. ALL FENCING SHALL RECEIVE 2" x 2" #9GAUGE FABRIC UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.3. LINE POSTS MAY BE AIR DRIVEN.4. POST SPACING SHALL NOT EXCEED 10' O.C.5. BOTTOM RAIL SHALL BE PLACED NO MORETHAN 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE.1 5/8" TOP RAILCHAIN LINK FENCE1 5/8" BOTTOM RAILFINISH GRADECONCRETE MAINTENANCE STRIPCONCRETE FOOTING 8" x 48"FOR END, CORNER, GATE ANDPULL POSTS28C2.1DOUBLE SWING GATE LATCHNOTE: PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN GATE POST AND GATE SUCHTHAT GATE IS IN LINE WITH FENCING WHEN FULLY CLOSED AND LATCHED.1 1/2" LONG HANDLE(ONE ON EACH SIDEOF LATCH)LATCH RECEIVER(ONE EACH SIDEOF LATCH)LATCH ARM (ONE ONEACH SIDE OF GATE)LATCH HINGESECURE LATCH TO GATEPROVIDE MECHANISM TO ALLOWGATE TO BE SECURED WITHPAD LOCKSECURE LATCHRECEIVER TOGATESINGLE SWING GATE LATCHNOTE: PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE BETWEEN GATEPOST AND GATE SUCH THAT GATE IS IN LINE WITHFENCING WHEN FULLY CLOSED AND LATCHED.GATE LATCHCLAMP SECUREDTO GATE POSTLIFT HANDLELATCHLIFT HANDLE RECEIVERPROVIDE HOLE THROUGH LIFTHANDLE AND RECEIVER TOACCOMMODATE PAD LOCK(PAD LOCK BY OWNER)LIFT HANDLERECEIVER CLAMPSECURED TO GATEPOST3'-0" X 3'-0"SQUARESCOREBOARDTIES #3 @ 12" O.C., 40 GRADE3'-0" DIAMETERVERTICAL STEEL, 10 - #8BARS, 40 GRADECONDUIT AND FITTINGSBY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORTwo W10x33STEEL BEAMSEXISTING SCOREBOARD(DAKTRONICS FB2018)-VERIFY AND CONFIRM WITHSCOREBOARD MANUFACTURERALL MATERIALS NECESSARY FORINSTALLATION WHEN ORDERINGTHE CONTRACTOR SHALLREMOVE AND RE-INSTALL THEEXISTING ELECTRONICSCOREBOARD AT THE STADIUMFOOTBALL FIELD WHERESHOWN IN OPERATINGCONDITION. EXISTING SUPPORTSTRUCTURES AND MOUNTINGHARDWARE MAY BE RE-USED IFIN GOOD CONDITION ANDAPPROPRIATE FOR RE-USE.IN-GROUND COMM BOXLOCKABLE CIRCULARHAND HOLE COVERSFACTORY PROVIDED 38" DIA.PERFORATED DRAIN HOLES114" HIGH FLEXIBLE GASKET SEALS(FACTORY PRE-INSTALED - BOTHINTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PERIMETERS)SYNTHETIC INFILL TURFATTACHMENT LEDGE1" PVC DRAIN STUB FOR POSITIVE CONNECTIONTO SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMALUMINUM DIVIDER PANELLEVELING BOLTSSTAINLESS STEEL HARDWARENAILER BOARD34" ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION WITH OPENBOTTOM FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSESSYNTHETIC INFILL TURFLEVELING BRICKCONCRETE BACKING(MIN. 3" ALL SIDES)POROUS AGGREGATENOTE: REFER TO SHEET C3.1 FOR LOCATION OF COMM BOXES AND DESIGNATIONOF SOLID LID OR TURF - COVERED LID.LONG / TRIPLE JUMP PITWASHEDSAND FILL(15" DEPTH)48" SAND SUB-BASE OR TOPOORLY GRADED 'SP' SANDS6" WIDECONCRETE CURBPROVIDE WHITE PAINTED STRIPES AT 8', 24',28', 32', 36', AND 40' FROM LANDING PIT (SAND) -VERIFY WITH SCHOOL A.D. PRIOR TO MARKING6" WIDECONCRETE CURB5" CONCRETE (WITH 12"RESILIENT SURFACE)C2.115MEDIUM DUTY PAVEMENT1.5" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSETACK COAT1.5" BITUMINOUS BINDER COURSE6" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE12" SUBGRADE PREPARATION19'-8"C2.118CONCRETE WALK/SLAB1"2" MIN.5" (MIN) CONCRETE WALK4" SAND SUB-BASETYPICAL AT GRASS,LANDSCAPING,AND SOD AREASCOMPACTED SUBGRADED-SECTION PAVEMENT5" CONCRETE (WITH 12"RESILIENT SURFACE)SLOTTED CHANNEL ORTRENCH DRAIN48" SAND SUB-BASE OR TOPOORLY GRADED 'SP' SANDSCOMPACTED SUB-GRADE11PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINTTRACK PAVEMENT8"16"THICKEN EDGE TO 8"SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD12"PROVIDE WHITE PAINTED STRIPES AT 24', 28',32', 36', AND 40' FROM LANDING PIT (SAND) -VERIFY W/ SCHOOL A.D. PRIOR TO MARKING8" (VERIFY)2-1/4"FLIP FOR COMPETITIONTAKE-OFF BOARD-REFERTO SPEC'S4" FOUL BOARD- REFERTO SPEC'SWOODED CONCRETE FORM3/4" REVERSIBLE PLYWOODCONCRETENEW 1/2" POLYRESILIENT SURFNEW 1/2" POLYRESILIENT SURFRUNNING DIRECTIONPIPE BEDDING - PVCNOTES:TRENCH SIDEWALLS TO MEET O.S.H.A REQUIREMENTS.UPPER 3 FT. OF BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 100%STANDARD PROCTOR DRY DENSITY. BELOW THIS ELEVATION, BACKFILLSHALL BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95% STANDARD PROCTOR DRY DENSITY.INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321.DEPTH (VARIES)6" MIN.1/8 O.D.(6" MIN.)O.D. + 2' (MAX)PIPE DIA.FINAL SUBGRADEHAND TAMPEDSANDPIPE BEDDING -PERFORATED PVCNOTES:TRENCH SIDEWALLS TO MEET O.S.H.A REQUIREMENTS.UPPER 3 FT. OF BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 100%STANDARD PROCTOR DRY DENSITY. BELOW THIS ELEVATION, BACKFILLSHALL BE COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95% STANDARD PROCTOR DRY DENSITY.O.D. + 2' (MAX)FINAL SUBGRADESAND SUB-BASEUNDER TRACK(EXTENDED)HAND TAMPEDSANDPERFORATEDPVC PIPEPEA GRAVEL6"6"12"6"2.4.5.3B.1.3A.EROSION CONTROL BLANKET1. PREPARE SOIL BEFORE INSTALLING BLANKETS, INCLUDING ANY NECESSARYAPPLICATION OF LIME, FERTILIZER, AND SEED.2. BEGIN AT THE TOP OF THE SLOPE BY ANCHORING THE BLANKET IN A 6" DEEP X 6" WIDETRENCH WITH APPROXIMATELY 12" OF BLANKET EXTENDED BEYOND THE UP-SLOPEPORTION OF THE TRENCH. ANCHOR THE BLANKET WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAKESAPPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCH. BACKFILL AND COMPACTTHE TRENCH AFTER STAPLING. APPLY SEED TO COMPACTED SOIL AND FOLD REMAINING12" PORTION OF BLANKET BACK OVER SEED AND COMPACTED SOIL. SECURE BLANKETOVER COMPACTED SOIL WITH A ROW OF STAPLES/STAKES SPACED APPROXIMATELY 12"APART ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE BLANKET.3. ROLL THE BLANKETS (A.) DOWN OR (B.) HORIZONTALLY ACROSS THE SLOPE. BLANKETSWILL UNROLL WITH APPROPRIATE SIDE AGAINST THE SOIL SURFACE. ALL BLANKETSMUST BE SECURELY FASTENED TO SOIL SURFACE BY PLACING STAPLES/STAKES INAPPROPRIATE LOCATIONS AS SHOWN IN THE STAPLE PATTERN GUIDE. WHEN USINGOPTIONAL DOT SYSTEM , STAPLES/STAKES SHOULD BE PLACED THROUGH EACH OF THECOLORED DOTS CORRESPONDING TO THE APPROPRIATE STAPLE PATTERN.4. THE EDGES OF PARALLEL BLANKETS MUST BE STAPLED WITH APPROXIMATELY 6"OVERLAP DEPENDING ON BLANKET TYPE. TO ENSURE PROPER SEAM ALIGNMENT, PLACETHE EDGE OF THE OVERLAPPING BLANKET (BLANKET BEING INSTALLED ON TOP) EVENWITH THE COLORED SEAM STITCH ON THE PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED BLANKET.5. CONSECUTIVE BLANKETS SPLICED DOWN THE SLOPE MUST BE PLACED END OVER END(SHINGLE STYLE) WITH AN APPROXIMATE 6" OVERLAP. STAPLE THROUGH OVERLAPPEDAREA, APPROXIMATELY 12" APART ACROSS ENTIRE BLANKET WIDTH.6. BLANKET SHALL BE STAPLED AS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION.NOTE: *IN LOOSE SOIL CONDITIONS, THE USE OF STAPLE ORSTAKE LENGTHS GREATER THAN 6" (15cm) MAY BE NECESSARYTO PROPERLY SECURE THE BLANKETS.SEDIMENT LOGFLOWSTAKE DETAILINSTALLATION DETAILSEDIMENT LOGSTAKE TO BE PLACED AT TOEOF SLOPE, BOTH SIDESWOOD STAKEBOTTOM OF SWALEWOOD STAKE TOPENETRATE NETTINGMATERIAL ONLYSEDIMENT LOGENGINEERED FILLUNSUITABLE SOILTOPSOIL1'-0" (TYP)2'-0"1.51NOTE:BOTTOM OF EXCAVATION MUST BE APPROVED BY THE SOILSENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY FILL.4" SLAB AND 6" SAND SUBBASE - VERIFYWITH ARCHITECTURAL PLANSFINISH FLOORFINISH SUBGRADEFINISH GRADE (TURF)MINIMUM EXCAVATIONLIMITSFOOTINGSUITABLE SOILENGINEERED FILL12ENGINEERED FILL (SAND)BACKFILL (~5' DEPTH)6" DRAIN TILE (BY ARCH ANDWHERE GENERALLY INDICATEDON DRAWINGS) - EXTEND TOSTORM SEWER STRUCTUREWHERE INDICATED ONPLANSRUNNING TRACK PAVEMENTNOTE:1. REFER TO FINISHING PLAN FOR RESILIENT SURFACING LIMITSAND EXTENTS2"2"VARIESEDGE TREATMENT WITHOUTCONCRETE CURBGRADING PLANELEVATION APPLIES TO TOPOF BINDER COURSE12" RESILIENT SURFACE112" BITUMINOUS WEARCOURSETACK COAT112" BITUMINOUS BINDERCOURSE6" AGGREGATE BASECOURSE48" SAND SUB-BASE ORTO POORLY GRADED'SP' SANDS112' OVERSIZE ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.com&RS\ULJKWE\/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITY1'-0"MIN1'-0"MIN2.5 X BALL DIA. MIN.DECIDUOUS TREESET TREE AT FINISH GRADESHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH(4" MIN DEPTH)PLANTING SOIL (MIN. DIMENSIONSHOWN)SOIL SAUCER: USED PREPAREDSOIL (4" MIN.)ROPES AT TOP OF BALL SHALL BECUT. REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP.NON-BIODEGRADABLE MATERIALSHALL BE TOTALLY REMOVED.PREPARED SUBSOIL TO FORMPEDESTAL TO PREVENT SETTLING.10"5"5"EQEQ3"8'-2 12"2" WIDE PAINTED LINESTHICKEN CONCRETE SLAB TO 8".INSTALL #4 REBAR 12" O.C. BOTH WAYS.1/64" ROUGHNESS BROOM FINISHMETAL DISCUS RING12" POLY BASEMAT SURFACING(OUTSIDE CIRCLE)11DISCUS CAGESIX (6) 14' HIGH CANTILEVERED STRUCTURAL POSTSSET IN GROUND SLEEVES (8" DIA., 48" DEEP CONCRETE FOOTINGS).REFER TO MANUFACTURERS' INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS.NYLONNETTINGCONCRETE MAINTENANCESTRIP1'-3"3"PLANSECTION1/2" RADIUS(TYPICAL)FINISH GRADE OF MAINTENANCE STRIP SHALLBE 1" ABOVE SOD AND FLUSH WITH PAVEMENT(2) #4 REBAR1" DEPTH CONSTRUCTION JOINT30" SOD STRIP PLACED ON GRASSSIDE OF MAINTENANCE STRIPCOMPACTED SUBGRADECONSTRUCTION JOINT SHALL BE CUT TO 1"DEPTH AND SHALL OCCUR AT EACH POSTAND AT MIDPOINT BETWEEN POSTSPOST(2) #4 REBAR12C2.10.5% SLOPEFLAT DRAIN TILE CONNECTIONTO COLLECTOR PIPEC1.41C1.42GATE VALVE BOX8"AS REQUIREDCONCRETE THRUST BLOCKWATERMAINGATE VALVEREFER TO DRAWINGSFOR SIZESVALVE BOXADJUST TOP TO 1/2" BELOW FINISHED PAVEMENTGRADE OR 1" BELOW FINISHED TURF GRADE.SET SO AS TO PROVIDE 12" OF UPWARD ADJUSTMENT.FINISH GRADECOVER SHALL BESTAMPED WITH "WATER"FIRE HYDRANT3'-0"HYDRANT MARKERHYDRANT, HEIGHT VARIESFINISHGRADETRAFFIC FLANGE2" ABOVE GRADEREFER TO DETAIL4" x 4"VERTICALBLOCK4" x 4" THRUSTBLOCK1 CU. YD. GRAVEL 3/4"+ COVERWITH POLYETHLENETEE6" D.I.P. LEADMECH. JOINTS6" GATE VALVE8" CONCRETETHRUST BLOCKS2-3/4" TIE RODS1C2.2THRUST BLOCKBENDCROSSTEE%(1'WYENOTES:1.CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKING TO BE POURED AGAINST UNDISTURBED EARTH.2.KEEP CONCRETE CLEAR OF PIPE JOINTS, NUTS AND BOLTS.3.IF NOT SHOWN ON PLANS, REQUIRED BEARING AT FITTING SHALL BE AS INDICATEDABOVE, ADJUSTED IF NECESSARY, TO CONFORM TO THE TEST PRESSURE(S) ANDALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING STRESS(ES).4.BEARING AREAS AND SPECIAL BLOCKING DETAILS SHOWN ON PLANS TAKEPRECEDENCE OVER BEARING AREAS AND BLOCKING DETAILS SHOWN THIS STANDARDDETAIL.5.ABOVE BEARING AREAS BASED ON TEST PRESSURE OF 150 P.S.I. AND AN ALLOWABLESOIL BEARING STRESS OF 2000 POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT. TO COMPUTE BEARINGAREAS FOR DIFFERENT TEST PRESSURES AND SOIL BEARING STRESSES, USE THEFOLLOWING EQUATION: BEARING AREA = (TEST PRESSURE/150) X (200/SOIL BEARINGSTRESS) X (TABLE VALUE).PLUGGED CROSSPLUGGED CROSSPLUGGED TEEPLUG OR CAPNOMINALFITTING SIZE(INCHES)TEE, WYE,PLUG, ORCAP%(1'PLUGGEDCROSSTEE PLUGGEDON RUNA1A2BENDBENDBEND41.01.41.91.41.0--62.13.04.33.01.61.0-105.98.411.88.44.62.61.2128.512.017.012.06.63.41.71411.516.323.016.38.94.62.31615.021.330.021.311.66.03.01819.027.038.027.014.67.63.62023.533.347.033.318.19.44.72434.048.068.048.026.213.66.883.85.37.65.42.91.51.01/4" PLYWOODOVER FACEOF BOLTSA1A2UNDISTURBED SIDE OF TRENCH (TYP.)BEDDING MATERIAL (TYP.)SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE5"MIN.27"4'-0"BASES SHALL BE 8" INTEGRAL CAST, REINFORCED STANDARD PRECAST WITH 2" LEAN GROUTCLFLOWFLOWSLOPE @ 2 IN./FT.(TYP)COVER SHALL BE STAMPED"SANITARY SEWER"METAL SEWER CASTING - REFER TOPLAN FOR TYPEMIN. 2 AND MAX. 5 ADJUSTING RINGS.GROUT BETWEEN RINGS, CASTING,AND ALONG OUTSIDE.PRECAST CONCRETE CONE SECTIONSTEPS ON DOWNSTREAM SIDERUBBER GASKET - TYPAT ALL JOINTSSLOPE AT 2 IN./FT. (TYP)RUBBER BOOT - REFER TO MNDOTSTANDARD PLATE NO. 4007CRUBBER BOOT - REFERTO MNDOT STANDARDPLATE NO. 4007CGROUT TO 1/2 PIPEINTEGRAL BASE SECTIONRETAINING WALLGEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENTWALL BASE5'-0" MINIMUM18" MAX.FENCE WITH POSTSCENTERED ON SONOTUBEREFER TO GRADING ANDPAVING PLANS FORTREATMENT BEHIND WALLDRAINTILE - CONNECT TODRAINTILE IN SWALE(REFER TO GRADING ANDDRAINAGE PLAN)PROVIDE 12" DIA. SONOTUBEBEHIND BACK OF WALL. PLACESONOTUBE PLUMB VERTICALLY ANDAGAINST TOP RETAINING WALL BLOCK6" MINIMUMCOMPACTEDGRANULARBASETRACKPAVEMENTFREE DRAININGAGGREGATESLOPE VARIESCAP BLOCK - MAX. ELEVATIONCHANGE AT TOP OF WALL IS4" - DOUBLE STACK CAPBLOCKS AS NECESSARYFOOTBALL GOAL POST@ SYNTHETIC TURF FIELDRED NYLON STREAMER;:$//$/80,180UPRIGHTS$/80,180CROSS BAR5-9/16" O.D. .1875" WALLGALVANIZED STEEL OFFSETCENTER POSTR5'-0"23'-4" INSIDE24'-0" OUTSIDEFOOTING SECTIONSIDE VIEWFRONT VIEW4000 PSICONCRETEANCHOR BOLTS /REBAR ASREQUIRED BYMANUFACTURERCRUSHED STONEBASESTEEL OFFSETCENTER POST42" MIN.FOUNDATION BOX ISOMETRIC VIEWREINFORCED CORNER BRACKETS (TYP.)ALL STAINLESS HARDWAREPREDRILLEDHOLES FORSECURING BOXTO CONCRETEFOUNDATIONATTACH TURF TO ANGLESSURROUNDS (TYP.)8'-0" TO END ZONELINE (PLAY FIELD SIDE)8'-0"OFFSETFINISH GRADEȭFOUNDATION BOXFOUNDATION PLATE SHALLBE SQUARE TO FIELD LINESNOTE: CONSULT MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS FOR PLACEMENTOF BOLTS, REBAR, AND FOUNDATION PLATE TO ALLOW GOAL TO BE AT PROPER ELEVATION, DISTANCE FROM END ZONE LINE, AND SQUARE TO FIELD.4" WIDE ENDZONE LINE SEATING LAYOUTFOOTING LAYOUTSECTION VIEW @ PRESSBOX AREAWHEELCHAIR AREA DETAILTYPICAL SIDE RAILINGPLANK ARRANGEMENTMID-AISLE INSTALLATION DETAILPIER TOP DETAILPIER DETAIL - ROW APIER DETAIL - ROWS B,C,DFRONT EXIT PAD DETAILEXIT PIER DETAILALL SHOP AND/OR FABRICATION DRAWINGS FOR STRUCTURALCOMPONENTS OF THE GRANDSTAND SYSTEMS, INCLUDING FOOTINGSAND FOUNDATIONS, SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CERTIFIED BY AREGISTERED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CURRENTLY LICENSED TOPRACTICE IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. COMPLETE CERTIFIEDSTRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHALL ACCOMPANY SUBMISSION OFSHOP DRAWINGS. DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS SHALL CLEARLYNOTE ALL DESIGN LOADS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINNESOTASTATE BUILDING CODE.This drawing is for reference onlyand for competitive biddingpurposes. Bleacher manufacturershall provide engineereddrawings as noted on this Planand in the specification.ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITY SEATING LAYOUTFOUNDATION LAYOUTSECTION VIEWFOOTING DETIAL @ GRANDSTANDTYPICAL SIDE RAILINGPLANK ARRANGEMENTSECTION VIEW @ WHEELCHAIR AREAALL SHOP AND/OR FABRICATION DRAWINGS FOR STRUCTURALCOMPONENTS OF THE GRANDSTAND SYSTEMS, INCLUDING FOOTINGSAND FOUNDATIONS, SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CERTIFIED BY AREGISTERED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CURRENTLY LICENSED TOPRACTICE IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. COMPLETE CERTIFIEDSTRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHALL ACCOMPANY SUBMISSION OFSHOP DRAWINGS. DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS SHALL CLEARLYNOTE ALL DESIGN LOADS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINNESOTASTATE BUILDING CODE.This drawing is for reference onlyand for competitive biddingpurposes. Bleacher manufacturershall provide engineereddrawings as noted on this Planand in the specification.ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITY 2-0 X 4-0STAT. WINDOWSHEAR WALLSHEAR WALL2-4 X 6-83-0 X 6-8"NORCO" - GLIDERR.O. 4'-0 " x 4'-0"3-0 X 6-82-0 X 4-0STAT. WINDOW18" COUNTER-TOPRADIOCOACHES18" COUNTER-TOP3-0 X 6-818" COUNTER-TOPCOACHESRADIO18" COUNTER-TOPP.A. / CLOCK / SCORERCABLE18" COUNTER-TOP"NORCO" - GLIDERR.O. 6'-0 " x 4'-0""NORCO" - GLIDERR.O. 5'-0 " x 4'-0""NORCO" - GLIDERR.O. 5'-0 " x 4'-0""NORCO" - GLIDERR.O. 5'-0 " x 4'-0""NORCO" - GLIDERR.O. 6'-0 " x 4'-0""NORCO" - GLIDERR.O. 4'-0 " x 4'-0"COMMUNICATION BOXSPOTTER/ VIDEOINSTALL 13 - 1 1/2" DIA. GROMMETS143212DBCC14321432121212CCCCCS3SS3SS3S3S3S32-0 X 4-0STAT. WINDOW3-0 X 6-8S3S33-0 X 6-82-0 X 4-0STAT. WINDOWS3S3# 2 AND BETTER S.P.F.2X8 JOISTS 16" O.C. REMAINING NAILS 12" O.C. 7/16" APA RATED SHEATHING 8d NAILS 6" O.C. ALL PANEL EDGES. (BOTH SIDES OF WALLS)RIM JOIST TO RIM JOIST DIMENSIONSHEAR WALLS AND END WALLS: NAILING SCHEDULE:BUILDING DESIGNED FOR:ROOF:---------100 P.S.F. LIVE LOADWALLS:--------25 P.S.F. WIND LOADFLOOR:--------100 P.S.F. LIVE LOADRIM JOIST TO RIM JOIST DIMENSIONNOT TO SCALEJOIST LAYOUT2x6 BEARING PLATES 6'-0" O.C.RIM JOIST TO RIM JOIST DIMENSIONTRIPLE 2X8 RIM JOISTS WITH A 2x8 JOIST ABOVERIM JOIST TO RIM JOIST DIMENSIONELEC. PANELWALL WITH WINDOWS TO BE 2X6'S - 16" O.C.REMAINING (3) WALLS TO BE 2X4 - 16" O.C.SHEATHING TO SHEATHING DIMENSIONFLOOR PLANNOT TO SCALESHEATHING TO SHEATHING DIMENSIONSTEPS UP TOROOF HATCH(TYPICAL)4" OVERHANG3-0 X 6-8SHEATHING TO SHEATHING DIMENSION18" COUNTER-TOPNAILING SCHEDULE - ROOF SHEATHING8d NAILS 6" O.C. AT ALL PANELEDGES PARALLEL TO WIND LOAD.REMAINING NAILS TO BE 12" O.C.SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"W I N D L O A D- 1/2" EXTERIOR PLYWOOD ON BOTTOM OF JOISTS- JOIST HANGER - SIMPSON U26 OR BETTER EACH ENDFASTEN END RIM JOISTS TO THROUGH PLATE INTO RIM 5- 3/8" DIAM. x 5" LAG BOLTS SUPPORT STEEL I-BEAMS WITH JOISTS EACH END2X8 JOISTS - 16" O.C. - (#2 & BETTER S.P.F.)CROSS SECTIONRIM JOIST TO RIM JOISTMETAL BOTTOMNOT TO SCALETOP OF SUBFLOOR TO TOP OF TOP PLATE WINDOWS VARYREFER TO FLOOR PLAN (VERIFY RGH. OPNG.)2-2x10 HEADERS(#2 & BTR. - HEM-FIR) 1/2" CDX PLYWOOD (VERIFY)PREFORMED FORMICA COUNTER-TOPTOP OF SUBFLOOR TO COUNTERTOPALUMINUM SHELFBRACKET COMMERCIAL LINOLEUM 3/4" T & G APA - RATED 4 MIL POLY VAPOR PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR BARRIER STRATFORD WEAVE PANELING 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD 4 MIL POLY VAPOR BARRIER 2x4 OR 2x6 STUDS (SEE PLAN) 3 1/2" R-11 FIBERGLASS INSULATIONTYPICAL WALL CONSTRUCTION:SUSPENDED CEILING: 6" R-19 FIBERGLASS INSULATION OR USG PROFESSIONAL SERIES - VERIFYSUSPENDED CLG. IS 7'-6" A.F.F.RAFTER TIERAFTER TIE3/8" DIAM. x 5" LAG BOLTS 24" O.C. 20d RS NAILS 18" O.C. INTO INTO SILL PLATE AND RIM JOISTS STAGGER INTO ALTERNATING PLYS2x6 TREATED .40 CCA SILL PLATES, THROUGH STEEL I-BEAM SUPPORT ALTERNATING PLYSTOP OF SUBFLOOR TO TOP OF TOP PLATE DOUBLE END RIM JOISTS WITH (12) 20d RS NAILS JOISTS EACH END EVENLY SPACED AND STAGGERED INTO 2 RIM OF END WALLS TO FASTEN BOTTOM PLATEVENTED ALUMINUM SOFFIT AND FACIA SYSTEM2x4 STUDS - 16" O.C. RUBBER MEMBRANE3/4" T & G FIR PLYWOODNON-SKID WALKING PAD .060 EPDM FULLY ADHERED2x8 RAFTERS 16" O.C. #2 & BTR. S.P.F.4 MIL POLY VAPOR BARRIER6" R-19 FIBERGLASS INSULATION1/2" GYPSUM BOARD AROUND ROOF HATCHPROVIDE RAILING36" X 84" ROOF HATCH BANDS AND 5/8" GALV. CARRIAGE BOLTS FASTEN TO POSTS WITH GALV. STEEL TENSION PROVIDE ALUMINUM ELBOWS AT ALL CORNERS1 3/8" ALUMINUM RAILS - 4" MAXIMUM SPACING2 X 10 CURBMINIMUM 9' X 42' BOX ONLYPHOTOGRAPHY PLATFORM ONWHIRLWIND STURDI-DRAIN SIDING1 3/8" DIAMETER RAILS FASTENED TO 3" x 3" x 1/4" CHANNELS - 72" O.C.SIDINGFRONT ELEVATIONNOT TO SCALEEND ELEVATIONNOT TO SCALEWHIRLWIND STURDI-DRAIN PRE-FABRICATED PRESS BOX SHALL COME WITH A COMPLETELYFINISHED ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. PROVIDE EMPTY CONDUITS (MIN 3) FOR SPEAKER WIRES,SCOREBOARD CONTROL, AND OTHER RELATED FUNCTIONS SHALL BE PANELBOARD SHALL BE 100 AMP, 208/120V, 3-PHASE, 4-WIRE, LOCATED ON REAR WALL. CONTINUOUS PLUG MOLD 2000 ALONG TOTAL LENGTH OF FRONT WALL.RECEPTACLES AT 2'-0" O.C. PLUG MOLD AT 32" ABOVE FLOOR,STUBBED TO OUTSIDE OF PRESS BOX FOR HOOK-UP BY ELECTRICALELECTRICAL NOTES: DUPLEX OUTLETS ALONG REAR WALL, ONE PER 6' OF BOX.CONTRACTOR.(ABOVE INTERIOR SHELF AND BELOW WINDOW SILL)ABCEDATA AND PHONE1FIELD COMMUNICATION2SCOREBOARD CONTROL3PUBLIC ADDRESS CONTROL4 LOW VOLTAGE PANEL, LOCATED ON REAR WALL. PROVIDE FIVE (5) 1-1/4" AND THREE (3) 1" SPARE CONDUITS TOD 1. ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND WIRING TO BE BURIED IN STRUCTURE. 2. ELECTRICAL OUTLETS - INSTALL SINGLE DUPLEX OUTLETS IN EACH COMPARTMENT FOR ELECTRIC HEATER. 3. LIGHT FIXTURES - 24" X 48", 3 LAMP STATIC FLUORESCENT RECESSED LAY-IN GRID TROFFER. FLUSH STEEL DOORFRAME. 1/2" X 1/2" X 1/2" SILVER PLASTIC CUBE LOUVER. 4. PROVIDE SURFACE MOUNTED, HIGH ABUSE INCANDESCENT FIXTURE WITH POLY CARBONATE GLOBE AT EACH ENTRANCE.5. WIRING TO MEET REQUIRED SERVICE. CONDUIT TO BE STUBBED OUT OF PRESS BOX. READY FOR RE-CONNECT OF 6. LOCATE MAIN DISCONNECT AND CIRCUIT BREAKER PANELS ON SHOP DRAWINGS.7. CONNECT WIRING FOR SCOREBOARD CONTROLS, P.A. SYSTEM, AND COMMUNICATIONEQUIPMENT. INCLUDE THE PULLING OF WIRE TO THE COMMUNICATION BOXES AND PROVIDE REQUIRED CONNECTORS. REMAINING NAILS 12" O.C. 7/16" APA RATED SHEATHING 8d NAILS 6" O.C. ALL PANEL EDGES. (BOTH SIDES OF WALLS)SHEAR WALLS AND END WALLS: NAILING SCHEDULE:BUILDING DESIGNED FOR:ROOF:---------100 P.S.F. LIVE LOADWALLS:--------25 P.S.F. WIND LOADFLOOR:--------100 P.S.F. LIVE LOADFROM PANEL TO BOTTOM-SIDE OF PRESS BOX (FOR FUTURE CONNECTIONS)RAIL ANCHOR DETAIL(FACTORY WELDED TO 6" X 6" X 1/4"3" X 3" X 1/4" CHANNELGALVANIZED PLATES3'-6" HIGH6'-0" O.C.PLYWOOD AND BLOCKINGSCREWS WITH WASHERS.WITH (4) 3/8" DIA. X 2 1/2" LAGATTACH ANCHOR PLATE TOPOSTS:NOT TO SCALESTAIR SECTIONNOT TO SCALE1 3/8" DIAMETER ALUMINUM RAILSW/ NO MORE THAN 4" OPENING BETWEENFOR ROOF FLASHING SEALANTTOEBOARDUSE NEOPRENE CAULK2 X 12 BLOCKING1 1/2" X 5 3/4" ALUMINUMMINIMUM HEADROOM CONTINUOUSHANDRAIL- 2-2x12 STRINGERS- 2 X 10 TREADS - CARPETED- 1 X 8 RISERS - CARPETED (# 2 AND BETTER HEM-FIR) VERIFY 2'-6" x 9'-0" - "BILCO" ROOF HATCHVERIFY DOOR ROUGH OPENING 3'-0" X 7'-0"ROOF HATCH OPENING TO BE:FOR 9' X 42'BOX ONLYThe completed Press Box shall have a posted IBC label pursuant to Minnesota Building Code #1360.All shop and/or fabrication drawings for architectural and structural components of the press boxsystems shall be designed and certified by a registered architect and/ or structural engineercurrently licensed to practice in the state of Minnesota.The existing support structure shall be reviewed and certified by the press box contractor/fabricator. Complete certified structural calculations related to the existing support structure andpress box components shall accompany submission of shop drawings. Drawings and calculationsshall clearly note all design loads in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code.This drawing is for reference onlyand for competitive biddingpurposes. Press boxmanufacturer shall provideengineered drawings as noted onthis Plan and in the specification.ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITY ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.com&RS\ULJKWE\/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITY PROJECT SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2018 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Will Hartl • File #194173-LED • 21-Aug-18 NOTES:-Verify BT fixture and Bleacher height.Sibley High School Football Soccer Mendota Heights,MN LighƟng System Pole / Fixture Summary Pole ID Pole Height Mtg Height Fixture Qty Luminaire Type Load Circuit F1-F4 80'25'2 TLC-BT-575 1.15 kW A 80'11 TLC-LED-1150 12.65 kW A 65'1 TLC-LED-400 0.40 kW B 4 56 56.80 kW Circuit Summary Circuit Description Load Fixture Qty A Football 55.2 kW 52 B Bleachers 1.6 kW 4 Fixture Type Summary Type Source Wattage Lumens L90 L80 L70 Quantity TLC-BT-575 LED 5700K - 75 CRI 575W 52,000 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 8 TLC-LED-400 LED 5700K - 75 CRI 400W 46,500 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 4 TLC-LED-1150 LED 5700K - 75 CRI 1150W 121,000 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 44 Light Level Summary Calculation Grid Summary IlluminationGrid Name Calculation Metric Ave Min Max Max/Min Ave/Min Circuits Fixture Qty Football Horizontal Illuminance 50 37 61 1.64 1.35 A 52 Home Bleachers Horizontal 10.8 2 18 9.83 5.42 A,B 56 Property Spill Horizontal 0 0 0 0.00 A 52 Soccer Horizontal Illuminance 50.2 36 60 1.65 1.39 A 52 Spill Road Horizontal 0 0 0 0.00 A 52 Track Horizontal Illuminance 10.6 1 35 52.35 10.62 A 52 Visitor Bleachers Horizontal 12.6 5 19 4.03 2.53 A,B 56 ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2018 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Will Hartl • File #194173-LED • 21-Aug-18 45 43 38 37 41 43 58 52 44 43 50 57 55 50 43 42 48 54 55 50 44 43 48 53 58 51 45 44 49 56 55 52 47 46 51 54 57 53 48 47 52 55 61 54 48 47 53 59 57 54 48 47 53 56 58 54 47 47 53 57 61 56 48 47 54 60 47 47 41 41 45 46 1010 2020 3030 4040 5050 4040 3030 2020 1010 F3 F2 F4 161'105'175'165'105'170'123456789876543211234567898976453211234567899-LANE RUNNING TRACK SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD- FOOTBALL- SOCCER- LACROSSE (M/W)40302010403020105040302010 40 30 20 1050 STADIUMLIGHTING (4)(~50' x 120')105.00'105.00'175.00'170.00'165.00'161.00'SCALE IN FEET 1 : 60 0'60'120' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS4F1-F4 80'-25' 65' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-400 TLC-LED-1150 2 1 11 2 0 11 0 1 0 4 TOTALS 56 52 4 Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Sibley High School Football Soccer Mendota Heights,MN GRID SUMMARY Name: Football Size: 360' x 160' Spacing: 30.0' x 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Guaranteed Average:50 Scan Average:50.02 Maximum:61 Minimum:37 Avg / Min:1.35 Guaranteed Max / Min:1.75 Max / Min:1.64 UG (adjacent pts):1.31 CU:0.57 No. of Points:72 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Color / CRI: 5700K - 75 CRI Luminaire Output: 52,000 / 121,000 lumens No. of Luminaires: 52 Total Load: 55.2 kW Lumen Maintenance Luminaire Type L90 hrs L80 hrs L70 hrs TLC-BT-575 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-1150 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 Reported per TM-21-11. See luminaire datasheet for details. Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. NOTES:-Verify BT fixture and Bleacher height. ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2018 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Will Hartl • File #194173-LED • 21-Aug-18 1010 2020 3030 4040 5050 4040 3030 2020 1010 26 27 32 21 9 13 25 22 19 16 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 72022272512112635312914 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 16 21 1 1 21 1 1 161'105'175'105'165'105'170'105' F3 F1 F2 F4PLAZA/ GATHERINGSTADIUMLIGHTING (4)HOMEBLEACHERS(2,000 SEATS)AND PRESSBOXENTRY PLAZATICKETSLONG-TRIPLE JUMPPOLE VAULT 123456789876543211234567898976453211234567899-LANE RUNNING TRACK SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD- FOOTBALL- SOCCER- LACROSSE (M/W)FLAGPOLES40302010403020105040302010 40 30 20 1050 VISITORBLEACHERS(500 SEATS)SHOTPUT (2)SCOREBOARDSTADIUMLIGHTING (4)HIGH JUMP(~50' x 120')PLAYER STAGING/PRACTICE AREAPORTA-POTTYENCLOSURECONCESSIONS/RESTROOMS/STORAGEBUILDINGFUTURETEAM ROOM/STORAGEPROTECTTREESPORTA-POTTYENCLOSURE105.00'105.00'175.00'170.00'165.00'161.00'SCALE IN FEET 1 : 100 0'100'200' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS4F1-F4 80'-25' 65' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-400 TLC-LED-1150 2 1 11 2 0 11 0 1 0 4 TOTALS 56 52 4 Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Sibley High School Football Soccer Mendota Heights,MN GRID SUMMARY Name: Track Size: Irregular Spacing: 30.0' x 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Scan Average:10.62 Maximum:35 Minimum:1 Avg / Min:15.89 Max / Min:52.35 UG (adjacent pts):0.00 CU:0.09 No. of Points:51 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Color / CRI: 5700K - 75 CRI Luminaire Output: 52,000 / 121,000 lumens No. of Luminaires: 52 Total Load: 55.2 kW Lumen Maintenance Luminaire Type L90 hrs L80 hrs L70 hrs TLC-BT-575 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-1150 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 Reported per TM-21-11. See luminaire datasheet for details. Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. NOTES:-Verify BT fixture and Bleacher height. ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2018 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Will Hartl • File #194173-LED • 21-Aug-18 1010 2020 3030 4040 5050 4040 3030 2020 1010123456789 876543211234567898976453211234567899-LANE RUNNING TRACK SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD- FOOTBALL- SOCCER- LACROSSE (M/W)40302010403020105040302010 40 30 20 1050 STADIUMLIGHTING (4)(~50' x 120')105.00'105.00'175.00'170.00'165.00'161.00'40 45 40 36 39 43 40 57 56 47 42 46 54 56 55 54 46 42 45 52 54 55 53 47 42 45 51 53 58 55 47 44 46 53 56 51 55 49 46 48 53 50 52 57 50 47 49 55 51 60 58 50 47 49 56 59 56 57 51 47 50 55 55 56 58 51 46 49 56 55 58 60 51 46 50 58 58 41 49 44 40 43 47 40 161'105'175'165'105'170'F3 F2 F4SCALE IN FEET 1 : 60 0'60'120' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS4F1-F4 80'-25' 65' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-400 TLC-LED-1150 2 1 11 2 0 11 0 1 0 4 TOTALS 56 52 4 Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Sibley High School Football Soccer Mendota Heights,MN GRID SUMMARY Name: Soccer Size: 348' x 210' Spacing: 30.0' x 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Guaranteed Average:50 Scan Average:50.15 Maximum:60 Minimum:36 Avg / Min:1.38 Guaranteed Max / Min:1.75 Max / Min:1.65 UG (adjacent pts):1.43 CU:0.66 No. of Points:84 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Color / CRI: 5700K - 75 CRI Luminaire Output: 52,000 / 121,000 lumens No. of Luminaires: 52 Total Load: 55.2 kW Lumen Maintenance Luminaire Type L90 hrs L80 hrs L70 hrs TLC-BT-575 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-1150 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 Reported per TM-21-11. See luminaire datasheet for details. Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. NOTES:-Verify BT fixture and Bleacher height. ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2018 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Will Hartl • File #194173-LED • 21-Aug-18 F1 F2STADIUMLIGHTING (4)HOMEBLEACHERS(2,000 SEATS)AND PRESSBOX9-LANE RUNNING TRACK SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD40302010403050PROTECTTREES105.00'105.00'175.00'165.00'14 11 10 6 2 15 12 10 7 4 17 14 12 9 5 18 15 13 11 7 18 14 12 10 8 15 12 12 12 9 12 12 13 13 11 10 11 13 13 11 8 10 12 12 11 7 9 11 11 10 6 9 11 11 10 6 9 11 11 10 7 10 12 13 12 8 11 14 14 12 10 12 14 14 12 13 12 13 13 10 15 13 12 10 7 15 14 12 9 5 14 13 11 7 3 12 11 8 5 2 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 40 0'40'80' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS4F1-F4 80'-25' 65' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-400 TLC-LED-1150 2 1 11 2 1 11 0 0 0 4 TOTALS 56 56 0 Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Sibley High School Football Soccer Mendota Heights,MN GRID SUMMARY Name: Home Bleachers Spacing: 10.0' x 10.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Scan Average:10.84 Maximum:18 Minimum:2 Avg / Min:5.77 Max / Min:9.83 UG (adjacent pts):2.54 CU:0.02 No. of Points:100 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Color / CRI: 5700K - 75 CRI Luminaire Output: 52,000 / 46,500 / 121,000 lumens No. of Luminaires: 56 Total Load: 56.8 kW Lumen Maintenance Luminaire Type L90 hrs L80 hrs L70 hrs TLC-BT-575 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-400 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-1150 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 Reported per TM-21-11. See luminaire datasheet for details. Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. NOTES:-Verify BT fixture and Bleacher height. ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2018 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Will Hartl • File #194173-LED • 21-Aug-18 10 20 30 40 50 40 30 20 10 F3 F4 SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD40302010 40 30 20 1050 VISITORBLEACHERS(500 SEATS)STADIUMLIGHTING (4)PLAYER STAGING/PRACTICE AREASTORAGE170.00'161.00'5 8 10 9 11 12 8 11 13 8 12 15 10 14 17 11 15 19 11 14 18 12 14 17 13 15 16 13 14 15 13 14 14 13 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 12 14 14 11 13 14 9 12 15 9 13 16 8 12 15 6 10 13 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 40 0'40'80' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS4F1-F4 80'-25' 65' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-400 TLC-LED-1150 2 1 11 2 1 11 0 0 0 4 TOTALS 56 56 0 Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Sibley High School Football Soccer Mendota Heights,MN GRID SUMMARY Name: Visitor Bleachers Spacing: 10.0' x 10.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Scan Average:12.63 Maximum:19 Minimum:5 Avg / Min:2.65 Max / Min:4.03 UG (adjacent pts):1.80 CU:0.01 No. of Points:63 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Color / CRI: 5700K - 75 CRI Luminaire Output: 52,000 / 46,500 / 121,000 lumens No. of Luminaires: 56 Total Load: 56.8 kW Lumen Maintenance Luminaire Type L90 hrs L80 hrs L70 hrs TLC-BT-575 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-400 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-1150 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 Reported per TM-21-11. See luminaire datasheet for details. Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. NOTES:-Verify BT fixture and Bleacher height. EQUIPMENT LAYOUT Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2018 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Will Hartl • File #194173-LED • 21-Aug-18 Football 360' x 160' 1010 2020 3030 4040 5050 4040 3030 2020 1010 29 34 30 33 3132 35 39 36 38 37 F3 41 L120 42 L120 40 1 6 2 5 3 4 7 11 8 10 9 F1 13 L120 14 L120 12 15 20 16 191718 21 25 22 2423 F2 27 L120 28 L120 26 43 48 44 47 4546 49 53 50 52 51 F4 55 L120 56 L120 54 161'105'175'105'165'105'170'105' Track 161'105'175'105'165'105'170'105'DISCUS (2)PLAZA/ GATHERINGSTADIUMLIGHTING (4)HOMEBLEACHERS(2,000 SEATS)AND PRESSBOXENTRY PLAZATICKETSLONG-TRIPLE JUMPPOLE VAULT 123456789876543211234567898976453211234567899-LANE RUNNING TRACK SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD- FOOTBALL- SOCCER- LACROSSE (M/W)FLAGPOLES40302010403020105040302010 40 30 20 1050 VISITORBLEACHERS(500 SEATS)SHOTPUT (2)SCOREBOARDSTADIUMLIGHTING (4)HIGH JUMP(~50' x 120')PLAYER STAGING/PRACTICE AREAPORTA-POTTYENCLOSURECONCESSIONS/RESTROOMS/STORAGEBUILDINGFUTURETEAM ROOM/STORAGEPROTECTTREESPORTA-POTTYENCLOSURE105.00'105.00'175.00'170.00'165.00'161.00'Soccer 348' x 210'161'105'175'105'165'105'170'105' SCALE IN FEET 1 : 100 0'100'200' Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Sibley High School Football Soccer Mendota Heights,MN EQUIPMENT LAYOUT INCLUDES: · Football · Soccer · Track Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE 4 F1-F4 80'-25' 65' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-400 TLC-LED-1150 2 1 11 4 TOTALS 56 SINGLE LUMINAIRE AMPERAGE DRAW CHART Ballast SpeciĮcaƟons (.90 min power factor) Line Amperage Per Luminaire (max draw) Single Phase Voltage 208 (60) 220 (60) 240 (60) 277 (60) 347 (60) 380 (60) 480 (60) TLC-BT-575 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.7 1.4 TLC-LED-400 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.0 TLC-LED-1150 6.8 6.5 5.9 5.1 4.1 3.7 3.0 NOTES:-Verify BT fixture and Bleacher height. ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2018 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Will Hartl • File #194173-LED • 21-Aug-18 1010 2020 3030 4040 5050 4040 3030 2020 1010 F3 F1 F2 F4 DISCUS (2)PLAZA/ GATHERINGSTADIUMLIGHTING (4)HOMEBLEACHERS(2,000 SEATS)AND PRESSBOXENTRY PLAZATICKETSLONG-TRIPLE JUMPPOLE VAULT 123456789876543211234567898976453211234567899-LANE RUNNING TRACK SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD- FOOTBALL- SOCCER- LACROSSE (M/W)FLAGPOLES40302010403020105040302010 40 30 20 1050 VISITORBLEACHERS(500 SEATS)SHOTPUT (2)SCOREBOARDSTADIUMLIGHTING (4)HIGH JUMP(~50' x 120')PLAYER STAGING/PRACTICE AREAPORTA-POTTYENCLOSURECONCESSIONS/RESTROOMS/STORAGEBUILDINGFUTURETEAM ROOM/STORAGEPROTECTTREESPORTA-POTTYENCLOSURE105.00'105.00'175.00'170.00'165.00'161.00'0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 100 0'100'200' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS4F1-F4 80'-25' 65' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-400 TLC-LED-1150 2 1 11 2 0 11 0 1 0 4 TOTALS 56 52 4 Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Sibley High School Football Soccer Mendota Heights,MN GRID SUMMARY Name: Spill Road Spacing: 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Scan Average:0.0004 Maximum:0.00 Minimum:0.00 No. of Points:70 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Color / CRI: 5700K - 75 CRI Luminaire Output: 52,000 / 121,000 lumens No. of Luminaires: 52 Total Load: 55.2 kW Lumen Maintenance Luminaire Type L90 hrs L80 hrs L70 hrs TLC-BT-575 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-1150 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 Reported per TM-21-11. See luminaire datasheet for details. Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. NOTES:-Verify BT fixture and Bleacher height. ILLUMINATION SUMMARY Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2018 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Will Hartl • File #194173-LED • 21-Aug-18 1010 2020 3030 4040 5050 4040 3030 2020 1010 F3 F1 F2 F4 DISCUS (2)PLAZA/ GATHERINGSTADIUMLIGHTING (4)HOMEBLEACHERS(2,000 SEATS)AND PRESSBOXENTRY PLAZATICKETSLONG-TRIPLE JUMPPOLE VAULT 123456789876543211234567898976453211234567899-LANE RUNNING TRACK SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD- FOOTBALL- SOCCER- LACROSSE (M/W)FLAGPOLES40302010403020105040302010 40 30 20 1050 VISITORBLEACHERS(500 SEATS)SHOTPUT (2)SCOREBOARDSTADIUMLIGHTING (4)HIGH JUMP(~50' x 120')PLAYER STAGING/PRACTICE AREAPORTA-POTTYENCLOSURECONCESSIONS/RESTROOMS/STORAGEBUILDINGFUTURETEAM ROOM/STORAGEPROTECTTREESPORTA-POTTYENCLOSURE105.00'105.00'175.00'170.00'165.00'161.00'0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 SCALE IN FEET 1 : 100 0'100'200' EQUIPMENT LIST FOR AREAS SHOWN Pole Luminaires QTY LOCATION SIZE GRADE ELEVATION MOUNTING HEIGHT LUMINAIRE TYPE QTY / POLE THIS GRID OTHER GRIDS4F1-F4 80'-25' 65' 80' TLC-BT-575 TLC-LED-400 TLC-LED-1150 2 1 11 2 0 11 0 1 0 4 TOTALS 56 52 4 Pole locaƟon(s)dimensions are relaƟve to 0,0 reference point(s) Sibley High School Football Soccer Mendota Heights,MN GRID SUMMARY Name: Property Spill Spacing: 30.0' Height: 3.0' above grade ILLUMINATION SUMMARY MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES EnƟre Grid Scan Average:0.0000 Maximum:0.00 Minimum:0.00 No. of Points:73 LUMINAIRE INFORMATION Color / CRI: 5700K - 75 CRI Luminaire Output: 52,000 / 121,000 lumens No. of Luminaires: 52 Total Load: 55.2 kW Lumen Maintenance Luminaire Type L90 hrs L80 hrs L70 hrs TLC-BT-575 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 TLC-LED-1150 >81,000 >81,000 >81,000 Reported per TM-21-11. See luminaire datasheet for details. Guaranteed Performance:The ILLUMINATION described above is guaranteed per your Musco Warranty document and includes a 0.95 dirt depreciaƟon factor. Field Measurements:Individual Įeld measurements may vary from computer-calculated predicƟons and should be taken in accordance with IESNA RP-6-15. Electrical System Requirements:Refer to Amperage Draw Chart and/or the "Musco Control System Summary" for electrical sizing. InstallaƟon Requirements:Results assume ± 3% nominal voltage at line side of the driver and structures located within 3 feet (1m) of design locaƟons. NOTES:-Verify BT fixture and Bleacher height. ENVIRONMENTAL GLARE IMPACT Not to be reproduced in whole or part without the written consent of Musco Sports Lighting, LLC. ©1981, 2018 Musco Sports Lighting, LLC.ENGINEERED DESIGN By: Will Hartl • File #194173-LED • 21-Aug-18 Candelas: +150,000 100,000 50,000 5,000 1,000 500 250 Sibley High School Football Soccer Mendota Heights,MN GLARE IMPACT Summary Map indicates the maximum candela an observer would see when facing the brightest light source from any direcƟon. A well-designed lighƟng system controls light to provide maximum useful on-Įeld illuminaƟon with minimal destrucƟve oī-site glare. GLARE Candela Levels High Glare: 150,000 or more candela Should only occur on or very near the lit area where the light source is in direct view. Care must be taken to minimize high glare zones. SigniĮcant Glare: 25,000 to 75,000 candela Equivalent to high beam headlights of a car. Minimal to No Glare: 500 or less candela Equivalent to 100W incandescent light bulb. The Decibel Scale Level in decibels Everyday example Times more intense Times louder 10dB Rustling or falling leaves. 1 1 20dB Watch ticking. 10 2 30dB Birds flying by. 100 4 40dB Quiet conversation. 1,000 8 50dB Louder conversation. 10,000 16 60dB Quiet traffic noise. 100,000 32 70dB+ Louder traffic 1 million 64 80dB+ Loud highway noise at close range 10 million 128 85dB Hearing damage after about 8 hours. 100dB Jackhammer (pneumatic drill) at close range 1 billion 512 100dB Hearing damage after about 15 minutes. 110dB+ Jet engine at about 100m 10 billion 1024 120dB Threshold of pain. Hearing damage after very brief exposure. CALL US AT 800.954.1998 REQUEST A QUOTE COMPARITIVE EXAMPLES OF NOISE LEVELS Noise Source Decibel Level Decibel Effect Jet take-off (at 25 meters) Recommended product: Outdoor Noise Barriers 150 Eardrum rupture Aircraft carrier deck 140 Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft (130 dB). 130 Thunderclap, chain saw. Oxygen torch (121 dB). 120 Painful. 32 times as loud as 70 dB. Steel mill, auto horn at 1 meter. Turbo-fan aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft (118 dB). Riveting machine (110 dB); live rock music (108 - 114 dB). 110 Average human pain threshold. 16 times as loud as 70 dB. Jet take-off (at 305 meters), use of outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle, farm tractor, jackhammer, garbage truck. Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (106 dB); jet flyover at 1000 feet (103 dB); Bell J-2A helicopter at 100 ft (100 dB). 100 8 times as loud as 70 dB. Serious damage possible in 8 hr exposure. Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (97 dB); power mower (96 dB); motorcycle at 25 ft (90 dB). Newspaper press (97 dB). 90 4 times as loud as 70 dB. Likely damage in 8 hour exposure. Noise Source Decibel Level Decibel Effect Garbage disposal, dishwasher, average factory, freight train (at 15 meters). Car wash at 20 ft (89 dB); propeller plane flyover at 1000 ft (88 dB); diesel truck 40 mph at 50 ft (84 dB); diesel train at 45 mph at 100 ft (83 dB). Food blender (88 dB); milling machine (85 dB); garbage disposal (80 dB). 80 2 times as loud as 70 dB. Possible damage in 8 hour exposure. Passenger car at 65 mph at 25 ft (77 dB); freeway at 50 ft from pavement edge 10 a.m. (76 dB). Living room music (76 dB); radio or TV-audio, vacuum cleaner (70 dB). 70 Arbitrary base of comparison. Upper 70s are annoyingly loud to some people. Conversation in restaurant, office, background music, Air conditioning unit at 100 feet. 60 Half as loud as 70 dB. Fairly quiet. Quiet suburb, conversation at home. Large electrical transformers at 100 feet. 50 One-fourth as loud as 70 dB. Library, bird calls (44 dB); lowest limit of urban ambient sound 40 One-eighth as loud as 70 dB. Quiet rural area. 30 One-sixteenth as loud as 70 dB. Very Quiet. Whisper, rustling leaves 20 Breathing 10 Barely audible © 2018 IAC ACOUSTICS, A DIVISION OF SOUND SEAL INC. – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Controlling Noise in Every Environment From:Melonne Parnell To:Tim Benetti Subject:Henry Sibley Stadium Variances Date:Friday, September 28, 2018 10:07:54 AM Hi Tim, I have 2 daughters that attend Henry Sibley. We are so exited to hear of the new multi- purpose sports complex. I understand that you are in on the planning phase of approving the variances. I am in total support of the new sports complex and think that it is a great addition to our Mendota Heights schools and city. Today our school can not even have a home track meet because our facility is in such bad shape. Our football and soccer teams have to commute to another field for their games. It's embarrassing that other schools in our conference have such nice sports amenities. We lose too many Mendota Hts & W.St. Paul kids to those other schools that have nice facilities. We as a city and district need to up our game so that more people will flock to our district instead of losing them to other schools. We have a great city and great schools! I 100% support the Henry Sibley Sports complex and we need those variances approved for the site improvements! Sincerely, Melonne Parnell (Mendota Hts Resident) From:Dave and Stacy Dreelan Subject:Henry Sibley Stadium Date:Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:27:37 PMDear Mayor Garlock, Tim, Planning Commission Members and City Council Members, I am writing all of you to encourage you to make sure that the residents of MendotaHeights and surrounding communities get to have the stadium at Henry Sibley HighSchool that we voted in favor of. It has been brought to my attention that there arevariances that have to be approved to get the high-quality stadium that the we voted for.We want a top-notch facility! I believe in the past that Mendota Heights approved variances that allowed the stadiumto be built at one of our private schools, St. Thomas Academy. I am hopeful that equityexists in our wonderful city and that the public school is afforded this same opportunity. I thank all of you for serving our community and trust that you have the knowledge andexpertise to make the stadium that your voters envisioned a reality! Respectfully, Stacy DreelanMendota Heights Resident From:Stephanie Levine To:Neil G; dugan.ultan@gmail.com; Michael Toth; Liz Petschel; Joel P; Litton Field; Jay Miller; Patrick Corbett; Brian Petschel; Mary Magnuson; jmazz@hotmail.com; Tim Benetti Cc:Tim Benetti Subject:In support of Henry Sibley Athletic Field Variance Request Date:Thursday, September 27, 2018 12:01:14 PM Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members, I am writing in support of the variance request that will be before the city on October 4. In order for the stadium to look and function its best, it is imperative that these are approved by the commission and full council. As a member of the school board, I can attest first hand that we have worked diligently to be transparent to the community and to be the best neighbor possible (eg directional lighting and placement of the field behind a berm and placement of the home field bleachers to minimize noise). This field will be a wonderful addition to our community and school! Thanks for all you do to make our city look its best, Stephanie Levine From:JIMMY LEVINE To:Neil G; Ultan Duggan; Michael Toth; Liz Petschel; Joel P; Litton Field; Jay Miller; Patrick Corbett; Brian Petschel; Mary Magnuson; John Mazzitello; Tim Benetti Subject:Sibley Stadium Date:Thursday, September 27, 2018 6:35:38 PM Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members, I am writing to support the variance request that will be before the city on October 4. The community strongly supports our schools and voted for school upgrades and a new football stadium. The stadium will be built at the high school and the variances will enhance its function and showcase our fantastic community. Jimmy Levine From:Tracy Appelbaum To:Tim Benetti Subject:Support for Henry Sibley development Date:Monday, October 01, 2018 11:51:52 AM Mr. Benetti, I am aware that there is a disgruntled resident or two who is opposing the voted on (and passed) upcoming development at Henry Sibley High School. I want to lend my support to any and all development and the variances needed for the development. I have a Freshman at Henry Sibley and another student at Friendly Hills. We are huge fans of our schools and were thrilled when the referendum passed. We are looking forward to the installation of the pool, the new track and field facility, the updated classrooms, science labs, music rooms, and the additional planned upgrades. Updating the track and field will enable the school, and district, to hold track meets, host football games, events, etc. What a great way to continue building a strong community and it would be a shame to go against the voter's wishes. Please continue forward with the proposed changes and approve any variances needed to complete the projects as voted on. Thank you! -- Tracy Appelbaum From:Susan Lucio To:Tim Benetti Subject:District Improvement Date:Friday, September 28, 2018 10:21:04 AM Good Morning! I am a long time resident of Mendota Heights and West St Paul. This is a wonderful community to raise children, partly because of the excellent schools and opportunities for them to succeed. My own children went to ISD 197 elementary, middle school and high schools. 4 of my 6 grandchildren are currently enrolled in this district. My daughter has taught and is currently coaching in this district. After retirement from teaching, I worked as a literacy coach in the district with Mn Reading Corps. This has always been a good school district and now needs to make improvements to keep up with the changing curriculum, extra curricular (athletics and community needs). I would like to see our site improvements be made in a timely fashion, so our children, families, and community can reap the benefits of the improvements now and in the future. Concerned senior citizen, parent and grandparent, Susan Lucio Susan Lucio susanlucio@comcast.net (612) 232-0523 [mobile] Sent from my iPhone From:Julie Trimpe To:Tim Benetti Subject:Support for ISD 197 Referendum Improvements Date:Friday, September 28, 2018 10:54:15 AM Mr. Benetti, As an ISD 197 parent and Mendota Heights resident, I am emailing to express my strong support for the improvements that were approved within the referendum, including the athletic facility at Sibley High School, Mendota Heights. I appreciate your support to ensure that these improvements, including any needed variances, are allowed and approved in Mendota Heights. These improvements, as were resoundingly passed in the referendum, are vital to the continued success of our school district and strengthens not only our property values, but our community as a whole. Thank you for your support! Julie Trimpe 1813 Rolling Green Curve From:Dewayne Dill To:Tim Benetti Cc:LaRae Dill Subject:ISD197 Waiver Date:Friday, September 28, 2018 1:01:03 PM Mr. Benetti, I am a resident residing within 1 block of Henry Sibley HS at 1910 Knob Road. I write to express my support for the proposed site improvements. I request you record my expression of support in your report to the planning commission and that you recommend granting the variance to the city council. Sincerely, Dewayne E. Dill 1910 Knob Road (612) 819-0036 Dewayne.dill@gmail.com From:Lucas Kanavati To:Tim Benetti Subject:Support Date:Friday, September 28, 2018 7:12:17 AM Tim, I am a Mendota Heights resident and I am writing to express my strong support for the improvements that were identified in the recent ISD 197 school bond vote, including the building of a football stadium and new track at Henry Sibley High School. A football stadium on Sibley grounds is a long overdue improvement that will build community pride and create a needed gathering space for school and community events. And a new track is absolutely essential. Track is one of the greatest youth sports -- it is inclusive and relatively low-cost for students who wish to participate, and it can inspire a life-long love of running and fitness. It is precisely the type of sport our community should be supporting. The building of a new track that would allow Sibley to host Conference meets and allow proper training of athletes is - - like the building of a stadium -- long overdue. The people of Mendota Heights strongly expressed their support for the bond in the recent special election. I urge you to vote in favor of all the ISD 197 improvements that were approved by voters in May 2018. Lucas Kanavati Partner, Tradition Mortgage "Proudly Serving Education Minnesota" NMLS #367028 Phone: (952) 252-0230 Fax: (952) 252-0231 www.lucaskanavati.com Tradition Mortgage – St. Paul 56 East Sixth Street, Suite 314 St. Paul, MN 55101 Tradition Mortgage - Home Office 7601 France Avenue South, #170 Edina, MN 55435 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: INFORMATION IN THIS MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE From:Maia To:Neil G; Ultan Duggan; Jay Miller; Joel P; Liz Petschel Cc:Tim Benetti Subject:Support ISD 197 building plans Date:Thursday, September 27, 2018 10:06:50 PM Dear Mayor Garlock and Council Member, As I am sure you are aware, this past May the citizens of Mendota Heights overwhelmingly approved the ISD 197 bond request, including building an athletic field at Henry Sibley High School. I understand the district is now asking for several variances that will make building the field the most efficient and effective project it can be. I urge you to support the district's requests. With all the effort and money going into the project, let's make it the best project we can for ALL involved--students and community members alike. Sincerely, Maia Hendel 1024 Downing St Mendota Heights, MN From:Valerie Anderson To:Tim Benetti Subject:Variance at Sibley High School Date:Saturday, September 29, 2018 9:35:24 AM Tim, I urge you to approve the variances for the multi-use facility at Sibley High School. As you know the building bond was unanimously voted for by the community after 18 months of community input. Valerie Anderson 2244 High Pointe Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 651-724-7289 -- Valerie Anderson, Owner Three Sisters Eclectic Arts 651-724-7289 (cell) valanderson2012@gmail.com www.threesisterseclecticarts.com From:April Moody To:Tim Benetti Subject:Stadium at Henry Sibley Date:Monday, October 01, 2018 1:45:32 PM Dear Tim, I am writing as a concerned citizen of Mendota Heights and ISD 197. It is my understanding that there is a contingent of people who are trying to block or drastically modify the current stadium plan for the high school. As someone who worked very hard to get out the yes vote and has been focused on this particular topic for many years, I would be very upset if our plan had to be modified. The voter’s of our district expressed their wishes strongly for the much needed updates for our district and the stadium was a very important piece in all of this. We want a campus we can be proud of and I am counting on my representatives on the city council and planning commissions to carry out this mandate. Thank you and we will see you on Thursday. April Moody 577 Valley Lane Mendota Heights, MN Sent from my iPhone From:Scott Anderson To:Tim Benetti Cc:Neil G; Ultan Duggan; Jay Miller; Joel P; Liz Petschel Subject:Variance Request ISD 197 Date:Monday, October 01, 2018 9:41:10 AM Mr. Benetti, Please consider the following comments with regard to approval of variances for ISD 197 facilities improvements – specifically at Henry Sibley High School. I strongly urge staff and the City Council to grant the variances requested by the District for the planned facilities upgrades. The District has undergone a thorough process of site evaluation and use needs including extensive community input over the last several years. The most recent voter referendum had strong community-wide support based on the community’s input and vision provided by the District including the intent of improvements. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for not only the School District, but the community of Mendota Heights. Physical building improvements and recreational or athletic amenities are critical to remain competitive in the region both academically and as draw to all residents and families. It would be a shame and a missed opportunity if the District was limited in a fashion that resulted in improvements that left guests wondering why it wasn’t done right. These projects will serve the community for years to come and approvals should be based on the long-term benefit to the community as a whole. Additionally, I question the appropriateness of applying residential zoning requirements to quasi- institutional/public-type uses. This seems like an unreasonable burden – especially for District properties. I can appreciate the desire to maintain the character of a neighborhood or even a city, however schools need to be able to serve their populations and provide the complete range of services and opportunities to their students and to the community. To be successful, it is incumbent upon any City to meet the needs of all its residents and have the foresight and innovation to help create special places and community amenities that are attractive to existing and future residents. Recent improvements along Hwy 110/62 surrounding the Village and Plaza are evolving into attractive destinations for residents and visitors. The improvements planned by the District and for Henry Sibley compliment this vision extremely well and will help support the continued success of the District and our families. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on these very important projects. Scott Anderson 2244 High Pointe Road 651-454-4614 From:Elise Jamison To:Tim Benetti Subject:Warrior Sports Facility - IN FAVOR Date:Saturday, September 29, 2018 3:02:03 PM Dear Mr. Benetti, I’m writing to express my strong support for the Sports Facilities that were approved in the recent referendum by a majority of the city voting population. There is no good reason to let a small Vote No contingent to highjack this process. As a long-time resident of Mendota Heights, and former school board member, I know the difficulties associated with trying to please everyone. In this case, I think the voters have the right to see what they voted for come to fruition. Elise Elise Jamison 1646 Mayfield Heights Rd. Mendota Heights, MN 55118 651-492-6668 From:John Chandler To:Tim Benetti Subject:upcoming school district variance request Date:Sunday, September 30, 2018 9:37:18 PM Hi Mr. Benetti I am reaching out in advance of your planning commission's upcoming consideration, and ultimate recommendation to the Mayor and the city council, of the school district's variance request. The variance request will involve the multi-purpose athletic facility being built on the north end of the Henry Sibley campus as part of a successful $117 bond referendum that voters approved in May. My weekday schedule is pretty full but I'm happy to make time for any questions you might have. My cell is 651.442.5711. The variance request will address size, quantity, and height considerations for the new athletic facility. It is possible our request will change by the time it reaches the planning commission, and that I misunderstand part of it. As I understand it now, these are our considerations: - Size. The facility is planned to be approximately the same size as Matson Field, the athletic facility in West St. Paul that will receive the most relief with the new facility. If we were lifting Matson Field with a helicopter and relocating it to the proposed location on Henry Sibley's campus, the only difference would be the turf field and a larger playing surface surrounded by a regulation, operable track. The proposed location has an aged track now along with one set of bleachers. - Quantity. The new facility is designed to have a concession stand, restrooms, locker rooms, and a press box. If you have been to Matson Field you are aware that the concession stand is temporary, the restrooms are portable, and the only accessible locker rooms are in Heritage E- STEM Magnet School which involves crossing a busy street (Butler Avenue) for players. - Height. The press box, along with lights and a scoreboard, will extend above the current set of bleachers on the proposed facility site and your 15 feet guideline. As you assist the planning commission with their research and recommendation, I believe these three important points: 1. Our property is unique. Public high schools have athletic facilities. This new facility will realize the vision when Henry Sibley was built almost 50 years ago of offering the community a multi-purpose athletic facility on the Henry Sibley campus. 2. This is a reasonable request. This new facility is aligned with a similar facility in our community. Throughout planning for this past May's bond referendum the school district reached out to city officials to keep in the loop and to welcome feedback should the referendum pass. Plans for this facility have not changed. Four years ago there was another effort to build a multi-purpose athletic facility on the south end of the Henry Sibley campus. After more thorough analysis, and listening to the community and Henry Sibley neighbors, the best solution, and the most economical, for this new facility is where we are proposing its location on the north end, close to where the school district already has a sports complex agreement with the City of Mendota Heights. 3. The multi-purpose athletic facility will not significantly change the character of the neighborhood. The location of this new facility is currently being used by school district teams, external groups, and neighbors. With your approval, the new facility will offer a safer and more aesthetically pleasing sight for our residents and visitors ... something everyone in Mendota Heights can be proud of. Thank you for your service to our community. Respectfully, John Chandler School Board Member School District 197 West St. Paul-Mendota Heights-Eagan Area 651-442.5711 From:Jennifer Lutz To:Michael Toth; Litton Field; Patrick Corbett; Brian Petschel; Mary Magnuson; Michael Noonan; Neil G; Jay Miller; Joel P; Liz Petschel; Tim Benetti; John Mazzitello; Ultan Duggan Subject:District 197 Facilities Date:Wednesday, October 03, 2018 12:48:56 PM Hello City Officials - I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband to express our RESOUNDING support of the planning that District 197 has undertaken to improve our school facilities. I have reviewed the plans extensively and spoken with school officials and developers and I think they have addressed the needs of the school district, the community, and all affected families. These improvements are needed to continue to attract the best teachers and to keep students in our district attending the public schools. We have gone through the process of passing the bond with a very strong majority. There is no reason those community members who did not succeed in defeating the bond should be now allowed to disrupt the planning and completion of the facilities improvements. These improvements are WAY overdue and our community and students have suffered long enough. PLEASE approve the plans and whatever variances that are required to make them a reality. Our community, students and property values will all benefit greatly. A community is only as good as its PUBLIC SCHOOLS and we need to support them!!! Thank you, Jennifer Lutz From:Kent Mogler To:Tim Benetti Cc:peter.olsonskog@isd197.org Subject:Variance Hearing Date:Tuesday, October 02, 2018 5:46:35 PM Tim, I'm a resident at 592 High Ridge Circle and received your notice of the hearing on Thursday evening. I'll be out of town on that date but want to express my support of the requested variances. I am excited about the improvement being made at all our schools and appreciate that the students of District 197 will have the opportunity to enjoy athletic events at this proposed site. The natural barriers of trees and elevation make this proposal reasonable and from my perspective will have very little intrusion into our neighborhood. Some consider it an "inconvenience" of the students parking along Warrior Drive, but I consider it a great privilege to see the youth come and leave each day from the high school. I look forward to the day when the football field and track facilities will be able to host conference and community events as the community has voted and strongly supported. I trust that the city will use objective information and have a legal basis for any change recommendations. A neighbor that supports and thankful for the investment in the future for the community. Kent Mogler 612-360-4361 From:kay gabelmann To:Tim Benetti Subject:ISD 197 stadium proposal Date:Wednesday, October 03, 2018 6:54:05 PM We strongly oppose granting the variances requested by ISD 197 to build a stadium on Marie Avenue. Furthermore, we vigorously object to building any type of stadium in that location. It appears this plan was concocted with total disregard for the surrounding neighborhood. Building the stadium in that location would completely change the character of the neighborhood. The 2040 plan for Mendota Heights clearly endorses supporting and preserving mature neighborhoods. It also appears to place high value on maintaining green spaces. The stadium proposal is in direct opposition of those values. Its height, size, and density would be a blight on our quiet residential area. The noise, lights, and traffic would destroy the quality of life we value so deeply in Mendota Hts. Stadium attendees would be parking on residential streets because of insufficient on-site parking. We urge you to keep in mind that having a "commercial" stadium plopped down into an existing, quiet residential neighborhood is totally different than making an informed choice to purchase a house which is located near an existing stadium. Please preserve our neighborhood. C. Kay Gabelmann Allison R. Gabelmann 635 Callahan Place Planning Report: Case #2018-24 (Moberg) Page 1 Planning Report MEETING DATE: October 4, 2018 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case 2018-24 VARIANCE to Side-Yard Setback for Driveway APPLICANT: Per and Sandra Moberg PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1678 Lilac Lane ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential ACTION DEADLINE: October 26, 2018 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is seeking a variance from the side-yard setback standards to install a new driveway/parking pad next to the attached 2-car garage. The subject property is located at 1678 Lilac Lane. A public hearing notice for this item was published in the local newspaper and notice letters were mailed to all surrounding properties within 350-feet of the subject property. The applicant has provided a letter of support from the adjacent landowner to the north of the property. There have been no other comments or objections received from neighboring residents. BACKGROUND The subject parcel is generally located at mid-block area of Lilac Lane in the Tilsen Highland Heights neighborhood. The subject site measures approx. 90-feet wide by 165-ft. deep, with 15,503 sq. ft. of land area. The property contains an existing 2,634 sq. ft., single story (rambler style) residential dwelling, which includes a 400 sq. ft., two-car attached garage. Planning Report: Case #2018-24 (Moberg) Page 2 The driveway coming off Lilac Lane is approximately 18- feet in width. The dwelling appears to be meeting all required structure setbacks. The Applicant is requesting to add a new driveway/parking pad area along the north side of the existing driveway and attached garage. The new parking pad measures approx. 9-ft. by 20 ft. along the north edge of the garage, with an added 8 to 9-ft. by 20-ft. driveway/apron leading back to this parking pad, which tapers back down to the existing driveway surface. The total area of new driveway is approximately 450- sq. ft. of new [hard] surface. Staff determined a rough calculation of hard surfaced areas (house, driveway, patio and sidewalk) on the subject property of 3,700+/- sq. ft., which equates to approximately 24% of total lot coverage. The additional 450+/- sq. ft. of hard surfaced driveway increases the total lot coverage up to 4,150 sq. ft., which equates to a 26.8% of lot coverage. City Code Section 12-1D-16 requires all residential driveways (including off-street parking areas) to be setback at least 5-feet from any interior side lot line. The applicant seeks a variance to encroach up to 4- feet into the 5-ft. setback standard, leaving a 1-foot space or gap between drive/parking pad and the side property line. ANALYSIS Per City Code Section 12-1L-5, when reviewing and considering variances requests, the Planning Commission is tasked with the following: Before authorization of any variance, the request therefor shall be referred to the planning commission for study concerning the effect of the proposed variance upon the comprehensive plan and on the character and development of the neighborhood, and for its recommendation to the council for the granting of such variance from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter so as to relieve such difficulties or hardships to the degree considered reasonable without impairing the intent and purpose of this chapter and the comprehensive plan. The planning commission shall recommend such conditions related to the variance regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed building, structure, or use as it may deem advisable. Planning Report: Case #2018-24 (Moberg) Page 3 Furthermore, the City is required to find or determine if certain standards or findings have been met or warranted to grant such approval. These standards are noted below, with a follow-up analysis prepared by city staff: “The council may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted in cases where there are practical difficulties in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” 1. Is this request in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive plan; and are there any “practical difficulties” in connection with the variance; meaning does the property owner propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter? The intent of this 5-foot setback for driveway/parking space areas in residential zones, is to ensure that there is access for certain utilities, and provide adequate space to prevent any negative impacts to side- yard drainage patterns between homes. When a residential subdivision is approved, lot line boundaries between residential parcels are usually platted with a dedicated 5-foot wide (or larger) drainage and utility easement along each side of the lines. These easements are meant to prohibit the placement of most structures or hard-surfaced areas, which can lead to some negative impacts, or restrict proper drainage or access between homes. In a standard R-1 zoned residential area, homes must maintain a 10-foot setback from these same interior side lot line, which means homes are meant to be at least 20-feet from each other. The subject property structure appears to be 10-feet off the interior side line, while the neighboring home to the north is approximately 20-feet from line. By allowing this encroachment of the driveway/parking pad at this location, the two homes will still have adequate spacing left between each other, and city staff did not identify or notice any defined drainage pattern or swale between the properties that would necessarily be affected by the requested drive/parking pad surfaces. As the site pictures indicate, the Applicants are currently parking a boat-trailer on the side yard area next to the garage. From staff’s experience in talking/meeting with residents throughout the community, there appears to be a high demand for added parking and driveway space in older areas or parts of the city, especially when these homes only have smaller, two-car garages. While it may seem “reasonable” to have this added parking space along the side area of a home, the standards of the Zoning Code are clear for requiring a 5-foot setback, and the Planning Commission will need to determine if this requested variance is reasonable and is in harmony with the general purpose and spirit of the Code. Interestingly, City Code Section 12-1D-4 allows for limited encroachments of certain structures or surfaces, which are noted below: C. Allowed Encroachments: The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard and setback requirements: 1. All yards: a. Belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves and the like, provided they do not extend more than one and one-half feet (11/2') into a yard. b. Yard lights and nameplate signs for one- and two-family dwellings in the R-1, R-1A and R-2 districts may be located to within five feet (5') of the front lot line. c. Uncovered and/or open terraces, steps, porches or decks, accessibility ramps, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and do not extend closer than two feet (2') from any lot line. d. Accessory structures; except, that no accessory structure shall be closer than five feet (5') from any side or rear lot line, or within any front yard; except, that where an accessory Planning Report: Case #2018-24 (Moberg) Page 4 structure exceeds one hundred forty four (144) square feet, it shall not be closer than ten feet (10'). See figure 1D-4.1 of this section. e. lights for illuminating parking areas and loading areas for yards for safety and security purposes. Cities can and do allow other private improvements to be placed within these setback or easement areas, such as fences, patios, gardens and landscaping, provided they cause no negative impacts to the surrounding properties. What is important to note for the Planning Commission to consider, is that under paragraph C.1.c above (shaded light gray), an “uncovered terrace…or similar structure, which do not extend above the height or ground floor level of the principal building…” are allowed to be up to 2-feet from any lot line. The new driveway pad could “technically” meet this rule, and the Commission may wish to determine if the owners can be afforded a reduced setback allowance of up to 2-feet, similar to this “allowable encroachment” section provided in City Code. 2. Due to the nature of this variance request, is the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner? The Applicant responded in their variance application narrative with the following: “The current drive is too narrow to fit one vehicle without limiting the space required to drive another vehicle out of the garage. Only one of our vehicles fit in the garage and parking on the street is prohibited in the winter. In the winter we have had to park partially on the lawn next to the current driveway. Also, the uniqueness of the curved, narrow one-way street in front of the house has limited visibility from the approaching street which makes street parking hazardous. A new off street parking space will be safer for people to exit their vehicle than it would be if they parked on the street.” The city acknowledges that the current driveway and garage are probably too small (for today’s standards) to support the added parking or storage of multiple vehicles and recreation vehicles such as the boat and trailer on the property. However, these circumstances are not entirely unique to this property, as there are many other properties in the neighborhood and in other parts of the city that have or share the same situation as the Applicant; and unfortunately the Zoning Code does not provide for any added or increased setback reductions or standards to accommodate the Applicants request without the approval of this variance. The Code currently provides a reduced or smaller setback allowance for driveways of 5-feet, which affords an opportunity for owners to expand or widen out a driveway as needed, but still maintain a certain level of open area or un-impacted space between properties. 3. Would the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The Applicant responded in their variance application narrative with the following: “We have noticed that variances have been granted in our neighborhood because of Lilac Lane's one-way street design and the challenges of parking on street. Our design of the new driveway is esthetically designed to fit the character of the neighborhood.” Staff is unaware or unable to find (through general search of city records) any other variances that may have been approved for properties along Lilac Lane or this neighborhood, especially related to parking areas or similar encroachments. From physical drive-by/neighborhood inspections and review of aerial imagery, there does not appear to be any other properties that have additional parking pads or expanded driveways in this neighborhood, except for one at 1711 Lilac Lane, which provide a small parking surface for a recreational trailer as well. Most of the dwellings along Lilac Lane sit relatively parallel with the roadway, and have very close or tight setbacks between each other. The northerly neighbor to the subject property sits at an angle, which provides a larger than normal separation (20-ft.) between the two homes (see image on Page 1 of the report). The allowance of this encroaching driveway and parking pad may not necessarily alter the essential character between both residential structures, but may impact or affect the character of the Planning Report: Case #2018-24 (Moberg) Page 5 neighborhood due to its obvious encroachment into the side yard area; and may make the expanse of hard-surface coverage more pronounced than other residential dwellings in this neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION Following a public hearing, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend DENIAL of the variance request to allow a driveway and parking pad to encroach up to 4-ft. into a required 5-ft. driveway setback from a side-interior lot line, based on the attached findings of fact for denial; or 2. Recommend APPROVAL of the variance request to allow a driveway and parking pad to encroach up to 4-ft. into a required 5-ft. driveway setback from a side-interior lot line, based on attached findings of facts for approval, with conditions; or 3. TABLE the request; direct city staff to explore other alternatives with the Applicant and provide follow-up information; and extend the review period an additional 60-days in compliance with Minnesota State Statute. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of the variance of the proposed driveway addition as requested by the Applicants; and if the Commission wishes to approve the variance as presented herein or modify said request, the following conditions of approval may be considered: 1. A driveway permit shall be obtained prior to any installation or construction of the new driveway or parking pad area. 2. The proposed encroachment for the driveway shall not extend closer than 2-feet from the side- interior lot line. 3. Any new grading and construction activity will be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations; as well as in compliance with the City’s Land Disturbance Guidance Document. Attachments 1. Location/Aerial Map 2. Site Plans 3. Application with Petition of Support from Neighbors 4. Subject Site Photos Planning Report: Case #2018-24 (Moberg) Page 6 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL Variance Request for Driveway Encroachment 1678 Lilac Lane (Planning Case No. 2018-24) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request: 1. The proposed driveway encroachment into the required side-yard setback area for an interior lot line is inconsistent with the intent of the Code to promote open and green space areas between residential uses, preserve or maintain positive and adequate drainage and utility easement corridors, and for adequate buffering between residential structures. 2. A smaller hard-surfaced area may be installed on the side of the garage, or placed on the back side of the home, thereby avoiding the need for a setback variance. 3. The proposed encroachments into the required side-yard setback area constitute an unreasonable use of this setback area and may negatively affect or alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Planning Report: Case #2018-24 (Moberg) Page 7 FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Variance Request for Driveway Encroachment 1678 Lilac Lane (Planning Case No. 2018-24) The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the proposed request: 1. The request for the variances to encroach into the required side-yard setback is relatively minor in its overall scope and impacts, and can be considered in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinances; as the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. 2. The existing conditions of the property and placement of the home, both of which were not created by the current homeowner, present a case of a practical difficulties for the homeowner to provide a wider and more useable driveway and parking area for the residential property; and said improvement will be more convenient to the homeowner and future owners of the property. 3. The requested variances are considered a reasonable request and the impacts caused by the increased encroachment may not negatively affect the adjacent or neighboring properties. Planning Report: Case #2018-24 (Moberg)) Page 8 SITE PHOTOS of 1678 LILAC LANE