The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-10-16 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA October 16, 2018 – 7:00 pm Mendota Heights City Hall 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Adopt Agenda 5. Consent Agenda a. Approve October 2, 2018 City Council Minutes b. Approve October 2, 2018 Council Work Session Minutes c. Approve Purchase of Wetland Banking Credits for the Bourn Property d. Approve Resolution 2018-79 Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Wentworth Park Pond Improvement Project e. Approve 2018-2019 Insurance Renewal and Election to Not Waive Statutory Limits f. Approve Purchase of City Hall Generator Replacement g. Acknowledgement of September 2018 Fire Synopsis h. Approval of September 2018 Treasurer’s Report i. Approval of Claims List j. Approve Building Activity Report k. Approve August Par 3 Update and Financial Report l. Approve Resolution 2018-81 Accept Donation to City m. Authorize Final Payment for City Hall Remodeling Project 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Public Hearing – none 8. New and Unfinished Business a. Resolution 2018-80 Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $1,125,000 General Obligation Bonds Series 2018A b. Resolution 2018-77 Approving a Variance to Allow Reduced Setbacks from Side-Yard Setbacks of a Driveway and Parking Area, for property located at 1678 Lilac Lane (Per & Sandra Moberg – Applicants) c. Ordinance No. 534 – Allow Motor Fuel Service Stations as a Place of Sale/Resale of Motor Vehicles (Sean Hoffmann – Applicant) d. Resolution 2018-78 Approving Variance for Number of Allowed Accessory Structures Standards; Variance for Accessory Structures To Exceed Allowable Area Standards; and a Variance To Allow New Field Light Poles To Exceed Accessory Structure Height Standards, all In The R-1/R-1A Residential District, for the Henry Sibley High School, located at 897 Delaware Avenue (ISD # 197 – Applicants) e. Approve Public Safety Improvements for the Village Retaining Walls 9. Community Announcements 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: “The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Mayor. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the City Clerk to appear on a future City Council agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Mayor may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised.” CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, October 2, 2018 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilors Duggan, Paper, Miller, and Petschel were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ADOPTION Mayor Garlock presented the agenda for adoption. Councilor Petschel moved adoption of the agenda. Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Garlock presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and approval. Councilor Petschel moved approval of the consent calendar as presented, pulling items c) Approve Resolution 2018-76 Supporting the Dakota County 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Plan and g) Approval of August 2018 Treasurer’s Report. a. Approve September 18, 2018 City Council Minutes b. Acknowledgement of June 20, 2018 Airport Relations Commission Meeting Minutes c. Approve Resolution 2018-76 Supporting the Dakota County 2019-2023 Capital Improvement Plan d. Authorize Storm Sewer Improvements at 531 Marie Avenue and Valley Park Trail e. Approve Resolution 2018-75 Acknowledging The Receipt of a Donation to the City f. Acknowledgement of August 2018 Fire Synopsis g. Approval of August 2018 Treasurer’s Report h. Approval of Claims List i. Authorize Grant Application for Fire Department Equipment Councilor Miller seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 page 3 PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C) APPROVE RESOLUTION 2018-76 SUPPORTING THE DAKOTA COUNTY 2019-2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Councilor Duggan asked Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek to review how this plan would affect the City of Mendota Heights. Mr. Ruzek explained that every year the city is asked to adopt a resolution supporting the Dakota County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This year there are a number of projects in the plan that will affect the City of Mendota Heights, the first two being: • Resurfacing of Delaware Avenue from Marie Avenue to Dodd Road • Resurfacing of Pilot Knob Road from I-494 to Highway 13 These projects are not identified individually on the CIP; however, the county has identified approximately $6.4M in pavement preservation projects for 2019. The two overlays of Delaware Avenue and Pilot Knob Road are a portion of that. Dakota County is also looking at the interchange study at I-494 and Delaware. This would be for the proposed realignment of Argenta Avenue at the existing Delaware Avenue/Argenta Avenue bridge. They would also be updating the Regional Roadway System Vision Study that was originally completed in 2009. Dakota County is also reviewing the possible reconstruction of Delaware Avenue, from Marie Avenue to Dodd Road. West St. Paul has been asking for a trail along that route and this project would look at the feasibility of possibly constructing that in 2023. In 2019, Dakota County is showing that they are looking at trail head improvements to the Big River Regional Trail in Mendota Heights; this project would be approximately $1.3M. This would be at the base of the Pilot Knob Preservation site. In 2022, Dakota County is looking at possibly constructing an underpass under Dodd Road as part of the River to River Greenway Trail. Councilor Duggan noted that there was a decrease in charges to the city for services. Mr. Ruzek replied that Dakota County readopted a new policy for funding projects. Previously, the costs of projects were split 55% county/45% city. The new cost proposal for County work would be 75% county/25% city. There are still certain projects that would remain at the 55%/45% cost share. Councilor Petschel clarified that the I-494/Argenta interchange is different than the possible connection at I-494 and Delaware. Mr. Ruzek confirmed and noted that Argenta Avenue veers west and turns into Delaware Avenue. They are looking at realigning Argenta further to the east. Councilor Petschel then asked if this was part of the improvements to Lone Oak Road, going into Inver Grove Heights, and sorting out the traffic management there. Mr. Ruzek confirm that this was the case. Councilor Petschel requested that an eye be kept on a spur off of Lone Oak going into the Viking Lake development, as this would give another egress in and out of that facility and would be to our benefit. page 4 Councilor Duggan moved to adopt RESOLUTION 2018-76 SUPPORTING PROJECTS LISTED IN THE DRAFT 2019-2023 DAKOTA COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 G) APPROVE AUGUST 2017 TREASURER’S REPORT Councilor Duggan complimented Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, as this is the first time he noticed that the funds available at the end of August 2018 are slightly in excess of what was available at the beginning of the year. He believed that her excellent management of funds has put the city in an amiable position. Councilor Duggan moved to approve the August 2017 Treasurer’s Report. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were received. PUBLIC HEARING No items scheduled. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS A) AUTHORIZE CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR FIRE STATION REMODEL Fire Chief Dave Dreelan explained that staff has spent a considerable amount of time over the last several months discussing whether the city would be best served by having the Fire Station Project managed by a general contractor or a construction management firm. It was determined that it would be in the city’s best interest to have a construction management firm oversee the project. This model was favored as it allowed the city to pick a firm that has extensive experience in fire station construction. It would provide an opportunity for a second set of eyes on the project as it goes through the plan development phase, and most importantly, it would provide onsite daily supervision during the project. Four local companies with experience in the construction of fire stations were invited to submit proposals, which were reviewed by city staff and members of the building committee. Interviews were conducted and the committee selected Cost, Planning & Management International, Inc. (CPMI) from Eagan to oversee the project. page 5 This decision was based on CPMI’s experience with fire stations, their tailored approach to the city’s needs, and their proposal was a good value. The Committee believed they were the right sized company – large enough to have enough resources but small enough to know who they were helping. CPMI’s fee of $309,657.00 is expected to be offset by eliminating the overhead and profit costs of a general contractor. Councilor Paper asked if there was a particular fire department project that CPMI managed that would be comparable to what the city is seeking or one that stood out. Chief Dreelan replied that their list of projects included three St. Paul stations and extensive remodels in Superior, WI and Red Wing, MN. What the city was looking for was a firm that had experience in both new and remodeled stations. CPMI demonstrated several projects of remodels with additions and were able to keep the stations functional during the construction and remodel phases. Councilor Duggan moved to authorize the hire of CPMI as Construction Manager for the Mendota Heights Fire Station Improvements project. Councilor Petschel seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilor Petschel complemented Chief Dreelan and the Fire Captains for the extraordinary amount of work that is being done on this project. Councilor Paper asked when they anticipate breaking ground and how many months to completion. Chief Dreelan answered that the timeline puts going out for bids immediately after the first of the year. Ideally the bids would be back and awarded in February, and the ground breaking would be in late March or early April (weather dependent). They are estimating a nine month process to build the addition, after which they would move the administrative functions into the new space. They would then begin the remodeling phases, which they anticipate to take four months. Councilor Duggan complimented the station and everyone who did the preparations on a very successful open house and their demonstration of teamwork – with current and past firefighters. COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS City Administrator Mark McNeill made the following announcements: • The Halloween Bonfire will be held on October 31. He reminded everyone that they would be burning wood pallets. Residents are asked to NOT bring brush to the site as they have done in the past. • The Par 3 has gone to fall hours and fees. • Registration for gymnastics, skating, MEA field trips, Fall Family Party, and winter break field trips are now available online. • The Movie in the Park at Mendakota Park was well attended. Approximately 150 people watched the movie. page 6 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilor Petschel wished two of the local high schools – Henry Sibley and St. Thomas Academy – who are celebrating homecomings this weekend, to have wonderful festivities and football games. Mayor Garlock noted that this past Saturday, he attended the Henry Sibley Warrior 5K, which was well attended with approximately 300 participants; another 70 or 80 people donated but did not attend. Councilor Miller expressed his appreciation to Public Works for the fine work they have done in the city’s parks this summer and, in particular, this fall with fields being lined and grass cut perfectly at Kensington Park for all of the events that have taken place. Councilor Paper noted that Mendakota Park fields look great with the stripes and field work. He also commented that Henry Sibley has the homecoming parade on Friday evening. He also stated there is an upcoming stroke event that is going to be held at the YMCA in West St. Paul on October 4. Amongst the speakers will be Dr. Andy Grande, who is a resident and is a neurosurgeon at the U of MN, and is very passionate about stroke awareness and prevention. State Senator Dr. Matt Kline will also be in attendance. Councilor Duggan noted the dirt being moved from the Olin property to the city property is being deposited everywhere but where it is supposed to go. He requested Public Works and/or staff to help with the deliveries of the dirt and ensure they are cleaning up after themselves. He also stated that the city has a newly named street – Mulberry – formerly known as Freeway Rd. He noted a new magazine pertaining to Mendota Heights is coming out in November, dealing with anything and everything the people of Mendota Heights might be interested in. There is an event on October 11th at United Methodist Church on Dodd Road – a candidate forum for those who are running for City Council. Councilor Duggan asked if the materials shared at the Planning Commission meeting of September 24th, regarding the 2040 Comprehensive Plan draft, and the concerns raised by the citizens would be available on the city’s website. Community Development Director Tim Benetti replied that the minutes would be ready very soon and would be made available on the city’s website. The video of the meeting is currently available on Town Square Television. ADJOURN Councilor Paper moved to adjourn. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mayor Garlock adjourned the meeting at 7:33 p.m. page 7 ____________________________________ Neil Garlock Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Lorri Smith City Clerk page 8 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the City Council Work Session Held October 2, 2018 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at the City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garlock called the meeting to order at 2:00 pm. Councilmembers Duggan, Miller, Paper, Petschel were also present. Others present included Mark McNeill, City Administrator; Cheryl Jacobson, Assistant City Administrator; Lorri Smith, City Clerk. FLAVORED TOBACCO DISCUSSION The Council discussed an amendment to the current tobacco sales code regulations. Elyse Less and Melissa Mady, representing MN Tobacco Free Alliance, were present to answer the Council’s questions. Christine Matter, representing BCBS - The Center for Prevention, was also present to answer any questions. Elyse Less provided the Council with a presentation on a proposed change to the City Code regarding the retail sale of tobacco in Mendota Heights. The proposed ordinance would restrict the sale of tobacco products to those under 21 years of age. The ordinance will also further restrict the sale of flavored tobacco products to include mint, menthol, and wintergreen flavors. The prohibition would be for all locations in Mendota Heights. It was noted that these changes are meant to stop the youth and young people from smoking and vaping. The Council directed staff to meet with the license holders to review the changes being proposed, answer their questions, and hear any concerns they may have. This code amendment will be placed on the November 20th City Council agenda for consideration. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 pm. ___________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ____________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for the Purchase of Wetland Banking Credits COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize a purchase order to purchase wetland banking credits for the Bourn Transfer Site grading project. BACKGROUND City Council authorized the grading of the Bourn Lane property on August 21, 2018, as a means of meeting the goal of preparing the site for future development opportunities (Commercial, Residential, Park, etc.). The site was previously delineated by a consultant and Certified Wetland Delineator (CWD). Based on this investigation, it was determined that wetland was not present on the site. However, during the review process, members of the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), which included the City’s newly appointed Natural Resources Coordinator, determined that a wetland of about .15 acres (about 6500 square feet) was most likely present on the site, and therefore should be mitigated. For that reason, we are recommending the purchase of wetland credits for .31acres of land. DISCUSSION Minnesota State Rule 8420.520 of the Wetland Conservation Act, states that if wetland impacts cannot be avoided, they must be replaced. Staff recommends replacing impacts from the Bourn project site via wetland banking credits at the required 2:1 ratio, utilizing credits within the same wetland Bank Service Area (BSA 8). This is consistent with MN Rule 8420.5222 Replacement Standards. The following quotes were acquired that meet these standards: Wetland Bank #1273 $7,750 Wetland Bank #1500 $9,300 Wetland Bank #1640 $21,879 BUDGET IMPACT The costs of these wetland impact replacement credits are proposed to be paid for out of the Storm Water Utility Fund. page 10 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council authorize the purchase order for wetland banking credits for the required wetland impact replacement as a result of the Bourn Transfer Site grading project. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize Staff to execute a purchase order to purchase credits from Wetland Bank #1273 for $7,750. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 11 page 12 page 13 page 14 DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Resolution 2018-79 Approve Plans and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Wentworth Park Pond Sediment Removal and Drainage Improvements COMMENT: INTRODUCTION Council is asked to approve the plans and specifications and authorize an advertisement for bids for the Wentworth Park pond. Attached to this report is the first two pages of the plans and Opinion of Cost. The complete plans and specifications are available for review at city hall or by request. BACKGROUND Staff has received a number of calls regarding the pond in Wentworth Park. Staff assessed the pond and discovered that the pond outlet structure is failing and the pond is in need of having sediment removed. DISCUSSION City Council awarded a professional services contract for the design, surveying, testing and construction management of this improvement at its July 17, 2018 meeting. Results of the sediment analysis determined that the material is of the SRV 1 class meaning no special disposal is required. There is an estimated volume of 256 Cubic Yards (CY) of material to be removed from this pond. It is proposed to bring the excavated material to the Bourn Property to reduce costs. BUDGET IMPACT The dredging of the pond would be paid for through the Storm Water Utility Fund. The city currently has $100,000 budgeted for pond maintenance. The current opinion of costs for this work ranges from a low of $72,500 to a high estimate of $88,600. The contract with the consultant and the wetland delineation report totaled approximately $23,375. The account currently has a balance that would be able to account for the high range estimate. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution approving the plans and authorizing and advertisement for bid. Due to the project having an estimate greater than $50,000, the city purchasing policy requires this be competitively bid (State limits are $175,000). Non-assessed page 15 Competitive bids require a 2 week advertisement period with a bid opening being scheduled for October 31st and a potential award of contract on November 7th. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, it should make a motion adopting Resolution 2018-79 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE WENTWORTH PARK POND IMPROVMENTS. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-79 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE WENTWORTH PARK POND IMPROVMENTS WHEREAS, the Public Works Director reported that the proposed improvements and construction thereof were feasible, desirable, necessary, and cost effective, and further reported on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has prepared plans and specifications for said improvements and have presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; by the Mendota Heights City Council as follows: 1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and they are hereby in all respects approved by the City. 2. That the Clerk with the aid and assistance of the Public Works Director be and is hereby, authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said improvements all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such as bids to be received at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights by 9:00 A.M., Wednesday, October 31, 2018, and at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the Public Works Director, will then be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at its next regular Council meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this sixteenth day of October, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 17 Item Description Unit Estimated Quantity Unit Price Extension 1.06 A Project Mobilization/Demobilization L.S.1 $7,318.00 $7,318.00 1.06 B Clear and Grub Trees and Brush, Grind Stumps L.S.1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 1.06 C Erosion Control Construction Entrance Each 2 $1,100.00 $2,200.00 1.06 D Street Sweeping L.S.1 $300.00 $300.00 1.06 E Inlet Protection Each 2 $150.00 $300.00 1.06 F Erosion Control Siltation Logs L.F.60 $3.00 $180.00 1.06 G Reinforced Silt Fence or Floating Silt Curtain L.F.50 $10.00 $500.00 1.06 H Control of Water, Dewatering L.S.1 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 1.06 I Site Grading S.Y. 1600 $2.00 $3,200.00 1.06 J Mn/DOT Class III Rip Rap/with Type IV Fabric Ton 120 $85.00 $10,200.00 1.06 K Pond Dredging of MPCA Level 1 Unregulated Fill Material C.Y. 265 $15.00 $3,975.00 1.06 L Disposal of MPCA Level 1 Unregulated Excavated Material at Nearby Owner Designated Location C.Y. 335 $10.00 $3,350.00 1.06 M Turf Reinforcing Material S.Y.35 $25.00 $875.00 1.06 N Existing Outlet Berm Removal L.S.1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 1.06 O Berm Area Unsuitable Soil Excavation C.Y.70 $15.00 $1,050.00 1.06 P Berm Embankment Borrow Material and Construction C.Y. 150 $65.00 $9,750.00 1.06 Q Basin Outlet Structure including Internal Weir, Piping and Trash rack L.S.1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 1.06 R 18” RCP FES w/ Bull‐nosed Trash rack L.S.1 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 1.06 S 24” HDPE Pipe L.F.36 $75.00 $2,700.00 1.06 T 24” HDPE FES L.S.1 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 1.06 U Topsoil Borrow Ton 90 $40.00 $3,600.00 1.06 V Flexterra HP‐FGM with Seed S.Y. 1600 $4.00 $6,400.00 1.06 W Traffic Control L.S.1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 1.06 X Site Cleanup and Restoration L.S.1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $80,498.00 Engineer’s Opinion of Cost Wentworth Park Pond Maintenance City of Mendota Heights CITY PROJECT NO. 201808 BASE BID TOTAL = page 18 page 19 page 20 DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: Insurance Renewal INTRODUCTION The City Council is asked to decide whether it wants to have insurance coverage in excess of what is required by State law. BACKGROUND Each year LMCIT requires the city to decide if we wish to purchase additional liability coverage and choose a waiver of monetary limits on possible claims. The base coverage is $1,500,000, which is the basic statutory limit set by the State of Minnesota. In the past, we have not purchased additional coverage and have elected not to waive the statutory tort limits. Our insurance coverage period runs November 1, 2018 to October 31, 2019. The premium for our property insurance is $121,484 for coverage from November 1, 2018 to November 1, 2019. This represents a $2,073 decrease in premium from last renewal. We did receive a quote for additional coverage to insure the City for losses in the event of a data breach. The current coverage has a limit of $250,000 of loss relating to a data breach. The City can increase the coverage to $500,000 for an additional premium of $450 with this renewal. Staff recommends that the City purchase the additional coverage relating to a data breach. There is the also an option to purchase excess liability coverage, which would provide coverage in excess of the $2 million aggregate coverage which we currently have—this would potentially cover the city if a large award is made from a Federal lawsuit, which is outside of the State’s cap. Staff is recommending that Council discuss this at a future workshop meeting, when the City’s insurance agent can be present to discuss advantages and disadvantages. The excess liability coverage can be added at any time and does not need to be done with our current renewal. BUDGET IMPACT We have included amounts in the 2019 budget for property insurance premium. RECOMMENDATION page 21 Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council pass a motion to not purchase additional liability coverage and elect not to waive the statutory tort limits. Additionally, staff recommends that the coverage for any data breach be increased to $500,000. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, not purchase additional liability coverage; not waive the statutory tort limits; and purchase increased coverage for data breaches to $500,000. page 22 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Purchase Order for the Purchase of City Hall Generator COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize a purchase order to replace the generator at City Hall. BACKGROUND The generator at city hall has been identified by the Fire Marshal as needing to be replaced. The existing generator is located inside the building which poses safety hazards due to exhaust and fuel storage. The existing generator is also rated for 40 kW, which is only capable of running a small percentage of city hall and has been dedicated to emergency management circuits in the Police Department. DISCUSSION Staff solicited three quotes for this work. It is proposed that the new generator be upsized to a 100 kW system, be relocated outside, include removal of the existing generator, allow for dual fuel operation (natural gas and propane), and relocation of the existing outside air conditioning units. The following quotes were acquired for this project: Allied Generator $62,950 Ziegler Power Systems $104,370 Wallraff Electric Co. $106,500 In spite of the difference in submitted quotes, we have determined that the proposal submitted by Allied Generator is legitimate, and that the bidder is aware of all of the necessary requirements. The time needed to order the generator is 10 to 12 weeks. Preparatory work will be done in advance of freeze-up, so that installation may be done once the generator is received. BUDGET IMPACT The costs of this improvement is proposed to be funded through the city hall facility levy. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council authorize the purchase order for the generator replacement to the low bidder, Allied Generator. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize Staff to execute a purchase order to Allied Generator or $62,950. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 23 page 24 page 25 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Scott Goldenstein, Assistant Fire Chief SUBJECT: September 2018 Fire Synopsis Fire Calls For the month of September, the Mendota Heights Fire Department responded to 28 calls for service. Of those, 20 were located in Mendota Heights, one in Sunfish Lake, one in Mendota and six in Lilydale. In addition, we requested mutual aid from Eagan one time when available resources were tied up at other emergency scenes. The 28 calls that were made up of actual fires: one vehicle fire and one residential structure fire. In addition, 12 were either false alarms or unintentional transmission of alarms, two were coded as “smoke scares”, three calls were medical calls, one was classified as a utility gas line issue, and five involved utility power lines down and/or arcing, two calls involved assisting the police or other governmental agency, one call involved removal of a person from a stalled elevator, and the remaining calls were classified as “other” in nature. Of the calls listed above four calls were cancelled before our arrival. In regards to the residential structure fire, we did receive auto-aid assistance from South Metro Fire as well as assistance from Eagan and Inver Grove Heights at the scene and to back fill our station had any additional calls come in. Department Training Opportunities Fire Apparatus Operator This was a mandatory drill and was set up with multiple stations for firefighters to go over pumping with different trucks as well as with using our soon to be in service new hoses and nozzles. In addition, firefighters were made to use specialty equipment for making foam to be used at class B type fires (oil and gasoline for example). Tender Operations This drill is dedicated to working with firefighters skills using the Tender (aka Tanker). This truck utilizes a manually set pressure relief and has a traditional PTO (power take-off) that operates differently than any of our other current apparatus. Hose Management The fire department had the operating to do some training in the home located at the former Larson Greenhouse property. This drill allowed firefighters to become more proficient with quick and efficient deployment of hose in a residential structure. page 26 MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER 2018 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE CALLS NO. 18192 -18219 NUMBER OF CALLS:28 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial $1,000,000 Structure - MH Residential 1 $40,000 $10,000 $120,300 Structure - Contract Areas $550 Cooking Fire Vehicle - MH 1 $23,500 Vehicle - Contract Areas $8,000 Grass/Brush/No Value MH Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES MEDICAL Assist 3 $40,000 $10,000 $0 Extrication HAZARDOUS SITUATION FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS Spills/Leaks 1 Arcing/Shorting ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$50,000 $1,152,350 Chemical Power Line Down 5 MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $1,120,300 FALSE ALARM Residential Malfunction 2 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $21,500 Commercial Malfunction Unintentional - Commercial MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $1,141,800 Unintentional - Residential 5 Criminal BILLING FOR SERVICES GOOD INTENT Smoke Scare 2 Dispatched & Cancelled 4 STRUCTURE CONTENT Steam Mistaken for Smoke Other 4 SPRINKLER ACTIVATION - MH 80,000.00$ 15,000.00$ MUTUAL AID TOTAL CALLS 28 LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS:TO DATE LAST YEAR TOTALS:$80,000 $15,000 MENDOTA HEIGHTS 20 166 167 MENDOTA 1 12 9 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH SUNFISH LAKE 1 8 12 LILYDALE 6 22 24 INSPECTIONS 25.5 OTHER 11 11 INVESTIGATIONS 18.5 TOTAL 28 219 223 RE-INSPECTION WORK PERFORMED HOURS TO DATE LAST YEAR MEETINGS FIRE CALLS 384.5 3111.25 3218 MEETINGS 46 346.75 325 ADMINISTRATION 10 DRILLS 248 2703.25 1403.75 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 283.5 541.5 1918 FIRE MARSHAL 54 222 414.5 TOTAL FOR FIRE MARSHAL 54 TOTALS 1016 6924.75 7279.25 REMARKS:SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS MISC LOSS - TOTALS page 27 page 28 page 29 page 30 page 31 page 32 page 33 page 34 page 35 page 36 page 37 page 38 page 39 page 40 page 41 page 42 page 43 page 44 10/1/2018 Mendota Heights Building Activity Report Mike Andrejka, Building Official September 1, 2018 thru September 30, 2018 January 1, 2018 thru September 30, 2018 January 1, 2017 thru September 30, 2017 January 1, 2016 thru September 30, 2016 Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Building Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected SFD 0 -$ $0.00 SFD 7 3,738,348.00$ $41,844.43 SFD 6 2,894,201.34$ $32,332.59 SFD 6 2,477,850.00$ 28,963.59$ Apartment 0 -$ $0.00 Apartment 1 9,466,820.00$ $65,710.84 Apartment 2 23,022,000.00$ $158,402.65 Apartment 0 -$ -$ Townhouse 0 -$ $0.00 Townhouse 16 3,653,526.00$ $37,974.00 Townhouse 6 1,340,000.00$ $13,475.51 Townhouse 14 3,255,000.00$ 34,159.81$ Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ $0.00 Condo 0 -$ -$ Misc 57 682,289.50$ 9,498.50$ Misc 446 6,207,577.80$ 88,633.08$ Misc 496 7,690,579.61$ 103,302.34$ Misc 466 5,830,479.62$ 84,479.00$ Commercial 0 -$ $0.00 Commercial 14 6,753,309.00$ $58,716.14 Commercial 30 9,011,692.00$ $89,128.57 Commercial 22 6,708,104.00$ 56,212.98$ Sub Total 57 682,289.50$ 9,498.50$ Sub Total 484 29,819,580.80$ 292,878.49$ Sub Total 540 43,958,472.95$ 396,641.66$ Sub Total 508 18,271,433.62$ 203,815.39$ Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Trade Permit No.Valuation Fee Collected Plumbing 12 $1,194.39 Plumbing 173 $28,750.94 Plumbing 147 $27,357.25 Plumbing 171 15,403.28$ Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 0 $0.00 Water 3 30.00$ Sewer 0 $0.00 Sewer 34 $2,550.00 Sewer 25 $1,888.00 Sewer 25 1,875.00$ Mechanical 34 $3,057.74 Mechanical 380 397.00$ $49,233.31 Mechanical 286 $50,314.23 Mechanical 302 40,684.69$ Sub Total 46 4,252.13$ Sub Total 587 80,534.25$ Sub Total 458 $79,559.48 Sub Total 501 57,992.97$ License No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Licenses No.Valuation Fee Collected Contractor 0 $0.00 Contractor 282 $14,100.00 Contractor 291 $14,550.00 Contractor 276 13,800.00$ Total 103 682,289.50$ 13,750.63$ Total 1353 29,819,580.80$ 387,512.74$ Total 1289 43,958,472.95$ 490,751.14$ Total 1285 18,271,433.62$ 275,608.36$ NOTE: All fee amounts exclude SAC, WAC and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan review fee and valuation totals page 45 DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: August Par 3 Update and Financial Report COMMENT: Background Attached is the August Par 3 Financial Report. During the month of August, the course had a total of 1,681 rounds of golf played. The total monthly revenue for August was $22,492 which includes greens fees, recreation programs and concessions. The year-to-date revenue total is $118,842. (months of May, June, July and August). The year’s year-to-date revenue total is up from last year’s total of $106,055. August expenditures totaled $16,175. The year-to-date expenditure total is $107,226. The course currently has an operating surplus of revenues over expenditures of $11,616 for the 2018 season. Unless there are more equipment repairs needed in 2018, staff does not foresee any large expenses this calendar year. The course has been aerated for the season and the irrigation system is scheduled to be blown out October 19th. The course will be open with reduced hours in October due to sunrise and sunset times. Hours through October 14th were 9:00-5:30pm, and will be from October 15th through the end of the month 9:00-5:00pm. The course now is offering fall rates, which are $9.00 per round per person for golf and $6.00 per round per person for footgolf. Staff hopes to keep the course open through October of 2018, but the closing date will be weather dependent. page 46 page 47 Request for City Council Action DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Dave Dreelan, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Donation for Bonfire COMMENT: Introduction The City Council is asked to accept a donation to the Fire department of eight cases of hot dogs for distribution at the Halloween Bonfire. Background By state law, all donations to the City must be accepted by the City Council by means of a resolution. Ball Park Franks, a division of Tyson Foods, has recently donated hot dogs to be cooked by the firefighters, and will be distributed at the Halloween Bonfire. The estimated value of the donation is $230.00. The City is appreciative of this generous donation. Budget Impact There is no budget impact to the City. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Mendota Heights City Council approve Resolution 2018-81, which acknowledges the donation of hotdogs from Ball Park Franks for distribution at the Mendota Heights Halloween Bonfire. Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion adopt the following Resolution 2018-81 RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF GIFTS TO THE CITY page 48 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-81 RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF GIFTS TO THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights must follow Minnesota Statute 465.03 “Gifts to municipalities”; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Statute requires a resolution to acknowledge the acceptance of gifts to municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City has previously acknowledged gifts with a resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights have duly considered this matter and wish to acknowledge the civic mindedness of citizens and officially recognize their donations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights gratefully accepts the donation of eight cases of hot dogs from Ball Park Franks, a division of Tyson Foods, for distribution by the Mendota Heights Fire Department during the Halloween Bonfire Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of October, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 49 To: Mayor and City Council From: Mark McNeill, City Administrator Subject: City Hall Remodeling Payment/Closeout Date: October 16, 2018 Comment: Introduction: The City Council is asked to authorize payments of Pay Application #5, and Pay Application #6 (the release of the retainage payment), both regarding the City Hall remodeling project. Background: On October 3, 2017, the City Council authorized entering into a contract with the Dering Pierson Group (DPG) to be the general contractor for remodeling work in the lower level of City Hall. The initial reason for the work was to provide for mold remediation, which had been caused by water intrusion over the years. However, the contract also provided for the replacement of mold-damaged portions of the building, and the remodeling of the existing squad room/work area, kitchen, Captain’s office, and elections storage room. Other specialist contractors were hired by the City to test for and remove mold. The fact that this work had to be done while the Police Department continued to operate made the project more complex, as the work had to be done in phases. The interior work was completed in early summer, 2018. The contract also included exterior masonry repairs, which were needed to accommodate waterproofing modifications. The exterior brickwork was initially done last winter under cold weather conditions, which required the use of heated tenting. In the opinion of the City and the architect, the results were less than acceptable for much of the work. After exploring options to resolve this, the City, DPG, JEA Architects (the City’s architect for the project), and the masonry subcontractor did ultimately agree to have a third party inspector review the work, and designate areas which were unacceptable, and needed to be replaced. Inspec, Inc. performed the inspection. As part of the negotiations, the City agreed to expedite payment for the repaired masonry work, once it was determined to be acceptable. The exterior work is now complete; the final inspection is anticipated to take place sometime during the week of October 22nd. page 50 DPG is in the process of gathering and submitting documents to final (close out) out the City Hall project. Discussion: The City, architect, and general contractor have agreed to process a payment of $70,776.36 as Pay Application #5, which is the amount which remains after a retainage of 5% has been withheld to assure completion of any remaining unresolved issues. This means that a total of $11,914.90 has been retained throughout the project. Due to the fifth Tuesday in October and the delay caused by Election Day, the next City Council meeting will be 22 days into the future. So that the contractor and masonry subcontractor do not have to wait until then for the final release of payment, staff requests the authority to release the remaining retainage amount after an acceptable final walk-thorough, and receipt of executed close-out documents. That would be processed as Pay Application #6. Budget Impact: The original contract amount with DPG was for $228,000. Three change orders were approved totaling $10,298, for a final contract amount of $238,298. Mold testing (some of which went back to 2016), mold remediation, the architectural fees, and floor coverings were in addition to that amount. Those totaled $99,977.25. Therefore, the overall project has amounted to $338,275.25. (There will be some final architectural payments resulting from his processing of the close out.) Funding came from the Water Tower Fund. Recommendation: I recommend that the City issue a payment of $70,776.36 to DPG for Pay Application #5. I further recommend that staff be given authority to release the remaining $11,914.90 after a satisfactory final inspection, and receipt of close out documents Action Required If the Council concurs, it should, by motion, authorize immediate payment of $70,776.36 to Dering Pierson Group for Payment Application #5, and further to release the retainage amount of $11,914.90, after the completion of a satisfactory final inspection, and receipt of properly executed close-out documents. Mark McNeill City Administrator page 51 October 11, 2018 Mark McNeill City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Mendota Heights City Hall – Repairs & Remodeling Application for Payment No. 5 JEA Architects Project No.: 1190A Dear Mark: Enclosed please find a copy of Application and Certificate for Payment No. 5 submitted by Dering Pierson Group. I have approved the amount requested as per our recent discussions. If you have any questions regarding this Application for Payment, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Jack Edward Anderson, AIA, CID, NCARB President /kda enclosure cc: Joyce Dering page 52 page 53 page 54 October 11, 2018 Mark McNeill City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Mendota Heights City Hall – Repairs & Remodeling Application for Payment No. 6-Final JEA Architects Project No.: 1190A Dear Mark: Enclosed please find a copy of Application and Certificate for Payment No. 6-Final submitted by Dering Pierson Group. Per our recent discussions with the City and the General Contractor this Application of Payment is approved contingent on receiving the final closeout materials for the project including Consent of Surety for final payment. If you have any questions regarding this Application for Payment, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Jack Edward Anderson, AIA, CID, NCARB President /kda enclosure cc: Joyce Dering page 55 page 56 page 57 DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kristen Schabacker, Finance Director SUBJECT: 2018 Bond Issue INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to approve the issuance and sale of bonds which will be used to construct the 2018 Street Improvements project. BACKGROUND At the September 18, 2018 city council meeting, the council authorized the public sale of $1,125,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds. The issue will be financing the Lexington Highlands and Mendakota Neighborhood street project. I had a conference call with Standard & Poor’s on October 8, 2018. They affirmed our AAA bond rating with a stable outlook. The proposal opening will be held on October 16, 2018, and the results of the opening will be presented that evening at the council meeting. The council will take action on the sale at the October 16, 2018 council meeting. A representative from Ehlers and Associates will be present to present a tabulation of the bids received. BUDGET IMPACT The bonds will be paid with a combination of special assessments and an amount levied each year for the annual bond payments. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend that council pass a motion to adopting: Resolution 2018-80 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,125,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2018A, PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF. page 58 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA HELD: OCTOBER 16, 2018 Pursuant to due call, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall on October 16, 2018, at 7:00 P.M., for the purpose, in part, of providing for the issuance and sale of $1,125,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member _______________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2018-80 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,125,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2018A, PLEDGING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LEVYING A TAX FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota (the "City") has heretofore determined and declared that it is necessary and expedient to issue $1,125,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A (the "Bonds" or individually, a "Bond"), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 475 and 429 to finance various public improvement projects within the City (the "Improvements"); and B. WHEREAS, the Improvements and all their components have been ordered prior to the date hereof, after a hearing thereon for which notice was given describing the Improvements or all their components by general nature, estimated cost, and area to be assessed; and C. WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent municipal advisor for the sale of the Bonds and was therefore authorized to sell the Bonds by private negotiation in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9) and proposals to purchase the Bonds have been solicited by Ehlers; and D. WHEREAS, the proposals set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto were received by the Clerk, or designee, at the offices of Ehlers at 11:00 A.M. this same day pursuant to the Preliminary Official Statement, dated October 4, 2018, established for the Bonds; and E. WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City that the Bonds be issued in book- entry form as hereinafter provided; and page 59 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Acceptance of Proposal. The proposal of _____________________________ (the "Purchaser"), to purchase the Bonds, in accordance with the Preliminary Official Statement established for the Bonds, at the rates of interest hereinafter set forth, and to pay therefor the sum of $__________, plus interest accrued to settlement, is hereby found, determined and declared to be the most favorable proposal received, is hereby accepted and the Bonds are hereby awarded to the Purchaser. The Clerk is directed to retain the deposit of the Purchaser and to forthwith return to the unsuccessful bidders their good faith checks or drafts. 2. Bond Terms. (a) Original Issue Date; Denominations; Maturities. The Bonds shall be dated November 1, 2018, as the date of original issue, be issued forthwith on or after such date in fully registered form, be numbered from R-1 upward in the denomination of $5,000 each or in any integral multiple thereof of a single maturity (the "Authorized Denominations") and mature on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: Year Amount Year Amount 2021 $ 2026 $ 2022 2027 2023 2028 2024 2029 2025 2030 As may be requested by the Purchaser, one or more term Bonds may be issued having mandatory sinking fund redemption and final maturity amounts conforming to the foregoing principal repayment schedule, and corresponding additions may be made to the provisions of the applicable Bond(s). (b) Book Entry Only System. The Depository Trust Company, a limited purpose trust company organized under the laws of the State of New York or any of its successors or its successors to its functions hereunder (the "Depository") will act as securities depository for the Bonds, and to this end: (i) The Bonds shall be initially issued and, so long as they remain in book entry form only (the "Book Entry Only Period"), shall at all times be in the form of a separate single fully registered Bond for each maturity of the Bonds; and for purposes of complying with this requirement under paragraphs 5 and 10 Authorized Denominations for any Bond shall be deemed to be limited during the Book Entry Only Period to the outstanding principal amount of that Bond. (ii) Upon initial issuance, ownership of the Bonds shall be registered in a bond register maintained by the Bond Registrar (as hereinafter defined) in the name of page 60 CEDE & CO, as the nominee (it or any nominee of the existing or a successor Depository, the "Nominee"). (iii) With respect to the Bonds neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall have any responsibility or obligation to any broker, dealer, bank, or any other financial institution for which the Depository holds Bonds as securities depository (the "Participant") or the person for which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds shown on the books and records of the Participant (the "Beneficial Owner"). Without limiting the immediately preceding sentence, neither the City, nor the Bond Registrar, shall have any such responsibility or obligation with respect to (A) the accuracy of the records of the Depository, the Nominee or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, or (B) the delivery to any Participant, any Owner or any other person, other than the Depository, of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (C) the payment to any Participant, any Beneficial Owner or any other person, other than the Depository, of any amount with respect to the principal of or premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds, or (D) the consent given or other action taken by the Depository as the Registered Holder of any Bonds (the "Holder"). For purposes of securing the vote or consent of any Holder under this Resolution, the City may, however, rely upon an omnibus proxy under which the Depository assigns its consenting or voting rights to certain Participants to whose accounts the Bonds are credited on the record date identified in a listing attached to the omnibus proxy. (iv) The City and the Bond Registrar may treat as and deem the Depository to be the absolute owner of the Bonds for the purpose of payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds, for the purpose of giving notices of redemption and other matters with respect to the Bonds, for the purpose of obtaining any consent or other action to be taken by Holders for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bonds, and for all purpose whatsoever. The Bond Registrar, as paying agent hereunder, shall pay all principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to the Holder or the Holders of the Bonds as shown on the bond register, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (v) Upon delivery by the Depository to the Bond Registrar of written notice to the effect that the Depository has determined to substitute a new Nominee in place of the existing Nominee, and subject to the transfer provisions in paragraph 10, references to the Nominee hereunder shall refer to such new Nominee. (vi) So long as any Bond is registered in the name of a Nominee, all payments with respect to the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on such Bond and all notices with respect to such Bond shall be made and given, respectively, by the Bond Registrar or City, as the case may be, to the Depository as provided in the Letter of Representations to the Depository required by the Depository as a page 61 condition to its acting as book-entry Depository for the Bonds (said Letter of Representations, together with any replacement thereof or amendment or substitute thereto, including any standard procedures or policies referenced therein or applicable thereto respecting the procedures and other matters relating to the Depository's role as book-entry Depository for the Bonds, collectively hereinafter referred to as the "Letter of Representations"). (vii) All transfers of beneficial ownership interests in each Bond issued in book-entry form shall be limited in principal amount to Authorized Denominations and shall be effected by procedures by the Depository with the Participants for recording and transferring the ownership of beneficial interests in such Bonds. (viii) In connection with any notice or other communication to be provided to the Holders pursuant to this Resolution by the City or Bond Registrar with respect to any consent or other action to be taken by Holders, the Depository shall consider the date of receipt of notice requesting such consent or other action as the record date for such consent or other action; provided, that the City or the Bond Registrar may establish a special record date for such consent or other action. The City or the Bond Registrar shall, to the extent possible, give the Depository notice of such special record date not less than fifteen calendar days in advance of such special record date to the extent possible. (ix) Any successor Bond Registrar in its written acceptance of its duties under this Resolution and any paying agency/bond registrar agreement, shall agree to take any actions necessary from time to time to comply with the requirements of the Letter of Representations. (c) Termination of Book-Entry Only System. Discontinuance of a particular Depository's services and termination of the book-entry only system may be effected as follows: (i) The Depository may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving written notice to the City and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. The City may terminate the services of the Depository with respect to the Bond if it determines that the Depository is no longer able to carry out its functions as securities depository or the continuation of the system of book-entry transfers through the Depository is not in the best interests of the City or the Beneficial Owners. (ii) Upon termination of the services of the Depository as provided in the preceding paragraph, and if no substitute securities depository is willing to undertake the functions of the Depository hereunder can be found which, in the opinion of the City, is willing and able to assume such functions upon reasonable or customary terms, or if the City determines that it is in the best interests of the City or the Beneficial Owners of the Bond that the Beneficial Owners be able to obtain certificates for the Bonds, the Bonds shall no longer be registered as being registered in the bond register in the name of the Nominee, but may be registered in whatever name or names the Holder of the Bonds shall designate at that time, page 62 in accordance with paragraph 10. To the extent that the Beneficial Owners are designated as the transferee by the Holders, in accordance with paragraph 10, the Bonds will be delivered to the Beneficial Owners. (iii) Nothing in this subparagraph (d) shall limit or restrict the provisions of paragraph 10. (d) Letter of Representations. The provisions in the Letter of Representations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part of the resolution, and if and to the extent any such provisions are inconsistent with the other provisions of this resolution, the provisions in the Letter of Representations shall control. 3. Purpose. The Bonds shall provide funds to finance the Improvements. The total cost of the Improvements, which shall include all costs enumerated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65, is estimated to be at least equal to the amount of the Bonds. Work on the Improvements shall proceed with due diligence to completion. The City covenants that it shall do all things and perform all acts required of it to assure that work on the Improvements proceeds with due diligence to completion and that any and all permits and studies required under law for the Improvements are obtained. 4. Interest. The Bonds shall bear interest payable semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year (each, an "Interest Payment Date"), commencing August 1, 2019, calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months, at the respective rates per annum set forth opposite the maturity years as follows: Maturity Year Interest Rate Maturity Year Interest Rate 2021 % 2026 % 2022 2027 2023 2028 2024 2029 2025 2030 5. Redemption. All Bonds maturing on February 1, 2027, and thereafter shall be subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the City on February 1, 2026, and on any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the maturities and the principal amounts within each maturity to be redeemed shall be determined by the City and if only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment, the specific Bonds to be prepaid shall be chosen by lot by the Registrar. Bonds or portions thereof called for redemption shall be due and payable on the redemption date, and interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after the redemption date. Mailed notice of redemption shall be given to the paying agent and to each affected registered holder of the Bonds not more than sixty (60) days and not fewer than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption. To effect a partial redemption of Bonds having a common maturity date, the Registrar prior to giving notice of redemption shall assign to each Bond having a common maturity date a page 63 distinctive number for each $5,000 of the principal amount of such Bond. The Registrar shall then select by lot, using such method of selection as it shall deem proper in its discretion, from the numbers so assigned to the Bonds, as many numbers as, at $5,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided, however, that only so much of the principal amount of each Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 shall be redeemed as shall equal $5,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. If a Bond is to be redeemed only in part, it shall be surrendered to the Registrar (with, if the City or Registrar so requires, a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the City and Registrar duly executed by the Holder thereof or the Holder's attorney duly authorized in writing) and the City shall execute (if necessary) and the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver to the Holder of the Bond, without service charge, a new Bond or Bonds having the same stated maturity and interest rate and of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations, as requested by the Holder, in aggregate principal amount equal to and in exchange for the unredeemed portion of the principal of the Bond so surrendered. 6. Bond Registrar. Bond Trust Services Corporation, in Roseville, Minnesota, is appointed to act as bond registrar and transfer agent with respect to the Bonds (the "Bond Registrar"), and shall do so unless and until a successor Bond Registrar is duly appointed, all pursuant to any contract the City and Bond Registrar shall execute which is consistent herewith. The Bond Registrar shall also serve as paying agent unless and until a successor paying agent is duly appointed. Principal and interest on the Bonds shall be paid to the registered holders (or record holders) of the Bonds in the manner set forth in the form of Bond and in paragraph 12. 7. Form of Bond. The Bonds, together with the Bond Registrar's Certificate of Authentication, the form of Assignment and the registration information thereon, shall be in substantially the following form: page 64 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA DAKOTA COUNTY CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS R-_______ $_________ GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BOND, SERIES 2018A Interest Rate Maturity Date Date of Original Issue CUSIP ___% February 1, ____ November 1, 2018 586771 REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA (the "Issuer"), certifies that it is indebted and for value received promises to pay to the registered owner specified above, or registered assigns, unless called for earlier redemption, in the manner hereinafter set forth, the principal amount specified above, on the maturity date specified above, and to pay interest thereon semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year (each, an "Interest Payment Date"), commencing August 1, 2019, at the rate per annum specified above (calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve thirty-day months) until the principal sum is paid or has been provided for. This Bond will bear interest from the most recent Interest Payment Date to which interest has been paid or, if no interest has been paid, from the date of original issue hereof. The principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond are payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the Bond Trust Services Corporation, in Roseville, Minnesota (the "Bond Registrar"), acting as paying agent, or any successor paying agent duly appointed by the Issuer (the "Bond Registrar"), acting as paying agent, or any successor paying agent duly appointed by the Issuer. Interest on this Bond will be paid on each Interest Payment Date by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name this Bond is registered (the "Holder" or "Bondholder") on the registration books of the Issuer maintained by the Bond Registrar and at the address appearing thereon at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Regular Record Date"). Any interest not so timely paid shall cease to be payable to the person who is the Holder hereof as of the Regular Record Date, and shall be payable to the person who is the Holder hereof at the close of business on a date (the "Special Record Date") fixed by the Bond Registrar whenever money becomes available for payment of the defaulted interest. Notice of the Special Record Date shall be given to Bondholders not less than ten days prior to the Special Record Date. The principal of and premium, if any, and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. So long as this Bond is registered in the name of the Depository or its Nominee as provided in the Resolution hereinafter described, and as those terms are defined therein, payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond and notice with respect thereto shall be made as provided in the Letter of Representations, as defined in the Resolution, and surrender of this Bond shall not be required for payment of the redemption price upon a partial redemption of page 65 this Bond. Until termination of the book-entry only system pursuant to the Resolution, Bonds may only be registered in the name of the Depository or its Nominee. Optional Redemption. The Bonds of this issue (the "Bonds") maturing on February 1, 2027, and thereafter, are subject to redemption and prepayment at the option of the Issuer on February 1, 2026, and on any date thereafter at a price of par plus accrued interest. Redemption may be in whole or in part of the Bonds subject to prepayment. If redemption is in part, the maturities and the principal amounts within each maturity to be redeemed shall be determined by the Issuer; and if only part of the Bonds having a common maturity date are called for prepayment, the specific Bonds to be prepaid shall be chosen by lot by the Bond Registrar. Bonds or portions thereof called for redemption shall be due and payable on the redemption date, and interest thereon shall cease to accrue from and after the redemption date. Mailed notice of redemption shall be given to the paying agent and to each affected registered holder of the Bonds not more than sixty (60) days and not fewer than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption. Prior to the date on which any Bond or Bonds are directed by the Issuer to be redeemed in advance of maturity, the Issuer will cause notice of the call thereof for redemption identifying the Bonds to be redeemed to be mailed to the Bond Registrar and all Bondholders, at the addresses shown on the Bond Register. All Bonds so called for redemption will cease to bear interest on the specified redemption date, provided funds for their redemption have been duly deposited. Selection of Bonds for Redemption; Partial Redemption. To effect a partial redemption of Bonds having a common maturity date, the Bond Registrar shall assign to each Bond having a common maturity date a distinctive number for each $5,000 of the principal amount of such Bond. The Bond Registrar shall then select by lot, using such method of selection as it shall deem proper in its discretion, from the numbers assigned to the Bonds, as many numbers as, at $5,000 for each number, shall equal the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed. The Bonds to be redeemed shall be the Bonds to which were assigned numbers so selected; provided, however, that only so much of the principal amount of such Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 shall be redeemed as shall equal $5,000 for each number assigned to it and so selected. If a Bond is to be redeemed only in part, it shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar (with, if the Issuer or Bond Registrar so requires, a written instrument of transfer in form satisfactory to the Issuer and Bond Registrar duly executed by the Holder thereof or the Holder's attorney duly authorized in writing) and the Issuer shall execute (if necessary) and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver to the Holder of the Bond, without service charge, a new Bond or Bonds having the same stated maturity and interest rate and of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations, as requested by the Holder, in aggregate principal amount equal to and in exchange for the unredeemed portion of the principal of the Bond so surrendered. Issuance; Purpose; General Obligation. This Bond is one of an issue in the total principal amount of $1,125,000, all of like date of original issue and tenor, except as to number, maturity, interest rate, redemption privilege and denomination, issued pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council of the Issuer on October 16, 2018 (the "Resolution"), for the purpose of providing money to finance various public improvement projects within the jurisdiction of the page 66 Issuer. This Bond is payable out of the General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A Fund of the Issuer. This Bond constitutes a general obligation of the Issuer, and to provide moneys for the prompt and full payment of its principal, premium, if any, and interest when the same become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the Issuer have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged. Denominations; Exchange; Resolution. The Bonds are issuable solely in fully registered form in Authorized Denominations (as defined in the Resolution) and are exchangeable for fully registered Bonds of other Authorized Denominations in equal aggregate principal amounts at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, but only in the manner and subject to the limitations provided in the Resolution. Reference is hereby made to the Resolution for a description of the rights and duties of the Bond Registrar. Copies of the Resolution are on file in the principal office of the Bond Registrar. Transfer. This Bond is transferable by the Holder in person or the Holder's attorney duly authorized in writing at the principal office of the Bond Registrar upon presentation and surrender hereof to the Bond Registrar, all subject to the terms and conditions provided in the Resolution and to reasonable regulations of the Issuer contained in any agreement with the Bond Registrar. Thereupon the Issuer shall execute and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in exchange for this Bond, one or more new fully registered Bonds in the name of the transferee (but not registered in blank or to "bearer" or similar designation), of an Authorized Denomination or Denominations, in aggregate principal amount equal to the principal amount of this Bond, of the same maturity and bearing interest at the same rate. Fees upon Transfer or Loss. The Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge payable in connection with the transfer or exchange of this Bond and any legal or unusual costs regarding transfers and lost Bonds. Treatment of Registered Owners. The Issuer and Bond Registrar may treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment as herein provided (except as otherwise provided herein with respect to the Record Date) and for all other purposes, whether or not this Bond shall be overdue, and neither the Issuer nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by notice to the contrary. Authentication. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security unless the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Bond Registrar. Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligation. This Bond has been designated by the Issuer as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to happen and to be performed, precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond, have been done, have happened and have been performed, in regular and due form, time and manner as required by law, and that this Bond, together with all other debts of the Issuer outstanding on the date of original issue hereof page 67 and the date of its issuance and delivery to the original purchaser, does not exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation of indebtedness. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, by its City Council has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile signatures of its Mayor and its Clerk, the corporate seal of the Issuer having been intentionally omitted as permitted by law. Date of Registration: BOND REGISTRAR'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the Resolution mentioned within. BOND TRUST SERVICES CORPORATION Roseville, Minnesota Bond Registrar By: Authorized Signature Registrable by: BOND TRUST SERVICES CORPORATION Payable at: BOND TRUST SERVICES CORPORATION CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA /s/ Facsimile Mayor /s/ Facsimile Clerk page 68 ABBREVIATIONS The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - as tenants in common TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common UTMA - ___________ as custodian for ______________ (Cust) (Minor) under the _____________________ Uniform (State) Transfers to Minors Act Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto ________________________________________________________________ the within Bond and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _________________ attorney to transfer the Bond on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated:_________________ ____________________________________________ Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Signature Guaranteed: ___________________________ Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a national bank or trust company or by a brokerage firm having a membership in one of the major stock exchanges or any other "Eligible Guarantor Institution" as defined in 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-15(a)(2). The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the transferee requested below is provided. Name and Address: ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ (Include information for all joint owners if the Bond is held by joint account.) page 69 8. Execution. The Bonds shall be in typewritten form, shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of its Mayor and Clerk and be sealed with the seal of the City; provided, as permitted by law, both signatures may be photocopied facsimiles and the corporate seal has been omitted. In the event of disability or resignation or other absence of either officer, the Bonds may be signed by the manual or facsimile signature of the officer who may act on behalf of the absent or disabled officer. In case either officer whose signature or facsimile of whose signature shall appear on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Bonds, the signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in office until delivery. 9. Authentication. No Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under this resolution unless a Certificate of Authentication on the Bond, substantially in the form hereinabove set forth, shall have been duly executed by an authorized representative of the Bond Registrar. Certificates of Authentication on different Bonds need not be signed by the same person. The Bond Registrar shall authenticate the signatures of officers of the City on each Bond by execution of the Certificate of Authentication on the Bond and by inserting as the date of registration in the space provided the date on which the Bond is authenticated, except that for purposes of delivering the original Bonds to the Purchaser, the Bond Registrar shall insert as a date of registration the date of original issue of November 1, 2018. The Certificate of Authentication so executed on each Bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this resolution. 10. Registration; Transfer; Exchange. The City will cause to be kept at the principal office of the Bond Registrar a bond register in which, subject to such reasonable regulations as the Bond Registrar may prescribe, the Bond Registrar shall provide for the registration of Bonds and the registration of transfers of Bonds entitled to be registered or transferred as herein provided. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, the City shall execute (if necessary), and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate, insert the date of registration (as provided in paragraph 9) of, and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations of a like aggregate principal amount, having the same stated maturity and interest rate, as requested by the transferor; provided, however, that no Bond may be registered in blank or in the name of "bearer" or similar designation. At the option of the Holder, Bonds may be exchanged for Bonds of any Authorized Denomination or Denominations of a like aggregate principal amount and stated maturity, upon surrender of the Bonds to be exchanged at the principal office of the Bond Registrar. Whenever any Bonds are so surrendered for exchange, the City shall execute (if necessary), and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate, insert the date of registration of, and deliver the Bonds which the Holder making the exchange is entitled to receive. All Bonds surrendered upon any exchange or transfer provided for in this resolution shall be promptly canceled by the Bond Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. page 70 All Bonds delivered in exchange for or upon transfer of Bonds shall be valid general obligations of the City evidencing the same debt, and entitled to the same benefits under this resolution, as the Bonds surrendered for such exchange or transfer. Every Bond presented or surrendered for transfer or exchange shall be duly endorsed or be accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the Holder thereof or his, her or its attorney duly authorized in writing The Bond Registrar may require payment of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or other governmental charge payable in connection with the transfer or exchange of any Bond and any legal or unusual costs regarding transfers and lost Bonds. Transfers shall also be subject to reasonable regulations of the City contained in any agreement with the Bond Registrar, including regulations which permit the Bond Registrar to close its transfer books between record dates and payment dates. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute the terms of said agreement. 11. Rights Upon Transfer or Exchange. Each Bond delivered upon transfer of or in exchange for or in lieu of any other Bond shall carry all the rights to interest accrued and unpaid, and to accrue, which were carried by such other Bond. 12. Interest Payment; Record Date. Interest on any Bond shall be paid on each Interest Payment Date by check or draft mailed to the person in whose name the Bond is registered (the "Holder") on the registration books of the City maintained by the Bond Registrar and at the address appearing thereon at the close of business on the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding such Interest Payment Date (the "Regular Record Date"). Any such interest not so timely paid shall cease to be payable to the person who is the Holder thereof as of the Regular Record Date, and shall be payable to the person who is the Holder thereof at the close of business on a date (the "Special Record Date") fixed by the Bond Registrar whenever money becomes available for payment of the defaulted interest. Notice of the Special Record Date shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the Holders not less than ten days prior to the Special Record Date. 13. Treatment of Registered Owner. The City and Bond Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is registered as the owner of such Bond for the purpose of receiving payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest (subject to the payment provisions in paragraph 12) on, such Bond and for all other purposes whatsoever whether or not such Bond shall be overdue, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by notice to the contrary. 14. Delivery; Application of Proceeds. The Bonds when so prepared and executed shall be delivered by the Finance Director to the Purchaser upon receipt of the purchase price, and the Purchaser shall not be obliged to see to the proper application thereof. 15. Fund and Accounts. There is hereby created a special fund to be designated the "General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A Fund" (the "Fund") to be administered and maintained by the Finance Director as a bookkeeping account separate and apart from all other funds maintained in the official financial records of the City. The Fund shall be maintained page 71 in the manner herein specified until all of the Bonds and the interest thereon have been fully paid. There shall be maintained in the Fund the "Construction Account" and "Debt Service Account": (a) Construction Account. To the Construction Account shall be credited the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds, plus any special assessments levied with respect to the Improvements and collected prior to completion of the Improvements and payment of the costs thereof. Any unused discount or premium upon the sale of the Bonds shall be deposited into the Construction Account. From the Construction Account there shall be paid all costs and expenses of making the Improvements listed in paragraph 16, including the cost of any construction contracts heretofore let and all other costs incurred and to be incurred of the kind authorized in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.65; and the moneys in the Construction Account shall be used for no other purpose except as otherwise provided by law; provided that the proceeds of the Bonds may also be used to the extent necessary to pay interest on the Bonds due prior to the anticipated date of commencement of the receipt of the collection of taxes or special assessments herein levied or covenanted to be levied; and provided further that if upon completion of the Improvements there shall remain any unexpended balance in the Construction Account, the balance (other than any special assessments) may be transferred by the Council to the Debt Service Account or the fund of any other improvement instituted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and provided further that any special assessments credited to the Construction Account shall only be applied towards payment of the costs of the Improvements upon adoption of a resolution by the City Council determining that the application of the special assessments for such purpose will not cause the City to no longer be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 1. (b) Debt Service Account. There are hereby irrevocably appropriated and pledged to, and there shall be credited to, the Debt Service Account: (i) all collections of special assessments herein covenanted to be levied with respect to the Improvements and either initially credited to the Construction Account and not already spent a permitted above and required to pay any principal and interest due on the Bonds or collected subsequent to the completion of the Improvements and payment of the costs thereof; (ii) any collection of all taxes herein or hereafter levied for the payment of the Bonds; (iii) all funds remaining in the Construction Account after completion of the Improvements and payment of the costs thereof; (iv) all investment earnings on funds held in the Debt Service Account; and (v) any and all other moneys which are properly available and are appropriated by the governing body of the City to the Debt Service Account. The Debt Service Account shall be used solely to pay the principal and interest and any premiums for redemption of the Bonds and any other general obligation bonds of the City hereafter issued by the City and made payable from the account as provided by law. No portion of the proceeds of the Bonds shall be used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments or to replace funds which were used directly or indirectly to acquire higher yielding investments, except (1) for a reasonable temporary period until such proceeds are needed for the purpose for which the Bonds were issued and (2) in addition to the above in an amount not greater than the lesser of five percent of the proceeds of the Bonds or $100,000. To this effect, any proceeds of the Bonds and any sums from time to time held in the Construction Account or Debt Service Account (or any other City account which will be used to pay principal or interest to become due on the bonds payable therefrom) in excess of amounts which under page 72 then applicable federal arbitrage regulations may be invested without regard to yield shall not be invested at a yield in excess of the applicable yield restrictions imposed by the arbitrage regulations on such investments after taking into account any applicable "temporary periods" or "minor portion" made available under the federal arbitrage regulations. Money in the Fund shall not be invested in obligations or deposits issued by, guaranteed by or insured by the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof if and to the extent that such investment would cause the Bonds to be "federally guaranteed" within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"). 16. Assessments. It is hereby determined that no less than twenty percent of the cost to the City of each Improvement financed hereunder within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.58, Subdivision 1(3), shall be paid by special assessments to be levied against every assessable lot, piece and parcel of land benefited by any of the Improvements. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will let all construction contracts not heretofore let within one year after ordering each Improvement financed hereunder unless the resolution ordering the Improvement specifies a different time limit for the letting of construction contracts. The City hereby further covenants and agrees that it will do and perform as soon as they may be done all acts and things necessary for the final and valid levy of such special assessments, and in the event that any such assessment be at any time held invalid with respect to any lot, piece or parcel of land due to any error, defect, or irregularity in any action or proceedings taken or to be taken by the City or the City Council or any of the City officers or employees, either in the making of the assessments or in the performance of any condition precedent thereto, the City and the City Council will forthwith do all further acts and take all further proceedings as may be required by law to make the assessments a valid and binding lien upon such property. The special assessments have heretofore been authorized. Subject to such adjustments as are required by the conditions in existence at the time the assessments are levied, it is hereby determined that the assessments shall be payable in equal, consecutive, annual installments, with general taxes for the years shown below and with interest on the declining balance of all such assessments at the rates per annum not less than the rate per annum set forth opposite the collection years specified below: Improvement Designation Levy Years Collection Years Amount Rate See Attached Schedule At the time the assessments are in fact levied the City Council shall, based on the then current estimated collections of the assessments, make any adjustments in any ad valorem taxes required to be levied in order to assure that the City continues to be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 1. 17. Tax Levy; Coverage Test. To provide moneys for payment of the principal and interest on the Bonds there is hereby levied upon all of the taxable property in the City a direct annual ad valorem tax which shall be spread upon the tax rolls and collected with and as part of other general property taxes in the City for the years and in the amounts as follows: page 73 Year of Tax Levy Year of Tax Collection Amount See Attached Schedule The tax levies are such that if collected in full they, together with estimated collections of special assessments and other revenues herein pledged for the payment of the Bonds, will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the principal and interest payments on the Bonds. The tax levies shall be irrepealable so long as any of the Bonds are outstanding and unpaid, provided that the City reserves the right and power to reduce the levies in the manner and to the extent permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3. 18. Defeasance. When all Bonds have been discharged as provided in this paragraph, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the registered holders of the Bonds shall, to the extent permitted by law, cease. The City may discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds which are due on any date by irrevocably depositing with the Bond Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full; or if any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Bond Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. The City may also discharge its obligations with respect to any prepayable Bonds called for redemption on any date when they are prepayable according to their terms, by depositing with the Bond Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full, provided that notice of redemption thereof has been duly given. The City may also at any time discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds, subject to the provisions of law now or hereafter authorizing and regulating such action, by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with a suitable banking institution qualified by law as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67, Subdivision 8, bearing interest payable at such times and at such rates and maturing on such dates as shall be required, without regard to sale and/or reinvestment, to pay all amounts to become due thereon to maturity or, if notice of redemption as herein required has been duly provided for, to such earlier redemption date. 19. Compliance With Reimbursement Bond Regulations. The provisions of this paragraph are intended to establish and provide for the City's compliance with United States Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 (the "Reimbursement Regulations") applicable to the "reimbursement proceeds" of the Bonds, being those portions thereof which will be used by the City to reimburse itself for any expenditure which the City paid or will have paid prior to the Closing Date (a "Reimbursement Expenditure"). The City hereby certifies and/or covenants as follows: (a) Not later than 60 days after the date of payment of a Reimbursement Expenditure, the City (or person designated to do so on behalf of the City) has made or will have made a written declaration of the City's official intent (a "Declaration") which effectively (i) states the City's reasonable expectation to reimburse itself for the payment of the Reimbursement Expenditure out of the proceeds of a subsequent borrowing; (ii) gives a general and functional description of the property, project or program to which the Declaration relates and for which the page 74 Reimbursement Expenditure is paid, or identifies a specific fund or account of the City and the general functional purpose thereof from which the Reimbursement Expenditure was to be paid (collectively the "Project"); and (iii) states the maximum principal amount of debt expected to be issued by the City for the purpose of financing the Project; provided, however, that no such Declaration shall necessarily have been made with respect to: (i) "preliminary expenditures" for the Project, defined in the Reimbursement Regulations to include engineering or architectural, surveying and soil testing expenses and similar prefatory costs, which in the aggregate do not exceed twenty percent of the "issue price" of the Bonds, and (ii) a de minimis amount of Reimbursement Expenditures not in excess of the lesser of $100,000 or five percent of the proceeds of the Bonds. (b) Each Reimbursement Expenditure is a capital expenditure or a cost of issuance of the Bonds or any of the other types of expenditures described in Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Reimbursement Regulations. (c) The "reimbursement allocation" described in the Reimbursement Regulations for each Reimbursement Expenditure shall and will be made forthwith following (but not prior to) the issuance of the Bonds and in all events within the period ending on the date which is the later of three years after payment of the Reimbursement Expenditure or one year after the date on which the Project to which the Reimbursement Expenditure relates is first placed in service. (d) Each such reimbursement allocation will be made in a writing that evidences the City's use of Bond proceeds to reimburse the Reimbursement Expenditure and, if made within 30 days after the Bonds are issued, shall be treated as made on the day the Bonds are issued. Provided, however, that the City may take action contrary to any of the foregoing covenants in this paragraph upon receipt of an opinion of its Bond Counsel for the Bonds stating in effect that such action will not impair the tax-exempt status of the Bonds. 20. General Obligation Pledge. For the prompt and full payment of the principal and interest on the Bonds, as the same respectively become due, the full faith, credit and taxing powers of the City shall be and are hereby irrevocably pledged. If the balance in the Debt Service Account is ever insufficient to pay all principal and interest then due on the Bonds and any other bonds payable therefrom, the deficiency shall be promptly paid out of any other funds of the City which are available for such purpose, and such other funds may be reimbursed with or without interest from the Debt Service Account when a sufficient balance is available therein. 21. Continuing Disclosure. The City is the sole obligated person with respect to the Bonds. The City hereby agrees, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule"), promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and a Continuing Disclosure Undertaking (the "Undertaking") hereinafter described to: (a) Provide or cause to be provided to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "MSRB") by filing at www.emma.msrb.org in accordance with the Rule, certain annual financial information and operating data in accordance with the Undertaking. The City reserves the right to modify from time to time the terms of the Undertaking as provided therein. page 75 (b) Provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB notice of the occurrence of certain events with respect to the Bonds in not more than ten (10) business days after the occurrence of the event, in accordance with the Undertaking. (c) Provide or cause to be provided to the MSRB notice of a failure by the City to provide the annual financial information with respect to the City described in the Undertaking, in not more than ten (10) business days following such occurrence. (d) The City agrees that its covenants pursuant to the Rule set forth in this paragraph and in the Undertaking is intended to be for the benefit of the Holders of the Bonds and shall be enforceable on behalf of such Holders; provided that the right to enforce the provisions of these covenants shall be limited to a right to obtain specific enforcement of the City's obligations under the covenants. The Mayor and Clerk of the City, or any other officer of the City authorized to act in their place (the "Officers") are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City the Undertaking in substantially the form presented to the City Council subject to such modifications thereof or additions thereto as are (i) consistent with the requirements under the Rule, (ii) required by the Purchaser of the Bonds, and (iii) acceptable to the Officers. 22. Certificate of Registration. A certified copy of this resolution is hereby directed to be filed in the offices of the County Auditor of Dakota County, Minnesota, together with such other information as the County Auditor shall require and to obtain the County Auditor's Certificate that the Bonds have been entered in the County Auditor's Bond Register and the tax levy required by law has been made. 23. Records and Certificates. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Purchaser, and to the attorneys approving the legality of the issuance of the Bonds, certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other affidavits, certificates and information as are required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts recited therein. 24. Negative Covenant as to Use of Bond Proceeds and Improvements. The City hereby covenants not to use the proceeds of the Bonds or to use the Improvements, or to cause or permit them to be used, or to enter into any deferred payment arrangements for the cost of the Improvements, in such a manner as to cause the Bonds to be "private activity bonds" within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code. 25. Tax-Exempt Status of the Bonds; Rebate. The City shall comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income under Section 103 of the Code of the interest on the Bonds, including without limitation (a) requirements relating to temporary periods for investments, (b) limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds, and (c) the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States, if the Bonds (together with other obligations reasonably expected page 76 to be issued and outstanding at one time in this calendar year) exceed the small issuer exception amount of $5,000,000. For purposes of qualifying for the exception to the federal arbitrage rebate requirements for governmental units issuing $5,000,000 or less of bonds, the City hereby finds, determines and declares that: (a) the Bonds are issued by a governmental unit with general taxing powers; (b) no Bond is a private activity bond; (c) ninety-five percent or more of the net proceeds of the Bonds are to be used for local governmental activities of the City (or of a governmental unit the jurisdiction of which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the City); and (d) the aggregate face amount of all tax exempt bonds (other than private activity bonds) issued by the City (and all subordinate entities thereof, and all entities treated as one issuer with the City) during the calendar year in which the Bonds are issued and outstanding at one time is not reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000, all within the meaning of Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Code. 26. Designation of Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligations. In order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the City hereby makes the following factual statements and representations: (a) the Bonds are issued after August 7, 1986; (b) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as defined in Section 141 of the Code; (c) the City hereby designates the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; (d) the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds, treating qualified 501(c)(3) bonds as not being private activity bonds) which will be issued by the City (and all entities treated as one issuer with the City, and all subordinate entities whose obligations are treated as issued by the City) during this calendar year 2018 will not exceed $10,000,000; (e) not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the City during this calendar year 2018 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code; and (f) the aggregate face amount of the Bonds does not exceed $10,000,000. The City shall use its best efforts to comply with any federal procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designation made by this paragraph. 27. Official Statement. The Official Statement relating to the Bonds prepared and distributed by Ehlers is hereby approved and the officers of the City are authorized in connection page 77 with the delivery of the Bonds to sign such certificates as may be necessary with respect to the completeness and accuracy of the Official Statement. 28. Payment of Issuance Expenses. The City authorizes the Purchaser to forward the amount of Bond proceeds allocable to the payment of issuance expenses to KleinBank, Chaska, Minnesota, on the closing date for further distribution as directed by the City's municipal advisor, Ehlers. 29. Severability. If any section, paragraph or provision of this resolution shall be held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution. 30. Headings. Headings in this resolution are included for convenience of reference only and are not a part hereof, and shall not limit or define the meaning of any provision hereof. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _____________ and, after a full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. page 78 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of the City, duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to considering proposals and awarding the sale of $1,125,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2018A. WITNESS my hand on October 16, 2018. _______________________________________ Clerk page 79 EXHIBIT A PROPOSALS [To be supplied by Ehlers & Associates, Inc.] page 80 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULES [To be supplied by Ehlers & Associates, Inc.] page 81 page 82 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving a Variance Request Per & Sandra Moberg – 1678 Lilac Lane [Planning Case No. 2018-24] Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a Variance request to Per and Sandra Moberg, for the property located at 1678 Lilac Lane. Background The Applicants are seeking to add a new driveway/parking pad area along the north side of the existing driveway and attached garage. This proposed improvement requires 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. City Code Section 12-1D-16 requires driveways (including off-street parking areas) to be setback at least 5-feet from any interior side lot line. At the October 4, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning staff report was presented and a public hearing was held. There were no comments or objections from the public; with one written letter of support from the neighboring resident to the north. The 10/04/18 planning report, along with the Planning Commission meeting minutes related to this item are appended to this memo. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval (by 5-2 vote) of the Variance request under Planning Case No. 2018-24, with findings of fact that support the recommendation of approval, and adjusted the recommended condition to allow such encroachment no closer than 1-ft. from the side property line. If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-77 APPROVING THE VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1678 LILAC LANE. Should the City Council wish to overturn this recommendation, it may choose to adopt a modified resolution with certain findings of fact for denial, as provided in the planning report. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 83 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-77 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW REDUCED SETBACK FROM SIDE-YARD SETBACKS OF A DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1678 LILAC LANE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-24) WHEREAS, Per and Sandra Moberg (the “Applicants”) applied for a Variance, as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-24, for the property located at 1678 Lilac Lane, and legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided under the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as LR- Low Density Residential and zoned R-1 One Family Residential according to the city’s official Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 12-1D-16 requires residential driveways, including off- street parking areas to be setback at least five feet (5’) from any interior side lot line; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are seeking to add a new parking pad measuring approx. 9-ft. by 20 -ft. along the north side of the dwelling, with an added 9-ft. by 20-ft. driveway/apron, which would encroach 4-ft. into the required 5-ft. side-yard setback area, and necessitates the approval of this variance application; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item at a special meeting of October 4, 2018, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended to approve (by 5 -2 vote) the variance request for the property located at 1678 Lilac Lane, as noted herein. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the variance to encroach four feet (4’) into the required five- foot (5’) side-yard setback for the property located at 1678 Lilac Lane and as proposed under Planning Case No. 2018-24, can be supported and approved based on the following findings of fact: A. 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 page 84 with the general purposes and intent of the ordinances; as the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. B. 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. C. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the request of a variance to encroach four feet (4’) into the required five- foot (5’) side-yard setback for the property located at 1678 Lilac Lane is hereby approved with the following conditions: 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 one-foot (1’) 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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of October, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 85 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 1678 Lilac Lane, Mendota Heights MN 55118 PID: 27-76400-01-110 Legal Description: Lot 11, Block 1, TILSEN’S HIGHLAND HEIGHTS, Dakota County, Minnesota Abstract Property page 86 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. page 87 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. page 88 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 page 89 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 page 90 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 page 91 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. page 92 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. page 93 SITE PHOTOS of 1678 LILAC LANE page 94 page 95 page 96 page 97 page 98 page 99 page 100 page 101 From:Sandra Moberg To:Tim Benetti Subject:1678 Lilac Lane Date:Tuesday, October 02, 2018 9:43:43 AM Tom, thanks for your time this morning I appreciate your help. Attached is the photo of the driveway at 1700 Lilac Ln. It shows the driveway is at the property line. If you could add this example and the driveway at the Black’s home to the planning report that might be helpful. Again, thanks for your help. See you on Thursday night. Sandra Moberg Sent from my iPhone page 102 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 4, 2018 A special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Thursday, October 4, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: None Approval of Agenda Chair Field suggested that the order of the agenda be reversed given the tremendous outpouring of people with an interest in case #2018-23. The agenda approved with the recommended reverse in order. Hearings B) PLANNING CASE #2018-24 PER & SANDRA MOBERG, 1678 LILAC LANE VARIANCE TO SIDE-YARD SETBACK STANDARD FOR NEW DRIVEWAY AND PARKING PAD EXPANSION Community Development Director explained that Per and Sandra Moberg requested an encroachment into the side yard setback for a new parking pad and driveway at their property located at 1678 Lilac Lane. This item was presented as a public hearing with notices being mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject parcel. No comments or objections were received. The property measures 90 feet in width and 165 feet in depth equaling approximately 15,503 square feet of land. There is also an existing 2,634 square foot, single story, rambler style, residential dwelling with a 400 square foot two-car attached garage. The requested parking pad and driveway would add an additional hard surface area of 400 square feet and the proposed driveway would be approximately one foot from the property line; whereas, city code requires a 5-foot setback. The neighbor to the east of the Moberg property has expressed support of this variance request. Mr. Benetti shared a photograph image of the subject property with a view from Lilac Lane and an overhead view showing its location relative to neighboring properties and roadways. Mr. Benetti explained the three tests to be taken into consideration when considering a variance request. page 103 Commissioner Corbett asked if the driveway would consist of asphalt surfacing. Mr. Benetti confirmed that this was the plan. Commissioner Toth asked if the easement and swell for water drainage would be impacted by this construction on the neighbor next door. Also, if there were to be heavy rains what would be the layout of the rear yard on both properties to prevent potential flooding. Chair Field noted that these questions would be addressed by staff during the design phase of this project, which Mr. Benetti confirmed. Since there is a driveway permit process, the engineers and planning would look at this. Ms. Sandra Moberg expressed her appreciation to the commission for considering this request. She then explained that Lilac Lane is a little unique in that the street had a grassy median that divides the lanes going north and south; the median divides into a large grassy hill directly in front of her home; the road is very narrow causing difficulties for passing cars parked on the street; adding this parking pad to her home would eliminate the need for a family member to park on the street because of the current situation with their driveway; on-street parking is not permitted in the winter and their garage is not large enough for a second vehicle; also the driveway is very narrow making passing a parked car in the driveway very difficult. They are asking to widen the driveway and add a parking pad expansion alongside of the garage. In keeping with the characteristic of the neighborhood, they are only asking for a variance of 40- feet long with a taper into the existing driveway footprint; rather than requesting for the parking pad to go all of the way to the street. It is their belief that a new driveway pad would look better to the neighbors than the damage their truck does to the lawn in the spring and the grass/weeds that grow up under the vehicles. Commissioner Noonan, referencing the size of the existing garage, asked why they could only park one vehicle inside. Ms. Moberg replied that it is a two-car garage; however, the truck they have is too long to fit into the garage. That is why he parks on the street. Commissioner Magnuson asked if they could live with an 8-foot wide parking pad rather than a 9- foot wide parking pad; making the setback two feet rather than the proposed one foot. Ms. Moberg shared an image of the boat parked next to the garage and explained that where the wheels are right now is right at 8 feet; therefore, their request was for a 9 foot pad so when they stepped out of the vehicle they would be stepping on the pavement. Commissioner Noonan noted that one of the tests that the commission has to consider is ‘practical difficulty’. In this case the practical difficulty in terms of accommodating this request is largely driven by the size of the lot; it is a small lot and the house occupies a lot of the frontage of the lot and there is limited space. He asked if there were any other practical difficulties the commission should consider. Ms. Moberg had no other practical difficulties to add. Chair Field opened the public hearing. page 104 Ms. Joanne Mansur, 1700 Lilac Lane, noted that the issue with their street is that it does have a median in the middle. So when she turns right out of her house and passes the Moberg home, if there is a car parked on the street it is actually very difficult to get past. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Noonan explained that he was going to move for denial of this variance request to be consistent with past decisions by the commission. In the past the commission has denied two or three other variances with similar circumstances where there was no practical difficulty, but was strictly a matter of convenience and desire on the part of the owner. The desire on the part of the owner is not a justification for a variance. One has to recognize the limitations of a property; just because one has a narrow and they cannot do everything on that lot they want does not mean the commission should grant a variance and wipe out side yards and all that side yards are intended to do. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-24 This motion died for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-24 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 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. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 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 1-foot from the side interior lot line. page 105 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. Commissioner Magnuson stated that normally she would agree with everything Commissioner Noonan said; however, in this case the thing that put her to the other side was the construction of the roadway and the fact that it is so narrow that it limits their ability to use the street for kind of parking purposes. To her, since they did not create the road it creates a practical difficulty. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2 (NOONAN, TOTH) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 16, 2018 meeting. page 106 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consideration of Ordinance No. 534 – Allow Motor Fuel Service Stations as a Place of Sale/Resale of Motor Vehicles [Ref. Planning Case No. 2017-05] Introduction The City Council is asked to give final consideration of an amendment to City Code Title 12-1D-13-3, which would allow motor fuel or service stations as a place of sale or resale of motor vehicles. The applicant is Sean Hoffmann, operator/manager of the BP-Mendota Heights Auto Service station, located at 2030 Dodd Road. Background Motor Fuel Stations and Convenience Stores are allowed in the B-2 Limited Business, B-3 General Business and B-4 Shopping Center districts by means of a conditional use permit. The BP station is located in the B-3 zone. Under City Code Title 12-1D-13-3, Motor Fuel Stations and Convenience Stores are subject to a standard that does not allow such places to be used for the sale/resale of vehicles (refer to zoning code section – attached hereto). Mr. Hoffmann is requesting this amendment in order to obtain an auto [broker] dealership license from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. These licenses are typically approved to a site or space in a commercial or industrial zoned area. The purpose of the commercial location is to be available during normal business hours for State inspectors to inspect and provide compliance checks on auto transaction records. On May 23, 2017, this item was originally presented before the Planning Commission under a public hearing (the 05/23/17 planning report & minutes are attached). Although there were no comments or objections from the public, the Commission decided to recommended denial (5-0 vote – with certain findings for denial) of the proposed zoning code amendment. This recommendation was then forwarded on to the City Council at the June 6, 2017 regular meeting. At the June 6, 2017 meeting, a brief discussion ensued with the applicant, staff and [then] City Attorney Tom Lehmann on possible alternatives related to this request. The item was eventually tabled, in order for page 107 Mr. Hoffmann to search out other alternatives or seek other locations, and council directed the city attorney and city staff to work or assist Mr. Hoffmann as needed. (Note: Mr. Hoffmann agreed to waive the 60-day statutory review period on this application). Since that time, city staff has either met or discussed with Mr. Hoffmann and his business partner the possible options or alternatives as recommended by the council. Unfortunately, Mr. Hoffmann’s search for other suitable sites has not been fruitful; and he requested staff present the draft ordinance as presented to the Council last year. Mr. Hoffmann has stated his prime interest in securing this dealers license is to provide an occasional brokering of a vehicle for their clients; and this auto sales/brokering activity will be very limited. Mr. Hoffmann has reviewed this ordinance, and feels it is very workable and acceptable for his business needs; and assured city staff that he will remain compliant with City Code requirements and State rules governing auto sales at this location. He has agreed to have no more than two (2) vehicles for display on-site at any one time. Recommendation The City Council should give careful consideration of this item, and may choose one of the following three options: 1) Adopt ORDINANCE NO. 534 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D. GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS TO ALLOW MOTOR FUEL SERVICE STATIONS AS A PLACE OF SALE OR RESALE OF NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES; 2) TABLE the matter again and direct the Applicant or city staff to provide additional information for further consideration; or 3) DENY the request of allowing Motor Fuel Service Stations as a Place of Sale/Resale of Motor Vehicles in the B-2, B-3 and B-4 Districts. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 108 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 534 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE D. GENERAL ZONING PROVISIONS TO ALLOW MOTOR FUEL SERVICE STATIONS AS A PLACE OF SALE OR RESALE OF NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, does hereby ordain: Section 1. Title 12-1D-13-3 Motor Fuel Stations and Motor Fuel Station Convenience Stores is hereby amended as follows: F. Storage and Sale of Vehicles And Products: 4. Service station premises shall not may be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place for display for sale or resale, of new or used motor vehicles, trailers or campers, subject to the following standards: a. No vehicles shall be marked or have any visible signs indicating “For Sale” or similar; b. Vehicles for sale under this provision will be limited to no more than two (2) vehicles on the site; c. Vehicles for sale shall not be placed in any front yard setback (including a corner front yard) of the subject property, and vehicles must be stored in an inconspicuous area of the property as approved by the Zoning Administrator. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in effect from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted and ordained into an ordinance this 20th day of June, 2017. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST ___________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 109 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 2017 A) PLANNING CASE #2017-05 MR. SEAN HOFFMANN, MANAGER BP/MENDOTA HEIGHTS AUTO SERVICE STATION, 2030 DODD ROAD PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT – ALLOW MOTOR FUEL SERVICE STATIONS AS A PLACE OF SALE/RESALE OF NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES Planner Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Sean Hoffmann, the local manager of the BP/Mendota Heights Auto Service Station on the corner of Dodd Road and Highway 110, approached staff and informed them that he was in the process of obtaining a motor vehicle dealer license. His desire is to provide for that service or operation at the local business. Unfortunately, City Code Title 12-1D-13-3, standard F4 currently states that ‘service station premises shall not be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place for display for sale or resale, of new or used motor vehicles, trailers or campers.’ Mr. Hoffmann is requesting an amendment to the code. The standards listed under this portion of the City Code are applicable to other service stations. The City has one full service station and two convenient store type gas stations. Planner Benetti also noted that under Title 12-1F- 4, limited auto sales are permitted only in the B-3 District as follows: “Automobile and other vehicles of transportation sales when conducted entirely within a building.” This is why there are not large scale auto dealerships, such as the ones seen on Highway 110 in Inver Grove Heights or in West St. Paul. Mr. Hoffmann explained in his request that he wants to be very limited; he does not want to turn this into a used car lot. Planner Benetti this would open up the door to a lot of vehicles on the site. Staff suggested, for the report process, Mr. Hoffmann should modify the request with conditions; such as, no vehicles shall be marked or have any visible signs indicating “For Sale’ or similar; vehicles for sale under this provision will be limited to more than _____ [staff indicated a number determined by the Planning Commission] vehicles on the site; vehicles for sale shall not be placed in any front yard setback (including a corner front yard) of the subject property, and vehicles must be stored in an inconspicuous area of the property as approved by the Zoning Administrator. Upon researching, Planner Benetti was unable to find other communities in the metro area that would allow gasoline service stations and/or convenience stores to display or sell vehicles on these properties. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of this application. However, the Planning Commission could give some direction or guidance or input as to whether or not, as alternative, would they allow the applicant to ask for a variance to the Conditional Use Permit that was approved for the site. Commissioner Petschel, noting a paragraph of page 3 of the staff report stating that “it does not appear other cities generally permit or allow gasoline service stations and/or convenience stores to display or sell vehicles,” asked if any other information has been discovered since the issuance of the report. Planner Benetti replied that during his search he was unable to see that any allowances were made for auto sale uses and nothing new has been revealed since the preparation of this report. Mr. Sean Hoffmann came forward and addressed the Commission. He stated that he is trying to obtain his dealers license to gain access to the wholesale auto auctions. Usually once or twice a month he has a customer asking for a) where can I get a used car, b) can you help me find a vehicles for my son, daughter, wife, or myself. It is his desire to cater to these customers. To obtain a dealers license the property needs to be zoned properly, which is why he is making this request. He believes there is a need for this in Mendota Heights. Commissioner Noonan, referencing the comment about needing this approval to obtain his dealers license, asked if he had to have an actual location or could he just hold a dealers license. Mr. Hoffmann replied that, per Minnesota law, he has to have a brick & mortar store where it is permissible to sell vehicles. He has no plans of keeping vehicles on the lot with flags and neon signs, or anything like that. Commissioner Noonan asked, if the Commission were to recommend the conditions stated above and inserted ‘zero’ in the blank spot, if that would work for him. Mr. Hoffmann replied in the affirmative. If someone comes to him he wants to be able to purchase the vehicle from the wholesaler, inspect the vehicles at his location, and be able to pass that onto the customer at significant savings to that customer. He anticipated that the longest a vehicle would be on his site would be overnight – but it would not be sitting out on his lot with a “For Sale” sign on it. page 110 Chair Field opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello) COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PLANNING CASE 2017-05, THE REQUEST TO AMEND CITY CODE TITLE 12- 1D-13-3 TO ALLOW SERVICE STATIONS TO BE USED AS A PLACE OF DISPLAY, SALE AND/OR RESALE OF NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: Amending the zoning code is not in the best long-term interest of the City of Mendota Heights It is not consistent with the land use and zoning in the area Commissioner Petschel stated that he has no problem with someone wanting to be a broker on their own property. The question is whether or not the language can be changed in the ordinance so the City does not end up with someone purchasing Mr. Hoffmann’s business and putting 10 cars on their lot and selling them; aside from limiting the number of vehicles. Commissioner Hennes agreed and commented that this could become a popular thing; it could become known as a place where a resident could sell their car. Commissioner Noonan stated that the lot is currently a busy lot; and it is not just this lot, this would apply to the other gas station lots as well. Changing the ordinance would change the nature of those operations. If the ordinance speaks for itself in terms of how the City wants to see car dealerships or car operations handled, then there is no reason to change it. Commissioner Roston stated that, as stated in the staff report, it is true that the other two stations are both Super America, and it is unlikely that Super America is going to ever get into this type of business, but they could also sell out. He also believed that it would be somewhat disingenuous to amend an ordinance to allow the sale or resale of cars and then to say you cannot have any cars on the lot. Chair Field noted that one alternative staff recommended was to take more time and look at the possibility of a variance. The question was asked how the variance would make the situation any different; and would it meet the variance rules. Commissioner Noonan stated that if it does not stand the test with satisfying the Commission with respect to use, giving it more time is not going to change things. Planner Benetti noted that there is a fine line for allowing a variance for a use, because “use variances” are not permitted by state law. If the Commission wanted to explore an alternative, he would want to get the City Attorney involved. Commissioner Petschel stated that it appears that no one wants a used car lot; however, is there a desire to see someone with the ability to act as a broker for used cars as part of their business. Commissioner Roston stated that personally he likes the station, he goes to the station and believes that Mr. Hoffmann is a good operator and he does not have any problem with him having a broker’s license. The Commission should do whatever it can to encourage whatever business he can; however, he does not believe this fits here. If there was a way to accommodate his broker license without having the change the ordinance, he would be in favor of that. He just did not know how to get there with the existing state law. Commissioner Noonan noted that even if the Commission adopted the motion to denial, there is nothing that preclude the pursuit of the sustainable brokerage license. Even if it came back and they want a brick & stick home, he was unsure that there was support by the Commission for it. page 111 Planner Benetti stated that on the application for the motor vehicles dealers’ license, there is a zoning approval area where he would have to indicate that it meets the zoning or it does not. Typically, the other brokerages licenses that he has signed off on, they were typically run out of an office building or an office suite. The understanding was that, because they were only brokering from party A to party B, he could write ‘absolutely no parking or display of vehicles would be allowed at this site’ because that was not allowed. As an office brokerage use, the state will accept that if the City limited it; however, it had to be provided for in the underlying zoning ordinance that the activity or use would be permitted in that district. Commissioner Roston also pointed out that the ordinance has to be land use based, not user based. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: 2 (Magnuson, Costello) Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its June 6, 2017 meeting. page 112 June 6, 2017 City Council Meeting – excerpts only NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS RESOLUTION 2017-39 – DENYING THE REQUEST OF A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MOTOR FUEL SERVICE STATIONS AS A PLACE OF SALE OR RESALE OF NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES, PLANNING CASE 2017-05 Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Mr. Sean Hoffmann is the proprietor of the BP- Mendota Heights Auto Service station, located at 2030 Dodd Road. Mr. Hoffmann came with a request to amend the City Code that currently does not allow motor fuel stations and convenience stores as places to be used for the sale/resale of vehicles. Under Title 12-1F-4, limited auto sales are permitted only in the B-3 District. Staff researched the surrounding communities and found that there are not many cities in the metro that allow this either as a permitted accessory use or a permitted use. Councilmember Petschel asked if this use would be allowed at an office in the business park? Mr. Benetti replied that, based on his experience in other cities, the type of activity described is usually a wholesale or a broker-to- broker kind of sales activity. He said that any display, inventory, or storage of vehicles on a site is usually forbidden in most cities; unless they are specifically targeted for a certain district. Mr. Sean Hoffmann, 711 Woodridge Drive, stated he would like to get the car dealers license as a service to his customers. The license has to be approved by the City. He would also inspect the vehicle on his site. He stated he does not want to display any vehicles or have any ‘for sale’. Councilmember Petschel noted a question that was raised at the Planning Commission meeting about a variance for this request. Planner Benetti replied that under the current ordinance, service stations and convenience stores are allowed as a Conditional Use Permit in the respective zoning districts. Planning Commissioner Mr. Roston stated that there is a fine line between granting a use variance for this type of activity under a variance process. He suggested that it not be tried as it would be easier to amend the code and make the allowance fair to everyone – not just site specific. Commissioner Paper stated that he understood what Mr. Hoffmann was trying to do as a community service, however, the amendment would allow this use for others. Councilmember Petschel asked Mr. Hoffmann if he has thought of other ways to obtain his license. Mr. Hoffmann replied that, per state law, it has to be approved by the city for that particular zoning district. Councilmember Petschel then asked if had thought of another place where he could meet the zoning requirements. Mr. Hoffmann said he wanted to have this at the property they already own and has not considered any other alternatives. Mr. Hoffmann asked for suggestions from the Council. Councilmember Petschel recommended he search out other alternatives or other locations. The Council could table this application until a different circumstance or location could be found that would qualify. City Attorney Tom Lehmann noted that the City is under the 60 day rule from the date of the application, unless it was to be extended by the applicant. Mr. Hoffmann agreed. Councilmember Petschel moved to table RESOLUTION 2017-39 DENYING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MOTOR FUEL SERVICE STATIONS AS A PLACE OF SALE OR RESALE OF NEW OR USED MOTOR VEHICLES with Mr. Hoffmann’s approval to waive of the 60-day rule. Mayor Garlock seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Absent: 1 (Duggan) page 113 Planning Staff Report DATE: May 23, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2017-05 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment – Allow Motor Fuel Service Stations as a Place of Sale or Resale of New or Used Motor Vehicles APPLICANT: Sean Hoffmann PROPERTY ADDRESS: N/A ZONING/GUIDED: N/A ACTION DEADLINE: N/A DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The City is asked to consider an amendment to City Code Title 12-1D-13-3 Motor Fuel Stations and Convenience Stores, to allow service stations to be used as a place of display, sale and/or resale of new or used motor vehicles. The applicant is Mr. Sean Hoffmann, manager of the BP/Mendota Heights Auto Service station, located at 2030 Dodd Road. This item is being presented under a duly noticed public hearing process. A notice of hearing on this item was published in the local South-West Review newspaper. BACKGROUND Mr. Hoffmann began the process of applying for a Minnesota Vehicle Dealer License from the Department of Public Safety. However, all vehicle dealer licenses require city zoning approval, which was not possible [at this location] due to certain zoning constraints. Currently, there are three known service stations/convenience stores located in the City of Mendota Heights: SuperAmerica at 1080 Hwy 110; SuperAmerica at 1200 Mendota Hts. Road; and the BP at 2030 Dodd Road. Motor Fuel Stations and Convenience Stores are allowed in the B-2 and B-3 Districts by means of a conditional use permit. Mr. Hoffmann’s BP/Auto Service store and the SuperAmerica at 1200 Mendota Hts. Road are located in the B-3 General Business District, while the SuperAmerica at 1080 Hwy 110 is located in the B-2 Neighborhood Business Zone. Under City Code Title 12-1D-13-3: Motor Fuel Stations and Convenience Stores are subject to the following standards: page 114 F. Storage and Sale of Vehicles and Products: 1. All rental campers, trailers, or motor vehicles shall be stored within the rear and/or side yard not adjacent to the street. 2. Service station premises shall not be used as a place of storage for wrecked, abandoned or junked automobiles. No motor vehicle in need of repair shall be stored on the premises of a service station for a continuous period of more than seven (7) days, except when so stored pursuant to a police directive. 3. Open storage of inoperable motor vehicles shall not be permitted for a period of more than forty eight (48) hours. 4. Service station premises shall not be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place for display for sale or resale, of new or used motor vehicles, trailers or campers. 5. All goods for sale by the motor fuel station or convenience store shall be displayed within the principal structure. There shall be no outside display or sales. 6. Tires for sale shall not be stored or displayed outside the service station structure, except: a) in a display rack during business hours; or b) in a permanent outside display container located in conformance with the setback requirements of this chapter and completely enclosable. Such display container shall be closed when the station is not open for business. As highlighted above, these service stations are not allowed to display or have for sale/resale any vehicles on the premises. City Code is very strict and limited to an allowance of automobile sales within the city. Under Title 12-1F- 4, limited auto sales are permitted only in the B-3 District as follows: “Automobile and other vehicles of transportation sales when conducted entirely within a building.” Mr. Hoffmann has indicated in his narrative that they are responding to a customer demand to help find or broker a vehicle for personal use. Mr. Hoffmann further states: “With a dealer license [we] will be able to gain access to the dealer auction vehicles and be able to pass significant savings on to customers, and be able to buy wholesale, inspect the vehicle, and sell for a nominal fee over what we pay, saving customers thousands over what they'd pay at a dealership.” Mr. Hoffmann also stated they have no interest in maintaining an inventory or have “For Sale” signs on said vehicles. ANALYSIS The requested code amendment could be made as easy as the following text revisions: 4. Service station premises shall not can be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place for display for sale or resale, of new or used motor vehicles, trailers or campers. Additional standards could be added underneath as follows: 4. Service station premises shall not can be used as a place of sale or resale, or as a place for display for sale or resale, of new or used motor vehicles, trailers or campers, subject to the following additional standards: a. No vehicles shall be marked or have any visible signs indicating “For Sale” or similar; b. Vehicles for sale under this provision will be limited to no more than [ XX - number determined by the Planning Commission) vehicles on the site; page 115 c. Vehicles for sale shall not be placed in any front yard setback (including a corner front yard) of the subject property, and vehicles must be stored in an inconspicuous area of the property as approved by the Zoning Administrator; As the Commission is probably well aware, the City of Mendota Heights does not have any auto dealerships inside the city limits. There are a number of large-scale automobile dealerships nearby in West Saint Paul/Inver Grove Heights near the Hwy 110/I-494 interchange; a number of small scale used car dealerships in West St. Paul along the Robert Street corridor; and similar used car dealerships along Concord Street in South St. Paul. In researching other surrounding and various metro area communities’ ordinances, it does not appear other cities generally permit or allow gasoline service stations and/or convenience stores to display or sell vehicles on these properties. In fact, almost no cities in the area allow such activity on these types of properties. Some cities do allow car sales (both new and used) in certain zoning districts, which are mostly commercial or in some cases industrial in nature. There appears to be a small number of used car shops along Robert and Concord that may have been where a former gas station once existed (as seen in images below); but they appear to have all remnants of the gas station operations missing or removed, and now simply converted over to a display area for vehicles. A & M Auto – 845 Robert St. Auto Latino – 745 Robert St. MFK Ent. – 830 Robert St. ALTERNATIVES Following the public hearing and further discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: 1. Recommend approval of DRAFT Ordinance 5XX as presented or as amended by the Commission. OR 2. Recommend denial of DRAFT Ordinance 5XX with certain findings. OR 3. Table the request, pending additional information as requested by the Planning Commission and direction to city staff to make certain added revisions as needed before final consideration is given by the Commission. page 116 STAFF RECOMMENDATION This code amendment request by Mr. Hoffmann is somewhat personal and very much tailored to his own special needs or individual business operations; and it appears to only benefit a very small segment of the commercial business population inside the city, which at this time is only 3 motor fuel stations. It is probably safe to state (and assumed) that the two other SuperAmerica stores would not allow or even want to have vehicle displays or sales on their sites, since this activity is nowhere evident or known to staff on any respective locations throughout the metro region or beyond; and would seem very much out of character for these convenience type fuel stores. The reality is that by allowing such vehicles sales at these locations, it may become an ongoing (and frustrating) issue to police and monitor the numbers of vehicles on the site, or pose a constant generator of complaints from residents when standards are not being met regarding auto sale display or activity. With these concerns, and since the City of Mendota Heights already limits auto sale uses to only “inside a building”, Staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the request to amend City Code Title 12- 1D-13-3 to allow service stations to be used as a place of display, sale and/or resale of new or used motor vehicles. SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE Should the Planning Commission view some small amount of merit to the Applicant’s request to offer sales of a limited nature at this single service station site only, an alternative not listed above is the Applicant may ask to amend their original conditional use permit by means of a variance to this City Code provision. If the Planning Commission was willing to accept this alternative, you can provide some initial comment or feedback to the Applicant during the hearing, but should not render any final recommendation until a separate variance application is presented for full review. If the Planning Commission does not support any type of vehicle sales activity on this or other similar sites, then you should make that known to the Applicant. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. DRAFT Ordinance 5XX 2. Planning application, including supporting materials page 117 Request for City Council Action MEETING DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Mayor Garlock and City Council, City Administrator McNeill FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Variances for Number of Accessory Structures, Accessory Structures Area and Accessory Structure Heights in the R-1/R-1A Districts ISD #197 – Henry Sibley High School Athletic Field Improvements [Planning Case No. 2018-23] Introduction The City Council is asked to consider adopting a resolution, which would approve a number of variances for several athletic field improvements on the Henry Sibley High School (HSHS) campus property. The Applicant is Independent School District No. 197. Background The property is located at 1897 Delaware Avenue, and is in the R-1 / R-1A One Family Residential Districts. The variances would permit the school district to exceed the maximum allowable number of accessory structures; exceed the allowable amount of accessory structure area (both individually and total area); and exceed allowable heights for accessory structures in the single-family residential district. City Code Section 12-1D-3 contains certain standards for accessory structures in all residential districts, whereby parcels 4 acres or greater are allowed to have no more than 3 accessory structures; the total area of all structures cannot exceed 425 sq. ft.; and no single structure can exceed 225 sq. ft. Section 12-1E-3.D further states: “No structures or building shall exceed...twenty-five feet (25’) in height” in residential zones. In this case, HSHS is requesting to have up to 11 accessory structures, which include some existing on-site storage buildings; new home/visitor side bleachers; a new press box; new team/storage building; new concession-restroom facility; and a ticket-booth. The improvements also include four (4) new 80-ft. tall light poles. The plans, details and locations of these existing and new accessory structures are noted in the October 14, 2018 planning Report (attached hereto – with pertinent and related information included). The plans include differing amounts of seating capacity for both home and visitor bleachers; but the Applicant’s narrative state no more than 1,500 seats will be available on the “Home” vs. 500 seats on the “Visitors” side, for 2,000 seats total. At this time, the school provides up to 508 spaces for daily school and administrative needs. Parking needed for the athletic field use is required at 1 space per 3 seats, which calculates to 667 spaces. The school plans to provide parking in the main parking lot, re-striping the bus parking areas, and installing new parking near the southeast corner of the school building, which will provide 670 total spaces. Concern for having enough spaces for the main school use and the new athletic field uses was resolved by a adding a condition that no other school event would be conducted the same night as a varsity football game, to avoid any over-parking of the site. page 118 The Applicant also provided a Technical Memorandum from Spack Consulting (dated 10/04/18) that addresses issues with traffic (trip generation) and distribution. The report concluded that there would not be a significant impact to the surrounding roadway systems and will not significantly alter traffic flow or parking operation in the surrounding community. This report was also presented to the city’s Traffic Safety Committee for their review on Monday, October 8, 2018. The group concluded that any [traffic or parking] issues would need to be addressed if they become a problem, and the city expects the school will cooperate with developing an event management plan if necessary or called for by the city. The Spack Report is appended to the planning report. Location of the field improvements, noise, and lighting were other concerns raised or commented on by the neighboring residents prior to and during the public hearing. ISD 197 officials publicly stated their reasons and justifications for choosing the existing track and field area on the north area of campus (to site the new athletic field), and stated all noise and lighting will comply with City Code standards. At the October 4, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, a planning report was presented and a public hearing was held. There was a very large turn-out by the public, with many comments in favor of the athletic field improvement plan, and a number of objections or concerns from neighboring residents. These comments are noted in the attached [DRAFT] meeting minutes, and the entire hearing is available for viewing on the city’s local cable access channel. Recommendation Upon close of the public hearing and follow-up comments from staff and the Applicant, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously (by 7 -0 vote) to recommend approval of the Variances requested under Planning Case No. 2018-23, which would allow for the proposed accessory structures and over-height light poles as part of the new HSHS athletic field improvement project, with certain conditions. To address the issue of meeting parking demands for the daily school use and the athletic field when in use (for games), the Commission added the following condition: “The Applicant shall not hold another event on site at the same time as a varsity football related event.” The Applicant followed-up with city staff and indicated that because varsity practices could be interpreted as a “varsity football related event”, and although the school would not have any extraordinary parking needs for said practices, and because the school currently allows other activities to occur during football practice, this condition may preclude the use of the field or pose significant issues with scheduling events. With this in mind, the Applicant asks that the City Council consider the following modified condition: “The Applicant shall not hold another event on site at the same time as a varsity football home game.” If the City Council wishes to affirm this recommendation, make a motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2018-78 APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF ALLOWED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES STANDARDS, A VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO EXCEED ALLOWABLE AREA STANDARDS; AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW NEW FIELD LIGHT POLES TO EXCEED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT STANDARDS, ALL IN THE R-1/R-1A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, FOR HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL, LOCATED AT 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE. Should the City Council wish to overturn this recommendation, it may choose to adopt a modified resolution with certain findings of fact for denial, as provided for in the planning report. Action Required This matter requires a simple majority vote. page 119 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2018-78 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF ALLOWED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES STANDARDS; A VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO EXCEED ALLOWABLE AREA STANDARDS; AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW NEW FIELD LIGHT POLES TO EXCEED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT STANDARDS, ALL IN THE R-1/R-1A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL - LOCATED AT 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE (PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-23) WHEREAS, Independent School District No. 197 (the “Applicant”) applied for a Variance Application under Planning Case No. 2018-23, for the property generally identified as Henry Sibley High School, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue, and which is legally described in attached Exhibit A (the “Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is guided under the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as Institutional – “S-School” and zoned R-1 and R-1A One Family Residential, according to the city’s official Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 12-1D-3 contains certain standards for accessory structures in all residential districts, whereby parcels 4 acres or greater are allowed to have no more than 3 accessory structures; the total area of all structures cannot exceed 425 sq. ft.; and no single structure can exceed 225 sq. ft., and furthermore City Code Section 12-1E-3.D generally states no structures or building shall exceed twenty-five feet (25’) in height in residential zones; and WHEREAS, the Applicant is seeking permission to exceed the maximum allowable number of accessory structures; exceed the allowable amount of accessory structure area, both individually and in total structure area, and exceed allowable heights for accessory structures (light poles) in the R-1 and R-1A One Family Residential district, all being related to the proposed new athletic field improvements for the Henry Sibley High School campus; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item at a special meeting of October 4, 2018, whereby a planning staff report was presented and received by the commission, comments from the Applicant and public were received and noted for the record, and upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended to approve (by 7-0 vote) the Variances for Number of Accessory Structures, Variance for Accessory page 120 Structures Area, and Variance to Allowable Accessory Structure Heights in the R-1/R-1A Districts, all related to the Henry Sibley High School Athletic Field Improvements project, as presented under Planning Case No. 2018-23, and for property located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the Variances for Number of Accessory Structures, Variance for Accessory Structures Area, and Variance to Allowable Accessory Structure Heights in the R-1/R-1A Districts, all related to the Henry Sibley High School Athletic Field Improvements project, as presented under Planning Case No. 2018-23, and for property located at 1897 Delaware Avenue, can be supported and approved based on the following findings of fact: A. 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. B. 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. C. 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 D. 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. E. 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. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the request for Variances for Number of Accessory Structures, Accessory Structures Area, and Allowable Accessory Structure Heights in the R-1/R-1A Districts, and all related to the Henry Sibley High School Athletic Field Improvements project, are hereby approved with the following conditions: page 121 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. 4. The Applicant shall not hold another event on site at the same time as a varsity football home game. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of October, 2018. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ________________________________ Neil Garlock, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Lorri Smith, City Clerk page 122 EXHIBIT A Property Address: 1897 Delaware Avenue, Mendota Heights MN 55118 Henry Sibley High School 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. page 123 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 comer 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 Sl1° 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 114 NE 114, thence North 1,197.00 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 comer 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 112 of Section 25, Township 28, Range 23, dedicated on the Plat of Delaware. Property is located in Dakota County, Minnesota. page 124 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 known 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 page 125 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 12 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- page 126 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. page 127 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. page 128 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. page 129  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. Bleacher Press Box: 129.66 ft. (west line) Concessions-Restroom: 172.6 ft. (west line) Team-Storage Room: 228.6 ft. (north line) NO Setback from principal building 5 ft. 400 +/- ft. NO Structure height 15 ft. 36-ft. (press box/bleachers) & 80-ft. for light poles 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. page 130  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, 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. page 131 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. 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 page 132 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: • 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: page 133 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? 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. page 134 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. page 135 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. page 136 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 page 137 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 page 138 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 page 139 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. page 140 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 page 141 October 3, 2018 ISD 197 5 St. Thomas Academy St. Croix Lutheran page 142 October 3, 2018 ISD 197 6 Simley High School Eagan High School page 143 October 3, 2018 ISD 197 7 Richfield High School Academy of Holy Angels page 144 October 3, 2018 ISD 197 8 White Bear Lake Area High School Roseville Area High School page 145 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. page 146 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. page 147 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 page 148 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. page 149 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 page 150 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 page 151 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 page 152 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 page 153 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 page 154 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 page 155 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 page 156 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. page 157 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. page 158 : ' -. Technical Memorandum To: Mark Fortman, Director of Operations -ISD 197 From: Bryant Ficek, PE, PTOE Jonah Finkelstein, PE Date: October 4, 2018 Re: HSHS Multi-Purpose Stadium Henry Sibley High School is proposing the addition of a multi-purpose sports stadium adjacent to their current buildings. The new stadium, which will replace the existing track and field/soccer pitch, will be able to host all sporting events, including football games which are currently held offsite. The purpose of this memorandum is to understand and estimate the potential traffic volumes associated with the new stadium, specifically the football gameday associated traffic, and its possible impacts on the surrounding roads. This information can then be discussed with residents and other interested parties Study Area Table 1 below shows the primary characteristics of the key roadway corridors around this site and within the study area. These corridors are expected to be impacted the most by the traffic associated with the new stadium. Table 1-Study Corridor Characteristics --Dai!il - C;'' 'F -· Fixed '' ' Traffic Route Bike/Ped Nam~ Designation1 •• Classification:~ Jlolume3 .. Jl:a.n~s ..... Tr~nsit ''' -Eacijitjes Metro Highway 110 MSAS 115 Local 830 2-undivided Transit Sidewalk/trail on Frontage Road Delaware CSAH 63 Major Collector Avenue Maria Avenue MSAS 101 Major Collector w Warrior Drive Local Local 1 MSAS =Municipal State Aid Street. 2 Met Council Functional Classification Map. 3 Based on Available Mn DOT AADT data.' 5,700 2,600- 2,750 NIA Route the north side 75 Metro 3-undivided Transit Sidewalk/trail on Route the west side 75 r 2-undivided Sidewalk/trail on -the south side 2-divided Sidewalk/trail on -the east side The impacts of the new stadium traffic will be examined along these corridors to determine if any potential traffic concerns exist. Estimated Traffic Generation Trip generation for the proposed development was established using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition as well as two other available sources for similar sports stadiu1ns. 1 SE Main Street, #204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 8 888.232.5512 8 www.SpackConsulting.com ' ' page 159 Spack Consulting 2 of4 HSHS Multi-Purpose Stadium Table 2 shows the various trip generations, based on each source, for the proposed stadiums. These trip generation counts are based on a sold-out 1,500 seat stadium. This capacity was estimated based on the proposed concept plan, attached, which shows a labeled 500 visitor seat bleachers and a larger, but unlabeled, home bleachers. The home bleachers were measured roughly 80% larger than the away bleachers, meaning 900-1000 seats can be estimated for the home bleacher section. The larger, 1,000 seat capacity was chosen to ensure a conservatively large estimate is analyzed. Again, it is also worth noting that these trip generation counts assume a sold-out game attendance. This is unlikely to happen for all home games with the exception of specialty home games, such as homecoming or a game against a rival school. Table 2 -Trip Generation Comparison ~ ., = ~ ~-~<;-d . , -,, . " ' ~ --.,,..,~~ ~~ -~ ~~ ~~~-~ ~ ~~~~ ,.,,,-~ ~ Land Use Code -Source Description & Size Game Day Traffic ~ ~ -M ~ -~~ --' ' In Out ITE-488 Soccer Complex -1 Field 202 202 Costa Mesa, CA High School Football Stadium -1,500 Seats 353 353 Dallas, TX High School Football Stadium -1,500 Seats 225 225 1 Unadjusted trip generation per vehicle. Unfortunately, ITE does not currently have trip generation data for a football stadium. However, the Soccer Complex is a similar land use and helps give us context for the additional sources trip generation estimates. To ensure the largest volume case is analyzed, the Costa Mesa estimate of 706 total trips (353 entering and 353 exiting) was used for analysis. Locally collected data at the 'current location of football games for Henry Sibley High School is currently being processed. Once that data is available for review the total trip generation will be reworked to reflect this new, local, data. The local data is assumed to be more accurate as it is based on Henry Sibley High Schools current football attendance as well as the specific traffic conditions of the region. Trip Distribution The 706 total new trips were distributed along the study corridors based on each roadway's AADT, the school district boundaries, and access to the school and regional transportation system. Using this information, the following traffic distribution was determined: • 28% of the total trips destined to/from the north along Delaware Avenue. • 14% of the total trips destined to /from the east on Maria Avenue. • 13% of the total trips destined to /from the west on Maria Avenue. • 45% of the total trips destined to/from the south along Delaware Avenue. An increase in traffic is also expected along the Highway 110 Frontage Road and Warrior Drive due to vehicles parking along the east side of Warrior Drive, as well as traffic entering and exiting the parking lot via the western school access. This traffic is associated with the 45% of traffic from the south along Delaware Avenue. page 160 Spack Consulting 3 of4 HSHS Multi-Purpose Stadium Projected ADT Using the distributions determined above, the total new trips were applied to the existing Mn DOT AADTs. Table 3 shows the results. Table 3 -Projected ADT -.. ---BailY> ~xisting -_ Daily Rrojeetecr ~ Rercent Change in· -Name Trafffo Volume: ___ Traffic Volume 3 Daily0Traffic Volume Delaware Avenue North of Maria Avenue 5,700 5,898 3.5% Delaware Avenue South of Maria Avenue 5,700 6,088 6.8% Maria Avenue east of Delaware Avenue 2,750 2,849 3.6% Maria Avenue West of Delaware Avenue 2,600 2,692 3.5% Delaware Avenue South of School 5,700 5,912 3.7% Hii:ihwav 110 Frontai:ie Road 830 936 12.8% As Table 3 shows the percent increase in daily ADT for each roadway is minor with less than 7% increase occurring on any roadway, except Highway 110 Frontage Road. This road experiences a larger increase of roughly 13%. Though this percentage appears large, it accounts for only roughly 106 total vehicles. With a low existing ADT, no concerns arise from the increase in traffic. Because existing traffic volumes are not available for Warrior Drive, the future total is not exactly known. However, the future traffic along Warrior Drive is associated with the Highway 110 Frontage Road traffic. This means roughly 106 vehicles are expected to be added to this roadway. This increase in traffic raises little to no concern as the existing volume on the roadway is expected to be relatively low as Warrior Drive provides access to 31 single family homes and the school. As the football games will occur outside of school hours, the standard school day traffic is assumed to be removed from the roadway when the projected football game traffic occurs. Analysis Based on the above trip generation and distribution, and site plans provided in the August 61h, 2018 Facilities Presentation, the following is noted: • The proposed mix-use stadium is expected to generate a total of 706 trips (353 entering and 353 exiting) during a football event. • All project roadway AADTs are under their roadway design capacity. After the addition of the new trips associated with the multi-purpose stadium, the roadway AADTs are still projected to remain well under each roadway's capacity. • The 706 total trip assessment assumes a sold-out game with no visitors walking or bicycling to the games. This magnitude of attendance is not expected for all football games and may only occur one to two times a year, during specialty games like homecoming or a rivalry. Also, due to the location of the school, it is expected a reduction in trips will occur due to pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the surrounding neighborhood. • The High School provides enough parking capacity onsite for the additional football event traffic with 400 standard parking stalls in the northern parking lots. Additional parking space is provided along the east side of Warrior Drive, roughly 64 vehicle capacity, and the southern school lot, 50 additional spots, in the case of spillover. • Bus parking is provided onsite for the visiting team. Only two to three buses would be expected as the home team will not need transportation. • With only five home football games scheduled in 2018, the football event traffic will not be a standard occurrence and only occur over a two to three-month period. Outside of these football page 161 Spock Consulting 4 of4 HSHS Multi-Purpose Stadium games, all other events, such as track meets and soccer games, are expected to draw fewer spectators. These events, with smaller attendance, will have minimal impact on the adjacent roadway operations. • All 2018 football games were scheduled on Fridays at 7:00 PM. This timing falls outside of the standard roadway peak hours and after the PM school rush lower impacts to adjacent roadways. Based upon the information presented in this traffic impact letter, the proposed multi-use stadium, and associated football game traffic, does not represent a significant impact to. the surrounding roadway system and will not significantly alter traffic flow or parking operations in the surrounding community. page 162 1234 5 6 7 898 7 6 5 4 32 11234567898 9764 53211234567894030 2010403020105040302010 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 3417050 100ProjectDateDrawn 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($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYHenry Sibley High School1897 Delaware AvenueMendota Heights, MN 55118West St. Paul-Mendota Hts.-Eagan School District - ISD #197THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 One Family Residential and R-1A One Family ResidentialEXISTING PARKING COUNTS:508 PARKING STALLSPROPOSED PARKING (NEW PARKING, EVENT STRIPING):162 (NET ADD) PARKING STALLSTOTAL PARKING: 670 PARKING STALLSPARKING REQUIREMENTS (STADIUM): - BLEACHER SEATING (1,500 (HOME) + 500 (VISITOR)) = 2,000 SEATS @ 3:1 = 667 SEATS REQUIRED670 PROVIDED (REQUIREMENT IS MET)SITE STATISTICS:C1.0 SITE REFERENCE PLANC1.2 SITE LAYOUT PLANC1.4 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANC1.5 SITE UTILITY PLANC2.1 SITE DETAILSC2.1 SITE DETAILSB1.1 HOME GRANDSTAND PLAN, SECTION, DETAILS, NOTESB1.2 VISITOR BLEACHER PLAN, SECTION, DETAILS, NOTESB1.3 PRESS BOX PLAN, SECTION, DETAILS, NOTESA1.1 CONCESSIONS AND TOILET BUILDING - PLAN AND SECTIONSEXH1 BOUNDARY, LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHIC AND UTILITY SURVEY (1 of 9)DRAWING INDEX 1 9/27/2018 CHANGE CUP-VARIANCEpage 163 129.66' SETBACK 723.52' 172.60' SETBACK 68.37'SETBACK43.00'SETBACK138.65' SETBACK 11 18 8 259 12 8 24 101026 34 17 EXISTING PARKING COUNTS:508 PARKING STALLS PROPOSED PARKING (NEW PARKING, EVENT STRIPING):162 (NET ADD) PARKING STALLS TOTAL PARKING: 670 PARKING STALLS PARKING REQUIREMENTS: - BLEACHER SEATING 2,000 SEATS @ 3:1 = 667 SEATS REQUIRED 670 PROVIDED (REQUIREMENT IS MET) PROOF OF PARKING: page 164 123 4 56 7 898 7 654 3 211234567898 9764532112345678940302010403020105040302010 40 30 20 1050 HIGH JUMP(~50' x 120')015 30ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.com&RS\ULJKWE\/6($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($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYNOTES:LEGENDBASELINE FOR DIMENSIONSPOINT OF INTERSECTIONPOINT OF TANGENCYPOINT OF COMPOUND CURVATUREBUILDING STOOP - REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANSPROPERTY LINE1. REFER TO SHEET C1.4- GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN FOR GENERALNOTES.2. ALL APPLICABLE DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB, EDGE OFPAVEMENT, CENTERLINE OF FENCE, OR PROPERTY LINE UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.3. CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFOREFIELD LAYOUT.4. SIGNAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED 18" BEHIND THE BACK OF CURB OR EDGEOF PAVEMENT.PIPTPCCpage 165 123 4 56 7 898 7 654 3 211234567898 9764532112345678940302010403020105040302010 40 30 20 1050 HIGH JUMP(~50' x 120')015 30ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.com&RS\ULJKWE\/6($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+$//%(3. THE CENTER FIELD LOGO SHALL BE OF INLAID GOLD, BLACK, GRAY ANDROYAL BLUE (VERIFY).4. STRIPING DIAGRAM(S) SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE WORK FORREVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE ENGINEER AND OWNER.5. DOMINANT COLORS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS (VERIFY): A. FOOTBALL FIELD LINES SHALL BE INLAID WHITE. B. SOCCER FIELD LINES SHALL BE INLAID YELLOW. C. MEN'S LACROSSE FIELD LINES SHALL BE INLAID BLACK. D. WOMEN'S LACROSSE LINES SHALL BE INLAID ROYAL BLUE.TURF FIELD STRIPING NOTESpage 166 HIGH JUMP(~50' x 120')70.370.570.469.969.970.470.569.970.371.271.271.071.271.271.070.971.271.271.070.970.870.469.769.769.769.770.570.368.367.968.468.570.468.570.468.270.668.570.468.570.468.570.467.770.668.270.467.170.468.470.468.570.469.970.270.270.470.470.470.670.469.970.470.470.470.470.470.469.769.769.769.769.770.270.270.370.370.370.370.270.270.470.070.070.470.070.470.470.070.269.970.269.970.470.070.470.070.470.169.969.969.969.969.969.969.969.969.969.969.970.470.469.969.969.9015 30ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo. DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.com&RS\ULJKWE\/6($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 LINE1C7.1197070.6page 167 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)015 30ProjectDateDrawn 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 LINE1C7.1197070.61page 168 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' OVERSIZEpage 169 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 RUNA1 A2BENDBENDBEND41.0 1.4 1.9 1.4 1.0 - -62.1 3.0 4.3 3.0 1.6 1.0 -105.9 8.4 11.8 8.4 4.6 2.6 1.2128.5 12.0 17.0 12.0 6.6 3.4 1.71411.5 16.3 23.0 16.3 8.9 4.6 2.31615.0 21.3 30.0 21.3 11.6 6.0 3.01819.0 27.0 38.0 27.0 14.6 7.6 3.62023.5 33.3 47.0 33.3 18.1 9.4 4.72434.0 48.0 68.0 48.0 26.2 13.6 6.883.8 5.3 7.6 5.4 2.9 1.5 1.01/4" 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 LINEpage 170 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($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYpage 171 SEATING LAYOUTFOUNDATION LAYOUTSECTION VIEWFOOTING DETIAL @ GRANDSTANDTYPICAL SIDE RAILINGPLANK ARRANGEMENTSECTION VIEW @ WHEELCHAIR AREAALL SHOP AND/OR FABRICATION DRAWINGS FOR STRUCTURALCOMPONENTS OF THE GRANDSTAND SYSTEMS, INCLUDING FOOTINGSAND FOUNDATIONS, SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CERTIFIED BY AREGISTERED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CURRENTLY LICENSED TOPRACTICE IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. COMPLETE CERTIFIEDSTRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS SHALL ACCOMPANY SUBMISSION OFSHOP DRAWINGS. DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS SHALL CLEARLYNOTE ALL DESIGN LOADS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINNESOTASTATE BUILDING CODE.This drawing is for reference onlyand for competitive biddingpurposes. Bleacher manufacturershall provide engineereddrawings as noted on this Planand in the specification.ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.comThese drawings including all design, details, specificationsand information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects,Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall notbe used on any other work without agreement and writtenSHUPLVVLRQRI/6($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYpage 172 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($UFKLWHFWV,QFLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING7575 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD SUITE 200 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55427FAX (763) 544-0531 PH (763) 544-7129HENRY SIBLEYHIGH SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYpage 173 ProjectDateDrawn byChecked byDrawing NumberNo.DateKey PlanLSE ARCHITECTS, INC.100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100Minneapolis, MN 55401612.343.1010 office612.3382280 faxwww.lse-architects.com&RS\ULJKWE\/6($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 SCHOOLATHLETICFACILITYpage 174 page 175 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 page 176 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. page 177 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. page 178 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. page 179 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. page 180 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. page 181 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.page 182 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. page 183 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. page 184 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. page 185 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. page 186 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. page 187 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 page 188 page 189 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) page 190 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 page 191 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 page 192 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 page 193 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 page 194 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 page 195 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 page 196 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 page 197 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 page 198 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 page 199 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 page 200 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 page 201 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 page 202 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 page 203 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. page 204 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 page 205 page 206 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 page 207 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 page 208 page 209 page 210 page 211 page 212 page 213 page 214 page 215 page 216 page 217 page 218 page 219 page 220 page 221 page 222 page 223 page 224 page 225 page 226 page 227 page 228 page 229 page 230 page 231 page 232 page 233 page 234 page 235 page 236 page 237 page 238 page 239 page 240 page 241 page 242 page 243 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 page 244 From:Lawrence Fischer To:Tim Benetti Subject:For the record. Date:Thursday, October 11, 2018 9:06:19 AM I have sent the following note to the mayor and each of the city council members: I am writing this letter regarding the School District 197 plan to build a stadium on the northwest corner of their property near the intersection of Marie Avenue and Ridgewood Drive. I am against granting the variances requested by School District 197. Due to the elevation of the site, light and especially the noise generated by the stadium will dramatically change the environment in my home and neighborhood and will travel for miles in every direction. ISD 197 owns a large area of land on the south side of the school at a much lower elevation where the noise and light would be contained by a hill on the north and highway 62 on the south. Fewer homes would be affected and residential neighborhoods would experience less traffic due to easy access from the highway. Common sense tells me that this would be a better choice. I hope it is not too late to listen to the message I learned in my youth “Leave no trace”. As we consider “The Greater Good” we should also consider “The Least Harm”. Many of my neighbors and I attended the planning commission meeting on Oct. 4. We know that District 197 and their paid consultants have marshalled the forces of the staff and the students. Their enthusiasm is undeniable. Conditions regarding parking were discussed at the meeting. However, no conditions were discussed for noise mitigation or regarding facility rental. No other conditions regarding the quiet, peaceful “residential” and “rural residential” character of our neighborhood were discussed. I have lived and paid taxes in ISD 197 for 42 years. My four children attended 197 schools. My son was the captain of the football and hockey teams at Henry Sibley HS. I support the goals of District 197 and the need for these improvements. However, I have lost faith in the school district for not considering me and my family in this plan. I personally spoke with at least 30 of my neighbors in the last week or so, many who expressed surprise or shock at the proposed location. We feel strongly that this is the wrong place for the stadium. The City of Mendota Heights can continue to help us maintain the quiet, peaceful character of our neighborhood and excellent schools. Please consider voting NO on these variance requests and encourage ISD 197 to engage with the neighbors to resolve these concerns. Sincerely, page 245 Lawrence A. Fischer 1775 Ridgewood Drive 651-905-3090 page 246 From:smicevych@comcast.net To:Neil G; Ultan Duggan; Jay Miller; Joel P; Liz Petschel Cc:Tim Benetti; Andersen, Rob; 6fischer@gmail.com; Jerry Petschen; Linda Pontinen; Paul Pontinen; toujiri@gmail.com; Jane Auge; Ann Andersen Subject:ISD197 Variance question for City Council Date:Thursday, October 11, 2018 4:24:34 PM Hello Council Members, Just a follow up to the email I sent yesterday. Thank you for your time in reading this. I know you are very busy. Our neighborhood is puzzled by the City report, which calls the variance request an athletic field instead of a stadium. We believe there may be some issues with the set back that is needed for a stadium. A larger set back would benefit us greatly. Could you please look into this before the meeting/vote on Tuesday? I’ve copied our question below for your consideration. Tim, please include this in the Council packet. Thank you again, Susan Micevych Statement on stadium vs athletic field in City planning report The City staff defines this proposal as an athletic field in its report. A facility of this typeis not commonly referred to as an athletic field, but as a stadium. In fact, the St ThomasAcademy proposal was treated as a stadium. The City’s report states that the definitionof stadium according to Merriam Webster is “a large usually roofless building with tiersof seats for spectators at sports events.” Stadiums are not permitted uses or conditional uses in R1 or R1A zones. It is myunderstanding that the City would need to re-zone the Sibley High School Property inorder to allow a stadium, and it would need a greater set back. It appears that ISD197and possibly the Mendota Heights City staff is trying to get around this by calling it anathletic field instead of a stadium, but this is incorrect. A field with 2000 bleachers,lights, concessions, and restrooms is most certainly a stadium. Quoted in the City report, “athletic stadiums shall be 1000 feet or more from the nearestresidential structure.” Could the City Council please investigate this? One of our neighbors asked this questionat the planning hearing, but there was no response from the commission. page 247 From:Lawrence Fischer To:Tim Benetti Subject:For the record. Date:Thursday, October 11, 2018 9:06:19 AM I have sent the following note to the mayor and each of the city council members: I am writing this letter regarding the School District 197 plan to build a stadium on the northwest corner of their property near the intersection of Marie Avenue and Ridgewood Drive. I am against granting the variances requested by School District 197. Due to the elevation of the site, light and especially the noise generated by the stadium will dramatically change the environment in my home and neighborhood and will travel for miles in every direction. ISD 197 owns a large area of land on the south side of the school at a much lower elevation where the noise and light would be contained by a hill on the north and highway 62 on the south. Fewer homes would be affected and residential neighborhoods would experience less traffic due to easy access from the highway. Common sense tells me that this would be a better choice. I hope it is not too late to listen to the message I learned in my youth “Leave no trace”. As we consider “The Greater Good” we should also consider “The Least Harm”. Many of my neighbors and I attended the planning commission meeting on Oct. 4. We know that District 197 and their paid consultants have marshalled the forces of the staff and the students. Their enthusiasm is undeniable. Conditions regarding parking were discussed at the meeting. However, no conditions were discussed for noise mitigation or regarding facility rental. No other conditions regarding the quiet, peaceful “residential” and “rural residential” character of our neighborhood were discussed. I have lived and paid taxes in ISD 197 for 42 years. My four children attended 197 schools. My son was the captain of the football and hockey teams at Henry Sibley HS. I support the goals of District 197 and the need for these improvements. However, I have lost faith in the school district for not considering me and my family in this plan. I personally spoke with at least 30 of my neighbors in the last week or so, many who expressed surprise or shock at the proposed location. We feel strongly that this is the wrong place for the stadium. The City of Mendota Heights can continue to help us maintain the quiet, peaceful character of our neighborhood and excellent schools. Please consider voting NO on these variance requests and encourage ISD 197 to engage with the neighbors to resolve these concerns. Sincerely, page 248 Lawrence A. Fischer 1775 Ridgewood Drive 651-905-3090 page 249 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 4, 2018 A special meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Thursday, October 4, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners John Mazzitello, Patrick Corbett, Michael Noonan, Mary Magnuson, Michael Toth, and Brian Petschel. Those absent: None A) PLANNING CASE #2018-23 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 197, HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL - 1897 DELAWARE AVENUE VARIANCES TO CITY CODE SECTION 12-1D-E FOR NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH A NEW MULTI-PURPOSE ATHLETIC FIELD PROJECT, ALONG WITH A POSSIBLE VARIANCE TO CITY CODE SECTION 12-1D-16F FOR REDUCED ON-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR AN ATHLETIC FIELD Working from materials provided to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting, and available on the city’s website, Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that Independent School District #197 (ISD #197), on behalf of Henry Sibley HS, had requested a number of variances for accessory structures because the school is located in a single-family residential zone. This item was presented as a public hearing with notices being published and sent to all residents located within a quarter mile of the property, including residents located in West St. Paul and Sunfish Lake. Henry Sibley HS is located in two zoning districts; R-1 and R-1A, both which are single family districts. The property is guided as S-School under the General Institutional land category of the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The city is currently in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan; however, there are no plans to change the institutional use for the school at this point. Public and parochial schools are considered a permitted use under these zoning categories. Henry Sibley is currently using the football/athletic facility at Charles Matson Field, located next to Heritage/E-STEM Middle School in West St. Paul. In May 2018, the voters approved a $117 million bond to help with some district improvements, including new athletic field improvements to the high school. They plan to have the new athletic field improvements for the school completed by fall of 2019. The reason for this hearing is for the accessory structures to the proposed athletic field improvements. Under the city’s Zoning Code Section 12-1D-3C, accessory structures are allowed page 250 as permitted accessory uses. Because the school is under the R-1 / R-1A category and are single family zoned, they are treated the same as residential properties for the zoning standards that address accessory structures; however, they must meet the general zoning standards established for the size, number, and heights for allowed accessory structures, and require variances from the height, number, area, and size requirements for such a structure in a residential zoning district. Mr. Benetti provided the description of the request: • Update and improve the existing outdoor track and field area • A new full-sized football/soccer/lacrosse combination field with synthetic turf • A new 9-lane all-weather running track • Newly designed and located field event areas, including shot-put, long/triple jump pits, high jump area, and pole-vault • * Addition of 1,500 “home” bleachers and 500 “visitor” bleachers, - down from the original 2,760 seats as shown in the plan provided to the Commission. All bleacher areas would be ADA/handicap accessible • A new 420 square foot press box (with a crow’s nest feature) • A plaza/gathering area with a new 1,550 square foot Concessions/Restroom/Storage building • A new Team Room/Storage building of 1,500 square feet • A new 160 square foot ticket/entry booth • Two separate “port-a-potty” enclosures • Four 80 foot tall light poles • A new scoreboard (facing southward, away from the residential neighborhoods) * According to the code, a high school is required to provide 1 space per student plus 1 space for each 3 classrooms. In Henry Sibley’s case, that would be 228 spaces; the current 508 parking stalls are more than adequate. However, athletic fields have to have 1 space for each 3 seats and the original design called for 2,760 seats; creating a deficit of over 412 spaces. The applicant has adjusted their site plan to show the 406 stalls on the north; 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 an additional 97 stalls in the area labeled “New Southeast Parking Lot”. This would make the total number of parking spaces be 670; technically meeting the 667 spaces needed for the newly planned 2,000 seat bleachers, and a variance may no longer be necessary. All of these improvements would be contained inside a new 6-foot high chain-linked fence enclosures. The proposed accessory structures meet the applicable setback standards from lot lines and principle building; therefore no variances are needed for setbacks. However, all new (proposed) buildings either exceed the height, numbers, and allowable areas for any and all accessory building standards in the R-1 District. page 251 Mr. Benetti shared images of the current property layout, including access points, parking spaces, building locations, fields, surrounding roadways and homes. Mr. Benetti noted that lighting is a huge issue for area residents. He understands that the firm hired to install the lighting is very reputable and a lot of schools and universities use them for that purpose. Henry Sibley is showing 4 new 80-foot tall light pole standards to light the new athletic field and track areas for night-time activities; to be situated on the north and south sides of the home and visitor bleacher areas. The applicants submitted a very detailed lighting and photometric plan; these plans call for a zero reading at the property and street lines, meeting the widely acceptable standard of light levels. Mr. Benetti shared the three questions the applicants need to respond to or address in their applications for variances requests and noted that school did a fine job defending their applications and providing for the Commission their analysis. Commissioner Noonan asked for clarification of the variances associated with the lighting. Mr. Benetti replied that the variance is only for the structure heights as the ordinance says that accessory structures should be limited to 15 feet; and the lighting structures are proposed to be 80 feet in height. Commissioner Noonan questioned if ‘structures’ included light poles. Mr. Benetti replied that ‘structures’ is a general term and it fits in this situation as it does not differentiate between a building or a light pole. This is what the city has done in the past with similar facilities and this variance request would be consistent. Commissioner Magnuson noted that there was nothing in the variance requests about a scoreboard. Mr. Benetti replied that the plan does show a scoreboard on the north side and the ordinance does allow for a dynamic electronic scoreboard as a permitted accessory use under the R-1 district. He indicated that staff would ensure that the school works with them to ensure they comply with the code. He also stated that the scoreboard fits into the overall signage on the campus. Commissioner Noonan noted that, generally speaking, with this site being in an R-1 category and being caught in the R-1 zoning provisions; which generally apply to single-family lots of 15,000 or 20,000 square feet – this issue has been wrestled with in the past, where there is a 70 acre site and to apply a 125 square foot maximum on a 15,000 square foot lot is like about 0.8% coverage. If looking at the 15,000 applying to 70 acres, it’s about 0.45% coverage. It is a question of size that makes the practical difficulty is that maybe that the R-1 category is not intended to apply for a 70 acre site. Mr. Benetti agreed and stated that if this were a single family home on a 70 acre lot then the rules would apply. This is obviously a very large institutional use. The R-1 standards may not really apply here. There has been talk about creating an institutional or a specific district for schools, churches, public facilities; however, the city is not there yet. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the title of this case mentions a possible variance to City Code Section 12-1D-16F to reduce on-site parking requirements needed for an athletic field. When reviewing the material provided at the commissioners’ seats – which matched what was presented – with the addition of 162 stalls on the southeastern corner, the site would have 670 stalls; meeting the requirement for the stadium of 667. He continued by stating that the city code is silent on time of day events and whether parking can shared or not. Technically speaking, there are 225 stalls page 252 short for installing the stadium. However, it is his understanding that no events take place on campus when there is a football game – which are the big attendance draw. He then asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to place a condition of approval that when the stadium is in use for football, no other event can take place on campus – or would it be more appropriate for them to come back for a variance for parking standards. Mr. Benetti replied that the commission could do either or. As long as the condition is based on rational findings he believed that the commission could do a typical condition or work with the applicant. As far as parking goes, the variance was advertised as a possibility and if the commission felt a variance was warranted, they could issue a recommendation on that or send it back for further study. He thought that a favorable solution for the school would be to do a condition that they could live with. It is up to the school – like any business – to manage their parking. Commissioner Toth noted that the parking requirements for 2,000 bleacher seats at 3.1 equates to 670 spaces. He then noted that there would be the players, coaches, faculty members, marching band; which would take up approximately 125 parking spaces. Now the available parking spaces for the 2,000 seat bleachers has been reduced. He then asked if that had been taken into consideration in any of the calculations. Mr. Benetti replied in the negative because the code is in general terms and standards – it just says one space for every 3 seats on an athletic field use. It does not differentiate between who the seats are for or what those spaces are to be used for. Mr. Peter Olson-Skog, Superintendent of ISD #197, 1897 Delaware Avenue, was present representing Henry Sibley HS. He expressed his excitement at being at this meeting to continue on this long journey. The task force for this project was formed in 2017 to review the facility and make recommendation to the school board for needed and desired improvements. What followed was a large communication effort to inform the community about the proposed improvements through newsletters, direct mailings, open houses, community presentations, and more. He would remiss if he did not express his gratitude to the community for their overwhelming support of the proposed initiatives. Since the passing of the referendum he could not overstate the excitement felt from students, staff, and community; with great anticipation in conversations about improving the aging buildings to match a long-standing tradition of excellence in the district, which would give the students in the community the facilities they deserve, that are comparable and competitive to those they have experienced in surrounding schools and districts. He then described how their requests for variance meets the criteria that the city and the state have established, which were specific to three areas; height, size and the number of accessory structures. First, he acknowledged the concern raised by some of the community members: light, sound, parking, and the general location of the field. He continued by reassured the Commission and the members of the community that they fully intend to comply with all city codes as they relate to lights, sounds, traffic, and the location of the field. They are not asking for a variance in regards to any of those areas. They want to be good neighbors and have already made many modifications to the plan based on the input received. Specific to the variances, Mr. Olson-Skog stated: page 253 • First criteria is if the property is unique; they believe this to be a very straightforward response – as a high school in the R-1 zoning district, they are very unique in that they are a school and not a single-family home • Second criteria is if the request is reasonable given the way in which the property is unique; as a high school they believe the test of reasonableness should be whether it is common for high schools to have similar facilities to those they are request – they believe it is. The facilities are comparable to those found throughout their conference and the state and they are comparable to those already approved by the City of Mendota Heights at St. Thomas Academy. The current field presents many practical difficulties for the school district, teams require transportation to and from, high school students who want to attend the games and activities have inadequate access to them as attendance requires transportation. Furthermore, as observed throughout the area, having homes games at the high school is by far the most commonly found arrangement. • Third criteria is whether it would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. He responded by referring to the City of Mendota Heights vision statement, with which they wholeheartedly agreed. Schools are parts of the character of this community. Henry Sibley has been proud to be a positive part of the character of this community since 1971. As a typical high school, they currently have fields, bleachers, track, lights on top of the building, and throughout the parking lot. They do not believe that the height, size, or number of the proposed improvements – many of which are replacements for existing structures – would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Statistics shared by Mr. Olson-Skog: • Largest attendance seen at Matson Field in the last few years was 2,000 people. This is the same number of people that come to and leave the high school every day. • Beyond Warrior Rally and Homecoming, a typical football game drops from that highest attendance (2,000) to approximately 1,000 in attendance. • In the past, they have seen approximately 10 events in the fall and 10 events in the spring that have used lights at Matson Field. They believe that the neighborhood in which Henry Sibley exists is a great neighborhood with a great high school. When the proposed improvements are made, they will continue to be a great neighborhood with a great high school with the improved facilities the community has requested and the students deserve. Mr. Olson-Skog then introduced Ms. Jenny Tuttle, Architect from LSE Architecture; Mr. Ryan Hoffman, Construction Consultant from ICS Consulting. Ms. Tuttle stated that although the proposal this evening it not about the location of the field, they thought it would be beneficial to share the background about the proposed location. She shared the visual board that have been used to communicate the plans for the districts bond election, which was also used prior to the bonds; at many, many community meetings, at school board meetings, featured in the newspaper, appeared on mailers, and shared with the City Council on multiple occasions. The overall plan has not changed; however, some of the details in development that have come from community input have been modified. page 254 In 2014, there was a different location proposed for this stadium – that was the bond that did not pass. The location was to the south and there were a number of reasons that this location was believed to be not the best. This was a decision that was made after much deliberation, thought, and input by the community input process. There was a facility committee before and after the bond; that committee included a number of participants from the district, from the community, and neighbors. The items that confirmed that the proposed location now is the correct one are: • Access to parking • Handicap accessibility • Proper orientation of the field • Proximity to neighbors • Significant cost difference - $1.2 million difference • The south location proposal did not include a multi-purpose multi-use design o The newly proposed design would not fit in the location to the south Commissioner Mazzitello noted that the Commission has received lots and lots of emails with lots and lots of great comments, questions, and things Ms. Tuttle might be able to help answer. One of the areas in question was the extreme southeast corner of the campus, at the frontage road and Delaware. He then asked if that area had been analyzed at all and if so, what were the findings. Ms. Tuttle replied that this area of the site had even more grade changes. While they do not anticipate all of the rules that apply to the south field would apply to that location; there are also major utilities in terms of stormwater and water lines in that location; so the cost might increase in that location. Commissioner Toth asked if this would require significant regrading of the existing field. Ms. Tuttle replied that there would be some regrading; but generally the elevation of the field at the top remains somewhat similar. It would be improved. Commissioner Magnuson noted that along Marie Avenue there are a number of large trees between the street and the walking path. She asked if those trees would survive this project or would the construction, etc. force a replanting. Ms. Tuttle referred to the plan submitted in the variance application – their intention is to maintain as many trees as possible and then add to that with additional landscape buffers. Mr. Hoffman noted that ICS has worked with LSE and Anderson-Johnson Associates, the civil engineering firm, on probably over 100 of these facilities in the State of Minnesota for different school districts. They are used to these processes and used to these types of facilities. He confirmed that the plan is to maintain as much of the trees and landscaping as possible, the berming around the existing west and north sides. The plan is to have the stadium tucked into the existing trees. As for the lighting, the plan shows four posts. The packet also included some examples from Mosco Lighting of lighting on fields; however, there was not a rendering of what is proposed for this field. Mr. Hoffman then shared an image of what could actually happen on a field in this location; it is very direct. These lights are more focused onto the field and are shielded around to take the light where it is supposed to be. Of course, they were not applying for a variance on page 255 lighting as they are keeping within the city ordinance in line with zero foot candles at the property line. Commissioner Noonan asked if the image shared by Mr. Hoffman was an actual photo or a rendering. Mr. Hoffman replied that it was an actual photo he found on the Mosco Lighting website. Mr. Hoffman continued by explaining that, along with the berming and design, another issue that has been of concern is what they are going to do with sound. They will engage a sound engineer to make sure that the sound system that is designed and installed is done in a way similar to the light fixtures where it is focused on the field and the visitors on the field itself. Of course sound travels and they will be cognizant of that. Again, they are not applying for any sort of variance or delineation away from what the city has as an ordinance of sound levels. All of the components of the plan, the size and number of structures fit very well with typical facilities like this throughout the State of Minnesota, within the City of Mendota Heights, and within the surrounding areas as well. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the bleachers were open or closed. Mr. Hoffman replied that they are open. She then asked if any consideration had been given to closing the bleachers off and using the area underneath for storage rather than adding additional accessory structures. Mr. Hoffman replied in the affirmative and then explained that this is not an easy thing to do. They also wanted to tuck the home bleachers up against the back berm and the trees, which would restrict the access to that area on the backside. Moving the bleachers forward to allow access to the backside could create more of a nuisance as opposed to keeping it as hidden as possible. Ms. Tuttle also replied that they felt the proposed solution was the most attractive and friendly to the neighbors. Chair Field, referencing the gathering area and green space on the south end and the shot-put and long jump areas on the north end, asked if they couldn’t move a little further south - little further away from the residents on the north side of Marie Avenue and create a little more of a barrier with some trees – a greater buffer. Mr. Hoffman replied that this option was presented and discussed among the focus group and sub-committees – what is not seen in that area is the significant grade change between the parking lot level and where the field level is. If they were to put those components on that south end there would be a retaining wall between the parking lot and the facility itself. Being able to maintain the berm and buffer, and possibly adding to what is already there, on the north side where it is at was preferable. Also, there are no plans for an entrance on the south side – the entire area would be surrounded by fencing that would prevent foot traffic from access the site from the south. The only entrance would be the ticket booth area. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if they were far enough along in the design of the PA system to know where the broadcast speakers would be located. Mr. Hoffman replied that they are not quite to that point yet; however, the speakers would be focused towards the field and away from property lines as feasible. page 256 Ms. Tuttle, in reference to the question raised by Chair Field about not submitting the full project for a variance at this point, shared that in terms of timing, they carefully orchestrated all of the phasing involved in this project and wanted to bring this forward first so that the school could begin using this in the fall of 2019. The rest of the project will take a little longer to get to that point and they would be back to see the Commission about the balance of the building project. They wanted to get the Junior Class of Henry Sibley HS playing on the field and running on the tracks. Commissioner Toth asked if the ‘balance of the building project’ was referring to the swimming pool and other structures. Ms. Tuttle replied that they will have the pool and signage. Chair Field asked if the current project parking plans would be associated with the pool and would accomplish the parking objective. Ms. Tuttle replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Magnuson noted that the rendering shared does not really show the extra tennis courts; it shows nine tennis court; however, there is actually twelve. She then asked if anyone has given any thought to using a little bit of that space – take out the three tennis courts that are in bad shape and using that for parking. Ms. Tuttle replied that in the packet, if they look on the site plan, at one point during bond planning they had planned to relocate those tennis courts as they are middle school tennis courts to another site. However, they learned during the design process was that there was one coach and the high school benefits from all of those courts being on one site. So they are being replaced in that same location – with pickle ball stripes. Chair Field opened the public hearing. Ms. Susan Micevych, 1778 Ridgewood Drive, lives on the street directly across from the west side of the stadium. She has been a public school teacher for 35 years and cares deeply for her students and public schools. She also understands how important athletics, band, and all co-curricular are to her students; and understands how important a stadium is to this school population. She and her family have lived in their home for 26 years and have consistently voted to support every levy and referendum; they are very happy that the school is going to get lots and lots of updates from the latest referendum. They understand that a stadium on campus is important to the community and they do not oppose a stadium nor have they tried to block the stadium. However, their frustrations stem from the process and the location decisions that were made about the stadium and the impact on their neighborhood. Speaking for approximately 30 of her neighbors, Ms. Micevych continued by stating that although the district says neighbors to the site were included in discussions about site planning in 2017, neither her family nor her neighbors knew about it. They found out in March 2018 when they received the postcard stating that the location of the stadium had changed to the northwest side. Of course, it was too late for them to object as the location had been decided without their input. Unlike current ISD 197 families that were notified; they were not since many of them do not have school aged children or their children are not enrolled in the district. They were told that the information was posted on the website; however, they just didn’t know and did not get a change to weigh in on some of the pros and cons of stadium locations that have been sited in their proposals – like the homeowners on the other sides of the stadium did who have children in the district. They page 257 visited approximately 50 homes on the north side, none of which knew about nor were they able to participate in discussions. It was probably not intentional; however, they felt overlooked and it did not feel good. They believe all residents of Mendota Heights should have been notified by the school district and by the City of Mendota Heights, about the planning of a structure with such potential impact. When their neighbors found out they were shocked and most wondered why the stadium wasn’t considered by the freeway. Most of the amenities of the city have been developed along the freeway corridor. In keeping with the city’s development pattern, they thought the stadium should be built into the southern slope of the property and facing the highway – it would be far less disruptive to the character of their neighborhoods, far more able to buffer noise, and far more accommodative to the location of the bleachers, lighting, and traffic. Objectively, it makes sense. Another concern they have is that they do not believe that the location by Highway 110 was 43 feet from anyone’s property line. They believe that they are closer than anyone would be if the stadium was built on the south side. Earlier this summer, Ms. Micevych contacted Mr. Olson-Skog about their concerns and asked that they be passed on to the facilities team, which he said he did. She left her phone number and email address; but no one from the facilities team reached out to them. Again, there was no meaningful engagement with the neighborhood. They attended the open house on September 20 and realized that very few of their concerns had been addressed. The only way for their neighborhood to have any effect on the stadium location was to ask the city to deny or table the approval of the variances until those discussions occur. Ms. Micevych then addressed the three criteria to approving a variance request: Maintain the Essential Character of the Neighborhood The variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood – they perceive this to be a quite mature neighborhood in the rural residential land use category – sometimes referred to as a super block. Homes in the category are unique in that they have large lots and many have woodlands, wetlands, and prairies that provide wildlife habitat. A typical day is quiet except for birds chirping, kids playing, a ball hitting a bat; people run laps at the track and occasionally the field would host a youth game. However, there is never a large crowd. Some have lived in the area 40 years or more and all of the ball fields, true to the character of Mendota Heights, have remained unlit. The neighborhood has always enjoyed this rural small town character and is the main reason they chose to live in Mendota Heights. This is why the thought of building the stadium directly across the street, with only a 43-foot setback from the shot-put structure to the property line, is disturbing. When they found out that the district plans to rent this facility to outside groups for revenue they were disturbed. They believe that the proposed structures would cause public safety risk page 258 due to increased traffic and parking deficiencies that would send event goers looking for parking on the community streets. Due to the topography and proximity of the stadium, significant noise and light would be forced on them and their neighborhood would never be the same. PA system noise from commentators at games and constant PA noise from coaches, band leaders, and others wearing wireless amplification units on the field is a very large concern. Yes, the approval of the variances would significantly alter the essential character of this quiet neighborhood. Uniqueness – the physical character of the subject property and not the personal preferences of the land owner The residents believe that no, there is not a wetland or other limiting physical characteristic of the track and field area that would make it necessary to build any of the structures on the current site. They chose this location and it is their personal preference to have it here. The south side would possibly qualify better for this since there is a slope and some wetlands down there. Reasonableness – is the stadium proposal reasonable They believe it is not reasonable to squeeze a huge stadium into a mature residential neighborhood and push it over as close to the homes on the northern side as possible – 43 feet from the property line. This is 40 feet closer than the current structure – which has an 80-foot setback. The setback from the school side is over 400 feet. So this is definitely not reasonable and most likely the result of them not being at the table along with neighbors from the other side of the school. They requested that the district re-examine the setback from the north side with the possibility of moving the whole structure closer to the school – or turning it east/west next to the parking lot. The argument that east/west orientation is better for players is not reasonable when their homes are at stake. The St. Thomas Academy stadium, which this proposal has been compared to, is actually much further away from any homes and has an east/west orientation. Most of the other metro stadiums used for comparison have much larger setbacks on all sides and many are not near homes. Most of these stadiums have land berms or other landscaping to insulate all sides of the facility. So it is not reasonable to approve the variance when they have not provided any buffering on the north side, except for a few deciduous trees. Ms. Micevych qualified that by noting that there is not a berm on the north side – there are just a couple of trees. The berms they spoke about are on the west side by Callahan where they plan to plant a bunch of trees. The north side is very open. Lastly, the statute says that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. So if it costs more to build a stadium in a different location, costs alone cannot be page 259 the deciding factor. In this case, the cost to the neighborhood and property values is greater than the cost of the district. Although living in a good school district may make a property more attractive to a buyer, living 100 feet away from a high school stadium certainly does not. Many realtors they spoke with agreed with that statement. Variances must be consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Our plan cites the importance of continuing the semi-rule of character of the residential area, and it also cites our quiet private way of life – unique in the Twin Cities. The land use goals aim to continue to protect the quiet, secluded feel of the city’s mature neighborhoods. It would be impossible for the Planning Commission to thoroughly and thoughtfully review and discuss all of the information that have been received in just the last day or two. They encouraged the Planning Commission to not rush to a yes vote. In closing, Ms. Micevych stated that since the neighbors most directly affected by this placement were not consulted, the variance request should be tabled for further study or denied and the planning process re-opened. They welcome the chance to sit down with the architects and school district and come up with some reasonable and mutually agreed upon changes to the current location, or to be involved with the planning of a facility in a better location. She reiterated that they are not opposed to a stadium on the campus, they are not trying to block a stadium, and they just want the location to be a fair placement for all of the neighborhoods. This is not to pit one neighborhood against any other – they want to factually look at the setbacks and the facts that have been presented and find an equitable setback for all homes. Mr. Rob Andersen, 1759 Ridgewood Drive, has been a resident of the city for 15 years. He echoed the comments made by Ms. Micevych; he is not opposed to the stadium or the campus, he is opposed to this location. He fundamentally thought that the school has failed to prove that this will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There are a number of areas where it would impact the area, including traffic, parking, lights, aesthetics, and noise. He focused in on noise by stating that, Mr. Benetti has said, there is a code standard inside of Mendota Heights, City Code 12-1I-2, that reads “Any use producing noise shall be in conformance with the minimum standards as adopted and enforced by the Minnesota pollution control agency and shall be conducted in such a way as to avoid constituting a nuisance.” To him, those two standards have to be applied here. They have to meet with the MNPCA, but they also have to conduct this in a way that is not a nuisance. Both Mr. Benetti, in the staff report, and the school district, in their Letter of Intent, have acknowledged that this stadium is going to create noise. Mr. Andersen provided to the Commission several examples from around the country of similar circumstances where there are high school stadium that have been installed where they put amplified noise into the stadium. In each of these cases there are neighbors complaining about the nuisance of that noise. In fact, some of them are up to one mile away with their windows and doors closed and they can still hear the announcements of the game or the event inside their home. page 260 He also provided a copy of a simple Google search with an acoustic engineer who claims that topography, site conditions, and weather all impact noise and how it carries in the community. When looking at the topography map of the school site in the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan it shows that the proposed stadium site is one of the highest points in Mendota Heights. Then the topography funnels downhill from there. He was unsure if this was true or not; however, his concern was that the noise would follow the topography downhill, into Ridgewood Drive, down Callahan, down Nature Way, down Hidden Creek, down Marie, and potentially all of the way over to 35E and Dodd Road. He felt this was a relevant concern since the school has not provided any documentation so far to counter that statement. Further, site conditions impact noise. The school itself is a sounding board; it’s a 3-story building with a brick wall and noise bounces off of that building. This past summer the marching band had the great opportunity to go to Washington DC and every night – until late at night – the band practiced in the parking lot. What was heard by the neighbors was not just the drums and the trumpets, they also heard every single comment the instructor, who had amplification, made to the band. It bounced off of the school building and came right down into the north side of the community. Following is what the school district has offered to mitigate the noise issue: • Committed to put an undefined number of trees in an undefined location • Agreed to engage a sound person at some point in the future to design the system • Comply with the MPCA to ensure the residents do not go deaf • They are going to shut down post-use absence cleaning to ensure that it is not continuing much past the event itself • They are going to have a district person monitor the noise at the facility However, this is what they have not done: • Not offered any kind of limitation on the hours; they have only said what their past experience has been • They are not offering any limit on the number of night events at all • They are not offering to start games early and finish early • They are not offering to limit amplification during practices or other events • There is no estimate of what the noise will be from this facility • They are not offering to eliminate renting the facility • There is no noise impact study They are asking the Commission to make a recommendation on an incomplete and flawed record. The Commission does not have enough information to determine the impact of this facility on the larger community. He concluded by stating that this motion or this variance request should be denied because they have not completed their homework or, as an alternative, this should be tabled and the school district should be asked to go and engage a competent acoustic engineer to investigate the impact of topography, the site itself, and the siding of the school building, weather, and abatement strategies and compare/contrast that with other options that the school may have for other locations. page 261 Ms. Holly Farber, 1701 James Road, has lived at her home for a decade and was a neighbor on Marie – and she loved living near Henry Sibley. She is the proud parent of three Sibley graduates who are now in college. She sees this plan and thinks it is great. She was sitting and listening to the superintendent and to the architect, and she saw the students in the audience and thought that the city was so lucky to live in this fabulous community, they are going to have these updated facilities that the community voted for overwhelmingly, and how respectful have they been to the entire neighborhood. She believed that the decision of the stadium location was determined by an extremely thorough process. Also, the Commission is not being asked to vote on a noise variance; they are being asked to vote on the following: • Variance to allow for an increase in height of the lights without increasing the lumens to the surrounding neighborhood • For additional structures so they can store their equipment and have the appropriate number of bathrooms • And a press box She believed that the narrow issue in front of the Commission shows the extreme thoroughness, the respect, the commitment to be a good neighbor that Henry Sibley is now and has always been. It seems to her that the variances they are asking for now are really no-brainers. It is unfortunate that some neighbors feel that they were left out of the process; but that is not the question in front of the Commission. She expressed her full support of the request and encouraged the Commission to support it as well. Mr. Larry Fischer, 1775 Ridgewood Drive, stated that he was encouraged by the care the Commission has taken to keep everyone informed on this issue. He and his family have lived in ISD 197 for the last 42 years; they have four children that have all gone to ISD 197 schools, his son was the captain of the football team and the captain of the hockey team. His family has always been supporters of the excellent schools and athletic programs in West St. Paul, Mendota Heights, and the district. He stated that he and his family were never directly invited to any meetings regarding the location or the scale of this project and all of the decisions regarding the stadium when they were made. They were at a meeting before the election where they requested more information; they were then invited over to the school. They did see some of the drawings, etc. at that meeting; however, they are between a rock and a hard place. They did not agree with the scope of this project or the location; however, they did agree that the school district has to be kept up and maintained – they want to be excellent partners with the district. However, they felt they were left out of the process. In the last week he has spoken directly with approximately 33 of his neighbors on this issue and all but one felt that this decision of where to place the stadium and to grant these variances – and they would be perfectly happy with an athletic field – but not on the scale that is being discussed. They believe the variances should be denied and this project – in its present form – is going to definitely dramatically change the character of the neighborhood and of Mendota Heights. They would welcome being invited to the table to have more discussions about mitigation of some of the issues. page 262 Mr. Fischer then shared a document he received from a neighbor, who had spoken with a lawyer on the issue – there seems to be some confusion in the plan having to do with the definition of the word ‘stadium’ and whether or not this is an athletic field or a stadium. He continued by stating that Merriam-Webster defines a stadium as “a large usually roofless building with tiers of seats for spectators at sports events”. They are not sure ‘stadium’ is appropriate under current zoning laws; however, they understand that athletic stadiums shall be 1,000 feet or more from the nearest residential structure. They requested an investigation into this to determine if this is a stadium or not. Ms. Lily Stringer, 1382 Cherry Hill Road, is a senior at Henry Sibley and has played on their varsity soccer program. She expressed her support of the athletic field and stated that they are not requesting anything different from their competitors, their conference, and out of conference. Their current field is very unreliable. The proposed stadium needs the lights, needs the sound system as it is part of the experience for high school; this is just what everyone else has and is not a big request at all. As for noise nuisance, there are only four home football games each year in the fall, they last until 9:30 – 10:00 pm, and are always on a Friday night. Regarding the PA system for the coaches she stated that no coaches need it as they do speak pretty loud, and it should not be a problem or an issue. Ms. Stringer felt that this whole process was ridiculous because they are only asking for what their competitors already have – an athletic field with bleachers, lights, and a sound system. Clearly they have a supportive community; she goes to every football game, hockey game, and soccer games – she just wanted to support her school, her friends, and peers. Mr. Ben Kirkwood, 372 Betty Lane, is a junior at Henry Sibley HS, is the captain of the swim team, and involved in band activities. The band would benefit a lot from this stadium as they would have place to practice. The games are currently held at Matson Field and it would be so much more convenience instead of having to bus the band to Matson just to be able to walk right outside. He felt the big thing was the community and the high school having the experience of attending football games at their high school. Having a central meeting place is important to building the relationships people develop with each other and with their school spirit. Taking players somewhere else to play – and calling that their ‘home’ field – just does not make sense. The decision will have a positive effect on thousands and thousands of students; and this stadium could possibly last decades. Mr. Joseph Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road, is a senior at Henry Sibley HS, captain of the soccer team, and plays hockey and baseball. He is also the president of the student council. The basis of what is being asked is to feel like everyone else in their conference and have a competitive athletic field. There are two main problems they face in their current situation: • The location – having to be off-campus makes it so they have to drive across town and be bussed to games. It leaves the school without an indoor facility to dress and it limits their ability to have a team meeting prior to the game. • The playability of the field – just this year they lost their home game in soccer. Multiple games are greatly affected by the conditions of the field at Matson; the muddiness is page 263 conducive to injury, and it affects the play of the game. It does not give the teams a competitive field in terms of the rest of the conference. He is not up-to-speed with the approval process; however, it seems to him that every other school has this same exact set-up – including St. Thomas in our own community. He believes that this field is hugely important to the community. Ms. Rose __________ is a senior at Henry Sibley HS and has been a varsity member of the cross country and track & field for six years; she has never had a home meet for track & field and will have her first home meet for cross country next week. Only one outside team has responded to their invitation because the other schools do not feel that the track is sufficient enough and safe enough to compete on. When it rains there are big holes and it bubbles – it is unsafe to run on. Mr. Alan __________, 77 W _______ Avenue, West St. Paul, has been a resident since 1989 and he understood the concerns about noise that some of the residents have; however, that is one of the trade-offs of living around a school. It is an anomaly that for 30+ years there has not been a multi- purpose stadium at Henry Sibley HS. He graduated from Henry Sibley in 1995, his sister graduated in 2011, his stepson will be graduating this year, and his daughter will graduate in 2035. The reason places like Eden Prairie are successful at what they are at now is because they invested into the future of the kids growing up in the district. These kids want to have a competitive balance with the other schools within their district; it would bring greater pride than having a stadium that is 2 miles away from their high school. This would allow the kids to have more pride for their athletics. As much as this community of Mendota Heights is proud of St. Thomas Academy and Visitation, they also need to invest in the public educational school and the district, where a lot of these kids go. They want to have a competitive balance with their friends – a lot of it is a mindset and a culture. If these kids feel that they have the same opportunities as kids who have privately funded stadium facilities and that their community cares about them, then they will care a lot more about their school. The improvements would be seen in not only the athletics but in the band and other group activities. Mr. Greg Munson, 1236 Sylvandale Road, had the privilege of serving on the facilities task force for the district. He appreciated the concerns raised by the neighbors. He reminded everyone that this is a permitted use on the site and lighting is permitted. This was not taken lightly by the task force, they met every other Monday for close to a year. It is always a balancing of interests. It’s not easy. The architects went through a number of their rationale that led the task force to concluding the best site. Most significant was the maturity of the existing vegetation, the topography, on the west and northwest portion of the site. There was a comment made earlier about proximity being 43 feet; when they were considering the impact to the home versus the property line, maybe that was the wrong way to approach it, but that is what they thought about. The question really is are taller lights that result in no need for a performance standard variance relative to the lights spillage off of the site – is that reasonable. He believes that it is reasonable and the height is part of what helps accomplish that. The concern about impervious surface, good drainage, and whether or not they would manage their stormwater effectively – were other reasons for siting the field at its current location. It is just page 264 much tougher at the base of the hill. The task force received opposition when they were discussing having it on the south side as well. It is a balancing of interests and the Commission has a tough job to do – but at the end of the day the site can handle the accessory structures that are proposed. The rest of the use is a permitted use and the height of the lights does not conflict with the ordinance. Mr. Stewart Simek, 577 High Ridge Circle, lives directly across from the school. He is in the business of real estate investment and real estate development; has been involved in a lot of different projects with development; and has learned a lot about community input, community engagement, environmental impacts, and traffic studies. He is happy that the high school is finally getting a stadium, he graduated from there a number of years ago. The stadium is a reality for the neighborhood and he has expressed this to school board members. He is OK with the stadium, his neighborhood is OK with it, but most importantly the project needs to be done right as this is going to be a project that will be around for decades. He did not see the rush to get this done in a short amount of time. There should be thoughtful consideration; he agreed with the school that there had been some. The missing people are the ones who are going to be impacted by the stadium and would be living with it 24/7. There are currently parking issues along Warrior Drive. Potentially they would be expanding these parking issues and problems along Callahan and along Marie. He believed there needed to be thoughtful consideration – for him and others he has spoken with – the missing element is the traffic study and where is the environmental impact study. As pointed out earlier, this location is on the highest point. He was in support of the stadium as long as it was done right. He hoped the Planning Commission and the City Council would ultimately give extra consideration to the neighbors who would be impacted the most. It is troubling to him that it is believed that the traffic would need to be figured out after construction; in his experience poor planning leads to bad outcomes. He encouraged the Planning Commission to take the time to do this right; bring the neighbors and the school back together – form a task force as directed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Blake Crisco, a senior at Henry Sibley HS, currently lives outside of the district; however, he grew up ISD 197 schools and has loved his experiences from the elementary level all of the way up to now in his final year of high school. He is a member of the varsity baseball team, the choir program, and is the vice-president of the student council. One thing that Henry Sibley emphasizes so much is an acronym they have called Warrior Pride. In all of his time at Henry Sibley he has never seen Warrior Pride as strong as it is currently. The passing of the referendum has raised the moral of all of the students around him. He has noticed it in every single student that he has interacted with. It would mean a lot to him, to the other students, and the outside community if the Commission were to vote yes on these simple variances. Ms. Madeline Smith, 545 Stone Road, is a junior at Henry Sibley HS. She is a proud member of many Warrior sports, activities, and clubs. She has grown up in ISD 197 and has loved her experience all through it. As mentioned by the previous speaker, she believes that the Warrior Pride that they all have and have expressed to the community is one of their biggest points and page 265 makes this a great school, a great high school, and a great place to be. She expressed her support of the simple variance requests. She respected the comments made by those opposing the requests before the Commission; however, it should be remembered that these are simple variances and a lot of the issues that have been brought up were about sound, which is not one of the variances requested at this time. She also noted that they need to be competitive in order to be proud of their school and build community support. Ms. Emily __________ is a senior at Henry Sibley HS and has grown up in the Sibley community her whole life. She is the captain of the girls’ soccer team; just last week they had their senior night against Hastings at 5:00 pm at Matson Field. The problem with that is that they had sports going on – football had practice until 6:00 pm, they had band practice, volleyball practice, and she had countless people come up to her and ask about the time of the game as they want to come out and support the team. They were not able to come out and support; however, if they had their own athletic field at their high school, all of those players would love to come out and support the various teams. This would help build a community and help bring more people out to support the teams. Mr. Tim Odrey, 1791 Ridgewood Drive, stated that like much of the community he supports the athletic system, he supports the school systems, and is actually an organizer of a community volleyball league who pay fees to the school system and help raise and donate money to the athletic department – the league has been running for more than 30 years and he has been running it for the last four years. So it is not a question of whether or not the community is supporting the school system. However, he does not support the speed of at which they are running after putting in the athletic facilities without doing the traffic study, without doing the environmental impact study, without doing any of the due diligence to ensure they have the parking and other items. He understood that they have been working at this for a long time; however, these are very important key pieces that are missing. Under the City Code 12-1D-17A a traffic study is not an optional item. This reads as follows, “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.” This has not happened yet and one of the reasons that they are requesting these variances not be approved yet is that they are moving too quickly. They do not know the full impact going forward. They want this to be the right build for the community; they want the community to be as strong as possible; and they want to show the support for the school. However, these need to be taken into consideration and done in the right way and with an eye for the future. Mr. Joe Lawder, 1851 Warrior Drive, has spoken with the school board and been in front of the city on several issues involving the school. Most recently he was the lone residential member on the task force for design of the stadium. He thought it important to note that at that point in time, which was after referendum, the decision had already been made on the location – to rule out the south side of the school as the location for the stadium. There was one other neighbor that came to page 266 one meeting and the remaining 13 or 14 members were comprised of administration, coaches, and school constituents – which was fine. However, the process that led to the selection of the field on the far western edge, crammed up into the corner of the trail that was put in a couple of years ago, was a 15 minute discussion at one meeting. There were three alternatives posed and the discussion was focused on moving it the preferred placement – the current location. He did not believe there was an open process in which information was transparent as to the cost of the three alternatives. Some fields would have to be moved – a baseball field and the open area used for the soccer fields – and there were costs attributed to that. Backing up to before the referendum, he was unsure if there was anyone on the task force from the neighborhood – the school district should disclose if any of the neighbors in the impact zone were included. If the stadium were to be moved to either of the other two alternatives, there would still be conflicts within the impact zones. The problem is that there has not been an inclusive effort for the Ridgewood, Marie, Warrior, or the High Ridge Circle residents. It is also unknown if the residents across Delaware were included. Mr. Lawder stated that there is going to be a stadium and he believed that would be good for the school district. The questions before the Commission currently are very narrow; this is not a political process or popularity contest. If the Commission were to follow their mandate they need to determine if the school district has met its burden of proof with respect to these variances and the practical difficulties tests that need to be applied; one of them being ‘the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner’. There is nothing about the topography of the land that mandates these variances; the plight of the landowner is really a product of their desire to use the property in a particular way. The school district wants to use their property in a particular way that they think is consistent with a school; however, that is not the test – the test is whether or not there is some unique aspect of the property. Going back to earlier discussions, is the problem the zoning classification or is it the uniqueness of the property – should a school district be treated by the same standards as an R-1 Residential District. If they should not be then the city needs to rezone; or change the performance standards. The answer is not granting a variance. A no brainer standard is not what the city should be applying; they should be applying the letter of the statute and determine if the school district has met its burden of proof. The granting of the variances this evening would not affect noise and would not affect a lot of things heard about this evening; however, there are performance standards for a reason and the Commission is vested with applying those because they have the municipal power to influence and create the diplomacy and opportunity to bring everyone together so that there can be discussions about these issues. The power the Commission holds as a body to grant, deny, or table these variances can affect these other things. He believed that there should not be any rush into a process that many are dissatisfied with because they have not been included. He stated that he tried to work with the district to try and get what he thought was good for his immediate neighbors; however, he thought that was basically an abdication that the fight was over with respect to the location. The fact that there are requests for variances and that there is momentum among neighbors that were not included and feel that they are being short-changed on page 267 the procedure does open up the opportunity for the discussion to the best location and the best way to minimize the detriment to all the neighbors that are affected. Leaving anyone out of the process is unfortunate and the Commission should at least table the matter until a more complete analysis of the different factors can be obtained. Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation that regardless of where the stadium goes on the property, it would require these variances. Mr. Benetti replied in the affirmative. Mr. Grady Clem, 2045 Delaware Avenue, lives right across the street from Henry Sibley HS. He is currently a senior and has been on the varsity track team for four years; this would his second year as captain. Earlier it was said that the track is bad and that there have not been any home meets; which he believes is an understatement. A person cannot walk further than 10 feet on that track without finding a hole or a crack. They cannot put blocks down on the track because if they push off too hard the track literally comes out from underneath. He himself is a high jumper and in the middle of the high jump pit there are holes forcing them to place the mats in a specific way just to be able to dodge the holes. The track team has produced multiple Division One athletes of the years and they will continue to produce them as long as they have a track; however, it gets tougher each year. They actually ran sprint practices in Hidden Creek because the conditions were better there. Ms. Lela Rothsput, a senior at Henry Sibley HS, and Ms. Claire DuPont, a junior at Henry Sibley HS are both captains of the track and field team. They echoed the comments made by Rose and by Mr. Clem about the Division level athletes coming from their team; and the current athletes give 100% during training and during the season. However, they still have to adjust for things such as the condition of the track. They actually had to shovel off the track in order to use it for practice. The cracks and bubbles in the track are causing sprained ankles; they can physically lift up portions of the track. They are simply asking for the same facilities that every other team in their conference have so they can equal abilities to succeed. Some of the opposing speakers have mentioned that the current situation at the field is nice because there are only a few events or activities that happen at the field; those are middle school athletes because they are the only teams willing to come. There is not as much weight put on middle school sports as on high school; because middle school sports are a way to introduce kids to, and help them gain a liking for, the sport. Ms. DuPont is also a part of the band and they have put in a lot of work in preparation for the upcoming homecoming game and the performance for the half time show. To lay out all of their marks and practice on the field, it took all of them 15 minutes working as a team. To get to Matson Field, they have to load percussion equipment and large instruments onto a trailer and bus over there – it takes a long time. The field has hills, etc. and it is not the best. Mr. Donny McKenzie, 1450 Cherry Hill Road, is a sophomore at Henry Sibley HS and participates in multiple sports and in the band. He pointed out the number of students in attendance at this meeting, along with other speakers. This is the first night of their long weekend and they chose to be here because this is important to them. This not about having the best track or the best field – this is about being proud to be a Henry Sibley HS student. page 268 Mr. Liam Joyce, 2091 Theresa Street, expressed his desire for the Commission to approve the variances for the buildings. Mr. Devin McIntyre, 3191 __________ Lane, is one of the two drum majors of the marching band. He noted that they practice in the parking lot, which is really bumpy and not very easy to practice on. He expressed is desire for the stadium, not just for marching band, but for every sport and activity. A stadium is not about costs or lighting – it is about developing and growing. Ms. Amy Powers is a resident of Eagan but spends most of her days at Henry Sibley HS. In Eagan, she lives very close to the high school and one of the great joys of her life is hearing the activity that happens at Eagan HS. When there is activity she knows that youth are doing something that is productive and constructive; as a community member nothing means more to her. Kids who participate in activities are kids who have a better chance of growing up to be productive citizens. She continue by stating that this stadium is about more than any individual; this is about community. Every community needs an essential gathering place and a stadium would be that place. There is currently not such a place at Henry Sibley HS and it is needed. There are numerous logistical issues she could speak on for hours; however, in her opinion they are irrelevant. They need a lasting structure that will bring the community together and that they can be proud of. She is also the band director at Henry Sibley HS; in regards to the comments and concerns about sound she noted that currently she and the coaches are orientated toward the north. However, when the stadium is built they will be orientated to the east or to the west – that will change the direction of sound and would probably change some of the acoustical impacts that neighbors are hearing and experiencing. Ms. Eddie Drieman, 2356 Swan Drive, lives in one the closest houses to St. Paul and Visitation. Both he and his wife are graduates of Henry Sibley HS and they wanted to move back to the community because of the public schools. Both Henry Sibley and St. Thomas were in their minds and they wondered if they were going to get parking and noise from the schools – as well as airplane noise. He can attest to the fact that there are repercussions to that; however, absolutely love it. They get parking but they are very cordial. They hear the cannon from St. Thomas when they get a touchdown. But this is youth athletics and something that is positive. He asked the residents who were objecting, if the stadium had been there when they moved in – like it should have been when the school was built in the 1970’s – would they have moved in. Ms. Laura Zanmiller, 1016 MacArthur Avenue, made the following points in response to some of the issues raised: • The reason they are moving so quickly is because the school was built in 1971 and the stadium should have been built then • The current condition of the field is horrible • Her last child is a junior right now and she would like for her to play soccer on a decent field • Traffic study does not need to be done; there will be the same amount of traffic as a regular school day page 269 • She represents Mendota Heights as the Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor and she said that an environmental study does not need to be done because it is not like they have to alter the stormwater management and are not likely to create any source point of pollution Mr. Chad Lemmons, 677 Apache Lane, expressed his appreciation to the Commission for the patience. He read the report issued by Community Development Director Tim Benetti and on page seven it there is a sentence that reads “The Planning Commission may wish to decide if further information or study is needed to address this noise issue”. On page nine, there is a sentence that reads “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”. He stated that what is occurring is approval by piecemeal, which is the incorrect way to handle this kind of issue. All the issues involving this project, especially noise and traffic, should be addressed before there is any further consideration by the Planning Commission or the City Council. The idea of tabling this matter is appropriate. Mr. Dane McKenzie, 1450 Cherry Hill Road, made two quick points: • In 1994 the Council and the Planning Commission discussed rezoning St. Thomas to align more with schools versus R-1 Residential zoning. Rezoning 24 years later is only a tactic now being used to discuss the delay this project. If they decide to rezone, he requested that this request for variance be approved now and discuss rezoning in the future. • The location of the stadium; being north, south, or on the roof is not up for debate. This is not what the Commission is tasked with today. They are tasked with deciding the height, size, and number of structures. He expressed his desire to have these approved. Ms. Scott Landsman, 1206 Culligan Lane, expressed his appreciation for this process. One of the things he has learned is that this is a permitted use, it meets the setback requirements; if it were not for the height and number of accessory uses they would not need the variances. They could have gotten their building permit and began construction. St. Thomas was also granted variances in regards to height. This application should be treated in a similar manner. The city cannot hide behind a different choice of process in order to treat similar projects differently. The only issue before the Planning Commission is the height, the number of accessory structures – not the location, not noise, nor light at the lot lines. He also believed that the district had done a very good job of putting its position forward in regards to the legal standards to be met; practical difficulty, reasonableness, uniqueness, and essential character of the neighborhood. Any decisions based on parking, lighting, location, and sound are arbitrary, capricious, and does not have any rational basis on the decision to be made tonight. He did not believe that a traffic study was necessary and should not be considered in making a decision on these variances. page 270 Mr. Robert Bee, 535 Marie Avenue West, lives right across the street from the ballfield. He knows that the sound from the band the other day upset his dogs because of the acoustics. He does have a background in sound and lighting and he knows that the sound, regardless of where the speakers are placed, is going to affect him and his neighbors. The lighting is going to be over into his yard and into his house. There is no way to stop that unless they put up a sound fence, which would have to be a minimum of 15 to 20 feet in height. He did not believe the neighborhood would like to see that. As far as the parking on Marie Avenue, kids park there all of the time for events at the school and they walk through there. In order to stop that they would have to take parking off of that side of the street; which would eliminate the traffic hazards in the area. Mr. Joe Barnard, 1660 Gryc Court, is a junior at Henry Sibley HS. He is a member of the band and knows they are really loud as he can hear it from his house; however, he thinks it is cool. The band faces towards the school when they play so the sound bounces back into the neighborhood; however, in the stadium they would be facing differently so the sound would not echo like it does now. He reminded the Commission that the district said they would talk about the sound issues later. He expressed his desire for the application for variances be approved. Ms. Nayana Gurung, 743 Cheyenne Lane and Carolyn Anderson, 2244 High Point Road, are both sophomores at Henry Sibley HS. They both felt that this meeting was super relevant as the homecoming game is tomorrow. Ms. Gurung listed the following points: • Pep Band, to her, is the highlight of the football and basketball games • The band kids have really benefited from having these experiences • They have to arrive at the school is 2.5 hours early to load percussions and large instruments and get to Matson Field on time. Although they like hanging out with their band friends, it creates an extra commitment on their part • They respect the neighbors that live around Henry Sibley HS and they understand that it is a lot to have a stadium in the neighborhood; however, there are only a limited number of large events. Most of the time, they would be having smaller practice events, which would not be as loud as a large event. • They believe this would also benefit the neighborhood as a whole Ms. Anderson listed the following points: • She was super excited as an 8th grader to join the track team and looked forward to attending meets at her high school. She was disappointed to learn that no other teams were willing to come to their track because of the safety issues and not meeting certain qualifications. • Once the stadium is built she is going to be so excited to have meets at the high school, better facilities, and the required number of lanes to meet the qualifications. Ms. Barb Castle, 565 West Marie Avenue, has lived at her home for 43 years. Her home is directly across the street from the school and the area the district has proposed to build the athletic field. She is for the athletic field; she is just against where the location is – so close to Marie Avenue. Her living room and bedrooms face Marie Avenue and the school and would be directly affected by the stadium lights, the crowds, the traffic, the noise, and the pedestrian traffic. Unlike the 2014 proposal at the south side of the school, the current proposal of this field and its uses are not page 271 compatible with single-family residential areas that are in such close proximity to this location. The plan seems to be that it squeezes a lot of things into a small area that does not accommodate everything. This past summer, she experienced the detour traffic from Highway 149 / Dodd Road. There were times when they couldn’t even get out of their driveway because it was bumper-to-bumper and no one would let them in or out of the driveway. She believes that this is going to be a big traffic situation because they are going to park on Marie Avenue and walk down the path because it is easier. On that north side there is not a berm – there is nothing to protect the residents. There are some trees; however, they are not directly in her area. She requested that the Planning Commission deny the variance requests and suggested that the school district find a location for the stadium that does not negatively impact single-family residential areas and where it would fit without granting several variances and trying to squeeze too much into a space that would not accommodate everything. She also suggested that they get the neighbors involved in where the stadium would be placed. Mr. Johan Boysen, 1878 Delaware Avenue, has young kids. One day he hopes they have an opportunity to use the facilities that are being considered today; and he might even run a lap or two on the track. His main concern is whether or not the Planning Commission has taken into consideration or done any work around traffic safety, pedestrian safety, etc. Living off of Delaware Avenue there is very little access to cross the streets aside from down by Marie Avenue or all of the way down to Highway 110. Crossing the road is dangerous, they love using the path around the school to walk their dog, etc. He just wants to be assured that the safety issues are addressed. Ms. Ann Andersen, 1759 Ridgewood Drive, expressed her appreciation for the Commission listening to all of these comments. She loved hearing from the kids, the students and the alums – talking about the community investing in their future and how that’s driven an uptick in Warrior Pride. They are investing in the future, the bond has passed, and the stadium is going to be built – a much needed upgraded stadium. However, the focus tonight are the variances. Nothing specifically has been requested in terms of a variance for parking, traffic, or noise – and she understood that they were not on the table specifically as a variance; however, what she did not understand is how the city can move forward without the full body of information. How can they grant a variance for a PA system at a certain height but don’t actually know how that is going to be used – when, how, what kind, etc. If feels confusing to her how they could even possibly move forward without any kind of study. Absent of any of those studies, she felt it would be a dangerous position to put the city in in terms of not knowing, and it doesn’t satisfy the requirements of a variance because it is impossible to say how it would affect the essential character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Ms. April Moody, 577 Valley Lane, has been involved in this particular issue for many, many years. There has been a group of her neighbors that have been talking about this for eight years and trying to get it going. What she did not understand why this felt like they were right back to the beginning. People are claiming that they are not opposing the stadium; however, technically they are. The bond was passed fair and square and it is time to move on with this. It seems to her that they are using this platform to try to get out of getting the stadium once again. This has been page 272 an exhaustive process and everyone has been working on this for a long time. There have been mailings, numerous planning committees, discussion groups, and planning sessions – and if someone were not involved in it – she was sorry because there were ample opportunities. Ms. Sarah Kirkwood, 372 Betty Lane, in response to the question posed about how she would feel if there were a stadium being built by her home, stated that she would feel privileged and honored to have that near her. She has heard so much from so many people from West St. Paul who love having the stadium there and love that community feeling. She then questioned how many homes there would be each year and noted that there would not be a game every night. As for the band, counted 17 nights out of the 90+ summer evenings that she heard the band. Yes, the neighborhood would change; however, when a person purchases their home near a high school this is to be expected. Of all of the residents who signed the letter, only three were there before 1971; they have a right to complain. She herself lives on the bus line, which is not always pleasant and she does not take the bus. However, she understands that she lives in a community with other humans and she tries to not let the noises she hears bother her. She urged the commission to do the voting that they are supposed to do – stick to the plan. Any delay is just going to cost the tax payers money. Ms. Andrea Myers, 1050 Overlook Road, stated that a football athletic stadium will definitely change things. It will be, in addition to a marching band, football practices, Nordic ski meets, on a high school facility. She is a member of the South Robert Street Business Community and the question was posed earlier as to why this was moving so quickly. Her question was why this was moving so slow. She grew up on Mulberry Lane and she saw residents here who built their homes in the 1970’s – and they were here in red to support the granting of the variances. She was in marching band in high school, was a substitute teacher in ISD 197, went to Washington DC, was a color guard with pride, was a cheerleader for the football team, and did powder puff. She knows and loves the cross country coach, track coach, and the Henry Sibley HS teachers. The concerns for the southern fields were very carefully thought out: • The cross country fields would be tore up • No one has mentioned the sledding hill they would be losing • There is a wetland are down there • Parking would be disconnected • The handicapped accessibility would be pretty bad The referendum that passed brought West St. Paul and Mendota Heights together after years of rivalry; the youth sports has made a concerted effort and the Warrior Pride is very alive and growing. This city has the highest private school attendance and so public school got the low priority for a long time. She questioned again why so slow for the public school improvements. She is a realtor and recently sold a home directly across the street from Matson Field because that is where they wanted to be. She felt sorry that some of the residents felt left out because it does not feel good and it is not right; however, she has clients in her back pocket who would be very willing purchase into the district – and she did not mean to be rude or disrespectful – and happy to buy on the street near the field. page 273 She concluded by stating that the proposed improvements do not trigger any state requirements for any environmental studies and urged the Commission to grant the variances for the great good of the community because the location was well thought out. Ms. Mary Galvin, 1280 Ohio Street, has a 10th grader at Henry Sibley HS and two younger children coming up. She was in support of the variances and suggested that the district has addressed all of the issues and has met its burden of proof. There has been a long process of hypotheticals and a parade of horrible ‘what could’ or ‘what might’ happen. The only issues before the Commission now are the variances on the table. This use is consistent with a school; the district has met its burden of proof; the kids, the larger community, West St. Paul, and home prices all will benefit. Strong communities and strong schools go hand-in-hand. Mr. Gerry Petschen, 1792 Ridgewood Drive, lives across the street from the proposed stadium. He has been a supporter of Henry Sibley HS for a long time, both of his children went there, and his son played on the football team that went to State, he coached youth hockey, youth baseball, and youth football. He heard of lot of things this evening and the biggest thing on hand right now is to not go too fast. Everyone wants to push this through but it seems to him that more planning needs to be done; maybe some parking studies. He also did not believe that variances could be granted without a complete set of drawings. Mr. Jim Pirkl, 1825 Warrior Drive, lives directly across from the bathrooms – 150 feet from the open or closed bathroom doors. He questioned if anyone in the room would want their house 150 feet from eight, ten, or fifteen bathroom doors serving approximately 1,000 kids a day at a game using it. The lights would be on poles 80 feet tall and would shine on his house every time they have them on. He did not understand why, when they have all of this room, they wanted to stuff this thing in a corner next to a couple of their houses. Many people on the south probably complained; however, the south end is the better place. There are plenty of other spaces. Why hasn’t anyone taken into account that some people worked their butt off to have a nice place, just to have it virtually destroyed. He bet he would lose approximately $2M when he goes to sell and that’s just not right. Ms. Julie Trippe, 1813 Rolling Green Curve, is a parent of two ISD 197 middle school students. The expressed her frustration at having to be in attendance and asking for support of this application, after it has been voted on overwhelmingly this past April. She asked that Mendota Heights, as a city and a community, step up to the plate and vote yes on these variances. Has had been heard from the students, this is an urgent matter. When her family decided to move to Mendota Heights they purposely chose not to move next to the high school because they knew that eventually there would be an athletic field put in. This is not something that is being pushed through. She asked for the Commission’s support and consideration of the referendum that was overwhelmingly passed and approve the variances. Mr. Patrick Watson, 1327 Delaware Avenue, is the parent of two new kids at Henry Sibley HS. He then read a letter from his wife, Ms. Nicole Watson, who had to leave to take her kids home. She is a 1997 alumni of Henry Sibley HS and a parent to two Heritage Middle School 8th graders page 274 who will be enjoying these improvements. She explained that she and her husband chose to return to Mendota Heights to raise their family because of its excellent schools and its strong sense of community. She respectfully asked that the Commission approve the athletic facility variances. When she voted to support the referendum to improve district facilities, she did so expecting that they would carry out the upgrades in a way that reflected the excellence of our district, our students, and our community. This includes making sure that the athletic facility has amenities at least equal to those of other communities; a press box, a concession stand, bleacher seating, proper lighting, and adequate parking. This is a cherished opportunity for everyone to do their best for the students and continue to move this project forward. The design is thoughtful; the architects, engineers, community, and school have already worked hard to consider all the site options to maintain the character of the surrounding areas and to address the issues of cost, noise, and lights all while developing a facility and a site that would truly enhance opportunities for the student athletes and marching band. She grew up across the street from Henry Sibley HS and has fond memories of hearing rhythmic steps and music of the marching band, the crack of the baseball bat hitting the ball, cheers what would exude from fans, the happy laughter of children attending soccer camps – these were the sounds of her childhood and what became sounds in her home. She encouraged the neighbors to embrace the sights and sounds of this community and support the variances proposed. Ms. _____ Whipps, 623 – 11th Avenue North, lives outside of ISD 197. She believes that having the athletic field would benefit and enhance the sense of community. She asked if the residents would rather have a place of quiet people who do not interact with each other and don’t have a community place or would they rather be a community of people who get together and go to the stadium at the high school and watch games and look at the band. She is in the band and loves going to games. She would love to be able to walk out and go the field that she can practice on. As community of people who say they support this then they should encourage the passing of the variances. At this point, the commission took a five minute break. Chair Field invited the applicant back to respond to the testimonies shared. Mr. Peter Olson-Skog, Superintendent of ISD #197, asked Ms. Carrie Hilger, Director of Communications, to speak to the comments provided by many that they feel they were left out of the decision process. Ms. Hilger stated that when the ballot question failed in 2014 the district took that very seriously and tried to understand the why behind it; through that process engage with the community to hear why that stadium was rejected by voters. In Spring 2017, when the district decided to revisit facilities as a whole, the school board assembled a facilities task force. Information regarding the task force was sent out to residents in the community newsletter, which was sent to all households in the district. This newsletter included information on where they could get additional information. Not only was it sent via regular mail, it was included in the district’s electronic newsletter, posted on their website, and posted on their social media accounts. All of the task force meetings, like other school district meetings, were open to the public. The document and discussion items covered by the task force were shared publicly through the district page 275 website after each meeting, and remain accessible even today. The creation of the task force, along with updates on the group’s progress, were also presented at public school board meetings. Near the end of the task forces’ work, the district held two open houses to share preliminary work and gather feedback from the broader community in September and October 2017. At the open houses the presentation and building tours described how an athletic field on the Henry Sibley campus was being considered; that it would be on the north part of the campus where the track is currently located. Community members were invited to the open house via the mailed newsletter, the electronic newsletters, and posted on the website and on social media. In November 2017 the school board approved the task forces’ proposal and voted in December 2017 to place the funding question before voters in the May 8, 2018 election. Community members were sent a district newsletter in February 2018 providing them with basic information about the referendum and inviting them to attend three open house events in March and April, or visit the district’s website for additional details about the election. Advertisements about the open houses were also placed in local newspapers. Information about the referendum were distributed to the community through two additional mailings and within six local newspaper articles in the St. Paul Voice, Southwest Review, and Villager newspapers. One of the articles in the Villager, from May 2018, specifically included the site plan for Henry Sibley HS, which clearly showed the location up on the north part of the campus. The district is required to send a mailing to community members about the vote so that they know it would be taking place. An additional mailer towards the end of the referendum with more information for community members, based on what the district was hearing and questions from the community. Ms. Hilger shared images of the mailings and newspaper articles. Commissioner Petschel asked when Ms. Hilger referred to community member, was she referring to ISD 197 student parents or all households. Ms. Hilger replied that it was to all households in the district. Mr. Olson-Skog stated that they feel that the district did try to engage the entire community in a number ways and regular invitations. That is how some of the people who spoke this evening learned about it and came to the district with their concerns and the district sat down and talked with them. Some of those concerns started as much as a year and a half ago; they talked through them and a number of their suggestions were incorporated into the plan. In terms of moving fast, the district did not feel that moved fast. They have spent a long time inviting the community through the best ways they have – direct mailings into their homes – to communicate with the public. Mr. Olson-Skog asked Mr. Ryan Hoffman, Construction Consultant from ICS Consulting to address another issue that was raised – that being the traffic study. Mr. Hoffman explained that page 276 when they had initially applied for what would have been a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) back in August, it took a couple days but Mr. Benetti called them and explained that they would need to go through a different process – a variance request rather than a CUP. In that timeframe, which was right around the beginning of September, he requested a traffic study even though it was not required. He felt it would be an impact that the community would want to hear about. So the district engaged a traffic consultant. The problem right now is that, from the beginning of September to now, there have been no games other the one last Friday at Matson Field. What the consultant provided just today, which is why it was not in the pre-meeting materials, was a draft report. They used case studies from across the country to predict what they think is going to happen, and will confirm once they analyze the actual results from taking traffic numbers and the Friday night game. In their case studies they are estimating that there is going to be approximately 706 trip generation additions to the site during a football game. It is assumed that most other events would be less attended, which is why they requested the consultant focus on football games. Ultimately, the assumption, based on information presented in the traffic letter, is that the football traffic does not represent a significant impact to the surrounding roadway system and would not significantly alter the traffic flow and parking operations in the surrounding community. Mr. Hoffman reiterated that this is a draft report based upon case studies; however, the district wants to get the actual numbers from the consultant. Chair Field noted that this draft was presented to the Commissioners and Mr. Benetti and is part of the public record. Mr. Olson-Skog then addressed a concern raised about property values. The district received an analysis from a real estate agent that was provided to the Commission and Mr. Benetti as well. The last sentence in this analysis read “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”. Mr. Olson-Skog concluded by saying that a lot of things were discussed and he wished to express to the citizens they do care about being good neighbors; they care about the sound, lights, and traffic impact. He is committed to continuing to work with the neighbors on sound, lights, and traffic. He personally lives next to a stadium with sounds, lights, etc. So he is empathetic and he does care and he is committing to sitting down with them on a long-term basis. However, what he has committed to sitting down and discussing is not what was submitted for the Commission’s recommendation of approval. They are asking for a variance on the height of the light poles – not the light they emit; however, they will comply with city code. The same thing with sound, there are codes that say how many decibels an event can have without causing a nuisance. This district will live within those codes. They are asking for a variance on the size and number of structures, which are completely reasonable for this type of facility given the uniqueness of the property. While he is committed to continuing conversations, he believed that a delay is not needed. The school district has taken its due diligence to go through and present this report – and has reached page 277 out to the community on multiple occasions; but that is not even a part of what the Commission is debating. A delay in this process, as suggested earlier, would most likely increase the costs. It would have an impact of real students and real families. Delaying this could easily put the district outside the bid window that would allow them to build in the fall of 2019. This has not been a slow process – it has been a long process, a careful process, and a diligent process. The community spoke loudly. As much as he cares about the neighbors and is committed to working with them; the students deserve this, and the community deserves this. He asked that the Commission limit the consideration to what the district is asking for – a simple variance on the heights, size, and the number of accessory structures. Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PETSCHEL, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2018-23, VARIANCE REQUESTS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 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. AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for each new structure identified herein, including any fence or electrical permits as necessary. page 278 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. AND ADDING CONDITION #4 4. The applicant shall not hold another event onsite at the same time as a varsity football related event Before any discussion took place and the vote taken, Chair Field recognized the city attorney as having something to add, which may or may not be germane to the vote. City Attorney Andrew Pratt explained that during a discussion had during the public hearing he wrote down a few things that he believed would be germane to the discussion: • Conditions can be placed on variances; however, they must be directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance o The parking arrangement, to him, means that every space on the campus is needed to meet the one for every three seat capacity. If there is more than one event taking place at the same time, then there is an overlapping parking issue. o In the public hearing notice it was mentioned that parking could potentially be a part of the deliberations; therefore, so condition #4 would fit squarely within that and a separate variance request and public hearing would not be needed • There was mention of a scoreboard in the very beginning of the presentation o Scoreboards have their own performance standards in the code (Section 12-1E-3C) and the restriction on that if 45 feet. So it is not a part of the general accessory limitation of 15 feet. • When there is noise, light, and other issues that are not specifically part of the variance procedure, if those are somehow violated – for example the light bleeds past the property line, the noise violates some of the MPCA rules – the city is certainly able to use zoning enforcement action o That is not an issue with the variance; that can always happen whether or not there is a variance For the benefit of the public, Commissioner Mazzitello explained that the City of Mendota Heights has a parking code in each of their zones that requires X number of stalls depending on land use; one of those land uses is secondary schools. So there are a number of stalls that need to be provided for classroom, faculty member, etc. The site at Henry Sibley HS currently, based on their enrollment and staffing, is over parked. They have 508 parking stalls and by code they are only required to have 228. Adding the stadium, at 1 stall for every 3 seats, requires an additional 667 stalls; they would need 895 total parking stalls on their site. There is no provision in the code that says time of day use is different. By including Condition #4 on the variance, during a football game all of the stall are allocated to the athletic field. There can be no other event taking place on the campus; there can be no other use to occupy the parking stalls. If on-street parking, overflow parking, onto Warrior, Callahan, Marie, Ridgewood becomes a problem, the city has a Community page 279 Development Director, a Public Works Director, and a Police Department that can identify that has a problem. If it becomes a problem, the city can have a conversation with the school district and they can do a parking study to figure out if there is additional parking on campus and this happened, or if there needs to be on-street restrictions to prevent event parking from flooding into neighborhoods. There are mechanisms to deal with parking issues. Since that was brought up in the very title of the case number, Commissioner Mazzitello believed that the additional condition to the variance is warranted. Commissioner Magnuson asked for clarification that this then only applies to football games. Commissioner Mazzitello replied that it only applies to home football games. Commissioner Magnuson then asked if there shouldn’t be some description of ‘another event’ – for instance, is a meeting of five people ‘another event’. Commissioner Noonan suggested the phrase be ‘any activity’. Chair Field said that the term ‘football’ is limiting and probably more restrictive than they should be. What would happen if the soccer games became just as, or more, popular than the football games? Limiting the event to football would mean that another separate event could potentially take place at the same time as the now super popular soccer game, causing a parking dilemma. Commissioner Toth asked if it would be wise to restrict it to events regardless of activity. Commissioner Mazzitello noted that he had spoken with the superintendent, the construction engineer, and the activities director who assured him that, at this point in time, it is tradition – although not a matter of written policy – but it a tradition that nothing else happens when there is a varsity football game. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOTH, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Mr. Peter Olson-Skog, Superintendent of ISD #197, replied that what was shared by Commissioner Mazzitello was correct. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CORBETT, TO RECLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Noonan stated that the testimony heard this evening was quite illuminating, quite thoughtful, well-reasoned, and it reflected the deep seated feeling that everyone has for the City of page 280 Mendota Heights. The fact that there are still 100 people here at 10:55 pm is testament to how everybody feels about this. In terms of considering the very narrow question that was before the Commission – whether the Commission believes the variances meet the tests of Minnesota Statue in terms of practical difficulty, reasonableness, uniqueness, and essential character – the testimonies have done just that. He heard concerns raised about items that are not necessarily before the Commission, but they heard assurances – both verbally and in written form – that if noise and light become a problem, they will be addressed; by the school district or, if necessary, by an enforcement action on the part of the city. The overwhelming item that dealt with him was the unique situation the Commission found themselves in – having to consider variances in a residential zone on a 70 acre site that provides for ultimate flexibility and ultimate proof that it would not afoul of the tests. The question was asked by Commissioner Petschel as to whether the stadium goes here, there, or anywhere onsite the variances would still be required – it is not so much about the location but it was about the variances. Commissioner Noonan stated that he was satisfied with the variances and them meeting the tests of the statute. Commissioner Magnuson expressed her appreciation to everyone for coming as it was very helpful to hear all of the information. She also expressed her thanks to all of the students who gave up their night off to come here beautifully and eloquently expressed their thoughts about their community and what it really means to them and how important it is to have this facility. Commissioner Mazzitello echoed Commissioner Magnuson’s comments and expressed his appreciation for all of the emails, phone calls, knocks on his front door from people who are passionate about what happens to the future of Henry Sibley HS and to the future of the City of Mendota Heights. This is the type of engagement needed to be able to draw information from all perspectives to come to the best conclusion. Commissioner Toth thanked everyone who attended the meeting and numerous emails received. He returned to a comment made by the band director – ‘greater good of our community’. Regarding the outcome of the decision of the Commission and the City Council – they know they are not going to please everyone. He has learned that this community is strong. The children in Mendota Heights have the opportunity to go to numerous schools – Henry Sibley, St. Thomas, Cretan, Hills – what is unique is that they all come back to Mendota Heights for the good of the community. Chair Field summarized the motion and asked for a final version of Condition #4. Commissioner Mazzitello stated: 4. The applicant shall not hold another event onsite at the same time as a varsity football related event page 281 Chair Field then called the vote. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its October 16, 2018 meeting. Staff Announcements Chair Field stated that the Planning Commission and the City Council have a joint workshop meeting to consider and work further on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan on Monday, October 15, 2018 at 6:00 pm The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will take place on October 23, 2018 Adjournment COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:01 P.M. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 page 282 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: October 16, 2018 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Ryan Ruzek, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Authorize Professional Services Contract for Public Safety Improvements on the Village Retaining Walls COMMENT: INTRODUCTION The Council is asked to authorize a professional services contract for public safety improvements of the Village retaining walls. BACKGROUND Mendota Heights constructed the public improvements of the Village site in 2004. The public improvements included a number of retaining walls in Outlot E, the pond and trail area between the residential properties and the Dakota County CDA building. The residential properties along Oak Street had assumed that the walls were part of their property and have been working with a contractor to initiate repairs. The residential property contractor installed orange snow fencing as a temporary safety improvement. Staff was asked to attend an onsite meeting with the residential association regarding the walls. At this meeting, staff noted that the walls within the entire development were of similar construction and asked that the residential property association cease with proceeding on repairs until the proper ownership could be determined. Staff reviewed the developers agreement, construction plans, commercial property covenants, and the residential property covenants and made a determination that the boulder walls on Outlot E are owned by Mendota Heights. The commercial property association is responsible for minor maintenance items and Mendota Heights is responsible for major capital improvements. The city does have authority to specially assess a portion of any capital improvement costs to the residential and commercial properties. DISCUSSION Upon discovery of the ownership determination, staff scheduled a meeting with a consultant, Bolton & Menk, to assess the wall condition. At the initial assessment meeting, Bolton & Menk identified a large number of deficiencies in the wall construction. The consultant was then asked to put together a quote for both temporary public safety improvements as well as a quote to develop a full feasibility report addressing replacement options. The quote to put together a bid package for immediate public safety improvements is $2,535. A full feasibility report for the replacement walls is estimated to be around $36,000. Temporary public safety improvements are proposed to include removal of the existing orange construction fencing, installing chain link netting over the lower boulder wall adjacent to the trail, page 283 installing a chain link barrier at the top of the wall, and signage to alert users of potential data. Additional fall protection could be considered for the wall along the commercial property parking lot. The temporary improvements are estimated to cost approximately $10,000 and would be funded through the infrastructure fund. Initial assessments showed that while the wall has had boulders dislodge and roll onto the trail, a base failure did not appear to be an immediate concern. An assessment of the site visit discoveries is included on the attached proposal. BUDGET IMPACT Public Safety Improvements would be funded through the infrastructure fund which has an adequate balance for the $2,535 design fee and estimated $10,000 safety improvements. If the Council desires to proceed with the full replacement option, city staff would proceed as it does with other specially assessed projects starting with a feasibility report, and development of plans. A portion of the project would then be assessed to the benefitting properties and the city would bond for its share. A full replacement option could be in hundreds of thousands of dollars. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council authorize the professional services contract to Bolton & Menk for $2,535. Once the bid package is complete, staff will get quotes and bring to Council for approval. ACTION REQUIRED If Council agrees with the staff recommendation, authorize Staff to execute a professional services contract with Bolton & Menk for $2,535. This action requires a simple majority vote. page 284 Village Retaining Walls04/01/2017page 285 September 26, 2018 Ryan Ruzek, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Town Center – Outlot E Boulder Retaining Walls Dear Mr. Ruzek: Bolton & Menk, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal to the City of Mendota Heights for professional engineering services related to the Town Center – Outlot E Boulder Retaining Walls. We have reviewed the site and prepared the attached analysis and recommendation memorandum. Generally, we recommend a two step process for addressing the issue: 1. Temporary Solution for Winter Season - Develop and implement a public safety plan for the retaining walls located adjacent to public travel corridors or adjacent to private property. Low cost, rapid implementation alternative. 2. Permanent (Long Term) Solution - The existing retaining walls should be removed and replaced with an engineered retaining wall system in the spring of 2019. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES We can assist the City with development of a temporary solution. This would be a low construction cost (less than $10,000) strategy, allowing the City to select a contractor to complete the work. We estimate this would require 17 hours of staff time, with fees of $2,535.00. We have also prepared an estimate for facilitating a long term solution, beginning in the spring of 2019. The Fee Proposal Worksheet attached to the memorandum is preliminary and for budgeting purposes only. A formal proposal will be submitted upon request. If there are any questions, please contact me at the number listed below. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. Kevin P. Kielb, P.E. Project Manager (651) 968-7760 page 286 MEMORANDUM Date: September 24, 2018 To: Kevin Kielb, PE From: Eric Leagjeld, PE Subject: Mendota Heights Town Center – Outlot E Boulder Retaining Walls City of Mendota Heights The existing boulder retaining walls on Outlot E were reviewed on September 13th and 14th to evaluate their construction, condition and potential for additional deterioration. The plat and aerial photograph of the Outlot E are included at the end of this memorandum for your reference. Boulder retaining walls were constructed in multiple locations around the perimeter of Outlot E to provide suitable means of site grade adjustment. The boulder retaining wall has begun to fail in multiple locations adjacent to the paved bituminous trail between the multiple residential condominium properties located on Oak Street and the Village Commons residential complex. The boulder retaining walls were built approximately between 2003 and 2004. The following is an approximate summary of boulder retaining wall located within the limits of Outlot E. Wall Height Approximate Length Location 1-2 feet 40 feet Adjacent to paved trail & pond 1-4 feet 50 feet Adjacent to underground garage entrance 1-6 feet 210 feet Adjacent to Oak Street and public parking lot 1-9 feet 255 feet Tiered wall on west side of Oak Street condominiums Based on our site visit the following design and construction concerns were observed: 1. No free draining material (crushed rock & draintile) was placed behind the wall 2. The size of many of the “boulders” are too small to have adequate weight to act as a gravity wall. The majority of the rocks used were less than 12 inches in size and would be classified as cobbles. 3. The placement of many of the boulders is incorrect, as they are simply stacked on top of each other in columns and don’t follow common practice of bearing on multiple rocks. This method of construction makes the wall more susceptible to a boulder being displaced and the wall collapsing. 4. The drainage from the adjacent roofs is typically directed towards the walls and are likely contributing to the problem due to excess runoff. 5. The geotextile fabric is beginning to bulge and fail between the adjacent boulders. Once the fabric fails, soil will flow between the boulders and cause a ground loss behind the wall, causing the wall failure to increase in size. page 287 Name: Kevin Kielb Date: September 24, 2018 Page: 3 Photograph 1 – Vertically aligned boulders construction method and undersized material Photograph 2 – bulging geotextile and poorly configured boulders page 288 Name: Kevin Kielb Date: September 24, 2018 Page: 3 Photograph 3 – Failing tiered boulder wall behind Oak Street condominiums To correct the failing retaining wall, we would recommend the following approach: 1. Develop and implement a public safety plan for the retaining walls located adjacent to public travel corridors or adjacent to private property. The plan would utilize a combination of warning signs and protective fencing or netting, as appropriate for the site conditions. The safety plan should be implemented as soon as feasible. 2. Develop a site survey to identify and document the relevant site conditions and features necessary to complete the design of a new retaining wall system and development of biddable construction documents. The existing retaining walls should be removed and replaced with an engineered retaining wall system in the spring of 2019. To assist you in this effort, we have developed and attached a proposed work scope and estimated fee. page 289 page 290 page 291 Fee Proposal Worksheet Client:City of Mendota Heights Date:09/24/18 Owner:City of Mendota Heights By:EEL Project:Mendota Heights Town Center Retaining Wall Evaluation Principal Snr Eng Str Eng Proj Eng Survey Tech Land Arc No. Description $175.00 $170.00 $145.00 $120.00 $130.00 $110.00 $125.00 Total 1 Project administration 2 2 2 Alternatives Study 1 4 5 3 Safety Plan Design 1 1 3 5 10 4 0 5 0 6 0 0 Total Estimated Hours 4 5 3 0 0 5 0 17 Total Estimated Fee $700 $850 $435 $0 $0 $550 $0 $2,535 Principal Snr Eng Str Eng Proj Eng Survey Tech Land Arc No.Description $175.00 $170.00 $145.00 $120.00 $130.00 $110.00 $125.00 Total 1 Project administration 2 2 4 2 Adjacent property structural review 4 4 8 3 Site Survey 1 32 16 49 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 0 Total Estimated Hours 3 6 0 4 32 16 0 61 Total Estimated Fee $525 $1,020 $0 $480 $4,160 $1,760 $0 $7,945 Principal Snr Eng Str Eng Proj Eng Survey Tech Land Arc No.Description $175.00 $170.00 $145.00 $120.00 $130.00 $110.00 $125.00 Total 1 Project administration 4 4 2 Project meetings (2 mtgs @ 3 hrs)6 6 6 18 3 Retaining wall structural analysis & design 2 16 18 4 Civil site improvement design 4 16 20 5 Landscape improvement design 8 8 6 Prepare Construction Plans 2 2 8 16 60 88 7 Prepare Technical Specifications 2 2 4 4 12 Prepare Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 1 2 2 2 7 QA/QC 2 2 4 Total Estimated Hours 21 14 30 34 0 60 20 179 Total Estimated Fee $3,675 $2,380 $4,350 $4,080 $0 $6,600 $2,500 $23,585 Principal Snr Eng Str Eng Proj Eng Survey Tech Land Arc No.Description $175.00 $170.00 $145.00 $120.00 $130.00 $110.00 $125.00 Total 1 Construction engineering and RFIs 1 1 2 1 5 2 Preconstruction meeting 2 2 4 3 Periodic site observation (8 trips @ 3 hrs)24 24 4 As Built Drawings 2 2 4 0 Total Estimated Hours 3 1 4 26 0 2 1 37 Total Estimated Fee $525 $170 $580 $3,120 $0 $220 $125 $4,740 Public Safety Phase Services $2,535 Site Investigation and Survey Phase Services $7,945 Design Phase Services $23,585 Construction Phase Services $4,740 Estimated Reimbursable Expense $0 Total Estimated Fee $38,805 Use $39,000 Public Safety Phase Services Site Investigation and Survey Phase Services Construction Phase Services Project Fee Summary Design Phase Services page 292