Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019-07-11 Planning Comm Agenda Packet Special Meeting
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION – SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA JULY 11, 2019 7:00 PM- Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights MN 55118 1. Call to Order / Roll Call 2. Adopt Agenda 3. Public Hearings a. Case No. 2019-18: Variance - to City Code Section 12-1E-3.D, to allow new aquatic center building to exceed the maximum height limits of 25-ft. for structures in the R-1/R- 1A One Family Residential Zoning District (Independent School District #197 – Henry Sibley High School – Applicant) 4. Adjourn Meeting Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Hall at 651.452.1850 with requests. Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 1 Planning Staff Report (Supplemental) DATE: July 11, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2019-18 Variances to Exceed Maximum Height of Structures in the R-1 One Family Residence District 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: July 28, 2019 DISCUSSION Independent School District No. 197, acting on behalf of Henry Sibley High School, applied for a variance to increase the structure heights for a proposed new aquatics center, a gymnasium addition and a main (front) entryway addition to the high school facility, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. On June 25, 2019, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item, 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. Upon closing the hearing, the Planning Commission elected to table/postpone any recommendation on the variance associated with the proposed aquatics center (in order to give the Applicant additional time to work with neighboring residents to address landscaping, screening, lighting and sound mitigation measures), but elected to go forward with a recommendation on the gymnasium addition and front entryway additions, since no one from the public spoke out or against these improvements. The following day on June 26th, school representatives and neighboring residents met on the high school property, and the results (or re-cap) of that meeting were prepared and sent to the city by Ms. Adrienne Mayer, which were in turn were forwarded to the planning commission (via email 06/27/2019). A copy of said email is again appended to this memo. For the record, City Council took action on the two variances related to the gym and entryway addition at the July 2nd regular meeting, in which both were given unanimous recommendation of approval by the planning commission. The Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-48 (by 3-1 vote) approving the variances on these improvements. Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 2 SITE PLAN UPDATES The Applicants have submitted revised and updated plans for the proposed aquatics center. The aquatics building was originally shown with a height of 35’-8” along its highest point on the southerly elevation. The school is now showing this height to be 31’-8”, or 4 feet lower than the original plan submittal presented at the June 25th meeting. This building is also being moved 5-feet farther away from Delaware Avenue, so the setback will be 35 - feet (instead of original 30-ft. setback). As part of this shift, the school has agreed to install a small earthen berm along the westerly edge of Delaware Avenue, which will serve as an area for new plantings and trees, in order to provide natural screening of the aquatics building from the residents to the east. It does not appear that any part of the central parking lot space between the main school building and new aquatics center is affected, with 42 spaces to remain. The south (new) parking remains with 97 spaces planned for this area. A full copy of the previous 06/25/19 Planning Report, along with the PC meeting minutes excerpts on the discussion and action taken on the variances related to the gym and front entryway additions, are also included in this memo packet. This memo also contains new visual architectural illustrations provided by the applicant’s design team on the gym and front entryway additions. Although the variances for the gym and front entry were approved, staff is providing these images for follow-up information only to the commission. No official action is needed or required [on these images]. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Recommend approval of the variance requests, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow the proposed aquatics building to exceed the 25-ft. height limits in the R-1/R-1A One Family Residential District to 31-ft.-8-inches, by the following: i.) the proposed structure height increase is considered a reasonable request, based on the overall scope, scale and use of the subject property as a high school campus facility, and fits with the current design and layout of the existing school building on the property; and is considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; ii.) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, as this proposed aquatics center building [and the related school facility buildings] are not a typical single- family use in the underlying R-1 One Family Residential District; and therefore warrants the approval or granting of such variances in this particular case; Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 3 iii.) the excess heights of the new aquatics center is less than what exists today on the school campus site, so there impacts will not be noticeable when compared to other (pre-existing) structures on the campus site; and iv.) 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 school facility improvements, such as this aquatics center can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. Furthermore, the applicant has demonstrated an effort to reducing the impacts to the neighborhoods by reducing the height of the proposed aquatics building, moving the building away from the adjacent roadway, and installing a new earthen berm as an added area and elevation for trees and plantings that will provide an effective, natural screening to the neighborhoods. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variances will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of these Variances are for ISD-#197 (Henry Sibley High School) only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019- 18, dated and presented June 25, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: 1) The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for the proposed aquatics center building and related improvements and structures identified herein. 2) The Applicant shall not deviate or increase the height of the new aquatic structure as approved or presented under this application. Any changes must be reconsidered under a new application before the planning commission and approved by the city council. 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 schedule or conduct a swim meet or any other spectator event inside the aquatic center at the same time as a varsity football home game.” Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 4 2. Recommend denial of the Variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three-part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of this variance for increased height related to the aquatics center in the R-1/R-1A District. The City finds the proposed aquatics center building is not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three-part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of the Variances to be considered for this new aquatics center as requested by the Applicant, and if the Commission wishes to approve the Variance as presented herein and add or modify the conditions as noted herein you may choose Alternative No. 1 noted above. If the Commission wishes to deny the variance as presented, or request more information, you may choose to select either Alternative No. 2 or 3 - noted above as well. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Updated Elevation Plans (Aquatics Center only) 2. 06/25/2019 Planning Staff Report 3. 06/25/2019 Planning Commission meeting minutes (excerpts) HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL: AQUATICS SOUTH ELEVATION HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL: AQUATICS EAST ELEVATION - DELAWARE AVE. EXISTING HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL AQUATICS ADDITION HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL: AQUATICS SITE PLAN CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL • SCHOOL DISTRICT 197 CONCEPTUAL INTERIOR RENDERING MORELAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • SCHOOL DISTRICT 197 CONCEPTUAL EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL • SCHOOL DISTRICT 197 CONCEPTUAL INTERIOR RENDERING MORELAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • SCHOOL DISTRICT 197 CONCEPTUAL EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL • SCHOOL DISTRICT 197 Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 1 Planning Staff Report DATE: June 25, 2019 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 2019-18 Variances to Exceed Maximum Height of Structures in the R-1 One Family Residence District 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: July 28, 2019 INTRODUCTION ISD #197 is requesting variances in order to construct a new aquatics (pool) center, gymnasium addition, and entry addition to the Henry Sibley High School (HSHS) facilities, located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. 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. 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 pr operties within 700 feet (twice the standard 350-ft. distance), including property owners in nearby West St. Paul and Sunfish Lake. The city received one letter of objection on this project, which is 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. The high school contains up 60 classrooms, with enrollment of approx. 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 to the east, and a secondary access off Warrior Drive to the west. The campus contains 573 parking spaces 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. Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 2 The campus contains a number of different outdoor athletic fields, including 12 asphalt tennis courts; and a variety of baseball, softball and soccer fields (4) on the north side, which included an older 8-lane running track and football field with limited seating stands. On October 4, 2018, ISD 197 presented plans to reconstruct the football/track field area, along with other athletic fields in this north campus area, which was requested under a similar variances to certain height standards, including the lights, stadium booth, and number of accessory structures. These variances were eventually reviewed, accepted and approved on October 16, 2018 when the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-78. This work is now in progress and will continue throughout the summer. During these earlier variance presentations, it was mentioned publicly that HSHS was intending to return next year to request similar approvals of a proposed aquatics center and gymnasium addition, but those plans were not ready yet – and are now being considered under this separate variance application request. Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The school is seeking to build a 110’ x 190’ aquatics center along the east side of the main school building (see Google Street image-below). The facility will house a new Olympic sized swimming pool with locker/changing rooms and visitor viewing stands to watch swimming events. The new 135’ x 180’ gymnasium addition will take place on the south side of where the existing gymnasium is located (see Google Street image-below). The overall projected height of this new gym is 50-ft. -5” measured at the east and south elevations. A space for loading/storage is still planned underneath the gym addition, with the loading doors facing out towards Delaware Avenue (east). The project also includes a small extension and addition to the front (main) school entryway, which will have an overall height of 31-ft. – 2-inches. Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 4 Finally, the project also includes a new Administration Addition to the west side of the school facility. This addition is only a one-story, 16-ft.-4-inches in height, and is not part of the structure height variances requested under this application. The plans for these improvements are illustrated and presented for review on the attached site and elevation plans, prepared by the school’s design team LSE Architects. ANALYSIS Zoning / Land Use The high school property is currently zoned a combination of R-1 and R-1A One Family Residential District. Public and parochial schools are considered permitted uses under the R-1 zoning. The school site however, is guided “S-School” under the general Institutional land use category of the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes a new P/S- Public/Semi-Public land used category, which will reflect a very similar “school” or “institutional” category for this and other school properties; with a desire by staff in creating a new and separate zoning district for such uses. 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, etc., tend to make them a very unique and specialized use within an established and dedicated “single-family” zoning district. Most schools do not resemble or function anywhere near to typical single-family dwellings or uses. 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. At this time, the current R-1 and R-1A zoning remains the applicable standards to apply and review under this variance review process. Structure Heights (Requested Variances) Aquatic Center Pursuant to Code Section 12-1E-3.D, any structure or building in the R-1 District must not exceed two (2) stories in height or twenty-five feet (25’) in height. Flat-roofed structures such as these are measured at the upper-most edge of the building. As noted previously, the new aquatics center addition is proposed with a maximum height of 35-ft.-8-inches (measured on the south elevation – see image below): Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 5 On the north side of the facility. the height is shown with a 25’-4” height, due to part of the facility at the north end will be built into the existing berm- seen in the first Google Street image phots on page 3 (above). The aquatic center will be connected to the main school building by the “New Connection Link”, which will provide a covered/enclosed walkway for students and visitors walking to and from the main building. The upper panels on the roof are solar panels, and are not subject to the height limitations, as city code provides certain exemptions to certain roof-top structures, such as mechanicals, chimneys, or elevator penthouses. Gymnasium Addition The new gym addition will be built on the south side of the current gym facilities, and is intended to be built with a maximum height of 50-ft.-5-inches. The new gym will exceed the current gym building height by just over 5-feet. Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 6 Entry Addition The school plans to provide a new and larger fully enclosed entryway, with full glass curtain wall along the north front main entry into the school. This addition will be 31-ft.-2-inches when completed. Traffic & Parking As was noted in the previous October 2018 Planning Report, a “high school” use 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. When the city reviewed the athletic field improvements last October, it was noted that the entire campus had approx. 573 spaces, and included a provision that “…97 new spaces will be added under the new aquatics center addition….”which bumped the total number to 670 parking spaces. City Code also requires “Athletic Fields” to have at least 1 space for each 3 seats of design capacity. The October report indicated the new football field would have a seating capacity of 2,000 seats, so 667 spaces were needed. City Code Section 12-1D-17 gives the city the ability to ask a developer/applicant to submit a traffic study “…for any proposed development or redevelopment project that results in the change or intensification of the existing or planned land use.” As part of the previous athletic field improvement requests last fall, ISD 197 submitted a traffic (and parking demand) report from Spack Consulting, which essentially found that the “proposed multi-use stadium, and associated football game traffic, does not represent a significant transportation impact to the surrounding roadway system and will not significantly alter traffic flow or parking operations in the surrounding community.” In order to avoid any possible over-parking the campus, school representatives indicated they would not double-book or schedule same day/night extra-curricular and athletic events, such as a football/basketball games, wrestling/volleyball matches, concerts-theater productions, student/teacher conferences – or swim meets, when the new aquatic center opened. One of the conditions made part of Res. 2018-78 was “The Applicant shall not hold another event on the site at the same time as a varsity football home game.” The Planning Commission and City Council eventually found the existing and projected (new) parking would be sufficiently handled and maintained on the school property; and that traffic would not be an issue as part of these overall athletic field improvements; and approved the variances accordingly. As part of this new aquatic /gym addition project, the school is still planning to install the 97 new stalls to the south of the aquatic center as originally noted last October 2018; and reconfigure/restripe the central Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 7 parking area between school and aquatic center, from 50 spaces to 36 spaces. The combined parking for this area will be 133 spaces. According to the architects, the new aquatic center is scheduled to have a seating capacity for 416 spectators. Utilizing the same standards of 1 space per 3, the aquatic center alone would need to have 139 spaces. The 97 + 36 spaces equals 133 spaces around or near this pool facility. The Planning Commission should decide if these 133 spaces, plus the “regular school” parking spaces will be adequate and sufficient to handle the parking needs for this aquatic use if full capacity is ever reached. Variance Process City Code Section 12-1L-5 governs variance requests. The Planning Commission must consider a number of variables when recommending or deciding on a variance, which generally fall into two categories: (i) practical difficulties; and (ii) impact to the community. The “practical difficulties” test contains three parts: (i) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) the plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner; and (iii) the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Section 12-1L-5(E)(1) further references other variables the City can consider when granting or denying a variance, noted as follows: Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions. Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety. Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan. Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. When considering a variance request, the Planning Commission must determine if these standards have been met in granting a variance, either partially or whole, and provide findings of facts to support such a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines the Applicant has failed to meet these standards, or has not fully demonstrated a reasonableness in the granting of such variance, then findings of fact supporting a recommendation of denial must be determined. As part of any variance request, Applicants are required to prepare and submit their own responses and findings, which for this case are noted below (in italic text): 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Applicant’s Response: The height of the existing Henry Sibley High School is 65’-0” to the top of the existing penthouse. The height of the new gym addition is 50’-5”. The heights of the new front entry addition is 31’-2”. The heights of the new Admin. Addition is 16’-4”, and the Aquatics Addition is 34’-8” in height. (See attached building elevations for context). Staff’s response: The use of the property as a public school is a permitted use in the R-1 District, and its continued use as a high school, even with the additional aquatics center and gym addition remains consistent with the City Code of Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. The district made it clear that the 2018 building bods would be used to fund and support the development of these new additions and improvements, and provide up-to-date and state of the art athletic facilities for their students, staff and the communities that support this school. These new building additions will be nice improvements to the existing high school facilities, and the fact these additions are still within height limits already established by the school facility today, makes the requested variance for heights justifiable and even reasonable in this case. Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 8 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. Applicant’s Response: The granting of this variance is consistent with the current circumstances unique to this existing property. Those current circumstances are that the new additions proposed either match the existing building heights at the entry addition, and the ISD Administration addition, are slightly tallest as is the case of the new gymnasium addition. . Staff’s response: One of the primary reasons for the recent school bond approval, was to provide upgrades and additional space for the students that utilize this high school, and provide an added level of athletic and extra-curricular space for students and visitors. The plight of the landowner and restrictions on building heights 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. Therefore, granting a variance is warranted. 3. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Applicant’s Response: The heights of the proposed HSHS additions area all less than the current height of the existing high school. New addition buildings finishes and colors are similar to those of the existing HSHS. . Staff’s response: The variances, if granted, should not alter the essential character of the neighborhoods, as this high school has been in place and operation for a number of years in the community, and there is a general expectation that any addition of this nature can be considered a reasonable improvement to the overall functionality, benefit and enjoyment of the school, including its students, faculty, and the community. ALTERNATIVES for ACTION 1. Recommend approval of the variance requests, based on the following findings of fact that support the granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow the proposed aquatics building to exceed the 25-ft. height limits in the R-1/R-1A One Family Residential District to 35-ft.-8-in., the proposed gymnasium addition to 50-ft.-5-in., and the entryway addition to 31-ft.-2-in. by the following: i.) the proposed structure height increases are considered a reasonable request, based on the overall scope, scale and use of the subject property as a high school campus facility, and fits with the current design and layout of the existing school building on the property; and are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; ii.) 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 warrants the approval or granting of such variances in this particular case; Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 9 iii.) the excess heights of the new aquatics center, gymnasium addition and entryway addition are all under or equal to what exists today; so there impacts will not be noticeable when compared to other (pre-existing) structures on the campus site; and iv.) 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 school facility improvements, such as this aquatics center, gym addition and entryway addition, can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variances will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of these Variances are for ISD-#197 (Henry Sibley High School) only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019- 18, dated and presented June 25, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to his Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. Conditions related to this transaction are as follows: 1) The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein. 2) The Applicant shall not deviate or increase the heights of structures as approved or presented under this application. Any changes must be reconsidered under a new application before the planning commission and approved by the city council. 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 schedule or conduct a swim meet or any other spectator event inside the aquatic center at the same time as a varsity football home game.” Planning Report: Case #2019-18 – Henry Sibley HS-Aquatics-Adddns. Page 10 2. Recommend denial of the Variance request, based on the findings of fact that confirm the Applicant failed to meet the burden(s) of proof or standards in granting of the variance requested herein, noted as follows: A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the City may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if grant ed, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The City hereby determines the Applicant has not fully met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of these variances for increased height of structures in the R-1/R-1A District. The City finds the proposed additions are not essential to the overall enjoyment and continued use of the property; and there are other alternatives on the property due to its large size; and is therefore not considered a reasonable use of the property. C. Because the City finds that the first prong of the three -part test (reasonable use of the property) is not met by the Applicant, the City need not consider the remaining two prongs of the test (unique circumstances of the property and essential character of the neighborhood). 3. Table the request and direct staff to extend the application review period an additional 60 days, in compliance with MN STAT. 15.99. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission give careful consideration of the Variances to be considered for this new aquatics center, gymnasium addition and entryway addition - as requested by the Applicant, and if the Commission wishes to approve the Variances as presented herein and add or modify the conditions as noted herein you may choose Alternative No. 1 noted above. If the Commission wishes to deny the variances as presented, or request more information, you may choose to select either Alternative No. 2 or 3 - noted above as well. MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW 1. Aerial site map 2. Planning Application, including Narrative 3. Aquatics Center / Gym Addition Site Plan 4. Elevation Plans (Aquatics Center / Gym Addition / Entryway / Admin. Addition) 5. Floor Plans 2019-18300.00500.0005/28/201907/28/2019 2019-18ISD #197Henry Sibley High School John and Adrienne Meyers 491 Deer Run Trail West Saint Paul, MN 55118 June 19, 2019 Mr. Tim Benetti Community Development Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Benetti: As concerned neighbors of Henry Sibley High School, we write to oppose the variance to exceed the maximum allowable height of 25’ for the new aquatics center requested by Independent School District No. 197, which will be heard by the Planning Commission on June 25, 2019 (Planning Case No. 2019- 18). We respectfully ask that the variance be denied because the District has not established there are practical difficulties in complying with the 25’ height restriction. • The variance, if granted, will fundamentally alter the essential character of the area. Delaware Avenue is a residential street. A 35’ tall structure will be out of scale and inconsistent with the locality. The proposed height of the aquatics center must be considered in the context of its proposed length (more than 150’ long) and setback (only 30’ from Delaware Avenue). This context distinguishes the aquatics center from the existing Sibley buildings that exceed the height restriction to which the District refers in its application. Those buildings are located on the interior of the Sibley campus, hundreds of feet from the property line, thereby diminishing the effect of the height of those buildings on the locality. • The variance is not reasonable. The District has not explained why a structure intended to house an underground pool must exceed 25’ in height, why—if the structure must exceed that restriction—it could not be located farther from the setback, or why the structure cannot be partially built below ground level or elsewhere with a lower topographical elevation. • There is no circumstance unique to the property that would prohibit the District from lowering the height of the aquatics center to 25’ or locating the structure elsewhere on the property. In fact, the proposed location of the structure on the relatively high elevation of the Delaware site is a unique circumstance that weighs against the requested variance. The “unique circumstance” identified by the District in its application (the height of existing buildings) was a circumstance created entirely by the District and therefore may not be considered. In addition, the variance will result in a structure that is not consistent with Mendota Heights’ 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which describes Mendota Heights as “natural,” “open,” “spacious,” and “green.” The intent of the Plan is to “protect the quiet, secluded feel” of the City’s neighborhoods. A wall measuring 35’ high by at least 150’ feet long, set back only 30’ from Delaware Avenue, is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your consideration and the opportunity to be heard. Yours truly, s/John Meyers s/Adrienne Meyers John Meyers Adrienne Meyers FIELD (185' x 335') 12 18 8 259 12 24 101026 34 17 1 2 3 PC 30.0' SETBACK 364.8' SETBACK 365.1' SETBACK 1044.8' SETBACK1076.3' SETBACK704.3' SETBACK674.0' SETBACKDELAWARE AVENUEFUTURE AQUATICS PARKING EXPANSION EXISTING HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL FUTURE AQUATICS ADDITION MULTI- PURPOSE ATHLETIC FACILITY WARRIOR DRIVECALLAHAN PLACEADDITION NEW LEVEL 2 ADDITIONS NEW ENTRY ADDITION ISD ADDITION ALT. - 01 140'-0" NEW PLAZA ENTRY Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 1234568910111419202122232425262728293031323334353637 T.O. Slab 158' -0" 8'18'23' Roof -Existing 165' -4" 36.6 13 730.6 ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING 12 INFILL DEMOLISHED OPENING TO MATCH EXIST. ADJACENT CONSTRUCTION ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING 15161718 ANOD. ALUM. ENTRY DOOR & SIDELITE W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING INSULATED H.M. FRAME AND FRP DOOR PREFINISHED MTL. COPING, TYP. 23.826.3 TRANSLUCENT PANEL SKYLIGHTS. E.25 31' - 2"31'-2" NEW ENTRY ADDITION EXISTING PENTHOUSE EXISTING PENTHOUSE Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 T.O. Slab 158' -0" 8'18'23' Roof -Existing 165' -4" 36.6137 PREFINISHED MTL. COPING, TYP. TRANSLUCENT PANEL @ CLERESTORY 30.6 ANOD. ALUM. CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING MP-1 NEW SIGNAGE NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. 12 PREFINISHED MTL. COPING, TYP. 15 16 17 18 NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. EXIST. MAS. VENEER INSUL. SPANDREL PANEL MTL-1 PREFINISHED MTL. MECH. LOUVER 23.8 26.3E.25 50' - 5"EXISTING GYMNASIUMNEW GYMNASIUM ADDITIONEXISTING CLASSROOM WING EXISTING PENTHOUSE Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" K M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EEJHGF T.O. Slab 158' -0" X'A'G' Roof -Existing 165' -4" L M' MP-1 ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING AND PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCKS NEW ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING AND PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCKS (ALTERNATE -01) ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING AND PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCKS BEYOND EDCBAB'C'D'E' NEW ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING AND PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCKS PREFINISHED MTL. COPING A'' PREFINISHED MTL. COPING INSUL. H.M. FRAME AND FRP DOOR E.8E.4D'.8 LAMBS TOUNGE WALL SCUPPER LAMBS TOUNGE WALL SCUPPER E.18 PREFINISHED MTL. MECH. LOUVER E.26 50' - 5"NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION EXISTING PENTHOUSE EXISTING CLASSROOM WING POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" T.O. POOL FTG 96' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8" LOWER LEVEL 90' -8" Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Tunnels 95' -0" Basement 88' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" KMNPQRSTUVWXYZAABBCCDDEE J H G F T.O. Slab 158' -0" X'A'G' Roof -Existing 165' -4" LM' NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. MP-1 INSUL. HOLLOW METAL FRAME AND FRP DOOR E D C B AB'C'D'E' PREFINISHED MTL. COPING ANOD. ALUM. CURTAIN WALL W/ 1" INSULATED GLAZING A'' PREFINISHED MTL. COPING PREFINISHED METAL MECH. LOUVER E.8 E.4 D'.8 E.18E.26 50' - 5"NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION EXISTING GYMNASIUMS EXISTING PENTHOUSE NEW ENTRY ADDITION 31' - 1"Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Tunnels 95' -0" Basement 88' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" H G FG'E D C BC'D'E' ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING SALVAGED VENEER MAS. AT ISD ADDITION PRECAST CONC. SILL BLOCK TO MATCH EXIST. PREFINISHED MTL. COPING TO MATCH EXIST. E.8 E.4 D'.8 E.18 INDICATES EXISTING BEYOND 16' - 4"NEW ADMINISTRATION ADDITION EXISTING Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 2223242526272823' PREFINISHED MECHANICAL LOUVER MP-1 PREFINISHED MTL. COPING NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. INSUL. HOLLOW METAL FRAME AND FRP DOOR 23.826.3 Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" WXYX' POOL ROOF 127' -8" Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" EE Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" EE NEW MODULAR VENEER MAS. PREFINISHED MTL. COPING INSUL. HOLLOW METAL FRAME AND FRP DOOR 34567 SALVAGED BRICK MAS. AT ISD ADDITION ANOD. ALUM. WDW. FRAMES W/ 1" INSUL. GLAZING PREFINISHED MTL. COPING, TYP. PRECAST. CONC, SILL BLOCK TO MATCH EXIST. CONC. RETAINING WALL INDICATES EXISTING BEYOND 16' - 4"EXISTING PENTHOUSE NEW ADMINISTRATION ADDITION Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 05/24/2019 100% CONST. DOC'S. 24228 5/24/2019 4:27:51 PM C:\Users\tmacleod\Documents\LSE Revit Local Files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_tmacleod_lse.rvt18.1008.01 May 24, 2019 Author Checker A400 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL MOHAMMED LAWAL 05/24/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A400 1" = 20'-0" 1 NORTH - OVERALL A400 1" = 20'-0" 4 SOUTH - OVERALL A400 1" = 20'-0" 6 WEST - OVERALL A400 1" = 20'-0" 10 EAST - OVERALL N A B C D E F A400 1" = 20'-0" 5 EAST - ALTERNATE - 01 A400 1" = 20'-0" 8 NORTH - PENTHOUSE NORTH A400 1" = 20'-0" 3 NORTH - PENTHOUSE WEST A400 1" = 20'-0" 9 WEST STAIR A400 1" = 20'-0" 7 EAST STAIR A400 1" = 20'-0" 2 PARTIAL NORTH - ALTERNATE - 01 Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 242526272829303132333435363738 T.O. Slab 158' -0" 23' Roof -Existing 165' -4" 36.6 30.6 26.3 POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8"31' - 2"31'-2" NEW ENTRY ADDITION EXISTING PENTHOUSE 11' - 10"20' - 0"NEW AQUATICS ADDITION BEYOND NEW CONNECTING LINK BEYOND Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Tunnels 95' -0" Basement 88' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" KMNPQRSTUVWXYZAABBCCDDEE J H G F T.O. Slab 158' -0" X'A'G' Roof -Existing 165' -4" LM'E D C B AB'C'D'E'A'' E.8 E.4 D'.8 E.18E.26 POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8"50' - 5"NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION BEYOND EXISTING GYMNASIUMS BEYOND EXISTING PENTHOUSE BEYOND NEW ENTRY ADDITION BEYOND 31' - 1"31' - 8"25' - 4"NEW CONNECTING LINK Level 1 100' -0" Level 2 114' -0" Level 3 128' -0" Penthouse 142' -0" 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 T.O. Slab 158' -0" Roof -Existing 165' -4" 36.6 POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" T.O. POOL FTG 96' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8" LOWER LEVEL 90' -8" EXISTING GYMNASIUM NEW GYMNASIUM ADDITION NEW AQUATICS ADDITION 35' - 8"50' - 5"45' - 2"NEW CONNECTING LINK Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date: License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 05/24/2019 100% CONST. DOC'S. 24228 5/24/2019 4:28:00 PM C:\Users\tmacleod\Documents\LSE Revit Local Files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_tmacleod_lse.rvt18.1008.01 May 24, 2019 Author Checker A402 AQUATICS OVERALL ELEVATIONS HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL MOHAMMED LAWAL 05/24/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A402 1" = 20'-0" 1 NORTH - OVERALL AQUATICS A402 1" = 20'-0" 2 EAST - OVERALL AQUATICS A402 1" = 20'-0" 3 SOUTH - OVERALL AQUATICS 985 9 8 0 980 975 970965 987 986 984983982 981 981 982 9 7 9 9 7 7 972968968 967 966 964 UP UP UP ALIGN PROPERTY LINEDELAWARE AVENUEEXIST. LOADING SLOPED WALK AND CIP CONC RETAINING WALL DROP OFF 97 6 36 BUS DROP OFFHENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL 100'-0" = 968.7' D C A 2 E F 71 B PAINT LINES, TYP CURB AND GUTTER W/ CONCRETE WALK, TYPICAL RECEIVEPLANTING AREA CIP CONCRETE RETAINING WALL HC HC HC HC HC HC COVERED CONNECTION TO HIGH SCHOOL AT POOL'S UPPER LEVEL 112' - 8"152' - 8"33' - 8"BITUMINOUS WALK30' - 0" NEW PARKING LOT Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date:License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N 6/19/2019 3:10:11 PM C:\Users\tmacleod\Documents\LSE Revit Local Files\HS_Henry Sibley_POOL_AR-18_tmacleod_lse.rvt18.1008.09 June 28, 2019 Author Checker A010 SITE PLAN HENRY SIBLEY AQUATICS MOHAMMED LAWAL 06/28/2019 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A010 1" = 20'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 EXTERIOR NORTH 0'40'20' UP UP 1 A410 126 ELEC 123 POOL A4001 A400 2 A400 4 A400 3 2 A410 D C A 3 3 2 4 6 E F 71 5 B DRINKING FOUNTAINS 112' - 8"ADA POOL ACCESS116 SWIM OFFICE 102 COMM. ED.101 LOBBY 114 GIRLS TEAM 119 BOYS 106 HALLWAY 129 HALLWAY 3 A410 4 A410 104 CONF.202' - 4"103 OFFICE 117 SHOWERS 121 SHOWERS 118 RESTROOM 120 RESTROOM 113 HALL 3.4 E.9 E.7 E.6 E4 E.3 E.2 33' - 8"8' - 0"8' - 0"112' - 8" 5 A201 100 VESTIBULE 105 JAN 128 STORAGE 122 POOL DECK 206 HALL 130 FAMILY 131 FAM 132 OFFICE 133 OFFICE 134 REST. 135 REST. 139 BOYS HALLWAY 140 GIRLS HALLWAY 4 A201 194' - 4"152' - 8"41' - 8"8' - 4"STADIA29' - 6"STADIA29' - 6"STADIA26' - 8"STADIA24' - 4"9' - 6"24' - 10"100' - 0" A710 12 A711 1 2 A4051 A405 2 A405 3 A405 4 TEAM SEATINGTEAM SEATING120 RESTROOM 143 GIRLS 1 A410 2 A410 D C A 32 201 MEZZ. ROOF ACCESS 216 MEZZ. 217 SEATING 4 E E F 715 B OPEN TO BELOW GLASS GUARD RAIL, TYP. 4" CMU CHASE TBD ADA SEATING, TYP SCORE BOARD 3 A410 4 A410 204 CONCESSIONS 218 VESTIBULE WALL MOUNTED POOL COVER ROLLS 112' - 8" 2' - 4" 23' - 4" 34' - 8"25' - 0" 27' - 4"202' - 4"152' - 8"16' - 4"17' - 4"8' - 0"8' - 0"RTU SCREENING 3.4 E.9 E.7 E.6 E4 E.3 E.2 RTU SEE MECH 86' - 0" 5 A201 SPECTATORS BENCHES 404 ADA + COMPANIONS 12 416(7) @ 10 = 7015' - 0"(5) @ 22 + (2) @ 11 = 13233' - 0"(5) @ 22 + (2) @ 11 = 13233' - 0"(7) @ 10 = 7015' - 0"17' - 0"4 A201 194' - 4"152' - 8"41' - 8"8' - 4"STADIA29' - 6"STADIA29' - 6"STADIA26' - 8"STADIA24' - 4"9' - 6"24' - 10"POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" T.O. POOL FTG 96' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8" 3 7 LOWER LEVEL 91' -0"4' - 0"27' - 8"123 POOL 217 SEATING 134 REST. 63' - 0 1/4"9' - 0" 122 POOL DECK 2 A410321 E.7 E.6 POOL EQUIP 91' - 0" 4 A201 SURGE TANK POOL 1 100' -0" POOL 2 113' -0" T.O. POOL FTG 96' -0" POOL ROOF 127' -8" 32 71 LOWER LEVEL 91' -0" 123 POOL 122 POOL DECK 217 SEATING 126 ELEC 216 MEZZ. 141 POOL EQUIP SOLAR THERMAL PANELS Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No.Date Revision Description Key Plan LSE ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date: License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T IO N 6/19/2019 3:10:25 PMC:\Users\tmacleod\Documents\LSE Revit Local Files\HS_Henry Sibley_POOL_AR-18_tmacleod_lse.rvt18.1008.09 June 28, 2019 Author Checker A201 OVERALL PLANS HENRY SIBLEY AQUATICS MOHAMMED LAWAL 06/28/2019 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 OVERALL A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 LEVEL 2 OVERALL NORTH 0'16'32' A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 5 NATATORIUM - E/W SECTION LOOKING NORTH. A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 3 LOWER LEVEL OVERALL A201 3/32" = 1'-0" 4 NATATORIUM - E/W SECTION LOOKING NORTH @ EQUIP 1 9/21/2018 Schematic update UP UP UP UP K M N P Q R S J H G F 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 G' 36.6 L M' 3 A410 F200 VESTIBULE F201 SECURITY VEST ? ? D211 GYMNASTICS C230 CIRCULATION C231 SRO D203 BOYS D205 GYMNASIUM D206 GYMNASIUM D210 STORAGE D217 VESTIBULE D210S STAIR C231A ELEC. F202 SECURITY 1/A226 1/A223 1/A2231/A2241/A224 1/A225 30.6 1/A2261/A224E E'72' - 4 3/4"40' - 0"D211A D212 D213 D209 STAIR D214 STORAGE D213 STORAGE D215 TOILET D216 CUST. S T H8 1 A412 D212HM-23T M12 91' - 0" D219 SPECTATOR 1 A750 .C233A7165 17' - 3 5/8"14' - 8"8' - 0"D221 STORAGED221 S T H8 S T A8 BLEACHERS, N.I.C. - BY OWNER BLEACHERS, N.I.C. - BY OWNER7' - 0"3' - 0"7' - 0"42' - 0"5' - 10"2' - 3" 4' - 0" 4' - 0"42' - 0"4' - 7" 13' - 11" BEAM TEAM MAT VAULT4' - 0"17' - 6"4' - 0"8' - 0"PARALLEL BARS PARALLEL BARS 5' - 6" 17' - 6" 2' - 0" 17' - 6" 4' - 0" 11' - 0" 15' - 0" 11' - 0" 4' - 0" BEAM D2178' - 5"74' - 2"8' - 5"5 1/2"6' - 0"E.8 E.4 CW -1 CW-3CW -2 CW-26CW-24CW-25 S T M8 S T B6 S T G4 S T H8 S T WALL PADS W1 W2 W2 3' - 0"F201BF202F201AF1WALL MOUNT SHELVING N.I.C. RAIN LEADER - SEE MECH. A850 3 . 22 A423 21 A423 1/A223 1/A225 1/A226 1/A223 16 A424 1 1 Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No. Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date: License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 3/29/2019 10:33:18 AM C:\Users\bgronberg\Documents\Revit Local files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_bgronberg@lse-architects.com.rvt18.1008.01 February 25, 2019 Author Checker A224 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN - AREA D HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LSE ARCHITECTS 02/25/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A224 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN - AREA D N A B C D E F 1 03/05/19 ADDENDUM #1 03/27/19 ISSUED FOR PERMIT UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UPUP UP UP UP FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD FD FD FDFD FDFD K M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE J H G F 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 X' 8'18' A' G'G' 23' 2 A411 36.6 L 13 M' 7 5 A410 3 A410 2 A410 A40010 A400 4 A400 6 A400 1 1/A2111/A2121/A2111/A2131/A214 1/A215 1/A213 1/A215 E104 FACS CHILD SEW E101A CULINARY ARTS E102B PANTRY E141 KILN E142A STORAGE E108 3D ART E144 DESIGN CENTER E129 MANUFACTURING E126 STORAGE E127 STORAGE E128 STORAGE E130 STORAGE E134 STORAGE E125 POWER MECHANICS E115 CONFERENCE E116A STORAGE E117A BUILDING/GROUNDS E118 OFFICE E119 OFFICE E120 STORAGE E116B STORAGE E124 RECEIVING E124 OFFICE E121 BREAK E101 COMMONS E133 STORAGE E131 STORAGE E132 MANUF. STORAGE E134 LAB C123 CAFETERIA A136 CLASSROOM A137 CLASSROOM A138 CLASSROOM A139 CLASSROOM A172 CLASSROOM A173 CLASSROOM A174 CLASSROOM A175 COMP. LAB A176 DASH ROOM A163 CLASSROOM A164 CLASSROOMA133 CLASSROOM A134 CLASSROOM A155 DIST PROD A153 DIST TECH C105 DISTRICT STORAGE C110 DRY STORAGE C117 KITCHEN D149 MOTOR D146 CLASSROOM A110 SUPT A111 S.A. A120 STAFF A118 OFFICE A117 OFFICE A116 OFFICE A142 OFFICE A141 OFFICE A140 OFFICE C101 ELECTRICAL C123A SNACK BAR A129 FLEX SPACE A119 OFFICE A125 OFFICE A165 SPEC ED A147 ISS A150 HALLWAY A151 OFFICE A152 OFFICE A154 WORK ROOM A156 SERVER A157 WORK ROOM A159 SPEC ED A160 SPEC ED A155A RESOURCE A155B RESOURCE C103 ELEC/TRASH ROOM C113 COOLER C111 TRASH C106 STORAGE C112 FREEZER C114 DISH ROOM C115 PREP C116 OFFICE C108 CIRCULATION D123 LAUNDRY C118 SERVING C131A DIST. FOOD D100 LAUNDRY C124 GIRLS C125 BOYS D145 ASD C102 CIRCULATION C109 CIRCULATION A130S STAIR A120S STAIR B44 STOR.C132E FREIGHT ELEV. D133 CIRCULATION A106B CIRCULATION A121 STAFF TOILET A170S VESTIBULE A110S STAIR A126 OFFICE A127 OFFICE A128 OFFICE A156B STOR. A158 EL. EQUIP. C122 COFFEE SHOP A177 TOILET A140S STAIR C159A CIRCULATION C130S STAIR D110S STAIR C120 STORAGE C100 ELECTRICAL JUNCTION C014 STORAGE A149 OFFICE A148 STOR. A148B OFFICE C119 CIRCULATION C104A TOILET C104 STAFF LOCKER B154 AUDITORIUM B154A CONTROL ROOM B154B TICKETS B150S STAIR B151A STORAGE C129A STOR. B120 BLACK BOX B104 BAND B106 WORK RM/LIB B107 ORCHESTRA ? ? B134 EXISTING SCENE SHOP B130 DRESS 1 B132 DRESS 2 B115 CHOIR C130 CIRCULATION E100 CIRCULATION A162 COMMONS A123A CIRCULATION B108 INSTRUMENT STOR. B112 WORK RM/LIB A132 PRINTER A131 SMALL GROUP A161 PRINTER A166 SMALL GROUP 1/A212 1 A420 3 A420 30.6 A115 OFFICE A114 STORAGE A104 RECEPTION A113 CLASROOM A105 CONFERENCE A100S STAIR A103 VESTIBULE A146 OFFICE A145 OFFICE A144 OFFICE A143 OFFICE 14 A750 1 A421 DN A4005 B159 STORAGE 2 A420 C132 COMMONS C126 CLASSROOM C127 ELEC/STORAGEC128 S. G. C129 CLASSROOM C120 CLASSROOM C131 SMALL GROUP D141 P.E. LOCKERS E122 CIRCULATION B150 CIRCULATION 12 E109 TEAM ROOM E D C B A 15 16 17 18 B'B' C'C' D'D' E'E' B140 STAFF OFFICE B155 HAND WASH B114 WORK RM/LIB B168 PRACTICE B169 PRACTICE B131 TOILET 1 B133 TOILET 2 2 A412 E127S STAIR B110 VESTIBULE E108S STAIR 2' - 0"A100 MECH. B156 ELECTRICAL B146 SMALL GROUP B146 SMALL GROUP D107 CAGE STORAGE D127 COACH OFFICE D129 CAGE STORAGE D136 DRY STORAGE E140 2D ART E143 STORAGE D143 JANITOR D142 JANITOR B147 BOOK STORAGE B155A JANITOR C125S STAIR D137 BOYS TEAM D150 CALM D147 DAPE D151 ASD A400 8 A401 8 A135 COMMONS E102A COOLERS C121 CIRCULATION B103S STAIR D100S STAIR D140S STAIR E101A CULINARY ARTS A'' D152 COACH OFFICE A100A STORAGE B160 PRACTICE B161 PRACTICE B162 PRACTICE B165 PRACTICE 4 A730 A400 9 A4007 7 A731 5 A731 E.8 D104 IDF D105 ELEV EQUIP. A106C CIRCULATION A106A CIRCULATION A107 OFFICE A109 OFFICE E137 STAFF E152 IDF E153 ELEC D126 GIRLS TEAM D128 P.E. LOCKERS E.4 D'.8 1 A411 1 A410 6 A410 23.8 26.3 E142B STORAGE B105 DRAMA/STORAGE B148 COMMONS B157 CIRCULATION A108 OFFICE E.18 1/A2131/A2141/A2121. PROVIDE WALL BLOCKING FOR ALL WALL SUPPORTED ITEMS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WALL CABINETS, TRIMS, WINDOWS TREATMENTS FASTENINGS, DOOR STOPS, TOILET ACCESSORIES, VISUAL DISPLAY BOARDS ETC. 2. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR ALL CONCRETE FLOOR RECESSES. PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE TO ALL FLOOR AND TRENCH DRAINS. 3. ALL CONCRETE BLOCK OUTSIDE CORNERS SHALL BE BULLNOSED UNITS UNLESS DETAILED OR NOTED OTHERWISE. CONTRACTOR TO ROUND OUTSIDE CORNERS OF ROCK FACE BANDS TO ALIGN WITH BURNISHED BLOCK BULLNOSE. 4. REFER TO CODE SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL FIRE RATED BUILDING WALLS. PROVIDE FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY FOR ALL PENETRATIONS AND OPENINGS TO MEET THE REQUIRED FIRE RATINGS. 5. ALL CASEWORK IS NOTED ON INTERIOR ELEVATIONS. 6. REFER TO WALL TYPES AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR THICKENED FLOOR SLABS. 7. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AND COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT AND OWNER SUPPLIED ITEMS. BACKINGS, ROUGH-INS AND FINAL HOOK-UPS ARE TO BE COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 8. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE BACKING AS REQUIRED FOR MOUNTING OF ALL WALL, CEILING AND PARTITION MOUNTED ITEMS SUCH AS SHELVING, SPECIAL LIGHTING, TABLE BRACKETS, EQUIPMENT AND TELEVISIONS. LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE COORDINATED WITH PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, FOOD SERVICE SUB-CONTRACTOR AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 9. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND COORDINATE LOCATIONS OF FLOOR SINKS, FLOOR DRAINS, TROUGH DRAINS, SLAB DEPRESSIONS, RAISED CURBS, ELECTRICAL/PLUMBING STUBOUTS AND ALL OTHER WORK UNDER THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THIS EQUIPMENT. REFER TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLARIFICATION. 10. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ALL MECHANICAL DUCT SHAFTS, BOILER STACK, TOILET EXHAUST DUCTS, WATER CLOSET TRAPS, FLOOR DRAINS, ETC. BEFORE SETTING ANY FLOORS. 11. FIRE RATED WALLS AND ENCLOSURES BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. VERIFY ALL PENETRATIONS BY OTHER TRADES. ALL CONTRACTORS/SUBCONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIRE STOPPING AS REQUIRED. 12. EXTENT OF WORK (THIS PACKAGE). 13. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS ARE DIMENSIONED TO FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD. 14. ALL WORK IS NEW UNLESS NOTED "EXISTING". GENERAL NOTES Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No. Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date: License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 3/29/2019 10:31:28 AM C:\Users\bgronberg\Documents\Revit Local files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_bgronberg@lse-architects.com.rvt18.1008.01 February 25, 2019 Author Checker A210 LEVEL 1 REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LSE ARCHITECTS 02/25/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A210 1" = 20'-0" 1 LEVEL 1 - OVERALL A B C D E F N 03/27/19 ISSUED FOR PERMIT UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FDFD UP FD FD K M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE J H G F 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 X' 8'18' A' G' 23' 2 A411 36.6 L 13 M' 7 5 A410 3 A410 2 A410 A40010 A400 4 A400 6 A400 1 1/A2211/A2221/A2221/A2261/A2211/A2231/A224 1/A225 1/A223 1/A225 1/A2261/A2241/A226 1/A223 E205 FITNESS E214 CIRCULATION E212 MULTI-PURPOSE D212 WRESTLING D211 GYMNASTICS E201 FITNESS B233 PHYSICS 1 B234 BIOLOGY 1 B236 BIOLOGY 2 B242 PHYSICAL 9TH 1 B244 PHYSICAL 9TH 2 B245 PHYSICAL 9TH 3 B230 SCIENCE COMMONS A236 CLASSROOM A235 CLASSROOM A245 EDIT A239 AV STORAGE A229 CLASSROOM A231 SPEC ED A232 CLASSROOM A237 CONFERENCE A247 CONF. A248 CONF. A234 COMMONS A228 CLASSROOM A246 MEDIA A243 MEDIA CENTER A244 AV WORK A240 S.R.O. A219 COMMONS F227 LOBBY F200 VESTIBULE C200 CAREER C201 FILE C202 OFFICE C203 OFFICE C204 OFFICE C205 OFFICE C206 A.P. C207 PRINCIPAL C208 CONFERENCE C209 OFFICE C210 STORAGE C211 ACT C212 WOMEN C213 MEN C214 WOMENC215 MEN C216 NURSE C217 TREATMENT C218 OFFICE C219 GENERAL OFFICE C220 WORKROOM C221 SEC. STOR. C222 CONF. ROOM C223 OFFICE C224 OFFICE C225 OFFICE C226 OFFICE C230 CIRCULATION C231 SRO C233A CIRCULATION D203 BOYS D204 GIRLS D205 GYMNASIUM D206 GYMNASIUM D207 GYMNASIUM D208 STORAGE D209 STAIR D210 STORAGE D217 VESTIBULE D210S STAIR C233B MECHANICAL C231A ELEC. B232 ENTRY COMMONS B240S STAIR B227 BALCONY B228S STAIR B229 IDF/STORAGE B230A CIRCULATION B230B CIRCULATION C200S STAIR C210S STAIR A200 CUST. A201 MEN A202 WOMEN A203 CIRC. A200S STAIR A205 STORAGE A206 O.T. A207 SPEC ED OFFICE A208 SPECIAL ED. A209 SPECIAL ED. A211 SPEC ED A213 SPECIAL ED. A214 STAFF A216 WOMEN A220 SPEC ED A222 SPEC ED A222A SPEC ED A222B STAFF KITCH A223 SPEECH/O.T. A220S STAIR A226 CLASSROOM A227 CLASSROOM A230S STAIR A251 AV SPEC A250 LECTURE ROOM A249A CIRCULATION A210S STAIR B16 CIRC. A250A IDF/STOR. A250B STOR. A215 MEN A221 SPEC ED A242 AV MECHANICAL MECHANICAL C249 CIRC. F201 SECURITY VEST F225S STAIR B243 PREP B240 PHYSICS 2 F202 SECURITY E206 STORAGE E202 CONCESSIONS A233 PRINT A230 SMALL GROUP A218 PRINT A212 SMALL GROUP 1 A420 3 A420 4 A420 B235 PREP 30.6 1 A421 PAINT NEW BLEACHERS AT EXISTING GYMS SAND AND REFINISH EXISTING FLOORS NEW DISTRICT ADD'N STRUCTURE TO ACCOMODATE FUTURE 2ND LEVEL E227S STAIR OPEN TO BELOW A4005 2 A420 12 D213 STORAGE D214 STORAGE D215 TOILET D216 CUST. E D C B A 15 16 17 18 B' C' D' E' B217 CIRCULATION B248 INNOVATION LAB A238 FLEX 2 A412 146 SF B226 ELECTRICAL 96 SF B225E FAMILY 54 SF B225D HANDICAP 54 SF B225C HANDICAP E213 BASKETBALLE211 BASKETBALL 1 A412 7' - 1 3/4"B232 SMALL GROUP B231 STAFF PREP B224 JANITOR B237 CHEMISTRY 1 B238 PREP B239A CHEMISTRY 2 C233 CIRCULATION A400 8 CANOPY ABOVE A401 8 E217 ELEC B239B CHEM. LAB 2 E251S SHIPS LADDER B242C I.D.F. D241 CIRCULATION E209 STORAGE E207 OFFICE/EXAM A'' E210 HYDRO B225 HAND WASH 4 A730 A400 9 A4007 7 A731 E.8 E.4 D'.8 1 A411 1 A410 6 A410 23.8 26.3 E.18 1/A2231/A2241. PROVIDE WALL BLOCKING FOR ALL WALL SUPPORTED ITEMS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WALL CABINETS, TRIMS, WINDOWS TREATMENTS FASTENINGS, DOOR STOPS, TOILET ACCESSORIES, VISUAL DISPLAY BOARDS ETC. 2. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR ALL CONCRETE FLOOR RECESSES. PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE TO ALL FLOOR AND TRENCH DRAINS. 3. ALL CONCRETE BLOCK OUTSIDE CORNERS SHALL BE BULLNOSED UNITS UNLESS DETAILED OR NOTED OTHERWISE. CONTRACTOR TO ROUND OUTSIDE CORNERS OF ROCK FACE BANDS TO ALIGN WITH BURNISHED BLOCK BULLNOSE. 4. REFER TO CODE SHEETS FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL FIRE RATED BUILDING WALLS. PROVIDE FIRE RATED ASSEMBLY FOR ALL PENETRATIONS AND OPENINGS TO MEET THE REQUIRED FIRE RATINGS. 5. ALL CASEWORK IS NOTED ON INTERIOR ELEVATIONS. 6. REFER TO WALL TYPES AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR THICKENED FLOOR SLABS. 7. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR TO VERIFY AND COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT AND OWNER SUPPLIED ITEMS. BACKINGS, ROUGH-INS AND FINAL HOOK-UPS ARE TO BE COORDINATED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 8. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE BACKING AS REQUIRED FOR MOUNTING OF ALL WALL, CEILING AND PARTITION MOUNTED ITEMS SUCH AS SHELVING, SPECIAL LIGHTING, TABLE BRACKETS, EQUIPMENT AND TELEVISIONS. LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE COORDINATED WITH PLUMBING, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, FOOD SERVICE SUB-CONTRACTOR AND OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 9. CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT AND COORDINATE LOCATIONS OF FLOOR SINKS, FLOOR DRAINS, TROUGH DRAINS, SLAB DEPRESSIONS, RAISED CURBS, ELECTRICAL/PLUMBING STUBOUTS AND ALL OTHER WORK UNDER THE SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THIS EQUIPMENT. REFER TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CLARIFICATION. 10. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ALL MECHANICAL DUCT SHAFTS, BOILER STACK, TOILET EXHAUST DUCTS, WATER CLOSET TRAPS, FLOOR DRAINS, ETC. BEFORE SETTING ANY FLOORS. 11. FIRE RATED WALLS AND ENCLOSURES BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. VERIFY ALL PENETRATIONS BY OTHER TRADES. ALL CONTRACTORS/SUBCONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIRE STOPPING AS REQUIRED. 12. EXTENT OF WORK (THIS PACKAGE). 13. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL INTERIOR PARTITIONS ARE DIMENSIONED TO FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD. 14. ALL WORK IS NEW UNLESS NOTED "EXISTING". GENERAL NOTES Project Date Drawn by Checked by Drawing Number No. Date Revision Description Key Plan LAWAL SCOTT ERICKSON ARCHITECTS, INC. 100 Portland Ave. South, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.343.1010 office 612.3382280 fax www.lse-architects.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Printed Name: Signature: Date: License #: Copyright © 2018 by LSE Architects, Inc. These drawings including all design, details, specifications and information, are the sole copyright of LSE Architects, Inc. and are for use on this specific project and shall not be used on any other work without agreement and written permission of LSE Architects, Inc. © 3/29/2019 10:32:43 AM C:\Users\bgronberg\Documents\Revit Local files\HS_Henry Sibley_AR-18_Central_bgronberg@lse-architects.com.rvt18.1008.01 February 25, 2019 Author Checker A220 LEVEL 2 REFERENCE FLOOR PLAN HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL LSE ARCHITECTS 02/25/2019 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 1897 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 A220 1" = 20'-0" 1 LEVEL 2 - OVERALL A B C D E F N 03/27/19 ISSUED FOR PERMIT June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 5 of 28 B) PLANNING CASE #2019-18 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #197 – HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL VARIANCE Community Development Director Tim Benetti explained that this request, from Independent School District #197, was for a number of variances for construction of a new aquatics (pool) center, gymnasium, and entry to the Henry Sibley High School located at 1897 Delaware Avenue. This item was presented under a public hearing and notices were published in the local paper and notices were mailed to everyone within 700 feet of the subject property. Staff received one letter of objection, a copy of which was provided to the commissioners. The Henry Sibley High School facility is located in the R -1/R-1A District and is guided as School/Institutional in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It will eventually become a Public-Semi- public site under the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Public schools are considered a permitted use in the R-1 zones. Background and New Requests In May 2018, the voters approved a $117M bonding bill for the school improvements, including some of the improvements under consideration at this meeting. In October 2018, the school district presented plans to reconstruct the football/track field area, along with other athletic fields in the north campus, which were requested under variances to certain height standards. The City Council approved this request under Resolution 2018-78 and that work is now in progress. The proposed new aquatic center would be 110 feet by 190 feet along the east side of the main school building and would house a new Olympic sized swimming pool with locker/changing rooms and visitor viewing stands. The aquatic center is proposed to be 35 feet 8 inches in height. The proposed new gymnasium addition would be 135 feet by 180 feet along the south side of where the existing gymnasium is located. The projected maximum height of this new gym is 50 feet 5 inches measured at the east and south elevations. They also plan to have a loading/storage area underneath the gym with loading doors facing out towards Delaware Avenue. This proposal included a small extension and addition to the front school entryway with an overall height of 31 feet 2 inches. City Code Section 12-1E-3.D says that any structure or building in the R-1 District must not exceed two stories, or twenty-five feet, in height; thus the need for these variance requests. Flat roof structures are measured at the edges; items such as solar panels or mechanicals are exempt. Lastly, this proposal included a new one-story administration addition to the west side of the school facility, but at 16 feet 4 inches in height it is not included in the structure height variances requested under this application. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 6 of 28 Parking As indicated in the October 2019 meeting, high schools require one parking space per seven students plus one for three classrooms. Based on the current student and room count, they only need approximately 228 spaces. They currently have 573 parking spaces and plan to install 97 new spaces under the aquatic center. They also plan to restripe the central parking area between the school and the aquatic center, from 50 spaces to 36 spaces. The combined parking would be 133 spaces. Utilizing the same space configuration required for Athletic Fields (1 space for each 3 seats), the aquatic center alone would require 139 spaces. The Planning Commission was tasked with determine if these 133 available spaces, plus the ‘regular school’ parking spaces, would be adequate and sufficient to handle the parking needs of the aquatic center if full capacity is ever reached. Considering this Athletic Field calculation requirement, the October report indicated the new football field would have a seating capacity of 2,000 seats, so 667 spaces were needed; the current number of 573 plus the new spaces under the aquatic center would equate to 670 spaces; meeting the zoning requirement. School representatives have indicated that they would not double-book or schedule same day/night extra-curricular and athletic events; thereby avoiding any possible over-parking of the campus. This was also made as a condition in Resolution 2018-78 “The Applicant shall not hold another event on the site at the same time as a varsity football home game.” Traffic As part of the October 2018 Athletic Field improvement request, the district provided a traffic report from Spack Consulting, which essentially found that the ‘proposed multi-use stadium, and associated football game traffic, does not represent a significant transportation impact to the surrounding roadway system and will not significantly alter traffic flow or parking operations in the surrounding community.’ Variance Considerations Mr. Benetti explained the practical difficulties tests that must be met in order to approve a Variance request: The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Also, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The staff report included responses from the applicant and staff to these tests. Other variables the city can consider when granting or denying a Variance are as follows: Effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 7 of 28 Existing and anticipated traffic conditions Effect on light and air, as well as the danger of fire and the risk to public safety Effect on the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan Granting of the variance is not a convenience to the applicant, but necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty Staff recommended approval of this application. Chair Magnuson noted that the recommendations for approval or denial, as listed by staff, were in block; not variance by variance. However, they really are considering three difference variance requests; one for the aquatic center, one for the gymnasium, and one for the entryway. Mr. Benetti confirmed and noted that the Commission could either approve all three together under one motion or they could separate them out into three motions. Chair Magnuson stated that she did not understand why the traffic report was included in this application since it is not really dealt with in the recommendations. Mr. Benetti replied that this was provided to address the ‘effect of variance upon health, safety, and welfare of the community’ and ‘existing and anticipated traffic conditions’ as listed under Other Variables. It was m ore for assurance. Commissioner Mazzitello asked for confirmation or clarification on the following three points: The traffic considerations and the parking requirements were for the site as a whole The parking requirements for the aquatic center are not limited to what is being added There is an access point off of the main parking lot into the school where people could use the pedestrian breezeway to get to the aquatic center Mr. Benetti confirmed all three points were true. Commissioner Mazzitello then noted signage on both the gymnasium addition and the aquatic addition. He asked if the approval/denial this evening would predicate the need to apply for a sign permit for the new signage on campus. After brief discussion, it was determined that the curr ent building sign had been approved under a Variance. Commissioner Mazzitello, in an effort to ensure all bases were covered, asked that Condition #1 be amended to read “The Applicant shall obtain a building permit and/or sign permits for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein.” Mr. Benetti agreed. Commissioner Toth, referencing the Friendly Hills Middle School gymnasium addition, noted that at the time Mr. Benetti explained that the height of the new had to be equal with the existing. However, in this application is says that the new gymnasium would exceed the current gym building height by just over five feet. Mr. Benetti replied that this was the way Friendly Hills designed their new addition; however, if they had desired to go higher by 15-20 feet they could have. Commissioner Toth then asked if the solar panels, mechanical, and equipment for the building was included in that five foot additional height. Mr. Benetti was unable to answer as the building height June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 8 of 28 included an upper parapet wall. There is not a parapet wall on the aquatic center so the solar panels will be seen and are not part of the building height variance. Commissioner Noonan noted a discrepancy in the height of the aquatic center; page 7 says 34 feet 8 inches and the drawing on page 5 says 35 feet 8 inches. Mr. Benetti confirmed that the height is 35 feet 8 inches. Commissioner Noonan, referencing the three changes being proposed, asked if a variance was not requested they would be able to do this as a right. Mr. Benetti replied that if they could build in the 25-foot height restriction, then yes they could. Ms. Jennifer Anderson-Tuttle with LSE Architects provided the following clarifications: The height of the existing building is actually 65 feet There are parapets within the elevation of the aquatics and those are shown in the walls themselves – the 35 feet 8 inch height includes the parapet There was a question regarding the functionality and the heights and if it could be accommodated at a lower elevation – the heights that they have proposed have all been driven based on function. In order to achieve the 25 foot clear structural height within the gymnasium that is required for high school basketball, the depth of the structure required, the roof thickness and the parapet that is required – that is why the 35 feet 8 inches. Chair Magnuson asked the question that was included in the letter of opposition – if there was going to be an in-ground pool, why the building had to be 35 feet; why couldn’t it be lower and closer to the 25-foot level. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied by referencing the section drawings. The site changes in grade along that edge. On one side they are actually closer to being 20 feet in height; it is the other side that is at 35 feet. They are trying to balance the soils and the structure within that angle. The pool is in-ground and then some of the height is dictated by the functionality – spectator seating, one-meter boards, three-meter board – all having required NCAA clearances. Chair Magnuson opened the public hearing. Ms. Adrienne Meyers, 491 Deer Run Trail, West St. Paul, lives directly across Delaware Avenue from the proposed aquatic center. She was reluctant to comment as she supports an aquatic center for the school, she voted for it, and as a community member she hopes to be able to use it. She would much rather have engaged in the dialogue with the school district about the proposed height variance and the effects on their locality than to hear about it for the first time in a letter fr om the city a mere 10 days ago. They would have like to share with the district their concerns about the traffic noise bouncing off of a 35-foot wall that is 190 feet long, blocks sunlight to her property, light pollution from signage, and loss of privacy and reached a consensus on some mitigation efforts. That did not happen so here she is – reluctantly. The tests for approving a variance is the practical difficulties test. The district has the burden to establish there are practical difficulties in compl ying with the 25 foot height restriction. It has not met its burden. First and foremost, the variance would fundamentally alter the essential character of their locality. The proposed 35 foot height of the aquatic center must be considered in the context of its proposed length – more than 190 feet long; and setback – the minimum of 30 feet from the June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 9 of 28 property line. Delaware is a residential street from Cherokee Park to Argenta Trail. Please picture in your mind the tree-lined avenue of established homes, a country club, and parks. By contrast, picture a massive 3.5 story concrete paneled wall looming over Delaware for almost 200 feet, two- thirds the length of a football field. There is no question that the scale of the wall is extensive and would be far out of scale with the other building along Delaware. The districts asks the Commission to only consider only the Sibley Campus as the relevant locality; not the adjacent neighborhood. The district says there are other buildings on the Sibley Campus that exceed the height restriction; however, those buildings are located on the interior of a 67-acre campus hundreds of feet from the property line. Thereby mitigating the effect of the height of those buildings on the locality. Those buildings are buffered by great expanses of hills, earthen berms, landscaping, and trees. There is presently no building on the Sibley Campus of any height near the setback line. On the plans submitted by the district, there is no room for earthen berms and little room for trees or landscaping, all of which surround Sibley on its western and northern borders. The height of the wall would also alter the essential character of their locality by causing a direct and substantial loss of sunlight and a reverberation of traffic noise into the neighborhood. She requested the Commission consider the precedence they would bet setting – to allow buildings built on a setback line to exceed the height restriction by 10 feet. The second factor of the practical difficulties test is reasonableness. The district has not established that its request for the height variance is reasonable. The district has not satisfactorily explained by a building for an underground pool and a 3-meter board needs to exceed 25 feet in height. Third, there are no circumstances unique to the property weighing in favor of the variance. To the contrary, the relatively high elevation of Delaware and the Delaware sites compared to the other elevations on this 67-acre campus, is a unique circumstance that weighs against the reques ted variance. For these reasons, the district has not met its burden to obtain the variances and she asked the Commission to recommend denial of the request. As she mentioned earlier, they have had little opportunity to talk to the district about the variances and their effects. They would welcome the opportunity to speak with them, whether the variance is approved or not. She spoke with Mr. Mark Fortman, Director of Operations last week in response to an email she sent to Superintendent Peter OlsonSkog. Mr. Fortman asked her to email him their concerns and ideas, which she did last Thursday [June 20]. She has not received a response. So while she believes the district has not met its burden to obtain the variance, if the Commission is inclined to approve it she asked that they table it to next month so they could have a meaningful dialogue with the district. She also asked that they impose conditions on the variance that relate directly to, and are directly proportional to the effects that would be created by a 35-foot high 190-foot long wall: June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 10 of 28 Move the aquatic center further away from Delaware to mitigate the loss of sunlight, allow for earthen berms, trees, and landscaping and provide for sound buffering and visual screening. Require building materials and design modifications to provide acoustic mitigation from traffic noise echoing off of the wall Prohibit lights and signage on the wall facing Delaware to enhance the aesthetics of a wall that would be facing a residential neighborhood and prevent light pollution Prohibit windows on the wall from which spectators or other users brought by the aquatic center to peer down into their yards and windows Mr. Pete McCall, 460 Nature View Court, lives directly across from Sibley High School. He supported what was said by Ms. Meyers. However, he had a few questions also. The traffic study referenced earlier only dealt with traffic from the football stadium and stated that it would not represent a significant transportation impact. He asked if they also included or should they have included, or should the Commission request an updated study to combine the aquatic center together with the multi-use. Commissioner Noonan replied that there is a condition that the stadium use would not be at the same time as the aquatic use. The multi-purpose stadium represents the worst case traffic condition. Mr. McCall asked about the creation of pedestrian crossings. Now there is significantly more traffic with three entry points to the campus off of Delaware. He understood that none of those were being changed. If one were to look at the two entry points to the north, there are no pedestrian crossings lines. This was brought up earlier by residents of his community and they were rejected. He asked the Commission to have a dialogue about this. He is concerned about pedestrian access from their neighborhood to the pathways in Mendota Heights. He asked what considerations have been given to help pedestrians. The third point he wished to make was the public use of the pool. It was represented by the school district that – and he wanted assurances that the availability of the pool would be open to the public at certain hours of the week. He would like to have a condition put on that would mandate public use at some reasonable hours and times. Chair Magnuson, with respect to the crosswalks, she has been informed that Delaware is a State Aid Highway; therefore, the city has no jurisdiction. They can ask the county to consider some pedestrian crosswalks but they cannot mandate it or impose it as a condition. If they request was in conjunction with the school district request it might have more impact. Mr. John Meyers, 491 Deer Run Trail, West St. Paul, is proud Henry Sibley High School graduate. He too voted for the bonding bill and supports a new pool. He was on the pool committee where they discussed this three times approximately eight months ago. The pool they discussed in those meetings sort of resembles this pool; however, many changes have been incorporated. Specifically, where the pool is located. He provided hand-outs for the Commission and shared them on the screen. He stated that the location for the pool addition, as it is called on the map created by the district, is what the June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 11 of 28 stakeholders of ISD 197 voted for. An addition adjacent to the existing gym, with plenty of green space buffering the building from Delaware Avenue. An addition rising from the elevation of the existing building and grounds parking lot – not from the elevation of Delaware Avenue. Referring to Planning Report 2019-18 sent out by Mr. Benetti, specifically the applicant’s response to the third practical difficulties test that reads “The heights of the proposed HSHS additions are all less than the current height of the existing high school. New addition buildings finishes and colors are similar to those of the existing HSHS.” He believes this is comparing apples to oranges. There is a building in the center of practically 70 acres of land and now they are talking about a new building that is set 30 feet or 10 yards from Delaware Avenue. This does not make sense to him. Sibley does not have a single structure, not a dugout, not a shed, anywhere near this close to any roads surrounding the property. And now they are talking about putting this massive structure right there. Sibley proposes pushing a 36-foot high 190-foot long structure as close to Delaware as possible; and they equate that to the school which is 100 yards away from Delaware Avenue. He asked the Commissioners to consider if a 36-foot high 190-foot long structure directly across the street from their home would alter the essential character of their neighborhood. None of the residents living along Delaware Avenue have any structures – or even fences – as close to the road as the school is proposing. In fact, as you drive closer to Sibley the homes are sit so far back into the woods they cannot be seen. So this is really not in keeping with the character of any neighborhood on Delaware Avenue, let alone the one right across the street. He also asked the Commission to consider the traffic noise that would bounce off of that wall. The increase in noise and traffic, unlike the noise from the football stadium, would be constant and would clearly change the character of the neighborhood. He suggested that the pool be pushed back away from Delaware Avenue and towards the school another 10 yards it would allow for noise reducing berms and foliage. Having the aquatic center moved closer to the school and built into the berm that is already there – it would be a good thing because that is what the pool committee agreed to months ago and this is what people voted on. He requested the Commission also keep in mind the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which states “protect the quiet secluded feel of the city’s neighborhoods,” and vote to deny this request. Commissioner Katz asked for clarification that Mr. Meyers was really requesting that the building be moved back 10 yards. Mr. Meyers replied that he was not asking that it be put way down on the far corner by Warrior Drive. He is just requesting that the district work with the community and help them out a little bit. Commissioner Katz asked if that was in the email sent to the district that has not been responded to yet; as mentioned by Ms. Adrienne Meyers earlier. Mr. Meyers replied in the affirmative. Mr. Pat O’Reilly, 467 Deer Run Trail, West St. Paul, asked if there was anything wrong with having the pool where it was originally planned at the height it was originally planned. If it was June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 12 of 28 built as originally indicated, the people living on Deer Run Trail would probably not see it. If it is built where the plans now indicate, everyone will see it coming and going from Deer Run Trail. He also supported the bonding bill and supports the school. He just wanted to know why it cannot be built the way it was originally supposed to be. Mr. Daniel Tkach, 492 Deer Run Trail, supported the comments made by Mr. and Mrs. Meyers as the points they brought out were very important. He added that the solar panels planned for the aquatic center would really stand out and look very commercial and he would agree with the aesthetic concerns of that. His other point, and what brought him to the area, was the really nice parcels of land and are set back from the road. Having this building so close would certainly detract from the community feel of the neighborhood. Chair Magnuson invited Ms. Jennifer Anderson-Tuttle with LSE Architects to return and address some of the concerns raised. She also asked Ms. Anderson-Tuttle to explain why the location of the aquatic center had changed. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied that the diagram shown earlier was done approximately two years ago and was prior to them having a survey or design of the space. It was really a graphic representation. It did not have the full build-out of square footage determined and they hadn’t yet run the models for how that existing loading dock would operate. One of the criteria that has been used to locate the addition was maintaining that existing loading dock access. She also stated that the current location is really not that much different than the original. Right now they are showing a 30-foot setback from the property line; in addition to that there is an approximate 20-foot distance from the property line to the curb edge – so it is approximately 50 feet to the curb, which they feel is more than an adequate amount of green space to include some additional berming and landscaping. The district has spoken with some of the residents who have spoken about willingness to work with them to develop a denser landscaping plan that would address some of the cosmetic, scale, and acoustic issues that they have suggested. Commissioner Noonan stated that this would have been a useful document to have because it is obviously a major concern of the neighbors. For the Commission to address their concerns they are not really seeing the full picture based upon what she said. It would have been nice to have the full package brought to them. Commissioner Corbett asked for more detail about how the loading dock is inoperable. He could not understand why the aquatic center could not abut the existing gymnasium and eliminate the walkway up the side and switch the parking lot. He could not see how that would prohibit any usage in the dock. Mr. Mark Fortman, Director of Operations replied that early on that was looked at in the design process but there are some utilities that come into the building there (fiber optics and allocation) and there is not quite enough space with where the bus drop off is to get to where the hill drops off – they would end up with a gigantic retaining wall. It was decided to re-site the June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 13 of 28 aquatic center due to cost considerations. Also, that is the central district receiving for the entire district – food comes in and out of there – and they need that turn space for the semi-trucks. Mr. Fortman also stated that he had a real nice conversation with some of the people, one of them being here tonight and had some comments, the district has always intended to be good neighbors at all of their sites in all of the cities they are in. They would continue to work with residents to be good neighbors. Commissioner Noonan asked what the timing was for the undertaking of these projects. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied that right now they are working on finalizing a shell packet, which his intended to go out within the next week or so for the pre-cast panels. Construction would start in September 2019. Commissioner Noonan asked for confirmation that when they were considering the football stadium there were neighborhoods meetings. Mr. Fortman confirmed. Commissioner Noonan referenced the suggestion to table this application for one month to allow face-to-face discussions between the district and the neighbors and asked if that would be fatal to their schedule. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied that it would not be as fatal as a denial of the request. Commissioner Toth asked what the other options were for putting the aquatic center somewhere else. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle replied that they looked at a number of locations; some of the drivers of this particular location were existing parking being able to support to that space, secured access for entrance into the site, also trying to create some separation between community access and use and the security of the students within the building by not sharing access points, maintaining all existing athletic fields as they are in high demand, and utility locations. All of the other locations reviewed were in this same general area; it was a matter of where it l anded within this side of the building. It was really because of the grade changes and a desire to have the access not conflict bus traffic and drop off and that service drive. Commissioner Petschel asked why it could not be part of the new addition to the gym. Mr. Fortman replied that area on the south side is used as hockey training and football training; accessibility from people’s parking – it’s a parking access thing. Commissioner Petschel, in reference to the loading dock, asked if there was another loading dock over by where the new level two additions are. Mr. Fortman replied that there is only one loading dock at Sibley. Commissioner Toth asked for clarification that the far east side of the aquatic center would be located approximately 50 feet off of the curb line; 30 feet from the property line. Looking at the distance between the aquatic center and the loading dock, there is approximately a distance of 140 feet – he asked if there was a way to squeeze additional footage to move the aquatic cent er closer to the loading dock. Mr. Fortman did not know the turning radius exactly. As far as the berm, which is not part of the design currently, that is what he offered to work with the residents, the civil engineer, and the architect. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 14 of 28 Commissioner Katz brought up the concern raised by a resident that the windows of the aquatic center would be allowing people in the aquatic center to looking down into residents’ yards or homes and asked if there were alternatives. Mr. Fortman replied that the bleacher seating is on the opposite side of the building and they would not be able to look down out of any of the windows; all of the windows are higher than what seating would be at. There is no possibility to look down. They are only to let in natural light. In talks with some residents they understood that they did not want a blank wall, they wanted some windows or something to break the line of the wall. Also, the wall will have some patterning to it so it would not be a plain wall; there would be some scale and relief and design into the wall itself. Discussions also included the fact that placing the aquatic center in this location would screen the view of the loading dock. Commissioner Toth asked for confirmation that the windows would be on the Delaware side of the building; so if he lived on Deer Run Trail and it is 10:00 p.m., how are they going to mitigate light and glare coming from those windows. Mr. Fortman replied that, as they are doing in all of their parking lots in the district, they are switching over to LED lighting. As they have talked about with the multi-purpose athletic field, they are required to have zero foot-candles at the property line. In their buildings they will have LED lighting that are hung. Currently, at night they run with dark lights inside and motion sensors that come on when coming through the entry points – only emergency lights. He did not foresee them having a lot of activities late at night unless they have something like a community swim night or something along those lines. Also, they would not light purposefully away from the pool, the pool wants to be lit down. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle also noted that landscaping and trees would be a great filter for any lighting from those windows as well. Chair Magnuson asked if they would be willing to work with the neighbors in developing their landscaping plan so that they have some input into the size of the berm and the types of plantings that would go in there. Mr. Fortman replied that they would welcome discussions and working with the neighbors. Commissioner Katz wondered if they had actually spoken with anyone from the Police Department about their suggestions or patterns that they have noticed. He has been to several Neighborhood Watch meetings and have talked to police officers who do patrol the city at night and they have brought up the activity that occurs at Sibley at night and what transpires in the parking lot. Mr. Fortman replied that they speak with Officer Mario Reyes, former detective of Mendota Heights, as their hired safety consultant. He is involved in their crisis planning during every step of the planning process. They also have Mr. Steve Meyers from the Mendota Heights Police Department as part of their district crisis team. Commissioner Noonan asked how available would the aquatic center be for the community. Mr. Fortman replied that their intent would be to have this as a community building; so much so that they are going to house the Community Ed Department in that building so they can operate their programming for the community during the day and be able to manage what is happening in there. Currently, with the Heritage School Facility, where they do not have any ability to control that during the daytime, the community uses are limited after-school or before-school. This way they could enhance that activity or enhance that access. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 15 of 28 Commissioner Corbett asked if there was any way to recess the building or the pool more by making the pool lower by 10 feet and then lowering the roof line by 10 feet; or if they have considered having a sloped roof. Mr. Fortman replied that the building is back into the hill to the high point is at the southwest corner of the building; so it is closer to 25 feet on the northeast corner of the building. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle noted that a few other things that has been challenging with setting that elevation has been accessibility and balancing soils. Trying to move dirt from the north end to the south end to try to keep it balanced so the district is not exporting a lot of additional soils. It would be cost prohibitive. Pointing to the elevation site plan. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle explained that on the one edge the height is closer to 20 feet because of the grades; it slopes. However, there is not any reason why, within that 50 foot setback, they couldn’t screen some additional building edge with both berms and landscaping. Mr. Fortman also pointed out the screening on the top of the building for the mechanical equipment. Commissioner Mazzitello pointed out that this has been a lot to digest and they have spoken a little bit about their schedule. He believed it to be critical that this Commission see a landscape plan for the area between the aquatic center and Delaware Avenue, after meeting with area residents and coming up with a proposed plan that they can live with. He would even be willing to hold a special meeting rather than waiting until next month. He asked if they would be willing to bring that back to the Commission as a way of communicating with the neighbors to address their concerns, including a description of the acoustic buffering on the outside of the building. This would enable them to speak with residents and still be on course with the start of construction in September 2019. Mr. Fortman replied that he would be willing. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle asked if the Commission would consider recommending approval pending the negotiations to take place on the landscaping design; just to keep this moving forward to the Council meeting next week and having a landscape plan for City Council. Commissioner Petschel noted that they Commission could recommend denial and they could still go to the City Council meeting next week with their landscape plan. The only difference is if the Council votes to deny, they would have to wait a year before they could apply again. Commissioner Corbett asked if both Ms. Anderson-Tuttle and Mr. Fortman were on the pool committee; which they replied that they both were and attended every meeting. They denied agreeing with the comments made that the plans had changed since that time. If they put the diagram up next to the plan they would see that it is located in the same spot. While they would be willing to send out an informational packet to all of the 200+ residents who have had input on the planning, although as they have seen the hardship for the district is some of the existing conditions, the height, that is required for the function of the space, which they inherit being an educational facility and height requirements for diving that are such as they are. So short of changing the design, which is not part of the variance application, they would like to work on things like the landscaping, the buffering, sharing some of those exterior materials and do that while they move forward, if possible. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 16 of 28 Commissioner Petschel noted that they would encounter significant additional costs if they did a re-site or redesign. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle absolutely agreed. Mr. Benetti interjected, looking at calendars, noted that if the Commissioner were to consider a special meeting the week of July 8 – the next Council meeting would be July 16. Theoretically, if they held a special meeting on July 8, 9, 10, or 11 they could probably easily turn that around and provide that recommendation back to the City Council on July 16. Commissioner Mazzitello asked if that would give them enough time to meet with the residents and decide on a landscaping plan for the outside of this structure. Ms. Joann Mansur, 1700 Lilac Lane, is the chair of the school board and stated that the district really has in good faith worked with the neighbors to the north with regards to the stadium. She wanted to assure the Commission that is absolutely something they would do and would have done it prior to this conversation anyway. She has had communication with residents on Delaware who have requested trees and buffering and believes that is something the district should do. She believes the building is going to be beautiful and not look like a huge industrial anything. They will do whatever they can from a landscaping plan to ensure that the residents and the Council feel comfortable. Commissioner Noonan stated that the direction is for Ms. Anderson-Tuttle and Mr. Fortman to continue to engage with the neighbors and bring a landscaping, screening, and buffering plan, along with exterior materials and texturing for sound abatement purposes for their examination at their meeting yet to be scheduled during the week of July 8, 2019. Ms. Anderson-Tuttle asked if they would be willing to approve the variance requests for the gymnasium and the entryway and only table the aquatic center portion of the application. The Commission was willing. COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KATZ, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE GYMNASIUM AND ENTRYWAY PORTIONS OF PLANNING CASE 2019-18. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES FOR THE GYMNASIUM HEIGHT AND THE ENTRYWAY HEIGHT AT HENRY SIBLEY HIGH SCHOOL AS PART OF PLANNING CASE 2019-18 BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, REMOVING ANY REFERENCE TO THE AQUATIC CENTER AND ADDING TO CONDITION F1: The Applicant shall obtain a building and sign permit for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein. A. Under Title 12-1L-5A of the City Code, the Council may only grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Code in cases where there are “practical difficulties” in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of the Code. “Practical June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 17 of 28 difficulties” consists of a three -part test: (i) the Applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not otherwise permitted by the Code; (ii) the plight of the Applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the Applicant; and (iii) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone do not constitute “practical difficulties.” B. The Applicant has met the burden of demonstrating the requisite “practical difficulties” in order to justify the granting of a Variance to allow the proposed aquatics building to exceed the 25-ft. height limits in the R-1/R-1A One Family Residential District to 35-ft.-8-in., the proposed gymnasium addition to 50-ft.-5-in., and the entryway addition to 31-ft.-2-in. by the following: i. the proposed structure height increases are considered a reasonable request, based on the overall scope, scale and use of the subject property as a high school campus facility, and fits with the current design and layout of the existing school building on the property; and are considered consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code and Comprehensive Plan; ii. 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 warrants the approval or granting of such variances in this particular case; iii. the excess heights of the new aquatics center, gymnasium addition and entryway addition are all under or equal to what exists today; so there impacts will not be noticeable when compared to other (pre-existing) structures on the campus site; and iv. 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 school facility improvements, such as this aquatics center, gym addition and entryway addition, can be considered a reasonable improvement for the overall benefit and enjoyment of the school, its students, faculty, and the community. C. The City has considered the factors required by Title 12-1L-5E1 of the City Code, including but not limited to the effect of the Variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect of the Variance on the danger of fire and the risk to public safety, and upon the value of properties in the surrounding area, and upon the Comprehensive Plan, and has determined this Variances will not affect or pose any negative impacts upon the neighborhood or the community in general. D. Approval of these Variances are for ISD-#197 (Henry Sibley High School) only, and does not apply or give precedential value to any other properties throughout the City. All variance applicants must apply for and provide a project narrative to the City to justify a variance. All variance requests must be reviewed independently by City staff and legal counsel under the requirements of the City Code. E. The factual findings and analysis found in the Planning Staff Report for Planning Case No. 2019-18, dated and presented June 25, 2019 (and on file with the City of Mendota Heights), is hereby fully incorporated into Resolution No. 2019-____. F. The City has the authority to place reasonable conditions upon the property subject to this Variance request. Conditions must be directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact created by the variance. June 25, 2019 Mendota Heights Planning Commission Meeting – DRAFT Page 18 of 28 CONDITIONS RELATED TO THIS TRANSACTION ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Applicant shall obtain a building and sign permit for all proposed improvements and structures identified herein. 2. The Applicant shall not deviate or increase the heights of structures as approved or presented under this application. Any changes must be reconsidered under a new application before the planning commission and approved by the city council. 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 schedule or conduct a swim meet or any other spectator event inside the aquatic center at the same time as a varsity football home game.” CHAIR MAGNUSON MADE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT BY STRIKING THE AQUATIC CENTER PORTIONS OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONDITIONS (as stricken by the transcriber). THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE MOTION MAKER AND THE SECOND. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Chair Magnuson advised the City Council would consider this application at its July 2, 2019 meeting. The public hearing for the Aquatic Center has not been closed. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAZZITELLO, TO TABLE THE AQUATIC CENTER PORTION OF PLANNING CASE 2019-18 VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A STRUCTURE IN THE R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT UNTIL THE MEETING YET TO BE SCHEDULED DURING THE WEEK OF JULY 8, 2019; THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO MEET WITH AREA RESIDENTS AND DEVELOP A LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PLAN FOR THE EAST SIDE OF THE AQUATICS CENTER, AS WELL AS TO BRING BACK DETAILS ON THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS FOR MITIGATION OF NOISE Ayes: 7 Nays: 0