The URL can be used to link to this page

2011-07-26 Planning Comm Agenda PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA July 26, 2011 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of the Agenda 4. Approval of the June 28, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Hearings a. Case No. 11-14: White Pine Holdings, 750 Highway 110, amendment to conditional use permit for planned unit development. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. b. Case No. 11-22: Phillip Cattanach, 2455 Visitation Drive, conditional use permit for an accessory structure, variances for the total area of accessory structures and for an overhang greater than eighteen inches. Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. 6. Verbal Review 7. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 651-452-1850 with requests. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 28, 2011 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 28, 2011, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Magnuson, Noonan and Viksnins. Those absent and excused: Commissioner Hennes and Roston. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Carla Wirth. Approval ofAgeiztla The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval ofMay 24, 2011, Minutes COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2011, AS PRESENTED. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Chair Norton stated that in consideration of audience members, the agenda will be reordered as follows: Planning Case #11-13, #11-15, #11-16, #11-18, #11-19, #11-17, #11-11, #11-21, and #11-14. Hearings PLANNING CASE #11-13 New Cingular Wireless 1196 Northland Drive Conditional Use Permit for wireless facility Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of New Cingular Wireless for a conditional use permit to allow modification to their existing wireless communication tower located north of I-494 and west of Highway 55 at 1196 Northland Drive. New Cingular Wireless is seeking to upgrade the communication antenna array and platform located on the tower at the same location to ensure successful, secure and ongoing operation of their communication facilities. He displayed a diagram of the proposed equipment and advised there will also be changes to their related equipment. Mr. Grittman indicated the proposed equipment upgrades will not result in any significant physical changes to the tower and the visual change relates primarily to the addition of the platfonn. This change to the physical equipment requires a conditional use permit consideration. Mr. Grittman stated staff recommends approval with routine conditions, finding it is consistent with requirements for wireless antenna displays. Commissioner Viksnins asked what the platform will look like. Mr. Grittman displayed plan diagrams of the platform and described how it will look, noting there would be little visual impact. Scott Buell, Buell Consulting, 2324 University Avenue W., St. Paul, representing New Cingular Wireless, clarified there is an existing platform and the proposed replacement is more substantial. He displayed a diagram identifying the antennas that will be relocated to a higher location. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 Commissioner Noonan asked if the platform will remain in the same location. Mr. Buell answered in the affirmative and stated the color of the tower will remain unchanged. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. A BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO NEW ANTENNA AND RELATED EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION. 2. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FCC REGULATIONS. 3. THE NEW ANTENNAS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE ELECTRICAL CODES. Commissioner Field stated his preference for co -location of antennas. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-15 David Bergh 996 Caren Court Critical Area Permit for a single story addition Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of David Bergh for a critical area permit for a single -story addition at 996 Caren Court. The addition is proposed to be located in the rear (west) yard of the property and measures 168 square feet (12 feet by 14 feet) in size. He displayed a site plan of the subject property depicting the existing home and proposed addition. The property is zoned single family residential and located within the critical area overlay district of the Mississippi River corridor. The zoning ordinance stipulates that any work conducted within the Mississippi River corridor requires a critical area permit and public hearing. The intent is to protect steep slopes in the area adjacent to the river as well as visual impacts as the result of construction activity. Mr. Grittman advised the proposed location is relatively flat in topography and well below the 18 percent slope threshold. He noted the additional landscaping proposed around the patio area, which does not impact the critical area. Mr. Grittman stated staff recommends approval of the critical area permit as submitted, subject to two routine conditions, since the application does not impact the critical area corridor and is compliant with the ordinance requirements. Commissioner Noonan stated concerns with the open-ended wording of the condition #1 relating to city engineer comment and recommendation. He suggested the wording indicate the plan must be consistent with the land disturbance guidance document. Mr. Grittman stated this language is recommended because if site conditions are encountered during construction the city engineer is able to provide guidance and mid -course correction, if necessary. Chair Norton stated such an amendment could be considered when a motion is formulated, if desired. 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 David Bergh, 1361 Interlachen Drive, Eagan, stated he has nothing to add to staff's report. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE CITY ENGINEER PROVIDE COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA AND DRAINAGE IMPACTS. 2. THE PROPOSED HOME ADDITION MATCH THE EXISTING HOME IN DESIGN AND COLOR. Commissioner Noonan stated his preference for specific language and concern with the open ended wording of condition #1 that suggests further comments or issues may come forward. He felt those issues should come forward tonight so they can be addressed. Commissioner Noonan stated if the wording intends to allow a mid -course correction, he would prefer referencing the land disturbance guidance document so the applicant knows what they are working toward. Commissioner Noonan offered a friendly amendment to replace condition 91 with the following: 1. CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT TAKE PLACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. Commissioner Viksnins stated he is sympathetic with Commissioner Noonan's concerns; however, he would not want to foreclose the city engineer from doing his job should something unknown at this point come forward during construction of the project. He stated he would hope the applicant and City can resolve any issues that arise, was comfortable with the motion, and declined the friendly amendment. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-16 Michael Waldman 580 Watersedge Terrace Wetlands Permit for a fence Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Michael Waldman for a wetlands permit to construct a fence within the rear yard at 580 Watersedge Terrace. The property is zoned single family residential and guided for low density residential. He displayed a site plan of the subject site and advised it is occupied by a single-family home with access to the Fieldstone Court cul-de-sac. The proposed white vinyl fence would enclose a portion of the rear yard to provide privacy with a setback of 60 feet from the adjacent wetland. A wetlands pen -nit is required because the fence would encroach 40 feet into the 100 -foot wetland buffer area. This permit allows the city to review construction activities to assure protection of the wetland resource. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 Mr. Grittman displayed a diagram of the proposed fence, noting it complies with requirements for height and 30 - percent open design. The primary issue is whether the fence impacts the wetland. He advised there will be minimal grading and the only construction is to provide post hole digs. The applicant indicated they will retain the natural conditions next to the wetland. Staff recommends approval of the wetlands permit, as requested, subject to several routine conditions and the addition of condition #3 indicating: "Construction shall comply with the land disturbance guidance document." Commissioner Magnuson referenced findings of fact #4 indicating: "The area between the fenced in pool area and the wetland will be maintained in its natural state with additional native vegetation to serve as a buffer." Mr. Grittman confirmed there is not a pool and additional vegetation will not be planted. The planning commission concurred to modify finding of fact #4 to indicate: "The area between the fence and the wetland will be maintained in its natural state." Michael Waldman, 580 Watersedge Terrace, applicant, clarified that the fence will be a wood -on -wood fence, not a vinyl fence as stated earlier. Chair Norton opened the public hearing.. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE WETLANDS PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE AREA BETWEEN THE FENCE LINE AND THE WETLAND REMAIN IN A NATURAL VEGETATIVE STATE. 2. THE SWCD FINDS THE PROPOSAL TO BE ACCEPTABLE. 3. CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-18 John and Rebecca Driscoll 21 Dorset Road Conditional Use Permit for a covered front entry Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of John and Rebecca Driscoll for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a covered porch (entryway) at 21 Dorset Road. The property is zoned single family residential and guided for low density residential. He displayed a site plan of the subject site identifying the single-family home, access point to the south, and proposed addition to the front to provide protection over the front entry. He then displayed an architectural drawing of the proposed entry, noting it extends into the setback requirement. However, the code accommodates this type of addition with a CUP to allow a minimum (40 square foot) encroachment. The total addition area is 64 square feet but only a portion, about 30 square feet, encroaches into the front yard setback area El Planning Commission Minutes June 28. 2011 which is under the threshold of 40 square feet. Mr. Grittman stated the proposed location appears to meet code requirements and materials are consistent with the existing home so staff recommends approval of the CUP with clarification that the porch is no closer than 25 feet from Staples Avenue and to modify the site plan to illustrate the location of the sidewalk connection between the porch and driveway. At the request of Chair Norton, Mr. Grittman provided a synopsis of the CUP process that allowed consideration of a front porch if it minimally encroached into the front yard setback without the requirement to show hardship, as required with a variance process. John Driscoll, 21 Dorset Road, applicant, displayed a colored photograph of his property that identified a clear line of sight remains and the sidewalk approach that will be extended to meet the new porch. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the walkway will be inside the existing retaining wall. Mr. Driscoll pointed out the location of existing stairs and described how the walkway will meet the new entry. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE PORCH (ENTRYWAY) BE LOCATED NO CLOSER THAN 25 FEET FROM THE ADJACENT STAPLES AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY. 2. THE SITE PLAN BE MODIFIED TO ILLUSTRATE THE LOCATION OF THE SIDEWALK CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PORCH AND DRIVEWAY. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-19 Beverly Sargent 1040 Sibley Memorial Highway Critical Area Permit for a patio Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Beverly Sargent for a critical area permit to construct a patio at 1040 Sibley Memorial Highway. He displayed a site plan of the subject site, noting the property is zoned one family residential, guided for low density residential and currently occupied by a single-family residence. It was noted that a critical area permit was previously approved to place a fence along the side yard and the applicant is now proposing to construct a 400 square foot patio on the east side of her home. Mr. Grittman stated the property is within the critical area so a critical area permit is required to assure any construction or land alteration will not negatively impact the river or create negative visual impacts from the river. He noted the location of the proposed patio and indicated it meets code requirements for slope and appears there are no impacts to the steeper portions of the property. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 Mr. Grittman stated impervious surface will be created by the patio but not impact the critical area or neighboring property. A condition of approval allows review and comment by the city engineer related to impervious surface impacts. Mr. Grittman advised staff found this request is consistent with the critical area requirements, does not create adverse impacts, and is recommended for approval subject to conditions identified in the staff report. Commissioner Magnuson asked who receives the information required by the conditions of approval. Mr. Grittman stated it would be submitted to staff prior to construction. Commissioner Noonan referenced condition #4 and asked what the impervious surface coverage impacts might be. Mr. Grittman explained the patio will create a change in the amount of drainage and the applicant has provided illustrations of landscaping but staff will need to address the direction of runoff and how it will be handled. Chair Norton asked if the city has enough information to move the application forward, noting four conditions are recommended. Mr. Grittman stated a final grading plan has not yet been submitted but it is a fully developed site so staff knows generally how the site drains. The applicant has been asked to verify, as part of the permit process, how much soil will be moved. However, it is conceivable that something could come up during construction and if it changes the nature of the permit considered by the planning commission, it will be presented for re -consideration. He estimated the grade to be 3 -feet, at most, so assumptions can be made relating to the amount of dirt that will be moved. Mr. Grittman stated if the planning commission is not comfortable with the level of information provided with the application, it can be continued until that documentation is submitted. Chair Norton asked whether the information required in the conditions is typically submitted by the applicant prior to planning commission consideration. Mr. Grittman stated it is not always submitted, especially for single-family or small projects. He explained staff attempts to balance requirements so it is not overly burdensome to the applicant yet is enough information for the commission to consider. In this case, staff felt there was enough information to proceed and assure it will be constructed in a responsible manner. Beverly Sargent, 1040 Sibley Memorial Highway, applicant, stated this is a relatively flat area and she plans to use pervious pavers, consistent with the existing retaining wall. She noted the location of large Maple trees that will be protected and may result in a patio that is smaller than 20 feet by 20 feet. Commissioner Magnuson asked if a landscape company will do this work. Ms. Sargent stated she has experience with pavers and plans to do the installation. She added that she is comfortable with the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. Chair Norton asked where the dirt will be relocated. Ms. Sargent stated the dirt will be used to fill a low area by one of the Maple trees as well as a divot between the two Maple trees. Chair Norton asked if the retaining wall needs to be part of the application. Mr. Grittman stated the plans don't specify the retaining wall but the drawing shows a line so it is fair to interpret as a retaining wall given the slope. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 1. THE VOLUME OF DIRT TO BE RELOCATED BE SPECIFIED BY THE APPLICANT. 2. THE PROPOSED SOIL RELOCATION AREA BE ILLUSTRATED ON THE SITE PLAN. 3. THE APPLICANT SPECIFY WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED PATIO CONSTRUCTION WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF ANY VEGETATION (OTHER THAN TURF). 4. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE IMPACTS BE CLARIFIED. THIS ISSUE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO COMMENT BY THE CITY ENGINEER. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the retaining wall will not be part of the consideration, motion, or conditions of approval. Chair Norton offered a friendly amendment to the staff report, Page 2, "Action Requested," to indicate: A. APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO ALLOW THE PATIO AND RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION, BASED ON..." Commissioners Noonan and Field accepted the friendly amendment to assure there is no question at a later point in tune. Mr. Grittman advised that one of the critical area considerations relates to visual impact and one of the rules is that materials must be of a natural material. He recommended that requirement be specified. Commissioner Field suggested the condition clearly identify the retaining wall under consideration and its intended location. Commissioner Viksnins offered a friendly amendment to the staff report, Page 2, "Action Requested," to indicate: A. APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO ALLOW THE PATIO AND RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION AS DEPICTED ON THE ATTACHED DIAGRAM, BASED ON..." And to add an additional condition as follows: 5. RETAINING WALL AND PATIO TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF NATURAL MATERIALS. Commissioners Noonan and Field accepted the friendly amendment. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-17 Michael Cormick 1176 Sibley Memorial Highway Critical Area Permit to replace a single family home Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Michael Cormick for a critical area permit to replace a single- family home at 1176 Sibley Memorial Highway. The property is zoned single-family residential, guided as low density residential, and occupied by a small single-family home. He displayed a site plan identifying the subject site and described the location of the existing home that the applicant is proposing to remove. The applicant would like to construct a larger home and garage and relocate the driveway to avoid the steep slope on the east side of the property. The property is within the critical area and required to receive a critical area permit for any construction or land alteration. This will involve a significant amount of construction with the removal of the existing home and construction of a new story -and -a -half lookout style house. He displayed exterior elevations depicting the proposed home, noting total height is about 23 feet, less than the height restriction threshold of 25 feet. 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 Mr. Grittman advised there is not a setback issue from the bluff and given the existing layout of the property, the construction is on slopes less than 10 -percent and the driveway relocation is more consistent with the Code than the current location. Vinyl shake siding meets the critical area ordinance requirement for natural or natural looking external materials and there will be no impacts from the river related to visibility. Staff believes it is designed in a manner that is consistent with the critical area ordinance and recommends approval subject to routine conditions. Commissioner Viksnins asked if the proposed shed raises planning concern. Mr. Grittman advised it is a portable shed and meets the city's critical area requirements. Commissioners Viksnins asked if the land disturbance guidance document addresses displaced soils. Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello explained the land disturbance guidance document governs how construction projects are managed while the soil is disturbed. With the prior application the project was too small to apply these standards. However, this application project is of a large enough scale that the land disturbance guidance document is applicable. He indicated the building permit will require submittal of an erosion and sediment control plan, which will be applied to the land disturbance guidance document to assure they are meeting all of the requirements. Commissioner Noonan noted the sanitary sewer easement and asked if it will interfere with respect to construction activity or if the construction may impact the city's ability to maintain of that utility. Mr. Grittman explained the sanitary sewer is within an easement and the city has rights to use that easement. If sewer work is required within the easement, replacement requirements are the burden of the property owner. However, if work is on land outside the easement the city is required to obtain that land. Mr. Mazzitello explained that during the pre -application process, staff addressed this easement with the applicant so they could design the site. The only things placed over the easement are things the property owner would be willing to replace should removal be necessary to maintain the utility. Michael Cormick, 1176 Sibley Memorial Highway, applicant, stated he had nothing to add to staffs presentation. Commissioner Magnuson noted the reference that construction will occur in two phases: removal of the house/driveway; and, construction of the new house. She asked if the applicant has an anticipated timeframe. Mr. Cormick stated they have no time frame because there are a lot of details to work out but are hoping to start this fall. Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek advised that the permit is valid for one year from the date of approval. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S LAND DISTURBANCE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. 2. ANY FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY ENGINEER REGARDING GRADING, EROSION AND STORMWATER CONTROL. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-11 (continued from May 24, 2011 meeting) Paul Elias 2242 Lexington Avenue South Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for a detached garage Planner Stephen Grittman explained that Paul Elias is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct a detached garage at 2242 Lexington Avenue South. He displayed a cross section plan of the three -car garage with a vaulted storage loft that is 864 square feet in area. Mr. Grittman stated staff's recommendation from the May 24, 2011, meeting stands. That staff recommendation indicated support of the CUP to allow a detached accessory structure upon the subject site; however, staff does not recommend approval of the associated variance to allow the structure to exceed 750 square feet in size. Commissioner Viksnins asked if there has been discussion between staff and the applicant relating to this proposal. Mr. Sedlacek advised that following the May meeting staff provided Mr. Elias with a list of items that needed to be included in his application as specified by the planning commission. Commissioner Field noted both a CUP and variance are being requested but a building of 750 square feet would not require a variance. Mr. Grittman stated that is correct. Chair Norton thanked Mr. Elias for submitting the requested additional information and asked if he had anything to add. Paul Elias, 2242 Lexington Avenue S., applicant, stated he had nothing to add. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coining forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Commissioner Noonan noted the requests are distinctly different and asked if the consideration will be split into two motions. Chair Norton stated that is correct and is up to whoever makes the motion. The commissioners noted condition #1, as written in the staff report, contains two options related to whether the variance is approved. Commissioner Viksnins noted the condition could remain as written since it presents an "either/or" scenario. The planning commission concurred. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE CITY APPROVE THE REQUESTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AREA VARIANCE, -OR- THE APPLICANT REVISES HIS REQUEST TO MEET THE 750 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA. 2. A SPECIFIC PLAN ALTERNATIVE BE SELECTED BY THE APPLICANT. SUCH PLANS, DRAWN TO SCALE, SHALL BE MODIFIED TO SPECIFY PROPOSED FINISH MATERIALS, COLORS, AND STRUCTURE HEIGHT. 3. THE GARAGE NOT EXCEED 15 FEET IN HEIGHT. 0 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 4. THE GARAGE MATCH THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING IN COLOR AND SHOW COMPATIBILITY IN MATERIALS. 5. THE APPLICANT CONSIDER MATCHING THE GARAGE'S ROOF STYLE AND ROOF PITCH WITH THAT OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. 6. THE EXISTING DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE BE REMOVED AND RE-ESTABLISHED IN TURF AND/OR PAVEMENT AS A PART OF THIS PROJECT. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN THAT IT EXCEEDS THE AREA LIMIT WHICH THE CITY HAS DETERMINED TO BE "REASONABLE" WITHIN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. 2. THE AMOUNT OF ACCESSORY STORAGE SPACE PROPOSED UPON THE SUBJECT SITE COULD CONCEIVABLY OCCUR WITHOUT NEED FOR A VARIANCE (VIA A COMBINATION OF ATTACHED AND DETACHED GARAGES). 3. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING WOULD SET AN UNDESIRABLE PRECEDENT IN REGARD TO THE ALLOWANCE OF FUTURE OVERSIZED STRUCTURES. 4. THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A "REASONABLE" USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Commissioner Noonan stated the commission discussed, at the last meeting, the new test of "reasonable use" under the newly signed variance law. He stated it is reasonable to have an accessory building; however, the question is whether it is reasonable to push the size beyond 750 square feet "just because" there is need to accommodate more things. He is not compelled that there is justification as to the reasonable use or practical necessity because there is sufficient area to accommodate a garage that would provide for a reasonable accessory structure without having to grant the additional square footage requested by the variance. Chair Norton concurred and stated he does not find that sufficient information has been provided to this body to establish the practical difficulties that is currently required by Minnesota state statutes. Commissioner Viksnins concurred. Commissioner Magnuson noted another criteria to consider is that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. She recalled the property is quite narrow but the need for a three -car garage is based largely on the land owner's need to accommodate a large number of vehicles as opposed to any practical difficulty that relates to the land itself. She stated that as sympathetic as she is to allowing the creation of a garage to accommodate all of those things, she agreed there is not enough information to demonstrate that particular standard of the ordinance has been met. Thus, she agrees the city cannot grant the variance. Commissioner Field noted that based on the charge to the planning commission, this variance cannot be considered. He stated he would like to find a way to grant the variance but his "hands" are tied by the legal circumstances surrounding the city's ability to grant the variance. Chair Norton stated that putting aside his personal preference for a detached garage that might be larger than 750 square feet, that is the city's ordinance. He explained to Mr. Elias that the public hearing has been closed and the planning commission is obligated to follow the rules and bound by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Commissioner Viksnins called the question AYES 5 10 White Pine Senior Living ., H ijj IN dim is Yu IN -- _ Main ORiceBranch E6016 852nd Ave Office 13613 Cty Hwy 5 - South RIVER VALLEY Colfax W1 5473D . Jim Fails, W1 54748 ARCHITECTS,[,,- 715.704 6057 715 382-4700 Fax 715.704.6075 Fax 715 382.4707 ww rivewalieyarchilects com S/TE I OKIMjlilll! L =§VV §Lj" §v9vu VVVH§ § L V§§v SOUU�C� PL �,I-Z-A- DG�I�C� GENERAL NOTES: A. TOPOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY SURVEY, INCLUDING PROPERTY LINES, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, EXISTING UTILITIES, SITE TOPOGRAPHY WITH SPOT ELEVATIONS, OUTSTANDING PHYSICAL FEATURES AND EXISTING STRUCTURE LOCATIONS WAS PROVIDED BY THE FOLLOWING COMPANY, AS A CONTRACTOR TO THE SELLER/OWNER: TOPOGRAPHY: RLK INCORPORATED BOUNDARY: 6110 BLUE CIRCLE DRIVE, SUITE 100 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 PH: (952) 933-9072 CEI ENGINEERING AND ITS ASSOCIATES WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE SURVEY OR FOR DESIGN ERRORS OR OMISSIONS RESULTING FROM SURVEY INACCURACIES. B. ALL PHASES OF SITE WORK FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE OWNER / DEVELOPER SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS. C. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES, RELATED UTILITIES, PAVING, UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS AND ANY OTHER EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AS NOTED. SEE SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS. D. CONTRACTOR IS TO REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL DEBRIS, RUBBISH AND OTHER MATERIALS RESULTING FROM PREVIOUS AND CURRENT DEMOLITION OPERATIONS. DISPOSAL WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE AND/OR FEDERAL REGULATIONS GOVERNING SUCH OPERATIONS. E. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR AND SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. F. WARRANTY/DISCLAIMER; THE DESIGNS REPRESENTED IN THESE PLANS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESTABLISHED PRACTICES OF CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR THE DESIGN FUNCTIONS AND USES INTENDED BY THE OWNER AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, NEITHER THE ENGINEER NOR ITS PERSONNEL CAN OR DO WARRANT THESE DESIGNS OR PLANS AS CONSTRUCTED EXCEPT IN THE SPECIFIC CASES WHERE THE ENGINEER INSPECTS AND CONTROLS THE PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION ON A CONTEMPORARY BASIS AT THE SITE. G SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR: IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS OF THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. ANY CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION BY THE ENGINEER OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES, IN, ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. EN T E/ T I MTAA \N Vicinity Map Not to Scale PLAN INDEX: 1. COVER SHEET 2. SITE PLAN 3. GRADING PLAN 4. UTILITY PLAN 5. EROSION CONTROL PLAN 6. EROSION CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS 7. LANDSCAPE PLAN B. DETAIL SHEET SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS: 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY RESOURCE LIST: WHITE PINE SENIOR LIVING CITY OF MENDTA HEIGHTS 720 MAIN STREET, SUITE 205 1101 VICTORIA CURVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN'. 55118 MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 PHONE: (651) 287-0265 PHONE: (651) 452-1850 FAX: (651) 287-0266 STEVE GRITTMAN CHUCK ROTHSTEIN CITY BUILDING DIVISION ARCHITECT CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS RIVER VALLEY ARCHITECTS, INC. 1101 VICTORIA CURVE 13613 COUNTY HWY S SOUTH MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 JIM FALLS, M 54748 PHONE: (651) 452-1850 PHONE: (715) 382-4700 JAMEY BOWE CIN ENGINEER/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS GENERAL CONTRACTOR' HOEFT BUILDERS, INC. 1101 VICTORIA CURVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 310 PINNACLE WAY, SUITE 301 18 PHONE: (651) 452-1850 PHONE: EAU CLAIRE, WI 54701, PHONE: (715) 833-1761 JOHN MAZZITELLO FAX: (715) 833-1720 A55T TO CIN ADMINISTRATOR PETER HOEFT CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1101 VICTORIA CURVE CIVI CONSULTAN MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 CEI ENGINEERING, INC. PHONE: (651) 452-1850 2277 WEST HIGHWAY 36 SUITE 200 JAKE SEDLACEK ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 PHONE: (651) 697-0800 AL FIRE MARSHL FAX: (651) 697-0804 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT ALAN CATCHPOOL 1101 VICTORIA CURVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 PHONE: (651) 452-1850 PAUL KAISER APPROVED DATE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FLOOD CERTIFICATION: THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN AN UNMAPPED FIRM AREA ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENT]STS 2277 WEST HIGHWAY 36, SUITE 200 (651) 697-0800 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 FAX: (651) 697-0804 Arkansas * Colifornio * Georgia * Minnesoto * Pennsylvonio * Texas FORE y Engineering 'ss, psA Associates, Inc. ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENT]STS 2277 WEST HIGHWAY 36, SUITE 200 (651) 697-0800 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 FAX: (651) 697-0804 Arkansas * Colifornio * Georgia * Minnesoto * Pennsylvonio * Texas !.,:3 t 411?. • ,� /(l"•� n, 46.66 "F o S89 -51'28"'W,[, j SFT JO /�/r 410 , `._ ASF.:'Y;.x)T tcT+ :'I =.i : 47.61 r 43 PI i., 27- H 7_ 7. ffif BENCHMARK TOP MUT HYDRANT % r�/ r; IXC J �� •, A' 9�y 6 -8538 J �I //' K` i RES, I , 0 SITE BENCHMARK 0 Mrt xro�nABr IDGE[R w w.ar soc r.E >x� EwYATe AVPRo}YA ]CR NIXM lIH DIY -6Y]0 0 O �E FD'PANN0. IRUIX o«Ki p.ALN9 tam¢ IDCJ. PIEr 4 eul➢xo p%sds PARKING RATIO SITE DATA SITE AREA (NET)87,290 S.F. 2-00 Ac. ZONING 84 -SHOPPING IMPERVIOUS 43,806 S.F. 50.18% GREEN SPACE 43,484 S.F. 49.82X PARKING RATIO STANDARD PARKING (9'X20') 4 REQUIRED (ABOVE GROUND) 24 PROVIDED STANDARD PARKING (9'X20') • REQUIRED (UNDERGROUND) 37 PROVIDED ACCESSIBLE PARKING (8'X201 2 REQUIRED 2 PROVIDED TOTAL PARKING 63 PROVIDED • USE NOT SPECIFICALLY NOTED UNDER LOCAL LUNINU wue. FUTURE PARKING RATIO STANDARD PARKING (9'X20 (ABOVE GROUND) • REQUIRED 44 PROVIDED STANDARD PARKING (020') (UNDERGROUND) • REQUIRED 37 PROVIDED ACCESSIBLE PARIONG (8'X20) 2 REQUIRED 2 PROVIDED TOTAL PARKING — — EASEMENT UNE 83 PROVIDED USE NOT SPECIFICALLY NO UNDER LOCAL ZONING CODE. // / i % $ � L3 ,RPO I I �'� •� - . _.. -. (, r i z ►L o PROPOSED us?.;,. SENIOR 00 •iy .. °O ° ASSISTED LIVING °p ' 0. I N /fV 1 I 96,000f S.F. i< ...::a f f, `V4 FOUR STORY z 7. 1' WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING q f J / j�' �' �� `,a` m % �o; ❑ FIRST FLOOR FFE_ 851.50 tT (:`: ; ., I Li:a } ' BASEMENT FFE 840 zG' 0'11) 2A zG' (T'iP) 6' 20' k. TYPE " 1t 28 7 .-_ I ' 41 30' O BE EASEMENT. : •7 R2 •'' =N -57;j5. PA ;t ? _ — ------------ --- 4l ---- TOBEv 'i.�Bl9. 14 cht d=4937'59" R=60.00 y I ..3 t :,I -----FUTURE PROOF OF PARKING I R1,.... ->.,,..........».,...»..,,.,d....,. ... ..... ..... ... _. >.m. ` I: .` L t I } -1 :. q _k t z0• (TYR) 24' L 7 4_-- (71 — H ., ru` _ :7h._.- iI 0 LF �� „ R=270. DO \ r; FUTURE TUIREt PROOF- OF PARKING G i! •. l - >. _, / J✓d— __�,.?;� � 54E p .�. Y s I f f I I g l l I T I it 23 A k ; • J - /�c �... i U� ,37 ' o \ R 5. p0 � _ ASTING CURB • Y c e t / k CUTTER / SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE _ 31 > ._. -�Ti i�Y:.: .;; ,.LI ;, � L, 1 .1.. .;S".: :, moi. ?.• ;:i:..: '1 _ y SORE y� 4 ss RS, R ly DICE CF=A' D 20' SCALE IN FEET EXISTING BOUNDARY LINE C FOUND IRON Ci SANITARY MANHOLE PROPERTY UNE ® CURB INLET — — — — — — — EASEMENT UNE % WATERMAIN VALVE ..... -...— ADJACENT LOT UNE -: FIRE HYDRANT .._............ ._........ SANITARY SENOR UNE .._ -- STORM SEWER UNE 41_'7 STORM MANHOLE — "W"A ...........WATERMAIN -.- ,J.7--..-. — GAS UNE %`ay CATCHBASIN .—.�-.-- ---- FIBER OPTIC UNE _— ,IL:{----- UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC ,,. STREETLIGHT CONTOURS SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED BOUNDARY LINE ---- pIGHT OF WAY LINE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. SDETAIL 1A. EE ® CURB INLET BUILDING CONTROL POINT 32 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES LIMITS OF SIDEWALKS AND CONCRETE APRONS RETAINING WALL (DESIGNED BY OTHERS) GENERAL SITE NOTES A ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. B. ALL CURB RETURN RADII SHALL BE 2. OR IV, AS SHOWN TYPICAL ON THIS PLAN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. C. UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN, CALLED OUT OR SPECIFIED HEREON OR WITHIN THE SPECIFICATIONS: ALL CURB AND GUTTERADJACENT TO ASPHALT PAVING SHALL BE INSTALLED PER DETAIL 1A PAVEMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DETAIL BA OVER THE ENTIRE PARKING LOT AREA AND ALL APPROACH DRIVES ALL PARKING LOT STRIPING INCLUDING ACCESSIBLE AND VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACES SHALL BE PAINTED AS SHOWN. D. ALL PARKING LOT SIGN BASE SUPPORTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER DETAIL 12F. E ALL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS SHALL HAVE SIGNAGE INSTALLED PER DETAIL 9S SITE DETAILS 1A TYPE 'A' CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 3D CONCRETE SIDEWALK 3K CONCRETE SIDEWALK 311WHEELCHAIR RAMP IN SIDEWALK 3N WHEELCHAIR RAMP N SIDWALK (TYPE. AT EACH DRIVEWAY CURB RETURN) BA STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVING ITS ACCESSIBLE / VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN 9U ACCESSIBLE PARKING SYMBOL (SEE PAINT COLOR INDICATED AT SYMBOL) IDA TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW (TYP.) 109 STOP BAR (TYPE.) 1IA 00 NOT ENTER SIGN 12F SIGN BASE 0 SITE NOTES 28 TRANSFORMER PAD 3D FENCE ENCLOSED PATIO AREA NTH GATES (PER ARCH. PLANS) 48 EXIT PORCH (PER ARCH. PLANS) 88 OVERHEAD CANOPY - (TYP.-PER ARCH. PLANS) 12A 4' TRAFFIC WHITE LANE STRIPE (SEE LENGTH INDICATED AT SYMBOL) 120 4' NIDE PAINTED WHITE STRIPES, 2AT O.C. O 45• (SEE SIZE INDICATED AT SYMBOL) 130LIMITS OF RETAINING WALL (DESIGNED BY OTHERS) 15A STOP SIGN ISE MONUMENT SIGN IBA EXISTING TO BE REMOVED 21A TAPER CURB TO MATCH EKSRNG CURB 210 TAPER CURB FROM 6' TO 0 OVER 10' 73A VALLEY CUTLER PER CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS STANDARD DETAILS/SPECIFICATIONS. 738 STEPPING STONES (PER ARCH. PLANS) INITIAL DESIGN DATE PRN PM DES I DRW WHITE PINE SENIOR LIWNG Engineering Associates, Inc. 2277 NESE HIGHWAY 36, SPATE 200 ............. ROSEWLLE, MN 55511113 ,1 (651)697-0804 SIAL PLAN 7%14111 SHEET N0. � ,�� DRIVE PM 2 OF $ ..�.,,� rn-A REVI /(.F "� Associates. Miv 553,d BENCHMARK #1 TOP NUT HYDR4NT ELEV-856.36 ,LNUHMARK��4� TNH=856.36 y„ r V lr SITE BENCHMARK 0!. HITT�AnNRurr EouTm oR —T a ITE PmV.TE ✓/ s/ rr 1 /1 92 if 0''f 1jY tJ~$�� .._ \, ~^' .t. _/ // =' .' • •A %l PVC O OI51G ,�+ .. i N PAN yimac Doors euiw+c 9nUTX uttE tOGnp15 M9 PREa4 BJWA'X4 oNEN4a,S l / (� 9 5 ^�`° 851 50 C SSL t fv INV(S) BSB 40 i />1 `•� L/ � �� ,'ll /., - "SUMP 93640 1 [` 1 i ;:160 /�j :� I 845.50 BW � ^•' -S �'2Alb! j/ Y - q ! ( ;.7 L Lis ",'• '. / RCP MH 2 15 C I `INV(W) 843.82„ _ ^, t`V RCP,Y 3.00R 0 r f / TO I 851 X30 FO f ..' 51.15 C / f i nQ. C. Brq. =N14'S A= 49 37'59 " R= 60.00 >OUTHPLAZA DRIVE ORE y� Q�AOL ass R�. F pp spTd ONE C` 2 D 20' SCALE IN FEET EXISTING V... 51.30 C o PROPOSED=: V, J t .: t 4 —J SENIOR 0 r f / TO I 851 X30 FO f ..' 51.15 C / f i nQ. C. Brq. =N14'S A= 49 37'59 " R= 60.00 >OUTHPLAZA DRIVE ORE y� Q�AOL ass R�. F pp spTd ONE C` 2 D 20' SCALE IN FEET EXISTING V... 51.30 C o PROPOSED=: — . RCP1 :y —J SENIOR . ; 4 ASSISTED LIVING -- -- CB. p RIM 851.30 C FOUR: STORY _..•851.50 CL -848.65 INV(NW)=844.83 I ' r "FIRST FLOOR FFE = 851.50 r..} Irc '�f BASEMENT FFE = 840.50 S5D00,TC esi.sD c,:.'-.,...5' GAS UNE ,! £ � . \\ B_ RCP 617 V - 89 lF 12' ? \\ ------------- . -__ •„ I; �., __..... UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC RCP O 1.00X I \ STREET LIGHT CONTOURS SPOT ELEVAnON LD: wnt° INV{N F: 27, lL \ 0 r f / TO I 851 X30 FO f ..' 51.15 C / f i nQ. C. Brq. =N14'S A= 49 37'59 " R= 60.00 >OUTHPLAZA DRIVE ORE y� Q�AOL ass R�. F pp spTd ONE C` 2 D 20' SCALE IN FEET EXISTING V... 51.30 C o PROPOSED=: — j :y —J SENIOR DO ASSISTED LIVING -- -- PROPERTY UNE EASEMENT UNE 851.30 C FOUR: STORY _..•851.50 CL ._ .. . - WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING ' r "FIRST FLOOR FFE = 851.50 r..} Irc '�f BASEMENT FFE = 840.50 esi.sD c,:.'-.,...5' 0 r f / TO I 851 X30 FO f ..' 51.15 C / f i nQ. C. Brq. =N14'S A= 49 37'59 " R= 60.00 >OUTHPLAZA DRIVE ORE y� Q�AOL ass R�. F pp spTd ONE C` 2 D 20' SCALE IN FEET EXISTING (651/tiY/—uauu 651)697-0804 GRADING PLAN °A E :y FOUND IRON ;; SANITARY MANHOLE -- -- PROPERTY UNE EASEMENT UNE WATERMAIN VALVE ._ .. . - ADJACENT LOT UNE SANITARY SEWER UNE ' FIRE HYDRANT STORM SEWER UNE r..} STORM MANHOLE WATERMAIN GAS UNE ,! CATCHBASIN -- - FIBER OPTIC UNE . -__ •„ I; �., __..... UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC ,. STREET LIGHT CONTOURS SPOT ELEVAnON PROPOSED BOUNDARY UNE RIGHT OF WAY UNE ----- GRADE BREAK —XXX— CONTOUR ELEVATIONS ===== STORM DRAIN � XX,XX SPOT ELEVATIONS: TC — TOP OF CURB G — CUTTER C— CONCRETE TW — TOP OF WALL BW s BOTTOM OF WALL FG — FINISHED GRADE ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE GUTTERUNE OR FINISHED GRADE UNLESS OTHERIMSE NOTED. ® PROPOSED RETAINING WALL (DESIGNED BY OTHERS) GENERAL GRADING NOTES A PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF STORM OR SANITARY SEWER, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE. VERIFY, AND CALCULATE ALL CROSSINGS AND INFORM THE OWNER AND THE ENGINEER OF ANY CONFUCIS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE ENGINEER WILL BE HELD HARMLESS IN THE EVENT THE ENGINEER IS NOT NOTIFIED OF DESIGN CONFUCTS. B. ALL SLOPES AND AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE GRADED SMOOTH AND 4' OF TOPSCIL APPLIED. IF ADEQUATE TOPSOIL IS NOT AVAILABLE ON SITE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TOPSOIL, APPROVED BY THE OWNER, AS NEEDED. THE AREA SHALL THEN BE SEEDED, FERTILIZED, MULCHED, WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL HARDY GRASS GROWTH IS ESTABLISHED IN ALL AREAS (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SEED MIX AND PROPER APPUCATON RALE). ANY AREAS DISTURBED FOR ANY REASON PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE CORRECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADGITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. C. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTIUTIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTIUTY COMPANIES, AND MERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. D. UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN, CALLED OUT OR SPECIFIED HEREON OR WITHIN THE SPECIFICATIONS AIL STORM DRAIN PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE INSTALLED PER CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS STANDARD DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS. ALL STORM DRAIN PIPES ARE MEASURED FROM CENTER OF STRUCTURES AND ENDS OF FLARED END SECTIONS ® GRADING NOTES 9C CONNECT WEST S1DE DOWN SPOUTS TO 10' PVC DRAIN PIPE WITH I; MIN. SLOPE AND 4' MIN. COVER. PERIMETER ROOF DRAIN PIPE TO CONNECT TO MH'S /2 k 3. (SEE ARCH PLANS FOR EXACT NO. AND LOCATION OF DOWNSPOUTS) 9D FLARED END SECTION 13CLIMITS OF RETAINING WALL (DESIGNED BY OTHERS) 1, MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS 1BF CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM CRAIN PIPE 0 GRADING DETAILS 20A JUNCTION BOX 21A CURB INLET 270 TRENCH DRAIN 270 DOWN SPOUT COLLECTOR INITIAL DESIGN Engineering Associates, Inc. BEST HIGHWAY 36, SUITE 200 ILL& MN 55117 (651/tiY/—uauu 651)697-0804 GRADING PLAN °A E sHEEr Ho. SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE 7I1IA OB PM 3 OF 8 DOTH HEIGHTS MINNESOTA REVI m p,1 rD 1-1-1-1. — 11 PID o. 27-6,8401-020-01 f� J L .z_;.._ / BENCHMARK Rei TOP NUF HYDRANT ELEV-85&38 ARK TNH=856.36 I� ~'� � ,=�,Tr ,Tyr `•✓ ?t� .,, i ... � // 0,/ r 7 14 000goo 0 t i i -- �j 1 // {, }}'((]�, ✓' f <. J —DIP WATER�MAIN / ! cryc'Vy J1J.A ` .!N'YOV yf C Z' MIN. PNRY'%.S� ` I 1 4 /f i- i„�� ; J ) 3 i ,•(� � - � I 1 0121, C) Fif o B CT Y d_4.X i I A. I{I CR R <L I T Z : ► � I/ � I3 i -- � T ; /T E �Ri9� FOUND IRON 0 SITE BENCHMARK 0 ,y, � J� % PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT UNE Inu,m w.sr soc ff „+E cwrATE , ;� ,(I 6 ------- ___ ADJACENT LOT UNE �1U0iltrdn.tN aaKM E EsidO mTPR�RT, A1RT ]wf MORIN OF 1FIE SaU1NTTa5T PFFOPFRIY / EXISTING SANITARY SEWER UNDER SANITARY SEWER LINE � 0 �' �j STORM SEWER UNE it STORM MANHOLE 1/ �� POSSIBLE REAIRNMENT SHOWN 11 n, V / (DESIGNED BY OTHERS) WATERMAIN pgplq pu;P; YiillaxE sram vAWNq IIwIX Ooo4 a:FUMn Axn eie� euFaNa autNsows 51'28”FmFx K S89 -- GAS UNE wmula FaunnNs tj % 61 --- FIBER OPTIC UNE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC .,. STREET LIGHT CONTOURS SPOT ELEVATION Sal J *:t ••.,tet: w � PROPOSED _ SENIOR r ASSISTED LIVING ''. 96,000± S.F. FOUR STORY WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING d o>' \ P FIRST FLOOR FFE = 851.50 n �`.. .. G•c. T'•:ri Uawu ¢ ` BASEMENT FFE = 840.50 r .. • �0 R 3�� a EaY _._....... ,,..,e.A-;tx.c.. .. .. :tE-.... .......... ..... .....:......... .. __- • „ I M„SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE .S _ AND plm C. Brg. =N14 5iti 5 d=4937'59” R=60. 00 T 51.98 ' .S' < o r' ss 42'' R -270.00 /d=1158'24 "... 'r C.8RG=N56 5 N 0 20' 30' 40' SCALE IN FEET EXISTING FOUND IRON c, SANITARY MANHOLE ------- PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT UNE .. WATERMAIN VALVE ... ..... _ ------- ___ ADJACENT LOT UNE "'+ FIRE HYDRANT .._._..._..__.._yy_.............._.— SANITARY SEWER LINE .___....___.._eD.__.._..._ STORM SEWER UNE it STORM MANHOLE A.;, -;R...__.._.___. WATERMAIN ._.—.._ iAS--------- -- GAS UNE CATCHSASIN --- FIBER OPTIC UNE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC .,. STREET LIGHT CONTOURS SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED BOUNDARY UNE --- RIGHT OF WAY UNE _—_-- STORM DRAIN —GAS-- GAS SEANCE SANITARY SEWER SERVICE --TGE— UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC SERVICE —)rW— WATER SERVICE —UW*T— UNDERGROUND E1=CTRIC. TELEPHONE AND CABLE GENERAL UTILITY NOTES A ALL WATER UNES SHALL BE DIP WRAPPED WITH B MIL PLASTIC WITH 7.5' MIN. COVER. S. ALL SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE SCH 4O PVC WITH 6' MIN. COVER C. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ANY DISRUPTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITY SERVICES WIN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS D. ALL ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND GAS EXTENSIONS INCLUDING SERVICE UNES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY SPECIFICATIONS ALL URUTY DISCONNECTIONS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE DESIGNATED UTILITY COMPANIES C CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT START ON ANY PUSUC UTIUTY SYSTEM UNTIL WRITTEN APPROVAL HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ENGINEER FROM THE APPROPRIATE GOVERNING AUTHORITY AND CONTRACTOR HAS BEEN NOTIFIED BY THE ENGINEER. F. PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF OR CONNECTION TO ANY STORM DRAIN, SANITARY SEWER, WATER MAIN OR ANY OF THE DRY UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE, VERIFY AND CALCULATE ALL POINTS OF CONNECTION AND ALL UTILITY CROSSINGS AND INFORM CE ENGINEERING AND THE OWNER/DEVELOPER OF ANY CONFLICT OR REQUIRED DEVIATIONS FROM THE PLAN. NOTIFICATION STALL BE MADE A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CET ENGINEERING AND ITS CLIENTS SHALL BE HELD HARMLESS IN THE EVENT THAT THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO MAKE SUCH NOTIFICATION. C. UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. CALLED OUT OR sPEOFIED HEREON OR WITHIN SPECIFICATIONS ALL WATER LINE FITIINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THRUST BLOCKING PER CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS ALL WATER LINE PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE INSTALLED PER CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE INSTALLED PER CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS UTILITY NOTES 22A POINT OF CONNECTION - WATER SERVICE (PER LOCAL CODES) 22H 45' M.J. BEND WITH THRUST BLOCKING (SE SIZES THIS SHEET) 22K SPRINKLER ENTRY PER ARCH. PLANS (SEE SIZES THIS SHEET) 22L METERED DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE ENTRY ENTRY PER ARGH. PIANS 22X INTERIOR WATER METER (PER LOCAL CODES) 22Y INTERIOR BACK FLOW PREVENTER (PER LOCAL CODES) 23A POINT OF CONNECTION - SANITARY SEWER SERVICE WITH DROP (PER LOCAL CODES) 23E SANITARY SEWER SERVICE ENTRY (PER LOCAL CODES) 23J CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 24A POINT OF CONNECTION FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE (PER ELECTRICAL COMPANY REQUIREMENTS) 24D PROPOSED ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER 28A POINT OF CONNECTION FOR UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE (PER TELEPHONE COMPANY REQUIREMENTS) 27A POINT OF CONNECTION FOR GAS SERVICE (PER LOCAL GAS COMPANY REQUIREMENTS) 27BGAS SERVICE PER LOCAL GAS COMPANY 27C PROPOSED CAS METER 21A MAINTAIN MIN. 18' VERTICAL SEPARATION 31A LOCATION FOR THIS UTILITY AS SHOWN IS FOR DRAWING PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATION IN FIELD PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED UTILITY UNE TO BE CONNECTED. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. IF THE DESIGN AS SHOWN IS NOT ACHIEVABLE INITIAL DESIGN Engineering Associates, Inc. 2277 REsr NIGNWAY 36, suNE zoo (6�1/ev/-Frow ROSEVILLE. /M�N'}5F511/)�y (65/)697-0804 �V I./�L�1/ / / PLAN DATE s .. No. 7/14/fI .l. O / /.� PLAZA DRVE 1: D8 PM Q 0.r e ..�., _M1T'c ■ )Af= '17A J REV/ 1 -0 'J. 7 4 E 1 02 LLP TOP NUr HYDRANT ELEV-85606 11 /0' �ARK,�111;Ai TNH=856.36 'Al Y A A 4, ,e /V/ ry/M1,051mi 1� EfORE p3EYO SITE BENCHMARK i -0. aSF, . .. ...... .. .. -------- ..... ..... ... .. . ........ N 0 21Y 3o' 40, .. ..... ... . ..... A. E G . .. .. . ... .... .. . .. .. ........... .... . ..... .. .. . .. . . . ......... SCALE IN FEET S89'51 28 EXISTING 4, �Jl FOUND IRON fl) SANITARY MANHOLE PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE WATERMAN VALVE A ADJACENT LOT LINE F, SANITARY SEWER LINE 0 . .... FIRE HYDRANT STORM SEWER LINE STORM MANHOLE WATERMAN GAS LINE CATCHBASIN FIBER OPTIC LINE ',F. UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC STREET LIGHT PROPOSED BOUNDARY LINE RIGHT OF WAY LINE - - - - - - - - GRADE BREAK -XXX- CONTOUR VATIOMS STORM DRAIN 01 0 EROSION DETAILS CE TEMPORARY ROCNZ CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE -9-SF TEMPORARY SILT FENCE A, IPS INLET PROTECTION (PRIOR TO PAVING) IP 07ECTION AFTER PAVINGI INLET PR CWA TEMPORARY CONCRETE WASHOUT A, 1�- �n/ GENERAL EROSION NOTES GENERAL EROSION NOTES CONTD j, 4� A. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVED WITH STORM WATER AU- EkSI)RES STATED ON THIS 00 AND SEDIMENT CONTROL P ON ON UNTIL RNA. PROPOSED ...... 7 POLLUTION PREVENTION SHALL OBTAIN A, COPY OF WE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA NATIO -AL CWMV N- S ALL BE MNNTMNED IN FULLY MNS (NPD 0- AND SEDIMMTATON CONTROL 0 T POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM GENERAL PERMIT ES STMIUZA110M OF WE SITE. ALL 0 < -CE MENSU ES SHAUL BE CHECKED BY A WALInED P�N AT LEAST SENIOR q PERMIT) AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH W�IR CONTENTS. EVENY SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS AND MWIN 24 HOURS OF WE END OF A '300 RAINFALL VWNT. AND SHMUD BE CLEANED AND REPAIRED IN doo A MORDANCE MW WE FO-LOWINQ ASSISTED LIVING B. WE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA SHALL ALSO BE USED AS THE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AREA, EQIJIPMENT CLEANING AREA, 72 EMPLOYEE BREAK AREA. AND AREA FOR LOCATING PORTABLE FACIUMES, A, OFFICE �ALERS AND TOILET FACIUTES. THE EXACT LOCATIONS SHALL 1. INUET PROTECTION DEvICES AND BARRIERS Si�U. BE REPAINED OR 96,000±..S i flEpLAGEB IF THEY SHOW SIGNS OF IJADEN.IN... OR �HALL BE R—CED 'S COqSTRU BE COORDINATED WITH THE OWNER IF THEY SHOW — OF DETEFtIORATON. FOO-R)STORY C. ALL WASH WATER (CONCRETE TRUCKS, WHICUE CLEANING. EQUIPMENT TO SIDE THAT /N MAINTAINED. AREAS SHOULD BE FERnUZEB AND z ALL SOD ED AREAS SHAU_ BE CHECKED REGULAR WTH U.NDERGROUND PARKING CLEANING, ETC.) SHAUL BE DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER THAT A GOOD STORM WATER WAT I�STS DISCHARGED FROM THE SITE. C NTACT BETWEEN THESE MATERIALS MID RMEDED AS NEEDED. 3. SILT FMCCS VALL BE REPAIRED TO THOR ORIGINAL CONINIONS IF ST FLOOR FFE 851.5 0. MANTAIN ON THE SITE OR HAVE READILY AVAILABLE SUFFICIENT OIL AND D IJAGED. SEDWMT SHAIJ_ BE RNOVED FROM WE SLT FENCES WHM IT SF It, F 851.5 -THIRD TO ONE-HXLF WE HOCIAT OF THE SILT �M GREASE ABSORBING MATERIALS AND FLOTAnON BOOMS TO CONTAIN AND REACHES ONE BASEMENT FFE CLEAN UP FUEL DR CHEMICAL SPILLS AND LEAKS. 4. ME CONSTRUGMON ENTRANCES SHA� BE MAINTXNES IN A CONDITION MICH WU_ PRVWIIT TRACKING OR FLOW OF MUD ONTO PLBUG E. DUST ON THE SITE SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY SPRAMNG WATER ON DRY THIS MAY REQUINE 'MIMIC TOP DRESS�N. OF THE CL AREAS OF WE SITE WE USE OF MOTOR OILS AND OTHE? PETROLEUM CONSTRUCTM NTRM�S AS CONOMONS DEMAND. s( -------- ... ASED OR TOXIC UQUIDS FOR DUST SUFPRESSION OPERATIONS IS �HALL BE KEPT IN GOOD P CHIBITED. 5. WE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AN C ONDITION TABLE FOR PARKING AND STMAGE). TH S MAY REQUIRE C &GRESSI SHALL BE P Na OF WE TEMPMMY PARKING AS CONDIMONS F. NO RUBBISH, TRASH. GARBAGE OR OTHER SUCH MATERIALS DISCHARGED INTO DRAINAGE DITCHES OR WATERS OF THE STATE. DER, ........ .. SECOM, OF CONSTRUCT, G. ALL STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES PRESENTED ON 1. RISTAJ1 STAINUaO CONSTRUCTION EHTNA Y', THIS PLAN. SHALL BE INITIATED AS SOOH AS PRACTICABLE. Z PRUAR TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREk IP6 IP 3. CONSTRUCT E SLT FENCES ON WE SM H. DISTURBED PORTIONS OF THE STE WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTVTY WILL EDED START CONSTRU"ON OF BULDIN. 1AS AND SWU—NM STOPPED FOR AT LEAST 21 DAYS. SHALL BE TEMPORARILY SE C BEGIN GRADING WE SITE. WITHIN 14 DAYS. S. TEMPORARLY MED DMUDED ANCAS. 4, UNOMDRAINS. STORM SEWERS. CONES AND GUTTERS� ST AREAS 1. DISTURBED PORTIONS OF THE SITE WOE CONSTRUCTION AC71VITY HAS B: :21, I'N'U"T'PROTECTON VINICES� PERMANENTLY STOPPED SHALL BE PERMANENTLY SEEDED. THESE HL PN TALL P RAP AROUND OUTLET STRUCTURE& 9. INS ALL SHALL BE SEEDED NO LATER THAN 14 DAYS AFTER WE LAST �ARE SITE FOR PAMNG. ATMH �t CTION ACTIVITY OCCURRING IN WESE AREA& REFER TO THE 11. PA. EITE. CONSTRU A PLETE C—ING AND INST� PMDANM SEEDING AND PLAAHING. LANDSCAPING PLAN. NEMOW ALL TL,4PM-Y EROSION AN 1E...' CONTNOL DEVICES .LY IF IZ C T .7 IS STAO—D). Lgrg. =N 14 -5 -'�5, J. IF THE ACTION OF VEHICLES TRAWUNG DVER THE CRAWL — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — CONSTRUCTION EIIMANCES IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REMOVE THE MAJORITY OF DIRT OR MUD, THEN THE TIRES MUST BE WASHED BEFORE THE Q) VEHICLES ENTER A PUBLIC ROAD. IF WASHING IS USED, PROVISIONS A= 49J759 MUST BE MADE TO INTERCEPT THE WASH WATER AND TRAP THE OF 1?=60. 00 SEDIMENT _FORE IT IS CARRIED OFF THE SITE WE EXACT LOCATIONS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE OWNERS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. 51 9 K. ALL MATERIALS SPILLED, DROPPED. WASHED OR TRACKED FROM ST BE REMOVED VEHICLE TO ROADWAYS OR INTO STORM DRAINS M IMMEDIATELY. 7 L CONTRACTORS OR SUBCONTRACTORS WIL� BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING SEDIMENT IN THE DETENTION POND AFTER THE STABILIZATION TED OF THE SITE AND ALSO ANY SEDIMENT MAT MAY HAW COLLEC IN fli i THE STORM SEWER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. "tt P6 IP M� IF SOL STOCKPILING IS EMPLOYED ON THE SITE SILT FENCES SHALL BE USED TO HELP CONTAIN THE SEDIMENT. SF N. SLOPES SHALL BE LEFT IN A ROUGHENED CONDITION DURING THE z", CFtADING PHASE TO REDUCE RUNOFF VELOCITIES AND EROSION. 0. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALI_ BE w CE DISPOSED OF WITIIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL STABILIZA ON. FINAL S BIUZ.ATION HAS OCCURRED MEN ALI SOIL DISTURBING ACnM71ES 25 6. 42' ATRAE COMPLETED AND A UNIFORM PERE]NHIAL VEGETATIVE CO R WITH A D SITY OF 70% OF THE COVER FOR UNPAVED AREAS AND AREAS NOT j N 1?—,_�70. 00 COVERED BY PERMANENT STRUCTURES HAS BEEN EMPLOYED. 6ONCRE j WASH 0. DUE TO THE GRADE CHANCES DURING TIE DEVELOPMENT OF WE 158'24 PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HE R-SPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTING THE EROS ON CON CL MEASURES (SILT FENCES, STRAW BALES, ETC.) TO HELP PREVENT EROSION MID STORM WATER POLLUTION. '59`54E�,� C 81?G=A,,'� ME FOR STORM DRAINS & UTILITY CONSTRUCTION AND PLACEMENT OF GRAVEL OR I A�C LIMC: �R EACH WORKING DAY, THIS INCLUDES BACKFllJ_JNG OF MEN 0 /" R TS P. ALL OFF-STE ONSMUCTON SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE END OF 23"1 Ip P D� BITUMINOUS PAVING FOR ROAD CONSTRU�TION. RW �13 �,�'_ I / .1 _7_1 INITIAL DESIGN L i E N WHITE PINE SENIOR LIVING 00 .. ...... .. ... �.;�!,, 7 3 a Engineering Associ tes, Inc. ERS URW ENGINEERS H L LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENWROMMiNIAL'SCIENYCHS hj 2277 WEST HIGHWAY 36, SUIIE 200 1)697-0800 (65 . . .... ....... . ... ......... . (651)6 -0804 SF ROSEWLLE, YN 551IJ DA 7E SO U;TH PLAZA DRIVE EROSION CONTROL FLA 7lf4lll 1:08 PU 5 OF 8 ...... . ..... .. . ... .... ..... SOUTH PLAZ4 DRIVE REVI MENDOTA hEA3HTS M#VNESOTA NPDES CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS A STORM WATER POU UTON PREVENTION PI AN THE PERMITITE(S) MUST IMPLEMENT THE EROSION CONTROL/SWPPP AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART. THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) IDENTIFIED IN THE PUNS AND IN THIS PERMIT MUST BE INSTALLED IN AN APPROPRIATE AND FUNCTIONAL MANNER. B. EROSION PREVENTION PRACTICES 1. THE PERMITTEE(S) MUST PUN FOR AND IMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION PHASING, VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS HORIZONTAL SLOPE GRADING, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES THAT MINIMIZE EROSION, SO THAT THE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS OF PART W.E. ARE COMPUED WITH. THE LOCATION OF AREAS NOT TO BE DISTURBED MUST BE DELINEATED (EC. WITH FLAGS, STAKES, SIGNS, SILT FENCE ETC.) ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS. 2. ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS WITH A CONTINUOUS POSITIVE SLOPE WITHIN 200 LINEAL FEET OF A SURFACE WATER, MUST HAVE TEMPORARY EROSION PR07EC11ON OR PERMANENT COVER FOR THE EXPOSED SOIL AREAS YEAR ROUND, ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING TABLE OF SLOPES AND TIME FRAMES: TYPE OF SLOPE TIME (MAXIMUM TIME AN AREA CAN REMAIN OPEN WHEN THE AREA STEEPER THAN 3:1 7 DAYS IS NOT ACRVELY BONG WORKED.) 10:1 TO 3:7 14 DAYS FLATTER THAN 1" 21 DAYS THE AREAS INCLUDE CONSTRUCTED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT POND SIDE SLOPES, AND ANY EXPOSED SOIL AREAS WITH A POSITIVE SLOPE TO A STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM, SUCH AS A CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEM, STORM SEWER INLET, TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DRAINAGE DITCH OR OTHER NATURAL OR MAN MADE SYSTEMS THAT DISCHARGE TO A SURFACE MIER. TEMPORARY STOCKPILES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT SILT, CLAY OR ORGANIC COMPONENTS (E.G., CLEAN AGGREGATE STOCKPILES, DEMOUTION CONCRETE STOCKPILES, SAND STOCKPILES) ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT BUT MUST COMPLY V47H PART IVC.5. 3. ADDITIONAL BMP'S TOGETHER WITH ENHANCED RUNOFF CONTROLS ARE REQUIRED FOR DISCHARGES TO SPECIAL AND IMPAIRED WATERS. THE BMP'S IDENTIFIEDFOR EACH SPECIAL OR IMPAIRED WATER ME REQUIRED FOR THOSE AREAS OF THE PROJECT DRAINING TO A DISCHARGE POINT ON THE PROJECT THAT IS WITHIN ONE MILE OF A SPECIAL OR IMPAIRED WATER AND ROWS TO THAT WATER. 4. IN NORMAL WETTED PERIMETER OF ANY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DRAINAGE DITCH THAT DRAINS WATER FROM A CONSTRUCTION SITE, OR DIVERTS WATER MOUND A SITE, MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 200 LINEAL FEET FROM THE PROPERTY EDGE OR FROM THE POINT OF DISCHARGE TO ANY SU FACE WATER. STABILIZATION MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF CONNECTING TO A SURFACE WATER. 5. PIPE OUTLETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATION BEFORE CONNECTION TO A SURFACE WATER. S. WHEN POSSIBLE, ALL SLOPES MUST BE GRADED IN SUCH A FASHION SO THAT IRACKING MARKS MADE FROM HEAVY EQUIPMENT ME PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE 7. ALL AREAS DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION MUST BE RESTORED AS DETAILED IN THESE REQUIREMENTS. WE TYPE OF PERMANENT RESTORATION SHALL BE CLEARLY SHOWN ON THE PLANS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SOD, SEED, IMPERVIOUS COVER AND STRUCTURES. A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO PERMANENT RESTORATION. AREAS IN WHICH THE TOP SOIL HAS BEEN PLACED AND FINISH GRADED OR AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED AND OTHER GRADING OR SITE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS ARE NOT ACTIVELY UNDERWAY MUST BE TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY RESTORED AS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. A AREAS NTH SLOPES THAT ARE LESS THAN 3:1 MUST BE SEEDED AND MULCHED WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE AREA NOT BONG ACTIVELY WORKED. B. AREAS WITH SLOPES THAT ARE GREATER THAN 3:1 MUST BE SEEDED AND EROSION CONTROL BLANKET PLACED W IRTH 14 DAYS OF THE AREA NOT BONG ACTIVELY WORKED. C. ALL KOM AREAS MUST BE OTHER MULCHED AND DISC ANCHORED, HYDRO -MULCHED, OR COVERED BY EROSION CONTROL BLANKET TO REDUCE EROSION AND PROTECT THE SEED. TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT MULCH MUST BE DISC ANCHORED AND APPUED AT A UNIFORM RALE OF 2 TONS PER ACRE AND HAVE 9OX COVERAGE. D. IF THE DISTURBED AREA WILL BE RE -DISTURBED WITHIN A SIX MONTH PERIOD, TEMPORARY VEGETATIVE COVER SHALL BE REQUIRED CONSISTING OF AN APPROVED SEED MIXTURE AND APPLICATON RATE. E. IF THE DISTURBED AREA WILL NOT BE RE -DISTURBED WITHIN A SIX MONTH PERIOD, PERMANENT VECATAIIVE COVER SHALL BE REQUIRED CONSISTING OF AN APPROVED SEED MIXTURE AND APPUCATION RATE F. ALL AREAS THAT WALL NOT HAVE MAINTENANCE DONE SUCH AS MOWING AS PART OF THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BE PERMANENTLY RESTORED USING AN APPROVED SEED MIXTURE AND APPLICATION RATE C. RESTORATION OF DISTURBED WETLAND AREAS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED USING AN APPROVED SEED MIXTURE AND APPLICATION RATE 8. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT UNTIL FINAL STABHUZATION HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. IF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS OR NATURAL EVERTS DAMAGE OR INTERFERE WITH ANY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, THEY SHALL BE RESTORED TOSERVE THEIR INTENDED FUNCTION. 9. ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE ADDED AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTIVELY PROTECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE CITY. THE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL PLANS SHALL BE REVISED AS NEEDED BASED ON CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS. C. SEDIMENT .ONTH PRACTICES 1. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE ESTABLISHED ON ALL DOWN GRADIENT PERIMETERS BEFORE ANY UPGRADIENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES BEGIN. THESE PRACTICES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL FINAL STABL17ATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE KITH FINAL STABILIZATION. 2. IF THE DOWN GRADIENT TREATMENT SYSTEM IS OVERLOADED, ADDITIONAL UPGRADIENT SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE INSTALLED TO ELIMINATE THE OVERLOADING, AND THE SWPPP MUST BE AMENDED TO IDENTIFY THESE ADDITIONAL PRACTICES. 3. THERE SHALL BE NO UNBROKEN SLOPE LENGTH OF GREATER THAN 75 FEET FOR SLOPES WITH A GRADE OF 3:1 OR STEEPER. 4.ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS MUST BE PROTECTED BY APPROPRIATE LIMPS DURING CONSTRUCTION UNTIL ALL SOURCES WITH POTENTIAL FOR DISCHARGING TO THE INLET HAVE BEEN STASIUZED. THESE DEVICES MUST BE MAINTAINED UNTIL FINAL STABWZA11ON IS ACHIEVED. INLET PROTECTION MAY BE REMOVED IF A SPECIFIC SAFETY CONCERN (STREET FLOODING/FREEZING) HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED. 5.TEMPORARY SOL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SILT FENCE OR OTHER EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS ON THE DOWN GRADIENT SIDE OF THE STOCKPILE AND SHALL NOT BE PLACED AT LEAST TWENTY FIVE (25) FET FROM ANY ROAD, WETLAND, PROTECTED WATER, DRAINAGE CHANNEL, OR STORM WATER INLETS, STOCKPILE LEFT FOR MORE THAN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MUST BE STABILIZED WITH MULCH, VEGETATION, TARPS OR OTHER APPROVED MEANS 6.VEHICLE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT FROM THE PROJECT SHALL BE MINIMIZED BY APPROVED BMP'S. THESE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED AT THE CITY APPROVED ENTRANCES. INDIVIDUAL LOTS SHALL EACH BE REGUIREO TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN ENTRANCES THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION BUILDING UNTIL A PAVED DRIVEWAY IS INSTALLED. 7.SEDIMENT THAT HAS WASHED OR TRACKED FROM THE SITE BY MOTOR VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE CLEANED FROM THE PAVED SURFACES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. ELMLT FENCE OF OTHER APPROVED SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES MUST BE INSTALLED IN ALL AREAS AS SHOWN ON THE SWPPP. 9.SILT FENCE OR OTHER APPROVED SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE REQUIRED ALONG THE ENTIRE CURB UNE, EXCEPT FOR APPROVED OPENINGS WHERE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WILL BE INSTALLED OR DRAINAGE FLOWS AWAY FROM THE CURB. THIS DEVICE MUST BE MAINTAINED UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED. AODUST CONTROL MEASURES, SUCH AS APPLICATION OF WATER MUST BE PERFORMED PERIODICALLY DUE TO WEATHER, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, AND/OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY. 11.FLOW3 FROM DIVERSION CHANNELS OR PIPES (TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT) MUST BE ROUTED TO SEDIMENTATION BASINS OR APPROPRIATE ENERGY DISSIPATERS TO PREVENT THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT TO OUTFLOW OR LATERAL CONVEYORS AND TO PREVENT EROSION AND SEDIMENT BUILDUP NPDES CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS (CONT.) 12A CONCRETE WASHOUT SHALL BE INSTALLED ON PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE THE USE OF CONCRETE ALL LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES GENERATED BY CONCRETE WASHOUT OPERATIONS MUST BE CONTAINED IN A LEAK -PROOF MNTAINME14T FACILITY OR IMPERMEABLE UNER. A SIGN MUST BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO EACH WASHOUT FACUTY TO INFORM OPERATORS TO UTILIZE THE PROPER FACILITIES. 13.ALL SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE USED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ACHIEVED ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS IF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS OR NATURAL EVERTS DAMAGE OR INTERFERE WITH ANY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, THEY MUST BE RESTORED TO SERVE THEIR INTENDED FUNCTION. ICADDITONAL SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE ADDED AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTIVELY PROTECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE CITY. THE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL PLANS SHALL BE REVISED AS NEEDED BASED ON CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS AS.RESTRICT CLEARING AND GRADING MATHIN 20 FEET OF AN EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY TO PROVIDE FOR A PROTECTIVE BUFFER STRIP OF NATURAL VEGETATION. D. UFWARRINf. ANO HA51N DRAINING 1. DEWATERING OR BASIN DRAINING (E.G., PUMPED DISCHARGES, IRENCH/DITCH CUTS FOR DRAINAGE) RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THAT MAY HAVE TURBID OR SEDIMENT LADEN DISCHARGE WATER MUST BE DISCHARGED TO A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT SEDIMENTATION BASIN ON THE PROJECT SITE WHENEVER POSSIBLE IF THE WATER CANNOT BE DISCHARGED TO A SEDIMENTATION BASIN PRIOR TO ENTERING THE SURFACE WATER, IT MUST BE TREATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE BMPS SUCH THAT THE DISCHARGE DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE RECEIVING WATER OR DOWNSTREAM LANDOWNERS THE PERMITTEE(S) MUST ENSURE THAT DISCHARGE POINTS ME ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM EROSION AND SCOUR. THE DISCHARGE MUST BE DISPERSED OVER NATURAL HOCK RIPRAP, SAND BAGS, PLASTIC SHEETING OR OTHER ACCEPTED ENERGY DISSIPATION MEASURES ADEQUATE SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES ARE REQUIRED FOR DISCHARGE WATER THAT CONTAINS SUSPENDED SOLIDS. 2. ALL WATER FROM DEWATERING OR BASIN DRAINING ACTIVITIES MUST BE DISCHARGED IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT CAUSE NUISANCE CONDITIONS, ERO90N IN RECEIVING CHANNELS OR ON DOWNSLOPE PROPERTES, OR INUNDATOR IN WETLANDS CAUSING SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE WETLAND. E INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE 1.714E PERMITTEE(S) (OTHER THE OWNER OR OPERATOR, WHOEVER IS IDENTIFIED IN THE SWP?P) MUST ROUTINELY INSPECT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE ONCE EVERY SEVEN (7) DAYS DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTOR AND WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN 24 HOURS. 2.ALL INSPECIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONDUCTED DURING CONSTRUCTOR MUST BE RECORDED IN WRITING AND THESE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED WITH THE S'.WPP IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 111.0. RECORDS OF EACH INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY SHALL INCLUDE ADAM AND TIME OF INSPECTIONS B.NAME OF PERSON(5) CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS; C.FlNOINGS OF INSPECTIONS, INCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS; D.CORRECTI'W ACTIONS TAKEN (INCLUDING DATES, TIMES, AND PARTY COMPLETUIG MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES); £DATE AND AMOUNT OF ALL RAINFALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 1/2 INCH (0.5 INCHFS) IN 24 HOURS; AND F.DCCUMENTATIGN OF CHANGES MADE TO THE SWPPP AS REQUIRED IN PART III.A4. 3.1AHERE PARTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SIM HAVE UNDERDONE FINAL STABNZATCN. BUT WORK REMAINS ON OTHER PARTS OF THE SITE INSPECTION° OF WE STABILIZED AREAS MAY BE REDUCED TO ONCE PER MONTH. WERE WORK HAS BEEN SUSPENDED DUE TO FROZEN GROUND CONDITIONS. THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE MUST TAKE PLACE AS SOON AS RUNOFF OCCURS AT THE SIZE OR PRIOR TO RESUMING CONSTRUCTION, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. 4.ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT BMP'S SHALL BE INSPECTED TO ENSURE INTEGRITY ANO EFFECTIVENESS. ALL NONRUCNTIONAL BMPS' SHALL BE REPAIRED, REPLACED OR SUPPLEMENTED WITH A FUNCTIONAL BMP. THE PERAIITME SHALL INVESTIGATE AND COMPLY WITH THE FOLLWING INSPECTOR AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS S.ALL SILT FENCES SHALL BE REPAIRED, REPLACED, OR SUPPLEMENTED WHEN THEY BECOME NONFUCN TONAL OR THE SEDIMENT REACHES ) OF THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE THESE REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE WITH 24 HOURS OF DISCOVERY, OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW ACCESS. 6.SURFACE WAITERS, INCLUDING DRAINAGE DITCHES AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, MUST BE INSPECTED FOR EVIDENCE OF SEDIMENT BONG DEPOSITED BY EROSION. THE PERMITTEE SHALL REMOVE ALL DELTAS AND SEDIMENT DEPOSITED IN SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING DRAINAGE WAYS, CATCH BASINS, AND OTHER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, AND RESTABIUZE THE AREAS WHERE SEDIMENT REMOVAL RESULTS IN EXPOSED SOILS. THE REMOVAL AND STABIUZATICN SHALL TME PLACE WTHIN 7 DAYS OF DISCOVERY UNLESS PRECLUDED BY LEGAL, REGULATORY, OR PHYSICAL ACCESS CONSTRAINTS. 0 THE PERMITTEE SHALL USE ALL REAS NA BLE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN ACCESS. IF PRECLUDED, REMOVAL AND STABILIZATION SHALL TAKE PLACE WITHIN 7 CALENDAR CAPS OF OBTAINING ACCESS. THE PERMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL LOCAL, REGIONAL, STALE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES AND RECEIVING ANY APPLICABLE PERMITS, PRIOR TO CONDUCTING ANY WORK. 7.CONSTRUCTON SITE VEHICLE EXIT LOCATIONS SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR EVIDENCE OF OFF-SITE SEDIMENT TRACKING ONTO PAVED SURFACES. TRACKED SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ALL OFF-SITE PAVED SURFACES WTHIN 24 HOURS OF DISCOVERY, OR IF APPLICABLE, WITHIN A SHORTER TIME B.THE PERMITTEES) ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT BMPS, AS WELL AS ALL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS, FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AT THE SITE THE PERMITTEES) ARE RESPONSIBLE UNTL MOTHER PERMITTEE HAS ASSUMED CONTROL ACCORDING TO PART II.B.S OVER ALL AREAS OF THE SITE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FINALLY STABIUZED OR TINE SITE HAS UNDERGONE FINAL STABILIZATION, AND A NOT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE MPCA. 9.IF SEDIMENT ESCAPES THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. OFF-SITE ACCUMULATIONS OF SEDIMENT MUST BE REMOVED IN A MANNER AND AT A FREQUENCY SUFFICIENT TO MINIMIZE OFF-SITE IMPACTS (E.G., FUGITIVE SEDIMENT IN STREETS COULD BE WASHED INTO STORM SEWERS BY THE NEXT RAIN AND/OR POSE A SAFETY HAZARD TO USERS OF PUBLIC STREETS). 1MALL IN LIBATION MEAS MUST BE INSPECTED TO ENSURE THAT NO SEDIMENT FROM ONGOING CGNSIRUCTION ACTIVITIES IS REACHING THE INFILTRATION AREA AND THESE AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM COMPACnON DUE TO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DRIVING ACROSS THE INFILTRATION AREA. F. POTION PREV"'TION MANAfFA!FHT MFA<lRE THE PERMITTEES) SHALL IMPLEMENT TUE FOLLOWING POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON THE SITE I.SOIID WASTE: COLLECTED SEDIMENT ASPHALT AND CONCRETE MILLINGS. FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, PLASTIC, FABRIC, CONSTRUCTION AND OEMOUTON DEBRIS AND OTHER WASTES MUSE BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. 2.HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: OL GASOLINE, PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MUST BE PROPERLY STORED, INCLUDING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, TO PREVENT S SPILL. LEAKS OR OTHER DISCHARGE RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STORAGE AREAS MUST BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WILL MPCA REGULATIONS. ].EXTERNAL WASHING OF TRUCKS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED AND WASTE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. NO ENGINE DECREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE. 4.11HE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PROHIBITS DISCHARGES OF ANY MATERIAL OTHER THAN STORMWATER. AND DISCHARGES FROM DEWATERING OF BASIN DRAINAGE ACTIVITIES. PROHIBITED DISCHARGES INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENTWASHING, MAINTENANCE SPILLS, WASH WATER, AND DISCHARGES OF OIL AND OTHER HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES NPDES CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS (CONT.) G. FlNAI cT1�Bl I]3 1.THE PERMITT'EE(S) MUST ENSURE FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE PROJECT. FINAL STABILIZATION CAN BE ACHIEVED IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS. Z.ALL SOIL DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AT THE SITE HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND ALL SOLS WILLS BE STABIUZED BY A UNIFORM PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE OVER WITH A DENSITY OF AT LEAST 70 PERCENT OVER THE ENTIRE PERVIOUS SURFACE AREA, OR OTHER EQUIVALENT MEANS NECESSARY TO PREVENT SOIL FAILURE UNDER EROSIVE CONDITIONS AND: A.ALL DRAINAGE DITCHES, CONSTRUCTED TO DRAIN WATER FROM THE SITE AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE, MUST BE STABIUZEO TO PRECLUDE EROSION; B.ALL TEMPORARY SYNTHETIC, AND STRUCTURAL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S (SUCH AS SILT FENCE) MUST BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE SITE FINAL STABILIZATION; C.THE PERMITTEE MUST CLEAN OUT ALL SEDIMENT FROM CONVEYANCES AND FROM TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS THAT ARE TO BE USED AS PERMANENT WATER QUAUTY MANAGEMENT BASINS. SEDIMENT MUST BE STABILIZED TO PREVENT IT FROM WASHING BACK INTO THE BASIN, CONVEYANCES OR DRAINAGE WAYS DISCHARGING OFF-SITE OR TO SURFACE WATERS. THE CLEANOUT OF PERMANENT BASINS MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO RETURN THE BASIN TO DESIGN CAPACITY. H. THAWING. 1.TRAINING IS REQUIRED FOR THOSE THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARATION OF THE SWPPP, MANAGEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION SIZE AND INSPECTIONS. ZWE SWPPP MUST PROVIDE A CHAIN OF COMMAND SHOWING WHO PREPARED THE SWPPP, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND INSPECTIONS 3.THE TRAINING SHALL CONSIST OF A COURSE DEVELOPED BY A LOCAL, STATE. OR FEDERAL AGENCY, PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION, WATER MGMT. ORGANIZATION, OR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT AND MUST CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS RELATED TO EROSION PREVENTION, SEDIMENT CONTROL. OR PERMANENT STORMWAIER MGMT AND MUST RELATE TO THE WORK THAT YOUR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING. WHITE PINE SENIOR LIVING SITE INTRODUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE PROPOSED WHITE PINE SENIOR LIVING SITE IS 2.00 ACRES (LOT 6 OF MENDOTA PLAZA PUT) LOCATED ALONG SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN. PROPOSED IS A ±96,000 SF FOUR-STORY BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING. STORMWATER FROM THIS SITE CURRENTLY DRAINS NORTH TO AN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED STORMWATER BASIN. THIS SITE DOES NOT DRAIN TO ANY IMPAIRED OR SPECIAL WATERS. THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN AN UNMAPPED FIRM AREA ACCORDING TO FF3,:A PER PREVIOUS REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT, ME PROJECT SITE DOES NOT INCLUDE SITES OF HISTORIC OR ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ENDANGERED & THREATENED SPECIES, RARE NATURAL COMMUNITIES, COLONIAL WATERBIRD NESTING SITES, MIGRATORY WATERFOWL. CONCENTRATION AREAS, DEER WINTERING AREAS OR WILDLIFE CORRIDORS. WETLANDS EXIST TO THE EAST OF OUR LOT ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED DELINEATION REPORT. THE IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SWPPP WILL PROVIDE THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNER WITH THE FRAMEWORK TO REDUCE SOIL EROSION AND MINIMIZE POLLUTANTS IN THE STORM WATER DURING CONSTRUCTION OF TUE SENIOR LIVING SITE. THE SWPPP WILL DEFINE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SITE AND THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR; INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION; DESCRIBE THE PRACTICES THAT WALL BE USED TO CONTROL EROSION AND THE RELEASE OF POLLUTANTS IN THE STORM WATER, INDICATE A SCHEDULE TO HELP ENSURE THAT THE PRACTICES INDICATED ARE IMPLEMENTED AND TO HELP EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PRACTICES IN REDUCING EROSION AND POLLUTANTS DISCHARGED FROM THE SITE; AND TO DESCRIBE THE FINAL STABILIZATION MEASURES REQUIRED TO HOP MINIMIZE EROSION AND OTHER STORM WATER IMPACTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION. STORMSTORM WA R POLLUTION PREEN BON PLAN IMPLEMENTA�ONPOLLUTION PREEN BON PLAN IMPLEMENTAE PLAN COORDINATION: THE SITE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE OWNER. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE FIELD SUPERVISOR FOR 114E GENERAL CONTRACTOR ANLL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN DURNG CONSTRUCTION. THIS WILL INCLUDE OVERSEEING THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BMPS THAT ARE IMPLEMENTED, PROVIDE INSPECTIONS AND MONITORING OF THE SMFS. IDENTIFY AND CORRECT ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE SWPPP, AND MONITOR THAT ANY CHANGES TO THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS ARE ADDRESSED BY THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN. PROJECT INFORMATION SITE LOCATION: THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON LOT 6 OF THE MENDOTA PLAZA PROJECT ALONG SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN. PER VICINITY MAP ON THE SWPPP PLAN. PL. THE MENDOTA PLAZA IS TO OUR WEST, OPEN LOT NORTH AND EAST, AND RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CONTROLS TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES: A LIST OF STABILIZATION MEASURES HAS BEEN TABULATED BELOW AND THE LOCATORS OF THESE MEASURES ARE SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED EROSION CONTROL PUN. THIS PROJECT WILL USE A NUMBER OF BMP'S TO HELP CONTROL EROSION AND SEDIMENT. THOSE MEASURES INCLUDE 1.STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE Z. SILT FENCE 3. CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION 4. CONCRETE WASHOUT DETAILS FOR THESE CAN BE FOUND ON THIS SHEET. THE FOLLOW TABLE PROVIDES A SCHEDULE FOR STA81UDNG DISTURBED AREAS DURING CONSTRUCTION: pcTURBFO AREA WORKING DAYS TO STAN 12E 3 TOT AND STEEPER SLOPES 7 DAYS SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3 TO 1 14 DAYS ALL DITCHES, WITHIN 200' OF OUTLET /DAY ALL OUTLETS 1 DAY ALL INLETS 1 DAY TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS ANO TRAPS I DAY SOIL STOCKPILES 7 DAYS SEE THE LANDSCAPE PUN FOR FINAL PLANT AND TURF COVERAGE OF THE SITE CONSTRUCTION TYPE THE PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF CONSTRUCTING A ±96,000 SF FOUR-STORY BUILDING, ALONG WITH THE ASSOCIATED UNDERGROUND AND SURFACE PARKING LOT, ROADWAYS. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. DRIVEWAYS, SANITARY SEWER. WATER MAN AND STORM SEWER UTILITIES. ALL OF THE RUNOFF FROM IMPERVIOUS SURFACES WILL BE COLLECTED AND ROUTED TO THE EXISTING STORMWATER BASIN NORTH OF OUR SITE PREVIOUSLY DESIGNED/SIZED TO HANDLE OUR SITE SITE GRADING AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION IS ANTICIPATED TO BEGIN IN THE SUMMER OF 2011 WITH COMPLETION OF THE SITE IN SPRING 2012 EXISTING DRAINAGE/SOIL CONDITIONS: ISO SITE WIDE CONTROL MEASURES TO PREVENT EROSION SEDIMENTS FROM LEAVING THE SITE, THE FOLLOWING BMPS WILL BE USED: • SILT FENCE. TO BE MACHINE OR HAND INSTALLED ALONG THE PERIMETER OF AREAS TO BE GRADED BEFORE GRADING BEGINS. ADDITIONAL SILT FENCE SHOULD BE KEPT ON-SITE FOR REPAIRS, REPLACEMENT OR PROTECTION OF ADDITIONAL AREAS. SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSPECTED ONCE A WEEK AND WITHIN 24 HOURS CF ANY Ye" RAIN EVENT. SEDIMENT REMOVAL REQUIRED WHEN SEDIMENTS REACH 1/3 THE HEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE. SILT FENCE CAN BE REMOVED WHEN VEGETATION FOR FINAL STABILIZATION HAS SEEN ADEQUATELY ESTABLISHED (70%). • ALL EXPOSED AREAS WITHIN 200 FEET OF A SURFACE WATER MUST BE STABIUZED NO LATER THAN 14 DAYS AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THAT PORTION OF THE SITE HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED. WHITE PINE SENIOR LIVING SITE INTRODUCTION (CONT.) • AFTER ALL AREAS ARE FINAL GRADED, THE ENTRE SITE SHALL BE SEEDED AND FERIBUZED. SLOPES WITH GRADES GREATER THAN 3 TO 1. OR WHERE CONCENTRATED FLOWS WILL OCCUR EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS AND FIBER LOGS SHALL BE INSTALLED (MAXIMUM SPACING 75 FEET). • AREAS FLOWING INTO THE STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM WILL BE STABIUZED THE DAY THE STRUCTURES ARE INSTALLED. CATCH BASIN SEDIMENT BAGS WILL BE INSTALLED THE SAME DAY AND LEFT IN PLACE UNTIL THE PROJECT 15 COMPLETED. SEDIMENTS SHALL BE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF WHEN % THE CAPACITY IS REACHED. • TOPSOIL STOCKPILES WALL BE STABILIZED WITH TEMPORARY SEED, MULCH AND FERTILIZER WITHIN 7 DAYS FROM THE LAST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THAT CREATED THE STOCKPILE • DUST WILL BE CONTROLLED BY WATER APPLICATION AND/OR SWEEPING AS NEEDED. • VEGETATIVE BUFFERS WALL BE MAINTAINED AT THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE • GRADING OPERATIONS SHOULD INCORPORATE HORIZONTAL SLOPE TRACKING MEN POSSIBLE TO HELP REDUCE EROSION. • CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. • ALL LIQUID AND SOUL) WASTES GENERATED BY CONCRETE WASHOUT OPERATIONS MUST BE CONTAINED IN A LEAK -PROOF CONTAINMENT FACIULTY OR IMPERMEABLE LINER. A COMPACTED CLAY UNER THAT DOES NOT ALLOW WASHOUT LIQUIDS TO ENTER GROUND WATER IS CONSIDERED AN IMPERMEABLE LINER. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES TO MINIMIZE STORM WATER CONTAMINATION: ALL NON -HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIALS WILL BE COLLECTED AND STORED IN A SECURE LOCATION, PREFERABLY A LOCKABLE METAL DUMPSTER. AT THE END OF EACH DAY. ALL TRASH AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHOULD BE DEPOSITED IN THE DUMPSTER AT THE END OF EACH DAY AND WILL BE EMPTIED AS NECESSARY. NO CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SHALL BE BURIED ON-SITE A LICENSED SANITARY WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPANY WALL COLLECTALL SANITARY WASTE FROM PORTABLE UNITS GOOD HOUSEKEEPING AND SPILL CONTROL PRACTICES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED TO MINIMIZE STORM WATER CONTAMINATION. THE FOLLOWING SNIPS VALL BE USED: • FERITUZER SHALL NOT BE STORED ON-SITE ALL UNUSED PORTIONS SHALL BE PLACED IN A SEALED BIN AND REMOVED FROM THE SITE BY APPLICATOR. • ALL VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT USED ON-SITE SHALL BE IN GOOD WORKING ORDER AND REGULARLY INSPECTED FOR LEAKS • PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SHALL BE STORED IN LABELED AND SEALED CONTAINERS. • SPILL KITS SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT ALL FUELING AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD ALSO USE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT MEASURES ON -SIZE • ALL ASPHALT PRODUCTS USED ON SITE SHALL BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE IWYK THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. • ALL PAINT CONTAINERS AND CURING COMPOUNDS WILL BE KEPT IN TIGHTLY SEAL CONTAINERS, AND PROPERLY DISPOSED OF AFTER USE EXCESS PAINT CANNOT BE DISCHARGED INTO THE STORM WATER SYSTEM. • SPILL CONTAINMENT MATERIALS (SAW DUST, KITTY UT77R OIL ABSORBENT PRODUCTS, GLOVES. TRASH LINERS) SHALL BE KEPT ON-SITE INCASE OF A SPILL ALL SPILLS SHALL BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY. • CONCRETE TRUCKS WILL BE ALLOWED TO WASH OUT ONLY IN DESIGNATED AREAS, OR ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WASH OUT 014-51M. ALL WORK AREAS SHOULD BE KEPT GRADED RELATIVELY SMOOTH TO PREVENT CONCENTRATED FLOWS AND THE FORMATION OF RUTS AND GULIEYS, AND THE COLLECTION OF STORM WATER. • A STABLIZED ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED. • ALLADJACENT PAVED SURFACES AND STREETS SHALL BE SWEPT DAILY TO REMOVE ALL DUST AND SEDIMENTS. OPEN-AIR BROOMS WILL BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE DUST AND SEDIMENTS ARE WET. • TRUCKS HAUUNG SOILS TO AND FROM THE SITE SHALL COVER THEIR LOADS, I,' FlnITOATVG�DT1 _ 1FFFA OWFA T oR Y 1TPE aR Ytl.' NARNTv00 PEx2 NO MRL 11-1/2 OA e' uAK uE91 OPENNO K1EA FAewRC I. I'M 1"s 1 mpmr NPM FwIu1P 4. OR APPROWD EQUAL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE/?M I."�F Sun, ine. I N K 4• M1mE Pvl¢ TO FAp PmT MTI oToW OO �6N Y uIH Hurt£ ns ®MiNSO• f I M ORA / � ON t411ER (SFE NOT[ Q TO eAo.umlrT siAl�os MM oVNeM n �MRE TIES aR al�x L ATTAEN TIE WO\EN 1K.RE PACE N LVN - ANO INE EORRYIE TO WE bOD9l MnE PEN¢ (SP EwRY ]07 qM MREE MRF n6 oR OTTER TAsIFNERs ALL SPA® NTMN WE TOP Y ff 111 FABPoC AOI ud X CYC IIYG rc SLT f 'B1¢ uAlm . OmER TIEY s1' L 6E• OweMPm�AR'rnio55lxa Pasts 1 YIN_NIAF 1xE NQc1rt ff T¢ FABmC NYS MAINE a�EW WT OUSE EA[W WCTn NEPMIeT iaAYPNNoi E]f® ULAIfn YMYFNR iAol RGOWO ONE -NNE Tff NFIWT aF TIE SFT FOIA YATNAL RENO AB01F ENME A WL SAT POI¢ MI£Ts STALL MQIAE NNE SVPPdl1T. PPFN� 2 • 4 KnmFN STN¢ SILT FENCE ""9 W'aW� INLET PRTECTiON (9 N.T. ¢o1ExmE Macuxm� �l(�y /�• TEMPORARY STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE N.FS MIN.. 10' A A 10' MIN. - STAKE (IYPJ PLAN T1W 9TH 2 LAYERS 6 NIL PLASTID LINING TLT% 12' RWGN yA)OD F1UNE YM1KIO FRME SEIDRELY FASIDUL MOUND ENTRE PFgILHWITH TWT OPPOSI- NG STAKES VV SECTION A -A 45'24' PAINTED N.TS WHITE PL»woo RETE WSW i LACK LEOBIs 3' C HEIGHT 1..O•DDENUTES WE INIERIMI MMORSI . 1 CGNGIEIE WASHOUT SHALL BE AT -.•.. FAST 50 FT. FROM ANY STORY SEM,TR INLET 3' CONEAEM WASHOUT SIGN SHALLM.1)DD PO515 BE INSTALLED MTTN XI FT. OF WE u 4"c4'•6' 1TDIPOIIMY CONCRETE WASNWT ACIUM LONCREIE WASHOUT SIGN DETAIL (OIL EWIVM W) TEMPORARY CONCRETE WASHOUT W ABOVE GRAD N.T.S. f .. ff y J Yi' t 1 f / e.:. t:,:- f t..,, t. < �•., ,., S� `I j J /'� ��/ �i�/ l! 3.. ✓,1',: l %J � 4 V 705 LF �' w h f y � •. .�4[Yx FUlO'TiT1 j� 1%/ ,iii°e��p�hfij; BENCHMARK� rK> ��r/ Y t f" // • / < y } ; TOP NUT HYDRANT r / • /< 2/y// {,`�, > z y f�>r f r. , ,}. j EL.EV-856.38 ! Y'' l f�.`�i' �SYi�'i/ i /��P, //��• '~f fy y�T �/' ARK TNH=856.36xvi PROPOSED �17' SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING �' B' _ — D 96,000± S.F. f5P FOUR STORY WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING �4! , G F y y .l T 5 L }o FIRST FLOOR FFE = 851.50 A. BASEMENT FFE = 840.50 14 LF y; //STMH )'... S i.:,'.g�l '. J //✓ _ j C 1 } t ; y, 1( II. jI N 4. `V7 % / i � �/ �i `"1� J'✓i / S\ �i.� � Ly/` ''.il �, �2� y l•� ,�r � 1� i.� � i 'L E �:. Lp�a y/' ✓ ! '..Y / / '/ \\\i \ I } 'L-..��r.`l, ��iT--� .. i Tom, '� � _ y ,✓`, F :� �/ /`y-__ .s 3.� S I 1, L�if' '. •� y O 'y /,: �'•\ y' I'<E \\�, ? > "y 31 LF t I �(' `rte/ y / ✓ t / ! f, 1'�/•. _ / Tf r P {ry Lr >OUTH PLAZA DRIVE 1 0 d' R=270. C BRG= / 0 SITE BENCHMARK eo,auin�uR mrATm w WEsr TE I i�TeBTt= a ,HE eEBr ABAK9,T D,mEaIY, PPRomAI¢r yr Norm of rHE muTNwaT PnmERTr �0 0 v�Dn q� �ssnail.c sram vAW�ieamuac"nDoc , N+o ¢ u1u.THNs A!9 PREasE euuwc aluwsors TOTAL sTE Aw zm Aoa=.s m naPD u. I>,na' r amn zap m — wo — Lw¢sr�uea FROWCf➢ .e.+w EF m a.ers P Iuvea ss of m— B, a vAv�ma mr REaocnED PAmu1D Lor LAHDYlFep 1,nD sF Da >.DA PDIDm mNFPN.1 Pm NAS b lLNnxS SHOwN, PRaP05m 11J95GNE faNl a Pluml¢s ❑ LANDSCAPE DETAILS 50A TREE PLANTING(TWJ 5EB SHRUB PLANTING (TYP.) Q LANDSCAPE NOTES 5DA 6' POLYETHYLENE EBGINc. PLANT LIST COMMON NAME KEY QTY SIZE CQMMENTS BOTANICAL NAME sRUL..— P, Aura—PF B PaureE FXa: rn.TAVPIE .s cN. BS 10 BIRTE mmu. e' TALL em � tv➢uGNO N — > ¢LL uN. N• AT IBE 6 PVNTN¢ sPF... a,wBP •ueR,.,.,e NP a aw�wr wDo PNE � OLE lorL zr At TDIE a Pw+urc PLAN m TYPED nL¢"KYY MLBceAN¢E" TREEwR . I—, Hwa BY11' —EER V3 BAunL POST aEDuam AT lm UNWSNBBm Svas0. s amE DzoN TED T wA � EVD��t nVewAw�sEm� µ AxD NAu- s aF E Y Bee 4ATEnlA1 BFFOaE 0 of /YIN¢ NO PIANTNO BEYEWS PER - BE ADHFAm M BY T1EE�W UWPE WSTAVEA.TB E Ac�PIED TREE PLANTING -, uAT I- B w�i+nNa em) r� wj e k B. WHEN BEND.£ BURLY REPE • r•— 5 pT Ali-wA o. — EF IRE ¢tsT7ANEilYI¢N1T BeB MAIEdN. �JINpIS'IUXSDY 41BSdt NO TIE IAµ— -PIN— LVITu D -POST BE ADHERED TO BY TRE SHRUB PLANTING SORE y� 1—I/orA-ww (651)61 9]-0804 Al PROPERTY UNE YS A SOM PLAZA DRIVE ------- EASEMENT UNE :: ``^C Q I -'a / /� ///ir y�V`��/� �y((4 Y/ y , i / J U 9 *51'28"W /rS 7' .r\ ,✓ el / 1 /� �✓ �/ i % ( S f , 3 %'4T r �'' ��• y / 3r./ //` y �. ff y J Yi' t 1 f / e.:. t:,:- f t..,, t. < �•., ,., S� `I j J /'� ��/ �i�/ l! 3.. ✓,1',: l %J � 4 V 705 LF �' w h f y � •. .�4[Yx FUlO'TiT1 j� 1%/ ,iii°e��p�hfij; BENCHMARK� rK> ��r/ Y t f" // • / < y } ; TOP NUT HYDRANT r / • /< 2/y// {,`�, > z y f�>r f r. , ,}. j EL.EV-856.38 ! Y'' l f�.`�i' �SYi�'i/ i /��P, //��• '~f fy y�T �/' ARK TNH=856.36xvi PROPOSED �17' SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING �' B' _ — D 96,000± S.F. f5P FOUR STORY WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING �4! , G F y y .l T 5 L }o FIRST FLOOR FFE = 851.50 A. BASEMENT FFE = 840.50 14 LF y; //STMH )'... S i.:,'.g�l '. J //✓ _ j C 1 } t ; y, 1( II. jI N 4. `V7 % / i � �/ �i `"1� J'✓i / S\ �i.� � Ly/` ''.il �, �2� y l•� ,�r � 1� i.� � i 'L E �:. Lp�a y/' ✓ ! '..Y / / '/ \\\i \ I } 'L-..��r.`l, ��iT--� .. i Tom, '� � _ y ,✓`, F :� �/ /`y-__ .s 3.� S I 1, L�if' '. •� y O 'y /,: �'•\ y' I'<E \\�, ? > "y 31 LF t I �(' `rte/ y / ✓ t / ! f, 1'�/•. _ / Tf r P {ry Lr >OUTH PLAZA DRIVE 1 0 d' R=270. C BRG= / 0 SITE BENCHMARK eo,auin�uR mrATm w WEsr TE I i�TeBTt= a ,HE eEBr ABAK9,T D,mEaIY, PPRomAI¢r yr Norm of rHE muTNwaT PnmERTr �0 0 v�Dn q� �ssnail.c sram vAW�ieamuac"nDoc , N+o ¢ u1u.THNs A!9 PREasE euuwc aluwsors TOTAL sTE Aw zm Aoa=.s m naPD u. I>,na' r amn zap m — wo — Lw¢sr�uea FROWCf➢ .e.+w EF m a.ers P Iuvea ss of m— B, a vAv�ma mr REaocnED PAmu1D Lor LAHDYlFep 1,nD sF Da >.DA PDIDm mNFPN.1 Pm NAS b lLNnxS SHOwN, PRaP05m 11J95GNE faNl a Pluml¢s ❑ LANDSCAPE DETAILS 50A TREE PLANTING(TWJ 5EB SHRUB PLANTING (TYP.) Q LANDSCAPE NOTES 5DA 6' POLYETHYLENE EBGINc. PLANT LIST COMMON NAME KEY QTY SIZE CQMMENTS BOTANICAL NAME sRUL..— P, Aura—PF B PaureE FXa: rn.TAVPIE .s cN. BS 10 BIRTE mmu. e' TALL em � tv➢uGNO N — > ¢LL uN. N• AT IBE 6 PVNTN¢ sPF... a,wBP •ueR,.,.,e NP a aw�wr wDo PNE � OLE lorL zr At TDIE a Pw+urc PLAN m TYPED nL¢"KYY MLBceAN¢E" TREEwR . I—, Hwa BY11' —EER V3 BAunL POST aEDuam AT lm UNWSNBBm Svas0. s amE DzoN TED T wA � EVD��t nVewAw�sEm� µ AxD NAu- s aF E Y Bee 4ATEnlA1 BFFOaE 0 of /YIN¢ NO PIANTNO BEYEWS PER - BE ADHFAm M BY T1EE�W UWPE WSTAVEA.TB E Ac�PIED TREE PLANTING -, uAT I- B w�i+nNa em) r� wj e k B. WHEN BEND.£ BURLY REPE • r•— 5 pT Ali-wA o. — EF IRE ¢tsT7ANEilYI¢N1T BeB MAIEdN. �JINpIS'IUXSDY 41BSdt NO TIE IAµ— -PIN— LVITu D -POST BE ADHERED TO BY TRE SHRUB PLANTING SORE y� 1—I/orA-ww (651)61 9]-0804 \ss PROPERTY UNE YS A SOM PLAZA DRIVE ------- EASEMENT UNE :: Q% 5 Crime 0 20' 30' 40 SCALE IN FEET EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT u FOUND IRON 1—I/orA-ww (651)61 9]-0804 SANITARY MANHOLE PROPERTY UNE SHEET NO. SOM PLAZA DRIVE ------- EASEMENT UNE :: WATERMAIN VALVE ..._.. ADJACENT LOT UNE - FIRE HYDRANT ...... .. SANITARY SEWER UNE N¢ ......._..... STORM SEWER UNE : 1 STORM MANHOLE .. _. WATERMAIN GAS UNE .� CATCHBASIN - .. FIBER OPTIC UNE ,-- -- --- UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC .;. STREET LIGHT CONTWRS SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED BOUNDARY UNE — RICHT OF WAY UNE O TYPICAL PUNTING WITH QUANTITY AND KEY (SEE PLANT UST) ® 4' MULCHED AREA 4' TOPSOIL AND SODDED AREA GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES A. -LOCATE ALL UTIURES AND SITE LIGHTING CONDUITS BEFORE LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. B. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO ANY PLANTING. C. ALL DISTURBED AREAS AS DESIGNATED OH TIHE GRADING PUN SHALL BE SODOM. D. FERTILIZE ALL PLANTS AT THE TIME OF PLANTING WITH A TIME RELEASE FERTILIZER PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFIED APPLICATION RATES E SEE GRADING PLAN FOR APPUCATION OF TOPSOIL AND MAINTENANCE OF SODDED AREAS. F. HARDWOOD MULCH SHALL BE USED AS A FOUR INCH (4') TOP DRESSING IN ALL PLANT BEDS AND AROUND ALL TREES SINGLE TREES OR SHRUBS SHALL BE MULCHED TO THE OUTSIDE EDGE OF THE SAUCER OR LANDSCAPE ISLAND (SEE PLANTING DETAILS). MATCH EXISTING ROCK MULCH ON-SITE G. CONTRACTOR TO DESIGN AND INSTALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM CAPABLE OF PROVIDING ADEQUATE COVEREAGE TO ALL SODDED AND LANDSCAPE AREAS. PROVIDE DESIGN TO ENGINEER FOR RENEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALL CITY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS A ALL SITE AREAS NOT COVERED BY BUILDINGS, SIDEWALKS, PARKING LOTS, DRIVEWAYS, PATIOS OR SIMILAR HARD SURFACE MATERIALS SHALL BE SODDED, EXCEPT THOSE AREA TO BE PRESERVED IN A NATURAL STATE; PROMOED, HOWEVER. THAT AREAS RESERVED FOR FUTURE BUILDING EXPANSIONS MAY BE SEEDED. B, MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING: THE OWNER, TENANT AND THEIR RESPECTIVE AGENTS SHALL BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ALL LANDSCAPING IN A CONDITION PRESENTING A HEALTHY, NEAT AND ORDERLY APPEARANCE AND FREE FROM REFUSE AND DEBRIS. PLANTS AND GROUND COVER WHICH ARE REWIRED BY AN APPROVED SITE OR LANDSCAPE PLAN AND WHICH HAVE DIED SHALL BE REPLACED AS SOON AS SEASONAL OR WEATHER CONDITIONS ALLOW. C. WHEN SCREENING, LANDSCAPING OR SIMILAR IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPERTY ARE REWIRED BY THIS CHAPTER, A PERFORMANCE BOND SHALL BE SUPPUED BY THE OWNER IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO AT LEAST ONEAND ONE-HALF (i J) TIMES THE VALUE OF SUCH SCREENING, LANDSCAPING OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THE BOND, WHICH SECURITY SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY, SHALL BE CONDITIONED UPON REIMBURSEMENT OF ALL UPENSES INCURRED BY THE CITY FOR ENGINEERING, LEGAL OR OTHER FEES IN CONNECTION WITH MAKING OR COMPLETING SUCH IMPROVEMENTS. THE LEGAL OR OTHER FEES IN CONNECTION WITH MAKING OR COMPLETING SUCH IMPROVEMENTS, THE BOND SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT AND SHALL BE VAUD FOR A PERIOD OF TIME EQUAL TO ONE FULL GROWING SEASON AFTER THE DATE OF INSTAUl1TON OF TME LANDSCAPING. THE C7Y MAV ACCEPT A LETTER OF CREDIT. CASH ESCROW OR EQUIVALENT IN UEU OF ABOND IN AN AMOUNT AND UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS AS THE CITY MAY DETERMINE TO BE APPROPRIATE. IN THE EVENT CONSTRUCTION OF A THE PROJECT IS NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THE CITY MAY, AT ITS OPTION, COMPLETE THE WORK REWIRED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE OWNER AND THE SURETY. D. THE CITY MAY ALLOW AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME FOR COMPLETION OF ALL LANDSCAPING IF THE DELAY IS DUE TO CONDITIONS WHICH ARE REASONABLY BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE DEVELOPER. EXTENSIONS, WHICH MAY NOT EXCEED NINE (9) MONTHS, MAY BE GRANTED DUE TO SEASONAL OR WEATHER CONDITIONS. WHEN AN EXTENSION IS GRANTED, THE CITY SHALL REQUIRE SUCH ADDITIONAL SECURITY AS IT DEEMS APPROPRIATE- INITIAL PPROPRIATE INITIAL DESIGN Engineering Associates, Inc. 2277 WEST HIGHWAY J6, SVITE 200 ROSEWWF, MN 55113 1—I/orA-ww (651)61 9]-0804 LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE SHEET NO. SOM PLAZA DRIVE ],;,1f 1.08 PM 7 of 8 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MINNESOTA REVI ®:OL. ED ENONEE,NND ASRDOA>rs N¢ E s]E M0 I All "FxPosm CORexns to A. I/.- m— Aaxe M HaaLprtAl BMs "`�' �� maB eM5 ro � � �vEN �o• as . A PUH" m 4 ags9 PnaxS Ma naw DxLe ossWAUt srtnPWe (ir s,OAx p! PVNS) YY5 PA—Ion a unB 5 Awvw ria nu;wrs e h a b c�x�s+Auiio"'Bi Bm x.s ssavr Y ox, sm 1 e x¢ eA�nro er mAOB Ba b wi mule - s<anox sw t»'� NOTES, z v A5. e e Aix w "BiE' A YAnYi10u`u omr uv su+L "A - 'Y -I I v.c cone ,.' P;a°Omvx' ' CORNER RAR TMIE or w wu vuemyxxmuLr�m .. .. _ __ _ - .„. (umr ouTr) �''-p m YeX" - '� _ or .i TMOEw 7. -� I ."v , vn r- wEauluwns ruvAcnc„ _r G i 1 wnsmun�Pm AB.A sru Mos msnrw srawal; sa v'•w Y�wor �EvrcAAiwr'F }--f y APLAN '-Y e- - �A A STANDARD DUTY OP;eE YOA rmexa�_ aoP rom J /FANO MFA ASPHALT PAVING. Nr•� TYPE "A• CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER , If tax P P.e� TswawlEl �"WTM w L+2 uAx AT tuna E row Mo Dene % lm) l A x' a a amore aRa PLAN D e u� t B w vac •ra. x wYwsLrs A .alar (Trv> A asw Ps vc rnw mm x -A, e T Plv rxa"Fi bl rf PiPB Tncenm e• EaK of uuv ulx. PLAN NF_W B SECTION OF SIDEWALK WHEN BORDERING PAVEMENT A rncAxrsc r E saPIHCEPmnax Bwxom oou °1 TxTm >awln •wra-MY w wr MwswwaiBOB yl axAc iw ou vATirw, �4': cwim or—m.. 1 r nuaelrs°mrvanm Yk' cw.w o mvw"m °° cw. - 4y T mm ups -ii—Ton maim FA e e etli d kg1Al a cove l �a ,ex ss uAx _ uAx rnun F®iu Brsi" or soevix xxr 0_1 I .. ' .:. :: .. e • '. .. } _ - �...:.:.i... -. . T mm m�`iAm ..:.:.. :,.. _ ,: SECTION A—A 1500 P9 N. aARm"axmavwT n) 4.-1nPl— �xaR,E ' 'mm trrv> �.. rta•-a•1M,x •-e s a SECTION "A" -"A" ELEVATION WHEELCHAIR RAMP IN SIDEWALK v.ol wA"r ui a� xa' Cmc cavA a�rot SEC LECTION R -B A—a SaX ro. �a"P9aB m w a A •I''i'/vYAaEa�Pnw�n JUNCTION BOK YPICAL AT EACH DRIVEWAY CURB RETURN) r (TYPICAL nocwAA� CONCRETE SIDEWALK gymD x.T.s .S Ni.s x..� (aNTmYATL ro YEET Amt eeea m air5f) SchedMle Downs ut P'' PI a e' • e' io' , to stirs sTowa couPLY rem Oy AamMTYwi m 1xls coo6 '�"TI d,x"sws N�AccmB• m`ixx rmt,[a x�Axo°P`�°ciuFu�.'s wsmYcnoxs `� BA"oxo MM w a n� Ai P® a L.•oI ^� uxrW,o NAI TE I � -� �- � �'`" iNE swFA¢ m ) s soca NO suSaRovxwx0 srcR- r emi ¢�sBl£ PARx ,x0 ux auFnlxo saw Au JoINT�A C () „P Axl uuu as xa Pmag a _ 24"x36" slab opening for casting - He A`A�<r 77 Rso°aFa Fon _ _ as specified. a siTirB°R z YA"wu \ i \ Dimension from back of curb to center of pipe. 1 I 4' Dia. MH - 9" in from Back of Curb I T—L vWrn w¢ Ma 12 x I' xmE ar srAre m Lori uw P Mxa. (z ./R.) a �I \ \ /e• f— �/ A1N140i„u 5' Dia. MH - 3" in from Back of Carb ^ Ma P rom aB�a 6' Dia. MH - 3" behind Back of car6 T 9" behind Rack Curb a = WHEELCHAIR RAMP IN SIDEWALK r, xxrmlax Dia. MH - of 8' Dia. MH - 15" behind Back of Cirb ® tTma+) x sEz Wore n _-� Casting and adjustment it,�� rings as specified. •M•-mMxa POST y � W/ W„mriE wg.rmAn%eaxme� m.EcioR Ewmm�w „ aT¢) •� 6" prgcast "' reinforced co fete slab. For 6 dmanhole, an n8 precast slab is required. vc A" or mxmER I zi>a fnR ALL oma smrEA mUmi[As ii"HAMx iw naoeYIFY Nr�uA�r�� usm. .nB vlbY mPS Varies Top of barrel section under tOW lab S b ®� �1 � O1T `vxc°•xvwi cilmru�ir"�o>HFmuR"rT-UI,wi" MY �A .1. ma ARE 1) THB u °. sr � sNre"a`xw ' "m 12"-1 to have flat top edge sealed ith or haveequa 2 beads of Ra manhole All joints in manhole to have � • s: tj Pw" • srAxoARa RFn Mo x+.re sax e3 a""� o iav_wre �_ i Ixc AMT Au nonx m MFoe oxc iHIT aH.Varies .) IxnAu PwFs azw orEPORaasxeouARos aro Bmm sMwlncAwvmwM�sLOCATE 0" ring rubber gaskets. 4 -O TYPCE Precast concrete section •:.., =� NOTES, AT ED E UNLESS ACCO PA IED BY 'VAN- LETTERING TTERING ACCESSIBLE VAN ACCESSIBLE Doghouses shall be grouted on bath " the outside and inside. Si GN BASE,- PARKING SIGN "DO NOT ENTER' ACCESSIBLE PARKING SyMBOLjB DOWNSPOUT COLLECTOR r , x.rs "`7 s" > Manhole steps, Neenah R1981J or equal, 16" D.C. u c No block structures are allowed. -moi 6 T� "` s PATMf+-'aao-a xc SIGN r, ..'s. ' e Pux "`£ Tm Y_o.„ E -TING CURB oVERROW Is .q OF THE CURB BOX HEIGHT 00000D�� Minimum slab thickness, 6" for 14' ' depth. Increase thickness 1" for ELAR Dch 4' of depth greater than 14', and reinforce with 6"x6" 10/10 mesh. SECTIO Grout bottom d b wMCO ROAD DRAIN CC -23• HIGH ROW „� 6 Y-oA "E OR CRY APPROVED EQUAL s YA of INLET PROTECTION CURB AND C4HI—ROW A 12 MIN. —Con PAwxc Ao u � 1/1eu :AR Y2 I 5Yl 1'�- 1 'o FVV•---- xo Amc itoW Art Tp e[ sato miaw u�itEcm[ - Irc.1s ABOK a P oz H.GHT CURB INLET _ �G1N °°"`� " AROW AT TaP orTBR A-BLrCURB STOP BAR ,"Q TRAFFlC FLOWARROBAe tiV DESIGN1FR ASSEMBLY R. D�rINITIAL T'oGo o o D.LTER WHITE PINE SENIOR LiVING , Engineering Associates, Inc. CAAOE' AT LOW P T 1 —s SDEonmP „eB"MLrm �BArnwa�i BRIC mu EwMFNis � ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURKttJRS • FOR THE NEW R -3290 -OA STANDARD CC INSTALL WIMCO ROAD DRAIN DIM�N 510N TABLE LANDSCAPE ARCNIIECTS ENNRONMENTAL SLIEN iI5i5 CC -3290 OR CITY APPROVED EQUAL -329, A - 12" B= C 10 2277 F1E57 HIGHWAY J6, SUITE 200 (651)697-0600 ROSENLLE, MN 5511) FAX.'(651)697-0804 DETAILS DA E ]DB SHEET NO. PAVED ROADAOT INLET PROTECTION P H.r.s TRENCH DRAIN SOU771 PLAZA DRIVE :D6 '. a of s MENDOTA HE HTS MINNESOTA ®,B,I m I REV1 waNF�,xe As�aA,Ef wa Topographic Survey el k°` PAS TER ENTERPR/SES Mendota Mail Associated LLP Add—., Not Assigned �// yIE eis_oi ms Mendota Maighis, MN 55118 ;VICINITY MAP \ t s{ NOT TO SCALE T.H. N0. 110 i i i i .14_ x836.06 836.OSz--�J SITE 1A.:' / I I II l ��_�__�_�_�____837 836 _839 \ J J L \\ \ ��C`\rJ/CEJ—YY— x__840 _� - NORTH � � - �O�to. `I\�'\\\\ N\ 45.41 0 ':'g SW 1/4 OF SECTION 25, \`mac \ I TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH -RANGE 23 WEST /841.49 `� yy DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 841'26 d Mendota Mall Associates LLP `' 1 850.06 150 Nignway 11D 55 1 \ / 846.92E \ \ 1w 841.46 Mendota Heights, MN 118/ / / 848.41 S 1 BENCHMARK--- S + o / m410 x 841.39 TNN=856.36 i 1 tT�� tT � eG/ / /m \ 88.03' ' `, 1�1 •� co>z» c\ 848.87 I �s----<z-- c S 1 m / 9 4 .yr I "Katt B I Line 849.36 LJ L O F� ,J� / \ "-, x ApPl0. T— • \ \ � �i 844.32 No Bui�dings \ \\ w - 849,89 / \ �'� ,>•v� a �i 1851.031 x \\ • ' I I '/esD� // \ �� /x 852.88 •l,1 I I `\� x650.55 6 1 rI n S�S�CJ a'�7 �p Mendota Mall 9scaeFa(ed LLP / \ I itr' 4r t�24f�5y -0�t* t Sear 'Heti :Mendota Moll Associated LLP Address N t Aaaigned / .. Address Not Assigned ( 31 \ \\ Mandofa ghts, MN 55119/ / X / 1 PJTt i 1rg Mendota Heights, MN 55118 I :I \ / -852.36--, \ pi'-"�r' 185 to be rem vcd �y PreNo I he d - 851.09 Is� _ 3�i it 48 iii 6 59 S4E = \�57 rt \ a,rr'ga, r s'i ... d tib; .. ..� �� J E'� • �� i� I�� — W � ga SrYH .. f pp UC VO U` W d V \ I s� �U r L O T 6, BL OCK7, Ok MENDOTA PLANA EXPANS/ON MENOO TA HEIC QTS, M/NNESO TA 7 O 30 60 SCALE IN FEET r!:: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (A For Schedule A of Commit -t to Title from C rci 1 P rt TIUe LLC a g t for Old R p bll N U nal TIUe Insurance Company, Flo No. 33430, dated 5 pt b r 23, 2010) to 6, Block 1, MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION, according to the recorded plat th f D k la County, Mlnnesoto Together with the b -o is of easements contalned in D -1—t- of Easements, Covenant., Candltione and Re,trictb- doted December 16, 2009, Mod March 22, 2010, as Document No. 2720496 D-koto County, Minnt Ab t t P op rty . NOTES --1 i F I ple emhlp Is —led d I Mendel Moll Ass toles, LLP, a Mlnne,oto limited I obNlty portnerahlp. 2 Areo of property le 87,290 eq f, or 2.00 ocm. 3. Property Ie oblr,,t. 4. Property le zoned MU PUD (Mined Uea Planned Unit Development) under ppli bl —1.9 requlotlone. 5. 8u11ding setbacks vary per proposed lot Intl ore negotloted on on IndMd 1 b Its. 6. The property has I—. to South Plaza Ddre, a dedicated publla at—L 7. The addreee of the property hoe not been oeefgned. B. bone round utflites hove been Geld located ae shown. NI undo round utility t she which serve the ro ort have Ittem led o 9 r9 Y t be field located throw h the P p Y P 9 serdce, of C her State One Call er ilcket number 100544308. However m I ie e of the uUlt c e oiled to Deld .,cote under round wilt aP P Y o t location. In those ca mpan Y ullli{Ies shown ore from Cit of Mendota d. h, and revious rocordc The eurve r makes no u ra {ees the the under qg City g p yo g o n t �rountl utNillee shown comprise all such utilities h Ne area, either in eervic abandoned. Th, ¢urve)or further does not w t that Uie underground utNitles shown In the exact location Ind toted although he does certify that they Ire located as acourotely ae possible from Inform -Us Noble. Tha rveyor has not Physirnlly located the underground utilities. Prior to any excawilon or digging contact Gopher State One Call for an on—alta locollon (651-454-0002). 9. Site epoel0c utility service (Specifically — S-11.,S—,tbe. Goa lineI 11 Dectrlc and--lootlon llnee and eerNce) l—t"n le pentlinq find design for Lot 6. Utility Information shown hereon Is from; bore n, {hoed Goph State O coil i)cket No. 100544308, Oeld Iowlion and con,tnrdion Plone. 10. Site Benchmark Is Top Nut Hydrant (TNH) w wool side of p,lwte drive eh can 11. Surface fstar- ware not acoesslble M the SE & SW portion of the property on dole of survey (,now storage 0LEGENDSi" V-,.:-rr �_�._ ___�+„�:;,,"'",•,��T ";,..,.S.a,,. s?i,.i:`s:; • m IRON MONUMENT FOUND I WATERMAIN O-= SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 4>e= UE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICHYDRANT O — STORM SEW£R MANHOLE FO — FIBER OPTIC TELEPHONE ®ar®e CA1OH BASIN UG - UNDERGRWHID GAS as CATE VALVE 1f (r = LIGHT POLE 311 vi : - BINMINB SURFACE OU Contour Interval= 1 Ft. _,....CONCRETE SURFACE -B BASIS OF BEARINGS Gam- :.�>: �^, rr z.f�R For the purpose,f this survey thet It.. f Lot 8 Block 1, MENDOTA PLAZA EXPANSION, di gt W d,d plot thereof, Dakota County, Mlnneeolo Is oe- d to boor Naa14!WW. f` QQ I T W jZ C 7 O �v C'4 N In CMACT INFORMATION OWNER: WHITE PINE 5ENIOR LIVING 120 MAIN 5TREET, SUITE 205 MENDOTA HEI6HT5, MN 55118 PHONE: b51.251.020 - FAX: b51.281.02bb ARCHITECT: RIVER VALLEY ARCHITECT5, Imo. Ob13 CTY. HWY. 5 - 5OUTH JIM FALLS, Al 54148 PHONE: 115.382.4100 - FAX: 115.382.4101 CIVIL CONSULTANT: CEI ENGINEERING, INC. 2211 WE5T HIGHWAY 3b, 5UITE 200 R05EVILLE, MN 55113 PHONE:.51.01.0800 - FAX: b51.b11.ObO4 PLUMBING, HVAC 4 ELECTRICAL: OE516N-BUILD BY OTHER5 GENERAL CONTRACTOR: HOEFT BUILDER5, INC. 310 PINNACLE WAY, 5UITE 301 EAU CLAIRE, Al 54101 PHONE: 115.833.I1b1 - FAX: 115.833.1120 f;—o' Ll\/IN6 rwiH I TE Amom�'l N 11 l I 'I - A q� q _76 —� �' r — W • THE CONTRACTOR 5HALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL EX15TIN S CONDITIONS IWLLOINB LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND EASEMENTS. • ALL WORK SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL CODES FOR RE5FWTIVE TRADES. • DO HOT SCALE 9RAWUd65. • THE CONTRACTOR MALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. • PROVIDE ILLUMINATED EXIT LI&HT5 AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS PER PLAN. • PROVIDE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AT THE LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. • EXIT DOORS SHALL HAVE WCH FASTENING OR HARDWARE THAT THEY CAN BE OPENED FROM THE INSIDE BY TURNING A 51NSLE LEVER (i A CLOSED FIST) WITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY. • PROVIDE ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. ICG/AN51 AII1.1-2003. White Pine Senior Living T,E: CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RE5PON51BLE FOR FROVIDIN& EXPANSIOWCONTROL JOINTS IN ALL MATERIALS, SYSTEMS AND BUILDING CONFIGLRAATIONS INCLUDING CAULKING AS REQUIRED. JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED NO MORE THAN 12'OL. BOTH DIRECTIONS IN CONCRETE 5LAB5, 20' TO 25' OC. FOR MA50NRY KALI-5 AND 20' TO 50'of- BOTH DIRECTIONS FOR 6YP" BOARD WALL5, 50FFIT5, CEILINGS, ETC. T1ERE 15 SOME OVERLAP BETYEEN ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL PLANS. REVIEW COMPLETE PLANS FOR ARCHITECTURAL1STRXTURAL WORK. PROVIDE A DESIGNATED SPACE ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING FOR THE 511PARATION, TEMPORARY 5TORAGE AND COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS. DRAWIN65 AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TO BE CON51PERED AS WIPLe ENTING Ei1GH OTHER WORK SFWFIED, BUT NOT SHOWN OR 5HOWN, BUT NOT SPECIFIED 514ALL BE P AS THIOU&H MENTIONED IN BOTH 5PECIFICATION5 AND ORMIN65. INDEXSHEET AO TITLE 5HEET Ibin ally? .. 4lY w J ti;K 3ry A2 1®t FLOOR PLAN A3 al�asTr�Is 4,. A4 1 ' A5 : 4th FLOOR PLAN f;—o' Ll\/IN6 rwiH I TE Amom�'l N 11 l I 'I - A q� q _76 —� �' r — W • THE CONTRACTOR 5HALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL EX15TIN S CONDITIONS IWLLOINB LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND EASEMENTS. • ALL WORK SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL CODES FOR RE5FWTIVE TRADES. • DO HOT SCALE 9RAWUd65. • THE CONTRACTOR MALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS. • PROVIDE ILLUMINATED EXIT LI&HT5 AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS PER PLAN. • PROVIDE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AT THE LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. • EXIT DOORS SHALL HAVE WCH FASTENING OR HARDWARE THAT THEY CAN BE OPENED FROM THE INSIDE BY TURNING A 51NSLE LEVER (i A CLOSED FIST) WITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY. • PROVIDE ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. ICG/AN51 AII1.1-2003. White Pine Senior Living T,E: CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RE5PON51BLE FOR FROVIDIN& EXPANSIOWCONTROL JOINTS IN ALL MATERIALS, SYSTEMS AND BUILDING CONFIGLRAATIONS INCLUDING CAULKING AS REQUIRED. JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED NO MORE THAN 12'OL. BOTH DIRECTIONS IN CONCRETE 5LAB5, 20' TO 25' OC. FOR MA50NRY KALI-5 AND 20' TO 50'of- BOTH DIRECTIONS FOR 6YP" BOARD WALL5, 50FFIT5, CEILINGS, ETC. T1ERE 15 SOME OVERLAP BETYEEN ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL PLANS. REVIEW COMPLETE PLANS FOR ARCHITECTURAL1STRXTURAL WORK. PROVIDE A DESIGNATED SPACE ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING FOR THE 511PARATION, TEMPORARY 5TORAGE AND COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS. DRAWIN65 AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TO BE CON51PERED AS WIPLe ENTING Ei1GH OTHER WORK SFWFIED, BUT NOT SHOWN OR 5HOWN, BUT NOT SPECIFIED 514ALL BE P AS THIOU&H MENTIONED IN BOTH 5PECIFICATION5 AND ORMIN65. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION INDEXSHEET AO TITLE 5HEET Al LOWER LEVEL 6ARA6E PLAN A2 1®t FLOOR PLAN A3 aid FLOOR PLAN A4 5rd FLOOR PLAN A5 : 4th FLOOR PLAN Ab WE5T AND EAST ELEVATIONS Al NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ❑ ❑ ❑ D 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ LOWER LEVEL GARAGE - r-4'10�5' 111-41, PROJECT 37 PARKING STALLS SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" NORTH NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY OF UNIT5 DA7E: • MAIN FLOOR = 22 15 JUL. 'll • 2nd FLOOR = 29 • 3rd FLOOR = 24 • 4th FLOOR = 25 •• TOTAL - 100 „ kR ET S;a L Y' 1'80;o Gee `1Ac Gv o i3s'_ Cwy �-SLn;Nt n 3?'y iiJ . ta. u a 1 �evx: E�e:ro�Eayz�.'d;:rs.wm NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY OF UNIT5 DA7E: • MAIN FLOOR = 22 15 JUL. 'll • 2nd FLOOR = 29 • 3rd FLOOR = 24 • 4th FLOOR = 25 •• TOTAL - 100 „ L Ro-A) L EEI:B] no [9 [@ no I lst FLOOR 22 UNITS �MTH 0 51-41, 101-81 21'-4" 5CALE: 5/52" = 1'-0" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY OF UNIT5 • MAIN FLOOR = 22 • 2nd FLOOR = 201 • 3rd FLOOR = 24 4th FLOOR = 25 TOTAL - loo 'rel 4,'! ... . . ............ . EEI:B] no [9 [@ no I lst FLOOR 22 UNITS �MTH 0 51-41, 101-81 21'-4" 5CALE: 5/52" = 1'-0" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY OF UNIT5 • MAIN FLOOR = 22 • 2nd FLOOR = 201 • 3rd FLOOR = 24 4th FLOOR = 25 TOTAL - loo I I L ------- ----------------J I I I I 2nd FLOOR I I PW�T 29 UNITS I I STH I I I I I I I I O 5'-4" 10'-8" 2I'-4'• 50ALE: 3/32" = P-0" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5UMMARY OF UNIT5 DATE: • MAIN FLOOR = 22 IS JUL. 'll • 2nd FLOOR = 29 • 3rd FLOOR = 24 • •• 4th FLOOR = 25 TOTAL - 100 213- 30;1� 'n"?Y"E:_' VALLEY coh'. ` , .+i b 1:r, ! ,..... O 5'-4" 10'-8" 2I'-4'• 50ALE: 3/32" = P-0" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5UMMARY OF UNIT5 DATE: • MAIN FLOOR = 22 IS JUL. 'll • 2nd FLOOR = 29 • 3rd FLOOR = 24 • •• 4th FLOOR = 25 TOTAL - 100 I I -------�------------------� I I I 3rd FLOOR I I � 24 UNITS I I r+oRrt♦ I I I I I I I I O V-4" 10_5' 21 _4" SOALE: 5/52" = I'-0" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5UMMARY OF UNITS DATE: • MAIN FLOOR = 22 IS IUL. 'll • 2nd FLOOR = 29 • 3rd FLOOR 24 • 4th FLOOR = 25 •• TOTAL - 100 p�{ 422^ =_vlgy 5'.?6k.i G.y +.n .: Sauth ARCPJ l TJ m, ,,,,.... O V-4" 10_5' 21 _4" SOALE: 5/52" = I'-0" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5UMMARY OF UNITS DATE: • MAIN FLOOR = 22 IS IUL. 'll • 2nd FLOOR = 29 • 3rd FLOOR 24 • 4th FLOOR = 25 •• TOTAL - 100 p�{ I � I r I I 4th FLOOR I I g MO-ELT25 UNITS I I WK -M I I I I I I I I 0 5'-4" 10'-B" 21'-4" 5GALE: 5/52" = P—O" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY OF UNIT5 • MAIN FLOOR = 22 • 2nd FLOOR = 29 • 5rd FLOOR = 24 • 4th FLOOR = 25 •• TOTAL - 100 Mac Z=Lmm; RftT-- d VALLEY to 0 5'-4" 10'-B" 21'-4" 5GALE: 5/52" = P—O" NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SUMMARY OF UNIT5 • MAIN FLOOR = 22 • 2nd FLOOR = 29 • 5rd FLOOR = 24 • 4th FLOOR = 25 •• TOTAL - 100 White Pine Senior Living; NORTH (LEFT) ELEVATION SOUTH (RIGHT) ELEVAMV NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION RIVER VALLE-Y 4m Af NORTH (LEFT) ELEVATION SOUTH (RIGHT) ELEVAMV NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Planning Commission Minutes Ane 28, 2011 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-21 David Albrecht 1345 Mendota Heights Road Variances to required setback for monument sign Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of David Albrecht for a variance to the required setback from both Mendota Heights Road and Northland Drive for a monument sign at 1345 Mendota Heights Road. The property is zoned and guided for industrial. He displayed a site plan of the Brown College property and explained the zoning ordinance requirement for freestanding sign setbacks along roads is that no sign is to be located within the building setback, which is 40 feet for the industrial district. The sign along Mendota Heights Road is proposed to be located 15 feet back of the existing curb and the sign along Northland Drive is proposed to be located 12 feet back of the existing curb. Mr. Grittman explained that given the fact there is boulevard landscaping, it would virtually be a zero setback from the property line. Based on an original PUD approval, a 20 -foot setback for monument signs is the common occurrence. The variance is to be judged whether there are practical difficulties that are unique to the property. In this case, the applicant cited vegetation that interferes with views of the signs at the driveways from both streets. However, landscaping is a common condition of the property development and does not, by itself, meet the test for "uniqueness" required by the variance analysis. In addition, staff believes there are options with the existing vegetation to resolve visibility issues of signage that do not require a setback variance as requested. Mr. Grittman stated staff finds that the conditions for variance are not present and recommends against approval. Staff believes it is appropriate to approve signage consistent with the 20 -foot setback applied to this and other property in the district and approved through the original PUD. Chair Norton asked if a separate action is needed by the planning commission to allow the signs to be placed at the 20 -foot setback. Mr. Grittman explained the signs can be replaced at the 20 -foot line without separate planning commission action. Commissioner Viksnins asked where the signs would be located with a 20 -foot setback. Mr. Grittman used a site plan to draw the location of the right-of-way and 20 -foot setback lines. He also displayed a photograph depicting the existing sign that meets the 20 -foot setback. Commissioner Viksnins asked what are the options to address sign visibility. Mr. Grittman stated the trees could be trimmed, relocated, or removed. He explained trees were planted throughout the industrial park and cannot be found as a unique condition to grant a variance, cautioning such an approval would establish a precedent. Cormnissioner Magnuson asked if Brown College owns the trees and has the ability to trim or remove them. Mr. Grittman advised the trees are located on their private property. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the proposed signs, located at the 20 -foot setback, would be consistent with the city's code. Mr. Grittman stated he thinks the proposed signs are consistent with code and original PUD approval if at the 20 -foot setback. Commissioner Magnuson reviewed the past consideration of the Mendakota sign and asked if this consideration is consistent with that detailed analysis. Chair Norton noted the Mendakota sign is located in a residential zone. David Albrecht, Albrecht Sign Company representing the applicant, explained their variance request is due to the trees that are in the way. He displayed a photograph that depicted stakes at the setback line and explained that passing drivers would not be able to see signs in those locations, have to slam on the car breaks, and turn around. He pointed out that across the street the tree lines are set back farther than on the applicant's property. In addition, 11 Planning Commission Minutes Jame 28, 2011 there is a permanent sign in the area at 17 feet from the back of the curb so he would question how that was approved. Chair Norton explained the planning commission has to abide by state statute and asked Mr. Albrecht what are the practical difficulties that exist on this property that would lead the city to conclude the requested variance is necessary. Mr. Albrecht stated the practical difficulties are that multiple trees would have to be cut to assure visibility of the signs. In addition, the trees are quite large so they could not be trimmed. Chair Norton asked Mr. Albrecht if he is aware of any restrictions that would prohibit the property owner from removing the trees. Mr. Albrecht answered that he is not. Commissioner Magnuson asked why the sign must be in this particular location. Mr. Albrecht explained the signs were sited in locations to assure drivers on the road would be able to see it. Commissioner Magnuson noted an area that is more open and asked if that location could be considered. Mr. Albrecht explained it is typical to locate monument signs at the point of entrance. Commissioner Magnuson asked if there is no other location on the property where the sign could be located and meet the 20 -foot setback requirement. Mr. Albrecht stated there may be but not at the two entrance points where the trees are massive and block the view of the sign. Commissioner Viksnins asked if signs could be placed consistent with the setback along Mendota Heights Road that contain wording to identify the location of the entrance. This option would inform the driver of the entrance point and be consistent with the setback requirement. Mr. Albrecht stated that is a possibility and explained he is a subcontractor for a national sign company that has been hired by Brown College. Thus, he is bringing forth their recommendation and information. Commissioner Viksnins stated he thinks the College can accomplish what it desires and still meet required setbacks. Commissioner Noonan asked if the tree behind the bus stop off Mendota Heights Road, east of the entrance, is blocking the sign. Mr. Albrecht stated that is correct. Commissioner Noonan stated it appears there is nothing to prohibit trimming the lower branches to increase visibility. Commissioner Noonan stated the tree on the other side of the driveway could also be trimmed and farther to the west there is an open area that would accommodate appropriate signage to alert the driver of the entrance location. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FERGUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 5 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED, BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. THE CONDITIONS RAISING ISSUES FOR SIGN VISIBILITY ARE NOT UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, BUT ARE COMMON THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT. 2. THE CITY HAS SET A STANDARD FOR SIGN SETBACK BY PREVIOUS PUD APPROVAL AT 20 FEET, WHICH HAS BECOME THE COMMON CONDITION IN THE AREA. 3. VEGETATION OBSCURING VISIBILITY OF THE SIGNS CAN BE MODIFIED OR REMOVED TO RESOLVE THE DIFFICULTY. 4. GRANT OF THIS VARIANCE WOULD BE ESTABLISHING A PRIVILEGE FOR THIS PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED TO OTHERS IN THE DISTRICT. AYES 5 12 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the city council would consider this application at its July 5, 2011, meeting. PLANNING CASE #11-14 White Pine Holdings 750 Highway 110 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Mr. Sedlacek advised there is pending litigation regarding this parcel of land and the location of a sewer line that is currently located within the parcel. Tonight the decision is specific to the request for a senior housing building and whether it fits with the character of the community and spirit of that approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). He recommended the planning commission stay away from any points involved in the litigation. Planner Stephen Grittman displayed the site plan, noting the proposed senior facility is part of Mendota Plaza. The subject property is in the southeast corner with access from South Plaza Drive. The original PUD incorporated a property in this area for MU -PUD. Mr. Grittman explained at the time of the PUD approval, a number of documents were brought forward but the housing portion was conceptual because the PUD developers anticipated they would not develop the housing component. One of the conditions in the original proposal was that at the time of transfer of land to an alternative developer, it would have to be part of the PUD documents through an amendment. This requested amendment incorporates the condition that the transfer is approved as part of the project. Mr. Grittman presented the request of White Pine Holdings for a PUD amendment and final PUD approval to construct a four-story, 100 -unit senior residential facility with varying levels of service, and an underground parking facility. There is also surface parking along the entrance drive. The application came forward with a significant set of plans but is still missing some detail from a planning review standpoint. He explained the submittals did not include a thorough application letter, a corm -non requirement, to describe the project so staff can understand detail that may be missing. In addition, it is not clear what exterior materials are proposed as part of the building application. When the city council considered the PUD, it was concerned about the aesthetics of the building so conditions were placed on architectural details and materials. That information needs to be provided to assure consistency with the original PUD approval. Mr. Grittman noted that code requires 200 parking spaces and 60 parking spaces are proposed, which is one-third of the requirement. He explained the applicant was asked to submit supporting documentation that the reduced level of parking spaces would be sufficient. Mr. Grittman advised that the information provided on the signage did not include detail on total square footage on the site. Because this is a residential portion of the PUD, there is also the issue of monument sized signage. An applicant is typically asked to submit a complete sign package to identify all signage, materials, configuration, and rationale if the submittal varies from residential standards by PUD. Chair Norton stated that other application deficiencies are noted in the staff report and asked if that information has been provided to the applicant. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Field asked if a complete application has been submitted. Mr. Grittman explained that information is missing that would help staff evaluate the proposal. Commissioner Field stated he views this is not a complete application and was annoyed that it had been placed on an agenda when there are nine cases to consider. Commissioner Noonan stated he shared that frustration. He noted the city council paid particular attention to the issue of architectural character and asked about specific concerns related to architectural character or additional information requested to complete the application. Mr. Grittman stated it was an issue for the city council and for the purposes of the staff report, reflected more the lack of specificity of materials. Commissioner Noonan asked if there is anything with the renderings that was inconsistent with what the city council desired on this site. Mr. Grittman explained a specific requirement was that 25 -percent of the building be covered with stone or brick. However, the drawings indicate that standard is not met. He stated staff did not want to speak to the city council's desire but, rather, commented on the requirement. 13 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 Commissioner Viksnins asked about the timeframe to reconsider if it is tabled. Mr. Grittman stated the applicant submitted materials on May 10, 2011, and it was accepted. Staff believes there is not adequate material for full staff review and report. Mr. Grittman explained the application is active so the city has 60 days to review the application. Or, with notice to the applicant, the city can unilaterally extend for an additional 60 days from date of application to the time Council takes action. Commissioner Field recalled a past case where he had objected to an encroachment on his easement and the city attorney indicated it would not become involved in a private dispute. He asked why the planning commission would proceed with consideration of this application prior to the litigation being resolved. Mr. Sedlacek explained the city council has advised this is a planning application and directed staff to, as best it can, consider the application on its merits and leave the litigation on the side. Commissioner Magnuson stated if the applicants agree in writing to extend the timeline, is it beyond the 120 days. Mr. Grittman answered in the affirmative and explained the applicant can waive, in writing, the 120 day period. Chuck Rothstein, 1807 Welsh Lane, co-owner of White Pine Senior Living, stated they are not part of the litigation by the seller of the property, the underlying owner, who has a dispute with the city. He stated they have no desire to antagonize anyone on the planning commission. Mr. Rothstein referenced a letter from Mr. Sedlacek indicating the city has received a complete plan on May 10, 2011. He stated it usually happens that they submit a lot of plans and resolve issues with staff between the first and second planning commission meeting. He stated they cannot anticipate every possible question or nuance in the city's ordinances and he understands there are six outstanding issues. Mr. Rothstein stated they will provide that information to staff to make a reasoned decision. He explained that this is a complicated development project and he does not object to continuing consideration to the July meeting. Commissioner Noonan asked what would be considered comparable projects. Mr. Rothstein stated they have two projects in Inver Grove Heights, Arbor Point behind Rainbow Foods, that contain the same architectural contours, style, gables, and pitch as proposed in Mendota Heights. He displayed a materials board and invited commissioners to visit the Inver Grove Heights facility to see the building style, number of parking spaces provided, and people served. Commissioner Noonan requested additional detail on the types of units that will be provided so the commissioners can understand the residents to be served and cross reference it with the number of parking spaces being provided. Mr. Rothstein stated the proposed units are not apartments because they have a smaller square footage and not inhabited by anyone who can live independently. He stated there are parking standards for assisted living, usually one parking unit for three assisted living units. Mr. Rothstein stated they have no relationship with Paster Enterprises other than they purchased the property. He and his wife own White Pine Assisted Living in Minnesota and Comforts of Homes in Wisconsin, which are completely unaffiliated from Paster Enterprises. Mr. Rothstein assured the commissioners that they will work in good faith with staff to resolve the six identified issues and are willing to sign an extension beyond the 60 -day period. Commissioner Noonan requested a colored building rendering depicting the architecture. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Magnuson asked if the matter has to be tabled to a meeting date or if it could be tabled until all of the issues have been resolved. Chair Norton stated his understanding it should be tabled to a date certain and if not resolved to the satisfaction of staff by that date, the application can be tabled again at the discretion of the applicant. Chair Norton noted the applicant has indicated he would be agreeable if that were to occur. 14 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2011 COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO THE JULY 26, 2011 MEETING WITH THE ANTICIPATION STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WILL RESOLVE ISSUES TO PROVIDE A COMPLETE APPLICATION AND SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANTS AGREEING, IN WRITING, TO EXTEND THE TIMELINE FOR ZONING APPROVALS UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE 15.99. AYES 5 NAYS 0 Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #11-10 Beverly Sargent Critical Area Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #11-12 Patrick Costello Conditional Use Permit • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission with an added condition to limit operating hours. Commissioner Viksnins asked about the fine imposed on Case #11-10. Mr. Sedlacek explained the planning commission had recommended a double fine to the extent allowed by the ordinance. Upon further review, staff determined that only applies to certain building permits. It has been taken under advisement for the fee schedule which will be revised by the city council. Commissioner Magnuson stated it would be helpful to receive the original PUD requirements for the White Pines development. Mr. Sedlacek stated that information will be provided. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FERGUSON, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:03 P.M. AYES NAYS Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary 15 TO: Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission and City Administrator FROM: Jake Sedlacek, Assistant to the City AdministratbZt�S SUBJECT: Mendota Plaza PUD and White Pine Holdings Introduction White Pine Holdings ("White Pine") has submitted a planning application for an amendment to the conditional use permit for planned unit development (PUD) for the Mendota Plaza Redevelopment (planning case 2008-11).. At the June 28, 2011 planning commission meeting, staff was asked to prepare background materials detailing the approved concept plan for Lot 6, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Redevelopment ("Property") as it relates to our current planning application. Background Planning Case 2008-11 included multiple planning actions, including a re -plat of the Mendota Plaza property and a request for a planned unit development. The plat included new lot lines, easements, proposed building footprints, internal roadways and the like. The planned unit development was used as a tool to provide flexibility from several City Code provisions including setbacks, lot width, and structure height. The City utilized a PUD structure in order to create a development which would accomplish the community vision as described in the comprehensive plan. Upon approval of the final plat for the Mendota Plaza Redevelopment, the City entered into a PUD Agreement ("PUD Agreement") with Mendota Mall Associates ("Developer"). The PUD Agreement set forth the general guidelines for development and also included very specific details about the various phases of proposed development. Specific site plans for each phase ("Approved Plans") were attached to the PUD Agreement. The Approved Plans were the result of extensive negotiations between the City and the Developer. The PUD Agreement was drafted to include language that requires the City's prior written consent before there can be any change in the identity of the Developer and/or any change in the Approved Plans. T he Mendota Plaza Redevelopment is zoned and guided as a mixed-use residential property, and was intended to match or compliment the development north of Highway 110. The housing component is a significant part of the mixed use concept. As early as the first concept plan shared with City Council in late 2007, the developer identified the Property as the location for a 100 unit, four-story structure to be used as senior/assisted living. City Council rejected several building concepts for the site, with a majority of council members approving of the concept included in the PUD Agreement. The Approved Plans for the housing component show a building with a pitched roof, a mix of exterior materials and individual balconies for living units. White Pine Holdings is seeking an amendment to the PUD to make changes to the Approved Plans for the Property. Qtanrla-4 of Revipcv"v. JLOI IU []- -1 11 In considering the request for a change to the Approved Plans, you should be aware that the City has complete discretion in its review. Specifically, the PUD Agreement states: Section 3.,4. Modifications to Approved Plans. After final approval of the Plans, the Developer shall not make any changes in the Plans or the Project without the prior written consent of the City, which consent may be given or withheld in the City's sole discretion. The City Council may, by majority vote, delegate approval of minor modifications to the Plans to the City Administrator. Based on this language, the City has no obligation to consent to changes to the Approved Plans. If the City decides that it would like to consider any alternatives to what was previously approved, it may be helpful for the Planning Commission and Council to understand some of the other standards that are set forth in the PUD Agreement. These standards are provided simply for your information. Keep in mind that the City has the ability to give or withhold its consent in its sole discretion. Section 4.2. Building Height and Material. All buildings shall be restricted of the heights listed for the underlying zoning district in the Code or this Agreement, and as presented in the plans provided to the City as part of the PUD approval process. Unless a change is approved by the City, all building materials must be the some as identified on the plans approved by the City (and the samples provided to the City during the PUD approval process). Section 4.3. Building Setbacks. The setbacks on the buildings to be constructed on the Development Property are identified on the approved Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Site Plan"). Section 4.4. Parking. The number and location of the parking stalls are generally identified on the approved Site Plan. The Developer shall not reduce the number of parking stalls from the number shown on the Site Plan, nor materially change the location of any such parking stalls, without the prior written consent of the City. Section 4.5. Signage. The location of the pylon signs and the improvements to be made to the existing pylon sign are identified on the approved Plans, including, without limitation, the Site Plan. Developer also has the right to construct the monument sign on State Trunk Highway No. 110 in the location identified on the approved Site Plan, and as generally identified on the approved Monument Sign Elevation attached hereto as Exhibit G. Building Signage will be consisted with the Design Standards, and shall be subject to City Council review and approval. Analysis The following table compares various elements of the Approved Plans with what is being proposed by White Pine: PUD Approved Plans White Pine Proposal 4 Story Senior Housing Facility 4 Story Assisted Living Facility, characterized by White Pine as serving the "frail elderly" Building Materials — at least 25% masonry Building Materials — 24% masonry, color to compliment materials, colors to match development (not match) development Monument sign to match PUD Monument sign does not match PUD although it is generally consistent with the standards included in the PUD Agreement No wall signs Signage is proposed for three of the four sides of the building. This signage would be in addition to the signage that was approved as part of the PUD Agreement. Parking —129 stalls on east side of building Parking • 63 stalls • "Proof of parking" for 20 additional stalls for a total of 83 potential stalls • Parking moved from east side of building to west side Balconies included for most living units Individual balconies have been removed No common area deck/balcony Common deck / balcony area added to second floor Building Orientation — PUD Agreement Building orientation — east side of lot, away from the placed the building on the northwest existing development. corner of lot (parallel to the northwest property line) in an effort to "cluster" the building with the existing development. Setbacks - the PUDI allows for flexibility in Setbacks - the White Pine proposal includes setbacks on the setback requirements. The Approved the north and south that are consistent with the Approved Plans included setbacks on the north, Plans but now requests flexibility on the west side of the south and east sides of the property that Property rather than the east side. are more flexible than otherwise allowed by City Code. As you will see in the materials provided by White Pine, the applicant believes that the issues of parking, balconies and signage were "mistakes" in the PUD Agreement. White Pine indicates that "all of Applicant's facilities in the Twin Cities, as well as other assisted living facilities, have signage on the buildings to identify the business located there" and therefore, the lack of building signage in the PUD was an error. Staff disagrees with this position. While there may be reasons to consider changes to the Approved Plans, the provisions contained in the PUD Agreement were specifically negotiated between the City and the Developer. With respect to signage, there are currently two assisted living facilities in Mendota Heights and neither of them have building signage. In addition, Staff has concerns over the way in which White Pine characterizes its proposed project. In the supplementary materials, White Pine indicates that the' project "is a health care business entitled to signage like the other businesses at Mendota Plaza." Importantly, under the PUD Agreement, the Property is designated to be "residential" not commercial. dditional Considerations In addition to the specific changes to the Approved Plans, you should be aware of two outstanding issues under the PUD Agreement. A. City Consent Required Prior to Transfer The PUD Agreement prohibits the Developer from transferring any ownership rights or development rights to a third party without the City's prior written consent. The PUD Agreement provides a very specific list of things that the City is allowed to consider in determining whether to consent to the transfer. This includes information about the proposed developer's qualifications and financial strength as well as a written statement from the proposed developer, acknowledging that it agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the PUD Agreement. Importantly, the City has not consented to the sale or transfer of the Property to White Pine. While City staff has discussed the proposed transfer with representatives of both the Developer and White Pine, the Developer and White Pine have failed to provide the City with specific information about White Pine as outlined in the PUD Agreement. On June 28, 2011, the City received a letter from an attorney representing the Developer, requesting the City's consent to the transfer. A formal notice was delivered to the Developer's attorney on July 5, 2011, informing the Developer that the City would not consider consent until the Developer or White Pine provided the City with the specific information listed in the PUD Agreement. A copy of the City's July 5 letter is included in your materials. As of the date of this staff report, the City has not received the requested information. Instead, White Pine has requested that City approve the proposed modifications but list the City's consent to the transfer as a condition to receiving a building permit. Staff does not support this request. B. Sewer Line Relocatio As you are aware, a dispute exists between the Developer and the City regarding the relocation of the sewer line on the:Property ("Sewer Line"). The Approved Plans show a senior housing building located on top of a portion of the Sewer Line. The Sewer Line is a trunk line that serves a large portion of the Mendota Heights �--ommunity. Consistent with past City practices, the City required language in the PUD Agreement that would give the City the authority to direct the relocation of the Sewer Line. A dispute has arisen over who has responsibility to pay for the Sewer Line relocation. The City's position is that the Developer is responsible for the cost associated with relocating the Sewer Line. The Developer's position is that the City is obligated to pay for the relocation of the Sewer Line. To date, the City has not commenced any work to relocate the Sewer Line for two reasons: (1) the City will not spend funds to pay for the Sewer Line relocation because of the Developer's position that it has no responsibility to reimburse the City for the cost of the work; and (2) under the White Pine Proposal, the proposed building could be placed on the Property without requiring the Sewer Line to be relocated if the building were placed in the location shown on the Approved Plans. The proposed building has a slightly smaller footprint than the building proposed in the Approved Plans and for this reason, it is possible to build the proposed building without impacting the Sewer Line. To date, White Pine has indicated that it is not willing to shift the proposed building to the northwest portion of the property as required by the Approved Plans. Instead, White Pine requests that the City approve the proposed modifications but have such approval contingent upon the Sewer Line being successfully relocated. Recommendation As noted above, the City has the complete discretion to approve or deny changes to the Approved Plans. The decision to approve or deny the modifications will likely involve a policy discussion by both the Planning Commission and the City Council to determine if the proposed modifications are consistent with the City's vision for the Property. Staff has concerns about the proposed modifications because they are not consistent with several of the goals that were outlined by the City Council through the negotiation of the Approved Plans. In addition, Staff has significant concerns about the fact that (1) the Sewer Line issue is unresolved; and (2) neither the Developer nor White Pine has provided the information needed by the City to evaluate the request to transfer the Property. For these reasons, Staff recommends that the request be denied based on the following findings of fact: 1. Pursuant to Section 3.4 of the PUD Agreement, the City's consent to changes to the Approved Plans may be given or withheld in the City's sole discretion. 2. The Developer has failed to obtain the prior written consent of the City to transfer the Property to White Pine as required by Section 6.2 of the PUD Agreement. 3. Pedestrian circulation inadequately integrates the residential building into the mixed use PUD as directed by the previous PUD approvals. 4. Parking under the PUD Agreement was determined based on the mixed use development as a whole and the proposed parking in the modified plan is inadequate. 5. Building materials do not meet the specified requirements of the Approved Plans. 6. The City Council specifically approved balconies on the units and the balconies are no longer shown on the modified plans. 7. Utility plans do not show how the project will connect to the City's sanitary sewer system, among other utility issues, and do not show how the applicants will redesign the project or the sewer to avoid conflicts between the building and City's utility. 8. Signage for the project exceeds the zoning ordinance allowances for residential property. 9. The applicant characterizes the proposal as a "health care business" which is inconsistent with the PUD Agreement requirements that the Property be used for residential purposes Action Reauired The Planning Commission should review the proposed modifications and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council should vote to approve or deny the proposed modifications and include specific findings. Supplementary Materials: 1. Memorandum from White Pine Senior Living 2. Letter from Developer's Attorney requesting Consent to Transfer 3. Letter from City Attorney regarding Consent to Transfer 61691144 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED • , 1 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 pial �ners@nacplan ning.com TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: June 23, 2011 MEETING DATE: June 28, 2011 SUBJECT: Mendota Plaza — PUD Amendment for Housing Component on Lot 6, Block 1 CASE NO: Case No. 2011-14; NAC Case 254.04 - 18 APPLICANT(S): White Pine Holdings LOCATION: SE Part of Mendota Plaza PUD, near South Plaza Drive ZONING: MU -PUD GUIDE PLAN: MU -PUD Background and Description of Request.- The equest: The applicants are seeking a PUD amendment and final PUD approval to accommodate the construction of a four-story, 100 unit senior residential facility. The housing proposal has been an integral part of the PUD approvals granted to Mendota Plaza over the past few years. The proposed site is 2.0 acres in area, and was designated for multiple - family housing as a part of the approved concept plan for Mendota Plaza. The project itself consists of 49 apartment -style units on the upper two floors, a combination of primarily one -bedroom apartments and some efficiency units. The lower two floors contain 51 assisted -style units without kitchen facilities. The basement level of the building accommodates 37 covered parking spaces, along with some storage and mechanical rooms. The first level contains the primary kitchen, office, and a commons area. The second and third levels include serving kitchens and rnmmnnc �re�c The fourth level includes a "lounge.", hi it otherwise does not include VVI I II I IVI IJ UI VUJ. common dining area. The site plan orients the building north -south along the easterly property line, adjacent to the open space areas to the east. Driveway access is provided from South Plaza Drive, and provides 26 parking spaces, 2 of which are handicapped accessible. The north end of the parking area provides access to the underground parking garage. Retaining walls protect the driveway as it descends to the lower level of the garage, with a grade differential of about 11 feet. The plans also provide a patio area to the rear (east) of the building. The patio sits above a retaining wall of up to five feet in height overlooking the open space to the east. The application materials include a landscaping plan consisting primarily of open lawn, with some trees and limited shrub plantings. A sidewalk connects the building areas to the patio and to the public sidewalk along South Plaza Drive. Building plans for the project show elevation drawings of a four-story building with a gabled roof or varying peaks, and a total overall height of 65 feet from grade to the peak of the highest gable. The building appears to be clad with vertically-oriented hard -board siding, with the exception of a wainscot wrap along the ground level of brick or cultured stone. The height of the masonry wainscot is not detailed on the plans, but appears to be approximately 3.5 feet in height. Analysis; Since the inception of the City's consideration of the redevelopment proposals for Mendota Plaza, housing has been an important component of the anticipated plans. A portion of the site of the proposed White Pine building was originally zoned R-3, multiple family, and the land to the east and southeast is designated and/or used for high- density residential by the Dakota County housing authority. As the plans evolved for the residential development on this property, the City expressed a number of objectives for the project. These included (1) A building that equaled or exceeded three stories, although unit count was not specified in the approval; (2) Meeting reasonable setbacks to provide adequate green space on the property; (3) Parking that could accommodate the anticipated use and needs of residents, visitors, and employees, including underground parking to limit surface paving, and documentation to support the proposed parking count (assuming that it would vary from the City's basic zoning requirements), (4) Site design that incorporates the project into the surrounding neighborhood and to the commercial project of which it is a part; (5) Building materials that are complementary to the materials being used on the commercial pnrfinns of the PUD; (6) Masonry materials that equal or exceed 25% of the building wall surface; (7) Willingness for potential housing developers to accept responsibility for the terms of the development agreement signed with the Mendota Plaza developers (Paster Enterprises); (8) Handling of utilities, including stormwater, that addressed existing utility configurations and open space/wetland issues At this point, there appears to be a number of issues that will require modification to meet the understanding of the City officials. While building height and density would not appear to be at odds with the City's expectations, several site and building issues are either unexplained or inconsistent with previous City directives. These include: Parking count. The City's zoning ordinance requires 2 parking spaces per residential unit. The City has indicated, consistent with other standards, that parking for senior - oriented buildings may supply a reduced amount of parking from this standard. However, the applicants are required to document their expected parking needs, based on similar uses or other materials. The applicants have proposed a total of 73 parking spaces (above and below ground) to serve the 100 unit complex. No documentation has been received at this point to verify that adequate parking has been provided with this plan. Pedestrian circulation and access. The project includes some sidewalk access to South Plaza Drive from the main entrance area, which would connect to other sidewalks in the development. An additional sidewalk is shown exiting the north side of the building and leading to the Mendota Plaza commercial areas. Staff would suggest that a stronger pedestrian link is designed from the main entrance to the rest of Mendota Plaza, consistent with the City's intent that the housing component is integral to the mixed-use concept. Building materials. The building materials are not specified in the submitted drawings. However, the illustrations show masonry wrapping the building to a height of 3.5 feet out of a total exposed wall height of 42 feet (the additional 23 feet of height is comprised of roof). The 3.5 foot high masonry constitutes only about 8.3 percent of the wall area, whereas 25 percent is the City's expectation based on previous approvals. This will need to be addressed and modified to comply with the PUD requirements. Signage. The plans show wall signs over the main entrance of the west side and on both north and south end walls of unspecified sizes. In addition, the proposal includes a monument sign near South Plaza Drive and its intersection with the Mendota Plaza access road. In Mendota Heights, sethacks f,,r freestanding are to be no more 12 square feet in area. The proposedmonument signidential districts approximately 90 square feet. The PUD a however, a rationale for such a approvals may grant larger sign areas, details or other aspects of the siignocon t u t onould b also have norovided t beenpplicant. Lighting time. provided at this Utility connections. The City has notified the applicants that the proposed building sits over an existing sanitary sewer line which will have to be relocated if the building is to be constructed as proposed. Relocation of the sewer line is the responsibility of the developer of this site. In the alternative, the applicants should design the site to avoid the sewer line and provide adequate access to it for maintenance. The plans submitted by the applicants do not address the necessary changes to the utilities. Development contract. As noted, the applicants will be required to agree to the terms of the development contract affecting the residential portion of the project. A statement to this requirement should be provided by the applicants, prior to City action on the amendment. Action Requested; Following a public hearing, the n Planning Commission may consider one of the following g A. Approval of the PUD amendment with conditions. Conditions would include the following: 1. Verification of parking demand for residents, visitors, and employees to the satisfaction of the City. 2. Additional pedestrian circulation on the site plan that integrates the main entrance area to the remainder of the Mendota Plaza pedestrian system. 3. Clarification of the proposed building materials, including an increase in masonry exterior materials to meet the 25% coverage requirement specified by previous PUD approvals. 4. Additional detail on signage area, materials, and lighting, including reduction of the monument sign to a maximum of 12 square feet of message area, consistent with City zoning requirements. 5. Provision of utility plans illustrating how the applicants intend to provide for relocation of the existing sanitary sewer line, along with other utility access. 6. A statement indicating acceptance of the terms of the development agreement as applying to the developers of the subject site. B. Tabling of action on the PUD amendment, based on the need to submit additional materials demonstrating compliance with the terms of the controlling PUD approvals, as specified in this report and the comments of other City staff. C. Denial of the PUD amendment, based on findings that the applicants have submitted plans that are inconsistent with the terms of the approved PUD documents for the subject property, and inconsistent with City zoning regulations. Inconsistencies are identified in this report and other staff comments, and include the following: 1. Inadequate parking supply. 2. Pedestrian circulation inadequately integrates the residential building into the mixed use PUD as directed by previous PUD approvals. 3. Building materials do not meet the specified requirements of the previous PUD approvals, including amount of masonry exterior, and are otherwise undesignated on the plans. 4. Signage for the project exceeds the zoning ordinance allowances for residential property. 5. Utility plans do not show how the project will connect to the City's sanitary sewer system, among other utility issues, and do not show how the applicants will redesign the project or the sewer to avoid conflicts between the building and City's utility. 6. Lack'of acceptance of terms of the original PUD approvals as required by the PUD development contract. Staff Recommendation: Staff does not recommend approval at this time. There are a number of inconsistencies between the submitted plans and the approved PUD documents, and there are some, particularly the parking, sidewalks, and the sewer line access, that could alter site and building design significantly. If the project is tabled, the applicants should agree in writing to extend the timeline for zoning approvals under Minn. Stat. 15.99 to avoid any issues with dates and review. If the Planning Commission recommends denial, the findings above, and any other findings made that result from information at the public hearing, should be incorporated into the Commission's resolution. Supplementary Materials: 1. Application materials dated 5-10-11 EXHIBIT A nevelonnent Pronertv Leeal Description and Master Site Plan .,m r MENDDTA PLAZA cz.o vexomi%PAN IUN PASTER ENTERPRISES,, �R� �� _.... xowrt3S. uxmcma. MI UNIVERSITY AVENUE w.. RLK :maixiv 5T. PAUL, MN 55114 _ _ `'� a/as/ov MAS7ER PLAN s.orrrue ax�rx orvrior,.rxr. u.x,aevexr - x,m o.R— u<w.�s�r— .��x..o.o,..•u.,m•..—m�rwaro A-1 EXHIBIT B-6 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ELEVATION B-6 r u u MLI YL Y Ips w i CLI Rel. �e 1�E1 IJa cii I�_ `ee 1 �I • I • � u •I 4EJ Fn�J i■I t■1 0 2 LLJ .I • M CL B-6 EXHIBIT B-6 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ELEVATION SIDE AND REAR B-6 MEMORANDUM rhApndota HPirihtc, MN1 To: Jake Sedlacek From: White Pine Senior Living ("Applicant") Date: July 15, 2011 Re: Case No. 2011-14 JUL BN V s n Background Applicant is the owner -operator of 20 assisted living businesses in the Twin Cities and Western Wisconsin. Applicant provides fully -licensed, state-of-the-art assisted living and healthcare services at its locations under the federally registered trademarks "White Pine" and "Comforts of Home" senior living. Applicant has been in business for 9+ years and has opened several recent projects in the Twin Cities, the closest being in Inver Grove Heights at the northeast quadrant of Highway 52 and Concord Avenue. Applicant's web site at VOMMPSENIORLIvING.coM provides additional background information about the business. Applicant operates with a Class F Home Care Service license and also has a license for Housing with Services from the State of Minnesota. The business operates 24/7. Employees work three -8 hour shifts. At full capacity, first and second shifts will run with 6-9 employees and third shift with 4-6 employees. Applicant is' seeking a Planned Unit Development amendment and final PUD approval for the construction of a 4 story 100 unit senior assisted living facility on Lot 6, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Expansion ("Lot 6"). This request is consistent with the PUD Agreement dated April 30, 2009 ("PUD"), which calls for a "4 story, multi -family residential, assisted living facility" to be built on Lot 6. The building elevations attached to the PUD as Exhibit B-6 are substantially similar to the elevations proposed by Applicant. The building will look a lot like the building conceptualized in the PUD. All 100 of the units will house the frail elderly who can no longer live safely and comfortably at home. The residents receive healthcare and personal care services from Applicant's staff. All residents will need help with at least 3 ADL's (activities of daily living) and related healthcare services or have a memory care diagnosis. Less than 5% of our residents have a car or have their driver's license. 1 Signage D prnnnn 4 is nrnncinq hi l.J signs ildinn and1 mnen nl Imt Sinn i �Nn�linvw ....�. .'. The monument sign will be built in accordance with the PUD, especially with Exhibit G which calls for a 14'x6' sign encased in a 16'3"x8' monument. The monument sign will be located in the general area identified in the PUD and built and illuminated consistent with the Design Standards attached as Exhibit H to the PUD. The proposed building for Lot 6 includes 3 exterior signs, this differs from the approved PUD rendering where no building signage is present. However, the requested building signs will be consistent with the Design Standards, and will not "exceed 200 square feet per building fagade" (Exhibit H-12 of PUD). Specifically the building signs on the north, south and front fagades are about 112 square feet in size (4'x18' + 2.5'x16'). The requested signs are aesthetically compatible with and properly scaled to the area and the building they serve. The requested building signs are consistent with the Design Standards and are necessary because the proposed development on Lot 6 is a health care business entitled to signage like the other businesses at Mendota Plaza. Again, the proposed development is not a market rate or subsidized independent apartment building. The building must be identified by the brand name of the business located there. The concept plan for the building as described in the PUD needs to be amended to fix 3 "mistakes". First, relates to the parking. As described in the Memorandum, the PUD shows 129 parking spaces. This makes sense for a market rate or subsidized independent apartment building, but as described in the Memorandum, does not fit the needs of a health care business serving the frail elderly. Second, the PUD shows decks on the exterior of the building. This is a mistake, as described in the Memorandum, because decks are not found on fully licensed health care facilities serving the frail elderly. Third and finally, assisted living facilities have building signage. All of Applicant's facilities in the Twin Cities,, as well as other assisted living facilities, have signage on the buildings to'identify the business located there. This is particularly true when the assisted living facility is part of a commercial development like Mendota Plaza. Parking Less than 5% of Applicant's residents need to park on site. There will be another 5-9 staff members that need parking. During peak visitor times 18%-23% of residents will need visitor parking. In this case, that means about 36 parking spaces will be needed at peak times. This is consistent with parking needs at Applicant's other facilities which have a parking ratio of about 1 space per 3 living units. 2 Applicant's proposed site plan shows 63 parking spaces, which is about 27 spaces mnra than neSr"lerrl at peak times. There also is additional green space adjacent to the proposed parking in the front of the building, which could be used for additional parking. The site plan submitted by Applicant identifies "proof of additional parking" in the green space. Applicant would prefer to keep the space green, which is consistent with the Design Standards for the Mendota Plaza Development ("Design Standards"). The PUD shows 129 parking spaces, which would be appropriate for a market rate rental apartment building housing independent people who still drive and own cars. This is inconsistent with the PUD's concept and Applicant's request that an assisted living healthcare facility be built on Lot 6. Accordingly, Applicant is seeking an amendment to the PUD allowing 63 parking spaces, plus proof of additional parking. Proposed Building Materials The building elevations submitted by Applicant have been revised to reflect 25% coverage of masonry. City Staff has been provided a material board. The materials are aesthetically pleasing, and complement the colors and materials of neighboring; businesses. The proposed materials, particularly the masonry and roofing, include colors approved in the PUD. Pedestrian Circulation Applicant will provide additional pedestrian circulation as soon on Applicant's revised site plan. Decks The proposed plans do not show decks on the individual units. The frail elderly, especially those with a memory care diagnosis, are not safe to use the decks for risk of falling. This risk is difficult to manage, which is why most, if not all, fully - licensed assisted living buildings do not have decks. The building does, however, have a large enclosed patio on the back side of the building. Accordingly; Applicant is seeking an amendment to the PUD so that decks are not required. Orientation of the Building Applicant's site plan shows a building orientation that takes advantage of the natural beauty of the directly adjacent woods and Dodge Nature Center land to the east of Lot 6. The back of the building is oriented along the edge of the woods and will offer residents a better view without having to look over the parking lot shown on the concept plan shown in the PUD. The front of the building has been moved away from the Mendota Plaza Mall and oriented such that most of the rooms on the second, third and fourth floors of the building will bot look out directly on the roof of the mall, which from above, is an unattractive flat roof with unsightly mechanical equipment in plain view. 3 Accordingly, Applicant is seeking an amendment to the PUD to allow its prnpncerl hiiiilding nrientatinn Consent to Transfer Applicant will not take title to Lot 6 un Improvement Project" on page 5 of the P Applicant requests that satisfaction of the be treated as a condition to Applicant development of Lot 6. 151 til the work described as the "Public UD has been completed. Accordingly, requirements of Section 6.3 of the PUD receiving a building permit for the WINTHROP WEINSTINE ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW July 5, 2011 Melanie J. Triplett Siegel Brill PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Proposed Sale of Property Dear Ms. Triplett: Tammera R. Diehm Direct Dial: (612) 604-6658 Direct Fax: (612) 604-6958 tdiehmCwinthrop.com VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL We are in receipt of your letter dated June 28, 2011 in which you indicate that your client, Mendota Mall Associates, LLP ("Mendota MaIP'), intends to transfer a portion of the property which is subject to that certain Planned Unit Development Agreement dated April 30, 2009, as amended ("Agreement") by and between Mendota Mall and the City of Mendota Heights ("City") to White Pine Holdings, LLC ("White Pine"). As you are aware, Section 6.2 of the Agreement prohibits the transfer of any part of the Development Property (as defined in the Agreement) without the City's prior written consent. While your June 28 letter requests consent, Mendota Mall has failed to provide the City with the documentation required for the City to properly review the request. Pursuant to Section 6.3 of the Agreement, the City will require the following information: (a) Evidence of Developer Experience. Please provide information sufficient for the City to determine whether White Pine has adequate development experience to fulfill the obligations that it will undertake pursuant to the Agreement. (b) Evidence of Financial Qualification. Please provide detailed information regarding the financial qualifications and financial responsibility of White Pine so that the City may determine whether White Pine will be able to fulfill the obligations that it will undertake pursuant to the Agreement. (c) Agreement to Be Bound. White Pine, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the City and in a form recordable among the land records, must, for itself and its successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of the City, agree to and assume all of the obligations of the Developer under the Agreement as to the portion of the Development Property to be transferred. This agreement to be bound must include, but should not be CAPELLATOwER I Suite 3500 1 22S South Sixth Street I Minneapolis, MN SS402-4629 I MAIN: (612) 604-6400 1 FAx: (612) 604-6800 1 www.winthrop.cosn I A Professional Association Melanie J. Triplett July 5, 2011 Page 2 limited to, an agreement to assume the financial obligation of relocating the sanitary sewer line which runs under the portion of the Development Property to be transferred. (d) Form of Transfer Documents. Please provide the City with copies of any and all instruments and other legal documents involved in effecting the transfer to White Pine so that the City can determine if such instruments and documents are in a form which is satisfactory to the City. Please be advised that the City will not consent to the transfer of any portion of the Development Property until the above -referenced information is received and reviewed by City staff and legal counsel. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, PX Tammera R. Di.ehm cc: Mr. David McKnight Mr. Jake Sedlacek Robert Alsop, Esq. 6132046v1 1007.183 June 28, 2011 Jake Sedlacek City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tammera R. Diehm, Esq. Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., Suite 3500 225 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4629 T (612) 337-6100 F (612) 339-6591 S l E G E L 100 Washington Ave S I Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 BRILL N� siegelbrill.com ATTORNEYS AT LAW iakesO-mendota-heights.com tdiehm@winthrop.com Re: Planned Unit Development Agreement dated April 30, 2009, as amended, by and between the City of Mendota Heights (the "City") and Mendota Mall Associates, LLP ("Mendota Mall") Our File No. 25579-000 Dear Jake and Tami: As you are aware, our client, Mendota Mall, has entered into a Purchase Agreement to sell Lot 6, Block 1, Mendota Plaza Expansion, Dakota County, Minnesota ("Lot 6") to White Pine Holdings, LLC ("White Pine"). White Pine has already submitted to the City its application for an amendment to the conditional use permit for planned unit development approved for Mendota Plaza. Section 6.2 of the above -referenced Planned Unit Development Agreement ("Agreement") requires the City's prior written approval to transfer any portion of the Development Property, as defined therein, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. On behalf of Mendota Mall, we hereby request the City's consent to the sale of Lot 6 to White Pine. In conjunction with White Pine's application, the City has already received information on White Pine and its plans for Lot 6. Unless we hear otherwise from you, we will assume that this request for consent satisfies the requirements of Section 6.2 of the Agreement. Very truly yours, r I Melanie J. Tr (612) 337-6138 1 Direct melanietriplett a(),siegelbrill.com cc: Tony Gleekel (via email) Ken Henk (via email) Howard Paster (via email) 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231,2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Commission FROM: Stephen W. Grittman DATE: July 21, 2011 MEETING DATE: July 26, 2011 SUBJECT: Variance and CUP for an Accessory Building CASE NO: Case No. 11.21 NAC Case 254.04 — 11.21 APPLICANT(S): Visitation School LOCATION: 2455 Visitation Drive ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Background and Description of Request: Visitation School is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to allow for an outdoor classroom on the subject site. The applications are necessary in order to allow for the construction of a new accessory building that would be used for classroom space as well as support space for winter sports activities. The proposed building would be 1,823 square feet in area, including classroom/lab space, restrooms, and a greenhouse component. The Zoning Ordinance makes the following provisions for accessory buildings in the R-1 zoning district (to be noted is that accessory buildings that serve as garages have separate requirements): Setbacks: 10 feet, and not within any required front yard. Height: 15 feet, measured from average grade to the average height of the roof. Total Area: 425 square feet, 225 square feet per building maximum, except by CUP Number: Maximum of 3 accessory buildings. The property is currently occupied by a convent, school building, and five other accessory buildings, including caretaker facilities and four buildings supporting various educational functions. The total of these buildings is approximately 4,512 square feet. The Visitation Convent and School is allowed in the R-1 zoning district by Conditional Use Permit. Changes to the overall site plan, including accessory buildings of more than 425 square feet, require a Conditional Use Permit, and in this case, a variance to allow the size and number of the accessory buildings as proposed. Analysis: Variance. The Zoning Ordinance establishes a standard for reviewing variance requests which is based on the finding that the variance is being requested so that the applicants may use the property in a reasonable manner, and that there exist practical difficulties, unique to the property, which would otherwise not allow the use as proposed. According to the Ordinance accessory structures are allowed under the formula that accessory buildings not constitute more than four hundred twenty five (425) square feet if the area of the property on which such structures are to be located is more than four (4) acres; provided, that no single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty five (225) square feet, and no more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected. The applicant currently exceeds this requirement with five existing accessory buildings, with a total footprint of 4,512 square feet. With the addition of the proposed sixth accessory building, total square footage would equal approximately 6,335 square feet. The City has granted flexibility from this standard in situations where institutional uses, such as schools, can demonstrate that additional accessory structures are necessary. In this case the proposed building will serve as a functional purpose of the school and its curriculum. The building meets required setbacks, and is more than 100 feet from an existing pond area (thus no wetland permit is required). The size of the property that the school sits on is more than 60 acres, and the existing principal building is more than 100,000 square feet in area. The building site is well screened from surrounding property by existing vegetation and components of the site that are far more active in nature than the proposed classroom building. The proposed site of the building is just south of the existing tennis courts, and would be approximately 400 feet from the nearest single family home to the north. Conditional Use Permit. The CUP requirement is intended to ensure that issues related to the overall health, safety and general welfare are reviewed in the context of the submitted application. The building itself is clearly in support of the educational activities of the site, and with the exception of those persons visiting or using the property, the building will not be visible, nor appear to have any impact on the surrounding area. 2 Landscaping and Vegetation Impacts. While the applicant has provided a grading, drainage and erosion control plan as well as construction plans, the applicant has not indicated how access to the classroom will occur and from what direction. Pedestrian access and trails will impact vegetation and trees within the area. The applicant should provide an updated site plan showing pedestrian access to be installed with the proposed project. With regard to landscaping, the applicants indicate that two existing trees (one evergreen and one elm tree) will be removed to accommodate the building. The applicant suggests that future landscaping, and any replanting, would be a component of the educational use of the building. The removal of two trees in this area would not appear to have any significant impact on the site or this particular location. Action Requested: The Planning Commission may make one of the following recommendations with regard to each request: Variance and Conditional Use Permit: A. Approval of the variance and CUP request allowing the construction of the accessory structure over the size and number allowed under the Zoning Ordinance subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant receive a building permit for the project prior to commencing construction 2. The city engineer provide comment and recommendation regarding impervious surface area and drainage impacts Approval would be based upon the finding that structure meets the variance review requirements of the Ordinance. Furthermore, the essential character of the neighborhood would be maintained by granting the structural size variance. Draft findings are attached to this report we] MOM B. Denial of the variance and CUP request, based on a finding that the applicant currently has reasonable use of the property and that the proposed building would be out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the CUP and variance, with the condition that the applicant provide additional information pertaining to a pedestrian circulation plan with an updated site plan for City review prior to final approval. Supplementary Materials: Site Location Map Application Materials dated June 30, 2011 Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Draft Findings of Fact for Approval Visitation Convent and School Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Accessory Building 2455 Visitation Drive The proposed accessory building will be located in an area that is not visible from surrounding property. 2. The site on which the proposed building is to be constructed is unique and distinguished from other residential properties, consisting of more than 60 acres. 3. The proposed accessory building will have little or no impact on surrounding residential property with a separation from the closest residential building of approximately 400 feet. 4. The proposed building will support an activity that is clearly incidental and accessory to the principal use of the property, and is not expected to increase traffic or have other impacts on public services. 5. The proposed building meets all other zoning requirements. 6. Vegetation to be removed for the project will be minimal, and have no impacts on neighboring property. 7. The proposed building is not expected to create and drainage or stormwater issues, and such drainage will be handled by on-site stormwater management. July 18, 2011 Philip Cattanach Opus Design Build, L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 Dear Mr. Cattanach: \` of Mendota -'7- eights I have reviewed the additional materials submitted for plaruling application 2011-22 for a conditional use permit and variance for an accessory structure at 2455 Visitation Drive. This starts the 60 day review period for this application, which is set to expire on September 16, 2011. Your application will be heard at a public hearing conducted by the Mendota Heights Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. at City Hall. Please plan on attending this hearing. Let me now if you have further questions, I will provide a copy of the staff report as soon as I am able. Sincerely, Jake Sedlacek Assistant to the City Administrator c: Planning Case File #2011-22 11©1 vitt lr5a Cua-we ° Mendota Heig Heights, PEN 55118 e (651)'452-18 0 e FAA (6�1� 4 2-94 www.mendoia-heig st,S-Com P-40 OPUS OPUS DESIGN BUILD, L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 MEMORANDUM TO: Jake Sedlacek Assistance to the City Administrator FROM: Phil Cattanach DATE: July 18, 2011 RE: Planning File 2011-22: Visitation School —Webber Building Dear Mr. Sedlacek, In response to your July 13 correspondence we offer the following items to complete our application concerning the Webber Building concept as originally submitted on June 30, 2011. The existing accessory buildings presently on the school campus are as follow: Name Area (SF) Property care taker facilities 3,455 Open air scorers booth 77 Bird Shelter 102 Gazebo 724 Potting shed 154 Total 4,512 We have enclosed a site plan indicating these building and their location within the campus. Please treat this correspondence as our formal request to construct the Webber Building with an overhang greater than 18" as illustrated on the architectural drawings previously submitted (ref. sheet A4.1) Sincerely, dzoo� Phil Cattanach Project Manager Encl: Visitation School campus with total accessory building areas — Sheet A1.1 City of APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. - Ll_ Date of Application Fee Paid Applicant Name: Cattanach, Philip T PH: 952-656-4777 (Last) (First) (M) E -Mail Address: philip.cattanach@opus-group.com Address: 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka MN 55343 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: Convent and Academy of the Visitation School (Last) (First) (M) Address: 2455 Visitation Drive Mendota Heights MN 55120 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: 2455 Visitation Drive Legal Description & PIN of Property: (Complete Legal from Title or Deed must be provided) S 3/4 of S 1/2 of NE 1/4 Lying W of Jefferson HGWY EX N 600 FT & EX W 200 FT EX PT in Parcel 202 of Sth RM Plat No. 19-53 PIN: 270350005010 Type of Request: Rezoning X Conditional Use Permit Conditional User Permit for P.U.D. Preliminary/Final Plat Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number X Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Critical Area Permit Other (attach explanation) Section Present Zoning of Property R - 1 Present Use Institutional Proposed Zoning of Property R - 1 Proposed Use Institutional I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. I further authorize City Officials and agents to inspect the above prop du 'n d light hours. (Signature of Applicant) Date Received 7 �� ;' u �� 1e4'Ll. - �� ! �z ✓ � Irg1"s ft`s (Signature of Owner) ; 36, tW// 1101 Victoria Curve. Mendota Heights, MN 55118 .(651) 452-1850 . FAX (651) 452-8940 www.mendota-heights.com 0 OPUS OPUS DESIGN BUILD, L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mendota Heights Planning Department FROM: Phil Cattanach DATE: June 30, 2011 RE: Letter of Intent concerning Proposed Webber Building Convent and Academy of the Visitation School The proposed Webber Building is the culmination of a multiyear planning and fund raising effort that will enhance the experience of students for many years to come. In celebration of the Webber Family, the new building will offer an outdoor educational setting for students. Consequently this building will foster hands on learning where students will interact with the environment, understand the impacts on the environment, and experience the physical maturation of plant materials through the greenhouse feature within this building. The building will also have an activity space for the cross country ski team to support their activities during the winter months such as preparation of their equipment with the end result of enhancing the comprehensive student experience at Visitation. The size of the building is 1,823 square feet. Typically classroom sizing for a high school academic setting is 900 to 1,000 square feet for 25 to 30 students. Science lab space is traditionally larger based on the specific discipline. Given this is an educational setting we are also incorporating toilet rooms to not disrupt the academic atmosphere based on the distance from other restroom facilities. The location of the building is situated within the Visitation School campus such that there is minimal site visibility from off the property. The architectural exterior consists of cedar wood shake siding, asphalt shingles with windows. We are providing provisions such that a future decorative masonry veneer can be incorporated based on funding availability. Our preliminary studies indicate the proposed building will not encroach on any known easements as the footprint is located Just east of the existing Xcel Energy easement. The building is beyond 100 feet from the normal water level of the pond located to the southeast. Acknowledging City code for accessory space is 425 square feet, we are asking the Planning Commission to consider granting a variance based on the uses of this facility as described above. Due to the different educational functions it is impractical to program these activities in the allowable accessory space threshold. Working with the school we have explored several different building configurations and programming studies. Our conclusion is this scheme represents the most economical space suitable to meet the multitude of programing needs in the effort of providing the rich educational experience in keeping with Visitation School's mission. Page 2 We appreciate the consideration and welcome the opportunity to answer any questions concerning this exciting project. Sincerely, y Phil Cattanach Project Manager Encl: Variance and Conditional Use Permit Applications CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS A g .AAA Variance Checklist Case No: City Process: Date: Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Applicant: Commission and/or the City Council only after all required phone /Fax materials have been submitted. . Other Approvals Needed: Late or incomplete applications will not, be put on the agenda, Relevant Ordinances/Sections: Planning Timeline: If proper and complete application materials and supportive documents are submitted by (date) then the public hearing or review of your case will be conducted by the Planning Commission on (date). Following completion of the public hearing, or Planning Commission review, the City Council may consider your application on (date). A variance is a request to exceed City of Mendota Heights zoning standards. Under Minnesota State Statute, a variance to City Code requires that the city find that an undue hardship exists. Undue hardship has three parts: a unique condition exists on the property (not created by the landowner); the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance; the variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Please consider these requirements carefully before requesting a variance. Applicant Requirements: Dated original of all of the materials checked, including this checklist (8 Y2x 11), must be submitted in person by noon the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. o If all original materials are smaller than 11 X 17 - you need to only submit originals. ® If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 22 copies, folded to 8 % x 11. o Any drawing in color - must submit 22 copies. The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Fee: ($100 Residential, $150 Commercial) (Check: Payable to the City of Mendota Heights) Please note that this Planning Application fee does not cover building permit fees, utilities, park dedication fees, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project. Completed Application Form (only original need be submitted) Complete Legal Description and PIN of property. Letter of Intent: summarize the proposal and explain the hardship or practical difficulty which justifies the variance Sketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements having an influence upon the variance request. All IdWritten consent by the owners of property within 100 feet of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in question and the location of property owners who have given consent. NIA e ALL-. '- r-ry Describe alternatives which have been considered, and why the proposed alternative is the best choice. . ❑ If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic contours shall be submitted. NIA ❑ If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the applicant shall have his plan approved by the City's Public Works Director. del/A Notes: Fc>v- 10�'PF'L-1C9 rt cell —i k(L CAT7N"AC--F-A� TV-CXS"EC--C MwaA(,�- 4 1101 Victoria Curve. Mendota Heights, MN 55118 .(651) 452-1850. FAX (651) 452-8940 www.mendota-heights.com MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING APPLICATION Conditional Use Permit Checklist Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. Planning Timeline: If proper and complete application materials and supportive documents are submitted by (date) then the public hearing or review of your case will be conducted by the Planning Commission on (date). Following completion of the public hearing, or Planning Commission review, the City Council may consider your application on (date). Applicant Requirements: Dated original of all of the materials checked, must be submitted by noon the Monday before the first Tuesday of the month. • If all original materials are 11 x 17 or smaller — you need to only submit originals. • If materials are larger than 11 x 17, please provide 22 copies, folded to 8 '/2 x 11. • Any drawings in color - must submit 22 copies The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: Id Fee: ($350 Normal, $500 for Planned Unit Development) (Check: Payable to the City of Mendota Heights) (Please note that this Planning Application fee does not cover building permit fees, utilities, park dedication fees, or other fees which may be required for you to complete your project.) 'W Completed Application Form (Only original need be submitted) J. Complete Legal Description and PIN of Property. Letter of Intent. The Dimension Plan shall include: 1. Lot dimensions and area. "P -F a 10 2. Dimensions of proposed and existing structures. MF. ALI 3. "Typical" floor plan and "typical" room plan. ems. A ZZ 4. Setbacks on all buildings located on property in question. r : A IA 5. Proposed setbacks. m The Site Development Plan shall include: M 1. Architectural elevations (type and materials used of all external surface). F -I; A`E'I M 2. Location and candle power of all luminaries. ® • `� f. 3. Location of all existing easements. �. Lc� Conditional Use Permit Checklist (modified 1012010) Page 1 of 2 1Y 4. Location of all adjacent buildings located within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property in question. -ZF-V : A I - t ❑ 5. (If necessary) Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces. ❑ 6. (If necessary) Vehicular circulation. 7. (If necessary) Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed.?. F . o; k The Grading Plan shall include: 1. Existing contour. T. -SF : A i a I 2. Proposed grading elevations. A t.% 3. Drainage configuration. u P 4A 1 -I ❑ 4. (If necessary) Storm sewer catch basins and invert elevations. ❑ 5. (If necessary) Spot elevations. ❑ 6. (If necessary) Proposed road profile. The Landscape Plan shall include: r–fF: L;wbScA>1,4G C* =1 :9 1. Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed. W 2. Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings. ❑ 3. Location and material used of all screening devices. si(q Notes: Fol 1 =gig_ �ut��, A; ucaTlo,.1 -fJ4IL CAT-C"Nc-fib f Ro-IEc.-r MAIM Gg (t-Vi ) Conditional Use Permit Checklist (modified 1012010) Page 2 of 2 0_0'1�1 OPUS OPUS DESIGN BUILD, L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 ►LE a kyj 1902'FTS TO: Mendota Heights Planning Department FROM: Phil Cattanach DATE: June 30, 2011 RE: Electrical Summary —Webber Building Each exterior single door will be illuminated by a recessed soffit light fixture will all luminaires oriented downward. The exterior double doorway will have an exterior wall mounted fixture similar to the Lithonia Lighting fixture model WST, cut sheet attached. fA L/THOfV/.4 L/GHT/NG" FEATURES & SPECIFICATIONS INTENDED USE— For building -and wall -mounted applications. CONSTRUCTION—Rugged, die-cast, single -piece aluminum housing. Die-cast doorframe has 1/8"thick tempered glass lens. Doorframe is fully gasketed with one-piece solid silicone. OPTICS — Segmented reflectors for superior uniformity and control. Medium throw (MD) full cutoff distribution available. ELECTRICAL — Ballast: Class P, multi -volt electronic, high power factor, <10%THD, with starting tem- perature of 0°F (-18e0 Socket: High temperature thermoplastic with an integral lamp retention clip. Finish: Standard finish istextured darkbronze (DDBT) corrosion -resistant polyesterpowderfinish. Additional architectural colors are available. Striping is also available. INSTALLATION— Universal mounting mechanism with integral mounting support allows fixtureto hinge down. Bubble level provides correct alignment with each installation. LISTINGS — UL Listed (standard). CSA Certified (see Options). Suitable for wet locations (damp location listed in lens -up orientation). WLU option offers wet location listing in up orientation (see Options). IP65 Rated. 25'C ambient. ELED: U.S. PatentNo.7,737,640, Note: Specifications subject to change without notice Catalog Number Notes Type Decorative Wall -Mounted Lighting WST Specifications Length: 16-1/4 (41.2) T 7-1/4 Depth: 9-1/8 (23.2)i (18.4) Overall Height: 7-114 (18.4)141.2) (23,2)6-1/4 9-1/8 *Weight:30lbs (13.6 kg) ( All dimensions are inches (centimeters) unless otherwise indicated. *Weight as configured in example below. I ' r i i I r ' ' r For shortest leadtimes, configure product using standard options (shown in bold). Example: WST 42TRT MD 120 LPI WST 8 Not available with 2/26DTT or 2/26TRT. 9 Not availa ble with 2/42TRT. MD from 120-277V. 10 Not available with EC, DCsORELDWs. 2 May be ordered as an accessory. Prefix with "WS"Must specify finish, Series. Wattage Distribution Voltage Ballast Mounting Options_;_ WST 26DTT MD Mediumthrow 120 (blank) Electronic0°F (blank) Surfacemount Shipped installed in fixture Emergency battery pack (32' min. operating temp)',',' 2/26DTT WG Wire guard 277 Sandstone, textured Shipped separate[ q' DC12 Emergency circuitl2-volt (35W lamp included)' Emergency battery pack (Oemin. operating temp)s,s,1.e 26TRT VG Vandal guard 347 Natural aluminum, textured BBW Surface mount back box 2DC12 Emergency circuit 12 -volt (two 35W lamps Fixture wired readyforBodine®B30battery pack (battery 2/26TRT MVOLT' White, textured UTS Uptilt 5 degrees included)' pack not included; 32min. o p e operating ' p g tem P) 32TRT DBLB Black, textured DC2012 Emergency circuit l2-volt(20Wlamp included)' CSA CSA certified 2/32TRT CR Corrosion -resistance 2DC2012 Emergency circuit 12 -volt (two 20W lamps NOM NOM certified CRT Non-stick protective coating" ELED Included)' 42TRT (-VF min. operating temperature)"," 2ELED DFL Diffusing lens 2/42TRT with time delay (-4°F min. operating temperature)"," Notes 1 Multi -volt electronic ballastcapable ofoperatingonany lin evoltage 8 Not available with 2/26DTT or 2/26TRT. 9 Not availa ble with 2/42TRT. 4W from 120-277V. 10 Not available with EC, DCsORELDWs. 2 May be ordered as an accessory. Prefix with "WS"Must specify finish, Options (continued) NIGHTTIME 3 Not available with GMF, EC, Rows. Finish" FRIENDLY Lamp EC Emergency circuit' GMF Internal slow -blow fusing' Shipped separately (blank) Dark bronze, textured LPI Lamp ELDW Emergency battery pack (32' min. operating temp)',',' PE Photoelectric cell -button WG Wire guard DSST Sandstone, textured included ELDWC Emergency battery pack (Oemin. operating temp)s,s,1.e type" VG Vandal guard DNAT Natural aluminum, textured ULP less lamp ELDWR Fixture wired readyforBodine®B30battery pack (battery WLU Wet location doorforup orientation DWHG White, textured pack not included; 32min. o p e operating ' p g tem P) DBLB Black, textured ELDWRPS Fixture wired ready for PSI 400 or PSDL remote battery pack CSA CSA certified CR Corrosion -resistance (battery pack not included; 32e min. operating temp)',' NOM NOM certified CRT Non-stick protective coating" ELED Emergency LED secondary source battery pack with time delay (-VF min. operating temperature)"," 2ELED Emergency LED secondary source (two modules) battery pack with time delay (-4°F min. operating temperature)"," Notes 1 Multi -volt electronic ballastcapable ofoperatingonany lin evoltage 8 Not available with 2/26DTT or 2/26TRT. 9 Not availa ble with 2/42TRT. 4W from 120-277V. 10 Not available with EC, DCsORELDWs. 2 May be ordered as an accessory. Prefix with "WS"Must specify finish, 11 Must specify120Vor277V. NIGHTTIME 3 Not available with GMF, EC, Rows. 12 Must be ordered with fixture; cannot be field instal led. FRIENDLY 4 Maximo mallowable wattage lam pIncluded. 13 See www.lithonia.com/archcolorsforadditionalcoloroptions. c"asisteat wah teen• yeas: a Green mobes�aueda S Not available with MVOLT;must specifyvoltage. 14 Black finish only. for light pollution ,edudon 5 Not available with 2/32TRTor2/42TRT 15 Most be specified (35K lamp with LPO. 7 Not available with DCs or EC. OUTDOOR WST—CF WST Fluorescent Wall Mounted `ST 2/42TRT MD TEST N0: LTL11108 ISOILLUMINANCE PLOT (Footcandle) m _2 F O 1 = 0 Z 0 D 5 O 2.51 5 LL 5 iO U, F - Z 2 Z W U 3 F 0 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 2742TRT lamp, horizontal lamp orientation Footcandl a values based on 12' mounting height, 3200 rated lumens (per lamp). Luminaire Efficiency: 49.6% Lamp Initial lumens Mounting height Compact Fluorescent 10' 12' 14' 16' 42WTRT 3,200 0.72 0.50 0.37 0.28 (2) 42W TRT 6,400 1.44 1.0 0.73 0.53 rnergency0paonLampCorn patabtIt _ .. Lamp options #of lamps/wattage DC12 2DC12 DC2012 2DC2012 EC ELED 2ELED ELDW ELDWC ELDWR ELDWRPS 26DTT(llamp) ■ N 1111111 is ® ■ in ■ N in 0 2/26DTT ® A ® ® ® ■ 26TRT(llamp) ® ® ® ® X11 ® ® ® 0 Z 2/26TRT ® ® H 0 N ® ■ ■ 0 32TRT(llamp) N O IN ® In ® ® w N w >J 2/32TRT ® ® N 0 42TRT(1lamp) ® w Is In ® ® 1!I Is a N 0 2/42TRT ® ® w 0 11 w IN WST_CF An "cuiiyBrands Company OUTDOOR: One Lithonia Way Conyers, CA 30012 Phone: 770,922.9000 Fax: T70-918-1209 rrmlithonia.com "02003-2010 Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. All rights reserved. Rev, 12/28/10 00-**" 0-4, OPUS OPUS DESIGN BUILD, L.L.C. 10350 Bren Road West Minnetonka, MN 55343 MEMORANDUM TO: Mendota Heights Planning Department FROM: Phil Cattanach DATE: June 30, 2011 RE: Landscaping Concept The landscaping currently in this area is grass with a mixture of elm and pine trees. The new building orientation will require the removal of two trees, one 14" pine and one 16" elm as reflected on detail 1 of sheet A1.1. The new plantings will all be generated by students through the educational purpose of this building and the green house function. The remainder of the areas that have been disturbed by this project will be fine graded and seeded with grass seed. The final mixture of proposed plantings will be determined by the Visitation school faculty and the environmental educational curriculum. �I x c� 0 'I m m' r -t^ 0 �G UEI= aT { cn 0 0 0 0 I CD rn 0 fl N O i 0 m 0 0 m CD a) 0 M co cn m tD 0 *. CD w a: 0 CD K m :) 0 cn cn CD < cn 0 ;:74: N CD 0 05, C/) o o 0 C:) cy) C) 0 0 73 rn CD 22'-0" _0 1 zor CD (-D m cy! C<. IMD 0 " IK . F (D _0 m 0 CD Cl) U) -n E03 CD CD r j: CO CA ](D CD w 0 X 5� < CD CL 0 28'-0" K (D CL 0 (D w 0 w vp 6 - a cn O 0) 0 0 (f) CD 0 D C-)0 * > 0 ZD 0 :D 0 0 0 In 0 0 C) 0- W- (D C) (D CD (D Cn C) —n 0 (D cn U) 0 O c :3 CL CD cn 0 ca — �'. 4ill. f Z� — �'. 4ill. f CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Philip Cattanach on behalf of the Convent and Academy of the Visitation School to construct an accessory structure at 2455 Visitation Drive. The legal description for this property is as follows: S 3/ of S Y of NE % lying W of Jefferson Hgwy ex N 600 Ft & ex W 200 Ft ex PT in Parcel 202 of S RAIN Plat No. 19-53, (PID #27-71150-11-060). The request for a conditional use permit is to construct an accessory structure to be used as an outdoor classroom and storage. This request also requires a variance for the total square feet of area utilized as accessory structure and a variance for eaves larger than eighteen inches. This notice is pursuant to Title 12 (Zoning), Chapter 1 of the Mendota Heights City Code. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at this meeting. Sandie Thone City Clerk DICK JR & JOAN E BJORKLUND D & D PROPERTIES GARRY M & BARBARA RUHLMANN 2511 CONDON CT 2511 CONDON CT 816 WESTVIEW CIR MF"lDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120-1679 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1658 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1698 NATHANIEL KETT PAUL R & KELLY BREDEMUS JAY P & REBECCA A MILLER 819 WESTVIEW CIR 815 WESTVIEW CIR 2475 WESTVIEW TERR SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1698 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1698 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120-2601 STEVEN OLSEN & PAUL W & ELIZABETH WILD SHARON D MOERI DEBRA OST 813 HAZEL CT 809 HAZEL CT 2469 WESTVIEW TERR SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1626 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1626 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1699 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120-1415 JOHN F & SANDRA A OBRIEN RICHARD L & DAWN VOLKERT NEIL N & SUSAN L MACRORIE 807 HAZEL CT 2400 DODD RD 2381 PAGEL RD SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1626 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1655 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1638 RAYMOND JR HASELBERGER CELESTE CLAUDE ESSER ELLAN WELNIAK 2357 PAGEL RD 2361 DODD RD 2371 DODD RD MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120-1654 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1654 SOUTH METRO HUMAN SERVICES MARY J WINIECKI THOMAS W & PATRICIA RAYMOND 400 SIBLEY ST UNIT 500 2360 KRESSIN AVE 2350 KRESSIN AVE SAINT PAUL MN 55101 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1416 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1416 R MICHAEL & LINDA J LACY DONALD G & MARJORIE CAMITSCH ERIC PALMER & 2351 KRESSIN AVE 2361 KRESSING AVE CARLI HINZ MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120 SAINT PAUL MN 55120 2371 KRESSIN AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120-1415 ROBERT LOCKARD DANIEL) & ANGELA M BROOS PAUL WESLEY & DENISE STENSGARD 2370 ROGERS AVE 2360 ROGERS AVE 2350 ROGERS AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1422 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120-1422 KRISTEN E LANCASTER BRADLEY & TERESA BJORKLUND CHARLES E TSTE MERTENSOTTO & 2351 ROGERS AVE 2357 ROGERS AVE ARLEAN R TSTE MERTENSOTTO SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1421 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120-1421 2371 ROGERS AVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120 JEI" ER L NAAS & EDWARD M * KRISTIN M DRIEMAN ALF D & JOAN C WIIK GLEN UNRUH 2356 SWAN DR 2350 SWAN DR 2370 SWAN DR MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120-1423 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1423 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120 THOMAS M & SALLY MCNAMARA RONALD & MARY K SMITH DOUGLAS E & KAREN E HENNES 2371 SWAN DR 2357 SWAN DR 2351 SWAN DR SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1424 MENDOTA HEIGHTS MN 55120-1424 SAINT PAUL MN 55120-1424 VISITATION PROPERTY PLAN SCALE 1- = 107-0-- ............... �yl � `N III � Y PROPERTY CARE TAKER FACILITIES RESIDENCE GARAGE #1 GARAGE #2 98 .. If. HED #1 244 0. SHED #2 410 s.f. TOTAL 3.455 sJ. PROPERTY CARE TAKER FACILITIES 3,455 s.f. OPEN AIR SCORERS BOOTH 77 s.f. BIRD SHELTER 102 s.f. GAZBEO 724 s.L POTTING SHED 154 ., TOTAL 4,512 s.f. APPRO . UTILV STUB LOCATION (WATE & SAN. SEWER) CO NER OF BLACKTOP SURFACE/ PROPOSED STRUCTURE FLOOR EL. 900.'00 PARTIAL SITE PLAN SCALE 11' = 30'-0" -- -r- - ii --- - tI ff1 fli l ; I 2 VISITATION PROPERTY PLAN SCALE 1' - 100'-0' l IY SNB LOCATIONS / / I. SEWER) J J / 5iz-11 P $UfEFACl/ PARTIAL SITE PLAN SCALE 1' - 30'-O' Q (ecA 0t OPUS® Opus AE Group, Inc. 1.3% B•n Road W..t n.lai0. MN 55sa-.110 932-636-IN4 952-636-1329 fm REG M31% 631E R[afw Oe NUMM 30190 PROECf "BM 30190100 a1E 06/30/2011 PIta43.T MAMER P. CATTANACH / C. LARSON DRAWN W G. HAWKINS Dox; 0Y G. HAWKINS / E GSCHNEIONER • E— may occur in the transmission of ehchonic flet The Opus cowponies on: not resp—ihht for any cwms, damages or e6pesn wising out of the ;authorized use of the ildawation —Coined In elecirohk files. • Bechonic lies may not accumtely reflect the final as -built conditions. N is the responsibility of the user to verify all =responsibility and other related izrformottoo. • This document may not be used or copied without prior written consent. 0 all rights reserved n.Pww r•. OR OPUS® OpusDesin Build, L.L.C. ia350 01sit Rand Witt wm."r MN 5531]-0110 52-656-14 4 :51-5w-144 32-656-1529 fw Mica WEBBER BUILDING Visitation School 2.r_vm Mendota Heights, Minnesota %M n" SITE PLAN 4EET NUNffA A1.1 PLOT DATE: June 30, 2011 - 3:11 Pm b--------------------------------------------------------------------------r 1 'n r— ----------- I I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL AS REQUIRED I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 POURED CONCRETE TRENCH FOOTING / FOUNDATION 1 I 1 I I I L1 ,1 6xBx16 CONCRETE CURB BLOCK .---_----_ —_--_ ALLCORES GROUTED SOLID 0 $"x16" HOOKED ANCHOR BOLTS 6'-0" 4C. L----------------------------------------------------------------- --—J PLAN � FOUNDATION PLAN 1 SCALE i/{• T'-0" 01 OPUS® Opus AE Group, Inc. Tom a•a Rood w.d nebnkq NN 55549-0110 952-656-41{4 952-656-4529 fax RFMMMI m E RLCARD JOB NUtIl+L1t 30190 PROJECT NUMBER 30190100 DATE 06/30/2011 PROJOI 4N R P. CATFANACH / C. (ARSON MWN IK G. HAWKINS CWMED BY G. HAWKINS / E, GSCHNEIDNER • Errors may occur in the transmission of electronic fief The Opus companks are nat responsible for any laims, damages or erpe-1 orising out of the w ulhorized ase f the information contained in ekcbron. files. • Electronic files may at accurateFy reflect the final as—built conditions. k is the responsibility of the user to verify all layouts, dimensions and other related infonaumen, • This document may not be used or copied without prior written consent. 0 all rights re:caved rrePar.a Ett ee OPUS. Opus Design Build, L.L.C. 10% P. R•ad weal )Mnelordq MN 55313-0110 952-656-4L14 952-656-1529 !mr PRQEGT WEBBER BUILDING Visitation School LOCATION Mendota Heights, Minnesota ShUT TIME FOUNDATION PLAN sREr NauBR A2.1 PLOT DATE: June 30, 2011 — 2:45pm 1•�GF 2'-5Y2" 3'-5' 1 3'-5' IM 3'-5" 3'-5" 3'-5" 3'-5' 3'-5" 6'-OY2" VERIFY WIN SPACIN DIMENSION / WINDO kGUGN OP TNG RE00. I 3-3'- x3'-0 VINYL WDWS. 2-2.12 ANF. HDR. 3-3'- x5'-6 vlNri WOWS. 2-2x4 STUD POST - - 2-2x12 CONT. HDR. BETWEEN wows. (TYP.) - ROUGH IN PLUMBING FOR FUTURE SINK R E HOUSE ACTIVITY ROOM SKI ACTIVITY ROOM S, 33 I z o y� CINC ETE CONCRETE PR. 3-0 -0 PR, 3-0z7 CONCRETE LOCKSET LOCKSET 0 .I _ I o y •I HANDICAP GRAB BARS wA Y'yI1�RES PROVIDE BACKING Mc BLOCKING HFA R �RNACJ (TYP.) 'I o aN 3� - -i i II •I TRENCH DRAIN w/ REMOVABLE COVER a •j T.P.D. T.P.O. - O - UNISEX 1 ISEX 2 �UN•I Sri TOP 0 99'-11 ' EPDXY F. - EPO%Y LAUNDRY TUB SINK LEGS (ANCHOR I TO WALL) x LAI _ a P.T.D. P,T.D� I I 2-2x12 CONT. HDR. DR.,f3 DR.`4 ,I - _ 3-3'- z5'-6 VINri WDWS. 3-3'- z3'-0 VINYL WDWS. 2-2x12 CONI. HDR, z -2x4 STUD Posr q BETWEEN WDWS. (TYP.) VESTIB LE 3-Oz7-0 o CONCRETE a 3-0x7-0 - LDCKSET DR 1 LOCKSET 6-3 -1 x5"-6 ANLL WDWS. T VERIFY WIN OW SPACIN DIMENSION ENTER OF STUDS W/ WINDO ROUGH OP MING REOD. 6'-SYx" 3'-5' 3'-5' 3'-5' 3'-5" 3'-5" 7'-(1}j" 15'-11' 33'-0'8'- 12'-0' 56'-0" 68'-0" tiRGFPLAN T1 FLOOR PLAN GENERALNOTES ALL DOORS TO BE PAINTED SOLID CORE WOOD, EXCEPT DOOR 16 TO BE PAINTED HOLLOW MEFAL DR. k 2' HOLLOW METAL FRAME. DOORS #1 h #8 TO HAVE FULL TEMPERED GLASS PANELS ALL DOOR HARDWARE TO HAVE LEVER HANDLES EXTERIOR WALLS FRAMED WITH 2x6 STUDS 16" O.C. TO 10'-0" A.F.F. GREENHOUSE WALLS FRAMED AT 11'-3' A.F.F. INTERIOR WALLS FRAMED WITH 2x4 STUDS 16" O.C. TO UNDERSIDE OF ROOF TRUSSES. REST ROOM FLOORS TO HAVE EPDXY COATING SURFACE w/ 6' HIGH COVED BASE WALLS TO HAVE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC PANELS w/ ALL TRIM MEMBERS TO A HEIGHT OF 6'-0' A.F.F. i4 OPUS. Opus AE Group, Inc. 10150 bn Rood Wed k n.Mi4 IM 5315--0II0 952-656-4114 952-656-1529 lax RFL61IUTXIN 656E rdFM� .me hYIYBER 30190 PROTECT Nuum 30190100 ATE 06/30/2011 PROIdT 4 ER P. CATfANACH / C. MSON DRAW BY G. HAWKINS cwc m In G. HAWKINS / E. GSCHNEIDNER • Errors may occur in the transmission of electronic files. The Opus eompmies one not respons,Nle for any dorms, damages or e.,n— —r,out of the unauthorised use of the irdormation coManed in electron. files. • Eecbonie files may not accurately reflect the final os-buflt conditions. It is the responsibility of the user to verify all Layout,, dimensions and other related rdo Lrmat o. • This document may not be used o copied without prior written consent. G) all rights reserved Prryud Fp �e 0PUS. Opus Design Build, L.L.C. 10150 Rnn Recd Wad lhnndonkq IM 55313-0110 952-656-1144 952-656-/52f fa PROFU WEBBER BUILDING Visitation School LO DNI Mendota Heights, Minnesola s"M TRUE FLOOR PLAN s1EFf NUMeFR A2.2 PLOT DATE: June 30, 2011 - 2:41pm III TYPICAL RARE OVERHANG wwGLE.+ RIDGE VENT SYSTEM .x6~. .°m"CEDAR FASCIA BOARDS 2.8 S4SmDAR FREEZE BOARD 2x,"4S CEDAR TRIM BOARD 4 66 It y 11 LI '-- SNAKE LAI SIDING 4 S4S CEDAR CORNER BOARDS POURED CONCRETE FOUNDATION NORTHWEST ELEVATION — 12 ^ ,RDLi GREENHOUSE ALL (—GREENHOUSE WALL HEIGHT ------------------------------------- J L _— —_--___—__--_--__' NORTHEAST ELEVATION 250f AR HITECTURk ASPHALT SHINGLES ALTERNATE YENT SYSTEM 2,xv FIXED GLASS SKYLIGHTS I—C GREENHOUSE WALL I I I "' HANG -t..-\ T.1 2.4 S4S CEDAR TRIM BOARDS 7'-' iST ELEVATION SCALE 1/4' S4S CEDAR BRACKET CONSTRUCIPON --- vmu F17 AALL 14 L —IJ Nj1T2L' S, 11 El ::1 Iiafoll� ''F411 1, fill fill] --- ��'SHAKERTCWN"SHAKE LAP SIDING 20 S4S CEDAR CORNER BOARDS \______POURED CONCRETE FOUNDATION ELEVATION SCALE 1/4- V -0 - ,====.U, ZUI`-7:�/Prn — Opus AE Group, Inc. WN �110 KRE Nvaam 30190 PROJECT NUU801 30190100 DAYE 06/30/2011 PRO= wxm P. CATTANACH C. LARSON Im" BY G. HAWKINS CHE= Of N The Pont — net fil— copled without Prior written consent. (D .11 dghte re—ed Opus Design Build, L.L.C. pmm WEBBER BUILDING Visitation School Mendota HeitIhls, Minnesota SHOT ffu EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS '"B"" - A:3:. :1 ,====.U, ZUI`-7:�/Prn — 2 WALL SECTION AT DOOR CANOPY SCALE 3/4- - 1'-0- 2504 ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLES w/ RIDGE VENT SYSTEM 154 ASPHALT FELT PEEL k STICK SINGLE PLY MEMBRANE FROM FASCIA TO A POINT 3'-0' IN FROM SHEATHING )6" SHEATHING w/ MID SPAN CUPS ENGINEERED PARALLEL CORD TRUSSES 24' O.C. (20" deep, VERIFY w/ TRUSS MFGR.) 12 3'-0"'i \ 5 F �� 5 �J12 J BATT INSULATION (R=38 MIN.) POLY VAPOR HARRIER )4" SANDED PLYWOOD FINISH w/ 1.3 RATTENS AT JOINTS 1x6 over 1x8 S4S CEDAR FASCIA BOARDS )S" PLYWOOD SUBFASCTA 2x4 LOOKOUTS 24' O.C. 1.4 RIBBON )S- SM007H CEDAR VENEER PLYWOOD SOFFIT w/ 2"xl6- ALUM. SOFFIT VENTS 8'-0. O.C. MASONRY VENEER 2x6 MOISTURE TREATED SILL PLATE w/ SILL SEALER )-06' HOOKED ANCHOR BOLTS 6'-0. O.C. 60%16 CONCRETE CURB BLOCK w/ ALL CORES GROUTED SOLID Opus AE Group, Inc. 'SHAKERTOWN' SHAKE LAP SIDING - ;�•- S4S CEDAR TRIM BOARDS (SEE ELEVATIONS) • �i l l `IF 154 FELT PAPER OR -HOUSE WRAP" PRODUCT POURED CONCRETE TRENCH F007ING / FOUNDATION 30190100 ):" SHEATHING 06/30/2011 �>. 2x6 STUDS 16' O.C. G. HAWKINS 'Y"• BATT INSULATION (R=19 MIN.) • Errors may occur in the transmission of ekcharvc Nes. The Opo. componie are not responsible for arty clams, damage r POLY VAPOR BARRIER f the mformetion conkoined in ekctranic les. )4' SANDED PLYWOOD FINISH w/ 1.3 BATTENS the final as-buit conditions. R Is the responsibility of the user to verify all layouts, dimensions and other related AT JOINTS do WALL / CEILING INTERSECTION • This document may not be used or '7- 4' VINYL BASE MASONRY VENEER 2x6 MOISTURE TREATED SILL PLATE w/ SILL SEALER )-06' HOOKED ANCHOR BOLTS 6'-0. O.C. 60%16 CONCRETE CURB BLOCK w/ ALL CORES GROUTED SOLID WALL SECTION TYPICAL SCALE 3/4' - 1'-0' ®PUS® Opus AE Group, Inc. 10150 B•, Rudd Wxsf - ,II�I. A. A` i 4" POURED CONCRETE FLOOR w/ POLY VAPOR BARRIER . REENF. w/ 6x6 10/10 W.W.M. IJI� in IFOUNDATION INSULATION (R=10 MIN.) • �i l l `IF 30190 POURED CONCRETE TRENCH F007ING / FOUNDATION WALL SECTION TYPICAL SCALE 3/4' - 1'-0' ®PUS® Opus AE Group, Inc. 10150 B•, Rudd Wxsf Mlnndork4 MR 553 0110 951-656-44{ 952-656-1519 I. RESISTMTM b61.F f1m18 .108 NVYKA 30190 ROM NUMBER 30190100 DIYE 06/30/2011 PRNEUT WWIX P. CATTANACH / C. LARSON DRX" BY G. HAWKINS ge � WKINS / E. GSCHNEIDNER • Errors may occur in the transmission of ekcharvc Nes. The Opo. componie are not responsible for arty clams, damage r e pence prising o 1 of the olwuMori:ed — f the mformetion conkoined in ekctranic les. • Electronic Flies may not accurately reflect the final as-buit conditions. R Is the responsibility of the user to verify all layouts, dimensions and other related ildarmon.o. • This document may not be used or copied without prior written consent. ® all tights reserved ? e .d Fa �s OPUS® Opus Design Build, L.L.C. 10350 Orn Reed W -I Wnmbd4 MI 5531i -011o 952-656-4444 952-656-1519 Imp t4i0IFLF WEBBER BUILDING Visitation School LOCAIM Mendota Heghls, Minnesota SHEET VILE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 9EET NH&ffR A4.1 PLOT DATE June 30, 2011 - 1:00pm